Relative pronoun

A relative pronoun marks a relative clause; it has the same referent in the main clause of a
sentences that the relative modifies.

An example is the English word "that" in the sentence "this is the house that Jack built". Here
the noun "house" in the main sentence. "that" has an anaphoric relationship to its antecedent
"house" in the main clause.

In English the following are the most common relative pronouns: which, that, whose, who,
whom, whoever, whomever and whichever.

In linking a subordinate clause and a main clause, a relative pronoun functions similarly to a
subordinating conjunction. Unlike a conjunction, however, a relative pronoun does not simply
mark the subordinate (relative) clause, but also plays the role of a noun within that clause. For
example, in the relative clause "that Jack built" given above, the pronoun "that" functions as the
object of the verb "built". Compare this with "Jack built the house after he married", where the
conjunction "after" marks the subordinate clause "after he married", but does not play the role of
any noun within the clause.

Antecedents

The element in the main clause that the relative pronoun in the relative clause stands for ("house"
in the above example) is the antecedent of that pronoun. In most cases the antecedent is a
nominal (noun or noun phrase), though the pronoun can also refer to a whole proposition, as in
"the train was late, which annoyed me greatly", where the antecedent of the relative pronoun
"which" is the clause "the train was late" (the thing that annoyed me was the fact of the train's
being late).

In a free relative clause, a relative pronoun has no antecedent: the relative clause itself plays the
role of the co-referring element in the main clause. For example, in "I like what you did", "what"
is a relative pronoun, but without an antecedent. The clause "what you did" itself plays the role
of a nominal (the object of like) in the main clause. A relative pronoun used this way is
sometimes called a fused relative pronoun, since the antecedent appears fused into the pronoun
("what" in this example can be regarded as a fusion of "that which").

Fused relative constructions

English allows what is called a "free", "fused" or "nominal" relative constructions. This kind of
relative construction consists of 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
functions "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 phrases 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 clause as well: "what" can
introduce interrogative content clause ("I do not know what he did") and both "whatever" can
introduce adverbials ("whatever he did, he does not deserve this").

Role

Other arguments can be relativised using relative pronouns:

 Subject: Hunter is the boy who kissed Jessica.

 Indirect object: Hunter is the boy to whom Jessica gave a gift/Hunter is the boy whom
Jessica gave a gift to.
 Prepositional complement: Jack built the house in which I know live. (Similarly with
prepositions and prepositional phrase in general, for example, "these are the walls
between which Jack ran").
 Possessor: Jack is the boy whose friend built my house.
 Direct object: Mary thinks that is too late for him now.

Variables in the basic relative clause

Complements Restrictive Non-restrictive

Human Non-human Human Non-human
SUBJECT Who, (that) That, (which) ,who... ,which...
Who, (that),
OBJECT That, (which), Ø ,who... ,which...
whom, Ø
Attached object of
Whom Which ,whom... ,which...
preposition
,whose..., of ,Whose..., of
Possessor Whose, of whom Whose, of which
whom which
Detached object of Who, whom, that,
Which, that, Ø Who, whom Which
preposition Ø
1. Restrictive or non-restrictive relative clause

The distinction between restrictive, or integrated, relative clause and non-restrictive, or

supplementary, relative clause in English is shown not only in speaking (through prosody), but
also in writing (through punctuation): a non-restrictive relative clause is preceded by a pause in
speech and a comma in writing. Whereas a restrictive clause 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. (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 we know, or know of, the
builder - the referent). It tells us that he builds "very fine" houses, and that he will make a large
profit. It conveys these meanings by replaying a non-restrictive relative clause and three short
intonation curves, marked-off by commas the second expression refers not to a single builder
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 this rule is taught based on logic and most people are
not aware that they can in this case trust their ear in deciding whether to use a comma or not
(English uses commas in some other cases based on grammatical reasons, not prosody).

Thus, in speaking or writing English prose, if it is desired to provide a restrictive rather than non-
restrictive meaning (or voice versa) to the referent, then the correct syntax must be provided – by
choosing the appropriate relative clause (i.e., restrictive or non-restrictive) and the appropriate
intonation and punctuation. To analyze 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. But if the essential meaning of the thought is disturbed, the relative clause is
restrictive. Restrictive relative clauses are also called supplementary, appositive, non-defining or
non-identifying relative clause. And some integrated clauses may not be truly restrictive.

