relative "that" again

[Herb Stahlke]

Thanks for adding that one.  Van der Auwera covers a wider range of
major traditional grammars than I did.

Herb

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Neal Whitman <nwhitman at ameritech.net> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Neal Whitman <nwhitman at AMERITECH.NET>
> Subject:      Re: relative "that" again
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I found this reference useful when I was writing about relative clauses
> involving adverbial nouns (e.g., 'the day (that) the music died'):
>
> J. van der Auwera. 1985. "Relative that - a centennial dispute", Journal of
> Linguistics 21.149-179.
>
> Neal
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Laurence Horn" <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
> To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 1:03 PM
> Subject: Re: relative "that" again
>
>
>> ---------------------- Information from the mail
>> header -----------------------
>> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>> Poster:       Laurence Horn <laurence.horn at YALE.EDU>
>> Subject:      Re: relative "that" again
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> At 12:37 PM -0500 2/20/09, Mark Mandel wrote:
>>>On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Herb Stahlke <hfwstahlke at gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Several weeks ago we had a lengthy discussion on the ATEG list
>>>>  (Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar, a group within NCTE) on
>>>>  whether "that" in relative clauses like
>>>>
>>>>  The guy that you met at the airport...
>>>>
>>>>  is a pronoun or simply the same subordinating conjunstion as in a
>>>> content
>>>>  clause
>>>>
>>>>  I know that you met the guy at the airport.
>>>>
>>>>  I argued, drawing on Jespersen, my own Language paper (1976), and a
>>>>  more thorough discussion in Huddleston&Pullum, that it's simply a
>>>>  subordinator, and I think the case is overwhelming, with almost no
>>>>  evidence to the contrary.
>>>
>>>
>>>Can you please give full citations for these refs? I'm not challenging
>>>them,
>>>I'd just like to be able to see them.
>>>
>> This was a hot issue that was debated back in the (antepenultimate
>> decade of the) last millennium (back when I taught syntax).  One
>> argument for collapsing them was that both the "relative" and the
>> "complementizer" _that_ (as we used to call them; god knows what they
>> are now) can delete, although the former only (in standard varieties)
>> in nonsubject relatives ("The guy you met is here"/*"The guy met you
>> is here").  Also, the relative "that" doesn't allow pied piping:
>>
>> the book to which I am referring             [or "which I am referring
>> to"]
>> the woman to who(m) I am referring         [or "who I am referring to"]
>> *the book/woman to that I am referring   [only: "that I am referring to"]
>>
>> H&P may discuss all this in CGEL; I don't have a copy.  Herb (and
>> Otto) may discuss these arguments too; sorry for any duplication of
>> effort.
>>
>> LH
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org