WH-Clauses In English: Aspects of Theory and Description. (Language and Computers 34) (Language & Computers)

Acknowledgments In writing this book, there have been many things other than the text itself which I have been thankful for. The completion of this enterprise has, among other things, brought with it an enhanced sense of humility, patience and discipline. These are truly things to be grateful for and these are the people I would like to thank for them. For support far above and beyond the call of duty, I give my sincere thanks to my supervisor, Professor Aimo Seppänen. I have profited enormously from our many conversations and I find it inconceivable that I could have undertaken and completed this project without his friendly attitude and his judicious suggestions. The confidence he has shown in me has had a immeasurable effect on me and my work and it is with immense pleasure that I thank him here for his guidance and encouragement. Giving freely of his time and expertise, Sölve Ohlander has read and commented on parts of previous versions of this text. The keen interest he has shown in my work has been deeply appreciated and I cannot thank him enough for his time, his good cheer, his insightful comments and his unashamedly generativestyle approach to grammar. For his comments on parts of this manuscript I would also like to express my gratitude to Arne Olofsson. Karin Aijmer, despite her mindbendingly hectic schedule, has also taken the time to read parts of my manuscript and I thank her for her interest and advice. I have also benefited greatly from discussions with David Wright, who has always shown a frightening talent for knowing what I am talking about no matter how ill-thought out that may be. I also want to express my appreciation to the members of the doctoral seminar at the English Department at Göteborg University for lively and helpful discussion of many of the subjects contained in this work. I am particularly indebted to Karolina Wirdenäs for providing much needed support and advice, but especially for her assistance in overcoming the innumerable and seemingly insurmountable obstacles I faced in the last hectic days of preparing the first version of this work. On the general theme of moral support there are simply too many people to thank individually, but, having said that, I feel quite content to single out three people who have been exceptionally supportive – for their uncannily well-timed, constructive, considerate and positive comments I am particularly beholden to Rhonwen Bowen, Ron Paul and Margret Javefors. Thanks are also due to Inger Bergren for giving me a ticket to this crazy roller coaster and also to Göran Kjellmer, who in the early stages of what was to become my academic career, showed me how an inspired pedagogue who enjoys his subject can make a difference. I also wish to express my earnest gratitude to all the native speaker informants who have generously shared their intuitions with me, it is not possible to mention all their names, but some particularly indefatigable repeat performers

xi

Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

deserve special attention: Rhonwen Bowen, Jennifer Herriman, Ron Paul, Alan McGee, Alyson McGee, Chris Dunlop, Paul Golding, Anne Moskow, Jennifer Attbery, and Andrew Todman. For assistance in early stages of this work concerning the database program I used for the BUC material, I would especially like to thank Karin Wagner. On publishing this revised version, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the opponent at the public defence of the thesis version of this work, Dr Bas Aarts, University College London. The present version has benefited greatly from his questions, comments and observations. I would also like to thank the staff at the Department of Humanities and Teacher Education at Halmstad University College for assistance and support during the preparation of the present version of this book. Many thanks are also due to Mats Johansson, Halmstad University College, for helpful discussions on the intricacies of generative syntax. Though I feel a debt of gratitude to the above-mentioned people for their help in making this book possible, that should not be interpreted as meaning that these same people necessarily agree with the ideas and analyses put forward in this work. I alone bear complete responsibility for any errors, inadequacies and miscellaneous anomalies contained in the body of this work. Finally, for being very much alive in a world of dead symbols, I dedicate this book to Jeanette Andersson. Göteborg University 1998 and Halmstad University College 2000 Joe Trotta

Symbols, abbreviations and language conventions Symbols: * ?* ??, ? (*), (?) () A: :

[ ] / / { } D

~ = ¹ < ‘’ —

unacceptable tending to unacceptability, but not fully unacceptable native speakers are more or less doubtful about unacceptability acceptability judgments in parentheses indicate that native speakers’ reactions differ parentheses enclose optional items, eg in I believe (that) he studied French, the use of that is optional capital letters (A & B) followed by a colon represent different speakers in a conversational exchange, eg: A: What are you doing? B: Testing the chlorine level. colon after the abbreviations for clause elements means ‘realized by’ (eg, S: NP, ie Subject realized by a Noun Phrase) angle brackets enclose dialect or style labels after examples, ie BrE , AmE , informal , etc square brackets used in examples indicate constituency obliques are used to indicate alternatives in examples (alternatives are listed horizontally) braces are used to indicate alternatives in examples (alternatives are listed vertically) (read as ‘gap’) – indicates the logical, understood, non wh-position of a fronted wh-item triangles of varying sizes are used to indicate unanalyzed construction in tree diagrams semantic correspondence between structures equivalent non-equivalent less than (eg < 1% means less than 1 percent) Single quotation marks are primarily used for technical terms not previously introduced, but also to draw attention to words which are unusual in the context or are being used for special effect. used in examples to mark the position of missing (ellipted or otherwise) elements other than wh-items.

xiii Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description Abbreviations for grammatical classes, functions and other categories: Advbl

Adverbial (alternatively abbreviated as ‘A’) Adj Adjective AdjP Adjective Phrase Adv Adverb AdvP Adverb Phrase BoundRel Bound Relative BoundRelP Bound Relative Phrase C Complementizer CP Complementizer Phrase Exclam Exclamative ExclamP Exclamative Phrase FreeRel Free Relative FreeRelP Free Relative Phrase fn-S finite clause Interrog Interrogative InterrogP Interrogative Phrase

N nf-P nf-S NP Od Oext Oi Po Postmod Ps PP S Sbj Sext V VP

Noun non-finite phrase non-finite clause Noun Phrase Direct Object Extraposed Object Indirect Object Object Predicative Postmodifier Subject Predicative Preposition Phrase (alternatively abbreviated as ‘cl’) Subject Extraposed Subject Verb Verb Phrase

Abbreviations used to denote various corpora: BUC Brown University Corpus bnc British National Corpus – because of the similarity between the abbreviations BUC and BNC, BNC is written in lower-case letters (bnc) after examples. CDC CobulidDirect Corpus LOB The Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus Other abbreviations n/a Not Applicable n/i Not Integrated 20cE Twentieth Century English A note on gender neutral language In order to avoid a gender-bias in sentences in which the antecedents of certain pronouns refer to both men and women, I have opted for the use of third-person pronouns (eg ‘The linguist must understand their position; The language user must chose the option they feel most secure with’, etc) rather than the awkward and artificial he/she; him/her, etc. This use is considered by some speakers to be substandard, but since the third-person pronouns are gender neutral and already exist as a natural alternative in many dialects (not insignificantly my own), I have chosen this option.

Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1

Background

Though many aspects of wh-clauses are covered extensively in existing works, the substantial attention paid to these clauses in research, textbooks and reference grammars is not, in my view, a completely accurate reflection of our understanding of the data. The prodigious volume of work on this subject is rather a consequence of the complexity of the variables involved, the richness of the interaction of these variables, and not least, the diverse research perspectives and aims of the analyst. In theory-oriented and descriptive grammars alike, interrelated points of wh-phenomena have often been treated in complete isolation or grouped together as general properties of the whole, blurring the distinction between which phenomena are clause-type specific and which are not. In the generative frameworks, for example, the great interest in wh-clauses has yielded a considerable amount of insightful research on specific aspects of these clauses such as movement phenomena (see, for example, Chomsky 1973, 1977; Gazdar 1981; Ross 1986: 70-1561). While this perspective emphasizes what all types of wh-clauses may have in common with regard to wh-movement, it does not give, nor has the aim of giving, a more holistic grammatical analysis which includes an account of the distinctive features of each wh-clause type and the correlations between clause type and wh-phenomena.2 Additionally, theoryoriented work attempts not only to achieve a reasonable level of descriptive adequacy but also has the task of making these phenomena amenable to a particular linguistic theory. Though the generative enterprise has left an indelible mark on the study of language and despite the valuable and productive contributions made by the various theories in this area, the problems of constructing a theoretical model of language universals as opposed to those of describing language specific phenomena are often quite different. In standard modern reference grammars of English (eg Huddleston 1984, 1988; Quirk et al 1985; Greenbaum 1996, to name only a few representative examples), the common grammatical properties of wh-clauses which apply across clause type are often obscured. By and large, the processes and principles of whphenomena are not applied consistently – for example, in distinguishing relative adverbs such as when and where from conjunctions, many grammarians/lexicographers have focused on the connective properties of these items at the 1

Ross (1986) is the published version of the author’s 1967 thesis. There are notable exceptions such as Bresnan and Grimshaw (1978) which relates some aspects of wh-free relative phrases to clause type, but this is nonetheless a selective and specific account of one clause type and not a general and contrastive account of wh-phenomena across clause types. 2

2

Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

expense of other facts which would not only lead to a different analysis of these words but also a different view of the clauses they introduce (see section 5.7.2 and Trotta & Seppänen 1998). Descriptive accounts of constraints on extractions (as related to wh-phenomena) are sometimes incomplete, inconsistent or simply confused (see sections 2.5.3 and 6.7.2, for example, for a discussion of movement constraints and the limitations on so-called ‘pushdown’ elements in Quirk et al 1985: 821-822). Not least of the problems involved, many of the valuable insights of the generative grammarians have not yet been properly negotiated into descriptive frameworks. 1.2

Aims

In plain terms, the main, overriding objective of this work is to provide a description-oriented, theory-neutral account of wh-clauses in late twentieth-century English based on aspects of both generative and non-generative work. More specifically, the aims of this study can be stated concisely in the following points: · · ·

describe the distinctive features of each of the wh-clause types examine the relation between clause-type membership and wh-phenomena investigate problematic areas of demarcation between wh-clause types

The nature of these goals necessarily requires a broad perspective on the data under investigation and entails a treatment of wh-clauses on several, overlapping and interconnected levels of grammatical analysis. The present study thus explores not only the well-researched common areas of wh-phenomena, but also specifies the particular characteristics of each clause type and describes the syntactic integration of wh-clauses into larger constructions. 1.3

Theoretical orientation

A study of specific constructions in a particular language is arguably not a suitable place for a detailed examination of issues concerning theoretical orientation and research perspective, but a brief discussion of several points will help to place this work in its proper light. To begin with, the term ‘theory-neutral’ used in section 1.2 is not intended to mean that there is no theory to the analysis provided here or that theory is not discussed or evaluated. It simply means that none of the current theoretical frameworks is assumed to be the correct one and no effort is made on my part to prove the validity or superiority of a specific framework because of an allegiance to a particular linguistic school. A theory-neutral or ‘agnostic’ approach was chosen for several reasons, not the least of which is that, despite the contributions of theory-oriented grammars, these frameworks are far from ideal. An examination of the shortcomings of theory-oriented grammars is not necessary or possible here, but one small example will perhaps suffice to make the point. In Govern-

Chapter 1: Introduction

3

ment and Binding Theory (henceforth referred to as GB), certain processes such as wh-movement apply at the levels of D-structure and S-structure and the ungrammaticality of some utterances is explained by constraints on movement (see the discussion of ‘island constraints’ in section 2.5.3, see also Jacobs, 1995:x). There are, however, instances in which even the (un)grammaticality of in-situ whitems can only be explained if these items were in fact moved, though there is no clear empirical evidence or motivation for such movement (see, for example, Haegeman 1994: 487-540; Haegeman & Guéron 1999: 545-550). In such situations, movement is said to take place in GB’s logico-semantic level of representation known as Logical Form (or LF); a level of representation which is also used to explain movement violations in languages which lack any syntactic counterpart to wh-movement (such as, for example, Chinese and Japanese, cf Lasnik & Saito 1984). There are legitimate, theory-internal motivations for attempting to deal with such problems (not the least of which is the ultimate goal of providing a model of language universals), but when the details of such a framework are examined from a descriptive perspective of language specific phenomena, the necessary theoretical machinery involved can seem questionable and unwieldy.3 No linguist would claim that the existing grammatical rules of a language are complete and final. Still, the necessity of constant, self-critical reassessment gives cutting-edge linguistic theory an ‘always-provisional’ quality which in turn leads to a lack of stability in the analysis and terminology (for example the concept of government, which was previously central to GB, has now been abandoned altogether). This situation is in no way unique for Chomskyan-style generative grammar; Phrase Structure Grammars, ie Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, etc (henceforth referred to collectively as PSG), Lexical Functional Grammar (henceforward referred to as LFG) and other, less-renowned theoretical approaches are similarly constantly renewed and modified. The evolution and development of new versions of the theory-oriented grammars is a natural, legitimate and positive move, but it presents certain complications for linguists who prefer to remain agnostic in their view of grammar. It is inevitable that if a work sets out to incorporate language data into a particular theoretical paradigm, the value of the work is in some measure diminished when that paradigm undergoes radical changes or is rejected altogether. Notwithstanding the problems involved, the contributions of generative grammarians cannot be ignored in a proper study of wh-clauses. The question therefore is not if theory should be included but rather how much and which ones should be considered. There is a healthy diversity of frameworks which address the subject, but due to limitations of space, not all of them can be included; I have 3

The latest version of the Principle and Parameters model (the name preferred by Chomsky for more recent versions of the transformationalist paradigm, cf Chomsky (1995: 29-30), henceforth referred to as P&P), the so-called Minimalist Program, will perhaps provide some solutions to these problems.

4

Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

therefore concentrated on the P&P and PSG approaches and kept my comments concerning other theories to a minimum. The reasons for this focus are: (1) the P&P and PSG frameworks have well-developed theories of wh-phenomena, (2) as far as generative grammars go, they both have a large number of adherents, (3) they are the schools which have had the greatest impact on current thought in linguistics in general and, not least, (4) because they are relatively long-lived. Also, these approaches (often together with LFG) lend themselves fairly easily to a discussion since several textbooks and articles already exist which compare and contrast their views on wh-movement (eg Sells 1985a; McCloskey 1988; Horrocks 1987; Borsely 1991). 1.4

On the notions of form and formalism in grammatical description

A central research perspective in this study is that it focuses primarily on a formal description of the syntax of wh-clauses (which is often compatible with or at least comparable to current linguistic models in the theory-neutral sense indicated above). This point may seem tautological since grammars by definition are formal; nonetheless I feel it is appropriate to emphasize a subtlety here which is not immediately apparent. The use of the term ‘formal’ simply refers to the study of grammatical structure (see Lyons 1968: 136 for other uses of the term) – a view which is well-grounded in non-generative grammars, ie classic English grammars such as Poutsma (1917); Jespersen (1927/1940); Kruisinga (1922); Curme (1931); Zandvoort (1957), etc, as well as modern descriptive grammars such as Quirk et al (1972); Quirk & Greenbaum (1973); Aarts & Aarts (1982); Huddleston (1984), (1988); Quirk et al (1985); Baker (1989); Greenbaum (1996), to name just a few. Classic and modern alike, works such as these devote a great deal of analysis to matters of grammatical form through the use of disciplined methods of testing syntactic relationships via formal (structural) tests, eg passivization, clefting, fronting, etc. Another, in some ways overlapping, sense of ‘formal’ refers more specifically to the objective of generative grammar ‘…which is characterized by the goal of investigating natural language through the construction of (i) mathematical models of (aspects of) particular languages … and (ii) a general mathematical framework for building such models…’, (Gazdar 1987: 122). I prefer to distinguish the two uses of formal, referring to the latter, generative use as ‘formalism-oriented’ and reserving the former, more general sense of the term for the traditional, non-generative use indicated above. Formalismoriented, mathematical models no doubt further research and understanding, especially in computational linguistics, but I do not see how the study of natural, human language is improved solely by a preoccupation with formalism. This work is not an exercise in formalization, though the description here should be clear enough that, where applicable, it might be possible in principle to formalize it – the main, overriding goal of this work, however, is to better understand and describe the grammar of wh-clauses.

Chapter 1: Introduction

5

Concerning this issue of perspective, interconnected questions of scope may be anticipated, questions such as: ‘Why focus on grammatical form? Isn’t language much more than just grammar?’ On this issue, many linguists (generally of the so-called functional school, cf Dik 1981: 4-5; Halliday 1994: xii/xxx; Givón 1995: 9) have advocated a view of language which includes the sociocultural aspect of language and emphasizes the place of syntax within the framework of pragmatics/communicative function. Although modest semantic and pragmatic analyses are employed here when useful, in view of the more holistic approach of functionalism it may be easy to dismiss this study as a modular treatment of language and therefore reductive in its approach. Reduction has, generally rightfully so, many negative connotations, but a common-sense approach to making certain necessary idealizations need not in any way be at odds with serious scholarly research. It may very well be that a complicated system such as language is much more than the sum of its parts and that it cannot be explained or described in terms of sub-units (eg syntax, semantics, etc) acting together. When viewed holistically, the properties of the entire language system may turn out to be intractable from a formalist point of view. Only the most naive researchers (if any exist), believe that the most perfect model is the one that perfectly represents reality. Such a model would have the same drawbacks as a map as large and detailed as the city it represents, a map depicting every park, every street, every building, every tree, every pothole, every inhabitant and every map. Were such a map possible, its specificity would defeat its purpose: to generalize and abstract. The analysis in this work tries whenever possible to reap the advantages of an idealized, modular approach but at the same time it does not ignore but rather readily accepts that certain ‘accidents of history’ can present problems for linguists who unrealistically wish their work to provide always regular, always elegant grammatical rules. Formal grammar is sometimes characterized as bordering on mechanistic: ‘The laws of Newtonian physics are considered exceptionless. Often, rules of grammar seem equally rigid, so much so that the unwary may be tempted to view them as the workings of a deterministic automaton’ (Givón 1993: 3). A focus on syntactic form (in the manner of generative grammars) has also been seen as treating the grammar of competence as ‘essentially a deterministic automaton, making structural ‘grammaticality’ choices – rather than an instrument for carrying on communication’ (Givón 1984: 7). In practice this may often be the case but, from the point of view of this work, it is a non-problem since in principle there need not be any conflict between a communicative/functional approach and a strictly formal grammatical approach. Even in the highly unlikely event that an infallible syntactic algorithm for human language could be discovered and verified, it would only be deterministic in the sense that it would allow reasonable predictions about the well-formedness of an utterance. Such a highly hypothetical algorithm would not/could not in any way reduce what is actually said by a language user into a deterministic process. This is true in the same manner that the rules of chess, to use the common analogy, only determine what moves are allowable in a game or in a particular game situation – the game itself is not determined

6

Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

nor does a list of rules allow foolproof predications about what moves a player will actually make during the course of a game other than to specify what is allowed.4 A knowledge of the situational appropriateness and communicative function of utterances is surely a part of the speaker’s competence, but a wider view of the concept in this sense does not make the Chomskyan sense of the term invalid – ‘situational/communicative’ competence is neither completely overlapping nor in any way in conflict with ‘rule-system’ competence. In addition, the form/function relationship, which is central to the functional framework (see Halliday 1973: 7; Dik 1981: 2), is not always a particularly useful tool in describing the grammar of many wh-phenomena. Compare the following sentences: (1)

a. Who did you say (that) Bill came to visit? b. Who did you say (*that) came to visit you?

In these constructions, communicative function does not help us to understand the grammaticality of the form in (1a) and the ungrammaticality of the form with that insertion in the analogous (1b). (For a discussion of sentences of this type see section 3.7.3). Acceptance of such facts does not imply a blind faith in the autonomy of syntax nor does it entail a rejection of form/function relations (see also Givón 1993: 2-5 on non-functional rules). As a final comment on formalization, it should also be noted that X-bar theory and tree diagrams are used throughout this work. These are only intended as tools to help visualize syntactic relationships – in no way do I take it for granted that grammatical functions are ‘derived’ configurationally from such diagrams and, more fundamentally, in no way should it be understood that I view these conventions as accurate representations of some linguistic reality or that they somehow determine the form of constructions. Grammarians’ classifications, no matter how high a level of descriptive or explanatory adequacy they may have, do not determine linguistic structure – classifications and labels can be very misleading and create a kind of virtual reality which may blind the researcher and prevent them from open-mindedly studying the one which actually exists. Labels which are useful for understanding important fundamental principles at one level of analysis can obstruct observations later when a greater level of sophistication and detail is required. Linguistic research can, as a consequence, degenerate to fairly trivial problems such as categorizing indeterminate or recalcitrant structures into preconceived notions rather than mapping out the situation in a more constructive fashion.5 Naturally, grammatical notions, such as for example constituent 4

Naturally, distinctions between the allowable and the unallowable are far more rigid in chess games than in language, but the analogy is still useful in this context. 5 For the classic discussion of how preconceived notions restrict the freedom of the researcher, see the oft-cited Kuhn (1970).

Chapter 1: Introduction

7

structure, clause-functions, word-class labels, etc, are not simply convenient fictions – the fact that the vast majority of utterances can be analyzed efficiently (with varying degrees of elegance) in grammatical terms (theoretical or otherwise) is surely no coincidence. It should be kept in mind, however, that these notions, labels, classifications, etc, are representations of linguists’ constructions of knowledge about language and linguistic structure and are not necessarily highfidelity reflections of the object under examination. To sum up the discussions in 1.3 and 1.4, this work is informed by the belief that a descriptive approach need not be in conflict with a theoretical approach6 and that a focus on syntax need not be at odds with other more communicative/function-oriented ways of viewing linguistic structures. Expressed as simply as possible, the present work seeks to answer the unashamedly generativestyle question: What is the best way to describe exactly what people know when they know the rules for well-formed wh-clauses? 1.5

Method of the present study

It is by now a truism that both corpus-based studies and those which rely on introspection are improved considerably when used in conjunction with each other. Research which relies solely on native-speaker intuition and introspection has some very obvious drawbacks; for example, the following list (a summary of Mair 1990: 7) points out some of the problems with an ‘armchair’ methodology: · · · ·

The analyst may be unwittingly biased. Exposure to a high number of rare or peripheral constructions may blur distinctions (cf Greenbaum 1984: 196). Invented examples do not usually provide textual or situational context. Invented examples often exploit high degrees of intricacy which are unlikely to occur naturally.7

Using introspection/intuition as a sole source of data is clearly in many ways unsatisfactory, but, on the other hand, many linguists have presented cogent arguments regarding the inadequacies of a strictly corpus-based approach, cf Horrocks (1987: 11); Mair (1990: 6-7); Chomsky (in Harris 1993: 96-100), among others. Basically, it simply does not make sense to wait for native speakers to produce utterances which would allow linguists to make conclusions on the grammaticality of certain constructions when it is possible for native-speaking linguists to ask and answer important questions themselves. In addition to this, 6

See Aarts (1993) for a general discussion on the integration of theoretical work into modern descriptive grammar. 7 Complicated examples which are invented are, of course, not necessarily a drawback since these can also be very valuable in providing significant information about structure and native-speakers’ judgments (cf Chomsky 1986a: 37).

8

Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

there are many rules of which native speakers have a tacit knowledge but to which linguists would not gain access no matter how many corpora they examined, cf the following: (2)

a. Nero caused the downfall of Rome. b. What did Nero cause the downfall of?

(3)

a. The downfall of Rome was caused by Nero. b. *What was the downfall of caused by Nero?

At what point could we ever be sure that the failure of utterances of the form of (3b) to appear in a sample of speech was not accidental? Also, a researcher could not expect a corpus to supply information about ungrammatical/unacceptable constructions, which also provide the linguist with important information about grammatical rules (cf Jacobsen 1986: 16). Not only is it difficult to draw conclusions about the grammaticality of structures on the basis of facts concerning non-occurrence or low frequency in a corpus, but it can also be shown that such facts do not necessarily reflect the naturalness or acceptability of an utterance. In the course of this study, I have found several constructions which are nearly non-existent in the corpora yet they are completely acceptable to native speakers. For example: (4)

A petition bearing the signatures of more than 1,700 Johnston taxpayers was presented to the town council last night as what is hoped will be the first step in obtaining a home rule charter for the town. (BUC A05:59)

In (4), the construction contains a fronted element (what) which is understood to have a functional role as the subject of two finite VPs, firstly the matrix predication is hoped and secondly the embedded will be the first step…for the town (the relevance of this fact is elaborated upon in section 5.7.2 (see Bergh, Seppänen & Trotta, 1998, and Seppänen & Bergh, forthcoming b, for more thorough analyses of this construction). No similar examples of this structure were found in the LOB corpus and only one (non-wh version) was discovered in the twenty-million-word version of the CobuildDirect corpus. When this structure was tested, however, my native-speaker informants accepted it without hesitation (see also Bergh, Seppänen & Trotta 1998). Exclusively corpus-based or corpus-driven studies allow the analyst to make objective, verifiable statements about the frequency and distribution of items included in the corpora used, but this approach is limited if one’s goal is to account for the grammar used tacitly by native speakers to produce well-formed utterances (see Johansson 1995 for a discussion of the adequacy of corpus-based approaches to grammar). Corpus frequencies provide a great deal of important information as to, among many other things, the contextual and situational appro-

Chapter 1: Introduction

9

priateness of utterances, but it cannot be taken for granted that it is a suitable tool in making grammaticality, acceptability or naturalness distinctions.8 1.6

An eclectic collection of data

With a mind to the problems indicated above and in order to make this study as well-rounded as possible in terms of data collection, several sources were used. Section 1.6.1 discusses the main source of corpus data in this work, the Brown University corpus, and thereafter section 1.6.2 takes up several other minor sources of data. 1.6.1 The Brown corpus A methodical analysis of corpus data helps to uncover problems, patterns and correlations where none were perceived before. In this respect, the Brown corpus (also referred to in this work simply as ‘the corpus’) has been an invaluable tool in determining the nature and direction of the discussions in this study. It has been used as the subject of a detailed and extensive quantitative analysis involving the systematic examination of nearly 14, 000 wh-clauses (before exclusions) categorized according to 10 different variables as regards phrasal, clause-internal and clause-external factors. In addition to its usefulness in the quantitative study of wh-clauses, it has served as a source of reliable data of high quality. The corpus thus serves three major functions in the present work: it provides statistical findings; it anchors the qualitative analysis in concrete data; and it provides a useful platform for discussions of theoretical issues. The Brown corpus is available in a number of versions;9 the material for this study is selected from a CD-ROM version (1991) made available by the ICAME collection of English Language Corpora, distributed by the Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities (NCCH) in Bergen, Norway. The software used to gather data from this version of the corpus was WordCruncher 4.5 written by Electronic Text Corporation. It is important to note that all references to the Brown corpus in this work concur with the references used by the software on this CD-ROM disc and not to the reference numbers of the paper version of the corpus. The text category and sample number (eg R03 refers to category R (humor) sample 03, K22 refers to category K (general fiction) sample 22, etc) are the same in each version, the important difference being that the remaining digits in the 8

Needless to say, the object of a corpus-based study may not be to distinguish the grammatical/acceptable/natural from the ungrammatical/unacceptable/unnatural, in which case these distinctions are irrelevant. 9 A full description of the Brown corpus and the details of how that material was selected and organized can be found in Kucera & Francis (1967) and Francis & Kucera (1979).

10 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description CD-ROM version are based on orthographic sentences while in the paper version these digits correspond to a line number in the text. 1.6.2 Other sources of data In addition to the Brown corpus, I have also made use of the following:10 The BNC, the LOB and the CobuildDirect corpora (i) These corpora were used (in an unsystematic way, ie searches were performed on particular strings) to complement the BUC in cases where it did not provide any examples of certain constructions. Additionally, the use of these corpora has helped to balance the investigation along two dimensions; first in terms of dialect variation (the BNC contains samples of many different UK dialects; the CDC has samples of British as well as American and Australian dialects) and second in terms of written and spoken data (both the BNC and the CDC contain spoken data, which is completely absent from the BUC). Other attested material (ii) This consists of examples from dictionaries, grammars and research articles; material from searches on the internet using search engines such as Alta Vista (for a discussion of this method of data collection, see Bergh, Seppänen & Trotta 1998); and also examples gleaned from my own casual pursuits, ie movies, television programs, leisure reading, etc. (iii) Introspection Introspection includes my own intuition and that of other native speakers, for the most part colleagues who are also grammarians but also several non-specialists. Native informants have been consulted on all the invented examples in this work. (iv) Elicitation testing Data of this type have been kept to an absolute minimum since it is extremely difficult to evaluate how participants react to possible distorting factors or whether prescriptive rules play an exaggerated part in informants’ responses (some of these problems are outlined in Quirk & Svartvik 1966; Greenbaum & Quirk 1970). 1.7

The variety of English in the present study

This is a study which investigates and describes the basic units and processes involved in the formation of wh-clauses. Although I happen to be an American and the statistical survey included here is based on a corpus of American English, 10

This collection owes a certain debt to Mair (1990: 6-7)

Chapter 1: Introduction 11

this is not a book devoted solely to American English. I have drawn upon several sources of data (see sections 1.6.1 and 1.6.2) which include the linguistic intuitions of speakers of most of the major geographical and many of the social dialects of English. Despite the existence of grammatical differences among regional and social varieties of English, they share a significant core of grammatical units and relations, a core which enables its users to speak a common English language and in which the subject matter in this work is contained (cf Greenbaum 1996: 14). An important goal of this study is to describe/explain, whenever possible, how the wh-constructions that native speakers accept as grammatical for English differ from those they reject as ungrammatical, regardless of the particular dialect of English. This does not mean that I have attempted to cover every possible dialect variation for wh-clauses in the English speaking world. It means that important aspects of dialect variation, as far as it is possible for a single analyst to be aware of such variation, have been included rather than ignored or used inconsistently to either justify a description or explain away recalcitrant data. Some grammarians who reject or criticize formalist core-periphery distinctions for (idealized) syntactic structures are quite prepared to accept analogous distinctions when it comes to dialect variations. For example, Christian Mair, in the introduction to his work on infinitival complement clauses (1990: 4), criticizes formalist attitudes to irregular syntax by stating ‘...examples of irregular syntax resulting from accidents of language contact are probably more of a problem for the formal grammarian than for the functionalist because only an autonomous syntax can be expected to be regular, exceptionless and elegant.’ Later, however, when motivating his focus on the educated British English standard (p 8), he states that the restriction of his study to this variety of English ‘... is highly desirable because the uncontrolled inclusion of material from other varieties would necessarily complicate the grammatical description by adding irrelevant exceptions to rules which adequately describe the variety under investigation.’ This is not intended as a criticism of Mair’s methodology – this discrepancy rather illustrates how extremely difficult it can be to make distinctions between data which may allow insightful generalizations about the material under examination and data which can complicate or distort these generalizations. The following sentences help demonstrate this point: (5)

a. ?This is the man that John wondered when he will invite. b. *This is the man that John made the claim that he will invite.

(6)

The man what did this must be crazy.

Are sentences of the type in (5a/b), which have been taken from Haegeman (1994: 464), different in their degree of (un)grammaticality? Can we draw conclusions from such examples and how far can we go in using them to make generalizations about linguistic structures? If sentences of the type (6) do not occur in a corpus of educated British English, does this mean that these constructions are not a part of the competence of the speakers of this dialect or does it mean that these construc-

12 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description tions are not a part of the core of usage of these speakers because of perceived standards? Such questions cannot be answered here, I simply acknowledge the problem and note that in this study I have opted to delimit the material, in as nonarbitrary and motivated a manner as is possible, in favor of data which allow the highest level of generalization. 1.8

The organization of the present study

The packaging of the analysis in this work in neat, systematic, logical and hierarchical sections is problematic. One angle of approach may emphasize specific aspects of the data while the way in which another may frame these same aspects may make them appear as nearly insignificant. In addition, regardless of how the text of this work is organized, simply choosing a natural point of departure for discussions often involves a chicken-or-egg style predicament since many whphenomena are interconnected and therefore difficult to treat in isolation without anticipating later discussions. For reasons which I shall develop and motivate shortly, the present study follows two main organizing principles: (i) the main analytical chapters (3 – 6) are arranged according to clause-type membership ie interrogative, exclamative, and relative; and (ii) each chapter treats the data in subsections which roughly progress from a micro level to a macro level of investigation. Though principle (i) may seem the logical starting point for the following comments, a discussion of this arrangement is more greatly facilitated by beginning with the second principle dealing with the progression from a micro level to a macro level of analysis. Consider the following example: (7)

Please tell me [which books you think [I should read D on the subject]].

The micro level of analysis examines variables such as the wh-word (here which) and the constituent structure of the wh-phrase, ie the italicized portion of example (7) (here wh-NP ® wh-DET + NP). The next level of examination is the relation of the clause-initial wh-XP to the position of its logical, understood grammatical function (as the direct object of read, marked by the ‘D’ symbol). More specific details concerning the form of the wh-clause together with interrelated issues of movement phenomena (eg the wh-phrase in (7) appears in a higher clause than its grammatical function) can be seen as cusp points between the micro and macro levels of analysis. The macro level proper includes variables such as the clausetype membership of the wh-clause (here interrogative) together with how this clause itself is syntactically integrated as an element in a larger construction (here direct object of tell). Naturally, the terms ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ do not correspond to discrete levels of analysis but rather should be seen as two points on a scale which roughly corresponds to the grammatical hierarchy from word to phrase to clause to sentence. The progression from a micro to a macro level of analysis is not a completely smooth one and, since each clause type invites discussions of a different

Chapter 1: Introduction 13

kind, the substance and coverage of issues is not completely symmetrical from one chapter to the next. On the whole, the subsections of each chapter proceed in accordance with the grammatical hierarchy noted above – a well-established angle of approach in most grammars. Occasionally, however, the discourse branches out in an organic manner into discussions of points of particular interest or issues which overlap or affect the analysis on more than one level. Also, the natural progression of the examination of the corpus material sometimes affects the order in which certain phenomena are taken up in this work. For example, island constraints (see section 2.5.3 for a general introduction) are relevant to all clause types, but since the corpus only yields examples of violations of these constrains in connection with bound relative constructions, I delay a detailed discussion of this phenomena until the chapter concerning bound relative clauses. Returning now to principle (i), the main chapters of this work (3 – 6) are organized according to clause type for the simple reason that one of the expressed goals of this study is to investigate the relationship of clause type (a macro-level aspect of wh-clauses) to wh-phenomena on a micro level. This organization has the disadvantage of fragmenting some of the properties that all wh-clauses have in common and, to compensate for this, requires a certain amount of repetition, eg once interrogatives have been discussed, those properties which for example relatives have in common with interrogatives have to be repeated somehow, even if this repetition is concise. Using clause-type classifications as a basis for organization also entails delaying certain central points in a somewhat artificial way, for example the question of the gradience between interrogatives and free relatives makes little or no sense until both of these clause-types have been presented. Despite these disadvantages, this organization achieves several very important goals: (i) it illustrates how (and approaches the question why) certain features of wh-phenomena are clause-type specific in nature; (ii) since clause type has a bearing on the syntactic function of subordinated wh-clauses, it facilitates a disciplined treatment of the integration of wh-clauses in larger constructions; and (iii) it is translatable to functionalist paradigms since clause type is generally (but not always) related to communicative function. In order to circumvent the chicken-or-egg type problem mentioned at the beginning of this section, the present study moves forward in a ‘spiral’ manner. Chapter 2 introduces the analysis, the basic terminology and some problematic issues – in ‘tourist-map’ fashion (to borrow the metaphor used in Quirk et al 1985: 38), the territory to be covered in this work is sketched out and the starting points for the detailed examinations are introduced. Chapters 3 to 6 are detailed examinations of wh-clauses arranged and organized according to principles (i) and (ii) above. After the main body of the text, chapter 7 (Summary and conclusion) provides a synopsis of the salient points and a short discussion of theory vs data.

Chapter 2: Preliminaries 2.1

Introduction

In order to proceed with the analysis proper in this study, it is crucial to establish clear and meaningful definitions of certain key concepts such as wh-phrase, WHfeature, wh-clause, and terms such as ‘movement’ or ‘extraction’. Since a complete and detailed discussion would precipitate the work of later chapters, sections 2.2 to 2.5 simply provide concise working definitions as basic prerequisites to the main body of this text. The following section, 2.6, outlines different kinds of categorization problems concerning clause-types, thereafter section 2.7 provides a list of exclusions from this study. Section 2.8 concludes this chapter with a brief summary. 2.2

The wh-phrase

As a starting point for a discussion of the wh-phrase, consider the following sets of examples: (1)

a. Why is he so interested in trivial matters? b. This is the book which John recommended. c. How I hate algebra!

(2)

a. To whom should we address our comments? b. He only intended to scare the robbers, in which case a fake gun was good enough. c. What a nice shirt he was wearing today!

A wh-phrase may consist of a single wh-word (1) or it may be a larger phrase (eg the italicized strings in (2)) which contains a wh-word. The central members of the category of wh-words are interrogative (1a) & (2a), relative (1b) & (2b) or exclamative (1c) & (2c) items such as pronouns (1b) and (2a), adverbs (1a), determiners (2b) and predeterminers (2c) which begin with the wh-letter combination, eg what, when, where, which, who (and its inflected forms whose and whom), why, and the compound forms of these items, eg whatever, whenever, whereby, whereupon, etc. Note that how, though it does not begin with the whletter combination, is also classified as a wh-word, partly because of its historical relation to other wh-words, but mainly because its syntactic behavior is the same as that of typical items in the category.

Chapter 2: Preliminaries 15

2.3

The WH-feature

The WH-feature is a label used by some generative grammars such as P&P and PSG to handle the abstract property of wh-phrases to appear initially in either the clause to which they are understood to belong (3a) or in a higher clause (3b). In other words, in the following sentences: (3)

a. This is the book which John recommended. b. This is the book which Bill said that John recommended.

it is the WH-feature that enables which to appear clause initially even though it is understood to have a post-verbal function as the direct object of recommend. The WH-feature can be realized as in (3) or, less typically, the feature may be unrealized, leaving the wh-phrase in situ, as in the case of echo questions, multiple whitems or declarative questions (see Quirk et al 1985: 817, 822-823, 825), shown in (4a-c) respectively (only the in situ items italicized): (4)

a. John recommended what? b. Who gave what to whom? c. You left the party at approximately what time?

echo question multiple wh-items declarative question

As mentioned above in the definition of the wh-phrase, the realized WHfeature may apply to a single wh-word or it may transmit or ‘percolate’ to a larger phase: (5)

a. The man whose strange remarks in the media we couldn’t understand. b. She won’t wake up till around 9 am, by which time I’ll be in Phoenix. c. He really loved that song, the name of which I can’t recall right now.

In (5), the WH-feature is said to have percolated (upwards in tree diagrams) to the larger italicized phrases. Percolation is sometimes represented schematically as in the following diagram (cf Haegeman 1994: 374-375): (6)

NP Spec

PP N’

P

NP Spec

a.

[WH] whose

N

strange remarks in the media b. by

[WH] which

time

16 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

NP N’

PP P

NP N

c.

the name

of

[WH] which

This property is handled in PSG by the Foot Feature Principle (FFP). Put simply, the FFP states that any foot feature which is instantiated on a local tree/node, Spec in (6a/b) and the lowest N in (6c), must also be instantiated on the mother category of that tree, NP in (6a), PP in (6b) and the highest NP in (6c) (cf Gazdar et al 1985: 79-83). In HPSG and classical GPSG, the WH-feature is used to relate the clauseinitial placement of wh-phrases to the maximum projections of the larger phrases in which they belong. 2.4

The wh-clause

With the help of the definitions of wh-phrase and WH-feature set down in sections 2.2 and 2.3, the wh-clause itself can now be defined in a more principled fashion based on the following criteria. Although each criterion is numbered, (i), (ii), etc, all of them are interrelated and no level of priority is intended. The realized WH-feature (i) Wh-clauses are introduced by a single-word or complex wh-phrase with a realized WH-feature (see 2.3 above). The wh-phrase has a syntactic function (ii) Although the wh-phrase has connective properties in subordinate clauses, the whphrase has, in contrast to simple connective items like conjunctions, an understood syntactic function. This may be either as a clause element in its own right, ie a primary syntactic function, eg S, O, A, etc, as in (7a) and (8) below, or as a part of a larger element, eg as a preposition complement in an adverbial, a noun postmodifier, an adjective postmodifier, etc, as in (7b-d), in either the clause it introduces or in a lower clause. Again, because of the WH-feature, the wh-phrase occurs clause initially, regardless of the logical position of the understood function.

Chapter 2: Preliminaries 17

(iii) The presence of a gap There is a gap, indicated by the ‘D’ symbol in the examples (7a-d) below, which accompanies the fronted wh-phrase and indicates its syntactic function: (7)

a. Why can’t you tell me [who you love D]? b. Do you own the house [which you live in D]? c. The profits, [of which we received only a small part D], were quite above expectations. d. Many of the crimes [of which he was certainly guilty D] are of a minor nature.

When the fronted wh-item has a postverbal function with a clear role in the argument structure of the clause in which it is to be construed, as in (7), it is evident that an element is missing from its canonical position1 (See Radford 1988: 466479 for syntactic, morphological, phonological and semantic arguments on this point). Positing a missing element, however, is more problematic when the whitem is either a subject of the clause it introduces, as in (8a), or it is in some way peripheral to the argument structure, as in (8b): (8)

a. The man [who (?D) sold me this] must be a crook. b. I don’t know [when Beavis left town (?D)].

In lieu of the more detailed discussions which follow (the question of ‘vacuous’ subject movement is addressed in 3.7.2; the problems of the gap argument for whadverbial adjuncts are discussed in section 5.7.2) the working premise at this stage is that even these positions are accompanied by a gap. 2.5

Wh-movement

In accordance with the properties of the WH-feature mentioned in section 2.3, a wh-element appears clause initially but is understood to be related, in terms of semantics, syntax and morphology, to some other position in the clause. This relationship is commonly referred to as wh-movement, a term originally used to denote a transformational rule which moves the wh-element from a deep structure 1

There is a very minor exception to the ‘gap’ argument involving the use of socalled resumptive pronouns, eg Petronella is the kind of girl who when he had arrived in the woods with the primroses blooming and the birds singing Henry felt impelled to seduce (her) (Aitchison 1991: 133). I do not view this as evidence against the gap argument, but rather treat this limited group of seeming exceptions merely as ‘place-holders’ for the position of the extracted element in structures where a gap is ruled out by processing limitations or by one of the island constraints (cf section 2.5.3; Quirk et al 1985: 822). See Kroch (1981) for details on the use of resumptive pronouns in amnestying island constraints.

18 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description position (the gap position) to its surface structure position (wh-movement has existed in various forms from the beginning of the transformationalist paradigm, see especially Chomsky 1957: 69-72, 1973, 1977, see also Haegeman 1994: 371424, Radford 1988: 462-520, Radford 1997: 267-301, Cook & Newson 1996: 199-206; Haegeman & Guéron 1999: 169-184 for more recent textbook introductions to the subject). For example, in the following indirect questions the whelement whom is said to have been ‘moved’ in transformational terms or ‘extracted’ from a postverbal position (known as ‘extraction site’ – here indicated by the D symbol) within a clause to a clause initial position (known as ‘landing site’) (only the relevant clauses have been bracketed): (9)

a. I know [S whom Bob kicked D in the pants]. b. I know [S1 whom he said [S2 (that) Bob kicked D in the pants]]].

The connection between the clause-initial wh-element and the position marked D is central to this study, but I take no stand on the use of a transformational rule in relating the two positions. The term ‘movement’ is used throughout this work, despite its transformational connotations, for the reasons mentioned in section 1.3 but the movement relationship as it is presented here should not be taken to involve transformational rules,2 (though it is desirable that, at least in principle, the forthcoming analysis should be translatable to that framework). Movement here is used merely metaphorically as a way of relating the structural positions of the clause initial wh-element and the canonical, non-wh-position (D) of that element. The two sentences in (9) also provide a rough illustration of what is meant by ‘short’ and ‘long’ movement; the movement in (9a) is considered short since the wh-element introduces the clause which contains its extraction site (D) and there are no clause boundaries between the extraction and landing sites. In (9b) whom does not introduce its own clause but rather a higher clause – a clause in which the wh-item appears but is not, at least in most conventional analyses, understood to have a grammatical function (here S1);3 the S2 clause which contains the extraction site (D) is separated from the higher clause by a clear clause boundary which can be demonstrated by the insertion of the complementizer that to introduce the S2 clause. Although the relationship between the wh-item and its extraction site is subject to some constraints (which will be considered in section 2.5.3), there is in

2

Even some ‘transformationalists’ do not use two levels of representation related by movement transformations, see Koster (1987: 31ff) for arguments that only one level of representation is necessary. Cf also McCawley (1988: 22-23). 3 This is a simplification of the situation since, though it is not relevant to the discussion at hand, it appears that the fronted wh-element may have a function in its host clause (Seppänen & Bergh (forthcoming b), cf also section 5.7.2).

Chapter 2: Preliminaries 19

principle no upper limit to the number of intervening clauses which can separate the two items, as is illustrated in example (10): (10)

Can you tell me [S1 which of these books you think [S2 that you heard Bob say [S3 that it appeared to him [S4 as if the rest of the cultural studies class had somehow got the idea [S5 that the teacher felt [S6 that it was by no means essential [S7 we should read D before the start of the term]]]]]]]?

The terms ‘source’, ‘host’ and ‘link’, based on the work of Seppänen & Bergh, (forthcoming a), are useful for more explicit reference to the clauses which can occur in movement relationships. The source clause is the clause containing the understood, canonical position of the grammatical function (the extraction site, here S7) of the fronted wh-item (this is, of course, relevant in both long or short movement, since there is always an extraction site involved in either type). ‘Host clause’ is used only in cases of long movement; it is the clause which the wh-item introduces (S1 in (9b) and (10)), and ‘link clause’ is the term for the intervening clauses, ie the clauses between the host and the source clause (S2 - S6 in (10)). (Host and link clauses, or more correctly the VPs of these clauses, are sometimes referred to collectively as ‘bridges’, see Erteschik 1973, cited in Chomsky 1977: 85.) Phase Structure grammars (ie GPSG and HPSG) do not make use of a transformational movement rule but rather account for the relationship between the extraction sites and landing sites by means of syntactic feature ‘slash’ (the ‘/’ symbol) (Gerald Gazdar is the innovator of this convention and his 1981 article on ‘unbounded dependencies’ is one of the best known works on the subject, see also Horrocks 1987: 199-207; Pollard & Sag 1994: 159-207; Borsley 1996: 147154 for textbook introductions to the feature). With the help of slash a ‘path’ is created which connects the extraction and landing sites through mother-daughter relationships of tree diagrams. For example (9b) above can be represented as (11) (only the relevant part of (9b) is shown here):

20 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description (11)

S’ NP whom

S/NP NP he

VP/NP V said

S’/NP COMP (that)

S/NP NP Bob

VP/NP V kicked

NP D

This relationship can be formulated by a rule XP + S/XP, where XP is the fronted element (here the NP whom) and S/XP is the remainder of the sentence with the missing XP (here he said (that) Bob kicked D). With this approach, even though the wh-XP appears in a host clause, its understood semantic and syntactic function in terms of a source-clause position (D) can be expressed without the need of movement rules. This concise way of representing movement relationships makes ‘slash’ a convenient notational tool which is used frequently in this study. Clause elements need not be moved in their entirety. In accordance with the percolation phenomenon described in 2.3, a portion of the wh-XP may appear clause initially while the rest of the phrase remains in the extraction site, resulting in a discontinuous wh-phrase, as shown in (12). (12)

a. His latest book, which I never read [the last chapter of D], was incredibly dull. (cf His latest book, the last chapter of which I never read D, was incredibly dull.) b. … the Kiwi Club, of which he has remained the president D for far too long, … c. What tools did you break open the box [with D]? (cf With what tools did you break open the box D?)

The clause initial wh-elements in (12) do not constitute entire clause elements but rather only parts of one; in (12a) the fronted wh-XP is a preposition complement in a PP which in its turn is a postmodifier in an NP functioning as a direct object, in (12b) it is a PP postmodifier of an NP functioning as a subject predicative, and in (12c) it is prepositional complement in a PP functioning as adverbial. In this study, the situation shown in the examples in (12) is referred to as ‘partial extraction’ (a term borrowed from Seppänen & Bergh, forthcoming a); (12a) is a partial extraction of a direct object, (12b) a partial extraction of a subject predicative and (12c) is a partial extraction of an adverbial. The well-known and extensively dis-

Chapter 2: Preliminaries 21

cussed issues of preposition fronting and stranding (as in (12c), (see, among many others, Hornstein & Weinberg 1981, Bailey 1986, Takami 1992; Van den Eynden 1996, Geisler & Johansson (1998), is only one aspect of partial extraction. 2.5.1 A closer look at movement in non-finite constructions The distinction between long and short movement hinges on the possibility of inserting a clause-introducing complementizer, ie the complementizer indicates that a ‘full’ clause is present and if a wh-item in a host clause is related to an extraction site within a full source clause, the movement relationship is clearly long. With the exception of the subject position (see section 3.7.2), this is a straightforward and sufficient diagnostic for finite clauses, but the situation when trying to determine if non-finite clauses should be regarded as full clauses is notoriously difficult. Consider now the following examples: (13)

a. b. c. d. e.

Who(m) did he arrange to see D? Who(m) did he try to see D? Who(m) did he happen to see D? Who(m) did he persuade you to see D? How trustworthy did he believe the witnesses to be D?

There is no completely satisfactory and uncontroversial solution to this problem, but since this question is directly related to the analysis offered in this work, I have taken a pragmatic approach and use the for + subject-insertion test as the sole criterion for full clause status for non-finite clauses (cf Gazdar et al 1985: 113; Baker 1989: 76-77; Haegeman 1994: 116-117). Using this test, the only non-finite structure of those in (13) (repeated below as (14)) that qualifies as a full clause is (13a) and is therefore also an example of long movement: (14)

a. b. c. d. e.

Who(m) did he arrange for you to see D? *Who(m) did he try for you to see D? *Who(m) did he happen for you to see D? *Who(m) did he persuade for you to see D? *How trustworthy did he believe for the witnesses to be D?

Examples (14d/e) are especially interesting since, although they may have an overt subject, they become ungrammatical if the non-finite complementizer for is inserted. I make, however, a distinction between only two categories: 1) non-finite full clauses (or nf-S) in which for-insertion is possible and 2) non-finite phrases (nf-P) in which this insertion is not possible (following Baker 1989: 96-97, I use the term ‘phrase’ regardless of the possibility of a potential subject). Despite the simplicity of the test, there are several disadvantages which should be noted. One of the problems with the for-insertion test is that it can only

22 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description be used with structures containing to-infinitives and will necessarily exclude -ingand -ed-participles, bare infinitives and verbless constructions – these items are simply considered non-finite phrases in this study. Another disadvantage with the test is that it is far from foolproof as grammars and native speaker intuitions vary on whether a particular verb + to string allows the insertion of a forcomplementizer.4 Since the for-less version is unequivocally grammatical in these cases, short movement has been taken as the default category. A further shortcoming of the test is that it sometimes gives results which would conflict with the widely accepted notion of control relations (see, for example Chomsky 1986a: 124-131; Borsley 1991: 186; Radford 1997: 131-135; Haegeman & Guéron 1999: 33-37). In other words, verbs like try (in 14b) (and similarly persuade in (14d)) are generally seen as control predicates, and a sentence like (13b) is commonly analyzed as containing two clauses: [S1Whoi did he try [S2PRO to see ti]]. For many control verbs, especially those of the want/expect type (eg long, wish, ache, yearn, etc) the for-insertion test is unproblematic does not provide contradictory results (I leave it to the reader to test this assumption). As regards examples of other types of control verbs, the details of the control analysis are not completely straightforward nor are they directly relevant for this investigation (see Radford 1981: 381; Pollard & Sag 1994: 282-317 for observations on the nature of control). Given the relatively low frequency of corpus examples in which a control verb may be involved in this study,5 I have found it unnecessary to delve more closely into this issue and have instead opted for the simplicity and relative straight-forwardness of the for-insertion test. The following are representative examples from the corpus in which forinsertion (with appropriate manipulation of the sentence) was considered acceptable: (15)

4

a. There were three other men within this prison whom Barton would have liked to liberate D, but they were in other cell blocks. (BUC N07:19) (cf They would have liked for me to liberate the prisoners.) b. The better part of gallantry might be, perhaps, to honor her perennial good looks and her gorgeous rainbow-hued gown, and to chide the orchestra for not playing in the same keys in which she had chosen to sing D. (BUC C11:86) (cf They chose for her to sing in a higher key.)

Though some speakers find the string VERB + for + SUBJ + to-infinitive somewhat odd, it is generally acceptable in American English and it is not completely unknown in British English, (cf Quirk et al 1985: 1193) 5 The use of the for-insertion test was relevant for only 299 examples in the corpus investigation, which is far less than 1% of the entire corpus material. For exact statistics in relation to clause type, see Tables 3:l, 3:m, 4:g, 5:h, 5:i, 6i and 6:j.

Chapter 2: Preliminaries 23

c. …I, too, congratulate the American Legion, of which I am proud to have been a member D for more than 40 years, on the recent state convention. (BUC B16:45) (cf I am proud for my son to have been a member of the American Legion.) d. “What did you want me to do, kiss him? (BUC N07:8) (cf I don’t want for you to kiss him – just be nice to him) Many other verbs and adjectives can be added to these such as decide for X to VERB, willing for X to VERB, forbidden for X to VERB, easy for X to VERB, etc.6 To summarize the main points in this section, short movement may involve a single source clause (finite or non-finite) or a combination of a clause and nonfinite phrases while long movement involves a relationship between a fronted whXP and an extraction site which spans at least two full clauses (which may be either finite or non-finite). In principle, the combinations of finite clauses and non-finite clauses/phrases may be quite complex indeed, but only a few of these possibilities occur in the corpus. Without delving too deeply into the specifics of the span of wh-movement, it can be noted briefly here that instances of short movement are overwhelmingly more common in the corpus than long movement by a ratio of approximately 93 to 1. For discussions of movement statistics which are related to specific clause types, see sections 3.7.4, 4.7.2, 5.7.3 and 6.7.4. 2.5.2 Wh-movement and other types of movement The non-finite structures discussed in section 2.5.1 raise an interesting question about the extraction sites of wh-elements in examples like the following: (16)

6

a. Anyone who tried to remedy some of the most glaring defects in our form of democracy was denounced as a traitorous red whose real purpose was the destruction of our government. (BUC G23:6) (cf ...X tried to remedy some of the most glaring defects...)

Marginal modals (eg ought to, used to), modal idioms (eg have (got) to, be to) and semi-auxiliaries (eg be going to, be supposed to) (cf Quirk et al 1985:138148) have been treated in this study as single syntactic and semantic units, ie these strings are not analyzed as verb + to-infinitive (or verb + verb + to-infinitive, as in the case of eg have got to, etc) but rather analogously to a single-word modal + bare infinitive. It should be noted that I have not treated all the semi-auxiliaries described by Quirk et al 1985:143 as single units – some of these strings allow for-insertion (eg be willing to) and therefore I have treated such cases in the same manner as ordinary verb + to-infinitive strings.

24 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description b. For if Serenissimus made the sign of the Cross with his right hand, and meant it, with his left he beckoned lewdly to any lady who happened to catch his eye. (BUC G50:39) (cf ...X happened to catch his eye...) c. ...and the artillerist, Colonel Prevost, whom the Count de Segur had persuaded to lend his technical skills to Nassau. (BUC G50:23) (cf The Count had persuaded X to lend his technical skills to Nassau.) d. Each source selected from its approved bidders list about 200 firms which it believed to be small businesses that participated in the production of weapons and weapon support systems. (BUC J45:45) (cf Each source believed X to be businesses that participated in the production of weapons...) The issue here is whether any syntactic relationship should be taken into account between the fronted wh-items and the non-finite constructions in the sentences above. The extraction sites of the italicized wh-items in (16) are most easily understood to correspond to the position of their non-wh counterparts (the position marked ‘X’ in the shortened version of each example, referred to as ‘the X position’ in the remainder of this section). Relating this position to the non-finite constructions would involve some kind of transformational rule (either ‘subject to subject’ raising, as in (16b), or ‘subject to object’ raising, as in (16d)), but even within a transformational framework not all items in the X position undergo movement, ie try and persuade in (16a/c), which are so-called control verbs. The movement postulated by such grammars for verbs such as happen and believe in (16b/d) would still be irrelevant to this study because it would not be whmovement but rather NP-movement.7 As a result, a syntactic examination that does not go beyond the wh-phenomena involved is best served by treating the whitem who in (16a/b) as the subject of the verbs it introduces – the only movement relationship involved here is so-called vacuous subject movement (see section 3.7.2). Analogously, the wh-items whom and which in (16c/d) are analyzed as having extraction sites in the object position (ie as objects of persuade and believe), their status as the possible subject of the following non-finite construction is not considered here. (This analysis follows the ‘object + infinitive’ complementation pattern of Quirk et al 1985: 1202-1205.) In the same manner, only the X position is considered in examples like the following (cf Quirk et al 1985: 1207): (17)

7

a. One thing I notice which I have seldom heard mentioned. (BUC B10:74) (cf I have seldom heard X mentioned)

See Horrocks (1987: 77-78, 86-89, 192-197, 210-215); Borsely (1991: 149-161) for a survey of different theoretical approaches to these structures - for a description which is theoretically unaligned, see Huddleston (1988: 164-169).

Chapter 2: Preliminaries 25

b. Their house was a centuries-old Colonial which they had had restored (guided by an eminent architect) and updated, and added on to. (BUC R02:37) (cf ...they had had X restored and updated...) (18)

The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. (BUC B04:97) (cf …X is good for them to know…)

In the above sentences in (17), the wh-items are analyzed as being the direct objects of the verbs preceding the X position in the non-wh-versions (ie heard and had) and their relationship to the following non-finite clause is not taken into account. Example (18) involves a so-called tough- or missing object construction in which a verbal element (such as know in (18)) is left without an object. As was the case for (17b/d) above, any analysis of movement from a position after know to clause initial position would not involve wh-movement and therefore the whNP what in this example is simply treated as the subject of the verb is. 2.5.3 Constraints on wh-movement Ross (1986) (first published in 1967) shows that movement from positions within certain constructions is ungrammatical or ‘constrained’ by the grammar – in the terminology of generative grammar, such constructions are said to be ‘islands’. A rigorous examination of the mainly theory-oriented research done on island constraints since Ross’s work in 1967 is not undertaken in the present study, but island constraints do play an important role in wh-movement phenomena and cannot be overlooked in a grammar of wh-clauses. The remainder of this section is a necessarily sketchy and brief listing of the constraints intended only as a reference point for more specific discussions in the following chapters (see Horrocks 1987: 74-76; McCloskey 1988; Borsley 1991: 180-201 for summaries of the salient points). The ‘complex NP constraint’ (also referred to as CNPC) states that extraction from a clause which is itself contained in an NP is not allowed: (19)

a. The spokesman read [NP a statement [S which was about that man]]. *Which man did the spokesman read [NP a statement [S which was about D]] . b. You didn’t discuss [NP the suggestion [S that we hire a juggler]]. *What/who didn’t you discuss [NP the suggestion [S that we hire D]]?

