1

Oxford Living Dictionaries defines 'relative pronoun' as follows:

(Originally) a pronoun which refers to an antecedent, as a demonstrative or personal pronoun; (now) specifically a pronoun which combines the function of a personal or demonstrative pronoun with that of a conjunction, subordinating one sentence or clause to another (e.g. who, which, that).

It's not just dictionaries that think of 'relative pronoun' as functioning as a conjunction as well as a pronoun; many grammars do the same as well.

But how much truth is there to the claim that a relative pronoun functions as a conjunction? (Note that I'm not asking here if a relative pronoun can also be classified as a conjunction, which @JohnLawler said it can't in his answer to this question titled "A relative adverb or a conjunction or both?").

At first blush, this claim sounds logical, for a relative pronoun indeed can come at the beginning of a relative clause as follows:

She was a remarkable woman [who dedicated her life to research].

But if that who can be thought of as functioning as a conjunction merely because it comes at the beginning of a clause, then what about this who?

I forgot [who I was talking to].

Here, the who is an interrogative pronoun and also comes at the beginning of a clause. But I've never heard anyone claim that an interrogative pronoun can function as a conjunction merely because it comes at the beginning of a clause.

JK2
  • 6,553
  • Something coming at the start of a clause is certainly not reason enough to call it a conjunction. – Jason Bassford Nov 12 '18 at 08:17
  • @JasonBassford Of course not. But other than that, what would be the reason for claiming that a relative pronoun has the function of a conjunction? – JK2 Nov 12 '18 at 15:02
  • 1
    Words can fulfil multiples roles and belong to different parts of speech at different times. – Angelos Nov 14 '18 at 23:51
  • In my answer cited in the question, I didn't say that relative wh-words don't have the same function as conjunctions, just that that doesn't make them conjunctions. The reason dictionaries say things like what you cite is that they don't do grammar; they do lexicon. And they don't think their readers are very smart, or know any grammar, so they use primary-school terms only. Naturally this doesn't explain much. – John Lawler Nov 15 '18 at 03:24
  • @JohnLawler (1) Where in your answer did you say that relative wh-words do have the same function as conjunctions? Are you referring to this statement of yours in that answer: "the wh-words that have adverbial meanings...are indeed used to introduce clauses"? (2) If so, that answer of yours essentially agrees with the quoted definition of the Oxford dictionary. Then, why are you downplaying the cited definition when you actually agree with it, unless you have changed your mind since your 2014 answer, which I doubt you have? – JK2 Nov 15 '18 at 04:46
  • I'm just trying to find a register that will let me answer a question like "how much truth is there to the claim that a relative pronoun functions as a conjunction?" without any agreed-upon definitions of "functions as" or "conjunction" except what can be found in dictionaries. I use my favorite terminology, like every linguist, but I don't want to argue about it. Make a list of characteristics of a conjunction, and a list of characteristics of relative pronouns and see how well they match up. Then you'll know how much truth there is to the claim. – John Lawler Nov 15 '18 at 14:56
  • @JohnLawler The way I see it, a subordinating conjunction is a marker of subordination. So if you want the question to be more specific, the question is about the validity of the claim that a relative pronoun is a marker of subordination. – JK2 Nov 15 '18 at 20:50
  • Relative clauses are subordinate clauses, and their relative pronouns mark them as being relative, and therefore subordinate, clauses. If this makes a relative pronoun "a marker of subordination" within the meaning of the act, so be it. If not, ditto. – John Lawler Nov 15 '18 at 22:02
  • @JohnLawler How do you know if it's marks the clause as relative, when you cannot use wh-word in some relative clauses? In He is not the man he was., for example, you cannot say He is not the man who he was. but only can say __He is not the man that he was._ Assuming that that is not a relative pronoun but a subordinating conjunction, you cannot say that it's the relative pronoun that marks the subordination, can you? – JK2 Nov 16 '18 at 01:15
  • @JohnLawler Moreover, would you say that who in I forgot who I was talking to. marks the subordination? If not, why should who in I forgot the name of the man who I was talking to. be said to mark the subordination? – JK2 Nov 16 '18 at 01:32
  • I would say the who's in both cases introduce subordinate clauses. If you want to say that this "marks the subordination", you are at liberty to do so; likewise, if not. I don't care to make any claim that there is one "marker" of subordination, nor that subordination has to be "marked" by something. And this discussion appears to be going nowhere. – John Lawler Nov 16 '18 at 17:26

0 Answers0