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 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 T¨ubingen. 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 T¨ubingen for granting me the time to appropriately finish this project. Shortly after I had completed my thesis in T¨ubingen 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 M¨uller, 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.

The Problem of Pied-Piping

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

The Problem of Pied-Piping

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.

The Problem of Pied-Piping

(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

Some Theories of Pied-Piping

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.

Some Theories of Pied-Piping

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:

Some Theories of Pied-Piping

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

Some Theories of Pied-Piping

(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.

Some Theories of Pied-Piping

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.

Some Theories of Pied-Piping

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.

Some Theories of Pied-Piping

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.

Some Theories of Pied-Piping

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

Some Theories of Pied-Piping

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.

Some Theories of Pied-Piping

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.

Some Theories of Pied-Piping

(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 m¨ochte 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.

Some Theories of Pied-Piping

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.

Some Theories of Pied-Piping

(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 sch¨on 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 sch¨on ‘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 sch¨on 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.

Some Theories of Pied-Piping

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 s´a), 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 s´a ] sh tudinookw i e´ esh? how Q he.feels your father ‘How is your father feeling?’ e´ esh al’´oon? b. [ QP Daa s´aw´e ] 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 s´a. (54)

a. [ QP [ DP Aad´oo yaagu ] s´a ] ysiteen? who boat Q you.saw.it ‘Whose boat did you see?’ b. [ QP [ PP Aad´oo jeet ] s´a ] w´e sakwen´ein aawatee? who hand.to Q that bread he.brought.it ‘Who did he give the bread to?’ shag´oonich? c. [ QP [ CP Good´ei woogootx ] s´a ] has uwaj´ee 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)

shag´oonich? a. [ Good´ei s´a ] 1 has uwaj´ee [ t1 woogootx ] i he.went your parents.erg they.think where.to Q ‘Where do your parents think that he went?’ shag´oonich? b. *[ Good´ei ] 1 has uwaj´ee [ t1 s´a woogootx ] i Q he.went your parents.erg where.to they.think shag´oonich? c. *[ Good´ei ] 1 has uwaj´ee [ t1 woogootx s´a ] 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)

tuw´aa sig´oo? a. [ NP [ CP W´aa klig´eiyi ] x´aat ] s´a i how it.is.big.REL fish Q your spirit it.is.happy ‘How big a fish do you want?’

Some Theories of Pied-Piping

] x´aat ] b. *[ NP [ CP W´aa s´a klig´eiyi how Q it.is.big.REL fish c. *[ NP [ CP W´aa klig´eiyi ] s´a x´aat ] how it.is.big.REL Q fish

37

i tuw´aa sig´oo? your spirit it.is.happy i tuw´aa sig´oo? 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 Aad´oo teen s´a ] yigoot? who with Q you.went ‘Who did you go with?’ b. *[ QP Aad´oo s´a ] 2 [ PP t2 teen ] yigoot? who Q with you.went

(58)

a. [ QP Aad´oo yaagu s´a ] ysiteen? who boat Q you.saw.it ‘Whose boat did you see?’ b. *[ QP Aad´oo s´a ] 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. Tl´eil aad´oo teen s´a xwagoot. not who with Q i.went ‘I didn’t go with anyone.’ b. *Tl´eil aad´oo s´a teen xwagoot. not who Q with i.went

(60)

a. Tl´eil aad´oo yaag´u s´a xwasateen. not who boat Q I.saw.it ‘I didn’t see anyone’s boat.’ b. *Tl´eil aad´oo s´a yaag´u 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

Some Theories of Pied-Piping

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.

Some Theories of Pied-Piping

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 verst¨andlich ] 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.

Some Theories of Pied-Piping

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 J´anos [ D – ] [ DP melyik fi´at ]] Q ] szereted legjobban? John which son you.like best ‘Which son of John’s do you like the best?’ [ D – ] [ DP h´any bar´at¨oj´enek ]] Q ] b. [ QP [ DP Az any´ad the your.mother how.many her.friends telefon´alt´al? 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 J´anos and az any´ad 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 J´anos2 [ D melyik fi´at t2 ]] szereted legjobban? John which son you.like best bar´at¨oj´enek t3 ]] ] 3 [ D h´any b. [ DP [ DP Az any´ad how.many her.friends the your.mother telefon´alt´al? 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 fi´at ‘son’ and bar´at¨oj´enek ‘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)

] x´aat ] s´a i tuw´aa sig´oo? a. [ NP [ CP W´aa klig´eiyi how it.is.big.REL fish Q your spirit it.is.happy ‘How big a fish do you want?’ ] sh´ay’s´aani ] s´a ash kudl´enxa? b. [ NP [ CP W´aa yateey´ı Q they.tempting.him how they.are.REL girls ‘What kind of girls are tempting him?’ ] sh´ay’s´aani ] s´a sh tuw´aa gaa c. [ NP [ CP W´aa 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 w´aa (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.

