Thesis - Archive ouverte UNIGE

Transcription

Thesis
The syntactic structures of Russian wh-questions
ROJINA, Nina
Abstract
This dissertation addresses a number of issues involving the syntactic structure of Russian
wh-questions. This work proposes a different perspective on the syntactic structure of Russian
wh-questions. The dissertation offers a comparative analysis of Russian wh-questions with
other languages involving multiple wh-movement (a.o. Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian), and
argues against the common perception of Russian as a language where a wh-phrase does
not undergo wh-movement or show any Superiority effects. The data and analyses presented
in this work argue for the opposite. The dissertation adopts the Cartographic approach to the
syntactic analysis of wh-phrases in Russian.
Reference
ROJINA, Nina. The syntactic structures of Russian wh-questions. Thèse de doctorat :
Univ. Genève, 2011, no. L. 724
URN : urn:nbn:ch:unige-174157
Available at:
http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:17415
Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.
[ Downloaded 15/10/2016 at 17:07:45 ]
Département de Linguistique
Faculté des Lettres
THE SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES OF RUSSIAN WH-QUESTIONS
Thése de doctorat
Présentée à la Faculté des Lettres de l‘Université de Genève
pour obtenir le grade de docteur ès lettres per
NINA ROJINA
2011
Jury de thèse: Prof. Luigi Rizzi (Université de Genève/Sienne) – Directeur
M.e.r. Christopher Laenzlinger (Université de Genève) – Directeur
Prof. Jacques Moeschler (Université de Genève) – Président
Prof. Iliana Krapova (Université de Venise)
Prof. Guglielmo Cinque (Université de Venise)
i
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all I would like to say a tremendous ‗Thank you!‘ to Luigi Rizzi and
Christopher Laenzlinger, my supervisors, who supported me and my research during
one of the toughest periods of my work on the dissertation and without whom I would
never be able to finish it. Thank you for your support, patience and encouragement. I am
fortunate to work with you.
My gratitude also goes to Jacques Moeschler, president of the board, for his
generosity, his advice, and feedback on my work.
Also, I would like to thank the members of my examination committee for
criticism and feedback on my research. Special thanks to Iliana Krapova and Guglielmo
Cinque for their interest in my work and feedback on my early research.
Many thanks also go to my colleagues; especially I would like to mention
Gabriella Soare, Goljihan Kachaeva, Greg Ellison, Stephanie Dürrleman. I want to
thank you guys for discussions, support, and the occasional beer.
My gratitude also goes to everybody in the Department of Linguistics at the
University of Geneva, especially Genoveva Puskas, Eric Haeberli, Eric Wehrli, Eva
Capitao, Ur Shlonsky.
I have received important feedback when presenting my work at Slavic
Linguistic Society meetings in Indiana, Berlin and Ohio. I would like to thank Steven
Franks, Natalia Kondrashova, and Catherina Rudin for their interest in my presentations
and discussions after the conferences.
I am immensely grateful to the people who took time to answer my sometimes
weird questions about Russian and Bulgarian. Special thank you goes to Marina
Zyryanova, Polya Vitkova, Velentina Dolgova, Elena Djakonova, and of course to my
parents. Thank you for being patient with me and answering my questions at any time of
day and night.
iii
Of course, I would never be here if it was not for my first supervisor Elena
Marinova from Kemerovo State University in Russia. She was the one who inspired me
and encouraged to continue the research in the sphere of Linguistics.
I would like to specially thank Kamila and Thomas, who became my family in
Geneva and who are always happy to let me stay at their place during my visits.
My gratitude also goes to John Egil Turbekkmo, who coped with all my
travelling to Geneva and to the conferences and taking days off for writing my
dissertation.
I would like to give another ‗Thank you!‘ to my ‗editors‘ Glyn Hicks, James
Pennington, and Greg Ellison for reading my papers during all these years and inserting
the articles where needed.
A huge ‗Thanks!‘ is in order for my ‗Swiss‘ family Jacques and Veronique, for
basically becoming my parents in Geneva and being a great support during my stay
here.
And of course enormous thank you to my family in Siberia for their love,
encouragement, belief in me, even when I thought I did not have strength to do it. I did
it because of you!
Finally, I would like to thank Mikael for appearing in my life and encouraging
me to finish the Dissertation.
I dedicate this dissertation to my friends and family.
iv
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................... III
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
CARTOGRAPHIC APPROACH TO SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES ........................................................... 2
RELATIVIZED MINIMALITY ........................................................................................................ 3
CRITERIAL FREEZING ................................................................................................................. 5
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION ............................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2. MULTIPLE WH-FRONTING LANGUAGES AND SUPERIORITY EFFECTS ...... 9
2.1.
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.
DEFINING SUPERIORITY EFFECT ............................................................................................... 12
2.2.1. D-linking ............................................................................................................................. 15
2.2.2. More than two-wh-phrases ................................................................................................. 16
2.3.
SOME PROPERTIES OF BULGARIAN, SERBO-CROATIAN AND RUSSIAN WH-QUESTIONS ............. 18
2.3.1. Constituency of wh-phrases ................................................................................................ 18
2.3.2. Wh-islands .......................................................................................................................... 21
2.3.3. Superiority effects in Bulgarian .......................................................................................... 23
2.3.4. Superiority effects in Serbo-Croatian ................................................................................. 26
2.3.5. Why is focus movement of wh-phrases not subject to the Superiority effect? ..................... 28
2.3.6. Problems for Bošković‟s analysis ....................................................................................... 31
2.3.7. Superiority effects in Russian ............................................................................................. 34
CHAPTER 3. TOWARDS AN ANALYSIS OF RUSSIAN MULTIPLE WH-ELEMENTS ............. 41
3.1.
BULGARIAN ORDER OF WH-PHRASES ........................................................................................ 41
3.1.1. The order of wh-adjuncts .................................................................................................... 42
3.1.2. The order of wh-objects w.r.t wh-adjuncts ......................................................................... 43
3.1.3. The order of wh-subjects w.r.t wh-adjuncts ........................................................................ 46
3.1.4. The order of D-linked and non-D-linked wh-phrases ......................................................... 48
3.1.5. The order of clitic resumed and non-clitic resumed wh-phrases ........................................ 49
3.1.6. Some conclusions ................................................................................................................ 51
3.2.
RUSSIAN ORDER OF WH-PHRASES ............................................................................................. 54
3.2.1. Meyer‟s analysis ................................................................................................................. 54
3.2.2. Analysis of the order of Russian wh-matrix questions ........................................................ 56
3.2.3. Analysis of the order of Russian wh-embedded questions .................................................. 66
3.2.4. A comparison with Meyer‟s results .................................................................................... 75
3.3.
PREVIOUS APPROACHES TO MULTIPLE WH-QUESTIONS ............................................................. 76
3.3.1. The adjunction analysis ...................................................................................................... 76
3.3.2. The wh-cluster analysis ...................................................................................................... 77
3.3.3. The multiple [Spec, CP] analysis ....................................................................................... 78
3.3.4. The split CP analysis .......................................................................................................... 80
3.4.
ANALYSIS OF RUSSIAN MULTIPLE WH-QUESTIONS ................................................................... 83
3.4.1. Hierarchy prior to movement ............................................................................................. 83
3.4.2.
Cartographic approach to Russian multiple wh-questions................................................ 85
CHAPTER 4. WHY-WH-ELEMENTS AND THEIR VARIETY ....................................................... 95
4.1.
POČEMU VS. ZAČEM ................................................................................................................ 97
4.1.1. Long-distance dependencies ............................................................................................. 103
4.1.2. The occurrence of “why” phrases in multiple wh-questions ............................................ 105
4.1.3. Position of počemu and začem ......................................................................................... 107
4.2.
AGGRESSIVELY NON-D-LINKED AND NOMINAL WH-ELEMENTS .............................................. 113
4.2.1. The case form of „kakogo čërta‟ ....................................................................................... 115
4.2.2. “What” is “why”: differences between čego and čto. ...................................................... 120
4.2.3
Why does „kakogo čërta‟ mean only „why‟? .................................................................... 123
4.2.4. Syntactic properties of aggressively non-D-linked wh-phrases ........................................ 124
4.2.5. Kakogo čërta, čego, čë and multiple wh-questions........................................................... 131
4.3.
COORDINATION OF WH-ELEMENTS ......................................................................................... 137
4.3.1. Coordination prior to the wh-movement? ........................................................................ 140
4.3.2. Coordination of two CPs followed by sluicing? ............................................................... 141
v
4.3.3.
4.3.4.
4.3.5.
Coordination in CP? ........................................................................................................ 146
Spurious coordination ...................................................................................................... 152
The analysis ...................................................................................................................... 157
CHAPTER 5. MYSTERY OF THAT-TRACE EFFECT ................................................................... 161
5.1.
INDICATIVE COMPLEMENTIZER ‗ČTO‘..................................................................................... 164
5.1.1. An NIC approach .................................................................................................................. 164
5.1.2.
An ECP account (Rizzi, 1990) ......................................................................................... 165
5.1.3. Richards‟ account (1999) ................................................................................................. 169
5.1.4. Szczegielniak (1999) ......................................................................................................... 171
5.1.5. Rizzi and Shlonsky (2007) ................................................................................................. 174
5.2.
SUBJUNCTIVE COMPLEMENTIZER ‗ČTOBY‘ ............................................................................ 185
5.3.
ANALYSIS OF RUSSIAN COMPLEMENTIZERS ‗ČTO‘ AND ‗ČTOBY‘ .......................................... 198
CHAPTER 6. WH-SCOPE MARKING CONSTRUCTIONS ........................................................... 211
6.1.
SOME PROPERTIES OF WH-SCOPE MARKER IN RUSSIAN .......................................................... 214
6.2.
PREVIOUS ANALYSIS OF WH-SCOPE MARKING CONSTRUCTIONS ............................................. 218
6.2.1. The Direct Dependency Approach ........................................................................................ 219
6.2.2. The Indirect Dependency approach ...................................................................................... 222
6.2.3. The Mixed Dependency Approach ........................................................................................ 228
6.3.
ANALYSIS OF RUSSIAN WH-SCOPE MARKING CONSTRUCTIONS .............................................. 233
6.3.1. The status of the Slavic wh-scope marker ............................................................................. 234
6.3.2. Syntactic structure of wh-scope marking constructions ........................................................ 238
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUDIING REMARKS ...................................................................................... 247
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................. 253
vi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
The goal of this dissertation is to address a number of issues involving the syntactic
structure of Russian wh-questions. The dissertation proposes a comparative analysis of
wh-questions in Slavic languages along the lines of current Minimalist guidelines.
This work offers a different perspective on the syntactic structure of Russian whquestions. Russian, being a multiple wh-fronting language, has been considered by a
number of linguists (among others Bošković, 1997, 1998a; Stepanov, 1997) as a
language without an overt wh-movement to the left periphery and a language not
exhibiting Superiority effects in all contexts. The comparative analysis offered in this
work suggests the opposite. The data presented in this dissertation clearly demonstrate
overt movement of a wh-phrase to the [Spec;CP], as well as the presence of Superiority
effects in Russian.
The dissertation adopts the Cartographic approach to the syntactic analysis of
wh-phrases in Russian; the underlying idea of which is to draw maps as precise and
detailed as possible of syntactic configurations (Rizzi, 1997, 2001, 2002).
The theoretical implications and predictions related to wh-movement in multiple
wh-fronting languages are outlined and analysed in this dissertation, leading towards an
analysis of multiple wh-questions in Russian.
Before going into the analysis of wh-questions, it is necessary to outline the
ideas that underlie the present dissertation which studies the syntax of Russian whquestions on a comparative basis with other multiple wh-fronting languages, with
Bulgarian essentially.
1
1.1.
Cartographic approach to syntactic structures
The Cartographic approach has been developed by a number of linguists, among others
Rizzi (1997, 2001, 2002), Cinque (1999, 2006), and Belletti (2004), in order to propose
a detailed map of the structure of the clause, assuming that all languages share the same
principles of structure formation and the same functional projections.
The fact that the complementizer system can be conceived as a structural zone
consisting of distinct functional heads and their projections brings Rizzi (1997) to
postulate the Force-Finiteness system which expresses relations between a C system and
the immediate IP and the Topic-Focus system, which is present in the structure only
when needed, i.e. when a constituent bears Topic or Focus features that need to be
accommodated in the left periphery of the clause. Rizzi (1997) concludes that the C
system has the following structure:
FORCE
(TOP*)
FOC
(TOP*)
FIN
IP
Rizzi suggests that there is only one structural Focus position and an indefinite number
of Topics. The relative operators occupy [Spec;ForceP], while question operators (whphrases) occupy [Spec;FocP].
If Rizzi suggests a split CP analysis, Cinque (1999) proposes a fine-grained
analysis of the adverbs and adverbial position within IP, where each functional head
expresses different types of mood, tense, aspect and mode. Moreover, Cinque (1999)
suggests that the ordering of the adverbs in a clause is determined by a universal
hierarchy, which is determined by phrase structure, with the adverbs occupying unique
specifies of functional projections.
Krapova and Cinque (2005) employ the cartographic approach to multiple whfronting in Bulgarian, suggesting that each class of wh-phrases targets a specific
position in the left periphery. The important aspect of their analysis is that the order of
wh-elements is dependent upon the order prior to their wh-movement, i.e. the order
realised in the IP or Mittelfeld. Following their lead I analyse Russian multiple whquestions and come to the same conclusion, i.e. in Russian wh-questions the order is
2
pre-defined in the Mittelfeld, which is later realized in CP. This will be the focus of
Chapter 3, where Russian data are compared to Bulgarian and the syntactic analysis, on
the basis of the Cartographic approach, is offered.
1.2.
Relativized Minimality
Krapova and Cinque‘s (2005) suggestion that the order of wh-elements is dependent on
the order prior to their movement leads them to develop a principle which will ensure
that the order is preserved under movement. In this view, Relativized Minimality (Rizzi,
2001) comes into the picture.
Relativized Minimality captures the intuition that a local structural relation is
one that must be satisfied in the smallest possible environment in which it can be
satisfied.
Rizzi (2001) proposes a theory of chains, which state that a chain cannot be built
between X and Y in configuration …X…Z…Y…
1.
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
Y and X are in a minimal configuration when Y is a trace and X is a target and there is
no intervener Z between them, which c-commands Y and does not c-command X and
which is specified with the same features as the target.
……Xt………….Z………….Y(t)…
[F]
[F]
[N]
c-command
3
Rizzi (2004) suggests the definition of ‗chain‘ given in (2):
2.
(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 MC with Ai
According to Rizzi (2004), the chain is defined by the following syntactic properties:
a. Identity, i.e. each position is identical to any other position in internal structure.
b. Prominence, defined by c-command.
c. Locality, determined by the notion ‗Minimal Configuration,‘ which is defined in (1).
Relativized Minimality explains the ungrammaticality of example in (3), chain
formation fails between the target and the trace since they are not in a Minimal
configuration, because who is the intervener between how and the trace and who is the
same structural type as the target.
3.
*How do you wonder who could solve this problem <how>?
Rizzi (2004) replaces the structural-type based definition of Relativized Minimality by
the feature-type (4):
4.
―same structural type‖ = Spec licensed by features of the same class in (5)
5.
a. Argumental: person, number, gender, case
b. Quantificational: Wh, Neg, measure, focus..
c. Modifier: evaluative, epistemic, Neg, frequentative, celerative, measure,
manner...
d. Topic
Under the feature-type definition Relativized Minimality effects are expected to arise
within the same feature class, but not across classes, i.e. a quantificational specifier acts
as an intervener on a quantificational chain, but a pure modificational specifier does not,
etc. (Rizzi, 2004). Thus, Relativized Minimality (2004) involves a more fine-grained
4
typology of intervening A‘ specifiers, which trigger Minimality effects on A‘ chains;
this accounts for the very selective locality patterns.
Krapova and Cinque (2005)
employ Rizzi‘s Relativized Minimality in their
study of Bulgarian multiple wh-questions. They suggest that within a system in which
Superiority is subsumed under Relativized Minimality the preservation of the order of
the wh-phrases can be ensured through the requirement where only a whole chain, not
just a link of a chain, counts as an intervener. This requirement is a modification of
Chomsky‘s principle which states that only the head of an A-chain (equivalently, the
whole chain) blocks matching under the Minimal Link Condition. (Chomsky, 2001:17).
Thus, Krapova and Cinque (2005) modify Rizzi‘s (2001) definition given in (1)
as ‗no chain can intervene between the trace and the target, if this chain bears the same
features as the target.‘
1.3.
Criterial freezing
Rizzi (2007) provides empirical evidence supporting the view that A‘ chains are
delimited by s-selectional and scope-discourse (criterial) positions which are of
immediate relevance for the interpretive systems:
6.
....____Xcrit ...... ____Xs-sel ......
Rizzi (2006) argues that the two positions in (6) have two critical properties (Rizzi,
2007:146):
a.
They are unique (i.e. there is only one position of each kind per chain)
b.
They delimit the chain (i.e. the chain includes no position lower than the Sselectional position and no position higher than the Criterial position)
The connection between the s-selectional position and the criterial position is ensured
by successive movement. Lasnik & Saito (1984; 1992), Rizzi (2006), Rizzi & Shlonsky
5
(2007) argue that there is a principle of Criterial Freezing, which has an effect of
terminating the chain as soon as the first Criterial position is reached.
7.
Criterial Freezing: A phrase meeting a Criterion is frozen in place.
Rizzi (1996, 1997) interprets the Criterion as the requirement on the creation of a local
Spec-head configuration which is then passed on to the interface system where a
relevant interpretive instruction is triggered (Rizzi, 2007:146). This principle makes an
expression available to the interface as soon as the expression reaches a Criterial
position.
One of the examples of Criterial freezing is provided in (8), where a wh-phrase
satisfying the Q Criterion in the embedded clause cannot continue movement to the
matrix CP (Rizzi, 2007: 147).
8.
a. Bill wonders [which candidate Q [ you voted for t ]]
b.* Which candidate does Bill wonder [ t‘ Q [ you voted for t ]]
Later, Rizzi (2007) reconsiders the definition of Criterial Freezing in (7) and concludes
that Criterial Freezing does not freeze the whole phrase, therefore satisfying the
criterion, but instead, it should be restricted to the carrier of the relevant criterial feature.
Adopting Chomsky‘s (2000) terminology, Rizzi (2007) makes use of terms Criterial
Probe (a left-peripheral head endowed with critical features) and Criterial Goal (an
element carrying the same features and attracted to the Spec of Criterial Probe) and
proposes a new definition of Criterial Freezing (Rizzi, 2007:147).
9.
Criterial Freezing: In a criterial configuration, the Criterial Goal is frozen in
place.
Thus, according to this new definition, in the criterial configuration, only the element
carrying the crucial feature is frozen in place, while other elements of the phrase are
available for further movement.
6
1.4.
The organization of the Dissertation
The thesis is organized as follows. In Chapter 2, I examine the properties of whquestions in Slavic languages, such as Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian and Russian. I discuss
the phenomena of Superiority, D-linking and wh-islands in the above-mentioned
languages from a comparative perspective. This chapter outlines Bošković‘s (2002)
proposal regarding Superiority effects in Slavic languages and provides empirical
evidence against the common assumption that Russian is a wh-in-situ language, which
does not have wh-movement and thus does not show Superiority effects.
Chapter 3 starts with an outline of the structure of the Bulgarian left periphery
within the Cartographic framework. Krapova and Cinque (2005) offer a detailed
analysis of the Bulgarian data and provide evidence suggesting that the order of whphrases in the left periphery reflects the order prior to wh-movement, which is captured
by the principle of Relativized Minimality. After introducing the Bulgarian data, I
follow Krapova and Cinque‘s lead and apply their analysis to the Russian data,
providing a comparative analysis of wh-order in Russian and Bulgarian. I demonstrate
that both languages make use of residual hierarchy of animacy, i.e. [+human] wh
elements will prevail other [-human].
Once the ordering is distinguished and before suggesting a syntactic analysis of
Russian wh-questions, the Chapter offers a discussion of the four main approaches (the
adjunction analysis, the wh-cluster analysis, the multiple [Spec;CP] analysis, and the
split CP analysis) offered in the literature in order to capture the syntactic peculiarities
of multiple wh-questions. This Chapter concludes with a proposal for the syntactic
analysis of Russian wh-questions by adopting the Cartographic approach proposed by
Rizzi (1997).
Chapter 4 is devoted to the so-called why-wh-elements, i.e. wh-adjuncts whose
interpretation is akin to the English why. First, I study the neutral why-wh-elements
začem and počemu, which distinguish purpose from reason varieties of why. After
having offered a syntactic analysis for the two whys, I discuss aggressively non-Dlinked (kakogo čërta, kakogo figa – „what the hell‘) and nominal (čto, čë and čego) wh-
7
elements meaning why. The final section of the Chapter offers a discussion and an
analysis of the coordination of wh-elements.
Chapter 5 studies the phenomenon of that-trace effect. Russian, unlike other well
studied languages, exhibit the absence of subject-object asymmetry with respect to thattrace effect. For example, in English only extraction of a wh-object is possible over the
complementizer that. However, in Russian, neither object nor subject can be extracted
over the indicative complementizer čto. Nonetheless, it is still possible to extract both a
wh-subject and a wh-object over a subjunctive complementizer čtoby. This Chapter
presents previous approaches discussed in the literature to account for that-trace effect
and offers an analysis of indicative and subjunctive clauses in Russian within the
Cartographic framework.
Chapter 6 focuses on the syntactic properties of yet another type of
interrogatives in Russian, known in the literature as wh-scope marker questions or
questions with partial wh-movement. The Chapter offers discussions of the Direct
Dependency Approach (van Riemsdijk, 1982, McDaniel, 1989), The Indirect
Dependency approach (Dayal, 1994, 2000), and the Mixed Dependency Approach
(Mahajan, 1996, 2000, Stepanov, 2000, Herburger, 1994). I investigate the status of the
Russian wh-scope marker and come to the conclusion that kak is a wh-expletive,
endowed with a [+wh] feature. Finally the Chapter offers a syntactic analysis of the
Russian wh-scope marking construction within the Cartographic framework.
Chapter 7 provides concluding remarks and the Bibliography concludes the
dissertation.
8
CHAPTER 2. MULTIPLE WH-FRONTING LANGUAGES AND
SUPERIORITY EFFECTS
2.1.
Introduction
Slavic multiple wh-fronting languages (henceforth MWF languages) and Superiority
effects in these languages have attracted much attention from linguists. Multiple whmovement in Slavic languages has been thoroughly studied in the literature by a number
of linguists, e.g. Bošković (1997, 1998, 2001, 2002), Stjepanoviç (1995) for SerboCroatian; Alboiu (2002), Laenzlinger and Soare (2005) for Romanian; Stepanov (1997),
Kazenin (2002), Grebenyova (2004), Bošković (2002) for Russian; Pesetsky (2000),
Rudin (1988), Krapova and Cinque (2005) for Bulgarian.
Traditionally MWF languages are divided into two (Rudin, 1988) or three
(Bošković, 2002) types with respect to the Superiority effect.
Rudin differentiates two types of MWF languages. The languages of the first
type are represented by Bulgarian and Romanian, which display strict ordering of whquestions, where all fronted wh-elements are located in [Spec, CP]. In languages of the
second type, such as Serbo-Croatian, Czech, Polish, Russian and Ukrainian, the
Superiority effect appears in only some cases and only the first element is moved to
[Spec, CP].
Bošković (2002) offers a different approach to MWF languages. He divides
them into three types: Superiority effect in all contexts (Bulgarian), Superiority effect in
some contexts (Serbo-Croatian), and absence of Superiority effect in all contexts
(Russian).
Russian is classified differently in the two approaches mentioned above. This
makes it interesting to study the language in detail with respect to both Bulgarian and
Serbo-Croatian, and to determine which class the language actually belongs to.
9
It is known from the literature that Russian is a language with fronted whphrases and is argued by Bošković (2002) and Stepanov (1997) to be a language which
does not exhibit Superiority effects in any context, including embedded clauses and
long distance constructions, contrary to Serbo-Croatian. Moreover, they claim that
Russian shows a free order of subject and adjuncts and subject and objects wh-phrases.1
10.
a. Kto kak postaraetsja, u togo
who how will-try
tak
i
polučitsja.
that-one that-way and will-come out
‗The way whoever tries, that way it will come out.‘
b. Kak kto postaraetsja, tak
how who will-try
u togo
i
polučitsja.
that-one that-way and will-come out
‗The way whoever tries, that way it will come out.‘
11.
a. A ètomu čeloveku kto kogo predstavil?
and that
man
who whom introduced
‗And to that man, who introduced whom?‘
b. A ètomu čeloveku kogo kto
and that
man
predstavil?
whom who introduced
‗And to that man, who introduced whom?‘
Interestingly, Stepanov (1997) cites two instances from Rudin (1996) where she argues
that examples repeated here as (12 and 13) show a preferred word-order.
12.
a. Kto kogo videl?
who whom saw
‗Who saw whom?‘
b. ??Kogo kto videl?
whom who saw
‗Who saw whom?‘
13.
a. Kto čto videl?
who what saw
‗Who saw what?‘
1
Examples are taken from Bošković 2002 where he refers to Stepanov‘s judgements, which myself and
other native speakers strongly disagree with, i.e. (10b) and (11b) are ungrammatical.
10
b.*Čto kto videl?
what who saw
‗Who saw what?‘
Stepanov (1997) assumes that this asymmetry is not characteristic of Russian syntax,
but instead is caused by non-syntactic reasons. Stepanov regards it as some low-level
phonological constraint excluding sequences of phonologically similar or identical whconstraints; and therefore, he disregards these contrasts.
Stepanov claims that the order of wh-elements in wh-matrix and embedded
clauses is free, which he straightforwardly interprets as the absence of Superiority
effect. In terms of an economy-based approach, this conclusion suggests that no Attract
wh takes place and consequently wh-phrases do not raise to [Spec, CP] to check overtly
the interrogative Q feature. Furthermore, Stepanov (1997) argues that Russian
interrogative C has a weak [+wh] feature, and therefore it does not trigger overt whmovement even though it is inserted overtly.
Bošković (2002) points out that Superiority serves as an indicator for when
MWF languages involve wh-movement, and according to the data presented by
Stepanov (1997). Russian does not have any overt movement to [Spec, CP] and the
[+wh] feature of C is weak.
Ignoring the fact that wh-elements in Russian are fronted, Stepanov assumes that
Russian patterns with wh-in-situ languages (like Chinese or Japanese) in the absence of
an overt wh-movement, and therefore he suggests treating Russian as a wh-in-situ
language. The reason for fronting wh-elements in Russian, according to Stepanov, is
focus checking. He assumes that Russian wh-phrases are inherently focused, and hence
fronting occurs for checking their focus feature, not a wh-feature.
In this dissertation, I argue against the approach proposed by Stepanov and
Bošković and offer another analysis of Russian wh-questions. I claim that wh-elements
in Russian are not focus-driven, but have a strong wh-feature in C, which triggers
movement. I show that Russian exhibits Superiority effects and more so patterns with
Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian than with Chinese or Japanese in this respect.
In order to be able to judge the claims made by Bošković and Stepanov I
consider it to be important to refer to the notion of Superiority effect, and only then
study this phenomenon in Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian, given that Russian might
reflect the syntactic properties of wh-elements of one of these languages.
11
2.2.
Defining Superiority effect
The Superiority effect occurs in multiple wh-questions where more than one whelement is relevant to the answering patterns for the question (Pesetsky, 2000). In this
case the syntax needs to decide which pattern of wh-movement will be utilized within
the question and the Superiority effect is considered to be a restriction on this decision.
The Superiority effect behaves differently in different languages. Thus, one of the
examples of this phenomenon is observed in English, where only one wh-element
moves overtly to a higher position. In (14a) the leftmost wh-element moves to the
higher position, and in (14b) the lower wh-element what crosses who and raises above
it, leading to ungrammaticality.
14.
a. Who ____ said what?
b. *What did who say ____?
This phenomenon was first observed by Kuno and Robinson (1972), and it is stated as a
property of a wh-movement that does not allow a wh-element to be crossed by another
wh-word. Kuno and Robinson‘s constraint is presented in Pesetsky (2000:15) as:
A wh-word cannot be preposed crossing over another wh.
Chomsky (1973) generalizes Kuno and Robinson‘s constraint and accounts for it in
terms of a condition on rule application that forbids applying a given rule R to an
expression Y if there is a superior expression Z to which it equally applies (Hornstein,
1995).
No rule can involve X, Y in the structure…X…[α…Z…-WYV…] where the
rule applies ambiguously to Z and Y and Z is superior to [m-commands]
Y. The category A is superior to the category B if every major category
dominating A dominates B as well but not conversely.
12
Later, Chomsky (1995) reduces this condition and refers to it as an Attract Closest
(henceforth AC) rule, where ‗movement is viewed as triggered by particular features of
a ‗target‘ head K‘ (Pesetsky, 2000:15).
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)
This condition explains the contrast between (15a) and (15b), where who is superior to
what, and according to the Attract Closest rule, who moves to C given that it is the
closest element.
15.
a. Whoi did John tell ti that he should buy what?
(Bošković, 1998:5)
b. *Whati did John tell who that he should buy ti?
Hornstein (1995) reviews approaches to Superiority and reduces the contrast in (15) to
some version of Empty Category Principle2 (henceforth ECP). He suggests that
Superiority effects are manifestations of Weak Cross Over3 (henceforth WCO) and that
the unacceptability of *What did who say? reflects an illicit pronoun-building
configuration at LF (Hornstein, 1995:124).
Hornstein adopts the WCO account of quantifier/wh interactions. He suggests
that configurations that display Superiority effects are parallel to those that forbid pairlist readings. Thus (16a) has a pair-list reading which implies an answer listing the
buyer and buyee pairs, i.e. Mary bought a car, John bought a house etc.
16.
2
a. Who bought what?
Empty Category Principle (introduced by Chomsky, 1981) is a principle which requires that empty
categories be properly governed, where proper government is defined as follows:
3

A properly governs B iff A theta-governs B or A antecedent-governs B.

A theta-governs B iff A governs B and A theta-marks B.

