A Case Study on Head Movement Comparative Clauses*

According to Chomsky (1995), movement is simply feature movement for checking and the ccgeneralized pied-piping)) which shows up in overt syntax is just due to phonolo-gical reasons. In this paper I point out that this approach cannot be right, in that the distinction between X and XP movement does exist minimally in syntax, indepen-dently from any phonological consideration. Evidence is given that comparative clauses, all other morphological and phonological conditions being equal, minimally contrast with interrogatives in that they involve head movement to CO of a Wh-element, instead of phrase movement. A brief analysis of the selectional requirements interna1 to the comparative construction, together with an extension to free relatives, drives to the conclusion that the two types of movement are to be distinguished on the basis of their projecting effects: features moved in head-position do project, and are thus visible from the exterior of the checking domain, while features moved in Spec position do not. Key words: syntax, movement theory, comparatives, free relatives. Resum. Un estudi basat en el cas de les oracions comparatives amb trasllat de nucl