Herb, You and I have been over this one before and I don't want to just repeat that. But I do have a question. When "that" is required in the subject slot of a relative clause (As in "Anything that touches you touches me") is "that" simply holding down a slot (for sentence processing ease)or is it actually acting as subject in that relative clause? My current sense of this is that it's more a matter of drawing classification lines than it is of disputing how this stuff works. The dynamics of a relative clause are different from the dynamics of a content clause BECAUSE DELETION OF A SENTENCE ELEMENT DOESN'T OCCUR IN CONTENT CLAUSES. In a content clause, "that" remains fully outside the clause (in a way that the "wh" pronouns do not.) For that reason, we can say "His wish that she would be at peace was granted" includes a clause ("that she would be at peace") that is more like a content clause than a relative. We can also use "that" along with "wh" pronouns in a content clause. "I believe that what she said was right." In a relative clause, we have much more the feeling that we are choosing between them, as we do with "that" and "which". Some books recommend "that" for restrictive, "which" for non-restrictive. You have nothing parallel to that choice in content clauses. So "that" has some overlap with the "wh" pronouns in relative clauses that it doesn't have in content clauses. I have seen a sudden increase in an awkward "in which" pattern, I think coming out of New York City. "We were driving a car in which I bought from my brother." That's not an actual example, so I may be distorting the context, but in the cases I've seen, an unusual number, the "in" seems not at all appropriate. It does seem to come more from a spoken dialect. Craig Seth, > > That's one of the arguments I didn't go into. There is a hierarchy of > grammatical relations that governs all sorts of movement and deletion > processes across languages, called the Keenan-Comrie Accessibility > Hierarchy. Here's an example from the Wikipedia article on the KCAH, > which is worth reading: > > Subject That's the man [who ran away]. The girl [who came late] is my > sister. > Direct object That's the man [I saw yesterday]. The girl [Kate saw] is > my sister. > Indirect object That's the man [to whom I gave the letter]. The girl > [whom I wrote a letter to] is my sister. > Oblique That's the man [I was talking about]. The girl [whom I sat next > to] is my sister. > Genitive That's the man [whose sister I know]. The girl [whose father > died] told me she was sad. > Obj of Comp That's the man [I am taller than]. The girl [who Kate is > smarter than] is my sister. > > Notice that "that" can occur in prepositional phrases only if the > preposition is stranded. "...to that I was talking" is not possible. > Also, the genitive, as I pointed out earlier, does not allow "that." > These are precisely the positions in which asyndetic relatives are also > ungrammatical. There is an extension of this in colloquial speech and in > non-standard dialects where the gap in the relative clause is filled by a > resumptive pronoun. These occur in genitive and comparatives especially, > although they'll also occur in more complex constructions. An example > would be "?I'd like you to meet the poet that we read a lot of her work > last year." We certainly would not allow that in formal writing, but it's > not at all unusual in speech. > > The comparative marker "than" acts a lot like a preposition in English, > and so if we combine it with prepositional phrases, which in this version > are collapsed with indirect objects, then what we see is that asyndetic > relatives are blocked only at the lowest level of the hierarchy, > Genitives. The fact that "that" can't be dropped if the gap is in subject > position is a separate phenomenon that is related to language processing > needs. Otherwise that-deletion in noun clauses and in relatives is pretty > much the same rule. That-relatives and zero-relatives then fall together > into one subclass of relative clauses that behave differently from > wh-relatives. > > This distinction between that- and wh-relatives reflects the history of > the language. Historically, English had only the that-type and asyndetic > relatives, although the subordinator was "tha" rather than "that." This > is a reflection of the strongly paratactic structure of Old English: not > a lot of subordination but lots of main clauses in sequence, sometimes > conjoined by "and." Old English did not have wh-relatives until the Late > Old English period when they developed probably from indefinite relatives > under the influence of Latin, which the scribes of the time knew well. In > Latin, relative clauses had to be formed with relative pronouns fully > inflected for gender, number, and case. After the Norman Conquest, when > the tradition of Alfred the Great's English scriptoria was suppressed, > wh-relatives also disappeared and didn't reappear until the late 13th c. > when, once again, Latin influenced writers borrowed the structure from > Latin. Wh-relatives even today are more strongly a feature of educated > standard English than of non-standard dialects, which use that- and zero- > relatives much more. In fact, wh-relatives are still so much a function > of formal education and of Standard English that when non-standard > speakers attempt to use the wh-pronouns to initiate