The instances of movement discussed so far (subject movement, subject raising, passive) are all motivated by the requirement that a DP chain contain (exactly) one member in a position that is assigned case. In this chapter, we introduce a different type of movement, one that is not motivated by considerations of case assignment. First, it affects maximal projections of many syntactic categories, not just DPs. Second, when it affects DPs, they move from positions that are already assigned case. Because this type of movement is involved in the derivation of wh- questions, it is standardly referred to as wh- movement.
This chapter is devoted to motivating wh- movement and presenting a
basic range of empirical phenomena associated with it. In particular, we
review an influential set of structural conditions under which wh- movement
is ungrammatical, the so-called island constraints of Ross 1967. Having established that wh-
movement is subject to the island constraints in questions, we then use the
constraints as a diagnostic that certain further constructions in English,
including relative clauses and so-called topicalization, are derived
by wh- movement as well.
Evidence for a movement analysis of questions
Subcategorization
As the presence of the complementizer if in the indirect
question in (1) shows, the verb wonder takes a CP complement.
| (1) | They wonder if the lions will devour the wildebeest. |
The elementary trees for wonder and if are given in (2a,b), and the entire tree for (1) is given in (2c).
| (2) | a. |
| b. |
| c. |
|
Now consider the indirect question in (3), which is introduced by a wh- phrase (a maximal projection) rather than by a complementizer (a head).
| (3) | They wonder which wildebeest the lions will devour. |
Let's adopt the null hypothesis that wonder is associated with the same elementary tree in (3) as in (1)—namely, with (2a). Since (3) contains no overt complementizer, the CP tree that substitutes into the complement node of the elementary tree for wonder must then be the projection of a silent complementizer. For reasons to be given shortly, we take this complementizer to be a silent counterpart of that. In deriving the tree for (3), a further difficulty remains concerning the wh- phrase which wildebeest. On the one hand, the wh- phrase must be the object of devour, just as in (1), because devour is obligatorily transitive. But on the other hand, the wh- phrase precedes the subject of the subordinate clause rather than following the verb. As usual when we are confronted with a mismatch of this sort, we invoke movement in order to allow a single phrase to simultaneously play several roles in a sentence. Specifically, we will have the wh- phrase originate as the sister of the verb whose object it is and then move to Spec(CP). This allows us to maintain, without denying the word order in (3), that devour is a transitive verb regardless of what clause type (declarative or interrogative) it happens to occur in. The resulting structure of (3) is shown in (4).
| (4) | 
|
The argument just presented is based on the subcategorization of the verb devour (that is, on the obligatorily transitive character of devour), but it can be extended straightforwardly to other syntactic relations. For instance, we have chosen to represent the modification relation structurally by having the modifier adjoin at the intermediate projection of the modifiee. Accordingly, the adverb phrase unbelievably quickly adjoins at V' in (5a) since it modifies the verb devour. The corresponding wh- phrase how quickly modifies devour in (5b), so it needs to adjoin to V' as well, but it precedes the subject. Again, the mismatch between the position where the phrase is interpreted and where it is pronounced can be resolved by movement of the modifier, as shown in (6).
| (5) | a. | The lions will devour the wildebeest unbelievably quickly. | |
| b. | They wonder how quickly the lions will devour the wildebeest. | ||
| (6) | 
|
Let's turn now to the question of why we treat the complementizer in (4) and in (6) as as a silent counterpart of that. There are several reasons. First, Middle English routinely allowed wh- phrases followed by that in indirect questions. The examples in (7) are from the Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English; (7e) shows that it was possible, but not obligatory, for the complementizer to be overt in Middle English (1150–1500).
| (7) | a. | First the behoueth to knowe why that suche a solitary
lyf was ordeyned.
