proper nouns - Choice of relative pronouns: 'who' and/or 'that' for people?


Albert Einstein is a German-born theoretical physicist. He became world-famous for his general theory of relativity.


If you turn these two sentences into one, a main clause + a relative clause, you find yourself with three possible sentences:




  1. Albert Einstein, WHO became world-famous for his general theory of relativity, is a German physicist.




  2. Albert Einstein, WHO is a German-born physicist, became world-famous for his general theory of relativity.




  3. Albert Einstein is the German-born theoretical physicist WHO/THAT became world-famous for his general theory of relativity.




Why is it possible to use both WHO or THAT in sentence 3, but only WHO in sentences 1 & 2?



Answer



As F.E. mentions in his comment, the possible choice of relativiser is one of the defining differences between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses, along with prosody and semantic shift if the relative clause is left out.


A restrictive relative clause is a relative clause that takes a more or less generic element in a phrase and narrows it down, specifying or ‘restricting’ it. Restrictive clauses are also called integrated relative clauses because they form an integral, indispensable part of the sentence: you cannot just remove the clause from the sentence without also changing the meaning of the sentence.


A non-restrictive relative clause is one that adds additional, but non-essential, information about a subject without further narrowing down or ‘restricting’ it. Non-restrictive clauses are set off by commas (corresponding to there usually being a pause flanking them in speech), and they are also called supplementary relative clauses because they give optional, supplementary information and are not integral to the sentence: if you remove the clause from the sentence, you change the meaning. They are also called appositive relative clauses because they function much like appositions (though this is slightly confusing, as appositions themselves can also be either restrictive or non-restrictive).


Some examples (relative clause in italics):



Restrictive
My friend that got married last weekend had to go to hospital yesterday.
That crime novel that I am currently reading is really good.



Non-restrictive
My friend, who actually just got married last weekend, had to go to hospital yesterday.
That crime novel, which I am currently reading for the fourth time, is really good.



In the restrictive clauses, the friend and the book are being introduced for the first time, and they therefore need some further information in order to pin down which friend or book we’re talking about.


In the non-restrictive clauses, the friend and the book are already in the ‘scope’ of the conversation, and they can be mentioned without further information—but an extra tidbit is given nonetheless, just because.


Notice how I used that as the relativiser in both the restrictive clauses, but not in the non-restrictive clause? That is because non-restrictive clauses require a relative pronoun as their relativiser (that is generally not considered an actual pronoun when relative in most current analyses of English syntax—it is a non-pronominal relativiser), i.e., one of the wh-words (who, which, when, where, etc.). Restrictive clauses, on the other hand, can take both pronominal and non-pronominal relativisers (i.e., that or wh-words) with no real difference in meaning or usage.


This explains why your Einstein sentences cannot have that as their relativiser. “Albert Einstein” is already a perfectly unambiguous subject in almost any situation, so any information given about him is supplementary, rather than necessary. In the somewhat contrived situation that you were talking about two different Albert Einsteins, though, you could make a restrictive clause and use that. You’d have to add a definite article before him, though, to make a proper name generic enough to accept a restrictive clause:



The Albert Einstein that became world-famous for his general theory of relativity was a German physicist. (The one that became a mechanic in Hull wasn’t.)


The Albert Einstein that was a German-born physicist became world-famous for his general theory of relativity. (The one that was an English-born mechanic didn’t.)



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

verbs - "Baby is creeping" vs. "baby is crawling" in AmE

Years and years ago, I remember reading in a book on AmE usage that the phrasal turn a baby creeps before it walks was to some extent more common to AmE than to BrE, which preferred exclusively the "crawl" version. And so, I just recently checked on the accuracy of that information on NGram Viewer , and it actually was fact... more than a century ago! What I would like you to tell is if it would sound sort of weird to hear someone say today in the US that a child "creeps" before walking and running (see Synonyms ) rather than it crawls. Also, what's the story to those terms? How did "to crawl" come to prevail and supersede "to creep" to describe the way a baby moves around? As with a plant, so with a child. His mind grows by natural stages. A child creeps before he walks , sits before he stands, cries before he laughs, babbles before he talks, draws a circle before he draws a square, lies before he tells the truth, and is selfish before he
Read more

commas - Does this sentence have too many subjunctives?

