On Pied-Piping: Wh-Movement and Beyond

On Pied-Piping: Wh-Movement and Beyond Fabian Heck Mouton de Gruyter On Pied-Piping ≥ Studies in Generative Gramm...

Author: Heck | Fabian

246 downloads 930 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

On Pied-Piping: Wh-Movement and Beyond

Fabian Heck

Mouton de Gruyter

On Pied-Piping

≥

Studies in Generative Grammar 98

Editors

Jan Koster Harry van der Hulst Henk van Riemsdijk

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

On Pied-Piping Wh-Movement and Beyond

by

Fabian Heck

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin.

The series Studies in Generative Grammar was formerly published by Foris Publications Holland.

앝 Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines 앪 of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Heck, Fabian. On pied-piping : Wh-movement and beyond / by Fabian Heck. p. cm. ⫺ (Studies in generative grammar ; 98) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-3-11-020605-0 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Generative grammar. I. Title. P118.H36 2008 415⫺dc22 2008032764

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

ISBN 978-3-11-020605-0 ISSN 0167-4331 쑔 Copyright 2008 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

Preface and Acknowledgments

This book is a revised version of my PhD thesis (“A Theory of Pied-Piping”), which was submitted to the University of Tübingen. I wish to thank all the people who supported me while writing this thesis and who thereby also helped this book to become reality. I always felt that a revision would be necessary if the thesis were to appear as a monograph. But the process of revision took longer than I expected: almost four years have passed from the day that I submitted my thesis in 2004 to the day that I completed the book manuscript in 2008. I want to thank the University of Tübingen for granting me the time to appropriately finish this project. Shortly after I had completed my thesis in Tübingen I moved to Leipzig, where I found a new home and a stimulating environment to begin the work on the book. It is with a lot of gratitude that I think of those who made me feel welcome at Leipzig from the first day. Also, I would like to thank the people who supported my work in many different ways, among them Petr Biskup, Marc Richards, Jochen Trommer, and, especially, Gereon Müller, who probably contributed more to this book than I can possibly imagine. Thanks go to Zarina Molochieva, Andrew Nevins, Peter Sells, and Lena Witzlack-Makarevitch for providing judgments. Finally, special thanks go to Andrew McIntyre for reading the whole manuscript and for suggesting many improvements both of its form and its content. Parts of chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this book have been reorganized in an article in Linguistic Inquiry (Volume 40, Number 1; Winter 2009). Someone once suggested that if this book were an animal, then it would be a crawfish. The reason is that many concepts are introduced at the beginning (as one would expect) but sometimes their proper motivation does not become fully understandable until a much later point; also, many examples are introduced long before their theoretical significance can be appreciated. Reading this book therefore seemed to require moving sidewards through it (and back again), like a crawfish. I tried to smooth out this problem as good as I could, by introducing cross-references and redundancies. And I am optimistic now that the book can (also) be read the way books are usually read: from the beginning to the end.

Contents

Preface and Acknowledgments

v

1 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 4 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.2 5

Introduction The Problem of Pied-Piping . . . . . . . . . . . . The Phenomenon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Wh-Feature Percolation Hypothesis . . . . . . Overview of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Some Theories of Pied-Piping . . . . . . . . . . . Sells (1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cowper (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grimshaw (1991, 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Webelhuth (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lutz and Trissler (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cable (2007, 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miscellaneous Remarks on Wh-Feature Percolation Abstract Specifier-Head Agreement . . . . . . . . Morphological Marking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Superiority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . German . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Against Wh-Feature Percolation . . . . . . . . . . Percolation Reduced to Move . . . . . . . . . . . . Potential Feature Incompatibility . . . . . . . . . . Conditions on Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percolation Reduced to Merge . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 1 5 7 9 9 17 20 23 29 35 56 56 58 61 61 63 65 65 66 67 70 73

2 1 1.1 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3

Pied-Piping Generalizations Recursive Pied-Piping . . . . Specifier Recursion . . . . . English . . . . . . . . . . . Danish . . . . . . . . . . . . Russian . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

75 76 76 76 77 79

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

viii 1.1.4 1.1.5 1.1.6 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4.1 1.4.2 2 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.4 3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2

Contents

Polish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . German . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . French . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Complement Recursion . . . . . . . . . . Hybrid Recursion . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cases of Recursion Breakdown . . . . . . Specifier Recursion . . . . . . . . . . . . Complement Recursion . . . . . . . . . . Secondary Wh-Movement . . . . . . . . . Genitive Possessors . . . . . . . . . . . . Tzotzil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . German . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hungarian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Polish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prepositional Phrases . . . . . . . . . . . Romanian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . French . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spanish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . German . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clausal Pied-Piping . . . . . . . . . . . . Basque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imbabura Quechua . . . . . . . . . . . . Latin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . German Infinitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bavarian Conditionals . . . . . . . . . . . Cases that Lack Secondary Wh-Movement Repair-Driven Pied-Piping . . . . . . . . Preposition Stranding . . . . . . . . . . . Danish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Norwegian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Particle Phrases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . German . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Voice Phrases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . German . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79 80 82 84 85 86 86 87 88 89 89 91 92 93 94 94 96 101 102 103 105 106 107 107 109 115 116 117 119 119 122 123 124 125 126 127 127 128

Contents

3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.5 3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 3.5.4 3.5.5 3.6 3.6.1 3.6.2 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.12.1 3.12.2 3.12.3 3.12.4 3.13 3.13.1 3.13.2 3.13.3 3.13.4 4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 6

Predicative APs . . . . . . . . . . English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scandinavian . . . . . . . . . . . German . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Past Participles . . . . . . . . . . Russian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scandinavian . . . . . . . . . . . German . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Floating Quantifiers . . . . . . . . German . . . . . . . . . . . . . . French . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wh-Partitives in German . . . . . Chamorro . . . . . . . . . . . . . French . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tzotzil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ineffability . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pre-Nominal Attributes in German Clausal Pied-Piping . . . . . . . . English Gerunds . . . . . . . . . . Nominal Islands . . . . . . . . . . Optional Pied-Piping . . . . . . . Prepositional Pied-Piping . . . . . Nominal Splits . . . . . . . . . . Degree-Phrases . . . . . . . . . . Predicates . . . . . . . . . . . . . Massive Pied-Piping . . . . . . . Italian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . French . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . German . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intervention Effects . . . . . . . . English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Italian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Russian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix 130 130 131 132 132 133 133 134 134 137 137 137 140 141 143 144 145 146 147 147 148 150 151 152 152 153 156 157 160 161 164 168 170 173 173 175 176 179

x

Contents

3 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4.1 1.4.2 1.4.3 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3

Theoretical Background Background Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Derivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Derivational Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Syntactic Operations and Their Bounds . . . . . . . Agree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strict Cyclicity and Phase Impenetrability . . . . . . Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample Derivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Short Wh-Movement without Pied-Piping . . . . . . Short Wh-Movement with Pied-Piping . . . . . . . . Successive Cyclic Wh-Movement without Pied-Piping Successive Cyclic Wh-Movement with Pied-Piping . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.4 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 2.7 2.7.1

Deriving the Generalizations, Part One Recursive Pied-Piping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recursive Specifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recursive Complements . . . . . . . . . . . . Recursion Breakdown Revisited . . . . . . . . Impervious Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wh-Possessors in Icelandic . . . . . . . . . . . Wh-Degree Constructions . . . . . . . . . . . . Secondary Wh-Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . Tzotzil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Irish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Secondary Wh-Movement and the PEC . . . . . Possessor PPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clausal Pied-Piping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lack of Secondary Wh-Movement Revisited . . Secondary Wh-Movement and Cyclic Spell-Out Wh-in-Situ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Untestable Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . German . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spanish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alleged Secondary Wh-Movement . . . . . . . Genau-Inversion in German . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

183 184 184 185 186 188 189 193 194 195 196 199 201 206 209

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

211 211 211 214 216 217 220 221 225 226 229 231 231 234 239 241 245 246 247 249 250 250

Contents

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xi

2.7.2 2.7.3 2.7.4 2.7.5 3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 3.5.4 3.5.5 4

Wh-Degree Constructions . . . . . . . R-Pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Floating Quantifiers in German . . . . Swiping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Repair-Driven Pied-Piping . . . . . . Preposition Stranding and Pied-Piping Preposition Stranding in Danish . . . Prepositional Pied-Piping in Danish . Amending Prepositions . . . . . . . . Ineffability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Derived Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . Optional Pied-Piping . . . . . . . . . Constraint Ties . . . . . . . . . . . . Freezing-Induced Pied-Piping . . . . Stranding as Remnant Movement . . . Pied-Piping as Remnant Movement . . Pseudo-Optionality . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

252 254 255 256 257 258 258 259 261 267 268 273 275 276 280 285 289 294

5 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.3.4 1.3.5 1.4 1.4.1 1.4.2 1.4.3 1.4.4 1.5 1.5.1 1.5.2 1.5.3

Deriving the Generalizations, Part Two Massive Pied-Piping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Properties of Appositive Relative Clauses . . . . . . . . . . Percolation Reduced to Move Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Evidence for Wh-Feature Movement . . . . . . . Subject and Adjunct Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Double Object Constructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The One-Island Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coordinate Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tense Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wh-Feature Movement versus Covert Phrasal Wh-Movement Weak Crossover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parasitic Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Antecedent Contained Deletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coordinate Structures and Covert Phrasal Wh-Movement . . Sample Derivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wh-Feature Movement and Massive Pied-Piping . . . . . . . Pending Problems and Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

297 297 297 301 303 304 307 308 310 313 315 316 317 318 320 320 320 322 325

xii

Contents

1.5.4 1.6 1.6.1 1.6.2 1.6.3 1.6.4 1.7 1.7.1 1.7.2 1.7.3 1.7.4 1.7.5 1.8 1.8.1 1.8.2 2 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5 2.1.6 2.1.7 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.4 3

Wh-Feature Movement Blocked . . . . . . . . . . . More on the Theory of Wh-Feature Movement . . . . Why is There Phrasal Wh-Movement? . . . . . . . . Embedded versus Unembedded Wh-Constructions . . Side Issues of Wh-Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alternative Ways to Balance the Phase . . . . . . . . Additional Evidence for the Analysis of Wh-Pronouns Wh-Pronouns with DP-Shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wh-Pronouns without DP-Shell . . . . . . . . . . . . English which . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Italian cui . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relative Pronouns in English . . . . . . . . . . . . . Two Predictions and Their Consequences . . . . . . Massive Pied-Piping in Interrogatives Again . . . . . Massive Pied-Piping from Specifier Position . . . . . Intervention Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intervention Effects and Specifiers . . . . . . . . . . Cyclic Spell-Out and the PIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Sample Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PIC-Effects Without Wh-Feature Movement . . . . . Apparent Counter-Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phases with Overt Specifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . Double Object Constructions Revisited . . . . . . . . Chain Interleaving Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Evidence for the Theory . . . . . . . . . Phonologically Empty Specifiers . . . . . . . . . . . Secondary Wh-Movement in Massive Pied-Piping . . Remaining Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Secondary Wh-Movement and the PEC . . . . . . . . Secondary Wh-Movement and Tense Effects . . . . . Intervention Effects and Complementizers . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

Conclusion

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

326 328 328 331 333 335 336 336 338 338 340 340 342 342 345 346 347 347 351 353 354 356 357 361 363 363 364 368 369 369 369 372 375

Bibliography

379

Index

397

Chapter 1 Introduction

The present monograph deals with a syntactic phenomenon that was first explicitly discussed in Ross (1967, 1986), where it was introduced as ‘piedpiping’.1 Ever since, pied-piping has been touched upon in the literature from time to time. But a general theory of pied-piping has been out-standing. Much of the work that contains important observations and theoretical considerations about pied-piping is primarily concerned with some other (more or less related) topic. One reason for this may be that pied-piping has usually been regarded as a rather idiosyncratic phenomenon. It is the purpose of this monograph to make one step towards closing the gap in syntactic theory and to propose a theory of pied-piping. In what follows, I argue that pied-piping is less idiosyncratic than often assumed. Rather, I claim that there are generalizations about pied-piping that hold across different languages. I make a proposal how these generalizations can be accounted for and argue that observations that run against them can often be ascribed to independent reasons. 1.

The Problem of Pied-Piping

This section states the problem of pied-piping. To put it in a nutshell, the problem consists of accounting for the observation that sometimes a constituent that is not expected to be able to undergo wh-movement is in fact able to do so.2 The section also contains a short review of several approaches to this problem, most of which employ what is usually considered the standard solution, namely the wh-feature percolation hypothesis. 1.1.

The Phenomenon

Pied-piping occurs in different syntactic contexts and to various extents. Here, the main focus is on the occurrence of pied-piping in the context of interroga1. Ross (1967, 206, footnote 23) himself attributes this particular coinage to Robin Lakoff (see also Ross (1986, 126, footnote 23)). 2. Another question, with which I am not concerned here, is how the desired semantic interpretation of structures that involve pied-piping can be derived.

2

Introduction

tive and relative clauses.3 Take the case of an embedded constituent question as a starting point. In many languages constituent questions are formed by dislocation of a designated constituent, the question word, from its canonical (i.e., thematic) position to the front of the interrogative clause. Often (but not always) question words are designated from a morphological point of view. In English, for instance, question words such as what, when, why, and where begin by the phoneme sequence /w/4 ; in German, the corresponding sequence is /v/. More importantly, it is often assumed that question words also bear a special morpho-syntactic property, called wh-feature ([ WH ]).5 Accordingly, the constituent that moves to the clause-initial position is called a wh-word, and the movement operation itself is known as wh-movement.6 Consider the embedded question from German in (1). (1)

Ich frage mich, wen2 du t2 getroffen hast. have I ask REFL who you met ‘I wonder who you met.’

3. For instance, pied-piping in free relative clauses, wh-imperatives, or wh-exclamatives is not addressed. 4. Incidentally, who and how start with /hw /. 5. This is not to say that /w/ or /v/ are morphemes that encode [ WH ]. To say so would be tantamount to the claim that these wh-words can be sub-analyzed morphologically. For German this may not be too far fetched at first sight in view of pairs such as wer ˜ d-er (‘who’ ˜ ‘this’ (human)), w-as ˜ d-as (‘what’ ˜ ‘this’ (thing)), w-arum ˜ d-arum (‘why’ ˜ ‘therefore’), w-eshalb ˜ d-eshalb (‘why’ ˜ ‘therefore’). But the correspondence is not complete, cf. w-o ‘where’ (only roughly matched by d-a ‘there’) and w-ie ‘how’ (no match whatsoever). In other languages, there may be even less correspondence. It is therefore less controversial to assume that [ WH ] is abstract, not expressed by a morpheme of its own. 6. I assume that both interrogative and relative clauses involve wh-movement, triggered by [ WH ] (see Chomsky (1977)). Several observations suggest that this is a simplification. English shows differences between relative and interrogative clauses with respect to extraction from factive complements (Kiparsky and Kiparsky (1970), Ross (1979)), the (im)possibility of a verb in the imperative (Ross (1979)), constraints on the animacy of the wh-pronoun’s reference (Ross (1979)), and constraints on identity-of-sense pronominalization of the wh-pronoun (Hankamer and Postal (1973)). Other languages show differences with respect to wh-islands (Italian, Rizzi (1982)), landing positions of the wh-pronoun (modern Hebrew, Reinhart (1981); Italian, Rizzi (1997)), V/2 in intermediate SpecC positions (Belfast English, Henry (1995)), and resumption (Tunisian Arabic, Ross (1979)). Finally, wh-pronouns are interpreted differently in interrogative and relative clauses, and many languages distinguish them morphologically. It is thus more appropriate to speak of rel-movement and a feature [ REL ] in the case of relative clauses.


3

In (1), the object of the past participle getroffen ‘met’ is the wh-word wen ‘who’. This wh-word does not, however, appear in the canonical object position, which in German is to the left of the verb as indicated by the trace t2 in (1). Rather it appears in the clause initial position of the embedded question: it has undergone obligatory wh-movement. Ross’s observation was that in some cases wh-movement affects more than the bare wh-word. From a syntactic point of view this means that a constituent undergoes wh-movement that does not bear the morpho-syntactic feature [ WH ] but rather contains a category that bears [ WH ]. In (2), for instance, it is not only the wh-word wem ‘whom’ that moves; rather the prepositional phrase mit wem ‘with whom’, which contains wem, undergoes fronting. (2)

Ich frage mich, [ PP mit wem2 ] 3 du t3 gesprochen hast. with whom you talked have I ask REFL ‘I wonder who you talked to.’

It is precisely this phenomenon, namely that wh-movement sometimes targets a category containing the bare wh-word, that was called pied-piping by Ross. To put it in a nutshell, pied-piping can be characterized as in (3). (3)

Characterization of pied-piping β pied-pipes dominating α iff a.-c. hold. a. Movement of β is contingent on the presence of [ WH ] on β . b. [ WH ] is not marked on α . c. Movement actually does not affect β but α .

In (2-a) the pied-piped constituent is PP3 . The wh-word, which drags along PP3 , is called the pied-piper. There is one case where wh-movement affects more than a wh-word β and that still does not qualify as pied-piping in the sense of (3): if β is the head of α . This follows directly from (3-b), provided the head of a phrase projects its features up to the phrase. In what follows, I often use the term ‘wh-phrase’ in order to refer to both a wh-word β and the phrase projected by β . Note in passing that fronting of a bare wh-word that is the complement of a preposition (i.e., ‘stranding’ of the preposition) generally results in ungrammaticality in German as (4) illustrates.7 7. In some dialects, P-stranding is possible with R-pronouns, see section 3.13.1, chapter 2 and section 2.7.3, chapter 4.

4 (4)

Introduction

*Ich frage mich, wem2 du [ PP mit t2 ] 3 gesprochen hast. I ask REFL who you with talked have

Crucially, pied-piping of a PP is impossible if it does not contain a wh-word but, e.g., an indefinite instead of the wh-word. Thus, (5) is not a well-formed embedded interrogative. (5)

*Ich frage mich, [ PP mit jemandem ] 2 du t2 gesprochen hast. with someone you talked have I ask REFL ‘I wonder who you talked to.’

It suggests itself to treat the contrast between (2) and (5) on a par with the contrast between (6-a) and (6-b). (6)

a. Ich frage mich, wen2 du t2 getroffen hast. have I ask REFL who you met ‘I wonder who you met.’ b. *Ich frage mich, jemanden2 du t2 getroffen hast. have I ask REFL someone you met

(6-a) involves regular wh-movement of a wh-word. In (6-b), where the whword was substituted by an indefinite, wh-movement is blocked. The contrast follows if wh-movement is contingent on the presence of the feature [ WH ] (which is located on the wh-word). But this also suggests that in (2) it is a property of the wh-word, too, namely the wh-feature, that triggers movement to the sentence initial position. Thus, the contrast between (2) and (5) follows from the same requirement of the grammar as the contrast between (6-a) and (6-b): the requirement that in constituent questions in languages like German exactly one phrase must, and only a wh-phrase (or a constituent containing a wh-phrase) can undergo wh-movement. This requirement on wh-movement is known as the ‘wh-criterion’ (see Aoun et al. (1981), Pesetsky (1982b), Kayne (1983), May (1985a), Lasnik and Saito (1992), Rizzi (1996)). It states that the C-head of an interrogative (or relative) clause has a wh-phrase in its specifier. Chomsky (1995) implements the wh-criterion as a condition on matching features (called ‘feature checking’) which demands that two wh-features, one on the wh-phrase and another one on the C-head, must enter into a checking relation with each other. Moreover, the two features can only enter into this checking relation if they are in a specifier-head configuration. The aim of feature checking is


5

the elimination of the wh-feature on the C-head. Thus, in this theory whmovement applies in order to eliminate a wh-feature.8 In what follows I will by and large adopt the framework of feature checking. In section 1.4 of chapter 3 the details of this mechanism are presented. For now, let me note that both the wh-criterion and the mechanism of feature checking were standardly assumed to be local in the following sense. Suppose that α is a constituent that occupies SpecC. Suppose further that α does not bear [ WH ] but rather contains some category β that bears [ WH ]. In this configuration, the wh-feature on the C-head cannot establish a feature checking relation across α with the wh-feature on β (see (7-b)); rather α itself must bear the second [ WH ] (see (7-a)) for checking to be able to apply. (7)

. . . ] 2 . . . C[ WH ] . . . t2 . . . a. [ α [ WH ] b. [ α . . . β[ WH ] . . . ] 2 . . . C[ WH ] . . . t2 . . .

Of course, the assumption that feature checking (or satisfaction of the whcriterion for that matter) must apply in this local fashion causes a problem in the context of pied-piping: by definition, pied-piping involves a configuration where the relation between the two wh-features is not local, as in (7-b). To summarize, it is plausible to assume that the grammar contains a requirement to the effect that wh-movement exclusively affects constituents that bear a wh-feature. However, in the case of pied-piping the constituent that undergoes wh-movement merely contains a wh-feature, i.e., the requirement is not met. This is the problem of pied-piping. The question is as to how and to what extent the requirement is to be reformulated. The standard answer is that in pied-piping the pied-piped category behaves like a wh-word precisely because it does bear a wh-feature, despite superficial appearance. (There are theories that depart from this standard view, though, see sections 2.1, 2.5, and 2.6 below.) The next section illustrates this idea.

1.2.

The Wh-Feature Percolation Hypothesis

If the pied-piped PP in (2) is supposed to bear [ WH ], then the question arises as to where this [ WH ] comes from. An obvious source is the wh-phrase that is 8. In fact, Chomsky (1995, 177-178) defines the notion of ‘minimal residue’ or ‘checking domain’. and formulates the requirement that a constituent α can check a feature [γ ] on some head β only if α bears a corresponding feature and if it is in the minimal residue of β . The notion of minimal residue comprises more than the specifier-head configuration.

6

Introduction

embedded within in the PP. Accordingly, it has been proposed in the literature that it is possible for a wh-phrase β to transmit its wh-feature to a node α that dominates β . This has been called wh-feature ‘percolation’. The proposal to treat pied-piping in terms of wh-feature percolation goes back to Chomsky (1973, 273). To illustrate, assume that the German wh-pronoun wem ‘who.DAT’ in (2) is a D-head that projects a DP. Having been projected to the DP-level, the wh-feature of wem can then percolate up to the PP-level, see (8). (8)

[ PP

[ WH ]

mit [ DP

[ WH ]

wem[ WH ] ]]

Now, there is the generalization (see Lieber (1980), di Sciullo and Williams (1987)) that the features of a head H ‘project’ (i.e., are inherited) as far as the category feature of H (which defines the minimal phrase HP), but not beyond. If this is correct, then wh-feature percolation as it is supposed to apply in the context pied-piping must be different from the process of feature projection because the pied-piper β and the pied-piped constituent α do not belong to the same minimal phrase. Rather, there is at least one phrase boundary between α and β , which cannot be crossed by feature projection. With respect to (8), this means that the process that transfers [ WH ] from wem to the DPlevel is not the same as the one that transfers it up to the PP-level. Therefore the standard literature on pied-piping entertains the hypothesis in (9). (9)

Wh-feature percolation hypothesis There is a mechanism of wh-feature percolation that enables [ WH ] to spread across phrase boundaries.

If (9) is correct, then the characterization of pied-piping given in the last section is not appropriate: according to the wh-feature percolation hypothesis the pied-piped constituent α does bear [ WH ] (cf. condition (3-b) in section 1.1). As we will see, it is not easy to provide decisive empirical arguments against (9). Note that (9) is too strong as it stands. If there were no restrictions on wh-feature percolation, then a wh-phrase could percolate its [ WH ] over an arbitrarily long distance. As a consequence, pied-piping should be able to affect an arbitrary amount of structure, contrary to fact. For instance, as shown in (10), pied-piping of a DP is ill-formed if a PP that contains the pied-piper occupies the complement position within that DP.


(10)

7

*I wonder [ DP the sister of whom2 ] 4 you met t4 .

This is not an isolated fact of English but shows up repeatedly across various languages. For instance, Cowper (1987, 329) observes that corresponding structures in French and Italian are also ungrammatical: (11)

a. *Je me demande [ DP les livres de qui ] 3 il a lus t3 . the books of who he has read I REFL ask ‘I wonder whose books he read.’ t3 . b. *Mi domando [ DP i libri di chi ] 3 legge REFL ask-1SG the books of who read-3SG ‘I wonder whose books he read.’

Theories of pied-piping that are based on wh-feature percolation must identify restrictions on percolation. To this end different proposals were made. Some approaches constrain wh-feature percolation to particular projections (see, e.g., Honda (1993), Grosu (1994), Bayer (1996), among many others, all following an idea of Grimshaw (1991, 2000); see also Gazdar et al. (1985) and Longobardi (1991) for related ideas). Others assume that certain (noncategorial) features block wh-feature percolation (see, e.g., Cowper (1987), Rapp (1992) among others).9 Still others correlate the possibility of whfeature percolation with a certain syntactic configuration (see Cowper (1987), Grimshaw (1991, 2000), Webelhuth (1992), Moritz and Valois (1994), Kayne (1994), Aissen (1996), Bayer (1996), and many others). Some of the abovementioned approaches also implement a combination of these ideas.

1.3.

Overview of the Book

The remainder of the book is structured as follows. Section 2 of this chapter reviews some approaches to pied-piping proposed in the literature. In section 3 I discuss the notion of wh-feature percolation in more detail, trying to identify empirical and conceptual problems. In particular, I argue that percolation cannot be reduced to Merge or Move and must thus be stipulated as an additional operation of the grammar. The conclusion is that it is conceptually attractive to eliminate wh-feature percolation. 9. The idea that wh-feature feature percolation can be blocked by other features goes at least back to Williams (1981) and Selkirk (1982), although they were not concerned with pied-piping.

8

Introduction

Chapter 2 introduces five generalizations on pied-piping. They deal with the following topics: recursive pied-piping, secondary wh-movement, pied-piping as a last resort, massive pied-piping, and intervention effects in massive piedpiping. The first three of these are concerned with pied-piping as it occurs in embedded questions and restrictive relative clauses. The last two generalizations deal with pied-piping as it can typically occur in appositive relative clauses (and also matrix interrogatives). For each generalization, empirical evidence from different languages will be provided. Some of the observations have been mentioned in the literature already; others are new. Chapter 3 addresses the theoretical background that underlies the theory proposed here. I introduces the concepts, constraints, and operations that form its core. Among these are a version of the theory of feature checking, based on the operation Agree (see Chomsky (2001)) and a constraint called L OCAL AGREE that favors local applications of Agree over remote ones. A grammar is proposed that combines aspects of a derivational syntactic theory familiar from the minimalist program (see Chomsky (1995, 2001)) and aspects of an optimality theoretic system, see Prince and Smolensky (2004), McCarthy and Prince (2004), Grimshaw (1997). The result is a theory in which, in the unmarked case, wh-movement stops at every phrase boundary it passes by. Chapters 4 and 5 derive the generalizations introduced in chapter 2, mainly (but not exclusively) on the basis of the theoretical assumptions presented in chapter 3. In chapter 4 I develop an approach to pied-piping that dispenses with wh-feature percolation and that is based on the idea that wh-feature checking can be performed in a non-local manner by the operation Agree. In the context of ‘massive’ pied-piping (and only there), I argue, a mechanism is needed that recalls percolation. It turns out, however, that this mechanism is wh-feature movement in the sense of Chomsky (1995): being an instance of movement, it obeys well-established movement constraints, in contrast to the usually hypothesized garden variety type of wh-feature percolation. Differences in pied-piping are ascribed to independent differences between languages.10 The general mechanism that governs pied-piping is assumed to be uniform across languages. The approach relies on the notion of a phase (see Chomsky (2000, 2001)), and it also makes crucial use of the assumption that (some) constraints are violable (see Prince and Smolensky (2004)). The monograph ends with a conclusion in chapter 6, which also provides a short summary of its main claims. 10. Other theories assume a pied-piping parameter, see Brody (1995), Koster (2000).

Some Theories of Pied-Piping

2.

9


I now turn to some of the pied-piping theories one can find in the literature. It is the purpose of this discussion to introduce the most basic observations, concepts, and terminology, and also to point out problems faced by these analyses. A more general critique of pied-piping theories that are based on wh-feature percolation is presented in sections 3.1–3.3 and section 4 below. Empirical arguments against a theory (as the arguments in sections 3.1– 3.3 below) can often be countered by modifying it in one way or the other. In the end, it comes down to whether such modifications are conceptually attractive or not. Section 4.1.2 presents a conceptual argument against whfeature percolation, which makes a general point that is, I believe, harder to counter. Perhaps surprisingly, this section does not contain a discussion of Ross (1967, 1986). A reason for this is that the theoretical assumptions of transformational grammar that this work is based on are very different from those that underlie the work that emerged in the eighties and the early nineties. Nevertheless, one should bear in mind that many observations and ideas about piedpiping, which are well-established nowadays, are originally due to Ross and that his influence on the theory of wh-movement in general and pied-piping in particular is immense. Accordingly, the reader will find references to his work everywhere in this book.

2.1.

Sells (1985)

In a manuscript, Sells (1985) proposes an approach to pied-piping that differs from most previous (and following) approaches in several respects. Sells stresses that pied-piping in restrictive relative clauses and pied-piping in embedded questions are subject to the same restrictions. His claim is that these two wh-constructions form a natural class in that they do not allow whfeature percolation. As for relative clauses, he assumes that they require a certain configuration in order to be interpretable. To be precise, the wh-feature of the constituent that undergoes wh-movement must be ‘visible’ (in a sense to be made precise) for the nominal head that is modified by the relative clause. Under this view, restrictions on pied-piping in relative clauses amount to restrictions on the procedure of interpration. On the other hand, Sells argues that the kind of pied-piping that occurs in appositive relative clauses, which is

10

Introduction

unrestricted to a large extent (but not completely), actually does involve whfeature percolation. Restrictions on pied-piping in appositive relative clauses must then be expressed as restrictions on wh-feature percolation.11 Following Safir (1986), I call this latter type of pied-piping ‘massive pied-piping’ (see section 4, chapter 2 for more details on massive pied-piping). In the transformational literature, massive pied-piping in English was first dealt with by Ross (1967, 197-198). An example involving an appositive relative clause in English (taken from Sells (1985, 7)) is given in (12-a). It contrasts with (12-b), which involves a restrictive relative clause. (12)

a. This half-literate good-for-nothing, [ DP the absurdity of wanting to marry whom ] 3 t3 is eclipsed only by your aunt’s desire that the wedding should happen, . . . b. *some half-literate good-for-nothing [ DP the absurdity of you wanting to marry whom ] 3 t3 is eclipsed only by your aunt’s desire that the wedding should happen

The percolation mechanism that Sells (1985) adopts is based on Kayne’s (1983) theory of g-projections.12 According to this theory, a feature [ F ] can percolate from a node α to a projection β if α occupies a position that is in a canonical government relation with the head of β . The canonical government relation in a language L is determined by the government relation of verbs in L. In a language like English, where the verb governs its complement to the right, the canonical government relation between β ’s head and α is given if α is to the right of β ’s head. Hence, wh-feature percolation is possible from a right branch in English, but not from a left branch. Once [ F ] has been percolated from α up to β , it can percolate further up from β to another node γ , provided that β stands in the canonical government relation with γ ’s head, and so on. β and γ are said to be on the ‘g-projection path’ of α or, alternatively, β and γ are ‘in the g-projection set’ of α . If α is marked with [ WH ], then any projection in the g-projection set of α can also be marked with [ WH ]. This is a simplification of Kayne’s theory, but it serves the present purpose. Obviously, percolation based on g-projection is pretty liberal. Already Kayne (1983) speculates that g-projection might also be relevant for pied11. In fact, Sells assumes that wh-feature percolation is also available in restrictive relative clauses and embedded questions but that for some reason syntax and semantics cannot make use of it in these contexts (see Sells (1985, 19)). 12. Sells also discusses the theory of Gazdar et al. (1985). I confine myself to Kayne’s theory.


11

piping. If this were the case, then pied-piping would be expected to be liberal, too. Such a view seems appropriate for pied-piping in appositive relative clauses but not for pied-piping in restrictive relative clauses or embedded questions.13 Sells (1985) therefore proposes to restrict wh-feature percolation to pied-piping in appositive relative clauses. The assumption is that in this context [ WH ] can percolate to the pied-piped constituent. It thereby becomes accessible for interpretive purposes despite massive pied-piping and no problem arises. A welcome consequence of implementing wh-feature percolation in terms of g-projection is that the following subject-object asymmetry in massive pied-piping can be accounted for (see Sells (1985, 12)): (13)

a. ?Lawrence Welk, [ DP the need to imitate whom ] 2 I cannot claim to understand t2 , . . . b. *Lawrence Welk, [ DP the need for whom to imitate you ] 2 I cannot claim to understand t2 , . . .

As (13-a,b) show, the wh-phrase within a massively pied-piped constituent can be an object, but not a subject. If the pied-piper is the subject, then it occupies a left branch. From this position, percolation of [ WH ] is impossible and therefore pied-piping is blocked (see (13-b)). If the pied-piper occupies a complement position, then it is located on a right branch, percolation of [ WH ] is possible, and pied-piping becomes possible, too, see (13-a). This raises the question as to how pied-piping by the pre-nominal whpossessor whose in English can be derived. Whose in (14) occupies a left branch within the pied-piped constituent. Still pied-piping is well-formed. (14)

O’Grady, [ DP whose feelings ] 2 t2 haven’t changed much over the years, . . .

In order to overcome this problem, Sells (1985) stipulates, again following 13. To illustrate consider (i). All nodes on the path from who to (and including) the pied-piped DP are in the g-projection set of who. Thus, if all instances of pied-piping involved whfeature percolation and if percolation were controlled by g-projection, then pied-piping of DP in (i) would be expected to be grammatical, contrary to fact. (i)

*a man [ DP the sister of whom ] 2 I like t2

See section 4 of chapter 2 and section 1 of chapter 5 for more discussion of massive pied-piping.

12

Introduction

Kayne (1983), that the whole phrase whose feelings in (14) counts as a whphrase, but not by virtue of wh-feature percolation. Rather, Sells postulates a generalized phrase structure rule that generates phrases α containing whose and that passes [ WH ] to α . However, the situation is more complicated. Namely, it has been observed that whose can be arbitrarily deeply embedded in a sequence of left branches in English, as (15) illustrates (see also section 1 of chapter 2). (15)

Horace, [ DP whose mother’s deckchair’s seat ] 2 you spilled coffee on t2 yesterday, . . .

In order to account for (15), Sells generalizes the hypothesized rule such that it generates whose-phrases of arbitrary complexity. Under this view, any DP that contains a pre-nominal whose is treated as an atomic expression with respect to the feature [ WH ] and therefore no wh-feature percolation is necessary. In a sense, percolation is built into the phrase-structure rule responsible for the construction of complex whose phrases. With respect to pied-piping restrictions in restrictive relative clauses, Sells assumes that their interpretation requires that the [ WH ] of the relative pronoun be visible to the C-head. He therefore specifies a mechanism that creates a link between the wh-phrase and the C-head of the relative clause. To illustrate, consider the example in (16): (16)

*a woman [ DP the deckchair of whom ] 3 you spilled coffee on t3

Whom in (16) must be linked with the nominal head of the relative clause, woman. The linking mechanism proceeds top-down and seeks to unify the referential index of woman with index of the wh-phrase. Sells makes the following assumptions. First, every nominal is assigned a referential index as a lexical property, which projects up to the DP-level; second, the index of the head of a relative clause percolates into the relative clause, leaving a copy at each node it passes by; third, a node must not bear more than one index. Applied to (16) this means: the index of woman percolates downward into the relative clause, probing for another index it can link to. It first enters the specifier of CP and links with the index of the deckchair of whom. However, this does not give the intended semantics. The resulting interpretation would be something like ‘x is a woman and x is a deckchair,’ which involves unification of the referential indices of woman and of deckchair. Moreover, the index of woman cannot percolate further down in search of the right match:


13

if it did, then the DP-node would acquire two indices (its own lexical index and the index copied from the head of the relative clause), violating the third assumption. Next consider pied-piping by pre-nominal whose in English: (17)

a woman [ DP whose deckchair ] 2 you spilled coffee on t2

In order for (17) to be derivable, Sells assumes that whose-phrases are able to bear more than one index. One of the indices associates with whose and the other with the matrix DP. Although generally blocked by the third assumption, this is possible by virtue of the wh-feature percolation instruction that is built into the phrase structure rule generating phrases that contain whose. Therefore a nominal containing whose is interpretable even if it bears two indices. As a consequence, the index of the head of the relative clause can link to the index of the wh-phrase, resulting in the correct interpretation.14 It follows that restrictions on pied-piping derive from restrictions on the interaction of referential indices. If no referential indices are present, no restrictions should arise. On this background, consider (18). (18)

a. *a woman [ AP fond of whom ] 2 Egbert surely is t2 b. *a woman [ α to kiss whom ] 2 Egbert would never dare t2 c. *a woman [ CP that Horace adores whom ] 2 t2 surprised Egbert

To derive the ill-formedness of examples like (18-a-c) Sells (1985) assumes that APs, VPs, and clauses also bear referential indices.15 As a consequence, (18-a-c) run into the same interpretive problem that (16) ran into. In each case, the ungrammaticality results from the fact that the pied-piped phrase prevents the linking of the head noun of the relative clause with the wh-phrase. PPs are different. Sells (1985) suggests that PPs do not bear a referential index because they do not project external arguments. Accordingly, piedpiping of PPs is (often) grammatical, see (19). 14. The interpretation procedure of appositive relative clauses proposed by Sells, which also makes crucial use of percolating [ WH ], works similarly. Again, somehow wh-feature percolation enables the pied-piped constituent to bear more than one index. 15. This is supported by the fact that they can be antecedents for anaphora, see (i-a-c). (i)

a. b. c.

Marie is [ AP squeamish ], which I am not. Bonzo can [ VP run the mile in three minutes ], which is a real feat. [ CP Fairley is here ], which bothers Green.

14

Introduction

(19)

a person [ PP to whom ] 2 Egbert would never talk t2

Sells speculates that the ill-formedness of (20-a), where SpecP is overtly filled, is due to the presence of a referential index (but cf. section 2.1.3, chapter 5 for an alternative account). As Sells points out, this goes hand in hand with the observation that such PPs can act as antecedents for anaphora (see (20-b)).16 (20)

a. *a woman [ PP right next to whom ] 2 John sat t2 b. I sat [ PP right next to Ponsonby ], which is always a bad place to get stuck in.

Pied-piping restrictions in interrogatives, such as (21-a-c), must have a different source in Sells’s (1985) theory. Interrogatives do not involve a head like relative clauses do. Hence, there is no process of linking that could possibly be blocked by pied-piping. In order to capture the parallel behavior of pied-piping in restrictive relative clauses and (embedded) questions (cf. (18) and (21)), Sells assumes that interrogatives do not involve percolation either. Moreover, he claims that restrictions on pied-piping in embedded interrogatives follow from a theory of wh-subcategorization. (21)

a. *Horace wonders [ AP fond of whom ] 2 Egbert is t2 . b. *Horace wonders [ α to kiss whom ] 2 Egbert finally dared t2 . c. *I wonder [ CP that Egbert adores whom ] 2 t2 surprised Horace.

The idea is that a matrix verb that embeds an interrogative clause subcategorizes for it. It does so by assigning a ‘subcategorization feature’ to the whphrase of the embedded interrogative. By assumption, assignment of such a feature is only possible under adjacency, which is not met in the examples in (21) due to pied-piping. This also explains that pied-piping of the type in (21) is grammatical in matrix interrogatives, as illustrated in (22). As the interrogatives in (22) are not subcategorized, no adjacency requirement holds that pied-piping could violate.17 16. This leaves unexplained why pied-piping of the PP in (i-a), which can be argued to have the external argument teapot (and therefore a referential index, see (i-b)), is acceptable. (i)

a. b.

the sofa [ PP under which ] 2 we left the teapot t2 We left the teapot [ PP under the sofa ], which is a safe place to keep it.

17. Usually, such cases also involve additional stress on the wh-phrase, as is indicated by the


(22)

15

a. [ AP Fond of WHOM ] 2 is Egbert t2 ? b. [ α To kiss WHOM ] 2 did Egbert dare t2 ? c. [ CP That Egbert adores WHOM ] 2 t2 surprised Horace?

To conclude, Sells (1985) derives various properties of pied-piping.18 It is also noteworthy that the restricted type of wh-feature percolation that he employs in his analysis is not susceptible to the empirical criticism put forward in section 3 below because it can be reduced to movement, an independently motivated concept (see section 1.2, chapter 5). But the analysis also has its flaws. First, on the one hand Sells stresses is the similarity of pied-piping restrictions in embedded interrogative clauses and restrictive relative clauses. On the other hand, however, he does not offer a unified account for them. The former are implemented as restrictions on the interpretation of relative clauses; the latter result from restrictions on subcategorization. It thus remains an accident that they are the same. Second, the special treatment of pied-piping by whose is based on a stipulation. Also, notions such as government, crucial for the concept of g-projection, and phrase structure rules (that generate complex whose-phrases) are not available within more recent syntactic theorizing. The analysis of whose-phrases also raises an empirical issue. Kayne (1983, 241), who Sells refers to, observes that (23-b-i) is an appropriate answer to (23-a), but (23-b-ii) is not.19 (23)

a. Whose book did you read? b. (i) Smith’s (book) (ii) *Smith

Suppose that the answer to a constituent question has to be congruent to the wh-phrase involved in that question. Then the contrast between (23-b,c) suggests that Smith’s (book) is congruent to whose book but Smith is not congruent to whose. Kayne takes this to support his assumption (adopted by Sells) that whose is not atomic.20 use of small capitals in (22). 18. Sells also discusses pied-piping with multiple wh-phrases, a topic ignored here. 19. Nishigauchi (1990) and Choe (1987) offer similar contrasts to support the claim that there is LF-pied-piping in Japanese. 20. Note that both (i-b-1) and (i-b-2) are appropriate answers to (i-a). This suggests that pied-piping with and without whose should be distinguished, which is what Sells argues. (i)

a.

To whom did you talk?

16

Introduction

But the argument is less suggestive than it seems. First, Fiengo et al. (1988) note that if there were indeed such a congruency requirement, then (24-b-i) should be a possible answer to (24-a). However, only (24-b-ii) is a possible answer, (24-b-i) is not. (24)

a. Whose mother’s friend did you see? b. (i) *Mary’s mother’s (ii) Mary’s

Suppose instead that answers are underlyingly propositional. Then, as suggested by von Stechow (1996), patterns such as the one in (23) could reflect a restriction on ellipsis: the answer underlying (23-a) would be I read Smith’s book. For some reason it is not possible to elide the genitive marker ’s, stranding the phrase it attaches to. This is supported by the observation that exactly the same pattern arises in the environment of sluicing, see (25-a,b)21 , a process that has been argued to involve PF-ellipsis (see Ross (1969), Merchant (2001)).22 (25)

a. Somebody’s car is parked outside but I don’t know whose car is parked outside. b. *Somebody’s car is parked outside but I don’t know who se car is parked outside.

The answer in (23-b-i) (and the answers in (i-b), footnote 20) can be analyzed as involving topicalization plus a variant of sluicing that operates in declaratives and that deletes everything except for the topicalized category (see Lasnik (2002)). But then elliptical answers do not tell us anything about the status of wh-phrases as being atomic or not. b.

1) 2)

To John John

Lasnik and Saito (1992, 170) take this as an argument against the idea that there is a condition of congruency between answers and pied-piped material; see also Choe (1987, 351, footnote 7), who attributes the same counter-argument to David Pesetsky. 21. Crossing out indicates phonological deletion 22. Again, it follows that both answers are possible with pied-piped PPs (see footnote 20): the sluicing pattern in (i) suggests that prepositional pied-piping is optional. (i)

a. b.

Mary talked to somebody but I don’t remember to whom Mary talked. Mary talked to somebody but I don’t remember who Mary talked to.


17

Third, Sells’s (1985) idea of restricting pied-piping in embedded interrogatives via subcategorization does not explain why sometimes prepositional pied-piping in English not only becomes possible but also necessary (cf., for instance, *I wonder what manner Dickens died in). Such cases are unexpected under an adjacency requirement on subcategorization. The problem becomes even more pressing in a language like German, where prepositions almost always undergo pied-piping.23

2.2.

Cowper (1987)

Cowper (1987) presents a theory of pied-piping that is entirely based on whfeature percolation. It is based on a proposal put forward by di Sciullo and Williams (1987), originally designed to explain feature spreading in morphology (see also Selkirk (1982)) According to this proposal, a non-head α can percolate a feature [ F ] to an immediately dominating constituent β if and only if β is not specified for [ F ]. According to Cowper, the feature-specification of a head with respect to [ WH ] can be [+ WH ] or [– WH ]; the head may also be unspecified with respect to [ WH ]. To illustrate how the theory works consider first pied-piping of a prepositional phrase in an embedded question in English, as in (26). (26)

John wonders [ PP in what manner ] 3 Dickens died t3 .

Cowper argues that the category P is generally unspecified for [ WH ].24 As a consequence, percolation of [+ WH ] can proceed from what manner up to PP3 (assuming that what is the head of what manner) and PP3 can undergo piedpiping. Note in passing that this predicts that predicates should to be able to undergo pied-piping as productively as prepositions because predicate heads such as V are arguably unspecified for [ WH ] , contrary to fact (see sections 3.3–3.5, chapter 2). Now reconsider the case where the pied-piper occupies a complement position within a pied-piped DP; a relevant example is given in (27). 23. As Pesetsky (2000, 55, footnote 65) points out, certain adverbials would have to be exempted from such an adjacency requirement, too (witness Mary wonders exactly how many people’s rights the government had trampled on). 24. The claim is based on the observation that there are no wh-phrases of category P. A potential counter-example might be the French relative pronoun dont (cf., however, Pollock (1993, 456, footnote 6)). See also section 2.2.2, chapter 2 for more discussion of dont.

18 (27)

Introduction

*I wonder [ DP a friend [ PP of whom2 ] 3 ] 4 you met t4 .

Somehow wh-feature percolation to DP4 must be blocked. First, the of -PP inherits [+ WH ] as discussed above. Cowper assumes that the category N is not specified for [ WH ], thus percolation proceeds up to the NP projected by the head friend in (27). However, further percolation is blocked by the head of DP4 , the indefinite determiner a, which Cowper assumes to be marked as [– WH ]. This account of (27) implies that the D-head can also be specified as [– WH ] if it is null because examples parallel to (27) that involve a null head are ill-formed, too: (28)

*I wonder [ DP – stories [ PP about whom2 ] 3 ] 4 she told t4 .

Next consider the pair of examples in (29-a,b), both of which involve piedpiping of a predicate, arguably an AP. (29)

a. Egbert wonders [ AP how2 tall ] 3 Horace is t4 . b. *Egbert wonders [ AP proud [ PP of whom2 ] 3 ] 4 Horace is t4 .

Pied-piping in (29-a) is impeccable. Cowper discusses two ways to derive this. Either the wh-phrase how is analyzed as the specifier of the AP and the category A is not specified for [ WH ]. Then [ WH ] can percolate from how to the AP. Or how is analyzed as the head of how tall, for instance as a degree head. Then (29-a) does not involve pied-piping but rather proper whmovement via projection of [ WH ] to the DegP how tall. If the first option is chosen, then the ungrammaticality of (29-b) remains unaccounted for: whfeature percolation within PP must be possible; and if the category A were transparent for percolation, then pied-piping in (29-b) should be well-formed. Cowper thus chooses the latter option. She also assumes that (29-b) involves a null degree head that is specified as [– WH ]. This Deg-head takes AP as its complement and blocks percolation of [ WH ] to DegP. Thus, every AP is actually a DegP (see Abney (1987), Rapp (1992); but cf. Sternefeld (2006)). This is not sufficient, though, to account for the contrast in (30-a,b). (30)

a. Horace knows [ DP which children’s parents ] 3 you met t3 . b. *Horace knows [ DP Egbert’s book about whom ] 4 you read t4 .

In order to derive pied-piping in (30-a) one could assume that the head of DP3 is not specified for [ WH ] and thus transparent for wh-feature percolation.


19

But, as Cowper notes, this analysis does not cover (30-b). If the D-head does not block percolation of [ WH ], then pied-piping in (30-b) is expected to be possible: by assumption, both P and N are transparent for percolation, too. To overcome this problem, Cowper refers to the notion of ‘specifier-head agreement’ (see Chomsky (1986), Rizzi (1990); see also section 3.1 below). The idea is the following. Assume that in (30-b) there were an agreement relation between John and the head of DP4 . Such agreement would require that the D4 -head and John share some features and their value. Cowper assumes that, parasitic on this, agreement then extends to [ WH ]. As John is specified as [– WH ], D4 must be specified as [– WH ], too, by specifier-head agreement. But then, percolation of [+ WH ] to D4 is blocked. Then (30-a) is also accounted for because specifier-head agreement requires that the D3 -head is specified as [+ WH ]: it has to agree with which children. These assumptions enable Cowper (1987) to account for the core facts of pied-piping in embedded questions in English.25 As for relative clauses in English, Cowper (1987) appears to assume that they do not exhibit any restrictions on pied-piping. To derive this, she assumes that both the C-head of a relative clause and relative pronouns in general are specified as [– WH ]. As a consequence, there is no need for wh-feature percolation because virtually every constituent can occupy SpecC of a relative clause under these circumstances.26 There are some problems that arise from the particular design of Cowper’s (1987) theory. To begin with, Cowper’s treatment of pied-piping in relative clauses is hardly satisfactory. For one thing there is evidence that restrictive relative clauses do exhibit pied-piping restrictions after all, see, for instance, Cinque (1982) and Sells (1985). Furthermore, Cowper leaves unaccounted for some basic properties of relative clauses in English: that they contain a whpronoun (which is overt in many cases); that they involve a type of movement that looks like wh-movement; and that it is precisely the wh-pronoun that undergoes this movement (modulo pied-piping). In other words, Cowper’s (1987) theory predicts that (31-b,c) should be interpretable as relative clause constructions, on a par with (31-a), which is obviously not the case.

25. For a more explicit evaluation of Cowper’s system and its problems concerning piedpiping in German, see Lutz and Trissler (1992), Trissler (1999). 26. In some sense then, Cowper envisages an analysis of pied-piping in relative clauses in terms of topicalization, see Emonds (1979), Emonds (1985), and Webelhuth (1992). See also section 2.4 below.

20 (31)

Introduction

a. Egbert, [ DP pictures of who ] 2 Horace adores t2 , . . . b. *Egbert, [ DP pictures of someone ] 2 Horace adores t2 , . . . c. *Egbert, Horace adores [ DP pictures of someone ] 2, . . .

Second, it is a central assumption in Cowper’s (1987) theory that a category α in a given language can be specified as [+ WH ] or as [– WH ], or that it can be unspecified with respect to [ WH ]. This specification determines whether α will be transparent for wh-feature percolation and whether α can undergo pied-piping or not. This means that pied-piping becomes a lexical matter to a large extent. Provided that the lexicon is the locus of cross-linguistic variation, as is commonly assumed, this predicts that pied-piping should be more or less idiosyncratic. In chapter 2, I suggest that this is not the case. Finally, in sections 3.1–3.3 and 4 below I present some potential empirical and also a conceptual argument against wh-feature percolatin. To the extent that they can be maintained they also apply to Cowper (1987).

2.3.

Grimshaw (1991, 2000)

Grimshaw (1991, 2000) proposes a theory of ‘extended projections’ that is, among other things, a theory of wh-feature percolation. Arguably, Grimshaw’s theory is the most popular representative of percolation-based approaches to pied-piping and has inspired a large amount of subsequent literature. Grimshaw acknowledges the different pied-piping properties of appositive relative clauses on the one hand and restrictive relative clauses and embedded questions on the other hand. She explicitly confines the discussion of pied-piping in restrictive relative clauses and embedded interrogatives (i.e., to ‘non-massive pied-piping’; cf. section 4, chapter 2 on ‘massive’ pied-piping). In the theory of extended projections, lexical heads like N, A, or V form a projection of their own, a ‘perfect projection’. Moreover, lexical heads share their categorial features with the (sequences of) functional heads that embed them. For N, these functional heads are D and P, for V they are (v and) T and C, and for A it is the Deg-head. Functional heads differ from their associated lexical heads with respect to their functional value. Functional heads that are associated with the same lexical head have different functional values, too. Lexical heads have the functional value F0; functional heads that (directly) embed lexical projections have the value F1; functional heads that directly embed functional elements of value F1 have value F2, etc.


21

Since a lexical head and its functional layers share their categorial feature, the functional layers form a projection with the lexical head: the ‘extended projection’. And within an extended projection, wh-features can percolate. In addition, Grimshaw makes the following two assumptions. First, a head can form an extended projection with its complement but not with its specifier. Second, if α takes β as a complement, then α and β constitute only then an extended projection if the functional value of α is higher than (or equal to) the functional value of β . A consequence of the latter assumption is that a lexical head must be at the bottom of its extended projection. We are now in a position to see how the theory of extended projections derives restrictions on pied-piping. Consider first prepositional pied-piping in an embedded question in English, as again illustrated in (32). (32)

John wonders [ PP in [ DP what manner ] 2 ] 3 Dickens died t3 .

Suppose what is the head of DP2 . Then D2 projects [ WH ] to the DP2 -level. Furthermore, the P3 -head forms an extended projection with DP2 for the following reasons. First, P and D share the same categorial features: they are both nominal.27 Second, the functional value of P is higher than the functional value of D (D is presumably of value F1, P of value F2). Third, P takes DP as its complement. As a consequence, the wh-feature can percolate to the PP-level and therefore PP3 can undergo wh-movement. By contrast, if there is a lexical head on the hypothesized percolation path, then wh-feature percolation is blocked.28 To illustrate, consider an example where a pied-piper is embedded within a post-nominal PP, see (33). (33)

*I wonder [ DP a friend [ PP of whom2 ] 3 ] 4 you met t4 .

From (32) we know that [ WH ] in (33) can percolate at least as high as PP3 . The next head that is merged is the lexical N-head friend. Since the functional value of the N-head is lower than the functional value of the PP3 -projection, it follows that PP3 and the NP headed by friend do not form an extended projection. Consequently, wh-feature percolation (and, as a consequence, piedpiping) is blocked. 27. As Grimshaw (1991, 2000) notes, this recalls the proposal in Ross (1967, 1986), who assumes that PPs behave like NPs with respect to pied-piping. 28. Perhaps surprisingly, Longobardi (1991) argues on the basis of negation and quantifiers in Italian that feature percolation is able to pass lexical projections like N, A, etc., but is blocked by functional heads like T, C. This is the opposite of what Grimshaw proposes.

22

Introduction

Finally consider a case where the wh-phrase is in the specifier of the piedpiped constituent, as in (34). (34)

[ DP Whose deckchair ] 2 did you spill coffee on t2 ?

By assumption, a head can only form an extended projection with its complement but not with its specifier. Therefore percolation of [ WH ] from whose to DP2 is not an option. To overcome the problem, Grimshaw resorts to the same stipulation as Cowper (1987): wh-feature percolation from a constituent α in a specifier position of a head H to HP is parasitic on an independent agreement relation between α and H (again, see section 3.1 for some discussion). One may wonder whether Grimshaw’s theory cannot do without this stipulation by simply eliminating the assumption that a head can only form an extended projection with its complement. Namely, if α , as the specifier of a head H, were able to form an extended projection with H, then this would immediately account for the well-formedness of (34). However, such a move would undermine another important aspect of the theory. Consider pied-piping of a DP by a degree phrase, as in (35). (35)

Mary knows [ DP [ DegP how nice ] 2 a woman ] 3 she is t3 .

Again, somehow [ WH ] of how nice must percolate to DP3 . Arguably, the Deg2 -head how in (35) has the same F-value as the D3 -head a: both Deg and D take a lexical category as a complement; thus they both have the functional value F1. However, intuitively they bear different categorial features: D is nominal in nature whereas Deg is rather verbal (heading the functional layer of a predicate). If it were possible for two projections of different categorial status to form an extended projection, then this would falsely predict certain cases of pied-piping to be grammatical. For instance, one would expect that the AP in (36) can be pied-piped by a nominal wh-phrase in its specifier, contrary to fact. (36)

*Egbert wonders [ AP who stupid ] 3 Horace considers t3 .

To sum up, Grimshaw’s theory of extended projections together with the mechanism of specifier-head agreement is able to cover at least the same amount of pied-piping facts of English as the theory of Cowper (1987).29 29. Again, see Lutz and Trissler (1992) and Trissler (1999) for an explicit evaluation of Grimshaw’s system with respect to the pied-piping facts in German.


23

A possible advantage of Grimshaw’s approach over the theory of Cowper (1987) is that it avoids arbitrary stipulations about the specification of categories as being [+ WH ], [– WH ], or unspecified. The F-value of the elements of an extended projection is predictable in so far as it correlates overtly with the observable structure of the functional layers of this projection. Also, the theory of extended projections has been applied to other phenomena, too, (see, e.g., Cole et al. (1993)). Of course, this independent motivation makes it an attractive tool to analyze pied-piping with. However, just like Cowper (1987), Grimshaw’s theory, being based on whfeature percolation, is susceptible to the empirical arguments and the conceptual criticism presented in sections 3.1–3.3 and 4, respectively, below.

2.4.

Webelhuth (1992)

Webelhuth (1992) proposes yet another pied-piping theory that is based on wh-feature percolation. He develops his analysis on the basis of pied-piping facts from several Germanic languages. To begin with, Webelhuth (1992, 132) states the generalizations in (37).30 (37)

a. A modifier is not a pied-piper. b. A specifier is a pied-piper. c. A complement is not a pied-piper.

He then sets out to derive these generalizations from more basic principles of the grammar. I confine myself to the presentation of the core ideas, thereby avoiding technical details. As mentioned above, Webelhuth shares the assumption that pied-piping requires wh-feature percolation. Like other supporters of wh-feature percolation he must therefore come up with appropriate restrictions on this process in order to avoid overgeneration. To begin with, evidence for (37-a) is provided by examples like (38-a,b). In both (38-a) and (38-b) the adverbial where acts as a modifier of VP and DP, respectively. And in both cases pied-piping of this category by the modifier is blocked. 30. Webelhuth restricts (37-b) to specifiers of non-clausal elements and (37-c) to complements of non-prepositional heads. The latter is necessary in order to permit pied-piping of PPs. The former derives that (in many Germanic languages) clausal pied-piping is impossible. Note that some languages exhibit clausal pied-piping (see sections 2.3 and 3.12.2, chapter 2 and section 3.2 below). Thus (37-b) is not universal.

24

Introduction

(38)

a. *I wonder [ VP give a talk where ] 2 John will t2 . b. *I wonder [ DP the party where ] 2 John will enjoy t2 .

Webelhuth derives this by stipulating that if two nodes α and β form a new node γ such that β modifies α , then γ inherits the properties of α and none of β . As a consequence, a modifier can never percolate any of its features to the modified constituent. And if where in (38-a,b) cannot percolate its [ WH ] to the modified category, then pied-piping of this category is blocked.31 We have already encountered evidence for (37-c). (39), where the whphrase is the complement of the verb kiss, provides another case in point. (For now, I remain uncommitted as to the category of α in (39).) (39)

*Horace wonders [ α to kiss whom ] 2 Egbert finally dared t2 .

Webelhuth makes the following proposal in order to account for (39) (and thus to derive (37-c)). The complement position occupied by the wh-phrase in (39) is θ -marked; θ -marked positions are subject to the θ -criterion; and according to one part of the θ -criterion, a θ -marked position must be part of a chain that contains exactly one argument. The obvious candidate in (39) that could serve as an argument and thus fulfill that part of the θ -criterion is the wh-phrase. Webelhuth then introduces another assumption that leads to a violation of the θ -criterion in (39): a constituent bearing [ WH ] does not count as an argument. Of course, since, whom must carry [ WH ] in order to be able to undergo wh-movement, it cannot fulfill the θ -criterion, which leads to the ungrammaticality of (39).32 31. It might appear that this is not a stipulation because it is exactly what Webelhuth’s ‘projection of the modification relation’ expresses (see Webelhuth (1992, 44)). However, as the name suggests, the projection of the modification relation expresses a hypothesis about feature projection (modifiers do not project). It does not say anything about feature percolation. Thus, Webelhuth’s theory must stipulate the restriction after all. 32. Note that a trace created by wh-movement must be able to fulfill the θ -criterion: (i)

Egbert wonders who2 Horace kissed t2 .

The trace in (i) is in a θ -marked position; thus, the θ -criterion is relevant. The wh-phrase cannot fulfill the θ -criterion because it arguably bears [ WH ]. Therefore, the θ -criterion must be satisfied by t2 . As noted by Honda (1993), this raises the question as to why multiple questions such as (ii) are grammatical. (ii)

Egbert wonders who2 t2 bought what.

The wh-phrase what in (ii) is in a θ -marked position. It cannot fulfill the θ -criterion if


25

As is well-known, PPs are relatively prone to pied-piping. Webelhuth (1992, 136-142) therefore argues that prepositions do not θ -mark their complement, in contrast to the heads V, N, or A. Prepositions only serve as ‘solicitors’ of the θ -role that is assigned by another head. As a consequence, PPs can acquire [ WH ] from P’s complement; this enables them to undergo pied-piping, in contrast to VPs, DPs, or APs that have the pied-piper embedded within their complement domain. This leads directly to (37-b), which states that specifiers are good piedpipers (see also Fiengo et al. (1988)). Recall that elements that occupy θ marked positions cannot serve as pied-pipers according to Webelhuth (1992). But the pre-nominal possessive wh-phrase whose in English, which occupies SpecD, is an excellent pied-piper. Accordingly, Webelhuth argues that whose does not occupy a θ -marked position. Unfortunately, he does not say where whose receives its θ -role from (cf. Corver (1990, 177)). One could assume that whose is merged as the complement of N. In this position, it receives its θ -role and then raises to SpecD (see Chomsky (1970)). However, this is at odds with Webelhuth’s account of the ban on clausal pied-piping in Germanic (see footnote 34 below). In any event, Webelhuth concludes that percolation from α to β is only possible if α occupies the specifier position of β . Webelhuth’s argument for the claim that a pied-piper cannot occupy a θ marked specifier position is based on examples that involve pied-piping of a poss-ing gerund by a wh-phrase that occupies the subject position within the gerund are ungrammatical, see (40) (see also section 3.12.3, chapter 2 for more discussion of pied-piping of gerunds.) (40)

*Horace inquired [ α whose singing the anthem ] 2 Egbert liked t2 .

To sum up, the generalizations that specifiers are good pied-pipers (see (37-b)) but complements are not (see (37-c)) derive from the assumption that specifier positions are less often θ -marked than complement positions. As Webelhuth (1992) notes, the impossibility of clausal pied-piping in (41) poses a problem for his theory because neither the wh-phrase who nor the whole pied-piped CP3 occupy a θ -marked position. (41)

*Egbert knows [ CP who2 Horace kissed t2 ] 3 Mary believes t3 .

In principle, nothing prevents CP3 from acquiring [ WH ] via wh-feature percoit bears [ WH ]. This suggests that in-situ wh-phrases do not bear [ WH ]. Rather, they are indefinites that serve as variables, bound by the wh-phrase in SpecC.

26

Introduction

lation. Accordingly, pied-piping of CP3 should be possible. In order to block pied-piping in (41), Webelhuth suggests that a wh-phrase that has percolated its wh-feature to a dominating node does not bear [ WH ] itself anymore. What is more, he assumes that a wh-phrase that has lost its wh-feature via percolation can no longer bind a variable. It then follows that (41) violates Koopman and Sportiche’s (1982) B IJECTION P RINCIPLE (BP), which states that every variable has to be bound by exactly one operator, and every operator has to bind exactly one variable: if the trace left behind by wh-movement of who in (41) counts as a variable, then who, having percolated its wh-feature, fails to bind this variable. At this point, I would like to make three remarks. First, as noted in footnote 30, there are languages that exhibit clausal pied-piping. Typically, clausal pied-piping in these languages also involves wh-movement within the pied-piped clause (called ‘secondary’ wh-movement in chapter 2), which creates a variable such as t2 in (41) (see section 2.3 of chapter 2 for clausal piedpiping and secondary wh-movement). The question arises as to how these languages can avoid a violation of the BP. Second, the problem is general: in section 2 of chapter 2, I present evidence that pied-pipers tend to move to a specifier position of the pied-piped category, no matter whether they are clausal or not. This is exactly what is excluded under Webelhuth’s (1992) assumptions. Third, the assumption that a wh-phrase loses its wh-feature after percolation threatens to undermine Webelhuth’s derivation of generalization (37-c). To illustrate, reconsider (39). Once whom in (39) has percolated its [ WH ] to the dominating VP, it no longer bears this feature. But then it should qualify as an argument; as such, it satisfies the θ -criterion, and (39) should be grammatical after all.33,34 33. One may argue that the problem disappears if θ -assignment to α must apply immediately after α has been merged, that is before wh-feature percolation has a chance to apply. But this raises the question as to how a simple wh-phrase in an interrogative clause such as (i) can ever pick up its θ -role. (i)

What2 did you say t2 ?

If θ -role assignment happens immediately after merging the argument, then what cannot inherit its θ -role from t2 . But what cannot receive its θ -role directly either because it bears [ WH ]. 34. Webelhuth’s account of (39) is also incompatible with the answer (suggested above) to the question as to where a pre-nominal whose is θ -marked: if whose starts in complement position of N and raises to SpecD, it leaves a trace which should be interpreted as a variable. But then wh-feature percolation must be blocked to fulfill the BP.


27

A topic that Webelhuth (1992) addresses explicitly is the type largely unrestricted pied-piping (here referred to as ‘massive’ pied-piping; see section 4, chapter 2). Although Webelhuth does not follow Cinque (1982) and Sells (1985) in assuming that massive pied-piping is restricted to appositive (as opposed to restrictive) relative clauses, he is aware that massive pied-piping does not show up in embedded questions. Furthermore, he claims that among the Germanic languages that he discusses English is the only one that exhibits massive pied-piping. A relevant example from English (from Ross (1967, 198)) is given in (42) (see also Ross (1986, 121)). (42)

Reports [ DP the covers of which ] 2 the government prescribes the height of the lettering on t2 almost always put me to sleep.

Webelhuth adopts an idea of Emonds (1979, 1985), who assumes that massive pied-piping does not involve bona fide relative clauses but rather topicalization within an embedded clause that is then, somehow, interpreted as a relative clause. The topicalized constituent, of course, is the allegedly piedpiped constituent (the covers of which in (42)). Since there are no restrictions on the amount of structure that can be topicalized, this analysis explains why massive pied-piping is virtually unrestricted, too.35 Some comments are in order. To begin with, the account resembles Cowper’s (1987) theory of massive pied-piping. It thus inherits some of its drawbacks. First, it does not explain why relative clauses that involve massive pied-piping must contain a wh-pronoun, and why it is this pronoun (modulo pied-piping) that must undergo topicalization. Second, there are restrictions on massive pied-piping that do not hold for topicalization. For instance, mas35. Webelhuth offers the parallelism between (i) and (ii) as independent evidence for this analysis. (i)

a. [ AP Fond of Egbert ] 2 Horace has never been t2 . b. *[ α To leave ] 2 I want t2 .

(ii)

a. his wife [ AP fond of whom ] 2 he has never been t2 b. *his wife [ α to leave whom ] 2 he wanted t2

If alleged pied-piping of a category is possible only if topicalization of this category is possible, too, then, so the argument, this supports a unified analysis. The argument is not complete, however. If (i-b) is ungrammatical just because a control-infinitive α cannot undergo movement in general, then it also follows that α cannot undergo pied-piping. To complete the argument, one would have to show that α can undergo bona fide A-bar movement of some other type.

28

Introduction

sive pied-piping is ill-formed if the pied-piper is c-commanded by an overt specifier within the pied-piped constituent, as illustrated in (43-a) (see section 4, chapter 2). Topicalization is not sensitive to this restriction (see (43-b)). (43)

a. *The elegant parties, [ CP for us to be admitted to one of which ] 2 t2 was a privilege, had usually been held at Delmonico’s. b. [ CP For us to be admitted to these parties ] 2 Horace thinks t2 would be a privilege.

Third, topicalization is optional. But wh-movement in appositive relative clauses is obligatory, no matter whether it involves pied-piping or not, see the contrast in (44-a,b). (44)

a. Egbert, [ VP to visit whom ] 2 we decided yesterday t2 , . . . b. *Egbert, we decided yesterday [ VP to visit whom ] 2, . . .

Fourth, Webelhuth (1992) does not really explain why constructions with massive pied-piping are impossible in most of the other Germanic languages, in contrast to English. He seems to imply that this is because these constructions are interpreted as relative clauses although they are not relative clauses proper. But this does not explain why the other Germanic languages cannot resort to such a marked strategy, too (as opposed to Italian and French). For instance, Yiddish fulfills the necessary syntactic precondition for massive pied-piping because various categories can undergo topicalization in Yiddish, see (45) (from Lowenstamm (1977)). (45)

a. [ VP Aropshlingen dem borsht ] 2 vet er yo t2 ! swallow-up the borsht will he sure ‘Swallow the borsht, he sure will!’ b. [ AP Bilik ] 2 iz es nisht t2 ! cheap is it not ’Cheap it is not!’ c. [ DP Farshtunkene eyer ] 2 est er t2 ! rotten eggs eats he ‘Rotten eggs, he eats!’

Yet, as Lowenstamm (1977) notes, Yiddish does not exhibit massive piedpiping of the English type, see (46). Jean Lowenstamm (p.c.) also informs me that this state of affairs does not change if the relative clauses in (46) are assumed to be appositive.


(46)

29

a. *der borsht, [ VP aropshlingen velkhn ] 2 vet er t2 swallow-up which will he the borsht ‘the borsht swallow which he will’ b. *der proyekt, [ AP entuzyastish vegn velkhn ] 2 er is geven t2 the project, enthusiastic about which he is been ‘the project enthusiastic about which he was’ c. *di dosyeen, [ DP di haykh fun di oysyes af di tovlen fun the height of the letters of the covers of the reports velkhe ] 2 di regirung firshraybt t2 which the government prescribes ‘the reports the height of the lettering on the covers of which the government prescribes’

Similar facts hold for German.36 This is unexpected if massive pied-piping in appositive relative clauses is topicalization of a constituent that contains the relative pronoun. Finally, the arguments against wh-feature percolation that are presented in sections 3.1–3.3 and 4 also applies to Webelhuth’s (1992) theory.

2.5.

Lutz and Trissler (1997)

The theory of Lutz and Trissler (1997) is confined to pied-piping in restrictive relative clauses and embedded questions. One of its aims is to eliminate whfeature percolation. It is couched within the framework of Chomsky (1995). 36. Note in passing that the relative pronouns velkhn ‘which’ in (46-a-c) and the corresponding welch- in German also figure as wh-operator in interrogatives in these languages, see (i-a-c) ((i-b,c) are Lowenstamm’s (1977) examples). (i)

a.

b.

c.

Fritz möchte wissen, welche er heiraten soll. Fritz wants know which-one he marry shall ‘Fritz wants to know which (woman) he shall marry.’ Ikh veys nisht, velkher es hot gekhalesht. I know not which-one it has fainted ‘I don’t know which person fainted.’ Ikh veys nisht, velkhn er hot geharget. I know not which-one he has killed ‘I don’t know which person he killed.’

This refutes the speculation in Cinque (1982, 275) that massive pied-piping depends on the wh-pronoun’s deployability in interrogatives.

30

Introduction

Lutz and Trissler (1997) observe that the assumption of wh-feature percolation not only causes certain empirical problems but is also incompatible with Chomsky’s (1995) claim that if α and β merge, thereby creating γ , then γ can only inherit features from one of them (namely γ ’s head). Thus, it requires the introduction of a notion of feature percolation that differs from the usual notion of feature projection. In order to avoid such a move, Lutz and Trissler propose that the presence of a pied-piper in Specγ indicates the presence of a wh-feature on γ ’s head. The pied-piper thus agrees with γ ’s head with respect to [ WH ]. Of course, once γ bears [ WH ] as a lexical property, wh-feature percolation is superfluous. In cases where the pied-piper undergoes wh-movement within the pied-piped constituent γ (see section 2, chapter 2 for such ‘secondary’ wh-movement) there arguably is independent motivation for the presence of [ WH ] on γ ’s head: in Chomsky’s (1995) theory all movement must be driven by feature checking; movement of the pied-piper to Specγ can then be justified by a checking relation between the stipulated wh-feature on the head of γ and the pied-piper’s wh-feature.37 For cases that involve pied-piping of γ without secondary wh-movement to Specγ , in particular cases where the pied-piper is merged in a complement position and remains there, this motivation is not available, though. (For cases where the pied-piper is merged in specifier position, see below.) Then the hypothesized wh-feature must either remain a stipulation because other evidence for its presence, such as a morphological reflex on γ ’s head, is not available, or another mechanism is called for. In earlier work (see Lutz and Trissler (1992)) the authors resorted to wh-feature percolation in these cases. In Lutz and Trissler (1997), however, the aim is to dispense with wh-feature percolation altogether. Hence another solution is called for; the idea is to put to use Chomsky’s (1995) notion of generalized pied-piping. If movement is driven by morpho-syntactic features, then, Chomsky (1995, 262-266) argues, it should exclusively affect such features, thereby stranding semantic and phonological features. This reasoning begs the question as to why movement often does affect phonological features, too. Chomsky’s an37. The question remains as to how the wh-feature on γ ’s head can trigger (primary) whmovement to SpecC after having been checked by [ WH ] of the pied-piper; usually, feature checking is assumed to eliminate the higher of the two features that are involved in a checking relation. Sternefeld (2006) solves the problem by stipulating the co-occurence of two wh-features on γ ’s head, only one of which undergoes checking with the piedpiper. The remaining [ WH ] can then trigger wh-movement to SpecC.


31

swer is that movement of a bare [ F ] causes a problem for the phonology. Therefore the PF-interface requires pied-piping at least of the phonological features. He calls this ‘generalized’ pied-piping. Moreover, Chomsky assumes that generalized pied-piping affects only as much material as is needed to satisfy the PF-interface.38 This is expressed by (47). (47)

E CONOMY C ONDITION ON G ENERALIZED P IED -P IPING [ F ] carries along just enough material for convergence.

Thus, Lutz and Trissler (1997) assume that cases that involve pied-piping from a complement position involve generalized pied-piping. However, they point out that some of these cases are hardly due to PFrequirements. For one thing, the pre-nominal wh-genitive wessen ‘whose’ in German does not come with a D-head that is phonologically dependent on it. Rather, the genitive in German is expressed by a morphological affix. Nevertheless, wh-movement of bare wessen is blocked, see (48-a,b).39 (48)

a. [ DP Wessen Probleme ] 2 interessieren dich t2 nicht? whose problems interest you not ‘Whose problems aren’t you interested in?’

38. To illustrate, Chomsky (1995) cites pied-piping of whose book in English. Consider (i). (i)

a. *[ WH ] . . . [ DP who [ D ’s book ]] b. *who . . . [ DP t [ D ’s book ]] . . . c. *whose . . . [ DP t book ]] . . . d. [ DP whose book ] . . . t . . .

[ WH ] in (i) should undergo wh-movement. Due to PF-reasons, it cannot strand the phonological features (i-a). Moreover, who cannot be separated from the D-head ’s, which cliticizes to it (i-b). At least the D-head must be pied-piped by who. But who and the D-head do not form a constituent (i-c); thus the complete DP undergoes pied-piping (i-d). 39. Similarly, Merchant (2001, 161, footnote 1) argues that if pied-piping were due to PFrequirements, then it should be suspended if these are vacuously satisfied. For instance, obligatory prepositional pied-piping in German should be dispensable if the relevant PP is PF-deleted by sluicing (see Ross (1969)) The prediction is not borne out, see (i). (i)

a.

Er hat gelacht, aber ich weiß nicht [ PP u¨ ber was ] 2 er t2 gelacht hat. he has laughed but I know not about what he laughed has ‘He laughed, but I don’t know what he laughed about.’ b. *Er hat gelacht, aber ich weiß nicht was3 er [ PP u¨ ber t3 ] 2 gelacht hat. he has laughed, but I know not what he about laughed has

32

Introduction

b. *Wessen3 interessieren dich [ DP t3 Probleme ] nicht? whose interest you problems not Thus, Lutz and Trissler suggest that the requirements that force pied-piping are more abstract in nature. In this context, they mention prepositional piedpiping in German, as in (49). (49)

der Mann [ PP mit dem ] 2 sie t2 verheiratet ist with whom she married is the man ‘the man she is married with’

In order to derive pied-piping of the PP in (49), Lutz and Trissler assume that there is an abstract relation between the P-head and its complement that blocks separation of the two. The abstract relation is expressed by movement of the wh-phrase’s formal features ([ FF ], including [ WH ]) to the P-head. After movement of [ FF ] to P, the wh-phrase must remain within PP, presumably because [ FF ] must be in a sufficient local relation with the corresponding phonological features. (Unfortunately, Lutz and Trissler do not go much into the details at this point.) As a result, the PP in (49) undergoes pied-piping. At this point, a brief remark is in order. As I understand it, (wh-)feature movement is not only introduced by Lutz and Trissler (1997) in order to ensure strict locality of wh-feature checking, i.e., in order to fulfill of the whcriterion. Rather, feature movement also serves the purpose of deriving certain island effects. In any event, strict locality of wh-feature checking cannot be derived by wh-feature movement if feature movement adjoins the moved feature to a target head H (see Chomsky (1995)). Being adjoined to H, the moved wh-feature cannot project to HP. Thus, strictly speaking the moved wh-feature is not in the checking domain of the wh-feature that is located on the C-head of the interrogative or relative clause (the wh-criterion is not fulfilled) and pied-piping of HP should be impossible. This is shown in (50).40 40. The definition of checking domain in (i) is a simplified version of the definition in Chomsky (1995, 177-178). Chomsky’s original is slightly different; the point in the main text remains unaffected by this. (i)

Checking domain Let α be a head. Then β is in the checking domain of α (β ∈ hold: a. b.

β is in Specα , γ ∈ CD(α ) and β is in Specγ .

CD (α ))

iff a. or b.


(50)

33

[ CP [ HP [ H [ WH ] H ] ] 2 C[ WH ] . . . t2 . . .

Strict locality can be ensured by various means. One can enlarge the checking domain such that it comprises the moved [ WH ] in (50). Or one can assume that wh-feature movement either targets specifiers or is able to ‘integrate’ the moved features into the target head, which would enable them to project.41 The most radical approach is to abandon the notion of checking domain for feature checking altogether. This has been proposed for φ -feature checking (see Chomsky (2000, 2001)).42 And it is also what is proposed for wh-feature checking in the present monograph. Although Lutz and Trissler (1997) are not entirely clear about this issue, it appears that they maintain the idea that feature checking is confined to a checking domain. This is suggested by their assumption that a pied-piper moves into a specifier position of the pied-piped category in order to enter the checking domain of an abstract wh-feature on the head introducing the specifier position. Returning to the main plot, there are instances of pied-piping where the wh-phrase is merged in a specifier position within the pied-piped category γ and does not undergo wh-movement to some higher specifier within γ . In such a situation, no independent motivation for the hypothesized wh-feature on γ ’s head is available provided that (external) Merge is not driven by whfeature checking (as is standardly assumed). In what follows, I present such a case, arguing that an alternative analysis in terms of wh-feature movement runs into problems, too. The conclusion is that in order to account for such cases Lutz and Trissler (1997) must stipulate a wh-feature, after all. Reis (1989, 132) observes that in German past participles (optionally) undergo pied-piping. To illustrate, consider (51) (see also section 3.13.4, chapter 2 and section 1.4, chapter 4 on this construction). (51)

Ich frage mich, [ α wie schön geschrieben ] 4 man t4 haben muss. how well written one have must I ask REFL ‘I wonder how well one must have written (in order to get an A).’

The modifier wie schön ‘how well’ in (51) is arguably merged in its surface position as a specifier (or adjunct) and does not reach this position by whmovement.43 Thus, there is no pied-piping-independent motivation for the 41. The latter strategy is chosen by de Vries (2005); cf. also Fanselow (2001). 42. The set of φ -features comprises [ PERSON ], [ NUMBER ], and [ GENDER ] (see Chomsky (1981)).

34

Introduction

presence of a wh-feature on the head of the pied-piped participle in (51). This means that Lutz and Trissler (1997) must either resort to stipulating such a wh-feature or they must derive (51) via wh-feature movement, i.e., by analyzing it as an instance of generalized pied-piping. However, as matters stand the latter option is subject to the criticism presented in section 4.1.2 below. There, I argue that wh-feature movement obeys constraints on movement (such as islands and a ban against lowering), which the hypothesized wh-feature movement in (51) violates.44 If this is conclusive, then Lutz and Trissler’s (1997) theory must return to the assumption that the participle’s head bears [ WH ] as a lexical property, which is a mere stipulation. I now turn to another point. Sometimes pied-piping is blocked despite the fact that moving the bare wh-phrase is blocked, too. To illustrate, consider (52-a-c). (52)

a. *Egbert knows [ DP the father of which of his former girl-friends ] 2 t2 criticized him. b. *Egbert knows [ PP of which of his former girl-friends ] 3 [ DP the father t3 ] 2 t2 criticized him. c. *Egbert knows [ DP which of his former girl-friends ] 4 [ DP the father of t4 ]2 t2 criticized him.

Pied-piping of DP2 in (52-a) is impossible, irrespective of the fact that movement of PP3 and DP4 is also blocked (DP2 forms a subject island). The economy condition on generalized pied-piping cannot account for this and therefore Lutz and Trissler’s (1997) theory requires additional restrictions. They are not explicit about what these restrictions could look like. One way would be to formulate constraints that restrict the range of wh-feature movement. I will not go further into this matter here. 43. In footnote 166 (section 1.4, chapter 4), I speculate that wie schön in (51) may undergo string-vacuous degree-movement to some higher specifier position within the pied-piped category. This cannot be reinterpreted as wh-movement, though: examples that only differ from (51) in that they do not involve a degree modifier but an wh-argument are ungrammatical, see (i). (i)

*Fritz will wissen, [ α was geschrieben ] 4 man t4 haben muss. Fritz wants know what written one have must ‘Fritz wants to know what one must have written.’

44. Alleged wh-feature movement from wie to the head of the participle phrase geschrieben in (51) both leaves a non-complement island and also involves lowering.


35

Lutz and Trissler (1997) also observe that in a theory where pied-piping is subject to an economy condition the existence of optional pied-piping is unexpected.45 They briefly discuss the case of optional pied-piping by Rpronouns in German. Without going into the details here, the solution they propose involves postulating different structures for the variants with and without pied-piping. Whether this is a viable option for all cases of optional pied-piping is unclear, though.

2.6.

Cable (2007, 2008)

An recent interesting contribution to the theory of pied-piping is Cable (2007, 2008). Cable (2007) comprises almost four hundred pages and I can hardly do full justice to it here. In particular, Cable provides a semantics for whmovement that is also applicable to pied-piping. I will not go into any details here but confine myself to the remark that a similar (if not identical) semantic analysis is proposed in Sternefeld (2001), who also postulates an empty correlate of Q for languages where Q is not overt and who also notes the benefits of his theory for a syntactic analysis of pied-piping. Finally note that although I exclusively focus on the points that are most relevant in the present context, this section clearly requires more space than the preceding ones. To put it in a nutshell, Cable’s central claim is that wh-movement universally involves a Q-particle, which is often covert. This Q-particle takes the wh-phrase as a complement. The head of an interrogative CP attracts a feature of Q, resulting in movement of the complete QP. Thus, what is usually termed wh-movement should rather be called Q-movement, according to Cable. In cases that are usually analyzed as pied-piping Q still takes the moved constituent as a complement; since C does not agree with [ WH ] but with a feature of Q, and since, by assumption, SpecC can only be the target of a category that bears a feature that C has agreed with before, it is again the QP that undergoes movement. As a consequence, pied-piping in the technical sense of the word cannot arise and has in fact never existed (except as an illusion).46 The main motivation for Cable’s analysis comes from the language Tlingit. The crucial point is that in Tlingit interrogatives, Q is overt (spelled-out as sá), see (53). 45. Note, incidentally, that the theory proposed in the following chapters of this book encounters the same problem, see section 3.13, chapter 2 and section 3.5, chapter 4. 46. It goes without saying that Cable’s analysis dispenses with wh-feature percolation.

36 (53)

Introduction

a. [ QP Waa sá ] sh tudinookw i e´ esh? how Q he.feels your father ‘How is your father feeling?’ e´ esh al’óon? b. [ QP Daa sáwé ] i what Q . FOC your ather he.hunts.it ‘What is your father hunting?’

The examples in (53-a,b) involve QP-movement; in both cases the complement of Q is a bare wh-word. The examples in (54-a-c) are cases where the complement of Q is complex, i.e., cases that are traditionally analyzed as pied-piping of a DP, a PP, and a CP, respectively. In all cases, the moved constituent must be marked by the Q-element sá. (54)

a. [ QP [ DP Aadóo yaagu ] sá ] ysiteen? who boat Q you.saw.it ‘Whose boat did you see?’ b. [ QP [ PP Aadóo jeet ] sá ] wé sakwenéin aawatee? who hand.to Q that bread he.brought.it ‘Who did he give the bread to?’ shagóonich? c. [ QP [ CP Goodéi woogootx ] sá ] has uwajée i Q they.think your parents.erg where.to he.went ‘Where do your parents think that he went?’

Moreover, Q must move to the front of the interrogative and cannot be left behind while the wh-phrase moves on its own, see (55). (55)

shagóonich? a. [ Goodéi sá ] 1 has uwajée [ t1 woogootx ] i he.went your parents.erg they.think where.to Q ‘Where do your parents think that he went?’ shagóonich? b. *[ Goodéi ] 1 has uwajée [ t1 sá woogootx ] i Q he.went your parents.erg where.to they.think shagóonich? c. *[ Goodéi ] 1 has uwajée [ t1 woogootx sá ] i he.went Q your parents.erg where.to they.think

The main argument of Cable (2007, 2008) for the claim that wh-movement targets a feature of Q, not of the wh-word, comes from the contrast in (56-a-c). (56)

tuwáa sigóo? a. [ NP [ CP Wáa kligéiyi ] xáat ] sá i how it.is.big.REL fish Q your spirit it.is.happy ‘How big a fish do you want?’


] xáat ] b. *[ NP [ CP Wáa sá kligéiyi how Q it.is.big.REL fish c. *[ NP [ CP Wáa kligéiyi ] sá xáat ] how it.is.big.REL Q fish

37

i tuwáa sigóo? your spirit it.is.happy i tuwáa sigóo? your spirit it.is.happy

As can be observed, pied-piping of a nominal plus relative clause is possible in Tlingit as long as Q is attached outside the moved nominal, as in (56-a). If Q is placed somewhere within the relative clause, ungrammaticality results (see (56-b,c)). Under the assumption that the relative clause forms an opaque domain that the interrogative C-head cannot penetrate, it follows that whmovement in (56-b,c) is impossible, while it is possible in (56-a). Note that the wh-word is inside the relative clause in all three examples. The placement of Q is subject to other constraints, too. As Cable observes, Q cannot be placed between functional heads such as a preposition (see (57)) or a D-head and a constituent selected by this head (see (58)). (57)

a. [ QP Aadóo teen sá ] yigoot? who with Q you.went ‘Who did you go with?’ b. *[ QP Aadóo sá ] 2 [ PP t2 teen ] yigoot? who Q with you.went

(58)

a. [ QP Aadóo yaagu sá ] ysiteen? who boat Q you.saw.it ‘Whose boat did you see?’ b. *[ QP Aadóo sá ] 2 [ DP t2 yaagu ] ysiteen? who Q boat you.saw.it

Some principles are needed to block (57-b) and (58-b). A constraint against P-stranding and a constraint against possessor extraction (ultimately the L EFT B RANCH C ONDITION, LBC, introduced by Ross (1967); see section 3.1.1, chapter 2), as they are operative in many other languages, too, are obvious candidates. But Cable argues extensively that this is not the right way to go. His main argument is that the very same configuration that underlies the structures in (57-b) and (58-b) before movement takes place is also ungrammatical in Tlingit. This becomes apparent in constructions where the same wh-phrases one encounters in Tlingit interrogatives show up in-situ (also accompanied by Q), in which case they are interpreted as indefinites, see (59) and (60).

38

Introduction

(59)

a. Tléil aadóo teen sá xwagoot. not who with Q i.went ‘I didn’t go with anyone.’ b. *Tléil aadóo sá teen xwagoot. not who Q with i.went

(60)

a. Tléil aadóo yaagú sá xwasateen. not who boat Q I.saw.it ‘I didn’t see anyone’s boat.’ b. *Tléil aadóo sá yaagú xwasateen. not who Q boat I.saw.it

As (59-b) and (60-b) show, Q cannot appear between an in-situ wh-phrase and the functional heads P and D, respectively. As a reaction, Cable (2007, 122) introduces the QP-I NTERVENTION C ONDITION (QPIC) in (61), which covers both the examples in (59-b), (60-b) and those in (57-b), (58-b). (61)

QP-I NTERVENTION C ONDITION A QP cannot intervene between a functional head and a phrase selected by that functional head. (Such an intervening QP blocks the selection relation between the functional head and the lower phrase.)

What is more, Cable (2007, 370-371) claims that, quite generally, the constraint against P-stranding and the LBC are to be replaced by the QPIC. Now, languages that exhibit P-stranding and possessor extraction appear to pose a problem for the QPIC. As for P-stranding, Cable (2007, 200-203, 314) proposes that in English (and Scandinavian) P is lexical, not functional. Thus, the QPIC is vacuously satisfied. For other languages, Cable proposes that P-stranding may result from the insertion of an empty resumptive pronoun (Irish, Tlingit). Furthermore, Cable (2007, 203-209) assumes that in some languages (Chol Mayan) possessor extraction involves an empty resumptive in SpecD; for other languages (Russian) he proposes that possessors adjoin to NP. One reason why Cable makes this strong claim about the QPIC is that he also holds the QPIC responsible for the cross-linguistic lack of pied-piping of (main) predicates (see below). Another reason is that he wants to use the QPIC as an argument for his claim that wh-movement universally involves Q. The reasoning is straightforward: since wh-movement in many other languages also obeys a constraint against P-stranding and the LBC, it follows


39

that wh-movement in these languages must involve Q, too, if these constraints ultimately reduce to the QPIC. However, this claim is problematic. First, other movement types that are hardly driven by Q are often subject to the LBC and lack P-stranding, too; second, the argument based on wh-indefinites for the QPIC is not as strong as it seems at first sight; and third, the QPIC makes a false prediction with respect to pied-piping. As for the first point, Cable (2007, 369-375) notes that there are other Abar movement types that lack P-stranding and possessor extraction and that should therefore also involve Q, albeit with a modified semantics (see also Cable (2007, 199, footnote 10)). Cable cites Horvath’s (2007) analysis of focus movement in Hungarian, which apparently fits into the picture. But he does not address the issue of wh-movement in relative clauses. As a matter of fact, a proposal that could fill this gap is put forward by Sternefeld (2001). But my main concern here is with A-bar movement types that do not exhibit a heterogeneous semantics that could be associated with the presence of Q and that nevertheless do not permit P-stranding or possessor extraction, like so-called topicalization and scrambling in German, as in (62), (63).47 (62)

a. *[ DP Dem Fritz ] 2 hat keiner [ PP mit t2 ] 3 gesprochen. the Fritz has no-one with talked ‘No-one talked to Fritz.’ b. [ PP Mit dem Fritz ] 3 hat keiner t3 gesprochen. with the Fritz has no-one talked c. *Marias2 hat der Fritz gestern [ NP t2 Buch ] 3 gelesen. book read Maria’s has the Fritz yesterday ‘Fritz read Maria’s book yesterday.’ d. [ DP Marias2 Buch ] 3 hat der Fritz gestern t3 gelesen. Maria’s book has the Fritz yesterday read

(63)

a. *weil [ DP dem Fritz ] 2 gestern keiner [ PP mit t2 ] 3 sprach the Fritz yesterday no-one with spoke because ‘because no one talked to Fritz yesterday ’ b. weil [ PP mit dem Fritz ] 3 gestern keiner t3 sprach because with the Fritz yesterday no-one spoke

47. As a matter of fact, Cable (2007, 374, footnote 4) notes that topicalization in English poses a similar problem for his claim.

40

Introduction

c. *weil Marias2 gestern keiner [ NP t2 Buch ] 3 gekauft hat because Maria’s yesterday no-one book bought has ‘because no-one bought Marias book yesterday’ d. weil [ DP Marias2 Buch ] 3 gestern keiner t3 gekauft hat Maria’s book yesterday no-one bought has because In a similar vein, certain non-A-bar movement types like Wackernagel movement or raising also lack P-stranding in German, see (64) and (65).48 The interesting point is that these movement types are semantically empty. Hence, there is no semantic correlate to Q and the lack of P-stranding cannot be attributed to the QPIC. (64)

a. *weil es2 der Fritz [ PP mit t2 ] 3 gerechnet hat with counted has because it the Fritz ‘because Fritz counted on it’ b. weil der Fritz [ PP da2 -mit ] 3 gerechnet hat there-with counted has because the Fritz

(65)

a. *weil [ DP dieses Bett ] 2 nicht [ PP in t2 ] 3 geschlafen wurde not in slept was because this.nom bed ‘because this bed was not slept in’ b. *weil [ DP diesem Bett ] 2 nicht [ PP in t2 ] 3 geschlafen wurde slept was not in this.dat bed because c. weil [ PP in diesem Bett ] 3 nicht t3 geschlafen wurde slept was not in this.dat bed because

The QPIC could become relevant for these cases only if it were assumed that Q is involved in all types of movement. But such an assumption poses serious problems for Cable’s semantic analysis of Q. Moreover, I know of no language that exhibits an overt element showing up in the context of scrambling, raising, or Wackernagel movement that could be identified with Q. The upshot is that if the QPIC cannot account for these cases, then an independent ban against P-stranding and possessor extraction is needed any way. As for the second point, it was mentioned above that the main argument for the QPIC rests on in-situ wh-indefinites in Tlingit. Now, Cable (2007, 119, footnote 69) notes that Sandra Chung proposed an alternative account of these facts without reference to the QPIC: if Q is treated as a clitic, they follow 48. The (im)possibility of possessor extraction with raising and Wackernagel movement is hard to test for independent reasons.


41

from an independently motivated restriction on clitic-placement. Moreover, in Sinhala Q violates the QPIC in the context of in-situ wh-indefinites (see Cable (2007, 167, footnote 5)) but not in the context of wh-movement; this suggests that the restrictions on the placement of Q in the context of in-situ wh-indefinites differ from those in the context of wh-movement. Turning to the last point, Cable (2007, 303) notes that the QPIC predicts that no language should permit pied-piping of main predicates. The reasoning leading to this prediction is as follows: If the wh-word is dominated by the main predicate within the pied-piped constituent, then it follows that the sister of Q is either the main predicate itself or some functional projection FP that dominates the main predicate. This entails that the base position of the fronted QP is either sister to the next higher functional head F , which selects FP; or QP is the top projection of the clause. In the first case, the configuration is blocked by the QPIC; in the second case, the structure is not interpretable according to Cable’s theory. Support for the prediction is illustrated by the English examples in (66-a-c). (66)

a. *[ VP Eaten what ] have you? b. *[ AP Proud of whom ] are you? c. *[ DP A doctor of what ] is he?

The predicates eaten, proud, and doctor in (66-a-c) are selected complements of a functional head, the copula (either realized by have or be). Clearly, a QP must intervene between the copula and the predicate if the predicate is to undergo wh-movement; however, this is blocked by the QPIC. The problem with this account is that it also blocks examples that are identical to (66-a-c) in all relevant respects and that are nevertheless grammatical. A case in point are (67-a-c), from English, Basque, and German, respectively. (67)

a. [ DP Whose doctor ] is he? b. [ α Nork idatzi ] -a da liburu hori? who.E written -A is book that-A ‘By whom is that book written?’ c. [ AP Wie gut verständlich ] war das? how well understandable was this ‘How easy was it to understand this?’

Thus, the QPIC makes the wrong prediction here.49 49. As discussed in sections 3.2–3.5 in chapter 2 and in section 3 of chapter 4, the examples

42

Introduction

To summarize, the QPIC is problematic for various reasons. It is therefore doubtful whether it can serve as a good argument for the claim that all languages involve a Q-particle in wh-movement contexts. This does not, of course, call into question the Q-analysis as a whole, which is perfectly compatible with a theory that incorporates constraints against P-stranding and possessor extraction. Cable argues that the QPIC is not yet enough to account for the restrictions on pied-piping. In particular, he takes up the observation most explicitly stated by Grimshaw (1991, 2000) that the pied-piper cannot be dominated by a lexical category. This is illustrated for English in (68).50 (68)

a. *I wonder [ DP [ NP pictures of whom ]] John bought. b. *I wonder [ AP proud of whom ] John was considered. c. *I wonder [ VP eat what ] John wanted.

To account for these, Cable (2007, 281) introduces the LP-I NTERVENTION C ONDITION (LPIC) in (69). (69)

LP-I NTERVENTION C ONDITION A lexical projection (LP) cannot intervene between a Q-particle and a phrase that the Q-particle agrees with. (LP blocks all probing of Q.)

The idea is that in English Q must agree with the wh-word. This agreement relation is blocked by any lexical projection. Cable (2007, 290-299) discusses whether the LPIC can be derived from the P HASE I MPENETRABILITY C ON DITION (PIC) (see Chomsky (2000, 2001); see also section 1.4.2, chapter 3 of this monograph). Suppose that every lexical projection is complement of a particular functional head, a phase head, that turns its complement into an opaque domain. Then the ungrammaticality of the examples in (68) is derived: Q cannot agree with the wh-word because the latter is embedded within this opaque domain and is thus inaccessible to Q. in (66) receive another explanation: (66-a), (66-b) fall under the generalization that if the complement of a predicate can be extracted, then pied-piping of the predicate is blocked. (66-c) is covered by the idea that DPs are opaque domains (phases) that render material (in this case [ WH ]) that is within their complement domain inaccessible. The first generalization also correctly accounts for (67-a) and (67-b) because there extraction of the wh-phrase is impossible for independent reasons. (This is not the case for (67-c), though, which therefore poses a problem for the theory presented in this book, too.) 50. The examples in (68) are not covered by the QPIC because the pied-piped predicate can be argued to be the complement of a lexical head.


43

Cable (2007, 296) ultimately rejects this idea because of the grammaticality of the pied-piping structures in (70), from Hungarian. His argument is that Q in (69-a,b) must be able to probe (into) the complement domain of the higher D-head in order to agree with the wh-word. But if D is a canonical phase head, then this should be impossible (the complement domain of any phase head being opaque). (70)

a. [ QP [ DP János [ D – ] [ DP melyik fiát ]] Q ] szereted legjobban? John which son you.like best ‘Which son of John’s do you like the best?’ [ D – ] [ DP hány barátöjének ]] Q ] b. [ QP [ DP Az anyád the your.mother how.many her.friends telefonáltál? you.phoned ‘How many of your mother’s friends did you call?’

I am addressing this issue here because in the theory presented in section 1.4.2 of chapter 3 below D is a phase head, too. And although in this theory there is no Q that must agree with the wh-word, the C-head of the interrogative (or relative) clause must be able to do so. Fortunately, there is a straightforward explanation for the grammaticality of (70-a,b) that is compatible with these assumptions (thanks to Petr Biskup for pointing this out to me). Namely, it is natural to assume that the structures in question do not contain the higher Dhead present in (70). Rather, the constituents János and az anyád are merged as post-nominal possessors; from there, they undergo DP-internal fronting to an outer Spec of D, see (71-a,b).51 (71)

a. [ DP János2 [ D melyik fiát t2 ]] szereted legjobban? John which son you.like best barátöjének t3 ]] ] 3 [ D hány b. [ DP [ DP Az anyád how.many her.friends the your.mother telefonáltál? you.phoned

Crucially, the wh-words in (71-a,b) are accessible even if D is a phase head: they are either D or they occupy a specifier of D. To conclude, the Hungarian examples should not preclude one from assuming that D is a phase head. 51. This also coincides with the intuition that the (semantic) heads of the structures are fiát ‘son’ and barátöjének ‘her friends’ respectively.

44

Introduction

Another question is whether the LPIC can really be considered to be derived by the assumption that every lexical projection is the complement domain of a phase head. The fact that instances of agreement other than the one between Q and the wh-word are able to penetrate the lexical domain appears to pose a problem for this idea. For instance agreement with respect to φ -features (at least [ NUMBER ]) between T and a nominative object in Icelandic is able to penetrate the VP, see (72) (something similar must generally be possible for languages with object agreement). (72)

sennilega hafa [ VP l´ıkaD þeir ]. Honum mundu liked they.NOM him.DAT would.3 PL probably have ‘He would probably have liked them.’

Thus, even if every lexical projection is embedded under a phase head, additional assumptions are needed to render the facts compatible with the PIC. Interestingly, Cable claims that Tlingit is not subject to the LPIC. The evidence is based on one type of sentence. The relevant examples (from Cable (2007, 79)) are listed in (73). (73)

] xáat ] sá i tuwáa sigóo? a. [ NP [ CP Wáa kligéiyi how it.is.big.REL fish Q your spirit it.is.happy ‘How big a fish do you want?’ ] sháy’sáani ] sá ash kudlénxa? b. [ NP [ CP Wáa yateey´ı Q they.tempting.him how they.are.REL girls ‘What kind of girls are tempting him?’ ] sháy’sáani ] sá sh tuwáa gaa c. [ NP [ CP Wáa yateey´ı Q REFL.spirit for how they.are.REL girls yatee? they.are ‘What kind of girls are pleasing to his eye?’

