In this dissertation I adopt Cable’s (2007, 2010) insight that presence or absence of Superiority effects depends on how many QPs there are in a derivation of a multiple wh-question. More precisely, Superiority and Intervention effects are closely related to whether every wh-phrase is c-commanded by a QP projection or not. To advance the outcome of the next chapter, I will argue that Bulgarian and English questions, which require Superiority-obeying order, are similar in that their corresponding derivations contain multiple QPs, one for every wh-word. On the other hand, I will propose that Russian wh-questions, which allow both Superiority-obeying and Superiority-violating orders, share a common property with German wh-interrogatives and English D-linked questions: their derivations contain only one QP.
However, let us first briefly consider whether Q-based theory, in its original formulation (Cable 2007, 2010), predicts the MWF phenomenon. At a first sight, the general pattern of formation of multiple wh-questions in Bulgarian seems to follow straightforwardly from Q-theory. Bulgarian is similar to English in that both are sensitive to Superiority violations and do not exhibit Intervention effects:
(67) a. Koj1 kogo2 (ne) celunal? (Bulgarian)
who.NOM who.ACCNEG kissed
‘Who did(n’t) kiss whom?’ b. * Kogo2 koj1 (ne) celunal?
who.ACC who.NOM NEG kissed
On the one hand, the insensitivity to negation in (67a) is captured by postulating that the question contains multiple QPs, which undergo multiple Superiority-
79
satisfying movement into the CP layer. As a result, both wh-containing QPs appear above negation, so that Intervention effects do not arise. Observe that the question in (67b) is ungrammatical not because of the Intervention effects, but
because of the Superiority violation, similarly to the English question *What2
didn’t who1 buy?.
On the other hand, it seems plausible to claim that the only difference between Bulgarian and English is that the PF rule in (53c) (repeated below for the reader’s commodity) holds only for the latter, but not for the former language: (53) c. PF rule (parameterized for English)
Pronounce the highest QP in CP in its new position, and the rest of QPs in their base positions.
Another way to achieve the same result is to postulate a different PF rule for Bulgarian, in the spirit of Pesetsky (2000): all QPs must be pronounced in their new position in the CP domain.
However, if we simply apply Q-theory to the MWF phenomenon, certain questions remain unresolved. For instance, Russian multiple wh-questions constitute a potential problem for Q-theory (see also Appendix A). As discussed, Russian multiple wh-questions allow for both Superiority-obeying and Superiority- violating orders, and negation only affects the grammaticality of a sentence when appearing above the lower wh-item. Concerning the correlation between Superiority and Intervention effects in multiple wh-questions, consider the following example (the context is provided):
(68) (Context: I know that Boris is generally very frank with Masha and Irina, his close friends. The two girls have certain failings, which Boris does not like, but he has never mentioned them.)
a. Komu1 o čjom2 nikogda ne govoril Boris? (Russian)
who.DAT about what.PREP never NEG said Boris
‘Who did Boris never said about what?’
b. O čjom2 komu1 nikogda ne govoril Boris?
about what.PREP who.DAT never NEG said Boris
c. ?? Komu
1 nikogda o čjom2 ne govoril Boris?
who.DAT never about what.PREP NEG said Boris
d. ?? O čjom
2 nikogda komu1 ne govoril Boris?
80
On the one hand, the availability of Superiority-obeying and Superiority-violating orders, in (68a) and (68b) respectively, is captured straightforwardly in terms of a single QP dominating a single wh-word and pied-piping it into CP. Such view is corroborated by the fact that the negative operator never is allowed to follow the fronted wh-cluster, as in (68a,b), but it cannot be placed between the wh-words, as in (68c,d). Within Q-theory, the oddness of (68c,d) follows from the Intervention effect created by the offending operator on the lower wh-word. The configuration resulting in an intervention effect is represented below, for (68c) and (68d) respectively:
(69) Intervention effect in Russian specific multiple questions a. ?? [
CP [QP Q Komu1] nikogda [t2 [XP o čjom2] ne govoril Boris]]?
Intervention effect configuration
b. ?? [
CP [QP Q O čjom2] nikogda [[XP komu1] t2 ne govoril Boris]]?
Intervention effect configuration, (74)
The reader is invited to confirm that the structures in (69) are very reminiscent of the Intervention effect configuration proposed for German in (64). The only difference is that the lower, ‘offended’ wh-phrase does not remain in-situ in Russian.
However, precisely this difference is a crucial one, as it brings up a puzzling challenge for the Q-based theory under its current formulation. On the one hand, if we assume that Russian multiple wh-questions possess only one QP, we correctly predict the lack of Superiority effects and sensitivity to Intervention effects. Unfortunately, then we fail to explain why the wh-phrase, which is not dominated by a QP, does not (and, actually, cannot) remain in-situ. Assuming that wh-movement is a secondary effect of QP-movement, fronting of the wh-item which is not dominated by any QP contradicts the core of the Q-based analysis. What is the force driving such movement? In a sense, at this point Q-theory faces a similar problem as all previous accounts that we considered earlier in this chapter.
To conclude, the MWF phenomenon does not easily follow from Q-based theory, at least in its original formulation. In the next chapter I will propose a formal solution to this and other puzzles regarding the MWF phenomenon.
81