Multiple WH questions

There is evidence that no movement occurs in French multiple-WH questions, since the intervention effects discussed earlier do not obtain in these contexts (example (19) repeated here):

(19) a. Qui n’ a EAS fait quoi? who Neg bas net done what ‘Who didn’t do what?’

b. Quii croit [cpC^ qu’ elle a vu quiz]? who believes that she has seen who ‘Who believes that she saw who?’

(French)

(66) a. [cpiQui a dit [cp2 qu’ AUCUN ÉTUDIANT avait (French)

who has said that no student had lu quoi]]?

read what

‘Who said that no student had read what?’

b. [cpiQui a dit [cp2 que SEULEMENT JEAN avait lu quoi]]?

who has said that only Jean had read what ‘Who said that only JEAN had read what?’

c. [cpiQ ui a dit [cp2 que MÊME JEAN avait

who has said that even Jean had lu quoi]]?

read what

‘Who said that even JEAN had read what?’ d. [c p Qui a BEAUCOUP lu quoi]?

who has a lot read what ‘Who has often read what?’

e. [cp Qui a EEU lu quoi]? who has little read what ‘Who has seldom read what?’

f [cp Qui a TROP lu quoi]?

who has too much read what ‘Who has read what too much?’

Could it be that the whole WH phrase raises to Spec-CP at LF? Further data suggest that the answer is no: whereas a moved WH phrase in single-WH questions is subject to subjacency, WH in situ in multiple-WH questions is not. Compare (52b) - repeated here for convenience - with (67):

(52) b. ?I1 se demande a acheté quoi? (French)

he himself asks who has bought what

‘What does he wonder who bought?’ (individual reading intended)

(67) Qui se demande a acheté quoi? (French)

who himself asks who has bought what ‘Who wonders who bought what?’ (pair-list reading intended)

The subjacency effect or lack thereof in the French data is parallel to that of the English data (13) and (14) repeated here:

(13) ?Whati does he wonder bought t.? What X, X a thing, he wonders who bought x ? '

(14) Who wonders WHO bought what?

Since subjacency must be assumed to hold at LF in the MP (pre- and post-Spell-Out operations satisfy uniformity), the fact that WH phrases in situ do not show subjacency effects in multiple-WH questions indicates that those phrases do not move at LF.

However, if WH phrases in situ in multiple-WH environments do not move, the question as to how multiple questions end up asking one question rather than a set of two needs to be answered. In the absence of movement, one cannot assume the standard process of absorption by which a string of unary operators is converted into a single n-ary operator (cf. Higginbotham and May (1981), Cheng (1991)):

(68) [Qx, Qy, ... ] [Q <x, y, ... >].

This is because this particular rule of absorption requires both WH expressions to be in Spec-CP. Similarly, Chomsky’s (1995) version of absorption is not feasible either, since it involves movement of a bare operator.

A natural alternative compatible with the present analysis is that, following Williams (1986, 1994), absorption is achieved by way of scope assignment. Williams’s (1994) theory follows his previous work on scope (Williams 1986) where LF is eliminated or more precisely where LF = S-Structure:

"whether or not one regards it as appropriate to say that LF is eliminated in the reduced model depends on haw LF is defined. I f LF is defined as the resvlt o f applying OR or SA [scope assignment] to S-structiire, then LF is certainly eliminated; hut if LF is whatever structure it is that determines meaning, then o f course LF is not eliminated; it is simply identified with S- structure. ’(Williams 1986:267)

S-Stmcture thus equals LF according to Williams (he assumes an enriched S-structure). Therefore, as in Brody (1995), I shall refer to this level as LF rather than S-Structure. In other words, there is no distinction between an overt and an covert component. Spell-Out applies at LF.

According to Williams, quantifiers are interpreted in situ and scope assignment is achieved without movement. On this account, a variable is not identified with an empty category, but with an A-position with an index /. The quantifier is the determiner in the position of the variable; the restriction is the N’ in the position of the variable; and the scope is the phrase bearing the index ‘ :i’.

