2.2.2 The object

Prepositional objects also sometimes undergo the same movements that verbal objects do, for example in passive structures:

2.2.2 The object

Quite what determines when a prepositional object may undergo this movement and when it may not is not well understood. It seems to have something to do with the relationship between the verb that is passivised and the preposition whose object moves: the closer the relationship, the more likely the object will be able to move. Thus the at preposition in (65) is closely related to the verb, heading the PP complement of this verb. The near preposition in (66) does not head a PP complement, but a PP that modifies the verb. Modification is not such a close relationship as it is not indicated in a head’s lexical entry, but can be fairly freely be added to any appropriate head.

2.2.2 The object

The clausal complement of certain verbs have some properties in common with objects. For example, these clauses can undergo movement in passive structures:

2.2.2 The object

Presumably this is one of the reasons why verbs which have clausal complements have traditionally been considered as transitive verbs. There are, however, a number of differences between clausal and DP complements. One is that clauses obviously do not appear in accusative Case. However, given that it is only the pronouns in English that demonstrate Case distinctions, this is not surprising. Another difference is that not all clausal complements can undergo passive movement:

2.2.2 The object

Moreover, even in those cases where it can take place, the movement is an optional one:

2.2.3 Indirect object

Restricting ourselves to the discussion of the standard dialect, we find the two objects also differ in terms of passive movement. Only the indirect object can undergo this movement:

2.2.3 Indirect object

The direct object can only undergo passive movement if the goal argument is expressed as a PP, in what is often called the dative alternate or the dative construction:

2.3.2 Movement

2.3.3 Coordination

Just like in the case of movement, only constituents may be coordinated and two independent constituents cannot act as one single conjunction which is coordinated with another. To demonstrate this, recall the ambiguous sentence in (104) where the PP was either associated with the object DP or with the VP. Now, if we coordinate the string of words, the bank manager with the gun with the DP the security guard, the ambiguity is resolved:

3.2 Theoretical Aspects of Movement

4.1 Why the Noun is not the Head of the DP

There is a way to solve the problem, either way, which involves a slightly more abstract analysis. Suppose the phrases in question do have heads, but they are unpronounced. The idea of an unpronounced, phonologically ‘empty’ element has been made use of several times already in this book. For example as the understood subject of an imperative or as the trace left behind by a movement. So the idea is not without precedence. Making use of this idea, we have two opposing analyses:

4.2.2 The Specifier of the DP

Presumably, what happens when the auxiliary verb contracts is that it undergoes some process which attaches it to the subject. Very likely this is not a syntactic movement, but a phonological process which takes place after the structure has been constructed.

4.2.2 The Specifier of the DP

Evidence in favour of this comes from the comparison of auxiliary contraction and negative contraction, which does involve a syntactic movement. When the negative element not contracts, it sticks itself onto the auxiliary verb in front of it:

4.2.2 The Specifier of the DP

Indeed, auxiliaries can contract onto a subject that has moved to the position in front of the auxiliary, suggesting that this contraction takes place after movement:

5.1 Event Structure and Aspect

The events described in (3b) and (c) are even more complex. In (3b) we have Peter doing something to the eggs which causes the eggs to undergo a process of movement which results in them being situated in a location (in the bowl):

5.1 Event Structure and Aspect

In this, e₁ represents the action of Peter, e₂ the movement of the eggs and e₃ the state achieved by the eggs of being located in the bowl. Note that e₁ results in e₂ and e₂ results in e₃ as represented by the arrows. (3c) has a similar event structure involving Gus doing something that causes the sandwich to undergo a process the end result of which is that it ends up in Sam’s possession. Thus, e₁ is Gus’s action, e₂ is the process of movement or ‘change of ownership’ that the sandwich undergoes and e₃ is the state achieved by the sandwich of being possessed by Sam.

