ADULT ESL/ELL ADVANCED • LANGUAGE SYSTEMS (GRAMMAR & SYNTAX)

Relative Clauses & Embedded Phrases — I can use relative clauses and embedded phrases to add precise detail in speaking and writing.

Master the syntactic structures that transform simple statements into precise, information-rich academic prose.

Historical Context & Motivation

The study of how languages embed one clause inside another has fascinated linguists for centuries. Every natural language provides mechanisms for packing additional information into a sentence without starting a new one — and relative clauses represent one of the most universal and powerful of these mechanisms. In English, the relative clause system draws on a blend of Germanic and Romance influences, producing a flexible yet rule-governed structure that advanced learners must internalize to achieve academic fluency. Understanding the historical evolution of these structures illuminates why modern English offers so many options — defining versus non-defining clauses, contact clauses with omitted pronouns, and reduced participial phrases — that can confuse even proficient speakers.

c. 700
Old English Relative Markers
Old English used the indeclinable particle þe alongside demonstrative pronouns to introduce subordinate clauses, establishing the earliest ancestor of modern relative pronouns.
c. 1400
Rise of 'Which' and 'Who'
Middle English, influenced by French syntactic patterns after the Norman Conquest, saw the interrogative pronouns which and who repurposed as relative markers, displacing older forms.
c. 1600
'That' Becomes Dominant
Early Modern English standardized that as the most common relativizer in restrictive clauses. Shakespeare's plays showcase both formal and contact-clause varieties side by side.
1957
Chomsky's Syntactic Structures
Noam Chomsky's transformational grammar formalized the concept of embedding — showing how recursive rules generate infinitely complex sentences from finite components, including relative clause attachment.
1980s–Present
Corpus Linguistics & ESL Pedagogy
Large-scale corpus studies revealed frequency patterns in relative clause use, informing modern ESL curricula that teach defining clauses before non-defining ones and prioritize high-frequency pronoun choices.

The central question this lesson addresses is both practical and theoretical: how do proficient English users combine multiple propositions into a single, coherent sentence without sacrificing clarity? Relative clauses and embedded phrases are the syntactic architecture that makes this possible, and mastering them is essential for any advanced learner aiming to produce — and comprehend — the kind of dense, precise prose expected in academic and professional contexts.

Core Principles & Definitions

Before examining the mechanics of relative clauses, it is important to establish several foundational principles. A relative clause is a dependent clause that modifies a noun (called the antecedent) and is introduced by a relative pronoun (who, whom, whose, which, that) or a relative adverb (where, when, why). An embedded phrase is a reduced or non-finite structure — a participial phrase, an appositive, or a prepositional modifier — that performs a similar function but in a more compressed form. Together, these structures allow speakers and writers to layer information precisely within a single syntactic frame.

1

Defining (Restrictive) Clause

Identifies or limits the antecedent. Without it, the sentence meaning changes fundamentally. No commas. Example: Students who submit late lose marks.
2

Non-Defining (Non-Restrictive) Clause

Adds extra, non-essential information about an already identified noun. Set off by commas. Example: Professor Hahn, who teaches phonology, is retiring.
3

Reduced Relative (Participial Phrase)

The relative pronoun and auxiliary are deleted, leaving a present or past participle. Example: The data collected last month show a trend.
4

Appositive Phrase

A noun phrase placed beside another noun to rename or elaborate on it. Example: Chomsky, the father of modern linguistics, transformed the field.
5

Contact Clause (Zero Relative)

A defining clause in which the relative pronoun (object position) is omitted entirely. Example: The book [Ø] I recommended is out of print.
KEY TAKEAWAY
Think of a sentence as a train. The main clause is the engine — it moves under its own power. A relative clause is a car you hitch onto the engine: it adds cargo (information) but cannot travel alone. A reduced phrase is the same cargo packed into a smaller, lighter container. Both enrich the payload; the choice depends on how much structural weight your sentence can bear and how formal the context demands.