The CPNC entails that all movement relationships between fronted wh-items and extraction sites within adnominal relative clauses and appositive clauses are un-

26 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description grammatical. In their discussion of ‘pushdown’ elements,8 Quirk et al (1985: 822) note that extraction is excluded from relative clauses (as in (19a)), other constructions in which the CPNC might be valid, however, are ignored. The ‘subject island constraint’ states that extraction from an element which is in a subject position is ungrammatical: (20)

a. The threat of simulated hyperreality causes problems for postmodern society. *What does the threat of D cause problems for postmodern society? b. That Bill would kiss his secretary is unbelievable. *Who is that Bill would kiss unbelievable?

Ross’s original formulation of this constraint was ‘the sentential subject constraint’ (1986: 147-156, see also Horrocks 1987: 76), which would more accurately cover only (20b). Many grammarians, however, (eg McCloskey 1988: 33; Radford 1988: 487; Borsley 1991: 181) discuss this as a constraint on any extraction from the subject position and therefore (20a) is also relevant. Example (21) illustrates the ‘wh-island constraint’: (21)

*That’s the car [whichi I wanted to know [whatj you did Dj with Di]]

Though I have found that such sentences are acceptable to some speakers, this constraint, in its original form, states that extraction from a clause which already contains a fronted wh-item is ungrammatical (see Haegeman 1994: 492-494 for more recent generative explanations as to why wh-island constraints are sometimes weakened). The ‘adjunct island constraint’ forbids the extraction of an element from a larger element which itself functions as an adverbial adjunct: (22)

The entire community cheered after the release of the hostages. *Which hostages did the entire community cheer after the release of? *... hostages, the release of whom the entire community cheered after, ...

In (22) the prepositional phrase after the release of the hostages is an adjunct and therefore, in this account at least, constitutes an island which blocks extraction. The ‘coordinate structure constraint’ states that in a coordinate structure, no conjunct may be moved, nor may any element contained in a conjunct be moved out of that conjunct: (23)

8

a. The committee chose Albert, Max and Steven. *Who did the committee choose Max and Steven?

The term used in Quirk et al 1985 for long movement and/or partial extractions.

Chapter 2: Preliminaries 27

b. Henry [plays the lute and sings madrigals]. *What does Henry [play D and sing madrigals]? *The madrigals which Henry [plays the lute and sings D are lousy]. Quirk et al (1985: 822) also cover this constraint in their brief note that ‘an element in a coordinated phrase or clause’ is among the exclusions regarding whpushdown items. Generative grammars generally seek to provide unified accounts of the above-mentioned constraints and various attempts have been made to incorporate them into a framework of general principles (eg Chomsky 1973, 1981, 1986b; Rizzi 1982; Kayne 1983). In the descriptive context of this work, I view it as sufficient to simply regard the structural relations shown in (19) to (23) as extraction blocking (or, more accurately, extraction resistant) contexts without appealing to universal or general linguistic principles. 2.5.4 Movement and shared constituency Shared constituency is a special kind of coordination in which a mutual item is understood to be a constituent of two or more coordinated phrases: (24)

a. John denied, but Fred admitted, complicity in the crime. (cf Radford 1988: 77) b. John denied complicity in the crime but Fred admitted complicity in the crime. c. Which crimes did John deny D but Fred admit D?

(25)

a. He lived and established a career in Pixbo. b. He lived in Pixbo and he established a career in Pixbo. c. He comes from Pixbo, where he lived D and established a career D.

When the shared constituent is a fronted wh-item as in (24c) and (25c), the problem to be solved is whether there are two movement relationships with two extraction sites or only one. The analysis used in the present work is a slightly modified version of Postal’s (1974: 126-128) ‘right node raising’ as shown in (26):

(26)

...in Pixbo, where he lived — and established a career —

D, ...

This view is surely justified since the rightmost D-position corresponds with the natural, non-emphatic, non-wh-version of this string (cf He lived and established a career in Pixbo). Although a repetition of the adverbial is fully grammatical (cf (25b)), it would be more likely used for rhetorical reasons or for contrastive emphasis – if this emphasis were necessary in a wh-version, the wh-item could be

28 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description repeated (eg ...in Pixbo, where he lived and where he established a career...), which would then involve two clear movement relationships between two fronted items and two extraction sites. By analogy, the same holds true for (24c). In a natural, non-wh-version of this sentence there is a single position (24a) which can be understood as the extraction site for the wh-version in (24c) There are situations where a shared constituent violates the normal restrictions on coordination, namely that the coordinated items must be understood to be of the same class and have the same function (cf Gazdar 1985: 169-181; Huddleston 1988: 193-205; Radford 1988: 75-77): (27)

Cuthbert, who most people liked D but Gunvor nonetheless felt D was not the best candidate for the job, was never considered seriously.

Unlike the examples above in (24c) and (25c), who in (27) has two different syntactic functions, one as the direct object of like the other as the subject of was and thus there is no single position in a non-wh-version of this sentence which can be understood as an extraction site. In cases like this, the fronted wh-item (who) is analyzed as having two separate movement relationships with the two different extraction sites. Such examples in which the shared constituent has two different syntactic functions9 are very rare in the corpus material and only the following two were found: (28)

a. There was the Hungarian Revolution which we praised D and mourned D, but did nothing about D. (BUC F23:75) b. Many years later (on August 3, 1915), Lucy Upton wrote Winslow’s daughter soon to be graduated from Smith College: “While I love botany which, after dabbling in D for years, I studied D according to the methods of that day exactly forty years ago in a summer school, it must be fascinating to take up zoology in the way you are doing. (BUC F32:20)

In (28a), which is related to three extraction sites, the first two are direct object positions, whereas the third one is a prepositional complement (the entire PP functioning in its turn as an adverbial). The prepositional complement position occurs first in (28b), but otherwise the situation is similar. Note also that example (28b) is interesting in that, with the proper punctuation and intonation, the first extraction site is not necessary, eg …botany, which, after dabbling in it for years, I studied D according to the methods…, this is, in fact, a case of a so-called ‘parasitic gap’, see Engdahl (1983), cf also section 6.7.2. 9

A view of strings like do nothing about in (28a) and dabble in in (28b) as multiword verbs was not chosen for this study (cf Quirk et al 1985: 1155ff), such an analysis would, however, treat all the gaps in both (28a/b) as objects.

Chapter 2: Preliminaries 29

2.5.5 More than one wh-item or wh-clause Consider the following examples from the Brown corpus: (29)

a. It is a revelation of what has been done, what is being done and what will be done in Newark as shown by architects’ plans, models and pictures. (BUC B17:47) b. It makes no difference what part of the world is involved, what form of regime, what particular issue. (BUC B23:103) c. And in the wake of the new affluence and the new techniques of processing comes a new American interest in how what people eat affects their health. (BUC C17:9)

The sentences in (29) show several possible variations of combinations of whclauses in one sentence; in (29a) the clauses are coordinated in a straightforward fashion, (29b) is the same in that the wh-clauses are coordinated but different in that the predicate is ellipted from the second two what-clauses. In example (29c), one lower wh-clause (here the what-clause) is embedded in a higher wh-clause (here the how-clause). In all of these cases, each wh-clause is treated individually. In addition to several wh-clauses appearing in one sentence, more than one wh-item may occur in one and the same clause: (30)

a. The target chart quickly and briefly tells you which additives do what. (BUC E27:2) b. When the automobile was in its embryonic stage, such roads as existed were pretty much open roads with the tacit understanding that horses should not be unduly terrified being about the only rule governing where, when and how fast a car could go. (BUC E06:52) c. How far and in what fashion did it modify the new nation which was emerging in the midst of the forces shaping the revolutionary age? (BUC D14:2)

The sentences in (30) illustrate so-called multiple wh-items, ie sentences in which more than one element is realized as a wh-form. In (30a), only the phrase which additives occupies the clause initial wh-position and the what-phrase remains in a so-called in situ position, in other words the WH-feature is not and cannot be realized for what, and there is no gap and consequently no movement relationship to speak of.10 In such situations, only the clause initial items are in10

In the P&P model the wh- in situ item is moved to a clause initial position at the level of logical form, see Haegeman (1994: 501-503); Stroik (1992). This is irrelevant to the present analysis since no such abstract level of representation is postulated here.

30 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description cluded in this study and the in situ items are excluded (see section 2.7). Though it seems reasonable to assume that the remaining examples (30b/c), despite the presence of multiple wh-items, contain only one wh-clause, I treat every one of the fronted multiple wh-elements individually as if each belonged to a separate but identical clause (eg (30c) is analyzed as How far did it modify the new nation and in what fashion did it modify the new nation). This analysis actually affects the quantitative study of the corpus in that it adds a small number wh-clauses which are in fact not separate in their own right. Considering, however, the possible variation in the make up of each wh-phrase and the fact that there are several extraction sites and concomitant movement relationships in such examples, this treatment is warranted. 2.6

A note on clause types and indeterminacy

The structural properties of individual clause types need not be elaborated on in full at this stage, but a brief résumé will help to clarify a few basic terms and bring into focus specific problems concerning the interface between categories and the wider problems of the fuzzy edges of syntactic distinctions in general. The terms ‘wh-clause’, ‘interrogative’, ‘relative’ and ‘exclamative’ suggest different levels of analysis and perspective which at first glance may cause some confusion. ‘Wh-clause’ is a term used to denote clauses with specific syntactic properties (primarily those described in 2.4) which cut across clause types and is a term similar to, but not exactly on the same level of contrast as, ‘that-clause’ or ‘if-clause’. (These are not on the same level since that- and if-clauses are introduced by conjunctions and are by definition subordinate, whereas wh-clauses are not introduced by conjunctions and may be either main clauses or subordinate clauses depending on clause type.) The terms ‘interrogative’ and ‘exclamative’ refer to categories of form in the system of clause-type membership. It is worth emphasizing here that the interrogative, exclamative and relative are terms which refer to categories of grammatical form rather than meaning or discourse function (see Huddleston 1988: 129-131, Johansson & Lysvåg 1986: 260-265). In this system, it is customary to use four terms: ‘interrogative’, ‘exclamative’, ‘declarative’ and ‘imperative’ (see Quirk et al 1985: 803-806, Huddleston 1984: 350-356, 1988: 129). The term ‘relative’ is somewhat mismatched in this group since it refers to a specific class of subordinated declaratives and is thus only a subset of that clause type (cf Huddleston 1984: 350). I do not, however, make use of the term declarative in this study and take it as a matter of course that its clause-type membership in the system is understood. As Johansson & Lysvåg (1986: 158) point out, what is conventionally called a relative clause is not one unified phenomena. Based on the most salient structural difference between types of relative clauses, I further divide the category into bound and free (or headless, antecedentless, or fused) relative. The two types are parallel but differ significantly in the way they are incorporated into their matrix clause, as is shown in (31):

Chapter 2: Preliminaries 31

(31)

free relative: a. I ate what they served. b. I found it where I had put it.

bound relative: c. I ate the foodi whichi they served D. d. I found it in the placei wherei I had put it D.

While the bound relative clause is attached as a modifier to an antecedent phrase, and is linked to it by a tie of coreference, the free relative does not have a sequence of two distinct elements but merely a single wh-phrase which seems to combine the functions of the antecedent and the wh-phrase of bound relatives (cf Huddleston 1988: 158; Baker 1989: 178-179). Though the categories of interrogative, exclamative and declarative are mutually exclusive, this by no means entails a lack of indeterminate clause types. There are subtle shifts in meaning and grammar which can make it difficult to distinguish between interrogatives and exclamatives; interrogatives and free relatives; and free relatives and bound relatives. Compare, for example the structural similarities in these relatively straightforward cases: (32)

Do you know [what concessions I had to make]? [What concessions I had to make]!

Interrog Exclam

I know [what he did]. I hated [what he did].

Interrog Free rel

On the day [when I needed help] she was gone. On Christmas day, [when I needed help], she was gone.

?Bound rel ?Free rel

The similarities between the bracketed clauses in the sentence pairs in (32) are not cases of insoluble ambiguity. With the help of structural tests and context, these examples, like the majority of cases in this work, can be assigned to a particular clause-type with a fair degree of certainty. It would, however, be unrealistic to expect that every ambiguity can be resolved. A particularly useful visualization for the recurring problems of indeterminacy is described by Coates (1983: 10-17). Based on the work of Zadeh (1965) she employs the concept of ‘fuzzy set’ to explicate the notions of ‘gradience’, ‘ambiguity’ and ‘merger’. Since that work deals with the semantic rather than syntactic classifications, I take the liberty of borrowing her argumentation and illustrations (without doing too much violence to them) and applying and modifying these to fit the problems at hand. I will not expand on the issue of gradience since this is a widely used and accepted term, lucidly presented in Quirk et al (1985: 90). Consider the following figure which represents a fuzzy set:

32 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

core skirt periphery Figure 1:a – A fuzzy set Clause type (like many other grammatical categories) is often defined by core properties. These are not necessarily the properties which apply to the majority of examples of a particular clause type, which may be on the skirt or the periphery, but rather they are the distinctive features one might typically use to define each clause. Often the structural similarities between clause types lead to ambiguities which can be completely resolved from the context and meaning of the sentence. Take for instance, the following example which may be interpreted in one of two ways: (33)

a. I asked [what she asked]. b. I asked the same question which she asked. c. I asked the question, ‘What did she ask?’

Free rel Interrog

The structure of (33a) alone does not provide the necessary grammatical clues in order to establish the clause type of the bracketed segment, but it is clear that the interpretations of (33b/c) are mutually exclusive and correspond to two distinct grammatical categories:

Free relatives

Interrogatives

Figure 1:b – Ambiguity There are problematic examples, however, where two meanings are essentially identical: (34)

a. Tell me [what he said]. b. Tell me that which he said. c. Tell me the answer to the question ‘what did he say?’

Free rel Interrog

In (34), a clean analysis is confounded as the inseparable meanings of (34b/c) correspond to two grammatically distinct categories which appear to merge as represented in Figure 2:c. In other words, the communicative message is for all

Chapter 2: Preliminaries 33

intents and purposes the same in either interpretation of (34a), the difficulty lies on the more abstract level of assigning (34a) to a particular clause type since, at least according to any orthodox view of grammatical categories, a clause cannot be both relative and interrogative.

Free relatives

Interrogatives

Figure 1:c – Merger Gradience, ambiguity and merger are not only relevant notions in understanding the difficulties in clause-type determination. Given the broad perspective of this work, which by its very nature includes a wide range of grammatical structures and relations, these are concepts that lie at the very heart of many of the problems I have encountered. gradience 2.7

Exclusions

As a starting point for a discussion of excluded items, consider once again the criteria in section 2.4 regarding the status of wh-clauses (repeated succinctly below as (35) for the reader’s convenience): (35)

(i) (ii) (iii)

the clause is introduced by a fronted wh-phrase (ie a single-word or complex wh-XP with a realized WH-feature) the wh-phrase has a functional role in its clause the fronted wh-phrase is accompanied by a gap

On the basis of this definition of wh-clause, the exclusions from both the qualitative and quantitative analyses in this study can be defined in a principled way: · Non-wh-items As a necessary consequence of (i) only wh-clauses introduced by wh-phrases with a realized WH-feature will be considered in this study. This is not to say that other items (such as, for example, topicalized items, zero relatives or the relatives that, as or but) do not have some or even all of the properties of wh-items. One item which deserves special mention here is the word while. Though it begins with the letter combination wh-, and has clearly relative uses such as He managed to get away (during the time) while I was phoning you, it is not included in the present work because of its peripheral role in the system of relative items. For a special study of while as a relative adverb, see Trotta & Seppänen (1998).

34 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description · Conjunctions Any clause introduced by a wh-word which functions as a conjunction is not considered a wh-clause in this study – these items not only do not have the realized WH-feature (criterion (i)), but they also have no syntactic function in their clause (ii) and do not contain a gap (iii). The most typical examples of such clauses would, for example, be introduced by contrastive conjunctions such as whereas as in The British like tea whereas the Americans like coffee or by the interrogative complementizer whether as in I don’t know whether they are coming.11 There is, however, a cline between items which have a clear syntactic function as a clause element or a part of a clause element and those which function simply as a conjunction, see section 5.10.1 for a detailed discussion. In the same manner that conjunctions do not show the realized WHfeature, neither does the single-word conjunct however (36a), which has also been excluded from the study. Note, however, that wh-conjuncts constituted by a phrase/clause (as in (36b)) are included: (36)

a. He decided, however, to keep the house. b. What is more, he is a plumber.

There is no wh-clause (and therefore no internal syntax) to discuss in (36a), whereas the conjunct in (36b) is a clause with a clear (though limited) internal syntax, ie the wh-XP is subject. · Echo questions and in situ items Echo questions and other wh- in situ items (see sections 2.3 and 2.5.5) have been excluded since they have no realized WH-feature and, although they have a function in their clause (ii), there is no gap which indicates this function (iii). Though these constructions are perhaps in some informal sense ‘wh-clauses’, they are irrelevant for this study, as is illustrated by the following: (37)

a. John didn’t know (*that) who Bill had seen. b. John didn’t know (that) Bill had seen who?

The echo question in example (37b) is realized by a that-clause, not a wh-clause and therefore falls outside the scope of this study. Items which are in situ because they belong to a multiple wh-construction are slightly more problematic (eg what in I don’t know who did what, but the same principle that no realized WH-feature is present for the in situ item applies here too (see section 2.5.5).

11

The analysis of whether as a complementizer in 20cE rather than a moved whadverb is not uncontroversial. For arguments in favor of the complementizer analysis see Henry (1995: 88); Goldsmith (1981); McCloskey (1992) – for other views see Radford (1997: 54-58); Larson (1985: 238ff); Bolinger (1978).

Chapter 2: Preliminaries 35

· Clauses with no clear internal syntax Wh-clauses with no clear internal syntax, ie clauses with no identifiable wordclass/syntactic function for the wh-word phrase itself (eg fixed expressions and idioms such as how about, what about, how come, etc) are considered to be of very limited value to this work: (38 ) a. “What about a tea room, then? (BUC P02:37) b. How about me trying to help her get her job back? (BUC K18:128) c. “How come you’re riding the rods, kids like you”? (BUC N29:114) It is often extremely difficult, not to say impossible to judge whether these items actually do have a WH-feature or a syntactic function (i & ii). Because there is a gradience between regular and irregular items (see also Quirk et al 1985: 839-841), strings such as those in (38) are listed and briefly discussed in the relevant chapters (see sections 3.6.5, 4.6.4 and 6.6.2), but no attempt has been made to integrate these items into the analysis of the more general properties of wh-clauses. Not all fixed expressions/irregular items have been excluded from the analysis, those with a distinct internal syntax have been taken into account, cf: (39)

a. He could imagine her at this minute, honeymooning in Nassau with what’s-his-name, lounging on golden sands, looking forward to a life of unalloyed bliss. (BUC P23:45) b. ..this meeting is to find out what’s what. c. He may call himself a naprapath, a physiotherapist, an electrotherapist, a naturopath, a sanipractor, a medical cultist, a masseur, a “doctor”- or what have you. (BUC F10:40).

As was the case with the clausal conjunct what is more (36b), a syntactic analysis is possible in such clauses, ie what is the subject predicative of the subclause in (39a), the subject in (39b) and the direct object in (39c). · Ellipted clauses Ellipted items are included only to the extent to which they can supply useful information to this study. What is or is not included varies slightly depending on the type of information for which the ellipted clause in question is used. For example, consider the following sentences from the corpus material: (40)

a. He did not say by how much. (BUC A03:75) b. “Which continent”? (BUC P16:129) c. The troopers knew an attack was coming, but they didn’t know when, and they didn’t know where. (BUC F22:60) d. Why? (BUC D06:74). e. “Who”? (BUC K26:81) f. Dear God, at what a price. (BUC P07:92)

36 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

Despite the ellipsis, it is still clear that (40a-e) are interrogatives and (40f) is exclamative and at least these facts can thus be taken into account. Likewise, if the ellipted wh-clause is subordinated as in (40a/c), information concerning its integration into the matrix clause can be used (ie the wh-clauses in (40a/c) are direct objects of say and know respectively). They have also been included in data regarding phrase types, wh-PPs in (40a/f), wh-NPs in (40b/e) and wh-AdvPs in (40c/d), when they have been reliable in this respect. Ellipted examples of the type in (40) vary, however, in their usefulness regarding syntactic function of the wh-XP and movement. The italicized wh-XPs in (40a/c/d/f) are clearly adverbials, whereas the which continent and who of (40b/e), even when context is used, cannot be assigned syntactic functions without some degree of speculation. Likewise, it is not fruitful to consider movement variables (such as long vs short movement, finite vs non-finite host/source clause, etc) regarding such examples since it is impossible to know exactly what has been omitted. Because of the problems involved, movement information about such ellipted clauses is excluded and inclusion of data as regards syntactic function is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Admittedly, this creates a somewhat asymmetrical analysis of some sentences and affects the totals of the statistics (see Appendices). Given the fact that ellipsis is especially common in two clause types that are otherwise relatively underrepresented in the statistics (ie interrogative and especially exclamative) it is desirable to include whatever data can be gained from the corpus while at the same time excluding less valuable information based solely on speculative reconstruction.12 · Archaic usage Some examples from the Brown corpus are clearly not subsumed under the notion of ‘late twentieth century English’: (41)

12

a. Read the next two verses: “When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell. (BUC D07:54) b. Sturley on November 4 answered a letter from Quiney written on October 25 which imported, wrote Sturley, “that our countriman … … Shak. would procure us monei: which I will like of as I shall heare when wheare + howe: and I prai let not go that occasion if it mai sort to ani indifferent condicions. (BUC G64:21) c. Unfortunately, in our rush to beat the Russians, we have forgotten these truth-packed words of Jesus Christ: “What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world (that includes outer space), and lose his own soul? (BUC D06:59)

Other types of ellipsis, such as that in How much (money) did you pay him? and Why not quit now while you’re ahead? are discussed in the relevant chapters.

Chapter 2: Preliminaries 37

These examples may still be included in the corpus statistics if they are completely compatible with the analysis of their modern counterparts, as in the use of when in (41a). If the syntax of a particular item is unclear or difficult to reconcile with the type of English under examination in this work, as in the case of the italicized which or boldface what in (41b/c), it has been excluded. 2.8

Summary

The main purpose of chapter 2 has been to serve as a platform for discussions in the remaining chapters in this work. The following list summarizes the points of departure outlined and discussed in this chapter. · · · · ·

Working definitions of the wh-phrase, the WH-feature, the wh-clause and whmovement (both long and short) have been established. Other types of movement in finite and non-finite constructions such as NP movement and raising have been distinguished from wh-movement. The methods for analyzing shared constituents and multiple wh-items have been examined and discussed. The notions of ambiguity and merger have been introduced and considered in relation to clause-type classifications. Items which have been excluded from this study have been presented and discussed.

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 3.1

Introduction

As regards the quantitative study of the BUC, wh-interrogatives are not overwhelmingly frequent (~ 21% of all the clauses examined),1 but they are nonetheless a natural starting point for a closer examination of wh-clauses. They are without question the most diverse wh-clause type in that all the major wh-words2 can be and are commonly realized in wh-interrogative phrases (henceforward referred to as InterrogP); the constituent structure of the InterrogP is more varied than other types of wh-XPs; their movement relationships may be quite intricate; and, unlike bound and free relatives, they may occur in both main and subordinate clauses. 3.2

The form of InterrogPs

In the subsections that follow under 3.2, the basic building blocks the of InterrogP are examined, ie first the relevant wh-interrogative words are presented and thereafter I describe the larger phrases into which those words enter. 3.2.1 Wh-words in the InterrogP The following wh-words are the fundamental units in the formation of InterrogPs:3 (1)

who/whom/whose, what, which, when, where, why, how

The by-now familiar fronted wh-XP, which in this case is a wh-interrogative phrase (henceforward referred to as InterrogP) contains one of the whinterrogative words in (1) which may constitute the entire InterrogP, as in (2a), or a subpart of it, as in (2b): (2)

1

a. Who did you visit? b. What books did you read on the subject?

See Appendix Table A for a comparison of the frequencies of all the clause types in the BUC. 2 In other words, excluding minor compounds used only in relatives like whereby, whereupon, etc, (see section 6.2.1). 3 Note that whence may be used as an interrogative wh-word but it does not occur in the corpus material as such and its status as an example of late 20cE is tenuous.

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 39

In the InterrogP, the wh-word represents unspecified information, which is often classified as being ‘a chunk of missing information’ (Givón 1993: 252), a ‘gap of unknown information’ (Quirk et al 1985: 1051) or ‘an element to be specified by the addressee’ (Johansson & Lysvåg 1988: 252, cf also Halliday 1994: 85). This characterization applies to typical main-clause interrogatives, as in (2), and some subordinate interrogatives, as in (3): (3)

a. They asked b. I wonder c. We tried to figure out

who she visited. what books she read on the subject. why he was so eager to leave.

It is, however, directly relevant to the meaning and grammar of the InterrogP that a distinction (made explicit by Ohlander 1986) be maintained between questionoriented and answer-oriented interrogatives.4 Consider the following: (4)

a. They know b. I told you c. We figured out

who she visited. what books she read on the subject. why he was so eager to leave.

In examples (2) – (4) above, only the InterrogPs in (2) and (3) contain a wh-word that represents information which is actually ‘missing’ from the knowledge base of the speaker; the wh-words in (4) clearly represent known but unspecified information. Note also that it is the entire matrix predication that determines if the wh-clause is question-oriented or answer oriented and not the matrix verb alone. For example both I knew what he did and I found out what he did are answeroriented, but the predication can be changed to question-orientation, eg I don’t know what he did, Do you know what he did?; I tried to find out what he did, Please find out what he did! (see Ohlander 1986 for details). Aside from its grammatical function in the InterrogP (eg pronoun in (4a); determiner in (4b); adverb in (4c)), the wh-word has a role in delimiting or clarifying the nature of the unspecified information. For example, when the InterrogP is used in a typical question, the wh-word is linked or correlated in a special way to a set of possible felicitous answers and thus anticipates the type of information requested.5 The exact nature of this link may be quite complicated, but the fol-

4

This distinction is briefly noted by Quirk et al (1985: 1051), though they conclude that the subordinate clause implicitly raises a question and therefore do not touch upon the issue of answer-orientation. Cf also Sweet (1891:83), who puts forward a similar analysis. 5 Even direct questions are not always requests for information and thus the link is only hypothetical – as for example in rhetorical questions like “How can you be so damn stupid? (BUC P18:80); How can a cat be thin in a fish restaurant? (BUC G51:97).

40 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description lowing examples will suffice as a rough illustration of the type of correlation which I am referring to: 6 (5)

a. A: What did you see today? B: The Empire State Building/*Some friends. b. A: Who(m) did you see today? B: Some friends/*The Empire State Building.

Speaker A’s choice of either the wh-word what or who(m) serves to narrow down the set of possible felicitous answers (to humans (who(m)) or non-humans (what)) and thus relates the InterrogP to the requested information. Because of the link between the wh-word and the type of unspecified information which corresponds to that word in the InterrogP, some wh-interrogative words have specific referential features which are reminiscent of (but not identical to) those which obtain between a wh-relative word and its antecedent.7 These referential features are relevant for the pronouns who/whom/whose, what and which as is shown in the following matrix: NON-SELECTIVE

SELECTIVE

who (subject form) whom (object form) whose (genitive form)

which

HUMAN NON-HUMAN

what

which

(6)

Which is selective in the sense that it infers a selection between a specific or implied set of alternatives (see Jespersen 1927: 116-118; Quirk et al 1985: 369; Wardhaugh 1995: 129). The human/non-human distinction is consistent, but there is, however, some confusion in grammars as regards what in questions in which it functions as an ascriptive subject predicative, eg A: What is your uncle? B: He is a systems analyst/a Catholic/a socialist, etc, (see, for example, Huddleston 1984: 6

The semantics of wh-words/phrases are only of marginal interest in this study and thus a rigorous examination of this link is not warranted here. See Hirschbühler (1985) for a detailed, formal treatment of the semantics of wh-questions. See also Huddleston & Pullum (forthcoming) for a discussion of the concepts ‘response’, ‘answer’ and ‘the right answer’. 7 In this way, even wh-interrogative words are sometimes referred to as ‘proforms’ like their relative counterparts (see Quirk et al 1985: 77). There is a terminological complication here since the wh-interrogative word is not a pro-form in any strict sense of the term since it is not substituting for any item, and therefore I avoid the use of this term.

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 41

369; Quirk et al 1985: 371). Though the two grammars noted view this use of what as an exception to the human/non-human distinction, there is nothing unusual about this application of what since in this case it refers not to an animate being, but rather a profession, religious or political belief, etc, (cf Jespersen 1927: 131; Greenbaum 1996: 186-187). Note that the selective/non-selective distinctions in (5) pertain not only to single-word phrases but also to any complex InterrogP which includes these words. The human/non-human distinction, however, is not relevant in complex phrases in which a wh-word has a (non-genitive) determinative function: What celebrities/which celebrities should we ask to help us with this fund-raising concert? 3.2.2 Basic InterrogPs With the words in (1) assuming various grammatical functions, the InterrogP can be realized as any of the typical phrase type categories, ie noun phrase,8 adjective phrase, adverb phrase and prepositional phrase. This section deals with three of these phrase types only: Interrog-NPs, Interrog-AdjPs and Interrog-AdvPs, which I argue constitute the basic units of the InterrogP and are thus referred to in this work as ‘basic’ InterrogPs. Phrases which contain percolated elements larger than these basic units (such as Interrog-PPs) are dealt with in section 3.2.4. Each of these phrase types can have a number of different internal structures which are discussed separately in points (i) through (iii). Because there are many ways in which the phrase types may be realized, each of the relevant structures is assigned a ‘pattern number’ as this benefits the overall presentation. Interrog-NPs (i) In the simplest Interrog-NP, the wh-words who/whom/whose, what and which function as the head of single-word phrases, as in (7): (7)

8

Pattern 1: Interrog-NP single wh-word head a. They did not know who they were or know their own worth. (BUC K11:111) b. …“Whom would you send”? (BUC G66:43)

Note that I take the noun to be the head of the noun phrase. I am familiar with the DP (determiner phrase) analysis of these units (see Abney 1987; Radford 1997: 187-191; Haegeman 1994: 607-611) and understand the motivations for that particular analysis, but I feel that the arguments underpinning the so-called ‘DP hypothesis’ are driven by theory-internal assumptions which I do not adopt and do not find useful for descriptive purposes.

42 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description c. Whose was this voice which Molly found to be both bossy and patronizing?9 (bnc FB9 141 323) d. What do the pretty SMU girls like on their plates? (BUC A29:53) e. “I’d like to know just which it is that those guys don’t understand, the liquor or automobiles”. (BUC N22:5) In most complex Interrog-NPs, the wh-word is not the head of the entire phrase but occurs rather as a specifying item within that phrase. A determinative element may be realized by the wh-determiners what, which as in (8a/b) or the genitive whose as in (8c): (8)

wh-det + N Pattern 2: Interrog-NP a. If a man totally ignorant of America were to judge our land and its civilization based on Hollywood alone, what conclusions do you think he might come to? (BUC C02:95) b. And which theory would govern the enforcers of the law on Sunday? (BUC A36:30) c. Whose job is it to look after people whose bodies are incapacitated, for one reason or another? (bnc AA8 729)

The degree adverb how may also have a function in the InterrogP, as in (9), preceding multal or paucal quantifiers such as many, much, little, few, etc cf Quirk et al (1985: 384): (9)

wh-det + quantifier + N Pattern 3a: Interrog-NP a. How many times must we get burned before we learn? (BUC B19:29) b. How many children did the King have? (BUC F46:98)

Interrog-NPs of the type in (9) often occur with an ellipted head, which may be recovered from the context or situation as is illustrated in the following (the ellipsis is indicated by the ‘—’ symbol): (10)

9

a. My God, how much more — do you want? (BUC L13:17) b. …“How many — is that, Jim”? (BUC A14:84) c. We want to know when the Potlatches telephone exactly how many — they are planning to bring, so that we won’t end up with a splashing mob that looks like Coney Island in August. (BUC E19:46)

The use of whose in examples like (7) is thus considered an independent genitive form of who (see Quirk et al 1985: 329, 370) as in the analogous I saw his book on the table, I wonder if this book is his?)(cf Huddleston 1984: 369).

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 43

Since the multal and paucal quantifiers also have a use as pronouns (see Quirk et al 1985: 384), context may be needed in order to determine whether the head of the string is an ellipted noun or such a pronoun: (11)

wh-det + quantifier (+ postmodification) Pattern 3b: Interrog-NP a. …The amount which may be borrowed from the SBA depends on how much is required to carry out the intended purpose of the loan. (BUC H01:53) b. And how many of these were sons? (BUC F46:100) c. Prohibition was the law of the land, but it was unpopular (how many of us oldsters took up drinking in prohibition days, drinking was so gay, so fashionable, especially in the sophisticated Northeast!) and was repealed. (BUC G17:23) d. Oedipus and Lear instruct us how little of the world belongs to man. (BUC G63:35)

Example (11a) is easily construed as meaning how much money, but without any contextual clues, an interpretation of much as a pronoun cannot be excluded. The presence of an of-PP postmodifier in the rest of the examples (11b-d) indicates that they are in fact pronouns. There is another, more minor variation of the Interrog-NPs in pattern 3 shown which involves the use of how + quantifier + of-phrase as in the following: (12)

wh-det + quantifier + of + det + N Pattern 3c: Interrog-NP a. Regardless of how much of a slob you knew yourself to be, you could be certain they would never find out- and even if they did it would make no difference. (BUC R04:12) b. How much of an accident could that be”? (BUC N14:122)

In this variation, much of does not precede a non-count noun but rather a count noun with a determiner which could not be directly preceded by much (cf How much time/How much of a break/*How much break would you like?). Often, but not always, this pattern is used to more specifically to express degree rather than amount. This distinction is most clearly brought out in a sentence pair like How much talent does she have?/How much of a talent is she? where the former deals with an (unspecified) amount of something (here talent) and the latter concerns the degree to which someone/something exhibits attributes or characteristics expressed by the noun (talent). In yet another kind of Interrog-NP, how is a degree modifier within an AdjP which itself is contained within the structure of an NP, as in example (13): (13)

wh-adv + adj + det + N Pattern 4: Interrog-NP a. …Suppose I had the same number of peas as there are atoms in my body, how large an area would they cover? (BUC D13:31)

44 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description b. Question at issue: how big a vote should be necessary to restrict Senate debate- and thereby cut off legislation-delaying filibusters? (BUC A37:65) Note that in cases such as those shown in (13), the AdjP string (how + adj) must precede the determiner.10 Note also that although non-count nouns or nouns in the plural would in theory create ‘determiner-less’ strings for this pattern, there appears to be a ban on such nouns in these structures so in practice no such strings need to be taken into account (cf How big a salary/*How big salaries did they expect?, How long a pause/*How long time do you need? The following table shows the frequencies of the different Interrog-NPs in the BUC:11 Table 3:a – Type and frequency of Interrog-NPs single wh-word head

1122

wh-det + N

165

wh-adv + quant + N

81

wh-adv + adj + det + N

2 0

Total InterrogPs: 2607

1200 Total Interrog-NPs: 1370 (52.5%)

In the interest of keeping the number of distinct patterns as low as possible the category ‘wh-adv + quant + N’ incorporates the variations noted in patterns 3a, 3b and 3c. In the single-word head category, what is the most common word occurring 964 times, followed by who (+ inflected forms) 133, and then which 25. As far as the interrogative words with determinative functions are concerned, what 10

Interestingly enough, this is noted in Quirk et al (1985:834-835) only in connection with exclamatives (see also section 4.2.1) and is not mentioned in connection with InterrogPs. See Seppänen (1978) on this construction with other phrase types. 11 Note that the total of InterrogPs given in Table 3:a (and subsequent tables concerning InterrogPs) is 2607 whereas the total number of wh-interrogative clauses is 2675 (see Appendix Table C). The difference in sums is the result of the exclusion process (see section 2.7), ie some sentences were included as interrogatives but they were not analyzed further because they contained ellipsis, fixed expressions, etc.

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 45

again is the most frequent with 127 occurrences, followed by which with 37 and whose with only 1 occurrence. How, the only wh-adverb which can function in the Interrog-NP, occurs 83 times. Interrog-AdjPs (ii) The wh-word how may be the head of a simple wh-AdjP as in (14): (14)

Pattern 5: Interrog-AdjP single wh-word head a. “Hello, Julie, how are you”? (BUC P14:18) b. How are the roads …? (BUC E17:27) c. Bobby Joe and the boys would come by, say “How’s Granny”? (BUC K26:24)

An analysis of how as a single-word Interrog-AdjP in such cases should not be particularly controversial, though it is often mislabeled, neglected or glossed over in reference works. Of the dictionaries listed in the references to this study, all those which include grammatical labels in their entries class it as an adverb, cf OALD; Cobuild; COD; CIDE (to name a few) and none class it as an adjective. Quirk et al (1985: 77) have a cursory reference to this use where they indeed note that it is as an adjective but provide only one example: ‘How do you feel?’. Huddleston (1984: 370) also refers to how as an adjective, but offers no discussion. In its typical adverbial function, how is a manner adverbial or a degree adverbial, but this is not the case in (14) where how is semantically equivalent to ‘in what state/condition’.12 A standard answer to the questions in (14) would most naturally be an adjective, such as fine, good, bad, terrible, etc and not an adverb. Example (14a/c) could also be answered with well, but in this sense (referring to state of health) well is seen not and adverb but rather an adjective (see Quirk et al 1985:408, 431-2). The adjective analysis seems the only logical conclusion for how when it is used in an analogous fashion together with verbs of perception as in (15): (15)

a. And how did he feel about modern art? (BUC G06:75) b. She had reached a point at which she didn’t even care how she looked. (BUC N01:43) c. The musicians of the Royal Opera would not rehearse a work merely to see how it would sound. (BUC K08:70)

Some of the verbs in this category (such as smell or taste) (see Quirk et al 1985: 1172) can only take an adjective in their non-wh-versions. In principle, this use of how as a manner adverbial could occur with some of the verbs in this category 12

Indeed, the how-phrase itself could be replaced with a adverbial wh-PP (eg In what condition is Granny?), but a semantic correspondence between two items does not necessarily indicate syntactic similarity.

46 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description (such as look in, for example, the ambiguous sentence How did he look in the window?). In such ambiguous examples, the context determines which phrase type how should be assigned to. Slightly more problematic is the use of how with some resulting copulas such as turn out or get on: (16) a. How do they turn out later? (BUC B10:94) b. Her hesitation was only momentary and she hoped he didn’t notice it, as she settled herself, asked quickly how Miss Jenny and the babies were getting on. (BUC P03:125) Such cases can be answered with both an adjective or adverb: A: How did it turn out? B: Nice/Nicely; Horrible/Horribly. The adverb form seems, however, to reflect a focus on the action rather than the state. Once again, context is crucial and if the resultant state is the intended meaning, these items are best analyzed as adjectives. Compare for example ‘How is it going?’ and ‘How did it go?’ in which both adverbs and adjectives can be possible answers, but without a specific context it seems reasonable to assume that the speaker of the former intends something equivalent to ‘How are you?’ whereas the latter more clearly emphasizes an action. The Interrog-AdjP is more commonly realized by a complex phrase, consisting of how as a degree adverb + an AdjP as in (17): (17)

(18)

Pattern 6: Interrog-AdjP wh-adv + adj a. At any rate, it shows us how immaterial we are. (BUC D13:58) b. How old do you have to be to remember when Americans, especially children, were encouraged to be polite? (BUC B18:81) “How much overweight is she”? “Not a bit”, I said, “but she’s keeping her figure in hand”. (BUC L02:139)

Rather than create a new pattern, wh-adv + adj strings which make use of the quantifier much, such as the one in (18), are also included in this category. Table 3:b – Type and frequency of Interrog-AdjPs single wh-word head

40

wh-adv + adj

88 0

Total InterrogPs: 2607

100 Total Interrog-AdjPs: 128 (5%)

The only noteworthy point about the frequency of Interrog-AdjPs in the BUC shown in Table 3:b is that this phrase-type runs against the trend in the other In-

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 47

terrogPs in that the complex phrase is more common here than the single-word head. This is not unusual given the limited use of how an adjective. (iii) Interrog-AdvPs Any of the wh-adverbs when, where, why and how may be used as single-word wh-AdvPs: (19)

Pattern 7: Interrog-AdvP single wh-word head When/where/why/how does she exercise every day?

Or, alternatively, the Interrog-AdvP may be complex, in which case it consists, as in (20), of the wh-degree adverb how plus an adverb: (20)

Pattern 8: Interrog-AdvP wh-adv + adv a. No matter how often a man goes back to the scenes of his youth and strength, they can never be recaptured again. (BUC B14:34) b. How well do faculty members govern themselves? (BUC H30:7)

There is a minor variation on pattern 8 shown in (21) below involving a complex wh-AdvP with a comparative head, the phrase formed with the help of much. Analogously with the Interrog-AdjPs which are formed with the help of the quantifier much, no new category is necessary and examples like the following are subsumed in pattern 8: (21)

a. The main question raised by the incident is how much longer will UN bury its head in the sand on the Congo problem instead of facing the bitter fact that it has no solution in present terms? (BUC B03:46) b. Mr Jackson was the sort of master who impels boys, once they have established an ascendancy over him, to see how much further they can go… (LOB R09:98)

Table 3:c – Type and frequency of Interrog-AdvPs single wh-word head

974 78

wh-adv + adv 0

Total InterrogPs: 2607

1000 Total Interrog-AdvPs: 1052 (40.3%)

The distribution of the wh-words in the single wh-word head category is as follows: how 432, why 316, where 178, and when 48.

48 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description 3.2.3 The wh-module Having presented each of the individual phrase types, I now sum up the constituent structure of basic InterrogPs in the following eight phrase-structure patterns: Table 3:d – The internal structure of basic InterrogPs phrase type:

wh-module: wh-pron wh-det + N

Interrog-NP wh-adv + quant + N wh-adv + adj + det + N Interrog-AdjP

Interrog-AdvP

wh-adj wh-adv + (quant) + adj wh-adv wh-adv + (quant) + adv

representative example: Pat 1 Who/whose/what/which was it? Pat 2 What/which song did you choose? Pat 3 How many times did he call you? Pat 4 How large an area does it cover? Pat 5 How do you feel about it? Pat 6 How deep is the well? Pat 7 When/where/why/how did he leave? Pat 8 How well do you know her parents?

For convenience, I refer henceforward to the collection of strings in the second column of Table 3:d as the wh-module, a concept which is not meant to be particular to InterrogP and will have analogs in each of the wh-clause types. It may seem undesirable and perhaps unmotivated to add a new term to the plethora of already existing ones, but it is necessary, in my view, to conceive of such a unit. The wh-module is the minimum unit which must occur clause-initially in whinterrogative clauses (and in wh-clauses in general, as that concept is defined in section 2.4). This unit is the locus for wh-movement, not simply the wh-word – the wh-module, as I perceive it, combines a property (the WH-feature inherent in the wh-word) and a predicative center (the head of the phrase) around which larger phrases can cluster. The wh-module is not identical to the basic InterrogPs treated in 3.2.2 in the sense that each of these patterns may be developed into longer strings (with various types of modification) in accordance with the expansion rules that apply for heads of the individual phrases, for example, Interrog-NPs (22) and InterrogAdjPs (23) can be expanded by PPs, relative clauses or to-infinitives: (22)

a. What elements of our behavior are decisive? (BUC G11:51) b. The uptown crowd has moved in, and what girl worth her seventh veil would trade a turtleneck sweater for a button-down collar? (BUC B24:58)

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 49

(23)

a. Those who’d chosen mules were most pleasantly surprised at how easy to handle they were. (bnc AHK 1718 60) b. It was something of a shock to him to realize how fond of the little boy he had become. (bnc HR8 774 344)

Additionally, expansions (of an Interrog-NP or AdjP) may be postponed (or extraposed) away from the wh-module: (24)

a. How effective have Kennedy administration first foreign policy decisions been in dealing with Communist aggression? (BUC A04:33) b. ...if you were roaming the streets looking for a purse to snatch or a young lady to molest, how quick would you be to attack a person strolling with a dog? (BUC B17:82)

At first glance, it may seem simpler to say that the postmodifying expansions in (24) simply remain in the extraction site and that the fronted elements are only partial extractions. However, the postmodifier could conceivably occur in positions other than the extraction site, ie they may be postponed even further in the sentence: eg How effective have Kennedy administration first foreign policy decisions been in recent years in dealing with Communist aggression? Since some rule of postponement must be allowed for these constructions anyway, there is little, if any, advantage in analyzing these elements as remaining in the extraction site. Though they are issues which merit brief mention in a discussion of percolation, expansions of the basic InterrogPs and postponements of these expansions are not matters specific to wh-XPs, but are rather general facts about phrase structure and therefore need not be treated in any detailed way in the present work. For the sake of clarity in presentation, I refer to the portions of a phrase which precede the wh-module as ‘pre-module’ elements and similarly refer to postmodifying expansions of the different phrase types (postponed or not) as ‘post-module’ elements. ‘Module-internal’ expansions are also possible (for example, any pattern 2 InterrogP can optionally include an adjective, ie What decision did he make? can become What important decision did he make?), but again this is not a matter specific to wh-phrases but rather involves more general syntactic rules for phrase expansion. There is a variety of theoretical explanations for how much of a wh-phrase must necessarily be fronted (or conversely, what items can be left in a ‘gap’ position) – each account attempts to explain the ungrammaticality of certain partial extractions (eg *How do you think the building is D tall?) as a consequence principles such as ‘the left branch condition’, Ross (1986: 127-134); McCawley (1988: 507) ‘the A-over-A condition’, Chomsky (1973); ‘the relativized A-over-A condition’, Bresnan (1976); ‘the generalized left-branch condition’ Gazdar (1981:

50 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description 161ff); ‘the trace principle’ Pollard & Sag (1994: 171-182).13 From the point of view of this work, all of these principles have disadvantages in that they rely on theory-internal assumptions (most of which appealing in some way to language universals) which I do not adopt here. Alternatively, these explanations may be the result of attempts to provide a unified account of the facts of pied-piping or (violations of) island constraints, which I do not, a priori, find necessary to treat in the same manner. Though a wh-module as a structural unit may seem to some like a blunderbuss in comparison to the ‘mathematically-precise’ formulations of the above mentioned principles, I argue, however, that it is a clear, simple and sufficiently adequate tool for describing the (language-specific) wh-phenomena of English. It is premature to go into the details here, but the relationship of this module to premodule as well as to post-module elements is essential in handling the whphenomena which are treated in subsequent sections. At this stage, however, it is sufficient as a unit upon which larger structures can be constructed, as well as being a useful platform for further analysis. 3.2.4 Minor variations on the wh-module Two types of module-internal variations on the InterrogP are briefly considered in the following two points – point (i) covers the use of so-called intensifying postmodifiers such as -ever (eg What ever happened to Baby Jane?) and another, treated in point (ii) involving the use of -else, (That’s nice, but what else can you do?). InterrogPs with intensifying postmodifiers (i) The single-word interrogatives in (7), and (19) may also be combined with the intensifier ever (spelling variation of these items exists so they may be written together as a single word or, more commonly, separately as two individual words), usually to express surprise, bafflement or emotional involvement (cf Huddleston 1984: 370; Quirk et al 1985: 817): (25)

13

a. In any case, who ever thought that New York is typical of anything? (BUC G74:9) b. Can you believe in building a school or a tannery next door to a, which ever came first I don’t know, … (bnc FY5 211 67) c. What ever had brought about this strange union? (bnc CDE 1139 1 9) d. Where ever did you get that funny hat? (OALD) e. When ever did you find the time to do all the cooking? (OALD)

Of all of these theories, the one that comes closest to the ideas put forward here is that of Pollard & Sag (1994: 171-182) who postulate (in simplified terms) that movement must involve a ‘substantive head’ – a concept similar, but not identical to ‘predicative center’.

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 51

f. Why ever should you want that sort of life? (LOB K11: 61) g. ‘You must be an accountant,’ the parachutist said. ‘I am,’ said the walker, ‘but how ever did you know?’ ‘Your information is soundly based, totally correct, and completely useless,’ the parachutist told him. (bnc B71 1805 267) Though technically speaking these InterrogPs are complex since they are made up of more than one word, they are still expansions of single-word heads. Other intensifying postmodifiers which function similarly to ever (see Quirk et al 1985: 817), such as the boldface phrases in example (26), may also occur: (26)

a. Then he was asking himself the usual early morning questions: What the Hell am I doin [sic] here? (BUC K07:190) b. What in the name of God was he doing, …(BUC K21:63) c. …“What in hell are you going to do, Mike”? (BUC L05:113) d. What on earth was in Mae’s mind … (BUC L13:73) e. What in the world were you going to do with a lot of dogs … (BUC R04:14)

The the-hell type of phrase is more flexible than its ever counterpart in that it may not only modify a single-word InterrogP, but (in a manner similar to expletives14) may occur as intensifiers in other InterrogPs (primarily Interrog-NPs, but other types are possible, as in (27c)) regardless of the function of the wh-word: (27)

a. What the hell right did Eddie have saying a thing like that? (BUC P24:214) b. I looked down my nose at the message and wondered what the hell sort of trouble G.H.Q meant when they talked about a student demonstration. (LOB N11:53) c. … and [I] wonder, “How the hell stupid does this writer think kids are? He thinks they don’t KNOW The Simpsons is a joke? (internet: www.instatek.com/sex/issues.html)

On the subject of intensifying postmodifiers such as the hell, Pesetsky (1987: 111) points out an interesting asymmetry between what the hell and which the hell: (28)

14

a. What the hell book did you read that in? b. *Which the hell book did you read that in?

Expletives, however, are less interesting since they are extremely flexible in their syntax and can generally occur in front of any emphatically stressed word – they may even be placed in front of a stressed syllable within a single word, eg fan-fucking-tastic, see Pinker (1994: 175).

52 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

The point of using the the-hell type of intensifying postmodifier is to express complete surprise, dismay, anger, etc, over a situation, which is somehow irritating, baffling, etc, because the speaker of such an utterance does not know or cannot fathom the answer to the question – the unacceptability of (28b) is presumably due to the fact that the choice of which implies a limited set of alternatives, which in turn implies that the answer cannot be completely unknown to the speaker. InterrogPs + else-postmodifiers (ii) Another post-module element which occurs in InterrogP is else (~ ‘in addition to’ or ‘apart from’) (cf Quirk et al 1985: 454; Greenbaum 1996: 144): (29)

a. You may ask what else there is, and the answer is nothing- nothing but empty space. (BUC D13:54) b. “Gyp Carmer couldn’t have known about Colcord’s money unless he was told – and who else would have told him”? (BUC N14:119) c. After all, where else can the public see a wagon these days? (BUC B12:23) d. How else can one explain, for example, allowing the survival of the right to amortize bond discount and premium … but not the right to amortize bond issue expenses; … (BUC J44:1) e. …‘why else should anyone want to protect a commie from what’s coming to him?’ asked Rossi. (LOB N23:161)

Postmodifying else can only be used in conjunction with complex InterrogPs (phrases of the type How much else can we do? may occur, but this is postmodification of much, not how). 3.3

Percolation beyond the basic InterrogP

A comparison between some accounts of percolation (often generative, cf Horrocks 1987: 170-171; McCawley 1988: 477-478; Haegeman 1994: 373-376) and the corresponding description of this phenomenon (though the subject is rarely broached) offered in descriptive-style reference grammars (cf Quirk et al 1985: 817) reveals an interesting discrepancy. In most generative-style grammars, presumably because of their emphasis on general and universal principles, the more intricate characteristics of wh-percolation are often demonstrated with (bound) relative constructions and these are thus taken as a guide for all wh-clause types (the HPSG approach, as opposed to GPSG, is, however, a notable exception, see Pollard & Sag 1994: 159). For the purpose of illustration compare the following examples of percolation in bound wh-relatives: (30)

a. The house, the colour of the paint on the front door of which caused all but the hardiest to don sunglasses was sold for £65,000. (Horrocks 1987: 170)

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 53

b. Reports the height of the letters on the covers of which the government prescribes should be abolished. (Ross 1986: 121) With the right combinations of embeddings, the process can be extended ad infinitum. Though these are rather unlikely sentences, they certainly are grammatical and show the relative ease with which the WH-feature can percolate to quite large pre-module phrases. A closer examination of interrogatives, however, reveals that the fronting of a complex wh-element with a long pre-module element is much more limited than one might expect from generative accounts of this phenomenon.15 Overstating the case somewhat in the opposite direction, Quirk et al (1985:817) claim that the wh-word itself must take first position in the fronted InterrogP with the only exception being when the wh-word is within the prepositional complement. In his account of the generative view, McCawley (1988: 477) describes the option of moving the entire InterrogP in which the wh-word is embedded (which he refers to as pied-piping, after Ross 1985: 126-127),16 as an optional possibility for interrogatives and he quotes the following examples (with my italics and boldface type): (31)

a. b. c. d.

Whose mother did Greg insult? To whom did you send the flowers? During which Pope’s reign was Copernicus born? In return for how much money will you let us go free?

Examples (31a-c) are actually what one might expect from the Quirk et al account as well, so there is no contradiction, but (31d) is more problematic for this description.17 Several other sentences (given below as (32)) with fronted InterrogPs syntactically analogous to those in (31d) were constructed and presented to a group of native informants alongside non-percolated wh-phrases. Two actual corpus examples were also included, disguised as invented examples – (32a) was gleaned from the BNC as a genuine example, and (32c’), from the BUC, served as an example in which a long fronted InterrogP, in theory, would have been possible but was avoided:

15

I am speaking here only of cases where fronting is possible, ie cases where the fronting of phrase or part of phrase is not blocked by island constraints. 16 McCawley (1988: 436) attributes the term to Robin Lakoff but gives no reference. 17 In return for is not necessarily a problem for a description à la Quirk et al since this string constitutes a so-called complex preposition (see Quirk et al 1985: 671) and is therefore by their definition a single unit of syntax and meaning.

54 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description (32)

a a’. b. b’. c. c’. d. d’.

Secondly, on the basis of what knowledge was the decision taken? (bnc FE5 638 208) Secondly, what knowledge was the decision taken on the basis of? In the name of which charity would you like to make a donation? Which charity would you like to make a donation in the name of? The beginning of what new course could it mark? Of what new course could it mark the beginning? (BUC F14:16) The principles of which rule do you really hate? Which rule do you really hate the principles of?

Examples (32a) and (32b) were found to be more natural than the less-percolated forms (32a’/b’). Although reactions were mixed as to the acceptability of (32c) without context, several informants indicated that the long pre-module element seemed acceptable as an echo form or perhaps as a combination of echo and ordinary question than either of the two alone. The majority of informants did not approve of either (32d/d’), but those who did find one better than the other favored (32d). Perhaps one should not make too much of examples like those in (32a/b), which in the end seem restricted to only a small number of formulaic phrases/expressions that are similar, if not identical, to so-called multi-word units like complex prepositions (see Quirk et al 1985: 669-673; Seppänen, Bowen & Trotta 1994). It is interesting to note, however, that the acceptability of these utterances can be accounted for by the generative concept of percolation, which is not adequately covered by reference grammars. Conversely, the generative approach offers no explanation concerning the infrequency and general unacceptability of percolation of the type in (32c/d), but rather adopts a rigid yes-or-no attitude to the phenomenon in general. Even the HPSG approach, which does recognize that clause type affects percolation, employs only a simple, context-free, binary system of two features: QUE (used for interrogatives) and REL (used for relatives). Not only does this application of features miss other types (and sub-types) of wh-clause, but also, since the feature QUE prevents percolation to pre-module elements other than simple prepositions, it incorrectly predicts that examples introduced by complex prepositions (which cannot be dismissed as single units of syntax, see Seppänen, Bowen & Trotta 1994) are ungrammatical. Also, interrogatives which may have long pre-module elements because of a specific context, such as (33), would also be rejected as ungrammatical: (33)

I’m not sure if I completely understand … a. …you are now working with the applications and consequences of which principles? b. …the applications and consequences of which principles are you working with D now?