A antecedent-governs B iff A governs B and is coindexed with B.
WCO follows from the leftness condition: A wh-trace cannot be coindexed with a pronoun to its left
(Haegeman, 1994:417).
13
b. *What did who buy?
He assumes that a pair-list reading in multiple wh-questions is generated in the same
way as in (17) involving a quantifier:
17.
a. What did everyone say?
b. Who said everything?
18.
[CP Whati [IP everyonej [IP tj say [proj ti]]]]
In (18), pro is bound by a quantifier everyone, and this bound structure is a generator,
since it can generate a list. Thus a pair-list reading is a function of two properties: 1)
certain whs have a functional reading that involves bound pronouns, 2) pronouns bound
by quantifiers that are generators can produce a pair-list reading (Hornstein, 1995:125).
Based on these assumptions Hornstein assumes that the wh-element who (in
16a) occupies [Spec, CP] and functions like everyone on the pair-list reading, i.e. who is
a quantifier that generates the list and wh-in-situ what is interpreted functionally.
19.
[Whoi [ti bought [proi N]]]
20.
*[Whati [[proi N] bought ti]]
(16b) at the same time will get the structure in (20), where proi is co-indexed with a
variable ti on its right, which results in WCO violation.
Hornstein‘s (1995:128) account ties the properties of three different construction
types together: WCO structure, pair-list readings of wh/quantifier constructions, and
multiple wh-questions. He expects wh-questions to be well-formed in the cases where
pronoun binding is licit and a pair-list interpretation is available.
The Superiority effect is most apparent in multiple wh-fronting languages, where
all wh-phrases have to move to a higher position. I will come back to the MWF
languages below, but first I will mention the cases where the Superiority effect is
restricted because of a number of properties in the syntactic structure.
14
2.2.1. D-linking
It has been observed in the literature that D-linking (after Pesetsky 1987) produces
exceptions to the Superiority effect. According to Pesetsky (2000:16), D-linking is a
phenomenon ―when a wh-question asks for answers in which the individuals that
replace the wh-phrases are drawn from a set that is presumed to be salient to both
speaker and hearer, the multiple questions can appear to violate AC.‖ The answers to
that kind of question are supposed to be drawn from a set of individuals previously
mentioned in the discourse or when this set is clear for both speaker and hearer
(Pesetsky, 2000). According to Pesetsky (2000) and Krapova and Cinque (2005), the
inherently D-liked wh-phrases are ‗which‘- type phrases.
Consider the examples in (21) where the Superiority effect disappears and both
wh-phrases can move to a higher position: the crossover of the higher wh-phrase by the
lower one does not lead to ungrammaticality. The context is obviously known for
speaker and hearer and thus it is silent in the question.
21.
a. Whichi person ti bought which book?
b. Whichi book did which person buy ti?
The elimination of the Superiority effect with D-linking is observed in many other
languages. For example, consider German in (22) or Bulgarian in (23) which are highly
rigid languages.
22.
a. Welcher Student hat welches Buch gelesen?
which student had which
book read
‗Which student read which book?‘
b. Welches Buch hat welcher Student gelesen?
which book had which student read
‗Which book did which student read?‘
23.
a. Koja
kartina na koj
prijatel si (ja)
posvetil?
which painting to which friend have-you it dedicated
'Which painting have you dedicated to which friend?'
15
b. Na koj
prijatel koja kartina si (ja)
posvetil?
to which friend which painting have-you it dedicated
'Which painting have you dedicated to which friend?'
In (22) and (23) the Superiority effect disappears and both wh-elements can freely move
to a higher position.
2.2.2. More than two-wh-phrases
Kayne (1984) first observed that the ECP violation and Superiority effect are mitigated
with the addition of an extra wh-element.
He offers examples repeated here in (24) where (24a) is ungrammatical due to ECP
violation, but the addition of a third wh-element neutralizes the violation (24b) (Kayne,
1984:176).
24.
a. *We are trying to find out which man said that which woman was in love with
him.
(Vs. ?We are trying to find out which man said that he was in love with which
woman.)
b. ?We are trying to find out which man said that which woman was in love with
which boy.
Improvement is also observed in the domain of the Superiority violation:
25.
a.*I‘d like to know where who hid it. (vs. I‘d like to know who hid it where.)
b. ? I‘d like to know where who hid what.
Kayne suggests that the example in (25a) could require the wh-phrase in A-position to
be linked to the one in Comp, thus subject to the Connectedness Condition for Empty
Category (Kayne, 1984:175).
16
Hornstein (1995) analyses the lessening of the Superiority effect with the addition of en
extra WH from the point of view of Weak Crossover (WCO)4.
26.
a.*What did who buy there?
(Hornstein, 1995:143)
b. ?What did who buy where?
He offers a structure for (26a) as in (27) where WCO is violated, i.e. what is moved
across (who=) [proj person] and a wh-trace of what is co-indexed with (who=) [proj
person], which yields a WCO violation.
27.
Whatj [(who=) [proj person] bought tj there]
According to Hornstein (1995:144), a wh in CP acts as a generator for the pair-list
reading and whs-in-situ are interpreted functionally, i.e. they involve implicit pronouns
linked to the generator‘s variable.
Now consider (26b), which has a structure in (28). Hornstein (1995:144) argues that
with adopting the linking version of WCO,5 the presence of a second functionally
interpreted wh-element will lessen the effect of WCO.
28.
Whatj [(who=) proj person] bought tj [(where=) proj place]
Thus in (28), both who and where are interpreted functionally; who – as a person and
where – as a place and a pronoun is not linked to a variable on its right, hence no
violation of WCO (in Hornstein‘s terminology).
Pesetsky (2000) studies this phenomenon in Bulgarian and offers an analysis,
which I discuss in Section 2.3.3.
4
Weak crossover (WCO) appears when a wh-phrase moves to the front of the sentence and "crosses
over" a coindexed pronoun.
5
Hornstein (1995:100) revises the notion of WCO and replaces indexation with linking:
A pronoun cannot be linked to a variable on its right
17
To summarize, the Superiority effect occurs in languages where more than one whelement is relevant to answering the question, forcing the syntax to move one of the whphrases to a higher position. According to the Superiority effect and the Attract closest
rule (which subsumes the Superiority condition) the left-most wh-phrase will raise to
[Spec, CP] and the lower wh-element will stay in-situ (for English) or move to a lower
position from the leftmost wh-phrase (for MWF). The Superiority effect can be
mitigated if a multiple wh-question contains either D-linked wh-elements or more than
two wh-phrases.
In the next section I introduce some properties of Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, and
Russian wh-elements and mention the accounts proposed in the literature with respect to
the Superiority effect in these three languages.
2.3.
Some properties of Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian and Russian wh-questions
2.3.1. Constituency of wh-phrases
Bošković (2002) follows Rudin (1988) in observing the difference in constituency of
wh-phrases in Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian. According to their observations, SerboCroatian, contrary to Bulgarian, allows the intervention of clitics, adverbs, and
parentheticals between fronted wh-phrases (examples from Bošković, 2002:1-2).
29.
a. Ko mu je šta
dao?
(Serbo-Croatian)
who him is what given
‗Who gave him what?‘
b. Ko je prvi koga udario?
who is first whom hit
‗Who hit whom first?‘
c. Ko,
po tebi,
šta
pije?
who, according to you what drinks
18
‗Who, according to you, drinks what?‘
30.
a. *Koj ti e kakvo kazal?
(Bulgarian)
who you is what told
‗Who told you what?‘
b. *Zavisi
ot tova, koj prâv kogo e udaril.
depends on it
who first whom is hit
‗It depends on who hit whom first.‘
c. ?*Koj, spored tebe,
kakvo e kazal?
who according to you what is said
‗Who, according to you, said what?‘
Rudin (1988) argues that impenetrability of the domain of wh-phrases in Bulgarian is
evidence that they form a constituent which does not allow any intervention of other
elements. This is contrary to Serbo-Croatian, which allows insertion of lexical material
between the wh-elements, indicating that they do not form a constituent.
It is interesting to note that Cinque and Krapova in their paper (2005:8) provide
Bulgarian data where the intervention of parentheticals is possible. Consider the
examples in (31) and (32):
31.
a. Koja kartina, spored tebe,
kâde ja e risuval tozi xuţdonik?
which painting, according to you, where it is painted this artist
‗According to you, which painting did this artist paint where?‘
b. Koja kniga,
spored tebe,
na koj
prijatel da
ja dam?
which book, according to you, to which friend should it give-I
‗According to you, which book should I give to which friend?‘
32.
a. Na kogo za Boga
kakvi kartini
pak
šte davaš?
to whom for God‟s sake what paintings again will give-you
‗What paintings will you again be giving to whom?‘
b. *Kakvi kartini na kogo za Boga
pak šte davaš?
what paintings to whom for God‟s sake again will give-you
c. ?/*Na kogo kakvi kartini
za Boga
pak šte davaš?
to whom what paintings for God‟s sake again will give-you
19
Examples (31 and 32) show that Bulgarian allows an intervention of parentheticals
between wh-phrases. Moreover, examples (32b and 32c) demonstrate that the
parenthetical za Boga cannot occur lower than kakvi kartini and should follow na kogo,
which argues for the non-constituency of the wh-phrase.
Furthermore, the example in (30c) presented by Rudin as unacceptable is judged
by native speakers as a grammatical sentence; the ungrammaticality of (30a) can be
explained by the property of clitic clusters, which should be in the verbal domain and
(30b) can be explained by the property of the ordinal numbers (p.c. Iliana Krapova)
which should follow the verb. This property is also observed in Russian:
33.
Zavisit ot
togo kto (*pervym) kogo udarit pervym.
depends from that who (first)
whom hits first
‗It depends on who hit whom first.‘
Bošković (2002) also mentions a fact regarding the contrast between (29a) and (30a)
where he points out different properties of Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian clitics. SerboCroatian clitics can occupy only the second position of the sentence and impose no
requirements on their host, while Bulgarian clitics are verbal clitics. This feature cannot
be considered sufficient either. Thus, the distinction between Serbo-Croatian and
Bulgarian based on the impenetrability of wh-phrases is not strong enough.
Russian, like Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian, allows the intervention of lexical
materials, such as nouns, pronouns, and parentheticals between fronted wh-phrases.
Consider below the Russian examples, where (34) shows insertion of a pronoun, (35)
insertion of a parenthetical, and (36) of a noun.
34.
Kto tebe čto skazal?
who you what said
‗Who said to you what?‘
35.
Kakaja kartina, po tvoemu mneniju, gde byla narisovana.
which picture to your
opinion where was painted
‗According to you, which painting was painted where?‘
36.
Komu Maša kogda zvonila?
whom Masha when called
‗Whom Maša called when?‘
20
Insertion of a lexical material between the wh-elements indicates that wh-elements do
not form a constituent in Russian, Bulgarian, and Serbo-Croatian.
2.3.2. Wh-islands
Rudin (1988) distinguishes Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian by extraction out of whislands, indicating that Bulgarian allows more than one wh-phrase in [Spec, CP], while
Serbo-Croatian does not.
37.
a. Vidjah edna kniga, kojatoi se čudja
saw-1s a
koj znae koj prodava ti. (Bulgarian)
book which wonder-1s who knows who sells
‗I saw a book which I wonder who knows who sells.‘
b.*Vidio sam knjigu kojui se pitam
ko zna
ko prodaje ti.(Serbo-Croatian)
seen am book which wonder-1s who knows who sells
‗I saw a book which I wonder who knows who sells.‘
Rudin claims that in the Bulgarian example, kojato can escape the Wh-island constraint
by moving through the embedded [Spec, CP], occupied by koj. Serbo-Croatian, on the
other hand, does not allow more than one wh-element to be located in [Spec, CP],
which is why movement of koju does not avoid the Wh-island constraint (Bošković,
2002:3).
It should be mentioned that the literature generally focuses on argument
extractions, ignoring adjunct ones. The example in (38), where wh-adjunct extractions
out of wh-islands leads to ungrammaticality, contradicts the claim made by Rudin that
Bulgarian is not sensitive to the wh-island constraint (Bošković, 2002:3). In (35) dali
forms a strong island constraint.
38.
*priãinata, poradi kojatoi [Ivan znae dali
the-reason for
which
Boris e zaminal ti]
Ivan knows whether Boris is left
‗the reason for which Ivan knows whether Boris left.‘
21
Bošković (2002) also notices that Bulgarian exhibits wh-island effects with non-Dlinked wh-questions, as compared to the D-linked wh-extractions in (37a) (the example
is taken from Rudin, 1988):
39.
a.*Kakvoi se čudiš koj znae koj prodava ti?
what wonder-2s who knows who sells
‗What do you wonder who knows who sells?‘
b.*Kakvoi se čudiš koj prodava ti?
(p.c. Polya Vitkova)
what wonder-2s who knows
Russian, like Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian, does not allow extraction out of whislands, making the languages similar. Although, unlike Bulgarian, Russian does not
allow extraction of D-Linked wh-elements out of wh-islands (40b), it is mitigated when
both wh-elements are fronted (40b‘).
40.
a.*Čtoi ty dumaeš‘ kto znaet kto prodaet ti?
what you think
who knows who sells
‗What do you wonder who knows who sells?‘
a.‘*Chtoi ty dumaeš‘ kto prodaet ti?
what you think
who sells
b.*Kakuju knigui tebe posovetovali kakomu rebenkuj podarit‘ ti tj?
which book you were advised to which child
to present
‘
b . Kakuju knigui kakomu rebenkuj tebe posovetovali podarit‘ ti tj?
which book to which child
you were advised to present
To summarize thus far, data concerning the penetrability of wh-phrases and wh-islands
make the languages, to some extent, look similar. It is essential to look at the behaviour
of the languages with respect to Superiority effects, which might allow us to propose an
analysis that will account for the Superiority effect in all three languages.
22
2.3.3. Superiority effects in Bulgarian
Bulgarian is well known for its obligatoriness of movement of all wh-phrases to a
higher position. The highest wh-element has to move to [Spec, CP] first. Consider the
examples in (41), where only the highest wh-phrase is allowed to move first (41a).
Movement of kakvo over koj in (41b) leads to ungrammaticality.
41.
a. Koj kakvo vizda?
who what sees
‗Who sees what?‘
b.*Kakvo koj vizda?
what
who sees
‗What does who see?‘
According to Pesetsky (2000), in English the Superiority effect follows from Attract
Closest, and in Bulgarian, the left-most (i.e. the closest) wh-element will be also the
first to move.
Superiority effect in Bulgarian (Pesetsky, 2000:22)
The leftmost wh-phrase in a Bulgarian multiple question is the wh-phrase
that moves overtly in the corresponding English multiple question.
Since Bulgarian is a MWF language, all wh-phrases will move overtly to the left
periphery of the sentence, indicating that after the left-most element is moved, the other
wh-phrases in the sentence ―must have ‗tucked‘ in underneath the first phrase, forming a
lower specifier‖ (Pesetsky, 2000:22).
42.
a. Koj kǔde C ____ udaril Ivana___?
1
who where
2
hit
Ivan
‗Who hit Ivan where?‘
23
b. *Kǔde koj C____ udaril Ivana___?
2
where who
1
hit
Ivan
‗Who hit Ivan where?‘
In (42a), the left-most koj moves first, and then kǔde is tucked in underneath it; in (42b),
on the other hand, the lower wh-element moves first and thus crosses over the higher
wh-element koj, which leads to violation of the Superiority effect, rendering the
sentence ungrammatical.
Richards (1997), studying multiple wh-movement in Bulgarian, points out that
second instances of movement should ―tuck in,‖ and in addition to the Attract Closest
rule, the Shortest Move condition should be obeyed as well. This is essential, inasmuch
as the first element will be moved to C by Attract Closest and the second element must
be raised higher than the first one if there is no condition such as Shortest Move.
Obeying this condition, the second element will create a specifier lower than the first
one. ―In this way, the interaction of Attract Closest and Shortest Move causes the
command relations between two wh-phrases after movement to mirror their order before
movement‖ (Pesetsky, 2000:23).
So far I have discussed only multiple questions with two overtly moved whphrases. It would be interesting to see if the same rules apply for wh-questions with
three wh-elements. What is expected is the same mirror order of wh-phrases before
movement. Nonetheless, Pesetsky (2000) and Bošković (2002) notice, this is not the
case. They report the possibility of the following orders: wh1 wh2 wh3 and wh1 wh3 wh2.
43.
a. Koj1 kogo2 kak3 udaril?
who whom how hit
b. Koj1 kak3 kogo2 udaril?
who how whom hit
(43) shows that in wh-questions with three wh-phrases the first wh-element is attracted
to a higher position triggered by Attract Closest and thus pays the ‗Attract Closest tax,‘
while the other two elements do not have to obey this condition anymore. Richards
(1997) develops this constraint into the Principle of Minimal Compliance (PMC), which
24
implies that the ‗attractor-oriented‘ constraint on movement applies only to the first
movement operation (Pesetsky, 2000:25).
Principle of Minimal Compliance (henceforth PMC) (Pesetsky, 2000:36):
For any dependency D that obeys constraint C, any elements that are
relevant for determining whether D obeys C can be ignored for the rest
of the derivation for purposes of determining whether any other
dependency D obeys C.
An element X is relevant to determining whether a dependency D with
head A and tail B obeys constraint C iff
a.
X is along the path of D (that is, X=A, X=B, or A c-commands
X and X c-commands B), and
b.
X is a member of the class of elements to which C makes
reference.
PMC for our purposes (Pesetsky, 2000:36):
Once an instance of movement to α has obeyed a constraint on the
distance between source and target, other instances of movement to α
need not obey these constraints.
Thus PMC explains the acceptability of the order of wh-elements in example (43),
where the first wh-phrase obeys the AC constraint and the other wh-phrases do not need
to obey it anymore.
It should be noted that although AC is subject to PMC, Shortest Move, on the
other hand, is not. This constraint does not govern the distance, but instead it chooses
the exact position which is near a given attractor where the movement takes place
(Pesetsky, 2000:27).
To summarize, Bulgarian shows a strict ordering of wh-phrases (unless three whphrases or D-linked wh-elements occur) and is sensitive to the Superiority effect.
25
The Superiority effect in Bulgarian requires the movement of the leftmost whphrase in a multiple wh-question to a higher position and the rest of the wh-phrases are
‗tucked in‘ below the first moved wh-element.
Wh-phrases in Bulgarian obey the Attract Closest and Shortest Move conditions.
Attract Closest is subject to the PMC, according to which the first wh-element in a
question with three wh-phrases satisfies the Attract Closest condition and the rest do not
have to obey it. Shortest Move does not govern the distance (and thus is not subject to
PMC), but rather chooses the exact position for the movement, which is near a given
attractor.
Now I turn to the Superiority effect in Serbo-Croatian to see if this language is
subject to the same constraints as Bulgarian.
2.3.4. Superiority effects in Serbo-Croatian
The second type of MWF language discussed by Bošković (2002) is exemplified by
Serbo-Croatian, which exhibits the Superiority effect in some contexts: long distance
questions and embedded questions (Bošković, 2002:8).
44.
a. Ko si
koga tvrdio da je istukao?
who are whom claimed that is beaten
‗Who did you claim beat whom?‘
b. *Koga si ko tvrdio
da je istukao?
whom are who claimed that is beaten
‗Who did you claim beat whom?‘
Bošković (2002) claims that examples in (44) exhibit a Superiority effect because whphrases have to move in these kinds of sentences; while in short-distance matrix
questions (45) a wh-phrase does not undergo overt wh-movement to CP, although it still
must be fronted for independent reasons, therefore demonstrating the lack of the
Superiority effect in this context.
26
45.
a. Ko koga voli?
who whom loves
‗Who loves whom?‘
b. Koga ko voli?
whom who loves
‗Who loves whom?‘
Bošković (1998:9) comes to a simple conclusion: ―Whenever we have wh-movement in
Serbo-Croatian Superiority is operative.‖
Since all wh-elements must be fronted, as in (46), Bošković (2002) claims that
they are fronted for independent reasons. This movement is not driven by the strong
[+wh] feature of C, given that all wh-elements must move in languages like SerboCroatian, and only movement of one wh-phrase should be sufficient for checking the
strong [+wh] feature.
46.
a. Ko šta
kupuje?
who what buys
‗Who buys what?‘
b.?/*Ko kupuje šta?
who buys what
‗Who buys what?‘
According to Bošković (2002), there is no reason to differentiate the movement of ko
from šta by requiring ko to be moved to [Spec, CP]. He suggests that both wh-phrases
undergo a movement which is different from a wh-movement.
Bošković (2002) argues that in matrix short-distance null C questions (like in
(46)), the merger of C happens only at LF, and this allows Serbo-Croatian to avoid overt
wh-movement to [Spec, CP]. He attempts to explain that non-wh-fronting of wh-phrases
(i.e. movement that is not motivated by checking a strong [+wh-feature] on C) is not
sensitive to the Superiority Condition. Bošković follows Stjepanović (1995), who
argues that the reason for non-wh-fronting of wh-phrases is focus. She argues that
Serbo-Croatian wh-phrases are inherently contrastively focused and therefore must
undergo focus movement (Bošković, 2002:11). So, according to Bošković, this non-whmovement is focus movement. Similar claims have been made for a number of
27
languages, such as Aghem, Basque, Hungarian, and Korean (Horvath 1986, Rochemont
1986, Kim 1997). Horvath (1986) argues that wh-phrases move to the position for
contrastively focused phrases if such a position is present in the language. According to
Bošković (2002:11), this suggestion seems plausible, ―given the similarity in the
interpretation of wh-phrases and contrastively focused phrases.‖
Bošković (2002) makes an attempt to argue for non-wh-fronting of wh-phrases
for Bulgarian, suggesting it to be an instance of focus-movement. In order to support his
assumption, he provides an example in a footnote (page 12), arguing for the
unacceptability of leaving the wh-phrase in-situ in an echo-question. My informants
find this question with an echo reading absolutely acceptable, allowing the wh-phrase to
stay in-situ; hence, this data works against Bošković‘s proposal.
47.
Ivan e popravil kakvo?
ivan is fixed
what
He suggests that while in Bulgarian wh-movement affects only one wh-phrase and the
others are focused-moved, only the first wh-moved wh-element will be subject to the
Superiority condition, which implies that the highest wh-phrase should move first and
the movement of others should not matter6.
2.3.5. Why is focus movement of wh-phrases not subject to the Superiority effect?
According to Bošković‘s (1998) proposal, the first element is moved to [Spec, CP], and
thus it is the only one which is subject to Superiority effect, while other elements are
focus triggered and insensitive to Superiority. The questions that arise are why there
should not be any Superiority effect in focus-moved wh-questions and what the
difference between wh- and focus-movement is.
Bošković (1998a) argues that wh-movement differs from focus-movement with
respect to where the attractor lies. It is assumed that with the former the attractor lies in
6
Krapova and Cinque (2005) argue for a fixed order of wh-phrases. Their analysis is discussed in 3.1.
28
the target, which explains fronting of only one wh-phrase overtly to [Spec, CP]. The
first element moves to [Spec, CP] in order to check strong [+wh] feature, and there is no
need for other wh-elements to undergo wh-movement.
Regarding the remaining wh-elements, after the first one is moved to check the
strong wh-feature, they must undergo focus-movement, which indicates that the feature
driving movement lies in the wh-phrases, but not in the target of the movement. He
suggests that if the strong feature was in the target then it would be sufficient to move
only one wh-element and leave the rest in-situ; but this is not the case.
48.
a. Ko šta
gdje kupuje?
who what where buys
‗Who buys what where?‘
b.*Ko kupuje šta gdje?
who buys what where
c.*Ko šta kupuje gdje?
who what buys
where
d.*Ko gdje kupuje šta?
who where buys
what
Therefore, the main difference between the two movements is where the strong features
driving the movements reside, i.e. in the target with wh-movement; and in the elements
undergoing movement with focus-movement. Bošković (1998a) argues that this
difference is responsible for the different behaviour of the movements with respect to
the Superiority effect. Bošković (1998:15) suggests the following configuration:
49.
Wh-movement
F
Wh-phrase1
Wh-phrase2
Wh-phrase3
+wh
+wh
+wh
+wh
strong
weak
weak
weak
29
50.
Focus-movement
F
Wh-phrase1
Wh-phrase2
Wh-phrase3
+focus
+focus
+focus
+focus
weak
strong
strong
strong
Subsequently, what he suggests is that in (49) the functional head F has a strong [+wh]
feature which is checked through the shortest movement. As a result, the wh-phrase1
will have to move to F in order to check a strong [+wh] feature in the F; the movement
of wh-phrase2 or wh-phrase3 to check a strong [+wh] feature will lead to the Superiority
effect.
Now, in (50), the strong features are in wh-phrases, and the relevant feature must
be checked via the shortest movement, rendering the order of movement to FP
irrelevant. Bošković claims that the derivation in which wh-phrase1 checks its focus
feature before wh-phrase2, and the derivation in which wh-phrase2 checks its focus
feature before wh-phrase1 are equally economical. The same nodes are crossed to check
the strong focus feature, and that is why the Superiority effect does not manifest here.
Bošković (1998:15) suggests that in Bulgarian, wh-phrases have a strong focus
feature and C has a strong [+wh] feature, and none of these features can be checked
before the interrogative C is introduced into the structure7. The difficulty here is
understanding the order in which the features will be checked. Bošković argues that the
order features checking in wh-phrases does not matter. Whether or not a strong focus
feature of koj - ‗who‘ in (51) is checked first or last, the same number of maximal
projections will be crossed. As for the strong feature of C, it should be checked by the
highest wh-element.
51.
a. Koj kogo kak e tselunal?
who whom how is kissed
‗Who kissed whom how?‘
7
Bošković assumes that wh1 will move to [Spec, CP], while the rest will be attracted to C (multiple
[Spec, CP] structure).
30
b. Koj kak kogo e tselunal?
who how whom is kissed
To summarize, Bošković proposes that in (51) koj moves first to [Spec, CP] in order to
check a strong [+wh] feature in the target, and then kak and kogo can move to C in any
order.
The attractor of wh-movement in languages like English, where only one whelement is moved to C and the rest are left in-situ, is clearly an Attract one-F head.
Moreover, in languages with more than one potential attractee, an Attract one-F head
will always attract the highest attractee and an Attract all-F element, i.e. the focus
attractor, will attract all focus feature-bearing elements. Therefore, the Superiority effect
is expected with Attract one-F head but not with Attract all-F elements.
2.3.6. Problems for Bošković‟s analysis
First of all, as Bošković (1998:15) himself admits, his account goes against the original
formulations of Superiority made by Chomsky (1973) as well as other accounts
(Pesetsky 1982, Lasnik and Saito 1992, etc.)
No rule can involve X, Y in the structure…X…[α…Z…-WYV…] where
the rule applies ambiguously to Z and Y and Z is superior to [mcommands] Y. The category A is superior to the category B if every major
category dominating A dominates B as well but not conversely.
This account would predict a Superiority effect in both wh- and focus-movement.
Bošković (1998:15) mentions the problem with the accounts proposed before by
suggesting that ―it is simply not possible to make the information concerning where the
feature driving the movement lies, which determines whether a question will exhibit a
Superiority effect, relevant to Superiority in a principled way.‖
31
Another issue that would be interesting to refer to is the order of feature
checking. In which order does wh1 check its features? If we assume that wh-elements
have a weak wh-feature but a strong focus feature, does it mean that a wh-element will
first move to check its strong focus feature, and only after that it will be triggered to
[Spec, CP] to check its weak wh-feature against the strong wh-feature in the trigger? Or
is it triggered straight to [Spec, CP], not allowing it to check its focus feature; and if so,
what happens to this feature then?
There are also problems arising with data. Recall again the main assumption
made by Bošković for Bulgarian: the first wh-element undergoes wh-movement and is
thus subject to the Superiority effect, and the rest simply move to check focus features.
52.
a. Koj kogo kak e tselunal?
who whom how is kissed
b. Koj kak kogo e tselunal?
who how whom is kissed
The examples he offers in (52) can be alternatively analyzed as instances of the
Principle of Minimal Compliance (discussed in section 2.3.3), which implies that in whquestions with three wh-elements the first wh-phrase obeys the AC constraint and the
other wh-phrases do not need to obey it. Now consider the example with four whphrases (53)8, which one would expect to behave the same way as (52), following from
Bošković‘s analysis, i.e. the highest wh-phrase should move first and the movement of
others should not matter.
53.
a. Koj kogo kade kak e tselunal?
wh1 wh2
wh3
(Bulgarian)
wh4
who whom where how is kissed
b.??/*Koj kade kak kogo e tselunal?
who where how whom is kissed
8
I would like to thank Polya Vitkova for the Bulgarian data.
32
c.*Koj kak kade kogo e tselunal?
who how where whom is kissed
d.?Koj kade kogo kak e tselunal?
who where whom how is kissed
e.??/*Koj kogo kak kade e tselunal?
who whom how where is kissed
Apparently, the order of other wh-elements, after the first one is moved, does actually
matter, as the examples in (53b-e) demonstrate. These data strongly contradict the
assumptions made by Bošković. According to his theory, wh2 wh3 wh4 are focus moved
elements and thus should be insensitive to any Superiority effect.
Furthermore, Bošković‘s analysis does not account for D-linked wh-phrases
(54), where changing of the order of wh-phrases does not lead to ungrammaticality; his
analysis requires additional explanations.
54.
a. Koi
kartini koi
hudojnik e narisuval?
which pictures which artist
(Bulgarian)
is drawn
b. Koi hudojnik koi kartini e narisuval?
Another question that arises is how to treat wh-questions with wh-in-situ in echo
questions (55), since, in Bulgarian, the second element kakvo has a strong focus feature
which should trigger the wh-element to check it in C (55a). Note echo questions are
easily found in other languages as well, for example Russian (55b), English (55c), and
French (55d).
55.
a.Ivan e popravil kakvo?
ivan is fixed
(Bulgarian)
what
b. Ty byl gde?
(Russian)
you were where
c. You went where?
(English)
d. Il lit quoi?
(French)
he reads what
'He reads what?'
33
It is problematic for Bošković‘s analysis that a) the order of wh-phrases is rather strict
in wh-questions with more than three wh-elements (which means that not only the
highest wh-word is subject to the Superiority effect), b) examples with D-linked whphrases do not exhibit the Superiority effect and c) wh-in-situ is permitted in echo
questions.
2.3.7. Superiority effects in Russian
It is claimed by many linguists (Kazenin, 2002; Bošković, 1998; Zavitnevich, 2001;
Rudin, 1996 etc.), that Russian does not exhibit the Superiority effect in multiple whquestions. Consider the examples in (56) where both variants are possible.
56.
a. Gde kogo ty poslednij raz videl?
where whom you last
time saw
‗Whom did you see last time and where?‘
b. Kogo gde ty poslednij raz videl?
whom where you last
time saw
‗Whom did you see last time and where?‘
At the same time there are cases in Russian where obvious preference of a particular
order of wh-words is observed. Stepanov (1997) observes cases in which the Superiority
effect emerges, as in (57), where the wh-subject and the wh-inanimate object seem to
have a fixed order.
57.
a. Kto čto videl?
who what saw
‗Who bought what?‘
b.*Čto kto videl?
what who saw
34
Rudin (1996) evaluates (58b) as grammatically degraded, i.e. showing some Superiority
effect.
58.
a. Kto kogo videl?
who whom saw
‗Who saw whom?‘
b. ??Kogo kto videl?
whom who saw
‗Who saw whom?‘
Another observation is made by Zavitnevich (2001), who claims that začem – ‗why‘
occurring in multiple questions cannot appear in front of another wh-word, rather only
following it.
59.
a. Kuda začem on hodil?
where why he went
‗Where did he go and why?‘
b. *Začem kuda on hodil?
why where he went
Stepanov (1997) argues for an absence of any constraints in embedded and long
distance constructions. The data I have collected suggests the opposite:
60.
a. Kak ty predpolagaeš kto komu podskaţal pravilnyj otvet?
how you assume
who whom offered correct
answer
‗What do you assume, who gave a correct answer to whom?‘
b.*Kak komui ty predpolagaeš kto ti podskaţal pravilnyj otvet.
how whom you assume
who
offered
correct answer
c.*Kak ktoi ty predpolagaeš ti komu podskaţal pravilnyj otvet.
how who you assume
whom offered correct
answer
d.*Ktoi kak ty predpolagaeš ti komu podskaţal pravilnyj otvet.
who how you assume
whom offered correct
35
answer
Despite the data introduced in (57, 58, 59) above, it has been proposed that Russian is a
language which does not exhibit the Superiority effect, i.e. it does not have any overt
movement to [Spec, CP] and that the [+wh feature] of C is weak.
Stepanov suggests treating Russian as a wh-in-situ language, drawing this
conclusion based on interpretative aspects of multiple questions, i.e. single or multiple
pair list answers. He presents an English example in (61) where who raises overtly to
[Spec, CP], while what stays in-situ.
61.
Who bought what?
It has been noticed that questions as in (61) allow only a multiple pair list answer, like
Bob bought a car, Mary bought a flower etc. A single pair answer, on the other hand, is
not allowed. He suggests that the reason for this is associated with at least one of the
wh-words being in [Spec, CP] in overt syntax (Stepanov, 1997). Bošković (1998)
notices that if a language (e.g. Chinese and Japanese) allows both types of readings,
then this language does not have ‗true‘ wh-movement, and the wh-phrase is not in
[Spec, CP].
Taking this into consideration, he views Russian as allowing both multiple and
single pair answers. This makes it similar to Chinese and Japanese, and thus a language
where the wh-element does not undergo real wh-movement, but stays in situ.
62.
Kto čto
kupil?
who what bought
I should comment that neither my informants nor I perceive a single pair answer in this
sentence, but instead a multiple pair list reading.
The answer for multiple pair list readings involves listing propositions involving
ordered pairs as in (63), whereas a single pair reading involves a single proposition (64)
(Grebenyova 2004:11).
36
63.
Who invited who to the dinner?
(John is at a formal dinner where there are diplomats and journalists. Each
journalist was invited by a different diplomat. John wants to find out all the
details, so he asks the host)
Answer: Mr. Smith invited Mr. Jones, Ms. Black invited Mr. Green, etc.
64.
Which diplomat invited which journalist to the dinner?
(John knows that a very important diplomat invited a very important journalist
to a private dinner. John wants to find out all the details, so he asks the caterer)
Answer: Ms. Black invited Mr. Smith.
Note that English lacks single pair readings in non-D-linked multiple questions, and the
same is true for Bulgarian. Conversely, it is available in Serbo-Croatian and Japanese. It
was noticed by Hagstrom (1998) that in languages allowing for single pair readings,
fronting of the lower wh-phrase over the higher one forces the single pair reading.
Bošković refers to this phenomenon as Interpretive Superiority, meaning that instead of
unacceptability of any reading, one of two potential readings gets lost (Grebenyova,
2004:12).
65.
Šta je ko kupio?
Serbo-Croatian (*PL/SP)
what is who bought
Therefore the absence of a single pair reading in a language would suggest the
unacceptability of fronting the lower wh-element over the higher one.
It was observed by Bošković (2001) that single pair readings are unavailable in
multiple interrogatives where overt syntactic wh-movement takes place, in languages
such as English, German, or Bulgarian. Bošković refers to Russian as a wh-in-situ
language, which does not exhibit any wh-movement and allows single pair readings.
As I mentioned above, Stepanov (1997) reports an example (repeated here as
(66)) where he claims that Russian has a single pair reading and thus does not allow
movement of wh-phrases to [Spec, CP] in overt syntax.
37
66.
Kto čto
kupil?
who what bought
Grebenyova (2004) argues against the judgments reported in Stepanov (1997) and
claims that the above sentence does not get a single pair reading, according to the
judgments she collected (I agree that only multiple pair list reading is available in this
sentence). Moreover, it has already been noticed in the literature that Russian shows a
Superiority effect which emerges when čto is moved over kto (67).
67.
*Čto kto sprosil?
what who asked
‗Who asked what?‘
According to Bošković‘s claim, Russian never shows the Superiority effect in any
context and thus does not have syntactic wh-movement. The example in (67) proves the
opposite, and as a single pair reading can occur only in languages which do not have
overt syntactic wh-movement, it does not look like Russian qualifies.
Grebenyova (2004) provides some other evidence for the lack of single pair
reading in Russian. Particularly, she observes that fronting of an object wh-phrase over
a subject wh-phrase does not allow a single pair reading. According to observations
made for other languages this type of construction should force this reading. Consider
the example in (68)9
68.
??Kogo kto priglasil na uţin?
whom who invited
(*SP)
to dinner
‗Who invited who to the dinner?‘
She also observes contexts with multiple sluicing, which depend crucially on the
interpretation of multiple interrogatives in Russian. Thus, she provides an example,
which I repeat here as (69), where the antecedent clause forces a single pair reading of
9
I provide data below which show that fronting of object over wh-subject is quite degraded as well.
38
the embedded wh-elements, although this reading is unavailable in Russian
(Grebenyova, 2004:20).
69.
*Kto-to priglasil kogo-to na tanec, no ja ne znaju kto kogo
someone invited s omeone to dance but I not know who whom
‗Someone invited someone to a dance but I don‘t know who invited whom‘
Grebenyova shows that the example in (69) can be improved as in (70). However, in
this case the sentence does not get a single pair reading, but the so-called order-reading,
where the question is about the direction of the events, rather than the identity of the
agents.
70.
Maša i
Ivan pošli na večerinku. Kto-to iz nix priglasil drugogo na tanec, no ja
Maša and Ivan went to party.
One of them invited the-other to dance but I
ne znaju kto kogo
not know who whom
‗Maša and Ivan went to a party. One of them invited the other to a dance, but I
don‘t know who invited who.‘
The observation is supported by the ungrammaticality of the sentence with sluiced whadjuncts. It supports the idea that a single pair reading is unavailable in Russian, and
adjuncts do not allow order-readings in general; this is a property of arguments. While
arguments can be switched around, an argument and an adjunct cannot (Grebenyova,
2004:21).
71.
*Kto-to sprjatal gde-to
someone hid
zdes‘ klad,
no ja ne znaju kto gde.
somewhere here treasure but I not know who where
‗Someone hid the treasure somewhere here but I don‘t know who hid it and
where.‘
As was shown in (69), while a single pair reading does not allow sluicing, the multiple
pair list reading, on the other hand, permits it (72).
39
72.
Kaţdyj priglasil kogo-to na tanec, no ja ne znaju kto kogo.
everyone invited someone to dance but I not know who whom
‗Everyone invited someone to a dance but I don‘t know who invited who.‘
To summarize, the data above showed that Russian does not allow single pair readings
and, moreover, exhibits some cases of the Superiority effect, bringing the language
closer to Bulgarian. Therefore, based on the fact that Russian employs overt syntactic
wh-movement, it cannot be analyzed as a wh-in-situ language10.
Based on the evidence introduced above, I will provide Russian data from
multiple wh-questions to see if Russian shows any matrix/embedded asymmetry.
10
Contrary to Bošković (1998, 2001, etc.), who claims that Russian is an in-situ languages, which does
not have overt movement of wh-element to [Spec, CP].
40
CHAPTER 3. TOWARDS AN ANALYSIS OF RUSSIAN MULTIPLE
WH-ELEMENTS
In this chapter I employ the approach offered by Krapova and Cinque (2005) for the
analysis of the order of wh-phrases in Bulgarian multiple wh-fronting questions11 to
analyze the sequence of fronted wh-elements in Russian matrix and embedded
questions.
Analyzing Russian data, I focus mainly on wh-subject and wh-object and time,
place and manner wh-adjuncts. I do not discuss wh-adjuncts such as začem, and
počemu12 here; I will study these in detail in Chapter 4.
3.1.
Bulgarian order of wh-phrases
As mentioned before, Bulgarian is known to display a rather rigid ordering of whphrases in multiple wh-fronting. At the same time the literature reports cases of rather
free ordering of wh-questions in Bulgarian, and it appears that some of them violate the
Superiority effect.
73.
a. Kakvo kâde raste?
(Billings and Rudin 1996, 42, and fn.10)
what where grows
‗What grows where?‘
11
12
Krapova and Cinque (2005) study only matrix questions, they do not provide embedded questions data.
Chapter 4 deals in detail with wh-adjuncts like začem – ‗what for‘, počemu – ‗why‘, kakogo čerta -
‗what the hell,‘ etc. I refer to these kind of wh-adjuncts as why-wh-adjuncts.
41
b. Kâde kakvo raste?
(Billings and Rudin 1996, 42, and fn.10)
where what grows
‗What grows where?‘
Krapova and Cinque argue in their paper that in Bulgarian wh-phrases occupy different
positions as a consequence of their internal makeup and interpretation (Krapova and
Cinque, 2005:2). Thus, in (73a) it is more important to know what grows and in (73b)
where it grows. That is why the order of wh-phrases in (73) varies depending on
interpretation, and thus no violation of the Superiority effect occurs.
Krapova and Cinque study the order of wh-adjuncts with respect to wh-objects
and wh-subjects and attempt to define the order of wh-phrases.
3.1.1. The order of wh-adjuncts
Krapova and Cinque show that the order of wh-adjuncts appears to be very strict:
koga – ‗when‘ must precede kâde – ‗where‘; kak – ‗how‘ must follow both koga and
kâde13:
74.
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?
where when will go-you this summer
75.
a. Kâde kak si se
dârţal?
where how are-you behaved
‗Where did you behave how?‘
b. *Kak kâde si se
dârţal.
how where are-you behaved
13
In this section all examples are from Krapova and Cinque (2005).
42
76.
a. Koga kak si se
dârţal?
when how are-you behaved
‗When did you behave how?‘
b *Kak koga si se
dârţal?
how when are-you behaved
3.1.2. The order of wh-objects w.r.t wh-adjuncts
Wh-arguments bearing certain grammatical relations do not occupy the same position
with respect to wh-adjuncts, rather they occupy a position depending on their internal
makeup (features like [human] and [D-linking]).
Prepositional indirect object
The examples (77)-(81) show that na kogo – ‗to whom‘ must precede all adjuncts, and
na kolko - ‗to how many N‘ will occupy a lower position, following koga – ‗when‘ and
kâde – ‗where‘ but preceding kak – ‗how‘.
77.
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?
how to whom will teach-you this lesson
78.
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?
where to whom are-you given presents
43
79.
a. Na kogo koga šte se obadiš?
to whom when will
call-you
‗Who will you call when?‘
b.??Koga na kogo
šte se obadiš?
when to whom will
80.
call-you
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?
to how many people when/where are-you helped
81.
a. Na kolko
xora kak moţeš da pomogneš?
to how many people how can-you to help
‗How many people can you help how?‘
b.*Kak na kolko
xora
moţeš da pomogneš?
how to how many people can-you to help
Krapova and Cinque argue that the different distribution of na kogo –‗to whom‘ and na
kolko – ‗to how many N‘ is explained by a [human] feature. Na kogo [+human], na
kolko [underspecified] since N can be both human and non-human.
Multiple questions containing two [+human] wh-objects show strict ordering as
well: direct objects must precede indirect ones.
Therefore, the order so far is the following:
Kogo > na kogo > koga > kâde > na kolko
> kak
(whom) (to whom) (when) (where) (to how many) (how)
Direct [-human] wh-objects
Looking at the distribution of direct [-human] or underspecified wh-objects shows that
the distribution is different from [+human] wh-objects:
82.
a. Koga/kâde kakvo kupuvaš?
when/where what buy-you
44
‗When are you buying what?‘
b.?(?)Kakvo koga/kâde kupuvaš?
what when/where buy-you
83.
a. Koga/kâde kolko
(pari)
si
poxarčil?
when/where how much (money) are-you spent
‗How much (money) did you spend when/where?‘
b. *Kolko
(pari)
koga/kâde si poxarčil?
how much (money) when/where are-you spent
84.
a. Kakvo kak šte napraviš?
what how will do-you
‗What will you do how?‘
b. *Kak kakvo šte napraviš?
how what will do-you
The examples above show that kakvo – ‗what‘ and kolko – ‗how much N‘ will follow
koga – ‗when‘ and kâde - ‗where‘ and precede kak – ‗how‘.
Based on the data discussed above the following tendency is distinguished:
1.
All [+human] wh-objects precede wh-adjuncts koga –‗when‘, kâde – ‗where‘
and kak – ‗how.‘
2. All [-human] or underspecified wh-objects follow koga – ‗when‘ and kâde –
‗where‘ but precede kak – ‗how‘.
3. All [+human] wh-objects precede [-human] or underspecified wh-objects.
4. All direct [+human] wh-objects precede indirect [+human] wh-objects.
Table 1.
Direct [+h]
Indirect [+h]
Adjunct
[-h] or unspecified object
(place & time)
Adjunct
(manner)
kogo
na kogo
koga
kâde
na kolko N
kak
(whom)
(to whom)
(when)
(where)
(to how many)
(how)
kolko N
(how many)
kakvo
(what)
45
3.1.3. The order of wh-subjects w.r.t wh-adjuncts
Krapova and Cinque (2005) notice that wh-subjects occupy different positions
depending on their makeup: A [+human] wh-subject koj – ‗who‘ behaves the same way
as a [+human] wh-object, i.e. it precedes all adjuncts (85-86).
85.
a. Koj kâde šte spi?
(Billings and Rudin 1996, 41)
who where will sleeps
‗Who will sleep where?‘
b. * Kâde koj šte spi?
where who will sleeps
86.
a. Koj koga pristiga?
who where arrives
‗Who will arrive when?‘
b. *Koga koj pristiga?
where who arrives
The examples below show that [-human] wh-subjects kakvo – ‗what‘ and underspecified
kolko N – ‗how much N‘ pattern together with [-human] wh-objects, i.e. they follow
koga – ‗when‘ and kâde – ‗where‘ but precede kak – ‗how‘ (87-90).
87.
a. Koga kakvo te
pravi štastliv?
when what you-acc makes happy
‗What makes you happy when?‘
b.??Kakvo koga te
what
88.
pravi štastliv?
when you-acc makes happy
a. Kâde kakvo stava
sega po sveta?
where what happens now in world-the
‗What is happening where around the world?‘
b. *Kakvo kâde stava
sega po sveta?
what where happens now in world-the
46
89.
a. Kâde/koga kolko
se
investira v častnija
sektor?
where/when how much refl.cl. invests in private-the sector
‗Where/when how much is invested in the private business?‘
b. *Kolko
kâde/ koga
se investira v častnija
how much where/when refl.cl. invests
90.
a. Kakvo kak ti
sektor?
in private-the sector
haresva?
(p.c. Polya Votkova)
what how to you like
‗What how do you like?‘
b. *Kak kakvo ti
how what
91.
a. Kakvo
haresva?
to you like
prichiniava kakvo?
what-subj causes
(p.c. Polya Votkova)
what-obj
‗What causes what?‘
b. *Kakvo prichiniava kakvo?
what-obj causes
what-subj
It is difficult to test the word order of [-human] or underspecified subject and [-human]
or underspecified object, given that there is no subject/object distinction in
human/underspecified wh-phrases, that is, unless we are using verbs like cause, which
chooses a wh-object. Questions with the verb cause clearly distinguish precedence of
kakvo – subject over kakvo – object in (91).
To depict this I use a dotted line to show that there is no clear order between the whelements.
Thus, the data discussed so far can be summarized as follows:
Table 2.
[+human]
Adjunct
[-human] or underspecified
(place & time)
subject
object
Adjunct
(manner)
koj
kogo
na kogo
koga
kâde
kakvo
kakvo
kak
(who)
(whom)
(to whom)
(when)
(where)
(what)
(what)
(how)
kolko N
na kolko N
(how many)
(to how many)
kolko N
(how many)
47
It is noteworthy to mention that for some speakers, kakvo, kâde, and koga can precede
kogo as well as na kogo, which are obvious violations of the orders presented in the
Table 2. Krapova and Cinque (2005:6) suggest that ―the problem posed by these marked
orders of kakvo and kâde/koga can be made sense of if they are taken to access (more
markedly) a higher position, the one reserved for D-linked phrases.‖
In the next subsections I present D-linked and clitic resumed wh-phrases,
inasmuch as the empirical evidence shows that they are located higher than the other
wh-elements.
3.1.4. The order of D-linked and non-D-linked wh-phrases
Phrases in which koj functions as a specifier, i.e. koj/koja/koe/koi (N) - ‗which‘ phrases
are inherently D-linked and must precede all non-D-linked wh-phrases, as shown in (92)
(Krapova and Cinque, 2005). The only exception to the order D-linked > non-D-linked
seems to be the fronting of a D-linked wh-phrase over a koj-subject (93). According to
Krapova and Cinque, this is explained by the fact that koj – ‗who‘ belongs to the same
paradigm as koj (N) – ‗which‘, where the head N is interpreted as [+human]. If this was
true then there would be no Superiority effect between koja studentka and koj. Example
(93) shows the opposite. Therefore, I would suggest the order between these two
elements, i.e. a [+ human] wh-subject must precede a D-linked wh-element.
92.
a. Koi
kartini
na kogo za Boga
iskaš
pak
da podarjavaš?
which paintings to whom for God‟s sake want-you again to donate-you
‗Who on earth do you want to donate which pictures to again?‘
b. *Na kogo za Boga
koi kartini
pak iskaš
da podarjavaš?
to whom for God‟s sake which paintings again want-you to donate-you
93.
a. Koj koja
studentka šte izpita?
who which student
will examine
‗Who will examine which student?‘
48
b. *Koja studentka koj šte
izpita?
which student who will examine
I would suggest the following order of wh-elements in Bulgarian, which differs from
Krapova and Cinque‘s order in placing of koj higher than D-linked [-h] elements.
Table 3.
D-linked wh-14
Subj
Non-D-linked wh-phrases
[+h]
koj
koj/koja/koe/koi (N)
kogo
na kogo
koga
kâde
kakvoSubj
kakvoObj
kak
(who)
(which)
(whom)
(to whom)
(when)
(where)
(what)
(what)
(how)
D-linked
(kogo)
kolkoSubj N
(na) kolkoObjN
subj
(na kogo)
(how many)
(tohow many)
(marked)kakvoSub/Obj
(marked)kâde/koga
3.1.5. The order of clitic resumed and non-clitic resumed wh-phrases
In this section I discuss another type of multiple wh-construction, which contains an
inherently D-linked phrase resumed by a clitic (94).
94.
Koja kartina na kogo/ na koj prijatel
si (ja) posvetil?
which painting to whom/to which friend have-you it dedicated
‗Which painting have you dedicated to whom/to which friend?‘
Krapova and Cinque (2005:185) claim that ―clitic resumption is not available for the
second of two wh-phrases when the first is not itself resumed by a clitic,‖ as in (95), but
14
In the D-linked column Krapova and Cinque indicate the possibility of D-linking kogo and na kogo,
although they do not give evidence for this in the paper.
49
if the leftmost D-linked wh-phrase is separated by a parenthetical from the second whphrase then clitic resumption becomes obligatorily, as in (96).
95.
a. Na kogo koja kartina
si (*ja)
posvetil?
to whom which painting have-you it dedicated
‗Which painting did you dedicate to whom?‘
b. Na koj prijatel koja kartina si mu ja
posvetil?
to which friend which painting have-you it dedicated
96.
Koja kartina,
spored tebe,
kâde *(ja) e risuval tozi xuţdonik?
which painting, according to you, where
it is painted this artist
‗According to you, which painting did this artist paint where?‘
It is evident that the material which precedes the parenthesis requires a clitic and the
material that follows the parenthetical requires the absence of the clitic. Accordingly,
Krapova and Cinque (2005) suggest that (94) represents two different structures. One of
them involves a position (some XP) which can be targeted only by clitic resumed
(inherently) D-linked wh-phrases; the other involves a position (some YP) which can be
targeted only by non-clitic resumed (inherently) D-linked wh-phrases.
97.
[XP Cl-D-linked wh[parenthetical [YP non-Cl-D-linked wh[ZP non-D-linked wh
[IP...cl...
The parenthetical can also occupy a sentence initial position, as shown in (98).
98.
Vpročem, koja kartina, spored tebe,
koj *(ja) e narisuval?
by-the-way which painting according-to-you who it is painted
‗By the way, according to you, who painted which painting?‘
parenthetical [XP parenthetical [YP
[ZP
[IP clXP
Cl-D-linked wh- D-linked wh- non-D-linked wh-
50
Within a CP structure XP can be identified with Topic position (TopP), YP with a
position specialized for D-linked phrases (D-LP); and ZP with a position specialized for
non-D-linked phrases, the traditional CP.
From the data above the following order is revealed: clitic resumed Topic whelements precede D-linked wh-elements, which in turn precede non-D-linked whelements.
3.1.6. Some conclusions
Krapova and Cinque (2005) point out that there is evidence which suggests that the
order of wh-phrases reflects the order prior to wh-movement. The argument for this idea
is based on the order of the adjuncts koga – ‗when‘ > kâde – ‗where‘ > kak - ‗how‘,
confirming the UG hierarchy of adjuncts, where Temporal precedes Locative, which
precedes Manner.
It has been also noticed that the order of Bulgarian [+human] wh-phrases (koj –
‗who‘, kogo – ‗whom‘, and na kogo – ‗to whom) with respect to wh-adjuncts, and to
wh-phrases underspecified (or negatively specified) for the feature [human] (kakvo –
‗what‘ and kolko/kakâv N – ‗how many N‘) appears to reflect their relative order prior
to wh-movement (Krapova and Cinque, 2005:190).
The fact that the order of wh-phrases reflects the order prior to wh-movement
suggests some principle which ―will have to ensure that this order is preserved under
wh-movement‖ (Krapova and Cinque, 2005:191). For these purposes they refer to
Rizzi‘s (1990, 2001a) Relativized Minimality.
To recall the idea of Relativized Minimality: In order to explain the
impossibility of wh-movement in (99b) Rizzi (1990) suggests a theory of chains,
which state that a chain cannot be built between X and Y in configuration
…X…Z…Y…
99.
a. I wonder who could solve the problem in this way?
b. *How do you wonder who could solve this problem <how>?
51
In (99b), the wh-chain starting from an adverb position fails across a subject who (Rizzi,
2001a). Thus, according to Rizzi‘s assumptions, in (99b) the chain cannot connect how
and its trace, given that another wh-element who intervenes between them. Rizzi refers
to this principle as to Relativized Minimality.
100.
Y and X are in a minimal configuration when Y is a trace and X is a target and there is
no intervener Z between them, which c-commands Y and does not c-command X and
……Xt………….Z………….Y(t)…
[F]
[F]
[N]
c-command
So, going back to (99b), chain formation fails between the target and the trace since
they are not in a Minimal configuration, because who is the intervener between how and
the trace and who is the same structural type as the target.
Krapova and Cinque (2005:192) suggest that ―within a system in which
Superiority is subsumed under Relativized Minimality, the preservation of the pre-whmovement order of the wh-phrases in the case of multiple movements can be ensured
through the requirement‖ where - only a whole chain, not just a link of a chain, counts
as an ‗intervener.‘ This requirement is a modification of Chomsky‘s principle which
states that only the head of an A-chain (equivalently, the whole chain) blocks matching
under the Minimal Link Condition. (Chomsky, 2001:17).
Thus, a modified (100) would be ‗no chain can intervene between the trace and
the target, if this chain bears the same features as the target.‘ (Krapova and Cinque,
2005:193)
Based on the assumptions made above, Krapova and Cinque (2005:193) explain
the ungrammaticality of (101b) by arguing that the entire chain kakvo intervenes
between the trace of kak and its target, whereas in (101a) only a link of a chain (not an
entire chain) intervenes between the trace and the target.
52
101.
a. [CP kakvo [CP kak [IP šte napraviš t t ]]]
[+wh]
[+wh]
①
②
[+wh]
b. *[CP kak [CP kakvo [IP šte napraviš t
[+wh]
[+wh]
t ]]]
[+wh]
As for D-linked wh-phrases, Krapova and Cinque claim that these wh-phrases have
special features which match the corresponding feature in the target (say a [+D-L]
feature) and this allows the intervener between the target and the trace. Consider the
example in (102) which is slightly marginal but still acceptable.
102.
[YP kakvo [CP kâde [IP raste t
[+D-L wh]
[+wh]
t ]]]
[+wh]
In (102), the intervener kâde bears distinct features from kakvo, and its trace does not
violate Relativized Minimality and is thus acceptable.
To summarize: Krapova and Cinque (2005) come to the conclusions that the order of
wh-phrases reflects the order prior to wh-movement within the Mittelfeild, and the cases
which seem to violate the Superiority effect involve selective movements forced by a
feature not present in the intervener. The Superiority effect is captured under
Relativized Minimality, where links of a chain do not count as interveners, following
Chomsky.
In the next section, I attempt to employ the analysis proposed by Krapova and
Cinque for Russian and see if there is any wh-phrase order observed.
53
3.2.
Russian order of wh-phrases
In this section, I follow the structure of the analysis offered by Krapova and Cinque. I
employ their approach for Russian matrix and embedded questions. First, I introduce an
analysis offered by Meyer (2004), who studies Russian wh-elements in detail and
distinguishes the Superiority effect in Russian.
3.2.1. Meyer‟s analysis
Meyer (2004), researching Superiority effects in Russian, Czech and Polish based on
evidence from a series of controlled acceptability studies and text corpora, came to a
conclusion that all three languages exhibit the Superiority effect in one or another
way15.
Meyer (2004a) looks for the Superiority effect by conducting three different studies.
The first study is devoted to the relative order of wh-subjects and wh-objects.
The results of this indicate a general preference16 for wh-subjects to precede wh-objects,
which, according to Meyer, could be interpreted as a Superiority effect.
The second study focuses on the relative order of wh-arguments and whadjuncts. Meyer defines a preference of kto – ‗who‘ over kak – ‗how‘ order, subjects
over adjuncts, and a weak preference of wh-objects to precede wh-adjuncts; he found
instances of both orders.
In the third study, Meyer looks at the alleviation of wh-order effects via Dlinked wh-elements, but he does not consider Russian for the third study, inasmuch as
he claims that Russian D-linked wh-phrases behave differently than in other languages,
i.e. they do not move high enough. I disagree with Meyer‘s claim concerning D-linked
wh-elements and propose my own analysis of the elements in the next section.
15
I will not discuss Czech and Polish here, see Meyer (2004, 2004a).
16
Referring to Meyer‘s analysis, I use his vocabulary, i.e. for instances I claim to be a clear example of
Superiority effect, Meyer uses term « preference » etc.
54
During the experiment Meyer comes to an interesting conclusion that Russian
belongs to a group of languages in which Superiority affects both matrix and embedded
wh-questions; the same is argued for Bulgarian.
Superiority-like preferences distinguished by Meyer are listed in the table
below:
Table 4.
Order
Example
Order
Example
[+h]Subject/[+h]dir Object
kto(who)>kogo(whom)
>
kogo(whom)>kto (who)
[+h]Subject/[+h]indir Object
kto(who)>komu (whom)
>
komu(whom)>kto(who)
[+h]Subject/[+h]prep Object
kto(who)>PP kto(who)
>
PPkto(who)>kto(who)
[+h]Subject/[-h]dir Object
kto(who) > čto Acc (what)
>
čto Acc (what)> kto(who)
[+h]Object/[-h]Object
komu(whom) > čto (what)
>
čto (what) > komu(whom)
[+h]Subject/D-linked Object
kto(who) > kakoj (which)
>
kakoja(which) > kto(who)
[+h]Subject/Ajunct
kto(who) >kogda(when),
>
kogda(when), gde(where),
gde(where), kak(how)
[-h]Object / Ajunct
kak (how) > kto (who)
čto (what) > kogda(when),
<
kogda(when), gde(where),
gde (where), kak (how)
>
kak (how) > čto (Acc)
In the next section, I propose an analysis of Russian wh-questions following the
approach introduced by Krapova and Cinque for Bulgarian. I want to see if Meyer‘s
findings correspond to mine and if Russian behaves the same way as Bulgarian, i.e. I
will try to define the preferred wh-orders for Russian wh-questions.
The data were collected from 20 native speakers regularly residing in Russia
(South-Western Siberian region), who do not have any interactions with other
languages. The collection of the data was made in 2 stages: during the first stage only
wh-matrix questions were asked for evaluation, and during the second one only whembedded questions. In this way subjects judging wh-embedded questions do not refer
to the answers they gave during the first section. There was one-week break between the
two stages.
55
3.2.2. Analysis of the order of Russian wh-matrix questions
The order of wh-adjuncts
The data introduced in (103-105) show that the language does not require strict order of
kogda – ‗when‘ and gde – ‗where‘, but both of them should precede kak – ‗how‘.
103.
a. Gde kogda ty ego videl ?
where when you him saw
‗Where did you see him and when?‘
b. Kogda gde ty ego videl?
when where you him saw
‗When did you see him and where?‘
104.
a. Gde kak ty spal?
where how you slept
‗Where did you sleep and how?‘
b. *Kak gde ty spal?
how where you slept
‗How did you sleep and where?‘
105.
a. Kogda kak ty ušel?
when how you went away
‗When did you leave and how?‘
b. *Kak kogda ty ušel?
how when you went away
‗How did you leave and when?‘
The order of an object with respect to wh-adjuncts
In Bulgarian, according to Krapova and Cinque (2005), wh-objects do not occupy the
same position with respect to wh-adjuncts: the position will depend on the internal
makeup of the wh-element, i.e. [+human] will be placed higher than [-human]. I want to
56
introduce the judgments of native speakers on this issue and determine whether it is true
for Russian as well.
According to the judgments there is a clear preference of ordering [+human]
object over kak (106), but there is no strong preference of the object placed above whadjuncts kogda and gde as in (107-108).
106.
a.*Kak komu ty
pomog?
how whom you helped
‗Whom did you help and how?‘
b. Komu kak ty pomog?
whom how you helped
107.
a. ?Gde kogo ty poslednij raz videl?
where whom you last
time saw
‗Who did you see last time and where?‘
b. Kogo gde ty poslednij raz videl?
whom where you last
108.
a. Kogo kogda ty
time saw
priglasil?
whom when you invited
‗Whom did you invite and when?‘
b. ?Kogda kogo ty priglasil?
when whom you invited
According to my native speakers, the ordering of wh-elements in (107 and 108) depends
on which information is more prominent, i.e. place or object as in (107) or time or
object as in (108); however, there is still a slight preference of an object over adjunct.
Note that Meyer (2004) came to the exact conclusion.
In the next set of examples, I test the theory mentioned in Krapova and Cinque,
who assume for Bulgarian that cumulative objects or skolkoN – ‗how many N‘ being
underspecified for [human] feature should be placed lower than wh-objects bearing a
[+human] feature. Since we do not have a very clear picture of the object with respect to
the kogda – ‗when‘ and gde – ‗where‘ order I expect that we will not be able to get a
clear ordering in this case either.
57
109.
a. Skol‘kim
druz‘jam gde ty podaril
to how many friends
knigi?
where you gave
books
‗To how many friends did you give books and where?‘
b. Gde skol‘kim
druz‘jam ty podaril knigi?
where to how many friends
110.
a. Skol‘kim
you gave
books
druz‘jam kogda ty podaril knigi?
to how many friends
when you gave
books
‗To how many friends did you give books and when?‘
b. Kogda skol‘kim
druz‘jam ty podaril knigi?
when to how many friends
111.
you gave
books
a. So skol‘kimi ljud‘mi kak ty razgovarival?
with how many people how you spoke
‗With how many people did you talk and in which way?‘
b. *Kak so skol‘kimi ljud‘mi ty razgovarival?
how with how many people you spoke
112.
a. Skol‘hih
ljudej gde
ty vstretil?
how many people where you met
‗How many people did you meet and where?‘
b. Gde skol‘kih
ljudej ty vstretil?
where how many people you met
113.
a. Skol‘kih
ljudej kogda ty vstretil?
how many people when you met
‗How many people did you meet and when?‘
b. Kogda skol‘kih ljudej ty vstretil?
when how many people you met
114.
a. Skol‘kim ljudjam kak ty pomog?
how many people how you helped
‗How many people did you help and how?‘
b. *Kak skol‘kim ljudjam ty pomog?
how how many people you helped
As the above examples show, skolko N – ‗how many N‘ independently of being direct
or indirect does not exhibit any order with respect to wh-adjuncts, except with kak –
‗how‘ which should follow skolko N.
58
At this point, the order for wh-objects with respect to wh-adjuncts is not clear
and appears to be no higher than kogda – ‗when‘ and gde – ‗where‘, yet it precedes kak‗how‘.
The order of a wh-subject with respect to a wh-object
As shown in (115-117), the order of wh-subjects with respect to wh-objects appears to
be quite strict: wh-subjects both [+human] and [-human] must precede wh-objects. This
is an example of a clear Superiority effect.
115.
a.Kto komu pokazal film?
who whom showed movie
‗Who showed movie to whom?‘
b.*Komu kto pokazal film?
whom who showed movie
116.
a. Čto komu pokazalos‘?
what whom appeared
‗What appeared to whom?‘
b.*Komu čto pokazalos‘?
whom what appeared
117.
a. Kto kogo uvidel?
who whom saw
‗Who saw whom?‘
b.*Kogo kto uvidel?
whom who saw?
The order of a wh-[+human] object with respect to wh-adjuncts
For Russian speakers, the only strong preference is a wh-[+human] object preceding
kak.
59
118.
a. Komu kogda ty rasskaţeš‘ novosti?
whom when you will tell
news
‗Whom will you tell the news and when?‘
b. ?Kogda komu ty rasskaţeš‘ novosti?
when whom you will tell
119.
a. Kogo gde
news
ty predloţiš‘ vstretit‘?
whom where you will offer
to meet
‗Whom will you offer to meet and where?‘
b. ?Gde kogo ty predloţiš‘ vstretit‘?
120.
where whom you will offer
to meet
a. Komu kak ty peredaš‘ eti
knigi?
whom how you will give these books
‗Whom will you offer these books and how?‘
b.*Kak komu ty peredaš eti
knigi?
how whom you will give these books
There is a slight preference of a [+human] object over time and place adjuncts in whmatrix questions. I will not record this as an evidence of Superiority effect in Matrix
questions, although it is very clear in embedded questions, which will be described in
the next section.
The order of a wh-[-human] object with respect to wh-adjuncts
No order is observed, only the preference of čto over kak (123), as for [+human] objects
121.
a. Gde čto ty videl?
where what you saw
‗What did you see and where?‘
b. Čto gde
ty
videl?
what where you saw
122.
a. Kogda čto ty videl?
when what you saw
‗What did you see and when?‘
60
b. Čto kogda ty videl?
what when you saw
123.
a.*Kak čto ty sdelal?
how what you did
‗What did you do and how?‘
b. Čto kak ty sdelal?
what how you did
The order of wh-[+human] with respect to wh-[-human]
As shown in examples (124-127), the distribution of wh-[+human] and wh-[-human]
depends not only on the internal marking, i.e. wh-[+human] is predicted to be placed
higher, but apparently also on the function in the sentence. Wh-subjects will be placed
higher than wh-objects disregarding the internal makeup. Consider the examples in
(124-125), where wh-[+human] precedes [-human] or underspecified wh-phrase skolko
in (125). Examples (126-127) illustrate the case when wh-[-human] čto is the subject of
the sentence, forcing it to precede wh-[+human] object.
124.
a. Kto čto tebja sprosil?
who what you asked
‗Who asked you and what?‘
b. *Čto kto tebja sprosil?
what who you asked
125.
a. Komu skol‘ko
ty dal?
whom how much you gave
‗Whom did you give how much (money)?‘
b.?/*Skol‘ko komu ty dal?
how much whom you gave
126.
a. ??Kogo čto sdelaet
sčastlivym?
whom what will make happy
‗What will make who happy?‘
b. Čto
kogo sdelaet sčastlivim?
what whom will make happy
61
127.
a.*S kem
čto
slučilos?
with whom what happened
‗What happened with whom?‘
b. Čto s kem
slučilos?
what with whom happened
The examples above show that the subject will always precede the object and [+human]
objects precede [-human] or underspecified objects.
The order of wh-subjects with respect to wh-adjuncts
The examples in (128-130) show that subjects both [-human] and [+human] precede any
kind of adjuncts.
128.
a. Kto gde budet spat‘?
who where will sleep
‗Who will sleep where?‘
b.*Gde kto budet spat‘?
where who will sleep
129.
a.Čto kogda proizajdët?
what when will happen
‗What will happen when?*
b.*Kogda čto proizajdët?
when what will happen
130.
a. Kto kak rešit
etu zadaču?
who how will sove this problem
‗Who will solve this problem and how?‘
b.*Kak kto rešit
etu zadaču?
how who will solve this problem
To summarize the order we have thus far, we get the following picture:
62
Table 5
Subject
[+human] Object
[-human] Object
Adjunct
Adjunct (place&time)
(Manner)
kak (how)
kto (who)
komu (whom)
kogda (when)
čto (what)
kogo (whom)
gde (where)
čto (what)
skol‘ko N (how much N)
The table above shows that subjects precede objects and adjuncts, [+human] objects
precede [-human] objects and manner adjuncts but there is no clear preference over
place and time adjuncts (an interrupted line shows that there is no strong word order).
Manner adjuncts occupy the lowest position.
D-linked wh-questions
The last case left to investigate is D-linked wh-questions in Russian matrix clauses. In
Bulgarian, D-linked wh-phrases always have to be placed higher than non-D-linked, and
koj – ‗who‘ is situated higher than any wh-elements.
D-linked elements in Russian matrix clauses exhibit some features similar to
Bulgarian D-linked elements. Kto – ‗who‘ is higher than D-linked elements as in
(134)17, and [-human] D-linked wh-elements do not show order preference over
[+human] wh-objects (131-132), with the exception of a prepositional [+human] whobject located lower that D-linked wh-elements (133). D-linked wh-elements are higher
than wh-adjuncts, as in (135-136), and a D-linked wh-subject precedes [+human] whobject, as in (138).
17
Recall that the same judgement we see in Bulgarian example (93). Romanian, being another multiple
wh-fronting language does not seem to show the same order. Consider the examples below:
a.
Pe care student cine il va examina?
(Gabriella Soare, p.c.)
which student who will examine
b.
?Cine pe care student il va examina?
who which student
will examine
According to Soare (p.c.), cine –‗who‘ here is not D-linked and the order in (b) gets degraded.
63
131.
a. Kakuju kartinu komu on podaril?
which picture whom he presented
‗Which picture did he give who?‘
b. Komu kakuju kartinu on podaril?
whom which picture he presented
132.
a. Kakoj roman kogo zaintrigoval?
which novel whom interested
‗Which novel interested who?‘
b. Kogo kakoj roman zaintrigoval?
whom which novel interested
133.
a. Kakoj podozrevaemyj s
which suspected
kem
razgovarival?
with whom talked
‗Which suspected talked with whom?‘
b.*S
kem kakoj podozrevaemyj razgovarival?
with whom which suspected
134.
talked
a. Kto kakuju studentku budet ekzamenovat‘?
who which student
will
examine
b.*Kakuju studentku kto budet ekzamenovat‘?
which student
135.
who will
examine
a. Kakoj professor kogda prišël?
which professor when came
‗Which professor came when?‘
b. *Kogda kakoj professor prišël?
when which professor came
136.
a. Kakomu rebenoku kak ty pomog?
which
child
how you helped
‗Which child did you help and how?‘
b.*Kak kakomu rebenoku ty pomog?
how which
137.
child
you helped
a. Kakoj student čto sprosil?
which student what asked
‘Which student asked what?‘
64
b.*Čto kakoj student sprosil?
what which student asked
138.
a. Kakoj malčik kogo uvidel?
which boy
whom saw
‗Which boy saw who?‘
b.*Kogo kakoj malčik uvidel?
whom which boy saw
To summarize the order we have thus far, we get the following picture:
Table 6.
Subject
[+human] Object
[-human] Object
Adjunct
D-linked Object
(Manner)
kto (who)
komu (whom)
kogda (when)
kak (how)
čto (what)
kogo (whom)
gde (where)
kakoj/kakaja N (which N)
kakoj/kakaja N
čto (what)
(which N)
skol‘ko N (how much N)
PP object
The table shows that subjects precede all wh-elements, [+human] objects, and D-linked
objects do not show word order. D-linked elements precede all adjuncts, [-human] whelements and prepositional object. Note that [+human] objects show only slight
preference over adjuncts of time and place, although they do show a clear order with
respect to [-human] objects.
Now I will look at word order in embedded questions, which will show a more detailed
order of wh-elements.
65
3.2.3. Analysis of the order of Russian wh-embedded questions
As was seen from the data above, Russian demonstrates some Superiority-like effects in
a few cases in matrix clauses. Now I turn to embedded clauses. I will show that
embedded clauses allow a clearer distinction of the order of the wh-elements. These
data yield a main/embedded clause asymmetry. I follow Krapova and Cinque‘s
approach for this analysis.
The order of adjuncts
As shown in (139-141), there is no preference in the order of gde and kogda, although
both should precede kak, the same Superiority effect we see in matrix questions.
139.
a. Ona interesovalas‘, gde kogda ja ego videl.
she wondered
where when I him saw
‘She was wondering where I saw him and when.‘
b. Ona interesovalas‘, kogda gde ja ego videl.
she wondered
140.
when where I him saw
a. Ona interesovalas‘, gde i
she wondered
kak ty spal18.
where and how you slept
‗She was wondering where i slept and how.‘
b.*Ona interesovalas‘, kak i
she wondered
141.
gde
ty
spal.
how and where you slept
a. Ona interesovalas‘, kogda i kak ty dobralsya do doma.
she wondered
when and how you reached
till home
‗She was wondering when I got home and how.‘
b.*Ona interesovalas‘, kak i kogda ty dobralsya do doma.
she wondered
18
how and when you reached till home
I will discuss the nature of conjunction ‗i‘ in Chapter 4.
66
The order of a wh-object with respect to wh-adjuncts
The examples in (142-145) show that wh-objects must precede all wh-adjuncts.
Remember that in matrix questions there is no clear ordering between objects and
adjuncts except manner adjuncts, which have to follow objects.
142.
a.*Ona interesovalas‘, kak komu ty
she wondered
pomog.
how whom you helped
‗She was wondering whom i helped and how.‘
b. Ona interesovalas‘, komu kak ty
she wondered
143.
pomog.
whom how you helped
a.*Ona interesovalas‘, gde komu ty
she wondered
pomog.
where whom you helped
‗She was wondering whom you helped and where.‘
b. Ona interesovalas‘, komu gde ty
she wondered
144.
pomog.
whom where you helped
a.*Ona interesovalas‘, gde kogo ty poslednij raz videl.
she wondered
where whom you last
time saw
‗She was wondering whom you saw last time and where.‘
b. Ona interesovalas‘, kogo
she wondered
145.
gde ty poslednij raz videl.
whom where you last
time saw
a.*Ona interesovalas‘, kogda kogo ty pozval.
she wondered
when whom you called up
‗She was wondering whom you called and when.‘
b. Ona interesovalas‘, kogo kogda ty
she wondered
pozval.
whom when you called up
The examples in (146-149) show that a cumulative object precedes all adjuncts. In
matrix questions, on the other hand, there was no word order between them except
manner adjuncts, which are found lower in a structure in respect to any wh-element.
146.
a. Ona sprosila, skol‘kix
she asked,
ljudej i
gde on
ubil.
how many people and where he killed
‗She asked how many people he killed and where.‘
67
b. *Ona sprosila, gde
she asked,
147.
i
skol‘kix
ljudej on
where and how many people he
ubil.
killed
a. Ona pointeresovalas‘, so skol‘kimi ljud‘mi kak často Peter obschalsja.
she wondered,
with how many people how often Peter was in touch
‗She was wondering with how many people he was in touch and how often.‘
b.*Ona pointeresovalas‘, kak často so skol‘kimi
she wondered,
148.
how often with how many people Peter was in touch
a. Ona sprosila, skol‘hih
she asked,
ljud‘mi Peter obschalsja.
ljudej kogda on vstretil.
how many people when he met
‗She asked how many people he met and when.‘
b. *Ona sprosila, kogda skol‘hih
she asked,
149.
when how many people he met
a.Ona sprosila, skol‘kih
she asked,
ljudej on vstretil.
ljudej kak on nazval.
how many people how he named
‗She asked how many people he named and how.‘
b.*Ona sprosila, kak skol‘kih
she asked,
ljudej on nazval.
how how many people he named
Multiple questions containing [+human] objects are ordered according to a
direct/indirect distinction, i.e. direct objects always precede indirect objects (150-151).
The same was noted for Bulgarian by Krapova and Cinque (2005) and Billings and
Rudin (1996):
150.
a. Oni interesovalis‘, kogo komu
ona predstavila pervym.
they were wondering, who to whom she introduced first
‗They was wondering who she introduced first and to who.‘
b.??Oni interesovalis‘,
komu
kogo ona predstavila pervym.
they were wondering, to whom who she introduced first
151.
a. Ona sprosila, kogo s
she asked
kem ja sputal.
whom with whom i mixed
‗She asked who I confused with who.‘
b.*Ona sprosila, s
she asked
kem kogo ja sputal.
with whom whom i mixed
68
To summarize the order we distinguished so far we see that the direct object precedes
indirect, all objects precede adjuncts, and there is no order distinguished between kogda
– ‗when‘ and gde – ‗where‘, but they must precede kak – ‗how‘.
The order of wh-subject with respect to wh-object
The examples in (152-153) show that the wh-subject always precedes the wh-object; the
same Superiority effect is visible in matrix clauses.
152.
a. Ona sprosila, kto komu pokazal film.
she asked,
who whom showed movie
‗She asked who showed movie whom.‘
b.*Ona sprosila, komu kto pokazal film.
she asked, whom who showed movie
153.
a. Ona interesovalas‘, kto o
she wondered ,
čëm menja sprašival.
who about what me asked
‗She was wondering who asked me about what.‘
b.*Ona sprosila,
o
čëm kto menja sprašival.
she wondered , about what who me
asked
The order of wh-[-human] with respect to wh-adjuncts
In the order of wh[-human], with respect to wh-adjuncts, informants give a clear
preference to čto – ‗what‘ over all adjuncts. In this case, čto behaves the same way as a
cumulative object.
154.
a. *Ona sprosila, gde
she asked,
čto ty videl.
where what you saw
‗She asked what you saw and where.‘
b. Ona sprosila, čto gde
she asked,
ty
videl.
what where you saw
69
155.
a.*Ona sprosila, gde
she asked,
skol‘ko deneg ja potratil.
where how much money I spent
‗She asked how much money I spent and where.‘
b. Ona sprosila, skol‘ko
she asked,
deneg gde
ja potratil.
how much money where I spent
To summarize the order we have distinguished thus far, we get the following picture:
Table 7.
Subject
kto (who)
Dir object
Indir object
[-human]
Adjunct
Adjunct
[+human]
[+human]
object
(place&time)
(manner)
kogo (who)
komu (to who)
skol‘ko N
gde (where)
(how much N)
kogda (when)
kak (how)
čto (what)
The order of wh-[+human] with respect to wh-[-human]
The data show that wh-[+human] and wh-[-human] occupy different positions
depending on their role in the sentence, i.e. if they are a subject or an object, and on
their internal makeup, i.e. [+/-human]. In (156), kto – ‗who‘ is a subject and [+human]
precedes čto – ‗what‘, which is an object and [-human]. In (157 and 158), komu –
‗whom‘, which is specified as a [+human] object, precedes čto – ‗what‘, a [-human]
object and skolkoN – ‗how many N‘, an underspecified human object. In (159 and 160),
čto – ‗what‘, serving as a subject, will precede the objects kogo – ‗whom‘ and s kem –
‗with whom‘, respectively.
156.
a. Ona sprosila, kto o
she asked,
čëm
menja sprašival.
who about what me asked
‗She asked who asked me and about what.‘
b.*Ona sprosila, o
čëm
kto menja sprašival.
she asked, about what who me asked
157.
a. Ona sprosila, komu čto ja pokazal.
she asked,
whom what i showed
70
‗She asked whom I showed what.‘
b. *Ona sprosila, čto komu
she asked,
158.
ty pokazal.
what whom you showed
a.Ona sprosila, komu skol‘ko
she asked,
let
ty dal.
whom how many years you gave
‗She asked who I gave what age.‘
b.*Ona sprosila, skol‘ko
she asked,
159.
let
komu ty dal.
how many years whom you gave
a. ??/*Ona sprosila, kogo čto sdelaet
she asked,
sčastlivym.
whom what will make happy
‗She asked what would make whom happy.‘
b. Ona sprosila, čto kogo sdelaet
sčastlivim.
she asked, what whom will make happy
160.
a. *Ona sprosila, s
she asked,
kem
čto slučilos.
with whom what happened
‗ She asked what happened with who.‘
b. Ona sprosila, čto
she asked,
s
kem
slučilos.
what with whom happened
The order of a wh-subject with respect to wh-adjuncts
Wh-subjects in Russian always occupy a higher position than wh-adjuncts, and the
internal makeup of the subject does not play any role, contrary to Bulgarian matrix
questions, where a [+human] subject will precede adjuncts and a [-human] subject will
follow where and when but precede how.
161.
a. Ona sprosila, kto gde
she asked,
budet spat‘.
who where will sleep
‗She asked who would sleep and where.‘
b. *Ona sprosila, gde kto budet spat‘.
she asked,
162.
where who will sleep
a. Ona sprosila, čto kogda projasnitsja.
she asked,
what when will be clear
71
‗She asked what would become clear and when.‘
b. *Ona sprosila, kogda čto projasnitsja.
she asked,
when what will be clear
The order of a wh-object with respect to a prepositional wh-object
It has been mentioned above that direct objects precede indirect objects (see examples
(150-151)). The examples below show that there is also a clear order between
prepositional objects and non-prepositional ones.
163.
a. Ona menja sprosila, čto
she me
asked
s
kem ja obsudil.
what with whom I discussed
‗She asked me what I discussed with whom.‘
b. *Ona menja sprosila, s
she me
164.
asked
čto ja obsudil.
with whom what I discussed
a. Ona sprosila, skol‘kih
she asked
kem
ljudej
o
čëm ja sprašival.
how many people about what I
was asking
‗She asked how many people I was asking and about what.‘
b.*Ona sprosila, o
she asked
čëm skol‘kih l
judej
ja sprašival.
about what how many people I was asking
Based on the data above, the following hierarchy appears:
Table 8.
Subject
Dir object
Indir obj
Object
[+human]
[+human]
[-human]
kto (who)
kogo
komu
skolko N
čto (what)
(who)
(to who)
PP
Adjunct
Adjunct
(place&time)
(manner)
o čëm
gde (where)
kak
(how much N)
(about what)
kogda (when)
(how)
čto (what)
s kem
(with whom)
72
The order of D-linked and non-D-linked wh-phrases
Russian D-linked wh-phrases kakoj/kakaja/kakoe – ‗which‘ are used as specifiers to
nouns. Which-kind wh-phrases are inherently D-linked in Bulgarian, and according to
Krapova and Cinque (2005) must precede all non-D-linked wh-phrases. Krapova and
Cinque (2005) also mention an exceptional case where non-D-linked koj – ‗who‘ in
Bulgarian precedes D-linked wh-phrases, which is explained by koj belonging to the
same paradigm as kojN – ‗whichN‘. Koj has a necessary interpretation as [+human]
while kojN is [human] underspecified.
It is interesting to note that Russian native speakers require a strict order in
embedded questions, where a D-linked kakoj-type precedes non-D-linked wh-phrases
(remember that in matrix questions the kakoj-type precedes adjuncts, [-human], and
underspecified objects, while there is no clear order between D-linked elements and
[+human] objects). Russian exhibits the same restrictions as Bulgarian, where kto –
‗who‘, bearing [+human] features and belonging to the same paradigm as which-whphrases, has to precede [human] non-specified D-linked phrases and D-linked objects as
in (169). Examples (166-168) show that a D-linked subject precedes wh-objects; (165)
exemplifies the precedence of a D-linked object over a non-D-linked one, which is not
the case in matrix questions.
165.
a. Mne interesno
kakuju kartinu komu on podaril.
to me interesting which picture whom he presented
‘I am interested in which picture he presented to whom.‘
b.??Mne interesno komu kakuju kartinu on podaril.
to me interesting whom which picture he presented
166.
a. Byl zadan vopros, kakaja devuška kogo zainteresovala.
was asked question which
girl
whom made interested
‗A question was raised which girl interested who.‘
b.??Byl zadan vopros, kogo kakaja devuška zainteresovala.
was asked question whom which girl
167.
a. Vsem stalo
made interested
interesno, kakoj roman kogo zaintregoval.
to all became interesting which novel whom intrigued
‗Everybody became interested in which novel intrigued whom.‘
b. ??Vsem stalo
interesno
kogo kakoj roman zaintregoval.
73
to all became interesting whom which novel intrigued
168.
a. Oni interesovalis,
kakoj podozrevaemyj s
they were interested,which suspect
kem razgovarival.
with whom talked
‗They were interested in which suspect talked with whom.‘
b. *Oni interesovalis,
s
kem
kakoj podozrevaemyj razgovarival.
they were interested, with whom which suspect
169.
talked
a. Bylo rešeno, kto kakuju studentku budet ekzamenovat‘.
was decided who which
student
will
examine
‘It has been decided who will examine which student.‘
b. *Bylo rešeno, kakuju studentku kto budet ekzamenovat‘.
was decided which student
who will
examine
Subsequently, including D-linked wh-phrases, the order will be the following:
Table 9.
Subject
D-link
object
Dir obj Indir obj
[+h]
kto
kakojN
kogo
(who)
(whichN) (who)
[+h]
Object
Prep
Adjunct
Adjunct
[-human]
object
(place&time)
(manner)
komu
skolko N
o čëm
gde (where)
kak
(to who)
(how muchN)
(about what)
kogda (when)
(how)
čto (what)
s kem
čto
(what)
(with whom)
kakojN
(whichN)
Table 9 shows a clear word order where subjects precede D-linked objects, which in
turn precede non-D-linked elements. Non-D-linked elements occupy a position
according to their internal make-up, i.e. [+human] precedes [-human] or underspecified
human, direct objects are higher than indirect ones, and prepositional objects follow all
non-prepositional ones. Adjuncts of place and time are located lower than other whelements but precede manner adjuncts.
74
3.2.4. A comparison with Meyer‟s results
In this section I compare the data I presented above with Meyer‘s results, mentioned in
section 3.2.1.
Remember that Meyer conducted two sub-studies for Russian, which led him to
the conclusion that Russian does exhibit the Superiority effect in some contexts. He
revealed the following patterns of word-order preference:
-
a wh-subject precedes a wh-object
-
a wh-subject precedes a wh-adjunct
-
[+human] precedes [-human]
-
a slight word order preference of a wh-object over a wh-adjunct
Meyer also claims that there is no matrix/embedded clause distinction in Russian
multiple wh-questions.
His analysis supports a few conclusions I drew out of my data: wh-subjects do
indeed precede wh-objects and wh-adjuncts, kto – ‗who‘ precedes a D-linked object, a [human] object follows [+human] objects and there is no clear picture in wh-object/whadjunct ordering, except that kak – ‗how‘ must follow all wh-elements (the latter fact is
not described in Meyer‘s analysis). However, my data contradict Meyer‘s claim that the
matrix/embedded clause distinction is irrelevant. The data show that the order of whelements in embedded clauses is much stricter and more differentiated. In general, the
results mentioned by Meyer (2004) correspond to the results I came up for matrix
clauses, i.e. in both analyses, wh-subjects precede wh-objects and wh-adjuncts, and
there is no evidence of a fixed linear order for wh-arguments.
It appears, there are several drawbacks in Meyer‘s analysis. Firstly, Meyer in his
study did not pay attention to the wh-adjunct/wh-adjunct ordering. Secondly, studying
wh-subject/wh-object and wh-subject/wh-adjunct, he looked only at [+human] whsubject, ignoring [-human] wh-subject. Thirdly, Meyer did not look at order of whobject vs. wh-object, meaning direct/indirect/prepositional objects.
I presume that if he had looked at the points mentioned above he would have found
a matrix/embedded asymmetry and a fixed linear order for wh-arguments in embedded
clauses, which is apparent from the data presented in this work.
75
3.3.
Previous approaches to multiple wh-questions
There are four main analyses of multiple wh-questions mentioned in the literature: the
adjunction analysis, the wh-cluster analysis, the multiple [Spec, CP] analysis, and the
split CP analysis. I will discuss each of them one by one, making reference to Russian.
3.3.1. The adjunction analysis
Rudin (1988) argues for splitting multiple wh-fronting languages into two groups. The
first group displays strict ordering of wh-questions, and is represented by Bulgarian and
Romanian. The second group, on the other hand, includes such languages as SerboCroatian, Czech, Polish and Russian, where according to Rudin only the first element is
moved to [Spec, CP] and the Superiority effect appears only in some cases.
Accordingly, Rudin proposes two different structures for two groups. Consequently, the
first group employs a right-adjunction structure as in (170), where the order of whelements is obtained by successive right-adjunction to the [Spec, CP].
170.
CP
(Bulgarian)
IP
Spec
dade
wh
Spec
(give)
kakvo
wh
(what)
kogo
(whom)
wh
koj
(who)
The languages in the second group are claimed to utilize IP-adjunction, i.e. the first
element is moved to [Spec, CP] and the rest are left-adjoined to IP (171).
76
CP
171.
Spec
C´
kdo
(who)
(Czech)
C
(clitic+
parenth)
IP
IP
Wh
kdy
(when)
Wh
VP
koho
(whom)
V
pozval
(invited)
The adjunction analysis predicts the Superiority effect for the languages of both groups,
i.e. according to Rudin, Russian exhibits the Superiority effect, as well as Bulgarian,
Romanian, Serbo-Croatian, Czech, and Polish.
3.3.2. The wh-cluster analysis
Grewendorf (2001) argues for wh-elements forming a cluster by adjunction of one to
the other(s) for feature checking purposes, which follows from the Cluster Hypothesis
(Grewendorf, 2001:94):
A particular feature of a wh-element acts as a checker for other wh-elements
Based on this hypothesis then, in Bulgarian, the direct object kakvo right adjoins to kogo
together forming a cluster, which further right-adjoins to the subject koj in [Spec, IP],
and then the entire cluster moves together to [Spec, CP] (Laenzlinger and Soare,
2005:4).
172.
Kojj kogoi kakvok [tj e pital ti tk]?
who whom what
is asked
77
CP
Spec
C´
C
IP
Q
I´
Wh
koj
koj
kogo
VP
I
kogoi
ti tk
kakvok
Grewendorf (2001) suggests that because of the uninterpretable feature [Q] in kogo,
kakvo first overtly moves and adjoins to kogo, matching the [Q] features. This leads to
deletion of the uninterpretable [Q] feature in the head of kogo. Next, the uninterpretable
feature [Q] of wh-subject koj attracts the wh-cluster formed from kogo and kakvo,
matching the interpretable [Q] features of kogo and deleting the uninterpretable feature
[Q] of koj. Finally the uninterpretable feature [Q] of C matches with the interpretable
feature [Q] of the wh-subject and attracts the wh-cluster consisting of three wh-phrases
to [Spec, CP].
3.3.3. The multiple [Spec, CP] analysis
The multiple [Spec, CP] analysis has been proposed by a number of linguists: Bošković
(1998, 2000), Richards (1997, 2001), Pesetsky (2000), etc. Bošković (1998:12) assumes
that all multiple wh-fronting languages have obligatory non-wh-fronting of wh-phrases
(which is argued to be an instance of focus movement)19. Under this analysis the first
wh-element is moved to [Spec, CP] in order to check the strong [+wh] feature of C,
19
For analysis of the focus movement approach, please refer to Chapter 2.
78
whereas movement of other wh-elements is an instance of pure focus-movement. He
suggests that in Bulgarian C has two attracting features: Attract one-F [+wh]-feature
and Attract all-F [+focus]-feature. The most economical way would require moving the
highest wh-phrase first to [Spec, CP] and then the remaining ones will be moved to C in
any order to check their strong focus features.
Pesetsky (2000) and Richards (1997)20 suggest that in a MWF language, all whphrases will move overtly (for checking wh-features) to the left periphery of the
sentence, which means that after the left-most element has been moved, the other whphrases in the sentence ‗must have ―tucked in‖ underneath the first phrase, forming a
lower specifier‘ (Pesetsky, 2000:22). Richards (1997) also points out that second
instance of movement should ―tuck in,‖ and in addition to the Attract Closest rule, the
Shortest Move condition should be obeyed as well. Obeying this condition, the second
element will create a specifier lower than the first one.
Therefore, the structure for multiple [Spec, CP] analysis will be the following:
173.
(Bulgarian)
CP
C
wh[+wh]
koj
(who)
wh[+F]
kogo
C
(whom)
wh
[+F]
kakvo
(what)
IP
dade
(give)
Pesetsky (2000) adopts overt wh-phrase movement for Bulgarian and structurally
similar languages. He builds his analysis on the presence of a certain type of a
complementizer which depends on the lexicon of the language, i.e. a C0-spec for wh-insitu languages, a C1-spec for English and a Cm-spec for Bulgarian. His proposal
distinguishes multiple vs. non-multiple wh-questions, but fails to account for the order
of wh-elements in a multiple wh-fronting language.
20
For more discussion see section 2.3.3.
79
3.3.4. The split CP analysis
The Split CP analysis has been offered by a number of linguists for languages with a
strict word order such as German and Bulgarian. The split CP analysis is also referred to
as a Cartographic Approach (which presents a more detailed ‗map‘ of the structure).
Thus, Grohmann (1998, 2001), discussing the phenomenon of multiple whquestions in German, comes to a conclusion that the German left-periphery contains a
FocP hosting one wh-phrase and a lower projection FP hosting the second wh-phrase. A
reason for offering this approach is given by a possibility of a topicalized element
occupying a position between two wh-elements as in (174).
174.
a.[FocP Wer hat [TopP alle/viele/die meisten Bücher [FP wo gekauft ]]]?
who had
all/many/the most
books
where bought
‗Who bought all/many /most books where?‘
b.*Wer hat kein Buch/wenige/höchstens drei Bücher wo
who had no
book /few
gekauft?
/at most three books where bought
‘Who bought no book/few/at most three books where?‘
In (174a), quantificational elements can be placed between wh-elements, while in
(174b) negative quantificational phrases kein – ‗no N‘, wenige N – ‗few N‘ cannot,
which strongly suggests that the position between the wh-elements is in fact a Topic
position. Grohmann shows that both wh-elements move overtly to FocP and FP, and
that anything in between fills in Rizzi‘s (1997) TopP.
Laenzlinger and Soare (2005) employ the Cartographic approach to multiple
wh-fronting languages, which fits in with the Kayne‘s Antisymmetry (Kayne 1994)21.
21
Kayne‘s Antisymmetry denies the assumption that Universal Grammar (UG) allows a given
hierarchical representation to be associated with more than one linear order. He argues that phrase
structure always determines linear order, so that if two phrases differ in linear order, they must also differ
in hierarchical structure. (Kayne, 1994 :3). Kayne shows that asymmetric c-command invariably maps
into linear precedence, from which it follows that complement positions must always follow their
associated head, and that specifiers and adjoined elements must always precede their sister phrase. Thus
he argues for a uniquely imposed specifier-head-complement order. As a natural consequence to such
80
The Cartographic approach is employed by Belletti (2004), Cinque (1999, 2002), and
Rizzi (1997, 2004), where CP (or the Vorfeld) and IP (or the Mittelfeld) are areas rich in
functional projections, roughly represented in (175).
175.
[ForceP [TopP* [FocP [TopP* [FinP
… [MoodP* [ModeP* [TP* [AspP* [VoiceP …]]]]]]]]]]
The crux of this approach is to create a detailed map of the structure coming from the
assumption that all languages share the same principles of structure formation and the
same functional projections and vary in types of movements and overt realization of
functional projections. The example in (174) illustrates that both CP and IP fields are
split in several projections, which are hierarchically ordered.
Krapova and Cinque (2005) employ the Cartographic approach and Relativized
Minimality in their paper on multiple wh-fronting in Bulgarian. In their analysis, each
class of wh-phrases targets a specific position in the left periphery (see the discussion
above of their analysis in chapter 2). The important aspect of their analysis is that the
order of wh-elements is dependent upon the order prior to their wh-movement. Krapova
and Cinque (2005:192) suggest that ―within a system in which Superiority is subsumed
under Relativized Minimality, the preservation of the pre-wh-movement order of the
wh-phrases in the case of multiple movements can be ensured through the requirement‖
where only a whole chain, not just a link of a chain, counts as an intervener, i.e. ‗no
chain can intervene between the trace and the target, if this chain bears the same
features as the target.‘
Laenzlinger and Soare (2005), analyzing Krapova and Cinque‘s approach,
suggest that they propose as many Foc positions (in the terms of Rizzi, 1997) as fronted
wh-elements in Bulgarian.
Laenzlinger and Soare (2005), using the same approach for Romanian, follow
Rizzi‘s idea of the existence of only one FocP at the left periphery. They argue for a
structure where multiple wh-fronting relies on the mechanism of ‗heavy pied-piping.‘
They offer the following structure:
order, movements are also highly restricted to given positions in the role of suitable landing sites for
moving constituents.
81
176.
Cine ce a citit?
who what read
‗Who read wahat?‘
ForceP
FocP
Foc
Foc
unFF
MP
Spec
SubjP =AgrsP
V
a citit
(read)
cine +wh
(who)
strong FF
(wh)
ObjP =AgroP
ce
(what)
strong FF
(wh)
vP
Following Krapova and Cinque‘s assumptions, Laenzlinger and Soare suggest that whelements leave the VP-shell in order to reach a position in the Mittelfeld (IP), where
they can check their A-features (case, phi). These positions are labelled as [Spec, SubjP]
for wh-subjects and [Spec, ObjP] for wh-objects (Laenzlinger and Soare, 2005:29).
FocP has an uninterpretable wh-feature, which needs eliminating by agreement with a
wh-element that it c-commands, and EPP/OCC features as well. Both wh-elements
move overtly to [Spec, FocP] by pied-piping.
Following Krapova and Cinque (2005) and Laenzlinger and Soare (2005), I
employ the Cartographic approach for Russian wh-questions based on the data
introduced in Chapter 3. Before offering an analysis I introduce examples which show
that the prior order reflects the order after the movement.
82
3.4.
Analysis of Russian multiple wh-questions
3.4.1. Hierarchy prior to movement
Russian is an SVO language that is very often considered to be a free-order language.
The following order is observed in the language:
177.
Ivan pročёl stat‘ju o
beţencax.
Ivan read article about refugees
‗Ivan read an article about refugees.‘
178.
Stat‘ju o
beţencax Ivan pročёl.
article about refugees Ivan read
179.
?Stat‘ju o
beţencax pročёl Ivan.
article about refugees read Ivan
180.
??Ivan stat‘ju o
beţencax pročёl.
Ivan article about refugees read
Example (177) is a default order which is used in everyday life and written language. In
(178) we put a stress on statja o bežencax – ‗article about refugees‘, here it is important
for a speaker to stress that Ivan read an article, not a book about refugees. The order in
(179 and 180) is possible, although quite marginal. The principal order in Russian is
SVO.
Furthermore, I consider the order of adjuncts in IP structure comparing with the
order observed in wh-questions. Recall the order of the adjuncts in Russian multiple
embedded wh-questions,22 where gde and kogda precede kak. In the IP structure, the
adjuncts behave in the following way: no preference of Time over Place (181), and
Manner somehow precedes all adjuncts (182-183).
22
Here I will refer to embedded wh-elements, given that the order there is more distinguished.
83
181.
Time
Ja ego videl včera
Place
Time
v universitete (včera).
I him saw yesterday in university (yesterday)
‗I saw him yesterday at the university.‘
182.
Manner
Manner
Place
Manner
On gromko razgovarival (gromko) v sosednej komnate (*gromko).
he loudly
183.
spoke
Manner
(loudly) in next
Manner
On bystro vse
room
Time
(bystro) zakončil večerom
he quickly everything (quickly) finished
(loudly)
Manner
(*bytro).
in the evening (quickly)
Based on the examples above, it looks like Manner adjuncts are situated higher than
Time and Place, but I will follow Nilsen (2000) and Cinque (2002a), who in their
studies prove the position of the Manner adjunct to be lower than Time and Place. The
adverb of Manner was observed to occupy a higher position in a few languages, which
was explained by some movements in the structure. I will not look at this issue here; I
will just adopt the position of those linguists who claim Manner adjuncts to be situated
lower than Time and Place.
Therefore, in Russian, the order of adjuncts kogda, gde and kak reflects the order
prior to their movement, where kogda and gde precede kak, and are not ordered between
each other.
Similarly, the order of [+human] wh-phrases with respect to adjuncts appears to
reflect their relative order prior to wh-movement, i.e. objects and subjects precede
adjuncts, as in (184).
184.
Subj
Obj
Place
Time
Manner
včera/
v papyhah.
On
vstretil eje
v sadu/
he
met
in the garden/yesterday/in a hurry
her
A Subject [-human] always precedes a [-/+ human] object, as in wh-questions; this is a
neutral order.
84
185.
Subj [-h]
Object
Eto
udivilo
Petju
This
impressed Peter
The examples above serve as an argument that the order in the IP structure (Mittelfeld)
reflects the order after the movement. Subject precedes Object, following from default
SVO order. Adjuncts of Time and Place do not reveal any strict ordering but both of
them must precede Manner adjunct.
This serves as one more piece of evidence for analyzing wh-questions according to the
Cartographic approach.
3.4.2.
Cartographic approach to Russian multiple wh-questions
Rizzi (1997) proposes an approach whereby the C system expresses at least two kinds
of information, one facing outside and the other facing inside. He suggests treating the
first kind of information (information about the sentence type, i.e. a question, a
declarative, a relative etc.) as the specification of Force and the second one as finiteness
(since according to him C expresses distinctions related to tense), which in turn selects
IP. He also suggests distinguishing Focus/Topic within the C system, which will be
occupied by question operators, while Force is occupied by relative operators.
Force . . . (Topic) . . . (Focus) . . . Fin IP
Rizzi (1997) argues for one structural Focus position and an indefinite number of
Topics per clause.
186.
C
Credo
Top
Foc
Top
IP
che a Gianni, QUESTO, domani, gli
I.belive that to Gianni this
dovremmo dire.
tomorrow to.him we.should say
‗I believe that to Gianni, THIS, tomorrow we should say.‘
85
Rizzi suggests that question operators (wh-phrases in our case) are in Spec of FocP,
since in Italian focalized constituents and question operators compete for the same
position, and thus cannot co-occur.
187.
*IL PREMIO NOBEL a chi
THE NOBEL PRIZE
deverebbero dare?
(Italian)
to whom should they give
It should be pointed out that Rizzi (1997:330) comes across examples where the Wh
element is marginally compatible with an embedded focalized element in embedded
questions as in (188a), contrary to main questions (188b).
188.
a.? Mi domando A GIANNI che cosa abbiano ditto (, non a Piero)
‗I wonder TO GIANNI what they said (, not to Piero)‘
b. *A GIANNI che cosa hanno ditto (, non a Piero)
‗TO GIANNI what they said (, not tp Piero)‘
Rizzi suggests that the Wh element occupies an independent position distinct from
[Spec;FocP] in Italian embedded questions.
Russian, on the other hand allows the co-occurrence of a focalized element and a