5.2.1 Unaccusative verbs

These verbs are typically verbs of movement or location. Some of them are ambiguous, having an unaccusative sense and an agentive sense. For example, the verb sit can simply mean ‘be situated in a particular location’ (perhaps with a particular orientation), as in (8d), or it can mean ‘to adopt a posture in which most weight is supported by the rear end’ as in (9):

5.2.1 Unaccusative verbs

It is important to point out at this stage that what we are looking at here is the VP at D-structure, i.e. prior to any movement process and not the complete analysis of a full sentence. We will see that this is more complex, involving more structure and a greater number of syntactic processes. In particular, it is common for the subject not to remain in the VP, but to move out into a higher position in the clause:

5.2.1 Unaccusative verbs

The position to which the subject moves is typically a nominative position and so we might assume that the movement has something to do with placing this argument in a Case position. The reason why these verbs are called ‘unaccusative’ is because unlike with transitive verbs, which share the possibility of having theme arguments, the theme of the unaccusative cannot normally remain inside the VP to receive accusative Case.

5.2.3 Ergative verbs

We have just seen that a verb like break can appear in a VP with a single theme argument which in the absence of a light verb will be the subject of the clause. This looks exactly like an unaccusative verb, yet there are differences between this class of verb and the unaccusatives. For one thing, these verbs are not movement or locative verbs, but typically involve a change of state:

5.2.3.2 Light verbs and ergatives

But how can we even consider (50) as a possible analysis when it obviously gets the word order wrong? The thing to remember is that what we are discussing here is the organisation of the VP at D-structure and we know that things tend to move about before we get to S-structure. Thus, if there is a plausible movement analysis which will re-arrange things so that the right word order is achieved at S-structure, then this objection will have been answered. The obvious way to achieve the correct word order would be to have the verb move to the light verb position:

5.2.3.2 Light verbs and ergatives

The analysis claims that the main verb moves to adjoin to the empty light verb. This is a perfectly possible movement given what we know about other movements. The movement is neither too far, violating bounding conditions, nor in violation of the Projection principle by changing lexically stated information. The movement is also structurally preserving in the way that adjunction is structurally preserving.

5.2.3.2 Light verbs and ergatives

Of course, showing something to be a possible movement and showing it to be an actual movement are two different things. In order to justify the movement analysis in (51) we might consider a similar construction in Hungarian. Consider the following:

5.2.3.2 Light verbs and ergatives

The difference between English and Hungarian, however, is that the causative element is not phonologically empty in Hungarian. The ít morpheme, however, is a bound morpheme, which means that it must attach to some appropriate stem, i.e. a verb, and this is the trigger for the movement:

5.2.3.2 Light verbs and ergatives

Thus the main verb stem moves to the causative light verb morpheme in order to bind it. The product of the movement would obviously have to undergo further morphological processes in order to show the appropriate tense and agreement forms, but this is unimportant for the point being made here. Suppose English works in exactly the same way as this. The English causative light verb is a bound morpheme, though a phonologically null one, and differs only in this way from the non-null causative make. Thus it must be attached to the main verb and this happens by the main verb moving to adjoin to it. This would then give us an independent motivation for the movement of the verb.

5.2.3.2 Light verbs and ergatives

Thus the main verb stem moves to the causative light verb morpheme in order to bind it. The product of the movement would obviously have to undergo further morphological processes in order to show the appropriate tense and agreement forms, but this is unimportant for the point being made here. Suppose English works in exactly the same way as this. The English causative light verb is a bound morpheme, though a phonologically null one, and differs only in this way from the non-null causative make. Thus it must be attached to the main verb and this happens by the main verb moving to adjoin to it. This would then give us an independent motivation for the movement of the verb.

5.2.3.3 Unaccusatives and ergatives

These similarities can be captured if we assume that the post-verbal position of the theme is achieved by movement of the verb in front of it and this necessitates the assumption of a position to which the verb moves. If we assume that this is indeed a light verb, we can account for the Case assignment to the object as well:

5.2.6 Multiple complement verbs

In this structure the theme is sitting in the complement position of the thematic verb, not the specifier, and the goal is in the specifier. The indirect object is obviously interpreted in the same way as the PP is in the dative construction and so we should expect it to appear in the complement position if the UTAH holds. We might try to account for the properties of the double object construction via a movement analysis, using the dative construction as the underlying arrangement as this seems relatively unproblematic. The question is, what moves and where does it move to? A minimal assumption is that besides the verb moving to the light verb position, one of the arguments moves to change their order. Thus, either the theme moves backwards or the goal moves forwards. If the theme moves backwards, it isn’t clear what position it would move to and moreover it isn’t clear why it would move, given that the position it occupies seems to be a Case position in virtually all other cases we have looked at. The goal argument is slightly different however. In the dative construction there is a preposition and this we might assume is what is responsible for providing the argument with its Case. In the double object construction, however, this preposition is not present and hence the argument cannot be assigned Case in the same way. This would then provide the motivation for the argument to move to a position in which it could get case. Considering the problem more closely the goal must move to a phrasal position between the specifier of the VP, occupied by the theme, and the light verb to which the main verb moves. The only possibility is that there is another specifier position between the two:

5.2.6 Multiple complement verbs

In other words, if Gary gives Pete a present, Gary does something which causes the book to undergo a movement or change of possession, the result of which it ends up with Pete. The middle event, involving a change of position or possession is what provides us with the position for the moved goal:

5.2.6 Multiple complement verbs

The verb movement is as we have seen before. As both light verbs are bound morphemes, both will need supporting and so the verb will move from one to the other forming a complex head adjunction structure in the top head position. As far as Case relationships are concerned, the subject DP is in a Caseless position and hence will move to the clause subject position to get nominative Case. The indirect object gets accusative from the upper light verb in the position it moves to and the direct object gets Case from the lower light verb without moving. The word order is as predicted with the verb preceding both the objects and the indirect object moved in front of the direct object.

5.2.7 Phrasal verbs

The tricky part is to account for the pre-object particle. If we assume that (136) is the basic structure of the construction, then we might analyse the pre-object particle construction as derived by a movement of the preposition head to the verb, so that when the verb moves to the light verb position, the preposition is taken along with it:

5.2.7 Phrasal verbs

Note that the structure that is formed by the movement of the particle is the same as the one that is traditionally assumed to be the basic structure for a phrasal verb, with the preposition adjoined to the verb. Of course this means that the preposition does not form a PP with the following DP in the specifier of the lower VP and hence we account for why it does not behave like a PP complement, which would have an entirely different structure (see (136) for example).

5.2.7 Phrasal verbs

The question needs to be addressed as to why the movement of the preposition is allowed and when it is not. Obviously not every verb that has a PP complement allows this movement, and indeed those verbs which do allow it do not allow it in all circumstances:

5.2.8 Verbs with clausal complements

A second problem is why the PP argument would undergo the same movement as the DP as PPs do not need Case and do not normally undergo this kind of movement. Hence it appears that there is not much to recommend this analysis.

5.2.8 Verbs with clausal complements

If we want to maintain the UTAH we cannot just assume that the arguments start off in different positions, however. So we want to keep the basic structure of the VP as it is in (145). We need to simplify the light verb structure, getting rid of one of these to match with the event structure and finally we need to find a way of getting the PP in front of the clause that does not assume that it undergoes a similar movement to DPs. The structure is as follows:

5.2.8 Verbs with clausal complements

Do we have any evidence that clauses can undergo the supposed movement and any motivation for it to take place in this instance? Actually, there is some evidence that certain clauses can undergo a backward movement:

5.2.8 Verbs with clausal complements

In this example, the bracketed clause is the complement of the noun announcement and hence is part of the DP subject, as is clearly the case in (149a). In (149b) this clause not only does not appear to be part of the subject, but it is right over the other side of the clause from the subject. It seems therefore that the clause moves towards the back of the clause and therefore that backward movement of clauses is a possibility.

5.2.8 Verbs with clausal complements

The data demonstrate that certain things which are possible when there is a DP subject, are not possible with a clausal ‘subject’. For instance, the auxiliary can move to the front of the clause to form a question in (151a), but not in (151b) where there is a clausal subject. In (152a) we can see that an object can be moved to the front of the clause in what are called topicalisation structures, but not when the subject is clausal (152b). These observations might suggest that the clausal subjects are in a position which prevents the relevant movements and that DP subjects sit in a different position which does not interfere with them. Obviously the DP subjects sit in Case positions, as required by the Case filter and therefore our conclusion is that clausal subjects do not sit in the Case position that the DP subject sits in. All this might be accounted for if we assume that clauses avoid Case positions and this would warrant the clause moving out of its D-structure position in (147) into a position that is Caseless. We therefore assume the following principle:

5.2.9 Summary

To summarise this fairly long discussion of the structure of the VP, we can conclude that strict adherence to the UTAH and the assumption that there is isomorphism between event structure and VP structure leads us to sometime quite surprising but enlightening analyses of the central part of the clause. The VP itself seems a hive of activity, with verbs and arguments moving about from position to position which obviously complicates its description. However, the reasons for the movements themselves are fairly straightforward. The verb moves to support the abstract light verbs which have a bound morpheme status, DP arguments move to Case positions and clausal arguments move away from Case positions. Once such things are understood, some rather mysterious properties of VPs become demystified. Phenomena such as passivisation, double object alternation, the there construction, cognate objects and phrasal verb constructions are given a fairly satisfying analysis which we can take as encouraging for this approach.

