marker for the preposition (e.g., Z). The transformation then would delete
this marker as it relativizes the NP. This approach seems ad hoc and
counterintuitive, however. It is also incongruent with analysis of sentences
like 14 (Fred loved the house in which the couple lived), where the preposi-
tioninis a real preposition in the deep structure as well as the surface struc-
ture. In sentence 14, the preposition cannot be deleted because doing so
produces an ungrammatical construction:
- *Fred loved the housewhich the couple lived.
We therefore are forced to propose that the prepositional phrases in the deep
structure for sentences like 15 simply do not match. To make this proposal
more reasonable, we also would have to propose that relative clauses involving
the relative pronounwhereare different from those involving relative pronouns
such aswhich, who,andwhom.Once we accept these proposals, accounting for
what happens to the prepositionatis fairly straightforward: It is absorbed into
the relative pronoun. However, on principle, we should expect relativization to
be congruent across structures.
In addition, what are we to do with nonstandard or ungrammatical but never-
theless widely used constructions, such as:
- *Where is he at?
In this common sentence,atis redundant because it is implicit in the word
where.Are we forced to conclude that the same principle applies in relative
clauses of the type illustrated in sentence 15? On what basis?
Equally troubling are sentences such as 16 and 17:
- The reason why Fred was late was unknown.
- Fred bought a thong swimsuit, which horrified his mother.
We must analyze sentence 16 as consisting of the following clauses:16a. The reason was unknown/Fred was late for the reasonAs in sentence 15, we are forced to assume that relativization alters the en-
tire prepositional phrase, not just the NP.
Sentence 17 is even more problematic because there is no antecedent for
the relative pronoun. The relative pronoun does not duplicate a noun phrase
in the independent clause; instead, it seems to replace the semantic content
of the independent clause. We might analyze sentence 17 as consisting of
the following clauses:
NOAM CHOMSKY AND GRAMMAR 181