Grammatical dependencies normally attributed to covert processes may therefore have three sources: (a) binding (this is the case of Chinese WH in situ bound by a substantive operator in Spec-CP); (b) null-operator movement/base-generation of a non-referential null operator creating a split construction (French WH in situ; in this case one expects to observe intervention effects); (c) absorption as a by-product of scope assignment.

Following Williams’s (1986, 1994), I assume that the scope of an argument NP is marked, not via movement rules, but by indexing a phrase containing that NP as the scope of the NP :

(69) John [saw everyonei]s:i

In (69), S is marked as the scope of everyone. The :i index on the dominating S serves as a lambda abstractor, and, as such, marks a scope.

For WH structures involving arguments, two scope assignment rules are relevant. A moved argument WH is assigned scope in the same way as an adjunct in situ: its scope is its sister (cf. the adjunction schema in (70a)). An in-situ WH argument is assigned an arbitrarily wide scope (cf. the in-situ schema in (70b)):

(70) a. [Q N’]i [... t i ... ]s:i (adjunction schema)

b. [.. . [Q N’] i... ]s:i (in-situ schema)

If a clause contains two WH phrases, they may both be assigned the same scope (cf. Williams 1986:293):

(71 ) a. Who saw what -> Whoi [t, saw whatj]s;ÿ b. = [Q N ’]i[ti...[Q N ’]j...]s:ij

To quote Williams (1986:293): 'I f a clause contains two wh'y, they will both he assigned the scope (possibly the same) [...]. The binder ofX mid what is the index i,j on the S that is the scope o f these two. Ihat is how multiple questions are interpreted. ’ In short, if one adopts a theory of scope assignment along the lines of that proposed by Williams, a WH phrase in situ may receive wide scope without moving. On such an approach, the lack of subjacency and intervention effects receives a

principled explanation. Since WH phrases in situ in multiple WH questions do not undergo movement, subjacency or other island effects are not expected.

Now recall from section 2.2 that theories of WH in situ that assume that WH phrases in situ do not undergo covert movement face the so-called Donald Duck problem: the restriction of the WH in situ may find itself in the scope of negation and other truth conditional operators, yielding an incorrect semantics.

The way Reinhart (1998) solves the Donald Duck problem is to claim that the question-formation operator binds, not an individual, but a plural variable, that is a choice-function. The choice function selects one member from the restricted set and then the choice function is existentially closed off by an operator taking wider scope than any conditional or negation taking scope over the functional variable.

Williams’s absorption mechanism does not face the Donald Duck problem either, since the argument scope rule Williams proposes fixes the scope of both the operator and its semantic restriction. This means that the entire WH expression in situ can achieve wide scope without movement. In other words, Williams’s scope assignment rule achieves exactly what QR (or existential closure over a choice function) would achieve.

Unless nothing else is added, there is a potential problem for Reinhart’s mechanism and Williams’s scope rule. The problem concerns those examples reviewed earlier in which negation, focus and iterative adverbs block the licensing of French WHl in situ. For example, if one interprets an indefinite by means of a choice-fiinction variable, the relation of existential generalisation, which binds the variable, must be able to cross LF interveners. Crucially, Reinhart’s proposal implies that all nominal expressions should be able to introduce a choice function. Hence, since nothing prevents a WH in WHl questions from introducing a choice function, it is no longer possible to understand

why such phrases are sensitive to the intervention of scopal elements. Indeed, all the constructions considered in the present thesis are problematic for the idea that indefinites can introduce choice functions that are existentially closed off at the discourse level. Not only does French WHl in situ show intervention effects, but so do partial-WH-movement constructions, French negative constructions and attributively used focus-particle constructions (more on these constructions in the chapters to come).

In short, Reinhart’s choice-function mechanism and Williams’s scope rule do not suffice for WHl in situ: neither mechanism checks the [+WH] feature of C. The idea is thus that WH phrases sometimes move (when required by convergence) and sometimes do not (when convergence does not require it). This is line with Boskovic (1998, 2000) and Ackema and Neeleman (1998), amongst others.

In the next section, I review some problems faced by the Relativized Minimality account adopted in the previous section.