| English grammar series |
|---|
|
|
As in many other languages, an English relative clause is a subordinate clause that modifies a noun phrase, most commonly a noun. Relative clauses in English often contain a relative pronoun, but (unlike in other Germanic languages) sometimes the relative pronoun is omitted.
The relative pronouns in English are who, whom, whose, which, and that. What is a compound relative pronoun (also called a fused relative pronoun), including both the antecedent and the relative, and is equivalent to that which; for example, "I did what he desired" means the same as, "I did that which he desired." Whatever and whatsoever are also compound relatives, equivalent to anything that as in I do what(so)ever I want (=I do anything that I want). Whoever, whosoever, and whomever are compound relatives equivalent to anyone who(m) as in Who(so)ever treats me well is my friend (=Anyone who treats me well is my friend) and in I talk to who(m)ever I want to talk to (=I talk to anyone who(m) I want to talk to).
In some contexts, there may be a choice between two or more of these forms. The choice of relative pronoun may carry additional meaning or draw a number of distinctions.
Contents |
The above refers to actual usage, as described in standard books on grammar, such as The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.[1] and A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.[2] Some prescriptivist style guides, such as The Elements of Style[3], propose additional rules concerning which relative pronouns should be used in which circumstances.
In their choice of relative pronoun, English-speakers will often distinguish between an antecedent that is a human—who(m)—and an antecedent which is a non-human—which. In this regard, English is unique among the Germanic languages as far as bound relatives are concerned. However, as regards free relatives, German uses a strikingly similar strategy distinguishing between 'was'/'was(auch)immer' (cf. English 'what'/'what(so)ever') and wer(auch)immer (cf. English who(so)ever; this distinction may be due to French influence, and is clearly related to the distinction between the interrogative words who(m) and which and that between the (s)he pronouns and it(s).
However, this distinction applies only to which and who. The alternative that is found with both human and non-human antecedents. While some writers recommend reserving that for nonhuman antecedents, this does not reflect majority use. Examples can be found in Shakespeare (the man that hath no music in himself[4]), Mark Twain (The Man that Corrupted Hadleyburg), and Ira Gershwin (The Man that Got Away).
Although whose, as the possessive form of who, is often reserved for human antecedents, it is commonly found also with nonhuman ones.
In the Germanic languages, the case of a relative pronoun is generally marked in its form. In English, this survives only in who, which has a possessive case form whose and an objective case form whom. But the form whom is in decline and is now often restricted to formal use.
Since which and that have no possessive forms, whose is now also used for the possessive form of these, or periphrasis is sometimes employed:
The distinction between restrictive, or integrated, relative clauses and non-restrictive, or supplementary, relative clauses in English is marked by prosody (in speaking) and punctuation (in writing): a non-restrictive relative clause is typically preceded by a pause in speech or a comma in writing, whereas a restrictive clause normally is not.[5] Compare the following sentences, which have two quite different meanings, and correspondingly two clearly distinguished intonation patterns, depending on whether the commas are inserted:
The first example, with commas, and with three short intonation curves, contains a non-restrictive relative clause. It refers to a specific builder, and assumes we know which builder is intended. It tells us firstly about his houses, then about his profits. The second example uses a restrictive relative clause. Without the commas, and with a single intonation curve, the sentence states that any builder who builds such houses will make profits.
A simple test is to remove the relative clause. If the underlying meaning of the sentence changes, then it is a restrictive clause. If the clause turns out to have been a supplement to the basic meaning of the sentence, then that means the clause was a non-restrictive clause.
A distinction is also sometimes drawn between that (restrictive) and which (non-restrictive); see "That or which" below.
Restrictive relative clauses are also called defining relative clauses, or identifying relative clauses. Similarly, non-restrictive relative clauses are called non-defining or non-identifying relative clauses. For more information see restrictive clause and the relevant subsection of relative clause.
The distinction between the relative pronouns that and which to introduce restrictive relative clauses with non-human antecedents is a frequent point of dispute.
