Given then-current assumptions concerning phrase structure (X' theory hadn't yet been introduced), the A-over-A constraint is illustrated by the contrast in (2).
Against the backdrop of what was known about wh- movement in the
early 1960s, the island constraints discussed in Chapter 11 represented significant
empirical progress.
But from a more theoretical point of view, the island constraints are
simply a list of stipulations, and they sharply raise the question of
whether it is possible to reduce them to fewer, deeper structural
principles (ideally, a single such principle). In this chapter,
we discuss two influential proposals with this aim: the
subjacency condition and the Empty Category Principle
(ECP). As we will see, the reduction of the constraints on wh-
movement to more general principles has proven a considerable challenge
to syntactic theory, and one that persists to the present day. In
particular, no satisfactory overarching framework has yet been found
that subsumes the entire range of island constraints. The island
constraints themselves therefore remain as an empirical benchmark
against which to measure any theoretical proposal concerning constraints
on wh- movement.
When we consider examples of long-distance wh- movement like those in (3),
two possible derivations come to mind.
On the one hand, the wh- phrase might move from the position in which
it is interpreted, however deeply embedded that is, to the sentence-initial
Spec(CP) position in one fell swoop, yielding a wh- movement chain with two
links, as in (4). On the other hand, wh- movement might take place in more
than one step. The first step takes the moved constituent from its original
position to the nearest Spec(CP), and each subsequent step takes it to the
next higher Spec(CP). This derivation of (3), which involves two steps
and yields a wh- movement chain with three links, is shown in (5).
The derivation in (5) is known as a cyclic derivation (the
idea being that each successively higher clause (= CP) forms a
separate cycle in the derivation of the entire sentence), and the
derivation in (4) is accordingly known as noncyclic. Notice that the
noncyclic and cyclic derivations in (4) and (5) differ in the presence of
an intermediate trace, which is highlighted by a box in (5).
However, the existence of syntactic islands forces us to choose the
cyclic alternative. For instance, consider the ungrammatical question in
(7a) (= (23b) of Chapter
11 and its cyclic derivation in (7b).
If wh- movement were able to occur in one fell swoop, then there would be
nothing to stop long-distance wh- movement in (7a), and the question should
be grammatical, contrary to fact. But the ungrammaticality of the question
can be made to follow from the assumption that wh- movement is cyclic.
Specifically, let's assume that wh- movement is subject to the condition in
(8), and that IPs form barriers to movement, as indicated by the
boxes in (7b).
The condition in (8) has the consequence that a wh-
constituent can move out of an IP that dominates it just in case an empty
local Spec(CP) is available or can be generated as an intermediate landing
site. By local Spec(CP), we mean the specifier of a CP whose head
is a sister of the IP in question. In the absence of such a landing site,
as in (7b), wh- movement is correctly ruled out as ungrammatical.
Notice that the ungrammaticality of (7a) depends on the indirect
question containing two wh- phrases: how and which problem.
The representation in (7b) assumes that which problem moves before
how does (note the order of the indices), thereby preventing the
complement Spec(CP) from serving as an escape hatch for
how. It is also necessary to rule out an alternative derivation,
according to which the constituent that moves first is how. In this
case, the complement Spec(CP) is empty, and how can move through it
up to the matrix Spec(CP), as shown in (9). Notice that only one IP
barrier (indicated in green) intervenes between any pairs of links in the
movement chain, so that this part of the derivation does not violate the
subjacency condition in (8).
But now the intermediate trace of how blocks the movement of
which problem into the lower Spec(CP). As the contrast in (10)
shows, this movement is necessary for the complement clause to be
interpreted properly as an indirect question. As a result, the derivation
begun in (9) fails, and (7a) continues to be ruled out as desired.
If the only barriers in English were IPs, then wh- movement out of noun
complements and left branch structures like those in (11) (=
(20b) and (26b) of Chapter
11) would be expected to be grammatical, contrary to fact. The
structures are given in (11); the green IP nodes are intended to indicate
that the derivation is consistent with subjacency under the (incorrect)
assumption that the only barriers are IPs.
