1.3 The structure of this dissertation
2.1.4 Interrogatives
2.1.4.1 Single-wh questions
The most obvious surface difference in the syntax of single-whquestions from one language to another is the presence or absence of overtwh-movement targeting the CP. In Finnish, for
ex-15Again, there are other alternatives; for example, questions may be thought of as partitions of the logical space (Groenendijk and Stokhof, 1984), or as functions that map the short fragment answer to a proposition, as in the struc-tured meaning approach (von Stechow, 1982; Krifka, 2001). As I only use the propositional approach in this disserta-tion, I will not discuss other approaches to interrogative semantics any further.
2.1. Syntax-semantics
ample, the only wh-phrase of a single-wh question has to move overtly (Huhmarniemi, 2012); in Mandarin, the wh-phrase has to stay in situ (Huang, 1982); and finally, in French, the wh-phrase can either front or stay in situ (e.g. Cheng and Rooryck, 2000; Boeckx, 2000).
(37) Wh-movement
a. Mi-tä [Finnish]
what-PAR
Max Max.NOM
ost-i
buy-PAST.3SG
t ?
‘What did Max buy?’
b. Max [Mandarin]
Max maile buy
shenme what
(-ne)?
Q
‘What did Max buy?’
c. Qu’ [French]
what
est-ce que
Q
Max Max
a
AUX.PRES.3SG
acheté buy.PASTPART
t ?
‘What did Max buy?’
d. Max [French]
Max a
AUX.PRES.3SG
acheté buy.PASTPART
quoi?
what
‘What did Max buy?’
On the Q-particle approach, such differences in the overt syntax ofwh-questions can be argued to be due to the projection or non-projection of Q; as mentioned above, when a projecting Q-particle is attracted to the CP, it takes thewh-DP with it, while a non-projecting Q-particle does not. The two types of movement – Q alone, or whole QP – are illustrated below in (38). They could be taken to represent for example Mandarin Chinese (38a) and Finnish (38b).
(38) Q vs. QP movement a.
CP C’
...[D P t wh-DP]...
C0[uQ] TP Q[iQ]
b.
CP C’
...t ...
C0[uQ] TP QP[iQ]
Syntactically, the movement of Q or QP to the CP is due to the establishment of Agree between [uQ]on C0– or, more traditionally, Foc0(Rizzi, 1997) – and[iQ]on the Q-particle.
As mentioned above, Q-particles have an important semantic task. While the focus semantic value of awh-DP is a set of entities, its ordinary semantic value is undefined (Beck, 2006). The presence of a Q-particle ensures that a structure that embeds awh-DP comes to have a well-defined ordinary semantic value. Specifically, a Q-particle takes the focus semantic value of its sisterα, i.e. the prejacent, and elevates it to be the new ordinary semantic value of the resulting nodeβ, and sets the focus semantic value of the resulting nodeβto correspond to the singleton set of the ordinary semantic value of the resulting nodeβ (Kotek, 2014). This is shown in (39).
In single-whquestions, the focus semantic value ofαis a set of propositions (type〈s t,t〉). In multiple-whquestions with multiple Q-particles, the type ofαmay be more complex. For this reason, Kotek (2014, p. 66) provides a type-flexible denotation for Q.
(39) The semantics of Q:αhas no well-defined ordinary semantic value a. JQ(ασ)K
o=JασK
f
b. JQ(ασ)K
f ={JασK
f} (whereσ∈ {s t,〈s t,t〉,〈〈s t,t〉,t〉, ...}) In (40), I show an example derivation of a single-whquestion involving a projecting Q-particle (Cable, 2010; Kotek, 2014). Due to the type-theoretic requirements of the Q-particle, Kotek pro-poses that at the latest at LF, the Q-particle adjoins to the clausal spine to be interpretable. Follow-ing Kotek, I assume that the denotation of the interrogative C0is an identity function. In (40), only the movement of Q is represented with an arrow. The movement of the QP triggersλ-abstraction at node 2 .
2.1. Syntax-semantics
(40) Single-whquestion derivation with movement of QP (Cable-Kotek) a. Who left?
b.
4
3
2
1
t left Cint IP
λ QP
Q who
Q
c. JCintK =λp[p] JwhoK
o =undefined JwhoK
f =λx[person(x)]
d. J1K
o =λw[left(t)(w)]
J1K
f ={λw[left(t)(w)]}
e. J2K
o =λxλw[left(x)(w)]
J2K
f ={λxλw[left(x)(w)]}
f. J3K
o =undefined (because ofwho) J3K
f ={λw[left(x)(w)]|person(x)}
g. J4K
o ={λw[left(x)(w)]|person(x)}
J4K
f ={{λw[left(x)(w)]|person(x)}}
In (40), the question denotation is a set of propositions (type〈s t,t〉) of the formthat x left, where xis a person. The very close parallel with focus semantics should be apparent.
In (40), the whole QP moves to the CP. As mentioned above, the Q-particle approach also allows for a derivation where thewh-DP stays in situ. In this case, either the Q-particle is merged with the DP and moves alone to CP, or it is base-generated within the CP. In the latter case, either C0 does not carry[uQ], or its deletion via Agree is able to take place from the base-generation position. Crucially, when thewh-DP stays in situ, the ordinary semantic value of the structure is undefined for all nodes between thewh-DP and the Q-particle, as shown in (41).
(41) Single-whquestion derivation with movement of Q (Cable-Kotek) a. Who left?
b.
3
2
[t who]left Cint 1
Q
c. JCintK =λp[p] JwhoK
o =undefined JwhoK
f =λx[person(x)]
d. J1K
o =undefined J1K
f ={λw[left(x)(w)]|person(x)}
e. J2K
o =undefined J2K
f ={λw[left(x)(w)]|person(x)}
f. J2K
o ={λw[left(x)(w)]|person(x)}
J2K
f ={{λw[left(x)(w)]|person(x)}}
Kotek (2014) argues that the type of situ composition shown in (41) is vulnerable to focus in-tervention effects (Beck, 2006). Recall that the semantics of focus involves the squiggle operator, which neutralises the effect of focus in its prejacent. If a squiggle intervenes between thewh-DP and Q, the focus semantic value of the structure will be set to the singleton set of the undefined ordinary semantic value. This means that both the ordinary and the focus semantic value of the structure will be undefined, and even Q will not be able to salvage the structure (cf. Beck, 2006).
As an example of focus intervention, consider (42) from Korean (Beck, 2006, p. 3):
(42) Example of focus intervention in Korean a. *Minsu-man
Minsu-only
nuku-lûl who-ACC
po-ss-ni?
see-PAST-Q
Intended: ‘Who did only Minsu see?’
b. *[Q ...[... only∼...[Minsu saw who]]]
2.1. Syntax-semantics
Koreanwh-phrases stay in situ in overt syntax. In (42), thewh-phrase is the object, while the F-marked associate of the exclusive focus particleman is the subject. Given that subjects c-command objects, the resulting configuration is one of focus intervention, as shown in (42b).
If, however, thewh-phrase is scrambled left, as in (43a), no focus intervention effects arise, and the result is grammatical.
(43) Avoiding focus intervention by scrambling a. Nuku-lûl
who-ACC
Minsu-man Minsu-only
po-ss-ni?
see-PAST-Q
‘Who did only Minsu see?’
b. [Q ...[who[... only∼...[Minsu sawtwho]]]
Focus intervention will not play a major role in this dissertation. However, it will come up espe-cially in the discussion of the multiple-whuse of bound additives in chapters 4 and 7.
Let us now take a look at the syntax and semantics of multiple-whquestions.