Wh-interrogatives

In this section, I discuss the syntax and semantics ofwh-interrogatives in Finnish. The discussion is based on the presentation of the Q-particle approach in section 2.1.4. The reason why single-and multiple-whinterrogatives are discussed both from a general and a Finnish perspective is that their syntax and semantics are highly relevant for parts of the distribution of bound additives (see e.g. sections 4.5 and 4.7).

As in English, Finnishwh-interrogatives are formed syntactically by fronting onewh-phrase to the CP. It has been argued that the landing position ofwh-movement is the same position that is targeted by fronted contrastively focused phrases (Vilkuna, 1995; Huhmarniemi, 2012). In (71), I give examples of both a matrix and an embedded single-whinterrogative in Finnish.

(71) Matrix and embedded single-whinterrogatives

2.3. Finnish

a. [F o c P Minkä which.ACC

kirja-n book-ACC

[F P Mari Mari.NOM

luk-i

read-PAST.3SG

t ]]?

‘Which book did Mari read?’

b. Halua-n want-PRES.1SG

tietä-ä know-INF

[F o r c e P (että) that [F o c P minkä

which.ACC

kirja-n book-ACC

[F P Mari Mari.NOM

luk-i

read-PAST.3SG

t ]]]

‘I want to know which book Mari read’

Brattico et al. (2013) propose that FocP attractswh-phrases inwh-interrogatives due to a feature that it inherits from interrogative Force⁰. Following Kotek (2014) (and Cable, 2010), I assume that the relevant feature that is passed from Force⁰ to Foc⁰is[uQ]. This feature is deleted through Agree with[iQ]on the Q-particle. Note that as (71b) shows, embeddedwh-interrogatives may contain the overt complementiserettä, which is situated in Force⁰(Brattico et al., 2013). The same complementiser also heads embedded declarative clauses. As the embedded clause in (71b) is typed as interrogative, I conclude thatettädoes not encode clause type, and that it is semantically inert.

(72) Feature inheritance from Force⁰to Foc⁰inwh-interrogatives (Brattico et al., 2013)

ForceP

FocP

...

Foc⁰_[uQ] FP Force⁰_[uQ]

inheritance

I furthermore assume that when they appear within an interrogative clause, Finnishwh-phrases are always merged with a Q-particle carrying an interpretable feature[iQ], which acts as a goal for Foc⁰and thus contributes to drivingwh-movement in Finnish (Cable, 2010; Kotek, 2014). This analysis is supported by the fact that in Finnish, there is an overt morpheme that arguably marks the presence of the Q-particle, i.e. –kO(Holmberg, 2014), and this particle may sometimes be cliticised directly to thewh-phrase. (An example of such a structure will be given below.) The internal structure of Finnishwh-phrases therefore resembles the structure shown in (73), where the dashed arrow indicates some type of marking process (this process will be discussed briefly).

(73) Internal structure ofwh-phrases in interrogative clauses (non-final)

?P

...

Q_[iQ] KP

(–kO)

In (73), the highest node is unlabeled. Given that I assume that Q-particles directly adjoin to wh-KPs inwh-interrogatives, and given that Finnish shows overtwh-movement, a Kotek-style syntax-semantics for Finnishwh-interrogatives should involve a syntactically projecting Q-particle. This is because Kotek follows Cable (2010) in assuming that overtly frontedwh-phrases necessarily involve the movement of a maximal projection of Q. Non-projecting Q-particles move to the CP alone (after agreeing with the[uQ]-carrying head) (see section 2.1.4).

When the Q-particle is overtly realised in Finnish, it is realised as a clitic (see section 2.3.3.5).

The status of Q as a clitic independently excludes syntactic movement of the clitic without the host (e.g. Kayne, 1994). Therefore, the overt movement of QP in Finnish does not necessarily entail that Q projects. I nevertheless follow Cable (2007, 2010) and Kotek (2014) and propose that Q projects. Not much hinges on this choice.³¹

(74) Internal structure ofwh-phrases in interrogative clauses (final)

QP

...

Q_[iQ] KP

(–kO)

In (74), a dashed arrow connects the Q-clitic and its host KP; when–kOis realised, it is realised as an enclitic. I will not discuss or develop the exact mechanism or process that "lowers" the morphological marker–kOonto the KP any further; I simply note that such processes are implic-itly assumed in e.g. some accounts of Finnish case marking (Nikanne, 1993). The main reasons for why I opt for a left-adjoining Q that morphologically marks its host with–kOare that this

31In chapter 7, I propose a more detailed syntax forwh-phrases.

2.3. Finnish

choice (i) allows me to maintain a LCA-compliant structure (Kayne, 1994), and (ii) it leaves the Q-particle free to move without its host at LF. Indeed, I follow Kotek (2014) in assuming that at LF, the Q-particle adjoins to the clausal spine (i.e. to FocP) in order to resolve a type-mismatch.

The LF of a matrix single-whinterrogative is shown in (75). In (75), the focus semantic value ofminkä kirjan‘which book’ is a set of books{x|book(x)}, or equivalently,{b₁,b₂, ...b_n}, where b is a book.

(75) An example derivation of a single-whinterrogative a. Surface syntax of FocP

[F o c P Minkä which.ACC

kirja-n book-ACC

[F P Mari Mari.NOM

luk-i

read-PAST.3SG

t ]]?

‘Which book did Mari read?’

b. LF of FocP

[F o c P Qminkä kirjanλ[F PMari luki t ]]

c.

3

2

Mari luki t minkä kirjan 1

Q

d. J¹K

o =λw[read(t)(Mari)(w)]

J¹K

f ={λw[read(t)(Mari)(w)]}

e. (λ-abstraction overt) J²K

o =undefined because ofminkä kirjan J²K

f ={λw[read(b₁)(Mari)(w)],λw[read(b₂)(Mari)(w)], ...}

={λw[read(x)(Mari)(w)]|book(x)}

f. J³K

o ={λw[read(b1)(Mari)(w)],λw[read(b2)(Mari)(w)], ...}

={λw[read(x)(Mari)(w)]|book(x)}

J³K

f ={{λw[read(x)(Mari)(w)]|book(x)}}

As mentioned above, the idea thatwh-phrases come with an adjoined Q-particle in wh-inter-rogatives is supported by the fact thatwh-phrases may be overtly marked with–kO, especially when followed by another discourse particle–hAn, as in (76a) (see section 2.3.3.5 for discussion on discourse particles). As–hAnresists embedding, only matrix questions involving the clitic combination–kOhAnon thewh-phrase are acceptable.

(76) Matrix and embedded single-whinterrogatives with–kOhAn

‘Which book did Mari read (I wonder)?’

b. #Halua-n

Int. ‘I want to know which book Mari read (I wonder)’

As was noted in section 2.1.4.2, Finnish multiple-whinterrogatives involve only one instance of overtwh-movement; the secondwh-phrase stays in situ in surface syntax (Huhmarniemi and Vainikka, 2011).

‘Which book did Mari read when?’

In this dissertation, multiple-whinterrogatives feature heavily in sections 4.7 and 7.3, where the multiple-whuse of the bound additive–kinis discussed and analysed. I therefore postpone the detailed discussion of Finnish multiple-whinterrogatives until then.