The Two Sentences John Telephoned Tom and Tom Ate Beef Are the Same in Regard to

Moving question words to a different place in a sentence than an answer would go

In linguistics, wh-motion (also known every bit wh-fronting, wh-extraction, or wh-raising) is the formation of syntactic dependencies involving interrogative words. An example in English is the dependency formed betwixt what and the object position of doing in "What are you doing?" Interrogative forms are known within English linguistics as wh-words, such every bit what, when, where, who, and why, but likewise include interrogative words like how. This kind of dependency has been used as a diagnostic tool in syntactic studies as it is subject to a number of interacting grammatical constraints (eastward.g., island furnishings, relativized minimality constraints, etc.).

In languages with wh-movement, sentences or clauses with a wh-word evidence a noncanonical word order that places the wh-word (or phrase containing the wh-give-and-take) at or about the front of the judgement or clause ( Who are you thinking about?) instead of the canonical position afterward in the judgement (I am thinking about you ). Leaving the wh-word in its canonical position is chosen wh-in-situ and occurs in echo questions and polar questions in informal voice communication.

Wh-movement ofttimes results in a discontinuity (other discontinuity types include topicalization, scrambling, and extraposition). Of the various aperture types, wh-motion has been studied the most.^[1] It is observed in many of the earth's languages and plays a key role in the theories of long-altitude dependencies.

Historically, the name wh-movement stems from early on generative grammer (1960s and 1970s) and was a reference to the transformational analysis of the day in which the wh-expression appears in its canonical position at deep structure, and and so moves leftward from that position to a derived position at the front of the sentence/clause at surface structure.^[2] Although many theories of syntax do not utilize the mechanism of move in the transformative sense, the term wh-move (or equivalent terms, such as wh-fronting, wh-extraction, or wh-raising) is widely used to denote the phenomenon, fifty-fifty in theories that do non model long-distance dependencies every bit movement.

Basic examples [edit]

The following examples of English sentence pairs illustrate wh-move: each (a) instance has the canonical word order of a declarative judgement in English; each (b) judgement has undergone wh-movement, whereby the wh-word has been fronted in order to course a question. The relevant words are bolded.

Wh-fronting of whom, which corresponds to the direct object Tesnière.

(1a) Tom has been reading Tesnière .

(1b) Whom has Tom been reading?

Wh-fronting of what, which corresponds to the prepositional object syntax.

(2a) She should stop talking about syntax .

(2b) What should she stop talking about?

The temporal adjunct corresponding to tomorrow has been wh-fronted as the wh-word when.

(3a) They want to visit us tomorrow .

(3b) When do they want to visit us?

The predicative adjective corresponding to happy has been fronted equally the wh-word what.

(4a) She is happy.

(4b) What is she?

The prepositional phrase corresponding to to school has been fronted as the wh-give-and-take where.

(5a) She is going to school.

(5b) Where is she going?

The adverb phrase corresponding to well has been fronted as the wh-discussion how.

(6a) They are doing well.

(6b) How are they doing?

The examples in (i) through (half-dozen) illustrate that wh-fronting occurs when a constituent is questioned that appears to the right of the finite verb in the respective declarative sentence. Consider in this regard that when the discipline is questioned, at that place is no obvious reason to assume that wh-fronting has occurred because the default position of the subject is clause-initial:

a. Fred is working hard.

b. Who is working difficult? – The subject field corresponding to Fred already appears at the forepart of the sentence, so there is no reason to assume that who has been fronted.

Some theories of syntax maintain a movement analysis field of study wh-movement; however, this type of movement is string vacuous (the surface cord of words remains the same). Such theories assume that the wh-subject has in fact moved up the syntactic bureaucracy.^[3]

Wh-expressions without wh-movement [edit]

Wh-movement typically occurs to form questions in English language. There are, however, at to the lowest degree three kinds of questions in which wh-movement does non occur (aside from when the question discussion serves as the subject so is already fronted):

1. Echo questions: To confirm what you idea you heard
2. Quiz questions or specific questions: Ask for detailed specific information that the individual has encountered before
3. Multiple wh-questions in a single sentence: When at that place is already one wh-discussion at the forepart
4. Expected questions: Occur when new data is expected ^[4]

You bought what!? – Repeat question

George Orwell was built-in in which country? – Quiz question

Who bought what? – Multiple wh-expressions

While wh-motility is the dominion (and these three cases are the exceptions to the dominion) in English language, other languages may leave wh-expressions in-situ (in base position) more than often such as in Slavic Languages.^[5] In French, for instance, wh-movement is often optional in sure matrix clauses.^[6]

Some example of languages that possess wh-expressions without obligatory wh-movement (i.east., wh-in-situ) are Chinese and Slavic languages—languages that are virtually commonly used every bit examples are Standard mandarin and Russian.

It as well needs to be considered that in-situ questions are unlike from wh-fronted questions every bit they follow two unlike paths:

1. Typically, in-situ expressions result from no motility at all which tends to exist morphologically or pragmatically conditioned.^[iv]
2. Wh-expressions/words are always moved.^[4]

In subordinate clauses [edit]

The examples in the previous section have wh-move occurring in master clauses (in order to form a question). Wh-movement is non restricted to occurring in principal clauses. It frequently appears in subordinate clauses, although its beliefs in subordinate clauses differs in a key respect, viz. give-and-take order. The following two subsections consider wh-movement in indirect questions and relative clauses.

In indirect questions [edit]

In English, wh-movement occurs to class a question in both master and subordinate clauses. When the question is expressed with a primary clause, it is a directly question. When the question is expressed with a subordinate clause, however, it is an indirect question. While wh-fronting occurs in both direct and indirect questions, at that place is a key word social club difference that distinguishes between the two.^[7] This departure is illustrated with the following examples:

a. Fred will ask Jill to leave.

b. Whom ₁ volition₂ Fred inquire to leave? – Direct question

c. I wonder whom ₁ Fred_ii will_iii ask to go out. – Indirect question

a. Sam likes to go news virtually hurricanes.

b. What _one does₂ Sam like to get news well-nigh? – Straight question; practise-support introduced

c. They asked what ₁ Sam₂ likes₃ to go news virtually. – Indirect question

a. Larry stayed home due to the weather.

b. Why ₁ did₂ Larry stay home? – Straight question; do-back up introduced

c. Nobody knows why ₁ Larry₂ stayed_three home. – Indirect question

The subscripts indicate a cardinal word order divergence across direct and indirect questions. Wh-fronting in chief clauses typically results in V2 give-and-take order in English, pregnant the finite verb appears in 2d position, as marked by the ii-subscript in the b. sentences. In indirect questions, yet, V3 word order typically obtains, as marked by the iii-subscript in the c. sentences. Despite this systematic word order difference across direct and indirect questions, wh-fronting within the clause is occurring in both cases. Note besides that do-support is often needed in lodge to enable wh-fronting. Wh-fronting in chief clauses is often reliant on subject–auxiliary inversion.

In relative clauses [edit]

The examples above all involve interrogative clauses (questions). Wh-motility also occurs in relative clauses, even so, which cannot be interpreted as questions.^[8] Many relative pronouns in English have the same form equally the corresponding interrogative words (which, who, where, etc.). Relative clauses are subordinate clauses, then the feature V3 word order seen in indirect questions occurs:

a. I read Fred'due south paper.

b. Fred's paper, which _i I_ii read₃ – Wh-fronting in relative clause

c. *Fred's newspaper, which ₁ did₂ I read – Wh-fronting impossible with V2 give-and-take order in subordinate clause

a. John likes the governor.

b. the governor whom ₁ John₂ likes₃ – Wh-fronting in relative clause

c. *the governor whom _ane does_two John similar _{– Wh-fronting incommunicable with V2 word lodge in subordinate clause}

a. Fred reads the paper in the java shop.

b. the coffee shop where ₁ Fred₂ reads₃ the newspaper – Wh-fronting in relative clause

c. *the coffee store where _one does₂ Fred read the paper – Wh-fronting impossible in subordinate clause with V2 word lodge

The relative pronouns accept fronted in the subordinate clauses of the b. examples, just like they are fronted in the indirect questions in the previous sections. The characteristic V3 word order is obligatory. If the V2 discussion of primary clauses occurs, the sentence is bad, as the c. examples demonstrate.

Pied-pipage [edit]

Many instances of wh-fronting involve pied-piping. Pied-piping occurs when a fronted wh-discussion (or otherwise focused word) pulls an entire encompassing phrase to the front of the clause with it, i.e., information technology "pied-pipes" the other words of the phrase with it to the front of the clause (see the Pied Piper of Hamelin).^[9] The following 2 subsections consider both obligatory and optional pied-piping.

Obligatory pied-piping [edit]

Pied-piping is sometimes obligatory. That is, in lodge for a wh-expression to be fronted, an entire encompassing phrase must be fronted with information technology. The relevant phrase of pied-piping is underlined in the following examples:

a. Susan is reading Fred'south novel.

b. Whose novel is Susan reading? – Pied-pipe of novel

c. * Whose is Susan reading novel? – Judgement is bad because pied-piping has not occurred.

a. The music is very loud.

b. How loud is the music? – Pied-piping of loud

c. * How is the music loud? – Sentence is bad because pied-piping has not occurred.

These examples illustrate that pied-pipage is oft necessary when the wh-word is inside a substantive phrase (NP) or describing word phrase (AP). Pied-piping is motivated in part by the barriers and islands to extraction (see below). When the wh-word appears underneath a blocking category or in an island, the entire encompassing phrase must exist fronted. Pied-pipage was first identified past John R. Ross in his 1967 dissertation.

Optional pied-piping [edit]

At that place are cases where pied-piping can be optional. In English, this occurs about notably with prepositional phrases (PPs). The wh-discussion is the object of a preposition. A formal register will pied-pipage the preposition, whereas more than colloquial English prefers to leave the preposition in-situ, e.g.,

a. She revealed her secret to Tom .

b. To whom did she reveal her secret? – Pied-pipe of preposition associated with a formal annals

c. Whom did she reveal her hugger-mugger to? – Pied-piping absent-minded in colloquial, everyday English

a. He is hiding backside the blood-red door.

b. Behind which door is he hiding? – Pied-piping of preposition associated with a formal register.

c. Which door is he hiding backside? – Pied-piping absent-minded in vernacular, everyday English

The c. examples are cases of preposition stranding, which is possible in English, but not allowed in many languages that are related to English.^[10] For instance, preposition stranding is largely absent-minded from many of the other Germanic languages and it may exist completely absent-minded from the Romance languages. Prescriptive grammars frequently claim that preposition stranding should be avoided in English language as well; however, in certain contexts, pied-piping of prepositions in English language may make a judgement feel artificial or stilted.

Extraction islands [edit]

In linguistics, a syntactic island is a structure from which extracting an element leads to an ungrammatical or marginal judgement, every bit in the example *What did you lot wonder whether Lisa invented? ^[11]

General explanation [edit]

In many cases, a Wh-expression can occur at the front of a sentence regardless of how far away its approved location is, e.one thousand.,

a. Whom does Mary like __?

b. Whom does Bob know that Mary likes __?

c. Whom does Carl believe that Bob knows that Mary likes __?

The wh-word whom is the direct object of the verb likes in each of these sentences. At that place appears to exist no limit on the distance that tin separate the fronted expression from its canonical position. In more technical terms, we tin can say that the dependency relation between the gap (the canonical, empty position) and its filler (the wh-expression) is unbounded in the sense that there is no upper bound on how deeply embedded within the given sentence the gap may announced.

However, there are cases in which this is non possible. Certain kinds of phrases do not seem to permit a gap. The phrases from which a wh-word cannot be extracted are referred to as extraction islands or but islands.^[12] The concept was get-go formulated by John R. Ross in 1967,^[xiii] who proposed and described 4 types of islands: Complex-NP Constraints (CNPC),^{[14] [15]} Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC), Left Co-operative Condition, Sentential Subject Constraint.^[16] The configurations showing more clear isle restrictions leading to unacceptability are wh-islands, complex noun phrases and offshoot islands.^[17] The islands in the examples that follow are underlined in the a-sentences.

Offshoot islands [edit]

An adjunct isle is a type of island formed from an adjunct clause. Wh-movement is not possible out of an adjunct clause. Adjunct clauses include clauses introduced by because, if, and when, also as relative clauses. Some examples include:

a. You lot went habitation because y'all needed to do that ?

b. *What did you go home because you needed to do __? – The attempt to extract out of an adjunct clause fails.

a. Alex likes the woman who wears extravagant rings ?

b. *What does Alex like the woman who wears __? – The endeavour to excerpt out of an offshoot clause fails.

Wh-motion fails in the b. sentences because the gap appears in an adjunct clause.

Wh-islands [edit]

A wh-island is created by an embedded judgement which is introduced by a wh-discussion. Wh-islands are weaker than adjunct islands and violating them results in the sentence sounding ungrammatical to the native speaker.

a. John wonders where Eric went to buy a gift .

b. ??What does John wonder where Eric went to buy __? – The attempt to extract out of a wh-island is at best strongly marginal.

a. Susan asked why Sam was waiting for Fred .

b. *Whom did Susan ask why Sam was waiting for __? – The endeavor to excerpt out of a wh-isle fails.

The b. sentences are strongly marginal/unacceptable because one has attempted to excerpt an expression out of a wh-island.

The reason why this occurs is because both wh-words are role of a DP. It would not exist possible to motility the lesser wh-word to the acme of the construction, as they would both interfere. In club to go a grammatical result, a proper wh-movement must occur. However, because the wh-word is taking upwardly the Spec-C position, it is not possible to move the competing wh-word higher by skipping the higher DP equally wh-motion is a cyclic procedure.

Subject islands [edit]

Wh-movement is not (or hardly) possible out of subjects, at least non in English. This is particularly true for subject clauses, and, to a somewhat lesser extent, out of subject field phrases, due east.g.,^[eighteen]

a. That John went home is likely.

b. *Who is that __ went home likely? – Wh-extraction out of a subject clause fails.

a. The story about Susan was funny.

b. ??Whom was the story about __ funny? – Wh-extraction out of subject field phrase is strongly marginal.

The important insight here is that wh-extraction out of object clauses and phrases is quite possible. There is therefore an asymmetry across subjects and objects with respect to wh-movement.

Left branch islands [edit]

Modifiers that would appear on a left branch nether a noun (i.e., they precede the noun that they alter) cannot be extracted. The relevant constraint is known every bit the Left Branch Condition, and Ross (1967) is once again credited with having discovered it.^[19] The left branch constraint captures the fact that possessive determiners and attributive adjectives in English and many related languages necessarily pied-pipe the entire noun phrase when they are fronted, due east.g.,

a. Susan likes Fred's account.

b. *Whose does Susan like __ business relationship? – Effort to extract from a left branch nether a noun fails.

c. Whose account does Susan similar __? – Extraction succeeds if the entire NP is pied piped.

a. He bought an expensive boat.

b. *How expensive did he purchase a __ boat? – Attempt to excerpt from a left co-operative under a noun fails.

c. How expensive a boat did he buy? – Extraction succeeds if the entire NP is pied piped.

Extraction fails in the b. sentences because the extracted expression corresponds to a left-branch modifier of a noun. Left branch islands are cross-linguistically variable. While they be in English, they are absent from many other languages, most notably, from the Slavic languages.^[twenty]

Coordinate structure islands [edit]

In coordination, extraction out of a conjunct of a coordinate structure is possible only if this extraction affects all the conjuncts of the coordinate structure as. The relevant constraint is known every bit the coordinate structure constraint.^[21] Extraction must extract the aforementioned syntactic expression out of each of the conjuncts simultaneously. This sort of extraction is said to occur across the board (ATB-extraction),^[22] e.thou.,

a. Sam ate [beans] and [broccoli].

b. *What did Sam eat [beans] and [__]? – Extraction fails because it affects just i conjunct.

a. Sam ate [beans] and [broccoli].

b. *What did Sam eat [__] and [broccoli]? – Extraction fails because it affects just one conjunct.

a. Sam [gave a guitar to me] and [loaned a trumpet to you].

b. What did Sam [give __ to me] and [loan __ to you]? – Extraction succeeds because it occurs equally out of both conjuncts (ATB-extraction).

a. He is [waiting for you] and [trying to call you].

b. Whom is he [waiting for __] and [trying to call __]? – Extraction succeeds because it occurs equally out of both conjuncts (ATB-extraction).

Wh-extraction out of a conjunct of a coordinate structure is only possible if information technology can be interpreted as occurring equally out all the conjuncts simultaneously, that is, if it occurs across the board.