However, the ungrammaticality of (11) can be derived straightforwardly
if the set of barriers in English includes not only IPs, but also DPs.
This is illustrated in (12), where red indicates barriers that cause
subjacency to be violated. As before, green indicates barriers that are
consistent with subjacency.
Given the theoretical character of the subjacency condition, it should come
as no surprise that it has an empirical consequence that goes beyond the
range of facts that it was intended to explain. Specifically, it leads one
to expect any movement out of a noun phrase, not just movement of a left
branch, to be ungrammatical. (13b) gives an example that behaves as
expected.
Notice, by the way, that the unacceptability of (13b) cannot be
attributed to preposition stranding, since the pied piping counterpart of
(13b) remains unacceptable, as expected given the structure in (14).
As we will see later on in our discussion of the ECP, the predictions made
by subjacency in connection with movement out of DPs, while correct in the
case of (13b) and (14), are too strict. In other words, subjacency (as it
stands, with all instances of IP and DP as barriers) incorrectly rules out
grammatical instances of wh- movement.
Although the internal structure of coordinate phrases is not well
understood, it is clear that a coordinate noun phrase like tiramisu and
espresso is a recursive structure consisting of a DP that dominates two
further DPs, as in (16).
Given this structure, the ungrammaticality of the examples in (16)
follows from subjacency, as shown in (17).
However, not all examples that violate the coordinate structure
constraint also violate subjacency. For instance, in (18) and (19), where
syntactic categories other than DP are coordinated, only a single IP
barrier intervenes between the moved phrase in Spec(CP) and its trace.
A further example of this sort is shown in (20b).
As (21) shows, (20b) violates a parallelism constraint known as the
across-the-board (ATB) constraint, according to which movement of
a constituent out of a coordinate structure must affect all co-conjuncts
simultaneously.
The exceptional behavior of coordinate structures with regard to
subjacency (expected to be grammatical, yet in fact not so) and the
additional special restriction imposed upon them (the ATB constraint just
mentioned) strongly suggest that the coordinate structure constraint is
sui generis, and that it should not be grouped together with the
other island constraints. Accordingly, most proposals to reduce the island
constraints to more general principles make no attempt to include the
coordinate structure constraint, and we, too, will make no further mention
of it.
The island constraints and the subjacency condition that subsumes them
correctly account for much, but not all, of the spectrum of relevant facts
concerning wh- movement. For instance, Ross himself observed that it is
more acceptable to move complements out of indirect questions than it is to
move adjuncts. Subjects (also non-complements) behave like adjuncts, giving
the pattern in (22).
In order to account for the contrast between complements and
non-complements with respect to long-distance wh- movement, it has been
proposed that traces of movement must satisfy a condition distinct from
subjacency, the so-called Empty Category Principle (ECP). Early
formulations of the ECP (Aoun, Hornstein, and Sportiche
1982, Huang 1982, Lasnik and
Saito 1984) were disjunctive; that is, they consisted of two mutually
exclusive conditions. In the course of the 1980s, attempts were made to
reformulate the ECP in conjunctive terms; that is, as two conditions that
traces of movement must satisfy simultaneously. In our view, these
attempts have not been successful, because they continue to impose
different conditions on the movement of complements and of non-complements.
That is, even if the ECP itself is no longer formulated in a disjunctive
way, the disjunction it contained is not resolved, but simply appears
elsewhere in the proposals in question. For instance, Rizzi
1990 distinguishes two ways of establishing a legitimate
antecedent-trace relation, one for complements, and one for
non-complements. We will therefore continue to maintain a disjunctive
version of the ECP, specifically (23).
We discuss the two conditions on traces in turn. The notion of
antecedent government is defined in (24) (see Node relations for a
definition of binding).
