multiple wh-questions
As previously discussed, the Russian pattern of MWF does not easily follow from Cable’s (2007, 2010) Q-theory in its original formulation. The fact that Russian lacks Superiority effects, but exhibits MWF results particularly challenging. Therefore, some modifications are needed in order to enable the theory to capture uniformly the MWF phenomenon.
With Cable (2007, 2010), I assume that the only properly interrogative movement allowed in a language is Q-movement. However I depart from Cable suggesting that all interrogative elements in a multiple wh-question must be related to C. What kind of relation is that?
As discussed, the interrogative C head is endowed with a Q-feature, which forces movement of a Q-particle (and of a QP, when projected). If there are multiple QPs, a particular C head is merged into the derivation (labeled by Cable as CQ2). CQ2 contributes multiple existential quantifiers into the meaning of the
question, so both QPs are visible to the corresponding syntax through Q-agreement (see chapter 3 for discussion). This is illustrated in (34):
(34) Multiple wh-question with multiple QPs: Superiority effects
a. Q-particles are distributed; one Q is merged with every wh-word: [vP [QP Q wh1] v [QP Q wh2]]
b. QPs undergo multiple internal Merge to Spec,CP: [CP [QP Q wh1][uQ] [QP Q wh2][uQ] C[iQ] … [vP t1 t2 v …]]]
c. C and QPs undergo multiple Q-agreement: [CP [QP Q wh1][uQ] [QP Q wh2][uQ] C[iQ] … [vP t1 v t2 ]]]
However, if a single Q has been merged with only one wh-containing XP in a multiple question, a particular type of the interrogative C head is projected
(which Cable labels as CQ+). However, unlike CQ2, CQ+ can bind only one
Q-particle and, hence, establishes a Q-feature-checking relation with only one QP. Consequently, an XP which has not been merged with any Q remains in-situ.
106
Notice, however, that, although there is no syntactic relation between C and a
wh-containing XP within Cable’s system, the latter is still visible to the
corresponding semantics. How is that possible?
As argued in Cable (2010:129), CQ+ shares with CQ2 “the property of
introducing multiple existential quantifiers into the meaning of the wh-question”.
However, unlike CQ2, the meaning of CQ+ “already contains the choice function
variable bound by one of those quantifiers” (Cable ibid.). From a syntactic point of view, I reinterpret this semantic suggestion as that one Q-particle is merged together with a single wh-containing XP in its argument position, but there is a
second Q-particle, which is merged directly with CQ+.This is represented below:
(35) Multiple wh-question with a single QP: no Superiority effects
a. Q-particles are distributed; Q1 is merged with XP, Q2 is merged with
C(+Q):
[CP Q2+C[iQ][vP [QP Q1 wh1] [XP wh2][iwh]]
b. QP undergoes internal Merge to Spec,CP: [CP [QP Q1 wh1] Q2+C[iQ]…[vP t1 [XP wh2][iwh]]
c. C and QP agree:
[CP [QP Q wh1][uQ] Q2+C[iQ]… [vP t1 [XP wh2][iwh]]
The derivation in (35) maintains the important prediction of Cable’s theory regarding multiple wh-questions with a single QP: such questions do not exhibit
Superiority effects. Only the wh-word contained within a single QP (either wh1 or
wh2) will appear at the left edge of a multiple wh-question, while the wh-phrase
not dominated by this single QP will remain in-situ. But what consequences does the distribution of multiple Q-particles, (35), have for Russian?
Recall from chapter 2 the assumption that in wh-fronting languages a Q-particle, in addition to the Q-feature, is also endowed with an uninterpretable instance of the wh-feature. A Q-particle, which is merged with a wh-word, can check its wh-feature through local agreement, as shown in (11) (repeated below for convenience):
(11) QP[uQ]
Q[uwh][uQ] XP
wh-word[iwh]
107
On the other hand, I argue that the second Q-particle, which is merged directly
with CQ+, contributes its [uwh] feature to the hosting head. As a result, the
interrogative CQ+ is finally specified with a set of features: [iQ] and [uwh]. In
other words, I propose that in Russian multiple questions, the interrogative head acts both as a Q-probe and a wh-probe. This idea is represented below:
(36) Multiple wh-question with a single QP (Russian)
[CP Q2+C[iQ][uwh] [vP v [QP Q1 wh1][uQ] [XP wh2][iwh]]
Thus, I depart from Cable (2007, 2010) by assuming that every wh-constituent in the derivation of a multiple wh-question must be bound by C. The uninterpretable wh-feature allows the interrogative head to establish a syntactic relation with all elements bearing the matching interpretable wh-feature.
In fact, the additional wh-probe on C is not novel in the literature: already in Chomsky’s (2000) standard probe-goal system, C is claimed to have a set of
two features, [Q] and [wh].9 Essentially, the wh-probe on C supplies a significant
missing piece in Cable’s Q-based theory. The wh-probe on C allows for all interrogative phrases in a question to undergo syntactic agreement and, hence, trigger interrogative semantics.
As discussed in chapter 2, I assume that the interpretable Q-feature on C is responsible for the interrogative clause-typing and acts as an operator assigning scope to the variable, Q (or QP). I maintain that interrogative movement to the left periphery of a question is always a result of Q-feature checking operations in the CP domain. Unlike the Q-feature, the wh-feature on C cannot trigger interrogative movement into CP.
In turn, I assume that [uwh] on C is valued via wh-agreement against the matching goal, wh-word, in a unidirectional upward manner. In multiple
wh-questions with a single QP, the interpretable wh-feature on a wh-phrase
contained within this single QP is deeply embedded (cf. (11)). Hence, it is not visible to the wh-probe on C. However, there will always be a visible instance of the matching wh-feature on the unbound XP phrase. This is illustrated below: (37) [CP Q1+C[iQ][uwh]…[vP [QP Q2 [XP wh1]][uQ] [XP wh2][iwh]]
Wh-agreement
9 See also Kotek (2014a), who argues in favour of a two-probe system, although on independent
grounds. Namely, the author observes that Cable’s (2007, 2010) single-probe proposal cannot capture the pattern of multiple wh-questions in Hebrew.
108
I assume that wh-agreement is subject to locality, which means that the wh-words must be visible to C, a point to which I will come back in the next section.
To summarize, it is worth noting that, despite this minimal modification —a
wh-probe on C in some types of multiple wh-questions—, I maintain Cable’s
original idea that the only properly interrogative movement allowed in a language is Q-movement. This modification perfectly fits into the unidirectional upward agreement system adopted in this work (Bošković 2007a, 2011). Neither [iQ] nor [uwh] features on C can trigger interrogative movement. Rather, the interrogative Q-movement is initiated by the moving-element itself. In the case of QPs, it is its own formal imperfection, [uQ]. But why the unbound XP still has to undergo movement in Russian? I address this question in the next section.