Gašper Ilc and Milena Milojevic Sheppard CDU 801.25 : 801.56 University of Ljubljana VERB MOVEMENT AND INTERROGATIVES O. lntroduction Verb movement is a phenomenon that has been studied extensively within the framework of Chomskyan generative grammar. The pioneering work by Pollock (1989) has been followed by a number of studies involving various languages, which has provided an important insight both into the language-specific and language-uni­versal properties of verb movement. In most general terms, verb movement can be defined as movement of the verb from its base position in the (V)erb (P)hrase to some position higher in the clausal structure. In Government & Binding theory verb move­ment was motivated by the need of the bare Iexical verb to associate with the inflec­tional affixes hosted by the functional heads (Pollock 1989, Belletti 1990). By contrast, the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995) claims that ali types of movement are trig­gered by feature-checking requirements. In this system, items from Iexical categories are fully inflected in the lexicon. Thus the verb is inserted into its base position with ali its inflectional affixes and associated inflectional features. Functional heads do not contain any inflectional material; they carry only abstract features, which are checked against the corresponding features on the Iexical items. In order for feature-checking to take place the Iexical item ( e.g. the verb) must raise to the relevant functional head(s). This paper is an attempt at a syntactic account of the type of verb movement dis­played in interrogative clauses containing a wh-element. In the generative literature, this type of movement, standardly known as 'I-to-C movement', has been related to the Wh-Criterion (Rizzi 1991 ). It has been claimed that the inflected verb must raise from I(nflection) to C(omplementizer) so as to be in a Spec(ifier)-head configuration with the wh-element in the specifier of the C(omplementizer) P(hrase). In this paper, verb movement in wh-interrogatives 1 in English, French and Slovenian will be exam­ined from a comparative perspective, with special attention being paid to the follow­ing issues: (i) what are the general properties of verb movement in wh-interrogatives; (ii) how can this type of movement be analysed by adopting the basic concepts and tenets of the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995); and (iii) to what extent do the empirical observations follow from the general principles of the Minimalist Program. The paper is organised as follows. Section 1 provides a brief outline of the Mini­malist theoretical framework adopted in this examination. Section 2 deals with verb The discussion will be restricted to constituent questions; echo questions will not be considered. movement in English and French interrogatives with special emphasis on the familiar of root/embedded asymmetry of 1-to-C movement. In section 3 we focus on interrog­ative 1-to-C in Slovenian and propose an analysis of 1-to-C movement in terms of a modified Minimalist checking theory of movement which provides a uniform account of different properties of interrogative 1-to-C in languages of the English/French, Spanish and Slovenian type. In Section 4 we offer our conclusions on the research. l. Theoretical background 1.1 The Minimalist Program: basic concepts and assumptions Minimalism is an attempt to reduce the theory of grammar to the essential three components any theory of grammar2 must have: a lexicon, an interface with the artic­ulatory-perceptual system and an interface with the semantic-conceptual system. The Minimalist Program thus postulates only two levels of structural representation, the interface levels of Phonetic Form (PF) and Logical Form (LF)3, a lexicon and a com­putational system which builds structures that constitute PF and LF representations. The Minimalist model is shown in (1 ). (1) Lexicon 1 1 1 1 1 Numeration Spell-out PF 1 LF The structure-building process starts with Numeration -a set of lexical items from which a structure is to be formed. The computational system builds up structures in a step-by-step fashion, by selecting elements from the Numeration (the operation Select), combining the selected elements and partially formed structures (the operation Merge), and by moving elements that are already part of the structure (the operation Move). The computational system is constrained by economy conditions requiring that deri­vations be as economical as possible.4 At some point in the computation (Spell-Out), the dedvation splits and heads toward the two interface levels. At Spell-Out phoneti­ 2 A 'theory of grammar' in the Chomskyan sense, i.e. a theory of Iinguistic competence. 3 "This 'double interface' property is one way to express the traditional description oflanguage as sound with a meaning [ ... ]" (Chomsky 1995: 2). 