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
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
Objectives and Research Focus
This paper aims to analyze three fundamental types of syntactic movement—Head Movement, Argument Movement, and Wh-Movement—within the framework of minimalist syntax. The central research question examines whether these syntactic operations can be explained through consistent, evidence-based principles or if they rely on arbitrary assumptions, with a specific focus on the complex behavior of wh-subject questions.
- Examination of feature checking, Merge, and c-command operations.
- Comparative analysis of Adger’s and Radford’s syntactic frameworks.
- Investigation of Subject-Auxiliary-Inversion (SAI) and the role of do-support.
- Evaluation of theoretical models for wh-movement in embedded and yes/no questions.
- Critical assessment of existing theories regarding the movement patterns of wh-subjects.
Excerpt from the Book
5.1 Wh-expressions
In English they are called wh-expressions because most of them begin with the letters wh (where, when, who, what, but also how) (Adger, p.345). We see that these so-called wh-expressions have a special status and are to be treated in a given way.
Sentence (11) is not grammatically well-formed. Instead of this construction we would prefer something like this:
(13) You have done that.
Comparing example (13) with (9) we find out that that is in the θ-role position of theme and that the wh-expression what represents the same θ-role but it is moved to another position. While that is in a local configuration with the lexical verb do (they are sisters) what precedes the subject and also the auxiliary. There are two questions which immediately arise:
Where has it moved to and why has it moved at all?
Since we assume that the auxiliary have has moved from T to C because of the phenomenon that C bears an interpretable clause-type (abbreviated [clause]) feature [Q] which values the uninterpretable clause-type (abbreviated [uclause]) feature on T as [uQ*] and therefore triggers a Head Movement this leads to the assumption that what must have been moved to the specifier position of C (because it precedes C) (Adger, p. 349).
There are two reasons why what cannot be in the head position of C:
1. This position is already occupied by the auxiliary.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the scope of the paper, focusing on the analysis of three primary types of syntactic movement and the theoretical contributions of Adger and Radford.
2. Feature Checking: Explains the necessity of feature checking and the operations of Merge and constituent-command in forming grammatically correct sentences.
3.Head Movement: Discusses the movement of heads of phrases, specifically focusing on auxiliary movement from Perf to T and T to C.
4. Argument Movement: Describes how DPs move from complement positions to subject positions, using passivisation as a primary example.
5. Wh-Movement: Investigates the structural properties of questions, including wh-expressions, do-support, and the complexities of yes/no and subject wh-questions.
6. Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings, highlighting the persistent challenges in explaining wh-subject movement and proposing alternative considerations.
Keywords
Syntax, Minimalist Program, Feature Checking, Merge, C-command, Head Movement, Wh-Movement, Argument Movement, Subject-Auxiliary-Inversion, Do-support, Yes/no questions, Wh-expressions, Linguistic Theory, Auxiliary, Syntactic Operation
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper explores syntactic movement, specifically analyzing how words and phrases move within a sentence structure according to minimalist syntax theories.
Which linguistic operations are identified as central to the study?
The study centers on Feature Checking, Merge, C-command, Head Movement, Argument Movement, and Wh-Movement.
What is the primary objective of this research?
The goal is to determine if syntactic operations are governed by logical, plausible principles or if they are based on arbitrary assumptions, specifically looking at how different syntacticians explain these movements.
Which scientific method is applied?
The author uses a comparative theoretical approach, analyzing syntactic models proposed by Adger and Radford and evaluating their validity through structural tree diagrams and examples.
What is discussed in the main body regarding wh-movement?
The main body examines how wh-expressions move from their base positions to the specifier position of the CP, the role of auxiliaries, and the phenomena of do-support.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Keywords include Syntax, Minimalist Program, Feature Checking, Wh-Movement, and C-command.
How does the author explain the occurrence of do-support?
Do-support is explained as a mechanism that occurs when the chain between T and the verb is broken during movement, necessitating a "dummy" auxiliary to satisfy tense requirements.
What special problem do wh-subject questions pose?
Wh-subject questions create a theoretical dilemma because they do not always trigger the standard T to C movement expected in other question types, leading to debates about whether they should be categorized differently in syntactic tree structures.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Mergim Bytyci (Autor:in), 2008, Syntactic Movements , München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/134707