As is evident, clause (ii) of the definition of antecedent government
recapitulates the subjacency condition, and it is easy to see that the
antecedent government clause of the ECP therefore enforces cyclic movement.
This of course derives the ungrammaticality of (22b,c), but leaves the
relative acceptability of (22a) unexplained. However, as we will see
directly, (22a), though violating the antecedent government condition of
the ECP, satisfies the alternative lexical government condition.
The notion of lexical government to be presented in what follows
relies on the concept of lexical government domain (which is
based on the concept of g(overnment)-projection proposed in
Kayne 1984). The term 'governor of XP' in (25a)
refers to the head that stands in a head-comp configuration with
XP.1
As is evident, the definition in (25) is recursive. We begin by
considering the nonrecursive case in (i), which is very simple. Consider
the configuration in (26), where we take the DP complement of the
preposition as XP and the PP as YP.
In (26), the governor of the DP is the preposition, and so the PP (the
preposition's maximal projection) is a lexical government domain for the DP.
Now consider the more complex structure in (27), where we continue to
take the DP complement of the preposition as XP, but it is now VP that is
the YP.
Is VP a lexical government domain for the lower DP? (25.i) is not met,
since the head of VP, V, does not govern the DP in question. But V does
govern PP, which we determined to be a lexical government domain for DP in
(26). Therefore, VP is a lexical government domain for DP in (27) by (25.ii).
Given (26) and (27), it is now easy to see that any lexical government
domain can be extended simply by substituting it as a complement of a higher
head; that head's maximal projection is then in turn a lexical government
domain. Thus, all the structures in (28) are lexical government domains
for the lowest complement DP.
Lexical government itself can then be defined as in (29).
The notion of 'proper governor' in (29.i) is introduced in light of
crosslinguistic contrasts like that between (30) and (31).
The idea is that only a proper subset of governors (=
heads) is 'strong' enough to license a trace by lexical government.
Exactly which heads belong to the set of proper governors can vary by
language. For instance, prepositions are proper governors in English and
Swedish, but not in French or German. As a result, the traces in (30) are
lexically governed, whereas those in (31) are not, despite the analogous
configurations in both cases. It should be emphasized that proper
government figures only in the definition of lexical government itself, not
in the definition of the concept of lexical government domain. So although
the French preposition à 'to' cannot itself license a trace,
it can license the extension of a lexical government domain. This is shown
by the contrast in (32) (Kayne 1984:167). As in (30)
and (31), green and red indicate heads that are and are not proper
governors, respectively.
At first glance, the notions of lexical government and lexical
government domain might seem to permit any complement to undergo wh-
movement. But the definition is more restrictive than that. Consider, for
instance, the contrast between the (b) examples in (33) and (34), where the
constituent undergoing wh- movement is the complement of admit in
both cases.
The structure of (33b) is given in (35); the successive lexical
government domains for the DP dominating the trace are indicated by boxes.
Since the maximal lexical government domain for the trace, the matrix CP,
contains the trace's antecedent (what), (33b) satisfies the lexical
government clause of the ECP, and its grammaticality is expected. Notice,
incidentally, that lexical government is satisfied regardless of the
presence of an intermediate trace in the lower Spec(CP). That is, even if
the trace were not antecedent-governed, (33b) would satisfy the disjunctive
version of the ECP assumed here.
By contrast, the lexical government domain for the wh- trace in the
structure for (34b), given in (36), extends only as far as the complement
IP.
The reason that it extends no further is that the subject clause (the
lower IP) is not governed (in other words, it is not a complement). Since
the infinitival subject clause does not dominate the trace's antecedent
(what), the trace of wh- movement, though governed by admit,
is not lexically governed. Moreover, two IPs intervene on the path between
the trace and its antecedent, and so the trace is not antecedent-governed
either. (34b) is therefore correctly predicted to be ungrammatical.
When there is an independent reason for the complement clause to be a CP
(when it is an indirect question, for instance), wh- movement within the
bounds of the complement clause is possible, as shown in (37).
