Relative pronoun, fused relative pronoun, and conjunctions

Question

I notice more and more that a lot of people consider some or all relative pronouns as conjunctions. I believed they were separate and only similar in the way that they connect subordinating clauses. I see the same trend even more so with what I would call a fused relative pronoun, like "whatever". Can someone explain this to me? Are relative pronouns technically conjunctions?

BillJ · Accepted Answer

anonymousI notice more and more that a lot of people consider some or all relative pronouns as conjunctions

Really? I'm not aware of that. One issue that does arise, though, is the treatment of "that". Traditional grammar takes it to be a relative pronoun while modern grammar takes it to be a subordinator.

anonymousbelieved they were separate and only similar in the way that they connect subordinating clauses.

They are separate in that they have different functions. In relative clauses, it's the relativized element that connects the subordinate clause to the nominal it modifies (or refers to).

anonymousI see the same trend even more so with what I would call a fused relative pronoun, like "whatever".

I don't follow you. Fused relative words are not subordinators any more than the non-fused ones are.

anonymousAre relative pronouns technically conjunctions?

Not at all, as I've explained. Note that 'pronoun' and 'subordinator' are distinct word categories (parts of speech).

BillJ · Answer

It's important to grasp the difference between a relative word and a subordinator.

A relative word has a meaning - it functions as subject, object etc, in the relative clause, and it's interpretation comes from its antecedent.

By contrast, subordinators like "that" are semantically empty, meaningless - they simply introduce finite subordinate clauses (i.e. relative or content).

Which is why relative words like "which" and "who" cannot be subordinators (conjunctions).

"That" is somewhat special. It's a meaningless subordinator, not a relative word. In relative clauses introduced by "that", the relative word is covert, missing. Consider:

This is the book that I wanted ___.

In this example, "that" is a subordinator; it introduces the relative clause. But the relative word is missing and represented by the 'gap' notation "_____", which we understand to be "book", the object of the relative clause.

The reasons why "that" is not a relative are a tad complex. If you are seriously interested, I'll explain them in another answer.

Relative pronoun, fused relative pronoun, and conjunctions

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions