Wh Movement and Multiple Questions in Czech

ABSTRACT In the following work some aspects of• Wh Movement in NH MOVEMENT AND MULTIPLE QUESTIONS IN CZECH Czech are presented, with the main fochs on multiple • wh-queStions. In Chapter 1 the simple Mon-echo wh-questions and Ludmila VeselovskA indirect wh-questions are shown. Wh' Movement frdt non-CP infinitival structures is indicated' as standard in Czech, while long-distance Wh Movement from the embedded CP clauses is opJy . marginally acceptable. In Chapter 2 the multiple wh-questions in Czech are displayed in more detail with a brief survey of some relevant literature. The phenomena discussed concern word-Order, position of inserted elements, clitiC position, and some substandard possibilities of extraction from the embeddedmultiple wh-questions. The arguments given in Chapter '2 as a whole support the IP-adjoined analysis of the non-first wh-words in the multiple wh-questions in Czech. Dissertation submitted in partial requirement for the Degree of Master of Arts in Applied Linguistics to School of English Durham University 1993 s. fi TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF WH MOVEMENT IN CZECH Simple direct.wh-questions ........................ Indirect wh-questions .............................. S-structure position of the Czech wh-elements ...... LON:distance Wh Movement ......................... Summary of Chapter 1 .............................. 3 8 10 17 26 me with all the financial, moral, and emotional support that 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 was necessary during the course. The following work also would Notes to Chapter 1 ...................................... 28 I would like to thank the University of Durham and the British Council, as well as the PalackY University in Olomouc and my family at home, which enabled me to Study, and provided hardly come into being without the help of my friends in the Czech RepubliC who never refused to spend their.pvenings going 31 MULTIPLE QUESTIONS IN CZECH • through my endless lists of crazy sentences... None of them can be blamed for any of my faults in the 2.1 2.2 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.4.4 2.5 2.6 following work, bUt any of its positive features should justly Notes to Chapter 2 ...................................... 71 To. • be a student at Sehool of EngliSh at the Durham University was a pleasure for me. I owe thanks and excuse to all' my teachers: while I was making them bear my occasional excesses, they have introduced me into spheres of knowledge which I have found mostly reasonable or/and exciting. The patience of my supervisor, Joseph E. Emonds, is unforgettable. Introduction ..................................... 31 Some previous analyses of multiple questions ....... 32 ...... 37 Word-order, Focus, and related phenomena Parentheticals, subject position, wh-order ..... 41 Wh-words and clitic position ...................... 47 A note about the IP structure ..................... 52 Conjoined wh-words ................................ 57 Clitic affix and the particle fe ....................... 59 Wh extraction from the multiple wh-question ....... 64 Summary of Chapter 2 .............................. 67 . be accounted for by their influence. Bibliography ............................................ 75 long-distance Wh Movement from the embedded finite clauseS.' Even if in Chapter 1 no detailed analysis is presented of any INTRODUCTION phenomena, as a whole the Chapter represents an introduction which was required because of the lack of literature concerning Czech for the following analysis of the multiple In the following work some aspects of Wh Movement in wh-questions. Czech are presented, with the main focus on multiple wh-questions. I have chosen this topic mainly because there is Chapter 2 Multiple Ouestiens in Czech no other substantial literature about CzeCh in a given framework, and Wh Movement seemed to be restricted to the Chapter 2 presents an analysis of the multiple periphery of the sentence. Even if it was not possible not to wh-questions in Czech. The relevant literature is briefly mention the word-order distinctions, it was possible to avoid mentioned in section 2.2. In sections 2.3- 2.5 some aspec'ts of many equally complex phenomena demanding appropriate analysis: Czech multiple questions are displayed in more detail, A number of issues were also mentioned and left unexplained concerning the relation since they were beyond the limits of this work and its author. Word-order, position of inserted elements, clitic position in to the focus of the sentence, . Czech, and limited possibilities of extraction from. the Chapter 1 Some Characteristics of Wh Movement in Czech embedded multiple wh-questions. The arguments given in Chapter In Chapter 1 some general information about Wh Movement 2, as presented in this work support the analysis of the in Czech is presented, demonstrating the simple non-echo multiple wh-elements in Czech as claimed .in e.g. Lasnik and wh-questions in section 1.1, and embedded wh-questions in Saito (1984) for Polish, or Rudin (1988) for polish and 'Czech, 1.2. In section 1.4 extraction of the wh-element from i.e. the SPEC(CP) position for the first wh-element, and the infinitival structures is discussed, and examples of long-distance Wh Movement are analysed. The position of the . IP-adjoined position of the subsequent, non-initial wh-words in the multiple wh-questions in Czech. [+wh) complementisers is discussed in 1.2 and some In this work no explicit theoretical framework is characteristics of the bridge structures are suggested in 1.4. presented, but the arguments are baSed on the tasnik-and The chapter presents Czech as a language with a syntactic Saito's (1984) analysis of Wh Movement and Chomsky's Barriers movement of the interrogative wh-element into a SPEC(CP) (1986). The works by other authorsare cited if relevant for position, with a standard and obligatory movement of the the text, and are mostly not incompatible with.the same wh-element from the embedded infinitival structures analysed framework. as IP's or VP's, and with a restricted substandard CHAPTER 1 from the COMP position to a higher COMP position only. The SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF WH MOVEMENT IN CZECH obligatoriness of Wh Movement is a result of interacting principles of subcategorization and interpretation. Van Riemsdijk & Williams (1986:65) give examples Simple direct wh-questions (repeated below) of the obligatory W h Movement in English Wh Movement in direct and indirect questions has long (la), and of the optional Wh Movement in French (lb). (lc) been analysed as a kind of W h Fronting when a wh-element presents the Czech equivalents showing the obligatory generated inside the clause moves into the pre-sentence syntactic• movement of the wh-element in a direct non-echo - Position; e.g. in Emonds (1976:188) W h Movement is presented wh-question. as a ' substitution of a phrase node dominating W EI for the (1) (a,b: VR&W,1986:65) sentence-initial COMP node'. Since Chomsky's (1977) On Wh (a) Movement the phenomenon is taken for a kind of constituent extraction the left, comprising question extraction John ate what? What did John eat? . : echo-question interpretation : direct non-echo wh•question (b) Tu as vu qui? you have seen who / Qui as-tu vu? / who have you seen (c) Jenidek snddl co? Johnny ate what : echo-question interpretation Ty jsi videl koho? who you saw : echo-question interpretation together with relative clause extractions, topicalisations, etc. I am not going to deal with any of the other structures, even if in the Government & Binding framework they are all analysed in a similar way: the main reasons being a lack of structural equivalents of some of the phenomena in Czech and : direct non-echo wh-question Co OnAdl Jenidek? what ate Johnny 'What did Johnny eat?' a,latk pf space for a detailed analysis of the distinctions. In simple direct questions Wh Movement applies within one clauSe as e monocyclic transformation. Wh Movement is, Koh+) jsi vid41? Who saw-you: 'Who did you see?' : direct non-echo wh-question however, a movement that can (at least in English and many The position of the moved wh-elements in direct non-echo other languages) operate across many clausal boundaries, being questions is more recently stated as 'pre-C position' for the a form of an unbounded dependency construction. As an example specifier-initial languages, such as English or Czech (e.g. in of a more general Move A lpha transformation, Wh Movement is Radford, 1988:501). In the following sections I am going to subject to general rules of movement and language specific presume the 'C-specifier analysis' of Wh Movement as presented parametric Variation. Its interclausal application ' is e.g. in Chomsky's Barriers (1986). restricted with the COMP-to-COMP Condition ('Move a wh-phrase The following examples (2-4) present the variety of to CORP' Van Riensdijk and Williams, 1986:64) to a movement constituents that can undergo Wh Movement in a Czech direct non-echo wh-question: in (2) a subject NP and its internal * S aim si chce koupit clAlm t':? * with what, wants-he to-buy house tw Lit: 'With what does he want to buy a house t ?' (d) constituents, i.e. AP and PP, in (3) an object NP and its internal constituents, in (4) an adjunct NP. (The traces are There :Ls no significant asymmetry between the extractions. marked, but without detailed analysis 'of the original from NP in the positions of subject (2) and adjunct in the extraction site, simply to aid understanding.) following (4); both are equally wrong. (2)(a) Kdo t ti to dal? whow tw to-you it gave ' Who t gave it to you?' (b) yterd ddvde t se ti libi nejvice? which girl tw to-you likes best 'Which girl t do you like best?' (c) (d) dim [mut t pfinedl Pavlovi to knihu? * S * with what [man tw brought to-Paul the book Lit: 'With what man t did bring the book to Paul?' aim [ t pfinesl Pavlovi to knihu? * MIA a * man with what, [t w brought to-PaUl the book Lit: 'Man with what t did bring the book to Paul?' (4)(a) jsi Kam / Na co to polcAil t ? where w / on what w did-you it put . tw 'Where / On what did you put it t 7 , (b) • PP t stul7 ? Na jakk to polc;i1 ( jsi ? On which, did-you it . put ( tw table? Lit: 'On which did you put it t table?' (c) * Jaky jsi to polofil [ PrIna t * which w did-you it put [ PP on t table? ', .14t: Which did you put it on.t table? , Leaving aside the explanation of the distinctions betWeen acceptability in (3c/d), it is possible to say, that extraction (2): to extract a wh-subject NP is possible; to question an from within the noun phrase is not possible in Czech in away adjective phrase within the extracted subject a noun phrase is comparable with. English: The examples in (2-4) possible as well. (2c-d) show that to question a noun phrase extraction from the NP which is an external argument (2), an within the prepositional phrase postmodyfiing the subject noun internal argument (3) and an adjunct (4). They show that the phrase is ungrammatical. Nmax presents a barrier for movement. The distinct levels of •3a,b) show the same as (2) for an object noun phrase, - present. acceptability may be stated as the difference between the even if to extract an adjective phrase from the object noun extraction of an N complement, whiCh is easier. han the' phrase seems to be possible, as shown in (3c). extraction of an N'complement. In (3c) the object NP is Koho mma MAtenka nejradéji t ? who has MASenka !Who does Masenka most-like like most t ?' Jaky dixm / jak velky diam si chce koupit t ? which house v /how big house w wants-he to-buy t w 'Which house/how big a house does he want to buy t ?' ? qaky si chce koupit t dAm? ? which w wants-he (to)buy tw house 'Which does he want to buy a t house?' L-marked by a verb which subcategorises for a NP complement and Case-marks it, thus voiding the barrier. 