Lecture 6: More On Wh-movement Syntax Lecture 6: More On Wh-movement

Review Wh-movement: subject Moves interrogative ‘wh’-phrase from various positions inside the IP to the specifier of the CP subject

Review Wh-movement: object Moves interrogative ‘wh’-phrase from various positions inside the IP to the specifier of the CP object

Review Wh-movement: modifier Moves interrogative ‘wh’-phrase from various positions inside the IP to the specifier of the CP modifier

Why do wh-phrases move? A clause is not interpreted as interrogative because it contains a wh-phrase, but because it has a wh-phrase in specifier of CP Interrogative I asked [CP who he met --] I asked [CP who he thought [CP he met --]] Declarative * I think [CP who he met --]

Why do wh-phrases move? So the reason a wh-phrase moves to the specifier of CP is semantic: A CP with a wh-phrase in its specifier is interrogative A CP with no wh-phrase in its specifier (and no interrogative head) is declarative

Declarative clauses with wh-movement Compare the following: I asked [CP who he met --] the man [CP who he met --] The first involves an interrogative CP, but the second has a CP which modifies a noun. This CP is not interrogative We call this kind of clause a Relative Clause Defn. Relative Clause A clause used to modify a noun

Similarities between relative and interrogative clauses They both involve the same movement A wh-phrase moves from various positions inside the IP to the specifier of CP [who he met --] [who – met him] [where he met him --] I asked

Similarities between relative and interrogative clauses They both involve the same movement A wh-phrase moves from various positions inside the IP to the specifier of CP [who he met --] [who – met him] the man

Similarities between relative and interrogative clauses They both involve the same movement A wh-phrase moves from various positions inside the IP to the specifier of CP [who he met --] [who – met him] [where he met him --] the place

Differences between relative and interrogative clauses Relative clauses aren’t questions Not exactly the same wh-phrases can be used in both: I wonder [ what he said] * the thing [ what he said]

Differences between relative and interrogative clauses Not all relative clauses seem to involve wh-movement: A man [CP that met him] (‘that relative’) A man [CP I met] (‘zero relative’) No wh-interrogative can be like this: * I asked [CP that met him] * I wonder [CP I met]

Null wh-phrases A relative clause without a wh-phrase still contains a gap: the man [ I spoke to --] * the man [ I spoke to him] In interrogatives, we accounted for the gap by the movement: The wh-phrase starts off in a position inside the IP and so nothing else can fill it The wh-phrase then moves to another position leaving its original position empty

Null wh-phrases So how can we account for the gap in the relative clause? Perhaps all relative clauses involve wh-movement, but the wh-phrase isn’t always pronounced This would be similar to the complementiser I think [CP that he left] I think [CP e he left]

Null wh-phrases This provides an interesting description of the types of relative clause: The man [CP who that I met --] (wh-relative) The man [CP who that I met --] (that relative) The man [CP who that I met --] (zero relative) For some reason, only one element in CP can be overt: * The man [who that I met --]

Why do wh-phrases move in relative clauses? It seems that wh-movement is obligatory in relative clauses (even if the wh-phrase is unpronounced) But this cannot be for the same reason as in interrogatives i.e. To make the clause interrogative A clause without a gap cannot function as a relative clause * The man that I met him

Why do wh-phrases move in relative clauses? We interpret the relative clause as having the modified noun in the position of the gap Thus the function of the movement is to allow the relative clause to be interpreted as a modifier Hence, both relative clauses and wh-interrogatives have wh-movements which are motivated by interpretation

The position of the relative clause Relative clauses modify nouns, so they are part of the NP (inside DP) They follow the noun, but they are not complements of the noun: Complements are selected by heads The idea [that he was mad] The glass [of wine] * the glass [that he was mad] * the idea [that he was mad] [that I should be president]

The position of the relative clause But relative clauses go with any noun and are unrestricted The idea [ that he had --] The glass [ that he had --] The idea [that he had --] [that – was great] [that he had to tell us about --] ...

The third X-bar rule So far we have concentrated on complements and specifiers introduced by XP  YP X1 = specifier rule X1  X YP = complement rule But obviously we need another kind of element which accompanies heads A third X-bar rule introduces Adjuncts XP  XP YP YP is the adjunct

The third X-bar rule This produces the following kinds of structures: Adjunct

The restrictive relative adjoins lower than the determiner The ‘one’ test ‘one’ replaces NPs, not DPs” [DP This [NP lecturer of linguistics]] is uglier than that one One = ‘lecturer of linguistics’ Examples The man who met me was taller than the previous one One = man who met me = NP The man who met me was taller than the one who met you One = man = NP

The restrictive relative adjoins to the NP ‘one’ can replace this NP the one that met me or it can replace this NP the one

Conclusions Wh-movement has semantic motivation Interrogative wh-phrases move to make sentences interrogative Relative wh-phrases move to make sentences modifiers All relative clauses involve wh-movement But sometimes the wh-phrase is unpronounced Relative clauses are adjuncts Restrictive relative clauses adjoin to NP