English grammar series
English grammar Contraction Disputes in English grammar English compound English honorifics English personal pronouns English plural English relative clauses English verbs English conjugation tables English irregular verbs English modal verb Gender in English
This box: view • talk • edit

This article is focused mainly on usage of English relative clauses. For theoretical background on the subject, see the main article on relative clauses.

The relative pronouns in English include who, whom, whose, which, whomever, whatever, and that. (Note: Not all modern syntacticians agree that that is a relative pronoun.) What is a compound relative, 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."

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 1 Variables in the basic relative clause 1.1 Human or non-human 1.2 Restrictive or non-restrictive 1.3 Grammatical case 1.4 Zero relative pronoun 1.5 Use with preposition 1.6 That and which 1.7 Summary 2 Special types and variants 3 See also 4 References

[edit] Variables in the basic relative clause

[edit] Human or non-human

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 the 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^[1]), 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, is commonly found also with nonhuman ones.

[edit] Restrictive or non-restrictive

Restrictiveness is more clearly marked in English than in most languages: prosody (in speaking) and punctuation (in writing) serve this purpose. An English non-restrictive relative clause is preceded by a pause in speech or a comma in writing, whereas a restrictive clause normally is not. Compare the following sentences, which have two quite different meanings, and correspondingly two clearly distinguished intonation patterns, depending on whether the commas are inserted:

(1) The builder, who erects very fine houses, will make a large profit.

(2) The builder who erects very fine houses will make a large profit.

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 distinction is also sometimes drawn between that (restrictive) and who / which (non-restrictive); see "That and 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.

[edit] Grammatical case

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:

There is an old house in our street, whose roof Jack fixed.

There is an old house in our street, the roof of which Jack fixed.

[edit] Zero relative pronoun

English, unlike other West Germanic languages, has a zero relative pronoun. It is an alternative to that in a restrictive relative clause, except that it cannot be the subject of the clause's main verb. Example:

Jack built the house that I was born in.

Jack built the house Ø I was born in.

But only

Jack built the house that was sold yesterday.

and never

*Jack built the house Ø was sold yesterday.

Relative clauses headed by zeros are frequently called contact clauses in TEFL contexts. They are also often referred to as "zero clauses".

In cases where the relative clause is passive, the auxiliary verb (i.e., was) may also be removed,^[2] sometimes yielding garden path sentences such as the following:

The horse raced past the barn fell.

which is derived from

The horse that was raced past the barn fell.

[edit] Use with preposition

In formal writing, a preposition in a relative clause often appears together with the relative pronoun. In this case the pronoun is likely to be either whom or which; never that, and since this is now formal usage, it would be unusual to use who.

Jack is the boy with whom Jenny fell in love.

Jack built the house in which I grew up.

Like most Germanic languages, Old English required this syntax. However, in modern English it is rather more common to place the preposition where it would be if the clause were an independent clause. Though John Dryden raised in 1672 the issue that this preposition-stranding is not considered correct^{[citation needed]}, it was already in widespread use by that time, and now has wide usage among English speakers, especially in colloquial situations. Therefore any of the following might be heard in ordinary speech:

Jack is the boy whom Jenny fell in love with.

Jack is the boy who Jenny fell in love with.

Jack is the boy that Jenny fell in love with.

Jack is the boy Jenny fell in love with.

[edit] That and which

The distinction between the relative pronouns that and which to introduce relative clauses with non-human antecedents, and that vs. who for human antecedents, is a frequent point of dispute. Of the two, only which is at all common in non-restrictive clauses.^[3] The dispute mainly concerns restrictive clauses: in informal American speech and in formal and informal British English that or which are both commonly (and apparently arbitrarily) used, but in formal American English it is generally recommended to use only that,^[4] or to reduce to a zero relative pronoun. 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."^[5] Some academics, such as Stanford linguist Arnold Zwicky, maintain it is "a silly idea,"^[6] but most professional writers adhere to it.

[edit] Summary

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	who, whom, that, Ø	which, that, Ø	who, whom	which
After preposition	whom	which	whom	which
Possessive	whose, of whom	whose, of which	whose, of whom	whose, of which

[edit] Special types and variants

Nominal relative clauses 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:

What he did is clearly impossible, but I saw him do it.

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").

[edit] See also

• English grammar

[edit] References