Herb,
Now, I see your point better. I apologize for the length of this
comment in advance.
And again, it is primarily to clarify the matter for myself, rather than else.
I have broken down my argument and the final goal is the statement in
the first section.

FROM ARISTOTELIAN CATEGORIES TO COGNITIVELY PLAUSIBLE ONES
As to the ongoing discussion about the status of "that" in relative
clauses, I think that most of the difficulties rest on the
Aristotelian categorizing system, which is often called the necessary
and sufficient conditions. Not only does relying on such a
categorization system engender many logical aporias, but it has also
been proven rather unrealistic since psychologist Eleanor Rosch's
studies in cognitive processes involved in category/concept building
in the 1970s.
After her studies a more cognitively plausible system of
categorization, named semantics of prototypes, has been recognized to
explain more efficiently many "oddities" in the way we put objects
under one category or the next.
Basically, all this is to state what Craig has posted on May 9, "I
think it's more a matter of where we draw the boundaries with our
definitions...I also grow impatient with approaches to grammar that
imply there are strict rules about how language can act."

THE COMPOSITE NATURE OF RELATIVE CLAUSE MARKERS
In a prototypical way, the issue of the status of "that" could be
restated as follows:
the objects that can be used to introduce a relative clause have a
more or less apparent pronominal function. Using “marker” as a neutral
term that encompasses “subordinator,” “complementizer,” or “pronoun,”
we can build a continuum as follows:
1) Zero marker = NO pronominal feature, Japanese does not have any
marker at all to introduce relative clauses.
2) Omissible marker = close to null pronominal feature, like "that" in English.
3) Marker sensitive to some semantic trait of the antecedent = light
pronominal feature, like the opposition “who-that” in English.
4) Marker sensitive to the syntactic function in the relative clause =
heavy pronominal feature, like the today almost superseded opposition
“who-whom,” the opposition “qui-que” in French ("qui" for subject,
"que" for non-subject function) or German's relative markers that are
case sensitive.
5) Marker sensitive to the presence of a preceding preposition =
Heavier pronominal feature, like in the opposition “that-which” in
English ("The knife with which she caught the cake" does not admit
"with that")
6) Marker sensitive to gender and number of antecedent = Full
pronominal feature, like il quale (masc.sing.), i quali (masc. pl.),
la quale (fem. sing.) le quali (fem. pl.) in Italian, my
mother-tongue, but also in French and German at least.

Within the semantics of prototypes, we would state that within the
same category some items are more or less central to the category, or
are good or bad representative of that category. In English, if we
only take the pronominal feature, we can say that “that” is not a
central representative of the relative marker, because of the presence
of markers of type 3, 4, and 5, which have a stronger pronoun-hood.

THE A-TAD-BIT-LESS COMPOSITE NATURE OF SUBORDINATORS
Along the same lines, though, if we tried to build a continuum for the
category “subordinator,” we would state that “that” as a relative
clause marker is definitely not prototypical of the category because
it has some pronoun-hood features though extremely light. But
interestingly enough, also the other “that,” the one traditionally
dubbed subordinator (as in “I think that you should go”) isn't a good
representative of the category either. The reason rests on the fact
that there is no other more “typical” subordinator that can be
dropped. Thus far I have tried to think of any example in which we can
drop subordinators such as “while,” “because,” “although,” “even
though,” “since” and didn't come up with anything. If you have any
example, it is more than welcome. Only in elliptical sentences,
subordinators can be dropped as in the following exchange:
A- Why didn't you go to the party?
B- [I didn't go to the party because] My car didn't start.

In this sense, one line of argument of Huddleston's seems to be rather
weak, because “that” as a relative clause marker becomes a
subordinator on the basis of a feature that is not so salient in
defining the category itself. It would be like saying that a rat is an
elephant because they are both gray, where “gray-ness” is not exactly
the most central and representative feature that characterizes either
an elephant or a rat. Nonetheless, in the semantics of prototypes we
could still maintain that there's some family resemblance that could
justify ascribing the relative “that” to the category subordinator. As
a matter of fact, also the relative “that” introduces a clause
subordinated to the main clause.

MY SUBSTITUTION TEST
My substitution test with “which” was not much aimed at pointing out
the similarity between the relative “that” and wh-markers. It was
rather aimed at pointing out the difference between relative “that”
and subordinator “that.”
The book that {which} is on the desk is very interesting.
They said that {*which} it is interesting.