clauses they > frequently use them in unusual ways, as in sentences like "We were going > to have a picnic Saturday, which it rained." Such wh-coordination is not > at all uncommon in spoken non-standard dialects. > > Herb > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Katz, Seth > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:04 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Noun clauses > > Hey, Herb-- > > Thanks for recapitulating the argument for that being just a subordinator > and not a pronoun. You always make me think. A lot. A nice break from > grading. > > Unless I am misunderstanding you, I would note an exception to a claim you > make. You say > > > * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike > pronouns. > > > But the wh-pronouns are deletable in adjective clauses, when the pronoun > fills the direct object role in the dependent clause, as in > > The woman whom you met this morning is an old friend of mine. > The woman _____ you met this morning is an old friend of mine. > > Am I missing something in what you said? > > Happy end-of-semester-- > Seth > > Dr. Seth Katz > Assistant Professor > Department of English > Bradley University > > Faculty Advisor > Bradley University Hillel > > ________________________________ > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Stahlke, > Herbert F.W. > Sent: Fri 12/17/2010 12:45 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Noun clauses > > > > John, > > > > We've had some extensive discussion in past years on the status of "that" > in clauses like these. There has not been complete agreement on all of it, > but here's the position I've taken, which is also the position of Otto > Jespersen in his A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles and > Huddleston & Pullum in their rather more recent Cambridge Grammar of the > English Language. > > > > There are two function words "that" in English. One is the distal > demonstrative "that" with its plural "these," and the other is the > subordinator "that" as found in the clauses you have provided. When > "that" is used to introduce a relative clause, it is simply a > subordinator, not a relative pronoun. The relative pronouns are the wh- > words. This analysis implies that there is a gap in the relative clause > corresponding to the head noun, so in "The pitches that Casey missed..." > the gap is in direct object position where "pitches" would be if the > relative clause were a main clause instead. If it's the subject that is > zero, most speakers require "that" to avoid processing problems that arise > when a second finite verb occurs in a sentence without any overt marking > that it is in a subordinate clause, so in "The ball that got past Casey > was a strike" the dropping of "that" would leave "The ball got past Casey > was a strike" which some speakers will use but writers will avoid. The > fact that "that" is required there for clarity is not evidence that it's a > relative pronoun but simply a restriction on bare or asyndetic relative > clauses. > > > > There are several reasons for calling "that" a subordinator in all of its > non-demonstrative uses. > > > > * It's always unstressed, as is the subordinator "that." > Pronominal and determiner "that" are rarely unstressed. > > * If it were a pronoun in relative clauses, then we would expect > it to have a plural "those" in "*The pitches those Casey missed...." > > * There is no possessive form, although there is for wh- > relatives, so we can't say "*The ball that's casing came off...." > > * It is deletable, like the subordinator "that" and unlike > pronouns. > > > > There are more argument, and I recommend the treatment in Huddleston & > Pullum. There is also a very thorough critique of this analysis by Johan > van der Auwera in Journal of Linguistics 21 (1985), 149-179 titled > "Relative that - a centennial dispute. It's a fascinating, thoughtful, > and incisive critique. > > > > Herb > > > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Chorazy > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:21 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Noun clauses > > > > Hello to all... I've been talking with students (11th grade) about clauses > and have collected some questions that the list might have some thoughts > on. > > The use of "that" as the head of a noun clause (and subject): "That the > healthcare system needs fixing is obvious." > > "That" used in an adjective phrase: "Unlike the cat that slept all day, > the dog ran around and barked." > > And if we can get some insight to the following use of "that": "Lynn > Margulis' theory that evolution is a process rather than a competition > differs dramatically from the theories of most biologists." > > Are the last two simply restrictive clauses using the relative pronoun? > > Also (a bit different) - anyone care to parse the following? "Should you > have any trouble identifying the house, just remember that it has a big > brass knocker on the door." Students see the implied "you" as the subject > and its verb remember, but not what's going on up front. > > Thank you very much! > > Sincerely, > > John > > > > > > > > John Chorazy > English III Academy, Honors, and Academic Pequannock Township High School > > Nulla dies sine linea. 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/ > 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/