1.3 The structure of this dissertation
2.1.4 Interrogatives
2.1.4.2 Multiple-wh questions
In multiple-whquestions, it is generally the case that if only onewh-phrase undergoeswh-movement to the CP, it is thewh-phrase (or, more precisely, QP) closest to the interrogative C0that does. This closeness requirement has been encoded as the principle ofAttract Closest:16
(44) Attract Closest (Chomsky, 1995)
αcan raise to targetK only if there is no legitimate operationMoveβtargetingK such that βisclosertoK
If Agree is defined as in (15), Attract Closest can be thought of as an inherent condition on Agree.
For Q-based movement, the principle in (44) then states that even if many QPs carry[iQ]and are in principle able to Agree with C0, it must be the closest agreeing goal (Q or QP) that moves to the specifier of the probe (C0). For the purposes of Attract Closest, closeness is defined as asymmetric c-command betweenβandα:βis closer toK thanαifK c-commandsβandβc-commandsα (Pesetsky and Torrego, 2001).
Inwh-questions, the effects of Attract Closest are often calledSuperiority effects(Chomsky, 1973). Due to Attract Closest, the initial c-command relations between the QPs determine to a large extent which QP is fronted in languages where only one QP fronts, or in which order QPs are fronted in languages where more than one QP fronts (e.g. in Slavic: Rudin, 1988; Richards, 1997; Boškovi´c, 2002a). In (45), I illustrate Superiority with Finnish, where only onewh-phrase is fronted in multiple-whquestions. As (45) shows, the subject-whcan undergowh-movement,
16Attract Closest is closely related to other locality principles such as Relativised Minimality (Rizzi, 1990) and the Minimal Link Condition (Chomsky, 1995).
but due to to Attract Closest, fronting the object-whover the structurally higher subject-whleads to ungrammaticality (i.e. a Superiority effect).
(45) Superiority in Finnish a. Kuka
who.NOM
t näk-i
see-PRES.3SG
kene-t?
who-ACC
‘Who saw whom?’
b. *Kene-t who-ACC
kuka who.NOM
näk-i
see-PRES.3SG
t ?
In Bulgarian, multiplewh-phrases move to the CP (Rudin, 1988). As (46) shows, only one surface order of the QPs is allowed in Bulgarian; the subject-whmust precede the object-wh.
(46) Superiority in Bulgarian (Rudin, 1988, p. 472)
a. Koj who
kogo what
vižda?
saw
‘Who saw what?’
b. *Kogo what
koj who
vižda?
saw
The grammatical order of Bulgarianwh-phrases can be explained if we assume that after the first CP-targetingwh-movement, further movements targeting the same projection must ‘tuck in’ un-der the landing position of the firstwh-phrase. Richards (1997) proposes that the tucking-in ef-fect is due to the economy principleShortest, shown in (47). In essence, Shortest requires that the chain created by movement be as short as possible (i.e. it spans as few nodes as possible). As targeting a specifier that is underneath the first-movedwh-phrase leads to a well-formed chain that is shorter than what would be derived by targeting a position that is above the first-moved wh-phrase, the tucking-in option is enforced in Bulgarian.
(47) Shortest (Richards, 1997)
A pair P of elements{α,β}obeys Shortest iff there is no well-formed pair P’ which can be created by substitutingγfor eitherαorβ, and the set of nodes c-commanded by one ele-ment of P’ and dominating the other issmallerthan than the set of nodes c-commanded by one element of P and dominating the other
Thus, generally, if all other things are equal, Attract Closest forces the structurally highest wh-phrase to move first (if anywh-phrase is to move at all). Moving structurally lowerwh-phrases across higherwh-phrases leads to Superiority effects. Moreover, if other, lowerwh-phrases un-dergowh-movement – be it overtly or covertly – they do so in respect of Shortest, and tuck in.
2.1. Syntax-semantics
However, all other things are not always equal; it is well-known that there are ways to escape Superiority. In English, for example, discourse-linked (or D-linked)wh-phrases can be fronted in either order (Pesetsky, 1987).17
(48) No Superiority with D-linkedwh-phrases in English a. Which studentt read which book?
b. Which book did which student readt?
