150 likes | 265 Views
Bounding Theory. Constraints on Wh-movement. can get out of a CP. can’t get out of an NP. Islands are surrounded by water: you can’t get off of (out of) them. Wh-movement can’t get out of an island. NP islands. What i did Bill claim [ CP that he read t i ?]
E N D
Bounding Theory Constraints on Wh-movement
can get out of a CP can’t get out of an NP Islands are surrounded by water: you can’t get off of (out of) them. Wh-movement can’t get out of an island NP islands Whati did Bill claim [CP that he read ti?] *What did Bill make [NP the claim [CP that he read ti ?]] NPs are islands
Wh-islands I wonder [CP whati [TP John bought ti with the $20 bill]] [CP Howi do [TP you think [CP John bought the sweater ti ? ]]] *[CP Howk do [TP you wonder [CP whati [TP John bought ti tk]]]]
Wh-islands I wonder [CP whati [TP John kissed ti?]] Whoj did you think [CP [TP tj kissed the gorilla?]] *Whok did you wonder [CP whati [TP tk kissed ti ?]]
Wh-islands • A CP with a wh-word in its specifier is an island for the movement of another wh-word.
How do we account for the island phenomena? • The theory that constrains Wh-movement is called Bounding Theory • Bounding theory ≠ Binding Theory
Subjacency • Bounding Node: NP or TP • The Subjacency Condition: • Don’t cross TWO bounding nodes • (Only nodes that dominate the wh-word count!)
Subjacency: You can’t cross TWO bounding nodes. Cycles [CP What do [IP you think [CP [IP Bill loves ti]]]] [CP What do [IP you think [CP [IP Bill loves ti]]]] If you do the movement in two hops (first to the intermediate CP specifier, then to the higher CP specifier) then you don’t violate the subjacency condition.
two bounding nodes three bounding nodes NP islands [CP Whati did [TP Bill claim [CP that [TP he read ti?]] *[CP What did [TP Bill make [NP the claim [CP that [TP he read ti ?]]] Remember: ONLY NPs that dominate the wh-word count as bounding nodes
* This move crosses two bounding nodes, so this move is bad. This move is ok Can’t cross TWO bounding nodes [CP What did [TP Bill claim [CP that [TP he read ti]]]] *[CP What did [TP Bill make [NP the claim [CP that [TP he read ti]]]]
* Can’t do this. The specifier of this CP is already filled by “what” Wh-islands: Try 1 [CP ____ did[+wh] [IP you wonder [CP _____ Ø[+wh] [IP who kissed what ?]] [CP ____ did[+wh] [IP you wonder [CP whati Ø[+wh] [IP who kissed ti ?]] [CP ____ did[+wh] [IP you wonder [CP whati Ø[+wh] [IP who kissed ti ?]]
* Can’t do this! It violates the subjacency condition!! Wh-islands: Try 2 [CP ____ did[+wh] [TP you wonder [CP _____ Ø[+wh] [TP who kissed what ?]] [CP ____ did[+wh] [TP you wonder [CP whati Ø[+wh] [TP who kissed ti ?]] [CP ____ did[+wh] [TP you wonder [CP whati Ø[+wh] [TP who kissed ti ?]]
* can’t do this! Specifier of lower CP is occupied by trace of who Wh-islands: Try 3 [CP ____ did[+wh] [TP you wonder [CP _____ Ø[+wh] [TP who kissed what ?]] [CP ____ did[+wh] [TP you wonder [CP whok Ø[+wh] [TP tk kissed whati ?]] [CP whok did[+wh] [TP you wonder [CP tk Ø[+wh] [TP tk kissed whati ?]] [CP whok did[+wh] [TP you wonder [CP tk Ø[+wh] [TP tk kissed whati ?]]
No way to do it! • There is no way to derive a wh-island sentence like: *Who do you think what read?
Summary • Bounding theory restricts how far you move with Wh-movement. • Subjacency condition: • don’t cross 2 or more bounding nodes • Bounding nodes: NP/TP • Accounts for island phenomena: • NP islands • Wh islands