1

While reading the wikipedia article on relative clauses, I was puzzled somewhat by a description of a relative clause in English. It asserts that in the relative clause "that I saw yesterday", as in "the man that I saw yesterday went home", "that" is a complementizer rather than a pronoun, and that there is a gap left after "saw" where a pronoun would normally go.

My question is, why wouldn't you say that the relative clause is indicated by word order alone rather than gapping, "that" being moved from its usual position after the subject to the head of the phrase?

Here's a link to the article.

6

Well, that's not the only way to look at the phenomenon, and it's not necessary
to believe that there are gaps like black holes left in sentences or anything like that.
But there's a point it makes.

There are two great families of pronouns, both descending from Proto-Indo-European roots:

  • Demonstrative pronouns and their allies, descended from the PIE root *to-
    In English these start with TH: there, that, thither, thence, then, this, thus, though, the, they, etc.

  • Relative and interrogative pronouns and their allies, descended from the PIE root *kʷo-
    In English these start with WH: where, what, whither, whence, when, how, who, why, whether, etc.

So if that is a relative pronoun, it's an odd one.

The thing is that that has been used for over 600 years to introduce tensed subordinate clauses.
And it still is used that way for two out of the three kinds of subordinate clauses in Modern English.
Tensed Noun clauses and Adjective clauses require or allow that, under varying rules:

  • Mary believes [that [the Earth is an oblate spheroid]]. [Complement (Noun) clause]
  • The man [that [Mary talked to]] didn't believe her. [Relative (Adjective) clause]

Tensed Adverb clauses don't allow it any more, though they used to in Chaucer's day:

  • When he gets here, be sure to offer him a drink. (grammatical without that)
  • *When that he gets here, be sure to offer him a drink. (ungrammatical with that)

But compare the first line of Chaucer:

  • Whan that aprill with his shoures soote the droghte of march hath perced to the roote
    'When (*that) April with its showers sweet the drought of March has pierced to the root'

Now the kind of word that introduces a clause and doesn't have meaning as such is a Complementizer. Clearly this is the right term for the that in that the Earth is an oblate spheroid.
And it's obvious that it's the term for the way Chaucer used it, too.

So the question is, what is it when it heads a relative clause?

If that is a relative pronoun, then there are a lot of questions that need answering:
Why is that so different from the other relative pronouns?
Why is that optional in restrictive relatives but forbidden in non-restrictive ones?
Why can that be used in any kind of clause, where WH relatives are specific to person, time, etc?
Why is it being used as a relative pronoun when it's already used as a complementizer?

On the other hand,

If that is a complementizer in relative clauses, then these questions evaporate.
What appears then is a situation similar to complement clauses. That may be deleted in complements, just as it can be in relative clauses, and under the same conditions
-- whenever it's not needed to mark the subordinate clause as a subordinate clause, it's optional.

This also solves all coreference problems, because complementizers are not referential.
Therefore if there is any coreference in the relative clause, it is coreference of the sort called "understood" (also, "deleted", "a gap", "zero", "Pro" (of two varieties), or some other term, depending usually on what year your syntax instructor got their PhD).

That's what they really mean, I think. There's quite a lot more one could say on the topic,
but I forbear.

| improve this answer | |
  • Your answer overlooks one major fact that supports the analysis as a relative proform: there is in fact a sort "gap" present, e.g. – Tim Osborne Nov 26 '13 at 17:02
  • Your answer overlooks a major fact that supports the analysis as a relative proform: there is in fact a sort "gap" present, and it must remain empty, e.g. *the man that I met him..." If "that" were a straightforward complementizer, the object "him" should be possible. Observe the similarity to a true relative pronoun: "*the man who I met him...". In my view, the best analysis grants "that" an intermediate status between a relative pronoun and a complementizer. – Tim Osborne Nov 26 '13 at 17:08
  • Like I said above, "if there is any coreference in the relative clause, it is coreference of the sort called "understood" (also, "deleted", "a gap", "zero", "Pro" (of two varieties), or some other term)". Though to claim that a Gap is "present" is perhaps to get carried away on wings of metaphor. – jlawler Nov 26 '13 at 17:31
  • I am no fan of empty elements in syntactic analysis, but to speak of them metaphorically is helpful. I think your response does not acknowledge the point I wanted to make. If "that" were always a real complementizer, the relative clause introduced by "that" would not be incomplete in a sense. To state that "that" in such cases is a complentizer and not a relative pronoun is to make the same mistake as stating that it is a relative pronoun and not a complementizer. The answer lies somewhere in between. – Tim Osborne Nov 26 '13 at 21:14
  • 1
    Don't forget that 'that' and 'what' are at least semantically interchangeable in relative phrases: "The dog what bit me ran away." – amI Mar 23 '19 at 21:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.