We leave it open here why the complement clause in (37) is an IP rather
than a CP.
Given the role that the notion of barrier plays in both antecedent
government and subjacency, it would be desirable to eliminate subjacency as
a separate condition by subsuming it under the antecedent government clause
of the ECP. Is this feasible? In light of (38a), the answer must
unfortunately be 'no.' The matrix CP in (38a) is a lexical government
domain for the trace (cf. the configuration in (28e)), and in the absence
of subjacency, (38a) should therefore be completely acceptable. The degree
to which it is not, then, provides evidence in favor of maintaining
subjacency as a separate constraint on wh- movement. The acceptability
contrast between (38a) and (38b,c) could then be attributed to the
violation of only one principle in the former case, but of two in the
latter.
However, if (39b) violates both clauses of the ECP, this raises the
question of how subjects of ECM complements are able to satisfy the ECP (or
for that matter, subjacency), given that two barriers intervene between the
antecedent and its trace in both (39b) and (40).
A standard proposal is to include the head-spec configuration as an
instance of proper government, along with the head-comp configuration
(Kayne 1984). This would allow the trace in (40) to
satisfy the lexical government clause of the ECP. But this proposal
neither explains why such examples are completely acceptable (suggesting
that they satisfy both the ECP and subjacency), nor why it is possible to
move not just subjects out of ECM complements, but adjuncts as well, as in
(41).
An alternative that immediately comes to mind is simply that nonfinite
IPs do not count as barriers, but this proposal fails to account for the
contrast in (42), which essentially parallels that in (38).
However, a minor revision to the proposal that nonfinite IPs aren't
barriers makes it empirically adequate (though we know of no independent
motivation for the revision). We will say that IPs that are governed by
V (or one of the other "contentful" categories Adj, N, or P) do not
count as barriers. This has the result that the traces in the sentences
in (40) and (41) satisfy the antecedent government clause of the ECP as
well as subjacency. (43) shows our revised assumptions about these
sentences; IPs that are not barriers are highlighted in blue.
(45) gives some further, naturally-occurring examples (the struck-out
which in (45a) is included for clarity; it is silent in the
original).
The most acceptable examples of this type involve movement out of
DPs without a possessor, so it might be proposed that a further
refinement of the notion of barrier is in order. In particular, let us
assume that branching DPs barriers, whereas nonbranching ones are not.
(What I mean by "branching DP" is a DP - not a D' - with more than one
daughter; in other words, a possessive DP.) Then the examples in (44)
and (45) all satisfy subjacency, as indicated by the revised
representations in (46) and (47), whereas an example like (48) would
continue to violate it.
Finally, given the contrast between (38a) and (38b,c), we would expect
movement out of DP that violates both subjacency and the ECP to be strongly
unacceptable. Movement out of left branches satisfies this expectation.
An important remaining puzzle is why some instances of movement out of
nonbranching DPs are perfectly acceptable, whereas others (even ones that
satisfy the ECP) are not. In our view, an explanation for the successive
decrease in acceptability of examples like (50) should be sought not in
syntactic, but in pragmatic factors. We indicate this explicitly by using
the pound sign, the sign for pragmatic infelicity.
We begin our attempt to explain the pattern in (50) by noting that any
question is associated with a so-called existential presupposition. The
presupposition expresses the backdrop of knowledge against which the
question is raised, and the question itself solicits information that is
missing in the questioner's knowledge store. For instance, the question in
(51a) is associated with the presupposition in (51b).
Now consider the existential presuppositions in (52), which range from
ordinary to implausible.
If we make the plausible assumption that, all other things being equal,
the acceptability of a question matches the plausibility of the
presupposition with which it is associated, then questions that are
perfectly well-formed from a grammatical point of view might nevertheless
be judged as unacceptable if they are associated with a highly implausible
presupposition. This, then, would account for the range of acceptability
in the questions in (50), despite their structural parallelism.
1.
