The variable status of comp-trace phenomena

As a consequence of the analysis proposed here, it appears that an element in COMP can have one of two things happen to it at S-structure. It may be deleted, provided that it is $$\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} \alpha & {WH} \\ {\alpha i} & {} \\ \end{array} } \right]$$ , or it may fuse with another element, provided that one of the two elements is $$\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} \alpha & {WH} \\ {\alpha i} & {} \\ \end{array} } \right]$$ . In the latter event, an $$\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} \alpha & {WH} \\ {\alpha i} & {} \\ \end{array} } \right]$$ element also dictates the resultant form of fusion, with the consequences for the proper government of subject traces discussed above. While taking its inspiration from Pesetsky's rule of special deletion in COMP, fusion is distinct from it in applying also to Wh-questions and relative constructions where the resultant form in COMP is a Wh-phrase. Thus, three constructions, rather than two, involve fusion: Wh-questions, Wh-/that relatives, and in some languages and dialects, that-e constructions. To summarize in somewhat rough terms, a subject gap is licensed when a Wh-phrase may potentially appear in pre-subject position. When this is the case, either the ‘moved’ Wh-phrase or the non-Wh complementizer (that) may license the gap. That is, the licensing element is one which normally lacks either complementizer status or Wh-/argument-associated referential status. In licensing the gap, the licensing element gains the feature it lacks before fusion, either complementizer status or referential index. In necessarily being [+COMP], the element remaining in COMP complies with the strictest requirements of $$\bar X$$ syntax. In retaining or acquiring an index, it permits appropriate proper government of subject position in both Wh-questions and relatives. In particular, it explains how a complementizer which is otherwise not indexed comes to behave like an indexed Wh-phrase. Further, FIC-T explains how for some languages and dialects the [−WH] complementizer may act as an indexed element and license a subject gap when the Wh-phrase corresponding to the gap is in a more remote position. This analysis has a number of advantages. For one thing, it allows a direct characterization of varying levels of acceptability among the constructions discussed above. It also separates the sometimes-accepted that-e constructions from the much more rarely accepted whether-e constructions. Second, it offers a concrete and general mechanism for explaining the apparent acquisition of head status by a Wh-phrase moved into a COMP already containing a natural $$\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} { + WH} \hfill \\ { + COMP} \hfill \\ \end{array} } \right]$$ head. Fusion thus offers an explicit account of how compliance with the requirement that a [+WH] COMP must have a [+WH] head takes place, while still allowing the [+WH] and [−WH] complementizers parallel status in phrase structure. Third, for English, fusion offers an account of what the resultant forms can be. In particular, it explains how Wh-phrases interact with complementizers and thus offers a more general account of the licensing of subject gaps while avoiding the complication of making that subject relatives exceptions (to the that-e filter) or requiring special rules which do no other work.