5.3 Aspectual Auxiliary Verbs

Remember, that what we are looking at there is the D-structure, before movement takes place. Thus this structure is that of a declarative VP, not an interrogative one. At S-structure the subject will move out of the vP to the clausal subject position, where it will get Case:

5.4.1 Adverbs

If an adjunct is placed between the head and its sister, i.e. the complement, the branches of the structure cross and this is not a possible configuration. The problem with this account, however, besides its reliance on the assumption that complements are all sisters to the head, is that it is not at all clear why various movement phenomena would not separate the head from its complement. Another account, due to Stowell (1981) assumes that the verb is responsible for assigning Case to the object and that there is an adjacency requirement on Case assigners and assignees. As we have assumed that the theme gets its Case from the light verb, we cannot use Case adjacency to account for why the verb and its theme argument cannot be separated. Even if we assume that Case assigners must be adjacent to the element they Case mark, this will not prevent the verb moving to a higher light verb position allowing an adverb to come between the two:

5.4.1 Adverbs

In (173a), given that there is no light verb with an unaccusative verb, the adverb must be adjoined to the VP. In (173b) the adverb is adjoined to a vP headed by an agentive light verb and in (173c) and (d) it is adjoined to a vP headed by aspectual morphemes. Thus there seems to be no limit in principle on what the adverb can adjoin to. In each of these cases however, the adverb is adjoined to a higher position than the verb moves to. When there is no light verb, as in (173a), the verb is not forced to move out of the VP and in this case the adverb can adjoin to the VP. If the verb moves out of the VP, however, the adverb cannot adjoin to it. Indeed, anything that the verb moves out of is out of bounds for an adjunction site for the adverb. This suggests that the adverb interacts with the movement of the verb and it is this interaction that determines the possible adjunction sites for the adverb. Specifically, it seems that the verb never moves over the top of the adverb. Hence, we may assume that in principle an adverb can adjoin to any part of the extended VP, including any light verb projection, as long as the verb remains lower than it at S-structure and does not move over its adjunction position. There are a number of ways in which we might attempt to account for this fact, but at present we will be satisfied at leaving it as a descriptive generalisation.

5.4.1 Adverbs

Another observation that can be made from the data in (170) is that adverbs may appear behind all verbal elements. There are a number of possible ways to capture this fact. One is to assume that adjunction is free from ordering restrictions. Indeed it does seem that different adjuncts can come on different sides of whatever they modify: the PP modifier, as we shall see, typically follows the verbal complex. Thus, adjunction in general is not restricted to a particular side as are complements and specifiers. Adverbs therefore may simply take advantage of this freedom and be adjoined either to the left or the right of the VP. The alternative would be to have adverbs generated on one side of the VP and then achieve the other position via a movement. Jackendoff (1977), for example, argued for this position on the basis of the similarity between adverbs and adjectives. Recall that in chapter 1 we analysed adverbs and adjectives as belonging to the same general category, so one might expect grammatical principles to apply to both in a similar way. Jackendoff’s observation was that adjectives typically precede the nouns that they modify:

5.4.2 PP modifiers

The only way for (176a) to have been generated would be to adjoin the PP to the left of the lower VP. However, PPs never adjoin to the left, only to the right, and moreover this would necessitate the verb moving over the PP adjunct. As this is impossible for AP modifiers, we can assume that it is impossible for PP modifiers as well. In (176b), assuming the locative PP to be the complement of the verb, the only way for this to get behind the PP adjunct would be for it to move. And hence we can assume that there is a backwards movement that PP arguments may undergo which is similar to the movement that clausal complements undergo, as discussed in section 3.8. That PP complements may undergo such a movement is supported by the following data:

5.4.2 PP modifiers

In this example, the PP is part of the subject DP and yet it may appear on the opposite side of the clause to the subject, indicating that it can undergo this kind of movement.

