Sarkadi Zsuzsanna ANN-246/b

The status of whether: complementiser or WH-phrase?

English sentences consist of a combination of several layers constructed around functional and lexical heads. Looking at (1) it seems proved that declarative and interrogative clauses can be co-ordinated, thus, for only the members of the same category can do this, they must have the same outmost functional layer, the complementiser phrase. (1) He will drink but will he eat? Within ordinary main clauses, the CP layer does not always have to be filled in order to accept the clause as declarative. The case is the same with most embedded declarative clauses. (2) (3) [CP I know [CP [IP He likes water]]. [IP he likes water]].

Therefore when we want to express a question something is necessary to distinguish it from a declaration. In direct questions a WH-phrase standing for the missing information and (or only) the Subject-Auxiliary Inversion that moves the auxiliary positioned in I to the empty C position is sufficient for this. (4) (5) What does he like? Does he like water (or not)?

In embedded questions, however, it is important to know the type of the question reported. Variable questions like (4) are replaced with open interrogative clauses featuring WHphrases. At the same time, polar (and considering the possibility or not: alternative) questions like (5) are turned into those called closed interrogative clauses. (Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 870). (6) (7) I dont know what he likes. I dont know whether / if he likes water (or not).

Sarkadi Zsuzsanna ANN-246/b

Seemingly either the SpecCP or the C of the embedded clause has to be filled by an element that carries the feature [+WH]. We could as well as stop at this point and just simply say that in order to replace variable questions a WH-phrase is moved into SpecCP and with polar or alternative questions the complementisers whether or if are used. However, the case is not so simple. The dictionary defines whether as a conjunction used when we are talking about a choice between two different possibilities. Since it is in most cases interchangeable with if, at first sight it would seem obvious that they belong to the same category, namely, that they are both complementisers. However, there are certain differences in their usage which make this correspondence doubtful. First of all, complementisers by definition being heads of the clauses should determine the properties of them. Regarding the illocutionary force there is no problem, for whether, just like if, introduces the embedded interrogative clause. Nevertheless, the clause introduced by whether can be either finite or non-finite, which means that it does not determine the finiteness of the clause. In this respect it resembles the WH-phrases, after which the finite clause reports an information question requiring a statement as an answer, whereas the non-finite clause reports a direction question requiring an order as an answer. (Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 973). Here it has to be noted that WH-phrases are usually used as relative as well as interrogative pronouns. In this essay, though, we will not handle them separately, for they can be analysed similarly. At the same time, WH-phrases usually stand for a piece of information missing from the clause and get to the front by movement. Whether, however, seemingly does not replace any part of the clause, no information is missing, thus it could not have been moved to the front from somewhere else. Consequently, it must have been born in that position just like a complementiser. For similar reasons, it cannot front a direct question like all other WH-

Sarkadi Zsuzsanna ANN-246/b

phrases, only embedded clauses. It is obvious that the distribution of whether overlaps with that of if, but this does not mean that they are the same. Many of the differences between them may be accounted for by the difference of category. So far we have stated that whether can take either a finite or a nonfinite clause as complement. In addition, only whether can be used when the interrogative clause precedes the predicate (Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 973). In this case it behaves just like WH-phrases do in pseudo-cleft sentences. (8) (9) [ Whether / *if he likes water] remains unclear. [ What he likes _ ] remains unclear.

The only difference is that what evidently fills in the gap left by the missing information, whereas whether does not act like this. Nevertheless, sentences beginning with a declarative clause and complementiser are also grammatical. (10) [ That he likes water ] is normal. (11) [ For him to like water ] is normal. Thus the phenomenon described could also be explained by the deficiency of if and not of whether. Besides, if cannot be used when the interrogative clause is the complement of a preposition while whether can (Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 974). For comparison, the complementiser that can neither be used this way, while the use of WH-words though is usually not the preferred variation is not considered ungrammatical (Swan 2002: 456). (12) It depends on whether / *if he likes water. (13) Tell me (about) what he likes. (14) I know about that he likes water. In addition, if cannot be used when or not immediately follows the subordinator. However, when it follows the first co-ordinate, the sentence remains grammatical.

