1. No category

UNIVERSITY OF NOVA GORICA
GRADUATE SCHOOL
ON THE OPTIONALITY OF WH-FRONTING IN A
MULTIPLE WH-FRONTING LANGUAGE
DISSERTATION
Petra Mišmaš
Mentor: Assoc. Prof. Franc Marušič
Nova Gorica, 2015
Abstract
This thesis explores the fact that in Slovenian multiple wh-questions not all whphrases have to front. This suggests that multiple wh-movement in Slovenian is
optional. The majority of the existing literature on multiple wh-fronting focuses on
questions in which all wh-phrases have to move to clause initial positions, I, on the
other hand, focus on optionality in multiple wh-questions. I show movement in
Slovenian is not avoided because of phonological, syntactic or semantic restrictions
that influence other languages (cf. Bošković 2002), and that the Principle of
Distinctness (Richards 2010) does not account for all cases of optional multiple whfronting in Slovenian.
Three types of multiple wh-questions in Slovenian are determined and
analyzed: (i) questions in which all wh-phrases move to clause initial positions (i.e.
questions with multiple wh-fronting), (ii) questions in which one wh-phrase has to be
moved to a clause initial position and the rest undergo movement to a clause internal
position (multiple wh-questions with short movement), (iii) questions in which at
least one wh-phrase has to be moved to a clause initial position and the rest stay in
situ (multiple wh-questions with wh-in-situ). Crucially, in all three types at least one
wh-phrase has to move to a clause initial position for a question to receive a true
question reading.
I assume the Cartographic approach and propose an account of multiple whfronting in Slovenian in which one wh-phrase has to move to an Interrogative
Projection (the clause initial position) in the Left Periphery while the remaining whphrases move to Wh-Projections in the Left Periphery, questions in (i), or the Low
Periphery, questions in (ii). I propose that wh-phrases with a wh-feature undergo whmovement, which means that wh-movement is in fact obligatory in Slovenian. In
questions of type (iii), wh-phrases that do not undergo movement are in fact bare whpronouns, which one also finds in polarity contexts, that are licensed by the
interpretable Q+wh-feature located in the Interrogative Projection. Because the bare
wh-pronouns do not come with a wh-feature, they do not have to move. I conclude
that wh-movement in Slovenian only appears to be optional.
Key words: multiple wh-fronting, short movement, optionality, Interrogative
Projection, Left Periphery, Low Periphery, bare wh-pronouns, wh-in-situ
i
Povzetek: O neobveznosti večkratnega k-premika v jeziku z večkratnim k-premikom
V disertaciji je kot primer jezika z večkratnim k-premikom, v katerem k-zveze niso
nujno skladenjsko premaknjene, obravnavana slovenščina. To nakazuje, da je kpremik v slovenščini neobvezen. Ker so v preteklosti raziskovalci večino pozornosti
namenili večkratnim k-vprašanjem, v katerih se premaknejo vse k-zveze, se ta
disertacija osredotoča na neobveznost v večkratnih k-vprašanjih. Pri tem so kot
mogoče pojasnilo za odsotnost premika izključene fonološke, skladenjske in
semantične omejitve, ki pojasnijo odsotnost k-premika v drugih jezikih (gl. Bošković
2002). Hkrati je pokazano, da ima na k-premik v slovenščini vpliv načelo
razlikovanja (Richards 2010), a da to ne pojasni vseh primerov neobveznega kpremika v slovenščini.
Določeni in analizirani so trije tipi večkratnih k-vprašanj v slovenščini: (i)
vprašanja, v katerih se vse k-zveze premaknejo na začetek stavka (tj. vprašanja z
večkratnim k-premikom), (ii) vprašanja, v katerih se vsaj ena k-zveza premakne na
začetek stavka, medtem ko se ostale premaknejo na pozicijo znotraj stavka (tj.
večkratna k-vprašanja s kratkim premikom), (iii) vprašanja, v katerih se vsaj ena kzveza premakne na začetek stavka, medtem ko ostale k-zveze ostanejo na mestu (tj.
večkratna k-vprašanja s k-zvezo na mestu). V vseh tipih k-vprašanj se vsaj ena kzveza premakne na prvo mesto v stavku.
V nalogi privzemam kartografski pristop. Na podlagi tega je predlagana analiza
večkratnega k-premika v slovenščini, v kateri se ena sama k-zveza premakne v
vprašalno projekcijo (prvo mesto v stavku, InterP) v levi periferiji, medtem ko se
preostale k-zveze premaknejo v k-projekcije (Wh-P), ki so bodisi v levi periferiji,
vprašanja v (i), ali v nizki periferiji stavka, vprašanja v (ii). Predlagano je, da se tako
premaknejo vprašalne k-zveze, ki imajo k-oznake, kar pomeni, da je k-premik v
slovenščini dejansko obvezen. Na mestu ostanejo zgolj goli k-zaimki, ki jih lahko
zasledimo tudi v pogojnih stavkih ali odločevalnih vprašanjih. Tovrstni zaimki so v
vprašanjih v (iii) dovoljeni zaradi interpretabilne Q+k-oznake, ki se nahaja v
vprašalni projekciji. Ker goli k-zaimki nimajo k-oznake, se ne premaknejo, kar
ponovno kaže na to, da k-premik v slovenščini dejansko ni neobvezen.
Ključne besede: večkratni k-premik, kratek premik, neobveznost, vprašalna
projekcija, leva periferija, nizka periferija, goli k-zaimki, k-zveze na mestu
ii
Acknowledgements
First and foremost I want to thank my advisor, Franc Marušič - Lanko. Hvala za vso
pomoč, potrpljenje, komentarje, kritike, ideje in priložnosti, ki sem jih bila deležna v
zadnjih letih. Hvala, hvala, hvala.
For their helpful comments and suggestions I am sincerely grateful to the
members of my committee: Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng, Iliana Krapova, and Athur
Stepanov.
I have spent many years at the University of Nova Gorica and there are a lot of
people who I am thankful to. In the first group is everybody I had the pleasure of
working with. Velik hvala Roku Žaucerju za vso pomoč in mnogo koristnih
nasvetov. Za mnogo priložnosti hvala tudi Katji Mihurko Poniž. Velika zahvala tudi
celotni stalni jezikoslovni zasedbi na Univerzi v Novi Gorici, ki jo danes sestavljajo:
Franc Marušič - Lanko, Rok Žaucer, Arthur Stepanov, Penka Stateva in Sara
Andreetta. Delo s temi ljudmi (mislim, da lahko prav vsakega opišem z mentsh) mi je
prineslo vsaj toliko znanja kot sam študij, vsak dan odprlo kup vprašanj in vedno
zbudilo tisto trmo, zaradi katere se vedno trudim delati več in bolje. Za vso podporo
in ogromno prijaznih besed se zahvaljujem tudi ostalim sodelavcem na Fakulteti za
humanistiko. Hvala, hvala, hvala.
In the second group is everybody who was there during my years as a student
at the University of Nova Gorica. In addition to Franc Marušič - Lanko, Penka
Stateva, Arthur Stepanov, and Rok Žaucer, I want to also thank Slavica Kochovska
for her many words of encouragement, Andrew Nevins for all the great ideas he
shared with me and everybody else who was a part of my studies at UNG. Really, I
am so happy that I had the chance to work with so many amazing people. I honestly
do not know if this would be possible anywhere else. Thank you, thank you, thank
you.
Dolg je tudi seznam vseh, s katerimi je bil vsak dan v Rožni Dolini zanimiv in
pozitiven. Še posebej hvala podstrešnikom (naj bo vaša senca dolga) in Ireni. Pa tudi
študentom, ki so mi vedno dali kopico idej in vprašanj. Hvala, hvala, hvala.
I am grateful to everybody who helped me with the data. Big thanks to
everybody who helped me out with the surveys. (Velik hvala vsem, ki ste sodelovali
v anketah.) I want to especially thank Adrian Stegovec (who helped me when I had
doubts about Slovenian, hvala), Neda Todorović and Marija Runić for their Serboiii
Croatin judgments, and Jitka Bartošová and Hana Strachoňová who helped me with
the Czech data. So many thanks go to Calum Riach who helped me with my English.
Also, many thanks to all of you for being a great group of people to discuss ideas,
problems, issues (and True Detective, blankets, gossips, lemons, and all the
remaining important stuff). I owe you all a lot of gratitude and beer. In all honesty,
there are so many other people who should be included in the group of linguist
buddies and who I should add to the list… But this would turn into a novel fast. So,
dear you, I hope you know that you are one of them and that you are just great.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Hvala nejezikoslovnim prijateljem. Moniki (na še mnoge skupne obede in jake
intelektualne razprave, cheerio), Ani (kuki, Islandija sigurno, zen in karma bosta
pošlihtana, Godot pravi, da bo tam) in Poloni (ki mi ob pisanju tega poroča o
dogodkih preteklega dneva, pri čemer ji odgovarjam z vsemi 18 črkami najine
abecede). Mislim, da sem vam dolžna več, kot sploh veste – zagotovo pa kakšen par
bobničev. Hvala Saši in Janji (kakšna polnočna tura s plavanjem po lužah, volnenimi
nogavicami in tortelini bi se počasi prav prilegla). In spet, v to skupino spada še gora
ljudi. In spet, dragi moji, upam, da veste, kdo ste, da sem vam hvaležna in da ste fajn.
Hvala, hvala, hvala.
In za konec še res velike reči. Hvala mojim staršem. Mislim, da je malo ljudi,
ki jim je doma dano toliko podpore, kot sem jo od ranih nog dobivala jaz (še posebej
jo cenim, ker vem, da je bila nudena kljub mojim občasno povsem neutemeljenim,
nerazumljivim odločitvam). Hvala, ker sta mi pomagala na tej poti – upam, da vesta
koliko mi vajina podpora pomeni. Hvala tudi sestri in njeni družini, ki so mi (poleg
kopice drugih reči) družno dali enega izmed mojih najljubših nazivov – teta. No,
pred petimi leti, sem v diplomski nalogi napisala tole: »Posebna zahvala še vsej moji
družini. Tisti, ki je z mano vedno in povsod. Tisti, ki je na žalost že odšla. Tisti, ki je
vmes prišla.« Vsaj to se med tem časom ni spremenilo. Hvala, hvala, hvala. (If you
are reading this in English, you should know that my family is amazing and that I am
really happy to have them.)
In hvala Martinu. Ker si poslušal in ravno prav komentiral in nisi pobegnil in si
me znal pomiriti bolj od česar koli na svetu in ker si tu, ko te rabim … in za vse tisto,
kar je z besedami težko povedati, ker pomeni preveč. Hvala, hvala, hvala. (You
should know that Martin is ah-maaaaa-zing.)
iv
I have spent many sleepless nights thinking about the thesis and (lately) about
whom I need to thank. And I know that this list does not include everybody it should
– blame it on my nonexistent memory. I guess thinking about questions made me
forget about the facts. Still, one last thank you to everybody seems to be in place.
Hvala.
v
Contents
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Framework ........................................................................................................... 2
1.2 The data ............................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Organization of the thesis .................................................................................... 6
2 Optionality and obligatoriness of multiple wh-fronting .......................................... 8
2.1 What is optionality? ............................................................................................. 9
2.2 Multiple wh-fronting is not obligatory .............................................................. 13
2.2.1 Serbo-Croatian ............................................................................................. 23
2.2.2 Excluding Malagasy .................................................................................... 28
2.3 Slovenian - the data ........................................................................................... 35
2.3.1 Multiple wh-questions with two wh-phrases ............................................... 36
2.3.2 Questions with more than two wh-phrases .................................................. 41
2.3.3 Optionality in multiple wh-questions in Slovenian...................................... 44
3 Multiple wh-questions with multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian ............................ 46
3.1 Multiple wh-fronting - the [+/–MFS] analysis (Rudin 1988) ............................ 46
3.1.1 The [+/– MFS] analysis and Slovenian (Golden 1996a, b, 1997a).............. 53
3.1.2 Problems with the [+/–MFS] analysis and Slovenian .................................. 59
3.2 Multiple wh-fronting – ‘real’ and non-wh-movement (Bošković 1997a and
after) .................................................................................................................... 64
3.2.1 Superiority as a diagnostic for Slovenian .................................................... 74
3.2.2 Problems with the focus analysis of multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian and
beyond .............................................................................................................. 77
3.3 Cartography of multiple wh-questions............................................................... 87
3.3.1 Cartography and the Left Periphery in multiple wh-fronting languages ..... 87
3.3.2 Bulgarian ...................................................................................................... 89
3.3.3 Russian ......................................................................................................... 93
3.4 Word order in Slovenian multiple wh-questions ............................................. 100
3.4.1 The order of wh-objects and wh-subjects .................................................. 102
3.4.2 The order of wh-adjuncts with respect to wh-subjects ............................... 108
3.4.3 The order of wh-adjuncts with respect to wh-objects ................................ 115
3.4.4 Position of wh-phrases with respect to focused phrases and topics ........... 118
vi
3.4.5 Deriving the free word order of wh-phrases ............................................. 120
3.5 Obligatoriness of the clause initial wh-phrase ................................................ 132
3.6 Wh-movement ................................................................................................. 135
3.7 Summary ......................................................................................................... 139
4 Restrictions on multiple wh-fronting: when a wh-phrase must stay in situ ........ 140
4.1 Phonological restrictions ................................................................................. 140
4.2 Phonological restrictions in Slovenian............................................................ 143
4.3 Semantic restrictions ....................................................................................... 144
4.4 Semantic restrictions in Slovenian .................................................................. 146
4.5 Syntactic restrictions ....................................................................................... 148
4.6 Non-wh-islands as restriction on Slovenian .................................................... 149
4.7 The Principle of Distinctness as a restriction on multiple wh-movement....... 150
4.8 The Principle of Distinctness as a restriction on Slovenian ............................ 155
4.9 Summary ......................................................................................................... 162
5 Multiple wh-questions with a wh-phrase in situ in Slovenian............................. 163
5.1 Wh-in-situ as a consequence of the properties of wh-phrases ......................... 169
5.1.1 Wh-pronouns in Slovenian and other Slavic languages ............................ 170
5.1.2 Two readings of bare wh-pronouns ........................................................... 177
5.1.3 Assigning interrogative reading to wh-phrases in situ in Slovenian ......... 183
5.2 Further issues .................................................................................................. 189
5.2.1 Cases with a wh-subject in a clause final position .................................... 189
5.2.2 Two types of ‘what’ and other dialectical variation.................................. 191
5.2.3 Koliko ‘how much/many’ and zakaj ‘why’ ............................................... 196
5.2.4 Data from Serbo-Croatian ......................................................................... 199
5.3 Summary ......................................................................................................... 201
6 Multiple wh-questions with short movement ...................................................... 202
6.1 Short movement in Slovenian: Scrambling vs. wh-movement ....................... 209
6.2 Short movement as wh-movement to the Low Periphery ............................... 218
6.3 Clause initial wh-phrase and short movement ................................................ 224
7 How optional is multiple wh-movement in Slovenian ........................................ 227
7.1 Interpretation of multiple wh-questions in Slovenian ..................................... 227
7.1.1 The interpretation of multiple wh-questions with wh-in-situ .................... 228
7.1.2 Interpretation of wh-questions with short movement................................ 234
vii
7.1.3 Excluding cases with all wh-phrases in situ............................................... 236
7.2 Obligatory and non-obligatory wh-movement in Slovenian ........................... 238
7.2.1 Optionality and wh-in-situ ......................................................................... 239
7.2.2 Optionality and movement to the peripheries ............................................ 242
8 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 246
9 References ............................................................................................................ 250
viii
1 Introduction
Ever since the influential work on multiple wh-fronting by Bošković (1997c et seq.),
many researchers have considered multiple wh-fronting to be obligatory (e.g.
Zavitnevich-Beaulac 2005). And while some authors have observed non-uniform
behavior of multiple wh-fronting in a variety of languages (e.g. Rudin 1988, Citko
2010 for Polish, Šimík 2010 for Czech), the phenomenon of optional multiple whfronting has been, for the most part, pushed aside. Most attention has been paid to
‘well-behaved’ multiple wh-fronting in which all wh-phrases move to the clause
initial position and which has been an extremely popular topic since Rudin’s (1988)
seminal paper.
The goal of this thesis is twofold: First, this thesis aims to be a systematic
overview of multiple wh-questions in Slovenian. Slovenian in general did not appear
in the literature on multiple wh-fronting (with the exception of Golden 1996a, 1997a)
and it therefore seems reasonable to explore the phenomenon and propose an account
for it. I take Slovenian as the focal point because the initial work on this language has
shown it to be a multiple wh-fronting language, but it was at the same time observed
that multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian is not obligatory, in that not all wh-phrases
have to move to the clause initial position – a property that was then explored no
further. The second goal is related to optionality. I explore different varieties of
multiple wh-questions in Slovenian which point toward the fact that Slovenian
exhibits optional multiple wh-fronting. And since multiple wh-fronting has been
considered to be obligatory, Slovenian multiple wh-questions present an interesting
area of exploration that might help us understand the phenomena of multiple whfronting better.
I will show that in multiple wh-questions in Slovenian three positions are
possible for wh-phrases: a clause initial position (the Left Periphery of the clause), a
clause internal position (the Low Periphery), or the wh-phrase stays in situ. But
despite the availability of three positions, a common property of all multiple whquestions in Slovenian is that at least one wh-phrase needs to move to the clause
initial position in order for the question to be interpreted as a true wh-question. This
means that three types of multiple wh-questions can be found in Slovenian: (i)
multiple wh-questions with multiple wh-fronting to the clause initial positions, (ii)
1
multiple wh-questions with (partial) short movement (to the Low Periphery), and (iii)
multiple wh-questions with (partial) wh-in-situ. Furthermore, I will show that
multiple wh-questions (ii) and (iii) are not a result of phonological, semantic, and
syntactic restrictions, nor are they the result of Principle of Distinctness. Taken this
into account, I will be considering three instances of multiple wh-questions within
one language and I will be looking at each pattern of questions separately.
In the thesis, I show that wh-fronting in Slovenian is obligatory, contrary to
what the data seem to show at first. I will propose an account of multiple wh-fronting
in Slovenian in which one wh-phrase has to move to an Interrogative Projection (the
clause initial position) in the Left Periphery, which hosts the interpretable Q+whfeature (see Soare 2007), while the remaining wh-phrases move to Wh-Projections,
which host the wh-features, and can be located inside the Left Periphery or the Low
Periphery. Both also come with an EPP subfeature which means that movement of a
wh-phrase with a wh-feature is obligatory. However, I additionally argue that in
addition to interrogative wh-phrases with a wh-feature another type of wh-phrases
exist. These wh-phrases can stay in situ in Slovenian and are in fact bare whpronouns that lack inherent quantificational force and are underspecified for the whfeature. Because they are underspecified, they do not undergo wh-movement. Still,
they are interpreted as interrogative wh-phrases in multiple wh-questions in which
one wh-phrase moves to the clause initial position. Because the underspecified whphrase is in the scope of the complex Q+wh-feature, the wh-phrase in situ is
interpreted as being an interrogative phrase.
1.1 Framework
While this thesis is based mainly on the research done in the Minimalist approach to
syntax (Chomsky 1993 et seq.), I additionally adopt the Cartographic approach (for
an overview see for example Belletti 2004: Introduction). Neither is considered a
framework, but rather research programs based on the Principles and Parameters
framework. And while tensions between the two research topics exist, the two are in
fact not exclusive, as it was already recognized in the past (see Cinque & Rizzi 2008,
2
Shlonsky 2010). Even more, as Cinque & Rizzi (2008) note, the Cartographic
approach is based on the Minimalist guidelines.
Furthermore, each of the topics can be understood as having separate tasks and
the two approaches can be used together to account for structure generation (a task
for Minimalism) and outlining of the details of the structure (Cartography). In this
sense these are “two research topics which can be pursued in parallel in a fully
consistent manner, and along lines which can fruitfully interact […]” (Cinque &
Rizzi 2008: 60). Such a division of labor and consequent interaction will be evident
in the majority of thesis. I will not go into details of each topic at this point, but
rather give the background when necessary. However, since wh-movement is in the
center of this thesis, I will here briefly show how wh-movement is assumed to
behave in the Minimalist program.
In the Minimalist program, Move is taken to be a combination of Agree and
Merge1 and is taken to be a last resort2 operation, that is, Move is chosen when
nothing else is possible. An example of single wh-movement (taken to be movement
of wh-phrases to SpecCP) is shown below. Example (1) shows the Agree relation
between the head C0 and the wh-phrase. Example (2) shows movement of the whphrase to SpecCP.
1
In Chomsky (2004), Move is taken to be Internal Merge. In External Merge, the two elements that
are merging are separate objects (for example α and β merge to form a new object γ = {α β}, while in
Internal Merge one item is part of the other (as for example, α is a part of γ and the two can merge and
form a new object δ). It is also stipulated that the element that undergoes movement leaves a copy in
its place of origin (Chomsky 2000). The theory of movement is therefore known as the Copy Theory
of movement.
2
In the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995), Last Resort is a principle that forces movement to
happen only when necessary:
(i)
Move F raises F to target K only if F enters a checking relation with a sublabel of K.
(Chomsky 1995: 280, (51))
3
(1)
C'
wo
C
[uQ, WH, EPP]
TP
ei
she
T'
3
did
eat
vP
3
what
[Q, uWH]
(2)
CP
wo
what
C'
[Q, u:WH:WH] wo
C
TP
[uQ:Q, WH, EPP]
3
she
T'
3
did
vP
3
eat
what
Following Chomsky (2000), the wh-phrase has an uninterpretable wh-feature
(that is: the feature’s value is unspecified) and an interpretable feature Q. These
features match the features on the probe C that has an uninterpretable Q feature and
an interpretable wh-feature. The probe C and the goal (wh-phrase) can agree because
the wh-phrase is active, i.e. it has an uninterpretable feature. The wh-phrase is active
until the uninterpretable wh-feature is matched (matching, i.e. agreement, happens
when features are identical) and deleted. All this can be taken as the Agree part of
movement, but we also need the second part – the Merge. In order for a wh-phrase to
move, the head C0 also needs an EPP feature, which is, following Chomsky (2000),
taken as an uninterpretable (nonsemantic) feature that influences the interpretation
through the configuration it establishes. The EPP feature on C0 triggers necessary
movement. I will return to the EPP and its role in optionality in section 2.1.
In the Cartographic approach movement is understood in a similar way, or as
Cinque & Rizzi (2008) put it for A’-movement in general: “A’-movement conforms
to the general fact that movement is formally triggered by the featural constitution of
a c-commanding head” (Cinque & Rizzi 2008: 62). This means that just as in
4
Minimalism, movement is feature driven. There is, however, a difference in the
quantity of heads that act as probes. Specifically, the Cartographic approach assumes
that there is a split of what Minimalism takes to be a single projection (for example
the CP) into several projections, see for example Rizzi (1997) for the split CP
approach. It is crucial for these functional projections that the head of each projection
comes with its own morphosyntactic feature, which attracts a matching feature to the
head’s specifier. Furthermore, in Cartography, all the features on the heads that are
contained in the syntactic structure are interpretable. Also, just as in Minimalism, it
holds that all syntactic representations should by the end contain only interpretable
information which is visible at the interfaces, as Belletti (2004) notes for
Cartography based on Chomsky (1995).3 This means that in Cartography “peripheral
functional heads can be seen as overt “flags” carrying very transparent instructions to
the interface systems on how their immediate dependents are to be interpreted”
(Cinque & Rizzi 2008: 63).
To summarize, while the two approaches have separate tasks, it holds in both
that wh-movement is feature driven. I will assume this throughout the thesis, while
other assumptions and background will be given when needed.
1.2 The data
The thesis focuses on multiple wh-questions in Slovenian, and the relevant data is
largely based on my own judgements and those of a few other informants. In addition
to this I collected data from Slovenian speakers in two separate experiments. In both
experiments, speakers were asked to fill out a questionnaire, but the two
questionnaires were different because they were developed to check different facts
and were based on different studies. In section 3.4 I report on the experiment with
which I tested preferences in the word order of wh-phrases in multiple wh-questions
3
In Minimalism a computation converges at the interface level only if it is legible at the interface
level (Chomsky 1995, 2000). This means that the structure only includes interpretable features (and
no uninterpretable features, which are not legible):
(i)
The Interpretability Condition (Chomsky 2000: 113, (30b))
[Lexical Items] have no features other than those interpreted at the interface, properties of
sound and meaning.
5
and in section 4.8 I report on an experiment in which I tested the influence of the
Principle of Distinctness (Richards 2010) on Slovenian multiple wh-questions (this
was also a part of a larger study that has tested the effects of the Principle of
Distinctness on Sluicing and double accusative constructions in Slovenian, see
Mišmaš (2013)). I give the details of each experiment in each of the two sections of
the thesis.
In addition to Slovenian data, I also report on data from other languages. I
largely rely on data that has been reported in other studies but add judgements for
additional data from Czech and Serbo-Croatian. The judgements were provided by
two speakers of Czech and two speakers of Serbo-Croatian.
1.3 Organization of the thesis
In the next chapter, chapter 2, I describe optionality in multiple wh-fronting
languages based on the data from Slovenian as instances of multiple wh-questions in
multiple wh-fronting languages in which not all wh-phrases have to move to the
clause initial position but rather at least one wh-phrase has to move to the clause
initial position while the rest can undergo short movement or stay in situ. I show that
this phenomenon can also be found languages other than Slovenian (e.g. SerboCroatian) and show that some languages which were considered to have optional
multiple wh-fronting (e.g. Malagasy in Sabel 2003) are, in fact, not optional multiple
wh-fronting languages.
The central issue in chapter 3 is multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian in which all
wh-phrases move to the clause initial position. I argue against the analyses of
multiple wh-fronting as proposed by Rudin (1988) and Bošković (1997a et seq.) and
instead argue for an analysis of multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian in which whmovement proceeds to the extended Left Periphery of the sentence (the CP) and in
which the word order of wh-phrases in the CP is free, but with some preferences
(zakaj ‘why’ and kako ‘how’ precede other wh-phrases and [+human] subjects
precede [+human] objects). A structure of the Left Periphery and an analysis of
multiple wh-fronting are proposed.
6
Chapter 4 shows that phonological, semantic, and syntactic restrictions that
apply to other multiple wh-fronting languages do not apply in Slovenian and
therefore do not account for instances of optional multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian.
In addition, it is shown that although the Principle of Distinctness (Richards 2010)
does restrict multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian, it does not account for all instances
of optional multiple wh-movement.
In chapter 5, I look at multiple wh-questions with a wh-phrase in situ. In these
at least one wh-phrase has to move to the clause initial position. Based on this and
the fact that in Slovenian bare wh-pronouns can also be used in polarity contexts in
which they are interpreted as indefinite pronouns, while they are always interpreted
as interrogative in questions with a clause initial wh-phrase, I propose that instances
of wh-in-situ in Slovenian multiple wh-questions are instances of underspecified bare
wh-pronouns.
In chapter 6, I show that multiple wh-questions with short movement are a
phenomenon separate from multiple wh-questions with multiple wh-fronting to the
clause initial position. Because of the parallel behavior of wh-phrases in questions
with short movement and in multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian and Polish, I propose
that short wh-movement proceeds to Wh-Projections in the Low Periphery.
Chapter 7 shows that all types of multiple wh-questions in Slovenian receive
the same interpretation. In addition, I discuss optionality of wh-in-situ and short
movement in Slovenian and show that wh-in-situ in Slovenian is not an instance of
optional wh-movement, because of the deficiency of the relevant wh-phrases. What
seems to be optional is whether a wh-phrase undergoes wh-movement to the WhProjection in the High or Low Periphery. Still, wh-fronting to the clause initial
Interrogative Projection in the Left Periphery in Slovenian is obligatory in true
multiple wh-questions.
Chapter 8 gives the conclusions of the thesis.
7
2 Optionality and obligatoriness of multiple wh-fronting
Different languages exploit different mechanisms to produce wh-questions. For
example, English moves at most one wh-phrase, while Japanese leaves all whphrases in situ. But there exists a group of languages in which wh-phrases can either
move or stay in situ when forming wh-questions. Among these are, following Sabel
(2006, but see also references cited therein), French, Bellunese, Greek, Spanish,
Brazilian Portuguese, the Athabaskan languages Ancash Quechua, BabineWitsuwit’en, Navajo, West-Apache, Slave and Austronesian languages such as
Malagasy, Malay, Tagalog and also Bantu languages like Duala, Kikuyu,
Kinyarwanda, Tuki and Zulu, and Afro-Asian languages like Iraqi Arabic, Hausa and
Coptic. Note, however, that this list includes both languages in which wh-ex-situ is
achieved via wh-movement, as in Babine-Witsuwit’en (Denham 1997, 2000), or via
a wh-cleft construction, for example Zulu (Sabel & Zeller 2006). With the exception
of Malagasy, which some researchers claim to be a multiple wh-fronting language
that exhibits optional multiple wh-fronting (cf. Sabel 2003) and to which I will return
in section 2.2.2, multiple wh-fronting languages are missing from this list. I focus on
multiple wh-fronting in this thesis, using Slovenian as an example of a multiple whfronting language which seems to exhibit optional movement.
Slovenian is a multiple wh-fronting language (Golden 1997a). In Slovenian, all
wh-phrases can move to the clause initial position. But this is not the only option for
forming multiple wh-questions in this language. As an alternative to moving to the
clause initial position, wh-phrases in a multiple wh-question can move to some clause
internal position or stay in situ when at least one wh-phrase appears clause initially.
Crucially, all three types of questions, shown below, can be used in the same context
and have the same interpretation (I return to this in 7.1).
(1)
a.
Koga
je
čemu
znanstvenik izpostavil?
who.ACC
AUX
what.DAT scientist
‘Who did the scientist expose to what?’
b.
Koga je znanstvenik čemu izpostavil?
c.
Koga je znanstvenik izpostavil čemu?
d.
Čemu je koga znanstvenik izpostavil?
8
expose
e.
Čemu je znanstvenik koga izpostavil?
f.
Čemu je znanstvenik izpostavil koga?
These examples suggest that multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian is not
obligatory, but rather optional. I take optional multiple wh-fronting to mean that in
multiple wh-questions not all wh-phrases have to move to the clause initial position.
In fact, a more precise overview of some Slovenian data in section 2.3 shows that it
is obligatory for at least one wh-phrase to move to the clause initial position.
In this chapter, I focus on optionality in general and how it is exhibited in
multiple wh-questions. I start by discussing the notion of optionality in theoretical
terms and then turn to optionality in multiple wh-fronting languages to show that
optionality of multiple wh-fronting is a wider phenomenon in that it can be found in
other multiple wh-fronting languages as well.
2.1 What is optionality?
The notion ‘optionality’ can be very intuitively described as: “a situation in which
different ways of saying what seems to be the same thing show a clear
correspondence in form” (Müller 1999: 3). With respect to movement we could,
again intuitively, describe optionality as an ‘either/or’ situation – being optional then
means ‘either you move or you do not’. But while the term itself is not problematic
on an intuitive level, optionality is problematic from the Minimalist perspective since
such semantically vacuous alternative operations are precluded from the grammar, as
Roussou and Vlachos (2011) note based on Chomsky (1995). If they are indeed ruled
out, then we should simply not find any cases of optional operations. But this is not
the case, as I will show in this chapter. In fact, it turns out that two kinds of
optionality exist: the first is the ‘minimalist’ optionality (‘minimalist’ in that it is
predicted by the Minimalist program) and the second type, which has been termed
‘true optionality’ and is not predicted by the Minimalist program.
According to the Minimalist program (see section 1.1) the operation Move is
taken to be a combination of Agree and Merge and is taken to be a last resort
operation (i.e. it only happens when nothing else is possible). Crucially for wh9
movement, in order for a wh-phrase to move to CP the head C0 needs an EPP feature,
see section 1.1. This means that movement is necessarily triggered when the head C
contains the EPP feature. The EPP feature is, following Chomsky (2000), taken as an
uninterpretable (nonsemantic) feature which has an influence on the interpretation
through the configuration it establishes4; it is a selectional category which seeks a
phrase to merge with the category it heads. And while it is (perhaps) universally
present on T, its presence for the phase heads v/P varies parametrically among
languages and it is optional whether a language has it or not (Chomsky 2000).5 When
on v or C, the EPP feature is a property of the phase: the head H of a phase PH may
be assigned an EPP- and P-feature (where a P-feature is a feature of the peripheral
system, like the Q-feature is for interrogative C) (Chomsky 2000: (24)). In this sense
the EPP is an edge feature.
In Minimalism, obligatoriness of movement, in our case wh-movement, is then
related to the EPP feature – when the phase head has the EPP feature, movement is
obligatory, as I show in example (2) in section 1.1. But an edge position required for
an Internal Merge (i.e. Move) is optional. This optionality is determined in the
lexicon. The edge position is made available for a head H by an EPP (which is also
known as the OCC, i.e. occurrence feature) feature. Whether H has such a feature or
not is determined in the lexicon (Chomsky 2004). Crucially: “Optimally, OCC
should be available only when necessary, that is, when it contributes to an outcome
at SEM that is not otherwise expressible - the basic Fox-Reinhart intuition about
optionality. Hence H has OCC only if that yields new scopal or discourse related
properties” (Chomsky 2004: 112).6 This means that in the Minimalist system
optionality is pushed into the lexicon and is necessarily related to different
interpretations, since the EPP provides new interpretations (new outcomes), while it,
by default, provides different outcomes at PF.
4
See Yeo (2010) and the references cited therein on why the semantic contribution of the EPP is
problematic.
5
I am not concerned with this type of optionality here, as this concerns variations between languages
(that is, does a language have wh-movement or not). I am rather concerned about optionality within a
single language.
6
For example Fox (1995): “[The] SSO [Scope Shifting Operation] can apply only if it yields a
semantic interpretation which would be impossible without its application. In other words, SSOs are
allowed only when necessary (as last resort) for achieving a designated interpretation” (Fox 1995:
284).
10
We can then imagine a situation where there are two distinct heads H in the
lexicon – one with an EPP feature and one without. These two heads are then related
to two different interpretations. Head H1 with an EPP will trigger movement and
result in the interpretation A1, head H2 without EPP will not trigger movement and
receive the interpretation B2 (see example (2) below).
But the understanding of optionality in which optional movement always
results in different interpretations is problematic, since there are examples of
languages which display optionality, but in which optional movement is not related
to different interpretations. Biberauer and Richards (2006) call this semantically
vacuous optionality ‘true optionality’, see (3) below.
The German examples in (2) show an instance of optionality in which
interpretation of the sentence is affected by the position of oft ‘often’. Example (2a),
in which ein Buch ‘a book’ follows oft, receives an interpretation in which ‘one often
reads some book (but not necessarily the same book)’. Example (2b), in which oft is
located after ein Buch ‘a book’, gets an interpretation in which a specific book is
often read. The Afrikaans examples in (3), on the other hand, both receive the same
interpretation, regardless of the position of het ‘has’ (i.e. in (3a) the auxiliary het
‘has’ is sentence final, in (3b) the auxiliary is in the second position/V2). This is
problematic from the minimalist standpoint, since movement does not lead to a new
interpretation.
(2)
German (Biberauer and Richars 2006: (1))
a.
Er
hat
oft
ein
he
has
often a
Buch gelesen
book read
‘He often read a (non-specific) book.’ [weak reading; cf. Diesing 1992]
b.
Er
hat
ein
he
has a
Buch oft
gelesen
book often read
‘There’s a book that he often read.’ [strong reading; cf. Diesing 1992]
(3)
Afrikaans (Biberauer and Richars 2006: (2))
a.
Ek
weet dat
sy
I
know that she
dikwels
Chopin
gespeel
het.
often
Chopin
played
has
‘I know that she has often played Chopin.’
11
b.
Ek
weet dat
sy
I
know that she
het
dikwels
Chopin
gespeel.
has
often
Chopin
played
‘I know that she has often played Chopin.’
The question is then how to account for such semantically vacuous movement.
Biberauer and Richards (2006) base their proposal on the distinction between
optional and obligatory EPP features. As shown above, optional EPP features (the
ones that are optionally assigned to phase heads) lead to different interpretations, but
obligatory EPP features (the ones that are inherently assigned to a functional head,
such as the EPP feature on T) must be present in the structure and do not influence
LF. The ‘optionality’ which is exhibited with obligatory EPP features arises because
of how the obligatory EPP feature is satisfied. An example of different ways to
satisfy a feature is shown below for Russian wh-movement, where either the entire
DP moves to satisfy the [+wh] feature on C, (4a), or only č’ju ‘whose’ does so, (4b).
(4)
Russian (Biberauer and Richards 2006: (28))
a.
b.
Č’ju
knigu
ty
čital?
whose
book
you read
Č’ju
ty
whose
you read book
čital knigu?
‘Whose book did you read?’
The authors assume that in Russian the interrogative C head has an obligatory
EPP feature and elements of the type č’ju ‘whose’ (and also kakoj ‘what’, ‘which’,
kotoryj ‘which’, ‘what’) occupy the SpecDP position. Because of this they have the
status of a maximal projection, so they can either move to CP on their own, as in
(4b), or pied-pipe the entire DP to check the [+wh] feature, (4a). That is: the [+wh]
feature needs to be checked and can be checked in two different ways and because
this is an obligatory EPP feature, it does not matter in which way it is checked (see
Biberauer & Richards 2006 for more on true optionality).
Different types of movement in different languages exhibit optionality
(scrambling, quantifier shift, object shift), but I will here focus only on optional
12
multiple wh-movement. In the next section I show initial data that indicate that
multiple wh-fronting can be optional.
2.2 Multiple wh-fronting is not obligatory
A review of the existing literature on multiple wh-fronting shows there are several
different claims about optionality in multiple wh-fronting languages. I will take
obligatory multiple wh-fronting to be instances of multiple wh-fronting in which all
wh-phrases must move to the clause initial position under a true question reading.7
Early work on multiple wh-fronting takes the phenomena to be obligatory –
except when the question appears in a special context. Wachowicz (1974), for
example, gives data from Polish and Russian in which all wh-phrases appear in the
clause initial position. Example (5) shows this for Polish:
(5)
Polish (Wachowicz 1974: (9))
Kto
kogo
who.NOM who.ACC
budzi?
wakes up
‘Who wakes up who(m)?’
On the other hand, Wachowicz (1974) also claims that in Polish a wh-phrase
can stay in situ in a clarifying question. For example, (6) could be uttered in a
situation in which the speaker knows that several people are doing several tasks and
there have been proposals about the pairings of people and tasks – the speaker,
however, wants a fixed plan, so he asks the question in (6). In addition, in Polish
question in which not all wh-phrases move to the clause initial position, such as (7),
is ungrammatical under a true question reading but can be interpreted as a yes/noquestion which contains an indefinite pronoun (Wachowicz 1974).
7
By true question reading I mean a non-echo-interpretation of a multiple wh-question (as in Bošković
2002).
13
(6)
Polish (Wachowicz 1974: (15))
W końcu
kto
robi co?
finally,
who does what
‘Finally, who’s doing what?’
(7)
Polish (Wachowicz 1974: (23))
* Co
Monika
what.ACC Monika.NOM
komu
dała?
who.DAT
gave
# ‘What did Monika give to whom?’
‘Did Monica give anything to anybody?’
Given these examples we could conclude that multiple wh-fronting to a clause
initial position in Polish is obligatory in order to get a true question reading, since
wh-in-situ and wh-movement8 to a non-initial position are acceptable only in special
contexts or when they receive a special interpetation. Such a conclusion was adopted
in Pesetsky (1987). Based on the examples from Wachowicz (1974), Pesestsky
argues that only D-linked wh-phrases can stay in situ in Polish (as in (6), which he
takes to be an example of D-linking), while non-D-linked wh-phrases move to an A’position. While he does not specify what the A’-position is, Pesetsky only gives
examples in which all wh-phrases appear in a clause initial position. Again, the
conclusion is that under a true question reading, all wh-phrases obligatorily front.
Rudin (1988) shows that all wh-phrases obligatorily front in Bulgarian. For
example: (8a), in which both wh-phrases are moved, is acceptable, but (8b) is
ungrammatical because kŭde ‘where’ is not moved to a clause initial position (the
same situation obtains if kŭde ‘where’ moves and koj ‘who’ is left in situ or if any of
the wh-phrases just move within the embedded clause, cf. Rudin (1988: (6c–e)) also
shown in section 3.1, example (8)).
(8)
Bulgarian (Rudin 1988: (6))
a.
Koj kŭde
misliš
[če e
who where
think.2SG that has
otišŭl _ _]?
gone
‘Who do you think (that) went where?’
8
I take wh-fronting and wh-movement to be the same phenomenon (cf. Dyakonova 2009).
14
b. * Koj misliš [če e otišŭl _kŭde]?
Rudin (1988) concludes that all wh-phrases have to move to the clause initial
position for a question to be grammatical in Bulgarian. On the other hand, more
recently Pesetsky (2000) shows that in Bulgarian wh-questions with more than two
wh-phrases, one wh-phrase can stay in situ:
(9)
Bulgarian (Pesetsky 2000: (40))
a.
Koj na
kogo
kakvo s
kakvo
who to
whom
what with what
napisa?
wrote
‘Who wrote what to whom with what?’
b. ? Koj na kogo kakvo napisa s kakvo?
[3 out of 4 move]
c. ??? Koj na kogo napisa kakvo s kakvo?
[2 out of 4 move]
d. ** Koj napisa kakvo na kogo s kakvo?
[1 out of 4 moves]
He accounts for the facts by assuming that there are two different C heads in
Bulgarian: a C1-Spec which only requires one wh-specifer and a Cm-Spec which requires
more than one wh-specifier. Multiple wh-questions in Bulgarian are introduced with
the latter and are additionally regulated by a general preference that all wh-phrases in
a multiple wh-question move. When this preference is maximally satisfied, as in (9a),
the question is completely acceptable. When no wh-phrases move, the question is
unacceptable, and when two or three wh-phrases move, the sentences are
“indistinguishably unnatural to a mild degree” (Pesetsky 2000: 21).
Returning to Rudin (1988), she claims that wh-phrases can be left in situ in
Serbo-Croatian9 and that questions of this type still get a non-echo reading, as in
(10), but Polish and Czech can leave wh-words in situ only in echo questions, as
shown in example (11) below for Czech. According to Rudin, (11a) is a ‘real’
multiple wh-question and (11b) is ungrammatical under the true question reading but
is acceptable as an echo question:
9
In this thesis I use the term Serbo-Croatian as a cover term for Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian,
which are, as a group, also referred to as BCS (see Brown and Alt 2004, Section 0). I use SerboCroatian because this is the term typically used in the literature. When I cite examples and statements
about Serbo-Croatian or any of the dialects belonging to the group, I will use the name that is used by
the author I am citing.
15
(10) Serbo-Croatian (Rudin 1988: (106))
a.
Ko
je
who has
koga
video?
whom
seen
‘Who saw whom?’
b.
Ko je video koga?
(11) Czech (Rudin 1988: (105))
a.
Kdo koho viděl?
who whom saw
‘Who saw whom?’
b. * Kdo viděl koho?
Based on this we could conclude that multiple wh-fronting is only optional in
Serbo-Croatian, while it is obligatory in Bulgarian, Czech and Polish. But this
conclusion is challenged by Bošković (1997c), who claims that wh-phrases cannot
remain in situ in either true or echo questions in Serbo-Croatian. This obligatoriness
of wh-movement (regardless of whether it is motivated by a focus or a wh-feature, cf.
section 3.2) holds for wh-adjuncts and wh-arguments in Serbo-Croatian. The only
case where one wh-phrase does not move is when movement of all wh-phrases would
lead to a violation of a restriction (which will be discussed in chapter 4). In addition,
Bošković (2002) states that all wh-phrases must move in multiple wh-fronting
languages and that this holds for real wh-fronting (as Bulgarian) and the non-whfronting languages (such as Russian, see Bošković (2002)), i.e. focus movement of
wh-phrases is obligatory too.10 This obligatoriness is shown in examples below –
10
Based on the data available in the literature, in multiple wh-fronting languages, wh-phrases cannot
stay in situ in single wh-questions either.
(i)
Serbo-Croatian (Bošković 1997c: (24))
?* Jovan
je
kupio šta?
Jovan.NOM AUX bought what.ACC
‘John bought what?’
(ii)
Bulgarian (Bošković 2002: (16b))
?* Ivan
e
kupil
kakvo?
Ivan.NOM
AUX bought
what
‘Ivan bought what?’
16
cases in which a wh-phrase stays in situ are ungrammatical.11 Example (12) shows
that wh-adjuncts cannot stay in situ, (13) shows this for wh-arguments, and (14)
shows that multiple wh-questions in Serbo-Croatian are equally unacceptable
regardless of the number of wh-phrases that do not move (cf. Bulgarian above).
Bošković also claims that wh-fronting is obligatory in Polish, (15), Russian, (16), and
Bulgarian, (17).12
(12) Serbo-Croatian (Bošković 1997c: (21))
a.
Ko
je
gdje zaspao?
who
AUX
where fallen-asleep
‘Who fell asleep where?’
b. * Ko je zaspao gdje?
(13) Serbo-Croatian (Bošković 1997c: (11a))
a.
Ko
šta
kupuje?
who what buys
‘Who buys what?’
b. * Ko kupuje šta?
(14) Serbo-Croatian (Bošković 1997a: (21))
a.
Ko
šta
gdje
who what where
kupuje?
buys
‘Who buys where what?’
b. * Ko kupuje šta gdje?
c. * Ko šta kupuje gdje?
11
Bošković (1997a) takes this to be evidence for the claim that wh-movement (in his analysis, focus
movement) is motivated by the strong focus feature in the wh-phrase that undergoes movement (if the
strong feature is in the Agr, only one wh-phrase would need to move). This topic is discussed further
in section 3.2.
12
Bošković (2002) does not mention Czech when discussing obligatoriness of multiple wh-fronting.
Checking the acceptability of multiple wh-questions has shown that speakers find examples with
multiple wh-fronting completely acceptable, but do not find multiple wh-questions in which one whphrase stays in situ completely acceptable or completely unacceptable.
(i)
a.
b.
c.
Kdo co
přinesl?
who what brought
‘Who brought what?’
? Kdo přinesl co?
? Co přinesl kdo?
17
d. * Ko gdje kupuje šta?
(15) Polish (Citko 1998: (1))
a.
Co
Jan położył?
gdzie
what where
Jan
put
‘What did Jan put where?’
b. * Co Jan położył gdzie?
c. * Jan położył co gdzie
(16) Russian (Bošković 2002: (15))
a.
Kto čto
kupil?
who what bought
‘Who bought what?'
b. * Kto kupil čto?
(17) Bulgarian (Bošković 2002: (14))
a.
Koj kakvo e
kupil?
who what is
bought
‘Who bought what?’
b. * Koj e kupil kakvo?
Before I turn to other claims relating to obligatoriness of multiple wh-fronting
that exist in the literature, I should note what has been said about obligatoriness of
focus fronting. In section 3.2 I will show that instances of multiple wh-movement in
which Superiority is violated have been analyzed as focus movement by Bošković
(1997a et seq.). Bošković (2002) notes that speakers prefer focused non-wh-phrases
to be moved and claims that we can ignore cases in which speakers do not front
focused non-wh-phrases “since [they are] clearly dispreferred, perhaps for all
speakers” (Bošković 2002: 356, fn. 7). He offers two possible accounts for this
pattern, which he calls Variety I.13 The first account proposes that focused non-wh13
For example, as Dyakonova (2009) shows, colloquial Russian has the option of leaving a focused
non-wh-phrase in situ. In the example below, the proper name Ljudmila is focused and can appear insitu, as in (i.c), clause initially as in (i.b) or after the subject, as in (i.a). This poses a problem for an
analysis of wh-fronting as focus fronting in Russian, since it is not clear why focused non-wh-phrases
can stay in situ while focused wh-phrases cannot.
(i)
Russian (Dyakonova 2009: 188, (11))
(Context: Ivan invited Olga for the dinner tonight, right?)
18
phrases can have either a strong or a weak focus feature – if they have the former
they must move, if they have the latter, they stay in situ. Wh-phrases, on the other
hand, always come with a strong feature (and therefore always move). The
possibility of leaving non-wh-phrases in situ is then defined in the lexicon. The
second account is based on the behavior of wh-phrases in Malay. In Malay, argument
wh-phrases stay in situ (with no operator movement at all) or move, but wh-adjuncts
must move, because they are uninterpretable in situ. A parallel can then be
established between Malay and Variety I: wh-phrases in Variety I are like whadjuncts in Malay and are therefore uninterpretable when they are in situ. Focused
phrases in Variety I, on the other hand, are like wh-phrases in Malay and can either
move or not. Still, Bošković (2002) only proposes these accounts for focused nonwh-phrases and says nothing about the option of leaving a wh-phrase in situ in
multiple wh-fronting languages, since, as we have seen above, Bošković takes whfronting to be obligatory. In fact, Bošković has often claimed that multiple whfronting is obligatory, for example: “[…] as we have seen above, wh-phrases in
Slavic obligatorily undergo fronting independently of wh-movement” (Bošković
1998: 17), see also Bošković (1997c, 1999, 2002). Since he takes wh-fronting in
certain contexts of Serbo-Croatian (see section 3.2) to be an instance of focus
fronting, the obligatoriness to move wh-phrases is unexpected.
The claim that multiple wh-fronting is obligatory (regardless of the motivation)
has been assumed by many authors, for example Cheng (1991, based on Wachowicz
1974 and Rudin 1988), Stepanov (1998), Grohmann (2003), Stjepanović (2003),
Meyer (2004), and Zavitnevich-Beaulac (2005). However, some authors have
noticed that not all wh-phrases in multiple wh-fronting languages have to move to the
clause initial position. This is obvious when one takes a closer look at languages such
as Polish. For example, Dornisch (1998) shows that in Polish wh-phrases can be
moved to the clause initial position. Alternatively, a wh-phrase can undergo ‘short
a.
b.
c.
Net, on
LJUDMILU
pozval.
no
he.NOM
Ludmila.ACC invite.PST.MASC
‘No, he invited LUDMILA.’
Začem!
LJUDMILU
on
pozval!
no.way
Ludmila.ACC he.NOM
invite.PST.MASC
Net, on
pozval
LJUDMILU.
no
he.NOM invite.PST.MASC
Ludmila.ACC
19
wh-movement’, which Dornisch describes as follows: “wh-phrases other than the
first one must indeed move but potentially only as far as the immediately preverbal
position” (Dornisch 2000: 47, quote taken from Błaszczak & Fischer 2001: 72).
Short movement in Polish has also been explored by Citko (2010), who shows that as
in typical multiple wh-questions in Polish, there are also no Superiority effects in
these cases. This is shown in (18) for a wh-argument and a wh-adjunct, while (19a)
shows short wh-movement in Polish for arguments and (19b) shows movement to the
clause initial position. In Citko’s analysis the lower wh-phrase moves to a position
between TP and vP. As for leaving a wh-phrase in situ, according to Błaszczak and
Fischer (2001), this can only happen in certain circumstances, that is with D-linking
and in echo questions, (19c), in which the wh-phrase in situ is emphasized.
(18) Polish (Citko 2010: (12))
a.
Kiedy
Ewa
kogo
odwidziła?
when
Eve.NOM
who.ACC
visited
‘When did Eve visit whom?’
b.
Kogo Ewa kiedy odwidziła?
(19) Polish (Błaszczak and Fischer 2001: (127))
a.
Co
by
what.ACC COND-AUX
Anna komu
poleciła?
Anna whom.DAT recommend
‘What would Anna recommend to whom?’
b.
Co komu by Anna poleciła?
c.
Co by Anna poleciła KOMU?
Based on Polish, Błaszczak and Fischer (2001) conclude that it is one of the
‘hard facts’ that in multiple wh-fronting languages all wh-phrases have to move, but
that wh-phrases need not necessarily move to the clause initial position but rather at
least to some preverbal position.14 As Błaszczak and Fischer note, the question is
why the non-initial wh-phrases need to move at all and why this movement can be
short. I will return to this question in chapter 6.
14
As I will show, in Slovenian multiple wh-questions not all wh-phrases have to move, i.e. all but one
wh-phrase can stay in situ.
20
Short movement can also be found in Russian, as Grebenyova (2006b) shows.
She calls this wh-fronting ‘partial wh-fronting’, but it in fact needs to be teased apart
from what is typically known as partial wh-movement, see Fanselow (2006) for an
overview of the phenomenon.15 I take (20b, c) to be instances of short wh-movement.
(20) Russian (Grebenyova 2006b: (8))
a.
Ivan podaril?
Komu
čto
who.DAT
what.ACC Ivan gave
‘Who did Ivan give what (as a present)?’
b.
Komu
Ivan čto
podaril?
c.
Kogo
Ivan gde
uvidel?
who.ACC
Ivan where
saw
‘Who did Ivan see where?’
A similar observation about multiple wh-questions in Russian has been made
by Dyakonova (2009), who also claims that in multiple wh-questions the non-inital
wh-phrase can either move to a clause initial position or it can only move to some
preverbal position, as (21) shows. At the same time, a wh-phrase cannot stay in situ,
as (22) shows. A similar observation about the availability of short movement has
also been made by Liakin (2005), who notes that wh-phrases can be split by a topic
and based on this proposes that wh-phrases can occupy several positions in Russian.
(21) Russian (Dyakonova 2009: (6))
Čto
otec
komu
what.ACC father.NOM who.DAT
kupil?
buy
‘What did the father buy for whom?’
15
In typical ‘partial question’ constructions, Russian uses kak ‘how’ as a scope marker (and not what,
as in many other languages). In addition, cases of partial wh-fronting are typically biclausal. For more
on partial questions in Russian see, for example, Stepanov (2000).
(i)
Russian (Fanselow 2005: (17a))
Kak vy
dumaete
kogo ona
how you think
who she
‘Who do you think she loves?’
ljubit?
loves
21
(22) Russian (Zavitnevich 2001: (6))
* Kto ty
who you
dumaesh
pridet
kogda?
think
arrives
when
Multiple wh-fronting does not behave uniformly in Czech either – examples
from Veselovská (1993) show that non-initial wh-phrases can appear either before or
after the subject (similarly to short movement in Polish) but that one wh-phrase needs
to precede the clitic cluster. While Veselovská claims that a wh-phrase cannot stay in
situ in Czech, Šimík (2010) shows that wh-in-situ is available in Czech in some
contexts, (24).16 This again means that wh-fronting to a clause initial position is not
obligatory in Czech.
(23) Czech (Veselovská 1993: (7))
a.
Co
jsem já
what am
I
komu
kdy
udělala?
who.DAT
when
dome
‘What have I ever done to anybody?’
16
Also, Czech speakers find multiple wh-questions with short movement or wh-in-situ acceptable.
The latter goes against the claim that wh-phrases cannot stay in situ in Czech.
(i)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Koho
komu
Jan
who.ACC
who.DAT
Jan.NOM
‘Who introduced Jan to whom?’
Koho Jan komu představil?
Koho Jan představil komu?
Komu Jan představil koho?
představil?
introduce
This is also true for multiple wh-questions with more than two wh-phrases. Example (ii) shows that
wh-phrases can stay in situ when one wh-phrase moves to the clause initial position (in this case kdo
‘who’). In these cases the order of wh-phrases matters. A wh-argument and a wh-adjunct cannot be
placed in clause final position, (iii).
(ii)
(iii)
a.
Kdo
představil
komu
koho?
who.NOM
introduce
who.DAT
who.ACC
‘Who introduced who to whom?’
b.
? Kdo představil koho komu?
a.
Co
jesm já
komu
kdy udělala?
what.ACC
AUX me.NOM
who.DAT
when do
‘What have I when done to who?’
b. *? Co jesm ja udělala komu kdy?
c. *? Co jesm ja udělala kdy komu?
22
b.
Co jsem kdy komu já udělala?
c. * Co jsem já udělala kdy komu?
(24) Czech (Šimík 2010: (7))
a.
Kdo co
KOUPIL?
who what bought
‘Who bought what?’
b.
Kdo koupil CO?
While there are several inconsistencies and contradicting claims in the
literature about the obligatoriness of multiple wh-fronting in multiple wh-fronting
languages, it seems that multiple wh-fronting is not universally obligatory. For
languages such as Polish, Russian and Czech it is not the case that all wh-phrases
must move to the clause initial position, however, it does seem that in Bulgarian and
Romanian multiple wh-fronting is obligatory, since, to best of my knowledge, no
claims about optional wh-fronting have been made about these languages. One
language that has not been discussed as an optional multiple wh-fronting language in
the literature thus far is Serbo-Croatian. Despite the claims about obligatoriness of
multiple wh-fronting in this language, speakers’ judgements show that multiple whfronting is not obligatory in Serbo-Croatian either.
2.2.1 Serbo-Croatian
To my knowledge, there have been no explicit claims about the availability of short
wh-movement or the existence of optional multiple wh-fronting in Serbo-Croatian.
However, wh-in-situ has been reported for cases when wh-movement would violate
some kind of a restriction, see chapter 4. Still, there are attested examples which
show that fronted wh-phrases can be divided by a focused phrase, (25),17 and that a
wh-phrase can stay in situ, (26).
17
Given the analysis of multiple wh-fronting as focus fronting in Serbo-Croatian matrix questions
(e.g. Bošković 2002, section 3.2 herein), this example could simply be interpreted as one in which
both wh-phrases and the focus phrases front because of the [focus]-feature and no Superiority effects
arise.
23
(25) Serbo-Croatian (Halupka-Rešetar 2013: (23a–c))
Znam ko je šta kupio PETRU. A ...
‘I know who bought what for Peter. But...’
a.
ko
je
šta
kupio
who.NOM
AUX
what.ACC bought
MARIJI?
Mary.DAT
‘who bought what for Mary?’
b.
ko je šta MARIJI kupio?
c.
ko je MARIJI šta kupio?
(26) Serbo-Croatian (Zlatić, online)
Ko
je
video šta?
who
AUX
saw what?
‘Who saw what?’
Given examples such as these, we can predict that multiple wh-fronting is not
obligatory for all speakers of Serbo-Croatian. As we will see below, this prediction is
confirmed.
Starting with multiple wh-questions with two wh-phrases in Serbo-Croatian,
my two informants judge as completely acceptable examples in which only one whphrase moves, while the other stays in situ, such as (27), though one speaker noted
that she prefers questions in which all wh-phrases move. That šta ‘what’ in (27a) is
in fact left in situ can be concluded based on the ungrammaticality of (27b) in which
ko ‘who’ appears in the clause final position. The availability of wh-in-situ
contradicts the judgements given by Bošković (1998), according to whom all whphrases must move. In addition, Serbo-Croatian speakers allow short movement of
the wh-phrase (i.e. movement to a position below the subject), (28). And while both
word orders in (28) were judged as acceptable, one speaker preferred the word order
in (28a).
(27) a.
Ko
vidi šta?
who sees what
‘Who sees what?’
24
b. * Šta vidi ko?18
(28) a.
Šta
je
Ivan kome
dao?
what.ACC
AUX
Ivan who.DAT
give
‘What did Ivan give to whom?’
b.
Kome je Ivan šta dao?
Speakers give similar judgements with D-linked questions, as in (29). There
are some preferences regarding the word order of different wh-phrases: for example,
one speaker prefers the example in which the accusative wh-phrase stays in situ, but
does not judge any of the three options given in (29) as ungrammatical. It has to be
noted that movement of D-linked phrases is subject to restrictions on movement
which will be discussed in section 4.3.
(29) a.
Koji
dečko
je
nazvao
koju devojku?
which
boy.NOM
AUX
called
which girl.ACC
‘Which boy called which girl?’
b.
