6. WH-Island Constraint
English has a class of embedded questions introduced by a +WH(interrogative)
complementiser, which may either be filled by whether, or be left empty and have
a preposed wh-phrase adjoined to it: these two possibilities are as these:
(a) I wonder whether he saw her. (‘whether’ is not moved)
(b) I wonder who he saw . (‘who’ is moved from the base position)
However, there are some movements that cannot extract an element out of an em-
bedded
question(wh-clause) clause:
(a) WH-Movement: *What might he ask where/whether I hid ?
(b) Topicalisation: *Pornolinguistics, he asked me when/whether we teach .
(c) Though-Movement: *Popular, though I sometimes wonder why/whether she is .
(d) V’-Preposing: *Playing cricket, I don’t know where/whether he is .
(e) Adverb Preposing: *Tomorrow, I don’t know how/whether he’s leaving .
On the basis of the above examples, we might follow Chomsky in proposing the con-
straint
as this:
(48) WH-Island Constraint
No constituent can be moved out of any clause containing a wh-phrase in
COMP.
The constraint (48) can be expressed alternatively as this:
Clauses introduced by a wh-phrase (who, whether, etc.) are islands.
7. Coordinate Structure Constraint
Ross suggests that coordinate structures(structures coordinated by and, or, but,
etc.) are
also islands. So the following movements are blocked out of the coordinate structures
(a) WH-Movement: *Who have you just met naughty Nelly and ?
(b) Topicalisation: *Mildred, I really like George and .
(c) Though-Movement: *Handsome, though he’s tall, dark and , she doesn’t fancy him.
(d) V’-Preposing: *The police always suspected that he was sniffing glue and smoking
grass,
and sure enough, smoking grass he was sniffing glue and .
(e) Adverb Preposing: *Tomorrow, I might go to a disco today or .
To handle those data, we might posit the constraint like (55), and this means that
“coordinate structures are islands”
(55) Coordinate Structure Constraint
No element can be moved out of a coordinate structure.
(57) (a) *What did you see who and ? => Violating (55)
(b) Who and what did you see ? => Satisfying (55)
8. A-OVER-A Constraint
In (58) and (59), the wh-phrases along with PP undergo WH-Movement, in which
the different grammaticality of the PPs movement is shown:
The underlying PP in (58) is represented as (60) (a), and the underlying PP in (59) is
shown
as (60) (b). PP1 and PP2 are both the same type of category, i.e. Prepositional Phrase.
The ungrammatical structures (58) (d) and (59) (d) can be explained by A-OVER-A Con-
straint.
(62) A-OVER-A Constraint (AOAC)
No constituent of category A can be moved out of a larger containing
constituent of category A (= of the same type).
PP2 in (60) is contained within the larger PP1. According to the constraint (62), the
extraction
of PP2 by WH-Movement is blocked, i.e. PP2 cannot be moved over the same cate-
gory PP1.
Therefore, both (58) (d) and (59) (d), where the PP2 of ‘of which tunnel’ and ‘to
what age’
are extracted out of the category PP1, crucially violate AOAC.
◈ Counterexample
We can assume that (64) has the same structure as (58), and the phrase ‘out over what’ has
the structure like (65). But (64) shows a different grammaticality from (58) or (59).
(64) would be a counterexample to the AOAC, since PP2 can be moved, but not PP1.
Here, one solution may be found. The phrase ‘fall out over what’ has the structure of (66):
in which ‘fall out’ is treated as a ‘complex’ or ‘phrasal’ verb. On the basis of (66), ‘what’ can
be preposed freely in (64) (b) without violating AOAC, because it is an NP not immediately
contained within another NP, but rather contained within the PP ‘over what’. The PP ‘over
what’ can be moved freely without violating AOAC because it is not contained within
another PP, but rather within the VP ‘fall out over what’. Finally, ‘out over what’ cannot
be preposed in (64) (c) because it is neither a PP, nor a constituent(‘out’ is part of the
phrasal verb ‘fall out’), i.e. ‘fall out’ is a constituent as a complex verb, which is treated
as a unit. So ‘fall out over that’ can be structured as (66), and (64) (c) is ruled out.
This counterexample can be rationalized by Unit Movement Constraint (67), which is
the most fundamental constraint of all on transformations which has been assumed
in all transformational work.
(67) Unit Movement Constraint
No single application of any transformation can move a string
of elements which do not form a continuous constituent.