(cmaelr4-s0.m4, 13) 'First, it behooves thee to know why such a solitary life was ordained.' | |
| b. | … he wiste wel hymself what that he wolde answere …
(cmctmeli-s0.m3, 75) 'he himself knew well what he would answer' | ||
| c. | for ye han ful ofte assayed … how wel that I kan hyde
and hele thynges
(cmctmeli-s0.m3, 149) 'for you have very often determined how well I can hide and conceal things' | ||
| d. | I wolde fayn knowe how that ye understonde thilke wordes
(cmctmeli-s0.m3, 408) 'I would like to know how you understand these words' | ||
| e. | And forther over, it is necessarie to understonde whennes that
synnes spryngen, and how they encreessen
(cmctpars-s0.m3, 352) 'And moreover, it is necessary to understand where sins come from, and how they increase' | ||
| f. | Now shal ye understonde in what manere that synne wexeth
or encreesseth in man.
(cmctpars-s0.m3, 390) 'Now you shall understand in what manner sin grows or increases in man.' | ||
| g. | The fifthe circumstaunce is how manye tymes that he hath synned
… and how ofte that he hath falle.
(cmctpars-s0.m3, 1503) 'The fifth circumstance is how many times he has sinned … and how often he has fallen.' | ||
| h. | lettyng hym wytte in what plytte that they stode yn
(cmgregor-s0.m4, 343) 'letting him know what plight they were in' | ||
| i. | I pray you telle me what knyght that ye be
(cmmalory-s0.m4, 4655) 'Please tell me what knight you are' |
Second, the variety of English spoken in Belfast resembles Middle English in this respect (Henry 1995:107).
| (8) | a. | I wonder which dish that they picked. | |
| b. | They didn't know which model that we had discussed. |
Third, wh- phrases followed by that continue to be attested in the unplanned usage of speakers of modern standard English, as shown in (9) (for further examples, see Radford 1988:500).
| (9) | a. | That tells you how many days that
the car will be in the shop. (Kroch 1989a:95, fn. 4, (i)) | |
| b. | Immediately, I saw which one that you wanted me
to read. (Beatrice Santorini, in conversation, September 1998) | ||
| c. | I realized how interesting that it was. (Clara Orsitti, 25 January 1999, in an interview by Vicky Barker, World Update, National Public Radio) | ||
| d. | I've got to go through them and see what order that
we'll discuss them in. (Beatrice Santorini, in conversation, November 1999) | ||
| e. | Most of my colleagues were amazed how quickly that
I recovered. (Advertisement for Temple University Hospital, WRTI, 24 November 1999) | ||
| f. | It could be that that is why that they were
understood. (high-low-high intonation on why) (Joanna Labov, doctoral dissertation defense, 4 May 2000) | ||
| g. | These recounts will determine how much of a pick-up
that we will have," said Democratic National Committee Chairman
Joe Andrew." (http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/08/house.races/) |
Finally, there are other languages that allow sequences of wh- phrase + overt complementizer in indirect questions. The complementizer in question is generally the counterpart of that, but the counterpart of if is attested as well.
| (10) | Bavarian (Bayer 1983-4:212, (8a-d)) | ||
| a. | I woass ned wer dass des toa hod. I know not who that that done has 'I don't know who did that.' | ||
| b. |
... wos dass ma toa soin.
what that we do should
'... what we should do.'
| ||
| c. |
... wann dass da Xaver kumt
when that the comes
'... when Xaver is coming.'
| ||
| d. |
... wiavui dass a kriagt.
how much that he gets
'... how much he gets.'
| ||
| (11) | Dutch (den Besten 1989:23, (21b)) | ||
... welk boek (of) hij wil lezen
which book if he wants read
'... which book he wants to read'
| |||
| (12) | a. | She thinks he will come. | |
| b. | * | She thinks him will come. |
Now consider the contrast in (13), where the nominative form who is grammatical in standard English, but the oblique form whom is not.
| (13) | a. | I wonder who she thinks will come. | |
| b. | * | I wonder whom she thinks will come. |
How is the nominative form who in (13a) assigned case? We would like to maintain the generalization that nominative case is assigned in a spec-head configuration with finite I. But who cannot receive case from the present tense morpheme I of the thinks clause since then she would remain without case. Again, the solution to the puzzle is to invoke movement. Given the structure for (13a) in (14), who can be assigned nominative case by will before moving to the Spec(CP) of the thinks clause.
| (14) | I wonder [CP whoi [IP she thinks [CP [IP ti will come ] ] ] ] . |
The reason that (13b) is ungrammatical is that the subject position of the thinks clause is not assigned oblique case. Under a movement analysis, then, the contrast in (13) is parallel to that in (12)---a simple and intuitively appealing result.