wh-element in the structure, i.e. a focalized element and a wh-element in Russian do not
compete for the same position (189) and thus, following Rizzi‘s suggestion, we will
offer an extra projection for Russian wh-phrases, distinct from [Spec;FocP] and to
which we refer to as WhP.
189.
(situation: two people talking about the 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 asking:)
Da MAŠE
čto
ty
kupil, a
ne
drugim?
to MASHA what you bought, but not to others
In (189), Maša is in a Focus position which co-occurs with čto – ‗what‘, which seems to
occupy a different position.
86
The question is where this WhP will be situated. With respect to the Focus
position, it can appear higher or lower than FocP (190). I follow Rizzi, who argues for
one structural focus position and the non-recursion of Focus in the structure.
190.
MAŠE
čto
MAŠE ty kupil, a
to MASHA what
ne drugim?
you bought, but not to others
With respect to the Topic position, WhP can be situated higher and lower than Topic in
questions with multiple wh-elements as in (191a). Topic can never precede wh-elements
(191c, d), but must follow it (191e).
191.
a. Kogda Maša komu zvonila?
when Masha whom called
b. *Kogda kazhdyj rebenok komu zvonil?
when
every
child
whom called
c. *Maša kogda komu zvonila?
Masha when whom called
d. ??Maša kogda zvonila?
Masha when called
e. Kogda Maša zvonila?
when Masha called
I assume that Maša is in a Topic position since this position cannot be filled by
quantificational elements as in (191b). The fact that wh-elements in Russian can be
placed higher than Topic strongly suggests the occurrence of wh-movement in Russian.
Based on the examples above, I come to a conclusion that Russian WhP, which
is used as a landing position for wh-elements in the structure, can be situated higher or
lower than FocP and TopP can intervene between WhPs, but cannot precede whelement as in (191c and d)
Force . . . (WhP) . . . (Topic) . . . (WhP) . . . (Focus). . . (WhP) . . . Fin IP
The data above clearly demonstrates that Russian wh-elements do not compete for
FocP, inasmuch as they allow a focalized element to occur in the same structure,
87
therefore a WhP is used as a landing site for wh-elements and not FocP as in Italian
following Rizzi. Furthermore, it was shown that wh-elements in CP reflect the order in
the Mittelfeld, the order prior to wh-movement. Moreover, wh-elements allow the
intervention of lexical material, which can occupy TopP. This strongly supports the
movement of wh-elements, contrary to Bošković and Stepanov, and additionally it
serves as an argument countering the idea of pied-piping movement of wh-elements to
[Spec, FocP], as proposed by Laenzlinger and Soare (2005).
Following from the discussion above, I propose the following structure for Russian
multiple wh-questions:
192.
Ona interesovalas‘, komu
She wondered
ForceP
Pavel
kak
pomog.
Obj [+h]
manner adj
[strongWh]
[strongWh]
whom
Pavel how
helped
FocP
WhP
TopP
komu
WhP
(whom)
Pavel
(Pavel)
. . . IP
kak
. . . ObjP
(how)
MannerP
tk
tj
I assume that wh-elements which have strong [wh] features move to a particular
position in the C system to check wh-features. The hierarchy realized in the Mittelfeld is
retrievable through chain crossing at the left periphery. I would suggest the following
hierarchy for wh-elements:
[ForceP[FocP[SubjP[d.obj+h[ind.obj+h[obj- h [PPobj [adjunct adv [manner adv]]]]]]]]]]]
88
Notice that in the presented hierarchy above, adjuncts of Time and Place are not
distinguished, and adjunct of manner is situated lower. [+human] objects precede [human] objects as well as prepositional ones.
Now a question arises when we try to account for the cases where no order is
distinguished as such, as in the case with wh-adjuncts kogda and gde, where no
preferred order is distinguished, i.e. kogda can precede gde and vice versa. I suggest that
in this case the order in the C system depends on the order realized in Mittelfeld. Thus,
if in the Mittelfeld gde precedes kogda, the order is preserved prior to the movement,
and the same order will be visible on the surface after the movement. Preference of one
wh-element over another one depends on the prominence of the information. Thus in
(193), gde – ‗where‘ is more important for the speaker than kogda – ‗when‘ and (194)
shows prominence of kogda – ‗when‘ information over gde – ‗where‘.
193.
Ona interesovalas‘, gde kogda ja ego videl.
she was wondering where when I him saw
194.
Ona interesovalas‘, kogda gde
ja ego videl.
she was wondering where when I him saw
Structure for (193)
Structure for (194)
ForceP
ForceP
FocP
FocP
WhP
WhP
WhP
WhP
gdej
kogdaj
. . .IP
(where)
kogdak
(when)
gdek
. . .LocP
(when)
. . .TimeP
LocP
(where)
TimeP
tj
. . .IP
tj
tk
tk
In the Mittelfeld of (193), the locative adjunct gde – ‗where‘ precedes the time adjunct
kogda – ‗when‘, and in (194) gde follows kogda. The order in the Mittelfeld is
preserved and reflected in CP.
89
This approach accounts for the order of Russian wh-embedded questions. The
question that arises is how to treat the data in Russian wh-matrix clauses. The order of
wh-elements in matrix questions which appears as non-defined can be argued to be
―ruled‖ by the internal make-up of wh-elements and prominence of information. Due to
an absence of a controller which is present in embedded questions, the order is based on
internal make-up or importance of information, while in embedded questions it is
―chosen‖ by a licenser.
Recall the order distinguished for matrix questions:
Table 10
Subject
[+human] Object
[-human] Object
Adjunct
(Manner)
kak (how)
kto (who)
komu (whom)
kogda (when)
čto (what)
kogo (whom)
gde (where)
kakoj/kakaja N (which N)
kakoj/kakaja N
čto (what)
(which N)
skolko N (how much N)
PP object
Subjects precede all wh-elements, [+human] objects and D-linked objects do not show
differentiated word order. D-linked elements precede all adjuncts, [-human] whelements and prepositional object. Note that [+human] objects show only a slight
preference over adjuncts of time and place, though a clear order with respect to [human] objects.
Based on the data above I assume a structure for Matrix questions in (195)
where the subject is located higher than the [+human] object which in turn is located
higher than [-human] objects and adjuncts, which precede Manner adjuncts.
195.
[ForceP[FocP[SubjP[[+hum]objP [objP, adjunctP[ manner adjunctP]]]]]]
Following Rizzi and Shlonsky (2007), I assume that a wh-subject moves to the leftmost
wh-projection (WhSubjP) without checking any EPP features in [Spec, TP].
I suggest that in matrix questions the order is ―ruled‖ by the internal make-up of
wh-elements, prominence of information and function of the elements. For example,
90
[+human] elements always precede [-human] elements as in (196), more important
information will be placed higher than less important (197), and the subject is
functionally placed higher than other elements (198).
196.
a. Komu čto on pokazal?
whom what he showed
‗Whom did he show what?‘
b.*Čto komu on pokazal?
what whom he showed
197.
Gde kogda on ego uvidel.
where when he him saw
‗Where did he see him and where?‘
198.
a. Kto kogo uvidel?
who whom saw
‗Who saw whom?‘
b.*Kogo kto uvidel?
whom who saw
The order is pre-defined in the Mittelfeld, which is later realized in CP. A structure for
(196) is presented as (199), where, in the Mittelfeld, komu – ‗whom‘, due to internal
make-up and function, is located higher than čto – ‗what‘, and the same order is realized
later in CP. This also fulfils Rizzi‘s Relativized Minimality in view of Krapova and
Cinque, where no chain can intervene between the trace and the target if the chain bears
the same features as the target. In (196), only a part of chain is crossed, which is
allowed; yet notice that having the order where čto precedes komu will lead to crossing
the whole chain, i.e. a violation of Relativized Minimality, which renders the sentence
ungrammatical, as in (196b).
91
199.
ForceP
FocP
WhP
WhP
komuj
(where)
. . . IP
čtok
[+human] Obj
(what)
[-human] Obj
tj
tk
To summarize, it is evident that the Cartographic approach works for accounting for the
syntactic structure of Russian wh-elements, taking into account the strict order revealed
in embedded questions. Following Rizzi‘s (1997) approach, I propose to extend the C
system and distinguish additional projections, i.e. ForceP, FocP, TopP. Notice that I
propose extra projections WhP for wh-elements (following Rizzi‘s (1997) suggestion
for wh-movement in embedded clauses), which serve as landing sites for wh-phrases
(contrary to Rizzi, who suggests FocP as a landing projection for wh-elements in matrix
clauses). Following Krapova and Cinque (2005), I assume that the order of wh-elements
is realized in the Mittelfeld prior to the movement and is preserved under the notion of
Relativized Minimality. In order to account for a not-really-free order of wh-elements in
wh-matrix questions, I propose that the order is ―ruled‖ by internal make-up, syntactic
function of wh-elements and prominence of information, based on which order is
realized in Mittelfeld, preserved under the notion of Relativized Minimality and
emerges in CP.
This chapter has offered a preliminary analysis of wh-elements in Russian.
Covering Subjects, Objects, and Adjunct wh-elements, I ignored for now a type of whelements which should be classified as ―adjuncts‖. These adjuncts can be referred to as
―why-wh-elements‖ based on their main meaning of questioning purpose and reason. I
devote the next chapter of my dissertation to ―why-wh-elements‖, which comprise at
least 6 subgroups: (1) počemu – ‗why‘, asking for a reason as in Why are you here?; (2)
začem – ‗why/what for‘, asking for a purpose as in Why did you come?; (3) aggressively
non-D-linked kakogo cherta, kakogo figa, kakogo lešego etc – ‗why the hell‘ as in Why
92
the hell did not you tell me about this?!; (4) nominal čto/čë/čego – equivalent to English
‗what‘ as in What are you doing here? In a meaning ‗why are you here?‘; (5)
prepositional na čto tebe, na koj tebe, za kakim xrenom – ‗what for‘, and (6) why with a
particle xrana li/figa li/čego že – ‗why‘.
93
94
CHAPTER 4. WHY-WH-ELEMENTS AND THEIR VARIETY
Different languages employ different ways for asking for a reason, one of which is the
use of wh-adjuncts whose interpretation is akin to English ‗why.‘23 English itself
exhibits several different adjuncts for asking for reasons (why, how come, why the hell)
or purpose (what for) (200).
200.
a. Why did John come?
b. How come you are here?
c. Why the hell did you never tell me about it?
d. What are you asking this for?
In French one can identify at least three such elements pourquoi, pour quelle raison,
pour quoi diable, in Italian three – perchè, per quale ragione, come mai, in German five
– warum, wieso, wofür, wass für, was, etc.
In this Chapter, I address six types of Russian ‗why‘wh-elements which
demonstrate some common properties: (1) počemu– ‗why, for what reason‘ as in (201a),
(2) začem–‗why/what for/for which purpose‘ as in (201b), (3) aggressively non-Dlinked kakogo cherta, kakogo figa, kakogo lešego etc as– ‗why the hell‘ as in (201c), (4)
nominal čto/čë/čego as in (201d,e,f), (5) prepositional na čto tebe, na koj tebe, za kakim
xrenom – ‗what for‘ as in (201g,h) and (6) why with a particle xrana li/figa li/čego že –
‗why the hell‘ as in (201i).
201.
a. Počemu ty zadal etot vopros?
why
you asked this question
‗Why did you ask this question?‘
23
I refer to wh-adjuncts with interpretation of asking for reason as ‗why‘wh-elements.
95
b. Začem ty podnjal ruku?
why you raised hand
‗Why did you raise your hand?‘
c. Kakogo čërta ty prišël?
which devil you came
‗Why the hell did you come?‘
d. Čto ty prišël?
why you came
‗Why did you come?‘
e. Čё ty molčiš‘?
why you keep quiet
‗Why do you keep quiet?‘
f. Čego ty plačeš‘?
why you crying
‗Why are you crying?‘
g. Na koj
tebe eto nado?
on which you this need
‗Why the hell do you need this?‘
h. Za kakim xrenom
ty pripёrsya?
for which horseradish you came
‗Why the hell did you show up?‘
i. Tak čego ţe ty prišël?
so what prt you came
‗So why did you come?‘
All the wh-elements listed above can express either a reason or purpose and show some
similarities in their distribution. It should be specially pointed out that ‗why‘-elements
from (201c) to (201i) have an aggressive connotation (i.e. the speaker is irritated or
annoyed); while počemu and začem can be characterised as neutral.
From the first glance at ‗why‘-elements, začem and počemu stand out as more
standard elements for asking for a reason, therefore I split above mentioned phrases into
two categories: standard/neutral and aggressive. Later in the research, these two groups
will be shown to correspond to different syntactic positions. First I focus on začem and
počemu, then I address other types of why in detail.
96
4.1.
Počemu vs. začem
The wh-adjuncts počemu and začem, being equivalent to English ‗why‘, demonstrate a
similarity in their distribution but exhibit some semantic differences. Thus, Tolkovyj
Slovar‘ Russkogo Jazyka (1992) gives the following definitions:
Počemu – reason ‘why’
Začem – purpose ‘why’
po kakoj pričine – ‗because of which reason‘
s kakoj celjuj – ‗with what purpose‘
vsledstvii čego – ‗because of what‘
dlja čego – ‗for what‘
It is clear from above that the two non-homonymous lexical items počemu and začem
distinguish purpose from reason varieties of why. Počemu triggers reason as in (202)
while začem triggers purpose as in (203)
202.
Q: Počemu on zlitsja?
why
he angry
‗Why is he angry?‘
A: Potomu čto ego komanda proigrala
because
his team
lost
‗Because his team lost.‘
203.
Q: Začem on zapel?
why
he started singing
‗For what purpose did he start singing?‘
A: Čtoby privleč‘ vnimanie
in order to get
attention
‗In order to get attention.‘
Stepanov and Tsai (2007), studying the syntactic distribution of Slavic whys, underline
that the distribution of počemu and začem is more or less the same for simple matrix
questions as in (202 and 203). They point out, however, that the behaviour of the two
items changes with respect to negation, where negative počemu questions are perfectly
grammatical as in (204), while negative začem questions are ill-formed as in (205).
97
204.
Počemu ty ne otvečaeš na moi zvonki?
why
you not answering on my calls
‗Why are you not answering on my phone calls?‘
205.
*Začem ty ne napomnil mne ob
etom?
why you not reminded me about this
‗Why did not you remind me about this?‘
Stepanov and Tsai explain the distinction between the two elements based on syntactic
properties of the two. They claim that začem is base-generated in the vP domain, below
NegP. The ungrammatically is due to the intervention effect caused by začem crossing
the negative operator, which creates a weak island as is shown in (206).
206.
ForceP
WhP
Wh`
FocP
začemk
(why)
NegP
tyj
(you)
[neg]
Neg`
TP
ne
(not)
T`
DP
tj
VP
VP
V`
napomnili
(reminded)
k
DP
tj
V
whP
ti
tk
Počemu, on the other hand, seems to be base-generated in CP, which is above NegP24as
in (207).
24
The idea of why being base-generated in CP was first discussed by Rizzi (2001) for Italian and later
adopted by Shlonsky and Soare (2009) for Romanian. I will outline their analyses in 4.1.3.
98
207.
204 ForceP
WhP
Wh`
FocP
počemu
(why)
NegP
tyj
(you)
Neg`
[neg]
TP
ne
(not)
T`
DP
tj
VP
VP
otvečaeši
k
(answering)
V`
DP
tj
V
ti
The idea of different placement of the two elements is supported by a particular
morphological paradigm concerning the formation of negative wh-words (Stepanov and
Tsai, 2007:18). Almost all wh-phrases can form negative counterparts except počemu –
‗why‘ as in (208f) and kak – ‗how‘ as in (208g):
208.
a. Ne-komu/
ne-kogo
not-whom-dat/ not-whom-acc
b. ne-čemu/
ne-čego
not-what-dat/ nor-what-acc
c. ne-gde
not-where
d.ne-kogda
not-when
e. ne-začem
not-why
f.*ne-počemu
not-why
g.*ne-kak
not-how
99
209.
a. Mne
nekomu
zvonit‘.
to me not-whom-dat call
‗I have none to call.‘
b. Mne nezačem s
toboj razgovarivat‘.
to me no-why with you talk
‗I have no purpose in talking to you.‘
If we assume that this is correct and začem cannot form a negative question as in (205)
based on its position below NegP, the question that arises is why other wh-questions
such as kogo – ‗whom‘, kogda – ‗when‘, gde – ‗where‘, et., can form negative
questions, if they are base-generated lower than NegP like začem and will have to cross
a negative operator on their way to CP.
210.
Kogo ty ne oprosil?
whom you not questioned
‗Whom did not you question?‘
(Situation: Peter gave a lecture and was planning to check that each student understood.
At the end of class, and he had not manage to ask a couple of students)
211.
Kuda ty ne zašel
včera?
where you not drop by yesterday
‗Where did not you drop by yesterday?‘
(Situation: a child was supposed to drop by a bakery, a pharmacy and a sport shop, but
met a friend and did not manage to fulfil his chores)
The possibility of forming negative wh-phrases in (210 and 211) is due to the D-Linked
nature of the elements. Since an answer to the questions above is drawn from a set
which is clear for both the speaker and hearer.
It gets more intriguing when we try to form negative questions with kak – ‗how‘.
Clearly, negative kak-question is grammatically ill-formed (212) like začem in (205).
Interestingly, the presence of particle že improves the question and makes it the
perfectly grammatical (213), though the question is no longer a ‗manner‘-question, but a
‗why‘-question. I assume that particle že makes kak in (213) D-linked, forcing a context
known for both the speaker and listener.
100
212.
*Kak ty eto ne sdelal?
how you this not did
‗*How did not you do it?‘
213.
Kak ţe ty ne posetil etot muzej?
how prt you not visited that museum
‗How come you did not visit this museum, I cannot believe it!‘
(Situation: Stuart was on a trip to London and he visited numerous museums but forgot
to visit the National Gallery. The speaker is upset that Stuart neglected to take his
advice to visit it).
From the data presented above it is obvious that only one bare wh-element počemu can
be used with negative questions, which suggests a rather high base-generated position
for this wh-element. Other wh-elements can appear in negative questions only when the
wh-phrase is D-linked as I showed in examples above. Začem, on the other hand, cannot
be D-linked and cannot be used in negative questions.
Stepanov and Tsai (2007:25) address a question of agentivity and claim that
unlike počemu, začem cannot appear in a priori non-agentive contexts. Examples below
are taken from their research (where whyR stand for reason-why and whyp for purposewhy):
214.
Počemu/?*začem Ivan byl arestovan?
whyR
[passive]
whyp Ivan was arrested
‗Why was Ivan arrested?‘
215.
Počemu/*začem eta kniga upala na pol?
whyR
whyp this book fell
[unaccusative]
on floor
‗Whys did this book fall on the floor?‘
216.
Počemu/*začem Ivan ljubit cvety?
whyR
[experiencer/transitive sentient verbs]
whyp Ivan loves flowers
‗Why does Ivan love flowers?‘
217.
Počemu/*začem Ivan zaplakal?
whyR
[unergative sentient verbs]
whyp Ivan started to-cry
‗Why did Ivan start to cry?‘
218.
Počemu/*začem smerkaetsja?
R
why
p
why
[weather verbs]
getting-dark
101
‗Why is it getting dark?‘
I disagree with their data and claim that both počemu and začem can be used in a priori
non-agentive contexts, though it should be pointed out that due to semantic differences
between the two elements not every verb can be used with začem. Below I provide data
showing the occurrence of začem in the above-mentioned contexts.
219.
Začem Ivan byl priglašen na uţin,
whyp Ivan was invited
čtoby
ego isportit‘?
[passive]
on dinner, in order to it spoil?
‗Why was Ivan invited for dinner?‘
Answer: ‗in order to destroy your plans!‘
220.
Začem ty prygala tak vysoko, znala ţe čto upadeš‘?
whyp you jumped so high,
[unaccusative]
knew prt that will fall
‗Why did you jump so high, you knew you would fall.‘
Answer: ‘I thought I could fly if I jumped high enough!‘
221.
Začem ja ego poljubila?
p
why
[experiencer/transitive sentient verbs]
I him fell in love
‗Why did I fall in love with him?‘
Answer: ‗because he is the only man left in a city.‘
222.
Začem Ivan zaplakal?
[unergative sentient verbs]
whyp Ivan started cry
‗Why did Ivan start crying?‘
Answer: ‗he wanted his mother to buy him a toy-car‘
223.
Nu začem xolodaet?!
[weather verbs]
prt whyp getting-cold
‗Why is it getting cold?‘
(rhetorical question)
The examples above illustrate the use of začem in a prior non-agentive contexts, contra
Stepanov and Tsai. Examples (219-221) have a reading of reproach or criticism.
Stepanov and Tsai (2007:25) suggest that a characteristic feature of the purpose
why is its volitional character: in order to ask for the purpose for doing something, one
must imply a volitional agent to whom this doing is ascribed. Furthermore, they
propose, that since agentivity is associated with the syntactic level of vP, purpose why
should be regarded as a vP adverbial. Reason why, on the other hand, takes the
102
underlying event as its internal argument and it enters the structure as an operator with
sentential scope.
There seem to be other syntactic similarities and differences between the two elements,
among others, long-distance dependencies and occurrence in multiple wh-questions.
4.1.1. Long-distance dependencies
In English, two wh-elements for asking reasons why and how come show differences in
terms of whether they allow long-distance dependencies. As has been pointed out by
Collins (1990), why allows long-distance dependencies, provided that there is no island,
while how come allows only local dependency.
224.
a. Why did John say Mary left?
(ambiguous)
b. How come John said Mary left?
(only matrix)
Strict locality of how come follows from the strict locality of the head movement
constraint, which is assumed to be clause-bound and, following Collins, how come is
analyzed as an interrogative C head.
Notice that English why, on the other hand, can modify both embedded and matrix
clauses (224a).
Russian data show that počemu and začem can modify both clauses, like ‗other‘
wh-elements: the matrix clause is modified whenever a complementizer čto – ‗that‘ is
present and the embedded clause is modified in its absence25. Examples (225b, 226b
and 227b) show long-distance dependencies and modify embedded clauses, while
examples in (225a, 226a and 227a) show local dependency and modify matrix ones.
225.
a. Kogda on skazal, čto Alex pridet?
when he said that Alex will come
25
I discuss čto -‗that‘ complementizer in detail in Chapter 5.
103
(only matrix)
‗When did he say that Alex was coming?‘
b. Kogda ty dumaeš‘, John vstretilsja s
when you think
John met
Mašej?
(only embedded)
with Masha
‗When do you think John met with Masha?‘
226.
a. Počemu ty skazal, čto on uvolnjaetsja?
why
you said
(only matrix)
that he resigns
‗Why did you say that he was resigning?‘
b. Počemu ty skazal, on uvolnjaetsja?
why
(only embedded)
you said he resigns
‗Why did you say he was resigning?
227.
a. Začem ty skazal, čto on hočet
why you said
so
mnoj vstretitsja?
that he wants with me
(only matrix)
meet
‗Why did you say that he wanted to meet me?‘
b. Začem ty skazal, on hočet
why you said
so
mnoj vstretitsja?
he wants with me
(only embedded)
meet
‗Why did you say he wanted to see me?‘
Examples from (225) through (227) show that the presence of čto - ‗that‘ changes the
meaning of the sentence and does not allow ambiguous readings, while the absence of
the complementizer forces the embedded clause reading for ‗other‘ and ‗why‘ whelements. According to the judgments of native speakers, in (226a and 227a) the
speaker is asking a reason/purpose for saying that; in (226b) – the reason for resigning
and (227b) – the purpose for meeting.
Examples with začem and počemu in (226b and 227b) can get some sort of echo
reading in a particular context as below:
A: Ja slyšal čto Peter xočet vstretitsja s
I heard that Peter wants to meet
toboj čtoby obsudit
problemy v Izraile.
with you in order to discuss problems in Israel
‗I heard that Peter wants to meet with you to discuss the problems in Israel.‖
B: Začem ty skazal, on xočet
why you said
so mnoj vstretitsja?
he wants with me to meet
‗WHY did you say he wants to meet me?‖
(B speaker is either surprised or thinking that he did not quite catch the purpose of the
meeting)
104
It follows from the above data that both elements allow long-distance dependencies,
though it depends on the presence of the that-complementizer.
4.1.2. The occurrence of “why” phrases in multiple wh-questions
If we continue to look at English why and how come, trying to distinguish similarities
and differences with Russian whys, we come to a conclusion, following Ochi‘s analysis
(2004:2), that the English counterparts differ in their occurrence in multiple whquestions. In this respect, why can easily co-occur in multiple wh-questions (228a)
while how come cannot (228b).
228.
a. Why did John eat what?
b.*How come John ate what?
In Russian, on the other hand, začem can easily occur in multiple wh-questions (229)
while počemu may occur only with arguments (230).
229.
a. Kto začem prixodil?
who why came
‗Who came and why?‘
b. Čto začem oni prinesli?
what why they brought
‗What did they bring and why?‘
c. Kogda začem on prixodil?
when why
he came
‗When did he come and why?‘
230.
a. Kto počemu sejčas ne spit?
who why
now not sleep
‗Who does not sleep now and why?‘
b. Kogo počemu vybrala Rossija?
who why
chose Russia
105
‗Who did Russia choose and why?‘
c. S
kem počemu ona razošlas‘?
with whom why
she left
‗Whom did she leave and why?‘
d.*Kogda počemu oni smejalis‘?
when why
they laughed
‗When did they laugh and why?‘
e.*Kak počemu oni vstretilis‘?26
how why
they met
‗How did they meet and why?‘
Following Rizzi‘s Relativized Minimality and the idea that počemu is base-generated in
CP, it does not come as a surprise that only argument wh-elements can move over the
element. According to Relativized Minimality,
So, Y and X are in a minimal configuration when Y is a trace and X is a target and there
is no intervener Z between them, which c-commands Y and does not c-command X and
……Xt………….Z………….Y(t)…
[F]
[F]
[N]
c-command
In (230 a, b, c) počemu and the arguments bear different features and therefore počemu
is not an intervener (231), whereas in (230 d, e) the elements have the same features (all
of them are adjuncts) which makes počemu an intervener (232).
26
It is worth pointing out that in Bulgarian how and why cannot co-occur either (p.c. Iliana Krapova)
*Kak i
zašto e otgovoril ?
how and why he-answered
‗How did he answer and why ?‘
106
231.
……ktot…………. počemu ………….(t)…
[argument]
232.
[adjunct]
*…kogdat…………. počemu ………….(t)…
[adjunct]
[adjunct]
In the next section I study other types of ‗whys‘ found in Russian, I will refer to them as
aggressively non-D-linked like kakogo cherta – why the hell and nominal adjunct whelements čto, čë and čego. The questions is: Do they manifest the same restrictions as
počemu and začem or do they have some features which bring them closer to English
how come?
4.1.3. Position of počemu and začem
There is numerous literature devoted to the analysis of the position of why in the
syntactic structure (Hornstein 1995, Ko 2005, Rizzi 2001, Shlonsky & Soare 2009,
Stepanov & Tsai 2007 a.o.).
Rizzi (2001) suggests that Italian why – perché – is base generated in [Spec; IntP]
which is situated higher than [Spec; FocP], a position of wh-elements.
Shlonsky & Soare (2009) argue that why is externally merged as the specifier of a
dedicated functional projection which they label as CauseP which is configured above
NegP, adverbials and most probably above the canonical subject position. They propose
that the ambiguity of (233) is a result of why positioning.
233. Why did you say that John left?
(1st reading) the speaker is questioning the reason for saying
(2nd reading) the speaker is questioning the reason for John‘s leaving
In order to obtain the first reading, why raises from [Spec;Cause] to [Spec;Int] which is
the criteria position (in Rizzi‘s terms); the second reading is obtained due to why‘s
movement from its base position in the embedded [Spec;Cause] to a criterial position in
the matrix left periphery.
107
ForceP
IntP
TopP
whyi
FocP
WhP
CauseP
FinP
ti
In order to support their argument, Shlonsky & Soare (2009:2) analyze infinitival
questions headed by wh-elements.
234.
I asked Bill
a. whether to serve spiced aubergines for dinner
b. who to serve
c. what to serve the guests
d. when to serve pickled aubergines
e. how to serve pickled aubergines
f. where to serve pickled aubergines
g. ?? why to serve pickled aubergines
The examples above show that not all wh-elements can occupy the left periphery of
infinitivals. The same goes for Topic as in (235).
235.
*John decided [his mother] not to invite for his wedding.
Shlonsky & Soare (2009) propose that the examples above argue for the splicing of
infinitival clauses at WhP:
236.
Force P IntP Topic P Focus P WhP FinP
As a result, a WhP is not an attractor for why, otherwise (234g) would pattern with other
wh-infinitivals, and a proposed position for why [Spec;IntP] is a part of the left
108
periphery which seems to be truncated
in infinitivals, as shown above. The
ungrammaticality of (234g) according to Shlonsky & Soare (2009) follows from the
absence of an appropriate landing site for why in the embedded infinitival left periphery.
It should be pointed out that the same sequence is observed in Russian, i.e.
whyR(eason) cannot head an infinitival.
237.
Ja sprosil Bila
a. komu podavat‘ pirogi.
I asked Bill
whom to serve pies
b. čto
podavat‘ gostjam
what to serve to.guests
c. kogda podavat‘ pirogi
when to serve pies
d. gde podavat‘ pirogi
where to serve pies
e. *počemu podavat‘ pirogi
whyR
to serve pies
f. začem podavat‘ pirogi sejčas
whyP to serve pies now
(237e) demonstrates the ungrammaticality of using počemu as the head of an infinitival,
while začem behaves as other wh-operators. This suggests one more time a different
syntactic position for the two elements.
Since počemu and začem occupy different positions in the structure and začem
shows a lot of similarities with other wh-elements, I put začem aside for now and focus
on počemu in order to distinguish a base position for the element in the structure.
Another empirical argument against the external merge of why in [Spec;IntP] is
provided by Shlonsky & Soare (2009:6) based on Romanian data which is a rigid
multiple fronting language. The data show that Romanian de ce – ‗why‘ can occur with
another wh-constituent and de ce has to follow it, as in (238).
238.
a. Cine de ce a plecat?
who why has left
‗Who has left and why?‘
109
b.*De ce cine a plecat?
why who has left
The same is true for Russian as in (230), repeated here as (239).
239.
a. Kto počemu sejčas ne spit?
who why
now not sleep
‗Who does not sleep now and why?‘
a`.*Počemu kto sejčas ne spit?
why
who now not sleep
b. Kogo počemu vybrala Rossija?
who why
chose Russia
b`. *Počemu kogo vybrala Rossija?
why
c. S
who chose Russia
kem počemu ona razošlas?
with whom why
she left
‗Whom did she leave and why?‘
c`.*Počemu s
why
kem ona razošlas?
with whom she left
This serves as an argument for a position which is referred to by Shlonsky & Soare
(2009) as [Spec;Cause]. According to them de ce is externally merged in [Spec;Cause]
And other wh-elements are raised over de ce to [Spec;Wh] and de ce in its turn remains
in-situ. I will adopt their suggestion for the landing site [Spec;Cause] for Russian as
well, but I am reluctant to assume that počemu stays in-situ
110
ForceP
IntP
TopP
FocP
WhP
CauseP
kogo
(whom)
FinP
počemu
(why)
twh
Interestingly, for Romanian, a topic should precede all wh-elements, including multiple
questions with de ce as in (240).
240.
Carte, cui de ce ai
oferit-o?
book who why the (you) have offered-it
‗The book, to whom did you offer and why?‘
In Russian, on the other hand, it is not possible to have Topic or Focus higher or
between the elements when počemu occurs. Furthermore, nothing can intervene
between the two wh-elements.
241.
a. Kogo počemu vybrala Rossija?
who why
chose
Russia
b. *Kogo Rossija počemu vybrala?
who
Russia why
chose
c. *Rossija kogo počemu vybrala?
Russia who why
chose
d.*Kogo po tvoemu mneniju počemu vybrala Rossija?
who in your
opinion why chose Russia
111
I suggest that when počemu occurs with another wh-element, they together form a
cluster and move further to IntP; that is why topicalized or focalized elements can
appear lower than počemu.
ForceP
IntP
TopP
FocP
WhP
CauseP
kogo
FinP
(whom)
počemu
(why)
twh
Another interesting observation is ungrammaticality forced by the co-occurrence of
počemu with another adjunct which I explained in 4.1.2 by means of Relativized
Minimality. Notice that the presence of a coordinator i - ‗and‘ makes the question
grammatical, I revert to the phenomenon of wh-phrases coordination in 4.3.
242.
a. *Kogda počemu oni smejalis‘?
when why
they laughed
‗When did they laugh and why?‘
b. *Počemu kogda oni smejalis‘?
why
when they laughed
c. Kogda i počemu oni smejalis‘?
when and why
they laughed
There is a lot of discussion about short moved why vs. long moved why as in example
(233) repeated here as (243), where two readings are available, dependent on the base
position of why.
243.
Why did you say that John left?
(1st reading) the speaker is questioning the reason for saying
(2nd reading) the speaker is questioning the reason for John‘s leaving
112
In Russian, on the other hand the reading depends on the presence of complementizer
čto (that), as has been discussed in 4.1.1.
244.
a.Počemu ty skazal, čto on uvolnjaetsja?
why
you said
(only matrix)
that he resigns
‗Why did you say that he was resigning?‘
b.Počemu ty skazal, on uvolnjaetsja?
why
(only embedded)
you said he resigns
‗Why did you say he was resigning?
To sum up, I have argued following Shonsky and Soare‘s (2009) analysis, that in
Russian počemu is externally –merged in the functional projection CauseP, which is
located higher than FinP, but lower than IntP. Počemu moves to [Spec;Int], a criterial
wh position, which is different from WhP.
If and when some other wh-elements move to the left periphery, they form a
cluster together with počemu and move together to [Spec;Int] for checking features.
Začem on the other hand is base generated in VP, like other wh-elements, and
moves to the left periphery to satisfy wh-features.
4.2.
Aggressively non-D-linked and nominal wh-elements
As noted in Franks and Rojina (2008), semantically, kakogo čërta, kakogo figa, čego,
etc. are not unlike ordinary wh-questions:
245.
a. Počemu ty prišël?
why
you came
b. Začem
ty prišël?
what for you came
‗What did you come for?‘
113
c. Čto ty prišël?
what you came
‗Why did you come?
d. Čego/Čë ty prišël?27
what
you came
e. Kakogo figa/čërta ty prišël?
which figs/devil you came
Examples (245) present information questions which imply that somebody came and the
speaker wants to know the reason/purpose for coming. Questions in (245a-b) are
neutral, i.e. emotionally indifferent, whereas examples in (245c-e) have aggressive,
even negative connotation, implying that the speaker did not expect the person to come
and is annoyed that he did. It thus connotes a negative attitude on the part of the
speaker.
This negative attitude is part of kakogo čërta‘s more general status as a Polarity
Item (PI), as described by den Dikken and Giannakidou (2002) for English wh- the
hell/on earth/the devil/the fuck phrases. I will use ―the hell‖ to stand in for all of such
collocations, which can in general be called ―aggressively non-D(iscourse)-linked‖
expressions. They are completely promiscuous in English, since, as shown in (246),
they can be attached to any wh-element:
246.
a. What the hell did you buy?
b. When the hell is he coming?
c. Who the hell cares what you think?
d. How the hell should I know?
e. Where the hell did I put my keys?
In English, by adding ‗the hell‘ to different wh-elements we get different readings, for
example: time as in ‗when the hell‘ (246b), subject as in ‗who the hell‘ (246c), place as
27
čë is considered to be a phonologically reduced form of čego.
114
in ‗where the hell‘ (246e), etc. In Russian, on the other hand, we can add ‗the hell‘ part
only to kakogo – ‗which‘, and kakogo čërta has only the ‗why‘ function.
Obenauer and Poletto (2000) refer to the mentioned above types of questions as
rhetorical questions. As per Quirk‘s et alii (1985) definition, a rhetorical question is
interrogative in structure, but has the force of a strong assertion and it generally does
not expect an answer. Obenauer and Poletto (2000:122) argue that German questions
like (247) can express surprise without having the force of negative assertion, i.e. it does
not necessarily deny that there might be a reason (acceptable for the speaker) for
laughing.
247.
Was lachst du denn so?
what laugh you „denn‟ thus
‗Why are you laughing like this?‘
According to Obenauer and Poletto (2000), the question in (247) does not require an
answer and fits the definition of rhetorical questions. They use term ‗rhetorical
questions‘ when discussing this type of questions.
4.2.1. The case form of „kakogo čërta‟
Looking at kakogo čërta phrase type, it is important to raise a question of the case form
of noun čërta. At first sight it seems to be either accusative or genitive cases.
Possibility of kakogo čërta being accusative is driven by the fact that čërt ‗devil‘ is
animate, as in (248):
248.
Ivan videl čërta na kaţdom šagu.
Ivan saw devil on each
step
‗Ivan saw the devil everywhere.‘
On this reasoning, (249a) would be a variant of (249b), in which the direct object of
delaeš‟ is animate kakogo čërta instead of inanimate čto.
115
249.
a. Kakogo čërta ty tut delaeš‘?
which devil you here doing
‗What the hell are you doing here?‘ = ‗Why the hell are you here?‘
b. Čto ty tut delaeš‘?
what you here doing
‗What are you doing here?‘ = ‗Why are you here?‘
Let‘s call this the ―direct object accusative analysis‖. However, the fact that the direct
object can have a ―why‖ meaning in (249b) seems to us to be a special case, since even
in the English translation of (249b) what can have the meaning of why. That is, (249b)
can be a literal question, i.e., ‗What is the thing that you are doing here?‘ or it can mean
‗Why are you here?‘. In English, this is probably because the verb do—and its Russian
counterpart delat‟- are semantically bleached. One cannot after all use expression in
(250) to mean ‗Why are you here?‘:
250.
What are you fixing/buying/making here?
The reason one might want to treat kakogo čërta and čto in (249) as direct objects is
because delat‟ indeed requires an accusative object. When that object is missing, the
sentence can only be elliptical or defective. Now recall that genitive čego, as in (245d)
repeated here as (251a), can have a similar ‗why‘ function. Interestingly, (251a) with
genitive čego is degraded, just like (251b) with true lexical ‗why‘ počemu:
251.
a. ?Čego ty tut
delaeš‘?
what you here doing
‗Why the hell are you doing here?‘
b. *Počemu ty
why
tut delaeš‘?
you here doing
‗Why the hell are you doing here?‘
In (251a) čego is genitive and therefore does not satisfy case properties required by the
verb ‗do‘- in (251b) the verb delaeš‟ requires an object in accusative case.
116
A problem with the ‗direct object accusative analysis‘ arises in examples like
(252),
where kakogo čërta and čto are used to mean ‗why‘, even when there is
something we readily identify as the direct object:
252.
a. Kakogo čërta ty tut čitaeš‘ gazetu?
which devil you here reading newspaper
‗Why the hell are you reading the paper here?‘
b. Čto
ty tut čitaeš‘ gazetu?
what you here reading newspaper
‗Why are you reading the paper here?‘
We conclude in Franks and Rojina (2008) that, although kakogo čërta in (249a) may
indeed be the object of delaeš‟, hence technically accusative, this approach will not
generalize to all instances. The ‗direct object accusative analysis‘ is therefore irrelevant
and we put it aside.
A second irrelevant possibility that treats kakogo čërta as the animate accusative
parallel to čto might be constructed based on examples like (253):
253.
Čto
ty dumaeš‘, počemu ona plačet?
what you think
why
she cries
‗Why do you think she is crying?‘
Notice however that this čto simply serves to indicate that the embedded interrogative
počemu must be interpreted with matrix scope. Čto here is a wh-scope marker; it does
not mean ‗why‘ per se.28 Hence (253) is comparable to (254):
254.
?Čto ty dumaeš‘, kuda ona idet?
what you think,
where she is going
‗Where do think she is going?‘
28
This phenomenon is known in literature as partial wh-movement or wh-scope marking which is
thoroughly discussed by Grewendorf, Fanselow, Stepanov etc. I will devote Chapter 6 to discussion of
partial wh-movement in Russian.
117
In Franks and Rojina (2008), we call this analysis the ‗wh-scope marking accusative‘
and similarly put it aside.
There are, nonetheless, true instances of čto where it just seems to mean ‗why‘.
(245c) was one, which is repeated here as (255a):
255. a. Čto ty prišël?
what you came
b. Čto ty
plačeš‘?
what you crying
‗Why are you crying?
As pointed out in Franks and Rojina (2008), this is neither a conceivable direct object
nor a scope marker. Accusative čto also appears meaning ‗why‘ with verbs that take
oblique objects as in (256):
256.
a. Čto ty nam nikogda ne zvoniš‘?
what you us never not call
‗Why don‘t you ever call us?
b.Čto
ty tak boiš‘sja sobak?
what you so afraid of dogs
‗Why are you so afraid of dogs?
It can be referred to as an ‗intrinsic accusative čto.‘
The fact that accusative čto occurs in contexts in which there already is an object
(252), there can be no object (255), or any credible object is not accusative (256), does
not necessarily mean it is not accusative. After all, non-argument time and distance
phrases are accusative in exactly the same contexts, such as in (257):
257.
a. Ona plakala vsju nedelju.
she cried
whole week
‗She cried all week.‘
b.On vsju ţizn‘ bojalsja
he all life
sobak.
was afraid of dogs
118
‗He was afraid of dogs all his life.‘
Fowler and Yadroff (1993) however argue that these are quasi-arguments, bearing thetaroles but being non-referential. As suggested in Franks and Rojina (2008), čto in the
meaning ‗why‘ does not have such a thematic status. Fowler and Yadroff (1993)
consider two accounts of the source of accusative that would divorce case from verbal
government: (i) it is intrinsically accusative or (ii) there is a hidden P assigning
accusative. Dong (1995) in his reply to Fowler and Yadroff (1993), argues that the latter
approach cannot be correct. Franks and Dziwirek (1993) counter with one traditional
reason for considering accusative time and distance phrases as quasi-arguments
essentially marked as accusative, as if they were direct objects. This is the claim that
genitive time and distance phrases under negation, as in (258), are genitive-marked
direct objects under negation.
258.
Ivan ne spal ni odnoj minuty.
Ivan not slept no one minute
‗Ivan did not sleep even (for) one minute.‘
They argue that this is best understood as partitive, not genitive. It is at least
conceivable that čto and kakogo čërta are marked accusative in some idiosyncratic way.
The other possibility, which is far more plausible, is that kakogo čërta is genitive.
The main reason why this seems an inevitable conclusion is that genitive čego exists in
the same ‗why‘ function, as in (245d), repeated in (259a):
259.
a. Čego/Čë ty prišël?
what Gen you came
b. Čego/Čë on plačet?
what Gen you crying
‗Why is he crying?‘
The examples in (259), with genitive čego, imply that there must be some way of
marking wh-phrase as genitive in the meaning ‗why‘.
119
Moreover, if we take into account inanimate constructions similar to kakogo čërta,
namely kakogo figa/xrena etc, the picture becomes clearer – it is Genitive case.
260.
a. Kakogo xrena (Gen) ty pripersja?
which
horse-radish you came
b.*Kakoj xren (Acc) ty pripersja.
which horse-radish you came
We came to conclusion in Franks and Rojina (2008) that since xren is necessarily
inanimate and the potential accusative variant xren in (260b) is impossible, it must be
genitive in the meaning ‗why‘. Therefore kakogo čërta is really genitive too.
As for the accusative marking of kakogo čërta, this mechanism could presumably
be either the intrinsic one or the hidden P one; I take no stand on how to deal with
obtaining the genitive formally. As it was claimed in Franks and Rojina (2008), it is
simply that kakogo čërta is genitive for the same reason čego is, when it has the
meaning ‗why‘.
Since Russian uses both čto and čego to mean ‗why‘, Franks and Rojina (2008)
propose to unify these: čto can mean ‗why‘ and it can be marked accusative or genitive.
As for the account of kakogo čërta, based on inanimate constructions of the same kind, I
would claim that kakogo čërta is genitive.
4.2.2. “What” is “why”: differences between čego and čto.
It is time to look at differences between čto and čego when they have the ‗why‘
meaning. Franks and Rojina (2008) point out that interpretively it is a matter of style
and pragmatics where (261b) has more of a meaning of surprise and/or annoyance than
does (261a):
261.
a. Čto ty plačeš‘?
what you crying
120
‗Why are you crying?
b. Čego ty plačeš‘?
what you crying
‗Why are you crying
Another difference is attributed to parsing, but may be more fundamental. For example,
the complementizer function of čto trumps the interrogative function in (262a), though
of course when čego is used, as in (262b), only ‗why‘ makes sense.
262.
a. Ja znaju, čto ty prišla.
I know what you came
‗I know that you came.‘
(*‗I know why you came.‘)
b. Ja znaju, čego ty prišla.
I know what you came
‗I know why you came.‘
(*‗I know that you came.‘)
Presumably, to the extent Russian requires there to be a complementizer in an
embedded statement and znat‟ takes embedded statements, (262a) must be as indicated.
Notice, however, that the possibility of having ‗why‘ meaning in (262a) improves
somewhat if we use negative verb ne znat‟ – ‗not know‘, which can also take an
embedded question (263a):
263. a. ?Ja ne znaju, čto ty prišla.
I not know what you came
‗I don‘t know that you came.‘
(?‗I don‘t know why you came.‘)
b. Ja ne znaju, čego ty prišla.
I not know what you came
‗I don‘t know why you came.‘
(*‗I don‘t know that you came.‘)
121
In the right context and with the right intonation on čto, (263a) can be interpreted as
‗why‘. (264a) is even better, since sprosit‟ ‗to ask‘ only takes questions:
264. a.?Ja sprosil ego, čto on prišël.
I asked him what he came
‗I asked him why he came.‘
b. Ja sprosil ego, čego on prišël.
I asked him what he came
‗I asked him why he came.‘
Why should (264a) be degraded at all? Franks and Rojina (2008) assume that a reason
for this is that čto can be construed as a complementizer but more importantly also
because sprosit‟ can take an accusative direct object. That is, čto can cause garden-path
problems, i.e. be interpreted as a direct object.
The same is shown in (265), where the initial accusative čto in (265a) cannot have
the ‗why‘ interpretation but čego and počemu in (265b, c), respectively, are fine. The
reason is the garden path problem, since rešit‟ takes an accusative direct object.
265.
a. *Čto ty rešila, čto on boitsja sobak?
what you decided that he afraid dogs
‗Why did you decide that he is afraid of dogs?‘
b. Čego ty rešila,
čto on boitsja sobak?
what you decided that he afraid dogs
c. Počemu ty rešila,
why
čto on boitsja sobak?
you decided that he afraid dogs
In sum, ‗what‘ can mean ‗why‘ but it can be either genitive or accusative: čego and čto
are stylistic and pragmatic variants. Kakogo čërta is however morphologically invariant.
122
4.2.3
Why does „kakogo čërta‟ mean only „why‟?
Recall from English (246), repeated here as (266), that the hell expressions are
completely promiscuous, attaching to any wh-word.
266.
a.
What the hell did you buy?
b.
When the hell is he coming?
c.
Who the hell cares what you think?
d.
How the hell should I know?
e.
Where the hell did I put my keys?
So why, one might ask, does Russian only have the one expression kakogo čërta in the
meaning of ‗why‘? The answer is that this is a lexical property, and not paradigmatic.
English the hell attaches to various wh-questions, but Russian kakogo čërta is a fixed
phrase. Note that some South Slavic languages have a paradigmatic way of making a
wh-phrase aggressively non-D-linked, namely by adding li, as in Bulgarian (267); see
Boškovic (2001) or Franks (2006) for discussion:
267.
Kakvo li šte
what
mi podariš?!
li what me will give
‗Whatever are you going to give me?!‘
Bulgarian, Macedonian li more generally has this meaning as part of its focus marker
function.
Franks and Rojina (2008) note, however, that Russian particle že can play a
comparable role, as in (268):
268.
Čto ţe ty mne podariš‘?
what že you to-me will give
‗Whatever are you going to give me?!‘
It can even be used to intensify kakogo čërta, as in (269):
123
269.
Kakogo ţe čërta ty prišël?
which prt devil you came
‗Why in damnation did you come?!‘
Putting že aside29 and returning to our question of why kakogo čërta is special, we
reduce this question to that of why čego is special. That is, for some reason čego can
mean ‗why‘ and kakogo čërta (similarly kakogo xrena, kakogo figa, kakogo lešego etc)
is just an ‗epithet‘ which functions as a more colourful version of čego. Thus it is like
the idiot in (270), which in its anaphoric epithet function is a more colourful version of
he (with additional R-expression-like properties):
270. a. George W. Bush‘s father sent the idiot to Yale (because he couldn‘t get into
OSU).
b. Donal Rumsfeld‘s father was surprised that Princeton accepted the creep.
Interestingly, words that can serve as anaphoric epithets have negative connotations,
just like kakogo čërta. In short, kakogo čërta is to čego as the idiot is to him: in both, a
fixed noun phrase substitutes for a pronoun.
4.2.4. Syntactic properties of aggressively non-D-linked wh-phrases
The meanings of kakogo čërta and čego are however similar, since both are
aggressively non-D-linked. In Pesetsky‘s sense (1987), aggressively non-D-linked whelements are phrases that, because of particular lexical choices, are incompatible with a
D-linked interpretation. Therefore, expressions such as what on earth, why the hell, etc.
are used in order to express surprise and to imply that the speaker and hearer share no
preconceptions about the range of possible answers. In English, then, the aggressively
29
I will return to the že issue in section 4.2.5
124
D-linked phrase which conflicts with aggressively non-D-linked the hell, as shown in
(271)30, from Pesetsky (1987):
271.
a. What the hell book did you read that in?
b. *Which the hell book did you read that in?
It has been noticed in the literature (Obenauer and Poletto (2000), Obenauer (2004),
Rojina (2007)) that aggressively non-D-linked elements exhibit a variety of syntactic
peculiarities which differentiate them from other wh-elements.
One of the features that can be pointed out is their impossibility to remain in situ but
rather the requirement to move to SpecCP, as shown by (272):
272. a. *Ty prišël kakogo čërta?
you came which devil
‗*You came why the hell?‘
b. *Ty plačeš‘ čego?
you crying what
‗*You are crying why?‘
For the same reason, they never occur as the in situ phrase in multiple wh-questions, as
in English (273):
273. a. *How did you fix what the hell?
b. *Who bought what the hell?
Ordinary whys začem and počemu, on the other hand, can occur in situ (albeit with an
echo reading) as in (274).
274. a. Ty prišël začem?
you came what for
30
Note that although in Russian, čërta - ‘devil‘ technically combines with kakogo ‗which‘, this is a fixed
expression and the meaning yielded is not the D-linked ‗which‘, but epithetical ‗why‘ (see section 4.2.3
above)
125
‗You came why?‘
b. Ty plačeš‘ počemu?
you are crying why
‗You are crying why?‘
Furthermore, kakogo čërta differs from začem and počemu in its ability to occur with
veridical predicates such as znat‟ - ‗know‘, while kakogo čërta cannot, the same is true
for French (275c). Compare (275a) with (275b):
275.
a. Ja znaju počemu pticy letjat zimoj na jug.
I know
why
birds fly
winter to south
‗I know why birds fly south in the wintertime.‘
b.*Ja znaju kakogo čërta on sjuda prišël.
I know what
devil he here came
‗*I know why the hell he came here.‘
c. *Je sais pour quoi diable il est venu.
I know for which devil he came
However, negating the matrix clause in (275b) renders kakogo čërta acceptable in
Russian, English and French, as shown in (276).
276.
Ja ne znaju kakogo čërta on sjuda prišël.
I not know what
devil he here came
‗I don‘t know why the hell he came here.‘
‗Je ne sais pour quoi diable il est venu.‘
I not know for which devil he came
Negation scoping over kakogo čërta appears to have an ameliorating effect. Following
den Dikken and Giannakidou (2002), these data support the idea of treating kakogo
čërta as a Polarity Item (PI). Veridical verbs do not license PI in their scope, but
insertion of negation ne makes the sentence grammatical by providing a non-veridical ccommanding element.
These data also support Obenauer and Poletto‘s (2000) suggestion to treat this kind
of questions as rhetorical questions, thus distinguishing them from true wh-questions.
