b m {“Slec10.htmlTEXTMOSSÿÿÿÿ2ôýë2ýë2Km Relative Clauses

To return to Lesson 10

Introduction: This is the second lesson in a series of three on subordinate clauses. Last time we discussed adverbial subordinate clauses. Today the topic of discussion is relative clauses. As I indicated last time, relative clauses are among my favorites. They are somewhat complex but quite explainable. And even though you may find that the lesson has more information than you've ever wanted to know about relative clauses, they continue to be studied by the experts.

Restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses:

When discussing relative clauses we generally begin by classifying them within two types: restrictive and non-restrictive.

Restrictive: Students in this class [who are English majors] don't have to write a paper.

Non-restrictive: Students in this class, [who are English majors], don't have to write a paper.

A restrictive relative clause restricts to a certain group. It does not include everyone. In the example given, the class consists of students of several different majors. Only those students who are majoring in English don't have to write a paper. Everyone else in the class does.

A non-restrictive relative clause includes everyone. Some people call it an appositive clause. In the non-restrictive clause above all the students in the class are majoring in English. Therefore no one in the class has to write a paper.

All languages have restrictive relative clauses. It is not clear that all languages have non-restrictive relative clauses.

Most languages use commas for both. English, however, uses commas only in the non-restrictive relative clause construction.

As I said, the non-restrictive clause is like an appositive, an aside, a clause which could include "by the way,..." It's not absolutely necessary for the meaning of the main clause. (...,who, by the way, are all English majors,...)

The restrictive clause, though, is necessary to restrict the meaning of the main clause.

Restrictive relative clauses are very common in speech and writing.

Non-restrictive relative clauses are common in writing, but not in speech. Notice that in writing it's easy to tell the difference, since the non-restrictive relative clause is set off by commas. In speech it's harder to make the distinction without adding exaggerated intonation, dramatic pauses, or some type of explanatory information like 'by the way' to the non-restrictive clause.

Two other distinctions between the two types are, one, a non-restrictive relative clause will always begin with a WH relative pronoun, never 'that'. And two, the relative pronoun in the non-restrictive relative clause is never omitted. (If this doesn't make sense to you here, read the rest of the lecture and come back. I think it will make sense then.)

Now that we have this distinction out of the way we will focus on restrictive relative clauses. They are the most common, as I said, and also the more interesting of the two types.

Restrictive relative clause as part of a noun phrase:

The general structure is: there is a large noun phrase (NP) that contains a smaller NP and the relative clause. The smaller NP is called the HEAD NP or the antecedent. The relative clause is really a kind of sentence (S). See the tree below.

                                                                            NP
                                                                         /        \
                                                                        /            \
                                                                    NP            relative clause (rel cl)
                                                                                                    /       \
                                                                                                  /            \
                                                              relative pronoun (relpro)          S

In the following sentence I have labeled and bracketed the parts:

[The women] [[who] own that department store] donate half their earnings to charity
head NP relpro within larger rel clause

Relative pronouns:

A standard (canonical) relative clause begins with a relative pronoun. We have a number of possibilities. Most of them we call WH words, as they are identical to the WH question words that we discussed with question formation.

Who: We usually use this pronoun when referring to a person, e.g. 'The man who is standing in the corner is my neighbor'.

In old prescriptive grammar this form also was restricted to subject position within the clause. Today, however, we, the native speakers, have generalized its use to the direct object as well. Examples: Subject: The man [[who] is standing over there] is my neighbor. Direct object: The woman [[who] I saw at the the store] is my neighbor. In this last example the subject within the clause is 'I'.

Whom: Usually used for a person, a variation of 'who'. In old prescriptive grammar this was the form used in object position, whether direct object, indirect object, or object of the preposition. However, as I said above, 'who' has taken over the role in most positions. The one place where this word is still consistently preferred is directly after a preposition. Examples: The boy [to [whom] you were talking] is my student. The boy [[who(m)] you were talking to] is my student. You will notice that the first example is very formal, and the second example is much more commonly used. Also in the second example, the preposition has been stranded at the end of the clause while the relative pronoun has been put at the front of the clause. It is my inclination that it would be rare to hear 'The boy to who you were talking is my student.' We still like 'whom' directly after a preposition.

