A relative clause is a subordinate clause with an anaphoric relationship to a matrix clause. Often a missing phrase determines the anaphoric relationship. The part of a modifying relative clause that is anaphorically linked to the head noun is called the relativized element. It is overt in ‘wh’ relatives, but in non‘-wh’ relatives it amounts simply to an absence – a location in the clause where there could have been some phrase but it’s missing. In ‘wh’ relatives, the relativized element is the relative phrase or is part of a larger relative phrase. The relative phrase is fronted if it is not the subject. Non-‘wh’ relatives start with subordinator ‘that’ or are bare. In traditional accounts, ‘that’ is wrongly called a relative pronoun.

Most relative clause function as modifiers in a nominal within an NP. We call these integrated. Other relative clauses can function as supplements, which are much more loosely attached.

Some relative constructions are NPs, not clauses. These are the fused relatives, in which the antecedent and the relativized element are fused together instead of being expressed separately. Finally, we mentioned relative clauses in the cleft construction.

This chapter applies the double-Headed analysis to other types of relative clauses (nonrestrictive, kind-defining, infinitive, participial,ecc.) showing that the same configuration, modulo certain independent differences stemming from their different merge position, is appropriate to account for their properties.