Clause-Linking in English
In English, to make sense, any sentence must have at least one independent (main) clause, consisting of a subject and a predicate (a verb + an object/complement), which embodies the core of any English sentence. Any clause consisting of one such core is a simple (independent) sentence:
Simple Sentence/ Independent Clause = Subject + Predicate
When a simple sentence as an independent (main) clause is connected to another clause, the type of the resulting sentence depends on the type of the added clause.
Namely, if the added clause is syntactically finite and structurally and semantically:
INDEPENDENT | DEPENDENT | SUPPLEMENTAL |
Compound Sentence | Complex Sentence | Parenthetical Sentence |
linked by parataxis (coordination) | linked by hypotaxis (subordination) | linked by parenthesis (supplementation) |
Of these, the finite dependent embedded clauses can be subdivided according to their functions in the sentence:
Noun clauses • wh-clauses: (subject, object, predicative) • complement that-clause • content that-clause • interrogative clause • exclamative clause | Adverbial clauses • time, place, manner • reason, purpose, result • contrast, condition, proportion • integral, peripheral, supplemental |
Relative clauses • integral (essential) clause • supplemental (nonessential) clause • sentential relative clause | Comparative clauses • complements of than, as, like |
If the added clause is syntactically nonfinite, the resulting free-modifying clause can be classified as either:
• Gerund clause • Fused Participle clause • To-Infinitival clause • Bare Infinitival clause • Small clause | • Present -ing participle • Past -ed participle • Absolute clause • Nominal absolute clause • Verbless clause |
In terms of a connective used in a sentence, clauses can be linked either:
Asyndetically | Syndetically | Polysyndetically |
without any conjunction, by mere juxtaposition | with a conjunction (coordinating or subordinating) | with multiple coordinating conjunctions |
Relative Clauses
A relative clause (or adjectival clause) is a postmodifier in a noun phrase. It is introduced by a wh-word, which has a grammatical role in the relative clause in addition to its linking function. The relativizer points back to the head of the noun phrase, which is generally referred to as the antecedent. Relative clauses may be either essential (definite) or nonessential (supplemental).
Integral (Essential) Relative Clauses
MAIN CLAUSE + Noun + that/who + RELATIVE CLAUSE + MAIN CLAUSE
Relative clauses are linked with the following relative pronouns:
who(m) | whose | where | of, in, on, at, from, by, with, for ... + which |
which | when | why | by, for, with ... + whom |
This morning, I met with the student who called me yesterday.
The horse that is white costs thousands of dollars. Other horses are cheaper.
A crystal is a piece of matter whose boundaries are naturally formed plane surfaces.
He is a man for whom I have the greatest admiration.
He was someone whom I had never seen before.
The speed at which everything moved felt strange.
I am talking about an organization [that probably few of you have heard of], [that can and will provide to some, perhaps to some of you, a year of travel, cultural refreshment, and excitement] [that] [you'll remember a long time].
The firemen who held it looked up at Ozzie with stern, feelingless faces.
Philip Roth, “The Conversion of the Jews”
Supplemental (Nonessential) Relative Clauses
MAIN CLAUSE + Noun + ❟ + which + RELATIVE CLAUSE + MAIN CLAUSE
Relative clauses are linked with the following relative pronouns:
who(m) | whose | where | of, in, on, at, from, by, with, for ... + which |
which | when | why | by, for, with ... + whom |
This morning I met with Anne Scott, who called me yesterday.
The horse, which was white, cost me thousands of dollars.
Algernon, whom I greatly admire, died last night.
The news, which spread like a plague, broke him.
The pot of gravy, which fell upon his foot, was boiling.
The thief opened the safe, by which time it had been emptied.
These are predators, for whom people could also be prey.
It was alleged that during the incident—at which more police arrived—a black woman was assaulted.
The crowd, which had arrived with the fire engines, gave out a long, Fourth-of-July fireworks oooh-aahhh.
Philip Roth, “The Conversion of the Jews”
Essential vs. Nonessential Relative Clauses
English relative clauses modify nouns, like adjectives. However, unlike adjectives, they are postmodifiers (i.e., they follow a noun or noun phrase they modify), which means that they can never start a sentence:
Love is friendship that has caught fire. Of all the animals, man is the only one that is cruel.
Mark Twain, Man’s Place in the Animal World
Not all those who wander are lost. How blessed are some people, whose lives have no fears.
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings Bram Stoker, Dracula
If the information provided by the relative clause is essential to the identification of the noun it modifies (the head), and if it cannot be omitted, no punctuation should be used. However, if a relative clause provides supplemental, parenthetical, or background (nonessential) information, and if it can be omitted without rendering the sentence unintelligible, it is enclosed by a pair of commas (dashes or parentheses).
Traditionally referred to as restrictive, or essential, relative clauses serve to identify, specify, classify, or define the head they modify. It is an integral element, causing no change in the pitch or intonation. A nonrestrictive, or nonessential, relative clause, however, is marked by a change in the intonation and pitch as a supplemental element that is loosely integrated into the syntax of the main sentence.
Marking a relative clause nonessential does not mean it’s not important; it is simply distinctive from the rest of the sentence. In speech, supplements are marked as such by their distinctive prosody: they are intonationally separate from the rest of the sentence with the characteristically low-key tone and pausing. Paradoxically, we use this distinctive intonational contour with the supplemental part—the lowered pitch—when we want to background (de-emphasize) a detail or, instead, to draw attention to a comment (by highlighting it), as any change in one’s intonation becomes noticeable. Whether the head noun should be marked or not depends on the status of its specificity and definiteness, which can only be triggered by pragmatic considerations. In other words, isolating a relative clause as a comment within a sentence can only occur in an ongoing conversation or as within a text, with the head noun functioning as a backward-linking topic.
For example, the essential clause in the following examples functions as the specifier, definer, or classifier of the head noun, which by definition has to be nonspecific:
Students who have to take a lot of exams get too tired to relax.
nonspecific (zero article)
A student who has to take a lot of exams gets too tired to relax.
nonspecific, indefinite (a/an)
The student who has to take a lot of exams gets too tired to relax.
nonspecific, definite (the)
The students who have to take a lot of exams get too tired to relax.
nonspecific, definite (the)
What would contribute to marking the relative clause as nonessential is the use of a semantic detail that would convey the specificity of the head noun and the discursive nature of the context: for example, the use of past tense instead of present indefinite or the use of a demonstrative determiner with the head noun:
The students, who had to take a lot of exams, got too tired to relax.
specific, definite (the)
These students, who have to take a lot of exams, get too tired to relax.
specific, definite (the)
Whether we choose to emphasize or de-emphasize a constituent, by making it non-neutral, we create a different type of emphasis. And what we want to emphasize with a nonessential relative clause, especially the one that is medially positioned, is its special status as an interrupting aside loosely attached to the main clause, a moment of digression that we believe is important to the matter of the main clause.
While essential relative clauses can be characterized as identifying, defining, specifying, or classifying, nonessential relative clauses can be roughly separated into two main groups:
1. An interrupting relative clause that provides referential, background details about the head and markedly disrupts the flow of the main clause as a supplemental or parenthetical aside comment.
2. A supplemental connective relative clause that functions as a narrative forwarder, added not to interrupt the main clause but to continue it. It may express the sequential event, or the result of the event described in the main clause. It can also be added as an afterthought, or as a sentential relative clause, which typically modifies the entire preceding clause.
For example:
Essential (specifying): The car that was standing in the road was stolen.
Nonessential (background): The car, which was standing in the road, was stolen.
Essential (classifying): Cars that cause pollution should be banned. [= Some cars pollute.]
Nonessential (background): Cars, which cause pollution, should be banned. [= All cars pollute.]
Essential (identifying): I called to the man who ran off. [= The man ran off, and I called to him.]
Nonessential (connective): I called to the man, who ran off. [= I called to the man, and he ran off.]
Essential (defining): The program included a movie that we had already seen.
Nonessential (background): The program included the new Scorsese movie, which we had already seen.
As I said before, the distinction between essential and nonessential clauses reflects the semantic differences. For example, compare the following sentences:
She loved to talk about her sister who lived in Paris and her younger brother.
[= She has more than one sister.]
She loved to talk about her sister, who lived in Paris, and her younger brother.
[= She has only one sister.]
He closed the door and handed his keys to the attendant, who was standing next.
[= There was only one attendant present.]
He closed the door and handed his keys to the attendant who was standing next.
[= There were other attendants around.]
The difference between essential and nonessential clauses can also be adverbial:
I wouldn't fly with an airline whose safety record is so poor.
[= I wouldn't fly with an airline if its safety record is so poor.]
I wouldn't fly with this airline, whose safety record is so poor.
[= I wouldn't fly with this airline because its safety record is so poor.]
Proper Noun Heads
By definition, proper nouns semantically trigger nonessential relative clauses:
The award was given to the student whose solution was unique.
The award was given to Julia Belch, whose solution was unique.
I plan to visit the town where I used to live.
I plan to stop off in London, where I used to live.
Types of Relative Clauses by Grammatical Structure
Essential and nonessential relative clauses can be classified by the grammatical function of their relative pronouns into six types:
Subject Relative Clauses, in which who, that, or which replaces the subject of the clause:
The visitor who/that asked for help was from Japan.
The hurricane that struck the town destroyed several homes.
Last year’s hurricane, which destroyed many homes, cost us millions of dollars.
Direct Object Relative Clauses, in which who, whom, that, which, or zero pronoun replaces the object of the clause:
At the meeting, there were many participants [whom/ that] we did not know.
At the meeting, there were many participants we did not know.
Thank you for the letter of application [that] we received yesterday.
Thank you for your letter of application, which we received yesterday.
Indirect Object Relative Clauses, in which who, whom, that, which, or zero pronoun replaces an indirect object following the preposition to or for. Two patterns are possible:
Everyone knew the culprit to whom the prosecutor was referring.
Everyone knew the culprit whom/ that /who the prosecutor was referring to.
Everyone knew the culprit [that] the prosecutor was referring to.
He loves his new job, to which he seemed well suited.
He loves his new job, which he seemed well suited to.
Oblique Object of the Preposition Relative Clauses, which have the same two patterns as indirect object clauses but may have a range of prepositions: at, on, in, under, for, about, with, etc.:
The girl with whom he went to the dance was my sister.
The girl whom/ that he went to the dance with was my sister.
The girl [that] he went to the dance with was my sister.
The bed on which/ where I slept once belonged to Abraham Lincoln.
The bed that I slept on once belonged to Abraham Lincoln.
The bed [that] I slept on once belonged to Abraham Lincoln.
Possessive Relative Clauses, in which the relative pronoun replaces an element that indicates possession. These clauses take two forms:
⬥ Possessive (partitive) relative clauses introduced by whose, used especially but not exclusively for possessors that are human or otherwise animate.
Last week, I met a girl whose brother works in your law firm.
The author one of whose last three books Peter has reviewed is very famous.
Let ABC be a triangle whose sides are of equal length.
⬥ Possessive clauses introduced by of which, used with inanimate possessors. Three patterns are possible when of + which is part of an object noun phrase:
The reports of which the government prescribes the size are boring.
The reports which the government prescribes the size of are boring.
The reports the size of which the government prescribes are boring.
Object of Comparison Relative Clauses, in which who, whom, that, or which replaces a noun phrase following the comparative conjunction than:
This is the first person whom/ that/ who I happened to be taller than.
This is the first person [that] I happened to be taller than
The sports car that the Alfa Romeo was faster than was a Porsche.
Relative Clauses vs. Other Clauses
💥 English dependent clauses (nominal, relative, and adverbial clauses) use the same wh-markers as relative pronouns, complementizers, or subordinating conjunctions, which can cause confusion:
It-cleft (provides contrastive information): Relative clause (provides general information):
A: Did you sell the table that Agatha gave us? A: I see we’ve sold something. What was it?
B: It was [the vase] [that Agatha gave us]—not the table. B: Yeah, it was [the vase that Agatha gave us].
contrastive focus background focus
Moreover, a relative and an indirect interrogative clause can appear exactly the same:
Relative clause: Indirect interrogative clause:
He asked [the man whom he had seen]. He asked the man [whom he had seen].
He asked the man that he had seen. He asked the man: “Whom did you see?
A relative clause and a nominal complement clause can appear almost the same:
Relative clause: Nominal complement clause:
The fact [that I communicated with her] is crucial. [The fact] [that I communicated to her]] is crucial.
