A man that his kids want to call 'daddy.'
Apparently this sequence is correct. Would it remain so adding on object pronoun, …call him 'daddy'?
However, substituting whose for that + possessive might demand a resumptive pronoun, a man whose kids want to call him 'Daddy.'
Why is it so?
Best Answer
I agree with everything that John Lawler said, but there is something I would like to add (so I will not repeat the things he's already made clear).
Whichever option you choose, the important factor that would determine whether him is compulsory or not licensed is the direct object of the verb call. The person these kids want to call 'daddy' is a man. So in the relative clause this direct object must be expressed by some kind of pronoun that would replace a man. In the version with that:
that his kids want to call 'daddy' is the relative clause and that has two functions:
Another pronoun which could replace it is whom:
So your relative clause that his kids want to call 'daddy' already has a direct object: that. To add him is not grammatical because it would express the same object twice. You cannot say:
Even if him referred to a different person (to another man, not the father of the kids), *a man that his kids want to call him 'daddy' is still ungrammatical because in this case that is no longer licensed ( it would modify the subject which is already modified by his) and should be replaced together with his by the possessive whose.
As for the other option, if we replace that his with whose, we have:
The relative has now become whose kids want to call 'daddy' and whose also has two functions:
So the verb call is now left without an object, because as we showed, whose modifies the subject:
But to call is transitive and does require an object, so if we want this NP to be correct, we must add it (him):
That is not to say that whose cannot also modify the object of a relative clause (it is just not the case in your example):