1

WH-MOVEMENT: ISLANDS, BARRIERS AND SUCCESSIVE-CYCLICITY [The handout incorporates a lot of material included in David Pesetsky’s previous handouts on the topic.] 1. BACKGROUND. ISLANDS

Unlike A movement which cannot cross a finite sentence boundary, wh-movement can do so. Wh-movement is said to be unbounded: (1) a. Sam was likely _ to win b. *Sam was likely that _ won (2) a. Who do you believe [that Mary said [that Sam will visit _]] b. The person [which you believe [that Mary said [that Sam will visit_]]] c. That man [I believe [that Mary said [that Sam will visit __ ]]] Wh-movement is not entirely free though. For example, it cannot take place across subjects, adjuncts and complex NPs. Contexts which do not allow wh-movement are called islands (Ross 1967). 2. ROSS’S ISLANDS TO WH-MOVEMENT AND SUBJACENCY

2.1. Ross’s Islands

Subjects of finite clauses

(3) case 1: subject CPs (the "Sentential Subject Constraint", Ross 1967)

*Who did [[that Sue spoke to __ ] surprise me]

(4) case 2: subject DPs (the "Subject Condition", Chomsky 1973)

*Who did [ [comments about __ ] surprise me]

The Complex NP-Constraint

(5) case 1: relative clause modifiers of DPs.

a. ??The Minimalist Program, which I'd love to meet [the person [who wrote __]] b. *The Minimalist Program, which I'd love to meet [the person [who you talked to about __]

(6) case 2: CP complements to N.

2

a. John, who I regret [the fact [that I must invite __ to the party]] b. Pinochet, who the TV reported [a rumor [that the British would soon release __]] c. The Minimalist Program, which Mary offered [a proof [that Francis Bacon had written __]] Wh-islands (the wh-island condition)

(7) ?The Minimalist Program, which Bill asked [who we had spoken to __ about __]

2.2. Subjacency and successive cyclic movement

Chomsky (1973, 1977): Ross’s islands can be given a uniform account under Subjacency:1 Subjacency

(8) No rule may move an element from the position Y to the position X ……..X……[α…….[β……Y……]…..X….. where α and β are bounding nodes Bounding nodes in English: DP, CP (in Chomsky 1977). The possibility that TP is a bounding node is also considered. Later on (Chomsky 1981): DP, TP. Apparent unbounded movement proceeds through Comp, because movement is also sensitive to the PIC and the SSC. (9) SSC/PIC

2

No movement rule may involve X and Y in

…..X….[α……Y….]….X….

where α contains a subject (that c-commands Y) or is “prepositional” Escape hatches

Wh-movement targets Spec,CP. There is only one Spec,CP. (10) [Who do[TP you believe [CP_ that [TP Mary said [CP _ that [TP Sam will visit _]] 1 Chomsky (1977) assumes that subjacency is a property of cyclic rules, i.e. part of the definition of the Cycle. He suggests that no cyclic rule can move Y to X, where α and β are cyclic nodes. 2 Cases captured by the SSC: (i) *Mary was preferred [for John to seem [ _ to have read the book]] Cases captured by the PIC: (ii) a. *Mary was believed [ _ is reading a book] b. Mary was believed [ _ to be reading the book]

3

Movement of who never violates Subjacency, since it proceeds through C. Note that long distance wh-movement is allowed only under, so called, ‘bridge verbs’. Complements of non-bridge verbs are islands to extraction: (11) case 1: "manner of speaking" verbs

??Tom, who [the king whispered [that we should behead __] (12) case 2: factive verbs (worst with it)

a. ?Mary, who Sue regretted [that she had to talk to __] b. *Mary, who Sue regretted it [that she had to talk to __] Question 1: Is there a semantically coherent class of bridge verbs? Question 2: Are verbs licensing CP-recursion and ‘bridge verbs’ identical?3 In Chomsky (1977) it is suggested that rules of interpretation have to take care of the bridge condition (p.85) . 2.3. Evidence for successive cyclicity

1) West Ulster English (McCloskey 2000)

� Wh-movement cam strand all in the trace position: (13) a. What all did you give __ to the kids? b. What did you give __ all to the kids? (14) a. Who all did you send __ to the shops? b. Who did you send __ all to the shops? (15) a. Tell me what all you got __ for Christmas. b. Tell me what you got __ all for Christmas.

