Relative pronouns in language AB

The consolidation of <i>þat</i> as an invariable relativizer in the history of English¹

“…Scholars such as McIntosh (1947McIntosh ( -1948), Mitchell (1985 and Traugott (1992: 223) are not as categorical on this point but, broadly speaking, are of much the same opinion. Jack (1975Jack ( : 106-107, 1988, on the other hand, denies that the choice between the two major relativizers-þe and þat-is a function of the type of relative clause; nonetheless, his analysis still indicates a higher proportion of invariable þe in non-restrictive relative clauses, and the prevalence of þat in restrictive relative clauses (Jack 1988: 53). Table 5 sets out the distribution of relativizers according to the type of relative clause.…”

“…Much previous work in this area has focussed on the distribution of relativization strategies in different periods of English (Quirk 1957;Jack 1975Jack , 1978Dekeyser 1984Dekeyser , 1986Rissanen 1991;Aarts 1993;Yamashita 1994;Guy and Bayley 1995;Ball 1996;Stein 1998 to mention a few) and different varieties of the language (Ihalainen 1980;Van den Eynden 1993;Sigley 1997;Tottie and Rey 1997;Alsagoff and Lick 1998;Gisborne 2000;Tottie and Harvie 2000;Geisler, 2002;Peitsara, 2002;Tagliamonte, Smith and Lawrence 2005; among many others), as well as on the expansion of wh-pronominal relativizers from late Middle English onwards at the expense of Old English pronominal relativizers se/seo/þaet (Meier 1967;Rydén 1983;Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg 2002;Suárez 2008a;etc.). Less often addressed has been the consolidation of that as the only invariable relativizer in late Middle English, ousting þe, the favourite relativizer in Old English, from the relativization system (McIntosh 1947-48;Kivimaa 1966).…”

Volume 11 Issue 1

“…[Q O2/3 IR HOM BLICK 6: 139] Much previous work in this area has focussed on the distribution of relativization strategies in different periods of English (Quirk 1957;Jack 1975Jack , 1978Dekeyser 1984Dekeyser , 1986Rissanen 1991;Aarts 1993;Yamashita 1994;Guy and Bayley 1995;Ball 1996;Stein 1998 to mention a few) and different varieties of the language (Ihalainen 1980;Van den Eynden 1993;Sigley 1997;Tottie and Rey 1997;Alsagoff and Lick 1998;Gisborne 2000;Tottie and Harvie 2000;Geisler, 2002;Peitsara, 2002;Tagliamonte, Smith and Lawrence 2005; among many others), as well as on the expansion of wh-pronominal relativizers from late Middle English onwards at the expense of Old English pronominal relativizers se/seo/þaet (Meier 1967;Rydén 1983;Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg 2002;Suárez 2008a;etc.). Less often addressed has been the consolidation of that as the only invariable relativizer in late Middle English, ousting þe, the favourite relativizer in Old English, from the relativization system (McIntosh 1947-48;Kivimaa 1966).…”