Usage of which

Question

Example:

He was attacked by X, and that attack agitated him.
He was attacked by X, which agitated him.

Does the second sentence mean the same as the first? The first sentence states clearly that the attack agitated him. The second is confusing because of 'which.' Does it mean X's attack agitated him or X himself?

I hope my question is clear. When we use which in these cases, does which refer to the person (X) or to the person's action (attack)?

Cool Breeze · Accepted Answer

AnonymousHe was attacked by X, which agitated him.

The antecedent of which can be either the whole main clause (He was attacked by X) or X. However, X cannot be a person because in modern English who would have to be used to refer to a person.

CB

Andriy Lapin · Answer

Dear friend,

The which-clause in the second sentence is an example of a sentential relative clause. It refers to the whole of the previous clause (He was attacked by X). In this case this clause is known as an antecedent. The whole structure with the relative clause can be best paraphrased as:

The fact that he was attacked by X agitated him.

Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoff

Cool Breeze · Answer

Gleb_ChebrikoffThe which-clause in the second sentence is an example of a sentential relative clause. It refers to the whole of the previous clause (He was attacked by X). In this case this clause is known as an antecedent.

Hi GC

In my opinion:
He visited Cairo, which is interesting.
The antecedent of which is the entire main clause. In other words, the fact that he visited Cairo is interesting. It's interesting that he visited Cairo.

He visited Cairo, which is interesting.
Cairo in interesting.

In your opinion the second sentence, or rather, its interpretation, is wrong. Is there a way in English to convey the idea of the second sentence using a relative clause? The grammar books I am familiar with see nothing wrong with my interpretations. In some other languages such as Finnish a different relative pronoun is used depending on the antecedent, but English doesn't have very many relative pronouns.

CB

Kooyeen · Answer

I agree with CB. I think "which" can be ambiguous in some sentences.
He visited Cairo, which is werid. He never liked to travel.

He visited Cairo, which is a beautiful city.

Andriy Lapin · Answer

Greetings, Cool Breeze,

Cool BreezeIn your opinion the second sentence, or rather, its interpretation, is wrong

-

Not really, my friend; you have, I'm afraid, misinterpreted my 'interpretation' of the whole grammatical construction that we still try to interpret as adequately as possible

. Indeed, English is notorious for badly lacking some grammatical forms that pertain to other languages, especially synthetic ones, but there is still room for action if one aims at being precise and unambiguous. Here is my rationale behind interpreting thewhich-clause as a sentential relative construction:

1. X attacked him ? X agitated him is awkward in terms of information processing, since the whole sequence implies upward gradation; the gradation, however, becomes impossible by claiming that which has X as an antecedent. Substituting agitated with acted suddenly and relentlessly would doubtlessly make substantial difference;

2. If you carefully study the definitions of attack, you will make sure that the vast majority of them refer to animate (in fact, human) agents, and this observation urges us to make a bias in favour of the interpretation I stick to; in other words, since X is human, then it is incompatible with which. One possible exception could be a sentence like this:

He imagined himself to be an artist, which he was not

in which case, however, the underlined part is a relative clause acting as complement with the semantic role of a characterisation attribute - not our case, I hope you agree;

3. You may still object by saying that X lacks definiteness by itself, so we cannot be safe about its implication, BUT:

Does the second sentence mean the same as the first? The first sentence states clearly that the attack agitated him. The second is confusing because of 'which.' Does it mean X's attack agitated him or X himself? (part of the original poster's question)

I initially paid attention to this reflexive pronoun, about the 'humanness' of which there may be no faltering. This is what the original poster inquired about, no less and no more. Therefore, interpreting the whole clause as a sentential imperative is by far the most proper solution. By the by, this is what you indirectly imply by saying that '... in modern English who would have to be used to refer to a person'.

Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoff

Cool Breeze · Answer

Gleb_ChebrikoffIndeed, English is notorious for badly lacking some grammatical forms that pertain to other languages, especially synthetic ones, but there is still room for action if one aims at being precise and unambiguous. Here is my rationale behind interpreting the which-clause as a sentential relative construction:

I completely agree with your rationale, GC.[Y] I guess I'm just not that used to applying common sense to every sentence even though my thinking went along the same lines as yours from the start. I considered what was theoretically possible even though unlikely, and based my reply on that.

As an aside completely off topic, I can say that my native language is very slowly going the same way English did. The grammar is becoming simplified and these days there are reporters and journalists who make bad grammatical mistakes that will doubtless eventually become accepted usage.

CB

Andriy Lapin · Answer

Greetings, CB,

Thank you for understanding and sharing your views. See you around.

Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoff

Usage of which

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions