Is it grammatical to split a qualifying subclause from the qualified noun?

Question

While drafting an answer on another site, at one point I came up with the following sentence:

*You can’t force someone to follow a contract who hasn’t agreed to it.

I think the intended meaning is clear. But if you apply the grammar rules strictly, without regard for semantics, it would seem that the ‘who’ applies to the contract, which is a strange thing to say.

Is this construction grammatical and does it have a distinct name?

I am not looking for a way to rephrase it, by the way, I already found one. — user3840170, May 19 '21 at 08:43
The antecedent of "who" can only be a person, so it can only be "someone". Postposing of relative clauses like this is not a problem, provided there is no doubt as to what the antecedent is, of course. — BillJ, May 19 '21 at 09:48
Yes, that's the result of a transformation called Extraposition from NP. It's perfectly grammatical; the rule is used, like Extraposition, to move heavy clauses and phrases to the end of the sentence, where it's easier to process them. — John Lawler, May 19 '21 at 15:22
Does this answer your question? Does "That" have to be next to the noun it modifies? (essentially, extraposed relative clauses). Some extrapositions sound natural; some sound archaic. — Edwin Ashworth, May 29 '21 at 16:04

score 0 · Answer 1 · answered May 29 '21 at 10:25

It seems it’s not an unheard of construction, at least.

We see dimly in the Present what is small and what is great,
Slow of faith how weak an arm may turn this iron helm of fate,
But the soul is still oracular; amid the market's din,
List the ominous stern whisper from the Delphic cave within,—
"They enslave their children's children who make compromise with sin."

— James Russell Lowell, The Present Crisis

It’s even less clear here that Lowell meant ‘They {enslave their children’s children} who make compromise with sin.’ and not ‘They enslave {their children’s children who make compromise with sin}.’ (Perhaps he was aiming for some double meaning here.) But it makes sense to think the first interpretation is at least an intended one.

I guess if it’s good enough for Lowell, it’s good enough for me.

Is it grammatical to split a qualifying subclause from the qualified noun?

1 Answers1