On the Phonetic Content of Moved Operators: A Reassessment

This study is concerned with assessing Polinsky’s (2016) proposal that the ban (or otherwise) on A-bar movement is itself contingent on the dichotomy of visible vs invisible operators. Thus, in English, where both the relative and wh operators are phonetically visible, both the movements are allowed while in Chukchi where only the wh operator is visible only wh movement is allowed. To assess the universality of her proposal, three different languages belonging to three diverse language families are chosen. They are analyzed in terms of visible vs invisible relative and wh- operators, and the ability of the concerned nominals to move to A-bar positions. In the analysis, English and Hindi/Urdu relativized and wh-constructions behave according to Polinsky’s proposal while Pashto behave differently in terms of relativization and wh-constructions. This study, thus establishes that her proposal has utility but is unable to explain the movement of nominals to A-bar positions in all the languages.