Wh-movement Summary

We began by arguing that main-clause wh-questions are CPs headed by a C constituent which attracts a tensed auxiliary to move to C via head movement and a wh-expression to move into spec-CP via wh-movement. We argued that a moved wh-expression leaves behind a null copy of itself at its extraction site (i.e. in the position out of which it is extracted/moved); we presented arguments to this effect from wanna-contraction, preposition-copying, wh-copying, split spellout and operator-variable binding; and we noted that in earlier work, copies were analyzed as traces. We outlined an analysis of complement-clause wh-questions, under which C carries [WH] and [EPP] features which attract a wh-expression c-commanded by C to move to spec-CP. We noted that in consequence of the Attract Closest Principle, C in multiple wh-questions attracts movement of the closest wh-expression which it c-commands. We looked at main-clause wh-questions, arguing that C in such cases carries not only [WH, EPP] features but also a [TNS] feature. We asked why the [TNS] feature of C attracts movement of T rather than TP, and concluded that movement of TP is ruled out by a Remerger Constraint which bars a head from being merged with the same constituent more than once; we argued that movement of an inverted auxiliary from T to C rather than to spec-CP is the consequence of a Constituent Structure Constraint to the effect that only a head can occupy a head position, and only a maximal projection can occupy a specifier position. We also asked why the [WH] feature of C attracts movement of a whMAX (i.e. a maximal projection containing a wh-word) rather than a minimal projection, and concluded that this is because the [EPP] feature of C requires C to project a specifier, and the Constituent Structure Constraint will only allow a maximal projection to occupy a specifier position. We looked briefly at an alternative account developed by Chomsky under which the [TNS] feature of C is an affixal feature which triggers head movement in the PF component, whereas the [WH] feature of C is a syntactic feature which triggers movement of a whMAX to spec-CP. We discussed the syntax of wh-subject questions like Who called the police? which contain a wh-word which is the subject of the interrogative clause. We noted that such questions do not involve auxiliary inversion, and outlined Pesetsky and Torrego’s account under which the relevant clauses are CPs, with the [WH] and [TNS] features of C jointly attracting the wh-subject to move from spec-TP to spec-CP (the relevant wh-subject being assumed to carry a copy of the tense feature carried by T). We noted that although the [WH, EPP] features of C (in simple cases) attract the closest max-imal projection with a wh-head to move to spec-CP in English, wh-movement in formal styles of English may result in a preposition being pied-piped along with the wh-expression. We outlined a feature-copying account under which (in formal but not informal styles of English) a transitive preposition inherits a wh-feature carried by its complement, with the result that the preposition itself carries a [WH] feature, and its containing PP thereby becomes the closest whMAX to C (and hence moves to spec-CP). We noted, however, that this account runs into problems in relation to structures which involve movement of a wh-phrase in which the wh-word is the specifier rather than the head of the phrase. We outlined Chomsky’s alternative convergence account under which a C with a [WH] feature attracts the smallest constituent containing a wh-word which will lead to convergence (i.e. which will ensure a grammatical outcome). We looked briefly at the syntax of yes–no questions, arguing that these contain a null question operator (a null counterpart of whether) in spec-CP. We discussed the syntax of exclamative clauses, arguing that these are CPs in which the head C constituent carries [WH, EPP] features, but no [TNS] feature: hence, exclamative clauses involve wh-movement without auxiliary inversion. We looked at the derivation of relative clauses, arguing that this involves movement of a wh-expression containing a relative pronoun to spec-CP, with a relative pronoun receiving a null spellout when occupying spec-CP – optionally in finite clauses, obligatorily in infinitival clauses. We looked at that-relatives, arguing that these too involve movement of a wh-pronoun to spec-CP, with the wh-pronoun obligatorily receiving a null spellout in consequence of the Multiply Filled COMP Filter. We explored typological similarities between null relative pronouns and other types of null pronoun (including null pro and PRO subjects and null topics).

Overall, the main point been to look at the syntax of preposed (interrogative, exclamative and relative) wh-expressions. All three types of expression end up (via movement) in an A-bar position – i.e. a specifier position which can be occupied by either an argument or an adjunct. Because it moves wh-expressions into spec-CP and spec-CP is an A-bar position, wh-movement can be regarded as a particular instance of a more general A-bar movement operation. (As should be obvious, the term A-bar here is used in an entirely different manner from the way we employed it when we claimed that in an adjectival phrase like very proud of him, the string proud of him is an A-bar constituent and thus an intermediate projection of the adjective proud.)