Subject questions like Who helped him? : Chomsky claims that such sentences ore CPs headed by the question-affix Q. and the subject who is in spec-TP. with the wh-feature of who being attracted to Q. Chomcky's CP analysis would enable us to provide a unitary characterization of questions as CPs with an interrogative Q head. The [wh} feature of Q is checked by attraction, with the [wh] head-feature of who adjoining to the Cnede containing Q. thereby enabling the (wh] feature of Q to be checked and erased is only a strong affix when the CP headed by @ has an interrogative operator specifier of ite own, Thats why Q is weak here ond doesn't trigger auxiliary inversion or do-support However, there's an alternative characterization of questions as clauses with an imferragative specifier. and this would aliow us to posit that subject questions like Who helped himare TPs which are questions by virtue of the fact that they have an interrogative specifier (2 whe), In questions such as What did you say?, movement of what nto spec-CP would be motiwated by the need to generate a structure with an interrogotive specifier The interrogative specifier analysis would entail positing that yes-no questions like Zs # roming?contain an abstract yes no question operator Op im spec-CP. There are significant parallels between the syntax of such questions and whether ‘questions which make it plausible to posit that they contain a nulloperator counterpart of whether a. yesno questions cen be intreduced by whe?hervhen they are transposed into reported speech. b Rect inversion questions resertble whether questions in that inboth cases yes/no are appropriate answers € Main-clouse yes-no questions can be tagged by ar not in precisely the same way as complement-clause whe ther questions, Enibedded yes-no questions headed by the complementizer /falso have. null es-no question operator-specifier (if merges with Q), and this essunption accounts for the fact that operators can't be extracted out of (question clauses ("How oo ‘you wonder if he is feeling?, since successive cyclic movement is blecked by the null operator and long mavement isblocked by the shortest movement principle. Ff and 0 are the two interrogative complementizers in English, Nonoperator questions: They dont contain an interrogative operator and they don't show auxiliary inversion or wh: movement. Besides, they cant contain polarity items such as any because polarity items rust be c-commonded by a inegative, interrogative or conditional) operator, Examples: You re leaving? He said what? You've ordered the drinks? They can be anclysed az TPs headed by an interrogative T, or perhaps as CPs headed by a question particle Q which is weak by virtue of lacking an interregative operator in spec-CP Chopter 8 VP = internal _subject hypothesis > sibjects originate in spec-VP and are raised into spec-TP in all but a few constructions ~e4g, expletive structures. This raising is called subject-te-subject raising or subject raising Expletive there has the categorial status of a pronomina! determiner (spec-TP), since it con occur in sentence tags and the couxihary Is/are can be moved in front of it (into COMP) in yes-no questions structures Tf we analyze sentences like: “There is semesne waiting for you" and its nonexpletive counterpart "Someone is waiting for ‘you", we see in both "someone" originates in spec-VP; in the first. "there" serves as the specifier of the TP headed by "is" ‘and Zomeone remains in situ as the specifier of the VP headed by waiting, In the second, "someone" undergoes subject raising, Evidence that subjects originate in spec - VP + cliticizotion: ex. We wanna help you, Tt wos claimed thet to couldn't be cliticized onto want because of the presence of a null-case PRO subject in spec. TP but if the PRO subject originates as spec-VP, the cliticization is possible and the sentence grommatical "We wanna PRO help you." 4+ control structures: a moved conshtuert leaves behind a trace in eny position out of which it moves. In. "He certainly has compromised himself” the reflexive himself has es its local e-commanding antecedent the trace of he “TTP He certoinly has (VP compromised himself.) + predicate nominals: following the same idea the predicate nominals have to agree in number with the trace subject f in a mg 9 ie spee-Vk " [TP They probably will [VP + become millionaires]