When the question word is the subject of the clause, there is no aux verb, eg 'Who saw you?'. I understand this, but why is 'who did see you?' also correct, with respect to Chomsky's linguistic theory (The Minimalist Program) using x-bar theory?

Does the Doubly filled COMP filter play into this? If I've understood correctly, the Doubly filled COMP filter states that the wh-word can only move to the [Spec, CP] if the C is not overt. This makes sense to me in embedded questions, but in direct questions, isn't this a contradiction, as the aux verb moves to the C?


First of all, it is not the case that "who" cannot raise over "did" in T (or more precisely - over the tense affix), because it does so when moving from Spec-VP to Spec-TP anyway (under the VP-internal subject hypothesis).

Second, X-bar theory itself says nothing about the constraints on movement; it simply states how the structure is organized - basically that every head has a bar-projection and then there is a specifier and a complement.

Third, Doubly-filled COMP filter uses the conception of COMP present in 70-80's, where both wh-words and complementizers like "that" both were of COMP category, that is C. So it does not really apply to cases where there is a wh-word in Spec/CP and "did" in C.

Now back to the main question - why? Radford in his 2006 textbook "Minimalist Syntax Revisited" suggests that wh-words are attracted by an edge feature [EF] to Spec/CP and tense affix T is attracted to C by a tense feature [TNS], both of features are part of C. He then refers to Pesetsky & Torrego's analysis where wh-subjects can bring [TNS] with them when moving from Spec/TP (unlike wh-objects which never pass that position) and thus satisfy both [EF] and [TNS] of C in Spec/CP. Another option is that wh-subjects never really possess [TNS] and that [TNS] in C simply "needs" to attract something from T or its projections. In wh-object questions [TNS] can only attract whatever is in T and not the subject that is in Spec/TP because Spec position of C is already occupied by the wh-object. In wh-subjects cases, though, both [EF] and [TNS] would be satisfied by just moving a subject to Spec/CP.

I'm not aware of any other analysis of this and honestly I would be very unsatisfied by the one above since it posits the [TNS] feature which has no justification and is mostly unneeded in the analysis of wh-movement in other languages.

  • I have edited the question to add Chomsky's linguistic theory to the part about x-bar trees, as that is what I meant. Are you able to shed light? – PolkaDot May 30 '17 at 10:30
  • I'm not sure if I'm following you but like I said X-bar theory simply tells us what structures/trees look like in a formal way and nothing else. You can represent an ungrammatical sentence like "Who did buy pizza?" with an X-bar tree structure but the reason it is ungrammatical has nothing to do with the X-bar formation, so no contradiction is possible here. – syntaxfairy May 30 '17 at 12:28
  • 1
    It's only ungrammatical if the did isn't stressed. If it is, it's just an ordinary emphatic do. Whether that sits in spec, or whose spec it sits in, is a matter between you and your confessor. I'd say it doesn't invert because it isn't needed; the wh-word marks the clause and is natural to parse as subject, so the inversion marker is unnecessary. – jlawler May 30 '17 at 14:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.