English relative words explained

The English relative words are words in English used to mark a clause, noun phrase or preposition phrase as relative. The central relative words in English include who, whom, whose, which, why, and while, as shown in the following examples, each of which has the relative clause in bold:

Most also belong to the set of English interrogative words but function differently as relative words.

The subordinator that is widely regarded as a relative word, though one with different properties from the others.

Semantics

Semantically speaking, relative words typically refer to some antecedent in the containing phrase or clause. For example, who within the teacher of mine who likes apples does not question the identity of a person, but rather refers to "the teacher of mine", which in turn denotes some particular person.

Individual words

All of the words may have singular or plural antecedents. For example, the customer who was cheated/the customers who were cheated.

That differs from the other relative words in that, like other subordinators, it lacks semantic content, referring or otherwise.

Lexical categories and syntactic functions

Each relative word also has a syntactic function in a phrase or clause. For example, in the person who arrived, who functions as the subject of the relative clause. Different words have different functions depending on their lexical category and form. For example, while a plain pronoun like who may typically function as a subject or object, its genitive form functions only as a determiner (e.g., the person [''<strong>whose keys</strong>''] I found).

Syntax

See main article: English relative clauses. A relative word occurs within a relative phrase, which appears in clause-initial position. A simple relative phrase consists of a relative word by itself (where within the restaurant where we dined; who within the man who you introduced me to). A complex relative phrase also has other material; it is exemplified by to whom within the man to whom you introduced me, from under which within the rock from under which it had crawled, and whose car within the man whose car you borrowed.

Individual words in relative clauses

Fused relatives

A fused construction is one in which a word or phrase fuses has two functions at once. A simple type of fused construction (not a relative) is exemplified by any within I didn't notice any: Although a noun phrase (such as any food) is normally headed by a noun, and although any is normally (as in any food) a dependent, within I didn't notice any it heads a noun phrase and thus functions as a fused dependent-head.

Similarly, a fused relative is a noun phrase or preposition phrase (not a clause, but containing one) that is headed by a relative phrase (most commonly by a simple relative phrase, and thus by a relative word alone), and that lacks an antecedent. For example, the fused relative construction who you want within Believe who you want contains the relative phrase who. This has functions within both the NP that contains the relative clause and within the relative clause itself: functions that are fused.

The fused relative is also called a free relative, free relative clause, nominal relative clause, and independent relative clause.[18]

Fused relatives with relative words without -ever

A fused relative may be headed by a non-compound word, such as what, by a where+preposition compound, or by a compound with -ever. The three kinds are considered in turn.

Individual non-compound words in fused relatives

Individual where+preposition words in fused relatives

Fused relatives with -ever relative words

Individual -ever words in fused relatives

-Soever and -so relative words

As relative words, forms ending -soever and -so are old-fashioned variants of the -ever forms. There are whoso(ever), whomso(ever), whichsoever, whensoever and whatso(ever); and the archaisms whencesoever and whithersoever are still occasionally found.

Etymology

Ultimately, the English interrogative words (those beginning with wh in addition to the word how), derive from the Proto-Indo-European root kwo- or kwi,[22] the former of which was reflected in Proto-Germanic as χwa- or khwa-, due to Grimm's law.[23]

These underwent further sound changes and spelling changes, notably wh-cluster reductions, resulting in the initial sound being either pronounced as //w// (in most dialects) or pronounced as //h// (how, who) and the initial spelling being either (wh) or (h) (how). This was the result of two sound changes – pronounced as //hw// > pronounced as //h// before pronounced as //uː// (how, who) and pronounced as //hw// > pronounced as //w// otherwise – and the spelling change from (hw) to (wh) in Middle English. The unusual pronunciation versus spelling of who is because the vowel was formerly pronounced as //aː//, and thus it did not undergo the sound change in Old English, but in Middle English (following spelling change) the vowel changed to pronounced as //uː// and it followed the same sound change as how before it, but with the Middle English spelling unchanged.

In how (Old English , from Proto-Germanic χwō), the w merged into the lave of the word, as it did in Old Frisian hū, hō (Dutch hoe "how"), but it can still be seen in Old Saxon hwō, Old High German hwuo (German wie "how"). In English, the gradual change of voiceless stops into voiceless fricatives (phase 1 of Grimm's law) during the development of Germanic languages is responsible for "wh-" of interrogatives. Although some varieties of American English and various Scottish dialects still preserve the original sound (i.e. pronounced as /[ʍ]/ rather than pronounced as /[w]/), most have only the pronounced as /[w]/.