The fact [which I communicated with her] is crucial. The fact of my communicating to her is crucial.
Don’t confuse relative clauses with it-clefts or a special case of a complement (content) clause (the reason-clause)! It-clefts are used to identify by pointing out something. As such, they can be used to emphasize proper nouns:
It-cleft: Complement (content) clause:
It was Jones that was injured. The reason (why) I can't go is that I don't have time.
formal formal
It was Jones who was injured. The reason I can't go is (because) I don't have time.
informal informal
Sometimes, clauses may be distinguished by the intonation in speech or by the punctuation applied. A text may contain enough context for the intended meaning to come through unambiguously, even if commas are not used correctly. It is possible, however, for the punctuation to be the sole source of information as to whether a clause is a relative essential or nonessential clause, or whether a clause is appositive, in which case the punctuation used is vital:
The plan is that we should meet after lunch. I like the plan that we should meet after lunch.
nominative predicative that-clause complement (content) that-clause
This is the plan that called for meeting after lunch. The plan, that we should meet after lunch, didn't work.
relative clause (modifying the plan) appositive that-clause
Inanimate vs. Animate: “that”/“who” vs. “which”
When referring to nonhuman (inanimate) entities (animals, things, and ideas), we can use either that in essential clauses or which in nonessential clauses. When referring to humans, we can use either that or who in essential or who in nonessential clauses (never which).
In other words, we can use the multi-purpose that in essential relative clauses with both human and nonhuman headwords.
Animate: All students who are members of the club will be leaving for the trip on Friday.
All students that are members of the club will be leaving for the trip on Friday.
Our students, who are members of the club, will be supervising the trip on Friday.
Inanimate: All schools that are members of the club will be leaving for the trip on Friday.
Our school, which is a member of the club, will be supervising the trip on Friday.
However, in essential clauses with nonhuman heads, we must use which when it is preceded by a preposition:
This is especially true for the American English. In British English, writers and editors are less discriminative about the distinction between that and which.
Combining with Prepositions: “that” vs. “which”
Although English nouns are not inflected according to their position in a sentence anymore, English personal and relative pronouns, when referring to human beings, are still inflected by the nominative, objective, and possessive cases, and other cases triggered by such prepositions as at, by, for, in, to:
Nominative (Subject) | Genitive (Possessor) | Dative (Indirect Object) | Accusative (Object) | Object of Preposition |
I | my | (to call) me | (to see) me | (to give to) me |
you | your | (to call) you | (to see) you | (to give to) you |
he, she | his, her | (to call) him, her | (to see) him, her | (to give to) him, her |
we | our | (to call) us | (to see) us | (to give to) us |
they | their | (to call) them | (to see) them | (to give to) them |
it | its | (to call) it | (to see) it | (to give to) it |
who | whose | (to call) whom | (to see) whom | (to give to) whom |
which | of which | (to call) which | (to see) which | (to give to) which |
Note that that is impossible when the relative clause begins with a preposition. Whether or not the clause is essential, which is the only choice in such contexts:
The author of the book from which this quote is derived describes the event in stunning detail.
They could not find a single issue on which they could disagree.
By doing so, they too have rendered the events with which they deal largely unintelligible.
But that is all right—preferable, in fact—when the pronoun is the object of a preposition that it precedes:
The author of the book that this quote is derived from describes the event in stunning detail.
They could not find a single issue that they could disagree on.
By doing so, they too have rendered the events that they deal largely unintelligible with.
Inanimate vs. Animate: “whose” vs. “of which”
The possessive pronoun whose usually relates to a person, but it can also be used to mark possessive relations with collective entities, such as corporations, government agencies, clubs, societies, and committees especially in news reporting:
The bid is being resisted by Pearl Group, whose Chairman has described the offer as “derisory.”
“Well, there is a choice,” says Graham Poole, whose grandfather started the shop in 1895.
Moreover, whose can also mark genitive relationships with inanimate, abstract nouns, commonly used in academic prose:
A way of proceeding in conceptual matters whose method is to define away any inconvenient difficulty.
This consensus provides an abstract convention whose implicit extension includes the proposition.
Otherwise, we should replace whose with … of which when writing about inanimate entities:
The others were playing a game the rules of which I couldn't understand.