Complex substantive phrase islands [edit]

Extraction is difficult from out of a noun phrase. The relevant constraint is known as the complex NP constraint,^[23] and comes in two varieties, the first banning extraction from the clausal complement of a noun, and the 2d banning extraction from a relative clause modifying a noun:

Sentential complement to a noun:

a. You lot heard the merits that Fred solved the 2d problem .

b. ??What did you hear the claim that Fred solved __? – Attempt to extract out of a complex NP fails.

a. She likes the possibility that she might get a new telephone for X-mas.

b. ??What does she like the possibility that she might get __ for Ten-mas? – Endeavour to extract out of a complex NP fails.

Relative clause:

a. They hired someone who speaks a Balkan linguistic communication .

b. *What Balkan language did they hire someone who speaks __?

Not-bridge-verb islands [edit]

Extraction out of object that-clauses serving equally complements to verbs may testify islandlike behavior if the matrix verb is a nonbridge verb (Erteschik-Shir 1973). Nonbridge verbs include way-of-speaking verbs, such equally whisper or shout, east.g.,

a. She thinks that he died in his sleep.

b. How does she recollect that he died __? – Extraction out of object clause easily possible with matrix bridge verb.

a. She whispered that he had died in his sleep.

b. *How did she whisper that he had died __? – Extraction across a non-span verb is impossible.

Wh-movement in syntax trees [edit]

Syntax trees are visual breakdowns of sentences that include dominating heads for every segment (word/constituent) in the tree itself. In the wh-movement, there are additional segments that are added: EPP (extended projection principle) and the Question Feature [+Q] that represents a question judgement.

The wh-movement is motivated by a Question Feature/EPP at C (Complementizer), which promotes move of a wh-word from the canonical base position to Spec-C. This move could be considered as "Copy + Paste + Delete" motility as we are copying the interrogative give-and-take from the bottom, pasting it to Spec-C, and then deleting information technology from the bottom and so that it solely remains at the top (now taking the position of Spec-C). Overall, the highest C will be the target position of the wh-raising.^[2]

The interrogatives that are used in the wh-motility do not all share headedness. This is important to consider when making the syntax copse, as there are three unlike heads that may exist used.

Headedness [edit]

Determiner Phrase (DP): Who, What

Prepositional Phrase (PP): Where, When, Why

Adverb Phrase (AdvP): How

When creating the Syntax Tree for the wh-movement, consider the subject-aux inversion in the word that was raised from T (Tense) to C (Complementizer).

• 

The location of the EPP (Extended Projection Principle):

The EPP allows movement of the wh-word from the bottom canonical position of the syntax tree to Spec-C. The EPP is a not bad indicator when it comes to distinguishing between in-situ copse and ex-situ. Ex-situ trees allow the movement to Spec-C, while in-situ do not every bit the head C lacks the EPP feature.

Islands in syntax trees [edit]

Within syntax trees, islands do not permit movement to occur; if movement is attempted, the sentence would then be perceived as ungrammatical to the native speaker of the observed language. Islands are typically noted as existence a boxed node on the tree. The motility in the wh-Island syntax tree is unable to occur considering in order to move out of an embedded clause, a Determiner Phrase (DP) must motion through the Spec-C position. This cannot occur, every bit the Determiner Phrase (DP) is already occupied.

For case, in "She said [who bought what]?" we see that "who" takes the place of DP and restricts "what" from rising up to the respected Spec-C. Native speakers may ostend this besides as information technology will sound ungrammatical: * "What did she say [bought what?]".

Multiple wh-questions [edit]

In languages, a judgement can incorporate more than one wh-question. These interrogative constructions are called multiple wh-questions, ^[24]

e.g.: Who ate what at the restaurant?

In the following English case, a strikeout-line and trace-motion coindexation symbols—[Who _i ... who t_i ...]—are used to indicate the underlying raising-movement of the closest wh-phrase. This motion produces an overt sentence discussion order with one fronted wh-question:

e.g.: [Who _i did you help who t_i brand what?]

• in the underlying (deep) syntax structure of this sentence, [who] is positioned directly after the transitive verb [ assist ] considering the VP selects a straight object DP as its complement
• the closest wh-phrase [ who ] is raised from its canonical position to Spec-CP, which produces sentence discussion order with a wh-question word at the offset of the judgement
• the further away wh-phrase [ what ] is kept in-situ

In the underlying syntax, the wh-phrase closest to Spec-CP is raised to satisfy selectional properties of the CP: the [+Q] and [+Wh-EPP] characteristic requirements of C. The wh-phrase farther away from Spec-CP stays in its base position (in-situ).^[24]

Superiority condition [edit]

The superiority condition determines which wh-phrase moves in a clause that contains multiple wh-phrases.^[24] This is the result of applying the attract closest principle, where simply the closest candidate is eligible for movement to the attracting head that selects for it.^[24] If the farther wh-phrase moves instead of the preceding wh-phrase, an ungrammatical structure is created (in English). Not all languages have instances of multiple wh-movement governed by the superiority status, most accept variations. At that place is no uniformity plant across languages concerning the superiority condition.

For example, meet the following English language phrases:

a. [Who _i did you ask who _ti to buy what?]

b. *[What _i did y'all ask who to buy what _ti?]

The subscript "ti" or "i" are used to mark coreference. "t" represents a trace, while both "ti" and "i" represent that the words refer to each other and the same entity.

In a., the closer wh-phrase [who] moves up toward Spec-CP from beingness the subject of the VP [who to buy what]. The 2nd wh-phrase [what] remains in-situ (equally the direct object of the VP[who to purchase what]). This is to satisfy the [+Q Wh] feature in the Spec-CP.