Koju devojku je nazvao koji dečko?
c.
Koji dečko je koju devojku nazvao?
These examples clearly show that multiple wh-fronting is not obligatory in
Serbo-Croatian. This is further confirmed by questions with three wh-phrases. In
these examples we also have two options. All wh-phrases can move to the clause
initial position, as in (30), in any word order. This is expected if we assume multiple
wh-fronting to be obligatory.
(30) a.
Ko
je
kome
šta
napravio?
who.NOM
AUX
who.DAT
what.ACC done
‘Who did what to whom?’
18
When asked about this question, speakers suggest examples in (i) as alternatives. I take this as an
indication that speakers prefer questions with multiple wh-fronting in Serbo-Croatian.
(i)
a.
b.
Šta
ko
who.NOM
what.ACC
‘Who sees what?’
Ko
šta
vidi?
vidi?
see
25
b.
Ko je šta kome napravio?
c.
Šta je ko kome/kome ko napravio?
d.
Kome je šta ko/ko šta napravio?
But multiple wh-fronting is not obligatory here either. In these questions one
wh-phrase can stay in situ, while two move to a clause initial position – the word
order of fronted wh-phrases being free. Serbo-Croatian speakers also allow for
questions in which two wh-phrases stay in situ. But for such questions speakers note
that the order of wh-phrases is important and the direct object wh-phrase precedes the
wh-phrase for the indirect object.
(31) a.
Šta
je
ko
napravio
what.ACC
AUX
who.NOM did
kome?
who.DAT
‘Who did what to whom?’
b.
Ko je šta napravio kome?
c.
Ko je kome napravio šta?
d.
Kome je ko napravio šta?
(32) a.
Ko
je
napravio
šta
who.NOM
AUX
did
what.ACC who.DAT
kome?
‘Who did what to whom?’
b. ? Ko je napravio kome šta?
In questions with three wh-phrases, short movement is available for one or two
wh-phrases, (33). Also possible is a combination of short movement and wh-in-situ,
(34). There is also an option of moving more than one wh-phrase to the clause initial
position while one wh-phrase undergoes short movement, (35). Here, all word orders
of wh-phrases are acceptable, but I am only giving some of the possible word
orders.19
19
I use questions with a non-wh-subject to show the position of the wh-phrase that undergoes short
movement. Since wh-adjuncts, such as kada ‘when’ are able to stay in situ or undergo short
movement, I expect wh-adjuncts to behave just like wh-arguments.
26
(33) a.
Kome
je
who.DAT
AUX
dao?20
Ivan kada šta
Ivan when what.ACC give
‘What did Ivan give when to whom?’
b.
(34) a.
Kome je Ivan šta kada dao?
Kome
je
who.DAT
AUX
Ivan kada
dao šta?21
Ivan when
give what.ACC
‘What did Ivan give when to whom?’
b.
Kome je Ivan šta dao kada?
(35) Kome
who.DAT
je
šta
Ivan kada dao?
AUX
what.ACC Ivan when give
‘What did Ivan give when to whom?’
And finally, a question such as (36) cannot get a true question reading, but
rather only an echo question reading or a rhetoric question reading.
(36) Ivan je
kome
Ivan AUX who.DAT
šta
kada dao?
what.ACC when give
# ‘When did Ivan give what to whom?’
‘Ivan gave what, to whom, when?’ (echo)
‘When did Ivan ever give what to whom?’
Based on the examples above, we can conclude that Serbo-Croatian exhibits
optionality in multiple wh-questions, a fact that has previously gone unnoticed. This
is another confirmation of the existence of optional multiple wh-fronting in multiple
wh-fronting languages.
In the previous section we saw some observations about optional multiple whfronting in Polish and Czech, while this section has shown that multiple wh-fronting
is, contrary to standard assumptions, not obligatory in Serbo-Croatian. In section 2.3
I will show this also holds for Slovenian. But before I explore the different types of
multiple wh-questions in Slovenian, Malagasy needs to be discussed since this
20
This question can also get a rhetoric question reading (as in: When did Ivan ever give anything to
anybody?!).
21
One speaker noticed that the clause final wh-phrase needs to be emphasized.
27
language has been described as having optional multiple wh-fronting (Sabel 2003)
and this might help us account for optionality multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian.
2.2.2 Excluding Malagasy
Malagasy has been described as having optional multiple wh-fronting (Sabel 2003).
However, as will be shown, wh-phrases in Malagasy do not in fact undergo whmovement, but rather pseudo-clefting (Potsdam 2006). Because of this, I will not be
considering Malagasy as an optional multiple wh-fronting language.
Following Sabel (2003), Malagasy is an Austronesian VOS language in which
wh-phrases can be moved or left in situ. In single wh-questions, only the adjunct or
the argument phrase in the sentence final position (SpecIP) can move, as shown in
(37), where the sentence final phrase is underlined. As we can see, either iza ‘who’
or inona ‘what’ can move, but only when they move from a sentence final position,
hence the ungrammaticality of (37b), in which the argument moves from a sentence
internal position. This is, following Sabel (2003), known as the ‘subjects only’
restriction. This restriction does not hold for adjuncts, as they can move, despite not
being sentence final before movement, as shown in (38).
(37) Malagasy (Sabel 2003: (3a), (3b), (4a))
a.
Iza
no
manasa
ny
lamba
amin’ ny
savony
who
PRT
wash
the
clothes
with the soap
t?
‘Who washes the clothes with soap?’
b. * Inona
What
no
manasa t
amin ny
savony
ny reny?
PRT
wash
with the
soap
the mother
amin’ ny
savony
‘What does the mother wash with soap?’
c.
Inona
no
sasan’
ny reny
What
PRT
wash
the mother with the soap
‘What does the mother wash with the soap?’
28
t?
(38) Malagasy (Sabel 2003: (6a))
Aiza
no
manasa
ny lamba amin’ny savony ny reny?
Where
PRT
wash
the clothes with the soap
the mother
‘Where does the mother wash the clothes with the soap?’
If we consider the wh-movement approach, wh-phrases can undergo partial,
(40), or full wh-movement, (39), in embedded contexts. According to Sabel (2003),
in all cases wh-movement is triggered by [+focus] feature and the difference between
in situ and wh-movement is in the strength of the [+focus] feature. The feature is
weak in in-situ constructions and strong in cases with full and partial wh-fronting.
(39) Malagasy (Sabel 2003: (7))
[CP1 Inona no heverin-dRabe [CP2
what
FOC
believe-Rabe
fa
novidin-dRakoto t]]?
that buy-Rakoto
‘What does Rabe believe that Rakoto has bought?’
(40) Malagasy (Sabel 2003: (8))
[CP1 Heverin-dRabe [CP2
believe-Rabe
fa
inona
that what
no
novidin-dRakoto t]]?
FOC
buy-Rakoto
‘What does Rabe believe that Rakoto has bought?’
Non-subject wh-arguments stay in situ in Malagasy, as shown in (41). In
addition, Sabel (2003) shows three conditions under which a wh-phrase in Malagasy
has to move. The first is the presence of the focus particle no. When there is no focus
particle, the wh-phrase must stay in situ, (42a), but when the focus particle is present,
the wh-phrase has to move, (42b).
(41) Malagasy (Sabel 2003: (8))
[CP1 Heverin-dRabe [CP2
PRES-TT-believe-Rabe
fa
nividy
inona
Rakoto t]]?
that
PAST-AT-buy
what
Rakoto
any amin’ ny
magazay
Rabe?
there in
29
shop
Rabe
‘What does Rabe believe that Rakoto has bought?’
(42) Malagasy (Sabel 2003: (10a, b))
a.
Mividy
(*no) inona
buy (*
PRT
what
the
‘What does Rabe buy in the shop?’
b.
Inona
what
*(no) vidin-dRabe
PRT
buy-Rabe
any amin’
ny magazay?
there in
the shop
‘What does Rabe buy in the shop?’
The second condition applies to wh-words in SpecIP which cannot stay in situ,
as shown in (43). This, following Sabel (2003), is due to the fact that wh-phrases are
non-specific and in Malagasy no non-specific NPs can stay in SpecIP (regardless of
whether the non-specific phrase is a wh-phrase or not, see also Potsdam (2006a)).
Wh-phrases must therefore move from SpecIP. The last restriction holds for nonreferential adjuncts (how and why), which must always occur sentence initially, (44),
while referential adjuncts (where and when) can appear either in situ or sentence
initially.
(43) Malagasy (Sabel 2003: (11))
a. * Novidin-dRabe
(ny) inona?
buy-Rabe
(the) what
b.
Inona
no
novidin-dRabe?
what
PRT
buy-Rabe
‘What has Rabe bought?’
(44) Malagasy (Sabel 2003: (15a), (17b))
a. * Nanasa
wash
ny lamba
amin’ ny savony nahoana
the clothes with the soap why
ny reny?
the mother
‘Why did the mother wash the clothes with soap?’
b.
Nahoana
no nanasa ny lamba
why
FOC wash
amin’
the clothes with
ny savony ny reny?
the soap
the mother
‘Why did the mother wash the clothes with soap?’
The examples above only show single wh-movement, but Malagasy also has
multiple questions in which wh-phrases can appear in situ (cf. Sabel 2003) or display
optional fronting, which is allowed for adjuncts, such as aiza ‘where’, and
arguments. In multiple wh-fronting, all the conditions mentioned above hold, so
multiple fronting with a subject and an adjunct is permitted, (45a), but movement of
30
both a subject and another argument is excluded (while the subject must move,
another argument, which is not in SpecIP, cannot), as shown in (46). Also, as (45)
shows, Superiority effects must be observed in Malagasy.
(45) Malagasy (Sabel 2003: (48))
a.
Aiza
iza
no
mividy
ny
vary?
where
who
PRT
buy
the
rice
‘Where does who buy the rice?’
b. * Iza
aiza no
mividy
ny
vary?
(46) Malagasy (Sabel 2003: (35))
a. * Iza
inona
who what
b. * Inona
no
mividy?
PRT
buy
iza no
mividy?
Sabel (2003) accounts for the data by proposing that wh-phrases form a cluster
that subsequently moves.22 As already mentioned, wh-fronting in Malagasy is the
result of a strong [+focus] feature. According to Sabel, some feature of the wh-word
is attracted to the same feature in the head C, but first the feature on the wh-word
attracts a similar feature on the other wh-word. This can be seen in (45a), in which
the strong [+focus] feature of iza ‘who’ attracts the wh-phrase aiza ‘where’. They
form a cluster, as shown in (47), and this cluster is attracted to the head C due to the
[+focus] feature that is on that head. Additionally, Sabel assumes that only the C0
head has the strong [+focus] feature in cases in which only one wh-phrase in a
multiple wh-question is fronted in Malagasy. In examples where no wh-phrases
22
This multiple wh-fronting is not the result of scrambling, as Malagasy does not allow scrambling,
nor is it a result of movement to multiple specifiers, as, following Sabel (2003), this would predict the
availability of long movement across short movement, which is not possible, (i.a). In these cases, the
wh-phrase that would undergo long movement has to stay in situ, (i.b).
(i)
(Sabel 2003: (38a, c))
a.
* Oviana
no
mihevitra
i
Piera [CP
fa
when
FOC
believe
ART
Piera
that
‘When does Piera believe that who did return?’
b.
Mihevitra
i
Piera [CP fa iza
no
niverina
believe
ART
Piera that who PART return
‘When does Piera believe that who did return?’
31
iza no niverina tt]?
who FOC return
oviana t]
when
move, neither the head C0 nor the wh-phrase has the [+focus] feature. I am leaving
other details aside here, but see Sabel (2003) for more.
(47)
CP
3
C’
3
C
IP
3
I’
NP1
2 2
…t2… XP2 NP1
Sabel (2003) takes Malagasy to be similar to Bulgarian and Romanian since in
all three languages multiple wh-fronting is available under similar conditions: the
order of moved wh-phrases is fixed, nothing can intervene between the moved whphrases, and long distance wh-fronting is available. The difference between
Malagasy and Bulgarian, according to Sabel (2003), is that the latter does not exhibit
optional wh-fronting while Malagasy does so. Still, it needs to be emphasized that
while it is true that more than one wh-phrase can appear in a sentence initial position
in Malagasy, this only concerns examples in which the subject (i.e. the wh-phrase
that originates in the SpecIP position) and a wh-adjunct ‘where’ or ‘when’ move.
This means that multiple wh-fronting is much more restricted in Malagasy than in
Bulgarian, where all wh-phrases move, regardless of being a subject, object, or
adverb, which one should consider when classifying a language as a multiple whfronting language. In addition, Sabel’s claim that wh-movement in Malagasy is
‘optional multiple wh-fronting’ also seems to be too strong if we take optional
movement to be an either/or operation. It is however true that wh-movement in
Malagasy is subject to many restrictions based on which an item either moves or
does not. What seems to be optional in Malagasy is whether the adjuncts oviana
‘when’ and aiza ‘where’ move. Because of this, I do not take multiple wh-fronting in
32
Malagasy to be comparable to wh-fronting in, for example, Bulgarian, nor do I
consider the optional wh-movement in Malagasy comparable to that in Slovenian.23
In fact, as Potsdam (2004, 2006) shows, the properties of Malagasy multiple
wh-fronting and the differences between Malagasy and Bulgarian can be accounted
for if we adopt a pseudo-cleft analysis of optional wh-questions in Malagasy. Under
the pseudo-cleft approach, single wh-questions in which a wh-phrase appears in a
clause initial position are “covert pseudo-clefts in which the wh-phrase is a predicate
and the remaining material is a headless relative clause in subject position” (Potsdam
2006: 2156). The structure for a simple matrix question with a wh-phrase in the
clause initial position is shown in (48).24
(48) Malagasy (Potsdam 2006: (5b), (7))
a.
Izza no
nihomehy?
who
laugh
PRT
‘Who laugh?’
b.
[IP [predicate izza] [DP/headless rel. no Opi
who
nihomehy ti]]
laugh
lit. ‘The one that laughed is who?’
‘Who laughed?’
Potsdam (2006) also argues against a multiple wh-fronting analysis of
Malagasy multiple wh-questions. One reason for this is the observed anti-superiority
effects. That is, in Bulgarian the wh-subject precedes the wh-adjunct (see section
3.1), but in Malagasy the wh-adjunct must precede the wh-subject, (45). The second
argument comes from what can be fronted in Malagasy. While in Bulgarian any
combination of wh-phrases can be fronted, in Malagasy multiple wh-fronting is
restricted to wh-subjects and wh-adjuncts. Moreover, even multiple wh-questions
with multiple fronted wh-adjuncts are ungrammatical in Malagasy:
23
For example, in Slovenian, optional wh-movement can concern arguments as well as adjuncts. The
full range of optional multiple wh-fronting is shown in 2.3.
24
I will not go through the entire argumentation for the pseudo-cleft analysis here, but see Potsdam
(2006 and the references cited therein) for the reasoning against a wh-movement analysis.
33
(49) Malagasy (Potsdam 2004: (28a, b))
a. * Taiza oviana
where when
no
nividy
mofo Rasoa?
PRT
buy.ACT
bread Rasoa
‘When did Raosa buy the bread where?’
b. * Oviana
taiza no
nividy
mofo Rasoa?
Under the pseudo-cleft approach, multiple wh-questions in Malagasy can be
accounted for if we assume Malagasy has the so called ‘bodyguard construction’, see
Potsdam (2004; and the references cited therein). The term ‘bodyguard’ refers to the
subject which can optionally appear between the fronted wh-adjunct (or a focused
phrase) and the focus particle. The two possible positions of the subject (i.e. sentence
final or sentence internal) in a wh-question are shown below in (50). Following
Potsdam (2004), this ‘bodyguard’ appears in the SpecDP of the headless relative that
appears in the subject position
(50) Malagasy (Potsdam 2004: (22))
a.
Aiza
no
mividy
mofo Rasoa?
where
PRT
buy.ACT
bread Rasoa
‘Where does Rasoa buy bread?’
b.
Aiza
Rasoa
no
mividy
mofo?
The notion of a ‘bodyguard’ also helps us to account for instances of multiple
wh-fronting. In these cases the ‘bodyguard’ is a wh-phrase. Example (51) shows the
structure of example (45). This also accounts for the word order of fronted whphrases in Malagasy.
(51)
IP
3
I’
DP
3
3
I
PredP DPk
D’
55 3
aiza
iza
D
CP
‘where’ ‘who’ no
6
Opi nividy vary tk tk
‘buy rice’
34
Based on the very restricted nature of multiple wh-fronting in Malagasy and the
fact that optional movement in Malagasy only concerns wh-subjects and referential
adjuncts, I do not consider Malagasy a language with optional multiple wh-fronting. I
will assume Malagasy wh-phrases are moved in pseudo-cleft constructions, as
proposed by Potsdam (2004, 2006). Because of this, I leave Malagasy aside from
now on. In the next section I turn to the Slovenian data and show why Slovenian can
be taken as an example of optional multiple wh-fronting language.
2.3 Slovenian - the data
One of the central goals of this thesis is to establish that optional wh-fronting is a
valid pattern in multiple wh-fronting. In order to achieve this, I will mainly focus on
Slovenian. Because of this, I will first establish how optionality of multiple whfronting is displayed in Slovenian. In this section I show the typical patterns of
multiple wh-questions in Slovenian. In establishing these patterns I look at D-linked
and non-D-linked wh-phrases – the latter including both argument and adjunct whphrases. The possible patterns will be shown for matrix and embedded questions. I
will start with questions with two wh-phrases, but will also look at wh-questions with
three wh-phrases. 25
25
Optional multiple wh-fronting also has to be separated from partial wh-movement in Slovenian. I
will not go into detail about partial wh-movement, but a couple of differences have to be mentioned.
Given the typology of partial wh-movement (Fanselow 2006), Slovenian is a language with partial
movement with scope marking by the most unmarked wh-word. In this respect Slovenian is similar to
German, see example (i), Frisian, Serbo-Croatian, Czech, Romani, Hungarian, Finnish, and Warlpiri
(see Fanselow 2006 and the references therein).
(i)
German (Fanselow 2006: (12a))
Was glaubst
du
wen
what believe
you who.ACC
‘Who do you believe that Irina loves?’
Irina
Irina
t
liebt?
loves
In all these languages, scope is marked by the most unmarked wh-phrase, which is (in these
languages) the word what. On the other hand, some languages (such as Polish) use how in the scope
marking position. Slovenian, like German, uses the word kaj ‘what’, as (ii) shows. This unmarked whphrase does not move from the embedded clause. In this group of languages, the scope marking
position in the matrix clause is filled by the most unmarked wh-word, while the wh-phrase moves only
within the embedded clause.
35
2.3.1 Multiple wh-questions with two wh-phrases
In wh-questions with two wh-phrases, three possible types of questions that receive a
true question reading emerge: Both wh-phrases can move to the clause initial
position (i.e. multiple wh-fronting), one wh-phrase moves to the clause initial
position and one moves to some clause internal position (i.e. short movement), or
else one wh-phrase moves to the clause initial position and one wh-phrase stays in
situ.
Multiple wh-fronting will be explored in chapter 3, but some properties need to
be noted at this point: In Slovenian, all wh-phrases can move to the clause initial
position of a question and in these cases there are no Superiority effects. This pattern
holds both in matrix, (52), and in embedded questions, (53). Example (54) shows
multiple wh-fronting for adjunct wh-phrases in matrix and (55) in embedded
questions. Examples (56) and (57) illustrate that multiple wh-fronting is available
also for D-linked wh-phrases in matrix and embedded questions, respectively. The
latter is surprising, given that multiple wh-fronting of D-linked wh-phrases is said not
to be possible in certain other multiple wh-fronting languages, such as SerboCroatian, and D-linking can in fact be viewed as a restriction on movement (cf.
section 4.3). Note that all of the questions below can receive either a single pair or a
pair list answer. Furthermore, multiple wh-movement out of embedded questions is
not acceptable, as (58) shows, cf. section 3.1.2.
(ii)
Kaj misliš, koga ima Janez v
mislih?
what thinks who have Janez in
thoughts
‘Who do you think Janez is thinking of?’
Two things stand out immediately: optionality can be displayed in both matrix and embedded
questions in Slovenian (which I will show in this section) and when it is displayed in embedded
questions, any wh-phrase can move to the clause initial position of the matrix clause, not only kaj
‘what’. The availability of optional multiple wh-fronting in matrix questions and the fact that any whphrase can be optionally fronted shows that partial wh-movement and optional wh-movement need to
be looked at as two distinct phenomena and that we cannot account for the data from optional multiple
wh-questions with a partial wh-movement analysis.
36
(52) a.
Kdo
je
kaj
kupil?
who.NOM
AUX
what.ACC buys
‘Who buys what?’
b.
(53) a.
Kaj je kdo kupil?
Janez
sprašuje,
kdo
je
kaj
kupil.
Janez
asks
who.NOM
AUX
what.ACC buy
‘Janez is asking who bought what.’
b.
(54) a.
Janez sprašuje, kaj je kdo kupil.
Kje
je
kdaj razprodaja oblek?
where
AUX
when sale
clothes
‘Where are the clothes on sale when?’
b.
(55) a.
Kdaj je kje razprodaja oblek?
Janez sprašuje, kje
je
kdaj razprodaja oblek.
Janez asks
AUX
when sale
where
clothes
‘Janez is asking where the clothes are on sale when.’
b.
(56) a.
Janez sprašuje, kdaj je kje razprodaja oblek.
Katera punca
je
katerega
fanta
povabila
na
ples?
which girl.NOM
AUX
which
boy.ACC
invite
to
dance
‘Which girl invited which boy to the dance?’
b.
(57) a.
Katerega fanta je katera punca povabila na ples?
Janez
sprašuje,
katera
punca je
katerega
fanta
Janez
asks
which
girl
which
boy
povabila
na
ples.
invite
to
dance
AUX
‘Janez is asking which girl invited which boy to the dance.’
b.
Janez sprašuje, katerega fanta je katera punca povabila na ples.
(58) a. * Kdo
koga
who.NOM who.ACC
povabil
plesati?
invite
dance.INF
Miha
sprašuje
Miha.NOM asks
Majo,
Maja.ACC if
b. * Koga kdo Miha sprašuje Majo, če je povabil plesati?
37
če
je
AUX
As examples above show, multiple wh-fronting is a valid option for multiple whquestions in Slovenian.26
Questions with short movement, similar to the ones in Polish (cf. Citko 2010)
can also be found in Slovenian. In this pattern, the lower wh-phrase is located after
the subject (I only consider questions with non-wh-subjects here, but see chapter 6
for other examples). As in the previous pattern, this holds for argument wh-phrases in
matrix, (59), and embedded questions, (60), and adjunct wh-phrases in matrix, (61),
and embedded questions, (62).
(59) a.
Kaj
je
Janez
kupil?
what.ACC
AUX
Janez.NOM who.DAT
komu
buy
‘What did Janez buy for whom?’
b.
(60) a.
Komu je Janez kaj kupil?
Tone sprašuje,
kaj
je
Janez
kupil.
Tone asks
what.ACC
AUX
Janez.NOM who.DAT
komu
buy
‘Tone is asking what Janez bought for whom.’
b.
(61) a.
Tone sprašuje, komu je Janez kaj kupil.
Kdaj je
Janez
kam šel
na
počitnice?
when AUX Janez.NOM where go
on
holiday
‘When did Janez go where on holiday?’
b.
(62) a.
Kam je Janez kdaj šel na počitnice?
Tone sprašuje,
kdaj je
Janez
kam šel
na
počitnice.
Tone asks
when AUX Janez.NOM where go
on
holiday
‘Tone is asking where Janez went on holiday where?’
b.
Tone sprašuje, kam je Janez kdaj šel na počitnice?
26
Slovenian clitics are second position clitics and always follow the first syntactic constituent of the
clause (e.g. Golden and Sheppard 2000; Marušič 2009):
(i)
a.
b.
c.
Vesel mlad pek je
spekel torto.
happy young baker AUX bake cake
‘A happy young baker baked a cake.’
* Vesel je mlad pek spekel torto.
* Vesel mlad je pek spekel torto.
38
Again, the pattern can also be found with D-linked phrases. Their word order is
free.
(63) a.
Kateri učiteljici
je
Maja katero
darilo
prinesla?
which teacher.DAT
AUX
Maja which
present.ACC bring
‘To which teacher did Maja bring which present?’
b.
(64) a.
Katero darilo je Maja kateri učiteljici prinesla?
Ravnatelj sprašuje,
kateri učiteljici
je
Maja
headmaster asks
which teacher.DAT
AUX
Maja.NOM which
darilo
katero
prinesla.
present.ACC bring
‘The headmaster is asking to which teacher did Maja bring which
present?’
b.
Ravnatelj sprašuje, katero darilo je Maja kateri učiteljici prinesla.
Questions with short movement will be explored in chapter 6.
The final form of multiple wh-questions with two wh-phrases which receive a
true question reading in Slovenian are questions in which one wh-phrase moves to
the clause initial position and one is left in situ. This is again grammatical in matrix
and embedded questions, as (65) and (66) show for argument wh-phrases and (67)
and (68) show for adjunct wh-phrases. This pattern can also be found with D-linked
wh-phrases.
(65) a.
Kaj
je
Miha kupil
komu?
what.ACC
AUX
Miha buy
who.DAT
‘What did Miha buy for whom?’
b.
(66) a.
Komu je Miha kupil kaj?
Janez
sprašuje,
komu
je
Ana kupila
kaj.
Janez
asks
who.NOM
AUX
Ana buy
what.ACC
‘Janez is asking what Ana bought for whom.’
b.
Janez sprašuje, kaj je Ana kupila komu.
39
(67) a.
Kdaj je
Janez šel
kam?
when AUX Janez went where
‘When did Janez go where?’
b.
(68) a.
Kam je Janez kdaj šel?
Zanima me,
kdaj je
Janez šel
wonder I.DAT
when AUX Janez went where
kam.
‘I wonder when Janez went where.’
b.
(69) a.
Zanima me, kam je Janez šel kdaj.
je
Kateremu sorodniku
which
relative.DAT
Maja predstavila katerega fanta?
AUX
Maja introduce
which
boy.ACC
‘To which relative did Maja introduce which boy?’
b.
(70) a.
Katerega fanta je Maja predstavila kateremu sorodniku?
Zanima
me,
kateremu sorodniku
wonder
I.DAT
which
katerega
fanta.
which
boy.ACC
je
Maja predstavila
relative.DAT AUX Maja introduce
‘I wonder, to which relative Maja introduced which boy.’
b.
Zanima me, katerega fanta je Maja predstavila kateremu sorodniku.
This last group of questions, (65)–(70), shows that it is not the case that wh-phrases
need to move to a preverbal position, which Błaszczak and Fischer (2001) took to be
one of the crucial properties of multiple wh-fronting. However, if we compare the
last group of questions, which I will return to in chapter 5, to questions with multiple
wh-phrases which all stay in situ, we can see that it is necessary for one wh-phrase to
move to a clause initial position (while the rest can stay in situ or undergo some type
of movement) in order to get a true question reading.
Questions in which all wh-phrases stay in situ are not acceptable under a true
question reading. They are, however, acceptable as echo questions or yes/noquestions. When komu ‘who’ and kaj ‘why’ are pronounced without an emphasis and
a rising intonation, as in (71), the example gets a yes/no-question interpretation. The
yes/no-question interpretation is available as all interrogative wh-phrases are
homophonous with indefinite pronouns. If the wh-phrases are emphasized, the
question is interpreted as an echo question.
40
(71) Miha je
kupil
Miha AUX bought
KOMU
KAJ?
who.DAT
what.ACC
#‘What did Miha buy for whom?’
‘Did Miha buy something for someone?’/’Miha bought
WHAT FOR WHOM?’A
common property of multiple wh-questions in Slovenian is that at least one whphrase has to move. Crucially, all three word orders in (72) receive the same true
question interpretation in Slovenian.
(72) a.
Kaj
je
komu
Janez
kupil?
what.ACC
AUX
who.DAT
Janez
buy
‘What did Janez buy for whom?’
b.
Kaj je Janez komu kupil?
c.
Kaj je Janez kupil komu?
Before accounting for all multiple wh-questions with a true question reading, I
turn to questions with more than two wh-phrases to get a clearer picture of the
multiple wh-questions in Slovenian.
2.3.2 Questions with more than two wh-phrases
In order to get a complete idea about the behavior of multiple wh-questions in
Slovenian, we need to include questions with more than two wh-phrases. The first
option that is available in this type of questions is that all wh-phrases move to a
clause initial position. Again, there are no Superiority effects in these questions.
Example (73) shows this possibility for matrix questions with argument and adjunct
wh-phrases and (74) shows multiple wh-fronting of wh-arguments in an embedded
question.
(73) a.
Kdo
je
koga
kam
povabil?
who.NOM
AUX
who.ACC
where
invited
‘Who invited whom where?’
41
b.
Kdo je kam koga povabil?
c.
Koga je kdo kam/kam kdo povabil?
d.
Kam je kdo koga/koga kdo povabil?
(74) a.
Rok
sprašuje,
Rok.NOM asks
kdo
je
kaj
who.NOM
AUX
what.ACC who.DAT
komu
kupil.
buy
‘Rok is asking who bought what for whom.’
b.
Rok sprašuje, kdo je komu kaj kupil.
c.
Rok sprašuje, kaj je kdo komu/komu kdo kupil.
d.
Rok sprašuje, komu je kdo kaj/kaj kdo kupil.
This means that multiple wh-fronting is available with three (and even more) whphrases.27
Questions with short movement are again available. As example (75) shows,
one wh-phrase moves to a clause initial position, while the rest of the wh-phrases
move only to a lower position, beneath the subject. Different combinations are also
possible: two wh-phrases can move to the clause initial position and only the
remaining one undergoes short movement, (76). There are no Superiority effects in
these examples. While I am only giving an example of matrix questions with non-Dlinked wh-phrases, such short movement is also possible in embedded questions and
with D-linked phrases.
(75) a.
Kaj
je
Maja
what.ACC
AUX
Maja.NOM when who.DAT
kdaj komu
povedala?
tell
‘When did Maja tell what to whom?’
b.
Kaj je Maja komu kdaj povedala?
c.
Komu je Maja kaj kdaj/kdaj kaj povedala?
d.
Kdaj je Maja kaj komu/komu kaj povedala?
27
Multiple wh-fronting can also be found with three D-linked wh-phrases. Questions such as (i) are,
however, interpreted as clarifying questions (which is not surprising, since the wh-phrases in it refer to
entities that are given in the discourse). While there is no Superiority in these questions, I only give
one word order below.
(i)
Katera punca
je
kateremu fantu
katero darilo
which girl.NOM
AUX which boy.DAT
which gift.ACC
‘Which girl brought which gift for which boy?’
42
prinesla?
bring
(76) a.
Kaj
je
komu
Maja
kdaj povedala?
what.ACC
AUX
who.DAT
Maja.NOM when tell?
‘When did Maja tell what to whom?
b.
Komu je kaj Maja kdaj povedala?
c.
Kaj je kdaj Maja komu povedala?
d.
Kdaj je kaj Maja komu povedala?
e.
Komu je kdaj Maja kaj povedala?
f.
Kdaj je komu Maja kaj povedala?
As expected, with more than three wh-phrases, any combination of the two
patterns is possible and one could potentially ask any of the following questions in
(77). The word order of the wh-phrases is again free.
(77) a.
Koga
je
kdaj Maja komu
kje
predstavila?
who
AUX
when Maja whom
where
introduce
‘Who did Maja introduce to whom, when and where?’
b.
Koga je Maja komu kdaj kje predstavila?
c.
Koga je kdaj komu Maja kje predstavila?
In addition to multiple wh-fronting and short movement, wh-in-situ is also
possible in questions with three wh-phrases (or more). In questions with more than
two wh-phrases, one, (78a), or more, (78b), wh-phrases can stay in situ. In these
questions, certain restrictions seem to hold. Examples with two wh-phrases in situ are
more acceptable when both wh-phrases are arguments. In these cases word order
plays a role. I take the verb izpostaviti ‘expose’ in which we are questioning both the
accusative and the dative object. With izpostaviti ‘expose’ the objects always appear
in a fixed order in which the accusative precedes the dative (Marvin and Stegovec
2012). This order is also preferred with wh-phrases.
(78) a.
Kdo
je
čemu
izpostavil koga?
who.NOM
AUX
who.DAT
expose
‘Who exposed whom to what?’
b.
Kdo je izpostavil koga čemu?
43
who.ACC
c. ?? Kdo je izpostavil čemu koga?
If a wh-adjunct is clause final, the wh-question is less grammatical. The
question seems less acceptable when more wh-phrases appear in the clause final
positions.
(79) a. ?? Kaj
what.ACC
je
Ana kupila
komu
kdaj?
AUX
Ana buy
who.DAT
when
Intended: ‘What did Ana buy for whom and when did she do it?’
b. ?? Kaj je Ana kupila kdaj komu?
c. ?? Komu je Ana kupila kaj kdaj/kdaj kaj?
d. ?? Kdaj je Ana kupila komu kaj/kaj komu?
e. ? Kaj je komu Ana kupil kdaj?
This means that again all three patterns of multiple wh-questions can be found
in questions with three or more wh-phrases. It should come as no surprise that the
combination of ‘move at least one’, ‘move behind the subject’ and ‘clause final’ can
be combined in a single question, as shown below:
(80) Kdaj je
when
AUX
Miha kaj
kupil komu?
Miha what.ACC buy who.DAT
‘When did Miha buy what for whom?’
This question receives a true question reading. It can be used in the same
contexts as a multiple wh-fronting question. This indicates that multiple wh-fronting
is optional in Slovenian.
2.3.3 Optionality in multiple wh-questions in Slovenian
In Slovenian multiple wh-questions, a wh-phrase can appear in any of three distinct
positions: clause initial, clause internal (beneath the subject) and clause final.
Crucially, it holds that at least one wh-phrase has to move to a clause initial position
44
for a question to receive a true question reading. This gives us three types of
questions: (i) multiple wh-questions with multiple wh-fronting to the clause initial
positions, (ii) multiple wh-questions with (partial) short movement (to the Low
Periphery), and (iii) multiple wh-questions with (partial) wh-in-situ.
Based on the Slovenian data, I define optionality in multiple wh-fronting
languages as instances of multiple wh-questions in multiple wh-fronting languages in
which not all wh-phrases have to move to the clause initial position but rather at least
one wh-phrase has to be moved to the clause initial position while the rest have the
option to undergo movement to the clause initial position, to undergo short
movement, or to stay in situ. However, this means that at least one wh-phrase is
obligatory moved in Slovenian.
In what follows I will explore each type of questions separately while focusing
mainly on the data from Slovenian. In the next chapter I will explore questions with
multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian.
45
3 Multiple wh-questions with multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian
Multiple wh-fronting has been a topic of exploration since the 1980’s. In the last
decades several accounts of the phenomena have emerged. In the first part of this
chapter, I go through two of the more influential theories of multiple wh-fronting.
The focus of section 3.1 is Rudin’s (1988) analysis of multiple wh-fronting, and in
3.2 I focus on the analysis in Bošković (1997a et seq.)28. I then show how these
analyses can be applied to Slovenian. At the same time I point out the most important
properties of multiple wh-fronting languages and concepts important for the
presented research. In section 3.2.2 I discuss why the analysis of Slovenian as a
language without real wh-movement is problematic and show why mainstream views
on Slovenian multiple wh-fronting should be reanalysed. Finally, I turn to the
Cartographic approach to multiple wh-fronting and show how it can be applied to
Slovenian.
3.1 Multiple wh-fronting - the [+/–MFS] analysis (Rudin 1988)
With respect to wh-movement, languages can be divided into three groups. Some
languages do not move wh-phrases but rather leave them in their original positions.
These languages constitute the first group of languages, the so called wh-in-situ
languages, such as Chinese and Japanese, (1). The second group of languages move
only one wh-phrase, such as English, (2), and the third group is comprised of
languages that can front more than one wh-phrase – the so called multiple whfronting29 languages, (3). Among the multiple wh-fronting languages we find
different Slavic languages, all of which have in common the fact that they can front
all the wh-phrases in a sentence. This work focuses on the last group of languages.
28
The issue of multiple wh-fronting and related phenomena in Serbo-Croatian and other languages is
discussed in Bošković (1994, 1997a, 1997b, 1997c, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2007).
29
I will be using the term multiple wh-fronting for all the cases in which more than one wh-phrase
moves (regardless of the motivation for movement).
46
(1)
Japanese (Richards 1997: (2))
Taroo-ga dare-ni
nani-o
ageta no?
Taroo.NOM who.DAT
what.ACC gave Q
‘Who did Taroo give what?’
(2)
English
a.
Who bought what?
b. * Who what bought?
(3)
Serbo-Croatian
a.
Ko
koga
vidi?
who.NOM whom.ACC sees
‘Who sees whom?’
b.
Koga ko vidi?
Multiple wh-fronting has been a widely researched topic since the 1980’s (with
some initial work done in the 1970’s), with much of the work appearing after
Rudin’s (1988) paper on multiple questions.30 This paper is to this day one of the
most influential papers on multiple wh-fronting and is still used by many as the basis
for analyses of phenomena related to multiple wh-fronting.
Rudin (1988) shows that, despite superficial similarities (i.e. fronting all whphrases to the beginning of a clause), multiple wh-fronting languages can be divided
into two groups that differ with respect to the order of fronted wh-phrases
(Superiority effects), possibility of multiple extraction of wh-phrases out of
embedded tensed clauses, wh-island effects, and whether fronted wh-phrases form a
constituent. Examples (4) and (5) show different behavior with respect to
Superiority. Example (4) shows a strict word order of fronted arguments in Bulgarian
in which the subject must precede the object. This is an indicator that Bulgarian
exhibits Superiority effects (this is similar to English, where the subject wh-phrase
must be fronted in sentences with subject and object wh-phrases). On the other hand,
Serbo-Croatian multiple questions do not show Superiority effects, (5), and allow all
possible word orders of fronted wh-phrases (in this case, all arguments).
30
Prior to Rudin (1988), there was also work on multiple wh-fronting by Wachowicz (1974), Toman
(1981), and earlier work by Rudin (1982 et seq.).
47
(4)
Bulgarian (Rudin 1988: (54))
a.
Koj
vižda?
kogo
who.NOM whom.ACC sees
‘Who sees whom?’
b. * Kogo koj vižda?
(5)
Serbo-Croatian (Rudin 1988: (56))
a.
Ko
je
što
dao?
who.NOM
AUX
what.ACC who.DAT
kome
given
‘Who gave what to whom?’
b.
Ko je kome što dao?
c.
Što je ko kome dao?/ kome ko dao?
d.
Kome je to što ko dao? / ko što dao?
In Bulgarian, wh-phrases cannot be separated by a clitic, parenthetical, or an
adverb, as shown below in (6), where wh-phrases are ungrammatically separated by
the adverb prŭv ‘first’. This means that, in Bulgarian, wh-phrases form a constituent.
In Serbo-Croatian, wh-phrases do not form a constituent. This is shown by the fact
that a clitic, parenthetical or an adverb, as in example (7), can appear between them.
(6)
Bulgarian (Rudin 1988: (42))
a.
Zavisi
ot
tova, koj
depends
on
this who.NOM who.ACC
kogo
prŭv e
udaril.
first has
hit
‘It depends on who hit whom first.’
b. * Zavisi ot tova, koj prŭv kogo e udaril.
(7)
Serbo-Croatian (Rudin 1988: (43))
a.
Ko
je
koga
prvi udario?
who.NOM
AUX
whom.ACC first hit
‘Who hit whom first?’
b.
Ko je prvi koga udario?
The examples in (8) and (9) show different behavior with respect to multiple
wh-extraction out of an embedded clause: In Bulgarian (and Romanian) multiple whextraction out of an embedded clause is obligatory, hence the grammaticality of (8a).
48
If a wh-phrase stays in situ, (8b, c), or moves only to the SpecCP of the embedded
clause (8d, e), the sentence is ungrammatical. According to Rudin (1988), multiple
long distance extraction is prohibited in Serbo-Croatian (but see fn. 31) and only one
wh-phrase can move out of an embedded clause while the other stays in situ, as in
(9a, b). If all wh-phrases move out of the embedded clause (9c, d), or if only one whphrase moves out of the embedded clause and one moves to SpecCP of the
embedded clause, (9d, e), the sentence is ungrammatical.
(8)
Bulgarian (Rudin 1988: (6))
a.
Koj kŭde
misliš
[če e otišŭl _ _]?
who where
think.2SG that has gone
‘Who do you think (that) went where?’
b. * Koj misliš [če e otišŭl _ kŭde]?
c. * Kŭde misliš [če koj e otišŭl _ _]?
d. * Koj misliš [kŭde (če) e otišŭl _ _]?
e. * Kŭde misliš [koj (če) e otišŭl _ _]?
(9)
Serbo-Croatian (Rudin 1988: (11))
a.
Ko
želite
who want.2PL
[da vam
šta
kupi _]?
that you.DAT
what buy.3SG
‘Who do you want to buy you what?’
b.
Šta želite
[da vam
ko
kupi _ ]?
what want.2PL
that you.DAT
who buy.3SG
‘What do you want who to buy you?’
c. * Ko šta želite da vam kupi _ _]?31
d. * Šta ko želite [da vam kupi _ _]?
e. * Ko želite [šta da vam kupi _ _]?
f.
* Šta želite [ko da vam kupi _ _]?
31
Bošković (1997c), on the other hand, claims that there are some Serbo-Croatian speakers who find
multiple long distance fronting, as in (i), acceptable:
(i)
Serbo-Croatian (Bošković 1997c: (8))
a.
Ko
si
koga
tvrdio,
who.NOM
AUX who.ACC
claimed
‘Who did you claim beat whom?’
b.
* Koga si ko tvrdio, da je istukao?
49
da
that
je
AUX
istukao?
beaten
Rudin (1988) explains the grammaticality of (8a) with the availability of a
multiply filled specifier of CP in Bulgarian. In order for movement not to violate
Subjacency, the wh-phrases must move out of the embedded clause through SpecCP.
Bulgarian has a multiply filled SpecCP through which multiple wh-phrases can
move, but Serbo-Croatian has only a SpecCP position through which only one whphrase can move. This, following Rudin (1988), is also related to wh-islands, which
can be violated in Bulgarian, as shown in (10), but not in Serbo-Croatian, (11).
(10) Bulgarian (Rudin 1988: (19))
Vidjah
edna kniga, kojatoi
se čudja
saw1SG
a
wonder1SG who knows who sells
book which
[koj znae [ koj prodava _i]]
‘I saw a book which I wonder who knows who sells (it).’
(11) Serbo-Croatian (Rudin 1988: (24a))
* Šta si
what have.2SG
me
pitao ko
može da
me
asked who can to
uradi?
do
‘What did you ask me who can do?’
Rudin (1988) attributes these differences to the ability of a language to
multiply fill the SpecCP position, which she states in The multiply filled SpecCP
hypothesis:
(12) The multiply filled SpecCP hypothesis (Rudin 1988: (70))
SpecCP can contain multiple wh-words at S-structure in Bulgarian and
Romanian ([+MFS] languages]), but only one in Serbo-Croatian, Polish, and
Czech ([–MFS] languages).
According to Rudin, the two groups then have different structures for multiple
wh-questions. The structure for [+MFS] languages is shown in (13) and the structure
for [–MFS] languages is shown in (14).
50
(13) SpecCP in [+MFS] languages (Rudin 1988: (73b))
CP
3
SpecCP
IP
3
SpecCP
WH
3
SpecCP
WH
g
WH
(14) SpecCP and IP in [–MFS] Language (Rudin 1988: (82))
CP
3
SpecCP
C’
g
3
WH
Comp
IP
3
WH
IP
3
WH
IP
In [+MFS] languages, the moved wh-phrases are right adjoined to SpecCP as in (13).
In [−MFS] languages, only the first wh-phrase is in SpecCP at the point of Spell-Out
and the rest are adjoined to IP. At LF, the wh-phrases, which are in [–MFS]
languages adjoined to IP, move to SpecCP.32 The two structures also account for the
different behavior of the two groups of languages with respect to Superiority.
Superiority effects have already been shown, in examples (4) and (5). To
explain the difference in word order, Rudin (1988) uses the split version of the
Empty Category Principle (i.e. empty categories must be properly governed),
according to which an empty element must be governed by a lexical head at PF (head
32
Rudin (1988) assumes that wh-raising is universal and that the difference between languages is in
the timing of movement to SpecCP. She accounts for the difference using the Condition on SpecCP
adjunction (CSA) (based on Adams 1984):
(i)
Condition on SpecCP adjunction (CSA) (Rudin 1988: (92))
*[SpecCP α SpecCP]
(nothing may be adjoined to SpecCP)
Languages differ with respect to when CSA applies. In the [+MFS] the CSA never holds (it does not
hold at PF, LF or S-structure), in [–MFS] languages it holds at S-structure (but movement to SpecCP
can proceed at LF and PF, that is: these languages have multiple questions, but do not violate islands).
51
government) and an A’-anaphor must be A’-bound in its domain at LF (The local
binding condition, Aoun, Hornstein, Lightfoot and Weinberg (1987)).33
Rudin (1988) proposes that in Bulgarian wh-fronting proceeds as follows: “the
single wh- which is substituted to SpecCP becomes the head of SpecCP, and its index
percolates to SpecCP” (Rudin 1988: 482).34 From SpecCP the index is passed to its
Comp – the head of CP which is visible at PF (via Spec-Head agreement). The whphrase and Comp are therefore coindexed. When the subject wh-moves first it is
coindexed with Comp (a visible head at PF) and the Comp consequently governs the
empty element (i.e. the subject trace). In this case the object trace is head-governed
by V. If it was the object wh-phrase that moved first, Comp would be coindexed with
the object. The subject trace would be left ungoverned (violating head government)
and the sentence would be ungrammatical. As for the lack of Superiority effects in
the [–MFS] group: When the subject wh-phrase moves first to SpecCP, Comp is
coindexed with it and Comp governs the subject trace. The object trace is head
governed by V (as in [+MFS] languages). When the object wh-phrase moves to
SpecCP, Comp is coindexed with the object wh-phrase and governs the object trace.
The subject trace is governed by INFL (subject wh-phrase moves to SpecIP and
INFL is coindexed with it).
To conclude, Rudin (1988) shows that there are two different types of multiple
wh-fronting. The first is movement of all wh-phrases to CP (as in [+MFS] languages)
and the second is movement of only one wh-phrase to CP (as in [–MFS] languages).
But there are problems with Rudin’s account. These and subsequent proposals for a
33
Government and domain are defined as follows:
(i)
(ii)
“A (X0) GOVERNS B iff all maximal projections dominating A also dominate B and A is
dominated either by all maximal projections dominating B or by all maximal projections
dominating the maximal projection of B” (Rudin 1988: (66)).
“The DOMAIN for an expression A is the first clause (IP or CP) or NP which contains an
accessible SUBJECT for A, where SUBJECT = AGR, [NP, IP], or [NP, NP] (Chomsky 1981),
and where B is accessible to A iff A is in the c-command domain of B and assigning the index
of B to A would violate neither the i-within-i condition nor BINDING CONDITION C (the
condition that R-expressions must be A-free)” (Rudin 1988: (68)).
34
Substitution is, besides adjunction, one of the types of movement assumed in Chomsky (1986). In
substitution, a maximal projection moves to the specifier position. In this system, wh-movement to
SpecCP is one of the major cases of substitution.
52
new analysis will be described in section 3.2, but I will first show how Rudin’s
account was applied to Slovenian.
3.1.1 The [+/– MFS] analysis and Slovenian (Golden 1996a, b, 1997a)
The first analyses of multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian were made by Golden
(1996a, 1996b, 1997a). Golden (1996a) compares different properties of Slovenian
multiple wh-fronting with English wh-movement. She observes that Slovenian allows
multiple wh-phrases at the beginning of a multiple questions, (15), but notes that
there are restrictions on which wh-phrases can be fronted, i.e. while two argument
wh-phrases or an adjunct wh-phrase and an argument wh-phrase can front easily,
(17), zakaj ‘why’ and kako ‘how’ cannot, (16a), except if the two are coordinated,
(16b):35
(15) Kdo komu
who whom
kaj
kupuje?
what buys
‘Who is buying what for whom?’
(16) (Golden 1997a: (10a))
a. * Zakaj
why
kako Peter pretepa
Toneta?
how Peter beats
Tone
35
The restriction only seems to apply to zakaj ‘why’ and kako ‘how’. Adjuncts such as kje ‘where’
and kdaj ‘when’ can both front in Slovenian, as shown in (i). This does not seem to be the case for
Serbo-Croatian, as noted by Citko and Gračanin-Yuksek (2013), who show that multiple wh-questions
with two fronted adjuncts are not acceptable in Croatian, but when only one wh-adjunct is fronted, the
question is acceptable.
(i)
(ii)
Slovenian
Kdaj kam
potuješ?
when where-to
travel
‘When and where are you traveling?’
Croatian (Citko and Gračanin-Yuksek 2013: (38a), fn. 31, (i))
a.
* Gdje kada Ivan nastupa?
where when Ivan performs
‘Where does Ivan perform when?’
b.
Gdje Ivan kada nastupa?
53
b.
Zakaj
in
kako je
when
and how
AUX
ženska
umrla?
woman
die?
‘Why and how did the woman die?’
(17) (Golden 1996a: (8b))
Kako koga Peter pretepa?
why who Peter beats
‘How does Peter beat who?’
Golden claims that questions with multiple adjuncts sound better when the two
wh-adjuncts are separated by intervening material, such as clitics in (18), or when
one wh-adjunct is not fronted, as in (19) and (20).36
36
Slovenian is not the only example of a language with such a constraint against multiple fronted
‘true’ wh-adjuncts, nor is it the only language where such cases can be improved. As Golden notes,
Bošković (1994, also 1998) discusses a similar constraint in Serbo-Croatian. As shown in (i), two
(true) adjuncts cannot be wh-fronted in Serbo-Croatian. (ii) shows that an adjunct and an argument can
be fronted in Serbo-Croatian:
(i)
(ii)
Serbo-Croatian (Boškovič 1994: (7a))
* Zašto je
kako istukao
Petra?
why AUX how beat
Peter?
‘Why and how did he beat Petar?’
(Boškovič 1994: (8a))
Kako je
koga
Petar istukao?
how AUX who.ACC
Petar beat
‘How did Petar beat whom?’
There are two mechanisms of improving these examples in Serbo-Croatian. As in Slovenian,
the two adjunct wh-phrases can be coordinated in Serbo-Croatian, (iii), or another non-adjunct whphrase can be added, (iv), Bošković (1998):
(iii)
(Bošković: 1998 (53))
Zašto i
kako je
istukao
Petra?
why and how AUX beaten
Petar
(vi) ? Zašto je
koga kako istukao?
why AUX whom how beaten
‘Why did he beat whom and why did he beat him?’
An analysis of the constraint was proposed in Bošković (1994), who claims this is an ECP type
of effect that arises because of optional coindexing of C with the moved element (Spec-Head
Agreement). In this analysis, the C, which is coindexed with the moved element, is the antecedent
governor for the relevant trace and the C can only govern one trace (either at SS or LF) – if more than
one trace needs to be antecedent governed, as in the case of fronted ‘how’ and ‘why’, the sentence will
be ungrammatical as one of the traces will be left ungoverned, thus violating the ECP (cf. Bošković
1994 and the references cited therein).
54
(18) (Golden 1997a: (11a))
?* Zakaj jih
CL.ACC
why
je
kako Peter opravljal?
AUX
how Peter performed
‘Why and how was Peter taking them?’
Possible answer: Peter was taking the exams orally because he broke his arm.
(19) (Golden 1997a: (11b))
?? Zakaj
why
je
Peter kako opravljal
izpit iz
matematike?
AUX
Peter how performed exam from math
‘Why and how was Peter taking the math exam?’
(20) (Golden 1997a: (11c))
Zakaj so
ga
why
him where how-much time before
AUX
kje
koliko
časa pred
kom kako zasliševali?
who how interrogate
‘Why did they interrogate him where, for how long, in front of whom, and
how?’
The order of fronted wh-phrases is free, which means Slovenian does not
display Superiority effects, as shown in examples (21) and (22). (22) also shows that
fronted wh-phrases do not form a constituent, since the two wh-phrases are divided
by an auxiliary clitic. The non-constituency is again shown in (23), in which fronted
wh-phrases are separated by a parenthetical po tvoje ‘in your opinion’. Golden
(1997a) notes that with respect to these properties Slovenian behaves like SerboCroatian, since these are the properties of languages without multiply filled
Specifiers, in Rudin’s (1988) typology.
(21) (Golden 1997a: (3))
a.
Kdo
komu
who.NOM who.DAT
dolguje?
kaj
what.ACC owes
‘Who owes what to whom?’
b.
Kdo kaj komu dolguje?
c.
Komu kdo kaj / kaj kdo dolguje?
d.
Kaj kdo komu / komu kdo dolguje?
55
(22) a.
Kdo
je
koga
udaril?
who.NOM
AUX
whom.ACC hit
‘Who hit whom?’
b.
(23) a.
Koga je kdo udaril?
po
Kdo
tvoje kdaj kuha
kosilo?
who.NOM after you when cooks
lunch
‘Who in your opinion cooks lunch when?’
b.
Kdaj po tvoje kdo kuha kosilo?
Golden (1996a) also notes that a wh-phrase can occur with an overt
complementizer, (24), in embedded clauses and that when a wh-phrase (an argument
or an adjunct) is extracted out of an embedded clause, a complementizer must be
used, (25):
(24) (Golden 1996a: (13a, c, d))
a.
Rad bi
vedel,
koga (da) je Peter
videl?
like would
know
who (that) is Peter
saw
‘I would like to know who Peter saw.’
b.
Sprašujem se,
koga ali
wonder1SG REFL who whether
Špela
ljubi?37
Špela
loves
‘I wonder whether Špela loves who?’
c.
Nisem
ga
vprašal,
AUX-NEG-1S
him ask
da
zameri.
komu
kaj
whom
what that resent
‘I did not ask him who he resents for what.’
(25) Kaj je
Špela
what AUX Špela
mislila,
think
*(da)
that
je
Peter
kupil.
AUX
Peter
bought
‘What did Špela think that Peter bought?’
37
Golden (1996a) presents this as an acceptable sentence in Slovenian, but speakers I have contacted
do not find (24b) (completely) acceptable. The reason for this might be just the choice of the
complementizer ali ‘if’. Changing ali to če ‘if’, (i), improves the grammaticality of the sentence for
the speakers I have contacted.
(i)
Sprašuješ,
kdo če
pride.
wonder.2SG who if
comes
‘You are wondering who is coming.’
56
As shown by the examples above, Slovenian allows extraction of a single whphrase out of an embedded clause. Golden (1996a, 1997a) also claims that Slovenian
allows multiple extraction out of embedded clauses, as shown in example (26a)
below, and is thus comparable to Bulgarian (see above). The judgements reported
here are taken from Golden (1996a, 1997a). They are not always shared by me or by
the speakers who I have consulted. I will give a more detailed discussion of the
judgements and the availability of multiple extraction in section 3.1.2, but see also
Marušič (2008). (26b) shows that multiple extraction out of an embedded clause can
be optional in Slovenian, but note that the same does not hold in Bulgarian (Golden
1997a).
(26) (Golden 1997a: (19a, b)
a.
Sprašujem te,
Ask1SG
b.
you who.ACC
Sprašujem te,
Ask1SG
koga
koga
da ogovarjam.38
komu
Peter trdi,
who.DAT
Peter claims that disparage
Peter
trdi, da
ogovarjam komu.
you who.ACC Peter claims that disparage who.DAT
‘I am asking you who Peter claims that I am disparaging to whom.’
Based on examples with multiple extraction out of an embedded clause, such
as (26a), Golden (1996a, 1997a) observes similarities between Slovenian and
Bulgarian. Remember that in Rudin’s analysis of languages with multiple whfronting (1988) Bulgarian is said to allow multiple wh-extractions from a clause,
while Serbo-Croatian only allows single wh-extraction. Rudin explains this with
multiple SpecCP positions: because Bulgarian has multiple Specifiers, and wh-
38
Many speakers do not find this example completely acceptable or get a different interpretation. The
example also includes the verb ogovarjati ‘to disparage’, which is not very common. When it is
replaced with a more common verb opravljati ‘to gossip’ judgements improve, but still the majority of
speakers get a different reading in which we are not asking about Peter’s claims about who and to
whom I am gossiping, but rather to whom Peter is claiming this. In this case only one wh-word would
have been extracted from the embedded clause. I return to this in section 3.1.2.
(i)
Sprašujem te,
koga
komu
Peter trdi, da
opravljam.
ask.1SG
you who.ACC
who.DAT
Peter claims that gossip.1SG
‘I am asking you to whom is Peter claiming that I am gossiping about whom.’
57
phrases can move through them. The availability of multiple extraction then,
according to Golden, suggests that Slovenian too allows multiple SpecCP positions.
From the availability of multiple extraction, Rudin predicts that Multiple
Specifier Languages do not obey wh-island constraints, which is the case for
Bulgarian (see Rudin 1988). As shown above, Golden (1997a) claims that Slovenian
allows multiple extraction out of an embedded clause and she also shows that
Slovenian displays no wh-island effects (as predicted by the presence of multiple whextraction), (27a). She notes that wh-extraction of adjuncts from wh-islands is not
completely acceptable, but that it is still grammatical, (27b). Again, the judgements
presented here are from Golden (1997a) and more will be said about these examples
in section 3.1.2.
(27) (Golden 1997a: (23a), (24))
a.
Komu
mi
povej,
kaj
Špela
who.DAT
me.DAT
tell
what Špela
zavida?
envies
‘Tell me whom Špela envies what.’
b. ? Zakaj
why
si
prepričan, katere knjige
ne
bodo prevedene?
AUX
convinced which books
not
will-be translated
‘Why are you convinced which books will not be translated?’
Both multiple wh-extraction out of embedded clauses and the lack of wh-island
effects, are, following Rudin (1988), properties of [+MFS] languages, but (as shown
above) Golden (1997a) notes, that Slovenian does not behave as other [+MFS]
languages with respect to Superiority effects and constituency of fronted wh-phrases.
Note however, that Golden (1997a) does not discuss Superiority effects in cases with
multiple wh-extraction out of embedded clauses.
Based on the non-uniform behavior Slovenian displays with respect to
Rudin’s diagnostics, Golden suggests that Slovenian requires two distinct structures
for multiple wh-questions: The [–MFS] structure in direct multiple wh-questions (one
wh-phrase in SpecCP) and the [+MFS] structure for questions with multiple whextraction out of embedded clauses and wh-islands. According to Golden (1997a),
this also shows that not all multiple wh-fronting languages will behave uniformly
with respect to Rudin’s typology of multiple wh-fronting languages.
58
3.1.2 Problems with the [+/–MFS] analysis and Slovenian
While the [–MFS] analysis of matrix questions in Slovenian seems to be
unproblematic, there are in fact two problems with Golden’s analysis of Slovenian as
a language which allows the [+MFS] structure for instances of multiple extraction
out of embedded clauses and for wh-island violations. The first is related to the data
presented in Golden (1997a), the second is a problem with the theory which relates
the possibility of violation of wh-islands to multiple Specifiers of CP.
Following Golden, the first argument for the availability of the [+MFS]
structure comes from the availability of multiple extraction out of embedded clauses.
But as already noted above, speakers do not agree with this. For example, Marušič
(2008) shows that Slovenian allows only single long distance movement out of
embedded finite clauses. He also notes that Slovenian allows multiple wh-movement
out of non-finite clauses, as shown in (29), but that this movement is optional.
