Last Resort Movement in Wh-questions
Jason Ginsburg
University of Aizu
1. Introduction
In Phase Theory (Chomsky 1999, 2000, 2001, 2006), different portions of a
derivation are sent to Spell-Out at different times. Once a phrase is sent to SpellOut, its contents can no longer be accessed by higher operations. Thus, anelement contained within a phrase that has been sent to Spell-Out cannot moveto a higher phrase. Wh-movement poses a problem, since a wh-phrase mustmove out of a phrase before that phrase is sent to Spell-Out. In this paper, I
present a new account of wh-question formation that resolves some problems
posed by the typical Phase Theory account of wh-movement and I demonstrate
how this account successfully derives wh-questions in English and Japanese.
In Phase Theory, a derivation proceeds via selection and Merge of Lexical
Items (LIs) from a numeration, which contains subnumerations that correspondto phases or to phrases (subjects or adjuncts) that must be formed outside themain spine of a derivation (cf. Johnson 2002). A probe in the head of a
projection can Agree with a goal in a lower projection, as long as the goal isaccessible. According to the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC), when thehead of a (strong) phase head is Merged, the complement of the lower strong
phase (Chomsky 2001) is sent to Spell-Out.1 Thus, in (1), when C is Merged, theVP, which is the complement of the lower phase head v* is sent to Spell-Out.
(1) [CP C [v*P v* [VP V ]]]Wh-movement poses a problem for this view. In (2), when C is Merged, Ccannot attract the wh-phrase what from within the VP since the VP has been sent
to Spell-Out.

1

In the original formulation of the PIC (Chomsky 1999, 2000), the complement of aphase head is sent to Spell-Out when a phase head is Merged. See Grewendorf &Kremers (2009) for discussion of the different versions of the PIC.

102

Last Resort Movement in Wh-Questions(2) [CP C [v*P v* [ VP V what ]]]To get around this problem, Chomsky (1999) suggests that a phase head canoptionally have an EPP feature that attracts a wh-phrase. This accounts for
successive cyclic wh-movement. In (3), an EPP feature in v* attracts the whphrase what to the v*P edge, from where it can be attracted by the EPP feature
in C.
(3) [CP What C[EPP] … what v*[EPP] … V what ]However, this creates a ‘look ahead’ problem (cf. Felser 2004). Consider (4a),with the structure in (4b).
(4) (a) What did you think that Bob thought Mary ate?
(b) [CP what C[EPP]+[ Tdid] you T [v*P what you v*[EPP] think [CP what that[EPP]
Bob T [v*P what Bob v*[EPP] thought [CP what C[EPP] Mary T [v*P what
Mary v*[EPP] ate what]]]]]]
Six phase heads must have EPP features to bring the wh-phrase to its scope
position. In this example, five EPP features occur in non-interrogative phaseheads, and these EPP features appear to exist simply for the purpose of bringing
a wh-phrase to its scope position. However, it is not clear how each phase headcan ‘know’ that it requires an EPP feature. Furthermore, note how theintervening v* phase heads have specifiers (subjects) in addition to having an
EPP feature that somehow attracts a wh-phrase. It is not clear why a subject inspecifier position of v* would not simply eliminate the EPP feature, which
would mean that there should be no EPP feature to attract a wh-phrase.
In this paper, I do away with the stipulation that there can be optional EPP
features that exist simply for the purpose of bringing a wh-phrase to a scope
position. Instead, I propose that movement of a wh-phrase is the result of aprocess in which a wh-phrase with an unvalued feature is reinserted into a
numeration as a Last Resort, as a means of avoiding linearization of a phrasethat contains an unvalued feature. Once reinserted in a subnumeration, a whphrase can be re-Merged into a derivation. I demonstrate how this analysis
accounts for wh-question formation in English and Japanese.
The organization of this paper is as follows. In section 2, I present thedetails of my proposals. In section 3, I demonstrate how these proposals accountJason Ginsburg

