Abstract Cinque (2020) presents a unified theory positing that various types of relative clauses (RCs) originate from a single, double-headed universal structure via raising or matching. The Frame Noun-Modifying Clause (FRC) as described and analyzed by Matsumoto et al. (2017a, 2017b) presents a significant challenge to Cinque's framework, as it does not conform to any of Cinque's identified RC types, which include amount RCs, kind(-defining) RCs, restrictive RCs and non-restrictive RCs. The FRC eludes derivation via the proposed matching or raising mechanisms. Determining the semantic link between the head noun and the FRC, as well as its external merger position, remains elusive. One might suggest that inserting additional material into the FRC, which incorporates a plausible internal head, could clarify their connection. This approach falls short of providing a systematic and coherent syntactic criterion, relying instead on semantic intuition that lacks operational reliability. Short En bref The relative clause resisting unification TONG WU Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei Province, PR China wu.tong.linguistics@hotmail.com and HAIPING LONG Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, PR China longhp@mail.sysu.edu.cn Abstract Cinque ( 2020) presents a unified theory positing that various types of relative clauses (RCs) originate from a single, double-headed universal structure via raising or matching. The Frame Noun-Modifying Clause (FRC) as described and analyzed by Matsumoto et al. (2017a, 2017b) presents a significant challenge to Cinque ’s framework, as it does not conform to any of Cinque ’s identified RC types, which include amount RCs, kind(-defining) RCs, restrictive RCs and non-restrictive RCs. The FRC eludes derivation via the proposed matching or raising mechanisms. Determining the semantic link between the head noun and the FRC, as well as its external merger position, remains elusive. One might suggest that insert- ing additional material into the FRC, which incorporates a plausible internal head, could clarify their connection. This approach falls short of providing a systematic and coherent syntactic cri- terion, relying instead on semantic intuition that lacks operational reliability. Keywords: Frame Relative Clause, raising, matching Résumé Cinque (2020) présente une théorie unifiée postulant que divers types de propositions relatives (PRs) proviennent d ’une structure universelle à double tête, par déplacement ou appariement. La proposition de cadre de modification du nom (PCMN), telle que décrite et analysée par Matsumoto et al. ( 2017a, 2017b), représente un défi important pour le cadre de Cinque. Elle ne se conforme à aucun des types de PR identifiés par Cinque, qui comprennent les PRs de quantité, les PRs de genre, les PRs restrictives et les PRs non-restrictives. La PCMN échappe à la dérivation par les mécanismes d ’appariement ou de déplacement proposés. Il demeure impossible de déterminer le lien sémantique entre le nom déterminé et la PCMN, ainsi que sa position de fusion externe. On pourrait suggérer que l ’insertion de matériel Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique, 69(2): 256 –266, 2024 doi: 10.1017/cnj.2024.12 © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2024 https://doi.org/10.1017/cnj.2024.12 Published online by Cambridge University Press The contrast between the possible zero marking in the noun complement clause and the obligatory use of that in the FRC on the one hand, and the possibility of omitting the complementizer in the noun complement clause and in the non-subject restrictive RC on the other, imply that the FRC is not a restrictive RC. Secondly, different from the restrictive RC, the FRC is never gapped. 12 In logic terms, the FRC is not an open proposition. This is particularly clear in English and French examples (9) –(12), even though in English and in French gapping is a priori the most frequent strategy of relativization, or even the only possible strategy in the case of relativizing certain positions such as subject and object. The absence of gap differentiates the FRC from the restrictive RC. All in all, the FRC is not the restrictive RC. 13 To sum up, the FRC does not belong to any of the RC types enumerated by Cinque ( 2020). Even so, a priori this does not automatically imply that it cannot be derived via his raising and/or matching operation(s). However, we will show that neither matching nor raising can be applied to the derivation of the FRC. 4. D ERIVATIONAL PROBLEM: WHEN RAISING RAISES PROBLEMS AND MATCHING DOES NOT MATCH Given that the overt head noun cannot be interpreted inside the FRC, a priori match- ing is the only possible derivation. The first issue, though, is that it is difficult to determine how the head noun and the FRC are semantically related unless one is sat- isfied with descriptives such as ‘frame’or ‘aboutness’. Semantic indeterminacy leads to syntactic vagueness. The second issue is that according to Cinque (2020: 37), in cases where matching applies, the IH can be realized by a wh-pronoun or wh-phrase, or by a resumptive pronoun or epithet, though not cross-linguistically. 14 However, in none of the above FRCs is the head noun realized by a wh-pronoun or wh-phrase, or by a resumptive pronoun or epithet. As stated above, the FRC is only and must be marked with the com- plementizersthat in English and que in French, although there are indeed wh-pronouns or wh-phrases introducing RCs in these two languages. In Mandarin and Mungbam, 12Cinque provides ample references for the view that not all Asian noun modifiers are gapless (hence “putative”). Some are indeed RCs (with a gap), but crucially, he also suggests that some are probably indeed gapless, that is, they belong to the true ‘frame’ type discussed here. It seems, then, that Cinque implicitly acknowledges that the presence of an internal gap is a necessary condition for defining