(28) (Marušič 2008: (15))
Kaj je
(*komu)
rekel Janez, (*komu) da
je Peter
what is
who.DAT
said Janez, whom.DAT that is Peter
dal *(komu)?
give whom
‘What did Janez say that Peter gave whom?’
(29) (Marušič 2008: (16a))
Komu
si
kaj
pozabil
dati?
Who.DAT
AUX.2SG
what.ACC
forgot
give.INF
‘Whom did you forget to give what?’
As for examples from Golden (1997a), which I repeat below with a different
verb (see fn. 38), speakers find example (30b) completely grammatical, which means
that single wh-movement out of an embedded clause is acceptable (given the
similarities with [–MFS] languages and example (28) this is not surprising).
Speakers, however, either do not accept example (30a) or try to assign it an
interpretation under which we are asking ‘to whom is Peter claiming that I am
gossiping and who am I gossiping about?’. But this interpretation indicates that
speakers analyse the sentence as an instance of single wh-movement out of the
59
embedded clause and wh-movement out of the matrix clause and not as multiple whmovement out of an embedded clause.
(30) (Golden 1997a: (19a, b))
a.
Sprašujem te,
ask.1SG
b.
you who.ACC
Sprašujem te,
ask.1SG
koga
koga
you who.ACC
komu
Peter trdi,
da opravljam.
who.DAT
Peter claims that gossip
Peter trdi,
da opravljam komu.
Peter claims that gossip
who.DAT
‘I am asking you, who Peter claims that I am gossiping to whom?’
When speakers get examples in which such an interpretation is not possible, as
in (31), they do not find it acceptable.
(31) *Pišem,
kdo
write.1SG who.NOM
je
koga
Miha pravil Tonetu, da je udaril.
AUX
who.DAT
Miha said Tone.DAT that is hit
Intended: ‘I am writing about who Miha said to Tone hit whom.’
This indicates that multiple wh-movement out of embedded clauses in Slovenian is
not acceptable and that the [+MFS] structure cannot be applied in these examples
since Slovenian behaves like a [–MFS] language.
The second argument for the availability of multiple SpecCP (i.e. the [+MFS]
structure of multiple wh-questions) provided by Golden (1997a) is the possibility of
violating wh-islands in Slovenian. According to Golden, examples in which a whphrase moves from a wh-island are completely acceptable. This was shown in (27),
which I repeat below as (32). Example (32a) shows movement of an argument and
example (32b) of an adjunct wh-phrase.
(32) (Golden 1997a: (23a), (24))
a.
Komu
mi
povej,
kaj
who.DAT
me.DAT
tell
what Špela
‘Tell me whom Špela envies what.’
60
Špela
zavida?
envies
b. ? Zakaj
why
si
prepričan, katere knjige
ne
bodo prevedene?
AUX
convinced which books
not
will-be translated
‘Why are you convinced which books will not be translated?’
But these two examples, based on which Golden concludes that Slovenian can
violate wh-islands, are problematic. Example (32b) is acceptable, but only when it
receives the irrelevant meaning in which zakaj ‘why’ is understood as originating in
the matrix clause. If the wh-phrase ‘why’ was moved from the island, the paraphrase
of the question (32b) would be ‘why the books will not be translated’. In fact,
speakers understand (32b) as ‘why is one convinced that the books will not be
translated?’. This implies that zakaj ‘why’ is not moved out of the wh-island but
rather merged in the higher clause. Note also that adjunct extraction out of whislands is also unacceptable in Bulgarian (which Rudin described as a [+MFS]
language) in both questions and relativization, as observed in Bošković (2003). This
is shown below in the unacceptable example (33a). The fact that it is extraction from
islands that is unacceptable is confirmed by example (33b), in which an adjunct is
extracted out of an embedded clause and which is acceptable.
(33) Bulgarian (Bošković 2003: (16b, c))
a. * Zašto /poradi
kakva
pričinai
znae
why for
which
reason
knows whether Boris
e
zaminal ti]?
is
left
[dali
Boris
‘Why/for which reason does he know whether Boris left?’
b.
Zašto /poradi
kakva
pričinai
misliš
[če
Boris
e
why for
which
reason
think.2SG that
Boris
is
zaminal ti]?
left
‘Why/for which reason do you think that Boris left?’
Golden’s example shown in (32b) therefore cannot be taken as an example of
extraction out of a wh-island in Slovenian or as an argument for the availability of
the [+MFS] structure.
61
In addition, (32a) is surprising given what we know about Bulgarian. In
Bulgarian, wh-island violations are only possible with D-linked questions (Rudin
1988, Comorovski 1996) (also, see below for Swedish). It is therefore unexpected
that wh-island violations in Slovenian are available with non-D-linked questions.
However, it is also not clear whether Slovenian even allows wh-movement out of
wh-islands. This is apparent if we compare example (32a), which is marked as
acceptable in Golden (1997a) to (34a), which speakers find unacceptable. (34b)
shows that this is not because of word order. In addition, example (35) shows that Dlinking does not improve grammaticality of wh-island violations. Example (36)
shows that single extraction from an embedded clause is grammatical in Slovenian.
This indicates that it is the extraction out of the wh-island that makes (34)
ungrammatical.
(34) a. * Kdo
who.NOM
je
Miha vprašal
Majo,
AUX
Miha ask
Maja.ACC, what watches
kaj
gleda
na TV?
on TV
Intended: ‘Miha asked Maja who watches what on the TV.’
b. * Kaj je Miha vprašal Majo, kdo gleda na TV?
(35) *Katera
which
punca je
Rok vprašal Majo,
girl
Rok ask
AUX
kaj gleda
Maja.ACC what watches
na
TV?
on
TV
Intended: ‘Miha asked Maja which girl watches what on the TV.’
(36) Kdo Miha trdi
who Miha claims
Maji, da
gleda
Maja that watches
TV?
TV
‘Miha is claiming that who watches TV?’
In addition, the speakers that judged (34) unacceptable also find (32a) unacceptable
or try to interpret the sentence as komu ‘who.DAT’ moving from the main clause,
despite the fact that this reading is impossible because of the dative clitic mi
‘me.DAT’. This indicates that wh-island violations in Slovenian are not acceptable.
Another argument against the multiple SpecCP analysis of Slovenian for
examples in which Golden claims that Slovenian allows wh-island violations comes
from Bošković (1999, 2003). He provides an argument against Rudin’s analysis of
wh-islands on which Golden (1997a) bases her arguments for movement to SpecCP.
According to Bošković, Bulgarian can violate wh-islands with argument wh-phrases
62
but Serbo-Croatian cannot (see examples (10) and (11) in section 3.1 above), but it is
not the case that a language must necessarily have a multiple SpecCP available in
order to violate wh-islands. He shows that wh-island violations are possible in
Swedish, a language that does not allow multiple wh-fronting, as shown in (37).
Extraction out of wh-islands is possible with relativization, (38a) and D-linked
questions, (38b).
(37) Swedish (Bošković 2003: (17a), based on Maling 1978)
*Vad
frågade
Jan vem som skrev?
what
asked
John who that wrote
‘What did John ask who wrote?’
(38) Swedish (Bošković 2003: (17b, c), based on Maling 1978 and Engdahl 1986)
a.
Det är
melodin,
som Jan frågade
vem som skrev.
this is
song.DEF
that John asked
who that wrote
‘This is the song that John asked who wrote.’
b.
Vilken
film var
det
which
film was it
du
gärna
you gladly
ville veta
vem
wanted know.INF who
som hade regisserat?
that had directed
‘Which film did you want to know who had directed?’
Bošković (2003) also shows that Serbo-Croatian does not allow wh-island
violations even in environments in which wh-phrases are fronted to SpecCP (see
section 3.2 for more on movement to SpecCP in Serbo-Croatian), such as questions
with li.
(39) Serbo-Croatian (Bošković 2003: (26a))
* Koju od
which of
tih
knjigai
these books
se
pitaš
ko
li
REFL
wonder2SG who Q
prodaje ti?
sells
‘Which of these books do you wonder who on earth sells?’
Based on Swedish and Serbo-Croatian data, Bošković (2003) concludes that
wh-island effects cannot be accounted for with the possibility of having more than
63
one wh-phrase in SpecCP at S-Structure. This conclusion indicates two things. First,
the potential availability of wh-island violations in Slovenian would not necessarily
indicate a [+MFS] structure in these examples (but, again, Slovenian speakers do not
necessarily accept wh-island violations). Second, this shows us that Rudin’s (1988)
account of island violations does not account for all the possible data and that it
needs to be revised (see Bošković 2003).
3.2 Multiple wh-fronting – ‘real’ and non-wh-movement (Bošković 1997a and
after)
One of the central concepts in the research of wh-fronting is Superiority. Superiority
was first defined in Kuno and Robinson (1972) as the Wh Crossing Constraint: “a wh
word cannot be preposed crossing over another wh” (Kuno and Robinson 1972: 474),
while Chomsky (1973) proposed the Superiority Condition, which is stated in (40).
(40) The Superiority Condition (Chomsky 1973)
a.
No rule can involve X, Y in the structure
… X … [ … Z … WYV …] …
where the rule applies ambiguously to Z and Y, and Z is superior to Y.
b.
the category A is ‘superior’ to category B if every major category
dominating A dominates B as well but not conversely.
Later, in the Minimalist program, Superiority is defined as in (41) and is termed as
‘Attract Closest’, where Attract F is understood as (42) which incorporates both Last
resort and the Minimal Link Condition:
(41) α can raise to target K only if there is no legitimate operation Move β targeting
K, where β is closer to K.
(Chomsky 1995: 296, (82))
(42) K attracts F if F is the closest feature that can enter into a checking relation
with a sublabel of K.
(Chomsky 1995: 297, (84))
64
Returning to Rudin (1988), Rudin claims that while Bulgarian and other
[+MFS] languages are subject to the Superiority Condition, Serbo-Croatian and other
[–MFS] languages are not, see above. The question is then why Serbo-Croatian
behaves differently, or as Bošković (1997c) puts it: the lack of Superiority in SerboCroatian is conceptually problematic, since the Superiority Condition follows from
the Principles of Economy, which are one of the fundamental properties of
languages, thus it would be surprising for it to vary in different languages.
In addition to this observation, Bošković (1997b, 1997c, 1999, 2002) shows
that Rudin’s analysis does not provide an account for all the available data from
multiple wh-fronting languages. In order to expand the data in question, Bošković
(1997c) explores different wh-questions in Serbo-Croatian (in addition to short
distance matrix questions, which had already been discussed in Rudin (1988)) and
shows that it is not the case that Serbo-Croatian simply does not obey the Superiority
Condition, as it exhibits Superiority in some contexts (see below). In addition, he
shows that Superiority effects can be used as a diagnostic tool for determining the
motivation and location of wh-movement.
Bošković shows that Serbo-Croatian has examples without Superiority effects,
such as the short distance matrix question in (43), but he also shows that one can find
Superiority effects in other contexts. Bošković (1997c) shows that Serbo-Croatian
exhibits rigid word order in long distance questions, (44), indirect questions, (45),
embedded questions with correlative constructions, (46), and overt C questions, (47).
(43) Serbo-Croatian
a.
Ko
koga
who.NOM who.ACC
vidi?
sees
‘Who sees whom?’
b.
Koga ko vidi?
65
(44) Serbo-Croatian (Bošković 1997c: (8))
a.
Ko
si
koga
tvrdio,
da
je
istukao?39
who.NOM
AUX
who.ACC
claimed
that
AUX
beaten
je
koga
istukao.
AUX
who.ACC
beaten.
o
njemu i
govori.
about
him even talks
‘Who did you claim beat whom?’
b. * Koga si ko tvrdio, da je istukao?
(45) Serbo-Croatian (Bošković 1997c: (12))
a.
Jovan
i
Markone
znaju ko
Jovan
and Marko not know who.NOM
‘Jovan and Marko do not know who beat whom.’
b. ?* Jovan i Marko ne znaju koga je ko istukao.
(46) Serbo-Croatian (Bošković 1997c: (16))
a.
[Ko
voli], taj
koga
who.NOM whom.ACC loves that-one
‘Everyone talks about the person they love.’
b. ?* [Koga ko voli], taj o njemu/o njemu taj i govori.
(47) Serbo-Croatian (Bošković 2002: (10))
a.
Ko
li
who.NOM Q
koga
voli?
who.ACC
loves
‘Who on earth loves whom?’
b. * Koga li ko voli?
Bošković (1997c) shows that the environments in which Serbo-Croatian
exhibits Superiority effects are the same as the environments in which French
exhibits obligatory wh-movement. The contrast between availability of in situ whquestions and obligatory movement can be seen by comparing (48) and (49). The
former is a short-distance matrix question in which a wh-phrase can stay in situ and
the latter is an embedded finite clause out of which a wh-phrase (obligatorily) moves.
39
Notice that it is also possible to move only one wh-phrase from an embedded clause with two whwords – in this case it is only the higher one that can be fronted:
(i) (Bošković 1997c: (10))
a.
Ko
tvrdiš da
koga
who.NOM
claim that who.ACC
‘Who do you claim that loves who?’
b. * Koga tvrdiš da ko voli?
voli?
loves
66
(48) French (Bošković 1997c: (18))
Tu
as
vendu
you have sold
quoi?
what
‘What did you sell?’
(49) French (Bošković 1997c: (19))
a. * Jean
Jean
et
Marie croient
que Pierre a
and Marie believe
embrassé qui?
that Peter has kisses
who
‘Who do John and Mary believe that Peter has kissed?’
b.
Qui Jean et Marie croient-ils que Pierre a embrassé?
In addition, Bošković (2002) observes a parallelism with languages which
always exhibit Superiority effects (i.e. Bulgarian and Romanian) and languages that
always have overt wh-movement (English) on the one hand, and languages that never
exhibit Superiority effects (such as Russian, see below) and languages that never
exhibit wh-movement (e.g. in situ languages, such as Japanese). This leads Bošković
to posit a correlation between Superiority and wh-movement – languages only
exhibit Superiority when wh-movement takes place. This means that Serbo-Croatian
short-distance wh-questions do not have wh-movement and, contrary to what Rudin
(1988) claims, there is no movement to SpecCP in examples without Superiority. On
the other hand, ‘real’ wh-movement (movement to check the [+wh] feature on C)
occurs in Serbo-Croatian long distance, overt C, and embedded questions (i.e.
contexts with Superiority). Here, the first wh-phrase moves to SpecCP. Following
Bošković (2002), this essentially means that in multiple wh-fronting languages there
are two types of movement: real wh-movement and non-wh-fronting. The former
movement exists in English, which is a single wh-fronting language, Bulgarian,
Romanian, both of which are multiple wh-fronting languages, and in some contexts
in French and in the same environments Serbo-Croatian. The latter movement is not
taken as ‘real’ wh-movement and exhibits no Superiority effects, as in some
environments in Serbo-Croatian and in Russian. In addition, because Russian never
has ‘real’ wh-movement, it is similar to Japanese, which also never has whmovement. Based on this Russian can be taken as an in situ language, as in Stepanov
(1998).
67
A couple of questions remain: What triggers wh-fronting in environments
without Superiority effects? Why does does it not result in Superiority? And, since
movement of only one wh-phrase is enough to check the [+wh] feature on C (which
is the case in English), why does more than one wh-phrase move in multiple whfronting languages?
Bošković (1997a, 1997b, 1997c, 2002) bases his analysis of non-whmovement on the proposal by Stjepanović (1995, 1999), who shows that
contrastively focused40 phrases and wh-phrases exhibit parallel behavior in SerboCroatian, in that focused phrases and wh-phrases occupy the same position.
Stjepanović (2003) shows that focused phrases must be fronted in Serbo-Croatian, as
shown in example (50), and that the relevant positions for the focused phrases are
either above TP or between VP and TP, which she claims based on examples (51)
and (52).
(50) Serbo-Croatian (Stjepanović 2003: (13))
PETRA
Marija
voli.
Petar
Marija
loves
‘It is Petar that Marija loves.’
(51) Serbo-Croatian (Stjepanović 2003: (17a, b))
a.
Oni mudro
JOVANA
savjetuju.
they wisely
Jovan.ACC advise
‘It is wise of them to advise Jovan.’
‘They advise Jovan in a wise manner.’
b.
Oni JOVANA
mudro
they Jovan.ACC wisely
savjetuju.
advise
*‘It is wise of them to advise Jovan.’
‘They advise Jovan in a wise manner.’
40
Stjepanović (2003) assumes that contrastive focus is the focus which is subsumed in the notion of
identificational focus, as stated in Kiss (1998), which means that it represents a subset of the set of
contextually or situationally given elements for which the predicate phrase can potentially hold; it is
identified as the exhaustive subset of this set for which the predicate phrase actually holds (Kiss 1998:
245).
68
(52) Serbo-Croatian (Stjepanović 2003: (18))
JOVANA
oni
mudro
Jovan.ACC they wisely
savjetuju.
advise
‘It is wise of them to advise Jovan.’
‘They advise Jovan in a wise manner.’
In examples (51) and (52) Stjepanović uses an adverb mudro ‘wisely’ to
identify the position of focused phrases. Mudro ‘wisely’ can receive either the
sentential reading or the manner reading. When the adverb receives the manner
reading, it is placed in the VP. On the sentential reading (that is, the speaker oriented
reading), the adverb is adjoined to the TP. This is slightly modified by Bošković
(1997a) who proposes that the adverb is adjoined to AgrOP when it has the manner
reading and to AgrSP when it has the sentential reading. Stjepanović interprets the
unavailability of the sentential reading in (51b) and the availability of both readings
in (51a) and in (52) with two possible positions of focused phrases. Where the
sentential reading is available, the focused phrase is in the TP, where the manner
reading is available, (51), the focused phrase is in the VP. This, according to
Stjepanović (2003), means that a focused phrase is at least as high as the VP adjoined
position, but that it can also be located in TP, as in (52) where the focused phrase is
sentence initial, that is, following Stjepanović (2003), the AgrSP position.
What is crucial for the analysis of multiple wh-fronting: is that wh-phrases in
Serbo-Croatian move to the same positions as focused phrases, as shown below:
(53) Serbo-Croatian (Stjepanović 2003: (19))
a.
Ko
mudro
who wisely
koga
savjetuje?
whom
advises
?? ‘Who is it wise of to advise whom?’
b.
Ko
koga
who whom
mudro
savjetuje?
wisely
advises
* ‘Who is it wise of to advise whom?’
‘Who advises whom in a wise manner?’
69
c.
Koga
ko
mudro
whom
who wisely
savjetuje?
advises
?? ‘Who is it wise of to advise whom?’
‘Who advises whom in a wise manner?
Stjepanović claims that in these examples the judgements about the availability of
readings the adverbs receive are the same as for examples with non-wh-focused
phrases. Based on this she argues that wh-phrases and contrastively focused phrases
occupy the same position.
Builiding upon this assumption, Bošković (1997a, 2000, 2002) shows that
when fronting of wh-phrases does not display Superiority effects (and therefore does
not involve overt movement to check the [+wh] feature), it happens because of the
[+focus] feature.
Returning to the issue of Superiority, the question is why there is Superiority in
‘real’ wh-movement and no Superiority in non-wh-fronting. Starting with single whfronting in languages such as English: In English the strong feature that motivates
movement is in the target ([+wh] feature in C), as in (54).
(54) (Bošković 1998: (38))
F
wh-phrase1
wh-phrase2
wh-phrase3
+wh
+wh
+wh
+wh
strong
weak
weak
weak
Because the strong feature is in the target, it is enough for only one wh-phrase
to move. After movement, Spec-Head agreement is triggered and results in checking
of the strong [+wh] feature. Crucially, this movement is subject to the Superiority
condition, as stated in (40), and must proceed in the most economical way. Given
this, the closest wh-phrase has to check the strong feature on C. Because of this, (55)
is grammatical – it is the higher wh-phrase that moves. Example (56) is
ungrammatical because the lower wh-phrase moves to the clause initial position,
which violates the Superiority Condition, see (40):
(55) Who wrote what?
70
(56) *What did who write?
Returning to multiple wh-fronting and Superiority: Languages with Superiority
and multiple fronting (i.e. Bulgarian and certain contexts in Serbo-Croatian) are
different from English in that all wh-phrases move in multiple wh-questions. In this
case, movement occurs because of the strong [+wh] feature on C and focus features
on the lower wh-phrases. Because C has a strong [+wh] feature it is the closest whphrase that has to check it, but all other wh-phrases move freely because the strong
focus feature is in the element undergoing movement.41
Turning to focus movement, Bošković (1998, 1999, 2002) claims that with
focus fronting (or non-wh-movement) the strong feature that is the driving force
behind movement is in the moved element. The operation is called Attract and is
shown in (57). Because the strong features are in the elements that undergo
movement, it is irrelevant in which order they move, as they must cross the same
nodes – hence no Superiority.42
(57) (Bošković 1998: (39))
F
wh-phrase1
wh-phrase2
wh-phrase3
+focus
+focus
+focus
+focus
weak
strong
strong
strong
How is it possible to have both contexts without Superiority (short distance
questions) and with Superiority (long distance questions, indirect questions, (45)
embedded questions with correlative constructions, and overt C questions) in SerboCroatian? The suggested analysis for the two types of multiple wh-movement is
41
The word order of wh-fronting in Bulgarian confirms this – Superiority only holds for the first
moved wh-phrase (that is the wh-phrase that under this analysis moves to check the [+wh] feature on
C, and the word order of the remaining wh-phrases is free:
(i)
a.
(Bošković 1998: (32))
Koj
kogo
kak e
tselunal?
who.NOM
who.ACC
how AUX kissed
‘Who kissed whom how?’
b.
Koj kak kogo e tselunal?
42
Bošković (1998) notes that the difference between wh-fronting and focus-fronting is also in the
attracting head. The C head has an Attract-1 property, while the F head has an Attract-All property.
71
based on the different options for the Merge of C. In accordance with the Minimalist
Program (Chomsky 1995), Bošković (1997c) states that an element with its features
can be Merged before Spell-Out or after it (either at PF or LF).43 The features can
either be weak or strong – and it is the strong features that need to be checked as
soon as possible. What Bošković then proposes is that in French and Serbo-Croatian
environments with overt movement and Superiority, respectively, the C head with
the strong [+wh] feature is merged in overt syntax together with a Q feature. In short
distance questions in Serbo-Croatian, on the other hand, a phonologically null C with
a strong Q feature can be merged at LF. In both cases movement must proceed as
soon as possible to check the strong feature – in short distance questions this happens
at LF, but in long distance questions this happens in the overt syntax. To summarize
this for Serbo-Croatian: the difference between examples with and without
Superiority effects in Serbo-Croatian is in the timing of the insertion of the
interrogative C (with a [+wh] feature). In examples without Superiority effects (such
as matrix questions in Serbo-Croatian), wh-phrases move overtly to check the focus
feature on the wh-phrase, but the interrogative C is inserted at LF – a wh-phrase
undergoes covert wh-movement to check the [+wh] feature on C and no overt whmovement is needed. In Serbo-Croatian environments with Superiority effects,
interrogative C is inserted overtly. This C is phonologically null in embedded and
long distance questions, but in questions with the particle li the C is overt. In any
case, wh-movement proceeds overtly to check the [+wh] feature.
This proposal was slightly revised in Bošković (1999) in which it is proposed
that the motivation for focus movement is not in the strong [+focus] feature in the
element undergoing movement, but rather that the target head has an Attract-all-F
specification. In ‘real’ wh-fronting on the other hand, the target head has an Attract1-wh specification. The result, however, is the same as in the previous proposal,
which is: there are no Superiority effects in focus fronting.
As for the location of focus fronting, Bošković (1997a) again follows
Stjepanović’s analysis, in which focus fronting proceeds to an IP-adjoined or a VPadjoined position. Bošković (1997a) modifies it in accordance with the Split INFL
hypothesis, according to which there are two AgrP positions - AgrsP above TP and
43
After Spell-Out, an element can be inserted in PF if it has no semantic features or at LF if the
element has no phonological features.
72
AgroP below TP. AgrP positions are, following Bošković (1997a), the positions
where focus gets checked in Serbo-Croatian.44
While I have until this point shown examples of a language that always
exhibits Superiority effects (i.e. Bulgarian) and a language that in some cases
exhibits Superiority effects (i.e. Serbo-Croatian), the paradigm can be completed
with a language that never exhibits Superiority effects. This is Russian, as shown by
Stepanov (1998). The lack of Superiority effects is shown below for matrix clauses,
(58), and embedded questions, (59). Based on the analysis by Bošković (1997a,
1997b, 1998c, 2000), Stepanov shows that the lack of Superiority effects in Russian
indicates that wh-phrases in Russian never move to check the [+wh] feature, but
rather to check the [+focus] feature. Still, contrary to Bošković, Stepanov does not
adopt the Split-INFL version of the analysis, but assumes the complement of C is I
and the fronted wh-phrases are adjoined to IP (and not the Agr projection). Crucially,
wh-phrases in Russian do not overtly front to SpecCP.
(58) Russian (Stepanov 1998: (11))
a.
Kto
kogo
who.NOM who.ACC
videl?
saw
‘Who saw whom?’
b.
Kogo kto videl?
(59) Russian (Stepanov1998: (18))
a.
Ivan i
Petr ne
Ivan and Peter not
pomnjat
kto
kogo
remember who.NOM who.ACC
pobil.
beat
‘Ivan and Peter do not remember who beat whom.’
b.
Ivan i Petr ne pomnjat kogo kto pobil.
Based on this we can conclude that there are two different motivations for
wh-fronting (following Bošković 1998, 1999, 2002; Stepanov 1998). The first is the
44
Another argument for different locations of multiple wh-fronting comes from the interpretation of
multiple wh-questions. Bošković (2001a, 2002) shows that wh-movement to SpecCP forces a pair list
reading and that when no wh-element is overtly moved to SpecCP both single pair and pair list
answers are available. Bulgarian and Romanian have only pair list answers, while Serbo-Croatian,
Russian and Polish have pair list and single pair answers, which means they move wh-phrases below
CP (Bošković 2002).
73
checking of the [+wh] feature, which results in Superiority effects, and the second is
the checking of the [+focus] feature, which does not result in Superiority effects.
Languages then fall into three different groups: languages that always exhibit
Superiority effects, such as Bulgarian, which are the ‘wh-fronting languages’ (based
on the similarities with English), languages that never exhibit Superiority effects,
such as Russian, these are then the ‘in situ-languages’ (based on similarities with
Japanese), and the mixed type, such as Serbo-Croatian (this group is then similar to
French).
In the next section I show how Superiority can be used as a diagnostic to
analyze Slovenian multiple wh-fronting and show that Slovenian falls into the ‘in
situ’ group of languages, in that it never exhibits Superiority.
3.2.1 Superiority as a diagnostic for Slovenian
As already mentioned, Golden (1997a) has established that Slovenian exhibits no
Superiority effects in matrix questions. As shown in (60), there is no strict word
order between subject and direct object wh-phrases. (61) shows that the same holds
for the subject and an adjunct wh-word.
(60) a.
Kdo
je
koga
poljubil?
who.NOM
AUX
who.ACC
kisses
‘Who kissed whom?’
b.
(61) a.
Koga je kdo poljubil?
Kdo
je
kdaj poljubil
Toneta?
who.NOM
AUX
when kissed
Tone
‘Who kissed Tone when?’
b.
Kdaj je kdo poljubil Toneta?
But as argued by Bošković, the word order of wh-phrases in matrix questions is
not enough to establish where and why wh-phrases move. In order to do this, we
must also look at different contexts such as embedded or long distance questions.
74
Starting with embedded questions: (62) shows that the word order of whphrases is free in Slovenian embedded questions (for argument and non-argument
wh-phrases).
(62) a.
Miha razmišlja, kdo
je
koga
poljubil.
Miha thinks
AUX
who.ACC
kissed
who.NOM
‘Miha is thinking about who kissed whom.’
b.
(63) a.
Miha razmišlja, koga je kdo poljubil.
Miha razmišlja, koga
je
kdaj poljubil.
Miha thinks
AUX
when kissed
who.ACC
‘Miha is thinking when he kissed whom’
b.
Miha razmišlja, kdaj je koga poljubil.
Embedded questions in Slovenian differ from embedded questions in SerboCroatian, which exhibit Superiority effects in this environment. Russian, on the other
hand, behaves as does Slovenian and does not have a rigid word order of fronted whphrases in embedded questions, as shown in example (59) in the previous section.
There are also no Superiority effects in correlative sentences. These show that
Slovenian behaves like Russian. As in Russian, wh-words have an indefinite meaning
in correlative sentences and the examples below are not questions (see Stepanov
1998). Still, word order can vary in correlative sentences.
(64) a.
Če
kdo
if
who.NOM who.ACC
koga
vidi,
bo
ta
tega
see.3SG
will this.NOM
that.ACC
spoznal.
recognize
‘If somebody sees someone, he will recognize him.’
b.
(65) a.
Če koga kdo vidi, bo ta tega spoznal.
Če
se
bi
if
REFL
would who.NOM when
kdo
takrat
uspelo.
that-time
succeed
kdaj
75
potrudil,
bi
temu
tries
will this
‘If somebody would put an effort in something, he would succeed at that
time.’
b.
Če se bi kdaj kdo potrudil, bi temu takrat uspelo.
There are also no Superiority effects in questions where a constituent is
topicalized in front of wh-phrases. This is, following Stepanov (1998), an
environment in which the topicalized phrase is adjoined to CP and the interrogative
Q of C is projected overtly. As in Russian (see Stepanov 1998 for Russian
examples), the word order of fronted argument and non-argument wh-phrases is free
in Slovenian, as shown below.
(66) a.
V
tej
šoli,
in
this school
kdo
koga
who.NOM who.ACC
uči?
teaches
‘In this school, who teaches whom?’
b.
(67) a.
V tej šoli, koga kdo uči?
V
tej
šoli,
in
this school
kdaj uči?
kdo
who.NOM when teaches
‘In this school, who teaches when?’
b.
V tej šoli, kdaj kdo uči?
Multiple long distance questions cannot be used to test for Superiority in
Slovenian, as multiple fronting from embedded clauses is not acceptable in
Slovenian (see section 3.1.2), (68a). What we can observe is that examples with
multiple long distance fronting are equally unacceptable regardless of the word order
or fronted wh-phrases.45
45
We also cannot take single wh-movement out of embedded question as a test for Superiority as
embedded wh-questions are syntactic islands in Slovenian which means that a wh-phrase cannot move
from them:
(i)
a.
b.
* Kdo
je
Miha vprašal,
komu
who.NOM
AUX Miha ask
who.DAT
Intended: ‘Miha asked who bought a gift for whom.’
* Komu je Miha vprašal, kdo je kupil darilo?
76
je
AUX
kupil darilo?
buy gift
(68) a. * Kdo
je
who.NOM is
dal
komu
Miha trdil
Maji,
da
who.DAT
Miha claimed
Maja.DAT that
je
AUX
darilo?
give gift
‘Who is Miha claiming to Maja that has a gift to whom?’
b. * Komu je kdo Miha trdil Maji, da je dal darilo?
Examples from (60) to (67) show that word order of fronted wh-phrases in
Slovenian is not rigid in any of the environments that can be used to determine the
motivation for fronting of wh-phrases in a language. The data above indicates that
multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian is similar to Russian multiple wh-fronting in that it
never exhibits Superiority. Using Superiority as a diagnostic tool, as described in
section 3.2, we can conclude (following Bošković 1998, 1999, 2002) that wh-phrases
in Slovenian are never moved to check the [+wh] feature, but rather to check the
[+focus] feature which means that wh-phrases undergo focus movement in Slovenian
(and not wh-fronting). In addition, this would also mean that the wh-phrases do not
move to CP, but to IP. But this analysis is problematic, as I show below.
3.2.2 Problems with the focus analysis of multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian and
beyond
While the ideas presented so far have been accepted by many researchers who have
looked at multiple wh-questions in their languages, they are not unproblematic. In
this section, I show some of the problems with the analysis proposed by Bošković
(1997a et seq.) – some of which have been raised before. I will first start with
Slovenian counterexamples as the first problem for the focus analysis of multiple whfronting in languages with no Superiority.
One of the supporting facts for the focus analysis of multiple wh-fronting is,
according to Bošković (1998), the fact that all wh-phrases in multiple wh-questions
must move. If we assume the focus analysis of multiple wh-fronting, then we assume
that the strong focus features that motivate movement are in the wh-phrases that
undergo movement and not in the C head (Bošković 1998: 14): “If the relevant
77
strong feature were to reside in the target it would suffice to front only one of SC whphrases in multiple questions […].” In Bošković (1999), this is restated in terms of
an Attract-all-F head. It is because of this Attract-all-F head that all wh-phrases need
to move. We can then predict that in multiple wh-fronting languages in which there
are no Superiority effects, all wh-phrases will always have to move, as Bošković
claims to be the case in Serbo-Croatian.
(69) Serbo-Croatian (Bošković 1998: (37))
a.
Ko
šta
gdje
kupuje?
who.NOM what.ACC where
buys
‘Who buys what where?’
b. * Ko kupuje šta gdje?
c. * Ko šta kupuje gdje?
d. * Ko gdje kupuje šta?
Slovenian, however, is a clear counterexample to this prediction. As shown in
section 3.2.1, Slovenian exhibits no Superiority effects, but as shown by (70), whfronting in Slovenian is optional (see also section 2.3).
(70) a.
Komu
je
Jože kupil kaj?
who.DAT
AUX
Jože buy what
‘For whom did Jože buy what?’
b.
Kaj je Jože kupil komu?
What is more, many Serbo-Croatian speakers do not agree with the judgements
in Bošković (1998) and claim that questions in which only one wh-phrase moves are
just as acceptable as questions with multiple fronted wh-phrases:
(71) Serbo-Croatian
a.
Ko
šta
vidi?
who.NOM what.ACC see
‘Who sees what?’
b.
Šta ko vidi?
78
c.
Ko vidi šta?
The question is then how to account for this unexpected data from languages that
exhibit no Superiority.
The second problem for the focus analysis of multiple wh-fronting languages
with no Superiority, in this case Slovenian, is the existence of questions with
multiple fronted D-linked phrases. In Serbo-Croatian D-linked phrases can stay in
situ, as (72) shows, but they can move in Slovenian. Bošković (2002) takes the
behavior exhibited by D-linked phrases in Serbo-Croatian to be a confirmation of a
focus analysis of multiple wh-fronting in matrix clauses.
(72) Serbo-Croatian (Bošković 2002: (26a), (27))
a.
Ko
je
who.NOM is
kupio koju
knjigu?
bought which
book.ACC
‘Who bought which book?’
b. ? Ko je koju knjigu kupio?
Following Bošković, D-linked phrases do not move because they are already
part of the discourse. Accordingly, D-linked phrases are not inherently focused and
therefore cannot undergo focus fronting (see also section 4.3). Bošković notes,
however, that they can optionally be scrambled.
In Slovenian D-linked phrases can be fronted, as shown in (73), but see also
sections 4.4 and 4.3.
(73) a.
Kateri
slikar je katero
sliko
naslikal za svojo ženo?
which
painter AUX which
painting
paint
for self wife
‘Which painter painted which painting for his wife?’
b.
Katero sliko je kateri slikar naslikal za svojo ženo?
Such examples cannot be accounted for under the focus analysis, since both
fronted wh-phrases are D-linked and therefore given in the discourse. Following
Bošković, these wh-phrases are moved because of scrambling. But the question is
then, why, in questions with two D-linked wh-phrases, both phrases cannot stay in
79
situ (if scrambling is optional), as (74) shows. Note, that (74) is possible as an echo
question, but is unacceptable under a true question reading.
(74)
?* Maja je
posodila
Maja AUX lend
kateri
film
kateremu fantu?
which
movie
which
boy
‘To which boy did Maja lend which movie?’
One reason for the ungrammaticality of (74) might be Clause Typing – all
sentences must be typed (Cheng 1991) and because no wh-phrase moves in this
example, the sentence is not typed as a wh-question and is therefore ungrammatical.
But this would mean that scrambling is responsible for Clause Typing and is in this
case obligatory, which goes against the understanding of scrambling as a
semantically vacuous, optional operation. Another option is that Slovenian is an
Attract-all-wh language. Following Bošković (2007), Hungarian may behave as an
Attract-all-wh language (both D-linked and non-D-linked wh-phrases in multiple whquestions need to move because of an Attract-all-wh property – again, if a language
is an Attract-all-focus language, D-linked phrases do not need to move). A similar
situation holds in Basque (Bošković 2007). But if this is the case, we can expect that
all D-linked phrases need to obligatorily front. This, however, is not the case, as
example (75) shows (nor is it the case that all wh-phrases have to front in Slovenian).
(75) a.
Kateri
film
je
Maja posodila
kateremu fantu?
which
movie
AUX
Maja lend
which
boy
‘To which boy did Maja lend which movie?’
b.
Kateremu fantu je Maja posodila kateri film?
It is therefore not clear how to account for movement of D-linked wh-phrases in
Slovenian under the analysis proposed by Bošković (2007).
Another problem comes from sluicing. Slovenian, as a multiple wh-fronting
language, allows for multiple sluicing, i.e. sluicing with multiple remnants. Example
(76) is an instance of single sluicing and example (77) of multiple sluicing.
80
(76) a.
Tone misli,
da
je
nekoga
izpostavil virusu.
Tone thinks
that
AUX
someone.ACC
expose
virus.DAT
‘Tone thinks that he exposed someone to a virus.’
b.
Koga?
who.ACC
‘Who?’
(77) a.
Tone pravi, da
je
Tone says that
AUX
nekoga
someone.NOM
nečemu
izpostavil.
someone.DAT
expose
‘Tone is saying that he exposed somebody to something.’
b.
Koga
čemu?
who.ACC
what.DAT
‘Who to what?’
c. ?* Čemu koga?
While (77c) seems at first glance to be ungrammatical because of Superiority,
that is not the case. This can be shown with (78) in which the reversed word order of
wh-remnants can be observed in the sluice. Note that I am using the verb izpostaviti
‘expose’ with which the objects come in a fixed order, i.e. the accusative object
precedes the dative prior to movement, but the order can be reversed after movement.
(78) a.
Tone pravi, da
je
nečemu
nekoga
izpostavil.
Tone says that
AUX
something.DAT
someone.ACC
expose
‘Tone is saying that he exposed somebody to something.’
b.
Čemu koga?
c. ?* Koga čemu?
This example shows that sluicing in Slovenian does not exhibit Superiority effects,
but rather a parallelism between the antecedent sentence and the sluice. This can be
further confirmed with examples in which the sluice does not correspond to an overt
indefinite in the antecedent:46
46
While some authors have claimed in the past that ditransitives in Slovenian have two different
structures (Marvin and Stegovec 2012), I will assume that the examples in (78) have the same
structure prior to movement, since the dative wh-phrase in both only gets the low applicative reading.
81
(79) a.
Do
svojega
until his
devetdesetega
rojstnega dneva
je
Miha
ninetieth
birth
AUX
Miha
prodal
vse
premoženje.
sold
all
belongings
day
‘By his ninetieth birthday Miha had sold all his belongings.’
b.
Res? Povej,
kaj
komu.
really tell
what.ACC who.DAT
‘Really? Tell me what to whom.’
c.
Res? Povej, komu kaj.
Given the standard understanding of Sluicing in the sense of Merchant (2001),
Sluicing is taken to be the deletion of a TP complement of a C head, which has the
+Q and the +wh features, at PF. This however is not compatible with an IP analysis
of Slovenian multiple wh-fronting. This problem has also been observed in
Grebenyova (2006a) for Russian and Stjepanović (2003) for Serbo-Croatian.
Stjepanović shows that Serbo-Croatian exhibits Superiority effects in sluicing. Given
this, Stjepanović proposed that in sluicing, wh-phrases move to check the wh-feature
in the CP and the TP is deleted (in accordance with Merchant (2001)). Grebenyova
(2006a), on the other hand, proposes that in Russian the Focus head can license TP
deletion. Because the deletion is licensed by the Focus head, a focused R-expression
may be a remnant of sluicing in Russian, as shown in (80), in which a wh-phrase and
the R-expressions are remnants in a sluice. Focused R-expressions, however, cannot
be remnants in Sluicing in Slovenian, as (81) shows.
(80) Russian (Grebenyova 2006a: (13))
a.
Ty
ne
you not
pomniš
kogda
Ivan
remember when
vstretil
Ivan.NOM met
Mašu?
Mašak.ACC
‘You don’t remember when Ivan met Maša?’
b.
Net. Ja
ne
pomnju
no.
not
remember why
I
POČEMU
SERGEJ
Sergej.NOM
‘No. I don’t remember WHY SERGEJ (met) LENA.’
82
LENU.
Lena.ACC
(81) a.
Ne
spomniš
se,
kdaj je
Ivan
spoznal
not
remember2GS
self when AUX Ivan.NOM met
Majo?
Maja.ACC
‘You don’t remember when Ivan met Maša?’
b. * Ne. Ne
no
not
spomnim
se,
kdaj
JANEZ
TINO.
remember self when Janez
Tina
Intended: ‘No. I don’t remember when JANEZ (met) TINA.’47
The fact that multiple sluicing in Slovenian does not exhibit Superiority effects,
assuming the analysis by Bošković, would imply that wh-movement in Slovenian
does not proceed to CP, yet the Focus head does not license TP deletion. It is then
not clear how to account for data from Slovenian multiple wh-sluicing under the
focus analysis of multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian.48
Arguments against the focus analysis of wh-fronting come from other
languages as well. As shown in section 2.2.1, Serbo-Croatian speakers do not agree
that Serbo-Croatian has only obligatory multiple wh-fronting. But optionality is not
the only property about which one can find disagreement about the Serbo-Croatian
data from Bošković (1997a et seq.). Moreover, speakers’ disagreement about data is
a constant in theories about multiple wh-fronting. Granted, Bošković (2007) notes
that not all speakers of a single wh-fronting language have the same judgements and
the distinctions between judgements are subtle. In addition, different speakers of
multiple wh-fronting languages report that their language behaves as a typologically
different language (for example, their judgements for Serbo-Croatian correspond to
the behavior of Bulgarian, i.e. their Serbo-Croatian always has Superiority effects).
But Bošković claims that this does not change the fact that multiple wh-fronting
47
Examples like (i) are possible in Slovenian. But since Janez is already discourse given in the
antecedent sentence, I do not consider it to be focused, but rather a topic.
(i)
a.
Peter je
rekel, da
je
udaril Roka
in
Janeza.
Peter AUX
said that AUX hit
Rok.ACC
and Janez.ACC
‘Peter said that he hit Rok and Janez.’
b.
Ne
vem, zakaj Janeza.
not
know why Janez.ACC
‘I don’t know why he hit Janez.’
48
Example (81) above shows that focused expressions cannot be the only remnants of sluicing, but
Marušič et al. (2014) show that in Sluicing in Slovenian discourse particles can appear in sluices with
wh-phrases. Assuming that discourse particles are located in the extended CP in the sense of Rizzi
(1997), as Marušič et al. (2014) do, this again indicates that wh-phrases move to the CP and not the IP
and that the larger portion of CP can survive sluicing in Slovenian.
83
languages can be divided into three distinct groups and states that speakers’
judgements will fall into one of the three patterns. However, I believe that
disagreements about the data within one language weaken Bošković’s proposal.
For example, Mihaliček (2010) reports on a different state of affairs for
environments which, according to Bošković (2002), exhibit Superiority. She and her
informants (speakers of Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian) disagree with Bošković’s
ungrammatical judgements, a conclusion Mihaliček reaches on the basis of novel,
constructed data, and naturally occurring data (and examples from the literature). For
example, out of the three examples below, the first two are cases of embedded
questions. The first is from the literature (Godjevac 2000), and the second is an
example of naturally occurring data, in this case from a Bosnian dialect (she provides
examples from Serbian and Croatian too) and the third is a case of a novel,
constructed long distance extraction.
(82) Serbo-Croatian (Godjevac 2000: (137c))
Pitam
se
šta
ko
sada govori.
ask.1SG
REFL
what.ACC
who.NOM who.DAT
kome
now says
‘I wonder who is saying what to whom now.’
(83) Bosnian (Mihaliček 2010: (14c))
Sarajevo
tačno
zna
gdje je
Sarajevo
exactly
knows
where AUX who.NOM what.ACC
ko
radio, ko
je
who.NOM done who.NOM
AUX
odakle
ko,
i
je
šta
AUX
gdje živi.
ko
from-where and who.NOM where lives
‘Sarajevo knows exactly who is where, who has been doing what, who is from
where, and who lives where.’
(84) Serbo-Croatian (Mihaliček 2010: (16b))
Šta
ko
želite da
what.ACC who.NOM want C
vam pokloni
za
rođendan?
you give
for
birthday
‘Who do you want to give you what for your birthday?’
She provides further examples for the lack of Superiority in Serbo-Croatian for
correlatives, single long distance extraction out of an embedded clause, sluicing, and
questions with the overt complementizer li (see Mihaliček 2010).
84
There is also disagreement about the data from other languages that were taken
as evidence in Bošković’s analysis. For example, Bošković (2002) argues for an insitu-group of multiple wh-fronting languages based on the data presented in Stepanov
(1998) who shows that there are no Superiority effects in Russian.49 Rojina (2011)
(and her informants), on the other hand, disagrees with these judgements and claims
that there are restrictions on the order of fronted wh-phrases in Russian, which will
be shown in section 3.3.3. For example, she notes that she and her informants can get
only multiple pair answers to questions such as (85), see footnote 44, and claims that
the unacceptability of (85b) is due to Superiority effects:
(85) Russian (Rojina 2011: (62))
a.
Kto čto
kupil?
who what bought
‘Who bought what?’
b.
*Čto kto kupil?
The question is then how one can deal with this data, if we assume Bošković’s
theory. One could simply adopt the line of reasoning in Bošković (2007) and claim
that the data Mihaliček (2010) provides corresponds to speakers who fall in the
‘Russian’ category of multiple wh-fronting (i.e. these speakers never exhibit
superiority). But, as Mihaliček (2010) writes, the additional data from SerboCroatian indicates, that we do not necessarily need two mechanisms for multiple whquestions within one language. However, it has to be noted that the existence of this
data does not exclude the existence of speakers who agree with Bošković’s
judgements, but as Mihaliček (2010) notes, the lowered acceptability of examples
with violations of Superiority could be accounted with extragrammatical processing
factor. But still, such disagreements about data weaken the motivation for Bošković’s
analysis, specifically, for the need for two types of movement within one language.
In addition, Dyakonova (2009: 188) claims that focus and wh-fronting in
Russian exhibit non-uniform behavior in that focused phrases do not have to appear
49
In addition, Krapova and Cinque (2005) show that in Bulgarian strict word order can be found
between all wh-phrases. This goes against a prediction by Bošković that Superiority only applies to
the first wh-phrase that is wh-moved in Bulgarian (cf. fn. 15 in Krapova and Cinque 2005).
85
in a preverbal position and that Russian allows only one focus per clause. Based on
this, it is problematic to take wh-fronting in Russian as an instance of focus fronting.
There are also theoretical problems with the focus analysis of multiple whfronting, specifically with the C insertion in non-wh-fronting, as Cheng and Rooryck
(2000) point out. As it was mentioned above, one of the central arguments which
Bošković (1997c) provides as support for late insertion of C and consequent
movement of wh-phrases to IP in cases where there are no Superiority effects, comes
from his analysis of French. Bošković claims that environments in which SerboCroatian exhibits Superiority effects are same as the environments in which French
exhibits obligatory wh-movement. For example, in French a wh-phrase can stay in
situ in matrix questions but not in embedded questions, see examples (48) and (49) in
3.2. Remember that in matrix questions Serbo-Croatian exhibits no Superiority
effects and the word order of wh-phrases is rigid in embedded questions. Based on
this parallel between Serbo-Croatian and French (and similarities between Japanese
and Russian (languages with no wh-movement) vs. English and Bulgarian (languages
with wh-movement)), Bošković claims that when C is inserted overtly, wh-phrases
front in a rigid word order. Under his analysis, French allows for the insertion of C
overtly and the insertion of C together with the [+wh] feature in the LF. The latter
option is shown to be problematic.
As Cheng and Rooryck (2000) note, the covert insertion of C is problematic
since it does not account for the intonation of French in situ questions – if C is only
inserted covertly and wh-phrase undergoes feature movement, how does one account
for the intonation of in situ question (the same as in yes/no-questions) which is
different from the intonation in questions with wh-movement. Assuming the Ymodel of language, one cannot do so. This means that the initial correlation between
French and Serbo-Croatian, on which Bošković builds, is problematic from the start.
In addition, again as Cheng and Rooryck (2000) note, there are other issues
with Bošković’s proposal for feature movement in LF (that is, when C is inserted
covertly, only the features of one wh-phrase move to check the C head). Feature
movement in LF is blocked by A’-heads (consequently there are no in situ whphrases in embedded clauses – no features can move from an embedded clause), but
this does not account for the blocking effects of quantifiers and modals. It is also not
clear how Bošković’s analysis would account for presuppositional effects if the
86
difference between in situ questions in French (these require a strongly presupposed
context and cannot get a negative answer) and wh-movement is in pied piping.
Because of these issues, I will not be assuming the theory of multiple whfronting as proposed by Bošković (1997a et seq.). And while there are other
Minimalist accounts of multiple wh-fronting, for example Citko (1998), Grewendorf
(2001), Richards (2001), etc., I propose an account of multiple wh-fronting in
Slovenian which is based on the Cartographic approach.
3.3 Cartography of multiple wh-questions
In sections 3.1 and 3.2, I have shown two approaches to multiple wh-fronting (Rudin
1988, Bošković 1997 and after) and how they can be applied to Slovenian. But, as I
have shown, there are several issues with these approaches. Because of this, I turn to
a different approach, to Cartography, to propose a different analysis of multiple whfronting in Slovenian.
I start the section with an overview of the Cartographic approach and how it
has been applied to multiple wh-fronting in two different languages – Bulgarian and
Russian. I chose these examples because the two languages behave completely
differently according to the approaches shown in the previous section – Bulgarian is
said to always exhibit Superiority effects, while Russian never does. However, as I
will show below, both languages in fact seem to exhibit Superiority effects (i.e. strict
word order of wh-phrases in the clause initial positions) if we look into the order of
multiple wh-questions in detail. This leads to the idea that one needs to look at
Slovenian examples more closely in order to conclude whether Slovenian does in
fact exhibit strict word order of wh-phrases.
3.3.1 Cartography and the Left Periphery in multiple wh-fronting languages
Cartography is an approach to syntax that tries to draw precise maps of syntactic
configurations, and assumes that languages share both principles of phrase and
clause composition and the same functional make-up of phrases and clauses (Cinque
87
and Rizzi 2008). Here I will be concerned with the internal make-up of the CP
projection (the Left Periphery), as first described in Rizzi (1997).50
Rizzi (1997) states that the CP acts as an interface between the superordinate
structure (e.g. the higher clause) and the content expressed in the IP. This means that
the CP expresses information facing the outside (Force) and information facing
inside (Finiteness). In addition, the CP can also express topic (as many topics as
needed) and focus (one focus per clause in Italian). This Topic-Focus system is only
present in the structure when needed and is positioned within the Force-Finiteness
system, as I show below:
(86) (Rizzi 1997: (8))
… Force …. (Topic) … (Focus) … Fin IP
The complementizer system is also the location of wh-phrases. These are, for
example, compatible with topics in Italian matrix questions (wh-phrases have to
follow topics, cf. Rizzi (1997)), but incompatible with focus, (87). Because of the
incompatibility with focus, Rizzi assumes that in Italian matrix questions the whphrase then moves to SpecFoc position of the Left Periphery. In embedded questions,
on the other hand, wh-phrases are marginally compatible with embedded focalized
elements, (88). The wh-phrase in embedded questions is then located in an
independent position (not SpecFoc) (Rizzi 1997: fn.18).
(87) Italian (Rizzi 1997: (25))
a. * A
to
GIANNI
che cosa hai
detto (, non a Piero)?
Gianni
what thing did
say
not to Piero
‘TO GIANNI what did you tell (, not to Piero)?’
b. * Che cosa A GIANNI hai detto (, non a Piero)?
(88) (Rizzi 1997: 330, (ii))
? Mi domando,
I wonder
A GIANNI che
cosa abbiano
to Gianni what thing have
detto (, non a Piero)
say
not to Piero
‘I wonder TO GIANNI what they say (, not to Piero).’
50
See Cinque and Rizzi (2008) for references concerning other syntactic configurations.
88
This approach to movement to the Left Periphery is regulated by Relativized
Minimality, a condition which ensures that movement is local. I will show one
implementation of this condition and say more about it when discussing the
Bulgarian data in the following section and in section 3.4.5. I will also use Bulgarian
and Russian to further show how mapping of the CP is achieved and how the
Cartographic approach deals with multiple wh-fronting languages.
3.3.2 Bulgarian
In section 3.1 I showed, following Rudin (1988), that the word order of wh-phrases
in Bulgarian is strict. Rudin’s work was expanded upon by Krapova and Cinque
(2005), who compared the acceptability of multiple wh-questions with different word
orders of wh-phrases and showed the detailed word order of fronted wh-phrases in
Bulgarian. For example, starting with adjuncts, they show that koga ‘when’
necessarily precedes kâde ‘where’, and kâde ‘where’ necessarily precedes kak ‘how’.
As expected based on transitivity, they show that koga ‘when’ also precedes kak
‘how’.
(89) Bulgarian (Krapova and Cinque 2005: (8))
a.
Koga
kâde šte
hodiš
tova ljato?
when
where will go-you
this summer
‘When will you go where, this summer?’
b. * Kâde koga šte hodiš tova ljato?
(90) Bulgarian (Krapova and Cinque 2005: (9))
a.
Kâde
kak si se
dâržal?
where
how are-you
behaved
‘Where did you behave how?’
b. * Kak kâde si se dâržal?
(91) Bulgarian (Krapova and Cinque 2005: (10))
a.
Koga
kak si se
dâržal?
when
how are-you
behaved
89
‘When did you behave how?’
b. * Kak koga si se dâržal?
The word order of wh-adjuncts proves to be crucial for determining the order
of other wh-phrases, as Krapova and Cinque (2005) show. Arguments are placed in
different positions with respect to adjuncts and these positions depend on the internal
makeup of the arguments. For example, na kogo ‘to whom’ must precede all
adjuncts, but na kolko N ‘to how many N’ is placed between koga ‘when’/kâde
‘where’ and kak ‘how’, as shown below:
(92) Bulgarian (Krapova & Cinque 2005: (12))
a.
Na kogo
kâde si
daval
podarâci?
to whom
where are-you
given
presents
‘To whom did you give presents where?’
b. ??? Kâde na kogo si daval podarâci?
(93) Bulgarian (Krapova & Cinque 2005: (11))
a.
Na kogo
kak šte
prepodadeš tozi urok?
to whom
how will teach-you this lesson
‘To whom will you teach this lesson how?’
b. * Kak na kogo šte prepodadeš uroka?
(94) Bulgarian (Krapova & Cinque 2005: (14))
a.
Koga/kâde
na kolko
xora
si
pomagal?
when/where
to how many
people
are-you
helped
‘How many people did you help when/where?’
b. *? Na kolko xora koga/kâde si pomagal?
(95) Bulgarian (Krapova & Cinque 2005: (15))
a.
Na
kolko
xora
to
how many people
kak možeš
da
pomogneš?
how can-you
to
help
‘How many people can you help how?’
b. * Kak na kolko xora možeš da pomogneš?
In addition, they show that arguments can be ordered among themselves. For
example, the subject precedes the object wh-phrase in Bulgarian, as already noted by
90
Rudin (1988), see example (4) in section 3.1, but it also holds that the direct object
precedes the indirect object, as shown in (96).
(96) Bulgarian (Krapova and Cinque 2005: (17))
a.
Kogo
na
kogo šte
predstaviš?
whom
to
whom will introduce-you
‘Whom will you introduce to whom?’
b. * Na kogo kogo šte predstaviš?
I will not go through all the examples with which Krapova and Cinque (2005)
establish the hierarchy of wh-phrases in Bulgarian, but a comparison of acceptability
of different word orders of wh-phrases gives results that are summarized in Table 1.
D-linked wh-
Non-D-linked wh-phrases
51
koj/koja/koe/koi (N)
(kogo)
(na kogo)
(marked)kakvoSub/Obj
(marked) kâde/koga
kogo
(whom)
na
kogo
(to
whom)
koga
(when)
kâde
(where)
kakvoSubj
(what)
kolkoSubjN
(how many)
kakvoObj
(what)
na
kolkoObjN
(how
many)
kak
(how)
Table 1: Word order of wh-phrases in Bulgarian (Krapova and Cinque 2005: Table 3))
The table shows that D-linked phrases precede all non-D-linked phrases (but
note that koj ‘who’ precedes even D-linked phrases), and wh-objects (non-D-linked)
that are specified as [+human] (kogo ‘whom’ and na kogo ‘to whom’) precede
adjunct wh-phrases for time and place. The latter are then followed by non-D-linked
wh-subjects and these precede wh-objects, which are both specified as [–human]
(kakvo ‘what’) or are underspecified for [human] (kolko ‘how many’). All whphrases are followed by kak ‘how’. What this table does not show is an additional
layer of D-linked wh-phrases, which come with resumptive clitics. These must
precede all other wh-phrases and can occur before a parenthetical, as in (97) (for
more see Krapova and Cinque 2005).
51
Koj/koja/koe/koi (N) are ‘which’ phrases and kogo ‘whom’ and na kogo ‘to whom’ in this column
refer to D-linked uses of these wh-phrases.
91
(97) (Krapova and Cinque 2005: (42a))
Koja kartina,
spored
tebe,
kâde *(ja) e risuval tozi xuždonik?
which painting, according to you,
where it
is painted this artist
‘According to you, which painting did this artist paint where?’
According to Krapova and Cinque (2005), this word order reflects the word
order of wh-phrases before movement to the Left Periphery. The underlying word
order is preserved due to a requirement that only the chain as a whole counts as an
intervener, (98), where ‘chain’ is defined as in (99). This requirement on chains is
formulated based on Relativized Minimality as proposed by Rizzi (2001b), (100).
(98) (Krapova and Cinque 2005: (58))
Only a whole chain, not just a link of a chain, counts as an ‘intervener’.
(99) (A1, …, An) is a chain iff, for 1 ≤ i < n
(i) Ai = Ai+1
(ii) Ai c-commands Ai+1
(iii) Ai+1 is in a Minimal Configuration with Ai
(100) Y is in a Minimal Configuration with X iff there is no Z such that
(i)
Z is of the same structural type as X, and
(ii)
Z intervenes between X and Y
With (98) they essentially subsume the notion Superiority under the notion of
Relativized Minimality. Superiority violations, as in (101b) are accounted for, since
the chain as a whole intervenes between the trace of kak ‘how’ and the target kak
‘how’. Example (101a), on the other hand, does not violate the condition, since there
are only links of the chain intervening between the trace of kak and the target kak –
which is not a problem under (98).52
52
Where one finds free word order among wh-phrases in Bulgarian, as with D-linked phrases, which I
am leaving aside here, Krapova and Cinque (2005) argue that movement of the phrase is triggered by
a special feature which the intervening element does not have. Hence no violation of Relativized
Minimality arises, because the feature of the intervener is distinct from the target.
92
(101) Bulgarian (Krapova and Cinque 2005: (25))
a.
Kakvo
kak šte
napraviš?
what
how will do-you
‘What will you do how?’
b. * Kak kakvo šte napraviš?
(102) a.