If the relative clauses in (73-a-c) are adjoined to NP, then it follows that piedpiping of a lexical category is grammatical in Tlingit.52 Comparable examples are ungrammatical in English (cf. (74)).53 52. Cable (2007, 271, footnote 3) notes that other examples with APs or NPs (and also VPs, I presume) are hard to construct. 53. If the structures in (73) involved a prenominal adjective as the complement of a wh-degree head wáa (instead of a relative clause), then they would coincide with their grammatical English translations. I suppose that there are good reasons to reject such analysis.


(74)

45

*[ DP A fish [ CP that is how big ]] do you want?

In order to explain this difference between English and Tlingit, Cable assumes that there are two types of languages: languages that exhibit obligatory agreement between Q and the wh-word (Q/wh-agreement languages, such as English) and languages that do not (non-Q/wh-agreement languages, such as Tlingit). As independent evidence for the distinction Cable cites the observation that in English all wh-words have a “distinctive look”, that is they almost all start with the phoneme /w/ (except for who and how, which start with /hw /), while in Tlingit, the wh-words form a heterogeneous set (see (75)). (75)

Japanese nani dare doko naze itu

German was wer wo warum wann

Tlingit daat aa goo wáa gwatk

English what who where why when

Following Kratzer and Shimoyama (2002), Cable takes this to indicate the presence of an uninterpretable Q-feature on the wh-words of English and its absence in Tlingit. He states the implicational generalization that if the whwords of a language show a “unified appearance”, then they bear such a Qfeature; if they do not, then no conclusion as to the presence or absence of such a Q-feature is viable. According to this logic, German wh-words bear this Q-feature, too, while Japanese wh-words (probably) do not (see (75)). Technically, Cable adopts the theory of Pesetsky and Torrego (2007), who assume that features can be either valued or not and that they can be either interpretable or not, see (76). (76) Valued (F[val] Unvalued(F[ ])

Interpretable (iF) iF[val] iF[ ]

Uninterpretable (uF) uF[val] uF[ ]

Pesetsky and Torrego (2007) also state the following two principles of valuation. First, every unvalued feature F[ ] must probe a matching valued feature F[val] in order to receive a value by LF. Second, every uninterpretable feature uF must have agreed with some interpretable feature iF by LF. Now recall from the above reasoning that English (and German) wh-words bear an uninterpretable Q-feature, while Tlingit (and Japanese) wh-words

46

Introduction

presumably do not bear such a feature. Suppose this feature is valued in English and German: uQ[+]. It then follows that Q in English and German must bear iQ[ ]: By the second valuation principle, uQ must agree with iQ; but this can only happen if iQ probes; thus, due to the first valuation principle iQ must be unvalued. By contrast, iQ on Q in Japanese (and Tlingit) is already valued. The Q/wh-agreement languages are limited with respect to pied-piping because agreement between Q and the wh-word is subject to the LPIC. Piedpiping in non-Q/wh-agreement languages is much less restricted because Q and the wh-word need not agree. This is reflected by their ability to have Q separated from the wh-word by a lexical projection, see (77-a,b) for Japanese (where, for some reason, only Q, which is spelled-out as ka in Japanese, undergoes wh-movement) and Tlingit, respectively. (77)

] yomi-masi-ta ka? a. Kimi-wa [ DP dare-ga kaita hono-o who-NOM wrote book-ACC read.POL - PAST Q you-TOP ‘What person is such that you read books that they wrote?’ xáat ] sá i tuwáa sigóo? b. [ NP Wáa kligéiyi how it.is.big.REL fish Q your spirit it.is.happy ‘How big a fish do you want?’

But as already noted in footnote 5 above, it may be better to think of features such as [ WH ] (or [ Q ] for that matter) as abstract, i.e., without having a particular exponent of their own. Also, Cable’s implicational generalization faces potential counter-evidence. In another context, Cable (2007, 295) notes that Haida exhibits pied-piping of relative clause islands, which suggests that it is a non-Q/wh-agreement language, see (78) (taken from Enrico (2003)). (78)

a. [ DP [ CP Dang giisda tla.adsiisk’yùu ]] -.uu dang riidang? FOC you wait.for you who will.help ‘Who are you waiting for that is going to help you?’ 7iijang? b. [ DP [ CP Giisda raayaa ]] -.uu 7aanàa FOC in.next.room is who be-fat ‘Who that is fat is in the next room?’

But the paradigm of Haida wh-pronouns (see Enrico (2003, 478-479)) suggests that Haida is a Q/wh-agreement language; (79) illustrates the paradigm from the Masset dialect (the Skidegate dialect is alike in all relevant respects).


(79)

root guus, guuk’uus, guusda giiniis giisgee giisda giitl’adaa gidlaan, giijii, giijgasantl’aa, guusraganaan gasan giisnuud, giisand

embedded ginn

47

‘what’

tliiniis tliisgee nang tl’a, ga tliij-, tliijii, gyaa, tliits’aan/tliijaan ginnraganaan

‘which.SG’ ‘which.PL’ ‘who.SG’ ‘who.PL’ ‘where’

tlagu tliisand, gyaa

‘how’ ‘when’

‘why’

Except for nang all the wh-words in (78) and (79) either start with g- or with tl-. Thus the paradigm of Haida wh-words, at least superficially, looks as if it had the “unified appearance” characteristic of a Q/wh-agreement language. As Cable notes, the property of recursive pied-piping (see section 1, chapter 2 and section 1, chapter 4 on recursive pied-piping in this book, respectively) follows directly in his approach. I will not go into this matter any further here and refer the reader to Cable (2007, 299-302). Cable (2007, 320-340) also discusses ‘secondary’ wh-movement in piedpiping (see section 2, chapter 2 and section 2, chapter 4 on secondary whmovement in pied-piping in this book). To put it in a nutshell, the notion of secondary wh-movement denotes a situation where the pied-piper moves within the pied-piped constituent. Cable mostly confines himself to secondary wh-movement in Chol Mayan. (As we will see, the same facts hold in Tzotzil and other Mesoamerican languages, too; see sections 2.1.1 and 2.1 of chapters 2 and 4, respectively). Relevant examples from Chol Mayan (from Coon (2007)) are given in (80). (80)

a. [ DP Maxki2 iyotyoty t2 ] tyi puli? PERF burne whose hose ‘Whose house burned?’ b. *[ DP Iyotyoty maxki2 ] tyi puli? house whose PERF burne

Genitive possessors generally show up post-nominally in this language. When the possessor is a wh-phrase that induces pied-piping of a DP, then it obliga-

48

Introduction

torily moves across the nominal within the pied-piped DP, thereby deriving an inverted word order (see (80-a)). The explanation Cable offers for the inversion in (80-a) (i.e., secondary wh-movement within DP) is basically the one already proposed in Heck (2004) and repeated in this book: the wh-phrase raises in order to reach a domain from where it is accessible to a higher head to agree with. In Cable’s theory, this higher head is Q; in the present book (and in Heck (2004)) it is C. Now consider the examples from Chol Mayan in (81). (81)

a. [ PP Maxki1 [ PP tyi iyotyoty t1 ]] tyi majliyety? whose PERF you.go to house ‘Whose house did you go to?’ b. *[ PP Tyi [ NP iyotyoty maxki ]] tyi majliyety? to house whose PERF you.go c. *[ PP [ NP Maxki iyotyoty ] 1 [ PP tyi t1 ]] tyi majliyety? PERF you.go whose house to

They illustrate that if the possessed nominal is complement of a preposition, then the wh-possessor climbs to the specifier of the dominating PP and piedpipes the whole PP as in (81-a). Crucially, pied-piping from the base position is ungrammatical (see (81-b)) and so is inversion in two steps (‘roll-up movement’): first, the wh-possessor undergoes inversion with the possessee; second, the wh-possessor and the possessee move together to SpecP; finally, the PP undergoes pied-piping (see (81-c)). According to Cable, Chol Mayan prepositions take only bare NP complements. Since the wh-phrase needs to escape the NP and since no SpecD is present, it follows that the wh-phrase moves to SpecP instead. The rollup structure in (81-c) (which one might also dub ‘secondary pied-piping’) is ruled out for semantic reasons in Cable’s system (basically because every Q-particle must be matched by a wh-phrase). In contrast, Cable assumes that the Russian examples in (82) involve DPs as the complement of P. Since the wh-phrase is already in SpecD (that is, it is outside the lexical NP) there is no need for it to raise any further and thus raising to SpecP is blocked for reasons of economy (see (82-b)). (82)

a. [ PP V [ DP cˇ ’ej maˇsyne ]] priexal? in whose car arrived.SG ‘Whose car did I/you/he arrive in?’


49

ˇ 1 v [ DP t1 maˇsyne ]] priexal? b. *[ PP C’ej whose in car arrived.SG While discussing the theory of secondary wh-movement proposed in Heck (2004) (which is presented basically unchanged in section 2 of chapter 4) Cable (2007, 334) concludes that “Heck (2004) is only able to rule out the illformed Russian structure in (89b) [(82-b), F.H.] by stipulating that Russian PPs do not allow movement to their specifiers [. . . ] However, this putative unavailability of SpecPP in Russian is a fact unconnected to any other, independently visible differences between Russian and these Mayan languages.” But as matters stand, the difference between secondary wh-movement in Russian and Chol Mayan also follows in this alternative theory if one adopts Cable’s assumptions: namely, his analysis requires that complements of P in Russian must always be DPs (see Cable (2007, 338, footnote 54)). Furthermore, if the presence of D prevents possessor extraction (see Corver (1990), Cable (2007, 205)), then it follows without further ado that (82-b) is ungrammatical. On the other hand, we will see in section 2.1 of chapter 4 (when discussing parallel facts from Tzotzil) that the contrast in (81) is also derived by this theory. Cable’s theory makes three claims with respect to secondary wh-movement. First, secondary pied-piping (roll-up pied-piping) should never exist54 ; second, secondary wh-movement should be possible with wh-in-situ; third, there should be no secondary wh-movement in non-Q/wh-agreement languages. As illustrated above, there is evidence from Chol Mayan that supports the first prediction (see also Coon (2007); for relevant examples from Tzotzil see sections 1.4.1 and 3.10, chapter 2 of the present monograph). Counterexamples are not easy to find. One potential candidate comes from Romanian (see (83); see also section 2.2.1, chapter 2). (83)

a. vecinul [ PP pe a c˘arui fat˘a ] 2 am v˘azut-o t2 the neighbor pe whose daughter have.1SG seen her ‘the neighbor whose daughter I saw’ a c˘aruia ] 2 am v˘azut-o t2 b. *vecinul [ PP pe fat˘a pe daughter whose have.1SG seen her the neighbor ‘the neighbor whose daughter I saw’

54. Crucially, the prediction exclusively applies to cases where secondary movement is triggered by Q, just as usual wh-movement. If the movement operation in question is independently available, then it can also occur if the moved constituent contains a wh-phrase.

50

Introduction

Grosu (1988a) analyzes a in (83) as a preposition. The contrast in (83-a,b) illustrates that the PP a c˘arui must undergo secondary pied-piping to SpecD before the matrix PP headed by pe can undergo pied-piping to SpecC. In a similar vein, van Riemsdijk (1982) argues that infinitives in German can undergo pied-piping, that pied-piping requires secondary wh-movement, and that secondary wh-movement can again trigger pied-piping (see also section 2.3.4, chapter 2 and section 2.3.2, chapter 4 on pied-piping of German infinitives). Relevant examples are given in (84). (84)

t3 empfehle a. ein Mann, [ CP den2 t2 zu u¨ berzeugen ] 3 ich dir who to convince I to you recommend a man ‘a man that I recommend you to convince’ b. ein Mann, [ CP [ CP den2 t2 zu u¨ berzeugen ] 3 dir t3 vorzunehmen who to convince you plan a man t4 empfehle ] 4 ich dir I to you recommend ‘a man that I recommend you to plan to convince’

(84-a) involves secondary wh-movement of the relative pronoun den ‘who’ within an infinitive (namely CP3 ) that appears to have undergone pied-piping. In (84-b), secondary wh-movement not only applies to den within CP3 ; there is also secondary wh-movement (i.e., secondary pied-piping) of CP3 within the pied-piped matrix infinitive CP4 . Yet another case of secondary pied-piping may involve DP-internal PPmovement in Spanish (see section 2.2.3, chapter 2). As for the second prediction (that secondary wh-movement also occurs in wh-in-situ contexts), section 2.6 of chapter 4 presents some evidence that suggests that secondary wh-movement indeed does not arise in wh-in-situ contexts in languages that do exhibit secondary wh-movement in contexts that involve wh-movement. As for the third prediction (that there is no secondary wh-movement in non-Q/wh-agreement languages), Cable (2007, 323) observes that in the Haida examples (78-a) above and (85) below (both from Enrico (2003, 205)) the wh-word does not occupy a left peripheral position within the pied-piped constituent, suggesting that is has not undergone secondary wh-movement.55 Recall that Cable categorizes Haida as a non-Q/wh-agreement language. 55. Cable (2007, 295) declares that he has not been able to test the prediction for Tlingit yet (see also the remarks in Cable (2007, 323)).


(85)

51

[ CP K’yuwee guusrahl ’la srasgadaan ] -uu 7wii qeeng.ulaang? FOC it.is.easy.to.see the.door what.with he strike ‘What is it easy to see that he hit the door with?’

Now, at least in Tlingit certain elements can appear in a position to the left of a wh-moved constituent (see (86), from Cable (2007, 63-64)). (86)

a. Yá x’úx’ aadóoch sá kgwatóow? this book who.ERG Q he.will.read.it ‘As for this book, who will read it?’ b. Ax sakwnéini aadóoch sá uwaxáa? my bread who.ERG Q he.ate.it ‘As for my bread, who ate it?’

Cable analyzes them has topics in the left periphery, with the wh-phrase having undergone wh-movement to SpecC. Crucially, it is only referential elements that figure as left-peripheral topics, see (87) (from Cable (2007, 68)). (87)

*L daa sá aa sáyá uxá? nothing Q who Q . FOC he.eats.it

As for the Haida examples (78-a) and (85), there is just one element to the left of the wh-word, and it is referential. I thus conclude that (78-a) and (85) are at least compatible with the view that they involve (obligatory) secondary whmovement to SpecC, i.e., Haida (and perhaps also Tlingit) may exhibit secondary wh-movement after all. This interpretation can be falsified by showing that Haida does not exhibit left-peripheral topics of the Tlingit type or by providing Haida examples that involve a non-referential element within the pied-piped clause to the left of the wh-phrase. One of Cable’s main claims is that the Q-analysis is not only appropriate for Tlingit but is also the correct analysis for languages where no overt element is present that could be identified with Q. His argument goes as follows. It is plausible to assume that Q can be empty in some languages. Now if there were both languages where wh-movement involves Q (call them Qlanguages) and other languages where it does not (call them non-Q-languages), then how could a learner who is confronted with a language that exhibits wh-movement but no overt Q ever decide whether he is dealing with a Qlanguage with an empty Q or with a non-Q-language? The answer is that he cannot. Thus the existence of Q- and non-Q-languages would confront the learner with a problem. As for the linguist, since there is good evidence for

52

Introduction

the Q-analysis while there is no evidence against it, the most parsimonious theory involves only the Q-analysis. Different reactions to this argument are conceivable. For one, one may challenge the claim that there is no evidence against the Q-analysis. For instance, Cable’s theory predicts that the same superiority-effects that turn up with simple wh-movement in a language also turn up in the context of pied-piping: since wh-movement is triggered by a feature on Q and since all pied-piping structures are instances of Q-movement, too, it follows that piedpiping structures should be subject to superiority. In section 3.3 below it is argued that this prediction is not borne out. Although it is not well-understood what exactly is going on, it appears that pied-piping structures are not subject to standard superiority effects. Another point concerns the ‘last resort’ effects discussed in section 3, chapter 2 and section 3, chapter 4 of this monograph. The generalization defended there (called the ‘repair generalization’) is that pied-piping only applies when extraction of the pied-piper is impossible. Cable (2007, 313, footnote 34) rejects the generalization altogether, claiming that in each case the evidence allows for an alternative explanation. I think that he discards the evidence too lightly. In particular, if the QPIC is to be abandoned, as argued above, then a whole class of illicit structures, which Cable derives by the QPIC, require an alternative explanation. Crucially, these cases can be subsumed under the repair generalization Suppose that the repair generalization is correct. Is it compatible with the Q-analysis of wh-constructions? At first sight the answer is no, thereby providing a potential clue for the learner and the linguist for distinguishing Q-languages with an empty Q from non-Q-languages. The reason is that Q can be merged either directly with some wh-phrase (modulo QPIC-effects) or with any category containing a wh-phrase (modulo LPIC-effects). Thus in a Q-language, structures with and without pied-piping are not distinguished and should always co-exist (which is exactly what the repair generalization denies), in contrast to a non-Q-language.56 It seems as if there were another way to distinguish Q-languages (with an empty Q) from non-Q-languages. However, a closer look reveals that the Q-analysis is not inherently incompatible with the repair generalization. Putting technical details aside, one 56. In fact, pied-piping and extraction often appear to co-exist, which is the main reason for Cable to reject the repair generalization (see sections 3.13 and 3.5 of chapters 2 and 4 of this monograph, respectively, on this issue).


53

could assume that there is a principle in the grammar that requires that Q be merged as closely to the wh-word as possible; this principle is optimally fulfilled when Q is merged with the wh-word and would therefore prefer movement of a bare wh-word over pied-piping. Perhaps it is more interesting to accept Cable’s argument than assuming that Q-languages and non-Q-languages both exist. If so, then this raises the question as to whether the evidence for the Q-analysis can be accounted for by a theory of pied-piping (and wh-movement) that does without Q, as the one presented in this book. Now, Cable’s main arguments for the existence of Q are the following. First, Tlingit apparently exhibits an overt Q, spelled-out as sá. If Q does not exist, then sá has to be reanalyzed. Thus suppose that sá in Tlingit is actually a morphological reflex that appears on a category K if K has undergone whmovement to SpecC.57 This assumption naturally accounts for the contrast in (56) (repeated in (88)), which is Cable’s main argument for the claim that wh-movement involves a feature of Q and not of the wh-word: (88)

] xáat ] sá i tuwáa sigóo? a. [ NP [ CP Wáa kligéiyi how it.is.big.REL fish Q your spirit it.is.happy ‘How big a fish do you want?’ ] xáat ] i tuwáa sigóo? b. *[ NP [ CP Wáa sá kligéiyi how Q it.is.big.REL fish your spirit it.is.happy ] sá xáat ] i tuwáa sigóo? c. *[ NP [ CP Wáa kligéiyi how it.is.big.REL Q fish your spirit it.is.happy

In the ungrammatical examples (88-b) and (88-c) the reflex is simply not on the moved category. Perhaps, the assumption that sá is merely a morphological reflex makes it also easier to understand that it can sometimes be dropped. For instance, Cable (2007, 72, footnote 34) cites an example where sá appears only once in a multiple question. Moreover, Cable (2007, 73, footnote 36) notes that sá can be dropped in the context of pied-piping a relative clause by wáa ‘how’.58 57. This complements the observation that some languages show a morphological reflex at the target position of wh-movement (see section 2.3, chapter 3). 58. In a similar vein, Enrico (2003, 248, footnote 11) notes that the clitic -uu in Haida, which appears to be similar to Tlingit sá in certain respects, can be dropped in the context of relative clause pied-piping, with -uu appearing on the wh-phrase instead. Recall in this context that the wh-phrase can be argued to have undergone secondary wh-movement to SpecC of the relative clause (see above) and is thus expected to bear -uu if -uu is a reflex

54

Introduction

Probably the strongest argument against the assumption that sá is a reflex of movement is the fact that it also appears with wh-indefinites, which remain in-situ in the overt syntax (and which, as Cable argues extensively, do not undergo covert movement either). Note in this context that Cable (2007, 74, footnote 38) observes that in Sinhala and Japanese different particles can be used with in-situ wh-indefinites. Moreover (see Cable (2007, 74, footnote 40)) the particles da and ka that show up in constituent questions in Sinhala and Japanese, respectively, also serve other purposes in these languages. This suggests that sá in Tlingit may as well represent two (perhaps more) separate, homophonous elements that appear in different contexts: with wh-words in questions and with wh-indefinites. It is only in the former case that sá is a reflex of movement. Another argument for Q comes from the distinction between Q/wh-agreement and non-Q/wh-agreement languages; making this distinction requires the existence of Q. I think that the evidence allows for an alternative explanation. As noted, Cable presents only one type of example to motivate the distinction between Q/wh-agreement and non-Q/wh-agreement languages (exemplified by English and Tlingit, respectively). The examples involve piedpiping of a relative clause (see (73), repeated in (89)). (89)

tuwáa sigóo? a. [ NP [ CP Wáa kligéiyi ] xáat ] sá i how it.is.big.REL fish Q your spirit it.is.happy ‘How big a fish do you want?’ ] sháy’sáani ] sá ash kudlénxa? b. [ NP [ CP Wáa yateey´ı Q they.tempting.him how they.are.REL girls ‘What kind of girls are tempting him?’ ] sháy’sáani ] sá sh tuwáa gaa c. [ NP [ CP Wáa yateey´ı Q REFL.spirit for how they.are.REL girls yatee? they.are ‘What kind of girls are pleasing to his eye?’

It could be that English and Tlingit differ in that Tlingit involves pied-piping of relative clauses plus secondary wh-movement to SpecC of the relative clause (see above) while English lacks such secondary wh-movement. Secondary wh-movement in clausal pied-piping also occurs in other languages (such as Basque and Imbabura Quechua), some of which Cable cateof wh-movement.


55

gorizes as Q/wh-agreement languages. If secondary wh-movement is necessary in this context (see section 2.3, chapter 2), then it follows that there is no relative clause pied-piping in English (see (74)), in contrast to Tlingit. Also, Cable claims that pied-piping of a lexical phrase, namely an NP, is possible in Tlingit but not in English.59 As the argument is based on the same type of example (pied-piping of a relative clause plus its associated NP) the ungrammaticality of the English example would follow from the same difference between Tlingit and English mentioned above. In addition, it may also be due to the fact that relative clauses in Tlingit are adjoined to bare NPs, with no DP-shell above them.60 If DP forms an opaque domain for checking of [ WH ] but NP does not (as is assumed in the theory presented in the following chapters), then, again, checking of [ WH ] is blocked in English (see (74)) but not in Tlingit (see (89-a)). Crucially, this follows without reference to the distinction between Q/wh-agreement and non-Q/wh-agreement languages. Finally, Cable presents examples involving coordination which can also be put forward as an argument in favor of the distinction between Q/whagreement and non-Q/wh-agreement languages. The observation is that in English pied-piping is subject to the C OORDINATE S TRUCTURE C ONSTRAINT (CSC, Ross (1967); see also section 1.3.4, chapter 5). Consider (90-a,b). (90)

a. *Whose paintings and John’s books did you sell? b. Whose paintings and whose books did you sell?

The contrast in (90-a,b) follows if agreement between Q and a wh-word must apply with both conjuncts simultaneously (as is possible in (90-b) but not in (90-a)), i.e., it must obey the CSC. The prediction that arises from this is that no such contrast should arise in a non-Q/wh-agreement language. This is supported by the following example from Japanese (Cable (2007, 319)): (91)

Taro-wa [ niku to nani ] -o katta ka? Taro-NOM meat and what -ACC buy Q ‘What is the thing x such that Taro bought meat and x?’

However, it is possible that Japanese ka does not have the properties Cable attributes to sá in Tlingit (and Q in general). The fact that ka shows up on the 59. The examples in (68), which are supposed to illustrate that there is no pied-piping of any lexical category in English, can be argued to fall under the repair-generalization, see above. 60. This is at least what the categorization in Cable (2007, 2008) suggests.

56

Introduction

right periphery of the clause makes it much harder to argue that it has moved there. As Cable (2007, 78, footnote 43) notes, the argument for this claim (put forward by Hagstrom (1998)) is rather indirect. It is plausible to assume that ka is merged in this position. Moreover, Haraguchi (1973) argues that Japanese relative clauses, which do not involve ka, are subject to the CSC. To conclude, based on the evidence available it does not seem to be impossible to reanalyze the facts from Tlingit (and other languages that exhibit a similar particle) within a theory that does without Q. Cable (2007, 2008) provides new interesting facts and a stimulating analysis but I still think that it is not too daring to maintain the claim that pied-piping exists.

3.

Miscellaneous Remarks on Wh-Feature Percolation

Three of the theories discussed in the previous section employ wh-feature percolation (Cowper (1987); Grimshaw (1991, 2000); Webelhuth (1992)). Sells (1985) employs percolation for some cases only; Lutz and Trissler (1997) and Cable (2007, 2008) dispense with percolation. Arguably, wh-feature percolation has played an important role in the pied-piping literature. This section takes up this issue. I begin by discussing percolation by specifier-head agreement and then raise the question whether wh-feature percolation can be diagnosed by looking at superiority effects. I also consider whether percolation can be reduced to other operations. I argue that such a reduction is problematic and that percolation should therefore be eliminated if possible. As often, the arguments in this section are not decisive. They are based on certain assumptions; if one is not willing to accept those, one is not obliged to accept the arguments. Ultimately, the best argument against feature percolation consists of proposing a percolation-free theory that is able to derive as many observations as possible from independently motivated assumptions.

3.1.

Abstract Specifier-Head Agreement

It has been proposed that wh-feature percolation applies via specifier-head agreement. The idea is that percolation from α to β is possible if α is a specifier of β and if α and β stand in an agreement relation (Cowper (1987), Grimshaw (1991, 2000), Moritz and Valois (1994), Kayne (1994), Aissen (1996), Bayer (1996)). Recall the analysis of (92) in Grimshaw (1991, 2000).


(92)

57

Egbert wants to know [ DP whose2 sister ] 3 you go out with t3 .

Only after wh-feature percolation has applied can DP3 undergo wh-movement to SpecC. To achieve this, Grimshaw assumes that whose in SpecD3 agrees with the D3 -head by virtue of being in a specifier-head configuration. Agreement is then supposed to pave the way for percolation of [ WH ] to the D3 head. Put briefly, percolation of a wh-feature from α to β can be parasitic on an independent agreement relation between α and β . The notion of agreement does not make sense unless it refers to some feature. If we say that there is agreement between α and β with respect to [ F ], this means that [ F ] must be present on both α and β (see the remarks in Sternefeld (2006)). Accordingly, Bayer (1997) argues that percolation of features like [ WH ] and [ NEG ] from α to β must be parasitic on overt agreement between α and β with respect to φ -features. In (92), there is an independent agreement relation between α and β with respect to [ GENITIVE ], assuming that structural case involves case features on both participants of the agreement relation.61 But in other cases it is less obvious to identify an independent agreement relation that could give whfeature percolation a piggyback. Take pied-piping of PP in Tzotzil as illustrated in (93) (see Aissen (1996) and section 2.1.1, chapter 2 for details). (93)

] 4 ch-a-bat t4 ? [ PP Buch’u2 ta s-na who to A 3-house ICP - B 2-go ‘To whose house are you going?’

The pied-piper in (93) occupies the specifier of the pied-piped PP. But there is no overt agreement between the wh-phrase and the PP’s head in (93) that wh-feature percolation could be parasitic on. The only obvious feature in (93) that could be argued to be involved in an agreement relation between the wh-phrase and P is [ WH ]. If so, then P must be marked with [ WH ] independently of percolation. But if P in (93) bears [ WH ] as a lexical property, then this has nothing to do with percolation. Rather, the very fact that percolation was supposed to explain has been presupposed. What is more, if there is no independent evidence that P actually bears [ WH ], then this assumption is nothing but a stipulation. 61. Alternatively, case assignment is a reflex of some agreement with respect to φ -features, see George and Kornfilt (1981).

58

Introduction

To sum up, at best there is an independently motivated agreement relation between the pied-piper and the head of the pied-piped constituent with respect to some feature [ F ] other than [ WH ]. If so, then wh-feature percolation can be parasitic on this agreement. However, in cases where an independently motivated agreement relation is not available it has to be stipulated. In cases like these, people sometimes talk of ‘abstract agreement’.62

3.2.

Morphological Marking

If lexical wh-words and constituents that undergo pied-piping both bear [ WH ], then the question arises whether there are morphological parallels between them. In a theory where features are morphologically realized by the insertion of markers after the syntactic derivation is complete, such as distributed morphology (see Halle and Marantz (1993)), overt reflexes of wh-feature percolation are expected. In contrast, in a pre-syntactic morphological theory the shape of morphemes is fixed before they enter the syntax. Even if the syntactic derivation can manipulate [ WH ] one would not expect this to be reflected in the morphology. Suppose that the morphology applies post-syntactically. Consider the case of pied-piping by a degree phrase in English as in (94). (94)

Horace wonders [ DP [ DegP how big ] a problem ] 3 she solved t3 .

The insertion of morphological markers in distributed morphology (called ‘vocabulary insertion’) is determined by at least two principles. First, the feature set of the vocabulary item must be a subset of the feature set of the syntactic node that the item is supposed to fill (the ‘subset condition’). Second, if more than one item fulfills the first condition, then the most specific item is chosen, i.e., the item that shares the largest number of features with the syntactic node (the ‘specificity condition’). The vocabulary item chosen for the D3 -head in (94) is a. Assume that a is specified for the number feature [ SINGULAR ]. Arguably, a is not positively specified for the feature [ WH ]. By assumption, the D3 -head in (94) must have acquired [ WH ] via percolation in the syntax. As far as the subset condition is concerned, insertion of a into D3 is still possible. However insertion of a is blocked by the specificity con62. In Chomsky (1986, 24) – who came up with the idea that L-marking can be parasitic on agreement between SpecT and T – the agreement relation was assumed to be abstract, too, in some cases.


59

dition if there is a more specific vocabulary item in English whose features are a subset of the features of D3 . The item which is arguably specified for both [ SINGULAR ] and [ WH ] and should therefore block insertion of a. But insertion of which in the present context is ill-formed, see (95). (95)

*Horace wonders [ DP [ DegP how big ] which problem ] 3 she solved t3 .

A possible way to maintain a post-syntactic morphology and wh-feature percolation is to assume an impoverishment rule (see Bonet (1991)) that deletes the percolated [ WH ] on D3 in the particular context of (95). However, one would expect to encounter some cases where no impoverishment rule has applied. Potential morphological evidence for wh-percolation comes from the Amerindian language Imbabura Quechua (see Hermon (1985)). Clausal pied-piping in Imbabura Quechua shows something that could be interpreted as a morphological reflex of wh-feature percolation. To begin with, wh-words in the Quechua languages are usually marked by an affix. In the case of in Imbabura Quechua it is the affix -taj, in the case of Cuzco Quechua it is -taq (see Cole and Hermon (1981), Hermon (1985), Ortiz de Urbina (1989)). This is illustrated for Cuzco Quechua in (96) (from Ortiz de Urbina (1989, 250); the affix is glossed with ‘Q’). (96)

Ima-ta-taq pay ranti-rqa-n? what-ACC - Q he buy-PAST-3 ‘What did he buy?’

With clausal pied-piping the affix -taq does not show up on the wh-word) but on the pied-piped clause (see (97), from Hermon (1985, 151)). (97)

t2 miku-chun ] 3 -taj Maria t3 muna-n? [ CP Ima-ta2 wawa what-ACC child-NOM eat-SUBJ -Q Maria want-PR-3 ‘What does Maria want that the child eat?’

This is accounted for straightforwardly if pied-piping involves feature percolation: -taj is interpreted as the morphological realization of the feature [ WH ]. Due to percolation it shows up on the pied-piped constituent.63 63. Ortiz de Urbina (1989) makes the same point with examples from Cuzco Quechua. Hagstrom (1998) discusses morphemes that attach to wh-phrases in Sinhala and Japanese (see also Cable (2007, 2008). However, it is hard to obtain evidence for overt pied-piping in these languages. Moreover, Pesetsky (2000, 55, footnote 64)) claims that these mor-

60

Introduction

Quechua languages differ with respect to the strategies they use in question formation. Some have obligatory wh-movement, some have optional whmovement, and some partial wh-movement. In Ancash Quechua wh-movement is optional. (98-b) (from Cole and Hermon (1994)) illustrates that in-situ whphrases are not marked with -taq. (98)

a. May-man-taq2 José munan Mar´ıa t2 aywanan-ta? where-to-Q Jose wants Maria will go-ACC ‘Where does Jose want Maria to go?’ b. José munan Mar´ıa may-man2 aywanan-ta? Jose wants Maria where-to will go-ACC

If it is [ WH ] that is responsible for wh-movement, then this is support for the view that -taq in (98) indeed marks [ WH ]. However, these observations are also compatible with an analysis according to which -taq and -taj are C-elements that indicate the overt filling of SpecC (see Cole and Hermon (1994), who analyze such elements as question particles in C and Lefebvre and Muyskens (1988), who analyze them as ‘emphatic’ markers). Another piece of evidence is provided by wh-constructions in Tlingit. As mentioned in section 2.6 above, Cable (2007, 2008) illustrates that pied-piped categories in Tlingit are always accompanied by the element sá. Cable argues explicitly that sá cannot be a C-element. It might thus instantiate the morphological spell-out of a moved wh-feature. Cable himself claims that sá is a question particle that is merged outside the pied-piped category. Yet another analysis that treats sá as a reflex of movement may also be available (again, see section 2.6). To conclude, given a post-syntactic theory of morphology and the whfeature percolation hypothesis, one would expect to find at least some morphological reflexes of wh-feature percolation. As matters stand, it appears that potential cases are rare and can be reanalyzed. Supporters of wh-feature percolation must either subscribe to a pre-syntactic theory of morphology or make additional assumptions that account for the lack of morphological evidence.

phemes cannot be easily identified with a morpho-syntactic wh-feature, at least not within his theory.


3.3.

61

Superiority

It would be useful to have a diagnostic means to detect wh-feature percolation (or the presence of a possibly empty Q-particle, see section 2.6 above). One idea is to make use of the phenomenon of superiority (see Kuno and Robinson (1972), Chomsky (1973)). The contrast in (99-a,b) has been attributed to a condition that blocks wh-movement of what in (99-b) because there is another wh-phrase in the same clause, namely who, which c-commands what. Instead who must undergo wh-movement (see (99-a)). Who is said to be ‘superior’ to what; the contrast is called the superiority effect. (99)

a. Horace knows exactly who2 t2 bought what3 . b. *Horace knows exactly what3 who2 bought t3 .

If wh-feature percolation turns a category into a wh-phrase (or if any whmoved category is paired with a Q-particle), then this category should trigger superiority effects, like a lexical wh-phrase. Also, a category that cannot undergo pied-piping (because it has not acquired [ WH ] via percolation or because it cannot be combined with Q) should not trigger superiority due to the lack of c-command.64 Note that the first prediction presupposes that percolation applies obligatorily. Under the assumption that percolation is optional (especially for wh-in-situ) the prediction does not hold. However, no such caveat holds for the second prediction.

3.3.1.

English

Hornstein and Weinberg (1990, 150) report that (100-a) is ‘considerably worse’ than (100-b), which suggests that there is no percolation of a wh-feature to the top of whose friend in (100-b). Several speakers that I consulted supported this view; see also Stroik (1996) for judgments that coincide with those in (100).65 64. It has sometimes been claimed that superiority does not require c-command, see Heck and Müller (2000, 2003), Aoun and Li (2003), Müller (2004a). The discussion in this section is based on the standard assumption. 65. A related observation has been made by Fiengo (1980, 128) (see also May (1985b)), where it is pointed out that pied-piping is forced in contexts that look similar to but are not quite superiority violations: (i)

a. *Who2 did you give what [ PP to t2 ]3 ?

62

Introduction

(100)

a. *I can’t recall [ DP whose book ] 2 who reviewed t2 . b. I can’t recall [ DP whose book ] 2 [ DP whose friend ] 3 reviewed t2 .

The contrast in (100) is also unexpected under Cable’s (2007) Q-analysis of pied-piping because there the assumption is that whose friend is paired with a Q-particle of its own. Furthermore, the examples in (101) were judged ungrammatical by my informats, although (101-b) is often perceived of as slightly better than (100-a). (101)

a. *Egbert knows what2 [ DP whose mother ] 3 bought t2 . b.*?Horace knows what2 [ DP whose mother’s brother ] 4 bought t2 .

Since DP3 and DP4 in (101-a,b) are canonical instances of categories that can undergo pied-piping, this is expected under both the percolation hypothesis and under Cable’s Q-analysis. In contrast, it is unexpected under a theory that does without wh-feature percolation and Q-particle. However, the same speakers also judge examples as ungrammatical where the constituent that is assumed to trigger the superiority effect (friends of whom in (102-a)) cannot undergo wh-movement by itself, see (102-b) (see also Müller (2004a)). (102)

a. *Egbert knows what2 [ DP friends of whom ] 3 bought t2 . b. *Horace knows [ DP friends of whom ] 3 t3 bought what2 .

(102-a) is predicted to be well-formed by a theory based on wh-feature percolation and also by an analysis based on Q-particles: if friends of whom cannot undergo wh-movement, then it cannot have acquired a wh-feature by percolation (and cannot be the complement of Q). But then it should not count as a b. (ii)

[ PP To whom2 ] 3 did you give what t3 ?

a. *[ DP What topic ] 2 did you tell who [ PP about t2 ]3 ? b. [ PP About what topic ] 3 did you tell who t3 ?

Pied-piping of the preposition does not prevent the wh-phrases what in (i) and who in (ii) from being superior in the classical sense: they c-command the lower wh-phrase before wh-movement takes place. An explanation could be given if what causes superiority violations is not a constraint on wh-movement but a constraint on the output: an in-situ wh-phrase must not c-command the trace of another wh-phrase. Without wh-feature percolation, the traces of the PPs in (i-b) and (ii-b) do not count as the traces of wh-phrases; the well-formedness of (i-b) and (ii-b) would be expected. See Müller (2004a) for another account of these facts.


63

wh-phrase and should not be able to trigger a superiority effect. On standard assumptions about superiority (102-a) also remains unaccounted for under a theory that dispenses with both wh-feature percolation and Q. The opposite judgments can also be found in the literature. The following pair of examples is taken from Huang (1982) and Fiengo et al. (1988), where they are judged well-formed (see also Fitzpatrick (2002), citing Fiengo et al. (1988)): (103)

a. What2 did [ DP people from where ] 3 buy t2 ? b. Who2 did [ DP pictures of who ] 3 please t2 ?

If these are the correct judgments, then they follow from the percolation based theory, the Q-based theory, and the present approach all alike.66 At this point, I conclude that an argument against or in favor of wh-feature percolation (or the Q-analysis) that is based on superiority effects in English is not unproblematic. However, it seems to me that it has the potential to serve as a diagnostic once the interfering factors are better understood. Further work is required.67

3.3.2.

German

German has usually been assumed to not exhibit superiority effects (Haider (1983), Grewendorf (1988), Bayer (1990)). More recently, Haider (2004) claims that superiority effects in Icelandic only arise if the wh-subject occupies SpecT. In English, superiority always emerges because raising to SpecT is obligatory. Inspired by Haider’s findings, it is argued in Heck and Müller (2003, 111-114) that the same point can be made for German. If unstressed pronouns, such as es ‘it’ and ihm ‘him’ in (104), in the ‘Wackernagel position’ can only be preceded by a nominative-marked argument in SpecT (see Müller (2000c); see also section 3.3.2, chapter 2), then the contrasts in (104-a,b) and (104-c,d) can be interpreted as superiority effects in German. 66. Müller (2004a, 313, footnote 27) notes that Fiengo et al. (1988) contrast (103-a,b) with examples that involve subject islands violations. Thus, other minimal pairs are involved, which may make the examples in (103) appear more grammatical than they are. 67. If superiority does not require c-command, then neither the percolation based theory, nor the Q-based theory, nor the present theory can account for the contrast in (100), but all account for the ungrammaticality of the examples in (101) and (102).

64

Introduction

(104)

a. *Ich möchte wissen, wem wer es erzählt hat. I want know whom who it told has ‘I would like to know who told it to whom.’ b. Ich möchte wissen, wem es wer erzählt hat. I want know whom it who told has c. *Ich möchte wissen, was wer ihm erzählt hat. I want know what who him told has ‘I would like to know who told him what.’ d. Ich möchte wissen, was ihm wer erzählt hat. I want know what him who told has

If pied-piping involves wh-feature percolation and if superiority is intimately connected to the feature [ WH ], then, again, categories that can undergo piedpiping should trigger superiority effects because they have acquired [ WH ] via percolation; a similar conclusion holds for the Q-analysis. However, it turns out that such categories result in less marked structures if they occupy SpecT in superiority violating contexts than categories that cannot undergo pied-piping.68 This is illustrated in (105-a,b) and (106-a,b), respectively. (The variants that respect superiority are impeccable throughout.) (105)

a. ?Maria möchte wissen, was wessen Anwalt ihr vorwirft. Maria wants know what whose attorney her accuses ‘Maria wants to know whose attorney accuses her of what.’ b.?*Maria möchte wissen, was der Anwalt von wem ihr vorwirft. Maria wants know what the attorney of who her accuses

(106)

a. ?Egbert erzählte uns genüsslich, wem wessen Bruder es so Egbert told us with-relish whom whose brother it so richtig gezeigt hatte. right showed had ‘Egbert told us with relish whose brother gave whom a good dressing down.’

68. For instance, (i) illustrates that der Anwalt von wem cannot be pied-piped in an embedded interrogative in German (i)

*Fritz möchte wissen, den Anwalt von wem du liebst. Fritz wants know the attorney of who you love ‘Fritz wants to know whose attorney you love.’

Against Wh-Feature Percolation

65

b.?*Egbert erzählte uns genüsslich, wem der Bruder von wem Egbert told us with-relish whom the brother of whom es so richtig gezeigt hatte. it so right showed had All in all, the examples in (105) and (106) are somewhat better than (104-a) and (104-c). For the present purpose it suffices to recall that a theory based on wh-feature percolation (bearing the caveat in mind that wh-feature percolation might be optional, see section 3.3.1) and also the Q-analysis predict that (105-a) and (106-a) are worse than (105-b) and (106-b), while the opposite is the case. A theory without percolation and Q predicts that all examples should lack superiority effects. This does not seem to hold for (105-b) and (106-b), though.69 To conclude, under the standard view of superiority a theory that does without wh-feature percolation and without Q at least predicts the relative acceptability of the a.-examples. Both the Q-analysis and the analysis based on wh-feature percolation make the opposite (and false) prediction.

4.


The rationale of this section is as follows. Suppose a theory where the only structure-building operations are Merge and Move (and Agree), as in Chomsky (1995, 2000, 2001). Under such circumstances, any additional elementary operation has to be justified. Thus, if possible, wh-feature percolation should be reduced to one of these operations (cf. Hornstein (2001) on reducing control to movement). If this is not possible, and if a percolation free theory is available, then percolation should be dispensed with.70

4.1.

Percolation Reduced to Move

According to Chomsky (1995), movement involves attraction of a morphosyntactic feature. Hence, if no additional conditions require movement of a 69. Again, if superiority does not require c-command, then none of the three theories correctly predicts the contrast between the a.- and the b.-examples. 70. Koster (2003) turns the argument around, claiming that feature-percolation is nothing but an instance of feature-projection. And since projection is needed anyway, then Move should be reduced to percolation.

66

Introduction

phrase, then movement should only affect the bare feature. It suggests itself to reanalyze wh-feature percolation as wh-feature movement in the sense of Chomsky (1995) (cf. de Vries (2005), Lutz and Trissler (1997)). 4.1.1.

Potential Feature Incompatibility

The following argument against wh-feature percolation rephrases an idea that is originally due to Borsley (1992). To begin with, suppose, following Chomsky (1995, 241-249), that phrase markers are higher order sets (sets whose elements are again sets). Since Merge and Move apply to phrase markers, it follows that they manipulate sets. Consequently, feature movement is not expected to manipulate bare features but rather sets of features. In a sense, movement targets some feature [ F ], but since Move only applies to sets, [ F ] automatically pied-pipes the complete bundle of morpho-syntactic features [ FF ] along, possibly stranding the phonological features (see Chomsky (1995, 265)).71 Chomsky (1995, 268) also assumes that a moved bundle [ FF ] adjoins to the target head H. From an adjoined position, the features [ FF ] cannot project. If so, then a reconstruction of wh-feature percolation in terms of wh-feature movement does not satisfy the locality requirement on wh-feature checking that motivated the assumption of wh-feature percolation to begin with. Thus suppose that feature movement actually integrates the moved features [ FF ] into the feature set of the target head (see also de Vries (2005), Fanselow (2001)). Once integrated into H, [ FF ] including [ WH ] can project to HP, which in turn can then undergo wh-movement without violating the locality requirement on wh-feature checking. On this background, consider pied-piping by the pre-nominal genitive whose in (107). (107)

a country [ DP whose citizens ] 2 require a temporary residence visa

Since whose citizens can undergo pied-piping, wh-feature percolation from the genuine wh-phrase to whose citizens must be possible. By assumption, percolation is feature movement of all morpho-syntactic features, including [ WH ]. Thus percolation also affects the φ -features of whose, among them 71. See Pesetsky (2000, 55, footnote 63) for an alternative motivation. Ura (2001) gives empirical arguments for the idea that movement affects feature sets; see Tanaka (1999) for some counter-arguments.


67

the feature [ SINGULAR ]. But the D3 -head in (107) is standardly assumed to agree in number with its NP-complement. Since citizens is marked with [ PLURAL ], it follows that D3 should bear [ PLURAL ], too (as indicated by subject-verb agreement in (107)). It follows that if the moved features [ FF ] of whose are integrated into the feature set of D3 , then the resulting feature set is not consistent. It contains contradicting specifications with respect to [ NUMBER ]: nothing can be both [ SINGULAR ] and [ PLURAL ].72

4.1.2.

Conditions on Movement

If wh-feature percolation is movement, then it should be subject to conditions on movement. It has been argued that feature movement is indeed subject to conditions on movement (see Takahashi (1997), Nakamura (2002)).73 In the same vein, I argue in section 1.3 of chapter 5 that wh-feature movement exists and that it obeys the same constraints as phrasal movement. In what follows, I argue that the type of wh-feature movement necessary to mimic the effects of wh-feature percolation in pied-piping does not obey these constraints. First, suppose, following Chomsky (1995), that movement is driven by feature checking. Now, wh-feature percolation does not serve this purpose, at least not obviously so. Rather, it is triggered by the need to mark some constituent with [ WH ]. Ultimately, it is not wh-feature movement that results in checking [ WH ] but phrasal wh-movement to SpecC. In a sense, the problem is the same as with successive cyclic phrasal wh-movement. Whatever solves the latter, will probably also solves the former. Second, movement is subject to island conditions. Throughout this book I assume that constituents in non-complement position are islands for movement (following Cattell (1976), Huang (1982), Chomsky (1986), and Cinque (1990)). This generalization is expressed by Huang’s (1982) C ONDITION ON E XTRACTION D OMAIN (CED), a variant of which is given in (108). (108)

C ONDITION ON E XTRACTION D OMAIN a. Movement must not cross a barrier. b. A constituent is a barrier if it is a non-complement.

72. Solutions to this potential problem are available, though. For one, one could assume that moved features that cause incompatibilities can be deleted. Alternatively, one may argue that whose is not specified for number to begin with. 73. But see Ochi (1998) for a different view.

68

Introduction

(108) together with the assumption that movement cannot target complement positions implies that moved constituents are islands (see Ross (1967, 1986), Wexler and Culicover (1980), Huang (1982), Browning (1991), among others). Wexler and Culicover (1980) refer to this as the ‘R AISING P RINCI PLE’; Ross (1967, 1986) and much subsequent literature call the phenomenon ‘Freezing’. To illustrate, consider (109). The derivation of (109) involves first raising of α followed by movement of β out of the already displaced α . As movement of α has turned it into an island, displacement of β from α is banned.74 (109)

*β3 . . . [ α . . . t3 . . . ] 2 . . . t2 . . .

If percolation is movement, then it should obey the CED. In other words, percolation out of a constituent in non-complement position should be impossible. Before I turn to the evidence, let me clarify a technicality. Originally, the CED was formulated as a constraint on phrasal movement. The question arises as to whether its scope can be extended to feature movement. I argue that it can (but cf. Fanselow (2001, 421, footnote 7)). To this end, I want to address two points. First, what does it mean to ‘cross a barrier’? Crossing a phrase boundary α is conceived of as a movement operation whose base position is dominated by α and whose target position is not dominated by α . How can this be made sense of in the context of whfeature movement? Under Chomsky’s (1995) theory of bare phrase structure (see section 4.1 above) the question receives a straightforward answer. In this theory, the relation of immediate domination between α and β is represented by the relation of set-membership between them. Movement of β across a phrase boundary α is thus understood as removing the member β from the set α . Second, if the theory of bare phrase structure is supposed to be compatible with the CED, then it must distinguish complement positions from non-complement positions. As argued by Chomsky (1995, 245), it does. Returning to the main issue, the prediction of a theory that reduces percolation to movement is that wh-feature percolation from a non-complement position – and, consequently, pied-piping from a non-complement position – should be impossible. As has been observed by Webelhuth (1992, 132), the 74. The universal validity of the freezing generalization (see above) is not generally acknowledged. See, for instance, Chomsky (1986), who cites Torrego (1985) for counter-evidence (but cf. Sternefeld (1991) for a counter argument). See also Fiengo et al. (1988) and McCloskey (2000) for arguments against the freezing generalization.


69

empirical facts suggest the opposite: in many cases, the pied-piper occupies a specifier position of the pied-piped constituent; and very often this is even a mandatory precondition for pied-piping to be well-formed (see also Aissen (1996), Moritz and Valois (1994), and section 2 of chapter 2). To illustrate, consider the contrast in (110-a,b), involving DP-internal degree-phrase fronting in English. (110)

a. Egbert wonders [ DP [ DegP how big ] 2 a t2 problem ] 3 Horace can solve t3 . b. *Egbert wonders [ DP a [ DegP how big ] 2 problem ] 3 Horace can solve t3 .

In English, DP-internal degree-phrases must move to the specifier of DP (see Hendrick (1990), Matushansky (2002)). In this position, one expects them to be opaque for extraction, due to the CED. Thus, if pied-piping requires wh-feature percolation and if wh-feature percolation is actually wh-feature movement, then pied-piping of how big a problem in (110) should be impossible, contrary to fact. Cases like these thus shed doubt on the assumption that wh-percolation (if it exists) is wh-feature movement. Third, movement must always target a c-commanding position. This is Fiengo’s (1977) P ROPER B INDING C ONDITION (PBC). In configurations where the pied-piper occupies a specifier position within the pied-piped constituent wh-feature percolation violates the PBC, irrespective of whether it targets the pied-piped constituent or its head. Again, this falsely predicts that (110-a) is ungrammatical.75 Under the radical view that each node in a phrase marker constitutes a cyclic domain, wh-feature movement from how big to a in (110-a) also violates the S TRICT C YCLE C ONDITION (SCC, see Chomsky (1973)). A version of the SCC is given in (111). (111)

S TRICT C YCLE C ONDITION Within the current cyclic domain Δ, a syntactic operation may not exclusively involve positions included within another cyclic domain Δ such that Δ dominates Δ .

75. Overt head movement appears to violate the PBC, too. It has been suggested that head movement targets a c-commanding position after all (see Holmberg (1991), Fanselow (2004)) or that it is actually phrasal movement (see Mahajan (2001), Müller (2004b)). If feature movement involves adjunction to the target head, then it faces a similar problem. However, note that the particular type of wh-feature movement from specifier position hypothesized for (110-a) is impossible for overt head movement, too, see below.

70

Introduction

The reason is that wh-feature movement from the degree phrase how big in (110-a) takes [ WH ] from within the cyclic domain how big and places it within the cyclic domain of the node D , both of which are dominated by the current cyclic domain, the DP how big a problem. Interestingly, Baker (1988) observes that incorporation from a phrase in specifier position into the head that projects the specifier position is generally ruled out. Such illformed incorporation completely parallels the hypothetical case of wh-feature movement in (110-a). This lends further support to the claim that wh-feature movement from specifier position should be blocked. To sum up, hypothesized wh-feature percolation has properties that it does not share with other instances of movement. Consequently, it should not be analyzed as movement.76 It remains to be shown that it is not desirable to reduce percolation to Merge either.

4.2.

Percolation Reduced to Merge

Consider the possibility of adding a wh-feature via Merge to the phrase that is supposed to undergo pied-piping. As it stands, this would violate the I N CLUSIVENESS C ONDITION (see Chomsky (1995, 228); IC), see (112). (112)

I NCLUSIVENESS C ONDITION Material that is not part of the numeration before the derivation starts is not accessible throughout the derivation.

In order to avoid this, assume that an arbitrary number of wh-features can optionally enter the numeration. At any point, the derivation can pick one of those and merge it into the feature structure of the root’s head. The mechanism is very powerful and has thus to be constrained. This can be achieved by adapting one of the already existing theories of wh-feature percolation. To illustrate, consider first the ill-formed case of pied-piping in (113). (113)

*Horace wonders [ DP the daughter of whom ] 2 Egbert likes t2 .

76. The situation would change, though, if one came up with a theory that correlates the exemption of wh-feature percolation from movement constraints with some other property that distinguishes wh-feature percolation from standard movement. One such property could be that wh-feature percolation does not affect phonological features, but standard (overt) movement does.


71

Merge of [ WH ] with the D-head the in (113) must be blocked. Thus assume that Merge of [ WH ] with a head H is only possible if H is c-commanded by a wh-phrase. (Something like this is needed anyway to block examples such as *a man the daughter of him you like.) But now note that (114) is grammatical, despite the fact that whose does not c-command P in (114). (114)

a person [ PP with whose daughter ] Egbert goes out t2

Suppose therefore that Merge of [ WH ] in (114) applies recursively: first the (empty) D-head of whose daughter acquires [ WH ] via Merge, being c-commanded by whose, and projects [ WH ] to whose daughter. Then the PP with whose daughter acquires [ WH ] from whose daughter via Merge, being ccommanded by whose daughter, and again projects it. Of course, if percolation can apply recursively, then an additional restriction is needed to block it from applying in (113). To this end, suppose that Merge of [ WH ] cannot apply to lexical heads (mimicking Grimshaw’s theory of extended projections; see section 2.3). Then percolation will not reach beyond N in (113). However, upon closer inspection it turns out that the properties of piedpiping are actually determined by conditions on movement and feature checking. I do not see how this can be explained in an insightful way if pied-piping involves wh-percolation in terms of Merge. Perhaps the argument cannot be fully appreciated before the above mentioned properties of pied-piping have been motivated in detail (see chapter 2) and an analysis has been proposed (see chapter 4). For now, let me illustrate the gist of the argument without going too much into the details. Section 2 of chapter 2 contains evidence that pied-pipers often move into the specifier of the pied-piped constituent; I call this phenomenon ‘secondary’ wh-movement. In section 2 of chapter 4, I argue that it derives from the nature of wh-feature checking. At first sight, it seems as if the theory of percolation in terms of Merge also provides a natural account for secondary whmovement. The idea is that secondary wh-movement applies in order to move a wh-word past a lexical head that is not accessible to [ WH ]-insertion. In Tzotzil, for instance, a wh-possessor that pied-pipes a DP obligatorily undergoes secondary wh-movement from a postnominal position to SpecD past N (see (115), from Aissen (1996)). (115)

[ DP Buch’u2 x-ch’amal t2 ] 3 t3 i-cham? who A 3-child CP-died ‘Whose child died?’

72

Introduction

If pied-piping were based on Merge of [ WH ], the reason for this could be that the pied-piper c-commands the non-lexical D-head only after raising, which can then acquire [ WH ] via Merge. But the account does not cover all cases. For instance, as Aissen (1996) argues for Tzotzil, the wh-phrase buch’u in (116) undergoes secondary wh-movement from SpecD to SpecP. (116)

t2 ] 3 ch-a-bat t3 ? [ PP Buch’u2 ta t2 s-na who to A 3-house ICP - B 2-go ‘To whose house are you going?’

But there is no lexical head between D and P in (116). Raising the whphrase to SpecD (as in (115)) plus subsequent recursive percolation should be enough for the PP to acquire [ WH ], but it is not (see Aissen (1996, 472)). Thus, more assumptions are needed. Another problem concerns the claim motivated in section 3 of chapter 2 that pied-piping is only possible if movement of the pied-piper is blocked. One way to derive this in a percolation-based approach is by putting a certain cost on Merge of [ WH ]. Such a cost is only justified if pied-piping is forced by some island. But if the island-hood of a category is determined (at least partially) by its structural position, then it must be possible to apply Merge of [ WH ] counter-cyclically. To illustrate, consider the following contrast that illustrates the impossibility of pied-piping a PP in Danish (Sten Vikner, p.c.). (117)

a. *Jeg gad vide [ PP med hvem3 ] 2 du har snakket t2 . with whom you have spoken I would know ‘I would like to know to whom you have talked.’ b. Jeg gad vide hvem3 du har snakket [ PP med t3 ]2 . with I would know who you have spoken

Notably, the ill-formedness of (117-a) is not due to a general ban on piedpiping a PP in Danish. Pied-piping of adjunct PPs is possible (see (118-a)) and also necessary because extraction from adjuncts is blocked (see (118-b)). (118)

a. Jeg gad vide [ PP under hvilke omstændigheder ] 2 han vil under which circumstances he will I would know komme t2 . come ‘I would like to know under which circumstances he will come.’

Summary

73

b. *Jeg gad vide [ DP hvilke omstændigheder ] 3 han vil which circumstances he will I would know komme [ PP under t3 ]2 . under come Merge of a wh-feature is necessary and therefore justified in (118-a), the PP being an island, but unnecessary and therefore blocked in (117-a), the PP being transparent. But before the PP is merged it is unclear whether it ends up as an island or not. That is, only after the PP has been merged can it be decided whether Merge of [ WH ] must or must not apply. It follows that Merge of the wh-feature is strongly counter-cyclic (i.e., it violates the SCC). Note incidentally that the same problem arises under a reconstruction of whfeature percolation in terms of movement. In a similar vein, if secondary whmovement were triggered by the need to merge a wh-feature (see above), then, by the same reasoning, secondary wh-movement would have to be countercyclic, too. To conclude, pied-piping exhibits properties that are not easily accounted for if it is based on Merge of wh-features. The percolation-based approach requires extra assumptions in order to be able to account for secondary whmovement. Moreover, as Merge is only possible in the local context of an island, it must be able to apply counter-cyclically. The upshot is that whfeature percolation can hardly be re-phrased in terms of Move or Merge. In chapters 3 and 4, I argue that the proper treatment of pied-piping involves Agree, the last of the three elementary operations.

5.

Summary

Theories of wh-movement usually assume that wh-movement correlates with a special property, namely the presence of a wh-feature on the moved constituent. Moreover, this property can only be verified or checked if the whfeature is locally available, and not embedded within the moved constituent. However, once the phenomenon of pied-piping is taken into account it seems as if one of the two assumptions must be given up. The problem is that piedpiping involves whmovement of a category that is not marked with [ WH ]. Rather the moved category merely contains another category (the pied-piper) that is marked with a wh-feature. In such a case then, checking of [ WH ] cannot apply locally. The standard way of bridging the gap in locality is to as-

74

Introduction

sume a process of feature percolation that enables the wh-feature to appear on the moved constituent after all. This solves the problem, thereby retaining both assumptions. Since feature percolation crosses phrase boundaries, it cannot be subsumed under the notion of feature projection. It turns out that pied-piping is subject to certain restrictions. I have briefly discussed several theories of pied-piping, most of which are percolation based and are thus concerned with defining the correct restrictions on percolation. Given the importance of the notion of percolation, I discussed some topics concerning this issue. I first addressed the notion of specifier-head agreement. I argued that many cases of specifier-head agreement are unmotivated insofar as there is no independent evidence for the hypothesized agreement relation that is supposed to give a piggyback to wh-feature percolation. I also discussed the question as to whether percolation is expected to show reflexes in the morphology or the syntax. I concluded that under a post-syntactic theory of morphology there should indeed be some evidence for percolation. Such evidence, however, is rather sparse, if it exists at all. I also briefly discussed superiority effects, suggesting that although it is problematic to construct an argument for or against percolation that is based on superiority effects, it may be possible to do so once interfering factors are better understood. Finally, I claimed that percolation should be reducible to one of the independently motivated structure-building concepts Merge and Move. I gave several arguments for why I think that such a reduction is problematic. The conclusion was that percolation-based theories must assume percolation as an independent elementary operation of the grammar. In the rest of this monograph, I will show that a more parsimonious pied-piping theory, which dispenses with wh-feature percolation, is possible.

Chapter 2 Pied-Piping Generalizations

In the literature, pied-piping is often considered an irregular phenomenon (see, for instance, Postal (1971, 99, 200); van Riemsdijk and Williams (1986, 68)).77 The purpose of the present chapter is to argue that there are crosslinguistic generalizations about pied-piping, and that the variation between languages that can be observed with respect to pied-piping derives from independent differences. The present approach also contrasts with proposals that are based on the idea that there is a parameter that determines differences in pied-piping between languages (see, e.g., Brody (1995); Koster (2000)). The leading idea will be that the mechanism of feature checking is intimately involved in determining the properties of pied-piping. Since feature checking is usually assumed to be uniform across languages, it follows that pied-piping should also be uniform, provided no independent factors are involved. The generalizations I propose are the generalizations on (i) recursive piedpiping and (ii) repair-driven pied-piping; (iii) the edge generalization; (iv) the generalization on massive pied-piping; and (v) the intervention generalization. The first three generalizations are concerned with pied-piping in restrictive relative clauses and embedded questions. To put it in a nutshell, the generalization on recursive pied-piping states that pied-piping can apply recursively, the edge generalization states that the pied-piper tends to occupy and edge position within the pied-piped constituent, and the repair generalization says that pied-piping is a repair operation that applies as a last resort. The remaining two generalizations, i.e., the generalization on massive pied-piping and the intervention generalization, focus on massive pied-piping in appositive relative clauses (and perhaps matrix questions). The generalization on massive pied-piping says that massive pied-piping is only possible in unembedded CPs (and with a special kind of wh-phrase); the intervention generalization states that there must not be an overt specifier or complementizer within a massively pied-piped constituent that c-commands the pied-piper. 77. As van Riemsdijk and Williams put it: “However, at the present stage of inquiry piedpiping is by and large an ill-understood phenomenon. Sometimes it is obligatory, sometimes optional, sometimes blocked. Moreover, it is highly language-specific. Hence, it seems undesirable to attribute this property to the rule of Wh-Movement, which has a fair chance of being universal.”.

76

Pied-Piping Generalizations

There are counter-examples to every generalization. Thus, the analyses presented in chapters 4 and 5 are not only supposed to derive the facts presented in the present chapter but also to address possible counter-evidence.

1.

Recursive Pied-Piping

The first pied-piping generalization that I want to introduce is the generalization on recursive pied-piping. It is given in (119). (119)

Generalization on Recursive Pied-Piping If a wh-phrase α can pied-pipe a constituent β , and if β is in a canonical position to pied-pipe γ , then α can also pied-pipe γ .

A canonical pied-piping position within β is a position P such that if P is occupied by a lexical wh-phrase α , then β can be pied-piped by α . To illustrate the idea, assume that in (120-a) α can pied-pipe β and that in (120-b) β can pied-pipe γ . It then follows by recursion that in a configuration like (120-c), a combination of (120-a) and (120-b), α can pied-pipe γ . (120)

a. [ β . . . α . . . ] 2 . . . t2 . . . b. [ γ . . . β . . . ] 3 . . . t3 . . . c. [ γ . . . [ β . . . α . . . ] 2 . . . ] 3 . . . t3 . . .

The literature usually concentrates on recursive pied-piping in the context of specifier cascades. I illustrate in this section that the pattern is more general and also comprises recursive pied-piping along the complement path.

1.1.

Specifier Recursion

Recursive pied-piping in the context of embedded specifiers has been observed to exist in different languages. In what follows, I review the evidence, adding to it here and there.

1.1.1.

English

A well-known instance of (119) in English occurs when the pied-piper is buried in a ‘specifier cascade’. This will be illustrated in a moment. To be-


77

gin with, Webelhuth (1992) notes that specifier positions are canonical piedpiping positions in the sense above. Since Abney (1987), pre-nominal genitives in English are often assumed to occupy the specifier position of DP. As illustrated in (121), a wh-phrase in this position is an excellent pied-piper in both restrictive relative clauses and embedded interrogatives. (121)

a. a man [ DP whose deckchair ] 3 you spilled coffee on t3 b. I know [ DP whose deckchair ] 3 you spilled coffee on t3 .

It has been observed that alongside (121) examples like (122) are equally well-formed (see Sells (1985), Cowper (1987), Grimshaw (1991, 2000)). (122)

a. a man [ DP whose sister’s deckchair ] 2 you spilled coffee on t2 b. a man [ DP whose sister’s lawyer’s deckchair ] 2 you spilled coffee on t2 c. I know [ DP whose sister’s deckchair ] 3 you spilled coffee on t3 . d. I know [ DP whose layer’s sister’s deckchair ] 3 you spilled coffee on t3 .

To illustrate, consider (122-a). SpecD is a canonical position for pied-piping a DP (see (121)). The SpecD-position of the pied-piped constituent whose sister’s deckchair does not contain a lexical wh-phrase. Rather, this position is occupied by whose sister. However, as the lexical wh-phrase whose occupies SpecD of whose sister and whose sister occupies SpecD of whose sister’s deckchair, it follows by recursion that whose can pied-pipe whose sister’s deckchair. Recursive pied-piping of this type can, in theory, be iterated ad infinitum, the number of embedding steps being only restricted by limitations on the memory of the human brain.

1.1.2.

Danish

Among the Scandinavian languages at least Danish exhibits recursive piedpiping in the context of specifier cascades. (123) illustrates this for restrictive relative clauses (Sten Vikner, p.c.). (123)

a. en man [ DP hvis holdning ] 2 jeg godt kan lide t2 a man whose attitude I good can like ‘a man whose attitude I like’

78


b. en man [ DP hvis søsters holdning ] 2 jeg godt kan lide t2 a man whose sister’s attitude I good can like ‘a man whose sister’s attitude I like’ c. en man [ DP hvis søsters vens holdning ] 2 jeg godt kan a man whose sister’s friend’s attitude I good can lide t2 like ‘a man whose sister’s friend’s attitude I like’ Similar facts can be observed for embedded interrogatives in Danish (see (124)). Such parallelism lends further support to the assumption that piedpiping behaves alike in restrictive relative clauses and embedded interrogatives (cf. section 2.1 of chapter 1). (124) a. Jeg gad vide [ DP hvis mor ] 2 han giftede sig med t2 . whose mother he married REFL with I would know ‘I would like to know whose mother he married.’ søster ] 2 han giftede sig b. Jeg gad vide [ DP hvis mors whose mother’s sister he married REFL I would know med t2 . with ‘I would like to know whose mother’s sister he married.’ vens søster ] 2 han c. Jeg gad vide [ DP hvis mors whose mother’s friend’s sister he I would know giftede sig med t2 . married REFL with ‘I would like to know whose mother’s sister’s friend he married.’ There are Scandinavian languages that do not follow this pattern, at least not completely. As will be illustrated in section 1.4 below, Icelandic appears to be such a language. Note in passing that in Swedish, only some dialects allow the pre-nominal genitive to co-occur with a suffix that marks definiteness. And even in those dialects where this is possible, the genitive for some reason cannot be realized by a wh-phrase (see Holmberg (1987, 12)): (125)

*Vems boken talar du om? whose book-the talk you about ‘Whose book do you talk about?’


1.1.3.

79

Russian

Russian provides another instance of recursive pied-piping (Anna Erechko, p.c.). For some reason, only the lexical wh-possessor can appear in pre-nominal position in Russian. Once pied-piping by a wh-possessor is involved, the pied-piper appears post-nominally. Thus both positions must count as canonical pied-piping positions in the sense of (119). (126)

a. Interesno [ PP na cˇ ’ej materi ] 3 on zˇ enilsja t3 . on whose mother he married interesting ‘I wonder whose mother he married.’ b. Interesno [ PP na sestre cˇ ’ej materi ] 3 on zˇ enilsja t3 . on sister whose mother he married t4 interesting ‘I wonder whose mother’ sister he married.’ c. Interesno [ PP na sestre druga cˇ ’ej materi ] 3 on zˇ enilsja t3 . on sister friend whose mother he married interesting ‘I wonder whose mother’ friend’s sister he married.’

The examples in (126) also involve pied-piping of a preposition, but this is not important here. Also note in passing that pied-piping by a pre-nominal genitive in Russian is often optional. Recursive pied-piping can also be observed in restrictive relative clauses in Russian, see (127). (127)

1.1.4.

otnoˇsenie ] 2 mne nravitsja t2 a. cˇ elovek, [ DP cˇ ’ë whose attitude me pleases man ‘a man whose attitude pleases me’ b. cˇ elovek, [ DP otnoˇsenie cˇ ’ej sestry ] 3 mne nravitsja t3 attitude whose sister man me pleases ‘a man whose sister’s attitude pleases me’ c. cˇ elovek, [ DP otnoˇsenie druga cˇ ’ej sestry ] 2 mne nravitsja t2 attitude friend whose sister man me pleases ‘a man whose sister’s friend’s attitude pleases me’

Polish

Rappaport (1995, 327-328) reports the existence of recursive pied-piping in Polish interrogatives. Consider the examples in (128).

80


(128)

a. [ DP Którego autora ksia˛ z˙ ke˛ ] 2 niedawno kupiłe´s t2 ? which.GEN author.GEN book recently bought.2 SG ‘Which author’s book did you recently buy?’ b. [ DP Czyiego ojca sklep ] 2 kupiłe´s t2 ? who.GEN father.GEN store bought.2 SG ‘Whose father’s store did you buy?’ firmy c. [ DP Jakiej benzyne˛ ] 2 najcze˛ s´ ciej Pan which.GEN company.GEN gasoline most-frequently you jupuje t2 ? buy.2 SG ‘Which company’s gasoline do you buy most frequently?’

Under the assumption that the wh-items który ‘which one’, jaki ‘what kind of’, and czyj ‘whose’ do not occupy head but specifier positions in (128-a-c), it follows that the examples in (128) involve recursive pied-piping.

1.1.5.

German

In German, recursive pied-piping occurs in the context of the (colloquial) dem-sein-construction, which involves a dative possessor; see (129). (129)

a. jemand, [ DP dem seine Tochter ] 2 du t2 magst who his daughter you like someone ‘someone whose daughter you like’ b. jemand, [ DP dem seiner Tochter ihren Sohn ] 2 du t2 magst you like someone who his daughter her son ‘someone whose daughter’s son you like’ c. jemand, [ DP dem seiner Tochter ihrem Sohn seine Art ] 2 who his daughter her son his way someone du t2 magst you like ‘someone whose daughter’s son’s way you like’

The dem-sein-construction involves a DP that is headed by a possessive pronoun (see also de Vries (2005) on this construction). The specifier of this DP can be occupied by a lexical dative-marked wh-word (dem in (129-a)) or a complex dem-sein-phrase, which in turn can host the pied-piper (129-b).78 78. The same construction exists in Dutch (cf. also footnote 162):


81

Pied-piping by recursive possessors is rather restricted in German (if not impossible). Presumably, this is due to a language-specific morphological constraint that requires that the genitive be marked (for instance by the marker -s; see Gallmann (1996)). In (130), for instance, this constraint is violated. (130)

a. *ein Mann, [ DP dessen Mutter Liegestuhl ] 2 du t2 willst whose mother’s deckchair you want a man ‘a man whose mother’s deckchair you want’ b. *ein Mann, [ DP dessen Mutter Schwester Liegestuhl ] 2 du t2 whose mother’s sister’s deckchair you a man willst want ‘a man whose mother’s sister’s deckchair you want’

The examples improve if the morphological marking is present, see (131). The masculine nouns Vater ‘father’ and Bruder ‘brother’ bear the -s-genitive, as opposed to the feminine nouns Mutter ‘mother’ and Schwester ‘sister’.79 (131)

(i)

a. ein Mann, [ DP dessen Vaters Liegestuhl ] 2 du t2 ruiniert hast a man whose father’s deckchair you ruined have ‘a man whose father’s deckchair you ruined’ b. ?ein Mann, [ DP dessen Vaters Bruders Liegestuhl ] 2 du t2 whose father’s brother’s deckchair you a man ruiniert hast ruined have ‘a man whose father’s brother’s deckchair you ruined’ Ik vraag me af [ DP wiens moeder d’r vriend z’n zuster ] 2 hij t2 getrouwd heeft. I ask REFL if whose mother her friend his sister he married has ‘I wonder whose mother’s friend’s sister he married.’

79. On the basis of (i), Haider (1988) argues that recursive genitive possessors are grammatical in German. (i)

der Mann, dessen Mutters Schwesters Kind ich kenne the man whose mother’s sister’s child I know ‘the man whose mother’s sister’s child I know’

The nominals Mutter ‘mother’ and sister ‘Schwester’ are marked with an -s in (i). However, these nominals form the genitive without -s. Morphological marking with -s is only appropriate if they are interpreted as proper names (which is odd in this context). Accordingly, (i) sounds weird, although not as bad as (130-b).

82


Thus, the ungrammaticality of (130) is not due to the impossibility of recursive pied-piping in German per se.

1.1.6.

French

Moritz and Valois (1994, 700-704) argue that wh-in-situ interrogatives in French involve recursive pied-piping. Their argument is based on several assumptions. I will not go into all the details of their analysis (which makes use of recursive feature percolation) but rather confine myself to a rough sketch. To begin with, French exhibits wh-in-situ interrogatives, see (132). (132)

Lise a vu qui? Lise has seen who ‘Who did Lise see?’

Moritz and Valois (1994) assume that wh-in-situ in French requires LF-movement of the wh-phrase to SpecC. In other words, a wh-in-situ interrogative like (132) has the LF-structure given in (133). (133)

Qui2 Lise a vu t2 who Lise has seen

The wh-phrase can also be embedded within an argument of the verb. For such cases Moritz and Valois assume a more complicated derivation. To illustrate, consider the in-situ interrogatives in (134). (134)

a. Lise a vu [ DP le frère de qui ]3 ? the brother of whom Lise has seen ‘Whose brother did Lise see?’ de qui ]4 ? b. Lise a vu [ DP le frère de l’ami the brother of the friend of who Lise has seen ‘Whose friend’s brother did Lise see?’

In (134-a) the wh-phrase is the complement of the preposition de, whose projection de qui is the complement of the nominal frère. By assumption, the wh-phrase must move at LF. As suggested by the ungrammaticality of (135), which involves overt pied-piping of the complete DP le frère de qui, LFmovement in (134-a) cannot involve pied-piping of this DP either.80 80. One may wonder why there should be LF-pied-piping of more than the PP. (The PP must


(135)

83

*[ DP Le frère de qui ] 2 a vu Lise t2 ? the brother of whom has seen Lise ‘Whose brother did Lise see?’

Moritz and Valois (1994) therefore propose another derivation for (134-a). To begin with, they note that prepositions can (and must) undergo pied-piping in French, see (136).81 It follows that the complement position of P is a canonical pied-piping position. (136)

l’homme [ PP avec qui ] 2 tu as parlé t2 with who you have talked the-man ‘the man you talked to’

Next, they assume that SpecD is also a canonical pied-piping position. French does not exhibit pre-nominal wh-genitives, but the assumption is well-motivaundergo pied-piping because French lacks P-stranding.) After all, wh-movement of the PP de qui is possible in (134-a), see (i) (from Moritz and Valois (1994, 687)). (i)

Lise a rencontré [ DP le frère t2 ] la femme dont2 the brother the woman of-whom Lise has met ‘the woman whose brother Lise met’

However, pied-piping of more than a PP can be motivated for (134-b), where extraction of the PP from a complex DP is blocked (again, see Moritz and Valois (1994, 687)): (ii)

t2 ] Lise a rencontré [ DP le frère de l’ami *la femme dont2 the brother of the-friend the woman of-whom Lise has met ‘the woman whose friend’s brother Lise met’

This said, I confine myself to (134-a) here, for expository reasons. 81. There are cases in French that look as if they involved preposition stranding; see, for instance, the examples in (i) (from Herslund (1984)). (i)

a.

b.

c.

l’homme qu’il est venu avec the-man that-he is come with ‘the man he came with’ un pot qu’il y a quelque chose e´ crit dessus a pot that-it there has some thing written on ‘a pot with something written on it’ la pièce qu’il est entré dedans the room that-he is entered into ‘the room he entered’

It can be argued, though, that they do not involve P-stranding proper; see Zribi-Hertz (1984) for discussion.

84


ted by evidence from other languages. Under the assumption that the PP de qui in (134-a) undergoes LF-movement to SpecD, it then follows by recursion that qui can pied-pipe the complete DP at LF. By this reasoning, the DP in (134-a) undergoes covert pied-piping to SpecC, resulting in the following LF: (137)

[ DP [ PP De qui ] 2 le frère t2 ] 3 Lise a vu t3 of whom the brother Lise has seen

Obviously, this is an instance of recursive pied-piping. The derivation of (134-b) requires one more recursive step. The analysis does not explain why the hypothesized LF-movement to SpecD (which renders pied-piping recursive) is limited to structures that involve wh-in-situ. That is, why can (135), which involves overt wh-movement to SpecC, not be salvaged by LF-raising of PP to SpecD, ultimately resulting in the LF (137)? The question also arises with respect to embedded interrogatives, which do not allow for wh-in-situ in French. Apparently, LF-raising of PP to SpecD impossible in these structures, too, see (138-a,b). (138)

a. *Je me demande [ DP le frère de qui ] 3 elle a vu t3 . the brother of who she has seen I REFL ask ‘I wonder whose brother she saw.’ de qui ] 4 elle b. *Je me demande [ DP le frère de l’ami the brother of the friend of who she I REFL ask a vu t4 . has seen ‘I wonder whose friend’s brother she saw.’

In fact, there are analyses of wh-in-situ that dispense with LF-movement and rather involve binding (see, e.g., Reinhart (1992, 1994)) or wh-feature movement (see Boˇsković (1998, 2000)). If one of these theories is the right approach to wh-in-situ in French, then the evidence presented by Moritz and Valois (1994) is not conclusive.

1.2.

Complement Recursion

There are instances of recursive pied-piping that are not restricted to specifier cascades.


85

To begin with, some languages require pied-piping of prepositions. German is a case in point, see (139). (139)

a. Fritz fragt sich, [ PP mit wem ] 2 sie t2 gesprochen hat. with whom she spoken has Fritz asks REFL ‘Fritz wonders who she talked to.’ b. der Mann, [ PP mit dem ] 2 sie t2 gesprochen hat the man with whom she spoken has ‘the man she talked to’

The pattern can be iterated: as the complement position of a preposition qualifies as a canonical pied-piping position, pied-piping is equally possible if such a PP is complement of another preposition, as in (140) (see van Riemsdijk (1978), Koster (1987) on the structure of such stacked PPs). (140)

a. Fritz weiß, [ PP bis zu welchem Punkt ] 2 er t2 gehen kann. Fritz knows until to which point he go can ‘Fritz knows how far he can go.’ b. der Punkt, [ PP bis zu dem ] 2 man t2 gehen kann until to which one go can the point ‘the point that you can go to’

Although I have confined myself here to examples from German, other languages that have prepositional pied-piping behave alike. See, for instance, Cinque (1982, 257, footnote 22) for similar cases in Italian.

1.3.

Hybrid Recursion

The two types of recursive pied-piping can be combined. For instance, a whphrase in SpecD (a canonical pied-piping position) can pied-pipe a PP if the DP in question is the complement of P (again, a canonical pied-piping position); see (141) for German. (141)

a. jemand [ PP u¨ ber dessen Geschmack ] 2 man t2 streiten kann someone about whose taste one argue can ‘someone whose taste one can argue about’ b. jemand [ PP u¨ ber dem seinen Geschmack ] 2 man t2 streitet about who his taste one argues someone ‘someone whose taste one argues about’

86


Also, recall that some of the Russian examples in section 1.1 involved a combination of pied-piping a specifier cascade plus P-shell. One of the examples is repeated in (142) for convenience (see also section 2.2.1 below for a similar example from Romanian). (142)

Interesno [ PP na sestre druga cˇ ’ej materi ] 3 on zˇ enilsja t3 . on sister friend whose mother he married interesting ‘I wonder whose mother’s friend’s sister he married.’

To conclude, there is some evidence that recursion is a property of pied-piping that can be found in various languages, that involves different categories, and that shows up across different constructions. It therefore constitutes a first indication that pied-piping is not as idiosyncratic as is often assumed.

1.4.

Cases of Recursion Breakdown

There is an exception to every rule. Recursive pied-piping is sometimes blocked. This is the case for both specifier and complement recursion.

1.4.1.

Specifier Recursion

In Icelandic, pied-piping by recursive possessors is impossible (Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, p.c.). This is illustrated in (143-b,c) for embedded interrogatives. Only (143-a), where pied-piper can be analyzed to occupy the topmost specifier, is grammatical.82 Note that (143-a) also illustrates that Icelandic has a post-nominal wh-genitive (see sections 1.3.2 and 2.5, chapter 4.) 82. Restrictive relative clauses in Icelandic behave similarly; for some reason, however, piedpiping is already marked in the non-recursive case, see (i-a): (i)

a. ??maDur [ DP hvers skoDanir ] 2 mér l´ıka t2 man whose views I like ‘a man whose opinion I like’ b. *maDur [ DP skoDanir hvers systur ] 2 mér l´ıka t2 man views whose sister I like ‘a man whose sister’s opinion I like’ c. *maDur [ DP skoDanir vinar hvers systur ] 2 mér l´ıka t2 I like views friend’s whose sister man ‘a man whose sister’s friend’s opinion I like’


(143)

87

´ velti þv´ı fyrir a. Eg mér [ DP móDur hvers ] 2 hann kvæntist t2 . mother whose he married I roll it in-front me ‘I wonder whose mother he married.’ ´ velti þv´ı fyrir b. *Eg mér [ DP systur móDur hvers ] 2 hann sister mother’s whose he I roll it in-front me kvæntist t2 . married ‘I wonder whose mother’s sister he married.’ ´ velti þv´ı fyrir c. *Eg mér [ DP systur vinar móDur hvers ] 2 I roll it in-front me sister friend’s mother’s whose hann kvæntist t2 . he married ‘I wonder whose mother’s friend’s sister he married.’

Pied-piping by a possessor that is recursively embedded is not well-formed in Tzotzil either (see Aissen (1996)). Parallel facts have been observed by Broadwell (2001) for San Dionicio Zapotec and by Coon (2007) for Chol Mayan. (144-b) illustrates this for Tzotzil (from Aissen (1996, 481)). (144)

a. I-’ixtalaj [ DP s-kayijonal y-osil li j-tot-e ]2 . CP-ruin A 3-firelane A 3-land the A 1-father ‘My father’s land’s firelane was ruined.’ b. *[ DP Buch’u y-osil s-kayijonal ] 2 i-’ixtalaj t2 ? who A3-land A3-firelane CP-ruin ‘Whose land’s firelane was ruined?’

If recursion is a general property of pied-piping, then there must be an independent reason why it is blocked in these languages. In section 3.10, I make a suggestion as to what could be the relevant difference between, for instance, Tzotzil and English.83 Icelandic is addressed in section 1.3.2, chapter 4.

1.4.2.

Complement Recursion

There are cases of pied-piping that involve recursive embedding within a complement path and where, at first sight, the generalization on recursive 83. See Aissen (1996, 480-488) and Coon (2007) for other suggestions (based on work by Giorgi and Longobardi (1991) and Cable (2007), respectively) as to how the lack of recursive pied-piping in Tzotzil and Chol Mayan is to be explained.

88


pied-piping does not hold. Thus consider the instances of ungrammatical pied-piping in (145), which involve embedded interrogatives in English. (145)

a. *Horace wonders [ AP proud of whom ] 2 Egbert is t2 . b. *Horace wonders [ DP the sister of whom ] 2 t2 kissed Egbert.

Upon closer scrutiny, it turns out that the preconditions of the generalization (119) are not fulfilled by (145-a,b) in the first place. But if so, then it does not make sense to say that (145-a,b) represent counter-examples to (119). Rather, they are simply irrelevant. Consider (145-a). The wh-word whom occupies a canonical pied-piping position within the PP of whom, namely the complement position. (145-a) has not fulfilled all preconditions of (119) unless the PP of whom also occupies a canonical pied-piping position within the AP proud of whom. However, a bare wh-phrase cannot figure as the complement of an A-head in English, presumably for reasons of case. There is no way to tell whether the complement position of the A-head is a canonical pied-piping position or not and therefore the preconditions of (119) are not fulfilled. A similar point can be made for (145-b). Of course, a theory of pied-piping should be able account for the ungrammaticality of (145-a,b) in some way. I return to this issue in sections 1.3 and 3.1 of chapter 4. To foreshadow the discussion there, some of the ungrammatical cases of the type in (145-a,b) are accounted for by making reference to the notion of a phase (see section 1.4.2, chapter 3), the idea being that the pied-piper is buried inside the inaccessible domain of the phase; other cases are subsumed under the generalization on repair-driven pied-piping (203), see section 3 below (and section 3, chapter 4 for its derivation).

2.

Secondary Wh-Movement

The second generalization, the edge generalization, is given in (146). (146)

Edge generalization If a wh-phrase α pied-pipes a constituent β , then α has to be at the edge of β .

It is quite appropriate to conceive of the ‘edge of β ’ as a position that is not dominated by any maximal projection except for β . In many cases this will


89

be a specifier position of β . The technical details are made precise in section 1.4.1, chapter 3, where the ground for the derivation of (146) is prepared. At this point it is useful to introduce some terminology. I call a movement operation that moves a wh-phrase to its ultimate landing site (i.e., its scope position) ‘primary wh-movement’. In contrast to this, wh-movement that moves a wh-phrase to a position that is not its scope position is called ‘secondary’ wh-movement. Thus, the notion of secondary wh-movement covers both the intermediate steps of successive cyclic wh-movement and what van Riemsdijk (1985) calls ‘internal wh-movement’. The phenomenon of secondary wh-movement can be illustrated by the following configuration: (147)

[ β α2 . . . [ γ . . . t2 . . . ] . . . ] 3 . . . t3 . . .

Assume that β in (147) has been pied-piped to SpecC. Before movement of β has applied, however, the wh-phrase α has moved within β to its edge, thereby crossing the intermediate projection γ . Movement of α is an instance of secondary wh-movement. In what follows, cross-linguistic evidence in favor of the generalization (146) is presented.

2.1.

Genitive Possessors

Wh-possessors that pied-pipe nominals have to appear in pre-nominal position. This observation can be subsumed under the edge generalization.

2.1.1.

Tzotzil

Good evidence for (146) can be found in Mesoamerican languages like Tzotzil (see Aissen (1996)) Zapotec (see Smith Stark (1988), Broadwell (2001)), and Chol Mayan (see Coon (2007)). Here, I will concentrate on Tzotzil.84 In Tzotzil, only genitive arguments (possessors) can appear inside the noun phrase. The genitive’s position within the noun phrase is strictly postnominal (see Aissen (1996, 454-455)); Aissen assumes that it is merged in SpecN, which is to the right of N in Tzotzil. This is illustrated in (148).85 84. Broadwell’s (2001) discussion of San Dionicio Zapotec involves more intricate patterns. My hope is that, insofar as they are not covered by the theory proposed in chapter 4 (or chapter 5), they can be explained by independently motivated assumptions.

90


(148)

a. s-p‘in li Maruch-e A 3-pot the Maruch-ENC ‘Maruch’s pot’ b. *Maruch s-p‘in Maruch A 3-pot

If the genitive is a wh-phrase, it can pied-pipe the noun phrase.86 In this case, there is a word order restriction within the pied-piped noun phrase. Namely, pied-piping goes hand in hand with obligatory inversion of the wh-genitive and the head noun (see (149), from Aissen (1996, 457)). (149)

a. [ DP Buch’u2 x-ch’amal t2 ] 4 i-cham t4 ? who A 3-child CP-died ‘Whose child died?’ b. *[ DP X-ch’amal buch’u2 ] 4 i-cham t4 ? A 3-child who CP-died

As indicated by the trace t2 in (149-a), Aissen analyzes inversion as DPinternal movement of the wh-genitive from SpecN to SpecD: secondary whmovement. Something comparable happens if pied-piping affects a PP and if the piedpiper is a genitive phrase that is merged within the complement of P. Again, pied-piping is obligatorily accompanied by secondary wh-movement. According to Aissen, the wh-genitive moves from SpecN via Spec-D to SpecP: (150)

t2 ] 3 ] 4 ch-a-bat t4 ? a. [ PP Buch’u2 ta [ DP t2 s-na who to A 3-house ICP - B 2-go ‘To whose house are you going?’ buch’u2 ] 3 ] 4 ch-a-bat t4 ? b. *[ PP Ta [ DP s-na A 3-house who ICP - B 2 go to

85. The affixes are glossed the following way: A1/2/3 are set A affixes for 1st/2nd/3rd person, B1/2 are set B affixes for 1st/2nd person, ENC denotes an enclitic, and CP denotes completive aspect and ICP incompletive aspect; see Aissen (1996, 488-489). 86. Aissen (1996) exclusively deals with unembedded interrogatives. These are, in principle, interpretable as ‘echo-questions’, which are not subject to the same pied-piping restrictions as embedded interrogatives. However, there is evidence that echo-questions do not exhibit secondary wh-movement (see in section 2.6 of chapter 4). Therefore the examples presumably do not involve echo-questions after all. Throughout this book, I implicitly apply the same argument to exclude echo-interpretations, if not stated otherwise.


91

To conclude, in both cases the pied-piper undergoes secondary wh-movement to a left peripheral position within the pied-piped constituent. Crucially, this movement is strictly contingent on wh-movement.

2.1.2.

German

In German, non-wh possessors that bear [ GENITIVE ] can appear post-nominally. This is shown in (151). (151)

Künstlers a. die Bilder des the paintings the.GEN artist.GEN ‘the artists paintings’ den du kennst b. die Bilder dessen, the paintings the-one.GEN who you know ‘the paintings of the person that you know’

Fanselow (1991, 155, footnote 13) and Lutz and Trissler (1997) observe that pied-piping by a wh-possessor in German is impossible if it remains in the post-nominal position. This is illustrated by the contrast in see (152-a,b) (see also Trissler (1999)). (152)

a. *Ich weiß, [ DP Bilder wessen ] 2 du t2 kaufen würdest. paintings whose you buy would I wknow ‘I know whose paintings you would buy.’ b. *ein Künstler, [ DP Bilder dessen ] 2 du t2 kaufen würdest paintings whose you buy would an artist ‘an artist whose paintings you would buy’

Rather, wh-possessors in pied-piping contexts have to appear on the left edge of the pied-piped constituent (just like in English), see (153). (153)

a. Ich weiß, [ DP wessen3 Bilder t3 ] 2 du t2 kaufen würdest. you buy would I know whose paintings b. ein Künstler, [ DP dessen3 Bilder t3 ] 2 du t2 kaufen würdest an artist whose paintings you buy would

Adopting Chomsky’s (1970) claim that all possessors are merged as complements of the nominal (see also Stockwell et al. (1973); McCawley (1988)), one can analyze (153) as involving secondary wh-movement of the possessor

92


(as suggested by the trace t3 in (153-a,b)). Arguably, raising of the possessor in German is not due to case reasons. Otherwise, post-nominal non-wh elements bearing [ GENITIVE ], like in (151), would not exist. Thus, the evidence suggests that raising is contingent on the feature [ WH ].

2.1.3.

Hungarian

Szabolcsi (1984, 1994) argues that the Hungarian DP contains two positions for possessors. One follows the definite determiner and is marked [ NOMI NATIVE ]; the other precedes the definite determiner and is marked [ DATIVE ] (the marker being -nak/-nek). According to Szabolcsi, the possessor that is marked [ DATIVE ] occupies SpecD and reaches this position by movement from the post-determiner position. Crucially, pied-piping of a DP by a whpossessor is only possible if the possessor is marked with [ DATIVE ], i.e., if it occupies the edge of the DP (see Szabolcsi (1994, 202)):87 (154)

a. [ DP Kinek2 a t2 vendégét ] 3 ismertétek t3 ? who.DAT the guest you knew ‘Whose guest did you know?’ vendégét ] 3 ismertétek t3 ? b. *[ DP Ki2 who.NOM guest you knew

Movement to the pre-determiner position within DP looks like secondary wh-movement in the context of pied-piping. As in German, raising of the whpossessor cannot be due to case reasons. Although the possessor must receive case, nothing forces it to pick up dative case in SpecD. In principle, nominative case would be fine, too. Thus, it is plausible that what forces movement to SpecD is related to the wh-feature of the possessor.88 87. Pied-piping by a wh-possessor is optional in Hungarian. If the wh-possessor does not induce pied-piping it must also be marked [ DATIVE ] (cf. (i-a,b)), which suggests that extraction has to pass via the specifier of DP. (i)

Kinek2 ismertétek [ DP t2 a t2 vendégét ]? the guest who. DAT you knew ‘Whose guest did you know?’ b. *Ki2 ismertétek [ DP t2 vendégét ]? who. NOM you knew guest

a.

88. Szabolcsi (1994, 202) also claims that the wh-phrases hány fiú ‘how many boys’ and melyik fiú ‘which boy’ only optionally move to SpecD in pied-piping constructions. I


2.1.4.

93

Polish

Rappaport (1995) observes similar facts for Polish. In Polish, DP-internal wh-genitives (as a rule) appear post-nominally as illustrated in (155) (from Rappaport (1995, 317)). (155)

ZSSR a. powrót Polaków z return Poles.GEN from USSR ‘the return of Poles from the USSR’ b. odrzucenie propozycji rejection proposition.GEN ’the rejection of the proposition’

As in Tzotzil, German, or Hungarian, wh-genitives move to a pre-nominal position if they pied-pipe DP (see (156), adapted from Rappaport (1995, 319)). As indicated by the trace t2 in (156-a), this is analyzed here as an instance of secondary wh-movement.89 (156)

t2 ] 3 wła´snie czytamy t3 a. uczeń, [ DP którego2 zadanie whose assignment pupil just now read.1 PL ‘the pupil whose assigment we are reading’ którego2 ] 3 wła´snie czytamy t3 b.?*uczeń, [ DP zadanie assignment whose just now read.1 PL pupil

Polish differs from Tzotzil (and earlier stages of French, see section 2.2.2) in that secondary wh-movement cannot target the specifier of a pied-piped PP that contains a DP which in turn contains the position where the piedpiper is merged. Rather, secondary wh-movement stops in SpecD, see (157) (Rappaport (1995, 320)). (157)

a. popsutego komputera [ PP na którego2 twardym dysku t2 ] 3 jest disk on whose hard is broken computer numer podatkowy t3 number tax ‘the broken computer on whose hard disk the tax issue is stored’

will not pursue this issue further here. 89. For some reason, secondary wh-movement is optional for instrumental and dative adnominals, see Rappaport (1995, 321). I ignore this complication here. Note, incidentally, that Rappaport rejects an analysis in terms of secondary wh-movement of the relative pronoun; instead, he argues for an extraction analysis (see Rappaport (1995, 329-347)).

94


b. *popsutego komputera [ PP którego2 na twardym dysku t2 ] 3 jest whose on hard disk broken computer is numer podatkowy t3 number tax The same holds, by the way, for German, as illustrated in (158). (158)

2.2.

a. ein Künstler, [ PP für dessen3 Bilder t3 ] 2 du t2 schwärmst for whose paintings an artist you romanticize ‘a painter, whose paintings you adore’ b. *ein Künstler, [ PP dessen3 für Bilder t3 ] 2 du t2 schwärmst an artist whose for paintings you romanticize

Prepositional Phrases

In what follows, I suggest that sometimes PPs undergo secondary wh-movement. Provided that the wh-phrase receives case from the pied-piped preposition, this lends further support to the claim that secondary wh-movement is not due to case reasons.

2.2.1.

Romanian

Some Romance languages have retained a pre-nominal wh-possessor deriving from Latin cuius (see, e.g., Spanish cuyo/cuya, Portuguese cujo/cuja). In Romanian, the situation is slightly different. To begin with, non-wh possessors in Romanian appear post-nominally (see (159), from Beyrer et al. (1987)). (159)

a. casa bunicilor house grandparents.GEN ‘the grandparent’s house’ b. cimitirul salatului cemetery village.GEN ‘the village’s cemetery’

Consider now the following example that involves pied-piping by a wh-possessor in a (restrictive) relative clause in Romanian (adapted from DobrovieSorin (1990)).


(160)

95

] 2 am v˘azut-o t2 vecinul [ PP pe a c˘arui fat˘a pe whose daughter have.1SG seen her the neighbor ‘the neighbor whose daughter I saw’

The pied-piped constituent is a PP headed by pe. Pe is a semantically empty preposition (a ‘dummy’). The complement of pe is the DP a c˘arui fat˘a ‘whose daughter’. The edge of this DP is occupied by a c˘arui, which in turn is made up from the wh-possessor c˘arui and the element a. Grosu (1988a) proposes that [ GENITIVE ] in Romanian is assigned by a, which he analyzes as a preposition.90 Under this view, the possessor in (160) is a PP that has undergone inversion within the matrix PP. Being a PP, the possessor cannot have undergone inversion due to case reasons. Next note that pied-piping in a restrictive relative clause is ungrammatical if the possessor occupies a post-nominal position. This is illustrated in (161) (Ciprian Gerstenberger, p.c.). (161)

a c˘aruia ] 2 am v˘azut-o t2 *vecinul [ PP pe fat˘a pe daughter whose have.1SG seen her the neighbor ‘the neighbor whose daughter I saw’

The contrast between (159) and (161) illustrates that fronting of the whpossessor within the pied-piped constituent in (160) is obligatory in the context of pied-piping.91 Again, this suggests that movement from the postnominal into the pre-nominal position in (160) is related to the feature [ WH ]. Finally note that if (160) is to be subsumed under the description of the edge generalization in (146), then a qualification is in order. Technically speaking, the pied-piper in (160) is not at the edge of the pied-piped PP. Rather, SpecP is occupied by the PP headed by a, which has been undergone 90. Grosu (1988a) actually suggests that [ GENITIVE ] is assigned by a D-element (glossed as ‘L’ by Grosu) that is morphologically part of a. This D can have several allomorphs, depending on the agreement with the noun complement of the preposition, for instance i, resulting in ai. 91. Beyrer et al. (1987, 120) note that the wh-possessive may indeed appear post-nominally if the possessed noun is suffixed by the definite determiner, see (i). They add, however, that this construction is mostly avoided in favor of a wh-genitive in pre-nominal position. In what follows, I abstract away from this complication. (i)

ˆıntreaga ¸tar˘a, destinele c˘areia . . . whole land fate. DEF whose ‘the whole land, whose fate . . . ’

96


(secondary) pied-piping itself. This suggests that the generalization (146) describes only a tendency, whose complete satisfaction can be put aside if other, more important, factors require this. The relevant factor in (160) is the ban against preposition stranding in Romanian, which induces pied-piping of a.

2.2.2.

French

Another language that provides evidence for the generalization in (146) is French. French possesses the relative pronoun dont, which relativizes postnominal PPs (often expressing possessors).92 In what follows, I am going to suggest that dont undergoes secondary wh-movement within pied-piped constituents in French relative clauses. First of all observe that French nominals select their prepositional arguments to the right, see (162). (162)

a. le comportement de son mari the behavior of her husband ‘her husbands behavior’ b. *de son mari le comportement of her husband the behavior

Next consider the dont-relatives in (163). Crucially, dont must appear on the left edge of the DP le comportement (cf. (163-a,b)), although, by assumption, it has been merged DP-internally to the right of the head-noun comportement. (163) a. un homme [ DP dont2 le comportement t2 ] 3 t3 devient drôle a man of-who the behavior becomes weird ‘a man whose behavior becomes weird’ b. *un homme [ DP le comportement dont2 ] 3 t3 devient drôle a man of-who the behavior becomes weird As its structure indicates, (163-a) is analyzed as involving secondary whmovement of the complement dont within DP3 plus subsequent pied-piping of DP3 . Since this is not the standard analysis of (163-a), some remarks are in order. 92. Dont derives from Latin de plus unde and means something similar to ‘of him/her/it’. I assume that dont bears a wh-feature as a lexical property. At the moment nothing really hinges on this assumption, but see section 2.3.1, chapter 4.


