Who is the woman that/*who just called?

[sitifan]

(1) Who is the woman that just called? (o)

(2) Who is the woman who just called? (x)

Source: http://www.learnerhall.org/2012/10/blog-post3002.html

In Taiwan, students are often taught that the relative pronoun who should not be used in a question beginning with the interrogative pronoun Who. That's why #2 is not acceptable. Do native speakers agree with the rule?

 

[emsr2d2]

I find both equally correct and possible.

 

[Tarheel]

While they are both natural enough, I think "Who was that?" would be more likely.

 

[jutfrank]

That's why #2 is not acceptable. Do native speakers agree with the rule?

'Acceptable' in what sense? For whom?

 

[sitifan]

'Acceptable' in what sense? For whom?

Acceptable on English exams given in Taiwan. For many, if not most, Taiwanese teachers of English.

 

[jutfrank]

Acceptable on English exams given in Taiwan. For many, if not most, Taiwanese teachers of English.

In that case, no one here has any idea, quite understandably. I don't think any of our members work for the Taiwanese Ministry of Education.

It sounds to me as if you're telling us that it's unacceptable to those who have the authority to judge.

 

[emsr2d2]

We can't speak for what might or might not be acceptable in English exams in Taiwan but we can assure you that native speakers know nothing of that "rule".
(Cross-posted with jutfrank)

 

[sitifan]

We can't speak for what might or might not be acceptable in English exams in Taiwan but we can assure you that native speakers know nothing of that "rule".
(Cross-posted with jutfrank)

That's what I'd like to know. Thank you very much.

 

[Phlebas the Phoenician]

In Taiwan, students are often taught that the relative pronoun who should not be used in a question beginning with the interrogative pronoun Who. That's why #2 is not acceptable. Do native speakers agree with the rule?

Believers in that rule may find it interesting that it is broken in one of the most famous poems in modern English:

"Who is the third who walks always beside you?" (- T. S. Eliot, The Waste Land, Part V)

Would they want to say that the great T. S. Eliot was writing ungrammatically or improperly there?

 

[PaulMatthews]

Source: http://www.learnerhall.org/2012/10/blog-post3002.html

In Taiwan, students are often taught that the relative pronoun who should not be used in a question beginning with the interrogative pronoun Who. That's why #2 is not acceptable. Do native speakers agree with the rule?

Who is the woman who just called?

It's possible that the the two fairly close instances of "who" are considered stylistically inelegant, and thus best avoided. For some, I suppose there may be some merit in that.

It's certainly not ungrammatical, though.

 

[Phlebas the Phoenician]

Who is the woman who just called?

It's possible that the the two fairly close instances of "who" are considered stylistically inelegant, and thus best avoided.

Perhaps the Taiwanese curriculum makers believe that such a sentence runs the risk of being misinterpreted as a running together of two root interrogative clauses:

Who is the woman? Who just called? (--> Who is the woman who just called?)

If "that" were used in place of the second "who," the sentence could not, of course, be thus misparsed:

Who is the woman that just called?

Similarly, if "whom" could be used in place of the second "who", it would be impossible for the "whom"-relative clause to be misparsed as a root interrogative clause:

Who is the woman whom you just called?

 

[5jj]

Perhaps the Taiwanese curriculum makers believe that such a sentence runs the risk of being misinterpreted as a running together of two root interrogative clauses

Perhaps they are just wrong.

 

[dunchee]

This is the first time I've heard of such rule. I know I wasn’t taught that when I was in school back in Taiwan. Out of curiosity, I did a google search – I searched schools in Taiwan exclusively(*1). I haven't found any schools(*2) taught the said rule so far. On the contrary, I found:

https://dept.pjhs.tyc.edu.tw/DEPT/BF_files/FBF3220.pdf (*3)
Taoyuan Municipal Pingjen Senior High School
2018 second semester third English test for Freshmen
page 6

59. Based on the article, who is the person who has really changed now?
(A) Jimmy (B) Bob (C) Both (D) Neither

(*1)

site:.edu.tw

-- limit results to schools in Taiwan
(*2) I exclude OP’s source and others like it. They are tutoring institutes/websites, and I don’t consider their teaching materials reliable.
(*3) The pages in the pdf are sideway. I was able to save the pages as pictures, and then rotated them using a picture editing software. I attached a snippet of page 6 below.

 

[Phlebas the Phoenician]

Perhaps they are just wrong.

That they are wrong is obvious. What would be interesting is to learn the mistake in thinking that led to the creation of the incorrect rule. I've given my best guess.

 

[PaulMatthews]

Perhaps the Taiwanese curriculum makers believe that such a sentence runs the risk of being misinterpreted as a running together of two root interrogative clauses:

Who is the woman? Who just called? (--> Who is the woman who just called?)

I can't see anyone suggesting that the OP's example could be interpreted as consisting of two interrogative main clauses. That's a ridiculous suggestion. (unhelpful comment faded. Mod)

If "that" were used in place of the second "who," the sentence could not, of course, be thus misparsed:

Who is the woman that just called?

Obviously. See my comment above.

Similarly, if "whom" could be used in place of the second "who", it would be impossible for the "whom"-relative clause to be misparsed as a root interrogative clause:

Who is the woman whom you just called?

Of course, but that's not the OP's example, so it's irrelevant.

I suggest you cease trying to second-guess why students are often taught the 'rule' cited by the OP. It's a pointless waste of time.

 

[Tarheel]

Isn't "pointless waste of time" a redundancy?

 

[5jj]

Could we keep the discussion civilised, please?