English relative clauses

Relative clauses in the English language are formed principally by means of relative pronouns. The basic relative pronouns are '' who'', ''which'', and ''that''; ''who'' also has the derived forms ''whom'' and ''whose''. Various grammatical rules and style guides determine which relative pronouns may be suitable in various situations, especially for formal settings. In some cases the relative pronoun may be omitted and merely implied ("This is the man hatI saw", or "This is the putter he wins with").

English also uses free relative clauses, which have no antecedent and can be formed with the pronouns such as ''what'' ("I like what you've done"), and ''who'' and ''whoever''.

Modern guides to English say that the relative pronoun should take the case (subject or object) which is appropriate to the relative clause, not the function performed by that clause within an external clause.

Overview

The basic grammatical rules for the formation of relative clauses in English are given here. More details can be found in the sections below, and in the article on ''who''.

#The basic relative pronouns are considered to be ''who'', ''which'' and ''that''; but see an alternative analysis of ''that'' below.
#The relative pronoun comes at the very start of the relative clause unless it is preceded by a fronted preposition: "The bed ''on which'' I was lying". (It is normal to slide the preposition to the end of the clause and leave it stranded, or dangling: "The bed ''which'' I was lying ''on''"). The relative clause may start with a larger phrase containing the relative pronoun after a preposition: "The bed, ''the owner of which'' we had seen previously, ...", or "The bed, ''lying on which'' was a small cat, ..."
#''who'' is used only with its antecedent referring to a person ("The man who ..."); ''which'', referring to a thing ("The flowers which ..."); ''that'', referring to either a person or thing ("The woman that ...", or "The flowers that ...").
#''that'' is used only in restrictive relative clauses, and is not preceded by a comma ("The teacher that looks worn-out", or "The car that looks worn-out"); but ''who'' and ''which'' may be used in both restrictive and non-restrictive clauses, and may or may not take a comma ("The teacher who looks worn-out", or "My teacher, who ..."), and ("The car which looks worn-out", or "My car, which ..."). In some styles of formal English, particularly American, using ''which'' in restrictive clauses is avoided where possible (see ''that'' or ''which'' below).
#'' whom'' is used only when its antecedent is the ''object'' of the relative clause, but ''not'' when its antecedent is the ''subject'' of the clause ("The officer nabbed the thief ''whom'' I saw")antecedent ''thief'' is the object of the relative clause; ''but not'' ("The officer nabbed the thief ''whom'' saw me")here the antecedent ''thief'' is the subject of the relative clause ("... the thief _ saw me"); ''who'' is correct here.
#When a preposition in the relative clause is placed in front (fronted), only ''whom'' or ''which'' is used ("The waiter to ''whom'' I spoke", or "The putter with ''which'' she wins"), and never acceptable is ''who'' (“The waiter to ''who'' I spoke”) or ''that'' ("The putter with ''that'' she wins"). With informal style the preposition is often dangled (or stranded), not fronted, and ''who'' and ''that'' may also be used (“The mailman ''who'' I spoke to”, “The mailman ''that'' I spoke to”, as well as “The mailman ''whom'' ...”); and (“The putter ''that'' she wins with”, or “The putter ''which'' ...”), or the zero relative pronoun is frequently used (“The putter she wins with”). (See Zero relative pronoun).
#When ''that'' is used in a restrictive relative clause and it is not the subject of the relative clause, it may be omitted entirely. For example: ("The dentist ''that'' I saw" or "The dentist ''that'' I spoke to") may be rendered simply ("The dentist I saw" or "The dentist I spoke to"). But any relative pronoun when used in a non-restrictive relative clause must not be omitted ("My dentist, ''whom'' I saw", or "My dentist, ''who'' spoke to me"); nor when its preposition is fronted ("The dentist to ''whom'' I spoke"); nor when its antecedent is the subject of the relative clause ("The dentist ''that'' saw me”, or “The dentist ''who'' saw me").
#The verb in a relative clause takes the same person (first, second, or third) and number (singular or plural) as that of the antecedent of the relative pronoun. In ("The people who were present ...") the antecedent of ''who'' is ''people'' (third person, plural), so the verb ''to be'' takes its form (''were'') for third person and plural number; in ("I, who am normally very tolerant, ...") ''who''‘s antecedent is the pronoun ''I'' (first person, singular), so the verb ''to be'' takes its form (''am'') for first person and singular number.
#''whose'' indicates that the antecedent has a possessive role in the relative clause ("The man ''whose'' daughter I married"). Unlike ''who'', it can refer to things as well as persons ("I found a car ''whose'' battery was dead"). Though there is some reluctance to use ''whose'' with a non-personal antecedent, such use is not uncommon and is perfectly grammatical. ''Whose'' is used in both restrictive and non-restrictive clauses (“The woman ''whose'' brother was recently married ...”, or "Sally, ''whose'' brother ...") and with both fronted and stranded prepositions ("The student in ''whose'' car we arrived ...", "The student ''whose'' car we arrived in ...") or larger phrases with a preposition ("My tutor, ''some of whose'' lessons...").
#A relative clause whose antecedent is a whole propositionthat is, a matter (or person or thing) to be dealt withis formed with ''which'' ("The cake was burnt, ''which'' made me angry"); here ''which'' refers to the whole circumstance of the cake's being burnt.
#A formal, though uncommon, use of ''which'' is its being a relative determiner in non-restrictive clauses ("He painted a picture of the house, ''which'' painting I later destroyed"). Here, ''which'' may refer to persons as well as things (“Yesterday, I met three men with long beards, ''which'' men I remember vividly”). ''Which'' can also refer to the whole clause, followed by a word that represents the ideas of the clause ("Yesterday, I met three men with long beards, ''which'' meetings I remember vividly"). A preposition may be fronted in front of the relative determiner ''which'' ("Every day, he visits me at the arcade, ''from which'' fact I derive much pleasure"), as may a larger phrase containing a preposition ("He went to the park and the shopping center, ''both of which'' places ...").
#A free relative clause has no antecedent and takes the role of an argument in the main clause. When referring to people, it is formed with the pronouns ''who'', ''whom'' or ''whoever'', ''whomever'' ("I'll take who you choose", or "I'll take whom you choose", or "I'll take whoever (or whomever) you choose"). When referring to things, it is formed with the pronouns ''what'' or ''whatever'' ("What I said annoyed her") where ''what'' stands for "the thing which ..." or "that which ...". ''Whichever'' is used when referring to people or things from a known set. (These are all called compound relative pronouns.) Also, there are the determiner (adjectival) equivalents ''which'' or ''what'', or more usually, ''whichever'' or ''whatever'' ("I'll take whichever dish you choose", or "I'll take whatever dish you choose").