97

First note that dont is usually assumed not to be able to induce pied-piping. One reason for this assumption is the existence of contrasts like the following (cf. Hirschbühler (1978, 110)): (164)

a. la fille dont tu as rencontré le frère the girl of-whom you have met the brother ‘the girl whose brother you met’ b. *la fille le frère dont tu as rencontré a girl the brother of-whom you have met c. *la fille dont le frère tu as rencontré the girl of-whom the brother you have met

(164-b,c) suggest that dont is unable to pied-pipe the DP le frère dont. Assuming that French lacks scrambling, dislocation of le frère independently from dont is not possible either (the same goes for (163-a)). Of course, (164-a) lends itself to an analysis in terms of extraction. But what is the right analysis of (163-a)? If it also involved extraction, then it would have to take place out of a subject. Paradoxically, subjects in French are islands for movement (see Vergnaud (1974), Tellier (1991), Sportiche (1998)), as illustrated in (165). (165)

a. la ville [ PP de laquelle ] 2 le général avait ordonné [ DP la the the general had ordered of which the city destruction t2 ] destruction ‘the city whose destruction the general had ordered’ b. *la ville [ PP de laquelle ] 2 [ DP la destruction t2 ] 3 serait the destruction would-be of which the city entreprise undertaken ‘the city whose destruction would be undertaken’

Also note that dont-movement is sensitive for other islands, too, like complex noun phrases or adjuncts (see Godard (1985), Tellier (1991, 85, footnote 4)): (166)

sont a. *l’enfant dont tu connais les e´ coliers qui se the-child of-whom you know the pupils that REFL are moqués made-fun ‘the child who you know the pupils that made fun of’

98


b. *un probléme dont tout ira bien mieux quand vous a problem of-which all will-go well better when you vous serez débarassé REFL will-be got-rid-of ‘a problem which everything will go much better once you have got rid of it’ Different proposals have been made to solve the paradox (see Godard (1985, 1988), Tellier (1990, 1991), and Sportiche (1998)). I will not further discuss them here but merely note that they all require further assumptions. Of course, under an analysis of (163-a) that involves pied-piping and secondary wh-movement there is no paradox to begin with because dont never moves out of the subject. Note that the pied-piping analysis predicts that no subject-external material can intervene between dont and the subject it is associated with. This prediction is at first sight falsified by some adverbials (like effectivement, en fait or sans doute in (167)). (167)

a. un homme dont, en fait, le comportement devient drôle a man of-whom in-fact the behavior becomes weird ‘a man whose behavior becomes, in fact, weird’ b. la serveuse d’hier soir dont, effectivement, le the waitress of-yesterday evening of-whom actually the nom m’échappait name me-escaped ‘yesterday evening’s waitress whose name escaped me, actually’ c. Colin, dont, sans doute, la coiffure blonde choque Colin of-whom without doubt the hair blonde shocks ‘Colin, whose peroxideblonde hair, undoubtedly, shocks’

In written language, adverbials in this position can but need not be set off by commas. In spoken French, they can but need not be pronounced with an intonational break. I therefore propose that the adverbials in (167) are parentheticals that can optionally undergo prosodic integration into the syntactic environment (cf. Reis (1995, 2000) on integrated parentheticals in German). This renders the facts in (167) compatible with the pied-piping analysis.93 93. Other parentheticals can occupy the same niche targeted by the adverbials in (167):


99

The analysis also predicts that long relativization of dont out of subjects is always ungrammatical: such movement crosses subject-external material and can therefore not be reanalyzed in terms of pied-piping plus secondary whmovement; thus, a subject island violation is unavoidable. In fact, Tellier (1991, 95) observes that long relativization of dont exhibits subject island effects, as illustrated in (168) (see also Tellier (1990)).94 (168)

(i)

a. *un homme dont je refuse que le fils vous fréquente a man of-whom I refuse that the son you visits ‘a man whose son I refuse that he visits you’ b. *un bandit dont le juge a ordonné que les complices a bandit of-whom the judge has ordered that the accomplices purgent une peine de dix ans serve a sentence of ten years ‘a bandit whose accomplices the judge awarded a ten-year sentence’ a.

b.

c.

un homme dont, comme nous le savons, le comportement devient a man of-whom as we it know the behavior becomes inquiétant restless ‘a man whose behavior, as we know it, becomes restless’ la serveuse dont, comme tu as remarqué, le nom m’échappait the waitress of-whom as you have realized the name me-escaped ‘the waitress whose name, as you have realized, escaped me’ Colin, dont, comme disait Marie, la coiffure blonde peroxydée choque Colin of-whom as said Marie the hair blonde peroxyde shocks ‘Colin, whose peroxide blonde hair, as Marie put it, surely shocks’

94. Tellier (1990, 1991) notes that predicates such as dire ‘say’, prétendre ‘claim’, croire ‘believe’, savoir ‘know’ seem to allow long dont-relativization out of subjects (i-a,b). She argues that these predicates allow dont to associate with them. Thus (i-a,b) actually involve relativization within the matrix clause (see also Sportiche (1998)). (i)

a.

b.

un homme dont je sais que le fils vous fréquente a man of-whom I know that the son you visits ‘a man of whom I know that the son visits you un bandit dont on croit que les complices purgent une peine a bandit of-whom one believes that the accomplices serve a sentence de dix ans of ten years ‘a bandit of whom one believes that the accomplices serve a ten year sentence’

100


Thus, the prediction is borne out. I conclude that an analysis of (163-a) in terms of pied-piping is possible and offers a new solution to a long standing paradox of French syntax.95 This said I return to the issue of secondary wh-movement. Dont can also figure as the complement of a nominal head that in turn is the complement of a preposition. Kayne (1976, 261) mentions that in earlier stages of French such PPs could be pied-piped by dont, but only if the relative pronoun appeared at the left edge of the pied-piped PP, presumably in SpecP (see also Kayne (1975, 112, footnote 57)). (169) illustrates what the relevant contrast must have been like. (169)

au frère t2 ] 4 tu plais t4 a. la fille [ PP dont2 of-whom to-the brother the girl you please ‘the girl whose brother you please’ ] 4 tu plais t4 frère dont2 b. *la fille [ PP au to-the brother of-whom you please the girl

This looks like an instance of secondary wh-movement in pied-piping a PP (analogous to what one can observe in Tzotzil). There seems to be some interfering factor in modern French that prohibits raising of dont to SpecP. In a similar vein, secondary wh-movement of dont within DP is possible in modern French, but not with complex relative PPs as de laquelle: (170)

a. la ville [ DP dont2 la destruction t2 ] 3 t3 serait the city of-which the destruction would-be entreprise undertaken ‘the city whose destruction would be undertaken’ b. *la ville [ DP [ PP de laquelle ] 2 la destruction t2 ] 3 t3 of the-which the destruction the city serait entreprise would-be undertaken

95. A complication is that long pied-piping of subjects by dont is ungrammatical, see (i). (i)

*un homme dont le fils je refuse que vous fréquente a man of-whom the son I refuse that you visits ‘a man whose son I refuse that he visits you’

This may owe to the co-occurence of two marked strategies (a repair and long relativization).


101

The contrast in (170) suggests that dont can occupy SpecD but de laquelle cannot. This may be due to the fact that de laquelle is more complex than dont. Alternatively, one could say that SpecD can only host genitives overtly (see Giorgi and Longobardi (1991)) and that dont counts as a genitive but de laquelle does not. Finally, (169-a) could be argued not to involve pied-piping but rather remnant creating movement of dont out of the PP followed by remnant PPtopicalization of au frère plus subsequent wh-movement of dont to SpecC. (170-a) would then have the structure in (171). (171)

frère t2 ] 4 t2 tu plais t4 la fille dont2 [ PP au to-the brother you please the girl of-who

Regardless of the notorious indeterminacy of the movement step that creates the remnant, this analysis cannot explain why this movement step should be licit in (171), whereas it is banned in French otherwise. See, for instance, (172), which is taken from Vergnaud (1974, 107). (172)

*la fille dont2 j’ai juré [ PP contre le père t2 ] against the father the girl of-who I-have cursed ‘the girl whose father I have cursed’

To conclude, the two instances of French dont-movement mirror secondary wh-movement in Tzotzil. They target SpecD and SpecP, thereby inducing subsequent pied-piping of DP and PP, respectively.

2.2.3.

Spanish

Ormazabal (1992) observes that PP-arguments within the Spanish DP exhibit a relatively free word order. This is illustrated in (173). (173)

a. [ DP el cuadro [ PP de las Meninas ] 2 [ PP de Velazquez ] 3 ] 4 the painting of the Meninas of Velazquez ‘the painting of the Meninas by Velazquez’ b. [ DP el cuadro [ PP de Velazquez ] 3 [ PP de las Meninas ] 2 ] 4 the painting of Velazquez of the Meninas

According to Ormazabal (1992), it is “at least marginally” possible to piedpipe the complete DP if wh-movement out of the DP is blocked, see (174).

102 (174)


[ DP El retrato [ PP de quién ] 2 ] 3 ha dicho Juan que vieras t3 en the portrait of who has said Juan that see.2 SG at el museo? the museum ‘Who said Juan that you will see the portrait of at the museum?’

Now, the interesting examples involve more than one DP-internal PP. In such a case, the order of the PPs is no longer free. Rather, the PP containing the pied-piper has to be at the (right) edge of the DP, witness the contrast in (175). (175) a. [ DP La estatua t3 [ PP en el jard´ın ] 2 [ PP de qué diosa ] 3 ] 4 the statue in the garden of what goddess te ha dicho Juan que hab´ıa reconocido t4 ? you has told Juan that has.3SG recognized ‘What goddess has Juan told you that he recognized the statue of in the garden?’ b. *[ DP La estatua [ PP de qué diosa ] 2 [ PP en el jard´ın ] 3 ] 4 the statue of what goddess in the garden te ha dicho Juan que hab´ıa reconocido t4 ? you has told Juan that has.3SG recognized If the position of the PP de qué diosa in (175-a) counts as an edge position within the pied-piped DP, then (175) can be subsumed under the edge generalization (146). If secondary wh-movement is involved, it possibly targets a rightwards specifier within DP. Finally note that in such a case we would deal with an instance of secondary pied-piping (see also section 2.2.1).

2.2.4.

German

Some speakers of German accept (in colloquial speech) examples that involve DP-internal fronting of a PP that otherwise occurs post-nominally (see Haider (1988, 322), Tappe (1989, 166), Webelhuth (1992, 118)), see (176-b). (176)

a. [ DP Die Gerüchte [ PP u¨ ber Fritz ] 2 ] 3 haben t3 ihn geärgert. the rumors about Fritz have him annoyed ‘The rumors about Fritz annoyed him.’ ¨ Fritz ] 2 die Gerüchte t2 ] 3 haben t3 ihn geärgert. b. [ DP [ PP Uber have him annoyed about Fritz the rumors


103

Interestingly, Fortmann (1996, 98) claims that such PP-fronting becomes obligatory in the context of pied-piping, witness the contrast in (177) (but cf. Lutz and Trissler (1997, 5) for a different view). (177)

a. *Fritz fragte, [ DP die Gerüchte [ PP u¨ ber wen ] 2 ] 3 t3 dich the rumors about whom you Fritz asked geärgert haben. annoyed have ‘Fritz asked the rumors about whom annoyed you.’ b. Fritz fragte, [ DP [ PP u¨ ber wen ] 2 die Gerüchte t2 ] 3 t3 dich you about whom the rumors Fritz asked geärgert haben. annoyed have

This is a familiar pattern and can be straightforwardly subsumed under the description of the generalization (146).

2.2.5.

Irish

As noted in McCloskey (1979, 1990, 2002), Irish exhibits prepositional piedpiping that goes hand in hand with obligatory inversion of the preposition and the pied-piper. To begin with, Irish prepositions take their complements to the right, see (178). (178)

a. trasna an bhothair across the road ‘across the road’ b. ionsar theach Bhriain to house Brian.GEN ‘to Brian’s house’

Now consider the interrogatives in (179). (179-a) starts by the wh-phrase cé ‘who’, directly followed by the preposition leis ‘with’. Cé is associated with the complement position of leis. The PP headed by leis is associated with the complement position of the verb (as can be seen in (179-b), which involves movement of the wh-phrase only). Thus, both wh-phrase and preposition have been dislocated and undergone inversion with respect to each other.96 96. The phenomenon only arises with constituent questions, not with other wh-constructions,

104 (179)


a. Cé2 leis a raibh tú ag caint? who with.3SG aN were you at talking ‘Who were you talking to?’ ? b. Cé2 a raibh tú ag caint leis N who a were you at talking with.3SG

Moreover, (179) contains a special complementizer, glossed as aN . This complementizer induces nasalization of the first consonant of the verb. It contrasts with a lenition inducing complementizer, often glossed as aL . Whconstructions that involve aN typically co-occur with a resumptive pronoun instead of a gap. McCloskey thus assumes that the complement position of P in (179) is filled by an empty resumptive (as is also suggested by the agreement on P). To conclude, aN is assumed to indicate a non-movement strategy, the wh-phrase being directly merged into SpecC, whereas aL is assumed to indicate wh-movement. Now, if (179-a) does not involve wh-movement, then the dislocation of the PP cannot be due to pied-piping. In order to account for the word order of (179-a), McCloskey (2002) proposes the following. In the syntax, the PP (with the resumptive pronoun ‘pro’) undergoes topicalization to periphery of TP and the wh-phrase cé is merged into the specifier of CP, from where it binds the resumptive. Note, incidentally, that PPmovement must not be clause-bound because the phenomenon to be explained is not clause-bound either, see (180), from McCloskey (1979, 95).97 (180)

Cé leis pro ar sh´ıl tú a bh´ı tú ag caint? who with-3SG him arL thought you aL were you at talking ‘Who did you think you were talking to?’

As McCloskey assumes that the PP undergoes topicalization, he naturally accounts for this because topicalization is typically not clause-bound. Since wh-movement is not clause-bound either, Noonan’s (1997) pied-piping analysis (see below) accounts for (180), too. Finally, at PF the preposition leis phonologically incorporates into the whpronoun. The resulting structure is given in (181).98 although at earlier stages of the Irish language it was also productive in relative clauses, see McCloskey (1979, 94), McCloskey (1990, 226). See also von Bremen (1987, 23), who notes that the same phenomenon was productive in relative clauses in Middle Scots. 97. Ar in (180), glossed as arL , is the past form of the nasalization inducing complementizer, see McCloskey (1979, 11). 98. The base position of the phonologically incorporated P is indicated by a trace. This is


(181)

105

] a [ PP t3 pro ] 4 raibh tú ag caint t4 ? [ DP Cé leis3 who with.3SG aN him were you at talking

In contrast to McCloskey, Noonan (1997) favors an analysis of (179-a) in terms of pied-piping. According to her, the wh-phrase is merged as the complement of P. From there it moves to SpecP, subsequently pied-piping the PP. Noonan (1997) also assumes that there is no resumptive pronoun in (179-a) (cf. Noonan (2002)). She thus analyzes (179-a) as in (182). (182)

t2 ] 4 a raibh tú ag caint t4 ? [ PP Cé2 leis who with.3SG aN were you at talking

With this analysis, (179-a) falls under the generalization (146). That is, inversion of the preposition and the wh-phrase can be interpreted as an instance of secondary wh-movement. The debate is not settled. The pied-piping analysis seems to have its problems. In particular, McCloskey (1990, 2002) notes that it is incompatible with the above mentioned account for the pattern of the elements aL and aN (see Noonan (1997), McCloskey (2001) for discussion). What lends some independent plausibility to it is that secondary wh-movement within PP also arises in other languages, where it has been analyzed as involving pied-piping. It is perhaps interesting to note that both, the discussion and the competing analyses bear some similarity to the discussion about whether there is clausal pied-piping with German infinitives (see section 2.3.4).

2.3.

Clausal Pied-Piping

Although it is a rather rare phenomenon, some languages exhibit pied-piping of full clauses. At least three of them (Imbabura Quechua, Basque, and German) have also been argued to exhibit secondary wh-movement.99 not intended to imply that PF-processes leave genuine syntactic traces; rather I have used this notation in order to render the structure as transparent for the reader as possible. 99. Simpson and Bhattacharya (2000) argue that clausal pied-piping in Bangla lacks secondary wh-movement because the wh-phrase is preceded by the subject within the pied-piped constituent. But they also suggest that interrogatives in Bangla involve leftdislocated subjects. It thus seems possible that there is secondary wh-movement in clausal pied-piping in Bangla after all. Similar remarks apply to clausal pied-piping in Tlingit and Haida, see section 2.6, chapter 1.

106 2.3.1.


Basque

Basque has two complementizers (see Ortiz de Urbina (1990)), one for embedded wh-clauses (en), another for embedded declarative clauses (ela): (183)

a. Jon bihar etorriko d-ela esan du. Jon tomorrow come AUX-C said has ‘He has said that Jon will come tomorrow.’ b. Bihar nor etorriko d-en galdetu du. tomorrow who come AUX-C asked has ‘He has asked who will come tomorrow.’

As has been noted in the literature, and as illustrated in (184), finite non-wh clauses can undergo pied-piping in Basque interrogatives (see Ortiz de Urbina (1989, 1990); Artiagoitia (1992); Ortiz de Urbina (1993); Arregi (2003)). (184)

a. [ CP Nor joango d-ela ] 3 esan du Jonek t3 ? AUX -C said AUX John who go ‘Who has John said will go?’ ] 3 esan diozu Mireni t3 ? b. [ CP Nor etorriko d-ela bihar who come AUX-C tomorrow said AUX Mary ‘Who did you tell Mary will come tomorrow?’

Ortiz de Urbina (1989) notes that in contexts without pied-piping the whphrase must directly precede the verbal complex in interrogatives (the ‘galdegaia’ position in traditional Basque grammar). In other words, Basque exhibits a V/2-effect in interrogatives. He derives this by assuming that whmovement is accompanied by obligatory movement of the verb to the C-head. Returning to (184-a,b) one can observe that both the verb and the auxiliary d- appear to the left of the complementizer, indicating the V/2-effect. Moreover, the wh-phrase nor appears to the left of them in both examples. (185)

a. [ CP Nor2 joango d-ela t2 ] 3 esan du Jonek t3 ? who go AUX -C said AUX John t2 ] 3 esan diozu Mireni t3 ? b. [ CP Nor2 etorriko d-ela bihar said AUX Mary who come AUX-C tomorrow

This suggests that the wh-phrase has undergone secondary wh-movement to SpecC, as indicated by the traces in (185-a,b).


2.3.2.

107

Imbabura Quechua

As mentioned in section 3.2 of chapter 1, clausal pied-piping also occurs in Quechua. For instance, in Imbabura Quechua (Hermon (1985, 151)), embedded finite clauses can undergo pied-piping in interrogatives. To illustrate, consider (186). (186)

wawa t2 mikuchun ] 3 -taj Maria t3 munan? [ CP Imata2 what.ACC child.NOM eat.SUBJ -Q Maria want.PR3 ‘What does Maria want that the child eats?’

Interrogatives in Imbabura Quechua exhibit obligatory wh-movement (see Hermon (1985, 36)). The wh-phrase imata ‘what’ in (187) is the object of the verb of the embedded CP. Note that although Quechua is verb final, (186) suggests that secondary wh-movement has taken place because imata appears to the left of the subject wawa ‘child’. I therefore conclude that (186) can be subsumed under the edge generalization (146).

2.3.3.

Latin

In Latin, relativization out of an embedded clause often involves pied-piping of this clause.100 The construction is usually called ‘verschränkter Relativsatz’ (‘entangled relative clause’) in the German literature on Latin.101 Crucially, the relative pronoun appears at the edge of the embedded clause that is fronted, which suggests an analysis in terms of secondary wh-movement. Kühner and Stegmann (1955, 315) describe the phenomenon as follows: “Die relative Verschränkung besteht darin, daß an einen vorausgehenden Satz ein Satzgefüge (also ein u¨ bergeordneter Satz mit einem oder mehreren untergeordneten Sätzen) in der Weise relativisch angeschlossen wird, daß das die 100. As (i) illustrates, long relativization without pied-piping is also an option. (i)

Omnia perfecit quae2 senatus ne fieri possent everything. PL achieved.3SG which. PL senate not be-done could.3PL perfecerat. had-achieved.3SG ‘He achieved everything that the senate had managed to make undoable.’

101. I thank Marga Reis and Peter Staudacher, who both pointed out to me the relevance of this phenomenon.

108


Verbindung herstellende Relativ nicht zu dem u¨ bergeordneten Satze des angereihten Satzgefüges, sondern zu dem vorangestellten untergeordneten Satze gehört”. (The phenomenon of entangled relative clauses consists of attaching a clausal arrangement (i.e., a superordinated clause with one or several subordinated clauses) to a preceding clause in such a way that the relative pronoun is not associated with the superordinated clause of the clausal arrangement, but is rather associated with the fronted subordinated clause. [F.H.]) To illustrate, consider the examples in (187) (cf. Kühner and Stegmann (1955, 315-316)). For the sake of the argument, I assumed that the subordinated clauses in (187-b), (187-c), and (187-d) are merged post-verbally, as indicated by the traces. (187)

[ CP quam2 qui t2 a. Magna vis est conscientiae, which who.PL big power is conscience.GEN neglegunt ] 3 se ipsi t3 indicant. neglect.3 PL REFL SELF.3 PL indicate.3 PL ‘Great is the power of one’s conscience, which, who neglects it, shows his character.’ [ CP qui2 quid t2 b. propter exspectationem legatorum, who.PL what due-to expectation emissaries.GEN egissent ] 3 nihildum nuntiabatur t3 would-have-needed.3 PL nothing-yet was-reported ‘due to the expectation of the emissaries who it was not yet reported of what they had needed’ [ CP cuius2 si t2 c. Adhuc colitur memoria Alexandri, until-now is-honored memory Alexander.GEN whose if vita longior fuisset ] 3, orbem subegisset t3 . life longer had-been world would-have-conquered ‘One still honors the memory of Alexander, who, if his life had been longer, would have conquered the world.’ modo bona exspectant, [ CP quae2 d. Homines futura which.PL man.PL future.PL just good expect.3 PL quia t2 certa esse non possunt ] 3 , conficiuntur et angore because sure be not can.3 PL are-eaten-up and fear et metu t3 . and sorrow ‘People just expect a good future, but because they cannot be sure about it, they are tortured by both fear and sorrow.’


109

Provided a pied-piping analysis of these examples is correct, then (187-a) involves pied-piping of a relative clause, (187-b) of an embedded question, and (187-c,d) of embedded clauses introduced by the complementizers si ‘if’ and quia ‘because’, respectively. Arguably, at least in (187-a,c,d), secondary whmovement has applied, as can be seen from the fact that the relative pronoun precedes the complementizer or a wh-subject. 2.3.4.

German Infinitives

German infinitives have played a role in the pied-piping literature ever since Ross (1967, 1986). As Ross (1967, 205) noted, all of the following German relative clauses are well-formed: (188)

a. der Hund, den ich zu finden zu versuchen angefangen habe the dog which I to find to attempt begun have ‘the dog which I began to attempt to find’ b. der Hund, den zu finden ich zu versuchen angefangen habe the dog which to find I to attempt begun have c. der Hund, den zu finden zu versuchen ich angefangen habe the dog which to find to attempt I begun have

(188-a) arguably involves wh-movement of the relative pronoun den ‘which’. In (188-b), there is also dislocation of the infinitive zu finden ‘to find’ across the subject ich ‘I’, alongside with wh-movement of den. Finally, in (188-c) the infinitive zu finden zu versuchen ‘to attempt to find’, which contains the infinitve zu finden, is dislocated alongside with den. As the relative pronoun is merged as the complement of finden, the question arises as to whether (188-b,c) are instances of pied-piping of an infinitive. Ross (1967, 1986) assumed that they are. In this context, it is important to know that dislocation (and hence also potential pied-piping) of infinitives in German is only possible with ‘incoherent’ infinitives (see Bech (1955/57), Grewendorf (1988), von Stechow and Sternefeld (1988), Sabel (1995), Wurmbrand (2001), among others). Incoherent infinitives contrast with ‘coherent’ infinitives in several respects. It is often assumed that coherent infinitives involve restructuring between the verb of the embedded infinitive and the matrix verb. Predicates that unambiguously embed incoherent infinitives are, for instance, bezweifeln ‘doubt’, bedauern ‘regret’, and ablehnen ‘refuse’. Other predicates, like versuchen ‘attempt’ and

110


anfangen ‘begin’ allow for both constructions. The predicate wollen ‘want’ requires a coherent construction; this is illustrated by the ungrammaticality of (189-b) (as opposed to (189-a)), where the alleged pied-piping of finden ‘find’ has applied.102 (189)

a. der Hund, den ich finden wollte the dog which I find wanted ‘the dog that I wanted to find’ b. *der Hund, den finden ich wollte the dog which find I wanted

In a series of articles, van Riemsdijk (1982, 1985, 1994) defended the piedpiping analysis (see also van de Velde (1977), Trissler (1991, 1999), Lutz and Trissler (1997)). Work that argues against it includes Haider (1985), Grewendorf (1986, 1988), and Müller (1995). Here, I do not review all the arguments for and against the pied-piping analysis. In section 2.3.2 of chapter 4, I will return to the question whether infinitival pied-piping in German exists. Now, I shall sketch the alternative analysis proposed by Grewendorf (1986, 1988) and mention a potential counter-argument brought up against it by Sternefeld (2006). After that, I return to the relevance of van Riemsdijk’s analysis in the present context. To put it in a nutshell, Grewendorf (1986, 1988) assumes that structures like (189-b,c) do not involve pied-piping but scrambling of the infinitive to the left of the subject (perhaps into an outer specifier of TP) plus subsequent wh-movement of the relative pronoun out of the scrambled infinitive. (190) illustrates this idea. (For now, I remain uncommitted as to what category the infinitive bears, thus the label α in (190).) (190)

die Ratten, die2 [ α t2 zu fangen ] 3 Hubert t3 versucht hat which to catch Hubert attempted has the rats ‘the rats that Hubert attempted to catch’

The analysis in (190) presupposes that wh-movement of the relative pronoun out of the infinitive is possible despite the fact that the infinitive has undergone movement itself. This is inconsistent with the generalization mentioned 102. In a similar vein, Rizzi (1982, 6-7) observes that (massive) pied-piping of an infinitive in Italian is impossible if clitic-climbing has applied. Rizzi’s explanation is that cliticclimbing presupposes a process of restructuring between the matrix verb and the verb of the embedded infinitive, which prevents the infinitive from undergoing movement.


111

in section 4.1.2 of chapter 1, according to which constituents that have been moved are islands (are frozen). As matter of fact, however, it has been argued that German infinitives do not obey this generalization (see Haider (1983), Sternefeld (1985), Müller (1995)).103 For instance, the interrogative in (191) shows that the wh-phrase must have moved out of the scrambled infinitive: it is separated from it by the finite matrix verb hat ‘has’, which is standardly assumed to occupy the C-position in this context (the V/2-effect). (191)

Was2 hat [ α t2 zu beanstanden ] 3 sich t3 nicht what has to complain-about REFL not gehört? been-appropriate ‘What was not appropriate to complain about?’

If extraction from the infinitive is possible in (191), then it should also be possible in (190). 103. By contrast Trissler (1999, 203, footnote 255) argues on the basis of (i), that German infinitives in subject or adjunct position are islands. (i)

a. *[ DP Welches Angebot ] 2 hätte [ α sorgfältig t2 zu prüfen ] in ihrem which offer had carefully to check in their Interesse gelegen? interest lain ‘Which offer should they have been interested in checking carefully?’ b. *[ DP Welches Auto ] 2 hatten sie nicht genug Geld [ α sich t2 zu to which car had they not enough money REFL kaufen ]? buy ‘Which car couldn’t they afford to buy?’

Since infinitives in these contexts can occur in the potential pied-piping constructions (at least marginally, see (ii)), she argues that in these contexts they cannot involve movement of the wh-phrase out of the infinitive (and must therefore involve pied-piping). (ii)

a.

[ α Welches Angebot sorgfältig zu prüfen ] 3 hätte t3 in ihrem Interesse which offer carefully to check had in their interest gelegen? lain b. ??[ α Welches Auto sich zu kaufen ] 3 hatten sie nicht genug Geld t3 ? which car REFL to buy had they not enough money

An opponent of the pied-piping analysis would have to argue that it is indeed scrambling of opaque subject and adjunct infinitives that renders them transparent for extraction.

112


To conclude, Grewendorf (1986, 1988) provides an alternative analysis of German relative clauses like (188-b) and (188-c) that does not involve piedpiping but scrambling of the infinitive plus subsequent wh-movement of the relative pronoun out of the infinitive. 104 One may try to test the validity of the pied-piping analysis by making use the fact that the finite verb in C separates the category in SpecC from the rest of the clause. If the pied-piping analysis were correct, (192) should be grammatical alongside with (191). (192)

[ α Was2 zu beanstanden ] 3 hat sich t3 nicht gehört? what to complain has REFL not been-proper

As a matter of fact, (192) appears to be well-formed. However, the problem is that it is a matrix interrogative. As such, it can be analyzed as an echo-question (plus topicalization of the infinitive). And echo-questions have been argued to not be subject to the usual constraints on wh-movement (see Reis (1991)). Therefore, they cannot be expected to be well-behaved with respect to pied-piping either. Consequently, the V/2-diagnostic is flawed. In contrast, embedded interrogatives in German, which cannot be analyzed as echo-questions, do not exhibit the V/2-effect.105 Sternefeld (2006) points out a problem for Grewendorf’s analysis (attributing it to Uli Sauerland). Since scrambling in German is clause-bound and since Grewendorf (1986, 1988) claims that the infinitive undergoes scrambling, it follows that examples that involve long alleged pied-piping are ungrammatical. The opposite prediction is made by the pied-piping analysis because wh-movement is not clause-bound. To illustrate, consider the examples in (193), where (193-a) is analyzed in the Grewendorfian way. 104. See Haider (1985) for another alternative in terms of base generation. 105. One could also use embedded interrogatives or relative clauses with an overt complementizer, which are possible in German dialects that lack the doubly-filled comp filter. Based on contrasts like (i), Müller (1995) makes this point against the pied-piping analysis. (i)

das Problem, das2 [ C wo ] [ α t2 zu lösen ] 3 where to solve the problem which ‘the problem that no-one will try to solve’ b. *das Problem, [ α das2 t2 zu lösen ] 3 [ C wo ] the problem which to solve where

a.

keiner t3 versuchen wird nobody try will keiner t3 versuchen wird nobody try will

Perhaps problematic for this argument is that doubly filled comps are substandard while infinitival pied-piping belongs to the standard language, being almost literary in style.


(193)

113

a. ein Artikel, den2 [ α t2 zu beurteilen ] 3 er sich geweigert to review he REFL refused an article which hatte [ α anderen t3 zu u¨ berlassen ] others to leave had ‘an article which he had refused to leave it to others to judge’ b.??dass [ α den Artikel zu beurteilen ] 3 er sich geweigert hatte [ α the article to review that he REFL refused had anderen t3 zu u¨ berlassen ] others to leave ‘that he had refused to leave it to others to review the article’

(193-a) involves scrambling of the infinitive den zu beurteilen out of the (extraposed) incoherent infinitive anderen den zu beurteilen zu u¨ berlassen, plus subsequent wh-movement of den. According to this analysis scrambling must be able to move something out of an (extraposed) incoherent infinitive. That this is not possible is suggested by (193-b). Thus (193-a) seems to pose a problem for Grewendorf’s theory.106 Note, however, that Grewendorf (1988, 105, 108) argues on the basis of (194-a) and (195-a) that structures analogous to (193-b) are grammatical and that, accordingly, the grammaticality of the corresponding relative clauses is expected (see (194-b), (195-b)). (194)

a. dass diese Tat begangen zu haben Hans sich weigert dem that this act committed to have Hans REFL refuses the Richter zu gestehen judge to confess ‘that Hans refuses to confess to the judge to have committed this crime’ b. eine Tat, die begangen zu haben Hans sich weigert dem an act that committed to have Hans REFL refuses the Richter zu gestehen judge to confess ‘a crime that Hans refuses to confess to the judge to have committed’

106. The alternative approach of Haider (1985) potentially faces the same problem, given that the dislocated infinitive should be merged within the verbal projection it is thematically related to.

114 (195)


a. dass dieses Buch zu lesen der Professor glaubt den Studenten that this book to read the professor believes the students empfehlen zu müssen recommend to must ‘that the professor believes to be oblidged to recommed the students to read this book’ b. ein Buch, das zu lesen der Professor glaubt den Studenten a book which to read the professor believes the students empfehlen zu müssen recommend to must ‘a book that the professor believes to be oblidged to recommend the students to read’

As matters stand, there are no knock-down arguments against either view. The proper analysis of examples like (188-b) and (188-c) thus remains an open issue. Still, what is relevant in the present context is that van Riemsdijk (1982, 1985), who assumes a pied-piping analysis, claims that the relative pronoun in these constructions undergoes secondary wh-movement (internal wh-movement in his terms) within the pied-piped infinitive. Van Riemsdijk’s argument is that the relative pronoun preceeds weak pronouns (such as es ‘it’) within the infinitive, whereas in non-wh contexts, such weak pronouns precede the corresponding non-wh elements (see ihm ‘him’ in (196)). This suggests that the relative pronoun moves within the infinitive, crossing the weak pronoun, see (197) (where, in addition, secondary wh-movement induces pied-piping of mit). Note that Grewendorf (1986, 1988) also accounts for these observations because under his account the wh-phrase moves out of the infinitive. (196)

a. Ich nehme es mit ihm auf. I take it with him up ‘I take him on.’ b.?*Ich nehme mit ihm es auf. I take with him it on

(197)

a. *ein Mann, [ α es mit dem aufnehmen zu wollen ] 2 t2 reiner it with who on-take to want pure a man Wahnsinn wäre madness would-be ‘a man who to take on would be pure madness’


115

b. ein Mann [ α [ PP mit dem ] 3 es t3 aufnehmen zu wollen ] 2 t2 with who it on-take to want a man reiner Wahnsinn wäre pure madness would-be To conclude, under the assumption that German infinitives can undergo piedpiping, they provide further evidence for the generalization (146). Of course, if these cases were not instances of pied-piping to begin with, they would be irrelevant for the present discussion.

2.3.5.

Bavarian Conditionals

Felix (1983) notes that the examples in (198-a,b) from Bavarian German involve apparent extraction of a relative pronoun from a conditional clause, introduced by wenn ‘if’, that is fronted within the relative clause.107 (198)

a. Das ist die Frau, die2 wenn du t2 heiratest bist du you marry are you this is the woman who if verrückt. crazy ‘This is the woman that you are crazy if you marry her.’ b. Das ist der Kerl, den2 wenn ich t2 erwisch erschlag ich (ihn2 ). I catch kill I (him) this is the guy who if ‘This is the guy that I will kill if I catch him.’

Crucially, the examples turn out to deteriorate considerably if the conditional clause is not adjacent to the relative pronoun (see Felix (1983), Lutz (2001)): (199)

a. *Das ist die Frau, die2 du verrückt bist [ CP wenn du t2 if you this is the woman who you crazy are heiratest ]3 . marry

107. Usually, the finite verb in Bavarian relative clauses is in final position (as in standard German). This is not the case in (198): there, the finite verbs bist and erschlag are rightadjacent to the pied-piped clause in SpecC; they arguably occupy the C-positions of the relative clause. For Felix (1983) this is a V/2-consequence of topicalizing the wennclause. Alternatively, (198) may involve V/2-relative clauses (see Gärtner (2001)).

116


b. *Das ist der Kerl, den2 ich erschlag t2 [ CP wenn ich (ihn2 ) this is the guy who I kill if I (him) erwisch ]. catch This is expected if the relative pronoun does not leave the conditional clause to begin with. The phenomenon thus lends itself to an analysis in terms of secondary wh-movement within the conditional clause plus subsequent piedpiping thereof. As indicated, Felix (1983) analyzes the examples in (198) as involving extraction of the relative pronoun from a topicalized conditional clause.108 One reason for this is that he assumes that the gap in the relative clause is a parasitic gap (at least in the b.-examples, where another gap exists) that needs to be c-commanded by the relative pronoun. Suppose that this is correct. To account for it one could assume that there is first pied-piping plus secondary wh-movement then followed by subsequent extraction of the relative pronoun. In order to block (199), it must be assumed that such extraction is only possible if it applies string-vacuously, thereby voiding the freezing effect (see also Cinque (1990, 102, footnote 9)). Alternatively, one could assume that the relative pronoun can license the parasitic gap from the specifier position of the wenn-clause.

2.4.

Cases that Lack Secondary Wh-Movement

There are cases where the generalization (146) is not obeyed. Take, for instance, pied-piping of (complex) PPs in German. As (200) shows, the piedpiper does not move to the edge of the PP, into a higher specifier. (200)

a. ein Punkt, [ PP bis zu dem2 ] 3 man t3 gehen muss a point up to which one go must ‘a point that one must reach’ b. *ein Punkt, [ PP dem2 bis zu t2 ] 3 man t3 gehen muss a point which up to are you come

Of course, if (146) were expressed in terms of linear ordering, then (200) would be consistent with it, the pied-piper in (200-a) being on the right edge 108. See also von Stechow and Sternefeld (1988, 387), where a closely related construction is argued to involve extraction from a conditional clause.

Repair-Driven Pied-Piping

117

of the PP. However, (146) is supposed to be understood in hierarchical terms. The examples in (201) make the same point for Italian (based on Cinque (1982, 257, footnote 22)). (201)

a. una persona [ PP di fronte a cui2 ] 3 non oserei of front to whom NEG would-dare.1 SG a person mai dire queste cose t3 ever to-say such things ‘a person in front of who I would never dare to say such things’ b. *una persona [ PP cui2 di fronte a t2 ] 3 non oserei NEG would-dare.1 SG who of front to a person mai dire queste cose t3 ever to-say such things

Another problem is posed by the lack of secondary wh-movement within nominals as, for instance, in the English examples in (202). (202)

a. *a chess set [ DP which2 the spare pawn of t2 ] 3 t3 is taped to the top of the box b. *an organist [ DP who2 rumors about t2 ] 3 t3 are rampant

Counter-examples of this type can be found frequently. If (146) is to be maintained, one has to say something about why they possibly exist. That is, there should be a reason for why, for instance, the b.-examples in (200) and (201) are ill-formed, and also why the examples (202-a,b) are ungrammatical. I briefly return to this issue in section 2.4 of chapter 4.

3.


The last of the generalizations that are concerned with pied-piping in restrictive relative clauses and embedded interrogatives is dubbed the repair generalization. It is stated in (203). (203)

Repair generalization Pied-piping of β by a wh-phrase α is possible only if a. and b. hold. a. Movement of α out of β is blocked. b. Pied-piping of γ by α out of β is blocked, where γ is dominated by β and dominates α .

118


The intuition behind (203) is that pied-piping of a constituent β is a costly operation that only applies if movement of the lexical wh-phrase α out of β or pied-piping of γ by α out of β (where γ is a part of β ) is blocked because β is an island for movement (i.e., pied-piping repairs island violations). The generalization covers the notion of ‘obligatory pied-piping’ of Ross (1967, 1986). However, Ross also observed cases where pied-piping is not forced by island conditions (at least not obviously so), which is why he assumed pied-piping to be generally optional. This is directly reflected in his statement of the ‘pied-piping convention’ (see Ross (1967, 206), Ross (1986, 126); cf. also the remark in Ross (1986, 127, footnote 24)). The same view has been expressed elsewhere, too, see Koster (1978, 571), Cinque (1982, 288, footnote 39), van Riemsdijk and Williams (1986, 29), McCawley (1988, 477), Müller and Sternefeld (1996, 488), and Collins (1997, 120), among others. More recently, Chomsky (1995, 262-266) suggested that pied-piping is subject to an economy condition that blocks its application if it is not forced (see section 2.5, chapter 1 for more details). A similar idea is pursued by Roeper (2003) and Boˇsković (2004); see also the remarks in Fanselow (1991, 155), Watanabe (1992, 57) and Radford (1997, 278-282); but cf. Yoon (2002) and Cable (2007), who explicitly argue against this view. Recent optimality-theoretic analyses that implement this intuition in one way or another are Gouskova (2001), Christensen (2003), and Yoquelet (2006). Finally, a similar idea also underlies the generalization (203).109 The purpose of the following sections is to provide evidence for (203). This evidence will mostly involve the contraposition of the above implication: if wh-movement of a proper subpart of β is possible, then pied-piping of β is impossible. Finally note that in order to show that a constituent β is subject to a condition like (203), one has to show that β can, in principle, undergo movement by itself in the first place. Without such a demonstration one cannot isolate the effects of (203) and thus cannot test its empirical reality.

109. The idea of analyzing pied-piping as a repair strategy and to implement this in an optimality-theoretic manner was suggested to me by Gereon Müller.


3.1.

119

Preposition Stranding

The first type of evidence for (203) comes from prepositional pied-piping (or rather from the lack thereof). Briefly said, languages that have the possibility of stranding prepositions also make use of it, thereby avoiding prepositional pied-piping.

3.1.1.

Danish

As already illustrated in section 4.2 of chapter 1, prepositional pied-piping in Danish is only possible if the PP in question is an island, for instance an adjunct (cf. also Ross (1967, 222), Ross (1986, 137), van Riemsdijk and Williams (1986, 29) on prepositional pied-piping in Danish). Otherwise preposition stranding is obligatory. The relevant contrast is repeated here for convenience (in (205), PP is an island, in (204), it is not). (204)

a. *Jeg gad vide [ PP med hvem3 ] 2 du har snakket t2 . with who you have spoken I would know ‘I would like to know to whom you have talked.’ b. Jeg gad vide hvem3 du har snakket [ PP med t3 ]2 . with I would know who you have spoken

(205)

a. Jeg gad vide [ PP under hvilke omstændigheder ] 2 han vil under which circumstances he will I would know komme t2 . come ‘I would like to know under which circumstances he will come.’ b. *Jeg gad vide [ DP hvilke omstændigheder ] 3 han vil which circumstances he will I would know komme [ PP under t3 ]2 . come under

The same holds for stacked prepositions, as illustrated in (206). (206)

a. Jeg gad vide [ DP hvilke problemer ] 2 hun tog afsted [ PP which problems she took off I would know p˚a grund af t2 ]5 . on ground of ‘I wonder which problems she was worried about.’

120


b. *Jeg gad vide [ PP af hvilke problemer ] 3 hun tog afsted [ PP I would know of which problems she took off p˚a grund t3 ]5 . on ground c. *Jeg gad vide [ PP p˚a grund af hvilke problemer ] 5 hun I would know on ground of which problems she tog afsted t5 . took off Note that the ungrammaticality of prepositional pied-piping in (204-a) is not due the lack of secondary wh-movement, cf. (207). (207)

*Jeg gad vide [ PP hvem3 med t3 ] 2 du har snakket t2 . whom with I would know you have spoken ‘I would like to know to whom you have talked.’

Provided a simple structure for PPs, generalization (146) stated in section 2 is in agreement with this observation: according to the notion of edge assumed there the pied-piper in (204-a) is at the edge of the pied-piped phrase.110 Finally, (208-a-c) suggest that pied-piping is minimized. Pied-piping of the DP hvor stor en gryde (‘how big a pot’) is mandatory (see (208-b)). (208)

a. *Jeg gad vide [ α hvor stor ] 2 man har brug [ PP for t2 en one has use for a I would know how big gryde ]4 . pot ‘I wonder how big a pot one can use.’ b. Jeg gad vide [ DP hvor stor en gryde ] 3 man har brug [ PP how big a pot one has use I would know for t3 ]4 . for

110. This is not the case in, e.g., (206-c) because there are two PP-boundaries that dominate the wh-word. Still, secondary wh-movement does not improve the structure in this case either (recalling the discussion in section 2.4 above), see (i). (i) *Jeg gad vide [ PP [ DP hvilke problemer ] 2 p˚a grund af t2 ] 5 hun tog afsted t5 . which problems on ground of she took off I would know ‘I wonder which problems she was worried about.’


121

c. *Jeg gad vide [ PP for hvor stor en gryde ] 4 man har brug t4 . for how big a pot one has use I would know (208-a) moves hvor stor ‘how big’ from SpecD of the DP, which is illicit due to the L EFT B RANCH C ONDITION (LBC) by Ross (1967, 1986), a version of which is given in (209) (cf. Ross (1986, 127); of course, (209) should be considered a theorem that derives from some more basic principles.) (209)

L EFT B RANCH C ONDITION If α is the leftmost category within a DP, then α cannot undergo movement out of this DP by a transformational rule.

However, (209-c) shows that prepositional pied-piping cannot be parasitic on pied-piping the DP; rather pied-piping is kept to a minimum. All this is evidence for the repair generalization in (203). A curious exception to this pattern in Danish arises if sluicing is involved. In this context both pied-piping and stranding are (almost) equally fine (Sten Vikner, p.c.; see (210-a,b), from Merchant (2001, 93)).111 (210)

a. Peter har snakket med en eller anden men jeg ved ikke Peter has talked with one or another but I know not med hvem. with who ‘Peter talked with one or the other, but I don’t know with whom.’ b. Peter har snakket med en eller anden, men jeg ved ikke Peter has talked with one or another but I know not hvem. who

Provided that sluicing involves wh-movement plus subsequent deletion at PF (see Ross (1969), Lasnik (1999), Merchant (2001)), this comes as a surprise. 111. The same effect was noted by Levin (1982) and Sells (1985) for English. Sells (1985) not only notes that the acceptability of PP pied-piping in the context of sluicing decreases if the matrix verb selects a wh-complement (see (i-a)); he also observes that it again increases if wh-phrase and P invert (called ‘swiping’ by Merchant (2002)), see (i-b). (i)

a. *The Butler did it, but I wonder with what. b. The Butler did it, but I wonder what with.

This could receive an explanation if (i-b) in fact involved stranding of the preposition plus PF-deletion of a non-constituent (see Ross (1969) for such an analysis of swiping).

122


On the other hand, theories of sluicing that do not involve wh-movement and PF-deletion but LF-copying (see Chung et al. (1995)) might be able to explain this contrast. I will not pursue this issue further here. 3.1.2.

Norwegian

Similar facts hold for Norwegian (Taraldsen (1978, 636), Maling (1978, 82, footnote 7), Allen (1980, 350)).112 Consider (211) (Arne M. Lindstad, p.c.). (211) a. *Jeg lurer p˚a [ PP med hvem3 ] 2 du har snakket t2 . with who you have talked I wonder on ‘I would like to know with whom you talked.’ b. Jeg lurer p˚a hvem3 du har snakket [ PP med t3 ]2 . with I wonder on who you have talked The pattern remains the same if stacked prepositions are involved. None of them undergoes pied-piping if movement of the lexical wh-phrase is possible: (212) a. Jeg lurer p˚a [ DP hvilket punkt ] 2 jeg m˚a g˚a [ PP opp til t2 ]4 . I wonder on which point I must go up to ‘I wonder which point I must reach.’ b. *Jeg lurer p˚a [ PP til hvilket punkt ] 3 jeg m˚a g˚a [ PP opp t3 ]4 . I wonder on to which point I must go up c. *Jeg lurer p˚a [ PP opp til hvilket punkt ] 4 jeg m˚a g˚a t4 . I wonder on up to which point I must go Finally, prepositions are not strandable if the PP is an adjunct. Thus, (213) illustrates that, prepositional pied-piping is principally possible. Again, this lends further support to the generalization (203). (213) a. Jeg lurer p˚a [ PP om hvor mange timer ] 3 han vil kome t3 in how many hours he will come I wonder on ‘I wonder after how many hours he will arrive.’ b. *Jeg lurer p˚a [ DP hvor mange timer ] 2 han vil kome [ PP how many hours he will come I wonder on om t2 ]3 . in 112. And also for Swedish (see McDaniel et al. (1998, 309, footnote 5), Starke (2001, 40, footnote 10)) and Berbice Dutch Creole (see Kouwenberg (1994)).


3.1.3.

123

English

It is often assumed that pied-piping of PP in embedded interrogatives and restrictive relative clauses in English is possible alongside with P-stranding. However, it has also been claimed that prepositional pied-piping in these contexts is only grammatical if it is forced, see Allen (1980, 123), Bouchard (1982, 277), Levin (1982, 606-607), Sells (1985, 18), Kayne (1994, 25), Radford (1997, 278), Grimshaw (2000, 130), and Merchant (2001, 135). Unforced prepositional pied-piping is considered ill formed (or at least very marked) by these references.113 (214-a,b) represent a relevant (and also idealized) contrast. (214)

a. *Egbert wonders [ PP with whom2 ] 3 she left t3 . b. Egbert wonders who2 she left [ PP with t2 ].

Of course, in contexts where stranding of the preposition is impossible for independent reasons, e.g., if the PP is an adjunct, pied-piping is grammatical after all, see (215) (from Bresnan and Grimshaw (1978, 342)). That is, prepositional pied-piping is not generally impossible. (215)

a. I’d like to know [ PP in what manner ] 3 Dickens died t3 . b. *I’d like to know [ DP what manner ] 2 Dickens died [ PP in t2 ]3 .

This view on prepositional pied-piping supports generalization (203). Still, there remains the question why prepositional pied-piping is often assumed to be optional in English. A possible answer to this question is that it is an instance of ‘prestige usage’ (see Emonds (1986), Sobin (1997), McDaniel et al. (1998), Huddleston and Pullum (2002, 627)). Its existence is thus not a reflex of the grammar but due to some extra-grammatical rule.114 Under this view, prepositional pied-piping is a prescriptive artifact that exists because English speaking children are taught in school not to strand prepositions in their speech. McDaniel et al. (1998) note that children learn113. There seems to be some variation, though. For instance, Sells (1985) rejects unforced prepositional pied-piping in embedded interrogatives but accepts it in restrictive relative clauses. Kayne (1994) rejects it in both cases. Judgments may sometimes be blurred by interfering factors, such as idioms, idiosyncrasies (see Ross (1986, 134), Stockwell et al. (1973, 458), and Culicover (1999, 68)), and by prescription, see below. 114. Apparently, even children that acquire languages that lack P-stranding avoid prepositional pied-piping in favor of alternative constructions, e.g., constructions with resumptive pronouns, see Labelle (1990) and Pérez-Leroux (1993) on French and Spanish.

124


ing English never produce or accept cases of prepositional pied-piping in contexts where movement of the bare wh-phrase is possible. The prescriptive rule then either overrides the grammatical rule or leads to the acquisition of a second grammar (see Murphy (1995), Radford (1997) for proposals along this line). The former grammar (associated with a colloquial register) blocks unforced prepositional pied-piping, the latter grammar (associated with a formal register) generally allows it. Some support for the view that the (hypothesized) two grammars are associated with different registers comes from the observation that speakers who accept prepositional pied-piping in restrictive relatives and embedded interrogatives do so only if the wh-phrase is overtly case marked, indicating a formal register (of course, only if such case marking is available), as illustrated in (216). See, for instance, Radford (1997, 279), Merchant (2001, 92, footnote 3), and Merchant (2001, 133, footnote 13). (216)

a. *Egbert wonders [ PP to who ] 2 you talked t2 . b. Egbert wonders [ PP to whom ] 2 you talked t2 .

In what follows, I will abstract away from this and will assume that prepositional pied-piping is generally blocked in English unless it is forced, for instance, if the prepositional phrase occupies an adjunct position and therefore forms an island for extraction.115

3.2.

Particle Phrases

A similar point as with prepositions can be made on the basis of verbal particles. In both German and English such particles do not undergo pied-piping. 115. A reviewer points out that pied-piping of PP in English matrix interrogatives is completely unmarked and can thus not be due to a prescriptive ban against P-stranding. The reviewer also argues that (i) cannot be an echo-question either. (i)

[ PP To whom ] 2 did you talk?

First, it is unclear to me why prescriptive rules should result in markedness. In fact, people who are trained in school to not strand prepositions will judge preposition stranding as marked. Alternatively, I argue in section 1.8.1, chapter 5 that matrix interrogatives are more permissive with respect to pied-piping than embedded ones not only because they can be interpreted as echo-questions but also because they can employ wh-feature movement. The latter strategy might be involved in (i), too .


3.2.1.

125

English

Particle verbs in English exhibit some word order variation. If the complement of the verb is a full DP, then it can appear before or after the particle. If it is a weak pronoun, then it has to appear between verb and particle. This is illustrated in (217-a,b) and (217-c,d), respectively. (217)

a. b. c. d.

Horace gave [ α Horace gave [ α *Horace gave [ α Horace gave [ α

up [ DP the race ] 2 ]. [ DP the race ] 2 up t2 ]. up it2 ]. it2 up t2 ].

Suppose the object is merged as the complement of the particle and undergoes movement within the particle phrase (see Guéron (1990), Koopman (1990); but cf. Kayne (1984b)). Then particle and an in-situ wh-object form a constituent (α in (217)) and both orders are available, see (218-a,b). (218)

a. Who called [ α who2 up t2 ]? b. Who called [ α up who2 ]?

But pied-piping of α is impossible, independent of which position the whphrase occupies within the particle phrase. This is illustrated in (219-a,b).116 On the other hand, extraction of the pied-piper is impeccable, see (219-c). (219)

a. *Egbert wonders [ α who2 up t2 ] 3 Horace called t3 . b. *Egbert wonders [ α up who2 ] 3 Horace called t3 . c. Egbert wonders who2 Horace called [ α up t2 ]3 .

If the assumptions about particles from above are accepted, then their behavior appears to provide further evidence for generalization (203). One may object that the evidence is irrelevant because particles in English never move to begin with (Johnson (1991, 597)), as is illustrated in (220). (220)

*[ α Up t2 ] 3 he looked [ DP the number ] 2 t3 .

However, if the particle is merged with DP2 in (220), thereby forming a constituent α , then topicalization of α in (220) must involve remnant movement 116. Ross (1986, 134-136), who also discusses pied-piping of particles in English, notes some examples where pied-piping of the particle is possible; he still concludes that, by and large, it is ruled out.

126


which is preceded by extraction of the object out of α . Since there is no scrambling in English, it is unclear how the remnant could ever be created to begin with. Thus, (220) is ungrammatical for independent reasons.

3.2.2.

German

A similar argument can be made on the basis of German. Gereon Müller (p.c.) pointed out to me that particle phrases in German resist pied-piping. This is illustrated in (221-a), an example that involves a restrictive relative clause. (221-b) shows that extraction of the relative pronoun is well-formed. (221)

] 3 er t3 gemacht hat, ist a. *die alte Tür, [ α die2 zu has is the old door which closed he done wurmstichig worm-eaten ‘the old door that he closed is worm-eaten’ b. die alte Tür, die2 er [ α t2 zu ] 3 gemacht hat, ist wurmstichig to done has is worm-eaten the old door which he

Also, it can be demonstrated that particle phrases as such are mobile in German. Both topicalization of the complete particle phrase α in (222-a) and topicalization of a remnant α are possible (see Müller (1998) and Fanselow (2003) on (222-b)). (222)

] 2 hat er t2 gemacht. a. [ α Die Tür zu the door closed has he done ‘He closed the door.’ ] 2 hat er [ DP die Tür ] 3 t2 gemacht, nicht auf. b. [ α t3 Zu closed has he the door done not open ‘He opened the door, he didn’t close it.’

Also note that (222-a) provides further evidence for the assumption that object and particle form a constituent: only one constituent can undergo topicalization in German. Particle constructions in German thus provide further support for generalization (203). There is a slight complication, though. Namely, unembedded interrogatives, which usually show few restrictions on pied-piping, are pretty awkward, too, if pied-piping of the particle phrase occurs, see (223-a).


(223)

127

] 2 hat er t2 gemacht? a.??[ α Welche Tür zu which door closed has he done ‘Which door did he close?’ ] 2 Maria t2 gemacht hat b.?*Fritz weiß, [ α welche Tür zu has Fritz knows which door closed Maria done ‘Fritz knows which door Maria closed’

However, something independent is going on in (223-a): examples with embedded interrogatives (see (223-b)) or restrictive relative clauses (see (221-a)) are even worse. Hence, one can still factor out the impact that illicit piedpiping has in these contexts.

3.3.

Voice Phrases

The following three sections illustrate that pied-piping of predicates is banned at large. This can be made sense of under the generalization (203) because predicates are generally not islands for movement. The predicate phrases discussed are voice phrases (section 3.3.1), predicative adjectives (section 3.4), and past participles (section 3.5). I begin by investigating the pied-piping behavior of the verbal projection that is often assumed to introduce the subject (called ‘voice phrase’ by Kratzer (1996), labeled vP in Chomsky (1995)).

3.3.1.

English

Chomsky (1995) assumes that the lexical verb universally (thus also in English) moves to the functional v-head overtly. However, it does not move to T in the overt syntax (see Emonds (1978), Pollock (1989)). This becomes particularly plausible in cases where the tense features of T are expressed on do or another auxiliary. It follows from the first assumption that so-called VP-topicalization, as in (224), is actually vP-topicalization (cf. Adger (2003, 185)). (224)

a. Gilgamesh wanted to seduce Ishtar, and [ vP t2 seduce Ishtar ] 3 he2 did t3 . b. Enkidu said he would free the animals, and [ vP t2 free them ] 3 he2 will t3 .

128


Examples like (224) thus suggest that vP in English can undergo movement. To check whether it can also undergo pied-piping requires some theoretical elaboration. On the one hand, the subject cannot pied-pipe vP because it generally raises out of vP to SpecT. (I am presupposing that whatever drives subject raising to SpecT is not satisfied if SpecT is filled by a pied-piped verbal projection.) On the other hand, the ungrammaticality of the examples in (225), which involve vP-pied-piping by an object, is not conclusive: they also violate the generalization introduced in section 2 because the pied-piper does not occupy the edge position of vP. (225)

a. b. c. d.

*a book [ vP read which ] 2 Horace will t2 *a person [ vP give a book to whom ] 2 Horace will *Egbert wonders [ vP read which book ] 2 Horace will t2 . *Egbert wonders [ vP give a book to whom ] 2 John will t2 .

However, it has been argued that wh-phrases move successive-cyclically via Specv on their way to SpecC (see Chomsky (1986, 2001) and subsequent work). If this is the case, any ex-situ object wh-phrase should be in an appropriate position to pied-pipe vP when it passes an outer Specv. But now observe that (226) are still ungrammatical, despite secondary wh-movement of the pied-piper to the edge of vP. (226)

a. b. c. d.

*a book [ vP which3 read t3 ] 2 Horace will t2 *a person [ vP who3 give a book to t3 ] 2 Horace will *Egbert wonders [ vP [ DP which book ] 3 read t3 ] 2 Horace will t2 . *Egbert wonders [ vP who3 give a book to t3 ] 2 Horace will t2 .

To conclude, there is evidence that vPs cannot undergo pied-piping in English. This supports (203) because vP is not an island for movement (otherwise there would be no wh-movement in English).

3.3.2.

German

It is somewhat unclear whether there is verb movement to T in German or not. Still, there is a means to test whether vPs are movable in German that is independent of the positioning of the verb. To begin with, it has been claimed that in German the subject need not raise to SpecT (i.e., it can stay in Specv; see Grewendorf (1989), Diesing


129

(1992)). Evidence for this claim comes from the observation that the subject is the only argument that optionally follows a weak pronoun or a sequence of weak pronouns that have moved to a position between vP and TP, the ‘Wackernagel position’ (see also section 3.3.2, chapter 1). In (227-a) the subject der Fritz ‘the Fritz’ precedes the weak pronouns es ‘it.ACC’ and ihr ‘her.DAT’, whereas in (227-b) the subject follows the weak pronouns. (227)

es ihr gegeben hat a. dass der Fritz that the Fritz.NOM it.ACC her.DAT given has ‘that Fritz gave it to her’ ihr der Fritz gegeben hat b. dass es that it.ACC her.DAT the Fritz.NOM given has

The order in (227-a) is the result of raising der Fritz to SpecT. (227-b) then suggests that subject raising is optional in German. This Wackernagel-argument is due to Müller (2000c). Full DP-objects (der Maria, ‘the Maria.DAT’, in (228), and das Buch ‘the book.ACC’ in (229)) must follow the pronoun sequence, which suggests that they do not move out of the vP. (228)

es der Maria gegeben hat a. dass er that he.NOM it.ACC the Maria.DAT given has ‘that he gave it to Maria’ er es gegeben hat b. *dass der Maria that the Maria.DAT he.NOM it.ACC given has

(229)

gegeben hat ihr das Buch a. dass er that he.NOM her.DAT the book.ACC given has ‘that he gave the book to her’ er ihr gegeben hat b. *dass das Buch that the book.ACC he.NOM her.DAT given has

If Wackernagel movement leaves the vP and if subjects in German can optionally stay inside the vP, then it is possible to test whether vP is mobile or not. Namely, it should be possible to move the subject together with the verb, leaving an object pronoun behind. Indeed, Haider (1990, 94) argues on the basis of (230) that this is possible (cf. also Haider (1993, 152)). (230)

[ vP Ein Außenseiter t3 gewonnen ] 2 hat es3 hier noch nie t2 . an underdog won has it here yet never ‘It (e.g., the Derby) has never been won by an underdog so far.’

130


The German vP thus seems movable. That it still cannot undergo pied-piping is illustrated in (231). Note that since the German subject does not obligatorily undergo subject raising, it can serve as a potential pied-piper. (231)

t2 gewonnen ] 4 es2 nie t4 hat. a. *Fritz weiß, [ vP wer3 who.NOM won it.ACC never has Fritz knows ‘Fritz knows who has never won it.’ t2 t3 angetan ] 4 b. *Fritz weiß, [ vP was3 Maria done-to Fritz knows what.ACC Maria.NOM ihm2 t4 hat. him.DAT has ‘Fritz knows what Maria has done to him.’

Under the generalization (203), this is expected (given the obvious assumption that vPs are not islands for movement in German). 3.4.

Predicative APs

This section deals with pied-piping of predicative APs (or the lack thereof) in some languages. The overall pattern suggests that pied-piping of predicative APs is blocked due to the possibility of extracting the wh-phrase out of AP. 3.4.1.

English

It has been noted in the literature that predicative APs in embedded interrogatives and restrictive relative clauses in English do not undergo pied-piping (see Cowper (1987), Grimshaw (1991, 2000), Webelhuth (1992)): (232)

a. *Horace asked [ AP proud of whom3 ] 2 Egbert is t2 . b. *a girl [ AP proud of whom3 ] 2 Egbert is t2

This observation provides further evidence for the generalization in (203) because predicative APs in English can undergo movement (see (233-a)) and are not islands for movement (see (233-b)). (233)

a. [ AP Proud of Egbert ] 2 she surely is t2 . b. Egbert wonders who3 Horace is [ AP proud of t3 ]2 .

Similar observations hold for Danish, Norwegian, and Icelandic, too.


3.4.2.

131

Scandinavian

The examples in (234)–(236) are from Danish, Norwegian, and Icelandic, respectively. The a.-examples illustrate that pied-piping of a predicative AP is blocked; the b.-examples show that stranding of the adjective is possible. (234)

] 3 Ole har været t3 . a. *Jeg gad vide [ AP hvem2 tro who faithful Ole has been I would know ‘I would like to know who Ole was faithful to.’ ]3 . b. Jeg gad vide hvem2 Ole har været [ AP t2 tro faithful I would know who Ole has been

(235)

a. *Jeg lurer p˚a [ AP hvem2 trofast ] 3 ingen har vært t3 . who faithful nobody has been I would know ‘I would like to know who nobody was faithful to.’ b. Jeg lurer p˚a hvem2 ingen har vært [ AP t2 trofast ]3 . faithful I would know who nobody has been

(236)

´ hefur ´ velti þv´ı fyrir ] 3 Oli a. *Eg mér [ AP hverjum2 trúr ´ has who faithful Oli I roll it in-front-of me veriD t3 . been ´ was faithful to.’ ‘I would like to know who Oli ´ hefur veriD [ AP t2 ´ b. Eg velti þv´ı fyrir mér hverjum2 Oli ´ has been I roll it in-front-of me who Oli trúr ]3 . faithful

Predicative APs can undergo movement (e.g., topicalization) in Danish, Norwegian, and also Icelandic, see (237-a-c). (237)

a. [ AP t2 Høflig ] 3 har han2 aldrig været t3 ! polite has he never been ‘Polite he never was!’ b. [ AP t2 Trofast ] 3 var han henne2 alltid t3 . always faithful was he her ‘Faithful he always was to her.’ c. [ AP t2 Fallegur ] 3 er kjóllinn2 t3 . beautiful is the dress ‘Beautiful the dress is.’

132


((238-a) is from Allan et al. (2000, 155), (238-c) is from Thráinsson (1979, 60).) Predicative APs thus provide evidence for (203) in these languages.

3.4.3.

German

Perhaps not surprisingly, German behaves analogously. There is no piedpiping of predicative APs in embedded interrogatives or restrictive relative clauses (see (238)) and such APs are transparent for movement (see (239)). (238)

a. *Ich frage mich, [ AP wessen2 u¨ berdrüssig ] 3 du t3 bist. whose weary you are I ask REFL ‘I wonder who you are weary of.’ b. *eine Person, [ AP derer2 u¨ berdrüssig ] 3 du t3 bist whose weary you are a person ‘a person who you are weary of’

(239)

a. Ich frage mich, wessen2 du [ AP t2 u¨ berdrüssig ] 3 bist. weary are I ask REFL whose you b. eine Person, derer2 du [ AP t2 u¨ berdrüssig ] 3 bist weary are a person whose you

Moreover, predicative APs can undergo movement, for instance (remnant) topicalization, see (240). (240)

a. [ AP Ihrer3 u¨ berdrüssig ] 2 war der Fritz t2 schon manchmal. of-her weary was the Fritz already sometimes ‘Weary of her Fritz has already been sometimes.’ ¨ ussig ] 2 war der Fritz ihrer3 t2 schon manchmal. b. [ AP t3 Uberdr¨ was the Fritz of-her already sometimes weary

To conclude, the languages discussed behave alike with respect to predicative APs: they allow movement of and out of such APs, but they do not allow them to undergo pied-piping. Given the first two properties, the third follows from the generalization (203).

3.5.

Past Participles

I now turn to pied-piping of past participles. As I am not committed to whether such participles are of category V or A I will just label them as α .


3.5.1.

133

Russian

Predicative participles in Russian cannot be pied-piped by a wh-argument, see (241) (Katja Jasinskaja, p.c.). Movement of the wh-phrase out of the participle is possible, see (241-c).117 (241)

a. *On sprosil [ α proˇctena kakaja kniga ] 3 Marija dumaet (ˇcto) he asked read which book Maria believes (that) byla t3 . is ‘He asked which book Maria believes to have been read.’ b. *On sprosil [ α [ DP kakaja kniga ] 2 proˇctena t2 ] 3 Marija he asked which book read Maria dumaet (ˇcto) byla t3 . believes (that) is c. On sprosil [ DP kakaja kniga ] 2 Marija dumaet (ˇcto) byla [ α which book Maria believes (that) is he asked proˇctena t2 ]3 . read

Note that the participle can undergo movement on its own (see (242-a)) and that the copula can indeed appear at the right edge of the clause (see (242-b)). (242)

a. [ α Proˇctena t2 ] 3 byla [ DP e` ta kniga ] 2 t3 . read is this book ‘This book is read.’ ` kniga ] 2 [ α proˇctena t2 ] 3 byla t3 . b. [ DP Eta read is this book

In (241-a) the wh-element follows the participle; (241-b) is given in order to exclude the possibility of interference with secondary wh-movement.

3.5.2.

Basque

As opposed to Russian, predicative participles in Basque are able to undergo pied-piping (see (243-a)). This correlates with the observation that in Basque 117. According to Pesetsky (1982a), extraction from finite clauses in Russian is marked but possible, and best in subjunctives.

134


wh-movement out of the participle is blocked, witness (243-b). Both (243-a) and (243-b) are from Ortiz de Urbina (1989, 249, 252), respectively. (243)

a. [ α Nork2 idatzi ] 3 -a da liburu hori t3 ? who.E written -A is book that-A ‘By whom is that book written?’ b. *Nork2 da liburu hori [ α t2 idatzia ] 3 -a? who-E is book that-A written -A

Thus, past participles are not generally inert with respect to pied-piping.

3.5.3.

English

In English, pied-piping of past participles is impossible, see (244). This holds for embedded interrogatives and restrictive relative clauses. It does not matter whether the wh-phrase appears to the left or to the right of the participle. (244)

a. b. c. d.

*Egbert wonders [ α kissed who2 ] 3 Horace has t3 . *Egbert wonders [ α who2 kissed t2 ] 3 Horace has t3 . *a person [ α kissed who2 ] 3 Horace has t3 *a person [ α who2 kissed t2 ] 3 Horace has t3

Wh-movement out of a participle phrase is possible in English, as (245) shows. (245)

a. Egbert wonders who2 Horace has [ α kissed t2 ]. b. a person who2 Horace has [ α kissed t2 ]

And finally (246) illustrates that participles can undergo topicalization, i.e., they are movable in principle. (246)

[ α Kicked the dog ] 2 John never has t2 .

Thus, English behaves on a par with Russian with respect to pied-piping of past participles.

3.5.4.

Scandinavian

The Scandinavian languages Danish, Norwegian and Icelandic behave analogously. The impossibility of pied-piping past participles in embedded inter-


135

rogatives on the one hand and the transparency of participles for wh-movement on the other hand are illustrated by the Danish, Norwegian, and Icelandic examples in (247), (248), and (249), respectively. (247)

a. *Jeg gad vide [ α kysset hvad for en pige ] 2 Ole har t2 . Ole has I would know kissed what for a girl ‘I would like to know what kind of girl Ole kissed.’ b. Jeg gad vide [ DP hvad for en pige ] 3 Ole har [ α kysset t3 ]2 . Ole has kissed what for a girl I would know

(248)

a. *Jeg lurer p˚a [ α kysset hvem3 ] 2 Ola har t2 . Ola has I wonder on kissed who ‘I wonder who Ola kissed.’ b. Jeg lurer p˚a hvem3 Ola har [ α kysset t3 ]2 . I wonder on who Ola has kissed

(249)

´ ´ velti þv´ı fyrir a. *Eg mér [ α kysst hvaDa stelpu ] 3 Oli ´ kissed which girl I roll it in-front-of me Oli hefur t3 . has ´ kissed.’ ‘I wonder which girl Oli ´ hefur ´ b. Eg velti þv´ı fyrir mér [ DP hvaDa stelpu ] 2 Oli ´ has which girl I roll it in-front-of me Oli [α kysst t2 ]3 . kissed

Participles in these languages are movable, in particular by topicalization. (250) shows topicalization of a participle in Danish, see Lødrup (1990, 8).118 (250)

?[ α Set en eftersynkroniseret film ] 2 har jeg aldrig gjort t2 . seen a dubbed film have I never done ‘Watched a dubbed film I have never.’

118. Lødrup (1990) is mainly concerned with topicalized finite VPs in Norwegian but he also addresses participles. He mentions that the same construction exists in Danish and Swedish (see Källgren and Prince (1989) on Swedish). For some reason, topicalization in Danish is more natural with an infinitive than with a participle (Sten Vikner, p.c.): (i)

[ α Se en eftersynkroniseret film ] 2 ville jeg aldrig gre t2 . see a dubbed film would I never do ‘Watch a dubbed film I would never.’

136


A similar point about the movability of participles can be made with respect to Norwegian, as is illustrated by the examples in (251). (251)

a. [ α Kysset t2 ] 3 har jeg henne2 ikke t3 , bare holdt henne i not kissed have I her only held her by h˚anden. the-hand ‘I didn’t kiss her, I only held her hand.’ b. [ α Kysset henne2 ] 3 har jeg ikke t3 , bare holdt henne i kissed her have I not only held her by h˚anden. the-hand

Actually, (251-a,b) are Norwegian translations of Swedish examples presented in Holmberg (1999, 7). Holmberg argues that the Swedish variant of (251-a) involves topicalization of a verb rather than phrasal topicalization. However, this is not an option for (251-b) because there object and verb move together (thanks to Arne M. Lindstad for pointing this out and for providing the examples). Thus, at least (251-b) is relevant for the present discussion. Finally, the same construction exists in Icelandic. Examples corresponding to the Norwegian examples (251) are also grammatical, witness (252).119 (252)

a. [ α Kysst t2 ] 3 hefur hann hana2 ekki t3 , bara haldiD ´ı only held in Kissed has he her not höndina a´ henni. hand on her ‘He didn’t kiss her, he only held her hand.’ b. [ α Kysst hana2 ] 3 hefur hann ekki t3 , bara haldiD ´ı höndina Kissed her has he not only held in hand a´ henni. on her

119. Further evidence for participle movement involves ‘stylistic fronting’. (i) (from Vikner (1995, 117)) is an instance of stylistic fronting of the participle kysst ‘kissed’ in Icelandic. (i)

´ hélt Eg aD kysst hefDu hana margir stúdentar. I believed that kissed had her many students ‘I believed that many students had kissed her.’

Stylistic fronting has been argued to involve phrasal movement (Maling (1990)), headmovement (Jónsson (1991)), or non-syntactic PF-movement (Holmberg (2000)).


137

Thus, the impossibility of pied-piping participles in these languages cannot be reduced to their general immobility. According to generalization (203), piedpiping is blocked because wh-movement of the bare wh-phrase is possible.

3.5.5.

German

Finally, the same pattern can be observed in German: pied-piping of a participle is blocked, extraction of a wh-phrase from the participle is well-formed, and participles can undergo movement, see (253-a,b) and (254), respectively. (253)

a. *Fritz weiß, [ α wen2 gebissen ] 3 Marias Hund t3 hat. Maria’s dog has Fritz knows who bitten ‘Fritz knows who Maria’s dog has bitten.’ b. Fritz weiß, wen2 Marias Hund [ α t2 gebissen ] 3 hat. Fritz knows who Maria’s dog bitten has

(254)

[ VP Den Fritz gebissen ] 2 hat noch kein Hund t2 . the Fritz bitten has yet no dog ‘No dog has ever bitten Fritz.’

To sum up, the languages discussed above exhibit three properties that go hand in hand. First, pied-piping of a participle is ungrammatical. Second, extraction of the wh-argument from the participle is possible. And third, the participle can undergo movement independently of pied-piping. Given the two first properties, the third property follows via generalization (203).

3.6. 3.6.1.

Floating Quantifiers German

As will be illustrated in a moment, pied-piping of the quantificational element all- ‘all’ in German is impossible (thanks to Gereon Müller, who pointed this fact out to me). At the same time, all-phrases are transparent for whmovement. To begin with, all- can appear as an inflected form (all-e, all-er, all-en) or as an uninflected form. The rules that govern presence or absence of the inflection are determined structurally (see Merchant (1996)). I will ignore

138


this issue here and simply refer to this element by all-.120 Next, (255-a,b) illustrate that all- cannot undergo pied-piping in embedded interrogatives and restrictive relatives; (256-a,b) show that a wh-phrase can strand all- in these contexts. (255)

a. *Ich frage mich, [ DP welche Gerüchte alle ] 2 sie t2 kennt. which rumors all she knows I ask REFL ‘I wonder which rumors she knows all.’ b. *die Gerüchte, [ DP die alle ] 2 sie t2 kennt which all she knows the rumors ‘the rumors that she knows all’

(256)

a. Ich frage mich, [ DP welche Gerüchte ] 3 sie [ t3 alle ] 2 kennt. which rumors she all knows I ask REFL b. die Gerüchte, die3 sie [ DP t3 alle ] 2 kennt all knows the rumors which she

Under the assumption that welche and Gerüchte form a DP under exclusion of all-, it follows that this DP can strand all- in (256). Finally, there is evidence that all- and the DP it associates with also form one constituent. It is based on the observation that all- plus associate can undergo topicalization to the left of the finite verb, see (257). ((257) also indicates that in non-wh contexts all- precedes its associate, in contrast to what was indicated for wh-contexts above; see also section 2.7.4 of chapter 4.) 120. Reis (1992) argues that all- must not be confused with the morphologically invariant alles ‘all’ in (i). (i)

Was alles für Leute hat sie getroffen? what all for people has she met ‘What people has she met?’

She analyzes all- as a D-element that can undergo quantifier float and alles as a particle that is base generated adjacent to a wh-phrase. Semantically, they differ, too. A question with alles asks for an exhaustive enumeration of elements; the same question involving all- asks for a property of all the elements that satisfy the open proposition of the question. Invariant alles can undergo pied-piping (see (i)), which might be related to Reis’s claim that it has some properties of a clitic. For instance, alles must be close to the wh-element it associates with, see the (i) vs. (ii) (cf. Reis (1992, 488, footnote 23)). (ii)

*Was für Leute alles hat sie getroffen? what for people all has she met ‘Which people did she meet?’


(257)

139

[ DP Alle diese Gerüchte ] 3 kennt sie t3 schon lange. all these rumors knows she already long ‘She’s been knowing all these rumors for long.’

There is a well-established constraint in German syntax that requires that only one constituent appear in this position. Thus, the impossibility of pied-piping all- in German provides further support for the generalization in (203). However, there is a problem. Namely, if pied-piping of all- is blocked because movement of the bare wh-phrase is possible, then one would expect pied-piping to be possible when the all-phrase constitutes an island for movement, for instance, a subject island (258-a) or an indirect object island (258-b).121 But this expectation is not borne out. (258)

a. *die Leute, [ DP die2 alle ] 3 dich t3 geärgert haben which all you annoyed have the people ‘the people that annoyed you all’ b. *die Leute, [ DP denen2 allen ] 3 du t3 geglaubt hast which all you believed have the people ‘the people that you believed all’

In fact, it seems that, generally, subjects and indirect objects in German do not block stranding of all by movement although they are standardly assumed to occupy specifier positions (and should thus form CED-islands), see (259). (259)

a. die Leute, die2 dich [ DP alle t2 ] 3 geärgert haben all annoyed have the people which you b. ?die Leute, denen2 du [ DP allen t2 ] 3 geglaubt hast the people which you all believed have

121. That subjects and indirect objects form islands in German is suggested by (i) (see also Müller (1995), Fanselow (2001)): (i)

¨ wen ] 2 hat [ DP ein Gerücht t2 ] dich schockiert? a. *[ PP Uber about who has a rumor you shocked ‘A rumor about who shocked you?’ ¨ b. *[ PP Uber wen ] 2 hast du [ DP einem Gerücht t2 ] keinen Glauben a rumor no faith about who have you geschenkt? given ‘Who didn’t you believe a rumor about?’

Subject infinitives in German are not islands, see Haider (1990, 158). The island-hood of a constituent is thus not fully determined by its position but also by its inherent properties.

140


Maybe stranding of all is not subject to these island conditions because all only optionally forms a constituent with its associate, as suggested for other floating quantifiers by Bobaljik (1995) and Fitzpatrick (2006) (note, though, that German all- appears to cross-cut the types of floating quantifiers identified by Fitzpatrick (2006)). If so, then the observation that pied-piping of all- is not possible in (255) supports generalization (203) after all. But the ungrammaticality of (258) would still require some independent explanation. For the moment, it suffices to note that the pattern observable in (258) and (259) is at least compatible with generalization (203).122

3.6.2.

French

In his discussion of floating tous ‘all’ in French Sportiche (1988, 438) notes the following contrast: (260)

a. *Quels enfants tous sont venus? which children all are come ‘Which children have all come?’ b. Quels enfants sont tous venus? which children are all come

122. Note that there are islands that also all-stranding obeys, namely adjunct islands and whislands, see (i-a,b), respectively. (i)

a. *[ DP Welche Bücher ] 2 ist Fritz eingeschlafen [ CP bevor er t2 alle gelesen which books is Fritz fallen asleep before he all read hat ]? has ‘Which books did Fritz fall asleep before he had read them all?’ b. *[ DP Welche Bücher ] 2 weiß Fritz, [ CP wer3 t3 t2 alle gelesen hat ]? who which books knows Fritz all read has ‘Which books does Fritz know who read them all?’

Thus, stranding of all- arguably involves wh-movement. Pied-piping of these island is impossible, see (ii). (ii)

a. *[ CP Bevor er welche Bücher alle gelesen hat ] 3 ist Fritz eingeschlafen t3 ? before he which books all read has is Fritz fallen-asleep b. *[ CP Wer welche Bücher alle gelesen hat ] 3 weiß Fritz t3 ? who which books all read has knows Fritz

See section 3.3 of chapter 4 for discussion of such cases.


141

Sportiche assumes that (260-a) does not involve pied-piping but rather stranding of tous in SpecT. He proposes for (260-a) a structure like the one in (261). (261)

*[ DP Quels enfants ] 2 [ DP tous t2 ] 3 sont venus? which children all are come

Wh-movement of quels enfants in (260-a) leaves a subject island and is thus ungrammatical. Sportiche (1988, 438) proposes to account for the asymmetry between (260-a) and (260-b) as follows. First, he assumes that T-to-C movement in French subject wh-questions governs SpecT. This government relation percolates down into the constituent in SpecT, to the extraction cite of quels enfants in (260-b). He concludes from the relative position of tous and sont in (260-a) that T-to-C movement of sont has not taken place. Thus, the trace of quels enfants in (260-a) is not governed and wh-movement is illicit. In addition to this, one must exclude an analysis of (260-a) in terms of pied-piping tous by quels enfants (plus secondary wh-movement), see (262). (262)

*[ DP [ DP Quels enfants ] 2 tous t2 ] 3 sont t3 venus? which children all are come

Now, as (260-b) illustrates, wh-movement of quels enfants, thereby stranding tous, is an option. Thus, the repair generalization (203) explains why an analysis of (260-a) along the lines of (262) is not an option. As for the problem that tous in (260-b) can be stranded although tous enfants occupies a specifier position and should thus form a CED-island (similar to what was the case with all-stranding in German in section 3.6), one may follow Sportiche’s analysis and assume that stranding of tous in SpecT is possible if T-to-C movement has applied. Of course, this is not an option in (260-a) due to lack of T-to-C movement.

3.7.

Wh-Partitives in German

Reis (1992, 488) observes contrasts between pied-piping of a wh-partitive was Interessantes ‘what kind of interesting thing’ by the wh-phrase was ‘what’ as in (263-a) and stranding of Interessantes by what (see (263-b)). (263)

a. *Ich frage mich, [ DP was3 Interessantes ] 2 ihr t2 erlebt habt. what interesting you lived have I ask REFL ‘I wonder what kind of interesting experiences you made.’

142


b. Ich frage mich, was3 ihr [ t3 Interessantes ] 2 erlebt habt. I ask REFL what you interesting lived have It thus appears that wh-partitives have to be discontinuous. There is evidence from non-wh partitives, where the wh-phrase is replaced by an indefinite, that the partitive and the material associated with it form a constituent because they can undergo topicalization together, see (264). (264)

[ DP (Et)was Interessantes ] 2 hat der Fritz nicht t2 erlebt. something interesting has the Fritz not lived ‘Fritz hasn’t got experienced anything interesting.’

Et- in (264) can optionally undergo truncation. The remnant was is not a whphrase but an indefinite homophone of the wh-phrase was ‘what’. To sum up, partitives are able to move as a whole (see (264)), movement of the wh-phrase from the partitive is possible, and pied-piping of the whole partitive is blocked. These observations support generalization (203). Finally note that, unlike what was the case with floating all- in German (see section 3.6.1), stranding of the associate in wh-partitives appears to be sensitive to subject and indirect object islands (see (265-a) and (266-a), respectively); pied-piping in these contexts is better, see (265-b) and (266-b).123 (265)

a. *Wer2 hat [ DP t2 berühmtes ] 3 dich eingeladen? who has popular you invited ‘Which popular person invited you?’ b. ?[ DP Wer berühmtes ] 3 hat t3 dich eingeladen? who popular has you invited

(266)

a. *Wem2 hast du [ DP t2 berühmtem ] 3 gratuliert? who have you popular congratulated ‘Which popular person did you congratulate?’ b.??[ DP Wem2 berühmtem ] 3 hast du t3 gratuliert? have you congratulated who popular

Again, this fits the repair generalization and supports the view that the whphrase and the partitive form a constituent.124 123. In Heck (2004) wh-partitives were assumed to behave parallel to floating all-, where island effects with subjects and indirect objects do not exist. The judgments in the main text above depart from this; although being subtle, I think that they are basically correct. 124. Wh-partitives are sensitive to adjunct islands and wh-islands (cf. footnote 122):


3.8.

143

Chamorro

Chung (1998, 391-392, footnote 5) notes that wh-possessors in Chamorro obligatorily extract from the associated nominal if this is possible, which is the case if the D-head is null. That is, Chamorro is not subject to the LBC, like certain other languages, too (see, for instance, Ross (1967, 1986), Corver (1991)). In other words, in those contexts where extraction of the whpossessor is possible, pied-piping of the associated nominal is impossible in Chamorro (see also Gavruseva (2000), citing Sandra Chung). Consider (267-a,b) (cf. Chung (1991, 109) and Chung (1991, 128)). (267)

t3 ? a. *Hayi2 [ DP munika-ña t2 ] 3 un-yulang who INFL 2 S-break doll-AGR 3 S ‘Whose doll did you break?’ [ DP munika-ña t2 ]3 ? b. Hayi2 un-yulang who INFL 2 S-break doll-AGR 3 S

As (267-b) shows, wh-movement of the possessor is possible, but pied-piping of the associated nominal is not (see (267-a)). I therefore conclude that Chamorro possessors exhibit the profile to support generalization (203).125 (i)

a. *Was2 ist Fritz eingeschlafen [ CP bevor er t2 Interessantes gelesen hat ]? what is Fritz fallen asleep before he interesting read has ‘What kind of interesting thing did Fritz fall asleep before he had read it?’ b. *Was2 weiß Fritz, [ CP wer3 t3 t2 Interessantes gelesen hat ]? what knows Fritz who interesting read has ‘What kind of interesting thing did Fritz know who read it?’

And finally, as with floating all-, pied-piping remains impossible in these cases: (ii)

a. *[ CP Bevor er was Interessantes gelesen hat ] 3 ist Fritz eingeschlafen t3 ? before he what interesting read has is Fritz fallen-asleep b. *[ CP Wer was Interessantes gelesen hat ] 3 weiß Fritz? who what interesting read has knows Fritz

125. According to Chung (1991), the possessor appears post-nominally. She analyzes (267-a) as pied-piping plus subsequent extraction of the possessor. I assume that such a derivation is ruled out by the CED. An alternative analysis, respecting the CED, involves secondary wh-movement within the possessed nominal plus subsequent pied-piping, as in (i). (i)

t3 ? *[ DP Hayi2 munika-ña t2 ] 3 un-yulang who doll-AGR 3 S INFL 2 S-break

Sandra Chung (p.c.) also informs me that pied-piping by a post-nominal possessor is

144


3.9.

French

As argued in section 2.2.2 above, the French relative pronoun dont can induce pied-piping of a DP (with dont also undergoing secondary wh-movement). Now, a closer look at the cases discussed in section 2.2.2 reveals that they exclusively involve DPs in subject position. A relevant example is repeated here for convenience: (268)

un homme [ DP dont2 le comportement t2 ] 3 t3 devient drôle of-who the behavior becomes weird a man ‘a man whose behavior becomes weird’

Crucially, examples with DPs in object position that undergo pied-piping by dont are ungrammatical; see (269). (269)

*la fille [ DP dont2 le frère t2 ] 3 tu as rencontré t3 of-who the brother you have met the girl ‘the girl whose brother you met’

Next recall from section 2.2.2 that subjects in French are islands. A relevant contrast is repeated in (270). (270)

a. la ville [ PP de laquelle ] 2 le général avait ordonné [ DP la of which the general had ordered the the city destruction t2 ] destruction ‘the city whose destruction the general had ordered’ b. *la ville [ PP de laquelle ] 2 [ DP la destruction t2 ] 3 serait the city of which the destruction would-be entreprise undertaken ‘the city whose destruction would be undertaken’

Putting things together, the ill-formedness of (269) can be interpreted as support for the generalization (203) as follows. (269) involves pied-piping of a ungrammatical, too, see (ii). (ii)

t3 ? *Kao ma-faisin hao [ DP patgun hayi ] 3 asuddä’-mu Q AGR -ask you child-L who wh- OBL -meet-AGR ‘Did they ask you whose child you met?’


145

DP that is the complement of the verb. This DP should thus be transparent for wh-movement of dont, which is the case, see (271). (271)

la fille dont2 tu as rencontré [ DP le frère t2 ] 3 the brother the girl of-who you have met

Thus, making use of the contraposition of the generalization (203), one can say that since wh-movement of bare dont in (271) is licit, it follows that piedpiping in (269) is illicit.

3.10.

Tzotzil

It was mentioned in section 1.4.1 that pied-piping of recursive specifiers of the English type is not possible in Tzotzil, Chol Mayan, and San Dionicio Zapotec; see (272-b) for Tzotzil (from Aissen (1996, 481)). (272)

]2 . a. I-’ixtalaj [ DP s-kayijonal y-osil li j-tot-e CP-ruin A 3-firelane A 3-land the A 1-father ‘My father’s land’s firelane was ruined.’ b. *[ DP Buch’u y-osil s-kayijonal ] 2 i-’ixtalaj t2 ? who A 3-land A 3-firelane CP-ruin ‘Whose land’s firelane was ruined?’

What is possible is movement of the wh-possessor to the topmost SpecDposition plus subsequent pied-piping of the matrix DP, or, alternatively, movement of the wh-possessor to an intermediate SpecD-position plus pied-piping of the DP associated with this specifier, see (273) (from Aissen (1996, 485)). (273)

a. [ DP Buch’u s-kayijonal y-osil ] 2 i-’ixtalaj t2 ? who A 3-firelane A 3-land CP-ruin b. [ DP Buch’u y-osil ] 3 i-’ixtalaj [ DP s-kayijonal t3 ]2 ? A 3-firelane who A 3-land CP-ruin

In (273-a) the wh-phrase buch’u undergoes secondary wh-movement to the topmost SpecD-position; from there, it triggers subsequent pied-piping of DP2 . In (273-b) buch’u moves to SpecD of the embedded DP3 ; from this position it induces pied-piping of DP3 , thereby stranding the topmost DP2 . Again, the same facts hold in Chol Mayan and San Dionicio Zapotec (see Coon (2007), Cable (2007), and Broadwell (2001), respectively).

146


This looks like minimization of pied-piping in the sense of the repair generalization in (203): pied-piping of more than one DP-shell is avoided because it is enough to pied-pipe one DP-shell.

3.11.

Basque

Recall from section 2.3.1 that Basque exhibits clausal pied-piping. The examples that are usually presented involve matrix interrogatives. However, clausal pied-piping in Basque is restricted: complement clauses cannot undergo piedpiping in embedded interrogatives. (Thanks to Jon Ortiz de Urbina for information on this issue and for providing me with relevant examples; see also Etxepare and Ortiz de Urbina (2003).) This is shown in (274). (274)

[ CP a. Jonek galdetu du nor3 uste du-ten haiek Jon.ERG asked AUX who think AUX-C they.ERG etorriko d-ela t3 ]. come.FUT AUX-C ‘Jon asked who they think will come.’ b. *Jonek galdetu du [ CP nor3 etorri d-ela t3 ] 2 uste du-ten who come AUX-C think AUX-C Jon.ERG asked AUX haiek t2 . they.ERG

Only (274-a), which involves long wh-movement, is grammatical. In contrast, non-complement clauses in Basque can undergo clausal pied-piping (also exhibiting secondary wh-movement) in embedded interrogatives, see (275). (275)

denean t3 ] 2 irekiko duten Galdetu du [ CP nor3 etortzen open AUX-C who come.IMPF AUX.when asked AUX txanpaña t2 . champagne ‘He asked when who arrives will they open the champagne.’

Of course, if the embedded non-complement clause in (275) is an island, then this is exactly the pattern that is expected under generalization (203). The contrast in (274-a,b) is also expected: as extraction of the bare wh-phrase is possible, pied-piping is blocked. I briefly return to this issue in section 2.3.2 of chapter 4.


3.12.

147

Ineffability

There are cases where pied-piping is impossible although movement of the wh-word is not an option either (due to some island constraint). The result is absolute ungrammaticality of the construction in question. In optimalitytheoretic work this is often called ‘ineffability’, a notion that corresponds to the ‘crash’ in the minimalist program. The existence of ineffability is the reason why the repair generalization (203) was formulated as an implication, not as an equivalence: in the case of ineffability the impossibility of extracting the wh-phrase does not implicate the possibility of pied-piping. In what follows, some cases of ineffability in the context of pied-piping are illustrated.

3.12.1.

Pre-Nominal Attributes in German

A wh-phrase that modifies a pre-nominal attribute in German can neither pied-pipe the attribute, nor the complete nominal, nor can it undergo whmovement on its own. The result is ineffability.126 This is illustrated for interrogative clauses and restrictive relative clauses in (276) and (277), respectively. (276)

a. *Wem2 hat sie [ DP ein t2 gewidmetes Buch ] 4 gekauft? who has she a dedicated book bought ‘Who did she buy a book that was dedicated to him/her.’ b. *[ AP Wem2 gewidmetes ] 3 hat sie [ DP ein t3 Buch ] 4 gekauft? who dedicated has she a book bought gewidmetes Buch ] 4 sie t4 kaufte. c. *Fritz fragt, [ DP ein wem2 a who.DAT dedicated book she bought Fritz asks ‘Fritz asks who she bought a book that was dedicated to him/her.’

126. Complex pre-nominal attributes are possible in German in non-wh contexts, see (i). (i)

gewidmetes Buch ein dem Fritz a the Fritz. DAT dedicated book ‘a book dedicated to Fritz’

Also note that (276-a) and (277-a) are grammatical under a reading where the dative marked wh-phrases wem and der are a benefactive argument of the verb kauf- (‘buy’), but not under the intended reading (indicated by the trace t2 ).

148


(277)

a. *eine Person, der2 sie [ DP ein t2 gewidmetes Buch ] 4 kaufte a person who she a dedicated book bought ‘a person who she bought a book that was dedicated to him/her’ b. *eine Person, [ AP der2 gewidmetes ] 3 sie [ DP ein t3 Buch ] 4 who dedicated she a book a person kaufte bought c. *eine Person, [ DP ein der2 gewidmetes Buch ] 4 sie t4 kaufte a who dedicated book she bought a person

The propositions that (276) and (277) are supposed to encode have to be expressed in another way.

3.12.2.

Clausal Pied-Piping

It has been observed that pied-piping of (finite) clauses is impossible in many languages (see Ross (1967, 1986), Cinque (1982), Sells (1985), Cinque (1990), among many others). Crucially, in such languages (as opposed to Basque, see section 3.11 above) pied-piping of finite clauses does not improve if the piedpiped clause forms an island. Consider pied-piping of finite subject-, adjunct-, and wh-clauses, and of complex noun phrases in English restrictive relative clauses, as in (278). (278)

a. *an official [ CP that Egbert bribed who3 ] 2 Horace believes t2 was a mistake b. *a book [ CP after Egbert had read which3 ] 2 he fell asleep t2 c. *decisions [ CP who made which3 ] 2 Horace wonders t2 d. *a person [ DP someone that knew who3 ] 2 Egbert recommended t2

In all cases, pied-piping of the finite clause is strongly ungrammatical. (279) illustrates that the constituents in question are islands for wh-movement. (279)

a. *an official who3 Horace believes [ CP that Egbert bribed t3 ] 2 was a mistake b. *a book which3 Egbert fell asleep [ CP after he had read t3 ] 2 c. *decisions which3 Horace wonders [ CP who made t3 ] 2 d. *a person who3 Egbert recommended [ DP someone that knew t3 ]2


149

To summarize, neither pied-piping of nor extraction from these finite clauses is well-formed in English. The result is ineffability.127 Similar facts can be observed for pied-piping of finite subject clauses in embedded interrogatives in Danish and Icelandic. This is illustrated with subject clauses (which form subject islands) in (280) and (281), respectively. (280)

a. *Jeg gad vide [ DP hvad for en bog ] 3 [ CP at John kunne what for a book that John could I would know lide t3 ] ikke overraskede Maria. not surprised Maria like ‘I wonder what kind of book it didn’t surprise Maria that John could like.’ b. *Jeg gad vide [ CP at John kunne lide hvad for en bog ] 4 that John could like what for a book I would know t4 ikke overraskede Maria. not surprised Maria

(281)

´ velti þv´ı fyrir a. *Eg mér hverjum3 [ CP aD Jón mútaDi t3 ] that Jón bribed I roll it in-front-of me who er skandall. is scandal ‘I wonder who it is a scandal that Jón bribed him.’

127. It does not matter whether secondary wh-movement applies or not. Note that in the very same languages ‘massive’ pied-piping of finite clauses is impossible, too (see section 4 below; see also Cinque (1982) and Nanni and Stillings (1978) on Italian and English, respectively). There are exceptions, though. Stockwell et al. (1973, 468) cite examples from an English dialect where massive pied-piping of a finite clause is possible, see (i). (i)

a. b. c. d.

This is a book, before I had read which I was benighted. This is a book, the man who wrote which is a fool. The hat, I believed the claim that Otto was wearing which, is red. Ruth liked the sketch, the artist who drew which was detested by the critics.

Interestingly, these examples all involve pied-piping of an island: an adjunct island in (i-a) and a complex NP island in (i-b,c,d). Also, Giorgi and Longobardi (1991, 71) claim that in Italian (ii) is “relatively well tolerated at a certain formal stylistic level” (cf. also Cinque (1982, 264)). (ii)

... ?Mario, que tu abbia visto il quale proprio non credo, Mario that you have seen the who really not believe.1 SG ‘Mario, that you have seen who I don’t really believe, . . . ’

150


´ velti þv´ı fyrir b. *Eg mér [ CP aD Jón mútaDi hverjum3 ] 2 t2 I roll it in-front-of me that Jón bribed whom er skandall. is scandal As was the case in English, secondary wh-movement cannot salvage piedpiping in these cases.

3.12.3.

English Gerunds

There are two types of gerunds in English, ‘acc-ing’ gerunds and ‘poss-ing’ gerunds (see Abney (1987)). (282-a) is an instance of an acc-ing gerund and (282-b) is an instance of a poss-ing gerund (from Abney (1987, 109)). (282)

a. I learned about John smoking stogies. b. I learned about John’s smoking stogies.

There is disagreement in the literature as to whether pied-piping of gerunds in English is possible or not. On the one hand, Abney (1987, 114) judges pied-piping of acc-ing gerund as ungrammatical while pied-piping of possing gerunds is judged grammatical (see also Sag (1997), Culicover (1999)): (283)

a. *a man [ α who flirting with your wife ] 2 you took such exception to t2 b. a man [ α whose flirting with your wife ] 2 you took such exception to t2

On the other hand, Ross (1967, 1986) rejects pied-piping of both acc-ing and poss-ing gerunds (see also Nanni and Stillings (1978), Webelhuth (1992), Kayne (1994)). Acc-ing gerunds, in contrast to poss-ing gerunds, generally allow extraction of a wh-subject (see Reuland (1983), Abney (1987)): (284)

a. Who2 did you learn about [ α t2 smoking stogies ]3 ? b. *Whose2 did you learn about [ α t2 smoking stogies ]3 ?

Finally, if an acc-ing gerund forms a subject island, then neither movement of the wh-phrase nor pied-piping are possible. Rather, ineffability results, see (285).


(285)

a. *a man who3 [ α t3 singing the Marseillaise ] 2 caused panic b. *a man [ α who3 singing the Marseillaise ] 2 t2 caused panic

3.12.4.

Nominal Islands

151

As already mentioned, pied-piping of a DP in English is impossible if the whphrase is embedded on the complement path within this DP (see, for instance, section 1.2 of chapter 1). Crucially, pied-piping does not become an option in this case if the DP in question is an island for movement (like, for instance, in a subject island, as in (286)); rather, ineffability results. (286)

a. *a Polish chess player who3 [ DP the popularity of t3 ] 2 grew b. *a Polish chess player [ DP the popularity of whom3 ] 2 t2 grew

One encounters this phenomenon in other languages, too. Recall from section 3.9 that subjects are islands in French, as they are in English. Pied-piping of such a nominal island by a post-nominal PP is, however, ungrammatical, just as extraction of the wh-phrase (plus pied-piping the PP) out of the island is, see (287). (287)

a. *une ville [ PP de laquelle ] 2 [ DP la destruction t2 ] 3 serait of which the destruction would-be a city entreprise undertaken ‘a city whose destruction would be undertaken’ b. *une ville [ DP la destruction de laquelle ] 3 t3 serait the destruction of which would-be a city entreprise undertaken

Finally, as mentioned above, indirect objects are islands for movement in, for instance, German. Still pied-piping the indirect object is illicit, too, if the pied-piper is embedded on the complement side of the nominal island, as illustrated in (288).128 128. I am ignoring the possibility that (288-a) might involve DP-internal PP-fronting of von der. As mentioned in section 2.2.4 above, this is possible in colloquial German for some speakers.

152


(288)

a. *eine Geige, [ PP von der ] 2 [ DP Saiten t2 ] 3 Spannung fehlt a violin of which strings tension lacks ‘a violin whose strings lack tension’ b. *eine Geige, [ DP Saiten von der ] 3 t3 Spannung fehlt strings of which tension lacks a violin

This list, although far from exhaustive, should be sufficient to illustrate the phenomenon of ineffability in the context of pied-piping.

3.13.

Optional Pied-Piping

Recall the contraposition of the implication that is built into the repair generalization (203): if wh-movement of the wh-word (or pied-piping of a small amount of structure) is possible, then it follows that pied-piping (of a large amount of structure) is impossible. Obviously, this predicts that pied-piping can never be optional. The following sections present counter-evidence to this prediction. Optional pied-piping in restrictive relative clauses and embedded interrogatives appears to exist in different languages.

3.13.1.