5.4.2 PP modifiers

DP complements, however, cannot move backwards past a PP adjunct as can be seen by (176a). We might assume that this is because the DP must occupy a Case position and hence cannot move away from its specifier position in the VP. However, this is not so straightforward as DPs can be moved out of Case positions in some instances and moreover some DPs can undergo backward movement:

5.4.2 PP modifiers

In (178a) and (b) the object has undergone a movement to the front of the clause, out of its Case position. But if this is an allowable movement, why should it not be allowed to move to the back of the clause? In (178c) the object has moved backwards behind the PP adjunct with ink. In this case, the DP is very long and complex involving quantification and post head modification. A simpler DP would not be allowed to do the same thing:

5.4.2 PP modifiers

In (178a) and (b) the object has undergone a movement to the front of the clause, out of its Case position. But if this is an allowable movement, why should it not be allowed to move to the back of the clause? In (178c) the object has moved backwards behind the PP adjunct with ink. In this case, the DP is very long and complex involving quantification and post head modification. A simpler DP would not be allowed to do the same thing:

5.4.2 PP modifiers

We can call the phenomena noted in (178c) heavy DP shift (leaving undefined just what counts as a ‘heavy DP’). It is common to find the attitude that heavy DP shift is a slightly odd phenomenon. However, given that other elements can undergo backward movement and given the fact that DPs of any weight can undergo certain forward movements, what is odd is the refusal of ‘light’ DPs to undergo backward movement. Obviously there are mysteries here that we cannot yet approach and so again we will set the issue aside.

Chapter6 Inflectional Phrases

In the previous chapter we detailed the structure of the central part of the clause, the VP and its extensions into light verb and aspectual morpheme structures. In this chapter we will look at the further extension of the structure so far built into what we can conceive of as ‘clause structure’, though as we shall see, what is traditionally thought of as a clause is actually a number of hierarchically organised extensions of the basic VP, each of which adds a specific level of semantic and grammatical interpretation. In connection with these extra levels we will see there are specific syntactic phenomena, most of which involves the movement of elements.

6.2 The syntax of inflection

Let us now focus attention on the inflectional element itself to see some of the syntactic processes that concern it. Here we will be concerned with certain movement phenomena involving the inflection and the process of auxiliary insertion discussed in the last chapter.

6.2 The syntax of inflection

Here (18) provides the D- and S-structures for the infinitival IP in a sentence like I want [Sam to phone Fiona]. Again, the same movement processes are observable and again none of these involves the inflection itself.

6.2.2 Do-insertion

What determines the use of the auxiliary here? Obviously the verb is unable to support the inflection in this case, but this does not seem to be because it already supports another morpheme. In fact the verb is in its base form and there is no reason to think that there is any other verbal morpheme present. (21a) is simply the negative version of he arrived. Apparently it is the negative that blocks the verb from moving to support the inflection. To gain some understanding of what is going on here we need to briefly examine another kind of head movement which we will more thoroughly discuss in the next chapter. In the formation of certain questions an auxiliary verb is moved to the other side of the subject:

6.2.2 Do-insertion

As we can see, both modal and aspectual auxiliaries can undergo this movement process. The observation of interest to us is what happens when there are more than one auxiliary:

6.2.2 Do-insertion

Apparently, when there are more than one auxiliary, the first one is chosen to move. The reason for this seems to be that moving the first auxiliary involves a shorter movement than moving the second:

6.2.2 Do-insertion

Travis (1984) proposed that this phenomenon can be explained by a restriction on head movement which prevents one head from moving over the top of another:

6.2.2 Do-insertion

The reason why (23c) is ungrammatical, then, is that if the aspectual auxiliary moves in front of the subject, it has to move over the modal. Whereas if the modal moves, it crosses over no other head. Now consider the case of verb movement in the presence of not:

6.2.2 Do-insertion

The movement represented in (26a) appears to be grammatical whereas that in (26b) is ungrammatical. Again the difference between the two is that the grammatical movement is shorter. But if we want to use the HMC to account for the phenomena, it must be the case that the negative is a head as it is moving over this element that causes the problem. But, what kind of a head is the negative? It is situated between the inflectional element and the v/VP:

6.2.3 Tense and Agreement

There is a problem however with the assumption that it is the verb that undergoes the movement in this case. This can be seen clearly when there is a VP adjunct. In the previous chapter, we argued that VP adverbs are adjoined to a v/VP higher than the position to which the verb moves. However, in the absence of any aspectual morphemes, it seems that the inflection appears on the verb inside the v/VP:

6.2.3 Tense and Agreement

This analysis suggests that elements can move around in a structure quite freely and in particular both upward and downward movements are possible. But all the movements we have seen so far have been in an upward direction, including all the verb movements and the movement of the subject out of its original VP-internal position. It is possible that this might just be a bias of the small number of movement processes we happen to have reviewed so far. But it turns out, once one starts to investigate movements on a greater scale that the vast majority of them have an upward orientation, which might lead us to the conclusion that perhaps it is our analysis of the small number of apparent cases of downward movements that is at fault. One reason to believe that downward movements are not possible is that it is ungrammatical for certain things to move downwards, which is difficult to explain if such movements are allowable. For example, the verb always moves to the light verb positions and light verbs never move to the verb:

6.2.3 Tense and Agreement

If downward movements are a possible grammatical process, we have no explanation for why (37b) is ungrammatical in English and can only resort to stipulation that English verbs move upwards in this case. For such reasons, during the 1990s the idea of downward movement was abandoned and all seemingly downward movements were reanalysed as involving upward movements instead.

6.2.3 Tense and Agreement

But from our perspective, these elements appear in I by being inserted there and do not undergo movement at all and so there may be other reasons for the fact that they behave differently to main verbs. It is also not entirely clear why the verb can move within the vP, sometimes through as many as three light verb positions and not have any trouble with its Θ-assigning properties. Something rather stipulative and ultimately circular has to be claimed to try to account for this fact. For example, we might assume that the inflection has some property, which light verbs lack, that means that if a thematic verb moves to I it cannot assign its Θ-roles. Often it is claimed that the inflection is ‘too weak’ to support the verb’s Θ-assigning requirements. But the weakness of an element only correlates with the ability of the verb to move to that element, which is the very reason for proposing the notion in the first place!

6.2.4 Movement to tense and I

6.3 Movement to Spec IP

7.3.2 Wh-movement

The main issue to be discussed is why wh-elements move to the specifier of the CP. We have seen that movement of DPs to the specifier of IP is motivated by the need to circumvent the actions of the Case filter. But this cannot be the motivation for wh-movements. This can be argued for from a number of perspectives. First note that wh-movement does not always involve DPs, unlike movements to spec IP. As the Case filter concerns only the distribution of DPs, it cannot be the motivation for all wh-movements and there must be another reason for why non-DP wh-elements, at least, undergo the process. Moreover, the Case filter cannot be the motivation for DP wh-elements moving to spec CP. This is because DP wh-elements move to spec CP from Case positions:

7.3.2 Wh-movement

The wh-element in (27a) moves from an object position, from the object of a preposition in (27b) and from a finite clause subject position in (27c). All these are Case positions, so the Case filter cannot explain why the movement took place.

7.3.2 Wh-movement

Thus, a fronted wh-element is interpreted as an operator. Given that the difference between a wh-element that is interpreted as an operator and one that is simply used as an echoic device is that the former is moved to specifier of CP while the latter is not it seems that the movement plays a role in determining the interpretation of the wh-element as well as the interpretation of the clause that contains it. Let us assume the following interpretative principle:

7.3.2 Wh-movement

This is known as a multiple wh-question as it is a single question that asks for more than one piece of information. Note that both of the wh-elements may be interpreted as operators (the second one may be interpreted as an echo given the right intonation), in which case the answer to the question has to be a list of pairs ranging over likers and likees. The interesting point is that the second wh-element, although it may be interpreted as an operator, clearly has not undergone movement and so seems to violate the interpretative principle in (35). One thing is clear, however: the interpretation of this non-moved wh-element as an operator is dependent on there being a moved wh-element in the same sentence. If this were not a multiple wh-question, the wh-element would have to move. What we need then is to somehow tie the non-moved wh-element to the moved one. One possibility would be to claim that at some level of representation of the sentence which is relevant for semantic interpretation, multiple instances of wh-elements are interpreted as a single complex wh-element. Let us simply say that we indicate the interpretation of multiple wh-elements as a complex operator by coindexing them:

7.3.2 Wh-movement

The movement of the wh-element to spec CP therefore seems to have an interpretative motivation, which contrasts with the grammatical motivation of the movement to spec IP. There are other differences between the movements, which we will look at in the next chapter. We may, for now, simply identify the kind of Case filter/grammatically motivated movement as A-movement (A stands for ‘argument’ as it is only argument DPs which undergo it) and the kind of semantically motivated movement, such as wh-movement, as Ā-movement (? means ‘not argument’).

