Grammar I Graciela Palacio

IES en Lenguas Vivas “J. R. Fernández” October 2007

LESSON 37
NOMINAL RELATIVE CLAUSES or FREE RELATIVE CLAUSES

Quirk et al make a distinction between:

a) adnominal relative clauses and

b) nominal relative clauses or free relative clauses

Adnominal relative clauses are the ones that we have already discussed. As their name
indicates1, they always appear within a determiner phrase, after the noun that functions as the
antecedent of the clause, restricting its scope of reference.

Nominal relative clauses, on the other hand, are those in which the wh-element (the relative)
is merged with the antecedent of the clause. As a result of this merging, the relative clause
becomes more self-contained, it loses its adjectival function and it acquires a nominal
function within the main clause, e.g.:

(1) I eat that which I like. <formal>

(2) I eat what I like.

Sentences (1) and (2) have approximately the same meaning. In (1) the direct object (that
which I like) is a determiner phrase the head of which is that. That is post-modified by an
adnominal relative clause (which I like). The antecedent of the clause is that, the head of the
determiner phrase. In (2) the antecedent (that) and the relative (which) have merged. We no
longer have a determiner phrase as direct object. We now have a clause, a nominal relative
clause, i.e. a relative clause that has acquired a nominal function (DO). These clauses have
also been called "independent" or "free" relative clauses.

Since these clauses are introduced by a wh-element they resemble wh-interrogative noun
clauses, which also have nominal functions. Consider the following sentences:

(1) John knew what Martha ate.

(2) John cooked what Martha ate.

Sentence (1) has a wh-interrogative noun clause functioning as direct object, whereas
sentence (2) has a nominal relative clause functioning as direct object. If we look at the two
clauses in isolation we will find no grounds to make a distinction between the two types.
Both of them seem to have the same internal structure. What are then the syntactic and
semantic reasons that allow us to make a distinction between the two types? We will first
characterize nominal relative clauses, then we will list their functions and finally we will
contrast them with wh-interrogative noun clauses.

Characteristics:

1
The prefix ad- means "near, next to"; adnominal therefore means "next to a noun".

1
1) In some respects nominal relative clauses are more like determiner phrases since they can
be concrete as well as abstract and they can refer even to persons. In fact, we can paraphrase
them by means of determiner phrases, e.g.:

Whoever did that should admit it frankly.

["The person who did that..."]

I took what they offered me.

[..."the things that they offered me"]

Macy's is where I buy my clothes.

[..."the place where I buy my clothes"]

I took what books she gave me.

[..."the books that she gave me"]

John cooked what Martha ate.

[..."that which Martha ate"]

2) They have the same range of functions as determiner phrases. They can even function as
indirect object and as an object-related predicative complement, functions which are not
available to the other three types of noun clauses.

Give whoever comes my new address.

Give any person who/that comes my new address.

I have made her what she is today.

I have made her that which she is today.

3) Like determiner phrases they may display number concord with the verb of the sentence.
Contrast for example:

Whatever book you see is yours to take.

Whatever books I have in the house are borrowed from the public library.

4) Like determiner phrases they require prepositions in adjectival complementation, e.g.:

He is aware of the books I write.

He is aware of what I write.

With wh-interrogative clauses the preposition is optional:

I'm not sure (about) what to do.

5) The wh-element may be a pronoun, a determiner (traditionally called relative adjective) or

an adverb:

She tasted what I bought. (what: pronoun)

She saw what food I bought. (what: adjective or determiner)

2
 Here is where I bought the food. (where: adverb)

6) The wh-element may express a specific meaning (generally indicated by the absence of
the ever suffix) or a non-specific meaning (generally indicated by the presence of the ever
suffix).

Specific:

I took what was on the kitchen table. [..."that which was on the kitchen table]
May is when she takes her last examination. [..."the time when she takes..."]

Non-specific:

Whoever breaks this law deserves a fine. ["Anyone who breaks this law..."]
I'll send whatever is necessary. ["...anything that is necessary.]

The ones that express a specific meaning have been called Definite Free Relative Clauses.
The others have been called Indefinite Free Relative Clauses.

Functions:

1) Subject:

Whoever did that should admit it frankly.

What I want is a cup of hot cocoa.
What she did is wrong.
What she said is true.
What he is looking for is a wife.
What happened upset him.
What he saw upset him.
What she became in later life distressed her friends.

2) Direct Object:

I took what they offered me.

Do what you can for tomorrow.
I like what you like.
She took what she needed.
I'll show you what you can open the bottle with.
I took what books she gave me.
I eat what I like.
She tasted what I bought.
She saw what food I bought.
They gladly accepted what money people gave to them.

3) Indirect Object:

He gave whoever came to see him a winning smile.

He gave whoever asked for it a copy of his latest paper.
Give whoever comes my new address.

3
4) Predicative Complement: (subject related)

Macy's is where I buy my clothes.

Home is where your family is.
That is what she calls her sister.
Now is when I need you.
Here is where I bought the food.
That is why I don't go there any more.

5) Predicative Complement: (object related)

You can call me what you like.

I have made her what she is today.

6) Complement to a Preposition:

He is aware of what I write.

I am happy with what I am.

7) Apposition:

Give me your college address, i.e. where you live in term time.
I'll pay you the whole debt: what I originally borrowed and what I owe you in
interest.

Nominal relative clauses cannot function as adjective complement because they require a
preposition after the adjective, just like nouns.