In b., the farther wh-phrase [what] has incorrectly moved from the direct object position of the VP[who to buy what ] into the Spec-CP position. The closer wh-phrase to Spec-CP [who] has remained in-situ every bit the bailiwick of the VP[ who to buy what]. This sentence contains a violation of the concenter closest principle, as the closest candidate was not moved, rather the further candidate. This judgement is ungrammatical, which is marked past the asterisk (*).

German language [edit]

German does non evidence the expected effects of the superiority condition during clauses with multiple wh-phrases. German appears to have a process that allows the further wh-phrase to "cross over" the closer wh-phrase and move, not remaining in-situ.^[25] This movement is tolerated and has less consequences than when compared with English.^[25]

For example, see the following German phrases:

a.

Ich weiss nicht, wer was gesehen hat

I know not, who what seen has

"I exercise not know who saw what"

b.

Ich weiss nicht, was wer gesehen hat

I know not, what who seen has

"I do non know what who has seen"

In a., the gloss shows that the wh-phrase [what] has "crossed over" wh-phrase [who] and is now in Spec-CP to satisfy the [+Q Wh] feature. This movement is a violation of the attract closest principle, which is what the superiority status is based upon.

Mandarin Chinese [edit]

Mandarin is a wh-in-situ linguistic communication, which means that it does non exhibit wh-movement in constituent questions.^[26] In other words, wh-words in Mandarin remain in their original position in their clause, contrasting with wh-movement in English where the wh-give-and-take would motility in constituent questions.

In-situ [edit]

The following example illustrates multiple wh-motion in Mandarin, and is written in pinyin for the sake of simplicity and clarity:

#1

Ni xiang zhidao Mali weishenme maile shenme

You want know Mary why purchase-By what

'What do y'all wonder why Mary bought it?'

This instance demonstrates that the wh-word "what" in Mandarin remains in-situ at Surface structure,^[27] while the wh-word "why" in Mandarin moves to proper scope position and, in doing so, c-commands the wh-give-and-take that stays in-situ.

Matrix scope [edit]

The scope of wh-questions in Mandarin is also subject to other conditions depending on the kind of wh-phrase involved.^[28] The following example can translate into ii meanings:

#2

Ni xiang zhidao shei maile shenme

You want know who buy-Past what

'What is the matter 10 such that you lot wonder who bought 10?'
'Who is the person x such that you wonder what x bought?'

This example illustrates the way certain wh-words such as "who" and "what" tin freely obtain matrix scope in Mandarin.^[29]

Concenter Closest [edit]

In reference to the Concenter Closest principle, where the head adopts the closest candidate bachelor to it, the overt wh-phrase in Mandarin moves to proper scope position while the other wh-phrase stays in-situ every bit it is c-commanded by the wh-phrase first mentioned.^[xxx] This tin be seen in the following instance, where the word for "what" stays in-situ since it is c-allowable past the phrase in Standard mandarin meaning "at where":

#3

Ni xiang zhidao Republic of mali zai nali maile shenme

You lot want know Mary at where buy-Past what

'What is the matter x such that you lot wonder where Mary bought x?'
'Where is the place ten such that y'all wonder what Mary bought at x?'

As these examples show, Mandarin is a wh-in-situ language, exhibits no movement of wh-phrases at Surface construction, is subject to other conditions based on the blazon of wh-phrase involved in the question, and adheres to the Concenter Closest principle.

Bulgarian [edit]

ln Bulgarian, the [+ wh] feature of C motivates multiple wh-word movements, which leads to multiple specifiers. Information technology requires formation of clusters of wh-phrases in [Spec-CP] in the matrix clause. This is different from English language because in English, only one wh-word moves to [Spec-CP] when at that place is multiple wh-words in a clause. This is because, in Bulgarian, unlike English, all movements of wh-elements accept place in the syntax, where move is shown overtly.^[31] The phrase structure for wh-words in Bulgarian would look like is shown in Figure 1 below, where a wh-cluster is formed nether [Spec-CP].

Figure i. Phrase structure of multiple wh-motility in Bulgarian

In Bulgarian and Romanaian, a wh-element is attracted into [Spec-CP] and the other wh-elements are adjoined into the outset wh-give-and-take in [Spec-CP].^[32]

#1

Koj kogo ___t₁ vida ___t₂?

Who whom {} sees {}

Who sees whom?

In Case 1, we encounter that both the wh-words underwent movement and are in a [Spec-CP] cluster.

Concenter Closest [edit]

The Attract Closest is a principle of the Superiority Condition where the head which attracts a certain feature adopts the closest candidate available to it. This unremarkably leads to the motion of the closest candidate.

Slavic languages are grouped in to ii different South-structures concerning the move of wh-elements at [Spec-CP] (Rudin, 1998). Ane grouping includes the languages Serbo-Croation, Polish, and Czech where there is but one wh-element in [Spec-CP] at S-structure. The other group contains Bulgarian, which has all of its wh-elements in [Spec-CP] at South-construction. In the start group mentioned, the Attract Closest principle is nowadays, and the wh-give-and-take that is closest to the attracting head undergoes movement while the remainder of the wh-elements remain in-situ. The 2nd group of languages, the Attract Closest principle occurs in a slightly different mode. The society of the style the wh-word moves is dictated by their proximity to [Spec-CP]. The closest wh-word to the alluring head undergoes movement first and the next closest one follows arrange, and on and on. In that way, the Superiority consequence is present in Serbo-Croatian, Polish, and Czech in the first wh-element, while, in Bulgarian, it is present in all of the wh-elements in the clause.^[33]

#2

Kakvo kak napravi Ivan?