103

for wh-question formation in English, and in section 4, I demonstrate how theyaccount for wh-question formation in Japanese. Section 5 discusses theformation of wh-questions with subject wh-phrases and section 6 is theconclusion.
2. Proposals
I follow the Q-movement analysis of wh-constructions proposed by Cable(2007), which follows work by Hagstrom (1998) and Kishimoto (2005). Cable
demonstrates, based primarily on data from the language Tlingit, that C attractsa Q element, and not a wh-phrase. Q, depending, on the language, may be
adjoined to a wh-phrase (5a), or a wh-phrase may be the complement of Q (5b).
(5)

(a)

XP
XP
wh-phrase

(b)
Q

Q
Q

XP
wh-phrase

Cable takes the position that an interrogative C has an uninterpretable Q-featurethat probes for Q, which has an interpretable Q-feature. When the probe C andthe goal Q successfully establish an Agree relation, the uninterpretable Q-feature
on C is eliminated and Agree triggers movement of Q, which Cable argues
moves overtly in languages such as Japanese and English.2 Under this view, in alanguage with a Q/wh- structure of type (5a), Q is able to undergo movement byitself, since it originates in an adjoined position. In a language with a Q/whstructure structure of type (5b), when Q moves, it brings its wh-phrase
complement.
Cable attempts to show that Tlingit is a language with a Q\wh-phrase
structure of the form in (5b). Evidence is that in Tlingit, there is overt whmovement to the CP domain, a wh-phrase is the complement of Q, and C attracts
Q (not a wh-phrase). Important evidence that C attracts Q is that Q cannot
appear in an island, but a wh-phrase can. This fact is accounted forstraightforwardly if C attracts Q, and attraction is blocked by an island, but C2

According to Cable, Q can also move covertly, as is usually the case in Sinhala.

104

Last Resort Movement in Wh-Questions

does not attract a wh-phrase. Thus it does not matter if a wh-phrase is contained
within an island.
In this paper, I assume the Q/wh-phrase structure proposed by Cable,
although I take a modified approach to the relation between C and Q.
Specifically, I propose that C contains an unvalued Type feature ‘[Typ:_]’ and avalued Scope feature ‘[Scp:X]’, and Q contains a corresponding valued‘[Typ:Q]’ and an unvalued Scope feature ‘[Scp:_]’. The symbol “:_” indicates afeature that lacks a value. In a wh-question, at least in some languages, there isinitially a configuration (6a), in which there is a C with an unvalued Typefeature and valued Scope feature and a Q with a valued Type feature andunvalued scope feature. C and Q form an Agree relation, whereby the valued‘[Typ:Q]’ of Q values the unvalued corresponding ‘[Typ:_]’ of C and the valued‘[Scp:X]’ of C values the corresponding unvalued ‘[Scp:_]’ of Q, resulting in a(6b) in which the unvalued features from (6a) are valued.
(6) (a) C[Typ:_,Scp:X] …. Q[Typ:Q,Scp:_] (b) C[Typ:Q,Scp:X] …. Q[Typ:Q,Scp:X]
I assume that C is the locus of clausal typing,3 and comes with a Typefeature, based on the fact that in certain languages, there are a variety of clausal
typing particles that appear to determine clause type, and that appear to establish
a relationship with the CP. For example, Sinhala (Sumangala 1992) contains
several particles that determine clause type and that can occur in the clause
periphery. Among them are the particles dә ‘Q’, tamay ‘certainty’, lu‘reportative’, nee ‘Tag-Q’, and yae ‘dubitative’ (Sumangala 1992:131). This fact
can be accounted for if these particles value a clausal typing feature in C.4 I also
assume that an interrogative C has a Scope feature because C is a position that is
generally associated with scope; for example see May (1985).
Under this analysis of wh-questions, English is a language with a Q/whphrase structure of the type (6b) in which a wh-phrase is the complement of Q.
When Q moves, it brings its wh-phrase complement with it, thereby resulting in
wh-movement. Japanese is a language with a Q/wh-phrase structure of type (6a).
Q is base generated in a position adjoined to a wh-phrase. Since Q is in an
adjoined position, it can move without bringing its associated wh-phrase along.
3

See Katz & Postal (1964), Chomsky & Lasnik (1977), and Aoun & Li (1993) for
proposals that clausal typing occurs in the CP.
4
See Ginsburg (2009) for further discussion.