3 Bridge verbs (Erteschik-Shir 1973) typically include verba sentiendi et dicendi (verbs of perception (see hear) and verbs expressing speech; e.g. believe, know, and say, claim, respectively). Bridge verbs strongly correlated to class of predicates allowing matrix clause phenomena (complementizer deletion, topicalization, negative preposing) discussed, among others, in Holmberg & Platzack 1995. .The class of verbs permitting embedded V2 in the extraction-tolerant Mainland Scandinavian languages is much smaller than the class allowing extraction (cf. Vikner 1995: 70).

4

� It is important to make sure that the all is not simply free to occur anywhere. It

really does seem to stand next to the trace of the wh-word. It cannot occur in random places:

(16) *Who did he tell __ he was going to resign all. (17) a. What did you do __ all after school the day? b. *What did you do __ after school the day all? c. *What did you do __ after school all the day. � All stranding in C: (18) a. What all did he say [CP __ (that) he wanted__]? b. What did he say [CP __ (that) he wanted all __]? c. What did he say [CP all __ (that) he wanted __]? (19) a. What were you trying [CP all __to say __]? b. What did you mean [CP all __ for me to do __]? 2. Successive Inversion

Belfast English (Henry 1995) (20) a. Who did John hope [ would he see __]? b. What did Mary claim [did they steal __?] c. I wonder what did John think would he get __? d. Who did John say [did Mary claim [had John feared [would Bill attack __]? Spanish (Torrego 1984, Pesetsky & Torrego 2001) (21) a. A quién prestó Juan el diccionario? to whom lent John the dictionary b. Con quién podrá Juan ir a Nueva York? with whom will-be-able J. to go to NY c. Qué pensaba Juan [que le había dicho Pedro [que había publicado la revista]]]. what thought John that him had told Peter that had published the journal 'What did John think that Peter had told him that the journal had published?' Stylistic Inversion (Kayne and Pollock 1979) (22) a. Avec qui a prétendu Marie que sortirait Jean ? with whom claimed Mary that would leave Jean? ‘Who did Mary claim that Jean would leave with?’

5

b. Sur qui a prétendu Marie que tirerait Jean ? on whom claimed Mary that would shoot Jean? ‘Who did Mary claim that Jean would shoot at?’ compare to: (23) a. Comment sait Marie que Luc est mort ? How knows Marie that Luc is dead ‘How is it that Mary knows that Luc is dead’? b. *Comment sait Marie qu’est mort Luc? [inversion in the embedded clause is not licensed when the wh-word is extracted from the main clause] 3.Languages with wh-agreement (Haik 1990; Chung 1998; McCloskey 1990, 2002 among others). Irish

Irish has three complementizers: aL, aN, go (L = triggers 'lenition' on following word; N = triggers 'nasalization' on following word) (24) Deir siad [CP gur [TP ghoid na síogaí í ]].

say they go-PAST stole the fairies her ‘They say that the fairies stole her away.’

(25) an ghirseach [CP a [TP ghoid na síogaí __ ]] the girl aL stole the fairies ‘the girl that the fairies stole away’

(26) an ghirseach [CP ar [TP ghoid na síogaí í]] the girl aN stole the fairies her ‘the girl that the fairies stole away’

aL occurs in structures in which wh-movement has occurred. Relative clauses: [see (25)] Questions: (27) Cá fhad a bhí siad fá Bhaile Átha Cliath t ?

WH length aL be[PAST] they around Dublin ‘How long were they in Dublin?’

Clefts: (28) Ba i nDoire a dúradh a fuarthas é t.

6

COP[PAST] in Derry aL was-said aL was-found it ‘It was in Derry that it was said it was found.’

It occurs in every position through which wh-movement has taken place: (29) Cén fear aL thiteann go talamh

which man C falls to earth 'Which man falls to earth?'

(30) Cé [aL bhuail tú] ? who C struck you 'Who did you hit?'

(31) Cé aL mheas tú aL chonaic tú? who C thought you C saw you ‘Who did you think that you saw?’

(32) Cén t-úrscéal aL mheas mé aL dúirt sé aL thuig sé. which novel C thought I C said he C understood he ‘Which novel did I think he said he understood?’

(33) Níl a fhios agam cén fear a thiteann go talamh I don't know which man C falls to earth 'I don't know which man falls to earth.'

(34) Níl a fhios agam cé [a bhuail tú] I don't know who C struck you 'I don't know who you hit.'

(35) Níl a fhios agam cén t-úrscéal aL mheas mé aL dúirt sé aL thuig sé. I don't know which novel C thought I C said he C understood he ‘I don't know which novel I thought he said he understood.'

