WH-Operators
![]()
Linguistics 322
![]()
WH-operators
are the set of WH-phrases which include the class of
words that tend to begin with the letters 'WH' and seek information:
who, what, where, when, why, which, whether, and how (the initial
'w' was lost somewhere in antiquity). The set also includes the
complementizer 'if' which partially overlaps in meaning with whether..
WH-operators trigger movement of WH-phrases (phrases which begin
with a WH-word).
WH-operators fall into two basic types: relative operators and non-relative operators. Non-relative operators include two types: interrogative WH-operators and statement WH-operators. Each of these two types are both divided into two more subtypes. Let us start with interrogative operators. In the first type the speaker is asking an information seeking question--the main verb is in the interrogative mood:
In the second set of interrogatives, it isn't the speaker who is seeking information but someone else:
The two non-interrogative non-relative operators do not appear to be semantically related. In the first class certain verbs permit the speaker to indicate that he knows the identity of a certain person or object, but he does not reveal the identity:
Here, John is aware of the identity of the person who hates syntax, but he is not divulging it in the first sentence. In the second sentence Betty knows what it is that she likes the most but she is not telling the listener. Similar interpretations hod for sentences (3) and (4). Compare the first two sentences with the following:
Here, the listener does not know if John is aware of the identity of the person who hates syntax. And the listener does not know whether Betty knows what it is that Helen likes. In the first sentence all the listener can interpret is that it is a person who hates syntax and an object (concrete or abstract) that Helen likes the most.
The second non-interrogative non-relative operators mark emphasis. There is no unknown information here:
This is a special case, but note that WH-fronting is obligatory:
The WH-phrases in relative clauses are often called relative operators. They have the same syntactic properties as WH-operators. Relative clauses contain relative operators. A relative clause modifies a NP and rarely a VP:
In the first sentence the relative clause is which he found interesting. The relative clause is modifying a book. The relative clause in the second sentence is who is broke; it is modifying Mary.
The second type of relative operator are the headless relative operators. Here, an object NP is null--the object NP is modified by a relative clause:
In the first sentence John will eat the food that Mary cooks for him. The direct object of eat is null--it refers to the food that Mary cooks for him. In the second sentence Maggie drinks whatever beverages that is served to her.
Complementizers may contain the WH-feature as well. There are two such complementizers: whether and if:
In the second sentence if marks the conditional mood.
WH-movement refers
to the process of moving WH-phrases. The parameters of WH-movement
varies from language to language. Languages like English and Russian
permit only one WH-word per clause to be fronted. Traditionally
the landing site for a WH-phrase is Spec-C. However, in view of
our views on X-bar theory, we consider the landing site to be
adjoined to CP. This is the landing site for the first type of
WH-operators--where the speaker is eliciting information. This
type of WH-operator always cooccurs with a C marked for [+Q].
Here, the interrogative WH-operator must move to the matrix CP
as does T:

The basic proposition here is:
The speaker knows this much and he want to find out what the object is he saw. Ignoring tense still, we could represent the question as the following incorporating the basic proposition:
The syntax puts what in the place of something, and what has to move to the logical position of the WH-word as indicated in (1) immediately above.
If the subject is a WH-NP the questions arises whether the subject stays in situ or whether it moves to CP. Chomsky for years took the first position, but he may now be taking the second position which we take here:

There is one unexplainable phenomenon here. T which contains [+Q] lowers and adjoins to V. Even though there is no explanation for this at the moment, if another operator occurs contained by T, lowering is blocked. The interrogative WH-operator must move and adjoin to CP:
If two interrogative
type WH-phrases of the first type occur in the same clause, only
one of them is permitted to move. The second one may remain in
situ:

The logical structure for either sentence is:
The speaker may seek information identifying both objects. He may focus on one of the objects--this is the one that moves.
Under normal circumstances if one of the WH-phrases is the subject of the clause, it moves and is adjoined to CP taking superiority over the complement WH-phrase:
It is possible that there exists a discourse context for the latter two sentences above. Suppose someone says:
where the focus is on something very special. Then the penultimate sentence (3) above could be an appropriate response. Rather than claiming that the subject is universally superior, we will merely claim that the default is subject superiority, which can be overridden in the appropriate context.
Interrogative WH-phrases
may move from an embedded clause and adjoin to CP of the main
clause. Here, the speaker is still eliciting information:
The logical structure is:
One of the debates in syntax, is whether the movement of who is a long distance movement, or whether it is cyclical. In long-distance movement, a WH-phrase moves directly to the main CP (the main-clause CP) with no intervening stops:
In the cyclical analysis, a WH-phrase moves and is adjoined first to CP within its own clause, and then moves to main CP:
We adopt here the short-distance or cyclical movement hypothesis. We will produce evidence for this below.
The cyclical hypothesis means that a WH-phrase must move and adjoin to every CP until it reaches the the main CP:
Certain verbs subcategorize
a WH-feature. In this type it is not the speaker who is eliciting
information, but the subject of the question verb. These are called
indirect questions. Consider the following examples:
The speaker may or may not know what Mary bought for him, but John is wondering what it is--this construction behaves like the next sentence syntactically. In the second sentence Sally is trying to elicit the information who the person is that Kelly saw at the beach. The speaker is not eliciting this; he is merely reporting what Sally did.
There are two basic propositions in (1):
Here it is not the speaker who is eliciting the information but John. Hence, what logically goes with the second (embedded) proposition:
We can now represent the structure of the above sentence in the following way:
Note that the WH-phrase does not move and adjoin to the main CP:
Let us assume that the sentence crashes (is marked ungrammatical) if the subcategorization feature of the verb is not satisfied. Therefore, the WH-phrase must move cyclically to each CP to determine whether it is subcategorized by the main verb. Note that the logical position of what corresponds with the landing of site of what in the syntax:
The green link is used here to show the agreement link between the subcategorized feature and the feature of the complement. They must agree. If the WH-phrase originates in a deeper clause that is not subcategorized for WH, the WH-phrase will move to one that is subcategorized:
The logical structure (basic propositions) of (1) is:
The feature [+Q] indicates a question--information is being solicited.
The verb ask more directly expresses an indirect question:
The logical structure is:
Not to be ignored is the fact that [+Q] requires the complementizer if or whether :
The unidentified
WH-operator refers to an object or person that the speaker is
not revealing the identity of. The speaker may or may not know
the identity. However, the speaker does reveal that someone does
know this information. The indefinite pronouns somebody, something,
somewhere, somehow, someplace, sometime do not indicate this
subtlety. The use of the unidentified WH-operator does indicate
this subtlety, but only if certain verbs subcategorize WH. For
example compare the following two sentences:
In (1) both the speaker and John may not know who Mary dated, but in (2) John knows the identity, though the speaker may not know it. If it does, he is not giving it away.
Here, the speaker may not know what everyone got. But everyone knows what his grade is. Note that him could refer to each person in the set of everyone or it could refer to some other person in the discourse. A few other verbs also subcategorize the unidentified WH-operator:
The logical structure of (1) includes two basic propositions:
'[-Q]' indicates that this is not a question; no information is being elicited. Note that the complementizer of a [-Q] WH construction is that, not wonder or if:
However, there is a use of whether
and if that marks the uncertain mood:
This use of the uncertainty mood (marked with would) must not be confused with definite information.
Note that if the verb does not subcategorize for WH, then a WH-phrase may not remain in the subcategorization position:
(1) here fails because think only subcategorizes [-WH]. However, the speaker is entitled to elicit the information. The logical structure for this would be:
For the logical structure of
WH see the pre-syntax of WH-operators.![]()
To return to course outline Click
here.
![]()