Some Theories of Pied-Piping

(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 w´aa 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?’ x´aat ] s´a i tuw´aa sig´oo? b. [ NP W´aa klig´eiyi 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’y`uu ]] -.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 7aan`aa 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).

Some Theories of Pied-Piping

(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?’

Some Theories of Pied-Piping

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)).

Some Theories of Pied-Piping

(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. Y´a x’´ux’ aad´ooch s´a kgwat´oow? this book who.ERG Q he.will.read.it ‘As for this book, who will read it?’ b. Ax sakwn´eini aad´ooch s´a uwax´aa? 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 s´a aa s´ay´a ux´a? 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).

Some Theories of Pied-Piping

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 s´a. If Q does not exist, then s´a has to be reanalyzed. Thus suppose that s´a 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)

] x´aat ] s´a i tuw´aa sig´oo? a. [ NP [ CP W´aa klig´eiyi how it.is.big.REL fish Q your spirit it.is.happy ‘How big a fish do you want?’ ] x´aat ] i tuw´aa sig´oo? b. *[ NP [ CP W´aa s´a klig´eiyi how Q it.is.big.REL fish your spirit it.is.happy ] s´a x´aat ] i tuw´aa sig´oo? c. *[ NP [ CP W´aa klig´eiyi 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 s´a 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 s´a appears only once in a multiple question. Moreover, Cable (2007, 73, footnote 36) notes that s´a can be dropped in the context of pied-piping a relative clause by w´aa ‘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 s´a 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 s´a 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 s´a 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 s´a 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)

tuw´aa sig´oo? a. [ NP [ CP W´aa klig´eiyi ] x´aat ] s´a i how it.is.big.REL fish Q your spirit it.is.happy ‘How big a fish do you want?’ ] sh´ay’s´aani ] s´a ash kudl´enxa? b. [ NP [ CP W´aa yateey´ı Q they.tempting.him how they.are.REL girls ‘What kind of girls are tempting him?’ ] sh´ay’s´aani ] s´a sh tuw´aa gaa c. [ NP [ CP W´aa 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.

Some Theories of Pied-Piping

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 s´a 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).

Miscellaneous Remarks on Wh-Feature Percolation

(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.

Miscellaneous Remarks on Wh-Feature Percolation

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 Jos´e munan Mar´ıa t2 aywanan-ta? where-to-Q Jose wants Maria will go-ACC ‘Where does Jose want Maria to go?’ b. Jos´e 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 s´a. Cable argues explicitly that s´a cannot be a C-element. It might thus instantiate the morphological spell-out of a moved wh-feature. Cable himself claims that s´a is a question particle that is merged outside the pied-piped category. Yet another analysis that treats s´a 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.

Miscellaneous Remarks on Wh-Feature Percolation

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 M¨uller (2000, 2003), Aoun and Li (2003), M¨uller (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 M¨uller (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 M¨uller (2004a) for another account of these facts.

Miscellaneous Remarks on Wh-Feature Percolation

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 M¨uller (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 M¨uller (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. M¨uller (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 m¨ochte wissen, wem wer es erz¨ahlt hat. I want know whom who it told has ‘I would like to know who told it to whom.’ b. Ich m¨ochte wissen, wem es wer erz¨ahlt hat. I want know whom it who told has c. *Ich m¨ochte wissen, was wer ihm erz¨ahlt hat. I want know what who him told has ‘I would like to know who told him what.’ d. Ich m¨ochte wissen, was ihm wer erz¨ahlt 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 m¨ochte 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 m¨ochte wissen, was der Anwalt von wem ihr vorwirft. Maria wants know what the attorney of who her accuses

(106)

a. ?Egbert erz¨ahlte uns gen¨usslich, 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 m¨ochte 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 erz¨ahlte uns gen¨usslich, 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.

Against Wh-Feature Percolation

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.

Against Wh-Feature Percolation

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.

Against Wh-Feature Percolation

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), M¨uller (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.

Against Wh-Feature Percolation

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-

Recursive Pied-Piping

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

Pied-Piping Generalizations

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?’