The words used as relative pronouns have other uses in English grammar: '' that'' can be a demonstrative or a conjunction, while ''which'', ''what'', ''who'', ''whom'' and ''whose'' can be interrogatives. For other uses of ''whoever'' etc., see '' -ever''.

Variables in the basic relative clause

Human or non-human antecedents

The choice of relative pronoun typically depends on whether the antecedent is human or non-human: for example, ''who'' and its derivatives (''whom'', ''whoever'', etc.apart from ''whose'') are generally restricted to human antecedents, while ''which'' and ''what'' and their derivatives refer in most cases to things, including animals.

The relative pronoun ''that'' is used with both human and non-human antecedents. Some writers and style guides recommend reserving ''that'' for non-human cases only, but this view does not reflect general use. Counter-examples can be found in literature: Shakespeare (''the man that hath no music in himself'', in '' The Merchant of Venice''), Mark Twain (''The Man that Corrupted Hadleyburg''), and Ira Gershwin ('' The Man that Got Away''); and informal English, especially speech, follows an actual practice (in using ''that'' and ''which'') that is more natural than prescriptivist.

The possessive form ''whose'' is necessarily used with non-human as well as human antecedents because no possessive forms exist for ''which'' or ''that''. Otherwise, to avoid, for example, using ''whose'' in "...the car ''whose'' engine blew up.." would require a periphrastic phrasing, such as "...the car the engine of ''which'' blew up", or "...the car of ''which'' the engine blew up".

English also makes the distinction between human vs. thing in personal pronouns (''he, she'' vs. ''it'') and certain other pronouns (such as ''someone, somebody'' vs. ''something''); but some particular thingssuch a navy ships and marine vesselsare described with female pronouns, and pets and other animals are frequently addressed in terms of their gender or their (anthropomorphic) ‘personhood’. Typically, it is when these things-as-human become antecedents to relative clauses that their relative pronouns tend to revert to ''that'' or ''which''for thingsrather than taking the regular ''who'', ''whom'', etc., for human referents. See Gender in English.

