RELATIVE CLAUSES MMLLDC 97 RELATIVE CLAUSES.

MORPHOLOGY OF RELATIVE
PRONOUNS PEOPLE | THINGS SUBJECT | WHO/THAT | WHICH/THAT OBJECT |
WHOM/WHO/THAT | WHICH/THAT NOUN COMPLEMENT | WHOSE | OF WHICH/WHOSE

DEFINING RELATIVE CLAUSES. A conductor is a person who collects fares on bus or tram.
A doctor is a person who has been trained in medical science. A liar is a person who
habitually tells lies. If we omit the words in italics, we learn only that a conductor is a
person, a doctor is a person, and a liar is a person. We would clearly regard such
explanations as unsatisfactory, even though as sentences they are grammatically
complete. The persons are defined, or distinguished from each other by the relative
clauses in italics: the relative clauses are defining. The definition of conductor is no longer
simply a person, but a person who collects on a bus or tram. The relative clause is an
essential of the whole definition, and cannot be omitted if the sentence as a whole is to
make useful sense. Similarly, it would be impossible to answer the following question
without the defining relative clause in italics: What do we call a person who habitually tells
lies? The answer is of course: A person who habitually tells lies is called a liar. Again the
answer would be incomplete without the defining relative clause in italics. The subject of
the sentence is no longer simply "a person", but "a person who habitually tells lies". All
these examples show that de defining relative clauses provide an indispensable definition
of the word "person" (called the antecedent -the word to which the relative clause relates).
They are not separated from the antecedent by commas in writing, nor by a pause in
speech. This is a basic feature of all defining relative clauses. The relative pronoun that is
used only in defining clauses, and can refer to persons or things. Who for persons and
which for things may be used instead: I dislike women THAT chatter incessantly. I dislike
women WHO chatter incessantly. Old age is a problem WHICH should concern us all. Old
age is a problem THAT should concern us all. All the relative clauses here are defining:
there are no commas between the antecedents (and no pauses in speech). Students will
find it instructive to note examples of usage in modern written English, in order to see what
pattern of choice emerges in such clauses (i.e. that or who, that or which). With regard to
the choice of THAT or WHO, both are equally appropriate if the antecedent is a vague or
generalized noun or pronoun: He's the sort of man that/who will do anything to help
people in trouble. I need someone that/who can do the work quickly. If, however, the
antecedent is more definite or particularized, WHO is far more likely choice: The aunt who
came to see us last week is my father's sister. With antecedents denoting things, the
choice of THAT or WHICH seems more a matter of individual taste; but there are a few
cases where THAT is preferred to WHICH: a. When the antecedent is an indefinite
pronoun: The Government has promised to do ALL that lies in its power to alleviate the
hardships of those made homeless by the floods. b. When the antecedent is qualified by a
superlative: This is the FUNNIEST film that has ever come from Ealing Studios. c. When the
antecedent is qualified by an ordinal number: The FIRST statement that was issued by the
press attaché at the palace gave very few details.

d. When the antecedent is the complement of "to be": It's A BOOK that will be very
popular. The problem of choosing the appropriate relative pronoun in defining relative
clauses very often does not arise: The library didn't have the book (that or which) I wanted.
This sentence consists of two clauses:

1. The library didn't have the book (main clause)

 2. (that or which) I wanted (relative clause) The relative clause tells us which book the
library didn't have; it defines the antecedent book; it is a defining relative clause.
We may analyze the relative clause thus: that or which (object) I (subject) wanted
(verb) It is a distinctive characteristic of defining relative clauses that the relative
pronoun may be omitted, without any change of meaning in the sentence as a
whole, when it is not the SUBJECT of the relative clause. It not only may be
omitted, it very often is, particularly in spoken English: The library didn't have the
book I wanted. The same is true of whom in a defining relative clause -it is very
often omitted: Was the man you spoke to just now a friend of yours? Such clauses
are called "contact clauses", and are very common in both speech and writing, as
students will soon realize if they examine the constructions they themselves use.

NON-DEFINING RELATIVE CLAUSES The Victoria Line, which was opened in 1969, was
London's first complete new tube for 60 years. If we omit the relative clause, we are left
with the statement "The Victoria Line was London's first complete new line tube for 60
years". The relative clause gives additional information about the antecedent, but does not
define it: the "Line" in question is already sufficiently defined by "Victoria". The relative
clause is in this case called non-defining (or parenthetical), and is enclosed by commas.
Whether we include the clause or not, the meaning of the main clause remains exactly the
same. In fact, the main clause and relative clause could be presented as two separated
statements: The Victoria Line was London's first complete new tube for 60 years. It was
opened in March 1969. The relative clause could even be represented by an independent
clause in parenthesis. In this case, it is clearly seen as incidental information, mentioned
"by the way": The Victoria Line (it was opened in March 1969) was London's first complete
new tube for 60 years. The omission or insertion of commas may represent a difference in
meaning between two otherwise identical sentences: a. He has a sister who works at the
United Nations headquarters in Geneva. b. He has a sister, who works at the United
Nations headquarters in Geneva. (non-defining) The absence of comma after sister in a
implies that "he" has more than one sister; that one of them in particular is being referred
to -the one who works in Geneva. The presence of a comma in b implies that "he" has only
one sister (it is therefore, impossible to define which one), and the relative clause simply
gives more information about her. A further point of contrast between defining and non-
defining clauses is that the relative pronoun cannot be omitted in non-defining relative
clauses, even if it is not the subject of its clause.

WHOSE Whose is the only possessive form of relative pronoun in English, and is used to
refer to both persons and things. It is nearly always preferred to the prepositional
construction of whom and is also often preferred to of which: a. The man whose coat had
been stolen immediately reported the theft. (Defining) b. The damaged ship, whose crew
has now been taken off, was listing dangerously when last seen. (Non-defining)