Sergio,
My thanks, too, for a thoughtful and cogent overview. It's far more important to describe what we see than it is to argue classification lines, and you have moved that forward a great deal.
The complementizer "to" in infinitive clauses also has some anomalies in if/when it is dropped.
"The lawyer helped us (to) recoup damages." (optional)
"She made us work hard." (always deleted)
"She wanted us to work hard." (always present)
I have been wondering lately, too, whether it's possible to simply see "that" as subject in a relative clause as demonstrative pronoun.
The mayor resigned, and that pleased us most of all. (demonstrative pronoun as subject of main clause.)
The mayor resigned, and I believe (that) that pleased us. (optional subordinator followed by demonstrative pronoun as subject)
The resignation that pleased us the most was the mayor's. (relative clause with no subordinator and demonstrative pronoun as subject?)
The joy which that resignation brought can't be underestimated. (which as subordinator/pronoun and that as pronoun subject.)
"That" can clearly function as pronoun in some contexts. Subordinate clauses need explicit subjects and sometimes need subordinators. It doesn't seem impossible that "that" would take on pronoun meanings when it appears to be doing both.
Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 10:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: relative "that" revisited
Sergio,
I for one very much enjoyed your excellent comments and eagerly await Herb's response.
I believe that the "that" of the noun clause subordinator may almost always be dropped. The example in your last sentence also allows dropping, but may be stylistically lacking:
"So it is possible, cognitively speaking, the absence of “that” as a subordinator does not create any difficulty/ambiguity in our perception of the sentence."
The relative pronoun "that" may be (informally) dropped when it is an object in the subordinate clause. My bringing up the headless-relative clause was because the "what" may be (informally) dropped when the clause is subject and used as predicate in the subordinate clause.
Bruce
--- [log in to unmask] wrote:
From: sergio <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: relative "that" revisited
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 13:10:34 +0200
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/
|