1 Consider than the following (5) repeating the impossible stranding of prepositions in Czech demonstrated already in (4c). Evpn if some examples can be paraphrased by a single verb, pied piping of the preposition is obligatory for .10 Movement and excluded for NP Movement in Czech. Example (5b) Czech, as in French and contrary to English, prepositions shows preposition stranding in Wh Movement and (5c) in. NP cannot govern structurally. Kayne's hypothesis relates this (passive) movement, whete the stranding becomes 'doubly' phenomena to the absence of 'exceptional Case-marking' in because while in (5b) it would be theoretically French. However, in 1.4. examples of IP infinitival clauses in ,passible to relate the adequately case-marked whpronotn to Czech are presented, which are analysed as 'exceptional the stranded preposition, in (5c) the nominative case demanded Case-marking' structures. There are also prepositions' in Czech for the subject of a passive verb clashes with the case ( marginally) introducing infinitival (IP) clauses and required by the preposition. The ungrammatical (5d) then shows therefore Kayne's suggestion for French cannot be applied fOr the pass.ivization of a prepositional verbal complement. Czech without more detailed analysis. unacceptable The impossibility of stranding a preposition in Czech povidat t ? hem mu bude 0 about what him will-he tell t 'About what will he tell him t ?' (5)(a) *- dem, (b) * whato L povidat o t ? mu bude d . him will-he tell about t w o 'What will he tell him about t ? (c . ) bylo dohodnuto na t. * 116co on t-ACC * something,' was agreed (d) ) bylo dohodnuto t. (* Na nêco Nam was agreed something Nom (*on something-ACCt. ACC) together with the above mentioned NP constraint show thg.t in Czech direct .non-echo wh-questions it is posSible to extract only the complete constituents (maximal projections) immediately dominated by IP or some V projection. Extraction of a wh-element of any lower maximal constituent in a simple direct wh-question is never fully grammatical. The 'reanalysis' of a verbal complex (of a 'Natural Predicate'), as presented for NP Movement in English in e.g. Radford"(1988:431-433 or 496-498) into one 'semantic unit' is not poSsible with a Czech [verb + preposition]. In Kayne (1981) the impossibility of stranding the piepositiOn is presented as a result of a different Case :assignment by a verb and a preposition. ' P can assign oblique • case • .only to an NP for which it is subcategorized whereas 1 v can assign objective Case somewhat more freely,. particular to any NP that it governs' and ' reanalysis between 1.2. Indirect wh-questions While direct questions are structures in which the interrogative clause is an independent sentence (as..e.g. all the examples in the above section), indirect questions are complex sentential structures. The interrogative part in the indirect question is an embedded clause which is an argument of a matrix clause verb. 2 An indirect question is a kind of indirect speech in which the reproduced proposition has the form of a question. two lexical categories is possible only if the two govern in Indirect speech is usually introduced by a subordinating -. the same 'way.' ( Kayne, 1981:363-4). This would mean that in moved into the sPEC(CP) in the Czech wh-questions (following questions are translated as zd., -1i, zdali or lest21 in Chomsky's Barriers). On the other side, complementisers, e.g. Czech. (see e.g. Petr (1986:220-227). Their use is presented the [-wh) that, are standardly expected to appear in the head in (10), which shows that when introducing -finite • position, i.e. C, with the exception of [+whl complementisers, subordinate clause, all of the wh-elements, as in EfigliSh, are or at least with the exception of some of them: those which grammatical. With an infinitival verb, however, none of the are analysed to be in SPEC(CP) as well. In English the complementisers seem to be ideal, while the wh-words (10c) are distinct positions are argued also for the two [+wh) fully acceptable. (The complementisers are represented•in , the • translation only as '?COMP' or '7'.) complementisers if and whether because of their distinct • behaviour in several structures. In Bresnan (1970) the following examples (9a,b) are used to show that if is ungrammatical when the indirect question appears at the beginning of a complex Sentence'in the subject, i.e. NP, position. (9) (Bre, 1970:310f) (a) Whether he'll come is not known. (b) * If he'll come is not known. (10) 'John doesn't know, whether/where he will go' I . 'to go' (a) Jan nevi, JESTLI/ZDA/ZDALI ptijde. / ?? John not-know-he, ?COMP will-come-he / togo.' (b) Jan rievi, pfijde LI. John not-know-he, will-come-he-?COMP Another structure where if, contrary to ; whether , is not - / KAM / KDY ptijde. (c) Jan nevi, ptijit, John not-know-he,WHERE/WHEN will-come-he / to comeAmong other differences between - * pfijit li. '/ * to come • - English, as mentioned in Emonds whether and i f in. (1985:286-291), the acceptable is introducing the infinitival clause, as shown impossibility of if occurring in case-marked NP positions e.g. in Borer (1985:76) on the examples (9c,d). following prepositions is discussed. The following (11a) shows . . (9) (B 4)1 4985:76) (c) John doesn't know whether to leave. (d) * John doesn't know if to leave.. that all Czech complementisers are ungrammatiCal when preceded by a preposition: (11b) gives the correct form with a case-marked resumptive pronoun to 'it'. 6 In a footnote Borer (1985:106) cites B.Palek who claims that similar distinction appears in Czech. In the following text I am going to present examples showing that with the. exception of semantic distinctions, there is no difference between the syntactic behaviour of the Czech wh-complementisers, and in the same time that their position is apparently distinct from that of the other wh-constituents. The English whether and if introducing indirect yes/no 11 (11)(a) * Patrani po ZDA/zDALI/JESTLI/ptiel LI, bylo•marne. came-he/? was in Vain * investigating of 7/7/? 'Investigation of whether/*if he came, was in vain:' - po tom, zda/zdali/jestli bylo maVle. (b) PAtrâni came-he, was in vain. investigating of it(1,0C); 7/7/? The following example (12) shows, that all Czech wh-complementisers also lack the inherent 'positive meaning', which seems to be contained' in whether but not. in IX. 12 conjunction ffe 'that' in Czech, while indirect questions are Although the example (8) shows a similar distinction for ' introduced by a wh-element. At least since. Baker (1970), indirect wh-questions are accepted as presenting the same kind of mil Movement as the direct non-echo wh-questions. In Banfield (1973) indirect speech is claimed to be derived independently from direct speech constructions, and an indirect wh-question, the level of acceptability of the standard affirmative word-order in the indirect question is much higher than in (7b) Ptal se, .komu buds EryAtIlfek (?bude) pomehat. asked-he, to-who will Kry6tAfek (?will) help • He asked who Kryetilfek will help?' (8)(b) a number of distinctions are presented concerning structures and elements which appear in English exclusively in one or the other form. 3 In (10) (which is Banfield's simplified (1)) e.g. Personal pronoun ( you/me) and spatial and temporal demonstrative elements ( here/there, tomorrow/today) are changed according to the new context. The same changes are rotind in the Czech translation as well. (7) and (8) then demonstrate that even if the inversion in Czech questions need not be obligatory, it is, unlike in English, possible PF level. 4 in both direct and indirect questions at the Whether this inversion is a syntactic movement of the auxiliary or finite verb into the C position (as an in English questions) or some later 'Stylistic Inversion' .(6)(a) ( b) to tady potkäm." kekla mi; "Zitra told-she me: tomorrow you here will-meet-I ' She told me, "I will meet you here tomorrow."' kekla mi, 2e dnes me adjoining the subject to the VP, which is mentioned in Bouchard (1989), is not going to be decided here. e.g. 5 tam pOtkS. • told-she me, that today me there will-meet-she • ' She told me that she would meet me there today. In English also the tense is related to the new context ( will/would) following the English tense shift rule for indirect speech, while in Czech the tenses in direct and indirect speech are identical (in (10) it is the future). As for the Subject/Aux inversion in direCt wh-questions, in Czech at least some auxiliaries or finite verbs appear preferably in pre-subject position (in case of a standard elauSe with, no element stressed). A possible example is given In (7). ( 7) 1.3. 8-structure position of the Czech wh-elements All the Czech examples of wh-questions, both direct and indirect, presented above contain an ;.overt [-1-wh] element in a 'presentential position'. The presence of a wh-word or wh-complementiser at the beginning of a sentence is supposed to indicate the presence of the S-bar, i.e. CP projection, which is the position of either the wh-element itself or of some operator binding it. Within Stowell's (1581) concept of the CP projection, however, two positions are available: Komu bude KryetAfek (?? bude) pomehat? to-who will KrygtAfek (?? will) help ,' Who will KryStilfek help?' Specifier CP = SPEC(CP) and COMP = C. In the previous section the extracted wh-words (i.e.constituents) were assumed to be 10 (12) * chtal vedgt ZDA/ZDALI/JESTLI nebo ne prgi. He wondered whether / * if or not it rains. (13)(a) * Ptal se, NAgenka * Asked-he, Magenka came-? Litt 'He asked, whether Magenka had come.' (b) (10), (1/), and (12) present the structures where the Ptal se, pkiSla-LI Magenka Asked-he, came-? Magenka 'He asked whether Mdgenka came.' English if complementiser would be the equivalent of all the Czech forms. No difference between the behaviour of the Czech The latter variant assumes the movement ofI Containing complementisers could be observed, leaving aside the fact that the finite verb into C, excluding again the infinitival forms only zda is used introducing causative and only iest1i simply by the fact that infinitival verb cannot become the conditional, clauses. The position of the wh-complementisers member of V+.1 cluster. The movement of I into C, howeVer, was evidenced as distinct from the other wh-words. Therefore would be blocked by the presence of a complementiser, if -1i C, i.e. the position of the English if, is assumed here to be were present in C, because the 0-wh) features are,'contrary to . the position of all the Czech wh-complementisers. that and similar 'neutral' complementisers, supposed to be The analysis of the -// postfix complementiser supports present at the D-structure (see e.g. Bresnan (1970:315f). The the above claim. Assuming the movement of the finite, solution would be to assume that the [+wh] features are' inflected verb, i.e. of the verb containing the TENSE and AGR present in SPEC(C) but become overtly .realized by the -/i features, into the I position (as presented for e.g. French in suffix on the head C later on (as may be suggested by its Emonds (f978:165), or Pollock (1989:366)), there is no reason position in the end of the word). The postverbal position of to expect the infinitival verb (containing no TENSE and no AGR the subject, as presented in (13), would then he predicted. features) to undergo the same process. The distance between A similar suggestion is mentioned also in Toman (1992): 7 the position of the infinitive inside VP and CF may be enough The analysis presented above, then, may. be enlarged on to prevent a suffix appearing anywhere inside CP to appear on the other' Czech [+wh] complementisers as well. S will assume infinitival forms (as presented in (10b) and (13b)). their position in C (even it they contained the (+whr-featureS Then there are still two possibilities how to relate the finite verb and the affix complementiser: either to suggest . appearing in SPEC(CP)), and the position of the" other wh-constituents in SPEC(CP). In Lasnik & Saito (1984) both of them in I, or both of them in C. The former variant a number of' LF filters are would predict that in such structures the subject will precede presented, which define the characteristics of interrogative the verb. Consider then the following example (13) complements. Two of these filters are cited here as (141. demonstrating the obligatory postverbal position of overt (14) subject in clauses with the -/i postfix complementiser. '(183) A 1- 4-whj Camp must have a (+whj head. . (184) A [-wh] Comp must not have a (4-wh] head... 13 14 (187) if a language L has syntactic Wh Movement, (183) and (184) apply at S-structure in L.' ( L&S,1984:287) The difference between the Czech verbs taking embedded questions and embedded propositions is presented in (17) and .L&5 demonstrate an example of an.interrogative relative (18) below (notice the distinct complementisers). clause in Polish which contains an interrogatiye wh-element (17) (a) following a relative wh-element. For the authors the relative •pronoun occupies the SPEC(CP) position and the interrogative Kdo vi, jestli / * to si to Kuba koupil? Who knows whether/ * that it Kuba bought? . (b) Kdo vi, co / * to si Kuba koupil? Who knows what / * that Kuba bought? (c) Kdo vi, jestli / * te' si co Kuba koupil? Who knows whether / * that what Kuba bought what? . wh-element is adjoined to IP. That is why they take the filters. (14) as LF filters and not S-Structure filters for Polish. Consider the comparison of Polish and Czech below (17) shows that in Czech, (15) Polish: (L&S,1984:75) subcategorizes for an interrogative clausal complement, i.e. Spotkalds metczyzne, ktOry i kogo 2 t 1 zabil t 2 the man who whom killed you met Lit.: 'Whom i did you meet the man who killed t.?' * Potkal jai mute, kterl-koho zabil? * you met the man who whom killed (b)?. Potkallsi mute, kter7 zabil koho? ? You met the man who killed whom (c) . for an embedded question, its COMP must contain a fronted eleként in S-structure: either [+wh] complementiser or wh-constituent (17b). The L&S LF filter (183, here in (16) Czech: (a) unlike Polish, if the verb * Koho i jsi potkal mute, kteil zabil t. h killd et the m en who killed t,i * who did you meet • Comparing the Czech examples (16) with the Polish embedded 'relative Clause/question (15), it shows that while 'Polish need not have a [i-wh] interrogative COMP specified at S-structure, i.e. a relative clause can be understood as an indirect . question as well, the Czech equivalent (16a) is seems relevant for the S-structure in Czech. Example (18) shows that if a verb subcategorizes for a (-wh] complement only (18a), i.e. for an embedded proposition, its complement must not contain a [+wh] element in the S-structure (19b), suggesting that the L&S's LF filter . (184, here (14)) applies in S-structure in Czech as well ((18a) is acceptable as an echo-question). (18)(a) * Maruka si mysli, ie si Toma§ek koupil co? * MaruAka thinks that TomaSek bought what? (b) MaruLka si,mysli, to /*jestli /*co si (to) Tomd6ek•koupil. MaruAka thinks that/*whether/*what (it) TomAgek bought. ungrammatical. .p.6b) is acceptable as an echo question only. (16c) shows the. impossibility of a movement of the wh-word to There are two ways that the [-wh] embedded proposition in ' the . higher SPEC(CP) position, presenting a Complex NP Czech can be questioned, both of them enlarging the scope of constraint violation (i.e. Wh extraction from the finite the (+wh] to the matrix clause. The following (19) shows the relative clause modifying a noun). standard correct form where the wh-word is syntactically 15 16 related to (ir subcategorised and case-marked by) the matrix originating in the embedded clause, and obligatory subject' verb. The emb dded clause is not an indirect question but control of the infinitival subject. (Clitics are written in a kind of a elative clause with a resumptive pronoun (in Capital letters.) (19), to 'it' which is a clitic) related to (subcategorised and (21)(a) Karel MU TO musel/chtgl e odevzdat t t Karel him cl it c2 must-ed/wanted e i to-give t c tc2 : ' Karel had/wanted to give it to case-marked by the verb in the embedded clause. ( b) Komu TO Karel musel/chtel (*komu) odevzdat t t 7 to-who wl it c2 Karel must-ed/wanted (*to-who) to-give t wl c2 who did Karel have/wanted to give it?' (19) e. 0 Lem si [Marugka mysli t (le si to [ Tomggek keupil t ]]] About whati(Marugka thinks ti[that iti.