The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Journal Archive

Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 26
[Paper List] [Goto Volume List]

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 26, No. 0, pp. 509-524
Abbreviation: KASELL
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
1. Agbayani, B. 2000. Wh-subjects in English and the vacuous movement hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 703-713.
2. Beck, S. and S.-S. Kim. 1997. On wh- and operator scope in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6, 339-384.
3. Beck, S. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14(1), 1-56.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Bošković, Ž. 2024. On wh and subject positions, the EPP, and contextuality of syntax. The Linguistic Review 41(1), 7-58.
10. Branigan, P. 1992. Subjects and Complementizers. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.
11. Cable, S. 2010. The Grammar of Q: Q-particles, Wh-movement, and Pied-piping. New York: Oxford University Press.
12. 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.
13. Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. 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.
15. Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz, ed., Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. 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.
17. Chung, S. and J. McCloskey. 1983. On the interpretation of certain island facts in GPSG. Linguistic Inquiry 14(4), 704-713.
18. 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.
19. Erlewine, M. 2016. Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel Agent Focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 34(2), 429-479.
20. Erlewine, M. 2017. Why the null complementizer is special in complementizer-trace effects. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 80, 371-380. Cambridge, MA.
21. Erlewine, M. 2020. Anti-locality and subject extraction. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1), 84.
22. Fitzpatrick, J. 2006. The Syntactic and Semantic Roots of Floating Quantification. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Cambridge, MA, USA.
23. Gallego, Á. 2017. The EPP in labeling theory: Evidence from Romance. Syntax 20(4), 384-399.
24. Ginzburg, J. and I. A. Sag. 2000. Interrogative Investigations. Palo Alto, CA: CSLI Publications.
25. Henry, A. 2012. Phase edges, quantifier float and the nature of (micro-) variation. Iberia 4(1), 23-39.
26. Holmberg, A. and T. Hróarsdóttir. 2003. Agreement and movement in Icelandic raising constructions. Lingua 113, 997-1019.
27. Ippolito, M. 2024. The hell with questions. Journal of Semantics 41, 53-76.
28. Kaisse, E. 1983. The syntax of auxiliary reduction in English. Language 59(1), 93-122.
29. 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.
30. Kotek, H. 2016. Covert partial wh-movement and the nature of derivations. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1(1), 25.
31. Kotek, H. 2019. Composing Questions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32. McCloskey, J. 2000. Quantifier float and wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry 31(1), 57-84.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. Pesetsky, D. 2000. Phrasal Movement and Its Kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37. 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.
38. Rizzi, L. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.
39. 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.