Assignment 20

PART A

Remember:


(1)	Whose secret have you discovered?
(2)	Whose gorilla were the kids talking to? 
(3)	To whose gorilla were the kids talking? 
(4)	What is Sheila stirring the soup with?
(5)	With what is Sheila stirring the soup?
(6)	Who(m) are you trying not to be afraid of?
(7)	Of whom are you trying not to be afraid?
(8)	*Whose have you discovered secret?
(9)	*Whose were the kids talking to gorilla?
(10)	*Visiting whose gorilla were the kids?
(11)	*Is stirring the soup with what Sheila?
(12)	*Afraid of whom are you trying not to be?
(13)	*Not to be afraid of whom are you trying?

Say exactly why, according to what we have assumed so far, (1-7) are generated,
but (8-13) are not.  If our assumptions so far do not account for all of these
facts, invent some assumptions that do.  Motivate them clearly.


PART B

Analyze the following examples.  Make all relevant
generalizations clear.  Discuss and justify any new
assumptions made.  If no new assumptions are necessary, say why.  

(14)	Sheila wondered whether to complain to the management.
(15)	Vincent will ask you where to put the rabbits.
(16)	The girls don't know whose book to encourage you to read to Freddy. 
(17)	The girls don't know which boy to encourage you to read your book to. 
(18)	It is unclear what to do after Sunday.
(19)	What to do after Sunday is unclear.
(20)	How to begin to proceed is a mystery to me.

(21)	*Sheila wondered whether (for) her to complain to the management.
(22)	*Vincent will ask you where (for) Joe to put the rabbits.
(23)	*It is unclear what (for) you to do after Sunday.


PART C

Does your analysis account for the following contrasts?  If so, say
how.  If not, further revise your analysis so it does.

(24)	Sheila wondered who would complain to the management.
(25)	*Sheila wondered who to complain to the management.
(26)	It is unclear who will feed the pigs after Sunday.
(27)	*It is unclear who to feed the pigs after Sunday.
(28)	Joe asked who was likely to be convicted.
(29)	Joe asked who it was likely would be convicted.
(30)	*Joe asked who to be likely to be convicted.
(31)	*Joe asked who it was likely to be convicted.








PART D

Now analyze the bracketed portions of the following sentences: 

(32)	[The book for you to try to assign to your students] is Chomsky & Halle.
(33)	They found [a topic for me to work on].
(34)	[The spoon for them to stir the soup with] is on the table.
(35)	[The book to try to assign to your students] is Chomsky & Halle.
(36)	[The spoon to stir the soup with] is on the table.

Does the analysis you developed in Parts A-C extend to the following?  If
so, say how.  If not, say why not; then revise further.  Note any curiosities
you come across (there will probably be some).  You need not limit yourself to
the examples above; however, any additional examples should be constructed
with care.

(37)	I called [a man to fix the sink]. 
(38)	[The person to be chosen for the job] must be courageous.

(39)	*I called [a man who to fix the sink].
(40)	*[The book which to try to assign to your students] is Chomsky & Halle.
(41)	*They found [a topic which for me to work on].
(42)	*They found [a topic which to work on].
(43)	They found [a topic on which to work].
(44)	[The spoon with which to stir the soup] is on the table.
(45)	*[The man whose words to remember] is Jorge Hankamer.

CAUTION:  The bracketed material in some of these examples has an alternative
analysis in which the embedded CP does not form a constituent with the
preceding NP, but rather is an adverbial clause -- specifically, a
purpose clause (as in: [I bought it [for you to stir the soup with]]).  However, 
when the bracketed material appears in subject position, 
a purpose clause analysis is not possible.  Ignore the
possibility of a purpose clause analysis.