Relative mastery — archaic and formal

The English relative-clause system is rich enough that even C2 speakers leave parts of it unused. At C1 you handled which, that, who, whom, whose, restrictive vs non-restrictive, and basic pied-piping (the prosecutor to whom she spoke). At C2 the work is in the residual layer: when to use whom in modern AmE, when to choose whose over of which with non-human antecedents, the productive what/whatever/whoever/whichever family of free relatives, reduced relatives in academic and journalistic prose, and the sentential relative that refers to a whole proposition (She refused to answer, which surprised no one).

This lesson covers (1) the whom question in modern AmE, (2) pied-piping vs preposition-stranding, (3) whose vs of which with non-human antecedents, (4) free relatives (what/whatever/whichever/whoever), (5) reduced relatives and participial phrases, and (6) sentential relatives.

Whom in modern AmE — what survives

The who/whom distinction is alive in formal AmE writing but largely dying in conversation. C2 writers must know when whom is required, when it is preferred, and when it is overcorrected.

Whom is required after a preposition (pied-piping)

When a preposition is pied-piped (moved to the front along with its complement), the complement must be whom:

• The prosecutor to whom she spoke… (pied-piped to whom)
• The witness on whom the case depends…
• The student from whom the manuscript was stolen…
• Members of the jury, before whom these proofs were laid…

These are unambiguously C2-formal and survive in journalism, legal prose, academic writing, and elevated speech.

Whom is required as object of a verb in formal writing

• The witness whom the prosecutor called first was the chief accountant.
• Among those whom we interviewed, none reported…

In modern AmE conversation, who is widely substituted: The witness who the prosecutor called first. This is colloquially natural but reads as substandard in C2 writing.

Who(m) in subject position

• The witness who spoke first was the chief accountant. (subject — who required)
• Those who trespass on this property will be prosecuted.

Subject who is never whom. A common overcorrection: Those whom violated the policy → Those who violated the policy. The relative is the subject of violated, so who.

Test for who/whom

Substitute he/him. If he fits, use who; if him fits, use whom.

• The witness whom the prosecutor called — the prosecutor called him — him fits — whom.
• The witness who spoke first — he spoke first — he fits — who.

This test sometimes fails in pied-piping contexts where the syntax is twisted; in those, recognize the pattern (to whom, from whom, on whom) and use whom.

Pied-piping vs preposition-stranding

English permits two ways to express the relative with a preposition:

Pied-piping is more formal and more BrE; stranding is more colloquial and more AmE in informal contexts. In academic and legal AmE, pied-piping survives strongly.

When pied-piping is required

A few prepositional phrases resist stranding:

• During which time — fine.
• Which time during — wrong.
• In which case — fine.
• Which case in — wrong.

Fixed legal phrases (pursuant to which, by virtue of which, in light of which) are pied-piped only.

When stranding is required

• Where she came from (not whence she came — archaic; not from where she came — pied-piped, dated).

The choice in most contexts is stylistic, not syntactic.

Whose vs of which

Whose is the genitive (possessive) relative for persons. It is also widely used for non-persons in modern AmE, despite some prescriptive resistance.

Whose with non-human antecedents

• The novel, whose opening chapter has been widely anthologized, was rejected by twelve publishers.
• The bill, whose sponsors include a bipartisan group of senators, is unlikely to pass.
• The agency, whose budget has been cut three years in a row…

Modern AmE writers use whose freely with non-human antecedents. The alternative of which is grammatical but ungainly:

• The novel, the opening chapter of which has been widely anthologized… (heavy)
• The bill, the sponsors of which include… (heavy)

Some style guides (notably the older Chicago Manual) still prefer of which for non-humans in the most formal writing; most contemporary AmE prose uses whose.

Of which — still alive in legal and technical writing

• The contract, the terms of which are confidential, was signed last month.
• The compound, the structure of which is shown in Figure 3, decomposes at room temperature.

These read as legal/technical/academic. In an op-ed or magazine essay, whose would be more natural.