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 55

Example (33a) is not a problem since it is a so-called declarative interrogative with an in situ wh-phrase, but example (33b) is not explained easily as it is clearly an interrogative – this is shown unequivocally by the subject-operator inversion and the presence of a gap after the prepositional verb work with. A closer examination of syntax, semantics and role of percolation is needed before such tendencies can be explained. Semantically and functionally, the interrogative wh-word represents unspecified information which characteristically has not previously been introduced into the discourse. In the typical communicative function of interrogatives as questions, it is the wh-word which signals interrogation and should logically come early to successfully fulfill that purpose (cf Halliday 1994: 43-48). In contexts such as police interrogations, interviews, quizzes, etc, when it is understood from the discourse situation that questions will be asked, the listener is in a sense ‘primed’ for an interrogative and the formal signaling of interrogation becomes less crucial. Thus the wh-word need not come so early in such situations and the InterrogP (as in (33b)) may allow, perhaps only in this context, a long pre-module element. In bound relatives, however, the wh-word does not represent unspecified information; the antecedent precedes the wh-XP and in effect ‘signposts’ that something else is coming, which, since that something else is known, may be delayed over a longer stretch of language. 3.3.1 Basic InterrogPs as preposition complements With a working premise as to how clause type and percolation are typically related in English, I now move on to preposition pied-piping, which is the necessary first step in transmitting the WH-feature to even larger elements. The wh-module in Table 3:d may be embedded (with varying degrees of restriction depending on the properties of the heads of the strings in patterns 1 to 8) in a prepositional phrase to create a Interrog-PP. This string can be expressed concisely in (34): (34)

Interrog-PP

preposition + basic Interrog-XP

The following are representative examples (from the BUC and other sources) of (34) in terms of the individual patterns in Table 3:d:

56 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description Table 3:e – Prepositions + Basic InterrogPs Pattern: Example: prep + Pat 1 “As a writer, by what have I been obsessed these last ten years, if not by mankind? (BUC G71:29) prep + Pat 2 “At what university did you study”? (BUC K08:8) …On whose side would the Mainland Chinese army fight? (BUC B23:34) prep + Pat 3 To how much light can you expose this kind of plant? prep + Pat 4 More particularly difficulty is related to questions which are not direct readings, but have to be interpreted (however little) or data which need to be processed (no matter in how minor a way) (bnc EVV 910 283) prep + Pat 5 — prep + Pat 6 As how important do you regard this matter? prep + Pat 7 And since when was Holland an industrial superpower? (bnc ANY 252 355) That Christian ache for redemption, … I know it well. I know from where it comes and where it wishes to get to. (bnc A08 1240 351) prep + Pat 8 Until how late would you expect the shops to stay open here? The preposition + wh-AdvP (prep + pattern 7), raises the question of whether certain instances of interrogative where/when should be considered pronouns rather than adverbs. Though they typically have adverbial functions, temporal/locative phrases can also have nominal functions as subjects (eg: A: What time/place would suit you? B: After lunch/In the kitchen would suit me just fine, cf Quirk et al 1985: 658; Johansson & Lysvåg 1986: 44) or prepositional complements (eg We didn’t see him until after the show, The robbers shot from behind a car, cf Quirk et al 1985: 658; Radford 1988: 250-253; Seppänen, Bowen & Trotta 1994: 16). Though there is surely gradience between the two categories, the fact that where/when can also appear in nominal functions is not in itself compelling evidence that they must be treated as pronouns (see Huddleston 1984: 369, 1988: 134 for a different analysis). Table 3:f – Type and frequency of Interrog-PPs prep + pattern 1

14

prep + pattern 2

37 5

prep + pattern 3 0

Total InterrogPs: 2607

100 Total Interrog-PPs: 57 (2.7%)

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 57

As one might expect, prepositional phrases with lexical heads (preposition + patterns 2 & 3) are the most common kind of Interrog-PP. Though other patterns could be realized as prepositional complements (with varying degrees of frequency), only the three combinations shown in Table 3:f occur in the BUC. 3.3.2 Pied-piped vs stranded prepositions One of the aspects of wh-movement phenomena which is most difficult to systematize is the pied-piping (referred to here alternatively as ‘fronting’) and stranding of pre-module elements. Percolation and fronting/stranding are interrelated phenomena and thus the principles put forward in section 3.3.1 as to why pre-module elements are infrequent in interrogatives is also relevant in describing the stranding of long phrases (or the use of alternative strategies in order to avoid such phrases) that would otherwise precede the InterrogP if they were fronted. My remarks in this section are therefore confined to the fronting/stranding of the preposition alone and do not take into account the fronting/stranding of the larger phrases in which the wh-PP may be embedded. In addition, I limit my comments here to the most important points, concentrating primarily on observations prompted by the BUC material. It must also be noted, however, there are many contextual/situational subtleties involved in the choice between a fronted or stranded preposition which elude tidy categorization and therefore it is unrealistic to believe that all the data (attested or invented) can be incorporated into one elegant theory. One difficulty involved in discussing prepositional fronting/stranding in interrogatives is that it is not completely certain which version is the unmarked one, and thus a starting point for a rule/trend system is not easily established. As is the case with percolation, bound relatives are sometimes taken as a guide for wh-XPs in general, the received logic being that a fronted preposition is the unmarked case and only stranded prepositions need be explained. There is, however, no a priori reason to believe that relatives and interrogatives function the same way on this point given the different discourse functions of the two clause types and the concomitant trends in percolation highlighted in section 3.3.1. From the point of view of frequency in the BUC, stranding in interrogatives is actually the more common of the two, with 100 occurrences, whereas there are 57 cases of fronting. In light of the problems involved, the remainder of this section takes the form of a list of factors which affect the selection between prepositional fronting/stranding – the working premise used here is that the possibility of variation between fronted and stranded positions is the default situation. The list thus focuses around points regarding the trends involved and the situations restricting or favoring a choice between fronting or stranding. Degree of integration of the PP into a larger XP (i) This factor is noted by several grammarians, sometimes, however only in connection with relatives (see, for example, Johansson & Lysvåg 1986: 155-157), the

58 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description idea being that the more independent the PP is in relation to the head of the XP in which it is contained (ie verb in a VP, adjective in a AdjP, etc), the more resistant the preposition is to stranding (this point will only deal with PPs related to VPs; PPs as a part of the NP or AdjP structure receive more treatment in point (ii)): (35)

a. Yet to determine … exactly in what ways any individual showed the effects of Christianity would be impossible. (BUC D14:15) (cf *Yet to determine exactly what ways any individual showed the effects of Christianity in …) b. It has been endlessly rephrased, but I may here put it thus: at what point do the tolerant find themselves obliged to become intolerant? (BUC D05:35) (cf *What point do the tolerant find themselves obliged to become intolerant at?)

Though this formulation of the state of affairs is rather loose, it corresponds in spirit to the approaches of many generative grammarians who have also tried to explain the phenomenon of preposition stranding in terms of the configurational relationship of the entire PP to the head of the phrase which would immediately dominate it in a tree diagram. Drastically simplifying the generative approach it can be said that if the PP in question is an adjunct of an XP (a sister of an X’, as the PPs would be in (35)), that PP becomes an extraction blocking environment (or island, see section 2.5.3). If the PP is a complement of an XP (a sister of an X), then it freely allows extraction, as in (36) (cf Hornstein & Weinberg 1981; Chomsky 1981, 1986b):18 (36)

a. “Now, if I can just figure out what he’s talking about, I’ll use it”. (BUC B10:8) b. Note where the sun rises and sets, and ask which direction the prevailing winds and storms come from. (BUC E17:30)

However, it is important to note that, in terms of the adjunct/complement distinction, many PP adverbials occupy a middle position on a scale between uncontroversial complements, like the PPs in prepositional verbs (as in (36)), and items which are clearly more complement-like but which at the same time are more peripheral to the predication. It has been noted by Takami (1992: 18)19 that 18

The exact details of preposition stranding are accounted for in slightly different ways: Hornstein & Weinberg (1981) make use of case marking theory and reanalysis – a treatment which is similar to Chomsky (1981). Chomsky (1986b) relies crucially on the notions of subjacency and barriers. See Takami (1992: 823) for a summary and criticism. 19 Note that Takami (1992) is not trying to incorporate the data into a generative framework but rather is trying to show the weakness of such an analysis.

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 59

such a middle position would involve PPs of accompaniment (as in (37a)), and instrumental PPs (as in (37b): (37)

a. With whom did he leave the party? Who(m) did he leave the party with? b. With what did she poke him? What did she poke him with?

Supposing that this assumption is correct, one could also add to this middle position adverbial PPs which have an affected preposition complement (as in (38a)) and also locative PPs expressing goal/target (38b) or source (38c): (38)

a. In which chair would you prefer to sit? Which chair would you prefer to sit in? b. If you had money, to what cities would you travel? If you had money, what cities would you travel to? c. From what sources do you get your arguments? What sources do you get your arguments from?

Without delving into the details of the adjunct/complement distinction for adverbials in English (see Radford 1988: 230-241; Ekerot 1988 125-136; Enkvisit 1976 for discussions of the principles involved in distinguishing adjuncts and complements), there are arguments for and against a complement analysis of the PPs in the sentences in (37) and (38) and their exact status in this dichotomy is not completely clear (see Trotta, forthcoming b). Any account of stranding (of the preposition in PP adverbials) must, therefore, not only be sensitive to the adjunct/complement distinction (which itself is a scalar rather than simply binary), but it must also take into account the specific semantic type (ie Time, Place, Manner, etc) of the PP adverbial involved. The following figure (a modified version of Takami 1992: 19) shows an X’ schema with a hypothesized continuum of the PP adverbials which allow stranding and those which are most resistant to stranding.

60 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

(39)

S NP

VP V’

V’ V

Most resistant to stranding other PP adverbials20

PPs with affected prep comps, PP adverbials of accompaniment, instrument, goal/target/source, etc subcategorized PPs Least resistant to stranding

Note that this is not a categorical assertion that the PPs which belong to the highest level of this continuum can never be stranded, (39) is merely intended as a generalization which captures the salient tendencies, not as a violent imposition of a theory onto the data. In interrogatives there is a tendency to want to place the wh-word as early as possible (a fact which Takami 1992 never broaches) and thus the acceptability of an otherwise ungrammatical preposition stranding is improved in this clause type. The type of XP in which the PP is contained (ii) Grammatical distinctions like adjunct or complement are less useful tools in understanding preposition stranding/fronting phenomena when the relevant PP is related to a phrase type other than VP. Consider first examples of PPs in adjective postmodification: (40)

a. They lay months away from the nearest Earth star by jump drive, and no one knew what they were good for, although it was felt that they would probably be good for something if it could only be discovered – much like the continent of Antarctica in ancient history. (BUC M04:20) (cf *?…and no one knew for what they were good…) b. “What is Letch interested in”? (BUC R03:80) (cf In what is Letch interested?)

Examples of the type in (40a) are not irregular from the point of view that complement phrases generally allow stranding of the preposition, but it is unusual that 20

These are generally circumstantial adverbials which indicate a point in time or space, but even these adverbials may be more closely integrated into the verb phrase depending on the idiosyncratic complementation patterns of individual verbs.

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 61

the preposition is virtually blocked or extremely awkward, at least in interrogatives, from the fronted position for some adjective postmodifiers, (see Danielsson, forthcoming, for further details). Example (40b) is more representative of the entire group of PP adjective postmodifiers, allowing both stranding and fronting (though fronted prepositions often seem stilted even in a formal context). The number of examples of this phenomenon in the BUC is extremely low, (only 2 fronted prepositions and 2 stranded prepositions) and therefore I have checked this trend of allowing both fronting and stranding with the list of adjective postmodifiers in Quirk et al (1985: 1221-1222), (presented in a simplified version in Appendix Table L). Of this list, all the adjectives allow stranding with appropriate manipulation of the context, indicating that PP elements are grammatically attached to adjectives in a different, more uniform manner than PP elements in VPs. In terms of preposition fronting/stranding when the XP which governs the PP is an NP, the corpus offers little data to discuss. In fact, there is only one example evidenced in the BUC, shown in (41): (41)

Of what new course could it mark the beginning? (BUC F14:16)

The syntactic factors involved in whether an NP will allow preposition stranding are quite complicated to say the least. Firstly the integration of the PP into the NP structure is important and thus prepositional complements of NPs will generally allow stranding whereas prepositional adjuncts will not (see Chomsky 1981; 1986b: 80; Radford 1988: 175, 196) as in the following examples from Radford (1988: 191): (42)

What branch of physics are you a student of? *What kind of hair are you a student with?

This generalization works seems to work nicely for many examples, especially if the NP in question is in the subject predicative position, but breaks down in significant ways21 on at least two points, both of which involve the relationship between the matrix VP and the NP that contains the relevant PP. Firstly, adverbial and noun postmodifier interpretations can merge, allowing preposition stranding from seemingly clear-cut NP adjuncts. (43)

21

a. Against which company did they file a suit? Which company did they file a suit against? (cf A suit against this company was filed last week)

See Takami (1992: 51-64) for a summary of syntactic analyses on this point and criticisms (which are different than the ones presented here) of these analyses.

62 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description b. In what building did they attend meetings? What building did they attend meetings in? (cf Meetings in the old schoolhouse are held twice monthly) The fact that the PPs in (43) can also be interpreted as adverbials is surely a mitigating factor here. As noted by Quirk et al (1985: 1286-1288) it can be difficult to distinguish a noun + PP postmodifier string from a noun + PP adverbial string (see Bowen, forthcoming, for a detailed analysis). In many cases of ambiguity, such as She poked the grammarian with a telescope, the two possible interpretations of with a telescope correspond to two mutually exclusive meanings and thus the context determines which structure is correct and what types of reordering are allowed in a given situation (cf section 2.6, Figure 2:a). For example, if with a telescope is construed as a noun postmodifier, then stranding is blocked, *What did she poke the grammarian with? (cf the acceptability of example (37c) in which the with-phrase is understood as an adverbial).22 However, in many cases, such as those in (43a/b), the ambiguity or merger is not so easy to disentangle. The second point I wish to bring out is how preposition stranding can be blocked from PPs which are complements in the NP structures (a consequence which is not predicted by the generative approach) if the matrix predication is altered: (44)

a. Of which country is he the ambassador? Which country is he the ambassador of? b. *Of which country did you like the ambassador? ??Which country did you like the ambassador of?

(45)

a. In what subjects is he an expert? What subjects is he an expert in? b. *In what subjects did you meet an expert? *?What subjects did you meet an expert in?

In general terms, it seems to be the case that PP postmodifiers are less resistant to stranding when the noun phrase in which they are contained is in a subject predicative position (44a) and (45a) – when the NP has this function, the adjunct/complement distinction comes out best and may have an effect on preposition stranding/fronting possibilities. When NPs are realized as other syntactic functions (44b) and (45b) in VPs with less semantically weak verbs, the fronting of the preposition in their PP postmodifiers, regardless of adjunct/complement 22

The problem in (43), however, appears insurmountable since the two views of constituency involve syntactically distinct categories, yet they are not mutually exclusive from a communicative perspective – the choice of one over the other seems to make little or no difference in the meaning of the whole sentence (cf Figure 2:c, see Coates 1983: 14-17 on gradience, ambiguity and merger).

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 63

distinction, can become ungrammatical and stranding is only slightly better, if at all.23 One speculative reason why stranding is slightly better in such cases is that the fronted preposition emphasizes an adverbial interpretation of the PP, making the sentence nonsensical, cf ?Which team do you like the players in?/*?In which team do you like the players? Note that I am not implying that a change in the VP necessarily alters the grammaticality of stranded prepositions (eg Who is this a picture of?/Who did you see a picture of?), only that the adjunct/complement distinction is a less useful tool in explaining the ungrammaticality of stranded prepositions when the NP in question does not function as a subject predicate, as is shown by the well-worn examples Who did you read a book about/*Who did you burn a book about? (cf Chomsky 1977: 85, 1986b: 80). In such cases, the relation of the verb to the PP in question (presumably as regards factors such as how natural it is to connect the adverbial relationship conveyed by the PP with the action expressed by verb) affects stranding possibilities and is hard to generalize in a neat fashion. Given the richness and complexity of the possible data compared to the meager data in the BUC, the details of how verbs and nouns interact within the VP structure requires a an undeservedly long digression in the present work, and must be left to further research (see Bowen forthcoming for a more thorough analysis). (iii) The choice of the preposition Some individual prepositions (or expressions involving certain prepositions) behave so idiosyncratically as regards pied-piping/stranding that I assume that generalizations about English cannot be expected to cover them. For example, the prepositions in (46) only allow (or strongly favor) stranding (cf Quirk et al 1985: 664, 818, 1052): (46)

a. What does it taste like? *Like what does it taste? b. What did you do that for? *For what did you do that?

Conversely, prepositions like during and since do not allow stranding (cf Quirk et al 1985: 817), regardless of the other factors involved. (47)

23

a. During which historic period did that dynasty last? b. *Which historic period did that dynasty last during?

Note that these examples cannot be explained as violations of island constraints – they are not complex NPs and the adjunct island constraint should not be relevant, ie the NPs themselves are in a complement position (direct object) and the PPs are complements of the heads of their NP (cf What country did Nero cause the downfall of?).

64 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description Example (47b) is especially interesting since the during-PP, even though it is a necessary element in the VP and therefore a complement, does not allow stranding. (iv) Style Recognizing the difference between preposition fronting and stranding in interrogatives vs relatives, Quirk et al (1985: 817) state that ‘neutral style generally requires that the wh-word comes first, but formal English requires that the whelement as a whole comes first.’ Though this observation about style is accurate on the whole, it is in need of some fine tuning since in many cases there is no choice on this issue regardless of the style. For example, in the light of the facts concerning the prepositions in PPs which are part of the NP structure (point ii) and also the tendencies for prepositions in typical PP adverbials of time and manner, there is often no stranding option available, regardless of the style used in the speech/writing situation. The following table is derived from the corpus study and shows the frequencies of preposition fronting vs stranding in the BUC by the different text types, which have been simplified to informative (ie text categories A to J) and imaginative (ie categories K to R): Table 3:g – Preposition fronting/stranding in interrogatives by text type placement of prep preposition stranded preposition fronted

informative (A-J) 32 44

imaginative (K-R) 68 13

Total 100 57

The figures in Table 3:g show clearly that stranding is preferred in the imaginative (less formal) texts, but this tendency is even more convincing when one considers the fact that informative texts outnumber the imaginative texts by 374 to 126 (approximately 3 to 1). If the figures are averaged out and extrapolated to reveal the occurrences of the two phenomena per 10,000 words (ie what one could expect in 10,000 words of the different text types) the relationships are unmistakable: Table 3:h – Relative frequency of fronted/stranded preps per 10,000 words Informative Imaginative

.59

Prep fronted

.51 .43

Prep stranded

2.7 0

10

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 65

Though the real figures are quite low, the BUC provides prima facie evidence to confirm the Quirk et al position on the role of style in interrogative clauses, with the caveat that style can only be considered as a factor in cases in which there is a choice as to the placement of the preposition to begin with. 3.4

InterrogPs compared

Having now covered the constituent structure of the InterrogP, its minor variants and its inclusion in PPs, I now present a brief and simplified overview of the types of fronted InterrogPs in the BUC. The following table is organized by phrase complexity, ie a less detailed division of InterrogPs into just two types: simple phrases (those with a single wh-word head) and complex phrases (those in which the wh-word has a function other than head): Table 3:i – Fronted InterrogPs by phrase type and complexity in the BUC Phrase complexity Simple Complex Total

NPs 1124 248 1370

AdjPs 40 88 128

AdvPs 974 78 1052

PPs n/a 57 57

Total 2138 471 2607

The simple phrases (single word-heads) are by far more numerous than the complex phrases, making up 82% of all the InterrogPs in the BUC whereas the fronted InterrogP is realized as a complex phrase in 18% of the material. Of the simple phrases, the NP and AdvP categories dominate, constituting 43% and 37% respectively of the total number of InterrogPs. 3.5

The syntactic functions of InterrogPs

InterrogPs are quite flexible and can be realized in a wide range of syntactic functions. In the following subsections, these functions have been arranged in two groups: 3.5.1 deals with InterrogPs realized as primary constituents, ie elements which are immediate constituents of a clause such as subject, object, predicative and adverbial and thereafter 3.5.2 treats secondary constituents, ie elements which are not realized as immediate constituents of a clause but rather constitute parts of phrases (which may or may not be primary constituents) such as prepositional complement, adjective postmodifier and noun postmodifier. 3.5.1 Primary constituents Except for a predicator function, fronted InterrogPs may be realized (at least in principle) as any of the major clause elements:

66 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description (48)

a. b. c. d. e. f.

Who (D) opened the door? Which books have you lent him D? (?)I don’t know who(m) they offered D the job. Can you tell me whose beautiful antiques these are D? Do you know how wide they made the bookcase D? Tell me when you will be promoted D.

Sbj Od Oi Ps Po Advbl

All of these possible functions of InterrogPs are noted by Quirk et al (1985: 818), except for the indirect object (48c), which is mentioned in the relevant section in a footnote (p 818) and also earlier on (p 728) as being questionable or unacceptable. It is well documented that the indirect object position is only marginally (if ever) realized as a wh-phrase and that this position is resistant to other types of fronting as well (see Herriman 1995: 22, 89, 118, 140, 157, 190-191; Herriman & Seppänen 1996; and Fillmore 1965: 12-13).24 As regards wh-interrogatives, this may not be due to a complete ban on this syntactic possibility in principle, but perhaps is a consequence of information-packaging principles, ie wh-movement shuffles the canonical order of these positions and the addition of the preposition somehow clarifies the recipient role of the fronted phrase (in other words, the prepositionless variant is not strong enough to specify its participant role in the clause) – this, however, is only a speculation. It is also the case that there is some dialect variation on this point, as noted by Greenbaum (1996: 15), who gives the following sentence as a example which is acceptable to some speakers: Who (or whom) did they give the prize? (see Herriman 1995: 22, 89, 118, 140, 157, 190191 for an analysis and detailed discussion of the factors involved.) The results from the BUC in conjunction with an unsystematic search of the larger corpora (with a limited number of variations on the variables involved) did not yield any InterrogPs realized as indirect object, confirming the results of previous work on the subject. The following two invented sentences, however, were found to be acceptable by my native informants: (49)

a. Which of the films did the jury award first prize? b. I really can’t tell you which of the hopefuls they will offer the job.

Having little data of interest to contribute on this point, I do not pursue it further.

24

It should also be made clear here that, for the reasons presented in Herriman (1995), I do not consider the to- or for-PP paraphrases of indirect objects to be indirect objects but rather adverbials

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 67

Table 3:j – Fronted InterrogPs realized as primary constituents InterrogP type Interrog-NP Interrog-AdjP Interrog-AdvP Interrog-PP Total

Sbj 475 0 0 0 475

Od 512 0 0 0 512

Oi 0 0 0 0 0

Ps 220 128 0 0 348

Po Advbl 1 28 0 0 0 1043 0 47 1 1118

n/a 41 0 0 7 48

Total 1277 128 1043 54 2502

Fronted InterrogPs are thus realized as subjects25 in 17.5% of the material; direct objects 20.5%; subject predicates 13.3% object predicatives < 1%; and adverbials 42.9% The relative infrequency of a constituent such as object predicative is not surprising, given the infrequency of complex transitive constructions on the whole (see Ellegård 1978: 45, 52-56). 3.5.2 Secondary constituents In addition to constituting a primary constituent on its own, the fronted InterrogP can be realized as a secondary constituent, usually as a prepositional complement in a PP, which, in turn, may function either as primary constituent, eg as adverbial in (50a), or may be further embedded in an even larger element, such as noun postmodifier (50b) or adjective postmodifier (50c): (50)

a. I don’t know who she came here with D. b. Can you tell me what country he is a resident of D? c. Which song was he so sentimental about D?

Advbl N postmod Adj postmod

A fronted Interrog-PP (ie pied-piped variants of (50b/c) may also have a secondary function as a part of a larger constituent: (51)

a. Of which of these films did you see only the beginning? N postmod b. Of whom are you afraid? Adj postmod

Table 3:k below shows how often Fronted InterrogPs are realized as secondary constituents in the BUC. In the interest of clarity it should be stressed that the Interrog-PPs in Table 3:k are embedded in larger constituents (as is shown in (51), which makes them quite different than the Interrog-PPs in Table 3:j, which are not embedded and function as primary constituents.

25

Five of the subjects included here are existential subjects, eg I don’t know what options there are D.

68 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description Table 3:k – Fronted InterrogPs realized as secondary constituents26 InterrogP type Interrog-NP Interrog-AdjP Interrog-AdvP Interrog-PP Total

Advbl 88 0 9 0 97

N postmod 0 0 0 1 1

Adj postmod 5 0 0 2 7

Total 93 0 9 3 105

With the discussions of preposition fronting and stranding (section 3.3.2) in mind, the most interesting fact about Table 3:k is that nearly all of the fronted InterrogPs which have a function as a secondary constituent are part of a PP adverbial and only rarely are portions of noun postmodifiers or adjective postmodifiers realized as InterrogPs. 3.6

The form of wh-interrogative clause

The term ‘interrogative’ itself refers to the grammatical form of an utterance rather than its communicative function (see Huddleston 1984: 350, 365-373; Quirk et al 1985: 803-804; Greenbaum 1991: 15; see also section 3.6). Following common practice (cf Jespersen 1924: 302; Quirk et al 1985: 803-804; Johansson & Lysvåg 1986: 245-254; Huddleston 1994, among others),27 I keep the category of interrogative separate from the concept of ‘question’ – ‘question’ is a semantically-oriented term referring to meaning and discourse function rather than form. One of the most salient formal features of wh-interrogatives is the fronting of the InterrogP to clause initial position and hence a treatment of form goes hand in hand with an account of movement phenomena. However, for the sake of presenting a more unified and holistic general picture of the structural patterns involved in wh-interrogatives, I divide the discussion in two, concentrating first on general issues in section 3.6 and its subsections and then proceeding in section 3.7 to a closer view of specific movement phenomena. 3.6.1 Word order Consider the following examples of main-clause wh-interrogatives: 26

I have included in this table two cases in which the fronted Interrog-NP functions as an adjective complement without a preposition. Both cases involved worth, eg I’ll asked him what it was worth. 27 It is rather more the spirit of these works rather than the practice to keep the terms separate, though it is clear form their analyses that they do make a distinction. Huddleston (1994: 411) points out several grammars and academic articles which are not consistent on this point.

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 69

(52)

a. What can/will/should/could/might you buy D in Bolivia? b. What did you buy D in Bolivia? c. Who bought the old house?

When the wh-InterrogP is not subject, the initial position of an otherwise postverbal element is accompanied by subject-operator inversion (cf Quirk et al 1985: 818; Huddleston 1988: 135). This operator may be an auxiliary, as in (52a), but if no such auxiliary exists, a ‘dummy’ do is introduced as an auxiliary (52b), (by a rule generally referred to as ‘do-support’ (see Quirk et al 1985: 80)). The lack of subject-operator inversion or do-support for main clause wh-interrogatives with wh-subjects (as in (52c)) has caused speculation as to whether wh-subjects occupy different positions than their postverbal counterparts as there is no discernible difference in the position of a wh-subject and an non-wh subject in such clauses (cf Who ate your porridge?/Goldilocks ate your porridge.) – this question remains open for the meantime but receives more attention in section 3.7.2 below. Ordinarily, subject-operator inversion, regardless of the function of the InterrogP, does not apply in subordinate clauses: (53) She asked me

what he can/will/should/could/etc buy in Bolivia. what he bought in Bolivia. who bought the old house.

But if the wh-interrogative is used to quote speech, the main clause word order is retained: (54) She asked me

‘What can/will/should/could/etc he buy in Bolivia?’ ‘What did he buy in Bolivia?’ ‘Who bought the old house?’

A hybrid of the two types is also available (sometimes referred to as ‘mixed indirect discourse’, ‘semi-indirect speech’ or ‘free indirect speech’) when the interrogative is question-oriented (see section 3.2.1). This variation occurs regularly in some non-standard dialects such as AAVE or Irish English (see Labov et al 1968; Goldsmith 1981: 546-547; Henry 1995: 105-123) and is not unheard of even in standard English (see Jespersen 1927: 44-45; Emonds 1976: 23-25; Radford 1988: 415; Hasselgård, Johansson & Lysvåg 1998: 306. See also Huddleston & Pullum, forthcoming, on ‘structurally incongruous clauses’): (55) She asked me

what can/will/should/could/etc he buy in Bolivia. what did he buy in Bolivia. who bought the old house.

The variation shown in (55) can sometimes make it difficult to decide whether a given wh-interrogative should be treated as a main or subordinate clause, though

70 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description punctuation, context and sometimes structural clues (such as changes in pronouns, eg He asked ‘What should I buy in Bolivia?’/He asked what should he buy in Bolivia.) usually provide sufficient indications to resolve ambiguities. On the issue of subject-operator inversion, Huddleston (1984: 370, 1988: 135, 1994: 423) argues that examples of the following type are interrogative despite the lack of inversion: (56)

A: The last EEG was performed – I don’t know the exact date, but it was sometime in September. B: And the results of that examination were what? (Huddleston 1994: 423, my emphasis)

Though examples such as (56) are undoubtedly non-echo questions with the InterrogP in situ, I find no reason to treat them as members of the structural clause type of interrogatives. Quirk et al (1985: 817) also note non-echo questions with in situ wh-items, but in that work such constructions are referred to not as interrogatives but rather as ‘declarative wh-questions’: (57)

A: So you boarded the train where? A: And you got off at what station?

B: At Los Angeles. B: At San Diego.

Presumably any intended interrogative analysis of sentences like those in (56) and (57) would extend to embedded structures, in which case it is easy to demonstrate that they are indeed declaratives and nothing else: (58)

a. And you were told (that) the results of that examination were what? b. So you claim (that) you boarded the train where? c. And you say (that) you got off at what station?

The sentences in (58), which are completely parallel to those in (56) and (57), are also non-echo questions, but the possibility of that-insertion is an unmistakable indication that their structural type is declarative and not interrogative. Aside from the typical word order variations in (52) – (55), which can be related to the differences, similarities and blends between main and subordinate interrogative clause, subject-operator inversion is also possible in two further situations: (59)

The question/problem/issue/etc is

(60)

The question,

what we should get to replace it. what should we get to replace it.

what we should get to replace it, what should we get to replace it,

has not be resolved.

In (59) the wh-interrogative clause itself functions as a subject predicative and in (60) the clause has a function as an appositive (see Quirk et al 1985: 1051).

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 71

3.6.2 InterrogP + non-finite clause Aside from the characteristic word order variations of interrogatives noted in section 3.6.1, one of the distinctive features of interrogatives is that the InterrogP may introduce a to-infinitive clause. (61)

a. She knows the power of the sex urge and how to use it to manipulate her husband. (BUC F08:48) b. A fresh crop of beginners’ guns showed up in 1961, and they’re good bets for your Christmas gift list if you’re wondering what to get for a youngster. (BUC E10:74) c. “Good heavens, Adam”, he said, “I thought one thing you’d have no trouble learning is when to get out of a place”. (BUC K09:66) d. She lay under the covers making jabbing motions with her forefinger telling me where to look for the coffeepot. (BUC K18:47) e. When entries are being retrieved from this file, the table of dictionary usage indicates which entries to skip and which entries to store in the computer. (BUC J32:68)

There are two limitations on InterrogPs + to-infinitives, (i) the InterrogP cannot occur as the understood subject of the to-infinitive (I wondered who I should ask/who to ask, I wondered who should leave/*who to leave (cf Quirk et al 1985: 840) and (ii) a why-InterrogP only rarely can introduce a to-infinitive clause (cf I don’t know what/when/where/*why to study for the test) (cf Quirk et al 1985: 1052 who provide the example I’m wondering why to go at all as evidence that this structure is possible). The InterrogP + to-infinitive clause string can occasionally be used as a main clause (cf Quirk et al 1985: 840): (62)

a. What to buy out of the year’s grist of nearly 15,000 book titles? (BUC A44:4) b. What to buy for adult and child readers, for lovers of fiction and nonfiction, for a clientele whose wants are incredibly diversified, when your budget is pitifully small? (BUC A44:5) c. While a Senator, Kennedy had unsuccessfully pushed a bill to preserve the Belasco Theater, as well as the Dolley Madison and the Benjamin Taylor houses, all scheduled for razing. What to do about it now that he was President? (BUC F29:77)

Or in main clauses used in direct reported speech: (63)

a. The question was “Where to land”? (BUC F05:18)

72 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description b. This is the question now facing President Kennedy: how to put a stop to the Soviet buildup in Cuba and to Communist infiltration of this hemisphere? (BUC H13:63) c. Boxell looked at Lawrence with a searching glance, the kind that a prosecuting attorney would give a man on trial. What are your weaknesses? Where will you break? How best to destroy your peace? (BUC K03:120) As noted by Quirk et al (1985: 840), this type of main clause interrogative is often used in directive headings (common, for example, in the titles of books, chapters, plays, articles, etc): (64)

a. The one unifying note, if any, is sounded in the initial article entitled: “How to Get Through the Day”. (BUC C05:28) b. And in a concluding chapter about America’s stance in the contemporary world, one senses certain misplacements of emphasis and a failure to come to grips with the baffling riddle of our time: how to deal with a wily and aggressive enemy without appeasement and without war. (BUC C06:30) c. WHERE TO PUT IT Position may not be everything, but in the case of a pool it can certainly contribute difficulties, social and/or physical. (BUC E19:8)

In anticipation of similar discussions in the following chapters, I can point out at this stage that the interrogative is the only wh-clause type which freely admits of (with the two limitations discussed at the beginning of this section) the wh-XP + to-infinitive clause pattern.28 A full-scale investigation of this pattern is beyond the scope of the present work, but, as it seems reasonable to me that the relationship between wh-interrogatives and to-infinitives is not merely a grammatical coincidence, some partial explanations can be provided. For the sake of clarity, two basic points about the typical meanings associated with the whinterrogative and the to-infinitive clause must first be established. First, the only semantic feature noted for wh-interrogatives so far has been the distinction between question-orientation or answer-orientation, both of which involve the concept of a question, which can either be overt or implicit/potential. Without upsetting this dichotomy, the level of abstraction can be raised for the present purposes so that both of these types of ‘questions’ can instead be understood in terms of propositions concerning a superordinate category of ‘knowledge/information’. In this way, wh-interrogatives (of both question- and answerorientation), depending on context, express notions concerning ‘requests for’, ‘possession of’, ‘lack of’ or any other process or state concerning knowledge. 28

There are some minor exceptions in that bound and free relatives can sometimes allow a wh-XP + to-infinitival clause, see sections 5.6.2, 5.13.2 and 6.6.1.

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 73

Second, the use of the to-infinitive, though a nebulous subject in itself, is often idealized as conveying a meaning of the abstract notion of a process/action rather than an actual process/action completed on a specific occasion, cf Johansson & Lysvåg (1986: 185-188); Halliday (1994: 241). Though this is admittedly an oversimplification of the use of the to-infinitive, which ignores the gradient transitions between finite and non-finite clauses, it is sufficient for the present purposes in order to make the relevant point. Given these two observations, the fact that wh-interrogative clauses may consist of an InterrogP + to-infinitive is not odd since interrogatives deal with many abstract aspects of knowledge, and the propositions expressed by interrogatives must logically include non-factual or potential situations as well as factual or specific situations. Consider the following sentence pairs which express similar meanings: (65)

John knew

a. where we should hide. a’. where to hide.

Bill asked

b. what we might do. b’. what to do.

Bob told us

c. how we can improve profits. c’. how to improve profits.

The meanings in the above pairs of sentences are close enough that it is not difficult to imagine that they may be used in identical situations. They are not, however, necessarily synonymous in the way they frame the propositions expressed by the wh-clauses. The bracketed portions of the (65a-c) are more amenable to an interpretation of actuality/factuality than the analogous portions of (65a’-c’) which instead focus on the abstract notions underlying the propositions. In other words, in (65a) the focus is on knowledge of the place of the hiding, whereas in (65a’) it is on the hypothetical knowledge of a hiding place, not necessarily on any actual place; (65b) is a request which focuses on information for an actual plan of action, whereas (65b’) is a more abstract request concerning hypothetical information regarding a plan of action; (65c) focuses on communication of knowledge of specific ways of improving profits, whereas (65c’) deals with communication of a more general, abstract knowledge of how one goes about improving profits. Leaving aside now general semantic concepts, I move on to the seldom noted fact that InterrogPs may also introduce to-infinitive host clauses: (66)

I didn’t know what to believe (that) he was doing D all those years.

I have been unable to find attested examples of this construction, but I, as well as my native speaker informants, find examples like (66) acceptable with an appro-

74 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description priate context.29 I have little to add to a discussion of such examples except that: (i) they appear to be more acceptable in negated clauses than in positive ones (Coopmans & Stevenson 1991: 363, however, present the following examples as acceptable: They wondered what to believe John had fixed; They wondered what to believe John to have fixed) and (ii) nominal elements appear to be easier to place in this position whereas the possibility of this landing site seems reduced for wh-adverbials, in particular manner adverbials: (67)

a. (?)I don’t know when to believe he will fix the car. b. ??I don’t know where to believe he will fix the car. c. *I don’t know how to believe he will fix the car.

but compare (68), which is substantially better than (67c): (68)

(?)I didn’t know how to suggest she should behave in such situations.

The semantics of the host-clause and source-clause verbs is a factor here since suggest allows a certain degree of ambiguity to arise as to which clause how belongs to, but the valency of source clause verb behave requires it to have a manner adverbial complement and thus how can be (and in fact must be) interpreted as belonging to the lower clause (Coopmans and Stevenson 1991, however, argue that such an extraction is ungrammatical). 3.6.3 Multiple wh-items Wh-interrogatives may contain more than one wh-phrase, which may be arranged in the clause in a number of ways: (69)

a. b. c. d.

Who did what? When and where did it happen? What does he teach and where? Who or what bit you where and why?

(i) fronting + in situ item(s) (ii) coordinated items fronted (iii) fronting + appended cl (iv) combination of (i) to (iii)

The possible combinations of multiple InterrogPs in one single clause are treated in points (i) through (iv) below. Fronting + in situ items(s) (i) One (and only one) uncoordinated wh-phrase may be fronted while the remaining wh-phrases remain in situ:

29

For example: He insisted that he worked on a oil rig but his friends said he was in prison. It was very confusing and I didn’t know what to believe that he was doing all those years.

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 75

(70)

a. It changes the answers to “Who should do what, and where”? (BUC E35:19) b. The Anne Arundel county school superintendent has asked that the Board of Education return to the practice of recording its proceedings mechanically so that there will be no more question about who said what. (BUC A19:25)

It is interesting to note that Quirk et al (1985: 823) state that in such multiple whquestions, if one of the wh-elements is subject, it must be initial. Though this seems true in general, the formulation needs some sharpening since if the subject is in situ, as either a part of an echo construction (71a/b) or a declarative question, (71c), it need not be placed first as is shown in the following examples from the CDC and BNC: (71)

a. ‘What d’you suppose he meant?’ asked Iris, yawning. Melissa turned her head without opening her eyes. ‘What who meant by what?’ (bnc GVP 3063 307) b. Were you there for when the Daily Mirror got hold of it. I think it was MX that had to back down wasn’t it. When who got hold of it? The Daily Mirror. (CDC ukspok/04. Text: S9-623) c. ‘I’ve been watching the road for the past two hours. Where are they?’ ‘Where are who?’ Stein said coolly (CDC ukbooks/08. Text: B-345)

Also, in one very unrepresentative example from the BNC, the wh-direct object actually does precede the wh-subject even though neither is in situ (the grammaticality of this example is, however, questionable): (72)

…and what will the neighbours think if I’m there? It’s all right for you, you’re his sister, but —“ ‘Shut up,” spat Maria furiously. ‘Who cares [what who thinks]? He’s nothing like me except for his hair, we don’t even look as if we come from the same tribe, let alone the same family. (bnc FS9 860 290)

As regards the ordering of elements in cases when the subject is not an InterrogP, it has been argued by Kuno (1982: 140-141) that the organization is not random but rather reflects the way in which the speaker wishes the information to be sorted. In other words the speaker of Who did you give which books? wishes to elicit an answer such as I gave John the sociology books and Sue the grammar books, rather than I gave the sociology books to John and the grammar books to Sue. Fronting of coordinated items (ii) In another kind of multiple wh-interrogative, the fronted items are coordinated:

76 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description (73)

These programs are volumes of waste paper and lost hours if the citizens of a community must stand aside while land developers tell them when, where, and in what manner the community shall grow. (BUC B15:34)

As opposed to the uncoordinated type in (i), more than one coordinated item may be fronted to the beginning of the clause. (iii) Fronting + appended clause Yet another type of multiple wh-interrogative involves more than one wh-clause – one InterrogP is fronted and the others appear as coordinated, appended clauses for which the initial clause acts as a kind of antecedent: (74)

a. I knew that three or four of them were almost always present in the hall but what they were doing, and exactly where, I could not tell. (BUC N06:53)

On this last point, Quirk et al (1985: 823) state that ‘if only one wh-element is adverbial and the other is direct object, only an appended coordination is acceptable.’: (75)

a. What does she teach and where ?What and where does she teach? b. Who did he hit and why? *Who and why did he hit?

Again, rather than a hard-and-fast rule, this appears to be a strong tendency which depends partly on the complementation patterns of the verb involved. The verb teach in example (75a) can be used intransitively, which makes this example much better than (75b), presumably because the form of the two questions in (75a), if taken individually, are perfectly acceptable (cf What does she teach? Where does she teach?). The verb hit is transitive in (75b), making the whyquestion ungrammatical if it is taken on its own (cf *Why did he hit?). (iv) Combinations of multiple wh-item types The above mentioned types of multiple wh-interrogatives can easily be combined: (76)

a. Thus, historically, the demarcation between art and porn has not been concerned with the explicit sexual body itself, but rather with its agency, which is to say [who gets to make what explicit where and for whom]. (Schneider, The Explicit Body in Performance, p 3) b. Auction houses: buyers and dealers at the really smart sales thrown together for days on end in the sales rooms are keen observers of who paid how much for what, who’s selling what and why. (bnc ED9 2931 312)

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 77

In (76) uncoordinated in situ items are combined with an appended single-word clause (the underlined items). Though it may be unlikely to occur naturally, all three types of multiple-item wh-interrogatives can occur in the same sentence: (77)

Where, when, and in what manner did who say what to whom and why?

3.6.4 Ellipsis As a point of departure for an examination of ellipsis, consider the following examples: (78)

a. I know he’s here, but where? b. Why (not) take a train? c. What if your brain explodes?

(i) only InterrogP remaining (ii) ellipsis in why-clauses (iii) ellipsis in what if clauses

The following points (i – iii) give an overview of the different regular ellipsis types attested for wh-interrogatives in the BUC.30 Only InterrogP remaining (i) Frequently, the entire wh-clause with the exception of the InterrogP may be ellipted: (79)

a. The troopers knew an attack was coming, but they didn’t know when, and they didn’t know where. (BUC F22:60) b. Some sort of nemesis was haunting his footsteps, he told us in a quavering voice- either an ape specter or Abe Spector, a process-server, we couldn’t determine which. (BUC R09:67) c. Arlene became indispensable; nobody could have told why. (BUC R07:113)

This ellipsis is made possible by context and/or situation, which makes it more like general ellipsis (cf Quirk et al 1985: 904-905, 908). Ellipsis in why-clauses (ii) Ellipsis in a why-clause may take the form of why (+ not) + predication with an ellipsis of the subject and the operator (ie a dummy-do or an auxiliary): (80)

30

a. If she runs around with other men, and if you hate her as you say, why not just divorce her”? (BUC L23:125)

I omit from the discussion examples of ‘general ellipsis’ (cf Quirk et al 1985: 904-905), eg If birds don’t belong in a Square or Park, what does —? (BUC B19:67) since this does not involve an ellipsis type which is specific to whinterrogatives. I have also excluded types in which the ellipsis cannot be reconstructed with any certainty (cf section 2.7).

78 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

(81)

b. If those aren’t enough for you, why not grow some just for winter blooming? (BUC E02:51) a. We must believe we have the ability to affect our own destinies: otherwise why try anything? (BUC G22:13) b. “But why pay her bills? (BUC L23:124)

The why-not clauses in (80) are typically used to make suggestions or give directives,31 and indeed occur only with such illocutionary force in the BUC, though one could imagine their use in straightforward inquiries if extra emphasis is placed on not (eg A: We shouldn’t wake him at this time of night. B: Why NOT wake him (~ why is that not an option) – he would do the same if the shoe were on the other foot). The type in (81) (without not) are also described by Quirk et al (1985: 840) as being used as directives, though this form appears to be much more flexible in its illocutionary force than the syntactically analogous why-not form (the examples in (81) are in fact inquiries and not suggestions/directives). Another type of ellipsis which occurs with the why (not) forms involves ellipsis of the subject and predicator: (82)

a. One might digress at this point and speculate that if it is “wise” to create special sections for special status, then why not a special section for women pregnant before marriage, and one for 44-year-old men with teenage children, and so on. (BUC J27:37) b. Why me? (BUC K07:116)

Quirk et al (1985: 840) describe such verbless why-questions as corresponding to existential constructions (eg Why all this noise? = Why is there all this noise?), but this generalization, though it might apply to the majority of cases, appears to be too rigid since these constructions may often be paraphrased in a number of ways (eg Why are you making all this noise? Why is it necessary to make such noise? etc). Additionally, an example such as (82b) cannot be paraphrased as an existential construction (cf Why me?¹ *Why is there me?) and the most suitable interpretation for (82a) is as a rhetorical suggestion (like the examples in (81), only here the verb have has also been deleted); its interpretation as having a deleted existential construction would be similar but in no way identical (cf …why is there not a special section … vs …why do they not have a special section …).

31

This type of negative wh-question (ie why not …) is compared by Quirk et al (1985: 821) to negative wh-questions beginning with why don’t you – though the comparison of the illocutionary force of the two forms is valid, I do not consider the why-don’t-you forms here since they are not syntactically irregular and because no ellipsis is involved.

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 79

(iii) Ellipsis in what if-clauses Though it has the flavor of a fixed expression, I have elected to include what if as it occurs in the BUC as ellipsis since in all instances its meaning corresponds with the sense of the fuller version, ‘what happens if’ and can easily be paraphrased this way: (83)

What if the President himself, in the language of the military, “goes ape”? (BUC G03:54)

Note that this need not always the case, since what if also has meanings which do not correspond to ‘what happens if’; in such cases, what if is best treated as fixed expressions (see section 3.6.5). 3.6.5 Irregular items/fixed expressions There are many irregular wh-interrogatives (see Quirk et al 1985: 839-840; Zwicky 1986: 186) which lack a clear constituent structure and syntactic function for the wh-element and are therefore not considered in detail in this study. The following is a sample from the corpus material: (84)

a. ‘What about your father and mother, don’t you think of them when you’re in a place like this’? (BUC L01:54) b. What of his treatment of the Jew in The Merchant of Venice? Shakespeare gives us a vivid picture of Shylock, but probably he never saw a Jew, unless in some of his travels. (BUC G23:35) c. Maybe you are not that gifted either, but how about puttering around with the old paints? (BUC F06:78) d. ‘I’ve been careful about fingerprints. How about you’? (BUC L24:90 & L24:91) e. ‘How do you do’? (BUC P06:28) f. If Russian pupils have to take these languages, how come American students have a choice whether or not to take a language, but have to face so many exceptions? (BUC B15:49)

In addition to the attested items in (84), many invented examples could be added:32 (85)

32

a. Your sister won’t have many people her own age at the party – what if I ask Bill to join us? b. All right, So I went to the pub last night – what if I did? (cf what of it?) c. Tell you what - why don’t see if we can get tickets to the Mets game next week?

This list is extensive but it is not intended to be comprehensive.

80 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description d. Hi John, What’s up? e. Did that driver run through a red light or what? f. A: He gives a lot of money to Amnesty International and Greenpeace. B: So what – does that make him a better person? g. I know that Paris is not so beautiful in the winter but what the hell, let’s go anyway. What if in (85a) is intended as an invitation/suggestion and in (85b) it means something like ‘what difference does it make’. In both these examples its meanings do not correspond well with an ellipsis analysis. The examples in (85a/b) and (84d) provide a glimpse of the difficulty in establishing a strict distinction between ellipsis and fixed expression. For example, why not, why me and what for (see section 3.6.3) have been analyzed in this study as examples of ellipsis, whereas a string like what if has been given two separate analyses depending on its sense. As regards how come, it has been treated solely as a fixed expression despite the fact that the corpus actually contains a how come example in an non-ellipted version (given here as (86)): (86)

“If it ain’t an idea”, she said, “how comes it you can drink beer but not water”? (BUC P04:102)

Even if a non-ellipted version of a phrase such as that in (86) is possible in late 20cE English, the syntactic function of how is still obscure and it is therefore best treated as a fixed expression. 3.7

Selected aspects of movement phenomena in Interrogatives

Continuing on the general theme of form begun in 3.6, the following sections take a closer look at more specific aspects of movement phenomena. 3.7.1 The position of the fronted InterrogP From the point of view of a descriptively adequate, yet flexible account of the data, it would seem sufficient to treat the position of the fronted InterrogP merely as clause initial, and indeed many reference grammars follow this line and do not pursue the matter further (see, for example Huddleston 1984: 370-371; Quirk et al 1985: 817-819). Generative grammarians have raised the issue of whether a mere ‘clause-initial’ position is sufficiently adequate to describe the data (both Englishlanguage specific and universal) and resulting research has attempted to show that the exact landing site of fronted wh-XPs is not merely clause initial but rather outside the typical clausal boundary. Both the P&P model and PSG view this position as being outside S but within S’, a syntactic slot I refer to henceforward simply as pre-S. The P&P model is more specific about this position and hypothesize that the fronted wh-

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 81

element occupies a pre-complementizer (or spec-comp) position, which I refer to henceforward as pre-comp when the more specific term is needed. (For the PSG account, see McCloskey 1988: 26ff; Pollard & Sag 1994: 44; for the P&P account, see Radford 1988: 499-508; 1997: 268ff; Haegeman 1994: 376-381; Cook & Newson 1996: 199ff; Haegeman & Guéron 1999: 169-175).33 Since the precomp position has a special significance to the present discussion, I concentrate my remarks here to this more specific wh-landing site, though it should be kept in mind that a pre-comp position is by definition a pre-S position. Consider first a simplified schematic representation of main clause interrogatives (with nonsubject InterrogPs): (87) a. b. c. d. e.

pre-comp slot Which moviesy Which filmy How successfuly Whaty Wherey

comp slot willi mighti cani wouldi didi

(remainder of sentence) Dy you Di watch Di award Dy he Di be Dy it Dy they Di call it Di live Dy she

at the festival? the first prize? in schools? in France? last year?

The P&P approach to these constructions is to postulate a movement of the auxiliary verb into the complementizer slot. If preposed auxiliaries occupy a complementizer position, then by definition the fronted InterrogP precedes the complementizer. A movement of the auxiliary as shown in (87) accounts for the fact that complementizers and preposed auxiliaries are mutually exclusive, which on its own is not completely convincing since complementizers introduce subordinate clauses and inversion, as it has been relevant for the discussion so far, takes place in main clauses. As noted earlier in section 3.6.1, there are cases in which subjectoperator inversion occurs in subordinate non-wh-clauses (see Hasselgård, Johansson & Lysvåg 1998: 306; Edmonds 1976: 25; Radford 1988: 425): (88)

John asked would I buy more beer.

In this type of sentence, a comp slot position for a moved auxiliary correctly predicts that inversion can only take place in clauses without a complementizer, see Goldsmith (1981: 546) (Henry 1995: 105-123 presents similar data as regards Irish English) cf: 33

Though there is general agreement among P&P grammarians that the fronted wh-XP is in a pre-complementizer slot, the exact details of this position can be slightly different - aside from the Spec-Comp position held by the grammarians noted here, it can also be seen as the result of a movement rule which, through adjoinment, makes the wh-phrase a sister to the left of an abstract interrogative marker ‘Q’ (which is considered to be equivalent to a complementizer), see, for example, Chomsky (1981: 53); McCawley (1988: 464-468); Radford (1988: 502).

82 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

(89)

a. *John asked whether/if would I buy more beer. John asked whether/if I would buy more beer.

An examination of the relationship between the complementizer position and preposed auxiliaries is beyond the scope of this work, but for the present purposes it is worth noting that there is some evidence to support the P&P position, which in turn entails, at least so far, a pre-comp landing-site for fronted InterrogPs. In the case of main clauses, the P&P account of a pre-comp position and the descriptive account of a ‘clause-initial’ position still amount to essentially the same thing and both are equally adequate for covering the data so far. The difference between the two, however, is not simply terminological as they do make different predictions with regard to the wh-landing site in subordinate clauses; if it is possible in these clauses to insert a complementizer after the fronted InterrogP then an argument for a pre-comp position is substantially strengthened. Consider now the following examples in (90) from a study of wh- + that patterns in modern English (Seppänen & Trotta: 2000) plus the examples in (91) which I have gathered from other sources: (90)

a. Non-logical stimuli: the first step here is to list as many aspects as can be thought of connected with the problem situation and to consider a completely irrelevant, unconnected object and to see how many ways that the object could affect the situation. (bnc HRK 359 198) b. and … we # learn about Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth and # Mhm # how she died and what kind of life that she had… (CDC ukspok/04. Text: S9-1206) c. Indeed recent surveys show just how biologically rich that it is, and its probably the meadow systems around the Forest which make it a very fine example in the Hampshire context, and Hampshire is very good in the national context. (CDC ukephem/02. Text: E1135)

(91)

a. ...they knew what movies that I watched D... (Sandra Bullock, The Net) b. Do you know how much that you love your mother D? (Dustin Hoffman, Outbreak) c. I suppose that you could … compare it to people that are living today and uh see how far removed that you are from our tribe… (Bruce Kirchner, BBC series In the Blood, ‘Indian Roulette’ episode, 1997) d. ...and I had no idea of how bad that anything was D. (audience member on the Oprah Winfrey Show, ‘Gun control in America’ episode, 1991)

More examples of this type have been recorded by Radford (1988: 500); Seppänen (1994) and Seppänen & Trotta (2000). These kinds of sentences indicate that when an Interrog-XP is complex (ie more than a single word), its initial posi-

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 83

tion may be separated from its clause by insertion of that.34 The fact that the whitem may at least in principle be marked off in this manner indicates that the whitem occupies a position outside of the typical boundary of the clause structure.35 Though normally the complementizer that is suppressed, making the pattern with the overt complementizer shown in (90) relatively speaking rare, it certainly can and does occur in modern English and thus provides some empirical verification for a pre-comp position for fronted non-subject InterrogPs.36 3.7.2 ‘Vacuous’ subject movement Up to this point the examples given have dealt with wh-elements moved from postverbal positions and therefore movement, in terms of a relationship between an initial wh-position and a non-initial extraction site, is clearly discernible. The situation for wh-elements functioning as subjects, however, is much more problematic. Consider the following examples: (92)

a. Fireworks caused the explosion. What (?D) caused the explosion? I don’t know [what (?D) caused the explosion].

34

It is interesting to note that there is at least one example of a single-word InterrogP followed by a complementizer: (i)

don’t speak too soon for the wheel’s still in spin/and there’s no telling who that it’s naming … (Bob Dylan, The times they are a-changin’)

This does, however, occur in a song and may be a result of other factors such as the need for a specific meter/rhythm. Special thanks are due to Sölve Ohlander for bringing this example to my attention. 35 The obvious issue which remains here is the question of the word class of this that. Many grammarians deny the existence of a relative pronoun that, treating this item solely as a complementizer – in which case a complementizer analysis is forced by default. The view I am advocating here of that in wh- + that strings implies a complementizer analysis though the situation is quite nebulous and requires a far more subtle consideration – see Seppänen & Trotta (2000), for an examination of wh- + that strings. 36 This site can be understood as roughly equivalent to Spec CP, though the Spec CP designation is inappropriate because it entails explanations of movement in terms of specifier-head relationships which are not meaningful in this work. Also, since it is not entirely clear that this is the exact landing site of wh-XPs in all whclause types (see section 6.7.1) it is perhaps premature and even somewhat misleading to make comparisons to the Spec-CP position.

84 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description b. Mona is in charge here. Who (?D) is in charge here? There’s no way of telling [who (?D) is in charge here]. It is questionable whether the idea of a movement relationship applies to cases like those in (92), ie for all intents and purposes the extraction site and landing site are indistinguishable and therefore the subject position is said to involve an unobservable or so-called ‘vacuous’ movement. Chomsky (1986b: 48-54) is cautious about the situation but in the end argues against a syntactic movement of the subject position on theory-internal grounds whereas Clements et al (1983), using evidence from Icelandic, Kikuyu and Irish, attempt to show that this very same kind of movement must be allowed by the theory of grammar. Chung and McCloskey (1983) argue against vacuous subject movement based on theoryinternal assumptions derived from facts about island constraints.37 Huddleston (1984: 395) takes a more pragmatic approach, stating that either analysis can be applied and that the advantage to the vacuous movement analysis is that it allows a unified approach to the form of wh-clauses. Although vacuous movement of subjects is of great theoretical importance to a linguistic model which posits a universal grammar, it is difficult to know the relevance of these facts or how they can best be applied to a description of English. Since no transformational rules are employed in this study, the only real issue which must be addressed here is whether InterrogP-subjects should be analyzed on a par with postverbal InterrogP-elements as occupying a different slot (a pre-S position, presumably pre-comp) than the gap which marks their canonical position, or if they should be analyzed on a par with ordinary subjects, which are in the canonical (postcomplementizer) position and have no concomitant gap. The first piece of evidence for a moved-subject analysis comes from facts about echo questions. In the transformational school, wh-echo questions have sometimes been used as a way of supporting the claim that the S-structure position of wh-items differs from the D-structure position of these same items (cf Radford 1988: 467-468) : (93)

37

a. My father will put the Mercedes in the garage. b. Your father will put [which car] in the garage?

(echo)

c. [Which car] will your father put in the garage?

(non-echo)

Chung and McCloskey (1983) claim that extractions out of clauses with whsubjects are more acceptable since these wh-subjects are not really moved into a Spec-Comp position, eg in What kinds of giftsi are their rules about [who can give Di to whom?] the fronted phrase what kinds of gifts can be wh-moved since who is not in a fronted slot and therefore subjacency is not violated. Pollard & Sag (1994: 225), however, claim that the examples cited by Chung and McCloskey are not accepted by all speakers.

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 85

The typical position of the syntactic function of the Interrog-XP (here direct object of put) is indicated by the position of this item in its echo-question counterpart. Compare now the following examples of subordinate interrogatives with InterrogP subjects: (94)

a. Bill didn’t say that/whether/if John would arrive first b. Bill didn’t say that/whether/if who would arrive first? (echo) c. Bill didn’t say (*that/*whether/*if) who would arrive first. (non-echo)

The grammaticality of the insertion of a complementizer (that/whether/if) in (94b) and the ungrammaticality of the non-echo version of this sentence in (94c) is a powerful indication that the wh-subject + predicate string is different in a very real way from the non-wh subject + predicate string. It would then seem reasonable to consider the echo-question position as the ‘extraction site’ and the nonecho question position as the ‘landing site’ – entailing a movement relationship (albeit vacuous) between the two positions. The second piece of evidence comes from the wh- + that pattern discussed in section 3.6.2. Consider the following examples: (95)

a. It’ll probably be evident from the field which of the players that D are feeling the heat most. (cited in Radford 1988: 500) b. I wonder if he could describe to us what influence that D has been brought to bear on the the [sic] overall calculation? (bnc JAC 367 364) c. Yeah. Erm we owned a little and just thought I’d ask the party see how many things that D cropped up as a result John! (bnc KDW 7074 246)

Though all the examples in (95) are spoken and therefore represent a more informal style, they show that a complex InterrogP subject can be separated from the following clause in the same manner as non-subject InterrogPs, further substantiating the claim that wh- and non-wh-subjects occupy different syntactic slots. The question which remains is whether or not there is evidence to support the assertion that even main-clause InterrogP-subjects occupy a different position than their non-InterrogP counterparts. In terms of the structural position of the subject which I am advocating, the positions of the InterrogP-subject and auxiliary follow exactly the same scheme as shown in (87), the crucial difference being that the reordering of the elements involved is neutralized (ie there is a convergence of forms) resulting in a linear sequence identical to the one before reordering.38 Thus the main argument remaining against a fronted subject in main-clause 38

Traditional and modern grammarians have sometimes handled this case by means of an extra stipulation which states that the necessity of the initial position for the wh-item overrides any inversion rule (cf Chomsky 1957: 69-71, Quirk et al 1985: 818).

86 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description interrogatives is that there is no do-support in cases where no auxiliary is used: (96)

non-subject wh-XP: a. Who can/will/etc you trust now? b. Who do you trust now?

subject-operator inversion do-support

subject wh-XP: c. Who can/will/etc trust you now? d. Who trusts you now?

neutralized inversion no do-support

The lack of a systematic application of do-support in sentences like those in (96d) is admittedly problematic for the view put forward here.39 For this case, I cannot prove conclusively that subject movement is indeed relevant or by any means necessary for a description of English – I do however, have pertinent observations to make regarding counterclaims, especially those based on language acquisition (cf Chomsky 1986b: 48-54), that examples like those in (96d) exclude a movement analysis of such subject positions. Firstly, the lack of do-support in (96d) indeed complicates the issue, but it does not necessarily contradict a fronted-wh-subject analysis – all things being equal, it may simply be the case that since a do-form is not necessary to indicate tense, modality or interrogation, do-support is superfluous in this situation and as such is simply not applied. Secondly, subject-operator inversion is not always apparent with fronted, non-subject InterrogPs (cf Quirk et al 1985: 899): (97)

a. “How you going to work with a child hanging on you” informal (BUC K28:53 ) b. ‘Where you goin’ son?’ asked Mum. informal (LOB K25: 158) c. What you going to say, Betty? What you going to tell him? informal (Dennis Potter, The Singing Detective, p 130)

In spoken language, the you in all the examples in (97) would be reduced to ‘ya’ and the ‘what-you’ combination is regularly reduced to ‘whatcha’. Obviously, in standard English the ‘missing’ auxiliaries are most easily explained as the result of ellipsis. However, following the same logic that is sometimes used in P&P as 39

It is interesting to note that even transformationalists who advocate a nonfronted subject for the S-structure of sentence like 96d) find it necessary in such examples to posit a movement to a pre-complementizer position on the level of logical form in order to account for syntactic relationships such as island constraints or ECP violations (see Chomsky 1986b: 49). From the point of view of this work, movement relationships in logical form take place at a level of abstraction which is difficult to confirm or refute with theoretically unaligned argumentation.

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 87

regards the ‘wanna’ contraction argument (see Radford 1988: 475-476, 1997: 269), the regular contraction of what you to whatcha would indicate that in informal dialects which use these forms, there may not be a gap which marks the place of a ‘missing’ auxiliary, implying that no auxiliary has been moved or deleted. Though the evidence I present here is marginal and reflects dialect- or stylespecific variation, the main point which I wish to make with these examples is simple: it obviously does not follow that, because there is no overt subjectoperator inversion here, the wh-InterrogPs in (97) are not fronted. Thirdly, as far as Chomsky’s (1986b: 48-54) seminal discussion of vacuous subject movement is concerned, his premise that ‘the language learner assumes that there is syntactic movement only where there is overt evidence for it’ (p 50) seems to me to be a peculiar supposition since it implies that these learners ignore evidence from other analogous types of movement which would lead them to a different (tacit) treatment of the structure in question. If language learners drew the conclusion that no movement relationship exists in examples like (96d), then there is no way of accounting for the tacit knowledge speakers have that whsubjects are not on a par with non-wh-subjects in subordinate clauses (cf the different syntax of the echo/non-echo questions shown in (94)). In other words, as regards evidence concerning language acquisition, it is clear that competent speakers of English can produce any number of sentences of the following pattern: (98)

a. Who do you think D will be at the party? b. How many angels did he claim that they agreed D could dance on the head of a pin? c. What factors will she say D have an effect on the result?

If language learners tacitly deduced that subject movement does not occur in examples like those in (96d), this would entail that the subject position in main clauses involves an exception to an otherwise uniform pattern. If this really were a genuine exception which is internalized by speakers during language acquisition, they would have no basis to believe that wh-subjects can enter into other movement relationships in main clauses (such as long movement in (98)), which are analogous in every relevant way to non-subject positions. 3.7.3 COMP + gap in long subject movement In section 2.5 above it was stated that insertion of a that complementizer was an unambiguous sign of a full clause and that extraction out of a full clause was an example of long movement. Consider, however, the examples in (99): (99)

a. He didn’t say [S1 who he thought [S2 (that) Björn would beat D]]. b. He didn’t say [S1 who he thought [S2 (*that) D would beat Björn]].

88 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description Since the insertion of an overt that-complementizer in the S2 clause of (99b) renders an unacceptable sentence for the majority of speakers (cf Sobin 1987), can it be considered a full clause? If S2 is not a full clause, is (99b) an example of long or short movement? The transformationalists do consider such examples long movement but explain the asymmetry between (99a/b) either by means of an ad hoc that-trace filter, ie S2 in (99b) is a full clause but a special rule disallows a that + gap sequence, see Chomsky & Lasnik (1977); McCloskey (1988: 28ff); Haegeman (1994: 398-400), or it is explained as a consequence of the Empty Category Principle (ECP).40 The PSG grammars, on the other hand, do not consider (99b) a full clause with a gap but rather a bare VP with no gap at all. Leaving aside the details of the rules that generate sentences with and without subject extractions (see Gazdar 1981; Gazdar et al 1985: 153-162 for a detailed account), the PSG description includes a gap in the VP constituent when a non-subject XP is extracted as is in (100) below, but when a subject is extracted, the subject constituent in terms of a gap (D) is not present in the source clause and the S/XP is rewritten as a bare VP: (100) a. ....[S1 [NP who] [S2/NP he thought [ S’/NP that [S3/NP Björn would beat D]]]]. b. ...[S1 [NP who] [S2/NP he thought [VP would beat Björn]]]. In this radically simplified description, (100a) indicates that there is a gap in the S3 clause which is related to the NP who in the S1 clause by the slash feature. In (100b) the S2 clause is missing an NP but the following constituent is a bare VP which does not contain a gap. The arguments in favor of this analysis are coordi-

40

Simplifying matters greatly, (48b) is ungrammatical because the trace in the extraction site is not properly governed: (i) *He didn’t say [CP who (C) [IP he thought [CP t2 [C that [IP t1 would beat Björn]. In GB, proper government of traces means that they (traces) must be either theta governed or antecedent governed. The verb beat assigns t1 its theta role but it does not govern t1. Would governs t1 but it does not theta govern t1 and its maximal projection, IP, is a defective barrier to outside government. Since there is no theta marker for t1 outside IP the only government left is antecedent-government. If that is inserted it is a possible governor of t1 and would also block antecedentgovernment from t2 following the principle of minimality. Since that does not theta-govern or antecedent-govern t1, the sequence becomes ungrammatical (cf Haegeman 1994: 441-445) . It is interesting to note here that the ECP could not explain examples like those in (46) since the insertion of that would mean that the traces in subject position were not properly governed.

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 89

nation facts (Gazdar et al 1985: 178) and auxiliary contraction (Schachter 1984) (for a summary of the salient points, see Seppänen & Bergh 1996). Consider now example (101) (from Culicover 1993, quoted in Borsely 1996: 161), which shows that if an adverbial is preposed to the front of the subordinate clause, that subordinate clause may be introduced by a thatcomplementizer even if there is a subject gap: (101) Who do you think that [under those circumstances] would do this? (Borsley 1996: 161) Examples such as this clearly show the inadequacy of the bare VP analysis and that the restriction is more accurately formulated as a ban on complementizer that followed directly by a gap. The bare VP analysis is also the way the PSG grammars deal with the question of vacuous movement discussed in 3.7.2 above, in fact the slash feature is not used at all in these situations and no subject gap is assumed so that (102a/b) would be assigned the same structure: (102) a. Who is feeling the heat the most? b. Bob is feeling the heat the most. Examples (94) and (95) in section 3.7.2 above demonstrate that whsubjects are in fact related to their clauses in a different way than non wh-subjects; this distinction is not captured in the bare-VP analysis and therefore it is not satisfactory with regard to the approach suggested in the present study. 3.7.4 Movement span The most striking feature of movement is the fact that long distance relationships are very infrequent indeed. Of the 2563 items41 which were counted for this variable, only 33 examples (< 1%) of long movement were found. First consider short movement in relation to the exact type of span and clause (main or subclause):

41

In calculating movement span for interrogatives, 112 examples were excluded altogether because they involved fixed expressions, in situ items or ellipsis.

90 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description Table 3:l – Short span movement in interrogatives 1394

whXP + fn-S

915 143

whXP + nf-S

subclause main clause

10 17

whXP + fn-S + nf-P

3 0

1400

Total Interrog movement relationships: 2563

Total short span: 2482 (97%)

Table 3:l shows unequivocally that short movement relationships in which the InterrogP introduces a finite clause are decidedly favored in the BUC. This contrasts starkly to occurrences of long movement: Table 3:m – Long span movement in interrogatives 8

whXP + fn-S + fn-S

10

subclause main clause

13

whXP + fn-S + nf-S

8 0

Total Interrog movement relationships: 2563

100 Total long span: 39 (<1%)

Thus long movement of the InterrogP, though uncontroversially grammatical, has a surprisingly low rate of occurrence of only .4 per 10,000 words of text in the BUC. 3.8

Wh-interrogative clauses as constituents in matrix constructions

Having up to this point focused primarily on aspects of the grammar of whinterrogatives within the clause itself, I now consider some clause-external aspects of wh-interrogatives. The following two sections present the syntactic functions of wh-interrogative clauses in matrix constructions as either primary constituents

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 91

(3.8.1) or secondary constituents (3.8.2). In considering these two sections, it should be noted that interrogatives occurred as subordinated clauses in 1499 examples, which is 56% of the total number of interrogative clauses in this study. The percentages in Tables 3:n and 3:o are based on the total number of subordinated clauses and do not take into account main clauses. 3.8.1 Primary constituents Wh-interrogative clauses typically have nominal functions,42 though unlike NPs they may also function as extraposed subjects or objects: (103) a. b. c. d. e. f.

[How the book will sell] depends on the reviewers. It was a mystery [why he joined the foreign legion]. I don’t know [what they did last week]. He didn’t give [how he should act] another thought. They made it clear [how much they hated the government]. The question is [who will water my plants when I am away].

Sbj Sext Od Oi Oext Ps

Table 3:n – Interrogative clauses realized as primary constituents Total (n) Total (%)

Sbj 30 2%

Sext 18 1.2%

Od 943 62.9%

Oext 2 < 1%

Oi 0 n/a

Ps 35 2.3%

Total 1029 68.4%

Not surprisingly, subordinate wh-interrogative clauses are often realized as direct objects in the BUC. The indirect object, position, though it is unlikely to occur in ordinary corpus material, is possible in theory given the proper context. 3.8.2 Secondary constituents Wh-interrogative clauses may also be realized as prepositional complements in the following larger elements: (104) a. I wonder about [how she met the deadline]. V comp (+prep) b. I have no idea about [why he hasn’t shown up]. N postmod (+ prep) c. I’m not sure about [which she prefers] Adj postmod (+ prep)

42

Quirk et al (1985: 1050) note that, with the exception that a wh-interrogative clause can function as a prepositional complement, they are comparable to nominal that-clauses.

92 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description Aside from the positions noted in (103) and (104), wh-interrogative clauses may be related to VPs, NPs and AdjPs without a preposition. Note the direct correspondence between the prepositional variants in (104a) the prepositionless variants in (105): (105) a. I wonder [how she will meet the deadline] b. I have no idea [why he hasn’t shown up]. c. I’m not sure [which she prefers].

V comp ( - prep) N postmod ( - prep) Adj postmod ( - prep)

The type in (105a) is often classed by grammarians as a type of direct object (cf Quirk et al 1985: 1184-1185), but following Granath (1997), (see also Aarts & Aarts 1982: 155), I do not classify these as objects but rather as a special class of adverbials, referred to in this work specifically as verb complements, which I treat as a secondary constituent: Table 3:o – Interrogative clauses realized as secondary constituents

Total (n) Total (%)

Verb comp - Prep + Prep 90 99 6% 6.6%

N postmod - Prep + Prep 78 152 5.2% 10%

Adj postmod - Prep + Prep 18 33 1.2% 2.2%

Total 470 31.2%

The vast majority of these secondary constituents show free variation in the choice of an overt or suppressed preposition, though there are several factors which favor one option over the other (for a discussion of verbs which may select such prepositionless verb complements, see section 3.10). Included in Table 3:o are also a few phrases such as the following which border on idiomatic expressions: (106) a. If either one ever started making promises, there is no telling where the promises would end. (BUC B14:86) b. Then there was no saying how many times the marine had blown his nose on the handkerchief. (BUC N25:89) c. “When I stand there and look at the flag blowing this way and that way, I have the wonderful, safe feeling that Americans are protected no matter which way the wind blows”. (BUC G41:84) The no + V-ing + wh-clause combination (shown in (106a/b)) occurs only 8 times in the BUC, all instances are included in the verb complement ‘minus prep’ column. The word matter in the string no matter + wh-clause (shown in (106c) is analyzed as a noun and therefore all instances (48 in the BUC) are included in the noun postmodifier ‘minus prep’ column.

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 93

3.9

Licensing the interrogative clause

The particular semantic properties of matrix predications often determine what kind of clauses (declarative, interrogative, exclamative, etc) are allowed to function within the structure of that matrix, for example Radford (1988: 353) (quoting Quirk et al 1985: 155-157) shows that only so-called mandative predicates (eg insist, demand, request, etc) take (or license) a subjunctive clause (eg I insist/demand/request/etc the he be promoted)(cf Bresnan 1979, cited in Radford 353-360). The same is true for the different types of wh-clause, although there is a great deal of overlap between the types of clauses a particular licenser can select, ie predicates which license interrogatives often license other clause types as well. (107) I remembered

what he said. that he said something. what a strange thing he said.

interrogative declarative exclamative

Appendix Tables D, E and F give a full account of all the matrix predications in the BUC which license interrogative clauses. The following section is a scaled-down presentation and discussion of frequent/typical licensers organized by their most prevalent semantic features. The purpose of this section is not to provide a perfect or even exhaustive taxonomy of meanings for interrogative clause licensers, but rather to give a manageable overview of the typical licensers associated with wh-interrogative clauses based primarily on the quantitative study of the BUC. As shown in Table 3:n, the syntactic function most commonly realized by wh-interrogative clauses is direct object and therefore the most natural kind of predicate to speak of is a verb which selects its complementation. As Table 3:o shows, the interrogative clause may also be a part of the NP or AdjP structure and thus it is also valid to include nouns and adjectives in a discussion of licensing predicates. In section 3.6.2 it was pointed out that, on one level of abstraction, interrogatives can be subsumed under the rubric of knowledge/information, and therefore predicates which license these clauses deal, not unexpectedly, with the processes and mental states associated with knowledge. The first group of predicates listed below deal with general aspects such as ‘possession’, ‘lack’ or ‘acquisition of’ knowledge, while the remainder of the groups deal with more specific aspects such as ‘requests for’, ‘communication of’, ‘perceptions of’, ‘reflections on’, ‘concerns about’ knowledge.

94 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description Table 3:p – Interrogative clause licensers Knowledge/Cognition: • VERBS – discover; figure out; find out (about); ignore; know (of/about); learn of/about); (mis)understand (about); work out • ADJECTIVES – (un)aware (of/about) • NOUNS – ignorance of/on/as to/about; knowledge of/on/as to/about; (mis)understanding of/on/as to/about Inquiry: • VERBS – ask (about); examine; inquire (about); investigate; question sb (on/as to/about); study (about) • NOUNS – answer on/as to/about; examination of/on/about; investigation of/on/about; query on/about; question (of/about/as to); study of/on/about; Communication: • VERBS – advise sb (on); announce; define; demonstrate; describe; discuss; explain (about); forecast; illustrate; indicate; instruct sb (on); make clear; mention (about); prove; report (about); reveal; say; show; speak of/on/about; talk of/on/about; teach (about); tell (about) • NOUNS – description of; example of; explanation of/as to/about; illustration of; information on/as to/about; instruction on/about; mention of; note of/on/about; report of/on/about: revelation of/about; talk of/on/about; Perception/Reflection: • VERBS – consider; hear (about); imagine; make out; note; notice; observe; ponder read (about); realize; recognize; see; take notice (of); think (of/about); wonder (about) • NOUNS – concept(ion) of/as to/about; confusion on/as to/about; idea (of/on/as to/about); impression of; notion (of/about); reflection on/about; sense of; thought on/as to/about Recollection: • VERBS – forget (about); recall; remember (about); remind sb (about) • NOUNS – memory of/about; recollection of/about; reminder of/about Judgment: • VERBS – decide (on/about); determine; estimate; guess (on/about); resolve • NOUNS – choice of/on/about; decision of/on/about; determination of; estimate of/on/about; guess on/as to/about; judgment of/on/about/as to; solution as to Doubt/Certainty: • VERBS – doubt • ADJECTIVES – (un)certain (of/as to); hazy about; positive (about); (un)sure (of) • NOUNS – (un)certainty of/about; doubt (about) Concern: • VERBS – care (about); bother about; give a damn (about); never mind (about); worry (about) • ADJECTIVES – concerned with/about; interested in; worried (about) • NOUNS – concern for; interest in; no matter; worry as to/about; Contingency: • VERBS – depend on/upon • ADJECTIVES – contingent on/upon; dependent on/upon; dependence on/upon Naturally there is a great deal of overlap in these categories, eg the adjective aware here is included in the set of predicates dealing with general knowledge/cognition, but it could equally be understood in terms of its relation to perception – this type of overlap, however, is part and parcel of semantic relation-

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 95

ships and is only to be expected in such a simplified overview.43 Also, the multiple meanings of the different predicates is not taken into account here, for example see can mean both ‘perceive visually’ and ‘understand’ and thus could have two entries. Instead I categorize each item only once in terms of its typical, core meanings and ignore other possible meanings (cf the discussion in 2.6 on Figure 2:a). For those predicates which may be followed by a preposition, I use parentheses to show that the preposition is often missing; those not enclosed in parenthesis are typically not dropped. Also, I only include the most common/characteristic prepositions and do not claim to cover every possible preposition associated with a particular predicate. 3.10

Licenser + wh-clause: with or without a preposition?

Although it is a subject that has received little attention, several grammars of English which discuss verb complementation patterns note the fact that some VPs which require a preposition before an NP complement may optionally drop/omit (or ‘suppress’) the preposition before a wh-clause,44 as in the following (cf Jespersen 1927: 46-52; Curme 1931: 254-255; Close 1975: 202; Quirk et al 1985: 1184-1185): (108) a. I don’t care about/*care — his problems. b. I don’t care (about) how he solves his problems This same relationship obtains for many AdjPs and NPs: (109) a. Then she turned back to Wilson and smiled, and he wasn’t quite sure [S what she meant by it]. (BUC N05:30) (cf …and he wasn’t quite sure of/*sure — [NP her intentions].) b. And he could recognize, by touch alone, articles which he had handled immediately before, even though they were altogether unfamiliar to him and could not be identified by him; that is, he was unaware [S what kind of objects they were or what their use was]. (BUC J53:24) (cf He was unaware of/*unaware — [NP the purpose of the objects].) 43

It should also be noted that for considerations of brevity I have concentrated on the licensers found in the BUC supplemented with those commonly found in grammars. This means that not all the cognate words of the items in Table 3:p are listed, ie a noun like reflection, which is included in Table 3:p is naturally related to the verb reflect, which is not included here. 44 A preposition is often said to be necessarily omitted before a that-clause, a clause type which is not discussed in the present study but is extensively examined in Granath (1997). Additionally, Granath (1997: 7-25) presents a concise overview of previous research regarding the phenomenon of preposition omission as it applies to that-clauses and other types of clause.

96 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

(110) a. I reached into that funny little pocket that is high up on my dress. I have no notion [S why I reached]. And I found a radish. (BUC R07:106) (cf I have no notion about/*notion — [NP the reason for my actions].) b. There was never a doubt any more [S how his structures would be received]; it was always the same unqualified success now. (BUC K25:2) (cf There was never a doubt about/*doubt — [NP the acceptance of his structures].) The following list summarizes the salient factors concerning the variation in complementation patterns as regards the inclusion or omission of a preposition for XPs. Note that this discussion only includes items for which a preposition can be suppressed, ie in an example such as I am referring to how many people cheat on their taxes, the to is obligatory and is consequently uninteresting for the present purposes. Note also that these factors have been derived from an examination of the examples in the BUC and is therefore necessarily limited – a systematic study of a larger corpus might reveal other pertinent factors. Variation in meaning (i) Perhaps the most obvious factor is simply that the inclusion/omission of a preposition alters the meaning of the proposition – this is especially true of verbs, but it is less relevant for adjectives and nouns (see points ii and iii): (111) a. Do you know how he plans to arrange his schedule? b. Do you know about how he plans to arrange his schedule? The presence of about in (111b) forces a reading which is more abstract and less direct/ concrete than in (111a), ie know about means roughly ‘know something/anything on the subject of or concerning X’. Note that the absence of the preposition does not always exclude the meaning that that predication would have if the preposition were present, ie though it strongly suggests direct knowledge, the meaning of (111b) can be identical to (111a). The following verbs from Table 3:p are representative examples which may mean different things depending on the presence/absence of the preposition: explain, hear, know, read, tell, understand. Meaning variation is not always a factor in the +prep/-prep choice since many verbs show no meaning change between the two variants: (112) a. I don’t care (about) [why he wants the money]. b. I was wondering (about) [how he will meet the deadline]. Such cases may be true examples of free variation or they may depend on further factors listed below. Examples of verbs (or verbal expressions) whose meaning does not change are: care, give a damn, take notice, wonder.

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 97

The meaning of the preposition (ii) A subsidiary issue which comes out in point (i) is that the prepositions most frequently used in connection with wh-interrogative clause licensers are of, on, as to and about, all in the sense of ‘concerning’ or ‘regarding’ and naturally because of this frequency these are the prepositions most commonly dropped. The rare cases in which these or other prepositions are used with a different meaning often require an overt preposition: (113) a. John’s concern for/*concern — how the students are progressing is tremendous. b. I am very interested in/(*)interested — what she is doing these days. This is, however, not a hard and fast rule since, for example, the preposition on in the prepositional verb depend on can be dropped before a wh-clause, It depends how you tackle the problem (OALD). (iii) Negation Many of the prepositionless verb complements and almost all of the prepositionless adjective postmodifiers in Table 3:p are part of predication which contains overt makers of negation such as no, not, never or the prefix un-. The negation, though it is statistically more frequent, is not a particularly important factor for verb + (preposition) + wh-clause strings, but it is highly relevant for analogous cases involving adjectives (especially those dealing with certainty): (114) a. I am not positive/sure/certain [why he moved to Hoboken]. b. ??I am positive/sure/certain [why he moved to Hoboken]. The following adjectives, in normal, uncomplicated clauses and without context, appear to require negation in order to allow preposition dropping: positive, certain, sure. Though preposition dropping is facilitated by negation, it is not a necessary prerequisite for the prepositionless variant with the following adjectives: aware, curious, surprised. (iv) The phrase type of the matrix expression Based on the examples recorded in the BUC, it appears that verbs and adjectives (often with negation, see point ii) more readily allow preposition deletion than nouns do. One semantic set of nouns typically represented by idea (eg notion, inkling, clue, etc), generally allows variation, but again more readily in negated sentences. The most important factor for NPs (other than those with idea/notion, etc as a head) in non-negated clauses seems to be whether or not the wh-clause can be interpreted as appositive (115):

98 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description (115) a. The question/issue (about/as to/of) why he would do this remains unresolved. b. Your motivation/justification (about/as to/of) why you drove off is not satisfactory. If the wh-clause cannot possibly be interpreted in this way, the prepositional variant is heavily favored if not obligatory. Coordination of wh-clause with other constructions (v) A minor point of consideration here is that if the wh-clause is coordinated with an NP, the NP occurring first, then the preposition is obligatory: (116) a. I don’t care about/*care — any of his problems or why he wants money. b. I’m not sure about/*sure — his real identity or where he comes from. c. There’s little doubt about/*doubt — his future possibilities or what he can achieve If the NP occurs after the wh-clause, the preposition may occur before the two coordinated clauses (as in the acceptable variants in (116)) or in some cases it may occur only before the NP, though it not always completely natural: (117) a. I don’t care why he wants money or about any of his problems really. b. ?I’m not sure where he comes from or about his real identity. c. There’s little doubt what he can achieve or about his future prospects. (vi) Topicalization Topicalizing the wh-clause may in particular affect the +prep/-prep choice when the interrogative clause is realized as an adjective postmodifier: (118) a. I wasn’t aware how much money he made on that deal. *How much money he made on that deal I wasn’t really aware. b. I’m not really curious why he is so interested in all that hi-tech stuff. *Why he is so interested in all that hi-tech stuff I’m not really curious. c. I’m surprised what he will do for an encore. *What he will do for an encore I’m surprised. When the interrogative clause is a verb complement, topicalization less often forces an overt preposition (119), though with some of the infrequent verbs (see Appendix D) it does (120): (119) a. What they say in this matter, no one really cares. b. Why he insists on such loud clothes, I’ve always wondered.

Chapter 3: Interrogatives 99

(120) a. a’. b. b’.

We didn’t bother (about) what kind of clothes we should wear. *What kind of clothes we should wear, we didn’t bother. He didn’t seem to worry (about) how he was going to get home. *How he was going to get home, he didn’t seem to worry.

The fact that there appears to be a correlation between preposition dropping and the frequency of the verb involved is reminiscent of an analogous situation in which the complementizer that, which can often be omitted, may be required if the verb is not frequent. 3.11

Summary

Chapter 3 has examined wh-interrogatives on a number of different levels of analysis as well as from both theoretical and empirical perspectives. The following list summarizes some of the most important points in this chapter. ·

· · ·

·

·

·

Eight distinct phrase-structure patterns are distinguished for the basic InterrogP, each of which is named after the word class of its predicative center, ie Interrog-NPs have a noun head, Interrog-AdjPs have an adjective head, etc. The most common InterrogPs are single wh-word-head NPs and single whword-head AdvPs. The wh-module is established as a tool for describing the minimal unit which must occur first (aside from topicalized elements) in a wh-clause. Percolation to pre-module elements is shown to be rare in interrogatives, restricted for all intents and purposes to pied-piped prepositions and fixed sequences such as complex prepositions. Preposition stranding is the neutral situation in wh-interrogatives. The factors involved in the choice of fronted or stranded preposition are (i) the integration of the PP into its matrix; (ii) the phrase type of the matrix in which the PP is contained; (iii) the choice of the preposition; and (iv) style. The working premise as to the tendency against long pre-module elements in interrogatives is that this restriction is a consequence of the typical discourse function of interrogatives and the role of the wh-word in signaling interrogation and/or representing unspecified, new information. InterrogPs commonly have the following functions in the BUC: subject, direct object, subject predicative and adverbial. The most frequent of these is adverbial. In principle there is no syntactic restriction on InterrogPs as object predicatives, the low frequency in the BUC is due to the low frequency of complex transitive constructions in general. The acceptability of InterrogPs as indirect objects is questionable, though it is unclear exactly why this should be so. ‘Interrogative’ in relation to clause type is term referring to a category of grammatical form rather than meaning or discourse function. Mean-

100 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

·

· ·

· ·

·

·

ing/discourse function do often, but not always, go hand-in-hand with grammatical phenomena. Main clause wh-interrogatives exhibit subject-operator inversion if the whInterrogP is not subject. Subject-operator inversion usually does not apply in subordinate wh-interrogative clauses, though there are exceptions when the interrogative clause functions as an appositive or if the clause functions as subject predicative. Other exceptions include direct reported speech and semi-indirect speech. The latter is often described as a feature of nonstandard dialects though there is evidence to show that it is also used in standard English. An InterrogP may be fronted to a position preceding a to-infinitive clause; a tentative explanation is posited as being related to the semantics of whinterrogatives and to-infinitive clauses. The hypothesis adopted in this work is that the landing site of the fronted InterrogP is a pre-S position (a position comparable to the precomplementizer position posited by P&P grammarians). InterrogP subjects occupy a position different to that of their non-wh- counterparts which indicates that they too occupy the pre-S slot. In the BUC, the overwhelmingly predominant type of movement for whinterrogatives is short. Long movement occurs in less than one percent of the examples from the BUC. Subordinated wh-interrogative clauses typically have nominal functions; the interrogative clauses in the BUC are commonly realized as subject, extraposed subject, direct object, extraposed direct object and subject predicative. Object predicatives cannot be realized by wh-interrogatives and the whinterrogative clause (like the InterrogP) is virtually banned from the indirect object function. Subordinated wh-clauses characteristically function within the structure of a matrix predication which licenses them; whether a predicate can license an interrogative is largely predictable from its meaning. The most typical/frequent semantic predicates which license interrogatives deal with mental states or processes associated with the knowledge, inquiry, communication, perception/reflection, recollection, judgment, doubt/certainty, concern and contingency. When the interrogative clause functions as a preposition complement, there is often a choice between an overt or suppressed preposition. This variation may affect the meaning of the proposition, but in many instances it does not – in these cases, factors such as the meaning of the preposition, negation, the phrase type of the XP governing the preposition, coordination, and topicalization may exert an influence on the absence or presence of a preposition.

Chapter 4: Exclamatives 4.1

Introduction

Exclamative clauses are typically defined, somewhat tautologically, as utterances which make exclamations or exclamatory statements (cf Huddleston 1984: 374; Quirk et al 1985: 804; Greenbaum 1991: 15). Such statements express emotional or attitudinal involvement on the part of the speaker and are typically used to express excitement, awe, surprise, delight, anger, dislike, dismay, etc: (1)

a. “What a stinking world”, Rourke said. (BUC L10:13) b. “Why, what a lovely voice you have”, said one of the female visitors. (BUC M05:35) c. How infuriating all this was! (BUC K08:94) d. How grateful he was to such men! (BUC K10:53) e. There was no point either in telling herself again what a fool she’d been. (BUC L09:70) f. Afraid … that his violent feelings in the matter would certainly betray how deeply concerned he was in spite of himself. (BUC K08:82)

It should be emphasized once again that, although there is a broad correspondence between illocutionary force and the form of an utterance, the term ‘exclamative’ is a category of form rather than meaning. In terms of the quantitative study of the corpus undertaken in this work, the exclamative is the most infrequent of the clause types (less than 1% of the whclause types in the BUC) and previous research shows them to be a fairly infrequent clause type in general (cf Ellegård 1978: 29, who estimates the frequency of exclamative clauses at around 0.1% of the BUC). This infrequency together with their limited syntactic behavior is reflected in the relative brevity of this chapter. 4.2

The form of ExclamPs

As regards the form of the wh-phrases types, ExclamPs are the least diverse in three obvious ways. First, only two wh-words can function as exclamatives: what, which is limited to use as a predeterminer in Exclam-NPs, and how, which is somewhat more versatile and may occur as an adverbial in Exclam-NPs, AdjPs and AdvPs. Second, the typical exclamative wh-phrase is unique in that, with only one exception (see point (iii) in section 4.2.2 below), it is a complex phrase. Finally, none of the minor variations of the wh-XP found in other wh-clauses types

102 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description (like, for example, the intensifying postmodifiers or the else-postmodifiers described in section 3.2.4) occur in the ExclamP. 4.2.1 Wh-words in the ExclamP As noted earlier, a rigorous examination of the semantics of wh-words is beyond the scope of this work, instead I will try to make a general point about the role of wh-words in wh-XPs by means of the following: (2)

a. That is the man who bought your old house. b. A: Who bought your old house? B: Luke. c. What a wonderful life!

Bound relative Interrogative Exclamative

In (2a), the relative wh-word who clearly acts as a substitute (a pro-form) for its antecedent the man. The interrogative wh-word who in (2b), in a strict sense, is not a substitute at all, but rather is linked conceptually to set of possible felicitous answers that may or may not include an item which can be viewed as a type of anticipated antecedent for the wh-interrogative word (such as Luke in (2b)). However, for the present discussion, even wh-interrogative words can be understood as pro-forms in the (loose) sense proposed by Quirk et al (1985: 77) in having ‘…a meaning something like “It has not been known before what this item refers to, and so it needs to be stated in full.”’1 In comparison to other types of wh-words, the exclamative wh-word, as is shown in (2c), cannot be analyzed as corresponding to or being linked to any kind of item, antecedent or otherwise, even by the loose definition applied here.2 Other than its syntactic function in the ExclamP (eg predeterminer in (2c)), the primary role of the wh-exclamative word is to express ‘extreme degree’ (high or low) or quality (high or low). This is particularly obvious when the wh-word premodifies an adjective or an adverb (cf what a great/terrible thing he did!; How quickly/slowly he types!), but it is also apparent even in other cases; for example, what a house can mean what a great/terrible/strange/ beautiful, etc house but in any interpretation it is clear that what signals an extreme degree, cf Greenbaum (1996: 51).

1

Quirk et al (1985: 77), however, mistakenly identify all wh-words as having this meaning – it is quite clear that wh-relatives (both bound and free) are clearly substitutes for known information. 2 Huddleston & Pullum (forthcoming) independently reach a similar conclusion and also note this distinction.

Chapter 4: Exclamatives 103

4.2.2 Basic ExclamPs Exclam-NPs (i) The Exclam-NP has three basic patterns. Exclamative what functions only as a predeterminer in a noun phrase: (3)

wh-predet + (det) + N Pattern 1: Exclam-NP a. What a swinging group they must have been when they first started entertaining! (BUC A32:61) b. God, what a world you people live in. (BUC N04:21)

The status of what as a predeterminer is less evident when it precedes non-count nouns or plural nouns: (4)

a. What bad grace, what incredible selfishness he and Mark had shown. (BUC K23:66) b. Some people love to crack tile and it’s amazing what beautiful designs they come up with as a result of their cracking good time. (BUC F06:92)

Though modern reference grammars (cf Quirk et al 1985: 1055; Baker 1989: 397; Huddleston 1984: 233-234; Leech & Svartvik 1994: 272) explicitly describe the predeterminer function (or equivalent term) of what as being the same in (4) and (3), it is not uncommon to find the use of what in sentences like those in (4) designated as an adverb (cf OALD) or as a (central) determiner (cf Cobuild). A distinction between the two is clearly unwarranted since it would entail assigning what to different word classes in sentences like What an awful book!; What awful books! The absence or presence of a central determiner in such NPs is a result of the type of noun used as head and does not affect the word class of what. The Exclam-NP may also include how, which can only function as a degree adverb (sometimes referred to as an intensifier, cf Quirk et al 1985: 834). Like its interrogative counterpart, exclamative how may precede multal or paucal quantifiers: (5)

wh-adv + quant + N Pattern 2: Exclam-NP But how little love we give him. (BUC B08:119)

Also like its interrogative counterpart, when exclamative how modifies an adjective which itself premodifies a noun, the AdjP (the how + adj string) must precede the determiner (see Quirk et al 1985: 834-835):

104 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

(6)

wh-adv + adj + det + N Pattern 3: Exclam-NP He might tell her how sorry a spectacle she was making of herself, pretending to be blind to the way Julia Fortune had taken Dean’s affections from her. (BUC N03:59)3 Table 4:a summarizes the occurrence of Exclam-NPs in the Brown corpus:

Table 4:a – Type and frequency of Exclam-NPs wh-predet (+ det) + N

42 7

wh-adv + quant + N 2

wh-adv + adj + det + N 0

Total ExclamPs: 103

100 Total Exclam-NPs: 51 (49.5%)

Exclam-AdjPs (ii) Once again, like its interrogative counterpart, exclamative how may modify an adjective head in an Exclam-AdjP: (7)

Pattern 4: Exclam-AdjP wh-adv + adj a. How foolish it was to try to fathom the truth in an area where only faith would suffice. (BUC K19:11) b. And how anxious this lover of obscurity was for applause! (BUC K08:83)

This ExclamP type is relatively frequent considering the low frequency of whexclamatives in general (33 occurrences or 32% of all ExclamPs). (iii) Exclam-AdvPs As the only non-complex ExclamP in this group, how may be used as a singleword degree adverbial:

3

This sentence may also be interpreted as an interrogative, though the exclamative interpretation is clearly legitimate – the ambiguity between these clause types is discussed in section 4.10.

Chapter 4: Exclamatives 105

(8)

Pattern 5: Exclam-AdvP single wh-word head a. How he loathed him. (BUC K07:111) b. Oh how they bounced! Fresh, warm, sweet and juicy, sweet lovin sixteen, she was. (BUC K07:8) c. The words of Cardinal Newman come forcibly to mind: “Oh how we hate one another for the love of God”! (BUC D10:6)

Note that, even though a single-word exclamative how-phrase primarily emphasizes degree, its meaning can shade into manner, as in (8b), ie it is difficult to claim that, in this and similar examples, how conveys only a degree meaning. This can be seen in the rough semantic equivalence between the manner interpretation of the exclamative Oh how they bounced! and the clearly relative Oh the way they bounced! Exclamative how may also be used as a degree adverbial in a larger AdvP: (9)

Pattern 6: Exclam-AdvP wh-adv + wh-adv a. How differently Prokofieff’s life unfolded. (BUC E22:70) b. How lightly her “eventshah-leh” passed into the crannies where I was storing dialect material for some vaguely dreamed opus… (BUC N16:40)

As opposed to the frequencies of analogous InterrogPs (see section 3.2.2), these two types of ExclamP occur roughly equally often in the BUC. Table 4:b – Type and frequency of Exclam-AdvPs 9

single word head

8

wh-adv + adv 0

Total ExclamPs: 103

100 Total Exclam-AdvPs: 17 (16.5%)

The six phrase-structure patterns of the ExclamP are summarized in Table 4:c with the wh-module (cf section 3.2.3) presented in the middle column:

106 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

Table 4:c – The internal structure of basic ExclamPs phrase type:

wh-module:

representative example:

Exclam-NP

wh-pred (+ det) + N wh-adv + quant + N

Pat 1 What a ruckus they made! Pat 2 How little time you give me!

wh-adv + AdjP + det + N

Pat 3 How naive a person you must take me for! Pat 4 How stupid he was when he made those remarks! Pat 5 How I miss my home town! Pat 6 How differently he played!

Exclam-AdjP

wh-adv + adj

Exclam-AdvP

wh-adv wh-adv + adv

As was the case with InterrogPs, the wh-module in ExclamPs is the structural core of the phrase upon which larger ExclamPs can be constructed. 4.3

Percolation beyond the basic ExclamP

The percolation of the WH-feature to pre-module elements is apparently even more restricted in the ExclamPs than it is in InterrogPs (see section 3.3.1), a point which is reflected in the reference grammars in their descriptions of a fronted Exclam-PP as rare (cf Quirk et al 1985: 834). In fact, only 2 examples of piedpiped prepositions are found in the BUC, both of which are included in Table 4:d under prep + Pat 1 and prep + Pat 2. Table 4:d – Prepositions + basic ExclamPs Pattern: prep + Pat 1

prep + Pat 2 prep + Pat 3 prep + Pat 4 prep + Pat 5 prep + Pat 6

Example: I forgot how young you are, how inexperienced, in what a simple spirit you saw your generosity. (bnc H8X 3160 357) Yes, he would bring the Somers safely into New York harbor but at a price. Dear God, at what a price. (BUC P07:92) It’s a wonder, really, to how much mendacious trouble Larkin puts himself to sell the Jerebohms that preposterous manse. (BUC C01:78) Lights burned steadily before the shrines, and no one guessed in how (very) short a time they would be extinguished. (Scheurweghs 1959: 311, my addition of very) — *?For how very clever they took him! ??For how very long we waited for them to arrive!

Chapter 4: Exclamatives 107

I have found no attested examples of percolation beyond prepositions in any of the corpora used in this study and even constructed sentences with long pre-module elements elicit negative results from my native speaker informants (even with so-called ‘complex prepositions’, which should present even less resistance to fronting, cf the analogous situation in interrogatives in section 3.3): (10)

a. *Outside of what an interesting café we met yesterday (cf What an interesting café we met outside of yesterday!) b. *In charge of how very many soldiers she was at that time! (cf How very many soldiers she was in charge of at that time!) c. *In contact with what interesting people I have been recently! (cf What interesting people I have been in contact with recently!

I can only conclude from the evidence that either a long pre-module element is not a possibility in English or that such a marginal construction in combination with such an infrequent clause type results in a pattern so awkward that it is in practice ungrammatical. Like the avoidance of percolation beyond the Interrog-PP, this fact may have a functional explanation. Though they are not handled in detail in Halliday (1994), it can be inferred from the discussion (pp 43-48) that the fronted ExclamP has a special thematic significance in English wh-exclamative clauses; the form of this clause type is crucially dependent on placing the element that shows surprise, dismay, excitement, etc, in the thematic ‘slot’ of the sentence, which is clause initial in English. The chunk of that fronted element whose specific function it is to signal exclamation is the wh-word, and, as in interrogatives, it must come as early as possible within that element in order to successfully realize the intended illocutionary force of the exclamative. As regards pied-piping vs stranding, it seems reasonable to assume from the evidence that stranded prepositions are heavily favored regardless of any grammatical, contextual or situational factor such as those considered in the analogous discussion of interrogatives in section 3.3.2 above. 4.4

ExclamPs compared

The following table shows the different ExclamPs organized by phrase complexity: Table 4:e – Fronted ExclamPs by phrase type and complexity in the BUC Phrase complexity Simple Complex Total

NPs n/a 51 51

AdjPs n/a 33 33

AdvPs 9 8 17

PPs n/a 2 2

Total 9 94 103

Because of the unique make up of the ExclamP, it is hardly surprising that the simple phrases (single word-heads) do not occur with a frequency proportionate

108 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description to the simple phrases of other wh-clauses types (see sections 3.4, 5.4 and 6.4). Of the complex phrases, the NP and AdjP categories dominate, constituting 49.5% and 32% respectively of the total number of ExclamPs. 4.5

The syntactic functions of ExclamPs

The range of possible syntactic functions which can be realized by ExclamPs is in principle just as wide as it is with InterrogPs. Again, due to the low frequency of this clause type, attested examples of all possible functions are difficult to come by, but the following sections, (4.5.1 and 4.5.2), are based upon information provided in reference grammars together with invented examples which have been tested with native informants. 4.5.1 Primary constituents The set of sentences in (11) illustrates the syntactic functions of wh-elements in exclamative clauses (cf Quirk et al 1985: 833): (11)

a. What ill-behaved children (D) were on the tram today! b. What a provocative book she lent me D! c. (*?)What shallow people they awarded D the prizes for best acting! d. How very kind you are D! e. What terrible names they called him D! f. How quickly they changed their minds D!

Sbj Od Oi Ps Po Advbl

The subject, direct object, subject predicative and adverbial functions are recognized by Quirk et al (1985: 833). The indirect object position, as in interrogatives (cf section 3.5.1), is marginal at best but the object predicate position, which is completely unobjectionable to native informants, has, to my knowledge, not been noted previously. Table 4:f – Fronted ExclamPs realized as primary constituents ExclamP type Exclam-NP Exclam-AdjP Exclam-AdvP Exclam-PP Total

Sbj 8 0 0 0 8

Od 12 0 0 0 12

Oi 0 0 0 0 0

Ps 20 32 0 0 52

Po Advbl 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 2 0 18

n/a 9 1 1 0 11

Total 49 33 17 2 101

It is clear from Table 4:f that the syntactic function most commonly realized by an ExclamP is subject predicative (57.7%), a function which is only modestly realized by other wh-XP types (see sections 3.5.1, 5.5.1 and 6.5.1). One speculative

Chapter 4: Exclamatives 109

reason as to why this function is so common for exclamaitves is that subject predicatives are typically used to define or attribute properties or qualities to the subject of a sentence (cf Quirk et al 1985: 55). It seems natural choice then, that if a speaker wishes to convey surprise, disgust, dismay, etc, at something, it is convenient to express relationship by placing the focus of surprise, disgust, dismay, etc, in the subject position and using the (ExclamP) subject predicative to describe it. In contrast to the subject predicative function, occurrences of direct objects and especially adverbials are rather low (13.3% and 20% respectively) in comparison to other wh-phrase types. The subject function, which is considered uncommon by Quirk et al (1985: 833), has a not altogether insignificant frequency in the corpus material, corresponding to 8.8% of the total ExclamPs. The fact that no examples of the object predicate are attested in the material is only to be expected in the light of the scarcity of this function otherwise. 4.5.2 Secondary constituents In addition to the primary constituents listed in section 4.5.1, the fronted ExclamP may function as prepositional complement in a PP. This PP in turn may function as a primary constituent, such as adverbial in (12a), or the PP may be realized as a secondary constituent, such as noun postmodifier (12b) or adjective postmodifier (12c): (12)

a. What a nice boy she came home with D! b. What a strange passage he read me the beginning of D! c. How very many things he was so desperately unaware of D!

Advbl N postmod Adj postmod

Despite the fact that such examples are not difficult to invent, only two of the fronted ExclamPs in the BUC are realized secondary constituents (prepositional complements in adverbials): (13)

a. God, what a world you people live in D”. (BUC N04:21) b. Some people love to crack tile and it’s amazing what beautiful designs they come up with D as a result of their cracking good time. (BUC F06:92)

The adverbial status of the PP in (13a) is quite different than that of (13b) since in this example, the ExclamP is a complement of a phrasal-prepositional verb.

110 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description 4.6

The form of wh-exclamative clauses

Following the pattern used in section 3.1, sections 4.6.1 through 4.6.4 take up general matters of form, such as word order, ellipsis, etc, in wh-exclamative clauses. Thereafter, section 4.7 and its subsections deal with other issues of form which are more specific to wh-movement phenomena. 4.6.1 Word order In contrast to main clause wh-interrogatives (with a non-subject wh-element), the typical wh-exclamative does not exhibit subject-operator inversion: (14)

a. b. c. d.

How quaint it all seemed D the next day. (BUC F24:28) How infuriating all this was D! (BUC K08:94) “What a fool I’ve been D”, she said quietly. (BUC P11:22) What a spectacle he was D, caked with dirt and sweat and blood, filthy as a pig and naked as an Indian, kissing the finest, the sweetest, the bravest, and absolutely the prettiest girl in this whole wonderful world. (BUC N13:7)

Subject-operator inversion may occasionally be employed in main or subordinate wh-exclamatives4, but this word order is rare and generally occurs only in literary English (see Scheurweghs 1959: 310; Huddleston 1984: 373-374; Quirk et al 1985: 834): (15)

a. The calmness and detachment of his tone suggested unawareness of how implicit was his own guilt in the words he had used to defend Cromwell. (BUC P07:113) b. Two things are notable about such state laws: first, how intrusive they are, and, second, how vague is the language in which they are couched. (Bryson, Made in America, p 373) c. Call me a perennial Iowa farmboy, but I never fail to be impressed by how densely packed with worthies is this little island. (Bryson, Notes from a Small Island, p 160)

In terms of word order, exclamatives may thus be formally similar to interrogatives in three ways: (i) when the wh-element is realized as a non-subject, main clause exclamatives may and interrogatives must show subject-operator inversion, 4

Huddleston (1984: 373) states that this is only possible with how-exclamatives while Quirk et al (1985: 834) present an example with a what-clause: What magnificent characters does she present in her latest novel!. My informants have mixed reactions to inversion in what-exclamatives, but most do not reject them totally, whereas inverted how-exclamatives are accepted without hesitation.

Chapter 4: Exclamatives 111

(ii) both clause types lack overt subject-operator inversion in independent clauses when the wh-element is realized as subject and (iii) both clause types typically lack inversion in subordinate clauses. With these similarities, one question which may be anticipated is whether or not it is possible to differentiate between the two clause types, especially in dependent clauses. This discussion, however, is necessarily deferred to section 4.10 where it can be dealt with after the presentation of all the remaining distinctive features of exclamatives. The general absence of subject-operator inversion also makes whexclamatives similar in form to cases of topicalization, especially those with exclamatory meaning introduced by so/such-phrases:5 (16)

a. So many people a’. How many people

he invited to the party!

b. Such a loud shirt b’. What a loud shirt

he wore to the wedding!

c. Such crazy stories c’. What crazy stories

she invents! she invents!

The crucial difference is that fronting the ExclamP is always obligatorily, whereas topicalization is always optional. Compare the following examples: (17)

He invited He wore

a. so many people a’. *how many people b. such a loud shirt b’. *what a loud shirt

to the party! to the wedding!

She invents b. such crazy stories! c’. *what crazy stories! The so/such phrases in (16a-c) may remain in their ordinary, canonical position, as in (17a-c) whereas the analogous wh-versions of these sentences (17a’-c’) are ungrammatical with an non-fronted element. 4.6.2 ExclamP + non-finite clause Sentences like (18) superficially appear to demonstrate that ExclamPs can, as fronted items, introduce to-infinitive exclamative clauses: 5

So and such are similar in meaning to wh-exclamative words in that they express an extreme degree, but they are not markers of clause type.

112 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

(18)

What a production to make of a letter commending your own son! (BUC P27:43)

It is doubtful that this is the case here since the to-clause in (18) is surely best analyzed as a postmodifier within the structure of the NP what a production, in which case, the whole string in (18) is simply a long ExclamP with ellipsis of all other clause elements (probably something like it is or that was). The apparent missing grammatical function after the verb make is thus not proof of whmovement to the front of a clause but is rather due to a different type of grammatical relationship, treated by most grammarians as a to-clause postmodifier (cf Quirk et al 1985:1265-1269), but viewed by others as a relative infinitive (cf Kjellmer 1975, 1988; Geisler 1995) True evidence of whether ExclamP + to-infinitives are grammatical in English may be derived from an examination of the syntax of subordinate exclamative clauses with no ellipsis: (19)

a. What a silly thing to say at a wedding! b. *He told/reminded/etc me what a silly thing to say at a wedding! c. He told/reminded/etc me what a silly thing it was to say at a wedding. (cf interrogative: He told/reminded/etc me what to say.)

(20)

a. How frightfully many things to keep organized! b. *I never remembered/understood/etc how frightfully many things to keep organized. c. I never remembered/understood/etc how frightfully many things there were to keep organized. (cf interrogative: I never remembered/understood/etc how to organize the work schedule.

The ungrammaticality of the sentences in (20b) and (19b) show that ExclamPs, contrary to appearances, may not (as pre-S items) introduce to-infinitive clauses in the same way as InterrogPs.6 The fact that the wh-exclamative clause must in fact be finite (despite the confusion caused by ellipsis) may once again be related to the basic meaning associated with the use of the to-infinitive (cf section 3.6.2) and the meaning of the wh-clause. The wh-exclamative clause does not refer to abstract notion or hypothetical situation but rather to a factual incident whereas the to-infinitive typically refers to an abstract notion of a process/action rather than an actual,

6

Note that the natural word order in these sentences is to postpone the postmodule elements to the end of the clause – this position does not affect the status of the to-infinitives as noun postmodifiers.

Chapter 4: Exclamatives 113

specific process/action. The issue may seem muddled when a to-infinitive postmodifier is embedded in an ellipted wh-exclamative clause as in the following: (21)

a. What a terrible thing to say! b. How strange to meet my uncle in Ulan Bator! c. What a production to make of such a minor illness!

The embedded to-infinitive clause may, as in (21), point to the general, hypothetical notions of the propositions expressed in the ellipted exclamative clause, but the clauses themselves are used to refer to actual, specific events. In other words, in (21a) a specific terrible thing was said (and it would be a terrible thing to say even in other, hypothetical circumstances), in (21b) there was an actual meeting (but the abstract idea of meeting someone in such an exotic place is also strange) in (21b) a ‘production’ has actually been made concerning an illness, and even in other non-factual situations it would still be considered a production. 4.6.3 Ellipsis Ellipsis in the wh-exclamative clause is of three major types: (22)

a. What a miserable trip! (i) only ExclamP remaining b. How weird that he can sing like that! (ii) introductory it + BE ellipted c. How like him to miss the deadline! (iii) ellipsis in ‘how like’ clauses

Each of these three ellipsis types is considered briefly under the relevant headings in the following list. only the ExclamP remaining (i) Wh-exclamative clauses may commonly take the form of the ExclamP only (cf Dekeyser et al 1979: 249; Quirk et al 1985: 834; Leech & Svartvik 1994: 153): (23)

a. How cruel! (BUC K08:20) b. What a beautiful room. (BUC N19:102) c. I can hardly think of this simple fare without exclaiming, oh, what a luxury. (BUC G37:30)

In the corpus material, which is after all composed solely of written English, such ellipted variants occur reasonably often (13 times), despite the fact they are more characteristic of spoken language. introductory it + BE ellipted (ii) Another type of ellipsis, generally common to exclamatives but only attested to once in the BUC, is shown in (24):

114 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description (24)

a. …and how appropriate that he should appear in AMERICAN ARTIST again, in his natal month of March! (BUC E23:69) b. How thrilling that we will all have fun again in the new Festival Theatre (CDC ukephem/02. Text: E2105) c. How interesting that Liza Minnelli describes her style of performing as European (CDC ukmags/03. Text: N36)

As opposed to the to-infinitives mentioned above, here the that-clause is not a part of the structure of the ExclamP, but is rather understood as an extraposed subject (eg How appropriate it is that he should appear in AA again; cf That he should appear in AA again is very appropriate). One non-ellipted version of this construction is evidenced in the BUC: (25)

How strange it was that he could give her this handsome house and carte blanche as to its beautiful furnishings, and fail her in - spiritual ways. (BUC P03:66)

This type of ellipsis may also include to-infinitives: (26)

a. How wonderful to see your cherished self. (BUC M02:112) (cf How wonderful it is to see…) b How stupid to give his position away. (BUC N25:55) (cf How stupid it was to give…)

(iii) Ellipsis in ‘how like’ clauses Another type of ellipsis in exclamatives occurs in the expressions like the following: (27)

“Dear girl”, Walter had finally said, “he writes me that he is sleeping in the English Gardens”. “How like him”! (BUC N19:50)

Sentences of this kind often take the form how like X (+ it is) + to-infinitive, but in (27) (the only example of this type in the BUC) even the to-infinitive is ellipted. Again, the line between ellipsis and idiom is sometimes very fine (cf section 3.6.5) and given the unclear syntactic function of how, strings of this type could conceivably be treated as fixed expressions. 4.6.4 Irregular items/fixed expressions And how, as it is shown in (28), is the only usage of how that can be clearly characterized as a fixed expression: (28)

a. A: He’s done very well, hasn’t he? B: And how! (OALD)

This expression conveys a strong agreement with/about something.

Chapter 4: Exclamatives 115

4.7

Selected aspects of movement phenomena in Exclamatives

In all relevant ways exclamatives are like interrogatives as regards movement phenomena and therefore a detailed repetition of the discussions in sections 2.5 (and its subsections) and 2.7 (and it subsections) is not warranted here. Because of the general infrequency of this clause type and the very low number of attested examples upon which to base an analysis, I purposely keep comments about movement phenomena to a minimum. 4.7.1 The position of the fronted ExclamP As was the case for InterrogPs (cf section 3.7.1), evidence for the pre-S position for fronted ExclamPs can be derived from at least two sources. Firstly after they occupy a slot before the auxiliary (or dummy do) if subject-operator inversion is applied (both examples in (29) are taken from Quirk et al 1985: 834): (29)

a. How often have I bitterly regretted that day! b. What magnificent characters does she present in her latest novel!

Secondly, they can precede the complementizer that in the wh- + that pattern. Consider the following sentences: (30)

a. And that brought it home to me. I thought what a fabulous job that they were doing and Mm. It got mm the old grey cells working… (CDC ukspok/04. Text: S9-604) b. …except in the Medical School I remember you saying how lucky that er the dean of medicine was. Now who was it? (CDC ukspok/04. Text: S832) c. What a mine of useless information that I am! (Radford 1988: 501)

The structural positions of the ExclamP in (29) and (30) indicate not only that the ExclamP occupies a fronted position, but also that this position is compatible with the pre-S slot posited for fronted InterrogP (see section 3.7.1). As in interrogatives, the subject position poses special problems for this analysis. In contrast to interrogatives, however, do-support may apply in the case of main-clause exclamatives with ExclamP subjects as in (31): (31)

a. How many strange ideas do frequently fly into his head. b. What ill-behaved people do sometimes roam the streets after football matches.

There is, however, a difficulty in using this argument since the status of the do as an emphatic form in examples like this is not entirely clear, thus it is desirable to

116 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description present additional support for a pre-S analysis. Turning to the wh- + that pattern, the situation is further complicated, since such evidence must be marginal indeed considering the rarity of ExclamP subjects, the overall infrequency of the clause type itself, and the peripheral nature of the wh- + that pattern. Consider, however, the following example which was gleaned from the BNC: (32)

Your nan’s being rude It’s surprising how it’s surprising how much stuff that collects under there isn’t it? (bnc KCC 510 158)

It is very likely that this example is in fact exclamative as it stands, though an interrogative interpretation cannot be completely ruled out. In order to see if forcing an exclamative interpretation changes the grammaticality of (32), variations of this example were presented to native speaker informants as (33): (33)

a. It’s surprising what an incredible amount of stuff that collects under there isn’t it? b. It surprising how very many things that can collect under there, isn’t it? c. It surprising how very much stuff that can collect under there, isn’t it?