4. Intermediate copies Child English (Crain Diane Lillo-Martin 1999) (36) a. What do you think what Cookie Monster eats? (age 5;0)

b. Who do you think who Grover wants to hug? (age 4;9) c. What do you think what's in that box? (3;3)

Dutch dialects (Barbiers, Koeneman & Lekakou 2007): (37) Wie denk je wie ik gezien heb?

WHo think you who I seen have ‘Who do you think I have seen?’

5. Partial wh-movement (???) (McDaniels 1989, Horvath 1997) German

(38) Was glaubst du, mit wem er gesprochen hat?

7

what think you with whom he spoken has 'With whom do you think that he spoke?'

Partial wh-movement in German is subject to the wh-island constraint: (39) *Wasi fragt [IP sie sich [CP warumj [IP Hans tj glaubt [CP weni [IP Jakob ti gelobt hat ]]]] Hungarian

(40) Mit gondolsz, hogy kit látott János?

what.ACC you.think that who.ACC saw.3sg J.NOM ‘Who do you think that Janos saw?’ (but see McDaniels and Horvath for non-movement accounts). 2.4. Islands and Subjacency

Ross’s islands:

Subjects of finite clauses

Sentential subjects

(41) *Who did [TP [DP [CP __ [ that Sue spoke to __ ] surprise me] -Movement crosses a CP and a DP. Crucial assumption: sentential subjects are dominated by a DP node. Subject DPs (42) *Who did [TP [DP comments about __ ] surprise me] -Subjacency can’t account for this contrast unless TP is added to the bounding nodes. Then movement crosses a DP and a TP. Complication: movement across a DP is not ill-formed in English: (43) a. Who did [TP he find [DP a picture of _ ] ? b. What books did [TP he write [DP reviews of _] ? Chomsky (1977: 114) proposes that these involve extraposition of the PP: (44) a. He saw [DP a picture [PP of John ]] b. He saw [DP a picture t] [PP of John ]

8

Wh-movement targets the extraposed PP, and Subjacency is not violated. The Complex NP-Constraint

(45) case 1: relative clause modifiers of DPs.

a. ??The Minimalist Program, which [TPI'd love to meet [DPthe person [CPwho [TP wrote __]] Movement crosses CP, DP (4 or 3 bounding nodes). (46) case 2: CP complements to N.

a. John, who [TPI regret [DP the fact [[CP _ that I must invite __ to the party]] Movement crosses CP and DP. Wh-islands (the wh-island condition)

(47) ?The Minimalist Program, which [TP Bill asked [CP who [TP we had spoken to __ about __]

If TP is not a bounding node: movement violates the SSC and the PIC. If TP is a bounding node: Spec,CP is a crucial stopping off place for movement out of even a complement CP, since otherwise movement would cross two TPs. If C allows only one specifier, movement is impossible from a clause whose Spec,CP is occupied by a distinct wh-phrase. Movement of which crosses two TPs. [(i) who moves to embedded COMP, (ii) which

moves to matrix COMP in one step as it cannot stop in embedded COMP, occupied by who]

The strict cycle is crucial. (48) Strict Cycle Condition (Chomsky 1973: 243)

No rule can apply to a domain dominated by a cyclic node A in such a way as to affect solely a proper subdomain of A dominated by a node B which is also cyclic node

The strict cycle condition rules out an alternative derivation in which (i) which moves to embedded COMP, (ii) which moves to matrix COMP and (iii) who moves to embedded COMP. (step (iii) violates the Strict Cycle Condition).

2.5. The Italian Parameter

9

Rizzi (1982): In Italian, the Wh Island Condition can be freely violated. Analysis:

� In Italian, movement to COMP is not constrained by the SSC and the TSC � CP is (always) a bounding node. (the idea that Subjacency is parametrized, i.e. in English TP is a bounding node while in Italian CP is a bounding node is suggested in fn 25, Rizzi 1982: 73). Consequently, limited violations of the wh-island condition are possible. Relevant configurations: extraction from: 1. simple embedded question (49) Tuo fratetello, [CP a cui mi domando [CP che storie abbiano raccontato _ ] ] Your brother, to whom I wonder which stories they told _ era molto preoccupato was very troubled The sentence is grammatical because only one bounding node (CP) is crossed. 2. embedded declarative embedding a question (50) Il mio primo libro, [CP che credo [CPche tu sappia [CP a chi ho dedicato My first book [which I believe [that you know [to whom I dedicated __]]] mi è sempre stato molto caro has always been very dear to me The sentence is well-formed because che moves to COMP of the embedded declarative crossing CP and from there it moves to the COMP of the relative clause without crossing any bounding node. 3. embedded question embedding a declarative (51) *Il mio primo libro, [C3P che so [C2P a chi credi [C1P che abbia dedicato _ _] My first book which I know to whom you believe that I dedicated mi è sempre stato molto caro has always been very dear to me The sentence is illformed because (i) the relative pronoun moves to COMP1 at the first cycle, (ii) the interrogative pronoun moves to COMP2 at the second cycle and (iii) the relative pronoun moves to COMP3 at the third cycle moving across 2 CPs, in violation of Subjacency.

