Why is whose called a relative pronoun?

[Mori]

As far as I know, a pronoun is a word that replaces a noun. Now consider the following example:

My father is the man. + His jacket is blue. = My father is the man whose jacket is blue.

We use whose instead of a possessive adjective, so why do we call it a relative pronoun?

 

[5jj]

My father is the man. + His jacket is blue. = My father is the man whose jacket is blue.

My father is the man. + His jacket is blue
My father is the man. + The man's jacket is blue
My father is the man. + My father's jacket is blue

 

[Holmes]

His jacket is blue. = My father is the man whose jacket is blue.

We use whose instead of a possessive adjective, so why do we call it a relative pronoun?

In "his jacket," "his" is not an adjective; it's a determiner.

In "whose jacket," "whose" is a relative determiner.

 

[Mori]

In "his jacket," "his" is not an adjective; it's a determiner.

In "whose jacket," "whose" is a relative determiner.

Different terminology used by different grammarians.

 

[5jj]

Labels come and labels go, but words go on for ever.

 

[PaulMatthews]

My father is [the man whose jacket is blue].

The pronoun "whose" is said to be relative because it relates to an antecedent. In this example "whose" is related to "man" (which in turn is related to "father").

We can represent the relative clause as "R's jacket is blue", with R anaphorically related to "man",

So in a way, we can say that "whose" replaces the noun "man".

(R = relativised element)

 

[Mori]

in a way

You mean it's loosely classified as a pronoun? Seeing @5jj's answer, I'm now convinced that it's used instead of the possessive noun phrase my father's, — It's OK to use a pronoun instead of a noun phrase.

 

[PaulMatthews]

You mean it's loosely classified as a pronoun? Seeing @5jj's answer, I'm now convinced that it's used instead of the noun phrase my father's, — It's OK to use a pronoun instead of a noun phrase.

No, not loosely; it is classified as a pronoun. It's not used instead of "my father's", but is anaphorically related to "man".

I thought I explained the grammar in my previous answer.

Note that relative pronouns relate to a noun or nominal, not to a noun phrase. In your example the antecedent is not the noun phrase "the man", but just the nominal "man".

 

[Holmes]

Different terminology used by different grammarians.

It is more than a terminological difference, since "his," "her," "their," "our," "my," and "whose" do not function like adjectives at all.

We could go into proofs of this, if you like. The battery of arguments is rather lengthy, if you want to see all the ways in which those words fail to be adjectives.

Possessive adjective is a completely misguided category. There is no such thing in English, ESL grammar books and ancient traditional grammars notwithstanding.

 

[Holmes]

We can represent the relative clause as "R's jacket is blue", with R anaphorically related to "man",

So in a way, we can say that "whose" replaces the noun "man".

"Whose" replaces the noun "man" and does something else; it adds the possessive morpheme, which is a determiner.

Since the determiner heads "whose," which is syntactically complex ("who" + 's), I have used the term "relative determiner" rather than "relative pronoun."

"Whose" always functions as a determiner, relative ("the man whose dog barks a lot") or interrogative ("Whose dog barks a lot") or with ellipsis ("Whose is that dog?").

If "whose" were a relative pronoun, it should be possible to say things like "the man whose is sitting over there." Clearly, however, phrases like that won't do at all.

 

[PaulMatthews]

"Whose" replaces the noun "man" and does something else; it adds the possessive morpheme, which is a determiner.

Since the determiner heads "whose," which is syntactically complex ("who" + 's), I have used the term "relative determiner" rather than "relative pronoun."

"Whose" always functions as a determiner, relative ("the man whose dog barks a lot") or interrogative ("Whose dog barks a lot") or with ellipsis ("Whose is that dog?").

If "whose" were a relative pronoun, it should be possible to say things like "the man whose is sitting over there." Clearly, however, phrases like that won't do at all.

You're confusing word class (POS) and function.

The function here of "whose" is determiner, but its word class is pronoun.

It was word class, not function, that the OP asked about, so the answer to their question is that it's a pronoun.

 

[Holmes]

You're confusing word class (POS) and function.

The function here of "whose" is determiner, but its word class is pronoun.

It was word class, not function, that the OP asked about, so the answer to their question is that it's a pronoun.

I disagree. Calling "whose" a pronoun is as silly as calling "John's" (in phrases like "John's jacket," "John's car") a noun. It is not "John's" that is the noun; it's "John." The apostrophe-s, i.e., the possessive morpheme, makes a complex syntactic entity, whose head is the apostrophe-s.

"Whose" has morphosyntactic structure: "who" + [possessive morpheme]. "Whose" is a DP (Determiner Phrase) headed by the possessive morpheme; it has a relative pronoun ("who") in its Specifier; and the head takes NP (Noun Phrase) complements, like "jacket." The word class of "whose" is determiner.

