> 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]
> ________________________________________
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wollin, Edith
> [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: January 19, 2009 4:02 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>
> I am prefacing my addition to this line of inquiry with the statement that
> I know next to nothing about Old English. However, I do know enough to
> have a nagging remembrance that there are different that's in Old English.
> So I have finally pulled out my old Old English dictionary and here is
> what I have found: "thaet" is a conjunction and an adverb pretty much
> meaning "that." Thaette" is a pronoun meaning which and that which and a
> conjunction meaning that, so that, in order that.
>
> Am I wrong in wondering if we still have two "thats"; they just look
> exactly the same now. It does seem to me that "that" has to be functioning
> as a relative pronoun in the sentences we are looking at. I guess the next
> thing is to check Old English syntax to see what we find there. --Maybe
> next week!
>
> Ediht Wollin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Spruiell,
> William C
> Sent: Mon 1/19/2009 11:43 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>
>
> Herb, Dick, et al.:
>
> Like Dick, I feel I instinctively resist Herb's analysis on this one,
> although it's a perfectly logical analysis. We've had part of this
> conversation on the list before, I know, but I've lost track of which
> comments I've already made, so apologies for any duplication. I've been
> trying to pin down *why* I'm having this reaction. In addition to the
> "But...but....I learned it different!" motivation, I think I've
> identified two more (I'd like to emphasize at this point that, while I'm
> going to argue with the analysis, there's no sense in which I could
> claim it's "wrong"; instead, I'm tossing out a contrary argument partly
> to see where the flaws in my own reasoning might be):
>
> (1) I'm nervous about multiplying zero elements. While it's true we have
> relative clauses with no relativizer at all, I don't even want to say
> there's really a zero in those (I'd prefer to say that the occurrence of
> an element like an NP in an otherwise-ungrammatical position cues the
> hearer that an embedded clause is beginning). If I follow Herb's
> analysis correctly, I have no way of ruling out an additional step in
> which I could claim that the "no relativizer" clauses actually have TWO
> zeroes -- the usual one that stands in for the missing element, and an
> initial one that's the zero-allomorph of conjunctive 'that'. Then I
> start seeing zero elements everywhere.
>
> (2) This is one that *badly* needs corroboration, but....I've heard
> people slip up and use a possessive marker on 'that' when it's standing
> where a 'whose' would normally go ("We took the car that's door lock is
> busted"). If I'm right about that, it would be evidence that at least
> some speakers are processing 'that' as if it's a nominal element.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Bill Spruiell
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Veit, Richard
> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:55 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>
> Herb,
>
>
>
> I understand that "that" has a different origin from the wh-relative
> pronouns, and I understand that there are restrictions on "that" which
> are not placed on wh-relative pronouns (e.g., "that" doesn't occur after
> prepositions, and "that" occurs only in restrictive relatives).
> Nevertheless, it's hard for me to get around my intuition that "that" is
> acting as a pronoun. For me, in "the dog who barked" and "the dog that
> barked," "who" and "that" don't feel different, and both seem to
> function as the verb's subject.
>
>
>
> Also, if "that" is a conjunction and cannot fill a subject or object
> slot, and if "who" is a pronoun and can fill those slots, why are "that"
> and "who" mutually exclusive in a relative clause? Why can't we get "the
> dog that who barked"? Are there any other instances in the grammar where
> words of different grammatical categories and functions occur mutually
> exclusively in the same position?
>
>
>
> Finally, don't lots of children say things like "the boy that's mother
> drove him"?
>
>
>
> Dick
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
> [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 1:56 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>
> Dick,
>
> I'm saying that the verb has a zero subject. Many speakers find such
> sentences acceptable in speech, as in "There's the guy met me at the
> airport." Whether one accepts such a spoken sentence or not, it does
> have a zero subject. So in that-relatives, the co-indexed noun in the
> RC deletes. In those cases where deletion is prevented by other
> factors, as with possessives or fronted PPs that-relatives aren't
> allowed and wh-rels get used. For many speakers those positions that
> don't allow deletion show up with resumptive pronouns, as in "The guy
> that I talked to his brother yesterday lives in Indianapolis."
>
> 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 Veit, Richard [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: January 18, 2009 10:50 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>
> Herb,
>
> I know you have made this case, but I'd like to hear more. In "the dog
> who barked," who is a pronoun and the subject of the relative clause.
> Are you saying that, in "the dog that barked," the verb barked has no
> subject? Or are you saying that a conjunction can be the subject? Or
> something else entirely?
>
>
>
> Dick
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F
> [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 4:11 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Pedants that or who?
>
> We've discussed that vs. who at great length on this list, and I've made
> the argument, based on grammarians like Jespersen and Huddleston&Pullum,
> that the claim of a distinction of humanness is false. Relative-that is
> not a pronoun; it's a subordinating conjunction, the same as it is with
> noun clauses. Because it isn't a pronoun, it can't agree grammatically.
> Conjunctions in English don't. "Who," on the other hand, is a pronoun
> with human reference. The "that" form goes back to Old English. The
> "wh-" forms in their modern form arise in Middle English after the 13th
> c.
>
> 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/
>
> 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/
|