2. Human or non-human antecedents

The choice of relative pronoun typically depends on whether the antecedent is human or a thing
(that is, a 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, bus this view does not
reflect general use. Counter examples can be found in literature: Shakespeare ("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". Other wise, to avoid, for example, using
"whose" in "...the car whose engine blew up..." Would require a periphrastic phrasing, such as
"...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
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 o 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 things — rather than
taking the regular "who, whom", etc., for human referents.

3. 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 intonation of the main sentence that it appears to be restrictive,
though it is not.

Examples of integrated relative clauses in this sense that are not truly restrictive:

(1) The father who had planned my life to the point of my unsought arrival in Brighton took if for
granted that in the last three weeks of his legal guardianship I would still act as he directed. And

(2) He sounded like the clergyman [that] he was.

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
is not expressing a distinguishing property of the subject. Instead, here the relative clause is
integrated but it 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 frequent point of dispute.

For clarity, we can look at a slightly modified version (that is, for case of non-human
antecedents) of the example above:

(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.

The dispute concerns restrictive clauses. Both "that" and "which" are commonly used. However,
for "polished" prose, many American style guides, such as the 6 th 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 [restrictive]
relative pronoun, and "which" as the non-defining, there would be much gain both in lucidity and
in ease. 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. "Linguists, according to Standford linguist
Arnold Zwicky, generally regard the proposed rule on not using "which" in restrictive relative
clauses as "a really silly idea".

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 no 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:

(1) Jack built the house that I was born in;

(2) Jack built the house Ø I was born in;

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 a subject. Thus one may
say:

(1) Jack built the house that sits on the hill;

(2) She is the one who encouraged me;

But never (except in some varieties of colloquial English)

(1) Jack built the house Ø sits on the hill;

(2) 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".

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:

(1) "Jack is the boy with whom Jenny fell in love".

Or

(2) "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

(1) "Jack is the boy that Jenny fell in love with".

And
(2) "Jack is the boy Jenny fell in love with".

Are possible but

(3) "Jack is the boy with that Jenny fell in love".

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

(1) "Jack is the boy with whom Jenny fell in love*.

While

(2) "Jack is the boy with who Jenny fell in love".

Is ungrammatical. In the case of construction with a stranded preposition, however, the

subjective form (e.g. "who") is commonly used, as in

(1) "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

(1) "Jack is the boy whom Jenny fell in love with".

Is somewhat rare, but occasionally found, even in informal style.

"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 it
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 [R] 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": the weak pronunciation /ðə/ is
(almost invariably) used in both cases, and both of them are frequently omitted as implied.

Interrogative pronoun

It uses interrogative pronouns to ask questions. The interrogative pronoun represents the thing
that we don't know (what we are asking the question about). There are four main interrogative
pronouns: who, whom, what, which.

Notice that the possessive pronoun "whose" can also be an interrogative pronoun. (an
interrogative possessive pronoun).

Person Subject Object

Human Who Whom
Non-human What What
Human Which Which
Non-human Which Which
Human Whose Whose
Non-human Whose Whose

Notice that "whom" is the correct form when the pronoun is the object of the verb, as in Whom
did you see? ("I saw John"). However, in normal spoken English we rarely use "whom" most
native speakers would say (or even write): Who did you see?

Examples:

Questions Answers Complements

Who told you? John told me. Subject
Whom did you tell? I told Mary. Object
What's happened? Accidents happened. Subject
What do you want? I want coffee. Object
Which came first? The porsche 911 came first. Subject
The doctor will see patient in blue
Which will the doctor see first? Object
first.
There is one car missing whose hasn't
John's (car) hasn't arrived. Subject
arrived?
We've found everyone's keys, whose
I found John's (keys) Object
did you find?

Note that we sometimes use the suffix "-ever" to mark compounds from some of these pronouns
(mainly whoever, whatever, whichever). When we add "-ever" we use it for emphasis, often to
show confusion or surprise, look at the examples:

(1) Whoever would want to do such a nasty thing?

(2) Whatever did he say to make her cry like that?

(3) They're all fantastic! Whichever will you choose?

Nonfinite relative clauses

Some nonfinite clauses, including infinitive and participial clauses, may also function as pronoun
clause. This include:

 Infinitive clause containing an "explicit" relative pronoun (argument) – generally but not
always fronted with a preposition – that 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 clause modifying the subject of the infinitive verb: "She is the person to save
the company".
 Present participle clause 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 clause having an unvoiced zero object argument that takes an antecedent
to the argument: "the boy found Ø here yesterday has now been identified" (this is the
reduced object passive relative clause).