Does this sentence have too many subjunctives? If it please the king, let it be decreed that they be destroyed, and I will pay 10,000 talents of silver into the hands of those who have charge of the king's business, that they may put it into the king's treasuries. I am stumped by this sentence construction. First, there is "Let it be," which is a common English idiomatic phrase, but then it follows another subjunctive. Is that to say you can actually have a subjunctive followed by another subjunctive? Also, why does the sentence use "please"? If that's the subjunctive tense there, then why is it followed by another subjunctive instead of a conditional, or maybe "Let it be" is the conditional? Lastly, I wish to know how the that is used in the sentence. Perhaps, the simplified sentence can be restated like so: Let it be decreed that they be destroyed and that they may put it into the king's treasuries. If not, maybe the simplified sent
Read more

time - English notation for hour, minutes and seconds

I often see English notation about time using the " and ' symbols. I have always mistaken about the two, and even their meaning. I'm more used to "01:05:56", for example. How do you represent the hour, minutes, and seconds using the apostrophe and quotes punctuations? Which is for the hour, which is for minutes, and which is for seconds? Is it the common way to write duration of time elapsed? Do they have a special pronunciation? Answer It's not particularly common for expressions of time. It's similar to degrees-minutes-seconds: instead of decimal degrees (38.897212°,-77.036519°) you write (38° 53′ 49.9632″, -77° 2′ 11.4678″). Both are derived from a sexagesimal counting system such as that devised in Ancient Babylon: the single prime represents the first sexagesimal division and the second the next, and so on. 17th-century astronomers used a third division of 1/60th of a second. The advantage of using minute and second symbols for time is that it o
Read more

grammatical number - Use of lone apostrophe for plural?

I've been reading William Manchester's book "American Caesar", which is about Douglas MacArthur, and I found that he uses a strange convention for pluralizing the family name. When talking about the MacArthurs as a whole, he writes MacArthur' with an apostrophe, as in "After the war, the MacArthur' lived in Tokyo while the general was proconsul" (yes, he uses that term to describe him). I have never seen or heard of a rule that would prescribe this. Manchester is a bit old-timey in his style: for example, he also writes "in behalf of" instead of "on behalf of", which is the only one I have ever seen. So perhaps this is similar. Where does he get this apostrophe from? Edit: There seems to be some difficulty finding examples, which is odd. Here is a direct link to a page from Google Books that shows the apostrophe.
Read more

etymology - Origin of "s--t eating grin"

What is the origin of the phrase shit eating grin ? How did it come to mean showing smugness or self-satisfaction of an individual's actions? Answer From the Urban Dictionary: ...these uses are documented in the Oxford English Dictionary no earlier than 1957 There have been similar expressions used quite far back: In Book XXI of his History of Rome, Livy describes a Carthaginian sect of coprophages, the risus faecivorus, or shit-eating grin, being commonly displayed by its adherents. Although, its origin is undetermined, they may have been incidents which caused the invention of this phrase. Below is an excerpt: "1944 Jrnl. Nerv. & Mental Dis. XCIX. 959 Among demented patients in advanced stages of their illness,..it is not rare to see some of them grasp their own feces, chew them and eat them often with great pleasure and satisfaction (coprophagia).
Read more

etymology - Where does the phrase "doctored" originate?

This is a phrase I’m particularly confused about, because it’s used often when something is manipulated or changed. For example, sometimes images surface online that are clearly Photoshopped, but people refer to them as “doctored” images. Why use the word “doctored” here? Answer The earliest Google Books match for an instance of doctored in a transitional (or perhaps post-transitional) sense between "amended" and "adulterated" appears in William Marshall, The Rural Economy of Glocestershire; Including Its Dairy: Together with the Dairy Management of North Wiltshire, and the Management of Orchards and Fruit Liquor, in Herefordshire , volume 2 (1789): Men in general, however, whose palates are set to rough cider, consider the common sweet sort as an effeminate beverage; and rough cider, properly manufactured, is probably the most generous liquor; being deemed more wholesome, to habits in general, than sweet cider:—even when genuine. That which is drank, in the kingd
Read more

word choice - Which is the correct spelling: “fairy” or “faerie”?

Fairy vs. faerie — which is the correct spelling? Answer As others have noted, fairy is the standard modern spelling, and faerie is a pseudo-archaism. However, in some contexts there is now a semantic distinction between the two spellings! In particular, fairy tales and the associated idea of fairies typically refer to the genre of folk stories printed by the Brothers Grimm, then sweetened and popularized for modern audiences by Disney et al. Faerie stories , on the other hand, are stories about the fae : otherworldly, unpredictable, and dangerous creatures who appear in the folk-tales and myths of England and Ireland. In origin, of course, the fairies and the fae are one and the same, but the connotations and usage of the words today are headed in opposite directions. A Google image search for fairy vs. faerie shows a lot of overlap, but some very significant differences in tone and content between the two terms. Note that the search for "fairy" turns up a number
Read more