Prepositional Pied-Piping

In Icelandic, prepositional pied-piping is optional for some speakers, see (289). (289)

´ velti þv´ı fyrir a. Eg mér [ PP viD hvern2 ] 3 thú talaDir t3 . I roll it in-front-of me with who you talked ‘I wonder who you talked to.’ ´ velti þv´ı fyrir b. Eg mér hvern2 thú talaDir [ PP viD t2 ]3 . with I roll it in-front-of me who you talked

Interestingly, Christensen (2003) claims that there are two Icelandic dialects: one of these dialects exhibits prepositional pied-piping by a DP that bears the feature [ NEG ] and thus undergoes the operation of negation shift to a sentence internal position (see (290-a)); the other dialect obligatorily strands the preposition in the context of negation shift (as in (290-b)).


(290)

153

a. Jón hefur [ PP viD engan3 ] talaD t2 . with no-one talked Jón has ‘Jón talked with no-one.’ b. Jón hefur engan3 talaD [ PP viD t3 ]2 . with Jón has no-one talked

Thus, it may be that the optionality in (289) is due to the fact that speakers for whom both (289-a) and (289-b) are grammatical have acquired two grammars. (The popular case of apparent optional pied-piping of PP in English was addressed in section 3.1.3.) R-pronouns in Dutch and (at least some dialects of) German are able to strand prepositions (see van Riemsdijk (1978), Trissler (1993), Müller (2000a), and Fleischer (2002)). Moreover, the preposition can also undergo pied-piping. Thus, pied-piping is optional. This is illustrated for the German wh-R-pronoun wo ‘where’ in (291). (291)

a. etwas, wo3 du nicht [ PP t3 mit ] 2 gerechnet hast with calculated have something where you not ‘something you didn’t take into account’ ] 2 du nicht t2 gerechnet hast b. etwas [ PP wo-mit where-with you not calculated have something

According to the repair generalization (203) this is unexpected. 3.13.2.

Nominal Splits

Nominal split constructions exist in many languages. Often, there is an alternation between a variant that involves split of a wh-phrase and its nominal associate on the one hand and a variant that involves pied-piping of the associate by the wh-phrase on the other hand. Was-für-split in German is a case in point (see den Besten (1984), van Riemsdijk (1989), Corver (1990), Pafel (1996), among others). Suppose for the sake of illustration that in this construction the wh-phrase was ‘what’ occupies the specifier of a DP, which in turn contains the für-phrase. Split and pied-piping are in free variation in embedded interrogatives: (292)

a. Fritz fragt, was2 du [ DP t2 für Leute ] 2 einlädst. for people invite Fritz asks what you ‘Fritz asks what kind of people you invite.’

154


b. Fritz fragt, [ DP was2 für Leute ] 3 du t3 einlädst. what for people you invite Fritz asks Similar split constructions exist in other Germanic languages, too (but not in English and Icelandic). To begin with, there is the wat-voor-split in Dutch (see Bennis (1983), Corver (1990, 1991)), which, at least at first glance, is parallel to the German was-für-split. Again, both pied-piping and stranding of the voor-phrase are possible (see (293), from Corver (1990)). (293)

a. Ik weet wat2 Jan [ DP t2 voor een boeken ] 3 las. I know what Jan for a book read ‘I know what kind of book Jan read.’ b. Ik weet [ DP wat2 voor een boeken ] 3 Jan t3 las. I know what for a book Jan read

Danish exhibits the hvad-for-split, which is also optional, see (294) (from Vikner (1995)):129 (294)

a. Jeg gad vide hvad3 du tror [ DP t3 for en studerende ] 2 er I would know what you think for a student is kommet. come ‘I would like to know what kind of student you think came.’ b. Jeg gad vide [ DP hvad3 for en studerende ] 2 du tror t2 er I would know what for a student you think is kommet. come

The same holds for the hvad-for-slags-construction in Norwegian, which therefore also provides an example of optional pied-piping (see Lie (1982)):

129. There is also another variant of this construction in Danish, which involves the element nogle ‘some/any’ instead of en ‘a’. Again, both variants, stranding and pied-piping are well-formed, see (i). (i)

a.

b.

Jeg gad vide hvad3 du har inviteret [ DP t3 for nogle studerende ]2 . for any students I would know what you have invited ‘I would like to know what kind of student you invited.’ Jeg gad vide [ DP hvad3 for nogle studerende ] 2 du har inviteret t2 . I would know you have invited what for any students


(295)

155

a. Jeg lurer p˚a hva3 du har bedt [ DP t3 for slags folk ]2 . for type people I wonder on what you have invited ‘I wonder what kind of people you invited.’ b. Jeg lurer p˚a [ DP hva3 for slags folk ] 2 du har bedt t2 . what for type people you have invited I wonder on

As observed by Obenauer (1976) (see also Kayne (1981)), combien-constructions in French come in two variants. One where only combien ‘how much’ undergoes wh-movement, and the other where it pied-pipes its associate: (296)

a. Je sais combien2 Marie a décidé d’engager [ DP t2 de I know how-many Marie has decided to-employ of personnes ]3 . persons ‘I know how many people Marie has decided to employ.’ b. Je sais [ DP combien2 de personnes ] 3 Marie a décidé I know how-many of persons Marie has decided d’engager t3 . to-employ

Slavic languages exhibit an optional nominal split with pre-nominal genitives that is blocked in many other languages by the LBC. See (297), from Ross (1986, 145), for Russian. See also Pesetsky (1982b, 404) on Russian, and Corver (1990, 330) on Russian and Polish. (297)

a. Ja sprosil kakuju2 ty cˇ ital [ DP t2 knigu ]3 . book I asked whose you read ‘I asked whose book you read.’ b. Ja sprosil [ DP kakuju2 knigu ] 3 ty cˇ ital t3 . whose book you read I asked

The same phenomenon exists in Greek (see Horrocks and Stavrou (1987)) and in Tzotzil (see Aissen (1996, 456); see also Ross (1986, 145) on Latin). In all cases, pied-piping is optional (see (298) and (299), respectively). (298)

diavasi [ DP t2 vivlio ]3 . a. Anarotieme tinos2 echis book wonder.1SG whose have.2SG read ‘I wonder whose book you read.’ diavasi t3 . b. Anarotieme [ DP tinos2 vivlio ] 3 echis whose book have.2SG read wonder.1SG

156


(299)

a. Buch’u2 i-cham [ DP t2 x-cha’amal t2 ]4 ? who CP-die A 3-child ‘Whose child died?’ b. [ DP Buch’u2 x-ch’amal t2 ] 4 i-cham t4 ? who A 3-child CP-died

To conclude, split constructions are rather common and often optional. Provided that the split-variants must be analyzed in terms of movement of the bare wh-word, they provide other examples for optional pied-piping.

3.13.3.

Degree-Phrases

Trissler (1999) observes that German degree phrases that are headed by zu ‘too’ and whose specifier is occupied by a wh-phrase that quantifies over degrees undergoes optional pied-piping in embedded interrogatives. (Personally, I prefer the variant that involves stranding.) To illustrate, consider (300). (300)

a. Fritz weiß, [ DP wieviel Meter ] 2 die Mauer [ α t2 zu how many meters the wall too Fritz knows hoch ]3 war. high was ‘Fritz knows how many meters too high the wall was.’ b. Fritz weiß, [ α wieviel Meter zu hoch ] 3 die Mauer t3 war. was Fritz knows how many meters too high the wall

At least in Norwegian and Danish, optional pied-piping of a degree phrase headed by the degree head for ‘too’ is possible, too. This is illustrated by (301) for Danish and (302) for Norwegian. (301)

a. ?Jeg gad vide [ DP hvor mange a˚ r ] 2 han var [ α t2 for how many year he was too I would know gammel ] 3 til at f˚a stillingen. to to get job-the old ‘I want to know how many years too old he was to get the job.’ b. Jeg gad vide [ α hvor mange a˚ r for gammel ] 3 han var t3 I would know how many year too old he was til at f˚a stillingen. to to get job-the


(302)

157

a. ?Jeg lurer p˚a [ DP hvor mange grader ] 2 ovnen var [ α t2 how many degrees oven-the was I wonder on for varm ]3 . too hot ‘I wonder how many degrees too hot the oven was.’ b. Jeg lurer p˚a [ α hvor mange grader for varm ] 3 ovnen I wonder on how many degrees too hot oven-the var t3 . was

Although stranding of the degree phrase is slightly marked in these languages, it still seems possible.130 3.13.4.

Predicates

Trissler (1999, 51, 209-211), citing Reis (1989, 132), reports that German exhibits a particular case of past participle pied-piping. Importantly, piedpiping is optional in this construction. To illustrate, consider (303). (303)

a. Fritz weiß, [ α wie schön ] 3 man [ α t3 geschrieben ] 4 haben one written have Fritz knows how well muss, um eine Eins zu bekommen. must in-order a one to get ‘Fritz knows, how well one must have written to get an A.’ b. Fritz weiß, [ α wie schön geschrieben ] 4 man t4 haben muss one have must Fritz knows how well written um eine Eins zu bekommen. in-order a one to get

130. As in English, pied-piping of the degree phrase is obligatory in Icelandic, see (i). (i)

´ velti þv´ı fyrir a. *Eg mér [ DP hversu mörgum a´ rum ] 2 hann var [ α t2 how many years he was I roll it in-front-of me of gamall ] 3 til aD fá stöDuna. too old to to get job-the ‘I wonder how many years too old he was to get the job.’ ´ velti þv´ı fyrir b. Eg mér [ α hversu mörgum a´ rum of gamall ] 3 hann I roll it in-front-of me how many years too old he var t3 til aD fá stöDuna. was to to get job-the

158


This construction underlies some restrictions that I will gloss over here (see Trissler (1999) for details; also cf. Reis (2006) for some qualifications). To mention the most important one, the wh-phrase has to be a degree-element that quantifies over a modifier of the participle; a wh-argument or a whadverbial are not able to pied-pipe the participle, see (304-a,b), respectively.131 (304)

a. *Fritz weiß, [ α was geschrieben ] 4 man t4 haben muss . . . Fritz knows what written one have must ‘Fritz knows what one must have written . . . ’ b. *Fritz weiß, [ α wie geschrieben ] 2 man t2 haben muss . . . one must have Fritz knows how written ‘Fritz knows how one must have written . . . ’

More recently, the phenomenon has been investigated in more detail by Reis (2006). She observes that pied-piping of predicative APs is also optional in German, again, only if the pied-piper is a degree-quantifier (cf. (305-c)): 131. According to my informants, constructions comparable to the ones in (303) are not grammatical in Danish and Norwegian. This is illustrated in (i) and (ii), respectively. (i)

Jeg gad vide [ α hvor pænt ] 2 man skulle have [ α t2 skrevet ] 3 for at how nicely one should have written for to I would know blive forst˚aet. be understood ‘I would like to know how nicely one should have written to be understood.’ b. *Jeg gad vide [ α hvor pænt skrevet t2 ] 3 man skulle have t3 for at blive I would know one should have for to be how nicely written forst˚aet. understood

(ii)

a.

a.

Jeg lurer p˚a [ α hvor pent ] 2 man m˚a ha [ α skrevet t2 ]3 . I wonder on how well one must have written ‘I wonder how well one must have written.’ b. *Jeg lurer p˚a [ α hvor pent skrevet t2 ] 3 man m˚a ha t3 . I wonder on how well written one must have

Reis (2006) claims that Swedish exhibits examples similar to (303) (attributing the observation to Hans-Martin Gärtner). She cites (iii). (iii)

Du f˚ar känna [ α hur bra gjort ] 3 albumet a¨ r t3 . how well done album-the is you will feel ‘You will realize how well the album is made.’

Finally, an anonymous reviewer reports that the same construction (subject to the very same restrictions that are active in German) also exists in Dutch.


(305)

159

a. Man sah, [ α wie schlecht ] 2 das [ AP t2 verständlich ] 3 war. how badly this understandable was one saw ‘It became obvious how hard it was to understand this.’ b. Man sah, [ AP wie schlecht verständlich ] 3 das t3 war. how badly understandable this was one saw c. *Man konnte sehen, [ AP wem verständlich ] 2 das t3 war. one could see for-who understandable this was ‘It became obvious who could understand this.’

Furthermore, Reis (2006) illustrates that pied-piping of a (incoherent) infinitive is optionally possible in German under the very same circumstances (i.e., if the pied-piper is a degree-quantifier) in embedded interrogatives. This is illustrated in (306).132 (306)

a. Fritz fragte, [ α wie gut ] 2 das Schild [ β t2 zu sehen ] 3 ist. how well the sign to see is Fritz asked ‘Fritz asked how discernible a traffic sign was supposed to be.’ b. Fritz fragte, [ β wie gut zu sehen ] 3 ein Schild sein muss. how well to see a sign be must Fritz asked

132. Infinitival pied-piping by a wh-phrase that quantifies over degrees is impossible in Danish and Icelandic, see (i) and (ii), respectively. (i)

Jeg gad vide [ α hvor pænt ] 2 man skal [ α t2 skrive ] 3 for at blive how nicely one should write for to be I would know forst˚aet. understood ‘I wonder how nicely one should write in order to be understood.’ b. *Jeg gad vide [ α hvor pænt skrive t2 ] 3 man skal t3 for at blive I would know how nicely write one should for to be forst˚aet. understood

(ii)

´ velti þv´ı fyrir Eg mér [ α hversu vel ] 2 maDur hefDi þurft [ α aD I roll it in-front-of me how well one had needed to talaD t2 ] 3 aD fólk hefDi skiliD. talk that people had understood ‘I wonder how carefully one should speak in order for people to understand.’ ´ velti þv´ı fyrir b. *Eg mér [ α hversu vel talaD ] 3 maDur hefDi þurft t3 I roll it in-front-of me how well talk one had needed aD fólk hefDi skiliD. that people had understood

a.

a.

160


This, perhaps, does not come as a surprise because, as already indicated in section 2.3.4, (potential) infinitival pied-piping in German applies optionally even if there is no wh-degree element involved. Relevant examples are repeated in (307) for convenience. (307)

a. der Hund, den3 ich [ α t3 zu finden ] 4 versucht habe to find attempted have the dog which I ‘the dog which I attempted to find’ b. der Hund, [ α den3 zu finden ] 4 ich t4 versucht habe which to find I attempted have the dog

To summarize, there is a lot of optional pied-piping across languages. The list presented above is by far not exhaustive. The existence of optional piedpiping is not in agreement with the repair generalization (203), at least not obviously so. In section 3.5 of chapter 4, I come back to this counter-evidence.

4.

Massive Pied-Piping

Until now, the discussion was confined to pied-piping as it typically occurs in restrictive relative clauses and embedded interrogatives. The generalizations I am going to discuss in the present section and in section 5 will be concerned with what is called massive pied-piping in this monograph. Intuitively, massive pied-piping wh-moves a larger amount of structure than non-massive pied-piping. I take it to be the central hallmark of massive pied-piping that it does not occur in restrictive relative clauses and embedded interrogatives but only in appositive relative clauses and unembedded interrogatives; relevant examples are presented in the following sections. It is important to note that, in contrast to this, non-massive pied-piping occurs in both restrictive and appositive relative clauses and in both embedded and unembedded interrogatives. The special conditions on massive pied-piping are expressed in (308). (308)

Generalization on massive pied-piping Massive pied-piping is only possible if a. and b. hold. a. The CP whose specifier is the target of (primary) wh-movement is not subordinated. b. In relative clauses, the pied-piper is selected by a D-element.

Massive Pied-Piping

161

(308) is mainly based on Cinque’s (1982) observations about pied-piping in Italian and French relative clauses. As will become clear, the discussion of massive pied-piping in English (and presumably other languages, too) will require some abstraction with respect to the b.-part of (308).

4.1.

Italian

Cinque (1982) focuses on relativization strategies in Italian (and compares them with those in French and English). The two main contributions of Cinque (1982) to the theory of pied-piping are the following. First, he clearly demonstrates that the pied-piping behavior of restrictive and appositive relative clauses differs. Second, he observes a difference between two types of relative pronouns in Italian with respect to pied-piping. The upshot is that massive pied-piping in Italian relative clauses is possible if and only if the relative clause is appositive and if the relative pronoun has a particular shape. There are two types of relative pronouns in Italian. First, there is the non-declinable cui. Second, there is the lexical wh-word quale, which is preceded by the Italian definite determiner, which declines for [ NUMBER ] and [ GENDER ] (il, ‘the.MASC . SG;’ la, ‘the.FEM . SG,’ etc.). As Cinque observes, massive pied-piping is only possible if the latter type of relative pronoun is involved. To illustrate, consider the following examples from Cinque (1982). To begin with, (309) shows that pied-piping by cui in a restrictive relative is subject to the familiar restrictions on (non-massive) pied-piping. (309)

e` cieco. a. L’uomo [ PP a cui2 ] 3 parlavi to who spoke.2SG is blind the-man ‘The man who you spoke to is blind.’ di cui ] 3 t3 fuma e` contrario. b. *L’uomo [ DP la figlia the daughter of who smokes is against the-man ‘The man whose daughter smokes is against it.’ c. *Il ragazzo [ AP affezionati a cui ] 3 sembravate t3 era G. the boy fond to who seemed.2SG was G. ‘The boy who you did not seem to be fond of was Giorgio.’ t3 e` morto. d. *L’uomo [ α fuggire da cui ] 3 non osava from who not dared.3SG is dead the-man flee ‘The man who she wanted to flee from is dead.’

162


First, a DP cannot be pied-piped by a wh-phrase on the complement side of the nominal (see (310-b)). Second, pied-piping cannot affect predicates (see (310-c,d)). Merely pied-piping of a preposition is possible (see (310-a)), which is not surprising given that preposition stranding is banned in Italian. Next, appositive relatives that involve cui exhibit the same pattern, see (310). (The relative clauses in (310-a-d) all modify a proper name and are therefore plausibly appositive relative clauses.) (310)

t3 , ti odia. a. Giorgio, [ PP a cui ] 3 tieni to who hold.2SG you hate.3SG Giorgio ‘Giorgio, about whom you care, hates you.’ di cui ] 3 t3 fuma, e` contrario. b. *Giorgio, [ DP la figlia the daughter of who smokes is against Giorgio c. *Giorgio, [ AP affezionati a cui ] 3 non sembravate t3 , . . . fond to who not seemed.2SG Giorgio t3 , e` morto. d. *Giorgio, [ α fuggire da cui ] 3 non osava is dead from who not dared.3SG Giorgio, flee

If the relative pronoun il quale is involved, then massive pied-piping becomes possible, but only within appositive relatives (see (312)). Massive pied-piping within a restrictive relative clause leads to ungrammaticality (see (311)). (311)

e` cieco. quale2 ] 3 parlavi a. L’uomo [ PP al spoke.2SG is blind to-the who the-man del quale ] 3 t3 fuma, e` contrario. b. *L’uomo [ DP la figlia smokes is against the daughter of who the-man quale ] 3 non sembravate t3 c. *Il ragazzo [ AP affezionati al not seemed.2SG fond to-the who the boy era Giorgio. was Giorgio d. *L’uomo [ α fuggire dal quale ] 3 non osava t3 e` morto. the-man flee from who not dared.3SG is dead

(312)

quale ] 3 tieni t3 , ti odia. a. Giorgio, [ PP al to-the who hold.2SG you hate-3SG Giorgio b. G., [ DP la figlia del quale ] 3 t3 fuma, e` contrario. G. the daughter of-the who smokes is against quale ] 3 sembravate t3 , . . . c. Giorgio, [ AP affezionati al seemed.2SG fond of-the who Giorgio

Massive Pied-Piping

163

quale ] 3 osava t3 , e` morto. d. Giorgio, [ α fuggire dal from-the who dared.3SG is dead Giorgio, flee Note that massive pied-piping does not obey the edge generalization (146) (section 2) or the generalization on repair-driven pied-piping (203) (section 3). In other words, massive pied-piping is optional (as long as extraction of the wh-phrase is not blocked) and does not induce secondary wh-movement. The latter observation has already been illustrated by (312), the former is shown by (313-a,b). (313)

quale ] 2 sembravate [ AP affezionati t2 ] 3, . . . a. G., [ PP al of-the who seemed.2SG fond G. quale ] 2 osava [ α fuggire t2 ] 3, e` morto. b. G., [ PP dal from-the who dared.3SG flee is dead G.,

Massive pied-piping trivially follows the generalization on recursive piedpiping because it is unrestricted for the most part anyway. To sum up, massive pied-piping in Italian relative clauses is not only dependent on the type of relative clause (restrictive vs. appositive) but also depends on the lexical choice of the relative pronoun.133 As illustrated in (314), embedded interrogatives in Italian behave just as restrictive relative clauses do: they do not exhibit massive pied-piping (Roberta D’Alessandro, p.c.).134 133. There appears to be variation, though. Cinque (1982, 281) presents examples of infinitival restrictive relative clauses in Italian that exhibit massive pied-piping, see (i). (i)

qualcuno con l’aiuto del quale (poter) riparare la mia Cercavo searched.1 SG someone with the help of the whom (could) repair the my bicicletta. bicycle ‘I was looking for someone to help me repair my bicycle.’ b. ?Cercavano un farmaco a somministrare il quale poter riuscire searched.3 PL a medicine to distribute the which could succeed senza troppe resistenze. without too many resistances ‘They were looking for a medicine that they could manage to distribute without too many resistances.’

a.

Cf. also Cinque (1982, 264), who cites examples that involve massive pied-piping in finite restrictive relatives; he calls them “stylistically quite marked”. 134. Again, judgments are not entirely uniform. Cinque (1982, 284, footnote 14) cites examples of embedded interrogatives in Italian that involve massive pied-piping:

164


(314)

a. Mi

domando [ PP di chi ] 3 abiano parlato t3 . ask.1 SG of who have.3 PL talked ‘I wonder who they talked about.’ b. *Mi domando [ AP fedele a chi ] 3 nessuno sia stato t3 . REFL ask.1 SG faithful to who nobody is been ‘I wonder who nobody was faithful to.’ chi ] 3 tu abbia letto t3 . c. *Mi domando [ DP un libro su REFL ask.1 SG a book about who you have read ‘I wonder who you read a book about.’ d. *Mi domando [ α a fare che cosa ] 3 lui abbia provato t3 . to do what thing he has tried REFL ask.1 SG ‘I wonder what he tried to do.’ REFL

Note in passing that, for some reason, interrogatives in Italian cannot employ wh-phrases that are combined with the definite determiner.

4.2.

French

Cinque (1982) notes that the same facts hold for French. French distinguishes two types of relative pronouns, too: the non-declinable qui and a complex pronoun, made up from the declinable definite determiners le ‘the.MASC . SG’, la ‘the.FEM . SG’, plus the wh-word quel. Massive pied-piping is only possible in appositive relatives that involve the latter type of relative pronoun. To illustrate, consider first examples with qui in restrictive and appositive relatives. In both cases, massive pied-piping is blocked, see (315) and (316).135 (315)

(i)

a. l’homme [ PP avec qui ] 3 elle est sortie t3 the-man with who she is gone-out ‘the man she went out with’ a.

b.

Non sapevamo con la macchina di chi fossero riusciti a scappare. not knew.1 PL with the car of whom been succeeded to escape ‘We did not know with whose car they had managed to escape.’ Non ricordo per salvare chi avesse detto di averlo fatto. not recall.1 SG to save who had said to have-it done ‘I don’t remember to save whom he had said he had done it.’

135. The examples presented here are not Cinque’s but they are supposed to illustrate the same point.

Massive Pied-Piping

165

crois t3 b. *un voyant [ DP la prédiction de qui ] 3 j’en the prediction of who I therein believe a seer ‘a seer whose prediction I believe’ c. *plusieurs bankiers [ AP méfiant de qui ] 3 il faut eˆ tre t3 several bankers suspicious of who one must be ‘several bankers that one must be suspicious of’ d. *quatre experts [ α inviter qui ] 3 Jean voulait t3 four experts invite who Jean wanted ‘four experts that Jean wanted to invite’ (316)

parlé t3 , . . . a. Isabelle, [ PP avec qui ] 3 tu a with who you have talked Isabelle ‘Isabelle, who you have talked to, . . . ’ de qui ] 3 tu rencontrait t3 , . . . b. *Yisa, [ DP la fille the daughter of who you met Yisa ‘Yisa, whose daugther you met, . . . ’ c. *Charles, [ AP fier de qui ] 3 nous sommes tous t3 , . . . proud of who we are all Charles ‘Charles, who we are all proud of, . . . ’ d. *Marie, [ α inviter qui ] 3 Jean voulait t3 , . . . invite who Jean wanted Marie ‘Marie, who Jean wanted to invite, . . . ’

If the relative pronoun of the type determiner plus wh-phrase is employed, massive pied-piping becomes possible in appositive relatives, whereas it is still blocked in restrictive relatives, see (317) and (318), respectively (but cf. Kayne (1975, 112, footnote 57), who cites an example of a restrictive relative in French that exhibits massive pied-piping.) (317)

a. l’homme [ PP avec lequel ] 3 elle est sortie t3 with the-who she is left the-man b. *un voyant [ DP la prédiction duquel ] 3 j’en crois t3 a seer the prediction of-the-who I therein believe c. *un bankier [ AP méfiant duquel ] 3 il faut eˆ tre t3 a banker suspicious of-the-who one must be d. *quatre experts [ α inviter lesquelles ] 3 Jean voulait t3 four experts invite the-who Jean wanted

(318)

a. Isabelle, [ PP avec laquelle ] 3 tu a parlé t3 , . . . Isabelle with the-who you have talked at

166


b. Yisa, [ DP la fille duquel ] 3 tu rencontrait t3 , . . . Yisa the daughter of-the-who you met ] 3 nous sommes tous t3 , . . . c. Charles, [ AP fier duquel proud of-the-who we are Charles all d. Marie, [ α inviter laquelle ] 3 Jean voulait t3 , . . . inviter the-who Jean wanted Marie As in Italian, massive pied-piping in French does not exhibit secondary whmovement (see (318)) and is optional (see (319)). (319)

tu rencontrait [ DP la fille t2 ] 3, . . . a. Yisa, duquel2 the daughter Yisa of-the-who you met nous sommes tous [ AP fier t2 ] 3, . . . b. Charles, duquel2 all proud Charles of-the-who we are c. Marie, laquelle2 Jean voulait [ α inviter t2 ] 3, . . . Marie the-who Jean wanted invite

Massive pied-piping in embedded interrogatives in French is impossible, just as in restrictive relative clauses. This is illustrated in (320). (320)

parlé t3 . a. Je me demande [ PP avec qui ] 3 tu a with who you have talked I REFL ask ‘I wonder who you talked to.’ impressioné. b. *Je sais [ DP un livre sur qui ] 3 t’a a book about who you-has impressed I know ‘I know who a book about him impressed you.’ c. *Je me demande [ AP fier de qui ] 3 elle est t3 . proud of who she is I REFL ask ‘I wonder who she is proud of.’ d. *Je me demande [ α de faire quoi ] 3 il essayait t3 . I REFL ask to do what he tried ‘I wonder what he tried to do.’

To sum up, Italian and French behave alike with respect to massive piedpiping. In relative clauses, massive pied-piping is only possible if the relative clause is appositive and if the relative pronoun is made up from a determiner plus a wh-word.136 It is impossible in embedded interrogatives. 136. Romanian seems to be on a par with Italian and French. Recall (i) from section 2.2.1, which suggests that pied-piping of a DP (in a restrictive relative clause) is blocked in

Massive Pied-Piping

167

Do the environments that block massive pied-piping (restrictive relative clauses and embedded interrogatives) have something in common? One may argue that they do. Namely, it has been proposed that appositive relatives are parentheticals. As such, they are not subordinated within the syntactic environment they appear in (see Emonds (1979), Cinque (1982), McCawley (1988), Fabb (1990), Borsley (1992); but cf. Perzanowski (1980), Safir (1986), Demirdache (1991), and Kayne (1994) for partially different views). Obviously, the same holds for unembedded interrogatives (see, however, section 1.8.1 of chapter 5 for some qualification with respect to the relevance of this observation). In contrast, both embedded interrogatives and restrictive relative clauses are embedded. This is the idea that is expressed by (308-a).137 Appositive relative clauses in German or Dutch look like subordinated clauses from a descriptive point of view because the finite verb appears in final position. Interestingly, German and Dutch also lack massive pied-piping Romanian if the pied-piper is embedded on the complement side of the nominal: (i)

a c˘aruia ] 2 am v˘azut-o t2 ieri *vecinul [ PP pe fat˘a pe daughter whose have.1SG seen her yesterday the neighbor ‘the neighbor whose daughter I saw yesterday’

By contrast, the examples (ii-a,b) (from Dobrovie-Sorin (1990)) suggest that massive pied-piping is possible in appostitive relatives. Also, one may argue that the pied-pipers in (i) and (ii) have the form determiner plus wh-operator. See the remarks in section 2.2.1, in particular footnote 90. (ii)

a.

b.

Ion, [ DP str˘amos¸i ai c˘aruia ] 2 ˆıncercasem ˆın zadar s˘a g˘asesc t2 , . . . ancestors of whose had-tried.1SG in vain to find Ion ‘Ion, whose ancestors I had tried to find in vain, . . . ’ Popescu, [ DP unor adorati ai c˘aruia ] 2 ar fi fort greu s˘a Popescu some admirers of whom would-have-been difficult that (le) t2 marturisim situat¸ia delicat˘a ˆın care ne aflam, . . . (to them) tell situation delicate in which were we ‘Popescu, to whose admirers it would have been difficult to explain the delicate situation we were in, . . . ’

137. It could be argued that (308) falls under a more general pattern that was observed by Ross (1973), who dubbed it the P ENTHOUSE P RINCIPLE : (i)

P ENTHOUSE P RINCIPLE More goes on upstairs than downstairs.

The idea of (i) is that a syntactic process that can apply in embedded clauses can also apply in root clauses but not the other way round.

168


in appositive relative clauses (see section 4.4 below). If one assumed that appositive relative clauses in German and Dutch are subordinated (in contrast to, e.g., English), then this could potentially provide an explanation for the lack of massive pied-piping. I will not pursue this idea further here and assume that, technically, appositive relative clauses in Dutch and German are parentheticals, too. An alternative explanation for the lack of massive pied-piping in these languages is provided in chapter 5 (footnote 238, section 1.5.4).

4.3.

English

It has been claimed that massive pied-piping in English relative clauses is only possible if the relative clause is appositive but not if it is restrictive; see Bresnan (1976), Emonds (1976, 1979), Jackendoff (1977), Nanni and Stillings (1978), Ishihara (1984), Sells (1985), Safir (1986), Fabb (1990), Grimshaw (1991, 2000), and Borsley (1992). Of course, this recalls Cinque’s (1982) observations about Italian and French. Unfortunately, the judgments are not as clear-cut as suggested above. For some speakers massive piedpiping is also an option in restrictive relatives, see, for instance, Ross (1967, 1986), Stockwell et al. (1973), and Huddleston and Pullum (2002). On the other hand, Postal (1972b) rejects massive pied-piping (of infinitives) even in appositive relative clauses. The English pattern that follows Cinque’s generalization is reflected by the restrictive and appositive relative clauses in (321) and (322), respectively. Recall from section 3.1.3 that I assume that pied-piping of an argument PP in embedded contexts in English is often judged as grammatical due to a prescriptive rule (contrasting with the judgment (321-a)). (321)

a. b. c. d.

*a man [ PP to whom ] 2 you were talking t2 *many earth quakes [ AP affected by which ] 2 the area was t2 *several people [ DP pictures of whom ] 2 t2 are on sale *four consultants [ α to hire whom ] 2 t2 would be a real scoop

(322)

a. Egbert, [ PP to whom ] 2 you were talking t2 only yesterday, . . . b. ?this earth quake, [ AP affected by which ] 2 the area was t2 , . . . c. the royal family, [ DP pictures of whom ] 2 t2 are permanently on sale, . . . d. Egbert, [ α to hire whom ] 2 t2 would be a real scoop, . . .

Massive Pied-Piping

169

Massive pied-piping in English does not depend on secondary wh-movement (as was also the case in French and Italian), see (322), and it is also optional if no island conditions block extraction of the wh-phrase (see (323)). (323)

a. b. c. d.

Egbert, who3 you were talking [ PP to t3 ] 2 only yesterday, . . . this earth quake, which3 the area was [ AP affected by t3 ] 2, . . . the royal family, who3 John collects [ DP pictures of t3 ] 2, . . . Egbert, who3 Mary could not help [ α taking a picture of t3 ] 2, ...

Finally, as in Italian and French, massive pied-piping is impossible in embedded interrogatives in English, see (324). (324)

a. b. c. d.

*Egbert wonders [ PP to whom ] 2 Horace talked t2 . *Horace wanted to know [ AP proud of who ] 2 Egbert was t2 . *Horace asked [ DP pictures of which family ] 2 t2 were on sale. *Horace remembered [ α to hire whom ] 2 t2 would be a scoop.

In contrast, unembedded interrogatives in English do not appear to be subject to this restriction, as illustrated in (325): they exhibit massive pied-piping (see Ross (1979), Sells (1985), Webelhuth (1992), Kayne (1994)). (325)

a. b. c. d.

[ PP To WHOM ] 2 did you talk t2 ? [ AP Affected by WHAT ] 2 was the area t2 ? [ DP Pictures of WHICH family ] 2 are t2 on sale? [ α To hire WHICH person ] 2 would t2 be a real scoop?

An explanation for the contrast between (324) and (325) may be that unembedded interrogatives can be interpreted as echo-questions. As such, they often (but not necessarily) bear a certain stress on the wh-word, symbolized in (325) by small capitals. If echo-questions are not interrogatives in a syntactic sense (see Reis (1991)) and thus not subject to (all) constraints on whmovement, then it is plausible that they are not subject to constraints on piedpiping either. Apparently, English does not to fall under (308-b), at least not obviously so: massive pied-piping in English relative clauses is not dependent on the presence of a relative pronoun that combines with a definite determiner.

170


4.4.

German

As the Romance languages Italian and French, German distinguishes two types of relative pronouns. First, there is a relative pronoun that is homophonous to the definite determiner and that declines with respect to gender, number, and case, e.g., der ‘the.MASC . SG . NOM’, die ‘the.FEM . SG . NOM’, and das ‘the.NEUT. SG . NOM’. Second, there is the wh-determiner welch-, which also declines with respect to gender, number, and case: welcher ‘which.MASC .SG . NOM ’, welche ‘which.FEM . SG . NOM ’, and welches ‘which.NEUT. SG . NOM ’. Still, German appears to lack massive pied-piping in relative clauses, independently of the choice of the relative pronoun.138 To begin with, relative clauses that involve pied-piping by der do not exhibit massive pied-piping in German (see also Webelhuth (1992)), no matter whether the relative clause is restrictive or appositive, see (326) and (327), respectively. (326)

a. eine Frau, [ PP von der ] 2 man nur t2 träumen kann of who one only dream can a woman ‘a woman one can only dream of’ b. *ein Autor, [ DP Bücher von dem ] 3 du t3 gelesen hast books of whom you read have an author ‘an author who you read books of’ c. *eine Freundin, [ AP eifersüchtig auf die ] 3 Maria t3 war jealous of who Maria was a friend ‘a friend who Maria was jealous of’ d. *eine Frau, [ α es der zu erklären ] 3 er t3 versuchte he attempted a woman it whom to explain ‘a woman who he attempted to explain it to’

(327)

a. Maria, [ PP von der ] 2 man nur t2 träumen kann, . . . of who one only dream can Maria ‘Maria, who one can only dream of’

138. Relative clauses that are construed with welch- belong to a rather formal style today. The same has been reported for Italian relative clauses with il quale, see Cinque (1982). The conjecture (which was still entertained in Heck (2004)) that this parallelism also extends to the availability of massive pied-piping turned out not to be supported by speakers. Here, I assume that massive pied-piping is impossible in German. However, personally, I still find it ‘less ungrammatical’ with welch- than with der. An reviewer informs me that the same appears to hold for massive pied-piping and Dutch welk- ‘which’.

Massive Pied-Piping

171

b. *Joyce, [ DP Bücher von dem ] 3 Egbert t3 liest, . . . books of whom Egbert reads Joyce ‘Joyce, who Egbert reads books of, . . . ’ c. *Ihre Freundin, [ AP eifersüchtig auf die ] 3 Maria t3 war, . . . jealous of which Maria was her friend ‘Her friend, who Maria was jealous of, . . . ’ d. *Seine Frau, [ α es der zu erklären ] 3 er t3 versuchte, . . . his woman it whom to explain he attempted ‘His wife, who he attempted to explain it to, . . . ’ Turning to the relative pronoun welch-, massive pied-piping remains ungrammatical in both restrictive and appositive relative clauses in German, see (328) and (329). (328)

a. eine Frau, [ PP von welcher ] 2 man nur t2 träumen kann of who one only dream can an author b. *ein Autor, [ DP Bücher von welchem ] 3 Egbert t3 liest books of whom Egbert reads an author c. *eine Freundin, [ AP eifersüchtig auf welche ] 3 Maria t3 war jealous of who Maria was a friend d. *eine Frau, [ α es welcher zu erklären ] 3 er t3 versuchte he attempted a woman it whom to explain

(329)

a. Maria, [ PP von welcher ] 2 man nur t2 träumen kann, . . . of who one only dream can Maria b. *Joyce, [ DP Bücher von welchem ] 3 Egbert t3 liest, . . . Joyce books of whom Egbert reads c. *Ihre Freundin, [ AP eifersüchtig auf welche ] 3 Maria t3 war, . . . jealous of which Maria was her friend d. *seine Frau, [ α es welcher zu erklären ] 3 er t3 versuchte, . . . he attempted his woman it whom to explain

Note in passing that the ungrammatical d.-examples above differ from the grammatical cases of alleged infinitival pied-piping in German mentioned in section 2.3.4 in that they do not involve secondary wh-movement (as can be seen by the fact that the relative pronoun is preceded by the non-wh pronoun es ‘it’ in each case). Also recall that the cases of massive pied-piping in Italian, French, and English do not involve secondary wh-movement. This suggests that alleged infinitival pied-piping in German is not an instance of

172


massive pied-piping (if it involves pied-piping at all). Another indication for this is that massive pied-piping in Italian, French, and English does not occur in restrictive relative clauses, whereas alleged infinitival pied-piping in German does, see (330) (where secondary wh-movement has applied, too). (330)

a. eine Frau, [ α a woman b. eine Frau, [ α a woman

der2 es t2 zu erklären ] 3 er t3 versuchte whom it to explain he attempted welcher2 es t2 zu erklären ] 3 er t3 versuchte whom it to explain he attempted

German does, however, exhibit a contrast between embedded and non-embedded interrogatives with respect to massive pied-piping. Whereas there is no massive pied-piping in embedded interrogatives (see (331)), unembedded interrogatives that involve massive pied-piping are grammatical (see (332)). (331)

a. Fritz weiß, [ PP mit wem ] 2 du dich t2 getroffen hast. Fritz knows with who you REFL met have ‘Fritz knows who you met.’ b. *Fritz weiß, [ AP stolz auf welches Kind ] 2 Maria t2 ist. proud on which child Maria is Fritz knows ‘Fritz knows which child Maria is proud of.’ c. *Fritz fragte, [ DP Bilder von wem ] 2 t2 zum Verkauf stehen. pictures of who to-the sale stand Fritz asked ‘Fritz asked whose pictures are on sale.’ d. *Fritz weiß, [ α ihm was zu schenken ] 2 Maria t2 vorhat. Maria PART-plans Fritz knows him what to give ‘Fritz knows what Maria plans to give to him.’

(332)

a. [ PP Mit WEM ] 2 hast du dich t2 getroffen? with who have you REFL met b. [ AP Stolz auf WELCHES Kind ] 2 ist Maria t2 ? proud of which child is Maria c. [ DP Bilder von WEM ] 2 stehen t2 zum Verkauf? pictures of who stand to-the sale d. [ α Ihm WAS zu schenken ] 2 hat sie t2 vor? him what to give has she PART

To conclude, German exhibits massive pied-piping in unembedded interrogatives but not in relative clauses. Webelhuth (1992, 129) already makes this observation for a whole bunch of Germanic languages (see also Lowenstamm

Intervention Effects

173

(1977) on Yiddish, as mentioned in section 2.4 of chapter 1), treating English as an exceptional case.139

5.


This section is concerned with what I will call ‘intervention effects’ in massive pied-piping. It has been noted that sometimes an overt element that ccommands the pied-piper within a massively pied-piped constituent renders the construction ungrammatical. This is expressed by the generalization in (333). (333)

Intervention generalization Within a massively pied-piped constituent no overt specifier may c-command the pied-piper.

It turns out that intervention effects in massive pied-piping occur across different languages.

5.1.

English

The observation that a c-commanding subject renders massive pied-piping in English ungrammatical goes at least back to Nanni and Stillings (1978) (see also Ishihara (1984), Sells (1985)). A relevant contrast is illustrated in (334-a,b). 139. In a similar vein, de Vries (2002, 189) notes that massive pied-piping in Dutch (restrictive and appositive) relative clauses is ungrammatical, see (i). (i)

a. *De man [ DP de vrouw van wie ] 3 ik gisteren t3 heb ontmoet is the woman of who I yesterday have met is the man timmerman. carpenter ‘The man whose wife I met yesterday is a carpenter.’ b. *Joop, [ DP de vrouw van wie ] 3 ik gisteren t3 heb ontmoet, is Joop the woman of who I yesterday have met is timmerman. carpenter ‘Joop, whose wife I met yesterday, is a carpenter.’

174 (334)


a. The elegant parties, [ α to be admitted to one of which ] 3 t3 was a privilege, had usually been held at Delmonico’s. b. *The elegant parties, [ CP for us to be admitted to one of which ] 3 t3 was a privilege, had usually been held at Delmonico’s.

In the ungrammatical (334-b), in contrast to (334-a), there is the overt subject us, which c-commands the pied-piper which within the pied-piped infinitive. Actually, (334-a,b) cannot be unambiguously attributed to the presence versus absence of the subject within the infinitive because the examples also differ with respect to the presence of the complementizer for. The examples in (335-b,c) are more transparent, though. They involve a specifier Mary (not present in (335-a)) that c-commands the pied-piper within the pied-piped infinitive; moreover, they lack any complementizer, thereby suggesting that the offending element in (335-b,c) is indeed the specifier. (335)

a. Tish, [ α to be proud of whom ] 3 t3 would be a mistake, . . . b. *Tish, [ α to consider Mary proud of whom ] 3 t3 would be a great mistake, . . . c. *Tish, [ α to believe Mary2 to be t2 proud of whom ] 4 t4 would be a great mistake, . . .

Further evidence for the hypothesis is provided by ungrammatical massive pied-piping that involves English gerunds in appositive relative clauses. (336-a) is due to Kayne (1983, 244), (337) is taken from Sells (1985, 8).140 (336)

a.??John Smith, [ DP the possibility of marrying whom ] 3 t3 became a reality only yesterday, . . . b. *John Smith, [ DP the possibility of you marrying whom ] 3 t3 became a reality only yesterday, . . .

(337)

a. This half-literate good-for-nothing, [ DP the absurdity of wanting to marry whom ] 3 t3 is eclipsed only by your aunt’s desire that the wedding should happen, . . . b. *This half-literate good-for-nothing, [ DP the absurdity of you wanting to marry whom ] 3 t3 is eclipsed only by your aunt’s desire that the wedding should happen, . . .

140. According to Sells (336-b) and (337-b) are not much worse that (336-a) and (337-a). Other informants reported a relevant contrast, though. This might be connected to the general disagreement among English speakers as to whether pied-piping of gerunds is grammatical to begin with, see section 3.12.3 above.


175

In (336-b) and (337-b), the subject you c-commands the wh-phrase within the pied-piped gerund; the result is ill-formed. If no subject is present, as in (336-a) and (337-a), then the examples improve. Further judgments on that converge with this view can be found in Nanni and Stillings (1978), see (338). (338)

5.2.

a. The loud music, [ α listening to which ] 2 t2 made her nervous, finally ended. b. *The loud music, [ α her listening to which ] 2 t2 annoyed the neighbors, finally ended.

Italian

Intervening specifiers are attested for other languages, too. See in particular Cinque (1982, 1990) on Italian (see also Cinque (1990, 195, footnote 43)): (339)

a. I suoi studenti, [ α il non aver promosso i quali ] 2 t2 the not having promoted the who the his students potrà essere interpretato tendenziosamente, . . . could be interpreted tendentiously ‘His students, not having promoted whom could be interpreted tendentiously, . . . ’ b.??I suoi studenti, [ α il non aver voi promosso i quali ] 2 the not having you promoted the who the his students t2 potrà essere interpretato tendenziosamente, . . . could be interpreted tendentiously ‘His students, your not having promoted who could be interpreted tendentiously, . . . ’

(340)

a. Salvatore, [ α aver invitato il quale ] 2 t2 ci porterà solo us will bring only Salvatore, having invited the who problemi, . . . problems ‘S., having invited whom will cause us only problems, . . . ’ b.??Salvatore, [ α aver noi invitato il quale ] 2 t2 ci porterà us will bring Salvatore, having we invited the who solo problemi, . . . only problems ‘S., our having invited whom will cause us only problems, . . . ’

176


(339-b) and (340-b) contain a c-commanding overt intervening specifier, namely the subjects voi ‘you’ and noi ‘we’, respectively, which are not present in (339-a) and (340-a). Thus, the contrasts provide evidence that overt ccommanding specifiers trigger intervention effects in Italian, too.141

5.3.

Russian

Bierman (1973) notes that (“in certain marginal cases”) Russian relative clauses optionally exhibit infinitival pied-piping (see (341-b)), extraction of the bare wh-word from the infinitive being the alternative (see (341-a)).142 (341)

a. Ja kupil knigu, kotoruju2 ja sobirajus [ α cˇ itat t2 ]3 . I bought book which I intend to read ‘I bought a book that I intend to read.’ b. Ja kupil knigu, [ α cˇ itat kotoruju2 ] 3 ja sobirajus t3 . I bought book to read which I intend

Both, the fact that (341-b) does not involve secondary wh-movement and that pied-piping is optional suggest that (341-b) involves massive pied-piping of the type encountered in Italian, French, and English. Interestingly, Bierman (1973, 404) also notes that pied-piping of an infinitive via relativization of a direct object becomes ungrammatical if the infinitive also contains an indirect object. This is illustrated in (342). It does not matter whether the indirect object precedes the relative pronoun, as in (342-a), where Alle ‘Alla.DAT’ precedes kotoruju ‘which’, or whether it follows the relative pronoun, as in (342-b). In either case the result is ill-formed. (342)

kotoruju ] 3 ja xoˇcu t3 . a. *Ja kupil knigu, [ α poslat Alle to send Alla.DAT which I want I bought book ‘I bought a book that I want to send to Alla.’

141. Note that and overt subject within an infinitive in Italian requires movement of the auxiliary to the C-position (called ‘Aux-to-Comp movement’ by Rizzi (1982)). This also happened with aver ‘having’ in (339-b) and (340-b) (in (339-a) and (340-a), aver stays in T). Hence, the C-position in the b.-examples is filled, although not with a complementizer. One may suspect that it is not the subject but an overtly filled C-position that blocks massive pied-piping, at least in Italian. I will not pursue this possibility here. 142. Bierman (1973) explicitly argues against a pied-piping analysis of examples like (341-b). The range of facts he presents comprises more examples than those discussed here.


177

] 3 ja xoˇcu t3 . b. *Ja kupil knigu, [ α poslat kotoruju Alle to send which Alla.DAT I want I bought book t2 ]3 . c. Ja kupil knigu, kotoruju2 ja xoˇcu [ α poslat Alle I bought book which I want to send Alla.DAT If precedence translates into c-command, then generalization (333) accounts for (342-a), i.e., if Alle occupies a specifier that c-commands the relative pronoun. In fact, it has been argued for English double object constructions by Barss and Lasnik (1986) and Larson (1988, 1990) that a dative indirect object, which precedes the direct object, also c-commands the direct object. But then (342-b) cannot be captured by (333), too, because in (342-b) the relative pronoun precedes the indirect object (and is, by assumption, not c-commanded by it). I return to these examples in section 2.1.6 of chapter 5. Similar remarks apply to (343) (adapted from Bierman (1973, 407)). (343)

a. *Polka, [ α postavit knigu na kotoruju ] 3 on xoˇcet t3 , polna. he wanted full to put book on which shelf ‘The shelf on which he wants to put the book is full.’ b. *Polka, [ α postavit na kotoruju knigu ] 3 on xoˇcet t3 , polna. shelf to put on which book he wanted full c. Polka, [ PP na kotoruju ] 2 on xoˇcet [ α postavit knigu t2 ] 3, on which shelf he wanted to put book polna. full

If the direct object knigu ‘book’ in (343-a) c-commands the PP na kotoruju ‘on which’ (see Larson (1988, 1990) and Pesetsky (1995, 172-190) on English), then the ill-formedness of (343-a) is covered by generalization (333). Again, the ill-formedness of (343-b) cannot be subsumed under (333), too, because knigu in (343-b) does not precede kotoruju, and therefore does not c-command it either. Finally consider the contrast in (344) (adapted from Bierman (1973, 409)). (344)

kotoryj ] 3 ja naˇcal t3 , a. *Xleb, [ α rezat neostrym noˇzom knife.INST which I began bread to cut dull vdrug naˇcal kroˇsitsja. suddenly began crumble ‘The bread that I began to cut with a dull knife suddenly began to crumble.’

178


b. *Xleb, [ α rezat kotoryj neostrym noˇzom ] 3 ja naˇcal t3 , knife.INST I began bread to cut which dull vdrug naˇcal kroˇsitsja. suddenly began crumble c. Xleb, kotoryj2 ja naˇcal [ α rezat neostrym noˇzom ] 3, knife.INST bread which I began to cut dull vdrug naˇcal kroˇsitsja. suddenly began crumble If (344-a,b) are to be interpreted in light of the intervention generalization (333), then the instrumental neostrym noˇzom ‘with a dull knife’ must ccommand the direct object kotoryj ‘which’. There are two ways how this can be made sense of. Either the instrumental in (344-a) is merged in a position c-commanded by kotoryj and then scrambles to a position from where it c-commands kotoryj (thereby turning into an intervener). This would be in line with English, where it is often assumed that instrumental PPs are merged in a position below the direct object (see Larson (1988, 1990)). Or one assumes that, in contrast to English, instrumentals in Russian are merged in a higher position than the direct object, deriving the intervention effect without movement. In this case the direct object in (344-b) reaches its surface position via scrambling. Whether one choses the first or the second of these options, the ungrammaticality of (344-b) cannot be subsumed under the intervention generalization if only its surface is taken into account. It is possible, however, at a more abstact level: namely, one may assume that the instrumental triggers an intervention effect before the relative pronoun undergoes scrambling. I return to this point in section 2.1.6 of chapter 4. Now consider the examples in (345) and (346) from R˚uzˇ iˇcka (1989, 190). (345)

a. Boris zanjal u menja knigu, [ α proˇcitat kotoruju to read which Boris borrowed from me book pobystree ] 3 on mne poobeˇscˇ al t3 . he me promised faster ‘Boris borrowed a book from me which he promised to me to read faster.’ [ α cˇ toby proˇcitat b. *Ja zanjal knigu u Borisa, I borrowed book from Boris.GEN in order to read

Summary

179

kotoruju pobystree ] 3 ja otkazalsja ot poezdki t3 . I refused of trip which faster ‘I borrowed a book from Boris, which I refused to take part in the trip in order to read it faster.’ (346)

im pomeˇscˇ enie, [ α osmotret kotore a. Predloˇzili to inspect which proposed.3 PL them room povnimatel nee ] 3 oni razoˇcrujutsja t3 . more carefully they will be disappointed ‘They proposed a room to them which they will be disappointed to have inspected more carefully.’ b. *Predloˇzili im pomeˇscˇ enie, [ α esli osmotret kotore proposed.3 PL them room if to inspect which povnimatel nee ] 3 oni razoˇcrovalis by t3 . more carefully they disappointed were ‘They proposed a room to them which they would be disappointed if they would inspect it more carefully.’

Neither (345-b) nor (346-b) seem to contain an overt specifier that c-commands the relative pronoun. However, what distinguishes (345-b) and (346-b) from the grammatical examples (345-a) and (346-a) is the presence of the complementizers cˇ toby and esli, respectively. Now, cˇ toby and esli are complex elements that are combined from a Celement on the one hand (ˇcto ‘that’ and li ‘whether’) and other functional material (by, which marks the conjunctive, and est (the copula ‘be’)). Thus these elements superficially look as if they were complex heads. In some sense, however, they behave just like bona fide phrasal elements that occupy specifier positions because they trigger intervention effects. This recalls English whether, which on the one hand is often taken to be a C-element but on the other hand behaves like a phrasal element in SpecC in that it forms a wh-island (see also Chomsky (1986), where whether is assumed to occupy SpecC at LF). Again, I come back to this point in chapter 5.

6.

Summary

This chapter introduced five descriptive generalizations on pied-piping. The first three generalizations are concerned with the type of pied-piping as it is found in restrictive relative clauses and embedded interrogatives. There is

180


also another type of pied-piping, called massive pied-piping by Safir (1986). It turns out that massive pied-piping can only (but need not) occur in appositive relative clauses and unembedded interrogatives (one reason to distinguish the two types of pied-piping). The last two generalizations introduced in this chapter are exclusively concerned with massive pied-piping. The five generalizations are the following. The generalization on recursive pied-piping states that a pied-piper must be located on a (recursive) path of canonical pied-piping positions within the pied-piped constituent. According to the edge generalization, a pied-piper must appear on the edge of the piedpiped constituent (a position it often reaches via secondary wh-movement). The repair generalization claims that pied-piping of a constituent is only possible if movement of the bare wh-phrase out of this constituent is impossible. The generalization on massive pied-piping confines the occurrence of massive pied-piping to unembedded contexts and requires (at least in the case of relative clauses) the use of a particular type of wh-operator. Finally, the intervention generalization prohibits massive pied-piping if the pied-piper is c-commanded by an overt specifier within the pied-piped constituent. Evidence for the generalization on recursive pied-piping involved recursive specifiers, recursive complements, and combinations of these, as they occur in English, German, Danish, Russian, Polish, and (with some caveat) French. I also presented problematic cases from Icelandic and Tzotzil. The edge generalization received support from genitive possessors in Tzotzil, German, Hungarian, and Polish; from prepositional possessors in Romanian, French, Spanish, and German; from alleged prepositional pied-piping in Irish; and, finally, from clausal pied-piping in Basque, Quechua, Latin, and, potentially, German. There are many cases where no secondary wh-movement takes place, though. Relevant examples were cited from German, Italian, and English. The repair generalization is supported by (the lack of) prepositional pied-piping in stranding languages such as Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, and English; by the impossibility of pied-piping predicates that are transparent for extraction, such as particle phrases, voice phrases, predicative APs, and past participles (in English, German, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, and Russian); by the lack of pied-piping floating quantifiers and wh-partitives in German and French; by the lack of clausal pied-piping of complement clauses in Basque; and by restrictions on pied-piping by certain possessors in Chamorro, French, and Tzotzil. The main problem for this generalization is posed by the existence of optional pied-piping as it occurs with prepositions in the stranding language Icelandic; with nominal splits in German, Dutch, Danish,

Summary

181

Norwegian, French, Russian, Greek, and Tzotzil; and with degree phrases, predicates that involve modification by a wh-degree attribute, and (infinitival and finite) clauses in German, Basque, Quechua, and Tlingit. Also, the phenomenon of ineffability in pied-piping was introduced (involving examples from German, English, Danish, Icelandic, and French). Italian, French, and English (and perhaps Romanian) provide evidence for the generalization on massive pied-piping, which claims that massive piedpiping is only possible in unembedded (appositive) but not in truely subordinated (restrictive) relative clauses. A similar distinction is attested with respect to embedded and unembedded interrogatives in various languages, among them German (which does not exhibit massive pied-piping in relative clauses). Examples from Italian and French (and Romanian) also suggested that the choice of relative pronoun plays a crucial role for massive pied-piping, the second claim of this generalization. There is good evidence that massive pied-piping is not subject to the first three generalizations, which lends further support to the claim that these two types of pied-piping need to be distinguished. Finally, effects in Italian, English and Russian were cited to support the intervention generalization, which states that an overtly filled specifier within the pied-piped constituent that ccommands the pied-piper blocks massive pied-piping.

Chapter 3 Theoretical Background

The aim of the present chapter is to provide the theoretical background for chapter 4 and, partially, for chapter 5, where proposals are made as to how the generalizations introduced in chapter 2 can be derived. The model of grammar that the discussion is based upon combines properties of two different theoretical frameworks. On the one hand, it draws on ideas introduced in the minimalist program (see Chomsky (1995, 2000, 2001)), such as derivationalism, feature checking, and the theory of phases. On the other hand, it makes use of aspects of optimality theory (see Prince and Smolensky (2004), McCarthy and Prince (2004), Grimshaw (1997)), such as constraint ranking, constraint violability, and competition. Earlier versions of the minimalist program involved competition as well; see, for instance, Epstein (1992), Collins (1994), Chomsky (1995), Kitahara (1997), Nakamura (1998). However, in more recent work, the notion of competition has been eliminated from it, see Collins (1997), Reinhart (1999), Chomsky (2001). Before moving on, I would like to point out the following. The standard assumption that wh-movement is not only driven by properties of the whphrase but also by properties of the wh-clause’s C-head poses a well-known problem to the derivational bottom-up approach to syntax proposed in Chomsky (1995). On the one hand, derivationalism implies that syntactic structure is built up incrementally from the bottom to the top. Consequently, an element that is introduced at an early point of the derivation, for instance a whphrase, cannot stand in a structural relationship with an element that has not yet been introduced into the structure, as, for instance, a wh-C head. On the other hand, there is evidence that wh-movement applies successive-cyclically, which, provided the S TRICT C YCLE C ONDITION (see section 4.1.2 of chapter 1) and a derivational organization of syntax, implies that somehow a whphrase must ‘know’ that it has to move towards a wh-C head before the latter has been introduced into the structure. As pied-piping is intimately connected to wh-movement and as secondary wh-movement is strongly related to successive cyclic wh-movement, the problem sketched above and the question as to how it can be solved play an important role in the present chapter, too.

184 1.

Theoretical Background

Background Assumptions

In what follows, I illustrate how properties of the minimalist program and of optimality theory can be combined, in particular the aspects of derivation and optimization (sections 1.1 and 1.2), forming a hybrid framework that involves derivational optimization (see section 1.3). Section 1.4 is concerned with details of feature checking, locality constraints, violability etc. Finally, in section 2 it is illustrated by means of explicit derivations how simple and successive cyclic wh-movement with and without pied-piping can be derived.

1.1.

Derivations

An important assumption in Chomsky (1995) is that syntactic structure is built up incrementally from the bottom to the top by alternating application of the two structure-building operations Merge and Move. Merge combines two syntactic objects α and β and forms a new object γ out of them. After application of Merge, α and β are sisters and γ is their mother. I will usually use the short-hand in (347) to express this. (347)

a. β b. [ γ α β ]

→ (Merge α )

In contrast to Merge, Move takes an object α which is already part of another object β , removes α from within β , and rejoins α with the remainder of β , β , thereby forming a new object γ . In a sense, γ differs from β only with respect to the internal positioning of α . This is illustrated in (348). (348)

a. [ β . . . α . . . ] b. [ γ α2 [ β . . . t2 . . . ]

→ (Move α )

The previous position of α is indicated by the presence of the trace t2 in (348-b). Note that this notation is used for purely expository reasons; no theoretical commitment as to whether traces exist or not is intended here. The newly formed objects γ in (347) and (348) are subject to subsequent structure-building operations. In this way, phrase structure is built up step by step until all the lexical heads that have been collected in the ‘numeration’ (whose purpose it is to feed the derivation) have been used. The syntactic objects that have already been constructed in the course of one derivation plus


185

the object currently formed are contained in the ‘workspace’ of the derivation see Frampton and Gutman (1999)), which also includes the numeration.

1.2.

Optimization

A central tenet of optimality theory is that one cannot decide whether an object α is grammatical by merely looking at the inherent properties of α . Rather α has to be compared with other objects β , γ , etc., which are of the same type as α (in a sense to be made precise). α , β , γ , etc. form the ‘candidate set’ or ‘reference set’. In order to determine which of the elements in the candidate set is grammatical, they are evaluated relative to a set of ranked constraints. α is then grammatical if and only if it is ‘optimal’ with respect to this evaluation. A definition of optimality is given in (349) (adopted from Müller (2000b)). (349)

Optimality A syntactic object α from the candidate set S is optimal relative to a set of ranked constraints R if and only if there is no object β ∈ S such that β has a better constraint profile than α .

(350)

Constraint profile β has a better constraint profile than α if and only if there is a constraint Ci ∈ R such that a. and b. hold: a. α violates Ci more often than β does, b. there is no constraint C j ∈ R which is ranked higher than Ci such that α and β differ with respect to the number of their violations of C j .

Note that if α has been determined to be optimal, then it follows that β , γ , etc. from the same candidate set are ungrammatical. An optimization process is usually depicted by means of a ‘tableau’. A tableau contains a list of the (output) candidates O1 , O2 , etc., that is the structures that compete against each other for optimality. Each of these candidates heads one of the lines of the tableau. Moreover, it contains a list of the ranked constraints C1 , C2 , etc., each of which heads one of the columns of the tableau. By convention, a constraint C1 that is ranked higher than another constraint C2 appears to the left of C2 . Finally each cell (On , Cm ) of the tableau is filled by the number of violations that the output candidate On in-

186


curs relative to constraint Cm . Each violation is marked by a ‘*’. To illustrate, consider the tableau T1 below. T1 : The principle of optimization C1 ☞ O1 O2 O3

C2 * **!

C3 *

*!

There are three competing candidates O1 , O2 , and O3 , and there are also three constraints C1 , C2 , and C3 . O1 violates C2 once, O2 violates C2 twice and C3 once, and O3 violates C1 once. O1 is marked as optimal by the symbol ‘☞’. Here is why. To begin with, according to (350-a) O3 cannot be optimal because there are candidates O1 and O2 such that O3 violates a higher ranked constraint than O1 and O2 , namely C1 . Further, O2 cannot be optimal according to (350-b) because there is a candidate O1 such that the highest constraint that is violated by both O2 and O1 , namely C2 , is violated more often by O2 than by O1 . It follows that O1 must be optimal. By convention, a ‘*’ that is decisive in the determination of optimality is followed by a ‘!’. It is important to note that a candidate α can be grammatical without being perfect. α may violate certain constraints as long as there is no competing candidate whose constraint profile is better than α ’s.

1.3.

Derivational Optimization

There are at least two different ways in which the concepts of derivation and optimization can be combined. The first possibility is to construct a candidate set that contains objects that are all representations of the complete sentence to be optimized. In orthodox optimality theory, this structure-building process is called the ‘generator’. The generator actually encodes non-violable constraints, as opposed to the violable constraints that are assumed to be part of the optimization process (also called ‘evaluation’). A representation that does not meet the constraints of the generator cannot be generated. In a second step, this candidate set is subject to optimization. Thus, optimization applies only once and only to complete structures. Following Heck and Müller (2003), I call this the ‘global optimization’ approach.


187

Alternatively, derivation and optimization may be interspersed. The derivation starts by creating a candidate set that contains α , β , γ , etc., which are all variants of one particular phrase. The difference between, for instance, α and β might be that the creation of α involves an instance of Move while the creation of β does not (as is the case for the candidates within the global optimization approach). This candidate set is then subject to optimization, which determines the optimal output, say β . After that β is transferred back to the workspace and the first cycle of derivational optimization is terminated. Once in the workspace, β can again serve as input for the next cycle, together with other elements from the workspace. That is, the derivational system can construct another set of candidates α , β , γ , etc. that are all based on the optimal β of the preceding cycle. Optimization applies to this set, the optimal candidate is determined, and it is sent back to the workspace, where it can be accessed by the structure-building process of the next cycle, and so on, until the numeration is empty and there is only one object left in the workspace. To summarize, derivation and optimization apply repeatedly at each phrasal level (each cycle). Moreover, the (n + 1)-th cyclic step of the derivation must proceed on the basis of the optimal output of the n-th cyclic step. Structures that are based on suboptimal phrases of earlier cycles cannot exist and thus do not have to be considered. Again following Heck and Müller (2003), I call this the ‘local optimization’ approach. Local optimization is also adopted in this monograph. It remains to be clarified under which circumstances two phrases α and β are part of the same candidate set (i.e., are in competition). Chomsky (1995) assumes that two objects are in competition if they are based on the same numeration, i.e., on the same input. By and large, I will follow this assumption here. Note, however, that there is a separate input for each cycle. Thus at each cycle it is determined anew which structures are in competition. This contrasts with Chomsky’s (1995) assumption that the candidate set is determined once and for all by the numeration.143 143. Chomsky (1995) proposes the economy principle ‘Merge over Move,’ which states that it is more economical to satisfy some requirement by applying Merge than by applying Move. The evidence that motivates this principle comes from contrasts as the one in (i). (i)

a. There seems [ α to be a man in the room ]. b. *There seems [ α a man to be in the room ].

While constructing α in (i), the question arises whether to raise a man into Specα or to merge there. The fact that in the grammatical (i-a) a man remains in situ suggests that

188


To conclude, the theory adopted here departs from orthodox minimalist theory in that it involves ranked violable constraints; it departs from orthodox optimality theory in that optimization does not apply at once to complete structures but rather repeatedly to small portions of structure that are generated successively. Thus, local optimization is an instantiation of what is called ‘harmonic serialism’ in Prince and Smolensky (2004), as opposed to the ‘harmonic parallelism’ employed in standard optimality theory (see McCarthy (2000)). For more applications of local optimization see Müller (2000d), Heck and Müller (2003), Müller (2004a), Fischer (2004), Heck and Müller (2006). Also note that the literature on standard optimality theory usually stresses its significance for typological considerations. Namely, in optimality theory cross-linguistic variation is usually assumed to be due to a difference in constraint rankings. As there is only a limited number of different rankings, this limits the potential space of cross-linguistic variation and thus provides a testable prediction of the theory. In this book, I will not address the issue of cross-linguistic typology from an optimality-theoretic angle. Rather, I adopt the assumption usually made in the minimalist program that cross-linguistic variation is due to differences in the lexicon (an idea going back at least to Borer (1984)). In general, I leave it open whether re-ranking of constraints should be considered as another source for variation (but see section 2.3.2, chapter 3).

1.4.

Syntactic Operations and Their Bounds

The present section is concerned with more detailed aspects of the notion of feature checking by Agree, with locality restrictions on syntactic operations, and with cyclicity. Merge is preferred over Move. At a later step there is raised into the matrix clause. But the principle faces empirical problems (see Richards (2001)). To illustrate, consider (ii). (ii)

a. b.

There was heard a rumor that [ α a man is in the room ]. A rumor that [ α there is a man in the room ] was heard.

Constructing α should lead to Merge of there in Specα (there is part of the numeration). (ii-b) shows that this is possible; however, (ii-a) is also an option, hence Merge of there is not forced. Chomsky’s (2001) solution to this problem is to structure the numeration into ‘sub-arrays’. In (ii-b), there is part of α ’s sub-array, in (ii-a) it is not. The present approach, which defines the input per cycle, bears some similarity to this.


1.4.1.

189

Agree

Chomsky (1995, 2000, 2001) assumes that certain morpho-syntactic features establish a relation of feature checking with each other if they are in the right type of configuration. In Chomsky (2000, 2001) these features are called ‘probe’ and ‘goal’. The probe (usually assumed to be part of a functional head) scans down the tree in search for a goal that ‘matches’ it, i.e., the goal is of the same type as the probe. Being concerned with pied-piping, the present monograph mainly deals with a wh-probe on C and a wh-goal on some lexical wh-word. Consequently, the focus here will be on checking wh-features and its connection to wh-movement (including pied-piping). Turning to the details, Chomsky (1995, 228) claims that all movement must be driven by the need to check probes. This is ensured by the interaction of a constraint that requires the elimination of probes via checking by some matching goal (the F EATURE C ONDITION, FC), a constraint that blocked unmotivated movement (L AST R ESORT, LR; Chomsky (1995, 128)), and the requirement that checking presupposes that the goal be in the ‘minimal residue’ (the checking domain) of the probe. Definitions of the FC and of LR are given in (351) and (352), respectively. By convention, Σ shall denote the current phrase marker of the derivation. (351)

F EATURE C ONDITION If β is a probe in Σ, then β must be checked on the Σ-cycle.

(352)

L AST R ESORT If γ moves within Σ, then γ must check some probe on the Σ-cycle.

(351) states that a probe β is not tolerated by the derivation. Rather, it must be eliminated as soon as possible, namely, while the current phrase Σ that introduced β is still under construction, see Chomsky (1995, 233).144 I adopt these assumptions here. However, departing from Chomsky (1995) and rather following Heck and Müller (2000, 2003), I assume that LR is violable. The idea is that there can be movement that is not feature-driven if some constraint C of the grammar that is more important than LR requires this. In such a case, movement applies without feature-checking and LR will be violated in favor of C. The idea will be illustrated in a moment. In later work, Chomsky (2000, 2001) detaches movement from feature checking and abandons the notion of minimal residue. Movement in general, 144. Lasnik (1999) calls this the ‘virus theory’.

190


and wh-movement in particular, is then conceived of as being triggered by the need to fill a specifier position, which is expressed by the presence of a particular feature, an ‘EPP-feature’, on the specifier’s head.145 In addition, wh-probes on C are still assumed to be ‘checked off’ by appropriate wh-goals. To be precise, Chomsky (2000, 2001) assumes that feature checking consists of the goal providing a value for the a priori unvalued probe. Such feature valuation is assumed to be performed by the operation Agree. Crucially, the application of Agree does not presuppose movement of the wh-goal to SpecC (the checking domain of Chomsky (1995)). Rather, for the purpose of whfeature checking, the wh-goal may in principle remain in-situ, Agree taking effect across phrase boundaries. I assume here that the latter is correct; that is, I assume that Agree is not restricted to specifier-head configurations and that it can penetrate phrases. Ultimately, this assumption makes a theory of pied-piping that dispenses with wh-feature percolation possible: as the wh-probe can, in principle, ‘look into’ a category in SpecC, this category is not forced to bear [ WH ]; it is enough if it contains [ WH ].146 (353) defines the conditions under which Agree can apply (cf. Chomsky (2000, 2001)). (353-b) implements a minimality requirement of the familiar kind, see, for instance, Rizzi (1990), Chomsky (1995). M-command in (353-a) ensures that a head can establish Agree with a category in its specifier. Note in passing that provided that a functional head projects the probe it contains up to the phrase and to all intermediate nodes, c-command would be enough to establish Agree in specifier-head configuration. Chomsky (2000, 2001) restricts Agree to c-command with the intention to rule out its application in specifier-head configurations. Thus it appears that he dispenses with feature projection (at least to intermediate nodes). Chomsky’s original defi145. Strictly speaking an EPP-feature on C in the context of wh-movement does not yet derive that it is a wh-element (modulo pied-piping) that fills SpecC. In principle, any overt constituent can satisfy the EPP-property. Movement of a wh-element is enforced by the assumption that one instance of feature checking must involve as many features as possible, the P RINCIPLE OF M AXIMIZED M ATCHING (see Chomsky (2001, 15)). Due to this principle the wh- and the EPP-feature of a C-head cannot be eliminated by different goals, which forces movement of a wh-element. 146. This idea bears a certain similarity to Cinque’s (1982) assumptions about pied-piping in relative clauses. However, while Cinque assumes that the nominal head of the relative clause binds the relative pronoun, I assume that the C-head of some wh-clause establishes Agree with it. Consequently restrictions on pied-piping are restrictions on Agree in the present theory, not restrictions on binding.


191

nition of Agree also comprises an ‘activation’ condition, which requires that the goal bear a yet unchecked case feature. I ignore this here. (353)

Agree Let β be a probe and γ a matching goal in Σ. Then β and γ can establish Agree if and only if a. and b. hold. a. β m-commands γ . b. There is no potential goal α such that β m-commands α and α c-commands γ .

Despite the availability of Agree, I do not adopt the assumption that movement is always triggered by an EPP-feature. Instead, I would like to contend that movement may depend on checking morpho-syntactic features other than [ EPP ], for instance wh-features.147 Since I adopt the assumption that Agree can apply at a distance and at the same time reject the idea that wh-movement is triggered by an EPP-feature, I have to provide an answer for why there is wh-movement to begin with. I would like to propose that this is due to the existence of the violable constraint L OCAL AGREE (LA) in (354). LA minimizes the distance between probe and goal in terms of intervening phrasal boundaries and therefore typically (but not necessarily) forces movement of a goal towards the probe. (354)

L OCAL AGREE For every active probe β , there is a different matching goal γ in Σ such that no XP dominates γ but not β .

(355)

Active Probe A probe β is active iff a. or b. hold. a. β is part of Σ. b. β is a single in the numeration.

Some comments on (354) and (355) are in order. First, as mentioned above, LA is assumed to be violable. Indeed, provided that there is no wh-feature percolation, as argued in chapter 1, then the existence of pied-piping suggests that this must be the case. The reason is that pied-piping by definition involves a configuration where (at least) one XP-border intervenes between the whprobe on C and the (lexical) wh-word bearing the goal-feature. 147. But see Lasnik (2002, 206, footnote 14) for an empirical argument that suggests that wh-movement is indeed an EPP phenomenon and not contingent on [ WH ].

192


Second, I assume that LA is gradient. This means that each XP in the sense of (354) incurs an LA-violation. As will be illustrated in a moment, LA has the effect that wh-feature checking generally goes hand in hand with whmovement, despite the assumption that feature checking is performed by Agree. This is so because LA forces minimization of the distance between the wh-probe on C and the wh-goal on the wh-word. Thus, remote Agree, although possible in principal, is more costly than local Agree. These costs that are measured by LA in terms of intervening phrase boundaries. Third, I mentioned above that LR can be violated, too, if some higherranked constraint requires this. In particular, I assume LR to be violable in favor of LA. As a result there is non-feature driven movement (‘repair-driven movement’).148 It will become clear soon that this not only derives that piedpiping is a last resort (including minimization effects in pied-piping) but also accounts for the phenomenon of secondary wh-movement (and to a certain extent successive-cyclic wh-movement). Finally, the motivation for relativizing the definition of LA to ‘active’ probes in the sense of (355-b) becomes clear once longer movement paths are considered. The idea is as follows. First, the existence of secondary and successive cyclic wh-movement provides evidence that a wh-goal γ does not procrastinate movement until the ultimate movement trigger (a probe β ) is introduced into the structure. Second, as such movement is not obviously triggered by other features, it is reasonable to identify β , although it is still part of the numeration, as the trigger. However, one must ensure that β is not matched by some other goal γ that has not yet entered the structure either, or otherwise one probe would attract various goals. Hence, only a β in the numeration that is unmatched by some γ in the numeration counts as a single in the sense of (355-b).149 All this is not relevant until section 2.3. Until then, it is enough to think of β as being part of Σ (as in (355-a)). 148. For more discussion on non-feature driven movement see Heck and Müller (2000, 2003). In principle, LA-driven movement under violation of LR can be reformulated as featuredriven movement (with LR remaining inviolable) by means of insertion of EPP-features (or pseudo-wh features; both violating I NCLUSIVENESS, see section 4.2, chapter 1), as in Chomsky’s (2001) analysis of successive cyclic wh-movement. 149. This accounts for effects of long superiority. For instance, it explains why raising of what in (i-a) cannot apply (see Heck and Müller (2000, 2003) for explicit discussion): (i)

a. *What did you persuade who to give to Mary? b. Who did you persuade to give what to Mary?

It also derives why wh-in-situ lacks secondary wh-movement, see section 2.6, chapter 4.


1.4.2.

193

Strict Cyclicity and Phase Impenetrability

As mentioned in chapter 1, Chomsky (1973) introduces the S TRICT C YCLE C ONDITION (SCC). The version of the SCC that was given in chapter 1 is repeated in (356) for convenience. (356)

S TRICT C YCLE C ONDITION Within the current cyclic domain Δ, a syntactic operation may not exclusively involve positions included within another cyclic domain Δ such that Δ dominates Δ .

I take it that the SCC holds, thereby assuming that the syntactic operations that (356) makes reference to comprise at least Merge, Move, and Agree. Furthermore, I assume that every maximal projection is a cyclic domain in the sense of the SCC. The SCC constrains the possible positions for a probe β . β must not be dominated by any cyclic node, except for the root (Σ). If the probe were also dominated by other cyclic nodes, the SCC would block Agree and the probe could not be eliminated. This correlates with that part of the FC (see (351)) that requires that the elimination of a probe occur as soon as possible. Also, the SCC constrains the possible landing sites of Move: Move must target positions that are exclusively dominated by the topmost cyclic node Σ. Something similar holds for the target of Merge: Merge can only apply to Σ. This said, I turn to the theory of locality. Chomsky (2000, 2001) classifies CP and vP as ‘phases’. For reasons that will become clear later I assume that DP is also a phase. Now, a crucial property of phases is their potential to form opaque domains. This is expressed by the P HASE I MPENETRABILITY C ON DITION , PIC, which is given in (357) (see Chomsky (2000, 108), Chomsky (2001, 13)).150 150. Chomsky (2001, 14) proposes a more liberal variant of the PIC, see (i). (i)

P HASE I MPENETRABILITY C ONDITION The domain of a head H of a phase HP is not accessible to operations at ZP (the next higher phase). Only H and its edge domain are accessible to such operations.

The difference between (357) and (i) is that according to the former a phase HP already creates an opaque domain before the next higher phase ZP has been constructed. According to (i), opacity of HP is not induced unless this point is reached. (i) was motivated by agreement between T and nominative objects in Icelandic. I adopt (357) because it is compatible with the issues under discussion. As far as I can see, nothing hinges on this.

194 (357)


P HASE I MPENETRABILITY C ONDITION The domain of a head H of a phase HP is not accessible to operations outside of HP. Only H and its edge domain are accessible to such operations.

The PIC constrains the possible positions of a goal γ . The idea is that the derivation ‘sees’ only a sub-part of the current tree. The remaining parts (in particular the lower domains) of the tree are invisible to it.151 Basically, a goal γ that is dominated by a phase HP is not visible to a probe β outside HP unless γ is ‘accessible’ (see below for a precise definition of accessibility). Thus, β and γ will not be able to establish Agree unless γ is accessible to β . Sometimes I will not make reference to the probe but only consider a sub-tree Ω that includes γ and excludes β . In this case, I will say that γ is accessible in Ω, meaning that γ is accessible to some β outside of Ω. One important consequence of the PIC is that movement from within a lower to a higher phase must pass via the accessible domain of the lower phase. 1.4.3.

Accessibility

I now turn to the definition of the notions of accessibility and edge domain. As will become clear later, there is good reason to define these notions in a recursive manner. Suppose that Ω is dominated by the current phrase Σ and that there is no phase that dominates Ω and is dominated by Σ. Accessibility is then defined as follows. (358)

Accessibility γ is accessible in Ω iff a. or b. hold. a. Ω is a phase and γ is in the edge domain of Ω. b. Ω is not a phase and γ is in the domain of Ω.

(358) distinguishes between two cases: either Ω is a phase or it is not a phase. The idea behind this distinction is that a goal γ that is contained in a phase is less easily accessible than a goal that is not contained in a phase; in the former case (see (358-a)), γ is only accessible if it is in the edge domain of the phase. The notion of edge domain (from Müller (2004a)) is given in (359). 151. This idea bears close similarity to the R AISING P RINCIPLE proposed in Wexler and Culicover (1980).

Sample Derivations

(359)

195

Edge domain γ is in the edge domain of a phase Ω iff a., b., or c. hold. a. γ is (adjoined to) the head of Ω. b. γ is a specifier of Ω. c. (i) α is a specifier of Ω and (ii) γ is accessible in α .

(359) comprises three cases. The first two cases are met if γ is the head of the phase Ω (or adjoined to it) or if it is a specifier of Ω. The third case requires a recursive step in the definition: if γ is dominated by a category α that is a specifier of Ω, then, in order to know whether γ is accessible in Ω, one must know whether γ is accessible in α . Thus, one must re-enter the definition in (358), thereby instantiating Ω in (358) with α from (359-c-ii). Finally, if Ω is not a phase (see (358-b)), then for γ to be accessible within Ω, it is enough if γ is directly dominated by Ω (see (360-a)). If this is not the case, then one must again enter a recursive step and check if γ is accessible within α , α being a category that is directly dominated by Ω (see (360-b). (360)

Domain γ is in the domain of Ω iff a. or b. hold. a. γ is immediately dominated by Ω. b. (i) α is immediately dominated by Ω and (ii) γ is accessible in α .

This completes the definition of accessibility. To put it in an nutshell, accessibility establishes a link between probe β and goal γ . As long as there is no phase along the direct path from β to γ , no problem arises. Every time a phase is encountered, the path has to pass via the edge domain of the phase. 2.

Sample Derivations

After having introduced some of the theoretical concepts of the theory, I will now illustrate how they work by running several sample derivations. I begin with cases that involve short wh-movement, with and without piedpiping. After that I turn to cases of successive cyclic wh-movement, again with and without pied-piping. I will introduce additional machinery on the fly, when needed. The derivations in the present chapter are discussed in detail. This makes it possible for the following chapters to concentrate on the

196


most relevant steps of the derivations presented there, glossing over the less relevant details.

2.1.

Short Wh-Movement without Pied-Piping

Consider first the derivation of (361), which involves short wh-movement without pied-piping in a relative clause in English. (361)

a person who adores you

The derivation starts by collecting the lexical items necessary for the construction of (361). The set of these items forms the numeration. It is given in (362). The relevant features are given as subscripts. In what follows, I will make use of the convention introduced by Sternefeld (2006) and write the probe that matches a goal [ F ] as [∗F∗]. (362)

Numeration = {person, a, who, adores, you, v, T [∗EPP∗] , C[∗WH∗] }

The derivation starts by merging adores and the object you, forming the VP (see (363-a)). In what follows, the light verb v (triggering verb raising of V, see (363-b)), the subject who (see (363-c)), and T (see (363-d)) are merged according to their selectional properties. For the moment, I do not address the question as to whether Merge has to be licensed by feature checking (like Move) and simply follow Chomsky (1995) in assuming that it does not have to. But see section 1.6.2 of chapter 5, where this assumption will be modified. (363)

a. b. c. d.

(Merge v + verb raising) [ VP adores you ] → (Merge who) [ vP adores2 +v [ VP t2 you ]] → (Merge T) [ vP who3 adores2 +v [ VP t2 you ]] → ... [ TP T [ vP who3 adores2 +v [ VP t2 you ]]] →

In principle, the constructions of VP and vP involve optimization procedures just as the construction of any other phrase does. They are skipped here for convenience because nothing interesting happens (except, perhaps, for verb raising). The first optimization to be considered in detail concerns the TPcycle. After the subject who and the T-head have been merged, T’s [∗EPP∗] seeks its m-command domain for a goal to establish Agree with. I assume that

Sample Derivations

197

an EPP-probe, just like any other probe, can in principle be checked at a distance via Agree.152 [∗EPP∗] encounters the subject who, which occupies the specifier of the vP-phase and is thus accessible to it (by (358-a)). Suppose, moreover, that who is appropriate to check [∗EPP∗]. Note that [∗EPP∗] is active because it is part of the current tree Σ (see (355-a)). Therefore, LA is relevant. Optimization at this point looks as depicted in tableau T2 . For expository reasons, I only consider variants of Σ as possible candidates that are complete in the sense that they have all their selectional requirements satisfied (TP is complete once T has been merged with vP). Alternatively, one could consider the possibility that selectional requirements are also subject to optimization, cf. the remarks above. T2 : Local optimization: TP-cycle; short wh-movement Input: T[∗EPP∗] + [ vP who adores+v you ] Num: {person, a, C[∗WH∗] } ☞ O1 : [ TP who3 T[∗EPP∗] [ vP t3 adores+v you ]] O2 : [ TP T[∗EPP∗] [ vP who adores+v you ]] O3 : [ TP T[∗EPP∗] [ vP who adores+v you ]]

FC

LA

LR

*! *!

Candidate O1 in tableau T2 involves raising of who from Specv to SpecT. Agree is established between T and who, which results in the elimination of [∗EPP∗] (as indicated by the strike-through notation). Recall that Move can only apply if who is accessible. According to Chomsky (2001), vP is a phase. As who occupies Specv, it is accessible in vP (see (359-b)) and can thus undergo raising. Moreover, raising satisfies LR because it is followed by elimination of a probe within the TP-cycle. Candidate O2 also involves elimination of [∗EPP∗], but without raising. As a consequence, O2 is blocked by O1 because it incurs an unforced LAviolation (avoided by O1 ) that is caused by the intervening vP-boundary. Finally, candidate O3 does not raise who either. Moreover O3 does not eliminate [∗EPP∗] via Agree, which spares it the fatal LA violation of O2 . But leaving [∗EPP∗] unchecked results in a fatal violation of the FC. Note incidentally that the presence of the FC in the tableau suggests that it is a violable con152. It seems inappropriate then to call this feature an EPP-feature because EPP-features by definition require filling of a specifier, hence cannot be satisfied at a distance. I will nevertheless stick to this traditional terminology for reasons of perspicuity.

198


straint that is ranked higher than LA and LR. In fact, it may also be the case that the FC is inviolable. I do not pursue this question further here. Returning to the main plot, it follows that O1 is optimal. Thus, the derivation continues on the basis of O1 : (363)

d. [ TP T [ vP who3 adores2 +v [ VP t2 you ]]] → (Move who) (Merge C) e. [ TP who3 T [ vP t3 adores2 +v [ VP t2 you ]]] → ... f. [ CP C [ TP who3 T [ vP t3 adores2 +v [ VP t2 you ]]]] →

Once C is merged (see (363-f)), its active wh-probe scans for a goal and finds [ WH ] on who. Again, there is one phrase boundary intervening between probe and goal, namely the TP. Optimization with respect to LA on the CP-cycle triggers raising of who to SpecC, see O11 in tableau T3 . The candidates in tableau T3 are named O11 , O12 , and O13 so as to indicate that they are all based on the optimal candidate O1 from tableau T2 . Note that who is trivially accessible to [∗WH∗] on C because TP is not a phase by definition. Raising to SpecC also satisfies LR, being followed by feature checking on the CP-cycle. The alternative candidates O12 and O13 that leave who in SpecT and avoid establishing Agree between [∗WH∗] and its matching goal [ WH ] incur a fatal violation of LA or the FC, respectively. T3 : Local optimization: CP-cycle; short wh-movement Input: C[∗WH∗] + [ TP who3 [ vP t3 adores+v you ]] Num: {person, a} ☞ O11 : [ CP who3 C[∗WH∗] [ TP t3 [ vP t3 adores+v you ]] O12 : [ CP C[∗WH∗] [ TP who3 [ vP t3 adores+v you ]]] O13 : [ CP C[∗WH∗] [ TP who3 [ vP t3 adores+v you ]]

FC

LA

LR

*! *!

Thus, local optimization of the CP proceeds parallel to optimization of the TP. The derivation continues on the basis of O11 until the numeration is empty: (363)

f. g. h. i. j.

(Move who) [ CP C [ TP who3 t3 adores2 +v you ]] → (Move who) [ CP who3 C [ TP t3 t3 adores2 +v you ]] → (Merge person) [ CP who3 C [ TP t3 t3 adores2 +v you ]] → [ NP person [ CP who3 C [ TP t3 t3 adores2 +v you ]]] → (Merge a) [ DP a person [ CP who3 C [ TP t3 t3 adores2 +v you ]]]

Sample Derivations

199

To conclude, LA derives wh-movement in an Agree-based framework without recourse to an EPP-probe on C.

2.2.

Short Wh-Movement with Pied-Piping

Next consider a derivation that involves short wh-movement and pied-piping in an English relative clause by the wh-possessor whose; see (364). (364)

a person whose son adores you

Suppose the DP whose son has already been constructed and is now available in the workspace. As before, I skip the uninteresting optimization procedures at the beginning of the derivation. By and large, everything in the derivation of (364) proceeds parallel to the derivation discussed in section 2.1, see (365). (365)

(Merge v + verb raising) a. [ VP adores you ] → (Merge whose son) b. [ vP adores2 +v [ VP t2 you ]] → c. [ vP [ DP whose son ] 3 adores2 +v t2 you ] → (Merge T + Move whose son) ... d. [ TP [ DP whose son ] 3 T [ vP t3 adores2 +v t2 you ]] →

One difference with respect to section 2.1 is that subject raising affects a DP (namely whose son) whose specifier contains another DP (whose) that principally could as well check T’s [∗EPP∗]. Suppose for the sake of the argument that subject raising of bare whose in (365-d) is blocked because it violates the LBC (see below).153 Next, the question arises as to whether whose is ac153. Alternatively, some variant of the A- OVER -A P RINCIPLE (see Chomsky (1964)) could be involved: (i)

A- OVER -A P RINCIPLE If the phrase X of category A is embedded within a larger phrase ZXW which is also of category A, then no rule applying to the category A applies to X (but only to ZXW).

After the critique in Ross (1967, 1986), the A- OVER -A P RINCIPLE was somewhat neglected (but see Bresnan (1976)). More recently, it was revived again (see Kitahara (1994), Koizumi (1995), Müller (1998), and Sauerland (1999)). These works employ locality conditions that refer to domination configurations (like the A- OVER -A P RINCI PLE ) as well as c-command configurations, which had been the predominant view for a long time; see the literature on superiority (based on Kuno and Robinson (1972), Chomsky (1973)), minimality (Rizzi (1990) and many others) and the M INIMAL L INK C ON -

200


cessible to [∗EPP∗] on T. The wh-phrase is not in the edge domain of the vP-phase, but the DP3 whose son is. In order to see whether whose is accessible within vP, one has to determine (by the recursive step in (359-c-ii) of the definition of ‘edge domain’) whether whose is accessible within DP3 . Recall the assumption that DP is a phase, along with vP and CP. Obviously, whose is accessible within DP3 , as it occupies SpecD3 . It follows (by recursion) that whose is also accessible within vP and can thus be probed by [∗EPP∗]. This reasoning shows that, provided that DP is a phase, a recursive formulation of accessibility is adequate. The assumption (that DP is a phase) itself, of course, still requires independent motivation (see section 1.3.1, chapter 4 for such motivation). Returning to the main plot, consider next the point of the derivation where the C-head is merged, see (365-e) below. (365)

d. [ TP [ DP whose son ] 3 T [ vP t3 adores2 +v t2 you ]] → (Merge C) e. [ CP C [ TP [ DP whose son ] 3 T [ vP t3 adores2 +v t2 you ]] → . . .

C’s active [∗WH∗] seeks a goal and encounters [ WH ] on whose. (TP is not a phase, and, as noted above, whose is accessible within DP3 ; thus whose is trivially accessible within TP). Two phrase boundaries intervene between probe and goal: TP and DP3 . Now, raising of bare whose to SpecC, as in candidate O1 of tableau T4 , avoids the two LA violations induced by these boundaries; however, it violates the LBC (see Ross (1986, 127); see also section 3.1.1 of chapter 2), which I assume to be a high ranked (or inviolable) constraint. T4 : Local optimization: CP-cycle; short wh-movement Input: C[∗WH∗] + [ TP [ DP whose4 son ] 3 V . . . ] Num: {person, a} O1 : [ CP whose4 C[∗WH∗] [ DP t4 son ] 3 V . . . ] ☞ O2 : [ CP [ DP whose son ] 3 C[∗WH∗] t3 V . . . ] O3 : [ CP C[∗WH∗] [ DP whose son ] 3 V . . . ] O4 : [ CP C[∗WH∗] [ DP whose son ] 3 V . . . ]

LBC

FC

LA

LR

*! * **! *!

DITION (see Chomsky (1995)). But cf. Kitahara (1997), who suggests that locality can be reduced to c-command relations in all cases. Cf. also the pertinent remarks in Collins (1997, 28, footnote 25), Müller (1998, 276), Pesetsky (2000, 55, footnote 64), and Fitzpatrick (2002).

Sample Derivations

201

In contrast, pied-piping of whose son by whose avoids the LBC-violation at the cost of one LA-violation (caused by the DP3 -boundary, see O2 ). But this LA-violation is not fatal. Candidates that do not involve raising either incur an additional LA-violation if they check [∗WH∗] on C (see O3 ); or, if they do not check [∗WH∗], then they incur a fatal violation of the FC (see O4 ). Thus O2 is optimal and the derivation proceeds via pied-piping of whose son. From there on it continues as illustrated in section 2.1 until the numeration is empty. To conclude, the derivation above illustrates how pied-piping is treated without invoking wh-feature percolation.

2.3.

Successive Cyclic Wh-Movement without Pied-Piping

Next consider (366), which involves wh-movement of the adjunct wh-phrase when in an embedded question in English. (366)

John wonders when Dickens died.

Suppose, following Huang (1982), Aoun (1986), and others, that when is merged VP-internally. Thus, the derivation of (366) starts as in (367). (367)

(Merge v + verb raising) a. [ VP died when4 ] 5 → (Merge Dickens) b. [ vP died2 +v [ VP t2 when4 ] 5 ] → ... c. [ vP Dickens died2 +v [ VP t2 when4 ] 5 ] →

In (367-c) the vP is complete. Note that at this point, the wh-goal when must raise into the edge domain of the vP-phase, i.e., to an outer specifier of v. Otherwise when would not be accessible to the probe [∗WH∗] that enters the derivation with the C-head. Then [∗WH∗] could not be checked and a fatal violation of the FC would occur (witness *I wonder Dickens died when). Note that when is trivially available for such a raising operation, as it is not contained within any phase (except for the vP-root). In orthodox minimalist theory, where LR is assumed to be inviolable, raising of when to Specv must be feature-driven. This raises the question what kind of probe on v might be involved. On the one hand, a wh-probe on v cannot force raising of when to Specv because such a wh-probe could be checked by remote Agree. On the other hand, an unspecific EPP-feature on v which

202


requires Specv to be overtly filled would not suffice either – crucially, it is the wh-element which must raise to the edge of v; Dickens in Specv cannot serve this purpose. As mentioned in section 1.4.1 above, Chomsky (2000, 108-109) therefore suggests that movement to an intermediate phase edge is triggered by an EPP-probe that is relativized to the type of probe that is the ultimate, underlying trigger for movement, i.e., a wh-probe in the case at hand (see also Chomsky (2001, 34)). Such a relativized [∗EPP∗] can only be checked by moving a wh-element into the relevant specifier position.154 Insertion of [∗EPP∗] is optional. Together with the P RINCIPLE OF M AXIMIZED M ATCH ING (see footnote 145), the desired effect of successive cyclic wh-movement is derived. In contrast to this, I would like to contend (following Heck and Müller (2000, 2003) in spirit) that almost everything needed for deriving successive cyclic wh-movement is already in place, once the concept of the numeration is taken into account. In Heck and Müller (2000, 2003), we suggested that successive cyclic wh-movement is triggered by the constraint P HASE BAL ANCE (PB), a constraint that requires movement to phase edges: (368)

P HASE BALANCE For every single probe β in the numeration there is a different accessible matching goal γ in the current phase Σ.

Note that (368) makes reference to the notion of ‘single probe’, which is also part of the definition of ‘active’ probe (as defined in (355)), which in turn LA was referring to. The idea behind (368) is that a goal γ is urged to move to the edge of the current phase Σ in order to remain accessible (in the sense of (358)) if there is a single probe β in the numeration that matches γ , i.e., a probe that is still in need of a goal to establish Agree with at some (possibly later) point of the derivation. As long as such a β exists, a matching γ must be kept within the accessible part of the structure in order to be available at the point where β enters the structure. PB takes care of that. Since there may be more than one such β , it is necessary to require there to be a different accessible γ for each active β (cf. footnote 149 above). PB-driven movement to the phase 154. This actually amounts to saying that two features are inserted at the edge of intermediate phases: [ EPP ] and [ WH ], the latter being an automatic reflex of the former (the issue was presented in these terms in an earlier version of Chomsky (2000)). Further work on feature-driven successive cyclic wh-movement includes Collins (1997), Fanselow and Mahajan (2000), and McCloskey (2002).

Sample Derivations

203

edge violates LR because β is still in the numeration (i.e., γ cannot establish Agree with it, due to lack of m-command). It can then only be effective provided that PB outranks LR. Thus PB-driven movement is non-feature driven movement, just like movement that is triggered by LA. And as with LA, the analysis is based on the intuition that there is information in the numeration that can be accessed in order to guide the derivation, namely the presence (or absence) of a single probe. As the numeration is a concept that is argued for on independent grounds, it is natural to assume that the derivation can make use of it. Note also that the introduction of PB does not change the outcome of any of the derivations that have been considered so far. The reader has surely noticed the strong parallelism between LA and PB. Recall that LA forces γ to move to the edge of the current phrase, provided there is an active matching β . Every time a head is merged to form a new Σ, LA triggers movement of a γ to SpecΣ if γ matches an active β . Again, such movement violates LR if β is still in the numeration. However, as LA is ranked higher than LR, by assumption, this violation is not fatal. Thus LA requires successive cyclic movement to the edge of each phrase, if possible (cf. also van Riemsdijk (1978), Boeckx (2001), and Müller (2004a)). Since every phase is also a phrase, LA is, in principle, well-suited to perform movement to phase edges as well. It does not matter that LA is violable, while PB is (presumably) not : if LA-driven movement to the phase edge did not take place, due to some independent factor, the derivation would crash later due to the inaccessibility of γ (γ being buried within the opaque domain of the phase) and the consequent fatal violation of the (inviolable) FC. Given that the cases covered by PB are a subset of those covered by LA, one may wonder whether it is possible to eliminate PB altogether, relying entirely on LA. Such a simplification would certainly be desirable. Unfortunately, it turns out that it would also come at a certain price. In section 1.5 of chapter 5, evidence is presented (based on massive pied-piping) that suggests that LA cannot cover all instances of movement to the phase edge that are triggered by PB. I therefore abstain from reducing PB to LA for now, leaving the question as to whether and how it could be achieved for further research. There is another issue here that requires some comment before moving on. A common argument for successive cyclic wh-movement to phase edges is that in some languages one can observe a (often morphological) reflex on the head of the phase that successive cyclic movement is supposed to pass through. Now, if successive cyclic wh-movement targets phrase edges instead (as suggested by LA), one would expect such reflexes to appear on non-phasal

204


heads, too. This seems to be the case (see, e.g., Collins (1997, 104-108) on the choice of subject pronouns in Ewe). McCloskey (2002, 5) takes the above mentioned reflexes to be an argument in favor of a feature-driven analysis of successive cyclic wh-movement and against a non-feature driven approach. The argument is that the reflexes in intermediate positions and the one in the final position are of the same type. This follows from the feature-driven analysis because both intermediate movement steps and the final one are licensed by checking a wh-probe, as opposed to the approach proposed here, where intermediate steps are nonfeature driven and only the final step is.155 McCloskey’s argument is somewhat weakened by the fact that presently there is no explicit theory that derives the existence of morphological markers from syntactic feature checking. In fact, such markers could just as well be taken to indicate the filling of certain specifier positions. What is more, it turns out that there are reflexes of successive cyclicity that are sensitive to the distinction between intermediate and final positions. In Duala, the marker no- occurs in the clause that contains 155. Independent evidence for a parallel behavior of intermediate and ultimate movement steps can be gained from partial wh-movement constructions in German: (i)

a. *Was glaubst du, [ DP ein Buch u¨ ber wen ] 2 der Fritz t2 gelesen hat? a book about who the Fritz read has what believe you ‘Who do you believe that Fritz read a book about?’ b. *Was glaubst du, [ AP stolz auf wen ] 2 der Fritz t2 gestern war? what believe you proud of who the Fritz yesterday was ‘Who do you believe that Fritz was proud of yesterday?’

(i-a,b) involve pied-piping to the intermediate SpecC-position, while the scope position is occupied by the wh-item was (see Lutz et al. (2000) and references therein). This is principally possible with a matrix verb like glauben ‘believe’. The ungrammaticality of (i-a,b) is arguably due to illicit pied-piping. Interestingly, (i-a,b) have the same status as (ii-a,b), where pied-piping targets the scope position of the interrogative: (ii)

a. *Ich wollte wissen, [ DP ein Buch u¨ ber wen ] 2 der Fritz t2 gelesen hat. I wanted to know a book about who the Fritz read has ‘I would like to know about whom Fritz has read a book.’ b. *Ich wollte mal wissen, [ AP stolz auf wen ] 2 der Fritz t2 gestern war. I wanted PART to know proud of who the Fritz yesterday was ‘I would like to know of whom Fritz was proud yesterday.’

Note it is standardly assumed that the verb glauben ‘believe’ in (i) does not embed interrogatives. Nevertheless, (i) behaves as if wh-feature checking were already an issue in the embedded SpecC-position. In fact, the parallelism is compatible with both a theory of feature-driven successive cyclic wh-movement and a theory like the present one.

205

Sample Derivations

the final landing site of wh-movement but not in clauses that wh-movement passes through (see Epée (1976)). The inverse can be observed in Wolof (see Torrence (2005)) and Kitharaka (see Muriungi (2003)), where the markers u- and n-, respectively, appear only in intermediate positions of successive cyclic wh-movement. Hence, even without specifying a theory of the reflexes of successive cyclicity it seems fair to assume that the distinction between feature-driven and non-feature driven movement can play a role in accounting for this phenomenon. Returning to the main plot, under this view local optimization of the vP in (367-c) proceeds as in tableau T5 (as always, the relevance of verb raising for optimization is ignored for ease of exposition).

T5 : Local optimization: vP-cycle; successive cyclic wh-movement Input: [ vP Dickens died2 +v [ VP t2 when ]] Num: { . . . , John, wonders, C[∗WH∗] , T} O1 : [ vP Dickens died2 +v [ VP t2 when3 ]] ☞ O2 : [ vP when3 Dickens died2 +v [ VP t2 t3 ]]

PB *!

FC

LA

LR

** *

*

As vP is a phase, PB is relevant in principle. Candidate O2 incurs an LRviolation due to non-feature driven movement of when to Specv (when does not check any probe on the vP-cycle). This movement is triggered by PB via the active wh-probe in the numeration. After movement of when, the vPphase is balanced and PB is satisfied. The incurred LR-violation of O2 is not fatal. Leaving the adjunct in-situ results in a violation of the higher ranked PB (see O1 ), which is worse. Consequently, the derivation (368) proceeds by raising of when to Specv; see (368-d) below. As mentioned above, movement of when is independently forced by LA (the adjunct is dominated by two phrases before movement but only by one afterwards, cf. the definition in (354)). After T is merged, raising of when to an outer specifier of T, thereby crossing the vP-boundary, is triggered by LA. In addition to this, subject raising of Dickens applies, satisfying [∗EPP∗] on T in an optimal manner; see (368-e). Note that raising of when to SpecT must not involve checking of [∗EPP∗], which would block subject raising. This follows if the elimination of [∗EPP∗] requires a case-feature or a D-feature (which when lacks).

206


The PIC is respected by both raising operations because the adjunct and the subject occupy specifier positions (i.e., positions in the edge domain) of vP. Again, output candidates that leave when and Dickens in Specv fatally violate LA and are thus ruled out. Finally, after the C-head that bears [∗WH∗] has been merged, when undergoes regular feature-driven wh-movement to SpecC, without violating LA or LR (see (368-f)). Note in passing that in this last step, PB is not even relevant (despite CP being a phase) because the only remaining probe ([∗WH∗]) has left the numeration, together with C, and thus the precondition for PB (that there be a single probe in the numeration) is no longer given. Moreover, the PIC is irrelevant, TP not being a phase. (368)

(Move when) c. [ vP Dickens died2 +v t2 when4 ] → d. [ vP when4 Dickens died2 +v t2 t4 ] → (Merge T + Move Dickens, when) e. [ TP when4 Dickens6 [ vP t4 t6 died2 +v t2 t4 ]] → (Merge C + Move when) ... f. [ CP when4 C [ TP t4 Dickens6 [ vP t4 t6 died2 +v t2 t4 ]]] →

The construction of both TP and CP continues on the basis of the optimal candidate of the previous cycle. The derivation proceeds until the numeration is empty. All the optimizations involved are completely analogous to those already discussed above and are thus left out here.

2.4.

Successive Cyclic Wh-Movement with Pied-Piping

Finally consider (369), whose derivation involves successive cyclic pied-piping. (369)

John wonders in what manner Dickens died.

To begin with, no raising of the PP4 in what manner to SpecV applies at the VP5 -level (see (370-a)): such raising does not cross the VP-level and can hence not improve the structure with respect to LA. However, it violates LR and is therefore blocked. In contrast, raising of the wh-goal what matter to SpecV would improve on LA (the PP-boundary is skipped) but at the same time it violates the CED because PP4 constitutes an island in (369) (witness the ill-formedness of *John wonders what manner Dickens died in). Consequently no movement applies at the VP-level.

Sample Derivations

207

Once the vP has been constructed, however, raising to Specv must apply in order to satisfy PB: vP is a phase and there is a single [∗WH∗] in the numeration. Again, the bare wh-phrase what manner cannot move, thereby stranding the preposition. Raising still requires pied-piping of PP4 (see (370-d)). (370)

a. [ VP died [ PP in what manner ] 4 ] 5 → (Merge v + verb raising) b. [ vP died2 +v [ VP t2 [ PP in what manner ] 4 ] 5 ] → (Merge Dickens) c. [ vP Dickens died2 +v [ VP t2 [ PP in what manner ] 4 ] 5 ] → (Move PP4 ) d. [ vP [ PP in what manner ] 4 Dickens died2 +v [ VP t2 t4 ] 5 ] → . . .

After raising, the goal what manner is accessible within vP. It does not occupy Specv, rather PP4 does; but PP4 , which is not a phase, immediately dominates the wh-goal, which renders it accessible within PP4 . It follows by recursion (step (359-c-ii) of the definition of ‘edge domain’) that the wh-goal is also accessible within vP. Perhaps at first sight (remnant) raising of VP5 to Specv in order to render the wh-goal accessible should be possible, too; see (370-d ). (370)

c. [ vP Dickens died2 +v [ VP t2 [ PP in what manner ] 4 ] 5 ] → (Move VP5 ) ... d. [ vP [ VP t2 in what manner ] 5 Dickens died2 +v t5 ] →

As matters stand, there is no problem with respect to accessibility. It was argued above that [ WH ] is accessible within PP4 . As VP5 , which dominates PP4 , is not a phase, it follows by one recursive step (see (360-b) of the definition of ‘domain’) that [ WH ] is also accessible within VP5 . And once VP5 has been moved to Specv, it is in the accessible edge domain of the phase. Thus by one additional recursive step ((359-c-ii)), it follows that [ WH ] is also accessible within the vP in (370-d ). But there are both empirical and theoretical reasons to reject such an analysis. To begin with, if VP5 -raising to Specv were an option, then other possible derivations would be able to continue on its basis. Thus, after subject and verb raising, VP5 should be able to undergo wh-movement to SpecC: (371)

I know [ VP t5 in what manner ] 4 Dickens3 [ vP t4 t3 died5 t4 ].

Alternatively, wh-movement could raise PP4 (again after raising of subject and verb), stranding VP5 in Specv:

208 (372)


I know [ PP in what manner ] 6 Dickens3 [ vP [ VP t5 t6 ] 4 t3 died5 t4 ].

As concerns the linear order, both derivations derive the correct result. But there are good reasons to assume that neither (371) nor (372) can be the structure underlying (369). First, there is evidence that pied-piping of VP to SpecC is not an option if VP-raising is not masked by verb raising, as it is in (371). Namely, if there is no v-position the verb can raise to, as in passives, the hypothesized pied-piping of VP is impossible, see (373). (373)

*I wonder [ VP killed t3 in what manner ] 4 Dickens3 was t4 .

Turning to (372), it has been claimed that wh-movement (and movement in general) is not able to strand material in intermediate landing positions (the freezing generalization; see, e.g., Ross (1967, 1986), Postal (1972a), Wexler and Culicover (1980)).156 Thus, in (374-a,b) a PP is stranded in an intermediate SpecC-position by wh-movement. In both cases, the result is ill-formed. (374)

a. *Max, who2 I believe [ PP to t2 ] 3 Mary thinks Joan talked t3 , . . . b. *Max, who2 I believe Mary thinks [ PP to t2 ] 3 Joan talked t3 , . . .

This follows directly from Huang’s CED because complement positions cannot be the target of movement. Thus, the PPs in (374) are stranded in noncomplement positions and thus constitute barriers for extraction. Arguably, the same should then hold for (372). Thus, while (372) is blocked on independent grounds, (371) and (373) require some explanation. As it turns out, the present theory can provide it. To see this, consider tableau T6 . T6 : Local optimization: vP-cycle; successive cyclic wh-movement Input: [ vP D. V2 +v [ VP t2 [ PP . . . what . . . ] 4 ] 5 ] Num: { . . . , John, wonders, C[∗WH∗] , T} O1 : [ vP D. V2 [ VP t2 [ PP . . . what . . . ] 4 ] 5 ] ☞ O2 : [ vP [ PP . . . what . . . ] 4 D. V2 [ VP t2 t4 ] 5 ] O3 : [ vP [ VP t2 [ PP . . . what . . . ] 4 ] 5 D. V2 t5 ]

PB *!

FC

LA

LR

*** ** ***!

* *

156. McCloskey (2000) provides a potential counter-example to the freezing generalization that involves stranding of a floating quantifier in an intermediate position in an Irish dialect of English. Müller (2008) proposes a theory that systematically derives anti-freezing effects (called ‘melting’ by Müller). See also section 2.3.5, chapter 2, and footnote 177 in section 2.5 and section 3.5.4, both in chapter 4, for related remarks.

Summary

209

Crucially, LA is decisive for the choice between raising PP4 or VP5 to Specv. The reason is that raising of only PP4 crosses the VP boundary and therefore optimizes with respect to LA. If VP5 raises, the VP boundary dominates [ WH ] both before and after movement. Pied-piping is thus minimized if only the PP undergoes raising. The rest of the derivation proceeds on the basis of (370-d). Its steps parallel those of the derivations already discussed, with raising of both Dickens and PP4 to SpecT (raising of PP4 violating LR in favor of LA) and subsequent raising of PP4 to SpecC. This last step does not violate LR due to a subsequent application of Agree with the wh-probe on C; however, one LA-violation is still left due to obligatory pied-piping of the PP.

3.

Summary

This chapter provided the theoretical background that the analyses in chapters 4 and 5 build upon. It started from the assumption that certain central tenets of the minimalist program (see Chomsky (1995, 2000, 2001)) and of optimality theory (see Prince and Smolensky (2004), McCarthy and Prince (2004)) are not incompatible but rather orthogonal to each other. It was suggested that one way of combining these tenets, the minimalist assumption that syntax unfolds in a derivational fashion on the one hand and the assumption from optimality theory that the determination of grammaticality involves input/output optimization on the other hand, consists of interspersing them in a cyclic interleaving fashion: each phrasal cycle of structure-building operations is followed by a cycle of input/output optimization of different variants of the phrase in question. The output of optimization then serves as part of the input for the next structure-building cycle etc., until the numeration is empty. The extension of a phrase thus always relies on a locally optimal substructure. Extensions that would be based on locally suboptimal substructures are not considered. Several theoretical concepts were introduced that will prove useful in the next chapter, when the generalizations on pied-piping are derived. Among these were the F EATURE C ONDITION (FC, see Chomsky (1995)), which requires probes (a particular type of features) to be eliminated as soon as possible, once they have entered the syntax. Elimination is achieved by establishing Agree (Chomsky (2001)) between the probe and a matching goal-feature. Moreover, Agree can license syntactic movement. To be precise, any applica-

210


tion of Move must be followed by the application of Agree within the same cycle. This was assumed to be necessary in order to satisfy the constraint L AST R ESORT (LR, see also Chomsky (1995)). Departing from standard assumptions I followed the view put forth in Heck and Müller (2000, 2003), where it is suggested that LR is violable in favor of higher ranked constraints. A consequence of this assumption is that non-feature driven movement is possible if required. All syntactic operations were assumed to be subject to the S TRICT C YCLE C ONDITION (SCC, see Chomsky (1973)) and the P HASE I MPENETRA BILITY C ONDITION (PIC, see Chomsky (2000)). While the SCC is relevant to every cyclic node, i.e., every phrase in the present theory, the PIC makes reference to a particular type of phrase only, the phase. To put it in a nutshell, the SCC restricts the possible positions of a probe to within the current cyclic phrase Σ while the PIC restricts the possible positions for a matching goal. The restrictions imposed by the PIC were expressed in terms of the notion of accessibility, the idea being that any syntactic operation that involves a probegoal relation can only apply if the goal is accessible to the probe. While this is fairly standard in any theory that employs the PIC, the present theory defines accessibility in a recursive manner, thereby enlarging the probe’s scope and allowing it to find a goal that is embedded within the edge domain of the next lower phase. Support for this idea is provided in section 1.1 of chapter 4, where it is illustrated that this notion of accessibility is able to derive the recursive nature of pied-piping (see section 1, chapter 2 for a presentation of the empirical facts). At the core of the theory is the constraint L OCAL AGREE (LA). In principle, Agree can apply in a remote fashion, i.e., probe and goal do not have to be in a specifier-head configuration. The purpose of LA is to keep Agree as local as possible. If LA outranks LR, then non-feature driven movement can apply at the cost of LR in order to render Agree more local than it would be without such movement. Moreover, like LR, LA was assumed to be violable. As a consequence, pied-piping, which systematically violates LA, is possible. As will become clear in chapter 4, LA is also able to derive two other properties of pied-piping, namely the existence of secondary wh-movement and the fact that pied-piping has the flavor of a repair-strategy. Finally the constraint P HASE BALANCE (PB, Heck and Müller (2000, 2003)), was introduced in order to provide a trigger for successive cyclic wh-movement to the edge of phases (in violation of LR) without resorting to spurious wh-features (see Collins (1997), Fanselow and Mahajan (2000), Chomsky (2001)).

Chapter 4 Deriving the Generalizations, Part One

The purpose of the present chapter is to suggest how the first three generalizations presented in chapter 2 (i.e., the generalization on recursive pied-piping, the generalization on secondary wh-movement, and the repair generalization) can be derived on the basis of the concepts introduced in chapter 3. Recall that the first three generalizations are concerned with pied-piping as it occurs in embedded interrogatives and in restrictive relative clauses. As opposed to this, generalizations four and five (the generalization on massive pied-piping and the intervention generalization) are concerned with massive pied-piping, as it occurs in appositive relative clauses (and, perhaps, matrix questions). As it turns out, the theoretical concepts introduced in chapter 3 will not be sufficient yet to account for massive pied-piping. Accordingly, generalizations four and five are addressed in chapter 5, where the necessary concepts are provided, too.

1.


Let me begin with recursive pied-piping. For convenience, the relevant generalization is repeated in (375). (375)

Generalization on recursive pied-piping If a wh-phrase α can pied-pipe a constituent β , and if β is in a canonical position to pied-pipe γ , then α can also pied-pipe γ .

As illustrated in chapter 2, one can identify different instantiations of (375). Some of them involve recursive paths that exclusively consist of specifiers, some involve pure recursive complement paths, and some involve recursive paths that are combined from specifiers and complements.

1.1.

Recursive Specifiers

Consider pied-piping of a DP by the wh-possessor whose in English, as illustrated in (376).

212 (376)

Deriving the Generalizations, Part One

a. a man whose deckchair you spilled coffee on b. a man whose sister’s deckchair you spilled coffee on

In section 2.2 of chapter 3 the derivation of an example similar to (376-a) was dealt with in detail. Although it was not quite the same as (376-a) (it involved pied-piping of a subject while (376-a) involves pied-piping of an object), all that is necessary for the analysis of (376-a) was said there already. Turning to (376-b), suppose that the derivation has reached a stage where whose sister’s deckchair is already part of the workspace. After having been combined with the preposition on, the PP on whose sister’s deckchair and the argument coffee are both merged with the verb, resulting in the VP spilled coffee on whose sister’s deckchair (see (377-a)). VP is not a phase and PB is thus irrelevant. LA, however, is relevant, as a single [∗WH∗] on C is loitering in the numeration, awaiting to be checked at some later point by [ WH ] on whose. As a consequence, LA triggers movement of DP3 whose sister’s deckchair to SpecV, thereby skipping the PP-boundary, see (377-b). (As suggested in chapter 3, movement of bare whose and of whose sister is blocked by the LBC). The next steps then involve Merge of v with VP, Merge of the subject you in Specv, and verb raising (377-c,d). (377)

a. [ VP spilled coffee [ PP on [ DP whose sister’s deckchair ] 3 ]] → (Move DP3 ) b. [ VP [ DP whose . . . ] 3 spilled coffee [ PP on t3 ]] → (Merge v, you) c. [ vP you v [ VP [ DP whose . . . ] 3 spilled coffee on t3 ]] → (Move V) d. [ vP you spilled4 +v [ VP [ DP whose . . . ] 3 t4 coffee on t3 ]] → . . .

By the same reasoning, DP3 then moves to an outer specifier of vP, thereby skipping the VP-boundary and thus reducing the number of LA-violations by one. In addition to that, raising of DP3 also satisfies PB. vP is a phase and thus it needs to be balanced. The numeration still contains the active [∗WH∗]. Note that [ WH ] on whose is accessible in vP once DP3 is in Specv (accessibility being a condition for PB to be satisfied). Here is why. Although whose is not in the edge domain of vP, DP3 is. The relevant parts of the recursive definition of accessibility from chapter 3 (here repeated as (378) and (379)) enure that whose is accessible within DP3 (the relevant step being (379-c-ii)).


(378)

Accessibility γ is accessible in Ω iff a. or b. hold. a. Ω is a phase and γ is in the edge domain of Ω. b. Ω is not a phase and γ is in the domain of Ω.

(379)


213

Again, whose is not in the edge domain of DP3 , but the DP whose sister is. Entering recursion once more, it must be determined whether whose is accessible within whose sister. Whose is in the edge domain of the DP-phase whose sister, see the grammaticality of (376-a). Returning from the recursive descent, it follows that whose is accessible within DP3 and therefore also within vP. This is the same reasoning that was applied in sections 2.2 and 2.4 in chapter 3. Tableau T7 shows the optimal vP-candidate and its most relevant losing competitors. T7 : Local optimization of vP: pied-piping of recursive specifiers Input: [ vP you . . . [ VP [ DP whose . . . ] 3 . . . ]] Num: { a, man C[∗WH∗] , T[∗EPP∗] } O1 : [ vP you . . . [ VP [ DP whose . . . ] 3 . . . ]] ☞ O2 : [ vP [ DP whose . . . ] 3 you . . . [ VP t3 . . . ]] O3 : [ vP whose5 you . . . [ VP [ DP t5 . . . ] 3 . . . ]]

PB

LBC

LA

LR

*!

*** ** *

* *

*!

O2 in T7 is optimal and thus whose sister’s deckchair raises to Specv. As the notion of accessibility is also relevant for the PIC, it follows from the above reasoning that [ WH ] on whose remains available for further steps of the derivation. In what follows, both DP3 and the subject you undergo LAtriggered movement to specifiers of T; DP3 raises due to [∗WH∗] (the probe on C), you due to [∗EPP∗] on T.157 In both cases, movement helps to avoid 157. As already noted in section 2.3 [∗EPP∗] must be checked by the subject (and not by DP3 in the case at hand). This could be ensured if checking of [∗EPP∗] were intimately tied to the feature (value) [ NOMINATIVE ].

214


a vP-induced LA-violation; only raising of DP3 incurs a (non-fatal) violation of LR. Finally, once C is merged, DP3 moves to SpecC, movement being triggered by LA once more. (Recall from chapter 3 that PB is not relevant at this step as the single probe [∗WH∗] has been taken from the numeration.). Crucially, once DP3 is in SpecC, [ WH ] on whose is accessible to [∗WH∗] on C by the very same reasoning that applied above; Agree can be established and [∗WH∗] is eliminated. The derivation unfolds as is shown below. (377)

d. [ vP you spilled [ VP [ DP whose . . . ] 3 coffee on t3 ]] → (Move DP3 ) e. [ vP [ DP whose . . . ] 3 you spilled [ VP t3 coffee on t3 ]] → (Merge T) f. [ TP T [ vP [ DP whose . . . ] 3 you5 spilled coffee on t3 ] → (Move DP3 , you) g. [ TP [ DP whose . . . ] 3 you5 [ vP t3 t5 spilled coffee on t3 ] → (Merge C) h. [ CP C[∗WH∗] [ TP [ DP whose . . . ] 3 you5 spilled coffee on t3 ]] → (Move DP3 ) f. [ CP [ DP whose . . . ] 3 C[∗WH∗] [ TP t3 you5 spilled . . . t3 ] → . . .

I skip the remaining steps. The analysis carries directly over to other languages that exhibit pied-pipers that are recursively embedded within specifier paths, such as Danish, Russian, Polish, or German (see sections 1.1.2-1.1.5, chapter 2). To conclude, the present approach derives recursive pied-piping by the recursive definition of accessibility, which in turn is anchored to the definition of the PIC (see (357) in chapter 3). There is no (recursive) wh-feature percolation that transfers [ WH ] from the pied-piper to the pied-piped constituent. Rather, the wh-probe on the C-head scans for an appropriate [ WH ] within the pied-piped constituent. Pied-piping is not well-formed unless [ WH ] is accessible within this constituent.

1.2.

Recursive Complements

Let us turn to cases where recursion descents into a complement cascade. To this end, consider (380), which involves pied-piping of several PP-shells in a restrictive relative clause in German.


(380)

215

der Punkt, [ PP bis zu dem ] 4 man t4 geht up to which one goes the point ‘the point that one goes to’

Assume that the two PP-shells headed by zu and bis, respectively, have already been assembled (381-a). I am assuming here that PP is not a phase; thus PB is irrelevant. In principle, movement of the relative pronoun dem to the specifier of the higher P would spare an LA-violation induced by the inner PP-shell. Such movement, however, is not attested in (380). I suggest that there is an independent factor blocking it, which seems natural, given that German generally does not exhibit preposition stranding. In the next step the verb is merged (381-b). Again, stranding of zu or bis is prohibited and movement of PP4 to SpecV does not gain anything with respect to LA. Also, VP is not a phase and PB therefore is not an issue. This changes after v (and the subject man) has been merged (381-c,d). vP is a phase and accordingly PB forces vP to be balanced. There is also a single [∗WH∗] in the numeration. The only way to balance vP (without stranding a preposition) is by pied-piping PP4 to an outer specifier of vP (381-e). (381)

(Merge V) a. [ PP bis [ PP zu dem ] 3 ] 4 → (Merge v) b. [ VP [ PP bis zu dem ] 4 geht ] → c. [ vP [ VP [ PP bis zu dem ] 4 geht ] v ] → (Merge man + verb raising) (Move PP4 ) d. [ vP man [ VP [ PP bis zu dem ] 4 t5 ] geht5 +v ] → e. [ vP [ PP bis zu dem ] 4 man [ VP t4 t5 ] geht5 +v ] → ...

For [ WH ] to be accessible within vP it must be in vP’s edge domain. In (381-e), the edge domain of vP is occupied by PP4 . PB is satisfied if [ WH ] is accessible within PP4 . Since PP is not a phase, (378-b) requires that [ WH ] be in the domain of PP4 . The notion of domain from chapter 3 is repeated in (382) for convenience. (382)


216


Since dem (which bears [ WH ]) is not immediately dominated by PP4 , a recursive descent into (382-b-ii) is required. This raises the question as to whether [ WH ] of dem is accessible within PP3 (zu dem). And indeed, PP3 immediately dominates dem, satisfying (382-a). Jumping back from the recursive descent, it follows that dem (or [ WH ] for that matter) is accessible in PP4 , too, and therefore also in vP. Note in passing that raising of the VP would have satisfied PB equally well. However, VP-raising (as opposed to PP4 -raising) is disfavored by LA because it does not reduce the number of phrase boundaries that dominate [ WH ] but not [∗WH∗] (cf. section 2.4 of chapter 3). Nothing spectacular happens during the rest of the derivation. Due to the ban against preposition stranding PP4 undergoes pied-piping until it reaches SpecC. [ WH ] within PP4 remains accessible all the time. Pied-piping of larger portions of structure is blocked by LA. To sum up, I illustrated how recursive pied-piping of the ‘homogeneous’ type is derived by the present theory. I abstain from discussing cases that involve recursive paths that traverse both specifier and complement domains. The reader can easily check that their derivations are combined from parts of derivations of the homogeneous type.

1.3.

Recursion Breakdown Revisited

This section addresses the observation mentioned in section 1.4 of chapter 2 that not all recursive paths into specifier or complement domains allow the wh-probe to find a goal. As to recursion breakdowns in the complement domain, I concentrate on DPs for the moment. The explanation offered here raises another question that bears some relevance with respect to secondary wh-movement. In section 3.1 below, I address the observation that complements of prepositions cannot induce pied-piping of PP in languages where P can be stranded. The account I propose to derive this can then be directly applied to explain why the (recursive) complement domains of several other categories that were discussed in sections 3.2–3.6 and 3.9 of chapter 2 cannot undergo pied-piping. With respect to recursion breakdowns in the specifier domain, I explicitly address the lack of recursive pied-piping by wh-possessors in Icelandic (see section 1.3.2). But I cannot offer more than a speculation as to why Icelandic differs from the related Germanic languages Danish and English in this respect. The lack of recursive pied-piping by a wh-possessor in Tzotzil (and


217

other Mesoamerican languages, see section 1.4, chapter 2) was already taken up in section 3.10, chapter 2, where it was suggested that it can be subsumed under the repair generalization: the idea was that since in Tzotzil movement of the possessor to a higher DP-specifier (plus subsequent pied-piping of the associated DP) is possible, pied-piping from the specifier of an embedded DP is impossible (which, as is clear now, is assumed to be blocked by LA).

1.3.1.

Impervious Domains

Consider the ungrammatical example of an embedded interrogative in English that involves pied-piping of a DP. (383)

*Horace claims to know [ DP the sister of whom ] 2 t2 met Egbert.

Under the assumptions presented in chapter 3 everything needed to explain the ungrammaticality of (383) is already at hand. The pied-piped constituent is a DP, a phase. PB requires that it be balanced. When DP2 is constructed, a single [∗WH∗] (on the C-head that will ultimately become the head of the embedded CP) is still part of the numeration. However, [ WH ] on whom in (383) is not accessible within DP2 (being neither in the specifier domain nor in the head domain of DP2 ). Thus, the derivation of (383) violates PB on the DP-cycle. This immediately raises the question as to why (383) does not improve if the wh-phrase moves to SpecD. (384), where the wh-feature is accessible within DP, is still ill-formed.158 (384)

*Horace claims to know [ DP who3 the sister of t3 ] 2 t2 met Egbert.

I conclude that there is an independent reason why a pied-piping analysis of (384) is ungrammatical. Suppose that although a wh-phrase may move to SpecD in order to balance DP, it still cannot remain there. For instance, 158. There is yet another analysis of (384), which involves extraction of who out of the sister of who, the latter forming a subject island, see (i). (i)

*Horace claims to know who3 [ DP the sister of t3 ] 2 t2 met Egbert.

DP3 in (i) occupies a non-complement position and thus extraction from it violates the CED (see section 4.1.2, chapter 1). In this way, (i) is part of the explanation for the illformedness of (384).

218


Giorgi and Longobardi (1991) propose that only categories that bear the feature (value) [ GENITIVE ] can overtly appear in SpecD. Something similar also holds for successive cyclic wh-movement to SpecC. In other words, in many languages a wh-phrase that has moved to an intermediate SpecC-position cannot induce clausal pied-piping of that CP (section 3.12.2, chapter 2; see also section 2.3.2 below). This is illustrated for English in (385). (385)

a. *an official [ CP who3 that Egbert bribed t3 ] 2 t2 was a mistake b.*?a book [ CP which3 after Egbert had read t3 ] 2 he fell asleep t2 c. *decisions [ CP which3 who had made t3 ] 2 Horace asked t2

Generalizing these two observations, I tentatively propose the following constraint: (386)

P HASE E DGE C ONDITION A wh-phrase α can be spelled out at the edge of a phase P if and only if an Agree relation between the head of P and α has been established.

Assuming that successive cyclic wh-movement is in fact not feature-driven (except for the very last step), as proposed in chapter 3, illegitimate clausal pied-piping as in (385) and the case in (384) are treated on a par by the P HASE E DGE C ONDITION (PEC). As far as I can see, a feature-driven analysis of successive cyclic wh-movement also requires additional assumptions in order to account for the ill-formedness of (384) and (385). I must leave open the question if and how the PEC can be derived from more basic principles. The definition of (386) raises a technical problem if Chomsky’s (2001) theory of cyclic spell-out is adopted.159 To put it briefly, according to this theory a phrase marker is spelled-out not as a whole but rather phase by phase. Spell-out of a phase P exclusively affects the domain of P and exempts its edge domain. P’s edge domain undergoes spell-out together with the domain of the next higher phase (see section 2.5 below and 2.1, chapter 5 for more details). The problem with respect to the PEC is how it can be checked whether the pied-piper α , which occupies the edge domain of P, has established Agree with some [∗F∗] on P’s head at the point that α is spelled-out. Agree between 159. The same problem arises even more clearly in a theory where spell-out applies to the complete phrase marker. The reason I mention cyclic spell-out here is that this theory comes up again in chapter 5.


219

α and P’s head applies at an earlier cycle than spell-out of α . When α undergoes spell-out, the information that α has established Agree has been lost. Agree cannot be procrastinated until spell-out applies to α because of the SCC.160 To solve the problem, one may resort to the idea that Agree marks features as eliminated or valued so as to leave a trace of its application. There remains another question yet. Both (383) and (384) are ungrammatical. It follows that neither of them can emerge as the winner of the local optimization of the DP-cycle. But every input/output optimization must have an optimal candidate. The question is what this candidate is. This is the problem of absolute ungrammaticality (ineffability). There are different ways to approach this question. I pick one particular here (see Prince and Smolensky (2004)). The idea is that there is an output candidate that is called the ‘null parse’ or ‘empty output’, represented by Ø. A crucial property of Ø is that it is part of every competition, i.e., it is generated as a possible option throughout. Ø is subject to the following constraint: (387)

E MPTY O UTPUT C ONSTRAINT Avoid an empty output.

The E MPTY O UTPUT C ONSTRAINT (EOC) is ranked somewhere within the constraint hierarchy H of a language L and induces a cut in this hierarchy. All constraints that are ranked above the EOC in H are actually inviolable in L. All constraints that are ranked below the EOC in H are violable in L. Suppose now that PB, the CED, and the PEC are all ranked above the EOC. Then, if all output candidates of a competition violate at least one of these, like (383) and (384) (and (i) in footnote 158), then Ø will be optimal because the EOC is the only constraint violated by Ø.161 In this way, absolute ungrammaticality arises if the optimal output candidate is the empty output Ø.

160. Actually, even if Agree and spell-out applied at the same cycle, this would not help: if Agree applied before spell-out, its application could not be traced back; if it applied after spell-out, the PEC would be violated (see Epstein and Seely (2002) for the discussion of a similar problem). 161. It might be the case that Ø violates faithfulness constraints since it does not preserve any property that was part of the input. Under this view, the EOC can be understood as a theorem of the set of faithfulness constraints it violates.

220 1.3.2.


Wh-Possessors in Icelandic

As mentioned in section 1.4 of chapter 2, Icelandic does not allow recursive embedding of (post-nominal) wh-possessors in pied-piping. The relevant contrast is repeated in (388). (388)

´ velti þv´ı fyrir a. Eg mér [ DP móDur hvers ] 2 hann kvæntist t2 . mother whose he married I roll it in-front me ‘I wonder whose mother he married.’ ´ velti þv´ı fyrir b. *Eg mér [ DP systur móDur hvers ] 2 hann sister mother’s whose he I roll it in-front me kvæntist t2 . married ‘I wonder whose mother’s sister he married.’

There are two ways how one can make sure that the wh-possessor is accessible within DP in (388-a). First, one may assume that SpecD in Icelandic is right branching. Second, it is possible that (388-a) does not involve a DP but only a bare NP. Evidence for the latter assumption comes from the fact that the wh-possessive must appear post-nominally if there is no definite determiner (see also section 2.5 below). This might also apply to Russian; as noted in section 1.1.3, chapter 2, Russian also exhibits post-nominal piedpipers. And it has been argued on independent grounds that Russian may also lack a DP-projection (see, for instance, Corver (1990)). But this leaves unaccounted the ungrammaticality of (388-b). If hvers in (388-a) is accessible within DP, why then is móDur hvers in (388-b) not accessible within DP, too? Analogous examples are grammatical in Danish (see section 1.1.2, chapter 2). Delsing (1988, 75) argues that Danish, alongside Swedish and Norwegian, exhibits the syntactic genitive of the English type (see also Delsing (1993)). This is illustrated for Swedish by (389). (389)

Den gamle mannen med skägget-s hus the old man.the with beard.the-s house ‘the old man with the beard’s house’

The genitive -s in (389) attaches to the complex phrase den gamle mannen med skägget ‘the old man with the beard’, as it would in English. Icelandic, in contrast, exhibits the morphological genitive of the type also found in German (see Delsing (1993, 158)).


221

Recall from section 1.1.5 of chapter 2 that German shows restrictions on the availability of recursively embedded wh-possessors if the possessor bears [ GENITIVE ]. No such restrictions arise in the context of possessors that bear [ DATIVE ], though. This suggests that the restrictions are connected to particular properties of morphological marking of [ GENITIVE ], not to pied-piping per se. Since Icelandic exhibits the same type of genitive marking as German (as opposed to Danish and English), it seems natural to assume that Icelandic is subject to similar restrictions as German, which then cause (388-b) to be illformed. I remain agnostic as to what exactly these restrictions are, though.162 1.4.

Wh-Degree Constructions

Wh-degree constructions in German show a rather unusual behavior with respect to pied-piping, in particular given the assumptions that were made in section 1.3 above. As observed by Rapp (1992), Lutz and Trissler (1997), and Trissler (1999), some German speakers accept wh-degree constructions like the one in (390-a).163 As before, the constituent containing the degree element is labeled as α so as to avoid any commitment as to its actual category. 162. In Dutch, the genitive marker also attaches to complex phrases. Yet, Peter Ackema (p.c.) informs me that pied-piping by recursively embedded specifiers is not always wellformed. The deeper the embeddeding, the more the construction is degraded, see (i). (i)

a.

een man [ DP wiens houding ] 2 ik bewonder t2 a man whose attitude I admire ‘a man whose attitude I admire’ b. ?een man [ DP wiens zusters houding ] 3 ik bewonder t3 a man whose sister’s attitude I admire ‘a man whose sister’s attitude I admire’ c. *een man [ DP wiens zusters vriends houding ] 4 ik bewonder t4 I admire whose sister’s friend’s attitude a man ‘a man whose sister’s friend’s attitude I admire’

An anonymous reviewer judges analogous examples (wiens moeders buurmans huis ‘whose mother’s neighbour’s house’) as grammatical. Probably, the degraded judgments indicated in (i) can be attributed to a performance factor. 163. I find (390-a) awkward. But comparable constructions involving wieviel ‘how much’ and a definite determiner are better and also raise the problem mentioned in the main text: (i)

Fritz fragt, [ DP den wievielten Geburtstag ] 2 Maria heute t2 feiert. Maria today celebrates the how-many-th birthday Fritz asks ‘Fritz asks which birthday Mary celebrates today.’

222 (390)


a. Fritz fragt, [ DP ein [ α wie großes ] 2 Problem ] 3 das t3 ist. Fritz asks a how big problem this is ‘Fritz knows how big a problem this is.’ b. *Fritz fragt, [ DP [ α wie großes ] 2 ein t2 Problem ] 3 das t3 ist. how big a problem this is Fritz asks

The well-formedness of these examples is unaccounted for by the theory presented so far. The wh-phrase is embedded within the complement domain of the indefinite determiner ein ‘a’ of the pied-piped DP. As such, it is not accessible within DP. Consequently, (390-a) should violate PB, contrary to fact. On the other hand, movement of the category wie großes ‘how big’ to SpecD, as in (390-b), to a position that would render [ WH ] accessible is impossible in German. This is perhaps surprising, given that such movement can be observed in other Germanic languages such as English (391-a) or Danish (392-a) (see also section 2.7.2). Moreover, raising of the category containing the degree-element is obligatory in these languages (see (391-b), (392-b) for English and Danish, respectively). (391)

a. Egbert knows [ DP [ α how hard ] 2 a t2 problem ] 3 she solved t3 . b. *Egbert knows [ DP a [ α how hard ] 2 problem ] 3 she solved t3 .

(392)

a. Jeg gad vide [ DP [ α hvor stor ] 2 en t2 gryde ] 3 man har how big a pot one has I would know brug for t3 . use for ‘I would like to know how big a pot we need.’ b. *Jeg gad vide [ DP en [ α hvor stor ] 2 gryde ] 3 man har brug a how big pot one has use I would know for t3 . for

This type of movement is dependent on the presence of a degree element. It is therefore natural to assume that it is triggered by a probe [∗DEG∗] on D (see section 2.7.2 below for more details). German differs from English and Danish in that the adjective groß ‘big’ that is part of the α -category in (390) agrees with the noun (and the determiner) with respect to [ CASE ], [ GENDER ], and [ NUMBER ]. Thus, the marker -es on groß-es in (390) expresses the values [ NOMINATIVE ], [ NEUTER ], and


223

[ SINGULAR ]. But this agreement cannot be responsible for the fact that the wh-goal is accessible within DP, thus it cannot explain the well-formedness of (390-a). The reason is that other cases that also involve agreement between a pre-nominal adjective and the noun are not well-formed if the pied-piper (that associates with the adjective) is in the complement domain of D, see (393). (393)

*Fritz fragte, [ DP ein wem gewidmetes Buch ] 3 Maria t3 liest. a whom dedicated book Maria reads Fritz asked ‘Fritz asked to who the book is dedicated that Maria reads.’

However, agreement might be responsible for the fact that in German there is no overt degree movement, as there is in English or Danish, the idea being that if the adjective morphologically expresses agreement with the noun, it cannot be separated from it by syntactic movement. Note further that (393) does not involve a degree element (as wie ‘how’ in German) but merely a bona fide (past participial) adjective. This suggests that the presence of the degree element wie is crucial for the well-formedness of (390-a).164 Moreover, it recalls the pattern of VP-pied-piping in German mentioned in section 3.13.4 of chapter 2. As Trissler (1999) and Reis (2006) note, VP-pied-piping, too, requires the presence of a degree element, see the contrast in (394). (394)

a. Fritz will wissen, [ α wie schön geschrieben ] 4 man t4 haben how well written one have Fritz wants know muss, um eine Eins zu bekommen. must in-order a one to get ‘Fritz wants to know how well one must have written in order to get an A.’ b. *Fritz will wissen, [ α was geschrieben ] 4 man t4 haben muss, one have must what written Fritz wants know um eine Eins zu bekommen. in-order a one to get ‘Fritz wants to know what one must have written in order to get an A.’

164. Here (see also section 3.5.3 below), I elaborate on remarks in Reis (2006), who argues convincingly (thereby criticizing Heck (2004)) that pied-piping by degree elements in German shows a regular pattern and should therefore be treated accordingly.

224


Suppose that the degree-movement that applies overtly in English and Danish (as in (391-a), (392-a)) applies covertly in German. ‘Covertly’ cannot mean ‘at a later LF-cycle’, though, because I have assumed that PB is to be satisfied immediately, i.e., within the current phase. One may understand covert movement as movement that happens after spell-out, provided that each phase undergoes spell-out cyclically: satisfaction of PB would then be checked at each phase, after all. However, this requires that phases are spelled-out completely and that spelled-out material is still accessible to the syntax. These assumptions are incompatible with Chomsky’s (2001) theory of cyclic spellout, which is employed in chapter 5. An interpretation of covert movement in terms of wh-feature movement (stranding phonological features) is also incompatible with the analysis proposed in chapter 5. There, I argue that whfeature movement cannot apply from specifier positions and is only an option in unembedded contexts. Neither precondition is fulfilled by (390-a) or (394-a). However, the hypothesized covert movement could be implemented in terms of the copy theory of movement (Chomsky (1995)) plus a version of ´ distributed deletion (Fanselow and Cavar (2002)). Returning to the main plot, the idea is that in (390-a) the phrase wie großes containing [ WH ] structurally occupies SpecD, thus being accessible within DP, although it is spelled out in the complement domain of D.165 The contrast in (394) can then be accounted for, too, if a participial VP is a phase (see Legate (2003)). Neither wie schön in (394-a) nor was in (394-b) exhibit morphologically expressed agreement with geschrieben; thus, they are not subject to the movement constraint hypothesized above. Suppose therefore that there is overt (but string-vacuous) PB-driven movement in (394) to the phase edge.166 In (394-a), such movement does not lead to a 165. Different proposals as to what position degree-elements in English raise to have been made. Kennedy and Merchant (2000) claim that degree elements move to a position outside DP. Matushansky (2002) argues that degree-elements target SpecNum, a position below D. 166. There are alternatives. First, one may assume that a functional head F bearing [∗DEG∗] embeds the participle, which in turn is merged with the VP containing the degree-element wie. If so, then VP need not necessarily be the phase in question; rather, it might be FP. Second, suppose that F cannot appear without [∗DEG∗] and that FP is an island for elements in SpecF but not for elements in F’s complement domain (see section 3.5.3 below for more discussion). In this case, the lack of pied-piping of VP by was falls under the repair generalization (see section 3 below). In what follows, I will ignore the question whether VP is a phase and confine myself to the orthodox view that only vP, CP, and (perhaps less orthodoxly) DP are phases.


225

violation of the PEC (see section 1.3.1) because it is followed by an Agreerelation with respect to the feature [ DEG ]: wie bears [ DEG ] and, by assumption, the head of the phase does, too. But was in (394-b) does not bear [ DEG ] and therefore cannot establish Agree with [∗DEG∗]. Then PB-driven movement of was to the edge of the phase violates the PEC if was remains in SpecV for the rest of the derivation (as it does in (394-b)). Alternatively, if was does not move to the edge of the phase, PB is violated ([ WH ] on was becomes inaccessible). It follows that (394-b) cannot be derived. Conceptually, this analysis is not unproblematic. It stipulates that alongside remote Agree and (wh-)feature movement (see chapter 5), there is also covert phrasal movement. All three concepts are designed to serve the same purpose: to account for a mismatch between the position at which a whfeature is expressed morphologically and the position where it is supposed to be in the syntax. This is clearly not the most parsimonious theory imaginable. From an empirical point of view, however, the phenomenon of pied-piping appears to force this complication. The issue will be addressed again (although in a slightly different context) in section 1.4 of chapter 5 (see also section 3.2 below). Cf. also Pesetsky (2000), who argues on independent grounds that both covert phrasal wh-movement and wh-feature movement exist.

2.


The second pied-piping generalization to be derived is the edge generalization. It is repeated in (395). (395)

Edge generalization If a wh-phrase α pied-pipes a constituent β , then α has to be at the edge of β .

The edge generalization involves what was called secondary wh-movement in chapter 2: wh-movement that applies within the pied-piped constituent. There are two triggers for secondary wh-movement. One is LA, which seeks to maximize checking locality in an Agree relation. The other is PB, whose purpose it is to make a wh-feature accessible within some phase. To illustrate how secondary wh-movement in pied-piping is derived in the present approach, I chose two instructive examples (sections 2.1 and 2.2). In section 2.3 problems are addressed that arise with respect to the PEC.

226


2.1.

Tzotzil

As reported by Aissen (1996), Tzotzil exhibits secondary wh-movement in pied-piping with DPs and PPs. First reconsider pied-piping of a DP. Recall that Aissen (1996, 457) observes that a wh-possessor, which is merged in post-nominal position in Tzotzil, obligatorily inverts with the nominal if it pied-pipes the DP, see (396). (396)

a. [ DP Buch’u2 x-ch’amal t2 ] 4 i-cham t4 ? who A 3-child CP-died ‘Whose child died?’ b. *[ DP X-ch’amal buch’u2 ] 4 i-cham t4 ? A 3-child who CP-died

Following Aissen, I assume that the wh-phrase in (396-a) undergoes secondary wh-movement to the specifier of DP. Suppose now that the derivation has constructed NP and that the next step involves Merge of the D-head. (397)

a. [ NP x-ch’amal buch’u ] → b. [ DP D [ NP x-ch’amal buch’u ]] 3 →

(Merge D) ...

DP3 is a phase. PB requires it to be balanced. There is still an active [∗WH∗] in the numeration. As long as the wh-phrase remains within NP, it is not accessible within DP3 and DP3 remains unbalanced. Accordingly, DP3 in (397-b) is not the optimal output of the current cycle, see O1 in tableau T8 ; rather O2 is optimal, which raises the wh-phrase into the specifier of the DP, renders [ WH ] accessible, and therefore balances the phase. T8 : Local optimization of DP: PB-driven secondary wh-movement Input: [ NP x-ch’amal buch’u2 ] + D Num: {i-cham, v, T, C[∗WH∗] } O1 : [ DP D [ NP x-ch’amal buch’u2 ]] ☞ O2 : [ DP buch’u2 D [ NP x-ch’amal t2 ]] O3 : Ø

PB

EOC

*!

LA

LR

** *

*

*!

Similar analyses are applicable to secondary wh-movement of wh-genitives within DP in German, Hungarian, and Polish (see sections 2.1.2, 2.1.3, and


227

2.1.4 of chapter 2), as well as to secondary wh-movement of wh-PPs within DP in Romanian, French, Spanish, and German (see sections 2.2.1–2.2.4 of chapter 2).167 In all cases, there was evidence that the wh-genitive or the PP appearing in pre-nominal position are merged post-nominally and that secondary wh-movement is contingent on [ WH ]. Also, the analysis carries over to secondary wh-movement to the edge of a clausal phase, as in Basque, Imbabura Quechua, Latin, German, and Bavarian (see sections 2.3.1–2.3.5, chapter 2).168 The rest of the derivation proceeds on the basis of O2 from above. Nothing of interest happens on the VP-cycle. Movement of the DP3 buch’u x-ch’amal ‘whose child’ to SpecV does not improve on the number of LA-violations and is thus blocked by LR. Raising of the wh-word buch’u to SpecV actually would improve on the number of LA-violations. As the LBC does not seem to be active in Tzotzil (Aissen (1996, 456)) this should be a possible continuation of the derivation. In fact, pied-piping of DP3 is in free variation with extraction of the wh-possessor. This poses a problem to the present analysis, which predicts that pied-piping is blocked whenever stranding is possible because stranding always performs better with respect to LA than pied-piping. See section 3.5 of the present chapter for discussion. In the following steps DP3 raises via Specv and SpecT to SpecC. The first raising is triggered by PB (violating LR), the second by LA (again violating LR), and the last by LA (respecting LR, as it is followed by Agree between [ WH ] on buch’u and [∗WH∗] on C). As discussed by Aissen (1996), a wh-phrase which acts as the possessor within a DP which in turn is the complement within a PP can pied-pipe this PP,169 but only if the wh-phrase fronts PP-internally. The relevant contrast is repeated in (398). 167. Of course, the term ‘wh-PP’ used here is supposed to mean ‘a PP containing a whelement’, not ‘a PP bearing [ WH ] by percolation’. 168. If non-wh genitives in Tzotzil (and other languages) are merged in a post-nominal position and if [ GENITIVE ] is assigned by D, then this suggests that LA must be relativized: apparently, a non-wh genitive that is merged within the NP-projection can establish Agree with [∗GENITIVE ∗] on D without being forced by LA to raise to SpecD. In contrast, Agree with [∗WH∗] is always subject to LA, thus wh-genitives must raise. 169. These examples unambiguously suggest, according to Aissen, that PP is a barrier for extraction in Tzotzil. Extraction from simple PPs, she argues, might be ungrammatical because the stranded preposition lacks a host to cliticize to. She does not discuss whether pied-piping of simplex PPs also involves secondary wh-movement (cf. the discussion in section 2.2).

228


(398)

t2 ] 3 ] 4 ch-a-bat t4 ? a. [ PP Buch’u2 ta [ DP t2 s-na who to A 3-house ICP - B 2-go ‘To whose house are you going?’ buch’u2 ] 3 ] 4 ch-a-bat t4 ? b. *[ PP Ta [ DP s-na A 3-house who ICP - B 2-go to

Thus, pied-piping of PP goes hand in hand with secondary wh-movement. According to Aissen (1996), the possessor wh-phrase moves from an NPinternal position via Spec-D into the specifier of the PP. Suppose now that DP3 in (398-a) has already been constructed, including secondary wh-movement within DP3 , as discussed above. The numeration still contains the preposition ta, the verb ch-a-bat, and the functional heads v, T and C[∗WH∗] . The next step involves Merge of the preposition. (399)

a. [ DP buch’u2 x-ch’amal t2 ] 3 → b. [ PP ta [ DP buch’u2 x-ch’amal t2 ] 3 ] 4 →

(Merge P ta) ...

PP, by assumption, is not a phase. Consequently, PB is irrelevant and cannot trigger the wh-possessor’s raising to SpecP. However, there is an active single probe in the numeration ([∗WH∗] on C). This induces LA-driven raising of the wh-possessor to SpecP, after all: before movement, there are two dominating phrase boundaries (DP3 and PP4 ), while after movement there is only one (namely PP4 ). See output candidate O22 in tableau T9 ; the LR-violation resulting from secondary wh-movement (Move is not followed by Agree) is not fatal because the EOC and LA are ranked higher than LR. T9 : Local optimization of PP: LA-driven secondary wh-movement Input: [ DP buch’u2 x-ch’amal t2 ] 3 + P Num: {ch-a-bat, v, T, C[∗WH∗] } O21 : [ PP P [ DP buch’u2 x-ch’amal t2 ] 3 ] ☞ O22 : [ PP buch’u2 P [ DP t 2 x-ch’amal t2 ] 3 ] O23 : Ø O24 : [ PP [ DP buch’u2 x-ch’amal t2 ] 3 P t3 ]

EOC

LA

LR

**! *

*

**!

*

*!

Alternative output candidates perform worse. Candidates O21 and O24 , which both leave the wh-possessor within the DP, violate LA twice. The empty output violates the EOC (see O23 ).


229

The remainder of the derivation proceeds in the usual manner (analogous to the sketch of the previous derivation): stranding of the preposition is not an option in Tzotzil and thus the whole PP undergoes successive cyclic raising to SpecC, via Specv and SpecT. Thus, secondary wh-movement within PP in Tzotzil is derived. In contrast to secondary wh-movement within DP, which was triggered by PB, raising within PP is triggered by LA. Of course, LA favors secondary wh-movement within DPs, too. In what follows, I ignore this overlap, which was already mentioned in section 2.3, chapter 3. The same analysis carries over to secondary wh-movement of dont within PP in (older variants of) French, see section 2.2.2, chapter 2. The case of Irish is discussed now.

2.2.

Irish

Irish may exhibit secondary wh-movement in (apparently) simplex PPs. The PPs are simplex in the sense that the pied-piper is the complement to P; cf. the complex examples involving wh-possessors in Tzotzil (see footnote 169 above). The example presented in section 2.2.5, chapter 2 is repeated in (400). (400)

(t2 ) ] 3 a raibh tú ag caint t2 ? [ PP Cé2 leis who with.3SG aN were you at talking ‘Who were you talking to?’

Suppose (400) involves pied-piping plus secondary wh-movement (see Noonan (1997)). The example contains a complementizer marked with [∗wh∗]. According to McCloskey (1979, 1990, 2002) this C is a (but cf. Noonan (1997)). To the left of C there is the pied-piped PP cé leis, with preposition and wh-phrase being inverted. Hypothesized secondary wh-movement cannot be triggered by PB because PP is not a phase. It cannot be triggered by LA either if the wh-phrase is merged as the complement of P: raising of cé ‘who’ to SpecP does not cross any phrase boundary, and raising is blocked by LR. Thus LA derives (aspects of) anti-locality (see Abels (2003), Grohmann (2003)). Now, McCloskey (2002) argues that the complement of P in (400) is filled by an (empty) resumptive pronoun, pro. Suppose that an FP-shell embeds the wh-phrase and that after raising it the evacuated FP remains in the complement position of P, forming the resumptive. This assumption has two advantages. First, an analysis that, instead, assumes late insertion of the resumptive

230


after raising of the wh-phrase involves a violation of the SCC. Second, it now becomes possible to analyze inversion of P and the wh-phrase as LA-driven secondary wh-movement. When the preposition is merged with FP, there is still an active [∗WH∗] in the numeration. Consequently, LA favors movement of the wh-phrase to SpecP, thereby skipping the FP-boundary. Such raising violates LR but the violation is not decisive as LA is ranked higher than LR. The derivation proceeds by raising of the wh-word: (401)

a. [ FP F cé2 ] → b. [ PP leis [ FP F cé2 ] → c. [ PP cé2 leis [ FP F t2 ] →

(Merge P leis) (Move wh-phrase cé) ...

For languages that lack evidence for resumption but which exhibit secondary wh-movement to the edge of PP, one may assume that it is the PP (and not the wh-phrase) that is embedded under some FP-shell (see van Riemsdijk (1978)). LA-driven secondary wh-movement then targets SpecF, skipping the PP. This is illustrated in (402). (402)

a. [ PP P wh2 ] → b. [ FP F [ PP P wh2 ] → c. [ FP wh2 F [ PP P t2 ] →

(Merge F) (Move wh) ...

Finally, languages that lack secondary wh-movement within PP either lack an FP-shell on top of PP or exhibit some independent restriction that prevents wh-raising to SpecF. In any event, once PP (or FP) has been constructed, the derivation proceeds with successive cyclic pied-piping via Specv, SpecT up to SpecC. I abstain from presenting the complete derivation. But there is a problem that is worth mentioning. A variant of (400) involves fronting of the wh-word, stranding the preposition, see (403). (403)

Cé2 a raibh tú ag caint [ PP leis pro2 ]3 ? N who a were you at talking with.3SG him

But if fronting of the wh-word is possible, why then is pied-piping of the PP not blocked by LA? The problem is that pied-piping should not be optional, provided the theory presented here is correct (see also section 2.1 above). The crucial competition that illustrates why (403) is expected to block (400) is given in tableau T10 . Obviously, O2 in T10 , which raises the wh-phrase to SpecV, is favored over O1 or O4 by the same reasoning that forces secondary wh-movement in other contexts.


231

T10 : Local optimization of VP: prepositional pied-piping blocked Input: [ PP cé2 leis [ FP F t2 ]] + V Num: {. . . , v, T, C[∗WH∗] } O1 : [ VP caint [ PP cé2 leis [ FP F t2 ]] 3 ] ☞ O2 : [ VP cé2 caint [ PP t2 leis [ FP F t2 ]] 3 ] O3 : Ø O4 : [ VP [ PP cé2 leis [ FP F t2 ]] 3 caint t3 ]

EOC

LA

LR

**! *

*

**!

*

*!

The problem of optional pied-piping is addressed in section 3.5 of this chapter.

2.3.

Secondary Wh-Movement and the PEC

There are instances of secondary wh-movement to the edge of a phase where the pied-piper does not appear to establish Agree with the head of the phase, in violation of the PEC. These are discussed below.

2.3.1.

Possessor PPs

The analysis presented above carries over to cases that involve secondary whmovement of PPs, as for instance in Romanian, French, Spanish, and German (see sections 2.2.1-2.2.4 of chapter 2, respectively). Relevant examples for Romanian and French are repeated in (404) and (405). (404)

] 2 am v˘azut-o t2 vecinul [ PP pe a c˘arui fat˘a pe whose daughter have.1SG seen her the neighbor ‘the neighbor whose daughter I saw’

(405)

un homme [ DP dont le comportement ] 3 t3 devient drôle of-who the behavior becomes weird a man ‘a man whose behavior becomes weird’

In the French example (405), the DP dont le comportement undergoes piedpiping to SpecC. In addition, the relative pronoun dont (which was assumed to be a PP) undergoes secondary wh-movement within this DP from a post-

232


nominal position to SpecD. The Romanian example in (404) involves piedpiping of a PP headed by pe. Secondary wh-movement of the PP a c˘arui proceeds from the complement position of the noun fat˘a to SpecD, the DP being the complement of the preposition pe. In both cases, movement is triggered by PB (and also favored by LA because it skips the NP boundary). There arises, however, a complication. If the category that undergoes secondary wh-movement in these cases is a PP, then it is unlikely to establish Agree with [∗GENITIVE∗] on D because PPs usually do not require case. But if so, and if there is no other feature on D that the PP establishes Agree with, then the PEC (see (386), section 1.3.1) should force the PP to move away from SpecD, contrary to fact. Fortunately, the problem can be explained away in both cases. As for (405), assume that dont bears [ WH ] as a lexical property, i.e., that dont is a genuine wh-phrase. Historically, dont derives from the Latin preposition de ‘of’ plus its complement unde ‘where’. However, this composition is not transparent any more in present day French dont. It is thus not too far fetched to believe that for speakers of modern French, dont has no internal structure, i.e., does not consist of a case assigning preposition plus complement but rather behaves like a nominal (see also Pollock (1993, 456, footnote 6)). But then, nothing speaks against assuming that dont in fact does establish Agree with [∗GENITIVE∗] on D after all, thus respecting the PEC. With respect to Romanian, it was already mentioned in footnote 90 of chapter 2 that Grosu (1988a) claims that a possessor in structures like (404) is assigned [ GENITIVE ] by D, despite the presence of the preposition a. In present terms, the possessor establishes Agree with [∗GENITIVE∗] on D. Again, this straightforwardly explains why (404) does not violate the PEC. These explanations arguably do not apply to the case of secondary PPraising in German, here repeated in (406). (406)

Fritz fragte, [ DP [ PP u¨ ber wen ] 2 die Gerüchte t2 ] 3 t3 dich about whom the rumors you Fritz asked geärgert haben. annoyed have ‘Fritz asked the rumors about whom annoyed you.’

The preposition u¨ ber ‘about’ in (406) is a lexical head of its own, and it governs [ ACCUSATIVE ]. The PP in (406) does not check case with D, and the PEC might thus be expected to block (406), against what can be observed.


233

However, recall that the process of DP-internal PP-fronting in German has two additional properties. First, it also applies to non-wh elements; second, in these cases fronting applies optionally (in contrast to cases that involve wh-PPs). Thus assume that D in German optionally bears some feature [∗P∗] that attracts prepositional phrases to SpecD. If [∗P∗] is optional, then PPfronting is optional with non-wh PPs, too. As for wh-PPs, however, fronting is obligatory after all, due to PB. In addition to that, it now becomes necessary to assume that derivations that involve a wh-PP that remains in SpecD, as in (406), only converge (respecting the PEC) if there is also [∗P∗] present on D. This does not undermine the claim that secondary wh-movement of PP in German is indeed contingent on [ WH ] because, as is clear from non-wh cases of PP-fronting, [∗P∗] is only optional. If there were no dependency on [ WH ], then PP-fronting of wh-PPs would be expected to be optional, too, contrary to fact. Tellier and Valois (1993) argue for the existence of optional DP-internal fronting of non-wh PPs in French. Thus, the explanation for why secondary wh-movement of PPs in German does not violate the PEC may be argued to carry over to the case of French dont, too. The same idea is applicable to (apparent) cases of DP-internal secondary wh-movement of PPs in Spanish, which seem as well to be optional (see section 2.2.3, chapter 2). Let me finally point out one remaining problem that the analysis of secondary wh-movement of dont presented above is confronted with. The observation is that structures in contemporary French that mirror the Romanian example (404) are ungrammatical, witness (407). (407)

*la fille [ PP a` dont le frère ] 2 tu plais t2 the girl to of-whom the brother you please ‘the girl whose brother you please’

In (407), secondary wh-movement targets SpecD of the DP le frère ‘the brother’. The complete DP is then again the complement of the preposition a` . The PP headed by a` undergoes pied-piping to SpecC. Extraction out of PP is usually not an option in French. Secondary wh-movement of dont to SpecP is banned in contemporary French, too (but not in older variants of French, see section 2.2.2, chapter 2). For lack of alternatives, (407) would then seem to optimally satisfy PB and LA (at the usual cost of one LR-violation, due to non-feature driven movement), just as the Romanian example (404) above.

234


I do not yet have an explanation for the ill-formedness of (407). As such, it instantiates a counter-argument to the analysis of examples like (405) in terms of pied-piping and rather favors an analysis in terms of extraction (cf. the discussion in section 2.2.2, chapter 2).

2.3.2.

Clausal Pied-Piping

Secondary wh-movement in clausal pied-piping also poses a problem for the PEC ((386), section 1.3.1). The PEC states that a wh-phrase cannot remain at the edge of a phase unless it has established Agree with the head of the phase. Provided that pied-piped clauses are CPs (i.e., constitute phases) and that successive cyclic wh-movement to the phase edge is not feature-driven (i.e., does not involve Agree; see section 2.3, chapter 3), secondary wh-movement in clausal pied-piping is unexpected. In fact, clausal pied-piping is rather uncommon cross-linguistically. Often, when extraction of the wh-phrase from a clause is impossible, piedpiping of the clause is not an option either (i.e., ineffability arises, see section 3.12.2, chapter 2 and section 1.3.1 above). Thus in many cases the restriction on clausal pied-piping imposed by the PEC is welcome. However, there are languages that arguably exhibit clausal pied-piping plus secondary wh-movement after all (see section 2.3 of chapter 2), among them Basque, Imbabura Quechua, Latin, German, and Bavarian. The question arises as to whether and how this can be reconciled with the PEC. Before addressing this problem, let me add one more case to illustrate the usefulness of the PEC. To this end, consider the impossibility of pied-piping acc-ing gerunds in English. A relevant example, repeated here from section 3.12.3, chapter 2, is (408). (408)

*a man who singing the Marseillaise caused panic

It has been claimed that acc-ing gerunds are clausal (see Reuland (1983), Abney (1987), and references therein). Thus assume that the subject who singing the Marseillaise in (408) is a CP. Apparently then, a wh-phrase in SpecC of an acc-ing CP is not able to pied-pipe it. However, successive cyclic whmovement via SpecC of an acc-ing CP, as in (409), is possible. (409)

Who2 did you learn about [ CP t2 t2 smoking stogies ]?


235

If who in (409) is supposed to leave the acc-ing CP, then, due to the PIC, it must first move to its edge domain in order to be accessible. This presupposes that who can target the intermediate SpecC-position in (409), as indicated by the trace t2 . The difference between (408) and (409) is that in the former case the wh-phrase remains in SpecC of the gerund while in the latter case it moves on to a higher SpecC. Suppose that the contrast is due to the PEC: the wh-phrase in (408) does not establish Agree with the C-head of the gerund and thus cannot remain in its specifier at spell-out. There is no such Agree relation in (409) either, but there the wh-phrase leaves SpecC of the acc-ing before spell-out.170 Thus, either the wh-phrase in (408) moves to SpecC of the acc-ing gerund and remains there, in violation of the PEC, or it remains in its base position violating PB.171 In contrast, poss-ing gerunds arguably are nominal (see Abney (1987) for overview and references). Suppose that they are DPs. It then follows directly from the PEC why pied-piping of poss-ing gerunds by a genitive wh-phrase is grammatical, see (410). As already mentioned, this judgment is not shared by everyone, see footnote 171 above and the caveat mentioned in section 3.12.3 of chapter 2. (410)

a man [ DP whose singing the Marseillaise ] 3 t3 caused panic

170. The ill-formedness of (408) follows more or less directly under a feature-driven theory of successive cyclic wh-movement. As Reuland (1983, 112) notes, acc-ing gerunds cannot act as complements of verbs that can combine with embedded questions, see the contrast in (i). (i)

a. *Rudy didn’t remember [ CP what2 doing t2 ]. b. Rudy didn’t remember [ CP what2 to do t2 ].

This suggests that, for some reason, the C-head of an acc-ing CP is generally unable to carry [∗WH∗], which, in turn, also accounts for (408) if movement to SpecC of the acc-ing is feature-driven (and if the absence of [∗WH∗] implies the absence of [ WH ]). However, the well-formedness of (409) requires further explanation under such a theory. 171. The or-part of this analysis of pied-piping acc-ing bears a slight similarity with a suggestion of Kayne (1994, 24, footnote 18) as to why pied-piping of poss-ing gerunds is impossible: “The absence of pied-piping with whose + gerund [. . .] could [. . .] suggest that gerunds have an extra layer of structure (like CP) as compared with (derived) nominals and that who(se) in gerunds is necessarily always below that level.”. Under both views, pied-piping fails because the wh-phrase is embedded too deeply within the gerund. However, as will become clear in a moment, I depart from Kayne and rather follow Abney (1987) and others in assuming that pied-piping of poss-ing in English is in fact possible.

236


The wh-phrase whose in (410) occupies SpecD of the gerund. Its wh-feature is accessible, and therefore PB is satisfied. Crucially, the possessor wh-phrase in (410) can remain in SpecD at spell-out because it establishes Agree with [∗GENITIVE∗] on D. Therefore, pied-piping the poss-ing gerund is possible. Returning to the question as to how clausal pied-piping can be reconciled with the PEC, first consider the case of Basque. The often-cited examples of clausal pied-piping in Basque (as in section 2.3.1, chapter 2) involve matrix questions, see (411). (411)

[ CP Nor etorriko d-ela bihar ] 3 esan diozu Mireni t3 ? who come.FUT AUX-C tomorrow said AUX Mary ‘Who did you tell Mary will come tomorrow?’

In section 3.11 of chapter 2 it was already mentioned that clausal pied-piping is not possible in embedded contexts (if extraction is possible; see Etxepare and Ortiz de Urbina (2003)). The relevant contrast is repeated in (412-a,b). (412)

[ CP a. Jonek galdetu du nor3 uste du-ten haiek Jon.ERG asked AUX who think AUX-C they.ERG etorriko d-ela t3 ]. come.FUT AUX-C ‘Jon asked who they think will come.’ b. *Jonek galdetu du [ CP nor3 etorri d-ela t3 ] 2 uste du-ten who come AUX-C think AUX-C Jon.ERG asked AUX t2 . haiek they.ERG

This observation is relevant under two additional assumptions. First, suppose that matrix questions can be interpreted as echo-questions. Second, assume, following Reis (1991) and Trissler (1999), that echo-questions are not questions in a syntactic sense but are interpreted as interrogative on a purely pragmatic basis. The first assumption suggests that (411) might be an echoquestion. The second assumption suggests that echo-questions do not involve syntactic wh-movement that is triggered by [∗WH∗].172 But if so, then it is 172. But cf. May (1985a, 61), who argues on the basis of weak crossover that wh-phrases in echo questions indeed undergo wh-movement, albeit at LF, witness the parallelism in (i). (i)

a. *Who2 does his2 mother love t2 ? b. *His2 mother loves WHO2 ?


237

not necessarily expected that echo-questions (and thus (411)) are subject to restrictions on pied-piping. In contrast, embedded questions cannot be echoquestions: they always involve syntactic wh-movement triggered by [∗WH∗]. Therefore, the contrast in (412) illustrates the genuine facts of Basque clausal pied-piping, which are in agreement with the PEC.173 There arises a further complication, however. As also mentioned in section 3.11, chapter 2, non-complement clauses in Basque can undergo clausal piedpiping, even in embedded questions; an example is repeated in (413). (413)

t3 ] 2 irekiko duten denean Galdetu du [ CP nor3 etortzen who come.IMPF AUX.when open AUX-C asked AUX txanpaña t2 . champagne ‘He asked when who arrives will they open the champagne.’

Why then is the PEC not violated by (413)? In section 1.3.1 above, I proposed on the basis of English that the PEC be ranked above the EOC, i.e., that it is inviolable. Suppose that there is actually variation across languages with respect to the relative ranking of the EOC on the one hand and each of the remaining constraints on the other hand. This is the standard assumption in optimality theory (but cf. the remarks in section 1.3, chapter 3). Note that the pied-piped CP in (413) is an adjunct clause, a barrier in the sense of the CED. Suppose Basque exhibits the partial ranking CED EOC PEC. It then follows that a violation of the PEC is tolerable if it spares a violation of the CED or the EOC, resulting in secondary wh-movement plus clausal piedpiping as in (413). This still accounts for the contrast in (412) because there the pied-piped CP is merged in a complement position and therefore raising of the bare wh-phrase does not violate the CED. I do not know whether the argument carries over to Imbabura Quechua. Turning to the facts from Bavarian, exemplified by (414-a), recall that they involve alleged pied-piping of a conditional wenn-clause.

173. It remains to explained why (411) exhibits what looks like primary and secondary whmovement. I tentatively propose here that both movements in (411) are driven by two independent probes (perhaps [∗FOCUS∗]) on the embedded and matrix C-head, respectively. The idea is that the wh-phrase does not entertain any Agree relation with a feature on the matrix C-head (but the embedded CP does). Thus, there is only primary movement in (411), and no pied-piping. For some reason unclear, such movement is not an option in embedded questions.

238 (414)


a. Das ist die Frau, [ CP die2 wenn du t2 heiratest ] 3 bist du who if you marry this is the woman are you verrückt t3 . crazy ‘This is the woman that you are crazy if you marry her.’ b. *Das ist die Frau, die2 du verrückt bist [ CP wenn du t2 this is the woman who you crazy are if you heiratest ]3 . marry

The relative pronoun die in (414) originates from within the conditional CP. Under a pied-piping analysis, (414-a) involves fronting of the relative pronoun to SpecC of the conditional clause plus subsequent pied-piping of that clause to SpecC of the relative clause. Extraction from the conditional clause, as in (414-b), is impossible, the wenn-clause being an adjunct. The Bavarian examples might thus be amenable for the solution that has been sketched for Basque. In the same vein, all the examples from Latin considered in section 2.3 of chapter 2 involve clausal pied-piping of islands (cf. also footnote 127).section 3.12.2, chapter 2). 174 Finally, reconsider potential pied-piping of infinitives in German. If these cases indeed involve pied-piping, then, as the other cases discussed, they pose a problem for the PEC. Moreover, they cannot be explained away by one of the explanations offered above. First, infinitives do not generally form islands in German. Therefore ranking the PEC below the EOC does not help. Second, it is doubtful whether an independent mechanism of raising to the edge of the infinitive can be identified that is feature-driven and that can be made responsible for the position of the pied-piper within the infinitive. The movement in question is arguably not (ordinary) wh-movement because German zu-infinitives cannot figure as embedded questions, witness (415) (see Haider (1985), Giusti (1986)). (415)

*Ich will jetzt wissen, [ CP was zu tun ]. I want now know what to do ‘I would like to know now what to do.’

174. The PEC also appears to be violated by cases of massive pied-piping in English presented in section 2.2.2 of chapter 5. Maybe, these cases can be explained away as primary topicalization within the pied-piped category (cf. section 2.3.1, chapter 5).


239

It cannot be topicalization because topicalization in German goes hand in hand with the verb showing up in C. But the pied-piped infinitives mostly arise in verb final relative clauses. Finally, it cannot be scrambling because scrambling does not target SpecC; but the pied-piper must show up at the edge of the infinitival phase in order to be accessible. I am assuming here that the incoherent infinitive (see section 2.3.4, chapter 2) that undergoes movement is a CP. All this amounts to a theory-internal argument to reject an analysis of the fronted infinitives in German in terms of pied-piping. The argument is far from being decisive, though, especially given the tentative character of the PEC. Yet, some explanation is needed to account for the ill-formedness of certain instances of secondary wh-movement in pied-piping (including cases of clausal pied-piping) anyway. Note, again, that the problem is not inherently connected to the idea that successive cyclic wh-movement is non-feature driven. The very same problem arises under the orthodox view that it is feature-driven. The explanation based on the PEC (in combination with the non-feature driven approach) is stipulative to the extent that it remains unclear what the PEC should follow from. It is the attempt to tackle a problem that, to my knowledge, is mostly ignored in the literature.

2.4.

Lack of Secondary Wh-Movement Revisited

It was observed in section 2.4 of chapter 2 that secondary wh-movement does not always apply. For instance, German PPs that undergo pied-piping do not exhibit secondary wh-movement, see (416). Clearly, LA favors (416-b) over (416-a). Still, (416-a) is grammatical, while (416-b) is not. (416)

a. ein Punkt, [ PP bis zu dem2 ] 3 man t3 gehen muss must a point up to which one go ‘a point that one must reach’ b. *ein Punkt, [ PP dem2 bis zu t2 ] 3 man t3 gehen muss which up to are you come a point

Secondary wh-movement to SpecP does apply in Tzotzil, Chol Mayan, and San Dionicio Zapotec, see section 2.1.1, chapter 2, and perhaps also in older variants of French and in Irish (see sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.5, respectively, in chapter 2). Thus, there is variation as to whether a language exhibits secondary wh-movement within PP or not.

240


PPs contrast with DPs in that lack of secondary wh-movement within DP usually leads to a crash of the derivation, see (417) for German; (417)

den du kennst a. die Bilder dessen, the paintings the-one.GEN who you know ‘the paintings of the person that you know’ b. *ein Künstler, [ DP Bilder dessen ] 2 du t2 kaufen würdest an artist paintings whose you buy would ‘an artist whose paintings you would buy’

The explanation for this contrast between PPs and DPs within the present theory is straightforward. By assumption DP is a phase. As such, it is subject to PB. PB requires that a wh-feature be accessible within the DP. Moreover, PB is ranked above the EOC (is inviolable). Thus, if PB is not satisfiable, and if there is no other output candidate available that would respect every unviolable constraint, then the empty output Ø is optimal: the derivation crashes. Admittedly, there are some cases of well-formed pied-piping by a post-nominal wh-genitive, see section 1.3.2 above and section 2.5 below. To account for these cases may require to assume that SpecD branches off to the right (or that there is no DP-projection present in the first place). In contrast to this, PP is not a phase and therefore not subject to PB. Secondary wh-movement within PP was therefore assumed to be triggered by another constraint, namely LA. But LA is violable (i.e., is ranked below the EOC). Consequently, LA-driven secondary wh-movement does not occur if another, higher ranked constraint C, for instance the PEC (see section 1.3.1 above), militates against it. In this case, LA is violated in favor of C; the empty output is not optimal as it always violates the EOC, which is ranked higher than LA (and, by assumption, C). This is what happened in (416). Although (416-b) is favored by LA, it comes out as ungrammatical because it violates the high ranked prohibition against preposition stranding active in German (which (416-a) respects).175 175. For English, there is evidence from sluicing (see Ross (1969), van Riemsdijk (1978), Merchant (2001)) that SpecP can be the target for a wh-phrase (a phenomenon called ‘swiping’ by Merchant (2002)), see (i). (i)

Egbert left with somebody but I don’t remember [ PP who2 with t2 ].

Still, English does not exhibit secondary wh-movement within PPs. This is not a problem, though, as swiping is only possible in the context of sluicing (see also section 2.7.5 below).


241

To summarize, generalization (395) expresses a tendency for non-phasal categories rather than a law without exceptions. Secondary wh-movement within non-phases is subject to language particular properties (e.g., a ban on stranding, the unavailability of a landing site, etc.). If nothing in a language prevents secondary wh-movement from applying, then it will apply. But if some properties militate against secondary wh-movement, then it is blocked (without further consequences).

2.5.

Secondary Wh-Movement and Cyclic Spell-Out

LA seeks to maneuver the pied-piper into a specifier position within the piedpiped constituent. Alternatively, one might suspect that it is the purpose of secondary wh-movement to bring the pied-piper into the leftmost position. The motivation for such an approach to secondary wh-movement can be based on a suggestion made in Fox and Pesetsky (2005). (Thanks to Kyle Johnson for suggesting and discussing this issue.) It crucially involves the notion of cyclic spell-out (see Bresnan (1971, 1972), Uriagereka (1999a,b), Chomsky (2001)). According to the theory of cyclic spell-out, the interface contact between syntax and phonology does not apply only once per derivation, namely when the phrase marker is complete. Rather, syntactic structure is handed over to the phonological component in small portions while it is built up from bottom to top. In other words, structure-building operations and the operation of spell-out are interspersed. It is a common assumption that a category β that is sent to spell-out encodes information about the order of its (phonologically overt) terminal symbols. For instance suppose that β in (418) is sent to spell-out. Then w1 precedes all other terminals of β , w2 precedes all terminals except for w1 , etc. (418)

[ β w1 w2 . . . wn ]

Fox and Pesetsky (2005) observe that, in a theory where only leftward movement is possible, this implies that no terminal wi of β (and also no nonterminal category dominated by β ) can move out of β after β has been sent to spell-out, except for the leftmost terminal w1 (or a category that dominates a prefix w1 . . . wi of β ). The reason is that movement of any other element would create a contradiction to the linear order already imposed on w1 . . . wn . The upshot is that the theory of cyclic spell-out forces an element that is

242


supposed to move out of β to be at the left edge of β before β undergoes spell-out.176 This is still not sufficient to derive secondary wh-movement, though. Admittedly, a (outer) specifier of β is often enough the leftmost position within β . So far, however, it was assumed that a pied-piper α undergoes secondary wh-movement within β and then stops there, inducing pied-piping of β . Crucially, α does not move out of β at a later step. But according to Fox and Pesetsky (2005), α moves to the left edge of β in order to leave β . In order to turn Fox and Pesetsky’s (2005) idea into a trigger for secondary wh-movement, suppose that α has to move out of β . The only point in the derivation where this could happen is when β has reached the scope position of α , i.e., SpecC. If α had left β at an earlier point (stranding β in its base or some intermediate position), then there would be no pied-piping and, consequently, no secondary wh-movement. In fact, it has been proposed that extraction of the pied-piper α out of the pied-piped constituent β has to apply for semantic reasons (often in connection with reconstruction; see Chomsky (1977), May (1977), Ishihara (1984), von Stechow (1996), Sauerland and Heck (2003)). Usually, this extraction is assumed to take place at LF. But if α is the leftmost element within β and if β is in SpecC, movement of α to an outer specifier of CP applies stringvacuously; it could therefore in principle also apply in the overt component. Suppose therefore that after β has reached SpecC, α must (string vacuously) move into an outer specifier of CP.177 According to the logic above, a precondition for this movement is that α occupies the left edge of β . Secondary wh-movement in pied-piping would thus receive a rationale in terms of cyclic spell-out. This is an attractive move because it seeks to derive secondary wh-movement from an independently motivated concept. Note, however, that it is not yet a derivation of secondary wh-movement in the technical sense because the rationale as such is not part of the grammar. It is merely an intuition, still awaiting its implementation. Also, it receives empirical support from the fol176. To be precise, wi can move out of β even if it is not the leftmost element of β provided that all other terminals that precede wi within β also move out of β , thereby avoiding the contradiction; I ignore this here. 177. I ignore the complication that β , having moved, should have turned into an island, rendering extraction of α impossible. It may be that such freezing effects are voided (the frozen category being melted, see Müller (2008)) if extraction applies string-vacuously, see also section 2.3.5, chapter 2 and footnotes 206 and 272.


243

lowing observation. English exhibits a post-nominal genitive alongside with the pre-nominal genitive, see (419-a,b). (419)

a. a book of John’s b. John’s book

There is evidence that the post-nominal genitive occupies a high position within the DP (similar to the pre-nominal genitive): it is able to bind an anaphor within the DP, see (420-a). This presupposes that it occupies a position high enough to c-command the anaphor. Moreover, a pre-nominal and a post-nominal genitive cannot co-occur, see (420-b). This suggests that they compete for the same position (where the notion of ‘same’ would have to be specified accordingly, maybe in terms of height). (420)

a. the remark about himself2 of John2 ’s b. *Mary’s picture of John’s

Crucially, however, only the pre-nominal position is an appropriate position to pied-pipe the entire DP, see (421). (421)

a. Egbert wonders [ DP whose2 picture t2 ] 3 you bought t3 . b. *Egbert wonders [ DP a picture of whose2 ] 3 you bought t3 .

The contrast above receives an explanation if what is important for a piedpiper is indeed its position in terms of linear order within the pied-piped constituent β , not its position as the highest element within β . There are, however, also arguments against such an approach. To begin with, not all categories that undergo pied-piping to SpecC exhibit secondary wh-movement, see the case of PPs in German in section 2.4 above. For a theory based on cyclic spell-out, this appears to imply that string-vacuous extraction of the pied-piper out of pied-piped PPs is not obligatory in German but it is obligatory for Tzotzil, which again suggests that extraction is not necessary to render the pied-piping structure semantically interpretable; this has been argued for on independent grounds, see, for instance, Sternefeld (2001). If and how a parameterization of the theory of cyclic spell-out is possible in order to derive this difference is an open question. Also note in passing that the approach based on cyclic spell-out presupposes that not only phases (Chomsky (2001)) but also other categories, for instance PPs, are spelled-out cyclically (Uriagereka (1999a)). This is, of course, not a not a real problem but only a remark.

244


Apparent lack of secondary wh-movement also arises with DPs. In Greek, possessives can appear both pre-nominally and post-nominally (see Horrocks and Stavrou (1987)). Pied-piping is possible from both positions, see (422) (Artemis Alexiadou, Effi Georgala, p.c.).178 (422)

a. Anarotieme [ DP tinos2 to vivlio ] 3 mu ipes pos dhiavases t3 . whose the book wonder.1SG you said that read.2SG ‘I wonder whose book you said that you read.’ b. Anarotieme [ DP to vivlio tinos2 ] 3 mu ipes pos dhiavases t3 . the book whose you said that read.2SG wonder.1SG

As already noted in section 1.4.1, chapter 2 (and section 1.3.2 above) whpossessors in Icelandic appear post-nominally (if there is no definite determiner). Again, pied-piping is possible, see (423). (423)

´ velti þv´ı fyrir mér [ DP bók hvers1 ] 2 hann hafDi lesiD t2 . Eg book whose he had read I roll it in-front-of me ‘I wonder whose book he had read.’

Like the cases of pied-piping PP, the examples in (422) and (423) pose a problem for the theory of secondary wh-movement based on cyclic spell-out because the pied-piper is not on the left edge of the pied-piped category. As already mentioned (see section 2.4 above), these examples are also problematic for the present approach based on PB: if hvers in (423) were embedded within the complement domain of D, then PB would not be satisfied and the derivation should crash. There are various ways out. Either the piedpiper in (423) has moved covertly to SpecD (in an appropriate sense of the term ‘covert’), see section 1.4 above. Or it occupies a right-branching SpecDposition. The latter solution is favored by the observation (see section 2.2.3, chapter 2) that in Spanish PPs that undergo secondary wh-movement move to the right edge within DP. Or there is no DP-projection present in the first place. All solutions render [ WH ] accessible within DP but none of them is available for an approach that is based on cyclic spell-out. Of course, a fourth interpretation of these facts is to deny that DPs are phases. However, such a move would require rigorous changes of the present theory. 178. Apparently, these examples force the present theory to incorporate the assumption that SpecD can also branch to the right in Greek. Otherwise [ WH ] would not be accessible within DP if the wh-word is postnominal. It is not an option (but see section 1.3.2 on Icelandic and Russian) to assume that there is no DP because an overt D-head is present.


2.6.

245

Wh-in-Situ

The approach to secondary wh-movement based on PB and LA makes the following prediction: secondary wh-movement within a category β does not occur in wh-in-situ contexts, even if β exhibits secondary wh-movement when it undergoes pied-piping. Here is why. Both PB and LA require the existence of an active wh-probe in order to become relevant. Such a probe is either part of the current phrase marker (this holds for LA only) or it is a single in the numeration. [∗WH∗] is a single if it is not matched by any wh-goal in the numeration; that is, after every [∗WH∗] in the numeration has been matched by some goal [ WH ], the one [∗WH∗] in question has not found any match. This latter criterion for being an active probe holds for both PB and LA. (See the definitions (354) and (368) in section 1.4.1 and 2.3, respectively, of chapter 3.) It follows that if there is no such active probe, then PB and LA will not be relevant, and thus cannot trigger secondary wh-movement. There are at least two contexts where no active probe is present: wh-insitu in echo questions and multiple questions in languages without multiple wh-movement. As already mentioned (see, for instance, section 2.3.2 above) I assume that in echo-questions (with wh-in-situ) there is no [∗WH∗] on the C-head. And if there is no wh-probe, then there cannot be any active wh-probe, either. Consequently, wh-in-situ in echo-questions should go hand in hand with the lack of secondary wh-movement. In the case of wh-in-situ in multiple questions the active wh-probe in the numeration is matched by the wh-goal that finally undergoes wh-movement. But for the wh-goal(s) that remain in-situ there is no [∗WH∗] left that could trigger secondary wh-movement. It appears to me that the evidence presented in this section is rather hard to account for by an approach that derives secondary wh-movement by mechanical insertion of (spurious) wh-probes. The reason is that a blind, local computational system would also insert spurious wh-features in wh-in-situ contexts (and would, accordingly, trigger secondary wh-movement). Below, we will see some evidence that in these contexts no secondary wh-movement applies. To account for this, the derivation needs some look-ahead-like mechanism like, for instance, the possibility of searching the numeration for the presence or absence of a particular wh-probe. And this is exactly what PB provides.179 179. Of course, once an appropriate look-ahead is provided, a feature-driven approach can

246


This argument in favor of PB (or some equivalent mechanism) is essentially the same as the one based on unattested successive cyclic wh-movement to SpecC in wh-in-situ contexts in languages that independently exhibit partial wh-movement, see Heck and Müller (2003, 103) (also see Boˇsković (2002a)).

2.6.1.

Untestable Cases

Some of the cases of secondary wh-movement discussed in section 2, chapter 2 do not allow for the prediction to be tested, either because the construction in question does not exhibit wh-in-situ or because the relevant examples are not available (yet). These instances of secondary wh-movement are briefly addressed in the present section. As Aissen (1996, 452-453) notes, Tzotzil echo-questions (see (424)) require fronting of wh-phrases and do not allow wh-in-situ. The same holds for multiple questions in Tzotzil (see (425)), if they are possible at all. (424)

a. K’usi a-man? what A 2-buy ‘You bought WHAT?’ b. *A-man k’usi? A 2-buy what

(425)

buch’u k’usi jchepukal s-man-oj. a.??Mu j-na’ NEG A 1-know who which NC A 3-buy-PF ‘I don’t know who bought which package.’ buch’u s-man-oj k’usi jchepukal. b. *Mu j-na’ NEG A 1-know who A 3-buy-PF which NC

As long as it is unclear what forces this fronting, the above mentioned prediction cannot be checked for Tzotzil. Even if it turned out that secondary whmovement took place with echo-wh phrases, too, it might be that what triggers primary fronting in echo-questions also triggers secondary wh-movement. As for secondary wh-movement in French, dont is only available in relative clauses, not in interrogatives. Since multiple relatives and echo-relatives do not exist, the prediction cannot be tested for dont. achieve the same results, see footnote 148. Cf. also Chomsky (2000, 109), Chomsky (2001, 34), who proposes a look-ahead mechanism that permits insertion of the relevant feature only if this ‘has an effect on outcome’.


247

Finally, in Irish, multiple questions are impossible, as noted in McCloskey (1979, 70-71). This is illustrated in (426). (426)

a. *Cé a rinne caidé? who aL did what ‘Who did what?’ b. *Caidé a thug sé do cé? what aL gave he to who ‘What did he give to who?’ c. *Cé a bh´ı ag caint le cé? L who a was PROG talking with who ‘Who was talking to whom?’

I do not know whether there are wh-in-situ echo-questions in Irish, and if so whether they exhibit the same phenomenon of inversion of a preposition and a wh-phrase that occurs with wh-movement in interrogatives.

2.6.2.

German

Two cases from German suggest that the prediction is borne out. One of them concerns fronted infinitives. Suppose that the fronting of infinitives, as discussed in section 2.3.4, chapter 2, involves pied-piping (despite the theoryinternal argument brought forward against this analysis at the end of section 2.3.2). Next recall that van Riemsdijk’s argument (see van Riemsdijk (1982, 1985)) for secondary wh-movement was based on the observation that the pied-piper precedes the weak pronoun es ‘it’ within the fronted infinitive, but not so in non-wh contexts, as the one in (427) (see section 2.3.4, chapter 2 for more details). (427)

a. Ich nehme es mit ihm auf. I take it with him on ‘I take him on.’ b.?*Ich nehme mit ihm es auf. I take with him it on

Given this background, the following contrasts suggest that the prediction that there is no secondary wh-movement in wh-in-situ contexts is borne out:

248


(428)

a. Du konntest nicht vermeiden [ CP es WEM zu versprechen ]? you could not avoid it whom to promise ‘You couldn’t avoid to promise it to WHOM?’ b.?*Du konntest nicht vermeiden [ CP WEM es zu versprechen ]? you could not avoid whom it to promise

(429)

a. Du würdest nicht raten [ CP es mit WEM aufzunehmen ]? you would not advise it with whom to-on-take ‘You wouldn’t advise to take on with WHOM?’ b. *Du würdest nicht raten [ CP mit WEM es aufzunehmen ]? you would not advise with whom it to-on-take

In both cases the infinitive does not undergo alleged pied-piping because the examples involve echo-questions with wh-in-situ. Accordingly, the wh-phrase does not undergo secondary wh-movement within the infinitive either.180 The same patterns can be reproduced with an in-situ wh-phrase in a multiple question, see (430) and (431). (430)

a. Wer konnte nicht vermeiden [ CP es wem zu versprechen ]? it whom to promise who could not avoid ‘Who could not avoid to promise it to whom?’ b. *Wer konnte nicht vermeiden [ CP wem es zu versprechen ]? whom it to promise who could not avoid

(431)

a. Wem würdest du nicht raten [ CP es mit wem it with whom whom would you not advise aufzunehmen ]? to-take-on ‘Whom wouldn’t you advise to take on with whom?’ b. *Wem würdest du nicht raten [ CP mit wem es whom would you not advise with whom it aufzunehmen ]? to-take-on

180. Of course, this does not constitute an argument in favor of the pied-piping analysis. First, the argument above presupposed that pied-piping is involved. The alleged argument for pied-piping would thus be circular. Second, Grewendorf’s (1986) alternative analysis of the fronted infinitives also explains the contrasts in (428) and (429), again, see section 2.3.4, chapter 2


249

As for the second case that is supposed to support the prediction, recall from section 2.2.4 of chapter 2 that in German there is obligatory secondary whmovement (and secondary pied-piping) of PP within a pied-piped DP. Accordingly, the prediction is that secondary wh-movement of the PP should be impossible in the context of wh-in-situ. (432) shows two multiple questions. In (432-a), the wh-phrase was ‘what’ remains completely in-situ. In (432-b), it undergoes short secondary wh-movement within a DP, thereby inducing short pied-piping of a PP within DP. There is a notable contrast between (432-a) and (432-b) as indicated. (432)

a. Fritz ist neugierig wem [ DP ein Buch [ PP u¨ ber was ] 3 ] 4 a book about what Fritz is curious whom gefallen wird. please will ‘Fritz is curious who a book on whom pleases.’ b.??Fritz ist neugierig wem [ DP [ PP u¨ ber was ] 3 ein Buch t3 ] 4 about what a book Fritz is curious whom gefallen wird. please will

In other words, secondary wh-movement of PP within DP is banned if it is not followed by primary wh-movement by DP, in agreement with the prediction. As indicated, the contrast between (432-a) and (432-b) is not as strong as the one between, say, (431-a) and (431-b). The reason may be that DPinternal PP-raising with non-wh PPs (in contexts where there is no [∗WH∗] on C) is optional in German. In section 2.2.4 of chapter 2, I suggested that it is triggered by an optional feature [∗P∗] on D. Under this view, one would expect [∗P∗]-driven PP-raising in (432-b) to be impeccable, after all. But for some reason, it is marked. In fact, it has been observed that scrambling of wh-phrases in German is often marked (see Engel (1972), Fanselow (1990), Epstein (1992), Müller and Sternefeld (1993)) and only possible under certain circumstances (see Wiltschko (1997), Fanselow (2001)). The important point here is that (432-a), without secondary wh-movement, is perfect.

2.6.3.

Spanish

Spanish exhibits a phenomenon of secondary PP-raising that is very similar to the one observable in German, see section 2.2.3, chapter 2. Moreover, the be-

250


havior of secondary wh-movement of PPs in Spanish supports the prediction from above in a similar way that German does. Crucially, Ormazabal (1992) claims that (rightward) PP-raising does not take place when wh-in-situ is involved. This is illustrated in (433). (433)

a. Quién conoce [ DP el retrato [ PP de quién ] 2 [ PP de the portrait of who of who knows Picasso ]3 ]4 ? Picasso ‘Who knows Picasso’s portrait of who?’ b. *Quién conoce [ DP el retrato t2 [ PP de Picasso ] 3 [ PP de the portrait of Picasso of who knows quién ]2 ]4 ? who

This suggests two things. First, PPs containing a wh-phrase cannot be reordered as easily as PPs not containing any wh-phrase (which, again, mirrors the behavior of PPs in German, see section 2.6.2 above). Second, secondary wh-movement is contingent on primary wh-movement (i.e., the presence of [∗WH∗]) plus pied-piping, which supports the predition formulated at the beginning of section 2.6.

2.7.

Alleged Secondary Wh-Movement

There are other cases of movement that, at first sight, appear to instantiate secondary wh-movement of the type discussed so far (i.e., wh-movement triggered by LA or PB). However, there are arguments suggesting that they rather involve movement triggered by some feature.181

2.7.1.

Genau-Inversion in German

As Lutz and Trissler (1997) and Trissler (1999) observe, wh-constructions involving the particle genau ‘exactly’ in German involve what looks like obli181. One such case, not addressed here, is the type of secondary wh-movement in Japanese DPs that is argued for by Kubo (1989). This movement does not seem to be analyzable in terms of PB (or LA) if, as is usually assumed, Japanese does not exhibit primary whmovement.


251

gatory movement of the wh-phrase across the particle (see also Sauerland and Heck (2003)). To begin with, (434) illustrates that genau usually precedes the nominal it is associated with. (434)

a. Ich habe [ DP genau denselben Fehler ] 2 wieder t2 gemacht. exactly the same mistake again made I have ‘I made exactly the same mistake again.’ b. *Ich habe [ DP denselben Fehler genau ] 2 wieder t2 gemacht. the same mistake exactly again made I have

However, if genau modifies a wh-phrase and gets pied-piped, the wh-phrase and the particle obligatorily undergo inversion.182 This is shown in (435). (435)

a. Maria weiß, [ DP wen1 genau t1 ] 2 Fritz t2 geküsst hat. Fritz kissed has who exactly Maria knows ‘Maria knows exactly who Fritz has kissed.’ b. *Maria weiß, [ DP genau wen1 ] 2 Fritz t2 geküsst hat. Maria knows exactly who Fritz kissed has

At first sight, this looks like secondary wh-movement in pied-piping, triggered by PB. However, it is not. As (436) illustrates, echo-questions with wh-in-situ and genau exhibit genau-inversion, too. Also, wh-phrases that remain in-situ in multiple questions and that associate with genau must undergo genau-inversion, see (437). (436)

a.?*Der Fritz hat [ DP genau WEN ] 2 getroffen? the Fritz has exactly who met ‘Fritz met WHO exactly?’ b. Der Fritz hat [ DP WEN genau ] 2 getroffen? the Fritz has who exactly met

(437)

a. *Fritz ratterte runter, wer [ DP genau wen ] 2 getroffen hatte. Fritz rattled off who exactly whom met had ‘Fritz rattled off who had met exactly whom.’

182. This does not seem to be the case for English, though, witness the following example from Pesetsky (2000, 55, footnote 65). (i)

Mary wonders [ DP exactly how many people’s rights ] 2 the government had trampled on t2

252


b. Fritz ratterte runter, wer [ DP wen genau ] 2 getroffen hatte. Fritz rattled off who who exactly met It follows from what has been said in section 2.6 that genau-inversion cannot involve secondary wh-movement triggered by PB via an active wh-probe. Of course, this begs the question as to what triggers genau-inversion. Sauerland and Heck (2003) propose that genau-inversion in pied-piping applies in order to avoid an ‘LF-intervention effect’ (see Beck (1997)). Lutz and Trissler (1992) propose that the D-head of the DP containing genau bears some probe ([∗WH∗] for them) that triggers feature-driven secondary whmovement. See section 2.1.3, chapter 5 for yet another explanation.

2.7.2.

Wh-Degree Constructions

As noted in section 1.4 above, wh-degree constructions in English (and also Danish) exhibit movement of a wh-degree element to the edge of a pied-piped DP. There, I assumed that this is triggered by a probe [∗DEG∗] on D. In the present section I provide arguments for this, and against the idea that degreemovement is an instance of secondary wh-movement that is triggered by PB. A relevant example from English is repeated in (438). (438)

Egbert wonders [ DP [ α how hard ] 2 a t2 problem ] 3 she solved t3 .

(438) arguably involves movement of the phrase how hard, labeled α in (438), from a post-determiner position into a pre-determiner position (see Hendrick (1990)), as indicated in (438). Evidence for this comes from cases involving the non-wh degree element very. If α contains very instead of how, it must occupy a post-determiner position. (439)

a. *Horace solved [ DP very hard a problem ]. b. Horace solved [ DP a very hard problem ].

Some facts about the degree-movement in (438) suggest that it is not triggered by PB (i.e., not dependent on [∗WH∗]). First, degree-movement not only occurs with wh-degree elements but also with certain types of non-wh degree-elements in both English and Danish, see (440) and (441), respectively.183 Thus, degree-movement is not connected to [∗WH∗]. 183. The contrast in English between very in (439) and so and too in (440) suggests that the


253

This is [ DP too hard a problem ] for Egbert to solve. *This is [ DP a too hard problem ] for Egbert to solve. Do you really believe that this is [ DP so hard a problem ]? *Do you really believe that this is [ DP a so hard problem ]?

(440)

a. b. c. d.

(441)

a. [ DP S˚a stor en gryde ] 3 har jeg ikke brug for t3 . so big a pot have I not use for ‘I don’t need so big a pot.’ b. *[ DP En s˚a stor gryde ] 3 har jeg ikke brug for t3 . a so big pot have I not use for

Degree-movement within DP is better not analyzed as secondary degreemovement, either: there is no corresponding primary degree-movement that would dislocate the DP that hosts alleged secondary degree movement (in contrast to what is the case with secondary wh-movement). Fronting in (441-a) involves topicalization, a process that is independent from the presence of a degree-element and that generally applies in Danish main clauses. Arguably then, degree-movement within DP is primary movement (i.e., movement that is immediately followed by Agree). Second, one can observe that a wh-degree operator must undergo degreemovement in English even if it occurs in an echo-question (see Fodor (2001)): (442)

a. Egbert solved [ DP HOW big a problem ]? b. *Egbert solved [ DP a HOW big problem ]?

From what has been said in section 2.6 above, it thus follows that degreemovement cannot be reanalyzed as secondary wh-movement. In the same vein, Ian Roberts (p.c.) informs me that there is obligatory degree-movement of a wh-degree element occuring within a multiple question in English (see also Kennedy and Merchant (2000, 113, footnote 17)). This is shown in (443). (443)

a. When did Egbert solve [ DP how big a problem ]3 ? b. *When did Egbert solve [ DP a how big problem ]3 ?

Again, this suggests that degree-movement is an instance of primary movement and does not correlate with pied-piping. But as a side-effect degreemovement may feed pied-piping by satisfying PB, see section 1.4 above. former is not able to establish Agree with [∗DEG∗] on D, while the latter is. I do not know, though, why this is the case.

254 2.7.3.


R-Pronouns

The next case involves R-pronouns (see van Riemsdijk (1978), Trissler (1993), Müller (2000a)). I concentrate on German but parallel facts hold for Dutch. As is well known, R-pronouns combine with postpositions that, in turn, usually occur as prepositions in other contexts. For instance, the wh-R-pronoun wo ‘where’ in German precedes the postposition mit ‘with’, see (444), which combines as a preposition with full DPs, see (445). (Although wo originally is an adverbial of location, it is able to replace the DP was ‘what’.) (444)

] 2 ist es t2 gemacht? a. [ PP Wo-mit where-with is it made ‘What is it done with?’ b. *[ PP Mit wo ] 2 ist es t2 gemacht? with where is it made

(445)

a. [ PP Mit Liebe ] 2 ist es t2 gemacht. with love is it made ‘It’s love that it’s done with.’ b. *[ PP Liebe mit ] 2 ist es t2 gemacht love with is it made

For the sake of argument, I adopt the analysis of van Riemsdijk (1978), who assumes that the wh-R-pronoun undergoes inversion with the preposition; to be precise, van Riemsdijk (1978) claims that movement of the R-pronoun targets the specifier of a functional head F that takes the PP as its complement. He calls this ‘R-movement’. R-movement in (444-a) looks like secondary whmovement of wo in the context of pied-piping, triggered by LA. Again, there is evidence that it is not. First, the non-wh variant of wo, da ‘there’, obligatorily undergoes R-movement, too, as is illustrated in (446). (446)

a. [ PP Da2 -mit t2 ] 3 hat sie t3 nicht gerechnet. there-with has she not counted ‘She did not count on this.’ b. *[ PP Mit da2 ] 3 hat sie t3 nicht gerechnet. with there has she not counted

Thus, R-movement is not contingent on [∗WH∗]. Second, wh-R-pronouns obligatorily undergo R-movement in the wh-insitu echo-questions (see (447)) and in multiple questions (see (448)).


(447)

a. Du hast [ PP WO2 -mit t2 ] 3 nicht gerechnet? where-with not counted you have ‘You didn’t count on WHAT?’ b. *Du hast [ PP mit WO2 ] 3 nicht gerechnet? you have with where not counted

(448)

a. Wer hat [ PP wo2 mit t2 ] 3 nicht gerechnet? where with not counted who has ‘Who didn’t count on what?’ b. *Wer hat [ PP mit wo2 ] 3 nicht gerechnet? who has with where no counted

255

This is not in agreement with the findings of section 2.6. Therefore, R-movement is better not analyzed as secondary wh-movement triggered by LA.

2.7.4.

Floating Quantifiers in German

It was briefly mentioned in chapter 2 (see section 3.6) that a wh-phrase that is associated with the floating quantifier all- in German is merged as the complement of all- (see also Giusti (1990) and Merchant (1996); the analysis is similar to the analysis that Sportiche (1988, 432-433) offers for floating quantifiers in French). (449)

Fritz kennt [ DP alle diese Gerüchte ]3 . Fritz knows all these rumors ‘Fritz knows all these rumors.’

Usually, all- does not undergo pied-piping (see section 3.6, chapter 2) but is rather stranded. However, in contexts that involve wh-in-situ, the wh-phrase must move to the left of the quantifier. This is illustrated in (450) by a multiple question with wh-in-situ. (450)

a. *Wer kennt [ DP alle [ DP welche Gerüchte ] 2 ]3 ? all which rumors who knows ‘Who knows which rumors?’ b. Wer kennt [ DP [ DP welche Gerüchte ] 2 alle t2 ]3 ? which rumors all who knows

256


This looks like a case of secondary wh-movement that is not contingent on primary wh-movement.184 Perhaps not surprisingly, the same holds for whin-situ in echo-questions, see (451). (451)

a. *Du kennst [ DP alle [ DP WELCHE Gerüchte ] 2 ]? all You know which rumors ‘You know WHICH rumors?’ b. Du kennst [ DP [ DP WELCHE Gerüchte ] 2 alle t2 ]? all which rumors You know

This type of movement must not be confused with secondary wh-movement triggered by PB. The mere fact that it occurs in wh-in-situ contexts suggests that there must be another trigger for it. In fact, it can be argued to apply in order to avoid an LF-intervention effect caused by the element all- (see Beck (1997, 2006), Sauerland and Heck (2003), among many others; cf. also the remarks at the end of section 2.7.1 above).

2.7.5.

Swiping

As already mentioned (section 2.1, chapter 1; section 3.1.1, chapter 2), Ross (1969) and Merchant (2001) argue that sluicing is wh-movement plus PFdeletion of the rest of the wh-clause. (452) involves pied-piping of a PP. (452)

Egbert left with someone but I don’t know [ PP with who2 ].

Under certain conditions, an example of the type in (452) has a variant that involves inversion of preposition and wh-phrase within the pied-piped PP, see (453) (and also footnote 175 above). This is called swiping by Merchant (2002) (cf. Ross (1969), van Riemsdijk (1978, 249)). (453)

Egbert left with someone but I don’t know [ PP who2 with t2 ].

The question is whether this inversion is an instance of secondary wh-movement, triggered by LA. Swiping exhibits at least two properties that shed doubts on this idea. First, it exclusively occurs in the context of sluicing: 184. This bears some similarity to McCloskey’s (2000) analysis of the wh-all construction in an Irish dialect of English. McCloskey (2000, 4, footnote 4) actually suggests that the construction in Irish is rather on a par with German wh-alles mentioned in footnote 120 of section 3.6, chapter 2.


(454)

257

*He left with someone but I don’t know [ PP who2 with t2 ] 3 he left t3 .

This is unlike any other type of secondary wh-movement discussed so far. I cannot see the rationale connecting LA-driven inversion with phonological deletion of the rest of the embedded clause. Second, swiping is optional, as is evident from (452) and (453). If LA were responsible for swiping, one would expect it to apply obligatorily. In view of this, I assume that swiping is not an instance of secondary wh-movement.185 3.


The gist of the third generalization, which is repeated in (455), is that piedpiping is only possible if it is forced. (455)

Repair generalization Pied-piping of β by a wh-phrase α is possible only if a. and b. hold. a. Movement of α out of β is blocked. b. Pied-piping of γ by α out of β is blocked, where γ is dominated by β and dominates α .

The basic idea how to derive (455) has already been illustrated in section 2.4 of chapter 3, when the impossibility of pied-piping a VP was discussed. It is simple and makes use of the same constraint that already figured prominently in deriving the edge generalization (395) in section 2, namely LA. Sometimes, however, particular analyses require some special assumptions. Section 3.1 briefly walks through two relevant derivations. Section 3.2 addresses an observation about pied-piping of PP, originally due to Kayne, that runs against generalization (455). Sections 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 address the problems of ineffability, derived islands, and optional pied-piping, respectively. 185. As observed in Richards (2001), swiping cannot affect the lower one of two wh-phrases in a case where sluicing applies to a multiple question, see (i). (i)

a. I know that people left pairwise but I don’t remember who with who. b. *I know that people left pairwise but I don’t remember who who with.

This bears some resemblance to secondary wh-movement, after all, which, as argued in section 2.6, does not apply in wh-in-situ contexts, provided that the PP who with remains in-situ (involving a sluicing analysis in terms of discontinuous deletion). Alternatively, the PP undergoes movement triggered by the need to escape deletion; see Merchant (2001), Heck and Müller (2003)).

258


3.1.

Preposition Stranding and Pied-Piping

3.1.1.

Preposition Stranding in Danish

Reconsider the lack of prepositional pied-piping (in the appropriate context) in a P-stranding language like Danish, as discussed in section 3.1.1 of chapter 2. For convenience, the relevant contrast is repeated in (456). (456)

a. *Jeg gad vide [ PP med hvem3 ] 2 du har snakket t2 . with who you have spoken I would know ‘I would like to know to whom you have talked.’ b. Jeg gad vide hvem3 du har snakket [ PP med t3 ]2 . with I would know who you have spoken

(456) illustrates that pied-piping of a preposition in Danish is ungrammatical (see (456-a)) if wh-movement of the bare wh-phrase is an option (see (456-b)). This is straightforwardly derived as follows. Suppose the derivation reached a stage where the verb and the PP have been combined to form the VP snakket med hvem. (457)

a. [ PP med hvem ] → b. [ VP snakket [ PP med hvem ]] →

(Merge snakket) ...

The VP in (457-b) is not a phase, thus PB is not an issue. However, the numeration still contains a single [∗WH∗] and therefore LA is relevant. There are two phrase-boundaries in (457-b) that incur LA-violations, PP and VP. As is illustrated in tableau T11 below, one of these violations can be avoided at the costs of a less severe LR-violation if the wh-phrase moves to SpecV (see O2 vs. O1 ). T11 : Local optimization of VP: prepositional pied-piping blocked Input: [ PP med hvem ] + V Num: {. . . , v, T, C[∗WH∗] } O1 : [ VP snakket [ PP med hvem2 ] 3 ] ☞ O2 : [ VP hvem2 snakket [ PP med t2 ] 3 ] O3 : Ø O4 : [ VP [ PP med hvem2 ] 3 snakket t3 ]

EOC

LA

LR

**! *

*

**!

*

*!


259

The empty output is not an option (O3 ); output candidate O4 , which piedpipes the PP to SpecV, does not gain anything with respect to LA and does worse than O1 with respect to LR because PP-raising is not feature-driven. The competition is identical in all relevant respects to the one in tableau T10 , section 2.2 above. Recall from chapter 3 that the LA-violations in O1,2,4 are not caused by a phrase boundary that intervenes on the path between probe and goal of an actual Agree relation. Rather, LA is violated because the mechanism anticipates that this configuration will arise at some later stage of the derivation, namely when the C-head that bears [∗WH∗] is merged. The derivation proceeds on the basis of O2 from tableau T11 . Thus, from this point on, there is no way of deriving prepositional pied-piping. When the next VP-shell headed by har is complete, the same reasoning applies as before. It is the output candidate that moves the bare wh-phrase into the specifier of this VP that is optimal. Pied-piping of the inner VP-shell does not improve with respect to LA and violates LR: (457)

b. c. d. e.

[ VP snakket [ PP med hvem2 ]] → [ VP hvem2 snakket [ PP med t2 ]] → [ VP har [ VP hvem2 snakket [ PP med t2 ]]] → [ VP hvem2 har [ VP t2 snakket [ PP med t2 ]]] →

(Move hvem) (Merge har) (Move hvem) ...

In this way, hvem continues to raise from one specifier to the next (provided no constraint ranked higher than LA militates against this) and finally reaches SpecC, a configuration where the actual Agree relation between [∗WH∗] on C and [ WH ] on the wh-phrase can be established.

3.1.2.

Prepositional Pied-Piping in Danish

As illustrated in section 3.1.1 of chapter 2, if the wh-phrase is embedded within a PP that constitutes an island, then prepositional pied-piping in Danish is not only possible but obligatory. Extraction of the wh-phrase is impossible. A relevant contrast (involving an adjunct PP) is repeated in (458). (458)

a. Jeg gad vide [ PP under hvilke omstændigheder ] 2 han vil under which circumstances he will I would know komme t2 . come ‘I would like to know under which circumstances he will come.’

260


b. *Jeg gad vide [ DP hvilke omstændigheder ] 3 han vil I would know which circumstances he will komme [ PP under t3 ]2 . under come The derivation of (458-a) (and the impossibility of (458-b)) is straightforward. Thus, suppose the VP containing the adjunct PP has been completed. Movement of the bare wh-phrase to SpecV would reduce the number of LAviolations by one, crossing the PP-boundary. However, it is banned by the CED, which is ranked higher than LA. Movement of the PP to SpecV does not change anything with respect to LA and is thus blocked by LR. Nothing happens and the next verbal head vil is merged. (459)

a. [ VP komme [ PP under hvilke omstændigheder ] 2 ] → (Merge vil) ... b. [ VP vil komme [ PP under hvilke omstændigheder ] 2 ] →

At this point, movement of the bare wh-phrase is still blocked by the CED (see O4 in tableau T12 ). But pied-piping of the PP to the specifier of the outer VP-shell spares one LA-violation (at the familiar non-fatal cost of an LRviolation), see O2 as compared to O1 . Other alternatives are worse. T12 : Local optimization of VP: LA-induced prepositional pied-piping Input: [ VP komme [ PP ... hvilke ... ]] + V Num: {. . . , v, T, C[∗WH∗] } O1 : [ VP V [ VP V [ PP ... wh ... ] 3 ]] ☞ O2 : [ VP [ PP ... wh ... ] 3 V [ VP V t3 ]] O3 : Ø O4 : [ VP wh2 V [ VP V [ PP ... t2 ... ] 3 ]]

CED

EOC

LA

LR

**!* **

*

*

*

*! *!

The remainder of the derivation is based on O2 from T12 . As extraction of the wh-phrase from the PP leads to a fatal CED-violation, the derivation proceeds by pied-piping the PP from one specifier to the next. The PP finally ends up in SpecC. Pied-piping of the prepositional phrase is a last resort repair strategy: it applies in violation of LA but thereby avoids greater damage that would be caused otherwise (by extraction of the wh-phrase or by the empty output).


261

Finally, recall that pied-piping of some category α does not automatically sanction pied-piping of another category β that dominates α . That is, the restriction on pied-piping seems to be gradient. Suppose pied-piping of the DP in (460-b) by a wh-degree element hvor ‘how’, were forced by the LBC (cf. (460-a)); then this not license prepositional pied-piping as in (460-c). (460)

a. *Jeg gad vide [ α hvor stor ] 2 man har brug [ PP for t2 en I would know how big one has use for a gryde ]4 . pot ‘I wonder how big a pot one can use.’ b. Jeg gad vide [ DP hvor stor en gryde ] 3 man har brug [ PP how big a pot one has use I would know for t3 ]4 . for c. *Jeg gad vide [ PP for hvor stor en gryde ] 4 man har brug t4 . for how big a pot one has use I would know

This follows from the theory since LA is understood to be gradient: every additional pied-piped phrase boundary incurs another LA-violation. Analogous analyses are applicable to the other cases of repair-driven piedpiping (or rather the lack thereof) that were brought up in chapter 2: prepositional pied-piping in Norwegian, Swedish and English (sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3), voice phrases in English and German (sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2), predicative adjectives in English, Scandinavian, and German (sections 3.4.1, 3.4.2, and 3.4.3), past participles in Russian (section 3.5.1), Basque (section 3.5.2), English (section 3.5.3), Scandinavian (section 3.5.4), and German (section 3.5.5), floating quantifiers in German and French (sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.2), wh-partitives in German (section 3.7), possessors in Chamorro (section 3.8), dont in French (section 3.9), stacked possessors in Tzotzil (section 3.10), and clausal pied-piping in Basque (section 3.11). 3.2.

Amending Prepositions

Kayne (1976, 261) observes for French that ungrammatical pied-piping of a DP by a wh-phrase that occupies a position within the complement domain of D (see (461)) can be amended if the DP is embedded by a preposition that also undergoes pied-piping; see (462) (see also Pollock (1993)).

262


(461)

a. *l’homme [ DP la femme de qui ] 2 tu as insulteé t2 the-man the wife of who you have insulted ‘the man whose wife you have insulted’ b. *l’homme [ DP la femme duquel ] 2 tu as insulteé t2 the-man the wife of-the-who you have insulted

(462)

a. l’homme [ PP avec la femme de qui ] 3 tu t’es disputé t3 the-man with the wife of who you REFL-are argued ‘the man with whose wife you argued’ ] 3 tu t’es b. l’homme [ PP avec la femme duquel with the wife of-the-who you REFL-are the-man disputé t3 argued

This is a problem for the present theory. The PIC should prevent a DP from undergoing pied-piping if the pied-piper is not in its edge domain (as is borne out by (461)), no matter whether the DP is embedded under a preposition or not (or, alternatively, the DP in question is expected to violate PB). If anything, then LA predicts that (462) should be worse than (461), due to the presence of another phrase boundary in (462) that dominates the wh-goal but not the corresponding probe. De Vries (2002) reports that Kayne’s observation carries over to prepositional pied-piping in Dutch and English. (463-a,b) illustrate that pied-piping of a DP from within the complement domain of D is impossible in these languages.186

186. More examples from Dutch are illustrated in (i) and (ii) (see de Vries (2002, 331-334)). (i)

a. *Ik ken de man [ DP de vader van wie ] 2 je t2 uitgenodigd hebt niet. the father of who you invited have not I know the man ‘I don’t know the man whose father you invited.’ b. *Ik ken de man [ DP de vader van wiens vrouw ] 2 je t2 habt I know the man the father of whose wife you have uitgenodigd niet. invited not ‘I don’t know the man whose wife’s father you invited.’ c. *Ik ken de man [ DP de vader van wie zijn vrouw ] 2 je t2 hebt I know the man the father of who his wife you have uitgenodigd niet. invited not ‘I don’t know the man whose wife’s father you invited.’


(463)

263

a. *De man [ DP de vrouw van wie ] 2 ik gisteren t2 heb the wife of who I yesterday have the man ontmoet is timmerman. met is carpenter ‘The man whose wife I met yesterday is carpenter.’ b. *The man [ DP the wife of whom ] 2 I met t2 yesterday is a carpenter.

In contrast, the examples in (464) that involve pied-piping of an additional PP-layer are well-formed, according to de Vries (2002). (464)

a. De man [ PP met de vrouw von wie ] 3 ik gisteren t3 with the wife of who I yesterday the man gesproken heb is timmerman. spoken have is carpenter ‘The man with whose wife I sopke yesterday is carpenter.’ b. The man [ PP to the wife of whom ] 3 I spoke t3 yesterday is a carpenter.

One might speculate that some of the examples that are supposed to show pied-piping of a PP (with the pied-piper in the complement domain of D) in fact involve another structural analysis. Consider, for instance, (462-b) from French. A first parse of the beginning of (462-b) might look like (465).

(ii)

a.

b.

c.

Ik ken de man [ PP met de vader van wie ] 3 je gisteren t3 gesproken I know the man with the father of who you yesterday t3 spoken hebt niet. have not ‘I don’t know the man whose father you talked to yesterday.’ Ik ken de man [ PP met de vader van wiens vrouw ] 3 je gisteren t3 I know the man with the father of whose wife you yesterday hebt gesproken. have spoken ‘I know the man whose wife’s father you talked to yesterday.’ Ik ken de man [ PP met de vader van wie zijn vrouw ] 3 je gisteren I know the man with the father of who his wife you yesterday t3 hebt gesproken. have spoken ‘I know the man whose wife’s father you talked to yesterday’

264 (465)


tu t’es ... [ DP l’homme avec la femme ] duquel3 of-the-who you REFL-have the-man with the wife

It is not before the verb disputé ‘argued’ shows up that the hearer recognizes that they have attributed the wrong structural analysis to (462-b), namely one that analyzes avec la femme as a PP that figures as a modifier of the head noun of the relative clause, l’homme. Suppose that the successful application of wh-movement involved in the parse (465) (pied-piping of duquel is licit) is retained in memory such that it interferes with the second, correct, parse. In particular, suppose that the interference renders (462-b) to appear to be grammatical (even if we do not know exactly how), as opposed to (461-b), which does not allow an alternative parse of the kind illustrated in (465). Unfortunately, this speculation does not carry over to examples like (463), which do not seem to be amenable to an alternative analysis as easily (a constituent the man to the wife is highly improbable). So there must be another explanation. There is evidence that judgments of the type involved in (462) are not uniform. Ross (1967, 1986) presents opposite grammaticality judgments for similar examples from English (see also Stockwell et al. (1973), Wexler and Culicover (1980)). Consider first (466-a-d). These are judged to be well-formed (see Ross (1967, 197-198), Ross (1986, 121)).187 (466)

a. reports [ DP the height of the lettering on the covers of which ] 2 the government prescribes t2 b. reports [ DP the lettering on the covers of which ] 2 the government prescribes the height of t2 c. reports [ DP the covers of which ] 2 the government prescribes [ DP the height of the lettering on t2 ] d. reports, which2 the government prescribes [ DP the height of the lettering on the covers of t2 ]

Next, Ross (1967, 201) (see Ross (1986, 123) as well) observes that piedpiping of PPs that contain the DPs in (466) is ungrammatical (see also, in particular, Wexler and Culicover (1980, 375)), see (467). 187. In section 4 of chapter 2, I argued that it is the dominant view in the literature that massive pied-piping as in (466) is impossible in restrictive relative clauses. This shall not concern us here. The important point is that even Ross, for whom massive pied-piping in a restrictive relative clause is possible, does not generally allow for massive pied-piping of a PP in this context.


(467)

265

a. *reports [ PP of the lettering on the covers of which ] 3 the government prescribes the height t3 b. *reports [ PP on the covers of which ] 3 the government prescribes the height of the lettering t3 c. *reports [ PP of which ] 3 the government prescribes the height of the lettering on the covers t3

Ross also notes that something similar emerges in the context of interrogatives, as illustrated in (468). (468)

a. [ DP Which Greek authors ] 2 does he have books by t2 ? b.?*[ PP By which Greek authors ] 3 does he have books t3 ?

This is the opposite of what is reported for the French examples (462) and (461), or the English and Dutch examples (463) and (464) above.188 Similarly, Jones (1996, 510-511) mentions that examples like (462), although better than (461), are still awkward. Finally, in my view, the contrasts between pied-piping of a DP and pied-piping of a PP from above cannot be reproduced for German (but see de Vries (2005) for a different view). This is illustrated in (469) and (470), which are equally ungrammatical. (469) a. *ein Mann, [ DP die Frau von dem ] 2 du t2 beleidigt hast the wife of who you insulted have a man ‘a man whose wife you have insulted’ b. *ein Mann, [ DP den Vater von dessen Frau ] 2 du t2 beleidigt hast the father of whose wife you insulted have a man ‘a man whose wife’s father you have insulted’ c. *ein Mann, [ DP den Vater von dem seiner Frau ] 2 du t2 beleidigt the father of who his wife you insulted a man hast have ‘a man whose wife’s father you have insulted’ (470) a. *ein Mann, [ PP mit der Frau von dem ] 3 du t3 diskutiert hast with the wife of who you argued have a man ‘a man whose wife you argued with’ 188. Admittedly, the examples in (467) involve wh-movement plus pied-piping out of a DP while the examples (462) and (464) involve pied-piping of the complement of a verb. One might thus argue that the ungrammaticality of (467) is due to some independent restriction on movement, not on pied-piping per se.

266


b. *ein Mann, [ PP mit dem Vater von dessen Frau ] 3 du t3 a man with the father of whose wife you diskutiert hast argued have ‘a man whose wife’s father you argued with’ c. *ein Mann, [ PP mit dem Vater von dem seiner Frau ] 3 du t3 a man with the father of who his wife you diskutiert hast argued have ‘a man whose wife’s father you argued with’ To conclude, there appears to be variation as to whether speakers detect the amending effect that prepositions are supposed to exert. Two questions need to be answered. First, how can the amending effect be explained within the present theory? Second, why are the relevant judgments so unstable. To this end, recall that in section 1.4 above I assumed the existence of a process of covert phrasal movement that renders a wh-feature accessible by targeting the edge domain of a DP-phase. My hunch is that a similar type of covert movement applies in (462). Since (461) is ungrammatical, even for speakers that detect the amending effect of prepositions, I conclude that the covert movement must target SpecP, not SpecD. Suppose that for these speakers P can bear a probe [∗P∗] that (covertly) lures a PP into its specifier. A wh-goal that is the complement of the moved PP would then be accessible within the matrix PP and the amending effect of prepositions in pied-piping would be explained. Speakers of German that share the judgments in (470) then lack the possibility of providing either D or P with the relevant [∗P∗].189 Thus, variation with respect to the amending effect of prepositions across and within languages is attributed to variation in the lexicon. In sections 1.1–1.5 of chapter 5, I argue that massive pied-piping involves another covert operation: wh-feature movement. In principle, wh-feature movement could also replace the type of covert movement assumed here. However, it cannot, as already argued in section 1.4 above, replace the covert operation that was hypothesized there. In any event, the contrast between the examples in (461) and (462) would be accounted for by wh-feature movement if P attracted [ WH ] while D did not (see de Vries (2002, 2005)).190 189. Cf. section 2.3.1 above, where it was argued that for some speakers of German D can bear a [∗P∗] that triggers overt movement. 190. There remains a potential complication with this idea because it is also proposed in chap-


267

Admittedly, this does not yet explain the contrast between (466) and (467), which is reported by Ross (1967, 1986) and Wexler and Culicover (1980). I do not give an explanation here (but cf. footnote 188). Finally, all this again raises the question as to how many ‘covert’ operations the present theory of pied-piping needs. As already mentioned in section 1.4 above, I consider it problematic that, so far, it requires Agree and covert phrasal movement, and that, in addition to this, feature movement is employed in chapter 5. These complications owe to the recalcitrancy of the phenomenon under investigation (and, perhaps, also to a lack of proper understanding). In section 1.4, chapter 5 the issue is taken up again.

3.3.

Ineffability

As mentioned in section 3.12 of chapter 2, there are cases where neither piedpiping nor extraction (due to an island constraint) of the wh-word is possible. Rather, absolute ungrammaticality results. It is the purpose of the present section to illustrate how these cases are derived by the theory. The idea as to how this is to be done has already been brought up in the sections 1.3.1 and 2.3.2 above. It is based on the interaction of PB (or the PIC), the PEC, the EOC, and certain island constraints (partially subsumed under the CED). Suppose some phasal category β (CP or DP) occupies a position where it forms an in-situ island (a subject position, for instance). A wh-phrase α contained within β cannot be extracted (due to the CED). If pied-piping of β by α is to be possible at all, then α has to undergo secondary wh-movement into β ’s edge domain. This is forced by PB. However, since secondary whmovement of α is not feature-driven, such movement violates the PEC. To conclude, there is no way that the CED, PB, and the PEC can be satisfied simultaneously. Provided that the CED, PB, and the PEC are all ranked above the EOC, it follows that the empty output Ø is optimal: ineffability arises (the derivation crashes). For instance, consider the following paradigm involving a wh-phrase that is associated with a pre-nominal attributive adjective in German (partially repeated from section 3.12, chapter 2). ter 5 that wh-feature movement is not possible in restrictive relative clauses. There seems to be some variation, though, see section 1.6.2, chapter 5.

268 (471)


a. *jemand, dem2 sie [ DP ein t2 gewidmetes Buch ] 4 gab someone who she a dedicated book gave ‘someone who she gave a book that was dedicated to him/her’ b. *jemand, [ AP dem2 gewidmetes ] 3 sie [ DP ein t3 Buch ]4 gab who dedicated book gave she a someone c. *jemand, [ DP ein dem2 gewidmetes Buch ] 4 sie t4 gab a who dedicated book she gave someone ein t2 gewidmetes Buch ] 4 sie t4 gab d. *jemand, [ DP dem2 who.DAT a dedicated book she gave someone

(471-a,b) show that both extraction of the wh-word and extraction of the whword plus associated adjective are impossible, presumably due to some island constraint. (471-c) illustrates that pied-piping of the complete DP is blocked if the wh-phrase remains in-situ within the pied-piped constituent. PB is violated by this structure because [ WH ] is not accessible within DP. Finally, (471-d) involves secondary wh-movement of der into the edge domainof the pied-piped DP. In this last case, PB is satisfied but the PEC is violated. Note incidentally that (471-a) and (471-d) have a reading where the relative pronoun is not associated with the adjective but is a benefactive argument of the verb gekauft ‘bought’. Under this (irrelevant) reading they are in fact grammatical (modulo the markedness of scrambling of the indefinite in (471-d)). The other instances of ineffability mentioned in section 3.12, chapter 2, are derived in the same way.

3.4.

Derived Islands

In all the cases of ineffability encountered in section 3.12 of chapter 2, the island β does not undergo any movement by itself. But now suppose a scenario where first β undergoes movement that is triggered by some probe [∗F∗], matching a goal [ F ] on the head of β , and second that this movement happens before wh-movement applies to the wh-phrase α that is embedded in β . This derivation is illustrated in (472-a,b). (472)

a. [ β . . . α . . . ] 2 . . . → b. [ β . . . α . . . ] 2 . . . t2 . . . → c. [ β . . . α . . . ] 2 . . . t2 . . . t2 . . . →

(Move β ) (Move α , pied-pipe β ) ...


269

Crucially, once β has moved, as in (472-b), it no longer occupies a complement position. It thus turns into a derived island, subject to the CED. In the terminology of Ross (1967, 1986), β is frozen (see section 4.1.2 of chapter 1). Consequently, wh-movement of α out of β is blocked, and one would expect α to pied-pipe β , provided that PB and the PEC can be satisfied, too. Thus, whenever a category β containing α undergoes movement by itself prior to wh-movement of α , then pied-piping of β by α should be possible.191 This has the following consequence. Since the effect of moving β is undone in the further course of the derivation (by pied-piping of β ), there is the danger that the generalization (455) is undermined. Namely, the contraposition of (455) states that if extraction of α is possible, then pied-piping of β is impossible. But given the scenario in (472), it is conceivable that piedpiping is possible although extraction is possible, too. Of course, extraction of α in (472-c) is, in fact, not possible. However, there is also a derivation where β has not undergone the island-inducing movement and where extraction of α is possible. The problem is that one cannot tell apart these cases because the island inducing step is masked by subsequent pied-piping. At first sight, the evidence in support of (455) that was presented in section 3 of chapter 2 must now be reconsidered. If for any of these cases it can be shown that wh-movement of α is preceeded by (optional) movement of β , then this makes the prediction that pied-piping should be possible after all. That the prediction is not borne out is illustrated by (473). (473-a) involves short (illicit) pied-piping of an AP in German. (473-b) exhibits long piedpiping of the same constituent. Suppose that the AP in (473-b) reaches SpecC of the embedded clause (indicated by t2 ) by AP-topicalization. That such a movement can be motivated independently for this context is shown in (474). (473)

a. *Fritz hat gefragt, [ AP stolz auf wen ] 2 Maria t2 ist. proud on who Maria is Fritz has asked ‘Fritz asked who Maria is proud of.’ b. *Fritz hat gefragt, [ AP stolz auf wen ] 2 du glaubst t2 dass proud on who you believe that Fritz has asked Maria t2 ist. Maria is ‘Fritz asked who you believe that Maria is proud of.’

191. In what follows, I ignore that if β is a phase, then the PEC has to be satisfied, too. In fact, this filters out some unwanted derivations and thus smoothens the problem discussed in the main text.

270


(474)

Fritz glaubt [ AP stolz auf ihn ] 2 wird Maria niemals t2 sein. Fritz believes proud of him will Maria never be ‘Fritz believes that it is proud of him that Maria will never be.’

Once the AP has been topicalized, it is frozen. According to (455), subsequent wh-movement of wen would then be expected to pied-pipe the AP along. This, however, is impossible, as (473-b) suggests.192 In what follows, I argue that although a derivation like (472), with its consequences for pied-piping, might be possible theoretically it only arises under very restricted circumstances. Consequently, the mere existence of such derivations is not a general threat to the generalization (455). To begin with, consider the question what kind of movement β undergoes in (472-b). Suppose first that β undergoes scrambling. Müller and Sternefeld (1993) argue extensively for a constraint they dub the P RINCIPLE OF U NAMBIGUOUS B INDING (PUB). Among other things, the PUB prevents an item from undergoing A-bar movement to SpecC followed by scrambling, or the other way round. If movement of β in (472-b) is scrambling followed by pied-piping of β to SpecC, then this violates the PUB. Assuming that Müller and Sternefeld (1993) are right in claiming that the PUB exists, this leaves the possibility that β first moves to SpecC of the embedded clause, as was suggested in (473-b).193 I can think of two ways of ruling out such a derivation. Neither of them is very convincing. First, one might argue that movement of β (due to the presence of some goal [ F ] on β ’s head) to SpecC of the embedded clause is movement into a scope position. Subsequent wh-movement of α plus pied192. Secondary wh-movement within the AP does not really improve the example, see (i). (i)

*Fritz hat gefragt, [ AP auf wen stolz ] 2 du glaubst t2 dass Maria t2 ist. on who proud you believe that Maria is Fritz has asked

193. Recall that in the present theory wh-movement tends to apply successive cyclically, traversing as many intermediate specifiers as possible so as to avoid violations of PB and LA, respectively. These movement steps to clause internal specifiers must not count as regular movement steps for the PUB, like scrambling, because ultimately the whphrase moves to SpecC. Thus, the PUB must not count non-feature driven movement. This speculation is not unproblematic, though: since successive cyclic wh-movement to SpecC is non-feature driven, too, in the present theory the PUB would no longer block improper movement (or long scrambling in German), clearly an unwanted result. A solution to the dilemma is to assume that some types of repair-driven movement insert pseudo-features (thereby, non-fatally, violating I NCLUSIVENESS), triggering movement visible to the PUB, while others do not, cf. footnote 148, section 1.4.1, chapter 3.


271

piping of β would remove β from this scope position. There is evidence from other constructions that scope bearing elements are frozen in place, once they have reached their scope position. For instance, movement from one whposition into another wh-position is banned, see (475). (475)

*What2 do you wonder t2 Mary bought t2 ?

This idea would then prevent a derivation with β moving to the embedded SpecC-position followed by pied-piping of β to the matrix SpecC-position. Note, however, that there are also grammatical cases where wh-movement overshoots the mark, i.e., the wh-phrase moves across the position where it is interpreted semantically (see Reis and Rosengren (1992) on wh-imperatives in German, or Kang and Müller (1996) on long wh-scrambling in Korean).194 What is more, it is unclear in what sense topicalization in German is movement to a scope position. Rather, it is pure formal movement triggered by a probe on C (say [∗TOP∗]) that shows reconstructions effects and is not associated with any fixed interpretation. Second, one could speculate that the corresponding goal [ TOP ] on β interacts with [ WH ] on α in such a way as to block the derivation in question. Admittedly, [ TOP ] is not the same feature as [ WH ]. But still, one might argue that they are sufficiently similar so that [ TOP ] can act as an intervener for the relation between [∗WH∗] and [ WH ] at the point where α is supposed to be attracted by [∗WH∗] on the matrix C-head (see Hagstrom (1998), who argues that sufficiently similar features can cause intervention effects). See section 1.4.1, chapter 3 for the relevant definition of Agree, which also implicitly defines the notion of intervention. Fortunately, there is a theory-internal reason for why a derivation like (472) will not succeed unless very restricted circumstances are met. Reconsider the beginning of the derivation (472). Suppose a stage of the derivation where β has been merged with the next higher head δ (projecting Δ), as in (476). (476)

[ Δ . . . δ [β . . . α . . . ] 2 . . . ] . . . →

...

194. What distinguishes these cases from the hypothetical case described in the main text is that they involve movement to an ultimate position not interpreted as a scope position. It might be that this is what makes these constructions possible after all, still ruling out the derivation in the main text.

272


The numeration still contains the single [∗WH∗] that is supposed to be eliminated by the wh-goal on α . By assumption, it also contains the single [∗TOP∗] that is ultimately supposed to establish Agree with [ TOP ] on β . Note that in (476) LA cannot force β to move to Specδ : before and after raising of β to Specδ there is precisely one phrase boundary that dominates [ TOP ] on β (and not [∗TOP∗]), namely Δ. Thus, raising of β to Specδ is blocked by LR. However, all things equal, LA forces raising of α to Specδ in (476). There are two phrase boundaries that dominate the wh-goal on α in (476), namely β and Δ, and movement of α to Specδ would skip one of these. Therefore LA forces α to leave β before β can undergo movement. But then β can never turn into a derived island early enough to induce pied-piping by α . There is one context that forces β -raising to Specδ in (476). If δ is a phase head, then PB favors β -raising, owing to both [∗TOP∗] and [∗WH∗]. This operation renders both [ TOP ] and [ WH ] accessible within Δ and thus satisfies PB. Moreover, it incurs one LR-violation. Raising first α and then (remnant) β separately to Specδ also renders both goals accessible but it incurs two LRviolations. However, note that separate raising also spares one LA-violation because α skips the β -boundary. LA being ranked higher than LR, it follows again that α leaves β before β can turn into an island.195 Thus, in both cases α moves before β does and no freezing-induced pied-piping of the type in (472) can arise. Freezing-induced pied-piping of the type sketched in (472) is possible only if two conditions conspire. First, for all specifier positions that are yet to come and that c-command β (and that are below the ultimate target positions of α and β ) it must be the case that if they cannot be targeted by β , then they must not be targetable by α either. A specifier position may resist to serve as a target either if there is a constraint P that is ranked higher than LA and that prevents such movement, or if there is nothing to gain from such movement for LA (in which case it is blocked by LR). Under such circumstances, α cannot move, thereby escaping β , while β is bound to stay. Second, the first specifier of those mentioned above (counted from bottom to top) that actually can be targeted by β must not be targetable by α . The result is that β will move while α remains inside β . If the specifier in question were targetable by α , too, then LA would force separate raising of α and β .

195. Alternatively, one might assume, following Abels (2003), that phase heads cannot be stranded. This would then also prevent β -raising to Specδ .


273

Only if both conditions are fulfilled will β be able to move before α can leave β . Once having been moved, β is a derived island and undergoes pied-piping at some future point of the derivation. To assume that such a conspiracy actually holds for a particular case requires independent evidence. In any event, chances are low that it ever comes into existence. I thus conclude that a derivation like (472) does not pose a general problem to the generalization (455).

3.5.

Optional Pied-Piping

In some sense, the problem of optional pied-piping brought up in section 3.13 of chapter 2 is the mirror image of the problem of ineffability. While ineffability arises because neither extraction of the wh-word nor pied-piping are possible, optionality means that both pied-piping and extraction are possible. But generalization (455) predicts that optionality should not exist. Technically, the problem is that in a competition based framework where pied-piping is a costly operation a derivation that involves pied-piping should always be blocked by one that does without (see Koster (1978, 571) and Collins (1997, 120) for pertinent remarks). Put in optimality-theoretic terms, suppose that there are two output candidates, O1 and O2 . O1 involves piedpiping, incurring LA-violations, whereas O2 does not and therefore avoids these costs. Under the premise that O1 and O2 are part of the same candidate set (are in competition), one would expect O2 to be preferred over O1 . But then O1 is suboptimal and should be ungrammatical. As seen in section 3.13 of chapter 2, there is evidence to the contrary. This calls for an explanation. What makes the task delicate is that any such explanation must ensure that it does not generate optional pied-piping in those contexts where it does not exist (see section 3, chapter 2). To briefly illustrate, reconsider optional preposition stranding by wh-Rpronouns in German (see section 3.13.1, chapter 2), repeated here as (477-a,b). (477)

a. etwas, wo3 du nicht [ PP t3 mit ] 2 gerechnet hast something where you not with calculated have ‘something you didn’t take into account’ ] 2 du nicht t2 gerechnet hast b. etwas [ PP womit where-with you not calculated have something

Suppose we enter the derivation at the point where the PP has already been

274


constructed and a higher head, the participle gerechnet, is merged in the next step: (478)

a. [ PP wo2 -mit ] → b. [ VP [ PP wo2 -mit ] gerechnet ] →

(Merge V) ...

Abstracting away from other possible candidates, the competition looks as depicted in tableau T13 . T13 : Local optimization of VP: LA-induced movement to SpecV Input: gerechnet + [ PP wo2 -mit ] Num: {. . . , v, T, C[∗WH∗] } O1 : [ VP [ PP wo2 -mit ] gerechnet ] ☞ O2 : [ VP wo2 [ PP t2 -mit ] gerechnet ] O3 :Ø

EOC

LA

LR

**! *

*

*!

O2 , which involves raising of the wh-phrase to the specifier of VP, incurs less LA-violations than O1 due to the fact that it skips the PP-boundary. O1 is thus suboptimal and it is O2 that serves as the input for the next cycle. In other words, all potential continuations are based on an input that has stranded the preposition; no candidate that involves prepositional pied-piping can ever become optimal, in contrast to what is suggested by (477-b). Had the preposition been merged with a full wh-phrase or with a non-Rpronoun instead, then the LA-violation of O1 would not have been fatal: in this case, stranding the preposition had violated the high-ranked prohibition against P-stranding that is active in German. I assume here that R-pronouns have some property that enables them to strand prepositions without violating this constraint, see Fanselow (1983), Bennis and Hoekstra (1984). In what follows, different approaches to the problem of optional piedpiping are briefly addressed: the tie-approach (section 3.5.1), an idea to reduce optional pied-piping to optional scrambling (section 3.5.2), two approaches that reanalyze pied-piping in terms of remnant movement (sections 3.5.3 and 3.5.4), and finally an analysis that suggests that pied-piping and stranding are actually not in competition in some cases (section 3.5.5). I hasten to add that each of these approaches has its drawbacks and none of them is able to explain the whole range of examples. I thus cannot offer a general solution to the problem of optional pied-piping. It is rather the aim of this


275

section to point out different (though perhaps imperfect) ways to tackle the problem. The conclusion is that optional pied-piping must be traced back to different sources and that the choice between them has to be made for every case individually.

3.5.1.

Constraint Ties

A tie is an optimality-theoretic concept conceived in order to come to grips with the phenomenon of optionality.196 Several different variants of the notion of tie have been proposed in the literature (see Müller (2000b) for an overview). The differences among them have empirical consequences. But what they all have in common is that in an abstract competition as in tableau T14 , output candidates O1 and O2 are both optimal. Note that the constraints C2 and C3 in T14 are tied (graphically indicated by the lack of a vertical line separating C2 from C3 ). In contrast, C1 is ranked higher than C2 , C3 , and C4 ; and C4 is ranked lower than C1 , C2 , and C3 . T14 : Optionality via constraint tie Input: . . . ☞ O1 : ☞ O2 : O3 : O4 :

C1

C2

C3

C4

* * *(!)

*(!)

*!

The output candidates O1 and O2 only differ with respect to the constraints C2 and C3 , which, intuitively, are equally important. As a consequence, both O1 and O2 come out as optimal. O1 satisfies C2 at the costs of a violation of C3 , and O2 satisfies C3 at the costs of a violation of C2 . If optional pied-piping is to be approached in terms of a constraint tie, then one has to identify C2 and C3 . Obviously, one of them must be LA in the present theory because one of the candidates O1 and O2 in tableau T14 would involve pied-piping and therefore violate LA. The questions is which 196. For another optimality-theoretic treatment of optionality, namely neutralization, see, for instance, Müller (2000b), Schmid (2001), and references therein.

276


constraint LA is tied to. It must be a constraint that is not violated by the pied-piping candidate and that is violated by the candidate that moves the wh-word. None of the constraints proposed so far fits the bill. Suppose that there were a constraint C5 that is violated each time that movement crosses a maximal projection; this constraint would favor piedpiping over extraction. If C5 were tied with LA, this would result in optional pied-piping everywhere. The problem is that such an assumption undermines the explanation for the phenomena collected in section 3 of chapter 2: it was argued back there, that there is evidence that pied-piping is blocked in contexts where extraction is possible. To overcome this problem, one could assume that there is yet another constraint C6 that distinguishes O1 and O2 and that favors the candidate without pied-piping in precisely those environments where optional pied-piping does not exist. To conclude, it may be technically possible to approach the problem of optional pied-piping with the concept of constraint ties. The task would consist of determining the property with respect to which the cases in section 3 of chapter 2 form a natural class. C6 must then be related to this property. As for now, I have to leave open, though, what this property could be.

3.5.2.

Freezing-Induced Pied-Piping

An alternative way to derive optional pied-piping is based on an idea brought up in section 3.4 above. There, the possibility was discussed that a constituent β is optionally pied-piped by a wh-phrase α because before wh-movement applies to α , β undergoes movement itself. After having moved, β occupies a non-complement position and is therefore a derived island. At a later step of the derivation, when wh-movement applies to α , extraction of α out of β is impossible; instead pied-piping applies to β . In this way, optional pied-piping would reduce to some movement operation that optionally affects β , say, scrambling. Under the assumption that scrambling is triggered by some feature, it is clear that a derivation that involves scrambling does not compete with a derivation that does not: their inputs are not the same (one involves a scrambling feature, the other does not); and it was an assumption throughout this book that identity of the input is a precondition for competition (see section 1.3, chapter 3).197 197. I am ignoring here, for the sake of argument, that, in fact, such a derivation is blocked for many reasons, among them the PUB; see section 3.4 above.


277

The idea has the attractive property that it correlates two independent characteristics that distinguish English from German. First, optional pied-piping applies relatively often in German, whereas in English virtually not a single case arises. On the other hand, German exhibits optional scrambling, while English does not. Categories that undergo optional pied-piping in German (see chapter 2) are PPs (R-pronouns; section 3.13.1), DPs (was-für-split; section 3.13.2), DegPs (headed by zu) that contain a wh-degree element (section 3.13.3), participles and predicative APs that contain a wh-degree element (section 3.13.4), and possibly CPs (infinitival pied-piping; again see section 3.13.4). It is uncontroversial that PPs, DPs, and also infinitival CPs undergo optional scrambling in German. These cases are illustrated in (479), (480), and (481), respectively. (479)

] 2 nicht gerechnet hat a. dass Maria gestern [ PP da-mit there-with not counted has that Maria yesterday ‘that Maria did not take this into account yesterday’ ] 2 gestern t2 nicht gerechnet hat b. dass Maria [ PP da-mit there-with yesterday not counted has that Maria

(480)

a. dass Fritz Maria [ DP den Brief ] 2 gab the letter gave that Fritz Maria ‘that Fritz gave Mary the letter’ b. dass Fritz [ DP den Brief ] 2 Maria t2 gab the letter Maria gave that Fritz

(481)

a. Das hat sich nicht [ CP zu beanstanden ] 2 gehört. this has REFL not to complain-about been-apt ‘It was not appropriate to complain about this.’ ] 2 sich nicht t2 gehört. b. Das hat [ CP zu beanstanden been-apt to complain-about REFL not this has

That they undergo optional pied-piping is thus expected if optional piedpiping is the result of scrambling-induced freezing. More problematic is the fact that optional pied-piping also applies to DegPs (headed by zu) and other predicates that contain a wh-degree element. The reason is that predicates usually tend to resist scrambling in German (see von Stechow and Sternefeld (1988), Haider (1993)). And DegPs headed by zu also scramble rather reluctantly, as illustrated in (482).

278 (482)


a. dass Fritz gestern [ DegP 20 km/h zu schnell ] 2 fuhr that Fritz yesterday 20 km/h too fast drove ‘that Fritz exceeded the speed limit by 20 kilometers per hour yesterday’ b.*?dass Fritz [ DegP 20 km/h zu schnell ] 2 gestern t2 fuhr that Fritz 20 km/h too fast yesterday drove

It is a precondition for pied-piping of these categories that the pied-piper is a wh-degree element.198 If optional pied-piping is a reflex of optional scrambling, then only predicates containing a wh-degree element should undergo scrambling. I have no explanation for why this should be the case. Actually, the ban on scrambling predicates in German is not categorical. Thus, von Stechow and Sternefeld (1988) (see also Müller (1995)) observe that predicates in German can scramble after all, given the particular intonation of a rising tone followed by a falling tone, called I-topicalization in the literature (a raising tone is indicated in (483) by ‘’, a falling tone by ‘’): (483)

Ich glaube dass [ AP betrunken ] 2 keiner t2 reinkommt. I think that drunk no-one enters ‘I believe that nobody who is drunk will be allowed to enter.’

This predicts that pied-piping of a predicate should become possible if the intonation contour of I-topicalization is present, as in (484-a) ((484-b) is the variant without pied-piping and without I-topicalization).199 (484)

a. ?Fritz wüsste gerne [ AP wen3 betrunken ] 2 noch Fritz would-know willingly who drunk yet hat. keiner t2 erlebt experienced has no-one ‘Fritz would love to know whom nobody has seen drunk yet.’ b. Fritz wüsste gerne wen3 noch keiner [ AP t3 Fritz would-know willingly who yet nobody betrunken ] 2 erlebt hat. drunk experienced has

198. This recalls the discussion of wh-degree elements in section 1.4 of the present chapter. 199. This presupposes that the intonational structure that scrambling induces is conserved for the remainder of the derivation, even if the scrambled predicate undergoes further movement to SpecC. The theory of cyclic spell-out proposed by Bresnan (1971, 1972) predicts this (see section 2.5 above and section 2, chapter 5 for more details of cyclic spell-out).


279

As indicated by the judgment, the prediction appears to be borne out, at least as a tendency. The logic cannot be extended to predicates that contain a whdegree element, though, because optional pied-piping of these does not require any special intonation. Among the cases that do not exhibit optional pied-piping (see chapter 2) are predicates without a wh-degree element (sections 3.3.2, 3.4.3, and 3.5.5) and some cases involving DPs (floating quantifiers and wh-partitives; sections 3.6.1 and 3.7, respectively). The lack of optional pied-piping of predicates fits the hypothesis under discussion. But floating quantifiers and wh-partitives are expected to undergo pied-piping, given that DPs in German scramble.200 Turning to languages other than English and German, it can be observed that, on the one hand, Russian and Greek, which exhibit nominal splits, also exhibit optional scrambling of DPs. On the other hand, optional pied-piping of DP also occurs in languages that do not exhibit scrambling at all, like Danish, Norwegian, and French.201 Finally, there is the question as to why freezing induced pied-piping does not seem to arise with other optional movements like, for instance, extraposition. Consider the Danish example in (485), which involves a case of PP-extraposition in Danish. (485)

[ PP om dansk syntaks ]2 . Jeg læste en bog t2 i g˚ar about Danish syntax I read a book yesterday ‘I read a book yesterday about Danish syntax.’

Extraposition in Danish induces freezing. In (486-a), a DP has been topicalized from an extraposed argument PP; the result is ill-formed. DP-topicalization out of the PP is unproblematic if it remains in-situ (see (486-b)). (486)

a. *[ DP Dansk syntaks ] 1 læste jeg en bog t2 i g˚ar Danish syntax read I a book yesterday [PP om t1 ]2 . about ‘It was Danish sytnax that I read a book about yesterday.’

200. If Wiltschko (1997) is right and wh-partitives are on a par with presuppositional indefinites in the sense of Diesing (1992), then it is even more expected that wh-partitives should leave the VP, i.e., undergo scrambling. 201. Mainland Scandinavian exhibits object shift, but only with pronouns and only if the main verb moves, too, see Holmberg (1986), Vikner (1995), Holmberg (1999). Moreover, object shift is obligatory and is thus not suited to derive optional pied-piping.

280


b. [ DP Dansk syntaks ] 1 læste jeg en bog [ PP om t1 ] 2 Danish syntax read I a book about i g˚ar. yesterday Still, as mentioned repeatedly (section 4.2, chapter 1; section 3.1.1, chapter 2; and section 3.1.1 above), pied-piping of argument PPs in Danish is blocked. To conclude, although the idea to reduce optional pied-piping to a freezing effect induced by optional scrambling is attractive at first sight, it faces several problems.

3.5.3.

Stranding as Remnant Movement

There is another approach that also correlates optional pied-piping with scrambling, but in a more indirect way than the approach suggested in section 3.5.2 above.202 The idea is that what looks like optional stranding (or, equivalently, optional pied-piping) of a category β by a wh-phrase α is actually wh-movement of a remnant β that has been evacuated by everything except for α , see (487). (487)

. . . [ β . . . α . . . t2 . . . ] 3 . . . γ2 . . . t3 . . .

α may be the head of β , in which case there is no pied-piping at all; or α may not be β ’s head, in which case β must be an island for extraction of α if the generalization (455) is to be respected. Of course, β must not be an island for extraction of γ in (487), because this latter movement creates the remnant in the first place. Moreover, since stranding is optional, there must also be a derivation that does not evacuate β before it undergoes wh-movement. To illustrate, consider the case of was-für-split in German. Under the approach to optional stranding in terms of remnant movement suggested above, the analysis for stranding by was-für-split looks as in (488). (488)

Fritz weiß, [ DP was t3 ] 2 du [ PP für Leute ] 3 t2 eingeladen hast. what you for people invited have Fritz knows ‘Fritz knows what kind of people you invited.’

202. Thanks to Kyle Johnson for suggesting this line of thought.


281

I remain agnostic about whether what is the head of DP2 in (488) or not.203 In any event, the analysis presupposes that the für-PP has scrambled out of the DP before the (then remnant) DP moves to SpecC. As noted above, PPs indeed undergo optional scrambling in German. If was is not the head of the was-für-phrase, then LA forces the assumption that bare was is not able to undergo wh-movement on its own.204 If it were, then LA would always favor extraction of was over wh-movement of the remnant was-für-phrase. In this way, optional pied-piping (or stranding) reduces to the existence of optional scrambling. Optional pied-piping by R-pronouns can be treated accordingly if R-movement targets the specifier of a functional head F that takes PP as its complement (see section 2.7.3 above). In the derivation that involves stranding, the PP then undergoes scrambling, thereby creating the FP-remnant. Finally, the remnant FP undergoes wh-movement. Again, FP must be an island for the R-pronoun but not for the PP. Infinitives in German should perhaps be analyzed differently (under the familiar caveat that they may not involve pied-piping to begin with): the reason is that there is an almost arbitrary large amount of material (distributed over various constituents) that would have to be assumed to move out of the CP in order to create the remnant. Nothing new has to be said about categories that do not undergo piedpiping in German, such as floating quantifiers (see section 3.6, chapter 2). If the wh-phrase is the specifier of a DP headed by the quantifier all- ‘all’ (see 203. Corver (1991) argues that in wat-voor-split constructions in Dutch wat is not the head of the wat-voor-phrase. One argument is based on the contrast in (i). (i)

a. *Ik weet niet [ DP wat voor honden ] 3 mij heeft t3 gebeten. what for dog. PL me have. SG bitten I know not ‘I don’t know what kind of dogs have bitten me.’ b. Ik weet niet [ DP wat voor honden ] 3 mij hebben t3 gebeten. I know not what for dog. PL me have. PL bitten

The relevant observation is that subject verb agreement in the wat-voor-construction takes place between the nominal that follows the preposition voor ‘for’ and the verb, not between wat ‘what’ (which is always singular) and the verb (see (i-a)). The same facts hold for German. 204. This follows if the was-für-phrase is an island for extraction of was (perhaps due to the LBC). As a matter of fact, extraction of was out of the remnant was-für-phrase is empirically indistinguishable from pied-piping of the remnant. It is only the fact that the whole was-für-phrase can optionally undergo wh-movement that suggests that (all things equal) was cannot be extracted.

282


section 2.7.4 above), and if extraction of the wh-phrase is possible, it follows from LA why the quantifier cannot be pied-piped, see again (489). (489)

a. *die Gerüchte, [ DP die3 alle ] 2 sie t2 kennt which all she knows the rumors ‘the rumors that she knows all’ b. die Gerüchte, die3 sie [ DP t3 alle ] 2 kennt the rumors which she all knows

The same logic derives the lack of optional pied-piping of other phrases of different types (see sections 3.2–3.5 and 3.7–3.10, chapter 2). The approach may also give a handle on the recalcitrant cases of optional pied-piping of predicates and zu-DegPs in German that contain a wh-degree element (section 3.13.4, chapter 2). A relevant pair is repeated in (490). (490)

a. Man konnte sehen, wie schlecht das verständlich war. one could see how badly this understandable was ‘It became obvious how hard it was to understand this.’ b. Man konnte sehen, wie schlecht verständlich das war. one could see how badly understandable this was

If the stranding variant (490-a) is to be analyzed in terms of (487), then the adjective verständlich ‘understandable’ must form a maximal projection γ under exclusion of wie schlecht (representing α in (487)) so that movement of γ out of wie schlecht verständlich (the not yet evacuated β in (487)) creates the remnant β that finally undergoes wh-movement. Thus suppose that wie schlecht (containing the wh-degree element wie) actually raises out of the AP headed by verständlich and moves into the specifier of a functional head F that takes the AP as complement and that bears a probe [∗DEG∗], which requires checking by [ DEG ] of wie (see section 1.4 above, in particular footnote 166). Further suppose that after raising of α (wie schlecht) to SpecF, the AP optionally undergoes scrambling, thereby creating a remnant FP, which finally undergoes wh-movement. (Again, LA forces the assumption that while the complement of F can leave FP, the category occupying SpecF cannot.) Crucially, only if the AP contains a wh-degree element can it combine with an F-head that bears [∗DEG∗] (otherwise [∗DEG∗] would remain unchecked, in violation of the FC). And only then will there be a movement trigger for the category α containing the wh-degree element so as to form an XP γ (the AP) under exclusion of α .


283

This reasoning (combined with LA and the idea that predicates without FPshell are transparent) explains why predicates that contain a non-degree whphrase cannot undergo optional pied-piping (in contrast to (490)). But the idea also faces a problem. It seems as if the scrambling operation that is supposed to create the remnant β is not generally available in German, see the ill-formedness of (491-a,b) and (492-a,b), which involve zu-degree phrases and PPs containing an R-pronoun, respectively.205 These examples at best suggest that the hypothesized scrambling operation is not allowed to leave the VP (thereby crossing the subject or certain adverbials, such as gestern ‘yesterday’) but must target a VP-internal specifier, thus applying string-vacuously (as in (491-c) and (492-c)). (491)

a. *Wieviel km/h ist zu schnell Fritz gestern gefahren? how-many km/h is too fast Fritz yesterday driven ‘By how much did Fritz exceed the speed limit yesterday?’ b.*?Wieviel km/h ist Fritz zu schnell gestern gefahren? how-many km/h is Fritz too fast yesterday driven c. Wieviel km/h ist Fritz gestern zu schnell gefahren? how-many km/h is Fritz yesterday too fast driven

(492)

a. *Wo hat mit Maria nicht gerechnet? where has with Maria not counted ‘What did Maria not take into account?’ b. *Wo hat Maria mit nicht gerechnet? where has Maria with not counted c. Wo hat Maria nicht mit gerechnet? where has Maria not with counted

The same holds for was-für-split. In (493-a), für Bücher ‘for books’ cannot scramble across the subject Maria. (493-b) illustrates that the hypothesized scrambling is not independently available in wh-in-situ contexts either (in (493-b), scrambling crosses an adverbial). (493)

a. *Was hat für Bücher Maria gekauft? what has for books Maria bought ‘What kind of books did Maria buy yesterday?’

205. Another problem that I ignore here is that it is unclear that zu and the AP to its right form a constituent to the exclusion of the wh-degree element, see (491). The problem may dissolve under the assumption that there is some raising triggered by [∗DEG∗].

284


b. *Wer hat für Bücher gestern was gelesen? who has for books yesterday what read ‘Who read what kind of books yesterday?’ Of course, if this is so, then the analysis does not really reduce optional piedpiping to optional scrambling of the most general kind. Rather, it is reduced to a very particular type of local scrambling. But then the explanation loses part of its independent motivation. However, at least for was-für-split there is also evidence that some sort of remnant-creating local scrambling is available, after all. In fact, Abels (2003, 212-216) (elaborating on Starke (2001, 44-45)) argues for an analysis of wasfür-split in terms of (487). His main argument for this analysis comes from examples like (494), where wh-movement of bare was pied-pipes a preposition P that takes the complete was-für phrase as its complement. This suggests that the moved was is contained in a remnant derived by previous extraction of the für-PP. (494)

a. Mit was hast du für Leuten gesprochen? with what have you for people spoken ‘What kind of people did you talk to?’ b. An was hatten Sie denn so für Preise gedacht? on what had you then so for prices thought ‘What kind of prices were you thinking about?’

At first sight, the approach cannot explain the existence of optional splitconstructions in other languages that do not exhibit scrambling, like Danish, Norwegian, and French. But at least combien-split in French is analyzed by Starke (2001, 44-45) and Abels (2003, 174-176) in terms of remnant movement, too. The analysis is based on the same type of argument (going back to Kayne (1984a, 51-52)) that involves pied-piping of a preposition, see (495). (495)

(495)

De combien est-ce que tu as besoin de photos? of how-many is-it that you have need of photos ‘How many photos do you need?’ A combien est-ce que tu as parlé de photographes? to how-many is-it that you have talked to photographers ‘How many photographers have you talked to?’


285

To sum up, there are cases where at first sight the approach to optional piedpiping in terms of remnant movement seems promising; but there are also problems that have to be overcome. Whether this is possible remains to be seen.

3.5.4.

Pied-Piping as Remnant Movement

There is yet another analysis of optional pied-piping that makes use of remnant movement. In contrast to the analysis sketched in the previous section, the idea is that the wh-element α always undergoes wh-movement on its own. In the cases that look like optional pied-piping, the remnant β undergoes movement to a position that is right adjacent of α . This type of analysis has been proposed by McCloskey (2002) for Irish PPs (see section 2.2.5, chapter 2) and by Grewendorf (1986, 1988) for German infinitives (see section 2.3.4, chapter 2). The abstract configuration is given in (496). (496)

. . . α2 [ β . . . t2 . . . ] 3 . . . t2 . . . t3 . . .

Note that if α moves to SpecC after β has moved, then this should result in a CED-violation: movement of β has turned it into an island. In order to not violate the CED, α must first move out of β to a clause internal position (marked by the trace t2 in (496)) at a point of the derivation where β is still in its base position. Then β moves to another clause-internal position adjacent to SpecC, and finally α undergoes wh-movement to SpecC. In other words, the derivation of (496) involves the notion of ‘chain interleaving’ in the sense of Collins (1994).206 Note in passing that this presupposes that wh-phrases are able to undergo clause-internal movement, e.g., scrambling. In some sense, the present theory implicitly assumed this to be possible anyway (it involves movement of whphrases to clause-internal specifier positions, triggered by LA and PB). It has been claimed that in German scrambling of a wh-phrase can result in markedness if the wh-phrase remains in the scrambling position, see Engel (1972), Fanselow (1990), Epstein (1992), Müller and Sternefeld (1993). This 206. This conclusion is not forced if a frozen category can be melted in case extraction applies string-vacuously, as is the case in (496); see footnote 177 in section 2.5 above; see also section 2.3.5, chapter 2.

286


might be considered irrelevant, however, if, as in the case at hand, the whphrase moves on to SpecC. Returning to the main plot, reconsider the case of pied-piping by an whR-pronoun in German, as shown in (497). (497)

Ich frage mich, wo2 [ PP t2 mit ] 3 du t2 t3 gerechnet hast. with you counted have I ask REFL where ‘I wonder what you took into account.’

Under the analysis suggested above the wh-phrase in (497) occupies SpecC, whereas the remnant PP occupies a scrambling position like the outer specifier of TP or vP, depending on where the subject du in (497) is assumed to be. Since the wh-phrase and the remnant it came from occupy adjacent positions, the illusion of pied-piping comes into existence. Consequently, the analysis arrives at establishing a correlation between the lack of optional pied-piping and the lack of scrambling in English on the one hand and the existence of optional pied-piping and the existence of optional scrambling in German on the other hand (ignoring the case of DegPs). There are at least three problems for this account of optional pied-piping. First, the assumption that β moves to a clause internal position, i.e., a position to the right of the C-head seems to be falsified by examples that involve German main clauses. In German main clauses the C-position is filled by the finite verb. Such a verb in C (as hat ‘has’ in (498)) is expected to separate α and β in the case of alleged optional pied-piping. This, however, is not the case, see (498-a). (498)

a. *Was2 hat [ DP t2 für Leute ] 3 der Fritz t2 t3 eingeladen? what has for people the Fritz invited ‘What kind of people did Fritz invite?’ b. [ DP Was2 für Leute ] 3 hat der Fritz t3 eingeladen? what for people has the Fritz invited

(498-a) is therefore an argument against an analysis of optional pied-piping in terms of remnant movement to a clause internal position. The problem is actually a more general one. Namely, derivations like in (496), (497) and (498-a) (that all involve chain interleaving) undermine the freezing generalization (see section 4.1.2 of chapter 1), i.e., the generalization that there cannot be any movement of α out of β if β has undergone movement itself. In derivations with chain interleaving, α raises out of β be-


287

fore β moves. Then, after movement of β , α raises to its final target position. The configuration that is thus reached is superficially the same as a configuration that violates the freezing generalization. (498-a), for instance, is such a configuration. Therefore, if the freezing generalization is correct, then the ungrammaticality of (498-a) suggests that chain interleaving must be impossible. Since I am presupposing the correctness of the freezing generalization, the present approach to optional pied-piping is problematic.207 The second problem is that scrambling of β violates a generalization on remnant movement (Müller (1996, 1998)) according to which remnant movement cannot be of the same type as the movement that created the remnant. In (496) both α (the wh-phrase whose raising creates the remnant) and β (the remnant) undergo scrambling, thus violating this generalization.208 Third, the approach faces the problem that optional pied-piping also appears in the context of long-distance wh-movement in a language like German (see (499-a)). This is in conflict with the fact that German does not exhibit long-distance scrambling (see (499-b)), which, in the theory under discussion, is a precondition for long optional pied-piping.209 (499)

a. Ich frage mich, was2 [ DP t2 für Leute ] 3 Maria denkt dass I ask REFL what for people Maria thinks that Fritz t3 einlädt. Fritz invites ‘I wonder what kind of people Mary thinks that Fritz invites.’ b. *Maria hat [ DP nette Leute ] 3 gedacht dass Fritz t3 einlädt. nice people thought that Fritz invites Maria has ‘Maria thought that it is nice people that Fritz invites.’

207. There was, in fact, one context where I assumed that the freezing generalization can be violated without consequences; it involved German infinitives and is structurally very similar to (498-a) above, see section 2.3.4 of chapter 2. I have to leave open here why this exception exists. 208. This might be a pseudo-problem if, just like the PUB (see footnote 193 above and footnote 209 below) Müller’s constraint on remnant movement is blind to non-feature driven movement. Recall from section 3.4 that the present theory actually favors a derivation of the type (496), where the first step of α (whose target is marked by t2 ) is not featuredriven but rather driven by LA or PB. 209. The derivation (496) also seems to violate Müller and Sternefeld’s (1993) PUB (see section 3.4 above). The reason is that α first undergoes scrambling and then wh-movement to SpecC. However, the first movement step of α in (496) is arguably driven by LA or PB (see section 3.4; cf. also footnote 208 above). If the PUB is sensitive to feature-driven movement only (see footnote 193), then the PUB is irrelevant to (496).

288


At this point, one might consider the possibility that β does not undergo scrambling but rather targets an inner specifier of CP. Such a derivation would not only avoid the complication that arises with Müller’s generalization (if β does not scramble while α does, then the two movement types are different); it would also nullify the counter-arguments based on (498-a) (the C-position cannot intervene between α and β ) and (499-a) (movement that targets SpecC can leave the clause); it would, of course, still involve chain interleaving. Such an approach presupposes that C provides multiple specifiers and thus encounters empirical counter-evidence coming from the idea that wh-island effects are the result of the unavailability of multiple SpecC-positions; but suppose for the sake of argument that this is irrelevant. Although the idea that β targets SpecC avoids the problems above, it encounters other obstacles. First of all, double filling of SpecC by two categories α and β is generally impossible in German, see (500-b). (500)

a. Warum3 hast du das [ PP mit Absicht ] 2 t3 getan? why have you this with intention done ‘Why did you do this on purpose?’ b. *Warum3 [ PP mit Absicht ] 2 hast du das t2 t3 getan? why with intention have you this done

In general, if a multiply filled left periphery in German is possible at all, then only in the case of two non-wh-phrases (see Müller (1998, 260)). Moreover, clauses whose C-domain involves more than one specifier are not equally acceptable for all speakers of German (see Haider (1990, 103)); this sharply contrasts with cases of optional pied-piping, which are generally grammatical for all speakers. Such a difference would come as a surprise if optional piedpiping involved a doubly filled SpecC. Also, if β targeted an inner SpecC-position, then one would expect optional pied-piping to exist in English as well, provided that the pied-piper is a subject wh-phrase that can create the remnant via subject raising. Note that English exhibits remnant movement to the clause periphery fed by subject raising (see Müller (1998)), as shown by (501-a). (501)

a. [ VP Criticized t2 by his boss ] 3 John2 has never been t3 . b. *Who2 [ VP criticized t2 by his boss ] 3 t2 has never been t3 ?

However, (501-b), which involves alleged optional pied-piping of the same VP that undergoes remnant movement in (501-a), is ungrammatical and thus


289

falsifies this prediction. I conclude that the present approach in terms of remnant movement has its theoretical problems, no matter whether β is assumed to undergo scrambling or movement to SpecC. The proposal presented in this section can treat all cases of optional piedpiping in German (discussed in chapter 2) where the pied-piped constituent is PP, DP, or CP, no matter whether β is assumed to undergo scrambling or movement to SpecC. Exceptions are again the cases of floating quantifiers and wh-partitives (sections 3.6.1, 3.7, chapter 2), which involve a DP that should be able to scramble (or to move to SpecC) but which cannot undergo optional pied-piping. Predicates are correctly expected not to undergo optional pied-piping (see sections 3.3.2, 3.4.3, and 3.5.5, chapter 2) under the scrambling-based variant (because they do not scramble easily), but not under the variant that hypothesizes movement of β to SpecC. Still mysterious for the scrambling-based variant are the cases of optional pied-piping of predicates and zu-DegPs in German that contain a wh-degree element (section 3.13.4, chapter 2). The variant based on β -movement to SpecC seems to be able to derive these cases. If β scrambles, then one can correlate optional pied-piping and scrambling (or the lack thereof, respectively). As before, this can derive the contrast between English on the one hand and German, Russian and Greek on the other hand. As mentioned above, if β moves to SpecC, then optional pied-piping should be possible in English with subject pied-pipers (contrary to fact). Finally, the scrambling-based variant encounters problems when confronted with optional split-constructions in other languages that do not exhibit scrambling, like Danish, Norwegian, and French. Notably, these problems do not arise for the other variant, though. To conclude, the approach presented in this section faces some technical obstacles and cannot cover all cases of optional pied-piping either. However, it is still an option worth keeping in mind, especially if it turns out that optional pied-piping is a heterogeneous phenomenon, in the sense that its source can differ from case to case.

3.5.5.

Pseudo-Optionality

The last approach to be discussed is based on the following idea: the coexistence of an output candidate O1 that involves pied-piping and an output candidate O2 that does not owes to the fact that O1 and O2 are not in the

290


same competition. Hence, O2 cannot block O1 . Rather, O1 and O2 are the optimal output candidates of different optimizations. This has been dubbed ‘pseudo-optionality’ by Müller (2000b)). The question is how it can be ensured that O1 and O2 are not in competition. Recall from section 1.3, chapter 3 that the candidate set for a particular syntactic cycle is the input of this cycle. The input in turn was supposed to consist of elements from the workspace of the derivation. Recall that the workspace comprises the numeration and syntactic objects that have already been constructed in the course of the derivation. Under this view, it is not obvious why a candidate that involves pied-piping and a candidate that does not can always be associated with different optimizations because they often look as if they were based on the same input. However, this impression might be false. Thus suppose that O1 and O2 actually differ with respect to some feature that does not have any morphological reflex. This would (despite superficial impression) cause the inputs to be different and, consequently, lead to two different competitions. An alternative strategy, which has often been pursued in the optimalitytheoretic literature, is to add another criterion to the definition of candidate set, besides the criterion of the input. A possible idea is that two output candidates O1 and O2 can only be in the same candidate set if they convey the same meaning (see, e.g., Grimshaw (1997)). I begin by discussing the latter strategy. It is arguably not the case that the difference in meaning between O1 and O2 can be identified as a difference in truth conditions. To illustrate, consider, once more, the case of was-für-split in German. (502-a) (which involves pied-piping) and (502-b) (which involves stranding) seem to have the same truth conditions.210 210. Beck (1997, 54-64) claims that was-für-constructions in German are ambiguous between a property-reading and a kind-reading. These readings are paraphrased for (i-a) in (i-b,c): (i)

a.

b. c.

Was für Bücher hat Luise gekauft? what for books has Luise bought ‘What kind of books did Luise buy?’ Which property P: there are some books x such that P(x) and Luise bought x Which x, x a kind of books: Luise bought objects that are realizations of x

The important point for the present discussion is that Beck claims that the two readings are available for both variants of the split construction. That is, the split variant and the pied-piping variant are ambiguous in the same way but they have the same truth conditions.


(502)

291

a. Was2 hat der Fritz [ DP t2 für Leute ] 3 eingeladen? what has the Fritz for people invited ‘What kind of people did Fritz invite?’ b. [ DP Was2 für Leute ] 3 hat der Fritz t3 eingeladen? what for people has the Fritz invited

However, there might be a difference in meaning between (502-a) and (502-b) that is more subtle. Apparently, it has been claimed by Mathieu (2002a,b) that this is the case for optional pied-piping in general.211 In particular, Mathieu (2002a) claims that in the case of combien-split in French, as in (503-a), there is a presupposition that does not exist in the corresponding pied-piping variant, (503-b). (503)

a. Je me demande combien2 Marie a décidé d’engager [ DP how-many Marie has decided to-employ I REFL ask t2 de personnes ]3 . of persons ‘I wonder how many persons Mary decided to employ.’ b. Je me demande [ DP combien2 de personnes ] 3 Marie a how-many of persons Marie has I REFL ask décidé d’engager t3 . decided to-employ

The claim is that a speaker who utters (503-a) has in mind a situation where there is a particular salient group of people. Against this background, he asks how many persons of this group Marie has decided to employ. In contrast to this, (503-b) does not carry this presupposition, i.e., there is no salient group of people in the discourse at hand. Note that a stranding example like (503-a), which carries this presupposition can be uttered in an out of the blue context, too. In this case the relevant presupposition must be inferred (see Mathieu (2002b, 133)). This difference in meaning between (503-a,b) would then be supposed to prevent them from competing with each other. Imagine a situation where there actually is a salient set of people present in the discourse. In such a context, only (503-a), which strands the de-phrase and which carries the corresponding presupposition, can match presupposi211. The manuscript Mathieu (2002a) was not accessible to me. What I present here is a reconstruction from material contained in Mathieu (2002b) and in an abstract of Mathieu (2002a).

292


tion and context. In a sense, (503-b), although being compatible with the discourse situation described above, is less specific than (503-a). Accordingly, one might put forward the idea that an output candidate O1 that is more specific with respect to a given context C than another output candidate O2 does not compete with O2 , even if O1 and O2 are based on the same input. And if O1 and O2 do not compete, then the former cannot block the latter (or the other way round). However, it is unclear how this idea can be rendered compatible with the architecture of the grammar assumed here. Recall from chapter 3 that I assumed that optimization proceeds in a derivational fashion, parallel to the process of structure-building. In contrast, the idea sketched above seems to presuppose that the decision whether two candidates O1 and O2 compete or not cannot be made unless the derivations of O1 and O2 are complete; only then can their specificity with respect to a certain context C be evaluated. But then, again, the derivation cannot begin if it is not clear whether O1 and O2 compete or not. There is a dilemma. Thus, the idea that the candidate set is (at least partially) determined by the interpretation of the sentence may be compatible with a global view of optimization but arguably not with the local view adopted in this book. Returning to the former strategy, suppose that O1 bears a feature that O2 does not bear. This difference in the input of O1 and O2 would then have the consequence that O1 and O2 do not compete. It would, of course, be desirable to have independent evidence for the presence or absence of such a feature. Actually, there might be a way to take advantage of the idea that structures with pied-piping involve a certain nuance of meaning that structures without pied-piping lack, a way that does not involve the dilemma sketched above and that makes reference to the presence versus absence of some feature. The idea is the following. Suppose that in derivations that involve optional pied-piping, it is not only the wh-phrase α that bears a feature (namely [ WH ]) that is supposed to eliminate a probe ([∗WH∗]) on C; rather assume that the head of (the pied-piped category) β bears a goal, say [ TOP ], that matches a corresponding probe, [∗TOP∗], on C. We are then dealing with a situation already addressed in sections 3.4 and 3.5.4 above: both α and β separately move to a specifier position in the C-domain. The problems and consequences that such an analysis brings along with it have been discussed in the above mentioned sections. Now, there may or may not be such a feature on β . If the feature is there, then β moves and the interpretive component either exploits this movement


293

or it does not. There is no theory-internal reason that forces a difference in interpretation: the candidate with and the one without pied-piping will not compete in any event because they do not involve the same features. The point is that, empirically, one can observe cases where there is no interpretive difference whatsoever between pied-piping and stranding. To illustrate, consider again a case of R-pronouns in German, see (504). (504)

a. Wo3 hast du [ PP t3 mit ] 2 gerechnet? where have you with counted ‘What did you expect?’ b. [ PP Wo3 -mit ] 2 hast du t2 gerechnet? where-with have you counted

It does not make sense to say that in (504-a) the stranded preposition mit ‘with’ carries the presupposition that its content is already given in the context. Note that the verb rechnen ‘count’ together with the preposition mit can have the fixed meaning ‘to expect’. For instance, if one exchanges mit by the preposition ohne ‘without’, which arguably means the opposite of mit, the meaning of the whole sentence does not simply acquire a negative meaning of some sort, see (505-a) vs. (505-b) but it changes the meaning completely. (505)

a. Ich habe [ PP ohne Fritz ] gerechnet. I have without Fritz counted ‘I did some counting without Fritz.’ b. Ich habe [ PP mit Fritz ] gerechnet. I have with Fritz counted ‘I expected Fritz.’

Due to the fixed meaning of rechnen mit there is no way to detach the content of the preposition from the content of the verb. If the verb contributes new information, then the preposition will too, independently of whether its is pied-piped or stranded. There are cases where the assumption that O1 and O2 are not in competition is less subtle. It is often assumed that languages that do allow for possessor extraction, thereby apparently violating the LBC, do not have a Dhead in the nominal group (see, for instance, Corver (1990)). Confronted with the optionality of possessor extraction in Russian as in (506), Cable (2007, 205) (and in particular Cable (2007, 311, footnote 33)) speculates that D is optional in Russian.

294


(506)

a. Ja sprosil kakuju2 ty cˇ ital [ t2 knigu ]3 . I asked whose you read book ‘I asked whose book you read.’ b. Ja sprosil [ kakuju2 knigu ] 3 ty cˇ ital t3 . you read I asked whose book

In Cable’s (2007) theory, extraction of kakuju requires the relative pronoun to be the complement of Q. This would violate his QP-intervention condition (see section 2.6, chapter 1) because the possessor-D-head can no longer select for kakuju. Cable’s solution is that a Russian nominal can either be a DP or an NP: if the possessor is an NP, then it can extract, if it is a DP, it cannot. Of course, such solutions are equally applicable to the optionality problem that (506-a,b) presents for the present theory. For other cases, Cable assumes the optional presence of an empty resumptive pronoun. To briefly conclude the discussion in sections 3.5.1–3.5.5, none of the potential approaches is able to reconcile all cases of optional pied-piping with generalization (455). In order to maintain (455) nevertheless, I suggest to pursue the following line of attack. First, one should try to reformulate each of the approaches in a maximally restrictive way, so as to eliminate cases where they overgenerate (i.e., predict a case of optional pied-piping that does not exist). Then one can combine as many of them as necessary so as to cover the cases of optional pied-piping that could not be covered by one of them alone. Of course, alternatively one might dispense with generalization (455). Then, however, one needs an alternative account of a subset of those cases where pied-piping is blocked.

4.

Summary

It was the aim of this chapter to derive the first three of the generalizations introduced in chapter 2 on the basis of the theory introduced in chapter 3. The effects of the generalization on recursive pied-piping were derived by the recursive definition of the notion of accessibility. In order for a probe β and a goal α to be able to establish Agree, α must be accessible to β . Accessibility distinguishes two cases: either α is contained within a phase or it is contained within a non-phase. If α is contained within a phase, then it must be on a recursive path that traverses the edge domain of this phase. If it is embedded within a non-phase, a recursive path into the domain will do.

Summary

295

It turned out to be necessary to introduce a constraint called the PEC in order to account for certain cases of ungrammatical pied-piping. The PEC states that a goal cannot move into the edge domain of a phase and remain there at spell-out unless it establishes Agree with the head of this phase. Among other phenomena, the PEC accounts for the contrast between poss-ing and acc-ing gerunds with respect to pied-piping and for the unavailability of clausal piedpiping in many languages. For those languages where clausal pied-piping is possible it was proposed that the PEC is ranked below the EOC, i.e., is in principle violable. Special cases of pied-piping involving degree phrases in German were attributed to the availability of covert raising of a degree phrase to the edge of a phase. Secondary wh-movement was assumed to be triggered in order to satisfy either PB (i.e., to balance a phase) or LA (i.e., to maximize the locality of Agree). In the first case, secondary wh-movement is obligatory, PB being inviolable. In the second case, however, secondary wh-movement can be suspended under certain conditions. As a consequence, secondary whmovement triggered by LA can vary across languages but secondary whmovement triggered by PB cannot. Instances of both types were illustrated by explicit derivations. Also discussed were the prediction that secondary wh-movement does not arise with wh-in-situ and cases which superficially look like non-feature driven secondary wh-movement but which turn out to be feature-driven after all. The main bulk of this chapter was devoted to the repair generalization. The underlying idea is that pied-piping causes costs for the derivation that should be avoided if possible, i.e., if extraction of the bare wh-phrase is an option. Although the basic intuition is simple and although the evidence in its favor can be derived without further ado by simply referring to the independently motivated constraint LA, it turns out that the hypothesis that piedpiping can only apply if it is forced faces some empirical problems. Among these problems are the phenomena of amending prepositions, ineffability, and, in particular, optional pied-piping. All these problems were addressed and (where possible) a solution was proposed. Special care was taken to discuss and evaluate potential solutions to the problem of optional pied-piping: the tie-solution, a solution that involves freezing induced by optional movement, two analyses in terms of remnant movement, and finally a pseudooptionality approach. I argued that none of these approaches allows to treat

296


all instances of optional pied-piping in a satisfying manner. I finally speculated that the solution to the problem might require a combination of several of the envisaged strategies.

Chapter 5 Deriving the Generalizations, Part Two

This chapter is concerned with deriving the remaining two generalizations identified in chapter 2 (the generalization on massive pied-piping and the intervention generalization). It turns out that massive pied-piping poses a problem for the theory of pied-piping proposed so far. Accordingly, additional assumptions are introduced in order to render the observations compatible with the results achieved in chapter 4.

1.

Massive Pied-Piping

The first generalization to be dealt with is repeated in (507) for convenience. (507)

Generalization on massive pied-piping Massive pied-piping is only possible if a. and b. hold. a. The CP whose specifier is the target of (primary) wh-movement is not subordinated. b. In relative clauses, the pied-piper is selected by a D-element.

In what follows, I first illustrate that the phenomenon of massive pied-piping poses a problem for the theory of pied-piping as it has been presented in chapters 3 and 4. I suggest that the problem can be solved by adopting a particular version of the theory of feature movement proposed in Chomsky (1995), and I illustrate how (507) can be derived on the basis of this theory of massive pied-piping.

1.1.

Properties of Appositive Relative Clauses

To begin with, recall that massive pied-piping often shows up in appositive relative clauses. The characteristic hallmark of massive pied-piping is that it affects larger portions of structure than orthodox (non-massive) pied-piping. There are some instances of appositive relative clauses where it is not so clear whether they involve wh-movement (and thus massive pied-piping) or not. To illustrate, consider (508).

298 (508)

Deriving the Generalizations, Part Two

Egbert, [ α to speak to whom now ] would be a mistake, . . .

It is impossible to tell from the surface string whether the subject clause α in (508) has been pied-piped to SpecC or whether it remains in-situ: whmovement to SpecC would apply in a string-vacuous fashion as the C-position is not overtly filled.212 Next, note that the wh-phrase in (508) has neither undergone secondary wh-movement within the infinitive nor has it been extracted, although the infinitive is transparent for extraction. Thus, it appears that (508) is not subject to either the edge or the repair generalization. And this, in turn, would receive a straightforward explanation if (508) did not involve pied-piping (and primary wh-movement) in the first place. However, there are appositive relative clauses in which wh-movement does not apply string-vacuously. (The same can be shown for matrix interrogatives). This is illustrated by the examples in (509) (taken from Sells (1985)). (509)

a. The half-back Paley, [ α to press charges upon whom ] 2 the Chronicle maintained t2 would be Facci’s first action, . . . b. This woman, [ AP similar to whom ] 2 I am only considered t2 in the manner of my speech, . . .

But if appositive relative clauses exhibit wh-movement (and sometimes massive pied-piping, as in (509)), then, under the present assumptions, they must be subject to LA: wh-movement is the result of the urge (ultimately due to LA) of a wh-goal to be as close as possible to the wh-probe it establishes Agree with. Next, recall the locality theory of phases (Chomsky (2000, 2001)), which is governed by the PIC. The PIC states that an object α that leaves a phase P by movement is supposed to pass via the edge domain of P. In many cases, the notion of edge domain of P is synonymous with the notion of a specifier of P. If the head of P does not allow for multiple specifiers, it follows from the PIC that if the only specifier of P is already filled, then extraction of α from P is blocked; movement in one swoop across P violates the PIC. Suppose that this is what underlies the existence of wh-islands: the only available specifier of a CP is filled by some wh-element and thus extraction of another wh-element from the CP is blocked by the PIC, CP being a phase. 212. This has lead some people to propose that subject questions in English actually do not involve wh-movement, see for instance, George (1980), Chung and McCloskey (1983), Chomsky (1986), Grimshaw (1997), and Agbayani (2000).

Massive Pied-Piping

299

Now, it can be observed that wh-movement in English appositive relative clauses is sensitive for wh-islands (again, matrix interrogatives behave alike). This is illustrated in (510-a,b). (510)

a. *Egbert, who3 I know someone [ CP who surely is [ AP proud of t3 ]], . . . b. *Horace, who3 Egbert wonders [ CP who thinks [ α to meet t3 ] would be nice ], . . .

The ungrammaticality of (510-a,b) thus suggests that appositive relative clauses are subject to the PIC. To summarize, appositive relative clauses exhibit wh-movement. The most natural conclusion is that they involve an Agree relation between [∗WH∗] on C and [ WH ] on some wh-element. As argued in chapters 3 and 4, such an Agree relation is subject to LA. Moreover, wh-movement within appositive relative clauses (and matrix interrogatives) is subject to the PIC, as expected. This immediately raises a question: if appositive relative clauses and matrix interrogatives are subject to LA, why do they systematically exhibit massive pied-piping in contexts where extraction of the bare wh-element is an option, too, as illustrated in (511)? (511)

a. Horace, [ DP a sister of whom3 ] 2 Egbert met t2 yesterday, . . . b. Horace, who3 Egbert met [ DP a sister of t3 ] 2 yesterday, . . .

After all, LA penalizes pied-piping, which should accordingly be blocked if an alternative derivation without pied-piping is available. The well-formedness of (511-a) also raises another question that is perhaps even more pressing: why does massive pied-piping seem to ignore the PIC? If appositive relative clauses involve an Agree relation between probe and goal, then the wh-goal on whom in (511-a) must be accessible to [∗WH∗] on C of the relative clause. But the hypothesized Agree relation in (511-a) crosses a DP-phase. And, crucially, the wh-feature of the relative pronoun in (511-a) is not in the edge domain of the pied-piped DP, i.e., it should be inaccessible within DP. I conclude that the theory of pied-piping proposed so far cannot cover the phenomenon of massive pied-piping, which does not seem to be subject to either LA or PIC. In order to overcome this problem, I would like to make the following suggestion, going back to an idea of Sells (1985). Sells argues that there is no

300


wh-feature percolation with non-massive pied-piping. As discussed in section 1.2, chapter 1, wh-feature percolation is supposed to ensure a local relation between [ WH ] on the wh-word and [∗WH∗] on the C-head of an interrogative or relative CP. Sells (1985) abandons the idea that this relation is local and is thus able to dispense with the notion of feature percolation. However, he allows of one exception: massive pied-piping. Thus, according to Sells, massive pied-piping employs wh-feature percolation, after all. In the theory proposed here, feature percolation has been dispensed with, too. The analysis was based on the assumption (taken from Chomsky (2000, 2001)) that Agree in general (and thus also Agree between [∗WH∗] and [ WH ] in particular) can be established in a non-local fashion. It was claimed that a local application of Agree is favored over a non-local one (due to LA). Finally, it was assumed, as is standard, that Agree is restricted by the PIC and can thus not probe into a phase. As illustrated above, these assumptions encounter a problem when confronted with the facts of massive pied-piping. In order to overcome the problem, I assume that appositive relative clauses and matrix interrogatives can employ a mechanism that prevents phrase and phase boundaries that are pied-piped from causing violations of LA or the PIC although, apparently, Agree between [∗WH∗] and [ WH ] is established across them. The idea is that probe and goal are in fact sufficiently close to each other in order to avoid fatal violations of these constraints. The proposed mechanism, however, is not wh-feature percolation. Rather I want to argue that it can be subsumed under the independently needed concept of movement, wh-feature movement to be precise. Note, incidentally, that Yoon (2002) proposes a theory according to which the gap in locality between probe and goal in massive pied-piping is bridged by (often covert) phrasal movement to the specifier of the pied-piped category (see also Nishigauchi (1990) and Kayne (1994) for proposals along this line). As we will see later, it is not an easy task to empirically distinguish this theory from the type of analysis proposed here. Thus suppose that the wh-feature of relative pronouns accompanied by a definite determiner (and of question pronouns in general) can optionally move to some higher position, stranding the phonological features of the wh-word (cf. also de Vries (2002)). The idea is that [ WH ] raises from the wh-word and attaches to the head of the category that undergoes wh-movement. In this position, it is high enough within the moved category to fulfill the PIC. As far as violations of LA are concerned, it turns out that massive piedpiping that is mediated by wh-feature movement still incurs at least one LA-

Massive Pied-Piping

301

violation (in contrast to movement of the wh-word), owing to the assumption that [ WH ] adjoins to a higher head. The conclusion drawn from this will be that a candidate that involves massive pied-piping and wh-feature movement must not compete with a candidate that does not involve massive pied-piping, see section 1.5 for details. Feature movement is explicitely assumed in Chomsky (1995) (albeit not for the purpose of analyzing pied-piping), and has already been envisaged by von Stechow (1992). Chomsky (1995) assumed that it can only apply after spell-out. Otherwise, he suggested, feature movement is blocked by a constraint that militates against formal features that are separated from their phonological features at spell-out.213 Suppose, contra Chomsky, that feature movement before spell-out is possible, after all, although, as will become clear shortly, only under certain conditions.

1.2.

Percolation Reduced to Move Revisited

Before I turn to some evidence in favor of the claim that massive pied-piping involves wh-feature movement, I have to clarify the following point. In section 4.1 of chapter 1, I argued explicitly that wh-feature percolation, as a tool to analyze non-massive pied-piping, cannot be reconstructed in terms of whfeature movement. It now looks as if I were proposing precisely the kind of theory I have rejected before. In what follows, I show that this is not the case. The first argument presented in section 4.1 of chapter 1 was based on the assumption (due to Chomsky (1995)) that if a morpho-syntactic feature like [ WH ] of some category C moves, then the complete bundle of morphosyntactic features of C (called [ FF ]) must move, too. In pied-piping theories that employ wh-feature percolation, [ WH ] (and thus [ FF ]) must fuse with the set of formal features of the target of movement (cf. Fanselow (2001)). Only then can [ WH ] be projected and only then is the problem of pied-piping, as discussed in section 1, chapter 1, solved. The upshot of the argument was that if the feature bundles of the source and the target are fused, then this may result in feature incompatibilities. This argument, however, does not carry over to the approach to massive pied-piping in terms of wh-feature movement that is envisaged here. Feature incompatibilities can never arise because [ WH ] (or [ FF ] for that matter) ad213. Accordingly, feature movement before spell-out should be possible, after all, if there are no phonological exponents in the first place, for instance in the case of null elements.

302


joins [ FF ] to the target. Fusion of [ FF ] with the target’s features is not mandatory (and can thus be assumed to be impossible) once it is accepted that feature checking is not necessarily local but can be performed at a distance via Agree. All that is necessary is that [ WH ] is in the edge domain of the target if the target is a phase.214,215 The other arguments were based on the observation that wh-feature percolation exhibits properties that differ from well-established properties of movement. I think it can be argued that an analysis of massive pied-piping in terms of wh-feature movement eschews these arguments, too. I illustrate this by showing that the hypothesized wh-feature movement is subject to exactly the same constraints as movement in general. The first of these arguments (perhaps the weakest) was that wh-feature percolation, if analyzed as movement, is exceptional in that it is not featuredriven. The argument is irrelevant here for the trivial reason that one of its presuppositions is not fulfilled: namely, the present theory allows for nonfeature driven movement. The second argument was concerned with wh-feature percolation out of categories that are islands for phrasal movement. It was argued that such categories should also block wh-feature movement, contrary to fact. Below (see sections 1.3.1–1.3.4), evidence is presented that suggests that the type of whfeature movement hypothesized for massive pied-piping indeed obeys island constraints. The third argument was that feature percolation does not obey the ccommand condition on movement. It is illustrated below that wh-feature movement in massive pied-piping actually does obey the c-command condition. Finally, the hypothesis that massive pied-piping employs wh-feature movement appears to run into a problem discussed in section 3.2 of chapter 1. There, it was argued that one may expect wh-feature percolation to induce some morphological reflex on the pied-piped constituent, contrary to what can be observed. Now suppose that a moved wh-feature adjoins to the tar214. It seems as if LA favored fusion of [ WH ] with the target head over adjunction, no matter whether the target is a phase head or not. The reason is that in the former case (fusion) [ WH ] can be projected and thus Agree need not cross any phrase boundary, in contrast to the latter case (adjunction). But the primary question is not whether LA would favor fusion but rather whether fusion is an option, to begin with. The claim is that it is not. 215. In what follows, I ignore the claim that movement of [ WH ] pied-pipes the feature bundle [ FF ]. Rather, I pretend, for purely expository reasons, that it is a bare [ WH ] that undergoes movement.

Massive Pied-Piping

303

get head and is not integrated into the feature bundle [ FF ] of this head. Then [ WH ] remains distinguishable from [ FF ]; in particular the moved [ WH ] can be distinguished from a wh-feature that is part of [ FF ] as a lexical property. It follows that a moved wh-feature and a lexical wh-feature do not have to exhibit the same morphological reflexes. Thus, also the last of the arguments from section 4.1 of chapter 1 turns out to be irrelevant with respect to an analysis of massive pied-piping in terms of wh-feature movement. In section 1.6.2 I discuss why wh-feature movement (and massive piedpiping) is blocked in embedded interrogatives and restrictive relative clauses.

1.3.

Additional Evidence for Wh-Feature Movement

This section presents evidence in favor of the claim that massive pied-piping indeed involves wh-feature movement. It contains three types of arguments. The first type involves island conditions. I illustrate that the hypothesized wh-feature movement is restricted by subject islands, adjunct islands, and indirect object islands (see sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2; some examples that appear to contradict this claim are discussed in section 1.8.2 below). Moreover, I suggest that massive pied-piping can suspend exactly one island; it is impossible to pied-pipe an island β that contains an island γ that in turn contains the pied-piper. This is called this the ‘one-island condition’. The island arguments are based on observations by Kayne (1983), Longobardi (1985a), Sells (1985), and Cinque (1990), except for the examples in section 1.3.2. Originally, they were used to argue that pied-piping is subject to Kayne’s (1983) connectedness condition; connectedness, in turn, was assumed to guide wh-feature percolation. As we will see, the idea can be transferred to a theory based on wh-feature movement. The next argument involves pied-piping of coordinations and is based on Postal (1972b). Postal observed that pied-piping of coordinations is only possible if there is a pied-piper in each of the conjuncts (see section 1.3.4). In a sense, this argument is also an island argument but it differs from the arguments above in that it cannot be translated directly into the connectedness framework. Rather, it suggests that what is involved is indeed movement. Finally, there is a (admittedly very sketchy) argument in favor of the whfeature movement hypothesis that is based on what can be called the ‘tense effect’ (see section 1.3.5).

304


1.3.1.

Subject and Adjunct Islands

Kayne (1983) observes that there is a subject-object asymmetry in massive pied-piping: the wh-word can occupy an object position within the pied-piped category but not a subject position. The same observation is already mentioned by Nanni and Stillings (1978, 317, footnote 4), who attribute it to Alan Prince. Their examples are given in (512). The examples in (513), which illustrate the same point, are taken from Sells (1985).216 (512)

a. The elegant parties, [ α to be admitted to one of which2 ] 3 t3 was a privilege, had usually been held at Delmonico’s. b. *The men, [ CP for whom to be invited to the elegant parties ] 3 t3 was a privilege, were appropriately appreciative.

(513)

a. ?Lawrence Welk, [ DP the need to imitate whom ] 2 I cannot claim to understand t2 , . . . b. *Lawrence Welk, [ DP the need for whom to imitate you ] 2 I cannot claim to understand t2 , . . .

The following examples (from Sells (1985)) illustrate that this observation carries over to subjects of other categories, too. The examples in (514-a,b) involve a wh-phrase that occupies the subject position of a small clause (maybe an AP) and a wh-phrase that has been raised from such a position to SpecT, respectively. (514)

a.??This heroine, [ α to consider whom2 dead ] 3 t3 would be a great mistake, . . . b.*?This heroine, [ α to believe whom2 to be t2 dead ] 3 t3 would be a mistake, . . .

The asymmetry is straightforwardly explained under the assumption that the 216. One may ask whether (513-b) really involves a wh-phrase in the embedded subject position (with for in the C-position), as suggested by the structure in (i-a); alternatively (513-b) could be a case of object control by whom of a PRO in embedded subject position (as in (i-b)). (i)

a. b.

. . . [ NP need [ CP for whom2 to imitate you ]] . . . . . . [ NP need [ PP for whom2 ] [ CP C PRO2 to imitate you ]] . . .

Indeed, if (i-b) is the correct analysis of (513-b), then it does not bear on the question as to whether there is a subject-object asymmetry in massive pied-piping.

Massive Pied-Piping

305

wh-feature of the pied-piper undergoes movement to the head position of the pied-piped phrase: the wh-features in (512-b), (513-b), and (514) have to move out of a constituent (namely the wh-phrase) that occupies a subject position. And constituents that occupy subject positions are islands. The explanation presupposes that wh-feature movement is subject to island constraints, just like phrasal movement is. I consider this the null hypothesis. In fact, Takahashi (1997) and Nakamura (2002) present evidence in favor of the idea that feature movement obeys the usual constraints on movement, like the CED (but cf. Boˇsković (1998, 2000) and Ochi (1998, 1999) for a different view; cf. also Pesetsky (2000, 56) for relevant discussion). The reasoning also provides an argument in favor of an analysis of massive pied-piping that is cast in terms of wh-feature movement and against an analysis that assumes that the wh-phrase undergoes covert phrasal movement.217 The point is that there is nothing that would prevent covert movement of a wh-phrase from a subject-position. The approach in terms of wh-feature movement makes the right prediction because it involves extraction of [ WH ] out of a subject position. The argument carries over to cases where the piedpiper is an adjunct (see below) or an indirect object (see section 1.3.2); in both cases the wh-phrase qualifies as an island. Subject-object asymmetries in massive pied-piping are not an isolated property of English. They have been observed for other languages, too. For instance, (515-a,b), which are from Cinque (1982, 273) and Cinque (1990, 137), respectively, illustrate the same contrast for Italian. (515)

a. I suoi studenti, il non aver promosso i quali potrà the his students the not having promoted the who could essere interpretato tendenziosamente, . . . be interpreted tendentiously ‘His students, whose not having been promoted may be interpreted tendentiously, . . . ’ b. *I suoi studenti, non essere i quali stati promossi . . . the his students not be the who been passed ‘His students, whose not being promoted may be interpreted tendentiously, . . . ’

In contrast, the wh-phrase (515-a) is in object position and pied-piping is 217. As mentioned in section 1.1 above, such an analysis is proposed by Nishigauchi (1990), Kayne (1994), and Yoon (2002).

306


grammatical. In (515-b), the wh-phrase is in subject position and the result is degraded. But there is a complication. The subject in (515-b) is an underlying object that has been passivized. One may thus argue that there is a derivation of (515-b) that involves chain interleaving (see Collins (1994)) and should thereby avoid extraction of [ WH ] from a subject position: first the wh-feature moves out of the wh-phrase, which still occupies a non-island position; then raising applies to the wh-phrase; finally, the wh-feature moves to its ultimate target position (see footnote 219 below for a similar case.) I address this derivation in section 2.1.7.218 In a similar vein, Sells (1985) observes that massive pied-piping is blocked if the wh-phrase occupies an adjunct position or is buried somewhere inside an adjunct that in turn is embedded within the pied-piped category. These cases are illustrated by (516-a,b). (516)

a. *My next birthday, [ α to wear paper hats when ] 3 t3 is what I want everybody to do, . . . b. *Our distinguished visitor, [ α to kiss George [ β without first asking whom ]] 2 t2 would be highly irregular, . . .

When in (516-a) is an adjunct. As such, it constitutes an island for movement. Consequently, movement of the wh-feature out of when results in ungrammaticality. Again, (516) cannot be accounted for if the pied-piper undergoes covert phrasal wh-movement within the pied-piped constituent: phrasal movement of adjuncts is possible (see Lasnik and Saito (1984)). In (516-b), [ WH ] can maximally move to the head of β but no further. If wh-raising crosses the β -border, it leaves an adjunct and thus violates the 218. Cinque (1982, 289, footnote 41) notes that the subject-object asymmetry disappears if the subject is post-verbal in Italian. (i) is reported to be “relatively acceptable”. (i)

I senatori, [ α (essendo) intervenuti i quali ] 2 noi tutti . . . being participated the who we all the senators ‘The senators, who having participated, we all . . . ’ b. ?I senatori, [ α avendone parlato i quali ] 2 . . . the senators having spoken-of-it the who ‘The senators, who having spoken of it . . . ’

a.

Given the observation that extraction from post-verbal subjects in Italian is ungrammatical (see Belletti and Rizzi (1981)), this is evidence against the wh-feature movement hypothesis. At the moment, I have no explanation for this.

Massive Pied-Piping

307

CED. An alternative derivation of (516-b) that involves wh-feature movement to the β -border an no further, trying to establish Agree between [∗WH∗] on C and the raised [ WH ], must fail if the infinitival α is a phase (for instance, a CP). Under this assumption, [ WH ] is not accessible within α and Agree with [∗WH∗] cannot be established. Ultimately, this would lead to a violation of the FC; however, the derivation already crashes on the α -cycle because the α -phase is not balanced (in violation of PB). 1.3.2.

Double Object Constructions

The theory also makes a prediction with respect to massive pied-piping that involves double object constructions. It has been argued that the indirect object (the ‘shifted’ dative in transformational terminology) in English double object constructions occupies a non-complement position (see Larson (1988, 1990), Pesetsky (1995)). From this, it follows that the indirect object is an island (see Kuno (1973) for English; Fanselow (1991), Müller (1995) for German). Also, suppose that the infinitives in (517) (labeled as α ) are phases. Given this background, the prediction is that massive pied-piping is illicit if the pied-piper is an indirect object, as in (517-a).219 If the wh-feature in (517-a) leaves the wh-phrase, it violates the CED. But if [ WH ] remains inside the wh-phrase, then it is not accessible to [∗WH∗] on C, being buried within the complement domain of a phase. This leads to violations of PB (or the FC). (517)

a. *Egbert, [ α to give whom the book ] 2 t2 would be a mistake, . . . b. *Egbert, [ α to give the book to whom ] 2 t2 would be a mistake, ...

Perhaps surprisingly, massive pied-piping in (517-b), where the wh-phrase still occupies the complement position of the preposition, is ungrammatical, too. For both Larson and Pesetsky, the to-PP in (517-b) is merged as the complement of the verb. From this position, movement of [ WH ] should be pos219. Larson actually argues that α in (517-a) is derived from α in (517-b) by the transformation of dative shift: the indirect object is merged as a complement and raises into a specifier position. This makes possible a derivation for (517-a) that involves chain interleaving (see Collins (1994)): while the indirect object is still a complement its [ WH ] raises to the next higher head; later the indirect object undergoes dative shift; finally [ WH ] raises further (to the head of the pied-piped constituent). This derivation does not violate any of the constraints discussed. No such complication arises with Pesetsky’s (1995) analysis, where the indirect object is merged as a specifier, see section 2.1.6.

308


sible. However, note that in (517-b) the wh-feature is actually c-commanded by the direct object the book. In section 2.1.6 below, where examples such as (517-b) are discussed in more detail and against the background of Pesetsky’s (1995) theory of double object constructions, it is argued that their ungrammaticality reduces to a PIC-effect.220

1.3.3.

