pied-piping

(redirected from Wh-movement)
Also found in: Wikipedia.

pied-piping

n
(Grammar) transformational grammar the principle that a noun phrase may take with it the rest of a prepositional phrase or a larger noun phrase in which it is contained, when moved in a transformation. For example, when the interrogative pronoun is moved to initial position, other words are moved too, as in to whom did you speak?
References in periodicals archive ?
Such movement, often called "long-distance wh-movement", is illustrated in (3) and (4) for Hungarian and (5) for Finnish.
It is widely known that topicalization structures and wh-movement structures (also referred to as focalization structures) have been analysed within generative theory ever since the Government & Binding era as structures where a constituent--a direct object nominal in the examples in (2)--is moved from its original position within the VP up into the Spec position of the Complementizer Phrase introducing the overall sequence.
Sub agency Principle is the another constraint on wh-movement which states that a single instance of -movement (whether from D-structure position to spec-CP or from one spec-CP to another) can cross only one bounding node Where IP or NP are bounding nodes in English.
But not all languages allow wh-movement. Chinese, for example, only allows the equivalent of John knows what?
The problem of pied piping is that sometimes a constituent that is not expected to be able to undergo wh-movement is in fact able to do so.
Both frameworks are represented in the present volume: King's analysis of preposition stranding builds on generative concepts such as subjacency effects and wh-movement, whereas Berthele's paper uses typological insights on verb-framed vs.
Within a Minimalist framework (Chomsky 1995), it will be argued that the contrasts existing between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses can be explained by positing that restrictive wh-items--excepting pied-piped elements--raise to the C head within CP, while Wh-movement in non-restrictive relatives is movement to [Spec,CP].
Within a generative framework, we will argue that a strategy allowing a minimum of effort seems to prevent Old English infinitives from assigning or rather checking their (accusative) Case against an actually realized DP in case a lexical antecedent for the latter can be found in the matrix clause, a situation which would apply without the concurrence of Wh-movement. Though the standard account of relative clauses, tough-constructions, or certain adverbial clauses of purpose is one in terms of Wh-movement, the possibility is explored here for a (common) original structure in the language where no movement applies and where the object position is occupied by the empty category pro, which can be otherwise attested in Old English.
More recently, wh-movement is said to be triggered by an optional Edge feature that the relevant head- i.e.