The words who, whom, whose, what and why, can all be considered to come from a single Old English word hwā, reflecting its masculine and feminine nominative (hwā), dative (hwām), genitive (hwæs), neuter nominative and accusative (hwæt), and instrumental (masculine and neuter singular) (hwȳ, later hwī) respectively.[24] Other interrogative words, such as which, how, where, whence, or whither,[25] derive either from compounds (which coming from a compound of hwā [what, who] and līc [like]),[26] or other words from the same root (how deriving from ).

Phonology

Pronunciation of initial digraphs

The pronunciation of English relative words starting with the ⟨wh⟩ digraph involves a phonetic element historically pronounced as pronounced as //hw// and now variously realized as pronounced as //w// or /ʍ/.[27] Speakers with the whine-wine merger generally use pronounced as //w//, resulting in words like which, and why being pronounced with an initial pronounced as //w// sound, homophonous with witch, and wye. The pronounced as //hw// pronunciation is preserved in conservative speech in the Southern United States,[28] in certain Scottish English varieties,[29] and elsewhere. However, the merged pronounced as //w// pronunciation has been identified as having a continuous lineage in everyday spoken Southern English from Old English to the present. Three factors have been highlighted in enabling this phonetic evolution: spelling, word frequency, and possibly a shift in the sociolinguistic status of the northern pronunciation in some circles in the south during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

The initial ⟨th⟩ in that represents a voiced dental fricative pronounced as //ð//, phonologically distinguishing it from other relative words.

Vowel sounds

Outside of fused relatives, relative words have unstressed pronunciation. The vowel sounds in English relative words vary, with some notable features:

  1. Diphthongs and monophthongs: Words like who and whose contain a monophthong pronounced as //uː//, while others like why incorporate a diphthong pronounced as //aɪ//.
  2. Schwa and reduction: The vowels in some relative words like which can reduce to a schwa, pronounced as //ə//.[30] As a relative word, the subordinator that has only the unstressed pronunciation pronounced as //ðət//.

Intonational phrasing

Supplementary relative clauses regularly form a separate prosodic unit, with a pause before the relative phrase, while integrated relatives do not.

Relative vs interrogative and other words

There is significant overlap between the English relative words and the English interrogative words, but the relative words that and while are not interrogative words, the interrogative words whether and if are not relative words, and, in Standard English, what and how are mostly excluded from the relative words. Most or all of the interrogative words that are now more or less archaic are also relative words.

The denotation of whose as an interrogative word is limited to persons, but the relative whose may denote non-persons, as in a book whose cover is missing.

Fused relatives are easily confused with open interrogatives, and even a careful analysis may conclude that, if taken out of context, a particular sentence can have either of two interpretations. An example in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language illustrating this ambiguity is What she wrote is completely unclear. If we know what she wrote and are saying that it is hard to understand, then what she wrote is a fused relative; if on the other hand we are saying that the extent of her authorship is unknown, then what she wrote is an open interrogative content clause.

The preposition while also has other, relative-irrelevant uses: While she showered, I slept (time), While the maths exam was tough, the English exam was easy (contrast), While you're free to complain, doing so won't get you anywhere (concession).

As a relative word, the subordinator that has only the unstressed pronunciation pronounced as //ðət//. It is also used more generally with subordinate clauses (I know that he's lying) and is usually unstressed, but in some contexts necessarily stressed pronounced as //ˈðæt// (That he's lying is obvious). The stressed that that has the plural form those (I'll take that) is a determiner.

The use in fused relatives of the -ever form should not be confused with its other, non-relative uses:

Notes and References

  1. Book: Huddleston . Rodney . The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language . Pullum . Geoffrey K. . Rodney Huddleston . Geoffrey K. Pullum . Cambridge University Press . 2002 . Cambridge. 978-0-521-43146-0.
  2. News: Lloyds Bank sends £15 message to any customer with a credit card . Birmingham Live . James . Rodger . 2 October 2023 . 20 November 2023.
  3. Web site: Queen's Gambit Growth Capital . MarketWatch . United States Securities and Exchange Commission . 20 November 2023.
  4. Web site: DWP announces 12 Universal Credit changes in tough new Back to Work Plan – see how you'll be affected . Birmingham Live . David . Bentley . 17 November 2023 . 20 November 2023.
  5. A requiem for the 'American Idol' dream: 20 years of power ballads and pitchy despair . . Rob . Sheffield . 10 June 2022 . 20 November 2023.
  6. Web site: Enhancing hydrogen fuel cell durability via tungsten oxide coating . Pohang University of Science and Technology . TechXplore . 16 November 2023 . 20 November 2023.
  7. News: Assembly election 2022: A window of hope for local parties in J&K . B. L. . Saraf . . 17 December 2022 . 20 November 2023.
  8. News: My friend said a bank holiday in honour of some holy biddy who never existed was a farce . Michael . Harding . . 1 February 2023 . 20 November 2023.
  9. News: In contempt, Court to deal with compliance of order: HC . . 13 August 2017 . 20 November 2023.
  10. Web site: Brydon Carse makes his mark on debut as England power to seven-wicket victory . ESPN Cricinfo . Andrew . Miller . 30 August 2023 . 20 November 2023.
  11. News: Edgar S. Cahn, legal reformer in defense of the poor, dies . . subscription . 27 January 2022.
  12. Book: Aarts, Bas . Oxford Modern English Grammar . Oxford . Oxford University Press . 2011 . 978-0-19-953319-0.
  13. Book: Rodney . Huddleston . Geoffrey K. . Pullum . Brett . Reynolds . Rodney Huddleston . Geoffrey K. Pullum . A Student's Introduction to English Grammar . 2nd . Cambridge . Cambridge University Press . 2022 . 978-1-009-08574-8.
  14. Web site: Geoffrey K. . Pullum . Geoffrey K. Pullum . An HR bureaucrat, whom cannot write . . 21 April 2010 . 16 November 2023.
  15. Hankamer . Jorge . Jorge Hankamer . Postal . Paul . Paul Postal . 1973 . Whose gorilla . . 4 . 2 . 261–271.
  16. 14 March 2024. whose (pronoun & adjective, III.4). 2024. Online.
  17. Book: McCawley, James D. . James D. McCawley

    . James D. McCawley . The Syntactic Phenomena of English . Chicago . University of Chicago Press . 1988 . 0-226-55624-7 . 2.

  18. Book: Bas . Aarts . Sylvia . Chalker . Edmund . Weiner . Edmund Weiner . Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar . Oxford . Oxford University Press . 2nd . 2014 . 978-0-19-965823-7.
  19. Encyclopedia: English language . Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics . . 18 November 2023 . Pullum . Geoffrey K. . 20 June 2020 . 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.265 . 978-0-19-938465-5 . Geoffrey K. Pullum.
  20. News: Try this in a small town. And in every town. . . subscription . Yvonne . Abraham . 27 September 2023.
  21. Book: Wittgenstein, Ludwig . Ludwig Wittgenstein . . C. K. . Ogden . Charles Kay Ogden . London . Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner . 1922.
  22. Book: . . 1992 . Hogg . Richard M. . Richard Milne Hogg . I . Cambridge . 35.
  23. Wilbur . Terence H. . 1963 . The Germanic interrogatives of the how type . . 19 . 3 . 328–334 . 10.1080/00437956.1963.11659802. free .
  24. Web site: Who . subscription . 18 November 2023 . Oxford English Dictionary . Oxford University Press.
  25. Web site: Whither . subscription . 18 November 2023 . Oxford English Dictionary . Oxford University Press.
  26. Web site: Which . subscription . 18 November 2023 . Oxford English Dictionary . Oxford University Press.
  27. Book: Minkova, Donka . Studies in the history of the English language II: Unfolding conversations . . 2004 . 3-11-018097-9 . Curzan . Anne . Anne Curzan . Berlin . Philology, linguistics, and the history of [hw]~[w] . Emmons . Kimberly.
  28. Web site: Map 8: The maintenance of the /hw/~/w/ contrast . 2023-11-18 . Telsur Project . Linguistics Laboratory, University of Pennsylvania.
  29. Li . Zeyu . Gut . Ulrike . 2023-05-01 . The distribution of /w/ and /ʍ/ in Scottish Standard English . De Gruyter . Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory . en . 19 . 2 . 271–287 . 10.1515/cllt-2021-0052 . 1613-7035. free .
  30. Book: Cruttenden . Alan . Gimson's Pronunciation of English . London . Routledge . 2014 . 8th.