Book contents
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors to Volume III
- General Preface
- Abbreviations
- General Editor’s Introduction
- Introduction to Volume III
- Part I The Transmission of English
- Part II Tracking Change in the History of English
- 6 Spelling Practices and Emergent Standard Writing
- 7 Phonological Change
- 8 Applying Historical Phonology
- 9 The Emerging Phonological Standard
- 10 The History of R in English
- 11 The System of Clausal Complementation
- 12 Tense, Aspect and Modality in the History of English
- 13 Developments in the Passive Construction
- 14 Adverbs in the History of English
- 15 The Story of English Negation
- 16 Dative and Genitive Variability in the History of English
- 17 Relativisation
- 18 Recent Grammatical Change in English
- 19 The History of English Registers
- 20 The History of Semantic Theory
- 21 The Development of Pragmatic Markers
- Part III Ideology, Society and the History of English
- Index
- References
17 - Relativisation
from Part II - Tracking Change in the History of English
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 October 2025
Edited by
Book contents
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- The New Cambridge History of the English Language
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors to Volume III
- General Preface
- Abbreviations
- General Editor’s Introduction
- Introduction to Volume III
- Part I The Transmission of English
- Part II Tracking Change in the History of English
- 6 Spelling Practices and Emergent Standard Writing
- 7 Phonological Change
- 8 Applying Historical Phonology
- 9 The Emerging Phonological Standard
- 10 The History of R in English
- 11 The System of Clausal Complementation
- 12 Tense, Aspect and Modality in the History of English
- 13 Developments in the Passive Construction
- 14 Adverbs in the History of English
- 15 The Story of English Negation
- 16 Dative and Genitive Variability in the History of English
- 17 Relativisation
- 18 Recent Grammatical Change in English
- 19 The History of English Registers
- 20 The History of Semantic Theory
- 21 The Development of Pragmatic Markers
- Part III Ideology, Society and the History of English
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter presents an overview of relative clauses and relativisation processes from Old English to Contemporary English, as well as in varieties of English around the world. It centres on adnominal restrictive relative clauses and addresses the factors determining the distribution of relativisers used to introduce the relative clause. Of particular interest will be the changing frequency of each relativiser over time, and the changing weight of the relevant predictors used, focusing on those of a semantic, morphosyntactic, social or stylistic nature. Also included will be a micro-analysis of recent changes in relation to relative constructions and individual relativisers, especially in less formal language, such as the demise of which in favour of that and the specialisation of who with human antecedents in subject function. Already widely reported in both standard and World Englishes, these innovations are likely to become part of the grammatical core of standard English.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The New Cambridge History of the English LanguageTransmission, Change and Ideology, pp. 480 - 504Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Allen, Cynthia. 1980. Movement and deletion in Old English. Linguistic Inquiry 11.2: 261–323.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia. 2022. Pronominally headed relative clauses in early English. English Language and Linguistics 26.1: 105–132. https://doi.org./10.1017/S136067432100006XGoogle Scholar
Alsagoff, Lubna and Chee Lick, Ho. 1998. The relative clause in colloquial Singapore English. World Englishes 17.2: 127–138.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan and Leech, Geoffrey. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Burke, Isabelle. 2017. Wicked which: the linking relative in Australian English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 37.3: 356–386.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny, Adger, David and Fox, Sue. 2013. Relative who and the actuation problem. Lingua 126.1: 51–77.10.1016/j.lingua.2012.11.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Marcelle. 2017. Pronominal anaphoric strategies in the West Saxon dialect of Old English. English Language and Linguistics 21: 381–408.10.1017/S136067431700020XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Peter, Yao, Xinyue and Macalinga Borlongan, Ariane. 2014. Relative clauses in Philippine English: a diachronic perspective. In Vandelanotte, Lieselotte, Davidse, Kristin and Gentens, Caroline (eds.), Recent Advances in Corpus Linguistics: Developing and Exploiting Corpora. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 125–146.Google Scholar
Cornish, Francis. 2018. Revisiting the system of English relative clauses: structure, semantics, discourse functionality. English Language and Linguistics 22.3: 431–456.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra and Tagliamonte, Sali. 2010. Prestige, accommodation, and the legacy of relative ‘who’. Language in Society 39.3: 383–410.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1998. Syntax. In Romaine, Suzanne (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume IV: 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 92–329.Google Scholar
Denison, David and Hundt, Marianne. 2013. Defining relatives. Journal of English Linguistics 41.2: 135–167.10.1177/0075424213483572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdmann, Peter. 1980. On the history of subject contact-clauses in English. Folia Linguistica Historica 1: 139–170.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1992. Syntax. In Blake, Norman (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume II: 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 297–303.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga, van Kemenade, Ans, Koopman, Willem and van der Wurff, Wim. 2000. The Syntax of Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas. 2000. Relative clauses in Hong Kong English. World Englishes 19: 357–371.Google Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Hinrichs, Lars. 2018. Restricting the restrictive relativiser: constraints on subject and non-subject English relative clauses. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 14.2: 309–355.Google Scholar
Gut, Ulrike and Coronel, Lilian. 2012. Relatives worldwide. In Hundt, Marianne and Gut, Ulrike (eds.), Mapping Unity and Diversity Worldwide: Corpus-Based Studies of New Englishes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 215–242.10.1075/veaw.g43.09gutCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, Tanja. 2008. Relative clauses in English dialects of the British Isles. In Kortmann, Bernd, Herrmann, Tanja, Pietsch, Lukas and Wagner, Susanne (eds.), Volume 1 Agreement, Gender, Relative Clauses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 21–124.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Bohmann, Axel. 2015. Which-hunting and the standard English relative clause. Language 91.4: 807–836.Google Scholar