The facts just discussed illustrate an important difference between wh-
movement and the case-driven instances of movement discussed in
Chapters 5–7. In case-driven movement, the noun phrase
undergoing movement originates in a position that is not assigned case and
moves to one that is. By contrast, a noun phrase undergoing wh- movement
moves from a position that is assigned case and moves to Spec(CP), a
position that is not assigned case. Note that in both cases, the principle
in (15) (= (29) of
| (15) | Case Filter At the end of the derivation of a sentence, every DP (more precisely, every chain headed by a DP) must be associated with exactly one case feature. |
A related difference concerns the categorial status of constituents undergoing wh- movement. Constituents undergoing case-driven movement are noun phrases, but ones undergoing wh- movement can be maximal projections of other categories, as illustrated in (16).
| (16) | a. | I wonder [AdjP how experienced ] they should be. | |
| b. | I wonder [AdvP how quickly ] the lions will devour the wildebeest. | ||
| c. | I wonder [PP under which shell ] he hid the pea. |
| (17) | a. | [AdjP How experienced ] should they be? | |
| b. | [AdvP How quickly ] will the lions devour the wildebeest? | ||
| c. | [PP Under which shell ] did he hide the pea? | ||
| d. | [DP Which wildebeest ] will the lions devour? |
As is evident from comparing the direct questions in (17) with their indirect question counterparts in (16) and in (3), movement to Spec(CP) in direct questions is accompanied by a second instance of movement. In particular, whatever occupies I moves to C, with the additional proviso that if I is occupied by a silent element, as it is in (16c), it is replaced by the corresponding form of do, as in (17c). We postpone more detailed discussion of movement to C to a later chapter. For the moment, we will simply assume that direct questions are projections of a silent morpheme that occupies C and that expresses interrogative force, represented in what follows by [?]. The structure that we assume for direct questions is illustrated for (17d) in (18).
| (18) | 
|
| Don't confuse the terms bind, introduced in
|
| (19) | a. | [CP Whati was he reading ti ] ? | ||
| b. | [CP
Whati did he say
[CP that he was reading ti ] ] ? | |||
| c. | [CP
Whati does she believe
[CP that he said[CP that he was reading ti ] ] ] ? | |||
| d. | [CP
Whati are they claiming
[CP that she believes[CP that he said | |||
| e. | [CP
Whati do you think
[CP that they are claiming[CP that she believes[CP that he said[CP that he was reading ti ] ] ] ] ] ? |
But Ross 1967 made the important discovery that contrary to what the pattern in (19) suggests, wh- movement is not in fact unbounded. For instance, although wh- movement out of a complement that clause is grammatical, as shown in (19b–e), wh- movement out of even a singly embedded wh- complement is unacceptable, as shown in (20b).
|
| Be sure to interpret How in (20b) as modifying the complement verb solve, as indicated by the trace, not the matrix verb forgotten. That is, a possible answer to (20b) is by Fourier analysis, not by succumbing to Alzheimer's. |
| Wh- complement: | |||
| (20) | a. | They have forgotten [ which problem they should solve by Fourier analysis ] . | |
| b. | * | Howi have they forgotten [ which problem they should solve ti ] ? | |
Ross introduced the term island to refer to constructions which, like indirect questions, do not allow a wh- phrase to 'escape' from them (the idea behind the metaphor is that the wh- phrase is marooned on the island). It is important to recognize that wh- movement is possible within the confines of the island. For instance, in (20b), which problem undergoes movement to the Spec(CP) of the indirect question. It is only movement beyond the boundaries of the island (the CP that dominates the island) that is not allowed.
