Bruce,
I'm not sure about your first question. Pronouns are a normal result of coreference, although so is zero anaphora. Which one occurs depends on structure. So the zero anaphora in the relative clause reflects the fact that the underlying "February" as subject of the RC has been deleted.
I can accept the notion that the wh-word brings meaning to the relative clause, in your "treasurer" example, that "that" doesn't. All "that" does is mark the embedded sentence as a declarative.
I'm going to post later the arguments that H&P raise. They're a little detailed, and will take a little time to enter, so maybe this evening.
Herb
Herb,
You say that February must be coreferential to its head. Doesn't that make
it a pronoun? My impulse was to analyze it allowing that the head was an
article-like properness in the specific February. What I overlooked was a
second complication of personification in the matrix, which may have
affected the choice of connective. Let's try it with a definite noun
(distorted content, however).
(1) The treasurer, that in other companies held the responsibility to make
deals, in this company kept funds tight.
(2) The treasurer, who in other companies held the responsibility to make
deals, in this company kept funds tight.
In (1) the predicate of the matrix seems to be about the position, in (2)
the person. The fact that in the dependent clause the referent is generic
and in the matrix specific, does not seem to affect the choice of connective
after all. So when we say (3), it seems a bit odd. We can't personify well
with "which."
(3) ?February, which in other years held intimations of spring, this year
prolonged the bitter weather.
With the other example of the supplementary relative we agreed on the
antecedent. I think it is significant that the reference seems to be to
instincts already mentioned previously, that indeed there is a demonstrative
or at least pronominal aspect to the connective being used. The
supplementary nature would then have to do with the missing antecedent as in
(4).
(4) She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's
instincts, (the ones) that I had tried--and failed--to stifle.
Bruce
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stahlke, Herbert F.W." <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: which and that
Bruce,
I do differ with you on your analysis of the February sentence. I can't see
how February can be a common noun in the RC since it must be coreferential
to its head. The only difference I see in the two uses is that the head is
specific while the coreferent, which is 0, is generic. But it's proper in
both cases.
In the second sentence, I agree that not all the son's instincts are in
play, just his solitary ones, but here I don't read a specific/generic
contrast. They're both specific.
I'm puzzled also by the domain of the reference of "that" being of article
scope rather than of NP scope. I wonder if the demonstrative "that" is
interfering here.
But we remain pretty much apart on the issue. And I think the problem is a
default claim that relative that is pronominal. That claim has to be argued
for, given the close similarity of relative that, I would say identity, to
conjunctive that.
Herb
Herb,
Thank you for your patience in helping me out. Your points are well taken.
I'm still a little uncomfortable about melding (2) and (3). The nature of
the
"pronoun" of (3) seems to turn on the restrictive/non-restrictive
opposition.
The two examples of non-restrictive clauses are problematic for me and may
deserve a more careful analysis. Let me work this out.
February, that in other years held intimations of spring, this year
prolonged
the bitter weather.
In this sentence the name of the month is proper, if it is referring to the
one
month of the year with that name. When the author brings into consideration
the
other years, the noun becomes common. In the dependent clause the noun is
common.
In the main clause it is proper. The proper noun being fully defined in the
main clause cannot be identified better by adding an adjective clause. So
the
clause is indeed non-restrictive by the normal definition of modification.
However, the dependent clause is complementing the definiteness of the
proper
noun of the main clause. This is the same function that the content clause
has
as an "appositive." So they have used the term "supplementary relative" for
a
complement. I still think they are right when they call it "relative." I
assume you differ there. It now seems to be a "relative-pro-article."
She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's instincts,
that I had tried--and failed-to stifle.
I think it is clear from a careful reading of this sentence that the author
did
not intend that the first person be understood as trying to stifle all of
her
son's instincts. The author is talking about some of her son's instincts,
namely those that the first person had tried to stifle. Paratactic
paraphrase
may help to display this. First the non-restrictive interpretation:
She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's instincts
I had tried--and failed-to stifle these instincts.
Now the restrictive interpretation:
I had tried--and failed-to stifle (certain ones of) her son's instincts.
She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of these instincts.
My impression is that the difficulty arises when the strict interpretation
of
the noun phrase changes between the main clause and the dependent clause.
