English relative clauses

This article focuses mainly on usage of English relative clauses. For theoretical background on the subject, see the main article on relative clauses.
The relative pronouns in English include who, whom, whose, which, whomever, whatever, and that. (Note: Not all modern syntacticians agree that that is a relative pronoun.) What is a compound relative, including both the antecedent and the relative, and is equivalent to that which; for example, "I did what he desired" means the same as, "I did that which he desired."
In some contexts, there may be a choice between two or more of these forms. The choice of relative pronoun may carry additional meaning or draw a number of distinctions.
Variables in the basic relative clause
Human or non-human
In their choice of relative pronoun, English-speakers will often distinguish between an antecedent that is a human—who(m)—and an antecedent which is a non-human—which. In this regard, English is unique among the Germanic languages as far as bound relatives are concerned. However, as regards free relatives, German uses a strikingly similar strategy distinguishing between 'was'/'was(auch)immer' (cf. English 'what'/'what(so)ever') and wer(auch)immer (cf. English who(so)ever; this distinction may be due to French influence, and is clearly related to the distinction between the interrogative words who(m) and which and that between the (s)he pronouns and it(s).
However, this distinction applies only to the which and who. The alternative that is found with both human and non-human antecedents. While some writers recommend reserving that for nonhuman antecedents, this does not reflect majority use. Examples can be found in Shakespeare (the man that hath no music in himself[1]), Mark Twain (The Man that Corrupted Hadleyburg), and Ira Gershwin (The Man that Got Away).
Although whose, as the possessive form of who, is often reserved for human antecedents, it is commonly found also with nonhuman ones.
Grammatical case
In the Germanic languages, the case of a relative pronoun is generally marked in its form. In English, this survives only in who, which has a possessive case form whose and an objective case form whom. But the form whom is in decline and is now often restricted to formal use.
Since which and that have no possessive forms, whose is now also used for the possessive form of these, or periphrasis is sometimes employed:
There is an old house in our street, whose roof Jack fixed.
There is an old house in our street, the roof of which Jack fixed.
Restrictive or non-restrictive
Restrictiveness is more clearly marked in English than in most languages[citation needed]: prosody (in speaking) and punctuation (in writing) serve this purpose. An English non-restrictive relative clause is preceded by a pause in speech or a comma in writing, whereas a restrictive clause normally is not. Compare the following sentences, which have two quite different meanings, and correspondingly two clearly distinguished intonation patterns, 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 example, with commas, and with three short intonation curves, contains a non-restrictive relative clause. It refers to a specific builder, and assumes we know which builder is intended. It tells us firstly about his houses, then about his profits. The second example uses a restrictive relative clause. Without the commas, and with a single intonation curve, the sentence states that any builder who builds such houses will make profits.
A simple test is to remove the relative clause. If the underlying meaning of the sentence changes, then it is a restrictive clause. If the clause turns out to have been a supplement to the basic meaning of the sentence, then that means the clause was a non-restrictive clause.
A distinction is also sometimes drawn between that (restrictive) and who/which (non-restrictive); see "That or which" below.
Restrictive relative clauses are also called defining relative clauses, or identifying relative clauses. Similarly, non-restrictive relative clauses are called non-defining or non-identifying relative clauses. For more information see restrictive clause and the relevant subsection of relative clause.
That or which
The distinction between the relative pronouns that and which to introduce relative clauses with non-human antecedents, and that vs. who for human antecedents, is a frequent point of dispute.
For clarity, we can look at a slightly modified version of the example above:
(1) The building company, which erects very fine houses, will make a large profit. (non-restrictive)
(2) The building company that|which erects very fine houses will make a large profit. (restrictive)
Of the two, only which is at all common in non-restrictive clauses.[2] The dispute mainly concerns restrictive clauses: in informal American speech and in formal and informal British English that or which are both commonly (and apparently arbitrarily[citation needed]) used, but in formal American English, references generally specify only that,[3] or reduction to a zero relative pronoun (see below). This rule was championed in 1926 by H.W. Fowler, who observed, "Some there are 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."[4] Some academics, such as Stanford linguist Arnold Zwicky,[5] claim it is "a silly idea," but in the U.S., the Chicago Manual of Style and other mainstream references insist on it, and most professional writers adhere to it.