4 "[... ] derivations and representations conform to an "economy" criterion demanding that they be minimal: no extra steps in derivation, no extra symbols in representation, etc" (Lasnik 1999: 26). cally relevant information is separated from semantically relevant information, so that ultimately two independent representations are formed: PF representation, containing phonetic information and an LF representation, containing semantic information. A lexical item is defined as a set of phonological, semantic, and forma! features. Forma! features (e.g. tense and agreement features) occur both in lexical and functional categories. Since forma! features are relevant only to the computational system and play no role at the PF and LF interfaces, they must be eliminated in the course of the derivation. This is achieved by feature-checking -a matching ofthe features, which in effect cancels them out. This matching is brought about by the operation Move. For instance, in order for tense and agreement features to be checked, the verb has to raise and adjoin to the functional categories T(ense) and Agr(eement). Features of the functional categories can be either strong or weak. Strong features are visible at PF and therefore have to be checked off before Spell-Out. Ifstrong fea­tures are spelt out, the derivation crashes. Weak features, on the other hand, are invis­ible at PF and may therefore be checked after Spell-Out. Accordingly, there are two types of movement: overt (pre-Spell-Out) and covert (LF) movement. Movement is subject to the economy principle Procrastinate, which requires that it be delayed until after Spell-Out as long as this does not cause the derivation to crash. Overt movement thus occurs only when it has to (the principle of Last Resort), that is, in the presence of a strong feature. 1.2 Clause structure According to the X-bar theory of phrase structure5 the basic clause structure is as shown in (2a). A clause is a maximal projection IP headed by the functional category l. The specifier of IP is the subject of IP and the VP is the complement of l. The type of clause (i.e. declarative, interrogative, imperative) is determined by the functional category C(omplementizer), which takes IP as its complement, so that a full clause has the structure (2b ). (2) a) [rp Spec [r 1 VP]] b) [ep Spec [c C [rp Spec [r 1 VPJ]]] 6 2. Wh-movement and Verb movement -English and French Wh-movement is involved in the formation of interrogative sentences where a wh­phrase raises from its base position to the specifier of CP [Spec, CP]. Wh-phrases have operator-like properties and wh-structures are subject to the Wh-Criterion (3a), requir­ing configurations as in (3b). 5 Since the 1970s X-bar theory has been standardly assumed in Chomskyan grarnmar, including early work on Minimalism (cf. Chomsky 1995, chapters 1-3). More recently, however, Chomsky has proposed to eliminate the X-bar asa separate module ofthe grammar, arguing that restrictions on tbe form ofstructural descriptions follow directly from the properties ofstructure-building processes themselves (cf. op.cit.: chapter 4). 6 CP =Complementizer Phrase; IP =Inflectional Phrase; VP =Verb Phrase, Spec =specifier. (3) a) The Wh-Criterion A. A Wh-Operator must be in a Spec-head configuration with an x01+WHJ· B. An x01+WHJ must be in a Spec-head configuration with a Wh-operator. Rizzi (1991: 2, (6)) b) CP ~ WhOp C' ~ IP Rizzi (1991: 2, (7)) As a general well formedness condition on the scope of wh-operators, the Wh­Criterion applies universally at LF, but some languages may require it to be satisfied earlier. Under Minimalist assumptions, in languages with a strong [+wh] feature (English (4a), French (4b,b')), the movement of the wh-phrase will occur already in the overt syntax (i.e. before Spell-Out), whereas in languages with a weak [+wh] fea­ture, the condition is metat LF, by covert wh-movement (Japanese -(4c)). (4) a) Where did she go? b) Que veux-tu? what want-you b') Qu' est-ce que tu veux? what Q 7 you want 'What do you want?' c) John-ga doko-ni ikimasa (ka) John where gone-has -k 'Where has John gone?' In sentences with overt wh-movement (4a-b'), the wh-phrase is separated from the subject by a phonologically overt element, which can be a finite verbal form (4a,b), or a question particle ( 4b'). In the sections that follow, we will try to establish what licenses subject-finite verb inversion (Subj-Vfin) in (4a,b)as well as the presence ofthe question particle in (4b'). 