Wh-interrogative noun clauses and nominal relative clauses differ syntactically in several
respects:

(1)
(a) An interrogative clause as subject must take a singular verb, e.g.:

How the book will sell

depends on the reviewer.
How the books will sell

Which book he wanted to buy

is unknown.
Which books he wanted to buy

(b) A nominal relative clause may take either a singular or a plural verb, depending on the
meaning of the wh-element, e.g.:

What money I have is yours. [The money that I have is yours]

What possessions I have are yours. [The possessions that I have are yours]

4
 What were left behind were five empty bottles. [The things that were left behind
were five empty bottles]

(2)
(a) An interrogative clause allows a choice in the placement of the preposition in a wh-
element. (cf. just like direct questions), e.g.:

I asked them on what they based their predictions. <formal>

I asked them what they based their predictions on.

She asked me with whom I had been.

She asked me who I had been with.

(b) A nominal relative clause requires the wh-word to be placed first and the preposition to be
deferred, e.g.:

They ate what they paid for.

*They ate for what they paid.2

Whoever they lend the money to must be trustworthy.

*To whoever they lend the money must be trustworthy.

(3)
(a) Indirect questions can be introduced by phrases built up around the full range of wh-
words, e.g.:

She asked me who would look after the baby.

She wanted to know for whom I was going to vote. <formal>
I don't know what she wants.
She asked me which I liked.
Which candidate will spend the most money is clear.
She wanted to know where I had been.
She asked me when they would be ready.
Jones told Smith why Williams had called off the programme.
How the prisoner escaped is a mystery.
John wondered how far the travellers would go.
Marsha knows how much money we collected.
Marsha knows how many encyclopedias John sold.

Who, whom and which are quite common in interrogative clauses.

(b) Nominal relative clauses with a specific interpretation are normally introduced by what,
where and when. Who in its specific meaning is only found in a clause functioning as
predicative complement, particularly after that's, e.g.:

You're not who I thought you were. [..."the person I thought you were."]
So that's who he's working for.
I'm who you're looking for.
2
The following sentence, which has an adnominal relative clause is grammatical: They ate
the things for which they paid.

5
Notice the ungrammaticality of:

*Fred wants to meet who Sally hired.

*George bought which car Sheila wanted to sell him.

Who, which and whom, in their non-specific meaning are restricted to co-occurrence with a
small semantic class of verbs: choose, like, please, want, wish.

She can marry who(ever) she pleases.

She can marry whom(ever) she pleases. <formal> [..."anyone that/ who/ whom/ she
pleases."]
You can take which(ever) you like. [..."any (that) you like."]

(4)
(a) No compound forms with ever are used in interrogative noun clauses.

(b) The compound forms with ever are used in nominal relative clauses, e.g.:

They asked me whatever I didn't know. ["They asked me those things that I didn't
know."]3

(5)
(a) The determiner what in interrogative clauses does not have a paucal meaning, e.g.:

She asked me what books I wanted to read.

(b) The determiner what in nominal relative clauses has a paucal meaning, e.g.:

What friends she has are out of the country. ["The few friends she has are..."]
He collected what information he could find. [..."the little information he could
find."]

(6)
(a) A wh-interrogative clause can be reduced. It becomes a nonfinite clause, e.g.:

Jacob always knows what he should wear.

Jacob always knows what to wear.

Fido rarely knows when he should bark.

Fido rarely knows when to bark.

(b) A nominal relative clause can only be reduced if the clause functions as predicative
complement or as complement to a preposition, e.g.:

That's where to go for your next vacation. (PC)

The book is on how to use a computer. (C/P)

3
The clause with whatever is unambiguously relative but the following sentence is
ambiguous: They asked me what I didn't know.

6
 Jacob always wears what he should wear.
*Jacob always wears what to wear.

(7)
(a) Wh-interrogative clauses can be anticipated by the expletive it, e.g.:

What Fred offered to her was unclear.

It was unclear what Fred offered to her.

(b) Nominal relative clauses cannot be anticipated by it.

What Fred offered to her went into the trash.

*It went into the trash what Fred offered to her.

Anticipatory subject it cannot anticipate a determiner phrase. Since the nominal relative
clause shares features with determiner phrases, it is only logical that it cannot be anticipated
by it. The last sentence is possible only with an "afterthought" interpretation, which requires a
distinctive intonation in spoken English and a special comma punctuation in written English:

It went into the trash, what Fred offered to her.

(8) Semantic differences:

(a) The interrogative clause contains a gap of unknown information, expressed by the wh-
element. In all the following sentences a question is explicitly or implicitly raised:

I don’t know
I can’t imagine
I’m not sure
I want to know
I wonder who he will vote for
I know
It’s obvious
I found out
It’s irrelevant
I told you

Notice that the main clause expresses some concern with the closing of that gap, with
supplying the missing information. The interpretation of a sentence with know + an indirect
question involves knowing an answer. Sentence (1) has an interpretation that can be
paraphrased as (2):

(1) John knows what Martha ate.

(2) John knows the answer to the question "What did Martha eat?"

(b) The nominal relative clause does not contain a gap in information, and therefore the main
clause is not concerned with the closing of that gap. The information may indeed be known to
both speaker and hearer, as in:

I took what was on the kitchen table.

7
Given a sentence with a nominal relative clause such as (3) it makes no sense to give it an
interpretation parallel to the one in (2) above:

(3) John cooked what Martha ate.

(4) John cooked the answer to the question "What did Martha eat?"

Instead the sentence is understood as involving the following two propositions:

a. Martha ate something x.

b. John cooked x.

(9)
(a) Interrogative clauses are used to report questions, they refer to events, facts, ideas,
propositions, but not to concrete objects. When you realize something you don't realize an
object but you grasp a state of affairs or an event.

(b) Nominal relative clauses can be concrete or abstract. Since only nominal relative clauses
can be concrete, when semantic restrictions indicate that the clause is a physical object the
clause is unambiguously relative, e.g.:

I sent them what they needed.