Stranding in relative clause¶

Stranding vs. pied-piping in a relative clause¶

I’d now like to welcome Mr. Charles Bruntley, to whom we are all profoundly grateful __ (fronting)

I’d now like to welcome Mr. Charles Bruntley, whom we are all profoundly grateful to __(stranding)

Pied-piping¶

“Stays with its noun”
Stays immediately adjacent to the word that represents its complement within the relative clause (in the above example, the word is “whom”)
We look at the internal bond between the preposition and its specific object
Keep the preposition and its relative pronoun together at the beginning of the clause.
The preposition “to” has not been “stranded” or “abandoned” by its object whom. They are still a functional pair.

The Internal Structure of the relative clause: In the phrase “to whom we are all profoundly grateful”, we have two distinct parts:

The antecedent:

Mr. Charles Bruntley (The noun being described).

The relative pronoun:

whom (The word standing in for "Mr. Charles Bruntley" inside the clause).

In fronting (pied-piping) the preposition “to” and its complement whom move to the front of the relative clause as a single unit:

Together (Pied-piping): [to whom] are we grateful.

Separated (Stranding): [whom] are we grateful [to].

In CGEL, we say that in “to whom we are grateful”, the “gap” is at the very end of the sentence, after the adjective grateful. Because the preposition “to” is at the front, the entire PP is missing from its usual spot.

Stranding¶

In the stranded version (whom we are grateful to), only the NP (the noun phrase/pronoun) is missing from the end, leaving the preposition “naked” or “stranded.”

Because English lost most of its case endings (like whom), the bond between a preposition and its noun became purely positional. This allows us to “break” the bond more easily, but it makes the listener do more mental work to connect the “gap” at the end to the “topic” at the front.

Stranding a relative complement vs. adjunct¶

A great way to tell the difference using our current topic is to see if you can “strand” a preposition.

The person I talked to. (complement)

Complement: You can usually strand the preposition because the verb is "reaching out" for its object.

The way in which he did it. (natural)

The way which he did it in. (Very awkward/Often ungrammatical in CGEL)

Adjunct: It is much harder to strand a preposition when it's part of an adjunct of time or manner.

With pronoun¶

Case change¶

Pied-piping often forces a change in the pronoun itself, which is why it often feels more formal or “intellectual.”

Stranding: You can often use who or even omit the pronoun entirely.

The man I talked to.

The man who I talked to.”

With Pied-Piping: You are forced to use the objective case (whom) and you cannot omit the pronoun.

~~The man to who I talked.”~~

~~The man to I talked.~~

The man to whom I talked (formal)

Invisible pronoun¶

One of the greatest “pros” of stranding is that it allows you to delete the pronoun entirely, which makes your opinionated writing feel much faster and more direct.

Pied-Piping:

The principles for which we stand… (heavy, you are stuck with the preposition and the pronoun)

Pied-Piping	Must use Whom/Which; cannot be deleted.	The tone is formal, academic

Stranding:

The principles we stand for… (lean, the pronoun is gone, the topic is fronted, and the verb is punchy).

Stranding	Can use Who/That or delete it entirely. The tone is direct and professional

Non-finite infinitival relatives¶

Preposition fronting (possible but rarer). The preposition can move before the infinitive phrase.

She is easy to talk to.

She is easy to talk to. (normal)

She is easy to talk to. (fronting usually awkward)

Note: the last two are the same, since

~~She is easy to whom to talk~~

infinitival relatives cannot carry the preposition with a relativiser in the same way finite relatives do

Why it fails:

No overt relativiser in infinitival relatives. In She is easy to talk to, there is no “who” or “whom”.
English infinitival relatives are headless relative clauses: the subject or object is implied.
Pied-piping requires an overt wh-word. Pied-piping = moving wh-word + preposition together. If there’s no wh-word, the preposition cannot move
Infinitival clauses resist extraction in the same way finite clauses allow.

to talk to __ → gap is filled by main-clause subject

Trying to insert to whom would create two “to” elements: the stranded “to” and the fronted “to” → ungrammatical

Noun phrases¶

In noun phrases it appears more clearly:

a chair to sit on a chair on which to sit

Here the preposition is fronted with the relativiser.

** Why stranding dominates?**

In infinitival relatives:

There is no overt relativiser (who/which/whom), Therefore there is nothing for the preposition to move with, so English usually leaves the preposition in place.

✅ Core idea

A non-finite infinitival relative is a reduced relative clause where:

the verb is to-infinitive

the subject is not expressed

the head noun corresponds to a gap inside the clause.

====

Impact¶

Here is how to decide which one to use for your essays and professional writing.

Pied-piping impact: formal¶

The formal choice. The preposition is “pied-piped” to the front of the clause.
Best for: formal introductions, academic papers, legal documents, or highly respectful speeches
The “Price”: It can sound “stiff” or “stilted” if used in a casual context. It signals that the writer is being very careful with their grammar.
Constraint: You must use whom (or which). You cannot say “to who” or “to that.”

Stranding impact: natural¶

Because English is so dependent on word order, Pied-piping actually feels more foreign to the language’s DNA. In English, we like our verbs and prepositions to stay together.

To look for (search)

To look at (observe)

To look after (care)

Stranding is the natural choice. The preposition remains in its original position at the end of the clause.
Best for: Opinionated essays, polemics, journalism, and professional emails. It sounds confident and native.
The “Advantage”: It allows for a smoother flow.
Most modern writers prefer stranding because it avoids the “clunkiness” of fronting.
Flexibility: You can use who, whom, or even that (e.g., “The person that we are grateful to”).

Which is better when writing?¶

With opinionated writing about politics and philosophy, here is a strategic breakdown: Use stranding when:

You want to sound forceful and direct. Ending with the preposition often allows the sentence to end on the most important word (the verb or the adjective).

This is a policy that the public will never agree to.” (Sounds much stronger than “to which the public will never agree”).

Use Fronting (“to whom”) when:

You are being extremely respectful or “lofty.” It adds a layer of intellectual distance and gravity.

There are certain principles to which we must remain absolute

Preposition position impact summary¶

Feature	Fronted (To whom…)	Stranded (…grateful to)
Tone	Formal, elevated, academic	Natural, direct, modern
Flow	Can feel interrupted	Usually smoother
Native Feel	Often sounds like a “second language” rule	Sounds like a native speaker
CGEL View	Syntactically complex	Syntactically “unmarked” (standard)