Jason Ginsburg

105

In addition, I propose that the human grammar module makes available a
process of Last Resort (7),5 akin to that proposed by Chomsky (1995), wherebya derivation can be saved in certain specific situations.
(7) Last Resort: When an LI with an unvalued feature is contained within aphrase that is about to be sent to Spell-Out, if possible, the LI is reinserted
into a subnumeration.
Assume that in (8), X and Y are phase heads and α is an LI with an unvalued
feature (a feature that needs to be valued by forming an Agree relation with amatching valued feature). Initially, the Y phase is constructed from asubnumeration. The LI α is selected and Merged within Y. Then the X phase isconstructed from a higher subnumeration. When X is Merged, the phrase
containing α will be sent to Spell-Out. Since α has an unvalued feature, the Last
Resort process applies. The LI α leaves a copy in its base position (signified by
the line through α) and it is reinserted into the higher subnumeration. It then canbe selected and re-Merged into the derivation at the edge of the higher X phase.
(8) Last Resort: [X α… [Y…α…]]
I propose that wh-movement, at least in certain instances, is the result of this
Last Resort process. A Q morpheme has an unvalued feature, ‘[Scp:_]’. Thus,
when Q is contained within a phrase that is about to be sent to Spell-Out, it will
undergo a process of Last Resort reinsertion into a higher subnumeration. As aresult, it can be selected and re-Merged into a derivation. As I will demonstratein the following sections, this process accounts for wh-movement without theneed to postulate an optional EPP feature in a non-interrogative phase head.
According to the Phase Impenetrability Condition, the complement of aphase head is sent to Spell-Out separately from a phase head (see section 1).
However, the Last Resort process (7) does away with the need to stipulate
separate Spell-Out domains for a phase complement and a phase edge, since an
LI can ‘move’ out of a phase via the Last Resort process of reinsertion into asubnumeration. In this paper, I will utilize a revised view of the Phase
Impenetrability Condition, given in (9).
5I thank Sandiway Fong, with whom I developed this idea of Last Resort. Any problems
with this idea are my own.

106

Last Resort Movement in Wh-Questions(9) Spell-Out applies in the following situations:(a)When a phase head is Merged, a lower phase, if present, is sent to SpellOut.
(b) A numeration is emptied.
According to (9a), in (8) above, when phase head X is Merged, the entire Y
phase is sent to Spell-Out. According to (9b), Spell-Out also must apply when anumeration is emptied.
My main proposals are summarized as follows. I follow Cable’s (2007)
view of wh-phrases as having an associated Q element. In a wh-in-situ language,
the Q/wh-phrase has the structure in (5a) and in a wh-movement language, theQ/wh-phrase has the structure in (5b). Q must form an Agree relation with C that
results in the valuation of an unvalued Type feature on C and an unvalued Scopefeature on Q. Furthermore, there is a process of Last Resort (7) that the grammar
module makes available, whereby an element with an unvalued feature can bereinserted into a subnumeration just before the phrase that it is contained in is tobe sent to Spell-Out. Lastly, I proposed that an entire phase is sent to Spell-Out
as a single unit (9). I next demonstrate how these proposals accountstraightforwardly for the structures of wh-questions in English and Japanese.
3. English wh-questions
English is a wh-movement language. Following the discussion of the lastsection, the English wh-phrase has the structure (5b) above, in which a whphrase is a complement of Q. When Q moves, it brings its complement whphrase with it.
The proposals of the previous section account for a wh-question such as(10) as follows.
(10) What did John buy?
Assuming that each phase begins with its own subnumeration, the underlying
subnumeration of the v*P of (10) is given in (11). I assume that the subject‘John’ has its own embedded subnumeration, since subjects and adjuncts mustbe formed outside the main spine of a derivation (cf. Johnson 2002). Crucially,
Q contains a valued ‘[Typ:Q]’ feature and an unvalued ‘[Scp:_]’ feature. The