[Tomagek bought til 'What does Marugka think thaE Tomagek sought?! The following (22) presents Exceptional Case Marking (20) presents the colloquial variant containing long-distance structures following the verbs of perception and 'believe' movement of the wh-word to the matrix clause SPEC(CP). ' type of matrix predidates. In (22a) the obligatory plitic (20) mysli (te si [TomAgek koupil ti]]]] [Marugka % Co. 1 What[Marugka thinks [that [Tomagek bought ti]l)/ What does Marugka think that Tomagek bought? climbing '(of to 'it') and obligatory object control of the infinitival subject are indicated again. (22)(a) The characteristics of the matrix-clause complementiser position in Polish are given by L&S as ' we assumed that Polish is distinct from English in that the matrix Comp is not (b) specified for a value of (whj.' ( L&S, 1984:284). (20) shows, Karel HO TO videl/nutil e dglat t. Karel him it m saw/made e c to-do t m . Karel saw/made him do it.' co HO Karel videl/nutil (*co) delat t ? what,, him Karel saw/made (*what) to-do 'What did Karel saw/made him do?' however, that a matrix clause in colloquial Czech may be Notice that in neither (21b) nor (22b) is the'wh-element specified for a value of [+wh] and that long-distance Wh acceptable as an element introducing the infinitival Movement is not strictly prohibited in Czech. Structure. This indicates that neither (21)hr (22). present a CP clause. Using the concept of the missing CP projection, the properties indicated above appear natural. If the landing 1.4. Long-distance site for the extracted wh-word is in SPEC(CP) position, than Extraction of the wh-element in Czech is fully standard the only one available is the matrix-clause SPEC(CP). Since no from.the infinitival structures. The following (21a,b) shows Subjacency effects are noted (and a clitic movement is infinitival complements of modal and 'want' verbs. Notice the obligatory), I suggest the above structures to be preferably obligatory climbing of the clitics mu 'him' and to 'it' VP structures in (21), and IP•struCtures in (22).,. 8 In.any caso - the maximal projection is L-marked by a matrix verb and 'as 17 18 such does not present a barrier. The trace in the embedded infinitival structure is assigned a Case by the infinitive, the intermediate traces bay be thought of as .adjoined to VP a Czech equivalent acceptable example of English long-distance Wh Movement (see Chomsky's (1986:29)). * Jak si Jan mysli tys opravil to auto t * how John thinks you're repaired the car t 'How does John think you fixed the car t 7° (24) (following Barriers), and the wh-word appears in the position of the operator indicating the scope of the wh-question. Both lexical and antecedent government are possible in (21-22) and no Superiority distinctions can be observed. Compare the standard Czech obligatory Wh Movement from - the structures in (21) and (22) with the infinitival pomplements in (23). Following the above criteria, (23) is assumed to be a CP structure. In contrast to (21) and (22) notice the clitics which in (23) cannot appear inside the matrix clause, the 'subject of the infinitive of arbitrary reference, and the possible insertion of the wh-element in front ot the infinitival clause. (23)(a) laigta (*TO) vdddle/vyzvidala, komu TO e odevzdat t t . Miga. I(*it) knew/wondered, to-who,, it,2 BARB give t, 1 t, •44isa knew/wondered, who to give it to.T ( b) komu Mi6a vödela/vyzvidela (TO) odevzdat (TO)? • - * to-who' MiSa knew/wondered (it) togive (it) Lit: 'Who did Miga know to give it?' The' matrix clause predicates in (23) are subcategorised for a [+wh] complement and the embedded infinitival complement Long distance Wh Movement is said (see L&S (1984), Radford (1981:237), Anyadi and Tamrazian (1993), Riemsdi.jk & Williams (1986:294)) not to appear in Polish, Russian, Armenian; or German, and in Chomsky's early works is presented as restricted (the WHisland condition) also in English. L&S (1984:274), however, show examples of long distance movement of the wh.-elements extracted out of subjunctive complements in Polish. Their Czech equivalents are given in (25a,b) together with two example's of substandard long-distance Wh Movement from the embedded finite clauses (25c,d). (25)(a) ? Co chtel Jakub, aby Lenka koupila t-7 What wanted Jakub. that Lenka bought t ' What did Jakub want that Lanka buy t 7' (b) ? Kdo chtal Jakub, aby t koupil chleba? who wanted Jakub that t bought bread 'Who did Jakub want that t buy bread?' (c) ? Co vedal Jakub, to ma 2' Lenka koupit t 7 what knew Jakub that should' Lenka buy t 'What did Jakub know that Lenka should buy t ?' (d) 7 Kdo vadel Jakub, 2e t ma koupit chleba? who knew Jakub that t should buy a bread ' 'Who did Jakub know that t should buy a bread?' must be overtly marked for [+wh]. (23b) shows that further extraction of the wh-element is not possible, since the Both (25a,b) and (25c,d) have standard forms connecting the infinitival clause would lackany overt [-Ewh] complementiser. wh-word directly to the matrix-clause verb with resumptive The. UngraMmaticality of (23b) resembles the ungrammaticality of the extraction of the wh-element from the embedded -finite clause as presented in (24) which gives pronouns in the embedded clause, as shown in (19) above. The examples (26) and (27) of an inserted parenthetical clause (26) and of an acceptable long-distance Wh Movement 20 (27) indicate that the colloquial form of long-distance Wh Movement presents a distinct structure. 9 rules of interpretation, ie. 'the bridge conditions', which Notice the presence are relevant for the structure of the matrix clause and of the complementiser ge ' that', punctuation (a pause), and characteristics of its predicate. In Van RiemSdijk and the position of a clitic AUX affix -s = jsi :are'. Williams (1986:294) the 'bridge verbs' are suggested . tobethe (26) verbs that can make the following CP A'-transparent, which• Rde, means that the COMP (non-argument) position in the embedded . (7jsi) tikal jsi, (*te) mu to JardUfka dale t 7 where w , (?are) said are-you, (*that) him it aareafka gave tw ' Where, you said, did Jardafka give it to him? clause becomes accessible to external government. It seems that the criteria restricting .the . number - of (27) Rde's tikal, to (*) mu to Jarlafka dale. t 7 where're w said, that (*) him it JarCiafka gave t w 'Whore did you say Jardilfka gave it to him?' possible 'bridge verbs.' can be derived from the fact that indirect questions are wh-complements of the matrix-clause In both (26) and (27) the fronted wh-word is case-marked and predicates. As stated in Grimshaw (1979), belongs to the subcategorisational frame of the second complementiser is unacceptable, commas mark pauses). In (27) 6 ... Ed• a'predicate-complementPair to' be well formed, three conditions mist be satisfied. The predicate and, 16s complement must be semantically compatible; the complement must meet the idiosyncratic selectidnal conditions encoded in the semantic frame of the predicate; and the complement must meet the (alSo idiosyncratic) syntactic conditions . encoded in - -the subcategorization frame of the predicate." ( Grimshaw, 1979:325,) the clitic follows the extracted wh-word and the The subbategorisation frales of matrix verbs expresS- complementiser marks the second clause as subordinate. codcpurence restrictions on prediCates in terms of syntactic predicate. In (26) the parenthetical and wh-question remain syntactically independent (the clitic in the parenthetical follows 'the first constituent' within the parenthetical, the The introductory matrix-clause clause in Czech, however, categories, specifying the optionality or obligatorineSs of compared to the similar structures in English, allows only the sister phrasal constituents for which the, predicate As little variety of predicates and seems to demand the most subcategorized. Embedded questions are,Characterized by'the simple form, if it is followed by a structure analysable as subcategorization frame containing an optional or Obli:gatery CP. Both this characteristics are going to be briefly sentential complement, e.g. discussed in the following paragraphs. find out, V:+ I s t WH]. The Czech verbs of communication are mostly ditransitive and their complements are both + NP, NP and + NP, clause. In Chomsky (1977) long distance Wh Movement is stated as ' a langvage-specific COMP-CORP movement rule (44): move wh-pbrase from CORP to a higher COMP over a bridge' and '(45) (COMP, X, wh-phrase, vbl), where X contains a V P with certain special properties'. ( Ch., 1977:85) The COMP-COMP movement can, then , be blocked by conditions on 21 At the same time .the complement selection is only optional and they may be used as the verbs of action requiring no, argUment. The vague subcategorisation frames of most of the semantically acceptable 'bridge verbs' present a problem, 22 since they hardly ever exclude the possibility of relating the fronted wh-, word to the matrix clause predicate, which may be subcategorised for optional complements of the sate kind. Consider then the example (29) respecting the above requirements (the embedded clause is introduced with 10 a subcategorised [4-whj complementiser, while another wh-word Consider also that there is only a limited number of . , asyndetIc complex sentence structures in Czech, and that is removed into the SPEC(CP) of the matrix clause) a subordinate : clause must be introduced by an overt (29) complementiser `(as seen in the ungraimatical (24)). Combining the obligatory presence of a complementiser ?? Komu as ptd, jestli to dale? ?? Whom ask-he, whether it gave-she? 'Who did he ask whether she gave it to?' The (29) example presents a Wh Island Constraint . with a possible requirement of the matrix clause verb on the violation which is in L&S analysed as resulting from the overt [±wh] specification, of its clausal complement, the position of the [+wh] element in the SPEC(CP) of the embedded results may be predicted and are presented in the following clause, where it blocks a cyclic movement of the other examples ..(28):: If a connecting eletent is obligatory and . The [+wh] features in Czech occupy the SPEC(CP) wh-element .., subcategorized as [+wh], then it cannot be removed from the position also in Czech, and therefore the LEIS (1984) analysis embedded clause (28a). If the selected connector may be I-wh) can be used for the Czech examples as well. as well, the wh-eleMent may move to the main clause SPEC(CP) Comparing the Wh-extraction from infinitival vs. finite and be'replaced with a neutral that (28b). If the selected connector must,be [-wh] than the wh-element moves (280. 11 . (28)(a) 'Ptd se, *2e /jestli/komu to dela Ask-he, *that/whether/who it gave-she He asks *that/who/whether she gave it to' .* Komu se ptd, 2e to dela? "* Whom ask-he, that it gave-she? ' Who did he ask she gave it to?' Aikame, te/komu to 41a ( Krygitiifkovi) SaY7we, that/who it gave-she to (K.) 'We say that/who she gave it to (K).' structures, and the restrictions stated above, tha conditions restrict which #ieuMmui* the ,acceptability of the long distance Wh Movement in Czech are as the following (30) (30)(A) . the unambiguous analysis of the relations betWeen the wh-word and matrix clause vs. embedded clause predicates, (b) a [±wh] specification of the matrix clause predicate, (c) the presence of the CP projectOn. The analysis of long distance Wh Movement presented in e.g. Chomsky (1986) demands traces to be properly governed' and Komu tikdd, 2e /(*) to dale? WhoM say-I, that/(*) it gave-she? Who do you say she gave it to?' no more than one bounding node for subjacency to be crossed. ( c) • Myslim si, 2e/*komu to dela. Think-I that/*who it gave-she. 'I think who she gave it to.' government of the trace, i.e. the Empty Category Principle, is Komu si mysliA, 2e to dela? who think-you, that it gave-she 'Who do you think she gave it?' 23 With regard to the levels of unacceptability, the violating suggested to present usually worse results than violation of subjacency. Following the above concept, the violation of (30a) 24 results in Czech in structures which are usually not 1.5. Summary of Chapter 1 analysable, while violation of (30b,c) presents only a certain The syntactic Wh Movement of a wh-element into, the lower (substandard) level of acceptability. Since there is no difference between the extracted presentential position in direct non-echo wh-questions in obligatory complement (25a,c), subject (25b,d), or adjunct Czech was introduced in 1.1. The variety ofsnoved wh-elements (26), the standard distinction between lexical vs. antecedent comprises the maximal NP, AP, and PP constituents immediately government . does not seem applicable. In Barriers the dominated by IP or some V projection. The difference between intermediate traces of the wh-element in the pre-complementiser position and in situ , the moved wh-constituents are subsequently VP adjoined and placed in SPEC(CP) positions. If any of these positions would be defined as accessible for the government by the matrix clause verb, then the violation of (i.e. in echo-questions) is clear and suggests the origin'al post-verbal extraction site of the removed internal argument constituents. (28a) could be stated in terms of a 'closer potential In 1.2 and 1.3 some properties of indirect questions were governor' interfering the chain link, which would result in presented, showing that the complementiser of the embedded a violation of the Empty category Principle. 12 question is obligatorily specified for a (1-Wh) interrogative . • The restriction on movement presented by Lasnik and Saito feature at the S-structure, and the complementiser of .the (1984) for Polish, i.e. prohibition of the syntactic movement matrix clause can be specified for [+wh) in colloquial Czech. from an A' position, would on the other hand present a kind of The [-F.wh] complementisers in Czech appear in a form of suffix subjacency violation. The bounding nodes for subjacency may be realised on a finite verb, and as separate words. The:position felt in colloquial Czech to be distinct from standard Czech. of all the [A-wh] complementisers is assumed to be . .in Comp; In Barriers the difference between Italian and English is while those of the wh-wordS in SPEC(CP), as in Chomskyr(1986), discussed, and 'the parametric variation is restricted to subjacency, not government, so that "extra barriers" have no effect on adjunct movement.' (Chomsky, 1986a:39) Assuming that standard Czech takes both tensed IP and CP for barriers to movement, while in colloquial Czech only one of them is In 1:4. some examples of extraction of:the Wh-elements were demonstrated. The 'Wh Movement from the infinitiVal compleMents argued to be non-CP structures was shown as obligatory in standard Czech, while the movement from within relevant, we may get the observed distinctions. Any such the CP infinitival complements was presented as acceptable statement would, however, require more detailed discussion, only for some speakers. The CP projection represents a barrier and analyses of also other possibilities of extraction, which for external government, movement of clitics and Wh Movement. is beyond the scope of this work. Another restriction for a movement of the Wh-word into-the 25 26 - main clause .pre-sentential position was derived from the NOTES TO CHAPTER 1 . obligatory overt [+wh] marking of the clause interpreted as 1 ,a question. ,;The long-distance Wh Movement is presented as e.,substandard variant motivated by obligatory selection of [±wh] clausal complements by a matrix clause predicates. The Some acceptable counter-examples to the above evaluations may be explained by a kind of ambiguity allowing analysis of the postnominal prepositional NP modifier as an adjunct. (5b) indicates that when such an ambiguous analysis is semantically excluded, the same structure is unacceptable. (a) V jakem obalu ptines1 tu knihu t ? in which cover brought-he the book t 'In which cover did he bring the book t ?' (b) tu knihu t 7 jakym ndzvem ptines1 * S * with which title brought-he the book t 'With which title did he bring the book t ?' restrictions on long distance Wh Movement presented above result from the restrictions on the government of the intermediate traces, i.e. froM the properties required by bridge structures, which - must preferably be analysed as not 2 For more detailed characteristics of the introductory, predicates see e.g. Grimshaw (1979). Some are' preSehted in the following section, too. 3 Banfield (1973) states more distinctions than are presented in the following paragraphs. While the occurrence of the 'expressive elements' in direct and indirect speech in Czech if comparable with their distribution in English, to compare the grammatical structures referred to in her 'last-cyclic or root transformation' section is complicated by a free Czech constituent-order, which makes it difficult to distinguish any special constructions for topicalisation or dislocation. allowing any structural relation between the fronted wh-element and the matrix clause,predicate. The prethence of a Cp projection represents a barrier that cannot be crossed without the use of the lower SPEC(CP) position. The examples given above indicate that Czech respects the Wh Island restriction, suggesting that the SPEC(Cp).of the embedded clause is used for cyclic movement. . The distinction between acceptability of the long-distance Wh Movement in standerd and colloquial Czech was suggested to be . a result of a distinction in perception of the bounding nodes for Subjacency in each of:them. The differences between grammatical vs. ungrammatical word-order can in most cases be better viewed as differenCes between marked vs. unmarked varieties. In the following text I am going to use the marking '?' or '.??' for the marked word-order, where 'marked' means 'pragmatidally marked', i.e. possible and fully acceptable but in some context only, to make it distinct from the starred examples, which . are ungrammatical, i.e. not acceptable in any context. Bouchard (1988:155) cites Xayne & Pollock (1978), who claim that in French a wh-phrase in COMP triggers the subject adjunction to the right of the VP. A similar possible solution is finally suggested here in 2.4.2 for Czech as well. Any complementiser would be ungraMmatical following a preposition, however, in Czech. A resumptive pronoun would be necessary after the preposition with 28 all of them, suggesting that the case assigned by a transitive preposition must be realised in an adjoined nominal element (i.e. Case is to be realised morphologically). (c) where the pronominal pro is presented as Abound by a wh-element, violating thus Principle B of the Binding Theory. similar examples may be mistaken for arguments suggesting the impossibility of subject extraction, i.e. of the ungoverned position: of a subject even in Czech. (Notice the indexing of the wh-element indicating its relations to the predicte agreement features.) Toman (1992) presents -/i and the finite verb ' as a zero-bar phrase resulting (in somewhat simplified terms) from Age or NegPhrase ° Incorporation. In this struqture 71i is the complementizer, hence it appears in Cu .l(Toman, 1992:117) (a) (0) A possible distinction between the VP and IP analyses may be presented as e.g. the restrictions on the binding domain for the anaphoric reflexive clitic se (-self). As indicated in the following examples the reflexive anaphors remain within the ECM=IP infinitival clause (b), but move from the SUBJECTless VP's (a). (c) ,The subject wh-word is morphologically marked for nominative of the 2rd person singular pronoun. If it precedes a finite verb with AGRfeatures for ird person. singular with a null-subject, the empty position for subject will always be taken for a Wh traceooindexed with the subject wh-word. Therefore the bridge structure with null subject and 3ps agreement is not a structure permitting long distance movement of subject. (a) Karel SE musel/chtel vykoupat (*SE) Karel ; selfi/ * k had/wanted to-bath (*self) 'Karel had/wanted to take a bath himself.' (b) Karel RAS (*SE) nutil/vid61 t koupat SE Karel; us k (*self) forced/saw t to-bath selfv *i "Karel made/saw us to take a bah ourselves.' In'Lenerz (1985) examples of apparent long-distance movement in German is presented for the structures containing the verb 'weenen "believe' in the matrix clause. The author does not take it for an argument that a COMP node in German may become an escape hatch for the embedded clause element, but claims, that 'waen may have lost its verbal character and may have been regarded as some kind of sentential adverb or particle like bitte, 'please' and danke 'thank you'. Also it may be the case that speakers did not assume there to be a S'-boundary between the matrix predicate and its complement V/final 'clause', the latter being considered as similar to the infinitival complement.' (Lenerz, 1985:113). The examples presented by Lenerz, however, exclusively concern fronted embedded clauses and not Wh Movement, and the 'when' structures are presented as .the only acceptable ones. On the other hand in Anyadi and Tamrazian (1993) Ruhr German is shown as applying long-distance Wh Movement in a way roughly comparable with Czech, and several 'bridge verbs' (i.e.glauben or sagen) are used. An example of such interference between the matrix clause predicate and the fronted wh-word occurs also in the following example, with a ' pro crossover' in 29 Kdo tikal, to ptijde? whoi t i said-he i that pro i/A will-come-he i / A 'Who said that he would come?' said-he A , that ti will-come-hei * whoi pro 'Who did hesay (that) will come?' * whoi prof said-hei that ti will-come-hei 11 The kind of 'obligatory' movement presented here may be compared with the obligatory movement in infinitival structures lacking the CP projection. In the finite clauses there is a CP projection available; this projection, however, is subcategorised for a [-wh] element. The subjunctive clauses are always [-wh] clausal complements and the long-distance Wh Movement from these structures is therefore predicted. 12 Recalling the Riemsdijk and Williams concept of 'Al- transparent' bridge predicates, it may be preferably the lower SPEC(CP) position that beComes governed, given the difference between the [+wh] and [-wh] complement selection as would suggest .(30b). The concept would however have to become more 'A'-non-transparent', at least for the Czech examples :presented here, if it is to prevent the intermediate • trace from being interfered with. Alternatively"the fact that the finite verb is in the I position at s-structure in Czech may result in the governed trace . of the moved wh-element adjoined to the matrix clauSe VP, which would capture. the interference . of the subject wh-trace as well, (if it is ,the INFL position from which subject is governed). In such a concept - adjunct wh-words are always structurally ambiguous and their relation to either a matrix clause or embedded clause , predicate is • a result of semantic or pragmatic factors only. 30 MWhQ's in Czech may suggest that the wh-elements in CHAPTER 2 pre-sentential, position are in their LF positions at the MX.H.,TIPLE QUESTIONS IN CZECH" S-structure already, i.e. no subsequent LF movement into SPEC(CP) is required. Such an analysis would, however, Introduction 2.1. the preceding contradict the observed characteristics of the multiple chapter Czech was presented as a language with syntactic Wh Movement placing the wh-elementS wh-words in Czech, and also face certain theoretical problems mentioned in the following sections. at the beginning of the wh-question. This characteristic makes czech comparable with e.g. English, but while in English multiple wh-questions only one wh-element appears in the vresentential position and all the others remain 'in SitU', in Czech' multiple wh-questions (MWhQ) all wh-words move to the '.'_presentential position' at the S-structure. Examples of the Czech direct and indirect MWhQ's are given in (1) - 2.2. Some previous analyses of multiple questions The abstract question morpheme Q posited as a 'meaningful deep structure segment with a performative reading in Katz and Postal (1964) was 'revised' in Baker (1970) and applied to both direct and indirect wh-questions. Baker's Q-Morpheme was (1)(a). Kdo Co koupil? Who, what 2 [t 1 bought t introduced as an operator binding wh-variables (i.e. the (b) koupil co? .................... Kdo Who l [ t i bought what] (c) Zajima më, kdo co ptinese. wonder-I whoi what 2 [t 1 brings t 2 ] 'I wonder who will bring what.' (d) Zajima m4, kdo pf-inese co. .. wander-I .who l [t 1 brings what] echo queStion questioned constituents which were derived by means of the Wh Insertion inside the clause and co-indexed with the operator). Baker's Replacement Rule places one of the wh-elements in the pre-sentential position, where the presence of the rah-element echo question triggers the Subject/Aux Inversion in,' the following direct (la) is a direct MWhQ, (lb) is acceptable only with a stress questions in e.g. English. The co-indexing of wh-words with on.Oo 'what' as an echo question, (lc) is an embedded MWhQ, their traces enables more than one of the wh-elements to be and (1a) is again an echo form of embedded MWhQ. 1 bound inside the clause, which makes it possible different In dealing with Wh Movement in terms of an operator structures for sentences with different scopes of separate binding its variables, all the wh-elements appear at LF in the wh-words. The Replacement Rule, however, predicts that only positions where they can bind their traces within the scope one of the wh-words is fronted. Similar predictions were required, i.e. at the LF level all the wh-elements are to be derived also from Bresnan's (1970) analysis of'the [+wh] - found in the relevant SPEC(CP) position. The examples of 31 complementiser, which may be viewed as a more syntactic 32 An attempt to explain the MWhQ's within the . 'concept of counterpart to the abstract Q-Morpheme. The operator status of the clause initial morpheme Q was unique Wh Movement can be found in Taman (1982)• The author•: challenged in e.g. Kuno and Robinson (1972), where the claims that even if only one position in Comp is available ambiguity of some MWhQ's was explained by pragmatic factors. universally, there are still at least two acceptable analyses Baker's mechanism of Q-binding was exchanged for the clause of the MWhQ's whiCh do not contradict the multiple filled'COmp Mate Constraint requiring, multiple •wh-words with the same constraint: either the fronted wh-words form a single complex scope to be clause mates at the time of application of Wh constituent, or not all the wh-elements are in - Comp, Toman " Movement. The authors pointed out a relation between the demonstrates examples in Polish, Czech, and Russian, .which fronted full constituents and wh-words, and formalised it in support the second of the possible explanations,i.e.that the the Double Dislocation Constraint prohibiting the dislocation wh-wOrds are not a single constituent, and their parts,do not of more than one constituent. appear in the same positions in the sentence. The presence pf In Wachowicz (1974) the 'single Wh question movement' adjoined Wh-elements in pre-sentential position is suggested derived from Baker's Single Q-morpheme Hypothesis was rejected to be a result of scrambling, which appears in all Slavio because of the existence of MWhQ's with more than one languages. 