In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • A Nonuniform Analysis of Overt Wh-Movement
  • Toru Ishii

1 A Uniform/Nonuniform Analysis of Overt Wh-Movement

There has been an extensive discussion in the generative literature regarding how overt wh-movement, a typical Ā-movement, proceeds. In the preminimalist era, any type of wh-phrase was assumed to undergo successive-cyclic Ā-movement (see, e.g., Chomsky 1977, 1986a). I call such an analysis a uniform Ā-movement analysis of overt wh-movement in the sense that any type of wh-phrase undergoes successive-cyclic Ā-movement. Within the framework of the Minimalist Program, Chomsky (1995) still assumes a uniform Ā-movement analysis of overt wh-movement. Later, though (Chomsky 2000, 2001a,b), he proposes what I call a nonuniform analysis of overt wh-movement. Under a nonuniform analysis, how overt wh-movement proceeds depends on what type of wh-phrase is involved.

Let us look at Chomsky's nonuniform analysis in detail. Chomsky (2000, 2001a,b) assumes the Phase Impenetrability Condition (1), which ensures that derivations proceed phase by phase, thereby reducing computational burden (adapted from Chomsky 2001b:14).1

(1) In [ZP Z . . . [HP α [H' H YP]]], where HP is a phase and ZP is the next phase, the domain of H is not accessible to operations at ZP, where phases are vP and CP.

Chomsky claims that the Phase Impenetrability Condition follows from the fact that Spell-Out is subject to the general condition on operations (2) (adapted from Chomsky 2001b:14).

(2) A phase Ph1 is interpreted/evaluated at the next phase Ph2.

In order to ensure successive-cyclic movement under the Phase Impenetrability Condition, Chomsky assumes (3) (adapted from Chomsky 2001b:12).

(3) The head of a phase, C and v, may be assigned an EPP-feature. [End Page 155]

This provides an "escape hatch" for successive-cyclic movement through the edge of a phase. Chomsky assumes the probe-goal theory of movement, where three kinds of uninterpretable formal features are involved in overt movement. In overt wh-movement to the specifier of an interrogative C, the following uninterpretable formal features are assumed to be involved: the Q-feature of C, the wh-feature of a wh-phrase, and the EPP-feature of C. The uninterpretable Q-feature of C, which counts as a probe, seeks a goal, namely, a matching feature. The Q-feature of C enters into a matching relation with that of the wh-phrase, which is interpretable. The Q-feature of the probe C and the wh-feature of the goal wh-phrase, being uninterpretable, undergo deletion. The Q-feature of the wh-phrase, being interpretable, remains. The EPP-feature of C, being a selectional feature, merges with the wh-phrase in Spec,C. Since the EPP-feature is uninterpretable, it undergoes deletion. This is essentially the mechanism responsible for overt wh-movement.2 Chomsky (2000) also assumes (4).

(4) A noninterrogative C and v without undeleted φ-features may be assigned a nonspecific periphery feature (P-feature).

(4) allows the probe-goal theory of movement, which assumes three kinds of uninterpretable formal features to be involved in overt movement, to apply to successive-cyclic movement without change. This assignment of a P-feature is contingent on the assignment of an EPP-feature to the head of a phase in terms of (3).

Under Chomsky's nonuniform analysis, overt wh-movement proceeds in either of two ways, depending on the Case-agreement property of a moved wh-phrase, as shown in (5).

(5) Nonuniform analysis of overt wh-movement (Chomsky 2000, 2001a,b)

  1. a. A-movement → Ā-movement

  2. b. Ā-movement

  3. c. Ā-movement
    [End Page 156]

When the moved wh-phrase enters into a Case-agreement relation with v, wh-movement proceeds as in (5a). In (5a), the light verb v, which is the head of a phase, is assigned an EPP-feature by means of (3). The φ- and EPP-features of v trigger overt movement of the wh-object what to the vP-edge position for Case-agreement reasons. This movement is A-movement, given that movement triggered by the φ-features on a functional head counts as A-movement (Chomsky 2000: 108). It then undergoes overt Ā-movement to Spec,C. When the moved wh...

pdf

Share