SYNTACTIC THEORY

Q3153 ~ Autumn 2014-15

Take Away Paper

CANDIDATE NUMBER: 127542

Dr Melanie Green

1
1. Head movement

(a) Consider the following examples from Norwegian (a Germanic language).

What do these examples suggest about Norwegian with respect to verb
movement and the derivation of polar interrogatives?

The Minimalist Program of Noam Chomsky assumes the movement of V to v in

order to derive the correct order Word for English verbal phrases. This kind of
movement, since it moves heads, is called head movement. The mission of this
Minimalist Program is to prove that this movement does not take place only in
English; it does in all languages such as Norwegian, which is a Germanic
language.
Taking the first example into account:

(i) Tor kjøpte ei avis

Tor buy.PAST a newspaper
‘Tor bought a newspaper.’

We can observe that in the case of an affirmative sentence, the word order is
exactly the same as the English Language; Subject + Verb + Complement.
From this point, we can observe the transformation of an affirmative sentence
into an interrogative one, as the second example:

(ii) Kjøper Tor ei avis?

buy.PRES Tor a newspaper
‘Is Tor buying a newspaper?’

The first notable point is that the question starts with the verb in present tense.
Thus, we do not find an auxiliary to start the question, as we do in English.
Therefore, the Head Movement takes place, because the verb moves to initial
position. However, the rest of the structure remains; Subject + Object. The first
thing we can deduce from this example is that in the case of this language, the
head movement is produced, but without any change in the verb and without
any auxiliary, it just changes the word order and maybe the intonation.
2
The second point that we have to take into account is the fact that this is polar
question, which is a Yes-No question. These questions, as their name
suggests, expect that the answer must be ''Yes'' or ''No'', without any more
alternative. The last example is also a polar interrogative:

(iii) Skal Tor kjøpe ei avis?

Will Tor buy.INF a newspaper
‘Will Tor buy a newspaper?’

Despite both examples are polar interrogatives, we can observe many

differences between them. The most important point is that the last question
starts with an auxiliary, as we do in English. In fact, the word order is exactly the
same as English; Auxiliary + Subject + Verb (Infinitive form) + Complement.
Therefore, the Head Movement is clear.

As a conclusion, after our analysis we can deduce that in the case of Norwegian
language, the polar question complementizer is variable.

(b) Develop a transformational analysis for each example, providing a tree

diagram and explaining what features are involved.

The first example (i), as it was said above, shows the same struture as English.
From the declarative sentence, we will see the transformation.

As we can observe, there are some common features between the kind of
movement from T to C (iii), and V to C movement (ii). In both cases, it is
involved the movement from the head position in one phrase, to the head
position in a higher phrase.

In the second example (ii) we have the first polar interrogative and the first
difference with English; the beginning of a question with the verb, which in our
minimalist tree would mean that verb kjøpte moves from the head V position of
VP into the head C position of CP. This would be translated as the Head

3
Movement from V to T, as a first step, and then from T to C, to be placed in first
position in the question. Despite this is no longer possible is modern English,
the same structure as Norwegian was found in the Elizabethan English. This
means the assumption that inversion involves movement from T to C, an
obvious prediction made by the assumption that verbs move from V to T in
Elizabethan English, as well as Norwegian, and they can subsequently move
from T to C in interrogatives.

Assuming this comparison between both languages, the verb kjøpte moves
from V to T because a finite T is strong, by virtue of containing a Tns affix with a
strong V-feature; and the verb subsequently moves from moves from T to C
because an interrogative C is likewise strong by virtue of containing a question
particle with a strong T-feature. Consequently, the verb moves through T into C
by two successive applications of Head Movement: the verb is first merged in V,
then it is moved to T and from there it is moved to C. It is also possible that the
head movement applies in a successive-cyclic fashion, (i.e. moving the verb in
successive steps or cycles) first from V to T, and then from T to C. Each time
the verb moves, it leaves behind a copy of itself which is eventually deleted.
The phenomenon of this movement was suggested by Travis (1984):

Head Movement Constraint/HMC:

Movement from one head position to another is only possible

between a given head and the closest head which
asymmetrically c-commands it (i.e. between a given head and
the next highest head in the structure containing it).