We are introducing a new system, the aim of which is to reduce costs.
An alternative way of introducing a relative clause with of which is to front only the prepositional phrase of which, leaving the rest of the noun phrase to follow it in its normal position in the relative clause:
He joined a dining-club of which the motto was, The Whole, The Good, and The Beautiful.
This extends to other prepositions as well, e.g., at, by, for, in, to :
I went to the floor to which I had been directed.
I went to the tenth floor, to which I had been directed.
A genitive relation can also be expressed by using a postmodifying prepositional phrase + with:
We remember the enthusiasm with which we went to vote.
The rage with which they demand “justice” is terrifying.
🎵 In academic writing whose is used to talk about a wide variety of belonging to relationships:
Students have to solve problems whose solutions require a knowledge of calculus.
Expressing Space: “when”, “where”, “whereby”/ “at, in, on, by” + “which”
We can begin relative and other clauses with when (referring to time), whereby (referring to a method or means), and where (to specify a location).
🎵 In formal, academic English, especially when modifying indefinite, abstract, or conceptual words, the construction preposition + which can often be used instead of these:
when, where, whereby ⟺ [at, in, on, by … ] + which
Moreover, English uses this construction with a number of formulaic and literary relative expressions, which are mostly essential. For example, in sentences that describe a certain place, room, or street, the describing relative clause can start with where, which in turn can be replaced with in which:
place ⇘
room where ⟺ in which
street ⇗
… the place where they work … the place in which they work
… the room where I did my homework … the room in which I did my homework
… the street where my mother had lived … the street in which my mother had lived
🎵 Where and in which have different levels of formality, the latter being more formal.
Expressing Time & Space: “where”
🤔 In most registers, the pronoun where is by far the most common relativizer used to modify adverbial-type relative clauses with such heads as case, condition, example, situation, system, etc.
Some of them can occur with where as well as when, e.g., case(s) in academic texts:
Later, we will introduce cases where consumer complaints have resulted in changes in the law.
The contrastive nature of linguistic categories is clear in cases where the category label contains two words.
Even in cases when the shooter is not a migrant, they can still draw blame.
🎵 In more formal contexts, however, use in which instead:
Later, we will introduce cases in which consumer complaints have resulted in changes in the law.
Expressing Time: “when” (“where”) & “at”/ “on”/ “in”/ “by which”
Relative clauses with the words indicating time and periods of time, can be used with when as well as which + corresponding preposition:
time ⟶ at which
day ⇘
when ⟶ on which
month ⇗
year ⟶ in which
era
This is a time when nationalities cease to exist. ⟹ This is a time at which nationalities cease to exist.
“The Day When a Man Dies” ⟹ “The Day on Which a Man Dies”
This is the year when the profits should start. ⟹ Since the year in which you were born?
… during the period when it was in operation ⟹ … during the period in which it was in operation.
Essential:
Like most things in the Internet age in which we live, one thing led to another, and I now run the largest source repository in the world, called “Help A Reporter Out.”
[Internet == this, our: The head age is defined by the definite article the, not the qualifying modifier Internet.]
Nonessential:
Even in the internet age, in which images of humanity’s greatest cruelties are available at the click of a button, the photos emerging from Syria of gas victims are truly shocking.
[= Internet is an identifying modifier]
Expressing Means: “whereby” vs. “in which”
Whereby is a very useful word, as it can be used with a variety of concepts, such as arrangement or system, meaning “by which, by the help of which, in accordance with which”.
arrangement
system ⇘
requirement
whereby ⟶ in which
mechanism
circumstance ⇗
agreement
🎵 Whereby matches in which in the level of formality so they can be used interchangeably:
Crédit Mobilier was part of a complex arrangement whereby a few men contracted with themselves.
He hopes to negotiate an arrangement whereby the group will be able to pay the city a higher price.
The same relative clause construction can introduce a nonessential, parenthetical comment. For example:
As it happens, this arrangement—whereby Obama keeps his distance—is politically advantageous.
The difference between the three heads of the relative clauses—namely, a complex arrangement, an arrangement, and this arrangement—is semantical. The latter’s contextual specificity (signaled by the definite determiner this) means that it does not need to be identified by the provided comment.