The style guide Words into Type offers the rule of thumb that "when a comma can be inserted, the word is which."[6] A simple test is to consider whether the clause is essential to the meaning of the sentence and whether removing it significantly changes the meaning of the sentence; if so, use that. For example:
(1) The pitch that changed the outcome of the game came in the eighth inning.
(2) The fateful pitch, which came on a 2-1 pitch, struck the batter.
Zero relative pronoun
Further information: Reduced relative clause
English, unlike other West Germanic languages, has a zero relative pronoun. It is an alternative to that in a restrictive relative clause:
Jack built the house that I was born in.
Jack built the house Ø I was born in.
Relative clauses headed by zeros are frequently called contact clauses in TEFL contexts. They are also often referred to as "zero clauses".
The zero relative pronoun cannot be the subject of an active verb in the relative clause. Thus one must say:
Jack built the house that sits on the hill.
and never
*Jack built the house Ø sits on the hill.
However, the zero relative pronoun can be the subject of a passive verb in the relative clause. In this case, the auxiliary verb (e.g., "was") must also be removed from the relative clause:[7]
Jack built the house that was sold yesterday.
Jack built the house Ø sold yesterday.
This rule applies regardless of whether the antecedent of the zero relative is an object or a subject in the main clause:
The house that was built in 1970 is Nirmala's favorite.
The house Ø built in 1970 is Nirmala's favorite.
However, when the antecedent is the subject of the main clause, a garden path sentence such as the following may result:
The horse raced past the barn fell.
which is derived from
The horse that was raced past the barn fell.
Use with preposition
In formal writing, a preposition in a relative clause often appears together with the relative pronoun. In this case the pronoun is likely to be either whom or which; never that, and since this is now formal usage, it would be unusual to use who.
Jack is the boy with whom Jenny fell in love.
Jack built the house in which I grew up.
Like most Germanic languages, Old English required this syntax. However, in modern English it is rather more common to place the preposition where it would be if the clause were an independent clause. Though John Dryden raised in 1672 the issue that this preposition-stranding is not considered correct[citation needed], it was already in widespread use by that time, and now has wide usage among English speakers, especially in colloquial situations. Therefore any of the following might be heard in ordinary speech:
Jack is the boy whom Jenny fell in love with.
Jack is the boy who Jenny fell in love with.
Jack is the boy that Jenny fell in love with.
Jack is the boy Jenny fell in love with.
Summary
The most common distribution of the forms is therefore as follows (though variations may be heard).
Restrictive Nonrestrictive
Human Nonhuman Human Nonhuman
Subject who, that which, that who which
Object who, whom, that, Ø which, that, Ø who, whom which
After preposition whom which whom which
Possessive whose, of whom whose, of which whose, of whom whose, of which
Special types and variants
Nominal relative clauses
English allows what is called a fused or nominal relative clause — a relative clause that does not modify an external noun phrase, and instead has a nominal function fused into it. For example:
What he did is clearly impossible, but I saw him do it.
Here, what he did has the sense of that which he did, i.e. the thing that he did, and functions as the subject of the verb is. Nominal relative clauses are inherently restrictive.
English has a number of fused relative pronouns, such as what, whatever, and whoever, but all can introduce other kinds of clauses as well; what can also introduce interrogative content clauses ("I do not know what he did"), for example, and both whatever and whoever can
See also
• English grammar
References
1. ^ The Merchant of Venice
2. ^ Pullum, Geoffrey K. Language Log: An ivory-billed relative clause, Language Log. 1 December 2005.
3. ^ New Hart's Rules (Oxford University Press: 2005), p.68.
4. ^ Fowler, H.W. (1965) [1926]. Sir Ernest Gowers. ed. Fowler's Modern English Usage (second ed.). Oxford University Press.
5. ^ Zwicky, Arnold (2005-05-03). "Don't do this at home, kiddies!". http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002124.html. Retrieved 2008-12-06. "Most linguists—especially sociolinguists—think this a really silly idea, but some people, like Safire, seem to have never met a rule they didn't like, especially if the rule would bring order into apparent chaos."
6. ^ Skillin, Marjorie E. (1974). Words into Type (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-964262-5
7. ^ Carrol, David W (2008). Psychology of Language (5 ed.). Belmont: Thomson & Wadsworth. p. 136.

sumber: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_relative_clauses