10

4. embedded question embedding a question

(52) *Questo incarico, [C3P che non so proprio [C2P chi possa avere indovinato This task which I really don’t know who might have guessed [C1Pa chi affiderò ]]], mi sta creando un sacco di grattacapi to whom I will entrust is getting me into trouble Cycle 1: movement of the interrogative pronoun to COMP1 Cycle 2: movement of the interrogative pronoun to COMP2 Cycle 3: movement of the relative pronoun to COMP 3 skipping C1P and C2P, violating Subjacency 2.6. Extending the scope of wh-movement : On Wh-Movement [material below entirely taken from David Pesetsky’s “On Wh-movement” handout] On wh-movement

Two movement rules

(53) a. Move NP b. Move wh-phrase

(54) The rule of wh-movement has the following characteristics:

a. it leaves a gap b. where there is a bridge, there is an apparent violation of Subjacency, PIC,

and SSC c. it observes CNPC d. it observes wh-island constraints Property (a) follows from the assumption that wh-movement moves a phrase. Properties (c) and (d) follow from the assumption that wh-movement is subject to Subjacency, PIC and SSC. Property (b) follows from the assumption that wh-movement is permitted COMP to COMP under bridge verbs. (55) Subjacency: No rule may move an element from the position Y to the position X ……..X……[α…….[β……Y……]…..X….. where α and β are cyclic nodes where “rule” is “cyclic movement rule”4 4 Interpretive rules (reciprocal rule, bound anaphora, disjoint reference (i.e. Principle B) do not obey subjacency:

11

He assumes that NP and S’ are bounding nodes. Later on he adds S to the bounding nodes (to capture the Subject Condition). (56) SSC/PIC

5

No movement rule may involve X and Y in

…..X….[α……Y….]….X….

where α contains a subject (that c-commands Y) or is “prepositional” (57) The COMP escape hatch

…where Y is not in COMP of α Stipulation: Movement to COMP is exempt of the SSC and the PIC (58) The bridge condition

wh-extraction is lexically governed. It is not permitted in the following contexts: (59) a. *what did John complain that he had to do this evening? b. *what did John quip that Mary wore c. ?who did he murmur that John saw? Goal of the paper

“Where we find the configuration X in some system of data, can we explain it on the assumption that the configuration results from wh-movement”? Constructions qualifying as wh-movement according to the criteria (2), (6): Comparatives (comparative deletion)

(60) Overt wh-word may show up

a. John is taller than (what) Mary is. b. John is taller than (what) Mary told us that Bill is. [(51)]

(i) we want very much [S’ for [NP pictures of each other] to be on sale ] (ii) the men expected [S’ that [NP pictures of each other] will be on sale] Postcyclic movement rules (such as French clitic movement) need not meet the condition of subjacency. 5 Cases captured by the SSC: (i) *Mary was preferred [for John to seem [ _ to have read the book]] Cases captured by the PIC: (ii) a. *Mary was believed [ _ is reading a book] b. Mary was believed [ _ to be reading the book]

12

(61) Shows bridge/non-bridge and other island contrasts

a. Mary isn 't the same as [ she was five __ years ago ] b. Mary isn't the same as [ John believes [ that Bill claimed [ that she was __ five years ago] ] 1 c. *Mary isn't the same as [John believes [ Bill's claim [ that she was __ five years ago ] ] ] d. *Mary isn 't the same as [ I wonder [ whether she was __ five years ago] ]

(62) Strong crossover in comparatives (Bresnan 1975)

a. More studentsi flunked than __ thought theyi would flunk. b. *More studentsi flunked than theyi thought __ would flunk.

Analysis:

More students flunked than [wh-many students [ .... gap...]] Topicalization

Topicalization shows bridge/non-bridge and other island contrasts

(63) a. This book, I really like. b. This book, I asked Bill to get his students to read. c. *This book, I accept the argument that John should read. d. *This book, I wonder who read.