The One-Island Condition

The wh-feature movement approach to massive pied-piping predicts that a pied-piper can drag along one island but not if the island is dominated by the pied-piped constituent β and if either β is a phase or if there is another phase α between β and the pied-piper. To illustrate, consider the following Italian examples from Cinque (1990, 138). The b.-examples all involve a wh-phrase that is inside an adjunct island (labeled as γ ) that in turn is part of the pied-piped constituent. The result is ill-formed. This contrasts with the a.-examples, where the pied-piper is not embedded within the additional adjunct island. (518)

quale ] 2 non erano t2 , . . . a. Carlo, [ AP affezionati al fond of-the whom not were.3PL Carlo ‘Carlo, fond of whom they have not been, . . . ’ la quale ]] 2 non b. *La sconfitta, [ AP arrabbiati [ γ per angry because the which not the defeat t2 , . . . saranno will-be.3PL ‘The defeat, angry about which they will not be, . . . ’

220. It turns out that massive pied-piping of double object infinitives is also ungrammatical in English if the pied-piper is the direct object, irrespectively of whether dative shift has applied (i-a) or not (i-b). (i)

a. *War and Peace, [ α to leave Horace which ] 2 t2 was Egbert’s last will, . . . b. *War and Peace, [ α to leave which to Horace ] 2 t2 was Egbert’s last will, . . .

For Larson (1988, 1990), the direct object in a double object construction undergoes ‘passivization’ and becomes an adjunct (see Jackendoff (1990), Müller (1995) for critique). Provided that this is correct, it follows from the present assumptions that (i-a) is ungrammatical: [ WH ] cannot move out of the passivized which. (i-b) is also correctly predicted to be ungrammatical as the wh-phrase which must occupy a specifier position, the complement position within VP already being occupied by the PP. In section 2.1.6 below, I propose another account of (i-a,b) based on Pesetsky’s (1995) analysis.

Massive Pied-Piping

309

(519)

a. La Russia, [ DP l’attacco alla quale ] 2 t2 fu un disastro, . . . the-attack on which was a disaster the Russia ‘Russia, the attack against which was a disaster, . . . ’ b. *L’inverno successivo, [ DP l’attacco alla Russia [ γ durante the-attack on-the Russia during the-winter following il quale ]] 2 t2 fu un disastro, . . . the who was a disaster ‘The following winter, during which the attack against Russia took place and which was a disaster, . . . ’

(520)

poter dire di aver superato il a. Gianni, [ α per in-order to-be-able to-say of to-have overtaken the Gianni t2 , . . . quale ]2 truccarono la gara who fixed.3PL the competition ‘Gianni, in order to be able to say to have overtaken who, they fixed the competition, . . . ’ b. *Gianni, [ α dopo essere arrivati [ γ prima del quale ]] 2 si after be arrived before of-the who Gianni SI fermarono tutta la notte t2 , . . . stopped.3PL whole the night ‘Gianni, after having arrived before whom they stopped for the whole night, . . . ’

The contrasts receive an explanation if the wh-feature can move to the head of the island γ but not beyond. In such a case, massive pied-piping can apply to γ . But suppose there is a category β , dominating γ , that contains a phase α that in turn contains γ (or that β is a phase itself); in this case, Agree cannot cross α (or β , if β is a phase). Consequently, the PIC would require that the wh-feature move into the edge domain of α (or β ). But this is impossible if γ is an island.221 221. As already mentioned, the present analysis is similar to Sells’s (1985) and Cinque’s (1990) analyses (based on Kayne (1983) and Longobardi (1985a,b)), which make use of the notions of g-projection and government. Modern syntactic theorizing tries to dispense with the notion of government. Thus, conceptually, the present approach is preferable. But Sells (1985) and Cinque (1990) also make a prediction not made by the present approach. Consider (i), where α is supposed to be a wh-phrase. (i)

. . . [β . . . [γ . . . α . . . ] . . . ] . . .

Suppose that γ in (i) is an island and a phase. Suppose further that β is also an island but

310


To conclude, certain island effects support the view that massive pied-piping in appositive relative clauses involves movement of [ WH ]: namely, massive pied-piping is illicit in those contexts where wh-feature movement is expected to be blocked by an island.

1.3.4.

Coordinate Structures

The next argument is based on an observation made by Postal (1972b). Postal discusses pied-piping of coordinations based on a discussion in Ross (1967, 1986), presenting the examples in (521). (521)

a. *The speaker [ &P Bill and who(m) ] 2 I watched t2 was vain. b. *The speaker who3 I watched [ &P Bill and t3 ] 2 was vain.

(521-a) illustrates that pied-piping of a coordination is impossible if only one of the conjuncts is a pied-piper. Extraction of the wh-phrase in (521-b) violates the C OORDINATE S TRUCTURE C ONSTRAINT (CSC, see Ross (1967, 1986)), a version of which is given in (522) (cf. Ross (1986, 97-120)). (522)

C OORDINATE S TRUCTURE C ONSTRAINT In a coordinate structure, no conjunct may be moved, nor may any element contained in a conjunct be moved out of that conjunct.

Note in passing that (521-a) does not improve if the order of the conjuncts is reversed, see (523). In fact, Cable (2007, 316, footnote 36) notes that examples such as (523) are even worse than (521-a). (523)

*The speaker who(m) and Bill I watched was vain.

Postal observes further that pied-piping of the coordination becomes possible if both conjuncts contain a pied-piper, see (524) (see also Haraguchi (1973) on Japanese).222 not a phase. Then the g-projection approach predicts that β cannot undergo pied-piping because percolation of [ WH ] to β ’s head is blocked by γ . In the present approach, β should be able to undergo pied-piping: all that matters is that the moved wh-feature on γ ’s head is accessible within β . In fact, (518-b) can be argued to speak in favor of Sell’s and Cinque’s theory and against the present approach (if predicative APs are not phases). 222. I am ignoring the complication here that (524-a) presumably involves a restrictive relative clause, which should not allow massive pied-piping in the first place. But see the remarks on (525) below.

Massive Pied-Piping

(524)

311

a. The manuscript [ &P [ DP the lettering on the front of which ] and [ DP the scribbling on the back of which ]] 2 Harry deciphered t2 was in Gwambamamban. b. Joan, [ &P [ DP the oldest sister of whom ] and [ DP the next door neighbor of whom ]] 2 t2 make an amiable couple, . . .

Grosu (1973), who takes up the issue raised by Postal, remarks that the contrast between (521-a) and (524-a,b) can be explained if in (524-a,b) there is a relation between the wh-phrases on the one hand and a c-commanding element on the other hand such that this relation behaves like movement. The point is that the CSC can usually be obviated by movement that applies across-the-board, i.e., from both conjuncts simultaneously. If the hypothesized relation behaves like movement, then one would expect it to be able to obviate the CSC if there is a wh-phrase in each conjunct. A possible interpretation of Grosu’s proposal is that the relation in question holds between the head of the pied-piped category on the one hand and the wh-phrases within the coordination on the other hand. It would then follow without further ado that the relation behaves like movement if it actually were movement, namely wh-feature movement.223 There are some complications lurking here, though. First, in section 1.6.2 below I argue that wh-feature movement is not an option in embedded whconstructions. As Cable (2007, 316, footnote 37) notes, this predicts that piedpiping of conjuncts is not an option in embedded contexts. The prediction appears to be falsified by (525). (525)

a. I wonder where and when you saw him b. I wonder whose books and whose magazines you sold

I therefore propose that the examples in (525) involve conjunction of two clauses (where you saw him and when you saw him in (525-a)) plus deletion in the first conjunct, rather than conjunction of two wh-phrases. As desired, this still excludes the examples in (521-a) and (523), if only because they would involve coordination of different clause types under this analysis. Second, there must be a reason for wh-feature movement to apply to begin with. Put differently, one may ask why derivations of (521-a) and (523) that do without wh-feature movement (thereby respecting the CSC) should be impossible. 223. Note that Ochi (1998) argues that feature movement is immune against CSC-effects.

312


Third, if there is indeed (across-the-board) wh-feature movement in, e.g., (524), then, at first sight, it takes place simultaneously from the higher and the lower conjunct. But this means that it must be able to apply out of categories in specifier position (and perhaps also to apply downwards, targeting the head of the coordination); in section 4.1.2, chapter 1, I already argued that precisely this is impossible because it violates the CED. In order to come to grips with the latter two problems, suppose first that every coordination is embedded under a phase head F. Then at least one whfeature within the coordinations in (524) must move to the edge of FP in order to remain accessible. Recall that overt phrasal wh-movement of SpecF would violate the PEC (see section 1.3.1, chapter 4), movement not being feature-driven. Therefore, it is wh-feature movement that must apply.224 ,225 Suppose further that across-the-board wh-feature movement does in fact not take place from the two conjuncts simultaneously but rather from the lower conjunct only. For some reason, this is impossible unless there is a whphrase in the higher conjunct, too.226 This avoids the problematic assumption that wh-feature movement applies from a specifier position. Note that it follows naturally under these assumptions why (523) is worse than (521-a). Namely, (523) involves violations of both the CSC and the CED because extraction takes place from only one conjunct, which, in addition, occupies a non-complement position. In contrast, (521-a) only violates the CSC: extraction of [ WH ] applies from one conjunct only but this conjunct is in complement position. To conclude, the idea that massive pied-piping involves wh-feature movement derives the contrast between (521-a) and (524) and thereby receives independent support.

224. Recall that the PEC is a restriction on the spell-out of phase edges. As a bare wh-feature does not have any phonological content, it trivially fulfills the PEC. 225. Note that [ WH ] is actually not extracted from the coordination structure but targets a position within it. This then satisfies the CSC if the nor-clause in (522) is understood as “. . . nor may any element contained in a conjunct be moved out of that coordinate structure”. 226. Perhaps there must be a wh-phrase in the higher conjunct because the CSC is actually not about movement but about probing (see Cable (2007, 317)): probing into a coordination is only possible if it targets positions in both conjuncts. The rest follows if movement is contingent on probing. Of course, against the background of the present analysis of successive cyclic wh-movement ‘probing’ must be understood in an abstract sense.

Massive Pied-Piping

1.3.5.

313

Tense Effects

It has been observed that tensed clauses, as opposed to non-finite clauses, resist massive pied-piping (see, Ross (1967, 1986), Nanni and Stillings (1978), Cinque (1982), Sells (1985), Cinque (1990), among others). The following pair illustrates this tense effect for massive pied-piping in English. (526)

a. The elegant parties, [ α to be admitted to one of which ] 2 t2 was a privilege, had usually been held at Delmonico’s. b. *The elegant parties, [ α that we were admitted to one of which ]2 t2 was a privilege, had usually been held at Delmonico’s.

The observation is not confined to English. The pair in (527) (see Cinque (1982, 273-275), Cinque (1990, 136)) illustrates the same fact for Italian.227 (527)

a. Mario, [ α aver scritto al quale ] 2 credo t2 sia stato un Mario have written to-the who think.1 SG is been a errore, . . . mistake ‘Mario, to have written to whom I think was a mistake, . . . ’ quale ] 2 credo t2 b.*?Mario, [ CP che abbiano scritto al that have.3 PL written to-the who think.1 SG Mario sia stato un errore, . . . is been a mistake ‘Mario, who I think that it was a mistake that they wrote to, . . . ’

227. One might think that alleged infinitival pied-piping in German ((i-a); cf. section 2.3.4, chapter 2) can serve as another case in point: corresponding structures that involve piedpiping of a tensed clause are strongly ungrammatical, see (i-b,c). (i)

Fritz, [ α den zu u¨ berzeugen ] 2 Maria t2 hoffte, . . . who to convince Maria hoped Fritz ‘Fritz, who Maria had hoped to convince, . . . ’ b. *Fritz, [ CP dass Maria den u¨ berzeugen würde ] 2 jeder t2 hoffte, . . . Fritz that Maria who convince would everybody hoped ‘Fritz, who everybody had hoped that Maria would convince, . . . ’

a.

However, even if (i-a) involves pied-piping (which is not clear), it is very doubtful that it involves massive pied-piping. The reason is that the infinitive in (i-a) involves obligatory secondary wh-movement, which is typically not required in massive pied-piping (see section 1.1 above).

314


The question arises as to what the tense effect derives from. It might reduce to the type of intervention effects that are triggered by overt specifiers or overt complementizers, see the discussion in sections 2.1 and 2.4 below. In order to see that the tense effect is an independent phenomenon one would need to check a minimal pair involving pied-piping of a tensed and a non-tensed clause, respectively; in both examples of this pair, the pied-piper must not be c-commanded by any overt complementizer or overt specifier. Unfortunately, such a minimal pair is hard to provide. On the one hand, examples without overt subject are available in a language like Italian. But the examples I came across always involved an overt complementizer, see, for instance, (527-b). Examples where the pied-piper is the subject are ungrammatical for independent reasons, see section 1.3.1 above. On the other hand, in English, where clauses that are embedded by certain verbs do not require an overt complementizer, the subject has to be overt in a tensed clause. Thus, at the moment I cannot offer evidence to the effect that the tense effect is indeed a phenomenon that is independent from the intervention effects discussed in sections 2.1 and 2.4 below. If intervention effects can only be triggered by overt specifiers but not by (simple) complementizers (see section 2.4), then (527-b) may serve as an argument that tense effects are an independent phenomenon. Suppose for a moment that tense effects exist. Now, Nakamura (2002) offers an explanation for a similar effect that arises with zero operators (see also Browning (1987)). To illustrate consider (528) (Nakamura (2002, 253)), which involves a zero operator OP in the context of tough-movement. The observation is that OP cannot move out of a tensed clause in English. (528)

*John is easy OP2 to believe (that) Mary kissed t2 .

Nakamura proposes an analysis of zero operators in terms of feature movement. His claim is that T of the embedded tensed clause in (528) bears some operator feature that interferes with the zero operator’s [ WH ] in a kind of minimality effect. In section 1.5 below, I suggest that the wh-feature in massive pied-piping moves successive cyclically to the head of the pied-piped category. Thus, [ WH ] also passes via T of the pied-piped tensed clause, where it can possibly interfere with T’s operator feature.228 To the extent that the tense 228. There is, however, a problem. Usually, minimality effects arise if a probe cannot access a certain goal because another goal counts as closer to the probe. It is argued below that whfeature movement is an instance of non-feature driven movement. Consequently, there is

Massive Pied-Piping

315

effect in (528) and the one that arises in the context of massive pied-piping are the same, and to the extent that the analysis of zero operators in terms of feature movement is viable, Nakamura’s explanation of tense effects might carry over to massive pied-piping and thus suggest that massive pied-piping involves wh-feature movement.229

1.4.

Wh-Feature Movement versus Covert Phrasal Wh-Movement

As already mentioned in section 1.3.1 above, it is not easy to distinguish the present approach to massive pied-piping in terms of wh-feature movement from a theory that hypothesizes that the pied-piper undergoes (possibly covert) phrasal movement into the edge domain of the pied-piped category (see Nishigauchi (1990), Kayne (1994), and Yoon (2002)). There is a certain urge to distinguish these two theories, especially against the background of section 1.4, chapter 4. There, I suggested that one might need something like covert phrasal wh-movement, arguing that it cannot be replaced by wh-feature movement. This raises the question as to whether it is possible to replace the wh-feature movement postulated for massive piedpiping by covert phrasal wh-movement. In sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 above I already provided arguments that this question must be answered in the negative. It is the purpose of the present section to address other potential arguments that can distinguish between whfeature movement and covert phrasal wh-movement.230 To forestall the conno attracting feature and thus no minimality effect, at least not obviously so. 229. Something like a tense effect also exists in parasitic gap constructions (see Engdahl (1983, 8), Browning (1987), Cinque (1990, 194, footnote 43), Lasnik and Stowell (1991, 695)). It is tempting to assume that all tense effects reduce to the same source. I have to leave open, though, as to how this can possibly be achieved. Cf. also footnote 253 below. 230. Boˇsković (2002b, 372), discussing wh-in-situ in multiple interrogatives, suggests that a theory that hypothesizes covert phrasal wh-movement for wh-in-situ predicts that, sometimes, this wh-movement should, at least in part, apply overtly, possibly stopping in some intermediate SpecC-position. Nothing of the kind is expected in a theory that employs wh-feature movement. As far as I know, there is no partial wh-movement in massive pied-piping. But this could owe to independent reasons. First, it seems that partial whmovement is rare in relative clauses (it is possible in Romani but impossible in German, see McDaniel (1989, 570)). If so, then one expects it to be rare in massive pied-piping in relative clauses, too. And if massive pied-piping in matrix interrogatives lacks proper wh-movement, as suggested in section 1.8.1 below, then massive pied-piping in interrogatives are irrelevant for to issue at hand.

316


clusion of this section: most (though perhaps not all) of the potential arguments discussed below turn out to be inconclusive. The reader not interested in such negative findings may therefore want to skip them. Finally note that a theory in terms of covert phrasal wh-movement is incompatible with the derivation of intervention effects as PIC-effects that I am going to propose in section 2 below. Thus, the theory of massive pied-piping should perhaps also be assessed on the basis of how well it fits in a theory of intervention effects.

1.4.1.

Weak Crossover

It can be argued that weak crossover (see Postal (1971)) is contingent on semantic properties of some operator (for instance a wh-phrase). For instance, according to Ruys (2000) weak crossover effects emerge when a wh-phrase takes scope over a pronoun; the notion of scope is primarily semantic. Suppose that semantic scope presupposes syntactic c-command. It then follows that the semantic features of a wh-phrase must c-command a pronoun in order for weak crossover to arise. If wh-in-situ in massive pied-piping involves covert phrasal wh-movement, then it should exhibit weak crossover because movement of the complete category implies movement of the semantic features. In contrast, if it involves wh-feature movement, then no weak crossover should emerge (cf., however, Pesetsky (2000, 82)). Examples that are suited to test the prediction are problematic because they necessarily involve an overt specifier c-commanding the pied-piper, a configuration that is not completely well-formed for independent reasons (see section 5, chapter 2; see also section 2 below). But if one abstracts away from such intervention effects (cf. the control examples in (529-a) and (530-a)), then (529-b) and (530-b) appear to lack weak crossover effects. (529)

a. Mary, [ CP for Egbert to leave whom ] 2 t2 was a surprise to everyone, . . . b. Mary, [ CP for her1 husband to leave whom1 ] 2 t2 was a surprise to everyone, . . .

(530)

a. [ CP For Egbert to invite WHOM ] 2 t2 would be most appropriate? b. [ CP For her1 husband to invite WHOM1 ] 2 t2 would be most appropriate?

Massive Pied-Piping

317

At first sight, this speaks in favor of the wh-feature movement analysis and against an approach in terms of covert phrasal movement. But there are problems. As noted by Safir (1984, 1986) and Lasnik and Stowell (1991), primary wh-movement in appositive relative clauses does not trigger weak crossover. This sheds doubts on the relevance of (529-b), at least as long as it is unclear why covert secondary wh-movement should behave unlike overt primary wh-movement with respect to weak crossover. Unfortunately, restrictive relative clauses, where primary wh-movement does trigger weak crossover, do not tolerate massive pied-piping. Moreover, if massive pied-piping in matrix interrogatives would not involve wh-movement (see section 1.8.1 below), then (530-b) were irrelevant, too.

1.4.2.

Parasitic Gaps

One may argue that the interpretation of a parasitic gap (PG) as a bound variable requires that the semantic features of the wh-phrase have scope over the PG (and therefore c-command it). If this is correct, then wh-feature movement should not be able to license a PG in massive pied-piping while covert phrasal wh-movement should be able to do so. Relevant examples are given in (531). (531)

a. Egbert’s passed pawn, [ γ after having advanced which3 [ β without promoting PG3 ]] 2 he had second thoughts t2 ], . . . b. Egbert’s passed pawn, [ α advancing which3 [ β without promoting PG3 ]] 2 t2 would be blatantly foolish, . . . c. several intervening factors, [ γ before including which3 [ β without properly understanding PG3 ]] 2 Egbert would rather not do anything t2 , . . . d. several intervening factors, [ α attempting to control for which3 [ β without properly understanding PG3 ]] might be unwise, . . .

Unfortunately, speaker’s judgments with respect to (531-a-d) are anything but uniform, ranging from impeccable to ungrammatical. Both reactions are expected and unexpected at the same time. On the one hand, it is known that parasitic gaps cannot be licensed by wh-in-situ (see Engdahl (1983)).231 From this point of view, of course, the examples in (531) 231. There are exceptions. Nissenbaum (2000, 2001) observes that covert wh-movement can

318


are expected to be ungrammatical: the wh-phrases in (531-a-d) are in-situ. This suggests that PGs cannot serve as a proper diagnostics for the type of covert wh-movement that is hypothesized to apply in massive pied-piping. On the other hand, Seely (1991) claims that sometimes wh-in-situ in (massive) pied-piping can license PGs, at least marginally. He presents examples of the kind in (532) and assigns them an intermediate grammaticality status (but see Safir (1986, 666) for a different view). Seely calls the PGs in (532) ‘weak parasitic gaps’. (532)

a. ?Egbert’s passed pawn, [ γ after having advanced which3 ] 2 it would be nice to promote PG3 t2 , . . . b. ?several intervening factors, [ α understanding which3 ] 2 t2 would be necessary [ β in order to control for PG3 ] , . . .

Note that Seely’s examples differ from the ones given in (531) in one respect: the wh-phrases in (532) could not c-command the PG even if they underwent covert phrasal movement to the edge of the pied-piped category because the PG is not contained within this category. Thus, covert phrasal movement would have to target an even higher position. Given the relative grammaticality of (532-a,b), one might expect the examples in (531) to be grammatical more than ever. But even if this were the expectation, then it would still not be legitimate to conclude from the ungrammaticality of the examples in (531) that there is no covert phrasal wh-movement in massive pied-piping because this would simply ignore the grammaticality of (532-a,b). It seems then that the evidence from parasitic gap constructions is inconclusive at best.

1.4.3.

Antecedent Contained Deletion

Pesetsky (2000) suggests that covert phrasal wh-movement and wh-feature movement can be distinguished by antecedent contained deletion (ACD). license a PG if the adjunct that contains it also contains another PG that is licensed by overt wh-movement. Boˇsković (2002b) claims that exceptional wh-in-situ in multiple wh-fronting languages can license PGs; Kato (2004) extends this observation to insitu wh-phrases in English echo-questions. It is, for different reasons, hard to come up with examples that exploit these observations in order to distinguish between wh-feature movement and covert phrasal wh-movement (for instance, in the case of echo-questions it is doubtful whether they involve a [∗WH∗] on C, see section 1.8.1 below).

Massive Pied-Piping

319

To begin with, suppose that the deleted VP2 in (533-a) inherits its interpretation from the dominating VP4 . If the content of VP4 is copied directly onto VP2 in (533-a), then an infinite regress emerges because VP2 , being contained within VP4 , is copied, too, and we are back to square one. A solution to this problem is that first some constituent containing VP2 , for instance DP3 , moves out of VP4 (undergoes ‘quantifier raising’, see (533-b)). Then copying of VP4 and replacement of VP2 by the copy of VP4 can apply ((533-c)) without entering the infinite regress. (533)

a. Egbert [ VP invited [ DP everbody Horace did [ VP – ] 2 ] 3 ] 4 → (Move DP3 ) b. [ DP everbody H. did [ VP – ] 2 ] 3 Egbert [ VP invited t3 ] 4 → (Copy VP4 ) c. [ DP everbody H. did [ VP invite t3 ] 4 ] 3 Egbert [ VP invited t3 ] 4

Crucially, the step from (533-a) to (533-b) requires phrasal movement; DP3 must be removed as a whole, thereby dragging VP2 along with it. Pesetsky uses this idea in order to determine whether an in-situ wh-phrase undergoes covert phrasal movement or whether it merely moves its wh-feature. The trick is to modify the wh-phrase in question by a relative clause that in turn contains a deleted VP. This VP will only be interpretable if covert phrasal wh-movement applies to the wh-expression (thereby dragging the deleted VP out of the matrix VP, just like in (533)) but not if movement affects only the wh-phrase’s [ WH ]. When applied to wh-in-situ in massive pied-piping as in (534-a-c), the ACD-test predicts that the deleted VPs should be properly interpretable only if covert phrasal wh-movement applies. (534)

a. Horace, [ α admired by whose friends [ CP that his brother also was [ VP – ]]] 3 Egbert certainly intended to remain t3 , . . . b. Egbert, [ γ before meeting whose relatives [ CP that Mary also will [ VP – ]]] 3 Horace left Sydney t3 , . . . c. Fermat’s theorem, [ γ in order to complete whose proof [ CP that Egbert already did [ VP – ]]] 3 Horace made tremendous efforts t3 , . . .

Again, speakers’ judgments are not uniform; but there appears to be a tendency to judge them as rather grammatical. If true, then this could point to an argument in favor of covert phrasal wh-movement in massive pied-piping

320


(and against wh-feature movement). It should be noted, however, that there is also the view that the proper treatment of ACD does not require covert phrasal movement of the type suggested above (see Fox (2002)). If this is correct, then, again, the preceding argument is inconclusive.

1.4.4.

Coordinate Structures and Covert Phrasal Wh-Movement

Boˇsković and Franks (2000) claim that covert phrasal wh-movement cannot apply across-the-board. The evidence comes from examples such as (535-b), for which they assume that it involves covert phrasal movement of the in-situ wh-phrases, which violates the CSC if it cannot apply across-the-board. (535)

a. What2 did you say [ CP that John bought t2 ] and [ CP that Peter sold t2 ]? b. *Who said [ CP that John bought what ] and [ CP that Peter sold what ]?

However, as argued in section 1.3.4, the covert process that takes place in massive pied-piping can apply in an across-the-board fashion. It therefore follows that this process cannot be covert phrasal wh-movement.

1.5.

Sample Derivations

It is the purpose of the present section to illustrate how the process of whfeature movement can be put to use when analyzing massive pied-piping. Recall in this context that massive pied-piping is generally optional.

1.5.1.

Preliminaries

The idea of the analysis presented below is that interrogative pronouns and a particular type of relative pronouns are able to optionally move their whfeature to the head of some higher category α , with the result that α can undergo pied-piping. Consider the following example, which involves massive pied-piping of an AP within an appositive relative clause in English. (536)

Egbert, [ AP proud of whom ] 3 Mary surely is t3 , . . .

Massive Pied-Piping

321

The crucial steps of the derivation of (536) are as follows. Suppose that the relative pronoun and the preposition have already combined to form a PP. In the next step the PP merges with the A-head proud. Since it is the resulting AP that undergoes massive pied-piping, the wh-feature of the relative pronoun is supposed to move and adjoin to the A-head (see Chomsky (1995) for the idea that moved features adjoin to heads). Next suppose that feature movement is a local process. In particular, assume that it behaves like head movement in that it is subject to the H EAD M OVEMENT C ONSTRAINT (HMC, see Travis (1984)). This is argued for explicitly by Boˇsković (1998, 2000) (see also the remarks in Kayne (1998, 172)). The HMC states that head movement cannot apply in one fell swoop, thereby skipping intervening head positions. Rather, it must apply successive cyclically, passing via all intervening head positions.232 For the case at hand, this means that if the wh-feature of the relative pronoun in (536) is supposed to move to the A-head, then it first has to move to the next higher head, namely P. This is illustrated in (537-a,b). (537)

a. [ PP of who ] → b. [ PP [ P [ WH ] P ] who ]

(Move [ WH ])

Two questions arise at this point. First, what is the trigger of wh-feature movement to the next higher head? Second, why is this movement optional (recall that massive pied-piping is optional)? The PP in (537-b) is one output candidate among others in a candidate set. Consider the input/output optimization that applies to this candidate set. PB is not an issue because PP is not a phase. Next, consider LA. Before whfeature movement applies, there is one single probe [∗WH∗] in the workspace of the derivation. Moreover, there is one phrase boundary, namely PP, that dominates [ WH ] of who but not [∗WH∗]. Hence, the PP-boundary incurs an LA violation. However, movement of [ WH ] to P does not change this: the 232. At first sight, this seems to follow from local optimization: when a new head is merged, wh-feature raising applies (see below why wh-feature raising is optimal); raising cannot skip any head because every output phrase results from optimization. There is a complication, though. As argued below, wh-feature raising can be triggered by LA. And since LA is violable, a scenario is imaginable where the optimal output of an early part of the derivation does not involve wh-feature movement (in violation of LA) while at some later point raising of [ WH ] to a higher head is favored. In this scenario, the local nature of feature movement would be suspended. This cannot be the case for reasons that become clear shortly. Thus, the HMC is needed independently.

322


moved [ WH ] adjoins to P; it is thus not part of P’s feature set; consequently, [ WH ] cannot project up to PP and thus PP still incurs an LA-violation. It follows that the first step of feature movement cannot be triggered by LA. Moreover, if wh-feature movement is not triggered by the presence of some [∗WH∗] on P then it is expected to violate LR. It follows that movement of [ WH ] must be triggered by some constraint that is ranked higher than LR. But as argued above, the constraint in question can be neither PB nor LA. It seems that we are back to square one. In order to make headway, suppose that movement of [ WH ] is triggered by PB after all. To this end, assume that the English relative pronoun who can optionally combine with an empty D-head, see (538). I remain agnostic here as to whether who in (538) is a DP that serves as the complement of the empty D or whether it is an NP. (538)

[ DP [ D – ] who ]

Then the first step of wh-feature movement does not target P but D. D, by assumption, is a phase head. The DP headed by the hypothesized D must be balanced: PB requires movement of [ WH ] into the edge domain of this DP. The phase head is part of the edge domain of the phase. It follows that wh-feature movement to D can satisfy PB. As for now, the presence of an empty D-head must be stipulated. But see section 1.7 below, where some independent evidence in favor of this assumption is presented. Since who combines optionally with D, massive pied-piping is optional, too: if D is optionally part of the numeration, then candidates based on a numeration with D do not compete with candidates based on a numeration without D (see section 1.3 of chapter 3). Candidates with and without massive pied-piping do not compete: massive pied-piping becomes optional.

1.5.2.

Wh-Feature Movement and Massive Pied-Piping

Reconsider the derivation of (536) against this background. The optimization that leads to the first step of wh-feature movement is given in tableau T15 . As T15 illustrates, the presence of the hypothesized D-head triggers the first step of wh-feature movement in O1 ; cf., in particular, O2 , where the omission of wh-feature movement leads to a fatal violation of PB. Of course, since PB is ranked higher than the EOC, the empty output (O3 ) cannot win either.

Massive Pied-Piping

323

T15 : Local optimization of DP; [ WH ]-movement triggered by PB Input: D + who Num: {Egbert, C[∗WH∗] , P, . . . } ☞ O1 : [ DP [ D [ WH ] – ] who ] O2 : [ DP [ D – ] who ] O3 : Ø

PB

EOC

*!

LA

LR

* *

*

*!

The derivation of (536) thus starts as in (539). (539-b) is the basis for possible continuations of the derivation. (539)

a. [ DP [ D – ] who ] → b. [ DP [ D [ WH ] – ] who ] →

(Move [ WH ]) ...

Before moving on, I would like to introduce an auxiliary assumption that becomes relevant later. Suppose that a feature [ F ] that has been moved must at some point become part of some head (presumably for reasons of spellout, see section 2.1.1 below). How does this proceed? Now, the theory of distributed morphology (DM, Halle and Marantz (1993)) provides the operation ‘morphological Merger’. Morphological Merger takes two heads and combines them into a new word. Suppose that at some point this is what happens with a moved feature [ F ] and the head H it has adjoined to.233,234 The upshot is that after Merger of [ F ] and H, [ F ] can no longer move, thereby stranding H because they have formed a complex word, i.e., excorporation of [ F ] is no longer possible. Once Merger has applied, [ WH ] has to pied-pipe H along with it. Obviously, this presupposes that morphology and syntax can be interspersed: morphological Merger applies somewhere within the syntactic derivation; after its application, the syntactic derivation can go on. 233. I hasten to add, though, that the operation assumed here differs from morphological Merger in DM in that the latter exhibits reflexes at spell-out. As far as I know, a moved [ WH ] in massive pied-piping is never spelled-out. 234. Merger differs from Fusion (see Halle and Marantz (1993)). If α and β undergo Fusion, they form one atomic head. Merger conserves the status of α and β as independent objects. The operation needed here must be Merger, not Fusion: after Fusion of [ WH ] and some head H [ WH ] is arguably projected up to HP. As will become clear later, this would render massive pied-piping with wh-feature movement structurally identical (with respect to the location of [ WH ]) to movement of a bare wh-word. All things equal, the asymmetry between matrix and embedded structures with respect to massive pied-piping could then not be derived as proposed in section 1.6.2

324


As for (539-b), suppose that morphological Merger does not apply yet to [ WH ] and D. The derivation merges the next higher head, the preposition of : (539)

b. [ DP [ D [ WH ] – ] who ] → c. [ PP of [ DP [ D [ WH ] – ] who ] →

(Merge P) ...

At first sight, it looks as if (539-c) faces the same problem encountered by (537-b) above: [ WH ] must move to P if (ultimately) it is supposed to be adjoined to some higher head; P does not bear [∗WH∗] nor is it a phase head. Thus, wh-feature raising can neither be feature-driven nor can it be driven by PB, and therefore LR threatens to prevent it. However, the situation in (539-c) is not quite the same as the one in (537-b). While in (537-b) [ WH ] is part of the relative pronoun, it is not part of D in (539-c); rather, it is adjoined to D. Being adjoined, [ WH ] cannot project up to DP and thus raising of [ WH ] from D to the higher P-head spares one LA-violation. As a result, LA licenses whfeature movement from D to P, see the output candidates O1 vs. O2 in tableau T16 .235 T16 : Local optimization of PP; [ WH ]-movement triggered by LA Input: P + [ DP [ D [ WH ] – ] who ] Num: {Egbert, C[∗WH∗] , . . . }

☞ O1 : [ PP [ P [ WH ] of ] [ DP [ D – ] who ] O2 : [ PP [ P of ] [ DP [ D [ WH ] – ] who ] O3 : Ø

EOC

LA

LR

* **!

*

*!

The derivation thus continues by raising [ WH ] to P. This is shown in (539-d). (539)

c. [ PP of [ DP [ D [ WH ] – ] who ] → d. [ PP [ P [ WH ] of ] [ DP [ D – ] who ] →

(Move [ WH ]) ...

Precisely the same reasoning applies if the next higher head, the A-head 235. This requires that [ WH ] can excorporate (provided that morphological Merger has not applied yet). Baker (1988) explicitly argues against excorporation. But see Roberts (1991), where two types of head movement are assumed, only one of them allowing for excorporation. Movement of [ WH ] shares the characteristic property Roberts attributes to the type of movement that permits excorporation: it is not triggered by any morphological selection between moving head and target.

Massive Pied-Piping

325

proud in the case of (536), is merged, independent of whether it is a phase head or nor. In any event, LA triggers wh-feature raising. Suppose that after [ WH ] has moved to A, they undergo morphological Merger together. As a result, excorporation of [ WH ] from A will be blocked and the complete AP undergoes wh-movement, ultimately reaching SpecC of the relative clause. I abstain from illustrating the details of the remainder of the derivation. They proceed in a way that is familiar by now.

1.5.3.

Pending Problems and Consequences

Before turning to cases where wh-feature movement is blocked, I want to point out some problems and consequences of the theory presented so far. The first point concerns a problem. Imagine that [ WH ] has undergone morphological Merger with A and that the next higher head H is introduced into the structure. Theoretically, there is the possibility of moving the complex Ahead (including [ WH ]) to H. Such movement does not involve excorporation. Moreover, it skips the AP-boundary and thus spares one LA-violation as opposed to the output candidate that leaves [ WH ] within the AP, a strategy that finally leads to massive pied-piping of the AP. If this were an option, however, then massive pied-piping of the AP, as in (536), should be impossible. There must be some reason why the complex A-head does not raise. Moreover, this reason must be sufficiently general, its domain of application not being confined to the category A. Unfortunately, I have to leave open here what it is supposed to be.236 Second, note that there are two other potential derivations based on the numeration with empty D-head that do not employ wh-feature movement but rather head-movement or phrasal movement in order to balance the DP-phase. These do not fare better with respect to LA (or any other constraint) than the derivation that involves feature movement (at least not on the DP-cycle). See section 1.6.4 below for some remarks. Third, it is clear that the decision whether morphological Merger applies or not must be made on a purely local basis. To see why, consider the follow236. If the moved wh-feature and the head of the pied-piped constituent were ‘glued together’ by Fusion instead of Merger, then the problem would not arise: [ WH ] would project up to AP and there would be no pressure by LA for head movement to apply. However, see footnote 234 above for an argument why Fusion cannot substitute Merger within the present theory, all things equal.

326


ing reasoning. If Merger applies at cycle n, then this causes an LA-violation at the next higher cycle n + 1. The reason is that Merger blocks excorporation and thus induces pied-piping. Had Merger not applied at cycle n, then no additional LA-violation would have been incurred: excorporation of [ WH ] without pied-piping would have applied. If this information were available at cycle n already, then Merger would never apply (and, consequently, neither would massive pied-piping). Fortunately, it follows without further ado within the framework of local optimization that the information about optimization at cycle n + 1 is not available at cycle n. Thus, Merger does not bear on the issue of optimality at cycle n, where it applies. At cycle n + 1, when the consequences of Merger come into effect, the decision has already been made. Fourth, morphological Merger creates two different optimal candidates at cycle n that both serve as input for generation and optimization at cycle n + 1. Since the input fixes the candidate set (see section 1.3, chapter 3) it follows that this creates two different competitions: optionality of Merger splits the derivation in two. To conclude, the first step of wh-feature movement is triggered (via PB) by the presence of a (possibly empty) D-head that combines with the whpronoun. All the subsequent steps are triggered by LA. At one point of the derivation, [ WH ] undergoes morphological Merger with its target head, which prevents further excorporation and thus triggers pied-piping. Since Merger can apply at different points of the derivation, massive pied-piping can apply to various portions of structure.

1.5.4.

Wh-Feature Movement Blocked

Consider a derivation where the relative pronoun does not combine with an empty D. In this case, the derivation commences as suggested at the beginning of section 1.5. The relative pronoun merges directly with the next higher head (a preposition, for instance). Movement of [ WH ] does not apply because no trigger is available and thus wh-feature raising is blocked by LR. The argument goes as follows. First, P is not a phase head, thus PB is irrelevant. Second, before and after movement of [ WH ] the same number of phrase boundaries dominates [ WH ] but not [∗WH∗] (which is still in the numeration); therefore, LA is irrelevant, too. Finally, since P does not bear any probe [∗WH∗] (by assumption),

Massive Pied-Piping

327

feature-driven movement is not an issue, either. The relevant competition is illustrated in tableau T17 T17 : Local optimization of PP; [ WH ]-movement blocked by LR Input: P + who Num: {Egbert, C[∗WH∗] , A, . . . }

PB

EOC

O1 : [ PP [ P [ WH ] of ] who ] ☞ O2 : [ PP [ P of ] who ] O3 : Ø

LA

LR

* *

*!

*!

The derivation proceeds by merging the next higher head. For sake of concreteness suppose that this is an A-head (as in example (536)). At this point, LA becomes relevant again. The reason is that the A-head provides a new landing site outside of the PP that can serve as a target for [ WH ]. Movement of [ WH ] to A skips the PP-boundary and is thus favored by LA over leaving [ WH ] within the PP. However, at this point the HMC becomes crucial. Since no wh-raising has applied at the PP-level, [ WH ] cannot move to A at the AP-level, either: if [ WH ] moves to A in one fell swoop, the HMC is violated (see O1 in tableau T18 ); but if [ WH ] moves successive cyclically, via the intermediate P-head, then the SCC is violated.237 T18 : Local optimization of AP; [ WH ]-movement blocked by HMC (and SCC) Input: A + [ PP [ P of ] who ] Num: {Egbert, C[∗WH∗] , . . . } O1 : [ AP [ A [ WH ] A ] [ PP of who ]] ☞ O2 : [ AP who2 [ A A ] [ PP of t2 ]] O3 : [ AP [ A A ] [ PP of who ]]

HMC *!

EOC

LA

LR

* * **!

* *

Rather, the optimal output involves phrasal movement of who to SpecA (see O2 in T18 ). Note that once the wh-phrase has undergone movement, there 237. Since the SCC is presumably part of generator, the relevant output candidate does not show up in T18 to begin with.

328


is no way that the derivation can switch to wh-feature movement: the whphrase occupies a non-complement position and thus constitutes an island. The upshot is that if wh-feature movement has not applied from the very beginning, it will not apply at all. To conclude, the presented theory accounts for the apparent lack of LAeffects in massive pied-piping (the fact that massive pied-piping applies freely and optionally) by assuming that derivations that involve wh-feature movement are not in competition with derivations that do not. It also accounts for why massive pied-piping does not seem to be sensitive for the PIC: wh-feature movement bridges the gap in locality by moving [ WH ] into the edge domain of any pied-piped phase, where it is accessible to [∗WH∗] on C.238 Two questions have not been addressed yet. First, if wh-feature movement is principally an option, why then can [ WH ] not move all the way up to the C-head that bears [∗WH∗], thereby dispensing with phrasal movement altogether? After all, this would appear to be optimal with respect to LA. Second, why is massive pied-piping (i.e., wh-feature movement) not an option in restrictive relative clauses and embedded interrogatives? In English, the very same wh-pronoun who that (optionally) induces massive pied-piping in appositive relative clauses can also appear in these contexts; nevertheless, massive pied-piping is blocked. 1.6.

More on the Theory of Wh-Feature Movement

This section addresses the two questions that were brought up at the end of section 1.5.4 above: why is there phrasal wh-movement, and why is massive pied-piping not an option in restricted relative clauses and embedded questions? It also briefly deals with certain consequences that arise from the answers to these questions. 1.6.1.

Why is There Phrasal Wh-Movement?

The first question is addressed first. One might speculate that interrogative and relative clauses in English (and other languages) cannot exclusively rely 238. Recall from section 4.4, chapter 2 (see, in particular, footnote 138) that German, Dutch, and Yiddish do not exhibit massive pied-piping in appositive relative clauses. As a consequence, I assume that these languages lack the possibility of embedding the relative pronoun under an additional D-head.

Massive Pied-Piping

329

on wh-feature movement because of their semantics. For instance, a relative clause is standardly interpreted as a predicate: a clause that contains a variable that is abstracted over by a λ -operator. The variable is the trace left behind by wh-movement while the relative pronoun itself is interpreted as the λ -operator.239 One may argue on this basis that phrasal wh-movement is a necessary precondition for deriving the correct interpretation of the relative clause. A parallel argument can be constructed for interrogative clauses based on the semantics proposed by Hamblin (1973) or Karttunen (1977). The argument is not conclusive, though, as pointed out by Sternefeld (2006). He raises the following counter-argument. Structures that involve pied-piping require additional assumptions in order to be semantically interpretable (see Chomsky (1977), Engdahl (1980), Cooper (1983), Heim (1987), von Stechow (1996), Sternefeld (2001), Reich (2002), Cable (2007), among many others.) One may assume the existence of further covert movement operations; or one may choose a different semantics. In either case, the alleged motivation for overt wh-movement from above vanishes. If covert wh-movement is chosen, then this movement could, in principle, replace overt whmovement altogether. If a new semantics is chosen, then this mechanism can also be used to interpret wh-in-situ, making overt wh-movement superfluous, again. To conclude, a semantic explanation for overt phrasal wh-movement is not available, at least not obviously so. Alternatively, it is tempting to simply assume that the C-head in wh-constructions is equipped with a particular type of [∗EPP∗] that requires that SpecC be filled by a wh-phrase in the overt syntax. This is proposed by Chomsky (2000, 2001) (see section 1.4 of chapter 3). Since I opted out of this possibility in chapter 3, I cannot resort to it now. Instead, suppose that English-type languages cannot exclusively rely on wh-feature movement due to restrictions on its application. For now, I am not able to spell out all the technical details because the necessary theoretical background has not been introduced yet. An explicit discussion is postponed until section 2 below. In what follows, I sketch the idea. If [ WH ] underwent movement all the way up to the matrix C-head, then it would have to cross the TP-domain. This domain usually contains a subject in SpecT and [ TENSE ] on T. As mentioned in section 5 of chapter 2 (see also section 2 below), wh-feature movement across an overt subject in SpecT 239. Or, alternatively, the relative pronoun is semantically empty and movement is interpreted as λ -abstraction, see Heim and Kratzer (1998).

330


is blocked. In languages where the subject can be empty (as in pro-drop languages like Italian) there is at least a tensed T-head that must be crossed. And, as assumed in section 1.3.5 above, wh-feature movement is also blocked by [ TENSE ] on T. In an infinitive, wh-feature movement could in principle avoid to cross a subject and a tensed T-head. However, matrix interrogatives are never non-finite, nor are appositive relative clauses (at least not in English and Italian).240 Embedded interrogative and relative clauses can be non-finite. However, they are irrelevant because massive pied-piping is only possible in matrix clauses (see section 4 of chapter 2). As a consequence, wh-feature movement that proceeds all the way up to the C-head is impossible due to independent restrictions and due to the unavailability of constructions that could by-pass these restrictions. A derivation can only converge if phrasal wh-movement, which is not sensitive to these restrictions, applies before the TP-domain is reached. This is not to say that phrasal wh-movement applies in order to avoid intervention or tense-effects. In many cases, the element that induces the intervention effect has not yet been introduced into the structure at the point where the derivation switches from wh-feature movement to phrasal wh-movement. Rather, phrasal movement applies blindly at some point of the derivation. If it never does, then the derivation crashes.241 240. This is illustrated by the following cases of non-finite matrix interrogatives in English (see (i)) and non-finite appositive relative clauses in English and Italian (from Sells (1985, 45) and Cinque (1988, 467), respectively; see (ii) and (iii)): (i)

a. *What to do now? b. *Where to go?

(ii)

a. *Yolanda, to see whom now to be a good idea, . . . b. *Alicia, to attend the Ball with whom to be Jasper’s hope, . . . c. *Victor Brong, to whom to give the book, . . .

visto Giorgio, con cui parlare di questi cose, . . . (iii) *Ho have.1SG seen Giorgio with whom to talk of these things ‘I saw Giorgio, with whom to talk about these things . . . ’ 241. The account also explains why it is impossible to move [ WH ] to the T- or the C-head, triggering subsequent massive pied-piping of TP or CP (see (i)). (i)

a. *Egbert, [ TP Mary t3 proud of who ] 2 [ C was3 C ] t2 , . . . b. *Egbert, [ CP that Mary was proud of who ] 2 Bill said t2 , . . .

In both (i-a) and (i-b) there is at least an overt subject. The ungrammaticality of (i-a) may

Massive Pied-Piping

1.6.2.

331

Embedded versus Unembedded Wh-Constructions

I turn to the second question raised at the end of section 1.5.4: why is massive pied-piping banned from embedded contexts? As embedded interrogatives and restrictive relative clauses can be construed with the type of pronoun that is able to move [ WH ] (see (507-b) above) one should expect them to exhibit massive pied-piping, too, contrary to fact. This suggests that the choice of wh-pronoun is only a necessary but not a sufficient condition for massive pied-piping. Yet another condition has to be met (see (507-a) above): massive pied-piping is possible exclusively in non-subordinated CPs. In order to account for this condition, some additional assumptions about the selection of embedded interrogative clauses and restrictive relative clauses are introduced now. To begin with, I assume that the operation Merge is driven by a kind of probe [∗F∗], too, just as Move. In doing so, I depart from the preliminary assumption mentioned in 2.1, chapter 3 (see also Svenonius (1994), Chomsky (2001, 3, footnote 5), Collins (2002), Heck and Müller (2006), and Sternefeld (2006)). Such a structure-building probe [∗F∗] has to be eliminated in the syntax. It turns out that the conditions on the elimination of an [∗F∗] that induces Merge differ from those on Agree. I therefore assume that they are eliminated by a different operation. Following Collins (2002), I refer to this operation as ‘Subcat’. Subcat, like Agree, is able to apply in a remote fashion; but unlike Agree it is not subject to LA (however, it is subject to the PIC). It is often assumed (see, for instance, Bresnan (1970), Chomsky (1973)) that the C-head of a wh-clause is marked by a wh-feature, satisfying the selectional requirement of the matrix predicate. Under this view, [ WH ] on C acts as a goal that matches a selectional probe [∗WH∗] on the embedding head. Suppose instead that it is the wh-feature on the wh-word within the whclause that checks the selectional probe [∗WH∗] on the embedding head via Subcat (see Sells (1985) for such a proposal). The partial structures in (540) schematically illustrate the relevant selectional relation between [ WH ] on the wh-word and [∗WH∗] on the embedding head for an embedded interrogative and a restrictive relative clause, respectively.242 also be due to some restriction on remnant movement, see Takano (2000); this is not the case for (i-b), though. 242. Note that if Subcat were subject to LA, then one would (at least in some languages) expect to find the structures in (i) instead of (540). Raising of the wh-phrase in the structures in (i) spares one LA-violation in contrast to the structures in (540).

332


(540)

a. . . . [ VP wonder[∗WH∗] [ CP who[ WH ] . . . ]] b. . . . [ NP book[∗WH∗] [ CP which[ WH ] . . . ]]

On this background, the function of [ WH ] on the wh-pronoun within a whclause is twofold. First, it eliminates the probe [∗WH∗] on the C-head of the embedded CP via Agree (omitted in (540)); second, it eliminates the selectional probe [∗WH∗] on the embedding head via Subcat.243 The assumption gives a handle on establishing a connection between embedding and (the impossibility of) massive pied-piping because now both processes make reference to the same goal: [ WH ] on the wh-word. To implement this, I will introduce the following stipulation with respect to Subcat: (541)

Partiality of Subcat Subcat cannot access moved features (in contrast to Agree).

The immediate consequence of (541) is that restrictive relative clauses and embedded interrogatives cannot exploit the option of wh-feature movement, even if they are construable with the type of wh-pronoun that makes whfeature movement possible.244 If in a restrictive relative clause or an embedded interrogative [ WH ] is moved, then, by the stipulation in (541), Subcat cannot identify the moved wh-feature as a potential goal. As there is no other goal available, the selectional probe [∗WH∗] on the head that embeds the wh-clause cannot be eliminated and the FC is violated. If no movement of [ WH ] applies, then massive pied-piping is blocked for various reasons; for (i)

a. b.

. . . [ VP who[ WH ]2 wonder[∗WH∗] [ CP t2 . . . ]] . . . [ NP which[ WH ]2 book[∗WH∗] [ CP t2 . . . ]]

But this cannot be the case because the structures in (i) do not exhibit the correct word order. (Although it could be derived by applying V-raising to v and N-raising to some functional head n above NP, after all.) 243. It follows that a wh-word’s [ WH ] must not delete after having checked the probe on C. This raises certain questions concerning the often-claimed correspondence between interpretability and deletion: [ WH ] on the wh-phrase is usually assumed to be uninterpretable (see Chomsky (1955, 1957), Karttunen (1977), Groenendijk and Stokhof (1982)), in contrast to the wh-feature on C; as such, [ WH ] should be deleted by feature checking; see Sternefeld (2007) for discussion. 244. There is a parallel to Sells’ (1985) treatment of pied-piping possibilities in restrictive and appositive relative clauses. Sells claims that wh-feature percolation (in his analysis a precondition for massive pied-piping) is in principle available in both restrictive and appositive relative clauses but that restrictive relative clauses cannot make use of this mechanism for semantic reasons.

Massive Pied-Piping

333

instance, the wh-goal becomes inaccessible as soon as the next higher phase head is merged; in this case the derivation crashes due to a violation of PB. No such problem arises in appositive relative clauses or matrix interrogatives because these structures are not subordinated (see the remarks at the end of section 4.2, chapter 2 for appositive relative clauses; but see also section 1.8.1 below for some qualification with respect to the relevance of (541) for unembedded interrogatives). I already indicated that judgments on massive pied-piping are not as uniform as one would wish them to be. In particular, there are speakers that accept massive pied-piping in restrictive relative clauses (see footnote 133, section 4.1 and section 4.3, both in chapter 2). It thus appears as if for these speakers (541) does not hold, at least not in its full strength. Finally note that it is important that [ WH ] in massive pied-piping counts as moved in the sense of (541) although (at some point of the derivation) it becomes ‘anchored’ to the head H of the pied-piped phrase. If the moved [ WH ] had undergone Fusion with H (see footnote 234 above), it would be indistinguishable from a wh-feature that is part of H as a lexical property. But then Subcat could not distinguish cases that involve massive pied-piping from cases that involve no pied-piping at all. It was therefore assumed in section 1.5.2 above that [ WH ] combines with H by morphological Merger.

1.6.3.

Side Issues of Wh-Selection

This section addresses some side issues that arise due to the assumption that selection of a wh-clause proceeds via a wh-element in SpecC of this clause. First, one may wonder why the predicates in question must combine with clausal wh-complements if the selectional process targets a nominal category within the specifier of the embedded CP. For instance, why are the structures in (542-a,b) ill-formed, where a matrix verb (see (542-a)) and a matrix nominal (see (542-b)) combine with a non-clausal wh-element. (542)

a. *I wonder what. b. *the man who

As a matter of fact, there could be various reasons for the ungrammaticality of (542-a,b) that are independent of the issue of selection. To begin with, it is usually assumed that a wh-pronoun must c-command a domain whose denotation is a proposition such that the wh-pronoun (which denotes an existential

334


quantifier in (542-a) and a λ -operator in (542-b)) can bind a variable within this domain. This is not the case in (542). Thus, these structures are not interpretable and (or) violate a constraint against vacuous binding (see Koopman and Sportiche (1982), Heim and Kratzer (1998)). Alternatively, one might assume, following Grimshaw (1979), that alongside syntactic selection there is semantic selection (cf. also Pesetsky (1982b), who assumes semantic selection only). The feature encoding semantic selection would be located on the C-head of the complement, and the feature encoding syntactic selection would be encoded on the wh-phrase, as assumed above. (542) would then fulfill syntactic selection but not semantic selection. Second, there is an issue with respect to yes-no-interrogatives. In English, these interrogatives are introduced by elements such as whether- and if, usually analyzed as C-elements; they do not employ an overt wh-element in SpecC. The question arises as to how they can fulfill the selectional requirement of their embedding head if this requirement is to be satisfied a wh-word in SpecC. Again, various explanations suggest themselves. Either one argues that whether- and if -clauses do employ a wh-pronoun in SpecC after all. In the case of whether-clauses one could analyze whether itself as the operator in question (cf. Chomsky (1986), where whether is in SpecC at LF). For if clauses, an analysis in terms of a zero operator in SpecC could be envisaged. Or one might simply claim that in whether- and if -clauses, the selected [ WH ] is actually on C. The answer might bear on the question how selection of interrogatives proceeds in wh-in-situ languages. In these languages, the PIC prevents the in-situ wh-word to satisfy the selectional requirement of the embedding head. Interestingly, wh-in-situ languages often exhibit an overt whcomplementizer. This suggests that [ WH ] on a C-element must, in principle, be able to fulfill the selectional requirement of a matrix head anyway. Finally note that an analysis that makes the wh-pronoun in SpecC the target of selection has the following independent advantage. It is a standard assumption in the minimalist literature that probes are uninterpretable and must be deleted while goals are interpretable and thus remain unchanged. If it is C that bears the wh-feature that eliminates the selectional [∗WH∗] of the matrix head H, then, by standard assumptions, [∗WH∗] on H is the probe and [ WH ] on C is the goal. But then [ WH ] on C is supposed to survive checking with [∗WH∗] on H. This raises the question why the CP (with [ WH ] on C) cannot act as a wh-phrase. The present approach avoids this problem by assuming that the embedded C does not bear [ WH ] in the first place. For obvious rea-

Massive Pied-Piping

335

sons, this argument suggests that an analysis of whether- and if -interrogatives in English in terms of a zero operator is to be favored.

1.6.4.

Alternative Ways to Balance the Phase

Consider the derivation of a restrictive relative clause that involves a relative pronoun of the type determiner plus wh-phrase. Recall from section 1.6.2 that, on the one hand, movement of [ WH ] in a restrictive relative clause fatally violates the FC because Subcat cannot be established between the selectional probe [∗WH∗] of the matrix head and the moved wh-feature. On the other hand, it was argued that a relative pronoun embedded by a DP-shell must employ wh-feature movement in order to satisfy PB. Now, if both the application and the non-application of wh-feature movement lead to a violation of constraints that are ranked above the EOC, then the relative clause in question is expected to be ungrammatical if no alternative is available. In English, there is no way to decide whether the expectation is borne out or not because the hypothesized DP-shell is always covert. However, as already mentioned in chapters 1 and 2 (and as is again shown in section 1.7.1 below) the D-head in question is overt in Italian. And in fact, (543), which satisfies all conditions from above, is grammatical. Note that the D-head il in (543) has undergone amalgamation with the preposition a, resulting in al. (543)

L’uomo [ PP al quale ] parlavi e` cieco. the-man to-the who spoke.2SG is blind ‘The man you spoke to is blind.’

It follows that there must be an alternative that leads to a well-formed derivation of (543). To this end, suppose that il quale in (543) satisfies PB not via wh-feature movement but via head movement of quale to the D-head. Of course, this is not to say that a relative pronoun of the type determiner plus wh-phrase always employs the head movement strategy. As we have seen in section 1.5.2 above (and as will be argued in section 1.7.1 below once more), a derivation that involves massive pied-piping requrires the application of wh-feature movement.245 245. The idea that (543) involves head movement seems to presuppose that the wh-head can right-adjoin to D (witness the ill-formedness of *quale il). But one might as well assume that head-movement always left-adjoins and that the linear order in (543) is the result of

336


To conclude, there are two derivations that are based on the same numeration, one involving wh-feature movement on the DP-cycle, the other involving head movement. Note that there is no danger that one of the derivations will block the other. On the DP-level, where the choice between wh-feature movement and head movement is an issue, both candidates have the same constraint profile. On the next higher cycle the derivation splits because the inputs (the output of feature movement and head movement, respectively) are different; recall in this context that competition presupposes the same input. In principle, PB could also be satisfied by movement of the wh-pronoun to the specifier of the embedding D-head. This does not seem to be an option for il quale, assuming that SpecD in Italian is to the left of D. The unavailability of this option might be due to the impossibility of stranding the determiner. But even if PB were satisfied by phrasal movement, then this would not cause a competition problem. To conclude, the PIC (via the definition of accessibility, see section 1.4.3, chapter 3) predicts that head movement should be able to serve as a possible alternative to balance a DP-phase. It turns out that this strategy must apply in those cases that cannot employ wh-feature movement for independent reasons. Finally note that once head movement has been chosen, whfeature movement is no longer possible at a later step because extraction from a moved item violates the CED.

1.7.

Additional Evidence for the Analysis of Wh-Pronouns

I now turn to arguments that support the claim made in section 1.5.1 that massive pied-piping presupposes a wh-pronoun that is directly embedded under a (potentially empty) DP-shell.

1.7.1.

Wh-Pronouns with DP-Shell

Recall from section 1.6.4 above that Cinque (1982) reports the following pattern for Italian and French appositive relative clauses: massive pied-piping is possible only if the relative pronoun consists of a wh-part (quale in Italian, quel in French) that is preceeded by a definite determiner, i.e., a D-head (for more details see sections 4.1 and 4.2 of chapter 2). A relevant contrast from some morphological adjustment rule.

Massive Pied-Piping

337

Italian is repeated in (544) ((544-a) employs the relative pronoun cui, which does not combine with a preceeding D-element). (544)

di cui ] 3 t3 fuma, e` contrario. a. *Giorgio, [ DP la figlia the daughter of who smokes is against Giorgio ‘Giorgio, whose daughter smokes, is against it.’ b. Giorgio, [ DP la figlia del quale ] 3 t3 fuma, e` contrario. Giorgio the daughter of-the who smokes is against

If we take these observations seriously, they provide direct evidence for the hypothesis that wh-feature movement is triggered by PB (see section 1.5.1). To begin with, il quale arguably has the structure shown in (545).246 (545)

[ DP [ D il ] [ NP quale ]]

It follows from the assumption that DP is a phase that the wh-feature of quale must be in the edge domain of the DP in (545) in order to be accessible to the syntax. [ WH ] is not accessible if it remains in its base position. One way to render it accessible is to move it to the D-head. After feature movement of [ WH ] to D, DP is balanced and PB is satisfied. This is illustrated in (546). (546)

[ DP [ D [ WH ] il ] [ NP quale ]]

PB-driven wh-feature movement only occurs if the wh-pronoun is embedded under a phase head such as D. Movement can neither be driven by LA or be feature-driven and is thus blocked by LR in contexts without phase head (see section 1.7.2 below). Subsequent steps of wh-feature movement are not contingent on the phase-status of the target head but can be triggered by LA (see section 1.5.2 above).247 246. To be precise, quale is presumably not an N-head but a D-head (i). Evidence for this comes from the fact that relative pronouns of the type determiner plus wh-element in Italian can precede a nominal (la quale ragazza ‘the which girl’, see Cinque (1982, 267)). (i)

[ DP [ D il ] [ DP quale ]]

The same holds for French (witness laquelle somme ‘the which sum’, see Cinque (1982, 278), citing Kayne (1976)). Since nothing hinges on the precise structure here, I continue to assume the structure in (545), for reasons of simplicity. 247. In footnote 138 (section 4.4, chapter 2), I mentioned that massive pied-piping in German, although ungrammatical, is perhaps somewhat ‘less ungrammatical’ with the relative pronoun welch-; the same appears to go for Dutch and the relative pronoun welk-. Interestingly, in archaic Dutch this pronoun was still prefixed by a determiner: dewelk-.

338 1.7.2.


Wh-Pronouns without DP-Shell

The example in (544-a) is structurally identical with the one in (544-b), except that it makes use of the relative pronoun cui instead of il quale. Obviously, cui does not have a DP-shell, see (547-a). I assume here that cui is a D-head (see Postal (1970) on English). (547)

a. [ DP [ D cui ]] → b. [ PP di [ DP cui ]] →

(Merge di) ...

As a consequence, cui lacks the trigger necessary for the first step of whfeature movement. The DP-phase in (547-a) is balanced without movement: the wh-pronoun is the head of DP and thus [ WH ] is trivially accessible within DP. Since wh-feature movement is not feature-driven and since movement of [ WH ] to the next higher head (in the case of (544) the preposition di ‘of’, see (547-b)) is not motivated by LA either, it is blocked by LR. When a further head is merged, such as figlia ‘daughter’ (see (547-c)), LA is again relevant. However, now it is too late for wh-feature movement (see section 1.5.4): the HMC blocks movement in one fell swoop; successive cyclic movement across the P-head is blocked by the SCC. (547)

b. [ PP di [ DP cui ]] → c. [ NP figlia [ PP di [ DP cui ]]] →

(Merge figlia) ...

Once the next higher phase head is merged, [ WH ] on cui is no longer accessible without wh-feature movement. Thus, massive pied-piping is illicit. To summarize, massive pied-piping in appositive relative clauses requires a relative pronoun that combines with an overt D-head in Italian (and French). PB triggers the first step of wh-feature movement (LA or PB the following ones). Italian and French thus overtly exemplify the D-head assumed for English.

1.7.3.

English which

English which can serve as a determiner, heading a wh-phrase in appositive relative clauses (548-a,b) or embedded interrogatives (548-c). (548)

a. I finished cleaning out the pet rabbit, which task I usually entrust to my housekeeper.

Massive Pied-Piping

339

b. I have made my specialty quiche, which dish I always prepare with cinnamon and sage. c. Egbert wonders which psychoanalyst to go to. But in cases of appositive relative clauses with the determiner which, as Sells (1985) notes, massive pied-piping is banned. This is illustrated in (549). (549)

a. *I was talking to the drummer, [ AP enamored of which woman ] 3 I began to find myself t3 . b. *I finally got to meet the Great Santini, [ DP fabulous stories about which man ] 3 I had heard t3 since my childhood. c. *this rather fine sculpture, [ DP fabulous stories about which objet d’art ]3 t3 have been related t3 for many years, . . . d. *a stunning ukulele solo, [ α to reproduce which magic ] 2 has been Uncle Gaylord’s dream t2 for many years, . . .

It is instructive to compare (549-a-d) with (550-a-d). In (550) the combination of the determiner which plus nominal is replaced by a wh-pronoun that is not a determiner (who or the non-determiner version of which). As Sells notes, massive pied-piping in (550) is grammatical, as opposed to (549). (550)

a. I was talking to the drummer, [ AP enamored of whom ] 3 I began to find myself t3 . b. I finally got to meet the Great Santini, [ DP fabulous stories about whom ]3 I had heard t3 since my childhood. c. this rather fine sculpture, [ DP fabulous stories about which ] 3 t3 have been related t3 for many years, . . . d. a stunning ukulele solo, [ α to reproduce which ] 2 has been Uncle Gaylord’s dream t2 for many years, . . .

In the present theory, this follows almost without further ado. Suppose which is a D-head. If so, then no PB-induced movement of [ WH ] applies within the DP headed by which (it is trivially balanced).248 If there is no wh-feature movement in the first step, then the HMC and the SCC block it from applying in the following steps, too. And without wh-feature movement, there is no massive pied-piping.

248. In fact, in order for the argument to be complete, it must be assumed that a DP headed by which cannot serve as the complement of another, covert, D-head.

340 1.7.4.


Italian cui

Cinque (1982, 268-271) notes that Italian cui, which usually does not allow massive pied-piping (see section 1.7.2 above), has a special use. In this use, it shows two properties. First, it follows a determiner; second, it can trigger massive pied-piping in appositive relative clauses. This is illustrated in (551). (551)

a. Giorgio, [ DP le cui affermazioni ] 3 si rivelavano t3 essere SI turned-out the who statements to-be Giorgio sempre infondate, . . . always unfounded ‘G., whose statements always turned out to be unfounded, . . .’ b. Giorgio, [ AP sottratti alla cui vendetta ] 3 ancora non Giorgio subtracted to-the who revenge yet non eravamo t3 , . . . were.2PL ‘Giorgio, subtracted from whose revenge we weren’t yet, . . .’ c. Giorgio, [ α ricordare le cui ultime volontà ] 3 t3 sarebbe to recall the who last will would-be Giorgio indelicato, . . . unfair ‘Giorgio, to recall whose last will would be rather unfair, . . .’

The overt determiner strongly suggests that cui in (551-a-c) is embedded under another DP-shell. If so, then movement of [ WH ] from cui to the D-head of this shell is forced by PB, overruling LR. As before, subsequent steps of wh-feature movement are licensed by LA; therefore massive pied-piping becomes possible. Thus, cui, although generally not able to license massive pied-piping, suddenly can do so if it is embedded under a DP-shell. This provides further evidence for the present approach.

1.7.5.

Relative Pronouns in English

Kuroda (1969) draws a distinction between English wh-pronouns that are (what he calls) definite, others that are indefinite, and yet others that are ambiguous between a definite and an indefinite interpretation. He assumes that which is definite, what indefinite, and who, where, and when are ambiguous.

Massive Pied-Piping

341

Kuroda’s taxonomy of Enlish wh-pronouns is supposed to explain the contrast between (552-b,c). (552)

a. You may read Syntactic Structures or La Nausée. b. Which do you prefer to read? c. *What do you prefer to read?

(552-b) is an appropriate answer to (552-a) but (552-c) is not. According to Kuroda this because what is inherently indefinite but the context (552-a) already specifies the two alternatives that what is supposed to range over; hence, what should be interpreted as definite after all. This causes an incompatibility in (552-c) but not in (552-b), as which is inherently definite (but cf. Heim (1987)). Moreover, both (553-b,c) and (554-b) are appropriate answers to (553-a) and (554-a), respectively, due to the possibility (and the necessity) of interpreting who, where, when (and which) as definite. (553)

a. You may see Chomsky or Sartre. b. Which one do you prefer to see? c. Who do you prefer to see?

(554)

a. You may see him in Boston or in Paris/on Saturday or on Sunday. b. Where/When do you prefer to see him?

Suppose we interpret these findings as follows. Definite wh-pronouns are obligatorily equipped with a D-head whereas indefiniteness is simply reflected by the lack of any D-head. Then the wh-pronouns discussed above have the structures in (555).249 (555)

a. [ DP which book ] b. [ DP [ D – ] which ] c. [ NP what ]

249. Alternatively, one might assume that what is a DP that cannot be embedded under an additional D-head that encodes definiteness, cf. footnotes 238 and 246. Andrew McIntyre (p.c) points out to me that either view is problematic given that what sometimes does combine with a definite determiner, see (i). (i)

a. b.

A: Gertrude bought Egbert the Kama Sutra B: She bought him (the) WHAT ?

342


d. (i) (ii)

[ DP [ D – ] {who,where,when} ] [ NP {who,where,when} ]

This would then coincide with the proposal above that wh-pronouns in English (except for the determiner which, see (555-a), and what) are ambiguous between a structure that involves an embedding D-head and one that does not (see (555-d)). The one noteworthy exception noted by Kuroda is what, which is indefinite, i.e., it exclusively appears without a D-head. This predicts that what is unable to trigger massive pied-piping. For relative clauses this prediction is borne out in a trivial way since what exclusively appears in free relative clauses. As observed in the literature (see, for instance, Grimshaw (1977), Bresnan and Grimshaw (1978), Grosu (1988b, 1994, 1996); also cf. Larson (1987), Vogel (2001)), free relative clauses are even more restrictive with respect to pied-piping than restrictive relative clauses; hence, they do not exhibit massive pied-piping. The behavior of what in interrogatives is addressed in section 1.8.1

1.8.

Two Predictions and Their Consequences

In this section, two problems are addressed. The first is concerned with a prediction that is based on the assumption that some wh-pronouns are structurally ambiguous whereas others are not. The second problem is concerned with the (im)possibility of movement out of a constituent that occupies a specifier position.

1.8.1.

Massive Pied-Piping in Interrogatives Again

Massive pied-piping in unembedded interrogatives is optionally possible in many languages. If massive pied-piping were unequivocally tied to wh-feature movement, then interrogative pronouns in these languages should be ambiguous between a variant with and one without embedding DP-shell. In section 1.7.5 above, it was speculated that what in English is actually not ambiguous but always lacks a (additional) DP-shell. Obviously, the prediction arising from this hypothesis is that what, in contrast to who, cannot trigger massive pied-piping in unembedded interrogatives in English. As illustrated by the grammaticality of (556), the prediction is not borne out.

Massive Pied-Piping

(556)

343

a. Pictures of WHO appeared in the newspaper recently? b. Pictures of WHAT appeared in the newspaper recently?

Against the background of Kuroda’s taxonomy and the present theory, this suggests that massive pied-piping in interrogatives must be possible independently of wh-feature movement.250 In a similar vein, the observation that massive pied-piping in relative clauses by which is blocked if which figures as a D-head does not carry over to unembedded interrogatives in English, see (557). (557)

Rumors about WHICH aspects of Bismarck’s policy appeared in the newspaper recently?

Also note that matrix interrogatives in German that employ the wh-determiner welch- ‘which’ exhibit massive pied-piping, too, see (558). (558)

Ein Buch von WELCHEM Studenten hast du versaut? student have you draggled a book of which ‘A book of which student did you draggle?’

But, as was mentioned in footnote 238 above (see also section 4.4, chapter 2), massive pied-piping in German appositive relative clauses is never an option, not even if the relative pronoun welch- is made use of. There are two possible ways to go. Either Kuroda’s taxonomy with respect to what is not correct, i.e., what can also optionally combine with an empty D-head. This still leaves the well-formedness of (557) and (558) unaccounted for, though. Or unembedded interrogatives have another means (different from whfeature movement) at their disposal that enables them to employ massive pied-piping. In fact, one may attribute massive pied-piping in unembedded interrogatives to the possibility that they are interpreted as echo-questions.251 250. Parallel facts can be observed for German: massive pied-piping in unembedded interrogatives is possible with both wer ‘who’ and was ‘what’, see (i). (i)

a.

b.

Gerüchte u¨ ber WEN hast du gehört? rumors about whom have you heard ‘Rumors about whom did you hear?’ Gerüchte u¨ ber WAS hast du gehört? rumors about what have you heard ‘Rumors about what did you hear?’

344


As was mentioned previously (see sections 2.3.2 and 2.6, chapter 4), echoquestions are not interpreted as interrogatives because of their syntactic but rather because of their pragmatic properties (see Reis (1991), Trissler (1999)). One way to express this is to assume that echo-questions do not involve feature checking of a probe [∗WH∗] on C. As concerns the latter option, there are two points to consider. First, massive pied-piping is not an option in embedded questions. If it is possible in unembedded interrogatives because they are analyzed as echo-questions, then echo-questions must be banned from embedded contexts. Empirically, this is correct (at least for English), see (559). (559)

*I wonder you met WHO?

If the C-head in echo-questions does not bear [∗WH∗], then the wh-phrase does not raise to SpecC but remains in-situ. But then it is not accessible within CP for the selectional probe [∗WH∗] on the embedding head (see section 1.6.2 above), namely wonder in (559). The probe is not eliminated, in violation of the FC. This may explain the ungrammaticality of (559).252 Second, and more importantly, as soon as massive pied-piping in matrix interrogatives is attributed to their status as echo-questions, the a.-part of generalization (507) does no longer receive a uniform explanation: massive piedpiping in matrix interrogatives is possible because they can be interpreted as echo-questions; massive pied-piping in appositive relative clauses is possible because they need not check any selectional feature. Under this view, it is a mere coincidence that both matrix interrogatives and appositive relative clause can exhibit massive pied-piping. 251. The notion of echo-question that I refer to must also comprise questions that do not literally echo a preceding part of the discourse. Examples such as (556) and (557) are also grammatical outside of such echoing contexts. Accordingly, one encounters such examples in non-echoing contexts in the literature, too; see Wexler and Culicover (1980, 380), Pesetsky (1982b, 15), Chomsky (1995, 269). 252. A problem for this idea is the observation that echo-questions optionally show whmovement (and, optionally, massive pied-piping), see (i). (i)

[ DP Pictures of WHOM ] 3 did John buy t3 ?

(i) can hardly be analyzed as involving topicalization of a constituent that, incidentally, contains a wh-phrase because topicalization in English lacks T-to-C movement (cf. (ii)): (ii)

*[ DP Pictures of WHOM ] 3 John bought t3 ?

Massive Pied-Piping

345

A hint that this is correct, and that massive pied-piping in appositive relative clauses differs from massive pied-piping in unembedded interrogative clauses, comes from the fact that the latter do not show tense or intervention effects (see section 1.3.5 above and section 2.1 below, respectively), while the former do, see (560-a,b). (560)

a. ?(That) Egbert wants to paint WHOM did you say? b. *Egbert, that Horace wants to paint whom is well known, . . .

To conclude, it appears not implausible to opt for the latter alternative and to thereby accept that (507-a) is actually a spurious generalization. Still, it is conceivable that some cases of massive pied-piping in unembedded interrogative clauses are due to the application wh-feature movement while others owe their existence to the possibility of being interpreted as echo-questions. Then (507-a) expresses more than a coincidence, after all.

1.8.2.

Massive Pied-Piping from Specifier Position

If massive pied-piping involves wh-feature movement, then it should be illicit when wh-feature movement is blocked, for instance, if [ WH ] had to leave an island. Evidence in support of this claim was presented in section 1.3, present chapter. There are some cases that pose a problem to this view, though. Since specifiers are non-complement positions, wh-feature movement from specifiers should be impossible. Consider now the following examples. (561)

a. The content of how big a package of chocolate did you eat? b. the prime minister, rumors about whose private life have been appearing in the press, . . .

(561-a,b) are well-formed although the wh-phrase occupies a specifier position within the pied-piped constituent, contrary to what is expected. As for (561-a), there is no problem once it is accepted that massive piedpiping in interrogatives at least in part owes its existence to the possibility of an echo-interpretation (see section 1.8.1 above). Such an analysis is not available for (561-b), however: relative clauses do not exhibit echo-interpretations. I therefore suggest the following solution. Suppose that wh-feature movement takes place in (561-b) at a point of the derivation where whose is not

346


yet in specifier position. If whose starts as a complement of the N-head (see Chomsky (1970)), then [ WH ] can first move to the empty D-head (see section 1.5.1) and from there via N to the D-head of private life. At this point whose raises to SpecD. Finally, [ WH ] moves up to the head of the pied-piped constituent. In section 2.1, I come back to a similar derivation that results in ungrammaticality. There, I also justify why (561-b) does not share this fate. Finally note that this account of (561-b) below is not available for (561-a): the DegP how big is arguably merged in a specifier position of NP and undergoes subsequent degree-raising (see sections 1.4 and 2.7.2, chapter 4); it does not move from some complement position.

2.


As was the case with the generalization on massive pied-piping, the intervention generalization is also exclusively concerned with massive pied-piping. For convenience it is repeated in (562). (562)

Intervention generalization Within a massively pied-piped constituent no overt specifier may c-command the pied-piper.

To put it in a nutshell, the idea of the analysis behind (562) is as follows: intervention effects are PIC-effects that come into existence if an overt specifier triggers spell-out of its sister, thereby rendering the moved wh-feature inaccessible.253 253. Similar intervention effects arise in parasitic gap constructions, see Chomsky (1982, 52), Cinque (1990, 194, footnote 43), and Lasnik and Stowell (1991, 695). The following contrast, from Cinque (1990, 108), illustrates this (that man in (i-b) is the intervening element for the parasitic gap PG). (i)

a. What2 did you give that man t2 ? b. *?the book which2 we filed t2 [ α instead of giving that man PG2 ]

This could receive the same explanation as the intervention effects in massive pied-piping if parasitic gaps were analyzed in terms of feature movement, too. (Parasitic gaps have been analyzed in terms of zero operator movement, see Chomsky (1982), Browning (1987), which in turn has been analyzed in terms of feature movement, see Nakamura (2002)). See also footnote 229 (and section 1.3.5) above, where the observation is cited that parasitic gap constructions (and other zero operator structures) and massive piedpiping both exhibit tense effects.


2.1.

347

Intervention Effects and Specifiers

I first address intervention effects that emerge in constructions with an overt bona fide specifier. The discussion begins with some general observations. To begin with, suppose that intervention effects arise if the probe [∗WH∗] on C cannot establish Agree with the goal [ WH ]. By assumption, massive pied-piping in appositive relative clauses involves wh-feature movement to the head of the pied-piped constituent. In (563), the pied-piped constituent is β , the hypothesized intervener is Mary. (563)

*Tish, [ β to consider Mary proud of whom ] 3 t3 would be a great mistake, . . .

According to the assumption above, the moved [ WH ] in (563) has adjoined to a head that c-commands the potentially intervening specifier. If this is correct, then intervention effects cannot be the result of an overtly filled specifier disrupting the Agree relation between [∗WH∗] and [ WH ]. The reason is that, usually, α is assumed to intervene between β and γ if and only if α ccommands γ and is itself c-commanded by β .254 This suggests that the moved wh-feature does actually not reach the head of the pied-piped category. The next question to be answered is how a specifier can block movement of an element that otherwise exhibits movement properties of a head. Recall that it was argued in section 1.5.1 above that wh-feature movement is subject to the HMC. Rizzi (1990) argues that intervention effects exclusively arise with elements of the same type (i.e., among phrases or among heads). I would like to propose that the blocking effect that an overt specifier exerts on a moved wh-feature is rather indirect. As will be illustrated in section 2.2.1 below, it can be observed that it is only overt elements that cause intervention effects, i.e., elements that bear PF-features. If intervention effects in massive pied-piping are in some way connected to the PF-interface, then this observation is not unexpected. 2.1.1.

Cyclic Spell-Out and the PIC

In what follows, I introduce certain aspects of the theory of cyclic spellout, see Bresnan (1971, 1972), Uriagereka (1999a,b), and Chomsky (2001), 254. It has also been argued that intervention effects in syntax are triggered by a dominating element (see footnote 153). But note that Mary does not dominate [ WH ] in (563) either.

348


among others.255 These will then serve as a basis to derive intervention effects. The theory of cyclic spell-out (see also section 2.5 of chapter 4) hypothesizes that syntactic structure is not handed over to the phonology as a whole but rather in small portions. The phrase marker is constructed in a bottom-up fashion; every now and then, structure-building operations are interspersed by spell-out, which takes (part of) the structure that has been completed and sends it to the phonological component. As a consequence, spell-out can apply several times during a derivation. Following Chomsky (2001), I assume that spell-out applies at least at every phase-level. Uriagereka (1999a) suggests that if a category β moves into a specifier position of α then both α and β undergo spell-out. I depart from Uriagereka (1999a), rather following Uriagereka (1999b), in assuming that all overt specifiers trigger spell-out, irrespectively of whether they have been created by Merge or by Move. This is necessary as some instances of intervention are caused by specifiers that are created by Merge. Moreover, I also assume that a category β that triggers spell-out does not undergo spell-out itself at the same time; see below for why this assumption is crucial in the present context. In any event, the upshot is that a category α does not have to be a phase in order to undergo spell-out. It is enough that Specα is filled by an overt element. As mentioned above, Chomsky (2001) claims that only phases undergo spell-out. More precisely, he assumes that if spell-out targets a phase P, then actually only the complement domain of P is handed to the phonology. P’s edge domain does not undergo spell-out until the next higher phase is reached. Moreover, material that has undergone spell-out is no longer accessible to the syntax. The idea is that the theory of phases economizes on the amount of structure to be held in the workspace of the derivation. In this way, the theory of cyclic spell-out derives PIC-effects. If this account of PIC-effects is to be maintained in its full generality and if it is to be combined with the other assumptions presented above, then the following conditions must hold. When a phrase Σ is equipped with its first overt specifier β , then β ’s sister will undergo spell-out once Σ is complete. Material that is supposed to do some work outside Σ must remain accessible. It must therefore reach the specifier domain of Σ before spell-out applies. In order to achieve this, the scope of PB must be modified such that it covers all 255. Yoon (2000) offers an approach to pied-piping that also makes use of cyclic spell-out. In most other respects, however, this approach is very different from the present one.


349

phrases that undergo spell-out (not only the phases). This is achieved by the constraint P Hr ASE BALANCE (PrB) in (564), which replaces the former PB. (564)

P Hr ASE BALANCE For every single probe β in the numeration there is a different accessible matching goal γ in the current phrase Σ.

Another variant of P Hr ASE BALANCE has already been proposed by Müller (2004a). What distinguishes Müller’s variant of PrB from (564) is that (564) makes reference to the recursive notion of accessibility. The consequence of this is the following: although (564) treats every phrase as a phase (as is the case with Müller’s variant) PrB-driven movement to the edge of a phrase α takes place only if α is a phase or if α has an overtly filled specifier; all other phrases fulfill accessibility (and therefore PrB) in a trivial way. Thus, PrB in (564) effectively treats phrases with overt specifiers and phases as a natural class. In both cases some domain undergoes spell-out at the end of a cycle. Material that is supposed to remain accessible is forced by PrB to leave this domain. All this will become clearer when the definition of accessibility is reconsidered below. One can see now why it was necessary to assume that a specifier β does not undergo immediate spell-out itself. The derivation of recursive pied-piping (see section 1, chapter 4) required a notion of accessibility (see section 1.4.3, chapter 3) that renders material inside a category that occupies the specifier position of a phase accessible from outside the phase. If β were spelled-out as a whole, then its inner structure would become inaccessible. Recall that, by assumption, the head of a phase and the first merged overt specifier of a phrase, respectively, determine that spell-out applies to their sister constituents. Thus, the relevant domain that undergoes spell-out in the two cases differs slightly: in the former case, both the head and the specifier(s) of the current cycle are exempt from spell-out (as assumed by Chomsky (2001)), in the latter case, the head is comprised within the spell-out domain. Returning to the main plot, the idea in the present context is that intervention effects are PIC-effects: phonologically overt specifiers trigger spell-out operations that render moved wh-features in massive pied-piping inaccessible. What remains to be done is to appropriately revise the notion of accessibility that (564) makes reference to, so as to make sure that these PIC-effects follow (cf. section 1.4.3, chapter 3 for the not-yet revised definitions). The revised definitions are given below:

350


(565)

Accessibility (revised) γ is accessible in Ω iff a. or b. hold. a. Ω is a phase and γ is in the edge domain of Ω. b. Ω is a non-phase such that (i) it contains an overt specifier, and γ is in Ω’s specifierdomain, or (ii) it contains no overt specifier, and γ is in Ω’s domain.

(566)


(567)

Specifier domain γ is in the specifier domain of Ω iff a. or b. hold. a. γ is a specifier of Ω. b. (i) α is a specifier of Ω and (ii) γ is accessible in α .

(568)


As before, one has to distinguish between phases and non-phases ((569-a) vs. (569-b)). Additionally, non-phases with overt specifier (see (565-b-i)) and non-phases without overt specifier (see (565-b-ii)) have to be treated separately; these subcases involve the recursive definitions of specifier domain and domain, respectively, see (567) and (568). As far as I can tell, the revised definitions do not have any unwelcome consequences for the theory of non-massive pied-piping that was proposed in chapters 3 and 4. There is one minor difference with respect to the configuration in (569), though. (569)

[ HP β [ H H α ]]

Assume that H in (569) is a non-phase head and that α is a wh-phrase whose


351

wh-feature is supposed to ultimately establish Agree with [∗WH∗] on C. PB is satisfied trivially in (569). Movement of α to an outer specifier of H does not accomplish anything with respect to LA and is therefore blocked by LR. According to the former definitions of accessibility and PB, (569) is optimal. But in order to satisfy PrB, α ’s [ WH ] must be in the specifier domain of HP (see (565-b-i)). This triggers raising of α to an outer specifier of H in (569) (see (567-a)). If the intermediate raising to SpecH is undone by further raising of α (motivated by either LA or PrB), then the resulting structure is indistinguishable (modulo intermediate trace) from the structure derived by the former definition of accessibility and PB. But if α cannot move out of HP after raising to SpecH, then, theoretically, (564) and (565) derive a new case of pied-piping plus secondary wh-movement. A potential case in point is pied-piping of a PP in English as in (570). (570)

*the lap, [ PP which2 right into t2 ] 3 the soup spilled t3

The PP in (570) contains two specifiers, an inner one created by Merge and an outer one created by a movement operation that is triggered by PrB. Since (570) is ungrammatical it has to be blocked somehow. It is not unreasonable to assume that there are restrictions on the overt filling of (multiple) specifiers that block (570).256 2.1.2.

A Sample Derivation

I can now illustrate how the intervention effects in massive pied-piping can be derived. Consider example (563) from above, repeated here as (571). (571)

*Tish, [ α to consider Mary proud of whom ] 3 t3 would be a great mistake, . . .

Assume, following the discussion in sections 1.5.1 and 1.5.2, that the derivation of (571) involves a relative pronoun that is embedded by an empty Dhead. As argued above, PrB triggers wh-feature movement to the empty Dhead, as shown in (572). 256. See the remarks in section 1.2 and in section 2.2 (both chapter 4) on the illicit filling of specifiers; also see section 2.2.2, chapter 2 on this issue. An explicit argument for the claim that the ill-formedness of (570) is not to be accounted for by the theory of pied-piping per se but is rather due to the unavailability of multiple specifiers is given in footnote 261 below.

352 (572)


a. [ DP [ D [ WH ] – ] whom ] →

...

D is a phase head and triggers spell-out of its complement, whom. As D itself is exempt from spell-out, it follows that [ WH ] remains accessible. Suppose next that the derivation has reached a stage where [ WH ] has moved successive cyclically from D via P up to the A-head proud and that Mary has just been merged in SpecA.257 This is illustrated in (573). (572)

b. [ AP Mary [ A [ WH ] proud ] of whom ] →

...

Again, spell-out applies. Since the AP is not a phase, spell-out also comprises the head of the current cycle, namely A. But if [ WH ] undergoes spell-out, it is no longer accessible for the syntax. As a result, PrB is violated when the C-head of the pied-piped infinitive α is merged (the CP-phase cannot be balanced; if α is not a phase then the derivation crashes later because [∗WH∗] on the C-head of the relative clause cannot establish Agree with [ WH ], in violation of the FC). Also, [ WH ] cannot escape spell-out because there is no higher head-position available it could move to. (By assumption, [ WH ] cannot move to a specifier position.) The ungrammaticality of (571) is therefore derived. The argument implies that head movement across an overt specifier should generally be impossible. Empirically, this appears to be incorrect. I propose the following to avoid this problem. If a specifier triggers spell-out of its sister, then this affects an X -category. Suppose that X -categories are invisible to the syntax. Then spell-out must target the head X and its complement separately. As a consequence, X as a whole is still accessible (making headmovement possible) but its internals are not.258 Since [ WH ] is assumed to be adjoined to X, it follows that it is inaccessible after spell-out of X. This derivation of intervention effects rests on the assumption that whfeature movement targets head positions and that head positions are (sometimes) part of the spell-out domain. Crucially, a wh-phrase that undergoes covert wh-movement is usually assumed to target a specifier-position; as such, it is never part of the spell-out domain. Intervention effects can thus not be derived from the PIC, all things equal.259 257. In section 2.1.4 evidence is presented that Mary must actually be merged in the specifier of a higher functional head that takes AP as its complement. Since the difference is irrelevant for the present discussion, I abstract away from it for the moment. 258. In a sense, this is an instance of the generalization that syntactic operations cannot affect the internal structure of words. 259. Of course, one can see to it that things are not equal. A slight change of assumptions will


353

Interestingly, (571) forms a minimal pair with the well-formed example in (573). (573)

Tish, [ α to be proud of whom ] 3 t3 would be a great mistake, . . .

The derivation of (573) does not involve any overt specifier. All spell-out operations that take place are triggered by phase heads. For these, it has been assumed that they are exempt from the spell-out domain. Therefore, [ WH ] can be adjoined to any phase head in (573) and still remain accessible until the wh-probe on the relative clause’s C enters the derivation.

2.1.3.

PIC-Effects Without Wh-Feature Movement

The theory presented above makes the prediction that PIC-effects in piedpiping should also arise in contexts where no wh-feature movement applies: it does not matter for the PIC (or for PrB) whether the wh-feature that is not accessible has been moved or not. In fact, Sells (1985) points out that non-massive pied-piping of prepositional phrases in English (restrictive) relative clauses degrades in grammaticality if the PP contains something that can be analyzed as a specifier within the PP. This effect is illustrated by the contrast in (574-a,b). (574)

a. the lap [ PP into which ] 2 the soup spilled t2 b. *the lap [ PP right into which ] 2 the soup spilled t2

As argued in section 1.6.2, wh-feature movement is not an option in restrictive relative clauses. Nevertheless, the ill-formedness of (574-b) is accounted for by the theory presented in section 2.1.1 without further ado. At the point where the PP in (574-b) is complete, spell-out applies to the sister category of the element in SpecP, right. This category includes which. It follows that the wh-feature of which becomes inaccessible. The derivation of (574-b) crashes due to a violation of PrB when the next higher phase, the vP, is constructed. Sauerland and Heck (2003) observe that similar facts hold for pied-piping of prepositional phrases in embedded interrogatives in German, too. Examnot do the trick, however. Suppose, for instance, that an overt element in Specα triggers spell-out of α as a whole; as intended, this would render a covertly moved wh-phrase inaccessible. But as a consequence all phrases with overt specifiers would be islands (no escape hatch would remain available within α ). Empirically, this is not correct.

354


ples that illustrate this and that involve the elements mitten ‘in the middle’ and direkt ‘directly’ as PP-specifiers are given in (575).260 (575)

a. *Fritz sagte, [ PP mitten wo-rauf ] 2 du t2 gesessen hast. Fritz told in-the-middle where-on you sat have ‘Fritz named the place such that you sat in the middle of it.’ b.*?Fritz fragte, [ PP direkt neben wem ] 2 du t2 gesessen hast. Fritz asked directly next-to whom you sat have ‘Fritz asked for the person such that you sat right next to her.’

The prediction from above is thus borne out for English and German (at least for the examples at hand, cf. the following section).261

2.1.4.

Apparent Counter-Examples

There are examples that at first sight contradict the intervention generalization. To illustrate, consider (576). (576)

Egbert, [ AP t4 proud of whom ] 2 Mary4 never was t2 , . . .

260. Sauerland and Heck (2003) attribute the ill-formedness of examples such as (574-b), (575-a) and (575-b) to the LF-intervention type discussed in Beck (1997) (see also Pesetsky (2000), Kim (2002), Beck (2006)). 261. Note in passing that variants of (575-a) and (575-b) that involve extraction from the PP (with the R-pronoun wo ‘where’, which is usually extractable from PP in German) are ungrammatical, too, see (i-a,b). (i)

t2 drauf ] gesessen hast. a. *?Fritz sagte, wo2 du [ PP mitten in-the-middle on sat have Fritz told where you b. *?Fritz fragte, wo2 du [ PP direkt neben t2 ] gesessen hast. Fritz asked where you directly next-to sat have ‘Fritz asked for the thing such that you sat right next to it.’

It seems as if there were no outer specifier available in the PPs in (i-a,b) that could serve as an escape hatch. This suggests that examples like (ii-a,b), which involve secondary whmovement within PP plus pied-piping, are not ungrammatical due to pied-piping itself. (ii)

a. *Fritz sagte, [ PP wo2 mitten t2 drauf ] 3 du t3 gesessen hast. Fritz told where in-the-middle on you sat have b. *Fritz möchte wissen, [ PP wo2 direkt neben t2 ] 3 du t3 gesessen hast. Fritz wants to-know where directly next-to you sat have

Cf. also example (570) above.

355


The structure in (576) suggests that at some point of the derivation the DP Mary is merged in SpecA. The theory predicts that A must host the moved [ WH ] of whom. Recall that (576) must involve wh-feature movement because otherwise it would be blocked by a variant that moves the bare wh-phrase. The relevant point of the derivation is shown in (577). (577)

[ AP Mary4 [ A [ WH ] proud ] of whom ] →

...

Crucially, the sister of Mary in (577) should undergo spell-out, thereby rendering [ WH ] inaccessible; (576) should then be ungrammatical, contrary to fact. It does not help that Mary raises at some later point and evacuates SpecA: spell-out has already applied to [ WH ] and cannot be undone. The problem can be avoided if Mary is merged as the specifier of some functional head F that takes the AP as its complement, as in (578); see Chomsky (1955), Larson (1988, 349), Chomsky (1995, 175), and den Dikken (2006) for proposals of this kind. (578)

[ FP Mary4 F [ AP [ A [ WH ] proud ] of whom ]] →

...

Suppose that morphological Merger of [ WH ] and A applies in (578). Then the bare [ WH ] cannot raise to F in order to avoid the LA-violation induced by AP. Raising of the complete AP does not accomplish any improvement with respect to LA. However, as there is still a single [∗WH∗] in the workspace, PrB is active. FP is subject to spell-out; therefore PrB forces raising of AP to SpecF. The relevant competition is shown in tableau T19 .

T19 : Local optimization of FP; raising of AP to SpecF triggered by PrB Input: M.4 + [ FP F [ AP [ A [ WH ] proud ] . . . ]] Num: {Egbert, C[∗WH∗] , . . . }

PrB

O1 : [ FP M.4 F [ AP [ WH ] proud . . . ] 2 ] ☞ O2 : [ FP [ AP [ WH ] proud . . . ] 2 M. 4 F t2 ] O3 : Ø

*!

EOC

LA

LR

** **

*

*!

The rest of the derivation proceeds in the familiar way by pied-piping AP (finally reaching SpecC) and by raising of Mary to SpecT.

356


In footnote 16 (section 2.1, chapter 1) it was noted that (579-a) is grammatical, in contrast to (579-b), although one might argue that teapot is merged as a specifier of the PP (as is assumed for right in (579-b), see section 2.1.3 above). (579)

a. the sofa [ PP under which ] 2 we left the teapot t2 b. *a woman [ PP right next to whom ] 3 John sat t2

Again, a solution to this problem (which does not necessarily carry over to Sells’s (1985) theory) is to assume that right is merged in SpecP while the teapot is merged in the specifier of a functional head that embeds the PP.

2.1.5.

Phases with Overt Specifiers

The part of section 2.1.1 that was concerned with the question as to which type of domain undergoes spell-out was indeterminate in one respect. The assumption was that the sister of a phase head and the sister of the first overt specifier of a phrase undergo spell-out. But what happens if a phase contains an overt specifier? It would appear that spell-out applies twice: first the complement of the phase head is handed to the phonology, then the phase head itself is. There is evidence that this is not correct. Sells (1985) observes that specifiers of DPs do not trigger intervention effects, see (580-a,b).262 (580)

a. The earl, [ DP portraits of whom ] 2 t2 are highly unflattering, . . . b. The earl, [ DP Traven’s portrait of whom ] 2 t2 is highly unflattering,. . .

The pre-nominal genitive Traven does not affect the grammaticality of (580-b) in any way that would resemble an intervention effect. This is unexpected if the D-head in (580-b) undergoes spell-out on the DP-cycle: the wh-feature of whom in (580) has undergone movement to the D-head; spelling-out the D262. Note that something like an intervention effect seems to return if the DP whose specifier is overtly filled is itself embedded within a pied-piped infinitive, see (i). (i) *?the Earl, [ α to consider Traven’s portrait of whom an insult ] 3 t3 would be a misunderstanding, . . . This is not accounted for by the theory. I leave it as an open problem.


357

head too early prevents it from balancing higher phrases that are constructed at some later point. But even if there were no higher phrase that would require balancing, early spell-out of D would ultimately prevent [ WH ] from establishing Agree with [∗WH∗] on C. In order to come to grips with this problem, I propose that (581) holds. (581)

Restriction on spell-out Spell-out can only apply once within the current cyclic domain.

In the case of (580-b), the current cyclic domain is DP2 . Once the D2 -head is merged it is determined that spell-out applies to its sister. Then, by (581), it is impossible that Merge of the overt specifier Traven triggers another spellout operation within DP2 . Thus spell-out of DP2 is limited to the complement domain and it follows why no intervention effect occurs in (580-b). Of course, the edge domain of DP2 (including the D-head) must undergo spell-out at some point. However, this does not happen before DP2 has reached SpecC of the relative clause; at this point, it is no longer the current cyclic node and Agree between [ WH ] on D and [∗WH∗] on C has been established. Admittedly, (581) is a stipulation but it is not unnatural in the sense that it might follow from economy considerations (see, for instance, Uriagereka (1999b), who argues that the number of spell-out applications per derivation is economized on).

2.1.6.

Double Object Constructions Revisited

Recall from section 1.3.2 that massive pied-piping of double object infinitives in English is ungrammatical. The relevant examples are repeated in (582) and (583) for convenience. (582)

a. *Horace, [ α to give whom a book about horned frogs ] 2 t2 was Egbert’s last will, . . . b. *Horace, [ α to give a book about horned frogs to whom ] 2 t2 was Egbert’s last will, . . .

(583)

a. *This book about horned frogs, [ α to leave Horace which ] 2 t2 was Egbert’s last will, . . . b. *This book about horned frogs, [ α to leave which to Horace ] 2 t2 was Egbert’s last will, . . .

358


The ill-formedness of (582-a) was argued to follow from the fact that the wh-phrase occupies a non-complement position (see Larson (1988, 1990), Pesetsky (1995)). As such it constitutes an island for wh-feature movement. Suppose we adopt Pesetsky’s (1995) theory, where it is claimed that the direct object in a construction with a to-PP is also merged in a specifier position. Then the ungrammaticality of (583-b) follows from the same reasoning. This still leaves (582-b) and (583-a) unaccounted for. In fact, Pesetsky (1995) argues that both the variant with and the variant without to-PP involve a prepositional phrase whose specifier position is filled by the first and whose complement position is filled by the second object, counting from left to right. For the variant without to Pesetsky assumes the presence of a zero preposition, which he calls ‘G’. On this background, the structures for the infinitives in (582-b) and (583-a) are (584-a,b) respectively. (584)

a. [ α to give [ PP a book about horned frogs [ P to whom ]] b. [ α to leave [ PP Horace [ P G which ]]

The ungrammaticality of (582-b) and (583-a) follows from (584-a,b) and the theory of cyclic spell-out proposed in section 2.1.1. In both cases the specifier of PP is filled overtly. This triggers spell-out of the sister of SpecP, including P (or G for that matter). Since the moved [ WH ] has adjoined to P it undergoes spell-out as well and becomes inaccessible, with all the familiar consequences.263 As already mentioned in section 5.3 of chapter 2, pied-piping of complex infinitives in Russian shows a similar pattern. But the discussion is a bit more complicated because Russian exhibits scrambling, in contrast to English. First consider the examples in (585) and (586) (from Bierman (1973, 404, 407, respectively)). Suppose a structure of double object constructions in Russian parallel to the one assumed for English above. Recall from section 5.3, chapter 2 that both Larson and Pesetsky assume that locational PPs in En263. The structure Larson (1988, 1990) assumes for (582-b) is identical to Pesetsky’s in all relevant respects: the two objects occupy specifier and complement position of one head. But for Larson this head is a V that raises to become the head of a higher VP-shell (deriving the word order). If the sister of V’s specifier (which contains V) is spelled out, V-raising appears to be blocked, due to inaccessibility of V. In Pesetsky’s theory, the problem is less obvious: Pesetsky (1995, 126-127) also assumes that G raises; but since G is empty the evidence is rather indirect. As already indicated in section 2.1.2 the problem of head movement across an overt specifier can be solved. Finally, see footnote 220 (section 1.3.2) on how (583-a) can be treated against the background of Larson’s theory.


