Relative clauses in theEnglish language are formed principally by means ofrelative words. The basic relative pronouns arewho,which, andthat;who also has the derived formswhom andwhose. 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 [that] I saw", or "This is the putter he wins with").
English also usesfree relative clauses, which have noantecedent and can be formed with the pronouns such aswhat ("I like what you've done"), andwho andwhoever.
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.[1]
The basic grammatical rules for the formation of relative clauses in English are given here.[2] More details can be found in the article onwho.
The words used as relative pronouns have other uses in English grammar:that can be ademonstrative or aconjunction, whilewhich,what,who,whom andwhose can beinterrogatives. For other uses ofwhoever etc., see-ever.
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 fromwhose) are generally restricted to human antecedents, whilewhich andwhat and their derivatives refer in most cases to things, including animals.
The relative pronounthat is used with both human and non-human antecedents. Some writers and style guides recommend reservingthat 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, inThe Merchant of Venice),Mark Twain (The Man that Corrupted Hadleyburg), andIra Gershwin (The Man that Got Away); and informal English, especially speech, follows an actual practice (in usingthat andwhich) that is more natural than prescriptivist.
The possessive formwhose is necessarily used with non-human as well as human antecedents because no possessive forms exist forwhich orthat. Otherwise, to avoid, for example, usingwhose in "...the carwhose engine blew up.." would require aperiphrastic phrasing, such as "...the car the engine ofwhich blew up", or "...the car ofwhich the engine blew up".
English also makes the distinction between human vs. thing inpersonal pronouns (he, she vs.it) and certain other pronouns (such assomeone, somebody vs.something); but some particular things—such a navy ships and marine vessels—are 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 tothat orwhich—for things—rather than taking the regularwho,whom, etc., for human referents. SeeGender in English.
The distinction betweenrestrictive, orintegrated, relative clauses andnon-restrictive, orsupplementary, relative clauses in English is made both in speaking (throughprosody), and in writing (throughpunctuation): a non-restrictive relative clause is surrounded by pauses in speech and usually by commas in writing, whereas a restrictive clause is not.[5] Compare the following sentences, which have quite different meanings and intonation, depending on whether the commas are inserted:
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 anon-restrictive relative clause and three short intonation curves, usually marked-off by commas. The second expression refers not to a single builder but to a certaincategory, also called aset, of builders who meet a particular qualification, or distinguishing property: the one explained by therestrictive relative clause. Now the sentence means: it isthe builder who builds "very fine" houses who will make a large profit. It conveys this very different meaning by providing arestrictive 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 Englishprose, 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; seeintegrated clauses, and for more information seerestrictiveness.
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:
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 hastwo 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.
The distinction between the relative pronounsthat andwhich 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:
Of the two, it is consensus that onlywhich is commonly used innon-restrictive clauses.[7]
Equivalently, the two cases would be applied where the statements are logically:
The dispute concernsrestrictive clauses. Boththat andwhich are commonly used.[8][9] However, for "polished" prose, many American style guides, such as the 16th edition ofThe Chicago Manual of Style, recommend generally avoidingwhich in restrictive relative clauses.[10] This prescriptive "rule" was proposed as early as 1851 byGoold Brown.[11] It was championed in 1926 byH. W. Fowler, who said: "If writers would agree to regardthat as the defining [restrictive] relative pronoun, andwhich 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."[12] Linguists, according toStanford linguistArnold Zwicky, generally regard the proposed rule on not usingwhich in restrictive relative clauses as "a really silly idea".[13]
Which cannot correctly be replaced bythat in a restrictive relative clause when the relative pronoun is the object of anon-stranded (or non-dangling) preposition. In this casewhich is used, as in "We admired the skill with which she handled the situation." (The example is taken fromThe Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.)[14]
English, unlike otherWest Germanic languages, has azero relative pronoun (denoted below as ∅)—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 voicingthat,which orwho,whom, etc. in these clauses:
In other words, the word "that" (or "who" or "which", etc.) as a relative clause connector isoptional 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 orwho, etc., cannot be omitted (unvoiced) if the zero pronoun would be a subject. Thus one may say:
but never (except in some varieties of colloquial English):
Neither the unvoiced zero pronoun northat 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 inwhich we live", but never: "Jack built the house inthat we live"). But either can be used when the preposition is stranded, or dangled, ("Jack built the housethat we live in," or "Jack built the house we live in.")
Relative clauses headed by zeros are frequently calledcontact clauses inTEFL contexts, and may also be called "zero clauses".
(Ifthat is analyzed as acomplementizer rather than as a relative pronoun the above sentences would be represented differently:Jack built the house that I was born in ∅;Jack built the house I was born in ∅;He is the person I saw ∅.(see§ That as relativizer instead of relative pronoun)
Some varieties of English usewhat as a relative pronoun. For example, inGuardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, a Ravager says, "For it is a namewhat strikes fear into the hearts of anyonewhat 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 ofwhat as a relative pronoun, preferringwho orthat.
