Syntactic functions of who and the types of antecedent

As pointed out, for example, by Biber et al. (1999: 614), who generally occupies subject function, while the use of whom is reserved for object function. Who is rare as an object. However, it is sometimes used in this function, when the speaker or writer wants to avoid the use of the accusative form whom (see example (239) below). In the same way as in edited written NZE, who is nearly categorical in subject function in the present data (cf. Sigley 1997: 275; for spoken English varieties see, e.g., Levey 2006;

Gut 2011). The two instances of accusative who are found in LSSE news (239). This result is congruent with that of Schneider (1992), who reports that accusative who is surprisingly infrequent in written BrE and AmE¹²⁰.

(239) One worker, who we agreed not to name, told us: “I don’t expect to have a job at Christmas - there isn’t any work.” (LSSE, Border Telegraph)

120 Schneider (1992) investigated data from LOB and Brown.

Animacy of antecedents

The relativizer who usually has a human antecedent in news, while inanimate an-tecedents do not occur at all. This finding complies with the typical wh-relativizer divide discussed in the literature; the use of who is reserved for human antecedents, whereas which refers to things.

Table 28. The overall animacy of who

Human Inanimate Collective Animal Total

Variety % % % % %

HISSE 88.7 0.0 10.9 0.4 100.0

LSSE 86.4 0.0 13.2 0.4 100.0

IrE 90.2 0.0 9.8 0.0 100.0

BrE 90.2 0.0 9.8 0.0 100.0

Collective antecedents are fairly frequent with who:

(240) Ms MacDonald points out that there was no crofting representation on the stakeholders group who were consulted on the issue and this has been confirmed by the Scottish Government department. (HISSE, Stornoway Gazette)

Antecedents denoting animals (241) are exceedingly rare, there is one token in HISSE and one in LSSE. In example (241) American minks that threaten the existence of na-tive water voles are discussed and referred to by who:

(241) An American invader who has been threatening the future of one of the UK’s most endangered species is being targeted on the River Spey. (HISSE, Strathspey and Badenoch Herald)

These findings are in line with other investigations on educated writing, for exam-ple, in NZE, in which there are no instances of inanimate who (see Sigley 1997a: 272).

Likewise, in spoken BrE and AmE varieties who is typically near-categorically hu-man (see Levey 2006: 59; Beal and Corrigan 2002, Herrhu-mann 2003, Tagliamonte et al. 2005; Tottie 1997). A handful of inanimate who instances are found in spoken and written New Englishes (see Gut and Coronel 2012: 231–2; Gut 2011). Gut (2011) and Gut and Coronel (2012), however, have categorized antecedents differently than I have.

Therefore our results are not directly comparable.

Table 29 shows the breakdown of figures for restrictive and non-restrictive who according to the animacy of antecedents. The distribution of antecedents in both types of adnominal relative clauses is very similar. Although collective antecedents with non-restrictive who are somewhat more frequent in SSE newspapers in comparison to IrE and BrE, the difference is not statistically significant.

Table 29. The animacy of antecedents of restrictive and non-restrictive who

Restrictive Non-restrictive

Human Collective Animal Total Human Collective Animal Total

Variety % % % % % % % %

HISSE 91.7 7.3 1.0 100.0 86.6 13.4 0.0 100.0

LSSE 90.0 10.0 0.0 100.0 83.2 16.0 0.4 100.0

IrE 90.4 9.6 0.0 100.0 90.0 10.0 0.0 100.0

BrE 88.1 11.9 0.0 100.0 92.5 7.5 0.0 100.0

Definiteness of antecedents

The majority of the antecedents with who are definite across the varieties. In SSE and BrE news the percentage of definite antecedents is approximately 60 per cent. In IrE this figure is slightly lower at 55 per cent.

60.0%   60.9%   54.9%   59.8%  

40.0%   39.1%   45.1%   40.2%  

0.0%  

10.0%  

20.0%  

30.0%  

40.0%  

50.0%  

60.0%  

70.0%  

80.0%  

90.0%  

100.0%  

HISSE  (N=230)   LSSE  (N=235)   IrE  (N=153)   BrE  (N=112)   DEFINITE   INDEFINITE  

Figure 19. Definiteness of antecedents in who relative clauses

Indefinite antecedents predominate with restrictive who, whereas non-restrictive who typically has a definite antecedent (consider table 30). Indefinite antecedents with who often consist of words accompanied with an indefinite article (242), indefinite pronoun (243) or the head noun does not have an article (244).

(242) A man who visited his wife’s premises and allegedly put her “in fear”

was handed out two prison sentences of six months each, but Judge Mary Martin, at Templemore court, when she convicted him of contravening two protection orders. (ICE-Ireland, ICE Press news S\W2C-020 Tipperary Star)

(243) “We are not persuaded, for example, that it would generally be right for the police to keep fingerprints and DNA samples from everyone who is detained but not eventually convicted, or even prosecuted.” (LSSE, The Herald)

(244) The Mountain Café in Grampian Road was packed throughout the week-end with competitors or people who had come to watch the event. (HISSE, Strathspey and Badenoch Herald)

Table 30. Definiteness of antecedents of restrictive and non-restrictive who

Restrictive Non-restrictive

Definite Indefinite Total Definite Indefinite Total

Variety % % % % % %

HISSE 27.1 72.9 100.0 83.6 16.4 100.0

LSSE 41.8 58.2 100.0 77.6 22.4 100.0

IrE 31.3 68.7 100.0 82.9 17.1 100.0

BrE 39.0 61.0 100.0 83.0 17.0 100.0

In order to find out an explanation to the higher frequency of non-restrictive who occurrences in SSE in comparison to IrE and BrE, and to test the findings against those in spoken BrE dialects, the distribution of selected antecedents was investi-gated. As table 31 indicates, non-restrictive who is very frequent with proper nouns (i.e. personal names) across the varieties. The highest frequency is in HISSE: 67.9%, followed by LSSE 60.8%, IrE 58.6% and BrE 58.5%. The variation between the varieties is not, however, statistically significant. Even though the frequency of proper nouns is higher in SSE in comparison to BrE and IrE news, their frequency in SSE is not large enough to explain the result. In addition, two proper nouns in LSSE news occur with it-clefts in restrictive relative clauses, but all the rest of the proper noun antecedents are found in non-restrictive relative clauses.

Table 31. The relativizer who in restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses with selected definite and indefinite antecedents

Who is somewhat frequent with indefinite pronouns in restrictive relative clauses (especially in HISSE and IrE). Collocations people who (245) and those who (246) are relatively frequent across the varieties in restrictive relative clauses. Collocation peo-ple who is also fairly frequent in Tagliamonte et al.’s (2005: 91) data from Lowland Scotland and Northwest England, but is quite surprisingly absent from their data from Northern Ireland.

(245) “We’ve heard stories of people who realise they might be drinking making themselves a sandwich to put in the fridge before they go out - and we’ve heard of publicans providing food for customers they know are vulnerable before they go home.” (HISSE, The Inverness Courier)

(246) Councillor Ian Gray was among those who were sceptical of the projected outlay. (LSSE, Banffshire Journal)

As example (247) shows, not only who, but also the relativizer that occurs with the head noun people (see also section 5.2.2). This collocation is, however, uncommon in news.

(247) “All the people that are spreading rumours need to settle down and grow up, accept that there have been difficulties and that people have been try-ing to resolve them.” (HISSE, The Oban Times)