I extend thanks to Herb and echo Herb's thanks.
Craig
>
Peter and Dee,
>
> Thank you for your kind comments. It's a pleasure wrangling over grammar
> with someone as thoughtful, knowledgeable, and patient as Craig.
>
> 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 Dee Allen-Kirkhouse
> [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: January 25, 2009 3:00 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>
> I think this has been one of the most enlightening discussions we've had
> since I've joined the listserve. Thank you.
> Dee
>
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: 1/25/2009 9:00:16 AM
>> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>>
>> Craig,
>>
>> So I'll take the last word. Where we disagree is on whether "that" has
>> a
> thematic role, in any sense of the term, in relative clauses.
>>
>> Herb
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>> Sent: 2009-01-25 09:59
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>>
>> > Herb,
>> I promised you last word, but beg your forgiveness for a quick
>> response. When you list the roles "that" can have in a clause (subject,
>> direct object, object of preposition), you are highlighting what I mean
>> by "clause internal" role. "That" in a noun clause doesn't have that,
>> but simply tells us that the clause that follows has a subordinate
>> role. Is that enough to classify them differently? I think that might
>> be the major focus of our disagreement. As I have said a few times, the
>> more we talk, the closer I come to agreeing with you.
>> I think mainstream American linguistics has made itself only
>> marginally
>> useful by concentrating on grammar as a set of formal rules. For a
>> writing teacher trying to convince my colleagues that grammar is not a
>> neutral conveyor of meaning, only relevant when prescriptive rules are
>> broken, this is hugely relevant. We need something closer to an ecology
>> of language. I'm happy that you accept that as within the purview of
>> science. I agree that we absolutely need the discipline of empirical
>> observation to ground us. A theory has to explain and predict and has
>> to be judged by how well it does that. If a formal theory can't explain
>> the role of grammar in discourse, then we should build one or look for
>> one that does.
>> I hope we haven't tried the patience of our fellow participants on
>> list. As always, I'm grateful when you take the time.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>>
>> I see email remains consistent in handling tables.
>> >
>> > Herb
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
>> > Sent: 2009-01-24 22:47
>> > To: [log in to unmask]
>> > Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>> >
>> > Craig,
>> >
>> > I agree we've pretty much exhausted the topic. We are working within
>> > different ways of thinking about such topics, and that does cause a
> little
>> > talking past one another.
>> >
>> > The question of theme and relative clauses is interesting. Halliday
>> has
>> > it mostly right, except, of course, for including relative "that" as
>> > thematic. The development of wh-relatives in the 14th and 15th cc.
>> > represents the introduction of theme into relatives, since in earlier
>> > stages of ME they didn't occur. It's curious that wh-relatives
> developed
>> > twice in the history of English, and for about the same reasons. In
>> the
>> > 10th c. church-trained scribes who also wrote Latin began introducing
>> > questions words into relative clauses on the model of Latin, where
>> > interrogative and relative pronouns are identical except for four out
>> of
>> > thirty different case/number/gender forms. The Latin forms all have
>> > initial "qu-," which is cognate to English "wh-," but the Germanic
>> > languages, like Greek and much of the rest of Indo-European maintained
>> a
>> > distinction between labiovelars like wh and qu for question words and
>> > dental, like t, d, and th, for determiners. This use of wh-words for
>> > relatives came to an abrupt end in the 11th c. after the Norman
> Conquest,
>> > when William closed the scriptoria and stamped out the official
>> writing
> of
>> > English. Curiously, when English began to be written again in the
>> later
>> > Middle Ages, in the 13th c., writers, who were generally still
>> educated
> in
>> > Latin, once again began introducing wh-pronouns into relative clauses.
>> > None of this argues for your position or mine, but it's interesting
>> that
>> > thematicity spread into the relative clause construction in this way.
>> > That-relatives represent the older, non-thematic structure of
>> relatives.
>> >
>> > I've avoided using tables in email, because email spacing tends to be
>> > unpredictable, but a table of English relative clauses is revealing.
> I'm
>> > not supplying the sample sentences, although I can send you a handout
> that
>> > has all of that, but here I'll just label the grammatical
>> relationships
>> > the NP in the relative clause can have.
>> >
>> > Wh- that 0
>> > Subject + + -
>> > Direct Object + + +
>> > Object of a Preposition + + +
>> > Object of Preposed Preposition + - -
>> > Genitive + - -
>> > Object of a Comparative Particle + - -
>> >
>> > What the table indicates is that "that" and 0 relatives are the same
>> > thing, with the exception that we generally want to have either "that"
> or
>> > the subject expressed.
>> >
>> > There's a difference in science between what we can't exlain and
>> what's
>> > not explainable. What we can't explain is what directs our research.
>> > What's not explainable generally ends up in literature and religion,
>> two
>> > fields I do not disdain. The fact, for example, that there can be no
>> > proof for the existence of God does not prevent me from believing.
>> It's
>> > simply not subject to science. (Reading theology is a bit of a
>> pastime
> of
>> > mine, especially now that I'm retired, and rigorous argument is
>> possible
>> > even where empirical testing is not.) On the other hand, the fact
>> that
> we
>> > cannot now reconstruct languages back much beyond about 10,000 years
>> > represents the current limits of our knowledge. I expect some clever
> grad
>> > student doing historical linguistics will blow through this limit
>> > sometime.
>> >
>> > Earlier biologists didn't reject "prey" and "predator" as crucial
> concepts
>> > because they were dense or stubborn but because the empirical evidence
>> > hadn't yet developed. It took the work of some of the great 19th and
>> > early 20th c. ecologists to provide that evidence, and once it was
>> > provided most biologists accepted the results with aplomb. Scientists
>> > don't hesitate to change their theories when the evidence points in
>> that
>> > direction; to do otherwise is bad science. But ecologists persuaded
>> > biologists on the basis of empirical evidence. Science dissolves into
>> > mysticism and worse without a solid grip on empirical methodology.
>> >
>> > It's been a great discussion, and I admire the aplomb with which you
> argue
>> > an untenable position!
>> >
>> > Herb
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>> > Sent: 2009-01-24 17:07
>> > To: [log in to unmask]
>> > Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>> >
>> >> Herb,
>> > I think we are probably getting to the point where differences are
>> > clear enough to move on. I think the most central may be the clause
>> > internal difference. Since, as Halliday points out, "wh" and "th"
>> > elements tend to be thematic (therefore clause opening) and
>> > complementizers tend to preceed what they subordinate, it's probably
>> > not an argument either one of us can win.
>> > "I believe that she is lonely." In this instance, "that" is clearly
>> > outside the clause. "The picture, which/that is hanging on the wall,
>> > was painted by your cousin." In these cases, either "which" or "that"
>> > seems to me to be acting within the clause, either as subject of the
>> > clause (a traditional view, certainly), or as clause internal stand-in
>> > for the missing subject.
>> > If these are interchangeable, as you seem to say, wouldn't that
>> > undercut your argument?
>> > I certainly don't want to rest my case on folk beliefs, and I don't
>> > want to insist that structures that break the prescriptive rules are
>> > not "grammatical" in a wider sense. I feel I have that evidence more
>> on
>> > my side, since "that" is interchangeable (if non-standard) with "who"
>> > and "which" in instances where "who" and "which" would be thought of
>> as
>> > pronouns. It would seem to me that the burden of proof would be to
>> > demonstrate that the pronounness is gone when the substitution takes
>> > place. The simplest explanation would be to say that "that"
>> > occasionally slips into a pronoun role.
>> > But I'm certainly ready to accept your view as internally
>> consistent,
>> > thoughtful, credible, just about everything short of fully convincing.
>> > The "that" in relatives certainly does help subordinate and seems
>> > deletable in situations where it isn't needed to keep clear what is
>> the
>> > main clause verb. Those are key observations.
>> > I worry about an approach to grammar that reduces what we know to
>> > formal observations. Science can't always explain everything, but it
>> is
>> > also non-scientific to decide that what we can't explain isn't central
>> > to what we are trying to explain. We can make things simpler by
>> > reducing what we accept as relevant, but I'm not sure we aren't
>> > distorting the issues when we do.
>> > Consider the difference between a classical biology and an ecology.
>> > Classical biology leans too heavily to the formal. That's not to say
>> > that its observations are wrong. It just leaves so much out. Concepts
>> > like "predator" and "prey" might once have been dismissed as folk
>> > biology, but they are now very central to our science.
>> > If you want to reply, I'll let you have the last word. Again, I
>> thank
>> > you for your patience and for indulging my interest in this.
>> >
>> > Craig
>> >
>> > Craig,
>> >>
>> >> You raise a good point, that categories are not discrete. This is
>> >> something I've spent considerable time teaching my students. But let
> me
>> >> go through your list.
>> >>
>> >> Craig: I'm not sure the human/non-human contrast is telling, since
> you
>> >> could
>> >> easily add "that" to the list. (Is "which" a variation or an
>> >> independent form?)
>> >>
>> >> Herb: Begs the question. You're assuming that "that" is a pronoun
>> and
>> >> that it refers only to non-humans. (Remember McCain's "that one"?,
>> >> granted it's the "one" that refers here.) The "who/that" contrast is
>> a
>> >> figment of prescriptive grammar. A lot of people believe it but only
>> >> because they've been taught it prescriptively, just as they believe
>> >> English sentences can't end in prepositions. Historically,
>> certainly,
>> >> "which" comes in as an independent form. Actually the first wh-word
>> to
>> >> appear as a relative pronoun is "what," which, ironically, we don't
>> use
>> >> that way any more.
>> >>
>> >> Craig: For which/that, you could add a grounding/not grounding
>> >> contrast,
>> >> explainable in tradiitonal grammar as restrictive/non-restrictive.
>> >> "that" is definitely definite.
>> >>
>> >> Herb: "Which" can occur in both, and for a surprising number of
>> >> speakers
>> >> "that" also works in non-restrictives. I've caught myself using it
>> >> myself. I think the restriction of "that" to restrictive is partly
> real
>> >> and partly very formal.
>> >>
>> >> Craig: Isn't "who" deletable? (Strictly speaking, I guess it's
>> >> deletable
>> >> in
>> >> the "whom" case. But "that" doesn't have an "objective" form, so they
>> >> seem very parallel to me in the way they follow deletion rules.)
>> >>
>> >> Herb: "Who" isn't really deletable. The problem is that in an
>> >> asyndetic
>> >> relative there is no marker, and so one could supply "who" or "that"
> and
>> >> so they look interchangeable. In fact, "that" deletes in relatives
>> >> under
>> >> much the same conditions it deletes in content clauses. If "who"
>> were
>> >> similarly deletable I'd expect it to do so in indirect questions like
>> >> "Do
>> >> you know who/*0 will meet us at the airport?" It clearly doesn't.
>> >> "That"
>> >> behaves like a subordinator; "who" behaves like a pronoun. No
> parallel.
>> >>
>> >> Craig: I think most of us are used to a definition of pronoun as
>> >> something
>> >> that "stands in " for a noun or "takes the place of a noun". Since
>> >> "that" seems to us to be doing that in relative clauses, perhaps
>> >> fooling us into believing that, we want to place it in the pronoun
>> >> category on largely functional grounds.
>> >>
>> >> Herb: I accept the informal, functional definition of "pronoun."
>> The
>> >> only argument I know of for considering relative "that" a pronoun is
> the
>> >> widespread sense that, as you note, it "seems to us to be doing that
>> in
>> >> relative clauses, perhaps fooling us into believing that, we want to
>> >> place
>> >> it in the pronoun category on largely functional grounds." But
>> popular
>> >> belief is a not a strong basis for linguistic description. We may
>> seek
>> >> by
>> >> analysis to confirm or falsify popular belief, but it can at best be
>> an
>> >> object of study, not evidence. A similar popular judgment on
>> language
>> >> is
>> >> the body of what's called folk etymology. Folk etymologies are very
>> >> interesting objects of study for what they tell us of people's
>> beliefs
>> >> about their language and culture, but they tell us nothing useful
>> about
>> >> etymology. One of our obligations as grammarians is to determine to
> the
>> >> best of our ability what things are in language. There are similarly
>> >> false beliefs that
>> >>
>> >> Sentences can't start with and/but/because.
>> >> Sentences can't end with prepositions.
>> >> Two negatives make a positive.
>> >> Infinitives cannot be split.
>> >> All nouns ending in non-genitive -s are plural (cf. measles,
>> >> mumps, etc.)
>> >> "That" in a relative clause can't be used to refer to a
>> human.
>> >> Etc.
>> >>
>> >> As grammarians we have to provide clarity in the discussion of such
>> >> issues.
>> >>
>> >> Craig: I understand the impetus to narrow categories down to what we
>> >> can
>> >> scientifically observe. Both functional and cognitive approaches
>> would
>> >> go beyond that. As Langacher says in a number of places, it may be
>> hard
>> >> to define what a noun is on cognitive grounds (to give one example),
>> >> but that doesn't mean it isn't enormously valuable, even essential to
>> >> try.
>> >>
>> >> Herb: Two different things. If we are going to define categories,
> it's
>> >> going to be by discovering the properties that may characterize
>> members
>> >> of
>> >> the category. We've known for a long time, before cognitive grammar
> was
>> >> named as an approach, that categories are fuzzy, not discrete. We
>> can
>> >> say
>> >> to what degree a word belongs to a category, as in describing "may"
>> as
> a
>> >> verb, without claiming that all members of the category have to share
>> >> all
>> >> of the same properties. We don't disagree on this. But it simply
> isn't
>> >> relevant to the question of what "that" is at the beginning of a
>> >> relative
>> >> clause.
>> >>
>> >> Craig: Even on structural grounds, relative "that" seems to act
>> >> differently
>> >> from subordinate "that" by taking a clause internal position.
>> >>
>> >> Herb: I don't know what you mean by this statement. Relative and
>> >> subordinate "that" have the same role in their clauses. They are
>> both
>> >> complementizers. In what sense does "that" take a clause internal
>> >> position
>> >> in relatives? If you're going to argue that they can be subjects or
>> >> objects, you'll be begging the question again, and you still won't
>> have
>> >> provided any evidence that "that" functions as a pronoun in such
>> >> instances.
>> >>
>> >> So we return to the question of what it means that people commonly
> think
>> >> of "that" as a relative pronoun. Does it mean that they've been
>> taught
>> >> this is so? Without some overt teaching the issue wouldn't even
>> arise.
>> >> Ask the kid who waits on you at McDonalds, and see if you get much
>> more
>> >> than a blank look. Of course, you'll probably run into the one kid
>> who
>> >> happens to be a grammar freak and who will tell you it's a
> subordinator,
>> >> not a pronoun. We've all had students who believe that the subject
>> of
> a
>> >> sentence is whatever comes first, a large part of our population
>> >> believes
>> >> that evolution never happened, and most college graduates believe
>> that
>> >> it's warmer in summer because the earth is closer to the sun.