The structural notion of government (to be distinguished from the
morphological notion of case government is defined as in (i).
English has two sorts of though clauses: ordinary ones that
do not involve movement, as in (1), and ones that do, as in (2). The
construction in (2) is often referred to as the though preposing
construction.
A. Using the grammar tool in xbar ch12, build
structures for the sentences in (1) and (2). For simplicity, you can
build chunks and indicate how they go together.
B. Using
the same
grammar tool as in (A), build structures for just
the though clauses in (3). (Omit the material in parentheses,
given for context.)
C. Which, if any, of the though clauses in (3) are expected
to be ungrammatical given the principles covered in this and previous
chapters? Explain.
D. (4) is ungrammatical. Why?
A. Corresponding to the declarative clauses in (1), we have the direct
questions in (2).
A. Using the grammar tool in xbar ch12, build
structures for both of the questions in (2).
B. Can the judgments in (2) be derived from the principles introduced
in this chapter? Your explanation should be succinct, but specific. For
instance, if a question violates subjacency or the antecedent government
clause of the ECP, indicate which barrier causes the subjacency violation.
If a question violates the lexical government clause of the ECP, indicate
which clause in the definition of lexical government is violated.
C. Is the specifier position in the elementary tree that the grammar
tool postulates for the complementizer for necessary?
A. Consider the sentences in (1). Does the for phrase adjoin
at N' or at V'? Explain, providing evidence from pronoun substitution and
do so substitution.
B. Using the grammar tool in xbar ch12, build a
structure for the question in (1b) that is consistent with your answer
to (A).
C. Is the acceptability of (1b) consistent with the principles
introduced in this chapter? Explain.
B. Using the grammar tool in xbar ch12, build
trees for the following questions.
C. Record your judgments concerning the questions (use "✓",
"?," and "*" as your options).
D. For each of the questions, briefly explain whether it obeys
subjacency and the ECP. Assume, as in Further issues and refinements, that
neither nonfinite IPs governed by V nor nonbranching DPs are barriers. How
do the predictions of the model of wh- movement developed in this chapter
mesh with your judgments from (B)?
A. Using the grammar tool in ***, build structures for
the (simplified) subpart of (1) in (2).
B. Why did you put had where you did in the structures you
built in (A)?
C. The grammar tool forces you to attach of Europe as an
adjunct of fishes rather than as a complement in (A). Provide
evidence in favor of the attachment.
D. Is the trace of wh- movement in (2) antecedent-governed? In
your answer, indicate clearly which nodes (if any) are barriers that
intervene between the trace and its antecedent. Assume the definition
of barriers in Further issues and
refinements.
E. Is the trace of wh- movement lexically governed? Explain. In
your answer, indicate clearly all (if any) lexical government domains
for the trace.
F. Which (if any) clauses of the ECP does the trace of
passive movement satisfy in the structure you built for (A)? As
in (D) and (E), your answer should include all (if any) barriers that
intervene between the trace of passive movement and its antecedent, and
all (if any) lexical government domains for the trace of passive
movement.
A. Which (if either) of the adjectives in (1) is a control
adjective, and which (if either) is a raising adjective? Your answer
must include the sentences (and associated judgments) that you use as
the basis for making your decision.
B. Based on your answer to (A), use the xbar ch12
grammar tool to build structures for both of the sentences in (1).
C. Using the same grammar tool, build the structure
for the variant of (1b) in (2).
D. For each trace of movement in (C), briefly explain whether it
satisfies the ECP. For each case, your answer should include which
clause of the ECP is satisfied, or whether both clauses are satisfied.
(Don't consider verb movement.)
A. Using the xbar ch12 grammar tool, build the
structure for the phrase in (1). Treat every as a determiner.
B. Assuming that non-branching DPs are not barriers to wh-movement,
is (1) consistent with the ECP? Explain. Once again, your answer
should include which clauses of the ECP are violated or satisfied.
