Intervention effects

Recall from the discussion in chapter 3 that, according to Cable’s (2007, 2010) Q-based theory, a single QP in multiple wh-question accounts for the lack of Superiority violations, on the one hand, and, on the other, predicts Intervention effects. Namely, the latter arise when a wh-word is not dominated by a QP and the first focus-sensitive operator c-commanding the wh-word is not a Q-particle. This offending configuration is repeated in (97):

(97) Configuration resulting in an Intervention effect *[C [ ... intervener ... [… [wh-word] ... ]]]

no Q-particle [from Cable 2010:127]

Therefore, we predict that in Russian multiple questions, where a single QP is projected, the lower wh-phrase, which is not dominated by any QP, cannot appear within the scope of negation. On the other hand, we expect that negation

22 _{The reader may wonder why pronominal subjects can also appear following the fronted}

wh-elements (presumably, at Spec,AspP), (93), assuming that they lack the nominal part. I

tentatively suggest two possible solutions to this problem. One is that after overt movement from Spec,vP to Spec,AspP the pronoun moves covertly to Spec,TP for [person]-checking reasons. Another possibility is that movement into the TP domain is overt, but then the lower copy in AspP is pronounced for some PF reasons. I leave this issue for future investigation, since it is beyond the scope of this thesis.

144

should be allowed to follow the fronted wh-elements. This is illustrated below for

Superiority-obeying and Superiority-violating questions respectively:23

(98) a. [CP [QP Kto1]i [(*nikogda)[ti [XP komu2] [(nikogda) ne zvonil]]]]?(Russian)

who.NOM never who.DAT NEG phoned

‘Who never phoned whom?

b. [CP [QPKomu2]i [(*nikogda)[[XPkto1] ti (nikogda) ne zvonil]]]]?

who.DAT never who.NOM NEG phoned

In summary, the Intervention data in (98) confirm our suggestion that Russian multiple wh-questions with Superiority-violating orders involve only one QP. Moreover, Intervention effect and lack of Superiority violations are derived from a single core property of the language.

7.5. (Multiple) wh-extraction out of embedded clauses

Moreover, our analysis of multiple questions makes clear predictions about the availability of multiple and single wh-extraction out of embedded clauses in a MWF language. As noticed by Rudin (1988), languages with Superiority effects (e.g. Bulgarian) permit only multiple wh-extraction, as in (99). Meanwhile, languages without sensitivity to Superiority violations (e.g. Russian) allow for both multiple and single extraction from embedded clauses, as in (100). In what follows, I show that this contrast is expected under our Q-based approach.

(99) a. Koj1 kŭde2 misliš’ [če e otišŭl]? (Bulgarian)

who.NOM where think.2SG that is gone

‘Who do you think has gone where?’

23 _{Interestingly, there is certain speaker-variation regarding judgments of the Superiority-}

obeying questions like (98a). Most speakers judge sentences with the intervening negation as ill- formed, but few others report that in Superiority-violating questions, (98b), such intervention sounds even worse than in Superiority-obeying ones. It is difficult to test whether so subtle difference really exists, providing a particular licensing context. However, if true, this could follow under assumption that in Russian the unspecific, Superiority-obeying questions resort to multiple QPs (one for each wh-word), the second one being pronounced at the lower position (see fn. 16). Significantly, all speakers unanimously reject the intervening negation in Superiority-violating orders; this fact is expected under our assumption that such questions

unambiguously possess only one QP, for the wh2. Regarding Bulgarian, we predict that negation

145

b. * Koj1 misliš’ [kŭde2 če e otišŭl]?

who.NOM think.2SG where that is gone

‘Who do you think has gone where?’ [from Rudin 1988:450-451]

(100) a. Kto1 komu2 ty xočeš’ [čtoby pozvonil]? (Russian)

who.NOM who.DAT you want that.SUBJ phoned

‘Who do you want to phone whom?’

b. Komu2 kto1 ty xočeš’ [čtoby pozvonil]?

who.DAT who.NOM you want that.SUBJ phoned

‘Who do you want to phone whom?’

c. Kto1 ty xočeš’ [čtoby komu2 pozvonil]?

who.NOM you want that.SUBJ who.DAT phoned

‘Who do you want to phone whom?’

d. Komu2 ty xočeš’ [čtoby kto1 pozvonil]?

who.DAT you want that.SUBJ who.NOM phoned

‘Who do you want to phone whom?’

Consider first how the Russian questions in (100) are derived under our analysis. Given that both Superiority-obeying and Superiority-violating orders are allowed, I assume that these multiple questions involve only one QP. Regarding multiple

wh-extraction, as in (100a,b), the underlying derivation might be as follows:

(101) Multiple wh-extraction in Russian

a. [CPC1[iQ][uWH][AspP[QPwh1][uQ] [XPwh2][iWH] v/Asp[CP t1 t2 C2 čtoby…]]]

Transfer

Wh-Agree

b. [CP[QPwh1][uQ] C1[iQ] [AspP t1 [XPwh2][iWH] v/Asp[CP…]]]

Move and Q-Agree

In (101), the embedded non-interrogative C2, realized as čtoby ‘that.SUBJ’, is

neither endowed with the wh-feature nor with the Q-feature. Consequently, the

wh-words keep moving to the main clause (through the edges of CP2 and AspP

successively) in order to escape phase domains.24 _{Namely, they get closer to the}

matrix C1. Movement of the wh-phrase not dominated by any QP renders it

visible for C (through wh-agreement), (101a), and, hence, insures a correct

24 _{For simplicity’s sake, I ignore the vP level of the matrix clause and most of projections inside}

146

semantics for the multiple question. Then, the wh-word dominated by QP moves

to the edge of the root clause (CP1) in order to check its uninterpretable

Q-feature. As a result, the two wh-words appear inside the main clause, as illustrated in (101b).

I suggest that movement to the matrix clause of the wh2 is only required if

an additional Q-particle has been merged with C and, as a result, such C is endowed with the uninterpretable wh-feature. This option is represented in (101). Since both wh-containing items, QP and XP, finally establish a syntactic relation with C (through agreement), both receive wide scope.

However, why can the XP remain inside the embedded clause in Russian, as in (100c) and (100d)? Recall that in these questions the unbound wh-word

receives narrow scope, unlike in questions with multiple wh-extraction.25 _{I suggest}

that this is because the corresponding derivation contains a single Q-particle, which is merged with a wh-word in its base position. No Q-particle is merged with C; hence, there is no wh-probe in the matrix CP requiring agreement with the XP within some local domain. Thus, the derivation of the sentences in (100c,d) might be as in (102):

(102) Single wh-extraction in Russian

a. [CP C1[iQ] [AspP[QPwh1][uQ] Aspv [CPt1 C2čtoby... [XPwh2][iWH]]]]]

Transfer

b. [CP [QPwh1]1[uQ] C1[iQ] [AspP t1 Aspv [CP … ]]]

Move and Q-Agree

In (102), QP has to move through the phase edges in order to be able to check its formal imperfection, [uQ]. Meanwhile, the wh-word not contained within the QP remains inside the embedded clause. Importantly, there is no reason for this

wh-word to move to the edge of the embedded CP2, so we correctly rule out

sentences like (103) below. The single QP moves into CP successive cyclically, through the edge of AspP. Once it reaches Spec,CP, QP can delete its uninterpretable Q-feature through upward agreement with C. As a result, we

25 _{In fact, as first reported by Baker (1970), the loss-of-scope effect typically arise in the English}

embedded wh-questions like (ia), where the wh-phrase what, left inside the embedded clause, can receive either narrow scope (i.e., it does not require an answer), (ib), or wide scope, (ic) (see also Chomsky 1977a; Pesetsky 1987, among others):

(i) a. Who knows where Mary bought what?

b. John does.

147

obtain a sentence, in which only one wh-word has been extracted out of the embedded clause.

(103) * Kto1 ty xočeš’ [komu2 čtoby pozvonil]? (Russian)

who.NOM you want who.DAT that.SUBJ phoned

‘Who do you want to phone whom?’

Given these assumptions, the Bulgarian pattern of multiple wh-extraction follows in a straightforward manner. As proposed, Bulgarian multiple questions have multiple QPs, one for each wh-item, so we predict that all wh-words will move to

the edge of the root CP1.26 Therefore, our account correctly rules out the

Bulgarian sentences with single wh-extraction, as in (99b). The derivation of the Bulgarian sentence with multiple wh-extraction, as in (99a), proceeds as follows: (104) Multiple wh-extraction in Bulgarian

a. [CP C1[iQ] [AspP[QPwh1][uQ] [QPwh2][uQ] Aspv [CPt1 t2 C2če...]]]

Transfer b. [CP [QPwh1][uQ] [QPwh2][uQ] C1[iQ] [AspPt1 t2Aspv [CP ...]]]

Multiple Move and Multiple Q-Agree

To conclude, our phase-related Q-based approach is able to capture uniformly the striking contrast between the two MWF languages regarding the possibility of single and multiple wh-extractions from an embedded clause.