Andrew Radford - Linguistics An Introduction [Second Edition]

How can we overcome this problem?

One answer to this question, suggested by Jane Grimshaw and Ian Roberts in

independent research, is to suppose that in yes–no questions, the specifier position within CP is filled by a silent yes–no question operator, which we might symbolise as ? (since the question mark ? is the conventional way of marking a sentence as interrogative). If we take ? to be an adverb of some kind, this would mean that

(355) has the derivation in (356):

(356)

CP

ADV

C'

?

C

TP

Are

D

T'

you

T

VP

t

V

DP

having

D

N

any

problems

We can then say that the overall structure is interpreted as a question by virtue of the fact that it contains the covert interrogative operator ? in spec-CP. In this case, the operator has not moved to this position from elsewhere in the structure; rather, it appears here as a result of our earlier operation of merger (more specifically, by being directly merged with the following C0).

The suggestion that yes–no questions contain an abstract question operator

is by no means as implausible at it might at first sight seem. It is noteworthy that yes–no questions in Shakespearean English could be introduced by the overt

question operator whether, as in (357):

(357)

Whether had you rather lead mine eyes, or eye your master’s heels?

(Mrs Page, Merry Wives of Windsor, III. ii)

Movement

303

It seems likely that whether occupies spec-CP in (357). If we assume that yes–no questions in present-day English contain a covert counterpart of whether in spec-CP, we can argue that questions in present-day English have essentially the same structure as their counterparts in Shakespearean English, the only difference between the two varieties lying in whether the question operator they contain is overt or covert.

A further piece of evidence in support of positing a null interrogative operator in yes–no questions in present-day English comes from facts relating to a class of expressions generally known as polarity items (because they seem to have

an inherent negative/interrogative polarity). As we see from examples like (358)

below, the quantifying determiner any (in partitive uses where it means more or less the same as some) is generally restricted to occurring after a negative or interrogative expression:

(358) a.

Nobody has any money

b.

How can any progress be made?

c.

*He has any money

d.

*Any progress can’t be made

However, as we see from (355) above, the polarity item any can occur in a yes–

no question such as Are you having any problems? How come? If we suppose

that (355) has the derivation (356) and contains the null question operator ? in spec-CP, we can immediately account for the grammaticality of (355) by observing that any occurs after the covert interrogative operator ? in this structure.

Thus, our generalisation about the distribution of the polarity item any is

preserved.

We can extend the null operator analysis to complement clause yes–no ques-

tions introduced by if, such as that bracketed in (359):

(359)

I asked [if he was having any problems]

It will then be the case that the bracketed clause in (359) is a CP which has the partial structure in (360) below (simplified by not showing the structure of the TP

complement of if):

(360)

CP

ADV

C'

?

C

TP

if

he was having any problems

We can then say that the interrogative operator ? licenses (i.e. allows us to have) the polarity item any which is contained in the following TP.

From a theoretical perspective, the main advantage of the null operator analysis of yes–no questions is that it enables us to attain a unitary analysis of the syntax of questions (as clauses which contain an overt or covert interrogative specifier), and a unitary analysis of polarity items (as items restricted to occurring after a negative or interrogative operator).

304

senten ces

Other types of movement

Having discussed the syntax of head movement and operator move-

ment at some length, we now turn to briefly consider two further types of movement operation. The first of these is topicalisation, and it can be illustrated by a sentence such as the following:

(361)

This kind of behaviour no teacher can tolerate

Here, the italicised DP this kind of behaviour appears to function as the complement of the verb tolerate, and we might therefore suppose that it originates in postverbal position (compare No teacher can tolerate this kind of behaviour). It is then topicalised by being moved into a more prominent position at the front of the clause. But where exactly is the italicised topic phrase moved to? In section 19, we argued that clauses are CPs, and that topic phrases occupy the specifier position within CP. Given this assumption, we can suppose that the italicised expression in (361) originates as the complement of the verb tolerate and subsequently gets moved into the specifier position within CP via a movement operation traditionally called topicalisation. This means that sentence (361) is derived in the manner shown in simplified form below:

(362)

CP

DP

C'

This kind of

behaviour

C

TP

ϕ

DP

T'

no teacher

T

VP

can

V

DP

tolerate

this kind of behaviour

The DP this kind of behaviour is the complement of the verb tolerate and so

originates in the complement position within VP. A copy of this DP is then moved into the specifier position within CP by topicalisation. As in the case of other movement operations, only the moved copy is overtly spelled out (i.e. ‘pronounced’), the original copy being given a null spellout and so being ‘silent’.

Note that topicalisation shares in common with operator movement the property that it moves a constituent into the specifier position within CP.

However, a very different kind of movement operation is found in the so-called passive construction. Traditional grammarians maintain that the italicised verb in a clause like that bracketed in (363a) is in an active form, whereas the italicised verb in the corresponding bracketed clause in the (b) sentence is in the passive form (see section 9):

Movement

305

(363) a.

The press reported [that the thieves stole the jewels]

b.

The press reported [that the jewels were stolen (by the thieves)]

There are four main properties which distinguish passive clauses from their

active counterparts. One is that passive (though not active) clauses generally contain some form of the auxiliary be – see were in (363b). Another is that the verb in passive clauses is in the -n participle form (cf. stolen), known in this use as the passive participle form. A third is that passive clauses may (though need not) include a by-phrase, which contains an expression that seems to have much the same role as that of the subject in the corresponding active sentence: for example the thieves in the bracketed active clause in (363a) serves as the subject of stole the jewels, whereas in the passive clause in (363b) it serves as the complement of the preposition by (though in both cases it seems to have the semantic role of agent – i.e.

the person perpetrating the relevant act; see section 23). The fourth difference is that the expression which serves as the complement of the active verb surfaces as the subject in the corresponding passive construction: for example, the jewels is the complement of stole in the active clause in (363a) but is the subject of were stolen by the thieves in the passive clause in (363b). Here, we focus on this fourth difference (setting the other three aside).