359

glish are merged lower in the structure than the direct object. By assumption, the same holds for the locational PP na kotoruju ‘on which’ in (586). (585)

kotoruju ] 3 ja xoˇcu t3 . a. *Ja kupil knigu, [ α poslat Alle to send Alla.DAT which I want I bought book ‘I bought a book which I want to send to Alla.’ b. *Ja kupil knigu, [ α poslat kotoruju Alle ] 3 ja xoˇcu t3 . I bought book to send which Alla.DAT I want

(586)

a. *Polka, [ α postavit knigu na kotoruju ] 3 on xoˇcet t3 , uˇze to put book on which he wanted already shelf polna. full ‘The shelf on which he wants to put the book is already full.’ b. *Polka, [ α postavit na kotoruju knigu ] 3 on xoˇcet t3 , uˇze to put on which book he wanted already shelf polna. full

The examples in (585-a) and (586-a) are familiar PIC-effects: Alle and knigu, respectively, occupy SpecP and trigger spell-out of the PP and thereby render the wh-feature (located within the complement of P) inaccessible. This is independent of whether [ WH ] has moved to P in the presence of an empty DPshell above the relative pronoun (see sections 1.5.1 and 1.5.2) or whether no DP-shell is present (and, consequently, no wh-feature movement has applied). In (585-b), the relative pronoun has arguably undergone movement across the higher object.264 There are two possibilities. Either it underwent PrBdriven movement to an outer SpecP across the spell-out triggering category. If an empty DP-shell embeds the relative pronoun, then this happens after [ WH ] has moved to the empty D. In order for phrasal movement to SpecP to be possible (despite LA; see section 1.5.3), morphological Merger must have applied to [ WH ] and D first. These steps are illustrated for (585-b) in (587). (587)

a. [ DP [ D – ] kotoruju ] →

(Move [ WH ] + morph. Merger)

264. The situation is more complicated in (586-b): assuming Pesetsky’s theory implies that na is a P-head whose specifier and complement positions are occupied by knigu and kotoruju, respectively. This, however requires special assumptions if movement of na kotoruju across knigu is supposed to apply. Larson’s theory does not encounter these obstacles. In what follows, I ignore the problem and concentrate on (585-b).

360


b. c. d. e.

[ DP [ D [ WH ] – ] kotoruju ] → [ PP G [ DP [ D [ WH ] – ] kotoruju ]] → [ PP Alle G [ DP [ D [ WH ] – ] kotoruju ]] → [ PP [ DP [ D [ WH ] – ] kotoruju ] 2 Alle G t2 ] →

(Merge G) (Merge Alle) (Move DP) ...

The second possibility is that the relative pronoun underwent feature-driven scrambling to a position outside PP. This must be preceded by the steps in (587); as it does not open up new possibilities, it is ignored in what follows. As for (587-e), movement, it follows that wh-feature movement is no longer possible for two reasons. First, the wh-phrase has undergone movement; it has thus turned into an island due to the CED. Second, excorporation is impossible because morphological Merger has applied. As a consequence, (585-b) cannot be derived: if the infinitive is a phase (as assumed) then PrB requires that [ WH ] be in its edge domain. With the possibility of wh-feature movement excluded, this is arguably not the case in (585-b). An alternative derivation that seeks to avoid this consequence by removing [ WH ] from the wh-phrase before phrasal raising to SpecP applies (resulting in chain interleaving in the sense of Collins (1994)) accomplishes nothing because P, the target of [ WH ], cannot escape spell-out; such a derivation thus fails for the same reason as (585-a) and (586-a).265 Consider next (588) (adapted from Bierman (1973, 409)). (588)

kotoryj ] 3 ja naˇcal t3 , a. *Xleb, [ α rezat neostrym noˇzom knife.INST which I began bread to cut dull vdrug naˇcal kroˇsitsja. suddenly began crumble ‘The bread which I began to cut with a dull knife suddenly began to crumble.’ b. *Xleb, [ α rezat kotoryj neostrym noˇzom ] 3 ja naˇcal t3 , knife.INST I began bread to cut which dull vdrug naˇcal kroˇsitsja. suddenly began crumble

265. The obvious way to continue the derivation in (587) instead is to move DP2 into the edge domain of the infinitive α . I do not know whether this results in a grammatical structure. The theory predicts the following. If the edge domain of α can be targeted by featuredriven movement in Russian, then DP2 -raising to Specα plus subsequent pied-piping is possible. Otherwise, it is blocked by the PEC (see section 1.3.1, chapter 4)


361

Suppose that the instrumental neostrym noˇzom ‘with a dull knife’ in (588) is merged below the direct object (as often assumed for English); under present assumptions this means: as the complement of P. From there it undergoes scrambling across the relative pronoun kotoryj in (588-a). It follows that kotoryj must be merged in SpecP. Then it is opaque for extraction and therefore wh-feature movement out of kotoryj is impossible. But as before, movement of [ WH ] is necessary in order to place it in the edge domain of the infinitive. Hence, (588-a,b) are both derived by the CED, without reference to cyclic spell-out.266 To summarize, the impossibility of pied-piping double object infinitives owes to the following reasoning. If the pied-piper is merged in specifier position, ill-formedness results from wh-feature movement violating the CED. (If no wh-feature movement applies, PrB or, ultimately, the FC are violated). If the pied-piper is merged in complement position, then ungrammaticality follows because spell-out renders [ WH ] inaccessible. This leads to a violation of PrB at the next higher phrase that is to be balanced, or, if this situation does not arise, to a violation of the FC due to an unchecked [∗WH∗] on the C-head of the relative clause.

2.1.7.

Chain Interleaving Revisited

This section addresses a problem that was briefly mentioned in section 1.3.1 above (see also footnote 219). 1.3.1). The contrast between (589-a,b) from Italian was interpreted to indicate that wh-feature movement is possible if the pied-piper is in complement position (see (589-a)) but not if it is in a specifier position (see (589-b)). The idea was that categories in specifier positions are islands for movement and thus block extraction of [ WH ]. 266. Bierman (1973) reports that (i-b) is considerably better than (i-a). (i)

kotoromu den gi ] 3 ja xoˇcu t3 , uexal vˇcera. a. *Mal cˇ ik, [ α dat to give whom boy money I want left yesterday ‘The boy who I want to give money to left yesterday.’ den gi kotoromu ] 3 ja xoˇcu t3 , uexal vˇcera. b. Mal cˇ ik, [ α dat to give money whom left yesterday boy I want

The present theory predicts (i-b) to be ungrammatical because the indirect object kotoromu is, by assumption, merged in SpecP (implying that (i-b) also involves scrambling of den gi). In fact, the speakers consulted by me could not detect any difference between (i-a,b): both were judged equally ungrammatical.

362


(589) a. I suoi studenti, [ α il non aver promosso [ DP i quali ]2 ]3 the his students the not having promoted the who t3 potrà essere interpretato tendenziosamente, . . . could be interpreted tendentiously ‘His students, whose not having been promoted may be interpreted tendentiously, . . . ’ b. *I suoi studenti, [ α non essere [ DP i quali ] 2 stati not be the who been the his students promossi t2 ]3 t3 potrà essere interpretato tendenziosamente, . . . promoted could be interpreted tendentiously ‘His students, whose not being promoted may be interpreted tendentiously, . . . ’ The problem with this interpretation was that the pied-piper i quali ‘who’ in (589-b) is actually a derived subject. It is merged in object position of the passivized verb promossi ‘promoted’ and then undergoes raising to SpecT. But in object position i quali does not constitute an island and therefore whfeature movement should be possible at this point. This raises the question as to whether there can be a successful derivation of (589-b) that involves chain interleaving (see Collins (1994)): first, the whfeature moves out of the in-situ object wh-phrase; next the wh-phrase raises to the subject position; then [ WH ] moves into the edge domain of the infinitive α in (589-b), and finally α undergoes pied-piping.267 The answer is no. To illustrate, consider the stage of the derivation where the wh-feature of i quali has moved to the T-head (recall that successive cyclic raising of [ WH ] is forced by either PrB or LA, sometimes by both). [∗EPP∗] on T forces raising of the object DP i quali to SpecT. This is shown in (590). (590)

a. [ TP [ T [ WH ] T ] stati promossi [ DP i quali ] 2 ] → (Move i quali)

267. The same question may be raised in the context of (i) (from Nanni and Stillings (1978)). (i)

*The men, [ CP for whom3 to be invited t3 to the elegant parties ] 2 t2 was a privilege, were appropriately appreciative.

It appears that wh-feature movement in (i) can apply prior to phrasal raising of whom. Also, for in (i) is not the type of complex complementizer that triggers intervention effects in Russian (see section 2.4 below). Therefore, its presence is arguably not responsible for the ungrammaticality of (i). But the derivation of (i) that involves chain interleaving can be blocked in the same way as the derivation with chain interleaving of (589-b).


b. [ TP [ DP i quali ] 2 [ T [ WH ] T ] stati promossi t2 ] →

363 ...

Raising to SpecT in (590-b) triggers spell-out of the sister category of the raised subject, including [ WH ] on T. The derivation that involves chain interleaving is thus blocked by PrB: when the infinitive phase α in (589-b) is complete, it cannot be balanced because [ WH ] is inaccessible; the wh-feature is trapped by a spell-out operation triggered by the phrase it came from.268

2.2.

Additional Evidence for the Theory

This section presents evidence for the claim that intervention effects are contingent on the presence of phonological features of the intervening element and on the application of wh-feature movement.

2.2.1.

Phonologically Empty Specifiers

The first kind of evidence is obvious: as Ishihara (1984) observes, phonologically empty specifiers do not trigger intervention effects. (591-a) and (592-a) repeat a classical contrast from Nanni and Stillings (1978). The contrasts in (591-b,c) versus (592-b,c) are from Ishihara (1984). All the examples in (591) are grammatical as opposed to the examples in (592), which instantiate intervention effects. (591)

a. The elegant parties, [ α PRO to be admitted to one of which ] 2 t2 was a privilege, had usually been held at Delmonico’s. b. John went to buy wax for the car, [ α PRO washing which ] 2 Mary discovered some scratches on the paint t2 . c. John recognized the strange man, [ α upon PRO seeing whom ]2 Mary called the police t2 .

(592)

a. *The elegant parties, [ CP for us to be admitted to one of which ] 2 t2 was a privilege, had usually been held at Delmonico’s. b. *This is the letter, [ α with Mary reading which aloud ] 2 John got up to leave t2 .

268. It seems that chain interleaving in (589-b) cannot be blocked by the P RINCIPLE OF U N AMBIGUOUS B INDING (going back to M¨ uller and Sternefeld (1993)), as proposed by Müller (1998) for other instances of chain interleaving. But it is treatable in terms of economy on chain formation, as proposed by Collins (1994).

364


c. *No one recognized the strange man, [ α upon John’s seeing whom ]2 Mary called the police t2 . The subject positions of the α -projections in (591) are usually assumed to host a phonologically null pronoun ‘PRO’ (see Chomsky (1981)); in contrast, the pied-piped categories in (592) contain phonologically overt subjects. If there are phonologically empty subjects in (591-a-c), then the question arises why these subjects do not trigger intervention effects. The most obvious answer is that intervention effects are contingent on the presence of phonological features of the intervener.269 ,270 Since I have argued that intervention effects are caused by elements that trigger spell-out, it follows that phonologically empty specifiers do not trigger spell-out. This conclusion conforms with Uriagereka’s (1999a) theory, aspects of which I adopted. I have not adopted Uriagereka’s rationale for why overt specifiers trigger spell-out, nor have I proposed any other theory about this here. The conclusion that only phonologically overt elements trigger this operation is thus merely suggestive.

2.2.2.

Secondary Wh-Movement in Massive Pied-Piping

Safir (1986, 679) observes that alongside the famous example in (593-a), from Ross (1967, 1986), which was analyzed here as involving wh-feature movement, there is also the variant (593-b).271 (593)

a. Those reports, [ DP the height of the lettering on which3 ] 2 the government prescribes t2 , are tedious.

269. The analysis is incompatible with a theory where PRO is a trace left by movement (see Hornstein (2001)): although it is true that traces are not any more overt than PRO is, it is also true that the element α whose movement creates the trace often does have phonological content. Therefore, α would be expected to trigger an intervention effect. 270. There are no intervention effects in parasitic gap constructions with intervening PRO either, cf. footnote 253 above. 271. Ross’s examples involve restrictive relative clauses For theory internal reasons (see section 1.6.2), they are rephrased here as appositive relative clauses. It is unclear to me how marked Safir’s (593-b) is. The judgment indicates that it is not impeccable. Sells (1985) cites (i), arguing against secondary wh-movement in massive pied-piping. (i)

*this parson, [ α who2 to confess to t2 ] 3 t3 is scarcely what one would call a pleasure, . . .


365

b. ?Those reports, [ DP which3 the height of the lettering on t3 ] 2 the government prescribes t2 , are tedious. (593-b) involves secondary wh-movement of the relative pronoun. An analysis in terms of extraction of the wh-phrase from DP2 cannot be excluded: it would involve chain interleaving, relative clause internal topicalization of DP2 , and filling of SpecC by the relative pronoun. But other examples are less straightforwardly reanalyzable in terms of extraction as the pied-piped constituent forms an in-situ island. (594-b) (from R˚uzˇ iˇcka (1989)), which involves secondary wh-movement inside a subject DP, is a case in point.272 (594)

a. the man, [ DP jokes about whom ] 2 t2 upset me, . . . b. the man, [ DP who3 jokes about t3 ] 2 t2 upset me, . . .

An example where secondary wh-movement affects a PP is given in (595). (595)

the prevailing economic situation, [ DP [ PP of which ] 2 the full details of the horror t2 ] 3 t3 were invariably kept t3 secret, . . .

Rappaport (1995, 329-330) presents examples from Polish that illustrate the same phenomenon, see (596-a-c). (596) a. Gwiazdy, [ DP których2 mo˙zliwo´sc´ zaproszenia t2 ] 3 whose possibility invitation.GEN stars zawdzie˛ czamy t3 ambasadzie amerykańskiej ], sa˛ znane u nas. owe.1 PL embassy American are known to us ‘The stars, of whom the possibility of the invitation we owe to the American embassy, are known here.’ b. Jest oczywi´scie ‘Miejskie Przedsie˛ biorstwo Taksówkowe”, is obviously municipal company taxi [ DP którego2 wie˛ kszo´sc´ samochodów t2 ] 3 nale˙zy do sieci whose majority cars.GEN belongs to system “Radio Taxi”. radio taxi ‘There is, obviously, the “Municipal Taxi Company”, of which the majority of cars belongs to the “Radio Taxi System”.’

272. If extraction takes place in (594-b), then it takes place strictly locally; see also the remarks in the footnotes 177 and 206, chapter 4, and in section 2.3.5, chapter 2.

366


c. Lista nazwisk zmarłych wojskowych, [ DP których2 whose list names.GEN dead.GEN soldiers.GEN fotografie grobów t2 ] 3 znale´zc´ mo˙zna t3 w albumie photographs graves.GEN find can in album ˙ Zwia˛ zku Byłych Zołnierzy, . . . union.GEN former.GEN soldiers.GEN ‘A list of the names of deceased soldiers, photographs of the graves of which it is possible to find in the album of the Union of Former Soldiers, . . . ’ Characteristic for these examples is that the variant that involves secondary wh-movement is in free variation with a variant that involves massive piedpiping. Thus, Rappaport (1995, 329, footnote 19) comments on (596): “It is possible, perhaps even stylistically preferable, to leave the relative pronoun in the position of the trace in these examples.”. Thus, although the variants with secondary wh-movement do not involve massive pied-piping of the familiar kind (the wh-phrase is not buried in the complement domain of the pied-piped constituent), I will refer to them as involving secondary wh-movement in massive pied-piping. Before moving on, let me address the apparent free variation of (593-a) and (593-b). Consider (597-a,b), the final configurations of (parts of) (593-a) and (593-b), respectively (α in (597) is the wh-phrase). It is obvious that (597-a) involves one LA-violation more than (597-b), owing to the phrase boundary γ . (Recall that the moved [ WH ] is adjoined to γ ’s head and does therefore not project). This raises the question as to whether the optionality that arises in (593) instantiates the problem of optional pied-piping (cf. section 3.5, chapter 4). (597)

a. [ CP [ γ [ WH ] . . . α2 . . . ] 3 C[∗WH∗] . . . t3 . . . ] b. [ CP α2 [ WH ] C[∗WH∗] . . . [ γ . . . t2 . . . ] 3 ]

The answer is no; structures with secondary wh-movement such as (597-b) do not compete with structures that involve wh-feature movement such as (597-a). Therefore, no optionality problem arises. To illustrate, consider an earlier point of (593)’s derivations, namely (598). (598)

[γ . . . [β . . . α . . . ] . . . ]

If α remains in-situ and pied-pipes γ , then this implies that α has moved


367

its [ WH ] to the head of γ . The first step of wh-feature movement must be triggered by a phase head. Suppose that β is the phase in question (an empty DP-shell). Movement of [ WH ] to the head of β is then forced by PrB.273 After the wh-feature has raised, morphological Merger applies optionally. If it does, the derivation continues with phrasal movement (resulting in (597-b)); if it does not, it continues with wh-feature movement (resulting in (597-a)). Crucially, both options lead to different β -outputs, which, in turn, serve as different inputs (see section 1.5.3). In other words, the derivation splits at the DP-level and competition between the two variants becomes impossible. It follows that optionality in (593) is expected. (See also section 1.5.3 and section 1.6.4 above for related remarks.) Returning to the main plot, it can be observed that if such secondary whmovement takes place across a potentially intervening specifier within a massively pied-piped category, then no intervention effect arises. A relevant contrast from English is illustrated in (599) (Sam Featherston, p.c.). (599)

a. *The elegant parties, [ CP for us to be admitted to which2 ] 3 t3 was a privilege, had usually been held at Delmonico’s. b. The elegant parties, [ CP which2 for us to be admitted to t2 ] 3 t3 was a privilege, had usually been held at Delmonico’s.

Both (599-a,b) involve (massive) pied-piping of an infinitive that contains an overt specifier. But only in (599-a) does this element c-command the pied-piper. Similarly, several speakers that were confronted with ungrammatical examples involving pied-piping of a double object infinitive in English ((600-a) and (601-a) from section 2.1.6), spontaneously suggested the alternatives in (600-b) and (601-b), which involve secondary wh-movement.274 (600)

a. *This book about horned frogs, [ CP to leave which2 to Horace ]3 t3 was Egbert’s last will, . . .

273. LA cannot trigger this wh-feature movement if β immediately dominates α . Note also that it would not help if β were a phrase with overt specifier. According to the definition of accessibility (565-b-i), this would trigger phrasal movement of α to Specβ . Finally recall from section 1.6.4 that determiner stranding was assumed to be blocked anyway. 274. Speakers reacted similarly when confronted with examples where wh-feature movement violates the CED. Thus compare (i-a,b) with the examples in (514), section 1.3.1 (i)

a. b.

This heroine, [ α who2 to consider dead ] 3 t3 would be a great mistake, . . . This heroine, [ α who2 to believe to be dead ] 3 t3 would be a mistake, . . .

368


b. This book about horned frogs, [ CP which2 to leave t2 to Horace ]3 t3 was Egbert’s last will, . . . (601)

a. *Horace, [ CP to give a book about horned frogs to whom ] 3 t3 was Egbert’s last will, . . . b. Horace, [ CP who2 to give a book about horned frogs to t2 ] 3 t3 was Egbert’s last will, . . .

In the theory presented so far these asymmetries follow without further ado. To begin with, there are two ways to analyze (599-b): one involves a relative pronoun which that is embedded under an empty DP-shell, the other lacks such a shell. I focus on the former, more complex case. The simpler case is alike in all relevant respects. As which, by assumption, is embedded under an empty D-head PrB triggers movement of [ WH ] from which to D in order to balance the DP-phase.275 It follows from the fact that which undergoes phrasal movement later that morphological Merger must apply to D and [ WH ] at the DP-level; otherwise phrasal movement would be blocked by wh-feature movement (because of LA) in the following steps (see section 1.5.3). Once morphological Merger has applied excorporation is blocked and phrasal movement is forced. Some of the phrases that are constructed during the derivation of (599-b) are subject to spell-out, either because they have an overt specifier or because they are phases. Since the wh-feature has already undergone morphological Merger, it will not be caught on a head that undergoes spell-out: every time spell-out applies, the DP whose D-head [ WH ] has adjoined to is forced by PrB to leave the domain that undergoes spell-out. In this way, [ WH ] can never become inaccessible. All phrases are balanced and [∗WH∗] on the C-head of the relative clause is eliminated, thereby satisfying the FC.

2.3.

Remaining Problems

This section addresses some problematic issues posed by the phenomenon of secondary wh-movement in massive pied-piping. 275. For the ease of exposition I ignore the option that which undergoes PrB-driven head movement to D, see section 1.6.4. Also recall from section 1.6.4 that PrB-driven phrasal movement of which to SpecD was assumed to be blocked by some constraint on stranding determiners.


2.3.1.

369

Secondary Wh-Movement and the PEC

In section 1.3.1, chapter 4, it was argued that there is a constraint that restricts the overt appearance of wh-phrases at the edge of phases, the PEC. The idea was that a wh-phrase cannot appear overtly on a phase edge unless it has established Agree with the head of the phase with respect to some feature. The examples reported in section 2.2.2 that involve secondary wh-movement in massive pied-piping appear to violate the PEC. All I have to say here is to repeat a suggestion that was already mentioned in footnote 174. There, I speculated that secondary wh-movement in massive pied-piping should perhaps be analyzed as primary (i.e., feature-driven) topicalization within the pied-piped category. As such, it would not violate the PEC.

2.3.2.

Secondary Wh-Movement and Tense Effects

If, as speculated in section 1.3.5, tense effects are connected to wh-feature movement, then examples that involve secondary wh-movement in massive pied-piping (and no wh-feature movement) are predicted to lack tense effects. This prediction is not borne out as illustrated in (602) ((602-d) is from Sells (1985)). (602)

a. *The elegant parties, [ CP which2 (that) John invited us to t2 ] 3 t3 was a privilege, had usually been held at Delmonico’s. b. *This edition of War and Peace, [ CP which2 (that) Mary left t2 to Horace ] 3 t3 was Egbert’s last will, . . . c. *Egbert, [ CP whom2 (that) Horace gave the book to t2 ] 3 t3 was a great mistake, . . . d. *several Ironmongers, [ CP who2 Sharon had invited t2 ] 3 t3 outraged the Websters, . . .

Against the background of the present theory, this suggests that something else is going on in cases that exhibit tense effects.

2.4.

Intervention Effects and Complementizers

The contrasts in (603) and (604) from Russian (repeated from section 5.3, chapter 2) are due to R˚uzˇ iˇcka (1989, 190). Arguably, the offending elements

370


within the pied-piped categories in (603-b) and (604-b) are the elements cˇ toby ‘in order’ and esli ‘if’. (603)

a. Boris zanjal u menja knigu, [ α proˇcitat kotoruju to read which Boris borrowed from me book pobystree ] 3 on mne poobeˇscˇ al t3 . faster he me promised ‘Boris borrowed a book from me which he promised to me to read faster.’ [ α cˇ toby proˇcitat b. *Ja zanjal knigu u Borisa, I borrowed book from Boris.GEN in order to read kotoruju pobystree ] 3 ja otkazalsja ot poezdki t3 . I refused of trip which faster ‘I borrowed a book from Boris, which I refused to take part in the trip in order to read it faster.’

(604)

im pomeˇscˇ enie, [ α osmotret kotore a. Predloˇzili to inspect which proposed.3 PL them room t3 . povnimatel nee ] 3 oni razoˇcrujutsja more carefully they will be disappointed ‘They proposed a room to them which they will be disappointed to have inspected more carefully.’ im pomeˇscˇ enie, [ α esli osmotret kotore b. *Predloˇzili if to inspect which proposed.3 PL them room povnimatel nee ] 3 oni razoˇcrovalis by t3 . more carefully they disappointed were ‘They proposed a room to them which they would be disappointed if they would inspect it more carefully.’

At first sight, these elements are complementizers and not specifiers. As such, they cannot trigger spell-out and thus cannot derive intervention effects. And even if cˇ toby and esli were elements in SpecC and thus triggered spell-out, this would still not account for (603-b) and (604-b): since the pied-piped infinitive is a phase, its head is exempt from spell-out; but this head is arguably the target of the moved [ WH ]; therefore, [ WH ] would remain accessible despite the (alleged) spell-out operation triggered by cˇ toby and esli. Now, cˇ toby and esli are actually complex: they are combined from a Celement (ˇcto ‘that’ and li ‘whether’) and other functional material (by, which marks the conjunctive, and est, the copula ‘be’).


371

Based on this observation, I would like to offer the following (somewhat speculative) explanation for the ungrammaticality of (603-b) and (604-b). Suppose by and est are actually specifier elements that signal the functional content of the head their positions are associated with. Let us say that this head is T. Suppose further that by and est, due to their weak phonology, must cliticize to C, with which they form a complex head. However, before by and est cliticize, they trigger spell-out in the T-domain, thereby rendering the moved [ WH ] that has adjoined to T inaccessible. Then (603-b) and (604-b) are intervention effects, after all. This explanation assimilates the effects of cˇ toby and esli to those of bona fide specifiers. The prediction is that elements that are bona fide (simple) complementizers or that are phonologically null cannot trigger intervention effects. The familiar example (605) illustrates that a null complementizer does not trigger an intervention effect in English. (605)

The elegant parties, [ CP [ C – ] to be admitted to one of which ] 2 t2 was a privilege, had usually been held at Delmonico’s.

Furthermore, (606) (adapted from Ishihara (1984)) illustrates that not all Cheads, even if they are “complex”, trigger intervention effects. The element upon is arguably composed of up and on. Yet, it does not trigger an intervention effect, in contrast to cˇ toby in Russian. This follows if upon is composed of two heads and is not the result of cliticization from a specifier to a head. (606)

John recognized the man, [ α upon seeing whom ] 2 Mary called the police t2 .

Finally, complex complementizers of the Russian type seem to exist in English, too. R˚uzˇ iˇcka (1989) presents the example in (607), whose ungrammaticality suggests that the combination so as in English involves at least one element that is merged into a specifier position below the C-domain (provided the ill-formedness of (607) is not due to some other factor). (607)

*I borrowed a book from Boris [ α so as to read which ] 3 I refused to take part in the trip t3 .

To sum up, intervention effects with complementizers are reanalyzed as PICeffects: the complex complementizer is transformationally related to an overt specifier below the C-domain. This specifier triggers spell-out and renders [ WH ] inaccessible, with the usual consequences.

372 3.


Summary

This chapter was concerned with deriving the remaining two generalizations proposed in chapter 2, which both deal with massive pied-piping. I argued that massive pied-piping as it occurs, for instance, in appositive relative clauses involves checking of a probe [∗WH∗] and thus exhibits primary wh-movement to SpecC. This raised the question as to how the hypothesized Agree relation between [ WH ] and [∗WH∗] in massive pied-piping can satisfy the PIC. As an answer, I proposed that the apparent gap in locality is bridged by the process of wh-feature movement. To assume wh-feature movement in massive pied-piping is, at first sight, at odds with the claim made in section 4, chapter 1 that pied-piping in restrictive relative clauses and embedded interrogatives does not involve wh-feature percolation of any kind. However, a closer look revealed that wh-feature movement as it is assumed to apply in massive pied-piping is not susceptible to the arguments put forward in chapter 1. Independent evidence for an analysis in terms of wh-feature movement was provided by the fact that massive pied-piping is ungrammatical if the pied-piper occupies a position that turns it into an island. These facts also served as the main argument against an analysis of massive pied-piping in terms of covert phrasal wh-movement (other potential arguments were briefly addressed and it was decided that, for the most part, they are inconclusive). Wh-feature movement, it was claimed, is possible only if the wh-pronoun is directly embedded by a phase head. The phase head attracts [ WH ] due to the same constraint that was argued to trigger successive cyclic phrasal whmovement in chapter 3: PB. A closer look at massive pied-piping in Italian and French relative clauses provided overt evidence for the hypothesized DPshell, which, by assumption, is headed by an empty D in English. In order to derive that massive pied-piping is not an option in embedded contexts I stipulated that selectional wh-probes, which are necessarily present in embedded contexts, cannot be checked by a moved [ WH ]. Taken together, these assumptions derive the first generalization on massive pied-piping. The generalization on intervention effects in massive pied-piping was argued to follow from the theory of phases, cyclic spell-out, and the hypothesis that massive pied-piping involves wh-feature movement. The central idea was that an overt specifier triggers spell-out of its sister constituent. A wh-feature that has moved to a head that introduces an overt specifier is thus necessarily part of such a spell-out domain. On the standard assumption that spelled-out

Summary

373

material is no longer accessible to the syntax it follows that an intervening specifier leads to the crash of the derivation because it renders the wh-feature inaccessible.

Chapter 6 Conclusion

Pied-piping has often been considered an idiosyncratic phenomenon, located on the outskirts of proper wh-movement and determined by language specific rules, for the most part. The first main claim made in this monograph is that this view is mistaken. Pied-piping mostly follows the general principles that are part of the theory of agreement, of phase theory, and of cyclic spell-out, and that can be argued to show up in other empirical domains, too. Thus, to a large extend these principles are not language specific. And consequently, the empirical evidence put forward in support of the five descriptive generalizations on pied-piping collected in this monograph comes from a variety of unrelated languages. The second main claim made in this book (and in some other studies) is that there are two different types of pied-piping. First, there is what one might call ‘regular’ or ‘orthodox’ pied-piping (simply referred to as piedpiping in this book). Second, there is massive pied-piping. Both types must be distinguished because they have different properties. For one, those contexts in a language that involve massive pied-piping exhibit wh-fronting of an amount of structure that cannot be wh-moved in contexts that involve regular pied-piping in the same language. Descriptively, there is a contrast between root and embedded wh-constructions: only the former allow for massive pied-piping while the latter are confined to regular pied-piping. Moreover, there is morphological evidence for the distinction between regular and massive pied-piping coming from the use of different types of relative pronouns in languages such as Italian and French. Perhaps another reason why pied-piping has usually been considered a pathological case is that it does not conform the generalization that only categories that bear the feature [ WH ] can undergo wh-movement. Often, this generalization is based on the assumption that [ WH ] on the C-head of an interrogative or relative clause must establish a local checking relation with [ WH ] on the wh-phrase. To solve the paradox, many approaches to pied-piping propose a mechanism of wh-feature percolation that transfers [ WH ] onto the whmoved category. The percolation hypothesis enjoyed great popularity in the theoretical literature. Nevertheless, it is the third main claim of this book that wh-feature percolation does not exist. The main argument is conceptual,

376

Conclusion

claiming that if wh-feature percolation cannot be reduced to either Merge or Move and must thus be conceived of as a primitive operation of the grammar, then it should be abandoned provided that an alternative, percolation-free theory is available. Both claims, namely that percolation cannot be reduced and that pied-piping can be analyzed without recourse to percolation, are shown to be justified. I argue that the dogma that only categories bearing [ WH ] can undergo wh-movement should be given up. Instead it is claimed that one should take the phenomenon of pied-piping at face value and make use of the independently motivated operation Agree, which implements feature checking at a distance, thereby providing an alternative, percolation free solution to the paradox. Pied-piping, in particular regular pied-piping, is constrained. The present theory makes two proposals as to how these restrictions are to be derived. First, it is argued that pied-piping is a costly operation. This is implemented by a violable constraint that favors local over non-local checking of whfeatures. In this way, last-resort and minimization effects in pied-piping are derived (the repair generalization): pied-piping is only possible if extraction of the bare wh-phrase is blocked; also, if pied-piping must apply, then the amount of structure being pied-piped is minimized. Finally, the very same violable constraint is also argued to derive certain instances of secondary wh-movement, (the edge generalization). Other restrictions on pied-piping are claimed to result from the existence of phases, which are independently motivated in the literature. To put it in a nutshell, phases are domains that cannot be penetrated by Agree. Agree between [ WH ] on C (the probe) and [ WH ] on a wh-phrase (the goal) can only apply if the goal is accessible to the probe. If the goal is embedded too deeply within a pied-piped phase, it is not accessible. The notion of accessibility was defined recursively, deriving the generalization on recursive pied-piping. There are two main claims in this book that concern massive pied-piping. First, an argument is made that the more liberal character of massive piedpiping is (at least partially) the result of the possibility of making use of wh-feature movement in root contexts (as opposed to embedded contexts). It is important to note in this context that wh-feature movement does not reintroduce wh-feature percolation through the back door. In particular, it is illustrated that wh-feature movement obeys well-known constraints on movement, in contrast to percolation. Second, it is proposed that intervention effects in massive pied-piping follow from an interaction of the theory of cyclic spell-out, phase theory (both of

Conclusion

377

which are motivated independently in the literature), and the hypothesis that massive pied-piping involves wh-feature movement. The idea is that overt specifiers trigger the operation of cyclic spell-out; this generalizes the notion of a phase to every category with an overt specifier and thereby renders a moved wh-feature inaccessible if it remains embedded within such a category. Of course, like most (if not all) theories, the theory presented in this book also has its drawbacks, loose ends, and problems: For instance, there is the problem of optional pied-piping, which still resists a unified solution, the stipulation that wh-feature movement is only possible in root-contexts for reasons of selection, and the mystery that wh-phrases often cannot be spelledout on the edge of a phase that they have moved to. It remains to be seen whether and how these problems can receive a principled explanation. My hope is that despite them the theory presented here constitutes a step towards a better understanding of pied-piping. And although this is surely not the end of the story, it is the end of this book.

Bibliography

Abels, Klaus (2003): Successive Cyclicity, Anti-Locality, and Adposition Stranding. PhD thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Abney, Steven (1987): The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Adger, David (2003): Core Syntax. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Agbayani, Brian (2000): Feature Attraction and Category Movement. PhD thesis, University of California, Irvine. Aissen, Judith (1996): ‘Pied Piping, Abstract Agreement, and Functional Projections in Tzotzil’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14, 447–491. Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Sjef Barbiers and Hans-Martin Gärtner, eds (2002): Dimensions of Movement. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Allan, Robin, Philip Holmes and Tom Lundskr-Nielsen (2000): Danish: An Essential Grammar. Routledge, London. Allen, Cynthia (1980): Topics in Diachronic English Syntax. Garland Publishing, New York. Aoun, Joseph (1986): Generalized Binding. Foris, Dordrecht. Aoun, Joseph, Norbert Hornstein and Dominique Sportiche (1981): ‘On Some Aspects of Wide Scope Interpretation’, Journal of Linguistic Research 1, 69–95. Aoun, Joseph and Yen-Hui Audrey Li (2003): The Diversity of Wh-Constructions. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Arregi, Karlos (2003): ‘Clausal Pied-Piping’, Natural Language Semantics 11, 115–143. Artiagoitia, Xabier (1992): Verbal Projections in Basque and Minimal Structure. PhD thesis, Universtiy of Washington, Washington. Baker, Mark (1988): Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Barss, Andrew and Howard Lasnik (1986): ‘A Note on Anaphora and Double Objects’, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 347–354. Bayer, Josef (1990): ‘Notes on the ECP in English and German’, Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 30, 1–51. Bayer, Josef (1996): Directionality and Logical Form: On the Scope of Focusing Particles and Wh-in-Situ. Kluwer, Dordrecht. Bayer, Josef (1997): Scope, Agreement, and Pied Piping. Ms., Universtiät Jena. Bech, Gunnar (1955/57): Studien u¨ ber das deutsche Verbum Infinitum. Niemeyer, Tübingen. Reprint 1983. Beck, Sigrid (1997): Wh-Constructions and Transparent Logical Form. PhD thesis, Universität Tübingen. Beck, Sigrid (2006): ‘Intervention Effects Follow from Focus Interpretation’, Natural Language Semantics 14, 1–56. Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi (1981): ‘The Syntax of ‘ne’: Some Theoretical Implications’, The Linguistic Review 1, 117–154. Bennis, Hans (1983): A Case of Restructuring. In: H. Bennis and W. U. S. van Lessen Kloeke, eds, Linguistics in the Netherlands 1983. Foris, Dordrecht.

380

Bibliography

Bennis, Hans and Teun Hoekstra (1984): ‘Gaps and Parasitic Gaps’, The Linguistic Review 4, 29–87. Beyrer, Arthur, Klaus Bochmann and Siegfried Bronsert (1987): Grammatik der Rumänischen Sprache der Gegenwart. VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie Leipzig, Leipzig. Bierman, Michael H. (1973): ‘Preposed Infinitives in Russian Relative Clauses’, Linguistic Inquiry 4, 403–414. Bobaljik, Jonathan (1995): Morphosyntax: The Syntax of Verbal Inflection. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Boeckx, Cedric (2001): Mechanisms of Chain Formation. PhD thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Bonet, Eulália (1991): Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance. PhD thesis, MIT. Borer, Hagit (1984): Parametric Syntax – Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages. Foris, Dordrecht. Borsley, Robert (1992): ‘More on the Difference between English Restrictive and NonRestrictive Relative Clauses’, Journal of Linguistics 28, 139–148. Bouchard, Denis (1982): On the Content of Empty Categories. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. ˇ Boˇsković, Zeljko (1998): LF-Movement and the Minimalist Programm. In: P. N. Tamanji and K. Kusumoto, eds, Proceedings of NELS 28. GLSA, Amherst, Massachusetts, pp. 43–57. ˇ Boˇsković, Zeljko (2000): Sometimes in [Spec,CP], Sometimes in Situ. In: R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka, eds, Step by Step – Essays in Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 53–87. ˇ Boˇsković, Zeljko (2002a): ‘A-Movement and the EPP’, Syntax 5, 167–218. ˇ Boˇsković, Zeljko (2002b): ‘On Multiple Wh-Fronting’, Linguistic Inquiry 33, 351–383. ˇ Boˇsković, Zeljko (2004): ‘Be Careful Where You Float Your Quantifiers’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22, 681–742. ˇ Boˇsković, Zeljko and Steven Franks (2000): ‘Across-The-Board Movement and LF’, Syntax 3, 107–128. Bresnan, Joan (1970): ‘On Complementizers: Towards a Syntactic Theory of Complement Types’, Foundations of Language 6, 297–321. Bresnan, Joan (1971): ‘Sentence Stress and Syntactic Transformations’, Language 47, 257– 281. Bresnan, Joan (1972): ‘Stress and Syntax: a Reply’, Language 48, 326–342. Bresnan, Joan (1976): ‘On the Form and Function of Transformations’, Linguistic Inquiry 7, 3–40. Bresnan, Joan and Jane Grimshaw (1978): ‘The Syntax of Free Relatives in English’, Linguistic Inquiry 9, 331–391. Broadwell, George Aaron (2001): Optimal Order and Pied-Piping in San Dionicio Zapotec. In: P. Sells, ed., Formal and Empirical Issues in Optimality Theoretic Syntax. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 197–224. Brody, Michael (1995): Lexico-Logical Form: A Radically Minimalist Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Browning, Maggie (1987): Null Operator Constructions. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Bibliography

381

Browning, Maggie (1991): ‘Bounding Conditions on Representation’, Linguistic Inquiry 22, 541–562. Cable, Seth (2007): The Grammar of Q: Q-particles and the Nature of Wh-Fronting, As Revealed by the Wh-Questions of Tlingit. PhD thesis, MIT. Cable, Seth (2008): There is no Such Thing as Pied-Piping. Ms., UMass Amherst, University of British Columbia. Cattell, Ray (1976): ‘Constraints on Movement Rules’, Language 52, 18–50. Choe, Jae W. (1987): ‘LF Movement and Pied Piping’, Linguistic Inquiry 18, 348–353. Chomsky, Noam (1955): The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. published (in part) 1975 by Plenum Press. Chomsky, Noam (1957): Syntactic Structures. Mouton, The Hague. Chomsky, Noam (1964): The Logical Basis of Linguistic Theory. In: H. Lunt, ed., Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists. Mouton, The Hague. Chomsky, Noam (1970): Remarks on Nominalization. In: R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum, eds, Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Ginn and Company, Waltham Massachusetts, pp. 184–221. Chomsky, Noam (1973): Conditions on Transformations. In: S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky, eds, A Festschrift for Morris Halle. Holt, Reinhart and Winston, New York, pp. 232–286. Chomsky, Noam (1977): On Wh-Movement. In: P. Culicover, T. Wasow and A. Akmajian, eds, Formal Syntax. Academic Press, New York, pp. 71–132. Chomsky, Noam (1981): Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht. Chomsky, Noam (1982): Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Chomsky, Noam (1986): Barriers. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Chomsky, Noam (1995): The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Chomsky, Noam (2000): Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In: R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka, eds, Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 89–155. Chomsky, Noam (2001): Derivation by Phase. In: M. Kenstowicz, ed., Ken Hale. A Life in Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 1–52. Christensen, Ken Ramshøj (2003): Neg-Shift and Repair Strategies: Pied Piping versus Preposition Stranding. Ms., University of Aarhus. Chung, Sandra (1991): ‘Functional Heads and Proper Government in Chamorro’, Lingua 85, 85–134. Chung, Sandra (1998): The Design of Agreement. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Chung, Sandra and James McCloskey (1983): ‘On the Interpretation of Certain Island Effects in GPSG’, Linguistic Inquiry 14, 704–713. Chung, Sandra, William A. Ladusaw and James McCloskey (1995): ‘Sluicing and Logical Form’, Natural Language Semantics 3, 239–282. Cinque, Guglielmo (1982): ‘On the Theory of Relative Clauses and Markedness’, The Linguistic Review 1, 247–294. Cinque, Guglielmo (1988): La Frase Relativa. In: L. Renzi, G. Salvin and A. Cardinaletti, eds, Grande grammatica italiana di consultatione. Il Mulino, Bologna, pp. 457–517. Cinque, Guglielmo (1990): Types of A -Dependencies. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Cole, Peter and Gabriella Hermon (1981): ‘Subjecthood and Islandhood: Evidence from Quechua’, Linguistic Inquiry 12, 1–30.

382

Bibliography

Cole, Peter and Gabriella Hermon (1994): ‘Is There LF Wh-Movement?’, Linguistic Inquiry 25, 239–262. Cole, Peter, Gabriella Hermon and Li-May Sung (1993): ‘Feature Percolation’, Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2, 91–118. Collins, Chris (1994): ‘Economy of Derivation and the Generalized Proper Binding Condition’, Linguistic Inquiry 25, 45–61. Collins, Chris (1997): Local Economy. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Collins, Chris (2002): Eliminating Labels. In: S. D. Epstein and T. D. Seely, eds, Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 42–64. Coon, Jessica (2007): Wh-Possessors and the Problem with Pied-Piping in Chol Mayan. Ms., MIT. Cooper, Robin (1983): Quantification and Syntactic Theory. Reidel, Dordrecht. Corver, Norbert (1990): The Syntax of Left Branch Constructions. PhD thesis, Tilburg University. Corver, Norbert (1991): ‘The Internal Syntax and Movement Behaviour of the Dutch ‘wat voor’-Construction’, Linguistische Berichte 133, 190–228. Cowper, Elizabeth (1987): ‘Pied Piping, Feature Percolation, and the Structure of the Noun Phrase’, Canadian Journal of Linguistics 32, 321–338. Culicover, Peter (1999): Syntactic Nuts. Oxford University Press, Oxford. de Vries, Mark (2002): The Syntax of Relativization. PhD thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam. de Vries, Mark (2005): ‘Possessive Relatives and (Heavy) Pied-Piping’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9, 1–52. Delsing, Lars-Olof (1988): ‘The Scandinavian Noun Phrase’, Working Papers in Scandidavian Syntax 42, 57–79. Delsing, Lars-Olof (1993): The Internal Structure of Noun Phrases in the Scandinavian Languages. PhD thesis, University of Lund, Lund. Demirdache, Hamida (1991): Resumptive Chains in Restrictive Relatives, Appositives and Dislocation Structures. PhD thesis, MIT. den Besten, Hans (1984): The Ergative Hypothesis and Free Word Order in Dutch and German. In: J. Toman, ed., Studies in German Grammar. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 23–64. den Dikken, Marcel (2006): Relators and Linkers: The Syntax of Predication, Predicate Inversion, and Copulas. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. di Sciullo, Anna Maria and Edwin Williams (1987): On the Definition of Word. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Diesing, Molly (1992): Indefinites. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen (1990): ‘Clitic Doubling, Wh-Movement, and Quantification in Romanian’, Linguistic Inquiry 21, 351–397. Emonds, Joseph (1976): A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. Academic Press, New York. Emonds, Joseph (1978): ‘The Verbal Complex V’-V in French’, Linguistic Inquiry 9, 151– 175. Emonds, Joseph (1979): ‘Appositive Relatives have no Properties’, Linguistic Inquiry 10, 211– 243. Emonds, Joseph (1985): A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories. Foris, Dordrecht.

Bibliography

383

Emonds, Joseph (1986): Grammatically Deviant Prestige Constructions. In: M. Brame, H. Contreras and F. Newmeyer, eds, Festschrift for Sol Saporta. Noit Amrofer, Seattle, pp. 93– 129. Engdahl, Elisabet (1980): The Syntax and Semantics of Questions in Swedish. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts. Engdahl, Elisabet (1983): ‘Parasitic Gaps’, Linguistics & Philosophy 6, 5–34. Engel, Ulrich (1972): Regeln zur “Satzgliedfolge”. Zur Stellung der Elemente im einfachen Verbalsatz. Linguistische Studien I, Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann, Düsseldorf, pp. 17– 75. Enrico, John (2003): Haida Syntax. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska. Epée, Roger (1976): ‘On Some Rules that are Not Successive Cyclic in Duala’, Linguistic Inquiry 7, 193–198. Epstein, Samuel David (1992): ‘Derivational Constraints on A -Chain Formation’, Linguistic Inquiry 23, 235–259. Epstein, Samuel David and T. Daniel Seely (2002): Rule Applications as Cycles in a LevelFree Syntax. In: S. D. Epstein and T. D. Seely, eds, Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 65–89. Etxepare, Ricardo and Jon Ortiz de Urbina (2003): Focalization. In: J. Ignacio and J. Ortiz de Urbina, eds, A Grammar of Basque. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 459–516. Fabb, Nigel (1990): ‘The Difference between English Restrictive and Non-Restrictive Relative Clauses’, Journal of Linguistics 26, 57–77. Fanselow, Gisbert (1983): Zu einigen Problemen von Kasus, Rektion und Bindung in der deutschen Syntax. Master’s thesis, Universität Konstanz. Fanselow, Gisbert (1990): Scrambling as NP-Movement. In: G. Grewendorf and W. Sternefeld, eds, Scrambling and Barriers. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 113–140. Fanselow, Gisbert (1991): ‘Minimale Syntax’, Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 32. Fanselow, Gisbert (2001): ‘Features, θ -Roles, and Free Constituent Order’, Linguistic Inquiry 32, 405–437. Fanselow, Gisbert (2003): Surprising Specifiers and Cyclic Spell-Out. Ms., Universität Potsdam. Fanselow, Gisbert (2004): Münchhausen-Style Head Movement and the Analysis of Verb Second. Ms., Universität Potsdam. Fanselow, Gisbert and Anoop Mahajan (2000): Towards a Minimalist Theory of WhExpletives, Wh-Copying, and Successive Cyclicity. In: U. Lutz, G. Müller and A. von Stechow, eds, Wh-Scope Marking. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 195–230. ´ Fanselow, Gisbert and Damir Cavar (2002): Distributed Deletion. In: A. Alexiadou, ed., Theoretical Approaches to Universals. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 65–107. Felix, Sascha W. (1983): ‘Parasitic Gaps in German’, Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 22, 1–46. Fiengo, Robert (1977): ‘On Trace Theory’, Linguistic Inquiry 8, 35–61. Fiengo, Robert (1980): Surface Structure. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Fiengo, Robert, James Huang, Howard Lasnik and Tanya Reinhart (1988): The Syntax of Wh-in-Situ. In: H. Borer, ed., Proceedings of WCCFL 7. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 81–98.

384

Bibliography

Fischer, Silke (2004): Towards an Optimal Theory of Reflexivization. PhD thesis, Universität Tübingen. Fitzpatrick, Justin (2002): ‘Minimalist Approaches to Locality of Movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 33, 443–463. Fitzpatrick, Justin (2006): The Syntactic and Semantic Roots of Floating Quantification. PhD thesis, MIT. Fleischer, Jürg (2002): Die Syntax von Pronominaladverbien in den Dialekten des Deutschen. Steiner, Stuttgart. Fodor, Janet (2001): ‘Parameters and the Periphery: Reflections on ‘Syntactic Nuts”, Journal of Linguistics 37, 367–392. Fortmann, Christian (1996): Konstituentenbewegung in der DP-Struktur. Niemeyer, Tübingen. Fox, Danny (2002): ‘Antecedent Contained Deletion and the Copy Theory of Movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 33, 63–96. Fox, Danny and David Pesetsky (2005): ‘Cyclic Linearization of Syntactic Structure’, Theoretical Linguistics 31, 1–46. Frampton, John and Sam Gutman (1999): ‘Cyclic Computation’, Syntax 2, 1–27. Gallmann, Peter (1996): ‘Die Steuerung der Flexion in der DP’, Linguistische Berichte 164, 283–314. Gärtner, Hans-Martin (2001): ‘Are There V2 Relative Clauses in German?’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3. Gavruseva, Elena (2000): ‘On the Syntax of Possessor Extraction’, Lingua 110, 743–772. Gazdar, Gerald, Ewan Klein, Geoffrey Pullum and Ivan Sag (1985): Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Blackwell, Oxford. George, Leland (1980): Analogical Generalization in Natural Language Syntax. PhD thesis, MIT. George, Leland and Jaklin Kornfilt (1981): Finiteness and Boundedness in Turkish. In: F. Heny, ed., Binding and Filtering. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 105–127. Giorgi, Alessandra and Giuseppe Longobardi (1991): The Syntax of Noun Phrases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Giusti, Giuliana (1986): ‘On the Lack of Wh-Infinitives with zu and the Projection of COMP in German’, Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 28, 115–169. Giusti, Giuliana (1990): ‘Floating Quantifiers, Scrambling, and Configurationality’, Linguistic Inquiry 21, 633–641. Godard, Danièle (1985): French Relative Clauses with dont: A -Chains and Binding Principles. In: J. Guéron, H.-G. Obenauer and J.-Y. Pollock, eds, Grammatical Representation. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 19–41. Godard, Danièle (1988): La Syntaxe des Relatives en Français. Editions du CNRS, Paris. Gouskova, Maria (2001): Split Scrambling: Barriers as Violable Constraints. In: K. Megerdoomian and L. A. Bar-el, eds, Proceedings of WCCFL 20. Cascadilla Press, Somerville, Mass., pp. 220–233. Grewendorf, Günther (1986): ‘Relativsätze im Deutschen: Die Rattenfänger-Konstruktion’, Linguistische Berichte 105, 409–434. Grewendorf, Günther (1988): Aspekte der deutschen Syntax. Narr, Tübingen. Grewendorf, Günther (1989): Ergativity in German. Foris, Dordrecht. Grimshaw, Jane (1977): English Wh-Constructions and the Theory of Grammar. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Bibliography

385

Grimshaw, Jane (1979): ‘Complement Selection and the Lexicon’, Linguistic Inquiry 10, 279– 326. Grimshaw, Jane (1991): Extended Projections. Ms., Brandeis University. Grimshaw, Jane (1997): ‘Projection, Heads, and Optimality’, Linguistic Inquiry 28, 373–422. Grimshaw, Jane (2000): Locality and Extended Projection. In: P. Coopmans, M. Everaert and J. Grimshaw, eds, Lexical Specification and Insertion. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 115– 133. Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof (1982): ‘Semantic Analysis of Wh-Complements’, Linguistics & Philosophy 5, 173–233. Grohmann, Kleanthes (2003): Prolific Domains: On the Anti-Locality of Movement Dependencies. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Grosu, Alexander (1973): ‘Another Remark on Dragging’, Linguistic Inquiry 4, 242–246. Grosu, Alexander (1988a): ‘Genitive Phrases in Rumanian’, Linguistics 26, 931–949. Grosu, Alexander (1988b): ‘Pied Piping and the Matching Parameter’, The Linguistic Review 6, 41–58. Grosu, Alexander (1994): Three Studies in Locality and Case. Routledge, London. Grosu, Alexander (1996): ‘The Proper Analysis of ‘Missing P’ Free Relative Constructions’, Linguistic Inquiry 27, 257–293. Guéron, Jacqueline (1990): Particles, Prepositions, and Verbs. In: J. Mascaró and M. Nespor, eds, Grammar in Progress. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 153–166. Hagstrom, Paul (1998): Decomposing Questions. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Haider, Hubert (1983): ‘Connectedness Effects in German’, Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 23, 82–119. Haider, Hubert (1985): ‘Der Rattenfängerei muß ein Ende gemacht werden’, Wiener Linguistische Gazette 35/36, 27–50. Haider, Hubert (1988): ‘Zur Struktur der deutschen Nominalphrase’, Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 7, 32–59. Haider, Hubert (1990): Topicalization and Other Puzzles of German Syntax. In: G. Grewendorf and W. Sternefeld, eds, Scrambling and Barriers. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 93–112. Haider, Hubert (1993): Deutsche Syntax – Generativ. Narr, Tübingen. Haider, Hubert (2004): The Superiority Conspiracy. In: A. Stepanov, G. Fanselow and R. Vogel, eds, Minimality Effects in Syntax. Mouton, Berlin, New York, pp. 147–176. Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz (1993): Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In: K. Hale and S. J. Keyser, eds, The View from Building 20. MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 111–176. Hamblin, Charles L. (1973): ‘Questions in Montague English’, Foundations of Language 10, 41–53. Hankamer, Jorge and Paul Postal (1973): ‘Whose Gorilla?’, Linguistic Inquiry 4, 261. Haraguchi, Shosuke (1973): ‘Dragging Reconsidered’, Linguistic Inquiry 4, 95–97. Heck, Fabian (2004): A Theory of Pied-Piping. PhD thesis, Universität Tübingen. Heck, Fabian and Gereon Müller (2000): Successive Cyclicity, Long-Distance Superiority, and Local Optimization. In: R. Billerey and B. D. Lillehaugen, eds, Proccedings of WCCFL 19. Cascadilla Press, Somerville, pp. 218–231. Heck, Fabian and Gereon Müller (2003): ‘Derivational Optimization of Wh-Movement’, Linguistic Analysis 33, 97–148. Dynamic interfaces Part 1, Kleanthes Grohmann, ed.

386

Bibliography

Heck, Fabian and Gereon Müller (2006): Extremely Local Optimization. In: E. Bainbridge and B. Agbayani, eds, Proccedings of WECOL 34. University of Fresno, Fresno, CA, pp. 170– 182. Heim, Irene (1987): Where Does the Definiteness Restriction Apply? In: E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen, eds, The Representation of (In)definiteness. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 21–42. Heim, Irene and Angelika Kratzer (1998): Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell, Oxford. Hendrick, Randall (1990): Operator Binding in NP. In: A. L. Halpern, ed., Proceedings of WCCFL 9. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 249–261. Henry, Allison (1995): Belfast English and Standard English. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hermon, Gabriella (1985): Syntactic Modularity. Foris, Dordrecht. Herslund, Michael (1984): ‘Particles, Prefixes, and Preposition Stranding’, Topics in Danish Syntax 14, 34–71. Hirotani, Masako, Andries Coetzee, Nancy Hall and Ji-Yung Kim, eds (2000): Proceedings of NELS 30. GLSA, Amherst, Massachusetts. Hirschbühler, Paul (1978): The Semantics and Syntax of Wh-Constructions. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Holmberg, Anders (1986): Word Order and Syntactic Features in the Scandinavian Languages and English. PhD thesis, University of Stockholm. Holmberg, Anders (1987): ‘The structure of NP in Swedish’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 33, 1–23. Holmberg, Anders (1991): Head-Scrambling. Handout, GLOW 1991, Leiden University. Holmberg, Anders (1999): ‘Remarks on Holmberg’s Generalization’, Studia Linguistica 53, 1–39. Holmberg, Anders (2000): ‘Scandinavian Stylisitic Fronting: How any Category Can Become an Expletive’, Linguistic Inquiry 31, 445–483. Honda, Satomi (1993): ‘Pied Piping: Downward Feature Percolation through the Extended Projections’, Journal of the English Linguistic Society of Japan 10, 28–49. Hornstein, Norbert (2001): Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Blackwell, Oxford. Hornstein, Norbert and Amy Weinberg (1990): ‘The Necessity of LF’, The Linguistic Review 7, 129–167. Horrocks, Geoffrey and Melita Stavrou (1987): ‘Bounding Theory and Greek Syntax: Evidence for wh-Movement in NP’, Journal of Linguistics 27, 79–108. Horvath, Julia (2007): Separating ‘Focus Movement’ from Focus. In: S. Karimi, V. Samiian and W. K. Wilkins, eds, Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 146–166. Huang, Cheng-Teh James (1982): Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum, eds (2002): The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ishihara, Roberta (1984): ‘Clausal Pied Piping: A problem for GB’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2, 397–418. Jackendoff, Ray (1977): X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Bibliography

387

Jackendoff, Ray (1990): ‘On Larson’s Treatment of the Double Object Construction’, Linguistic Inquiry 21, 427–456. Johnson, Kyle (1991): ‘Object Positions’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 577– 636. Jones, Michael Allan (1996): Foundations of French Syntax. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Jónsson, Jóhannes G´ısli (1991): ‘Stylistic Fronting in Icelandic’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 48, 1–43. Källgren, Gunnen and Ellen F. Prince (1989): ‘Swedish VP-Topicalization and Yiddish VerbTopicalization’, Nordic Journal of Linguistics 12, 47–58. Kang, Jung-Goo and Gereon Müller (1996): Reconstruction vs. Copying: The Case of WhScope. In: N. Akatsuka, S. Iwasaki and S. Strauss, eds, Japanese/Korean Linguistics. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 269–285. Karttunen, Lauri (1977): ‘Syntax and Semantics of Questions’, Linguistics & Philosophy 1, 3– 44. Kato, Takaomi (2004): Not So Overt Movement. In: V. Chand, A. Keleher, A. J. Rodr´ıguez and B. Schmeisser, eds, Proceedings. Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA, pp. 436–449. Kayne, Richard (1975): French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts. Kayne, Richard (1976): French Relative que. In: M. Luján and F. Hensey, eds, Current studies in Romance Linguistics. Georgetown University Press, Washington, pp. 255–299. Kayne, Richard (1981): ‘ECP-Extensions’, Linguistic Inquiry 12, 93–133. Kayne, Richard (1983): ‘Connectedness’, Linguistic Inquiry 14, 223–249. Kayne, Richard (1984a): Connectedness and Binary Branching. Foris, Dordrecht. Kayne, Richard (1984b): Principles of Particle Constructions. In: J. Guéron, H.-G. Obenauer and J.-Y. Pollock, eds, Grammatical Representation. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 101–140. Kayne, Richard (1994): The Antisymmetry of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Kayne, Richard (1998): ‘Overt vs. Covert Movement’, Syntax 1, 128–191. Kennedy, Christopher and Jason Merchant (2000): ‘Attributive Comparative Deletion’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18, 89–146. Kim, Shin-Sook (2002): Wh-Intervention Effects are Focus Effects. Handout, WCCFL 21, University of Santa Cruz. Kiparsky, Paul and Carol Kiparsky (1970): Fact. In: D. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits, eds, Semantics. An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics, and Psychology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 345–369. Kitahara, Hisatsugu (1994): Restricting Ambiguous Rule-Application: A Unified Analysis of Movement. In: Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics I. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 179–209. Kitahara, Hisatsugu (1997): Elementary Operations and Optimal Derivations. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Koizumi, Masatoshi (1995): Phrase Structure in Minimalist Syntax. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Koopman, Hilda (1990): The Syntax of Verb Particle Constructions. Ms., UCLA. Koopman, Hilda and Dominique Sportiche (1982): ‘Variables and the Bijection Principle’, The Linguistic Review 2, 139–160. Koster, Jan (1978): ‘Conditions, Empty Nodes, and Markedness’, Linguistic Inquiry 9, 551– 593.

388

Bibliography

Koster, Jan (1987): Domains and Dynasties. Foris, Dordrecht. Koster, Jan (2000): Pied Piping and Word Orders of English and Dutch. In: M. Hirotani, A. Coetzee, N. Hall and J.-Y. Kim, eds, Proceedings of NELS 30. GLSA, Amherst, Massachusetts, pp. 415–426. Koster, Jan (2003): Move, Merge and Percolate are One! On the Elimination of Variables in Grammar. In: L.-O. Delsing, C. Falk, G. Josefsson and H. A. SigurDsson, eds, Grammatik i Fokus – Grammar in Focus: A Festschrift for Christer Platzack. Department of Scandinavian Languages, University of Lund, Lund. Kouwenberg, Silvia (1994): A Grammar of Berbice Dutch Creole. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York. Kratzer, Angelika (1996): Severing the External Argument from its Verb. In: J. Rooryck and L. Zaring, eds, Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 109–137. Kratzer, Angelika and Junko Shimoyama (2002): Indeterminate Pronouns: The View from Japanese. Ms., UMass Amherst, Kyushu Institute of Technology. Kubo, Miori (1989): ‘Wh-Movement in Japanese NPs’, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 175–197. Kühner, Raphael and Carl Stegmann (1955): Ausführliche Grammatik der Lateinischen Sprache. Zweiter Teil: Satzlehre. Wissenschaftliche Buchgemeinschaft, Darmstadt. Kuno, Susumo (1973): ‘Constraints on Internal Clauses and Sentential Subjects’, Linguistic Inquiry 4, 363–385. Kuno, Susumo and Jane J. Robinson (1972): ‘Multiple WH-Questions’, Linguistic Inquiry 3, 463–487. Kuroda, Sige-Yuki (1969): English Relativization and Certain Related Problems. In: D. A. Reibel and S. A. Schane, eds, Modern Studies in English – Readings in Transformational Grammar. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 264–287. Labelle, Marie (1990): ‘Predication, Wh-Movement, and the Development of Relative Clauses’, Language Acquisition 1, 95–119. Larson, Richard (1987): “Missing Prepositions’ and the Analysis of English Free Relative Clauses’, Linguistic Inquiry 18, 239–266. Larson, Richard (1988): ‘On the Double Object Construction’, Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335– 391. Larson, Richard (1990): ‘Double Objects Revisited’, Linguistic Inquiry 21, 589–632. Lasnik, Howard (1999): ‘On Feature Strength: Three Minimalist Approaches to Overt Movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 30, 197–217. Lasnik, Howard (2002): Feature Movement or Agree at a Distance? In Alexiadou et al. (2002), pp. 189–208. Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito (1984): ‘On the Nature of Proper Government’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 235–289. Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito (1992): Move α . MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Lasnik, Howard and Tim Stowell (1991): ‘Weakest Crossover’, Linguistic Inquiry 22, 687– 720. Lefebvre, Claire and Pieter Muyskens (1988): Mixed Categories: Nominalization in Quechua. Kluwer, Dordrecht. Legate, Ann Julie (2003): ‘Some Interface Properties of the Phase’, Linguistic Inquiry 34, 506–516.

Bibliography

389

Levin, Lori (1982): Sluicing: A Lexical Interpretation Procedure. In: J. Bresnan, ed., The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 590–654. Lie, Svein (1982): Discontinuous Questions and Subjacency in Norwegian. In: E. Engdahl and E. Ejerhed, eds, Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages. Ume˚a, Stockholm, pp. 193–203. Lieber, Rochelle (1980): On the Organization of the Lexicon. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Lødrup, Helge (1990): ‘VP-Topicalization and the Verb gjøre in Norwegian’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 45, 3–12. Longobardi, Giuseppe (1985a): Connectedness and Island Constraints. In: J. Guéron, H.-G. Obenauer and J.-Y. Pollock, eds, Grammatical Representation. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 169– 185. Longobardi, Giuseppe (1985b): ‘Connectedness, Scope, and C-command’, Linguistic Inquiry 16, 162–193. Longobardi, Giuseppe (1991): In Defense of the Correspondence Hypothesis: Island Effects and Parasitic Constructions in Logical Form. In: J. C.-T. Huang and R. May, eds, Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 149–195. Lowenstamm, Jean (1977): ‘Relative Clauses in Yiddish: A Case for Movement’, Linguistic Analysis 3, 197–216. Lutz, Uli (2001): Studien zu Extraktion und Projektion im Deutschen. PhD thesis, Univerität Tübingen. Lutz, Uli, Gereon Müller and Arnim von Stechow, eds (2000): Wh-Scope Marking. Benjamins, Amsterdam. ¨ Lutz, Uli and Susanne Trissler (1992): Einige Uberlegungen zu syntaktischen +w-Merkmalen, Interrogativsätzen und w-Phrasen im Deutschen. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, Nr. 7, Universität Tübingen. Lutz, Uli and Susanne Trissler (1997): On Some Cases of Complex Pied Piping in German. Ms., Universität Tübingen. Mahajan, Anoop (2001): Word Order and (Remnant) VP-Movement. Ms., UCLA. Maling, Joan (1978): ‘An Asymmetry with Respect to Wh-Islands’, Linguistic Inquiry 9, 75– 89. Maling, Joan (1990): Inversion in Embedded Clauses in Modern Icelandic. In: J. Maling and A. Zaenen, eds, Modern Icelandic Syntax. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 71–91. Mathieu, Eric (2002a): On the Nature of Feature Checking, Optionality, and Pied Piping. Ms., University College London. Mathieu, Eric (2002b): The Syntax of Non-Canonical Quantification. PhD thesis, University College London, London. Matushansky, Ora (2002): Movement of Degrees and Degrees of Movement. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. May, Robert (1977): The Grammar of Quantification. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. May, Robert (1985a): Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

390

Bibliography

May, Robert (1985b): Syntactic Rules and Semantic Rules: Their Relation in WhConstructions. In: J. Guéron, H.-G. Obenauer and J.-Y. Pollock, eds, Grammatical Representation. Foris, pp. 187–202. McCarthy, John J. (2000): Harmonic Serialism and Parallelism. In Hirotani et al. (2000), pp. 501–524. McCarthy, John J. and Alan Prince (2004): The Emergence of the Unmarked. In: J. J. McCarthy, ed., Optimality Theory in Phonology – A Reader. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 483–494. McCawley, James D. (1988): The Syntactic Phenomena of English. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. McCloskey, James (1979): Transformational Syntax and Model Theoretic Semantics: A Case Study in Modern Irish. Reidel, Dordrecht. McCloskey, James (1990): Resumptive Pronouns, A-bar Binding, and Levels of Representation. In: R. Hendrick, ed., The Syntax and Semantics of Modern Celtic Languages. Academic Press, New York, pp. 199–248. McCloskey, James (2000): ‘Quantifier Float and Wh-Movement in an Irish English’, Linguistic Inquiry 31, 57–84. McCloskey, James (2001): ‘The Morphosyntax of Wh-Extraction in Irish’, Journal of Linguistics 37, 67–100. McCloskey, James (2002): Resumption, Successive Cyclicity, and the Locality of Operations. In: S. D. Epstein and T. D. Seely, eds, Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 184–226. McDaniel, Dana (1989): ‘Partial and Multiple Wh-Movement’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7, 565–604. McDaniel, Dana, Cecile McKee and Judy B. Bernstein (1998): ‘How Children’s Relatives Solve a Problem for Minimalism’, Language 74, 308–334. Merchant, Jason (1996): Object Scrambling and Quantifier-Float in German. In: K. Kusumoto, ed., Proceedings of NELS 26. GLSA, Amherst, Massachusetts, pp. 179–193. Merchant, Jason (2001): The Syntax of Silence - Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Merchant, Jason (2002): Swiping in Germanic. In: W. Abraham and J. W. Zwart, eds, Studies n Comparative Germanic Syntax. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 289–315. Moritz, Luc and Daniel Valois (1994): ‘Pied Piping and Specifier-Head Agreement’, Linguistic Inquiry 25, 667–707. Müller, Gereon (1995): A-bar Syntax: A Study in Movement Types. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York. Müller, Gereon (1996): ‘A Constraint on Remnant Movement’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14, 355–407. Müller, Gereon (1998): Incomplete Category Fronting - A Derivational Approach to Remnant Movement in German. Kluwer, Dordrecht. Müller, Gereon (2000a): ‘Das Pronominaladverb als Reparaturphänomen’, Linguistische Berichte 182, 139–178. Müller, Gereon (2000b): Elemente der optimalitätstheoretischen Syntax. Stauffenburg Verlag. Müller, Gereon (2000c): ‘Optimality, Markedness, and Word Order in German’, Linguistics 37, 777–818.

Bibliography

391

Müller, Gereon (2000d): Shape Conservation and Remnant Movement. In: M. Hirotani, A. Coetzee, N. Hall and J.-Y. Kim, eds, Proceedings of NELS 30. GLSA, Amherst, Massachusetts, pp. 525–539. Müller, Gereon (2004a): Phrase Impenetrability and Wh-Intervention. In: A. Stepanov, G. Fanselow and R. Vogel, eds, Minimality Effects in Syntax. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 289–325. Müller, Gereon (2004b): ‘Verb Second as vP-First’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7, 179–234. Müller, Gereon (2008): On Deriving CED-Effects from the PIC. Ms., Universität Leipzig. Müller, Gereon and Wolfgang Sternefeld (1993): ‘Improper Movement and Unambiguous Binding’, Linguistic Inquiry 24, 461–507. Müller, Gereon and Wolfgang Sternefeld (1996): ‘A-bar Chain Formation and Economy of Derivation’, Linguistic Inquiry 27, 480–511. Muriungi, Peter Kinyua (2003): Wh-questions in Kitharaka. Master’s thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. Murphy, Patrick Michael (1995): Pied Piping, Proper Government, and the Grammars of English. Master’s thesis, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Nakamura, Masanori (1998): Reference Set, MLC, and Parametrization. In: P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis and D. Pesetsky, eds, Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 291–313. Nakamura, Masanori (2002): On Feature Movement. In: A. Alexiadou, E. Anagnostopoulou, S. Barbiers and H.-M. Gärtner, eds, Dimensions of Movement. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 243–268. Nanni, Debbie L. and Justine Stillings (1978): ‘Three Remarks on Pied Piping’, Linguistic Inquiry 9, 310–318. Nishigauchi, Taisuke (1990): Quantification in the Theory of Grammar. Kluwer, Dordrecht. Nissenbaum, Jon (2000): Covert Movement and Parasitic Gaps. In Hirotani et al. (2000), pp. 542–555. Nissenbaum, Jon (2001): Investigations of Covert Phrase Movement. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Noonan, Máire (1997): ‘Functional Architecture and Wh-Movement: Irish as a Case in Point’, Canadian Journal of Linguistics 42, 111–139. Noonan, Máire (2002): CP-Pied Piping and Remnant IP-Movement in Long-Distance WhMovement. In Alexiadou et al. (2002), pp. 269–295. Obenauer, Hans-Georg (1976): Etudes de Syntaxe Interrogative du Français. Niemeyer, Tübingen. Ochi, Masao (1998): Move or Attract? In: E. Curtis, J. Cyle and G. Webster, eds, Proceedings of WCCFL 16. GSLI, Stanford, pp. 319–333. Ochi, Masao (1999): ‘Some Consequences of Attract F’, Lingua 109, 81–107. Ormazabal, Javier (1992): Asymmetries in Wh-Movement and Specific DPs. In: J. A. Lakarra and J. O. de Urbina, eds, Syntactic Theory and Basque Syntax. Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa, San Sebastian, pp. 273–294. Ortiz de Urbina, Jon (1989): Parameters in the Grammar of Basque. Foris, Dordrecht. Ortiz de Urbina, Jon (1990): Operator Feature Percolation and Clausal Pied-Piping. In: L. Cheng and H. Demirdache, eds, Papers on wh-Movement. Vol. 13, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 193–208.

392

Bibliography

Ortiz de Urbina, Jon (1993): Feature Percolation and Clausal Pied Piping. In: J. I. Hualde and J. O. de Urbina, eds, Generative Studies in Basque Linguistics. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 189–219. Pafel, Jürgen (1996): ‘Die syntaktische und semantische Struktur von was-für-Phrasen’, Linguistische Berichte 161, 37–67. Pérez-Leroux, Ana Teresa (1993): Empty Categories and the Acquisition of Wh-Movement. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Perzanowski, Dennis (1980): Appositive Relatives do have Properties. In: J. T. Jensen, ed., Proceedings of NELS 10. Cahiers Linguistiques d’Ottawa, Ottawa, pp. 355–368. Pesetsky, David (1982a): ‘Complementizer-Trace Phenomena and the Nominative Island Condition’, The Linguistic Review 1, 297–343. Pesetsky, David (1982b): Paths and Categories. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Pesetsky, David (1995): Zero Syntax. Experiencers and Cascades. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Pesetsky, David (2000): Phrasal Movement and its Kin. MIT-Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego (2007): The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In: S. Karimi, V. Samiian and W. K. Wilkins, eds, Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 262–294. Pollock, Jean-Yves (1989): ‘Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP’, Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365–424. Pollock, Jean-Yves (1993): Opérateurs nuls, dont, questions indirectes et théorie de la quantification. In: L. Tasmowski and A. Zribi-Hertz, eds, Hommages a` Nicolas Ruwet. Communication and Cognition, Ghent, pp. 440–463. Postal, Paul (1970): On So-Called Pronouns in English. In: R. A. Jacobs and P. S. Rosenbaum, eds, Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Ginn and Company, Waltham, Massachusetts, pp. 56–82. Postal, Paul (1971): Cross-Over Phenomena. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. Postal, Paul (1972a): ‘On Some Rules That Are Not Successive Cyclic’, Linguistic Inquiry 3, 211–222. Postal, Paul (1972b): ‘Two Remarks on Dragging’, Linguistic Inquiry 3, 130–136. Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky (2004): Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. In: J. J. McCarthy, ed., Optimality Theory in Phonology: A Reader. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 3– 71. Radford, Andrew (1997): Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English. A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge University Press, New York. Rapp, Irene (1992): Die w-Wörter wie, wieviel-, wievielt- im Rahmen einer DegP-Analyse. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, Nr. 7, Universität Tübingen. Rappaport, Gilbert (1995): ‘Wh-Movement-in-Comp in Slavic Syntax and in Logical Form’, Journal of Slavic Linguistics 3, 308–356. Reich, Ingo (2002): ‘Pied Piping and the Syntax and Semantics of Complex Wh-Phrases’, Georgetown University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics 2, 263–286. Reinhart, Tanya (1981): A Second Comp Position. In: A. Belletti, L. Brandi and L. Rizzi, eds, Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar. Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Pisa, pp. 517–557.

Bibliography

393

Reinhart, Tanya (1992): Wh-in-Situ: An Apparent Paradox. In: P. Dekker and M. Stokhof, eds, Proceedings of the Eighth Amsterdam Colloquium. ILLC, Universiteit van Amsterdam. Reinhart, Tanya (1994): Wh-in-Situ in the Framework of the Minimalist Program. OTS Working Papers, Universiteit Utrecht. Reinhart, Tanya (1999): The Processing Cost of Reference-Set Computation: Guess Patterns in Acquisition. OTS Working Papers, Universiteit Utrecht. Reis, Marga (1989): W-Interrogativsatzbildung und verwandte Erscheinungen. Untersuchungen anhand des Deutschen. Ms., Universität Tübingen. Reis, Marga (1991): Echo-w-Sätze und Echo-w-Fragen. In: M. Reis and I. Rosengren, eds, Fragesätze und Fragen. Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp. 49–76. Reis, Marga (1992): The Category of Invariant alles in Wh-Clauses: On Syntactic Quantifiers vs. Quantifying Particles in German. In: R. Tracy, ed., Who Climbs the Grammar Tree? Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp. 465–492. Reis, Marga (1995): Extractions from Verb-Second Clauses in German? In: U. Lutz and J. Pafel, eds, On Extraction and Extraposition in German. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 45–88. Reis, Marga (2000): On the Parenthetical Features of German was . . . w-Constructions and How to Account for Them. In: U. Lutz, G. Müller and A. von Stechow, eds, Wh-Scope Marking. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 357–407. Reis, Marga (2006): Gibt es interrogative VPs? Zu einem ungelösten Pied-Piping-Rätsel des Deutschen. In: H.-M. Gärtner, S. Beck, R. Eckardt, R. Musan and B. Stiebels, eds, Between 40 and 60 Puzzles for Krifka. ZAS, Berlin. Reis, Marga and Inger Rosengren (1992): ‘What Do Wh-Imperatives Tell Us About WhMovement?’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10, 79–118. Reuland, Eric (1983): ‘Governing -ing’, Linguistic Inquiry 14, 101–136. Richards, Norvin (2001): Movement in Language. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Rizzi, Luigi (1982): Issues in Italian Syntax. Foris, Dordrecht. Rizzi, Luigi (1990): Relativized Minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Rizzi, Luigi (1996): Residual Verb Second and the Wh-Criterion. In: A. Belletti and L. Rizzi, eds, Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 63–90. Rizzi, Luigi (1997): The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In: L. Haegeman, ed., Elements of Grammar. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 281–337. Roberts, Ian (1991): ‘Excorporation and Minimality’, Linguistic Inquiry 22, 209–218. Roeper, Tom (2003): Multiple Grammars, Feature Attraction, Pied-Piping, and the Question: Is AGR Inside TP? In: N. Müller, ed., (In)vulnerable Domains in Multilingualism. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 335–360. Ross, John Robert (1967): Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Ross, John Robert (1969): Guess Who. In: Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. University of Chicago, pp. 252–286. Ross, John Robert (1973): The Penthouse Principle and the Order of Constituents. In: C. Corum, T. C. Smith-Stark and A. Weiser, eds, You Take the High Node and I’ll Take the Low Node – Papers from the Comparative Syntax Festival. Chicago Linguisitc Society, Chicago, pp. 397–422. Ross, John Robert (1979): ‘Wem der Kasus schlägt’, Linguistische Berichte 63, 26–32.

394

Bibliography

Ross, John Robert (1986): Infinite Syntax. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, New Jersey. R˚uzˇ iˇcka, Rudolf (1989): Pied Piping im Russischen. In: W. Motsch, ed., Wortstruktur und Satzstruktur. Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR, Berlin, pp. 188–198. Ruys, E.G. (2000): ‘Weak Crossover as a Scope Phenomenon’, Linguistic Inquiry 31, 513– 539. Sabel, Joachim (1995): Restrukturierung und Lokalität. PhD thesis, Universität Frankfurt. Safir, Kenneth (1984): ‘Multiple Variable Binding’, Linguistic Inquiry 15, 603–638. Safir, Kenneth (1986): ‘Relative Clauses in a Theory of Binding and Levels’, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 663–689. Sag, Ivan A. (1997): ‘English Relative Clause Constructions’, Journal of Linguistics 32, 431– 483. Sauerland, Uli (1999): ‘Erasability and Interpretation’, Syntax 3, 161–188. Sauerland, Uli and Fabian Heck (2003): LF-Intervention Effects in Pied Piping. In: M. Kadowaki and S. Kawahara, eds, Proceedings of NELS 33. GLSA, Amherst, Massachusetts, pp. 347–366. Schmid, Tanja (2001): OT Accounts of Optionality: A comparison of Global Ties and Neutralization. In: G. Müller and W. Sternefeld, eds, Competition in Syntax. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 283–320. Seely, Daniel T. (1991): ‘On Weak Parasitic Gaps’, Linguistic Inquiry 22, 218–224. Selkirk, Elisabeth (1982): The Syntax of Words. MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts. Sells, Peter (1985): Pied Piping and the Feature [wh]. Ms., Stanford University, Ca. Simpson, Andrew and Tanmoy Bhattacharya (2000): Wh-Clausal Pied Piping in Bangla. In Hirotani et al. (2000), pp. 583–596. Smith Stark, Thomas (1988): ‘Pied-Piping’ con inversion en preguntas parciales. Ms., Centro de estudios lingü´ısticos y literarios, Colegio de México y Seminario de lenguas ind´ıgenas. Sobin, Nicholas (1997): ‘Agreement, Default Rules, and Grammatical Viruses’, Linguistic Inquiry 28, 318–343. Sportiche, Dominique (1988): ‘A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and Its Corollaries for Constituent Structure’, Linguistic Inquiry 19, 425–449. Sportiche, Dominique (1998): Partitions and Atoms of Clause Structure. Routledge, London. Starke, Michal (2001): Move Dissolves into Merge: a Theory of Locality. PhD thesis, University of Geneva. Sternefeld, Wolfgang (1985): ‘Deutsch ohne grammatische Funktionen’, Linguistische Berichte 99, 394–439. Sternefeld, Wolfgang (1991): Syntaktische Grenzen. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen. Sternefeld, Wolfgang (2001): Partial Movement Constructions, Pied Piping, and Higher Order Choice Functions. In: C. Féry and W. Sternefeld, eds, Audiatur Vox Sapientiae – A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow. Akademie Verlag, pp. 473–486. Sternefeld, Wolfgang (2006): Syntax – Eine morphologisch motivierte generative Beschreibung des Deutschen. Stauffenburg Verlag, Tübingen. Sternefeld, Wolfgang (2007): Ist interpretierbar interpretierbar? Ms., Universität Tübingen. Stockwell, Robert, Paul Schachter and Barbara Partee (1973): The Major Syntactic Structures of English. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York. Stroik, Thomas (1996): Minimalism, Scope, and VP-Structure. Sage Publication, London. Svenonius, Peter (1994): ‘C-Selection as Feature-Checking’, Studia Linguistica 48, 133–155.

Bibliography

395

Szabolcsi, Anna (1984): ‘The possessor that ran away from home’, The Linguistic Review 3, 89–102. Szabolcsi, Anna (1994): The Noun Phrase. In: F. Kiefer and K. Kiss, eds, The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 179–274. Takahashi, Daiko (1997): ‘Move-F and Null Operator Movement’, The Linguistic Review 14, 181–196. Takano, Yuji (2000): ‘Illicit Remnant Movment: An Argument for Feature-Driven Movement’, Linguistic Inquiry 31, 141–156. Tanaka, Hiroyuki (1999): ‘Non-Minimality of Generalized Pied-Piping’, Osaka University Papers in English Linguistics 4, 105–125. Tappe, Thilo (1989): A Note on Split Topicalization in German. In: C. Bhatt, E. Löbel and C. Schmidt, eds, Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena in Noun Phrases and Sentences. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 159–179. Taraldsen, Tarald (1978): ‘The Scope of Wh-Movement in Scandinavian’, Linguistic Inquiry 9, 623–640. Tellier, Christine (1990): ‘Subjacency and Subject Condition violations in French’, Linguistic Inquiry 21, 306–311. Tellier, Christine (1991): Licensing Theory and French Parasitic Gaps. Kluwer, Dordrecht. Tellier, Christine and Daniel Valois (1993): ‘Binominal chacun and Pseudo Opacity’, Linguistic Inquiry 24, 575–582. Thráinsson, Höskuldur (1979): On Complementation in Icelandic. Garland Publishing, New York. Torrego, Esther (1985): On Empty Categories in Nominals. University of Boston. Torrence, Harold (2005): Asking Questions Quietly: The Syntax of Silent Wh-Words in Wolof. Ms., University of Kansas, Lawrence. Travis, Lisa (1984): Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Trissler, Susanne (1991): Infinitivische w-Phrasen? In: M. Reis and I. Rosengren, eds, Fragesätze und Fragen. Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp. 123–144. Trissler, Susanne (1993): P-Stranding bei R-PPen im Deutschen. Ms., Universität Tübingen. Trissler, Susanne (1999): Syntaktische Bedingungen für w-Merkmale: Zur Bildung interrogativer w-Phrasen im Deutschen. PhD thesis, Universität Tübingen. Ura, Hiroyuki (2001): ‘Local Economy and Generalized Pied Piping’, The Linguistic Review 18, 169–191. Uriagereka, Juan (1999a): ‘Minimal Restrictions on Basque Movement’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17, 403–440. Uriagereka, Juan (1999b): Multiple Spell-Out. In: S. D. Epstein and N. Hornstein, eds, Working Minimalism. MIT Press, Cambrigde, Massachusetts, pp. 251–282. van de Velde, Marc (1977): ‘Der Nebensatztyp ‘ein Umstand den zu berücksichtigen er vergißt’ im Deutschen und Niederländischen’, Studia Germanica Gandensia 18, 73–118. van Riemsdijk, Henk (1978): A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness. The Binding Nature of Prepositional Phrases. Foris, Dordrecht. van Riemsdijk, Henk (1982): ‘Zum Rattenfängereffekt bei Infinitiven in deutschen Relativsätzen’, Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 21, 83–101. van Riemsdijk, Henk (1985): On Pied Piped Infinitives in German Relative Clauses. In: J. Toman, ed., Studies in German Grammar. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 165–192.

396

Bibliography

van Riemsdijk, Henk (1989): Movement and Regeneration. In: P. Benincà, ed., Dialectal Variation and the Theory of Grammar. Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 105–136. van Riemsdijk, Henk (1994): Another Note on Clausal Pied Piping. In: G. Cinque, J. Koster, J.-Y. Pollock, L. Rizzi and R. Zanuttini, eds, Paths towards universal grammar. Georgetown UP, Washington, DC, pp. 331–342. van Riemsdijk, Henk and Edwin Williams (1986): Introduction to the Theory of Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Vergnaud, Jean Roger (1974): French Relative Clauses. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Vikner, Sten (1995): Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Vogel, Ralf (2001): Case Conflict in German Free Relative Constructions. An Optimality Theoretic Treatment. In: G. Müller and W. Sternefeld, eds, Competition in Syntax. Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 341–376. von Bremen, Klaus (1987): ‘English Wh-Relativization: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives, Diachrony, Synchrony, and Linguistic Theory’, Ms., Indiana University Linguistics Club. von Stechow, Arnim (1992): Kompositionsprinzipien und grammatische Struktur. In: P. Suchsland, ed., Biologische und soziale Grundlagen der Sprache. Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp. 175– 248. von Stechow, Arnim (1996): ‘Against LF Pied Piping’, Natural Language Semantics 4, 57– 110. von Stechow, Arnim and Wolfgang Sternefeld (1988): Bausteine syntaktischen Wissens. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen. Watanabe, Akira (1992): ‘Wh-In-Situ, Subjacency, and Chain Formation’, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 2. Webelhuth, Gert (1992): Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Wexler, Kenneth and Peter Culicover (1980): Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Williams, Edwin (1981): ‘Argument Structure and Morphology’, The Linguistic Review 1, 81– 114. Wiltschko, Martina (1997): ‘D-Linking, Scrambling, and Superiority in German’, Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 41, 107–142. Wurmbrand, Susi (2001): Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Yoon, Jeong-Me (2000): Cyclic Spell-Out Model and a Parametric Approach to Pied Piping in English. In: M. Hirotani, A. Coetzee, N. Hall and J.-Y. Kim, eds, Proceedings of NELS 30. GLSA, Amherst, Massachusetts, pp. 747–758. Yoon, Jeong-Me (2002): ‘QR, Interface Economy, and Pied-Piping in English’, Language Research 38, 1077–1130. Yoquelet, Corey (2006): Masquerade and Pied-Piping. Ms., University of California, Berkeley. Zribi-Hertz, Anne (1984): ‘Orphan Prepositions in French’, Ms., Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Index

A- OVER -A P RINCIPLE , 199 accessibility, 194, 213, 350 across-the-board movement, 311, 312, 320 adjunct island, 97, 111, 140, 142, 148, 149, 206, 259, 303–308 Agree, 191 antecedent contained deletion, 318–320 anti-freezing, see melting Arabic, 2 Bangla, 105 Basque, 41, 55, 106, 133, 146, 234, 236, 237 Bavarian, 115–116, 234, 237, 238 Belfast English, 2 Berbice Dutch Creole, 122 B IJECTION P RINCIPLE , BP, 26 chain interleaving, 285–288, 306, 307, 360– 363 Chamorro, 143 checking domain, 5, 32 Chol Mayan, 38, 47–49, 87, 89, 145, 239 clausal pied-piping, 23, 25, 26, 59, 105– 116, 148–150, 218, 234–239 and the PEC, 218 in Bangla, 105 in Basque, 106, 146, 236 in Bavarian, 115–116, 237 in English, 149 in German, 109–115 in Haida, 46 in Italian, 361 in Latin, 107–109 in Quechua, 107 in Russian, 176–178, 358–361, 370 in Tlingit, 37 coherent vs. incoherent infinitive, 109, 110 complex noun phrase island, 97, 148, 149 C ONDITION ON E XTRACTION D OMAIN, CED, 67 constraint, 185

profile, 185 ranking, 185 tie, 275–276 C OORDINATE S TRUCTURE C ONSTRAINT , CSC, 310 crash, 147 cyclic spell-out, 218, 224, 278, 358 and secondary wh-movement, 241– 244 and the PIC, 347–353 Danish, 72, 77, 119–122, 130, 131, 134, 135, 137, 149, 154, 156, 158, 159, 214, 220, 222, 223, 252, 258, 279, 284, 289 derivation, 184–185 derived island, 68, 111, 242, 257, 268– 273, 276, 285, 360 distributed morphology, 58, 323 domain, 195, 215, 350 cyclic –, 69, 193 edge –, 195, 213, 350 specifier –, 350 double object construction, 307–308, 357– 359 in English, 177, 307, 308, 358 in Russian, 176, 358 Duala, 204 Dutch, 80, 153, 154, 158, 170, 173, 221, 262, 281, 328 echo-question, 90, 112, 124, 169, 236, 237, 245–248, 251, 253, 254, 256, 343–345 E CONOMY C ONDITION ON G ENERAL IZED P IED -P IPING , 31 edge generalization, 88, 225 E MPTY O UTPUT C ONSTRAINT , EOC, 219 English, 7, 10, 11, 19, 21, 27, 61–63, 69, 76–77, 88, 121, 123–128, 130, 134, 150–151, 168–169, 173– 175, 222, 223, 243, 252, 253,

398

Index 262, 299, 307, 313, 314, 322, 330, 338–342, 357, 367, 371

Ewe, 204 F EATURE C ONDITION, FC, 189 feature checking, 4 feature valuation, 45, 46, 190 floating quantifier, 137–142, 208, 255–256, 281, 289 freezing, 68, 111, 116, 208, 242, 269, 270, 272, 276, 277, 279, 280, 285– 287 French, 7, 17, 28, 82–84, 96–101, 123, 140– 141, 144–145, 151, 155, 164– 166, 168, 231–233, 246, 261, 263, 279, 284, 289, 291, 336, 337 Fusion, 323 generalization on massive pied-piping, 160, 297 generalization on recursive pied-piping, 76, 211 German, 2, 3, 29, 33, 40, 63–65, 80–82, 85, 91–92, 94, 102–103, 109– 116, 126–130, 132, 137–142, 147–148, 151, 153, 156–158, 170–172, 204, 214, 221–223, 226, 232, 234, 238, 240, 247– 252, 254–256, 265, 267, 276– 280, 288, 328 goal, 189 Greek, 155, 244, 279, 289 Haida, 46, 47, 50, 51, 53, 105 H EAD M OVEMENT C ONSTRAINT , HMC, 321 Hebrew, 2 Hungarian, 39, 43, 92, 226 I-topicalization, 278 Icelandic, 44, 63, 86, 130, 131, 134, 136, 137, 149, 152, 157, 159, 193, 220–221, 244 I NCLUSIVENESS C ONDITION , IC, 70 indirect object island, 139, 142, 151, 303, 307–308, 358

ineffability, 147–152, 219, 234, 267–268 intervention effect, 173–179, 346–371 derived by cyclic spell-out, 347–353 in English, 173–175, 353 in German, 354 in Italian, 175–176 in Russian, 176–179 intervention generalization, 173, 346 Irish, 38, 103–105, 229–231, 247, 285 Italian, 2, 7, 21, 28, 110, 117, 149, 161– 164, 168, 170, 175–176, 305, 306, 308, 313, 330, 335–337, 340, 351, 361 Japanese, 15, 45, 46, 54, 55, 60, 250, 310 Kitharaka, 205 Korean, 271 L AST R ESORT , LR, 189 Latin, 94, 96, 107–109, 155, 232, 234 L EFT B RANCH C ONDITION , LBC, 121 left branch island, 37, 39, 40, 121, 199, 200, 212, 261, 293 LF-intervention effect, 252, 256, 354 L OCAL AGREE , LA, 191 LP-I NTERVENTION C ONDITION, LPIC, 42 massive pied-piping, 10, 27–29, 110, 149, 160–172, 238, 264, 297–346 and wh-feature movement, 299–301, 303–315, 322–325 and appositive relative clauses, 297– 299 and covert phrasal movement, 315– 320 embedded vs. unembedded, 331–333 in Dutch, 173 in English, 168–169 in French, 164–166 in German, 170–172 in Italian, 161–164 in Romanian, 166 in Yiddish, 28, 173 melting, 208, 242, 285, 287 Merge, 184

Index Merge over Move, 187 Middle Scots, 104 M INIMAL L INK C ONDITION, MLC, 200 minimal residue, see checking domain minimalist program, 183 morphological Merger, 323 Move, 184 non-complement island, 34, 67, 139, 141, 146, 328, 361 Norwegian, 122, 130, 131, 134–137, 154, 156, 158, 220, 279, 284, 289 NP-split, 153–156, 277, 279, 280, 283, 284, 289–291 numeration, 184, 196 object shift, 279 optimality theory, 183 optimization, 185 local, 187 principle of, 186 P-stranding, 3, 37–40, 82, 83, 119–124, 152, 153, 162, 215, 216, 229, 258–259, 273, 274, 293 parasitic gap, 116, 315, 317–318, 346, 364 P ENTHOUSE P RINCIPLE , 167 phase, 193 P HASE BALANCE , PB, 202 P HASE E DGE C ONDITION, PEC, 218 P HASE I MPENETRABILITY C ONDITION, PIC, 193 φ -feature, 33, 44, 57, 66 P Hr ASE BALANCE , PrB, 349 pied-piping, 3 and the CSC, 310–312, 320 generalized, 30–32, 34 interpretation of, 1, 35 optional, 16, 33, 35, 75, 79, 92, 118, 123, 152–160, 176, 230, 273– 294, 320, 328, 366 secondary, 48–50, 96, 102, 114, 249 superiority and, 61–65 Polish, 79, 93–94, 155, 214, 226, 365 Portuguese, 94 PP-island, 40, 73, 83, 96, 119, 123, 216

399

P RINCIPLE OF M AXIMIZED M ATCHING, 190 P RINCIPLE OF U NAMBIGUOUS B INDING, PUB, 270 probe, 189 active, 191 projection, 3 extended, 20–21 g-, 10, 15 P ROPER B INDING C ONDITION, PBC, 69 pseudo-optionality, 289–294 Q-particle, 35–56, 61–65 QP-I NTERVENTION C ONDITION, QPIC, 38 Quechua, 55, 59, 107, 234 R-pronoun, 3, 153, 254–255, 274, 277, 281, 293, 354 R AISING P RINCIPLE , 68 recursive pied-piping, 76–86, 163, 211– 216 breakdown of, 86–88, 216–219 in Danish, 77–79, 214 in Dutch, 80 in English, 76–77, 211–214 in French, 82–84 in German, 80–82, 84–86, 214–216 in Italian, 85 in Polish, 79–80, 214 in Russian, 79, 86, 214 reference set, 185 rel-feature, 2 rel-movement, 2 relative clause island, 46 remnant movement, 280–289 pied-piping as, 285–289 stranding as, 280–285 repair generalization, 117, 257 repair-driven movement, 192 repair-driven pied-piping, 117–146 in Basque, 146, 261 in Chamorro, 143, 261 in Danish, 258–261 in English, 123–128, 130, 134, 261 in French, 140–141, 144–145, 261

400

Index

in German, 126–130, 132, 137–142, 261 in Russian, 133, 261 in Scandinavian, 119–123, 131–132, 134–137, 261 in Tzotzil, 145–146, 261 roll-up movement, see secondary pied-piping Romani, 315 Romanian, 49, 94–96, 166, 231–233 Russian, 38, 48, 49, 79, 86, 133, 155, 176– 179, 214, 220, 244, 279, 289, 293, 358–362, 369–371 San Dionicio Zapotec, 89, 145, 239 scrambling, 239, 276, 280, 282–284, 286 in German, 39, 40, 110, 112, 113, 268, 277, 281 in Greek, 279 in Russian, 178, 279, 358, 360 lack of – in English, 126, 277, 286 lack of – in French, 97, 279 lack of – in Scandinavian, 279 of wh-phrase, 249, 271, 279, 285 of predicate, 277, 278, 289 Sinhala, 41, 54, 60 sluicing, 16, 31, 121, 240, 256, 257 Spanish, 94, 101–102, 123, 249–250 specifier-head agreement, 19, 22, 56–58 configuration, 5, 190 S TRICT C YCLE C ONDITION, SCC, 193 string-vacuous movement, 34, 116, 224, 242, 243, 283, 285, 298 stylistic fronting, 136 Subcat, 331 subject island, 34, 63, 97, 99, 111, 139, 141, 144, 148, 150, 151, 217, 267, 303–307 Swedish, 78, 122, 135, 136, 158 swiping, 121, 240, 256–257 tense effect, 313–315, 346, 369 Tlingit, 35–56, 60, 105 topicalization, 16, 19, 27, 28, 39, 101, 115, 126, 131, 132, 134, 135, 138, 238, 239, 253, 269, 271, 344, 369

Tzotzil, 47, 49, 57, 71, 72, 87, 89–91, 93, 145–146, 155, 226–229, 239, 243, 246 V/2-effect, 2, 106, 111, 112, 115 Wackernagel movement, 40, 63, 129 weak crossover, 236, 316–317 wh-exclamative, 2 wh-imperative, 2 wh-degree construction, 33, 69, 156–157, 221–225, 252–253 wh-feature, 2 wh-feature movement, 32, 34, 66–70, 84, 224, 225, 266, 300–322, 326– 328, 337, 338, 345–347, 352, 353, 358, 360–362, 367–369 wh-feature percolation, 5–7, 11, 17, 21, 23, 29, 35, 56–65, 214, 300– 303 elimination of, 65–73 wh-in-situ, 37, 49, 50, 60, 82–84, 190, 245– 250 wh-island, 140, 148, 179, 288, 298, 299 wh-movement, 1, 2 alleged secondary, 250–257 covert phrasal, 82–84, 224, 225, 266, 267, 305, 306, 315–320, 329, 353 in relative vs. interrogative clauses, 2 internal, see secondary wh-movement long, 99, 100, 107, 112, 146, 269, 287 partial, 204, 315 primary, 89 secondary, 26, 30, 47–50, 54, 55, 71, 72, 89–116 and massive pied-piping, 364–369 and the PEC, 231–239 in Basque, 106, 227 in Bavarian, 115–116, 227 in French, 96–101, 227, 229 in German, 91–92, 102–103, 109– 115, 226, 227 in Haida, 51 in Hungarian, 92, 226

Index in Irish, 103–105, 229–231 in Latin, 107–109, 227 in Polish, 93–94, 226 in Quechua, 107, 227 in Romanian, 94–96, 227 in Spanish, 101–102, 227 in Tlingit, 51 in Tzotzil, 89–91, 226–229 lack of, 116–117, 239–241, 247– 250 successive cyclic, 67, 89, 183, 201– 209, 218, 234, 239, 246, 314, 321, 327, 362 wh-word, 2 in English, 2, 45, 338–342 in French, 164, 165 in German, 2, 45, 170, 171 in Haida, 46 in Italian, 161, 162, 336–338, 340 in Japanese, 45 in Tlingit, 45 with DP-shell, 336–337, 340–342 without DP-shell, 338–339

401

Wolof, 205 workspace, 185 Yiddish, 28–29, 173, 328 zero operator, 314, 315, 334, 335, 346

On Pied-Piping: Wh-Movement and Beyond

Beyond Forgiveness: Reflections on Atonement

Aristotle and Beyond: Essays on Metaphysics and Ethics

Beyond

Beyond Panini (Beyond Series)

Beyond Desserts (Beyond Series)

The Willows and Beyond

Transition and Beyond

Beyond Good and Evil

Here and Beyond

Beyond Birth and Death

Beyond Good and Evil

Altruism and beyond

Dead and Beyond

Utilitarianism and Beyond

11, Afghanistan and Beyond

Beyond Red And Blue

Musicals: Hollywood and beyond

UMTS Networks and Beyond

Putnam and Beyond

Putnam and Beyond

Forever and Beyond

Beyond Good and Evil

Geometry: Euclid and Beyond

Geometry: Euclid and Beyond

Early vision and beyond

Beyond Westminster and Whitehall

Dead and Beyond

Beyond Good and Evil

Beyond Good And Evil

Putnam and beyond

On Pied-Piping: Wh-Movement and Beyond

Beyond Forgiveness: Reflections on Atonement

Aristotle and Beyond: Essays on Metaphysics and Ethics

Beyond

Beyond Panini (Beyond Series)

Beyond Desserts (Beyond Series)

The Willows and Beyond

Transition and Beyond

Beyond Good and Evil

Here and Beyond

Beyond Birth and Death

Beyond Good and Evil

Altruism and beyond

Dead and Beyond

Utilitarianism and Beyond

11, Afghanistan and Beyond

Beyond Red And Blue

Musicals: Hollywood and beyond

UMTS Networks and Beyond

Putnam and Beyond

Putnam and Beyond

Forever and Beyond

Beyond Good and Evil

Geometry: Euclid and Beyond

Geometry: Euclid and Beyond

Early vision and beyond

Beyond Westminster and Whitehall

Dead and Beyond

Beyond Good and Evil

Beyond Good And Evil

Putnam and beyond

Recommend Documents