Can words like "what" be the subject of a sentence?

Question

In a question like "Who hears a noise?", is the subject of the sentence who?

I can think of a few tests for subjects like: "the subject is the phrase that inverts with the auxiliary to form a question". But this is a question and there is no auxiliary. We could say that's because it's a subject, but that would be just to presuppose that it's a subject in the first place.

I can think of tests like: "the form of the verb will agree with the number of the subject", but on the other hand who does not seem to have fixed grammatical number, and it sometimes seems like who might actually be agreeing with noun phrases later in the sentence:

Who are the most prolific writers of our age?
Who is the most prolific writer of our age?

There are also tests like "the subject is usually the first noun phrase in the sentence". But of course if we have a question like:

Who have you bitten?

... you, not who seems to be the subject. The first noun phrase test is not very good.

I also know that some theories of grammar say that there is a gap in wh- questions that the wh- word is extracted from. So can this gap for instance be the real object of a question? If so, is there a gap in questions like mine functioning as subject?[See community wiki post in the linked to question]

How can we show whether who is really the subject of my original example question? And how about other wh- words like what? Can they (also) function as subjects?

A quick look in a basic grammar or even Cambridge Dictionaries Online is all that is needed here. — Edwin Ashworth, Apr 02 '15 at 23:27
This is an interesting question which has been argued both ways in the linguistic literature. I was halfway through typing up an answer when I was notified that the question was closed, and so I had to discard what I had written. It's pretty irritating when people through ignorance decide that a question does not merit an answer. — Greg Lee, Apr 03 '15 at 00:34
@Greg It's not closed: it's put on hold because it shows no indication that the asker has done anything to try to answer the question himself. Putting a question on hold gives the asker the opportunity to edit their question to include what's missing, at which point it may be reopened. — Janus Bahs Jacquet, Apr 03 '15 at 11:01
@JanusBahsJacquet, my statement was accurate. When I had my answer partway typed, I got a screen notifier saying the question was closed. That's what it said. I didn't see anything missing in the question. It was clear. The people who voted to put the question on hold simply didn't understand the issue, which is whether a wh-word that was a subject is preposed in a question and made a topic (losing its status as a subject). — Greg Lee, Apr 03 '15 at 11:44
@GregLee No, the question was put on hold because it shows no research effort. That has nothing to do with the close-voters not understanding the issue (or at least, we cannot know if the close-voters understood the issue or not, since the close-voting reason given is formal, not related to the appropriateness of the question itself). Even a highly intelligent and on-topic question is considered off-topic if it does not show any research effort. If research efforts are subsequently added and the question reopened, answers will be accepted. — Janus Bahs Jacquet, Apr 03 '15 at 11:50
@JanusBahsJacquet, how would the questioner know where to look for an answer? It's not a simple question. Do you know where to look? How can you judge whether a beginner should research a question if you don't understand what's being asked or how to research it yourself? Don't close-voters bear any responsibility at all? — Greg Lee, Apr 03 '15 at 11:59
@GregLee Google and Wikipedia are good places to start. Anyone who can find this site can surely find both of those, too. Nobody is requiring that askers be able to locate state-of-the-art linguistic research on any topic; something simple will do, like “I looked at the Wikipedia article on subjects, which told me that [X]; but it's not clear from the article whether something like what in [sentence Y] can be considered a subject or not”. That shows prior research: at least trying to find an answer before asking here, even if you don't get very far. — Janus Bahs Jacquet, Apr 03 '15 at 12:06
@JanusBahsJacquet, so you think the question should have been embellished with some empty assurance -- "I tried and tried to answer this, and read, and thought, but I'm simply at my wits end!" — Greg Lee, Apr 03 '15 at 12:14
