The Nominal Nature of Where, When, and How: Evidence from Free Relatives

In this squib, we argue that the wh-words where, when, and how are inherently nominal, rather than prepositional, though they are NPs with a peculiar property: they are always base-generated as the complement of a preposition (P), which is often silent. Our main evidence comes from the behavior of embedded noninterrogative wh-clauses known as free relatives (FRs). We show that this behavior can be easily accounted for if where, when, and how are inherently nominal. We bring further empirical support to our proposal by extending it to wh-interrogatives and by discussing the similarities between FRs and the NPs that have been called bare-NP adverbs or adverbial NPs (Emonds 1976, 1987, Larson 1985, McCawley 1988). We also show that potential alternative accounts that make different assumptions about the nature of where, when, and how are unable to account for the data.

1 Two Puzzles

FRs exhibit two puzzling syntactic/semantic properties when introduced by wh-words like where, when, or how (henceforth, w/w/h FRs). First, they have the same distribution and interpretation as either PPs or NPs (first noticed by Bresnan and Grimshaw (1978:sec. 5)).¹ What looks like the very same w/w/h FR can be replaced and paraphrased with a PP or an NP, depending on the matrix clause. Examples of w/w/h FRs are given in (1)–(3). Example (a) of each pair shows a bracketed w/w/h FR occurring as the complement of the matrix predicate, as well as its NP paraphrase. Example (b) of each pair shows the same w/w/h FR occurring as an adjunct of the matrix clause, as well as its PP paraphrase.

Another puzzle, which has not been previously noticed, concerns the nature of the gap within w/w/h FRs. Despite the syntactic behavior of the w/w/h FR with respect to the matrix verb, the gap inside the w/w/h FR is always a PP gap, as shown by the labeled gaps in (1)–(3). Whether the whole w/w/h FR behaves like a PP as in (4a) or an NP as in (5a), an NP gap cannot be licensed within it—even if the predicate in the w/w/h FR selects for an NP. Notice that an NP gap can be easily licensed within the corresponding headed relatives, independently of the properties of their heads ((4b) and (5b)).

• 4.

  1. a. ?*Lily always naps [fr where/when/how Jack despises [np_____]].

  2. b. Lily always naps [pp {in the place} / {at the time} / {in the way} that Jack despises [np_____]].

• 5.

  1. a. ?*Lily adores [fr where/when/how Jack despises [np_____]].

  2. b. Lily adores [np_____{the place} / {the time} / {the way} that Jack despises [np ]].²

An important exception to the ban on NP gaps within w/w/h FRs is that an NP gap can be licensed as the complement of an overt P in a w/w/h FR that is introduced by where (in section 3.3, we discuss similar examples introduced by when). For example, the w/w/h FR introduced by where in (6a) allows for an NP gap in the complement position of the P past, which can only take NP complements. The whole FR behaves like an NP: it can be replaced and paraphrased with the bracketed complex NP in (6b). Similarly, the w/w/h FR in (7a) licenses an NP in the complement position of the P through, though it behaves like a PP, as shown in (7b).

• 6.

  1. a. Jack disliked [fr where we just ran [pp[p past] [np_____]]]—it smelled funny.

  2. b. Jack disliked [np the place we just ran [pp[p past] [np_____]]]—it smelled funny.

• 7.

  1. a. Lily lives [fr where we have to fly [pp[p through] [np_____]] on our way to Vancouver].

  2. b. Lily lives [pp in the area we have to fly [pp[p through]

     [np_____]] on our way to Vancouver].

To sum up, w/w/h...