English Trace Table

wh-movement and T→C movement in English interrogatives
SpecCP₁		SpecTP₁			SpecCP₂		SpecTP₂							CompVP₂
wh₁	C₁	Subj₁	T₁	V₁	wh₂	C₂	Subj₂	T₂	V_prf		V_pass		V₂	Obj₂
		i	j				k	l	α		β			m
∅	∅	it^∅	t_j	seems_j	∅	∅	he	has_{α_have}	t_{α_have}	t_{α_-en}	∅		stolen_{α_-en}	the cat
∅	∅	he_k	t_j	seems_j	∅	∅	t_k	to	have	t_{α_-en}	∅		stolen_{α_-en}	the cat
∅	∅	it^∅	t_j	seems_j	∅	∅	the cat_m	has_{α_have}	t_{α_have}	t_{α_-en}	been_{α_-en}	t_{β_-en}	stolen_{β_-en}	t_m
∅	∅	the cat_m	t_j	seems_j	∅	∅	t_m	to	have	t_{α_-en}	been_{α_-en}	t_{β_-en}	stolen_{β_-en}	t_m
who_k	does^∅_j	it^∅	t_j	seem	t_k	∅	t_k	has_{α_have}	t_{α_have}	t_{α_-en}	∅		stolen_{α_-en}	the cat
who_k	∅	t_k	t_j	seems_j	t_k	∅	t_k	to	have	t_{α_-en}	∅		stolen_{α_-en}	the cat
who_*k	does^∅_j	it^∅	t_j	seem	t_*k	∅	t_*k the cat_m	has_{α_have}	t_{α_have}	t_{α_-en}	been_{α_-en}	t_{β_-en}	stolen_{β_-en}	t_m
who_*k	∅	t_*k the cat_m	t_j	seems_j	t_*k	∅	t_*k t_m	to	have	t_{α_-en}	been_{α_-en}	t_{β_-en}	stolen_{β_-en}	t_m
what_m	does^∅_j	it^∅	t_j	seem	t_m	∅	he	has_{α_have}	t_{α_have}	t_{α_-en}	∅		stolen_{α_-en}	t_m
what_m	does^∅_j	he_k	t_j	seem	t_m	∅	t_k	to	have	t_{α_-en}	∅		stolen_{α_-en}	t_m
what_m	does^∅_j	it^∅	t_j	seem	t_m	∅	t_m	has_{α_have}	t_{α_have}	t_{α_-en}	been_{α_-en}	t_{β_-en}	stolen_{β_-en}	t_m
what_m	∅	t_m	t_j	seems_j	t_m	∅	t_m	to	have	t_{α_-en}	been_{α_-en}	t_{β_-en}	stolen_{β_-en}	t_m

Introduction

Luis Vicente does an excellent job of summarizing the research history of V→T(→C) movement in this handout. However, not being familiar with some of the more recent theories, I will proceed from a point of view in which affixes may still lower. Similarly, I am not sure if this particular issue has been analyzed before. (If it has, then I present this analysis merely as an independent thought exercise.)

This table consists of twelve sentences, all describing a situation in which a cat is stolen by a man. The sentences are divided into three sections: statements, interrogatives for identifying the subject or the agent (the man), and interrogatives for identifying the object or the theme (the cat). Within each section, the upper two sentences are in the active voice and the lower two sentences are in the passive voice. Within each pair of sentences, the upper sentence has a finite embedded clause and the lower sentence has a non-finite embedded clause. The main clauses and the finite embedded clauses are in the present tense, and all of the embedded clauses are in the perfective aspect.

The sentences marked in green are the sentences that are completely regular and grammatical: they are predicted by the Extended Projection Principle, expletive insertion, V→T movement, T→C movement, DP movement, wh-movement, case- and feature-checking, and the Minimal Link Condition. (The VP-internal Subject Hypothesis is also implied.) The sentences marked in yellow are grammatical sentences that are odd because they do not undergo T→C movement when they might otherwise be expected to (i.e. when forming a question). The sentences marked in red are ungrammatical sentences.

Explanation

The sentences in Part I demonstrate how the rules for statements are supposed to be used, and they will act as the basis for movement that happens in Parts II and III. There is nothing unusual about these sentences.

The sentences in Part II inquire about who the agent of the sentence is. Sentence II-1 has normal wh-movement and uses expletive do to support T→C movement. Sentence II-2 does not undergo T→C movement in the main clauses, which would normally be expected in an interrogative. Sentences II-3 and II-4 are ungrammatical because they posit wh-movement of an agent that does not exist: the agent theta role was absorbed by the passive morpheme -en. (Also, such a movement would require multiple occupants of SpecTP₂, which is not allowed.)

The sentences in Part III inquire about what the theme of the sentence is. Sentences III-1, III-2, and III-3 have no problem with wh-movement and use expletive do to support T→C movement. Sentence III-4, while also undergoing wh-movement without a problem, does not undergo T→C movement.

Conclusion

Sentences (II-2 and III-4) are odd sentences because they do not undergo T→C movement. Both of these sentences have a trace in SpecTP₁ (t_k and t_m, respectively), whereas the other sentences have overt content in that position. In particular, that trace is for the wh-word in SpecCP₁.

Since all of the sentences that undergo T→C movement have overt content in SpecTP₁, rather than a trace, it is reasonable to conclude that the presence of a trace in SpecTP₁ prevents T→C movement—or, conversely, that the presence of overt content in SpecTP₁ promotes T→C movement.

References and Further Reading

Carnie, Andrew (2007). Syntax: A Generative Introduction, Second edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Vicente, Luis (2004). Core cases of head movement 1: V-to-T(-to-C). Handout.

Comments

You may respond to this page by commenting on this blog post.