(64) Some Phrase Structure rules

a. S'' -> TOP S' b. S' -> COMP S c. S' -> COMP S"

• Topic recursion allowed by rules (a) and (c). Clefts

(65) Cleft sentences show bridge/non-bridge and other island contrasts

a. It is this book that I really like. b. It is this book that I asked Bill to get his students to read. c. *It is this book that I accept the argument that John should read d. *It is this book that I wonder who read

(66) Analysis of clefts:

It is S". Stipulation: (i) the S' must show wh-movement;

13

(ii) COMP (for some speakers) must not become "terminally null" (67) Pseudo-clefts

a. This book is what I really like. b. This book is what I asked Bill to get his students to read. etc.

(68) Analysis of pseudo-clefts

NP is S' tough constructions

(69) a. It is easy (for us) to please John b. John is easy (for us) to please. • Movement or deletion? Where does the subject get its θ-role from? (70) θ-role from downstairs?

*John is easy to please Mary. (71) Movement?

a. %Close tabs are easy (for us) to keep on Bill. b. %Headway is easy (for us) to make in this car.

(72) Tough constructions show bridge/non-bridge and other island contrasts

a. John is easy (for us) to please t b. (i) John is easy (for us) to convince Bill to do business with t (ii) John is easy (for us) to convince Bill to arrange for Mary to meet t c. John is easy (for us) to convince Bill that he should meet t d. John is easy (for us) to convince Bill to tell Mary that Tom should meet t e. (i) *John is easy (for us) to convince Bill of the need for him to meet (ii) *John is easy (for us) to describe to Bill a plan to assassinate t f. (i) *what2 is John fun (for us) [(who1 ) to give t2 to t1 ] (ii) *who2 are the presents fun (for us) [(which1} to give t1 to t2] (iii) *[ to whom]2 are the presents fun (for us) [ (which1) to give t1 t2] "In short, the basic properties of easy-to-please constructions follow directly from the assumptions we have already made, assuming that here too wh-movement is crucially involved. The latter assumption is particularly natural in this case, since we have analogous forms in which the wh-phrase may directly appear...

14

(73) John is an easy person to please. (74) a. this is an easy violin on which to play sonatas b. this is a pleasant room in which to work "Whatever the correct analysis of these structures may be, it seems clear that they involve, at some level, a phrase such as (75), as an adjectival modifier: (75) a. easy - on which to play sonatas ( violin) b. pleasant - in which to work ( room) 3. HUANG’S (1982) CONDITION ON EXTRACTION DOMAINS

(76) CED

A phrase A may be extracted out of a domain B only if B is properly governed

Facts subsumed under CED (Huang 1982 drawing on Kayne 1981): Subject-Object asymmetries in extraction Adjunct – Object asymmetries in extraction Generalizing: Non-complement (subject, adjunct) – complement (object) asymmetries in extraction. Illustrating:

Subjects: Extraction from subjects illformed / extraction from objects wellformed: case 1: the subject condition

(77) a. *Who did [DP pictures of _] please you? b. Who did you see [DP pictures of _] case 2: subject CPs (the "Sentential Subject Constraint", Ross 1967)

(78) *John, who [ [that Sue spoke to __ ] surprises me] case 3: subject PPs (in locative inversion)

(79) *the room, which [ [in the middle of __ ] sat a frog] Adjuncts case 1: adjuncts in CP/TP/VP

15

(80) a. ??The Minimalist Program, which [ Mary left [before she could finish __] b. ??The Minimalist Program, which [ Mary bought [so that she could read __ on

the plane] c. *What did John arrive yesterday [sad about _]? d. * Who did John come back [before I had a chance to talk to _]? case 2: adjuncts in DPs

(81) a. *The Minimalist Program, which I regret [your departure [before you could finish __]] b. *The Minimalist Program, which we witnessed [a purchase [so that someone could read on the plane]] c. *Which table do you like [the books on _]? vs. (82) Which city did you witness [the destruction of _]? case 3: relative clause modifiers of DPs.

(83) a. ??The Minimalist Program, which I'd love to meet [the person [who wrote __]] b. *The Minimalist Program, which I'd love to meet [the person [who you talked to about __] c. *Who do you like [books [that criticize _ ]?

Notes: � This does not include the wh-island condition. � This presumes that extraction from a complement CP does not require an intermediate

landing site in Spec,CP.

4. SUBJACENCY ([CP OR TP] + DP) VS. CED:

1. The subjacency idea:

a. Do not cross two among CP/TP or DP in a single move. Therefore, LD movement must stop in available landing sites. Landing site for A-bar movement is SPEC,CP.

b. This does not get complement/non-complement asymmetry.