[CP
kakvo
[+wh]
b. * [CP
[CP
kak [IP šte napraviš
[+wh]
kak [CP
kakvo
[+wh]
[+wh]
t
t
[+wh]
[IP
šte napraviš t
t
[+wh]
To summarize: The word order of wh-phrases prior to movement is crucial for
word order of wh-phrases in the Left Periphery in Bulgarian. When word order is
preserved, the question is acceptable and when it is violated, the question is
unacceptable. Krapova and Cinque (2005) account for this with a condition on chains
according to which only the whole chain acts as an ‘intervener’, (98).
3.3.3 Russian
While it has been claimed that Russian does not exhibit Superiority effects (e.g.
Stepanov 1998), a closer look at the orderings of different wh-phrases gives different
results. This was shown by Rojina (2011), who gathered judgements of twenty
Russian speakers in two separate experiments – in the first she tested matrix
questions and in the second embedded questions, in order to examine the word order
of wh-phrases. While she notes that speakers claim that with the order of adjuncts
and objects the order depends on which information is more prominent, Rojina also
shows that some Superiority effects arise.53 For example, in matrix questions the
53
Granted, there is a problem with how Rojina (2011) reports the data, since she at times speak about
preferences and at times just reports on grammaticality and does not give quantitative results of her
study. However, since she marks examples as either acceptable or not, I will also take them as such.
93
subject must always precede the object (regardless whether the subject is [+human]
or not, (103) and (85) in 3.2.2, or D-linked or not, (104)):
(103) Russian (Rojina 2011: (117))
a.
Kto
uvidel?
kogo
who.NOM who.ACC
saw
‘Who saw whom?’
b. * Kogo kto uvidel?
(104) Russian (Rojina 2011: (138))
a.
Kakoj malčik
uvidel?
kogo
which boy.NOM who.ACC
saw
‘Which boy saw who?’
b. * Kogo kakoj malčik uvidel?
On the other hand, while a [+human] object must proceed kak ‘how’, (105),
there is no such strict ordering for a [+human] object with respect to wh-adjuncts, as
shown below for gde ‘where’, (106), in matrix clauses. The latter case, however, is
subject to preference – there is a preference of placing object before adjunct, but
speakers also report that the ordering depends on which piece of information is more
prominent. A similar situation can also be found with [–human] objects (see Rojina
2001: 60, 61).
(105) Russian (Rojina 2011: (106))
a. * Kak komu
how who.DAT
ty
pomog?
you
helped
‘Whom did you help and how?’
b.
Komu kak ty pomog?
(106) (Rojina 2011: (107))
a. ? Gde
where
kogo
ty
poslednij
who.ACC
you last
‘Who did you see last time and where?’
b.
Kogo gde ty poslednij raz videl?
94
raz
videl?
time saw
Rojina also shows that there are Superiority effects with D-linked phrases in
matrix questions in Russian. For example kto ‘who’ must be higher than D-linked
elements, (107), and D-linked subjects precede [+human] non-D-linked wh-objects,
(104) above.
(107) Russian (Rojina 2011: (134))
a.
Kto
kakuju studentku
who.NOM which student
budet
ekzamenovat?
will
examine
‘Who will examine which student?’
b. * Kakuju studentku kto budet ekzamenovat?
Comparing different word orders, Rojina (2011) suggests that wh-phrases are
ordered as shown in Table 2. The subject must be placed before the [+human] object
or the D-linked object, which is placed before the [–human] object and adjuncts of
place or time. And everything precedes the manner object kak ‘how’.
Subject
[+human] Object
D-linked Object
[-human] Object
Adjunct (place, time)
Adjunct (manner)
kto (who)
čto (what)
kakoj/kakaja N
(which N)
komu (whom)
kogo (whom)
kakoj/kakaja N
(which N)
kogda (when)
gde (where)
kak (how)
čto (what)
skol‘ko N (how much N)
PP object
kak (how)
Table 2: Russian - matrix questions (Rojina 2011: 65, Table 6)
In embedded questions the word order of wh-phrases is stricter. For example,
in embedded questions, wh-phrases for direct [+human] objects must precede
[+human] wh-phrases for indirect objects, (108). A strict word order is also
established between čto ‘what’ and wh-adjuncts, I show this in (109) for čto ‘what’
and gde ‘where’, and with D-linked and non-D-linked phrases.
95
(108) Russian (Rojina 2011: (151))
a.
Ona sprosila,
kogo
s
she
who.ACC
with whom
asked
kem
ja
sputal.
I
mixed
‘She asked who I confused with whom.’
b. * Ona sprosila, s kem kogo ja sputal.
(109) Russian (Rojina 2011: (154))
a. * Ona sprosila,
she
asked,
ty
videl.
gde
čto
where
what.ACC you saw
‘She asked what you saw and where.’
b.
Ona sprosila, čto gde ty videl.
By comparing different word orders of wh-phrases in embedded wh-questions,
Rojina suggests the following word order:
Subject
D-linked
object
Direct
obj
[+hum]
Indir.
obj
[+hum]
Object
[–hum]
PP object
Adjunct
(place/
time)
Adjunct
(manner)
kto
(who)
čto
(what)
kakoj N
(whichN)
kakoj N
(which
N)
kogo
(who)
komu
(to who)
skolko N
(how
much N)
čto
(what)
o čëm
(about what)
s kem
(with whom)
gde
(where)
kogda
(when)
kak
(how)
Table 3: Embedded wh-questions in Russian (Rojina 2011: 74, Table 9)
These results are, to some extent, similar to what was discussed in Meyer
(2004) who shows that speakers of Russian, Polish and Czech (which were
previously assumed to be languages without Superiority effects) prefer some word
orders over others. Meyer conducted a magnitude estimation study that provided
evidence that Russian speakers prefer the word order in which the wh-subject
precedes the wh-object. This is slightly more noticeable when the wh-object is
[+animate] but D-linking also has an influence: the wh-subject precedes the whobject more easily if the wh-subject is not D-linked, regardless of the object. Meyer
also finds a weak preference for the word order wh-subject > kak ‘how’, but contrary
to Rojina, Meyer finds no influence of embedding. However, as Rojina (2011) also
96
points out, Meyer did not test all the combinations that Rojina did, so different
conclusions about the influence of embedding might arise because of different
materials.54
Before I return to the derivation of the word order of wh-phrases in multiple
wh-questions in Russian, a couple of more things have to be noted. First, Rojina does
not adopt the analysis according to which wh-phrases move for focus reasons and in
which they move to the IP, see section 3.2. Rojina rather proposes that wh-movement
proceeds to check strong wh-features and claims that wh-phrases move to the Left
Periphery of the sentence, which is the CP. In the Left Periphery, wh-phrases in
Russian can co-occur with focus phrases, as in (110) and it is because of this that
Rojina proposes that focused and wh-phrases do not compete for the same positions.
In addition she shows that focused phrases can either precede or follow wh-phrases,
(110). The topic, on the other hand, can never precede all wh-phrases, but it can
appear between wh-phrases or follow all of them in multiple wh-questions, (111).55
(110) (Rojina 2011: (189), (190))
(Context: two people talking about presents for children. One of them is
asking: ‘What did you buy for the kids, especially for Masha?’ The other
replies that he got a car for Peter, a doll-house for Kate etc., not mentioning
Masha first. The first speaker is impatient and is asking:)
a.
b.
Da
MAŠE
čto
to
MASHA
what you bought,
ty
kupil,
(MAŠE)
čto
(MAŠE)
ty
MASHA.DAT
what
MASHA.DAT you
a
ne
drugim?
but
not
to others
kupil,
a
ne
drugim?
bought,
but
not
to others
(111) (Rojina 2011: (191))
a.
Kogda
Maša
komu
zvonila?
when
Masha
whom
called
54
What is especially interesting for us is that Meyer also finds that in Czech and Polish speakers
prefer the ‘subject > object’ word order, but only when both wh-phrases are animate. I return to this
when discussing Slovenian.
55
Example (111b) shows that ‘Maša’ in (111a) is the Topic – following Rizzi (1997) Topics cannot be
quantificational elements.
97
b. * Kogda
kazhdyj
rebenok
komu
zvonil?
when
every
child
whom
called
c. * Maša
kogda
komu
zvonila?
when
whom
called
kogda
zvonila?
Masha
when
called
Kogda
Maša
zvonila?
Masha
d. ?? Maša
e.
Based on this, Rojina proposes that the Left Periphery of multiple wh-questions
in Russian has the structure shown in (112):
(112) Force . . . (Wh-P) . . . (Topic) . . . (Wh-P) . . . (Focus). . . (Wh-P) . . . Fin IP
The order of wh-phrases in the Left Periphery is strict, as I have shown above, and
can be summarized as in (113) for embedded questions and as in (114) for matrix
questions.
(113) (Rojina 2011: 88)
[ForceP [FocP [SubjP [d.obj +h [ind.obj+h[obj –h [PP obj [Adjunct-adv
[Manner adv]]]]]]]]]]]
(114) (Rojina 2011: (195))
[ForceP [FocP [SubjP [[+hum]ObjP [ObjP, AdjunctP[ Manner AdjunctP]]]]]]
Based on Krapova and Cinque (2005), Rojina proposes that word order of whphrases prior to movement is preserved after movement (but at the same time, it is
also regulated by prominence and internal make up, for example [+human] precedes
[–human]). Rojina (2011) describes Russian as a free word order language, but the
default word order of arguments is the one shown in (115) – the subject precedes the
direct object and the direct object precedes the PP object. There is no preference for
an adjunct of place over time which is shown in (116) (cf. Table 2 and Table 3, the
two are marked as Adjunct-adv and AdjunctP in (113) and (114), respectively) and
the manner adjunct must precede all other adjuncts. However, with respect to manner
adjuncts, such as gromko ‘loudly’ in (117), Rojina adopts an analysis in Nilsen
98
(2000) and Cinque (2002) according to which a manner adjunct is merged lower in
the structure and is then moved to a higher position.
(115) Russian (Rojina 2011: (177))
Ivan pročёl
stat‘ju
o
beţencax.
Ivan read
article
about refugees
‘Ivan read an article about refugees.’
(116) Russian (Rojina 2011: (181))
Ja
ego videl (včera)
v universitete
I
him saw yesterday in university
(včera).
(yesterday)
‘I saw him yesterday at the university.’
(117) Russian (Rojina 2011: (182))
On
gromko
razgovarival
(gromko) v sosednej komnate (*gromko).
he
loudly
spoke
(loudly)
in next
room
(loudly)
‘He spoke loudly in the next room.’
The word order of wh-phrases prior to movement is preserved. The
preservation in the Left Periphery is achieved with a requirement for chain crossing.
An example of a derivation is shown in (119) for the embedded question in (118):
(118) Russian (Rojina 2011: (192))
Ona interesovalas,
komu
Pavel
kak
pomog.
She wonder
who.DAT
Pavel
how
help
object [+h]
manner adjunct
‘She wondered whom Pavel how helped.’
(119) [ForceP [FocP [WhP komuk [TopP Pavel [WhP kaki [… [IP[… [ObjP tk [MannerP ti …
If multiple wh-questions in which chains are crossed are acceptable, we can in
turn also expect that when the chains are not crossed, the multiple wh-question is
ungrammatical. This is borne out, as we can observe if we compare the
ungrammatical example (120) in which the order of wh-phrases is kak ‘how’
followed by komu ‘whom’, to (118).
99
(120) Russian (Rojina 2011: (142a))
* Ona interesovalas‘,
she
wondered
kak komu
ty
pomog.
how whom
you helped
‘She was wondering whom I helped and how.’
What we can take away from the Bulgarian and the Russian data and the
analysis is that both languages seem to preserve the order of phrases prior to
movement in the Left Periphery. Given this, we can expect other multiple whfronting languages to behave similarly. I will explore whether this is the case in
Slovenian in the next chapter.
3.4 Word order in Slovenian multiple wh-questions
To determine the order of wh-phrases in Slovenian I have collected data from 16
Slovenian speakers with a survey. The survey included 60 items. Out of these 60
items, 32 were fillers (examples with sluicing) and 28 were multiple wh-questions
which are of interest here. The stimuli (multiple wh-questions) were composed based
on Meyer (2004) who hypothesizes that a language either exhibits a preference for
the subject > object or object > subject order or else exhibits no preference in the
order of wh-phrases. If a language exhibits such a preference, it is further influenced
by animacy, main clause/embedded clause distinction and D-linking. Because of this,
word order preference between subjects and objects in matrix and embedded
questions when the two arguments have the same or different value for [human]56
and when one of them is D-linked or neither is D-linked were tested. In addition, the
word order or adjunct wh-phrases with respect to argument wh-phrases were tested
(based on the findings presented in Rojina (2011) and Meyer (2004)). It was also
56
The wh-word kdo ‘who’ is taken as [+human], rather than [+animate] in Slovenian and kaj ‘what’ to
[–human] rather than [–animate] since they are taken to question human and nonhuman entities,
respectively (cf. Toporišič 2001: 276). However, the declension of kdo ‘who’ coincides with the
declension pattern of [+animate] nouns and the declension of kaj ‘what’ with the declension pattern of
[–animate] nouns. This means that effects of animacy of wh-phrases and effects of the [human] feature
of wh-phrases are comparable.
100
taken into consideration whether receiving a single pair or pair list answer has an
influence on the word order of wh-phrases. Based on the data presented in section
3.2.1, a lack of strict word orders of wh-phrases in Slovenian was predicted. The
survey confirmed the prediction as it showed that there is no strict word order
between wh-phrases in multiple wh-questions in Slovenian. Still, there are some
preferences which are described in the following sections.
In the survey, speakers were asked to choose an acceptable sentence for a
specific context they were given. They could choose between two possible orders of
wh-phrases and two additional possibilities: ‘both options are equally acceptable’ and
‘neither option is acceptable’. In addition, speakers could suggest an acceptable
sentence. An example is shown below:
(121) Context:
Shranjene imam vse podatke o Evroviziji.
‘I have all the information about the Eurovision Song Contest
saved.’
Responses:
a.
Zanima
me,
kdo je
kdaj zastopal
wonder
I.DAT,
who
when represented Slovenia
AUX
Slovenijo?
‘I wonder who represented Slovenia when.’
b.
c.
Zanima me,
kdaj je
kdo zastopal
Slovenijo?
wonder I.DAT,
when AUX who represented Slovenia
Obe možnosti sta nesprejemljivi.
‘Both options are unacceptable.’
d.
Obe možnosti sta enako sprejemljivi
‘Both options are equally acceptable.’
e.
Other: _________________________
In the provided context there was no explicit mentioning of the adjuncts/arguments
that later appeared as a wh-phrase in the questions in order not to influence the word
order in the possible responses.
In addition to the word order between the two wh-phrases, I was also looking at
how these wh-phrases were placed with respect to other elements typically found in
101
the Left Periphery. The data that explores these placements was not tested in the
experiment, which means the judgements are my own.
3.4.1 The order of wh-objects and wh-subjects
Based on section 3.2.1, no Superiority effects (i.e. no strict word order) between
subjects and objects were expected in Slovenian. However, I found non-uniform
behavior of argument wh-phrases. Based on this, I divided the results into several
categories.
I start with matrix questions in which both subject and object were [+human].
The results for these questions are shown in the following table:
subject > object
object > subject
both
neither
Single-pair
13
1
2
0
Pair-list
13
0
3
0
26
1
5
0
81,2%
3,1%
15,6%,
Sum
57
Total: 32
Table 4: Word order of [+human] subjects and objects in matrix questions
When both the subject and the object wh-phrases were [+human], speakers
preferred the subject to precede the object, (122). The same results held both in
environments that evoked pair list and single pair answers. Still, I mark the ‘object >
subject’ word order with ‘??’ because there were speakers who claimed that both
word orders were equally acceptable.
(122) V soboto je bil prvi krog državnega tekmovanja v šahu, po katerem je
izpadla polovica tekmovalcev.
‘The first round of the national chess competition took place on Saturday,
after which half of the contestants were eliminated.’
57
In the Sum line I give the sum of all the answers, in the Total line I give the results in percents and
exclude the number of speakers who do not accept any of the offered word orders.
102
a.
Kdo
je
koga
premagal?
who.NOM
AUX
who.ACC
beat
‘Who beat whom?’
b. ?? Koga je kdo premagal?
Superiority effects were not detected when the subject wh-phrase was
[+human] and the object was not, as the Table 5 shows. One such example is in
(123).
subject [+h] > object [–h]
object [–h] > subject [+h]
both
neither
Single-pair
4
0
12
0
Pair-list
4
4
5
1
Sum
8
4
17
1
Total: 29
27,6%
13,8%
58,6%
Table 5: Word order of [+human] subjects and [–human] objects in matrix questions
(123) V soboto bo praznovanje slovenskega kulturnega praznika, na katerem bo več
nastopov.
‘The celebration for the Slovenian cultural holiday will happen on Saturday.
There will be several performances.’
a.
Kdo
bo
kaj
recitiral?
who.NOM
AUX
what.ACC recite
‘Who will recite what?’
b.
Kaj bo kdo recitiral?
These results are similar to the results for Polish and Czech as described in
Meyer (2004), who calls the preference of the ‘subject > object’ word order with
animate arguments Selective Superiority. In Polish and Czech this preference only
occurs with animate subjects and objects, but not with inanimate objects (the same
goes for Slovenian). In addition, Meyer describes the phenomenon as a ‘reverse
animacy effect’ since it goes against expectations that subjects precede objects and
animates precede inanimates. Meyer offers no true explanation and attributes the
effect to an independent factor. The phenomenon has also been observed in German,
103
in which the object wh-phrase can move over the subject wh-phrase but only when
the animacy of the two is different (Fanselow 2010, Fanselow et al. 2013):
(124) German (Fanselow 2010: (5))
a.
Wer
hat
who.NOM has
wen
gesehen?
who.ACC
seen
‘Who has seen who?’
b. # Wen hat wer gesehen?
Fanselow (2010) and Fanselow et al. (2013) argue against a grammatical
constraint which would rule out this type of movement. Rather, they propose that the
‘subject > object’ word order is preferred due to a processing difficulty that occurs
with movement of similar phrases (see Fanselow 2010, Fanselow et al. 2013 for
more).
Based on Meyer (2004), it is not clear how Polish and Czech behave with
respect to Superiority in embedded questions, but it seems that they exhibit Selective
Superiority in embedded contexts as well (Meyer writes for Polish: “Embedding had
no influence on the Superiority-like effect, which shows that Polish wh-questions are
typologically distinct from Serbo-Croatian ones, as analyzed in Bošković (1998)”
(Meyer 2004: 52) and makes a similar observation for Czech (cf. Meyer 2004: 53)).
In Slovenian embedded questions, the influence of the same value for [human] was
weaker, yet ‘subject > object’ word order was still preferred. The results of testing
examples in which both wh-arguments of an embedded wh-questions are [+human],
(125), and examples in which only the wh-subject is [+human], (126), are
summarized in Table 6 and Table 7, respectively.
(125) V soboto bo družabni večer s plesom. Zanimajo nas udeleženci tega večera.
‘There will be a dance on Saturday. We want to know who will attend it.’
a.
Janez vpraša,
kdo
bo
koga
povabil.
Janez asks
who.NOM
AUX
who.ACC
invite
‘Janez is asking, who will invite whom.’
b.
Janez vpraša, koga bo kdo povabil.
104
(126) Včeraj se je zgodila velika eksplozija. Ljudi zanima vse o dogodku.
‘Yesterday there was a big explosion. People want to know everything
about the event.’
a.
Novinarji sprašujejo, kdo
je
kaj
journalists ask
AUX
what.ACC blow-up
who.NOM
razstrelil.
‘The journalists were asking who blew up what.’
b.
Novinarji sprašujejo, kaj je kdo razstrelil.
subject [+h] > object [+h]
object [+h] > subject [+h]
both
neither
Single-pair, [+h]
10
0
6
0
Pair-list [+h]
9
0
6
1
Sum
19
0
12
1
Total: 31
61,2%
0%
38,7%
Table 6: Word order of [+human] subjects and [+human] objects in embedded questions
subject [+h.] > object [–h.]
object [–h.]> subject [+h.]
both
neither
Single-pair
4
5
6
1
Pair-list
4
3
9
0
Sum
8
8
15
2
Total: 31
25,8%
25,8%
48,4%
Table 7: Word order of [+human] subjects and [–human] objects in embedded questions
We can observe that many speakers still prefer the ‘subject > object’ word
order in cases where both arguments are human, but there are a lot of speakers that
find both orders (‘subject > object’ and ‘object > subject’) equally acceptable. We
can also take this as an indicator that the ‘subject > object’ preference with two
[+human] arguments is not due to a grammatical constraint (assuming that a
grammatical constraint would not disappear in an embedded clause) but due to an
independent factor (see above).
The results more balanced in cases with a [+human] subject and a [–human]
object. Here the majority of speakers found both ‘subject > object’ and ‘object >
subject’ word order equally acceptable. Crucially, because we find both patterns in
embedded questions, I conclude that there is no fixed word order between subject
and object wh-phrases in embedded multiple wh-questions.
105
Also tested were the preferences in word order of D-linked arguments with
respect to non-D-linked arguments. The results are given in Table 8.
subject > object
object > subject
both
neither
wh-subject D-linked
6
2
4
3
wh-object D-linked
9
0
6
158
Sum
15
2
10
4
Total: 27
55,6%
7,4%
37,0%
Table 8: Word order of D-linked arguments w.r.t. non-D-linked arguments in matrix questions
When the subject was D-linked and the object was not, (127), the preferred
word order was ‘subject > object’ in matrix questions but speakers also found both
‘subject > object’ and ‘object > subject’ word orders equally acceptable. There was
no preference for D-linked wh-arguments to be placed before non-D-linked wharguments, given that no speakers chose ‘D-linked object > non-D-linked subject’
word order. Given this, I conclude that there is no strict word order between D-linked
and non-D-linked arguments in matrix clauses but that the ‘subject > object’ order is
preferred.
(127) Pripravljamo jedilnik za živali v Živalskem vrtu Ljubljana.
‘We are preparing the menu for the animals at Ljubljana Zoo.’
a.
Katera žival
bo
kaj
jedla?
which animal.NOM
AUX
what.ACC eat
‘Which animal will eat what?’
b.
58
Kaj bo katera žival jedla?
One speaker offered a different word order (i.c):
(i)
Prejšnji teden smo organizirali večerjo za slovenske diplomate v tujini.
‘Last week we organized a dinner for Slovenian diplomats abroad.’
a.
Kdo
je
katerega
diplomata
povabil?
who.NOM
AUX which
diplomat.ACC
invited
‘Who invited which diplomat?’
b.
Katerega diplomata je kdo povabil?
c.
Kdo je povabil katerega diplomata?
106
In embedded questions with D-linked and non-D-linked wh-phrases, as (128)
in which the object is D-linked, no clear preference could be detected:
subject > object
object > subject
both
neither
wh-subject - D-linked
5
2
8
059
wh-object - D-linked
2
8
3
260
Sum
7
10
11
1
Total: 28
25,0%
35,7%
39,3%
Table 9: Word order of D-linked arguments w.r.t. non-D-linked arguments in embedded questions
(128) Lani sem organizirala pesniški nastop za izbrane pesnike. Komisija je prejela
nekaj kontroverznih kandidatov.
‘I have organized a performance for selected poets. The judges accepted some
controversial candidates.’
a.
Sprašujem se,
wonder
kdo
self who.NOM
je
katerega
pesnika
izbral.
AUX
which
poet.ACC
select
‘I wonder who selected which poet.’
b.
Sprašujem se, katerega pesnika je kdo izbral.
c.
Sprašujem se, kdo je izbral katerega pesnika.
With D-linked phrases in embedded questions, speakers also proposed their
own answers, leaving either the D-linked or the non-D-linked phrase in situ, as I
show in (128c), which was a response to (128), and in (129c) – while both of these
two examples are embedded, the same also happened in a matrix question (see fn.
58).
(129) Romane je pisalo veliko slovenskih pisateljev.
‘A lot of Slovenian writers wrote novels.’
a.
Zanima me,
kateri pisatelj
je
wonder I.DAT
which writer.NOM AUX what.NOM wrote
kaj
‘I wonder which writer wrote what.’
59
60
One speaker proposed another word order which is shown in (128c).
Two speakers proposed a different word order which is shown in (129c).
107
napisal.
b.
Zanima me, kaj je kateri pisatelj napisal.
c.
Zanima me, kateri pisatelj je napisal kaj.
I also tested whether the type of expected answer (i.e. pair list or single pair)
has an effect on the word order of the two wh-phrases in Slovenian matrix or
embedded wh-questions. The type of answer was controlled with specific contexts.
For example, in (126) above, which is an embedded question, the felicitous answer is
a single pair answer, and, as we have seen, no Superiority was found. On the other
hand, the felicitous answer to (123), which is a matrix question, is a pair list answer.
Again, the type of answer does not lead to Superiority effects.
To summarize: In Slovenian we can observe selective Superiority, which holds
in matrix wh-questions when subject and object wh-phrases are both human. In this
condition the [+human] subject precedes the [+human] object. In embedded
questions this preference is also observed, but to a lesser extent. When subject and
object have different values for human, no Superiority effects are found. When either
subject or object is D-linked, no Superiority effects can be found (but the ‘subject >
object’ order is preferred). In embedded questions, again no Superiority effects can
be found. The word order of wh-phrases is also unaffected by the type of answers
(single pair vs. pair list). Based on the presented results, I conclude that there are no
‘real’ Superiority effects between wh-subjects and wh-objects in Slovenian.
3.4.2 The order of wh-adjuncts with respect to wh-subjects
I divide the results of testing word order of a wh-adjunct with respect to the whsubject into two groups: the order of zakaj ‘why’, kako ‘how’, kje ‘when’, and kdaj
‘where’ with respect to the subject in matrix questions and the order of zakaj ‘why’,
kako ‘how’, kje ‘when’, and kdaj ‘where’ with respect to the subject in embedded
questions. Table 10 shows the results of the questionnaire exploring the word order
of a wh-adjunct with respect to the wh-subject in matrix questions.
108
subject > adjunct
adjunct > subject
both
neither
wh-subject - why
2
9
2
3
wh-subject- how
3
10
2
1
wh-subject - when
2
10
4
0
wh-subject- where
5
7
4
0
Sum
12
36
12
4
Total: 60
20,0%
60,0%
20,0%
Table 10: The word order of wh-adjuncts w.r.t. the wh-subject in matrix questions
Checking the influence of word order of the wh-subject with respect to whadjuncts has again shown that we cannot find real Superiority effects (i.e. strict word
order of wh-phrases) in Slovenian, but rather just preferences. For example in matrix
questions, the majority of speakers preferred for zakaj ‘why’, (130), kako ‘how’,
(131), and kdaj ‘when’, as in (132), to precede the subject wh-phrase. The preference
for ‘adjunct > subject’ word order was slightly weaker with kje ‘where’, (133).
(130) Minister že cel dan bere pritožbe o novem davku.
‘The minister has been reading complaints about the new tax all day long.’
a.
Zakaj
je
kdo poslal
pritožbo?
why
AUX
who send
complaint
‘Why did who send the complaint?’
b. ? Kdo je zakaj poslal pritožbo?
(131) Že cel teden zbiramo rešitve matematične domače naloge.
‘We have been collecting the solutions for the math homework all week long.’
a.
Kako
je
kdo rešil nalogo?
how
AUX
who solved task
‘How did who solve the task?’
b. ? Kdo je kako rešil nalogo?
(132) Zbiramo podatke o vseh tekmovanjih za roman leta.
‘We are collecting the information about every contest for the novel of the
year.’
109
a.
Kdaj je
kdo zmagal?
when AUX who
won
‘Who won when?’
b. ? Kdo je kdaj zmagal?
(133) Prinesli smo gobe iz različnih slovenskih gozdov.
‘We brought mushrooms from different Slovenian forests.’
a.
Kje
je
kdo nabral
gobe?
where
AUX
who pick
mushrooms
‘Who picked the mushrooms where?’
b.
Kdo je kje nabral gobe?
The overall preference of placing a wh-adjunct before the wh-subject can also
be observed in embedded questions. This is shown Table 11.
subject > adjunct
adjunct > subject
both
neither
wh-subject - why
1
11
3
1
wh-subject - how
3
10
2
1
wh-subject - where
2
6
7
1
wh-subject- when
3
4
9
0
Sum
9
31
21
3
Total: 61
14,8%
58,8%
34,4%
Table 11: The word order of wh-adjuncts w.r.t. the wh-subject in embedded questions
In embedded questions, most speakers preferred placing the wh-adjuncts zakaj
‘why’, (134), and kako ‘how’, (135), before the subject. On the other hand, there is
no such preference when kje ‘where’, (136), and kdaj ‘when’, (137), precede the whsubject in embedded questions. In this case most speakers found the two possible
word orders equally acceptable.
(134) Ravnatelj že cel dan piše obvestila o ukorih. Na teh bo utemeljil vse kazni.
‘The headmaster has been writing notifications about reprimands the whole day
long. He is going to substantiate all the punishments.’
110
a.
Starše
zanima,
zakaj
je
kdo dobil kazen.
parents
wonder
why
AUX
who get
punishment
‘Parents wonder who got punished why.’
b. ?? Starše zanima, kdo je zakaj dobil ukor.
(135) Že kakšno leto vemo vse o krajah gesel na spletni strani. Lahko vam
pomagamo pri vaši preiskavi.
‘We have found out everything about the password thefts on the web page. We
can help you with the investigation.’
a.
Zanima me,
kako je
kdo kradel
podatke.
wonder I.DAT
how
who steal
information
AUX
‘I wonder who has stolen the information how.’
b. ? Zanima me, kdo je kako kradel podatke.
(136) Napisali smo seznam slavnih bitk.
‘We have written down a list of famous battles.’
a.
Ugotovite, kdo je
kje
premagal nasprotnike.
guess
where
beat
who
AUX
enemy
‘Guess who beat the enemy where.’
b.
Ugotovite, kje je kdo premagal nasprotnike.
(137) Shranjene imam vse podatke o Evroviziji.
‘I have all the information about the Eurovision Song Contest saved.’
a.
Zanima
me,
kdo je
kdaj zastopal
wonder
I.DAT,
who
when represented Slovenia
AUX
Slovenijo.
‘I wonder who represented Slovenia when.’
b.
Zanima me,
kdaj je
kdo zastopal
Slovenijo.
To summarize the results: In matrix and embedded questions there is a general
preference for wh-adjuncts to precede the wh-subject. In embedded questions there is
no such preference with kdaj ‘when’ and kje ‘where’. Still, despite these preferences,
we cannot claim that a strict word order of wh-phrases in multiple wh-questions in
Slovenian exists, since speakers also accept different word orders. This means that
word order of wh-phrases is free, but there are some preferences. Assuming
transitivity holds, we can also expect a preference for the ‘adjunct > object’ word
111
order, since we observed a slight preference of ‘subject > object’ word order for
arguments.
Still, something needs to be said about the word order in multiple wh-questions
with zakaj ‘why’ and kako ‘how’, since there was a preference to place these whadjuncts before the wh-subject in both matrix and embedded questions in Slovenian.
I will not go into detail about these two adjunct wh-phrases, but before proceeding,
two things need to be noted about the data and the results of the survey.
First I need to emphasize that the results might seem strongly in favor of the
word order zakaj ‘why’/kako ‘how’ > ‘all other wh-s’, but this is still a preference, as
there were speakers who chose both word orders or the reverse order to be possible.
In addition, we can find evidence for the reverse order in naturally occurring data. I
give examples from Gigafida (a written corpus of the modern Slovenian language
which contains texts from different genres that amount to 1,2 billion words, see
Gigafida for more) in which the wh-subject precedes zakaj ‘why’ and kako ‘how’
below (but again, word order ‘why/how > subject’ is more common in the corpus
too):
(138) (Gigafida, both examples taken from 24ur.com, 2010)
a.
Kdo je
zakaj komunist
who
why communist
AUX
omejeval
in
nadzoroval
limit
and control
- pripadnik gnilega
režima,
ki
follower rotten
regime,
that AUX
o
je
življenja
in
njih odločal?
lives
and about them decide
‘Who is a communist and why – a follower of a rotten regime which
has limited and controlled lives and decided about them?’
b.
Pa
pol
da
se
vidi kdo je
and then that self see
who AUX
kako nastopil ...
who perform
‘And then we will see who preformed and how…’
Therefore we are again speaking about a preference and not a single grammatical
option regarding word order.
In addition, the cases that were used in the survey were all examples in which
zakaj ‘why’ can primarily be interpreted as a ‘reason why’. While the purpose
interpretation of why is possible (the exception being (134)), it is less obvious. This
112
might have influenced the results, as different behavior between the two types of
why has been noticed in the past. That is, in Slovenian, zakaj ‘why’ can be
interpreted either as the reason why or the purpose why (to which I will be from now
on referring as whyR and whyP, respectively). Because of this, a question such as
(139a) can receive either (139b) or (139c) as a potential answer.61 On the other hand,
in some languages, such as Russian, the two different types of ‘why’ are expressed
with two different wh-words, as the examples below show.
(139) a.
Zakaj si
šel
v
kino?
why
go
in
cinema
AUX
‘Why did you go to the cinema?’
b.
Ker
je
doma
pregorela varovalka.
because
AUX
home
burn
fuse
‘Because the fuse has blown at home.’
c.
[Reason]
Da bi
pogledal
novo slovensko
komedijo.
that AUX
look
new Slovenian
comedy
‘In order to see the new Slovenian comedy.’
[Purpose]
(140) Russian (Stepanov and Tsai 2008: (52))
a.
Začem
P
why
Ivan sjuda prišel?
Ivan here came
‘For what purpose did Ivan come here?’
b.
Čtoby
kupit’ pivo.
in-order-to buy beer
‘In order to buy beer.’
(141) Russian (Stepanov and Tsai 2008: (53))
a.
Počemu
Ivan sjuda prišel?
whyR
Ivan here come
‘Why did Ivan come here?’
b.
Potomu čto
emu bylo skučno.
because
him was boring
61
The two can potentially be substituted with s katerim namenom ‘with which purpose’ and s katerim
razlogom ‘with which reason’. I will be leaving the two aside. The Slovenian equivalent to the SerboCroatian zbog čega ‘whyP’, that is zaradi česa ‘why’, can be used as a reason or purpose why.
113
‘Because he was bored.’
Stepanov and Tsai (2008) notice that in Russian the reason and purpose why
behave differently. For example, whyR is not able to appear in multiple wh-questions,
while whyP is able to do just that.62 In Serbo-Croatian, on the other hand, both types
of why can appear in multiple wh-questions.
(142) Russian (Stepanov and Tsai 2008: (58), (64))
a.
Kto začem
prišel?
who whyP
came
b. * Kto počemu
who whyR
c. ?* Počemu
R
why
prišel?
came
kto
prišel?
who came
Because we have not accounted for the two different types of zakaj ‘why’ in
the survey, it is hard to draw any conclusions about their behavior in Slovenian. We
have also not accounted for the two different readings of kako ‘how’ – the
instrumental and the manner reading, so again it is hard to make any conclusions
about the position or movement for the two adjuncts. The same also holds for the
results of the survey presented in the next section.
Because the understanding of zakaj ‘why’ and kako ‘how’ is not crucial for the
larger goal of this thesis and because there is insufficient data, I will leave the two
aside from now on and focusing on multiple wh-questions with the object wh-phrases
and wh-adjuncts.63
62
Rojina (2011) again makes a different observation and claims that začem ‘whyP’ can appear in any
multiple wh-question (except with kak ‘how’) while počemu ‘whyR’ can only do so with arguments.
63
However, Stepanov and Tsai (2008, see also and the references cited therein) have examined why
and how and have proposed that whyR is base generated in the CP and whyP is base generated in the
vP, below the NegP. This is confirmed, for example, by the fact that in Russian whyR can be used in
negative questions while whyP cannot. Rizzi (2001a), on the other hand, argues that in Italian perché
‘why’ in matrix questions is base generated high, in the specifier of Interrogative Projection (IntP,
beneath Force, above Focus in the Left Periphery) or moves to it from an embedded clause. Shlonsky
and Soare (2011) argue that it is merged in ReasonP, which is above NegP, adverbs and possibly the
subject, and then moves to the Specifier of the Interrogative Projection.
114
3.4.3 The order of wh-adjuncts with respect to wh-objects
I again divide the results of testing word order between a wh-adjunct and the whobject into two groups: the order of zakaj ‘why’, kako ‘how’, kje ‘when’, and kdaj
‘where’ with respect to the wh-object in matrix questions and the order of zakaj
‘why’, kako ‘how’, kje ‘when’, and kdaj ‘where’ with respect to the wh-object in
embedded questions. I show the results for each condition separately.
As expected based on the preference of the word order of wh-adjuncts with
respect to the wh-subject, we again find a preference of placing wh-adjuncts before
the object wh-phrase, but speakers again allow both word orders. The results are
shown below:
object > adjunct
adjunct > object
both
neither
wh-object - why
1
8
5
2
wh-object- how
3
8
3
2
wh-object - when
1
8
5
2
wh-object- where
4
5
5
2
Sum
9
29
18
8
Total: 56
16,1%
51,8%
32,1%
Table 12: Word order of wh-adjuncts w.r.t. the wh-object in matrix questions
Below, I give examples of the word orders I have tested. The preference to
place the wh-adjunct before the wh-object can be detected with all the adjuncts, but it
is the least strong with kje ‘where’. Still, in this condition, no strict word order can be
detected, as speakers also take both word orders to be equally acceptable or accept
the questions in which the wh-adjunct precedes the wh-object.
(143) Tone cel dan govori o podobah na svojih fotografijah.
‘Tone has been speaking about his photographs the entire day.’
a.
Zakaj
je
kaj
slikal?
why
AUX
what take-picture-of
‘Why did he take the picture of what?’
b. ?Kaj je zakaj slikal?
115
(144) Na predavanju so razložili mehanizem različnih vremenskih pojavov.
‘In the lecture they explained mechanisms of different weather phenomena.’
a.
Kako so
kaj
how
what explain
AUX
razložili?
‘How did they explain what?’
b. * Kaj so kako razložili?
(145) Tone piše življenjepis znanega slovenskega pisatelja.
‘Tone is writing the biography of a well-known Slovenian writer.’
a.
Kaj je
kdaj počel?
when AUX what do
‘When did he do what?’
b.
Kdaj je kaj počel?
In embedded questions, speakers again preferred the wh-adjuncts to precede
the wh-object in general, as the table below shows.
object > adjunct
adjunct > object
both
neither
wh-object - why
2
13
0
1
wh-object- how
2
11
3
0
wh-object - when
5
6
5
0
wh-object- where
2
4
9
0
Sum
11
34
17
1
Total: 62
17,7%
54,8%
27,4%
Table 13: Word order of wh-adjuncts w.r.t. the wh-object in embedded questions
Most speakers preferred zakaj ‘why’, (146), and kako ‘how’, (147), to be
placed before the object wh-phrase in embedded questions.
(146) Profesor je predaval o zgodovinskih požigih umetniških del.
‘The professor gavea lecture about burnings of art works.’
a.
Jože je vprašal, zakaj so
kaj
Jože is aks
what burn
why
AUX
sežgali.
‘Jože asked why they burned what.’
116
b. * Jože je vprašal, kaj so zakaj sežgali.
(147) Razlagali so, da so celo leto iskali pohištvo za muzejsko zbirko.
‘They explained that they were looking for furniture for the museum
collection for a year.’
a.
Povej mi, kako so
kaj
tell
what find
me
how
AUX
našli.
‘Tell me how they found what.’
b. * Povej mi, kaj so kako našli.
Speakers had no strong preference to place kje ‘where’ or kdaj ‘when’ before the whobject, and the majority of speakers claimed both word orders are equally acceptable.
(148) Menda so Banksyjevi grafiti po celem svetu. Pojdiva si jih ogledat. 64
‘Supposedly there are Banksy’s graffiti all over the world. Let’s see them.’
a.
Zapiši
si,
write
self what
kaj
je
kje
narisal.
AUX
where
paint
‘Write down where he painted what.’
b.
Zapiši si, kje je kaj narisal.
To summarize: In matrix and embedded questions there is a general preference
to place wh-adjuncts before the wh-object. This preference is especially strong with
zakaj ‘why’ and kako ‘how’ in embedded questions. Again, we do not find strict
word order in placing wh-adjuncts with respect to wh-objects in Slovenian since
speakers accept a variety of word orders.
64
One speaker opted for a different word order with a wh-phrase in situ and proposed the matrix
question in (i):
(i)
Kje je
narisal kaj?
where AUX draw what
‘Where did he draw what?’
117
3.4.4 Position of wh-phrases with respect to focused phrases and topics
Before we continue to the derivation of word order of wh-phrases in multiple whquestions, we need to look at the word order of wh-phrases with respect to other
elements typically found in the Left Periphery. In Slovenian, a wh-phrase can cooccur with a focused phrase, as examples below show. If a question only contains
one wh-phrase and a focused phrase, the wh-phrase needs to precede the focused whphrase to get a true question reading. At least one wh-phrase also has to precede the
focused phrase in a multiple wh-question.
(149) a.
peljal
Kdo
je
MAJO
who.NOM
AUX
Maja.ACC take
na večerjo?
on dinner
‘Who took MAJA to dinner?’
b. # MAJO je kdo peljal na večero?
‘Did anybody take MAJA to dinner?’
(150) a.
Kdo
je
MAJO
who.NOM
AUX
Maja.ACC where
kam
peljal?
take
‘Who took MAJA where?’
b.
Kdo je kam MAJO peljal?
c. # MAJO je kdo kam peljal?
Because wh-phrases can co-occur with the focused phrase, I propose that whphrases move to their own projection, which I will call a Wh-P (Wh-Projection),
which can be recursive in Slovenian, since multiple wh-fronting is possible.65 In
addition, another argument for a Wh-P, which is separate from FocusP, is that Dlinked phases behave exactly as non-D-linked phrases in Slovenian. Given that D65
It also has to be noted that in Slovenian a sentence can have more than one focus per clause, while
Rizzi (1997) claims that in Italian only one focus per clause is available. For example, the Slovenian
sentence in (i.a) has two instances of focus:
(i)
Miha je peljal Majo na večerjo.
‘Mija took Maja to dinner.’
a.
Ne, TINO je
peljal NA
no,
Tina is
take on
‘No, he took Tina to lunch.’
KOSILO.
lunch
118
linked phrases are given in the context, they do not convey new information, i.e. they
are not focused and therefore do not appear in the FocusP. Since they do front, just as
non-D-linked wh-phrases front, I assume they front to Wh-P.
In multiple wh-questions a topic phrase can appear either after one, (151a), or
all wh-phrases, (151b). Crucially, a topic cannot appear clause initially in multiple
wh-questions, (151c). And while (151c) is in fact a possible question in Slovenian, it
can only receive a yes/no-interpretation (see section 3.5). I take temu fantu ‘this boy’
to be the topic of the examples because it is definite (as it was previously mentioned
in the context sentence as Janez).66
(151) Janez vsako leto dobi goro daril.
‘Janez gets a bunch of presents every year.’
a.
Kdaj je
temu fantu
when AUX this boy.DAT
Maja kupila za
kaj
what.ACC Maja buy for
rojstni dan?
birthday
‘When did Maja buy what for this boy?’
b.
Kdaj je kaj temu fantu Maja kupila za rojstni dan?
c. ?* Temu fantu je kdaj kaj Maja kupila za rojstni dan?
With respect to placement of focus and topic phrases in the Left Periphery of
Slovenian multiple wh-questions, Slovenian is similar to Russian (Rojina 2011).
Assuming the split CP structure proposed in Rizzi (1997) and the Slovenian data, the
Slovenian CP can be represented as shown in (152). The starred projections are in the
CP of wh-questions only when needed and the projections in brackets are
interchangeable when in the CP. That is: in a wh-question, one wh-phrase has to
precede all other elements. This is why a Wh-Projection is located above the Topic,
66
A sentence such as (i) is acceptable in the context in (151). While one could take this as an indicator
that the wh-phrase does not have to be sentence initial in a multiple wh-question, this is not the case. I
take temu fantu ‘this boy’ this example to be an instance of a ‘hanging’ topic (see Krapova 2004). I do
not take the hanging topic to be a part of the wh-question. One argument for this is the position of the
clitic – Slovenian displays the second clitic phenomenon (the clitics appear after the first syntactic
constituent), but in this case the clitic is located after the second constituent. Given this and a slight
pause after the topic temu fantu ‘this boy’, I take the hanging topic to be a part of a separate clause and
consequently not a part of the same Left Periphery as the two wh-phrases.
(i)
Temu fantu, kdo
je
kaj
this boy who.NOM
AUX what.ACC
‘For this boy, who bought what?’
kupil?
buy
119
Focus and a Wh-Projection (which refers to all non initial wh-phrases), all of which
are interchangeable among themselves. I will return to the clause initial WhProjection in section 3.5 and revise the structure of the Left Periphery in Slovenian.
(152) Force … Wh-P …(Topic*) …(Focus*) ... (Wh-P*) …Fin IP
In this structure we also need to include all the different wh-phrases and how
they are ordered. We saw from the survey that two preferences emerged: when both
the subject and the object wh-phrase are [+human], the subject precedes the object
and when one of the wh-phrases is either zakaj ‘why’ or kako ‘how’ this wh-phrase
precedes the remaining wh-phrases. The former can be explained with processing
difficulties that arise with such combinations (see Fanselow 2010, Fanselow et al.
2013 for more on this type of Superiority). The latter can be accounted for by the
different behavior of ‘real’ wh-adjuncts (i.e. why and how), which I am leaving aside.
In the next section I show the derivation of the free word order of wh-phrases in
multiple wh-questions in Slovenian.
3.4.5 Deriving the free word order of wh-phrases
Even though some preferences were observed in Slovenian, I will assume the word
order of wh-phrases in the Left Periphery in Slovenian multiple wh-questions is free.
This appears to be true for both wh-questions with two wh-phrases, which were
tested in the survey, and for questions with three wh-phrases, as (153) shows (see
also examples in 2.3.2).
(153) a.
Kdo
je
komu
kaj
kupil za
who.NOM
AUX
who.DAT
what.ACC buy for
‘Who bought what for whom for his birthday?’
b.
Kdo je kaj komu kupil za rojstni dan?
c.
Komu je kdo kaj kupil za rojstni dan?
d.
Komu je kaj kdo kupil za rojstni dan?
e.
Kaj je kdo komu kupil za rojstni dan?
120
rojstni dan?
birthday
f.
Kaj je komu kdo kupil za rojstni dan?
It does however seem that the word order can be regulated by other (nonsyntactic) factors in the sense of Kuno’s (1982) sorting key, originally stated in the
Sorting Key Hypothesis (but also circumstances and pragmatic knowledge, see Kuno
1993).
(154) Sorting Key Hypothesis (Kuno 1993: (102))
In a multiple wh-question the leftmost wh-word represents the key for sorting
relevant pieces of information in the answer.
This means that the questions in (153) would receive different answers. These
answers would reflect the word order of wh-phrases in multiple wh-questions.67 The
question is then how to derive the free word order of wh-phrases.
One common property of Bulgarian and Russian multiple wh-fronting that was
observed in Krapova and Cinque (2005) and Rojina (2011) is that wh-phrases in the
Left Periphery preserve the word order they have prior to wh-movement.68 Rojina
proposes that in Russian, the CP (the Vorfeld) preserves the word order from the
Mittelfeld.69 This is based on Krapova and Cinque’s proposal that in Bulgarian the
order from the IP is preserved. In addition, in Russian matrix questions, the word
order of wh-phrases is, according to Rojina, ruled by the internal makeup of whelements, prominence of information and function of the elements, but crucially the
word order from the Mittelfeld is preserved due to Relativized Minimality in the
67
For example, a felicitous answer to (153a) is in (ii.a) and a felicitous answer to (153c) is in (ii.b). In
the two answers, the word order is different and corresponds to the word order of wh-phrases in the
multiple wh-question.
(ii)
a.
Miha
je
Maji
avto kupil, Tone
Jožetu
kolo ...
Miha.NOM AUX Maja.DAT
car.ACC buy, Tone.NOM Jože.DAT
bike.ACC
‘Miha bought Maja a car, Tone bought Jože a bike…’
b.
Maji je Miha avto kupil, Jožetu Tone kolo ...
68
See also Laenzlinger and Soare (2005) for Romanian.
69
Rojina follows Laenzlinger and Soare (2005) who suggest that wh-elements move from the VP to
the Mittelfeld, the IP, in order to check A-features (case and phi-features). They do so in positions
labeled as [Spec, SubjP] for wh-subjects and [Spec, ObjP] for wh-objects.
121
sense of Krapova and Cinque (2005) – that is, no chain can intervene between the
trace and the target but a part of a chain can intervene.
It was shown in section 3.3.2 how strict word order can be achieved under the
assumption that word order is preserved if we also assume the requirement on chains,
so the question is how to account for word order variations. What Rojina proposes
for multiple wh-questions in Russian in which two orders of wh-phrases are possible
is that two word orders are possible in the Mittelfeld. Below is an example of such
ambiguity. The two derivations of (155) in which gde ‘where’ can appear before or
after kogda ‘when’, are shown in (156) and (157) below.
(155) Russian (Rojina 2011: (193), (194))
a.
Ona interesovalas‘, gde
she
kogda
was wondering where when
ja
ego videl.
I
him saw
‘She was wondering when I saw him where.’
b.
Ona interesovalas‘,
(156) [ForceP
kogda
gde ja
ego videl.
[FocP [WhP gdei [WhP kogdak …[IP [LocP ti [TimeP tk]]]]]]]
(157) [ForceP [FocP [WhP kogdai [WhP gdek …[IP [TimeP ti [LocP tk]]]]]]]
Still, we need a way of accounting for the free word order of all wh-phrases in
the Left Periphery in Slovenian. There seem to be two possible ways of doing this.
First, we could potentially continue with the line of reasoning proposed in Krapova
and Cinque (2005) or Rojina (2011) in that the order of wh-phrases in the Left
Periphery is determined prior to movement to the CP – that is, the order of whphrases is determined in the IP/Mittelfeld. The second way is to assume that
requirement on chains as proposed in Krapova and Cinque (2005) can be violated in
Slovenian.
Starting with the first possibility, we need first to establish what the Mittelfeld
is. The Mittelfeld is taken to be the area between the CP (the Vorfeld) and the VP.
The assumed Mittelfeld then looks like (158), as in (Laenzlinger and Soare 2004:
(3)). Note that I follow Laenzlinger and Soare (2004) in the structure below, and use
Sub(ject) and Obj(ect) to label grammatical projections in the tree. However, the
122
authors point out that SubjP corresponds to AgrsP and ObjP to AgroP, see
Laenzlinger and Soare (2004) for more on the given structure of the Mittelfeld.
(158) … MoodP
3
SubjP
3
S
Infl(P)
3
V
ObjP
3
O
ModeP
3
SubjP
3
S
Infl(P)
3
V
ObjP
3
O
AspP
…
Located in the Mittelfeld, following Laenzlinger and Soare (2005), are recursive Apositions and adverbs, which are, following Cinque (1999), located in different
semantic projections. Crucially, Laenzlinger and Soare (2005) assume the Full VP
Evacuation Principle according to which “all arguments must leave vP domain in
order to have their A-features (i.e. Case and phi-features) and I-features (i.e.
informational features such as topic, focus) checked/matched/assigned a value in the
overt syntax” (Laenzlinger and Soare 2005: 107, (2)).
Slovenian is an SVO language but exhibits free word order. Still, in (159) the
first option is the most unmarked while the remaining orders get a marked reading
(i.e. the first constituent is understood as focused). The marked readings are less
strong in embedded sentences, as in (160) below which shows the different word
orders of the subject and the dative and accusative objects. I assume that the material
between the complementizer da ‘that’ and the negation is the Mittelfeld.
(159) a.
Ivan piše
knjigo
Ivan writes book
o
kavi.
about coffee
‘Ivan is writing a book about coffee.’
b.
Knjigo o kavi piše Ivan.
123
c.
Knjigo o kavi Ivan piše.
d.
Ivan knjigo o kavi piše.
(160) a.
Jože pravi, da
Miha
Tonetu
ne
Jože says that Miha.NOM Tone.DAT not
piše pesmi.
write songs.GEN
‘Jože is saying that Miha is not writing songs for Tone.’
b.
Jože pravi, da Tonetu Miha ne piše pesmi.
c.
Jože pravi, da pesmi Miha Tonetu ne piše.
d.
Jože pravi, da pesmi Tonetu Miha ne piše.
If we then assume that Slovenian is in fact a language with free word order and
we continue to assume movement to the Mittelfeld, we can observe how the order of
wh-arguments is preserved. Because the word order is free in the IP, as (159) and
(160) show, it is also free in the CP. The derivation would then be similar to the
Russian example (155) schematized in (156) and (157). In this case the two adverbs
are located in different projections. In Slovenian the object and subject can also be
located in different positions in the Mittelfeld, but this is problematic, as I show
below. Still, different word order in the Mittelfeld means that two word orders can
arise in multiple wh-questions with an object and subject wh-phrase.
(161) a.
Zanima
ga,
kdo
komu
wonder
he.ACC
who.NOM who.DAT
piše
pesmi.
writes
songs
‘He wonders who writes songs for whom.’
b.
Zanima ga, komu kdo piše pesmi.
[WhP kdoi [WhP komuk …[IP [SubjP ti [ObjP
(162)
[ForceP
(163)
[ForceP [WhP komui [WhP kdok …[IP [ObjP
tk]]]]]]
ti [SubjP tk]]]]]]
As we can see, in (162) and in (163) the chain as a whole never intervenes, so
there is no violation of the requirement on chains. The word order from the
Mittelfeld is also preserved in both cases but the word order differs from one case to
another.
124
Based on this, however, the first problem emerges: If we assume the word
order from the Mittelfeld is preserved due to a requirement on chains, as proposed by
Krapova and Cinque (2005), this will account for the word order in the Vorfeld and
the data in Slovenian if we assume the word order in the Mittelfeld is free. But if the
word order in the Mittelfeld is free, this would indicate the requirement on chains can
be violated at least when movement to the Mittelfeld occurs. Multiple wh-questions
in which the subject wh-phrase precedes the object wh-phrase, as in (161a) above, are
not problematic. The subject precedes the object in the Mittelfeld and the
requirement of chains is not violated by movement to the CP or by the A-movement
to the Mittelfeld (if we assume the subject is merged in the vP, which is above VP,
which is where the object is merged). Movement from vP to the Mittelfeld (IP) is
shown in (164a). The problem occurs in a wh-question in which the object precedes
the subject. In order to get the ‘required’ word order in the Mittelfeld, we need the
object to move across the subject when movement from the vP proceeds. In this case,
the chain that is created by moving the subject intervenes between the object and its
trace, which should lead to ungrammaticality. Yet, as (161b) above shows, a question
in which the wh-object precedes the subject wh-phrase is completely acceptable. This
problematic movement from the vP to the Mittelfeld is shown in (164b).
(164) a. … [IP [SubjP kdoi
b. … [IP [ObjP
[ObjP
kajk [… [vP ti …[VP tk …]]]]]]
kajk [SubjP kdoi [… [vP ti …[VP tk …]]]]]]
The problem is then how to account for the fact that a requirement on chains
should hold during wh-movement (that is movement from the Mittelfeld to the CP)
and not during A-movement from the VP to the Mittelfeld.
The availability of the order preservation option can be tested using elements
that have a fixed position within the Slovenian Mittelfeld. As we have seen above,
the Mittelfeld consists of recursive A-positions and adverbs. These adverbs are
located in different semantic projections which have a fixed hierarchy (Cinque
1999). We will use adverbs which are located in the Mittelfeld to test if the order of
wh-phrases is preserved during wh-movement. Such wh-movement of adverbs is
125
possible, since, as Cinque (1999) notes, “some Adverb Phrases can undergo whmovement, while other, “higher” adverbs might resist this option. When forming
such questions, we are typically asking for a degree relating to the adverb. But
whether an adverb can be fronted is not related to the fact that an adverb can be
modified by a degree” (Cinque 1999, fn. 45). For example, Cinque (1999) notes that
courageously in English cannot be wh-fronted, while we can modify it with a degree.
In Slovenian, on the other hand, a wh-question can be formed with pogumno
‘courageously’, but not with an adverb such as the speaker oriented iskreno
‘honestly’, despite the fact that we can modify the degree of both adverbs.
(165) a.
He very courageously fought the aliens.
b. * How courageously has he fought the aliens?
(166) a.
Zelo pogumno
se
very courageously
self
je
AUX
bojeval
z
nezemljani.
fought
with aliens
‘He very courageously fought the aliens.’
b.
Kako pogumno
se
je
bojeval z
nezemljani?
how courageously self AUX fought with aliens
‘How courageously has he fought the aliens?’
(167) a.
Povsem
iskreno Miha piše knjigo.
completely honestly Miha writes book
‘Completely honestly, Miha is writing a book.’
b.
Kako iskreno
Miha piše knjigo?
how honestly
Miha writes book
# ‘How honest are you in saying that Miha is writing a book?’
‘How honest is Miha when writing his book?’
If we want to test whether the Mittelfeld word order is preserved, we need to
use questions with more than one wh-phrase. By now we have assumed a Mittelfeld
in which an argument can take a position between any of the semantic-functional
projections in which the adverbs are located. The position of these adverbs is fixed,
but the arguments can appear in different positions with respect to these adverbs. We
can then test the prediction that the order that wh-phrases have prior to movement to
the CP is preserved with questions in which both wh-phrases relate to the adverbs in
126
the Mittelfeld. If the word order from the Mittelfeld is indeed preserved, then we can
expect that wh-phrases that refer to the adverbs in the Mittelfeld will have a fixed
word order (if the chains cannot intervene in Slovenian). For example, (168) shows
that adverbs verjetno ‘probably’ and pogosto ‘often’ have a fixed order with respect
to each other. Example (169) shows that this word order is less fixed with wh-phrases
which refer to these adverbs.
(168) a.
Miha je
verjetno
Miha AUX probably
pogosto
obiskoval svojo mamo.
often
visited
self mother
‘Miha probably often visited his mother.’
b. * Miha je pogosto verjetno obiskoval svojo mamo.
(169) a. ? Kako verjetno
how probably
je
kako pogosto
Miha obiskoval svojo mamo?
AUX
how often
Miha visited
self mother
‘How probable is it that Miha how often visited his mother?’
b. ?? Kako pogosto je kako verjetno Miha obiskoval svojo mamo?
Based on these examples, the first observation is that a multiple wh-question
with two wh-phrases referring to the degree of an adverb is less grammatical than
multiple wh-questions with two argument wh-phrases. It is also clear that the order of
wh-phrases is less strict after wh-movement than it is before movement (based on my
judgements, (169b) is not completely unacceptable, despite the reverse word order).
This indicates that in Slovenian the order of wh-phrases in the Mittelfeld is not
necessarily preserved in the CP.
Because of this I will argue that it is not the case that word order in the
Mittelfeld has to be preserved. I will rather argue for the second option, that is,
Slovenian allows for violations of the requirement on wh-chains that Krapova and
Cinque (2005) propose for Bulgarian, repeated below in (170). In fact, the
requirement on chains also does not regulate focus or topic movement – I will return
to this below.
(170) (Krapova and Cinque 2005: (58))
Only a whole chain, not just a link of a chain, counts as an ‘intervener’.