Jason Ginsburg

107

initial Merged v*P (with irrelevant details omitted) is shown in (11b).6 Note thatthe wh-phrase what is the complement of Q, which is the head of a QP phrase.
(11) (a) Subnumeration: {v*, buy, {John}, Q[Typ:Q,Scp:_], what}(b) [v*P John v* buy [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what]]Once the v*P subnumeration is emptied, the next subnumeration is that of theCP, shown in (12a). T and C, with an unvalued ‘[Typ:_]’ feature and a valued‘[Scp:X]’ feature, are selected and Merged, resulting in (12b).
(12) (a) Subnumeration: {T, C[Typ:_,Scp:X]}(b) [ C[Typ:_,Scp:X] John T [v*P John v* buy [QP Q[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what]]]
As soon as C is Merged, according to (9), the lower v*P phase will be sent toSpell-Out. However, this phrase contains Q, which has an unvalued Scopefeature ‘[Scp:_]’. Thus, the Last Resort operation (7) applies and the QP isreinserted into the current subnumeration, as shown in (13a). Crucially, Q
carries its complement wh-phrase with it. The Spell-Out operation thenlinearizes the v*P, which now contains a copy of the QP, signified by the strikethrough line, as shown in (13b). Since the QP has been reinserted into thesubnumeration, it is selected and Merged directly in the scopal C. When
Merged, there is an Agree relation established between C and Q. The ‘[Typ:_]’feature of C is valued by the ‘[Typ:Q]’ of Q, resulting in ‘[Typ:Q]’ on C, and the‘[Scp:_]’ on Q is valued by the ‘[Scp:X]’ on C, resulting in ‘[Scp:X]’ on Q.7(13) (a) Subnumeration (Last Resort): {[ QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what]}(b) [CP [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:X] what] C[Typ:Q,Scp:X]+[Tdid] John T [v*P John v*
buy [ QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what]]]
A tree of the final structure of this question is shown in (14).

6

For the sake of simplicity, I have represented the v*P as having linear order, but inPhase Theory, this structure is not linearized until it is sent to Spell-Out.
7
T raises to C, resulting in pronunciation of ‘did’. I leave aside the issue of why T moves
to C, but see Pesetsky & Torrego (2000). Also see Bobaljik (1994) for discussion of T to
C movement in English subject wh-questions.

108

Last Resort Movement in Wh-Questions

(14)

CP
QP

C’

Q’

C[Typ:Q,Scp:X]

Q[Typ:Q,Scp:X] DP C
what

T
did

TP

DP

T’

John T

v*P
DP

v*’

John v*

VP
V
buy

QP
Q’

Q[Typ:Q,Scp:_] DP
whatThis analysis can also account for cases of long distance wh-movement, asin (15).
(15) What did you think that Bob thought Mary ate?
The derivation of the lower CP is shown in (16). The subnumeration (16a) forms
the lower v*P (16b), in which the QP is Merged in object position. Then T and C
are Merged, resulting in (16d). After Merge of C, at the point at which the lower
v*P phase is about to be sent to Spell-Out, the Last Resort process (7) applies
and the QP is reinserted into the subnumeration (16e). Then, as shown in (16f), I
propose that the QP is re-Merged in an adjoined position at the CP edge.
Although the QP does not undergo a feature valuation with the non-interrogative
C, the QP must be selected out of a need to empty out a numeration.
(16) (a) Subnumeration: {v*, ate, {Mary}, Q[Typ:Q,Scp:_], what}

