Sluicing without wh-movement in Malagasy - University of Florida
Syntax Lecture 5: More On Wh-movement. Review Wh-movement: – Moves interrogative ‘wh’-phrase...
-
Upload
juliana-cross -
Category
Documents
-
view
226 -
download
5
Transcript of Syntax Lecture 5: More On Wh-movement. Review Wh-movement: – Moves interrogative ‘wh’-phrase...
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