In addition to using a specifying, definite determiner (the, this, my, etc.) with the headword, the markers that can trigger parenthetical postmodification also include the use of an identifying, and not merely qualifying, modifier(s) with the headword, or the headword being a proper name. For example, in the examples below, the modifiers contractual and franchise of the headword arrangement are identifying or pointing out, rendering its identification specific despite the use of an indefinite article. The modifier complex used in the example above is simply descriptive:
Salary sacrifice is a contractual arrangement, whereby employees give up the right to their wages.
The league is a franchise arrangement, whereby owners pay a one-off royalty for their teams.
We can think of such sentences as consisting of two separate sentences, each having their own focus positions and with the second clause having the effect of a supplemental comment, an afterthought. Any parenthetical constituent (e.g., a relative clause), which interrupts the flow of the main clause without significantly interfering with its meaning, triggers the so-called appositional intonation (parenthesizing intonation).
Expressing Abstract Concepts: “where” vs. “at”/“in” “which”
🎵 When it comes to more abstract notions, the use of such relative adverbs as the place where, should be limited to the colloquial use. In writing, using the more formal in which can be more appropriate.
course
cycle at which
moment ⇘
point ⟶ where
stage ⇗
situation in which
circumstance
“Well, in the situation where I am, that's probably happening,” Beltran said.
informal
This is the situation in which Europe finds itself today.
formal
“I'm at the stage where I understand things.”
informal
This is also the stage at which many developmental defects originate.
formal
In the month when his new film premiered, he had to travel to India.
This led to a match at the Royal Rumble later in the month, in which Edge defeated Michaels.
Which can occur in a wide range of lexical bundles with different head nouns, used as subordinating conjunctions, particularly in academic prose:
the extent to which the frequency with which
the degree to which means/ ways/ process by which
The process by which they culture the genes are uncertain and extremely mutagenic.
The extent to which corporations are able to exercise market power is, in large part, determined by political decisions.
Paul Krugman, Challenging the Oligarchy
Expressing Specific Moments in Time: “at which point” vs. “meanwhile”, “in the meantime”
Nonessential which-clauses can be ambiguous, capable of having a wider scope than any other relative clause. For example, in this sentence at which-clause marks the boundary between the event in the first clause and the summative description of the results of that event:
Of course he asked her why she was crying, at which point she cried all the more.
Peter Ackroyd
The present is the point at which time touches eternity.
Again, it’d help to analyze this sentence as consisting of two separate clauses, with the second clause standing somewhat in apposition, or parallel, to the preceding one. The first clause situates us at a very specific moment in history, introducing the general conclusion of the event described, then listing the particulars of the event.
The supplemental and particularizing nature of the second clause requires echoing-type discourse linking. In fact, the connective at which time here very much resembles a conjunctive adverb used as a discourse connective between two independent clauses:
Another option is … at which point:
I was told my work was not good enough, at which point I decided to get another job.
And a slightly different variant, by which time:
They remain in the pouch for some seven weeks, by which time they are about 10 cm long.
Expressing Specific Moments in Time & Space: “the point where” vs. “the point when”
The appropriate choice of the relative adverb is not always clear, and it often depends on the context. Yes, even the context can be ambiguous. For example, the notion point can refer to both space and time, or can be used with both where and when.
According to the Leipzig Corpora Collection, the incidence of the collocation a point + where (41,334) is much higher than either a point + at which (4,021), a point + that (4,219), or a point + when (1,386):
It got to the point where journalists would jam the door open with their foot.
There comes a point where “better is the enemy of good enough.”
Now, however, I have arrived at a point in my narrative where I am compelled to abandon this method.
We're now at a point, however, where we can be frank about it.
At a point where the garden wall joined the wall of the mortuary several bricks were missing.
The next three collocations are very close to each other in terms of incidence:
There comes a point when a dream becomes reality.
The market is probably at a point that represents fair value.
All too often there comes a point at which expectations shrink.
Partitive Relative Clauses: “both of whom” vs. “both of which”
English determiners, qualifiers, numerals, superlative adjectives, etc., can be used as partitive constituents to describe a part or quantity of something.