Huber, Magnus. 2012. Syntactic and variational complexity in British and Ghanaian English relative clause formation in the written parts of the International Corpus of English. In Kortmann, Bernd and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt (eds.), Linguistic Complexity. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 218–242.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward and Comrie, Bernd. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8.1: 63–99.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd, Lunkenheimer, Kerstin and Ehret, Katharina. 2020. The Electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3712132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernd, Kortmann and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2009. World Englishes between simplification and complexification. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Siebers, Lucia (eds.), World Englishes: Problems, Properties and Prospects – Selected Papers from the Thirteenth IAWE Conference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 263–286.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume I: Internal Factors. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian and Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levey, Stephen. 2006. Visiting London relatives. English World-Wide 27.1: 45–70.10.1075/eww.27.1.04levCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Jim. 1988. That: a relative pronoun? Sociolinguistics and syntactic analysis. In John, M. Anderson and Macleod, Norman (eds.), Edinburgh Studies in the English Language. Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers Ltd., pp. 113–119.Google Scholar
Montgomery, Michael. 1989. The standardization of English relative clauses. In Joseph, B. Trahern (ed.), Standardizing English: Essays in the History of Language Change, in Honor of John Hurt Fisher. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, pp. 111–138.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 2012. Reconstructing syntactic continuity and change in Early Modern English regional dialects: the case of who. In Denison, David, Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, McCully, Chris and Moore, Emma (eds.), Analysing Older English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–184.Google Scholar
Newbrook, Mark. 1998. Which way? That way? Variation and ongoing changes in the English relative clause. World Englishes 17.1: 43–59.Google Scholar
Newbrook, Mark. 2003. Features of the relative clause in Singapore English. In Deterding, David et al. (eds.), English in Singapore: Research on Grammar. Singapore: McGraw-Hill, pp. 67–76.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1995. On kind-sentences, resumptive pronouns, and relative clauses. In Guy, Gregory R., Feagin, Crawford, Schiffrin, Deborah and Baugh, John (eds.), Towards a Social Science of Language: A Festschrift for William Labov. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 223–235.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph. 1957. Relative clauses in educated spoken English. English Studies 38: 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 2019. Relative Clauses: Structure and Variation in Everyday English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108687744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 1999. Syntax. In Lass, Roger (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume III: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 187–233.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 1982. Socio-historical Linguistics: Its Status and Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511720130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rydén, Mats. 1983. The emergence of who as a relativiser. Studia Linguistica 37.2: 126–134.10.1111/j.1467-9582.1983.tb00317.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sigley, Robert. 1997. The influence of formality and channel on relative pronoun choice in New Zealand English. English Language and Linguistics 1.2: 207–232.Google Scholar
Suárez-Gómez, Cristina. 2006. Relativisation in Early English (950–1250). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Suárez-Gómez, Cristina. 2008. Syntactic dialectal variation in Middle English: relativizers and relative clauses. In Gotti, Maurizio, Dossena, Marina and Dury, Richard (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 2006. Vol. I: Syntax and Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 141–156.10.1075/cilt.295.11suaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suárez-Gómez, Cristina. 2009. On the syntactic differences between OE dialects: evidence from the Gospels. English Language and Linguistics 13.1: 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suárez-Gómez, Cristina. 2014. Relative clauses in Asian Englishes. Journal of English Linguistics 42.3: 245–268.10.1177/0075424214540528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suárez-Gómez, Cristina. 2017. The role of transparency and language contact in the structural nativization of relative clauses in New Englishes. English World-Wide 38.2: 212–238.10.1075/eww.38.2.05suaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suárez-Gómez, Cristina. 2018. A sociolinguistic study of relativisers in spoken Philippines English. In Seoane, Elena, Acuña-Fariña, Carlos and Palacios-Martínez, Ignacio (eds.), Subordination in English: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 285–308.10.1515/9783110583571-013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suárez-Gómez, Cristina and Seoane, Elena. 2021. The role of age and gender in grammatical variation in World Englishes. World Englishes 42.2: 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. 2002. Variation and change in the British relative marker system. In Poussa, Patricia (ed.), Dialect Contact on the North Sea Littoral. Munich: Lincom Europa, pp. 147–165.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali, Smith, Jennifer and Lawrence, Helen. 2005. No taming the vernacular! Insights from the relatives in northern Britain. Language Variation and Change 17.1: 75–112.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel. 1997. Relatively speaking: relative marker usage in the British National Corpus. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.), To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, pp. 465–481.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1992. Syntax. In Richard, M. Hogg (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume I: The Beginnings to 1066. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 168–289.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter
conforms to version 2.0 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic
(A)
level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.