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

The most important issue concerning I-to-C movement is why it happens. There are two main views on this. One is that I-to-C movement happens because there is a bound C morpheme in interrogative clauses and this triggers the movement of the auxiliary to support it in the same way that inflections trigger verbs and auxiliaries to move. The other view is that the movement happens in precisely the cases when there is nothing in C and there is a requirement that there must be. The first is perhaps the most intuitively obvious, but it faces a number of problems which make the other approach more attractive. Let us consider each proposal separately.

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

The simple assumption that this interrogative complementiser is a bound morpheme in English is enough to justify the movement of the inflectional element to support it:

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

Again, as this particle is a bound morpheme, it will trigger movement to support it:

7.3.5 Subject questions

The last issue concerning interrogatives we will discuss concerns the difference between wh-questions which focus on the main clause subject and all other kinds of wh-questions. With most wh-questions it is fairly easy to see that movements take place as elements such as objects and adjuncts do not appear in their expected positions, but at the beginning of the clause:

7.4.2 A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses

Having enumerated several differences between interrogative and relative clauses we can now ponder the question of whether these differences show a fundamental distinction between the constructions, or whether they fall out from other considerations. Let us start with why the wh-element undergoes movement in both constructions. We have said that the interrogative wh-element undergoes movement because the clause needs to be interpreted as interrogative. This clearly cannot be the reason for the movement of the relative pronoun as relative clauses are not interrogative. The reason why a relative pronoun moves is presumably something to do with its function as a mediator between the modified noun and a position inside the relative clause and again this seems to differ from the wh-interrogative as wh-elements in interrogatives do not act as mediators.

7.4.2 A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses

However, if we take one step back from the details, we can see some striking similarities between the reasons for wh-movement in both types of clauses. For one thing, both movements have semantic rather than grammatical motivations. Moreover, the reason why the wh-element moves in an interrogative is to enable the CP to be interpreted as a question. The reason why the wh-element moves in a relative clause is to enable the CP to be interpreted as a modifier.

7.5 Other fronting movements

7.6 Conclusion

In this chapter we have introduced the final part of the clause structure of the English sentence. This part of the structure, built on top of the IP serves a number of purposes, but collectively seems to be to do with the syntactic arrangement of operators of one type or another. With wh-movement, both in interrogative clauses and relative clauses, the wh-element is an operator with either quantifier-like or anaphoric function. The interpretation of this element is dependent on movement which has a dual role, both to mark the clause as having a special interpretation (as an interrogative or relative) and to establish a relationship between that interpretation and a position in the clause itself. Hence, questions can be seen to be ‘about’ the subject or the clause, etc. and relatives can relate the modified noun to the object of the clause, etc. Focus and negative fronting may also have a similar function in that their interpretation is quantifier-like. Topicalisation, although not quantificational, may be seen as anaphoric in that the topic refers to some element established in the discourse.

7.6 Conclusion

In connection with the movements of these operator-like elements, we also have seen a series of head movements to various positions. These appear to provide the operators with something to agree with and so they play a supporting role in allowing the operators to fulfil their function.

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

The subject of the non-finite clause moves to the subject position of the passive verb just like the object of a passivised verb does. Given that we argued that the motivation for the object’s movement was to get Case, having been robbed of its light verb Case assigner, it is reasonable to assume that this is exactly what is going on with the movement of the subject of the exceptional clause.

8.1.1 Clauses without CP

In conclusion, we can see that there is a class of verbs which subcategorise for exceptional non-finite IP complements. These clauses have subjects which are dependent on the light verb of the governing verb for their Case. Therefore these subjects bear accusative Case. Moreover these subjects are affected by the passivisation of the governing verb which robs them of their Case assigner. Hence they will undergo a movement to the subject position of the higher clause, just like the object of the passive verb does.