To convey partitivity, English uses ... of which, ... of whom, or ... of whose:
all, many, each
part, some, most ⇘
neither, none ⟶ of which
one, two, half ⟶ of whose
the first, a third ⇗ of whom
the best, the biggest
Lotta was able to switch between German and Russian, both of which she spoke fluently.
Historians give two answers, neither of which can be right.
In total, Torres had only three attempts on goal, two of which were off target.
Seventy homeopaths were randomized, of whom 50 completed the trial.
Behind them is the authority of the U. N., all of whose members are “peace-loving,” and some of whose members have just engaged in war.
Expressing Manner: Special Status of “Way”
While place and time adverbials correspond to the use of where and when, there is no relative adverb marking manner, way, or rather it is Ø (zero), except for in which. The head way as a head noun that is strongly associated with manner adverbials. It is many times more common as a head noun—in all registers—than any other form.
This is why in any register and context, including in academic prose, with its general preference for preposition + which, a manner adverbial gap is commonly either marked by the relativizer sequence in which or dropped altogether:
The way in which this happens gives important information on the inner organization.
The way this happens gives important information on the inner organization.
zero relative adverb
It is not the only way in which a person can be brought before a court.
It is not the only way a person can be brought before a court.
zero relative adverb
He was sorry about the way in which it had ended.
He was sorry about the way it had ended.
zero relative adverb
Relative clauses with the head nouns time also commonly occur with the preposition omitted:
The activity checklist is completed each time the activity changes.
Formal vs. Informal: “whom” vs. “who”/ “that” vs. “of which” vs. “whose”
In less formal English, the preposition can be postponed to the end of the relative clause: called stranded preposition effect. The presence of a stranded preposition reduces the formality level of the text. If we try to show it on the scale from formal to informal, we'll get these results:
FORMAL  INFORMAL | The office to which Juan took us was filled with books. The office that Juan took us to was filled with books. T̶h̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶f̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶J̶u̶a̶n̶ ̶t̶o̶o̶k̶ ̶u̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶w̶a̶s̶ ̶f̶i̶l̶l̶e̶d̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶b̶o̶o̶k̶s̶.̶ The office where Juan took us was filled with books. | That’s her friend with whom she lives. That’s her friend whom she lives with. That’s her friend that she lives with. That’s her friend who she lives with. |
🎵 Like in other languages, following the prescriptive grammar guidelines creates a formal effect. So, when it comes to the inflection of the pronoun who, English speakers often dismiss the correct use of the objective whom. The distinction between who and whom aligns with the stylistic preference to avoid stranded (postposed) prepositions, which tends to signal the “prestige” English.
When a preposition is needed with such relative pronouns as whom (who), which, or whose, we usually put it before the relative pronoun in formal styles, including academic writing and journalism.
The valley in which the town lies is heavily polluted.
The rate at which a material heats up depends on its chemical composition.
I now turn to Freud, from whose work the following quotation is taken.
I'll introduce you to my friend Robert, with whom I share an apartment.
very formal
I'll introduce you to the man with whom I share an apartment.
very formal
Putting the preposition at the end of the clause makes it less formal, which is common in spoken English:
I'll introduce you to my friend Robert, whom I share an apartment with.
neutral
I'll introduce you to my friend Robert, who I share an apartment with.
informal
I now turn to Freud, whose work the following quotation is taken from.
I'll introduce you to the man whom I share an apartment with.
I'll introduce you to the man that/who I share an apartment with.
Not all prepositions can be postposed, however. Some should not be separated from their related pronouns. Such uses are common in academic English:
There are 80 teachers in the Physics Department, among whom are 24 professors.
This study enrolled 2126 children, of whom 50.7% were male.
Is it right that politicians should make important decisions without consulting the public to whom they are accountable?
🎵 Note that after a preposition in formal register, we use which and whom rather than that and who. Furthermore, of which is more formal than whose:
The spill was massive, the effects of which felt for days. The school of which she is head is closing.
formal formal
The spill was massive, whose effects felt for days. The school that she is head of is closing.
neutral neutral
Literary, Journalistic & Technical Styles
In the literary context, the uses of the pronouns which and that are freer: which can introduce essential clauses and that can be found introducing parenthetical clauses for special stylistic effect:
There was nothing in the way it looked which was not ordinary, but it was filled with a noiseless and invisible kind of energy.
James Agee, A Death in the Family
If there is anything in my story which you know to be either false or improbable, stop me.
Jane Austen
He sat still, dying the death over and over again; and the only part of him which moved were his eyes, turning round and round in their sockets, running over the walls, the floor, the ceiling, again and again, till suddenly they became motionless and stony—starting out of his head, fixed in the direction of the bed.
J. Conrad, The Inn of the Two Witches and Other Stories
And one by one, sooner or later, according to their native strength and to the good or evil of their wills in the beginning, they fell under the thraldom of the ring that they bore and of the domination of the One which was Sauron's. And they became forever invisible save to him that wore the Ruling Ring, and they entered into the realm of shadows.
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion
The use of the pronoun that with nonessential clauses often occurs in a series of postmodifying phrases or clauses, especially in fiction:
He gazed at the yellow, stained wall with all the spots which dead bugs, that had once crawled, had left.
Biber et al.
Here one might say to those sliding lights, those fumbling airs, that breathe and bend over the bed itself, here you can neither touch nor destroy.
Virginia Woolf, To the Lighthouse
In nonfiction, the pronoun which may occasionally be substituted for that in the introduction of an essential clause that refers to an inanimate object or an animal without a name, especially if represented by a single non-modified noun or a noun phrase:
The strikes which have caused serious disruption to travelers are likely to continue.
A deed which must be done should be done quick.
Which-clauses are also often appropriate in nonfiction when they define indefinite or generic nominal heads, such as that, something, anything, etc.:
I cannot play anything which is not in me.
The Guardian - Music
That which must be done should be done quickly.
An operator is simply something which turns one vector into another.
In Argentina, it has meant the demise of banks which the public perceives as unsafe.
The Economist
In journalism, the style of writing is characterized by dense packaging of background information, often presented as a nonessential (supplemental) relative clause, that is, as an aside comment, even though the background details provided are technically new information:
The official, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue, said photographs from North Korea appeared to be authentic.
The Guardian
By presenting new or newsworthy information as given, reporters can quickly introduce a new topic and the related reference details in the same sentence, saving time and typographical space explicating things.
Reduced Relative Clauses: Nonfinite or Verbless
In English, the vital aspect of nonfinite structures (verbals) is that they are reduced forms of English finite constructions. As reduced or modified forms of verbs, verbals can replace other parts of speech in sentences. Reduced nonfinite forms are often used by fiction writers, reporters, and journalists. Verbals are a staple of the written language. Just as finite relative clauses, the reduced relative clauses function as postmodifiers of their noun heads, albeit freer in their nature.
Nonfinite structures can be ambiguous, meaning that they can share the characteristics of relative as well as adverbial clauses. However, the following two nonfinite constructions are clearly reduced forms of finite relative clauses:
Reduced from Subject Relative Clause
Subject-Postmodifying -ing Participle:
A shark weighing over 400 pounds washed up on the beach.
[= A shark that weighed over 400 pounds washed up on the beach.]
essential
The guy standing next to Fred is a famous poet.
[= The guy who is standing next to Fred is a famous poet.]
essential
The men, wearing anoraks and hats, made off in a stolen Volvo estate.
[= The men, who were wearing anoraks and hats, made off in a stolen Volvo estate.]
nonessential
Subject-Postmodifying Verbless Clause:
He's someone familiar with the details.
[= He's someone who is familiar with the details.]
essential
The boy nodded, pale and scared.
[= The boy, who looked pale and scared, nodded.]
nonessential
Subject-Postmodifying -ed Participle:
The bill passed by Congress was vetoed.
[= The bill that had been passed by Congress was vetoed.]
essential
The weapon used in the murder has now been found.
[= The weapon that was used in the murder has now been found.]
essential
My wife, not easily pleased, declared that the play was excellent.
[= My wife, who was not easily pleased, declared that the play was excellent.]
nonessential
The proposals—expected to be agreed upon by ministers—are less radical than many employers had feared.
[= The proposals, which are expected to be agreed upon by ministers, are less radical than many employers had feared.]
nonessential
Reduced from Object Relative Clause
Object-Postmodifying To-Infinitive Clause:
Have you brought a book to read?
[= Have you brought a book that you could/would want read?]
essential
Comments