Now, in order to conclude what we discussed so far regarding the formation of multiple questions in MWF languages, let us see how these constructions are derived under our Q-based approach.
First, let us consider a step-by-step derivation of multiple questions which require Superiority-obeying ordering of the wh-words:
(77) Derivation of Superiority-obeying questions with multiple QPs
Step 1: Q-particles are distributed; one is merged with every wh-word: [vP [QPwh1 Q][uQ] [QP wh2 Q][uQ]]
Step 2: Wh-phrases move to AspP:
(i) v-to-Asp verb movement:
[CP C [TP [AspP v/Asp [vP [QP wh1][uQ] [QP wh2][uQ] tv]]]]
(ii) vP extendsto AspP; QPs escape the phase domain; vP is transferred:
[CP C[TP T[AspP [QP wh1][uQ] [QP wh2][uQ] Aspv [vPt1 t2 tv]]]]
Step 3: Q-movement to CP: (i) QPs move to Spec,CP:
[CP [QP wh1][uQ] [QPwh2][uQ] C[iQ] [TP T[AspP t1 t2 Aspv…]]]
(ii) QPs agree with C, TP is transferred:
[CP [QP wh1][uQ] [QP wh2][uQ] C[iQ] [TP T[AspP t1 t2 Aspv…]]]
Result: Superiority-obeying structure:
[CP [QP]1 [QP]2 C [TP T [AspP t1 t2 Aspv …]]]
Expect: Intervening material is NOT allowed between the wh-words.
As shown in (77), in Bulgarian Superiority-obeying questions with a base-
generated ‘[QPwh1] > [QPwh2]’ configuration, both wh-phrases are attracted to
Spec,CP. We begin this derivation by merging both wh-phrases with Q-particles at their base position. Then both QPs undergo tuck-in into the edge of the extended phase AspP, in order to be able to check their formal imperfection [uQ]
131
during further operations. Next, they move into the specifiers of CP (again, in a tucking-in manner), from where they c-command their formal checker [iQ] on C and, finally, can delete their unvalued instance of the Q-feature before being
transferred. Thus, we predict that under the initial configuration ‘[QPwh1] >
[QPwh2]’ the Superiority-violating order is ill-formed.
The picture changes when we turn to Russian questions, which allow for
both orders. In a configuration ‘[QPwh1] > [XPwh2]’, we also expect a Superiority-
obeying order; however, the two fronted wh-phrases occupy two structurally different positions, as opposed to the derivation in (77):
(78) Derivation of Superiority-obeying questions with one QP
Step 1: Q1 is merged with the highest wh-word; Q2 is merged with C:
[CP Q2+C[uWH][iQ] [vP [QP wh1 Q1][uQ] [XP wh2][iWH] v]]
Step 2: Wh-phrases move to AspP: (i) v-to-Asp verb movement:
[CP C[uWH] [TP T[AspP Aspv [vP[QPwh1][uQ] [XP wh2][iWH] tv]]]]
(ii) vP phase extends to AspP; QP&XP escape the phase domain:
[CP C[uWH] [TPT[AspP[QPwh1][uQ] [XP wh2][iWH] Aspv [vPt1 t2 tv]]]]
(iii) XP agrees with C; vP is transferred:
[CP C[uWH] [TPT[AspP[QPwh1][uQ] [XP wh2][iWH] Aspv [vPt1 t2 tv]]]]
Step 3: Q-movement to CP: (i) QP moves to Spec,CP:
[CP[QP wh1][uQ] C[iQ] [TP T[AspPt1 [XP wh2][iWH] Aspv …]]]
(ii) QP agrees with C; TP is transferred:
[CP [QP wh1][uQ] C[iQ][TPT[AspPt1 [XP wh2][iWH] Aspv …]]]]
Result: Superiority-obeying structure:
[CP [QP]1 C [TP T [AspP t1 [XP]2 Aspv ...]]]
Expect: Intervening material is allowed between the wh-words.
I argue that in Russian questions only one Q-particle (Q1) is merged with a
wh-word (while the second one (Q2) is merged with C). If Q1 is merged with a
structurally higher wh-word, then we obtain a base-generated ‘[QPwh1] > [XPwh2]’
configuration and, consequently, a Superiority-obeying order, (78). If Q1 is merged
with a structurally lower wh-word, then the question has the structure ‘[XPwh1] >
[QPwh2]’ and, as expected, will exhibit a Superiority-violating order of the fronted
132
(79) Derivation of Superiority-violating questions with one QP
Step 1: Q1 is merged with the lower wh-word; Q2 is merged with C:
[CP Q2+C[uWH][iQ] [vP[XP wh1][iWH] [QPwh2 Q1][uQ] v]]
Step 2: Wh-phrases move to AspP: (i) v-to-Asp verb movement:
[CP C[uWH][TP T[AspP Aspv [vP [XP wh1][iWH] [QPwh2][uQ] tv]]]]
(ii) vP phase extends to AspP; wh-items escape the phase domain: [CP C[uWH][TP T[AspP [XP wh1][iWH] [QPwh2][uQ] Aspv [vPt1 t2 tv]]]
(iii) XP agress with C; vP is transferred:
[CP C[uWH] [TPT[AspP[QPwh2][uQ] [XP wh1][iWH] Aspv [vPt1 t2 tv]]]]
Step 3: Q-movement to CP: (i) QP moves to Spec,CP:
[CP[QPwh2][uQ] C[iQ][TPT[AspP[XP wh1][iWH] t2 Aspv …]]]]
(ii) QP agrees with C, TP is transferred
[CP[QPwh2][uQ] C[iQ][TPT[AspP[XP wh1][iWH]t2 Aspv …]]]]
Result: Superiority-violating structure:
[CP [QP]2 C [TP T [AspP [XP]1 t2 Aspv ...]]]
Expect: Intervening material is allowed between the wh-words.
As shown in (78) and (79), multiple wh-questions have multiple Q-particles (cf. Cable 2007, 2010), which regulate their semantics. However, the second Q-particle is merged high, with the interrogative head C, thus contributing to it an uninterpretable instance of the wh-feature. Significantly, the two derivations share the tucking-in movement of the wh-phrases to the edge of AspP (see Step 2)
and differ in which wh-phrase ([XPwh1] or [XPwh2]) values C’s [uwh] via Agree.
Finally, as expected, only a single QP ([QPwh1] or [QPwh2]) undergoes movement
into Spec,CP, giving rise to one or another wh-ordering.
I argued that the existence of two hierarchically distinct positions for Ā-movement in Slavic —the edge of CP and the edge of v/AspP— allows our Q-based analysis to capture the MWF phenomenon uniformly. MWF languages differ from languages like English in that the former count on an additional application of Transfer as a result of phase extension, which is parasitic on
v-to-Asp verb movement. Consequently, the edge of vP turns into the domain of
the extended phase, AspP, and MWF languages therefore count with an additional landing site for the fronted wh-words, as opposed to other, non-MWF languages.
133
In turn, when we compare our analyses of the two typologically related languages, Bulgarian and Russian, we see that the core difference between these languages lies in their usage of the edge of AspP. Bulgarian uses it as an escape hatch for its multiple QPs from the domain of the extended phase, which finally are moved and pronounced in CP. In contrast, in Russian, one of the multiple wh- phrases remains at the edge of AspP, while another one, dominated by a single QP, moves into the CP-level. As a result, the linear order of the multiple wh- words reflects two hierarchically different projections in Russian, whereas in Bulgarian the fronted wh-items are inside the same, highest projection. In the next section, I address some interesting predictions made by this proposal.