11 Wh- movement in English

• A movement analysis of questions
  • Complementation
  • Why a silent complementizer?
  • Case checking
  • Direct wh- questions
• Constraints on wh- movement
  • The island constraints
    • The apparent unboundedness of wh- movement
    • A typology of islands
  • The Comp-trace effect
• Relative clauses as instances of wh- movement
  • Wh- relative clauses
  • That relative clauses
  • Doubly marked relative clauses
  • Zero relative clauses
• Notes
• Exercises and problems
• Supplementary material
  • Questions

In this chapter, we introduce a type of movement that differs from the ones discussed so far (subject movement, subject raising, passive). First, it affects not just DPs, but maximal projections of many syntactic categories. Second, the landing site for the moved constituent is outside of IP. Because this type of movement is involved in the derivation of wh- questions, it is known as wh- movement.

In this chapter, we present the evidence for a wh- movement analysis of questions. We then describe two constraints on wh- movement that have given rise to much discussion in the field: the island constraints (Ross 1967) and the Comp-trace effect (Perlmutter 1971). In this chapter, we focus on a description of the constraints, postponing attempts at analysis until a later chapter. In the final section of the chapter, we extend a wh- movement analysis to the various types of relative clauses found in English.

A movement analysis of questions

Complementation

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 begins with a wh- phrase (a maximal projection) rather than with 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 accommodate the word order in (3), while maintaining that devour is a transitive verb regardless of what clause type (declarative or interrogative) it happens to occur in. The resulting structure for (3) is shown in (4).

(4)

The argument just presented is based on the obligatorily transitive character of devour, but it can be extended straightforwardly to other syntactic relations - for instance, modification. Recall that the way that we have chosen to represent the modification relation is to adjoin the modifier at the intermediate projection of the modifiee. In (5a), the adverb phrase unbelievably quickly modifies the verb devour, and so it adjoins at V'. In (5b), the corresponding wh- phrase how quickly also modifies devour, 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 moving 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 (1150–1500) routinely allowed (though it did not require) overt that as the syntactic head of indirect wh- questions. The examples in (7) are from the Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English. (7c,d) show that that alternated with its silent counterpart even in the usage of individual authors (here, Chaucer).

Second, contemporary Belfast English resembles Middle English in this respect (Henry 1995:107) (this is the same variety that you were introduced to in Exercise 1.2).

Third, wh- phrases followed by that continue to be attested in the unplanned usage of speakers of modern standard English (Radford 1988:500). A few of the examples that we have collected over the years are shown in (9); the entire collection is here.

Finally, sequences of wh- phrase + overt complementizer in indirect questions occur in languages other than English. The complementizer in question is generally the counterpart of that, but the counterpart of if is attested as well.

I woass ned wer dass des  toa  hod.
I know  not who that that done has
'I don't know who did that.'

... wos  dass ma toa soin.
    what that we do  should
'... what we should do.'

... wann dass da  Xaver kumt
    when that the       comes
'... when Xaver is coming.'

... wiavui   dass a  kriagt.
    how much that he gets
'... how much he gets.'

... welk  boek (of) hij wil   lezen
    which book  if  he  wants read
'... which book he wants to read'

The facts just discussed illustrate an important difference between wh- movement on the one hand and subject raising and passive on the other. In subject raising and passive, the noun phrase undergoing movement originates in a non-case-checking position and moves to a subject position, motivated either by considerations of case-checking or by the subject requirement. By contrast, a noun phrase undergoing wh- movement moves from a case-checking position to Spec(CP), a non-case-checking position.

A related difference concerns the categorial status of constituents undergoing wh- movement. Constituents undergoing subject movement or passive are noun phrases, but ones undergoing wh- movement can be maximal projections of other categories, as we have already seen. (16) provides three further examples.

As is evident from comparing the direct questions in (17) with their indirect question counterparts, movement of the wh- phrase 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 tense morpheme, as it is in (16c), it is replaced by the corresponding form of do, as in (17c). We postpone more detailed discussion of head 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). As usual with head movement (recall the case of verb movement from V to I discussed in Chapter 6), head movement to C involves both movement and adjunction.

(18)

A typology of islands. However, contrary to what the pattern in (19) suggests, Ross 1967 argued that wh- movement is not in fact unbounded. For instance, although wh- movement out of that clause complements to verbs is completely acceptable, as shown in (19b-e), wh- movement out of that clause complements to nouns is not, as shown in (20) and (21). For clarity, the heads associated with the complement clauses are underlined in the next few examples.