8.2 Raising and Control

Of course, the fact that the dependent missing subject shares a Θ-role with its antecedent can lead to only one conclusion, given the theory of Θ-role assignment discussed in chapter 2: the missing subject and its antecedent are a single argument. In other words, this kind of phenomenon is the result of movement and the missing subject is a trace:

8.2 Raising and Control

In reality then, the subject is not ‘missing’, it has just moved. By the same conditions, we cannot treat the independent missing subject as the result of movement: it bears a Θ-role different from its antecedent and so they do not represent a single argument, but two different ones. Moreover, at D-structure these two arguments must also be in different positions as different Θ-roles are assigned to different positions at D-structure. Hence we conclude that this kind of missing subject is present at D-structure. As we see in (51), this is not true of the other ‘missing’ subject. Because this element has many properties in common with a pronoun, i.e. it bears an independent Θ-role but can be referentially dependent on something else, it is often referred to as PRO.

8.2.1 Raising

As we have seen, with certain verbs a subject which is generated in one clause can move into the subject position of a higher clause. This movement is known as raising as the subject always moves from a lower clause to a higher one and never the other way round. The conditions on raising are that the moved element must originate in a non-finite clause and it must be the subject of that clause. Thus, we do not find raising out of finite clauses or raising directly out of object positions:

8.2.1 Raising

In a number of ways this is similar to the kinds of movements we have seen previously which take a DP from one position and move it to a subject position, such as the movement of the subject from the specifier of a VP or the movement of an object of a passive or unaccusative verb. Those kinds of movements, we saw, were motivated by the fact that the DP started off in a Caseless position and hence in order to satisfy the Case filter it had to move into a Case position. The subject of a finite clause is a Case position as this is where nominative Case is assigned to by the finite inflection. In (52a) we see a DP that is moved into the subject of a finite clause, and so it may be that this movement is also Case motivated. If this is so, we expect to find that the position it moves from is a Caseless position. Is this prediction accurate? Consider the relevant structure in a little more detail.

8.2.1 Raising

Next, consider the restrictions on the movement shown in (52b) and (c). The subject of the embedded clause cannot undergo raising if it is in a finite clause, or in an object position. In both of these cases, the DP is sitting in a Case position, therefore regardless of any other restriction, there would be little point in it moving to the specifier of the higher clause as once it has satisfied the Case Filter, it does not need to do so again. We might assume a kind of laziness to the system (some call it ‘economy’) such that if something doesn’t need to happen, it will not happen. If the clause is finite and hence the subject gets nominative from the finite inflection, then the higher subject position will be unfilled. It is under these circumstances that the EPP will force the insertion of a pleonastic subject:

8.2.1 Raising

When the exceptional verb has a finite complement, the subject of this clause will not move as it gets Case from its own finite inflection, making movement unnecessary. When the clause is non-finite however, its subject will not receive Case from the non-finite I and moreover will not get it from the light verb of the exceptional verb as this will have been exchanged for the passive morpheme. Thus movement will be necessary:

8.2.1 Raising

One more point can be made concerning raising and raising-like structures. As this movement allows a DP to escape the confines of the clause that it originates in, we might wonder how far that DP can move. The following datum seems to suggest that a subject can be raised over quite a distance:

8.2.1 Raising

In this way, each clause is provided with a subject, the trace, and hence the EPP can be satisfied. The ungrammaticality of (63) demonstrates that when a subject raises, it cannot actually be moved too far. Looking at what is possible and what is not possible with such movements, there is something similar about the restriction to the restriction we have noted concerning head movement. Recall that he Head Movement Constraint demands that heads do not move over the top of other heads. It appears that the restriction on subject movement is that it cannot cross over the top of another subject. A general way to express both these restrictions is to claim that a moving element cannot move over the top of a like element. This principle, known as Relativized Minimality, was introduced by Rizzi (1990) as a way of accounting for locality conditions on movement. The following diagram might help to make clear how the principle works:

8.2.1 Raising

What this depicts is a situation in which an element Z is moving to a position X over the top of another element Y. Given the structure preserving nature of movement, X and Z will be of the same type, i.e. both phrases or both heads, but if Y is of the same type too, the then movement is not allowed. Thus, a head cannot move over a head and a subject cannot move over a subject.