2.1Data1 2.1.1 ENGLISH In English, subject/finite verb inversion occurs in root interrogatives with the raised wh-phrase in [Spec, CP], unless the wh-phrase functions as subject (cf. (5a,b)). The inverted order is standardly assumed to be derived by the finite verb raising from its position in I to the position C. This movement is restricted to auxiliaries; main verbs 7 Qdenotes the question particle. do not move (5c). In embedded interrogatives, verb movement, resulting in the invert­ed order is not allowed (5d). (5) a) What have you done? b) Who has done it? c) *What want you? d) I wonder what *{have} you {have} done. 2.1.2 FRENCH There are three different ways of forming interrogatives in French: (i) wh-phrase in situ (wh-movement applying covertly) (6a); (ii) wh-phrase overtly moved to [Spec, CP], C filled with the question particle est­ce que (6b); (iii) wh-phrase overtly moved to [Spec, CP], C filled with the finite verbal form (6c). As in the case ofEnglish, there is an asymmetry between root and embedded claus­es. In the latter, wh-element in situ, verb movement to C, and est-ce que in C are not possible (cf. 6d-f). (6) a) Tu as vu qui? you have seen who b) Qui est-ce que tu as vu? who Q you have seen c) Qui as-tu vu? who have you seen 'Who have you seen?' d) Je ne sais pas qui elle a vu *{qui}. I ne know not who she has seen e) Je ne sais pas qui *{a} elle a vu. I ne know not who she has seen f) Je ne sais pas qui * { est-ce que} elle a vu. I ne know not who she has seen 'Ido not know who she has seen.' 2.2 Asymmetric 1-to-C movement As evidenced by the data in the previous section, both English and French root interrogatives with overt wh-movement require the presence of a phonologically overt element in C. This element can be either a finite verbal form (English, French) or a spe­cial interrogative particle (French). In the case ofthe former, the requirement is met by the verb raising to C. This movement involves only those verbal forms that are within the IP-domain; it does not affect VP-intemal verbal elements. Following standard ter­minology, we will refer to this type of verb movement as I-to-C movement. Both languages exhibit a root/embedded asymmetry ofl-to-C movement: it occurs in root interrogatives but is absent from embedded interrogatives. Given the Wh-Criterion (3), the root/embedded asymmetry is unexpected. lf 1-to-C movement must apply to establish a Spec-head configuration involving the wh-element and the inflected verb (Rizzi 1991: 1 ), why does it apply only in root and not also in embedded questions? Rizzi (1991: 3-4) argues that in the case of embedded questions, the matrix verb (e.g. wonder in (5d)) selects an indirect question, hence a CP whose head C is marked by the feature [+wH]. Since the specification [+wH] fills the embedded C, the latter is not available asa landing site for I-to-C movement. Therefore the verb stays in I and there is no subject-finite verb inversion. The Wh-Criterion is satisfied by wh-move­ment, which creates the required Spec-head configuration (cf. (3b)). Rizzi's account raises two questions. (i) A filled C is claimed to prevent the verb from moving into it. However, the verb could raise and adjoin to C. There is no apparent reason why adjunction to C should be excluded, hence a filled C as a motivation for the absence of verb movement is problematic. (ii) Root questions involve two different types of movement: movement of an XP (wh-phrase) and head movement (I-to-C). Assuming the Minimalist checking theory of movement, the [ +wH] feature of C induces wh-movement and is checked in the Spec-head configuration. The feature triggering I-to-C must be checked in a head-head configuration, but what is this feature? In the next section we will address the question oftrigger for I-to-C movement and the related issue of root/embedded asymmetry from the Minimalist perspective and propose an account ofthe asymmetry phenomenon based solely on the feature-check­ing requirements of the relevant functional head. 2.3 [+QUESTION] feature as a marker of interrogative force As is well-known, differences in clause types are often mirrored in specific syntac­tic properties of individual clause types. For example, root declaratives in the majori­ty of Germanic languages display the Verb-Second (V2) phenomenon (8a); root ques­tions often require subject-verb inversion in SVO languages (8b ); in directives the sub­ject usually stays unexpressed even in non-pro-drop languages such as English (8c)8: (8) a) Denne film har b0mene set. Danish (Rohrbacher 1999: 13, (2d)) this film have children seen 'The children have seen this film.' b) Is she happy? c) Go home. 8 For a discussion ofthese syntactic phenomena see Ilc (2002). Clause type is determined by the formal features hosted by the functional head C (Chomsky 1995), or, under the Split-CP Hypothesis, (Rizzi 1997), by the functional head Force ofthe highest projection in the CP-domain, the Force P(hrase)9. Adopting the assumption that C (Force) is the locus ofclause-type features, we sug­gest that in the case ofroot interrogatives C (Force) contains the feature [+QUESTION]. This feature is a marker of the interrogative illocutionary force of the clause, and, as will be argued below, is not identical with the [+wH] feature. There are severa! pieces of empirical evidence that support the postulation of the [+QUESTION] feature: (i) in the Chamorro language there is a special question verb paradigm (Chung 1982);lO (ii) the presence of question particles (est-ce que in French); (iii) special question affixes (the suffix -ne in Latinll). Based on the empirical evidence and the assumptions presented above, we propose that root interrogatives are clauses with the clausal head C (Force) containing the fea­ture specification as in (9): (9) CP ~ C' ~ (+WH) (+QUESTION) Ifboth features in (9) are strong, they have to be checked in the overt syntax. The [+WH]feature is checked in the Spec-head configuration, with the wh-element raising to [Spec, CP]. The [+QUESTION] feature can be checked either by a lexical element car­rying the corresponding feature: a verbal element (1-to-C movement) or a special ques­tion particle -cf. section 2.1. 