Syntax

1. Syntax Lecture 5: More On Wh-movement

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

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

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

5. 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 --] * I think [CP who he said [CP he met --]]

6. 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

7. Echo questions • Echo questions do not seem to involve wh-movement: • He said what • They clearly differ in meaning from wh-questions • Syntactically, they are not questions: • * I asked he said what • In fact, they are more like exclamatives: • He said what, I exclaimed!

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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]

14. 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

15. Null wh-phrases • So how can we account for the gap in the relative clause? • One possible answer is that 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]

16. 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 --]

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 3 kinds of relative clause • Restrictive relative clause • The man [ (who/that) I met] • As opposed to all the other men that I didn’t • Non-restrictive relative clause • My mother, [ who (*that) you know] • * as opposed to all my other mothers!! • Headless relative clause • [ Whoever you meet] will be worth talking to

21. 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]

22. 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 --] ...

23. 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 • The third X-bar rule introduces Adjuncts • Xn  Xn, YP • Some aspects of this rule need not concern us at the moment • What is important is that the mother of the adjunct is the same as its sister (Xn = X0, X1 or X2)

24. The third X-bar rule • This produces the following kinds of structures: • These structures are recursive, meaning that they can keep on repeating

25. The third X-bar rule • This produces the following kinds of structures: • These structures are recursive, meaning that they can keep on repeating • Every time they repeat, a new adjunct is added

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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