9 Wh-clauses

DOI: 10.4324/9781003118916-10

In Chapter 1, I used replacement by a single word to show

that a sequence of words should be analysed as a
constituent. I pointed out that WH-WORDS – who, what,
which, whose, why, when, where, how – can be used in
this way. For example, given

[1] Vince is taking Violetta’s icon to Athens.

we can replace Vince with who [2], Violetta’s icon with what
[3], Violetta’s with which or whose [4], and to Athens with
where [5]:

[2] Who is taking Violetta’s icon to Athens?

[3] Vince is taking what to Athens?
[4] Vince is taking whose/which icon to Athens?
[5] Vince is taking Violetta’s icon where?

Similarly, by plane and secretly could be replaced by

how. In two hours or on Tuesday could be replaced by
when. For restoration and so it can be restored could be
replaced by why.
Clauses that include a wh-word are called WH-
CLAUSES. Wh-words can appear in both main clauses and in
subordinate clauses. As you can see above, the inclusion
of a wh-word in a MAIN clause has the effect of making
it into a question – more specifically, a WH-QUESTION.
 Wh-questions contrast with the yes/no questions of
Chapter 6. A yes/no question asks whether something is the
case. A wh-question, by contrast, questions some particular
constituent – for example, the subject in [2], the direct
object in [3] and so on. Hence wh-questions are commonly
called CONSTITUENT QUESTIONS.
Let’s start with MAIN wh-clauses – wh-questions.

Wh-questions
Compare [3] above, repeated here, with [6]:

[3] Vince is taking what to Athens?

[6] What is Vince taking to Athens?

When the wh-question takes the form in [3] there’s

nothing special about its analysis. It can be analysed as [1],
but with the NP what instead of Violetta’s icon.
But the more usual form of that question – and the real
interest of wh-clauses (indeed the whole point of this
chapter) – is shown in [6]. But first draw a phrase marker for
[3]. Assume take is [transitive] and that the PP to Athens is
a VP-adverbial. Use triangles for NPs and PPs. The phrase
marker will be given shortly.

Now, [6] differs from [3] in two ways. Identify the two
differences.

In both [3] and [6], what is understood as the direct

object (dO) of take. The first difference is that, while what is
actually in the dO position in [3], in [6] it has moved to the
front of the sentence (i.e. it is fronted). The second
difference is that [6], but not [3], exhibits fronting of the
tensed auxiliary. So, in [6] we have:

1. fronting of the wh-phrase

2. fronting of the tensed auxiliary.

Write down the sentences that correspond to [4] and [5]

in the way that [6] corresponds to [3].

You will have discovered that in [4] we can’t front just the
wh-word. That would give *Whose/Which is Vince taking icon
to Athens? In [4], which and whose are determiners. Only
the full phrasal category – the whole NP – can be fronted
(which icon or whose icon).

[7]
is Vince taking to Athens?
[8] Where is Vince taking Violetta’s icon?

The auxiliary-fronting shown in [6]–[8] is exactly the

auxiliary-fronting of Chapter 6 for yes/no questions. It’s
auxiliary-fronting that makes for questions. This is
fronting to the ‘C’ position – daughter of S-bar (S′), sister of
S. Nothing new there, then. What’s new here is the fronting
of the wh-phrase (‘wh-fronting’).
As with the movement of an object to the subject position
in passive sentences – and, more generally, as with all
movements – wh-fronting leaves behind a gap (•). I’ll
show this in a moment.
But first: Where does the wh-phrase move to? As
regards the linear order, it clearly moves in front of the
fronted auxiliary.
 [9a]

But that doesn’t tell us what structural position it is in. Is it

in the C position as well as the fronted auxiliary? In the last
chapter, I said we don’t get auxiliary-fronting in that- and
whether-clauses because auxiliaries can’t move to a
position filled by that/whether (overtly or otherwise). The
fact that a sentence can exhibit BOTH auxiliary-fronting AND
wh-fronting suggests that the wh-phrase doesn’t move to
the C position that auxiliaries move to. It moves above-and-
beyond that C position.

[9b]

It must move into another C position. So, we need a second

– higher – C position.
Just as the familiar C position introduces S (and is
dominated by S′), this second C position introduces S′ (as in
[9b]). It must be dominated by a node that also dominates
S′. I’ll call this new node ‘S-double-bar’ – S″. This second,
higher C position – the landing site for fronted wh-
phrases – is defined as: SISTER OF S′ AND DAUGHTER OF S″.
 [10]

We can now give a representation of [6] – What is Vince

taking to Athens? Essentially, it’ll be like [3], except for the
two frontings and the S′ and S″ nodes. [6] displays fronting
of a wh-NP from the direct object position to the C2 position
just defined. The object position following the V must
therefore have a gap. And the tensed auxiliary (in this case,
PROG be) has been fronted to the familiar C1 position,
leaving a gap where PROG was. Earlier I asked you for a
phrase marker for [3] – see [11a]. Compare it with [11b], the
phrase marker for [6]:

[11a]
[11b]

Again, the movement lines are not part of the phrase

marker, but they help to show what’s going on here.
To summarise, we now have two C positions:

C1 (lower): Daughter of S-bar (S′) and sister of S

Filled, in subordinate clauses, by that, whether and

subordinating conjunctions.
Filled, in main clauses only, by fronted auxiliaries.

C2 (higher): Daughter of S-double-bar (S″) and

sister of S-bar (S′)
 Filled, in both main and subordinate clauses, by fronted
wh-expressions.

The big difference between clause-introducers in C1 (that,

whether/if and subordinating conjunctions) and wh-
expressions in C2 is this. That/whether/if, etc. are not
fronted from within the clause they introduce; they have no
function within that clause. But wh-expressions in C2 are
always fronted from within the clause. So, as well as
introducing the clause, they do have a function within that
clause and this function is indicated by the position of the
gap they leave behind.
Now give the (auxiliary- and wh-) fronted versions of the
following sentences:

[12a] You are giving which books to Bill?

[12b] Julia will give the pen to who(m)? (two wh-fronting
options here)
[12c] He drank that beer how quickly?
[12d] Max is how tall?

These examples show the variety of phrases that can be

fronted. In [12a] it’s an NP again. In [12b] we have two
options. In very formal styles, the whole PP (to whom) is
fronted; note that the wh-pronoun must be in the objective
case (whom). In ordinary conversational style, however, just
the wh-NP is fronted. This will leave the preposition (and the
PP of which it is head) in place in S. When just the NP is
fronted from within the PP, it is not in the objective case (i.e.
it’s who, not whom). In [12c–d], how is a degree adverb and
degree adverbs cannot be fronted alone. The whole AdvP
how quickly must be fronted in [12c]. The same goes for the
AP how tall in [12d].

[13a] Which books are you giving • to Bill? (NP)

[13b] (i) Who will Julia give the pen to •? (NP)
(ii) To whom will Julia give the pen •? (PP)
[13c] How quickly did he drink that beer •? (AdvP)
[13d] How tall is Max •? (AP)

The verb in [13d] is the intensive verb, copula be. Recall

that, although the copula is a full verb, it behaves (when
tensed) like an auxiliary. In other words, it fronts to the C1
position in questions. This, together with the fact that the
whole AP (how tall) has to be fronted, means that only the
subject (Max) is left in its original place in S.
Take time now to draw a phrase marker for each of the
five sentences in [13]. Use triangles for items in C2, as in
[11b]. Discussion 1, page pages 203–5.

Now look again at [2]–[5] at the beginning of this chapter.

[3]–[5] are unfronted questions. These unfronted question
forms are called ECHO-QUESTIONS: they are used to echo –
and ask about – something said earlier. They all have normal
(non-echo) alternative forms with auxiliary- and wh-fronting,
namely [6]–[8].
But what about [2], repeated here as [14]?

[14] Who is taking Violetta’s icon to Athens?

[2]/[14] is itself the only possible form for that particular

question, and it doesn’t sound noticeably echoic. [2]/[14] is
distinctive because, there, it’s the subject constituent that’s
questioned. As subject, the wh-phrase appears at the
beginning of the sentence, anyway. So, the first question
raised by this example is: should a wh-SUBJECT be
represented in the subject position or as fronted to
the C2 position?
In research on wh-questions, both answers have been
given. I’ll make the following general assumption: without
exception, all wh-expressions appearing at the front
of clauses are to be represented as occupying the C2
position. In moving to C2, however, a subject doesn’t cross
any other expression, so the movement makes no difference
to the order of words.
The next question is: does [14] display auxiliary-
fronting? Again, given our assumption that the wh-phrase
is in C2, auxiliary-fronting makes no difference to the order
of words. And, again, I’ll assume that, without exception,
auxiliary-fronting to C1 occurs in all (non-echo)
questions.
Given the above answers (in bold) to our two questions,
draw a phrase marker for [14]. Use triangles for the NPs and
the PP. Discussion 2, page 206.

A word now about where and when, how and why. As

noted at the beginning of this chapter, they can be
answered by a range of expressions – PPs, AdvPs, APs and
even clauses. Even when, categorised as a single-word PP in
Chapter 3, can be answered by an NP (e.g. the day before
yesterday). Nevertheless, in the light of the possible
answers suggested, draw complete phrase markers for the
following. Discussion 3, page pages 206–7.

[15] How are you? (Possible answer: well/good.)

 [16] Where did Lisa put it? (Possible answer: under the
bed.)

Finally on wh-questions, it’s important to notice that a wh-

phrase can be fronted, not just from the main clause, but
also from a subordinate clause. Here are two examples.

[17a] Whose poem was he suggesting should win the prize?

[17b] Who did Leopold think Haydn admired?

In each of these, insert gaps (•) created by wh-fronting.

Possible answers to those questions are:

[18a] He was suggesting S2[his own poem should win the

prize].
[18b] Leopold thought S2[Haydn admired Mozart].

In [17a], there’s a subject gap in S2. In [17b], the gap is in

the dO position in S2:

[19a] S1″[whose poem S1′[was [S1 he suggesting S2[•

should win the prize]]]]?
[19b] S1″ [who S1′[did S1[Leopold think S2[Haydn admired
•]]]]?

Subordinate wh-clauses
The big idea in this chapter has been that wh-clauses are
introduced by a fronted wh-phrase occupying the C2
position, leaving a gap in the position from which it was
fronted.
 This goes for all wh-clauses, main or subordinate. The one
structural difference between main and subordinate wh-
clauses is that, as already noted, only MAIN wh-clauses
display auxiliary-fronting.
I now turn to two types of SUBORDINATE wh-clause:
interrogative clauses and relative clauses.

Subordinate wh-interrogative clauses

The distinction between MAIN wh-interrogative (WH-QUESTIONS)
and SUBORDINATE wh-interrogative clauses is exactly the
same as that between main and subordinate yes/no
interrogatives (Chapter 8, page 170.)
The following contain subordinate wh-interrogative
clauses:

[20] Martha enquired why he wore it on his foot.

[21] How he would fare on the trapeze preoccupied him.
[22] It is my affair what I wear at night.
[23] Marcel isn’t certain who he sent the flowers to.
[24] The problem was where they could hide the money.
[25] The question of who is going to pay for this remains
unanswered.

The subordinate wh-clauses in these have functions

familiar from previous chapters. In [20a], I’ve identified (i)
the subordinate clause in [20] and the gap, (ii) the function
of that clause, and (iii) the function of the wh-phrase.

[20a] (i) [why [he wore it on his foot •]] (ii) dO (iii)
why: VP-adverbial.

Now do the same for [21]–[25].

[21a] (i) [how [he would fare on the trapeze •]]. (ii) subject.
(iii) how: VP-adverbial.
[22a] (i) [what [I wear • at night]]. (ii) extraposed subject
(iii) what: dO.
[23a] (i) [who [he sent the flowers to •]]. (ii) complement of
A (iii) who: complement of P.
[24a] (i) [where [they could hide the money •]]. (ii) sP (iii)
where: oP (of complex V, hide).
[25a] (i) [who [• is going to pay for this]]. (ii) complement
of P (iii) who: subject.

As mentioned, these subordinate wh-clauses have exactly

the same structure as the wh-questions of the last section.
But since these interrogative clauses are subordinate (no
auxiliary-fronting) the C1 position of the subordinate clause
will be empty. Here’s the phrase marker for [23]:
[26]

Phrase markers for [20] and [22] are Discussion 4, pages

207–8.

