Locality of wh-movement and the individuation of events
I propose a novel characterisation of the counterexamples to the generalisation that wh-movement out of an adjunct is impossible. The thesis discusses three classes of exceptions, namely extraction from in order clauses (la), prepositional participial adjuncts (lb), and bare present participial adjuncts (lc). (1) a. What are you working so hard in order to achieve? / b. Who did John go home after talking to? f c. What did John drive Mary crazy whistling? r These contrast with cases where extraction is impossible (2). (2) a. * What did you get upset because Mary said? r b. * Who have you been really happy since talking to? / c. * What does John work whistling? / These two groups do not form natural syntactic classes, but are distinguishable in event-structural terms. The minimal constituent containing the head and foot of the chain in (1) describes a single event, on an appropriate definition of event, but does not in (2). Accordingly, I propose the following condition: (3) W/z-questions carry a presupposition that the minimal constituent containing the head and the foot of the chain describes a single event. Wz-movement is permitted only if the denotation of that minimal constituent can be construed accordingly.
Truswell, Robert
Locality of wh-movement and the individuation of events. I propose a novel characterisation of the counterexamples to the generalisation that wh-movement out of an adjunct is impossible. The thesis discusses three classes of exceptions, namely extraction from in order clauses (la), prepositional participial adjuncts (lb), and bare present participial adjuncts (lc). (1) a. What are you working so hard in order to achieve? / b. Who did John go home after talking to? f c. What did John drive Mary crazy whistling? r These contrast with cases where extraction is impossible (2). (2) a. * What did you get upset because Mary said? r b. * Who have you been really happy since talking to? / c. * What does John work whistling? / These two groups do not form natural syntactic classes, but are distinguishable in event-structural terms. The minimal constituent containing the head and foot of the chain in (1) describes a single event, on an appropriate definition of event, but does not in (2). Accordingly, I propose the following condition: (3) W/z-questions carry a presupposition that the minimal constituent containing the head and the foot of the chain describes a single event. Wz-movement is permitted only if the denotation of that minimal constituent can be construed accordingly.
locality wh_movement individuation event propose_novel characterisation counterexample generalisation wh_movement adjunct impossible discus_three class exception namely extraction order clause prepositional participial adjunct bare present participial adjunct work hard order_achieve john home talk john drive mary contrast case extraction impossible get mary say really since talk john work two_group form natural syntactic class distinguishable event structural term minimal constituent contain head foot chain describes single_event appropriate definition event accordingly propose follow condition questions carry presupposition minimal constituent contain head foot chain describe single_event movement denotation minimal constituent construe accordingly