'However, wh-element fronted in e.g. Polish and adjunction to S is not particularly clear' ( 41982:299 • ). The . Russian. Such multiple the assumption that scrambling' is structures seemed to contradict the concept of Baker's structure which Toman offers for the MWhQ is given Replacement Rule, since 'after the replacement there is no following (2) in the 5' Q-morpheme left that could lexjcalize'. ( W,1974:164). (2)(Teman,:82:(27)) COMP Wachowicz argued that all the wh-elements in the multiple S COMP questions are moved by a question movement (i.e. they are not COMP 'in situ') when fronted. She mentioned the relation between the 'free word order phenomena' which enables the languages showing multiple fronted wh-words to also extract more than one topicalised element into the pre-verbal position, and she rejects Kuno and Robinson's (1972) Double Dislocation WH1 Taman (referring to Reinhart (.1981)) mentions also a possibility of a COMP analysis which would make more than one node in Comp available, because such an 'extra' position constraint on movement. Wachowicz did not propose any could be used for the non-initial fronted wh-words'. formalised concept for the MWhQ's; all restrictions that she Reinhart's (1981) analysis of the Hebrew COMP is, however, applied on the MWhQ's were based on discourse constraints. The better understood as an argument for SPEC(CP) and C nodes same analysis was repeated in Wachowicz (1978)• 33 ' within the CP projection, and is hardly useful for Toman's alternative:analysis. S-Structure or LF. Czech and Polish area according to Rudin In Lasnik and Saito (1984) Stowell's (1981) concept of CP . 'non-Multiple-Wh-Fronting Languages' (1988) which respect the used for the analysis of Wh constraint on SPEC(CP) adjunction at S-Structure and PF. This . Movement. Polish examples of MWhQ's are analysed with the specification groups Czech; Serbo-Croatian, and Polish with first wh-word!in the SPEC(CP) position and the other wh-words English, French, and Chinese (Rudin, 1988:494). What makes all ' adjoined to IP: This 'IP-adjoined' analysis is followed also these languages different is the Wh Movement of the multiple '. dontaining SPEc(cP) and C is in e.g. Haegemann (1991)as a supporting argument for the wh-words at S-Structure: while Czech and Polish move all Government and Binding concept of the cyclic Wh Movement wh-words into A'.-positions, English moves only the first one, through/into the SPEC(CP) position. and Chinese moves none. The following (4) paraphrases Rudin's In Rudin (1988) the author argues that the sentence structure and conditions on movement, as proposed by Chomsky schemes . , for Czech (4a) and English (4b) S-Structure positions of the multiple wh-elements. in Barriers, do not exclude either adjunction to IP or to the other non-argument maximal projection, i.e. to CP. Rudin claims that both the possibilities presented in the following (3) appear, i.e. IP-adjunction (3a) and CP adjunction (3b) of (4)(b) ...English (4)(a) ...Czech CP CP SPEC(CP) SPEC(CP) IP IP IP the non-initial wh-words. ( t )WH 2 ( t )WH 3 ( ) IP (3)(R,88:(2c,d)) s' (3)(a) 1 Comp or Spe cCP (3)(b) S . Comp or SpecCP S 1 S I WH J 'WH WH WH The structure (4a:IP-adj) in Rudin's framework predicts that Czech prohibits co--occurrence of wh-words with overt complementisers, respects the WH Island Constraint,' and allows Rudin argues that Bulgarian and Rumanian MWhQ's represent the structure 3 ( a). She calls those languages 'Multiple-Wh-Fronting Languages', replaces the Doubly-Filled . comp Constraint with the 'Condition on SPEC(CP) Adjunction MWhQ's with more than one wh-word moved to A' positions in random ordering, since all the traces are A'-hound and governed at the required levels (Rudin, 1988:495). In Rudin's (1988) article most of the examples are given Constraint' •Rudin, 1988:490)), and claims that the above in Bulgarian, some in Rumanian, and languages do not respect the Constraint at either PF or in many places mentioned only 35 36 2 Serbo-Croatian. Czech is briefly. 3 In the following sections I am going to follow Rudin's (1988) arguments, to show that even if the choice is not unambiguous, the preferable analysis for the Czech MWhQ's is the structure presented above as (4a:IP-adj). I am not going to refer systematically to any other language, Polish being the only exceptiqn, since Polish is presented as the closest equivalent to Czech. and Postal (1964) from indefinite pro-forms, : and similarly in Bach (1971) the interrogative pro-constituents are claimed to be based universally on indefinite pro-forms. The author also relates the position of wh-words to the position of the theme of the sentence.. The relation between the focused full -constituents and multiple wh-words in the sentence structure is pointed out also in Kuno and Robinson (1972), Wachowicz (1974), Toman (1982), and Rudin (1988). The relation between.. indefiniteness and the theme, however,. is not`-so obvious. 2.3.1. Word-order, Focus, and related phenomena . Czech is taken for a language in which the:' correlations To argue that the MWhQ's in Czech are a phenomenon distinct. from something like English MWhQ's presented in between the order of syntactic constituencies in a sentence and the discourse role of the information which a particular abundance in e.g. Bolinger (1973), one argument should be constituent represents' is the main parameter for the surfaCe, advanced: it is necessary to show that all the fronted word-order (Green, 1989:128). In Firbas (1992) the notion of wh-elements in Czech are moved, which need not be the case if Czech Were entirely a free constituent-order language. 4 In the above Chapter, however, the 'echo-questions' were presented, and the position of wh-elements in such 'in situ' structures was taken for the extraction site in both simple definite vs. indefinite in Czech is discussed, and the equivalentS of indefinite articles in e.g. English are unambiguously taken for 'signals of rhemacity', not of the focus (Firbas, 1992:21). The interrogative wh-words are then exceptions, since in and MWhQ's. Also all the authors dealing with this phenomenon wh-questions the 'interrogative word is alwayS the feCus of made a distinction between stylistic reordering and multiple the question' (Petr, 1986:595). The ftonting of the wh-words - Wh Movement into some syntactically definable position(s); may be therefore motivated by a general tendency te.place . the such positions being derived from the characteristics of the thematic elements to the beginning of.the claUse. The question remains, however, which syntactic position (if any) can be, wh-words. The origin of the wh-words is standardly assumed as inside the questioned constituents. In the pre-Q-Morpheme defined as a position of a focus and .whether such.a position . „ . is really the position of the fronted wh-elements. analysis in Chomsky (1957) the wh-words were derived from The position of a wh-word in a simple wh-question_ • is definite- pronouns and fully-specified constituents.. In Katz SPEC(CP), and therefore the assumed fronted focus position would preferably 37 be in SPEC(CP) 38 as well. The IP-adjoined. a one-member Czech FRONT precedes clitics (which seems to analySis of the Other wh-words would contradict such describe the reality perfectly), it cannot be taken for the a Position of the focus even if the adjunction of the non-initial wh-words to IP in NWhQ represents a kind of place where the non-initial wh-words in Czech appear. For the compromise if SPEC(CP) becomes unavailable. non-initial wh-words following clitics in Serbo-Croatian, An exclusive syntactic position for Focus is presented in Dimitrova-Vulchanova advances another 'secondary fronting site e.g. Brody (1991) as an FP projection of the head F, situated which immediately precedes the main verb and where 'mildly' fronted constituents (such as the rest of wh-constituents in betweehIF and CP. While the [-hwh] elements move to SPEC(CP), the. focused elements move to the specifier or head of.FP. The multiple wh-constructions) occur'. (D.-V., 1992:44). The Focus 'Criterion presented by Brody (1991) is a variant of. position of the secondary FRONT is suggested to bp rather Rizzi's - (1991) Wh-Criterion requiring a mutual specifier-head V-main than IP adjunction, but V-main apparently means some Configuration of the focused X ° upper functional IP projection as well. and XP. Within this framework, oweVer, the non-initial wh-elements are not supposed to be I do ' ,not reject or propose the existence of some focused or topicalised and are suggested to be standardly T(opic)P or F(ocus)P following CP, but the attempt to state h 5 a new syntactically unique projection for the topicalised adjoined to a lower IP. In Dimitrova-Vulchanova (19_92)• a construct FRONT, is elements in a free-constituent language, as presented in the introduced to apply to the description of a clause-initial above paragraphs, puts together all kinds of Wh Movement with structure in Slavic free constituent-order languages. In both topicalization, pragmatic and stylistic reordering, in a way main and subordinate clause FRONT dominates the top IP which is not fully justified (at least it is not justified up projection (in Dimitrova-Vulchanova's terminology the maximal to now). Therefore F am not going to use the notion of Focus, functional V-main projection) and seems to be replacing both Topic, or FRONT as terms strictly relevant for the syntactic SPEC(CP) and C. The standard position of subject, i.e. position of the other wh-words, presenting the above analyses SPEC(IP), is suggested to be identical with FRONT, which 'is as possible explanations for the leftwards movement of all the to.be,seen as a landing site for all topicalized constituents wh-werds in the Czech MWhQ's. A similarly vague suggestion is and fronted verbs' and it 'can contain material non-specified presented also in Toman (1992), where both the clitic and f or -category'. (D.-V.,1992:2,31). FRONT must be filled with . multiple Wh movements are claimed to be 'overt manifestations' a given number of elements only, and clitic clusters of the movements which result in 'obliterating the distance right-adjoin to the filled FRONT. The author states the number between the :syntax of Logical Form and that of Surface of possible elements in the Czech FRONT as one (in Bulgarian Structure' (Toman 1992:117). there are at least three possible). Then, if. such 39 40 2.3.2 Parentheticals, subject position, and wh-order . _ l'he evaluation may differ, but in any case the' inserted parentheticals suggest the multi- (at least two-) constituent The word-order examples used for the analysis of the Czech and Polish MWhQ's in Toman (1982) and in Rudin (1988), nature of the multiple fronted wh-words, which is contradictory to the (3a:SPEC(CP)adj) structure. 6. argue for the (4a:IP-adj) analysis, and they are as follows: The pre-subject position of all the fronted wh-words, The wh-words in Czech multiple question do not form a single which forms one of the main arguments for 'the -(4a:IP-adj) constituent, and the non-initial wh-words precede the unmarked analysis in TAS (1984), is presented also for Polish in .Rudin subject of the clause. Moreover the wh-words do not follow any (1988), and its Czech equivalent is shown in the 'following (fi) strict ordering, i.e. they are freely exchangeable, which (6)(R, 1988:489) supports the rejection of a (3a:SP(C)-adj) structure requiring in a given framework the shared SPEC(CP) position to be (a) Polish: Czech: indexed by only one (the first) of wh-elements. The multi-constituent character of the multiple wh-words is derived mainly from the position of inserted clitics, which Kogo Koho whom 'Who komu Jan/on przedstawil? komu Jan/on ptedstavil? to-who Jan/he -introduced did Jan/he introduce to who?' (b) Polish: * Kogo Jan/on komu przedstawil? ? Koho Jan/on komu ptedstavil? Czech whom Jan/he to-who introduce is presented in more detail in the next section 2.4.1, and froth the possibility of inserting a parenthetical clause among (6b), unacceptable in Polish, makes Rudin reject the possibility of adjunction to. VP. 7 Contrary to Polish, the: the wh-words. The following example (5) repeats Rudin's Czech equivalent in (6b) with the subject preceding the other examples (49) with an inserted parenthetical clause. wh-word, is evaluated as only 'marked', and in fact many less (5) ( R, 1988:469) marked examples could be given with subjects preceding the tebe, (a) Rdo, podia co komu dal? who, according to you, what to-whom gave 'Who, according to you, gave what to who?' non-initial wh-words, as e.g. the following (7) and (8). (b) Rd° co (? podle tebe) komu, podia tebe, dal? who what(?according to you) to-whom,according to you,gave (7) Rudin states that the position of parenthetical clauses is fully optional in languages , like Czech. It' would be more precise to say that all the positions are possible, but within the range of marked vs. unmarked variants, the parenthetical is unmarked either following the first or the last wh-word. 41 (8) kdy uddlala? jA komu what am I to-whom when done 'What have I ever done to anybody?' Co jsem jsem kdy komu já uddlala? (a) ? Co what am when towhom I done (b) * Co jsem jd uddlala kdy komu? when to-, whom what am I done (8b) presents a possible echoequestion, showing' that pre-verbal position of wh-words is obligatory, while (8a) 42 . shows that` in such a sentence the subject following all the. interrogatives with the ná- 'some' prefix as presented in the wh-Words is not especially salient. Notice, however, that following (12). while (7) is certainly a kind of wh-question, the English Kde / nekd Kdo / nakdo Co / ndco who/somebody What/something Where/somewhere (10) translation suggests, that its interpretation-is not likely to etc. . he a multiple wh-question. In Bach (1971) 'the indefiniteness assumption' for the The relation is moreover not only morphological. In Petr . interrogative words is presented as 'consistent with the fact that :interrogative words and indefinite pronodns are often morphologically related or even identical' ( Bach, 1971:158), and examples are given in Japanese, Greek, German', etc. In Wadhowicz (1974) the indefinite pronouns in Polish are presented as being 'almost exactly as the interrogative pronouns, the only difference being that the indefinite , prohouns have a specificity marker.' ( Wachowiez; 1974:159). The .specificity marker has a 'tendency to be dropped' in Polish. WaOhOwicz shows examples of 'multiple questions' with only one wh-element moved and all : the-others in post-verbal positions. The author calls such sentences 'clarifying questions' that are interpreted by most speakers as yes/no questions containing indefinite pronouns. An example with its Czech structural equivalent is given in (9) (1986:568f) MWhQ's are mentioned from the point of view of appropriate answers, and some (nonspecified) MWhQ's are given, to show that only the first interrogative pronoun is interrogative (requires the answer), while the others may as well be interpreted as indefinite pronouns. Such questions then do not differ semantically from the questions containing only one (the first) interrogative element. The 8 indefinite interpretation of the 'non-initial wh-words in (7) is close to the English any or -ever pronouns. Moreover the required answer for such questions is negative. For the example presented in (7) it would be 'Nothing (...to nobody, never)'. (If the first wh-word is answered, the answer is fully acceptable). The wh-words following the 'subject and preceding the verb in Czech, even if moved, contrary to the Polish 'indefinite pronouns!, may then be analysed as not interrogative. Nie rozumiem, kto Wyjechal kiedy? Czech.: * NeVim, kdo odjel kdy. not-understand-I who left: . when (9) Polish: 'I don't understand: who left when?' Therefore their adjunction to some IP projection lower than the top one, which seems to be evident in (7), cannot be taken as a position of the interrogative wh-words in multiple wh - The Czech variant of the Polish 'clarifying questions' would be an echo-question, since the second wh-werd does not move from the post-verbal position. The Czech indefinite pronouns are derived from the 43 questions in Czech, but as a position of indefinite•(from the point of view positive/negative?) elements. 9 If the post-subject positions of the non-initial wh-elements in the Czech MWhQ's may be excluded by the 44 indefinite/negative interpretation wh-words, of the non-initial therefore non-lexically governed wh-traces must be "excluded by than the interrogative wh-words in Czech appropriate ordering. Rudin's claim, however, need not bb obligatorily precede the overt subject. Both interpretations, unambiguously accepted, since the following, then, argue against the (4b:in situ) structured» Czech. reveal that with arguMent wh-words the ordering Subject The third argument for the (4a:IP-adj) structure in both Taman (1982) and Rudin (1988) concerns the mutual ordering of - indirect object. --direct object seems to be preferred also in Czech. the fronted wh-words. The authors demonstrate that no such 'Who gave what to who.' obligatory ordering in Czech can be found. The following (11) Kdo komu co dal, nevfm. who to-who what gave I don't know. repeats the Rudin's examples (61) (11)(R,1988:475) 'Who invited whom when I don't know.' (a) Kdo kdy koho pozval, nevfm. who when whoM invited I don't know. (b) Kay kdo koho pozval, nevfm. when who whom invited I don't know (c) . Koh° kdy kdo pozval, nevfm. whom when who invited I don't know If all the examples in (11) are acceptable, then within the concept of LF Wh Movement, the head of COMP indexing, and proper government, as used in L&S (1984), in any of (3a:SP(C)-adj) or (4a:IP-adj) or (4b:in situ) structures all (12)" ? Co kdo komu dal, nevfm. what who to-who gave I don't know ?,, „ Komu kdo co dal, nevfm. to-who who what gave I don't know. ? Co komu kdo dal, nevfm. what to-who who gave I don't know In the aboye example only (12a) is likely to be understOod a rather unambiguous multiple question; the others seem to require the answer for the first interrogatiVe word -only, i.e. they may be interpreted as simple wh-questions With - indefinite/negative pronouns. Since such a possibility is not'excluded either for (11b,c), the lexical government of subject , the wh-traces must be lexically governed at appropriate levels in Czech- Recalling that no pure Superiority constraints were observed in the Section 1.4 above for the long-distance Wh Movement either, such a conclusion is even strengthened. may be not so clear in Czech, and the Ordering of the fronted fah-words cannot be used as a decisive argument for or againSt any of the structures offered above, Rudin (1988) makes optional ordering one of the main In the following section the mutual position of clitiös arguments for the difference between the (3a:SP(C)-adj) and and wh-words is shown, which supports the multiconstituent (4a:IP-adj) structures, since when all the wh-words appear character of the multiple wh-words .suggested already by the inside one SPEC(CP) node (as claimed for Bulgarian in Rudin inserted ParentheticalS and by the position of the subject. (1988)), the resulting cluster can get only one index and 45 46 . ' Wachowicz claim that ' there is no necessary connection between Wh-words and clitic position pronoun movement and the position of wh-words in the The possible relation between the positions . of weak : pronouns and wh-words in Polish and Russian MWhQ's was mentioned already in Wachowicz (1974:160). The author, sentence... (It) indicate(s) that wh-words in Polish and Russian are moved by a question movement' (W,1974:161). The Czech examples in (14) show the two structures with - however, presented arguments for the difference between the • movement of the weak pronouns (Clitic Movement) and the. different interpretations of the non-initial wh-elements: movement of the wh7constituents ( Wh Movement). Her Polish (14b) is a simple wh-question with the other wh-words eXampleslare repeated in the following (13) and (14) with perceived as indefinite/negative pronouns, as discussed in the their. Czech equivalents (clitics are written in capital previous section: letters-in the Czech sentences). (14a) is a multiple question with both wh-words interrogative, Both the Polish and Czech examples in (13) and (14) argue (13)(Pol;W,1974:(20)) for the (3a.'SR(C)-adj) or (4a:IP-adj) structures, and both of Polish: (a) Monika to widziala Czech: Monika TO vidala Monica it saw (b) Monika widziala to. * Monika vidala it Monica saw Czech: (c) Videla TO. saw-she it. 'She; saw•it' them exclude the (4b:in situ) variant. They show that the clitic movement in Czech is more constrained than the movement of the non-initial wh-elements. Compare the example (14) above with the following (15) , For the Polish (13a) Wachowicz claims the movement of the clitic to 'it' from the. post-verbal position to the pesition preceding the finite' verb to be optional, i.e. (13b) (15) Batka MI TO dela (* MI TO) / * Bétka TO MI dala (TO MI) Bdtka me it gave (* me it) / * Batka it me gave (it me) 'Betka gave me it.' 'Betka gave it to me.' acceptable. The Czech examples (13a-c) present the only The clitic position in (15) is one of those quite rare grammatical possibilities in Czech, with the clitic folloWing word-order varieties in Czech where grammaticality judgements the finite affirmative verb only if it means becoming the are sharp. (15) shows that the ordering of the clitics is second constituent, as in (13c) . 10 The example (14) presents similar structures with a wh-Constituent. ' (14)(Pol:W, 1974:(23)) 'What did Monica give to who?' Polish: (a) Co komu Mooika dela? (b) * Co Monika komu dala? Czech: Co komu Monika dada? ? Co 14onika komU dala? . What whom Monica gave? what Monica whom gave? obligatory [indirect object - direct object], and they move to the 'second position' obligatorily (other ordering or position of the clitics are perceived as ungrammatical). Similar principles are observed by' the wh-words only in unmarked forms, and with a dropped subject the distinctions between the different interpretations of the non-initial wh-words become The Polish starred (14b) compared with grammatical (13b) makes '47 even more vague. 48 In Toman (1982:295) the concept of the difference between 1986:619)• In Anderson (1993) the relation between the functional the clitic and wh-movement is accepted and the Polish examples demonstrate the mutual positions of the clitics and the other wh-words. The Czech examples are given in the-following (15) categories and morphology is discussed, and clitic placement is presented as an example of evident interaction between the morphology and syntax. The 'second' position of clitics may.be (16) in various languages defined either phonetically (the first (a) Kdo MU TO kdy dal? who him it when gave 'Who gave it to him when?' . (b) ?? Kdo kdy MU TO dal? who when him it gave (c) * Ado MU kdy TO dal? who him when it gave The impossibility of inserting a wh-word inside the stressed word), syntactically (the first constituent), or pragmatically (the focus). In Toman (1982:298) the author claims that the Czech clitics follow ' the first maximal clitic cluster in (16c) makes evident the distinct position of be defined • e syntactically. In Toman (1991) reflexive clitics are analysed clitics and wh-words. The unmarked (16a) then shows that with the Sulle result, and the following (17) is proposed a clitic position preferably precedes the non-initial (17) wh-word, thus demonstrating the multi-constituent character of the wh-, words. constituent, clitic -position i.e. the can Let us assume that at least one of{ the following statments is true: (32) A clitic must be locally Supported by Comp.. (33) A clitic must be locally supported by Inn. If the first condition is true, its instantiation in Czech will result in right-adjunction of clitics to CoMp.-If the in Czech will second condition is true the instantiation illax . Both instantiations require left-adjunction to Infl ammount to the 'Wackernagel effect' in terms of string (Taman 1991:162) adjacency.' . The position of Czech clitics has been repeatedly mentioned in this work, without any structural suggestions. In the following paragraphs some brief analyses of the clitic position in Czech are going to be presented. Let us recall the choice relevant here, i.e. between the Referring to Zwicky, Anderson (1993) states the paraphrased (3a) and (4a) structures. The possible differene between the simple ( ' purely phonological in positions . of clitics are marked following Toman's suggestions above nature') clitics and special clitics (A,1993:74). The clitics (3')(a) ( 4') ( ) described in this work are then 'the special clitics', i.e. accentless, mostly pronominal elements: in Czech weak personal pronouns, weak reflexive pronouns, some adverbial and AUX-be elements, and discourse particles. The ' clitic placement in Czech involves movement into the W ackernagel Position' (Toman, CP 1 1 r---C' SP(CP) i 1 : 1 SP(CP) C WB 2 r-11-1 1 SP(CP) Wil0l (c1) CP i t 1 (c1) IP 2 Iv WH 2 1982:301), where the clitic elements appear as a group right after the initial stressed word of the sentence (Petr, 49 1 SPEC(CP) Cr 1 C : ., ( 1 WH 1 0 ( c1) 1t t t 22 50 IP -IP (c1) - I IP t 1 t2 ' Assuming that clitics in Czech usually precede the other wh•words (as shown in (1.6)), the structure (4a) with the other (4a:IP-adj) structure, which provides either the COMP or some INFL head for clitics. wh-wordS" left-IP-adjoined would suggest the clitics right-adjoined to C, i.e. (4a 1 :IP-adj.) above, since such a structure would make the ordering obligatory. Assuming the 2.4.2. A note about the IP structure orderingnot unambiguous, the left7IP-adjoined clitics, as in The Czech MWhQ's presented in this Chaptercontain the (1a2:IP-adj.), would allow the other wh-wprds to have finite verb which contains all verbal categories in Czech, and a certain amount of freedom since all the.elements would be therefore it Was assumed to appear in the top IP projectiOn adjoined to some projection of IP. Any of these concepts seems head, m-commanding the subject in the nominative. Since the to exclude the (3a:sp(c)7adj) variant, since it predicts that interrogative multiple wh-words precede both of them, no the clitics obligatorily follow the wh-words. detailed analysis of the IP structure was presented up'to now. However, within Stowell's (1981) concept of the bar-notation, and restrictions On movement as presented in Chomsky (1986:4-6), the dooccurrence of clitics and wh-elements in the same place does not seem possible, assuming the clitics and wh-words to have a distinct status: wh-words being maximal projections of a ,given constituent, while clitics are adjoined to the.heada. Then, the movement of the In the above section, however, the concept of the bar notation and conditions on movement were briefly sketched, which are accepted in this work, and within such a framework at least a brief nate concerning the inner structure of IP is needed, if some definable position is to be 'stated for the two possible interpretations of the the multiple non-initial wh-words. 