What how did Ivan?

How did Ivan what?

The Concenter Closest principle explains a crucial detail nigh the order of which wh-words move starting time in the tree. Since the closest wh-word is moved first, there is a particular order that appears. Wh-subjects goes earlier wh-objects and wh-adjuncts (Grewendorf, 2001). This is seen in Instance #2 and Example #3. Example #3 as well shows that there can be more than two wh-words in [Spec-CP] and that, no matter how many wh-words are in the clause, they would all have to undergo move.

#3

Koj kak kogo e tselunal?

Who how whom is kissed

Who kissed whom how?

In-situ [edit]

In Bulgarian, nosotros encounter in Example #4 that to defer from forming a sequence of the aforementioned wh-words, a wh-chemical element is allowed to remain in-situ equally a last resort (Bošković, 2002).

#four

Kakvo obulslavlja kakvo?

What conditions what

What weather condition what?

In summary, Bulgarian has multiple wh-motility in the syntax and the wh-words move overtly. We besides come across that while all wh-words in a clause moves nether [Spec-CP] because of the [+ wh] feature, there is still a certain order in how they are appear in the clause.

French [edit]

In French, multiple wh-questions have the following patterns:

a) In some French interrogative sentences, wh-movement can exist optional. ^[34]

1.The closest wh-phrase to Spec-CP can be fronted (i.e., moved to Spec-CP from its covert base position in deep structure to its overt phonological form in surface-structure word order);

2. Alternatively, wh-phrases tin can remain in-situ. ^{[34] [35]}

ex. i

Qu' as- tu envoyé à qui?

what have yous sent to whom

ex. ii

Tu as envoyé quoi à qui?

you have sent what to whom

'What accept you sent to who(m)?'

In the example sentences above, examples #ane and #two are both grammatical and share the same meaning in French. Hither, the choice of using one form of question over the other is optional; either sentence can exist used to ask about the two detail DP constituents expressed by 2 wh-words.^[34] In French, the second sentence could likewise be used as an echo question. ^[36] By dissimilarity, in English, the grammatical structure of the 2d sentence is just acceptable as an echo question: a question we enquire to analyze the data we hear (or mishear) in someone's utterance, or that nosotros use to express our stupor or disbelief in reaction to a statement made past someone.^[25] For echo questions in English, it is typical for speakers to emphasize the wh-words prosodically past using rising intonation (e.g.,You sent WHAT to WHO?). These special instances of using multiple wh-questions in English are essentially "requests for the repetition of that utterance".^[25]

b) In other French interrogative sentences, wh-movement is required. ^[35]

The selection of using wh-in-situ in French sentences with multiple wh-questions is limited to specific conditions. There exists "a very express distribution" of its usage.^[35]

French wh-in-situ can occur only:

1. in matrix clauses (aka master clauses)
2. in matrix clauses that exercise not take an overt complementizer (i.eastward., complementizer is 'phonologically null')
3. in 'short-distance' questions (i.eastward., wh-movement not blocked by a wh-island constraint)

Wh-in-situ usage is non allowed in French when these criteria are non met.^[35]

Wh-in-situ is not allowed:

1. in embedded questions

incorrect course:

*André a demandé tu equally mangé quoi

André has asked you lot have eaten what

* 'André has asked you lot have eaten what.'

correct grade:

André a demandé quoi tu as mangé

André has asked what you accept eaten

'André has asked what you take eaten.'

2. in questions with overt complementizers

incorrect class:

*Quoi tu as mangé quoi?

what you lot have eaten what

* 'What have you eaten what?'

correct class:

Quoi tu every bit mangé?

what you lot accept eaten

'What you have eaten?'

3. in 'long-distance' questions

incorrect grade:

*Michelle et Pierre pensent que André a mangé quoi?

Michelle and Pierre think that André has eaten what

* 'Michelle and Pierre recollect that André has eaten what?'

correct course:

Quoi Michelle et Pierre pensent- ils que André a mangé?

what Michelle and Peter think they that André has eaten

'What practise Michelle and Peter think that André has eaten?'

To summarize, in French sentences with multiple wh-questions, the choice between wh-movement and wh-in-situ is non arbitrary; it is constrained by specific weather condition.^[35]

In other languages [edit]

Wh-movement is also found in many other languages around the globe. Near European languages also place wh-words at the beginning of a clause. Furthermore, many of the facts illustrated above are also valid for other languages. The systematic departure in word order across principal wh-clauses and subordinate wh-clauses shows up in other languages in varying forms. The islands to wh-extraction are also nowadays in other languages, but there volition be some variation. The following example illustrates wh-motility of an object in Castilian:

a.

Juan compró carne.

John bought meat.

'John bought meat.'

b.

¿Qué compró Juan?

what bought John

'What did John buy?'

The following examples illustrates wh-motility of an object in German:

a.

Er liest Tesnière jeden Abend.

He reads Tesnière every evening.

'He reads Tesnière every evening.'

b.

Wen liest er jeden Abend?

who reads he every evening

'Who does he read every evening?'

The following examples illustrate wh-motion an object in French:

a.

Ils ont vu Pierre.

they have seen Peter

'They saw Peter.'

b.

Qui {est-ce qu'} ils ont vu?

Who {is information technology that} they accept seen

'Who did they encounter?'

c.

Qui ont ils vu?

Who have they seen

'Who did they come across?'

All the examples are quite similar to the English examples and demonstrate that wh-movement is a full general phenomenon in numerous languages. As stated, even so, the behavior of wh-movement can vary, depending on the individual language in question.

