Herb,

Here's some additional data about "that" in relative clauses to supplement what you presented in an earlier post. In the examples, Ø represents no spoken word (e.g., "the book Ø we read" = the book we read), and * represents an ungrammatical term (e.g., "the author *to that we wrote").

Restrictive relative clause
Subject:
the author who/that/*Ø wrote the book...
the book which/that/*Ø inspired us...
Direct object:
the author whom/that/Ø we admired...
the book which/that/Ø the author wrote...
Object of preposition:
the author whom/that/Ø we wrote to...
the author to whom/*to that/*to Ø we wrote...
the book from which/*from that/*from Ø we read...
Possessive:
the author whose/?that's/*Ø book we admired...
the book whose/*which's/*that's/*Ø cover we admired...
Nonrestrictive relative clause
Tolstoy, who/*that/*Ø wrote War and Peace, ...
War and Peace, which/*that/*Ø Tolstoy wrote, ...
Tolstoy, whom/*that/*Ø we read about, ...
Tolstoy, about whom/*about that/*about Ø we read, ...
War and Peace, whose/*which's/*that's/*Ø plot we summarized, ...

Some observations:
  1. In restrictive clauses, "that" occurs in the same positions as "who," "whom," and "which" for subject, direct object, and object of a clause-final preposition.
  2. "That" occurs in the same positions as Ø except for subject of a restrictive clause.
  3. Unlike "who" or "which," "that" cannot directly follow a preposition.
  4. Unlike "who" but like "which," "that" does not have a possessive form ("whose" but not "which's" or "that's"). This fact might not be significant, since "whose" seems to be the universal possessive relative pronoun, representing both animate and inanimate noun phrases (unlike "who/m," which represents only animate phrases).
  5. Unlike "who," "whom," and "which," "that" does not occur in nonrestrictive clauses.
The data is decidedly mixed, and you are wise to state, "I'm not willing to say that pronominal status [of "that"] has not developed beyond the non-standard genitive use [that's]." You and others presented several arguments, historical and otherwise, for the anti-pronoun position. The chief argument for the pro-pronoun position is intuitive. For at least some people, "the author who wrote the book" and "the author that wrote the book" seem indistinguishable, with the "who" and "that" seeming to represent "the author" in the relative clause. On the other hand, if "that" is a relative pronoun, why can't we say "the author to that we wrote"? For me the jury is still out, and I hope to read further contributions.

Dick

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:10 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Craig,

My problem with saying that it sometimes has a place holding function is that it's an impressionistic statement.  If we ask what it's doing in a particular clause we can't provide any sort of evidence for a solution different form subordinator.  A statement like yours follows from certain assumptions, but the assumptions themselves, for example, that "that" is a relative pronoun, are difficult to support.  Historical change gives us some help but must be interpreted very cautiously, which is why I'm not willing to say that pronominal status has not developed beyond the non-standard genitive use.

Besides a general feeling about it, how can  you argue that relative "that" is performing a function in the relative clause, an argument that can't be handled as well or better by deletion under identity?

Herb

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/