Sarkadi Zsuzsanna ANN-246/b

(15) I dont know whether / *if or not he likes water. (16) I dont know whether / if he likes water or not. Seemingly, for some reason, whether can be co-ordinated with not whereas if can only do this when the sentence is constructed differently. Moreover, whether can be co-ordinated with WH-phrases while if cannot. (17) I dont know whether / *if or why he likes water. For only the members of the same category and predicates can be co-ordinated, and they are obviously not predicates, this evidence shows that whether should be considered to belong to the same class as why rather than if. As will presently become apparent, the analysis of multiple questions provides further evidence that whether belongs to WH-phrases rather than to complementisers. The Doubly Filled COMP Filter defines that in a clause there can be either an overt WH-phrase in SpecCP or an overt complementiser in C (Haegeman 1994: 382). This explains I-to-C movement in direct questions: the auxiliary from I can move to the empty C and take the position behind the overt WH-phrase. (18) [CP Whatc canb [IP hea tb [VP like tc]]]? The CP layer cannot be multiplied as many times as we want, therefore in multiple WH-questions when more than one piece of information is asked for we cannot move all WHphrases to the front of the clause. (19) a. What does he like why?

b. * What why does he like? Similarly, when a direct multiple WH-question is turned to embedded, only one of the WHphrases can be moved to the front of the sentence and, since WH-movement is local, they can do this only step by step through all the SpecCP-s of the intervening CP-s while it leaves a trace at each stop. The trace occupies the SpecCP thus no other WH-phrase can try to move

Sarkadi Zsuzsanna ANN-246/b

even to the originally also empty intervening SpecCP (Haegeman & Guron 1999: 177). (20) a. b. [CP _ _ [IP He knows [CP whati _ [IP he likes ti why]]]]. [CP _ _ [IP She will ask [CP whati _ [IP he knows [CP ti _ [IP he likes ti why]]]].

c.* [CP _ _ [IP She will ask [CP whati _ [IP he knows [CP whyj _ [IP he likes ti tj]]]]. On the basis of all this, we should try to create similar sentences with our complementisers and observe whether they are grammatical or not. (21) a. b. [CP _ _ [IP She will ask [CP whati _ [IP he knows [CP ti _ [IP he likes ti]]]]. [CP _ _ [IP She will ask [CP whati _ [IP he knows [CP ti that [IP he likes ti]]]].

c. * [CP _ _ [IP She will ask [CP whati _ [IP he knows [CP ti if [IP he likes ti]]]]. d. *[CP _ _ [IP She will ask [CP whati _ [IP he knows [CP ti whether[IP he likes ti]]]]. e. *[CP_ _ [IP She will ask [CP whati _ [IP he knows [CP whether _ [IP he likes ti]]]]. As we have expected, the complementiser that or its null-variant do not block the WH-phrase moving towards the higher CP. However, if, surprisingly, does block WH-movement, just as if there were an abstract [+WH] element in SpecCP (Haegeman & Guron 1999: 180). Based on this evidence it has to be considered which analysis of whether is more probable. If whether is taken for a complementiser (21.d), it has to stand together with this incomprehensible [+WH] element which occurs with if whereas nothing similar can be found beside that although, admittedly, that is a complementiser introducing declarative clauses which could stand without any complementiser at all. In comparison, if we analyse whether as a WH-phrase (21.e), it seems quite understandable why it blocks WH-movement: it is sitting in SpecCP and as such it blocks the movement of any other WH-phrases. Finally it has to be mentioned that The Oxford English Dictionary (Simpson & Weiner (ed.) 1989) still cites whether as an interrogative particle introducing a disjunctive direct question, whereas it is obvious even from the dates next to the examples that it has not been used as such for a few hundred years now. It appears that originally it had a meaning

Sarkadi Zsuzsanna ANN-246/b

similar to the Latin interrogative pronoun uter (which of the two?), possibly it is derived from the same stem. Over the centuries its meaning has altered and narrowed although it still has the original disjunctive meaning while it kept its position in the sentence. (22) Does he like water or not? (23) Which of the two possibilities is true: that he likes water or that he does not? (24) I dont know which of the two possibilities is true: (that) he likes water or (that) he does not. (25) I dont know whether he likes water or not. This would provide a plausible answer for why whether does not stand for a piece of information missing from the sentence. Unlike other WH-phrases and more like the phenomenon of SAI, it inquires into the verity of a whole clause. Its meaning is a little more complex that that of the other WH-words, maybe this is why it ceased to be used to front direct questions especially because the same meaning can be expressed with less effort using simply the SAI. In conclusion, it can be stated that there is more evidence in defence of the view that whether is a WH-word rather than a complementiser. Although it can be used in similar contexts as the complementiser if, there are too many differences in their usage concerning what complements they can take, to what word classes they can become complements, and how a more complex sentence is constructed around them. Nevertheless, in not all the cases examples (8), (15), (16), (21.c) was it evident why if behaves so differently from its declarative complementiser counterpart that. Maybe this can be accounted for by the mere fact that it is interrogative and not declarative. However, this would require further investigation.

Sarkadi Zsuzsanna ANN-246/b

References

Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to the Government and Binding Theory. Oxford UK and Cambridge USA: Blackwell. Haegeman, L., Guron, J. (1999). English Grammar: A Generative Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell. Huddleston, R., Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Simpson, J. A., Weiner, E. S. C. (editors) (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary XX. (2nd ed.) Oxford: Clarendon Press. Swan, M. (2002). Practical English Usage. (2nd ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.