Movement

As we can see the pronoun for APs is so, though as it is restricted to predicative APs and it also plays a role in Pronominalising VPs, we might consider it as a general pronoun for replacing predicates. Nevertheless it can still be used as a constituent test as anything that functions as a predicate is a constituent of one type or another.

Finally in this section, let us consider pronouns which replace clauses. In some cases, the pronoun it can be used for this purpose:

(94) they said the bishop robbed the bank, but I don’t believe it

Given that the it stands for the bishop robbed the bank and that this is a clause, this word can be claimed to be a clausal pronoun (as well as a DP pronoun).

The word so can also replace whole clauses:

(95) they said the bishop is dangerous, but I don’t think so

Thus, besides being a general predicative pronoun, so can also be a clausal pronoun.

Like other pronouns, then, it can provide us with evidence as to what counts as a constituent in a sentence.

Obviously, such movement processes determine aspects of the distribution of an element: an element which can be moved from one position to another must be able to occupy both positions. Turning this the other way round, something which moves has a certain distribution and we know that anything that has a distribution is a constituent.

It therefore follows that anything that moves is a constituent, and we can use movement phenomena to test assumptions about the structure of a sentence. For example, the movement involved in topicalising the object in (98) can be taken as support that the object is a constituent of this sentence.

In the following sentence we see that the VP can also undergo a similar movement, supporting the claim that the verb and its object form a constituent:

(99) I thought the policeman would search the bishop, and [search the bishop], he did –

Thus these movement facts support the following analysis of the structure of this sentence:

(100) S

DP VP

the policeman searched DP

the bishop

There are many instances of movements to be found in language. One of the most obvious is found in certain questions. Many English questions involve a word like which, what, where, why, etc. at the beginning of the sentence. However, these words have a dual function, being associated with some function within the clause as well as indicating the interrogative status of the clause by appearing at its beginning. For example, in the following the word what is interpreted not only as an interrogative but also as the object of the sentence:

(101) what did they find

One way to account for this interpretation is to claim that the wh-element does not start in the clauseinitial position, but is moved to this position from the object position. In this way we can claim that what^IS the object and hence account for its interpretation.

The movement may be indicated thus:

(102) what did they find –

These interrogative elements are called wh-elements as they tend to be spelled with the letters w and h at the beginning, though this does not reflect the current pronunciation of these words. In the above example, the wh-element can be categorised as a DP, originating from object position, which is a DP position. We can also find wh-APs and PPs:

(103) a where did they find the gun (A = under the bishops mitre) b how did the judge find the bishop (A= guilty!)

The fact that the answer to (103a) is a preposition phrase and that to (103b) is an adjective phrase is an indication that these wh-elements are prepositional and adjectival respectively.

Not every kind of phrase can be questioned in this way, however. For example, there is no wh-element that corresponds to a VP, nor one for an NP. However the fact remains that only constituents can undergo this movement and so it can act as a fairly reliable test for the constituent structure of most parts of a sentence.

It is important to note that only one constituent can undergo any particular movement and that two constituents cannot move together. To demonstrate this, consider the following sentence:

(104) the bishop killed the bank manager with the gun

This sentence can be interpreted in one of two ways depending on who is seen as having the gun. If it is the bank manager who has the gun, then the PP with the gun acts as a modifier within the DP the bank manager with the gun. If, on the other hand, the bishop has the gun, then the PP is interpreted as modifying the VP killed the bank manager with the gun. In the first interpretation the PP is a kind of locative modifier, locating the gun with the bank manager and in the second it is an instrumental modifier saying what was used to kill the bank manager. The important point to note is that in the first case the PP forms a single constituent with the DP, whereas in the second it is a separate constituent from this. Thus we have the two structures:

(105) a S

DP VP

the bishop V DP

killed the bank manager with the gun

b S

DP VP

the bishop V DP PP

killed the bank manager with the gun

Suppose we topicalise the object in (105a), moving the DP to the front of the clause. As the PP is part of the DP it will be carried along with the rest of it and we will derive the following sentence:

(106) the bank manager with the gun, the bishop killed –

This sentence is no longer ambiguous between the two meanings. This is because we must interpret the moved element as a single constituent and not as two separate constituents that have been moved together. The same point can be made with the movement of wh-elements, as shown by the following:

(107) which bank manager with a gun did the bishop kill –

Again this sentence is unambiguous and the PP must be interpreted as modifying the DP and not the VP. An overall conclusion about movement is therefore that anything that can be moved is a single constituent and hence movement provides a relatively robust and useful test for constituent structure.