Languages in which it is not nowadays [edit]

Many languages do non accept wh-movement. Instead, these languages keep the symmetry of the question and answer sentences.

For example, topic questions in Chinese have the same judgement structure every bit their answers:

你 在 做 什麼？

nǐ zài zuò shénme

y'all PROG do what

What are you doing?

The response to which could be:

維基百科。

Wéi jī bǎi kē

Wikipedia

我 在 編輯 維基百科。

wǒ zài biānjí {Wéi jī bǎi kē}

I PROG edit Wikipedia

I am editing Wikipedia.

Chinese has a wh-particle, no wh-motion.

Theoretical approaches [edit]

Wh-move typically results in a discontinuity: the "moved" elective ends upwardly in a position that is separated from its canonical position by cloth that syntactically dominates the canonical position, which means there seems to be a discontinuous constituent and a long distance dependency present. Such discontinuities challenge any theory of syntax, and any theory of syntax is going to accept a component that can address these discontinuities. In this regard, theories of syntax tend to explicate discontinuities in one of two ways, either via movement or via characteristic passing. The EPP feature (extended projection principle) and Question Characteristic play a large role in the movement itself. Nosotros have noticed that these two features occur in ex-situ questions which allow movement and do not be in in-situ questions that do allow it.

Theories that posit motility have a long and established tradition that reaches back to early Generative Grammar (1960s and 1970s). They assume that the displaced elective (e.g., the wh-expression) is starting time generated in its canonical position at some level or indicate in the structure generating process beneath the surface. This expression is then moved or copied out of this base position and placed in its surface position where it actually appears in spoken communication.^[37] Movement is indicated in tree structures using ane of a variety of ways (e.thou., a trace t, movement arrows, strikeouts, lighter font shade, etc.).

The culling to the motility approach to wh-movement and discontinuities in general is characteristic passing. This arroyo rejects the notion that movement in any sense has occurred. The wh-expression is base generated in its surface position, and instead of movement, data passing (i.e., feature passing) occurs up or down the syntactic hierarchy to and from the position of the gap.

See likewise [edit]

• Dependency grammer
• Discontinuity
• Extraposition
• Phrase structure grammar
• Scrambling
• Topicalization
• V2 word gild

Notes [edit]

1. ^ Accounts of wh-fronting appear in many textbooks on syntax and grammar, east.g. Stockwell (1977:35ff.), Baker (1978:119ff.), Riemsdijk and Williams (1986:19ff.), Borsley (1988:188ff.), Radford (1997:267ff.), Roberts (1999:35ff.), Tallerman (2005:217ff.), Carnie (2013, ch.12.iii, pp.357ff.).
2. ^ ^{a b} For early on accounts of question formation and wh-motion, see, for instance, Ross (1967/86:18ff.), Bach (1974:129), Culicover (1976:73f.), Stockwell (1977:172f.), Baker (1978:121f.).
3. ^ Agbayani, Brian (2000-10-01). "Wh-Subjects in English and the Vacuous Movement Hypothesis". Linguistic Inquiry. 31 (4): 703–713. doi:10.1162/002438900554523. ISSN 0024-3892.
4. ^ ^{a b c}
5. ^ Stepanov, Arthur. Wh-scope marking in Slavic. OCLC 449924033.
6. ^ Concerning wh-movement in French, see Bošković (2002).
7. ^ Concerning the key word order divergence across directly and indirect questions, see for instance Roberts (1997:37) and Groß and Osborne (2009:74ff.), and Carnie (2013:367).
8. ^ See Carnie (2013:369ff.) for an analysis of relative clauses in terms of wh-movement.
9. ^ Run into Ross' (1967/86:121ff.) original account of pied-piping. For farther analyses of pied-pipe, see for example Riemsdijk and Williams (1986:28ff.) and Radford (1997:276ff).
10. ^ Concerning preposition stranding in wh-questions in English, run into Roberts (1997:212f) and Radford (1999:278ff.).
11. ^ Goodall, K. (Ed.). (2021) The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax, ch. 9.
12. ^ For general accounts of island phenomena, see for example Riemsdijk and Williams (1986:23ff), Roberts (1997:186ff.), Borsley (1999:205ff.), and Carnie (2013:374ff.).
13. ^ Freidin, Robert Foundations of Generative Syntax, p.131
14. ^ Givon (2001) Syntax: An Introduction, vol.2, ch.14
15. ^ Freidin, Robert Basic Concepts and Applications, p.188
16. ^ Giorgio Graffi (2001) 200 Years of Syntax: A Disquisitional Survey, p.363
17. ^ Goodall, G. (Ed.). (2021) The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax, ch. 5.
18. ^ Concerning subject islands, see Ross (1967/86:148f.), Culicover (1976:282ff.), Borsley (1999:206), Radford (1997:281).
19. ^ Ross (1967/86) gives his left branch condition on page 127: "No NP which is the leftmost constituent of a larger NP can be reordered out of this NP past a transformational rule".
20. ^ Concerning the lack of left co-operative islands in Slavic languages, see Ross (1967/86:145), Grosu (1973), Roberts (1997:189).
21. ^ Concerning the coordinate structure constraint, see Ross (1967/86:97ff.), Bach (1974:210), Culicover (1976:281ff.), Roberts (1997:188).
22. ^ The term across the board is from Williams (1978). See likewise Roberts (1997:188), Borsley (1999:207).
23. ^ Concerning the complex NP constraint, come across for instance Ross (1967/86:272ff.), Culicover (1976:280f.), Baker (1978:200ff.), Borsley (1999:206f.)
24. ^ ^{a b c d} Sportiche, Dominique. (2013-09-30). An introduction to syntactic analysis and theory. Koopman, Hilda Judith,, Stabler, Edward P. Chichester, West Sussex. pp. 295–296. ISBN978-1-118-47047-iii. OCLC 842337755.
25. ^ ^{a b c d} Fanselow, Féry, Gisbert, Caroline. "Missing Superiority Effects: Long Move in German (and other languages)*" (PDF).
26. ^ Chen, Shuangshuang. "The pragmatic motivation of wh-movement in Mandarin Chinese The pragmatic motivation of wh-motility 1 in Mandarin Chinese".
27. ^ Rudin, Catherine (1988). "On Multiple Questions and Multiple Wh Fronting" (PDF). Tongue and Linguistic Theory. half dozen (iv): 445–501. doi:10.1007/BF00134489. S2CID 170344200 – via University of Chicago.
28. ^ Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. Wh-in-situ.
29. ^ Soh, Hooi Ling (Winter 2005). "Wh-in-Situ in Mandarin Chinese". Linguistic Inquiry. 36: 143–155. doi:10.1162/ling.2005.36.one.143. S2CID 57572217 – via Projection MUSE.
30. ^ Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. "Wh-in-situ" (PDF).
31. ^ Rudin, Catherine (1988). "On Multiple Questions and Multiple WH Fronting". Natural language & Linguistic Theory. six (iv): 445–501. doi:10.1007/BF00134489. ISSN 0167-806X. JSTOR 4047590. S2CID 170344200.
32. ^ Grewendorf, Günther (2001). "Multiple Wh-Fronting". Linguistic Inquiry. 32 (one): 87–122. doi:10.1162/002438901554595. ISSN 0024-3892. JSTOR 4179138. S2CID 57566471.
33. ^ Bošković, Željko (2002). "On Multiple Wh-Fronting". Linguistic Inquiry. 33 (three): 351–383. doi:10.1162/002438902760168536. ISSN 0024-3892. JSTOR 4179196. S2CID 123577882.
34. ^ ^{a b c} Rudin, Catherine (1988). "On Multiple Questions and Multiple Wh Fronting". Natural Linguistic communication and Linguistic Theory. 6 (4): 445–501. doi:10.1007/BF00134489. S2CID 170344200 – via JSTOR.
35. ^ ^{a b c d e} Bošković, Željko (Summer 2002). "On Multiple Wh-Fronting". Linguistic Research. 33 (No. 3) (3): 351–352. doi:x.1162/002438902760168536. S2CID 123577882 – via JSTOR.
36. ^ Mathieu, Eric (1999). "WH in situ and the intervention effect". UCL Working Papers in Linguistics (UCLWPL). 11: 441.
37. ^ For an case of the movement/copying approach, see Radford (2004:153ff.).