Visual Explanation — Sentence Architecture

The diagram below illustrates how a simple sentence is expanded through the addition of a defining relative clause, then further compressed into a reduced participial phrase. Notice how the relative pronoun occupies a specific syntactic slot and how its deletion triggers a morphological change in the verb.

Figure 1: Four levels of embedding. Level 1 is a simple sentence. Level 2 adds a full defining relative clause introduced by who. Level 3 reduces the clause to a participial phrase by deleting the pronoun and changing the verb form. Level 4 recasts the information as an appositive noun phrase.

As the diagram demonstrates, the semantic content remains constant across all four levels — only the syntactic packaging changes. Advanced writers and speakers move fluidly among these options, selecting a full relative clause when clarity or formality demands it, and compressing to a participial phrase or appositive when economy of expression is preferred. Recognizing these structural relationships also strengthens reading comprehension, because dense academic texts routinely stack multiple embedded phrases within a single sentence.

How Relative Clauses Work — Deep Mechanism

Relative Pronoun Selection

The choice of relative pronoun depends on two variables: the animacy of the antecedent (human vs. non-human) and the grammatical function of the pronoun within the relative clause (subject, object, or possessive). English retains vestiges of a case system in its relative pronouns: who (subjective), whom (objective), and whose (possessive). These case-marked forms apply exclusively to human (or personified) antecedents, while which serves non-human nouns in non-defining contexts, and that is the default relativizer in defining clauses regardless of animacy.

Relative Pronoun Selection Matrix
Function in ClauseHuman AntecedentNon-Human AntecedentOmission Possible?
Subjectwho / thatwhich / thatNo (subject cannot be omitted)
Objectwhom / who / thatwhich / thatYes (contact clause)
Possessivewhosewhose / of whichNo
Object of Prepositionwhom (formal) / who (informal)whichYes, if preposition is stranded

Punctuation as Meaning Signal

In writing, punctuation is not merely decorative — it carries genuine semantic weight. A defining clause uses no commas because the information is essential to identifying the antecedent: The students who passed the exam celebrated (only those specific students). A non-defining clause is enclosed in commas because removing it does not change which entity is referenced: The students, who had studied all week, celebrated (all the students are being discussed). In speech, this distinction is signaled by intonation: a slight pause and a lowered pitch contour mark non-defining information. Misplacing or omitting commas can therefore alter the propositional content of a sentence, making this one of the highest-stakes punctuation choices in English.

Reduction Rules

A full relative clause can be reduced to a participial or adjectival phrase under specific conditions. First, the relative pronoun must function as the subject of the clause (object-position pronouns cannot be deleted without restructuring). Second, if the verb is in the active voice with progressive or habitual aspect, deletion produces a present participle: who is studying → studying. Third, if the verb is in the passive voice, deletion yields a past participle: which was published → published. Fourth, if the clause contains be plus an adjective, the pronoun and be are deleted, leaving the adjective phrase directly after the noun: resources that are available online → resources available online.

Classification of Embedded Structures

To deploy relative clauses and embedded phrases with full precision, it is helpful to see the entire taxonomy at a glance. The diagram below maps six major subtypes against two axes: whether the structure is finite (containing a tensed verb) or non-finite, and whether it restricts the reference of the antecedent or merely adds supplementary information.

Figure 2: A two-dimensional taxonomy of embedded modifiers. The vertical axis distinguishes restrictive (essential) from non-restrictive (supplementary) modification. The horizontal axis separates finite structures (containing a tensed verb) from non-finite phrases (participles, adjectives, noun phrases). Each cell includes the structure's label, its formal markers, and an example.

Several patterns emerge from this classification. In academic writing, non-finite structures — especially reduced participial phrases and post-nominal adjective phrases — are far more frequent than full relative clauses, because they achieve informational density with fewer words. In spoken discourse, by contrast, full finite clauses predominate because listeners need the explicit pronoun and tensed verb to parse the sentence in real time. Advanced learners benefit from developing a repertoire across all eight cells, choosing the structure that best serves the communicative context at hand.

Worked Example — Building a Complex Academic Sentence

In this worked example, we will begin with three short, choppy sentences and combine them into a single, well-structured academic sentence using relative clauses and embedded phrases. We will then explore alternative versions to illustrate how different embedding choices affect register and emphasis.