Taking this into account, this language obeys HMC: the first operation would be
the local movement of the verb from the head V position of VP into the next
highest head position in the structure, which is the head T position of TP. The
second operation would be the local movement of the verb from the head T
position of TP into the next highest head position in the structure, which is the
head C position of CP. Since both head movement operations are local, there is
no violation of HMC.
From the point of view of Chomsky's metaphor, we would say that the Tns Affix
carried by finite T was strong in Elizabethan English, and therefore in
Norwegian as well, but it is weak in modern English. This relevant parameter is
4
called Head-Strength Parameter, which may have different settings for different
types of head in a given language.

The last example is also a Polar Question. However, as the first one, it has
exactly the same structure as English.

5
(i) Tor kjøpte ei avis

Tor buy.PAST a newspaper

‘Tor bought a newspaper.’

CP

C TP
Ø
[DECL]

NP T’

N Ø VP
Tor [Past.3.S]

V NP

kjøpte

Det N

ei avis

6
(ii) Kjøper Tor ei avis?
buy.PRES Tor a newspaper
‘Is Tor buying a newspaper?’

CP

C TP
Ø
[INT]
Kjøpter
NP T’

N Ø VP
Tor [Pres.3.S]
kjøpter

V NP

kjøpter

Det. N

ei avis

7
(iii) Skal Tor kjøpe ei avis?
Will Tor buy.INF a newspaper
‘Will Tor buy a newspaper?’

CP

C TP
Ø
[INT]
Skal
NP T’

N Ø VP
Tor [Fut.3.S]

Skal

V NP

kjøpte

Det. N

ei avis

8
 2. Wh-movement

(a) Consider the following examples from Kagulu, a Bantu language from
Tanzania, and work out whether Kagulu is a wh-ex-situ language or a wh-in-
situ language.

Noam Chomsky, from his theory of Universal Grammar, developed the

Minimalist Program to defend it. This program shows a simple grammar that all
languages follow, and therefore all human beings have in their brain from birth.
He departed from the English language, and as it is well known there are some
languages that differ from the English grammar. For this reason Chomsky gave
an explanation to defend these issues. One of the main topics would be the wh-
movement, a peculiar feature of English. First, it should be taken into account
the phenomenon of the auxiliary inversion, which means the movement of C to
T driven by a strong Q feature which is the value given to an uninterpretable
feature on T. If T bears Q, then it moves into a local configuration with C.
However, if T's feature is valued as declarative, then it is weak, and T does not
move to C.

Focusing on wh-questions, we can find two different types: wh-in-situ questions

and wh-ex-situ questions. Wh-in-situ question is when the wh- expression does
not get proposed, but rather remains in situ (from Latin: ‘in place’), in the
canonical position associated with its grammatical function. In the case of
English they are used primarily as echo questions, to echo and question
something previously said by someone else. From the syntactic point of view, a
wh-in-situ is a wh-phrase that has not undergone Wh-Movement by S-Structure,
that is, it has not visibly moved to Comp. By contrast, wh-ex-situ question is
when the wh-expression goes ex situ (from Latin: ‘out of the place’). For this
reason, it is also known as wh-moving questions.

The second example (ii) proves the movement of the wh-expression. The
reason of this movement would be that who is the subject, is not the object.
Therefore, the initial position is the base one, because the object remains after

9
the verb, and the subject before it. Therefore, the wh-movement takes place as
in English despite we do not find the auxiliary.

(ii) Nani ha-ka-diya chi-akudiya?

who PAST-1.AGR-eat 7-food

‘Who ate the food?’

However, the third (iii) example shows the opposite, the wh-expression does not
move. This means that it follows the rule; what is translated, is the direct object,
and the direct object goes after the verb. Therefore, in this example, despite
having been transformed into a question, it remains in the base form:

(iii) Mu-ku-tafusili i-hoki?

2PL.AGR-PRES-translate 9-what

What do you translate?’