Which: Used for NPs which are not animate, e.g., The book [[which] she chose] was written by Tolstoy. We generally don't use 'which' for people. Another point of interest here is that 'which' also seems to be less commonly used than previously. Most of you would probably say, 'The book [[that ] she chose]...

The next two are considered adverbial relative pronouns because they replace an adverbial rather than a simple NP.

Where: Used as a place adverbial, replacing a place adverb or a prepositional phrase. Example:
                The town [[where] I was born ] has become a tourist attraction.
                                        [I was born [there]]
                                        [I was born [in the town]]

When: Used as a time adverbial, replacing a time adverb or prepositional phrase. Example:
                The day [[when] you came late ] was a testing day.
                                        [you came late [then]]
                                        [you came late [on the day]]

Why: This introduces a 'reason clause'. Like the two adverbials above, this doesn't replace a simple NP. Example:
The reason [[why] I'm late ] is because traffic was completely stopped.
[I am late [because...]]

Whose: Whose is unique in that it functions as a possessive determiner, which means that it must be followed by a noun like all other determiners. As a relative pronoun it cannot be separated from that noun. Example:
I met the person [[whose] car you borrowed] yesterday. We would never say:
*I met the person [[whose] you borrowed car] yesterday.

Next, there are two relative pronouns that are unique in that they do not have a head NP. These are called 'headless relatives'. (Fine thing to be discussing around Thanksgiving!)

What: This is most often used in question formation, but it can also be used as a relative pronoun. Examples:
I agree with [[what] you say]. [[What] you are saying ] is hard to believe.

Notice that there is no head NP before the relative pronoun. 'What' replaces both the head NP and the relativized NP. One might paraphrase it as: what = the thing that.

How: This is the other 'headless relative' pronoun. Examples:
[[How] he drove here so quickly ] is a mystery. I like [[how] you solved that problem].

Again 'how' replaces both the head NP and the relativized NP. We can paraphrase 'how' also: how=the way that.

That: 'That' has become our most favored relative pronoun. We can use it in place of most of the other relative pronouns. There are exceptions, however, which I will go into below. You may have thought as you were reading some of the examples above that you would have used 'that' instead of whatever I used. This is further proof that 'that' is more common than the others. Prescriptive grammar frowns on using 'that' for people, but I hear it more and more.

A closer look at the clause:

Here I present some of the same concepts from a different point of view. Within the clause itself the relative pronoun 'relativizes' different grammatical roles. Please note that I am talking about the role within the relative clause itself, not within the whole sentence or the main clause.

It can be the subject of the clause: I know the man [[who] left early ].
It can be the direct object of the clause: The friend [[who(m)] I saw at the movies] left early.
It can be the indirect object of the clause: The person [[who(m)] you gave the book to ] has left.
It can be the object of a preposition: The book [[which] he was talking about ] is on the shelf.
It can be a place adverbial: The town [[where] she lived for 10 years ] has disappeared.
It can be a time adverbial: The year [[when] you were born] was a stellar year.
It can be a manner adverbial: I don't approve of the way [[that] you did your homework]. The way [in[which] you did your homework] bothers me.
It can be a possessive determiner: I know the man [[whose] book you borrowed].
It can be a reason clause: Heavy traffic is the reason [[why] I am late].

Restrictions on using 'that' as a relative pronoun:

Using the same examples I used in the relative pronoun section above, I would like to illustrate when we can and when we cannot use 'that' as a relative pronoun.

Who: The man [who] is standing in the corner is my neighbor.
??The man [that] is standing in the corner is my neighbor.

Again, prescriptive grammar frowns on this because it is referring to a person. The question marks before the example indicate that there is disagreement over the acceptability of this example.