2. The CED idea:

a. Do not cross a non-complement node in a move. b. This does not get the wh-island condition.

3. Overlaps:

a. Rel clauses: subjacency and CED b. subject DPs: subjacency and CED

16

4. Non-overlaps:

a. subject sentences: only CED (unless it is stipulated that CP is dominated by DP)

b. adjunct CPs: only CED c. fact-that islands: only subjacency

d. wh islands: only subjacency

5. THE TRADITIONAL VIEW: SUBJACENCY AND CED AFFECT OVERT MOVEMENT

1. Evidence that wh-islands do not apply at LF (Baker 1970, discussed in Huang 1982: 495): (84) a. *What do you remember where I bought _? b. Who remembered where we bought what? 2. Evidence that the Sentential Subject Constraint does not apply at LF (Huang 1982: 495-496): (85) a. *Who did he say that [for Bill to marry _] was a surprise? b. ?Who said that [for Bill to marry who] was a surprise? Note:

No significant contrast between the following: (86) a. *Who did [that Bill married _] surprise you? b. *Who said that [that Bill married who] surprised you? The ungrammaticality of (70b) is linked to the ungrammaticality of (73), which does not display movement: (87) *He said that that Bill married Ann was a surprise 3. Evidence that the Subject Condition does not apply at LF (Huang 1982: 497): (88) a. *Who do you think that [pictures of _] would please John? b. Who thinks that [pictures of who] would please John? 4. Evidence that the bridge vs. non-bridge distinction does not apply at LF (p.497): (89) a. ??Who did John whisper that he saw _? b. Who whispered that he saw who?

17

5. Evidence that the Adjunct Condition does not apply at LF (p. 497, 499, 503): (90) a. *Who did John come back [before I had a chance to talk to_]? b. Who came back [before I had a chance to talk to whom]? (91) a. *Which class did you fall asleep [during _]? b. Who fell asleep [during which class]? (92) a. *Which table do you like [the books on_]? b. Who likes [the books on which table _]? (93) a. *Who did Mary cry [after John hit _]? b. Who cried [after John hit who]? 6. Evidence that the Complex NP Constraint does not apply at LF (p. 492): (94) a. *In order to foil this plot, we must find out which senator the agent has [DP buts [CP that are trained to kill _] b. In order to foil this plot, we must find out which agent has [DP buts [CP that are trained to kill which senator] (95) a. *Who do you like [DP books [CP that criticize _]?

b. Who likes [DP books [CP that criticize who]?

6. The ECP: ECP phenomena

1. That-t effects

Original motivation for the ECP (empty category principle): “that-trace” effects: (96) a. *Who do you think [that [_ saw John]? b. Who do you think [that [John saw _] ? (97) a. *Who do you wonder [how [_ bought the book]? b. ??What did you wonder [how [he bought t] Subjacency had nothing to say about this asymmetry (the number of nodes crossed in subject movement and object movement are exactly the same). (98) ECP

A (non-pronominal) empty category must be properly governed Working definition of the ECP (in Hornstein and Weinberg 1995: 246) (99) An empty category must be: (a) Lexically/head governed: governed by a lexical X0, or (b) Antecedent governed: bound by (coindexed with and c-commanded by) a category that governs it

18

Definition of government (Aoun and Sportiche 1981): (100) A governs B iff for all X, X a maximal projection, X dominates A iff X dominates

B The that-t effect explained: -Object trace is governed by V, a lexical governor -Subject trace is not lexically governed, hence it must be antecedent governed. The intermediate trace does not c-command the subject trace; c-command is satisfied when the complementizer is empty. Cases that have been brought under the ECP 2. Personne in French

Kayne (1981): Subject-object asymmetries also hold at LF: (101) a. *Je n’ai exige que personne soit arrête I didn’t require that anybody arrested b. Je n’ai exige que la police arête personne I didn’t require that the police arrest anybody Kayne: at LF personne raises to the clause where ne indicates scope leaving a trace. Subject trace is not properly governed. Object trace is: (102) a. * [TP personne [TP je n’ai exige [CP _ que [TP t soit arrête]]]] b. [TP personne [TP je n’ai exige [CP _ que [TP la police arrête t]]]] 3. Superiority (Aoun, Hornstein and Sportiche (1981), Chomsky (1981) Kayne (1983): (103) a. *Who remembers why who bought the book? b. Who remembers why we bought what? (104) a. *Whoj whoi [ti remembers [whyk [ tj bought the book tk] problem: tj not properly governed b. Whatj whoi [ti remembers [whyk [ we [bought tj tk ]] ok: tj properly governed (105) a. I don’t recall who bought what? b. *I don’t recall what who bought? c. *I don’t recall who left why? d. *I don’t recall why who left? e. *I don’t recall what Bill sang why? f. I don’t recall why Bill sand what?