Besides indirect questions, Ross identified several other types of
islands: noun complement clauses and relative clauses (often subsumed under
the rubric of complex noun phrases, but more insightfully kept distinct),
sentential subjects, so-called left branches (= specifiers) of noun
phrases, and coordinate structures. We illustrate each of these types of
island in turn.
(21) and (22) illustrate the island character of noun
complement clauses.
| Noun complement: | |||
| (21) | a. | He made the claim [ that he has met Subcomandante Marcos ] . | |
| b. | * | [ Who ]i did he make the claim [ that he has met ti ] ? | |
| (22) | a. | He mentioned the fact [ that he had run into Julia Roberts ] . | |
| b. | * | [ Which celebrity ]i did he mention the fact [ that he had run into ti ] ? | |
Particularly striking is the contrast between these examples and those in (23), which are essentially synonymous with the (b) of (21) and (22) and only slightly less complex.
| (23) | a. | [ Who ]i did he claim [ that he has met ti ] ? | |
| b. | [ Which celebrity ]i did he mention [ that he had run into ti ] ? |
(24) and (25) illustrate the island character of relative clauses and sentential subjects.
| Relative clause: | |||
| (24) | a. | They met someone [ { who, that } knows Julia Roberts ] . | |
| b. | * | [ Which celebrity ]i did they meet someone [ { who, that } knows ti ] ? | |
| Sentential subject: | |||
| (25) | a. | [ That he has met Subcomandante Marcos ] is extremely unlikely. | |
| b. | * | Whoi is [ that he has met ti ] extremely unlikely? | |
Finally, (26) and (27) illustrate the island character of left branches of noun phrases and coordinate structures. The ungrammaticality of the questions is particularly striking because they are so much simpler than the grammatical questions in (19b-e).
| Left branch of noun phrase: | |||
| (26) | a. | She bought [ Jonathan's ] book . | |
| b. | * | [ Whose ]i did she buy [ ti ] book ? | |
| Coordinate structure: | |||
| (27) | a. | They ordered [ tiramisu and espresso ] . | |
| b. | * | [ Which dessert ]i did they order [ ti and espresso ] ? | |
| c. | * | [ Which beverage ]i did they order [ tiramisu and ti ] ? | |
| (28) | a. | Who moved in next door? | |
| b. | Who(m) did you see? | ||
| c. | Where did you see them? | ||
| d. | Which do you prefer? | ||
| e. | Whose parents did you meet? | ||
| (29) | a. | the people who moved in next door | |
| b. | the people who(m) you saw | ||
| c. | the place where you met them | ||
| d. | the movie which you prefer | ||
| e. | the girl whose parents you met |
This parallel suggests a wh- movement analysis for relative clauses, and this idea is reinforced by the fact that wh- relative clauses exhibit the entire range of island effects, as illustrated in (30).
| Wh- complement: | |||
| (30) | a. | * | the method [ by which ]i they have forgotten [ which problem they should solve ti ] |
| Noun complement: | |||
| b. | * | the revolutionary whoi I don't believe the claim [ that he has met ti ] | |
| Relative clause: | |||
| c. | * | the revolutionary whoi I dislike the journalist [ who interviewed ti for CNN ] | |
| Sentential subject: | |||
| d. | * | the addiction whichi [ { that he admitted, admitting } ti ] nearly destroyed his career | |
| Left branch of noun phrase: | |||
| e. | * | the girl whosei you met [ ti parents ] | |
| Coordinate structure: | |||
| f. | * | the dessert whichi you ordered [ { coffee and ti, ti and coffee } ] | |
The facts just reviewed follow straightforwardly if we assume that wh- relative clauses are CPs. The wh- relative pronoun moves to Spec(CP), and the clause is headed by a silent complementizer, just as in an indirect question. The structure of the relative clause in (29b) is given in (31a), and adjoining the relative clause so that it modifies the noun people yields the structure in (31b).