Jason Ginsburg

109(b) [v*P Mary v* ate [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what]](c) Subnumeration: {T, C}(d) [ C Mary T [v*P Mary v* ate [ QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what]]](e) Subnumeration (Last Resort): {[ QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what]}(f) [CP [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what] C Mary T [v*Pv* Mary ate[QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what]]]
The derivation of the next higher v*P is shown in (17). After v* is Merged(17b), the lower CP will be sent to Spell-Out. Thus, the Last Resort operation
again applies and the QP, which still has an unvalued ‘[Scp:_]’ feature is
reinserted into the subnumeration (17c). Then it is re-Merged in an adjoined
position at the v*P edge (17d).
(17) (a) Subnumeration: {v*, {Bob}, thought}(b) [v*P v* Bob thought [CP [ QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what] C Mary T [v*Pv*
Mary ate [ QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what]]]](c) Subnumeration (Last Resort): {[ QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what]}(d) [v*P [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what] Bob v* thought [CP [ QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what]
C Mary T [v*Pv* Mary ate [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what]]]](18) shows the derivation up to the next higher CP. When C, pronounced as that,is Merged, the lower v*P will be sent to Spell-Out. Thus, the Last Resort processapplies (18c), and the QP is again re-Merged in an adjoined position at the CPedge (18d).
(18) (a) Subnumeration: {T, that}(b) [ that Bob T [v*P [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what] Bob v* thought [CP[ QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what] C Mary T [v*Pv* Mary ate [ QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what]]]]](c) Subnumeration (Last Resort): {[ QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what]}(d) [CP [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what] that Bob T [v*P [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what] Bob v*
thought [CP [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what] C Mary T [v*Pv* Mary ate[ QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what]]]]]The matrix v*P is shown in (19). When v* is Merged, the QP undergoes Last
Resort reinsertion into the subnumeration, and it is selected and re-Merged at thev*P edge (19d).

110

Last Resort Movement in Wh-Questions(19) (a) Subnumeration: {v*,{you}, think}(b) [v*P you v* think [CP [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what] that Bob T [v*P [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_]what] Bob v* thought [CP [ QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what] C Mary T [v*Pv* Maryate [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what]]]]]](c) Subnumeration (Last Resort): {[ QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what]}(d) [v*P [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what] you v* think [CP [ QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what] that Bob
T [v*P [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what] Bob v* thought [CP [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what] C
Mary T [v*Pv* Mary ate [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what]]]]]]
The final stage of the derivation is shown in (20). When the interrogative C is
Merged, the QP undergoes Last Resort reinsertion into the subnumeration. Then
it is selected and re-Merged at the matrix CP edge. In this case, it is now in a
local relation with the interrogative C, and thus a feature checking Agreerelation is established, whereby the Type and Scope features of C and Q arevalued.
(20) (a) {T, C[Typ:_,Scp:X]}(b) [ C[Typ:_,Scp:X] you T [v*P [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what] you v* think [CP[QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what] that Bob T [v*P [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what] Bob v*
thought [CP [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what] C Mary T [v*Pv* Mary ate[QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what]]]]]]](c) Subnumeration (Last Resort): {[ QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what]}(d) [CP [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:X] what] C[Typ:Q,Scp:X]+[Tdo] you T [v*P [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_]what] you v* think [CP [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what] that Bob T [v*P
[ QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what] Bob v* thought [CP [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what] C Mary T[v*Pv* Mary ate [ QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] what]]]]]]]In this manner, successive cyclic wh-movement results from multiple
applications of the Last Resort operation. A wh-phrase (actually a QP) ‘moves’
through non-interrogative phase edges, but this movement is not motivated by
an EPP feature.
In this manner, in certain English wh-questions, wh-movement is the resultof the Last Resort process (7), which can carry a wh-phrase to a scopal
interrogative C.
4. Japanese wh-questions

