Pronominalization is appropriate where “a noun or noun phrase in an embedded sentence is . . . identical to a constituent, or constituents, in the matrix noun phrase.” Kendall, Marth B. “Relative Clause Formation and Topicalization in Yavapai.” International Journal of American Linguistics, vol. 40, no. 2, Apr. 1974, pp. 89–89., www.jstor.org/stable/1264343.
Below are some examples where a noun (bolded and italicized) in an embedded clause (a constituent part of another clause) is identical to the noun (bolded) in the matrix clause (which contains the embedded clause), and has therefore been pronominalized. Mind you, these sentences are not terribly grammatical, but they illustrate an alternative. These sentences will illustrate that pronominalization is an approach to relativization. This is the construction of relative clauses, which, according to an abstract by John Lawler from Constraints on Variables in Syntax by Haj Ross, contain “a noun head and a modifying clause.”
With the exception of the last two sentences, the rest features an alternative relative-formation rule. John Lawler made the following observation in his abstract, the Real-life effect of Ross Constraints:
[They] are generated when, at the last minute, the speaker realizes what is going to result, and cancels the deletion, substituting an alternative relative-formation rule (called a Resumptive Pronoun in the trade), which merely pronominalizes the coreferential NP, instead of deleting it in the object position.(Topic 5)
Note that the verbs, coloured, are transitive, or are being used transitively.
The above sentence were taken from my novel, What’s in a Name.