When we have “that” as a relative marker the substitution is
structurally and semantically possible even though, according I do
agree that there are some differences. But the point is that when we
have “that” as a subordinator, the substitution is totally impossible.

AREN'T THERE TWO DIFFERENT SEMIOTIC REASONS FOR DROPPING THE TWO “THATs”?
The dropping itself of “that” as a relative marker (when in
restrictive clauses and not in subject position) and “that” as a
complementizer seems to be justified by two different semiotic
reasons.

- Dropping “that” as a relative marker
The possibility is ingrained in language because there are languages
that can do perfectly well without any relative clause marker (at
least Japanese). Moreover, in English this dropping is also possible
when the marker replaces the subject of the relative clause provided
that it is in the passive voice and the auxiliary “to be” is also
dropped (some linguists call them whiz-clauses):
The rooms [that were] reserved for the trip are very expensive.

- Dropping “that” as a complementizer
This omissible complementizer introduces the direct object of the main
clause and often the verb can be followed by direct speech:
They maintained
They said
They believed                     (that) it was the most useful action
They doubted
They thought


Neither direct objects nor direct speech are introduced by any marker.
So it is possible that, cognitively speaking, the absence of “that” as
a subordinator does not create any difficulty/ambiguity in our
perception of the sentence.
Notice that in the last sentence (“It is possible that the absence of
“that” as a subordinator does not create....”) the extraposition of
the subject creates still a different behavior of “that,” which, I
think but am not sure, cannot be omitted:

- That the absence of “that”as a subordinator does not create…. is possible
- It is possible that the absence of “that” as a subordinator does not
create …..
- *?It is possible the absence of “that” as a subordinator does not create

Ciao,
Sergio



2013/5/8 Stahlke, Herbert <[log in to unmask]>:
> Sergio,
>
> You're in the midst of a long, intermittent discussion of the status of "that" in relative clauses.  Grammarians from Otto Jespersen to Rodney Huddleston have argued that relative "that" is, in fact, a subordinator and not a pronoun.  The substitution you suggest is misleading, because that-relatives behave differently from wh-relatives, in ways I can't go into just now.
>
> Herb
>
> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
> Emeritus Professor of English
> Ball State University
> Muncie, IN  47306
> [log in to unmask]
> ________________________________________
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of sergio [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 1:42 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: relative "that" revisited
>
> Dear Dr. Stankle,
>
> I might be missing the point and for the sake of my better
> understanding, I was wondering whether a simple substitution test is
> possible here.
>
> "He avoids whatever roads might cross this desolate valley and stays
> on the open land, so there's no risk of turning a bend and ramming
> head-on into innocent motorists, with all the physical and moral
> consequences that(replace it with "which") would ensue."
>
> Therefore in "...with all the physical and moral consequences WHICH
> would ensue", the original "that" is a relative pronoun referring to
> "all the physical and moral consequences" and subject of "[THEY=the
> consequences] would ensue". It is not a subordinating conjunction as
> in,
> "I think that they would ensue"
> because here "which" cannot substitute "that".
>
> Does this make any sense?
>
> Sergio Pizziconi
>
> 2013/5/8 Stahlke, Herbert <[log in to unmask]>:
>> I came upon an interesting "garden path" sentence today in Dean Koontz's One
>> Door away from Heaven (Bantam 2001), p. 287.
>>
>> "He avoids whatever roads might cross this desolate valley and stays on the
>> open land, so there's no risk of turning a bend and ramming head-on into
>> innocent motorists, with all the physical and moral consequences that would
>> ensue."
>>
>> When I got to the last three words, I anticipated that "that" would be a
>> pronoun referring to "turning a bend and ramming head-on into innocent
>> motorists," and I expected a verb like "entail."  However, the verb "ensue"
>> stopped me cold and forced me to reread and interpret "that" as a
>> subordinating conjunction.  We've discussed that status of "that" in
>> relative clauses at some length, and I've taken the position that it's not a
>> pronoun but rather a subordinating conjunction with no referential function.
>> In this case, one could write, "that that would entail," but Koontz is a
>> better writer than that.  The choice, however, is between a demonstrative
>> pronoun and a subordinator.  The fact that they can be used together
>> supports the claim that they are two different words with very different
>> functions.  Very likely the preference for only the demonstrative in this
>> case, rather than both, is an example of haplology.
>>
>> Herb
>>
>> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
>> Emeritus Professor of English
>> Ball State University
>> Muncie, IN  47306
>> [log in to unmask]
>> 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/
>
>
> 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/