Introduction to Transformational Grammar, LINGUIST 601

December 3, 2004

Wh-Movement
For notational convenience, I have used traces (ti , tj etc.) to indicate copies throughout this
handout.

1 Wh-Movement
Question formation involves fronting of the questioned element (e.g. in the Germanic, Romance
and Slavic languages). Typically this fronting is obligatory.

(1) a. Whoi does Martin like ti ?

b. *Martin likes who?

The * on (1b) refers to the fact that (1b) is not a possible information seeking question. It can be
used as an echo question though.
The process of question formation in English involves two distinct movements: I-to-C movement
and fronting of an interrogative phrase. The two movements are independent of each other. I-to-C
movement can take place without interrogative phrase fronting and interrogative phrase fronting
can take place without I-to-C movement.

(2) a. Y/N Questions: I-to-C but no fronting:

Has Martin left?
Did Martin leave?
b. Embedded Questions: fronting but no I-to-C:
I wonder [who John will annoy today].
???/*I wonder [who will John annoy today].
I wonder [who John annoyed today].
???/*I wonder [who did John annoy today].

Since most interrogative pronouns in English (the exception is how) start with wh, the process by
which interrogative phrases are fronted is referred to as wh-movement.

1.1 Pied-piping
Wh-movement is triggered by the presence of an interrogative pronoun. We can assume that
interrogative pronouns have a [+wh] feature that forces them to move.

(3) Whoi does Derek like ti ?

Wh-movement can also be triggered by wh-determiners.

(4) [Which doctor]i does Derek like ti ?

Presumably the wh-determiner’s [+wh] feature percolates and makes the entire phrase which doc-
tor count as a wh-phrase.
Since possessors in English seem to occupy the same syntactic position as wh-determiners, it is
not surprising that when interrogative pronouns function as possessors, their [+wh] feature per-
colates and makes the entire phrase into a wh-phrase.

(5) a. [Whose doctor]i does Derek like ti ?

[[Which person]’s doctor]i does Derek like ti ?
b. [[Whose doctor]’s brother]i does Derek like ti ?
[[[Which person]’s doctor]’s brother]i does Derek like ti ?

From a certain perspective, in (5), it is only whose or which person that needs to move. However in
order to move whose or which person, we need to take along a bigger constituent that contains it.
This process is called pied-piping.
In (5), if we try to move something smaller than the phrase that actually moves, we get ungram-
maticality.

(6) a. *[Whose]i does Derek like [ti doctor]?

*[Which person]’si does Derek like [ti doctor]?
*[Which]’si does Derek like [[ti person]’s doctor]?
b. *[Whose doctor]’si does Derek like [ti brother]?
*[Whosei does Derek like [[ti doctor]’s brother]?
*[[Which person]’s doctor]’si does Derek like [ti brother]?
*[Which person]’si does Derek like [[ti doctor]’s brother]?
*[Which]i does Derek like [[[ti person]’s doctor]’s brother]?

There are cases when pied-piping is optional. This is often the case with wh-phrases that are
complements of prepositions. wh-complements of prepositions are also able to percolate their
[+wh] feature to the entire PP.

(7) a. [To whom]i will Derek give a present ti ?

b. [On which table]i did Derek put the book ti ?

1.2 Preposition Stranding

Pied-piping of the preposition is not obligatory in (7). It is also possible to leave the prepositions
behind and just move the wh-phrase.

(8) a. [Whom]i will Derek give a present to ti ?

b. [Which table]i did Derek put the book on ti ?

This process is known as preposition stranding.

Preposition stranding is not possible in Latin and in any Romance language.

(9) French
a. Stranding
*Qui as-tu parlé de?
who have-you talked about

b. Pied-piping

2
 De qui as-tu parlé?
about who have-you talked
‘Who have you talked about?’

(10) Italian
a. Stranding
*Cui hai parlato di?
who have-you talked about
b. Pied-piping
Di cui hai parlato?
about who have-you talked
‘Who have you talked about?’

Preposition (or rather postposition) stranding also does not seem to be an option in any postposi-
tional language such as Japanese, Korean, Hindi, Kashmiri etc.
Prescriptive grammarians suggest that it is to be avoided in English too, but there seems to be
little other reason to avoid it. In fact, in certain environments pied-piping of prepositions that
could have been stranded feels artificial and stilted.
Sometimes the pull of prescriptive grammar (pied-pipe, don’t strand!) and the syntax of English
(strand!) is met simultaneously in curious sentences like the following.

(11) a. [To whom] did you give the book to ?

b. [To whom] are you referring to ? (M. Key p.c.)

2 Island Phenomena
Wh-Movement is unbounded i.e. a wh-phrase can move unboundedly far from the clause where
it is merged.

(12) a. Whoi does Magnus like ti ?

b. Whoi did Loida think that Magnus liked ti ?
c. Whoi did Agustin believe that Loida thought that Magnus liked ti ?
d. : : :

However, it is not always possible to move a wh-phrase from one location to another. Configura-
tions from which extraction is not possible are called islands.

2.1 Adjunct Islands

An important class of island consists of adjunct clauses. Adjunct clauses are very robust islands
and do not allow any kind of expression to be extracted out of them.
Extraction out of Adjunct Clauses:

(13) because clauses

a. John is unhappy because Sally likes Molly.

3
 b. *Whoi is John unhappy because Sally likes ti ?

(14) when clauses

a. John is unhappy when Sally hits Molly.
b. *Whoi is John unhappy when Sally hits ti ?

(15) if clauses
a. John will be unhappy if Sally hits Molly.
b. *Whoi will John be unhappy if Sally hits ti ?

(16) Relative clauses

a. Olafur likes the artist who composed Hyperballad.
b. *Whati does Olafur like the artist who composed ti ?

2.2 Complex NP Islands

The term Complex NP refers to NPs that contain a complement CP. (17a) involves a Complex NP,
while (17b) does not.

(17) a. [the [ NP [N 0 claim] [CP that Bill is insane]]]

b. [the [NP [NP claim] [CP that Bill made]]]

We have already seen that relative clauses are islands. Next we see that Complex NP are also
islands:

(18) a. Olafur believes [the claim [that Björk composed Hyperballad]].

b. *Whati does Olafur believe [the claim [that Björk composed ti ]]?
c. Olafur believes [that Björk composed Hyperballad].
d. Whati does Olafur believe [that Björk composed ti ]?

The minimal pair formed by (18b) and (18d) shows that it is the extra NP layer in (18b) that is
responsible for the island.

2.3 Wh-islands
Another class of island is exemplified by the wh-islands shown below. These islands are weak in
that extraction of arguments seems to only cause degradation and not ungrammaticality.

(19) a. I wonder [whether to invite Preston].

b. ?Whoi do you wonder [whether to invite ti ]?
c. Mary wonders whether Will invited Preston.
d. ?? Whoi does Mary wonder whether Will invited ti ?

Infinitival whether questions are the weakest wh-islands. Finite whether questions are a little harder
to extract from, but still much better than extraction from non-whether questions.

4
 (20) a. Tina is wondering [what to give to Mona for Xmas].
b. ???Whoi is Tina wondering [what to give to ti for Xmas]?
c. Tina is wondering [what Lisa gave to Mona for Xmas].
d. ???/*Whoi is Tina wondering [what Tom gave to ti for Xmas]?

In general long-extraction of adjuncts in possible - since in principle, a wh-moved adjunct could be

associated with either the matrix or the embedded clauses, cases like the following are ambiguous
(at least in principle).

(21) (adjunct can be associated with either the matrix clause or the embedded clause)
a. When did John say that Mary left?
b. Where did John say that Mary left?
c. How did John say that Mary left?
d. Why did John say that Mary left?

But extraction of adjuncts out of wh-islands, however, leads to ungrammaticality.

(22) a. Mark is wondering [whether to eat lunch in the park].

b. ???/*Where is Mark wondering [whether to eat lunch]?
c. Mark wonders [whether she should fix her car today].
d. ???/*Wheni does Mark wonder [whether she should fix her car ti ]?
e. Mark wonders [whether to thoroughly clean his car today].
f. *Howi does Mark wonder [whether to ti clean his car today]?
g. Mark is wondering [whether to clean his car [to impress Tom]].
h. *Whyi is Mark wondering [whether to clean his car ti ].

Because of this asymmetry (arguments vs. adjuncts), wh-islands are sometimes called selective-
islands.
The existence of wh-islands can be related to the fact that deriving these involves skipping an
already filled [Spec,CP] position. This is similar to what we found for A-movement. Note though
that the argument-adjunct asymmetry that we find with wh-islands does not follow directly from
the ‘do not skip intervening [Spec,CP]’ requirement on wh-movement.

2.4 Subject-Object Asymmetries

Subject-Object Asymmetries: All arguments are not created equal. It seems to be easier to extract
objects rather than subjects. Further it seems to be impossible to extract from subject but it is
possible to extract out of objects.

2.4.1 Comp-trace Effects

Comp-trace effects: It is not possible to extract from the subject position in the presence of on
overt Complementizer.

5
 (23) *that-trace
a. Whoi do you think ti likes Mary?
b. *Whoi do you think that ti likes Mary?
c. Whoi do you think that Mary likes ti ?
d. Whoi do you think Mary likes ti ?

(24) *for-trace
a. Ásta would prefer for Einar to marry Hafdis.
b. *Whoi would Ásta prefer for ti to marry Hafdis?
c. *Whoi would Ásta prefer ti to marry Hafdis?
d. Whoi would Ásta prefer for Einar to marry t i ?

(25) *if-trace
a. Tim wonders [if [Maya will marry Mira]].
b. *Whoi does Tim wonder [if [ti will marry Mira]]?
c. ?Whoi does Tim wonder [if [Maya will marry ti ]]?
d. *Whoi does Tim wonder [  [Maya will marry ti ]]?
(if is an interrogative Y/N question complementizer. )

Interestingly, even though whether is typically located in [Spec,CP] (as opposed to C0 ), it causes
Comp-Trace effects along the lines of if.

(26) *whether-trace
a. Tim wonders [whether [Maya will marry Mira]].
b. *Whoi does Tim wonder [whether [ti will marry Mira]]?
c. ?Whoi does Tim wonder [whether [Maya will marry ti ]]?
d. *Whoi does Tim wonder [  [Maya will marry ti ]]?

These effects seem to be even more general:

(27) a. Tim wonders [who will review his book].

b. ?Which booki does Tim wonder [CP whoj [tj will review ti ]]?
c. Tim wonders [[which book]i [Mark will review ti ]].
d. *Who does Tim wonder [[which book]i [tj will review ti ]]?

(27d) can be ruled out by locality considerations. However, a wider conclusion is also possible:

(28) One cannot extraction from a subject position if the immediately higher C-domain (C0 or
[Spec,CP]) are filled.

6
2.4.2 Sentential Subjects

Extraction from out of a clause in subject position: we know that the clausal arguments of adjec-
tives can appear after the adjective (in the object position) or in the subject position. It turns out
that extraction out of such clauses is possible only if they appear in the object position.

(29) a. It is important to invite Will to our party.

b. (?) Whoi is it important to invite ti to our party?
c. To invite Will to our party is important.
d. * Whoi is to invite ti to our party important?

(30) a. It is probable that Bill likes Einar.

b. Whoi is it probable that Bill likes ti ?
c. That Bill likes Einar is probable.
d. *Whoi is that Bill likes ti probable?

However, there is convincing evidence that clauses cannot appear in subject position i.e. the TPs
in (29/30c) are actually not in subject position, but in an adjoined position from where they bind
a trace/null pronoun in subject position. See Koster (1978) for details.
 Evidence from inversion in Y/N questions:

(31) a. Is it important [to invite Will to our party]?

b. *Is [to invite Will to our party] important?
c. Is [inviting Will to our party] important?

(32) a. Is it probable [that Bill likes Einar]?

b. *Is [that Bill likes Einar] probable?
c. Is [Bill’s liking Einar] probable?

In contrast to finite/non-finite clauses, gerunds (which are NPs) allow inversion.

 Lack of embedding:

(33) No sentential subjects in sentential subjects:

a. [That [[the answer] was so obvious]] upset Ora.
b. *[That [[that the code was a Ceaser cipher] was so obvious]] upset Ora.
c. [That [[the code’s being a Ceaser cipher] was so obvious]] upset Ora.

(34) No sentential subjects in embedded complement clauses:

a. *Aniko thinks [that [[that [[the answer] was so obvious]] upset Ora]].
b. Aniko thinks [that [[[the answer] being so obvious] upset Ora]].

7
2.4.3 Extraction out of NP

Extraction out of a clause embedded in an NP in subject position: Extraction from a clause em-
bedded in an NP leads to degradation. We find the familiar argument-adjunct asymmetry at
work - extraction of arguments leads to a minor degradation while extraction of adjuncts leads to
ungrammaticality.

(35) Complex NP Islands (in object position)

a. John heard [a rumor that you had read the Sandman comics].
b. ?[Which book]i did John hear [a rumor that you had read ti ]?
c. John announced [a plan to fix the red car].
d. [Which car]i did John announce [a plan to fix ti ]?
e. *Howi did John announce [a plan to fix the red car ti ]?

However, in all of the above examples, the NP from which we were extracting was in object
position. If the relevant NP is placed in subject position the previously marginal but grammatical
example becomes wholly ungrammatical.

(36) Complex NP Islands (in subject position)

a. [A rumor that you read the Sandman comics] has been circulating.
b. *[Which book]i has [a rumor that you read ti ] been circulating?

Extraction out of PPs embedded inside NPs displays the same pattern. Extraction from subject
NPs leads to ungrammaticality while extraction from object NPs is grammatical (though perhaps
slightly marginal).

(37) a. What i should I bring [a bottle of ti ]?

b. *Whati should [a bottle of ti ] be brought?

3 The Basics of wh-Movement

(38) Whoi does John think [that Mary likes ti ]?
a. [CP that [Mary likes who]]
b. [CP whoi that [Mary likes who]]
c. John think [whoi that [Mary likes who]]
d. I0 +C0 [John think [whoi that [Mary likes who]]]
e. [CP Who I0 +C0 [John think [whoi that [Mary likes who]]]?

 The wh-phrase is merged in its -position.

 If it needs to move for EPP reasons, it does.
 After having received Case, the wh-phrase A 0 -moves. A0 -movement, like A-movement, is suc-
cessive cyclic. It moves through all intervening [Spec,CP] positions.
 The movement of the wh-phrase is triggered by a C0 with a strong [uWh] feature. The moved
wh-phrase ends up occupying the [Spec,CP] of the C0 that triggers the movement.
This can be seen in the following example where either the matrix C0 or the embedded C0 can be
[+Q].

8
 (39) a. Missy knows [CP [which car]i C0 [+Q] [Mary bought ti ]].
b. (?) [Which car]i does[+Q] [Mary know [CP ti C0 [-Q] [Mary bought ti ]]]?

4 Handling Island Effects

4.1 Strong Island Effects

Extraction out of adjunct clauses and out of subjects triggers strong island effects.
 The notion of the verbal spine.
 Only elements on the verbal spine can be extracted.
 Though subjects and adjunct clauses are themselves on the verbal spine, XP’s inside subjects
and adjunct clauses are not on the verbal spine. Thus they cannot be attracted. In other words,
they are not ‘visible’ to the attractor.

4.2 Weak Island Effects

There are syntactic environments out of which extraction of arguments is degraded but is not im-
possible. Extraction of adjunctions is, however, impossible. Such environments are often referred
to as weak or selective islands.
Wh-islands and Complex NP-islands are both weak islands.

(40) wh-islands
a. Argument extraction:
? Whoi do you wonder [whether PRO to invite ti ]?
b. Adjunct Extraction:
* Wheni do you wonder [whether PRO to invite Bill ti ]?

(41) Complex NP-islands

a. Argument extraction:
? [Which book]i did John hear [a rumor [that you had read ti ]]?
b. Adjunct extraction:
* Wheni did John hear [a rumor [that you had read LGB ti ]]?

The variable behavior of arguments and adjuncts has been handled in the literature through two
independent principles, the ECP, and Subjacency.

(42) The Empty Category Principle: empty categories must be either head governed or an-
tecedent governed.

The definition of the ECP makes reference to the notion of government. In current terms, gov-
ernment can be thought of as identification. Arguments are subcategorized and thus when they
are moved, the absence of an overt element is visible. On the other hand, this is not the case
with adjuncts. This distinction between adjuncts and arguments is captured by the proposal that
predicates head-govern the copies of their arguments but not the copies of adjuncts.

9
Antecedent Government is the idea that a moved phrase cannot be too far from its copy. A moved
phrase that is near its copy antecedent governs its copy. By ‘near’, we mean within the smallest
NP/CP.
The notion of Antecedent Government also reappears in the related principle of Subjacency.

(43) Subjacency: Two consecutive links of a chain can be separated by at most one NP/IP
node.

If a movement violates subjacency, then there is no antecedent government between the two links
of the chain that violate subjacency.
Subjacency seems to be a weak constraint. As long as the movement chain only violates subja-
cency and not the ECP, we only find a minor degradation in acceptability.
The ECP, on the other hand, triggers a strong violation leading to outright ungrammaticality.
Now, we can explain why there is an argument vs. adjunct asymmetry with wh-islands/Complex
NP islands. Objects are sisters to a head (i.e. head-governed), so they do not need antecedent
government to satisfy the ECP. Long-movement of objects as we see below violates subjacency,
which is responsible for the degradation in acceptability.

(44) Subjacency violations, No ECP violation

a. ?Which car is [IP John wondering [CP whether C0 [IP PRO to fix which car]]]?
b. ?Which car did [ IP John announce [NP a plan [IP PRO to fix which car]]]?

Adjuncts, however, are not properly governed. So for adjunct chains to satisfy the ECP, each link
must be antecedent governed by the immediately higher link. If we long-move an adjunct, the
antecedent government requirement fails and the ECP kills the derivation.

(45) Subjacency violation and ECP violation

a. *How is [IP John wondering [CP whether C0 [IP PRO to fix the red car how]]]?
b. *How did [IP John announce [NP a plan [IP PRO to fix the red car how]]]?

5 Other Environments for A0 -Movement

 Relative Clauses

(46) Finite Relative Clauses

a. the man who Roland met
b. the man who Susan thinks that Roland met
c. *the man who Susan likes the boy who gave a book to
d. ??the car that Bill knew how John had fixed

(47) Infinitival Relative Clauses

a. I found a book for you to read.
b. I found a book for you to arrange for Mary to tell Bill to give to Tom.
c. *I found a book for you to arrange for Mary to meet the boy who gave to Tom.
d. ???I found a book for you to wonder whether to read.

10
 Topicalization

(48) a. This book, I really like.

b. This book, I asked Bill to get his students to read.
c. *This book, Susan likes the boy who gave to Roland.
d. ??This book, I wonder who read.

 It-Clefts, Pseudoclefts

(49) it-clefts
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 Susan likes the boy who gave to Roland.
d. ??It is this book that I wonder who read.

 Tough-movement
Tough-movement is the name given to a certain kind of displacement found in complements of
adjectives like easy/tough etc.

(50) a. John is easy for us to please.

b. John is easy for us to convince Bill to do business with.
c. *John is easy for us to introduce Mary to the woman who loves.
d. *What is John easy to give to?
(* compare with: John is easy to give presents to *)

In addition to the above constructions, A0 -movement is also found in comparatives, and degree
clauses (e.g. ‘John is tall enough for you to see.’). The element that A0 -moves in many of these
constructions is a covert element, sometimes called a null operator. The constructions where a
null operator appears are called null operator constructions.

6 Some Properties of Movement

 Islands

6.1 Properties of A -Movement

0

 Strong and Weak Crossover

Strong Crossover: a pronoun cannot bind a wh-chain it c-commands.

(51) a. *Whoi does hei think ti left?

(* bad on the reading: who is such that he thinks that he left? *)
b. *Whoi does hei think you saw ti ?
(* bad on the reading: who is such that he thinks that you saw him? *)
c. Whoi ti thinks that hei left?
d. Whoi ti thinks that you saw himi ?

11
Weak Crossover: If a wh-chain and a pronoun are co-indexed, the tail of the wh-chain must c-
command the pronoun.

(52) a. Whoi ti loves hisi mother?

b. *Whoi does hisi mother love ti ?
(* bad on the reading: Who is such that his mother loves him? *)

Recall that weak-crossover is also found with quantifiers.

(53) a. Every boy i likes hisi mother.

b. *Hisi mother likes every boyi .
(* bad on the reading that (a) had. *)

This (among other things) has led people to propose that quantifiers also move by A0 -movement.
However, this movement is covert and takes place at LF (the level of Logical Form). At this level
the configurations with quantifiers and wh-phrase are identical.

(54) a. Every boy i [ti likes hisi mother].

b. *Every boyi [hisi mother likes ti ].

A-movement, on the other hand, does not trigger WCO.

(55) Every boyi seems to hisi mother [ti to be intelligent].

 Licensing of Parasitic Gaps

(56) Which booki did John file ti [without reading ti ]?

The second gap, inside the without reading clause, is called a parasitic gap because it depends
upon the main gap (associated with file) for its existence. This can be seen below:

(57) a. *John filed Oresteia [without reading pg].

b. John filed Oresteia [without reading it].

Only A0 -movement is able to license parasitic gaps. A-movement is not able to license parasitic
gaps.

(58) a. *This book was filed [without reading pg].

b. *This book seems to have been filed [without reading pg].

 Case Requirement on the launch site of A0 -movement:

A0 -movement is not case-driven. The tail of an A0 -chain must always receive case. This is in
contrast to the tail of a non-trivial A-chain, which must not receive case.
The case-requirement is nicely exemplified by relative clauses in which there is null-operator
movement.

(59) a. * the student [Opi [Mary is fond ti ]]

b. * the student [Opi [Mary is fond of ti ]]

12
References
Koster, J. (1978) “Why subject sentences don’t exist,” in S. J. Keyser, ed., Recent Transformational
Studies in European Languages, Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 3, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,
53–64.

13