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
whichfor 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 usually 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, usually 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 [that] he 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: •
The building company,
which erects very fine houses, will make a large profit. (non-restrictive) • '
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 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 [restrictive] relative 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 ∅)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 ∅ I was born in; :
He is the person whom I saw; :
He is the person ∅ 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 ∅ sits on the hill; : *
She is the one ∅ 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 ∅;
Jack built the house I was born in ∅;
He is the person I saw ∅.
'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.
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 ==