| (31) | a. | 
| b. | 
|
| (32) | a. | the people that moved in next door | |
| b. | the people that you saw | ||
| c. | the place that you met them | ||
| d. | the movie that you prefer |
Structurally, that relative clauses are completely parallel to wh- relative clauses. But in contrast to wh- relative clauses, it is the complementizer that is overt in that relative clauses, and the wh- element that is silent. The structures corresponding to those in (31) are given in (33).
| (33) | a. | 
| b. | 
|
It is worth noting that there are speakers for whom that has developed from a complementizer into a relative pronoun. The evidence for this is that such speakers accept a possessive form of that in examples like (34a); (34b) gives a naturally occurring example of this nonstandard usage.
| (34) | a. | % | the girl that's parents you met (is going to be your roommate) |
| b. | % | "Bottom line is we want them to bring a product to market
that's time had not yet come," said Ray Farhung, a Southern
California Edison official. (Bill Vlasic, "Cool Contest", The Detroit News, p. 1D, January 10, 1993; from a Linguist List posting by John Lawler) |
Given the discussion so far, we would expect to find relative clauses with an overt wh- element in Spec(CP) combined with an overt complementizer, as in (35).
| (35) | the people who(m) that you saw |
Such doubly marked relative clauses are judged to be unacceptable in modern standard English. However, just like doubly marked indirect questions, they are attested in Middle English and in other languages as well, as shown in (36) (from the Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English) and (37).
| (36) | a. | thy freend which that thou has lorn
(cmctmeli-s0.m3 31)
'your friend that you have lost' | |
| b. | the conseil which that was yeven to yow
by the men of lawe and the wise folk
(cmctmeli-s0.m3 373)
'the counsel that was given to you by the men of law and the wise folk' | ||
| c. | the seconde condicion which that the same Tullius
addeth in this matiere
(cmctmeli-s0.m3 430)
'the second condition that the same Tullius adds in this matter' | ||
| d. | for hire olde freendes which that were trewe and wyse
(cmctmeli-s0.m3 434)
'for her old friends who were loyal and wise' | ||
| e. | the fire of angre and of wratthe, which that he sholde quenche
(cmctpars-s0.m3 859)
'the fire of anger and wrath, which he should quench' | ||
| f. | a squyer, whyche that was a grete captayne
(cmgregor-s0.m4 1333)
'a squire, who was a great captain' |
| Bayer 1983-4:213, (10a,b)) | |||
| (37) | a. | der Hund der wo gestern d' Katz bissn hod the dog who that yesterday the cat bitten has 'the dog that bit the cat yesterday' | |
| b. | die Frau dera wo da Xaver a Bussl g'gem hod the woman who.dat that the a kiss given has 'the woman that Xaver gave a kiss' | ||
What these facts suggest is that doubly marked wh- movement
constructions (both relative clauses and indirect questions) are
grammatical
Zero relative clauses
Finally, given the availability of silent wh- elements and silent
complementizers in English, we would expect to find relative clauses that
are not introduced by any overt element at all. Such so-called zero
relative clauses (also known as contact relative clauses) are
indeed possible in English, as shown in (38).
| (38) | a. | the people ___ you saw | |
| b. | the place ___ you met them | ||
| c. | the movie ___ you prefer |
Given the grammaticality of (38), the status of the zero relative variants of subject relative clauses like (29a) and (32a) is puzzling. In general, these are unacceptable, as shown in (39c).
| (39) | a. | the people who moved in next door (are from Illinois) | |
| b. | the people that moved in next door (are from Illinois) | ||
| c. | * | the people ___ moved in next door (are from Illinois) |
However, structurally analogous examples do occur in English, as illustrated in (40).
| (40) | a. | Everybody ___ lives in the mountains has an accent
all to theirself.
(Christian and Wolfram 1976, front matter) | |
| b. | 'Tis grace ___ hath brought me safe thus far, and grace ___ will lead me home. (Amazing Grace) |
(41) gives further examples of zero relative clauses from Belfast English, classified by linguistic environment (Henry 1995:125), and (42) gives further comparable examples from American English.
| (41) | a. | Existential there clause: | There's a shortcut ___ takes you to the shops. | |
| b. | It cleft: | It was John ___ told us about it. | ||
| c. | Copular construction: | John is the person ___ could help you with that. | ||
| d. | Introduction of discourse entity in object position: | I met a man ___ can speak five languages. | ||
| (42) | a. | Introduction of discourse entity in object position: | …how come we have a daughter we don't understand too
good, and a pink-haired punk granddaughter ___ got the manners of
a terrorist? … Wears somethin' ___ makes the garage door
flap up?
(Wagner 1986:81) | |
| b. | Copular construction: | You're the second guy this month ___ wants to take
out trade in this bizarre fashion.
(Wagner 1986:119) |
The proper analysis of such examples is not clear and goes beyond the
scope of this textbook. On the one hand, it has been argued that zero
subject relative clauses are grammatical, but avoided for parsing reasons,
especially when they modify a noun that is itself part of a subject
(Bever and Langendoen 1971, especially
The sentences in (43) are in so-called canonical order; that is,
the subject (in boldface) occupies clause-initial position.
Topicalization
A further instance of a construction involving wh- movement is so-called
topicalization.
| (43) | a. | They should solve the more difficult problem for next class. | |
| b. | They don't believe that he has met Subcomandante Marcos. | ||
| c. | We heartily detest Julia's parents. | ||
| d. | A pride of lions can devour a little wildebeest like that in under an hour. | ||
| e. | I recognize this kind of situation from my previous job. |
By contrast, in (44), a nonsubject (in italics) precedes the subject (again in boldface).
| (44) | a. | For next class, they should solve the more difficult problem. | |
| b. | Subcomandante Marcos, they don't believe that he has met. | ||
| c. | Julia's parents, we heartily detest. | ||
| d. | A little wildebeest like that, a pride of lions can devour in under an hour. | ||
| e. | This kind of situation, I recognize from my previous job. |
Clause-initial nonsubjects are often discourse topics, and the movement illustrated in (44) has therefore come to be known as topicalization. We use the term because it is standard in the literature, but hasten to point out that it is not entirely felicitous, since clause-initial nonsubjects are by no means always topics (that is, previously mentioned discourse entities). Often, for instance, they are scene-setting expressions, as in (44a,b), or they may serve a contrastive function, as in (44c).
| (44) | a. | On the way home, he ran into Murgatroyd. | |
| b. | In Brazil, such situations are lamentably frequent. | ||
| c. | Under other conditions, I would agree to your request. |
In an influential article, Chomsky 1977 argued that topicalization should be analyzed on a par with wh- movement on the grounds that topicalization obeys the island constraints, as illustrated in (46).
| Wh- complement: | |||
| (46) | a. | * | [ For next class, ]i they have forgotten [ which problem they should solve ti ] . |
| Noun complement: | |||
| b. | * | [ Subcomandante Marcos, ]i they don't believe the claim [ that he has met ti ] . | |
| Relative clause: | |||
| c. | * | [ Subcomandante Marcos, ]i I dislike the journalist [ who interviewed ti for CNN ] | |
| Sentential subject: | |||
| d. | * | [ His addiction to gambling, ]i [ { that he admitted, admitting } ti ] nearly destroyed his career. | |
| Left branch of noun phrase: | |||
| e. | * | [ Julia's, ]i we heartily detest [ ti parents ] . | |
| Coordinate structure: | |||
| f. | * | [ Tiramisu, ]i two people ordered [ { coffee and ti, ti and coffee } ] . | |
Following Chomsky's usage, the term wh- movement is often used to refer to any instance of movement to Spec(CP), regardless of whether the moved constituent is a wh- phrase. More recently, the less confusing term operator movement has gained currency as a general term for movement to Spec(CP), subsuming wh- movement (in its original sense) and topicalization.
The structure for (44c) under (an updated version of) the analysis in
According to a competing analysis, topicalization is also derived by
movement, but the moved constituent adjoins to IP rather than substituting
into Spec(CP). The alternative structure for (44c) is then as in (48).
(47)
(48)
