Relative Clauses(87) a the butler [that Sherlock suspects -]
b the butler [Sherlock suspects -]
We should first counter a myth about that-relatives that prevails from traditional
grammars. In these it is common to find that at the beginning of the relative clause
referred to as a relative pronoun, thus suggesting that it be given the same treatment as
wh-elements. If this is true, then this element originates inside the clause and moves to
the specifier of CP, as do wh-elements. But there are many reasons to believe that this
word is not a wh-element but is, as appearances predict, a simple complementiser.
Firstly, note that as would be predicated on the assumption that it is a complementiser,
that is only ever used in finite clauses and although wh-elements can marginally be
used in non-finite clauses, that never is:
(88) a the man [who to contact] the man [that to contact]
b a place [where to stay] a place [that to live]
Instead, we can get a for complementiser in non-finite relatives, as would be
expected:
(89) a a man [for you to contact]
b a place [for me to stay]
Another argument that that is not a relative pronoun in that-relatives is that it does
not behave like a wh-element with respect to prepositions. Note the following two
possibilities with a wh-relative:
(90) a the house [which 1 I live in t 1 ]
b the house [in which 1 I live t 1 ]
When the wh-element is part of a PP it has the option of moving alone, a strategy
known as preposition stranding, or of taking the whole PP with it, a strategy known
as pied-piping (after the story of the Pied Piper of Hamlin, who played his pipes and
the rats followed him – the connection between prepositions and rats is, however,
mysterious). If that were a relative pronoun, we might expect the same options to be
available in that-relatives. But this is not true:
(91) a the house [that I live in -]
b *the house [in that I live -]
One explanation for why we do not get pied piping with a that-relatives is that that is
not a relative pronoun and did not originate in the gapped position and hence the
preposition could not be pied-piped by it.
If that is a complementiser in the that-relatives, then that-relatives and zero
relatives are alike in that they do not contain a wh-element and the difference appears
to be the standard ability of the complementiser to be overt or covert in a finite clause:
(92) a I said [(that) I was reading a book]
b the book [(that) I was reading -]
The fact remains however, that there is still a gap in these relative clauses. What is
the nature of this gap? In many ways it has exactly the same nature as the gap in a wh-
relative. Consider this a little more closely: in a wh-relative, the relative clause acts as