19

The idea is that S-structure movement of adjuncts and subjects brings them to a position where they can properly govern their trace (they can c-command it) but LF movement of adjuncts and subjects leads them to a position where they can’t antecedent govern their trace (they can’t c-command it). On the other hand, LF movement of object wh-phrases is ok because their trace is properly governed (lexically head governed). 4. Huang’s observation: Adjunct extraction out of wh-islands leads to severe violations. They can fall under the ECP, i.e. they behave similarly to extractions of subjects out of wh-islands: The subject cases (see above, see Huang, p. 562):

(106) a. *Whoi did you wonder whyj ti came tj b. *Whoi did you wonder howj ti came tj c. *Whoi did you wonder wherej ti worked tj d. *Whoi did you wonder whenj ti will come tj The adjunct cases (see Huang, p. 537): (107) a. *Whyi did you wonder whatj I bought tj ti

b. *Howi did you wonder whatj I bought tj ti c. *Wherei did you wonder whatj I bought tj ti

d. *Wheni did you wonder whatj I bought tj ti vs. e. ??Whati did you wonder whyj I bought ti tj 5. Wh-in-situ. Multiple Wh-questions involving LF movement of an adjunct or a subject are ill-formed, while when the object undergoes movement the sentence is wellformed (cases discussed in Hornstein and Weinberg, p. 248): (108) a. Who believes that John dropped what? b. *Who believes that what fell? c. *Who believes that John dropped the ball why? Note: the data are controversial (see fn 6 in Hornstein and Weinberg. Lasnik and Saito claim that (108b) is good with who instead of what. For alternative judgments see Aoun, Hornstein and Sportiche (1981), Kayne (1983), Aoun, Hornstein, Lightfoot and Weinberg (1987). 6. Wh-in-situ in French. Discussed in Hornstein and Weinberg (1995: 249). But data are controversial: (109) a. Jean a dit que Pierre a vu qui Jean said that Pierre saw who

20

b. *Jean a dit que qui est venu Jean said that who came

7. Subjacency, CED, ECP Conceptually, CED and ECP are close, as they require reference to proper government. CED and ECP differ in that CED does not apply at LF, unlike ECP. In this respect, CED patterns with Subjacency.

8. Barriers [numbering starts from 1 again…] Goal: an attempt to unify bounding (Subjacency, a subcase of which is CED) and government(ECP) through the notion of barrier.

• General idea: certain categories in certain configurations are barriers to government and barriers to movement. One barrier suffices to block government. More than one barriers block movement.

Assumptions

1. Phrase structure: X’ theory is generalized to non-lexical categories, i.e. to CP and IP 2. Movement:

Case1. Substitution:

There is no movement to complement position Only heads can move to head positions Only XPs can move to specifier positions Only heads and XPs are visible to Move α NB: he takes head movement to be substitution. He discusses V-movement to C (p. 6 in V-2 environments) as an instance of head movement as substitution. Case 2. Adjunction:

Assumption 1. No adjunction to IP. p. 5: “Another possibility is that wh-phrases have

clausal scope and cannot be adjoined to IP; hence, they must move to the position of

specifier of CP[…]. There is some reason to believe that this stronger condition is

required, and I will henceforth assume it.6As a result, although the rule of Quantifier

raising QR may involve adjunction to IP, this operation is barred for operators of the wh-

type.”

6 In fn. 6 he says that the reason is the ungrammaticality of “*who thinks that who, I like” which according to Lasnik (work in progress back then, Lasnik and Saito 1992??) involves adjunction to IP. [doesn’t this predict that locality should work differently in topicalization?].

21

Assumption 2. No adjunction to argument NPs and CPs.