The last example shows the wh-expression at the end again. From this point we
can deduce that the reason of this position is that how works as the equivalent
of an adverb, completely connected to the verb. Thus, it remains again in the
base form; Verb + Adverb:

(iv) M-gona nhani?

2PL-sleep how

‘How did you sleep?’

To conclude, Kagulu is a wh-in-situ language. In English, to form a direct

question, you have to move a wh-phrase. If you want to ask about two things,
you have to move one wh-phrase, but you cannot move both, or neither. In a
certain subset of languages, like Kangulu, you do not have to move the

10
wh-word. These facts receive an immediate explanation; Kagulu does covert
wh-movement, exactly like the English wh-movement except that we cannot see
it. The reason is that the wh-phrase rises to give you an LF (Logical Form)
structure exactly like the English one.

(b) Develop a transformational analysis for examples (ii) and (iii), providing tree
diagrams and explaining what features are involved.

The second example (ii) gives us several important points to stand out from the
Minimalist Program. On the one hand, we can observe the phenomenon of
paraphrasing the wh-questions as they contain an interrogative quantifier. That
means that we could say ‘‘For which x is it the case that…’’. In this particular
example would mean: For which, X a human, is it that case that x did that? As
we have assumed, the strongest motivation for a feature is when there are
some morphological and semantic expressions of that feature. This is a clear
example. Moreover, they all move to the specifier of CP. On the other hand, this
is a wh-subject, which means that we derive a TP with the wh-subject rising
from the specifier of VP to the specifier of TP. The main problem of this
example is the lack of auxiliary. This would be because the movement of T to C
breaks the chain between T and V. When the chain is broken, T cannot be
pronounced on V, and therefore the ''do-support'' is needed. The reason would
be that the complementizer which forces Wh-Movement in matrix clauses forces
T to C component. The latter movement is forced because C (Q) values feature
on T as strong Q, provoking finally the movement.

As we find out above, this language is a wh-in-situ language. This means that
questions are perfectly well formed in their base position (as the example iii).
These kinds of questions are also called echo-questions and they are well
formed under a particular intonation contour, and under a particular
interpretation where the paraphrase is not ‘for which x…’ but rather ‘repeat the
word which what stands for in this sentence’. If there is a C in an echo-question,
it does not bear [Q]. If we go down the route of attributing a [uQ] feature to a

11
wh-expression to make it move, then we would have to face the question of why
wh-expressions do not seem to need to check this feature in echo questions.

After our analysis, we go back to the initial question: how could we rule out
cases, as this language, in which we have an unmoved wh-expression but
where T has moved to C? On the one hand, this wh-feature must have
morphological and semantic evidence. On the other hand, we can implement
wh-movement by assuming that C [Q] can optionally bear a strong [uWh]
feature. The presence of this feature means that a phrase bearing an
interpretable [wh ] will have to move to the specifier of CP. To sum up, this
system has no way to ruling out example where we have T to C movement but
no wh-movement, this is because we have treated the [uQ ] feature on C [Q ] as
optional.

12
(ii) Nani ha-ka-diya chi-akudiya?

Who PAST-1.AGR-eat 7-food

‘Who ate the food?’

CP

C TP

[INT]
Nani

NP T’

N Ø VP
Nani [Past.3.S]
ha-ka-

V NP

-diya

chi-akudiya

13
(iii) Mu-ku-tafusili i-hoki?

2PL.AGR-PRES-translate 9-what

What do you translate?’

CP

C TP

[INT]
Mu-ku-tafusili

NP T’

N Ø VP
i-hoki [Past.2.Pl.]
Mu-ku- V

(Mu-ku)-tafusili

14
References

Adger, David (2003) Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Bayer, Josef (2000-2004) Wh-in-situ. http://ling.uni-

konstanz.de/pages/home/bayer/pdf/pdf/wh-in-situ.pdf [15 January 2015]

Chomsky, Noam (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Massachusetts,

London: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Ginzburg, Jonathan & Sag, Ivan A. (2001) Interrogatives Investigations. The

Form, Meaning, and Use of English Interrogatives. United States :CSLI
Publications.

Radford, Andrew (2004) Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Radford, Andrew (1997) Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

15