Relative clauses — prepositions and reduced forms

At C1 the relative-clause system reaches its full elaboration. Three areas separate fluent C1 from elegant C1:

1. Prepositions in relative clauses — the woman to whom I spoke vs the woman I spoke to — the choice between piping the preposition forward (formal) or leaving it stranded at the end (everyday).
2. Whose vs of which — possessive relativization for animate and inanimate antecedents.
3. Reduced relative clauses — dropping who/which + be for tighter prose: the man standing by the door (= who is standing).

Plus what as a free relative pronoun (= the thing(s) that): What I love about her is her honesty.

This is the texture of polished written English. Master it and your prose tightens up; ignore it and you sound conversational-fluent but not literary-fluent.

Prepositions in relative clauses — pipe vs strand

When the relative pronoun is the object of a preposition inside the clause, English offers two structural options.

Pipe — preposition moves with the pronoun (formal)

[preposition + whom/which] + subject + verb

• *the woman to whom I spoke
• *the report on which the decision rested
• *the school at which she teaches
• *the colleagues with whom I work
• *the principle by which we live

Strand — preposition stays at the end (everyday)

[whom/which/that/Ø] + subject + verb + preposition

• *the woman (that) I spoke to
• *the report (that) the decision rested on
• *the school (that) she teaches at
• *the colleagues (that) I work with
• *the principle (that) we live by

Both are grammatical. The choice signals register.

Register comparison

In most everyday AmE, stranding is the default. The guy I work with is normal; the guy with whom I work sounds stilted unless you’re writing a formal document.

When you MUST strand or pipe

• In defining clauses with that or zero pronoun, you must strand: the guy that I work with (NOT the guy with that I work). That cannot be preceded by a preposition.
• With whom (formal), pipe is much more common: the man to whom I spoke (formal). The man whom I spoke to is grammatical but unusual.
• In phrasal verbs, you almost always strand because the preposition is part of the verb: the situation he had to deal with (NOT with which he had to deal).
• Idiomatic prepositional verbs: the project I’m working on, the goal we’re aiming at — stranding only.

Concrete examples

Formal/written: *The novelist about whom the documentary was made died last year. Everyday: *The novelist (that) the documentary was made about died last year.

Formal/written: *This is the methodology on which the study is based. Everyday: *This is the methodology (that) the study is based on.

Formal/written: *The colleague with whom I collaborated retired. Everyday: *The colleague (that) I collaborated with retired.

In AmE business writing, both are seen; stranding is more common in informal-business emails, piping in formal contracts and legal language.

Whom in modern AmE

Whom is the object form of who. In modern AmE, it has largely retreated to formal writing, but it survives strongly in two contexts:

After prepositions

• To whom it may concern. (formula)
• The man with whom she was seen. (formal)
• *The candidates from whom we will choose. (formal)

In these contexts, who is non-standard: To who it may concern sounds wrong even to casual ears.

As a fronted relative object in formal writing

• *She is the senator whom the press has been hunting. (formal)
• *He is the suspect whom the police arrested. (formal)

In everyday AmE, this whom often becomes who or is omitted entirely: She’s the senator (that) the press has been hunting.

When NOT to use whom

Whom is for object position only.* A common L2 mistake is to insert whom in subject position because it “sounds formal”:

• Wrong: The man whom stole the money — whom is in subject position, should be who.
• Right: The man who stole the money.
• Right: The man whom they arrested. (object — whom correct)

The test: replace with he (subject) or him (object). If he fits, use who. If him fits, use whom. He stole the money → who. They arrested him → whom.

Whose vs of which

Whose is the possessive relative — traditionally for people, increasingly for things too.

Whose for people

• *The man whose car was stolen filed a report.
• *The senator whose committee oversees defense…
• *Anyone whose name is called must come forward.

Whose for things — accepted in modern AmE

• *The building whose windows were broken…
• *A theory whose implications are still debated…
• *A song whose lyrics nobody understands…

The traditional prescriptive rule restricted whose to people. In modern AmE (and BrE), whose with things is fully accepted and very common. The alternative of which is heavier:

• *The building the windows of which were broken… (heavy)
• *A theory the implications of which are still debated… (heavier)

For most C1 writing, prefer whose even for things — it’s lighter and more readable.

Of which — when it survives

Of which persists in highly formal contexts:

• *The instrument the precise origin of which remains unknown. (very formal)
• *Several proposals were rejected, the third of which was deemed unfeasible.
• *The painting was sold, the value of which had appreciated tenfold.

The pattern [noun] + of which is also covered as a relative-quantifier construction (lesson 23): all of which, the best of which. In those quantifier patterns, of which is the standard form.

What as a free relative pronoun

What in relative-clause function = the thing(s) that. This is called a free relative or fused relative because the relative pronoun fuses with its antecedent.

Examples

• What I love about her is her honesty. (= the thing that I love about her)
• He told me what I needed to know. (= the thing that I needed)
• What you see is what you get. (= the things you see; the things you get)
• What matters most is the result.
• I’ll do what I can.

Functions

What clauses function as noun phrases: subject, object, or complement.

Pseudo-cleft sentences

The what-clause is the engine of pseudo-cleft sentences (wh-clefts — see lesson 09 on cleft sentences):

• What we need is a clear strategy.
• What surprised me was the silence.
• What he doesn’t realize is that everyone has noticed.

These structures push focus onto the post-copular element.

What-clauses vs that-clauses

The two are not interchangeable. What fuses pronoun + antecedent; that introduces a clause modifying an explicit antecedent.

• What I said changed everything. (= the thing I said; what is fused)
• *The thing that I said changed everything. (explicit antecedent the thing, relative that)
• I told him what I knew. (the thing I knew)
• I told him everything that I knew. (explicit everything, relative that)

In casual speech, both are common. In formal writing, choose based on whether you want the implicit-antecedent fusion (what) or the explicit-antecedent + relative (the thing that).

Reduced relative clauses

A reduced relative clause is a relative clause with who/which + be dropped, leaving just the participle or adjective phrase.

Reduction from active (V-ing)

• *The man who is standing by the door → *The man standing by the door.
• *The students who are taking the exam tomorrow → *The students taking the exam tomorrow.
• *The proposal that is currently being reviewed → The proposal currently being reviewed.

The relative pronoun + be drops; the V-ing participle alone modifies the noun.

Reduction from passive (V3)

• *The book which was written by Hemingway → *The book written by Hemingway.
• *The car that was stolen yesterday → *The car stolen yesterday.
• *The documents that were leaked to the press → *The documents leaked to the press.

Reduction with adjective

• *Anyone who is interested should apply → *Anyone interested should apply.
• *The students who are eligible will be notified → *The students eligible will be notified.
• *Those who are responsible should come forward → *Those responsible should come forward.

When you cannot reduce

You can’t always reduce. The relative clause must contain a form of be (in be V-ing, be V3, or be + adjective). If the clause has another verb, no reduction:

• *The man who works here is friendly. (no be — can’t reduce; can replace who works with working in some cases: The man working here is friendly — but this is reduction of who is working, not who works).
• *The book that you recommended was great. (no be — can’t reduce in the same way; can become the book you recommended by dropping that).

Reduced relatives in journalism

Reduced relative clauses are everywhere in AmE journalism — they compress prose:

*The senator elected last fall announced her platform. *The bill passed by the House now goes to the Senate. *The students awarded the scholarship include three from local high schools.

This compact style is one of the hallmarks of efficient news writing.

Reduction with prepositional and adverbial phrases

You can also reduce a relative clause whose verb is be + a prepositional/adverbial phrase by dropping who is / that is / which is:

• *The book that is on the table is mine → *The book on the table is mine.
• *The committee that is in charge of the budget → *The committee in charge of the budget.
• *The members who are on the panel → The members on the panel.

(Note: whose-clauses do not reduce this way, because whose is a possessive determiner, not who is: The artist whose work is on display stays as is.)

AmE notes

AmE is friendly to stranded prepositions in all but the most formal registers. The person I spoke to is fine in everything from emails to op-eds. Reserve pipe + whom for legal writing, formal correspondence, and old-school academic prose.

AmE has lost whom almost entirely in subject-position confusion. Casual AmE speakers say who freely where prescriptivists would insist on whom. He’s the one who I want to talk to is normal AmE; He’s the one whom I want to talk to sounds bookish.

Whose for inanimate objects is fully standard in AmE: a building whose facade…, a question whose answer…. The traditional rule restricting whose to people is dead.

Reduced relatives are a signature of AmE journalism — the AP Stylebook implicitly encourages them for compression. Officials questioned by reporters confirmed…, Suspects detained by police include…, The committee tasked with reviewing the policy… — these reduced forms are everywhere.

Specifically AmE patterns:

• To whom it may concern — fixed business letter opening.
• For whom the bell tolls — literary phrase, Hemingway echo.
• At which point — narrative transition: I objected, at which point he walked out.
• In which case — Bring an umbrella, in which case you’ll stay dry.

Pronunciation notes

• Whom is /huːm/ — the /h/ is pronounced (unlike in who’s where it’s /huːz/ with stress). In rapid speech, the /h/ can soften.
• Whose is /huːz/ — distinguishable from who’s (also /huːz/) only by context.
• Which is /wɪtʃ/ — the /h/ is silent in most AmE (some traditional speakers keep /hw/-: /hwɪtʃ/).
• What is /wʌt/ or /wɑt/ in AmE.
• Reduced relatives have no pause between the noun and the participle: the man standing by the door — fluent unit.
• The pipe construction has a slight prosodic break before the preposition: the woman | to whom I spoke — the comma-like pause is implicit.

Common Russian-speaker mistakes

1. Hypercorrected whom in subject position: The man whom stole the money → The man who stole the money. Whom is object form only.
2. Preposition before that: the book about that I told you → the book that I told you about / the book about which I told you. That can’t follow a preposition.
3. Using which for people in non-defining: My boss, which is from Texas, says y’all → My boss, who is from Texas, says y’all. Which is for things; who/whom for people.
4. Of which instead of whose with inanimates*: the building of which the windows are broken → the building whose windows are broken. Whose works for inanimates in modern AmE.
5. Dropping needed that in formal writing: The fact he resigned (casual) → The fact that he resigned (formal). Complement that is more often retained in writing.
6. Failing to reduce relatives in formal prose: The proposal that is currently being reviewed by the committee… (long) → The proposal currently being reviewed by the committee… (reduced — tighter).
7. Calquing Russian который without pipe vs strand awareness: the person to which I sent the letter → the person to whom I sent the letter (formal) / the person I sent the letter to (casual). Russian который maps to multiple English forms depending on register.
8. Wrong free relative: That what he said is true → What he said is true. / That which he said is true (very formal). What alone is the free relative.

Summary

• Pipe vs strand: to whom I spoke (formal) vs I spoke to (everyday). AmE freely strands.
• Whom is for object position only: object of verb or object of preposition. Don’t hypercorrect to subject position.
• Whose for both people and things* in modern AmE: a building whose facade…
• What as free relative* = the thing(s) that: What I love is honesty.
• Reduced relatives: drop who/which + be, leave participle or adjective: the man standing by the door, the proposal currently under review.
• Of which is reserved for highly formal possessive relativization or relative-quantifier constructions (all of which).
• AmE journalism heavily favors reduced relatives for compression.
• Russian L1 errors cluster around hypercorrected whom, which for people, preposition before that, and unreduced relatives in formal writing.

Next lesson: Connectors and discourse cohesion at C1 — nevertheless, nonetheless, whereas, conversely, in light of, by virtue of, on the grounds that, notwithstanding, albeit — the high-register linker inventory of editorial English.