Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T00:07:50.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative that and prepositional complementation1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2008

Aimo Seppänen
Aimo Seppänen
Affiliation:
Department of EnglishUniversity of GõteborgS-412 98 GõteborgSweden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ever since the days of Jespersen, voices have been raised which argue that relative that is not a pronoun like who and which, but a conjunction/complementizer, as shown in particular by the ban on the sequence preposition + that, which is claimed to be best described by treating that as a conjunction. Taking up the question of the proper analysis of that as it appears in the word's relationship to prepositions, the present paper argues that in actual fact the descriptions built by Jespersen and various generative grammarians on the view of that as a conjunction/complementizer are not at all adequate to deal with some crucial facts of the word's syntax. Noting then some further facts which even the traditional ban is unable to deal with, the paper develops a new approach to the question which is derived from an examination of Finnish relatives and which handles all the English facts noted in terms of a general principle about the internal order of elements within the fronted relative phrase. The principle invoked is completely neutral as regards the word-class status of that, but some of the facts explored strongly argue for the classification of the word as a pronoun.

Type
Articles
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , May 1997 , pp. 111 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, C. (1980). Movement and deletion in Old English. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 261–323.Google Scholar
Bergh, G. (forthcoming). Double prepositions in English. To appear in Papers from the ninth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1976). Evidence for a theory of unbounded transformations. Linguistic Analysis 2: 353–93.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. (1977). Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425–504.Google Scholar
Dekeyser, X. (1984). Relativizers in early Modern English: a dynamic quantitative study. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical syntax. Berlin: Mouton. 61–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekeyser, X. (1988). Preposition stranding and relative complementizer deletion: implicational tendencies in English and the other Germanic languages. Leuvense Bidragen 77: 161–81.Google Scholar
Downing, B. T. (1977). Typological regularities in postnominal relative clauses. In Eckman, F. R. (ed.), Current themes in linguistics: bilingualism, experimental linguistics and language typology. Washington: Hemisphere. 163–94.Google Scholar
Fischer, O. (1992). Syntax. In Blake, N. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 207–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G. K., & Sag, I. (1985). Generalized phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Grant, V. (ed.) (1934–1976). The Scottish national dictionary. Edinburgh: Scottish National Dictionary Foundation.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. B. (1975). Evidence for relativization by deletion in Chaucerian Middle English. In Grimshaw, J. (ed.), Papers in the history and structure of English. (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 1.) 35–43.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to government and binding theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harris, J. (1993). The grammar of Irish English. In Milroy, J. & Milroy, L. (eds.), Real English: the grammar of English dialects in the British Isles. London: Longman. 139–86.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. (1984). Introduction to the grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston., R. (1988). English grammar: an outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. (1990). English word grammar. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jacobs, R. A. & Rosenbaum, P. S. (1968). English transformational grammar. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1927). A modern English grammar on historical principles, vol. III. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L. (1985). Relative clauses. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and linguistic description, vol. II: Complex constructions. 140–70.Google Scholar
Keyser, S. J. (1975). A partial history of the relative clause in English. In Grimshaw, J. (ed.), Papers in the history and structure of English. (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 1.) 3–33.Google Scholar
Kruisinga, E. (1924). On the origin of the anaphoric relative that. English Studies 6: 141–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurath, H., Kuhn, S. M., & Lewis, R. E. (eds.) (1956–). Middle English dictionary. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1972). Fundamentals of linguistic analysis. New York: Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1987). The shape of English: structure and history. London: J. M. Dent.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (1984). Der Relativsatz: Typologie seiner Strukturen, Theorie seiner Funktionen, Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, T. F. (1960). Middle English syntax, part I: Parts of speech. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Orton, H. & Dieth, E. (1962–1968). Survey of English dialects. Leeds: E. J. Arnold.Google Scholar
Poutsma, H. (1914). A grammar of late Modern English, part II, section I A. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1988). Transformational grammar: a first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. (1984). Towards a typology of relative-clause formation in Germanic. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical syntax. Berlin: Mouton. 437–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1968). Constraints on variables in syntax. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Seppänen, A. (forthcoming). The genitives of the relative pronouns in Present-day English. To appear in Cheshire, J. & Stein, D. (eds.), The grammar of non-standard language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Seppänen, A. & Kjellmer, G. (1995). The dog that's leg was broken: on the genitive of the relative pronoun. English Studies 76: 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Auwera, J. (1985). Relative that: a centennial dispute. Journal of Linguistics 21: 149–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Eynden, N. (1993). Syntactic variation and unconscious linguistic change: a study of adjectival relative clauses in the dialect of Dorset. Frankfurt-on-Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Visser, F. T. (1963). An historical syntax of the English language, vol. I. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Wagner, K. H. (1968). Verb phrase complementation: a criticism. Journal of Linguistics 4: 89–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkler, G. (1933). Das Relativum bei Caxton und seine Entwicklung von Chaucer bis Spenser. Saalfeld: Günthers Buchdruckerei.Google Scholar
Wright, J. (1989). The English dialect dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar