Métodos de costeo de inventarios: 17 Los negocios multiplican la

Since Rudin’s (1988) influential paper, it has been widely-accepted in the literature that MWF languages, although superficially very similar, fall into two

groups, with different syntactic properties.1 _{Namely, Rudin distinguishes between}

two types of MWF languages: (i) Multiply-Filled Spec,CP ([+MFS]) languages, in which all wh-words move to Spec,CP, and (ii) [–MFS] languages, in which only one wh-phrase ends up at Spec,CP, while the rest move to Spec,IP. This distinction is schematized below:

(7) a. [+MFS] languages (Bulgarian, Romanian) [CP wh1 wh2 [IP ... ]]

b. [–MFS] languages (Serbo-Croatian, Polish, Czech) [CP wh1 [IP wh2 ...]]

Richards (1997, 2001), who adopts and reformulates Rudin’s original proposal, in turn distinguishes between (i) CP-absorption languages (corresponding to Rudin’s [+MFS]) and (ii) IP-absorption languages (equivalent to Rudin’s [–MFS]). The two structures are represented in (8a) and (8b) respectively:

(8) a. CP-absorption (Bulgarian) [CP wh1 wh2 [IP ... [t1 t2]]

b. IP-absorption (Serbo-Croatian, Polish, Czech, Russian) [CP wh1 [IP t1 wh2 ... [t1 t2]]

1 _{For relevant early studies on the MWF phenomenon, see Wachowicz (1974a,b) and}

46

On this view, only CP-absorption involves Ā-movement to multiple specifiers of the CP-level. The crucial difference with respect to IP-fronting languages under Richards’ analysis, as opposed to Rudin’s one, is that in these languages all the fronted wh-elements pass through IP, since wh-fronting is considered as adjunction to multiple IP-level projections, which is followed by movement of a single wh-word to Spec,CP. As I discuss below, Russian clearly patterns with IP-absorption languages in most regards, although it was not originally considered either by Rudin (1988) or by Richards (1997, 2001).

Various pieces of evidence support the distinction in (7) and (8), including data regarding extraction from wh-islands, Superiority effects and constituency of the fronted wh-phrases. The first relevant difference between CP-absorption and IP-absorption languages is that the former typically exhibit rigid ordering of the fronted wh-phrases, while the latter do not. This is illustrated below by Bulgarian and Russian examples, respectively:

(9) a. Koj1 kogo2 vižda? (Bulgarian)

who.NOM who.ACC sees

‘Who sees whom?’

b. * Kogo2 koj1 vižda?

who.ACC who.NOM sees [from Rudin 1988:472-473]

(10) a. Kto1 kogo2 uvidel? (Russian)

who.NOM who.ACC saw

‘Who saw whom?’

b. Kogo2 kto1 uvidel?

who.ACC who.NOM saw

The empirical characterization of Superiority effects consists in that in Bulgarian the structurally highest wh-word, the one that asymmetrically c-commands the rest of wh-items at their base position, must precede them after wh-fronting. This requirement explains a well-known contrast between (9a) and (9b): the question in the latter example, as opposed to the former, violates Superiority and, thus, results ungrammatical. However, Russian is not sensitive to Superiority-violations, as both orders give a grammatical result, (10).

Under Richards’ proposal, the distinction between (9) and (10) is captured in terms of different strategies of wh-movement. According to the author, CP-absorption languages resort to movement to multiple specifiers, under the assumption that this operation uniformly obeys Attract Closest (AC) principle:

47

(11) Attract Closest:

[A probe] K attracts α only if there is no β, β closer to K than α, such that

K attracts β. [from Chomsky 1995:311]

Due to AC, the fronted wh-elements ‘tuck in’, in the sense that the highest QP moves to the outermost specifier of CP, while the rest are fronted to the inner specifiers, as illustrated below in (12). According to Richards, movement of the second wh-item to the inner specifier —although in principle it violates Chomsky’s (1993) Extension Condition, since it does not expand the tree— obeys Chomsky’s (1995) version of cyclicity, as both wh-phrases move to check a [uF]. Under this view, CP-fronting is movement to multiple specifiers of a single head C, so this operation, in addition to AC, is subject to another principle, Shortest

Move (SM). While AC requires attraction of the first wh-phrase as the closest

available mover, SM forces the second wh-phrase to be internally merged to the lower specifier, which is the closest available landing site. Consequently, the combination of AC and SM gives rise to ‘tucking-in’ and triggers Superiority effects:

(12) [CP wh1 wh2 ... [... t1 ... t2 ...]]

