2.3 Finnish
2.3.3 CP-related phenomena
2.3.3.4 Polar interrogatives
In Finnish, the syntax of polar interrogatives always involves the attachment of the Q-marking enclitic –kO to a fronted tensed verb (Holmberg, 2014).32 This is shown in (78), which also shows that the landing position fo the fronted verb is standardly assumed to be FocP (as with wh-phrases).
(78) Matrix and embedded polar interrogatives a. [F o c P Läht-i-kö
32Hagstrom (1998, p. 15–16) notes that in Japanese, the same Q-particlekais used in bothwh- and polar interroga-tives. Cable (2010, n. 21, p. 214) notes that this is not always the case; in Tlingit, the former type is formed usingsá, and the latter usinggé. Finnish is different from both Japanese and Tlingit in that it does not require–kOinwh-questions, but it does require–kOin polar interrogatives.
2.3. Finnish
b. Halua-n want-PRES.1SG
tietä-ä know-INF
[F o r c e P (että) that [F o c P läht-i-kö
leave-PAST.3SG-Q
[F P Mari Mari.NOM
t ]]]
‘I want to know whether Mari left’
Semantically, polar interrogatives are often assumed to have a set-of-propositions denotation that is equivalent to{p,¬p}(Hamblin, 1973). Contrary towh-questions, I assume that p has a well-defined ordinary semantic value regardless of the presence of Q in polar interrogatives.
However, the presence of Q does have an impact on the semantics of a polar question: it sub-stitutes the ordinary semantic value ofp with the focus semantic value ofp, i.e. the polar set {p,¬p}. As it is the tensed verb that is F-marked in polar interrogatives, I assume that it is also the verb that contributes the polar alternative forp.33 Thus, the LF and semantics of a simple polar interrogative are as in (79) (where the trace of the moved verb is notated asV).
(79) Example derivation of a polar interrogative a. Surface syntax of FocP
[F o c P Läht-i--kö leave-PAST.3SG-Q
[F P Mari Mari.NOM
t ]]
‘Did Mari leave?’
b. LF of FocP
[F o c P Qlähtiλ[F P Mari V ]]
c.
3
2
Mari V lähti 1
Q
d. J1K
o = λw[V(Mari)(w)]
J1K
f = {λw[V(Mari)(w)]}
e. (λ-abstraction overV) J2K
o = λw[left(Mari)(w)]
J2K
f = {λw[left(Mari)(w)],λw[¬left(Mari)(w)]}
33Later on, I will propose that F-marked verbs are also the source of polar alternatives when polar alternatives are relevant in the semantics of additivity.
f. J3K
o = {λw[left(Mari)(w)],λw[¬left(Mari)(w)]}
J3K
f = {{λw[left(Mari)(w)],λw[¬left(Mari)(w)]}}
Note that in (79), the Q-particle is base-generated in a high position. In section 2.1.4, I argued that inwh-interrogatives, a Q-particle adjoins to eachwh-phrase, and the highestwh-phrase is attracted to SpecFocP. Although I present no further arguments for this position, I assume that the relevant difference betweenwh-phrases and F-marked verbs is that the former but not the latter lack a well-defined ordinary semantic value. Thus, for a reason that I leave unexplored here, the Q-particle is not directly adjoined to the tensed verb in polar interrogatives. Instead, it is base-generated in Force0, where it may delete[uQ]on Force0directly.
Moreover, the Q-particle residing in Force0morphologically marks the head that is closest to it with–kO(in parallel with what was suggested for Q andwh-phrases that may be marked with– kO). This explains why–kOis a stable second-position clitic, i.e. it never appears on constituents that are lower than "next one down" from Force0. As–kOmay attach to both heads and phrases – i.e. to the finite verb or to a fronted KP, of which we will see examples right below – I specify two configurations for–kO-marking by Q from Force0in (80).
(80) Q-particle and–kO-marking in polar interrogatives (final) a. Head case
ForceP XP
...
X0 ZP Q[iQ]
(–kO)
b. Specifier case
ForceP XP
...
YP X’
Q[iQ]
(–kO)
2.3. Finnish
Previously, it has been proposed that–kOis merged within the IP, where it attracts a host and then moves upwards to a sentence-initial position, or PolP (Holmberg, 2001, 2003). Recently, however, Holmberg (2014, 2015) has rejected approaches where the Q-particle is not merged directly with its host, based mainly on cases where the position of–kOis within a fronted constituent, and not its edge. One consequence of Holmberg’s direct-adjunction approach is that the host of– kOis predicted to always be the F-marked, "questioned" constituent, be it in terms of polarity (with finite verbs) or in terms of alternatives in the Roothian sense (with other phrases). In what follows, I will show that this prediction does not hold.
Consider (81) first. In (81), the finite verb has moved to Foc0, and it is marked with–kO, being the first head down from interrogative Force0. This question is a polar question, may be answered affirmatively with either an answer particle such askyllä‘yes’, or with the finite verb, as in (81a) (Holmberg, 2003). An answer that repeats the subject of the sentence is not felicitous.
(81) –kO-interrogatives with fronted or focused finite verb [F o r c e P Q [F o c P Luk-i-ko
read-PAST.3SG-Q
[F P Mari Mari.NOM
t Soda-n war-ACC
ja and
rauha-n peace-ACC
]]]?
– Luk-i.
read-PAST.3SG
– #Mari.
Mari.NOM
‘Did Mari readWar and Peace? – She did.’
In (82), the same answerhood conditions pertain. However, the word order of the question is different: now,–kOappears on an unfocused but fronted subject, and the verb has to be focused.
Given that the subject and the verb are in their base order, we could either assume that the subject is in TopP and the verb in FocP or in its FP-position, as in (82a), or that both the subject and the verb are in their FP-positions, and there are no projections between ForceP and FP, as in (82b).
(82) –kO-interrogatives with fronted or focused finite verb a. [F o r c e P Q [T o p P Mari-ko
Mari.NOM-Q
[F o c P luk-i
read-PAST.3SG
[F P t t Soda-n war-ACC
ja and
rauha-n peace-ACC
]]]]?
b. [F o r c e P Q [F P Mari-ko
‘So Mari readWar and Peace? – She did.’
What is crucial to note about (82) is that although the subjectMaricarries–kO, the denotation of the question is still that of a polar question, as attested by the answerhood conditions. In other words, it is not the case that the host of–kOis necessarily interpreted as the "questioned" con-stituent. It can, of course, be questioned, and unsurprisingly, in this case, the constituent answer – but not the finite verb answer – is felicitous, as shown in the narrow focus cleft question in (83).
In both (83a) and (83b), I let the subject raise to FocP. This choice is independently justified for (83b), which instantiates the Sc o n t rov word order familiar from section 2.3.3.1. For (83a), the choice to raise the subject to FocP is justified by (i) the parallel with (83b), and (ii) the parallel with verb-fronting (81).
(83) –kO-interrogatives with fronted or focused subject a. [F o r c e P Q [F o c P Mari-ko
In (84) and (85), I present the LFs and semantic derivations of two–kO-involving questions with the same word order – and carrier of–kO– but different denotations. In (84), the denotation is that of a polar question (with polar alternatives). In (85), however, the denotation is that of a wh-question (see section 2.3.3.4; Holmberg, 2015).
2.3. Finnish
(84) Example derivation with non-F-marked host of–kO: Polar question interpretation a. [F o r c e P Q [T o p P Mari-ko
Mari.NOM-Q
[F o c P luk-i
read-PAST.3SG
[F P t t Soda-n war-ACC
ja and
rauha-n peace-ACC
]]?
‘So Mari readWar and Peace?’
b.
4
3
2
tj ViSodan ja rauhan lukii 1
Marij-ko Q
c. J1K
o =λw[Vi(WP)(tj)(w)]
J1K
f ={λw[Vi(WP)(tj)(w)]}
d. (λ-abstraction overVi) J2K
o =λw[read(WP)(tj)(w)]
J2K
f ={λw[read(WP)(tj)(w)],λw[¬read(WP)(tj)(w)]}
e. (λ-abstraction overtj) J3K
o =λw[read(WP)(Mari)(w)]
J3K
f ={λw[read(WP)(Mari)(w)],λw[¬read(WP)(Mari)(w)]}
f. J4K
o ={λw[read(WP)(Mari)(w)],λw[¬read(WP)(Mari)(w)]}
J4K
f ={{λw[read(WP)(Mari)(w)],λw[¬read(WP)(Mari)(w)]}}
(85) Example derivation with F-marked host of–kO:Wh-question interpretation a. [F o r c e P Q [F o c P Mari-ko
Mari.NOM
[F P t luk-i
read-PAST.3SG
Soda-n war-ACC
ja and
rauha-n peace-ACC
]]]?
‘Was it Mari who read War and Peace?’
b.
3