2.3.2 Movement

One way to account for this interpretation is to claim that the wh-element does not start in the clause initial position, but is moved to this position from the object position. In this way we can claim that what IS the object and hence account for its interpretation. The movement may be indicated thus:

2.3.2 Movement

These interrogative elements are called wh-elements as they tend to be spelled with the letters w and h at the beginning, though this does not reflect the current pronunciation of these words. In the above example, the wh-element can be categorised as a DP, originating from object position, which is a DP position. We can also find wh-APs and PPs:

2.3.2 Movement

The fact that the answer to (103a) is a preposition phrase and that to (103b) is an adjective phrase is an indication that these wh-elements are prepositional and adjectival respectively.

2.3.2 Movement

Not every kind of phrase can be questioned in this way, however. For example, there is no wh-element that corresponds to a VP, nor one for an NP. However the fact remains that only constituents can undergo this movement and so it can act as a fairly reliable test for the constituent structure of most parts of a sentence.

2.3.2 Movement

This sentence is no longer ambiguous between the two meanings. This is because we must interpret the moved element as a single constituent and not as two separate constituents that have been moved together. The same point can be made with the movement of wh-elements, as shown by the following:

7.3.1 Basic positions within the CP

A wh-question is formed with the use of an interrogative pronoun, usually called a wh-element as in English they mostly begin with the letters ‘wh’, as in who, why, which, what, where, etc. How is an exception to this spelling convention, though from a linguistic point of view, the spelling is uninteresting and it is syntactic and semantic behaviour that are more important. From these points of view, how is just like the other ‘wh’-elements. In a wh-interrogative, the sentence begins with the wh-element:

7.3.1 Basic positions within the CP

Apart from (18a) where the wh-element replaces the subject, all other instances of wh-questions involve the wh-element being in front of the subject. Given that the subject’s surface position is the specifier of the IP, this indicates that the wh-element sits in a position outside the IP. Above the IP is the CP, so we may assume that the wh-element is situated in the CP. As wh-elements are phrases, probably DPs, though some of them have underlying distributions similar to PPs and therefore are either PPs or perhaps DPs non-canonically realising the prepositional role, they must occupy a phrasal position in the CP and the most obvious choice would be the specifier of the CP:

7.3.1 Basic positions within the CP

As we can see the wh-element precedes the inverted auxiliary, supporting the assumption that the wh-element is in the specifier of CP and the inverted auxiliary is in the head position:

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

There seem to be two interrelated motivations for wh-movement, one concerning the interpretation of the clause, and one concerning the interpretation of the wh-element itself. Let’s start with the clause. Obviously clauses are either interpreted as questions or not. Moreover, in embedded contexts the distribution of a clause will depend on its force as some verbs require an interrogative complement while others require a declarative one:

7.3.2 Wh-movement

In the examples in (28) the force of the embedded clauses is obviously determined by the complementiser, as would be expected. However, in the following, it seems that the force of the clause is determined by the wh-element in specifier positions:

7.3.2 Wh-movement

We have seen in a number of previous places that the head and the specifier have a special relationship. In the IP where the subject sits in the specifier and the agreement morpheme sits in the head position, the two elements ‘agree’ with each other in terms of number and person features. Thus if the subject is a third person singular element, then the agreement will be third person singular and determine that the finite morpheme ‘s’ will show up on the verb. In the DP, the possessor sits in the specifier position and this can only be accompanied by a determiner that ‘agrees’ with it in terms of possession. We might assume therefore that the CP will be no different and that the head and its specifier will enter into an agreement relationship, presumably in terms of the [+wh] feature. So, if the specifier has this feature, so will the head. Of course, if the head has the feature, then it will project it to the CP and this will be interpreted as an interrogative clause, and hence the wh-specifier can indeed influence the interpretation of the clause in a round-about manner:

7.3.2 Wh-movement

In (30) the double arrow represents the agreement relationship between the head and its specifier and the single headed arrows represent the projection of the head’s features to the CP. By this path then the [+wh] on the wh-element ends up on the whole CP and a CP with a wh-specifier will be interpreted as interrogative. Thus, one motivation for wh-movement might be that there is need to interpret the clause as an interrogative.

7.3.2 Wh-movement

This cannot be the whole story however. The following indicates that moving the wh-element to the front of the clause is not obligatory:

7.3.2 Wh-movement

B’s response involves what is known as an echo question, in which a previously uttered sentence is more or less repeated and a part of it that was either not heard or not believed replaced by a wh-element. The meaning is quite clear: it is a request for someone to repeat or confirm the previous statement. This is very different from the meaning of a wh-question which is asking for information about a particular aspect of the sentence. Compare:

7.3.2 Wh-movement

One major difference in meaning between these two sentences is that the first presupposes the truth of the proposition: the speaker assumes that you spoke to someone is true. Thus this kind of question cannot be asked felicitously if the speaker doesn’t think that you spoke to anyone. This is not true of (32b), however. In repeating back the previously made statement, the speaker does not commit himself to either its truth or falsity: judgement about that is postponed until the answer is received. Clearly this difference in meaning has something to do with where the wh-element is situated.

7.3.2 Wh-movement

If the wh-element is moved to the specifier of CP then the result is a wh-interrogative interpretation. If not then the sentence is interpreted as an echo question. We might think of this in terms of the interpretation of the wh-element itself. A wh-element interpreted in an echo question simply has the role of a pointer to the missing information. In a sense it is a ‘place filler’ that does little more than indicate what needs to be repeated. A wh-element that is moved into a the specifier of the CP is a little more complex in terms of its interpretation. The semantics of a moved wh-element is similar to that of a quantifier such as everyone or someone. These are called operators as they indicate a process that is needed to work out the meaning of the sentence that contains them. For example, consider the difference between the following:

7.3.2 Wh-movement

The truth of (33) is fairly easy to establish. First we find the individual that the name Tim refers to and then we see if they have the property of being tall. The truth of the second statement is not quite so easy. For a start, there is no individual to whom the word someone refers and so it isn’t just a matter of checking to see if the person has the property of being tall. Instead we must go to the set of things that someone could potentially refer to (the set of people relevant to a conversation, perhaps) and go through each of them individually to see if they are tall. If at least one of them is tall, then the sentence in (33) is true. If none of them are tall then the sentence is false. Consider what who means in (32a). Like the quantifier someone the interrogative pronoun does not refer to a known individual. Instead, the hearer is asked to perform a process of going to the set of potential referents and finding those that if substituted for the wh-element would produce a true sentence:

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

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

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

A similar analysis can be provided for inversion that accompanies wh-movement to spec CP. As we discussed in the previous section, wh-movement to spec CP establishes an agreement relationship between the wh-element and the head of CP that enables the clause to be interpreted as an interrogative. One way to realise this agreement relationship is in terms of the presence of an interrogative complementiser, i.e. the empty question particle, in the C position:

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

If we assume that Q, like if, is not a bound morpheme, then there will be no reason for inversion. However, in a main clause there can be no complementiser and hence Q like all other complementisers will be prevented from appearing. An interrogative CP still needs to be interpreted as interrogative however and hence it will need its head to have the [+wh] feature. We have seen how, when a wh-element moves to spec CP, it agrees with the head. If we make the reasonable assumption that nothing can agree with an empty head position, this necessitates something being in the head position of an interrogative clause. Given that complementisers are systematically excluded from this position, the only option is to move the nearest head into the C position and this will be the auxiliary in I:

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

53a) is ruled out because the wh-element has nothing to agree with and hence the clause cannot be interpreted as an interrogative. (53b) is ruled out by the general exclusion of complementisers appearing in main clauses. This leaves (53c) as the only grammatical possibility.