>> Popular
>> >> belief is an object of study, not evidence.
>> >>
>> >> Herb
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>> >> Sent: 2009-01-24 12:30
>> >> To: [log in to unmask]
>> >> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>> >>
>> >> Herb,
>> >> This is hugely helpful.
>> >> I'm not sure the human/non-human contrast is telling, since you
> could
>> >> easily add "that" to the list. (Is "which" a variation or an
>> >> independent form?)
>> >> For which/that, you could add a grounding/not grounding contrast,
>> >> explainable in tradiitonal grammar as restrictive/non-restrictive.
>> >> "that" is definitely definite.
>> >> Isn't "who" deletable? (Strictly speaking, I guess it's deletable
> in
>> >> the "whom" case. But "that" doesn't have an "objective" form, so they
>> >> seem very parallel to me in the way they follow deletion rules.)
>> >> I think you are verifying my sense that there is not one single
>> >> element
>> >> that places something in the pronoun category, but a set of
>> >> characteristics that sometimes overlap. In other words, if you used
>> any
>> >> single category to eliminate "that", you might have to eliminate
>> >> something else as well. (I'm disagreeing with your sense that "that"
>> is
>> >> the only one deletable.)
>> >> Once we get down to this level, though, classification becomes
> mildly
>> >> misleading.
>> >> I think most of us are used to a definition of pronoun as
>> something
>> >> that "stands in " for a noun or "takes the place of a noun". Since
>> >> "that" seems to us to be doing that in relative clauses, perhaps
>> >> fooling us into believing that, we want to place it in the pronoun
>> >> category on largely functional grounds.
>> >> I understand the impetus to narrow categories down to what we can
>> >> scientifically observe. Both functional and cognitive approaches
>> would
>> >> go beyond that. As Langacher says in a number of places, it may be
>> hard
>> >> to define what a noun is on cognitive grounds (to give one example),
>> >> but that doesn't mean it isn't enormously valuable, even essential to
>> >> try.
>> >> Even on structural grounds, relative "that" seems to act
>> differently
>> >> from subordinate "that" by taking a clause internal position.
>> >> But thanks much for this line of thought. My understanding deepens
> as
>> >> we go.
>> >>
>> >> Craig
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Craig,
>> >>>
>> >>> Good question. I would expect a pronoun to have some of the
>> following
>> >>> properties:
>> >>>
>> >>> Gender and/or number constrast
>> >>> (Personal pronouns have both; demonstratives have number;
> interrogative
>> >>> and relative pronouns have a human/non-human contrast with
>> >>> who/whose/whom
>> >>> vs. what/which.)
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Case contrast
>> >>> (Personal pronouns have three; interrogative and wh-relative also
>> have
>> >>> three unless you don't use "whom.")
>> >>>
>> >>> Definite/indefinite contrast
>> >>> (Interrogative and wh-relative pronouns have -ever forms.)
>> >>>
>> >>> Not deletable
>> >>> (NPs may be pronominalized or deleted. Deletion is not a
>> possibility
>> >>> for
>> >>> pronouns; it's an alternative reduction of NPs resulting in zero
>> >>> anaphora.
>> >>> This is a different topic, pronominalization vs. deletion, on which
>> >>> there
>> >>> is a considerable literature. If you want to go into it, I'll post
>> >>> something separate on it. Subordinator "that" is deletable.
>> >>> Wh-pronouns
>> >>> are not. Relative that behaves like the subordinator, not like a
>> >>> pronoun.)
>> >>>
>> >>> One of the most telling ways in which "that" fails to behave as a
>> >>> pronoun
>> >>> in relative clauses is that the plural form it has as a pronoun
> (those)
>> >>> NEVER occurs, not even in non-standard dialects, speech errors, or
>> >>> child
>> >>> language. If it were a pronoun, I would expect such an error to
>> occur
>> >>> and
>> >>> be noticed, but it doesn't ever get mentioned even in the most
>> >>> arbitrary
>> >>> of prescriptive grammars. It's not even perceived as a grammar
> problem
>> >>> because relative "that" simply isn't a pronoun and so wouldn't ever
>> >>> invite
>> >>> a plural agreement form.
>> >>>
>> >>> Herb
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> >>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>> >>> Sent: 2009-01-24 10:38
>> >>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> >>> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>> >>>
>> >>> Herb,
>> >>> Can you give us, in summary form, the morpho-syntactic criteria
> that
>> >>> would lead you to categorize something as a pronoun? I think the
>> >>> problem may just come down to a difference in definitions.
>> >>>
>> >>> Craig >
>> >>>
>> >>> Bruce,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Let me assure you that these sentences do occur, and not as false
>> >>>> starts
>> >>>> or interruptions.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I share your concern that I may have been assuming the answer, but
>> I
>> >>>> keep
>> >>>> getting driven back, by the data, to the fact that there is simply
>> no
>> >>>> evidence that this thing is or ever was pronominal. I hate burden
>> of
>> >>>> proof claims, but if there is evidence, morphosyntactic evidence,
>> >>>> since
>> >>>> that's the only kind we can observe, I'd like to see it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Herb
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
>> >>>> Sent: 2009-01-23 15:03
>> >>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> >>>> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Herb,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The third example, "There's this guy ... met me at the airport" is
>> >>>> very
>> >>>> strange to me. Sorry, I may have heard it, but interpreted (or
>> >>>> re-interpreted) it to be a false start: "There's this guy. (He)
>> met
>> >>>> me
>> >>>> at
>> >>>> the airport, ..." I'm waiting to hear more of the story, expecting
> the
>> >>>> excited speaker to drop more resumptive pronouns in the process:
>> >>>> "There's
>> >>>> the guy, met me at the airport, got me in this scam." The
>> occurrence
>> >>>> seems marginal to me.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> You're right about the origin being more important that the
>> (chance)
>> >>>> identity of the replacement with a word already being used in the
>> >>>> language
>> >>>> as a demonstrative pronoun. I agree that the demonstrative meaning
>> >>>> was
>> >>>> lost, but the pronominal use is still there, is it not? Certainly
> its
>> >>>> lack of stress reinforces the view that it was not a demonstrative,
>> >>>> but
>> >>>> how can that make it lose a pronominal use? You seem to be saying
>> >>>> that
>> >>>> the OE conjunction changed its identity to "that" maybe by analogy,
>> >>>> but
>> >>>> cannot have acquired any of its meaning by the same process. Yet
>> you
>> >>>> even
>> >>>> use the word "replace." Maybe if I'm begging the question, you
>> would
>> >>>> maybe be assuming the answer?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Bruce
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
>> >>>> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 12:00 PM
>> >>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> >>>> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Bruce,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I cut my syntactic teeth on serial verbs, planning then to do my
>> >>>> dissertation on them. It was enough of a problem to persuade me to
>> >>>> shift
>> >>>> to phonology.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> These "double zero" constructions, to coin a phrase, also occur in
>> >>>> places
>> >>>> where they can't possibly be interruptions, and I don't think the
>> >>>> relative
>> >>>> clause cases I've cited are either, but consider existentials:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> There's this guy that/0 I met 0 at the coffee shop.
>> >>>> There's this guy that/0 I talked to 0 at the coffee shop.
>> >>>> There's this guy that/0 0 met me at the airport.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I've used 0s to specify slots for "that" and for the deleted NP.
>> The
>> >>>> last
>> >>>> example, the subject instance, is not an interruption. It's simply
>> a
>> >>>> relative clause in an existential sentence, and you might hear
>> >>>> something
>> >>>> like this more frequently than the other example I gave.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Your discussion of the question of "that" as a pronominal begs the
>> >>>> question (in the logical sense, not the modern talking head sense).
>> >>>> It
>> >>>> makes the assumption that conjunctive "that" started life as
>> >>>> determiner
>> >>>> "that." There's no evidence that this was the case. Rather, this
> use
>> >>>> of
>> >>>> "that" replace what in OE and EME was "?a," a particle that had an
>> >>>> adverbial and grammatical function. It actually could introduce
>> >>>> relative
>> >>>> clauses, although those were more likely to be asyndetic in keeping
>> >>>> with
>> >>>> OE generally paratactic structure. You might argue that it was the
>> >>>> demonstrative that replaced the indeclinable particle in
>> subordinate
>> >>>> clauses, but I think more important is what it took the place of,
>> not
>> >>>> what
>> >>>> it started life as. By the time the replacement happened it was
>> >>>> pretty
>> >>>> much a reduced form, unlike the pronoun. If it shifted as a
>> pronoun,
>> >>>> I
>> >>>> would expect its plural to shift with it, but we never find any
>> form
>> >>>> like
>> >>>> "these" introducing relatives. It's in this purely grammatical
>> role
>> >>>> of
>> >>>> subordinator that it combines with adverbs, pronouns, and
> prepositions
>> >>>> to
>> >>>> form compound subordinators that have, in most cases, dropped the
>> >>>> "that"
>> >>>> altogether today.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The loss of use of "whom" I think rather reflects that it was
>> fairly
>> >>>> late
>> >>>> to make the shift from interrogative pronoun to relative and never
>> >>>> really
>> >>>> got established in the grammar in the first place. So its shaky
>> >>>> status
>> >>>> today is a reflection of its shaky history.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Herb
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
>> >>>> Sent: 2009-01-23 10:50
>> >>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> >>>> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Herb,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks for the clarification. I stand corrected on the serial
>> verbs.
>> >>>> The
>> >>>> closest thing we have, I believe, is "I'll try and make it," where
>> >>>> there
>> >>>> is a definite tendency to "correct" it to "I'll try to make it."
>> The
>> >>>> multibranching structure is formal-theoretically distinct from the
>> >>>> right-branching "correction." The semantics does not need to
> branch.
>> >>>> The point I was getting at had to do with the use of "to" as an
>> >>>> infinitive
>> >>>> marker being sublimated (lenition?) with modal auxiliaries, but
>> being
>> >>>> restored in periphrasis.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Your sentences still seem contrived to me. I guess I'll have to
>> >>>> listen
>> >>>> more closely, instead of assuming, or overlooking what seems to me
>> to
>> >>>> be
>> >>>> performance problems. The intonation is characteristic of the
>> >>>> parenthetical insertions that Craig used to separate the RC from
>> its
>> >>>> antecedent. These items seem to be freely inserted between main
>> >>>> constituents, but sometimes inserted even within a word, when
> emphasis
>> >>>> is
>> >>>> required. Maybe it's the same thing, maybe not. When can
>> sentences
>> >>>> be
>> >>>> interrupted by other sentences and become grammaticalized as
> dependent
>> >>>> structures? Do resumptive pronouns become grammaticalized? Maybe
>> >>>> that's
>> >>>> what's happening.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> There must be some other motivating factors involved with the
>> >>>> construction
>> >>>> of an argument to support the rejection of "that" as a relative
>> >>>> pronoun.
>> >>>> I cannot think that its lack of morphosyntactic marking could be a
>> >>>> strong
>> >>>> point. Doesn't the loss of the use of "whom" as a marked variant
>> of
>> >>>> "who"
>> >>>> tells us that such marking is not really all that important. The
>> >>>> conjunctive (and relative) "than" was originally the same word as
>> >>>> "then"
>> >>>> (not usually relative) but got differentiated in the course of
>> time.
>> >>>> The
>> >>>> fact that "that" has not been differentiated (yet) cannot be
>> terribly
>> >>>> important to its present use.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Bruce
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
>> >>>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 10:19 PM
>> >>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> >>>> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Bruce,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> You raised doubts about the relevance of phonological phenomena to
>> >>>> grammatical change, hence my second paragraph.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> As to serial verbs, in the languages that attest them, principally
>> in
>> >>>> West
>> >>>> Africa, Southeast Asia, and New Guinea, serial verb constructions
>> are
>> >>>> considerably different from our auxiliary verb structures. A
>> typical
>> >>>> example from Yoruba is, without tones and some vowel contrasts
>> since
> I
>> >>>> can't do them in email,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Mo gbe eran lo si ile se
>> jeun
>> >>>> I picked-up meat went to house cooked ate
>> >>>> I brought meat home, cooked, and ate it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Gbe, lo, si, se, and jeun are all verbs, all finite verbs, and
>> there
>> >>>> is
>> >>>> no
>> >>>> morphosyntactic marking of relationships among them beyond the
>> >>>> iconicity
>> >>>> of word order. Serial verb constructions don't involve
>> subordination
>> >>>> or
>> >>>> coordination, and may include grammaticized forms like modals and
>> >>>> aspectuals but typically those forms exhibit other constraints.
>> >>>> Basically
>> >>>> serial verb constructions use verbs to express the grammatical
>> roles
>> >>>> English uses word order and prepositions for and also allows
>> >>>> expression
>> >>>> of
>> >>>> multiple events in a single sentence. I don't think English
>> modals,
>> >>>> periphrastic or simple, fit these patterns well. English
>> auxiliaries
>> >>>> also
>> >>>> exhibit a right branching dependency structure that shows up
>> >>>> especially
>> >>>> placement of contrastive negation and in the logic of multiple
>> >>>> negatives.
>> >>>> Serial verbs do not exhibit a dependency structure.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> As to sentences subject relatives but no "that" and no subject,
>> these
>> >>>> are
>> >>>> not contrived. They occur in spoken discourse. Usually there is
>> >>>> intonational marking of the relative clause, but no syntactic
> marking.
>> >>>> In
>> >>>> formal syntax, even wh-relatives are treated as having zero
>> elements
>> >>>> marked by traces in the canonical positions for those constituents.
>> >>>> The
>> >>>> wh-word moves to a COMP node and so is not in the clause itself.
>> I'm
>> >>>> not
>> >>>> sure how the latest in formal syntax does that, but it's a variant
>> of
>> >>>> this.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> All of which gets us back to the question of whether "that" is
>> >>>> pronominal
>> >>>> in relative clauses. I'm not sure how it's simpler to call it a
>> >>>> pronoun,
>> >>>> except perhaps in a pedagogical sense. I can see the need to
> simplify
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> description of certain areas of grammatical structure, including
>> >>>> participle/gerund constructions, infinitival constructions, and
>> >>>> relative
>> >>>> clauses, and I don't object to such pedagogical measures. We've
>> all
>> >>>> needed them. I object rather to making category membership claims
>> >>>> without morphosynactic evidence to support them, and this evidence
>> is
>> >>>> absent in the case of relative "that." I've looked for it, and
>> it's
>> >>>> not
>> >>>> there.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Herb
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
>> >>>> Sent: 2009-01-22 15:19
>> >>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> >>>> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Herb,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I agree completely with your first paragraph. The second seems a
>> >>>> little
>> >>>> off track but does lead to the third, of which I must remain to be
>> >>>> convinced. It seems that the term "zero anaphora" is another way
>> of
>> >>>> saying that there is no "relative" when one seems to be needed when
>> >>>> compared to other similar constructions. Serial verbs abound in
>> >>>> English,
>> >>>> yet they are traditionally called simple modal auxiliaries and
>> >>>> periphrastic modals. Maybe it is not yet appropriate in the
>> >>>> development
>> >>>> of English to make a separate category for them. There is
>> certainly
> a
>> >>>> zero DO in an adjective clause, but when the conjunction "that" is
>> >>>> used,
>> >>>> it's much simpler to call it a pronoun, especially when "that"
>> >>>> regularly
>> >>>> appears when not a DO and a relative is expected. It's possible
>> >>>> origin
>> >>>> as
>> >>>> the marker of a content clause, which never was relative, hardly
> seems
>> >>>> relevant to its present use. It appeared with adverbs and pronouns
>> >>>> that
>> >>>> were relative, but had no relative meaning to transfer to them.
>> The
>> >>>> sentences you cite for Craig with the null sign marking the place
>> of
> a
>> >>>> subject seem very contrived to me. If we can take performance
>> errors
>> >>>> as
>> >>>> evidence for a living construction (or even a dead one), the sky is
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> only limit to the analysis.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Bruce
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
>> >>>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 11:38 AM
>> >>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> >>>> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Bruce,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> You made your point well. However, I think that in Late Middle and
>> >>>> Early
>> >>>> Modern English the function of "that" in these subordinator+that
>> >>>> combinations, for want of a better term, was to provide a clear
> marker
>> >>>> of
>> >>>> subordination. It hadn't been that long that question words had
>> been
>> >>>> used
>> >>>> in relative clauses, or for that matter, that adverbial subordinate
>> >>>> clauses developed to the level of richness they have today, and I
>> >>>> suspect
>> >>>> that the "that" was felt necessary because the inchoate
>> subordinator
>> >>>> wasn't yet felt to be fully a subordinator.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> There is a complex interaction between phonological change and
>> >>>> grammatical
>> >>>> change. Just look at how OE lost its noun case system, by
>> weakening
>> >>>> of
>> >>>> final syllables. That final lenition traces its roots back to the
>> >>>> Germanic Stress Shift that was part of Verner's Law. When Germanic
>> >>>> accent
>> >>>> shifted from movable, as in most of Indo-European, to fixed and
>> >>>> initial,
>> >>>> it triggered a whole chain of effects, one of the most of important
> of
>> >>>> which was final lenition. As English lost its noun case endings,
>> its
>> >>>> syntax changed from mixed SOV/SVO to almost completely SVO and with
>> a
>> >>>> much
>> >>>> more fixed order of constituents than in OE. Also prepositions
>> began
>> >>>> to
>> >>>> proliferate as ways to mark relationships that could no longer be
>> >>>> marked
>> >>>> by case endings. I suspect, although I have not looked carefully
>> at
>> >>>> corpus data on it, that the loss of "that" in the combinations
>> we're
>> >>>> talking about was very much the same sort of phenomenon.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> By the way, I think you're right the "whom that" is not, or at
>> most,
>> >>>> rarely attested. I would suspect that this is because of the
>> >>>> relatively
>> >>>> late entry of "whom" as a relative pronoun, after "that" had
>> already
>> >>>> begun
>> >>>> to disappear.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Obviously I would disagree with you that "that" can "hold the place
> of
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> direct object." I would hold that in such relative clauses, the DO
> is
>> >>>> zero, another instance of zero anaphora. Lest anyone fear that I'm
>> >>>> proliferating zero anaphora beyond reason, I would suggest looking
>> at
>> >>>> Chinese, Vietnamese, Yoruba, or other languages with serial verb
>> >>>> constructions, where zero anaphora abounds.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Herb
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
>> >>>> Sent: 2009-01-22 10:54
>> >>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> >>>> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Herb,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I hope you understood my point in composing the "at a time when
>> that"
>> >>>> structure. I was trying to say that such a monstrosity would not
> have
>> >>>> even occurred to the 16th c. mind. My proposal was that the phrase
>> >>>> "when
>> >>>> that" would not have been made a relative to "time" possibly
>> because
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> "that" was already relative to the "when." The fact that "that"
>> >>>> became
>> >>>> a
>> >>>> clitic in certain positions does not seem relevant to its
>> occurrence
>> >>>> as
>> >>>> a
>> >>>> relative. The fact that clitics tend to be phonologically
>> dependent
>> >>>> does
>> >>>> not seem to be the same thing as a relative blending when in
>> >>>> construction
>> >>>> with the p/a/p. The "that" that disappears from an RC where it
>> may
>> >>>> hold
>> >>>> the place of the object of a transitive verb, still does not seem
>> to
>> >>>> be
>> >>>> the same as the "that" that introduces content clauses. The
>> >>>> disappearance
>> >>>> of the "that" of content clauses seems restricted to non-relative
>> >>>> p/a/p.
>> >>>> I could be wrong, but I suspect that the construction, *"the man
>> whom
>> >>>> that
>> >>>> they elected" cannot be attested. I think such a construction
>> would
>> >>>> go
>> >>>> a
>> >>>> long way in making your argument sustainable (at least to me).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Bruce
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
>> >>>> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 3:31 AM
>> >>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> >>>> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Bruce,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I appreciate your caution on what we call a unit. I'm equally
>> >>>> uncomfortable with calling some things compounds, although not so
> much
>> >>>> in
>> >>>> the case of prepositions. Certainly "a piece of" functions as a
>> >>>> partitive, in which "of" marks the partitive structure, while at
>> the
>> >>>> same
>> >>>> time of+NP is the complement of "a piece." So cases of strings
>> that
>> >>>> behave as units are not uncommon, nor is it rare for syntactic
>> >>>> structure
>> >>>> and sense or phonological phrasing to conflict. To use the "piece"
>> >>>> example again, phonologically we break "a piece of pie" into /@pis@
>> >>>> pai/,
>> >>>> that is, "of" cliticizes to "piece," not to "pie," which is its
> sister
>> >>>> constituent in the prepositional phrase.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I agree that "at a time when that" would have sounded redundant,
>> >>>> probably
>> >>>> even odd, to a 16th c. ear. I suspect, especially on the frequency
> of
>> >>>> occurrence of "that" with a pronoun/adverb/preposition to introduce
>> a
>> >>>> subordinate clause means that "that" cliticized to that p/a/p. It
>> >>>> then
>> >>>> dropped from most combinations because clitic forms are unstressed
> and
>> >>>> therefore easily undergo lenition.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Herb
>> >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
>> >>>> Sent: 2009-01-21 10:34
>> >>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> >>>> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Herb,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I mentioned "so that," where the meaning of "so" is adverbial but
>> the
>> >>>> meaning of "that" is to introduce an adverbial noun clause. The
>> use
>> >>>> of
>> >>>> "now that" would be of the same ilk. This adverb "so" and this
> adverb
>> >>>> "now" have complements that are relative, in that they refer back
>> to
>> >>>> their
>> >>>> adverb antecedent. The "when that" seems on the surface to be a
>> >>>> construction of the same sort. However, "when" is never an
>> >>>> independent
>> >>>> (non-relative and non-connective) adverb. I suspect that the
> relative
>> >>>> use
>> >>>> of "that" with an adverb like "now" grew out of its use as a
>> relative
>> >>>> pronoun and was distinct from its rather independent use as object
>> of
>> >>>> a
>> >>>> preposition "in" (cf. a few sentences back) or conjunction "when."
>> >>>> The
>> >>>> time clause introduced by "when" is adverbial together with the
>> noun
>> >>>> clause, which is not. I suspect that the sentence, "William
>> attacked
>> >>>> at
>> >>>> a
>> >>>> time when that the kingdom was at peace" would have sounded
>> redundant
>> >>>> (two
>> >>>> relatives) even to the medieval ear. "William attacked when that
> the
>> >>>> kingdom was at peace" has none of the relative import of the
>> former,
>> >>>> and
>> >>>> probably sounded much more natural.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I think that the practice of analyzing multiple words as "units"
>> can
>> >>>> be
>> >>>> misleading. We speak of compound prepositions and such, but the
>> >>>> desire
>> >>>> seems to be to divorce morphology from syntax. The clumping of
>> units
>> >>>> as
>> >>>> wholes without syntactic significance can have the effect of
>> sweeping
>> >>>> important details under the rug. Some might be inclined to say
>> that
>> >>>> "kick
>> >>>> the bucket" is not syntactically analyzable. But we can say
>> "kicking
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> proverbial bucket" so that the "unit" has been taken apart. Its
>> >>>> meaning
>> >>>> as
>> >>>> a whole has been modified by placing a modifier (relational
> adjective)
>> >>>> next to a part of it. I guess this connects to the clitic
> discussion
>> >>>> as
>> >>>> well as the one on the pedagogy of science.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Bruce
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
>> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 5:26 PM
>> >>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> >>>> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Bruce,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> That's an interesting parallel. But what about "now that Obama is
>> >>>> president," which is clearly an adverbial use but not with a
>> >>>> preposition.
>> >>>> But I'm making the diachronic assumption that "now that" is a unit,
>> >>>> just
>> >>>> as "when" is, now that we no longer say "when that."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> As to "the man that was smoking," I think that does reflect the
>> >>>> demonstrative character of articles in OE and ME, at least EME, and
>> >>>> it's
>> >>>> a
>> >>>> modern reflex of that demonstrative function. As definite articles
>> >>>> have
>> >>>> undergone lenition and have reduced to a single form, the different
>> >>>> functions have gotten mixed together.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Herb
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
>> >>>> Sent: 2009-01-20 12:40
>> >>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> >>>> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On the point that a relative "that" cannot be constructed with a
>> >>>> preposition consider that your content-clause complementizer has
>> the
>> >>>> same
>> >>>> characteristic. "He decided on it" - "He decided that they had
>> >>>> arrived."
>> >>>> The verb "decide" needs to have the prepositional particle for its
>> >>>> complement, but the presence of the noun clause excludes the
>> >>>> appearance
>> >>>> of
>> >>>> the particle. The RC, which is usually adjectival, doesn't
>> normally
>> >>>> need
>> >>>> a preposition. However, the RC may be adverbial, in which case the
>> >>>> preposition precedes it. Can't we say that the adjective clause
>> >>>> introduced by "that" simply can't be used adverbially? The
>> clauses
>> >>>> introduced by "that" are noun or adjective.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I've mentioned on the list before that the clause we call relative
> has
>> >>>> multiple functions and that there are adverbial clauses of degree
>> and
>> >>>> comparison that are relative without the relative pronouns, but
>> with
>> >>>> relative adverbs instead. The adverb "so" is often complemented
>> with
>> >>>> a
>> >>>> "that" clause, so much so that "that" seems to be serving as a
>> >>>> relative
>> >>>> adverb. The adverb "more" (and the comparative -er) is
>> complemented
>> >>>> with
>> >>>> a "than" clause, which "than" must be serving adverbially. These
>> >>>> conjunctions seem to be just as much relative (adverbs) as are the
>> >>>> relative (pronouns) of the RC. Also the two "as" in this last
>> >>>> sentence
>> >>>> are co-relative; the second has the other as an antecedent to which
> it
>> >>>> refers. The first one could be referring back to something in the
>> >>>> context
>> >>>> of the utterance until we hear the second one. This is very much
> like
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> "the" in "the man who is smoking." "The" could be referring back
>> in
>> >>>> context until the relative clause comes along. This kind of
>> behavior
>> >>>> on
>> >>>> the part of "the" is what gives us the relative meaning in "the man
>> >>>> that
>> >>>> is smoking." It looks to me for all the world like a relative
>> >>>> demonstrative pronoun.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Bruce
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
>> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 9:23 AM
>> >>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> >>>> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Herb,
>> >>>> I'm a little uncomfortable with the notion that we have to base
> our
>> >>>> "science" totally on formal observations and that observations
>> about
>> >>>> what something seems to mean are "naive." That may be the writing
>> >>>> teacher speaking. It may also be from a growing interest in
>> cognitive
>> >>>> lenses. But I'm not ready for a full defense yet.
>> >>>> I guess what I'm holding out for, not so much from you but from
>> my
>> >>>> fellow public grammarians, is a much clearer differentiation
>> between
>> >>>> "that" in a content clause and "that" in a relative clause. You and
>> I
>> >>>> seem close on that, but then you draw back from saying there's a
>> >>>> possibility of a third "that" and I'm still ruminating.
>> >>>> I don't mean to replace your thoughtful phrasing for all this,
>> but
>> >>>> here's what I would tell my grammar class students. In a relative
>> >>>> clause, the nominal group being "modified" has a role within the
>> >>>> modifying clause. The marker (relative pronoun?) helps us establish
>> >>>> that role. This doesn't happen in a content clause, where the
>> >>>> subordinator (I call it a complementizer) simply stands outside the
>> >>>> clause. This complementizing even happens in some clauses that seem
>> >>>> relative by position, but turn out to be structurally different.
>> >>>> "He believes that the aliens have landed." "His belief that the
>> >>>> aliens
>> >>>> have landed is absurd." In neither of these is "belief" or a
>> pronoun
>> >>>> stand-in functioning within the subordinate clause. to me, these
>> are
>> >>>> complements rather than modifiers.
>> >>>> "The aliens that have landed are green." In this case, aliens
>> have
>> >>>> done
>> >>>> the landing and it's these specific aliens that are green. This is
>> >>>> what
>> >>>> feels pronominal to many of us, but could be explained thoughtfully
> as
>> >>>> a subordinating stand-in for an absent subject.
>> >>>> I think we are both in full agreement to this point. I'm still
>> >>>> leaning
>> >>>> toward calling the clause itself a "relative clause" even if it
>> turns
>> >>>> out "that" isn't acting pronominally in the full sense of the word.
>> >>>> For
>> >>>> pedagogical reasons, certainly, that makes the most sense. For
>> >>>> pedagogical reasons, it might also be less confusing to say that
>> the
>> >>>> "relative pronouns" that help us out in these clauses all act a bit
>> >>>> differently. (I would include "where" and "when". "The place where
>> I
>> >>>> was born." "The time when I'm most alert.")
>> >>>> Certainly the fact that we can say "the dresser in which I keep
>> my
>> >>>> socks" but not "the dresser in that I keep my socks" gives me deep
>> >>>> pause.
>> >>>> I have to admit that the more we discuss this, the clearer your
>> >>>> position becomes. Could it be that "that", because it is both
>> >>>> subordinator and pronoun in other instances, can be acting in ways
>> >>>> here
>> >>>> that are very unique?
>> >>>> If it feels like a subject, can it become one over time?
>> >>>> Ultimately, it is more useful to agree on how something acts than
> it
>> >>>> is
>> >>>> to agree on classification, since classification categories can
> change
>> >>>> with a change in definition. I think I'm arguing for a more fluid
>> >>>> definition for pronoun, in part because it still feels to me that
>> the
>> >>>> "that" that shows up in these clauses is different from the other
> two,
>> >>>> the subordinator and the demonstrative.
>> >>>> Again, though, I thank you for leading us patiently toward the
>> >>>> light.
>> >>>> That I agree with you more and more as time goes on should tell me
>> >>>> something.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Craig
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Craig,
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> My point was that while we do still use "that" after "except,"
>> "now,"
>> >>>> and
>> >>>> a few other adverbs it used to have a much broader distribution.
>> It
>> >>>> was
>> >>>> used regularly with another word (since, if, when, while, which,
> etc.)
>> >>>> to
>> >>>> form show subordination, and the use of "that" in such cases was
> quite
>> >>>> consistent. In LME, on the other hand, that use in combination
>> with
> a
>> >>>> content word to mark subordination has become restricted to just a
> few
>> >>>> holdouts. As to your other "now that" sequence, your example has
>> >>>> "that"
>> >>>> as a demonstrative, and it is clearly pronominal. I don't know of
> any
>> >>>> grammar that identifies relative that with demonstrative that. (I
>> >>>> also
>> >>>> don't find the comma necessary, but that's another matter.) You're
>> >>>> right,
>> >>>> of course, that the "that" in these modern cases does mark a
>> >>>> subordinate,
>> >>>> non-relative clause, and, consequently, the clause will contain no
>> >>>> nominal
>> >>>> gaps, since those occur only in relatives (to avoid undue
> redundancy).
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> As to your feeling that the arguments for "that" as a subordinator
>> >>>> don't
>> >>>> consider the possibility of a third "that," it's worse than that.
>> >>>> Those
>> >>>> arguments explicitly reject that possibility. On morphosyntactic
>> >>>> grounds,
>> >>>> there is no evidence that relative "that" is in any way pronominal.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Your argument that "the music that moves her" and "the people who
> move
>> >>>> her" are parallel is based solely on intuition, not on evidence.
>> >>>> Intuition is, of course, a double-edged term in grammar. Within a
>> >>>> large
>> >>>> body of linguistic literature the term is carefully and narrowly
>> >>>> defined
>> >>>> to mean native speaker judgments of well-formedness of an
>> utterance.
>> >>>> You
>> >>>> may or may not accept that definition, but it is at least
>> reasonable
>> >>>> rigorous. In your usage below, "intuition" is more like "gut
>> >>>> feeling,"
>> >>>> something on the basis of which I might choose whom to hire out of
>> >>>> several
>> >>>> otherwise equally qualified applicants, but we can't base science
>> on
>> >>>> gut
>> >>>> feeling. We can create hypotheses in part that way, but we can't
> test
>> >>>> them that way. That sort of intuition is not evidence.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I agree, however, that the two are parallel, and they are because
>> >>>> reference can be represented by a pronoun or by zero anaphora, and
>> in
>> >>>> that-relatives we have the latter. The gap occurs in just the
>> place
>> >>>> where
>> >>>> the co-referential NP would be if it were a main clause. If I
>> >>>> remember
>> >>>> right, Halliday and Hassan dealt at some length with deletion as a
>> >>>> cohesive device. In both sentences, the head noun represents
>> what's
>> >>>> doing
>> >>>> the moving. We interpret the subject of "move" either from the
>> >>>> pronoun
>> >>>> "who," which co-indexes with "the people," or from the zero subject
>> >>>> after
>> >>>> "that." As I argued earlier, that subject is zero precisely
>> because
> a
>> >>>> lot
>> >>>> of speakers can say, "The man 0 met me at the airport dropped me
>> off
>> >>>> at
>> >>>> my
>> >>>> office." It is partly intonation that helps us parse the
>> utterance.
>> >>>> People differ as to whether they would use this construction, but
>> it
>> >>>> represents a simple asyndetic relative clause where the zero
>> subject
>> >>>> co-indexes with the head noun.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> To demonstrate that relative "that" is in some way nominal, you'll
>> >>>> need
>> >>>> to
>> >>>> show that it has clearly nominal behavior, and that's a
>> >>>> morphosyntactic
>> >>>> question, not one that can be answered from intuition.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On the other hand, Edith raises the interesting question of whether
>> >>>> "that"
>> >>>> could be changing its function from subordinator to pronoun. I
>> >>>> certainly
>> >>>> don't reject that possibility. Such grammatical change is not
>> >>>> unusual,
>> >>>> and more radical cases abound. My problem with the claim, though,
>> is
>> >>>> again an absence of evidence beyond, present company excepted,
>> na?ve
>> >>>> assumptions about grammar. A long time ago, 1973, I think, I
>> >>>> published
>> >>>> a
>> >>>> paper that included an internal reconstruction of the Yoruba
> preverbal
>> >>>> morphemes, including the subject pronouns. This is a fairly complex
>> >>>> problem, and internal reconstruction is a historical linguistic
>> >>>> methodology for extrapolating earlier stages of a language from
>> >>>> synchronic
>> >>>> alternations and irregularities. On historical grounds, what every
>> >>>> grammar and every Yoruba teacher I had called a third person
>> singular
>> >>>> pronoun was nothing of the sort. Historically I could explain
>> every
>> >>>> phonological and morphological property of the form, and none of
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> it had any historical source in the pronoun systems. Rather, the
>> >>>> third
>> >>>> singular in the present affirmative indicative was a zero form,
>> just
>> >>>> as
>> >>>> it
>> >>>> was in all the other subject pronoun sets in the language, and
>> there
>> >>>> were
>> >>>> different paradigms depending on tense, modality, and negation. In
>> >>>> spite
>> >>>> of a total lack of morphosyntactic evidence that the form was a
>> third
>> >>>> singular subject pronoun and in the face of overwhelming evidence
>> to
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> contrary, grammar writers, Yoruba language teachers, and speakers
>> of
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> language who also spoke English insisted that the word did in fact
>> >>>> translate as English he/she/it (the language is totally without
> gender
>> >>>> marking). On the basis of that, I can accept that for modern
> speakers
>> >>>> that form has changed from what it was historically, a combination
>> of
>> >>>> two
>> >>>> different morphemes neither of them pronominal, to a subject
>> pronoun.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Edith suggests that something similar has happened in English with
>> >>>> relative that, but in the English case the grammars are far from in
>> >>>> agreement, and the best of them, Jespersen and Huddleston&Pullum,
>> >>>> reject
>> >>>> the idea. Grammar teachers are rather more in agreement, but I
>> >>>> suspect
>> >>>> that's because of what they've been taught, which tends not to come
>> >>>> from
>> >>>> the best sources. So the change may be in progress, but there's no
>> >>>> way
>> >>>> of
>> >>>> detecting it yet.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Herb
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Herb,
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In structures like "except that" and "now that", "that" is
> clearly
>> >>>>
>> >>>> part of a subordinating (or complementing) process. Both require an
>> >>>>
>> >>>> explicit subject for the clause that follows. "Now that Obama has
> been
>> >>>>
>> >>>> elected..." If we said "Now that is a good thing," "that" is
>> clearly
>> >>>>
>> >>>> acting like a pronoun. I would also expect a comma after "now."
