Relative that – a centennial dispute1 | Journal of Linguistics | Cambridge Core

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)

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

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

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