200. Special Uses of Relative Clauses

.

Some relative clause uses tend not to be described in lower-level grammars

THE POTENTIAL OF RELATIVE CLAUSES

The word “special” in the above title indicates that the well-known basics of relative clauses are outside the focus of this post. I am interested not so much in how to use relative clauses as when. In investigating this topic, I have unearthed some quite unexpected and exotic uses that I hope readers will agree are worth highlighting.

In fact, this approach is not new within these pages. Similar posts, also with the word “special” in their title, are 161. Special Uses of “There” Sentences,  190. Special Uses of “it” and 235. Special Uses of “the”. Two other posts that feature a special relative pronoun use are 87. “Same As” versus “Same That” and 311. Exotic Grammar Structures 9, #2.

.

PRELIMINARY ESSENTIALS

To facilitate the discussion of special uses, a few essentials of relative clauses are worth highlighting. The word “clause” refers to a verb in a sentence along with any typical verb accompaniments that it might have, especially its “subject”. Some analysts would say that single-verb sentences are also clauses, but others would recognise clauses only when there are at least two verbs in separate parts of a sentence.

For a clause to be part of a longer sentence, there needs to be what I have elsewhere called a “joining device” – a special indicator that more than one verb is present – such as a conjunction, -ing ending or semi-colon (see 30. When to Write a Full Stop). The usual kind of joining device in relative clauses is a “relative pronoun”: a special kind of word with a pronoun function as well as a “joining” one. The main ones are who, whom, which and that. That is not to be confused with the same spelling used as a conjunction (see 153. Conjunction Uses of “that”).

There is also whose – often called a pronoun but actually an adjective. The reason why it is so easily grouped with true relative pronouns is not just its spelling resemblance: the clauses it introduces act in the same way as those with a relative pronoun, namely as an adjective-like addition to the meaning of an earlier noun. Consider this adaptation of a sentence from 28. Pronoun Errors:

(a) An alloy is a mixture that has metallic properties.

The underlined relative clause is like an adjective describing the preceding noun mixture – and it could, because it involves the verb has, easily be paraphrased with whose (+ noun): …whose properties are metallic.

These observations are the reason why I prefer to talk here about relative “clauses” rather than “pronouns”: it is a more inclusive concept covering not just pronouns with a “relative” function but also other kinds of word that act similarly.

There are, indeed, a number of other such words. Consider when in clauses like when the illness has gone. If the preceding word indicates asking, explaining or knowing, such as investigate or the question, then when is introducing a noun-like indirect question (see 57. Indirect Questions in Formal Writing); but if the preceding word is a noun without any of these meanings, for example moment, then when is introducing an adjectival relative clause. Why and where have a similar duality (see 285. Complexities of Question Words, #3).

.

SPECIAL USES

1. Helping to Show Emphasis

Many readers will know that relative clauses can follow a starting it is + noun to highlight the noun as the most important information in a sentence:

(b) It is mainly DEMAND that determines prices.

For details of this use, see 190. Special Uses of “it”, #3.

.

2. Relating to an Entire Statement

To say that relative clauses always add to the meaning of a preceding noun is slightly inaccurate because they can also describe a whole statement instead (causing occasional problems for computers checking grammar – see 69. How Computers Get Grammar Wrong 2):

(c) Octavian defeated his enemies in battle, which enabled him to become Roman Emperor.

Which here refers to what Octavian did, not the battle.

In this usage, which is always needed instead of who or that, it always follows a comma, and it has a singular verb after it. Who is ruled out because statements are never human; that is not possible because the relative clause is “non-defining” – a factor that also explains the need for the comma. A possible addition before which is something, or (better) a noun describing the event in question, e.g. an achievement in (c) (see 191. Exotic Grammar Structures 3, #5).

A common advantage of this sort of which is that it allows a new statement to be placed in a sentence without using and – especially valuable in writing types where and would otherwise be very frequent, such as instructions, process descriptions and histories. Using which is an alternative to putting the verb after it into the -ing participle form: enabling above (see 101. Add-on Participles, example #g).

It was once possible to have a full stop instead of a comma before this kind of which, but today after a full stop English prefers this (see the end of 28. Pronoun Errors). 

.

3. As an Indirect Statement

A relative clause can become an indirect statement like this:

(d) Homer, who tradition says wrote The Iliad, probably did not exist.

