UNIDAD RESPONSABLE: HABILITACIONES Y PERMISOS

Recall that within our Q-based theory, the fronting of a wh-phrase into the CP domain is ultimately movement of the QP projection containing the wh-phrase. I argued that such movement is triggered by the need of a QP to check its uninterpretable instance of the Q-feature via agreement with the matching interpretable Q-feature on C. Assuming that Agree occurs in an upward direction, the QP first must move to a position from where it c-commands C. Namely, it fronts to Spec,CP. The mechanism of interrogative Q-movement is represented in (71):

127 (71) CP QPi[uQ] CP XP Q C[iQ] T wh-word QPi Agree Move

With these assumptions in mind, let us consider the last step in the derivation of multiple wh-questions in MWF languages, namely Q-movement into CP.

Our account predicts that if a derivation contains multiple QPs, one dominating every wh-word, then every QP will move into the CP domain, obeying tucking-in and, hence, giving rise to a Superiority-obeying structure. So the derivation of Bulgarian multiple wh-questions with multiple QPs, (72), follows straightforwardly.

(72) a. [QP Koj1] [QP kogo2] e celunal? (Bulgarian)

who.NOM who.ACC kissed

‘Who kissed whom?’

b. * [QP Kogo2] [QP kto1] e celunal?

who.ACC who.NOMkissed

Within our Q-approach, the derivation of multiple Superiority-obeying

wh-questions in (72a) corresponds to (73):

(73) Wh-questions with multiple QPs

a. [CP[QPwh1 Q]1[uQ] [QPwh2 Q]2[uQ] C[iQ] [TP T[AspP t1 t2 v/Asp [vP t1 t2 tv]]]]

Transfer

Multiple Move

b. [CP[QPwh1 Q]1[uQ] [QP wh2 Q]2[uQ] C[iQ] [TPT[AspP t1 t2 v/Asp [vP t1 t2 tv]]]]

Transfer

Multiple Agree

As shown in (73a), first, multiple wh-containing QPs undergo multiple internal Merge into CP: this operation, I assume, takes place derivationally simultaneously, in the spirit of Hiraiwa (2001, 2005). In (73b), since the QPs end up c-commanding the interrogative C, they can check their uninterpretable Q-feature via multiple upward Agree with C (this operation, again, occurs derivationally

128

simultaneously). As a result, we predict that derivations with multiple QPs

always obey Superiority.16

Let us now turn to Russian multiple wh-questions, which typically allow both orders:

(74) a. [QP Kto1] [XP kogo2] poceloval? (Russian)

who.NOM who.ACC kissed

‘Who kissed whom?’

b. [QP Kogo2] [XP kto1] poceloval?

who.ACC who.NOM kissed

‘Who kissed whom?’

I suggested that this type of multiple wh-questions contains a single QP, which is free to dominate any wh-element in the derivation. Therefore, a single QP can contain either the structurally highest wh-word, as in (74a), or the lower one, as in (74b). Clearly, if QP contains the structurally highest wh-word, then this element is fronted to Spec,CP, giving rise to a Superiority-obeying order.

16 _{Recall from Appendix A (chapter 3) my intuition that some Russian multiple questions —}

namely, those triggering unspecific reading (i.e., unknown for both speaker and hearer) of all

wh-items— generally require a Superiority-obeying order:

(i) (Context: I know that yesterday some boys invited some girls to a party, but I don’t know who invited whom.)

a. Kto1 (včera) kogo2 priglasil? (Russian)

who.NOM yesterday who.ACC invited

‘Who invited whom?’

b. ?_Kogo

2 (včera) kto1 priglasil?

who.ACC yesterday who.NOM invited

Observe that Russian questions with obligatory Superiority-obeying wh-ordering can be captured by the derivation in (73), under the assumption that in (i) every wh-word is dominated by a QP. Moreover, multiple QPs would predict the unspecific reading of every wh-word (see also fn. 17). However, recall that Russian questions differ from their Bulgarian counterparts in that only the former allow for interpolation of certain material between the fronted wh-words, (ia) (for discussion of what predictions makes our analysis concerning this issue, see section 7.1). Thus, it indicates that in Russian the fronted QPs occupy different positions. I suggest that the difference between Bulgarian and Russian questions with multiple QPs might be due to a PF rule parameterized for Russian, (ii) (cf. Pesetsky 2000):

(ii) Pronunciation Rule (for Russian)

Pronounce the highest QP in CP in its high position, all other QPs in their closest trace positions (the edge of AspP).

Therefore, after application of the PF rule, the derivation in (73) yields in Russian the PF structure as in (iii) (notice that in Bulgarian the two QPs are pronounced at the CP-level): (iii) PF structure of wh-questions with multiple QPs in Russian

129

Nevertheless, if QP dominates the lower wh-phrase, than the sentence exhibits a Superiority-violating order of the multiple wh-constituents. On the other hand, in both cases the wh-word, which is not contained within the single QP, remains below CP, namely, at the edge of AspP. As a result, the two wh-phrases appear preverbally, but in fact they occupy two different syntactic positions. The two possible derivations concerning Q-movement into the CP level are represented in

(75) and (76) respectively:17

(75) Wh-questions with a single QP (highest wh-word dominated by QP) a. [CP[QPwh1]i[uQ] C[iQ] [TP T[AspP ti [XP wh2] Aspv [vPt1 t2 tv]]]]

Transfer

Move

b. [CP[QPwh1]1[uQ] C[iQ] [TPT[AspP t1 [XPwh2] Aspv [vPt1 t2 tv]]]]

Transfer

Agree

17 _{As discussed in Appendix A (chapter 3), Superiority-violating orders typically require a}

particular licensing context, under which the wh2 designates some unknown set of entities, as

opposed to the wh1, whose value is familiar to both speaker and hearer:

(i) (Context: I know that each of my students, Ivan and Boris, kissed some girls, but I don’t know who exactly kissed whom.)

a. Kto1 kogo2 poceloval? (Russian)

who.NOM who.ACC will.go

‘Who kissed whom?’

b. Kogo2 kto1 poceloval?

who.ACC who.NOM will.go

In principle, our Q-based approach can formally capture the observed semantic differences between the Russian wh-questions triggering unspecific reading of both wh-items (see fn. 16) and those triggering a specific reading of one of the wh-constituent, (i). Given that there is only one QP and multiple wh-words, the unspecific interpretation of all wh-words is unexpected in

Superiority-violating orders, (ib). That is, if only the wh2 has been merged with a Q-particle

(and, thus, fronted into CP), the wh1 cannot receive the unspecific reading (cf. (76)). However,

it remains to be understood how in Superiority-obeying questions as (ia) only the wh2, which is

not dominated by any QP, gets the unspecific reading (cf. (75)). As mentioned, the observation that Russian wh-ordering is constrained by certain discourse rules related to specificity of the

130

(76) Wh-questions with a single QP (lower wh-word dominated by QP) a. [CP[QP wh2]i[uQ] C[iQ][TP T[AspP [XPwh1] ti Aspv [vPt1 t2 tv]]]]

Transfer

Move

b. [CP [QPwh2]i[uQ] C[iQ][TP T[AspP [XPwh1] ti Aspv [vPt1 t2 tv]]]]

Transfer

Agree