Jason Ginsburg

111

This analysis also accounts for Japanese wh-questions such as (21).
(21) Taro-ga
nani-okai-mashita ka?
Taro-NOM what-ACC bought-PAST Q‘What did Taro buy?’
Crucially, the Japanese wh-phrase has the structure in (5a) above in which Q is
adjoined to a wh-phrase. Thus, when Q moves it does not bring its associatedwh-phrase with it.
The derivation of (21) proceeds as follows. (22a) shows the subnumerationof the v*P and (22b) shows the resulting Merged v*P. Note that ka ‘Q’ isadjoined to the wh-phrase nani ‘what’. The Q particle ka contains a valued Typefeature ‘[Typ:Q]’ and an unvalued Scope feature ‘[Scp:_]’.8(22) (a) Subnumeration:{v*, {Taro}, nani, ka[Typ:Q,Scp:_], kai-}(b) [v*P Taro [ DP[DPnani] ka[Typ:Q,Scp:_]]-o kai v*]
The subnumeration for the matrix CP is shown in (23a), where –mashita ‘Past’
is a T head. The result after Merge of T and C is shown in (23b). I assume,
following Miyagawa (2001), that an EPP feature in T attracts the subject. As in
English, C contains an unvalued ‘[Typ:_]’ feature and a valued Scope feature‘[Scp:X]’.
(23) (a) Subnumeration: {-mashita, C[Typ:_,Scp:X]}(b) [Taro-ga [v*P Taro-ga v*[DP[ DPnani] ka[Typ:Q,Scp:_]]-o kai v*] -mashita
C[Typ:_,Scp:X]]
As soon as C is Merged, the lower v*P will be sent to Spell-Out, in accord with
(9). Thus, the Last Resort operation applies. Since, ka ‘Q’ contains an unvalued
feature, ‘[Scp:_]’, ka is reinserted into the subnumeration (24a). Then it isselected and re-Merged into the derivation (24b). It Merges with the C head and8

I assume that the Case particles appear after Case assignment. In (22b), the object nani
‘what’ gets Case from v*, and thus the object appears with the accusative Case particle –o. The subject Taro does not have Case until after T is Merged, and thus it does notappear with the nominative Case particle –ga until later in the derivation.

112

Last Resort Movement in Wh-Questions

a feature checking relation between C and ka values the unvalued Scope andType features on Q and C respectively.
(24) (a) Subnumeration (Last Resort): {[ka[Typ:Q,Scp:_]]}(b) [CP Taro-ga [v*P Taro-ga v* [ DP[DPnani] ka[Typ:Q,Scp:_]]-o kai v*]-mashita C[Typ:Q,Scp:X]+ ka[Typ:Q,Scp:X]]
A tree diagram of this structure is shown in (25).
(25)

CP
TP

C

DP

T’

Taro-gav*P-NOMDP
Taro-ga VP
-NOM
V’

C
T
-mashita

v*’

Q
ka
Q

PAST

v*

DP

V
kaiDP Q ‘buy’
kanani-o Q‘what-ACC’
Just as with the English (15), Japanese allows long distance movement of a
Q element. Consider the wh-question (26), which contains a wh-phrase in an
embedded clause.
(26) Anata-wa
Chie-ga nani-otabeta toomoi-mashita ka?
You-TOP Chie-NOM what-ACC ate COMP
think-PAST Q‘What did you think that Chie ate?

