This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: 1b, which demonstrate that the wanna-contraction can be grammatically correct, who starts in an accusative position in d-structure. Who then moves up to the spec of CP2 (to check the +WH-feature), where it functions as an object. In sentence 1c & 1b, who starts in the spec of VP and it moves up to TP to get its nominative case and check +EPP. Because it needs to check the +WH-feature as well, it moves further up the tree to check that feature. It ends up at the top of the tree in the spec of CP. It functions as the subject of the infinitive embedded clause. The traces left by who in sentence 1c & 1d prevents to to contract to want. The trace left by who in sentences 1a & 1b, however, doesn’t interfere and to can contract to want....
View Full Document
- Spring '08
- English, Dependent clause, Syntactic entities, clause, Haegeman