127
This requirement is formulated based on Relativized Minimality (as in Rizzi
2001a) which is defined as in (171).70 Relativized Minimality explains a variety of
phenomena, including wh-islands. Given that we cannot find wh-island violations in
Slovenian, as we have already seen in section 3.1.2, we can see that Relativized
Minimality holds in Slovenian. I illustrate this below in (172):
(171) Relativized Minimality in the configuration:
…X…Z…Y…
X and Y cannot be connected by movement (or other local relations) if Z
intervenes between them, and Z is of the same structural type as X.71
(172) a. * Komu sprašuješ, kdo
kupuje
t
X
Z
Y
:
z_________________=_________________m
who asks
who buys
darilo?
gift
Intended: *‘For whom are you asking is who buying a gift.’
b. * Kdo sprašuješ komu kupuje darilo?
If Relativized Minimality did not hold in Slovenian, then we would expect
island violations, but as (172) shows this is not the case. Because the wh-phrase kdo
‘who’ intervenes between the moved wh-phrase komu ‘who.DAT’ and its trace, the
70
Relativized Minimality is not the only constraint on locality and similar conditions were postulated
within the Minimalist approach also. For example, in Chomsky (1995) the Minimal Link Condition
(MLC), (i), is proposed. In (i), ‘closer’ is defined as (ii), in which τ refers to the target of raising.
(i)
(ii)
Minimal Link Condition (Chomsky 1995: 311, (110))
K attracts α only if there is no β, β closer to K than α, such that K attracts β.
β is closer to K than α unless β is in the same minimal domain as (a) τ or (b) α.
As Rizzi (2004) notes, MLC differs from Relativized Minimality (RM) in that (i) it refers to a specific
syntactic operation Attract, (ii) it operates in the course of derivation (while RM operates on
representations), and (iii) it puts an emphasis on featural make up – in that the featural make up of the
intervener must be identical to the one of the target. The latter point was considered in the revised
proposal for RM, which is termed refers as Feature-Based Relativized Minimality in Rizzi (2011), see
fn. 72.
71
Structural types are: argumental (person, number, gender, case), quantificational (Wh, Neg,
measure, focus), modifier (evaluative, epistemic, Neg, frequentative, celerative, measure, manner) and
topic (Rizzi 1990).
128
sentence is ungrammatical.72 Relativized Minimality therefore holds in Slovenian,
but I suggest the extension of the condition on chains does not.
Pursuing this option, we do not have to assume the Full VP Evacuation
Principle (all arguments move to the Mittelfeld) which we needed in order to achieve
the correct word order with the ‘order preservation option’, but note that the outcome
does not change if we do assume it.73 The crucial point is that the wh-phrases can
then simply move in any word order.
For example, izpostaviti ‘expose’ is a verb that selects only the accusative
dative order in Slovenian (Marvin and Stegovec 2012), (173). Following Marvin and
Stegovec (2012), I assume that both wh-phrases are merged in the VP, where the
dative object is introduced by a non-overt P (see (175) below). Crucially, in a
multiple wh-question with the verb izpostaviti ‘expose’ in which we are questioning
both the accusative and the dative object, both word orders of fronted wh-phrases are
possible:
(173) a.
Zdravnik
je
izpostavil pacienta
virusu.
doctor
AUX
expose
virus.DAT
patient.ACC
‘The doctor exposed the patient to the virus.’
b. ?? Zdravnik
(174) a.
je
izpostavil virusu
Čemu
je
koga
what.DAT
AUX
who.ACC
pacienta.
zdravnik
izpostavil?
doctor
expose
72
Weak islands (i.e. islands out of which some elements can be extracted), on the other hand, can be
violated in Slovenian. This is not surprising given a later version of Relativized Minimality – the
Feature-Based Relativized Minimality, see Rizzi (2004, 2013).
(i)
Kaj si
rekel kako je
Maja zapela?
what AUX say how is
Maja sing
‘What did you say how she sang?’
Following Rizzi (2004), in Feature-Based Relativized Minimality only specifiers count as interveners
and specifiers are licensed by the features on their heads. Under this approach features fall in the same
groups as ‘structural types’ in fn. 71 and the notion ‘same structural type’ is replaced by “Spec
licensed by features of same class” (Rizzi 2004: (62)). In the grammatical example (i), we could argue
that the adverb kako ‘how’ does not count as an intervener as it does not licensed by the same features
as the moved wh-phrase. I will not discuss such cases here any further, but see Rizzi (2004, 2011) for
more examples.
73
The issue of phases emerges, but nothing changes if we consider vP and CP to be phases – whphrases can move through them in any possible word order. For now, I will ignore vP as a phase for a
simpler representation.
129
‘To what did the doctor expose whom?’
b.
Koga je čemu zdravnik izpostavil?
Assuming the underlying word order in (173) and that the direct and indirect
objects do not move to the Mittelfeld prior to wh-movement, two derivations are
possible.74 The derivation for (174a) is shown in (175c) and the derivation for the
word order of the wh-phrases in (174b) is shown in (175b):
(175) a. [WhP [whP ...[vP [v] [VP [V izpostavil] [[DP pacienta][PP <P> [DP virusu]]]]]]]
b. [WhP kogai [whP čemuk ...[vP [v] [VP [V izpostavil] [[DP ti][PP <P> [DP tk]]]]]]]
c. [WhP čemuk [whP kogai ...[vP [v] [VP [V izpostavil] [[DP ti][PP <P> [DP tk]]]]]]]
Because (175c) is grammatical despite a configuration in which a chain
intervenes between the target wh-phrase and the trace of the larger chain, we can
assume that the requirement on chains does not hold in Slovenian. But this also
means that we can expect that a requirement on chains in the sense of Krapova and
Cinque (2005) does not necessarily hold in all languages. A conclusion that a
language either does or does not obey the condition on chains leads to a further
prediction that a language which obeys the condition in wh-fronting will exhibit strict
word order in other types of movement, but a language that does not obey the
condition on chains in multiple wh-fronting will also exhibit free word order in other
phenomena.
This prediction is borne out if we look at Topicalization in Bulgarian. Lambova
(2003) shows that Bulgarian allows multiple instances of Topicalization. In these
cases, all topics must move to the beginning of the clause. Moved topics exhibit
superiority effects. This means the order of moved topics is strict, as we have
predicted based on multiple wh-fronting in Bulgarian.
74
Again, nothing changes if we assume movement to Mittelfeld – in this case wh-phrases move to and
from the Mittelfeld in any word order possible.
130
(176) Bulgarian (Lambova 2003: (35))
a.
Mama
decata
mom.TOP kids.TOP
šte
vodi na
will take to
cirk.
circus
‘Mom, the kids will take to the circus.’
b. * Decata mama šte void na cirk.
c. * Mama šte vodi decata na cirk.
In addition, having the condition on chains would also mean that Bulgarian
would not allow for scrambling, given that scrambling leads to the word order
variation. This is confirmed, since Bošković (2004) notes that Bulgarian does not
have scrambling.75
Slovenian, on the other hand, allows for Scrambling, as example (177) shows.
While it is hard to disambiguate between Scrambling and Focalization, I use the
example below as an example of Scrambling because it can be used in an all new
context in which, for example, somebody walks in a room and asks ‘What is going
on?’. This means that nothing is given (and therefore not a topic) and nothing needs
to be emphasized (as a focused phrase) for the sentence below to be an acceptable
answer. Because of this I will assume that arguments are scrambled in the embedded
clause. This means that again the requirement on chains does not hold in Slovenian.76
75
A different proposal was presented in Müller (2002) who claims that Bulgarian has scrambling,
based on examples such as (i). However, as Bošković (2008) notes, Bulgarian does not have Japanese
style scrambling, i.e. long distance scrambling from finite clauses (see Bošković 2008: fn. 5).
Example (i) would then not be relevant for his observation.
(i) Bulgarian (Müller 2002: (15)))
vratata2
a.
Ivan1 otvori
Ivan opened
door the
b.
Ivan1 vratata2 otvori t2
c.
Vratata2 Ivan1 otvori t2
76
Boškovič (2008) claims that “it is well-known that multiple top/foc is disallowed, while multiple
scrambling is allowed” (Bošković 2008: fn.16) in Slovenian. I am not aware of any such prohibition.
But given the similarities between topicalization and scrambling, it is impossible to say how both the
objects are moved to the clause initial position in (i). What is crucial for us is again, that they can be
moved in any possible order (cf. Bulgarian multiple topicalization in (176)).
(i)
a.
Paciente
bo
virusu
zdravnik
izpostavil.
Patients.ACC will virus.DAT
doctor
expose
‘The doctor will expose the patients to the virus.’
131
(177) a.
Janez
misli, da
Janez.NOM thinks that
je
Ivan
napisal pismo
Maji
AUX
Ivan.NOM wrote letter.ACC Maja.DAT
‘Janez thinks that Ivan wrote a letter to Maja.’
b.
Janez misli, da je Ivan pismo napisal Maji.
c.
Janez misli, da je Ivan Maji napisal pismo.
d.
Janez misli, da je Maji Ivan napisal pismo.
Because of the free word order in multiple wh-fronting and Scrambling, I
assume that wh-fronting in Slovenian is not regulated by the condition on chains (that
is, chains are not interveners for wh-movement). This means that wh-movement to
the CP can occur in any order possible. We have so far only accounted for the free
word order of wh-phrases in the Left Periphery, but the mechanism behind
movement still needs to be explained. Before this, an account has to also be given for
the fact that a wh-phrase needs to precede other elements in the Left Periphery (i.e.
topics and foci), which was shown in 3.4.4.
3.5 Obligatoriness of the clause initial wh-phrase
In section 3.4.4 we have already seen that a wh-phrase also needs to appear in a
clause initial position in questions in which all wh-phrases appear in the Left
Periphery of the clause for the question to be interpreted as a true multiple whquestion.77 We need to clarify why this is the case. I will argue that the reason for
this is Clause Typing which is defined as:
b.
Virusu
bo
paciente
zdravnik
izpostavil.
Similarly, it holds that at least one wh-phrase has to appear in the clause initial position in order for
the question to be interpreted as a true multiple wh-question and not, for example, an echo or a yes/noquestion. For instance, the question (i.e) would be interpreted as an echo question if the wh-phrases
were pronounced with an emphasis (this is true regardless of the word order of wh-phrases) or a
yes/no-question if the question would be pronounced with a rising intonation, which is generally
typical of Slovenian yes/no-questions. Examples (i.a) to (i.d), on the other hand, receive a true
question reading.
77
(i)
a.
Kaj
what.ACC
je
is
Maja kdaj komu
Maja when who.DAT
132
povedala?
tell
(178) Clausal Typing Hypothesis (Cheng 1991: 29 (9))
Every clause needs to be typed. In the case of typing a wh-question, either a
wh-particle in C0 is used or else fronting of a wh-word to the Spec of C0 is
used, thereby typing a clause through C0 by spec head agreement.
While clauses are typically subject to Clause Typing, I am here only concerned
with multiple wh-questions in Slovenian. Note that Cheng (1991) states that in
multiple wh-fronting languages, which Slovenian is, not all wh-phrases are fronted
for Clause Typing, but that fronting is related to the interrogative reading of whwords (I will return to this in chapter 5). While I agree that it is not the case that all
wh-phrases in Slovenian move to the beginning of the clause for Clause Typing, I
will assume that the movement of the wh-phrase that ends up in the clause initial
position is closely related to Clause Typing. If movement to any (or all) WhProjections were related to Clause Typing, then we would expect that a wh-phrase
could simply be moved to a Wh-Projection below, for example, a Topic or a Focus
Projection but the data we have examined shows that this is not the case. Rather
Clause Typing occurs in the highest projection that hosts wh-phrases. I will refer to
this projection as Interrogative Projection (Inter-P). Based on this we can modify the
schematics of the Left Periphery in (152) from section 3.4.4 as (179) below:78
(179) ForceP … InterP … (TopicP*) … (FocusP*) … (Wh-P*)
Such an Interrogative Projection was already proposed in Rizzi (2001a) for
Italian and Spanish, adopted also by Aboh and Pfau (2011) for Gungbe and
Dyakonova (2009) for Russian. But while Rizzi argues that only a small class of whphrases in Italian move to the Interrogative Projection (such as perche ‘why’), I
b.
c.
d.
e.
‘When did Maja tell what to whom?’
Kaj je Maja komu kdaj povedala?
Komu je Maja kaj kdaj/kdaj kaj povedala?
Kdaj je Maja kaj komu/komu kaj povedala?
# Maja je kdaj kaj komu povedala?
78
The starred projections are in the CP only when needed and the projections in brackets are
interchangeable when in the CP.
133
argue that there is no restriction on which wh-phrases can move to this projection in
Slovenian. But crucially, in a multiple wh-question, one wh-phrase has to appear in
the Interrogative Projection (i.e. this wh-phrase is clause initial).
Based on the evidence in section 3.4.5, I claim that Inter-P precedes all other
projections in the Left Periphery of the clause – with the exception of Force.79 I take
the Force Projection and Interrogative Projection to be two different projections
based on the assumption that Force conveys information relevant to the higher clause
and it is subject to the ‘higher selector’ (Rizzi 1997, 2001a).80 Assuming this and
based on the fact that Slovenian exhibits multiple wh-questions which can be
embedded under a declarative complementizer da ‘that’, which is required by the
matrix verb, I argue that Inter-P is separate from the ForceP. Examples such as (180)
are interpreted as embedded questions. Crucially, embedded questions are not true
wh-questions. For more arguments for separating Force from Interrogative Projection
see Rizzi (2001a).
(180) Maja je
Maja
AUX
rekla,
da
kdo
koga
said
that who.NOM who.ACC
tepe.
hits
Literally: ‘Maja said that who hits whom?’
Before continuing, note that I am not claiming that the wh-phrase in the
Interrogative Projection is responsible for Clause Typing. Rather I assume that
Clause Typing is achieved by the complex interpretable Q+wh-feature (Soare 2007)
which is located in the Interrogative Head. Because this complex feature also comes
with an EPP subfeature, a wh-phrase needs to be moved to SpecInterP in order to
check the features on the Interrogative Head, hence the close relation between Clause
Typing and wh-movement to the clause initial position. Note also, that I am not the
first to propose that overt wh-movement is not necessarily related to Clause Typing,
see also Aboh and Pfau (2011). More about the feature make up and motivation for
79
A similar proposal was made for Russian by Dyakonova (2009) who also places the Interrogative
Projection above the Topic Projection in Russian (but places a Frame Projection above InterP, see
Dyakonova 2009).
80
Rizzi (1997) claims that Clause Typing is done by the Force head, but see Rizzi (2001a) for
arguments why ForceP and InterP should be treated as two different heads.
134
movement in multiple wh-questions in Slovenian will be said in the following
section.
3.6 Wh-movement
In what follows, I assume, following Rizzi (1997, 2004), that a head of a projection
in the Left Periphery agrees with its specifier in that the two share the same feature
(and interpretation).81 I also assume that features that are located in the heads in the
Left Periphery are interpretable (see for example Cinque and Rizzi 2008) and
therefore visible at LF. And finally, I follow Soare (2007), and assume an
interpretable Q-feature (similar to the Q-operator) and a wh-feature. In this approach
there is a split between these two different features (see Soare (2007) for the
motivation for this split), but in some languages, such as English, Romanian, or
Slovenian, the two form a syncretic Q+wh-feature. In addition, in Soare’s (2007)
approach the Q- or the wh-feature can also have an EPP subfeature – when this
subfeature is present, the movement occurs and when there is no subfeature, no
movement happens.
The idea that all ‘real’ questions, both wh- and yes/no-, have a C projection
with an abstract question operator Q is not new, see also Katz and Postal (1964),
Baker (1970), Pesetsky (1987), Hagstrom (1998), den Dikken and Giannakidou
(2002), Cable (2010), etc. Typically, in these approaches it is this Q-operator that
turns a proposition into a question and it can be phonetically realized, as in Japanese
or Chinese, or not. Similarly, in Soare (2007) the Q-feature can be realized as an
overt Q-particle or not. Still, even when the Q-feature is not realized as a Q-particle,
it is responsible for typing the sentence as interrogative (i.e. Clause Typing does not
happen because of a moved wh-phrase, but because of the Q-feature). As for the whfeature, in Soare (2007) an interpretable unvalued wh-feature is also universally
81
Rizzi (2004) defines the Spec-Head relation that is crucial for feature checking as:
(i)
Rizzi (2004: (15))
Feature K is licensed (checked, valued…) on (H, XP) only if
(a)
XP is in a minimal configuration with H, and
(b)
c-command holds.
135
merged in the Focus head (together with the Q-feature). And finally, in this
approach, (interrogative) wh-phrases enter the derivation with an uninterpretable
valued wh-feature.
Based on this, Soare proposes a typology of languages that divides languages
on the basis of how languages form wh-questions. This typology also includes
languages in which the wh-feature and the Q-feature form a complex feature that
appears on a syncretic Focus head. Following Soare, this means that the two features
are fused and both appear on the same head (I will refer to this complex feature as
Q+wh-feature). Again, in these languages an EPP subfeature can be present (or not).
According to Soare, the EPP-subfeature of the Q+wh-feature is available in
languages with single wh-fronting (such as English or French cases with whmovement) or multiple wh-movement, such as Romanian or Bulgarian. Instances of
wh-in-situ in French are, following Soare, cases of complex Q+wh-feature with no
EPP-feature.
I propose that Slovenian is a language similar to Romanian and Bulgarian in
Soare’s typology, in that it forms a complex Q+wh-feature. This complex feature
appears on the Interrogative Head (and not on the Focus0 as proposed by Soare
(2007)) and comes with an EPP subfeature. Because of the EPP-subfeature,
movement of one wh-phrase, which comes with an uninterpretable wh-feature, to the
Specifier of the Interrogative Projection is obligatory. The complex Q+wh-feature on
the Interrogative Projection is also responsible for Clause Typing. This means that
the clause initial wh-phrase is simply a consequence of the clause typing Q+whfeature and is not itself responsible for the interpretation of a question as a whquestion but that Clause Typing and wh-movement are still closely related in
Slovenian.
In addition, Soare (2007) adopts the analysis of multiple wh-fronting in
Romanian presented in Laenzinger and Soare (2005) according to which Romanian
has wh-chunk movement. Wh-chunk is a structure consisting of only wh-phrases and
this chunk moves to a single projection. Specifically, under this approach whmovement in Romanian proceeds to SpecFocus where it enters into a multiple agree
relation with Foc0. While Soare (2007) makes no explicit claims about the nature of
multiple wh-movement in Bulgarian, I assume she is adopting the view from
Laenzinger and Soare (2005), according to which Bulgarian does not have wh-chunk
136
movement, but rather multiple movement to multiple Focus Projections, cf.
Grewendorf (2001) who proposes wh-chunk movement for Bulgarian. I propose that
Slovenian is also different Romanian in that it does not form wh-chunks, but rather
move each wh-phrase individually. This means that the remaining wh-phrases move
to the Wh-Projections.
Wh-heads of Wh-Projections come with interpretable wh-feature (and not a
complex Q+wh-feature) and an EPP-subfeature. Wh-phrases, which have an
uninterpretable valued wh-feature, agree with the Wh-heads, and move to SpecWhP
because of the EPP-feature. There are again no Superiority effects, which is not
problematic if we assume that chains do not have to be crossed in Slovenian, see
section 3.4.5.82 Below I show how the movement of wh-phrases proceeds (the
structure omits everything but the wh-movement). The reverse word order of both
wh-phrases is also available.
(181) a.
Koga
je
čemu
zdravnik
who.ACC
AUX
what.DAT doctor
izpostavil?
expose
‘Who did the doctor expose to what?’
b.
Čemu je koga izpostavil zdravnik?
82
Citko’s (2010) phase based approach to locality with which she accounts for the free word order of
wh-phrases in Polish short wh-movement also accounts for Slovenian. Under this approach locality is
evaluated at phase edges. Movement to the phase edge goes on in a tucking in fashion. Once on the
edge, wh-phrases can move in any order possible to the operator position, as operator movement frees
them from locality violations. This does, however, require further stipulation, that is: the Left
Periphery is located on top of a phase edge (a periphery is not equal to phase edge since wh-movement
to the Left Periphery is an instance of operator movement which means that wh-phrases in Clause
Internal or Left Periphery are not available for further movement due to operator freezing effect).
137
(182) a.
ForceP
2
Force’
2
Force0
InterP
2
Inter’
2
Inter0 Wh-P
[Q+wh] 2
[EPP]
Wh’
2
Wh0
FinP
[wh-]
2
[EPP]
Fin’
2
Fin
vP
Agree
6
kogai… čemuj
[wh]
[wh]
b. ForceP
2
C’
2
InterP
Force0
2
koga
Inter’
2
Inter0 Wh-P
[iQ+wh] 2
[EPP] čemu Wh’
2
Move
Wh0
FinP
[iwh-] 2
[EPP]
Fin0
2
Fin
vP
6
kogai… čemuj
[wh]
[wh]
Wh-fronting to the clause initial position therefore proceeds as one wh-phrase
(with an uninterpretable valued wh-feature) moves to check the interpretable
unvalued complex Q+wh-feature on the Interrogative Head which in addition hosts
an EPP-subfeature. The complex Q+wh-feature is also responsible for Clause Typing
in Slovenian. Wh-phrases in addition move to Wh-Projections in the Low or High
Periphery in which the Wh-Head has an interpretable wh-feature and the EPPsubfeature.
138
3.7 Summary
This section has argued against the analysis of multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian
based on the proposals by Rudin (1988) and Bošković (1997a et seq.) and argued for
an analysis of multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian in which wh-movement proceeds to
the extended Left Periphery of the sentence (the CP). I formulate this proposal based
on the analysis of Bulgarian and Russian by Krapova and Cinque (2005) and Rojina
(2011), respectively. It was shown that the word order of wh-phrases in the CP is
free, but that there are some preferences: zakaj ‘why’ and kako ‘how’ precede other
wh-phrases and [+human] subjects proceeds [+human] objects. I have argued that the
word order of wh-phrases in multiple wh-questions is free because the requirement
on chains which was proposed to regulate Bulgarian by Krapova and Cinque (2005)
does not hold in wh-fronting in Slovenian.
I proposed that wh-phrases in Slovenian move to two types of projections: the
Interrogative and the Wh-Projection. The Interrogative Projection hosts the
interpretable syncretic Q+wh-feature (also responsible for Clause Typing) and the
Wh-Projection the interpretable wh-feature. Both come with an EPP subfeature which
means that movement of wh-phrases to these projections is obligatory.
The central issue in this chapter was multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian in
which all wh-phrases move to the clause initial position. But as was shown in the
previous chapter, this is not the only type of multiple wh-question that one finds in
Slovenian, as wh-movement seems to be optional. Before turning to optional multiple
wh-fronting in Slovenian, I will first show that optional multiple wh-fronting is not a
result of restrictions on movement that have previously been used to account for whin-situ in multiple wh-fronting languages (e.g. Bošković 2002). I explore these
restrictions in the next chapter.
139
4 Restrictions on multiple wh-fronting: when a wh-phrase must
stay in situ
While multiple wh-fronting is said to be obligatory in multiple wh-fronting
languages, there are some exceptions to the rule. Multiple wh-movement is avoided
and a wh-phrase can stay in situ when movement would violate a certain restriction.
In this chapter I go over the phonological, semantic, and syntactic restrictions that
account for instances of wh-phrases in situ in multiple wh-fronting languages (based
on Bošković 2002). I show that these do not apply to Slovenian and therefore cannot
be responsible for the seemingly optional multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian. I end
the chapter with a restriction that does hold in Slovenian (and Serbo-Croatian) – the
Principle of Distinctness (Richards 2010).
4.1 Phonological restrictions
Bošković (1997b, 2001, 2002) observes that in Serbo-Croatian, wh-movement is
typically obligatory, but that wh-phrases do not have to move when they are
phonologically identical or similar (this observation is credited to Wayles Browne).
This contrast can be observed in (1), (2) and (3) below: (1b) is unacceptable, since
one wh-phrase stays in situ and this wh-phrase is not identical or similar to the moved
wh-phrase (if both move, the question is acceptable, (1a)). Example (2), following
Bošković (1997c), is not completely acceptable (he assesses it as reasonably
acceptable), because the two wh-phrases are phonologically similar and koga ‘who’
is not fronted to the beginning of the sentence. Crucially, example (3a) is completely
acceptable – because the two wh-phrases are homophonous, one must be left in situ.
If both homophonous wh-words are fronted and form a sequence, the question is
ungrammatical (or marginally acceptable if the second wh-phrase is heavily stressed,
see Bošković 2001), as in (3b). It has to be noted that not all speakers of SerboCroatian share these judgements and see examples like (3b) as completely acceptable
(it seems that this also holds for cases where the second wh-phrase is not heavily
stressed).
140
(1)
Serbo-Croatian (Bošković 1997c: (11a))
a.
Ko
šta
kupuje?
who what buys
‘Who buys what?’
b.
(2)
*Ko kupuje šta?
Serbo-Croatian (Bošković 1997b: (23a))
?Ko
je
who AUX
ubio koga?
killed who
‘Who killed who?’
(3)
Serbo-Croatian (Bošković 2002: (37), Bošković 2001b: 102, fn. 5)
a.
Šta
uslovljava šta?
what conditions what
‘What conditions what?’
b.
*Šta šta
uslovljava?
According to Bošković (2002) the same restriction against sequences of
homophonous wh-phrases also holds in Bulgarian and Russian, as shown below, and
also Romanian.
(4)
Bulgarian (Bošković 2002: (39a, b))
a.
Kakvo
obuslavlja kakvo?
what
conditions what
b. * Kakvo kakvo obuslavlja?
(5)
Russian (Bošković 2002: (39c, d))
a.
Čto obuslovilo čto?
what conditioned what
b. * Čto čto obuslovilo?
Examples (3), (4), and (5) show that sequences of homophonous wh-phrases
need to be avoided by leaving one wh-phrase in situ for the question to be
grammatical. When a such sequence is not formed and the homophonous wh-phrases
are divided by additional material, such as an adverb in example (6), both wh-phrases
141
must move (Bošković 2001b, 2002). Russian avoids sequences of identical whphrases in question (7) in a similar way: In Russian the copula is usually
phonologically null, but it has to be pronounced between homophonous wh-phrases
(Bošković 2001b: 103, fn. 6).
(6)
Serbo-Croatian (Bošković 2002: (38a, b))
a.
Šta
neprestano šta
uslovljava?
what constantly what conditions
‘What constantly conditions what?’
b. ?* Šta
(7)
neprestano uslovljava šta?
Russian (Bošković 2001: 103, (ii))
a.
Kto *(est’)
kto?
who
who
is
‘Who is who?’
b.
Kto (*est’) professor?
who
is
professor
‘Who is the professor?’
Bošković (2001b, 2002) accounts for the data with Franks’ (1998) proposal for
the deletion of copies in the PF. According to this proposal, the deletion of a tail of a
non-trivial chain in the PF is a preference. But when the pronunciation of the head
would lead to a PF violation, the lower copy is pronounced and the higher one is
deleted. Under this approach, both wh-phrases move because of their [+focus] feature
(see section 3.2), as shown in (8), but because the pronunciation of the higher copy
of the second šta would lead to a PF violation, the lower copy is pronounced, as
shown in (9). As in Bošković (2001b), I am also ignoring the lower copy of the first
šta ‘what’.83
83
A possible alternative analysis is presented in Bošković (2002): In accordance with Chomsky’s
(1995) Move F analysis, the second wh-phase only moves features, but leaves phonological features
behind (and the second wh-phrase is pronounced in situ). The first wh-phrase moves via phrasal
movement.
(i)
[FP Šta FF(štai) [uslovljava štai]]
142
(8)
[FP Šta Štai [uslovljava štai]]
(9)
[FP Šta Štai [uslovljava štai]]
Richards (2010), on the other hand, claims that the ungrammaticality of (3) is a
consequence of the Principle of Distinctness (see section 4.8). The two wh-phrases
have a syncretic form, which is visible when Distinctness applies, possibly because
of Impoverishment which deletes parts of the feature bundle (for example: in Greek,
the case feature is deleted when the feature neuter is present, see Richards 2010).84
Still, as Richards notes, not all languages are sensitive to syncretism (i.e. German)
possibly because in these languages syncretism is induced after lexical insertion.
Phonological restrictions limit movement in examples in which wh-phrases are
homophonous. To avoid sequences of homophonous wh-phrases, movement is
suppressed and one of the identical wh-phrases has a lower copy pronounced. The
question is then if such a restriction also holds for Slovenian.
4.2 Phonological restrictions in Slovenian
Restrictions against sequences of homophonous wh-words do not hold in Slovenian.
As (10a) shows, when both instances of kaj ‘what’ move, the question is
grammatical, but the second wh-phrase can stay in situ in these examples, (10b). The
same holds for examples in which the homophonous wh-words are divided by an
adverb (i.e. examples where both wh-phrases must move in Serbo-Croatian) – in
Slovenian the second wh-phrase can either move or stay in situ, (11).
(10) a.
Kaj kaj
povzroča?
what what causes
‘What causes what?’
84
According to Richards (2010), difficulties, which lead to Distinctness effects, arise for linearization
when two functional heads are indistinguishable. In Greek, such difficulties occur with nominative
and accusatives for neuter – regardless of whether the two DPs have the same phonological form or
not, see Richards (2010) for examples. To account for Greek data with nominative and accusative
neuter, Richards proposes Impoverishment, which in this case deletes the case feature, which makes
the two DPs distinguishable.
143
b.
(11) a.
Kaj povzroča
kaj?
Kaj vedno
kaj
what always
what brings
prinese?
‘What always brings what?’
b.
Kaj vedno prinese kaj?
Examples (10) and (11) show that optionality of Slovenian wh-fronting cannot
be explained with phonological restrictions. In addition, there are many examples of
questions with non-homophonous wh-phrases in which one of the phrases can stay in
situ, such as (12). Wh-in-situ in these examples cannot be accounted for with a
phonological restriction as described above.
(12) a.
Kdo
občuduje
who.NOM admires
koga?
who.ACC
‘Who admires whom?’
b.
Kdo koga občuduje?
4.3 Semantic restrictions
Following Bošković (2002), Serbo-Croatian (but also Russian and Bulgarian) is
limited by semantic restrictions which only apply to D(iscourse)-linked phrases. As
(13a) shows, a D-linked phrase stays in situ and the sentence is grammatical.
Example (13b) shows that the D-linked wh-phrase can (optionally) be fronted (which
again also holds in Russian, Polish, etc.). Even more, Bošković (2002) notes that
most Bulgarian speakers allow optional fronting of the D-linked wh-phrase, which is
shown in (14) – example (14a) shows the D-linked phrase in situ and example (14b)
the optionally fronted D-linked phrase.
(13) Serbo-Croatian (Bošković 2002: (26a), (27))
a.
Ko
je
kupio koju
knjigu?
who.NOM
AUX
bought which
book.ACC
‘Who bought which book?’
144
b. ? Ko je koju knjigu kupio?
(14) Bulgarian (Bošković 2002: (26b), (28))
a.
Koj
e
kupil
koja kniga?
who.NOM
AUX
bought
which book.ACC
‘Who bought which book?’
b.
Koj koja kniga e kupil?
Bošković (2002) accounts for Serbo-Croatian data and the contrast between
Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian (the contrast being that most Bulgarian speakers allow
fronting of D-linked phrases and that only some Serbo-Croatian speakers allow
optional fronting of D-linked phrases) with the motivation for wh-fronting in these
languages. Bošković assumes that in Serbo-Croatian, as was shown in section 3.2,
wh-movement is essentially focus movement and wh-phrases are focused. On the
other hand, D-linked phrases are present in the discourse and an answer to a D-linked
phrase is limited to familiar objects. Because they are already given, they are not
focused and therefore cannot undergo focus movement. When they are fronted, as in
(13b), this is the result of optional scrambling.85 In Bulgarian, on the other hand, wh85
This proposal would predict that D-linked phrases in single questions in Serbo-Croatian do not have
to move. But Bošković (2002) states that it is not completely clear if D-linked phrases in single
questions move, as example (i) is degraded, but not fully unacceptable:
(i)
Serbo-Croatian (Bošković 2002: (32))
?? On
je kupio
koju knjigu?
he
is bought
which book
‘He bought which book?’
Bošković suggests that such examples are degraded because they are not clause typed as interrogative
sentences (in the sense of Cheng 1997) – Clause Typing in Serbo-Croatian is done via fronting of the
wh-phrase (Bošković notes that the wh-phrase needs to be pronounced in the highest phonological
realized projection in overt syntax) and this can be achieved through scrambling or wh-movement, the
latter because of the parallels between French and Serbo-Croatian that Bošković claims to exist (see
section 3.2).
While I do not plan to devote much attention to single questions in Slovenian, it needs to be
noted that single questions with D-linked phrases in situ in Slovenian receive an echo-interpretation or
a yes/no-interpretation:
(ii)
a.
b.
Katero
knjigo
je
which
book
AUX
‘Which book did he buy?’
# Kupil je katero knjigo?
kupil?
buy.3SG
145
movement is not focus movement, but rather movement to check the [+wh] feature.
Since none of the wh-phrases move for focus reasons, it is not surprising that a Dlinked phrase in Bulgarian can move (however, it is surprising that this movement is
only an option).
Optionality of scrambling also explains why some speakers find (15) below
grammatical (but marked):
(15) Koju
which
knjigu
je
ko
kupio?
book
AUX
who bought
‘Who bought which book?’
To summarize: Semantic restrictions described in Bošković (2002) account for
non-fronting of D-linked phrases in languages in which wh-phrases undergo focus
fronting. The question is, whether these restrictions also apply in Slovenian.
4.4 Semantic restrictions in Slovenian
D-linked phrases in Slovenian can stay in situ, (16a), or move, (16b). In addition, as
(16c) shows, the order of fronted wh-phrases is free.
(16) a.
Kdo
je
poljubil
katero
punco?
who.NOM
AUX
kissed
which
girl.ACC
‘Who kissed which girl?’
b.
Kdo je katero punco poljubil?
c.
Katero punco je kdo poljubil?
If we were to adopt the proposal for multiple wh-fronting for languages that do
not exhibit Superiority (like Slovenian) given by Bošković (see section 3.2), this
would lead us to the conclusion that Slovenian wh-fronting is an instance of focus
fronting. Given the fact that D-linked phrases are not focused, we would expect that
D-linked phrases do not move in Slovenian. This expectation is not fulfilled, as Dlinked phrases can move in Slovenian. This means that the semantic restrictions
146
described in Bošković (2002) cannot account for optionality of Slovenian multiple
wh-fronting.86
However, it was shown in section 3.2.2 that there are several problems with
this account. Because of this a different approach was assumed, under which whfronting in Slovenian is not an instance of focus fronting. I have argued that multiple
wh-fronting in Slovenian is an instance of wh-movement. Assuming this, neither whin-situ nor wh-fronting with D-linked wh-phrases can be considered a result of a
restriction on movement, but rather a consequence of some other factor (see chapter
5).
In addition, non-D-linked phrases can also stay in situ in Slovenian, (17a).
Since these wh-phrases are not D-linked, such examples cannot be accounted for
with semantic restrictions on movement, which were described above.
(17) a.
Kdo
je
poljubil
koga?
who.NOM
AUX
kissed
who.ACC
‘Who kissed whom?’
b.
Kdo je koga poljubil?
From these examples we can conclude that the semantic restrictions described in
Bošković (2002) cannot account for optionality of Slovenian multiple wh-fronting.
86
Note that Slovenian also behaves differently with respect to non-wh-focus phrases. While these
have to move in Serbo-Croatian, (i), they do not have to move to a clause initial position in Slovenian.
(i)
(ii)
Serbo-Croatian (Bošković 2002: (17))
a.
JOVANA
savjetuje.
Jovan.ACC advises
‘(S)he advises Jovan.’
b. ?* Savjetuje JOVANA.
Slovenian
a.
JOŽETU
svetuje.
Jože.ACC
advises
‘(S)he advises Jože.’
b.
Svetuje JOŽETU.
147
4.5 Syntactic restrictions
According to Bošković (2002), syntactic restrictions are restrictions which apply to
non-Relativized Minimality islands (i.e. non-wh-islands) in languages such as
Romanian.
Following Chomorovski (1996), in Romanian, echo wh-phrases must always
front – this also holds for contexts in which non-echo wh-phrases cannot move. The
contrast is shown below – a non-D-linked wh-phrase cannot be extracted out of a whisland in Romanian – this is the reason why (18a) is ungrammatical. If the whquestion receives an echo intonation, the question is acceptable, (18b):
(18) Romanian (Comorovski 1996: 60, (10))
a. *[Cei [nu
what not
știi
[cinej [ej
you-know who
a
spus ei ]] ] ] ?
has
said
a
spus ei ]] ] ] ?
has
said
(standard question intonation)
b.
[Cei [nu
știi
[cinej [ej
what not
you-know who
(echo-question intonation)
Following Comorovski (1996), Bošković shows that syntactic restrictions
apply to echo wh-phrases within non–Relativized Minimality islands (i.e. non-whislands) in Romanian. So while echo wh-phrases must move in Romanian (at least in
some dialects), as (19) shows for matrix and embedded questions and as (18b) shows
for wh-islands, they stay in situ in non-wh-islands. This is shown in (21) for a
complex NP island. Overt wh-movement of non-echo wh-phrases from an island is
not allowed in either overt or true questions, (20).
(19) Romanian (Bošković 2002: (53), p. 376, fn. 44: (i))
a. * Ion
Ion
b.
a
adus
CE?
has
brought
what
*Ion crede
Ion
believes
că
Petru a
that Petru has
cumpărat
CE?
bought
what
148
(20) (Comorovski 1996: (12a))
* Cei
vă
intrigă
what you intrigues
zvonul
că
ar
fi
cumpărat ei?
rumour-the
that he-may
be
bought
(21) (Comorovski 1996: (13a))
Vă
intrigă
zvonul
you intrigues
că
ar
rumor-the that he-may
fi
cumpărat
CE?
be
bought
what
‘You are intrigued by the rumor that he may have bought what?’
Bošković (2002) assumes that islandhood is syntactic in nature and based on
this claims that the grammaticality of (21) can be accounted for under the Move F
analysis (feature movement is not subject to non–Relativized Minimality islands but
phrasal movement is): Full phrasal movement of the echo wh-phrase is not possible,
(20), but the wh-phrase can undergo feature movement, as in (21) (for more see
Bošković 2002).
4.6 Non-wh-islands as restriction on Slovenian
In Slovenian, echo wh-phrases can stay in situ or move in matrix questions:
(22) a.
KOGA
je
Hilda podkupila?
who
AUX
Hilda bribe
‘Hilda bribed WHO?’
b.
Hilda je
podkupila
KOGA?
Furthermore, Slovenian does not allow wh-fronting from syntactic islands for either
wh-phrases or echo wh-phrases. This means that syntactic restrictions described in
Bošković (2002) always apply in Slovenian:
(23) a. ? Janez
Janez
je slišal
AUX
heard
govorico, da je
Petru
rumor
Peter.DAT bought what
that AUX
‘Janez heard the rumor that Peter has bought what?’
b.
Janez je slišal govorico, da je Petru kupil KAJ?
149
kupil kaj?
(24) a. * Kaj je
Janez
What AUX Janez
slišal govorico,
da
heard rumor
that
je
Petru
kupil?
AUX
Peter.DAT bought
b. * KAJ je Janez slišal govorico, da je Petru kupil?
Since echo wh-phrases do not obligatorily front in Slovenian, it is not an
exception that they can stay in situ in complex NP islands. The kind of syntactic
restrictions that hold for Romanian do not apply in Slovenian. In addition, as the
examples in previous sections have shown, a non-echo wh-phrase can stay in situ in
questions without islands, so this type of restriction cannot account for all the
available Slovenian data.
4.7 The Principle of Distinctness as a restriction on multiple wh-movement
Languages display differences in the morphological dissimilation effects that they
use to avoid accidental repetition of elements, because of the general prohibition
against elements of the same type appearing too close together. These constraints
“operate on both form and content of morphemes, banning adjacent identity within a
circumscribed domain” (Nevins 2012: 84). Such restrictions are known as repetition
avoidance, morphological dissimilation, haplology, anti-homophony or the
morphological OCP (Nevins 2012). One constraint of this kind is the Principle of
Distinctness (Richards 2010).
Richards (2010) bases his theory on the idea that some properties of syntax
follow from the interaction between syntax and phonology, specifically from the ban
which prohibits elements of the same type to be close together. In order to explain
this ban, Richards assumes (following Chomsky 2000, 2001) that Spell-Out occurs
cyclically during the derivation after the completion of strong phases, where strong
phases include vP, CP, PP, and KP87 (i.e. Kase Phrase, the highest projection of the
noun phrase). After each strong phase the material is sent to PF (Spell-Out domain)
through Spell-Out.
87
When talking about English, Richards (2010) focuses on DPs. Here I will also be looking at DPs
(and not KPs).
150
Richards (2010) also assumes that the head of a phase and its specifier (i.e. the
edge) are a part of the following phase for the purposes of the calculation of
distinctness, since they are linearized with the material of the higher phase (Chomsky
2000). Following Chomsky (2000), he also assumes that trees generated by syntax do
not contain information about linear order and that linearization of nodes is
performed by the operation of Spell-Out. It is also assumed that linearization is
achieved by a version of the Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA) as proposed by
Kayne (1994), by which a total order of terminals within a Spell-Out domain (phase)
is established.
Based on these assumptions, Richards (2010) formulates the Principle of
Distinctness:
(25) Principle of Distinctness (Richards 2010: (5))
If a linearization statement <α,α> is generated, the derivation crashes.
According to (25), a linearization statement is only interpretable when the nodes in
the linearization statement are distinct from each other. Two nodes of the same type
(i.e. <α, α>) in an asymmetric c-command relation cannot be linearized in the same
Spell-Out domain. For example: the linearization statement <DP, DP>, which comes
from the linearization of the structure in (26) in which XP does not stand for any of
the strong phases (i.e. vP, CP, PP, or KP)88, cannot be linearized and causes a crash:
(26)
XP
3
DP
X’
John 3
X
DP
Mary
Richards (2010) also states that Distinctness only affects functional heads
which enter the derivation as feature bundles and that Distinctness effects arise
before vocabulary insertion. Functional heads are therefore represented only as
88
When X stands for one of the strong phases the linearization is not problematic: Since the head of a
phase and its specifier are linearized with the material of the higher phase, the two DPs are not
linearized in the same phase and the derivation is successful.
151
feature bundles and, according to Richards (2010), languages are different with
respect to the richness of feature bundles and can be divided into two groups. The
first group includes languages such as English, in which being of the same type
means having nodes with the same label (e.g. <DP, DP>). Other languages are,
according to Richards (2010), sensitive to the value of features which DPs have, for
example case and gender. An example of a violation of the Principle of Distinctness
in English is shown in (27), which shows sentences with exceptives:
(27) (Richards 2010: (6a), (7a))
a.
Every man danced with every woman, except John with Mary.
b. * Every man danced with every woman, except John Mary.
In (27) both remnants are DPs, both are in the same Spell-Out domain and
form a linearization statement <DP, DP>. The ungrammaticality of (27b) follows
from the Principle of Distinctness – two nodes in one Spell-Out domain are of the
same type, which means that they cannot be distinguished from each other. They thus
cannot be linearized and the linearization statement causes a crash. Example (27a)
however is acceptable – the Principle of Distinctness is not violated since the two
remnants are not of the same type – since PP is also a phase, linearization only sees a
DP and a PP, which gives the linearization statement <DP, PP>.
Richards (2010) notes that there are languages which allow multiple DPs in a
single phase of the derivation. Among these are languages such as Japanese, German,
Dutch, and Greek. For example, in Japanese case features make two DPs distinct, as
shown below.
(28) (Richards 2010: (89a, b))
a.
[Sensei-o
hihansita] gakusei-ga
koko-ni
oozei
iru
teacher.ACC
criticized
student.NOM
here.DAT
many
be
kedo, dare-ga
dare-o
ka
oboeteinai
Q
remember.NEG
but
who.NOM who.ACC
‘There are lots of students here who criticized teachers, but I don’t
remember who criticized who.’
152
b. * [Sensei-ga
teacher.NOM
suki na]
gakusei-ga
koko-ni
oozei
iru
like
student.NOM
here.DAT
many
be
kedo,
dare-ga
but
who.NOM who.NOM Q
dare-ga
ka
oboeteinai
remember.NOM
‘There are lots of students here who like teachers, but I don’t remember
who likes who.’
The sentence in (28a) is an example of multiple sluicing in Japanese and is
completely acceptable, despite the fact that there are two DP remnants. Richards
claims that the acceptability can be accounted for with the Principle of Distinctness:
since the two DPs have different case features (nominative and accusative), example
(28a) is acceptable. When the two DPs have the same case feature, as in (28b), the
sentence is unacceptable – following Richards, the two DPs are not sufficiently
distinct to appear in the same phase of the derivation.
Principle of Distinctness also works on multiple wh-fronting languages, as
shown by Richards (2010). Richards (2010) discusses the influence of Distinctness
on Serbo-Croatian, but claims that Serbian and Croatian display differences with
respect to which features in the two languages make fronted DPs distinct (because of
this I will treat the two separately in this section).
In Serbian, case makes DPs distinct, but gender does not:
(29) Serbian (Richards 2010: (106))
a. * Kojem
je
čovjeku
which.DAT AUX man.DAT
kojem dječaku
mrsko
which boy.DAT boring
pomogati?
help.INF
‘Which man doesn’t feel like helping which boy?’
b. * Kojem
je
čovjeku
which.DAT AUX man.DAT
kojoj ženi
mrsko
which woman.DAT boring
pomogati?
help.INF
‘Which man doesn’t feel like helping which woman?’
c.
Kojem
je
čovjeku
which.DAT AUX man.DAT
kojeg dječaka
mrsko
pozdraviti?
which boy.GEN
boring
greet.INF
‘Which man doesn’t feel like greeting which boy?’
153
In (29a) both fronted DPs are dative and both have the same gender feature
(masculine). The sentence is, according to Richards (2010), ungrammatical and it
seems that this is not because both gender features are the same, but rather because
of the same case feature. We can conclude this by comparing (29a) to (29b) in which
the DPs have the same case feature (dative), but different gender feature (masculine
and feminine), which has no effect on the grammaticality (i.e. (29b) is
ungrammatical). In (29c), on the other hand, the two DPs are both masculine, but
have different case feature (dative and genitive) – the sentence is, according to
Richards (2010), completely acceptable, which suggests that being distinguishable
(or distinct) by case, but not gender, is more important in Serbian.
Croatian acts slightly differently from Serbian and the judgements for
examples which are comparable to the ones in Serbian are different.
(30) Croatian (Richards 2010: (107a), (109), (108))
a. ?? Kojem
which.DAT
je
čovjeku
kojem dječaku
pomoči?
AUX
man.DAT
which boy.DAT
help.INF
‘Which man is to help which boy??’
b. ? Kojem
which.DAT
je
čovjeku
kojoj ženi
pomoči
AUX
man.DAT
which woman.DAT
help.INF
‘Which man is to help which woman?’
c.
Kojem
je
čovjeku
which.DAT AUX man.DAT
kojeg dječaka
pozdraviti?
which boy.GEN greet.INF
‘Which man is to greet which boy?’
In (30a), the two DPs have the same case and gender features (dative,
masculine) and the sentence is almost unacceptable (the differences in the
acceptability are very subtle). But as shown in (30b), the sentence improves if the
two DPs differ at least in gender. Case seems to play a crucial role here too, since
(30c) in which the two DPs have different case but the same gender is completely
acceptable. Since (30b) is less acceptable than (30c), we can conclude that it is more
important to have different case than to only differ in gender in Croatian.
The crucial observation based on the data presented in Richards (2010) is that
in multiple wh-fronting languages two fronted DPs must have distinct features for the
154
sentence to be completely acceptable. When the two DPs have similar features, the
sentence is less grammatical (as in (30a) for Croatian). But, as Richards notes, there
are mechanisms used to avoid Distinctness violations. These mechanisms include
adding and deleting structure and suppressing movement. According to Richards
(2010), suppressing movement is the mechanism used in multiple wh-fronting
languages, as shown for Croatian:
(31) Croatian (Richards 2010: (107b))
Kojem
je
čovjeku
which.DAT AUX man.DAT
pomoči
kojem
dječaku?
help.INF
which.DAT boy.DAT
‘Which man is to help which boy?’
If we compare (30a) and (31), we can see that (30a), in which both wh-phrases
have the same case and gender and both move to a clause initial position and are
therefore in the same phase of the derivation, is less acceptable than (31), in which
movement is suppressed. Avoiding movement of the lower wh-DP divides the two
DPs in different phases of the derivation, which means they do not form a
linearization statement and Distinctness is not violated (Richards 2010).
The Principle of Distinctness can then be taken as a restriction on multiple whmovement that is similar to semantic or phonological restrictions described in
Bošković (2002). As with phonological and semantic violations, a violation of the
Principle of Distinctness can also be avoided by not moving all wh-phrases to a
clause initial position, i.e. leaving one wh-phrase in situ. But contrary to
phonological and semantic restrictions, the Principle of Distinctness also holds in
Slovenian, as I will show in the next section.
4.8 The Principle of Distinctness as a restriction on Slovenian
In this section, I will show how Principle of Distinctness restricts multiple whmovement in Slovenian. In what follows I will be assuming that all wh-phrases move
to the Left Periphery of the clause and are located in the same phase of the
derivation. Assuming this and the Principle of Distinctness as defined in Richards
155
(2010), we can predict that the Principle of Distinctness restricts wh-movement in
Slovenian. I tested this prediction with an experiment and the results show that it is
borne out.
Slovenian acceptability judgements were gathered from fifteen speakers in a
small experiment. The list of examples consisted of multiple wh-fronting examples
that had different case, gender and animacy combinations, but also multiple whsluicing examples and fillers. The experiment included 36 examples of multiple whfronting, 9 examples of multiple sluicing which I am leaving aside (but see Mišmaš
2013), and 34 grammatical and ungrammatical fillers. The fifteen speakers were
asked to judge the sentences using a 1 to 5 scale, 5 being completely acceptable and
1 being completely unacceptable. Examples were recorded and the speakers assessed
the sentences after hearing them. They also had the sentences written down on a
sheet of paper on which they wrote down their judgements. As was reported for
Croatian examples in Richards (2010), the differences in the acceptability are subtle
but noticeable.
In order to determine whether adjacency in linearization (being in the same
phase) is one of the crucial factors for acceptability of Slovenian multiple whquestions, the tested examples had either both wh-phrases fronted or just one of the
wh-DPs fronted (only examples with two wh-phrases were tested). In addition we
tested how different grammatical features influence the acceptability of multiple whquestions.
Starting with the influence of features: Given that case appears to be the most
important feature in Serbian and Croatian (according to Richards 2010), we can first
compare examples with the same or different case features on the fronted whphrases. Looking at the results, the first observation is that sentences with two whDPs which have the same case feature (all other features being the same) are in
general less acceptable than sentences with DPs which have different case features.
For example: questions with double datives got grades from 2.6 up to 3.3 (where the
number is the average grade an example was given) while sentences with one dative
DP and one genitive DP got responses from 3.2 up to 3.7.89
89
We are interested in the contrast in the acceptability of examples with different values of features,
so the marks (i.e. whether an example is graded by a star or a question mark) are assigned relative to
each other (and not based on a certain scale).
156
(32) ??Kateri punci
[which girl]DAT.F
kateri tetki
ni
zoprno
pomagati?
[which aunt]DAT.F
not-be annoying help.INF
‘Which girl is not annoyed to help which aunt?’
(33) ?Kateri punčki
[which girl]DAT.F
katere starke
ni
zoprno
narisati?
[which old-lady]GEN.F not-be annoying draw.INF
‘Which girl is not annoyed to draw which old-lady?’
Example (33) got an average grade of 3.5 and is thus more acceptable than
(32), which got an average grade of 3. From the point of view of the Principle of
Distinctness this is not surprising assuming that case is relevant in distinguishing
DPs in Slovenian. The linearization statement of (32) is <[DP, DAT, F] [DP, DAT,
F]>, while for (33) it is <[DP, DAT, F] [DP, GEN, F]>. In (33) the case feature is
responsible for making the two DPs distinguishable from each other.90
After observing the general difference between examples with DPs with
different case features and DPs which have the same case feature, we can turn our
attention to examples with the same case features. Looking at the gender feature, we
can observe that examples with the same case and different gender features seem to
be slightly more acceptable than the ones with the same case and same gender DPs:
(34) ??Kateremu fantu
[which boy]DAT.M
je
kateremu dedku
zoprno pomagati?
AUX
[which grandfather]DAT.M
annoying help.INF
‘Which boy is annoyed by helping which grandfather?’
(35) ?Kateremu starčku
[which old-man]DAT.M
je
kateri teti
zoprno pomagati?
AUX
[which aunt]DAT.F
annoying help.INF
‘Which boy is annoyed by helping which aunt?’
90
The data from the acceptability judgement test is also an argument against the structure of
Slovenian matrix questions with multiple wh-fronting which was proposed by Golden (1997a), which
was shown in section 3.1.1. Since we have assumed the Principle of Distinctness as proposed by
Richards (2010), the graded acceptability of Slovenian multiple wh-questions can only be accounted
for if both wh-phrases are in a single phase of the derivation, which is not the case for the structure
proposed by Golden (1997a) – in this structure one wh-phrase would be in the CP and therefore on the
edge of the phase which means it would be linearized with material of the higher phase. Movement of
all wh-phrases to one phase, however, can account for the data – all the DPs are in a single phase of
the derivation and the Principle of Distinctness can apply, which it does.
157
A sentence comparable to (35) got an average response of 3, while (34) got an
average response of 2.6. If we compare the linearization statements of the two
examples, we can see that in (34) the linearization statement is <[DP, DAT, M] [DP,
DAT, M]>, while in (35) it is <[DP, DAT, M] [DP, DAT, F]>. This means that in
(35) the gender feature plays a part in the computation of distinctness since the
statements with different gender features are more acceptable than the ones with the
same gender features.
Number also has an influence on the acceptability of examples in which DPs
have the same case and gender features – such as (34). The influence of number was
not tested in the experiment, but the intuition of a few speakers is that sentences (36)
and (37) are more acceptable than (34):
(36) ?Kateremu fantu
[which boy]DAT.M.SG
je
katerim dedkom
zoprno pomagati?
AUX
[which grandfather]DAT.M.PL annoying help.INF
‘Which boy is annoyed by helping which grandfathers?’
(37) ?Katerim fantom
[which boy]DAT.M.PL
je
kateremu dedku
zoprno pomagati?
AUX
[which grandfather]DAT.M.SG annoying help.INF
‘Which boys is annoyed by helping which grandfather?’
In (36) the linearization statement is <[DP, DAT, M, SG] [DP, DAT, M, PL]>
and in (37) <[DP, DAT, M, PL] [DP, DAT, M, SG]>. These examples are more
acceptable than (34) which suggest that number is a feature that can make DPs
distinct, but since the sentences are less acceptable than examples with different case
feature this suggests that number has a lesser influence on acceptability.
The influence of grammatical animacy was tested with double accusatives, as
grammatical animacy can only be observed in Slovenian on masculine DPs in
accusative singular (Toporišič 2004), but we cannot make any conclusions about the
influence of grammatical animacy. Double accusatives in which both wh-DPs have
an inanimate grammatical feature (regardless of whether the two DPs were close or
in different phases) were judged the worst with an average of 1.8:
158
(38) *Kateri računalnik
[which computer].ACC.M.-AN
uči
programer
kateri
teach programmer.NOM.M [which
teorem?
theorem].ACC.M.-AN
‘Which computer is being taught which theorem by the programmer?’
(39) *Kateri računalnik
[which computer].ACC.M.-AN
kateri teorem
uči
[which theorem].ACC.M.-AN teaches
programer?
programmer.NOM.M
‘Which computer is being taught which theorem by the programmer?’
As both (39) and (38)91 were given comparably low grades (example (39) got
on average 1.8), (39) seems to be unacceptable for reasons outside of the Principle of
Distinctness. I claim that these sentences are not ungrammatical because of the
Principle of Distinctness because of example (38) in which the two DPs are not in
one phase of the derivation and the sentence is still unacceptable. One possible
explanation for the ungrammaticality of examples (38) and (39) is the verb used in
these examples. That is, double accusatives in Slovenian occur with the verb učiti ‘to
teach’ and it seems that sentences where both the ‘what is being taught’ and ‘who is
being taught’ are inanimate objects are lexically not preferred.
An argument that sentences such as (38) and (39) are ungrammatical for
reasons outside of the Principle of Distinctness (assuming the principle holds) is also
that changing the number feature has no effect on the acceptability of these sentences
(grammatical number was not tested in the experiment):
(40) *Kateri računalnik
uči
programer
[which computer].ACC.M.-AN.SG teach programmer.NOM.M
katere teoreme?
[which theorem].ACC.M.-AN.PL
‘Which computer is being taught which theorem by the programmer?’
91
Example (38) was not tested with speakers, but a comparable example was. Based on the tested
example, which got an average judgement of 1.9, a mark was assigned to (38).
159
(41) *Kateri računalnik
katere teoreme
uči
[which computer].ACC.M.-AN.SG [which theorem].ACC.M.-AN.PL
teaches
programer?
programmer.NOM.M
‘Which computer is being taught which theorem by the programmer?’
Sentences with DPs with different number features are still unacceptable and if
we assume that having at least one different feature on DPs is enough for a sentence
to be acceptable this would mean that example (41), with two inanimate accusative
DPs, is unacceptable for reasons not related to the Principle of Distinctness (in (41)
the linearization statement is <[DP, ACC, M, -AN, SG] [DP, ACC, M, -AN, PL]>).
Grammatical animacy feature still has some influence, and the sentence in (42) is
more acceptable than examples (38) and (39), with an average acceptability of 3.3:
(42) ?Katerega učenca
kateri teorem
uči
profesor?
[which student].ACC.M.+AN [which theorem].ACC.M.-AN teaches professor
‘Which girl is the professor teaching which subject?’
This sentence is more acceptable, but, again, it is not clear whether this is
because of lexical reasons related to the verb učiti ‘to teach’ (one DP is naming the
person who is being taught, the other the subject which is taught) or is it because of
the distinctness – since the two DPs have different linearization statements: <[DP,
ACC, M, +AN] [DP, ACC, M, -AN]>.
Looking at the Slovenian data from a very general perspective, one thing is
clear: The Principle of Distinctness has an influence on acceptability of Slovenian
multiple wh-fronting. This is clear, as examples with fronted DPs with the same
features are less acceptable than examples with DPs with distinct features. It can also
be observed that different features have a different influence on acceptability, for
example: if two DPs have different cases and the same gender, these examples are
generally more acceptable than examples in which two DPs have the same case but
different gender features. This suggests a hierarchy of features (see Mišmaš 2013),
but crucially for us: The Principle of Distinctness affects Slovenian multiple wh160
fronting. Also, as Richards (2010) shows for Croatian, a violation of the Principle of
Distinctness can be avoided by suppressing movement of one of the wh-phrases.
We also tested with speakers whether sentences with two wh-DPs that have
indistinguishable features are more acceptable if not all wh-phrases are fronted.
According to Richards (2010), suppressing movement is one of the mechanisms used
to avoid Distinctness violations, as shown above for Croatian. This is possible since
avoiding movement of the lower wh-phrase divides the two DPs in different phases
of the derivation, which means they do not form a linearization statement and
Distinctness is not violated (Richards 2010).
Example (43) shows that this holds for Slovenian. If we compare example (43),
in which the two DPs have the same case and gender feature and only one wh-phrase
is fronted to clause initial position, to example (32), repeated below in (44), in which
the two DPs have the same case and gender feature but both wh-phrases are fronted
to a clause initial position, we can see that speakers fully accept (43) but not (44).
Since the only difference between the two examples is whether both or only one whphrase moves, I take this to be the reason for different acceptability.