Pesetsky (2000) proposes that Superiority-violating multiple-whquestions involvefeature move-ment. Under this analysis, thewh-phrase that is in situ in surface syntax stays in situ at LF, and only the relevant feature moves. In a related vein, Kotek (2014) proposes that the surface struc-tures of the two examples in (48) may correspond to two different derivations. First, it is possible exactly one projecting Q-particle is present in the structures (respectively). This particle is ad-joined to either the hierarchically higher subject (48a) or the hierarchically lower object (48b), and that QP then moves overtly to the CP. As there is only one Q-particle, there can be no other, closer goal for C0to Agree with; hence, there are no Superiority effets. The second option involves two Q-particles. Of these two particles, only one projects, and the movement of that QP (subject in (48a), object in (48b)) to CP is therefore visible. In sum, for Kotek (2014), the structure in (48b) does not violate Attract Closest: even if there is a subject-adjoined Q present in the structure, it can well have been covertly attracted to the CP before the object-QP. The object-QP is then pre-dicted to tuck in under it (by Shortest), but will nevertheless appear to be higher in linear surface syntax.
This brings us to the meaning of multiple-whquestions. As was mentioned above, the propo-sitional view of question semantics assumes that the meaning of a question is the set of its pos-sible answers (Hamblin, 1973). When an interrogative contains twowh-phrases, two types of answers are possible: single-pair (49a) and pair-list (or multiple-pair) (49b).
(49) Single-pair and pair-list answers Who read what?
a. Alex readAnna Karenina
b. Alex readAnna Karenina, and Max readWar and Peace
In the literature, these two types of answers have been linked to two types of question denota-tions: (i) sets of propositions, or (ii) sets of sets of propositions. The former – shared with
single-17Moreover, in e.g. Serbo-Croatian, which is a multiple-wh-moving language like Bulgarian, both subject-object and object-subject orders are possible (Rudin, 1988). Boškovi´c (2002a) argues that this pattern is not an exception to Shortest, because the overt movements ofwh-phrases take place for different syntactic reasons: in particular, both wh- and focus-movement are at play. According to Rudin (1988), the difference between Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian (and other languages that behave like them) is instead that in Bulgarian, all wh-phrases target the CP, while in Serbo-Croatian, only onewh-phrase does, and the rest are adjoined to the IP.
whquestions – corresponds to a set of propositions which each differ from one another at least on the value of onewh-phrase. Let us call this amultiple focusquestion interpretation. The latter denotation corresponds to afamily of questions, where one of thewh-phrases acts as a ‘sorting key’ (see below).
To take an example, imagine a context where two individuals make up the domain ofwho (say,aandb), and two cakes make up the domain ofwhich cake(say,c1andc2). The difference between the two types of multiple-whquestion denotations can then be illustrated informally as in (50).
(50) Possible denotations forWhich person tasted which cake?
a. Multiple focus:{atastedc1,b tastedc1,a tastedc2,btastedc2, ...}
b. Family of questions:{{atastedc1,atastedc2, ...},{b tastedc1,b tastedc2, ...}}
The two structures in (50) represent two readings of multiple-whquestions: the single-pair read-ing (a) and the multiple-pair readread-ing (b). Now, it is generally assumed that every question has a unique true answer. This requirement can be introduced as a presupposition via an answer-hood operator (Dayal, 1996, 2002; Kotek, 2014)). A single-pair answer then singles out that one true proposition from the set of propositions that makes up the denotation of the question. A multiple-pair answer, however, specifies more than one pair of values for thewh-phrases. As the structure of the family of questions in (50b) shows, the hierarchically higherwh-phrase – in this case,who– is the sorting key, which means that the multiple-whquestion evokes two subques-tionsthat pertain to the values ofwho, namelyWhich cake did a taste? andWhich cake did b taste?. With a family of questions denotation, the answer is presupposed to select the unique true answer to each subquestion within the family of questions.
