Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T22:20:23.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative that – a centennial dispute1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Johan Van Der Auwera
Johan Van Der Auwera
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp (UFSIA)
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

But it would only be fair to add that there is still an essential difference between the hope that never dies and the hope that it was all wrong. (Van der Laan, 1929: 28)

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 1985, pp. 149 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Akmajian, Adrian (1979). Aspects of the grammar of focus in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Anklam, Rudolf Otto (1908). Das englische Relativ im 11. und. 12. Jahrhundert. Inauguraldissertation, Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
Araki, Kazuo (1958). Pronoun or conjunction? – relative that, as, but, than. In Araki, K. et al. (ed.), Studies in English grammar and linguistics. Tokyo: Kenkyusha. 81–90.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight (1972a). A look at equations and cleft sentences. In Firchow, E. S. et al. (eds), Studies for Einar Haugen. The Hague: Mouton. 96–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight (1972b). That's that. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brame, Michael K. (1980). Lexicon vs filters. In Hoekstra, Teun et al. (eds.), Lexical grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. 73–95.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. (1970). On complementizers: toward a syntactic theory of complement types. FL. 6 297–321.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. (1972). Theory of complementation in English syntax. MIT, Cambridge, Mass. doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. (1974). On the position of certain clause-particles in phrase-structure. LIn 5. 614–619.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. (1977). Variables in the theory of transformations. In Culicover, P. W. et al. (eds.), Formal syntax. New York: Academic Press. 157–196.Google Scholar
Brunner, Karl (1962). Die englische Sprache. 2nd ed., vol. 11. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard (1981). Language universal and linguistic typology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Curme, George O. (1935). Parts of speech and accidence. Boston: Heath.Google Scholar
De Geest, Willy P. F. (1973). Complementaire constructies bij verba sentiendi in het Nederlands. Utrecht: HES Publishers.Google Scholar
Dekeyser, Xavier (1983). Relative markers in the Peterborough Chronicle: 1070–1154; or Linguistic change exemplified. In Daems, Frans & Goossens, Louis (eds.), Een Spyeghel voor G. Jo Steenbergen. Leuven/Amersfoort: Acco. 95–107.Google Scholar
Dekeyser, Xavier (1984). Relativizers in Early Modern English: a dynamic quantitative approach. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical syntax. The Hague: Mouton. (To appear).Google Scholar
Deutschbein, Max (1953). Grammatik der englischen Sprache auf wissenschaftlicher Grundlage. 14th ed.Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. (First published in 1924.)Google Scholar
Deutschbein, Max et al. (1926). Handbuch der englischen Grammatik. Leipzig: von Quelle & Meyer.Google Scholar
Downing, Bruce T. (1973). Relative that as particle: a reexamination of English relativization. Paper presented at the LSA Summer Meeting.Google Scholar
Emerson, Oliver Farrar (1912). The history of the English language. New York & London: Macmillan. (First published in 1894.)Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph (1976). A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Erades, P. A. (1955). Contributions to Modern English syntax. IV. Structure and character of attributive clauses in English. M. Språk 49. 50–70.Google Scholar
Erdmann, Peter (1980). On the history of subject contact-clauses in Early Modern English. Folia Linguistica Historica. 1. 139–170.Google Scholar
Fowler, H. W. (1965). A dictionary of Modern English usage. 2nd ed.Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, H. W. & Fowler, F. G. (1931). The King's English. 3rd ed.Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald (1981). Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. LIn 12. 155–184.Google Scholar
Geoghegan, Sheila Graves (1975). Relative clauses in Old, Middle, and New English. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 18. 30–71.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John (1981). Complementizers and root sentences. LIn 12. 541–574.Google Scholar
Gregg, Alvin R. (1972). Is that ever a relative pronoun? In Battle, J. H. & Schweitzer, John (eds.), Mid-America Linguistics Conference Papers. Stillwater, Oklahoma: Oklahoma State University. 52–61.Google Scholar
Helgander, John (1971). The relative clause in English and other Germanic languages: a historical and analytical survey. University of Gothenburg doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Higgins, F. R. (1976). The pseudo-cleft construction in English. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Horn, Wilhelm (1923). Sprachkörper und Sprachfunktion. 2nd ed.Berlin: Mayer & Müller. (First published in 1921.)Google Scholar
Jacobsson, Bengt (1963). On the use of that in non-restrictive relative clauses. M. Språk 57. 406–416.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto (1885). Kortfattet Engelsk Grammatik for Tale- og Skriftsproget. København: Carl Larsens Forlag.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar, London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1926). Notes on relative clauses. S.P.E. Tract XIV, 104–117. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1927). A Modern English grammar on historical principles. Vol. 111. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1969). Analytic syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. (First published in 1937.)Google Scholar
Johansen, Holger (1935). Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der altgermanischen Relativsatzkonstruktionen. Kopenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Junger, Judith (1981). The resumptive particle in Modern Hebrew relatives. In Daalder, Saskia & Gerritsen, Marmel (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1981. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 169–179.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Fred (1983). Prototypes as models for linguistic structure. In Karlsson, Fred (ed.), Papers from the Seventh Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. II. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. 583–604.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. (1972). Relative clause formation in Malagasy. In Peranteau, Paul M. et al. (eds.), The Chicago which hunt. Papers from the relative clause festival. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 169–189.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Comrie, Bernard (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. LIn 8. 63–99.Google Scholar