(43)
Kateri punci
ni
which girl]DAT.F not-be
zoprno
pomagati kateri tetki?
annoying help.INF
[which aunt]DAT.F
‘Which girl is not annoyed to help which aunt?
(44)
?? Kateri punci
kateri tetki
ni
[which girl]DAT.F [which aunt]DAT.F not-be
zoprno
pomagati?
annoying help.INF
‘Which girl is not annoyed to help which aunt?’
This suggests that avoiding movement can improve the grammaticality of
Slovenian multiple wh-questions with wh-phrases that have indistinguishable
features. It also means that the Principle of Distinctness is a restriction that affects
Slovenian multiple wh-fronting – violations of the Principle of Distinctness are
avoided by leaving a wh-phrase in situ (i.e. in a separate phase of the derivation).
But while we can see that the Principle of Distinctness is a restriction on
multiple wh-movement in Slovenian, it does not account for all cases of optionality
161
in Slovenian. For example, in the multiple wh-question (45), the two wh-phrases
have distinct features but one wh-phrase still does not have to move.92
(45) a.
Katera punca
riše
katerega
fanta?
[which girl].NOM.F
draws
[which
boy].ACC.M
‘Which girl is drawing which boy?’
b.
Katera punca katerega fanta riše?
This question is completely acceptable when both wh-phrases move, (45b), but
still a wh-phrase can be left in situ, (45a). This suppression of movement cannot be
accounted for with the Principle of Distinctness since movement would not lead to
ungrammaticality as the two DPs are distinct. The question is, then, how we can
account for examples such as (45a).
4.9 Summary
This chapter has shown that phonological, semantic, and syntactic restrictions that
apply to other multiple wh-fronting languages do not account for instances of wh-insitu in Slovenian. In addition, we have seen that the Principle of Distinctness does
restrict multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian, but it does not account for optionality in
Slovenian multiple wh-questions in general, given that not all wh-phrases front even
when they are distinct.
Since we cannot account for optional multiple wh-fronting with restrictions, a
new account is needed.
92
Moreover, the two wh-phrases can even have different labels and a wh-phrase can still stay in situ.
(i)
a.
b.
Kdaj je
Maja kupila kaj?
when AUX Maja buy what.ACC
‘When did Maja buy what?’
Kdaj je kaj Maja kupila?
162
5 Multiple wh-questions with a wh-phrase in situ in Slovenian
As we have seen above, there are cases of multiple wh-questions in Slovenian in
which at least one wh-phrase moves to the clause initial position and one wh-phrase
(or more) stays in situ. This pattern is grammatical in matrix and embedded
questions, (1) and (2). This pattern can also be found with D-linked wh-phrases, as I
show in (3) for a question with one D-linked phrase, but see also section 2.3. In
example (4), two wh-phrases are left in situ. Izpostaviti ‘to expose’ is a verb that
occurs with the accusative object preceding the dative object. If we assume that the
wh-phrases appear in situ in these cases, it is then not surprising that a wh-question in
which the accusative wh-phrase precedes the dative, (4a), is much more acceptable
that dative preceding the accusative, (4b). Crucially, in cases such as (1) to (4) all
wh-phrases receive an interrogative reading.
(1)
a.
Kaj
je
Miha kupil komu?
what.ACC
AUX
Miha buy who.DAT
‘What did Miha buy for whom?’
(2)
b.
Komu je Miha kupil kaj?
a.
Janez
sprašuje,
komu
je
Ana kupila
kaj.
Janez
asks
who.DAT
AUX
Ana buy
what.ACC
‘Janez is asking what Ana bought for whom.’
(3)
b.
Janez sprašuje, kaj je Ana kupila komu.
a.
Kaj
je
Miha kupil kateri punci?
what.ACC
AUX
Miha buy which girl.DAT
‘What did Miha buy for which girl?’
(4)
b.
Kateri punci je Miha kupil kaj?
a.
Kdo
je
izpostavil koga
čemu?
Who.NOM
AUX
expose
what.DAT
who.ACC
‘Who did what to whom?’
b. ?? Kdo je izpostavil čemu koga?
163
While I will focus mostly on multiple wh-questions with an object wh-phrase in situ
in this section, questions with a clause final wh-subject are also possible. I will
consider these in section 5.2.1.
Questions in which at least one wh-phrase moves to the clause initial position
and a wh-phrase stays in situ are interpreted as true multiple wh-questions with
multiple wh-fronting (that is, questions such as (1)–(4) receive the same
interpretation as questions with multiple wh-fronting, they receive either a pair list or
a single pair answer).93 I will say more about the interpretation of these questions in
section 7.1.1; at this point I only want to emphasize that these questions are different
from ones in which no wh-phrases move to the clause initial position (i.e. all whphrases stay in situ). Questions in which all wh-phrases stay in situ are
ungrammatical under a true wh-question reading and are only acceptable under two,
different readings: if the wh-phrases are pronounced with an emphasis, the question
is interpreted as an echo question (either as a surprise or a request-for-repetition
question) and if the sentences are pronounced with a yes/no-question (rising)
intonation or if they have a yes/no-question marker in the clause initial position, they
will be interpreted as yes/no-questions and the in situ wh-phrases will be interpreted
as indefinite pronouns. I will leave the echo and yes/no-questions questions aside and
93
The situation is then to some extent similar to Polish, since, as Dornisch (1998) notes, only one whphrase needs to obligatorily move to the clause initial position (in her analysis SpecCP) in Polish
hence the ungrammaticality of (i). But Dornisch also notes that a wh-pronoun can stay in situ but only
if it carries heavy, focal stress as in (ii), which is not the case for Slovenian.
(i)
Polish (Dornisch 1998: 123, (1’); 124, (10))
* Pozbawil-by kogo jakxch
przywilejów?
deprive-cond whom what
privileges
Intended: ‘Whom would he deprive of what privileges?’
(ii)
Co
by
Anna poleciła
KOMU?
what cond. Anna reccomend to-whom
‘What would Anna recommend to whom?’
Dornisch suggests that the difference between the wh-phrases that must move and wh-phrases that
remain in situ is in the deficiency pronouns exhibit. Following Cardinaletti and Starke (1994) she
assumes that deficient pronouns cannot occupy Theta positions and must move to a derived position
(as in (i)). On the other hand, the stressed KOMU ‘to whom’ in (ii) is a strong pronoun and can,
because of this, stay in situ. In addition, according to Dornisch, the weak pronouns carry a strong whfeature that motivates movement, while the strong pronouns carry a weak wh-feature. The movement
to the clause initial position is motivated by the strong wh-feature on C. The weak feature on the
strong pronoun, however, does not have to be checked before LF and can stay in situ because of this.
164
focus on true wh-questions, but the behavior of wh-phrases in yes/no-questions will
prove to be crucial for our analysis of multiple wh-questions with a wh-phrase in situ.
(5)
Zdravnik
doctor
je
AUX
izpostavil
KOGA
ČEMU?
expose
who.ACC
what.DAT
‘The doctor exposed WHO to WHAT?’
#‘Who did the doctor expose to what?’
(6)
(A)
je
zdravnik
QY/N AUX doctor
izpostavil koga
čemu?
expose
what.DAT
who.ACC
‘Did the doctor expose somebody to something?’
#‘Who did the doctor expose to what?’
Because wh-phrases can stay in situ only when at least one wh-phrase moves to
the clause initial position, I will not be arguing that Slovenian is a wh-in-situ
language, as for example Strahov (2001) did for Russian.94 The central question of
this section is then: How can we account for a multiple wh-question in which a whphrase is left in situ? Building on previous studies, there seem to be at least two ways
of proceeding: The explanation is in the landing site of the wh-phrase or in the whphrases themselves.
94
Specifically, Strahov (2001) claims Russian is a wh-in-situ language in which wh-phrases are
scrambled. The claim is based on Cheng’s (1991) generalization according to which languages that
have a special marking in yes/no-questions are in situ languages and also have a wh-typing (overt or
covert) particle (cf. Bruening 2007). While Strahov (2001) shows that that Russian particle li is a
yes/no-clausal typing particle and that, consequently, Russian is a wh-in-situ language the same does
not hold for Slovenian. In Slovenian the particle ali/a appears in yes/no-matrix questions, such as (6)
above, but a/ali can also appear in embedded yes/no-questions, (i), in disjunction, (ii), and in
infinitivals, (iii). Since Slovenian a/ali can be used in these three contexts, it can be treated in the
same way as English whether or Polish czy which are, following Cheng (1991), not particles, but
rather wh-phrases.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Miha je
vprašal,
a
poznaš
Miha AUX
ask
QY/N know
‘Miha asked if you know Maja.’
Miha pleše ali
poje.
Miha dance Q
sing
‘Miha dances or sings.’
Miha ne
ve,
ali
plesati
ali
Miha not
knows Q
dance.INF
or
‘Miha doesn’t know whether to dance or not.’
Majo.
Maja.ACC
ne.
not
165
Starting with the first option, the difference in the landing site has been shown
to be responsible for optionality of wh-movement in different languages, e.g. Cheng
and Rooryck (2000) for French, Pires and Taylor (2007) for Brazilian Portuguese,
Denham (1997, 2000) for Babine-Witsuwit’en, etc. For example, Denham (1997,
2000) shows that Babine-Witsuwit’en, an SOV Athabaskan language spoken in
northern British Columbia, allows only one wh-phrase per sentence. The examples
below show matrix questions with optional fronting – ndu ‘what’ can appear in situ
as in (7a) or it can move to the beginning of the clause, as in (7b) (for more examples
see Denham 2000).95 The in-situ option and questions with movement are possible
with arguments, as in (7), and with adjuncts, (8), and the same facts that hold in
matrix clauses also hold in complex questions (for both the embedded and matrix
clause of a complex question, cf. Denham (2000)). Optional fronting only applies to
wh-phrases, as the ungrammatical example (9b) shows.
(7)
Babine-Witsuwit’en (Denham 2000: (5))
a.
Lillian
ndu yunkët?
Lillian
what 3s.bought.3s
‘What did Lillian buy?’
b.
(8)
Ndu Lillian
yunkët?
Babine-Witsuwit’en (Denham 2000: (14))
a.
Sharon
book nts’ën’a
yik’iyetalhdic?
Sharon
book how
3s.will read.3s
‘How will Sharon read the book?’
b.
(9)
Nts’ën’a Sharon book yik’iyetalhdic?
Babine-Witsuwit’en (Denham 2000: (7))
a.
Lillian
dus yunkët.
Lillian
cat
3s.bought.3s7
‘Lillian bought a cat.’
95
Given that there is no difference in the interpretation of questions in which a wh-phrase moves or
not, Babine-Witsuwit’en is then an example of a language which exhibits ‘true’ optionality (i.e.
semantically vacuous optionality, see Section 2) which is not predicted by the Minimalist program.
Denham avoids the problem by proposing an independent projection, which is responsible for
interpretation. What is optional in this proposal is the selection of C from the lexicon. This is
reminiscent of optional selection of the EPP feature, and accounts for the either/or nature of whmovement in Babine-Witsuwit’en.
166
b. * Dus Lillian yunkët.
Denham (2000) accounts for the data by proposing optional selection of C from
the lexicon. When C is selected from the lexicon wh-fronting proceeds, and when C
is not selected the wh-phrases stay in situ. Following Denham, this interrogative C
does not influence the interpretation, it only motivates movement, which is achieved
with a –interpretable feature on C and a +interpretable feature on the wh-phrases.
Because the +interpretable feature is present in the structure, the interpretation is
unaffected by movement. Additionally, Clause Typing and scope are ‘pushed’ to a
typing projection TyP which in wh-questions has a +interpretable Q and a Scope
feature. Because TyP has a +interpretable feature, the feature does not trigger
movement and is interpreted at LF (for more see Denham (2000)).
If we continue with such a line of reasoning and try to account for optional
multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian with the nature of the C head (while maintaining
that wh-phrases only come in one variety) and in addition pursuing a Minimalist
account with no extended Left Periphery, this would lead us to few different C heads.
To account for Slovenian data, the C head would come in several different varieties –
attract all or attract one. But since there are cases in which more than one wh-phrase
can move (while one wh-phrase stays in situ, i.e. there is no clear either/or situation
in Slovenian multiple wh-fronting) this would not cover all the data. Potentially, a
third C head could be added – attract some.96 Given the data, this type of reasoning
seems to lead to at least three different Cs in the lexicon, and these Cs are, as far as I
can see, unmotivated by anything else in Slovenian. Also, if stipulated two (or more)
different Cs are related to wh-movement then given the Minimalist understanding of
optionality (see section 2.1), we would also expect two different interpretations for
examples in which all wh-phrases move or only one wh-phrase moves. As it will be
shown in section 7.1.1, this is not the case. We can therefore conclude that assuming
more than one C that motivates multiple wh-movement in Slovenian does not seem
to be a sufficient way of accounting for optional wh-movement in which a wh-phrase
stays in situ. Therefore, I will not be arguing for such an analysis of Slovenian.
96
Or an additional generalization should be put in place, see Pesetsky (2000) for Bulgarian, cf.
Section 2.2.
167
These issues also remain unresolved if we adopt a Cartographic approach for
the structure of Slovenian wh-questions, as it was done in the previous sections.
Under the assumed approach, the wh-question is typed as such in the Interrogative
Projection. Clause Typing always occurs before Spell Out and is related to a whphrase in Slovenian since one wh-phrase needs to appear clause initially. Given the
Slovenian data explored here, there is no optionality with respect to movement to the
Interrogative Projection. That is, in all multiple wh-questions, at least one wh-phrase
appears in the clause initial position. When this does not happen and all wh-phrases
stay in situ, the sentence does not receive a true wh-question reading. However, as
we have seen, wh-phrases also move to Wh-Projections in Slovenian. If we still
pursue the analysis by Denham (2000), we can then simply claim that these WhProjections are not selected from the lexicon and therefore the wh-phrases do not
move (or differently, these Wh-Projections come with an interpretable wh-feature but
no EPP-subfeature and again, no movement occurs).97 But if we take movement to be
feature driven and assume that wh-phrases enter the derivation with an
uninterpretable valued wh-feature which is checked because of the interpretable
unvalued feature on the Wh-head (see section 3.6), how would the feature on the whphrase be checked (i.e., why do we need Agree and Move for the wh-phrase which
moves to the Interrogative Projection, but only Agree is enough with WhProjections)?
The problem also remains if we assume a criterion approach to movement in
the sense of Rizzi (1996), where the wh-criterion is defined as (10) below. According
to the criterion, if a wh-operator enters the derivation it needs to move in the
appropriate level of representation (Rizzi 1996). The wh-operator is defined as in
(11):
(10) The wh-criterion (Rizzi 1996: (6))
a.
A wh-operator must be in Spec-head configuration with X0 [+wh]
b.
An X0 [+wh] must be in a Spec-Head configuration with a wh-operator
(11) Wh-operator = a wh-phrase in an A-bar position
97
If we take the EPP-subfeature to be responsible for optionality, the question remains why it is the
case that a Wh-Projection can have optional EPP, but the Interrogative Projection has an obligatory
EPP.
168
This means that only wh-operators move, but wh-phrases that are not operators
can stay in situ. For example, in English matrix questions such as ‘Who hit whom?’
only one argument wh-phrase moves to the clause initial position while the other whargument stays in situ. This is not problematic as the wh-in-situ argument is in an
argument position (i.e. in the position in which it receives its theta role) and is
therefore not an operator, cf. (11). These cases are subject to static agreement, but an
additional option exists for languages with optional wh-movement. For example,
cases of optional wh-movement as in French are subject to dynamic agreement in
which agreement can apply either in the syntax or in the LF (Rizzi 1996). Following
Rizzi, we could say that Slovenian optional wh-movement to Wh-Projections is
subject to dynamic agreement which would mean that wh-phrases either move in
syntax or at LF. I will not be pursuing this line of reasoning here as it is not clear
why dynamic agreement would then only apply when wh-phrases move to WhProjections, while movement to the Interrogative Projection is subject to static
agreement (and is therefore obligatory).
Because of the many issues that come with the proposal that optional whfronting is a result of the landing sites of wh-phrases that are responsible for multiple
wh-fronting, I will rather be turning to wh-phrases themselves, as there is
independent evidence for different varieties of wh-phrases in Slovenian.
5.1 Wh-in-situ as a consequence of the properties of wh-phrases
Two initial observations can be made, based on which we can pursue the second
possibility outlined above, i.e. wh-in-situ in multiple wh-questions in Slovenian is a
consequence of there being different wh-phrases. First, in questions with multiple
wh-phrases in Slovenian a wh-phrase can stay in situ only in questions in which at
least one wh-phrase moves to the clause initial position. Second, we have
independent evidence that wh-phrases come in two varieties, since wh-phrases in
yes/no-questions are not interpreted as interrogative wh-phrases, as we have already
seen. In these the wh-phrase is interpreted as an indefinite pronoun and typically
169
appears in situ. Because of this, it seems reasonable to investigate the relation
between interrogative wh-phrases and indefinite pronouns further.
5.1.1 Wh-pronouns in Slovenian and other Slavic languages
The relation between wh-pronouns and indefinite pronouns has been discussed in the
literature before (cf. Cheng 1991, Citko 1998). I start with the system of wh-,
indefinite, and negative pronouns (the latter two are built from wh-stems) in the
languages that have multiple wh-fronting questions and have previously been
described as having some variation with respect to movement in multiple whquestions (Polish, Serbo-Croatian, and Czech are taken from Citko (1998), but
Russian (based on Yanovich 2005) and Slovenian have been added to the list).
Crucially, wh-pronouns (leftmost column in the table below) can have two meanings
in Slovenian (but also Czech, Serbo-Croatian, Russian, and Polish): they can receive
an interrogative or an indefinite interpretation. I will refer to these wh-pronouns as
bare wh-pronouns due to the lack of prefixes or suffixes that one finds in indefinite
pronouns (or negative pronouns, etc.). The pronouns are shown in Table 14.
The contrast between negative pronouns and wh-pronouns in Slovenian may
seem larger than the respective contrast in Polish, Czech, and Serbo-Croatian. But,
following Ilc (2008), negative pronouns in Slovenian are derived from wh-pronouns
to which a prefix ni- and a suffix -r are added. In the nominative form this process
triggeres the use of a substitution form. In addition, Ilc (2008) writes that older
Slovenian grammars also noted nikdo ‘nobody’ as a negative pronoun that is clearly
related to the wh-phrase kdo ‘who’. This means that despite superficial differences,
Slovenian negative pronouns are derived from wh-pronouns.
170
Wh-pronouns
Indefinite pronouns
Negative pronouns
Polish
kto ‘who’
kto-ś ‘somebody’
ni-kt ‘nobody’
co ‘what’
co-ś ‘something’
ni-c ‘nothing’
gdzie ‘where’
gdzie-ś ‘somewhere’
ni-gdzie ‘nowhere’
kiedy ‘when’
kiedy-ś ‘some time’
ni-gdy ‘never’
Czech
kdo ‘who’
kdo-si ‘somebody’
ni-kdo ‘nobody’
co ‘what’
co-si ‘something’
ni-c ‘nothing’
kde ‘where’
kde-si ‘somewhere’
ni-kde ‘nowhere’
kdy ‘when’
kdy-si ‘some time’
ni-kdy ‘never’
Serbo-Croatian
(t)ko ‘who’
ne-(t)ko ‘somebody’
ni-(t)ko ‘nobody’
što/šta ‘what’
ne-što ‘something’
ni-šta ‘nothing’
gd(j)e ‘where’
ne-gd(j)e ‘somewhere’
ni-gd(j)e ‘nowhere’
kada ‘when’
ne-kada ‘some time’
ni-kada ‘never’
Russian98
kto ‘who’
kto-to’ ‘someone’
ni-kto ‘nobody’
čto ‘what’
čto-to’ ‘something’
ni-čto ‘nothing’
gde ‘where’
gde-to’ ‘somewhere’
ni-gde ‘nowhere’
kogda ‘when’
kogda-to’ ‘sometime’
ni-kogda ‘never’
Slovenian
kdo ‘who’
ne-kdo ‘someone’
nihče ‘nobody’ (ni-kdo)
kaj ‘what’
ne-kaj ‘something’
nič ‘noting’
kje ‘where’
ne-kje ‘somewhere’
ni-kje-r ‘nowhere’
kdaj ‘when’
ne-kdaj ‘some time’
ni-kda-r ‘never’ (ni-koli)
Table 14: List of wh-, indefinite, and negative pronouns
98
According to Yanovich (2005) there are several series of indefinite pronouns, he lists four: the
series with the morpheme -to, series with -nibud’, with -libo and with ni. I give only the -to series in
the table, as these can be used in declarative sentences, but see Yanovich (2005) for more.
171
Starting with indefinite pronouns, Table 14 shows that indefinite pronouns are
a combination of a wh-phrase with a suffix (e.g. Polish) or a prefix (e.g. Slovenian).
Such indefinite pronouns can be used in, for example, declarative sentences in
Slovenian:
(12) Miha je
nekoga
Miha AUX somebody.ACC
predstavil svoji sestri.
introduce self sister.DAT
‘Miha introduced somebody to his sister.’
But in addition to indefinite pronouns, bare wh-pronouns can also be used as
indefinite pronouns in some environments, such as yes/no-questions or conditional
sentences. As Citko (1998) notes, this is possible in Serbo-Croatian, (13), and Polish,
(13), and Dyakonova (2009) shows this for Russian bare wh-pronouns, (15).99
Finally, (16) shows the use of a bare wh-phrase as an indefinite in a yes/no-question
for Slovenian.100 It also needs to be noted that while I here concentrate on examples
99
Note that Dyakonova claims that question such as (15) can get either a yes/no-interpretation if a
rising accent is on the final verb or even a wh-question reading if a raising accent is on the wh-word
and the verb that follows the wh-phrase is completely de-accented, see Dyakonova (2009) for more.
100
Citko (1998) shows that in Polish bare wh-pronouns, which are interpreted as indefinite pronouns,
and negative pronouns appear in the clause initial position. Progovac (2005) observes parallel
behavior of negative, polarity and (interrogative) wh-words in Serbo-Croatian. She shows that
unmarked order of these phrases in Serbian is preverbal, which means that (i.a) is unmarked while
(i.b) is emphatic. In fact, Progovac proposes that all polarity items in Serbian check in this projection.
Since wh-words also appear in a preverbal position, Progovac takes this to show that wh-phrases come
with a polarity feature ([-neg] in this proposal) which, according to Progovarc, is additionally
confirmed by the fact that wh-words can be used as indefinites in Serbian. In Slovenian, these
indefinite wh-phrases can appear in a preverbal position too. But this is not wh-fronting and it also
happens with prefixed indefinites, (iii), and also negative pronouns, (iv).
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Serbian (Progovac 2005: (28))
a.
On
nikoga
ne
voli.
he
nobody
not
like
‘He doesn’t like anybody.’
b. ? On ne voli nikoga.
Serbian (Progovac 2005: (34))
Da
li
je
on
koga uvredio?
that Q
AUX he
whom insulted
‘Has he insulted someone?’
A
je
France
kaj
/
nekaj
QY/N AUX France
what.INDEF something
‘Did France write anything/something?’
172
napisal?
write
with simple wh-pronouns, the same behavior can also be observed with D-linked whphrases, (17).
(13) Serbo-Croatian
Ima šta
has
da
what to
kupi?
buy
‘There is something for him to buy.’
(14) Polish (Cheng 1991: (82))
Czy
Janek tam kogo
zobacył?
whether
Janek there who.ACC
saw
‘Did Janek see anyone?’
(15) Russian (Dyakonova 2009: 200, (39))
My
v
vyhodnye kuda
pojdem?
we.NOM
on
weekends where
go.FUT.1PL
‘Are we going anywhere on the weekends?’
(16) Slovenian
A
si
QY/N did
jedel kaj?
eat
what.ACC
‘Did you eat anything?’
(17) A
si
že
QY/N AUX already
prebral
katero knjigo?
read
which book.ACC
‘Have you read any books yet?’
As already indicated, bare wh-pronouns can be used in conditionals as well.
For example, wh-phrases in Russian can be bound by the non-interrogative operator
esli ‘if’ (Strahov 2001). Cheng (1991) shows that a bare wh-form can also be used in
conditionals in Polish, (19). Wh-words can also be used in conditionals in Slovenian,
as I show in (20).
(iv)
A
ni
France
QY/N AUX.NEG
France
‘Didn’t France write anything?’
nič
nothing
napisal?
write
173
(18) Russian (Strahov 2001: (6b, c))
a.
Esli čto
if
slučit'sja, to
what.NOM happens
zvoni mne
nemedlenno.
then call me.DAT
immediately
‘If anything happens, call me immediately.’
b.
Esli kogda
budeš’ v
našom
rajone,
to
zaxodi
if
when
will in
our
area
then come by
ne
stesnjajsja.
not
be-shy
‘If sometime you are in our area, drop in, don’t be shy.’
(19) Polish (Cheng 1991: (83))
Jeżeli kto tu
if
zapali
who here light
papierosa, to
cigarette
ja
then I
się
wścieknę.
refl will get mad
‘If anyone smokes here, then I will get mad.’
(20) Slovenian
a.
Če
bo
kdo
prišel,
if
AUX
who.NOM come
me
pokliči.
me.DAT
call
‘If anybody/somebody comes, call me.’
b.
Če
bo
Miha
koga
If
AUX
Miha.NOM who.ACC
poklical,
bomo
imeli težave.
call
AUX
have trouble
‘If Miha calls anybody/somebody, we will have problems.’
Cheng (1991) calls this kind of reading of wh-pronouns in Polish a ‘polarity
reading’, since wh-pronouns receive this reading in polarity/affective contexts, that
is, yes/no-questions and conditionals. According to Cheng, in these cases in Polish
the wh-pronoun is interpreted as ‘anyone’ or ‘anyhow’. Citko (1998) takes these bare
wh-pronouns to be indefinite pronouns. In Russian wh-pronouns receive either an
interrogative, indefinite or a universal interpretation, see Zavitnevich (2001). For
example kto ‘lit. ‘who’ can be interpreted as ‘who’, ‘someone’, ‘somebody’,
‘anyone’, ‘anybody’, or ‘everyone’ and čto lit. ‘what’ is interpreted as ‘what’,
‘something’, or ‘anything’. Similarly, Slovenian bare wh-pronouns, such as kdo lit.
‘who’ or kaj lit. ‘what’, receive the interpretation ‘anyone’ or ‘someone’ and
‘anything’ or ‘something’ in polarity contexts (e.g. conditionals and yes/noquestions). In addition, in some languages, such as Mandarin Chinese, indefinite
174
pronouns can also be licensed under negative markers, as Cheng (1991) notes. In
Polish and Slovenian on the other hand, bare wh-pronouns cannot appear under
negation. Cheng (1991) shows that in Polish a negative affix needs to be attached to
a bare wh-pronoun under negation, (21), and proposes that this might be because of
negative concord. Example (22) shows that the negative pronouns need to be used
under negation in Slovenian too.
(21) Polish (Citko 1998: (8a))
Nikt
nic
nie
widzał.
nobody
nothing
NEG
saw
‘Nobody saw anything.’
(22) Slovenian
Nihče
ni
nič
videl.
nobody
NEG.AUX
nothing
see
‘Nobody saw anything.’
And finally, wh-questions need to be discussed. In Slovenian, a bare wh-phrase
in situ in a wh-question with a fronted wh-phrase cannot be interpreted as an
indefinite pronoun, as shown in (23). Only wh-pronouns combined with the
indefinite prefix ne- are interpreted as indefinite in wh-questions in Slovenian. A
question with one fronted wh-phrase and an indefinite pronoun (with the prefix ne-)
will of course be interpreted as a single wh-question. This is shown below, in
examples (23) in which (23a) is interpreted as a multiple wh-question and (23b) as a
single question, as shown with the answers that are felicitous for such questions. The
observation that wh-in-situ in multiple wh-questions is interpreted as an interrogative
is in line with Šimík’s (2010) observation that only answers in which we assign
values to both wh-phrases are felicitous responses to questions with wh-in-situ in
Czech (see example (25) and section 7.1.1).
(23) a.
Kdo je
kupil kaj?
who
buy what
AUX
‘Who bought what?’
(Mary bought beer./ #Mary did.)
175
b.
Kdo je
kupil nekaj?
who
buy something
AUX
‘Who bought something?’
(#Mary bought beer. / Mary did)
There seems to be some variation between speakers of multiple wh-fronting
languages with respect to the interpretation of wh-questions with non-fronted whphrases. For example, Wachowicz (1974) states that Polish examples such as (24) are
interpreted as a yes/no-question (i.e., example (24) is interpreted as ‘Did Monika give
anything to anybody?’) in which both wh-phrases are in fact indefinite pronouns.
According to Citko (2010), on the other hand, these cases are interpreted as multiple
wh-questions, see chapter 6.
(24) Polish (Wachowicz 1974: (23))
* Co
Monika
what.ACC Monika
komu
dała?
who.DAT
gave
‘What did Monika give to whom?’
Šimík (2010) observes multiple wh-questions with a wh-phrase in situ in
Czech, such as the one in (25) in which the pitch accent is on the clause final
constituent, to which I will also return in section 7.1.1, and argues against the
analysis of bare wh-pronouns in situ as indefinites in Czech. Šimík notes that a value
needs to be assigned to both wh-phrases when answering such a question in Czech.
This suggests that the wh-phrase in situ is truly interrogative.
(25) Czech (Šimík 2010: (7))
a.
Kdo
co
KOUPIL?
who.NOM what.ACC bought
‘Who bought what?’
b.
Kdo koupil CO?
Based on what we have seen so far, we can conclude that in Slovenian, whpronouns that appear in situ can be interpreted in two different ways: they either
176
receive an interrogative reading when they appear in a question in which a wh-phrase
appears in the clause initial position or they receive an indefinite reading when they
appear in a polarity context, such as a conditional or a yes/no-question. Because of
this, I propose that a wh-phrase in situ in a multiple wh-question is an underspecified
wh-pronoun, which is licensed by another element in the clause. Note that I am not
arguing that the wh-in-situ is an indefinite pronoun in Slovenian. Rather I am arguing
that the wh-in-situ is a wh-phrase containing a bare wh-pronoun that receives an
interrogative interpretation because of the features in the Left Periphery. More about
the proposal follows in the next section.
5.1.2 Two readings of bare wh-pronouns
The following facts are crucial for the proposal I am making here for multiple whquestions with a wh-phrase in situ in Slovenian. First, a bare wh-pronoun can stay in
situ only in multiple wh-questions in which a wh-phrase appears in the clause initial
position, i.e. the Interrogative Projection of the Left Periphery. There is empirical
support for the fact that a wh-phrase in the clause initial position, i.e. Interrogative
Projection, is crucial for wh-in-situ – examples in which a wh-phrase is moved to a
non-initial position, such as the Wh-Projection preceded by a focused phrase, are not
felicitous under a wh-question reading (they can get a yes/no- or an echo-question
reading):
(26) MIHA je
komu
Miha AUX who.DAT
kupil kaj?
buy what.ACC
#‘What did MIHA buy for whom?’
‘Did MIHA buy something for somebody?’
Second, in a multiple wh-question in which one wh-phrase appears in the
clause initial position, a wh-phrase in situ always gets an interrogative reading. In
such cases, a wh-phrase in situ never gets an indefinite interpretation, (27), and a
value needs to be assigned to both wh-phrases. In these environments the only
pronoun that will get an indefinite reading is a fully pronounced indefinite pronoun,
(28). In turn, with a yes/no-question marker a wh-phrase in situ never gets an
177
interrogative reading, (29).101 The asymmetry in interpretation also holds if the whphrase in situ is a D-linked phrase, as (30) shows for a wh- and (31) for a yes/noquestion.
(27) Kdo je
who AUX
jedel kaj?
eat
what
‘Who ate what?’
(John ate cake./# Mary.)
(28) Kdo je
who
AUX
jedel nekaj?
eat
something
‘Who ate something?’
(John. / # John ate cake.)
(29) A
je
jedel kaj?
QY/N AUX eat
what.ACC
‘Did he eat something?’
(Yes./# (He ate) cakes, cookies, ice cream.)
(30) Kdo je
who AUX
kupil katero
knjigo?
buy which
book
‘Who bought which book?’
(Tom bought The Hobbit. /# Yes.)
(31) A
je
kateri
QY/N AUX which
kos
tvoja kreacija?
piece your creation
‘Are any of the pieces your creation?’
(#This statue./Yes.)
101
There is another option for this type of questions: They can be assigned a yes/no-intonation (i.e.
rising intonation, regardless if they have an interrogative complementizer a/ali).In such cases whphrases are again interpreted as indefinite pronouns.
(i)
Je
jedel kaj?
[Rising intonation]
eat
what
‘Did he eat anything?
(Answer: Yes/No./ # John ate cake.)
AUX
178
Because the examples so far indicate that the interpretation of a wh-pronoun in
situ is connected to what appears in the clause initial position, I propose that whphrases in situ in Slovenian are bare wh-pronouns that need to be licensed by another
element in the clause. The reason for this is a deficiency of one class of pronouns –
because of this deficiency the bare wh-pronouns in situ behave differently from whphrases which undergo movement. This means that the situation with Slovenian whin-situ is opposite to that which Cheng and Rooryck (2000) propose for French whin-situ – in French, wh-in-situ is a result of an underspecified Q-morpheme on the C0
head and not on the wh-phrase that stays in situ (as I propose for Slovenian).
In French a wh-phrase can either move or stay in situ.
(32) French (Cheng and Rooryck 2000: (4a), (6), (5b))
a.
Jean a
acheté
quoi?
Jean has
bought
what
‘What did Jean buy?’
b.
Jean a
acheté
un
livre?
Jean has
bought
a
book
‘Jean has bought a book?’ [rising intonation in French and English]
c.
Quel livre est-ce que Jean a
acheté?
which book EST-CE QUE Jean has
bought
‘Which book did Jean buy?’
Cheng and Rooryck (2000) propose that in examples with wh-in-situ, such as (32a)
above, the head C comes with a underspecified Q-morpheme, represented as [Q: ].
This underspecified morpheme can either be valued as [Q: wh] or [Q: y/n]. In yes/noquestions, such as (32b), the value of the underspecified Q-morpheme is set to [Q:
y/n] by a default operation and the question is interpreted as a yes/no-question. In
cases with wh-in-situ the Q-morpheme licenses the wh-phrase in situ. At LF the
underspecified Q-feature is specified via feature movement of the wh-feature of the
wh-phrase. If this did not happen, the Q-feature would be specified with the default
yes/no-value, which would yield an illegitimate interpretation in cases with a whphrase.
179
The proposal by Cheng and Rooryck (2000) is not applicable to Slovenian,
since at least one wh-phrase needs to move to the clause initial position, which
indicates that wh-fronting is, at least to some extent, obligatory. However, the idea of
featural deficiency can be applied to Slovenian data – I propose that the difference
between interrogative wh-phrases that move and those that remain in situ is in the
wh-phrases themselves. Wh-phrases enter the derivation with an uninterpretable
valued wh-feature that is checked because of movement to Interrogative Projection or
the Wh-Projections, as I have, based on Soare (2007), claimed in section 3.6. On the
other hand, bare wh-pronouns in situ are underspecified for a wh-feature and
therefore do not need to move to the Interrogative Projection or the Wh-Projections.
But because of their deficiency, these wh-phrases need to be licensed by another
element in the sentence.
We can summarize the wh-pronouns that are of interest here102 as:
(33) Pronouns with interrogative and indefinite reading
(i) Interrogative wh-pronouns
Wh-pronouns specified with a wh-feature: these wh-pronouns receive an
interrogative reading and move to check the wh-feature in the Left Periphery.
(ii) Indefinite pronouns
Wh-pronouns specified with an indef-feature which is, in Slovenian, specified
on the phonologically overt prefix ne-. These are not dependent on any special
contexts.
(iii) Underspecified bare wh-pronouns
These stay in situ and need to be licensed. Based on what licenses them,
they get one of the readings that the wh-pronouns in (i) or (ii) get.103
102
I am here only mentioning wh-pronouns prefixed by ne-, which creates indefinite pronouns like
‘someone’ etc., but other prefixes exist in Slovenian. These are, for example: marsi- ‘quite a few’ as
in marsikdo ‘quite a few people’, malo- ‘few’ as in malokdaj ‘a few times’. For an overview see
Greenberg (2008).
103
While I here argue that only a subset of wh-pronouns is underspecified in Slovenian, a different
proposal was made for Russian by Zavitnevich-Beaulac (2005) who argues that wh-phrases in single
wh-movement, in situ, and multiple wh-fronting languages are universally underspecified in the
lexicon and that wh-phrases in wh-movement languages are wh-proforms combined with a question
operator Q. For more see Zavitnevich-Beaulac (2005).
180
Cheng (1991) proposes a similar division of wh-phrases in multiple wh-fronting
languages, such as Polish, and argues that bare wh-words in these languages can get
an interrogative or a polarity reading (Hungarian on the other hand only allows the
interrogative reading).
Cheng assumes that wh-words are made up from a core and a determiner104 and
that the core itself does not have/inherit quantificational force. Under this approach
there are three options for wh-phrases in multiple wh-fronting languages: a wh-core
can be combined with an affix (the determiner), which contributes existential
quantificational force, and thereby gets an indefinite reading, the wh-core can be
combined with a wh-determiner and be interpreted as an interrogative wh-phrase, or
the wh-core appears in a polarity context and is interpreted as an indefinite pronoun.
This is shown for the Hungarian pronoun valaki ‘someone’. In (34), the core,
NP ki, has no quantificational force, and it is the D (vala) that contributes existential
quantificational force. The Hungarian valaki ‘someone’ is then similar to Slovenian
pronouns described in (33, ii).
(34) (Cheng 1991: (66))
DP
3
D’
3
D
NP
vala
ki
Applying such reasoning to Slovenian leads to the conclusion that wh-pronouns are
specified with a prefix ne- and do not need to be licensed by an operator in the
context. This is already done by the prefix, which carries an indef-feature. This
accounts for the fact that indefinite pronouns can appear in declarative sentences, as
for example nekoga ‘somebody.ACC’ in example (12) in section 5.1.1, or in an
interrogative context, such as in (28) with nekaj ‘something’, and always receive an
indefinite reading (i.e. they have existential force).
104
Such an analysis is problematic under the assumption that some Slavic languages (like SerboCroatian) are article less and do not project the DP layer (cf. Bošković 2008), but note that some
researchers propose a DP layer despite the lack of articles (cf. Pereltsvaig 2007).
181
For wh-phrases, such as ki ‘what’ in Hungarian, (35), Cheng (1991) proposes
that the core is again without interrogative force and the interrogative force is
contributed by the null determiner, which Cheng defines as [D 0 [+wh]].105
(35) Cheng 1991: (67)
DP
3
D’
3
D
NP
0 [+wh]
ki
Again, a similar analysis can be applied to Slovenian: interrogative wh-pronouns, as
described in (33, i) are specified with a wh-feature and move to the Left Periphery in
order to check the wh-feature on the Interrogative Projection or the Wh-Projections.
This movement was described in section 3.6.
For bare wh-pronouns in polarity contexts, Cheng proposes that these pronouns
are interpreted as having an existential reading. Cheng proposes that the bare whform is interpreted as an indefinite when the wh-word has no determiner, but just as a
core. In these cases the core is a polarity item and therefore needs a polarity trigger
(for example, a yes/no-question marker). The existential force is achieved with the
rule of Existential Closure, as in Heim (1982), which introduces a non-overt
existential quantifier to a sentence and then binds an indefinite (allowing it to be
interpreted existentially). In Cheng (1991), Existential Closure introduces an
(phonologically null) existential quantifier which binds the core and gives it
existential force.106
105
In Cheng (1991) this null determiner needs to be licensed in multiple wh-fronting languages and it
is licensed trough Spec-Head agreement with the head C which carries a [+wh] feature. In multiple
wh-languages, this holds for all wh-phrases and because all wh-phrases need to be in a local relation
with the C head, all wh-phrases have to move. For details of the account see Cheng (1991).
106
Yanovich (2005) observes that bare indefinites, (i.b), are existentially closed in the scope of the
question and differ from interrogative kto ‘who’, (i.a) in that bare indefinites need a licensor in
Russian but interrogative pronouns do not.
(i)
Russian (Yanovich 2005: (29))
a.
Kto prišel?
who came
‘Who came?’
182
What Cheng (1991) does not predict is that bare wh-pronouns also get an
interrogative reading, which I propose for Slovenian.107 I focus on how wh-in-situ is
interpreted as interrogative in Slovenian in the next section.
5.1.3 Assigning interrogative reading to wh-phrases in situ in Slovenian
The previous section showed that underspecified bare wh-pronouns receive an
indefinite reading in polarity contexts and an interrogative reading when the clause
has a clause initial interrogative wh-phrase. The underspecified wh-phrases in
Slovenian are in this respect similar to wh-phrases in wh-in-situ languages in that whin-situ in both these cases needs to be licensed by some other element.
Cheng (1991) observes that in languages, such as Japanese, Korean, and
Mandarin, wh-words are lexically ambiguous. For example, in Mandarin Chinese a
wh-word can be interpreted as either an interrogative wh-word, (36), or as an
existential quantifier when in the scope of negation, in yes/no-questions, (37), and in
conditionals. This is reminiscent of bare wh-pronouns in Slavic languages, as was
shown above.
(36) Mandarin Chinese (Cheng 1991: (28), (3))
Shei mai-le
sheme
(ne)
who buy.ASP
what
QWH
‘Who bought what?’
(37) qiaofong
mai-le
Qiaofong buy.ASP
sheme
ma
what
QY/N
‘Did Qiaofong buy anything?’
b.
Razve
kto
prišel?
is-it-true-that who came
‘Is it true that someone came?’
107
Cheng’s (1991) proposal has already been extended in the past. For example, Zavitnevich (2001)
assumes Cheng (1991), and proposes that in Russian all interrogative wh-words are polarity items
with a [+Q] feature (and an [F] feature for focus). They receive this feature at S-structure and are
therefore not bound by the same operator, which means that they all have to move to the clause initial
position in order to check their [+Q] feature in Russian. In English wh-phrases all have a [+Q] feature
in the lexicon which means that all of them can be bound by the same operator and that only one whword needs to move and the rest stay in situ. For more see Zavitnevich (2001).
183
As Cheng notes, a similar observation was made in, for example, Nishigauchi
(1990) about Japanese. In Japanese, the wh-word also gets interpreted in relation to
the particle with which it occurs. That is, when it appears with a particle -ka it is
interpreted as an existential, when it is in the scope of the particle -mo as a universal,
(38b), and when in the scope of wh-particle -ka it is interpreted as an interrogative
wh-phrase, (38a).
(38) Japanese (Cheng 1991: (20a, b))
a.
Dare-ga ki-masu-ka
who N
come-Q
‘Who is coming?’
b.
Dare-ga
ki-te mo
boku-wa
aw-a-nai
who-N
come Q
I-T
meet-not
‘For all x, if x comes, I would not meet (x).’
Cheng accounts for the behavior of wh-phrases in Mandarin Chinese by
building on Heim’s (1982) proposal for indefinites and Nishigauchi’s (1990)
proposal for Japanese wh-/indefinite alternation. Nishigauchi (1990) claims that, in
Japanese, wh-words are like indefinites in that neither have inherent quantificational
force. This has previously been shown for indefinites in Heim (1982). Because
indefinites do not have their own quantificational force they need to receive it from
other elements which have inherent quantificational force (e.g., from adverbs of
quantification such as always108) or an interpretative rule. In Heim (1982), this rule is
Existential Closure, which introduces a non-overt existential quantifier to a sentence
and then binds an indefinite (allowing it to be interpreted existentially).
Cheng builds on Nishigauchi’s proposal that takes wh-words and indefinite
pronouns in Japanese as lacking inherent quantificational force. The quantificational
force is only determined by the particle. That is, only when a wh-word appears with
an interrogative particle -ka in Japanese, it is interpreted as an interrogative wh-
108
In example (i) the indefinite gets a universal reading because it is bound by always:
(i) If a man owns a donkey, he always beats it.
184
phrase, see example (38) above. In Mandarin Chinese the quantificational force is
determined in a similar way, with a wh- or a yes/no-particle, a negative marker or a
universal marker. The particle is a licensor that licenses wh-words as polarity items,
but they also need a binder. The binder in yes/no- and negative contexts is the
Existential Closure, which determines the quantificational force. As for the
interrogative reading, only association with a wh-particle will lead to an interrogative
interpretation of a wh-phrase. Wh-words that receive an interrogative reading are,
however, slightly different from polarity items in Mandarin Chinese in that the whparticle is both the licensor and the unselective binder of the wh-word. This means
that the particle contributes the interrogative force to the wh-word in Mandarin
Chinese (potentially more than one wh-word at a time).
I propose that cases of wh-phrases in situ in Slovenian multiple wh-questions
are similar to Japanese in that both languages possess a wh-phrase that needs to be
licensed by some other element in the sentence in order to get an interrogative
reading. This means that, just as in the case with wh-words in Japanese, bare whpronouns in Slovenian lack quantificational force. The difference between receiving
the interrogative reading in the two languages is in what licenses the wh-phrase – in
Japanese the interrogative reading is licensed by an overt interrogative particle, but in
Slovenian there is no overt interrogative particle and the licensing is done by the
complex Q+wh-feature.
As already shown in section 3.6, I have argued that in Slovenian wh-questions
an interpretable complex Q+wh-feature is located in the Interrogative Projection in
the Left Periphery. The Q+wh-feature comes with an EPP-subfeature and one whphrase with an uninterpretable wh-feature moves in order to check the EPP feature on
the Interrogative head. Checking of the Q+wh-feature is responsible for Clause
Typing, but the interpretable Q+wh-feature is also responsible for licensing wh-insitu in Slovenian. Crucially, the Q+wh-feature on the Interrogative Head is
interpretable, and because of this, visible at LF (see for example Cinque and Rizzi
2008).
We have seen above that bare wh-pronouns in Slovenian are similar to the ones
in Russian. I will take two properties of indefinite pronouns to hold in Slovenian.
First, the wh-phrase in situ is a bare wh-pronoun that has no wh-feature and hence
does not agree with the Q+wh-feature on Inter0 and does not move (nor can it agree
185
with the interpretable wh-feature on the Wh-head). Second, because it is a bare
indefinite pronoun it needs to be licensed. In multiple wh-questions the licensing
operator is the interpretable Q+wh-feature on the Inter0 head. If the underspecified
wh-phrase is in the scope of the Q+wh-feature the wh-phrase in situ is interpreted as
an interrogative wh-phrase. This means that it is not the moved wh-phrase that
assigns a reading to the wh-phrase in situ. Rather, one wh-phrase which has the whfeature and which agrees with the complex Q+wh-feature moves because of the EPPsubfeature on the complex Q+wh-feature, but it is the interpretable complex feature
in the Interrogative head that is responsible for licensing the interrogative reading of
the wh-phrase in situ.
The situation is then slightly different in yes/no-questions. These do not come
with a complex Q+wh-feature, but rather just a Q (to which I will refer as QY/N).
This QY/N can be checked with an overt yes/no-complementizer a/ali ‘or’ or with a
phonologically null complementizer which leads to a yes/no-, i.e. rising, intonation.
This QY/N also cannot be checked by a wh-phrase (since there would be no
agreement). Because the bare wh-pronoun in situ in yes/no-questions is not in the
scope of the complex Q+wh-feature it does not receive an interrogative reading. I
will assume that in these cases, the QY/N is the licensor and the bare wh-pronouns are
interpreted as indefinite pronouns because they are existentially closed, see Yanovich
(2005) for Russian.109 For example, we can account for the readings of examples
such as (25) in such a way. In this case the Interrogative head does not host a
complex Q+wh-feature, because of which no wh-phrase moves to the clause initial
position. Because the bare wh-pronoun is not in the scope of this Q+wh-feature it
109
A question which has been pointed out is why an existential quantifier can intervene between the
QY/N and the bare wh-pronoun but a situation in which an existential quantifier intervenes between a
Q+wh and the wh-phrase in situ is not allowed. A possible solution was suggested by the anonymous
reviewer for Mišmaš (2015), that is, a violable constraint which requires licensor and binder to be the
same. So when a QWH, such as in Q+wh, can license and bind a wh-pronoun it has to do so, but the
QY/N is not able to bind and a quantifier must be introduced, as in yes/no-questions with bare whpronoun. I agree with such a proposal – assuming that the two Qs are different in that QY/N does not
have inherent quantificational force, while QWH in Q+wh has it, introducing an existential quantifier
in a wh-question with a wh-in situ would be superfluous since the QWH can both bind and license the
bare wh-pronoun in situ. In fact, a similar proposal has been made by Cheng (1991: 127, 128) who
proposes that the derivation in which one particle can both license and bind is less costly than a
derivation in which an existential quantifier is introduced by Existential Closure (Cheng is assuming
the Principle of economy of derivation as in Chomsky (1989)). Because of this, Existential Closure
only applies when there is no other binder available.
186
cannot get an interrogative reading (but does get an existential reading because it is
in the scope of a QY/N). The wh-item in situ is therefore interpreted based on which
operator has scope over it.110
While licensing wh-in-situ might resemble wh-scope marking questions in
Slovenian, the two are in fact different phenomena. If we compare the partial
question (i.e. a wh-scope marking question, see Stepanov (2000)) in (39) to the
multiple wh-question with a wh-phrase in situ, (40), we can see that we can answer
‘Miha invited Tone’ to both. This means that in answering (39) we only provide
referents for the wh-phrases in the embedded clause. In questions such as (40) we
need to provide referents for all wh-phrases.
110
We could potentially test if the licensing relation between the licensor and the bare wh-pronoun is
crucial for determining the interrogative reading of the bare wh-pronoun with intervention effects in
the sense of Beck (2006). I take (i) to describe the generalization regarding intervention effects and
intervention effects can be schematized as in (ii). An example of intervention effects is shown in (iii).
The wh-scope marking question in German is ungrammatical when niemand ‘nobody’ (the
quantificational element) intervenes between the wh-phrase in the scope position of the wh-scope
marking question.
(i)
Beck 2006: (9)
A quantificational or focusing element may not intervene between a wh-phrase and its
licensing complementizer.
(ii)
Beck (2006: (11))
* [Qi [… [ intervener [… wh-phrasei… ]]]]
(iii) German (Beck 2006: (8a, b))
* Was glaubt
Luise/ *niemand
wen Karl gesehen
hat?
what believes
Luise nobody
whom Karl seen
has
‘Who does nobody/Luise believe that Karl saw?’
Questions in (iv) are grammatical in Slovenian. All three can receive either a single pair or a pair list
answer, but example (iv.a) can also be answered by only referring to the moved interrogative whphrase kaj ‘what.ACC’ (komu ‘who.DAT’ receives an indefinite reading). This indicates that a
quantified element intervenes between the bare wh-pronoun and the Interrogative Projection that
licenses it. In examples (iv.b, c) such single answer is not possible. I suggest this is the case because
komu ‘who.DAT’ does not need licensing by a licensing operator – since it is moved, I assume komu
‘who.DAT’ in these cases is an interrogative wh-pronoun. Because intervention effects are something
that needs to be further explored in Slovenian and deserve more attention, I will not be considering
them any further.
(iv)
a.
b.
c.
Kaj
je
samo Miha kupil
what.ACC
AUX only Miha buy
‘What did only Mihy buy for whom?’
Kaj je samo Miha komu kupil?
Kaj je komu samo Miha kupil?
komu?
who.DAT
187
(39) Kaj misliš,
what think
kdo
je
who.NOM
AUX
koga
povabil
na
večerjo?
who.ACC
invite
on
dinner
‘What do you think, who invited who to dinner?’
(40) Kdo
who.NOM
je
na
večerjo
povabil
koga?
AUX
on
dinner
introduce who.ACC
‘Who introduced who to dinner?’
The examples so far have shown that the features of the Interrogative
Projection are crucial for licensing wh-in-situ in for matrix clauses, but the same also
holds for wh-in-situ in embedded clauses. In fact, these confirm the influence of the
features of the Interrogative Projection. According to Yanovich (2005), bare
indefinites in Russian need to associate with the nearest licensor. This also holds for
bare wh-pronouns in Slovenian. As example (41) shows, the wh-phrase in situ gets
interpreted as an indefinite pronoun when the embedded clause is headed by če ‘if’ –
in this case the embedded clause is a yes/no-question. In such a question, the whphrase in situ can also be pronounced with an emphasis, and in this case the
embedded clause is interpreted as an echo-question. But crucially, when the
embedded clause is headed by a wh-phrase, as in (42), and has a wh-phrase in situ,
the wh-in-situ is interpreted as an interrogative pronoun.111
(41) Koga
who.ACC
je spraševal,
AUX
ask
če je
Jože
if
Jože.NOM Maja.ACC invite
AUX
Majo
povabil
kam?
where
‘Whom did he ask if Jože invited Maja somewhere?’
(42) Koga
who.ACC
je
Miha spraševal, kdo je
Majo
AUX
Miha ask
Maja.ACC invite
who
AUX
povabil
kam?
where
‘Whom did Miha ask who invited where?’
The interpretation of the bare wh-pronoun in Slovenian therefore hinges on the first
potential licensor. Only when the licensor is the Q+wh-feature is the bare whpronoun interpreted as an interrogative pronoun.
111
In (42) then the wh-in-situ in the embedded clause can either take the embedded or the matrix
scope and the answer can either be ‘Miha asked Črt who invited Maja where’ or ‘Miha asked Črt who
invited Maja to the cinema’, respectively.
188
So far I have proposed an analysis of instances of wh-in-situ in multiple whquestions in Slovenian. I have argued that wh-phrases in situ are underspecified bare
wh-pronouns which need to be licensed by some other element in the clause. In whquestions in Slovenian, the bare wh-pronoun is licensed by the Q+wh-feature on the
Interrogative head and receives an interrogative meaning. On the other hand, there
are also wh-pronouns specified with the wh-feature in Slovenian. These interrogative
pronouns have to undergo wh-movement, as described in section 3.6. In the second
part of this section I discuss some additional data that are of interest for the proposal.
5.2 Further issues
In this section I look at data that might appear problematic given the proposed
account. I show that the proposed analysis can be maintained despite apparent issues.
I start the section with questions with a clause final subject wh-phrase, continue with
dialectical variation in the use of different wh-pronouns and observe the behavior of
koliko ‘how much/many’ and zakaj ‘why’. Finally, I also look at the data from
Serbo-Croatian to see whether the proposal for instances of wh-in-situ in Slovenian
can be extended to Serbo-Croatian.
5.2.1 Cases with a wh-subject in a clause final position
There is another type of multiple wh-questions in Slovenian that needs to be
considered. These are multiple wh-questions in which the wh-phrase referring to the
subject appears in the sentence final position when another wh-phrase moves to the
clause initial position.112 An example of such a question is shown below:
112
(i)
Yes/no-questions with a subject in the clause final position are also possible:
A
pije kdo?
QY/N drink who.NOM
‘Is anybody drinking?’
189
(43) Kaj
pije
kdo?
what.ACC drinks
who.NOM
‘Who drinks what?’
These cases are potentially problematic because the wh-subject appears after
the verb. If we assume that the nominative wh-phrase (the subject) is merged in the
specifier of the vP and the wh-subject in these cases stays in situ, we would expect
the reverse word order with the subject preceding the verb. While the expected word
order is possible, as (44) shows, example (43) shows that the word order in which the
verb precedes the wh-subject is also possible. The question is how to account for
examples like these.
(44) Kaj
kdo
pije?
what.ACC who.NOM drinks
‘Who drinks what?’
The account of multiple wh-questions with a wh-subject in the clause final
position is based on two separate analyses. First, in line with what was said in the
previous section, the wh-phrase kdo ‘who’ in this case is a bare wh-pronoun which
receives its interpretation in relation to the moved wh-phrase. The second part hinges
on the behavior of verbs in Slovenian. Specifically, Ilc and Milojević Sheppard
(2003) show that Slovenian has optional V-to-Aspect movement of the verb. They
come to this conclusion based on examples with floating quantifiers – the fact that
floating quantifiers can appear either before or after the verb indicates that the verb
can either move or not move to Asp0 in the IP layer (see Ilc and Milojević Sheppard
(2003) for the arguments behind movement to Asp0):
(45) Ilc and Milojević Sheppard (2003: (30a, b))
a.
Otroci
vsi
ljubijo
čokolado.
children
all
love
chocolate.ACC
‘The children all love chocolate.’
b.
Otroci ljubijo vsi čokolado.
190
Returning to the wh-question in (43), I propose that in these cases the whphrase kaj ‘what’ moves to the InterP, the bare wh-pronoun kdo ‘who’ stays in situ
because it does not have a wh-feature that would motivate movement and finally, in
these cases the verb undergoes movement to the Aspect head in the IP-layer. Since
Asp0 is located above the Spec-vP projection in which the subject is merged, the
word order in (43) is accounted for. As for example (44), there are two possible
explanations – if we assume that the verb in these cases does not undergo optional
movement to Asp0 and kaj ‘what’ moves to SpecInterP, then the wh-subject either
stays in situ or moves to a Wh-Projection. Because multiple wh-questions with
multiple movement and with wh-in-situ both receive the same interpretation, as I will
show in section 7.1.1, we cannot distinguish between the two possibilities.
5.2.2 Two types of ‘what’ and other dialectical variation
In some Slovenian dialects the standard Slovenian wh-pronoun kaj ‘what’ comes in
two different varieties: kaj and kej. While we have seen that the standard Slovenian
kaj ‘what’ has two meanings (i.e. interrogative and indefinite in polarity contexts),
each variant in these dialects only gets one interpretation: kaj only gets an
interrogative and kej only gets an indefinite reading. I will focus on data obtained
from speakers from Ljubljana and Celje in this section and show that these data offer
a confirmation for the proposal from the first part of this section (i.e. that the Q+wh
feature in the Left Periphery is responsible for licensing of the interrogative reading
of the wh-phrases in situ). Interestingly, this distinction only happens with kaj and
with no other wh-pronouns and the distinction does not exist in all Slovenian
dialects. Specifically, Western Slovenian dialects (for example, Slovenian as spoken
in Nova Gorica) have a wide use of kej ‘what’ (or ki ‘kaj’ in some varieties of
Western Slovenian dialects) as both an interrogative and indefinite pronoun. In these
dialects the use of kej then parallels the use of kaj ‘what’ in standard Slovenian. I will
leave Western Slovenian dialects aside.
The described distinction between kaj ‘what’ and kej ‘something’ can be
observed in single wh-questions, (46). In these questions the interrogative wh-phrase
has to move to the clause initial position. In single wh-questions, speakers that use
191
the kaj/kej distinction only use the wh-phrase kaj ‘what’ and not kej ‘something’. This
confirms our initial observation that only kaj has an interrogative reading. Also,
neither can be used in declarative sentences, (47).
(46) a.
Kaj je
Jože kupil?
what AUX Jože buy
‘What did Jože buy?’
b. * Kej
something
(47) a. * Jože je
Jože
AUX
b. ?* Jože je
Jože AUX
je
Jože kupil?
AUX
Jože buy
kupil kaj.
buy what
kupil kej.
buy something
Based on the proposal in the previous section, what we expect is that in
polarity contexts one will find kej ‘something’ but in wh-questions, speakers of
central Slovenian dialects will only use kaj ‘what’. This is exactly what we find. For
example, in yes/no-questions (an instance of a polarity context) speakers only find
the examples with kej ‘something’ grammatical, (48a). That is, in yes/no-questions,
speakers of central Slovenian dialects cannot use kaj ‘what’, (48b). And as expected,
in wh-questions, speakers can only use kaj ‘what’ in situ. Example (49) shows that
wh-questions with kej ‘something’ in situ are judged as ungrammatical for the
interrogative reading of the wh-in-situ.