Free relatives — what, whatever, whichever, whoever

A free relative is a relative clause without an explicit antecedent. The wh-word both introduces the clause and serves as a noun phrase.

What

• What he said was inappropriate. (= the thing he said)
• Tell me what you remember.
• I’ll do what I can.

What in free relatives = “the thing(s) that”.

Whoever, whatever, whichever

• Whoever wrote this email knew the facts. (= the person who)
• Whatever they decide, I’ll abide by it. (= no matter what they decide / the thing that they decide)
• Whichever route you pick, the drive is two hours. (= whichever of the routes)

Two readings of whatever/whoever — free relative vs concessive

These wh-ever words have two distinct functions:

Free relative (= the X that)

• Whoever called left no message. (= the person who called)
• Whatever he wanted, he got. (= the things he wanted, he got them)

Concessive (= no matter who/what)

• Whoever calls, tell them I’m out. (= no matter who calls)
• Whatever you do, don’t open that door. (= no matter what you do)

The two readings are sometimes ambiguous; context disambiguates.

Wherever, whenever, however

• Sit wherever you like.
• Whenever she calls, I answer.*
• However you slice it, the data are clear.*

Same dual readings: free relative (“the place/time/way that”) vs concessive (“no matter where/when/how”).

Reduced relatives — the participial alternative

A relative clause can often be reduced to a participial phrase, dropping the relative pronoun and the be-verb.

Reduced relative (present participle)

• The witness who is testifying in the next chamber → The witness testifying in the next chamber
• The bill that is awaiting the president’s signature → The bill awaiting the president’s signature

Reduced relative (past participle)

• The documents that were submitted to the committee → The documents submitted to the committee
• The witness who was called first → The witness called first

Reduced relative with adjective

• The decision, which was unanimous, surprised everyone → The decision, unanimous, surprised everyone (less common but grammatical)

Garden-path danger

Reduced relatives can produce garden-path sentences:

• The horse raced past the barn fell. (= the horse [that was] raced past the barn fell — “raced past the barn” is a reduced relative)

This famously parses as ungrammatical at first reading; on second pass the reduced relative becomes clear. C2 readers parse reduced relatives correctly even when they cross with garden-path potential.

When reduction is preferred

• Journalistic and academic prose use reduced relatives heavily for compression.
• The proposal drafted by the senator [that was drafted by the senator] passed in committee.
• Witnesses testifying via video link [who were testifying] reported similar accounts.

Reduced relatives produce denser, less wordy prose. The C2 writer uses them deliberately.

Sentential relatives — which referring to a whole clause

A sentential relative uses which to refer not to a noun phrase but to the entire preceding clause or proposition.

Examples

• She refused to answer, which surprised no one. (which = the fact that she refused)
• The committee approved the report, which I find deeply troubling. (which = the approval)
• He smiled and said nothing, which was answer enough.

Sentential relative is always non-restrictive (preceded by comma)

You cannot have a restrictive sentential relative. The construction is inherently parenthetical.

Which vs what in sentential relatives

• She refused to answer, which surprised no one. ✓
• She refused to answer, what surprised no one. ✗ (not grammatical — what is for free relatives with no antecedent)

Use which; never what for sentential relatives.

Common Russian-speaker error

Russian что covers both which and what; a Russian speaker may write …what surprised no one by calque. The correct AmE form is …which surprised no one.

Restrictive vs non-restrictive — the comma decides

This is review from C1 but worth restating because errors at C2 here are subtle.

Restrictive (no comma — defines the antecedent)

• The witnesses who lied were prosecuted. (= only those who lied — restrictive)
• The books that I borrowed are due on Friday. (= the specific borrowed books)

Non-restrictive (commas — adds information)

• The witnesses, who lied, were prosecuted. (= all the witnesses; by the way they lied)
• The books, which I borrowed, are on the shelf. (= the books in general; incidentally, I borrowed them)

AmE that vs which restrictive rule

AmE prescriptive style (Strunk and White; older Chicago) recommends that for restrictive and which for non-restrictive: The book that I borrowed (restrictive) / The book, which I borrowed, … (non-restrictive). BrE is more permissive — which in both. Modern AmE journalism follows the that/which split fairly closely; modern AmE literary prose is more flexible.

