In situ mixed 'wh'-coordination and the argument/adjunct distinction

• Main Author: Erik Zyman
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Open Library of Humanities 2020-03-01
• Series: Glossa
• Subjects: argument/adjunct distinction; 'wh'-coordination; mixed 'wh'-coordination; vp-coordination; v-to-'v'; across-the-board movement
• Online Access: https://www.glossa-journal.org/articles/1070

One of the most important results of syntactic inquiry has been a detailed empirical and, to some extent, theoretical understanding of the argument/adjunct distinction, which underlies a wide array of superficially different phenomena. Therefore, any phenomena that appear to challenge the argument/adjunct distinction deserve scrutiny. This squib investigates an almost unremarked-upon phenomenon of just that type: apparent in situ mixed 'wh'-coordination (ISMW: 'Mary ate WHAT and WHEN to impress Sue?!'), in which argument and adjunct 'wh'-phrases are apparently coordinated in situ. Two analyses of ISMW are compared: the 'Wh'-Coordination Analysis, on which the conjuncts are the 'wh'-phrases, and the VP-Coordination Analysis, on which the conjuncts are VPs whose head Vs undergo across-the-board head movement to 'v'. The squib argues for the VP-Coordination Analysis on conceptual and empirical grounds. Conceptually, the VP- but not the 'Wh'-Coordination Analysis is compatible with our understanding of the argument/adjunct distinction, and involves an unremarkable derivation that it would take a stipulation to rule out; hence, the VP-Coordination Analysis is preferable. Empirically, the VP- but not the 'Wh'-Coordination Analysis makes several correct predictions: (a) that ISMW should be impossible with obligatorily transitive verbs; (b) that adverbs should be able to follow the first 'wh'-phrase in ISMW that cannot follow it in the left periphery; and (c) that there should be apparent in situ coordination of argument 'wh'-phrases with different 'θ'-roles. That ISMW involves VP-coordination rather than 'wh'-coordination indicates that it in fact does not threaten the argument/adjunct distinction, contrary to initial appearances, a theoretically welcome result.