Abstract
Wh-movement is commonly thought to be caused by a syntactic probing operation, initiated by an interrogative probe on C, which triggers subsequent movement to the specifier of C. In this paper I argue that at least English covert wh-movement cannot be described in these terms. I argue instead that covert movement can target positions other than interrogative C, and that this movement is triggered by the interpretational needs of the wh-phrase itself, rather than the formal needs of interrogative C. Evidence will come from the interaction of English multiple wh-questions with intervention effects: I document a pattern of intervention effects that is explained only if English in-situ wh-phrases can be interpreted at LF in non-interrogative intermediate positions.
Highlights
Wh-question formation in English involves at least two steps
This paper investigates the behavior of English multiple wh-questions
See Cheng & Demirdache (2010) for details. This model of structure building is naturally consistent with a move as much as possible approach: in most cases, we will end up with a derivation in which covert movement targets interrogative Spec,CP, as in the traditional theory (Karttunen 1977). Within this model, movement must be caused by the needs of the wh itself and not by the needs of C: if C required all wh-phrases to reach its edge, be it for syntactic or for semantic reasons, we would be unable to correctly predict any partial movement and be unable to model the pattern of intervention effects presented in section 3 of the paper
Summary
Wh-question formation in English involves at least two steps. First, a structure is formed in which a wh-phrase is produced as the argument of a verb or as an adjunct. I propose that this pattern is best explained if movement is triggered for the interpretational needs of the wh-phrase itself and not by an Attract operation triggered following Agreement between the interrogative probe on C and the wh. I show that intervention happens when an intervener occurs above an island but not inside it, a pattern consistent with covert movement inside the island to positions other than interrogative C, which cannot escape the island This constitutes a new pattern of intervention effects not previously documented in English, contributing to our understanding of the correct characterization of intervention effects more generally.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
