This essay is going to provide an in-depth account for the phenomenon of wh-movement in English along the lines of Chomsky’s Government and Binding theory (GB), a transformational approach in which wh-movement is described as constituent movement. The analysis will mainly focus on wh-movement in interrogative sentences. First, the theory of Government and Binding is being briefly presented and the term “wh-movement” is going to be defined. Subsequently, the different types of wh-movement occurring in languages are being presented together with wh-movement at LF. This introduction of the topic is going to be followed by an overview of prominent constraints that account for illicit wh-movement. The focus of analysis is going to be on Ross’s (1967) island constraints and Chomsky’s (1977) Subjacency. The description of wh-movement in interrogative sentences and its constraints will provide the theoretical foundation for the subsequent problem analysis: Specifically, this analysis addresses the question why there are some sentences that involve the violation of wh-islands but are acceptable for English native speakers. At the end of this essay, it is going to be briefly shown how wh-movement is being analyzed in the framework of the Minimalist Program, the successor of GB and current most prominent theory of Universal Grammar.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Brief Overview of Government and Binding Theory
3 What is Wh-Movement?
4 Typology of Wh-Movement and Movement at LF
5 Wh-Movement in Interrogative Sentences in English
5.1. Subject/Auxiliary-Inversion
5.2. Constraints on Wh-Movement at S-structure
6 PROBLEM ANALYSIS: Why are Certain Constructions that Violate the Wh-Island Constraint Acceptable?
7 Sketch of Wh-Movement in the Minimalist Program
8 Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This academic paper provides an in-depth linguistic investigation into the phenomenon of wh-movement within the framework of Government and Binding (GB) theory, specifically examining interrogative sentences in English. The central research objective is to resolve the theoretical paradox of why certain syntactic constructions, which seemingly violate established island constraints, remain acceptable to native speakers, ultimately proposing the Empty Category Principle as a necessary analytical supplement.
- Theoretical foundations of Government and Binding (GB) theory.
- Taxonomy of wh-movement types and logical form (LF) operations.
- Analysis of Ross’s island constraints and Chomsky’s Subjacency.
- Investigation into the acceptability of wh-island constraint violations.
- Evaluation of the Empty Category Principle (ECP) and Gamma-marking.
- Overview of wh-movement within the Minimalist Program.
Excerpt from the Book
PROBLEM ANALYSIS: Why are Certain Constructions that Violate the Wh-Island Constraint Acceptable?
There is an acceptability contrast between the sentences in the following two pairs (adapted from Huang 1982:333):
(33) a. * Who did you wonder how bought the book?
b. ?? What did you wonder how he bought?
(34) a. * How do you wonder which problem John could solve?
b. ?? Which problem do you wonder how John could solve?
Whereas (33a)/(34a) is ungrammatical, (33b)/(34b) is acceptable (indicated by “??”). In (33) as well as in (34) a wh-phrase is moved out of a wh-island. Both are not fully grammatical as here Subjacency is being violated. The following illustrates the violation of Subjacency by analysing (33), here reformulated as (35):
(35) a. * [CP1 Whoi [IP1 did you wonder [CP2 howj [IP2 ti bought the book tj ]]]?
b. ?? [CP1 Whati [IP1 did you wonder [CP2 howj [IP2 he bought ti tj]]]?
(35a) contains two wh-phrases: “who” is base-generated in [Spec,IP2] within the embedded CP. From there it moves up to the matrix [Spec,CP1], crossing two boundary nodes, namely IP2 and IP1. “how” is base-generated in the adjunct position of VP within the embedded CP2 and moves up to the next higher [Spec,CP2] within the embedded CP2, only crossing one boundary node (IP2) and therefore not violating Subjacency.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter introduces the study of wh-movement in the GB framework and outlines the scope of the analysis regarding island constraints and the Minimalist Program.
2 Brief Overview of Government and Binding Theory: This section provides a fundamental overview of Chomsky’s transformational approach, detailing levels of representation and the general mechanism of "move alpha".
3 What is Wh-Movement?: This chapter defines the syntactic nature of wh-movement, its landing sites, and empirical evidence for the existence of traces in interrogative structures.
4 Typology of Wh-Movement and Movement at LF: The chapter categorizes wh-movement into overt, covert, and partly overt types, and discusses universal requirements for logical form.
5 Wh-Movement in Interrogative Sentences in English: This chapter examines specific English phenomena, including subject-auxiliary inversion and the structural constraints on movement at S-structure.
6 PROBLEM ANALYSIS: Why are Certain Constructions that Violate the Wh-Island Constraint Acceptable?: This central chapter explains the grammatical acceptability of specific violations through the application of the Empty Category Principle (ECP).
7 Sketch of Wh-Movement in the Minimalist Program: This section provides a brief transition to the Minimalist Program, focusing on feature checking and the Shortest Move principle.
8 Conclusion: The final chapter synthesizes the findings, confirming that the ECP is an essential independent principle for analyzing syntactic constraints.
Keywords
Wh-movement, Government and Binding theory, Subjacency, Island constraints, Empty Category Principle, Syntax, Interrogative sentences, Logical Form, Minimalist Program, Gamma-marking, Movement at LF, Trace, Proper government, Constituent movement, S-structure.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this work?
The paper examines the phenomenon of wh-movement in English interrogative sentences using the theoretical lens of Government and Binding (GB) theory.
What are the central themes discussed in the analysis?
Key themes include syntactic movement, the structural constraints (islands) that restrict this movement, and the mechanisms of logical form representation.
What is the main research objective?
The study aims to explain why certain sentences that violate standard wh-island constraints are perceived as more acceptable than others by native English speakers.
Which theoretical framework is primarily utilized?
The analysis is rooted in Noam Chomsky's Government and Binding (GB) theory, with a final comparative overview of the Minimalist Program.
What does the main body of the work cover?
It covers the taxonomy of movement types, the definition of Subjacency, and a detailed problem analysis utilizing the Empty Category Principle (ECP) and Gamma-marking.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
Key terms include Wh-movement, Subjacency, Island constraints, Empty Category Principle, and Minimalist Program.
Why does the author argue that Subjacency alone is insufficient?
The author argues that while Subjacency explains many constraints, it cannot fully account for the nuance in acceptability of certain island violations, necessitating the inclusion of the ECP.
How does the Minimalist Program differ from GB regarding movement?
The Minimalist Program replaces concepts like D-structure and S-structure with a feature-checking approach and utilizes principles such as "Shortest Move" instead of traditional Subjacency.
- Citation du texte
- Christian Kreß (Auteur), 2007, A Comprehensive Analysis of Wh-Movement in Interrogative Sentences in English, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/126669