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

While this analysis seems less ad hoc than the assumption of different interrogative complementisers in main and embedded clauses, there are still a number of questions left unanswered. For example, how are we to analyse yes–no questions under the assumption that complementisers are not allowed in main clause complementiser positions? What triggers the inversion in this case if there is no wh-element to agree with? The answer might be that there is a wh-like element in yes–no questions. Although we do not get inversion type yes–no questions in embedded clauses, for obvious reasons, it is still possible to have an embedded yes–no question. These are typically expressed by the element whether:

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

If we were to put the content of this embedded clause into a main clause it would be should I bring some wine, i.e. a yes–no question. Thus, (54) contains an embedded yes–no question. The wh-element whether is quite strange. In many ways it looks like a complementiser, being a word that appears at the front of an interrogative clause, rather like if. However, there are a number of reasons to believe that whether is not a complementiser. For one thing, it can introduce both finite and non-finite clauses:

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

But if whether is not a complementiser, what is it? It differs in one very large way from wh-elements and that is while wh-elements move out of a clause whether does not seem to. Wh-elements are all moved to the spec CP from some position inside the IP and therefore they are always associated with a ‘gap’ in the clause, filled, of course, by a trace:

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

But whether is not linked to any position inside the IP from which it has moved. This, I think, is understandable in terms of the functions of wh-elements. Most wh-elements are used in wh-questions and their function is to mark the clause as an interrogative and to indicate what the focus of the question is. (60a), for example is a question about the object, which is the position from which the wh-element derives. As we said, the function of whether is to mark a yes–no question and these questions focus on the truth of the sentence rather than on any particular piece of information it may carry. For this reason, then, whether does not need to hold a position in the clause, it merely indicates the clause’s question status. We may assume therefore that whether is a wh-element that is generated directly in the specifier of CP as a general interrogative operator. As it appears in embedded contexts, it will be accompanied by an interrogative complementiser Q with which it agrees:

7.3.4 The interaction between wh-movement and inversion

A final issue we might mention in connection with this analysis concerns the embedded clauses. If embedded questions can have complementisers as well as wh-elements in their specifier positions, why do we never get them together?:

7.3.5 Subject questions

In (67a) both the wh-subject and the auxiliary are in the IP and do not move to the CP. In (67b) the wh-subject moves to the specifier of CP but the auxiliary does not move and in (67c) both the subject and the auxiliary move. But which one is correct and how can we know? From all that we have said above, one might hope that (67c) is accurate as only in this is the CP specifier filled with a wh-element and the head filled by something it can agree with. However, doubt is cast on this conclusion from the following phenomena:

7.3.5 Subject questions

It seems that for some reason, to which we return shortly, main verbs cannot move to C. So when a wh-element moves to the specifier of CP and it requires some element in the C position to agree with, the dummy auxiliary is used and hence we get do-insertion. However, when the subject is the focus of the question, there is no do-insertion indicating that nothing has to move to C. If this is a general condition then it suggests that no element moves from I to C in subject questions and hence that (67c) is not correct. Opinions differ as to the correctness of (67a) or (b), but obviously both are problematic for the straightforward analysis of interrogatives.

7.3.5 Subject questions

As a structure this is straightforward. It contains a wh-element in the specifier of CP so that the whole clause can be interpreted as an interrogative. Moreover it has something in the C position for the wh-element to agree with. If we accept this as basically correct, we then have (68a) to account for: why can the verb not move to C when anything but the subject moves to spec CP? The answer would appear to have to do with the subject: when this does not move to spec CP the main verb cannot move past I.

7.3.5 Subject questions

We have seen restrictions like this before. The adverb, for example must be above the verb and the negation must be above the verb but below the tense. It seems that the verb must be below the subject and hence when the subject is in spec IP the verb can be no higher than I. However, when the subject moves to spec CP the verb can move to C and still remain lower than the subject. When the verb cannot move from I to C there is no choice other than to insert the auxiliary do. However, it appears that the dummy auxiliary is not enough by itself to provide the wh-element with something to agree with, thus the auxiliary must be inserted in to tense and move from there to I and from there to C to provide enough semantic content to support the agreement. The verb stays behind in the VP:

7.4.2 A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses

As pointed out, in many ways the relative clause has many properties in common with a wh-interrogative. But relative clauses are not interrogative, but declarative. This is clear both from their interpretation and the fact that they may start with the complementiser that which as we have seen, introduces declarative clauses. Thus, the wh-element which starts relative and interrogative clauses seems to have a different set of features: an interrogative pronoun is [+wh] and a relative pronoun is [–wh]. One might think therefore that they are entirely different lexical elements. This is supported by the fact that in some languages there are differences between relative and interrogative pronouns. In Hungarian for instance, there is a systematic difference with relative pronouns beginning with a‑:

7.4.2 A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses

The wh-relative resembles an interrogative in more than just the fact that it is introduced by a wh-element, but also in the process which apparently forms the two structures. In both cases, the wh-element starts off inside the clause and moves to the specifier of CP. Thus, both types of clauses start with a wh-element and have a corresponding ‘gap’ in the position it was moved from. The gap contains the trace of the moved wh-element:

7.4.2 A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses

Interestingly, although they do not start with a wh-element, both that-relatives and zero relatives contain a gap in the same place that they would if they did have a wh-element:

7.4.2 A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses

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:

7.4.2 A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses

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:

7.4.2 A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses

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:

7.4.2 A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses

We might claim that this is exactly what the function of the relative pronoun is in a relative clause. Indeed, if there is no wh-element related to a gap, or if the wh-element does not move to create the gap, then the relative clause is ungrammatical:

7.4.2 A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses

If this is true, then the same must be true of all relatives, including that and zero ones. The fact that we cannot detect a wh-element in these relatives suggests that they should be analysed as containing an empty wh-element, similar to the empty operator in yes–no questions, but this time behaving like the type of wh-element that originates inside the IP and moves to the spec of CP:

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.

7.4.2 A comparison between relative and interrogative clauses

Finally by moving to the specifier of the CP, the wh-element is interpreted as an operator in both interrogative and relative clauses. The fact that one is interpreted more like a quantificational operator, like quantificational pronouns such as everyone or someone, while the other is interpreted like an anaphoric operator, which is referentially dependent on some other element in the sentence, like a reflexive pronoun such as himself, falls out due to the different functions of questions and relative clauses: one asks a question and the other modifies a noun.

7.5.1 Topicalisation

In some ways, the initial position for adverbs is similar to the wh-position, which is unspecified for the kind of wh-element that can occupy it:

7.5.1 Topicalisation

One observation that links all these structures (including those with an initial adverb) is that they are all pronounced with a pause after the initial phrase. This is unlike the wh-element in spec CP, which has no pause after it. This might indicate, that they are not in the same positions. Another observation that indicates a difference between topicalisation and wh-movement is that there is never inversion with topicalisation:

7.5.1 Topicalisation

Moreover, if the fronted topics occupied the same position as fronted wh-phrases, then we would expect them to be in complementary distribution, which they are not:

7.5.2 Focus fronting

115) might be used in response to someone asking ‘who would trust women?’, with the meaning that it’s men who are untrustworthy, not women. However, this complementary distribution between foci and wh-elements should not lead us to assume that the focus sits in the specifier of the CP. We can see this from the fact that in embedded clauses the focus, like the topic, follows the complementiser:

7.5.3 Negative fronting

This complementary distribution seems more significant than that which holds between the focus and the wh-element as both the focus and the fronted negative clearly occupy very similar positions. We might therefore claim that both make use of the same landing site: specifier of iP.

7.5.3 Negative fronting

With these structures in place we now have room for all fronted elements in English including wh-elements, topics, foci and fronted negatives and the inverted auxiliaries that accompany them. We have not accounted for why there is complementary distribution between elements that move to spec iP and wh-elements. This may be a semantic incompatibility rather than a matter of syntactic distribution, as suggested by the fact that this seems more of a universal restriction rather than something restricted to English. Alternatively, it may have something to do with the locality of movement in that if iP is present a wh-element is prevented from moving to spec CP. I will not attempt to sort these issues out here.

7.5.3 Negative fronting

With these structures in place we now have room for all fronted elements in English including wh-elements, topics, foci and fronted negatives and the inverted auxiliaries that accompany them. We have not accounted for why there is complementary distribution between elements that move to spec iP and wh-elements. This may be a semantic incompatibility rather than a matter of syntactic distribution, as suggested by the fact that this seems more of a universal restriction rather than something restricted to English. Alternatively, it may have something to do with the locality of movement in that if iP is present a wh-element is prevented from moving to spec CP. I will not attempt to sort these issues out here.

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.