Relative clauses
You might be thinking that all wh-clauses are interrogative
clauses. Not so. Relative clauses are not interrogative
wh-clauses. In contrast to interrogative clauses, which can
be main or subordinate, relative clauses are subordinate by
their very nature. This is because relative clauses
function as MODIFIERS. They can modify a range of
categories, but I’ll focus here on their modifying function
within NP.
The following NPs all contain a relative clause. Identify (a)
the relative clause in each and (b) the function of the wh-
word/phrase within that clause.
[27] The cakes which they bought for you.
[28] The fool who lent you all that money.
[29] A friend whose house we borrowed.
[30] The usher who I showed my ticket to.
[31] The place where we had that picnic.

These relative clauses have exactly the same structure as

subordinate wh-interrogative clauses (with wh-fronting into
the higher C2 position, leaving a gap):

[27a] [which [they bought • for you]] (which = dO)

[28a] [who [• lent you all that money]] (who = subject)
[29a] [whose house [we borrowed •]] (whose house = dO)
[30a] [who [I showed my ticket to •]] (who = complement
to P)
[31a] [where [we had that picnic •]] (where = VP-adverbial)

How do these relative (wh-) clauses fit into the structure

of the NPs in which they function as modifiers? Here we
need to compare RELATIVE CLAUSES with NOUN-COMPLEMENT
CLAUSES, mentioned in Chapter 8. Among the following NPs,
the [a]s contain noun-complement clauses and the [b]s
contain relative clauses.

[32a] The conclusion [that Mars was inhabited].

[32b] The conclusion [which Gomez disputes].

[33a] The thought [that he should have done the washing-

up].
[33b] The thought [which occurred to him].

[34a] The claim [that syntax is good for the brain].

[34b] The claim [with which he ended his lecture].
NOUN-COMPLEMENT CLAUSES (in [a]) give us central information
about the head noun, telling us the ACTUAL CONTENT of the
conclusion, thought, claim, etc. The RELATIVE CLAUSES tell us
something else about it, something more peripheral. From
[32b], for example, we don’t know the content of the
conclusion; we only know it’s the one Gomez disputes.
Remember, NOUN-COMPLEMENT clauses relate to the noun
exactly as a clause complementing a verb. Compare the [a]
NPs above with the [bracketed] VPs in:

[35] He [concluded that Mars was inhabited].

[36] He [thought he should have done the washing-up].
[37] Surely he couldn’t [claim that syntax is good for the
brain].

So, just as verb complements are sisters-of-V, NOUN-

COMPLEMENT CLAUSES are sisters-of-N. Here’s a reminder:

[38] NP WITH NOUN-COMPLEMENT CLAUSE

(reminder):

A noun-complement clause, remember, is introduced by

the C1 complementiser that, dominated by S-bar (S′).
Nothing has been fronted from within it, so the clause itself
has no gaps. By contrast, the relative clause is a wh-clause:
the wh-phrase is fronted to the C2 position, dominated by S-
double-bar (S″), leaving a gap.
Since they give peripheral information about the head
noun, in contrast to noun-complement clauses, you’ve
probably guessed that RELATIVE CLAUSES ARE ADJUNCTS. As
adjuncts, they are sisters-of-NOM.

[39] NP WITH RELATIVE CLAUSE:

Now, remember the pro-form, one. It replaces NOMs. It

cannot replace a simple N unless N is the only constituent of
a NOM. Since a noun-complement clause is sister-of-N, the
combination [one + complement clause] will be
ungrammatical; see the [a]s in [40]–[42]. By contrast, since
a relative clause is sister-of-NOM, its sister can be replaced
by the pro-NOM one. In short, [one + complement
clause] is ungrammatical, but [one + relative clause]
is fine. Compare the [a]s and [b]s in[40]–[42].

[40a] *The one that Mars is inhabited.

[40b] The one which Gomez disputes.
[41a] *The one that he should have done the washing-up.
[41b] The one which occurred to him.
[42a] *The one that syntax is good for the brain.
[42b] The one with which he ended his lecture.

For example:

[43a] *I accept all the conclusions, including the one that

Mars is inhabited.
[43b] I accept all the conclusions, including the one which
Gomez disputes.

Now give a phrase marker for the NP in [34b] above, the

claim with which he ended his lecture. Use a triangle for the
PP with which. Discussion 5, page 208.