A relative pronoun often appears as the object of a preposition, both in restrictive and non-restrictive clauses, as in
or
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
is also possible. A preposition is never placed in front of the relative pronounthat, but preposition stranding is possible when there is an explicitthat, or when the relative pronoun representing the object of the clause is omitted. So
and
are possible but
is ungrammatical.
Suchpreposition-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.[15][16]
Thegrammatical 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 pronounfollows the preposition, the objective case isrequired, as in
while
is ungrammatical.[15] In the case of the construction with a stranded preposition, however, the subjective form (e.g. "who") is commonly used, as in
especially in informal style. Use of the objective case with a stranded preposition, as in
is somewhat rare, but occasionally found, even in informal style.[17]
Variations may be encountered in the spoken and informal English, but the most common distribution of the forms of pronouns in relative clauses follows:
| Restrictive | Nonrestrictive | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Human | Nonhuman | Human | Nonhuman | |
| Subject | who,that | which,that | who | which |
| Object of verb | who,whom,that, ∅ | which,that, ∅ | who,whom | which |
| Attached object of preposition | whom | which | whom | which |
| Detached object of preposition | who,whom,that, ∅ | which,that, ∅ | who,whom | which |
| Possessive | whose,of whom | whose,of which | whose,of whom | whose,of which |
The wordthat, 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 asubordinating conjunction orrelativizer. This is consistent withthat used as a conjunction in (I said that I was tired), or implied in (I said I was tired).
According toRodney Huddleston andGeoffrey 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 [R] is not obtainable). Here R is the covert direct object of the verb "needed" and has "the film" as an antecedent.[18] A similar analysis is required whenthat is omitted and implied, as in (The film I needed is not obtainable).
There are some grammatical differences betweenthat 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 pronounthat and the ordinary conjunctionthat: theweak pronunciation/ðət/ is (almost invariably) used in both cases, and both of them are frequently omitted as implied.
English allows what is called afree,fused ornominal relative construction.[19] This kind of relative construction consists of a relative clause that instead of attaching to an external antecedent—and modifying it as an external noun phrase—is "fused" with it; and thus a nominal function is "fused" into the resultant 'construction'. For example:
Here"What he did" has the same sense as"the things that he did", or"the thing that he did". Thus the noun phrasethe thing and the relative pronounthat are 'fused' intowhat; and the resulting relative construction"What he did" functions as the subject of the verbwas. Free relative constructions are inherently restrictive.
English has a number of "fusible" relative pronouns that initiate relative constructions, includingwhat,whatever andwhoever. But these pronouns introduce other clauses as well;what can introduce interrogativecontent clauses ("I do not know what he did") and bothwhatever andwhoever can introduceadverbials ("Whatever he did, he does not deserve this"). See-ever.
 | This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(November 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Somenon-finite clauses, including infinitive and participial clauses, may also function as relative clauses. These include:
For further examples seeUses of English verb forms § Uses of nonfinite verbs.
Someadverbial clauses can function as relative clauses, including:
Relative clauses in English usually havegapping. For example, in the sentence "This is the man that I saw", there is a gap after the wordsaw. The shared noun phrasethe man is understood to fill that gap ("I saw [the man]"). However, gapless relative clauses occur in non-standard English. One form of gapless relatives uses aresumptive pronoun. In a 1990 article,Ellen Prince observed that such constructions were common in spoken English but are officially ungrammatical.[20] For example:
In this case, removing the underlined resumptive pronoun results in an acceptable gapped relative clause:
In other cases, the resumptive pronoun is used to work around a syntactic constraint:
In this example, the wordit occurs as part of awh-island. Attempting to extract it gives an unacceptable result:
Gapless relative clauses may also occur without a resumptive pronoun:[21]
the facts of usage are quite simple. Virginia McDavid's 1977 study shows that about 75 percent of the instances ofwhich in edited prose introduce restrictive clauses; about 25 percent nonrestrictive ones. We conclude that at the end of the 20th century, the usage ofwhich andthat—at least in prose — has settled down. You can use eitherwhich orthat to introduce a restrictive clause — the grounds for your choice should be stylistic — andwhich to introduce a nonrestrictive clause.
The use ofwhich forthat is common in written and spoken language. ... Occasionallywhich seems preferable tothat ...
"In polished American prose,that is used restrictively to narrow a category or identify a particular item being talked about ...;which is used nonrestrictively ...Which should be used restrictively only when it is preceded by a preposition ...
Most linguists—especially sociolinguists—think this a really silly idea, but some people, like Safire, seem to have never met a rule they didn't like, especially if the rule would bring order into apparent chaos.