@Greq Lee Instead of moaning, submit a properly researched question showing arguments both for and against the classification of introductory wh-words as subjects (and possibly objects). From the way the question is framed, OP wants a quick yes/no answer and hasn't bothered to include even one reference. If you wish to debate why who in 'Who is snoring?' should not be classed as a subject, that would be quite acceptable. Provided some authoritative opinion is provided.... — Edwin Ashworth, Apr 03 '15 at 18:46
It's annoying when people remonstrate about people voting to close badly presented questions. Perhaps you think standards aren't too important, but that cheapens the site. Present a good question; you can even post an answer yourself. It would be obvious you weren't doing this just for kudos after the putting on hold of this question. — Edwin Ashworth, Apr 03 '15 at 18:47
@EdwinAshworth, why should I ask the question? I already know the answer. Since apparently you and the other close-voters don't know, why don't you ask? There was nothing wrong with the presentation of the original question. You made a mistake in voting to close it. — Greg Lee, Apr 04 '15 at 17:13
@Greg Lee You know the answer? Which one? CDO has 'Who owns this bag? Who is the subject of the sentence and this bag is the object....' The Reverso Dictionary agrees with this analysis, as do English Club and Dowling. Also Quirk et al. But analysts like Aarts and CGEL don't seem to include wh-words as possible realisations of the subject. For a sensibly pitched answer (or redirection to ELU), more information about the level OP is asking the question at is required. I agree, it's a good question. Poorly posed for ELU purposes. — Edwin Ashworth, Apr 04 '15 at 18:25
@EdwinAshworth, I know the answer in the sense that I have a favorite candidate of the two answers I know about. My best answer is yes, it's the subject. Other grammarians would disagree. It's a little involved, and I'm just not willing to try cramming an answer into one of these comments. I wish the question had not been closed off in a way that prevents me from giving an answer in the usual format. — Greg Lee, Apr 04 '15 at 19:01
@Greg Lee I've asked for suggestions for a way forward on Meta. I'd ask a question with references for basic arguments myself, but it feels like riding roughshod over OP. As usual, we see that even definitions of the basic terms (word, adverb, preposition, sentence, clause, complement, subject ...) are not agreed upon by the authorities. — Edwin Ashworth, Apr 04 '15 at 20:14
OP: If you want a better answer post, then don't accept an answer that you aren't satisfied with. Uncheck that answer post, and then give people time to write a good solid answer. There are at least two members who are/were interested in writing you a solid answer. :) — F.E., Apr 07 '15 at 09:19
@Droonkid I take it from your comment on the existing answer that you'd like some solid evidence, so I've edited your question for you to bring out some of the more difficult points - and to get it reopened. If you don't like them, feel free to amend the question in any way you see fit :) — Araucaria - Him, Apr 07 '15 at 09:22
Here's one answer post that might be helpful for you: Which is the correct question (“Who has” vs “Who have”)? :) — F.E., Apr 07 '15 at 09:24
@Araucaria Droonkid hasn't visited the site since half an hour after asking the question (and ten minutes after accepting an answer); I doubt he'll ever even see your comment. — Janus Bahs Jacquet, Apr 07 '15 at 09:43
@JanusBahsJacquet Yes, but he's answered loads of other questions over the past few months, so you never know ... Just being polite really. Hmm, haven't done my photocopying, am going to get into trouble. Ciao — Araucaria - Him, Apr 07 '15 at 09:46

score 2 · Answer 1 · answered Apr 02 '15 at 23:33

2

Q: What is the subject of this sentence?
A: What is the subject of that sentence.

answered Apr 02 '15 at 23:33

Chris Sunami

19,990

So it is? I don't understand your answer. – Droonkid Apr 02 '15 at 23:35
What is the subject of that sentence? What is the subject of that sentence. – Chris Sunami Apr 02 '15 at 23:35
Not the most helpful answer but I will accept it. – Droonkid Apr 02 '15 at 23:40
1

And who's on first then? – terdon Apr 03 '15 at 00:02
@terdon - I don't know. – Hot Licks Apr 03 '15 at 00:18

score 2 · Accepted Answer · answered Apr 07 '15 at 13:58

Both sides of this question have been argued in the linguistic literature. "who" could be a topic, and then the sentence structure would be

[who [ __ hears a noise]]

on the analogy of other wh-questions with a wh-word moved to the top of the structure and leaving a gap, __, where it once was. Or, perhaps questions whose subject is a wh-word simply don't need to be changed by moving the wh-word to the front, because, well, it's already there. In that case, we have

[who hears a noise]

and "who" is simply a subject.

