A) Wh- fronting test for phrasal boundaries

The test is based on the proven assumption that only complete/full constituents can be affected

by grammatical rules which move or delete words.

There is a rule in English, called wh-fronting, which moves a phrase (NP, PP, AdjP, AdvP) that contains an interrogative/relative word (“wh-word”) to the front of a question/relative clause, e.g:

John is looking [ at [which girl]]? → [ Which girl] is John looking at?

PP NP [ At which girl] is John looking?

* At which is John looking girl

* At which is John looking girl is ungrammatical because the words which have been moved (at which) do not form a complete constituent. All the nodes which dominate at which – S, VP, PP also dominate other elements.

The wh-fronting rule can be used to check whether the analysis of a VP proposed in A) below is correct.

VP

A)

PP₁

V NP

talked P

to

Det N PP₂

which friend

P N

about Bill

The diagram implies that in the analyzed phrase the sequences of words “ which friend” and

“to which friend” are not complete constituents and consequently it should not be possible to front them with the “wh-fronting” rule.

To which friend will Mary talk__ about Bill?

Which friend will Mary talk to__ about Bill?

Moreover, we have no explanation why the following questions are ungrammatical.

*To which friend about Bill will Mary talk __?

*Which friend about Bil willMary talk to __?

Note that the fronted sequences of words in these examples are complete constituents according to the analysis in A).

What the tests show is that the analysis in A) is wrong and it should be replaced by the one shown in B), in which the word sequences “ which friend ” and “ to which friend ” are complete constituents (NP and PP respectively) and “ to which friend about Bill ” and “ to which ” are not.

B)

VP

PP₁ PP₂

V NP

talked P P N

to about Bill

Det N

which friend