Syntax

Lecture 5:More On Wh-movement

Review• Wh-movement:– Moves interrogative

‘wh’-phrase – from various positions

inside the IP – to the specifier of the

CP

subject

Review• Wh-movement:– Moves interrogative

‘wh’-phrase – from various positions

inside the IP – to the specifier of the

CP

object

Review• Wh-movement:– 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

InterrogativeI 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]

• Intensifiers– Who on earth did you speak to– * the man who one earth you spoke to

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?

• It seems that the gap plays a role in interpreting the clause as a modifier:– The man [ that – met me]• A particular man of whom ‘that man met me’ is true

– The man [ that I met --]• A particular man of whom ‘I met that man’ is true

– The man [ that I met Bill]• There is no relationship between the noun and the

clause, so the clause cannot pick out a particular man

Why do wh-phrases move in relative clauses?

• We interpret the relative clause as having the modified nominal 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 rule is more complicated than this, but for now we will

ignore complications

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