Here
it seems to be the specificity of the instincts that needs the
complementation.
Another vote for the "relative-pro-article."
I hope these arguments don't go around in a circle again. I am convinced of
the relative nature of that in adjective clauses, but its antecedent appears
to
be the normal domain of an article, rather than the full noun phrase.
Bruce
>>> [log in to unmask] 3/11/2005 8:27:47 AM >>>
Bruce,
I'm not sure yet that a three-way distinction works. The demonstrative we
agree on. Here are the differences you outline between 2 and 3:
2 has only one morphological manifestation, occurs at the beginning of a
content clause which may include appositives.
3 occurs at the beginning of an adjective clause, always restrictive,
conjunction may be omitted
Here are my problems. 3 also has only one morphological manifestation, so 2
and 3 are alike in that. 2 may be omitted, as in "I know it's late," so
they're
alike in that. Appositives (2) may start with "that". Huddleston&Pullum
(p.
1052) note that, in what they call "supplementary relatives", their term for
non-restrictives, "that" is allowed, as in
February, that in other years held intimations of spring, this year
prolonged
the bitter weather.
She had long been accustomed to the solitary nature of her son's insticnts,
that I had tried--and failed-to stifle.
2 and 3 are thus alike in appositives may start with "that".
That fact that one kind of that-clause identifies and another classifies is
not
a function of the "that" but of distinction between complement and modifier,
which is why I'm uncomfortable with noun clauses after verbs, nouns, and
adjectives as appositives. They're complements, not modifiers, and
appositives
are modifiers.
Your claim that "(3)is typically an intergral part, yet as object can be
omitted" begs the question. It assumes that (3) is a pronoun, but there is
no
evidence to support this claim. That-relatives in English, like relatives
in a
lot of languages, involve deletion of the embedded coreferent. In some
complex
cases a resumptive pronoun shows up, although English typically doesn't like
resumptives. But consider
Here's a book that I know the guy who wrote *0/it.
Deletion would result in an island constraint violation. The resumptive,
while
inelegant, makes the sentence grammatical. The fact that a pronoun can
appear
in its in situ position is pretty strong evidence that "that" isn't the
pronoun.
The that of a that-relative is identical to the that of a noun clause. It's
deletable, it's morphologically invariant, and it doesn't occur in places
where
a pronoun can, like after a preposition. 2 and 3 are indistinguishable.
Herb
Herb,
Maybe Occam (Ockham) would object, but I don't have a problem with three
"that"s.
1) The demonstrative. This appears before nouns. It also has a pronoun
form
for use without the noun. There are four distinct morphological instances of
the
demonstrative: this, these, that, those.
2) The conjunction for a noun clause. This is the variety of noun clause
often called a content clause. There is only one morphological
manifestation.
The noun clause may appear in virtually all the functions of a noun. The
appositive (adjectival) was one function under recent discussion.
3) The conjunction for an adjective clause. This is the variety of
adjective
clause used to identify rather than describe or classify. It is always
restrictive. The conjunction is sometimes omitted in this kind of clause.
The demonstrative appears as a pronoun. The idea of my last post is that
you
could argue that the conjunction of the noun clause (2) can be seen as being
used as a pronoun as the connective for the adjective clause (3). The
morphology of (2) and (3) is identical. The syntax is quite different: (2)
is
independent of the clause it introduces, whereas (3) is typically an
intergral
part, yet as object can be omitted. The fact that (3) functions in its
clause
as
a part of it in the same way as a noun would do in an independent clause
formulation seems to make it pronoun-like. Hence, the stretch that one
might
be
justified in calling (3) a pronominalized version of (2).
It is of some interest here with regard to pronunciation that the
conjunction
than was often indistinguishable from then in 17th Century England and is
still so in many dialects. As conjunctives the first is a relative adverb
of
the degree clause while the second is either a relative adverb of a temporal
clause (subordinate clause) or an illative conjunction (co-ordinate clause).
The second form is also much like the demonstrative as an adverb. Thus we
have
three morpho-syntactic forms of similar syntactic distribution as that, but
here
they are adverbs.
Hope this helps.
Bruce
>>> [log in to unmask] 3/10/2005 7:17:50 PM >>>
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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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/
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 3/9/05
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 3/9/05
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/
|