Why, when, where as relative adverbs

• The reason why he resigned was never disclosed.
• The day when she testified was a Friday.
• The room where the meeting was held has been sealed.

These can often drop:

• The reason he resigned was never disclosed.
• The day she testified was a Friday.
• The room the meeting was held in has been sealed. (note: with stranded preposition when where is dropped)

The dropping is more common in conversational AmE; why/when/where survive in writing.

AmE notes

• Whom survives in pied-piping (to whom, from whom, on whom) but is in serious decline as object of a verb in conversation. In C2 writing, retain whom; in casual conversation, who is now native.
• Whose with non-human antecedents is now standard AmE: the bill whose sponsors…, the country whose policies…
• Reduced relatives are heavily used in AmE journalism for compression: Witnesses summoned by the court testified yesterday.
• Sentential relative which is unmistakably AmE op-ed rhythm: He denied any wrongdoing, which surprised no one.
• Stranded prepositions are AmE default in casual: The chapter she wrote about is more natural than The chapter about which she wrote. The Churchill apocryphal quip (“This is the sort of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put”) is the joke against the no-stranding rule.

Literary and archaic notes

The relative whence (= from where) is archaic but survives in literary AmE: The country whence she came was not friendly to the West. The relative wherewith (= with which) is fully archaic. The use of which to refer to persons (the man which) is wrong in modern AmE — use who/that for persons. 17th and 18th-century prose (King James Bible, Shakespeare) freely used which for persons; modern AmE does not.

Common Russian-speaker mistakes

1. Calquing Russian что as what in sentential relatives: She refused to testify, what surprised everyone → She refused to testify, which surprised everyone. Use which for sentential relative.
2. Overcorrecting subject who to whom: Those whom violated the policy → Those who violated the policy. Who/whom applies based on grammatical role within the relative clause, not appearance.
3. Calquing Russian который as English which for persons: The man which called → The man who/that called. Which is for non-humans in modern AmE.
4. Reduced relative as garden path: The book read by everyone in our class was a bestseller parses correctly; The book ate in our class sounds wrong because ate is intransitive. Reduce only what is unambiguously a reduced relative.
5. Missing that/who in restrictive relatives in writing: The witness called first was the accountant (gap of subject relative) → The witness who/that called first was the accountant — wait, that doesn’t fit. Actually subject relatives can NEVER be dropped: The witness who called (you cannot say The witness called meaning “the witness who called”). Object relatives can be dropped: The witness (whom/that) she called.
6. Pied-piping with stranded to whom: The prosecutor to whom she spoke to (preposition appears twice) → The prosecutor to whom she spoke (pied-piped, one preposition) OR *The prosecutor (whom) she spoke to * (stranded, one preposition). Never both.
7. Wrong relative for places/times: The room which she met him → The room where she met him or The room in which she met him. Locations need where or in which; which alone is the object of an unspecified verb and needs a preposition.

Summary

• Whom survives in pied-piping (to whom, from whom) and formal object position; in conversational AmE, who substitutes freely.
• Pied-piping is more formal; preposition-stranding is more AmE-casual; choice is stylistic except in fixed phrases (pursuant to which).
• Whose is standard AmE with both human and non-human antecedents; of which survives in legal and technical writing.
• Free relatives (what, whatever, whoever, whichever) have two readings — free relative (“the X that”) and concessive (“no matter”).
• Reduced relatives drop the relative pronoun and be-verb, producing denser prose; heavily used in AmE journalism and academic writing.
• Sentential relative which refers to a whole proposition; always non-restrictive; never what.
• AmE that/which split for restrictive vs non-restrictive is the journalistic standard; AmE literary prose is more flexible.

Next lesson: Emphatic structures at C2 — emphatic do, repetition, asyndeton, polysyndeton, anastrophe, and rhetorical pleonasm.