126
Moreover, kakogo čërta can be found in other PI environments: it appears in the
complement of matrix interrogative verbs like sprosit‟ - ‗ask‘ as in (277a) as compared
with (277b); after verbs with ‗negative‘ force like otkazat‟sja - ‗refuse‘ as in (278a) as
compared to (278b); and in the scope of focus marking tol‟ko - ‗only‘ as in (279).
277. a. Ja ego sprosil, kakogo čërta on zadal ètot vopros.
I him asked which
devil he asked this question
‗I asked him why the hell he asked this question.‘
b. On zadal kakie-nibud‘ voprosy?
he asked any kind
questions
‗Did he ask any questions?‘
278. a. On otkazalsja mne otvetit‘
he refused
kakogo čërta on pripersja.
me to answer which devil he came
‗He refused to answer me why the hell he came.‘
b. On otkazalsja mne čto-libo
he refused
skazat‘.
me what ever tell
‗He refused to tell me anything‘
279.
Tol‘ko ja znaju kakogo čërta mne zdes‘ nado!
only
I know which devil me here need
‗Only I know why the hell I need to be here.‘
Obenauer and Poletto (2000) argue that wh-elements in rhetorical questions (in their
terms) move higher than they do in true wh-questions. They draw this conclusion based
on Italian data.
The first argument comes from the fact that in Italian a subject can only occur at the
left edge of the whole interrogative structure (280a) or at its right edge (280b), leading
to a structure for true wh-questions in (281) (Obenauer and Poletto, 2000).
280.
a. Gianni, cosa ha fatto?
John
what has done
‗What has John done?‘
b. Cosa ha fatto, Gianni?
what has done John
127
281.
[SubjP DP [FocP true WH...]]
Obenauer and Poletto (2000:127) come across an example repeated here in (282) where
the subject is located between the auxiliary avrebbe and the past participle potuto,
which is a case of Germanic inversion.
282.
a. Cosa mai avrebbe
Gianni potuto fare, in quell frangente?
what ever had+conditional John
b. *Cosa avrebbe
could
do
in that situation
Gianni fatto se sua madre gli avesse dato l‘eredità?
what had+conditional John
done if his mother had given him the heritage
In (282a), both the wh-element and the inflected verb occupy position higher than the
subject. According to Obenauer and Poletto (2000), Germanic inversion of the DP is
allowed only in one type of interrogative questions, namely rhetorical questions, while
it is ungrammatical in all other interrogative structures (282b). This leads them to
assume that a wh-element can occur in more than one position and each position
corresponds to a distinct interpretation of the question.
283. [XP rhetorical WH [SubjP DP [FocP true WH...]]]31
The second argument in favour of the idea that wh-elements move higher in rhetorical
questions than in true wh-questions is provided by the position of Left Dislocated
elements32 (Obenauer and Poletto, 2000:129). They notice that in true-wh-questions the
only position for a Left Dislocated element is at the left of the wh-element as in (284a),
leading to a structure in (285), where the Topic position containing a Left Dislocated
item is higher than the position of a moved wh-element.
284.
a. A Gianni, cosa gli
to John
31
hai
dato?
what to-him have you-given
Obenauer and Poletto (2000) follow Rizzi (1997) suggesting that wh-items occur in [Spec;FocP]
position in true questions.
32
Obenauer and Poletto (2000) distinguish Left Dislocation from Hanging Topic based on the fact that
Hanging Topics can be only DPs and not PPs. In order to disambiguate the two constructions they use an
indirect object with a preposition.
128
b.*Cosa, a Gianni, gli hai dato?
what to John to-him have you-given
285.
[TopP LD [FocP true WH...]]
The situation is however different with respect to rhetorical questions (Obenauer and
Poletto, 2000:129):
286. ?Cosa mai, a Gianni, avresti
potuto dirgli
che lo
tirasse su in
un momento simile
what ever to John had+conditional could tell-him that cheered him up
in
such a moment.
The example in (286) clearly contrasts with example in (284b). Based on these data,
Obenauer and Poletto (2000:131) assume that the position of a wh-element in rhetorical
questions in higher than in true questions, thus they propose a structure of the left
periphery of this type of questions illustrated in (287):
287.
[XP rhetorical WH [TopP LD [FocP true WH...]]]
Russian data, on the other hand, behave differently. Consider examples in (288) and
(289):
288.
a. *K Maše kto prixodil?
to Maša who came
‗Who visited Masha?‘
b. Kto k Maše prixodil?
who to Maša came
289.
a. *K Maše kakogo čërta on prixodil?
to Maša what
devil he came?
b. ?Kakogo čërta k Maše on prixodil?
what
devil to Maša he came?
129
In wh-questions as in (288) a Left Dislocated element k Maše must be located to the
right of a wh-element, the same is true for the questions with aggressively non-D-linked
wh-elements (289). Although (289b) is marginal, there is still a clear contrast with
(289a).
Furthermore, a subject in Russian wh-questions (which occupies a Topic position in
the left periphery) must be located lower than a wh-element in both types of questions.
290.
a.??/*Oleg komu zvonil?
Oleg whom called
‗Whom did Oleg call?
b. Komu Oleg zvonil?
whom Oleg called
291.
a. *Oleg kakogo čërta zvonil?
Oleg what
devil called
‗Why the hell did Oleg call?
b. Kakogo čërta Oleg zvonil?
what
devil Oleg called
This suggests that in Russian both ‗true‘ and aggressively non-D-linked wh-elements
occupy a position higher than Topic, therefore, we assume the following structure:
292. [WhP ‗true‘ Wh/rhetorical Wh [TopP DP]]
Thus, Obenauer and Poletto‘s (2000) claim that the position of a wh-element in
rhetorical wh-questions is higher than in true wh-questions is not supported by the
Russian data. Furthermore, the data presented in next section will reveal that
aggressively non-D-linked wh-elements will follow ‗true‘ wh-elements in coordinated
multiple wh-questions.
130
4.2.5. Kakogo čërta, čego, čë and multiple wh-questions
I now turn to a major domain of this chapter, that of how kakogo čërta, čego, čë behave
in multiple wh-questions. The special restrictions on aggressively non-D-linked
expressions in multiple wh-questions are so significant that they essentially serve as a
diagnostic for such status.
First of all, kakogo čërta as well as čego (meaning ‗why‘) cannot be used in a
multiple wh-question. Consider Russian (293)33:
293.
a.*Kto kakogo čërta pripersja?!
who what devil came
‗*Who came why the hell?‘
b.?*Kto kakogo čërta mnoj interesovalsja?
Who what devil
me
was interested
‗*Who was asking about me why the hell?‘
c.*Kto čego boitsja sobak?
who what fears dogs
‗*Who is afraid of dogs why the hell?‘
d.*Kto kakogo čërta ţalovalsja?
who which devil complained
‗*Who complained why the hell?
Notice that in the English translations, why the hell is similarly bad. Interestingly, this
can be saved by using coordination, as in English (294)34:
294.
a. Who came and why the hell did he?‘
b. Who was asking about me and why the hell was he?‘
33
There is a parenthetical exclamatory function of kakogo čerta which in some contexts can emerge in
(293b)
34
There is a growing recent literature on the phenomenon of coordinated multiple wh-questions in
Russian and other languages, including Kazenin (2002), Merchant (2007), Citko (2008), Gribanova
(2009), I will discuss this issue in section 4.3.
131
c. Who is afraid of dogs and why the hell is he?‘
Note that, while VP-ellipsis is good in (294), IP-ellipsis (Sluicing) is not, consider
(295):
295.
a. Who came and why (*the hell)?‘
b. Who was asking about me and why (*the hell)?‘
c. Who is afraid of dogs and why (*the hell)?‘
Some similar effects arise in Russian. Consider (296), the coordinated wh-question
version of (293) where addition of a coordination saves the question. Note that in (296)
we get only single pair reading, i.e. there is a particular time when the speaker got
irritated by somebody coming to visit him.
296.
Kto i
kakogo čërta pripersja?!
who and what
devil came
‗Who came and why the hell did he?‘
(*PL/SP)
The same is true for čego and čë (297) where presence of the coordination makes it
grammatically acceptable. Notice that čto in a meaning of ‗why‘ cannot be used in
multiple wh-questions as shown by the ungrammaticality of (298).
297.
a. Kto *( i)
who and
čego prišël?
what came
b. Kogda *(i) čë on zvonil?
when
and what he called
‗Who called and why the hell did he?‘
298.
*Kto i
čto
prišël?
who and WHAT came
‗Who came and why?
It is however unclear if this restriction derives from the aggressively non-D-linked
status of kakogo čërta, since multiple wh-fronting of ‗why‘ in Russian is generally
132
severely degraded without coordination, see (299). That is, počemu and začem, like
kakogo čërta require coordination in between them as in (300), the same is true for
English and Bulgarian (301) (p.c. Iliana Krapova).
299.
Kto ??(i)
počemu ţalovalsja?
who (and) why
complained
‗Who complained *(and) why?‘
300.
Čto *(i)
začem
on kupil?
what (and) what for he bought
‗What did he buy *(and) why?‘
301.
Koga i zašto e idval?
when and why came
‘When did he come and why?‘
Notice in (302) a Superiority Effect takes place when we try to put any why-phrase in
an initial position, even with coordination. Interestingly, the same data were revealed in
Bulgarian, consider examples in (303) (p.c. Iliana Krapova)
302.
a.*Začem i
čto on kupil?
what for and what he bought
‗*Why and what did he buy?‘
b.*Kakogo čërta i
which
čto on kupil?
devil and what he bought
‗*Why the hell and what did he buy?‘
c.*Počemu i
why
kto ţalovalsja?
and who complained
‗*Why and who complained?‘
303.
a.*Zašto i
koj e idval?
why and who came
b. Koj i
zašto e idval?
who and why
c. Zašto i
came
a kogo
e dal tova?
why and to whom gave that
133
It is however worth remarking that in the acceptable corresponding English sentences,
the ‗and wh-phrase‘ is always after the wh-question, e.g.: ‗Who complained and why?‘
rather than ‗*Who and why complained?‘ which sounds odd. This is because English
does not have multiple wh-fronting in general. Russian of course has the ‗stranded‘ wh
construction as well as English, and here kakogo čërta behaves just like other adjuncts,
as in (304):
304.
a. Kto pripersja i kakogo čërta?!
who came
and which devil
‗Who came and why the hell did he?
b. Kto pripersja i
who came
začem?
and what for
‗Who came and why?
Kazenin (2002) however convincing argues that this is an elliptical construction and
should be differentiated from the truly coordinated multiple wh-construction which, as it
is generally argued (cf. e.g. Gribanova, 2009), is a possibility only in multiple whfronting languages.
In short, aggressively non-D-linked expressions such as kakogo čërta are only
acceptable in coordinated multiple wh–questions. However, even in this context there
are important limitations: as indicated in (296) the pair-list reading is suppressed in
favor of a single-pair interpretation. That is, unlike ordinary wh-elements, kakogo čërta
does not exhibit a pair-list reading. This, according to den Dikken and Giannakidou
(2002), follows from the PI status of aggressively non-D-linked expressions such as the
hell or kakogo čërta. The reason then that the hell cannot be included in (295) is
because this would force a single-pair reading onto the multiple wh–question, but
English does not tolerate single-pair readings in general. This implies that Sluicing has
the interpretation of a multiple wh–question but VP-ellipsis would just amount to two
independent questions connected through the discourse: Who came? and Why the hell
did he come? That is how the single pair reading is expressed in English.
Returning to Russian, the coordinated questions are to be compared with ordinary
multiple wh-fronting questions (which of course English lacks).
134
In Russian, multiple wh-questions generally only allow the pair-list reading. This
judgment is shown in (305):
305.
Kto čto
prines?
who what brought
(PL/*SP)
‗Who brought what?‘
(305) can only be answered by a list of pairs of ‗bringers‘ and ‗things brought‘; it is not
an appropriate way of asking for a single pair, in a context where the interlocutor knows
that some person brought some thing, but not who it was that did the bringing and what
it was that that person brought.
Let us look now at the particle že in the light of Superiority effect which was
mentioned in (268) and (269), repeated here as (306):
306. a. Čto ţe ty mne podariš‘?
what prt you me give
‗What are you going to give me?!
b. Kakogo ţe čërta ty prišël?
which prt devil you came
‗Why in damnation did you come?!‘
Interestingly že can follow only an initial wh-phrase, which suggests that this particle
occupies a Focus position between wh-phrases and has a meaning as part of focus
marker function.
307.
a. *Kto čto ţe kupil?
who what prt bought
‗*Who bought what on earth?
b. Kto ţe čto
kupil?
who prt what bought
‗Who on earth bought what?‘
135
ForceP
WhP
Wh`
FocP
kto
Foc`
(who)
WhP
ţe
Wh
TP
čto
(what)
kupil
(bought)
But if Superiority is violated že can never be used, as shown in (308):
308.
*Čto ţe kto kupil?
what part who bought
*‗What on earth did who buy?‘
Now, how does kakogo čërta behave with respect to long distance dependencies? As it
has been pointed out in Rojina (2007) kakogo čërta manifests a common set relating to
English how come, and an identical set to English why the hell: it is impossible to get a
reading in which kakogo čërta modifies embedded clauses.
309. a. Kakogo čërta ty skazal, čto Peter ne pridet?
which devil you said
(only matrix)
that Peter not come-FUT
‗Why the hell did you say that Peter would not come?‘
(only matrix)
(possible answer: because I did not want to upset you)
b.*Kakogo čërta ty skazal, __ Peter ne pridet?
which devil you said
Peter not come-FUT
The examples in (309) show that the expression kakogo čërta can modify only the
matrix clause as in (309a); moreover it requires the use of čto in the embedded clause
(309b). This suggests that kakogo čërta is based generated in the matrix clause. This
suggests that the presence of either a wh-element trace or a complementizer in a CP
136
domain is crucial in Russian embedded clauses, since kakogo čërta cannot be base
generated in an embedded clause and thus cannot leave a trace in [Spec, CP].
Čto, čë, čego on the other hand cannot modify embedded clauses when
complementizer-čto occupies C in an embedded clause (310a); the interpretation is
strictly clause-bound. Although they can easily manifest it when there is no čto (310b):
310.
a. Čë/čego ty dumaeš‘ čto on ego boitsja?
WHAT you think
that he him fears
‗Why do you think that he is afraid of him?‘
b. Čë/čego ty dumaeš‘ on ego boitsja?
WHAT you think
he him fears
‗Why do you think he is afraid of him?‘
4.3.
Coordination of wh-elements
This section deals with a coordination phenomenon of wh-elements in multiple whquestions in Russian. Although, as it was shown above, Russian multiple wh-questions
are well studied and much literature is devoted to the subject, coordination of these
elements surprisingly has been studied only by a few linguists, among them Kazenin
(2002), Gribanova (2009), Haida and Repp (to appear).
Previous sections discussed examples where the use of coordination i - ‗and‘ is
crucial for the grammaticality of multiple wh-questions as in (311).
311.
a. Kto *(i) kakogo čërta pripersja?!
who and what devil came
b. Kto *(i) čego prišël?
who and what came
c. Kogda *(i)
when
čë on zvonil?
and what he called
137
‗When did he call and why?‘
d. Kto *(i) počemu ţalovalsja?
who (and) why
complained
‗Who complained and why?‘
Furthemore, we come across example like (312) where, a la Gribanova (2009),
substantial differences, interpretive and structural, are revealed between the two types.
We see below that (312a) yields a single-pair interpretation, while in (312b) only pairlist reading is available.
312.
a. Kto i
kakoj gorod zaxvatil?
who and which city conquered
‗Who conquered which city?‘
The Germans conquered Paris.
(SP)
?? The Germans conquered Paris, the Russians conquered Berlin,....
(PL)
b. Kto kakoj gorod zaxvatil?
who which city
conquered
??The Germans conquered Paris.
(SP)
The Germans conquered Paris, the Russians conquered Berlin,....
(PL)
Before addressing theoretical issues I would like to point out some properties of
coordinated wh-elements in Russian.
First, wh-phrases in Russian multiple questions can appear adjacent to a
coordinator either preverbally or postverbally, as noted in Gribanova (2009).
313. a. Čto
i
gde oni našli?
what and where they found
‗What did they find and where?‘
b. Čto oni našli i
gde?
what they found and where
138
Secondly, when a question consists of more than two wh-elements, the conjunction ‗i‘
must occupy the position preceding the last wh-element.
314.
Čto
(*i)
gde
i
kogda slučilos‘?
what (and) where and when happened?
‗What happened when and where?‘
Thirdly, any sort of wh-items can be coordinated, as pointed out in Gribanova (2009);
(315a) shows a coordination of two arguments, (291b) presents a coordination of two
adjuncts, (315c) shows a coordination of an argument and an adjunct.
315.
a. Kto i
b. Gde
i kogda ego našli?
where and when him found
‗Where was he found and when?‘
c. Kto i
gde budet spat‘?
who and where will sleep
‗Who will sleep and where?‘
The last property that should be mentioned is that ordering restriction appears between
some coordinated wh-elements (contra Gribanova 2009, Kazenin 2002).
316.
a. Kto i
čego prišël?
who and why came
b.*Čego i
kto prišël?
why and who came
The question that arises is how to treat these types of constructions. Several analyses for
coordinated wh-elements have been proposed, the most important of which I account
for below.
139
4.3.1. Coordination prior to the wh-movement?
Grimshaw (1978) argues that conjoined wh-phrases in English are coordinated prior to
the wh-movement. This analysis is inapplicable to Russian, since under her analysis whcoordination is possible only for phrases of the same categories and grammatical
relation as in (317a). (317b) is ungrammatical because who and what cannot be both
subject and object of bought, and (317c) is ungrammatical because put subcategorizes
for a locative adverbial, a category to which when does not belong (Grimshaw, 1978).
317.
a. Which book and which pencil did John buy?
b. *John asked who and what bought.
c. *Where and when did Bill put the book?
In Russian, on the other hand, coordination of wh-elements does not require the identity
of categories as in (318).
318.
a. Čto
i
gde oni našli?
b. Kto *(i) čego prišël?
who and why came
c. Kto i
počemu mnoj interesovalsja?
who and why
by me interested
‗Who was interested in me and why?‘
Some informants report coordination of [+human] wh-arguments to be marginal, even
impossible for some of them, as shown in (319).
319.
a. Kto (??i) s kem vstretilsja?
who (and) with whom met
‗Who met whom?‘
140
b. Kogo (??i) komu ty predstavil?
who (and) to whom you introduced
‗Who did you introduced to whom?‘
Based on the data above, I conclude that wh-arguments cannot be coordinated prior to
their movement to the left periphery due to the fact that they are not categorically
identical.
Putting Grimshaw‘s analysis aside and thus declining possibility of whcoordination prior to the movement I refer to other possible analyses. One of them was
proposed by Kazenin (2002) and Camacho (2003), who offer treating this kind of
coordination as instances of two CPs coordination followed by sluicing within the left
CP.
4.3.2. Coordination of two CPs followed by sluicing?
One of the suggestions, that looks at first mostly plausible, is to treat coordinated
multiple wh-constructions as instances of coordinated sentences accompanied by
sluicing.
Thus, the sentence in (320) gives us the structure in (321) (taken from Kazenin
2002).
320.
Kuda
i
začem
on pošёl?
where and what for he went
‗Where did he go and what for?‘
321.
[Kudai [on pošёl ti]] i [ začemj [on pošёl tj]]?
where he went
and what for he went
141
CP
C‘
C
IP
e
According to the sluicing analysis, the elided phrase is IP and the empty category in the
position of IP is governed by C´ with a [+Q] feature. Kazenin also points out that
sluicing can happen in the second conjunct as in (322).
322.
Kuda on pošёl i
začem?
where he went and what for
[Kudai [on pošёl ti]] i [ začemj [on pošёl tj]]?
where he went
and what for he went
Kazenin (2002) points out in his analysis two main problems for sluicing.
The first problem occurs when accounting for examples like in (323 and 324)
which, according to the sluicing analysis, would be impossible due to the fact that the
second of the conjoined wh-phrases is an argument (examples taken from Kazenin,
2002).
323.
Kto
i kakoj gorod zaxvatil?
324.
Začem i komu eto nuzhno?
why and whom this need
‗Who needs this and why?‘
Following Kazenin (2002), example in (323) would yield a structure as in (325) where
we are forced to postulate the presence of an empty pronominal element in the object
position of the first IP, as it is required by the verb‘s thematic requirement, i.e. zaxvatil
requires an object in Accusative case to follow.
142
325.
a. Kto
i
[CP Ktoi [IP ti zaxvatil prot]] i [CP [kakoj gorod]t [IP proi zaxvatil tt]?
b.*Kto zaxvatil
i
who conquered and which city conquered
Kazenin argues that this structure results in a cataphoric dependency between the whphrase kakoj gorod and the pronominal in the first IP, which is restricted in Russian,
especially when the antecedent of a pronominal is a wh-phrase.
The second problem with the sluicing analysis, according to Kazenin (2002),
concerns the possibility of ‗canonical‘ sluicing constructions parallel to whconstructions. The examples in (326) and (327) show the possibility of such
constructions in Russian.
326.
Kuda on pošёl i
začem?
where he went and why
327.
Kuda i
začem on pošёl?
where and why
he went
Analyzing wh-construction using the sluicing approach will lead us to a conclusion that
Russian permits two directions of deletion in sluicing constructions; however there are
restrictions on sluicing with respect to directionality (Kazenin, 2002). Sluicing with a
‗stranded‘ wh-phrase is impossible when the stranded wh-phrase is an argument (328329). When the second wh-phrase is an adjunct, sluicing is able to operate in both
directions as is shown in (326-327).
328.
Kto prixodil i
začem?
who came and what for
Ktoi [ti prixodil] i začemj [proi prihodil tj]
329.
Začem prixodil i
why
came
kto?
and who
143
Začemj [proi prihodil tj] i ktoi [ti prihodil]?
The impossibility of stranding a wh-argument is explained under the sluicing analysis
by creating a cataphoric dependency between a wh-phrase and an empty pronoun in the
first IP. (329) is ungrammatical because of a cataphoric dependency, kto is the
antecedent of pro, unlike in (328) where no cataphoric dependency arises.
The sluicing approach fails to explain the ungrammaticality of examples with
unergative verbs as in (331) compared with (330) or with a non-wh-subject (333) as
compared to (332); there is no cataphoric dependency, though sentences are still
ungrammatical.
330.
Komu
on plakalsja i
to whom he cried
začem?
and why
Komui [on plakalsja ti] i
331.
*Začem on plakalsya i
why
he cried
začemj [on plakalsja tj]?
komu?
and to whom
Začemj [on plakalsja tj] i komui [on plakalsja ti]
332.
S
kem on razgovarival i
with whom he spoke
333.
and why
*Pochemu on razgovarival i
why
he talked
pochemu?
s
kem?
and with whom
Pochemuj [on razgovarival tj] i s kemi [on razgovarival ti]?
The last evidence against the sluicing analysis, proposed by Kazenin (2002), is the fact
that when two wh-phrases are coordinated without ellipsis, the wh-phrase of the first
conjunct can correspond either to an empty or to an overt pronominal in the second
conjunct (Kazenin, 2002).
334.
[Kogoi Petja izbil] i [za čto Petja egoi/??proi izbil]?
whom Peter beat and for what Peter him
beat
‗Whom did Peter beat and what for did Peter beat him?‘
335.
[Ktoi videl Petju]
i [kogda oni/??proi videl Petju]?
who saw Peter.ACC and when he
saw Peter.ACC
Who saw Peter and when did he see him?‘
144
According to Kazenin, we would expect to find an overt pronoun corresponding a whphrase in the first conjunct if it was a result of a sluicing operation. Thus, sluicing of
(334) is presented in (336), which is ungrammatical.
336.
*Kogoi i
za čto Petja egoi izbil?
whom and for what Peter him beat
Kogoi [Petja izbil ti] i za čto [Petja egoi/??proi izbil tj]?
Merchant (2008) mentions a few more problems with the sluicing analysis. One of the
examples comes from Hungarian where, according to Lipták (2003), definiteness
(object agreement on the verb) should be obligatorily, but here it is disallowed.
337.
a. Érdekel
(hogy) mit
csinálsz
és
hogyan csinál-od /*-sz.
interest.3S (that) what ACC do.2s INDEF and how
do2s DEF/*INDEF
‗I care about what you do and how.‘
b. Érdekel
(hogy) mit
és
hogyan csinál- *od /-sz.
interest.3S (that) what ACC and how
do2s *DEF/ INDEF
‗I care about what you do and how.‘
Another problem arises in Vlach, where the otherwise obligatory clitic in the second
conjunct cannot appear.
338.
a. Acari s
who
kundu (*łu) ai vijutu?
and when (him) have 2s seen
‗Who did you see, and when?‘
b. Acari ai
vijutu s
kundu *( łu) ai vijutu?
who have 2s seen and when (him) have 2s seen
‗Who did you see, and when?‘
Taking aside the sluicing option, I will refer to another possible analysis – coordination
of wh-phrases in CP.
145
4.3.3. Coordination in CP?
Gribanova (2009) assumes that all wh-elements are generated in their normal base
position and later join to IP (she adopts Rudin‘s (1988) analysis for Russian multiple
wh-elements) and the internal structure of the coordinated constituent has the structure
formulated in Zoerner (1995), where coordinated elements appear in the Spec and
complement of the head &.
&P
DP
DP
&
wh1
wh2
Taking Zoerner‘s proposal into account, Gribanova assumes the following structure for
coordinated multiple wh-constructions in IP-fronting languages.
CP
IP
C
IP
&P
t....t
wh
&
wh
Gribanova proposes the same structure for CP-fronting languages with the &P
constituent in the specifier position of the CP.
146
CP
C‘
&P
IP
wh
&
wh
t....t
Going back to a phenomenon observed in the beginning of section 4.3 (repeated in 339),
Gribanova (2009) argues that a different structural pattern is responsible for the
distribution of pair-list and single-pair readings. A coordinated wh-construction yields a
single-pair interpretation, while a non-coordinated wh-construction has only a pair-list
reading (Gribanova 2009:141).
339.
a. Kto i
The Germans conquered Paris.
(SP)
??The Germans conquered Paris, the Russians conquered Berlin,...
(PL)
b. Kto kakoj gorod zaxvatil?
who which city conquered
??The Germans conquered Paris.
(SP)
The Germans conquered Paris, the Russians conquered Berlin,....
(PL)
To explain the phenomenon above, Gribanova assumes that a certain type of structural
configuration at LF is the precondition for a pair-list reading to result, as in (339b). She
argues that the syntax of coordinated wh-constructions does not meet this precondition
and therefore the pair-list reading is unavailable. The structural precondition originates
from work on quantifier absorption (Higginbotham and May (1981), Barss (2000)).
147
Quantifier absorption can map two or more structurally adjacent quantifiers at
LF into one binary quantifier, which is a wh-item in this discussion.35The binary
quantifier binds all relevant variables simultaneously, giving rise to a bijective
interpretation for a multiple question (Gribanova 2002:145).
340.
Which man admires which woman?
[WHx: x a man][Why: y a woman] x admires y
[WH21,2 x,y: x a man & y a
woman] x admires y
Quantifier absorption is defined so that for every x there is a unique y, and for every y
there is a unique x. There is a presupposition that a complete answer to such a question
requires an exhaustive listing of pairs which results in a pair-list reading. Structural
adjacency for quantifiers at LF is a key to deriving the right distribution of pair-list and
single-pair interpretations. Therefore, in order to undergo quantifier absorption,
quantifiers must be in a particular structural configuration at LF – they must be
structurally adjacent as per the definition in (341) (Gribanova 2002:146).
341.
α and β are structurally adjacent iff
a. α c-commands β, and
b. α c-commands no head that c-command β.
(341b) requires that the c-command is immediate, i.e. no head may intervene between
the two quantifiers.36
Based on the requirement above, quantifier absorption is blocked in the
coordinated wh-constructions, i.e. there is an intervening head & which is ccommanded by wh1 and which itself c-commands wh2.
35
Gribanova (2009) points out that in Russian the syntactic ordering and structure of wh-elements can be
assumed to be identical to their LF ordering and structure.
36
Gribanova‘s proposal differs from previous proposals in defining structural precondition. Before the
precondition was formulated as a requirement of either α to immediately c-command β or that α and β ccommand each other (Gribanova 2002:146)
148
&P
&
The head & blocks structural adjacency
DP
DP
&
wh1
wh2
Therefore, the structural adjacency precondition for quantifier absorption is not met and
if we take adjacency as a relevant precondition for deriving the pair-list reading, then
coordinated wh-constructions are predicted never to result in pair-list interpretations
(Gribanova 2002). This prediction is confirmed by data from Russian as well as other
languages, i.e. Czech (342), Romanian (343), Hungarian (344), etc.
342.
Kdo a kdy to našel?
(Sp/*PL)
who and when it found-3SG
(Skrabalova,2006)
‗Who found it and where?‘
343.
Cine si pe cine a intalnit?
who and whom
(Sp/?PL)
met
(Soare, p.c.)
‗Who met and whom?‘
344.
Mikor és mit adott János Marinak a múzeumban?
when and what gave John Mary
to the museum in
(Sp/*PL)
(Gazdik, 2010)
‗What sis John give to Mary in the museum and when?‘
Therefore, adopting structural adjacency as a required configuration for
obtaining pair-list interpretation has produced the correct result, i.e. it prevents a
coordinated wh-construction from being assigned a pair-list reading.
Non-coordinated wh-constructions, on the other hand, meet the requirement for
structural adjacency as shown below, i.e. wh1 c-commands wh2 and wh1 c-commands no
head that c-command wh2.
149
CP
DP
C‘
IP
wh1
wh2
C
t....t
Gribanova (2009) correctly predicts that other wh-constructions, in which two wh-items
are not structurally adjacent, do not allow pair-list interpretation either. She refers to
Serbo-Croatian where an overt complementizer li appears between the two wh-elements
forcing single-pair reading (example taken from Grebenyova 2004:181).
345.
Ko
li
koga pozva na večeru?
who comp whom invited to dinner
‗Who (on earth) invited whom to dinner?‘
(SP/??PL)
Kazenin (2002) proposes another solution for accounting single-pair vs. pair-list
interpretations. According to Kazenin a pair-list interpretation is derived when the first
wh-element moves into the position designated for universal quantifiers at LF. Singlepair reading follows from the fact that moving of one of the coordinated wh-items in a
quantifier position would violate the Coordinate Structure Constraint37, which is
assumed to be operative at the LF. Since no wh-element can move out of the coordinate
structure to LF, no pair-list interpretation is obtained. Kazenin‘s analysis fails to explain
the lack of a pair-list interpretation in Serbo-Croatian examples with clitic placement.
It seems that the quantifier absorption analysis proposed by Gribanova (2009)
covers a broader range of cases. Although Gribanova‘s analysis looks most plausible,
there are a few cases an application of her analysis would serve inadequate.
First, her analysis does not explain why Superiority effect persists as in (346 349).
37
Ross (1967:98-99) introduced the Coordinate Structure Constraint which implies that in a coordinate
structure, no conjunct may be moved, nor may any element contained in a conjunct be moved out of that
conjunct.
150
346.
a. Ki és kiről
beszélt?
(Hungarian)
who and who.ABOUT talked
(Lipták, 2003)
‗Who talked and about whom?‘
b. ???Kiről
és
ki
beszélt?
who. ABOUT and who talked
347.
a. Kiedy i
ile
Jan zjadł pączków?
(Polish)
when and how-many Jan ate doughnuts
(Citko, 2008)
‗When and how many doughnuts did Jan eat?‘
b. *Ile
i
kiedy Jan zjadł pączków?
how-many and when Jan ate doughnuts
Intended: ‗How many doughnuts did Jan eat and when was it?‘
348.
a. Koj i
koga ste si
hodi v Bulgaria?
who and when will REFL go in Bulgaria
(Bulgarian)
(Gracanin-Yuksek, 2010)
‗Who is going to Bulgaria and when?‘
b.*Koga i
koj ste si
hodi v Bulgaria?
when and who will REFL go in Bulgaria
‗Who is going to Bulgaria and when?‘
349. a. Kto
i kakogo čërta pripersja?!
who and what
(Russian)
devil came
b.*Kakogo čërta i
what
kto pripersja?!
devil and who came
Secondly, coordination of more than two wh-elements, allows pair-list reading
350.
Kto kogo
i komu predstavil?
(PL/*SP)
who whom and who introduced
‗Who introduced who to whom?‘
351.
Kto kogo
i
gde vstretil?
(PL/*SP)
who whom and where met
‗Who met whom and where?‘
151
Finally, coordinator ‗i‘ must be placed before the last wh-element when there are more
than two wh-elements.
352.
Čto (*i)
gde
i
kogda slučilos?
what (and) where and when happened?
‗What happened when and where?‘
4.3.4. Spurious coordination
Based on the above discussion, it seems that the conjunction ‗i‘ which is used in
coordinated wh-constructions is not the ‗ordinary‘ conjunction that we see in sentences
like (353).
353.
Vladimir i
Alena vstretilis v restorane.
Vladimir and Alena met
in restaurant
‗Vladimir and Alena met at a restaurant.‘
In Russian, coordination is generally possible only for phrases of identical categories
which occupy identical syntactic positions, as we see in (353), where two arguments in
Nominative cases are coordinated.
It should be noted that Russian exhibits examples like (354), where NPs are not
expected to be conjoinable due to different categories and thematic roles.
354.
Vse
i
vsё
znajut.
Chaves and Paperno (2007)
everyonenom and everythingacc knows
‗Everyone knows everything.‘
This phenomenon was first noted by Sannikov (1989) and later referred to as hybrid
coordination by Chaves and Paperno (2007). In their discussion of hybrid coordination,
Chaves and Paperno point out that the presence of the conjunction does not alter the
meaning of the sentence, i.e. (355a) has basically the same meaning as (355b).
152
355.
a. Nikto
i
nikogo
ne
pobedit.
nobodynom and nobodyacc not will win
‗Nobody will beat anyone.‘
b. Nikto
nikogo
ne pobedit.
nobodynom nobodyacc not will win
‗Nobody will beat anyone.‘
It can be argued that the particle ‗i‘ is just homophonous with the conjunction lexeme ‗i‘
and there is no coordination as such. Moreover, there are instances when the particle ‗i‘
is realized as a focus particle with the meaning ‗even‘ as in (356) (Chaves and Paperno,
2007:3).
356.
Petya
i
Vanju pobedit.
Petja and (=even) Vanja will win
‗Petja will beat even Vania.‘
Clearly ‗i‘ does not function in (356) as a coordination conjunction, but as a focus
particle adjacent to Vanja which can be interpreted as ‗Vanja is one of the strongest
participants but Petja has shown that he is able to beat even Vanja‘.
Putting the focus particle ‗i‘ seen in (356) aside, Chaves and Paperno (2007)
come to a conclusion that the element ‗i‘ that we see in (354) and (355) is nothing else
but a coordination marker in hybrid coordination, because it does not explain the
absence of a focus reading seen in (356), or the fact that co-arguments cannot appear
discontinuously. Moreover, they argue that the entire sequence of the conjoined
elements behaves like a syntactic block in the conjunction.
Chaves and Paperno (2007) point out the same peculiarities that we came across
earlier in the discussion of coordinated wh-constructions. Hybrid coordination allows
for the ‗coordination of unlikes‘ phenomena (noticed first in Gazdar et al., 1985)
(examples from Chaves and Paperno (2007))
357.
Vsem
vezde
i
vsё
do lampochki
everyonedat everywhere and everythingnom don‟t care
‗Nobody cares about anything anywhere‘
153
358.
Ne sposoben nikto
not able
i
ni
s
kem pomenyat‘sya mestami
nobody and no with body change
places
‗Nobody is able to change places with anyone‘
In (357) the conjuncts include adverbials, while in (358) – a prepositional phrase. Note
that the same is observed for coordinated wh-elements.
359.
Čto
i
gde oni našli?
‗What did they found and where?‘
Chaves and Paperno (2007) note that hybrid coordination shows some restrictions that
are different from non-coordinate counterparts. a) none of the conjuncts can contain
modifier phrases, for example an adjective, as in (360) and b) conjuncts are required to
be of the same semantic type as in (361). (examples from Chaves and Paperno (2007))
360.
a. Vse
lysye vsё
znayut.
everyone bold everything knows
b. *Vse
lysye i
vsё
znayut.
everyone bold and everything knows
361.
*vse
i
chto-to
vidyat.
everybody and something see
It is clear from Chaves and Paperno‘s (2007) analysis that Russian has a coordination
construction with conjuncts that can have different grammatical roles. These structures
are non-canonical but have the same meaning as their non-coordinated counterparts.
Theses conjuncts also show a number of constraints that are not exhibited by standard
coordinated phrases, such as a) none of the conjuncts can contain modifier phrases, for
example an adjective and b) conjuncts are required to be of the same semantic type.
These constraints provide evidence that this is a special kind of coordination.
Comparing the data presented by Chaves and Paperno (2007) and data presented
in this section, we come to a conclusion that coordination in both instances is the case of
hybrid coordination, in Chaves and Paperno terms.
154
Now, returning to coordinated wh-constructions. Merchant (2008) analyzing
coordination in Vlach multiple fronting, encounters the same properties of conjunction
as discussed above and proposes to treat this conjunction as ‗spurious‘, which can be
p
used as a discourse marker and not meaning
q[p^q].
Merchant proposes the structure in (362) where the coordinator is spurious, i.e. it
does not coordinate the wh-phrases themselves, but rather occurs as a clausal left-edge
conjunctive particle (related to free focus uses of these elements).
362.
CP
WH1
&
C‘
WH2
C
IP
t1....t2
Merchant accounts for the same properties of coordinated questions in Vlach as we have
already noticed for Russian
Vlach coordinated wh-questions only allow single pair answers
363.
Acari (s) kundu ari vatimatə muma-ts?
who (and) when has killed
(*PL/SP)
mother-your
‗Who killed your mother and when?‘
Merchant notes that without the conjunction s ‗and‘ in Vlach, the question becomes
infelicitous due to the one-time-only nature of the predicate. Interestingly, in Russian,
some coordinated constructions exhibit the same property. Thus, example (364)
becomes infelicitous without the conjunction.
364.
Kto i
kakogo čërta pripersja?!
who and what
devil came
155
(*PL/SP)
Multiple wh-fronting languages which exhibit Superiority effect show that the
Superiority effect persists in spurious coordinated questions.
365.
a. Ki és kiről
beszélt?
(Hungarian)
who and who.ABOUT talked
(Lipták, 2003)
b. ???Kiről
és ki
beszélt?
whoABOUT and who talked
366.
a. Kto
i kakogo čërta pripersja?!
who and what
(Russian)
devil came
b.*Kakogo čërta i
what
kto pripersja?!
devil and who came
The coordinated wh-elements cannot occur in ‗balanced‘ coordination, i.e. coordination
where conjuncts have the same grammatical, morphological, thematical features (for
morphologically rich languages) as in Russian (367), contra ‗canonical‘ coordination,
which must be balanced as in (368).
367.
O
kom
i
s
kem
ty razgovarival?
about whomPREP (and) withINSTR whom you talked
‗Who did you talk about and with whom?‘
368.
Ja ne ljublju smotret‘ filmy o
I not like
watch
politike
i
o
movies about politicsPREP and about warPREP
‗I do not like watching movies about politics and war.‘
The same has been noted for Vlach by Merchant (2008)
369.
a. *S acari s
vojne
či ari vijtu?
and who and what has seen
‗Who saw something and what did they see?‘
156
b. S
fičorlu s
fiata
anu vijutu mama-ts
and the boy and the girl have seen
mother-your
‗Both the boy and the girl saw your mother.‘
In order to account for the lack of pair-list interpretation, Merchant agrees with the
Quantifier Absorption analysis offered by Gribanova (2009). He also attempts to offer
another possibility where the conjunction itself imposes the presupposition for a singlepair answer. This suggestion is ruled out by the data in (370), where only a pair-list
interpretation is available, though conjoined by a spurious &.
370.
Kto kogo
i
gde vstretil?
(PL/*SP)
Based on the discussion of the examples above, I will follow Chaves and Paperno
(2007) and Merchant (2008) in their proposal to treat conjunction in wh-coordination
differently from a canonical conjunction; I will refer to this phenomenon as ‗spurious‘
coordination following Merchant.
Following Merchant, I assume that the coordinator ‗i‘ is spurious in that it does
not coordinate the wh-phrases themselves, but rather occurs as a clausal left-edge
conjunctive particle (related to free focus uses of these elements).
4.3.5. The analysis
Before proposing a structure that can capture spurious wh-coordination, I outline a few
more peculiarities that will allow me to offer a structure in the end.
First, I would like to address puzzling examples in (371 and 372), where the
pair-list interpretation arises, though it should not, according to quantifier absorption
analysis.
157
371.
Kto kogo i
gde vstretil?
(PL/*SP)
372.
Kto kogo i
komu predstavil?
(PL/*SP)
who whom and who introduced
This also rules out Kazenin‘s proposal which suggests that a single-pair reading follows
from the fact that the moving of one of the coordinated wh-item in a quantifier position
would violate the Coordinate Structure Constraint.
Secondly, it is important to point out that coordinated wh-elements form a
cluster, and any insertion of any kind of elements is impossible.
373.
*Kto, v 1975,
i
who in 1975, and which city
374.
*Kto, Maša interesovalas,
conquered
kogo i
komu predstavil?
who Masha was interesred, whom and who introduced
375.
O
kom Misha i
s
kem razgovarival, a ne Vanja?
about whom Misha and with whom talked,
a not Vanja
Taking the various presented above into consideration, I partially adopt structure
proposed by Zoerner (1995) and Gribanova (2009) and suggest the following structure
for coordinated wh-construction.
376.
Kto i
kogo videl?
who and whom saw
‗Who saw somebody and who was it?‘
158
ForceP
FocP
FinP
Spec
IP
ktoi
kogoj
(who)
&
(whom)
IP
ti....tj
I assume that wh-elements are coordinated above the IP after they move to a
[Spec;FocP] where spurious ‗i‘ realises as a discourse marker bearing some focus
features. Wh elements move directly to FocP and not to whP based on the data in
(Error! Reference source not found.), which suggests that coordinated wh-elements
and a focused element cannot co-exist, i.e. they are competing for the same
position.Quantifier Absorption takes place at LF level and the question gets a singlepair interpretation.
Let‘s consider now a wh-question with three wh-elements two of which are
coordinated.
377.
Kto kogo
i
komu predstavil?
(PL/*SP)
who whom and whom introduced
ForceP
FocP
ktoi
WhP
(who)
WhP
Spec
FinP
ti
kogoj
(who)
&
IP
komuk
(who)
ti..tj...tk
159
I assume that in the case of three wh-elements, the highest wh-element kto moves to
[ForceP] where it checks [Q] feature. The two lower ones move to a [Spec;FocP] where
they form a cluster. When the cluster is formed, coordinated wh-elements stay in [FocP]
since kto has already checked the [Q] feature. Kto + cluster [kogo&komu] form a union
which satisfies requirements of the quantifier absorption, i.e. kto + cluster are
structurally adjacent and the c-command is immediate, i.e. no head may intervene
between the two quantifiers a la Gribanova (2002:146).
378.
α and β are structurally adjacent iff
a. α c-commands β, and
b. α c-commands no head that c-command β.
Kto + cluster is a non-coordinated wh-construction, which meets the requirement for
structural adjacency, i.e. wh1 c-commands wh2 and wh1 c-commands no head that ccommand wh2
Therefore, the construction in (377) yields a pair-list interpretation.
To summarize, coordinator ‗i‟ found between wh-phrases in Russian is a spurious
coordinator, in Merchant‘s terms, which is different from a canonical coordinator. It can
be characterized as a discourse marker bearing some focus features. Multiple whfronting languages which exhibit Superiority effect show that the Superiority effect
persists in spurious coordinated questions. Conjunction ‗i‘ seems to be mandatory in
some examples Kto i kakogo čërta pripersja?! - ‗Who came and why the hell did he?‘
furthermore, presence of spurious ‗i‘ forces single-pair reading, unless a wh-question
has three wh-elements.
Putting this issue aside, let us address now phenomenon of complementizer čto –‗that‘
briefly mentioned in section 4.1.1. I discuss this subject thoroughly in Chapter 5.
160
CHAPTER 5. MYSTERY OF THAT-TRACE EFFECT
In section 4.1.1, we came across examples where presence of a complementizer čto
(that) can alter the meaning of the sentence. Recall examples from previous chapter
repeated below in (379) which show that the matrix clause is modified whenever a
complementizer čto (that) is present and the embedded clause is modified in its absence.
The example in (379a) shows local dependency and a modified matrix clause, while
example in (379b) shows long-distance dependencies and a modified embedded clause.
379.
a. Kogda on skazal, čto Alex pridet?
when
(only matrix)
he said that Alex will come
Answer: He told me yesterday.
b. Kogda on skazal Alex pridet?
when
(only embedded)
he said Alex will come
Answer: Alex is coming on Tuesday.
The above examples show that the presence of čto (that) changes the meaning of the
sentence and does not allow ambiguous readings, while the absence of the
complementizer forces the embedded clause reading. I refer to this phenomenon as thattrace effect which has been well addressed by many linguists among which Cowart
(1997), Beletti & Rizzi (1988), Pesetsky (1982), Bayer (1984), Haider (1983),
Grewendorf (1988), Szczegielniak (1999), Featherston (2005), etc.; however this
phenomenon has not received enough attention from linguists working in the Russian
language.
161
It has been observed for English that the presence of that forces a reading on the matrix
clause, whereas its absence makes the reading ambiguous as in (380)38.
380.
a. Why did you say that he was coming?
(only matrix)
b. Why did you say he was coming?
(ambiguous)
English reveals a clear subject-object asymmetry; this effect has been extensively
studied by Cowart (1997). In English, extraction of a wh-subject out of a clause with
that is not allowed, while an object can be easily extracted (381).
381.
a. *Whoi do you think [ ti´ that [ti will be coming]]
(subject extraction)
a.´ Whoi do you think [ ti´ [ti will be coming]]
b. Whati do you think [ti´ that [Kim gave away ti]]
(object extraction)
b.´ Whati do you think [ti´ [Kim gave away ti]]
Bayer (1984) claims that there is no subject-object asymmetry for certain dialects in
German, particularly in Bavarian (382).
382.
a. Weri meinst du [ ti daβ [ti ihn geküβt hat]]
who think you
that
him kissed has
b. Ich weiβ nicht [weri daβ [ti ihn geküβt hat]]
I
know not
who that
him kissed has
The same has been claimed for pro-drop languages, such as Italian and Spanish (383)
(Szczegielniak, 1999) and Polish (Stepanov and Georgopoulos, 1995).
383.
Chii credi [ti che [ti verra a visitarci]]
who think
384.
that
will
visit
(Italian)
(Pesetsky 1982)
a. Kogoi myślisz , ti że Maria pızyprowadzi ti
who (you) think that Mary bring
(Polish)
(Szczegielniak, 1999)
‗Who do you think that Mary will bring‘
38
It should be pointed out that (380a) can be judged as ‗ambiguous‘ by some native speakers
162
b. Kogoi myślisz, ti że ti pızyprowadzi Marię
who (you) think that will bring
Mary
‗You think that who will bring Mary‘
Russian data, that I have collected, also exhibit the absence of subject-object asymmetry
as in (385). If in Polish, Italian, and certain dialects of German extraction is possible of
both subject and object, in Russian neither subject nor object can be extracted out of
embedded clauses with čto in C, supporting judgements offered by Stepanov and
Georgopoulos (1995).
385.
a. *Ktoi ty dumaeš‘ [ ti´ čto [ti kupil košku ]]
who you think
that
(subject extraction)
bought cat
* ‗Who do you think that bought a cat?‘
a´. Ktoi ty dumaeš‘ [ ti´ [ti kupil
who you think
košku ]]
bought cat
b. *Čtoi ty dumaeš‘ [ ti´ čto [prines Peter ti]]
what you think
(object extraction)
that brought Peter
‗What do you think that peter brought?‘
b´. Čtoi ty dumaeš‘ [prines Peter ti]]
what you think
brought Peter
Therefore, how can one explain this phenomenon? Why are extractions out of
clauses with a complementizer impossible? Why does this particular placement of čto
influence the interpretation of the sentence?
This chapter aims at answering these questions and proposing the analysis which
might be closer to explaining the nature of the phenomenon than the ones that already
exist. First, I will present some analyses proposed in the literature and show their
insufficiency in accounting Russian data.
163
5.1.
Indicative complementizer ‘čto’
5.1.1. An NIC approach
One of approaches that have been suggested in order to account for that-trace effect was
offered by Pesetsky (1982), where he makes use of the Nominative Island Condition
(NIC) proposed by Chomsky (1980:13):
NIC: A nominative anaphor in S cannot be free in S´ containing S.
Following the NIC proposal, a wh-trace behaves like an anaphor which should be
governed by a wh-element (Szczegielniak, 1999). This condition is violated in (386a),
since it has to be deleted in order to satisfy Doubly Filled Comp filter, making the
sentence ungrammatical.
Doubly Filled Comp filter:
No CP can have both an overt specifier and an overt complementizer
generated in C
386.
a. *Whoi do you think [ ti´ that [ti bought a radio ]]
b. Whoi do you think [ ti´ [ti bought a radio ]]
Therefore, following the Doubly Filled Comp filter the trace ti´ should be deleted in
(386a), which in turn violates the NIC, whereas example in (386b) does not violate any
of two conditions, leaving the sentence grammatical.
The examples in (387) do not pose any problems, since object traces are immune
to NIC and the ti can be deleted to satisfy Doubly Filled Comp filter (Szczegielniak,
1999).
387.
a. Whati do you think [ti´ that [Roger bought ti]].
b. Whati do you think [ti´ [Roger bought ti]].
164
Russian data show a potential problem for the NIC approach. While English has a
subject/object asymmetry in the case of wh-extraction across that-complementizer,
Russian, on the other hand, does not show such asymmetry; moreover, it does not allow
such extractions at all (388) (Stepanov & Georgopoulos, 1995).
388.
a. Kogoi ty dumaeš‘, ti (*čto) privedet Elena ti?
who you think
that will-bring Elena
‗Who do you think that Elena will bring?‘
b. Ktoi ty dumaeš‘, ti (*čto) ti videl Elenu?
who you think
that
saw Elena
‗Who do you think saw Elena?‘
Following the NIC approach, the example in (388b) shows a violation of NIC when the
trace is deleted to satisfy Doubly Filled Comp filter, and thus the sentence is
ungrammatical. This approach fails to explain ungrammaticality in (388a) where kogo is
an object and a non-nominative anaphora, and thus should be immune to NIC, yet it is
still ungrammatical. This suggests that Russian objects behave the same way as
subjects, i.e. an anaphor cannot be free in CP, which is problematic for the NIC
approach. Therefore, I put this analysis aside and turn my attention to another one.
5.1.2. An ECP account (Rizzi, 1990)
Rizzi (1990) suggests another account of ‗that trace‘ effect employing the Government
and Binding framework and utilizing the notions of antecedent and head government as
per Relativized Minimality (1990).
Relativized Minimality: . . .X. . .Z. . .Y. . .
X α-governs Y only if there is no Z such that
(i) Z is a typical potential α-governor for Y,
(ii) Z c-commands Y and does not c-command X.
165
He proposes that traces are subject to the Empty Category Principle (Rizzi, 1990:32),
which requires that empty categories be properly governed.
(i)
A non-pronominal empty category must be:
(i)
Properly Head Governed
(ii)
Antecedent Governed or Theta Governed
Szczegielniak (1999) mentions that there two views on ‗proper‘ government.
Kayne (1984) introduced a canonical notion of government, in which a language has a
specified ‗canonical‘ direction of government (OV vs VO). In this view, X properly
governs Y if X canonically governs Y.
Rizzi presents a different version of ‗proper‘ government where X governs
within X‘. (Rizzi, 1990:31). Rizzi defines Head Government as in (ii) and Antecedent
Government as in (iii).
(ii)
Head Government: X head governs Y iff
(i) X € {A, N, P, V, Agr, T}
(ii) X m-commands Y39
(iii) no barrier intervenes
(iv) Relativized Minimality is respected
39
Chomsky (1986) defines m-command as: X m-commands Y if and only if

