Relative pronouns and relative clauses

The relative pronouns are:

Subject Object Possessive

Who who/whom whose

which which whose

that that -

We use relative pronouns to introduce relative clauses. Relative clauses tell us

more about people and things:
Lord Thompson, who is 76, has just retired.
This is the house which Jack built.
Marie Curie is the woman that discovered radium.
We use:

 who and whom for people

 which for things
 that for people or things.

1
Two kinds of relative clause
There are two kinds of relative clause:
1. We use relative clauses to make clear which person or thing we are talking
about:
Marie Curie is the woman who discovered radium.
This is the house which Jack built.
In this kind of relative clause, we can use that instead of who or which:
Marie Curie is the woman that discovered radium.
This is the house that Jack built.
We can leave out the pronoun if it is the object of the relative clause:
This is the house that Jack built. (that is the object of built)

Be careful!

The relative pronoun is the subject/object of the relative clause, so we do not

repeat the subject/object:
Marie Curie is the woman who she discovered radium.
(who is the subject of discovered, so we don't need she)
This is the house that Jack built it.
(that is the object of built, so we don't need it)

2. We also use relative clauses to give more information about a person, thing
or situation:
Lord Thompson, who is 76, has just retired.
We had fish and chips, which I always enjoy.
I met Rebecca in town yesterday, which was a nice surprise.
With this kind of relative clause, we use commas (,) to separate it from the rest
of the sentence.

2
 Be careful!

In this kind of relative clause, we cannot use that:

Lord Thompson, who is 76, has just retired.
(NOT Lord Thompson, that is 76, has just retired.)
and we cannot leave out the pronoun:
We had fish and chips, which I always enjoy.
(NOT We had fish and chips, I always enjoy.)

whose and whom

We use whose as the possessive form of who:
This is George, whose brother went to school with me.
We sometimes use whom as the object of a verb or preposition:
This is George, whom you met at our house last year.
(whom is the object of met)
This is George’s brother, with whom I went to school.
(whom is the object of with)
but nowadays we normally use who:
This is George, who you met at our house last year.
This is George’s brother, who I went to school with.

Relative pronouns with prepositions

When who(m) or which have a preposition, the preposition can come at the
beginning of the clause:
I had an uncle in Germany, from who(m) I inherited a bit of money.
We bought a chainsaw, with which we cut up all the wood.
or at the end of the clause:

3
I had an uncle in Germany, who(m) I inherited a bit of money from.
We bought a chainsaw, which we cut all the wood up with.
But when that has a preposition, the preposition always comes at the end:
I didn't know the uncle that I inherited the money from.
We can't find the chainsaw that we cut all the wood up with.

when and where

We can use when with times and where with places to make it
clear which time or place we are talking about:
England won the World Cup in 1966. It was the year when we got married.
I remember my twentieth birthday. It was the day when the tsunami happened.
Do you remember the place where we caught the train?
Stratford-upon-Avon is the town where Shakespeare was born.
We can leave out when:
England won the World Cup in 1966. It was the year we got married.
I remember my twentieth birthday. It was the day the tsunami happened.
We often use quantifiers and numbers with relative pronouns:

all of which/whom most of which/whom many of which/whom

lots of which/whom a few of which/whom none of which/whom

one of which/whom two of which/whom etc.

She has three brothers, two of whom are in the army.

I read three books last week, one of which I really enjoyed.
There were some good programmes on the radio, none of which I listened to.

4
Defining relative clauses
We use defining relative clauses to give essential information about someone or
something – information that we need in order to understand what or who is
being referred to. A defining relative clause usually comes immediately after the
noun it describes.
We usually use a relative pronoun (e.g. who, that, which, whose and whom) to
introduce a defining relative clause (In the examples, the relative clause is
in bold, and the person or thing being referred to is underlined.):
They’re the people who want to buy our house.
Here are some cells which have been affected.
They should give the money to somebody who they think needs the treatment
most.
[talking about an actress]
She’s now playing a woman whose son was killed in the First World War.
Spoken English:
In defining relative clauses we often use that instead of who, whom or which.
This is very common in informal speaking:
They’re the people that want to buy our house.
Here are some cells that have been affected.

Subject or object

The relative pronoun can define the subject or the object of the verb:
They’re the people who/that bought our house. (The people bought our
house. The people is the subject.)
They’re the people who/that she met at Jon’s party. (She met the people. The
people is the object.)
Here are some cells which/that show abnormality. (Some cells show
abnormality. Some cells is the subject.)
Here are some cells which/that the researcher has identified. (The researcher
has identified some cells. Some cells is the object.)

No relative pronoun

We often leave out the relative pronoun when it is the object of the verb:
5
They’re the people she met at Jon’s party.
Here are some cells the researcher has identified.