Particularly striking is the contrast between (20b) and (21b) on the one hand and the essentially synonymous examples in (22) on the other.

• indirect questions,
• relative clauses,¹
• sentential subjects,
• possessive noun phrases, and
• coordinate structures.

(23) illustrates the island character of indirect questions.

			Indirect question:
(23)	a.		They have forgotten which problem they should solve by Fourier analysis.
	b.	*	Howi have they forgotten which problem they should solve ti?

Be sure to interpret How in (23b) as modifying the complement verb solve, as indicated by the trace, not the matrix verb forgotten. In other words, a possible answer to (23b) is by Fourier analysis, but not by succumbing to Alzheimer's.

In (23b), it is important to distinguish the two instances of wh- movement: that of which problem and that of how. Which problem moves from its original position as complement of solve to the Spec(CP) of the complement clause. It is this movement - grammatical on its own - that creates an island for any further wh- movement, preventing how from moving "off island" to the Spec(CP) of the matrix clause. In other words, wh- movement is grammatical within the confines of an island, but not beyond its boundaries.²

(24) and (25) illustrate the island character of relative clauses and sentential subjects.

There is some variation among English speakers with regard to the status of (29b) (Sobin 1987). But even speakers who judge (29b) to be acceptable report a Comp-trace effect in connection with movement out of indirect questions. As we have just seen, indirect questions are islands, and so long wh- movement is not completely acceptable to begin with. However, it has been observed that indirect questions introduced by whether or if tend to give rise to relatively weak island effects; in the examples in (30), this weak effect is indicated by ?*.

Analogous long subject movement is illustrated in (31), which is worse than (29b) and (30) for all speakers and thus provides evidence for the existence of a Comp-trace effect even for those speakers who accept (29b).

Wh- relative clauses

As (32) and (33) show, there is a striking parallel in English between questions and wh- relative clauses: both are introduced by wh- phrases.

(32)	a.		Who moved in next door?	(33)	a.		the people who moved in next door
	b.		Who(m) did you see?		b.		the people who(m) you saw
	c.		Where did you meet them?		c.		the place where you met them
	d.		Which do you prefer?		d.		the movie which you prefer
	e.		Whose parents did you meet?		e.		the girl whose parents you met

This parallel suggests a wh- movement analysis for relative clauses - an idea that is reinforced by the fact that wh- relative clauses exhibit the entire range of island effects, as illustrated in (34). As before, the relevant islands are underlined.

In (34c), be careful to distinguish the two instances of wh- movement: the lower one within the interviewed clause, which is grammatical and creates the relative clause island, and the higher one within the dislike clause, which is the one that causes the ungrammaticality.

(34)	a.	Noun complement:	*	the revolutionary whoi I don't believe the claim that he has met ti
	b.	Indirect question:	*	the method [ by which ]i they have forgotten which problem they should solve ti
	c.	Relative clause:	*	the revolutionary whoi I dislike the journalist who interviewed ti for CNN
	d.	Sentential subject:	*	the addiction whichi that he admitted ti nearly destroyed his career
	e.	Possessive noun phrase:	*	the girl whosei you met ti parents
	f.	Coordinate structure:	*	the dessert whichi you ordered espresso and ti
			*	the dessert whichi you ordered ti and espresso

Relative clauses also exhibit the Comp-trace effect. The examples in (35)-(38) are parallel to those in (28)-(31).

(35)	a.		the friends who(m)i they said { that, ø } they saw ti
	b.		the way whichi they said { that, ø } they would fix the leaky faucet ti
(36)	a.		the friends whoi they said ø ti saw them
	b.	*	the friends whoi they said that ti saw them
(37)	a.	?*	the friends who(m)i they worried whether they snubbed ti
	b.	?*	the way whichi they wondered if they could fix the leaky faucet ti
(38)		*	the friends whoi they worried whether ti snubbed them

The facts just reviewed follow straightforwardly if we assume that wh- relative clauses are structurally parallel to questions. The wh- relative pronoun moves to Spec(CP), and the syntactic head of the clause is a silent complementizer, just as in an indirect question. The structure of the relative clause in (33b) is given in (39a), and adjoining the relative clause so that it modifies the noun people yields the structure in (39b).