Ellipsis of the wh-form

In many cases, the wh-form in a relative clause can be
omitted, by ellipsis (E). Look again at [27]–[31] above and
decide where it can and where it can’t be ellipted. Under
what two different circumstances can it NOT be ellipted?
Consider also [32b]–[34b] above.

[44] The cakes E they bought for you (were expensive).

[45] *The fool E lent you all that money (lent me some,
too).
[46] *A friend E house we borrowed (needs it back next
week).
[47] The usher E I showed my ticket to (has had it
framed).
[48] The place E we had that picnic (is too far away now).

See also: The conclusion E Gomez disputes (was indeed

absurd) vs. *The thought ^ occurred to him (cheered him
up). And *The claim with ^ he ended his lecture (surprised
them) vs. The claim ^ he ended his lecture with (surprised
them).
The wh-form can’t be ellipted (i) when it functions as
subject ([45] and [33b]) and (ii) when other material has
been fronted with it ([46] and [34b]). Generally, ellipsis is
possible only when it wouldn’t interfere with
comprehension. For example, ellipsis of a wh-subject – e.g.
in [45] and [33b] – would create the misleading first
impression that lent/occurred are the main verbs, whereas
each is the verb of a sub-clause. In the absence of the wh-
form, the mistake would only become apparent when the
real main verb (lent, cheered) makes its appearance.

That again
In the following NPs, the clause is introduced by that. What
should we make of these? Are they relative (wh-) clauses or
noun-complement (that) clauses? Try to decide.

[49] The fool [that [lent you the money]]

[50] The thought [that [occurred to him]]
[51] The cakes [that [they bought for you]]
[52] The conclusion [that [Gomez disputes]]

A reminder: relative clauses always include a gap, but

genuine that-clauses are complete (no gaps). Now, the
clauses in [49]–[52] are clearly not complete:
[• lent you the money], [• occurred to him], [they bought •
for you], [Gomez disputes •]. So – despite the presence of
that rather than a wh-form – these are relative clauses!
Compare the relative clauses in the following [a]
examples of relative clauses with the noun-complement
clauses in the [b] examples:

[53a] This is [a proposal that we should support •].

[53b] This is [a proposal that we should support the strike].
[54a] [The news that she had given John •] shocked them
all.
[54b] [The news that she had given John a good kick]
shocked them all.

A traditional approach to that in relative clauses has it

that, in this kind of relative clause, wh-forms in C2 can be
replaced by that. This treats that as an alternative form of
the relative word. However, there is a case for saying it’s
the familiar C1 complementiser, even in a relative clause. I
shall adopt this analysis.1 The C1 complementiser that
can be overt in a relative clause but ONLY when the
wh-form in C2 is ellipted. The wh-form and that
cannot both be present (*The cakes which that they
bought for you). But they can both be absent – as in [44],
[47] and [48].
Now draw phrase markers for the NPs in [53a] and [53b]
and [44]. Discussion 6, page 209.

Restrictive vs. non-restrictive

All the relative clauses considered so far are RESTRICTIVE
relative clauses. The other kind of relative clause is NON-
RESTRICTIVE. The internal structure of these two kinds of
relative clause is identical. The difference between
restrictives and non-restrictives lies in how they
relate to the head noun. In the following, the subject NPs
contain relative clauses. Those in the [a]s are restrictive; in
the [b]s they are non-restrictive.

[55a] The books which John has consulted are outdated.

[55b] The books, which John has consulted, are outdated.
[56a] The dogs which have rabies are dangerous.
[56b] The dogs, which have rabies, are dangerous.

As you can see, the non-restrictives are marked off by

commas in writing (and by a corresponding (‘comma’)
intonation in speech). But what are those commas (that
intonation) signalling? Well, compare the following
ungrammatical restrictive [a]s and the grammatical non-
restrictive [b]s:

[57a] *The dogs which are mammals need treatment.

[57b] The dogs, which are mammals, need treatment.
[58a] *Triangles which have three sides are fascinating.
[58b] Triangles, which have three sides, are fascinating.