Whom: The boy [to [whom] you were talking] is my student. The boy [[who(m)] you were talking to] is my student.
*The boy to [that] you were talking is my student. I think everyone would agree that this form is not acceptable. But, 'The boy [that] you were talking to is my student' sounds much better. Apparently we cannot use 'that' when it is immediately preceded by the preposition, but with the preposition stranded at the end of the clause 'that' sounds fine (even though it is referring to a person).

Which: The book [[which] she chose] was written by Tolstoy.
The book [that] she chose was written by Tolstoy.

I think everyone would agree that 'that' sounds fine here.

Where: The town [[where] I was born ] has become a tourist attraction.
*The town [that] I was born has become a tourist attraction.

This is unacceptable. However, I could say, "The town that I was born in has become a tourist attraction."
This is even more proof that 'where' is replacing a whole prepositional phrase here, including the preposition.

When: The day [[when] you came late ] was a testing day.
The day [that] you came late was a testing day.

This seems to be acceptable, right?

Why: The reason [[why] I'm late ] is because traffic was completely stopped.
The reason [that] I'm late is because traffic was completely stopped.

No problems here, right?

Whose: I met the person [[whose] car you borrowed] yesterday.
*I met the person [[that] car you borrowed] yesterday.

Unacceptable. We clearly cannot replace 'whose' with 'that'.

What: I agree with [[what] you say]. [[What] you are saying ] is hard to believe.
*I agree with [that] you say. *[That] you are saying is hard to believe.

Since this is headless 'what' replaces both the head NP and the relativized NP. And since we might paraphrase it as: what = the thing that, it is clear that 'that' by itself will not do.

How: [[How] he drove here so quickly ] is a mystery. I like [[how] you solved that problem].
*?[That] he drove here so quickly is a mystery. *?I like [that] you solved the problem.

Again 'how' replaces both the head NP and the relativized NP. We can paraphrase 'how' also: how=the way that.
You may notice that these sentences aren't ungrammatical. But we have changed the meaning of the original sentence by replacing 'how' with 'that'. In fact, these clauses are no longer relative clauses, but are now 'complement clauses', which we will get to next week.

The generalization: 'That' can be used as a relative pronoun in all situations except: to replace 'whose', 'where' and headless relative pronouns. Actually the 'where' part can be expanded to any situation when the adverbial relative pronoun is replacing an entire prepositional phrase.

When a relative pronoun is optional:

You have, I'm sure, already noticed examples where you may actually eliminate the relative pronoun all together. We do this frequently because in many situations the pronoun is indeed optional.

Subject of the clause: *I know the man [[ ] left early ]. When the pronoun is the subject of the clause we CANNOT omit it.
Direct object of the clause: The friend [[ ] I saw at the movies] left early. When the pronoun is the direct object we CAN omit it.
Indirect object of the clause: The person [[ ] you gave the book to ] has left. When the pronoun is the indirect object of the clause we CAN omit it.
Object of a preposition: The book [[ ] he was talking about ] is on the shelf. When the pronoun is the object of a preposition we CAN omit it. However, in the formal form, 'The book [about [which] he was talking] is on the shelf' where the preposition has been fronted, we CAN'T: *The book [about [ ] he was talking] is on the shelf.
Place adverbial: *The town [[ ] she lived for 10 years ] has disappeared. When the pronoun replaces an entire prepositional phrase we CANNOT omit it. However, if we add the preposition back in, we CAN. The town [[ ] she lived IN for 10 years] has disappeared.
Time adverbial: The year [[ ] you were born] was a stellar year. Here we CAN.
Manner adverbial: I don't approve of the way [[ ] you did your homework]. Here we CAN. However, if the pronoun occurs directly after a preposition, we CAN'T. *The way [in[ ] you did your homework] bothers me.
Possessive determiner: I know the man [[ ] book you borrowed]. If the pronoun is the possessive determiner we CAN'T.
Reason clause: Heavy traffic is the reason [[ ] I am late]. Here we CAN.
Headless relative pronouns:

What:

How: *[[ ] he drove here so quickly ] is a mystery. *I like [[ ] you solved that problem].

