Relative Pronouns v.s. Subordinate Conjunctions

[matanox]

I believe that in the English EWT treebank, the words who, which and even that, will typically or always appear as a pronoun when used as a relative pronoun. However here in the Hebrew treebank, the word אשר seems to be annotated as a subordinate conjunction when used (presumably) in the same syntactic role:

For example ―

Yet all you read about at the time was the arrest of the son Ahmed Abdul Qadoos, who receives a stipend from the UN for being officially low-IQ due to lead poisoning.

ארבעת החשודים ברצח יו"ר הפרלמנט המצרי מסרו מידע מפורט על מעשי טרור רבים, אשר בוצעו בקהיר ובמחוזות אחרים

The last Hebrew sentence roughly translating to:

The four suspects in the murder of the Egyptian parliament chairman provided detailed information of many acts of terrorism which were committed in Cairo and in other provinces.

I was just wondering what I might be missing, or what has been the clear reason for using SCONJ in Hebrew in seemingly all cases like the above.

[matanox]

Since google translate will simply omit the pronoun in my Hebrew supplied example without any loss of meaning and resulting in a perfectly legible sentence, let me provide another example from this corpus, which is perhaps closer in structure to the example I have given from the English corpus.

הניצחון הביתי של סמפדוריה על פיזה, היה מתוק למאמן היוגוסלווי וידאן בושקוב, אשר לא רק החזיר את ויאלי להרכב, לאחר פציעתו של הכדורגלן בספטמבר, אלא גם ראה אותו מבקיע את השער השלישי

Which translates (perfectly in my view, courtesy of google translate) to the following:

Sampdoria's home win over Pisa was sweet for Yugoslav coach Vidan Bushkov, who not only brought Viali back to the lineup after the footballer's injury in September, but also saw him score the third goal

Unlike the example from the English corpus, the word אשר (translating in this case to the word who) is annotated as SCONJ in this case as well, whereas we have PRON in equivalent constructions in the English corpus.

[amir-zeldes]

I would guess the reason is that asher/she don't inflect for gender, number or person, so they're perceived as an indeclinable subordinating conjunction, while there is the possibility of having a congruent resumptive pronoun in addition to she/asher:

ha-seret she/SCONJ rainu  "the movie that we saw"
ha-seret she/SCONJ ot/ADP-o/PRON rainu "the movie that we saw (it)"

If we say the 'she' is just a relative marker, it doesn't stand in for "movie" like a pronoun would. If the 'oto' is taken to be the (preposition+)pronoun in the relative clause, also labeling she/asher as a pronoun would make it look like the argument is realized twice. And morphologically and etymologically, she/asher is not really a pronoun in the same way as -o (lemma="hu"), so traditional grammar is possibly also a factor in not seeing it as a pronoun.