The oddity of the restrictive [a] examples is due to the

fact that RESTRICTIVE relative clauses specify more
exactly which of the things picked out by the head
noun are being mentioned. Take [55a]: the restrictive
relative tells us which books are outdated. It’s called
‘restrictive’ because it RESTRICTS the set of books to a SUB-SET
of books, those consulted by John. It’s this more restricted
set of books that are said, in [55a], to be outdated. But the
relative clauses in [57] and [58] can’t be used to pick out a
restricted set of dogs or triangles, because all dogs are
mammals, and all triangles three-sided, anyway. You can’t
(as in [58a]) use which have three sides to pick out a SUB-set
of triangles. But there’s nothing to stop us – parenthetically,
incidentally – adding the extra information that triangles
have three sides or that dogs are mammals. This is what the
non-restrictive clause allows for. NON-RESTRICTIVE relative
clauses add extra – parenthetical – information,
without restricting the set of things (triangles, dogs,
books, etc.) being mentioned.
In the light of this, compare [56a] and [56b]. [56a], with
the restrictive clause, does not imply that all the relevant
dogs are dangerous – only the rabid ones. But [56b], with
the non-restrictive clause, does imply that all the relevant
dogs are dangerous, adding the further information that
they also all have rabies.
The big difference, then, is that [56a], with the
restrictive relative, makes just ONE statement (about
the rabid dogs to the effect that they dangerous) but
[56b], with the non-restrictive relative, makes TWO
statements: (1) they are dangerous, (2) they have
rabies.
The representation of NPs with a restrictive relative
clause has been given. As a reminder, that in [56a] is given
here as [59]:

[59] NP with RESTRICTIVE relative clause (reminder):

Notice that in [59], DET is the sister of a NOM that includes
the relative clause – [dogs which have rabies]. The clause
falls within the SCOPE of the determining function of the
definite article (i.e. the is determining, not dogs, but dogs
which have rabies). So, there is no NP of the form the dogs
that’s the subject of the VP are dangerous. This seems right:
we’ve agreed that, in [56a], no statement is made about the
dogs as such, only about the rabid SUB-set of them.
What about [56b], with its non-restrictive clause? Well, we
agreed (I hope) that in [56b] two statements are made, both
about the dogs. Here, the subject of the main clause VP (are
dangerous) is indeed the dogs. So, the non-restrictive clause
modifies, not just dogs, but the dogs, which is an NP. As the
modifier of a complete NP, the non-restrictive relative
clause is represented as the sister of that NP within a
higher NP, as in [60]:

[60] NP with NON-RESTRICTIVE relative clause:

 A further difference between restrictive and non-
restrictive relative clauses: in contrast with restrictives, the
wh-form in non-restrictives cannot be ellipted. This
means that, since an overt wh-form in C2 and overt that in
C1 never co-occur (e.g. *which that), we never get that in
non-restrictive relative clauses.
There are, then, THREE kinds of clause that appear
within NP: (a) noun-complement clauses, (b) restrictive
relative clauses and (c) non-restrictive relative clauses.
Restrictive relatives are more peripheral than noun-
complement clauses, and non-restrictive relatives more
peripheral still. This three-way distinction corresponds with
the three levels of NP structure: (a) the lexical level, N itself,
(b) the intermediate level, NOM and (c) the phrasal (highest)
level, NP itself.

Noun-complement clause: sister-of-N (within NOM).

Restrictive relative clause: sister-of-NOM (within
NOM).
 Non-restrictive relative clause: sister of NP (within
NP).

Discussion of in-text exercises

(I show the movements only in the first example.)

1. (a)
(b)
(i)

(ii)
(c)

(d)
2.
3. (a)

Since most answers to the question are APs (well, good,

awful, too busy), I’ve assumed that how corresponds to
an AP gap. But a PP is possible (in good spirits).
(b)
4. [20]
[22]
5.
6. [53a] – relative clause.
 [53b] – noun-complement clause.

Exercises

1. Replace the italicised constituent in the following

sentences by an appropriate wh-word and give the
question that results from wh- and auxiliary-fronting.
(a) We shall feed the cat smoked salmon today.
(b) He got to London by hitch-hiking.
(c) The man at the front was laughing.
(d) A recidivist is a persistent offender.
(e) Lola showed up in dark glasses.
(f) Tessa pocketed the fried egg because it was too
greasy to eat.
(g) He cleaned his keyboard with his sister’s toothbrush.
(h) Konrad suggested Lomax should be fired.
 Sebbie thought Julia had said she would buy him a
(i) new buggy.