Combining Sentences with Relative Clauses & Embedded Phrases
1
Step 1 — Identify the Core PropositionsWe have three simple sentences. (A) Dr. Nakamura developed a new methodology. (B) The methodology analyzes code-switching patterns. (C) The methodology has been widely adopted by sociolinguists. Sentences B and C both modify 'methodology' — the shared noun that will serve as our antecedent.
2
Step 2 — Embed Sentence B as a Defining Relative ClauseSince 'methodology' is non-human and functions as the subject of sentence B, we use that or which. Because the clause is restrictive (it identifies which methodology), we choose that and use no commas.
Dr. Nakamura developed a new methodology that analyzes code-switching patterns.
3
Step 3 — Add Sentence C as a Non-Defining Relative ClauseSentence C adds supplementary information about the methodology (it doesn't further restrict which one). We use which with commas. Note that that is not permitted in non-defining clauses.
Dr. Nakamura developed a new methodology that analyzes code-switching patterns, which has been widely adopted by sociolinguists.
4
Step 4 — Create a Reduced-Phrase VariantFor a more concise academic style, we can reduce the defining clause to a present participial phrase (delete that, change the verb to -ing form) and reduce the non-defining clause to a past participial phrase.
Dr. Nakamura developed a new methodology analyzing code-switching patterns, now widely adopted by sociolinguists.
5
Step 5 — Evaluate Register and ClarityThe full-clause version (Step 3) is clearer for listeners and appropriate for oral presentations. The reduced version (Step 4) is more information-dense and typical of journal articles. Both are grammatically correct; the choice depends on audience and medium. Notice that stacking too many embedded structures can create garden-path effects, so skilled writers limit themselves to two or three modifiers per noun phrase.

Strengths, Limitations & Common Errors

Relative clauses and embedded phrases are indispensable tools, but like any syntactic resource, they carry trade-offs. The following table outlines the strengths and limitations of each major structure, along with the most frequent errors advanced ESL learners encounter.

Strengths and Limitations of Embedded Structures
StructureStrengthsLimitations / Common Errors
Defining relative clauseUnambiguous; explicitly marks the modifying relationship; suitable for all registers.Can sound wordy in academic prose. Error: using 'which' without commas in American English where 'that' is standard.
Non-defining relative clauseAdds parenthetical precision; useful for biographical/contextual detail.Requires commas — omitting them turns it into a defining clause, changing meaning. Error: using 'that' instead of 'which/who' in non-defining clauses.
Reduced participial phraseHighly concise; preferred in academic writing for informational density.Dangling modifier risk: the participle must logically modify the nearest noun. Error: 'Walking to class, the rain started' (the rain is not walking).
Appositive phraseElegant for introducing definitions, credentials, or supplementary identity.Always non-restrictive in English — cannot be used to narrow reference. Error: omitting the second comma ('My brother, an engineer works here').
Contact clause (Ø relative)Natural and fluid in speech; reduces perceived formality.Only possible when the pronoun is in object position. Error: omitting the subject pronoun — 'The person Ø called me' is ungrammatical.
KEY TAKEAWAY
Choosing an embedded structure is like choosing a tool from a toolbox: a full relative clause is a versatile adjustable wrench — it always works, but it's bulky. A reduced phrase is a precision socket wrench — faster and sleeker, but only fits certain bolts. A skilled writer keeps every tool at hand and selects the one that fits the task, the register, and the audience. The most common errors arise not from ignorance of the rules but from applying the wrong tool to the wrong bolt — such as reducing a clause whose subject pronoun cannot be deleted.

Connection to Advanced Syntactic Theory

The structures explored in this lesson serve as a gateway into several advanced areas of linguistic theory and applied language studies. In generative syntax, relative clause formation is analyzed through wh-movement: the relative pronoun originates in a position within the clause (e.g., object of the verb) and moves to the clause-initial position, leaving a trace (or copy) that preserves the original grammatical relationship. This movement analysis explains constraints such as island effects — configurations from which extraction is blocked — that advanced learners encounter in complex sentence construction. For example, one cannot relativize out of a coordinate structure: *The book which I read and the article pleased me is ungrammatical because the relative pronoun has been extracted from inside a conjoined phrase.