Jason Ginsburg

113

The subnumeration and derivation of the embedded v*P are shown in (27),which contains ka ‘Q’ with an unvalued Scope feature and a valued Typefeature. The Q particle is Merged in a position adjoined to the wh-phrase.
(27) (a) Subnumeration:{v*, {Chie}, nani, ka[Typ:Q,Scp:_], tabe-}(b) [v*P Chie [ DP[DPnani] ka[Typ:Q,Scp:_]]-o tabe v*](28a) shows the subnumeration of the embedded CP, in which ta is a past tense
T head and to, a complementizer, is a C head. After C is merged, the structure is(28b). At this point, since the lower v*P will be sent to Spell-Out, in accord with
(9), the Last Resort process applies and ka is reinserted into the subnumeration(28c), due to its unvalued Scope feature. Then ka is re-Merged in an adjoined
position at the CP edge (28d).
(28) (a) Subnumeration: {ta, to}(b) [ Chie-ga [v*P Chie [DP [DPnani] ka[Typ:Q,Scp:_]]-o tabe v*] –ta to](c) Subnumeration (Last Resort): {[ka[Typ:Q,Scp:_]]}(d) [CP Chie-ga [v*P Chie [DP [DPnani] ka[Typ:Q,Scp:_]]-o tabe v*] –ta toka[Typ:Q,Scp:_]]
The matrix v*P is built as shown in (29). After v* is Merged, as shown in (29b),
the Last Resort process again applies (29c). The Q particle ka is reinserted into
the subnumeration and then Merged again in an adjoined position at the v*Pedge (29d).
(29) (a) Subnumeration:{v*, anata, omoi-}(b) [v*P anata [CP Chie-ga [v*P Chie [ DP [ DPnani] ka[Typ:Q,Scp:_]]-o tabev*] –ta to ka[Typ:Q,Scp:_]] omoi- v*](c) Subnumeration (Last Resort): {[ka[Typ:Q,Scp:_]]}(d) [v*P anata [CP Chie-ga [v*P Chie [ DP [ DPnani] ka[Typ:Q,Scp:_]]-o tabev*] –ta to ka[Typ:Q,Scp:_]] omoi- v* ka[Typ:Q,Scp:_]]Lastly, the matrix CP is built (30). Crucially, the matrix C is an interrogative Cwith the unvalued Type feature ‘[Typ:_]’ and the valued Scope feature‘[Scp:X]’. After C is Merged, the Last Resort process again applies (30c),
resulting in ka being reinserted into the subnumeration. Then ka is selected and114

Last Resort Movement in Wh-Questions

Merged again at the matrix CP edge (30d), where it undergoes an Agree relation
with C, thus resulting in the unvalued Type feature of C being valued and theunvalued Scope feature of Q being valued.
(30) (a) Subnumeration:{T, C[Typ:_,Scp:X]}(b) [CP anata-wa [v*P anata [CP Chie-ga [v*P Chie [ DP [ DPnani]ka[Typ:Q,Scp:_]]-o tabe v*] –ta to ka[Typ:Q,Scp:_]] omoi- v* ka[Typ:Q,Scp:_]]-mashita C[Typ:_,Scp:X] ](c) Subnumeration (Last Resort): {[ka[Typ:Q,Scp:_]]}(d) [CP anata-wa [v*P anata [CP Chie-ga [v*P Chie [ DP [ DPnani]ka[Typ:Q,Scp:_]]-o tabe v*] –ta to ka[Typ:Q,Scp:_]] omoi- v* ka[Typ:Q,Scp:_]]-mashita C[Typ:Q,Scp:X] +ka[Typ:Q,Scp:X] ]In this manner, movement of a Q element in certain Japanese wh-questions
results from the Last Resort process (7).
5. Subject wh-phrases
I have attempted to demonstrate that wh-movement phenomena, in certain
cases, result from a process of Last Resort reinsertion of a Q element into asubnumeration. This analysis does not, however, apply to certain subject whphrases. Assuming that a subject wh-phrase moves to [Spec, TP] in English andJapanese, in constructions such as (31) and (32), there is no point in thederivation in which the Last Resort process can apply to bring the Q/wh-element
to CP.
(31) (a) Who ate dinner?
(b) [TP who T [v*P who ate dinner]](32) (a) Dare-ga tabemono-o kaimashita ka?
who-NOM food-ACC bought
Q‘Who bought food?’(b) [TP dare-ga T [v*P dare-ga tabemono-o kai] –mashita]
When the matrix interrogative C is Merged, at the point at which the v*P
complement will be sent to Spell-Out, the subject wh-phrase is in [Spec, TP], asJason Ginsburg