X does not dominate Y,

Y does not dominate X, and

the maximal projection of X dominates Y
X m-commands everything that XP dominates, except for X‘, which dominates X
XP
X’
YP
X
Y’
Y
166
(iii) Antecedent Government: X antecedent-governs Y iff
(i) X and Y are co-indexed
(ii) X c-commands Y
(iii) no barrier intervenes
(iv) Relativized Minimality is respected
Rizzi argues that according to the definition of government only SVO languages would
have that-trace effect, inasmuch as in VSO or SOV languages Infl governs the subject.
Moreover, Rizzi argues that in languages with Agreement in COMP, that-trace effect
should not be present at all, given that C becomes a potential governor. This has been
confirmed by the data from Bavarian German and West Flemish, where C is filled with
appropriate morpho-syntactic features like tense or agreement (Szczegielniak, 1999).
In order to explain the antisymmetry in (389), Rizzi combines the formulation of
ECP presented in (ii) and Relativized Minimality, which states that a governor cannot
govern inside the domain of another governor, i.e. X cannot govern Y if there is a closer
potential governor Z for Y (…X…Z…Y).
389.
a. Whoi do you think [ ti´ that [Bill saw ti]]
b. *Whoi do you think [ ti´ that [ti left]]
Thus in (389b) the antecedent ti´ governs ti, but the latter is not properly head governed.
That does not govern ti, since it is not endowed with IP features. Thus, the subject trace
is not properly head governed and as a result the ECP is violated (Rizzi, 1990:33).
Object extraction in (389a) does not violate ECP, because the verb fulfils both
requirements: it properly head-governs and theta-governs the object trace.
The lack of a complementizer makes (389b) grammatical, as in (390). This
allows Rizzi to distinguish two complementizers: one of which is realized as that and
another one as AgrP.
390.
Whoi do you think [ti´ [ti left]]
Rizzi argues for that to be inert for government, while Agr belongs to the class of
governors. An occurrence of Agr must be licensed by co-indexation with its specifier,
167
which must be filled by a wh-operator or a trace (Rizzi, 1990:52). Following from the
said above, (391) will be represented as follows:
391.
Whoi do you think [ ti´ Agr [ti Infl left]]
The subject trace in (391) is properly head-governed by Agr, which is in the head of
Comp and antecedent-governed by the Spec of Comp (Rizzi, 1990:53).
Following Rizzi‘s approach, one would predict that object extraction out of an
embedded clause over čto will not violate ECP, inasmuch as it would be properly headgoverned and antecedent/theta-governed. Yet, the example in (392b) is still
ungrammatical.
392.
a.*Ktoi ty dumaeš‘ [ ti´ čto [ti kupil
who you think
radio ]]
that bought radio
‗Who do you think bought a radio?‘
a.´Ktoi ty dumaeš‘ [ ti´ [ti kupil
who you think
radio ]]
bought radio
b.*Čtoi ty dumaeš‘ [ ti´ čto [Roger kupil ti]]
what you think
that Roger bought
‗What do you think that Roger bought?‘
b.´Čtoi ty dumaeš‘ [ ti [Roger kupil ti]]
what you think
Roger bought
Notice that the absence of the complementizer čto in (392a´ and 392b´) makes the
sentences perfectly grammatical, but does it suggest a presence of some AgrP which
would satisfy ECP? I will address this issue later in the Chapter.
Based on the data presented in (392), we will put Rizzi‘s analysis aside and
consider other proposals.
168
5.1.3. Richards‟ account (1999)
Richards proposes another account on that-trace effect, assuming a copy theory of
movement and suggesting that subject/object asymmetry arises in languages like
English, where subjects are hard to extract because PF must receive clear instructions
about which copy of movement to pronounce (Szczegielniak, 1999). He suggests that
only positions which check strong features are spelled out at PF, and if an element
checks more than one strong feature, which occurs on separate heads, PF does not get
clear instructions which copy to pronounce. This explains subject/object asymmetry in
English (393), where who, being a wh-subject, checks a strong EPP feature in [Spec;TP]
((393a), whereas the object does not ((393b).
393.
a. *Whoi do you think [ ti´ that [ti bought a radio ]]
b. Whati do you think [ ti´ that [Roger bought ti]]
c. Whoi do you think [ ti [ti bought a radio ]]
Based on the above discussion, (393c) should be ungrammatical, inasmuch as who
checks a strong EPP feature, suggesting that the analysis proposed holds that a subject
should never be extracted. In order to account for subject extraction in an example like
(393c), Richards suggests that null complementizers are actually affixes which require a
host, preventing pied-piping of the whole subordinate clause to satisfy wh-features on
the matrix CP. We end up with a situation where either the PF spell-out condition or the
null complementizer stranding condition40 has to be violated in order to move wh-
40
The complementizer stranding condition suggests that the complementizer that cannot be stranded by
the movement of IP in either direction. The whole CP can move to the front by undergoing leftward
movement (b), for example, via tapicalization; however the IP alone cannot move, leaving that behind (c).
(Sun-Woong Kim, 2008)
a. Mary told herself [that John is a fool] at least twice a day.
b. [That John is a fool], Mary told herself at least twice a day.
c. *[John is a fool], Mary told herself [that] at least twice a day.
169
elements out of embedded clauses. Richards claims that the null complementizer
stranding condition outranks the PF spell-out condition and that we have subject
movement over a null complementizer (Szczegielniak, 1999).
This approach would predict that Russian objects check strong EPP features,
since extraction out of an embedded clause with a complementizer is impossible (394).
394.
*Čtoi ty dumaeš‘ [ ti čto [Roger kupil ti]]
what you think
that Roger bought
Indeed, Russian objects can check EPP features, as has been noted by (Bailyn, 2004).
This notion is known as Generalized Inversion, where an object moves to check EPP
features, forcing the verb to move over subject, which, in its turn, stays in-situ.
395.
[Etu knigu] čitaet Ivan
(Bailyn, 2004:4)
this book reads Ivan
‘Ivan reads this book.‘
However, the example in (394) does not seem to be the case of object shift: Bailyn
(2004:33) points out the requirement of verb-raising in inversion when an XP that
satisfies the EPP is a non-Nominative.
Richards‘ analysis would also predict that languages like Polish and Italian,
where subject/object asymmetry is absent, do not have a strong EPP feature on IPs,
since extraction of both subject and object do not pose any problems. In addition, his
proposal does not take into account Criterial freezing, which suggests that when an
element moves to a position to check features, it freezes and cannot move further. I
present an account offered by Rizzi and Shlonsky (2007) later in the chapter, which
proposes a solution to Criterial freezing, but first I outline main points of
Szczegielniak‘s (1999) proposal.
170
5.1.4. Szczegielniak (1999)
Szczegielniak (1999) makes another attempt to account for that-trace effect by
expanding Rizzi‘s proposal which suggests the existence of two complementizers, one
of which is realized as that and the other as AgrP.
Szczegielniak (1999:13) argues that English null complementizers pattern with
the German and West Flemish agreeing complementizers (396 and 397), which clearly
indicate that features like agreement can be easily checked in the CP.
396.
a. Damid ich komm
(Munich Bavarian)
sothat I come
b. damidsd
kommsd
sothat-2SG come
397.
a. Da-t
marie goa-t
(West Flemish, Shlonsky 1994, Haegeman 1992)
that -3SG Marie fo-3SG
b. da-n
Marie en Valére goa-n
that-3PL Marie and Valére
Expanding Rizzi‘s account, Szczegielniak (1999) offers two complementizer positions
in CP: C1, which bears agreement features and located lower than C2; and C2 which does
not bear any [φ] features.
398.
C2P
C1P
Spec
C2
-wh
-φ
TP
Spec
C1
+wh
+φ
Spec
T
171
He suggests that Russian complementizers are of the C2 type where no feature checking
takes place. English, on the other hand, exhibits two types of complementizers, with
that belonging to the C2 type, whereas a null complementizer is of the C1 type, bearing
subject [φ] features.
Furthermore, Szczegielniak suggests successive phase cyclic movement in
languages with an agreeing complementizer where movement of the subject to a CP
phase periphery position is possible. This leads to a conclusion that languages with a C 1
type will not exhibit that-trace effect.
Modifying Chomsky‘s (1995) proposal, Szczegielniak suggests that an embedded C
can serve as a non-feature checking landing site for a phase XP, which undergoes overt
movement if that XP has moved to the periphery of a phase.
399.
a.*Whoi do you think [CP ti´ that ti bought a radio]
b. Whati do you think [CP ti´ that Roger bought ti]
400.
a. Who do you think [CP bought a radio]
Szczegielniak assumes that embedded C in (399a, b) cannot have any features because
of the overt complementizer (C2 type). In cases when there is no overt complementizer
(400), C1 attracts subject from [Spec;CP], placing it in a phase periphery position.
It is crucial to understand the derivation for the examples in (399), presented in (401):
401.
a. [SpecT Roger2 [Spec2 vP whati [Spec1 vP t2 [v bought]…t1]]]
b. [SpecT whoi [Spec1 vP ti [vP bought a radio]]]
Szczegielniak argues that in (401a), when V is introduced, the subject is merged in
[Spec;VP], and later the wh-object moves out of VP to the outer [Spec;vP], at which
stage both the subject and the object are at a phase periphery position. When T is
introduced the subject raises to [Spec;TP] to check EPP feature; thus, when CP is
introduced, the subject is no longer in a phase periphery position, whereas the object is.
It is for this reason that an object is allowed to undergo successive cyclic movement,
while the subject is ‗frozen‘ in [Spec;TP]. Subject wh-words can be fronted if they are
first moved to [Spec;CP], an agreeing Complementizer is needed to attract the Subject
for feature checking. Movement proceeds automatically via the edges of phases (‗phase
172
hoping‘ in Szczegielniak‘s terminology). The movement to a phase periphery position
must be independently triggered by the feature composition of the C or v head, and the
landing side must have a feature to check, since PF spelling-out happens at the last
feature checking position (Szczegielniak, 1999:16).
In English, a null complementizer attracts a subject to [Spec;CP], which thus
occupies a phase periphery position and can move further, while the C2 complementizer
that blocks the subject from moving to a phase periphery position and thus blocks it
from successive movement (Szczegielniak, 1999). According to Szczegielniak, with a
C1 type complementizer, a subject moves directly to [Spec;CP] to check EEP features
while avoiding [Spec;TP] where the EPP features are normally checked. Szczegielniak
does not give clear explanations as to why a subject skips [Spec;TP] and ends up in
[Spec;CP].
Szczegielniak argues that only C1 type complementizers license a Spec position
and at the same time can have an overt complementizer which allows subject extraction
(402).
402.
Ktoi myslisz,
who (you) think
[CP ti´ ze ti przyprowadzi Marie]
that
bring
(Polish)
Mary
‗Who do you think brought Mary?‘
Now, how can his approach be implemented for Russian? Szczegielniak (1999)
suggests that a higher C2P in Russian is not a phase, and clauses with any overt
complementizer block any kind of extraction. Thus, phase hopping goes through every
phase position, and if any step is blocked then the whole movement is invalid.
Szczegielniak does not give an explanation for what happens in the examples with a
null complementizer; moreover, he points out that it is not an instance of agreeing null
complementizers which heads a phase, as in English.
Szczegielniak (1999) emphasizes that in Russian every overt complementizer
blocks any kind of extraction. I would disagree with this statement, since there are
instances in Russian, when a complementizer allows both subject and object extraction
out of an embedded clause, as in the case of a subjunctive complementizer čtoby-‗that‘
(403).
173
403.
a. Kto ty hočeš‘ *(čtoby) prišël na svadbu?
who you want
thatSUBJ came on wedding
‗Who do you want to come for the wedding?‘
b. Kogo ty hočeš‘ *(čtoby)
who you want
ja priglasila?
thatSUBJ I invited
‗Who do you want me to invite?‘
This yields yet another ‗abnormality‘: the absence of subject/object asymmetry and
allowance of both elements to be extracted. I investigate this phenomenon in section
5.2.
Leaving Szczegielniak‘s approach aside for now, I address another proposal
offered by Rizzi and Shlonsky (2007) for treating subject/object asymmetry
5.1.5. Rizzi and Shlonsky (2007)
Rizzi and Shlonsky (2007) propose a different analytic path to subject/object asymmetry
which avoids some problems with the approaches discussed above.
In their paper, they adopt two ideas presented in Rizzi (2006):
a)
An element moved to a position dedicated to some scope-discourse interpretive
property, a criterial position, is frozen in place (Criterial freezing)
b)
Classical EPP, the requirement that clauses have subjects, can be restated as a
criterial requirement, the Subject Criterion.
(Rizzi and Shlonsky, 2007)
Subject Criterion is understood as a functional head Subject, distinct from and higher
than T and other heads in the functional structure of the clause (Cinque, 1999), which
attracts a nominal to its Spec and determines the subject-predicate articulation (Rizzi
and Shlonsky, 2007). Thus, in accordance with (b) thematic subjects move to the
Criterial subject position, where, according to (a), they are frozen by a Criterial Freezing
principle.
174
(404a) is ruled out by Criterial Freezing, while in (404b), no problem arises for object
extractions, since there is no Object Criterion, parallel to Subject Criterion (Rizzi and
Shlonsky, 2007).
404.
a. *Qui crois-tu [que [tqui va gagner]]?41
who think you that
(French)
will win
(Rizzi and Shlonsky, 2007)
‗Who do you think will win?‘
b. Qui crois-tu [que [Paul va aider tqui ]]?
who think you that Paul will help
‗Who(m) do you think that Paul will help?‘
This kind of approach to subject/object asymmetry provides an account for
immovability of subjects, although there are quite a few languages allowing subject
extractions out of embedded clauses, e.g. Polish and Italian.
405.
Chii credi [ti che [ti verra a visitarci]]
who think
406.
that
Ktoi myslisz,
will
(Italian)
visit
(Pesetsky 1982)
[CP ti´ ze ti przyprowadzi Marie]
who (you) think
that
bring
Mary
(Polish)
(Szczegielniak 1999)
Rizzi and Shlonsky (2006; 2007) provide two main strategies for forming such
questions:
1)
Fixed subject strategies: the subject does not move and remains in its frozen
position in [Spec;Subj], and an A´ construction involving subject is obtained with either
no movement at all or with movement of a larger constituent (clause pied-piping).
41
Note that when a complementizer qui is used instead of que, the sentence is grammatical.
Qui crois- tu qui va
gagner?
who think you that will win
‗Who do you think will win?‘
This phenomenon has been analysed by Taraldsen (2001) as qui=que+Expl. An Expletive is able to check
Subject Criterion, and thus it allows the thematic subject to be extracted. I will discuss this issue later in
the chapter.
175
2)
Skipping strategies: the subject moves by skipping the freezing position and is
extracted directly from its thematic position or from some other predicate-internal
position.
The most straightforward case study of the first strategy is the use of a
resumptive pronoun for A‘ constructions involving embedded subjects (Rizzi and
Shlonsky, 2007).
Rizzi and Shlonsky study subject-object asymmetry in Hebrew, where an object
resumptive pronoun can easily appear in-situ (407a) or be fronted to a topic or a topic
like position in CP (407b-c), while subject resumptive pronoun should remain in-situ
(408) (Rizzi and Shlonsky, 2007).
407.
a. Kaniti
raca
et ha-šulxan še Xana
amra še Dalya ma‘amina še Kobi
oto.
(I)bought ACC the-table that Hannah said that Dalya
believes that Kobi
wanted him
‗I bought the table that Hannah said that Dalya believes that Kobi wanted.‘
b. Kaniti
et
ha-šulxan še Xana amra še Dalya ma‘amina še oto
Kobi raca t.
(I)bought ACC the-table
that Hannah said that Dalya believes that him
Kobi wanted
c. Kaniti
et
ha-šulxan še Xana
amra še oto Dalya ma‘amina še
Kobi raca t.
(I)bought ACC the-table that Hannah said that him Dalya believes that
Kobi wanted
408.
a. Kaniti
et
ha-šulxan še Xana
amra še Dalya ta‘ana še
hu ya‘ale harbe kesef.
(I)bought ACC the-table that Hannah said that Dalya claimed that
he wil cost a lot money
‗I bought the table that Hannah said that Dalya claimed that will cost a lot of
money.‘
b.*Kaniti
ya‘ale
et
ha-šulxan še Xana
amra še hu Dalya ta‘ana še
harbe kesef.
(I) bought ACC the-table that Hannah said that he Dalya claimed that
will cost a lot money
176
The data in (407) was presented by Borer (1984) as example of the successive cyclic
nature of wh-elements. Borer attributes the ungrammaticality in (408b) to subject
relative operators: a language specific lexical property (Rizzi and Shlonsky, 2007).
Rizzi and Shlonsky explain the ungrammaticality in examples like (408b) by the
fact that the subject resumptive pronoun satisfies the Subject Criterion in [Spec;Subj]
and ends up being frozen in the position, while the object resumptive pronoun is not,
given that there is no Object Criterion.
Rizzi and Shlonsky (2007) come across data where a sentence with a null
relative operator is perfectly grammatical as in (409), which demonstrates conclusively
that Hebrew must possess some device for extracting a subject without moving it first to
[Spec;Subj], where it gets frozen.
409.
Kaniti
et
ha-šulxan še Xana
amra še Dalya ta‘ana še ya‘ale
harbe kesef.
(I)bought ACC the-table that Hannah said that Dalya claimed that will cost
a lot money
‗I bought the table that Hannah said that Dalya claimed that will cost a lot of
money.‘
Rizzi and Shlonsky (2007) suggest that the reason for the subject resumptive pronoun
being forced to move to [Spec;Subj] is the weak nature of resumptive pronouns.
Pronouns in (407) and (408) are considered to be weak, inasmuch as they are associated
with an inanimate relative head. A weak pronoun cannot violate a positional constraint;
it is assumed that a weak pronoun is licensed in a [Spec;Head], plausibly [Spec;Subj]
for weak subject pronouns. As a result, a weak subject pronoun must move to
[Spec;Subj] to satisfy the requirement, where it gets frozen. Relative operators, on the
other hand, are not weak pronouns, and they can ‗skip‘ the freezing position as in (409).
The technique of ‗skipping,‘ proposed by Rizzi and Shlonsky (2007) as a second
strategy, is discussed after addressing clausal pied-piping
Another case study of fixed subject strategy is clausal pied-piping discussed by Rizzi
and Shlonsky (2007) on example of Imbabura Quechua.
It has been noted that Criterial freezing prohibits satisfaction of the criteria in
‗passing,‘ i.e. the same element cannot satisfy two or more criteria. Although, it has
177
been seen in some languages that clausal pied-piping can solve the problem of
simultaneous satisfaction of several Criterion as well as subject extraction.
Imbabura Quechua, as well as Hebrew, shows subject/object asymmetry. An
object can be extracted by wh-movement directly to the matrix Comp (410a), or by whmovement to an embedded Comp, and then by pied-piping of the whole embedded CP
to the left (410b) (Rizzi and Shlonsky, 2007).
410.
a. [Ima -ta] -taj Maria -ka Juzi miku-shka
-ta
kri-n?
what ACC Q Maria TOP José eat-NOMINALIZER ACC believe-AGR
‗What does Maria believe that José ate?‘
b. [ima -ta wawa miku –chun] -taj Maria kri
what ACCchild eat
FIN
-n?
Q Maria believe-AGR
‗What does Maria believe (that) the child eat?‘
Lit. ‗[What the child eat] does Maria believe?‘
A subject wh-extraction out of an embedded clause is possible only by means of
embedded clause pied-piping as in (411b); while in (411a) a Subject moves to
[Spec;Subj] to satisfy Subject Criterion, becoming frozen, and thus cannot move further
to the left without violating Criterial Freezing (Rizzi and Shlonsky, 2007:9).
411.
a.*[pi] -taj Maria –ka chayamu-shka
-ta
kri
-n?
who Q Maria TOP arrive-NOMINALIZER ACC believe AGR
‗Who does Maria believe (that) has arrived?‘
b. [Pi chayamu-shka
-ta] -taj Maria___ kri
who arrive-NOMINALIZER Acc Q Maria
-n ?
believe AGR
‗Who does Maria believe (that) has arrived?‘
(411b) satisfies both Subject and Q Criteria without violating Criterial Freezing, i.e. whsubject pi moves to [Spec;Subj]
inside the embedded clause to satisfy Subject
Criterion, after this Criterion is satisfied, the whole embedded clause [pi chayamu-shkata] moves to [Spec;CP] to satisfy Q Criterion.
Rizzi and Shlonsky (2007) have one issue with this strategy: when a wh-Subject
moves to [Spec;Subj], it freezes there and the pied-piped phrase must have a whelement in its [Spec;CP]. Assuming that IP movement (leaving C stranded) does not
178
solve the problem, it would then follow that IP is not a Phase and thus inaccessible to
long distance movement. In order to solve this problem, Rizzi and Shlonsky introduce a
mechanism which allows local subject movement to C, based on example from
Imbabura Quechua, where precedence of wh-subject over the Q head taj indicates
movement of the wh-subject further.
412.
[pi] -taj shamu -rka?
who Q left
AGR
‗Who left?‘
Rizzi and Shlonsky (2007) suggest that the Q feature in the embedded clause is not
Criterial, but instead a pure formal feature which drives successive cyclic movement of
a wh-operator in order to reach the criterial Q position. The legitimacy of the movement
from the perspective of the Last Resort guideline is clear from cross-linguistic evidence
for ‗internal movement‘ (a la van Riemsdijk, 1984), the strategy of moving a whoperator to the edge of pied-piped constituent transforming it into a complex phrase.
The second strategy for subject extractions, proposed by Rizzi and Shlonsky,
permits the thematic subject to skip the [Spec;Subj] position and avoid Criterial
Freezing. One of the ways this manifests is by the filling of the criterial position by
another element: an expletive, for example. Thus, in English copular constructions an
expletive there satisfies the Subject Criterion, and a thematic wh-argument is available
for further movement (413a). If there is no expletive, the subject moves to [Spec;Subj],
where it satisfies the Subject Criterion, making no further movement possible (413a)
(Rizzi and Shlonsky, 2007).
413.
a. What do you think that there twhat is in the box?
b.*What do you think that twhat is in the box?
This strategy is used by Null Subject languages, like Italian, where a preverbal subject
position is filled by pro leaving a thematic subject in a lower, predicate-internal
position. The thematic subject is accessible to a movement directly from this position
(414) (Rizzi and Shlonsky, 2007).
179
414.
a. Chi credi che vincerà?
who think that will win
‗Who do you think that will win?‘
b. Chi credi [che [pro Subj vincerà tchi]]
who think that
will win
In this approach, an expletive is used for satisfying the Subject Criterion, thus allowing
the thematic subject to escape the Criterial Freezing.
In order to explain how a wh-subject moves to the left periphery, escaping
Criterial Freezing in questions like (415), Rizzi and Shlonsky develop a derivation of
local subject questions, for which they propose (for non-null subject languages) that
projection Fin42 can be endowed with a relevant nominal feature and unvalued Phi
features which can satisfy Subject Criterion.
415.
Who came?
They propose the following derivational steps:
Step 1. Subject merges with the rest of the clause:
Subj […[whsubj…]]
Step 2. Fin, endowed with relevant nominal quality and unvalued Phi features, is
merged directly with the structure prior to any movement to [Spec;Subj]:
Fin+Phi [Subj […[whsubj…]]]
Step 3. Subject Criterion is satisfied by Fin+Phi and thematic subject wh-element can
freely move to its final scope position, [Spec;FocP] presumably, in the Rizzi and
Shlonsky analysis, endowed with Q in the left periphery.
Whosubj Foc [tsubj Fin+Phi [Subj …[tsubj…]]]
42
Recall that in Rizzi and Shlonsky‘s approach the CP is split into ForceP, FocP, WhP, TopP and FinP.
180
The Phi features of Fin are unvalued, and valuation is achieved when the subject moves
through [Spec;Fin] on its way to the final position.
In the end, Fin+Phi functions as a kind of bypassing device for the thematic
subject by satisfying the Subject Criterion and allowing the subject to move higher
(Rizzi and Shlonsky, 2007).
Structurally, the derivation can be presented as follows:
416.
Who came?
Force
Foc
FinP
Step 2
who
Fin‘
SubjP
Fin
[-Phi]
Phi features
Step 3
to value the
Spec
t who
Step 1
VP
Subj
V‘
twho
came
The same approach can be applied to subject extraction out of embedded clauses (Rizzi
and Shlonsky, 2007).
417.
Who do you think came?
Who do you think [twho Fin+Phi [Subj [twho came]]]
In (417), Fin+Phi is merged directly after the subject before wh-movement, thus
satisfying Subject Criterion and allowing who to move to the left periphery, which
values Phi features going through [Spec;Fin].
This approach is very similar to Agr in C in Rizzi‘s (1990) account. In the ECP
account, Agr is in null C and properly governs the subject trace, thus allowing subject
extraction out of the embedded clause, satisfying the ECP. The difference between the
two approaches is the absence vs. presence of a wh-subject trace and the role of the
181
devices. In the ECP approach wh-trace is in [Spec;TP], while in the current approach it
is in [Spec;Subj]. According to ECP, the role of the devices is to provide a proper
governor and in the current approach to provide an expletive like element for satisfying
the Subject Criterion (Rizzi and Shlonsky, 2007).
Rizzi and Shlonsky (2007) discuss the issue of that-trace effect and come to a
conclusion that in Standard English the complementizer that is incompatible with
Fin+Phi strategy, i.e. there is no bypassing device for a thematic subject: it must move
to [Spec;Subj] to satisfy the Subject Criterion, and gets frozen. Movement of the whsubject out of embedded clause is rendering the sentence in (418) ungrammatical.
418.
*Who do you think that twho visited him?
Describing the derivation step by step, we end up with the following steps:
Step 1. Subject merges with the rest of the clause:
Subj […[whsubj…]]
Step 2. Fin, bearing that features (finiteness), is merged directly with the structure in
[Spec;Fin]:
Fin that [Subj […[whsubj…]]]
Step 3. Subject Criterion is not satisfied, since Fin is not endowed with Phi features, and
thematic subject has to move to [Spec:Subj], to satisfy Subject Criterion. That moves to
ForceP to check force features.
Rizzi and Shlonsky suggest that that expresses both finiteness (cannot be used with nonfinite IP) and declarative force. So, if the CP system minimally contains Force Fin IP,
then the normal derivation of a that clause is where that is first merged in Fin, to
express finiteness, subsequently moving to Force to check the force feature, in order to
end up with the derivation in (419):
182
ForceP
419.
Force‘
FinP
that
Fin‘
IP
tthat
In this derivation, that cannot be at the same time the head of a declarative clause and
function as an expletive-like element satisfying the Subject Criterion.
In order to explain a derivation lacking an overt C in English as in (30), Rizzi
and Shlonsky (2007) propose that such derivation does not involve a complete Force
structure, but a ‗truncated one.‘
420.
They propose to truncate it at Fin, i.e. there is no Force in this derivation and a
declarative interpretation is assigned by default. In this derivation, no conflict arises in
the roles of Fin, and a Phi+Fin strategy can be deployed. Thus a possible derivation will
be the following:
Truncated
Force
FinP
Fin‘
Phi features
Spec
t who
to value the
421.
SubjP
Fin
[-Phi]
VP
Subj
V‘
t who
came
183
Rizzi and Shlonsky (2007) offer another more radical possibility: a deeper truncation
which affects both CP and the SubjP layers. Therefore, an IP layer will be closing off
with the AgrP, which is responsible for Case assignment. This would straightforwardly
predict the absence of the Criterial Freezing effect, since SubjP is absent and there is no
need for skipping device.
422.
Force
FinP
Truncated
Fin‘
Spec
SubjP
Fin
Subj‘
Spec
AgrP
Subj
VP
t who
VP
came
Rizzi and Shlonsky (2007) provide a very detailed analysis of subject extractions out of
embedded clauses. They do not discuss Polish data where presence of the
complementizer ze does not force that-trace effect and a subject moves to the left
periphery.
423.
Kto
myslisz
ze przyprowadzi Marie?
who (you) think that brought
(Polish)
Mary
Can we assume here that ze might have +Phi features which satisfy Subject Criterion?
184
To summarize, I have given a brief description of a number of proposals offering
analysis of that-trace effect. I partially employ solutions proposed by Szczegielniak
(1999) and Rizzi and Shlonsky (2007) in order to account for that-trace effect in
Russian. However, before referring to the analysis of wh-subject extraction out of
embedded clauses with that-trace effect, I study subjunctive clauses, since in this kind
of constructions the subject/object asymmetry still persists although with different
constraints: a subjunctive complementizer must be present.
5.2.
Subjunctive complementizer ‘čtoby’
In section 4.4.1, we came across an example of a Russian subjunctive complementizer
čtoby - ‗that‘, which allows extraction of both subject and object out of an embedded
clause (424), contra to indicative complementizer čto-‗that‘, discussed in previous
section, which blocks any extractions out of embedded clauses in Russian (425).
424.
a. Kto ty hočeš‘ čtoby
prišël na svadbu?
who you want thatSUBJ came on wedding
b. Kogo
ty hočeš‘ čtoby
ja priglasila?
whoACC you want thatSUBJ I invited
425.
a.*Kogo ty dumaeš‘, čto privedet Elena?
who you think
that will-bring Elena
‗Who do you think that Elena will bring?‘
b.*Kto
ty dumaeš‘, čto videl Elenu?
whoACC you think that saw Elena
‗Who do you think saw Elena?‘
Interestingly, indicative čto can be easily omitted in (425), rendering the sentence
grammatical; whereas subjunctive čtoby cannot be dropped. Its presence is obligatory
185
for the grammaticality. The same is observed in English subjunctive clauses, where
presence of a subjunctive complementizer is obligatory:
426.
I demand *(that) she leaves
Subjunctive clauses have been argued to constitute more transparent domains
than indicative ones, which make them syntactically transparent with respect to some
syntactic relations (Quer, 1996).
Subjunctive clauses in Russian are selected by so called volitional verbs or Sverbs (following Progovac‘s (1993) definition); these verbs are mainly verbs of wishing
and requesting, such as xotet‟ - ‗to want‘, želat‟ - ‗to desire‘, poprosit‟ - ‗to ask for‘ and
ugovorit‟ - ‗to persuade‘. The verb in the subjunctive clause must be morphologically in
the past tense, although, it should be pointed out, that the event indicated in the
embedded clause is not situated in the past either with respect to the event in the matrix
clause or to the speech.
427.
Mikael xočet čtoby
Maria vyučila
norveţskij.
Mikael wants thatSUBJ Maria learnPAST Norwegian
‗Mikael wants Mary to learn Norwegian.‘
In (427), the subjunctive clause employs a verb vyučit‘-‗to learn‘ in the morphological
past tense, but the event described in the embedded clause might happen in the future. It
has been argued in the literature that the tense properties of subjunctive forms are
defective and rely on the tense specification of the matrix (Quer, 1996).
Contrary to subjunctive clauses, no restrictions are imposed on the tense
marking of the embedded verb in indicative ones (428).
428.
Ja dumaju čto Peter videl/ uvidit/vidit Elenu?
I think
that Peter saw/will see/sees Elena
Picallo (1984, 1985) argues that even displaying morphological past tense, subjunctive
predicates do not have an independent temporal interpretation, i.e. defective, opposite to
indicative ones, which are contentful. This property prevents them from appearing
independently in an assertive root clause (Quer, 1996).
186
429.
*Ivan zvonil by.
Ivan called –SUBJ, IMPF
Picallo characterizes the subjunctive Infl as [-Tense, +Agr], whereas indicative one as
[+Tense, +Agr]. The directivity of subjunctive Infl forces it to rely on the content of the
higher Infl for its tense interpretation, which materializes in an anaphoric-like link
between the temporal features of the subjunctive Infl and those of the root Infl (Quer,
1996:667).
The tense dependency of the subjunctive is argued to be a reason of several
transparency effects affecting the embedded clauses, one of them is the obviation effect,
signifying that a pronoun cannot be co-referent with a non-pronominal that it ccommands.
Subjunctive clauses embedded under volitional predicates do not allow coreference between the matrix and the embedded subjects.
430.
Petjai xočet čtoby
on*i/j ob
etom ne znal?
Peter want thatSUBJ he about this not knew
‗Peter does not want him to know about it.‘
In (430), the subject of the matrix clause Petja cannot be co-indexed with the subject of
the subordinate clause on-‗he‘. This restriction is not observed in indicative clauses with
a complementizer čto.
431.
Petjai skazal čto oni/j vsё
Petja said
that he
nam rasskaţet.
everything to-us will tell
‗Petja said that he would tell us everything.‘
Chomsky (1981) attempts to explain the phenomenon of obviation, suggesting that the
obviative interpretation of the pronominal follows from some version of the Avoid
Pronoun Principle, ‗which imposes the choice of an empty pronominal over a lexically
specified one where possible.‘ (Avrutin & Babyonyshev, 1997). In Russian, an overt
pronoun can be avoided by using PRO instead.
187
432.
Petja hočet PRO najti
otvet na etu golovolomku?
Peter wants PRO to find answer on this puzzle
‗Peter wants to find an answer on the puzzle.‘
According to Chomsky, the existence of acceptable (432) somehow blocks the option of
using an overt pronoun in this construction, leading to a conclusion of adopting the
Avoid Pronoun Principle.
Avrutin & Babyonyshev find this analysis problematic since there is no reason
to avoid the use of a lexical pronoun. Moreover, they come up with a Russian
counterexample to the principle proposed by Chomsky (433) (Avrutin & Babyonyshev,
1997:233).
433.
a. Volodja ugovoril
Nadjui čtoby
onai poexala v Evropu.
Volodya persuaded Nadyai thatSUBJ shei went
to Europe
‗Volodya persuaded Nadya to go to Europe.‘
b. Volodja ugovoril
Nadjui PROi poexat‘ v Evropu.
Volodya persuaded Nadyai PROi to go
to Europe
‗Volodya persuaded Nadya to go to Europe.‘
(433) demonstrates the optionality in use of an overt pronoun as well as PRO;
moreover, the possibility of having (433b) does not block the option of using an overt
pronoun, as it has been suggested by Chomsky in favour of the Avoid Pronoun
Principle. Finally, the fact that (433a) clearly reveals the possibility of a co-indexation
of an object in the matrix clause with an overt pronoun in a subjunctive one makes the
Avoid Pronoun Principle inappropriate as an explanation of the obviation phenomenon
in subjunctive clauses.
Another account for the obviation effect was developed in a number of languages, such
as Spanish by Picallo (1984, 1985), Serbo-Croatian by Progovac (1993), etc., and
became known as the domain extension approach. The main idea of this approach is that
the Tense node of subjunctive clauses is anaphoric in a sense that it depends on its
interpretation on the tense of the matrix clause, and the binding domain for the pronoun
in the subject position of the subjunctive clause is extended and incorporated into the
matrix clause. As a result, the violation of Principle B occurs, since a pronoun is bound
188
by the subject of matrix clauses in its extended governing category (Avrutin &
Babyonyshev, 1997).
Avrutin & Babyonyshev applied this analysis to Russian and pointed out that it
explains examples like in (430), repeated here as (434). According to the domain
extension approach, the Tense node of a subordinate clause is analyzed as anaphoric,
and the governing category of the pronoun on–‗he‘ is extended to the matrix clause,
which leads to pronoun on–‗he‘ being locally bound by the subject in the matrix clause,
Petja, thus resulting in a violation of Principle B. In indicative clauses, on the other
hand, the tense node of the embedded clause is analyzed as independent, and therefore
no domain extension takes place and the overt pronoun is not bound in its governing
domain (435).
434.
Petjai hočet čtoby
on*i/j ob
etom ne znal.
Peter want thatSUBJ he about this not knew
‗Peter does not want him to know about it.‘
435.
Petjai znajet čto oni/j ob etom poţeleet.
Peter knows that he about this will regret
‗Peter knows that he will regret about it.‘
Avrutin & Babyonyshev provide some data which, according to them, are problematic
for this approach. The first problematic case is presented in example (436) where an
overt pronoun of the subordinate clause is co-indexed with an object of the matrix one.
The possibility of this sort of co-indexation is not expected under the domain extension
approach. Here, the governing category of ona – ‗she‘ should be extended to include the
matrix clause, and thus be locally bound by the matrix object, which results in a
violation of Principle B.
436.
Maria ugovorila Nadjui čtoby
onai poexala v Evropu.
Maria persuaded Nadyai thatSUBJ shei went
to Europe
‗Maria persuaded Nadya to go to Europe.‘
Quer (1996:662) explains the possibility of (436) by arguing that the restriction on the
reference of the embedded subject does not apply here, given that it is effective only
with respect to the matrix subject and not to an internal argument in the main clause.
189
Picallo (1984) also discusses this case and suggests the Case Resistance Principle
(Stowell, 1981), which forces an extra position of the embedded clause as a result of
which the internal argument of the main clause Nadju does not c-command the
embedded subject ona–‗she‘ allowing co-reference.
The second example of problematic data, accounted by Avrutin & Babyonyshev
(1997), involves a possessive element contained within a subjunctive subject. In
indicative sentences, a possessive pronoun cannot be co-indexed with the subject
(437a), whereas a reflexive possessive pronoun must be co-indexed (437b) (Avrutin &
Babyonyshev, 1997:234).
437.
a. *Volodjai provodil egoi ţenu v Evropu.
Volodya saw off his wife to Europe
‗Volodya saw his wife off to Europe.‘
b. Volodjai provodil svojui ţenu v Evropu
Volodya saw off self‟s wife to Europe
‗Volodya saw his wife off to Europe.‘
In a subjunctive clause, on the other hand, we get the opposite effect where (438a) is
grammatical, while (438b) is not, which is not predicted under the domain extension
approach.
438.
a. Volodjai xočet čtoby
egoi ţena poexala v Evropu.
Volodya wants thatSUBJ his wife went to Europe
‗Volodya wants his wife to go to Europe.‘
b.*Volodjai xočet čtoby
svojai ţena poexala v Evropu.
Volodya wants thatSUBJ self‟s wife went
to Europe
Under the domain extension approach, the reflexive in (438b) would be bound by the
matrix subject in its binding domain, in accordance with principle B, in the same
manner as seen in (437b). The pronoun ego-‗his‘ in (438a) would violate Principle B,
just as in (437a), which is does not occur here (Avrutin & Babyonyshev, 1997).
Avrutin & Babyonyshev propose yet another counterexample to the domain
extension approach in (439), where subjects of some predicates can appear with quirky
case and the verbs do not agree with dative subjects.
190
439.
Volode
bylo veselo.
VolodyaDAT was fun
‗Volodya was having fun.‘
Now consider the example in (440) where, according to the domain extension approach,
the binding domain of the dative pronoun is extended to the matrix clause and thus it
should be bound by the matrix subject, leading to a violation of Principle B, which
would predict ungrammaticality. Yet the sentence is well-formed (Avrutin &
Babyonyshev, 1997:236).
440.
Volodjai xočet čtoby
emui
bylo veselo.
Volodya wants thatSUBJ him-dat was fun
‗Volodya wants to be having fun.‘
Avrutin & Babyonyshev (1997:237) offer another piece of evidence which cannot be
explained by the analyses summarized so far. It has been proposed that some form of
co-indexation between two Tenses must take place in order to trigger obviation. The
example in (441b) shows that obviation can occur even if the higher Tense (in the
matrix clause) with which subjunctive Tense could be co-indexed is absent. This would
predict that domain extension for a pronoun in the subjunctive clause should not take
place.
441.
a.Volodino ţelanie čtoby
rabočij klass vzjal vlast‘ zasluţivaet uvaţenija
Volodya‟s desire thatSUBJ working class took power deserves
respect
‗Volodya‘s desire for the working class to take the power deserves respect.‘
b. *Volodinoi ţelanie čtoby
oni vzjal vlast‘ zasluţivaet uvaţenija
Volodya‟s desire thatSUBJ he took power deserves
respect
‗Volodya‘s desire to take the power deserves respect.‘
In (441), the noun želanie-‗desire‘ is related to the verb želat‟-‗to desire‘ which is
volitional verb and licenses subjunctive clauses. Notice that such a construction is
impossible with other, ‗non-volitionally‘ derived nominals (442). This fact perhaps
suggests that the subjunctive may be driven also by lexical or semantic factors, i.e.
volitional verbs and nouns derived from them.
191
442.
*Volodino slovo čtoby
rabočij klass vzjal vlast‘ zasluţivaet uvaţenija
Volodya‟s word thatSUBJ working class took power deserves respect
‗Volodya‘s word for the working class to take the power deserves respect.‘
Quer (1996:680), in his notes, addresses the cases of independent subjunctive forms in
non-assertive root contexts, and points out that they often involve some element in C
indicating directive force, which seems to suggest that a covert modal is binding the
tense variable of a subjunctive verb (for Catalan):
443.
Que marxi!
(Catalan)
that leave Subj.PRS.3SG
‗Let him/her leave?‘
Progovac (1993) adopts the domain extension approach for a number of languages and
argues that domain extensions do not occur in Russian subjunctive clauses. For
Progovac, domain extension happens due to Infl and Comp deletion at LF. The process
of deletion is constrained by recoverability, meaning that if Infl or Comp contain
unrecoverable material, i.e. complementizers or negation, they cannot be deleted. She
claims that Russian subjunctive particle by is in Infl, contra to Serbo-Croatian, where
the particle is in Comp. She argues that the presence of a subjunctive particle in Infl
makes it unrecoverable and non-deletable at LF. In support of this idea, she points out
that NPIs and reflexives, which are licensed within a subjunctive clause whose domain
has been extended do not occur in Russian subjunctive clauses (examples from Comrie
(1980))
444.
*On ne xočet, čtoby
ja obrascalsja ni k komu.
he not want thatSUBJ I turn
not to whom
‗He does not want that I turn to anyone.‘
So far, it looks like neither the Avoid Pronoun Principle nor the Domain Extension
Approach are appropriate as an explanation of the obviation phenomenon in Russian
subjunctive clauses.
Taking the discussion above into consideration, Avrutin and Babyonyshev
(1997) propose their perspective on the obviation phenomenon and tense defectiveness.
192
They suggest that there is a covert movement of V to I to C taking place at LF. They
follow Watanabe (1993), who suggests that this movement operation takes place
universally, arguing that AgrO must raise to T and AgrS to C to complete the process of
Case-Assignment (Avrutin and Babyonyshev, 1997:240). The result of this process is
illustrated in (446), which gives LF representation of example in (445).
445.
Volodja skazal, čto on poceloval Nadju.
Volodya said
that he kissed
Nadya
‗Volodya said that he kissed Nadya.‘
At the LF level, the embedded V raises to T, then V-T complex raises to AgrS and then
the whole V-T-AgrS complex adjoins to C.
193
446.
CP1
AgrSP1
1
C
AgrS
1
i
AgrS1
C1
T1
DP
Volodjai
AgrS1
V
skazal
TP
ti
T1
VP
tT
(said)
CP2
tV
AgrSP2
C2
AgrS i2
AgrS i2
C2
čto
(that)
AgrS2
DP
on
(he)
ti
V
poceloval
TP2
(kissed)
tT
VP
tV
194
DP
Nadju
Avrutin and Babyonyshev (1997) claim that a parallel process of V raising to T, then to
Agr and adjoining of the whole complex to C occurs in sentences with subjunctive
embedded clauses. There is a difference between subjunctive and indicative
complements: a temporal interpretation of the embedded clause. Given the fact, that
though the subjunctive tense is morphologically past, the event is interpreted as taking
place in the future, i.e. later than the event in the matrix clause, they argue for the
existence of a relationship of temporal ordering between the two events. They suggest
that this relationship is the result of the two events being bound by one event operator,
which takes them as its variables. They adopt the approach proposed by Harley (1995),
who develops an articulated VP structure and argue that the highest verbal projection is
an EventP (dominated by the TP), which divides a sentence into two domains: clausal
syntax and lexical syntax, where the rules of lexical composition operate the way that
material contained within a single EventP is perceived to be one word (Avrutin and
Babyonyshev, 1997:242). The highest projection of V (EventP) associated with all
event properties: time, place, presence/absence of the initiator etc. In order to have an
event in its scope an operator must have the head of the EventP (V) in its scope.
Avrutin and Babyonyshev (1997) propose that the operator which takes the two
events as its variables is a subjunctive complementizer čtoby. In order to bind the two
events, the operator must have them in its scope at LF. Since čtoby is lower in the tree
than the VP of the matrix clause, the event in the matrix clause is not in the scope the
complementizer. To solve this, Avrutin and Babyonyshev suggest that čtoby moves at
LF to a position where both events are in its scope. The movement of the operator is
considered to be a last resort operation, thus the operator čtoby moves to the first
available position, where it c-commands the matrix verb, gets the first event in its scope
and cannot move any further.
The result of this process is illustrated in (448), which gives an LF
representation of the example in (447).
447.
Volodja xočet, čtoby
on poceloval Nadju.
Volodya wants that-SUBJ he kissed
‗Volodya wants him to kiss Nadya.‘
195
Nadya
448.
CP1
AgrSP1
C1
1
1
AgrSi
C
C2
AgrSi2
DP
Volodjai
AgrS1
T1
T1
V
AgrS1
TP
ti
CP2
tV
V
xočet
(wants)
AgrSP2
tC
C2
čtoby
DP
on
(he)
(that)
T2
VP=event
tT
AgrSi2
T2
AgrS2
TP2
ti
V
poceloval
tT
(kissed)
VP=event
tV
196
DP
Nadju
The embedded V raises to T, the V-T complex raises to AgrS, and the V-T-AgrS complex
adjoins to the embedded complementizer. Then, the complementizer čtoby raises to adjoin
to the matrix V, and the verb raising in the matrix clauses proceeds the same way as in the
embedded clause. As a result, all verbal elements of the complex sentence occur within the
matrix complementizer. In indicative clauses, on the other hand, the čto complementizer is
not an operator and does not bind its variables, thus it does not raise to matrix V and does
not move to the matrix CP at LF.
Finally, to explain the impossibility of co-indexation of a subjunctive subject
pronoun and a matrix subject, Avrutin and Babyonyshev (1997:245) propose that (447) is
ruled out by Principle B, which applies to AgrS of the subjunctive clause. The pronominal
subject of a subjunctive clause is co-referential with the subject of the matrix clause, i.e. the
two are co-indexed. The AgrS of the subjunctive clause agrees with the subject, as does
AgrS of the matrix clause. The relationship of agreement is realised as co-indexation
between the subject and the AgrS. So, the matrix subject and the matrix AgrS are coindexed; the same goes for subjunctive AgrS and subject. By transitivity, the matrix AgrS
and the subjunctive AgrS are co-indexed as well, resulting in two subjects and two AgrS‘s
bearing the same index. Therefore, the subjunctive AgrS is bound by the matrix AgrS;
matrix AgrS c-commands subjunctive AgrS, resulting in Violation of Principle B.43
To sum up what we know so far about subjunctive clauses in Russian, we come to the
following: i) subjunctive clauses are selected by volitional verbs; ii) the verb in subordinate
clauses has defective tense, i.e. the clause cannot be marked as present or future, appearing
only in the past; iii) a nominative pronoun of a subordinate clause cannot be co-indexed
with a subject of a matrix clause, known as an obviation effect, which is argued to be a
result of tense dependency of subjunctive clause. We have shown that both the Avoid
Pronoun Principle and the Domain Extension Approach are inappropriate as an explanation
of the obviation phenomenon in Russian subjunctive clauses, and mo0reover for the
approach outlined in Avrutin and Babyonyshev (1997), which explains the obviation effect
and temporal interpretation by means of covert movement at LF.
43
Due to the space limit I will not concentrate here on explanation of absence of obviation phenomenon in
cases mentioned in this section, for more details see Avrutin and Babyonyshev (1997).
197
Having sufficient information regarding peculiarities of indicative and subjunctive
complementizers and possible analyses offered to account for these phenomena, we can
propose a syntactic analysis for the complementizers in Russian.
5.3.
Analysis of Russian Complementizers ‘čto’ and ‘čtoby’
