Syntactic Movements

Table of contents

1. Introduction

2. Feature Checking
2.1 Merge
2.2 Constituent-command

3.Head Movement

4. Argument Movement

5. Wh-Movement
5.1 Wh-expressions
5.2 Auxiliary questions
5.3 Do-support
5.4 Yes/no questions
5.5 Echo-questions
5.6 Subject wh-questions

6. Conclusion

Literature

1. Introduction

In the course of this term paper I will analyze three kinds of syntactic movements, which will be the Head Movement, Argument Movement and the Wh-Movement.

Initially I will defer to basic knowledge such as Feature Checking, Merge and C-Command since these operations are the basis of syntactic comprehension.

After a short introduction I will briefly discuss and explain the Head Movement and the Argument Movement with the help of examples before I focus on the latter, namely the Wh-Movement. This syntactic operation will be the core of this paper. I will try to analyze the latest concepts and approaches to this issue and try to illustrate the way Wh-Movement takes place by several examples.

I decided to concentrate on Adger’s and Radford’s points of view on this topic since they rate among the most accepted syntacticians worldwide. Despite this I will parse their statements very closely and try to find potential differences or grievances.

An interesting question will be whether all operations can be explained in a plausible way or if there are arbitrary assumptions without any evidence.

2. Feature Checking

Syntacticians assume that every word of a sentence bears certain features. These features are called categorial-selectional (or c-selectional) features and can be either interpretable or uninterpretable. A noun, for example, bears an interpretable feature [N], a verb [V], an adverbial [Adv] and a preposition the feature [P].

A verb cannot stand alone in a sentence but it needs the existence of a subject. In order to explain this phenomenon linguists came to the assumption that a verb has to bear uninterpretable features as well.

Since a verb needs the presence of a subject, which usually is a DP, it is assumed that the verb bears next to the interpretable feature [V] the uninterpretable feature [N] (abbreviated [uN]).

2.1 Merge

This uninterpretable feature has to be checked and deleted in order to form a grammatically correct sentence. This happens via the operation of Merge. Merge can only take place when the uninterpretable feature of the verb gets checked by the matching categorial feature of the noun.

(1) Tom sings.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Since a transitive verb like to play needs two nouns in order to form a correct sentence we have to consider transitive verbs to bear two [uD]´s.

(2) Tom plays football.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

As we find out there is a connection between the number of [uD]´s of a verb and the θ-roles which can or will be assigned by it. This means, if a verb is intransitive (i.e. it needs only an agent) it bears only one [uD]. If a verb is transitive (i.e. it needs to assign two θ-roles, namely the agent and usually the theme) it bears two [uD]´s, and if it is a ditransitive one it bears three [uD]´s (or two [uD]´s and one [uP]) which have to be checked and deleted (Adger, p. 91).

2.2 Constituent-command

Since there is no possibility for more than two nodes to merge and build a sisterhood relationship we have to take a look at another relationship. In example (2) we saw the verb play merged with the DP football and one [uD] got checked and deleted. The remained unchecked [uD] was transported up to the next projection, namely V´ which merged with the DP Tom in the aftermath.

Now Tom constituent-commands (abbreviated c-commands) V´ and vice versa since they are in a sisterhood relation. Furthermore there is evidence that Tom c-commands not only V´ but also every node it contains (i.e. play and football as well).

To prove this we analyze a sentence with a reflexive pronoun:

(3) I shave myself.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

We see that both the subject and the reflexive pronoun share φ-features (information on number, gender and person). The reflexive pronoun gets the information on how to get realized from the subject since it is c-commanded by it (Adger, p. 118). This phenomenon prevents the construction of ill-formed sentences like: * I shave yourself.

3. Head Movement

A Head Movement takes place when a head of a phrase merges with a head of another phrase. The most important Head Movements which I will introduce are the Head Movement from the head of the auxiliary (Perf or Prog) to the head of T and the movement from the head of T to the head of C.

First we take a look at the auxiliary movement. The auxiliary have within a Perfect sentence is in the head of the Perfect Phrase (PerfP).

illustration not visible in this excerpt

When the uninterpretable tense feature [uinfl] of the head of the PerfP is valued by T it is always valued as strong. This means that the head of the PerfP has to move into a local configuration with T (they merge). If we take a look at the hierarchy of projections [C> T> (Neg) > (Perf)> (Prog)> (Pass)> V] (Adger, p. 177f) we find out that Negations are merged higher up than Perf, but still there are sentences like:

(4) I have not done this.

This shows us that Perf must have been moved to T since have precedes not.

Another example of Head Movement is the movement of T to C. We find this phenomenon in Subject-Auxiliary-Inversion (SAI) clauses (for example in questions) (Radford 1999, p. 323):

(5) Have you done this?

Since we assume that the subject is in the specifier position of T we have to believe that the auxiliary have must have been moved from Perf to T and then again from T to C. This is the only way to explain the appearance of the auxiliary in front of the subject.

I will explain this movement in detail in the course of this work.

4. Argument Movement

An Argument Movement is when a DP moves from a complement position to the subject position (Radford, p. 334) . One example is the passivisation of a clause.

[...]