115

shown in (31b) and (32b). The wh-phrase is not contained within a phrase that isabout to be sent to Spell-Out and the Last Resort operation cannot apply.
There is, however, no need to rely on Last Resort in these constructions if
an interrogative C in English and Japanese simply contains an EPP feature. Thisis shown in (33a) for English and (33b) for Japanese, where the matrix C has an
EPP feature that attracts Q. In English, Q brings along its complement whphrase (33a) and in Japanese, Q, being an adjunct, moves by itself (33b).
(33) (a) [CP [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:X] who] CEPP[Typ:Q,Scp:X] [TP [QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] who] T [v*P
[ QPQ[Typ:Q,Scp:_] who] ate dinner]]](b) [CP [ TP [ DPdare-ga ka[Typ:Q,Scp:_]] [v*P [DPdare-ga Q[Typ:Q,Scp:_]] tabemono-okai-] -mashita ] CEPP[Typ:Q,Scp:X] +ka[Typ:Q,Scp:X]]
Once the Q/wh- element moves to the CP, it undergoes a feature valuation
relation with C and the unvalued Type and Scope features of C and Q,
respectively, are valued.
An interrogative C in English and Japanese contains an EPP feature. This
EPP feature attracts a Q element if the Q is accessible; i.e., if it is not in adomain that has been sent to Spell-Out. In other cases, such as those discussed in
sections 4 and 5, the Last Resort process is responsible for bringing the Q
element to the CP. In these latter cases, when the Q element Merges with C, the
EPP feature on C is eliminated.
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, this proposal accounts for wh-question formation without
reliance on optional EPP features in non-interrogative phase heads. Rather, nonlocal Q/wh movement in English and Japanese is the result of a process of Last
Resort, which under the appropriate circumstances, enables a Q/wh-element to‘move’ to an interrogative CP as a result of being reinserted into asubnumeration and re-Merged at a higher point in a derivation. Q/wh-movement
can be driven by an EPP feature, but only if the wh-phrase is close enough to aninterrogative C to be attracted by it. This analysis does away with the need to
stipulate EPP features when convenient. It also has the advantage of allowing anentire phase to be sent to Spell-Out as a unit. I leave for future work analyses of
wh-questions in other languages, as well as examination of the Last Resort
process with respect to other phenomena.

116

Last Resort Movement in Wh-Questions

References
Aoun, Joseph & Yen-hui Audrey Li. 1993. Wh-elements in situ: Syntax or LF.
Linguistic Inquiry 24. 199-238.
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 1994. What does adjacency do? In MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics 22: The morphology syntax connection, ed. by Heidi Harley and Collin
Phillips, 1-32. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
Cable, Seth. 2007. The grammar of Q: Q-particles and the nature of wh-fronting, as
revealed by the wh-questions of Tlingit. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
dissertation.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
___. 1999. Derivation by phase. MIT Occasional papers in linguistics 18. Cambridge,
MA: MITWPL.
___. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries: The framework. In Step by step, ed. by Roger Martin,David Michaels, & Juan Uriagereka, 89-155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
___. 2001. Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Occasional papers in linguistics 20.
Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
____. 2006. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory; essays in honor ofJean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero, & Maria-Luisa
Zubizaretta, 3-166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
___, & Howard Lasnik. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry. 8. 425-504.
Felser, Claudia. 2004. Wh-copying, phases, and successive cyclicity. Lingua. 114. 543574.
Ginsburg, Jason. 2009. Interrogative features. University of Arizona dissertation.
Grewendorf, Gunther & Joost Kremers. 2009. Phases and cycles. Some problems with
Phase Theory. The Linguistic Review 26. 385-430.
Johnson, Kyle. 2002. Towards an etiology of adjunct islands. Ms., University of
Massachusetts at Amherst.
Katz, Jerrold & Paul Postal. 1964. An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
May, Robert. 1985. Logical form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2001. EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In Ken Hale: A life inlanguage, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, pp. 293-338. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2000. T-to-C movement: Causes and Consequences.
In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 355-426. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Sumangala, Lelwala. 1992. Long distance dependencies in Sinhala: The syntax of focus
and WH questions. Cornell University dissertation.

Jason Ginsburg

Jason Ginsburg
Center for Language Research
University of Aizu
Tsuruga, Ikki-machi, Aizuwakamatsu
Fukushima, 965-8580, Japanjginsbur@gmail.com

117