Recursive Pied-Piping

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 ’¨e 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

Pied-Piping Generalizations

(128)

a. [ DP Kt´orego 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 kt´ory ‘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):

Recursive Pied-Piping

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

Pied-Piping Generalizations

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 fr`ere de qui ]3 ? the brother of whom Lise has seen ‘Whose brother did Lise see?’ de qui ]4 ? b. Lise a vu [ DP le fr`ere 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 fr`ere. 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 fr`ere 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

Recursive Pied-Piping

(135)

83

*[ DP Le fr`ere 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 parl´e 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 rencontr´e [ DP le fr`ere 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 rencontr´e [ DP le fr`ere 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 pi`ece qu’il est entr´e 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

Pied-Piping Generalizations

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 fr`ere 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 fr`ere 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 fr`ere 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 Boˇskovi´c (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.

Recursive Pied-Piping

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

Pied-Piping Generalizations

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

Recursive Pied-Piping

(143)

87

´ velti þv´ı fyrir a. Eg m´er [ DP m´oDur 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 m´er [ DP systur m´oDur 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 m´er [ DP systur vinar m´oDur 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 Generalizations

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

Secondary Wh-Movement

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

Pied-Piping Generalizations

(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.

Secondary Wh-Movement

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)

K¨unstlers 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 w¨urdest. paintings whose you buy would I wknow ‘I know whose paintings you would buy.’ b. *ein K¨unstler, [ DP Bilder dessen ] 2 du t2 kaufen w¨urdest 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 w¨urdest. you buy would I know whose paintings b. ein K¨unstler, [ DP dessen3 Bilder t3 ] 2 du t2 kaufen w¨urdest 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

Pied-Piping Generalizations

(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 vend´eg´et ] 3 ismert´etek t3 ? who.DAT the guest you knew ‘Whose guest did you know?’ vend´eg´et ] 3 ismert´etek 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 ismert´etek [ DP t2 a t2 vend´eg´et ]? the guest who. DAT you knew ‘Whose guest did you know?’ b. *Ki2 ismert´etek [ DP t2 vend´eg´et ]? who. NOM you knew guest

a.

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

Secondary Wh-Movement

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. powr´ot Polak´ow 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. ucze´n, [ DP kt´orego2 zadanie whose assignment pupil just now read.1 PL ‘the pupil whose assigment we are reading’ kt´orego2 ] 3 wła´snie czytamy t3 b.?*ucze´n, [ 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 kt´orego2 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

Pied-Piping Generalizations

b. *popsutego komputera [ PP kt´orego2 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 K¨unstler, [ PP f¨ur dessen3 Bilder t3 ] 2 du t2 schw¨armst for whose paintings an artist you romanticize ‘a painter, whose paintings you adore’ b. *ein K¨unstler, [ PP dessen3 f¨ur Bilder t3 ] 2 du t2 schw¨armst 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)).

Secondary Wh-Movement

(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

Pied-Piping Generalizations

(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 drˆole a man of-who the behavior becomes weird ‘a man whose behavior becomes weird’ b. *un homme [ DP le comportement dont2 ] 3 t3 devient drˆole 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.

Secondary Wh-Movement

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. Hirschb¨uhler (1978, 110)): (164)

a. la fille dont tu as rencontr´e le fr`ere the girl of-whom you have met the brother ‘the girl whose brother you met’ b. *la fille le fr`ere dont tu as rencontr´e a girl the brother of-whom you have met c. *la fille dont le fr`ere tu as rencontr´e the girl of-whom the brother you have met

(164-b,c) suggest that dont is unable to pied-pipe the DP le fr`ere dont. Assuming that French lacks scrambling, dislocation of le fr`ere 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 g´en´eral avait ordonn´e [ 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 moqu´es made-fun ‘the child who you know the pupils that made fun of’

98

Pied-Piping Generalizations

b. *un probl´eme dont tout ira bien mieux quand vous a problem of-which all will-go well better when you vous serez d´ebarass´e 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 drˆole 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’´echappait 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):

Secondary Wh-Movement

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 fr´equente 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 ordonn´e 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 inqui´etant restless ‘a man whose behavior, as we know it, becomes restless’ la serveuse dont, comme tu as remarqu´e, le nom m’´echappait 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 peroxyd´ee 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’, pr´etendre ‘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 fr´equente 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

Pied-Piping Generalizations

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 fr`ere 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 fr`ere 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 fr´equente 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).