2. For each of the following, embed the (i) clause as a

relative clause in an NP of the (ii) clause, giving the
sentence that results.
Example: (i) and (ii) would yield (iii):

(i) You mislaid some cheese last year.

(ii) The cheese has just strolled into the bedroom.
(iii) The cheese which you mislaid last year has just
strolled into the bedroom.
(a) (i) I had been trying to extract a cork.
(ii) The cork suddenly shot out like a bullet.
(b) (i) Some officer issued this silly order.
(ii) I am going to override the officer.
(c) (i) Crusoe said he had been marooned on an
island.
(ii) The island has never been discovered.
(d) (i) I had borrowed a passenger’s toothbrush.
(ii) The passenger complained loudly.

3. For each of the following sentences, decide whether the

relative clause that follows it could be (i) only restrictive,
(ii) only non-restrictive, or (iii) either, when included in
the italicised NP. Then draw the phrase marker for
sentence (a) including the relative clause. (Use triangles
for PP and the NP the penal code.)
(a) Napoleon died in exile.
who inaugurated the penal code.
(b) I haven’t owned a pig in my life.
which could fly.
(c) I prefer (i) cats to (ii) cats.
 (i) which have stripes.
(ii) which have spots.

(d) The acrobat has invented a new wrist-hold

who I had just hired.
(e) The source of the Nile was discovered by Speke.
which I have just visited.

4. Give Abbreviated Clausal Analyses of the following. For

each subordinate clause, give its function. Place
complementisers (C2 and C1) within the sub-clauses
they introduce, but don’t bother with S″/S′ – just use S.
Prepositions, however, belong in the upper clause.
Example: The books from the library that John has
consulted are out of date.

S2: modifier of NOM (books from the library).

(a) I never understood how it worked until I read

your book.
(b) Why Max didn’t answer the accusation that he
had cheated is a mystery.
(c) Why Max didn’t answer the poor man that he
had cheated is a mystery.
(d) The acrobat, who is injured, is insistent that the
high-wire is strengthened if it is used again.
Discussion of exercises

1. (a) What shall we feed the cat today?

(b) How did he get to London?
(c) Who was laughing?
(d) What is a recidivist?
(With the sP questioned, the wh-form is what and
the question asks for a definition of the subject,
recidivist. Compare Who is recidivist?, which
questions the subject.)
(e) What did Lola show up in?
(f) Why did Tessa pocket the fried egg?
(g) Whose toothbrush did he clean his keyboard with?
(Or, very formally: With whose toothbrush did he
clean his keyboard?)
(h) Who did Konrad suggest should be fired?
(Here we have wh-fronting from a subordinate clause,
S2.)
(i) What did Sebbie think Julia had said she would buy
him?
(Here we have wh-fronting from an even lower clause,
S3.)

2. (a) The cork which/that I had been trying to extract

suddenly shot out like a bullet.
(b) I am going to override the officer who issued this
silly order.
(c) The island on which Crusoe said he had been
marooned has never been discovered. (Or: The
island which Crusoe said he had been marooned on
…)
(d) The passenger whose toothbrush I had borrowed
complained loudly.
3. (a) Non-restrictive only. Napoleon, a name, already
uniquely identifies a particular individual, so it’s
impossible to restrict the reference of this NP further.
(b) Restrictive only. If we included the clause as non-
restrictive, the whole sentence would be equivalent
to I haven’t owned a pig and a pig could fly which
hardly makes sense. In the context of this (negative)
sentence, the expression a pig does not pick out any
particular pig. Only if it did pick out a particular pig
could we add the further information that it could
fly.
(c) (i) and (ii) must both be restrictive. If either or both
of them were non-restrictive, the resulting sentence
would be contradictory, as indeed (c) is without the
relative clauses.
(d) Both restrictive and non-restrictive are possible
here.
(e) Non-restrictive only. The source of the Nile already
uniquely identifies a fully specified thing.
 (a)

4. (a)

S2: Complement (dO) of V (understood). S3: Adverbial.

(b) and (c)
 S2: subject of S1.
(b) S3: Complement to noun (accusation). Cheat is
[intrans] here.
(c) S3: modifier of NOM (poor man). Cheat is [trans] here,
with a gap in dO position.
(d)

S2: (Non-restrictive) modifier of NP (the acrobat).

S3: Complement to A (insistent).
S4: Adverbial (conditional).