There are a number of grammatical theories which do not permit stating grammatical relations in terms of word order, but only structural relationships, so such theories would presumably not recognize the logic of the argument that a wh-word subject must remain a subject in a question, because it is already at the front of the sentence, where it needs to be. (Such "order free" theories are Chomsky's latest theories (I think), dependency grammar, relational grammar, and GPSG.)

You might think that the subject-agreement in the verb "hears" with the singular "who" shows that "who" is a subject. And perhaps that is evidence, but a follower of the east coast school of linguistics would assume that the gap created by extracting the subject is a "trace" which is coindexed with the former subject, so the verb agreement can still be correctly described.

There is an argument for the second no-movement treatment quoted and discussed in the book Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, and the argument itself (if I recall correctly, due to Pauline Jacobson) is based on so-called parasitic gaps. In the Wikipedia entry for Parasitic gap, this illustration is given:

Which explanation did you reject __1 without first really considering __2?

where the first gap must be higher up in the structure tree than the second (parasitic) gap. The relevance of parasitic gaps here is that they give us a diagnostic for detecting a gap in subject position. A subject gap, since it is highest in the structure of its clause, should license a parasitic gap elsewhere in the clause. But if there is no subject gap, there won't be any parasitic gap, because parasitic gaps depend for their existence on a gap higher up.

So, we can construct a test case from the above parasitic gap sentence by making it a passive whose subject is the wh-expression:

*Which explanation __1 was rejected by you without first really considering __2?

This is ungrammatical. If there were really a subject gap, it should have been okay. So, we can conclude that there is no subject gap and that a wh-subject in a question remains in place. I know of no evidence on the other side of this question, so that is my conclusion.

Worth waiting for. Odds on Droonkid having asked this when given a homework, and reproducing it for teacher? I hope other analyses are forthcoming. — Edwin Ashworth, Apr 07 '15 at 14:15
+1 I'd never heard that argument before! Learn something new ... — Araucaria - Him, Apr 07 '15 at 14:18

Duccio · Answer 3 · 2020-09-03T08:14:59.083

Chris Sunami wrote:

Q: What is the subject of this sentence? A: What is the subject of that sentence.

Yet, we have What are the subjects of this sentence? Therefore, the subjects of that sentence are "the subjects of this sentence".

In Chris Sunami's answer, "what" appears to be the predicative nominative (the subject of this sentence is what).

Neither the Cambridge dictionary and grammar, nor the Merriam-Webster mention "what" as a subject of a sentence. They define it as a pronoun, but all the examples they provide have it as the object of the verb. And that is confusing because there are plenty of cases where "what" is the subject:

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger

What boils in the pot?

What grows in the garden?

What is there to eat? (see this related question on SE)

and the sentence that troubled me:

We must keep what works and discard what doesn't

In other languages it is quite common to find "what" as the subject of a verb:

Was wuchs im Garten sehr gut? [German]

Cosa bolle in pentola? [Italiano]

That is why I was surprised that "what" in English is never mentioned as a subject in textbooks (but, to be honest, never explicitly forbidden either).

So I believe that yes, "what" can be the subject of your sentence.

EDIT 1: After posting this answer I noticed that MW has indeed two examples of "what" used as the subject:

What angered us was the tone of the article (entry 2.a)

Gave also, what is more valuable, understanding (entry 2.b)

Can words like "what" be the subject of a sentence?

3 Answers3

Linked

Related