Kellner, Leon (1913). Historical outlines of English syntax. London: Macmillan. (First published in 1892.)Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul & Kiparsky, Carol (1973). Fact. In Petöfi, Janos S. & Franck, Dorothea (eds.), Präsuppositionen in Philosophie und Linguistik. Frankfurt/M.: Athenäum. 315–354. (First pulbished in 1971.)Google Scholar
Kivimaa, Kirsti (1966). рe and рat as clause connectives in Early Middle English with especial consideration of the emergence of the pleonastic рat. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward S. (1964). Relatedness between grammatical systems. Lg 40. 1–20.Google Scholar
Kruisinga, Etsko (1922). A handbook of present-day English, 4th ed., vol. IV. Utrecht: Kemink & Zoon.Google Scholar
Kruisinga, Etsko (1924). On the origin of the anaphoric relative that. English studies 6. 141–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruisinga, Etsko (1925). A handbook of present-day English, 5th ed., vol. 11, part 2. Utrecht: Kemink & Zoon.Google Scholar
Kruisinga, Etsko (1927a). Current letters and philology. 3. Philology. English studies 9, 26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruisinga, Etsko (1927b). Review of Jespersen (1927). English studies 9. 196–202.Google Scholar
Kruisinga, Etsko (1934). De attributieve zinnen in het Engels. LT 79. 102–118.Google Scholar
Kruisinga, Etsko (1935). Het gebruik van that, when, where, why in bijvoeglijke zinnen. LT 86. 295–299.Google Scholar
Kruisinga, Etsko (1937a). Over bijvoeglijke bijzinnen met en zonder that. De drie talen 53. 103–105.Google Scholar
Kruisinga, Etsko (1937b). That. De drie talen 53. 141–143.Google Scholar
Kruisinga, Etsko & Erades, P. A. (1960). An English grammar. 8th ed., vol. 1, part 2. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. (1983). Is that a relative pronoun? Paper presented at the LSA Winter Meeting.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian (1984). Der Relativsatz. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. (1979). Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lowenstamm, J. (1977). Relative clauses in Yiddish: a case for movement. Linguistic Analysis 3. 197–216.Google Scholar
Malmberg, Ragnar (1947). Till frågan om who eller that efter personliga korrelat. M. Språk 41. 197–210.Google Scholar
Masuya, Yoshihoro (1958). Functions of the connective ‘that’ in present-day English. In Araki, Kazuo (eds.), Studies in English grammar and linguistics. Tokyo: Kenkyusha. 129–144.Google Scholar
Maxwell, Dan (1982). Implications of NP accessibility for diachronic syntax. Folia Linguistica Historica 3. 125–152.Google Scholar
McDavid, Virginia (1964). The alternation of ‘that’ and ‘zero’ in noun clauses. AS 39. 102–113.Google Scholar
Mclntosh, Angus (1947). The relative pronouns рe and рat in Early Middle English. English and Germanic studies 1. 73–87.Google Scholar
Miyabe, Kikuo (1959). A note on the relative pronouns in Early Middle English. Anglica 4. 56–69.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jerry L. (1972). Some aspects of relative clauses in English and Albanian. In Peranteau, Paul M. et al. (eds.), The Chicago which hunt. Papers from the relative clause festival. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 63–72.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. (1960). A Middle English syntax. Part I: parts of speech. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Onions, C. T. (1932). An advanced English syntax. 6th ed.London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (First published in 1904.)Google Scholar
Poutsma, H. (1916). A grammar of Late Modern English. Part II, Section I, B. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph (1957). Relative clauses in educated spoken English. English studies 38. 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew (1981). Transformational syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga (1977). Präsuppositionen und Syntax. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne (1980). The relative clause marker in Scots English: Diffusion, complexity, and style as dimensions of syntactic change. Language in Society 9. 221–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne (1981). Towards a typology of relative clause formation strategies in Germanic. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter S. (1967). The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Rydén, Mats (1966). Relative constructions in early sixteenth century English with special reference to Sir Thomas Elyot. Uppsala: Almquist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Rydén, Mats (1983). The emergence of who as relativizer. SL 37. 126–134.Google Scholar
Saito, Toshio (1961). The development of relative pronouns in Modern Colloquial English. The Scientific Reports of Mukogawa Women's University 8. 67–89.Google Scholar
Samuels, M. L. (1972). Linguistic evolution: with special reference to English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, Paul (1973). Focus and relativization. Lg 49. 19–46.Google Scholar
Scholten, W. (1934). De argumenten voor en legen het indelen van het betrekkelik voornaamwoord that bij de voegwoorden. LT 79. 118–122.Google Scholar
Smith, Evan Shreeve (1982). Relative that and as: a study in category change. Indiana University doctoral dissertation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahlke, Herbert F. W. (1976). Which that. Lg 52. 584–610.Google Scholar
Stevick, Robert D. (1965). Historical selections of relative ‘рat’ in Early Middle English. English Studies 46. 29–36.Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry (1898). A new English grammar. Logical and historical. Part I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (1972). A history of English syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan (1983). On the delay of the nominative who relativizer. In Daems, Frans & Goossens, Louis (eds.), Een Spyeghel voor G. Jo Steenbergen. Leuven/Amersfoort: Acco. 21–28.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan (1984a). Subject vs. non-subject asymmetries in the relativization of embedded NP's. In de Geest, Willy & Putseys, Yvan (eds.), Sentential complementation. Dordrecht: Foris. 257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan (1984b). More on the history of subject contact clauses in English. Folia Linguistica Historica 5. 170–183.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan (1984b). That COMP-fusions. In Brugman, Claudia and Macaulay, Monica (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 660–673.Google Scholar
Van der Laan, J. (1929). Studies in articulation. That as a relative pronoun. Nph 14. 27–41.Google Scholar
Watts, R. J. (1982). The conjunction that: a semantically empty particle? Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 15. 13–37.Google Scholar
Wendt, G. (1911). Syntax des heutigen English. Vol. 1. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Zandvoort, R. W. (1972). A handbook of English grammar. 12th ed.Groningen: WoltersNoordhoff. (First published in 1945.)Google Scholar