(48) a.
A
je
Jože
kupil kej?
QY/N AUX Jože.NOM buy something.ACC
‘Did Jože buy anything?’
b. * A
je
Jože kupil kaj?
QY/N AUX Jože buy what
(49) a.
Kdo
je
kupil kaj?
who.NOM
AUX
buy what.ACC
‘Who bought what?’
192
b. * Kdo je
who AUX
kupil kej?
buy something
This means that a different interpretation of the bare wh-pronoun results in a
different phonological form for the bare wh-pronoun. When it is licensed by a
yes/no-question marker and receives an indefinite reading it gets the kej form. When
it is licensed by the Q+wh-feature and is interpreted as an interrogative pronoun, it
receives the kaj form.
A potentially problematic piece of data comes from multiple wh-fronting. In
questions with multiple wh-fronting, speakers only get a true wh-question reading
with kaj ‘what’, but questions with kej ‘something’ are also possible.
(50) a.
Kdo
je
kaj
kupil?
who.NOM
AUX
what.ACC buy
‘Who bought what?’
b.
Kaj je kdo kupil?
c. # Kdo je
who
AUX
kej
kupil?
what buy
That kaj ‘what’ can appear in multiple wh-fronting is not surprising. If we
assume that it is specified with a wh-feature, then we also expect it to move. It is
however surprising that kej can appear fronted in a wh-question. But (50c) does not
get a multiple wh-reading nor does the kej in that example get an indefinite reading.
These questions are different and kej seems to have a different meaning in such
questions. Such meaning is also possible with the standard Slovenian kaj. The
dictionary of standard Slovenian language (Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika,
Bajec et al. 2000) recognizes that kaj ‘what’ in standard Slovenian has meanings
other than the indefinite or the interrogative meaning. For example, it can be used for
expressing small amounts (komaj kaj jem ‘I hardly eat’) but it also has a function of
generalizing a question. For example, in (51), kaj is used as such in standard
Slovenian – both (51a) and (51b) are interpreted as single wh-questions in which
speakers only assign a value to the clause initial wh-phrase.
193
(51) (Bajec et al. 2000)
a.
Kako je
kaj
how
what home
AUX
doma?
‘How is it at home?’
b.
Kakšni
ljudje
what-kind people
so
kaj
to?
AUX
what this
‘What kind of people are they?’
Speakers of central Slovenian dialects use kej in such cases to express a small
amount, which helps us to account for the acceptability of (50c). In addition,
speakers accept example (50c) but note that they cannot give a simple pair list
answer to it (i.e. they cannot answer with ‘Homer beer, Bart a cake’). Rather, they
can answer with ‘everybody/somebody did’ and then potentially offer a pair list
answer (but they need to start with a general answer). This indicates that kej in these
cases in fact has a different meaning from kej ‘something’ (or even ‘what’). This
means that questions such as (50c) do not contradict our initial observations about
the behavior of kej ‘something’, i.e. that it is a realization of bare wh-pronoun with
an indefinite interpretation.
To summarize, in some Slovenian dialects kaj only gets an interrogative
reading and kej only gets an indefinite reading. In relation to this, kaj can be used in
wh-questions and kej in polarity contexts. This means that the bare wh-pronouns that
need to be licensed get a different phonological form in these dialects.
In addition to the kaj/kej distinction, some variation can also be found with
complex wh-phrases. I have already explored some standard Slovenian examples
with D-linked phrases, e.g. (30) in 5.1.2, and have shown that in these the pronoun
kateri ‘which’ is used. Other wh-words can appear in complex wh-phrases in addition
to kateri ‘which’. These wh-pronouns, in standard Slovenian, have three distinct
meanings, (52). In standard Slovenian, all of these can be used in yes/no-questions,
as the examples (53)–(55) below show. All three can also appear in situ in whquestions, (56)–(58):
(52) kakšen - what kind of
kateri - which
194
čigav - whose
(53) A
je
čigav
ata
že
tukaj?
Q
is
whose
dad already
here
‘Is anybody’s dad here?’
(54) A je kakšen
Q is any
zdravnik
tukaj?
doctor
here
‘Is there a doctor here?’
(55) A
Q
je
naredil
izpit kateri
od
študentov?
AUX
pass
exam which
of
students
‘Did any of the students pass the exam?’
(56) Kdo je
who
AUX
opral čigav
avto?
wash whose
car
‘Who washed whose car?’
(57) Kdo je
who
AUX
opral kakšen
avto?
wash what-kind-of
car
‘Who washed what kind of car?’
(58) Kdo je
who
AUX
opral kateri
avto?
wash which
car
‘Who washed which car?’
Variation between dialects and their complex wh-phrases can be observed with
respect to which wh-word is used in multiple wh-questions with a wh-phrase in situ
and in yes/no-questions. For example, speakers form Nova Gorica use kakšen/kəšn
lit. ‘what kind of’ for both ‘what kind of’ and ‘which’, speakers form Laško use
kateri/kir lit. ‘which’ for both ‘what kind of’ and ‘which’, and both use čigav
‘whose’, which is a separate pronoun in both. This simply means that speakers of the
Laško dialect will find cases such as (58) more acceptable than (57), while speakers
from Nova Gorica will find (57) more acceptable. While this might account for
differences in acceptability between dialects, it does not give us any additional
evidence about the behavior of wh-phrases in situ, since, contrary to the distinction
with kaj/kej, variation in complex wh-phrases is not influenced by context in which a
wh-phrase appears.
195
5.2.3 Koliko ‘how much/many’ and zakaj ‘why’
There are two exceptions with respect to which wh-pronouns can appear in both
polarity context and in situ in multiple wh-questions. The first exception is koliko
‘how much/many’ and the second zakaj ‘why’.
Koliko ‘how much/many’ is a wh-phrase that appears in both single and
multiple wh-questions:
(59) Koliko
knjig si
prebral?
how-many books AUX.2SG
read
‘How many books did you read?’
(60) a.
Koliko
knjig
how-many books
je
kdo prebral?
AUX
who read
‘How many books did who read?
b.
Kdo je koliko knjig prebral?
Wh-phrases which include koliko ‘how much/many’ behave differently from
other wh-phrases in that they cannot appear in polarity contexts, as (61) shows for
yes/no-questions and (62) for conditionals. Examples (61b) and (62b) show that we
get the intended meaning ‘any’ with kaj lit. ‘what’.
(61) a.
b.
*A
si
pojedel
koliko
hrušk?
QY/N AUX eat
how-many pears
A
kaj
si
pojedel
QY/N AUX eat
hrušk?
what pears
‘Did you eat any pears?’
(62) a. * Miha ne
b.
ve,
če
bo
bral koliko
knjig.
Miha not
know if
will read how-many books
Miha ne
ve,
bo
Miha not
know if
če
bral kaj
knjig.
will read what books
‘Miha does not know if he will read any books.’
196
Since koliko ‘how much/many’ cannot appear in polarity contexts, this implies
that it lacks the ability to get an indefinite reading. This indicates that koliko ‘how
much/many’ is not a bare wh-pronoun with featural deficiency. Based on this we
might expect that it cannot appear in situ in wh-questions. As the examples below
show, this is not the case:
(63) Kdo je
who
AUX
prebral
koliko
knjig?
read
how-many books
‘Who read how many books?’
That koliko ‘how much/many’ is indeed different from other wh-phrases is also
evident from the fact that it is not compatible with the indefinite prefix ne- in the
same way as other wh-pronouns (see Table 14). Specifically, while nekoliko exists, it
is not simply an indefinite counterpart to koliko. If it were, we would find the
pronoun nekoliko in declarative sentences where it would appear as an indefinite
counterpart to the interrogative koliko ‘who much/many’, but this is not the case.
Instead, nekaj ‘some’ is used.
(64) a. * Maja je
Maja
AUX
prebrala
nekoliko
knjig.
read
some
books
Intended: ‘Maja read a couple of books.’
b.
Maja je
prebrala
nekaj
knjig.
Maja
read
some
books
AUX
‘Maja read a couple of books.’
Following The dictionary of standard Slovenian language (Bajec et al. 2000),
nekoliko has a different reading. It can be used to express a small quantity, a small
degree, and it can express an indefinite quantity – but it seems to typically do so for
adjectives (nekoliko rdeč ‘somewhat red’). This means that the wh-pronoun koliko
‘how much/many’ does not have the indefinite counterpart with the prefix ne- or
when it is licensed with a yes/no-question marker. Still, we can assume that the bare
wh-pronoun koliko ‘how much/many’ exists and it gets an interrogative meaning
when in the scope of the complex Q+wh-feature. However, when in the scope of a
197
yes/no-question operator QY/N- the sentence is not grammatical, because the assigned
reading of the bare wh-pronoun is not available.
Also incompatible with an indefinite reading is zakaj ‘why’. I have already
shown that zakaj ‘why’ can appear in multiple wh-questions. This is again shown in
(65). On the other hand, just like koliko ‘how much/many’, zakaj ‘why’ cannot
appear in polarity contexts.
(65) Zakaj je
why
AUX
kdo
opral avto?
who.NOM wash car
‘Why did who wash the car?’
(66) * A
si
zakaj kupil avto?
QY/N AUX why buy car
(67) *Če je
If
AUX
Tone zakaj opraskal
avto, bom poklicala
policijo.
Tone why scratch
car
police
will call
But contrary to koliko ‘how much/many’, zakaj ‘why’ cannot appear in a
clause final position.
(68) ??Kdo je
who
AUX
opraskal
avto zakaj?
scratched
car
why
‘Who scratched the car why?’
This is not surprising, since we have seen that zakaj ‘why’ behaves differently
from the remaining wh-phrases in questions with multiple wh-fronting and needs to
precede all wh-phrases in a multiple wh-questions, see section 3.4. One possible
account of ungrammaticality of zakaj ‘why’ appearing in the clause final position is
that zakaj ‘why’ is always specified with the wh-feature. Because of this, it also
cannot appear in polarity contexts. In addition, it was suggested in the past that why
is merged higher in the structure. Specifically, it was claimed that in Polish or
Russian the reason why merges in CP and the purpose is why is merged in the vP and
is then moved, see Stepanov and Tsai (2008). Assuming both types of why are
merged higher in the structure in Slovenian too, is consistent with the fact that why
does not appear in the clause final position in Slovenian questions – it cannot appear
198
in the clause final position, because it is merged high. I will not be considering zakaj
‘why’ any further, but see for example Stepanov and Tsai (2008) or Jędrejowski
(2014).
5.2.4 Data from Serbo-Croatian
Section 2.2.1 has shown that wh-in-situ can also be found in Serbo-Croatian, which I
show again in (69).113 Crucailly, again, just as in Slovenian, the speakers need to give
answers to both wh-phrases, e.g. the appropriate answer to (69) is ‘(He gave) a beer
to Jim’. Aditionally, in Serbo-Croatian, just as in Slovenian, bare pronouns cannot be
used in declarative sentences, (70). In these an indefinite pronoun needs to be used.
113
In fn. 16 I have shown that a wh-phrase can also stay in situ in wh-questions in Czech. However,
despite the fact that there are some similarities in the behavior of wh-pronouns in Czech and
Slovenian, the two languages differ in several respects. That is, in Czech (as in Slovenian) bare whpronouns cannot appear in declarative sentences and in both a wh-phrase has to appear in the sentence
initial position for the question to be interpreted as a true wh-question. But in Czech bare wh-pronouns
cannot appear in situ in yes/no-questions (or in conditionals).
(i)
a.
b.
(ii)
a.
(iii)
b.
a.
b.
Jan někoho
pozval.
Jan somebody.ACC invited
‘Jan invited somebody.’
* Jan koho
pozval.
Jan who.ACC invited
* Jan komu
koho
představil?
Jan who.DAT who.ACC
introduce
Intended: ‘Jan introduced who to whom?’
* Jan komu představil koho?
Pozval Jan někoho?
Invite Jan somebody.ACC
‘Did Jan invite somebody?’
* Pozval Tom koho?
In addition to this, some note (see Šimík 2010) that in Czech the wh-phrase has to be stressed in
clause final position. Also, in Czech and Slovenian questions with wh-in situ do not receive the same
interpretations (see section 7). Given that bare wh-pronouns in these languages behave differently, the
proposed analysis for Slovenian cannot simply be extended to Czech, as it seems that in Czech whpronouns are always specified with a wh-feature (and therefore cannot appear in yes/no-questions and
conditionals). The difference between moved wh-phrases and wh-phrases in situ seems to originate
from other sources, for example, as Šimík (2010) proposed for Czech, in the position of the Qparticle.
199
(69) a.
Šta
je
kome
Ivan dao?
what.ACC
AUX
who.DAT
Ivan give
‘What did Ivan give to whom?’
b.
Kome je šta Ivan dao?
c.
Kome je Ivan dao šta?
d.
Šta je Ivan dao kome?
(70) a.
Maja je
pozvala
Maja AUX called
nekoga.
somebody
‘Maja called somebody.
b. * Maja je
pozvala
Maja AUX called
koga.
who
In Serbo-Croataian bare wh-pronouns can be used in yes/no-questions. There,
the bare wh-pronoun does not have the interrogative reading (and there is no need to
assign a value to them), but rather the same meaning as indefinite pronouns, as the
example below shows.114 Bare wh-pronouns can also be used in conditionals in
which they again receive the indefinite reading.
(71) Da
li
That Q
je
Maja
koga
uvredila?
AUX
Maja.NOM who.ACC
inslult
‘Did Maja insult somebody?’
(72) Ako Maja koga uvredi,
if
Maja who insults
biće
tužna.
will-be
sad
‘If Maja insults somebody, she will be sad.’
As in Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian speakers do not find examples in (73) acceptable as
wh-questions. They do note that these examples are potentially better if the wh-
114
As Progovac (2005) shows, in Serbo-Croatian bare wh-pronouns that are interpreted as indefinites
tend to raise, but also gives examples in which they stay in situ:
(i) Serbo-Croatian (Progovac 2005: 28, (85), (ii))
a.
Da
li
je
on
koga
that Q
AUX he
who.ACC
‘Has he insulted someone?’
b.
Da li je on uvredio koga?
uvredio?
insult
200
phrases are emphasized in which case the question is interpreted as an echo question
– just as in Slovenian.
(73) a. * Ivan je
Ivan
AUX
šta
kome
dao?
what.ACC who.DAT
give
b. * Ivan je kome dao šta?
This means that Serbo-Croatian data are consistent with the data in Slovenian
which indicates that the proposal for Slovenian can be extended to Serbo-Croatian.
5.3 Summary
In this section I have argued that the difference between wh-phrases that undergo
movement and wh-phrases that stay in situ in wh-questions in Slovenian is in the whphrases themselves. Specifically, I proposed that wh-phrases in situ in Slovenian are
bare wh-pronouns that lack inherent quantificational force and are underspecified for
the wh-feature. Because they are only interpreted as interrogative wh-phrases in
multiple wh-questions in which one wh-phrase moves to the clause initial position, I
proposed that it is the complex Q+wh-feature on the Interrogative head that is
responsible for licensing interrogative wh-phrases in situ in Slovenian.
So far I have only considered questions with multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian
and cases in which a wh-phrase stays in situ in multiple wh-questions in Slovenian.
In the following section I look at the third type of questions – wh-questions with
short movement.
201
6 Multiple wh-questions with short movement
One of the patterns of multiple wh-questions in Slovenian that was discussed in
section 2.3 is the pattern in which one wh-phrase (or more) undergoes movement to
the clause initial position, while another moves to some clause internal position, after
the subject. I call these questions multiple wh-questions with short movement (cf.
Dornisch 1998, Citko 2010). We observed the pattern for argument and adjunct whphrases in matrix and embedded questions and it can also be found with D-linked
phrases. In addition, we saw that in this type of question the lower wh-phrase is
located after the subject. I show this in (1) for two argument wh-phrases, but see 2.3
for more examples (including examples with more than two wh-phrases). Examples
(1c) and (1d) show movement of all wh-phrases to the clause initial positions (all whphrases are located above the subject).
(1)
a.
Kaj
je
Janez
komu
kupil?
what.ACC
AUX
Janez
who.DAT
buy
‘What did Janez buy for whom?’
b.
Komu je Janez kaj kupil?
c.
Kaj je komu Janez kupil?
d.
Komu je kaj Janez kupil?
But before we try to account for wh-questions with short wh-movement we first
need to show that this is in fact a question pattern which is distinct from multiple whfronting. The two are sometimes superficially very similar, especially given the fact
that, as shown in chapter 3, wh-phrases that undergo multiple wh-fronting can be
separated by several elements (cf. Rudin 1988). For example, in (2) the wh-phrases
are separated by an auxiliary clitic and in (3) by the parenthetical po tvoje ‘in your
opinion’ (both are repeated from 3.1.1).
(2)
a.
Kdo
je
koga
udaril?
who.NOM
AUX.3SG
who.ACC
hit
‘Who is hitting whom?’
b.
Koga je kdo udaril?
202
(3)
a.
Kdo po
tvoje kdaj kuha kosilo?
who after you when cooks lunch
‘Who in your opinion cooks lunch when?’
b.
Kdaj po tvoje kdo kuha kosilo?
Further, fronted wh-phrases can be also separated by a topic phrase. This is shown in
(4) in which, given the context, to prijateljico ‘this friend.ACC’ is the topic of (4a).
(4)
Maja je šla praznovat rojstni dan k svoji prijateljici.
‘Maja went to her friend’s birthday party.’
a.
Kdaj je
to
prijateljico kje
spoznala?
when AUX this friend.ACC where meet
‘When and where did she meet this friend?’
The relevant question at this point is whether the subject that intervenes
between the two wh-phrases in (1a, b) is a topic moved to the Topic position of the
Left Periphery or something else. If it turns out to be a phrase moved to the Left
Periphery, we could simply ignore wh-questions with short movement as a separate
type of multiple wh-questions. But we can show that the nominative DPs are in fact
subjects and not necessarily topics at the same time. This is evident by the fact that
an indefinite phrase can act as a subject of a multiple wh-question. Since topics are
typically already given in the discourse, they are also typically specific/distinct (as in
example (4)). Because of this, I will assume that an indefinite DP, such as vsaj dva
študenta ‘at least two students’ in (5), cannot be a topic. Still the subject can be a
topic at the same time, for example ta študentka ‘this student’ is both a topic and the
subject of (6).115 But it should also be noted that (6) would be an infelicitous question
for the context in (5).
115
Rizzi (1997) writes that topics cannot be quantified in Italian, but this is not true for Slovenian.
Given the appropriate context, such as the one in (i), one can quantify the topic, in this case vsem
otrokom ‘all the children.DAT’ in (i.a):
(i)
Maja je v Celju spoznala otroke.
‘Maja met children in Celje.’
a.
Kaj je
vsem otrokom
prinesla
za božič?
what AUX
all
children
bring
for Christmas
‘What did she bring all these children for Christmas?’
203
(5)
Maja vsak dan dobi kup daril.
‘Maja gets a lot of gifts every day.’
a.
Kdaj sta
vsaj
dva študenta kaj Maji prinesla za darilo?
when AUX at-least
two student what Maja bring
for gift
‘When did at least two students bring what as a gift to Maja?’
(6)
Študentka vsak dan prinaša darila.
‘A student brings gifts every day.’
a.
Kdaj je
ta
when AUX this
študentka kaj
student
Maji prinesla
what Maja bring
za
darilo?
for
gift
‘When did this student bring what as a gift to Maja?’
On the other hand, one could argue that the non-wh-subject that appears
between the two wh-phrases is in the Focus Projection. However, focused phrases are
pronounced with an emphasis in Slovenian, as in (7). Since subjects are not
necessarily emphasized (there is no emphasis on ena študentka ‘some student’ in
(5)), I will assume that they are not in the Focus Projection of the Left Periphery.
Still, there are examples in which the subject is focused, as (7) shows.
(7)
Miha je predstavil Janeza Maji.
‘Miha introduced Janez to Maja.’
a.
Ne,
komu
je
TONE koga
predstavil?
no
who.DAT
AUX
TONE who.ACC
introduce
‘No, who did TONE introduce to whom?’
Given that even quantified subjects, as in (iii), can appear in the Topic position, we cannot take
quantification as a test for determining if something is a Topic.
(ii)
(iii)
Kaj
je
Maja komu
prinesla
za
what.ACC
AUX Maja who.DAT
bring
for
‘What did Maja bring whom for their birthday?’
Kaj
je
vsaka punca komu
prinesla
what.ACC
AUX every girls
who.DAT
bring
‘What did every girl bring whom for their birthday?’
204
rojstni dan?
birthday
za rojstni dan?
for birthday
Based on this we can conclude that the subject that is located between the two whphrases is not necessarily the topic or the focus – but that a subject can also be the
topic or the focus of the sentence.
Additional evidence for the behavior of multiple wh-questions with multiple
wh-fronting being different from questions with short movement comes from the
interpretation of adverbs that appear with multiple wh-questions. As we saw in
section 3.2, Bošković (1997a et seq.) proposed an analysis of multiple wh-fronting in
which he determined the position of wh-phrases, using as a test the interpretation of
adverbs in Serbo-Croatian. I repeat the crucial examples below:
(8)
Serbo-Croatian (Bošković 1997a: (18), Stjepanović 2003: (19))
a.
Ko
mudro
who wisely
koga
savjetuje?
whom
advises
??‘Who is it wise of to advise whom?’
‘Who advises whom in a wise manner?’
b.
Ko
koga
who whom
mudro
savjetuje?
wisely
advises
*‘Who is it wise of to advise whom?’
‘Who advises whom in a wise manner?’
c.
Koga
ko
mudro
whom
who wisely
savjetuje?
advises
??‘Who is it wise of to advise whom?’
‘Who advises whom in a wise manner?
As Bošković notes (1997a: fn. 5) both (8a) and (8c) are degraded on the
sentential reading, but they are better than (8b). He claims that the reason for this is a
general incompatibility of sentential adverbs with questions (because of this,
according to Bošković, who wisely advises whom is somewhat degraded when wisely
has a sentential reading). Despite this general incompatibility Bošković claims that
the adverb receives the sentential reading when it is located in the TP (or AgrsP) and
that the adverb receives the manner reading when it is located in the VP (or AgroP).
In (8c) the sentential reading is available, therefore we can assume that both whphrases (which precede the adverb) are located above the TP and that the adverb is in
205
the TP. The same holds for (8b), which is only different from (8c) in the word order
of wh-phrases. Both readings are also available in (8a). Example (9) shows how
Slovenian behaves with respect to adverbs in multiple wh-questions:
(9)
a.
Kdo pametno
komu
pomaga?
who wisely
whom
help
‘Who is it wise of to help whom?’
‘Who helps whom in a wise manner?’
b.
Kdo komu
pametno
pomaga?
who whom
wisely
help
‘Who is it wise of to help whom?’
‘Who helps whom in a wise manner?’
c.
Komu
kdo pametno
pomaga?
whom
who wisely
help
‘Who is it wise of to help whom?’
‘Who helps whom in a wise manner?’
In (9), both the subject oriented and the manner readings are available when the
adverb is located between the fronted wh-phrases or after them. The same also holds
for examples in which fronted wh-phrases are divided by a clitic or a parenthetical,
(10).
(10) a.
Komu
po
who.DAT after
tvoje kdo
pametno
you who.NOM wise
pomaga?
help
‘Who is it wise of, in your opinion, to help whom?’
‘Who, in your opinion, helps whom in a wise manner?’
b.
Komu
po
tvoje pametno
who.DAT
after you wise
kdo
pomaga?
who.NOM help
‘Who is it wise of, in your opinion, to help whom?’
‘Who, in your opinion, helps whom in a wise manner?’
However, if we change the questions to multiple wh-questions in which the
non-wh-subject intervenes between the wh-phrases, and compare them to the
206
examples in which the non-wh-subject follows fronted wh-phrases, there is a
difference in the possible interpretations:
(11) a.
Kdaj je
komu
when AUX who.DAT
pametno
Miha pomagal? [both readings]
wise
Miha help
‘When was it wise of Miha to help whom?’
‘When did Miha help whom in a wise manner?
b.
(12)
Kdaj je pametno komu Miha pomagal?
Kdaj je
Miha komu
when AUX Miha who.DAT
[both readings]
pametno
pomagal? [manner reading]
wise
help
‘When did Miha help whom in a wise manner?
When the subject follows fronted wh-phrases and the adverb in a multiple whquestion, the adverb gets a sentential or a manner reading, (11). This is true
regardless of the position of the adverb (it can follow the wh-phrases or appear
between them). When the subject intervenes between the fronted wh-phrases, (12),
the adverb can receive only the manner reading. We can take this as an indicator that
the lower wh-phrase does not appear in the Left Periphery of the clause (in which
case both readings would be available) and as another argument for treating multiple
wh-questions with short movement separately from multiple wh-questions with
multiple wh-fronting to the clause initial position. This means that we need a separate
account for short movement. But before proceeding, a side note is in order.
I am here concentrating on examples in which the subject intervenes between
two wh-phrases, but there are also cases in which the object does so. In (13) below,
the accusative non-wh-object intervenes between two wh-phrases. Since it is an
indefinite DP and it is not emphasized, it is not the topic or the focus of the sentence
(I assume it is scrambled to its position). Such questions also behave exactly as do
multiple wh-questions with a non-wh-subject with respect to the reading of the
adverb. The adverb pametno ‘wisely’ in (14) can only receive the manner reading.
(13) Kdo je
who
AUX
neko
knjigo
kdaj kupil Tonetu
za rojstni dan?
some
book
when buy Tone
for birthday
‘When did who buy a book for Tone for his birthday?’
207
(14) a.
Kdo je
Mihatu
pametno
who AUX
Miha.DAT wise
kaj
pojasnil?
what explain
‘Who explained what to Miha in a wise manner?’
b.
Kdo je Mihatu kaj pametno pojasnil?
As mentioned in section 2.2, a similar phenomenon has been observed in
Polish. Dornisch (1998) and Citko (2010) name this type of movement to the clause
internal position short movement. Crucially, Citko notes that these questions are not
echo-questions and that they are parallel to the ‘usual’ multiple wh-questions in
Polish in that they allow a pair list reading. The same also holds for Slovenian. An
example of short movement in Polish is given below in (15) where the dative whphrase komu ‘who.DAT’ is moved to a position beneath the subject Ewa.116
(15) Polish (Citko 2010: (12))
a.
Co
Ewa
komu
dała?
what.ACC Ewa.NOM who.DAT
gave
‘What did Ewa give to whom?’
b.
Komu Ewa co dała?
The two questions that need to be answered with respect to short movement are
why this movement happens and what the landing site of the short-moved wh-phrase
is. In section 3.6 I argue that wh-fronting proceeds to two separate positions in the
Left Periphery, the Interrogative and the Wh-Projection, and that movement to both
116
Based on Dyakonova (2009), wh-questions with short movement are possible in Russian. Example
(i) shows that short movement is possible in single wh-questions and, crucially, example (ii) shows
short movement for multiple wh-questions. In these multiple wh-questions no superiority effects are
exhibited.
(i)
(ii)
Russian (Dyakonova 2009: 184, (6b))
Ty
na seminare
o
čem budeš’
rasskazyvat’?
you.NOM
on seminar.LOC
about what FUT.2SG
tell.INF
‘What are you going to talk about at the seminar?’
(Dyakonova 2009: 202, (44))
a.
Komu
Ivan
čto
podaril?
who.DAT
Ivan.NOM
what.ACC
give.PST.MASC
‘What did Ivan give to whom?’
b.
Čto Ivan komu podaril?
208
is motivated by the wh-feature on the wh-phrase (which agrees with the features of
the heads in the Left Periphery) in addition to the EPP features on the Interrogative
and the Wh-head. On the other hand, we have seen that wh-phrases in situ lack whfeatures and do not move, because there is no motivation for them to move. If we
assume these two options for wh-phrases, there are also two possibilities for short
movement. The first one is that wh-phrases are short wh-moved to some clause
internal position, which means that short wh-movement is parallel to wh-movement
to the clause initial position (i.e. it is motivated by wh-features). The second
possibility is that wh-phrases are bare wh-pronouns which are scrambled to some
clause internal position, which would be expected based on the fact that Slovenian
exhibits scrambling, as shown in section 3.4.5 and as I will show in what follows.
The issue, however, is that the two possibilities are hard to differentiate in multiple
wh-fronting languages.
6.1 Short movement in Slovenian: Scrambling vs. wh-movement
While the fact that Slovenian has wh-movement was established in chapter 3, more
needs to be said about scrambling before proceeding. I will take scrambling to be
optional semantically vacuous movement – that is, movement that results in different
word orders, but does not change grammatical relations, truth conditions or
morphology (as in Ross 1967, Saito 1989, see also Bailyn 2001).117 Crucially,
Slovenian, just like other Slavic languages (see for example Bailyn 2001, Bošković
2004, 2009), allows scrambling of one or more constituents, as (16) shows.
(16) a.
Ivan
je
Ivan.NOM AUX
napisal
pismo
Maji.
wrote
letter.ACC Maja.DAT
‘Ivan wrote a letter to Maja.’
b.
Ivan je pismo napisal Maji.
c.
Ivan je Maji napisal pismo.
117
A different approach was proposed by Bošković and Takahashi (1998) who argue for Japanese
style scrambling in which the scrambled element is based generated in its surface position and
undergoes LF lowering. I will not be considering if Slovenian displays such scrambling, but see
Bailyn (2001) and Bošković (2009) who consider Russian and Serbo-Croatian in this respect.
209
d.
Maji je Ivan napisal pismo.
As already indicated, fn. 100, and as I show below, there is an option to move
bare wh-pronouns in yes/no-questions and conditionals. To recapitulate, I assume
that the bare wh-pronoun in the examples below does not have a wh-feature and
therefore cannot undergo wh-movement. But bare wh-pronouns can still move and
since movement of bare wh-pronouns in the following examples does not change the
meaning of the yes/no-question or the conditional sentence, I take the bare whpronouns to be scrambled to the clause internal position (I mark the position from
which the pronoun was scrambled with an e).
(17) A
je
Ivan kaj
napisal e?
QY/N AUX Ivan what.INDEF write
‘Did Ivan write anything?’
(18) Če je
if
AUX
zdravnik
koga
izpostavil e
virusu,
bo
dobil
doctor
who.ACC
expose
virus
will get
kazen.
fine
‘If the doctor exposed anyone to a virus, he will get a fine.’
In what follows I will try to determine whether in wh-questions with short movement
in Slovenian the wh-phrase is wh-moved or scrambled into a clause internal position.
Short movement in Slovenian behaves similarly to short movement in Polish
and in both languages this type of movement behaves similarly to ordinary multiple
wh-fronting. For example, Citko (2010) shows that in questions with short movement
Polish does not exhibit Superiority effects, (19), and the same holds for Slovenian,
(20).
(19) Polish (Citko 2010: (12))
a.
Co
Ewa
komu
dała?
what.ACC Ewa.NOM who.DAT
gave
‘What did Ewa give to whom?’
b.
Komu Ewa co dała?
210
(20) a.
Kaj
je
Črt
komu
kupil?
what.ACC
AUX
Črt
who.DAT
buy
‘What did Janez buy for whom?’
b.
Komu je Črt kaj kupil?
However, the fact that wh-questions with short movement do not exhibit Superiority
effects does not differentiate between wh-movement and scrambling since
scrambling (by definition) results in free word order (see example (16) above).
Second, in Polish, short moved wh-phrases can license parasitic gaps, (21),
which means that short movement is an instance of A’-movement (see also Dornisch
1998). Similarly, parasitic gaps are licensed both in a wh-question with multiple whfronting, (22), and in multiple wh-questions with short movement in Slovenian, (23).
(21) (Dornisch 1998: 160 (57))
Za
co
by
Piotr
kogo
wyrzucił
for
what COND Piotr.NOM who.ACC
nie wysłuchawszy
throw-out not listen.PERF.PART
przedtem?
before
‘For what would Peter throw out whom without having listened to?’
(22) Slovenian (Golden 1997b: (2a))
Kogai je Peter povabil
k sodelovanju
na projektu, preden je srečal ti?
who
to join
on project before
AUX Peter
invite
AUX
meet
‘Who did Peter invite to join the project before he met (them)?’
(23) Zakaj je Peter kogai povabil
why
AUX Peter
who invite
k sodelovanju
na projektu, preden je
to join
on project before
AUX
srečal ti?
meet
‘Why did Peter invite who to join the project before he met (them)?’
While both short movement and wh-movement to the Left Periphery license Parasitic
Gaps and behave the same in this respect, this does not exclude scrambling as the
reason for movement of the clause internal wh-phrase. In Slovenian, scrambling can
license Parasitic Gaps. Witkoś (2008) shows the same holds for Polish.
211
(24) Majoi
Maja.ACC
je
Peter povabil k sodelovanju na projektu, preden je srečal ei.
AUX
Peter invite to join
on project before
AUX
meet
‘Peter invited Maja to join the project before he met.’
Dornisch (1998) also shows that short movement in Polish does not exhibit
Weak Crossover Effects. Weak Crossover Effects also cannot be found with short
movement in Slovenian, as (26) shows. Wh-movement to the clause initial position
does not trigger Weak Crossover Effects in Polish or in Slovenian, as (27) and (28)
show, respectively.118
(25) Polish (Dornisch 1998: 159 (56))
Kiedy
Piotr przed kimi
schował
jegoi klucze ti?
when
Piotr from whomi
hid
hisi
keys
‘When did Peter hide his keys from whom?’
(26) Kdaj je
when is
Peter pred komi
skril
njegovei
ključe?
Peter from whom
hid
his
keys
‘When did Peter hide his keys from whom?’
(27) Polish (Szczegielniak 2001: (9e))
Kogoi jegoi przyjaciele podziwiali t?
who his
friends
admire
‘Who do his friends admire?’
118
In both languages WCO effects can be seen in long distance wh-questions and, as Marušič (2005)
shows, Slovenian exhibits WCO in scrambling from finite complements – just as it does with whfronting from embedded clauses.
(i)
Polish (Szczegielniak 2001: (9f))
chcesz by
jegoi przyjaciele
* Kogoi ty
who you want SUBJ his
friends
‘Who do I want his friends to admire?’
(ii)
Slovenian
* Kogai hočeš
da
bi
njegovii
who want.2SG
that SUBJ his
‘Who do you want his friends to admire?’
(iii) Slovenian (Marušič 2005: (22a))
Janezi
je
njegovj/*i
oče reku,
Janez.NOM
AUX
his
father said
‘Johni, hisj/*i father said doesn’t play goalie.’
podziwiali ti?
admire
prijatelji
friends
občudovali?
admire
da __ ne
that not
igra
play
212
golmana.
goalie
(28) Kogai
who
njegovii
prijatelji
občudujejo t?
his
friends
admire
‘Who do his friends admire?’
In Slovenian, Weak Crossover Effects are also not triggered in cases with
scrambling in matrix questions, as (29) shows.
(29) Včeraj
yesterday
je
Peter pred Tonetomi
skril
njegovei
ključe.
AUX
Peter from Tone
hid
his
keys
‘Yesterday Peter hid Tone’s keys from him.’
Again, questions with multiple wh-fronting and short movement and cases with
scrambling behave similarly with respect to Weak Crossover Effects.
Additionally, Dornisch shows that short movement does not fix scope. This
means that the dative wh-phrase can take scope over the accusative wh-phrase in
(30). According to Dornisch, this is shown by the fact that one can answer a question
like (30) with a pair list answer in which the dative wh-phrase takes scope over the
accusative wh-phrase, as in (31), in which the dative precedes the accusative. Again,
the same holds for Slovenian as both questions in (32) can be answered with both
(33a) and (33b).
(30) Polish (Dornisch 1998: 148, (42a))
Co
by
Anna komu
poleciła?
what.ACC
COND
Anna who.DAT recommend
‘What did Anna recommend to whom?’
(31) (Dornisch 1998: 161, (60))
Ucznim
podstawóki
–
students.DAT
primary school.GEN
matematyki –
Tolstoja,
Chandlera,
profesorom
Chandler.ACC
professors.DAT
chemikom
–
Plath.
mathematics.GEN Tolstoy.ACC research-chemists.DAT Plath.ACC
‘To primary school students she recommended Chandler, to the mathematics
professors Tolstoy, to the chemists – Plath.’
213
(32) a.
Kaj
je
what.ACC
AUX
Ana komu
priporočila?
Anna who.DAT recommend
‘What did Anna recommend to whom?’
b.
(33) a.
Kaj
je
komu
Ana priporočila?
Roku
pravljice
in
ROK.DAT
stories
and me.DAT
meni
Hobita.
Hobit.
‘(She recommended) stories to Rok and the Hobbit to me.’
b.
Pravljice Roku in Hobita meni.
Scope is also not fixed with scrambling in matrix clauses:119
(34) En
fant je
one boy
AUX
objel vsako
punco.
hug every
girl
∀>∃/∃>∀
‘A boy hugged every girl.’
(35) Vsako
every
punco je
en
girl
one boy hug
AUX
fant objel.
∀>∃/∃>∀
‘A boy hugged every girl.’
This means that with respect to Parasitic Gaps, Weak Crossover Effects, and Scope
wh-fronting and scrambling behave similarly and we cannot determine if wh-phrases
are wh-moved or scrambled to a clause internal position based on the data so far.
But we can potentially use cases with long distance wh-movement and
scrambling to differentiate between the two. That is, in Slovenian both long distance
wh-movement and long distance scrambling are possible:
(36) Kogai
who.ACC
je
Janez
rekel, da
AUX
Janez
say
Maja objema
ti ?
that Maja hugs
‘Who did Janez say that Maja hugs?’
(37) Anžetai
Anže.ACC
je
Janez
rekel, da
AUX
Janez
say
Maja objema
ei.
that Maja hugs
‘Janez said that Maja hugs Anže.’
119
In cases with long distance scrambling out of embedded finite clauses scope is reconstructed to the
base generated position, see Marušič (2005).
214
Wh-movement and scrambling, on the other hand, behave differently with
respect to Relativized Minimality Islands, i.e. wh-islands.120 With scrambling,
Relativized Minimality Effects are absent, as Bošković (2004, 2009) notes. This
means that in Russian, but also Serbo-Croatian, a wh-phrase cannot move from a whisland, (38a), but a non-wh-phrase can be scrambled out of a wh-island, (38b):
(38) Russian (Bošković 2004: (10a), (11a))
a. * Ktoi ty
videl kogda ti
who you saw when
b.
Ty
doktori
you doctor
pod’ezžal?
came
videl kogda ei
pod’ezžal?
saw when
came
‘Did you see when the doctor came?’
As we saw in sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, Slovenian does not allow wh-movement
out of wh-islands (cf. Golden 1997a). The data is shown again below. Still, just as in
Russian, scrambling out of wh-islands is acceptable:
(39) a. ?? Kdo si
who
b.
AUX
videl, kdaj je
prišel?
saw when AUX came
Zdravnik
si
videl, kdaj je
prišel?
doctor
AUX
saw when AUX came
‘Did you see when the doctor came?’
Based on this distinction we can make a prediction. If scrambling is responsible for
short wh-movement, moving a wh-phrase out of a wh-island to a clause internal
position, should be possible, but if short movement is the result of wh-movement,
then such movement should not be possible. Crucially, speakers judge the example
120
(i)
As already shown in section 3.4.5, Relativized Minimality is defined as:
Relativized Minimality in the configuration:
…X…Z…Y…
X and Y cannot be connected by movement (or other local relations) if Z intervenes between
them, and Z is of the same structural type as X.
215
below as ungrammatical (in the examples below, the matrix clause has a wh-phrase
in a clause initial position, but this wh-phrase originates in the matrix clause; the nonwh-subject is followed by a wh-phrase that originates in the embedded wh-question).
(40) *Kdaj
when
je
Janez
komui
vprašal,
za kaj
Metka daje ti
AUX
Janez
who.DAT
ask
for what
Metka gives
zdravilo?
medicine
‘When did Janez ask to whom Metka gave the medicine for what?’
This can be contrasted with the example below in which komui ‘who.DAT’ is replaced
with a non wh-phrase, which speakers find considerably more acceptable.121
(41) Kdaj
when
je
Janez
Rokui
vprašal,
za kaj
Metka daje ei
AUX
Janez
Rok.DAT
ask
for what
Metka gives
zdravilo?
medicine
‘When did Janez ask for what Metka gives the medicine to Rok?’
While we have seen that we cannot distinguish between scrambling and whfronting in matrix questions, we can make a distinction between the two types of
movements using extraction out of wh-islands, which indicates that short movement
is in fact wh-movement. An additional argument for the fact that the movement
mechanism responsible for placing wh-phrases in a clause internal position is whmovement comes from the behavior of topic and focus phrases in Slovenian. While
121
Additionally, we can test if movement of a wh-pronoun is acceptable when the wh-island is
embedded in a yes/no-question. Speakers find these cases acceptable, but they note that in these cases
the moved wh-phrase receive a contrastive reading and is emphasized:
(i)
A
je
Janez KOMU vprašal,
kdaj je
Metka dala zdravilo?
QY/N AUX
Janez who ask
when AUX
Metka give medicine
‘Did Janez ask, when Metka gave the medicine to WHO?’
Since we have seen that echo-wh-phrases in Slovenian do not have to move to the clause initial
position, we can assume that komu ‘who’ does not undergo wh-fronting in (i).
216
we saw in section 3.4.4 that these phrases can appear in the Left Periphery, we can
also find them following the subject in Slovenian. Example (42) shows this for a
focus phrase and example (43) for the topic phrase. Example (44) shows that, just as
in the Left Periphery, the word order of a wh-phrase and a focus phrase is free in the
clause internal position (the Low Periphery, see the following section), and example
(45) shows the same for a topic phrase and a wh-phrase.
(42) Miha je
Maji
TONETA
predstavil.
Miha AUX Maja.DAT TONE.ACC introduce
‘Miha introduced TONE to Maja.’
(43) Maja je izpostavila Toneta virusu ebole ...
‘Maja exposed Tone to the Ebola virus...’
Janez
pa
Janez.NOM
PA
je
AUX
tega fanta sprejel
v
bolnico.
this boy
in
hospital
accepted
‘and Janez accepted this boy to the hospital.’
(44) a.
Kdaj je
Miha
komu
when AUX Miha.NOM who.DAT
TONETA
predstavil?
TONE.ACC introduce
‘When did Miha introduce TONE to whom?’
b.
Kdaj je Miha TONETA komu predstavil?
(45) Maja je izpostavila Toneta virusu ebole.
‘Maja exposed Tone to the Ebola virus.’
a.
Kdaj je
Janez
koga
when AUX Janez.NOM who.ACC
tega virusa
ozdravil?
this virus.GEN cure
‘When did Janez cure whom of the virus?’
b.
Kdaj je Janez tega virusa koga ozdravil?
Since wh-phrases behave the same with respect to topic and focus phrases when they
follow the subject as they do with respect to topic and focus phrases in the Left
Periphery, I will treat wh-movement to the Left Periphery and short movement in the
same manner. That is, I will assume that wh-phrases are wh-moved to the Low
Periphery.
Note, however, that we cannot completely exclude scrambling as the reason
why wh-phrases are moved to the clause internal position, since bare wh-pronouns
217
are always interpreted as interrogative wh-phrases when in the scope of the complex
Q+wh-feature in the Interrogative Projection. Also, only one test shows different
behavior in scrambling versus wh-fronting contexts in Slovenian. While this test has
indicated that wh-phrases are wh-moved to the clause internal position, this has only
been shown for movement out of embedded clauses. Unfortunately, at this point I do
not know any other way of differentiating between wh-movement and scrambling,
but I will treat short movement as wh-movement based on the parallels between
movement to the Left Periphery and to the Low Periphery. As the next section will
show, a similar proposal has also been made for Polish.
6.2 Short movement as wh-movement to the Low Periphery
We saw in the previous section that Slovenian and Polish behave similarly with
respect to short movement. Because of this I will take the proposal for short
movement that was suggested for Polish in Citko (2010) as a starting point for my
proposal for Slovenian. Citko (2010) notices that in Polish, the lower wh-phrase
moves above negation and the adverb często ‘often’, (46) and (47), respectively. The
situation is comparable to Slovenian. Assuming negation marks the edge of vP, as
Citko (2010) does, this indicates that the lower wh-phrase ends up above vP, as
shown in (48). Examples such as (48c) are discussed in chapter 5.
(46) Polish (Citko 2010: (18))
a.
Czego
Ewa
what.GEN Eve.NOM
komu
nie
dała?
who.DAT
not
gave
‘What didn’t Ewa give to whom?’
b. * Czego Ewa nie komu dała?
(47) Polish (Citko 2010: (19))
a.
Co
Ewa
what.ACC Eve.NOM
komu
często
pokazuje?
who.DAT
often
shows
‘What does Ewa often show to whom?’
b. ?? Co Ewa często komu pokazuje?
218
(48) a.
Česa
Maja
komu
what.GEN Maja.NOM who.DAT
ni
dala?
not
gave
‘What didn’t Maja give to whom?’
b. ?* Česa Maja ni komu dala?
c.
(49) a.
Česa Maja ni dala komu?
Kaj Maja komu
pogosto
kuha?
what Maja who.DAT
often
cooks
‘What does Maja often cook for whom?’
b.
Komu Maja kaj pogosto kuha?
For Polish, both Dornisch (1998) and Citko (2010) propose that the lower whphrase undergoes movement to some clause internal position. Dornisch (1998)
proposes that the clause initial wh-phrase moves to SpecCP and that this movement
is driven by the strong Q-feature on C. She assumes that this Q-feature is an operator
feature and that it can be checked by the wh-phrase. On the other hand, the lower whphrase moves to a preverbal position – the Transitivity Phrase (TrP). The Transitivity
Phrase hosts a wh-feature which the wh-phrase checks. Under this approach, the whfeature on the wh-phrase is an interpretable feature (it needs to be visible at LF) and
because of this it is not deleted after it is checked in the TrP, hence the wh-phrase is
able to undergo further movement. In addition, she assumes that the wh-feature in
Polish is a multiply checked feature – when a wh-phrase checks the wh-feature on
TrP, it does not erase it. Because of this the wh-feature will be available for further
operations.
Dornisch therefore suggests that in a multiple wh-question with short
movement the clause initial wh-phrase moves to SpecCP and the wh-phrases that
undergo short movement move only to TrP and not any further. The structure, taken
from Dornisch (1998: 147, (42b)), of the question (30) is shown below122:
122
According to Dornisch (1998) the auxiliary is generated in the higher VP. I follow her and assume
the auxiliary is generated in VP and that it later moves out of VP.
219
(50) CP
2
C’
2
Coi
C
g
[Q]
g
by
TP
2
Anna T’
2
T
TrP
2
ti
Tr’
2
tsu
Tr’
2
Tr
VP
g
2
[wh] V
TrP
2
komuj
Tr’
2
tsu
Tr’
2
Tr
VP
g
2
[wh] ti
V’
2
V
tj
poleciła
Dornisch proposes that the two Tr-heads carry a strong wh-feature and C has a
strong Q-feature. Note that according to Dornisch (1998) each TrP is projected above
a VP and that both the clitic, such as by (the conditional auxiliary), and the lexical
verb, such as poleciła recommend, projects a VP. The lower Tr-head attracts the
closest wh-phrase – co ‘what’. Dornisch assumes that the Polish wh-feature on Tr is a
multiply checked feature – even if the wh-phrase checks the wh-feature in Tr it does
not erase it. The wh-feature of co ‘what’ is an interpretable feature that must be
visible at LF – it does not get deleted after being checked and co ‘what’ can again be
available for movement. This is again repeated when the higher Tr head is merged
(co again being the closest wh-phrase). When C is merged, co moves to check the
strong Q-feature on C. Komu ‘who.DAT’ also has a strong feature that needs to be
checked and this happens at the closest possible projection – the lower TrP in which
the wh-feature was not erased after being checked.
220
Citko (2010) points out that the proposal by Dornisch (1998) has several
problems123 and proposes a different derivation. She adopts the Minimalist approach
as proposed by Chomsky (2001), i.e. she assumes that derivation proceeds in phases,
and assumes a clause internal Focus Projection (FP) to which the lower wh-phrase
moves. For Citko (2010) the derivation of (51) then proceeds as follows: Both whphrases first move to the phase edge position vP. If there is an FP projection in the
clause, one of the two wh-phrases moves to this position. This is an instance of
operator movement (cf. Dornisch 1998) so this wh-phrase is not available for further
movement. The wh-phrase that is still located in SpecvP can then be moved to
SpecCP. Crucially, the word order of the moved wh-phrases is free since a non-phase
head can attract a lower wh-phrase because locality is only evaluated at phase heads
(hence, komu ‘who.DAT’ can move to the clause initial position, as (53) shows).
(51) Polish (Citko 2010: (12))
a.
Co
Ewa
komu
dała?
what.ACC Ewa.NOM who.DAT
gave
‘What did Ewa give to whom?’
b.
(52)
Komu
Ewa
co
dała?
[CP Coi [C’ [C] [TP Ewak [T’ [T] [FP komui [F’ [F] [vP ti [V’ tj [V’ tk [V’ [V] [vP dala ti tj
(53) [CP Komui [C’ [C] [TP Ewak [T’ [T] [FP coj [F’ [F] [vP ti [V’ tj [V’ tk [V’ [V] [vP dala ti tj
The idea is then that short movement proceeds to an IP internal position which
is adjacent to the vP – according to Citko (2010) this is the clause internal Focus
Projection. That wh-fronting can proceed to some IP-internal position had already
been proposed in Jayaseelan (2001), who also showed that in Malayalam wh-
123
According to Citko (2010), the proposal by Dornisch (1998) would allow for the direct object to be
reconstructed above the indirect object. If this was indeed the case, we would expect example (i) to be
possible, but (i) is not grammatical. For further issues see Citko (2010):
(i)
* Ile
zdjęć
Janai
Ewa
how many pictures.GEN Jan.GEN
Eve.NOM
‘How many pictures of Jan has Ewa shown to him?’
221
mui
pokazała?
he.DAT show
movement proceeds to a Focus Projection (FP) which is located directly above vP
(based on the observation that a question word needs to directly precede the verb). In
addition to the Focus Projection, Jayaseelan proposes that Topic Projections are also
possible above the vP in Malayalam. Essentially, what we then get is a clause
internal Left Periphery. A similar Clause Internal Periphery (referred to also as the
low IP area/Low Periphery of the vP phase) is also proposed in Belletti (2004, but
see also Belletti and Shlonsky 1995), who again argues for a Focus Projection that
can be surrounded by clause internal Topic Projections. Together they are adjacent to
the VP, e.g. are located in the low IP area.124 Poletto (2006) further showed that an
array of elements, i.e. all arguments, adverbials and verbal modifiers (but not clitic or
weak elements as these cannot be focalized) can be hosted in the low IP area/Low
Periphery of the vP phase. This lack of specialization is, according to Poletto, typical
of positions of the Left Periphery. Under this approach, a Left Periphery of each
phase is set up, that is “by merging a ‘Topic-Focus’ field before the highest
projection ‘closing up’ the phase (corresponding to Force in the CP system proposed
by Rizzi (1997); see again Belletti (2004) for modern Italian among others” (Poletto
2006: 5).125
Based on the observations by Citko (2010) and previous proposals regarding
the existence of the Low Periphery, I propose that a short moved wh-phase is located
124
Assuming the Clause Internal Periphery and the Clause Initial Periphery appear at the edges of
different phases, this would mean the clause initial wh-phrase and clause internal wh-phrase are in
different phrases. Based on this we can predict that we will not find Distinctness effects in cases with
short movement. We can take example (i) and compare it to example in (ii), which is an example of
short movement in a multiple wh-question. We can take grammaticality of (ii) as evidence that the two
wh-phrases are in fact in two different phases. Also acceptable is (iii) in which the wh-phrase is
located in situ (the wh-phrases are again in different phases).
(i) ? Katero punco
katero snov
uči
Božo?
[which girl].ACC.F [which subject].ACC.F
teaches Božo
(ii)
Katero punco
Božo katero snov
uči?
[which girl].ACC.F Božo [which subject].ACC.F
teaches
(iii) Katero punco
uči
Božo katero snov?
[which girl].ACC.F teaches Božo [which subject].ACC.F
‘Which girl is Božo teaching which subject?’
125
The prediction is then that each phase will have its own left periphery. Based on Slovenia, this
prediction is borne out since we can also find wh-items and a Focus Projection in Slovenian DPs, as
(i) shows. For more on wh- and focus-fronting in DPs in Slovenian see Mišmaš (2014).
(i)
Kakšen
NEMŠKI
what-kind-of German
Majin avto je popraskan?
Maja’s car is scratched
222
(Rdeč.)
(Red)
in the Low Periphery of the vP phase. As already mentioned, this Low Periphery is
(in addition to wh-phrases) able to host Focus Phrases, as example (54) below shows.
An internal Focused Phrase can also be found in a wh-question with short whmovement, (55). In these cases the focused phrase can either precede of follow the
clause internal wh-phrase. Because the wh-phrase can co-occur with a focused phrase
in the Low Periphery, I propose they occupy different projections – WhP and FocP,
respectively. Also possible in the Low Periphery is the clause internal topic, see (43)
in the previous section.
(54) Miha je
Maji
TONETA
predstavil.
Miha AUX Maja.DAT TONE.ACC introduce
‘Miha introduced TONE to Maja.’
(55) a.
Kdaj je
Miha
komu
when AUX Miha.NOM who.DAT
TONETA
predstavil?
TONE.ACC introduce
‘When did Miha introduce TONE to whom?’
b.
Kdaj je Miha TONETA komu predstavil?
Just as in the Left Periphery, there is no strict word order between topic and
focus phrases, (56). Example (57) shows that there is no strict word order between
the topic, focus and wh-phrases in the Low Periphery:
(56) Maja je izpostavila Toneta virusu ebole.
‘Maja exposed Tone to the Ebola virus.’
a.
Kdaj je
Janez
BOŽOTA
temu virusu
izpostavil?
when AUX Janez.NOM Božo.ACC this virus.DAT expose
‘When did Janez expose BOŽO to this virus?’
b.
Kdaj je Janez temu virusu BOŽOTA izpostavil?
(57) Maja je izpostavila Toneta virusu ebole.
‘Maja exposed Tone to the Ebola virus.’
a.
Zakaj je
Janez
why
Janez.NOM Božo.ACC this virus.DAT when expose
AUX
BOŽOTA
temu virusu
‘When did Janez expose BOŽO to this virus?’
b.
Zakaj je Janez temu virusu BOŽOTA kdaj izpostavil?
223
kdaj izpostavil?
c.
Zakaj je Janez kdaj temu virusu BOŽOTA izpostavil?
Also, just as in the Left Periphery, more than one wh-phrase can be located in
the Low Periphery (I only give three possible word orders below):
(58) a.
Kaj
je
what.ACC AUX
Miha
kdaj komu
Miha.NOM when who.DAT
dal?
give
‘What did Miha give when to whom?’
b.
Kaj je Miha komu kdaj dal?
c.
Komu je Miha kdaj kaj dal?
Based on these examples I argue for the existence of a Low Periphery in
Slovenian in which clause internal topic, focus and wh-phrases are located.
Assuming such a vP periphery explains the position of the short moved wh-phrases
(as more than one wh-phrase can appear clause internally). However, just as in
questions with wh-in-situ, again at least one wh-phrase has to appear clause initially
for the entire sentence to be interpreted as a true multiple wh-question. I return to the
interpretation of wh-questions with short movement in section 7.1.2.
6.3 Clause initial wh-phrase and short movement
The one limitation that applies in cases with short movement is that at least one whphrase has to appear in the clause initial position in order for the question to be
interpreted as a true multiple wh-question and not, for example, an echo or a yes/noquestion. For instance, the question in (59e) would be interpreted as an echo question
if the wh-phrases were pronounced with an emphasis (this is true regardless of the
word order of wh-phrases) or a yes/no-question if the question was pronounced with
a rising intonation, which is generally typical of Slovenian yes/no-questions.
Examples (59a–d), on the other hand, receive a true question reading. In addition,
(59a–d) show that the Wh-Projection in the Low Periphery can be repeated (that is,
more than one wh-phrase can be located in the Low Periphery), just as it can be
repeated in the Left Periphery of the clause.
224
(59) a.
Kaj
je
Maja kdaj komu
povedala?
what.ACC
AUX
Maja when who.DAT
tell
‘When did Maja tell what to whom?’
b.
Kaj je Maja komu kdaj povedala?
c.
Komu je Maja kaj kdaj/kdaj kaj povedala?
d.
Kdaj je Maja kaj komu/komu kaj povedala?
e. # Maja je kdaj kaj komu povedala?
The obligatoriness of the clause initial wh-phrase can also be observed in
questions in which all wh-phrases move to the Left Periphery, section 3.5, and in
multiple wh-questions with a wh-phrase in situ, chapter 5. To recapitulate, following
Soare (2007), I proposed in section 3.6 that in Slovenian the Interrogative Projection
hosts an interpretable complex Q+wh-feature (which comes with an EPP subfeature).
The Q+wh-feature with an EPP-subfeature are checked by a wh-phrase, which carries
an uninterpretable valued wh-feature and that is moved to SpecInterP. This complex
feature is also responsible for Clause Typing, defined as in Cheng (1991). In
addition, I assumed that in questions with multiple wh-fronting, non-initial whphrases are moved to Wh-Projections in the Left Periphery where they check the
interpretable wh-features with EPP-subfeatures. This proposal essentially also holds
for questions with short movement, but with a slight modification: Wh-Projections
are located in the Left Periphery (sometimes referred to as the High Periphery, cf.
Poletto 2006) and in the Low Periphery. The Interrogative Projection, on the other
hand, is only ever located in the Left Periphery.
Assuming that the Interrogative Projection is always located in the Left
Periphery of wh-questions, see section 3.5, accounts for the clause initial wh-phrase
in wh-questions with short movement. Because the Interrogative Head is projected
with its features, one wh-phrase has to move to check them. This also means that
Clause Typing can only happen in the Left Periphery. In addition, the remaining whphrases then move to Wh-Projections – either in the High or the Low Periphery. I
discuss what this means in relation to optionality in section 7.2.2.
Assuming this, short movement (i.e. wh-movement to the Low Periphery) is
essentially parallel to wh-movement to the Left Periphery – in both a wh-phrase
225
moves to a Wh-Projection to check an interpretable wh-feature with an EPP
subfeature. This implies that movement of a wh-phrase with an uninterpretable whfeature is in fact obligatory and it is only the wh-pronouns without wh-features that
stay in situ (however, as was observed in this section, scrambling of bare whpronouns cannot be excluded). I return to this and to the interpretation of whquestions in the next chapter.
226
7 How optional is multiple wh-movement in Slovenian
I started this thesis with the observation that multiple wh-fronting in Slovenian is
optional. This claim was made based on examples such (1) in chapter 1, repeated
below, that show that in Slovenian multiple wh-questions only one wh-phrase needs
to appear in the clause initial position, while the others can move to the beginning of
the clause, some clause internal position, or stay in situ.
(1)
a.
Koga
je
čemu
znanstvenik izpostavil?
who.ACC
AUX
what.DAT scientist
expose
‘Who did the scientist expose to what?’
b.
Koga je znanstvenik čemu izpostavil?
c.
Koga je znanstvenik izpostavil čemu?
d.
Čemu je koga znanstvenik izpostavil?
e.
Čemu je znanstvenik koga izpostavil?
f.
Čemu je znanstvenik izpostavil koga?