9 Under the Split-CP Hypothesis ofRizzi (1997), the formerly uniform CP-Iayer ofprojection is analysed as consisting ofseveral distinct projections, ForceP>Top(ic)P>Foc(us)P>Fin(ite)P. 10 The relevant examples: a) Hay f-11m-a'gasi i kareta? (Chung 1982: 49, (30a)) who ?-washed the car 'Who washed the car?' b) Ha-fa'gasi si Juani kareta. (Chung 1982: 49, (30b)) washed case Juan the car 'Juan washed the car.' l I The suffix -ne can attach to either verbal or non verbal elements. Consider: a) Domine, dominae domine sunt? b) Domine, dominae domi suntne? Lord-voc ladies home are 'O lord, are the Iadies at home?' Now let us consider two clause types which clearly show that [ +WH] and [ +QUESTION] are two distinct features, thus lending additional support to the proposed analysis. 2.3.l VERBALQUESTIONS: NO [+WH] FEATURE Verbal questions (10) have no wh-element, hence no [+wH] feature. They exhibit 1­to-C movement, which is licensed by the presence of the [ +QUESTION] feature. Si111ce this feature is strong in French (IOa) and in English (IOb), 1-to-C movement must apply overtly. (10) a) Parlez-vous fram;:ais? speak-you French 'Do you speak French?' b) Has she arrived? 2.3.2 EXCLAMATIVES: NO [+QUESTION] FEATURE English exclamatives are restricted to the type of exclamatory utterance introduced by what or how (Quirk et al., 1999: 833). These clauses are not interpreted as questions although they involve wh-movement to [Spec, CP]. In languages with a strong [+wH] feature, such as English, wh-movement is overt (11 a). The presence ofthe [ +wH] fea­ture in exclamatives, however, does not license 1-to-C movement (cf. the ungrammat­icality of (11 b) ). Exclamatives, being devoid of interrogative force, Jack the [ +QUES­TION] feature, hence 1-to-C is ruled out by the principle of Economy. (II) a) What a tirne we have had today! b) *What a tirne have we had today! 2.3.3 ROOT/EMBEDDED ASYMMETRY REANALYSED As noted in section 2.2, Rizzi's (1991) account ofthe root/embedded asymmetry of 1-to-C movement in interrogatives is problematic from the perspective ofthe Minimalist checking theory of movement. In particular, if the root C contains only the [ +WH] fea­ture, which triggers wh-movement, there is no feature to license 1-to-C movement. Our analysis of root interrogatives (9) provides a straightforward answer to the problem of trigger for 1-to-C. The root C contains two features, [+wH] and [+QUES­TION], the former licensing wh-movement and the latter 1-to-C. Now consider embedded interrogatives. The information about the illocutionary force of the clause is encoded in the highest functional projection in the CP-domain. In the case of embedding, this is the matrix CP; embedded clauses themselves have no illocutionary force, 12 hence their C contains no illocutionary-force features. The Cf. for instance sentences (i) and (ii): both contain embedded interrogatives, but neither has interrogative illo­cutionary force -(i) has declarative and (ii) exclamative force. (i) 1 know what she said. (ii) Tell me what she said. [+QUESTION] feature, being an illocutionary-force feature, is thus not present in the C of embedded interrogatives. The root/embedded asymmetry can be fully accounted for in terms of presen­ce/absence ofthe features [+wH] and [+QUESTION]. In root interrogatives, [+wH] trig­gers wh-movement to [Spec, CP] and [+QUESTION] triggers I-to-C movement. In embedded interrogatives, [+wH] triggers wh-movement to [Spec, CP], while I-to-C does not take place due to the absence of the [ +QUESTION] feature. To sum up, we have argued that the presence ofthe [ +wH] feature licenses only one type ofmovement, namely the raising of a wh-element to [Spec, CP], where the [ +wH] feature of C is checked against the corresponding feature of the raised wh-element. I­to-C movement is licensed by another feature on C, the [+question] feature determin­ing the interrogative force of a clause, which is present in the C of root interrogatives only. On this analysis, the root/embedded asymmetry is the result of different featural content ofthe clausal head C, as shown in (12). (12) Feature(s) of C Type of movement CPinterrogative/root: [+WH] wh-movement [ +QUESTION] I-to-C movement CPinterrogative/embedded; [+WH] wh-movement 2.4 Subject -Finite Verb+Non-finite Verb inversion in French The analysis of interrogatives proposed in 2.3 above is based on the