Before going any further let us recall some data of indicative and subjunctive clauses.
Remember that the extraction of a wh-subject and wh-object are equivalently unacceptable
in questions with an indicative complementizer as in (449a-b); whereas it is possible in
questions with a subjunctive complementizer (449c-d).
449.
a.*Kto ty dumaeš‘ čto kupil
who you think
radio?
tha bought radio
‗Who do you think bought a radio?‘
b. *Čto ty dumaeš‘ čto Roger kupil?
what you think
that Roger bought
c. Kto ty xočeš čtoby
prišël na svadbu?
who you want thatSUBJ came on wedding
d. Kogo ty xočeš čtoby
ja priglasila?
who you want thatSUBJ I invited
Szczegielniak (1999) proposes two complementizer positions in CP: C1, bearing agreement
features and C2, not bearing any [φ] features, suggesting that Russian complementizers are
of the C2 type where no feature checking takes place, and as a result the extraction out of an
embedded clause with a complementizer is impossible. It seems that the data in (449)
198
contradict Szczegielniak‘s statement regarding Russian. This brings up to the following
question: Can we assume that Russian demonstrates two types of C in Szczegielniak
terminology?
Oshima (2003) suggests two types of complementizers for Russian: čto1, which we
meet in indicative clauses, and čto2 which mainly occurs in Subjunctive clauses. She
suggests that the subjunctive complementizer čto2 overtly attracts the mood marker by
(450), unlike the indicative čto1.
450.
Ja xoču čtoby
zavtra
vse
bylo po preţnemu.
I want that(SUBJ) tomorrow everything was as before
‗I want tomorrow everything to be as before.‘
Progovac (1993), following Brecht (1974), argues (for Serbo-Croatian) that by is a modal
cliticizing onto COMP. Recall, that for Russian she suggests that the subjunctive particle by
is in Infl and not in Comp, which precludes a domain extension for any Infl-defined
domain.
Avrutin and Babyonshev (1997) suggest that by is a part of a subjunctive
complementizer čtoby. The same has also been argued by Oshima (2003).
Before adopting any of above mentioned proposals we need to figure out what by
actually is and how it adjoins to čto.
By is usually treated as a mood particle, mainly because it is a hallmark of
conditional mood in Slavic languages. It is assumed to introduce subjunctive mood, when
by follows immediately after a complementizer (451); in contrast to a conditional, where it
does not have a specific position (452).
451.
Ja xoču čtoby
ty mne pozvonil.
I want thatSUBJ you me
called
‗I want you to call me‘
452.
Ja xotel
by poznakomit‘sja s
I wanted part to get yo know
nej.
with her
‗I would like to get to know her.‘
199
Oshima (2003) points out that the marker by denotes counterfactual situations and occurs
clause-medially. By always occurs cliticized to a complement čto2 when the subjunctive
clause is a complement to volitional verbs, as in (451); and it follows the subject in
consequent clauses, as in (453), occuring adjacent to esli - ‗if‘ in antecedent clauses, as in
(453).
453.
Esli by on prishel ko mne včera,
if
my by obo vsёm dogovorilis.
part he came to me yesterday, we part about all
settled
‗If he had come to me yesterday, we could have settled everything.‘
I will follow Migdalski (2006) who argues that the by element exemplified in (452) and the
one in (453) is the same element; a subjunctive vs. conditional reading depends on the verb
by follows. If it follows a volitional verb, the construction is interpreted as subjunctive.
Furthermore, Brecht (1997) noticed that when two subjunctive predicates are coordinated,
čtoby is present in the first one, while the second one is introduced by by.
454.
Ty velel
čhtoby
ja uexal v Minsk odin, a Vasja by ostalsja s
you ordered thatSUBJ i got
toboj?
to Minsk alone and Vasja part remain with you
‗Did you order that I leave for Minsk and Vasja remain with you?
(Brecht, 1997:35-36)
It has been also observed by Dornisch (1998) for Polish that the subjunctive particle
(‗auxiliary‘ in his terminology) as a clitic overtly raises to C in wh-questions (455); this
seems to be true for Russian as well (456).
455.
Co
by Anna komu poleciła?
(Dornish, 1998:221)
what part Anna whom recommended
‗What would Anna recommend to whom?
456.
Čto by mne kupit‘?
what part me to buy
‗What should I buy?‘
200
Dornisch points out that ‗in the unmarked pattern of multiple wh-questions formation,
native speakers prefer to place the modal clitic in C, rather than in Infl‘ (Oshima, 2003:11).
I argue that this is true for Russian as well, cf. the examples in (456 and 457).
457.
*Čto mne by kupit‘?
what me part to buy
‗What should I buy?‘
In a wh-question, particle by cannot be placed lower than subject in a wh-question, which is
in [Spec;TP] (457), but has to follow a wh-element immediately as in (456), which suggests
that particle must occupy a higher position than Infl, i.e. be situated in CP.
Oshima (2003), following Terzi (1992), Krapova (2001) and Rivero (1994 etc),
posit a projection M(ood) which accommodates subjunctive particles and functions as a
realization of a feature [irrealis]. Oshima refers to the MP as MirrP, in order to distinguish it
from a MoodP.
Under the current framework, the syntactic structure of the CP with the complementizer is
as follows.
An indicative complementizer merges in Fin‘ and then moves to Force‘ as in (458);
the Mood head is not activated, since it is not required by the matrix verb.
458.
VP
ForceP
Force‘
čtoi
FinP
Fin‘
TP
ti
201
The subjunctive complementizer has a different structure: the indicative complementizer
čto merges in Fin; the particle by merges in MoodP; čto moves via Mood, where it merges
with the particle by and moves to Force.
459.
VP
ForceP
volitional verb
Force‘
MoodP
čtoby
Mood
FinP
Fin‘
čto+by
TP
y
čto
(that)
The volitional verb in the root clause selects a [+mood] compliment. The Mood of the
embedded clause is spelled out in the higher position after čto moves through Mood.
To summarize, the data suggest that Russian has only one complementizer, indicative
complementizer čto, which merges in Fin and moves further to Force. Subjunctive
complementizer čtoby is not a true morphological complementizer; it is derived by means
of syntactic movement. The indicative complementizer čto moves through Mood, merges
with a particle by and moves further to Force. This follows Szczegielniak‘s (1999) account
of Russian complementizers, where he proposes only one complementizer of C 2 type.
However, what makes it possible to extract both subject and object wh-element over the
subjunctive complementizer while this extraction is blocked by the indicative
complementizer?
In order to suggest syntactic analysis of Russian wh-questions with embedded clauses, I
make use of an analysis proposed by Rizzi and Shlonsky (2006; 2007).
Let us recapitulate the main points of their analysis:
202
- The Subject Criterion can be satisfied by Fin+Phi and a subject wh-element can freely
move to its final scope position. The Phi features of Fin are unvalued and valuation is
achieved when the subject moves through [Spec;Fin] on its way to the final position.
- The complementizer that is incompatible with a Fin+Phi strategy; hence that-trace effect
occurs in sentences with subject extraction.
- The absence of a complementizer in a clause with subject extraction can be explained
either by: a) a truncation at Fin, i.e. there is no Force in this derivation and declarative
interpretation is assigned by default, or by b) a deeper truncation which affects both CP and
the SubjP layer.
Recall that Russian indicative clauses do not exhibit Subject/Object asymmetry, i.e.
extraction of either the subject or object out of an embedded clause with an indicative
complementizer čto is impossible (460a-b), while the use of a null complementizer does not
postulate any problems for extraction (460a´-b´).
460.
a. *Kto ty dumaeš‘ čto kupil
who you think
košku?
that bought cat
‗Who do you think bought a cat?‘
a´. Kto ty dumaeš‘ kupil
who you think
košku?
bought cat
b. *Čto ty dumaeš‘ čto Peter prines?
what you think
that Peter brought
‗What do you think Peter brought?‘
b´. Čto ty dumaeš‘ Peter prines?
what you think
Peter brought
First, we need explain possibility of a subject movement to the left periphery in local
subject questions. I follow Rizzi and Shlonsky (2007) by proposing a projection Fin, which
is endowed with a relevant nominal feature and unvalued Phi features, which can satisfy
Subject Criterion.
203
461.
Kto kupil košku?
who bought cat
‗Who bought a cat?‘
In (461), the subject merges with the rest of the clause, then Fin+Phi is merged with the
structure prior to any movement to [Spec;Subj]; the Subject Criterion is satisfied by
Fin+Phi and thematic subject wh-element can freely move to its final scope position,
endowed with Q features in the left periphery. The Phi features of Fin are unvalued and
valuation is achieved when the subject moves through [Spec;Fin] on its way to the final
position. We get the derivation in (462), which gives representation of example in (461):
462.
ForceP
FinP
kto
( who)
Fin‘
Spec
twho
SubjP
Fin
[-Phi]
VP
Subj
V‘
tkto
kupil
košku
(bought)
(cat)
Now, the extraction of wh-subject out of the embedded clause in (463) is ungrammatical
due to nature of čto, which is incompatible with Fin+Phi strategy (the same has been
claimed by Rizzi and Shlonsky (2007) for English complementizer that).
204
463.
*Kto ty dumaeš‘ čto kupil
košku?
who you think that bought cat
Subject Criterion is not satisfied, since Fin is not endowed with Phi features, and thematic
subject has to move to [Spec:Subj], to satisfy Subject Criterion, were it freezes. That moves
to ForceP to check force features.
464.
ForceP
Foc
FinP
čto
(that)
Fin‘
SubjP
Fin
tčto
VP
Subj
kto
(who)
V‘
twho
kupil
košku
(bought)
(cat)
The impossibility of subject extraction over the indicative complementizer čto has been
clearly shown above. Now let us have a look at extraction of wh-object.
465.
*Čto ty dumaeš‘ čto Peter prines?
what you think
that Peter brought
‗What do you think Peter brought?‘
205
(465) demonstrates the impossibility of wh-object extraction over čto. Following Rizzi and
Shlonsky‘s analysis, there is no reason for this movement to be illegal. There is no Object
Criterion, parallel to Subject Criterion that would freeze the wh-object. Rizzi and
Shlonsky‘s approach fails to explain example in (465).
It seems that the complementizer that blocks the possibility of a wh-element to
move to phase periphery position [Spec;ForceP]; thus, there is no escape hatch from the
embedded phase and successive movement is impossible. Recall that in Chomsky‘s (1999)
phase hopping theory, the successive cyclic movement involves movement from one phase
periphery position to another, where [Spec;CP] is a phase periphery position and the whmovement has to move through it.
This leads to the following statement:
Whenever Head of Force is occupied by indicative „that‟,
[Spec;ForceP] becomes inaccessible to a wh-element and further
movement is impossible.
This generalization works for all wh-elements.
466.
a.*Kogda ty dumaeš‘ čto on pozvonit?
when you think
that he call
‗When do you think he will call?‘
b.*Začem
ty dumaeš‘ čto on mnoj interesovalsja?
what for you think
that he with me interested
‗Why do you think he was asking about me?‘
Next, (467) presents data worth our attention, where no overt complementizer is present
and the extraction of both a wh-subject and wh-object is possible.
206
467.
a. Kto ty dumaeš‘ kupil košku?
who you think
bought cat
b. Čto ty dumaeš‘ prines
what you think
Peter?
brought Peter
„What do you think that peter brought?‘
In order to account for these data I apply analyses proposed by Rizzi and Shlonsky (2007)
which were outlined in 5.1.5.
One of the solutions they offer suggests deep truncation, which affects both CP and
the SubjP layers. In their proposal, an IP layer will be closing off with AgrP, which is
responsible for Case assignment. Let us consider Russian data in (468 and 469).
468.
Kak ty dumaeš‘, (*čto) kto
what you think
pridet
na večerinku?
(*that) who will come on party
‗Who do you think will come to the party?‘
469.
a. Kakogo čërta ty skazal, čto Peter ne pridet?
why the devil you said that Peter not come-FUT
‗Why the hell did you say that Peter would not come?‘
(possible answer: because I did not want to upset you)
b.*Kakogo čërta ty skazal, Peter ne pridet?
why the devil you said
Peter not come
(468) is an example of a partial wh-movement, where a wh-element stays in a lower CP and
cannot move higher, inasmuch as the position in the matrix clause is occupied by an
expletive-like wh-element kak. Notice, that here the complementizer that is not present.
In (469a), the expression kakogo čërta – ‗why the hell‘ can modify only the matrix clause;
moreover it requires use of čto in the embedded clause (469b), since kakogo čërta cannot
be base generated in an embedded clause and thus cannot leave a trace in [Spec, CP], the
presence of a complementizer is required.
The examples above suggest that the CP domain cannot undergo deep truncation.
207
A second solution offered by Rizzi and Shlonsky (2007) proposes truncation of Force. In
this derivation no conflict arises in the roles of Fin, and a Phi+Fin strategy can be deployed.
This solution seems to be the most attractive. It explains the example in (470), where Fin
endowed with [+Phi] features is merged, and a wh-element moves to the left periphery
though [Spec;FinP], enabling Fin to check EPP feature on [Spec;SubjP].
470.
who you think
bought cat
There might be one problem with this solution when we look at examples with partial whmovement, where no overt complementizer takes place.
471.
Kak ty dumaeš‘, (*čto) kto pridet
what you think
that
na večerinku?
who will-come on party
‗Who do you think will come to the party?‘
If we assume the truncation of Force, there will be no position of the wh-subject kto –‗who‘
to move, unless we assume that kto does not have to move here to [Spec;ForceP], I will
address this issue in Chapter 6.
To summarize, in this chapter, I have studied the phenomenon of that-trace effect in
Russian indicative and subordinate clauses.
I have discussed existing approaches and pointed out the insufficiency of these
approaches in accounting Russian data.
The data show that Russian indicative clauses do not exhibit Subject/Object
asymmetry and that extraction of either object or subject out of an embedded clause with a
complementizer is impossible. Following Rizzi and Shlonsky, I employ the projection Fin
which is endowed with relevant nominal features and unvalued Phi features which satisfy
Subject criterion.
208
The Russian data have suggested that whenever the complementizer čto is present,
the movement of any wh-element is blocked, contrary to subjunctive complementizer
čtoby, where such a movement is obligatory.
Next chapter deals with partial wh-movement in Russian, examples of which we met in 5.3.
209
210
CHAPTER 6. WH-SCOPE MARKING CONSTRUCTIONS
In this chapter, I focus on the syntactic properties of yet another type of interrogatives in
Russian, known in the literature as wh-scope marker questions (à la van Riemsdijk, 1982)
or questions with partial wh-movement (à la Mc Daniel, 1989).
472.
Kak ty dumaeš‘, kto pridet
How you think
na uţin?
who will come to dinner
‗Who do you think will come for dinner?‘
The peculiarity of these type of questions is that they trigger an answer which does not
involve supplying the value to the wh-phrase kak – ‗how‘ which has matrix scope, but
instead an answer, which involves supplying the value for the wh-phrase kto – ‗who‘ which
undergoes movement in its own clause (Stepanov, 2000). Thus, (472) triggers a response
similar to the one triggered by a long-distance question in (473).
473.
Kto ty dumaeš‘ pridet
na uţin?
who you think will come to dinner
Answer: I think that Peter and Marit will come for dinner.
In (472), first wh-element kak, which appears in the matrix clause, marks the scope, in van
Riemsdijk‘s (1982) terms, of the second wh-phrase, which moves overtly to a clause initial
position in the lower clause.
211
The phenomenon of scope marking has been the focus of investigation in a number
of languages, for example, German (474), Hungarian (475), Polish (476), Malay (477),
Hindi (478), etc.
474.
Was glaubst du wen
Irina liebt?
(Fanselow, 2007:442)
what believe you who-acc Irina loves
‗Who do you belive that Irina loves?‘
475.
Mit
gondolsz hogy kivel
who-acc think
beszélt Mari?
that who-with talk
(Horvath, 1997)
Mary
‗Who do you think that Mary talked?‘
476.
Jak myślisz, kogo Janek lubi?
(Stepanov, 2000:1)
how think-you whom John loves
‗Who do you think John loves?‘
477.
Ali memberitahu kamu tadi
Ali told
apa (yang) Fatimah baca?(Cole&Hermon, 2000:105)
you just now what that Fatimah read
‗what did Ali tell you just now (that) Fatimah was reading?
478.
Siitaa-ne kyaa socaa,
ki ravii-ne kis-ko dekhaa?
(Mahajan, 2003)
Sita-erg what thought that Riva-erg what-dat saw
‗Who did Sita think that Riva saw?‘
This phenomenon has also been studied in Russian by a few linguists, among others
Stepanov (2000), Gilderen (2001), although it has not been studied to the extent in the
above-mentioned languages (perhaps due to a limited distribution of these types of
question), this phenomenon deserves our attention.
One could propose treating example (472) as a sequence of questions involving
some kind of parenthetical. Stepanov (2000) notes that such sequential/parenthetical
questions are available universally. English is one of the languages which allows the
following sequence (Stepanov, 2000:4):
479.
What do you think? Who does John like?
212
In (479), each question forms a separate intonational unit.
Questions involving parentheticals are also available in German. Compare a whscope marking question in (480) with the one involving a parenthetical in (481).
480.
Was glaubst du, wen sie liebt?
what believe you who she loves
‗Who do you believe that she loves?‘
481.
Was glaubst du, wen liebt sie?
what believe you who loves she
‗Who do you think, who does she love?‘
It is very easy to see the difference between the two questions in German. The V2 effect
appears in the question involving the parenthetical, which suggests that the second clause
‗wen liebt sie?‘ has matrix properties. The second clause in (480), on the other hand, does
not show the V2 effect, indicating that this clause is subordinate to the matrix predicate
glaubst (Stepanov, 2000). The contrasts visible in German are not observed in Russian.
Stepanov enumerates some empirical diagnosis which can help us to distinguish wh-scope
marking questions from parenthetical ones. It has been previously noted by Dayal (1996)
and Hovarth (1997) that it is always possible to obtain a bound variable reading in whscope marking questions. Applying the same diagnosis to Russian, Stepanov (2000:4) gets
the following:
482.
Kak sčitaet [kaţdyj iz
studentov]i kuda egoi mogut otpravit‘?
how thinks every from student
where him can
send-they?
‗Where does every student think that they can send him?‘
In the second clause of (482), the pronoun ego – ‗him‘ receives a bound variable reading
when located within the scope of the quantifier každyj iz studentov – ‗every student‘ in the
higher clause. The availability of the bound variable reading indicates the standard ccommand relationship between the elements of the first and second clauses. Note that such
213
a bound variable is not available in sequential/parenthetical questions in English (Stepanov,
2000:4):
483.
*What does [every student]i think? Where will they send himi?
Based on the data presented above, Stepanov concludes that a wh-scope marking question
must be represented by a single phrase marker, and therefore it cannot be involved in
sequential/parenthetical structures. Furthermore, the presence of c-command suggests that
the second clause in Slavic wh-scope marking questions is in subordination to the matrix
predicate, i.e. the clausal scope of the wh-scope marker must be situated higher than that od
the ‗true‘ wh-element.
6.1.
Some properties of wh-scope marker in Russian
Some of the properties of Slavic wh-scope marking questions are common among
constructions found in other languages, for example German, Polish, Hindi, etc. (Stepanov,
2000).
A. Any wh-phrase can be associated with the wh-scope marker:
484.
Kak ty dumaeš‘ gde/ kak/kogda/začem on pročital lekziju?
how you think where/how/when/ why
he read
(Russian)
leacture
‗Where/how/when/why did he give lecture?‘
485.
Was glaubst du wann/warum sie gekommen ist?
what think you when/why
she come
‗When/why do you think she came?‘
214
is
(German)
B. Wh-scope marking is only possible with a matrix verb which can subcategorize for a
non-interrogative sentential complement, i.e. verbs of ‗thinking.‘
486.
a.Kak ty dumaeš‘, kogda on pridet?
how you think
(Russian)
when he will come
‗When do you think he will come?‘
b.*Kak ty sprosiš, kogda on pridet?
how you ask
487.
when he will come
a.Was denkt Mark wen wir einladen sollen?
what thinks Mark who we invite
(German)
should
‗Who does Mark think we should invite?‘
b.*Was fragt Mark wen wir einladen sollen?
what asks Mark who we invite
should
‗Who does Mark ask we should invite?‘
C. Any number of embedded wh-phrases can be associated with the wh-scope-marker
488.
Kak ty dumaeš‘, kto kogda zvonil?
how you think
(Russian)
who when called
‗Who do you think called and when?‘
489.
Jak myślisz, kto co
czytają?
(Polish, Stepanov 2000:7)
how think-you who what read
‗Who do you think read what?‘
D. A wh-scope marker and a true wh-element cannot occur in the same clause. This
requirement is known as ‗anti-locality‘, introduced by Müller (1997).
490.
*Kak čto vy dumaete ona kupila?
how what you think
(Russian)
she bought
‗What do you think she bought?
215
491.
*Was ist sie warum gekommen?
what is she why
(German, Mycock, 2004:375)
come
‗Why has she come?
E. The wh-scope marker occupies clause-initial matrix position in wh-fronting languages.
492.
Kak ty dumaeš‘, kto pridet na uţin?
how you think
(Russian)
who come to dinner
493.
Wat tinke jo
wa‘t
ik sjoen haw?
what think you who.that I seen
(Frisian, Hiemstra, 1986:97)
have?
‗Who do you (that) I have seen?‘
494.
Was glaubst du wann sie gekommen ist?
what think you when she come
(German)
is
‗When do you think she came?‘
495.
Jak myślisz, gdzie Maria tańczyła?
(Polish, Stepanov 2000:7)
how think-you where Maria danced
‗Where do you think Maria danced?‘
F. A matrix clause containing a wh-scope marker cannot be negated or contain a negative
operator.
496.
*Kak vy ne dumaete, kuda on pošel?
how you not think
(Russian)
where he went
‗Where do not you think that he went?‘
497.
*Was glaubst du nicht, mit wem Maria gesprochen hat?
what think
you not with whom Maria spoken
has
(German)
(Mycock, 2004:379)
‗Who don‘t you think Maria has spoken to?‘
498.
*Jak nie myślisz, kto kocha Marię?
how not think
(Polish, Lubańska, 2004: 76)
who loves Mary
‗Who do not you think that loves Mary?‘
216
499.
*Koi bhii nahii kyaa soctaa thaa, ki
no-one
kon aayegaa?
(Hindi, Mycock, 2004:379)
what thinks was that who will come
?‗Who did no-one think will come?‘
G. Possibility of the second clause of a wh-scope marking interrogative to be a yes/no
question, rather than a wh-question.
500.
Kak vy sčitaete, budet li
how you think
will
zavtra
doţd‘?
(Russian, Stepanov, 2000:8)
part tomorrow rain
‗What do you think about whether it will rain tomorrow?‘
501.
Tum kyaa socte ho ki
you what think
Mary-ne Hans-se
baat kiyaa yaa nahiiN?
that Mary-erg Hans-ins talked
or
(Hindi)
not (Mycock, 2004:377)
‗Do you think Mary talked to Hans or not?
502.
Jak myślisz, czy
how think
Piotrek przyszedl?
(Polish, Stepanov, 2000:8)
whether Priotrek came
‗What do you think about whether Peter came?‘
H. A wh-scope marker may appear in any clause which intervenes between a true whphrase in an embedded clause and the highest occurrence of a wh-scope marker.
503.
Kak ty dumaeš‘, kak Ivan sčitaet, kogo
how you think
vybirut
prezidentom?44
(Russian)
how Ivan believes who-acc will elect president
‗Who do you think that John think will be elected as the president?‘
504.
Was glaubst du, was Peter meint, mit wem Maria geschprochen hat?
what believe you what Peter think
with whom Mary talked
(German)
has
‗Who do you believe Peter thinks Mary talked with?‘
I. The wh-scope marker cannot be separated from the true wh-phrase by more than one
clause.
44
Some speakers consider these kind of constructions to be degraded.
217
505.
*Kak vy dumaete, čto Ivan sčitaet,
how you think
čto pročitali studenty?
what Ivan believes what read
(Russian)
students
‗What do you think that John believes that the students read?‘
506.
*Jak Janek sądzi, że Piotrek myśli, co
studenci prseczytali?
(Polish)
how Janek judge that Peter thinks what students read
‗What did John believe Peter thinks that the students read?‘
Properties referred to in A-F are common for wh-scope marking constructions found in
different languages, while properties mentioned in G-H are found in just a few languages,
and the ones mentioned in I are unique to Slavic wh-scope marking constructions.
Another characteristic which is easily derived from the data above is that the whscope marker in Russian constructions is a wh-element meaning how, contrary to other whscope marking languages, where the wh-scope marker is a wh-element meaning what. This
property of Russian language plays a crucial role for the analysis we will propose.
6.2.
Previous analysis of wh-scope marking constructions
It is clear that the true wh-phrase in a subordinate clause and a wh-scope marker in a matrix
clause are linked in a wh-scope marking construction; the question that remains is what the
nature of the link between the clauses is. Several approaches have been proposed in the
literature to account for this phenomenon; I address some of them.
218
6.2.1. The Direct Dependency Approach
The Direct Dependency Approach (henceforth DDA) is considered to be a commonly
acceptable analysis of wh-scope marking questions. It was first proposed by van Riemsdijk
(1982) and received further development by McDaniel (1989).
Under the DDA approach, it is assumed, beginning with van Riemsdijk (1982), that
a wh-scope marking question receives an interpretation similar to the one of the
corresponding long-distance question. This quality of wh-scope marking constructions has
been outlined earlier in examples (472) and (473). Following van Riemsdijk‘s assumption
of similarity with long-distance questions, McDaniel (1989) proposes an account of whscope marking in terms of chains of wh-elements established in S-structure. According to
this proposal, the sequence of the scope marker, the true wh-phrase and its trace form a whchain at S-structure, which is subject to locality restrictions (Rizzi, 1992).
Furthermore, McDaniel suggests that the wh-scope marker is semantically empty
and functions as an expletive-like element. Thus, according to DDA, kak in Russian does
not literally mean how despite its lexical make-up, but is an element which has the syntactic
feature [+wh] and has no semantic meaning.
507.
Kak ty dumaeš‘, čto on kupil?
how you think
what he bought
‗Who do you think he bought?‘
According to DDA, an expletive-like element is base generated in the matrix [Spec;CP],
which is the only Comp that has [+wh] feature in a wh-scope marking question, and
functions as a some kind of place holder for the true wh-phrase which is located in the
lower clause. The true wh-element moves to [-wh] [Spec;CP] in the lower clause and is
licensed in overt syntax by forming a chain with the scope marker, thereby satisfying WhCriterion45. Later, at LF, the true wh-phrase moves to the matrix [Spec;CP] in order to
45
Wh-Criterion is defined as: a wh operator and a head endowed with the wh feature must be in a spec-head
configuration at S-structure (Rizzi, 1996)
219
replace the wh-scope marker and to obtain the scope over the whole sentence (Dayal,
1994:143).
508.
Was glaubst du mit wem Maria geschprochen hat
what think you with who Maria spoken
has
‗Who do you think Maria has spoken to?‘
CP
C‘
Spec
wasi
(what)
CP
IP
C
glaubstk
(think)
CP
NP
du
(you)
VP
CP
V
tk
CP
CP
C‘
CP
Spec
CP
mit wemi
(with who)
At LF
IP
CP
NP
Maria
(Maria)
VP
PP
ti
V
geschprochen hat
(spoken
has)
Under the DDA approach, the structure in (507) undergoes the following steps:
Step 1. Kak is base-generated in [Spec;CP], which is endowed with [+wh] features. Čto is
base generated in VP as a complement to kupil. Čto moves from its base position to
[Spec;CP] and forms a chain with scope marker in matrix clause, thus satisfying WhCriterion.
[CP[+wh] Kak ty dumaeš‘, [CP[-wh] čtoi on kupil ti]?
how you think
what he bought
220
Step 2. At LF, čto moves to matrix [Spec;CP], replacing semantically empty kak, and as a
result, we receive the following structure at LF:
[CP[+wh] Čto ty dumaeš‘, [CP[-wh] ti on kupil ti]?
what you think
he bought
This gives us the interpretation similar to the one of the corresponding long-distance
question.
Although DDA seems to explain relationship between the wh-scope marker and true
wh-element, there are a few arguments against adopting this approach. One of the
arguments, mentioned by Stepanov (2000) comes from property G described in 6.1., i.e. the
second clause of a wh-scope marking interrogative can be a yes/no question, rather than a
wh-question. Below I repeat the Russian example in (509).
509.
Kak vy sčitaete, budet li
how you think
will
zavtra
doţd‘?
(Russian, Stepanov, 2000:8)
part tomorrow rain
Possible answers: ‗yes, it will rain‘ or ‗no, it won‘t rain‘
This implies that there is no wh-element in the second clause which can replace the
expletive scope marker at LF. Furthermore, possible answers for the question in (509)
suggest that the proposition in the second clause becomes the focus of the question.
The second problem for McDaniel‘s
(1989) proposal, according to Stepanov
(2000), arises from the non-replacement of the wh-scope marker in yes/no questions,
leading to a violation of the principle of Full Interpretation, which does not allow expletive
elements to enter LF (Chomsky, 1986).
Adopting Chomsky‘s (1995) minimalist framework, one would assume featuredriven movement here, which leads us to distinguishing yet another problem for the DDA
(Stepanov, 2000), there is no reason for the true wh-phrase to raise at LF in order to replace
the wh-expletive. Finally, this approach fails to explain the reason for a true wh-element to
move to [-wh] position, assigned for it in the lower [Spec;CP].
221
Based on the discussion above, it is clear that DDA cannot be used in order to
account for Russian wh-scope marking.
Another approach that is worth our attention is the Indirect Dependency approach
proposed originally by Dayal (1994).
6.2.2. The Indirect Dependency approach
The Indirect Dependency approach (henceforth IDA) was proposed in order to account for
properties observed in Hindi (wh-in-situ language), i.e. the wh-scope marker occurs in
argument position of the matrix verb, where it is base-generated.
510.
jaun kyaa soctaa hai meri kis-se
john what thinks
baat karegii?
(Dayal, 1994:138)
Mary who-with will talk
‗Who does John think Mary will talk to?‘
The main idea of the IDA is that the scope marker is a true wh-element which is generated
in argument position and is co-indexed with the complement CP, which is adjoined at the
IP level. Dayal (1994, 2000) proposes the following structure for IDA:
IP
511.
CPi
CP
IP
VP
VP
NP
NP
jaun
(John)
NPi
IP
V
kyaa
soctaa hai
(what)
(thinks)
meri
(Mary)
NP
kis-sej
(who with)
222
V
baat karegii
(will-talk)
Finally, at LF, the wh kyaa and kis-se move to [Spec;CP].
512.
CP
CP
CPi
CP
IP
Spec
kyaai
(what)
VP
NP
jaun
(John)
NPi
ti
Spec
kis-sej
(who with)
VP
NP
meri
(Mary)
V
soctaa hai
(thinks)
IP
NP
tj
V
baat karegii
(will-talk)
In Dayal‘s approach there is no direct dependency between the wh-expressions. Instead,
they form two local dependencies, indirectly connected by co-indexation of the trace of wh1
with the CP that dominates wh2 and the effect of long-distance dependency arising from
their co-indexation (Dayal, 2000:161).
Dayal (2000:162) defines the semantics for the Hindi example that would allow
answers specifying values for the embedded wh-question. She suggests that the wh-word in
the matrix clause is an ordinary wh-expression used to question over propositions and the
adjoined complement is a question over individuals. The crucial step in the interpretation of
scope marking is in defining the semantics of co-indexation between the matrix preverbal
position and the adjoined complement. A wh-expression is interpreted here as an existential
quantifier. She suggests that the matrix question should only let in those propositions that
also belong in the denotation of the complement. Given that all natural language
quantification is restricted overtly or covertly, this can be achieved by treating the
complement as a restrictor of the matrix wh (Dayal, 2000:162).The main idea of the
semantic part of this approach is that the embedded clause in (510) meri kis-se baat karegii
- ‗Mary who-with will talk‘ must provide a restriction on the matrix essential quantifier in
the form of the wh-scope marker kyaa (Stepanov, 2000:26).46
46
See Dayal (2000) for a detailed semantic analysis.
223
Stepanov (2000) points out that the Indirect Dependency approach deals with the
problems faced by the Direct Dependency Approach. First of all, the IDA allows the lower
clause to be a yes/no question, since it is an interrogative structure itself. Secondly, IDA
solves a potential problem associated with LF movement of the true wh-element to the
[Spec;CP] of matrix clause, inasmuch as this movement does not take place in IDA.
Finally, the IDA deals with this problem for languages with overt movement - something
which the DDA fails to explain. Recall that the DDA does not explain why a wh-element in
the second clause moves to [-wh] position in an embedded [Spec;CP]. Under the IDA the
explanation is straightforward: the embedded clause is a question by itself, which means
that a wh-element moves to the left periphery of the clause where it checks both wh and
interrogative Q features.
The Indirect Dependency approach seems to work perfectly for German and Hindi,
and, moreover, it can explain the properties described in section 5.1. for Slavic languages,
Russian in particular, which the DDA fails to account for. There is one property of the
Slavic wh-scope marker that presents a problem for Dayal‘s analysis, namely lexical makeup of the wh-scope marker. Recall that Dayal‘s approach was origionally developed in
order to account properties observed in Hindi, and then later it was extended to German.
Both German and Hindi utilize a wh-word meaning what as a wh-scope marker (kyaa for
Hindi and was for German). Based on this similarity, Dayal proposes that the scope marker
is base generated in the argument position and co-indexed with the complement CP (Dayal,
1994). I repeat here the structure for easy reference:
513.
jaun kyaa soctaa hai meri kis-se
john what thinks
baat karegii?
Mary who-with will talk
‗Who does John think Mary will talk to?‘
224
(Dayal, 1994:138)
IP
CPi
IP
CP
IP
VP
VP
NP
NP
jaun
meri
(John)
NPi
V
kyaa
(Mary)
soctaa hai
(what)
NP
kis-sej
(who with)
(thinks)
V
baat karegii
(will-talk)
This proposal works fine for languages utilizing a wh-scope with a meaning what, while it
poses problems for Slavic languages, using an adjunct wh-element meaning how as a scope
marker.
514.
Kak ty dumaeš‘, kogda oni nam pozvonjat?
how you think
when they to-u will-call-they
‗When do you think they will call us?
Note that kak cannot be substituted by čto (meaning what) as a scope marker; the sentences
will be ungrammatical (515). Interestingly, if we use čego/čë discussed in section 4.2.,
instead of čto, the sentence appears to be less degraded.
515.
a.*Čto ty dumaeš‘, kogda oni nam pozvonjat?
what you think
when they us-to call-they
b.?Čego/čë ty dumaeš‘, kogda oni nam pozvonjat?
what you think
when they us-to call-they
The lesser degradation of (515b) can be explained by the nature of čego/čë, being
interpreted as why, rather than what and belonging to the adjunct wh-phrase group in its
meaning, the same as kak.
225
Dayal‘s syntactic analysis fails to account for Russian data, given that the whadjunct kak cannot be generated in the argument position, Dayal‘s proposal requires some
modification to accommodate a Slavic wh-scope marker.
Stepanov (2000) considers the meaning of the wh-scope marker in Slavic to be a
problem for the semantic part of Dayal‘s analysis. Recall that her proposal is about taking
the wh-scope marker to be an existential quantifier over sets of propositions. Wh-scope
marker in Hindi happens to be the same wh-word as the wh-word for what in questions that
inquire about propositions as in (516).
516.
Jaun kyaa socta hai
(Dayal, 2000:162)
John what think-PR
‗What does John think?‘
The Russian counterpart of Hindi example in (516) also employs a wh-word meaning what
as in (517).
517.
Čto
(ob
etom) dumaet Ivan?
what about this
think
(Stepanov, 2000:32)
Ivan
‗What does John think (about that)?‘
Example (517) shows that čto in Russian is well capable of quantifying over propositions,
just like kyaa in Hindi (516). However, as it has been shown in example (515), the
substitution of kak with čto leads to ungrammaticality. Therefore, even if we assume that
čto in Russian is an existential quantifier over sets of propositions, it still cannot function as
a scope marker (Stepanov, 2000).
In order to find out if kak can function as an existential quantifier over sets of
propositions, Stepanov replaces čto in (517) with kak.
518.
*Kak (ob
etom) dumaet Ivan?
how about this
(Stepanov, 2000:33)
think Ivan
Intended: ‗What does John think (about that)?‘
226
Comparison of (517) and (518) shows that it is not possible to have kak in the same context
as čto. The only reading (518) obtains here is where kak functions as a regular adverbial
questioning the manner of John‘s thinking.
The data presented in above provide evidence against Dayal‘s predicted parallelism
between the semantic function of the wh-phrase as an existential quantifier over sets of
propositions and that of a wh-scope marker (Stepanov, 2000:33). Russian examples (517)
and (518) illustrate the differences in the distribution of the wh-scope marker and
existential quantifier over propositions, i.e. the wh-word kak, meaning how, that
participates in wh-scope marking, is not capable of quantifying over propositions, whereas
wh-word čto, meaning what, capable of quantifying over propositions, resist being a scope
marker. This leads Stepanov (2000) to the conclusion that the distribution of the two whelements is not parallel in Dayal‘s sense. Stepanov does not consider the above discussion
to be an argument against the IDA; however, Dayal‘s approach can still be correct. One can
assume that kak in wh-scope marking questions may function as an existential quantifier
over propositions regardless of the fact that it cannot be used in Russian counterpart to
What does John think?
To summarize, the Indirect Dependency approach suggests that both wh-scope
marker and wh-element in the embedded clause are true wh-elements; the scope marker is
generated in argument position and is co-indexed with the complement CP. There is no
direct dependency between wh-expressions, but instead, they form two local dependencies,
i.e. both clauses are questions by themselves and movement of wh-elements to [Spec;CP] is
feature-driven. IDA allows the lower clause to be a yes/no question and does not suggest
movement at LF of the wh-element in an embedded clause to the matrix [Spec;CP] for
replacement of the wh-scope marker. In order to allow answers specifying values of the
embedded wh, Dayal suggests that the second clause in a wh-scope marking question
functions as a semantic restriction on the existentially quantifying wh-scope marker.
Dayal‘s approach meets some challenges when applying IDA to Russian data, due to the
lexical make-up of the wh-scope quantifier which is different from other languages.
In the next section, I suggest an alternative analysis for wh-scope marking
constructions.
227
6.2.3. The Mixed Dependency Approach
Mahajan (1996) develops the Mixed Dependency Approach (henceforth MDA), according
to which the higher wh-phrase is an expletive associated with the embedded interrogative
clause and is indirectly linked to a true wh-element. Later this approach is refined in
Fanselow and Mahajan (2000), suggesting that there is a direct link between the matrix whelements and the embedded clause (Malhotra and Chandra, 2007). Under this analysis, the
wh-scope marker is a wh-correlate of a ‗sentential expletive‘ in declarative sentences,
associated with finite clauses in the same regard as it in English is associated with CPs as in
It is clear that John left (Stepanov, 2000:14). Mahajan (1990), studying Hindi wh-scope
marking constructions, comes to the conclusion that kyaa, meaning what, is a wh-correlate
of yeh, meaning it. He draws this conclusion based on the fact that both kyaa and yeh can
occur in the same object position of the matrix verb (Stepanov, 2000:14):
519.
a. siitee-ne kyaa socaa
ki
ravii-ne kis-ko dekhaa
sita-erg what thought that Rivi-erg who
saw
‗What did Sita think, who Ravi saw?‘
b. siitee-ne yeh jaantaa hai ki
sita-erg it
know
ravii-ne kis-ko dekhaa
that Ravi-erg who
saw
„Sita knows (it) who Ravi saw?‟
Mahajan shows in his analysis that at D-structure the expletive yeh forms a constituent with
the clause that follows it, and this constituent is located in preverbal position as in (520)
(Stepanov, 2000:14).
520.
raam-ne [yeh [ki mohan-ne gaaRii Thiik kii]] socaa
Ram
it
that Mohan
car
fixed
228
think
Later in the derivation, the embedded clause undergoes extraposition but yeh remains in the
preverbal object position (521) (Stepanov, 2000:14).
521.
raam-ne yeh socaa [ki mohan-ne gaaRii Thiik kii]
Ram
it
think that Mohan
car
fixed
Based on the data presented above, Mahajan concludes that the wh-scope marker kyaa is a
wh-correlate of expletive yeh, i.e. kyaa is a kind of sentential expletive that has [+wh]
feature. In a wh-scope construction, the embedded question is a complement of the whelement kyaa, and together they form a constituent, a complex DP, which forms the object
of the matrix verb, then kyaa moves to its preverbal object position, presumably for case
checking, and then, at LF level, the CP replaces the wh-scope marker by pied-piping raising
at LF, as illustrated in (522).
522.
siitee-ne kyaa socaa ki
raam-ne kis-ko dekhaa
Sita-erg what thought that Raam-erg who
‗What did Sita think, who Ram saw?‘
229
saw
(Stepanov, 2000:15)
CP
C
Spec
IP
VP
DP
sitaa-ne
(Sita)
V
DPi
DP
kyaai
(what)
V
socaa
(thought)
CPi
C
ti
Spec
IP
C
ki
(that)
At LF
VP
DP
raam-ne
(Ram)
NP
kis-ko
(who)
V
dekhaa
(saw)
Replacement of the wh-scope marker by the CP at LF is reminiscent of the Direct
Dependency Approach, which also treats the wh-scope marker as an expletive.
Stepanov (2000) mentions that a similar analysis of wh-scope marking
constructions was proposed by Herburger (1994), where the wh-scope marker is the head of
a DP taking a CP complement, which is obligatory extraposed at LF level, and as a result it
appears as the second clause in a wh-scope marking construction. DP is a regular whelement which undergoes wh-movement at LF. Stepanov (2000) proposes the following
schematic structure of Hindi example (522) after the LF wh-movement and extraposition
took place:
230
523.
CP
IP
Spec
IP
CP
DPi
D
siitee-ne ti socaa
raam-ne kis-ko dekhaa
(Sita-erg ti thought)
(Raam-erg who
saw)
tCP
kyaa
(what)
Stepanov (2000:15), inspired by the approach proposed by Mahajan (1990), Fanselow and
Mahajan (1996), and Herburger (1994), proposes a similar analysis for Slavic languages,
where the wh-scope marker forms a constituent with the second clause at D-Structure
resulting in the following representation:
524.
vy dumaete [XP kak[CP kogo
you think
how
Ivan ljubit]]?
who-acc John love
Stepanov suggests that kak in Russian occupies the head position and takes the second
clause as a complement. He proposes the following steps of the derivation:
Step 1. Wh-element moves to [Spec;CP] in the embedded clause:
[kogoi
Ivan ljubit ti]
who-acc John loves
Step 2. CP is combined with the wh-scope marker into a constituent
[XPkak + [CPkogoi
how
Ivan ljubit ti]]
who-acc John loves
231
Step 3. Assuming that kak is a head, Stepanov suggests that kak moves overtly to the matrix
Comp to check strong Q features. (Stepanov‘s suggested head movement is a problem for
the Head Movement Constraint).
[CPKakj [IPvy dumaete [XP tj [CP kogoi
how
you think
Ivan ljubit ti]] ]]
who-acc John loves
Step 4. At LF, the entire XP that originates in the object position of the matrix verb moves
to matrix [Spec;CP].
[CP [XP kak [CP kogo
how
ljubut Ivan]]i
vy dumaete ti ]
who-acc loves Ivan
you think
In order to explain movement at LF, Stepanov (2000) adopts the copy theory of movement
(Chomsky 1995), under which a moved element leaves a copy of itself in the base
generated position. The structure of Step 3, after the overt movement took place can be
presented as follows (Stepanov, 2000:24):
[CPKakj [IPvy dumaete [XP kakj [CP kogoi
how
you think
how
Ivan ljubit whoi]] ]]
who-acc John loves who-scc
Following Chomsky (1995) and Nunes (1995), Stepanov (2000) assumes that for the
purposes of semantic computation the wh-scope marker behaves as if it has not moved to
the matrix CP. The semantic component makes use of the lower copy of the moved whscope marker kak and does not ‗see‘ the higher copy (Stepanov, 2000:24). This means that
the overt movement of kak must be driven only by formal requirement, such as ‗strength‘,
in Chomsky (1995) minimalist framework. Under the copy theory of movement, the lower
wh-scope marker still forms the constituent with the second clause at LF, which moves to
[Spec;CP] at the level of LF. Furthermore, Stepanov utilizes Dayal‘s Indirect Dependency
Approach, which suggests that the second clause in a wh-scope marking question functions
232
as a semantic restriction on the wh-scope marker, defined as an existential quantifier. In
Stepanov‘s proposal, the wh-scope marker forms a constituent with the second clause, thus
restricting it at the level of LF (Stepanov, 2000).
To summarize, the Mixed Dependency Approach combines elements of the Direct
Dependency Approach and the Indirect Dependency approach. The wh-scope marker is
treated as a kind of expletive with a [+wh] feature, and the embedded clause contains a true
wh-phrase. The embedded question is a complement of the wh-expletive, and together they
form a constituent, a complex DP, which forms the object of the matrix verb. Later, at the
level of LF, the CP moves to the matrix [Spec;CP] position where it substitutes the whexpletive (Mahajan, 1996), or the DP (wh-expletive) moves together with CP to the matrix
[Spec;CP] (Herburger, 1994). Stepanov (2000) utilizes this approach and offers his analysis
of Russian wh-scope marking questions. He suggests that the wh-scope marker kak forms a
constituent XP with the embedded clause, its complement, and the entire XP moves at LF
to [Spec;CP].
In the next section, I offer an analysis of wh-scope marking construction in Russian,
which adopts one of the above-presented approaches.
6.3.
Analysis of Russian wh-scope marking constructions
Before analyzing the wh-scope marking construction, it is necessary to understand whether
Russian wh-scope marker kak is an expletive or a true wh-element. Recall that most of the
languages we came across utilize a wh-scope marker meaning what, except Russian and
Polish which use kak, meaning how. Moreover, it has been shown in 6.2.2. that Russian kak
cannot quantify over propositions, in contrast to the wh-scope marker meaning what in
other languages.
233
6.3.1. The status of the Slavic wh-scope marker
As it has been seen from the discussion above, Russian uses kak for extending scope and it
seems to be the minimal specification of a wh-phrase, just as do is the minimal
specification of the verbal head (Mycock, 2004).
525.
Kak ty dumaeš‘, kogda oni pročitajut
how you think
stat‘ju?
when they will-read-through article
‗When do you think they will finish the article?‘
If Russian kak is an expletive, it should display properties showing lack of semantic
content.
Mycock (2004) provides evidence for the wh-scope marker what (crosslinguistically) being an expletive by drawing a parallel between English the expletive it and
the wh-scope marker what.
Let us go though some properties of the expletive it:
A. The expletive pronoun it has no Ɵ-role and is simply a ‗place-filler‘ for the subject
position (Danon, 2010). Recall that according to the Direct Dependency Approach, a whscope marker is referred to as a ‗place holder‘ for a true wh-element.
B. The expletive pronoun it cannot be replaced by a wh-word (526) (Danon, 2010).
Wh-scope marker cannot be replaced by another wh-word; however, only a wh-word
meaning kak, for Russian, is licensed in this kind of construction (čego can appear in this
type of constructions as in (515), but the sentence is degraded).
526.
a. It surprised Max that Matilda won the elections.
b. *What surprised Max that Matilda won the elections?
234
527.
Kak/*čto/ *kto ty dumaeš‘, kogda oni pridut?
How/what/who you think
528.
(Russian)
when they will come
Was/*wann glaubst du, wann sie gekommen ist?
what/when think
you when she come
(German)
is
C. Both expletive and wh-scope marker can appear in intervening clauses, forming
unbounded dependencies; this is also true for Russian kak.
529.
Kak ty dumaeš‘, kak Ivan sčitaet, kogo
how you think
vybirut
prezidentom?
(Russian)
how Ivan believes who-acc will elect president
‗Who do you think that John think will be elected as the president?‘
530.
Raam-ne kyaa socaa,
ki ravii-ne kyaa kaha,
ki son sa aadmii aayaa thaa?
Ram-erg what think-past that ravi-erg what say-past that which man
‗Which man did Rami think that Ravi said came?‘
came be-past
(Hindi, Mahajan, 2000:322)