(1) Adjunction is possible only to a maximal projection that is a non-argument. (p.6, principle 6). Consequence: Adjunction to VP is allowed. Assumption 3. an adjoined category is not dominated by the XP to which it adjoins:

p. 7: (2) [β α [β ….]] (3) α is dominated by β only if it is dominated by every segment of β 3. Government

(4) α governs β iff α m-commands β and there is no γ, γ a barrier for β, such that γ excludes α

(5) α m-commands β iff α does not dominate β and every γ (XP) that dominatesα

dominates β (6) α excludes β if no segment of α dominates β The system

1. Two notions of barrier: a) XP barriers: (7) …α…[γ….β…..] γ is an XP with the relevant properties. This type of barrier is relevant for movement (Subjacency/ CED) and for government (ECP). b) Minimality barriers: (8) ….α….[γ’…..γ0…..β….]

22

γ’ is a barrier even though it is not an XP because it dominates a head γ0 which is a closer governor of β than α. This type of barrier (which reduces ambiguity of government) is relevant only for government (ECP). 2. Defining XP-barriers Neither CP not IP are barriers for government. Motivation: IP is not a barrier: ECM CP is not a barrier: No (e.g. Complementizer deletion depends on government from outside, Stowell 1981). Together, CP and IP are barriers, e.g. PRO in spec,IP is ungoverned in a structure like [CP [IP PRO…..]] Definitions

Barrier

(9) γ is a barrier for β iff (a) or (b) a. γ immediately dominates δ, δ a BC for β b. γ is a BC for β, γ ≠ IP

Blocking Category (BC)

(10) γ is a BC for β iff γ is not L-marked and γ dominates β

L-marking

(11) α L-marks β iff α is a lexical category that θ-governs β θ-government

(12) α θ-governs β iff α is a zero-level category that θ-marks β, and α, β are sisters 3. ECP

(13) A non-pronominal empty category must be properly governed (14) α properly governs β iff α θ-governs or antecedent-governs β Mechanism (from Lasnik and Saito 1984): γ-marking. If α properly governs β it assigns the feature [+γ] to it. If α does not properly govern β it assigns the feature [-γ] to it. γ-marking is permanent. γ-marking takes place at S-structure for elements of chains

23

terminating in an A position and at LF for elements in chains terminating in an A’ position. 4. Subjacency

5. Island violations

Outline: How the system works ECP, CED and Subjacency Some applications (Stowell 1988?) 8. Recent categorization of facts

What happens to Subjacency, CED, ECP and to the overt-covert distinction? APPENDIX

On wh-movement

Two movement rules

(1) a. Move NP b. Move wh-phrase

24

(2) The rule of wh-movement has the following characteristics:

a. it leaves a gap b. where there is a bridge, there is an apparent violation of Subjacency, PIC,

and SSC c. it observes CNPC d. it observes wh-island constraints Property (a) follows from the assumption that wh-movement moves a phrase. Properties (c) and (d) follow from the assumption that wh-movement is subject to Subjacency, PIC and SSC. Property (b) follows from the assumption that wh-movement is permitted COMP to COMP under bridge verbs. (3) Subjacency: No rule may move an element from the position Y to the position X ……..X……[α…….[β……Y……]…..X….. where α and β are cyclic nodes where “rule” is “cyclic movement rule”7 He assumes that NP and S’ are bounding nodes. Later on he adds S to the bounding nodes (to capture the Subject Condition). (4) SSC/PIC

8

No movement rule may involve X and Y in

…..X….[α……Y….]….X….

where α contains a subject (that c-commands Y) or is “prepositional” (5) The COMP escape hatch

…where Y is not in COMP of α Stipulation: Movement to COMP is exempt of the SSC and the PIC

7 Interpretive rules (reciprocal rule, bound anaphora, disjoint reference (i.e. Principle B) do not obey subjacency: (i) we want very much [S’ for [NP pictures of each other] to be on sale ] (ii) the men expected [S’ that [NP pictures of each other] will be on sale] Postcyclic movement rules (such as French clitic movement) need not meet the condition of subjacency. 8 Cases captured by the SSC: (i) *Mary was preferred [for John to seem [ _ to have read the book]] Cases captured by the PIC: (ii) a. *Mary was believed [ _ is reading a book] b. Mary was believed [ _ to be reading the book]

25

(6) The bridge condition

wh-extraction is lexically governed. It is not permitted in the following contexts: (7) a. *what did John complain that he had to do this evening? b. *what did John quip that Mary wore c. ?who did he murmur that John saw? Goal of the paper

“Where we find the configuration X in some system of data, can we explain it on the assumption that the configuration results from wh-movement”? Constructions qualifying as wh-movement according to the criteria (2), (6): Comparatives (comparative deletion) Topicalization Clefts Indirect Questions and Relative Clauses: Finite/ non-finite Degree clauses Tough constructions [see David Pesetsky’s “On Wh-movement” handout]