>> "Now,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> that is a good thing."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I can't help feeling that the arguments for "that" as a
>> >>>> subordinator
>> >>>>
>> >>>> rather than a pronoun don't consider the possibility of different
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "that's." I'm positing three: the subordinator, the demonstrative,
> and
>> >>>>
>> >>>> the relative.)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> To me, "The music that moves her" is very parallel to "The
>> people
>> >>>> who
>> >>>>
>> >>>> move her." Neither that or who can be deleted from these because
>> (as
>> >>>> I
>> >>>>
>> >>>> see it) the clause needs an explicit subject. Either can be deleted
> if
>> >>>>
>> >>>> another subject is present. ("The music she loves... The people she
>> >>>>
>> >>>> loves.") You keep saying there isn't any evidence for "that" as a
>> >>>>
>> >>>> relative, but the evidence seems strong to me. The feeling sense
>> that
>> >>>>
>> >>>> the music is doing the moving and "that" stands in as the clause
>> >>>>
>> >>>> subject seems very compelling. None of the arguments against it
>> seem
>> >>>> to
>> >>>>
>> >>>> outwiegh that compelling intuition.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Is it just a matter of classifying "that" differently because it
>> >>>>
>> >>>> doesn't have as much flexibility as "which" ("with which") or have
>> >>>>
>> >>>> separate forms (like "whose" and "whom")? Can we have a relative
>> >>>>
>> >>>> pronoun with more constraints than other pronouns?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We call these clauses "relative" in part because they are
>> >>>> adjectival
>> >>>>
>> >>>> and the pronoun stands in for what the whole clause modifies. Is
> there
>> >>>>
>> >>>> an example for "that" in which that doesn't at least seem to
>> happen?
>> >>>> Is
>> >>>>
>> >>>> seeming (cognition) unimportant? Wouldn't it make just as much
>> sense
>> >>>> to
>> >>>>
>> >>>> call it a relative pronoun at least in these instances when it
>> seems
>> >>>> to
>> >>>>
>> >>>> act like one?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> As far as I can tell, I recognize the same observations about
>> how
>> >>>> it
>> >>>>
>> >>>> acts as you do, but am just comfortable placing it in a relative
>> >>>>
>> >>>> category because it seems similar enough to other relatives to
> warrant
>> >>>>
>> >>>> that.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Clearly, in other cases, "that" acts like a subordinator or
>> >>>> different
>> >>>>
>> >>>> kind of (non-relative) pronoun.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Am I totally missing the point?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Craig
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This thread has teased out some of the complexity surrounding
>> "that."
>> >>>> No
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> one has mentioned the demonstrative, which is the direct descendant
> of
>> >>>> the
>> >>>>
>> >>>> OE form "thaette" that Edith notes, and I think we're all agreed
>> that
>> >>>> the
>> >>>>
>> >>>> demonstrative and the conjunction are distinct forms.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The one formal argument for pronoun status of relative-that is the
>> >>>> fact
>> >>>>
>> >>>> that children and some non-standard dialects do have the form
>> written
>> >>>> as
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "that's." appending the genitive marker to the form in question.
> This
>> >>>> is
>> >>>>
>> >>>> not, however, a particularly strong argument because, as Arnold
> Zwicky
>> >>>> has
>> >>>>
>> >>>> demonstrated elsewhere, the -'s genitive is not an affix but a
> clitic.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Clitics are forms that typically attach to phrases, not to word
> stems.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Affixes attach to word stems. The fact that we can say "the Queen
>> of
>> >>>>
>> >>>> England's decision" demonstrates that -'s attaches, here, to a
> nominal
>> >>>>
>> >>>> construction, not to a noun stem. The fact, then, that for some
>> >>>> speakers
>> >>>>
>> >>>> it can attach to the subordinator "that" simply means that for them
>> >>>> it's
>> >>>>
>> >>>> behaving like a clitic, not like an affix.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Bill's concern over zero forms is well-founded. We don't want to
>> >>>>
>> >>>> proliferate zero forms every time we run into an anomalous
>> >>>> distribution,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> which we certainly have in that and wh- relative clauses. However,
>> I
>> >>>>
>> >>>> would dispute, or at least strongly question, the claim that the
>> >>>> absence
>> >>>>
>> >>>> of "that" in an RC represents a deletion. That certainly doesn't
>> >>>> reflect
>> >>>>
>> >>>> the historical facts, although the contemporary behavior of
>> something
>> >>>>
>> >>>> doesn't necessarily have to reflect closely its historical
>> >>>> development.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'd argue rather that asyndetic (unconnected) and that-marked
>> >>>> relatives
>> >>>>
>> >>>> are simply two options--no zero involved here.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> As to the feeling that rel-that is pronominal, I suspect this is
>> >>>>
>> >>>> influenced in part by the syncretism with the demonstrative, which
>> is
>> >>>>
>> >>>> quite a different form. It is, for one thing, nearly always
> stressed,
>> >>>> and
>> >>>>
>> >>>> the subordinator is almost never stressed. As far as Craig's
>> example
>> >>>> of
>> >>>> a
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "that it" relative construction, where the "it" is a resumptive
>> >>>> pronoun,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> resumptives in subject position are particularly problematical.
>> They
>> >>>> tend
>> >>>>
>> >>>> to occur, when they do, only in those places where "that" can't
> occur.
>> >>>> In
>> >>>>
>> >>>> subject position we're more likely to delete where the subject of
>> the
>> >>>>
>> >>>> relative is coreferential with the head noun. And that makes it
>> very
>> >>>> much
>> >>>>
>> >>>> like other subject deletions in dependent structures in English.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In response to Dick's query about complementarity, wh- and that
>> >>>>
>> >>>> historically were not complementary. In fact, in late Middle
>> English
>> >>>> and
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Early Modern English the two typically occurred together. In fact,
>> >>>> "that"
>> >>>>
>> >>>> occurred regularly after what we now consider adverbial
>> subordinating
>> >>>>
>> >>>> conjunctions, so that expressions like "which that," "who
>> that,"when
>> >>>>
>> >>>> that," and "if that (see the Sydney sonnet I posted not too long
>> >>>> back),"
>> >>>>
>> >>>> etc. were the rule. We still have reflexes of this in "now that"
>> and
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "except that." Over time, as we get into Late Modern English, the
>> >>>> sense
>> >>>>
>> >>>> that the "that" is needed to mark subordination diminishes and the
>> >>>> pronoun
>> >>>>
>> >>>> or adverb takes on that function itself.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I understand the feeling that relative that is pronominal; I just
>> >>>> haven't
>> >>>>
>> >>>> seen any evidence for it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Herb
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Emeritus Professor of English
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Ball State University
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Muncie, IN 47306
>> >>>>
>> >>>> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ________________________________________
>> >>>>
>> >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 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/
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
>> >>>> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
>> information.
>> >>>> Any
>> >>>> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
> If
>> >>>> you
>> >>>> are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
>> >>>> email
>> >>>> and destroy all copies of the original message.
>> >>>> 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/
>> >>>> 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/
>> >>>> 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/
>> >>
>> >> 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/
>>
>> 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/
|