For clarity, we can look at a slightly modified version of the example above:
Of the two, only which is commonly used in non-restrictive clauses.[6] The dispute concerns restrictive clauses: in informal American speech and in formal and informal British English that or which are both commonly used in these clauses, but in formal American English, references generally specify only that,[7] or reduction to a zero relative pronoun (see below). This rule was championed in 1926 by H.W. Fowler, who observed, "Some there are who follow this principle now; but it would be idle to pretend that it is the practice either of most or of the best writers."[8] Some academics, such as Stanford linguist Arnold Zwicky,[9] claim it is "a silly idea," but in the U.S., the Chicago Manual of Style and other mainstream references insist on it, and many professional writers adhere to it.
Which cannot correctly be replaced by that in a restrictive relative clause when the relative pronoun is the object of a non-stranded preposition; in this case which is used, as in "We admired the skill with which she handled the situation."[the example is also taken from The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language].[10]
English, unlike other West Germanic languages, has a zero relative pronoun (denoted below as Ø) — that is, the relative pronoun is only implied and is not explicitly present. It is an alternative to that or who(m) in a restrictive relative clause:
Relative clauses headed by zeros are frequently called contact clauses in TEFL contexts. They are also often referred to as "zero clauses".
The zero relative pronoun cannot be the subject of an active voice verb in the relative clause. Thus one must say:
and never
However, the zero relative pronoun can be the subject of a passive verb in the relative clause. In this case, the auxiliary verb (e.g., "was") must also be removed from the relative clause:[11]
This rule applies regardless of whether the antecedent of the zero relative is an object or a subject in the main clause:
However, when the antecedent is the subject of the main clause, a potentially confusing garden path sentence such as the following may result:
which is derived from
In formal writing, a relative pronoun often appears as the object of a preposition at the beginning of a relative clause. In this case the pronoun will be whom, whose, or which, never that. Since this is usage is formal, it would be unusual to use who, since formally the objective case form whom serves as the object of a preposition.
Most Germanic languages require this syntax. However, in modern English it is rather more common to place the preposition where the prepositional phrase would be if the clause were an independent clause (usually at the end of the clause), while placing the relative pronoun at the beginning of the clause or omitting it entirely. Various grammarians over the last several hundred years have declared that this preposition-stranding is not considered correct; hence formal language tends to avoid it. However, it has been in widespread use since Old English times, and is normal in colloquial speech. Therefore any of the following might be heard in ordinary speech:
Note that, as mentioned above, in a dependent-clause-initial prepositional phrase the relative pronoun serving as the object of the preposition can never be that. However, the relative pronoun in the role of object of the preposition can indeed be that if it is placed at the start of the dependent clause while the preposition is detached from it and located at the end of the clause, as in the above example Jack is the boy that Jenny fell in love with.
The most common distribution of the forms is therefore as follows (though variations may be heard).
| Restrictive | Nonrestrictive | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Human | Nonhuman | Human | Nonhuman | |
| Subject | who, that | which, that | who | which |
| Object of verb | who, whom, that, Ø | which, that, Ø | who, whom | which |
| Attached object of preposition | whom | which | whom | which |
| Detached object of preposition | who, whom, that, Ø | which, that, Ø | who, whom | which |
| Possessive | whose, of whom | whose, of which | whose, of whom | whose, of which |
English allows what is called a fused or nominal relative clause — a relative clause that does not modify an external noun phrase, and instead has a nominal function fused into it. For example:
Here, what he did has the sense of that which he did, i.e. the thing that he did, and functions as the subject of the verb is. Nominal relative clauses are inherently restrictive.
English has a number of fused relative pronouns, such as what, whatever, and whoever, but all can introduce other kinds of clauses as well; what can also introduce interrogative content clauses ("I do not know what he did"), for example, and both whatever and whoever can introduce adverbials ("Whatever he did, he does not deserve this").