In questions with multiple wh-elements, Superiority refers to the fact that the base order of constituents prior to movement has to be preserved at their new position. The pattern of CP-fronting is illustrated in (8a). It is expected then that, due to AC and SM, only Superiority-satisfying questions can be generated in the CP-absorption type of languages.

In IP-absorption languages, in contrast, wh-phrases are adjoined to multiple IP-level projections, under assumption that Adjunction, as opposed to Move, can presumably occur in any order. As a result, both Superiority-obeying and Superiority-violating questions can arise in IP-absorption languages, as sketched in _{(13) below:}

(13) a. IP-absorption: Superiority-obeying order [CP wh1 [IP t1 wh2 … [t1 t2]]]

b. IP-absorption: Superiority-violating order [CP wh2 [IP t2 wh1 … [t1 t2]]]

48

As shown in (13), in IP-absorption languages, first, the wh-items are adjoined (in free order) into the multiple IP-level projections, and then one wh-word, namely,

the closest one to C, is attracted to Spec,CP, in order to satisfy AC.2

Secondly, it has been noticed that IP-absorption languages license certain intervening material (e.g. clitics, parentheticals, adverbs, etc.) to appear after the first of the fronted wh-phrases, while such split of the wh-cluster is not allowed in languages with CP-fronting. The contrast is illustrated by the following Bulgarian and Russian examples:

(14) a. * Koj1 ti e kakvo2 kazal? (Bulgarian)

who.NOM you has what.ACC told

‘Who told you what?’ [from Rudin 1988:461]

b. * Koj1 spored tebe kakvo2 e kazal?

who.NOM according.to.you what.ACC has said

‘Who, in your opinion, said what?’ [from Rudin 1988:468]

(15) a. Kto1 tebe čto2 skazal? (Russian)

who.NOM you what.ACC said

‘Who said you what?’

b. Kto1 po-tvoemu čto2 skazal?

who.NOM according.to.you what.ACC said

‘Who, in your opinion, said what?’

Therefore, apart from Superiority, the next crucial distinction between Russian and Bulgarian is that in the latter the wh-cluster cannot be interrupted by clitics or parentheticals, as shown in (14a) and (14b) respectively. Meanwhile the corresponding Russian examples, (15a) and (15b), are grammatical. This contrast suggests that in the CP-absorption language-type (Bulgarian) the fronted

wh-phrases form an indivisible unit by being located at the same projection. On

the other hand, in languages with IP-fronting (Russian), the leftmost wh-item forms a separate constituent from the rest of the fronted wh-words. In fact, the corresponding structures in (8) correctly predict the aforementioned distinction. Through the thesis, I will take these two properties —Superiority and

2 _{Observe, however, that the distinction between the two operations (Move and Adjunction)}

underlying Richards’ proposal is quite weak. Notice also that the derivation of the Superiority-

violating order in (13b), with nested paths, violates AC at the IP-level, as the wh2 moves to the

outer specifier. I will turn to discussion of Richards’ proposal in the next chapter. For now, I limit myself to report the account and, mainly, to highlight the underlying idea that in the two languages wh-movement targets different positions, which, I think, is on track. Keep this idea in mind.

49

wh-constituency— as being relevant distinctions between Russian and Bulgarian

multiple questions.

The last difference extensively discussed in the literature on MWF concerns extraction from wh-islands. Given that CP-absorption languages make use of multiple specifiers of CP, the structure (8a) predicts that in this language-type

wh-movement out of weak islands should be allowed in principle. In contrast,

given that in IP-absorption languages the IP-level has multiple specifiers, while the CP-level has only one, the structure in (8b) does not allow extraction from

wh-islands. These predictions seem to be correct, as the following contrast

between Bulgarian and Russian shows:

(16) a. ? _{Koja ot tezi knigi}

i se čudiš [koj znae [koj prodava ti ]]?

whichof these books wonder.2SG whoknows whosells (Bulgarian)

‘Which of these books do you wonder who knows who sells?’

