Bruce,

Interesting arguments!  Jespersen treats comparatives similarly and also reports and describes the use of "as" to introduce a relative clause, as in cases like
"not as many as I thought 0" and the less common "anybody as 0 wants to".

You're right that my first three arguments apply more strongly to the question of whether relative "that" is the demonstrative pronoun.  But consider the alternative.  If my arguments don't apply to relative "that", then we have THREE, not two "thats", the conjunction that introduces noun clauses, the demonstrative pronoun, and the relative "that".  But the relative "that" behaves morpho-syntactically like the conjunction, not like the demonstrative, so there's little reason for positing the third.  

"Pronominalizing subordinating conjunction"?  I like that.  Just think the potential it gives us as a model for naming lexical categories!

Herb
 
Herb,

Perhaps your argument could be made stronger if you mentioned that certain
adverb clauses are also relative, without having to be connected with a pronoun.
 In this case, however, someone might want to argue for a pro-adverb, so maybe
it doesn't help after all.

John is taller than George.
John is taller than George is.
John is taller than George is tall.

The connective "than" refers to the degree of George's height, comparing John's
height to it.  It is relative by referring to the same thing that the -er is
referring to, the degree of John's tallness.

Your argument for "that" not being a pronoun seems only to show that it isn't
the pronominalized demonstrative "that," at least in the first three points of
the previous post.  Perhaps we can view it as a "pronominalized subordinating
conjunction."

Bruce

>>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 12:41:42 PM >>>

Craig,

I don't think anyone questions whether wh-words are pronouns.  That much is
pretty clear.  The problem is with "that".  The morpho-syntactic evidence is
overwhelming that relative "that" is not a pronoun and is a subordinating
conjunction, that there is, in fact, no difference between the "thats" in

I know that it's raining.

and

The rain that's falling now will flood the fields.

They're the same thing.  The claim that "that" in relative clauses is a pronoun
is a claim grounded in a school grammar tradition that is seriously flawed in
many ways, this being one of them.  When you say "that is a pronoun in some
camps and a complementizer in others when it functions within a relative
clause," you beg the question.  "That" in a relative clause has no function
within the clause.  It simply introduces it.  It is not subject, object, OP, or
anything else.  Those relationships are marked by the absence of a noun phrase
in the appropriate position, not by "that".

Content clauses and relative clauses are similar in that they are both embedded
sentences.  They differ in that content clauses are complements of verbs, nouns,
or adjectives and that relative clauses are modifiers of nouns.  It is the
modifier relationship that leads to the structural gaps exhibited by relative
clauses but not by content clauses.

I don't think the problem of appositives has anything to do with the analysis
of "that".  Rather, it has to do with the ill-defined nature of the term
appositive.  Here are some examples.

1. My brother Bill ...
2. Bill's statement that he was in Chicago at the time ...
3. Bill, who lives in Chicago, ...
4. Chicago, hog butcher to the world, ...
5. Bill's party, scheduled for last night, ...
6. The idea that Bill lives in Chicago ...
etc.

At best, appositive is a function, not a structure, and I'm not entirely sure
that it's a function.  I think rather that it's a traditional term used to
describe a disparate variety of structures all of which occur after nouns.  It
has some usefulness if used with care.  Calling 1,3,4,5 appositives doesn't
bother me much, but including 2 and 6 does.  I think they're different
structures, complements to their head nouns rather than modifiers, and calling
them appositives just confuses matters.

But this is where poorly defined traditional grammar terms get us.

Herb
Herb,
    I know we have gone back and forth on this one before, and I'm still not
convinced, but I think it may be important to clarify that there seems to be
agreement that there is such a thing as a relative pronoun (who, with its
various forms, and which, when functioning within these adjectival clauses), but
that is a pronoun in some camps and a complementizer in others when it functions
within a relative clause. We tend to agree that it is a complementizer in noun
clauses precisely because it clearly has no role within the noun clause.
    I'm wondering whether you see any difference between a content clause
structure and relative clause structure. (Are these the same structures, but
differing in context by function?) The argument for these as appositional seems
to hinge, at least for me, on the sense that that functions differently. Is the
notion of appositional noun clause somewhat dependent on the misunderstanding of
the role of that as pronoun, at least as you see it? Should we discard the
category?

Craig

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may contain confidential information, and is
intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it
is addressed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/