Punctuation

Warning:
In writing, we don’t use commas in defining relative clauses:
This is a man who takes his responsibilities seriously.
Not: This is a man, who takes his responsibilities seriously.

Nouns and pronouns in relative clauses

When the relative pronoun is the subject of the relative clause, we don’t use
another personal pronoun or noun in the relative clause because the subject
(underlined) is the same:
She’s the lady who lent me her phone. (who is the subject of the relative clause,
so we don’t need the personal pronoun she)
Not: She’s the lady who she lent me her phone.
There are now only two schools in the area that actually teach Latin. (that is
the subject of the relative clause, so we don’t need the personal pronoun they)
Not: There are now only two schools in the area that they actually teach Latin.
When the relative pronoun is the object of the relative clause, we don’t use
another personal pronoun or noun in the relative clause because the object
(underlined) is the same:
We had a lovely meal at the place which Phil recommended. (which is the
object of the relative clause, so we don’t need the personal pronoun it)
Not: We had a lovely meal at the place which Phil recommended it.

Non-defining relative clauses

We use non-defining relative clauses to give extra information about the person
or thing. It is not necessary information. We don’t need it to understand who or
what is being referred to.
We always use a relative pronoun (who, which, whose or whom) to introduce a
non-defining relative clause (In the examples, the relative clause is in bold, and
the person or thing being referred to is underlined.)

6
Clare, who I work with, is doing the London marathon this year.
Not: Clare, I work with, is doing the London marathon this year.
Doctors use the testing kit for regular screening for lung and stomach
cancers, which account for 70% of cancers treated in the western world.
Alice, who has worked in Brussels and London ever since leaving Edinburgh,
will be starting a teaching course in the autumn.
Warning:
We don’t use that to introduce a non-defining relative clause:
Allen, who scored three goals in the first game, was the only player to perform
well.
Not: Allen, that scored three goals in the first game, was the only player to
perform well.

Punctuation

In writing, we use commas around non-defining relative clauses:

Etheridge, who is English-born with Irish parents, replaces Neil
Francis, whose injury forced him to withdraw last week.
Spoken English:
In speaking, we often pause at the beginning and end of the clause:
Unlike American firms – which typically supply all three big American car
makers – Japanese ones traditionally work exclusively with one
maker. (formal)
And this woman – who I’d never met before – came up and spoke to
me. (informal)

Defining or non-defining relative clauses?

Sometimes defining and non-defining relative clauses can look very
similar but have different meanings.
Compare

7
non-defining defining

His brother, who works at the

supermarket, is a friend of His brother who works at the
mine. supermarket is a friend of mine.
He has only one brother, and He has more than one brother. The one I’m
that brother works at the talking about works at the supermarket.
supermarket.

It’s hoped that we will raise

It’s hoped that we will raise £10,000 for
£10,000 for local
local charities which help the homeless.
charities, which help the
homeless. The money is intended for local charities.
Some of these local charities help the
The money is intended for local
homeless. There are other local charities as
charities. All these local
well as these.
charities help the homeless.

Warning:
The information in a defining relative clause is essential, so we can’t
leave out the relative clause. The information in a non-defining relative
clause is extra information which isn’t essential, so we can leave out the
relative clause.
Compare

A defining relative clause

The soldier who had gold stripes on his which we can’t leave out;
uniform seemed to be the most important without this information we do
one. not know which soldier the
speaker is referring to.

The tour party was weakened when Gordon Non-defining relative clauses
Hamilton, who played in the World Cup which we can leave out:
team, withdrew yesterday because of a back
The tour party was weakened
injury, which kept him out of the Five
when Gordon Hamilton
Nations Championship.
withdrew yesterday because of

8
 a back injury.

Warning:
We can use that instead of who, whom or which in defining relative
clauses, but not in non-defining relative clauses:
I think anyone who speaks in public is nervous beforehand.
I think anyone that speaks in public is nervous beforehand.
Her car, which was very old, broke down after just five miles.
Not: Her car, that was very old, broke down after just five miles.

9
10
Why we need to change our approach to teaching
English
The undue emphasis given to learning grammar inhibits
students from gaining linguistic competence

February 10, 2024 02:33 pm | Updated 02:33 pm IST

In informal settings such as homes or any non-institutionalised contexts, grammar takes a backseat,
facilitating smoother and quicker language acquisition.

A revolutionary shift is required in the realm of English language teaching to

empower learners in acquiring linguistic competence. The current approaches,
methods, strategies, and techniques in practice have not yielded the desired
results. English remains an aspirational language, despite our country’s
centuries-long acquaintance with it.