Further exercises

Questions and interrogatives

1. Draw complete phrase markers for the following, but
use labelled triangles for expressions in C2.
Set I

(1) Which salami shall we buy?

(2) Where have I put my glasses?
(3) Where did they have the picnic?
(4) Who’s been eating my porridge?
(5) How much food should I give the dog?
(6) Which of these books does John recommend?
(7) Do you know what they ate?
(8) What do you think they put in that soup?
Set II

(9a) I don’t know who he found an amusing companion.

(9b) I don’t know whether he found an amusing
companion.
(10 Who did Granny say should play?
(10 Who did Granny say I should play?
a)
(11 Who is a phonologist?
b)
a) What is a phonologist?
(11
b) Set III
(These need care.)

(12) Which exam was it certain Julia would pass?

(13) Who has been sacked?
(14) Who were they given to?
(15) Did you discover who was giving the lecture?
(16) Who did you discover was giving the lecture?
(17) Who did John ask which films they had seen?
(Note that (15) is a yes/no question, with wh-fronting
in the subordinate clause. (16) requires a double wh-
fronting. In (17) there are two separate wh-frontings.)
Relative clauses and other matters

2. Draw complete phrase markers for the following NPs:

(a) The chef who I fired.
(b) The woman in whose care we left you.
(c) The spy who loved me.
(d) The place where we had the picnic.
(e) The reason why it spits.
(f) A style he thought appropriate.

3. Draw complete phrase markers for the following

sentences:
(1a) The man they cheated is furious.
(1b) The reason they cheated is clear.
(2a) I have an idea we should think about.
(2b) I have an idea we should think about exams.
(3a) The fact that I communicated with Mona is crucial.
(3b) The fact that I communicated to Mona is crucial.

4. I’ve discussed only relative clauses appearing in the

structure of NPs. A difference between restrictive and
non-restrictive relatives is that, while restrictives only
ever function as modifiers within NP, non-restrictives can
modify a range of categories. Give the constituents (and
their categories) that the non-restrictive relative clauses
are modifying in (a)–(c). Then draw a complete phrase
marker for (a).
(a) He was very rude, which I never am.
(b) Lomax argued for cakes, which surprised me.
(c) Hedda got out with the aid of a trampoline, which
seemed a sensible way of doing it.

5. (a) and (b) below illustrate a function of wh-clauses not

explicitly discussed in this chapter. Decide on their
 function and then draw a phrase marker for each
sentence.
(a) Lola merely smiled when I proposed marriage.
(b) They pitched the tent where they always pitch it.

6. Give Abbreviated Clausal Analyses of the following

sentences. Indicate the gaps. For each subordinate
clause, state what type of clause it is (that-clause,
yes/no interrogative, wh-interrogative, or relative
(restrictive or non-restrictive)) and give its function. For
all wh-clauses, identify and give the function of the wh-
phrase/word that introduces it (whether overt or not).
For examples of what I’m asking for here, see
Discussion of Exercise 4 on pages 207–8.
(a) The man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo is now
my butler.
(b) Which animals Bertram feeds is his decision.
(c) We should find out who the visitors to the restaurant
were.
(d) It’s hardly surprising you can’t get your teeth into
the fritters Jim cooks.
(e) When we are going for a picnic is a question that he
is always asking.
(f) I’m nervous that the hoops that have been alight
will topple over when the hippos jump through
them.
(g) Watson, who was never very quick, is wondering if
Holmes’s theory that the governess is the guilty
party can possibly be right.
(h) Do you know how many players have guessed what
instrument Miss Scarlet was murdered with?
(i) None of the people who went to Narnia when it was
first created ever explained how they got there.
 Marcel often wondered whether Gilberte ever asked
(j)
Swann what the boy she’d seen in the garden was
called.

7. The following are ambiguous. For each, draw a phrase

marker for each interpretation. Abbreviate them as far
as possible (but not so far as to obscure the distinction
between the interpretations).
(a) I forgot how bitter beer tastes.
(b) When did you say he should go?
(c) The news that Max left Greta was alarming.
(d) He asked the man who he had seen.

1 In previous editions, I mentioned both analyses but adopted the more

traditional analysis. Treating that as the C1 complementiser better explains
why it cannot figure in non-restrictive relative clauses. See page 203.