The "Recoverability Problem"

The “recoverability problem” is the name for the issue of determining the role that the head noun of a noun phrase plays in a subordinate relative clause. This “problem” is more or less a problem for generativists, who try to isolate languages into individual sentences that can be understood completely as independent units. In reality, that is not how language works. Through the context of discourse and clarifying questions, if need be, the speakers in a conversation will understand the role of the head noun in its subordinate relative clause. Such is the case with the following example from Japanese.¹

(1) boku -ga kiji -o kaita resutoran

1.SG SUBJ article OBJ wrote restaurant

'The restaurant which I wrote an article in.'

'The restaurant which I wrote an article about.'

That being said, there is evidence to show that languages do try to help speakers in helping their listeners “recover” the role of the head noun in its subordinate relative clause.

One possible solution to the “recoverability problem” is known as “the gap strategy.” Essentially, it is a strategy that uses contrasting case marking. Take for example the following two sentences from Tibetan.²

(2)(a) stag bsad -kyi mi

tiger kill GEN person

'The tiger that the person killed

(b) stag -gyis bsad -kyi mi

tiger ERG kill GEN person

'The tiger that killed the person.'

English utilizes a non-marked strategy for recovering a head noun which is the object of its relative clause, which is to simply put the subject of the relative clause adjacent to the head noun.

(3) The padawan he trained betrayed him.³

English also does this through so-called WHIZ-deletion (the deletion of a 'who is' phrase) when the head noun is the subject of the subject its relative clause.

(4) The emperor electrocuting Luke Skywalker will soon be killed.

Another strategy would be the relative pronoun strategy. This can be seen in many Proto-Indo-European Languages, including English (though it is quickly degrading in English), with relative pronouns 'who', 'whom', 'whose', and 'which'. 'Who' traditionally marks the head noun as the (human) subject of the relative clause, 'whom' as the (human) object, 'whose' as the (human) possessor, and 'which' is used for non-humans or inanimate things. Though nowadays the use of 'whom' and 'whose' are almost entirely used to mark a formal register and they are not used in common parlance. All of these relative pronouns can also be replaced with the all-encompassing relative pronoun 'that' as well. This suggests that the “recoverability problem” is not nearly as much of a problem as generativists believe it to be, as English had a solution to the “problem” but its speakers are abandoning it.

1Example from Scott DeLancey in LING 452 at the University of Oregon during Spring Term of 2018, 23 April 2018.

2Ibid.

3Specifically, the padawan betrayed him by falling to the Dark Side of the Force and overthrowing the established Galactic Republic and leading the extermination of his master's entire religious order.