Connections to Advanced Linguistic Theory
This LessonAdvanced TopicWhy It Matters for Advanced Learners
Defining vs. non-defining clausesInformation structure (given vs. new; focus vs. background)Understanding which information to foreground in discourse-level writing (e.g., thesis chapters, policy briefs).
Relative pronoun selectionAccessibility Hierarchy (Keenan & Comrie, 1977)Predicts which positions in a clause can be relativized across languages; explains why object-of-preposition relatives are harder to learn.
Clause reductionNominalization and grammatical metaphor (Halliday)Academic register relies heavily on turning processes (verbs) into things (nouns) — understanding reduction is the first step.
Stacking multiple embedded phrasesRecursion and center-embedding constraintsExplains processing limits: sentences with more than two center-embedded clauses become nearly impossible to parse.

For learners pursuing graduate study or professional writing in English, these theoretical connections have immediate practical implications. The Accessibility Hierarchy, for instance, explains a well-documented learning sequence: ESL students master subject relatives before object relatives, and object-of-preposition relatives last of all. Knowing this hierarchy allows learners to target their practice strategically, focusing effort where the returns are highest.

Practice Problems

PROBLEM 1CONCEPTUAL
Explain the difference in meaning between these two sentences: (A) The participants who completed the survey received a gift card. (B) The participants, who completed the survey, received a gift card. Which sentence implies that all participants received a gift card? Why?
PROBLEM 2BASIC
Combine the following two sentences into one using an appropriate relative pronoun. Identify whether the resulting clause is defining or non-defining and punctuate accordingly. (A) The conference attracted 500 attendees. (B) The conference was held in Geneva.
PROBLEM 3INTERMEDIATE
Reduce the following sentence by converting the relative clause into a participial phrase: The policy that was implemented last year has reduced emissions by 12%. Then write a second version using a different embedded structure (appositive or adjective phrase). Explain why each reduction is grammatically valid.
PROBLEM 4APPLIED
You are writing an abstract for an academic paper. Revise the following passage to improve information density by using at least one reduced relative clause, one appositive, and one contact clause: This study examines bilingual speakers. The speakers live in border communities. The study uses a methodology. The methodology was designed by Torres (2019). The data that the researchers collected suggest that code-switching follows predictable patterns.
PROBLEM 5CRITICAL THINKING
Consider the following sentence: The professor the student the dean hired recommended failed the course. This sentence is grammatically correct but extremely difficult to process. Using your knowledge of relative clause embedding, (a) identify the three propositions being combined, (b) rewrite the sentence using explicit relative pronouns, and (c) explain, with reference to center-embedding constraints, why the original version is nearly incomprehensible and how a skilled writer would restructure it.

Summary — Relative Clauses & Embedded Phrases

This lesson examined the full system of relative clauses and embedded phrases in English, beginning with their historical roots in Old English and tracing the development of modern relative pronouns (who, whom, whose, which, that). We distinguished defining (restrictive) clauses — which narrow the identity of an antecedent and take no commas — from non-defining (non-restrictive) clauses — which add supplementary detail and require commas. The mechanism section showed how pronoun selection depends on animacy and grammatical function, and how clause reduction transforms a full clause into a concise participial phrase, appositive, or adjective phrase.

We classified eight embedded modifier types along two dimensions — finite vs. non-finite and restrictive vs. non-restrictive — and applied these tools in a worked example that combined three simple sentences into a single, information-dense academic sentence. Common errors such as dangling modifiers, missing commas, and incorrect pronoun choices were examined alongside the theoretical underpinnings — including the Accessibility Hierarchy and center-embedding constraints — that explain why some structures are harder to produce and parse. Mastering this repertoire enables advanced learners to write with the precision and density expected in academic and professional English.

Varsity Tutors • Adult ESL/ELL Advanced • Relative Clauses & Embedded Phrases