Relative pronouns

Relative pronouns are both a type of pronoun that take the place of another word, phrase, or clause and a type of subordinating conjunction that introduce adjective, or relative, clauses. Adjective clauses perform the function of noun phrase modifier within noun phrases. The nine relative pronouns in English grammar are:

, , . . :

who

whom

that

which

(null relative pronoun)

whose

when

where

why

In addition to functioning as subordinators, relative pronouns also perform syntactic functions within adjective clauses. Syntactic functions are grammatical functions that relate to other grammatical functions within the syntax, or word order, of a sentence. The seven syntactic functions that relative pronouns perform in English grammar are:

subordinators, , . , , . :

1. Subject

2. Direct object

3. Object complement

4. Indirect object

5. Prepositional complement

6. Determinative

7. Adjunct adverbial

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Non-expression of a relative pronoun

When discussing constructions without a relative pronoun, linguists often speak of omission, deletion or ellipsis of the relative pronoun, or contact clauses. Mustanoja (1960: 203-204; 206-208) presents a short overview of what he terms Non-introduced Relative Clauses and points out that the term ellipsis is inaccurate. In OE there is no ellipsis at all (i.e., nothing has been omitted that belongs to the organic structure of the statement), and that instances often interpreted as pronominal ellipses are usually those of non-expression of the personal pronoun, not of the relative. Non-introduced relative clauses make their appearance in the second half of the 14th century. Thus, relative clauses without a relative pronoun have a long history, as also noted by Strang (1974: 142-143), who, in her discussion of contact clauses, writes that it is important to realize that contact-clauses are ancient structures of independent origin, not just relatives with pronouns left out. Similarly, Jespersen (1969: 360) describes contact clauses as very old in the language and as having been for centuries extremely frequent in speech and in all kinds of literature, except in translations which tend to reproduce foreign idioms.

Constructions without a relative pronoun in subject function are considered ungrammatical or very colloquial in present-day (written) StE (Quirk 1968: 103; Quirk et al. 1979: 865). However, non-expression of a subject relative pronoun is not a recent phenomenon, but was already appearing in texts from the latter half of the 14th century (Mustanoja (1960: 205), although, as in OE, many of the cases usually interpreted as non-expressions of the relative pronoun might equally well be taken as non-expressions of the personal pronoun. Later, at the turn of the 17th century, contact clauses were still extensively used where the relative had subject function, as in Shakespeares I see a man here needs not live by shifts (Strang 1974: 142-143). Like non-expression of the subject pronoun, non-expression of the object pronoun accepted as a standard feature in Present-Day English appears towards the end of the 14th century. However, it is much rarer than non-expression of the subject pronoun, although it gains ground towards the end of the ME period (Mustanoja 1960: 205). Thus, constructions without an object relative (e.g. The man I saw is your uncle) have long been common (Strang 1974: 68).

In dialects, constructions without a relative pronoun in subject and in object function were frequent between 1700 and 1900 (Wright EDG 1905: 423). In their discussion of relative pronouns, (Hughes & Trudgill 1979: 17-18) list constructions attested in non-standard English; among them is the construction including omission of pronouns referring to the subject That was the man done it. More recent evidence is provided by Shorrocks (1980: 556), who notes that, in the dialect of Farnworth and district, zero-relatives occur in subject function as well as in object function, and by Ihalainen (1980: 188), who observes that the zero-form, both subject and object, is the most frequent construction in his Somerset dialect sample. (cf. note [34]) For Cambridgeshire, evidence for this construction is provided by the SED responses to question IX.9.5 (I know a man ... will do it for you.) with the construction without a subject relative (I know a man will do it for you). [40]

In the material for the present study, the majority of cases without a subject relative (marked by ) are attested in existential there sentences and in sentences with the VP have/(have/has) got, a context corresponding to that of existential there sentences. These cases usually have a human reference (including animals), as illustrated by examples 7.46 (a-c), but occasionally also a non-human reference, as in example 7.46 (d).

7.46

(a)

There was a parson went away from the village here. Went to Abington. (Bassingbourn BR)

(b)

We had a man worked on the same farm as I did (Over EF)

(c)

if there was a cow stood there the same as here = Id sit this side (Castle Camps JH)

(d)

I had the first tractor come (for StE came) on the farm up there (Bartlow CP)

In example 7.46 (d), the context shows that the meaning is not I made the first tractor come (cf. I made him come) but the form come is used for StE came (cf. examples 7.49 (b-c)).

In addition, the subject pronoun is not expressed in a few cases, such as the following:

7.47

(a)

and Im kno- know the man used to make them (Harston AS)

(b)

Women used to fetch all the water and all the men was out of work = used to go and pump it. (Bartlow CP)

Existential there sentences and (have/has) got sentences are also the contexts which favour the constructions without an object pronoun. Examples are given in 7.48 (a-b).

7.48

(a)

There was some stuff they call frumety (i.e., frumenty). (Waterbeach BB)

(b)

I got some powder I bought in nineteen sixteen (Rampton HP)

A few cases, such as those illustrated by examples 7.49 (a-c), may at first seem problematic.

7.49

(a)

Shes got a sister live down the = King Street (Rampton TR)

(b)

MG:

Wednesday today

SC:

Ah, Wednes- oh, oh, ah, I guess we got a baker come from that way, you see, come W- he come yesterday

MG:

Comes from Willingham

SC:

He come from Girton (Lt. Eversden)

(c)

There is a man come to live up here when (Rampton HP)

In Cambridgeshire dialect speech, the third-person singular of the simple present is usually expressed without the -s/-es suffix, and a few verbs (e.g. come) have identical forms in the simple present and past. Considering the frequency of the constructions without a pronoun in this particular context, cases such as these are interpreted as cases without a pronoun, rather than, for instance, cases with the bare infinitive. Thus, the examples are interpreted as follows: Shes got a sister lives , we got a baker comes and There is a man came.

Constructions without an object pronoun, although frequent in existential sentences, are mostly those in which the antecedent contains one of the items first, next, last or the superlative, as in the examples I think I can show you my first = envelope I ever drawed off the Ouse Catchment Board (Willingham AA) and The coldest winter I = I knew = remembered was = nineteen sixteen = end of nineteen sixteen beginning of nineteen = nineteen seventeen (Harston AS).

Existential there sentences and have/(have/has) got sentences may be particularly favourable for the non-expression of a relative. Shorrocks (1980: 556) claims that, in the dialect of Farnworth and district, constructions without a pronoun are regular after there is, there are and there were. Similarly, Ihalainens (1980: 187-196) study on Somerset dialect speech shows the frequent occurrence of the zero pronoun in existential sentences. Sentences introduced by there is/are seem to be an environment where omission of the subject pronoun is particularly frequent, as exemplified by There was a young barrister keep questioning en, you know (Isle Abbots HA) (Ihalainen 1980: 189). [41]

In the material for the present study, cleft sentences provide a further context for object pronoun non-expression, often of the type thats all + PRONOUN + got, as in We got a pillar box. Thats all weve got (West Wickham CC).

For the non-expression of the relative pronoun as object of a preposition, see 7.5.3.