Complex sentences

Streamlining details by dropping relative pronouns

On the previous page we saw an example of how you could drop a relative pronoun to create a more streamlined sentence:

Like most people, she was terrible at things she didn't like.

Mosquito Advertising: The Blade Brief(2011)

(Remember, the dropped relative pronoun is 'that', as in "terrible at things (that) she didn't like".)

We can push this idea a little further. Compare these two versions of the same sentence.

One uses a relative pronoun, and the other doesn't. Which sounds better?

Either way, money is money is money, and a cramped diner that is haunted by insomniacs is as good as any joint.

Either way, money is money is money, and a cramped diner haunted by insomniacs is as good as any joint.

A Song for Quiet(2017)

The second version, with the ‘-ed’ clause, is 2 words shorter—we lose the relative pronoun and the tense helper ‘is’. Efficiency!

But with increased efficiency comes increased risk of misunderstanding!

For instance, can you see how this next snippet could be read two different ways?

(Hint: the supporting clause has an implied subject—but who is it?)

Boggis had three boiled chickens smothered in dumplings.

The Fantastic Mr Fox(1970)

Boggis had three boiled chickens smothered in dumplings.

The Fantastic Mr Fox(1970)

Boggis had three boiled chickens smothered in dumplings.

The Fantastic Mr Fox(1970)

Who is smothered in dumplings?

It's probably the three boiled chickens.

But because the clause has an implied subject, grammatically speaking it could also be Boggis. 🤷‍♂️  

If we wanted to prevent any possibility of misunderstanding, we could add a relative pronoun (and tense helper) to make the relationship explicit:

  • Boggis had three boiled chickens that were smothered in dumplings.

But then we lose that efficiency. 🤷‍♀️  

A key feature of supporting clauses is that they are always playing a role in another clause.

The reason the Boggis sentence is ambiguous is because the supporting clause ("smothered in dumplings") can play two different roles:

  1. It could be a qualifier to the noun group (“three boiled chickens…”).
  2. Or it could be a modifier to the main clause (“Boggis had three boiled chickens…”).

In the second case, the subject of the main clause (“Boggis”) is carried across the noun group and into the supporting clause at the end.

This snippet has very strong context (i.e. Boggis is eating chicken, and dumplings is a side dish that goes with chicken), so most people will get that the chickens are the ones smothered in dumplings.

However...

If we wanted to be clear that the chickens were smothered in dumplings

As we said earlier on this page, we could get rid of the ambiguity completely by using a relative pronoun:

  • Boggis had three boiled chickens that were smothered in dumplings.

This works because relative pronouns force us to interpret a supporting clause as the qualifier of a noun group.

If we wanted to be clear that Boggis was smothered in dumplings

If we wanted readers to know that Boggis was the one smothered in dumplings, we could take advantage of the fact that modifiers can move around in a sentence without changing their meaning (a lot like adverbs) and move the supporting clause to another position in the clause:

  • Smothered in dumplings, Boggis had three boiled chickens.

No more ambiguity.

Remember: While modifiers can move around in a clause without changing their meaning, qualifiers always come after the person/thing that they qualify.

Here are a couple of variations using the "money is money" snippet as a model.

Notice how each uses either an '–ed' or '–ing' clause.

Either way, money is money is money, and a cramped diner haunted by insomniacs is as good as any joint.

A Song for Quiet(2017)

Either way, money is money is money, and a run-down circus tent infested with feral cats is as good as any joint.

Either way, money is money is money, and the creepy abandoned hotel offering me a million dollars for no clear reason is as good as any joint.

Write your own sentence with a qualifying detail but use an ‘-ed’ or ‘-ing’ clause instead of a relative pronoun to create a more streamlined effect.

We've now seen a whole lot of ways that you can use supporting clauses to add more detail to your writing.

Often, readers find supporting clauses more vivid than word groups like adverbs, adjectives, or even prepositional phrases. This is because they describe what is happening more directly in terms of action.

Next up, we're going to see some types of meaning that are unique to supporting clauses. Buckle up!

Previous page