Though several informants commented that they felt the insertion of that was superfluous, they did not reject the examples as ungrammatical, nor did they feel that the examples in (33) were worse that in (32). While it would be an overstatement to call this evidence ‘abundant’, I feel that it is at least sufficient, given infrequency of the clause type and the difficulties involved in the gathering and testing of data, to support a pre-S analysis for fronted ExclamPs. 4.7.2 Movement span Table 4:g sums up all the movement relationships attested for the exclamative clauses in the BUC: Table 4:g – Short span movement in exclamatives subclause

40

whXP + fn-S + fn-S

48

main clause

0 Total Exclam movement relationships: 88

100 Total short span: 88 (100%)

No examples of long span movement were evidenced at all for this clause type in the BUC material. It is not difficult, however, to image such constructions: What a terrible experiencei [S1 she said [S2 they had Di!]. The lack examples like these

Chapter 4: Exclamatives 117

in the corpus is most likely explained by the relatively small size of the BUC, the low frequency of the exclamative clause type and the low frequency of long-span movement in general. 4.8

Wh-exclamative clauses as constituents in matrix constructions

Subordinate wh-exclamative clauses are the most limited wh-clause type in terms of the variety of possible syntactic functions as which they may be realized in matrix constructions. The following two sections describe dependent exclamative clauses as either primary constituents (section 4.8.1) or secondary constituents (section 4.8.2). Note that the percentages in Tables 4:h and 4:i are based solely on the total number of subordinated exclamatives and do not take into account main clauses. 4.8.1 Primary constituents The examples in (34) illustrate subordinate exclamative clauses realized as primary constituents (cf Quirk et al 1985: 1055): (34)

a. b. c. d.

[How very good he was at scrabble] amazed everyone. It’s incredible [how fast she can run]. I remember [what a good time I had at your party]. They made it clear [what a nuisance he had been]

Sbj Sext Od Oext

Table 4:h – Exclamative clauses realized as primary constituents Total (n) Total (%)

Sbj 0 n/a

Sext 4 10%

Od 28 70%

Oext 2 5%

Total 34 85%

4.8.2 Secondary constituents In addition to these primary constituents, wh-exclamatives can also function as a preposition complement in the following larger elements: (35)

a. We wondered at [what remarkable talents the players displayed] b. I’ve read your account of [how strange an effect he had]. c. I am appalled at [how very many children live in abject poverty].

Verb comp (+ prep) N postmod (+ prep) Adj postmod (+ prep)

118 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description Note that, like the analogous functions for interrogatives, some licensing predicates allow prepositionless variants of these functions. Consider, for example, the following attested examples from the internet: (36)

a. And I really can’t believe you think whole-heartedly that she gives a rats [sic] ass about it! And I really don’t care what a NICE person she is. (internet: www.mulberrydays.com/aob/cafe/970615.html) b. …and if I had gone close to my God, have no doubt what a good advocate you would have had… (internet: www.ocd.or.at/ics/trinity/ lt_186. html) c. Reader, perhaps you are not aware what a vast store of comfortable truths the Bible contains for the benefit of real Christians. (internet: blessedhope.simplenet.com/neverper.htm)

In (36), the wh-exclamative clauses are related to VPs (36a), NPs (36b) or AdjPs (36c) without a preposition. As far as I can determine, the factors influencing the presence or absence of the preposition in question are the same as for interrogatives (see section 3.10, and hence this observation is not developed further here. Table 4:i – Exclamative clauses realized as secondary constituents

Total (n) Total (%)

4.9

Verb comp - Prep + Prep 0 4 0% 10%

N postmod - Prep + Prep 0 1 0% 2.5%

Adj postmod - Prep + Prep 0 1 0% 2.5%

Total 6 15%

Licensing the exclamative

Like interrogatives, it is possible to isolate the predicates which can select exclamative clauses as a part of a matrix construction. Because this clause type is so rare, I have added many supplementary items (marked *) in the interest of a more well-rounded presentation. As with the interrogative clause licensers, my aim here is not to provide a complete or perfect taxonomy of meanings for predicates which can select exclamative clauses, but rather to give an overview of the most typical/frequent items based on the BUC study. The exact frequencies of exclamative clause licensers in the BUC can be found in Appendix Tables G and H.

Chapter 4: Exclamatives 119

Table 4:j – Exclamative clause licensers Knowledge/Cognition: • VERBS – *ignore; know; *understand (about); *learn (about) • ADJECTIVES – (un)aware (of); *mindful of • NOUNS – (un)awareness of; *knowledge of; *understanding of; *ignorance of/about Communication: • VERBS – betray; boast of; convey; exclaim; prove; report about; say; show; sing about; tell (sb) (about) • NOUNS – *account of; *description of; *example of; *illustration of; *report on/about Perception/reflection: • VERBS – *consider; hear (about); imagine; *note; notice; *read (about); realize; see; think • NOUNS – *idea (of/on/as to/about); *notion (of/about); *sense of; *thought on/as to/about Recollection: • VERBS – *forget (about); *recall; remember; remind sb (about) • NOUNS – *memory of/about; *recollection of/about; *reminder of; Astonishment (emotional involvement): • VERBS – *marvel at; *wonder at • ADJECTIVES – amazing (as Ps, wh-clause as Se); appalled at/over; incredible (as Ps, wh-clause as Se); *surprised at/over • NOUNS – *astonishment at/over; *amazement at/over; *surprise at/over What is immediately apparent in the list of exclamative licensers in Table 4:j is that none of them are limited to only exclamative clauses and all of them could in fact license interrogatives, once again adding to the problem of demarcation between the two clause types. Moreover, this list could be expanded to include many more of the same predicates which select interrogative clauses. Given the different meanings of the wh-words in interrogatives as opposed to exclamatives (cf 4.2.1), the answer-/quesiton orientation is crucial in determining the status of a possible exclamative clause licenser rather than simply a particular predicate on its own without context, ie wh-exclamative words do not represent unspecified information and are therefore less likely to occur in question-oriented predications (see 4.10, point (iv)). As opposed to interrogative licensers, I include a special group, ‘astonishment/emotional involvement’, based on a semantic feature that is noticeable about some of the items which license exclamative, namely that an element of ‘extreme’ degree is a part of their meaning. It should be noted that although such licensers may favor an exclamative interpretation of a particular clause, it is possible for such licensers to select other clause types: (37)

a. I’m appalled at [what an unsuitable remark he made at the reception]. b. It’s incredible/amazing [how very quickly that boy can eat]!

(38)

a. I was appalled at [what he said at the reception]. b. It’s incredible/amazing [what that boy can eat]!

The structural clues (the predeterminer function of what in (37a) the insertion of very in (37b) show that the sentences in (37) must be exclamative. The sentences in (38) also carry a kind of exclamative force but this is due to the meanings of

120 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description appalled at, incredible and amazing; the phrase structure of the wh-XPs in (38) is, however, unmistakably not exclamative. 4.10

Problems of demarcation: exclamative or interrogative?

As hinted at in section 3.6.1, the major difficulty concerning wh-exclamatives is the problem of demarcation between wh-exclamatives and wh-interrogatives. Compare the following sentences (the punctuation is omitted intentionally): (39)

a. b. c. d.

How many passengers were left behind How inane are his arguments I told him how desperate the situation was I noticed what books he was reading

The problem in determining the clause type of examples like those in (39), is one of ambiguity as that term as it is defined in section 2.6. In other words, the two different clause-types which could be assigned to such examples correspond to two distinct meanings; if the meaning of the example in question is understood then the clause-type ambiguity is resolved. In the interrogative interpretation of (39a-c), for example, the wh-word how represents an unspecified chunk of information, so how many need not mean there were ‘many’ at all, how inane need not necessarily entail that the arguments were inane, and so on. The interrogative interpretation of (39d) is just a plain statement of fact – it involves no comment on the books themselves. The exclamative interpretation of these examples is quite different, an exclamative how in (39a-c) expresses an extreme degree and so there is no question that in (39a) how many means ‘very many’, how inane in (39b) means ‘very inane’, how desperate in (39c) means ‘very desperate’. The word what in (39d) is not just a plain statement of fact if this is understood as an exclamative – it conveys a comment regarding the speaker’s attitude toward the books themselves, eg the books were very good/bad/strange/difficult, etc. Though it is not possible to clear up all cases of ambiguity when the meaning is unclear, the following survey lists factors which can help establish more firmly the clause type of the example in question. Graphic conventions (i) Punctuation (an exclamation point (!) at the end of a sentence rather than a question mark (?)) is possibly the indication of clause type which most readily comes to mind, but it is quite clearly unreliable, as it is more an indication of the illocutionary force of an utterance rather than its structural clause type. Compare the following examples in which clearly interrogative sentences are given exclamative punctuation for added emphasis or to show emotive force:

Chapter 4: Exclamatives 121

(40)

a. Who cares about them! (BUC G23:47) b. “Why don’t you name him Jesus Christ!” She burst into tears. (BUC P03:99) (italics in original) c. “For what”! (BUC L21:13)

Also, even if punctuation could be trusted as a sign of clause-type membership, it would only be relevant for main clauses, not for subordinate clauses, since (aside from direct reported speech) compound/complex sentences receive the punctuation which is relevant for the entire sentence, regardless of the clause type of the subordinate clause: (41)

a. He asked me what I wanted. b. He explained to me what a sucker I had been.

Interrogative Exclamative

Another indication of the unreliability of punctuation is that an exclamation point rather than a question mark is also used for various types of interrogatives such as exclamatory questions (eg Wasn’t she a knock-out!, see Quirk et al 1985: 825, 1634).7 Word order (ii) Another distinction between interrogatives and exclamatives is word order in main clauses (with non-wh-elements as subjects) – exclamatives do not require subject-operator inversion or do-support. There are exceptions to this for exclamatives (cf 4.6.1), but aside from the rare inverted forms there is little confusion as to clause-type membership of main clauses when the wh-element is postverbal. Word order is not a reliable indication of clause type for main clauses with wh-elements as subject or for embedded clauses, in which the word order of both interrogatives and exclamatives is the same; in other words example (41) is ambiguous without context: (42)

How many women had longed for the privilege that was hers. (BUC K20:35)

In such instances where the form (or manipulation of the form) of the utterance cannot help to disambiguate the example, the meaning of the wh-word is crucial, ie does it represent unspecified information (interrogative) or is it a marker of degree (exclamative). (iii) Licensers and the ‘what a’ and ‘very’ tests If an ExclamP is exclamative, it should allow, with appropriate changes, insertion of what a or alternatively the degree adverbial very. This test however, does not 7

Exclamatory questions are of the yes-no type and are therefore not directly relevant to a study of wh-clauses.

122 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description prove that a clause is exclamative, only that a clause could be exclamative – ie all predications that license the exclamative can license the interrogative, but not vice versa. Some predicates only license the interrogative and not the exclamative, though this often appears to be a quality of the individual predicates in relation to question-/answer-orientation and context and is difficult to generalize to entire semantic groups (cf section 3.9). Predications which express question-orientation tend to exclude an exclamative reading since the wh-word in interrogatives corresponds to unknown/unspecified information, whereas the wh-word in a exclamative clause corresponds to known/factual/specific information (cf sections 4.2.1 and 4.6.2): (43)

I asked (about)

a. what books we can read. a’. *what a book I can read.

I am unsure (about)

b. how fast he can run. b’. *how very fast he can run.

I can’t decide (about)

c. how much time I need. c’. *how very much time I need.

The situation can be quite tricky, especially if a predicate has more than one meaning and can be used in both answer-/question-oriented predications: (44)

tell ~ ‘perceive’ a. I could tell [what a nice guy Bill was]. a’. ??I couldn’t tell what a nice guy Bill was].

answer-oriented question-oriented

tell ~ ‘determine’ b. I could tell how very many people were there b’. *I couldn’t tell how very many people were there.

answer-oriented question-oriented

tell as a reporting verb c. He told me how very many people were there. answer-oriented c’. He didn’t tell me how very many people were there. answer-oriented It is fair to say then that tell meaning ‘perceive’ or ‘determine’ is not a characteristic licenser of the exclamative in answer-oriented predications, though it is perhaps marginal in (44a’) if the context is such that it is a fact that Bill actually is ‘a nice guy’ but for some reason the speaker could not or did not observe that quality. The relevant use of tell in the sense of ‘determine’ is more clear-cut; in an answer-oriented predication, the wh-word can represent known, specific information and thus an exclamative interpretation is possible. A question-oriented version of tell (‘determine’) forces a reading of the wh-word as unspecified information making a selection of exclamative clause highly unlikely. The answer/question orientation of tell as a reporting verb makes little difference since it is

Chapter 4: Exclamatives 123

natural to interpret the wh-word as representing known/specified information regardless of whether that information is reported or not. 4.11

Summary

The following list summarizes some of the most important points in chapter four. ·

·

· · ·

· ·

· ·

·

The form of the ExclamP has bee shown to be the most limited of all wh-XPs in that they constructed with the help of only two wh-words: what, which functions only as a predeterminer in a complex ExclamP, and how which functions only as a degree adverbial, primarily in complex ExclamPs but also in single wh-word phrases. The wh-words in ExclamPs are different from the corresponding words in other wh-XPs in that, aside from their syntactic function, their role is to convey a meaning of extreme degree. They are not linked to any other item such as an antecedent in a relative clause or a set of possible felicitous answers in an interrogative clause. Six distinct phrase-structure patterns have been distinguished for the basic ExclamP, the majority of which are complex Exclam-NPs and Exclam-AdjPs. Percolation to pre-module elements is shown to be even rarer and more restricted in exclamatives than in interrogatives. ExclamPs commonly have the following functions in the BUC: subject, direct object, subject predicative and adverbial. The single most frequent of these is subject predicative. As with interrogatives, there is in principle no syntactic restriction on ExclamPs as object predicatives, the absence of this function in the BUC is due to the low frequency of exclamative clauses and the low frequency of complex transitive constructions in general. The acceptability of ExclamPs as indirect objects is more questionable than it is for InterrogPs. ‘Exclamative’ in relation to clause type is term referring to a category of grammatical form rather than meaning or discourse function. Main clause (and subordinate clause) wh-exclamatives do not typically exhibit subject-operator inversion. Subject-operator inversion may rarely apply in wh-exclamative clauses (main or subordinate, both with non ExclamP subjects) in literary English, sometimes making it difficult to distinguish between interrogatives and exclamatives. Wh-exclamative clauses are finite, though the issue is sometimes confused by the use of embedded to-infinitives in ellipted exclamative clauses. The landing site of the fronted ExclamP is hypothesized as a pre-S position. As with InterrogPs, there is evidence which suggests that ExclamP subjects occupy a position different to that of their non-wh- counterparts, which supports the claim that they too occupy the pre-S slot. The only type of movement evidenced for wh-exclamatives in the BUC is short; long movement in exclamatives does not occur at all in the BUC.

124 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description ·

·

·

·

The exclamative clauses in the BUC are commonly realized as subject, extraposed subject, direct object and extraposed direct object. The most common of these is direct object. Indirect objects, subject predicatives and object predicatives cannot be realized by wh-exclamative clauses. Subordinated wh-exclamatives are licensed by a variety of predicates usually expressing knowledge/cognition, communication, perception/reflection, recollection and astonishment. None of the licensers for this clause type are used exclusively for exclamatives. As in the case of interrogatives, some licensing predicates allow whexclamative clauses to be integrated into larger constituents as verb complements, noun postmodifiers and adjective postmodifiers without a preposition. However, no examples of this type are evidenced in the BUC. Problems of demarcation which arise because of the similarity of form between exclamatives and interrogatives have been examined. The most important tool in distinguishing the two types is the meaning of the wh-word, but other features can be examined such as word order possibilities, and the manipulation of the ExclamP to include what a or the degree adverbial very. The last test can also help determine if a matrix predication can license an exclamative clause.

Chapter 5: Free relatives 5.1

Introduction

A treatment of a class of free relative clauses is of limited or no value unless this category can be distinguished with some certainty from other clause types. Since the correlation between clause type and grammar is essential to the present work, many of the sections in this chapter are devoted to mapping out the identifying features of free relatives as opposed to other similar clause types, namely interrogatives and conjunction-introduced adverbials. It is worth mentioning at this point that a chicken-or-egg type problem of presentation is especially relevant in the sequence of discussions in this chapter. Many of the following sections will necessarily precede examinations of the problems of clause-type demarcation and therefore early sections will include (in statistics and examples) items whose clause-type membership is controversial and whose justification for inclusion in this chapter must necessarily be deferred to later sections. Though it is premature to develop matters of clause-type at this point, the reader should keep in mind that I have included the following constructions in my definition of free relative clause, each of which will be discussed in the sections noted in parenthesis: (1)

a. What I need is food/Food is what I need. wh-cleft constructions (section 5.13.1) b. That’s what I want deictic + wh-clause (section 5.13.2) d. Wherever you go, there you are. concessive ‘-ever’ clauses (section 5.13.3)

Where it is possible in example sentences in the early sections of this chapter, I avoid genuine BUC examples which are evidenced only in the constructions listed in (1) and, for the sake of presenting more clear-cut example, use instead invented sentences which illustrate more central cases. 5.2

The form of FreeRelPs

The free relative clause is sometimes described as resembling a noun phrase (see Huddleston 1984: 403, 1988: 158-159; Quirk et al 1985: 1056) modified by an adnominal relative clause except that its wh-element is ‘fused’ or ‘merged’ with its antecedent (ie the coreferent of the wh-element is understood to be combined with or contained in the wh-element itself). Consider the correspondence between the free relatives in (2) and their bound relative paraphrases:

126 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description (2)

a. b. c. d.

He ate what (~ the food which) they served. Put it back where (~ in the place where) you found it. You can come whenever (~ any time when) you are free. What few friends (~ the few friends that) he had were loyal.

The free relative structures are, however, radically different from bound relatives in the way they are incorporated into their matrix clause. While the bound relative clause is attached as a modifier to an antecedent phrase, and is linked to it by a tie of coreference between the antecedent and the wh-phrase (or part of the whphrase as in (2d)), the free relative does not have a sequence of two distinct elements but merely one FreeRelP which combines the functions of the antecedent and the wh-phrase of bound relatives. Baker (1989: 178-179) and Huddleston (1984: 403), (1988: 158) illustrate the semantic similarity between bound and free relatives by means of a variable X which is understood as an element in both the matrix and in the relative clause, ie both the bound and free versions of (2a) can be analyzed as ‘they served X; I ate X’, both versions of (2b) can be analyzed as ‘I found it in place X; I put it in place X’, and so forth for the remaining examples. These two distinctive characteristics of free relatives – the noun-like-quality of the FreeRel clause and the fusion of antecedent and RelP – are pervasive influences on the grammar of these clauses on nearly all levels. 5.2.1 Wh-words in the FreeRelP Two issues concerning the wh-words used in different subordinate classes of FreeRelPs must first be noted before the matter of the constituent structure of FreeRelPs can be examined. Firstly there is a distinction as to whether FreeRelPs are ‘definite’ or ‘indefinite’. Indefinite FreeRelPs typically include a wh-word + -ever suffix (eg whatever, whichever, whoever, etc) which makes up either the whole FreeRelP (cf You can take whatever you find) or as part of that phrase (cf You can take whatever books you find). The two types are integrated in the following presentation and the differences between them are fleshed out in section 5.2.4. Note that when(ever)/where(ever) are treated here in their temporal/locative senses respectively – other meanings of these items are discussed in sections 5.10.1 and 5.11. Secondly, there is some contention about which wh-words may enter into FreeRelP constructions. The range of words one accepts as possible in free relatives depends partly on which constructions one’s definition of the clause type includes. For example, why and who would, without hesitation, be considered free relative wh-words if one chooses to include as members of the free relative clause type examples like That’s why I love to shock the neighbors, That’s who I meant, see section 5.13.2. A closer look at the central vs the peripheral members of the group of free relative words is undertaken in section 5.2.3, but it is fair to say at this stage that the following discussions of form are more inclusive on this point than the re-

Chapter 5: Free relatives 127

ceived analyses and take into account all the items in Figure 5:a (with the caveat that some of them are extremely restricted in their use).

CORE what(ever) (head/det) whichever (head/det) which(head/det) where(ever) (head) how (adv) when(ever) (head) however (head/adv) whoever (head)

PERIPHERY

how (head)

who (head) why (head)

Figure 5:a – Free relative words: core vs periphery The use of all the items in Figure 5:a (as either heads of single-word phrases or as elements in larger phrases) is attested in free relative clauses as that concept is understood in this work. Those items in the innermost circle are the typical, uncontroversial members of the class; those in the two middle areas of the figure are less typical (how as a singe-word phrase is more accepted as a free relative than who) and why, which is shown the outermost circle, is the most peripheral or restricted member of the group. 5.2.2 Basic FreeRelPs FreeRel-NPs (i) As was the case with interrogatives, the simplest and most frequent types of FreeRelPs are the single-word phrases. In FreeRel-NPs, these consist of what (3a), whatever (3b), whoever (3c), and whichever (3d):1 (3)

1

Pattern 1: FreeRel-NP single wh-word head a. Even if people do, in a not far distant future, begin to read one another’s minds, there will still be the question of whether what you find in another man’s mind is especially worth reading- worth more, that is, than what you can read in good books. (BUC G29:5)

The use of who and which in FreeRelPs is taken up in section 5.2.3.

128 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description b. Whatever Hans or Anders learned separately they passed on to each other; they read every book that they could borrow in the village. (BUC E26:9) c. Smell has played a major role is history. Fragrances were used lavishly by whoever could afford them throughout the ancient world. (CDC: ukephem/02. Text: E1220) d. The lockable door can be positioned in the front, back or at either end, whichever is most convenient. (CDC ukephem/02. Text: E2098.) The same FreeRel words, with the modification of whoever to its inflected form whosever, can also function as determiners in an NP; note the use of what (4a), whatever (4b), whosever (4c) and whichever (4d) in the following: (4)

wh-det + N Pattern 2: FreeRel-NP a. What limited knowledge he possessed he forced upon me. (BUC N06:35) b. When, therefore, it turned its attention to the concrete entities with which popular imagination had peopled the world of spirit, these entities soon lost whatever status they had enjoyed as actual elements of external reality. (BUC D01:18) c. You can read whose(so)(e)ver books you find on this subject, you still won’t get a simple answer. d. …let’s look at for a moment at the Japanese because when they look to do business overseas they send a speaker of whichever language is appropriate for that particular country… (CDC ukspok/04. Text: S99)

However may also function as an adverb in a FreeRel-NP (preceding a multal or paucal determiner): (5)

wh-det + quantifier + N Pattern 3: FreeRel-NP ...the ten or twelve people on the jury, or however many people there are...

Analogously to (5), however may function as an adverb modifying an adjective which itself is within the structure of a FreeRelP-NP: (6)

wh-adv + adj + det + N Pattern 4: FreeRel-NP It was very spacious – 100 acres or however big an area it was, was surely more than enough

Again, as in interrogatives and exclamatives, cf sections 3.2.2 and 4.2.1, the however + adj string must precede the noun.

Chapter 5: Free relatives 129

Table 5:a – Type and frequency of FreeRel-NPs single wh-word head

780

wh-det + N

54 0

800

Total FreeRelPs: 3154

Total FreeRel-NPs: 834 (26.5%)

What is the most frequent single-word phrase with 698 occurrences, whatever follows with 60 occurrences; then whoever, 11; whichever, 6; whosoever, 3; and finally who and whom which occur once each as FreeRelPs. As far as the complex phrases are concerned, whatever and what, occur in determinative function 40 and 12 times respectively, while whichever and whose occur once each. The two remaining strings, wh-adverb + quantifier + noun and wh-adverb + determiner + noun, exemplified in (5) and (6), do not occur at all in the BUC. FreeRel-AdjPs (ii) There are no examples of FreeRel-AdjPs in the BUC, but it is possible, at least in principle, for a FreeRelP to be realized as an AdjP. Analogously to its interrogative counterparts, how (or however) may function as a single word adjective as in: (7)

Pattern 5: FreeRel-AdjP single wh-word head A: How is Bob? B: Bob is how he always is – grumpy as usual.

Or alternatively, however may be used as a degree adverbial in a complex phrase: (8)

Pattern 6: FreeRel-AdjP wh-adv + adj You can make your arguments however simple or however complicated you want them to be.

Table 5:b – Type and frequency of FreeRel-AdjPs single wh-word head

1

wh-adv + AdjP

25 0

Total FreeRelPs: 3154

100 Total FreeRel-AdjPs: 26 (>1%)

130 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description As one might expect, this category (both single and complex phrases) is constituted entirely by however phrases. (iii) FreeRel-AdvPs The overwhelming majority of FreeRelPs in the BUC are single-word AdvPs realized mainly by when (9a), and where (9b), but they may also be realized by how(ever) (9c): (9)

Pattern 7: FreeRel-AdvP single wh-word head a. I feel a certain loss of status when I am driven up in front of work in a car driven by my wife, who is only a woman. (BUC A30:58) b. Once (this was on the third day of school) she kneeled down to pick up some books where they’d dropped on the floor and Jack looked up her dress- at the bare expanse of incredibly white leg. (BUC N27:19) c. I can dress how(ever) I like in my own house

Though there are no occurrences in the BUC, however may also function as a degree adverbial in a larger FreeRel-AdvP: (10)

Pattern 8: FreeRel-AdvP wh-adv + adv You can drive however fast you like

Table 5:c – Type and frequency of FreeRel-AdvPs in the BUC single wh-word head

2287 7

wh-adv+ adv 0

Total FreeRelPs: 3154

2300 Total FreeRelP-AdjPs: 2294 (~73%)

Single-word when-phrases are overwhelmingly frequent in the BUC, occurring 1980 times. The rest of the category is evidenced far less often: where which occurs 188 times, whenever 42, why 32, wherever 28, how 13 times, and finally however 4. The wh-adverb + adverb category is made up solely of howeverphrases. The constituent structure of FreeRelPs (definite and indefinite combined) can be summed up in the following table:

Chapter 5: Free relatives 131

Table 5:d – The internal structure of basic FreeRelPs phrase type:

wh-module: wh-pron wh-det + N

wh-NP wh-adv + quant + N wh-adv + adj + det + N wh-adj wh-AdjP

wh-adv + adj wh-adv

wh-AdvP

wh-adv + adv

representative example: Pat 1 You can write on what(ever)/ whichever/whoever you want. Pat 2 He reads what(ever) subjects appeal to him at the moment. Pat 3 …12 or 13 or however many people there were. Pat 4 …a whole football field or however big an area it is… Pat 5 He is feeling how he always feels – tired and unsociable. Pat 6 I can make the print however big you want it to be. Pat 7 You can travel when/where/ how he travels. Pat 8 They drove however fast the law allowed.

A striking fact about the possible constituent structure of basic FreeRelPs is that in principle it is exactly the same as in InterrogPs (see section 3.2.3), but as regards frequency distributions, the two phrase types are far from identical. 5.2.3 Central vs peripheral items Having mapped out the structural patterns of the basic FreeRelP, the issue begun in section 5.2.1 of what words can actually be considered components of free relatives can now be resumed. Not all of the words listed in Figure 5:a have an acknowledged status as free relatives as lists of introducing (ever-less) FreeRelPs vary slightly from reference source to reference source. Baker (1989: 174) states that the entire list consists of what, where and when, a list which corresponds roughly with Huddleston (1984: 403-404). Quirk et al (1985: 1057-1058) include which, who(m), and how (in non-specific meaning only) but add that these words are restricted to coocurrence with a small semantic class of verbs expressing volition like choose, like, please, want, wish etc, as in (11): (11)

a. She can marry who(m) she chooses. b. You can invite which of the girls you want. c. You can drive how you wish.

132 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description Leaving aside for the moment the question of wh-clefts (sections 5.13.1 & 5.13.2), how, who(m) and which are not generally considered as free relatives outside of this specific context. Bresnan and Grimshaw (1978: 340-342) refer to the particular type of construction shown (11) as a ‘pseudo-free relative’ since the wh-XP is not understood as an element in the VPs choose, want, wish, etc. A fact which seems to have been overlooked (or disregarded in the case of Bresnan & Grimshaw 1978: 341) in treatments of sentences like those in (11) is that there is an understood but ellipted verb phrase following verbs like choose, want, wish, etc, which contains a verb identical to the verb in the matrix clause, cf: (12)

a. She can marry who(m) she chooses to marry. b. You can invite which of the girls you want to invite. c. You can drive how you wish to drive.

I refer to the relationship which obtains between the matrix and subordinate predications in such examples as involving ‘matched verbs’. Even the non-ellipted version of VPs with the verbs please and like, which may seem odd or archaic in late 20cE (cf She can marry who she pleases/likes to marry), were acceptable in early stages of the language and may be an important factor in explaining these structures in 20cE.2 In this connection it is interesting to note that predicates which seem unambiguously interrogative may allow a free relative interpretation if the verb in the subordinate clause is identical to the verb in the matrix clause: (13)

He asked/wondered/realized what I asked/wondered/realized

This phenomenon may be related to so-called ‘matching effect’ (cf 5.6.3), ie the direct relationship between the function of the FreeRelP and the function of the free relative clause in its matrix clause (see Bresnan & Grimshaw 1978: 335-338; Baker 1989: 166-169). The relevant facts for the present discussion are 1) the class of verbs involved in introducing the subordinate predication need not involve volition only, as long as it can explicitly introduce a verb identical to that in the matrix predication and 2) a matched verb construction facilitates the use of wh-words (especially who, which and how, which would otherwise be excluded from the category) in free relatives.3 Consider the following examples:

2

Bresnan & Grinshaw (1978: 342) disregard this ellipsis on transformational grounds – in light of present research, however, these facts should be reconsidered. 3 Note that I am not claiming that a matched verb construction always allows a grammatical, free relative interpretation: She asked why I asked ¹ she asked for the same reason that I asked.

Chapter 5: Free relatives 133

(14)

a. If Mrs. Black was who he thought she was, Mr. Black’s Peerless selling days might well be over. (BUC L07:108) b. Well, you’re the lucky one. You get to fuck who I tell you too [sic], and you don’t have to work anymore. (internet: www.lolita.com) c. Hello Lisa, I’m Genghis Khan ... you’ll defile who I defile, you’ll eat who I eat … (The Simpsons, episode # 9F10)

(15)

You can take which of the students you find best suited.

Admittedly, the use of who and which4 in free relatives is rare – it must be emphasized, however, that the question of frequency is different than the question of defining an area of potential use. The fact that a certain construction is rare is interesting in itself and requires further examination, but even acknowledging a construction as rare is an admission that it is possible. When it comes to how, its classification as a free relative word is not quite as controversial as it is with who and which. Its use may also be facilitated by a matched verb construction, as in (16a), or, as in (16b), it may be used as a typical relative adverb. Though this use is to some a dialect variant or perhaps even incorrect, some dictionaries actually include this use as part of the grammatical information in the entry, as in the example sentence provided in COD, shown here as (16c): (16)

a. You will touch me where I tell you, when I tell you, how I tell you. You will follow my instructions explicitly. (internet: www.slimeworld.org) b. I’m basing how I tell this on how I have the play list above. I’m not sure if it is completely accurate, but it’s pretty close, I think. (internet: olivier.dementia.org) c. [D]o it how you can. (COD)

On its own, the evidence presented in examples (14), (15) and (16) that who, which and how can introduce free relative clauses may not seem totally convincing and perhaps requires more decisive data. Facts of a more conclusive kind concerning wh-clefts are presented in sections 5.13.1, but for the meantime it is reasonable a working assumption that, as shown in Figure 5:a, some wh-words are more central to the free relative, while others are possible but simply more peripheral and/or restricted to use in specific grammatical/contextual environments.

4

No attested examples of which have been found and speakers’ judgments seem to exclude it as a free relative except when it is followed by an of-phrase, which starkly improves it grammaticality. Why will be treated in section 5.13.1.

134 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

5.2.4 Variations on FreeRelPs The indefinite/definite distinction (i) Compare the following sentences which illustrate the indefinite/definite distinction: (17)

indefinite form a. You can take whatever you find. b. I bought CDs whenever I was in New York.

definite form a’. You can take what you find. b’. I bought CDs when I was in New York

Examples (17a/b) have an indefinite, non-specific interpretation, ie no particular item or time is being referred to, so that it is misleading to regard the -everless forms as only having a definite reading. For example, (17a’/b’) can have two interpretations, ie (17a’) can be paraphrased either as you can take the thing (things) that you find or you can take anything you find, no matter what it is and (17b’) as I bought CDs the time I was in New York or I bought CDs anytime I was in New York (cf Quirk et al 1985: 1059; Baker 1989: 170-171). The presence of the suffix -ever therefore forces an indefinite reading whereas the absence of this suffix is perhaps less important to the meaning of these forms as it is to the highly relevant classification of what words can be free relatives and what words cannot. FreeRelPs such as how, which and who are highly restricted in their use in free relatives, whereas the -ever variants of these same words are uncontroversial members of the class of free relative words. The ‘-soever’ forms (ii) The indefinite -ever forms also have a more emphatic variant as in the following: (18)

a. Whosoever violates our rooftree, the legend states, can expect maximal sorrow. (BUC R09:43) b. EF will not be liable for loss, damage or injury to persons or property howsoever caused, save where the liability is expressly imposed by statute. (CDC ukephem/02 E1030) c. Tactics have not been varied over the past year, whomsoever the coach and wheresoever the match. (CDC oznews/01 N5-950904) d. RSPCA Australia is concerned that, whensoever they be used, animals shall not be caused any suffering or distress. (internet: www.petcity. com.au/rspca/circus.htm) e. The school motto ‘Quodcumque facitis ex animo operamini’ which translates literally as ‘Whatsoever you do, do it heartily’… (internet: www.northnet.com.au/~negs/motto.html)

Quirk et al (1985: 1006) give the following list of these forms: whosoever, whomsoever, wheresoever, whatsoever, howsoever, which they label ‘all rare, legal and

Chapter 5: Free relatives 135

religious’, a label which, despite the lack of evidence from the BUC, seems justified. (iii) Postmodifying intensifiers Like interrogatives (cf section 3.2.4), FreeRelPs can include intensifying postmodifiers of the type the hell, the devil, the fuck, the heck, etc: (19)

a. I want Nathan Jr. back! Or whichever the hell one of them they took! (Trey Wilson, Raising Arizona) b. This stuff will make you however the hell stoned you want to get. c. You should be working whenever/wherever/however the hell everyone else is working. d. I’m gonna eat well, live well, walk through whichever the hell door that I choose to or else… (internet: www.emberswift.com/lyrics.html e. And Jay Mohr, though not as good looking as Dermot Mulroney or Dylan McDermott (whichever the hell one is in My Best Friend’s Wedding) is remarkably charismatic. (internet: www.inet-images.com/ mightykymm/ar970816.html)

These intensifying postmodifiers are not used to express surprise at a (possible) answer in the same way as their interrogative counterparts – here the most likely interpretation is that the speaker does have some idea about the identity of the referent of the FreeRelP, but wishes to add emphasis (as in (19b/c/d) or wishes show irritation at not knowing exactly which item they intend (as in (19a/e)). 5.3

Percolation in FreeRelPs

Bresnan & Grimshaw (1978: 342-345), Quirk et al (1985: 1060) and Ohlander (1985: 287-290) point out that unlike interrogatives, exclamatives and bound relatives, all of which may (to varying degrees) allow a choice in the placement of preposition as fronted preposed or stranded, the free relative clause requires the wh-element to be placed first and the preposition to be stranded: (20)

a. They ate what they paid for. b. *They ate for what they paid.

stranded preposition fronted preposition

This is a clear fact about the syntax of these clauses which can be used as a diagnostic in distinguishing free relatives from other clause types (cf Bresnan & Grimshaw 1978: 342; Ohlander 1985: 288). In sections 3.3 and 4.3, I argued that, for interrogatives and exclamatives, resistance to pre-module percolation was probably related to the typical communicative functions of these clause types and the typical information arrangement in a sentence. As (20) shows, pied-piped items (prepositions or larger phrases) are strictly banned in free relatives – this is not, however, a consequence of communicative principles but rather to the unique syntactic make up of the FreeRelP.

136 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description Since the FreeRelP is a structural and semantic fusion of the antecedent and relative phrases, the preposition or any other pied-piped item would in effect have to precede the antecedent (which is completely ungrammatical in bound relatives). 5.4

FreeRelPs compared

The following table shows a breakdown of FreeRelP by complexity: Table 5:e – Fronted FreeRelPs by phrase type and complexity in the BUC Phrase complexity Simple Complex Total

NPs 780 54 834

AdjPs 1 25 26

AdvPs 2287 7 2294

Total 3068 86 3154

The majority of the single word phrases are again realized by when (1980 occurrences), followed by what (698), then where (188), whatever (60) and whenever (42). Many of the single-word phrases have a fairly low frequency, such as why (32), wherever (28), whoever (11), how (14), whichever (6), however (4), whosoever (3), who (1), and whom (1). The complex phrases are much less frequent, realized mostly with the help of whatever (40 occurrences), but they also include however (32 occurrences) what (12 occurrences), and finally whichever and whose with only one occurrence each. 5.5

The syntactic functions of FreeRelPs

Like both interrogatives and exclamatives, the FreeRelP can be realized as a wide range of syntactic functions, which are now examined in sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 as either primary or secondary constituents respectively. 5.5.1 Primary constituents The syntactic functions of FreeRelPs as primary constituents are summed up in (21) (cf Quirk et al (1985: 1057)): (21)

a. b c. d. e. f.

What (D) happened really upset him. What he saw D in the tool shed shocked him. ?Whoever she gave D the money must be gone by now. What she became D later in life distressed her friends. Splinky is what he calls his cousin Ira D. Our mission is to boldly go where no man has gone D before.

Sbj Od Oi Ps Po Advbl

Chapter 5: Free relatives 137

Table 5:f – Fronted FreeRelPs realized as primary constituents FreeRelP type FreeRel-NP FreeRel-AdjP FreeRel-AdvP Total

Sbj 280 0 0 280

Od 431 0 0 431

Oi 0 0 0 0

Ps 78 26 0 104

Po Advbl 0 8 0 0 0 2293 0 2301

n/a 2 0 0 2

Total 799 26 2293 3118

As Table 5:f shows, 73% of all syntactic functions for FreeRelPs are adverbial. The next most realized function is direct object, making up 13.7% of the BUC material, followed by subjects with 9% and then subject predicatives with 3.3%. 5.5.2 Secondary constituents Additionally, the FreeRelP can function as a prepositional complement in the following larger elements: (22)

a. I’ll show you what you can open that bottle with D. b. What we found evidence of D in our experiments genuinely surprised us. c. Why do you criticize what everyone else is so happy about D?

Advbl N postmod Adj postmod

Unlike their interrogative counterparts in section 3.5.2, no variations of examples like (22b/c) with fronted prepositions need be accounted for because of the general ban on such fronting (see section 5.3). As regards secondary functions which are not embedded in PPs, only one item, the adjective worth, is evidenced in the BUC as taking a FreeRelP without a preposition: (23)

I knew of but one test and I threw it out to her for what it was worth. (BUC B08:80)

However, as noted in section 3.2.2, worth is clearly is unique among adjectives in its complementation patterns. Table 5:g – Fronted FreeRelPs realized as secondary constituents FreeRelP type FreeRel-NP FreeRel-AdjP FreeRel-AdvP Total

Advbl 34 0 1 35

N postmod 0 0 0 0

Adj postmod 1 0 0 1

Total 35 0 1 36

138 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

It is clear from Table 5:g that FreeRelPs are rarely realized as secondary constituents; the only function which in practice is realized in the BUC is the preposition complement in a prepositional adverbial, occurring with a relative frequency of only 1% of all FreeRelPs. 5.6

The form of wh-free relative clauses

Sections 5.6.1 through 5.6.6 deal with clause-type specific matters of form in free relative clauses. 5.6.1 Word order Three characteristics figure most prominently in the word order of free relative clauses: (i) as in all wh-clauses the fronted FreeRelP occurs clause initially, (ii) as mentioned in section 5.3 there is a ban on pre-module elements and (iii), unlike interrogatives, which can sometimes show subject-operator inversion even in subclauses, no such option is available in free relatives: (24)

a. The problem is what should I buy him for Christmas b. *A new TV is what should I buy him for Christmas.

Interrog Free rel

This last fact can also be significant in helping to disambiguate seemingly indeterminate clauses (see section 5.12, point (viii)). 5.6.2 FreeRelP + non-finite clause Typical FreeRelPs cannot introduce (as fronted, pre-S elements) to-infinitives (see Stockwell et al 1973: 576; Ohlander 1985: 292-293; Baker 1989: 174). There is no ban on non-finite free relative in general since the FreeRelP may and commonly does precede -ing, -ed and verbless forms when the clause itself functions as an adverbial: (25)

a. Even Sally, in spite of her gaiety and obvious welcome, followed the old taboo of “quitting the gab [when wearing the nosebag]”. (BUC N13:55) b. The belief in immortality, [where held], functions as a redress for the ills and disappointments of the here and now. (BUC J23:31) c. Men have always lived in a tentative world, and in suspension of ultimate judgments [where and when necessary]. (BUC J51:77) d. I had no idea of what subjects one discussed [when alone] with a girl, or how one behaved: Should I hold her hand while walking or only [when crossing the street]? (BUC K29:38)

Chapter 5: Free relatives 139

By definition, the complementizer that cannot be inserted in the non-finite structures above, nevertheless a pre-S position is assumed for all of these constructions. As has been pointed out previously in sections 3.6.2 and 4.6.2, the possibility of the occurrence of a wh-to-infinitive may be related to the typical use of the to-infinitive as conveying a meaning of non-actuality/non-factuality or simply potentiality rather than a fulfilled proposition (see Johansson & Lysvåg 1986: 182-188; Quirk et al 1985: 1091-1093; Huddleston 1988: 164-165). The free relative clause is much less abstract than the interrogative clause; for example it can easily represent concrete objects, eg I ate [what they gave me] = I ate the food they gave me, whereas an interrogative is more clearly related to propositions and cannot represent concrete objects, I know [what they gave me] ¹ I know the food they gave me. As noted previously, the meaning and use of non-finite forms is quite a complicated issue, but it seems reasonable to assume that the semantics of the free relative clause clashes with the typical meaning of the toinfinitive. As regards the occurrence –ing/-ed forms, the distribution of these nonfinite free relatives as opposed to free relative to-infinitives is in line with the general semantic tendencies noted by grammarians for these types of non-finite clauses (see Quirk et al 1985: 1061-1063; Johansson & Lysvåg 1986: 182-190; Huddleston 1988: 164-165). The possible interpretations of non-finite relative clauses is a rather large topic, but the following examples should suffice to bring out the relevant differences. (26)

a. b. c. d.

*[When to leave a party], you should thank the host [When leaving a party], you should thank the host. [When handled properly], snakes are not aggressive. [Where possible], you should re-check your work.

to-inf clause -ing clause -ed clause verbless clause

Though the sentences in (26) all seem to deal with hypothetical situations and thus should clash with the free relative, the different non-finite forms involved emphasize different aspects of the actual/non-actual distinction. The to-infinitive in (26a) emphasizes the notion of the action of leaving as an imagined future process and thus genuinely clashes with the ‘concreteness’ of the free relative clause. The -ing form, on the other hand stresses continuity and entails a process which has started and therefore has actuality, and thus its use is compatible with the semantics of the free relative clause. The -ed form in (26c) is similar in this respect to the -ing participle, it corresponds to a passive form (eg when it is handled properly…) and once again entails a process which has already started and has actuality. Verbless clauses, as shown in (26d), are cases of ellipsis and are completely interpretable as reductions of full finite clauses, eg Where it is possible, you should check your work. The actual/non-actual distinction is not relevant for these clauses and thus they are unproblematic as regards their use in free relative constructions.

140 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description 5.6.3 The so-called ‘matching effect’ Compare the following examples from Bresnan and Grimshaw (1978: 336): (27)

a. b. c. d.

I’ll buy [NP [NP whatever] you want to sell] John will be [AdjP [AdjP however tall] his father was] I’ll word my letter [AdvP [AdvP however] you word yours] I’ll put my books [XP [XP wherever] you put yours]

Bresnan and Grimshaw point out that the free relative clauses have the same syntactic distribution as the FreeRelPs which introduce them, in other words, the FreeRelP whatever in (27a) has a nominal function and so does the clause it introduces; however tall in (27b) has an adjectival function and so does the clause it introduces, etc. These relationships can be represented schematically as (28) (a modification of Baker 1989: 172): (28)

NP

LocP

F-Rel

F-Rel

NP

LocP S/NP

S/LocP ... DNP ...

TimeP

... DLocP ...

TimeP

AdjP

F-Rel

F-Rel

S/TimeP

AdjP ... DTimeP ...

S/AdjP ... DAdjP ...

This special relationship between the syntactic function of the FreeRelP and the syntactic function of the entire free relative clause is specific only to free relative clauses and not to any other type of wh-clause. Compare the free relatives below

Chapter 5: Free relatives 141

in (30) with the interrogatives/exclamatives in (29) in which the function of the InterrogP/ExclamP is completely independent of the function of the clause: (29)

a. I asked [S:Od [InterrogP:Advbl where] he went D]. b. He told me [S:Od [ExclamP: Subj Pred how horrifically bad] the play was].

(30)

a. I went [S:Advbl [FreeRelP:Advbl where] he went D]. b. *I did [[S:Od [FreeRelP:Advbl where] he went D].

I claim, however, that this is an observed tendency rather than a hard-and-fast rule of grammar since people do produce sentences like the following which are acceptable to most native speakers and completely understandable semantically: (31)

a. I really hate [where he lives these days]. (~ I really hate the place where he lives these days.) b. I just love [how he plays the guitar]. (~ I just love the way in which he plays guitar.)

In both of these sentences, the FreeRelP is an adverbial, but the clause functions as the direct object of hate and love respectively.5 This type of exception to the matching effect is a minor one and seems limited to contexts in which the matrix predication contains attitudinal verbs/expressions such as love, hate, like, can’t stand, etc. A final exception to the matching effect concerns -ever concessive clauses:6 (32) a. [Whatever she does], she makes a big mess of things. b. [Whoever he is], he certainly makes a strange first impression. In (32), the wh-clauses have an adverbial function though the FreeRelP has a nominal function. This exception however does not necessarily cast doubt on the validity of the matching effect in the vast majority of cases since concessive -ever compounds are only marginal members of the class of free relative clauses (cf Baker 1989: 306-307).

5

Another example of this type is I hate when that happens, though this usage is quite common it is difficult to say if there is an ellipsis of it in such examples, ie I hate it when that happens. 6 Huddleston (1988: 162; 1984: 372) refers to these structures as ‘concessive interrogatives’; Greenbaum (1996: 342) creates a special class of ‘wh-conditional clauses’ for them – I, however, include them in the category of free relatives, though their clause-type membership is problematic no matter which clause type is used, see section 5.13.3 for a discussion).

142 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description 5.6.4 Multiple wh-items Uncoordinated, multiple wh-item free relatives do not occur in the BUC, but invented examples such as the following are not difficult to imagine: (33)

I will ride this skateboard when, where and however I feel like it.

The only type of multiple wh-item evidenced for the free relative is of the coordinated kind, illustrated in the following: (34)

He moves through Harlem, therefore, like an occupying soldier in a bitterly hostile country; which is precisely what, and where, he is, and is the reason he walks in twos and threes. (BUC F42:9 )

Since FreeRelPs do not occur in situ, no other type of multiple wh-item is possible. 5.6.5 Ellipsis The types of ellipsis found for free relatives are fairly limited. Firstly there is an ellipsis of subject and verb: (35)

Do whatever kitchen work, such as fixing a salad, preparing garlic bread, or making a marinade sauce, ahead of time. (BUC E14:22)

It cannot be claimed for certain, but (35) is possibly an example of ellipsis of an existential subject + copula, it is, however, sure that it must be an ellipsis of a subject + verb. Another type of ellipsis involving omission of a copula verb occurs exclusively in the more debatable concessive -ever clauses is shown in (36): (36)

a. Whatever their faults, they are not hypocrites. (BUC G01:80) b. Whatever his original assignment, the fictional private eye ends up by investigating and solving a crime, usually a murder. (BUC G19:8) c. The modern world has been marked by progressive disaffection with claims to divine sanction for the state, whatever its political form. (BUC D10:64 )

Aside from the examples in (35) and (36) there is no special type which is particular only to free relative clauses.

Chapter 5: Free relatives 143

5.6.6 Irregular items/fixed expressions The following items, which by their nature as fixed expressions are hard to categorize in terms of clause type, can be at least be understood as variants of free relatives: (37)

a. here’s how - used to make a toast b. what(so)ever ~ used after no, nothing, none, for extra emphasis However, this inaugural feast did its sponsors no good whatever. (BUC F20:50) c. say when - used to ask somebody to state when one should stop doing something. d.. where it’s at ~ ‘hip’, a point of central activity …ain’t it hard when you discover that/he really wasn’t where it’s at/after he took from you everything he could steal… (Bob Dylan, Like a rollin’ stone)

5.7

Selected aspects of movement phenomena in Free Relatives

Sections 5.7.1 now 5.7.2 examine more closely movement phenomena as they relate to free relative clauses. As many issues concerning movement have been discussed in previous sections, only points of particular relevance are discussed. 5.7.1 The position of the fronted FreeRelP As with the other wh-clause types examined so far, the position of non-subject FreeRelPs is indisputably different than the position of the canonical position of that function: (38)

a. I still haven’t found what I’m looking for D b. You can ask whichever of your parents you find D at home now. c. The company will hire whoever the board recommends D

In the case of interrogatives and exclamatives, two pieces of evidence could be brought to bear on the viewpoint that the landing site of the fronted wh-XP is the hypothesized pre-S slot, namely that (i) the fronted wh-XP occurs before the operator if subject-operator inversion is applied and (ii) the fronted wh-XPs precede the complementizer that in the wh- + that pattern. Subject-operator inversion, however, never applies for free relative clauses and therefore the only evidence in favor of the posited pre-S position is the by-now familiar wh- + that pattern. Consider the following: (39)

a. …in 1900 the percentage of GNP spent by the government was 15.0 in Britain and 6.9 in the United States. Whatever measure that one uses

144 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description D, government has grown rapidly during this century. (bnc G1G 1426 301) b. …what it illustrates is the difficulty of specifying what is to count as data beyond saying that it is whatever material that researchers need to work with D in order to pursue their inquiries. (bnc HPU 277 225) c. If you made it a little more difficult for through traffic to go through Harrogate, that would encourage traffic to divert to whichever relief road that you had D and it would achieve an environmental objective at relatively little cost. (bnc J9U 1016 166) As in the clause types treated in the previous chapters, these kinds of sentences indicate that a complex FreeRelP may be separated from its clause by insertion of that – which in turn supports the hypothesis that the fronted wh-XP is outside the typical clause boundary. What, however, is the situation concerning the subject position? Once again, empirical evidence can be provided to suggest that FreeRelP subjects occupy a different structural position than their non-wh- counterparts and that this slot may be a pre-S position. Consider the following examples, all taken from formal, written material, which illustrate the wh- + that pattern in strings with a FreeRelP subject: (40)

a. …everything is being done to see that whatever attempts that D are made on the whereabouts of its disclosures will be judged by their predicament and a positive answer will be prepared. (BNC EUY 650 364) b. Suddenly, an enormously large and dark shape blocked out what little light that D remained at depth. (BNC FBR 67 357) c. Investors have been expecting whatever government that D emerges from the general elections on June 6th to lower interest rates and devalue the peseta, in order to revive Spain’s flagging economy. (bnc CR7 2749 305) d. Life in Turtle Ridge was quiet and uneventful for Autumn. What excitement that D did arise was usually of her own making, and D always brought new waves of gossip. (CDC ukbooks/08. Text: B115)

In each of the examples in (40), the complementizer position is filled with an overt that and the FreeRelP occupies a position which clearly precedes that complementizer slot. As in all clause types, the that-complementizer is normally suppressed, but data of the type shown in (40) once again help to substantiate the hypothesis that the position of FreeRelP subjects is not identical to that of nonwh-subjects.

Chapter 5: Free relatives 145

5.7.2 A note on the role of the wh-XP in host clauses The implication so far has been that the extracted wh-item (of any phrase type, ie InterrogP ExclamP, FreeRelP, etc) plays no functional role in the host clause in which it appears. There is one case in the BUC of a free relative construction where the wh-item has a syntactic function in both its source clause and in the host clause, cf: (41)

A petition bearing the signatures of more than 1,700 Johnston taxpayers was presented to the town council last night as [what is hoped [D will be the first step in obtaining a home rule charter for the town]]. (BUC A05:59)

Here the single-word free relative phrase what is extracted out of a subject position in a lower clause but also appears as the subject of a passive in a higher clause. This construction resembles so-called ‘raising’ constructions (cf They expected her to come by train/She was expected to come by train), but it also differs significantly in that raising only pertains to items in non-finite clauses which can occur in (be ‘raised’ to) finite superordinate clauses whereas in the whconstruction above the wh-subject has a clear function in two finite clauses. The fact that such a structure is possible in free relatives begs the question of whether it is potentially valid in other wh-clauses types such as bound relatives and interrogatives, and, as exemplified in (42), it is: (42)

a. COL has a modest programme in place through which selected publications, which are believed would be of assistance, are brought to the attention of Ministers of Education in the developing commonwealth countries. (internet: www.col.org/0/html/compb.htm) b. What exactly will they do? What is hoped will be accomplished and so forth? (internet: www.aflcio.org/press/sep95/prconf.html)

The phenomenon exemplified in (41) and (42) appears to be quite uncommon, but frequent enough for it to occur once in the relatively small BUC corpus material. An exact description which takes into account the theoretical implications would require a lengthy examination beyond the scope of the present study, so I simply note that such constructions are allowed and no further elaboration is presented. See Seppänen, Bergh & Trotta (1998) and Seppänen & Bergh (forthcoming b) for more extensive discussions. 5.7.3 Movement span The overwhelming preference for short movement over long movement is clear from Table 5:h and Table 5:i:

146 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description Table 5:h – Short span movement in free relatives whXP + fn-S

2880

whXP + fn-S + nf-P

155

whXP + verbless-S

39 0

2900

Total FreeRel movement relationships: 3118

Total short span: 3074 (~98.5%)

Table 5:i – Long movement span in free relatives whXP + fn-S + fn-S

20

whXP + fn-S + nf-S

19 0

Total FreeRel movement relationships: 3118

100 Total long span: 39 (~1.3%)

This pattern of movement is one which is repeated for all the wh-clause types – though long span movement is a typical quality of wh-phrases which is uncontroversially grammatical, it occurs in very few attested examples in the BUC. 5.8

Wh-free relative clauses as constituents in matrix constructions

The range of clause elements that can be realized by free relative clauses is the same as that for NPs, a fact which attests to the their syntactic affinity to NPs. For this reason, grammars like Quirk et al (1985: 1056ff) opt to call free relatives ‘nominal relatives’. 5.8.1 Primary constituents Free relative clauses may function as any of the major primary constituents, as is shown by the example sentences in (43): (43)

a. b. c. d. d. f.

[What she showed us] really shocked me. You can’t always get [what you want]. He gave [whoever asked for it] a copy of his latest paper. April is [when the lilacs bloom]. You can call it [whatever comes to mind]. She tried to simplify matters [where that was possible].

Sbj Od Oi Ps Po Advbl

Chapter 5: Free relatives 147

Table 5:j – Free relative clauses realized as primary constituents Total (n) Total (%)

Sbj 208 6.6%

Od 200 6.3%

Oi 0 0%

Ps 212 6.7%

Po Advbl 2 2240 < 1% 71%

n/a Total 18 2880 <1% 91.3%

5.8.2 Secondary constituents The free relative clause may also function as preposition complement in the following larger elements: (44)

a. He organized us in [what he termed a just manner]. Advbl b. His anxiety intensifies his fear of [what might happen]. N postmod c. She is upset about [what they said about immigrants]. Adj postmod

Given that, in analogous cases, many interrogative licensers allow the preposition to be suppressed (see section 3.10), it is relevant to ask if free-relative licensing predicates function similarly. Though the issue is muddled because of the semantic and structural similarities between relatives and interrogatives (see section 5.12), the assumption in this study is that, like NPs, the free relative cannot ordinarily function as a part of a verb complement, a noun postmodifier or an adjective postmodifier without a preposition:7 (45)

a. I don’t care about [NP the things which he does]. I don’t care about [FreeRel-S what he does]. *I don’t care — [NP the things which he does]. *I don’t care — [FreeRel-S what he does]. b. I have no notion about [NP the things which he did]. I have no notion about [FreeRel-S what he did]. *I have no notion — [NP the things which he did]. *I have no notion — [FreeRel-S what he did]. c. I am critical about [NP the things which he is doing]. I am critical about [FreeRel-S what he is doing]. *I am critical — [NP the things which he is doing]. *I am critical — [FreeRel-S what he is doing].

7

Quirk et al (1985: 1058) explicitly state this fact about the free relative in connection to adjective postmodification, but do not extend this observation to include noun postmodification and verb complements.

148 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description Naturally, the starred examples in (45a/b) which contain free relative clauses are uncontroversially grammatical if they are given an interrogative interpretation. There are, however, three cases for which no preposition is required in order for free relative clauses to be integrated into the types of phrases exemplified in (45). One is that the free relative clause may be related to a noun phrase as an appositive, as is shown in (46a) (cf Quirk et al 1985: 1058). The second case concerns the adjective worth (shown in 46b), whose complementation is unique in this respect: (46)

a. I’ll pay the whole debt, [what I borrowed and what I owe in interest]. b. They told me that the house was not worth [what I had paid for it].8

The third case, which, to my knowledge, has not been recognized in English grammars, is that the free relative clause can function as a type of postmodifying adverbial within the NP structure, as in these examples from the BUC: (47)

a. A heart attack when she was barely 20 put an end to the 10-hour daily practicing. (BUC A30:24) b. Another recent achievement was the successful development of a method for the complete combustion in a bomb calorimeter of a metal in fluorine when the product is relatively non-volatile. (BUC H11:1) c. Edward Rawson, secretary of the colony of Massachusetts Bay, described him as ”a man whose spirit was stark drunk with blasphemies and insolence, a corrupter of the truth, a disturber of the peace wherever he comes”. (BUC G53:5)

Admittedly, there may be some room to interpret the adverbial clauses here as sentence adverbials (eg, example (47a) could be read as When she was barely 20, a heart attack put an end to…). In many instances, however, this simply cannot be the case as a reordering of the elements according to this interpretation of the structure changes the meaning of the sentence or makes it ungrammatical (eg (47b) *When the product is non-volatile, another recent achievement was the successful development of…). Since any grammar must allow for such structures, I have interpreted the free relatives here as postmodifying adverbials unless the context requires otherwise.