As with most indirect statements, the one underlined here accompanies a verb of saying or thinking (says – see 150. Verb Choices with Indirect Speech), whose subject names the originator of the statement (tradition). What is unusual is that the indirect statement starts with a relative pronoun (in this case who), the reason being that the main part of the sentence (Homer…probably did not exist) is the writer’s own direct assertion.

The structure can give problems to speakers of other languages. Firstly, its three verbs have only one joining device (who) instead of the expected two. Who links wrote and did not exist; but nothing links them to says. This strange situation is normal in sentences like (d). There is no possibility of adding a word like that (*says that…). Doing so is a fairly common error.

Secondly, it can be tempting to believe whom may replace who, on the grounds that it is the object of the speech verb (says above). Again, English follows a different logic, relating who instead to the other verb (wrote above). In some sentences it might be the object of this other verb, so that whom would be correct as well, but in (d) it is the subject of wrote, ruling out the possibility of whom. To avoid error, there may be benefit in viewing the speech verb and its subject (tradition says) as a kind of separate statement (like those in 183. Statements between Commas), despite the absence of surrounding commas.

Note, though, that who does become the object of the speech verb, enabling whom to replace it, if there is no verb in the indirect statement. This would be the case, for example, if (d) ended …whom tradition links with The Odyssey….

.

4. Inside the Word “What”

What is another word that can make relative clauses, but it is unusual in that its meaning includes not just that of a relative pronoun but also that of the noun that would normally go before one. It means something like “the thing which”:

(e) What causes the most stress must be avoided.

(f) What causes the most stress is noise.

Here, there are two slightly different uses of what. In (e) the noun equating to the  “thing” meaning inside what is not mentioned – it is unimportant, unknown or expected to be already familiar, perhaps through having been mentioned earlier. In (f), by contrast, the noun referred to by what (noise) is mentioned at the end after the verb BE (is…). This highlights it as the main information in the sentence. Sometimes, uncertainty can arise about which of these alternative uses what has (see 257. Structures with a Double Meaning 4, #3).

A fairly common error with what is adding all before it: all has to combine with that instead (see 231. Confusions of Similar Structures 3, #1).

Sometimes sentences like (e) and (f) have to be made with a noun + relative clause instead of what. For example, what cannot refer to people. To refer to a single human being, it is normal to say the person who/that (not just who); to highlight a human group, say those who/that or the -s who/that (see 211. General Words for People). Other kinds of idea that what cannot express include times, reasons and quantities (see 145. Highlighting with “What” Sentences).

.

5. Replacing “so” + Adjective

One use of so with an adjective is next to a that statement of result:

(g) People were SO WEALTHY that they could own a car.

Various alternatives are possible here. Instead of so + ADJECTIVE, one could use such + NOUN: had such wealth… (see 32. Expressing Consequences). One could also place so and its adjective at the start, reversing the order of the subject and verb (So wealthy were people…). Or one could put the result first without that (see 88. Exotic Grammar Structures 1).

A very rare alternative is the + NOUN + RELATIVE CLAUSE instead of so + ADJECTIVE:

(h) The (level of) wealth (that) they had, people could own a car.

(i) Language learning is slow, the (amount of) vocabulary which is needed. (= … so much vocabulary is needed)

As these show, the nouns replacing so (wealth, vocabulary) are the same as or like the words that would normally follow it, and they are directly followed by a relative pronoun (that, which) that can sometimes be left unmentioned but still understood. In addition, the idea of quantity implied by so can be made explicit with a quantity noun like level or amount. Other examples of quantity nouns are distance, length, number and quantity (see after sentence [a] in 163. Ways of Naming Properties). However such nouns are not always possible:

(j) The team won everything, the star players (that) they had (= …such star players they had).

.

6. In Definitions

Definitions have various possible formats (see 286. Repeating in Different Words, #1), but a classic one includes a relative clause:

(k) An ammeter is an instrument that measures electric current.

Here, the relative that links with a preceding noun (instrument) that is naming the wider category of the defined idea (ammeter). Within this category, the words after that describe only the defined idea – not all instruments – a message clear from the absent comma before that (see 34. Relative Pronouns & Commas).

Sentences like (k) are not automatically definitions: the starting noun must represent the only member of the category describable by the that part. Consider this:

(l) Gold is a metal that does not tarnish.

No definition exists here because the underlined words describe some other metals besides gold.

Relative clauses without a preceding comma are sometimes called “defining”, but in definitions they “define” only the general class name, not the main definition subject.