We see the possessive morpheme overtly at work in "whose" when it appears as apostrophe-s in the informal possessive "whoever's," which many people use instead of the more formal "whosever."

 

[5jj]

It is more than a terminological difference, since "his," "her," "their," "our," "my," and "whose" do not function like adjectives at all.

We could go into proofs of this, if you like.

I doubt it. All you could 'prove' is that these words do not fit in with yout idea of adjectives.

Possessive adjective is a completely misguided category. There is no such thing in English, ESL grammar books and ancient traditional grammars notwithstanding.

In your opinion.

 

[Holmes]

I doubt it. All you could 'prove' is that these words do not fit in with yout idea of adjectives.

No. There are recognized linguistic properties of adjectivehood, properties which words like those in question plainly do not have and with respect to which it may be empirically determined -- that is to say, empirically proved -- that they are not adjectives.

 

[5jj]

No. There are recognized linguistic properties of adjectivehood,

What are these properties, and by whom are they recognized?

 

[PaulMatthews]

I disagree. Calling "whose" a pronoun is as silly as calling "John's" (in phrases like "John's jacket," "John's car") a noun. It is not "John's" that is the noun; it's "John." The apostrophe-s, i.e., the possessive morpheme, makes a complex syntactic entity, whose head is the apostrophe-s.

"Whose" has morphosyntactic structure: "who" + [possessive morpheme]. "Whose" is a DP (Determiner Phrase) headed by the possessive morpheme; it has a relative pronoun ("who") in its Specifier; and the head takes NP (Noun Phrase) complements, like "jacket." The word class of "whose" is determiner.

We see the possessive morpheme overtly at work in "whose" when it appears as apostrophe-s in the informal possessive "whoever's," which many people use instead of the more formal "whosever."

You are doing it again, muddling up word class and function etc.

"Whose" belongs to the word class (POS) pronoun. and its function is that of determiner (or subject-determiner for some). I've already explained that to you.

All constituents in a clause are given two labels: a word class and a function, and "whose" is no exception.

And in "John's jacket", of course "John's" is a genitive NP; it has the function of determiner in the matrix NP "John's car". So we have one NP functioning in the structure of another NP.

 

[Mori]

No, not loosely; it is classified as a pronoun. It's not used instead of "my father's", but is anaphorically related to "man".

I thought I explained the grammar in my previous answer.

Note that relative pronouns relate to a noun or nominal, not to a noun phrase. In your example the antecedent is not the noun phrase "the man", but just the nominal "man".

I just found something in Michael Swan, Practical English Usage 4th edition, entry 143.1, which is my point in post #7:

My, your, his, her, its, our and their are pronouns, because they stand for possessive noun phrases: my younger brother means ‘the speaker's younger brother’; their plans means for example 'those people's plans’ or 'the children's plans’.
...
One's and whose are also possessive determiners/pronouns.
An orphan is a child whose parents are dead.

The blue emphasis is mine.

 

[Holmes]

You are doing it again, muddling up word class and function etc.

Actually, I'm doing no such thing.

"Whose" belongs to the word class (POS) pronoun. and its function is that of determiner (or subject-determiner for some). I've already explained that to you.

And I have already explained to you that the possessive morpheme has the syntactic status of determiner, that the possessive morpheme is the head of "whose," and that therefore "whose" has the word class (POS) of determiner (in surface structure, where it appears as one word form). You keep muddling up determiner and pronoun.

And in "John's jacket", of course "John's" is a genitive NP; it has the function of determiner in the matrix NP "John's car". So we have one NP functioning in the structure of another NP.

No. John's is a DP (Determiner Phrase), not an NP. The head of "John's" is "'s." If it is treated as a single word rather than as a morphosyntactic complex, its word class (POS) is determiner.

 

[Holmes]

What are these properties, and by whom are they recognized?

Shall we discuss some of the differences? I can give you citations later, if you really want them, after I look in linguistic grammars that you yourself have in your extensive home grammar library.

Why don't you see if you can (1) modify "whose," "their," "my," etc., with an adverb, or (2) intensify them with a degree word like "very" or "really," or (3) place them (and them alone) after a copulative verb like "seem," for starters, and see if you wish to put them in the same word category as words like "happy," "gentle," "soft," etc.?

As a fourth argument, notice that determiners like "my," "their," "our," etc., cannot, like other determiners, co-occur with other determiners in the same nominal phrase. Just as one cannot say things like "the a ball," "a the ball," so also one cannot say "the my ball," "a my ball." But adjectives do co-occur with determiners: "the big ball," "a red ball."

 

[5jj]

Shall we discuss some of the differences?

No, thanks. I just wanted you to tell me what linguistic properties of adjectivehood are, and by whom they are recognised

I can give you citations later, if you really want them, after I look in linguistic grammars that you yourself have in your extensive home grammar library.

Thank you.