Restrictive or non-restrictive relative clauses

The distinction between '' restrictive'', or ''integrated'', relative clauses and '' non-restrictive'', or ''supplementary'', relative clauses in English is made both in speaking (through prosody), and in writing (through punctuation): a non-restrictive relative clause is surrounded by pauses in speech and by commas in writing, whereas a restrictive clause is not. Compare the following sentences, which have quite different meanings and intonation, depending on whether the commas are inserted:

:(1) ''The builder, who erects very fine houses, will make a large profit.'' (non-restrictive)
:(2) ''The builder who erects very fine houses will make a large profit.'' (restrictive)

The first expression refers to an individual builder (and it implies that we know, or know of, the builder, which is the referent). It says that he builds "very fine" houses, and that he will make a large profit. It conveys these meanings by deploying a ''non''-restrictive relative clause and three short intonation curves, marked-off by commas. The second expression refers not to a single builder but to a certain ''category'', also called a ''set'', of builders who meet a particular qualification, or distinguishing property: the one explained by the ''restrictive'' relative clause. Now the sentence means: it is ''the builder who builds "very fine" houses'' who will make a large profit. It conveys this very different meaning by providing a ''restrictive'' relative clause and only one intonation curve, and no commas. Commas are, however, often used erroneously, probably because the rule is taught based on logic and most people are not aware that they can trust their ear in deciding whether to use a comma. (English uses commas in some other cases based on grammar, not prosody.)

Thus, in speaking or writing English prose, a restrictive rather than non-restrictive meaning (or vice versa), requires the correct syntax by choosing the appropriate relative clause (i.e., restrictive or non-restrictive) and the appropriate intonation and punctuation.

To determine whether a relative clause is restrictive or non-restrictive a simple test can be applied. If the basic meaning of the sentence (the thought) is not changed by removing the relative clause, the relative clause is not essential to the basic thought and is non-restrictive. Alternatively, if the essential meaning of the thought is disturbed, the relative clause is restrictive.

Restrictive relative clauses are also called integrated relative clauses, defining relative clauses, or identifying relative clauses. Conversely, non-restrictive relative clauses are called supplementary, appositive, non-defining, or non-identifying relative clauses.

Also, some integrated clauses may not be truly restrictive; see integrated clauses, and for more information see restrictiveness.

Integrated clauses that are not restrictive

Although the term "restrictive" has become established as joined with integrated clauses, there are integrated clauses that do not necessarily express a distinguishing property of the referent. Such a (so-called) restrictive clause, actually a non-restrictive clause, is so completely integrated into the narrative and the intonation of the main sentence that it falsely appears to be restrictive.

These examples of integrated relative clauses in that sense are not truly restrictive:

*"The father who had planned my life to the point of my unsought arrival in Brighton took it for granted that in the last three weeks of his legal guardianship I would still act as he directed."
*"He sounded like the clergyman hathe was."
:('' The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language'')
When the "restrictive" relative clause is removed from either of the above sentences, the antecedent ("the father" and "the clergyman") is not placed in question. In the first example, for instance, there is no suggestion that the narrator has ''two'' fathers because the relative clause does not express a distinguishing property of the subject. Instead, the relative clause is integrated but is not truly restrictive.

''That'' or ''which'' for non-human antecedents

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 the case of non-human antecedents using the previous example:

:(1) The building company, ''which'' erects very fine houses, will make a large profit. (non-restrictive)
:(2) The building company ''that'' (or ''which'') erects very fine houses will make a large profit. (restrictive)

Of the two, it is consensus that only ''which'' is commonly used in ''non''-restrictive clauses.

Equivalently, the two cases would be applied where the statements are logically:
:(1) "which", non-restrictive: (The building company erects very fine houses) AND (The building company will make a large profit).
:(2) "that", restrictive: (The building company erects very fine houses) IMPLIES (The building company will make a large profit).

The dispute concerns restrictive clauses. Both ''that'' and ''which'' are commonly used. However, for "polished" prose, many American style guides, such as the 16th edition of '' The Chicago Manual of Style'', recommend generally avoiding ''which'' in restrictive relative clauses. This prescriptive 'rule' was proposed as early as 1851 by Goold Brown. It was championed in 1926 by H. W. Fowler, who said, "If writers would agree to regard ''that'' as the defining estrictiverelative pronoun, and ''which'' as the non-defining, there would be much gain both in lucidity and in ease. There are some 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."
Linguists, according to Stanford linguist Arnold Zwicky, generally regard the proposed rule on not using ''which'' in restrictive relative clauses as "a really silly idea".

''Which'' cannot correctly be replaced by ''that'' in a restrictive relative clause when the relative pronoun is the object of a non-stranded (or non-dangling) preposition. In this case ''which'' is used, as in "We admired the skill with which she handled the situation." (The example is taken from ''The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language''.)

Zero relative pronoun

English, unlike other West Germanic languages, has a zero relative pronoun (denoted below as Ø)that is, the relative pronoun is implied and not explicitly written or spoken; it is "unvoiced". This measure is used in restrictive relative clauses (only) as an alternative to voicing ''that'', ''which'' or ''who'', ''whom'', etc. in these clauses:

:''Jack built the house that I was born in'';
:''Jack built the house Ø I was born in'';

:''He is the person whom I saw'';
:''He is the person Ø I saw''.

In other words, the word "that" (or "who" or "which", etc.) as a relative clause connector is ''optional'' when it would not be the subject of the relative clause; even when it would be required in other languages.

The zero relative pronoun cannot be the subject of the verb in the relative clause; that is, ''that'' or ''who'', etc., cannot be omitted (unvoiced) if the zero pronoun would be a subject. Thus one may say:

:''Jack built the house that sits on the hill'';
:''She is the one who encouraged me'';

but never (except in some varieties of colloquial English):
: *''Jack built the house Ø sits on the hill'';
: *''She is the one Ø encouraged me''.

Neither the unvoiced zero pronoun nor ''that'' can be used in non-restrictive relative clauses (that is, yes: "Jack, ''who'' builds houses, built the house she lives in", but never: "Jack, ''that'' builds houses, built … "), nor in any relative clause with a fronted preposition (yes: "Jack built the house in ''which'' we live", but never: "Jack built the house in ''that'' we live"). But either can be used when the preposition is stranded, or dangled, ("Jack built the house ''that'' we live in," or "Jack built the house we live in.")

Relative clauses headed by zeros are frequently called contact clauses in TEFL contexts, and may also be called "zero clauses".

(If ''that'' is analyzed as a complementizer rather than as a relative pronoun the above sentences would be represented differently: ''Jack built the house that I was born in Ø''; ''Jack built the house I was born in Ø''; ''He is the person I saw Ø''.

'What' relative pronoun

Some varieties of English use ''what'' as a relative pronoun. For example, in ''Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2'', a Ravager says, "For it is a name what strikes fear into the hearts of anyone what hears it."

''What'' as a relative pronoun appeared on the front-page of United Kingdom newspaper The Sun on 11 April 1992 in the headline " It's The Sun Wot Won It."

Standard Englishes proscribe the use of ''what'' as a relative pronoun, preferring ''who'' or ''that''.

Relative pronoun as the object of a preposition

A relative pronoun often appears as the object of a preposition, both in restrictive and non-restrictive clauses, as in
:"Jack is the boy ''with whom Jenny fell in love.''"
or
:"Yesterday, Jenny met Jack, ''for whom she no longer has any feelings''."
It is not unusual to place the preposition at the end of the relative clause, while the relative pronoun that it governs is placed at the beginning of the clause or omitted, so
: "Jack is the boy ''that Jenny fell in love with''."
is also possible.
A preposition is never placed in front of the relative pronoun ''that'', but preposition stranding is possible when there is an explicit ''that'', or when the relative pronoun representing the object of the clause is omitted.
So
: "Jack is the boy ''that Jenny fell in love with''."
and
: "Jack is the boy ''Jenny fell in love with''."
are possible but
: * "Jack is the boy ''with that Jenny fell in love''."
is ungrammatical.

Such preposition-stranding is perfectly grammatical and has been used by the best writers for centuries, though it was, in the past, criticized by prescriptivist grammarians as being either ungrammatical or informal.

The grammatical case of a relative pronoun governed by a preposition is the same as when it is the direct object of a verb: typically the objective case.
When the relative pronoun ''follows'' the preposition, the objective case is ''required'', as in
:"Jack is the boy ''with whom Jenny fell in love.''"
while
: * "Jack is the boy ''with who Jenny fell in love''"
is ungrammatical.
In the case of the construction with a stranded preposition, however, the subjective form (e.g. "who") is commonly used, as in
: "Jack is the boy ''who Jenny fell in love with''."
especially in informal style.
Use of the objective case with a stranded preposition, as in
: "Jack is the boy ''whom Jenny fell in love with''."
is somewhat rare, but occasionally found, even in informal style.

Summary

Variations may be encountered in the spoken and informal English, but the most common distribution of the forms of pronouns in relative clauses follows:

''That'' as relativizer instead of relative pronoun

The word '' that'', when used in the way described above, has been classified as a relative pronoun; however, according to some linguists it ought to be analyzed instead as a subordinating conjunction or relativizer. This is consistent with ''that'' used as a conjunction in (''I said that I was tired''), or implied in (''I said I was tired'').

According to Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey Pullum, ''that'' is not a relative pronoun but a subordinator, and its analysis requires a relativized symbol R as in (''The film that I needed is not obtainable''). Here R is the covert direct object of the verb "needed" and has "the film" as an antecedent. A similar analysis is required when ''that'' is omitted and implied, as in (''The film I needed is not obtainable'').

There are some grammatical differences between ''that'' and the (other) relative pronouns: ''that'' is limited to restrictive relative clauses, and it cannot be preceded with a preposition. There are also similarities between the (purported) relative pronoun ''that'' and the ordinary conjunction ''that'': the weak pronunciation is (almost invariably) used in both cases, and both of them are frequently omitted as implied.

Fused relative constructions

English allows what is called a ''free'', ''fused'' or ''nominal'' relative construction.
The term ''relative clause'' is avoided here because the construction can be considered a noun phrase consisting of relative clause fused with the antecedent (for example, ''what'' can be considered equivalent to ''that which'') and thus is more than a relative clause.
This kind of relative construction consists of a relative clause that instead of attaching to an external antecedentand modifying it as an external noun phraseis "fused" with it; and thus a nominal function is "fused" into the resultant 'construction'. For example:

:''What he did was clearly impossible.''

Here ''"What he did"'' has the same sense as ''"that which he did",'' or ''"the thing that he did"''. Thus the noun phrase ''the thing'' and the relative pronoun ''that'' are 'fused' into ''what''; and the resulting relative construction ''"What he did"'' functions as the subject of the verb ''was.'' Free relative constructions are inherently restrictive.

English has a number of "fusible" relative pronouns that initiate relative constructions, including ''what'', ''whatever'' and ''whoever''. But these pronouns introduce other clauses as well; ''what'' can introduce interrogative content clauses ("I do not know what he did") and both ''whatever'' and ''whoever'' can introduce adverbials ("Whatever he did, he does not deserve this"). See '' -ever''.

Nonfinite relative clauses

Some non-finite clauses, including infinitive and participial clauses, may also function as relative clauses. These include:
*infinitive clauses containing an 'explicit' relative pronoun (argument)generally, but not always, fronted with a prepositionthat takes an antecedent to that 'explicit' argument: ''She is a woman whom to beat; He is the man on whom to rely.'' (The infinitive verbs are 'to beat' and 'to rely'; the antecedents are 'woman' and 'man', respectively.)
*infinitive clauses presenting an 'implied' (and unvoiced) relative pronoun, or zero object argument, that takes an antecedent to that 'implied' argument: ''She is a woman to beat Ø; He is the man to rely on Ø.''
*infinitive clauses modifying the subject of the infinitive verb: ''She is the person to save the company.''
*present participle clauses having an unvoiced zero subject argument that takes an antecedent to the argument: ''The man Ø sitting on the bank was fishing.'' (These clauses are the least likely to be recognized as relative clauses.)
*past participle clauses having an unvoiced zero object argument that takes an antecedent to the argument: ''The body found Ø here yesterday has now been identified.'' (This is the "reduced object passive relative clause"; see .

For further examples see .

Adverbials

Some adverbial clauses can function as relative clauses, including:
*clauses modifying a noun, with the adverb explicit or implied (and normally ''replaceable by a relative clause''): ''Here's the place I live'', that is, ''Here's the place hereI live'' ("''Here's the place in which I live''"). Or: ''This is the reason we did it'', that is, ''This is the reason hywe did it'' ("''This is the reason for which we did it''").
*clauses functioning analogously to free relative clauses, but in an adverbial role: ''I won't hide where you hide''. Or: ''I'll do it how you do it,'' or ''I'll do it however you do it.'' Additionally, in a structure more related to the normal free relative clause, examples such as ''I see how you do it''. Or: ''I saw where he went''.

Gapless relative clauses

Relative clauses in English usually have gapping. For example, in the sentence "This is the man that I saw", there is a gap after the word ''saw''. The shared noun phrase ''the man'' is understood to fill that gap ("I saw he man). However, gapless relative clauses occur in non-standard English. One form of gapless relatives uses a resumptive pronoun. In a 1990 article, Ellen Prince observed that such constructions were common in spoken English but are officially ungrammatical. For example:

::They were just towed across the Midway onto the bridle path, ''where they were just sitting there peacefully''

In this case, removing the underlined resumptive pronoun results in an acceptable gapped relative clause:

::They were just towed across the Midway onto the bridle path, ''where they were just sitting ___ peacefully''

In other cases, the resumptive pronoun is used to work around a syntactic constraint:

::They have a billion dollars of inventory ''that they don't know where it is''.

In this example, the word ''it'' occurs as part of a wh-island. Attempting to extract it gives an unacceptable result:

:: *They have a billion dollars of inventory ''that they don't know where ___ is''.

Gapless relative clauses may also occur without a resumptive pronoun:

:: a book ''that you wish the author was a terrific friend of yours''

See also

*English grammar

References

{{Reflist

Relative
English usage controversies