B. Using the xbar ch12 grammar tool, build a
structure for (1) that reflects your judgment from (A) in light of the
syntactic principles introduced in this chapter. You will need to
decide what syntactic category to assign to the gerund clause.
C. Explain how your judgment from (A) can be made to follow from
the structure you propose in (B).
Subjacency
In this section, we present the subjacency condition, an ambitious
attempt by Chomsky 1973 to subsume the island
constraints under a single structural principle.
Two possible derivations for long-distance wh- movement
IP as a barrier to wh- movement
On the basis of grammatical instances of long-distance wh- movement like
(6a-d) (cf. (19c-e)) of Chapter 11, it is
impossible to decide which of the two alternatives just presented is
correct, or even whether a choice must be made between them.
DP as a barrier to wh- movement
The coordinate structure constraint revisited
In the previous section, you may have noticed the omission of a potential
piece of evidence for the barrierhood of DP - namely, violations of the
coordinate structure constraint like those in (15) (= (27b,c)
of Chapter 11).
The Empty Category Principle (ECP)
Antecedent government
Lexical government
Vem har du talat med ti ?
who have you talked with
Qui as- tu parlé avec ti ?
who have you talked with
Wem hast du mit ti gesprochen?
who have you with talked
Qu'i est-ce qu' elle tient à ti ?
what is it that she holds to
'What is she keen on?'
Qu'i est-ce qu' elle tient à faire ti ?
what is it that she holds to do
'What is she keen on doing?'
Further issues and refinements
Is subjacency an independent principle?
Recall the facts that motivated the proposal of the ECP - namely, the
contrast in (22), repeated here in annotated form as (38).
Movement out of ECM complements
Given their status as sisters of intermediate projections rather than of
heads, subjects are not in a position to be lexically governed. In
order to satisfy the ECP, subject traces must therefore be
antecedent-governed. This is possible in cases of local movement
(that is, movement to a local
Spec(CP)), but not in cases of true (= noncyclic)
long-distance movement, as shown by the contrast in (39).
Movement out of DP
As mentioned earlier, subjacency
goes beyond the original island constraints in ruling out any movement
out of DP. However, in many cases, examples of such movement are
completely unexceptionable. This is puzzling given the representations
in (44).
(削除) which (削除ここまで)i
[IP
I would make
[DP
some lame attempt
[CP
ti
[IP
to justify ti ... ] ] ] ]
(Calvin Trillin. 1996. Messages from my father. New York: Farrar,
Strauss, and Giroux. 43-44)
(Jeremy Campbell. 1982. Grammatical man. Information, entropy,
language, and life. Simon and Schuster. 260-261)
(Calvin Trillin. 1996. Messages from my father. New York: Farrar,
Strauss, and Giroux. 43-44)
(Jeremy Campbell. 1982. Grammatical man. Information, entropy,
language, and life. Simon and Schuster. 260-261)
(cf. ✓ What did he drop a hint about?)
(cf. ✓ There is a topic such that he dropped a hint about that topic.)
Notes
Exercises and problems
Exercise 12.1
At first glance, the structure in (1a) seems preferable to that in (1b)
on the grounds that it is simpler in the sense of postulating fewer
nodes. It is standardly argued, however, that the structure in (1b)
with a silent complementizer is preferable. Provide evidence for the
standard view.
Exercise 12.2
This exercise extends Exercise 5.12.
(cf. Though I wonder why the problem is difficult, ...)
(cf. Though the students enjoy problems which are difficult, ...)
Exercise 12.3
Exercise 12.4
Exercise 12.5
A. Is the prepositional phrase in (1) is a complement or an adjunct of
review? Explain.
Exercise 12.6
Consider the sentence in (1).
(Encyclopaedia Britannica Online,
Agassiz, (Jean) Louis (Rodolphe). Accessed 27 August 1999.)
Exercise 12.7
Exercise 12.8
Problem 12.1
A. What is your acceptability judgment concerning wh- movement out of
gerund clauses as in (1b)?