Under the Q-particle approach, English multiple-whquestions that allow (or require) a single-pair answer may be derived in at least two different ways (for details, see Kotek 2014). First, we may assume that only onewh-DP appears with a Q-particle. That Q-particle projects, and the QP moves to the CP. At LF, the Q-particle exits the QP to adjoin to the clausal spine. Because both wh-DPs are incorporated in the structure before Q is interpreted, the focus semantic value of the structure before Q is a set of propositions where the values of the twowh-DPs vary. Q takes this set and makes it the ordinary semantic value of the structure. This first option yields a multiple focus denotation.
The second option is to merge bothwh-DPs with a projecting Q-particle, have both QPs move to SpecCP at the latest at LF, and have both Q-particles adjoin to positions that are higher than bothwh-DPs. In this case, the denotation of the question is a family of questions due to the the presence of two Qs. However, given that no Q-particle intervenes between thewh-DPs, the answerhood operator applies to a singleton set, and requires that there be a unique, maximally informative answer to the only subquestion the family contains (Kotek, 2014). In other words, technically the denotation of the question is a family of questions on this second option, but the
2.1. Syntax-semantics
answer must nevertheless be single-pair.
In (51), I illustrate the first option, where only one Q-particle is present.
(51) Multiple-whquestion derivation: Multiple focus/single-pair (Cable-Kotek) a. Which person tasted which cake?
b.
4
3
2
1
t1 tasted which cake Cint IP
λ QP1
which person t Q
c. JCintK =λp[p] Jwhich personK
o =undefined Jwhich personK
f =λx[person(x)]
Jwhich cakeK
o =undefined Jwhich cakeK
f =λx[cake(x)]
d. J1K
o =undefined (because ofwhich cake) J1K
f ={λw[tasted(x)(t)(w)|cake(x)}
e. J2K
o =undefined (because ofwhich cake) J2K
f =λy{λw[tasted(x)(y)(w)]|cake(x)}
f. J3K
o =undefined (because ofwhich cakeandwhich person) J3K
f ={λw[tasted(x)(y)(w)]|cake(x), person(y)}
g. J4K
o ={λw[tasted(x)(y)(w)|cake(x), person(y)}
J4K
f ={{λw[tasted(x)(y)(w)|cake(x), person(y)}}
In (51g), the denotation of the one-Q multiple-whquestion is a set of propositions of the form that y tasted x, where y ranges over people, and x over cakes. Therefore, a question derived in this way receives a single-pair answer.
In multiple-pair questions, there are two Q-particles. Crucially, thewh-DPs are interpreted
"sandwiched" in between them, regardless of whether thewh-DPs is in situ or in SpecCP. In (52), I show the derivation of a Superiority-obeying multiple-whquestion with two QPs (Kotek, 2014).
The denotations ofwhich cakeandwhich personare as in (51). The end result, i.e. the family of questions in (52i), contains subquestions that ask, for each persony, which cakexwas eaten by y.
(52) Multiple-whquestion derivation: Family of questions/multiple-pair (Cable-Kotek) a. Which person tasted which cake?
b.
7
6
5
4
3
2 1
t1tastedt2 Cint IP
λ QP2
which cake t Q
λ QP1
which person t Q
c. J1K
o=λw[tasted(t2)(t1)(w)]
J1K
f ={λw[tasted(t2)(t1)(w)]}
d. J2K
o=λxλw[tasted(x)(t1)(w)]
J2K
f =λx{λw[tasted(x)(t1)(w)]}
e. J3K
o=undefined (because ofwhich cake) J3K
f ={λw[tasted(x)(t1)(w)]|cake(x)}
f. J4K
o={λw[tasted(x)(t1)(w)]|cake(x)}
J4K
f ={{λw[tasted(x)(t1)(w)]|cake(x)}}
g. J5K
o=λy{λw[tasted(x)(y)(w)]|cake(x)}
J5K
f =λy{{λw[tasted(x)(y)(w)]|cake(x)}}
2.2. Semantics-pragmatics
h. J6K
o=undefined (because ofwhich person) J6K
f ={{λw[tasted(x)(y)(w)]|cake(x)} |person(y)}
i. J7K
o={{λw[tasted(x)(y)(w)]|cake(x)} |person(y)}
J7K
f ={{{λw[tasted(x)(y)(w)]|cake(x)} |person(y)}}