Again 'how' replaces both the head NP and the relativized NP. We can paraphrase 'how' also: how=the way that.

So, to generalize, we CANNOT omit the relative pronoun:

if it is the subject of the relative clause.
if it comes directly after a preposition.
if it replaces an entire prepositional phrase.
if it is the possessive determiner.
if it is a headless relative pronoun.

Relative clauses have gaps:

Relative clauses are a unique type of subordinate clause because they contain a 'gap' where the pronoun would be if the clause were in canonical order (SVO). This is not true of all languages, and it's important for us to be aware of because it is a source of errors for our students. Many languages (e.g. Persian or Farsi) use a pronoun where we have a gap. For example, we would never say *"The man [who I saw him ] is your friend." The word 'him' is taking the place of the gap that is necessary to make this grammatical. But since other languages do this very thing, students who speak those languages might transfer this into English.

When the relative pronoun is the subject of the clause, the gap immediately follows the relative pronoun, in subject position of the clause: I know the man [[who] ____ left early ].
When the relative pronoun is the direct object of the clause, the gap occurs where a direct object would ordinarily go, after the verb: The friend [[who(m)] I saw ____ at the movies] left early.
When the relative pronoun is the indirect object of the clause, the gap occurs where the indirect object would ordinarily be: The person [[who(m)] you gave the book to ____ ] has left.
When the relative pronoun is the object of a preposition, the gap occurs after the preposition: The book [[which] he was talking about ____] is on the shelf. Interestingly, when the whole prepositional phrase is fronted, the gap occurs where the prepositional phrase would have been: 'The book [about [which] he was talking ____] is on the shelf.
When the relative pronoun is a place adverbial, the gap occurs where that adverbial would normally be: The town [[where] she lived ______ for 10 years ] has disappeared.
When the relative pronoun is a time adverbial, the gap occurs where that adverbial would normally be: The year [[when] you were born _____] was a stellar year.
When the relative pronoun is a manner adverbial, the gap occurs where that adverbial would normally be: I don't approve of the way [[that] you did your homework ____]. The way [in[which] you did your homework _____] bothers me.
When the relative pronoun is a possessive determiner, the gap occurs where the entire NP, both relative pronoun and noun that follows, would normally be: I know the man [[whose] book you borrowed _____].
When the relative pronoun is in place of a reason clause, the gap occurs where that clause would normally be: Heavy traffic is the reason [[why] I am late _____].

Generalization: Within a relative clause in English, the relative pronoun has a corresponding GAP.

WH BE deletion:

Many of our participle phrases or clauses are actually reduced relative clauses. The reduction process is very specific. The deletion process must include the relative pronoun PLUS a form of the verb BE, hence we call it WH BE deletion. (Pronounced as the letters W and H, followed by the verb BE.)

For example, in the sentence: The man [who is standing by the table] is my uncle. The relative clause can be shortened in this way: The man [____ ____ standing by the table] is my uncle. Both parts must be deleted, and the verb has to be a form of BE.

Another example: The girl [who was chosen as president of the class] has a lot of confidence. With WH Be deletion, we have: The girl [___ ___ chosen as president of the class] has a lot of confidence.

It's really quite simple. I've given you a practice exercise to solidify the concept.

Generalizations:

Finally, I'd like to give you some generalizations that reflect the rules of relative clauses:

1. If there is a relative pronoun, it must begin the clause. (A minor variation of this is, if the whole prepositional phrase is fronted, the clause will begin with the preposition followed by the pronoun.)

2. A relative pronoun in a relative clause has a corresponding gap.

3. There are conditions under which each relative pronoun can be used, e.g. animate vs. inanimate, time adverbial, place adverbial, reason clause, possessive determiner, headless relatives, etc.

4. Can omit the relative pronoun under the conditions stated above (When a relative pronoun is optional).

5. Can use the relative pronoun 'that' under the conditions stated above (Restrictions on using 'that').

6. Can reduce a relative clause to a participle clause (phrase) by deleting the relative pronoun and an immediately following form of the verb BE.

To return to Lesson 10, click here.