11 wh-constituent can be a movement to some SPEC position, or an • adjUnction to a nonargument maximal category only. The movement of a X category, on the other hand, would be a Head to Read' movement, i.e. in case of the clitics, an adjunction Recall those wh-words interpreted as indefinite/negative pronouns, which were presented as appearing after the subject but obligatorily preceding the verb. The example (7) is repeated below to another X 0 category. In the above conception, the (4a 2 :IP-adj.) variant; i.e. (7') 'What have I ever done to anybody?' both . clitics and wh-words adjoined to IF seems to exclude the -ordexj.7 ng jclitic + non-initial wh-word] since the wh-word would be adjoined to some maximal projection of IP, while the kdy udgaala? Co jsem já komu I 'to-whom when done what am In (7), analysing the clitic AUX -Isom 'am' as adjoined to C, the subject in SPEC(IP), and the finite verb immediately clitics would follow, being adjoined to (its) head. It seems dominated by there is no position available for a maximal evident that theoretical assumptions also prefer the 51 • 52 rah-constituent, providing adjunction is restricted to for negative elements in Jackendoff (1972:350), as cited .in foothote 9 above. The interrogative wh-words are correctly nonargument maximal projections (Chomsky, 1986:6). Without dealing with the wider implication of the excluded from getting such indefinite/negative features since following statement, I propose the T+Agr projection being not they are presented as adjoined to the maximal projectien•of the top functional head of the Czech 'split IP', claiming the modal or negation functional head. however, that the subject, which must raise to T+AgrP to get a Case, may raise to the top IP specifier as well. 12 , In Haverkort (1993) clitic movement is presented as an instance of head movement which adjoins clitics to the highest In the sentences containing the indefinite/negative functional head accessible to them. The Movement is related to multiple wh-words, like (7) above, the top IP functional head the raising movement of the verb -(both finite and infinite), may be empty (with the trace of the clitic AUX only), its SPEC because it is the verb that must 'void the barriers' for the containing the subject. The non-initial .wh-words may then subsequent movement of a clitic. The distinct positiOn of appear adjoined to some lower maximal projection. A suggested clitics in tai' resulting string can be derived from (or often position of the indefinite wh-words is demonstrated in (18). serves as evidence of) the final position of the verb • on the (l8)(=- 7) 'What have I ever done to anybody?' cP SPEC(CP) C' I sp ( Ip TOP) t ct T+AgrP . 1 1 I WH T+AgrP' 2 I 1 WH T+AgrP 3 Co l. jeem ja what 1 an I SUB would have to apply to void the barriers or preferably, another mechanism of the clitic movement has to be worked out. T +Agr' / T+Agr VP : . komuV 2 kdy 3 to-whom 2 when ugYala? 3 done this . ' clitic AUX). Therefore either some more vacuous movement's • t - distance, however, is common in Czech (and not, only with the, f r_L_, ? the above (18) is separated.from many for Haverkort's conditions of clitic movement, 13 ,,TOP TOP D p suB • The position of Vfin the clitic AUX be by two maximal projections, which is top I pTOP WH 1 0 cl split IP scale. [=. t1t2t1 If the top IP is stated as a kind of modal or negation I will not present any here. For the analysis of the 'StyliStic Inversion.' in wh-questions mentioned in section 1.2 above, similar split IP: could be used. The Stylistic Inversion in Frendiveis'in functional head, then the indefinite/negative wh-word Haverkort (1993) interpreted as a position of the subject in following such a head can get its negative interpretation just the SPEC of some lower, non-top functional IP (in the by being within the scope of such a head, exactly as demanded author's concept SPEC(TP) appears to be the candidate). The 53 54 , verb following the future-AUX is supposed to stay inside VP, following J19a• shows Haverkort's (1993:21) French AUX moves through the TA-Agr head to get the Tcnse+Agr Wh7question with a clitic, (19b) a Czech wh-question with a reflexive clitic si , and (19c) a . features, its obligatory raising being a result of an multiple wh-question. interrogative Subject/AUX Inversion structure. Haverkort claims that in (19a) the verb raises to C allowing CP 1 r 1 C' SPEC(CP) 1 : 1 . C : rh WH I .0 Cl : . . . the clitic to cross the IP barrier and adjoin to the highest •accessible head C. (19a) shows a Subject/AUX Inversion, which is evident in the Czech examples (19b,c) as well. (19)(a)(Hav,93:21) Quand l'a-t-i1 lu? when it has he read. : : (b) ..Co SI bude Kryftlifek (?bude) pf. dt na vanoce? . what REFL will K.. (?will) wish for Christtas '•What Will K. want for Christmas?' WH2 : (20)(=l9b) 'What will K. want when?' Tp n TOP . IP TOP sp(IpTOP) 0 r I mnn ',.......... 1 T+AgrP T Al.1Xi : : : (c)` Co SI kdy bude (?kdy) Kry6tnfek (?bude) plat? what REFL when will (?when) K. (?will) wish 'What will K. want when?' 1 DP Kryatafek Co l si kdybude 2 KryStafek what, REFL whenwill 2 Agr' ' / -1 I VP Agri <prat t i t 2 to-wish t 1 t2 No structure presented in . .section 2.2, however, would be acceptable for (19c), supposing the non-clitic AUX bude 'will The 'split IF is introduced here as a 'multiplied' IP, be' raised to C, with C allowed to contain one element only. with the only apparent purpose to get the positions needed for If the clitics adjoin to functional heads, the one most the analysis. Similar results might be achieved by multiplying plausible for the reflexive si in (19) : is C, which is divided the CP projection, i.e. by CP adjunction or taking CP for . from-the subject by both wh-Word and bude 'will be', but it recursive. I prefer the split IP mainly,because the strings of still precedes the subject. elements usually contain a verb or AUX, and I take IF for Recalling the IP suggested above, a kind of finite verb projeCtion, while the connection of CP Subject/AUX,Verb Inversion in (19b,c) may instantiate the case and the verb is less obvious to me. There are also properties structure of AUX becoming (obligatorily?) the IP T°P head, with the - Subject remaining in SPEc(TI-AgrP). The interrogative multiple wh-words in the examples (19b,c) can be adjoined to the IP T° P . of the multiple wh-cluster mentioned below which make the adjunction to CP or the recursive CP less preferable. The multiple wh-words appear in embedded clauses as well (which is the position in this work stated as IP-adjunction, as in root . clauses. The embedded clauses are s-selected • i.e. .. the preferable (4a:IP-adj) variant). The example (19b) arguments of main clause verbs and an adjunction to may have a structure presented below as (20). The infinitival a s-selected argument is prohibited by either Chomsky's 56 55 (1986) restrictions on McCloskey's (1992) movement or Adjunction Prohibition. To take a multiple wh-element as followed by its subcategorised argument. Rozbil to eklo? Ano, rozbil. broke-he the glass? - yes, broke-he 'Did he break the glass? - Lit: Yes he broke.' (22) a result of a recursive CP projection, on the other hand, would not explain why the number of wh-elements is not limited to one i.e. why the pattern is iterative, and why at the same (22) makes Browne argue that while the ver in English demands time all the elements which indicate the presence of the comp all its selected arguments to be realised in the.S-structure:,: node preferably follow only the first wh-eloment. 14 Serbo-Croatian can have the arguments present in the ciepi 15 structure only: It is not clear to me how the author derives the possibility of conjoined wh-words from the aboVe 'state d , 2.4.3. characteristics of the verb: he probably assumes that ik the." ' Conjoined wh-words verb can represent the whole sentence' structure without' its A 'possible. counter-argument for the multi-constituent analysis of the fronted wh-words may be be found in conjoined structures as presented e.g. in the following (21), where the clitics AUX isi 'you are' and weak pronoun le 'them' follow both the wh-words. (21-23) show the Czech paraphrases of the arguments, then an argument can represent the whole structure without the verb as well. Then the conjoined .wh-words 4o not represent different kinds of constituents (where conjunction seems unlikely), but conjunction of the Whole clauses within one constituent. Serbo-Croatian examples given in Browne (1972) (21)(S-c:Browne,1972:223) kde videll JSI JE Kdy a when and where AUX them saw-you 'Where have you seen them when?' . Browne (1972) claims that the wh-words in English must be 'free' constituents, while in Serbo-Croatian they can be 'bound' parts of the sentence, i.e. each wh-word representing 16 With no further specification of the kind of conjunction involved, I accept Browne's analysis, assuming that the example (21) presents two conjoined .wh-words in SPEC(CP),. i.e. one constituent only, which is 'the first constituent' relevant for the 'the second position'; -Of the clitics. ' To see that the conjoined . structure is distinct from tli6 a constituent of a distinct (elliptically omitted) MWhQs which are discussed, in this Chapter, compare . .the interrogative clause. The author cites. Czech as having the position of the clitics isi and ie in (21) with the following same characteristics as Serbo-Croatian (Browne, 1972:226f). He (23). suggests 'the difference to be a result of the distinct 'distributional characteristics of the verb' which he demonstrates with the Serbo-Croatian equivalent of the following Czech example (22) where the Czech verb need not be 57 (23)(a) Xdy JSI JE kde (*JSI JE) videl? when AUX them where (*AUX them) saw-you 'When have you seen them where?' (b) * Kdy a JSI JE (a) kde videl? when and AUX them (and) when saw-you 58 . a 'particle' also when it appears at the beginning of Example (23a) presents non-conjoined wh-words, where the independent sentences, where it is interpreted as an an poSition of clitics is obligatory after the first wh-element. expressive element. In interrogative sentences the particle Given the second position' of the clitics for obligatory, the suggests their being a reaction to some previous context, and unacceptable (23b) shows that the presence of the overt it presumes some following response as well. The following conjunction a 'and' is enough for the one•constituent (26) shows an example of a sentence where ge 'that' replaces behaviour of the conjoined wh-words. The multi-constituent in fact the yes/no question structure. analysis appropriate for the wh-words in (23a) indicates that (26) the non-initial. whwords in such structures obligatorily to pfijde pozdeji? that will-come-he later '(Have you said/Does it mean) that he will come later? follow the clitics, which is. the main argument for preferring the (4a111, 77adj) analysis. Because of its position at the beginning of the sentence and close relation to the ge 'that' complementiser4 I will assume that the position of the 'particle' ge 'that' which Clitic affix and the particle ge 2.4.4.- appears on the interrogative wh-words is related (in (26) probably identical) to the original position of the neutral In the following example (24) two affixes are presented, complementiser ge 'that', i.e. Comp, which can be added to the wh-word fronted in the wh-question: an affix or particle ge 'that' in (24a) . and 2nd p/sg/pres AUX In HWhQ the particle ge can be added to any interrogative be -s 'are' in :(24b). (The particle and affix are written in word, but its standard, least marked position is always with capital letters in the following examples.) the first of them, as presented in the following (27a). Far : ti C62E Eligka tikala? whatTHAT to.-you Eligka said 'What did Eligka say to you?' (24) . worse is the result with more than one particle in one multiple question as shown in (27b,c) / to dal? to-whom're it gave-you !who did you give it to?' ' KomuS (25) (27) 'Who brought what to who?' (a) Coll; komu kdo ptinesl? what-that to-who who brought? The added particle ge 'that' makes the interrogative word 'expressive', and such ' expreSsive interrogatives are used mainly in colloquial speech.' ( Petr, 1986:95). 17 (b) ?? Co komu(E) kdo(tE) pfinesl? what to-who-(that) who(that) brought (c) * Co2E komu(2E) kdo(2E)? ptinesl? what-that to-who-(that) who(that) brought Because the - -function of connector is assumed in Czech to be obligatory for the definition of conjunction, . ge 'that' is taken for The structure (4a:IP-adj) with the first wh-word fronted 59 60 is obviously the most suitable for the position of the Consider also the other affix element co-occurring with affix-particle, since the complementiser is supposed the wh-words, which was introduced in (25). The -s 'are' affix immediately to follow the first wh-word. is a 2nd person/singular AUX be, a part of analytical past • The question remains, whether the . particle is occupying . tense or passive. This form of AUX be behaves as a clitic in the complementiser's position, or is added to the SPEC(CP) Czech. The following (29) shows that in a sequence of several position of the wh-word. The following (26a) shows that if the ciitics the AUX be is always the first, preceding .all- the first wh-word is separated with a parenthetiCal, the particle other clitics (all clitics are in capital letters). is acceptable only with the interrogative word. (29) (28)(a) Rdo(2E), ptala ae, (*2E) pkijde ptitTsti taiden? Who(that), asked-she, (*that) comes next week? 