D. Expletives cannot be stressed; the same is true for the Russian wh-scope marker kak.
Mycock (2004) points out that the same property is found in Hungarian. In Hindi, on the
other hand, wh-scope marker kyaa can be stressed only when the true wh-element in the
embedded clause is stressed as well.
E. Expletives cannot be passivised. According to Mycock (2004), this characteristic is true
for Hindi. It is inapplicable to Russian, since the wh-scope marker here is an adjunct whelement kak, which cannot be passivised.
We have shown that a wh-scope marker has some common propoerties with an expletive
pronoun. Now how does this differ from a true wh-element?
It is assumed that a true wh-element is an interrogative quantifier. Horvath (1997)
notes that ‗nothing‘ can be an answer to a wh-fronting construction; an answer not possible
for wh-expletive questions. The same is true for Hungarian (531), Hindi (Mycock, 2004)
and Russian (532):
235
531.
a. Mit
mondott
Janos,
hogy ki-vel
tancolt?
(Horvath, 2000:301)
what-acc say-past.3sg John –nom that who-with dance-past.3sg
‗With whom did John say that he had danced?‘
b.*Emmit
nem momdott,
hogy ki-vel
tancolt.
nothing.acc not say.past.3sg that who-with dance.past.3sg
‗He did not say anything with whom he had danced.‘
532.
a. Kak ty dumaeš‘, s
how you think
kem vstretilsja Mark?
with whom met
(Russian)
Mark
‗Who do you think Mark met with?
b.*Nikak ne dumaju s
nothing not think
kem Mark vstretilsja.
with whom Mark met
According to Mycock (2004), the data presented above are inconsistent with Dayal‘s
proposal that a wh-scope marker is a quantifier over propositions. The same has been
shown by Stepanov (2000) and outlined in 6.2.2. Therefore, it seems that a wh-scope
marker is not a propositional variable, but an expletive in the constructions under
discussion.
Furthermore, we come across interesting examples in (533) for Russian and (534) for
Mandarin Chinese, where the wh-scope marker appears to be optional:
533.
a.Kak ty dumaeš‘, kogo ja videla?
how you think
(Gelderen, 2001:90)
whom I saw
‗Who do you think I saw?‘
b.Ty dumaeš‘, kogo ja videla?
you think
whom I saw
‗Who do you think I saw?‘
534.
Ying yiwei Min buy-asp what?
(Mycock, 2004:373)
Ying think Min buy-asp what
‘What does Ying think Min bought?‘
236
(533b) shows that, although kak is omitted, the question still gets the interpretation similar
to the one of the corresponding long-distance question as in (533a).
Interestingly, it seems that wh-expletive kak is also optional with yes/no questions
in the second clause:
535.
a. Kak ty dumaeš‘, budet li
how you think
zavtra
doţd‘?
will part tomorrow rain
b. ty dumaeš‘, budet li
you think
zavtra
doţd‘?
will part tomorrow rain
Dropping of the wh-scope marker does not lead to ungrammaticality, unlike wh-questions
with true wh-elements (536). This fact also suggests that a wh-expletive is semantically
empty.
536.
a. Počemy ty dumaeš‘ čto eto opasno?
why
you think that this dangerous
‗Why do you think that this is dangerous?‘
b.*Ty dumaeš‘ čto eto opasno?
you think
that this dangerous
Intention: ‗Why do you think that this is dangerous?‘
It is clear from the data that a true wh-element cannot be dropped without losing its
meaning. The answer in (536) can be only ‗yes or no‘.
It clearly follows from the discussion above that the wh-scope marker kak in
Russian is not a true wh-element, contrary to the Indirect Dependency approach, but rather
some kind of an expletive, which has [+wh] and Q features. The wh-expletive raises to the
left periphery of the matrix clause for feature checking. From now on I refer to the whscope marker as a wh-expletive.
237
6.3.2. Syntactic structure of wh-scope marking constructions
So far we have established that the Russian wh-scope marker is in fact some kind of whexpletive, which is endowed with the same features as true wh-element; it has [wh] and Q
features which have to be checked by raising the wh-expletive to the left periphery of the
matrix clause.
It has been suggested by the Direct Dependency Approach that the wh-expletive is
base generated in the matrix [Spec;CP]; however, the Indirect Dependency approach and
the Mixed Dependency Approach argue an argument position of the matrix verb as a base
position for the wh-scope marker. So, first we need to understand where the wh-expletive is
generated.
Let us recall one of the properties of a wh-scope marker discussed in 6.1.: a matrix
clause containing a wh-scope marker cannot be negated or contain a negative operator.
537.
*Kak vy ne dumaete, kuda on pošel?
how you not think
(Russian)
where he went
‗Where do not you think that he went?‘
(537) is an example of a negative island effect (Rizzi, 1990; 1992). Rizzi proposes that
negation is a selective barrier to extraction and only referential (bearing Ɵ-roles), but not
non-referential expressions, can escape this barrier. Negation can act as a potential
antecedent governor for the trace of the extracted wh-phrase, which leads to a violation of
Relativized Minimality. If, according to DDA, a wh-expletive was located in [Spec;CP],
example (537) would have been grammatical. Based on this fact I dismiss the idea that a
wh-expletive can be base generated in [Spec;CP].
I follow the proposal suggested in the IDA and MDA where a wh-scope marker is
base generated inside vP. Recall that according to these approaches, a wh-expletive is
located in an argument position of the matrix verb, which works fine for wh-scope marker
meaning what, but does not quite working for Russian, which utilizes wh-adjunct kak.
238
I propose that the wh-expletive in Russian occupies a position inside vP and takes
an embedded CP as a complement. I assume that wh-scope is in Spec position due to the
incompatibility of a moved wh-phrase with a wh-scope marker in the matrix clause,
contrary to Stepanov‘s approach (2000), which assumes Head position for the wh-element.
538.
*Kak čto vy dumaete ona kupila?
how what you think
she bought
Following Stepanov (2000), I propose the following steps for the derivation of the whscope marker construction.
539.
Kak vy dumaete čto
how you think
ona kupila?
what she bought
Step 1. Wh-element moves to [Spec;CP] in the embedded clause:
[čtoi ona kupila ti]
what she bought
Step 2. Wh-expletive takes embedded CP as a complement and they form a constituent
[Kak [čtoi ona kupila ti]]
how what she bought
Step 3. Kak moves overtly to the [Spec;CP], contrary to Stepanov (2000), where it moves
to Head of CP
[CPKakj [IPvy dumaete [XP tj [CP čtoi ona kupila ti]]]]
how
you think
what she bought
239
Now, recall that under the Cartographic Approach (Rizzi, 1997), the left periphery of the
clause is seen as a structural zone defined by a system of functional heads and their
projection. Thus, Rizzi distinguishes Force, Topic, Focus, (Wh – for embedded clauses),
and Fin within the C system. If in Italian, Wh projection appears only in an embedded
clause, I argue that in Russian it can also appear in a matrix clause; subsequently, Wh
becomes a part of C system in Russian wh-questions. Interestingly, this is not a case in
Russian wh-scope marking constructions. Consider the example below:
540.
*Kak ty a ne ja dumaju, čto ona kupila?
How you and not I think
what she bought
The data in (540) appear to demonstrate that a wh-expletive and a focus cannot co-occur in
the same structure, suggesting that they compete for the same position, i.e. Focus.
Mycock (2004) also suggests that the wh-expletive is focused, drawing this
conclusion based on the data coming from wh-in-situ languages, in which the position of
the wh-expletive appears consistent with it being a focused element in the matrix clause.
She proposes to analyze the wh-expletive as bearing the discourse function FOCUS47.
Mycock (2004:383) takes up the notion that discourse functions are integrated into the
meaning of a sentence according to the Extended Coherence Condition, which states that
Focus and Topic must be linked to the semantic predicate argument structure of the
sentence in which they occur, either by functionally or by anaphorically binding an
argument.
(Dalrymple, 2001:390)
Therefore, following from the discussion above, the wh-expletive must be linked to an
element bearing a grammatical function, and according to the analysis outlined, the whexpletive is linked to the embedded clause, bearing the grammatical function COMP
47
Mycock (2004) provides an analysis of the wh-scope marking construction in the non-derivational
framework of Lexical Functional Grammar. However, I will not discuss it here, but rather only outline the
main idea of Mycock‘s analysis.
240
(Mycock, 2004:384). Finally, she suggests that an embedded clause functions as a
controller in a wh-expletive construction. This idea is similar to the one outlined in the
Indirect Dependency and Mixed Dependency Approaches, where an embedded
complement is treated as a sort of restrictor of a matrix wh.
Returning to the discussion of the position of a wh-expletive in the C domain, I
suggest that kak moves to a [Spec;Foc] position (Recall that Rizzi (1997;1999) suggests
[Spec;Foc] as a landing site for wh-elements), where it checks relevant features, whereas a
true wh-element in the second clause, moves to a designated WhP in the left periphery of
the embedded clause.
Following from the above discussions I assume the syntactic structure of a whscope marking construction as in (541):
541.
Kak ty dumaeš‘ kogo ona priglasila?
how you think
whom she invited
‗Who do you think she invited?‘
ForceP
FocP
FinP
IP
kaki
(how)
vP
DP
ty
(you)
WhP
V
dumaeš‘
(think)
ForceP
wh
WhP
ti
FinP
wh
IP
kogoj
vP
(whom)
DP
ona
(she)
V
priglasila
(invited)
241
Wh-ObjP
tj
In this view, the wh-expletive kak is base generated in [Spec;WhP] within vP and it takes
an embedded complementizer as a complement, forming with it a constituent (a la Stepanov
(2000), Mahajan (1996), etc.) . Later in the derivation, the wh-expletive moves to
[Spec;FocP], where it checks the relevant features.
In order to account for the semantic part of the wh-scope marking construction, I
follow Stepanov (2000), who proposes that by forming a constituent with the wh-expletive,
the second clause restricts the wh-scope marker at the level of LF, thus yielding the
interpretation of a long distance movement question. I support Stepanov‘s (2000)
utilization of the copy theory of movement proposed by Chomsky (1995) where he
suggests that for the purposes of semantic computation the wh-scope marker behaves as if it
has not moved to the matrix CP. Under the copy theory of movement the wh-scope marker
still forms a constituent with the embedded clause at LF and moves together by pied-piping
to the left periphery. Furthermore, I propose that this constituent moves to [Spec;ForceP]
where it checks interrogative Q feature,48 and gets the scope over the whole construction.
48
Recall that in Stepanov‘s analysis the XP constituent moves to [Spec;CP] at LF.
242
542.
ForceP
FocP
Spec
FinP
IP
kaki
(how)
vP
DP
ty
(you)
WhP
V
dumaeš
(think)
ForceP
WhP
wh
ti
FinP
IP
wh
kogoj
vP
(whom)
At LF
DP
ona
(she)
V
priglasila
Wh-ObjP
tj
(invited)
saw
Now, recall the discussion in 5.3., which addresses examples without an overt
complementizer as in (543).
543.
who you think
bought cat
One of the solutions, offered by Rizzi and Shlonsky (2007), is truncation of Force. Partial
wh-movement seemed to be a problem for this solution. According to their analysis absence
of an overt complementizer in (544) suggests truncation of Force, which means that the whelement kogo – ‗whom‘ does not have a position to move for checking the Q feature.
243
544.
Kak ty dumaeš‘ kogo ona priglasila?
how you think
whom she invited
‗Who do you think she invited?‘
Based on the analysis proposed in this section, and assuming Rizzi and Shlonsky‘s Force
truncation in the clauses without an overt complementizer, the structure of (544) is
presented in (545), where at LF the whole constituent moves to [Spec,ForceP] of the matrix
clause where the Q feature is checked.
545.
ForceP
FocP
Spec
FinP
IP
kaki
(how)
vP
DP
ty
(you)
V
dumaeš
(think)
truncated
WhP
ForceP
WhP
wh
ti
FinP
IP
wh
kogoj
At LF
vP
(whom)
DP
ona
(she)
V
priglasila
Wh-ObjP
tj
(invited)
saw
244
Thus, Rizzi and Shlonsky (2007) suggestion of Force truncation in clauses without an overt
complementizer works for Russian as well.
To summarize, this chapter has outlined properties of Slavic wh-scope marking questions
and summarized previous analyses offered in order to account for the phenomenon of a whscope marking construction.
According to the Direct Dependency Approach, a wh-scope marker is semantically
empty and treated as some kind of expletive, which functions as a place holder for a true
wh-element in the embedded clause, which moves to replace the wh-expletive at the level
of LF. The wh-expletive is base generated in [Spec,CP] and endowed with a [+wh] feature.
This approach suggests a direct link between the wh-expletive and true wh-phrase in the
embedded clause. A few problems arising from this analysis allowed us to dismiss this
approach and turn to the other two.
Under the Indirect Dependency Approach, there is no direct link between the whexpletive and the wh-word; rather there is a link between the wh-scope marker and the
embedded question. A wh-scope marker is a true wh-element which is base-generated in an
argument position within VP and restricted by the embedded clause. This approach
assumes that a wh-scope construction consists of two local wh-dependencies, which are coindexed, and the effect of long-distance dependency arises from their co-indexation.
The Mixed Dependency Approach combines elements of the DDA and IDA, where
the wh-scope is an expletive, forming a constituent with the embedded clause.
In order to account for Russian wh-scope marking constructions, I offer an analysis
based on the Mixed Dependency Approach. After studying the properties of Russian whscope marker, I come to the conclusion that Russian kak is an expletive endowed with a
[wh] feature. Kak is base generated in vP: it takes the embedded clause with a true whphrase as a complement and they together form a constituent. Kak moves to [Spec;FocP]
where it checks relevant features. By forming a constituent with the wh-expletive, the
second clause restricts the wh-scope marker at the level of LF, thus yielding the
interpretation of a long distance movement question.
245
246
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUDIING REMARKS
This dissertation has offered a comparative analysis of Russian wh-questions with other
languages involving multiple wh-movement, and has argued against the common
perception of Russian as a language where a wh-phrase does not undergo wh-movement or
show any Superiority effects. The data and analyses presented in this work argue for the
opposite.
Before discussing syntactic properties of multiple wh-movement in Russian, I have
devoted the Introduction to outlining the ideas that underlie the present dissertation. I have
offered a brief discussion of the Cartographic approach, Relativized Minimality and
Criterial freezing and showed their development in the literature.
In Chapter 2, I have presented traditional views on multiple wh-fronting languages,
Russian in particular. Russian has been argued by Stepanov (1997) to pattern with wh-insitu languages in the absence of an overt wh-movement. Furthermore, it has been claimed
by Stepanov (1997) and Bošković (2002) that the reason for fronting wh-elements in
Russian is purely focus checking. Before going into a detailed discussion of properties of
wh-movement in Russian, I have discussed the notion of Superiority effect, Empty category
Principle, single pair and pair list readings, Weak Crossover and D-linking. Based on the
information available in the literature, I have outlined properties of Bulgarian and SerbCroatian wh-questions, which, later in the chapter, have been compared to the properties of
Russian wh-questions.
The initial information gathered from the literature has indicated that Russian does
not allow single pair readings, which means that overt syntactic wh-movement takes place.
It has been also pointed out by Rudin (1996), Zavitnevich (2001) and Stepanov (1997) that
Russian shows a preference for a particular wh-word order in some multiple questions, but
247
no further research has been done until now. The information collected contradicts previous
assumptions made on Russian which has supported our intention to study wh-movement in
Russian.
The facts discussed in Chapter 2 have encouraged us to consider the possibility for
Russian to be a language exhibiting Superiority effects and to study Russian by comparing
it to Bulgarian, the language displaying a rigid word order. In Chapter 3, I have followed
Krapova and Cinque‘s (2005) detailed analysis of the Bulgarian left periphery, where they
distinguish a specific ordering of wh-phrases which reflects the order prior to whmovement. The data collected have revealed that the order of Russian wh-phrases is very
similar to the one in Bulgarian, which shows that [+human] wh-elements precede [-human],
subjects precede objects and adjuncts, and the order of wh-elements in embedded clauses is
much stricter and more differentiated. I have also presented Meyer‘s (2004) study of
Superiority effects in Russian, which supports a few conclusions I have drawn out of my
data.
Having the data at hand has allowed me to proceed with a syntactic analysis of whquestions. I have discussed four main analyses of multiple wh-questions mentioned in the
literature, i.e. the adjunction analysis (Rudin, 1988), the wh-cluster analysis (Grewendorf,
2001), the multiple [Spec;CP] analysis (Pesetsky, 2000, 2002; Richards, 1997), and split
CP analysis (Rizzi, 1997; Grohman, 1998; Laenzlinger and Soare, 2005, etc.).
Discussing Bulgarian data, I have presented Krapova and Cinque‘s (2005) syntactic
analysis of Bulgarian wh-questions, where they adopt Rizzi‘s (1997) Cartographic
approach, and suggest that the order of wh-elements in Bulgarian reflects the order prior to
wh-movement within the IP structure (Mittelfeild). The Superiority effect in their analysis
is captured under a modified version of Relativized Minimality, where links of a chain do
not count as interveners, but the whole chain.
Following Krapova and Cinque‘s (2005) lead, I have looked at the word order in
Russian and compared it to the order of wh-elements distinguished in this chapter. These
data have allowed me to argue that the order in the IP structure reflects the order after the
movement, which supports an analysis of Russian wh-questions according to the
Cartographic approach.
248
Finally, the Chapter 3 concludes with a syntactic analysis of Russian wh-questions.
Following Rizzi‘s (1997) approach, I have proposed to extend the C system and distinguish
additional projections, i.e. ForceP, FocP, TopP, FinP and a separate projection WhP for whelements. Following Krapova and Cinque (2005), I have assumed that the order of whelements is realized in the IP (Mittelfeld) prior to movement and is preserved under the
notion of Relativized Minimality. In order to account for a not-really-free order of whelements in wh-matrix questions, I have proposed that the order is ‗ruled‘ by internal makeup, syntactic function of wh-elements and prominence of information, based on which
order is realized in Mittelfeld, preserved under the notion of Relativized Minimality and
emerges in CP.
In Chapter 4, I drew my attention to a peculiar group of wh-phrases in Russian
which I referred to as ‗why-wh-elements‘. First, I have provided an analysis for two nonhomonymous lexical items počemu and začem which distinguished purpose from reason
varieties of why and have shown that they demonstrate some syntactic differences, leading
to the conclusion that the two whys occupy different positions in the syntactic derivation.
Počemu is argued to be externally –merged in the functional projection CauseP, which is
located in the CP domain; while začem is base-generated in VP, like other wh-elements,
and moves to the left periphery to check wh-features.
Next, I focused on aggressively non-D-linked wh-phrases of kakogo čërta – „why
the hell‘ type and nominal wh-elements čto and čego meaning ‗why.‘ I have shown that
these types of wh-phrases are different from počemu and začem, i.e. they cannot occur in
situ or with verdical predicates. I have discussed Obenauer and Poletto‘s (2000) analysis of
Italian rhetorical wh-questions (questions with aggressively non-D-linked wh-elements)
where they claim that the position of a wh-element in such questions is higher than in true
wh-questions. Russian data did not support their claim, since in Russian a Topic cannot be
higher than a wh-element. Furthermore, the data presented in 4.2.5 have revealed that
aggressively non-D-linked wh-elements follow ‗true‘ wh-elements in coordinated multiple
wh-questions.
While discussing wh-questions with aggressively non-D-linked wh-elements, I have
come across examples with coordinated wh-phrases, which have required attention and
have been addressed in 4.3. I have considered the analysis proposed by Grimshaw (1978),
249
where she considers coordination prior to the wh-movement, and the analysis offered by
Kazenin (2002) and Camacho (2003), where coordination is treated as an instance of two
CPs coordination followed by sluicing, and I have dismissed both of them. Gribanova‘s
(2009) proposal of coordination in CP involving quantifier absorption analysis seemed to
look most plausible, but it did not account for the Superiority effect and pair-list reading
emerging in coordination of more than two wh-elements. Finally, following Merchant
(2008), I have come to the conclusion that Russian coordinator ‗i‟ found between whphrases in Russian is a spurious coordinator, which is different from a canonical
coordinator. I have argued that wh-elements are coordinated above IP after they have
moved to their positions in the left periphery; later they move to a [Spec;FocP] where the
spurious ‗i‘ is realised as a discourse marker bearing some focus feature. Wh-elements form
a cluster and move to ForceP, to check a [Q] feature.
Chapter 5 has addressed the phenomenon of that-trace effect in Russian indicative
and subjunctive clauses. In this chapter, we have discussed major existing approaches, such
as NIC approach (Pesetsky, 1982), ECP account (Rizzi, 1990), Richards‘ account (1999),
Szczegielniak‘s proposal (1999) and Rizzi and Shlonsky‘s proposal (2006). The data have
shown that neither indicative nor subjunctive clauses exhibit Subject/Object asymmetry and
that while extraction of either object or subject out of an indicative embedded clause is
impossible, extraction out of a subjunctive clause does not cause any problems.
Discussing subjunctive complementizers in 5.2, I have studied the phenomenon of
obviation effect and outlined three analyses devoted to find an explanation to this
phenomenon, namely the Avoid Pronoun Principe (Chomsky, 1981), the Domain Extension
Approach (Picallo, 1984; Rizzi, 1989; Progovac, 1993), and Avrutin and Babyonyshev‘s
analysis (1997).
In 5.3., I have argued that Russian has only one complementizer, the indicative
complementizer čto, which merges as Fin and moves further to Force. The subjunctive
complementizer čtoby, on its part, is not a true morphological complementizer; it is derived
by means of syntactic movement, i.e. the indicative complementizer čto moves through
Mood, merges with a particle by and moves further to Force.
The impossibility of the subject/object extraction out of the indicative embedded
clause has brought us to the conclusion that whenever Head of Force is occupied by that,
250
[Spec;ForceP] becomes inaccessible to a wh-element, thus there is no escape hatch from the
embedded phase and further movement is impossible. This does not happen in a
subjunctive clause, where, presumably, the fact that čto moves through MoodP and gets a
[+Mood] feature allows the complementizer to co-occur with a wh-element.
This Chapter has also addressed the phenomena of Criterial Freezing and Subject
Criterion. I follow Rizzi and Shlonsky (2007) in suggesting that the projection Fin is
endowed with the relevant nominal features and unvalued Phi features which can satisfy the
Subject Criterion, allowing the wh-subject to ‗skip‘ the [Spec;Subj] position and avoid the
Criterial Freezing.
Chapter 6 has been devoted to wh-scope marking constructions in Russian. This
chapter has offered a comparative analysis of properties of wh-scope marker in Russian and
other wh-scope marking languages, such as German, Polish and Hindi. The data have
revealed that a wh-scope marker in Russian and Polish constructions is a wh-element
meaning how, contrary to other wh-scope marking languages, where a wh-scope marker is
a wh-element meaning what. The discussion of why Slavic languages employ a wh-scope
marker meaning why and not what as in other languages is left for further research.
I have summarized previous analyses of wh-scope marking constructions discussed
in the literature, namely the Direct Dependency Approach (McDaniel, 1989), the Indirect
Dependency Approach (Dayal, 1994) and the Mixed Dependency Approach (Mahajan,
1996). I have followed Mycock (2004) in defining the status of Russian wh-scope marker
kak and have come to the conclusion that kak is an expletive endowed with a [wh] feature
and base generated in vP; it takes the embedded clause with a true wh-phrase as a
complement and they together form a constituent. Kak moves to [Spec;FocP] where it
checks relevant features.
This dissertation has presented another perspective on the syntactic structure of whquestions in Russian, arguing against the traditional view on wh-movement. The data
collected have shown that wh-questions in Russian do involve wh-movement, they do
exhibit Superiority effects and they have a much more complicated syntactic structure than
it has been previously assumed.
This dissertation did not address any semantic issues of wh-elements. It would been
of special interest to study the semantic properties of aggressively non-D-linked wh251
elements discussed in Chapter 4 and wh-scope marking constructions discussed in Chapter
6. Also, pursuing the Cartographic approach, it would be of great value to study the word
order in Russian in more detail. I leave these issues for further research.
252
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alboiu, G. 2002. The Features of Movement in Romanian. University of Bucharest
Press, Bucharest.
Avrutin, S. and M. Babyonyshev. 1997. Obviation in Subjunctive Clauses and AGR:
Evidence from Russian, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15:229-262.
Bailyn, John Frederick. 2004. Generalized Inversion. Natural Language & Linguistic
Theory, 22:1–49. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Barrs, Andrew. 2000. Minimalism and asymmetric wh-interpretation. In Step by step:
Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Haward Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David
Michaels and Julian Urigereka, 31-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bayer, Joself. 1984. COMP in Bavarian Syntax. Linguistic Review, 3:209-274.
Belletti, Adriana. 2004. Aspects of the low IP area. In L. Rizzi (ed.) The Structure of IP
and CP. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. vol. 2, OUP.
Beletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi. 1988. Psych-verbs and q-theory. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory, 6:291-352.
Billings, Loren and Catherine Rudin. 1996. Optimality and Superiority: A new approach to
overt multiple-wh ordering. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: the College
Park Meeting, J. Toman (ed.), 35-60. Michigan Slavic Publications, Ann Arbor.
Borer, Hagit. 1984. Restrictive relatives in Modern Hebrew. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory, 2:219-260.
Bošković, Ţeljko. 1997. Sometimes in [Spec, CP], sometimes in-situ. Ms. University of
Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
Bošković, Ţeljko. 1998. Wh-Phrases and Wh-movement in Slavic. Position paper.
Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax.
253
Bošković, Ţeljko. 1998a. Multiple wh-fronting and economy of derivation. In Proceedings
of the WestCoast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 16:49-63. Stanford University,
Stanford, CA.
Boškovic, Ţeljko. 2000. Sometimes in [Spec, CP], sometimes in situ. In Step by Step:
Essays On Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik, R. Martin, D. Michaels and J.
Uriagereka (eds), 53-87. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Bošković, Ţeljko. 2001. On the Interpretation of Multiple Questions. Linguistic Variation
Yearbook. John Benjamin‘s, Amsterdam.
Bošković, Ţeljko. 2002. On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic inquiry, 33/3:351-383.
Brecht, Richard D. 1974. Deixis in Embedded Structures. Foundations of Language,
11:489-518.
Brecht, Richard D. 1977. Čtoby or čto and by. Folia Slavica, 1:33-41.
Camacho, José. 2003. The structure of coordination: Conjunction and agreement
phenomenon in Spanish and other languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Chaves, Rui P. and Denis Paperno. 2007. On the Russian Hybrid Coordination
Construction. CSLI Publications.
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle,
ed. Stephen Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 232-286. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Chomsky, Noam. 1980. On binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 11:1-46.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Programme. MIT Press
Chomsky, Noam. 1999. Derivation by Phase. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Martin, R., Michaels, D. and Uriagereka, J.
(eds.). Step by step: Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 3:89-155.
Cambridge, MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by Phase, in Ken Hale: A life in Language, M.
Kenstowicz (ed.), 1-52. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik. 1977. Filters and Control. Linguistic Inquiry, 8:425–
504.
254
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1990. Types of A‟ Dependencies. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective.
New York, Oxford University Press.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2002. Functional Structure in the IP and DP. In The Cartography of
Syntactic Structures,vol.1. Oxford University Press, New York.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2002a. Complement and Adverbial PPs: Implications for Clause
Structure, talk given at the 25th Glow Colloquium, Amsterdam, April 9-11.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2006. Restructuring and Functional Heads. The Cartography of
Syntactic Structures, vol.4, Oxford University Press, New York.
Citko, Barbara. 2008. Wh-questions with conjoined wh-pronouns. Handout. Berkeley
Linguistics Society, February 2008, University of California, Berkeley.
Cole, Peter and Gabriella Hermon. 2000. Partial wh-movement: evidence from Malay. In
Wh-Scope Marking, Lutz Uli, Gereon Müller &Arnim von Stechow (eds). 101-130.
Collins, Chris. 1990. Why and how come, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 15:31-45,
MITWPL.
Comrie, Bernard. 1980. Clause Structure and Movement Constraints in Russian. In C.
Chvany and R. Brecht, eds., Morphosyntax in Slavic, 98-113. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica
Publishers.
Cowart, Wayne. 1997. Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence
Judgements. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Dalrymple, Mary. 2001. Lexical functional grammar, Syntax and Semantics, volume 34.
Academic Press.
Danon, Gabi. 2010. Expletives, raising and the ECP. Bar-Ilan University.
Dayal, Veneete. 1994. Scope marking as Indirect wh-dependency. In Natural Language
Semantics, 2: 137-170.
Dayal, Veneete. 1996. Scope marking: In defence of Indirect Dependency. Lutz, U. & G.
Müller (eds.) Papers on wh-scope marking. SFB 340, Universität Tübingen, 107-130.
Dayal, Veneete. 2000. Scope marking: cross-linguistic variation in indirect dependency. In
Wh-Scope Marking, Lutz Uli, Gereon Müller &Arnim von Stechow (eds), 157-193.
Dayal, Veneeta. 2006. Multiple wh-questions. In M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.),
Syntax Companion 3, Blackwell, Oxford.
255
Dikken, Marcel den and Anastasia Giannakidou. 2002. From hell to polarity: ―Aggressively
non-D-linked‖ wh-phrases as polarity items. Linguistic Inquiry, 33:31–61.
Dong, Zheng-Min. 1995. On phonologically null prepositions: a reply to Fowler and
Yadroff. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 3(2):378–386.
Dornisch, Ewa. 1997. Auxiliaries and Functional Projections in Polish. In Formal
Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL) IV: The Cornell Meeting 1995, eds. Wayles
Browne, Ewa Dornisch, Natasha Kondrashova and Draga Zec, 183-209. Ann Arbor:
Michigan Slavic Publications.
Dornish, Ewa. 1998. Multiple Wh-Questions in Polish: the Interactions between WhPhrsaes and Clitics. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell university, Ithaca.
Franselow, G, & Mahajan, A. 1996. Partial movement and successive cyclicity. In U. Lutz
& G. Muller (eds.), Papers on Wh Scope Marking. Stuttgart/Tubingen: Universitat
Stuggart/ Universitat Tubingen/IBM Deutschland, 131-161.
Fanselow, G. 2007. Partial Wh-Movement. In M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.),
The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, USA.
Featherston S. 2005. That-trace in German. Lingua, 115:1277-1302.
Fowler, George and Michael Yadroff. 1993. The argument status of accusative measure
nominals in Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 1(2):251–279.
Franks, Steven. 2006. Another look at li placement in Bulgarian. The Linguistic Review,
23:161–211.
Franks, Steven and Katarzyna Dziwirek. 1993. Negated adjunct phrases are really partitive.
Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 1(2): 280–305.
Franks, Steven and Nina Rojina. 2008. Idiosyncrasies of Russian kakogo čërta ‗why the
hell‘, presented at the 3rd Slavic Linguistics Society Conference.
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewann, Pullum, Geoffrey K. and Sag, Ivan A. 1985. Generalized
Phrase Structure Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell, and Cambridge, Ma: Harvard
University Press.
Gazdik, Anna. 2010. I-structure, S-structure and Multiple Questions in French and
Hungarian, presented at 15th International Lexical Functional Grammar Conference.
256
Gelderen, Veronique van. 2001. Partial wh-movement in Russian. In Ton van der Wouden
& Hans Broekhuis (eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands 2001. Amsterdam: John
Benjamin, 89-100.
Gracanin-Yuksek, Martina. 2010. Towards a New Typology of Coordinated Wh-Questions.
Ms.
Grebenyova, Lidia. 2004. On Superiority, T-to-C Movement and Interpretation of
Questions. University of Maryland at College Park LING 895 General Papers.
Grewendorf, Günther. 1988. Aspekte der deutschen Syntax. Tübingen: Narr.
Grewendorf, Günther. 2001. Multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry, 32:87-134.
Gribanova, Vera. 2009. Structural adjacency and the typology of interrogative
interpretations. Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 40, Number 1:133-154.
Grimshaw, Jane. 1978. On the syntax of conjoined Wh Words in English. University of
Massachusetts Occasional Papers on Linguistics, 3:1-10.
Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 1998. Syntactic inquiries into discourse restrictions on multiple
interrogatives. Ms. (generals paper), UMD. Appeared revised in Werner Abraham
(ed.), Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 42. Rijksuniversiteit
Groningen: Germanistisch Instituut, 1-60.
Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2001. Symmetries in Locality. Manuscript, Johann Wolfgang
Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main.
Haegeman, Liliane. 1992. Theory and Description in generative Syntax: A case study of
West Flemish. CUP.
Haegeman, Liliane. 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Hagstrom, Paul. 1998. Decomposing Questions. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Haida, Andreas & Sophie Repp. To appear. Monoclausal question word coordinations
across languages. Proceedings of NELS 39.
Haider, H. 1983 Connectedness effects in German. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanischen
Linguistik, 23:82-119.
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, Events and Licensing. Ph.D. dissertation MIT.
257
Herburger, E. 1994. A semantic difference between full and partial wh-movement in
German. Paper presented on 68th Annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America,
Boston, MA.
Hiemstra, Inge. 1986. Some aspects of wh-questions in Frisian. In NOWELE (NorthWestern European Language Evolution), 8:97-110.
Higginbotham, James and Robert May. 1981. Questions, quantifiers and crossing. The
Linguistic Review, 1:40-81.
Hornstein, Norbert. 1995. Logical form: from GB to Minimalism. Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell.
Horvath, Julia. 1986. Focus in the theory of grammar and the syntax of Hungarian.
Dordrecht: Foris.
Horvath, Julia. 1997. The status of ‗wh-expletives‘ and the partial wh-movement
construction of Hungarian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15:509-572.
Horvath, Julia. 2000. On the Syntax of Wh-scope Marker Construction: Some Comparative
Evidence. In Uli Lutz, Gereon Müller & Arnim von Stechow (2000), 271-316.
Huang, Jim. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, PhD
Dissertation, MIT.
Izvorski, Roumyana. 1993. On wh-movement and focus-movement in Bulgarian. Presented
at CONSOLE 2, University of Tübingen.
Kayne, Richard. 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching. Foris, Dordrecht.
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph TwentyFive. MIT Press.
Kazenin, Konstantin. 2002. On coordination of wh-phrases in Russian. Ms. University of
Tübingen and Moscow State University.
Kim, Jeong-Seok. 1997. Syntactic focus movement and ellipsis: A minimalist approach.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Kim, Sun-Woong. 2008. On the Directionality of Movement and its Relationship to
Stranding. Presented at ICKL 2008.
Ko, Heejeong. 2005. Syntax of Why-in-Situ: Merge into [Spec,CP] in the Overt Syntax.
Natural Languages and Linguistic Theory, 23(4):867-916.
258
Krapova, Iliana. 2001. Subjunctives in Bulgarian and Modern Greek. In M. L. Rivero and
A. Ralli, (eds.), 105-126.
Krapova, Iliana and Guglielmo Cinque. 2005. On the Order of Wh-phrases in Bulgarian
Multiple Wh-fronting. University of Venice Working papers in Lingusitics. vol.
15:171-197.
Kuno, Susumu and Jane J. Robinson. 1972. Multiple WH-Questions. Linguistic Inquiry, 3:
463-487.
Laenzlinger, Christopher and Gabriela Soare. 2005. Multiple wh-fronting in Romanian: a
Cartographic approach. Ms. University of Geneva.
Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic
Inquiry, 15:235-289.
Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1992. Move α: Conditions on its application and
output. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Lipták, Aniko. 2003. Conjoined questions in Hungarian. In Multiple wh-fronting, Cedrik
Boeckx and Kleanthes Grohmann, (eds.), 141-160, Amsterdam: J.Benjamins.
Lubańska, Maja. 2004. Wh-scope marking in Polish. Poznań Studies in Contemporary
Linguistics, 39:73-88.
Mahajan, Anoop. 1990. The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory. Doctoral
dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Mahajan, Anoop.1996. Wh-Expletives and the Syntax of Partial Wh-Movement. In Papers
on Wh-Scope Marking, Lutz Uli and Gereon Muller (eds.), Stuttgart/Tubingen:
Universitat Stuggart/ Universitat Tubingen/IBM Deutschland, 163-177.
Mahajan, A. 2000. Towards a Unified Treatment of Wh-Expletives in Hindi and German.
In Wh-Scope Marking, Lutz Uli, Gereon Müller &Arnim von Stechow (eds),
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 317-332.
Malhotra Shiti and Pritha Chandra. 2007. A Short Note and Wh-scope-marking. In
University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics, 16:46-62, ed. A. Omaki, I.
Ortega-Santos, J. Sprouse and M. Wagers. College Park, MD: UMWPiL.
McDaniel, D. 1989. Partial and multiple wh-movement. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory, 7:565-604.
Merchant, Jason. 2008. Spurious coordination in Vlach multiple wh-fronting. Handout.
259
Mid-America Conference, 26-28 October 2008, University of Kansas.
Meyer, Roland. 2004. Superiority effects in Russian, Polish and Czech: Judgments and
Grammar. Ms. University of Leipzig/ University of Regensburg.
Meyer, Roland. 2004a. Syntax der Ergänzungsfrage. Empirische Untersuchungen am
Russischen, Polnischen und Tschechischen (= Slavistische Beiträge 436). München:
Otto Sagner.
Migdalski, Krzysztof. 2006. The Syntax of Compound Tenses in Slavic. LOT 130.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1993. LF Case-checking and minimal link condition. In Case and
Agreement II, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 19:213-254. Department of
Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Müller, Gereon. 1997. Partial wh-movement and optimality theory. In The Linguistic
Review, 14:249-306.
Mycock, Louise. 2004. The wh-expletive construction. Proceedings of the LFG04
Conference University of Canterbury.
Nilsen, Østein. 2000. The Syntax of Circumstantial Adverbials. Oslo, Novus Press.
Nunes, Jairo. 1995. The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the
Minimalist Program. Ph.D. diss., U. of Maruland, College Park, MD.
Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 1994. Aspects de la syntaxe A-barre, Thèse de doctorat d‘état,
Université de Paris VIII.
Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 2004. Nonstandard wh-questions and alternative checkers in
Pagotto. In H. Lohnstein and S. Trissler, (eds.), Syntax and Semantics of the Left
Periphery, Interface Explorations, 9:343-384. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Obenauer, Hans-Georg and Cecilia Poletto. 2000. ‗Rhetorical‘ wh phrases in the left
periphery of the sentence. University of Venice, Working papers in Linguistics Vol 10,
n.1:121-151.
Ochi, Masao. 2004. How come and other adjunct wh-phrases: A cross-linguistic
perspective. Ms. Osaka University.
Oshima, Shin. 2003. Subjunctives and Subject Obviation. Journal of Inquiry and Research,
No. 78.
Oţegov, S.I. and N.J. Švedova. 1992. Tolkovyj Slovar‟ Russkogo Jazyka. Izdatel‘stvo ―Az.‖
260
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Complementizer-trace phenomena and the nominative island
condition. The Linguistic Review 1, 3.
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and Unselective Binding. E. Reuland and A.
ter Meulen, (eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, 98-129. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Linguistic Inquiry. Monograph
Thirty-Seven.
Picallo, Carmer. 1984. The Infl node and the Null Subject parameter. Linguistic inquiry,
15:75-102.
Picallo, Carmer. 1985. Opaque Domains. PhD dissertation, City University of New York,
New York.
Progovac, L. 1993. Subjunctive: The (Mis)behaviour of Anaphora and Negative Polarity.
The Linguistic Review, 10:37-59.
Quer, Josep. 1996. Changing moods: Complement licensing and mood alternations in
questions. Utrecht: Utrecht Institute Linguistics OTS.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartik. 1985. A
Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Richards, Norvin. 1997. What moves where when in which language. Doctoral dissertation,
MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Richards, Norvin. 1999. Pied-piping and Islands: the That-trace effect. GLOW Newsletter:
44-45.
Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in Language: Interactions and architectures. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1982. Correspondence and the Empty Category Principle. Tilburg
papers in Language and Literature 12. U. Of Tilburg.
van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1984. On pied-piped infinitives in German relative clauses. In
Toman, J. (ed.). Studies in German grammar, 165-192. Dordrecht, Foris.
Rivero, M. L. 1994. Clause Structure and V-movement in the Languages of Balkans,
Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12:63-120.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1992. Argument/adjunc(ta)symmetries, In Proceedings of NELS, 22.
261
Rizzi, Luigi. 1996. Residual verb second and the Wh-Criterion. In Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L.
(eds.). Parameters and functional heads, 2:63-90. New York, Oxford University Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (ed.) Elements
of Grammar, 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2001. On the position ―Int(errogative)‖ in the left periphery of the clause. In
Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays Offered to L. Renzi, Cinque, G. & G. Salvi
(eds.). New York: Elsevier, 287-296.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2001a. ―Relativized Minimality Effects‖, In The Handbook of Contemporary
Syntactic Theory, M.Baltin and C.Collins (eds.), 89-110. Oxford, Blackwell.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2002. Locality and Left Periphery. In A. Belletti (ed.) Structures and Beyond.
The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3, OUP.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. On the Form of Chains: Criterial Positions and ECP Effects. Ms.
University of Siena/Geneva.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the Form of Chains: Criterial Positions and ECP Effects. In WhMovement: Moving on, L. Cheng & N. Corver, Cambridge (eds.), MA: MIT Press, 97133.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2007. On some Properties of Criterial Freezing, in CISCL Working papers on
Language and Cognition, 1:145-159.
Rizzi, Luigi and Ur Shlonsky. 2006. Satisfying the subject criterion by a non-subject:
English locative Inversion and heavy NP shift, ms., University of Siena and University
of Geneva.
Rizzi, Luigi and Ur Shlonsky. 2007. Strategies of subject extraction. In Interfaces +
Recursion = Language? Chomsky's Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics,
H. M. Gärtner, U. Sauerland (eds.), 115-160. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rochemont, Michael. 1986. Focus in generative grammar. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Rojina, Nina. 2007. Four types of ‗whys‘ in Russian. Generative Grammar in Geneva 5:
133–142.
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
[Page references are to the edition published as Infinite Syntax!, Norwood, N.J.: Ablex
Publishing, 1986.]
262
Rudin, Catherine. 1988. On multiple questions and multiple wh-fronting. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 445-501.
Rudin, Catherine. 1996. Multiple questions south, west, and east: A government-binding
approach to the typology of wh-questions in Slavic languages. International Journal of
Slavic Linguistics and Poetics.
Sannikov, Vladimnir. 1989. Russkie sočinitel‟nye konstruktsii: semantika, pragmatika,
sintaksis. Moskva: Nauka.
Shlonsky, Ur. 1994. Agreement in Comp. The Linguistic Review 11, 351-375.
Shlonsky, Ur and Gabriela Soare. 2009. Where‘s ‗Why‘?. Ms. Université de Genève.
Skrabalova, Hana. 2006. Two types of wh-questions with conjoined wh-items in Czech.
Presented at the Colloquium Coordination and Ellipsis, University of Paris.
Stepanov, Arthur and C. Georgopoulos. 1995. Structure building and the conceptual
interface: An analysis of Russian long-distance wh-questions. In M. Lindseth and S.
Franks (eds.) FASL 5 Proceedings, 275-294.
Stepanov, Arthur. 1997. On wh-fronting in Russian. In Proceedings of the North Eastern
Linguistic Society 28. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Stepanov, Arthur. 2000. Wh-scope marking in Slavic. Studia Linguistica 54(1):1-40.
Stepanov, Arthur and Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai. 2007. The Hows and Whys of How and Why:
Unselective binding and merger of wh-adjuncts. Ms.
Stjepanoviç, Sandra. 1995. Short-distance movement of wh-phrases in Serbo-Croatian
matrix clauses. Ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Stowell, Timothy. 1981. Origins of Phrase Structure. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
Szczegielniak, Adam. 1999. That-trace effects‘ cross-linguistically and successive cyclic
movement. Papers on Morphology and Syntax, Cycle One MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics, Vol 33:369-393. Karlos Arregi, Benjamin Bruening, Cornelia Krause, and
Vivian Lin (eds). MITWPiL.
Taraldsen, Knut T. 2001. Subject extraction, the distribution of expletives and stylistic
inversion. In Hulk, A. and Pollock, J.-Y. (eds.). Subject inversion in Romance and the
theory of universal grammar, 6:163-182. New York, Oxford University Press.
263
Terzi, A. 1992. Pro in Finite Clauses: A Study of the Inflectional Heads of the Balkan
Languages, PhD dissertation, City University of New York, New York.
Watanabe, Akira. 1993. AGR-based Case theory and its interaction with the A'-system.
Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
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,
Research Centre for English and Applied Linguistics, University of Cambridge, UK.
Zoerner, Cyril. 1995. Coordination: the syntax of &P. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY.
264

Thesis - Archive ouverte UNIGE

Transcription

Similar documents

Exhibition–Bazaar of New Russian and West Literature

Kallima - Press Release - Exhibit-e

Cold Wars 2016 - the admiralty trilogy

Satcom1 TV-Datasheet

View Menu - Pomegranate

Le magazine des russes en Europe · 2015

DE 3304

Conference Schedule

(1) occupied the present day United States and Canada undis

Son of Putin ally has £35m London house