(39)

a.

b.

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- phrase that is silent.³ The structures corresponding to those in (39) are given in (41).

(41)

a.

b.

The alert reader will have noticed that that relative clauses with a gap in subject position do not exhibit the Comp-trace effect. Thus, the local wh- movement in (40a), with the structure in (42a), contrasts with the nonlocal wh- movement in (42b). In both cases, the gray font indicates the silent wh- phrase.

This contrast between local and nonlocal movement has given rise to many attempts at explanation, some of which we will review in a later chapter, but none that we know of is entirely satisfactory.

Doubly marked relative clauses

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 vernacular varieties of other languages, as shown in (44) (from the Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English) and (45).

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'

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 (= well-formed from a purely structural point of view). However, it may be that the movement of the wh- phrase and the overt complementizer are both taken as markers of clausal subordination, and perhaps a stylistic constraint has developed against redundant marking that keeps these constructions from occurring in the modern literary varieties of English and other languages.⁴

Zero relative clauses

The proper analysis of zero subject relative clauses is not entirely clear and goes beyond the scope of this textbook. On the one hand, it has been argued that such relative clauses are grammatical, but avoided for processing reasons (Bever and Langendoen 1971, especially Section 5; see also Doherty 1993). The idea is that zero subject relative clauses are liable to be misinterpreted as the predicate of the matrix clause, at least when they modify subjects, as they do in (48).⁵ On the other hand, Henry 1995 argues that zero subject relative clauses are not true relative clauses.

Notes

1. Ross 1967 treated relative clauses together with noun complement clauses, subsuming the noun phrases containing them under the rubric of complex noun phrases. Given our emphasis on the complement-adjunct distinction, we prefer to distinguish the two types of island.

2. In more precise structural terms (discussed in more detail in a later chapter), an island is a constituent dominated by some node. In (23), the node in question is the CP dominating the indirect question, but for generality, let's refer to the relevant node as the island node. Wh- movement is grammatical as long as the moved wh- phrase (the head of the movement chain) is dominated by the island node, but becomes ungrammatical once that is no longer the case.

3. For some speakers, relative clause that has developed from a complementizer into a relative pronoun. Such speakers produce a possessive form of that that is analogous to whose, as illustrated in (i).

4. It is clear that stylistic constraints of the sort that we postulate exist. For instance, stylistically "higher" contexts favor the presence of an overt complementizer in contexts where the grammar does not require one (Kroch and Small 1978).

The modern literary language apparently favors marking of subordinate clauses that is explicit yet non-redundant.

5. In the sentence-processing literature, constructions that invite misparsing are known as garden-path constructions. A classic example, involving a so-called reduced relative clause, is (i.a). The corresponding zero subject relative clause, shown in (i.b.), would include a form of the passive auxiliary be.

Exercise 11.1

You do not need to indicate the internal structure of your friend.

A. Using the xbar ch11 grammar tool, build structures for both of the direct questions in (1).

B. Using the xbar ch11 grammar tool, build structures for the complex sentences in (2).

Exercise 11.2

You do not need to indicate the internal structure of your friend.

A. Using the xbar ch11 grammar tool, build structures for the noun phrases in (1).

B. Using the same grammar tool as in (A), build structures for the noun phrases in (2)-(5).

Build structures for all examples, including the ungrammatical ones. Feel free to build a single structure for several structurally parallel examples. Indicate clearly which sentences each structure is intended to represent, and how the variants differ. Treat whose as the conventional orthographic representation of who + 's. In (3), the position of silent elements is indicated by underlining. In the other examples, the position of silent elements is not explicitly indicated.

C. Formulate a single structural generalization that accounts for the ungrammaticality of (3b,c), (4a), and (5a). The generalization is independent of the constraints introduced in the chapter.

Exercise 11.3

(1)			the people that you saw
(2)	a.				b.
			Movement				No movement

Exercise 11.4

Make up silent lexical items as needed for (1). For the longer examples, it's best to build tree fragments and describe how they fit together rather than building full structures.

For each of the following structurally ambiguous sentences, provide a paraphrase for each reading. Using the xbar ch11 grammar tool, build structures for each of the interpretations, indicating clearly which structure goes with which interpretation.

B. Why is (2c) ungrammatical?

Exercise 11.7

Using the xbar ch11 grammar tool, build the structure for the noun phrase containing the nonstandard relative clause in (1).