Secondary Wh-Movement

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 fr`ere plus subsequent wh-movement of dont to SpecC. (170-a) would then have the structure in (171). (171)

fr`ere 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 jur´e [ PP contre le p`ere 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)

Pied-Piping Generalizations

[ DP El retrato [ PP de qui´en ] 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 qu´e 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 qu´e 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 qu´e 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 Ger¨uchte [ PP u¨ ber Fritz ] 2 ] 3 haben t3 ihn ge¨argert. the rumors about Fritz have him annoyed ‘The rumors about Fritz annoyed him.’ ¨ Fritz ] 2 die Ger¨uchte t2 ] 3 haben t3 ihn ge¨argert. b. [ DP [ PP Uber have him annoyed about Fritz the rumors

Secondary Wh-Movement

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 Ger¨uchte [ PP u¨ ber wen ] 2 ] 3 t3 dich the rumors about whom you Fritz asked ge¨argert haben. annoyed have ‘Fritz asked the rumors about whom annoyed you.’ b. Fritz fragte, [ DP [ PP u¨ ber wen ] 2 die Ger¨uchte t2 ] 3 t3 dich you about whom the rumors Fritz asked ge¨argert 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 c´e ‘who’, directly followed by the preposition leis ‘with’. C´e 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)

Pied-Piping Generalizations

a. C´e2 leis a raibh t´u ag caint? who with.3SG aN were you at talking ‘Who were you talking to?’ ? b. C´e2 a raibh t´u 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 c´e 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)

C´e leis pro ar sh´ıl t´u a bh´ı t´u 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

Secondary Wh-Movement

(181)

105

] a [ PP t3 pro ] 4 raibh t´u ag caint t4 ? [ DP C´e 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 t´u ag caint t4 ? [ PP C´e2 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.

Pied-Piping Generalizations

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).

Secondary Wh-Movement

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 ‘verschr¨ankter 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. K¨uhner and Stegmann (1955, 315) describe the phenomenon as follows: “Die relative Verschr¨ankung besteht darin, daß an einen vorausgehenden Satz ein Satzgef¨uge (also ein u¨ bergeordneter Satz mit einem oder mehreren untergeordneten S¨atzen) 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

Pied-Piping Generalizations

Verbindung herstellende Relativ nicht zu dem u¨ bergeordneten Satze des angereihten Satzgef¨uges, sondern zu dem vorangestellten untergeordneten Satze geh¨ort”. (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. K¨uhner 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.’

Secondary Wh-Movement

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

Pied-Piping Generalizations

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 M¨uller (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.

Secondary Wh-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), M¨uller (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 geh¨ort? 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 h¨atte [ α sorgf¨altig t2 zu pr¨ufen ] 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 sorgf¨altig zu pr¨ufen ] 3 h¨atte 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

Pied-Piping Generalizations

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 geh¨ort? 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), M¨uller (1995) makes this point against the pied-piping analysis. (i)

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

Secondary Wh-Movement

(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)

Pied-Piping Generalizations

a. dass dieses Buch zu lesen der Professor glaubt den Studenten that this book to read the professor believes the students empfehlen zu m¨ussen 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 m¨ussen 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 w¨are madness would-be ‘a man who to take on would be pure madness’

Secondary Wh-Movement

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 w¨are 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 verr¨uckt. 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 verr¨uckt 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 G¨artner (2001)).

116

Pied-Piping Generalizations

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.

Repair-Driven Pied-Piping

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

Pied-Piping Generalizations

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), M¨uller 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 Boˇskovi´c (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 M¨uller.

Repair-Driven Pied-Piping

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

Pied-Piping Generalizations

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.’

Repair-Driven Pied-Piping

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

Pied-Piping Generalizations

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)).

Repair-Driven Pied-Piping

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 P´erez-Leroux (1993) on French and Spanish.

124

Pied-Piping Generalizations

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 .

Repair-Driven Pied-Piping

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 Gu´eron (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

Pied-Piping Generalizations

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 M¨uller (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 T¨ur, [ 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 T¨ur, 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 M¨uller (1998) and Fanselow (2003) on (222-b)). (222)

] 2 hat er t2 gemacht. a. [ α Die T¨ur zu the door closed has he done ‘He closed the door.’ ] 2 hat er [ DP die T¨ur ] 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).

Repair-Driven Pied-Piping

(223)

127

] 2 hat er t2 gemacht? a.??[ α Welche T¨ur zu which door closed has he done ‘Which door did he close?’ ] 2 Maria t2 gemacht hat b.?*Fritz weiß, [ α welche T¨ur 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

Pied-Piping Generalizations

Examples like (224) thus suggest that vP in English can undergo movement. To check whether it can a