In spontaneous English, which clauses can deviate from traditional syntactic schemas by having a resumptive pronoun where a gap would otherwise be. Some researchers claim that such uses of which are not errors but rather a reanalysis. However, there is no consensus as to how which is being reanalyzed. Collins & Radford (2015) suggest that it behaves like a caseless relative pronoun; Sells (1985) and Kjellmer (1988) posit a subordinating conjunction behavior; Daalder (1989) posits a coordinating conjunction behavior; and Miller (1988: 116), Kuha (1994), Loock (2007) and Burke (2017) note that which can be replaced by both subordinating and coordinating conjunctions, but they do not commit to one over the other. Here, we present prosodic and syntactic data in which such uses of which behave more like a coordinating conjunction than like a relative pronoun or subordinating conjunction.

在自发英语中，which clauses can be differ from traditional syntactic schema by having a resumptive pronoun where otherwise are a gap. 一些研究人员声称，这样的使用不是错误，而是重新分析。但是，对于如何重新分析哪些问题尚未达成共识。Collins & Radford (2015) 认为它的行为类似于无格关系代词；Sells (1985) 和 Kjellmer (1988) 提出了从属连词行为；Daalder (1989) 提出了协调连词行为；Miller (1988: 116)、Kuha (1994) 、 Loock (2007) 和 Burke (2017) 指出可以被从属连词和并列连词代替，但它们不会承诺一个优先于另一个。在这里，我们提供韵律和句法数据，其中 which 的此类用法更像是并列连词，而不是关系代词或从属连词。