The current predicament has given rise to a genuine inquiry into whether they
are linguistically incapable or if the approaches employed are flawed. While
both possibilities exist, the latter seems to be the prime culprit. The theories
and practices of the English language were predominately shaped by the
British, especially the monolinguals who did not have much grip over the
bi/tri/multilinguals’ styles of acquiring languages. They laid undue emphasis on
the peripherals of the language such as grammar and pronunciation and insisted
on achieving a ‘native-like fluency and accuracy’. Deliberately, the uncanny
emphasis placed on these aspects granted them their desired centrality of the
process.

Obstacles to learning

Let us examine how the grammar of English is an obstacle to learning the

language, grounded on the experiences of numerous teachers and learners, but
which remain unarticulated, as we are treated as non-native speakers.

Drawing upon our experiential knowledge of mother tongues, we could affirm

that we acquire them in ‘immersive’ contexts by watching, listening, imitating,
and producing. The initial stages involve articulating sounds, gradually

11
progressing to individual words, then expanding to chunks of words and
ultimately maturing to produce simple sentences. Notably, grammar hardly
figures in the scheme of learning. Polyglots vouch for this, as they constantly
keep their antenna alive to pick up expressions from all possible sources and
are least concerned about the grammatical correctness of their acquisition. A
parallel can be drawn from migrant labourers, who focus on the ‘survival
language’ in their place of residence and work. Even those who never stepped
into schools can absorb the necessary language, unaware of their
grammaticality.

In informal settings such as homes or any non-institutionalised contexts,

grammar takes a backseat, facilitating smoother and quicker language
acquisition. The insistence on grammar, particularly in institutionalised
settings, reveals a distortion in the cognitive process, be it the mother tongue or
other tongues. Recognising this, educational curriculums introduce the
grammar of the mother tongue at a later stage; even then, learners are averse to
its components.

In our pedagogy, contrary to real-life ecosystems, the introduction of the

language and grammar of English occur almost simultaneously, as if learners
could acquire the language through grammar. This ignores the truth that
grammar is about the language, not the language. As learners advance through
their educational journey, many may rattle off grammatical rules but struggle to
produce meaningful linguistic output. However, grammarians and theoreticians
characterise grammar as the ‘backbone’, deeming it more critical than the flesh
and blood of language and their overemphasis on ‘accuracy’ during the initial
phases hampers the learning process.

Another misplacement significance lies in attributing equal weightage to all

four skills — Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing (LSRW) —
disregarding the natural order of acquisition. Speaking and listening inherently
take precedence over the other two. Speaking is regarded as an intrinsic part of
our biological system, whereas writing labelled as ‘artificial’ — ‘an artefact’,

12
‘surrogate of speech’ and demeaning it as ‘written language, not language’ —
as billions thrive without mastering the skill. Therefore, prioritising speaking
over the other skills, particularly in the initial phases, is imperative.

An often overlooked, yet crucial, distinction lies in the differences between the
spoken and written forms: “Spoken language is not written language spoken
out; written language is not spoken language written down.” While written
language adheres strictly to grammatical rules, spoken language provides
leeway; a single word, a phrase, or an unfinished utterance can effectively
convey the intended message. The additional advantage of the nonverbal
elements such as gestures, postures, visual cues, and tonal variations can
amplify meanings and keep the listeners captivated. Further, the spoken form
could be imbued with emotions to sway the audience, but the written mode
consistently maintains a formal tone, follows a linear progression, and
‘distanced’ from readers.

Regrettably, the grammar of written language is imposed onto the spoken

mode, which acts as a stumbling block to gain speaking competence. There is a
tendency to relish the distortion of our mother tongue’s grammar by ‘others’
but there is a stringent ‘zero-level tolerance’ for English and the errors are
subject to mockery. Nevertheless, a liberating development is the acceptance of
non-traditional grammar usage on social media, where code switching, and
code mixing are liberally employed and embraced by all.

Reading helps

The most practical approach to gain grammatical sense is predominantly by

reading, and this unconscious cognitive process seamlessly embeds grammar
into long-term memory. In contrast, the conscious teaching of grammatical
items may enable learners to comprehend, store, and recall but incapacitate
them in application, serving little purpose. Leaning can occur consciously,
subconsciously, and unconsciously, and for grammar sub/unconscious learning
through reading may prove far more effective than conscious drilling.

13
Applied linguists emphatically state that the grammar of a language can be
learnt without knowing the language and, conversely, a language can be learnt
without knowing its grammar. For spoken communication grammar is not an
absolute necessity; hence, we must cease to insist on it for the effective
acquisition of English.

The writer is a retired Professor of English and National Secretary of English

Language Teaching Association of India (ELTAI).

14