8

The exact word class of worth is uncertain and requires an examination beyond the scope of the present work. Greenbaum (1996: 160) classes it as a preposition, Quirk et al (1985) class it as a preposition on page 1064, but also as an adjective on pages 1230-1231. As far as dictionaries are concerned, OED, OALD, COD, CIDE, CCED and CED all label it as an adjective.

Chapter 5: Free relatives 149

Table 5:k – Free relative clauses realized as secondary constituents Advbl Total (n) Total (%)

Verb comp N postmod (+ Prep) - Prep + Prep 0 146 3 93 0% 4.6% < 1% 2.9%

Total Adj postmod - Prep + Prep 1 31 274 < 1% 1% ~8.7%

In Table 5:k, no prepositionless verb complement category is given as in the analogous table for interrogatives (Table 3:0 in section 3.8.2) since a free relative generally, unlike an interrogative, cannot function as a verb complement without a preposition. Another notable difference here is that a separate column is included in Table 5:k for adverbials, which are at least possible in principle (see example (44a)), but do not occur in the BUC. The 3 prepositionless noun postmodifiers in Table 5:k were all postmodifying adverbials as exemplified in (47) and in the 1 prepositionless adjective postmodifier listed above, the free relative clause was related to the adjective worth. 5.9

Licensing the free relative

In contrast to interrogatives and exclamatives, whose licensers must subcategorize for specific clause types, no predicates are specific licensers of free relative clauses only– in practically any predication which subcategorizes an NP slot, that slot can also be filled by a free relative. Because of this, a semantic organization of free relative licensers is not particularly useful in understanding the relationship between matrix predication and the types of clause it can select. For a full list of all the predicates which license free relatives (based on the grammatical functions rather than semantics) in the BUC, see Appendix Tables I, J and K. It is worth noting in this context that the major distinction between free relative clause licensers and interrogative/exclamative clause licensers can be traced to the NP quality of the free relative. Like NPs, free relative clauses typically refer to first-order entities (ie a person or thing in the real world whose existence is beyond doubt, cf Johansson & Lysvåg 1986: 74-75). Thus verbs (such as eat, kick, push, etc) whose meaning characteristically requires that they select a grammatical unit (an NP, clause, etc) which can represent a first order entity can license a free relative clause. Verbs used in this way could not license interrogatives/ exclamatives, which typically refer to second or third order entities, ie they represent facts, propositions, states or actions/processes and never concrete objects (cf Huddleston 1984: 403). See section 5.12, point (v), for further discussion.

150 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description 5.10

Problems of demarcation I: FreeRel-AdvP or conjunction?

To begin this discussion on the use of certain wh-XPs as either conjunctions or adverbs, note the following examples taken from Quirk et al (1985) concerning the analysis of when (the underlining in both (48a & b) is my addition): (48) a. the day when she arrived b. the day when she arrived

when = conjunction (p 659-660) = antecedent + wh-adverb (p 1254)

Quirk et al (1985: 660) go on to comment about (48a) by stating that when ‘can only be a conjunction’, but in this very same string (shown here as (48b)), when is later presented as a (relative) adverb. Quirk et al (1985) are by no means alone in their apparently inconsistent treatment of temporal when, which can sometimes be found in the literature analyzed as a conjunction (cf Close 1975: 42; Johansson & Lysvåg 1986: 159-160, 167; Baker 1989: 45) or as a relative adverb (cf Huddleston 1971: 222; Baker 1989: 168) (or even as relative pronoun, as eg in Geis 1970: 85-109), and sometimes the terms are used in a manner which is just confused. Many reference works also exacerbate the problem with similarly incongruous analyses of locative where, ie sometimes it is a relative, other times a conjunction.9 Before I present a closer look at these inconsistencies, consider the following uses of when and where from the BUC which will serve as a point of departure for the rest of this 5.10 and its subsections: (49)

a. Moreover, the President is meeting the Soviet leader at a time when the Administration has still not decided on the scope of America’s firm foreign policy commitments. (BUC A34:82) b. This was one place where Moonan could go for a drink in a back booth without anyone noticing him … (BUC K03:5)

(50)

a. Adams was not breaking new ground when he claimed that the worship of an unseen power was in reality a reflection of man’s inability to cope with his environment. (BUC G65:67) b. Once (this was on the third day of school) she kneeled down to pick up some books where they’d dropped on the floor and Jack looked up her dress- at the bare expanse of incredibly white leg. (BUC N27:19)

(51)

a. …I feel like a fool being driven up to work in a little car, by my wife, when everybody knows I have a big car and am capable of driving myself. (BUC A30:63)

9

For example, the following dictionaries, label free relative where as a conjunction: COD, Collins Cobuild, Longman, OED and CIDE. Jacobs (1995) lists where as a subordinating conjunction on page 68 but also as a relative adverb on page 314.

Chapter 5: Free relatives 151

b. It is absurd to speak of philosophy as a superior enterprise to sociology, since the former is a logical, rational discipline, where sociology is essentially descriptive and empirical. (BUC J51:17) The examples in (49) are clearly bound relatives in which when/where function as relative adverbs connected by a tie of coreference to the antecedents time and place. The examples in (51) illustrate when and where as concessive/contrastive conjunctions – roughly equal to although/whereas respectively.10 But what exactly is the status of these words in (50)? Are they temporal/locative conjunctions or are they FreeRel-AdvPs? As argued by Trotta & Seppänen (1998), the heart of the matter lies in an apparent uncertainty in grammars as to two points: first, the criteria for applying the terms ‘conjunction’ and ‘relative adverb’ (ie what it means to say that an item X is a member of the class of conjunctions as opposed to the class of relative adverbs); and second, how these terms are to be used in a description of when/where in the case of (50). Section 5.10.1 thus examines the meanings of these grammatical labels and thereafter 5.10.2 takes a closer look at how those labels apply to when and where. 5.10.1 Comparing and contrasting conjunctions and RelPs Consider the italicized conjunctions in example (52). (52)

a. b. c. d.

I knew that John was at home. I did not know whether they could come or not. She was shabbily clad although she was said to be a real fashion slave. They had to take a train because the airlines were on strike.

Consider now the following five points which highlight the similarities (points (i) and (ii)) and the differences (points (iii) – (v)) between RelPs (bound and free) and conjunctions: Conjunctions and Rel-AdvPs are both clause introducing elements (i) When/where in (49) and (50) and the conjunctions in (52) clearly introduce their clauses.11 Though it is only marginally relevant for the present discussion, there is, on this point, a clear distinctive feature worth noting which distinguishes RelPs and conjunctions. The wh-word in a clause-introducing RelP may enter into complex phrase (…yesterday morning, at which time I was already miles away, …) 10

I consider this use of when/where as conjunctions uncontroversial, and therefore comments about this sense are kept to a minimum in this discussion. See Aarts (1988) for a more detailed treatment of concessive clauses in English. 11 In the case of conjunctions this is in general true with only some minor exceptions as Poor though I am,..., Fool that he was,… etc.

152 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description whereas this possibility does not exist for conjunctions. The complexphrase/single-word-phrase distinction is, however, neutralized in the case at hand and does not apply since free relative when/where as single-word phrases cannot be expanded and cannot, because of a general syntactic ban on preposition fronting in free relatives, be embedded into a larger phrase (see section 5.3). Conjunctions and FreeRelP-AdvPs link sub-clauses and matrix clauses (ii) Both elements incorporate their clause into a matrix clause, making their own clause function as a constituent in a larger construction. For example, the that/whether-clauses in (52a/b) have a nominal function (direct object) and the although-/because-clauses in (52c/d) have an adverbial function (contrast and reason respectively). The RelPs in (49) and (50) also act like subordinating conjunctions as they embed their clauses as a part of higher clauses12 – as noun postmodifiers in the clause of (49) and adverbials in (50). (iii) Subordinators are outside the functional structure of the clause A characteristic of the subordinators, crucial for the present discussion, is associated with the status of the conjunction within its own clause: being a mere clauselinking element, the conjunction has no functional role in the clause structure. Thus, while that John was at home functions as an object of know in (52a), the complementizer that itself is outside the functional structure of its own clause, and similarly in (52b), because the airline was on strike is an adjunct of reason in the matrix structure, but because is not an adjunct of reason, or an exponent of any of the traditional functions, within that clause.13 In sharp contrast to this, the RelP has a functional role in its clause as in the following (53)

12

a. b. c. d.

I drank a glass of [what D made Milwaukee famous]. [What he took D from us] cannot be replaced. Keep this ring [where you put your other valuables D]. Please call me [when you get this message].

Note that RelPs are clearly different from their interrogative counterparts on this point – interrogative clauses may be independent as well as dependent (cf Where have they been living? and I know where they have been living), whereas a relative clause is always dependent (cf I saw the place where they have been living and it’s a real dump). 13 In this respect, conjunctions are comparable to prepositions, a similarity seized upon by many grammarians since Jespersen (1924:87-90), see for example, Emonds (1976: 172-176), Radford (1988: 132-137), Huddleston (1988: 123-127), and Baker (1989: 306) For the immediate purposes of the present study, however, I follow the traditional terminological usage of conjunction and preposition and do not take a stand on the issue of how conjunctions, prepositions and relative adverbs might best be related to each other.

Chapter 5: Free relatives 153

This point is particularly clear when the FreeRelP has a nominal syntactic function (such as subject or direct object in (53a/b) or a function which is necessary for the argument structure of the clause it introduces, as in (53c) where the valency of the verb put requires an adverbial of place. It is, however, less obvious in cases such as (53d) in which the status of the functional role in the subclause is difficult to establish since the temporal adverbial when is not part of the valency of the verb get. (iv) The RelP is accompanied by a gap Connected with the functional role of the RelP is another property of the relative clause which helps distinguish this structure from conjunction-headed clauses. Since the RelP can expound syntactic functions which normally occur in postverbal position, the obligatory initial position of the RelP means that the element is displaced from the normal, canonical position of an object, predicate complement or an adverbial. One consequence of this is that, as in wh-clauses in general (see section 2.5), the ordinary position of the element in question is empty, representing a gap in the normal clause structure (the position indicated with the by-now familiar D symbol in (53)). The relation of conjunctions/relative adverb phrases to their matrix (v) Another distinctive property of relative structures is the way the relative clause is attached to its matrix. To take the by-now familiar case of bound relatives first, the clause has a head in the matrix clause – an antecedent – to which it is attached as a noun postmodifier: (54) a. I ate the foodi whichi they served D b. I found it in the placei wherei I had put it D. The bound relative clause is always tied to its antecedent by a relationship of coreference (the subscripted ‘i’ symbol of coindexing in (54)) which may involve the RelP as a whole as in (54) or the wh-subpart of the RelP (cf that old songi, the name of whichi…, the mani whosei uncomplimentary reference to your latest poems…). As conjunctions clearly are not referential items, this fact again constitutes an obvious difference between conjunctions and relative structures. As stated previously in section 5.2, one of the most prominent characteristics of the free relative is that it does not have a sequence of two distinct elements but merely the one RelP: (55)

a. I ate whati they served b. I found it wherei I had put it

~ I ate Xi / they served Xi ~ I found it in place Xi / I had put it in place Xi

The tie of coreference is still pertinent for free relatives, but this important distinction is once again neutralized in these structures as the two coreferent items (ie

154 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description relative phrase or subpart of that phrase) and the antecedent) are fused into one single unit. Apparently, this neutralization of coreference is central to the problem of classifying these items. Somewhat paradoxically, however, the analogous neutralization in free-relative where-clauses, causes little or no problem: (56)

a. I’m going to the place where the weather suits my clothes. b. I’m going where the weather suits my clothes.

(57)

a. He needed help at the time when I called him. b. He needed help when I called him.

The question then is, why are (56a/b) and (57a) all generally considered to be relative constructions, whereas there is hesitation when it comes to (57b)? 5.10.2 When/where examined Having established the basic distinctions between subordinating conjunctions and RelPs, I now concentrate more closely on when/where. Of the different uses of when/where in (49) – (51), the following comments focus on the more problematic cases of when as a temporal item, referring only to the fairly uncontroversial use of where as a FreeRelP in (56b) and the use of both when/where as bound relatives phrases (49) and conjunctions (51) for purposes of comparison. Points (iii) and (iv) in section 5.10.1 have in common that they entail a functional role for when plus an accompanying gap for that function. There are at least two ways to show that this crucial criterion is fulfilled in temporal whenclauses. According to Allerton (1982: 61-64) and Quirk et al (1985: 526) certain verbs such as live14 and last, (in positive, declarative sentences and without further context) require adverbials in order to be complete and grammatical. As mentioned earlier, testing when as to its necessity in the clause in which it is understood is not a straightforward affair since there are few verbs whose valency uncontroversially requires a locative adverbial. Live and the less well-documented take place will thus have to suffice as verbs which can be used to evaluate the status of when: (58)

a. He lived (for) many years./*He lived. b. The accident took place at five o’clock./*The accident took place.

Note now the acceptability of the following examples of when in both bound and free relatives and the unacceptability of the conjunction introduced variants:

14

The intended sense of live here is ‘be alive’ – other senses such as ‘survive’, eg The princess died but the chauffeur lived do not require an adverbial.

Chapter 5: Free relatives 155

(59)

a. At the times when it lives, the mythical bird Phoenix is said to bring prosperity.15 b. When it lives, the mythical bird Phoenix is said to bring prosperity. c. *Because/Although/Whereas, etc it lives, the mythical bird Phoenix is said to bring prosperity.

(60)

a. I was at the movies at the time when the accident took place. b. I was at the movies when the accident took place. c. *I was at the movies because/although/whereas, etc the accident took place.

With the conjunction analysis of when, there is no way to explain the grammaticality of (59b) and (60b), whereas these sentences are easily explained if when is a fronted relative adverb with an adverbial function and there is a gap in the normal postverbal position. Yet another argument that when indeed does have a functional role and consequently leaves behind a gap can be obtained from movement facts. It is generally the case that the long movement of constituents from a dependent clause into a higher clause is restricted to the functional elements of the clause (Sbj, O, C, A) and thus excluded with conjunctions (see Seppänen & Bergh, forthcoming a).16 Thus, long movement is a property of relatives (both bound (61) and free (62), as in the following sentences: (61)

a. Is that the girl [S1 who Doug said [S2 D broke Bill’s heart]]? b. That’s the drawer [S1 where he claims [S2 he put it D]].

(62)

a. I did [S1 whati I assumed [S2 Di was right]]. b. I couldn’t find the books [S1 wherei he said [S2 he put them Di]].

15

The verbs that uncontroversially subcategorize for a time adverbial complement, namely last and live, sound slightly more natural with a expressedly durative temporal phrase, cf We felt safe and secure while Roosevelt lived, ?We felt safe and secure when Roosevelt lived. Given this fact, it is necessary to find a context, such as the one in (59) in which a when-clause is neutralized to this distinction. 16 Geis (1970) (cited in Larson 1987: 261) shows that before and after can also enter into long movement dependencies. I do not take this as counter evidence to the present argument since before and after are not typical of conjunctions in this behavior and their grammar is complicated by the fact that they may also be used as prepositions and adverbs. I simply note this point, but again I cannot digress here into the issue of how conjunctions, prepositions and adverbs might best be related to each other.

156 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description In these examples, the S2 clauses are apparently missing a grammatical function which is crucial for their argument structure, yet they are grammatical since the functional role of the gap is understood to be filled by the fronted, coindexed element. Now compare the following, showing that when can be treated in the way of other relatives: (63)

a. At the time [S1 wheni he swore [S2 he was at home watching TV Di]], someone broke into his garage and stole the car. b. [S1 Wheni he swore [S2 he was at home watching TV Di]], someone broke into his garage and stole the car.

(64)

a. No one seemed to notice that there was anything at all wrong at the time [S1 wheni she claimed [S2 the accident took place Di]], b. No one seemed to notice that there was anything at all wrong [S1 wheni she claimed [S2 the accident took place Di]],

Although the sentences like (63) and (64) may be ambiguous, allowing two interpretations of which clause when belongs to, this is unproblematic for the FreeRelP analysis since such ambiguity is normal for extracted relative adverbs, cf That’s the place where John said Mary was murdered where the most natural interpretation would be That is place X, John said that Mary was murdered in place X, but the interpretation That is place X, John said in place X that Mary was murdered is also possible. What is of interest here is that when is fully possible as an item in the lower clauses of (63b) and (64b) and can be easily interpreted as such. Note that replacing when with a conjunction in examples (63b) and (64b) would either render them ungrammatical (*whether he swore…/*whether she claimed…) or change the meaning completely (although/because he swore, although…/because she claimed…), forcing a reading where the item cannot belong in the S2 clause. Note also the differences in movement phenomena in concessive when (~ ‘although’), which cannot be moved to a higher clause: (65)

a. He kept arguing, when he really should have moved on to the next point. b. He kept arguing, [S1 when everyone felt [S2 that he really should have moved on to the next point]],

When, in the sense of ‘although’, in example (65b) cannot be interpreted as belonging to the S2 clause (ie ‘*everybody felt (that) when (‘although’) he really should have moved on…’) and the sentence can only be grammatical in this sense if when belongs to the S1 clause. Another syntactic structure that points to a difference between temporal when-clauses and contrastive/concessive when-clauses is it-clefting, as illustrated in the following examples:

Chapter 5: Free relatives 157

(66)

a. He paid for the tickets when he could have gone for free. *It was when he could have gone for free that he paid for the tickets. b. I heard the good news when I was watching TV. It was when I was watching TV that I heard the good news.

As pointed out by Quirk et al (1985:1070-1072), this difference in the grammatical behavior of the clauses generally shows that they are attached to their matrix clauses in different ways. The temporal clauses are straightforward examples of subordination, with the when-clauses functioning as constituents of the matrix. Case (66a) is different and has been traditionally treated as a ‘looser’ type of subordination but has more recently been analyzed as an instance of hypotaxis, distinct from subordination in that the dependent clause is not at all incorporated into the structure of the main clause (see Breul 1995). Based then on the very different behavior of conjunctions (including concessive when) as compared to relative adverbs, I conclude that temporal when is best analyzed as a free relative. 5.11

Merger in clauses expressing contingency or condition

The meaning of the temporal/locative FreeRelPs when/where may merge with other meanings which may also express recurrent or habitual contingency (See Quirk et al 1985: 1086-1087 on conjunction-headed clauses of contingency). Thus the temporal/locative sense of these phrases often fades into a contingent sense and can be paraphrased as ~ ‘in cases when/where’ (or in the case of temporal when, ‘if’ is also possible). Compare the following examples: (67)

a. The highway system is an agency of government, and when it grinds up 40,000 Americans every year the government is destroying its own taxpayers, which is obviously a silly thing for any government to do. (BUC B21:17) b. And a witty American journalist remarked over a century ago what is even more true today, ”Many a writer seems to think he is never profound except when he can’t understand his own meaning”. (BUC R05:5)

(68)

a. He can diagnose detachment of the retina where conventional methods indicate blindness due to glaucoma. (BUC E25:73) b. Where Americans used to think of a single vacation each summer, they now think about how many vacations they can have. (BUC E31:83)

Regardless of their slightly different sense as contingent items, the temporal sense of these items is inextricably woven into their meaning and cannot be separated, ie contingent items always contain a temporal flavor, and many temporal items contain a contingent flavor, so that the meaning and grammar of these clauses merge (see Figure 2:c).

158 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description Syntactically, these items are the same as their temporal/locative counterparts, in that they have a functional role in the clause they introduce and they leave behind an accompanying gap. Additionally, it-clefting shows that these items are subordinated into a matrix in the way of other free relatives and not conjunction-headed adverbials (I leave it to the reader to test this claim). 5.12

Problems of demarcation II: relative or interrogative?

Whereas the clause-type membership of bound relatives and indefinite free relatives involving -ever-compounds is seldom problematic, the distinction between ‘ever-less’ free relatives and indirect wh-interrogatives can be quite nebulous. As mentioned briefly in section 2.6, the similarity between the two is obvious: (69)

a. What did they serve? b. I asked [what they served]. c. He ate [what they served].

direct question indirect question free relative

Though the verbs ask and eat in (69b/c) give quite clear signals as to whether the bracketed string is interrogative or relative, the two clause types are not discrete categories with clean edges but rather in many instances the difference between them is syntactically and semantically marginal at best. The clause type status of a given clause often cannot be made on the basis of the formal properties of the whclause on its own, its interpretation depending entirely on elements in the matrix clause and the surrounding context. Even these factors do not always resolve ambiguous cases and when both a relative and interrogative interpretation are possible, the choice of one interpretation over another may affect the message greatly (as in (70a)), or, only slightly, if at all (as in (70b)): (70)

a. I asked what she asked I asked ‘What did she ask?’ I asked the question which she asked. b. Tell me what he said. Tell me the answer to the question ‘what did he say?’ Tell me that which he said.

ambiguous interrogative interpretation relative interpretation ambiguous interrogative interpretation relative interpretation

In (70a), the two senses of sentences are ambiguous in the way indicated in Figure 2:b, ie the interpretations are distinctly different, each interpretation belonging to a grammatically distinct clause type, and therefore the meaning of the sentences determines exactly which interpretation is correct. In (70b) the two meanings merge and the categorial ambiguity is of theoretical interest only – ie the choice of a relative or interrogative interpretation is irrelevant from a communicative viewpoint since it does not change the message in any fundamental way. This means that the clause type can remain undesignated regardless of how the addresser and addressee (or analyst) choose to perceive the message.

Chapter 5: Free relatives 159

Cases of merger such as the one in (70b) will typically involve a predicate concerning narration, perception, remembrance and knowledge (cf Kock 1897: 58; Jespersen 1927: 73), or the use of a wh-clause in a superordinate predication which is semantically neutral or weak, such as the copula in wh-clefts or related structures, eg Money is what I want. Another feature which these predicates characteristically have in common is that an interrogative interpretation involves answer-orientation as in (70b) rather than the more obviously interrogative questionorientation (cf Ohlander 1986). The historical connection between wh-relatives and wh-interrogatives provides a relevant insight into the nature of the problem. Wh-pronouns were not used as relatives (bound or otherwise) in Old English (see, for example, Karlberg 1954: 63; Traugott 1972: 153-155; Fischer 1992: 296-297); in the Middle English period, the influence of a number of factors17 worked together to facilitate the development or transference of wh-pronouns from interrogatives to bound relatives with the free-relative structure (the -ever-less indefinite form) as an intermediate point: (71)

ye lykee to send me redes lettres of alle the seyd matier ... and who ye wil be governed in this matter (Paston Letters II.23-24, in Traugott 1972: 153) (‘you will please to send me advice letters concerning all the said matter ... and whoever you wish I should be governed (by) in this matter’)

Once the wh-pronouns occurred in strings in which they could be reanalyzed as a form of ‘reduced’ (antecedentless) relative pronoun, they gradually gained ground in bound relatives throughout Middle English (cf Romaine 1982). Fischer (1992: 298) emphasizes the importance of the similarity of indirect questions and free relative structures like those illustrated in example (69) in providing a platform for the development of the construction, and it is the relative/interrogative interface which still lies at the heart of the matter today. Despite problems of indeterminacy, there is agreement (in principle) among most grammarians on certain central points which are summarized and considered below along with their merits in providing criteria for elucidating the distinction between the two. Number concord (i) Free relatives, like NPs, may display number concord with the verb of the sentence, whereas interrogatives (which represent propositions and not physical objects) do not (see Bresnan & Grimshaw 1978: 338-339; Huddleston 1984: 402403; Quirk et al 1985: 755, 1056). Compare the examples below: 17

Mainly analogies with Latin or French models (cf Traugott 1972: 154; Fischer 1992: 301; Jespersen 1927: 62), the need for items which could signal relativization other than the overgeneralized subordinator that (cf Traugott 1972: 154), and the inability of that to be preceded by a preposition (cf Fischer 1992: 300).

160 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

(72)

a. What few ideas he had at that time *was/were his wife’s. b. What we need is/are more computers.

(73)

a. What ideas he had at that time is/*are still unknown. b. What we need is/*are unclear.

This fact can be exploited when the wh-clause in question is subject (or can be made into a subject through passivization). When the wh-phrase is a single word as in (72b), however, it is difficult to know whether both singular and plural forms are possible because the plural nature of the subject is not immediately obvious or because of a difference in perspective between an interrogative interpretation (ie the answer to the question ‘what do we need’ is more computers) and a free relative interpretation (ie the things which we need are computers). Such cases can be resolved if it is possible to replace the single word wh-phrase with a plural NP (with a wh-determiner) as in (72a). If this replacement results in plural concord, then the subject clause in question must be a free relative. Extraposition (ii) Interrogative clauses functioning as subject may allow extraposition as in (74a) whereas the free relative (74b) does not (see Huddleston 1984: 403; Baker 1989: 165): (74)

a. [Whether he is a jerk] is debatable It is debatable [whether he is a jerk]. b. [Whoever did this] must be a jerk *It must be a jerk [whoever did this].

This is also the case with ordinary NPs which likewise cannot normally be extraposed: The boss must be a jerk/*It must be a jerk the boss.18 When the wh-clause subject is in an ascriptive predicative construction, however, the line between extraposition (75) and right dislocation (76) is particularly fuzzy and complicates the matter: (75) (76)

18

a. [Why she left] is a mystery. b. It is a mystery [why she left].

extraposition of interrogative clause

a. [What he did] was wrong. b. It was wrong [what he did].

dislocation of free relative clause

Huddleston (1984: 403) goes as far as to argue that because of these two syntactic facts (ie the potential contrast in number and the impossibility of extraposition) that free relative constructions are not clauses at all, but rather NPs or AdvPs.

Chapter 5: Free relatives 161

Note also that interrogative subjects do not allow extraposition in identifying constructions (cf Huddleston 1988: 181), which means that a failure to allow extraposition cannot be used as a foolproof test to exclude an interrogative interpretation: (77)

a. Why he left the group is an important question/the real issue/our main concern, etc. b. *It is an important question/the real issue/our main concern, etc why he left the group.

An interesting fact about identifying constructions is that they can typically be reversed cf Why he left is the important question – the important question is why he left (see Huddleston 1988: 179-180, cf also section 3.6.1). Wh-clause subjects can therefore be made into subject predicatives and thereafter tested as regards their ability to accept direct interrogative word order (see (viii) below), cf The important question is why did he leave. (iii) -ever compounds The -ever forms mentioned in section 5.2.4 are used freely in indefinite free relatives, but only under very specific conditions (and with an entirely different meaning) in embedded interrogative clauses (see section 3.2.4)). This means that sentences like (78b) are generally disambiguated by the presence of an -ever suffix: (78)

a. They asked me what I didn’t know. b. They asked me whatever I didn’t know.

Example (78a) is thus ambiguous and can mean either ‘They asked me that which I did not know’ (free relative) or ‘They asked me the question ‘What don’t you know?”’ (interrogative), whereas (78b) is only interpretable as being free relative. (iv) Preposed prepositions There is a complete ban on fronted prepositions in free relatives, whereas interrogatives generally allow this option (see section 5.3 for discussion with examples). Semantic licensing (v) Interrogatives can only be integrated into larger constructions containing certain predicates which ‘license’ them (eg the wh-clause may be the direct object of verbs such as know, ask, etc or the subject of S-V-Ps strings with predicatives such as unclear, certain, a mystery, a paradox, etc). The traditional view is that these interrogative-licensing predicates usually involve uncertainty (ie a question or doubt) and curiosity, see Kock (1897: 58); Jespersen (1927: 73). On the other hand, only the free relative clause can represent concrete things, so that when the

162 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description semantic restrictions indicate that the clause represents a physical object it must be relative. Huddleston (1984: 403) states that ‘when an argument of a semantic predicate is expressed by an embedded clause it can only represent a fact, a proposition, a state of affairs, an action or the like - never something concrete like a person.’ Hence free relatives appear in positions which do not allow interrogatives, for example as the direct object of the verb eat or as the subject of the verb go as in the following examples (cf Baker 1989:164-166, 175-178): (79)

a. Cindy knew [which dish Bill served her]. Cindy ate [what Bill cooked]. (Cf *Cindy ate [which dish Bill served her].) b. [Which dish Bill served her] was unclear. [What Bill cooked] went into the trash. (Cf *[Which dish Bill served her] went into the trash.)

interrogative free relative interrogative free relative

Although the interrogative status of the clause which dish Bill served her is clear in this example, the fact that certain predicates license the interrogative can only be used successfully as a diagnostic to determine the clause-type status of a whclause in the context of its matrix predication. In other words, the examples in (79) do not provide any basis to conclude that the string what Bill cooked is a free relative in any other construction since it is only the context provided in (79) which indicates that it is a free relative – it could just as easily be an interrogative in the appropriate context, cf Cindy disliked/knew what Bill cooked, What Bill cooked was unsavory/unclear. Semantic licensing is itself problematic as a test since it may be difficult to determine whether a predicate actually licenses the interrogative or not. If the status of a possible interrogative-licensing predicate is unclear, that predicate should be tested with a clause which is unequivocally interrogative. Baker (1989: 177) discusses the use of clauses introduced by how or why as candidates for such a test, but this strategy is unsatisfactory and circular since how- and why-clauses are also part of the data to be investigated (and may also be considered peripheral members of the class of free relative words, see 5.2.3). Whether-clauses seem far more suitable for such a test: (80)

a. b. d. e.

They asked/inquired/wondered/etc what he had/whether he was angry. They ate/borrowed/kicked/etc what he had/*whether he was angry). What he had/whether he was angry was unclear/a mystery/the issue/etc. What he had/*whether he was angry was strange/special/a computer/etc.

This test shows clearly that the verbs in (80a) and the predicatives in (80c) license the interrogative whereas those in (80b/d) do not. Whether-clauses are, however, typically awkward for testing answer-oriented predicates (see Ohlander 1986),

Chapter 5: Free relatives 163

such as, for example verbs like know, decide, tell, etc,19 but even these can be adjusted for the purpose of testing by either negating the answer-oriented verb or making the superordinate predication itself into a question: (81)

a. ?She knows whether he was sad. Does she know whether he was sad? b. ?She decided whether he was sad. She couldn’t decide whether he was sad.

(vi) wh-phrase + to-infinitive clause Stockwell et al (1973: 576); Ohlander (1985: 292-293); Quirk et al (1985: 1058); Baker (1989: 174), among others, all show that (free) relative phrases typically cannot introduce a to-infinitive clause (see section 5.6.2). (82)

a. I know/asked/remembered/etc what/who/which/etc to send. b. I lost/delivered/provided/etc what/which etc to send.

interrog free rel

This fact makes the manipulation of the clause in question to a to-infinitive an important diagnostic in testing the relative/interrogative distinction. (vii) Words which can introduce the free relative It has sometimes be argued in previous treatments that the presence of who, how and why is concrete evidence that a clause is interrogative and that their status as free relatives is dubious (cf Huddleston 1971: 235ff; Baker 1989: 174). The use of these words in free relatives is, as inelegant as it may sound, crucially dependent on the sub-type of free relative clause which is being examined – some of them are simply more peripheral to the free relative class and are therefore restricted to occurrences in limited grammatical environments (see section 5.2.3). Therefore who, how and why can be used to test the clause-type membership of the majority of constructions, but they are less valuable in testing, for example, matched verb constructions and wh-clefts (see section 5.13.1) (viii) Word order As noted by Quirk et al (1985: 1051) and mentioned above in point (ii), when a wh-interrogative clause is in the subject predicative position it will typically allow subject-operator inversion20 – this is not true of the free relative:

19

Note that this is only a strong tendency and, with appropriate context, sentences can be constructed which are in no way questionable, cf She knew whether he was married but wouldn’t tell us. 20 This is true of other syntactic positions as well, see section 3.6.1, but the other positions are not relevant to the present discussion.

164 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description (83) The question/problem/issue/etc is A new house/car/stereo/etc is

what we should get to replace it. what should we get to replace it. what we should get to replace it *what should we get to replace it.

This is not only a useful test for the subject predicative, but it may also be used for subjects in the identifying S-V-Ps pattern (see point ii). A syntactic operation can be performed on these identifying constructions, reversing the order of the clause elements so that the subject clause may become a Ps – thereafter subjectoperator inversion can be used to corroborate a conclusion about the clause-type membership of a given clause, as in (83). (ix) Predeterminers A hitherto unrecognized property of free relatives concerns their use with quantifying predeterminers such as twice, half, double, etc.21 Consider the following: (84)

a. He was so persuasive, and the salary was twice what I had been getting. (bnc B20 1567) b. Ibama claims that forest destruction is half what it was last year. (bnc J2P 574) c. You had more or less double what I did didn’t you? (bnc KCU 8627) d. ... its purchasing power was only one-third what it had been in 1983. (bnc B12 195)

These examples show that, like NPs that represent first-order entities, free relative what-clauses can, under the appropriate semantic conditions, take a predeterminer (quantifier) – a type of premodification which is not possible for an interrogative clause. This fact is relevant as a complement to semantic licensing in showing whether a predicate (especially those which are semantically weak such as copular be) can admit a free relative clause. Paucal what (x) Quirk et al (1985: 1060) state that ‘[u]nlike in interrogative clauses, the determiner what in nominal relative clauses has a paucal meaning’ . This characterization of determiner what is too categorical and needs refinement – a paucal interpretation of determiner what must entail a free relative clause, but free relative what as a determiner is not always paucal:

21

Note that I am not referring to items such as almost, only, exactly, just etc, which can be used with in either free relatives or interrogatives. Note also that the scope of quantification here is the free relative clause and not simply the FreeRelP.

Chapter 5: Free relatives 165

(85)

To you, for instance, the word innocence, in this connotation, probably retained its Biblical, or should I say technical sense, and therefore I suppose I must make myself quite clear by saying that I lost - or rather handed over what you would have considered to be my innocence two weeks before I was legally entitled, and in fact by oath required, to hand it over along with what other goods and bads I had. (BUC G33:58)

In (85), the second use of what (as a determiner) may be interpreted as paucal (eg ‘…along with the few other goods and bads…’, but this is not the first interpretation that comes to mind and it may just as well be neutral in this matter (eg ‘…along with the other goods and bads…’). Irrespective of the interpretation it is uncontroversially a free relative item. Though there are cases of residual ambiguity in which only context can make clear which clause type is intended, the facts (points i through x) presented above almost always make it possible to disambiguate free relatives from interrogatives. 5.13

Recalcitrant structures

Having now examined a number of points which can be used as criteria in distinguishing interrogatives from free relatives, I take a closer look at three constructions that are problematic (to differing degrees) from the point of view of clausetype classification. They are wh-clefts (section 5.13.1), ‘introductory’ (deictic) this, that and how + wh-clause strings (section 5.13.2) and concessive -ever clauses (section 5.13.3). 5.13.1 Wh-clefts The following examples serve as a point of departure for a discussion of whclefts:22 (86)

a. The rain disturbed my TV reception. b. What disturbed my TV reception was the rain. c. The rain was what disturbed my TV reception. d. What the rain disturbed was my TV reception.

22

unmarked basic wh-cleft, (subject clefted) reversed wh-cleft, (subject clefted) basic wh-cleft, (object clefted)

The term ‘wh-cleft’ is generally used in the literature to refer only to (86b). I, however, employ the designation wh-cleft for both types (86b) and (86c) and use the terms ‘basic wh-cleft’ (86b) and ‘reversed wh-cleft’ only when greater specificity is required.

166 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description e. My TV reception was what the rain disturbed.

reversed wh-cleft, (object clefted)

The unclefted sentence in (86a) may have thematic variants in the form of a basic wh-cleft (86b/d) or reversed wh-cleft (86c/e) which are used to achieve various effects in the information structure of the sentence.23 Whether or not whclefting entails a reordering of elements depends partly on the cleft type and partly on the clausal function of the item which is clefted. For example, if the clefted item is postverbal, the linearity of the items in the basic wh-cleft and the unclefted sentence is the same (cf (86d/a)) but it is different in reverse clefts (cf (86e/a)). When the clefted item is subject the situation is reversed, ie the linearity is the same in the reverse cleft (cf (86c/a)) and different in the basic wh-cleft (cf (86b/a)). Although wh-clefts are typically variations of an assumed underlying form, this is not always the case, cf What is wrong with the proposal is that it doesn’t provide a proper appeals procedure/*That it doesn’t provide a proper appeals procedure is wrong with the proposal (see Huddleston 1988: 188). Clefts of the type in (86) are generally not discussed in regard to the clause-type membership of the wh-clause involved, but rather in terms of their discourse function along with other types of clefts, such as it-clefts (or cleft relatives, eg It was John [who left the scene]), all-clefts (eg All [(that) she wants] is another baby) and so-called th-clefts (see Collins 1985) (eg The thing [which bothers me] is your attitude), Elisha Gray was actually the one [who invented the telephone]). Of these other types of clefts, the construction most closely related to wh-clefts are the th-clefts which appear to only be expanded versions of wh-clefts: (87)

a. b. c. d. e.

I hate your attitude [What I hate] is your attitude [The thing [which I hate]] is your attitude Your attitude is [what I hate]. Your attitude is [the thing [which I hate]].

unmarked case basic wh-cleft basic th-cleft reversed wh-cleft reversed th-cleft

Th-clefts are sometimes referred to or analyzed as wh-clefts (see, eg Sornicola 1988) since they may involve a wh-clause.24 Several fundamental differences, however, do exist between the two, the most important of which for present purposes is that the wh-clause of a th-cleft is integrated into a matrix clause as a postmodifier of a noun and is thus a bound relative (even if that noun is prop-like in nature – usually, but not always, an item with a vague general reference such as the thing, the man, etc). Though there is a close pragmatic and semantic relation23

Note that interrogatives enter into constructions which bear a superficial similarity to wh-clefts, but it is clear that they are not thematic variants of an unclefted form: cf What he wants is unclear, /*He wants unclear. 24 Using the term wh-cleft for th-cleft is, however, misleading since th-clefts may use that or zero relatives, cf The thing (that) I hate is your attitude.

Chapter 5: Free relatives 167

ship between the wh-cleft and the th-cleft, it is still structurally speaking a bound relative and will therefore be considered (along with it-clefts) in chapter 6.25 Though the similarities between wh-clefts and their th-cleft counterparts provide a clue as to the clause-type of wh-clefts, the question is by no means resolved simply by this parallel. Several of the most reliable syntactic tests do, however, provide strong indications that the wh-clauses in these constructions are indeed free relatives since they may show number concord (i), do not allow extraposition (ii), are resistant to preposed prepositions (in an appropriately adjusted context) (iv), are not semantically licensed by a whether-clause (v), are ungrammatical with direct interrogative word order in the subject predicative position (viii), can take a predeterminer (ix) and, in appropriate contexts, allow a paucal interpretation of determiner what: (88)

What they want is a better salary/ are better salaries. *It is a better salary what they want. *?The Bible is on what he bases his arguments. *Whether he should go is a better salary. *A better salary is what do they want. Twice what they offered is (would be) a good salary. What increases they offered were only cost of living increases.

(i) number concord (ii) extraposition (iv) preposed preposition (v) semantic licensing (viii) word order (ix) predeterminer (x) paucal reading OK

Only one syntactic environment, the wh- + to-infinitive string (point vii above), seemingly contradicts the free relative interpretation (eg what to do is pack up and leave), but I do not regard this as counter evidence as it is not clear that such strings are actually clefted constructions since no underlying, non-clefted version is evident. The ban on -ever compounds (point iii) in clefts is not relevant since wh-clefts always have specific reference and the explicitly indefinite -ever form clashes with this meaning. Finally, I do not take the fact that why can introduce these clauses (point vi) as proof that they must be interrogative, on the contrary, in light of the decidedly weighty evidence that wh-clefts are relatives, I take this as proof that why can be used in free relative clauses. Some comments are in order in connection with this last point concerning the list of possible words which can introduce free relatives. Who and how do not seem to appear freely in clefts, but attested examples are not difficult to come by: (89)

25

a. They call it a ‘Bain Marie’, which means ‘Mary’s bath’. I don’t know why. [Maybe she was [who invented it]]. (Delin 1990: 26) (cf She invented it.)

All-clefts are not handled at all in the present study since the postmodifying clause cannot be introduced by a wh-phrase.

168 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description [A future Queen of Pop, ma’am, is [who you are]]. (bnc CAD 27272876) (cf You are a future Queen of Pop.) c. ‘Poppa, why do we have to have such guilty deference to women, you and me – when we don’t! We mustn’t! [[Who should run the show, Poppa], is us]!’ (Roth, Portnoy’s Complaint: 98, quoted from Erdmann 1986: 852) (cf We should run the show.) b.

(90)

a. What the hell did you expect me to feel? Joy? [Shocked was [how I felt]]. Much as I feel now at your damned silly question! (bnc H9V 1310 265) (cf I felt shocked.) b. ‘[Club before country was [how it had to be for me]] because injury and suspension have left me with only 11 players for Arborath’s league game with Brechin City on Saturday,’ said Mc Grain. (bnc K5A 2782 21) (cf It had to be club before country for me.) c. Of course, in her father’s estimation, it was not much of a house, [a warren of smallish rooms was [how he saw it]], and set in a damp situation on the side of a river valley. (bnc CDB 571 274) (cf He saw it (as) a warren of smallish rooms.)

The use of why, which otherwise is not used in free relatives, may also occur in wh-clefts (see also Quirk et al 1985: 1059): (91)

a. And in a sense the holy alliance came to be seen as representing their interests. ie anti-nationalism. [[Why it was called the holy alliance] was because erm er the signatories agreed that they would er, that they would rule their states and treat er er policy erm er according to christian [sic] principles]. (bnc DCK 99 337) (cf It was called the holy alliance because...) b. Yes! — Doreen was a man going through a sex change. She was really Derek Banks. [[Why she always sounded hoarse] was because she had a masculine voice and to cover it up she pretended to have a cold]. (bnc J2F 190 275) (cf She always sounded hoarse because she had a masculine voice...) c. [...] and I think the series is good, but I think that [[why we want an open society within our schools] is because everyone has got a tremendous interest in education until people begin to surround it with jargon or to build walls and barriers which create a closed society]. (bnc KRG 1505 341) (cf We want an open society within our schools because...)

Chapter 5: Free relatives 169

Now that I have considered wh-clefts and their status as free relatives, it is evident that the list of wh-words which introduce the free relative (cf section 5.11, point (vii)) must also include peripheral items such as who, how and why. Though there is little room for disagreement on the clause-type membership of wh-clefts, I provide a separate table below: Table 5:l – Basic & reversed wh-clefts (excluding introductory deictic + wh) total (n) total (%)

Basic wh-cleft 116 78.9%

reversed wh-cleft 31 21%

Total 147 100%

Table 5:l does not include items introduced by the demonstrative pronouns that/this (eg That’s what I want) or the deictic here (eg Here’s what I think you should do), as they are given special treatment in the next section. Note also that the items included in Table 5:l have been included in the calculation of all the statistics presented so far for free relative clauses; this extra table is simply for the purposes of comparison. 5.13.2 Introductory this, that or here + wh-clause The construction exemplified in (92) below, though it has been shown to exhibit several of the core properties of interrogatives (cf Ohlander 1985), is covered in this study as a special sub-class of wh-clefts introduced by the deictic pro-forms this, that and here. (92)

a. This is when I get confused b. That’s what I want c. Here is where I live.

Section 5.13.1 provides some good reasons as to why wh-clefts are best analyzed as free relatives – if structures like those in (92) are actually reversed clefts then they must be, by way of entailment, free relatives. The logic is plausible enough in view of the fact that they seem derived from an unclefted form: (93)

a. I get confused at this point b. I want that (thing). c. I live here (in/at this place).

If the sentences in (92) are reversed-cleft versions of (93), then the introductory items that, this and here are to be construed as coreferential items, demonstrative determiners with the head ellipted in the case of this and that or an adverb in the case of here. The situation is not quite so simple since the referentiality of that, this and here is not straightforward; these items are only vaguely or partially referential, the deictic pronoun having only a simple identifying function in the same

170 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description manner as ‘identifying’ it (cf ‘prop’ it, Quirk et al 1985: 349), cf Look at the man picking his nose – it’s/that’s my uncle Ned! One indication that the referentiality of these words is special is that even a bare demonstrative representing an ellipted NP shows a certain kind of semantic/grammatical concord (ie animacy, gender, number) with its referent: (94)

The fish soup sounds good, I think I’ll have that/*those/*these/*her/*him/ *them, etc. Those apples are sweeter than these/those/*that/*her/*him /*them, etc26 Jane is really wonderful! I think I’ll marry her/*that, etc.

In the construction in question, this concord rule is suspended with that or this referring to animate referents and even to plural referents: (95)

a. Jane is really a fantastic person. That’s who I want to marry. b. Those two pink Cadillacs. That’s what I want. c. All those people who trusted you – that’s who’s going to complain if you don’t straighten out.

The referentiality of here is particularly dubious since it does not always have a clear role in an assumed underlying unclefted form: (96)

a. Here’s where I want to stay. b. Here’s what I want to say.

I want to stay here. *I want to say here.

The wh-cleft interpretation of (96b) can be salvaged if it is simply understood as being equivalent to this, cf the non-standard I want to say this here (despite the informal nature of this comparison, here is henceforth assumed to be a variant of this and is not explicitly discussed). Since the situation for this particular subset of wh-clefts is more unclear as to whether they are relative or interrogative, I present below in two brief points, the arguments for each analysis. The interrogative analysis (i) An interrogative interpretation of introductory deictic + wh-clause strings hinges on three basic points. Firstly, that these strings are fully normal with how, why and who - pronouns which are generally considered to be only interrogative, cf This is 26

The intended sense here is that some certain apples taste sweeter than other certain apples – in a zeugma-like combination of senses, sweet could be used in this sentence to include people or animate objects (presumably for comic effect). This type of combination is irrelevant, as is the interpretation of that as substituting for a previously mentioned proposition, eg Jane thinks the apples are as sour as lemons, but these apples are sweeter than that.

Chapter 5: Free relatives 171

how he did it, That’s who she married, Here’s why I’m worried (cf Huddleston 1971: 235; Bolinger 1972; Ohlander 1985: 285-287). This is not necessarily a counterargument against a relative interpretation since it was shown in sections 5.11 & 5.13.1 that, notwithstanding their more peripheral use, (especially in the case of why whose only evidence of free relative status is its occurrence in whclefts), these words can occur in free relatives. The second argument is that the deictic + wh-clause pattern freely allows wh- to-infinitives (as shown by Ohlander 1985: 291- 293) whereas this pattern is restricted in wh-relatives. This is a very powerful argument in favor of an interrogative analysis. Finally, preposed prepositions provide the strongest argument for an interrogative analysis. Though somewhat stilted, a preposed preposition can occur in introductory deictic plus wh-clause strings (see Ohlander 1985: 287-291): (97)

a. That’s on what he spends his meager income b. This is exactly against what they are protesting

Though acceptability judgments may vary, this is compelling evidence for an interrogative and against a relative interpretation. The relative analysis (ii) The first piece of data offered here for the relative analysis is that the string in question does not allow a whether-clause, no matter how it is manipulated in terms of negation or interrogation: (98)

*This/that/here is (not) whether he is angry. *Is this/that/here whether he is angry?

This is perhaps more a question of semantic clash than pure syntax since this/that/here represent known items, whereas a whether-clause indicates uncertainty. Another fact which favors a relative analysis is that, though wh-clauses in this string function as subject predicative, subject-operator inversion is not possible: (99)

This/that/here is

who he will marry. *who will he marry.

Finally, the deictic + wh-clause string permits a predeterminer for the whclause: (100) a. This was more than twice what the FT 100 Share Index achieved. (bnc F9J 519) b. Well, this is twice what it should be or three times what it should be. (bnc FA1 1504)

172 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description c. ... that’s almost three times what you were expecting... (bnc KLV 445) d. That is nearly double what it was four years ago. (bnc HHV 3412) These three facts, particularly the last one, which indicates that these clauses represent concrete objects (an unmistakable characteristic of free relatives) rather than propositions –have to be weighed against the evidence that these are interrogative, evidence which cannot easily be explained away. In this structure, the thin line between relatives and interrogatives fades away, leaving the analyst with some confusing and contradictory data. Each view appears to find justification in evidence which seems irrefutable at first, but, on closer inspection of counter-evidence, only points to one analysis without completely excluding the other. The commonsense view, as I see it, is to treat these strings as a merger of free relative and interrogative, the crucial determining factor being whether or not the introductory item is intended as a referential item (in which case it must be a free relative) or not (in which case it may be interrogative) – a factor which simply cannot be established reliably. Because of the special properties of these strings, I include below a separate table for them (Table 5:m). (Note again that these items have been included in all previous frequencies given for free relative clauses –this extra table is presented here for the purposes of comparison.) Table 5:m – Introductory deictic + wh-clause total (n) total (%)

this + wh-clause that + wh-clause here + wh-clause Total 29 94 3 126 23% 74.6% 2.3% 100%

5.13.3 Concessive -ever clauses Another construction which is baffling from the point of view of clause-type membership is a type of concessive adverbial clause introduced by -ever compounds (these are referred to by Huddleston (1988: 162) as concessive interrogatives, though the origin of this label is unclear). Consider first the following examples from the BUC: (101) a. Whatever their faults, they are not hypocrites. (BUC G01:80) b. I intend to support the nominee of the party at St. Louis, whoever he may be. (BUC G45:91) c. …East-West friction, wherever it take [sic] place around the globe, is in essence the general conflict between two entirely different societies… (BUC A04:19) d. However one looks at it, therefore, I’d say that your horoscope for this autumn is the reverse of rosy. (BUC R09:79)

Chapter 5: Free relatives 173

Semantically, the -ever form here is roughly equivalent to strings of the type ‘no matter + wh-clause’ or ‘regardless/irrespective of + wh- clause’, which have in this study been classified as interrogative. The syntax and semantics of any particular construction do not necessarily correlate and the fact that two constructions are semantically similar does not necessarily prove that they are syntactically similar. The only significant syntactic evidence in favor of an interrogative interpretation for these clauses is the fact that they, with appropriate manipulation, allow preposed prepositions: (102) a. By whatever rules you play this game, it is clear that you are cheating. b. In whatever state you find it, a 1956 Cadillac is an impressive piece of 50’s design. As noted previously, this fact weighs heavy as an indicator of interrogative status. There are, however, even more numerous and equally decisive pieces of evidence in favor of a free relative interpretation. Firstly they make use of the ever compounds in a sense that is only found in free relatives – this fact is hard to explain if one chooses an interrogative analysis. Secondly, the -ever concessives do not admit of wh- + to-infinitive string, but as I have argued previously, an interrogative, with appropriate manipulation of context, should allow a wh-XP + to-infinitive string. Thirdly, the -ever concessives are often of the form wh-XP + ing/-ed participles or verbless constructions, a string which does not occur in interrogative clauses. Finally and perhaps most importantly, these clauses can only occur as subordinated (adverbial) clauses, a fact which incontrovertibly separates them from typical interrogatives since that clause type by definition can be realized as both as dependent and independent clauses. 5.14

Summary

Free relative clauses are particularly intricate and involve a variety of constructions and different grammatical relationships. The following list summarizes some of the most important points in this chapter. ·

·

The nature of free relative words as either central or peripheral has been examined. The central free relative words are: what(ever), whichever, where(ever), where(ever), however, whoever. Which and how (as the heads of their phrases) and who are less central items and the most peripheral words are which and how (as non-heads in larger FreeRelPs) and why. Eight distinct phrase-structure patterns have been distinguished for the basic InterrogP, each of which is named after the word class of its predicative center, ie Interrog-NPs have a noun head, Interrog-AdjPs have an adjective head, etc. The most common InterrogPs are single, wh-word-head NPs and single wh-word-head AdvPs.

174 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description · ·

·

·

· ·

·

·

·

Percolation to pre-module elements is banned in typical free relatives, though two atypical free relative constructions do allow preposition pied-piping: the introductory deictic + wh-clause construction and -ever concessive clauses. FreeRelPs commonly have the following functions in the BUC: subject, direct object, subject predicative and adverbial. The most frequent of these is adverbial. No FreeRelP is evidenced as an object predicative in the BUC. As in the other clause types, this is probably due to the low frequency of complex transitive constructions in general. The acceptability of FreeRelPs as indirect objects is questionable. Free relative clauses are subject to the so-called matching effect which means that the clause has the same syntactic distribution as the FreeRelP which introduces it. Two exceptions to the matching effect have been discussed: (i) when the matrix predication includes an attitudinal expression and (ii) if the free relative clause is an -ever concessive. As in interrogatives, the hypothesis adopted in this work is that the landing site of the fronted FreeRelP is a pre-S position. FreeRelP subjects occupy a position different to that of their non-wh- counterparts which indicates that they too occupy the pre-S slot. The predominant type of movement for free relative clauses in the BUC. Long movement occurs in approximately 1 percent of the examples.. The range of clause elements which can be realized by a free relative is the same as that which can be realized by an NP. Free relatives in the BUC are commonly realized as subject, direct object, subject predicative and adverbial; the most frequent of these is adverbial. It is possible for a free relative clause to be realized as an object predicative or an indirect object, though neither of these functions is attested in the BUC material. The single-word FreeRel temporal and locative AdvPs when and where are often classed incorrectly as conjunctions. The status of temporal when and locative where can be established mainly due to the fact that, in contrast to conjunctions, they have a function role in the clause which they introduce. The merger which occurs at the relative/interrogative interface has been shown to be particularly complex and difficult to disentangle. The following ten points can be examined as a way of disambiguating problematic examples: (i) number concord; (ii) extraposition possibilities; (iii) the use of -ever compounds; (iv) the use preposed prepositions; (v) semantic licensing restrictions; (vi) the use of the wh- + to-infinitive pattern; (vii) the use of typical free relative words; (viii) word order restrictions; (ix) the use of predeterminers; and (x) the paucal meaning of what. Three structures have been pointed out as being especially recalcitrant in terms of clause-type classification: wh-clefts, the deictic + wh-clause pattern and -ever concessives. Wh-clefts are the least problematic of this group and there is much evidence to support a free relative analysis. The deictic + whclause pattern and -ever concessives are not easily classified, the most problematic of the two is the former, which shows several structural features of interrogatives that cannot in general apply to free relatives.

Chapter 6: Bound relatives 6.1

Introduction

This chapter deals with a subset of relatives more specifically referred to as bound (or headed) relative clauses. Even though this category is better defined in the literature and thus more clearly delimited than the free relatives, it would be misleading to view even this smaller subcategory of relative constructions as a unified, homogeneous group. The following examples illustrate the bound relative structures treated in this chapter: (1)

A philosophy which attempts to supply ultimate answers in an ultimate way reveals its acquiescence in the shortcomings of men, an impatience with partial, tentative solutions. (BUC J51:76)

(2)

a. The film was called The Diet of Worms, which I felt was just what Letch deserved. (BUC R03:69) b. He is a Buddhist, which means that to him peace and the sanctity of human life are not only religious dogma, but a profound and unshakable Weltanschauung. (BUC B20:76) c. Caucusing, the liberals decided to go after Colmer, which actually was the more drastic course, since seniority in the House is next to godliness. (BUC A37:35)

(3)

It is she who decides the time, the place, the surroundings, and the frequency of the sexual act. (BUC F08:11)

In contrast to the free relative, the examples in (1) – (3) are more central to the prototypical concept of relative clause, ie the constructions shown in (1) – (3) all have in common the fact that there is a tie of coreference1 between two separate and distinct elements (the italicized BoundRelPs and the underlined antecedent phrases in (1) – (3)) and this tie ‘relates’ the clause in which the RelP belongs to its antecedent. Despite the fact that the examples in (1) – (3) can be subsumed under the general appellation of ‘bound relative clause’, they represent types with several significant structural differences. Example (1) illustrates a restrictive clause which 1

The fact that there is an anaphoric relationship between the BoundRelP and its antecedent phrase does not imply that the BoundRelP is an exact semantic copy of the antecedent (see Bach 1977, Huddleston 1984: 394-395): Nobodyi/everybodyi [whoi knows her] … ¹ Nobody/everybody knows her …

176 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description typically functions as an element within an NP (cf Huddleston 1988: 155, 158; Wardhaugh 1995: 104). The examples in (2) illustrate non-restrictives, which can have a function either within the constituent structure of an NP, as in (2a), or may be related to a variety of other elements, such as, to name just two examples, entire clauses (2b) or the predication (or part of the predication) in a clause (2c) (see section 6.8.1 for further discussion, cf Olofsson 1981: 32-33; Huddleston 1988: 158; McCawley 1988: 421-425). Finally, there is the cleft construction shown in (3), which is the most divergent from the rest of the group and will therefore receive special treatment in section 6.8.1. (Clefts of this type are referred to henceforward in this work as it-clefts in order to maintain a consistent terminological contrast between it-clefts, wh-clefts and th-clefts.) The relativization process in bound relatives is without doubt an extensively scrutinized area. Because of the considerable coverage given to bound relatives in research and reference works (from both diachronic and synchronic perspectives), three major aspects of the bound relative are treated here only in a summary fashion – they are (1) the restrictive/non-restrictive distinction, (2) the type and specification of the antecedent and (3) the choice of the relative pronoun (in relation to an antecedent).2 6.2

The form of BoundRelPs

Following the same pattern as in the previous chapters, I examine in the subsections that follow the basic building blocks of the BoundRelP; in section 6.2.1 the wh-words which are used in BoundRelPs are presented and in 6.2.2 I discuss the larger phrases into which these words can enter. 6.2.1 Wh-words in the BoundRelP The following words are the fundamental units in forming BoundRelP: (4)

who/whom/whose, which, what non-standard, informal , where, whereat, whereby, wherefore, wherein, whereof, whereon, whereupon, wherewith, when, whence, why

The pronouns who(m), which have special referential features – who is typically used to refer to a human antecedent while which is typically used to refer to nonhuman antecedents (see Olofsson 1981: 65-66; Quirk et al 1985: 1245-1246; Huddleston 1988: 156). (This should not be viewed as a strict usage rule since a 2

A few representative studies containing in-depth discussions of these points are: Quirk (1957); Ryden (1966); Olofsson (1981), Sells (1985b); Kikai et al (1987); Ball (1994), to name only a few. Besides these works, nearly every reference grammar can be consulted on these issues.

Chapter 6: Bound relatives 177

number of factors may affect the choice of pronoun other than the human/nonhuman distinction, see Quirk et al 1985: 1246, 1251-1252). Aside from differences between relative which and interrogative which as regards the human/nonhuman distinction, relative which also differs from interrogative which in that the latter has a partitive (selective) meaning, whereas the former does not (cf Huddleston 1984: 394). The genitive whose may be used of both types of antecedent though sometimes the phrase of which is preferred with non-human antecedents (see especially Johansson 1995 for a book-length account of the whose/of which distinction). The use of the pronoun what in bound relatives to refer to both human/non-human antecedents is noted by many sociolinguists and grammarians (cf, for example, Jespersen 1927:130; Orton & Tilling 1971: 1071; Trudgill 1983: 34/40, Ball 1996: 239-242) and indeed it is attested twice (in the same text) in the BUC: (5)

a. He was the guy what always goofed at Question Time .... (BUC K07:114) b. I know they’re waitin only for one thing: for the bastards what done it to be nailed. (BUC K07:141)

As mentioned in section 6.1, the choice of pronoun in relation to an antecedent is not relevant to this study, especially when this choice does not affect the syntax of the construction. Thus the use of what in (5) is simply noted here and does not receive further attention. 6.2.2 Basic BoundRelPs With the words in (4) assuming various grammatical functions, the BoundRelP may be realized by two basic wh-phrase types, noun phrase and adverb phrase, or that basic BoundRelP itself may be a preposition complement (section 6.3), which can also be embedded in even larger phrases. In contrast to the other wh-phrase types discussed in previous chapters, no category of wh-BoundRel-AdjPs exists. A likely explanation to this is the fact that wh-AdjPs consist of, or somehow incorporate, the wh-word how, which is banned from the BoundRelP (see 8.2.1). Note that the antecedent of a BoundRelP may be an adjective: (cf That’s not to say he isn’t smarti, whichi he most certainly is D), (see also section 6.8.1) but this does not mean that the BoundRelP itself is an adjective. BoundRel-NPs (i) Disregarding the occasional use of what in dialect variants, typical BoundRel-NPs are realized by two wh- relative pronouns: who as in (6a) (or its inflected form whom as in (6b)), and which, as in (7):

178 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

(6)

(7)

Pattern 1: BoundRel-NP single wh-word head a. … Mr. Reama said: “A Socialist is a person who believes in dividing everything he does not own”. (BUC A05:57) b. These would be two human beings, whom God had chosen. (BUC K14:13) Both I and my feelings come up out of a chain of events that fan out into the past into sources that are ultimately very unlike the entity which I now am. (BUC G16:69)

In more formal styles, whom is used optionally as a single-word BoundRelP when the D position would require the objective form of personal pronouns (ie me, him her, etc).3 It is often avoided in less formal styles unless it is a prepositional complement in a larger BoundRelP (see Huddleston 1984: 297; Quirk et al 1985: 367) As is the case with other wh-clause types, the wh- relative word, in addition to being a single-word phrase, can also be included as an element within a larger phrase: (8)

Pattern 2: BoundRel-NP wh-det + N a. She teamed up with another beauty, whose name has been lost to history, and commenced with some fiddling that would have made Nero envious. (BUC F09:61) b. The latter tried to arbitrate through a delegation from Providence, which offer was declined by the invaders. (BUC G53:64)

Examples (8a/b) show the determinative use of wh-words in BoundRelP-NPs – the most common member of this group is the genitive determinative whose, which indeed can only have this function in the BoundRelP (cf interrogative whose, which can function as an independent genitive, see section 3.2.2). Which as a determinative element in an NP not included in a PP, exemplified in (8b), (noted by Quirk et al 1985: 1118-1199; McCawley 1988: 420) is considered archaic or simply unacceptable by my native speaker informants. Concerning this construction, Quirk et al (1985: 1118-1119) note that a rewording is often preferred which avoids this use of determinative which by instead utilizing a noun phrase followed by a postmodifying relative clause (eg They are said to have taught chimpanzees human language, which claim has been disputed by some scholars/ They are said to have taught chimpanzees human language, a claim which has been disputed by some scholars). 3

This form is sometimes used incorrectly, as in: If the administration ever had any ideas that it could find an acceptable alternative to Prince Souvanna Phouma, whom it felt was too trusting of Communists, it gradually had to relinquish them. (BUC A04:63). In this sentence whom is really the subject of was and not the object of felt.

Chapter 6: Bound relatives 179

Table 6:a below shows the type and frequency of BoundRel-NPs in the corpus material: Table 6:a –Type and frequency of BoundRel-NPs single wh-word head

4663

wh-det + N

239 0

Total BoundRelPs: 6951

4700 Total BoundRel-NPs: 4902 (~70%)

Of the single-word BoundRel-NPs, which is dominant with 2466 occurrences, followed closely by who, which occurs 2151 times. Thereafter, whom occurs 44 times and what only 2 times. The wh-det + N string is almost exclusively realized (237 instances or (~5%)) with whose as a determinative, while which has a determiner function only 2 times (< 1%). (iii) BoundRel-AdvPs In addition to the BoundRel-NPs mentioned above, the bound relative phrase may be realized as a single word AdvP, mainly by where, when and occasionally why,4 but also by minor variants of where such as whereat, whereby, wherefore, wherein, whereof, whereupon, wherewith:

(9)

Pattern 3: BoundRel-AdvP single wh-word head a. They hail from Travancore, a state in the subcontinent where Kali, the goddess of death, is worshiped [sic]. (BUC R09:36) b. …that is why the little man … stayed drunk about a year before he straightened out and moved to St. Louis, where he got to be a big unhappy success. (BUC P09:42)

(10)

a. There are two more Sunday afternoons when the situation will arise. (BUC A13:89) b. He will be coming here on business in December, when the wedding is to take place in Wayne. (BUC A16:48)

(11)

One girl describes her past, … and finally confesses that she loves sex and sees no reason why she must justify her passion. (BUC G13:58)

4

I do not consider how as a bound relative adverb here though a recent study by Seppänen & Hall (forthcoming) presents evidence that even this item may marginally occur in bound relatives.

180 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

The main members of this group, where and when, may be used in either restrictive clauses (9a)/(10a) or non-restrictive clauses (9b)/(10b) and may have a wide variety of antecedent nouns, generally denoting time or place, but other types of antecedents exist which express more abstract temporal/locative relationships, (cf in cases/situations/circumstances, etc when/where (cf section 5.11). The use of why, however, is limited to restrictive clauses like (11) and in the BUC occurs only with reason as its antecedent. Of this group of BoundRelP-AdvPs (909 occurrences), where is clearly the most frequent item, occurring 567 times; followed by when 277 and then why 29. Thereafter come the minor variants led by whereby with 19 occurrences – the remaining items in the group appear as follows: whereupon 6, wherein 5, wherefore 3, whereon 1, wherewith 1 and whence 1 The phrase-structure patterns of the BoundRelP, which are the least variable of all wh-XPs, are summarized in Table 6:b: Table 6:b – The internal structure of BoundRelPs phrase type:

wh-module:

representative example:

wh-pron

Pat 1 She is clearly a person who(m) you can trust completely. Pat 2 This is an idea whose time has finally come. Pat 3 A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.

wh-NP wh-det + N wh-AdvP

6.3

wh-adv

Percolation beyond the basic BoundRelP

As opposed to the other wh-clause types in which percolation was severely restricted, this phenomenon is much more readily found in bound relative clauses. The following sections deal first with pied-piped prepositions (sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2) thereafter the pied-piping of longer phrases is examined (section 6.3.3). 6.3.1 Basic BoundRelPs as preposition complements As was the case with interrogatives and exclamatives, the BoundRelP itself can be embedded in a larger phrase as a prepositional complement. Consider first the BoundRelPs shown in Table 6:c:

Chapter 6: Bound relatives 181

Table 6:c – Prepositions + basic BoundRelPs Pattern: prep + Pat 1

prep + Pat 2

prep + Pat 3

Example: Such items recall the California journalist who reported an accident involving a movie star: “The area in which Miss N. was injured is spectacularly scenic”. (BUC R05:63) Alcohol ingestion succeeded in changing immobility to mobility quite strikingly in one pilot subject (the only one with whom this technique was tried). (BUC J28:41) The Santa Cruz mountains sprawl over three counties, and the roads twist through sky-tapping redwoods down whose furrowed columns ripple streams of rain, even when heat bakes the Santa Clara valley below at the left. (BUC E11:65) By early June they were a hundred miles off the coast of Ceylon, by which time all four missionaries were hardened seafarers. (BUC G37:47) They threatened constantly to give the British a hold on this region, from whence they could move easily down the rivers to the French settlements near the Gulf. (BUC F45:52) In New York, from where many of these people came, judging by their accents and the bullet holes in their trench coats, the queue jumpers would have been seized by the crowd and had their limbs torn from their sockets. (Bryson, Neither Here nor There, p 36)

The relative adverb compounds (eg whereby, wherein, etc), since they already are a composite of a relative word and a preposition, do not occur in a BoundRel-PP. Table 6:d – Type and frequency of BoundRel-PPs prep + pattern 1

1019

prep + pattern 2

26 1

prep + pattern 3 0

Total BoundRelPs: 6951

1100 Total BoundRel-PPs: 1046 (15%)

Table 6:d does not include larger XP + preposition + BoundRelPs stings (94 occurrences), which are deferred until the closer examination of percolation in BoundRelP in section 6.3.

182 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description 6.3.2 Pied-piped vs stranded prepositions The pied-piping vs the stranding of prepositions has attracted the attention of many linguists, and the many variables involved have inspired a variety of explanations to this phenomenon (cf Chomsky 1965: 101-106; 1981: 252-253; 1986b; Van Riemsdijk 1978; Hornstein & Weinberg 1981; Takami 1992, cf section 3.3.2). As was the case with interrogatives, I limit my comments here to the most important points, concentrating primarily on observations prompted by the BUC material. I readily acknowledge, however, that there are many contextual/ situational subtleties involved which are handled poorly in a strictly grammatical approach. The data from the Brown corpus show unambiguously that preposition fronting is overwhelmingly preferred over stranding (1054 fronted prepositions and only 12 instances of stranded prepositions, all of which involved prepositional verbs) in wh-relatives. Though the overall figures for interrogatives were much smaller in absolute terms, making comparisons between the two clause types somewhat awkward, in relative terms the two clause types are undoubtedly different on this point. Once again, this difference is consistent with the percolation trends of the two clause types highlighted in section 3.3.1.5 As there are good statistical and intuitive reasons to take the fronted variant as the default form (thus requiring little comment), the following list focuses mainly on factors which allow or even favor a stranded preposition. Degree of integration of the PP into a larger XP (i) As with interrogatives, the more independent the PP is in relation to the head of the XP in which it is contained (ie verb in a VP, adjective in a AdjP, etc), the more resistant the preposition is to stranding (PPs related to VPs are handled under this point – special attention is given to NPs and AdjPs in point (ii)). This means that the preposition in prepositional verbs can be stranded fairly easily, as in (12), while prepositions in adverbial PPs (of the typical semantic classes, eg time, place, manner, etc are more resistant to stranding (13) (cf Johansson & Lysvåg 1986: 155-157; Geisler & Johansson 1998: 74-79): (12)

5

a. Each subject center library was chosen because of its demonstrated strength in a particular area, which headquarters could then build upon. (BUC A44:42) b. It would be heartbreaking to see idealism, and hence effective leadership, thwarted by the poverty and hardship which young Americans will run into. (BUC B27:13)

A minor point here worth noting is that many research articles make no distinction between preposition fronting/stranding in interrogatives vs relatives – if informant testing is based primarily on interrogatives, this will undoubtedly have an effect on the results, especially as regards the finer points of the distinction.

Chapter 6: Bound relatives 183

d. The first royalty whom Mama ever waited on in the White House was Queen Marie of Rumania, who came to a State dinner given in her honor on October 21, 1926. (BUC G41:77) (13)

a. I had planned to go to the hotel by taxi and sleep a little, after which Mr. Uno would arrive and pilot me around. (BUC F47:70) (cf …*I planned to sleep during the trip, which Mr. Uno would arrive after and pilot me around.) b. Wexler had charged the precinct judges … with “complementary” miscount of the vote, in which votes would be taken from one candidate and given to another. (BUC A03:30) (cf …*a miscount, which votes would be taken from one candidate in…) c. They adopted a program by which Louisiana was divided into five districts. (BUC F45:12) (cf …*a program which Louisiana was divided into five districts by)

As it does in interrogatives, this generalization corresponds in spirit to the generative approach to the issue (see section 3.3.2) which would claim that PP adverbial complements allow stranding whereas in PP adverbial adjuncts, fronting is obligatory (cf Radford 1988: 191; Chomsky 1981, 1986b; Hornstein & Weinberg 1981). This generalization breaks down once again when the relative clause contains adjunct PPs with certain, specifiable semantic roles. These are PPs which have an affected preposition complement, locative PPs expressing goal or target, PPs of accompaniment, and instrumental PPs: (14)

locative PP: a. The grass on which they walked was just (with affected prep comp) planted. The grass which they walked on was just planted. locative PP (Agoal/target ): b. The bank to which he was rushing was closed. The bank which he was rushing to was closed. PP Advbl (Aaccompaniment ): c. The group with which I came here has disappeared. The group which I came here with has disappeared. PP Advbl (Ainstrumental): d. There are many tools with which you can skin a cat. There are many tools which you can skin a cat with.

The PP adverbials in (14) are a mixed bag as regards their status as complements when they are examined in terms of the established tests (cf Jackendoff 1977;

184 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description Burton-Roberts 1986: 93-97; Radford 1988: 230-241; Ekerot 1988: 135ff). Firstly, they obviously all allow stranding, which is a sign of a complement. As regards pro-nominalization (the do-so pro-form test), only example (14b) gives a result which indicates that it may be a complement (cf He ran towards the old church/*He did so towards the old church). The type of PP in (14a), but none of the others, generally allows the preposition complement to become the subject of a passive (cf He slept in this old bed/This bed was slept in by George Washington), which again indicates complementhood. Other tests such as omissiblity, coocurrence restrictions, ordering restrictions, verb ellipsis, etc (see Radford 1988: 230-241) give results that would show that the PPs in question are adjuncts rather than complements (see also Trotta, forthcoming b). The type of XP in which the PP is contained (ii) In section 3.3.2, I argued that adjectives were less restrictive as matrix predications in terms of stranding than their NP counterparts. Though this generalization could justifiably be made about relative clauses as well, all of the 53 BoundRelPPPs governed by an adjective have fronted prepositions. Before I consider this disparity, consider the following representative examples from the corpus: (15)

a. These inwardly dramatic moments showed the kind of “opera style” of which Beethoven was genuinely capable, but which did not take so kindly to the mechanics of staging. (BUC C12:71) (cf This style, which Beethoven was genuinely capable of, …) b. Every dream, and this is true of a mental image of any type even though it may be readily interpreted into its equivalent of wakeful thought, is a psychic phenomenon for which no explanation is available. (BUC F03:25) (cf It is a psychic phenomenon which no explanation is available for.) c. After the seventeenth century the audience ceased to be an organic community to which these ideas and their attendant habits of figurative language would be natural or immediately familiar. (BUC G63:77) (cf …an organic community which these ideas and their attendant habits of figurative language would be natural or immediately familiar to)

What nearly all of the corpus examples have in common (with the exception of 3 borderline cases) is that in each example there is nothing ungrammatical about a stranded preposition. Even if the stranded preposition is separated from its complement, a contextual factor which can sometimes play a role (see point (v)), preposition stranding does not affect the grammaticality of the sentence. Exactly why this option is not taken more often in the corpus material is unclear to me; presumably a great many examples can be explained by the fact that the BUC is entirely made up of written material and that a considerable portion of that is formal (cf Appendix Table C). With such material one cannot overlook the possible effect of prescriptive attitudes and/or editorial policies.

Chapter 6: Bound relatives 185

Now consider the following examples of PPs in noun phrases (56 occurrences in the BUC): (16)

a. She soared over the new pastor like an avenging angel lest he stray from the path and not know all the truth and gossip of which she was chief repository. (BUC K04:40) (cf …all the truth and gossip which she was chief repository of.) b. Should Congress authorize the Attorney General to file suit to accomplish admission of a child to a school to which he is denied entrance? (BUC J48:76) (cf …a school which he is denied entrance to.) c. Any free elections … would have to produce a government in which Moscow had complete confidence, …. (BUC J36:48) (cf …a government which Moscow had complete confidence in…)

Here the situation is the same in the corpus material as it is for adjectives – despite the fact that stranding is a syntactically valid option for the majority of cases, it is not used, not even once, in the BUC. As regards the apparent disparity between interrogatives and relatives concerning NP matrix predications, my assumption here is that part of the reason for this imbalance is that the substantially improved acceptability of the fronted preposition as opposed to the awkwardness of its interrogative counterpart is completely consistent with the percolation tendencies for each clause type. (iii) The choice of the preposition Analogously with interrogatives, there are prepositions which must obligatorily be stranded, especially those that are part of long multi-word expressions such as transitive phrasal-prepositional verbs (cf Quirk et al 1985: 1160-1161; Geisler & Johansson 1998: 76-77), for example fob N off with, fix N up with, put N down to, let N in on, put N up to, etc (cf *The old car with which we fobbed him off; *My aunt, with whom we tried to fix Bob up, etc). Many other types of multi-word verb constructions also favor preposition stranding, but this is apparently due to lexical idiosyncrasies and thus they are less interesting from the point of view of this work. (cf Stockwell et al 1973: 459; Ross 1986: 134-135). (iv) Style As a preliminary comment on style, it should be pointed out that it is often difficult to evaluate grammarians’ comments about this variable since when they speak of preposition-pied piping vs stranding, it is not always clear whether they are comparing/contrasting the two alternatives in wh-relatives or whether they are contrasting the pied-piped preposition in a wh-clause with the obligatory stranding of prepositions found in zero- or that-relatives. To take just one example, note the sentences given in Quirk et al (1985: 1253) to illustrate preposition stranding:

186 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description (17)

a. That’s the book ( ) he’s been looking for. b. This is the house ( ) he stood in front of.6 c. You should restrict yourself to words ( ) you are familiar with and can use confidently.

Judging from the examples and context, the authors are not speaking of piedpiping vs stranding in wh-clauses alone, but rather include other types of relative clause in their discussion. Thus it is evident that their claims about this phenomenon as it is related to informal vs formal contexts must be assessed from this wider perspective. It is also important to note that, in examining a phenomenon like preposition fronting or stranding in relation to style, it is important to examine all data which can be made use of, otherwise conclusions may be restricted only to a particular corpus (with whatever limitations that corpus may have) and not to the language in general. For example, Van den Eynden (1996), in her discussion of wh-strategies in relation to preposition placement in English does not appear to incorporate an element of introspection in her work, resulting in the rather odd assessment that ‘[d]iachronic, dialectal and standard English show that stranding is not really an option with Wh- OP 7 relatives: not now and not in the past’ (1996: 444). Considering the findings of other grammarians on the subject, eg Quirk (1957) and Biber (1988), both of which show that prepositions can be and are stranded in relative clauses (albeit infrequently) her final conclusion is rather baffling: ‘…Wh- OP relatives occur with pied-piping only’ (1996:444). This result is to me immensely counterintuitive and shows the necessity of a wider methodological angle of approach to the data. Though style is without question a factor in the fronting or stranding of a preposition, its place in discussions of the phenomenon as regards wh-clauses is in need of some adjustment. When grammars emphasize ‘style’ as a factor in this choice, it is somewhat misleading in that it makes it appear as if there is generally a choice to begin with. In the light of point (i), there is often no stranding option available as regards wh-PP adverbials of place, time or manner, regardless of the style used in the speech/writing situation. Using my own intuition, I examined 25 texts in the A (Press Reportage), G (Belles Lettres), J (Learned) and N (Adventure) categories and discovered that, though each text type gave slightly different results, on average approximately 72% of all preposition fronting was obligatory (for either grammatical or contextual reasons) and in 28% of the cases stranding was, at least in theory, an option which was not taken.8 This result is different but compatible with Quirk’s (1957) material, a small sample of educated spoken 6

The parentheses shown here in (17b) are added in the interest of consistency and are not included in the original. 7 Van den Eynden’s term meaning object of a preposition, ie a preposition complement. 8 Necessary frontings totaled 146 whereas optional frontings totaled 56.

Chapter 6: Bound relatives 187

English containing only 104 examples of BoundRelPs in preposition complement positions, only 17% of which (18 examples) were stranded. The difference between those results based on empirical date and these results based on intuition is understandable given the fact that the stranding option does not have to be taken in all cases in which it is possible. The following is a table from the BUC corpus study showing the fronting/stranding frequencies by text type (the text types have been conflated into two main categories here, namely informative and imaginative): Table 6:e – Fronted prepositions by text type BoundRel-PP function Informative texts (A–J) Imaginative texts (K–R) Total Adverbial 826 119 945 Adjective postmodifier 47 6 53 Noun postmodifier 45 3 48 Total 918 128 1046 To put Table 6:e in perspective, it must be kept in mind that informative texts outweigh imaginative texts by 374 to 126 (~ 3 to 1). When the figures are averaged out, the result confirms what one might expect: prepositions are fronted 2.46 times per text (12.3 times per 10,000 words) in the informative categories and only 1 time per text (5 per 10,000 words) in the imaginative categories. This is a very telling statistic when it is compared to the result in Olofsson (1981: 117) which shows that the number of relative constructions does not vary significantly per text type in the BUC (~ 100 relative clauses per 10,000 words of text).9 If the number of BoundRel-PPs is also the same per text type (an assumption which must be left to further research), the obvious implication is that prepositions are indeed stranded more often in less formal texts, but this stranding is used in conjunction with types of relatives other than wh-. Rephrased from another angle, in order to avoid a stranded preposition, one is forced to choose a wh-option and therefore the preposition + wh-BoundRelP will, for natural reasons, occur more often in text types in which there is a received bias (prescriptive or otherwise) against stranded prepositions. This observation in no way excludes the possibility of a stranded preposition in a wh-bound relative clause, it is simply a comment on a possible reason why the results from the BUC are so one-sided. Distance between landing site and extraction site (v) There are some examples in the BUC which indicate that the distance between landing and extraction sites may exert a small influence on the fronting/stranding choice: 9

Naturally, as Olofsson (1981: 117) points out, this is an average – there may be significant variation from one author to another or from one example of a text type to another.

188 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description (18)

a. But questions with which committee members taunted bankers appearing as witnesses left little doubt that they will recommend passage of it. (BUC A02:4) b. *?But questions which committee members taunted bankers appearing as witnesses with left little doubt … c. But the questions which he taunted us with left little doubt…

(19)

a. … Dorothy Loudon’s raucous listing of the attractions “At the Roxy Music Hall” from “I Married an Angel”; and the incisive style with which Charlotte Rae delivers the top-drawer Hart lyrics of “I Blush”, a song that was cut from “A Connecticut Yankee”. (BUC C09:51) b. … *and the incisive style which Charlotte Rae delivers the top-drawer Hart lyrics of “I Blush” with, c. …and the incisive style which Charlotte Rae delivers her songs with…

The concrete data are limited, but they appear to indicate that for the noncomplement PPs noted in point (i) (eg adverbials of the typical classes of place, time, manner, etc) preposition fronting becomes virtually obligatory if the distance between the preposition and its VP (or NP, AdjP etc) is too great. A speculative but intuitively appealing reason for this is that the function of the PP is clearer if the PP is a continuous phrase. If the relative clause is short, a stranded preposition can still be construed fairly easily as a syntactic unit together with the fronted wh-XP, but if the distance is great between the two (particularly if the distance between the governing verb, noun, or adjective and the stranded preposition is also great), the discontinuous PP becomes difficult to process as a single constituent. 6.3.3 Percolation beyond BoundRel-PPs An oft-cited fact about pied-piping in relatives is that, in theory, there is no limit to how long pied-piped phrases can be: (20)

a. The house the colour of the paint on the front door of which caused all but the hardiest to don sunglasses was sold for £65,000. (Horrocks 1987: 170) b. Reports the height of the lettering on the covers of which the government prescribes should be abolished. (Ross 1986: 121) c. An opera the last three bars of the overture of which contains a fiendishly difficult horn part. (McCawley 1988: 436)

In the BUC, instances of pied-piping are not quite so elaborate as in examples (20), but they do serve to illustrate the basic point: (21)

a. Particularly hard for the therapist to grasp are those instances in which the patient is manifesting an introject traceable to something in the

Chapter 6: Bound relatives 189

therapist … the recognition of which, as a part of himself, he finds distinctly unwelcome. (BUC J31:19) b. Apropos of what some would call cynicism, I remember an anecdote the source of which I forget. (BUC G70:62) c. He himself was once convicted of painting erotica and jailed for 24 days - the first three of which he spent desperately trying to make paintings on the wall with his own spittle. (BUC B24:77) Not only can the WH-feature be percolated to larger NPs which contain the preposition + BoundRelP, but it can also be transmitted to larger matrix phrases such as VPs (to-infinitives and gerunds and -ed participles as in (22), cf Jespersen (927: 194; Nanni & Stillings 1978; Pollard & Sag 1994: 216) or even AdjPs and AdvPs (as in (23)): (22)

a. …I had grown up by the apparent inroads being made upon both Old and New Testaments by a “Higher Criticism” of the Bible, to refute which I felt the need of a better knowledge of Hebrew and of archaeology, for it seemed to me that to pull out some of the props of our faith was to weaken the entire structure. (BUC D06:5) b. The loud music, listening to which made her nervous, finally ended. (Nanni & Stillings 1978: 314) c. That woman, compared to whom … …(Nanni & Stillings 1978: 314) d. The tree seated next to whom… (Nanni & Stillings 1978: 314)

(23)

a. During their trip to New York their relationship reached a point better than which it would never be for the rest of their time together. …hence, irony, a fitter word to describe RE [Reformed Episcopalian] history better than which I cannot conceive. (internet: www.wavefront. com) b. The car accelerated to a disappointing top speed, faster than which it simply wouldn’t go no matter what we did.

Nanni and Stillings categorize the -ed forms in (22c/d) as adjectives, though they are much better suited to an analysis as participles. To my knowledge, the kind of pied-piping in (23) involving clear adjectives and adverbs has not been previously noted. 6.4

BoundRelPs compared

The following table presents the frequencies of fronted BoundRelP by complexity and phrase type:

190 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

Table 6:f – Fronted BoundRelPs by phrase type and complexity in the BUC Phrase complexity Simple Complex Total

NPs 4663 239 4902

AdvPs 909 0 909

PPs n/a 1046 1046

XP + PP n/a 94 94

Total 5572 1379 6951

Of the 267 wh-determiners, 248 are the wh-word whose, the remaining 19 are uses of which as a determiner and in 17 of those cases, the wh-NP follows a preposition. The XP + PP column shows the number of XP + preposition + BoundRelP strings, which were made up of 68 cases of which in a larger NP, 17 cases of whom in a larger NP and 1 case of which in a non-finite VP. The 8 remaining cases consisted of repeated copies of the same string, in testimony whereof (~ ‘in proof of which’), used in legal texts, all of them with the character of a formulaic expression: (24)

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the State to be affixed this 21st day of April, in the year of Our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-one and on Independence, the one hundred and eighty-fifth. (BUC H08:6)

Though this phrase has the flavor of an archaism and could justifiably be omitted completely from this study, a cursory search of the internet yielded ~ 1500 examples of this string. A small number (50 cases) of these were investigated more closely, revealing that these strings are a part of a legal style used almost exclusively in (US) government texts. 6.5

The syntactic functions of BoundRelPs

The following two sections present BoundRelPs in terms of their functions as either primary constituents (section 6.5.1) or secondary constituents (section 6.5.2). 6.5.1 Primary constituents The examples in (25) illustrate the syntactic functions of wh-elements in bound relatives (cf Quirk et al 1985: 1248-1259): (25)

a. You’re face to face with the man who (D) sold the world. b. It’s not a book which you can read D quickly. c. How about those people who he offered D the promise of a better life?

Sbj Od Oi

Chapter 6: Bound relatives 191

d. The person you knew back then is nothing like the person who I eventually became D. e. She has been the chairperson for some time now, so that’s a title which you should have called her D earlier. f. I’m going to a place where the weather suits my clothes D.

Ps Po Advbl

Huddleston (1984: 394) states that BoundRelPs are ‘hardly [realized as] indirect object … or predicative complement.’10 The tendency against indirect objects realized by wh-phrases has already been noted in previous chapters, and a BoundRelP is perhaps not particularly likely as a subject predicative, but it can be completely acceptable with the correct context (note that Quirk et al 1985: 1248-1249 mention the subject predicative position in their list of possible functions for BoundRelPs: This is not the type of modern house which my own is. For a genuine corpus example, see (7)). Table 6:g – Fronted BoundRelPs realized as primary constituents BoundRelP type BoundRel-NP BoundRel-AdvP BoundRel-PP Total

Sbj 4540 0 0 4540

Od 424 0 0 424

Oi 0 0 0 0

Ps 10 0 0 10

Po Advbl 0 0 0 907 0 947 0 1854

Total 4974 907 947 6828

6.5.2 Secondary constituents In addition to the primary constituents in Table 6:g, the fronted wh-element can function as a prepositional complement in the following larger elements: (26)

a. That old chair, which he had been sitting in D all day, finally collapsed. b. The kind of poetry which I am an expert in D is not well known here. c. All the signs, which he was happily unaware of D, were not very auspicious.

Advbl N postmod Adj postmod

Note that, like their interrogative counterparts (see section 3.5.2), fronted BoundRel-PPs (ie pied-piped variants of (26b/c) may also have a secondary function as a part of a larger constituent: The kind of poetry in which I am considered an expert D…, All the signs, of which he was happily unaware D… Once again, it 10

Predicative complement is Huddleston’s term for what I am referring to as subject predicative.

192 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description should be kept in mind that the BoundRel-PPs of this kind are different than the BoundRel-PPs shown in Table 6:g, in that the latter kind are not embedded in any larger elements and function as primary constituents. Table 6:h – Fronted BoundRelPs realized as secondary constituents BoundRelP type BoundRel-NP BoundRel-AdvP BoundRel-PP Total

Advbl 12 1 0 13

N postmod 0 0 55 55

Adj postmod 2 0 53 55

Total 14 1 108 123

Since partial extraction is of special interest in this study in terms of its relation to both percolation and pied-piping, I provide here some corpus examples of the types of constructions involved. Example (27) shows partial extraction out of NPs functioning as subject predicatives (18 examples in the BUC): (27)

a. The six expeditions to study eclipses of the sun, of which he was a member, took him to Colorado, Virginia, and California as well as to the South Pacific and to Russia. (BUC F32:36) b. …“intricate interplay of social dynamics and political activity of which, at times, politicians are the ignorant marionettes is not a field for the exercise of his talents”. (BUC G46:35)

The partially extracted NPs in (28) function as direct objects (26 examples in the BUC): (28)

a. …neither did it warn very effectively against the ordinary anti-Semitism of which the Nazis made such effective use in Germany and wherever else they could find it. (BUC F14:35) b. The professor in turn dares not tolerate the influence in his classes of an organization in the policies and standards of which he has no voice. (BUC E29:48)

And finally, there are 12 examples of partial subject extraction (because of the proximity of the fronted BoundRelP and the subject, the ‘|’ is used to clarify the structure in these examples): (29)

a. Here I do not speak of military power where our advantage is obvious and overwhelming but of political power- of influence, if you willabout which | the relevant questions are: Is Soviet influence throughout the world greater or less than it was ten years ago? (BUC F23:45)

Chapter 6: Bound relatives 193

b. The value of products from these industries was 15.8 billion dollars, of which | about one-third was created by manufacturing processes. (BUC F34:107) The partial subject examples are interesting from the point of view of island constraints, which are discussed further in section 6.7.2. Consider now partial extraction in AdjPs (53 examples): (30)

a. They accuse their enemies of precisely the crimes of which they themselves are most guilty. (BUC B11:38) b. After the seventeenth century the audience ceased to be an organic community to which these ideas and their attendant habits of figurative language would be natural or immediately familiar. (BUC G63:77) c. The result, coupled with the salesmanship for which American industry is famous, is considerable expenditure of funds and efforts in marginal areas. (BUC J71:30)

(31)

Yet there were other motivations and actions which the Belgians took after independence for which history may not find them guiltless. (BUC A41:43)

Not surprisingly, almost all of the partially extracted AdjPs in the BUC (52 occurrences) are like those in example (30) in that they involve extraction from the subject predicative position. In contrast to this, only the one example given in (31) shows partial extraction for the object predicative position. 6.6

The form of wh-bound relative clauses

Like free relatives, the matter of form in the bound relative clause is a fairly uncomplicated business – the BoundRelP must precede all the (non-topicalized) clause elements in the clause as in other wh-clause types. The two most relevant issues relating to word order are handled in special sections, pied-piping and stranding are dealt with in section 6.3.2 above and a few facts about the placement of adverbials in bound relative clauses are noted in section 6.7.1. 6.6.1 BoundRelP + non-finite clause An odd fact about BoundRelPs is that they generally cannot introduce (as a pre-S item) a to-infinitive, but some adverbial BoundRelPs can. These adverbials are most commonly realized by BoundRel-PPs, as in (32b/c), but may also be singleword compounds consisting of a relative adverb + prep such as wherein, whereon, etc, as in (32a):

194 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description (32)

a. Not to repel injury and uphold and improve pax-ordo means not simply to accept the misshapen order and injustice that challenges it at the moment, but also to start down the steep slope along which justice can find no place whereon to stand. (BUC D11:44) b. It was a quarter of seven when the crowd washed me up among the other gallants who had established the Astor steps as the beach-head from which to launch their night of merrymaking. (BUC K29:67) c. He has never, himself, done anything for which to be hated- which of us has? (BUC F42:7)

This fact has been noted in many grammarians, Curme (1931: 237); Huddleston (1971: 255); Kjellmer (1975), (1988); McCawley (1988: 429-431); Geisler (1995), to name only a few. For the type shown in examples (32b/c), the relative word can be deleted from the BoundRel-PP to leave a to-infinitive postmodifier (or ‘relative infinitive’ see Huddleston et al 1968: 172; Kjellmer 1975, 1988; Geisler 1995)11 – in this variation, there is no fronted-preposition option, cf He has never done anything to be hated for/*for to be hated. A similar variation is applicable for the type of compound shown in (32a), the difference being that the relative element in the compound is deleted and the prepositional element is either stranded or deleted, cf …justice can find no place to stand (on). Geisler (1995: 215-217) points out that adverbial BoundRel-PPs in wh- + infinitive clauses are used primarily as locative and instrumental adverbials, but also occasionally as temporal adverbials.12 The reason he provides for the occurrence of the overt BoundRel-PP + to-infinitive like those in (32) (rather than the analogous structure without the overt relative phrase) is that the antecedents in such relative structures are not sufficiently specific to convey adverbial (locative, instrumental, temporal, etc) relationships. As regards other types of non-finite relative clauses, the situation is such that finite relative clauses introduced by a wh-element are in a complementary distribution with non-finite postmodifying clauses, ie: (33)

a. The man standing there is my cousin a. ’ *The man who standing there is my cousin. (cf The man who is standing there is my cousin)

(34)

a. The problem observed by many scholars is that of verification. a. ’ *The problem which observed by many scholars is that of verification. (cf The problem which has been observed by many scholars…)

11 12

Geisler (1995) is a doctoral thesis about this very construction. Example (32c) shows a BoundRel-PP realized as an adverbial of reason.

Chapter 6: Bound relatives 195

Relative-like non-finite postmodifiers are perfectly grammatical and may in many instances (such as in (33) and (34)) correspond roughly in meaning to analogous finite relative clauses, but wh-bound relative clauses, with the exception of the BoundRel-PP + to-infinitive string noted above, must be finite (cf Baker 1989: 234-241).13 6.6.2 Multiple wh-items As noted by Jespersen (1965: 3:203), (cited by Sells (1985a) and Pollard & Sag (1994: 212)) it is possible for a bound relative to have multiple wh-items: (35)

…the same monsignour, the preparation of whose chocolate for whose lips had once occupied three strong men, …

Kayne (1983: 239) also provides the following example: (36)

?John Smith, whose wife’s feelings about whom have changed but little over the years,…

These multiple wh-item relatives are semantically quite interpretable, but are felt to be somewhat unnatural by my native informants. As their status as fully natural constructions in English is questionable, and as I have been unable to find any further examples in the larger corpora, I simply note that this possibility exists (at least in principle) for certain speakers and I do not pursue the issue further. 6.7

Selected aspects of movement phenomena in Bound Relatives

It has already been demonstrated that wh- bound relatives behave differently than other wh-clause types in terms of percolation (sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.3). In the following sections several other more theoretical aspects of wh-clauses, such as the landing site of the wh-XP and behavior related to island constraints are also shown to deviate from the trends which obtain in other wh-clause types.

13

This is generally taken as a matter of course in most reference grammars which, as for example in the case of Quirk et al (1985: 1244ff), may speak of bound relatives under a general rubric of postmodification by a finite clause, but the exclusion of a wh-non-finite relative clause is not stated explicitly. Compare also Huddleston (1971: 29) who speaks of a deleted BoundRelP in the case of nonfinite relatives but does not speak of the ungrammaticality of non-finite relatives with overt wh-XPs.

196 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description 6.7.1 The position of the fronted BoundRelP In previous discussions of fronted wh-XPs as pre-S items, the wh- + that pattern was used as evidence to show that the landing site of moved wh-XPs was outside the typical clause boundary. Bound relatives are different than any of the other types of wh-clauses so far discussed in that, although several examples of a BoundRelP + that string are found in the larger corpora, only one is accepted by at least some of my native informants: (37)

(*?) The main question the novel poses is how we know, remember or invent the past. Philip Hayley, the main character of the novel, undertakes an excavation of the life of his charlatan father, around whose numerous exploits that the plot revolves. (bnc G1N 254 197)

This is in contrast to the overall acceptability of the wh- + that pattern in other clause types (with certain prerequisites, see Seppänen & Trotta (2000) see also section 3.7.1). The obvious question is then: What is the significance of this finding for the analysis of the position of the fronted BoundRelPs? If no element which marks off the clause boundary can be inserted after the BoundRelP, should the BoundRelP be considered pre-S or not? As regards wh- non-subjects, that question need not be addressed in this work, since it is quite obvious that these wh-phrases too, in the same manner of all other fronted non-subject wh-XPs, occupy a syntactic slot different to that of their non-wh- counterparts. With a mind to my comments on the vacuous movement analysis of whsubjects in 3.7.2, the only aspect of this issue which need be dealt with here is the question of subject BoundRelPs. Without the help of the wh- + that pattern in bound relatives, is there any evidence to support an analysis of the syntactic position of this items as different than their non-wh- subject counterparts? I believe that evidence of such a nature can be derived from facts about adverbial placement in English. The adverbial slot between the subject and verb, referred to by Quirk et al (1985: 490-495) as either M (medial position) or iM (a position between initial and medial), depending on the presence of an operator14 can easily be occupied by certain adverbials, usually indicating modality or degree as in (38): (38)

14

a. I really haven’t had a chance to see it. b. You probably want to ask a specialist about that. c. John usually leaves messages for me on my computer.

These positions are not exactly the same but are similar enough for the present purposes to be conflated into one, see Quirk et al (1985: 490-495) for details on each position.

Chapter 6: Bound relatives 197

In regard to the structure of such (i)M adverbials, Quirk et al (1985: 493) state that ‘Only for a heavily special effect would a clause or lengthy prepositional phrase be placed at M (and then it would be clearly marked off by commas in writing or by prosody in speech).’ Later the authors go on to say ‘In more general use, the adverbials at M are for the most part rather short adverb phrases, especially solitary adverbs…’. Here we find a crucial difference between the word order in bound relatives and ordinary non-wh-clauses on this point, as is shown in the following (the adverbials each example should be read with an unmarked intonation, ie with no separate tone unit for the underlined segments): (39)

a. Had More’s writings been wholly limited to such exercises, they would be almost as dimly remembered as those of a dozen or so other authors living in his time, whose works tenuously survive in the minds of the few hundred scholars who each decade in pursuit of their very specialized occasions read those works. (BUC J57:16) (cf *?Scholars each decade in pursuit of their very specialized occasions read those works.) b. The other, of course, was the Civil War, the conflict which a century ago insured national unity over fragmentation. (BUC G02:26) (cf *?That conflict a century ago insured national unity….)15 c. At this time Harriet wrote in a letter which after their finally landing in India was sent to her mother: “I care not how soon we reach Calcutta, and are placed in a still room, with a bowl of milk and a loaf of Indian bread. (BUC G37:29) (cf *The letter after their finally landing in India was sent…)

The long (or ‘heavy’) adverbials in the bound relative sentences can follow the wh-subjects without any special intonation, whereas the adverbial in the non-whversions, if they are at all acceptable, must be read with a particular ‘parenthetical’ intonation in a separate tone unit. The fact that the wh-element must precede any other (non-topicalized) clause element overrides the normal rules of unmarked word order and certainly makes them different than non-wh- subjects.16 Stated succinctly, the virtual ban on BoundRelP + that strings indicates that BoundRelPs deviate from the normal pattern of pre-S wh-XP + clause/XP and may imply a structural position for fronted BoundRelPs different to that of other fronted wh-XPs. However, regardless of the exact landing site of BoundRelPs, which may or may not be pre-S, BoundRelP subjects are still in a structural position which differs from that of ordinary, non-wh- subjects and can therefore still be considered fronted elements, regardless of whether they remain inside the clause boundary or not.

15 16

A century ago is not intended to be construed as a postmodifier of conflict. I am especially grateful to David Wright for discussions on this point.

198 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description 6.7.2 A few comments on island constraints The island constraints outlined in section 2.5.3 generally obtain for all wh-clauses, with the notable exception of the adjunct island constraint which is regularly violated in connection with stranded prepositions (see sections 3.3.2 and 6.3.2). The corpus material yields two other types of island constraint violations involving the complex noun phrase constraint and the subject island constraint, which are examined in the two points below. The complex noun phrase constraint (i) The CNPC, which is a particularly ‘strong’ constraint in the case of finite clauses may be relaxed if the postmodifying construction is non-finite (see Koster 1986: 21, 52): (40)

a. It appears to be one of intense dislike, which he makes [NP little effort [to conceal D]] even in the presence of Southern friends. (BUC G01:23) b. Rabbits, too, if you care for them, which most of the folk around here haven’t [NP the sense [to appreciate D]]. (BUC L22:122) c. Which probably would turn out to be true; which he obviously had to be given the [NP opportunity [to say D]]. (BUC L14:119)

One very likely reason that the non-finite constructions in (40a/b) do not block extraction is that they are not clearly full non-finite clauses since it is questionable if either of them allow for-insertion. This is not a completely satisfactory explanation for (40c) and for a other types of CNPC violations involving to-infinitives, as is shown in the following examples: (41)

a. They wanted to use the money which we had already taken [NP the decision [S to spend D]]. b. It’s a terrible situation which he has shown [NP a complete unwillingness [S to acknowledge D]

(42)

a. That was a tough match which we had [NP absolutely no chance [S to win D]]. b. Her index finger, which she lost [NP the ability [S to use D]] in the accident, is always straight.

The examples in (41)/(42) illustrate to-infinitive appositives and the bracketed complex NPs in these sentences all have in common that they allow a for + subject insertion (with an appropriate change of context) and are therefore full clauses (S’). A detailed account of why these constructions are exceptions to the CNPC is not possible nor necessary here, but there are two factors worth noting which in my view influence their acceptability.

Chapter 6: Bound relatives 199

Firstly, the type in (41) have corresponding verb + non-finite or adjective + non-finite alternatives:17 (43)

a. They decided to spend the money They were unwilling to spend the money.

The analogous relationship (or ‘paradigmatic’ or ‘serial’ relationship (see Quirk 1965)) between the verbal and deverbal constructions in an intuitively appealing explanation to their grammatically. Secondly, the type in (42), which includes many clear nouns (ie nouns such as chance, freedom, power, etc) have corresponding of + -ing alternatives (Quirk et al 1985: 1272-1274). This correspondence indicates that the to-infinitive appositions in this category may not be attached to their heads in a way similar to ordinary NP + appositive strings and that they may have certain affinities with PP postmodifiers (which more freely allow extraction) (cf Bowen, forthcoming, for a discussion of the structure of complex NPs). Returning now the example cited in (40c), it is clear that at least a partial explanation emerges as to why the to-construction in this NP may allow extraction – like the examples in (42b), opportunity has an of + -ing alternative which I argue is a mitigating factor that appears to relax the extraction-blocking nature of the postmodifying clause. Another type of alleged complex NP which allows violations of this constraint is the so-called ‘reduced’ relative construction of the prepositional type (Ross 1986: 90-97): (44)

a. She has written books (that/which are) on precisely that subject. What subjects has she written books on D? *What subjects has she written books which are on D? b. They read a statement (that/which was) about Mona. Who did they read a statement about D? *Who did they read a statement that/which was about D?

It is, however, the reduced relative analysis itself that causes problems for Ross since his conception of these structures is genuinely transformational with the PP postmodifiers being understood to be derived from full relative clauses. Though there is an obvious correspondence between the PPs in (44a/b) and their relative clause counterparts (which is fairly uncontroversial and noted also by non17

McCawley (1988: 506-507) proposes a similar analysis for violations of the CNPC involving finite clauses, eg in examples like How much money did she make [NP the claim [S (that) we can spend D]]?, the phrase make a claim is semantically very close to the verb claim as in How much money did she claim [S (that) we can spend D]]? See also Pollard & Sag (1994: 206) on the special properties of factive clauses.

200 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description generative grammarians, cf Quirk et al 1985: 1274-1275), there is nothing odd about the grammatical movement relationships in (44) if the PPs are simply considered postmodifiers rather than a ‘reduced’ relative clauses. The subject island constraint (ii) As was pointed out in section 2.5.3, the subject island constraint was not originally intended as a ban on all extractions out of the subject position but rather a constraint on sentential subjects. Since both sentential and non-sentential subjects are relevant in much of the literature on the phenomenon, I treat under this rubric the subject island constraint in a wider sense as a constraint on partial extraction from subjects in general. Of the 12 partial extractions from the subject position noted in Table 6:h above, 10 can be explained as belonging to specific mitigating environments. Consider the following: (45)

a. The problem of NATO is not one of machinery, of which there is an abundance, but of the will to use it. (BUC G72:42) b. The city paid for work on 75, [of which] [no more than 21] were repaired, Hemphill charged. (BUC A09:20)

In (45a), the fronted BoundRelP is a part of the existential (or ‘real’) subject abundance –subjects in this special syntactic slot are not extraction blocking environments. In a grammatical analysis where extraposed or existential subjects are not regarded as subjects in the strict sense of the term (cf Seppänen, Granath & Herriman 1995), these extractions would not necessarily constitute violations of this constraint by any definition of subject island. Example (45b) illustrates an a partial extraction of a partitive phrase from the canonical, preverbal subject position. Partitive expressions are, however, exceptional in that they also allow this kind of preposing even in non-wh constructions: Of ten reviewers, only three praised his play, see Quirk et al (1985: 1287). This fact is interesting in itself, but it does not explain why fronted partitive BoundRel-PPs related to subjects are more acceptable to my native informants than their interrogative counterparts (cf ??Of which streets were no more than 21 repaired?).18 Furthermore, two examples here deserve special note since they illustrate partial extraction from subjects which are in neither of these two mitigating environments.

18

Such partitive constructions are in fact noted by Ross himself in connection with interrogatives, cf Of which cars were the hoods damaged by the explosion. (1986: 148). I must add, however, that my native speaker informants (including myself) find this particular example rather dubious and not nearly as acceptable as analogous examples in bound relatives.

Chapter 6: Bound relatives 201

(46)

a. A well-publicized entrant which has achieved success only recently is the built liquid detergent, with which the major problem today is incorporation of builder and active into a small volume using a sufficiently high builder/active ratio. (BUC J05:6) b. Here I do not speak of military power where our advantage is obvious and overwhelming but of political power- of influence, if you willabout which the relevant questions are: Is Soviet influence throughout the world greater or less than it was ten years ago? (BUC F23:45)

I have also noted the following example in Coates (1983: 9) (note that this is not an example that she is providing, but rather it is a part of her text): (47)

The polysemantic approach, on the other hand (of which good examples D are Leech (1969, 1971) and Palmer (1974, 1979)) commits itself to dealing with different categories which are assumed to be discrete.

Interestingly enough, Pollard & Sag (1994: 195) also note that for some speakers, the subject island constraint does not obtain in certain circumstances, eg That was the leader who rivals of D assassinated the British consul, but does obtain in other examples *Who did rivals of D assassinate the British consul? However, they offer no account of this disparity and do not mention any facts about possible clause-type connections. I have no solution to offer either, but given the BUC examples in (46), example (47) and the intuitions of Pollard & Sag’s informants, it seems reasonable to assume as a point of departure that the tendency to violate the subject island constraint is related to clause-type for many speakers, though the exact nature of this relationship is unclear. As regards extraposed subjects, extraction from this position is unproblematic: (48)

a. They invested in a BMW, which it was assumed [that the children would drive D only on special occasions]. b. The brand of herbal tea which it has been reported in the papers [that the surgeon general is about to ban D] is still being sold in many shops. c. The teacher who it was expected by the reporters [that the principle would fire D] is a crusty old fizzlebotch. (Ross 1986: 148)

This ‘exception’ to the sentential subject constraint (for all wh-clause types), if it is even to be considered an exception, is not controversial and is even noted by Ross himself, as example (48c) indicates. 6.7.3 Parasitic gaps The term ‘parasitic gap’ (see Engdahl 1983; Haegeman 1994: 473-478; Pollard & Sag 1994: 182-200) is used in describing special constructions like those in (49c)

202 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description in which there are two gaps related to one fronted element. The idea that one of these gaps should be deemed ‘parasitic’ derives from the fact that the second gap in (49c) would be ungrammatical if it were the only one since it is ruled out by the adjunct island constraint (49b) (see section 2.5.3) – this second gap is only grammatical if there is another ‘legitimate’ gap which can license it. (49)

a. He ate the peas before he cooked the pasta. b. *The pasta, which he ate the peas before he cooked D, wasn’t very good. c. The pasta, which he ate D before he cooked D, wasn’t very good.

adjunct island parasitic gap

Though I introduce this phenomenon in connection with bound relatives, it is, with appropriate changes, equally possible in any wh-clause type (see Engdahl 1983). In terms of data and analysis, I have little to add to the discussion of this phenomenon except for the fact that it does occur once in the BUC and that that one instance is in fact evidenced in a bound relative clause: (50)

Many years later (on August 3, 1915), Lucy Upton wrote Winslow’s daughter soon to be graduated from Smith College: “While I love botany which, after dabbling in D for years, I studied D according to the methods of that day exactly forty years ago in a summer school, it must be fascinating to take up zoology in the way you are doing. (BUC F32:20)

In (50), which is related to two extraction sites, the first is parasitic since it is a preposition complement within an NP which itself is contained in the extraction blocking environment of an adverbial adjunct. The second gap in the direct object slot (after studied) is legitimate and in effect licenses the first gap. Although the parasitic gap here precedes the legitimate gap, it is still of the optional kind described by Engdahl (1983: 15-16). This does not imply that it is an exception to the optional vs obligatory19 distinction since the canonical position of the adverbial is understood as being after the legitimate gap. 6.7.4 Movement span The movement span in bound relative clauses does not differ in any significant way from that of other wh-clause types, as is shown in the following two tables:

19

The obligatory type of parasitic gap is said to precede the legitimate gap and is less acceptable when it is filled by a resumptive pronoun, whereas the optional type follows the legitimate gap and can generally be filled by a such a pronoun, see Engdahl (1983: 15-16).

Chapter 6: Bound relatives 203

Table 6:i – Short span movement in bound relatives whXP + fn-S

6790

whXP + fn-S + nf-P

62

whXP + nf-S

34 0

6800

Total BoundRel movement relationships: 6951

Total short span: 6886 (~99%)

All 34 examples of the BoundRelP + non-finite clause involve BoundRel-PPs in the type of string described in section 6.6.1. Table 6:j – Long movement span in bound relatives wh-XP + fn-S + fn-S

43

wh-XP + fn-S + nf-S

22 0

Total BoundRel movement relationships: 6951

100 Total long span: 65 (~1%)

A comparison of long vs short movement presented Table 6:i and Table 6:j shows unequivocally that long movement in relatives, as in other wh-clause types, is a scarcely taken option. 6.8

Wh-bound relatives as constituents in matrix constructions

The external syntax of bound relatives is, at least in principle, a straightforward matter – as mentioned in section 6.1 bound relatives are mainly elements within the constituent structure of NPs but may also be related to a clause, a verb phrase (or part of it) or an adjective phrase. The following sections examine a few aspects of these relationships in more detail, first structural aspects of the antecedent phrase are taken up in section 6.8.1, then it-clefts are briefly discussed in section 6.8.1, and then finally section 6.8.3 looks more closely at the phenomena of postponed or extraposed relative clauses.

204 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description 6.8.1 What structural units can non-restrictives be bound to? It is a well-known fact that non-restrictive relative clauses can be bound to heads other than NPs, but the descriptions provided in many reference works can vary greatly. For example, the only non-adnominal relatives Quirk et al (1985: 11181120) seem to recognize are sentential relatives. Huddleston (1984: 401) states that ‘[t]he relative anaphor, as well as having clauses and NPs as antecedent, can also have other classes of phrase…’, but the only other antecedent type exemplified in that work is AdjP. The immediate question, then, is: Exactly what units can a non-restrictive relative be bound to? Consider the following examples: (51)

a. And one day, on her own, his mother came home with a present entitled The Book of the Dead, which she suspected Richard would enjoy. (BUC P25:5) b. If he was sober, which was doubtful, he’d have him get in touch with Mr. Crombie. (BUC R04:84) c. In the hall, after adjournment, Dr. Frothingham took him warmly by the hand and requested Parker to visit him - whereupon our burly Theodore again burst into tears. (BUC D05:14) d. If it were wholly random and unrelated, it would be 2.0, assuming the five classes were equal in n, which approximately they are. (BUC J35:25) e. In my estimation, they were people who … discussed Kafka; well, not discussed him exactly, but said, “Kafka”! reverently and raised their eyes, as if they were at a loss to describe how they felt about Kafka, which they were, because they had no opinions about Kafka, not having read Kafka. (BUC R02:83)

As shown in (51), non-restrictive relatives may be related to a wide variety of elements, including not only such uncontroversial items as noun phrases (51a), entire clauses (51b) or the predication (or part of the predication) in a clause (51c) but also less frequently described items such as predicative adjective phrases (51d); or even prepositional phrases (51e) (cf Olofsson 1981: 32-33; McCawley 1988: 418-425). [Ross example of rel in AdjP?] As regards the constituent structure of clauses like those in (51), it should first be noted that typical bound relatives, either restrictive or non-restrictive, form a unit together with the antecedents to which they are bound, as shown in the following tree diagrams (cf Olofsson 1981: 23-25; Burton-Robers 1986: 198; McCawley 1988:420-422):

Chapter 6: Bound relatives 205

(52)

restrictive NP

non-restrictive NP

Det

NP

N’ N

a.

S

The girl who stole the cookies

Det

S N

b. The girl, who stole the cookies,

The non-restrictive is thus typically an immediate constituent of the XP (here NP), whereas the restrictive is an immediate constituent of X’ (here N’) and is included in the scope of the determiner (cf Olofsson 1981: 34-37). Non-restrictive clauses with AdjP or PP antecedents should logically follow this same pattern (cf McCawley 1988: 421), ie AdjP AdjP + relative clause; PP PP + relative clause. It is less clear if or how non-restrictives with VP or clausal antecedents form a constituent together with their antecedent, though again the same principle should apply at the relevant level of constituency, ie these relative clauses could be analyzed as S S + relative clause, VP VP + relative clause. In the following section (6.8.2), however, I argue that the notion of a relative clause + an antecedent forming a single constituent is a typical, but not necessary characteristic of bound relative clauses. 6.8.2 A note on It-clefts Consider the it-clefts in (53) excerpted from the BUC: (53)

a. … and it was Katie, rather than Thompson, whose life was soon ended, for she died in childbirth in April, 1901, in the first year of her marriage. (BUC G49:41) b. …so, finally, it is the sponsor who must take the responsibility for the good or bad taste of his advertising. (BUC B18:85) c. It is this modulation which reveals to Jacoby his own frightful abjection and, simultaneously, his wife’s infidelity. (BUC G15:11)

The it-cleft is generally analyzed as having two halves, the ‘it + BE + clefted element’ half20 (the sentence portions with single underling in (53), which I shall refer to here simply as the matrix), and the relative clause (the wh-clauses with double underlining in (53)). 20

I simplify the construction for the purpose of the present discussion, but take it as a matter of course that the matrix half of the it-cleft may contain other elements, cf It should always be the president who makes that decision, cf Huddleston (1984: 460).

206 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description The form and use of it-clefts is often approached from the angle of discourse function, the usual explanations being either (i) it-clefts ‘highlight’, ‘focus on’ or ‘give prominence to’ a particular chunk of a message (which is placed at the end of the matrix) (cf Leech & Svartvik 1994: 204-205) or (ii) they are explained in terms of information structure, ie in terms of their relationship to the given-new (or given-known) information principle (cf Halliday 1994: 59-61).21 Discourse functions aside, it-clefts are only of marginal interest in a study of the grammatical form of wh-clauses. One practical matter which makes them less interesting is the fact that a wh-clause is not the preferred choice of relative clause in it-cleft constructions, (cf Huddleston 1984: 459-461; Quirk et al 1985: 1387) and indeed there are only 39 examples of it-clefted wh-clauses (much less than 1%) in the BUC. Additionally, the clause-internal grammar of it-cleft relatives (though it may be marginally more restrictive in the selection of elements that can be realized by wh-items22) does not differ in any significant way from the ordinary bound relative clause, and therefore they add little to theoretical discussions of wh-phenomena. The only noteworthy point of grammatical form as regards it-clefts is the matter of the integration of the wh-clause into the cleft matrix, which, as generally noted by grammarians, is idiosyncratic in this construction. Typical bound relatives, as mentioned previously in section 6.8.1 above, form a constituent together with the antecedents to which they are bound. In contrast to this, the wh-clause in an it-cleft is not at all a part of the structure of the clefted XP element (NP, AdjP, PP, etc) – the two main elements in it-clefts, the matrix and the cleft clause, are perhaps best viewed as immediate constituents of S (an analysis along the lines suggested in Huddleston 1984: 462 and more explicitly described in Huddleston 1988: 184-188):23 (54)

it-cleft relative S S (matrix) It was the girl

21

S (cleft clause) who stole the cookies

(…not the boy)

This is quite a drastic simplification of these two views, which are, it should be noted, not mutually exclusive. See Delin (1990) for a concise survey of different discourse-oriented approaches to cleft constructions. 22 Quirk et al (1985: 1385) and Huddleston (1984: 460) note that BoundRelPs in it-cleft clauses are not likely to occur in the subject predicative position, cf ?it is a genius that he is. Quirk et al (1985: 1385) note that this may be due to an avoidance of final BE and that sentences without a final BE are acceptable in this construction, cf It was a baker that he became, not a banker. 23 See Baker (1989: 375-378) for an alternative structural analysis in which the relative cleft clause is an immediate constituent of VP.

Chapter 6: Bound relatives 207

Note, however, that this suggested structure would be awkward in most generative-style grammars, since it is not clear how the structural relationship known as binding (see, for example, Borsley 1991: 98-108; Haegeman & Guéron 1999: 362-383) would obtain between the antecedent and a possible reflexive if the reflexive were to occur first in the matrix clause followed later by the antecedent in the cleft clause, eg It was only himself that John blamed for the accident. Since this is not an issue which directly affects the present analysis but is rather a question of the technical machinery of generative grammars, I do not expand further on the issue. The problem of how the wh-clause is integrated into the matrix, in addition to other facts about the types of antecedent which can occur in it-clefts,24 has led some grammarians to question if these structures can indeed be subsumed under the category of bound relative (cf Johansson & Lysvåg 1986: 157-158). It is necessary to understand that this is primarily a matter of definition – if one’s definition of ‘bound’ relative is not dependent on the relative clause forming a constituent with its antecedent but rather is simply based on the fact that the BoundRelP is bound to (coreferential with) an antecedent, then it-clefts are without question bound relatives. This can be demonstrated by standard tests of animacy concord and subject-verb concord: (55)

a. It was a big mistake that/which/*who she made. b. It was Alice that/who/*which broke the mirror.

animacy concord

(56)

a. It was Mr Dogson who was/*were to blame. a. It was the authors who *was/were to blame.

sbj-verb concord

The fact that both animacy concord and subject-verb concord are determined by the antecedent and not by the relative pronoun itself is quite telling. These tests illustrate the coreferentiality which obtains between relative pronoun and antecedent and establishes their status as clear, though not typical, members of the class of bound relative clauses. 6.8.3 Postponed bound relative clauses Postponement or extraposition of a relative clause to a position away from its antecedent is said to be a characteristic only of restrictive relatives (and not nonrestrictives) (cf McCawley 1988: 419; 747-748). 24

For example, the relative cleft clause resembles a restrictive relative since it is often introduced by that and it is never preceded by a comma, cf It was deputy Barney Fife that I shot, not the sheriff. However, since the BoundRelP can be coreferential with a proper noun, this clause cannot be restrictive since it does not restrict the reference of the antecedent.

208 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

(57)

a. Conversely, if statistics were uncovered which contradicted a cherished theory, the sources were denounced as faulty. (BUC G65:25) (cf …if statistics which contradicted a cherished theory were uncovered…) b. But the time came when I was no longer innocent and therefore no longer helpless. (BUC G33:45) c. An only child, he had done all the things that young men do who have been born to money and social position until his father double-crossed him by dying broke. (BUC L18:8) (cf …the things that young men who have been born to money do…)

Note, however, the following example: (58)

They would go to New York together, where parties would be piled on weariness and on misery. (BUC G67:6) (cf They went to New York, where parties would be piled on weariness and on misery, together)

In (58), the bound relative where-clause is postponed, in spite of the fact that it must necessarily be non-restrictive given the unique reference of the antecedent. As for the syntax of these constructions, they can be accounted for either by a rule of extraposition (see Baltin 1981, 1984; Radford 1988: 448-456) or simply as postponements of information in accordance with thematic ordering principles such as end-focus and/or end-weight (cf Quirk et al 1985: 1397-1401; Leech & Svartvik 1994: 199). These two alternatives are not necessarily in competition with each other – a choice between them is more a question of theoretical preference and perspective rather than empirical issue since both, in their own way, account for the syntax of the postponed relative clause with a high level of descriptive adequacy. In both (57) and (58), the relatives are postponed to the end of a clause, if the relative clause postmodifies a subject, it should be possible to postpone that clause to the end of the VP and not to the end of the entire clause: (59)

A film appeared which was about Wittgenstein around three weeks or a month ago.

The factors which favor this kind of postponement would be a short VP and a long adverbial. Regardless of what other postponement types may exist in theory for relative clauses, the type shown in (57) and (58) (to the end of a clause) is the only type evidenced in the BUC with 27 occurrences. Each one of the attested examples in which the relative clause postmodifies a subject NP (24 occurrences) has in common that the VP is rather short, almost always a passive construction (15 examples) or an intransitive (8 examples), but note (57c), which is neither (this is

Chapter 6: Bound relatives 209

the only example of this type in the BUC). As far as postponement from other positions is concerned, each of the examples in which the postponed relative clause postmodifies a postverbal NP (only 4 occurrences) has in common that the interpolated adverbial is shorter than the extraposed relative clause (58). 6.9

Problems of demarcation: bound or free relative?

One central issue of clause-type membership which receives little coverage in the literature concerns the relationship between when-/where-clauses25 and possible antecedents. Consider the following examples: (60)

a. In recent times, when sexual matters began to be discussed more scientifically and more openly, the emotional aspects of virginity received considerable attention. (BUC F07:21) b. Occasionally, you may come across one or two bumblebees in the cold season, when you are turning over sods in your garden, but you have to be a really keen observer to see them at all. (BUC J10:2)

(61)

a. The president of the Kansas City local of the International Association of Fire Fighters was severly [sic] injured today when a bomb tore his car apart as he left home for work. (BUC A09:70) b. He hesitated for a moment when Michelangelo asked him to disrobe, so Michelangelo gave him a piece of toweling to wrap around his loins, led him to the kitchen to take off his clothes. (BUC K14:70)

All of the examples in (60) and (61) do indeed look like head + bound relative structures, the relative adverb when in each example having the possible antecedents, recent times, cold season, today, and a moment respectively. But should all of these examples be classified as bound relatives rather than free relatives? Can any reliable classification be made at all? The complication I wish to illuminate hinges on whether it is possible in practice to ascertain if the when- or where-clause in question is actually related to a possible antecedent through a link of coreference. For example, is it possible to determine without context which interpretation is ‘correct’ in (62): (62)

I bought this extra bed last week when my mom came to visit. bound rel interpretation:

25

I bought it during time X, my mom came to visit during time X.

From the practical point of view of categorizing clauses in the BUC, whereclauses are far less problematic than when-clauses. The discussion in this section deals explicitly only with when-clauses, but the problem also exists to a lesser extent for where-clauses.

210 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description free rel interpretation:

I bought it last week at time X, my mom came to visit at time X.

In the bound interpretation of (62), the when-clause is not a integral part of the message in the matrix clause, it serves to provide further information about the phrase last week, which refers to the time during which an extra bed was bought. In the free relative interpretation, the temporal phrase last week is not at all an antecedent and the when-clause serves a more crucial role in specifying more exactly the time of the matrix predication (ie the time of the buying). The crux of the problem is that, in the most difficult cases, the possible antecedent is always itself a temporal/locative adverbial – thus it makes little difference to the meaning/interpretation of the sentence on the whole which rendering one chooses. In both cases the different meanings of such recalcitrant structures merge because the relevant clause either directly (as a free relative adverbial clause) or indirectly (as a noun postmodifier in an adverbial element) limits, specifies or defines the temporal/locative frame of the matrix predication. The associated constituency of each interpretation is, however, different since a relative clause cannot be both free and bound simultaneously and therein lies the dilemma of analysis and categorization. Without making any claims as to the possibility of solving such problems conclusively, topicalization appears to be at least one useful test which can, with the help of context, give some indication as to which clause type is most likely. A postverbal clause element such as object, adverbial, etc, can ordinarily be topicalized (with the appropriate change in stress), eg: The president approved these measures last week/These measures the president approved last week/Last week the president approved these measures. If an antecedent + postmodifying relative clause is a constituent functioning as a single clause element, it should be possible to topicalize it as one unit, and if the assumed postmodifying clause cannot be fronted, this would indicate that it is not an immediate constituent in a clause but rather a part of a larger constituent, as in example (63): (63)

a. I (just) can’t recall a time when you admitted you were wrong. b. A time when you admitted you were wrong, I (just) can’t recall. c. *When you admitted you were wrong, I (just) can’t recall a time.

A time when you admitted you were wrong is one clause element (direct object) and can therefore be fronted to an initial position (with the appropriate intonation). The when-clause functions as a postmodifier in the NP a time and cannot be fronted away from its position. The problem is more complicated when the antecedent itself functions as an adverbial, as in the examples noted in (60) and (61) since each element (the possible antecedent and the relative clause) can be interpreted as separate temporal or locative phrases and therefore this test may yield grammatical sentences regardless of constituency. Despite this complication, testing by means of topi-

Chapter 6: Bound relatives 211

calization, even in this situation, does provide some clues as to clause-type membership: (64)

a. When sexual matters began to be discussed more scientifically and more openly in recent times, the emotional aspects of virginity received considerable attention. b. When you are turning over sods in your garden, you may come across one or two bumblebees in the cold season, but you have to be a really keen observer to see them.

(65)

a. When a bomb tore his car apart as he left home for work, the president of the Kansas City local of the International Association of Fire Fighters was severly injured today. b. When Michelangelo asked him to disrobe, he hesitated for a moment, so Michelangelo gave him a piece of toweling to wrap around his loins.

Note that the examples in (64) are undoubtedly grammatical, but also that there is a difference in meaning (though it may be small) between them and their original versions in (60) and (61). In sentence (60) the normal interpretation is that sexual matters have not always been discussed scientifically and openly, but rather only in recent times. In (64a), this point of view, though it may be inferable, is no longer explicit – it could be that these matters are from time to time discussed scientifically and openly and the PP adverbial, in recent times, simply indicates which time period (of several possible) the author means. In sentence (64b), it is no longer clear (as it is in (64a)) that the cold season is the time that you turn over sods, but it seems rather from this reorganization of adverbials that you turn over sods at some unspecified time (perhaps all year round) and notice bumblebees in the cold season. In contrast to this, the sentences in (65), do not, for all intents and purposes, change meaning. Thus, if an item cannot be moved from its antecedent by topicalization as is shown in (63c), then this is sufficient justification for a bound interpretation. If this syntactic operation is possible, but changes the meaning of the proposition, as in (64a/b), this also indicates that the relative structure in question is, in all likelihood, bound. If a clause can be moved away from its antecedent without changing the meaning (65a/b), it does not completely exclude the possibility that it is bound in the original sentence, rather it shows that it could have a free relative interpretation. Finally, since this is also in part a quantitative study, a question may be posed concerning how the practical job of categorizing recalcitrant clauses was carried out. The method I employed here involved the use of a default category, which in this case was free relative. This choice is based on the fact that there is at least one test (topicalization) which can indicate that an item is in all likelihood a noun postmodifier, but there are no tests which completely exclude an adverbial interpretation (possible understood antecedents can always be inserted such as (in/at) the time, (in) the place, thus always making the free relative interpretation

212 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description possible). It seems reasonably logical then to take the adverbial interpretation as a starting point since it can in principle apply to all cases. The postmodifier interpretation can then be taken as the special case since there are specific situations in which an adverbial analysis is more awkward and an argument for a noun postmodifier interpretation has some empirical support. 6.10 · · ·

·

· ·

· · ·

Summary Three distinct phrase-structure patterns have been distinguished for the basic BoundRelP. The most common BoundRelPs are single wh-word-head NPs, single wh-word-head AdvPs and BoundRel-PPs. WH-feature percolation to pre-module elements is quite common in bound relatives, predominantly to prepositions but longer phrases do occur. Preposition stranding is the marked option for wh-relatives. Though it is a theoretical possibility in many examples (~30%), pied-piped prepositions are preferred in nearly all the BUC examples. Factors which can influence the fronting/stranding option are (i) the degree of integration of the PP into its matrix XP; (ii) the phrase type of the matrix XP; (iii) the choice of preposition; (iv) style; and (v) the distance between extraction and landing sites. BoundRelPs commonly have the following functions in the BUC: subject, direct object, subject predicative and adverbial. The most frequent of these is subject. As in the other clause types, there is in principle no syntactic restriction on BoundRelPs as object predicatives, the non-occurrence of this function in the BUC is presumably due to the low frequency of complex transitive constructions in general. The acceptability of BoundRelP as indirect objects is less questionable for this wh-phrase type than it is for others, but some speakers still find it objectionable. Wh-bound relative clauses do not admit of wh-XP + non-finite strings with the exception of adverbial BoundRelPs, primarily locative and instrumental phrases, which can introduce a to-infinitive clause. There are indications (the wh- + that pattern) that the landing site of the fronted BoundRelP may be slightly different than the wh-landing site posited for other wh-XPs. Despite this, there is evidence (the occurence of ‘heavy’ adverbials in the (i)M slot) which still suggests that BoundRelP subjects occupy a position different to that of their non-wh- counterparts. Island constraints are in general valid for all wh-clause types but violations of the CNPC and the subject island constraint appear to occur more often in bound relative clauses than in other types of wh-clause. As in the other clause types, the overwhelmingly predominant type of movement for wh-bound relatives is short. Long movement occurs in roughly 1 percent of the examples from the BUC. Bound relative clauses may be related to a variety of different structural units acting as antecedents such as NPs, clauses, VPs, AdjPs and PPs.

Chapter 6: Bound relatives 213

· ·

·

A typical bound relative clause forms a constituent together with its antecedent, but this is not an essential characteristic as can be demonstrated in the case of it-cleft constructions. Restrictive (and less typically non-restrictive) bound relative clauses may be postponed (extraposed) to a position away from their antecedents in accordance with the principles of end focus or end weight. The typical situation is that the antecedent functions as subject and the relative postmodification is extraposed to the end of the clause, but other variations are also possible. The factors noted which favor this kind of postponement are that the interpolated material (generally a VP) is short and the postponed phrase is longer than the interpolated item. There is often a semantic/syntactic merger of free- and bound-relative interpretations for where-/when-clauses in cases where possible antecedents exist. There are no completely satisfactory structural tests to distinguish the two types, but topicalization can provide some reliable clues as to clause-type membership.

Chapter 7: Summary and Conclusion This investigation compares, contrasts and above all describes the distinctive features of wh-clauses with special attention to the relation of clause type to whphenomena. The present study is not a ‘first’ in the sense that wh-clauses have been the subject of many investigations by many linguists, but this is the first work that attempts to bring together generative insights and traditional wisdom about wh-clauses into a description-oriented, theoretically unaligned framework. It is also, to my knowledge, the only work on this subject which underpins its conclusions on a systematic analysis of corpus material. In the process of describing each of the clause types, I address a wide range of issues, some may be characterized as theoretical, some as descriptive and others somewhere inbetween. As each of the chapters ends with a concise summary, I do not repeat that information here in the same way but rather present some of the conclusions and salient findings in this work in the form of comments on theory-oriented issues and description-oriented issues. Thereafter, I end this study with a few brief remarks on theory vs description and a note on indeterminacy. · Theory-oriented issues One of the clearest tendencies noted in this work is the relationship between clause type and WH-feature percolation. Though a difference in percolation tendencies has previously been noted by some scholars working within the HPSG tradition, in the present work I show that these tendencies are not limited to a simple binary distinction between interrogatives and relatives. I give evidence that each wh-clause type allows different percolation possibilities: the wh-clause type least resistant to percolation is bound relatives, followed by interrogatives, then exclamatives and finally free relatives (which, with the exception of two minor constructions, ban percolation beyond the basic FreeRelP altogether). I argue that the percolation asymmetries in the different clause types is primarily related to the typical functions associated with each of the clause types. In the case of bound relatives, the function of the relative clause itself is to identify or delimit the reference of the antecedent, which is being or has already been introduced into the discourse; the wh-word is clearly coreferential with this antecedent (which by definition precedes it) and therefore long, percolated phrases can occur before the basic BoundRelP. In contrast to this, InterrogPs contain a wh-word which corresponds to unspecified information which has characteristically not been introduced into the discourse previously. In the typical communicative function of interrogatives as requests for information, the wh-word plays an integral part in signaling interrogation must therefore come as early as possible in the fronted InterrogP. In exclamatives, the wh-word is not linked to any kind of item (eg an antecedent, a request for information, a set of possible felicitous answers, etc) but rather is a marker of extremity – these words have a special role in

Chapter 7: Summary and conclusion 215

signaling emotional involvement and again must occur early in the ExclamP to fulfill this function. The most exceptional ban on percolation beyond the basic wh-XP obtains for free relatives, but I argue that that this is not a consequence of its communicative function by it is rather due to the well-known unique ‘fusion’ between the antecedent and the wh-relative element. Starting in chapter 3 and continuing for each clause type, I argue for a preS landing site for the fronted wh-XP, ie I attempt to verify the insights of the generative approach by showing that the fronted wh-phrase occupies a pre-S position (a position outside S but within S’). In arguing for this exact position as a landing site for fronted wh-XPs, I examin various data which generally point to this analysis, but which do not always provide conclusive results for all of the clause types in their main/subordinate variations. Thus, I rely heavily on evidence already known to some researchers, namely the wh- + that pattern, though it has always been felt to be completely dialectal and therefore somehow less useful. There is quite a substantial amount of data which shows that it is not simply connected with only a few non-standard dialects, but is rather a variant, albeit an infrequent one, in many different dialects of English. In connection with the general question of the landing site of the fronted wh-XP, I show in chapter 6 that there is some evidence which indicates that this position may not be exactly the same in bound relatives as it is in other clause types. Whether this is in fact the case and exactly why this should be so are questions which remain for further research. In chapters 3 – 6, I claim that the vacuous movement analysis of whsubjects is a workable solution with regard to the landing site of fronted wh-XP subjects. With the help of various structural tests I show the unquestionable validity of this analysis for wh-subjects in subordinate interrogative clauses, though admittedly the evidence for main clause interrogatives in which there is no dosupport is marginal. I show in subsequent chapters that there is evidence to support this view for all wh-clause types, though again it may be the case that bound relatives differ slightly than the rest of the class of wh-clauses. It should be emphasized that my focus in this matter has not been on proving unequivocally that wh-subjects are in a hypothetical pre-complementizer position but rather that whsubjects occupy a different structural position than non-wh-subjects. · Description-oriented issues The long-debated issues of preposition fronting and stranding are examined in chapters 3 and 6. I argue that fronting/stranding go hand in hand with the percolation trends for each clause type; stranding is therefore neutral in interrogatives but marked in relatives. Though many factors play a role in fronting or stranding, I focus on the integration of the PP into its matrix phrase, the type of phrase in which the PP is contained and I note and discuss the relevance of style. I show in chapter 5 that there is confusion in existing grammars as to the exact nature of what it means to say that something is a conjunction as opposed to saying that it is a relative. With the help of various structural tests I argue that

216 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description temporal when and locative where, sometimes viewed by grammarians as conjunctions, sometimes not, are best analyzed as relative adverbs. In chapter 4, I examine the problems of clause type distinction between exclamatives and interrogatives. Though it is not possible to resolve all cases of this kind of ambiguity without context, the distinction between these two clause types is fairly straightforward and hinges on the meaning of the wh-word in the wh-XP. Exclamative wh-words are primarily markers of extreme degree whereas wh-interrogative words correspond to (unspecified) information and do not indicate degree. Another fuzzy categorical distinction which has been examined is the problem of distinguishing free relatives and interrogatives. In chapter 5 I give a detailed account of the distinctive features of both clause types, paying special attention to the factors which give rise to clause type uncertainties. I address three particularly problematic constructions, wh-clefts, introductory deictic pronouns + wh-clauses and -ever concessive clauses. Of these three, the introductory deictic + wh-clause constructions are the most difficult to assign to a clause type – though I include them in this work as a sub-category of free relatives, there is data to support both a free-relative and an interrogative interpretation. I show that the categories of wh-clefts and -ever concessives are also difficult to classify in terms of clause type, though there is adequate evidence to support a free relative classification for both constructions. In chapter 6, I examine a special type of demarcation problem which can arise between free and bound relatives when the single word Rel-AdvPs when and where have possible antecedents. Definitive tests are difficult to come by, but I demonstrate the usefulness of topicalization as a way of indicating one interpretation over the other. An issue which is often ignored is how wh-clauses themselves are integrated into larger matrix structures. In chapters 3 and 4, I present general overviews of predicates which license wh-interrogative and wh-exclamative clauses and in each of the relevant chapters I discuss the functions of the wh-clauses as constituents in matrix constructions. In connection with the integration of whclauses into matrix constructions, I contribute data and comments as to the issues of dropped preposition before wh-clauses. · Remarks on theory vs description At the risk of appearing contradictory, I must emphasize that, despite the artificial ‘theory/ description’ distinction I make use of above, there is no clean dichotomy in this work between these two methodologies. On the contrary, I have attempted to incorporate both standpoints into one approach to the analyses proffered, using theory-oriented ideas to justify description and vice versa, ie using empirical data to support theoretical claims. It is clear from previous generative studies and from the findings in this work that wh-clauses have in common enough core characteristics for them to be given a place as a category in grammatical descriptions. I show that the descriptive usefulness of notions such as WH-feature percolation, movement, island

Chapter 7: Summary and conclusion 217

constraints, etc need not rely on theoretical machinery or theory-internal assumptions. I also show that the particular clause-type subcategory of wh-clauses (ie interrogative, exclamative, free relative and bound relative) has an effect on the these core characteristics which cannot be ignored. Theory-oriented grammars therefore need to apply more clause-type specific features in their accounts of whphenomena in order to enhance their descriptive adequacy. · Remarks on indeterminacy Finally, this work devotes a great deal of attention to problems of indeterminacy. It is hardly a new observation that language is not always a particularly orderly phenomenon; gradient transitions, serial relationships, ambiguities, merger, etc, are problems for linguists regardless of one’s theoretical proclivities. I attempt in this study to explore these problem areas to understand better what the grammatical relationships and distinctions applied in the literature really entail and subsequently reexamine the data in the light of these distinctions. Conversely, I employ a data-based approach to evaluate received arguments about the structures and features involved in the description of wh-clauses in English. A well-organized and neat grammar is highly desirable in order to compartmentalize and label structural units, but the problems of organizing taxonomies of phenomena is not necessarily the same as understanding where and why problems of demarcation can arise. Dynamic phenomena and the complexities of category interface require dynamic characterizations which enhance both descriptive and explanatory credibility in terms of the language phenomena themselves rather than a particular methodological doctrine. Instead of focussing on unrealistically tidy solutions, this study accounts for some of the problem areas more flexibly, using, for example, lists of facts, criteria or factors which not only influence the way the relevant linguistic phenomena are realized but also have an effect on the way we perceive shifts in the overall relations and patterns of grammatical categories.

Appendices Appendix 1: Wh-words in the BUC The following is a list of the wh-words excerpted from the Brown corpus after exclusions. The number of occurrences are given in parenthesis after each word. how (820); however (36); howsabout (1); howsomever (1); what (1930); whatever (102); when (2304); whence (3); whenever (42); where (933); whereby (19); wherefore (3); wherein (5); whereof (8); whereon (1); whereupon (6); wherever (28); wherewith (1); which (3560); whichever (7); who (2281); whoever (13); whom (146); whose (252); whosoever (3); why (378) Appendix 2: Wh-clause types in the BUC, frequencies and distribution Appendix Table A: Wh-clause types in the Brown corpus Interrogatives

2675

Exclamatives

103

Free relatives

3154 6951

Bound relatives 0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Appendices 219

Appendix Table B: Wh-clause frequency per text type (per 10,000 words)

20

Interrogatives

Informative

46.6

Imaginative

0.55

Exclamatives

2.5 27.8

Free relatives

42.6 77.6

Bound relatives

45.4 0

50

100

Appendix Table C: Wh-clause frequency in relation to text types in the BUC

IMAGINATIVE

INFORMATIVE

Text type A: Press (reportage) B: Press (editorial) C: Press (reviews) D: Religion E: Skills and Hobbies F: Popular Lore G: Belles Lettres H: Miscellaneous J: Learned sub total: informative K: General Fiction L: Mystery & Detective M: Science Fiction N: Adventure P: Romance R: Humor sub total: imaginative TOTAL: ALL TEXTS

Interrog

Exclam

114 156 68 114 171 236 339 92 210 1500 281 256 65 228 265 80 1175 2675

3 6 6 4 6 3 11 1 1 41 25 6 2 11 16 2 62 103

Relative Free Bound 194 611 162 431 86 315 106 340 192 434 329 676 513 1370 92 398 405 1231 2079 5806 259 308 228 164 42 54 234 225 229 261 83 133 1075 1145 3154 6951

Total 922 755 475 564 803 1244 2233 583 1847 9426 873 654 163 698 771 298 3457 12883

220 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description Appendix 3: Wh-clauses in matrix constructions The following tables deal with the licensing predicates (‘licensers’) which may select a wh-clause as a part of their complementation pattern. I list these licensers under the rubrics of verbal, adjectival and nominal predicative centers in order to capture generalizations that would be lost in tables organized according to more specific grammatical functions. Note that stating that multi-word units such as give a damn, can select interrogatives as part of their complementation is by no means the same as stating that these units are single syntactic and semantic units. Appendix Table D: Interrog clause licensers: verbal predicative center Freq 100 + 100 - 91 90 - 81 80 - 71 70 - 61 60 - 51 50 - 41 40 - 31 30 - 21 20 - 11

Licenser know (280) tell (91) see (82) — — ask (53); wonder (56) show (47) determine (38); explain (37); understand (31) find out ~ (21); learn (21); say (23) care (12); consider (12); decide (13); imagine (12); realize (14); remember (20) 10 - 6 discover (10); depend on ~ (9); note (8); illustrate (6); indicate (8); prove (6); think (6) 5 - 2 advise X on ~ (3); define (3); demonstrate (2); depend upon ~ (2); describe (4); discuss (3); examine (3); figure out ~ (5); find (3); forecast (2); forget (2); give a damn ~ (2); govern (3); guess (3); hear (4); ignore (2); include (2); inquire (3); instruct X in ~ (2); know of ~ (3); make clear ~ (5); make out ~ (2); mention (2); never mind ~ (2); notice (5); plan (3); read (2); recall (2); recognize (3); remind (2); report (2); reveal (3); speak of ~ (2); talk about ~ (2); teach (5); think about ~ (5); think of ~ (3); worry about ~ (2); 1 agree; announce; appreciate; bother about ~; chatter about ~; compare X with ~; comprehend; confirm; convey; designate; discern; elaborate; emphasize; establish; estimate; express; fathom; feel; figure ~; glow about ~ ; go; grasp; grok; influence; inform X about ~; instruct; judge; know about ~; list; look at ~; look; lose sight of ~; mean; note X as to ~; observe; organize; point up ~; portray; predict; proclaim; puzzle out ~; question; quote X on ~; reckon as ~; recollect; refer to ~; reflect on ~; related to ~; remind X of ~; repeat; restudy; savvy; settle; speculate as to ~; state; suggest; summarize; suspect; tabulate; take into account ~; take notice ~ ; tell about ~; think of ~; watch; wonder at ~; work out ~;

Appendices 221

Appendix Table E: Interrog clause licensers: adjectival predicative center Freq Licenser 10 – 1 (un)sure (10); interested in (4); (un)certain (3); aware of ~ (3); unaware (2); concerned with (2); contrary to (2); sure of (2) 1 consistent with ~; contented with ~; curious as to ~; different from ~; divided on ~; emblematic of ~; excited by ~; explicit on ~; hazy about ~; impressed by ~; inconsistent with ~; noncommittal as to ~; positive; relevant to ~; right in ~; saddened about~; stymied on ~; surprised; uncertain as to ~; worried about ~ Appendix Table F: Interrog clause licensers: nominal predicative center Freq 11 + 10 – 6 5–2

Licenser no matter (48); idea (20); idea of (7): question of (6); understanding of (6); agreement on ~ (2); answer on ~ (2); confusion about ~ (2); description of ~ (2); determination of ~ (2); discrepancy between (~ and ~) (3); doubt about ~ (2); estimate of ~ (2); example of ~ (3); explanation of ~ (2); fear of ~ (2); ignorance about ~ (2); information on ~ (3); interpretation of ~ (3); impression of ~ (2); interest in ~ (2); knowledge of ~ (5); measure of ~ (2); notion (2); notion of ~ (4); picture of ~ (2); question (5); question about ~ (2); question as to ~ (4); report on ~ (2); requirement on ~; revelation of ~ (3); sense of ~ (2); test of (2); tips on 1 analysis of ~; angle of ~; answer as to ~ ; anticipation of ~; argument as to ~; attack on X for ~; certainty of ~; choice of ~; commitment as to ~; concept of ~; conception of ~; concern for ~; consideration ~; course in ~; cross-section of ~; curiosity; decision of ~; details of ~; difference in ~; disagreement over ~; doubt ~; foreboding at ~; guess on ~; inference as to ~; information as to ~; insight on ~; instruction on ~; judgment about ~; judgment of ~; knowledge about ~; lead as to ~; limit to ~; list of ~; mention of ~; misunderstanding about ~; model of ~; news of ~; noise about ~; note of ~; nothing else save ~; nothing of ~ ; notion about ~; opinion as to ~; poll on ~; query on ~; reassurance of ~; reminder of ~; restless about ~; solution as to ~; something about ~; story about ~; suggestion on ~; talk on ~; theory about ~; thought as to ~; thrust toward ~; truth of ~; uncertainty about ~; view of ~; worry about ~;

222 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description Appendix Table G: Exclam clause licensers: verbal predicative center Freq 10 – 5 5–2 1

Licenser tell (7) know (2); prove (2); remember (2); say (2); see (3); show (3) betray; boast of ~ ; convey; exclaim; imagine; realize; report about ~ ; sing about ~ ; tell X about ~ ; think; notice

Appendix Table H: Exclam clause licensers: adjectival predicative center Freq

Licenser 1 appalled at ~ ; incredible (as Ps, wh-clause as Sext); amazing (as Ps, whclause as Sext)

Appendix Table I: Free rel clause licensers: verbal predicative center Freq 10 + 10 - 6 5-2

Licenser do (30) get (8); have (6); mean (6); say (8) cage (2); carry out ~ (2); constitute (2); deliver (2) eat (4): face (2); feel (5); find (2); form (2); go (2); hear (5); like (2); (be) located ~ (2); make (3); operate (2); pay (2); provide (5); refer to ~ (2); reflect (2); remain (2); reproduce (2); see (4); sit (4); stand (2); stay (3); take (4); take place through ~ (2); tell (2); use (3); win (2); 1 absorb; accept; adopt; aim down ~ ; allow; approximate; assail; assimilate X from ~; be like ~; be situated ~; believe; betray; bring X up to ~; buy; care; carry X to ~; charge; choose; clinch; commit; confirm; consolidate; convert; count; date X from ~; deduce; defend; deplore; deserve; despair of ~; detect; discard; display; disturbed by ~ ; divide; dole out ~; drag out ~; drink; drive to ~; employ; encounter X in ~; enforce; epitomize; express; fall; fight; force; forestall; fulfill; get sth back ~; get X to ~; give away ~; go (back) ~; go (back) to ~; go up to ~; guide X ~; hang on ~; hold X ~; include; indicate; invent; involve; join; kick; kill; know; launch; leap (from ~ to ~); leave; list; located ~; look; look at ~; look like ~; lose; hand over ~; make sense of ~; make use of ~; milling about of ~; modify; notice; obtain sth under ~; offer; overcome; pack up ~; pass on ~; pay off ~; pick out ~; poach; point out X ~; populated by ~; practice; prelude; prefer; preserve; promote; publish; put; react; read; reach; reconstruct; regret; remark; remove; render; repeat; replace; represent; resolve; restore; rise from ~; roll up to ~; salvage; satisfy; schedule; scruff through ~; seek out ~; seize; send X ~; serve; set X out ~; (be) situated ~ ; snatch X out to ~; sorry about ~; speak of ~; stow; strike; supply; support; symbolize; take delight in ~; take on ~; take up ~; take up X ~; take X ~; think; transcribe; turn; uphold; view; wait with ~; watch; within X of ~; witness; write

Appendices 223

Appendix Table J: Free rel clause licensers: adjectival predicative center Freq Licenser 5 – 2 different from ~ (2); close to ~ (2); 1 absorbed in ~; committed to ~; connected with ~; critical of ~; (as) drunk as ~; eager for ~; (more) general than ~; helpful in ~; higher than ~; (as) important as ~; necessary for ~; (more) prominent than ~; responsible for ~; shorter than ~; stronger than ~; submerged in ~; suited to ~; terrified by ~; unprepared for ~; unrelated to ~; (more) valuable than ~; worth more than ~; worth Appendix Table K: Free rel clause licensers: nominal predicative center Freq Licenser 5 – 2 anything of (2); distance between ~ (2); limit to ~ (3); most of ~ (5);: much of ~ (5); search for ~ (2); truth in ~ (2) 1 appeal to ~; attitude of ~; attitude toward ~; balancing of ~; carcass of ~; card in ~; chairmen of ~; chapter of ~; conflict between (~ and ~); confidence in ~; connection with ~; connoisseur of ~; cost of ~; (a far) cry from ~; curtain raiser for ~; definition of ~; dimension of X to ~; distance from ~; (shadow of a) doubt of ~; elegy to ~; enormity of ~; excess of ~; expense beyond ~; extreme of ~; eyes for ~; finish for ~; five paces from ~; flair for ~; flow of ~; forerunner of ~; fraction of ~; glimpse of ~; glitter of ~; half of ~; image of ~; information as to ~; institution of ~; landing on ~; machine for ~; (a great) many of ~; meaning of ~; member of ~; middle of ~; more of ~; nature of ~; part of ~; percent of ~; point in ~; question as to ~; relevance of ~; relish for ~; report of ~; right to ~; same as ~; sample of ~; scandal in ~; scapegoat for ~; shards of ~; sign of ~; thanks for ~; translation of ~; way to ~; viewpoint of ~; volume beyond ~; (a long) way from ~; (every) word of ~

224 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

Appendix 4: Miscellaneous Appendix Table L: Adjectives with PP complements (from Quirk et al 1985): about: aggrieved; angry; annoyed; delighted; frightened; glad; happy; knowledgeable; mad; pleased; reasonable; worried at: alarmed; amused; angry; brilliant; clever; delighted; disgusted; good; hopeless; pleased; puzzled; terrible from: different: distant*; distinct; free; remote* of: afraid; ashamed; capable; certain; conscious; convinced; empty*; fond; full; glad; proud; scared; short; tired; worthy on/upon: based; bent; contingent; dependent; intent; keen; reliant; set, severe; to: accustomed; allied; answerable; averse; close; due; inclined; liable; opposed; similar with: angry; annoyed; bored; busy; comfortable; compatible; concerned; content; delighted; depressed; disappointed; disgusted; dismayed; distressed; drunk; enchanted; familiar; friendly; furious; happy; impatient; incompatible; obsessed; occupied; overcome; pleased; satisfied; sick; taken; uneasy

References Aarts, Bas (1988) ‘Clauses of concession in written present-day British English’, Journal of English Linguistics 21.1: 39-58 Aarts, Bas (1993) ‘Descriptive linguistics and theoretical linguistics: some thoughts on a (still) uneasy relationship’, Moderne Sprachen 37/4: 197208 Aarts, Flor & Jan Aarts (1982) English Syntactic Structures: Functions and Categories in Sentence Analysis, Oxford: Pergamon Press Aitchison, Jean (1991) Language Change: Progress or Decay?, Cambridge: CUP Allerton, David J (1982) Valency and the English Verb, London: Academic Press Aston, Guy & Lou Burnard (1996) The BNC Handbook – Exploring the British National Corpus with SARA, Oxford: Oxford University Computing Services Ball, Catherine (1996) ‘A diachronic study of relative markers in spoken and written English’, Language Variation and Change 8: 227-258 Bailey, Charles-James, (1986) ‘Where English cannot put a preposition before a relative or interrogative pronoun’, in Leitner (ed) The English Reference Grammar, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, pp 156-177 Baker, Carl Lee (1989) English Syntax, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Baltin, Mark (1981) ‘Strict bounding’ in Baker & McCarthy (eds) The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT, pp 257-295 Baltin, Mark (1984) ‘Extraposition rules and discontinuous constituents’, Linguistic Inquiry 15: 157-163 Bergh, Gunnar, Aimo Seppänen & Joe Trotta (1998) ‘Language corpora and the internet: a joint linguistic resource’ in Renouf (ed), Explorations in Corpus Linguistics, Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi, pp 41-55 Biber, Douglas (1988) Variation across Speech and Writing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Bolinger, Dwight (1972) ‘A look at equations and cleft sentences’, in Firchow, Grimstad, Hasselmo & O’Neil (eds), Studies for Einar Haugen, The Hague: Mouton, pp 96-114 Bolinger, Dwight (1978) ‘Yes-No questions are not alternative questions ’ in Hiz (ed) Questions, Dordrecht: D Reidel Publishing Company, pp 87-105 Borsely, Robert (1991) Syntactic Theory: a Unified Approach, London: Edward Arnold Borsely, Robert (1996) Modern Phrase Structure Grammar, Oxford: Blackwell Bowen, Rhonwen (forthcoming) Noun Phrase Complementation in Present Day English Bresnan, Joan (1979) Theory of Complementation in English Syntax, New York: Garland Bresnan, Joan & Jane Grimshaw (1978) ‘The syntax of free relatives in English’, Linguistic Inquiry 9: 331-391

226 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description Breul, Carsten (1995) ‘On hypotaxis, subordination, embedding and adverbial Clauses’, a paper read at the 3rd ESSE conference, Glasgow 8-12 September, 1995 Burton-Roberts, Noel (1986) Analysing Sentences, An Introduction to English Syntax, London: Longman Burnard, Lou (1995) The British National Corpus Users Reference (SGML Version), Oxford: Oxford University Computing Services Chomsky, Noam (1957) Syntactic Structures, The Hague: Mouton Chomsky, Noam (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT press Chomsky, Noam (1973) ‘Conditions on transformations’ in Anderson & Kiparsky, (eds) A Festschrift for Morris Halle, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp 232-286 Chomsky, Noam (1977) ‘On wh-movement’ in Culicover, Wasow & Akmajian (eds) Formal Syntax, New York: Academic Press, pp 71-132 Chomsky, Noam (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrecht: Foris Chomsky, Noam (1986a) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use, New York: Praeger Chomsky, Noam (1986b) Barriers, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT press Chomsky, Noam (1995) A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press Chomsky, Noam & Howard Lasnik (1977) ‘Filters and control’, Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425-504 Chung, Sandra & James McCloskey (1983) ‘On the interpretation of certain Island facts in GPSG’, Linguistic Inquiry 14: 704-713 Clements, G, James McCloskey, Joan Maling & Annie Zaenen (1983) ‘StringVacuous Rule Application’, Linguistic Inquiry 14: 1-17 Close, R A (1975) A Reference Grammar for Students of English, London: Longman Coates, Jennifer (1983) The Semantics of Modal Auxiliaries, London, Sydney & Dover, New Hamshire: Croom Helm Collins, Peter (1985) ‘Th-clefts and all-clefts’, Festschrift in Honour of Arthur Delbridge, Beiträge zur Phonetik und Linguistik 48: 45-53 Cook, Vivian & Mark Newson (1996) Chomsky’s Universal Grammar, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell Coopmans, Peter & Suzanne Stevenson (1991) ‘How extractions from finite and infinitival complements: a surprising asymmetry’ Linguistic Inquiry 22: 359-367 Culicover (1993) ‘Evidence against ECP accounts of the that-t effect’, Linguistic Inquiry 24: 557-5561 Curme, George O (1931) A Grammar of the English Language in Three Volumes, Vol III, Syntax, Boston: DC Heath & Company Danielsson, Lars (forthcoming) Adjective Phrase Complementation in Present Day English

References 227

Dekeyser, Xavier, Betty Devriendt, Guy Tops & Steven Geukens (1979) Foundations of English Grammar, Antwerpen: Inka Delin, Judy (1990) Accounting for Cleft Constructions in Discourse: A MultiLayered Approach, Edinburgh: HCRC Publications Dik, Simon C (1981) Functional Grammar, Dordrecht: Foris Publications Ekerot, Lars-Johan (1988) Så-konstruktionen i svenskan: Konstruktionstypen ‘Om vädret tillåter, så genomföres övningen’ i funktionellt grammatiskt perspektiv, (Lundastudier i nordisk språkvetenskap A: 42), Lund: Lund University Press Ellegård, Alvar (1978) The Syntactic Structure of English Texts, (Gothenburg studies in English 43), Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis Emonds, Joseph (1976) A Transformational Approach to English Syntax, New York: Academic Press Engdahl, Elisabet (1983) ‘Parasitic gaps’ Linguistics and Philosophy 6: 5-24 Enkvist, Nils Erik (1976) ‘Notes on valency, semantic scope, and thematic perspective as parameters of adverbial placement in English’ in Enkvist & Kohonen (eds) Reports on Text Linguistics: Approaches to Word Order, Åbo: Åbo Akademiska Forskningsinstitut, pp 51-74 Erdmann, Peter (1986) ‘A note on reverse wh-clefts in English’ in Kastovsky & Szwedek (eds) Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp 851-858 Erteschik, Shir-Nomi (1973) On the Nature of Island Constraints, MIT dissertation (unpublished) Fillmore, Charles J (1965) Indirect Object Constructions in English and the Ordering of Transformations, The Hague: Mouton Fischer, Olga (1992) ‘Syntax’ in Blake (ed) The Cambridge History of the English Language Vol III, 1066-1476, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Francis, W Nelson & Henry Kucera (1979) Manual of Information to Accompany a Standard Corpus of Present-Day Edited American English, for Use with Computers, Rhode Island: Department of Linguistics, Brown University Gazdar, Gerald, Ewan Klein, Geoffrey K Pullum & Ivan Sag, (1985) Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, Oxford: Basil Blackwell Gazdar, Gerald (1981) ‘Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure’, Linguistic Inquiry 12: 155-184 Gazdar, Gerald, (1987) ‘Generative grammar’ in Lyons et al (eds) New Horizons in Linguistics 2, pp 122-151 Geis, Michael L (1970) Adverbial Subordinate Clauses in English, MIT dissertation (unpublished) Geisler, Christer (1995) Relative Infinitives in English, (Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia) Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell Geisler, Christer & Christine Johansson (1998) ‘Pied piping in spoken English’ in Renouf (ed), Explorations in Corpus Linguistics, Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi, pp 67-82

228 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description Givón, Talmy (1984) Syntax: a Functional-Typological Introduction, Vol I, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company Givón, Talmy (1993) English Grammar: a Function-Based Introduction, Vols I & II, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company Givón, Talmy (1995) Functionalism and Grammar, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company Goldsmith, John (1981) ‘Complementizers and root sentences’, Linguistic Inquiry 12: 541-574 Granath, Solveig (1997) Verb Complementation in English, (Gothenburg studies in English 69), Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis Greenbaum, Sidney (1984) ‘Corpus analysis and elicitation tests’ in Aarts & Meijs (eds) Corpus Linguistics: Recent Developments in the Use of Computer Corpora in English Language Research, Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp 193-201 Greenbaum, Sidney (1991) An Introduction to English Grammar, London: Longman Greenbaum, Sidney, (1996) The Oxford English Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press Greenbaum, Sidney & Randolph Quirk (1970) Elicitation Experiments in English: Linguistic Studies in Use and Attitude, London: Longman Haegeman, Liliane (1994) Introduction to Government and Binding Theory, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell Haegeman, Liliane & Jacqueline Guéron (1999) English Grammar: A Generative Perspective, Oxford: Blackwell Halliday, Michael A K (1973) Explorations in the Function of Language, London: Edward Arnold Halliday, Michael A K (1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd Edition, London: Edward Arnold Harris, Randy Allen (1993) The Linguistic Wars, New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press Hasselgård, Hilde, Stig Johansson & Per Lysvåg (1998) English Grammar: Theory and Use, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget Henry, Alison (1995) Belfast English and Standard English, Oxford: Oxford University Press Herriman, Jennifer (1995) The Indirect Object in Present-Day English, (Gothenburg studies in English 66), Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis Herriman, Jennifer & Aimo Seppännen (1996) ‘What is an indirect object?’, English Studies 77: 484-499 Hirschbühler, Paul (1985) The Syntax and Semantics of Wh-Constructions, New York & London: Garland Publishing Hornstein, Norbert & Amy Weinberg (1981) ‘Case theory and preposition stranding’, Linguistic Inquiry 12: 55-91 Horrocks, Geoffrey (1987) Generative Grammar, London: Longman

References 229

Huddleston, Rodney et al (1968) ‘The linguistic properties of scientific English. Sentence and clause in scientific English’, London: University College London: Department of General Linguistics Huddleston, Rodney (1971) The Sentence in Written English, Cambridge: CUP Huddleston, Rodney (1984) Introduction to the Grammar of English, Cambridge: CUP Huddleston, Rodney (1988) English Grammar: An Outline, Cambridge: CUP Huddleston, Rodney (1994) ‘The contrast between interrogatives and questions’, Journal of Linguistics 30: 411-439 Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey Pullum (forthcoming) The Cambridge Grammar of English, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Jacobs, Roderick A (1995) English Syntax: a Grammar for English Language Professionals, Oxford: Oxford University Press Jacobsen, Bent (1986) Modern Transformational Grammar: with Particular Reference to the Theory of Government and Binding, Amsterdam: North Holland Jespersen, Otto (1924) The Philosophy of Grammar, London: George Allen & Unwin Jespersen, Otto (1927/1940) A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, parts III & V, Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard Johansson, Christine, (1995) The Relativizers whose and of which in Present-day English, (Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia) Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell Johansson, Stig (1995) ‘ICAME - quo vadis? Reflections on the use of computer corpora in linguistics’ Computers and Humanities 28: 243-252 Johansson, Stig, Geoffrey Leech & Helen Goodluck (1978) Manual of Information to Accompany the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus of British English, for Use with Digital Computers, Oslo: Department of English, University of Oslo Johansson, Stig & Per Lysvåg (1986/1987) Understanding English Grammar, Parts I & II, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget Karlberg, Göran (1954) The English Interrogative Pronouns, (Gothenburg studies in English 3), Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell Kayne, Richard (1983) ‘Connectedness’, Linguistic Inquiry 14: 223-249 Kikai, A, M Schelppeegrel & S Tagliamonte (1987) ‘The influence of syntactic position on relativization strategies, in Denning, Inkelas, McFair-Knox & Rickford (eds) Variation in Language: NWAV-XV at Stanford. 266-277 Kjellmer, Göran (1975) ‘Are relative infinitives modal?, Studia Neophilologica 47: 323-332 Kjellmer, Göran (1988) ‘“What a night on which to die!” on symmetry in English relative clauses’ English Studies 69: 559-568 Kock, Ernst (1897) The English Relative Pronouns, Lund: Möller Koster, Jan (1987) Domains and Dynasties. Dordrect: Foris Kroch, Anthony (1981) ‘On the role of resumptive pronouns in amnestying island constraint violations’, Chicago Linguistic Society Papers 17:125-135

230 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description Kuhn, Thomas (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd Edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press Kruisinga, Etsko (1922) A Handbook of Present-day English, Volume II, English Accidence and Syntax, Utrecht: Kemink & Zoon Kucera, Henry & W Nelson Francis (1967) Computational Analysis of PresentDay American English, Providence, Rhode Island: Brown University Press Kuno, Susumu (1972) ‘Mulitple wh-questions’, Linguistic Inquiry 3: 463-387 Labov, William, Paul Cohen, Clarence Robbins & John Lewis (1968) A Study of Non-standard English of Negro and Puerto-Rican Speakers in New York City, vol I: Phonological and Grammatical Analyses, New York: Columbia University Larson, Richard (1985) ‘On the syntax of disjunction scope’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 217-264 Lasnik, Howard & Mamoru Saito (1984) ‘On the nature of proper government’, Linguistic Inquiry 15: 235-289 Leech, Geoffrey & Jan Svartvik (1994) A Communicative Grammar of English, 2nd Edition, London & New York: Longman Lyons, John (1968) Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, Cambridge: CUP Mair, Christian (1990) Infinitival Complement Clauses in English: a Study of Syntax in Discourse, Cambridge, CUP McCawley, James (1988) The Syntactic Phenomena of English, Vols 1& 2, Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press McCloskey, James (1988) ‘Syntactic theory’ in Newmeyer (ed) Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, Cambridge: CUP, pp 18-59 McCloskey, James (1992) ‘Adjunction, selection and embedded verb second’, University of California at Santa Cruz (unpublished manuscript) Nanni, Deborah & Justine Stillings (1978) ‘Three remarks on pied-piping’ Linguistic Inquiry 9: 310-318 Ohlander, Sölve (1985) ‘That’s when your heartaches begin’ in Bäckman & Kjellmer (eds) Papers on Language and Literature (Gothenburg studies in English 60), Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, pp 280-302 Ohlander, Sölve (1986) ‘Question-orientation versus answer-orientation in English Interrogative Clauses’ in Kastovsky & Szwedek (eds) Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp 963-982 Olofsson, Arne (1981) Relative Junctions in Written American English, (Gothenburg studies in English 50), Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis Orton, Harold & Phillip Tilling (eds) (1969-1971), Survey of English Dialects vol 3, The East Midland Counties and East Anglia, Leeds: EJ Arnold & Son Pesetsky, David (1987) ‘Wh-in-situ: movement and unselective binding’ in Reuland & ter Meulen (eds) The Representation of (In)definiteness, Cambridge, Massachusetts: the MIT press, pp 98-129 Pinker, Steven (1994) The Language Instinct, London: Penguin Books Pollard, Carl & Ivan Sag (1994) Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press

References 231

Postal (1974) On Raising, Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press Poutsma, Hendrik (1917) A Grammar of Late Modern English for the Use of Continental, especially Dutch, Students, part II – the parts of speech, London: W Dawson & Sons Quirk, Randolph (1957) ‘Relative clauses in educated spoken English’, English Studies 38: 97-109 Quirk, Randolph (1965) ‘Descriptive statement and serial relationship’, Language 41: 205-217 Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, London: Longman Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik (1972) A Grammar of Contemporary English, London: Longman Quirk, Randolph & Sidney Greenbaum (1973) A University Grammar of Contemporary English, London: Longman Quirk, Randolph & Jan Svartvik (1966) Investigating Linguistic Acceptability, The Hague/Paris: Mouton Radford, Andrew (1981) Transformational Syntax, Cambridge: CUP Radford, Andrew (1988) Transformational Grammar: A First Course, Cambridge: CUP Radford, Andrew (1997) Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A Minimalist Approach, Cambridge: CUP Rizzi, Luigi (1982) ‘Violations of the wh-island constraint and the subjacency condition’, in L Rizzi Issues in Italian Syntax, Dordrecht: Foris, pp 49-76 Romaine, Susan (1982) Socio-historical Linguistics: Its Status and Methodology, Cambridge: CUP Ross, John (1986) Infinite Syntax!, Norwood, New Jersey: ABLEX (the published version of the author’s 1967 PhD thesis, Constraints on Variables in Syntax) Rudin, Catherine (1988) ‘On multiple questions and multiple wh-fronting’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 445-501 Scheurweghs, G (1959) Present-Day English Syntax: A Survey of Sentence Patterns, London: Longmans Schachter (1984) ‘Auxiliary reduction: an argument for GPSG’, Linguistic Inquiry 15: 514-523 Sells, Peter (1985a) Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories, Stanford, California: CSLI Sells, Peter (1985b) Restrictive and non-restrictive postmodification, CSLI Report 85-28, Stanford California: CSLI Seppänen, Aimo (1978) ‘Some notes on the construction “adjective + A + noun”’, English Studies 59: 523-537 Seppänen, Aimo (1994) ‘Subject gap phenomena in English and Swedish’, in Hedlund & Holmberg (eds) Proceedings of the XIVth Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics and the VIIIth Conference of Nordic and General Linguistics, August 16-21, 1993: 127-144

232 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description Seppänen, Aimo & Gunnar Bergh (1996) ‘Subject extraction in English: some problems of interpretation’, Studia Anglica Posnaniensia XXX: 45-67 Seppänen, Aimo & Gunnar Bergh (forthcoming a) Long Term Extractions in the History of English Seppänen, Aimo & Gunnar Bergh (forthcoming b) ‘On a case which was thought didn’t exist’ Seppänen, Aimo, Rhonwen Bowen & Joe Trotta (1994) ‘On the so-called complex prepositions’, Studia Anglica Posnaniensia XXIX: 3-29 Seppänen, Aimo, Solveig Granath & Jennifer Herriman (1995) ‘On so-called “formal subjects/objects” and “real” subjects/objects’, Studia Neophilologica 67: 11-19 Seppänen, Aimo & Chris Hall, (forthcoming) ‘Remarks on English relative adverbs’ Seppänen, Aimo & Joe Trotta (2000) ‘Wh- + that patterns in present-day English’ in Kirk (ed), Corpora Galore: Analyses and techniques in Describing English, Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi Sinclair, John (ed) (1987) Looking Up: An Account of the COBUILD Project in Lexical Computing, London: Collins Sobin (1987) ‘The variable status of COMP-trace phenomena’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 33-60 Sornicola, Rosanna (1988) ‘It-clefts and wh-clefts: two awkward sentence types’, Journal of Linguistics 24: 343-379 Stockwell, Robert, Paul Schachter & Barbara Hall Partee (1973) The Major Syntactic Structures of English, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Stroik, Thomas (1992) ‘English wh-in-situ constructions’, Linguistic Analysis 22: 133-153 Sweet, Henry (1891) A new English Grammar, Vol 1, Oxford: Oxford University Press Takami, Ken-ichi (1992) Preposition Stranding: From Syntactic to Functional Analyses, Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter Traugott, Elisabeth Closs (1972) A History of English Syntax, New York: Holt Trotta, Joe & Aimo Seppänen (1998) ‘The conjunction/relative interface: a study of the syntax of while/whilst in present-day English’, English Studies 79: 349-366 Trotta, Joe (forthcoming a) ‘The effect of matched verbs in free relative clauses’ Trotta, Joe (fortchoming b) ‘Revisiting the adjunct/complement distinction for English adverbials’ Trudgill, Peter (1983) Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society, rev edition, London: Penguin Van den Eynden, Nadine (1996) ‘Aspects of preposition placement in English’, in Klemola, Kytö, & Rissanen (eds) Speech Past and Present: Studies in English Dialectology in Memory of Ossi Ihalainen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp 426-446 Van der Auwera, Johan (1985) ‘Relative that – a centennial dispute’, Journal of Linguistics 21: 149-179

References 233

Van Riemsdijk (1978) ‘A case study in linguistic markedness: the binding nature of prepositional phrases. Dordrecht: Foris Publications Wardhaugh (1995) Understanding English Grammar: A Linguistic Approach, Oxford UK & Cambridge USA: Blackwell Zadeh, L A (1965) ‘Fuzzy sets’, Information and Control 8: 338-353 Zwicky, Arnold (1986) ‘Wh-constructions in English’, Working Papers in Linguistics (The Ohio State University) 32: 114-124 DICTIONARIES (abbreviations used in text in bold face) CIDE – Cambridge International Dictionary of English, (1995), Cambridge: CUP Cobuild – Collins Cobuild English Dictionary, (1995), London: HarpersCollins Publishers Collins – Collins English Dictionary, 3rd edition, (1991), Glasgow: Harpers Collins Publishers Longman – Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 3rd edition, (1995) London: Longman OALD – Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 5th edition, (1995), Oxford: Oxford University Press OED – Oxford English Dictionary: A New dictionary on Historical Principles, 2nd edition (1989), Oxford: Clarendon Press COD – The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 9th edition, (1995), Oxford: Clarendon Press Random House – The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd Edition, (1987), Random House: New York Webster – Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (1971), Springfield, Massachusetts: G & C Merriam SOURCES OF EXAMPLES I

CORPORA (abbreviations used in text in bold face)

BUC – The Brown University Corpus. For information on the BUC, see Kucera & Francis (1967); Francis & Kucera (1979) LOB – The Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus. For information on the LOB corpus, see Johansson et al (1978) BNC – The British National Corpus. For information on the BNC, see Burnard (1995); Aston & Burnard (1996) CDC – The CobuildDirect Corpus. For information on the CDC, see Sinclair (1987)

234 Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description

II WORKS OF FICTION AND NON-FICTION Bryson, Bill (1992) Neither Here nor There, London: Minerva Bryson, Bill (1995a) Made in America, London: Minerva Bryson, Bill (1995b) Notes from a Small Island, London: Black Swan Potter, Dennis (1986) The Singing Detective, London & Boston: Faber & Faber Schneider, Rebecca, (1997) The Explicit Body in Performance, London & New York: Routledge III TELEVISION, FILM & OTHER The Simpsons (1992) episode # 9F10 The Oprah Winfrey Show (1991), ‘Gun control in America’ espisode The Net (1995) Columbia Pictures Outbreak (1995) Warner Brothers Pictures In the Blood (1997), BBC documentary series, ‘Indian Roulette’ episode Raising Arizona (1987), 20th Century Fox The Internet – see Bergh, Seppänen & Trotta (1998) for a discussion of the use of the internet as a linguistic resource.