Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 26, No. 0, pp.509-524
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Mar 2026
Received 26 Nov 2025 Revised 11 Feb 2026 Accepted 05 Mar 2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.26..202603.509

Wh-Subjects, Intervention Effects, and Structural Dependencies

Bum-Sik Park
Professor, Division of English Language and Literature Dongguk University 30, Pildong-ro 1-gil, Jung-gu Seoul, Korea, Tel: +82-2-2260-3166 bumsikpark@dongguk.edu


© 2026 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This paper investigates the syntax of wh-subjects in English, as in Who left?, a long-standing topic of debate in the literature. While traditional approaches assume that wh-subjects move to SpecCP, I adopt and refine Bošković’s (2024) proposal that they move to a lower mixed A/A′ position, SpecA/A′P, in the EPP domain. I argue that, despite the absence of overt movement to SpecCP, wh-subjects must nevertheless establish structural dependencies with the interrogative C. Specifically, I propose that the interrogative C selects the A/A′ head and enters into an Agree relation with the wh-phrase in SpecA/A’P, thereby yielding wh-interpretation. The resulting dependency between C and A/A’ captures intervention effects induced by intervening operators. It also provides a more explicit account of restrictions on aggressively non-D-linked wh-subjects, such as who the hell, in embedded clauses. Finally, I suggest that constraints such as anti-locality and derivational economy prevent wh-subjects from undergoing further movement from SpecA/A’P to SpecCP.

Keywords:

wh-subjects, structural dependency, EPP, A/A’, aggressively non-D-linked wh-phrases, intervention effects

Acknowledgments

I thank the two anonymous reviewers of Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics for their helpful comments and suggestions. I am also grateful to Philip Yoongoo Jung for insightful discussion.

References

  • Agbayani, B. 2000. Wh-subjects in English and the vacuous movement hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 703-713. [https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554523]
  • Beck, S. and S.-S. Kim. 1997. On wh- and operator scope in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6, 339-384. [https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008280026102]
  • Beck, S. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14(1), 1-56. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-005-4532-y]
  • Bošković, Ž. 2012. On NPs and clauses. In G. Grewendorf and T. E. Zimmermann, eds., Discourse and Grammar: From Sentence Types to Lexical Categories, 179-242. Berlin: de Gruyter. [https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511601.179]
  • Bošković, Ž. 2013. Phases beyond clauses. In L. Schürcks, A. Giannakidou and U. Etxeberria, eds., The Nominal Structure in Slavic and Beyond, 75-128. Berlin: de Gruyter. [https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614512790.75]
  • Bošković, Ž. 2014. Now I’m a phase, now I’m not a phase: On the variability of phases with extraction and ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 45(1), 27-89. [https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00148]
  • Bošković, Ž. 2016. On the timing of labeling: Deducing comp-trace effects, the subject condition, the adjunct condition and tucking in from labeling. The Linguistic Review 33(1), 17-66. [https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2015-0013]
  • Bošković, Ž. 2020. On the coordinate structure constraint, across-the-board movement, phases, and labeling. In J. van Craenenbroeck, C. Pots and T. Temmerman, eds., Recent Developments in Phase Theory, 133-186. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. [https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501510199-006]
  • Bošković, Ž. 2024. On wh and subject positions, the EPP, and contextuality of syntax. The Linguistic Review 41(1), 7-58. [https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2024-2002]
  • Branigan, P. 1992. Subjects and Complementizers. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.
  • Cable, S. 2010. The Grammar of Q: Q-particles, Wh-movement, and Pied-piping. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Carstens, V., N. Hornstein and T. D. Seely. 2016. Head-head relations in Problems of Projection. The Linguistic Review: Special Issue on Labeling 33(1), 67-86. [https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2015-0014]
  • Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka, eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89-155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz, ed., Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0004]
  • Chomsky, N. 2008. On phases. In R. Freidin, C.P. Otero and L. Zubizarreta, eds., Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133-166, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7713.003.0009]
  • Chung, S. and J. McCloskey. 1983. On the interpretation of certain island facts in GPSG. Linguistic Inquiry 14(4), 704-713.
  • den Dikken, M. and A. Giannakidou. 2002. From hell to polarity: “Aggressively non-d-linked” wh-phrases as polarity items. Linguistic Inquiry 33(1), 31-61. [https://doi.org/10.1162/002438902317382170]
  • Erlewine, M. 2016. Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel Agent Focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34(2), 429-479. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9310-z]
  • Erlewine, M. 2017. Why the null complementizer is special in complementizer-trace effects. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 80, 371-380. Cambridge, MA.
  • Erlewine, M. 2020. Anti-locality and subject extraction. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1), 84. [https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1079]
  • Fitzpatrick, J. 2006. The Syntactic and Semantic Roots of Floating Quantification. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Cambridge, MA, USA.
  • Gallego, Á. 2017. The EPP in labeling theory: Evidence from Romance. Syntax 20(4), 384-399. [https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12139]
  • Ginzburg, J. and I. A. Sag. 2000. Interrogative Investigations. Palo Alto, CA: CSLI Publications.
  • Henry, A. 2012. Phase edges, quantifier float and the nature of (micro-) variation. Iberia 4(1), 23-39.
  • Holmberg, A. and T. Hróarsdóttir. 2003. Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions. Lingua 113, 997-1019. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(02)00162-6]
  • Ippolito, M. 2024. The hell with questions. Journal of Semantics 41, 53-76. [https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffae001]
  • Kaisse, E. 1983. The syntax of auxiliary reduction in English. Language 59(1), 93-122. [https://doi.org/10.2307/414062]
  • Kotek, H. 2014. Intervention out of islands. In L. Kusmer and J. Iyer, eds., Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 44, 234-246. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
  • Kotek, H. 2016. Covert partial wh-movement and the nature of derivations. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1(1), 25. [https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.49]
  • Kotek, H. 2019. Composing Questions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10774.001.0001]
  • McCloskey, J. 2000. Quantifier float and wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry 31(1), 57-84. [https://doi.org/10.1162/002438900554299]
  • Messick, T. 2020. The derivation of highest subject questions and the nature of the EPP. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1), 1-12. [https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1029]
  • Mizuguchi, M. 2014. Phases, labeling and wh-movement of the subject. Paper presented at the 32nd Conference of the English Linguistic Society of Japan, Gakushuin University, Tokyo.
  • Pesetsky, D. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen, eds., The Representation of (In)Definiteness, 98-129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Pesetsky, D. 2000. Phrasal Movement and Its Kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5365.001.0001]
  • Pesetsky, D. and E. Torrego. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In M. Kenstowicz, ed., Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 355-426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0014]
  • Rizzi, L. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris. [https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110883718]
  • Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman, ed., Elements of Grammar: A Handbook of Generative Syntax, 281-337. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7]