In this chapter, I discuss the interpretation of multiple wh-questions with
multiple wh-fronting to the clause initial position, multiple wh-questions with short
movement and questions with wh-in-situ and show that they can be used in the same
contexts. In addition, I also show that questions with no wh-fronting never receive
the same interpretations as questions with wh-fronting. In the second part I revisit the
issue of optionality and show that wh-movement in Slovenian is in fact not optional –
interrogative wh-phrases in Slovenian have to move but they can move to different
projections. Non-interrogative bare wh-pronouns, on the other hand, stay in situ,
because their movement is not motivated.
7.1 Interpretation of multiple wh-questions in Slovenian
In section 2.3, I claim that all multiple wh-questions in Slovenian receive the same
interpretation. In this section, I will show that this is in fact the case and that
227
questions with multiple wh-fronting, multiple wh-questions with short movement and
questions with wh-in-situ can all be used in the same contexts.
7.1.1 The interpretation of multiple wh-questions with wh-in-situ
Šimík (2010) discusses the behavior of multiple wh-questions in Czech. I will use
Šimík’s description and compare it to Slovenian data to show that multiple whquestions with a wh-phrase in situ get the same interpretation as multiple whquestions with multiple wh-fronting.
Czech uses two strategies to form multiple wh-questions: multiple and single
wh-fronting, (2). Questions such as (2) are comparable to multiple wh-questions in
Slovenian (see for example (1) in the beginning of the chapter 5). In Czech, pitch
accent is placed on the final constituent, regardless of whether this constituent is a
wh-phrase or not. But while both strategies of making wh-questions are available in
Czech, Šimík (2010) shows that multiple wh-questions with wh-in-situ appear only in
certain contexts in Czech. In Slovenian, on the other hand, multiple wh-questions
with wh-in-situ receive the same meanings as questions with multiple wh-fronting.
(2)
Czech (Šimík 2010 (7))
a.
Kdo co
KOUPIL?
who what bought
‘Who bought what?’
b.
Kdo koupil CO?
According to Šimík (2010), in Czech the form of multiple wh-questions
depends on the context. If the context entails givenness (that is, whether something is
given in the context), a wh-phrase can stay in situ. For example, when a predicate is
discourse given, (3), a wh-phrase will appear in situ (and the given predicate will
appear in the de-accented position). If the predicate is not given in the discourse, the
felicitous question is the one with multiple fronting, (4). In Czech, the examples in
(3) and (4) get a pair list reading.
228
(3)
Czech (Šimík 2010: (13))
Proč se
neposadite?
why
not.sit.down.2PL
REFL
–
Neřekli
nam...
not.told.3PL
us
‘Why don’t you sit down? – They didn’t tell us...’
a. # kdo se
ma
kam
who REFL have.3SG
POSADIT.
where sit.down
‘who is supposed to sit down where.’
b.
(4)
kdo se
ma
posadit KAM.
Czech (Šimík 2010: (14))
Proč tady tak stojite? –
Neřekli
nam...
why here so stand.2PL
not.told
us
‘Why are you standing here like that?’ – ‘They didn’t tell us...’
a.
kdo se
ma
kam
POSADIT.
who
have.3SG
where
sit.down
REFL
‘…who is supposed to sit down where.’
b. # kdo se ma posadit KAM.
In Slovenian a wh-phrase can either move or stay in situ regardless of the
givenness of the predicate, as examples (5) and (6) below show. Note however, that
while all the questions below are grammatical, they differ in the information the
speaker is most interested in (cf. section 3.4.5). Because of this some might seem
more appropriate that others, but this varies from context to context. This is not only
the case for the following two examples, but holds in general.
(5)
Zakaj
se
ne
why
REFL NOT
usedete?
–
sit.down.2PL
Niso
nam rekli ...
NEG.AUX3PL
us
‘Why don’t you sit down? – They didn't tell us...’
a.
kam
naj
se
kdo usede.
where
should
SELF
who sit
‘where who should sit.’
b.
kam naj se usede kdo.
c.
kdo naj se usede kam.
d.
kdo naj se kam usede.
229
say
(6)
Zakaj
tam stojite? –
Niso
nam rekli ...
why
there stand.2PL
NEG.AUX3PL
us
say
‘Why are you standing there?’ – ‘They didn’t tell us...’
a.
kam
naj
se
kdo usede.
where
should
SELF
who sit
‘where who should sit.’
b.
kam naj se usede kdo.
c.
kdo naj se kdo usede kam.
d.
kdo naj se kam usede.
In Czech, a wh-phrase that refers to the topic (where topic is defined as given,
as in Schwarzschild 1999) has to move. For example, the boldfaced co ‘what’ is
given in the context below:
(7)
Czech (Šimík 2010: (11))
They brought the things, but I don’t know …
a.
co
jsme měli předat
what
AUX
have give
KOMU.
whom
‘what we were supposed to given to whom.’
b. # komu jsme měli předat CO.
As (8) shows, a wh-phrase can move or stay in situ when referring to a
constituent that is given in the context in Slovenian. This means that both word
orders are possible in Slovenian, even if kaj ‘what’ refers to something salient in the
context. Also, multiple wh-questions with both word orders can receive pair list
answers. This is also possible when both wh-phrases are fronted.
(8)
They brought the things, but I don’t know …
a.
kaj
naj
what.ACC should
bi
dali komu.
AUX
give whom.DAT
‘what we were supposed to given to whom.’
b.
komu naj bi dali kaj.
c.
komu naj bi kaj dali.
230
d.
kaj naj bi komu dali.
Šimík (2010) also observes contexts in which both wh-phrases in the multiple
wh-question need to move in Czech and which get single pair readings (as opposed
to the questions with multiple wh-fronting and pair list answers above, as in example
(4)): Šimík first observes ‘default’ single pair readings that only happen in a context
in which there are no requirements on the context. These questions are understood as
conversation starters with an all new information structure (both wh-phrases in these
cases refer to constituents that were not previously given in the context).126 In these
both wh-phrases need to move to the clause initial position in Czech, which is not the
case in Slovenian.
(9)
Czech (Šimík 2010: (15))
[Context: I meet a friend about who I know that he recently decided to be
polite, do good deeds, and help people as much as possible. I can start the
conversation by asking.]
a.
Tak co,
so
komu
what whom
jsi
dnes s
čim
POMOHL?
aux.2SG
today with what help
‘So, who did you help with what today?’
b. # Tak co, komu jsi dnes pomohl s ČIM?
For the same context in Slovenian a completely felicitous question can be
formed both with multiple fronting or single fronting and in both the word order of
wh-phrases is free.
(10) [Context: I meet a friend about who I know that he recently decided to be
polite, do good deeds, and help people as much as possible. I can start the
conversation by asking.]
126
Zavitnevich-Beaulac claims that questions with multiple interrogation (i.e. multiple wh-questions)
cannot be requests for new information in Russian, but can only be interpreted as clarifying questions,
that is questions that only require additional identification. Given the examples from Šimík (2010) and
from Slovenian in which multiple wh-questions are conversation starters, this is not always the case.
231
a.
Torej, komu
si
s
so
AUX.2SG
with what today help
whom
čim danes pomagal?
‘So, who did you help with what today?’
b.
Torej, komu si danes pomagal s čim?
c.
Torej, s čim si komu danes pomagal?
d.
Torej, s čim si danes pomagal komu?
While a single pair response is completely felicitous to all the questions in (10), it
does not seem to be the case that in the given context the answer necessarily has to
be a single pair answer. Pair list answers such as I baked a cake for my dad, I cleaned
the car for my grandma, and I opened the door for a complete stranger are
completely acceptable.
Returning to Czech, according to Šimík (2010) reciprocal questions in Czech
receive a single pair answer.127 In these questions we are “asking for the clarification
of which of two contextually salient people was active in some salient event” (Šimík
2010: 498–499). In reciprocal multiple wh-questions a wh-phrase needs to stay in situ
in Czech:
(11) Czech (Šimík 2010: (17))
I heard that Karel and Marie broke up, but I don't know
a.
kdo se
rozešel
S
who
broke.up
with whom
REFL
KYM.
‘who broke up with whom.’
b. # kdo se s kym ROZEŠEL.
In the same contexts in Slovenian one can ask for clarification with a multiple
wh-question in which one or both wh-phrases undergo wh-fronting:
127
In Pires and Taylor (2007) these questions are taken to be reference questions and are wh-in-situ
questions in English and Brazilian Portuguese (which are typically wh-fronting languages). Also,
Wachowitz (1974: fn. 3) observes that in these questions a wh-phrase can also stay in situ in Polish.
However, as Pires and Taylor note, some researchers (i.e. Ginzberg and Sag 2001) take them as an
instance of echo-questions.
232
(12) I heard that Karel and Marie broke up, but I don’t know…
a.
kdo je
koga
pustil.
who AUX
who.ACC
leave
‘who left whom.’
b.
koga je kdo pustil.
c.
kdo je pustil koga.
d.
koga je pustil kdo.
Turning away from the comparison with Czech for a moment, Polish has single
wh-fronting at least in clarification questions, as in the one in (13). Clarification
questions are related to echo questions and are used when an interlocutor fails to
assign a referent to a pronoun (Šimík 2010: fn. 11). According to Wachowicz (1974),
the example cited in (13) can be used in a situation in which there were various tasks
and several people were assigned to them and while proposals have been made on
how to partner people, there is no fixed plan. Because the speaker is confused and
wants a fixed plan, he asks the question below.
(13) Polish (Wachowicz 1974: (15))
W końcu
kto
robi co?
finally
who does what
‘Finally, who’s doing what?’
A multiple wh-question, such as the one in (14), can be used as a clarifying
question for the same context described above for Polish. As the example shows,
both wh-phrases can be fronted or a wh-phrase can stay in situ in a clarifying
question in Slovenian.
(14) a.
No, kdo bo
kaj
naredil?
well who will what do
‘Well, who will do what?’
b.
No, kaj bo kdo naredil?
c.
No, kdo bo naredil kaj?
233
In Czech, on the other hand, both wh-phrases need to be fronted in clarifying
questions (Šimík 2010: fn.11).
This means that wh-questions with a wh-phrase in situ have a wider distribution
in Slovenian, compared to Czech (for an account of the interpretation of wh-in-situ in
Czech, see Šimík 2010). In addition, the examples in this section show that multiple
wh-questions with multiple wh-fronting and wh-in-situ can get the same
interpretations in Slovenian.
7.1.2 Interpretation of wh-questions with short movement
It will be shown in this section that multiple wh-questions with short movement can
receive the same interpretations and appear in the same contexts as multiple whquestions in which all wh-phrases move to the clause initial positions or multiple whquestions with a wh-phrase in situ. This will be shown on the basis of the previous
section. I use examples with a non-wh-subject and assume that the wh-phrase below
the subject is short moved to this position.
Starting with givenness, in Slovenian multiple wh-questions a wh-phrase can
undergo short movement in cases with a given predicate or in cases in which a
predicate is not given (that is, the same context in which one also finds multiple whquestions with multiple wh-fronting and wh-in-situ, see previous section). Given the
context, the following examples get pair list answers.
(15) Zakaj ne
why
NOT
a.
kaj
kuhate?
Niso
nam povedali …
cook
NEG.AUX3PL
us
naj
say
posamezen kuhar
what.ACC should
komu
individual cook.NOM who.DAT
skuha.
cook
‘what each individual cook should cook for whom.’
b.
komu naj posamezen kuhar kaj skuha.
(16) Zakaj gostje
ne
jedo?
Natakarju niso
povedali …
why gustes
NOT
eat.3PL
waiter
tell
a.
kuhar
kaj
naj
komu
NEG.AUX3PL
skuha.
what AUX cook.NOM who.DAT cook
234
‘what the cook should cook for whom.’
b.
komu naj kuhar kaj skuha.
Multiple wh-questions with short movement are behaving the same as multiple
wh-questions with wh-in-situ in cases in which one wh-phrase refers to a topic
(where topic is defined as given, as in Schwarzschild 1999). The topic is in boldface
below. In this context the questions in (17) receive a pair list answer.
(17) They brought the things, but I don’t know …
a.
kaj
naj
what.ACC should
bi
Tone
komu
dal.
AUX
Tone.NOM whom.DAT give
‘what Tone is supposed to have given to whom.’
b.
komu naj bi Tone kaj dal.
Multiple wh-questions with short movement can also be used in questions that
are used as conversation starters with an all new information structure (both whphrases in these cases refer to constituents that were previously not given in the
context). A response to these can be either a single pair or a pair list answer, again
the same as with wh-in-situ above.
(18) [Context: I talk to a friend about a friend about whom I know that he recently
decided to be polite, do good deeds, and help people as much as possible. I can
start the conversation by asking.]
a.
Torej, komu
si
danes s
so
AUX.2SG
today with what help
whom
čim pomagal?
‘So, who did you help with what today?’
b.
Torej, s čim si danes komu pomagal?
Single pair answers are also available with multiple wh-questions with short
movement. A reciprocal question, such as (19), receives a single pair answer, just
like a multiple wh-question with a wh-in-situ.
235
(19) I heard that Karel introduced Tina and Miha but I don’t know…
a.
koga
je
Karel
komu
predstavil.
who.ACC
AUX
Karel
who.DAT
introduce
‘who Karel introduced to whom?’
b.
komu je Karel koga predstavil.
Multiple wh-questions with short movement can also be used in clarifying
questions. This means that multiple wh-questions with short movement behave like
the multiple wh-questions with wh-in-situ in the previous section.
(20) I heard that Tina bought a bunch of food for a lot of people, but I don’t know…
a.
kaj
je
Tina komu
dala.
what.ACC
AUX
Tina who.DAT
give
‘what Tina gave to whom?’
b.
komu je Tina kaj dala.
Based on this we can conclude that multiple wh-questions with short
movement receive the same interpretations and are used in the same contexts as
multiple wh-questions in which all wh-phrases move to the Left Periphery and
multiple wh-questions with a wh-phrase in situ.
7.1.3 Excluding cases with all wh-phrases in situ
Questions in which all wh-phrases stay in situ behave differently from questions in
7.1.1 and 7.1.2. Specifically, questions in which all wh-phrases stay in situ are
ungrammatical under a true question reading and are only acceptable as echo
questions or yes/no-questions in which wh-phrases are interpreted as bare indefinite
pronouns.
The echo-interpretation is available if wh-phrases are pronounced with an
emphasis, as (21) shows. The question in (21) can be interpreted either as a surprise
236
or a request-for-repetition question. Also, such questions cannot be used as
conversation starters, (22).128
(21) Zdravnik
doctor
je
AUX
izpostavil
KOGA
ČEMU?
expose
who.ACC
what.DAT
‘The doctor exposed WHO to WHAT?’
#‘Who did the doctor expose to what?’
(22) [Context: I talk to a friend about a friend about who I know that he recently
decided to be polite, do good deeds, and help people as much as possible. I
hear people are talking about it, but I can’t hear what they are asking.]
# Torej,
so
Miha je
danes pomagal
KOMU S
ČIM?
Miha AUX.3SG
today help
whom with what
‘So, who did you help with what today?’
The unavailability of true wh-question reading in such cases is expected. We
saw in section 3.5 that movement of one wh-phrase to the clause initial position is
crucial for Clause Typing in a true wh-question. Since there is no wh-movement to
the clause initial position in examples such as (21), a true wh-question reading is
impossible. But, as I have mentioned above, these questions receive an echo-question
interpretation, despite the lack of Clause Typing. This is not surprising, since,
according to Bošković (2002), echo-questions do not need to be clause typed.
When a question with wh-phrases in situ is pronounced with a yes/no-question
(rising) intonation or has a yes/no-question marker in the clause initial position, the
question will be interpreted as a yes/no-question. In these cases wh-phrases in the in
situ position are interpreted as indefinite pronouns.
(23) (A)
je
zdravnik
QY/N AUX doctor
izpostavil koga
čemu?
expose
what.DAT
who.ACC
‘Did the doctor expose somebody to something?’
128
Such questions can be used as clarifying questions. For the example (21), we know that the doctor
had several patients which he exposed to different viruses. However, we want to know precisely who
was exposed to which virus. This is not surprising, since clarifying questions are sometimes taken to
be similar to echo questions (see 7.1.1).
237
#‘Who did the doctor expose to what?’
Again the lack of true wh-question reading is not surprising. Because no wh-phrase
moves to the clause initial position, the question is not typed as a wh-question. It is,
on the other hand, typed as a yes/no-question with an overt or covert question
marker.
In this thesis I am only concerned with multiple wh-questions that receive a
true wh-question reading. Because of this I will not be considering the structure and
interpretation of yes/no- and echo-questions any further. But one crucial conclusion
needs to be made based on the lack of true question reading in examples in which no
wh-phrase moves to the clause initial position: Movement to the clause initial
position is necessary for the question to be interpreted as a true wh-question. And
importantly for optionality, this also means that movement to the clause initial
position is obligatory in true multiple wh-questions in Slovenian.
7.2 Obligatory and non-obligatory wh-movement in Slovenian
In section 2.1 I described the optionality of multiple wh-fronting in multiple whfronting languages as instances of multiple wh-questions in which not all wh-phrases
have to move to the clause initial position but rather at least one wh-phrase has to be
moved to the clause initial position while the rest can undergo short movement or
stay in situ. In fact, section 7.1.3 shows that movement of one wh-phrase to the
clause initial position, a projection I have argued to be to SpecInterP in 3.5, is
obligatory as a wh-phrase needs to move to the clause initial position in order for the
question to get a true wh-question reading. This means that we have obligatory
movement of the clause initial wh-phrase on the one hand, and (apparent) optional
movement of the non-initial wh-phrases. While these properties might seem to be
contradictory, they can be accounted for if we assume the existence of two types of
wh-pronouns (see also section 5.1.2):
(i)
Interrogative wh-pronouns which are specified with an uninterpretable valued
wh-feature. These interrogative wh-pronouns move to check the wh-feature:
238
(ii)
a.
in the Left Periphery (the Interrogative or the Wh-Projection).
b.
in the Low Periphery (the Wh-Projection)
Underspecified bare wh-pronouns which have no wh-feature. These stay in situ
(and need to be licensed).
Such a division means wh-movement is in fact obligatory, but it also does not
exclude wh-in-situ in Slovenian. Among the wh-phrases that must move because, (i),
are the clause initial wh-phrases, which can move to SpecInterP because the
Interrogative Projection hosts an interpretable complex Q+wh-feature, responsible
for Clause Typing, with an EPP-subfeature which needs to be checked, cf. Soare
(2007), and it is checked by an interrogative wh-phrase, see section 3.5. In addition,
wh-phrases in (i) that must move can appear in other positions (but not in situ) – in
these cases the wh-phrases obligatorily move, but they are moved either to WhProjections in the Left Periphery or in the Low Periphery. This results in what seems
to be optional movement. As for the wh-phrases that appear in situ, wh-phrases with
no wh-feature, (ii), have no motivation to move and therefore stay in situ.
In what follows, I will argue that it is in fact not optional whether the non
initial wh-phrase moves or not. In fact, wh-movement is obligatory and the apparent
optionality is a consequence of the existence of two separate lexical items, (i) and
(ii). This is also wanted from the Minimalist perspective, which takes optional,
semantically vacuous movement as an undesirable property of grammar (cf. 2.1).
7.2.1 Optionality and wh-in-situ
In section 2.1 I started off with a description of what optionality is considered to be.
To recapitulate, in Minimalism the edge of a phase is made available for a head H by
an EPP feature and it is determined in the lexicon whether the H has such a feature or
not (Chomsky 2004). In this approach, apparent optionality is related to the EPP
feature and is thus determined in the lexicon. When the head has the EPP feature,
movement is obligatory. The prediction is also that movement to the edge position
will result in an interpretation different from the one that a structure with no
movement receives. Biberauer and Richards (2006), on the other hand, claim that
239
semantically vacuous (true) optionality exists and that such optional movement does
not result in a new interpretation. Crucially, in both of these two approaches
movement has to be motivated. Typically, movement is considered to be a Last
Resort operation where Last Resort in defined in Chomsky (1995) as a principle that
moderates movement and forces movement to happen only when necessary:
(24) Move F raises F to target K only if F enters a checking relation with a sublabel
of K.
This means that movement will only happen when there is a feature that motivates
movement.
What was proposed in this thesis, based on Soare (2007), is that in cases of
multiple wh-fronting to the Left Periphery, the Inter0 comes with a complex Q+whfeature and a Wh-head comes with a wh-feature – both are interpretable, but
unvalued. The wh-feature on the wh-phrase is uninterpretable, but valued. Features
on the wh-phrases match the interpretable features on the heads of Wh-Projections.
And finally, because the Interrogative Projection and the Wh-Projections in
Slovenian come with an EPP-subfeature, movement occurs.129 This is schematized
below. (25a) shows the agreement relation between the probes (Inter0 and Wh0) and
the goals (wh-phrases). (25b) shows the structure of the multiple wh-question after
wh-movement. Note that the reverse word order of wh-phrases is also possible.
(25) a.
b.
[InterP [Inter0] …[Wh-P [Wh0-] … wh-phrase1 … wh-phrase2 ]]
iQ+wh
iwh
EPP
EPP
uwh
uwh
[InterP [wh-phrase1] [Inter0] … [Wh-P [wh-phrase2] [Wh-0] … ]]
In turn, if any of the wh-phrases in structure such as (25) do not move, the sentence
will be ungrammatical because the EPP-feature on Inter0 or Wh0 will be left
unchecked. The question would also be ungrammatical if only an Interrogative head
129
Given the Minimalist understanding of optionality, this means that movement to Wh-Projection is
obligatory – if it were optional, the Wh-head would come with or without an EPP feature.
240
is projected in a case with two interrogative wh-phrases. In this case, only one whphrase gets its uninterpretable wh-feature checked, while one does not, and because
all uninterpretable features need to be checked for a derivation to converge, this leads
to ungrammaticality.
But as we have seen, there are also multiple wh-questions with a wh-phrase in
situ in Slovenian. In these, the wh-phrase that seems to be an interrogative phrase is
in fact a bare wh-pronoun, which means that it comes without a wh-feature. For a
questions such as (1b) in the beginning of chapter 5 this means that only a single
Interrogative Projection, without any additional Wh-Projections, is projected in the
Left Periphery. A wh-phrase with no wh-feature is merged in addition to a wh-phrase
with a wh-feature. The features on the probe (Inter0) and the goal (the interrogative
wh-phrase) will agree and the interrogative wh-phrase will move because of the EPPsubfeature – all in accordance with wh-movement being a Last Resort operation. And
crucially, because the non-interrogative wh-phrase (wh-phrase2 in (26)) does not have
a wh-feature, it requires no feature matching with a probe (a Wh-head that would
potentially also carry an EPP-feature), hence no movement happens. The apparent
wh-in-situ is then interpreted as an interrogative for other reasons, see chapter 5.
(26) a.
[InterP [Inter0]… … wh-phrase1 … wh-phrase2]
iQ+wh
uwh
[ ]
EPP
b.
EPP
InterP [wh-phrase1] [Inter0] … wh-phrase2
This also means that in these cases a derivation will not converge if a Wh-head
is projected in addition to an Interrogative head. Agreement between the
Interrogative head and the interrogative wh-phrase is not problematic and happens
just as described above, but if a Wh-head is projected, it requires agreement between
the interpretable, unvalued wh-feature on the Wh-head and the uninterpretable whfeature on the only remaining candidate – the bare wh-indefinite (wh-phrase2 in the
structure below). This cannot happen simply because the bare wh-indefinite has no
uninterpretable wh-feature. Because the EPP subfeature on the Wh-head will be left
unchecked and the interpretable wh-feature unvalued, such a derivation will crash:
241
(27) a. * [InterP [Inter0] …[Wh-P [Wh0-] … wh-phrase1 … wh-phrase2 ]]
iQ+wh
iwh
uwh
[ ]
EPP
EPP
b. * [InterP [wh-phrase1] [Inter0] … [Wh-P [Wh-0] …
wh-phrase2]]
iwh
EPP
This means that wh-in-situ in Slovenian is not a result of optional movement.
Wh-in-situ occurs because wh-movement is ‘well-behaved’ in Slovenian, i.e. it only
happens when it is motivated and therefore necessary. Still, both multiple whquestions with a wh-in-situ and with multiple wh-movement receive the same
interpretation since the wh-phrase in situ is interpreted as interrogative because of the
reasons described in chapter 5.
7.2.2 Optionality and movement to the peripheries
As I have already shown in the previous section, wh-movement is obligatory when a
wh-phrase with a wh-feature enters the derivation. In a multiple wh-question, a whfeature of one wh-phrase needs to be checked in the Interrogative Projection which is
located in the Left Periphery of the clause, but the wh-features of the remaining whphrases are checked in the Wh-Projections. The Wh-Projections can either be located
in the Left Periphery of the clause (the clause external, High Periphery) or in the
Low Periphery (the Clause Internal Periphery). Crucially, movement to the WhProjection is obligatory, which means that multiple wh-movement is not optional in
Slovenian. What seems to be optional is the periphery in which the Wh-Projection, to
which a wh-phrase moves, is located.
But before we turn to optionality, we first need to ask, why several peripheries
even exist. That there is more than just the Left Periphery was already observed in
Belletti (2004)130, who explores the Low Periphery of the VP in Italian in addition to
the clause external periphery in the sense of Rizzi (1997). Belletti also asks why a
130
Others have also argued for additional peripheries. See for example Jayaseelan (2001), Poletto
(2006), etc.
242
parallel configuration introduces the IP (the configuration in question is then the
clause external Left Periphery, the extended CP) and the VP (the Low Periphery).
While Belletti does not provide an answer to this question, she notes that the
described parallel is related to Chomsky’s (2000) observation that the CP and the VP
are both (strong) phases (in Chomsky (2001), the two strong phases are vP and CP),
which means that both are units of the derivation that are to some extent independent,
as Belletti (2004) writes. In fact, Chomsky (2008) observes that C is a ‘shorthand’
for the Left Periphery, in the sense of Rizzi (1997). In addition to CP and V/vP, a
Focus and a Topic Projection was also proposed for the Italian DP in Giusti (1996).
This means that the DP is also assumed to have a periphery (cf. Mišmaš (2014) for
Slovenian) which is in line with the observation in Chomsky (2008) that DP is a
phase. It then seems that the existence of a periphery is closely related to the notion
of a phase, that is, a phase is ‘closed off’ with a periphery.
Another related question (already discussed in, for example, Bianchi (2014)), is
if the hierarchy of functional projections is the same in all of the peripheries.
Specifically, it has been noted that Force is only projected in (some) CPs, see
Bianchi (2014). It seems that the hierarchies are not always the same. As we have
seen, for example, in Slovenian, the Interrogative Projection is only found in the
clause external periphery (and not in the Low Periphery). This is not surprising,
given that the role of the wh-phrase in the Interrogative Projection is to type the
entire clause as an interrogative, true wh-question. Wh-Projections, on the other hand,
do not type the sentence but rather just host the interrogative wh-phrases. A similar
claim was made in Cheng (1991) who observed that in multiple wh-fronting
languages not all wh-phrases are fronted for Clause Typing, but that fronting is
necessary to obtain an interrogative reading for wh-words. The fact that the noninitial wh-phrases do not necessarily need to appear in the clause external periphery
is therefore not surprising.131
131
A Wh-Projection is not always available in a clause internal periphery. Shlonsky (2012), for
example, observes that the Low Periphery of the vP in French includes Focus, but not a WhProjection. However, French is a language with (optional) single wh-movement. Assuming that whmovement in French is responsible for Clause Typing, it is not surprising that it proceeds to the High
Periphery of the clause, since Clause Typing happens in the High Periphery. A clause internal WhProjection is not needed in French.
243
Returning to optionality and different peripheries, Slovenian is not the only
language that has a clause internal and clause external periphery in which similar
projections are available. For example, Belletti (2004) shows that focus movement in
Italian can proceed to the low or high Focus Projection (that is, to the Focus
Projection in the Low or in the High Periphery). According to Belletti (2004),
however, in Italian, movement to the two different Focus Projections results in
different interpretation: the Focused phrase is either interpreted as having a new
(when in the Low Periphery) or a contrastive (when in the High Periphery)
interpretation. Even more, the two focused phrases are pronounced differently (i.e.
different stress, see Belletti (2004) for more). Focus movement in Italian is then well
behaved if we assume the Minimalist understanding of optionality – movement to
two different locations results in two different interpretations. Considering a different
approach to optionality, developed in Biberauer and Richards (2006), this movement
is not truly optional as movement is not semantically vacuous and the two different
structures receive different interpretations. Slovenian, on the other hand, is different.
As we have seen in section 7.1.2, questions in which one wh-phrase undergoes short
movement in Slovenian receive the same interpretation as questions with multiple
wh-fronting to the Left Periphery in Slovenian.
Note also that a different proposal was made for the Italian data in Brunetti
(2004), who claims that the interpretative distinction is not as sharp as described in
Belletti (2001) – that is, Brunetti claims that a contrastive focus in Italian can either
move to the High or stay in the Low Periphery. Brunetti proposes that movement of
the contrastive focus to the High Periphery has a pragmatic effect. Because of the
pragmatic effect, movement is again not semantically vacuous and therefore not
problematic from the viewpoint of optionality. Based on the interpretation and
context in which short wh-movement is available in Slovenian, see section 7.1.2,
movement to different peripheries does not result in any special pragmatic effects.
Comparing focus movement in Italian and wh-movement to a non-initial
position in Slovenian, we can conclude that both Italian focused phrases and
Slovenian non-initial wh-phrases can appear in either the High or Low Periphery. But
the crucial difference is that different positions in Italian lead to different
interpretation s (or at least some pragmatic effects) while in Slovenian being in the
Low or in the High Periphery does not influence the interpretation of the non-initial
244
wh-phrase or the multiple wh-question as a whole. Still, the non-initial wh-phrase
needs to move, when carrying a wh-feature. This means that while wh-movement by
itself is not optional, the final position of the non-initial wh-phrase is truly optional
(and therefore does not lead to different interpretations).
245
8 Conclusion
Writing about multiple wh-fronting at this point in time might seem unnecessary
since so many researchers have explored the phenomena for such a long time and
from so many different perspectives. However, with the exception of Golden (1996a,
1997a), Slovenian was never really considered in the discussion. Even more, it seems
that in light of the existence of multiple wh-fronting, wh-questions in which not all
wh-phrases are clause initial were not considered among multiple wh-questions
(again, with some exceptions; for example, Šimík’s (2010) exploration of wh-in-situ
in Czech or restrictions on movement in Bošković (2002)). A possible explanation
for this is that speakers of various languages with multiple wh-fronting disagree
about the relevant data. Speakers of Slovenian, however, seem to agree that whphrases can in fact stay in situ in multiple wh-questions, and thus Slovenian can
function as an interesting source of data. However, because Slovenian had been left
out of the multiple wh-fronting discussion up to now, multiple wh-fronting in
Slovenian needed to be considered in this thesis before questions with wh-in-situ and
optional wh-movement, as these phenomena seem to be related to multiple whfronting. Because of this, the thesis was intended both as a systematic overview of
multiple wh-questions in Slovenian and as an inquiry into why multiple whmovement in Slovenian seems to be optional.
In relation to the first goal of the thesis, the analysis of multiple wh-fronting in
Slovenian, I tried to establish how approaches proposed in Rudin (1988) and
Bošković (1997a et seq.) cope with Slovenian data (and data on multiple wh-fronting
in general), and proposed an analysis of multiple wh-questions in Slovenian
assuming the Cartographic approach. I proposed that in multiple wh-questions with
multiple wh-fronting all wh-phrases move to the Left Periphery of the sentence,
specifically to the Interrogative Projection (the clause initial wh-phrase) and to WhProjections. This raised a further question of how the Left Periphery in Slovenian is
structured and how movement to the Left Periphery proceeds. In relation to the
second point, I proposed that movement of wh-phrases to the Left Periphery is in fact
wh-movement and not focus movement – despite the fact that there are no
Superiority effects in Slovenian. I suggested that the condition on chains that holds in
other languages, for example in Bulgarian, as proposed in Krapova and Cinque
246
(2005), does not hold in Slovenian and correlated this with the availability of other
free word order phenomena, e. g. scrambling. However, further exploration will be
necessary to determine whether or not there is a general correlation between the
ability to violate conditions on chains and free word order. Returning to the structure
of the Left Periphery, some initial observations about the structure of the Left
Periphery were made in the thesis, but again, the extended CP needs to be further
investigated (examining, for example, the question of whether or not all Topic or
Focus Projections in Slovenian are equal).
In relation to the second goal, optionality, I have in fact argued against whmovement in Slovenian being optional. This, on the one hand, makes the title of my
thesis terribly misleading, but is, from a wider perspective, wanted, since optional,
semantically vacuous movement is taken to be an undesirable property of grammar
(cf. 2.1). What I argued for is that when a wh-phrase comes with an uninterpretable
valued wh-feature, it will also move to the Interrogative Projection or the WhProjections. This also means that wh-movement is obligatory, but it also does not
exclude wh-in-situ in Slovenian. That is, while a wh-phrase with a wh-feature has to
move, a wh-phrase does not necessarily come with a wh-feature (the bare whpronouns). It is also obligatory that a wh-phrase needs to appear in a clause initial
position (the Interrogative Projection) for a question to receive a true wh-question
reading, which is related to the fact that the Interrogative Projection hosts a
interpretable complex Q+wh-feature, responsible for Clause Typing, with an EPPsubfeature which needs to be checked, cf. Soare (2007).
However, it does seem to be optional whether wh-phrases move to WhProjections in the Left Periphery or in the Clause Internal (Low) Periphery. I argued
for the existence of the Low Periphery based on the fact that Topic, Focus and whphrases can all move to a clause internal position in which they follow the subject.
Postulating the Low Periphery accounts for multiple wh-questions with short
movement, but it also opens a discussion on the difference between scrambling and
wh-movement in languages with multiple wh-movement. That is, if a language has
wh-in-situ with wh-phrases without wh-features and the language has scrambling –
can these bare wh-pronouns be scrambled? An intuitive answer is yes, but
unfortunately there is no clear test to determine whether a wh-phrase in matrix
questions is scrambled or wh-moved, which is an issue that needs to be resolved.
247
Short movement also begs the question about the precise structure of the Low
Periphery. While it again seems that in Slovenian the word order of Topic, Focus and
wh-phrases is free, more attention needs to be given to this topic.
As I have already mentioned, I proposed that wh-in-situ in Slovenian is a result
of the existence of bare wh-pronouns in Slovenian. These do not move, because they
do not have to. The proposal is based on Cheng’s (1991) account of wh-pronouns
that can appear in polarity contexts in multiple wh-fronting languages and on the
proposal for the interpretation of wh-phrases in wh-in situ languages. This account is
simply extended to include the interrogative interpretation of wh-in-situ in multiple
wh-languages. Crucially, this proposal for Slovenian relies on the fact that a whphrase needs to appear in a clause initial position in wh-questions with a wh-in-situ
which is again linked to the Interrogative Projection with the complex Q+wh-feature
which needs to be projected in the Left Periphery, and it is the Q+wh-feature that
licenses the interrogative reading of the wh-phrase in situ. An advantage of the
suggested account is that it simply complements the existing proposal based on the
data from Slovenian.
This means that what seems to be optional wh-movement in Slovenian is not a
result of restrictions on movement (though, as we have seen, the Principle of
Distinctness restricts multiple wh-movement in Slovenian to some extent), it is not
movement that would result in different interpretations, and it is also not dependent
on context, it is simply a result of the existence of two types of wh-pronouns. And
again, what seems to be optional movement to a clause internal or clause initial
position is in fact obligatory wh-movement that dislocates wh-phrases to WhProjections in the Low or the Left Periphery (and one wh-phrase obligatorily to the
Interrogative Projection in the Left Periphery). What then needs to be further
explored is the relation between the Low and the Left Periphery in Slovenian and in
general and why movement to these different projections can result in the same
interpretation.
The primary focus of this thesis was Slovenian, which means that it is an open
question to what extent the proposals made here can be applied to other languages.
While one can take this is as a weakness, this allowed me to concentrate on the three
types of questions within the language and consequently relate them to each other,
which I think is an advantage. Also, several issues were only touched upon in the
248
thesis and will need to be addressed in future work, which I think is a good thing as it
shows that more can be said, primarily about Slovenian, multiple wh-questions, and
multiple wh-fronting but naturally also about many other related topics and issues.
249
9 References
Aboh, Enoch O. & Pfau, Roland. 2011. What’s a wh-word got to do with it? In
Beninca, Paola & Munaro, Nicola (eds.), Mapping the left periphery: The
cartography of syntactic structures 5, 91–124. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aoun, Joseph & Hornstein, Norbert & Lightfoot, David & Weinberg, Amy. 1987.
Two types of locality. Linguistic Inquiry 18(4). 537–577.
Bailyn, John Frederick. 2001. On scrambling: A reply to Bošković and Takahashi.
Linguistic inquiry 32(4). 635–658.
Bajec, Anton et al. 2000. Slovar slovenskega knjižnega jezika (SSKJ) [The dictionary
of standard Slovenian language]. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in
umetnosti. (Available at http://bos.zrc-sazu.si/sskj.html)
Baker, Carl L. 1997. Notes on the description of English questions: The role of an
abstract question morpheme. Foundations of language 6. 197–219.
Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural
Language Semantics 14(1). 1–56.
Belletti, Adriana. 2001. ‘Inversion’ as focalization. In Hulk, Aafke C. J. & Pollock,
Jean-Yves (eds.), Inversion in Romance and the theory of Universal Grammar,
60–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. In Rizzi, Luigi (ed.), The
structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures 2, 16–51. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Belletti, Adriana & Shlonsky, Ur. 1995. The order of verbal complements: A
comparative study. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 13(3). 489–526.
Bianchi Valentina. 2014. Focus fronting and the syntax-semantics interface. To
appear in Shlonsky, Ur (ed.), Beyond the functional sequence. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Biberauer, Theresa & Richards, Marc. 2006. True optionality: When the grammar
doesn’t mind. In Boeckx, Cedric (ed.), Minimalist Essays, 35–67. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Błaszczak, Joanna & Fischer, Susann 2001. Multiple Wh-Konstruktionen im
Slavischen: State of the Art Report. Linguistics in Potsdam 14. 1–116.
250
Bošković, Željko. 1994. ECP, Spec-Head agreement, and multiple wh-movement in
Overt Syntax. In Avrutin, Sergey & Franks, Steven & Progovac, Ljiljana (eds.),
Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The MIT Meeting, 1993, 119−144. Ann
Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Bošković, Željko. 1997a. Fronting wh-phrases in Serbo-Croatian. In Lindseth,
Martina & Franks, Steven (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The
Indiana Meeting, 1996, 86–107. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Bošković, Željko. 1997b. On certain violations of the Superiority Condition, AgrO,
and the Economy of Derivation. Journal of Linguistics 33. 227–254.
Bošković. Željko. 1997c. Superiority effects with multiple wh-fronting in SerboCroatian. Lingua 102. 1−20.
Bošković, Željko. 1998. Wh-phrases and wh-movement in Slavic. (Position paper for
the Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax Conference in Bloomington, Indiana, June
1998).
Bošković, Željko. 1999. On multiple feature-checking: Multiple wh-fronting and
multiple head movement. In Epstein, Samuel & Hornstein, Norbert (eds.),
Working Minimalism, 159−187. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bošković, Željko. 2000. Sometimes in [Spec,CP], sometimes in situ. In Martin,
Roger & Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on
minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 53–87. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bošković, Željko. 2001a. On the interpretation of multiple questions. In Pica, Pierre
(ed.), Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 1−15. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bošković, Željko. 2001b. On the nature of the syntax-phonology interface.
Clitization and related phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Bošković, Željko. 2002. On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33(3). 351−383.
Bošković, Željko. 2003. On wh-islands and obligatory wh-movement contexts in
South Slavic. In Boeckx, Cedric & Grohmann, Kleanthes (eds.), Multiple whfronting, 27–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bošković, Željko. 2004. Topicalization, focalization, lexical insertion, and
scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry 35(4). 613–638.
Bošković, Željko. 2007. A note on wh-typology. In Kosta, Peter & Schurcks, Lilia
(eds.), Linguistic investigations into formal description of Slavic languages:
251
Contributions of the Sixth European Conference held at Potsdam University,
2005, 159–70. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Bošković, Željko. 2008. The NP/DP analysis and Slovenian. In Proceedings of the
Novi Sad Generative Syntax Workshop 1, 53–73. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet u
Novom Sadu.
Bošković, Željko. 2009. Scrambling. In Kempgen, Sebastian & Kosta, Peter &
Berger, Tilman & Gutschmidt, Karl (eds.), The Slavic Languages, 714–724.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bošković, Željko & Takahashi, Daiko. 1998. Scrambling and last resort. Linguistic
Inquiry 29(3). 347–366.
Browne, Wayles & Alt, Theresa. 2004. A Handbook of Bosnian, Serbian, and
Croatian. Slavic and East European Language Research Center (SEELRC), Duke
University.
(Available
at
http://www.seelrc.org:8080/grammar/mainframe.jsp?nLanguageID=1)
Bruening, Benjamin. 2007. Wh-in-situ does not correlate with wh-indefinites or
question particles. Linguistic Inquiry 38(1). 139–166.
Brunetti, Lisa. 2004. A unification of focus. Padova: Unipress. (Ph.D. dissertation)
Cable, Seth. 2010. The grammar of Q: Q-particles, wh-movement, and pied-piping.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cheng, Lisa Lai‐Shen. 1991. On the typology of wh-questions. Cambridge: MIT.
(Ph.D. dissertation)
Cheng, Lisa Lai‐Shen & Rooryck, Johan. 2000. Licensing wh‐in‐situ. Syntax 3(1).
1−19.
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on Transformations. In Anderson, Stephen R. &
Kiparsky, Paul (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 232–286. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger &
Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist
syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken
Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press.
252
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. In Belletti, Adriana (ed.),
Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3, 104–131.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Freidin, Robert & Otero, Carlos &
Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory, 133–
166. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo & Rizzi, Luigi. 2008. The cartography of syntactic structures.
Studies in linguistics 2. 42–58.
Citko, Barbara. 1998. On multiple wh-movement in Slavic. In Bošković, Željko &
Franks, Steven & Snyder, William (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic
Linguistics: the Connecticut Meeting 1997, 97−113. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic
Publications.
Citko, Barbara. 2010. On the (a)symmetric nature of movement: A view from Polish
wh- and passive movement. In Browne, Wayles & Cooper, Adam & Fisher,
Alison & Kesici, Esra & Predolac, Nikola & Zec, Draga (eds.), Formal
Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 18: The Cornell Meeting 2009, 38–57. Ann
Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Citko, Barbara & Gračanin-Yuksek, Martina. 2013. Towards a new typology of
coordinated wh-questions. Journal of Linguistics 49(1). 1–32.
Comorovski, Ileana. 1996. Interrogative phrases and the syntax-semantics interface.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
den Dikken, Marcel & Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2002. From hell to polarity:
“Aggressively non-D-linked” wh-phrases as polarity items. Linguistic Inquiry
33(1). 31–61.
Denham, Kristin. 1997. A minimalist account of optional wh-movement. Washington:
University of Washington. (Ph.D. dissertation)
Denham, Kristin. 2000. Optional wh-movement in Babine-Witsuwit’en. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 18(2). 199–251.
Dornisch, Ewa. 1998. Multiple-Wh-Questions in Polish: The Interactions between
Wh-Phrases and Clitics. Ithaca: Cornell University. (Ph.D. dissertation)
253
Dyakonova, Marina. 2009. A phase-based approach to Russian free word order.
Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. (Ph.D. dissertation)
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2006. Partial wh‐movement. In Everaert, Martin & van
Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax: 437–492. Malden:
Blackwell Publishing.
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2010. Semantic type effects on crossing movement in German.
Language and Logos: Studies in Theoretical and Computational Linguistics 72.
48–63.
Fanselow, Gisbert & Aäussler, Jana & Weskott, Thomas. 2013. Constituent Order in
German Multiple Questions: Normal Order and (Apparent) Anti-Superiority
Effects. The Mind Research Repository (beta). Vol. 1.
Fox, Danny, 1995. Economy and scope. Natural language semantics 3(3). 283–341.
Franks, Steven. 1998. Clitics in Slavic. (Paper presented at the Comparative Slavic
Morphosyntax Workshop, Spencer Creek, June 1998)
Gigafida.
[A
written
corpus
of
modern
Slovenian.]
Available
at:
http://www.gigafida.net/.
Giusti, Giuliana. 1996. Is there a FocusP and a TopicP in the noun phrase? University
of Venice Woking Papers in Linguistics 6(2). 105–128.
Golden, Marija, 1996a. Interrogative Wh-Movement in Slovene and English. Acta
Analytica 14. 145–186.
Golden, Marija. 1996b. K-premik in skladenjski otoki v slovenski skladnji [Whmovement and syntactic islands in Slovenian syntax]. Razprave XV, Razred za
filološke in literarne vede. 237−253.
Golden, Marija. 1997a. Multiple wh-questions in Slovene. In Browne, Wayles &
Dornisch, Ewa & Kondrashova, Natasha & Zec, Draga (eds.), Formal Approaches
to Slavic Linguistics: The Cornell Meeting, 1995, 240−266. Ann Arbor: Michigan
Slavic Publications.
Golden, Marija. 1997b. Parasitic Gaps in Slovene. In Junghanns, Uwe & Zybatow,
Gerhid (eds.), Proceedings in the First European Conference on Formal
Description of Slavic Languages, 387−398. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert Verlag.
Golden, Marija & Milojević Sheppard, Milena. 2000. In Beukema, Fritz & den
Dikken, Marcel (eds.), Clitic phenomena in European languages, 191–207.
Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
254
Grebenyova, Lydia 2006a. Sluicing Puzzles in Russian. In Filip, Hana & Franks,
Steven & Lavine, James E. & Tasseva-Kurktchieva, Mila (eds.), Formal
Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Princeton Meeting, 2005, 157−171. Ann
Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Grebenyova, Lydia 2006b. When multiple wh-fronting is not multiple. (Talk given at
The 1st Annual Meeting of Slavic Linguistic Society, Bloomington, Indiana, 8–10
September 2006)
Greenberg, Marc L. 2008. A short reference grammar of Slovene. München: Lincom.
(Available at www.seelrc.org:8080/grammar/pdf/stand_alone_slovene.pdf)
Grewendorf, Günther. 2001. Multiple Wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 32(1). 87−122.
Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2003. German is a multiple wh-fronting language. In
Boeckx, Cedric & Grohmann, Kleanthes (eds.), Multiple wh-fronting, 99–130.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hagstrom, Paul. 1998. Decomposing Questions. Cambridge: MIT. (Ph.D.
dissertation)
Halupka-Rešetar, Sabina. 2013. Left peripheral matters in Serbian: The role of
discourse-pragmatics in word order variation and how to motivate it. (Talk given
at Sinfonija 7, Niš, Serbia, 26–28 September 2013)
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst:
University of Massachusetts. (Ph.D. dissertation)
Ilc, Gašper. 2008. O zanikanju in nikalnici v slovenščini [On negation and the
negative word in Slovenian]. Jezik in slovstvo LIII(2). 65–81.
Ilc, Gašper & Milojević Sheppard, Milena. 2003. Verb movement in Slovenian: a
comparative perspective. STUF-Language Typology and Universals 56(3). 266–
286.
Jayaseelan, Karattuparambil A. 2001. IP-internal Topic and Focus Phrases. Studia
Linguistica 55(1). 39–75.
Jędrejowski, Łukasz. 2014. Again on why. But why? In Chapman, Cassandra & Kit,
Olena & Kučerová, Ivona (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The
McMaster Meeting 2013, 151–169. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kiss, Katalin É. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74.
245–273.
255
Krapova, Iliyana. 2004. Word order in Topic-Focus structures in the Balkan
languages. In Romània Orientale XVII. Atti del IX convegno internazionale di
studi sul sud-est europeo (Tirana, 30.08–3.09. 2004): 139–162.
Krapova, Iliyana & Cinque, Guglielmo. 2005. On the order of wh-phrases in
Bulgarian multiple wh-fronting. University of Venice Working Papers in
Linguistics 15. 171–197.
Kuno, Susumu. 1993. Grammar and discourse principles: Functional syntax and GB
theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuno, Susumu & Robinson, Jane J. 1972. Multiple wh-questions. Linguistic Inquiry
3(4). 463–487.
Laenzlinger, Christopher & Soare, Gabriela. 2005. On merging positions for
arguments and adverbs in the Romance Mittelfeld. In Brugè, Laura & Giusti,
Giuliana & Munaro, Nicola & Schweikert, Walter & Turano, Giuseppina (eds.),
Contributions to the thirtieth Incontro di Grammatica Generativa 2005, 105–128.
Venice: Università Ca’Foscari Venezia.
Lambova, Mariana. 2003. On the interaction of multiple (non) wh-fronting and
multiple Topicalization in Bulgarian. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers
in Linguistics 8(1). 127–142.
Liakin, Denis. 2005. On the Wh-Movement and Wh-in-situ in Russian. In Franks,
Steven & Gladney, Frank & Tasseva-Kurktchieva, Mila (eds.), Formal
Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 13: the Columbia Meeting, 218–230. Ann Arbor,
Michigan Slavic Publications.
Marušič, Franc. 2005. On non-simultaneous phases. Stony Brook: Stony Brook
University. (Ph.D. dissertation)
Marušič, Franc. 2006. Slovenian Clitics Have No Unique Syntactic Position. In
Antonenko, Andrei & Bailyn, John & Bethin, Christina (eds.), Formal
Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 16. The Stony Brook Meeting, 266–281. Ann
Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Marušič, Franc. 2008. CP under control. In Zybatow, Gerhild & Szucsich, Luka &
Junghanns, Uwe & Meyer, Roland (eds.), Formal Description of Slavic
Languages, 408–422. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Marušič, Franc & Mišmaš, Petra & Plesničar, Vesna & Razboršek, Tina & Šuligoj,
Tina. 2014. On a potential counter-example to Merchant's Sluicing-COMP
256
generalization. (Paper presented at SinFonIJA 7, Graz, 25–27 September 2014, to
appear in Grazer Linguistische Studien)
Marvin, Tatjana & Stegovec, Adrian. 2012. On the syntax of ditransitive sentences in
Slovenian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 59(1–2). 177–203.
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of
ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meyer, Roland. 2004. Superiority effects in Russian, Polish and Czech: Judgments
and Grammar. University of Leipzig/ University of Regensburg. (Manuscript)
Mihaliček, Vedrana. 2010. The ordering of wh words in multiple wh extraction in
Serbo-Croatian. In Smirnova, Anastasia & Mihaliček, Vedrana & Ressue, Lauren
(eds.), Formal Studies in Slavic Linguistics, 103–120. Newcastle: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.
Mišmaš, Petra. 2013. The influence of grammatical features on linearization:
evidence from Slovenian. In Franks, Steven (ed.), Formal Approaches to Slavic
Linguistics. The Third Indiana Meeting, 218–231. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic
Publications.
Mišmaš, Petra. 2014. An Argument for Wh-fronting in the Slovenian DP. In
Veselovská, Ludmila & Janebová, Markéta (eds.), Nominal Structures: All in
Complex DPs, Olomouc modern language monographs; vol. 2, 175–186.
Olomouc: Palacký University.
Mišmaš, Petra. 2015. Wh-in Situ in a Multiple Wh-fronting Language. In Ziková,
Markéta & Caha, Pavel & Dočekal, Mojmír (eds.), Slavic Languages in the
Perspective of Formal Grammar Proceedings of FDSL 10.5, Brno 2014, 199–213.
Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2011. Optionality. In Boeckx, Cedric (ed.), The Oxford
Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism, 354–376. Oxfrod: Oxford University Press.
Müller, Gereon. 1999. Optionality in Optimality-Theoretic Syntax. GLOT
International, vol. 4(5). 3–8.
Müller, Gereon. 2002. Free word order, morphological case, and sympathy theory. In
Fanselow, Gisbert & Féry, Caroline (eds.), Resolving Conflicts in Grammars:
Optimality Theory in Syntax, Morphology, and Phonology (Linguistische Berichte
Sonderheft 11), 9–49. Hamburg: Buske.
257
Nevins, Andrew. 2012. Haplological dissimilation at distinct stages of exponence. In
Trommer, Jochen (ed.), The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, 84–116.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1990. Quantification in the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Pereltsvaig, Asya. 2007. On the Universality of DP: A View from Russian. Studia
Linguistica 61(1). 59–94.
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In Reuland,
Eric & ter Meulen, Alice G. B. (eds.), The representation of (in) definiteness, 98–
129. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Pires, Acrisio & Taylor, Heather Lee. 2007. The syntax of wh-in-situ and common
ground. In Masullo, Pascual (ed.), Romance Languages: Structure, interfaces, and
microparametric variation: Proceedings of the 37th LSRL/ Linguistic Symposium
on Romance Languages. 201–215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Poletto, Cecilia. 2006. Parallel Phases: a study on the high and low left periphery of
Old Italian. In Frascarelli, Mara (ed.), Phases of interpretation, 261–294. Berlin:
De Gruyter.
Potsdam, Eric. 2004. Wh-questions in Malagasy. In Law, Paul (ed.), Proceedings of
AFLA 11 (ZAS Papers in Linguistics 34), 244–258, Berlin: Zentrum für
Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.
Potsdam, Eric. 2006. More concealed pseudoclefts in Malagasy and the clausal
typing hypothesis. Lingua 116(12): 2154–2182.
Progovac, Ljiljana. 2005. A syntax of Serbian: clausal architecture. Bloomington:
Slavica Publishers.
Richards, Norvin. 1997. What moves where when in which language? Cambridge:
MIT. (Ph.D. dissertation)
Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in language: Interactions and architectures.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering trees. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge: MIT Press.
258
Rizzi, Luigi. 1996. Residual verb second and the Wh-Criterion. In Belletti, Adriana
& Rizzi, Luigi (eds.). Parameters and functional heads 2, 63–90. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane
(ed.), Elements of Grammar. A Handbook in Generative Syntax, 281–337.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2001a. On the position ―Int(errogative) in the left periphery of the
clause. In Cinque, Gugliermo & Salvi, Giampaolo (eds.), Current studies in
Italian syntax: Essays offered to L. Renzi, 287–296. New York: Elsevier.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2001b. Relativized minimality effects. In Baltin, Mark & Collins, Chris
(ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 89–110. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. Locality and Left Periphery. In Belletti, Adriana (ed.), The
structure of CP and IP. The cartography of syntactic structures 3, 223–251.
Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2011. Minimality. In Boeckx, Cedric (ed.), The Oxford handbook of
linguistic minimalism, 220–238. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2013. Locality. Lingua 130. 169–186.
Rojina, Nina. 2011. The syntactic structures of Russian wh-questions. Geneva:
Université de Genève. (Ph.D. dissertation)
Rudin, Catherine. 1988. On multiple questions and multiple fronting. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 445−501.
Roussou, Anna & Vlachos, Christos. 2011. Introduction to Optionality in WhMovement. Linguistic Analysis 37.1/2. 3–10.
Sabel, Joachim. 2003. Malagasy as an optional wh-fronting language. In Boeckx,
Cedric & Grohmann, Kleanthes (eds.), Multiple wh-fronting, 229−254.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sabel, Joachim. 2006. Typologie des W-Fragesatzes [The typology of wh-questions].
Linguistische Berichte 206. 147–194.
Sabel, Joachim & Zeller, Jochen. 2006. Wh-question formation in Nguni. In Mugane,
John & Hutchison, John P. & Worman Dee A. (eds.), Selected proceedings of the
35th annual conference on African linguistics, 271–283. Somerville: Cascadilla
Proceedings Project.
259
Shlonsky, Ur. 2010. The cartographic enterprise in syntax. Language and linguistics
compass 4(6): 417–429.
Shlonsky, Ur. 2012. Notes on wh in situ in French. In Brugè, Laura & Cardinaletti,
Anna & Giusti, Giuliana & Munaro, Nicola & Poletto, Cecilia (eds.), Functional
Heads. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 7, 242–252. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Shlonsky, Ur & Soare, Gabriela. 2011. Where’s ‘Why’? Linguistic inquiry 42(4).
651–669.
Soare, Gabriela. 2007. A cross-linguistic typology of question formation and the
antisymmetry hypothesis. Generative grammar in Geneva 5. 107–133.
Stepanov, Arthur. 1998. On Wh-fronting is Russian. In Tamanji, Pius N. &
Kusumoto, Kiyomi (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 28, 453–467. Amherst:
University of Massachusetts, GLSA.
Stepanov, Arthur. 2000. Wh‐scope marking in Slavic. Studia Linguistica 54(1). 1–40.
Stepanov, Arthur & Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2008. Cartography and licensing of whadjuncts: a cross-linguistic perspective. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory
26(3). 589–638.
Stjepanović, Sandra. 1995. Short-distance movement of wh-phrases in SerboCroatian matrix clauses. Storrs: University of Connecticut. (Unpublished
manuscript)
Stjepanović Sandra. 1999. What do second position cliticization, scrambling, and
multiple wh-fronting have in common? Storrs: University of Connecticut. (Ph.D.
dissertation)
Stjepanović, Sandra. 2003. Multiple wh-fronting in Serbo-Croatian matrix questions
and the matrix sluicing construction. In Boeckx, Cedric & Grohmann, Kleanthes
(eds.), Multiple wh-fronting, 255–284. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Strahov, Natalya. 2001. A scrambling analysis of Russian wh-questions. In Franks,
Steven & Holloway King, Tracy & Yadroff, Michael (eds.), Formal Approaches
to Slavic Linguistics: The Bloomington Meeting 2000, 293–310. Ann Arbor:
Michigan Slavic Publications.
Szczegielniak, Adam. 2001. Polish Optional Movement. In Alexandrova, Galina M.
& Arnaudova, Olga (eds.) The Minimalist Parameter: Selected papers from the
260
Open Linguistics Forum, Ottawa, 21–23 March 1997, 137−159. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Šimík, Radek. 2010. Interpretation of multiple interrogatives: An information
structure sensitive account. In Browne, Wayles & Cooper, Adam & Fisher, Alison
& Kesici, Esra & Predolac, Nikola & Zec, Draga (eds.), Formal Approaches to
Slavic Linguistics 18: The Cornell Meeting 2009, 486–501. Ann Arbor: Michigan
Slavic Publications.
Toman, Jindrich. 1981. Aspects of multiple wh-movement in Polish and Czech. In
May, Robert & Koster, Jan (eds.), Levels of syntactic representation, 293–302.
Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Toporišič, Jože. 2004. Slovenska slovnica [Grammar of Slovenian]. Maribor:
Obzorja.
Veselovská, Ludmila. 1993. Wh-Movement and multiple questions in Czech. Durham
Durham University. (Masters dissertation)
Wachowicz, Kristina. 1974. Against the universality of a single wh-question
Movement. Foundations of Language. International Journal of Language and
Philosophy 11: 155–166.
Witkoś, Jacek. 2008. On the correlation between A-type scrambling and the lack of
Weak Crossover effects. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 44. 297–328.
Yanovich, Igor. 2005. Choice-functional series of indefinite pronouns and Hamblin
semantics. Proceedings of SALT, vol. 15. 309–326.
Yeo, Weichiang Norman. 2010. Unifying Optional Wh-movement. York: University
of York. (Ph.D. dissertation)
Zavitnevich, Olga. 2001. On wh-questions and on nature of wh-words in Russian in
comparison with English. Working Papers in English and Applied Linguistics 6.
109–134. (Cambridge: Re-search Centre for English and Applied Linguistics,
University of Cambridge)
Zavitnevich-Beaulac, Olga. 2005. On wh-movement and the nature of wh-phrases–
case re-examined. Skase Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 2(3). 75–100.
261