[from Rudin 1988:457]

b. * Komui ty sprosil [kogdaj Ivan pozvonil ti tj ]]? (Russian)

who.DAT you asked when Ivan phoned?

‘Who did you ask when Ivan phoned?’ [from Bailyn 2011:101]

Nevertheless, as discussed in Bošković (1998c), the behavior of Bulgarian with respect to extraction from wh-islands is far from being clear. Recall that in the Bulgarian example in (16a) the extracted wh-phrase is D-linked. As noticed by Rudin (1988) herself, extraction of non-D-linked wh-constituents from weak islands results much worse, as shown in (17a). Moreover, Bošković (1998c, 2003b) reports that adjunct extraction from wh-islands results always ungrammatical, (17b):

(17) a. * Kakvoi se čudiš [koj znae [koj prodava ti ]]? (Bulgarian)

what wonder.2SG who knows who sells

‘What do you wonder who knows who sells?’ [from Rudin 1988:457]

b. * Zašto/poradi kakva pričinai znae [dali Boris e zaminal ti ]]?

why for which reason knows whether Boris is left

‘Why/for which reason does he know whether Boris left?’

[from Bošković 2003b:33]

The examples above contradict (or, at least, challenge) the claim that Bulgarian is not sensitive to wh-islands violations. In addition, Bošković (2003b, 2008) offers another argument that questions the supposed relation between MWF and the possibility of extraction from wh-islands. According to the author, these two

50

phenomena might not be related to each other, since certain non-MWF languages (e.g. Icelandic, Hebrew and Norwegian) are not sensitive to wh-island violations as well. Therefore, in this dissertation I will abstract from considering extraction from wh-islands as a relevant test for distinguishing between Russian and

Bulgarian multiple questions.3

To sum up what we discussed so far, Bulgarian and Russian, apart from sharing the property of being MWF languages, differ systematically in several regards. The differences are summarized in the table below:

(18) CP-absorption:

Bulgarian

IP-absorption: Russian

Superiority effects


Constituency of the fronted wh-items


Wh-islands violations4 

So far, to advance the outcome of the next chapter, what is crucial for our proposal at this point is the identification of the IP-level projections as intermediate landing-sites for the fronted wh-phrases in MWF languages. I will argue that this intuition is correct, although certain important modifications will be proposed. Observe that neither Rudin (1988) nor Richards (1997, 2001) offer any particular explanation of what exactly motivates wh-movement into the IP layer. The proposal which I will develop in the next chapter motivates such movement in terms of phase extension hypothesis (see den Dikken 2007, Gallego 2007, 2010 and others). Namely, that in Slavic the vP phase extends to a higher projection, AspP, a process which is parasitic on obligatory v-to-Asp phase head movement (see Svenonius 2004a,c; Dyakonova 2009, among others). I will argue

3 _{In addition to the challenges pointed out by Bošković (1998c, 2003b, 2008), it should be}

mentioned that any extraction from a finite clause results ungrammatical in Russian. In fact, only extraction from subjunctive complements is allowed (I will come back to the latter in the next chapter):

(i) a. * Kogoi ty dumaeš [(čto) Ivan priglasil ti]? (Russian)

who.ACC you think that Ivan invited

‘Who do you think that Ivan invited?’

b. Kogoi ty xočeš [čtoby Ivan priglasil ti]?

who.ACC you want that.SUBJ Ivan invited

‘Who do you want Ivan to invite?’ [from Khomitsevich 2007:134-135]

For discussion of conditions on extraction from wh-islands in Russian as well as possible accounts, the reader it referred to Glushan (2006), Antonenko (2006), Khomitsevich (2007), Dyakonova (2009), Scott (2012) and references therein.

51

that such proposal solves in a natural way the flagged problems of Richard’s account regarding derivation of Superiority-violating orders and other issues.

To sum up, under the CP- vs. IP-absorption hypothesis, both types of MWF languages resort to standard wh-movement. However, this movement targets different (A- or Ā-) syntactic positions depending on a language.