References [edit]

• Bach, Eastward. 1974. Syntactic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
• Baker, C. 1978. Introduction to generative-transformational syntax. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Borsley, R. 1999. Syntactic theory: A unified approach. London: Arnold.
• Bošković 2002. On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Research 33, 351–384.
• Carnie, A. (2013) Syntax: A generative introduction. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Chomsky, N. 1977. On wh-movement. In Culicover, P. W., Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian (eds), Formal Syntax, New York.
• Costa, J et al. 2016. The Handbook of Portuguese Linguistics. (2016). The Handbook of Portuguese Linguistics, pp. 288–302.
• Culicover, P. 1976. Syntax. New York: Academic Press.
• David Crystal (23 September 2011). A Lexicon of Linguistics and Phonetics. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN978-1-4443-5675-v.
• Erteschik-Shir, N. 1973. On the nature of island constraints. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Found of Engineering science, Cambridge, MA.
• Groß, T. and T. Osborne 2009. Toward a practical dependency grammar theory of discontinuities. SKY Journal of Linguistics 22, 43–90.
• Jurafsky, D. and J. Martin. 2008. Speech and linguistic communication processing: An introduction to natural linguistic communication processing, computational linguistics, and spoken language recognition. Delhi, India: Pearson Didactics.
• Grosu, A. 1973. On the Left Co-operative Condition. Linguistic Inquiry.
• O'Grady, Due west. 2005. Syntactic carpentry: An emergentist approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
• Parra-Guinaldo, 5. 2013. A generativist approach to renewal in the left periphery: The reanalysis of 'whether'. Saarbrücken: Lambert.
• Radford, A. 2004. English syntax: An introduction. Cambridge, Great britain: Cambridge University Press.
• Riemsdijk, H. van and E. Williams. 1986. Introduction to the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Printing.
• Roberts, I. 1997. Comparative syntax. London: Arnold.
• Ross, J. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Engineering science.
• Ross, J. 1986. Infinite syntax. (Originally presented every bit the author'southward thesis from 1967). Norwood, NJ: Infinite syntax!
• Stockwell, R. 1977. Foundations of syntactic theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
• Tallerman, M. 2005. Understanding syntax. second edition. Malta: Hodder Arnold.
• Williams, Eastward. 1978. Across the lath rule application. Linguistic Inquiry 9, 31–43.

External links [edit]

• Lexicon of Linguistics:Wh-movement
• Lexicon of Linguistics:Pied pipe
• Lexicon of Linguistics:Island
• Lexicon of Linguistics:Wh-island
• Lexicon of Linguistics:Left Co-operative Condition
• Dictionary of Linguistics:Wh-in-situ
• Stanford Linguistics 222B: Foundations of Syntactic Theory Two Filler-Gap Dependencies (Unbounded Dependency Constructions) has a good archive of essential papers in the field

reedried1993.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wh-movement

Share this post