'Who, asked she, comes next week?' Vdera JSEM MU TO Oval do vlastnich rukou. yesterday am him it gave to his-own .hands 'I gave it yesterday to him, into his own hands`.' * Vdera MU JSEM TO daval / * Vdera MU TO JSEM daval yesterday him am it gave / Yesterday him it am gave (28b) on the other hand demonstrates that if the first The following example (30) presents the past AUX be wh-word. is fronted (to the matrix clause SPEC(CP)), the folloWing a complementiser of the embedded clause, which Shows- particle is possible even when the embedded clause is introduced by a 2g 'that' (28)(b) that the AUX follows the complementiser. complementiser. (30) Coft si myslela, 2E ji MikuIdA donese? what-that thought-she, that to-her M. will-bring 'What did she think that Mikulag will bring to her?' • Taking the particle for a complementiser, we would have another neutral 2e 'that', which would be rather unconventional. I present examples (28) as arguments for the position of ffe 'that' particle in SPEC(CP) position. The affix form on the wh-word may be a result of the prohibition on two phonetically realised items inside the CP projection, which otherwise. is observed in Czech, and which is claimed by Rudin (1988:494) as a characteristic of 'non-Multiple- -Wh-Fronting Languages', i.e. Czech. Tvrdila, to JSME MU TO nemeli daVat. claimed-she, that are-we him it not-haVe to give 'She claimed we should not have given it to him.' Tvrdila, JSME ( e) MU TO... claimed-she are-we (that) him it . to assume . for (28b) the structure where both lower SPEC(CP) and C were fronted, and then the lower C filled again with . In (31) the past AUX be is following the wh-Vord, showing that both the full form of AUXand affie AUX precede the other clitic to 'it' (31) TO potom m61(i) dat? Romu JSME / Xomu$ to-who are-we / to-who're it then should give 'Who were we (you) to give it to, then?' * Romu TO JSME / * Tomu TOS potom 44.t? to-who it ARE-we / to-who it're it then should give' (29),(30),and (31) indicate at the same time the position of the clitics as a right-adjunction to C (the adjuncts May be 'topicalised' in SPEC(CP) in (29) and (30)).18 61 affix in a MWhQ as Consider then the position (35)(a) Kdy (*TO) 2ES - TO komu (*TO) dal? what (*it) that're it to-who (*it) gave-you 'When did you give it to who?' Presented in (32). 'What did you give to who?' -(32) (b) 7 Kdy komu 2ES TO dal? what to-who that're it gave-you 'When did you give it to who?' .. . komu dal? CoS what're to-who gave-you co dal? 1omuS to-who're what gave-you? (a)' dal? (b) ?? Koisu COS to-who what're gave-you dal? 7? Co komuS what to-who're gave-you Recalling that the spelling is not normative in these colloquial forms, (35a) may be considered as a variant to (34), with both the ffe 'that' particle and the -s 'are' affix `Even : if the unacceptability of the ?? examples in (32b) is not fully comparable with the ungrammatical ones in (31), the added to the first wh-word, and (35b) as equiValent to (32b) or (27b,c). '' are' is, certainly preferred right after the first No matter how the relation of both the particle and AUX wh-word. In line with the assumed position of is 'that' affix to the SPEC(CR) position can be stated, the examples partible, I .suggest the -s ' are' affix to be •a part of the (34) and .( 35) strongly support the multi-constituent analysis SPEC(CP) as well. of the wh-words, since they require the C being in between the . There are, however, MWhQ's where both the affixes appear. first and the other wh-words. At the same time the examples In the following (33) three wh-words are presented, and in argue against a repeatedly recursive CP projection predicting (34) the clitic to it is inserted. Both (33) and (34) show sentences like J32b) or (27b,c) are acceptable. 19 the -s 'are° affix bound to the position assumed for C. (33) (34)*- dal? komu coS ?? Kdy2E when-that to-who what're gave-you 'When did you give what to who?' ( TO) dal? TO komuS Rdy2E what-that it to-who're (it) gave-you 'When did you give it to who?' .(34) May be presented as an argument of the verbal character 2.5. Wh extraction from the multiple wh-question In the above sections a number of arguments were presented showing the multi-constituent character of the multiple wh-words. Here some more are going to be added. If the wh-words in Czech do not form a single Of the AUX,!since the clitiC adjoined to C may require its • presence in C. However, the same sentence without any AUX will constituent; it could also be expected that if 'one of them are be correct, so I prefer the explanation requiring the AUX extracted, then the others may remain in the embedded clause. glitic.,to obey the clitic movement before it becomes realised The following (36) indicates that this seems to be correct. affix, which is not the case in (34). The acceptable (36a) shows one (either subject or object) wh-word fronted, of (33) and (34) are offered in (35), with both 2e and the sentence is more acceptable than (36b), which fronts both of them. (36c) on the other side supports. the 'that' and -s 'are' connected. 63 64 one-constituent analysis of conjoined wh-words. (36)(a) ( mu) bude pomahat? si myslia, to Kdo /komu 'Who/whom do think-you that (t )(him)will help (t o ) who /to-who s o you think (he) will help (him)?' bude pomahat? si mysliA, 2e ? Edo .komu who s to-who o think-you that (t s ) will help (to ) Lit:'Who whom do you think will help?' (b) (c) clause. Notice the position of the neutral 2e 'that° complementiser, which may be optionally inserted at. the beginning of the embedded multiple question. (38)(a) Kdo's fikal, (te) kdy (*te) pozve Mart/Skil? Who're-you said, (that) when (*that) invites Mary? Lit: 'Who did you say (that) when invites Mary?' In (38a) the only acceptable position of the optional 2e si mysli4, to (*a komu) bude ponAhat? Edo a komu who, and to-Who, think-you that (*and totwho o ) will help (t o ). Who do you think will help, and whom?' , 'that' complementiser is preceding the other wh-word." (38b) shows my suggested structure of (38a). In Lasnik and Saito (1984) the IP-analysis of the wh-words in Polish is based on examples of wh-words following a complementiser (37a) or a relative pronoun (37b). CP 3 b) K( d: 's fikal, [ t' sto [ IP ,:kdyA [ IP t s pzv Marugku t A ?: Who,Pre-you say, [ CP t'$ that[ I ' whe nA ( IP t s invites-Mary:t A .? Who do you say invites Mary when?' (37)(a)(Pol:L&S,1984:11) Polish: Czech: In*Rudin (1988) the languages that do not allow Janek mysli, [ s pte co Maria to co si janek * Marie si mysli, thinks that what Janek Maria 'What does Maria think that Janek kupil] koupil bought bought?' SpOtkales metdzyzne, * Potkal jai mute, the man you met Lit.: 'whoni did you Wh Island Constraint, since the lower SPEC(CP) is filled and' indexed with the first wh-word.. The (38b) analysis assumes-the' ( h)(Pol:1A5,1984:75) Polish: Czech: adjunction to SPEC(CP) at S-Structure, i.e. Czech, respect the ktOry i kogo 2 t l zabil t 2 zabil ktell koho killed who whom meet the man who killed t.?' As stated in Chapter 1, the Czech equivalents of the non-initial wh-word in an IP-adjoined'position and'•eavee the CP projection empty if no overt neutral Complementiser as preSent; this may be used to explain an apparent violation of the Wh Island ConStraint in Czech. Polish examples in (37) are ungrammatical, because in Czech either the matrix clause or the embedded clausal "compleMent must be overtly specified for the interrogative [+wh] feature, if the sentence is to be interpreted as a question. The post-complementiser position of the non-initial wh-word can, however, be observed in Czech in a non-fuliy As shown in Chapter 1 example (29), the presence of an. overt [+wh] complementiser makes any/ extraction imposeible. The following (39a) shows an acceptable embedded. MWhQ, and (39b) presents the unacceptable extraction of any of the wh-words from such a clause. standard long distance movement from a multiple question. The (39)(a) Ptam se, jestli kdy (*jestli) .komu co dal. ask-I whether whsh (*whether) to-whom what gave7ho. 'I ask, whether he gave what to whom when.° following example (38) presents a wh-extraction from a MWhQ, ( b) where the first wh-word is removed to the matrix clause * Rdy/komu/co se ptdm, jestli (kdy/komu/co) dal? when/to-whom/what ask-I whether (when/te-whom/what) gave-he. 'When/whom/what do I ask, whether he gave (whom/what/when)..1. SPEC(CP) and the non-initial wh-word remains in the embedded 65 . The subcategorisational frame of the matrix clause verb with the analyses of the multiple wh-elements claimed by their in (39) requires a [+wh] complement. If this [-1-wh] complement authors. Following Rudin (1988) three structures for the [+wh] complementiser, it 'Must precede (as shown in position of the wh-words were proposed: first, all the (.39a)) all the other wh-elements, and blocks the extraction of wh-words adjoined to SPEC(CP) (see the example (3'a) in 2.4.1 any of.them. The analysis assuming that the [+wh] features of above); second, only the first wh-word in SPEC(CP) and the the [+wh] •complementiser occupy the lower SPEC(CP), predicts others adjoined to SPEC(IP) (see the (41) below); and third, such results. the structure similar to the English multiple queStion, i.e. is . The.structure presented for the non-initial wh-words in (3a:SP(C)-adj) would explain the obligatory first position of With the first wh-word in SPEC(CP) and the others 'in situ' (see the example (4b') in 2.4.1 above). the [-i-wh] .complementiser only if it were placed in the Spec of. In section 2.3 the Wh Movement of all the interrogative _soma recUrsive!CP, and even then it would be necessary to wh-words was demonstrated as obligatory and resulting in state some rule which Would make the complementiser precede non-marked'` word-order, which is the main argument excluding all the . other wh-words adjoined to or in (some lower?) the (4b:in-situ). structure. Suggesting that the wh-elements SPEc(CP). consider also the position of clitics preceding the are inherently 'marked', the free constituent-order derived other wh-words, as presented in the following (40), which from the focus-topic sequence was stated as the motivating 'again disfavours the (3a:SP(C)-adj) analysis factor for the S-structure position of the wh-elements, together with the impossibility of placing more than one (40k Ptal se, jestli. MU TO kdy (*mU to) Eya slibila. asked he whether him it where (*him it) EVa promised 'He asked whether Eva had promised it to hiM when.' The structure (4a:IP7 ,.adj), with p..[+wh] compleMentiser as the fitst wh-element,' predictS the obligatory precedence of the•[+wh] complementiser. The clitics can be then adjoined to C in (40), preceding the non-initial wh-wordS, which are argued here to be adjoined to IP. element in the SPEC(CP) position. The arguments presented in section 2.3 can be summarised as follows: (i) The possibility of inserting a parenthetical clause supports taking the multiple wh-words as a multi-constituent structure; (ii) the interrogative (but not the 'indefinite/negative') wh-words in Czech obligatorily precede the Overt subject, and all non-echo wh-elements precede the finite main verb; and 2.6. Summary of Chapter 2 (iii) the ordering of the wh-elements is not strictly In section 2.2 several papers discussing multiple whqueStiens in Czech or other Slavic languages were reviewed, 67 definable but certain sequences seem to be preferred. In 2.4 the positions of clitics, the particle 68 ge 'that' -p 'are' supported the multi-constituent overt complementiser and Wh-word inside the CP projection, structure of the wh-words with the first of them being as well as the Oh Island Constraint which disallows extraction separable from the others, and with the Comp node being in of the wh-word from a CP projection containing the (-teah) between: The results were supported by the examples of the element. To decide whether the Comp Adjunction Constraint long-distance movement of the MWhQ presented in section 2.5. stated in Rudin .(1988:490) really applies and the affix -s Czech at .both. The arguments in the above sections indicate the proposed S-structure and PF, the possibility , of topicalised elements in (4a) structure as the most plausible structure of the Czech SPEC(CP) would have to be- investigated in more detail. As for MWhQ with multiple wh-words which are all interpreted as the wh-words, they are analysed here as not adjoiried to , interrogative. The (4a) scheme is repeated below as (41). SPEC(CP) before LF: Assuming, CP (41). hoWever, the LF movement of all the t SPEC(CP) wh-elements int o c' L&S conception, have only one index, the arbitrary Wh word IP IP sequence in the MWhQ's still presents a problem for the - proper IP WH 3 governMent of wh-traces in Czech: If both interrogative and WH 1 WH 2 the appropriate SPEC(CP), which can, in the indefinite/negative wh-words appear in A-bar:positiona, as is t i t 2 -t 3 claimed, at least for the tormer, in the above Chapter, the The 'multiple' wh-question with only one interrogative structure requires both external and internal arguments as element and the non-initial wh-words interpreted as well as adjuncts to be lexically governed in - Czech: indefinite/negative prpnouns have been argued to be distinct AlternativelY antecedent government must becothe acceptable 'fOr from the MWhQ. Some suggestions about the position of subject and adjuncts at PF or S-structure, which is basically indefinite/negative wh-words can be found in section 2.4.2 but the solution used in Rudin (1988) without a . proPerly detailed analysis. In . where the traces are lexically governed at. PF and A' bound within .their domain at 2.4.3 conjoined wh-words (with the obligatory LF. It is also possible to introduce some other concept of conjunction and) were mentioned, which represent one conjoined a governmentrelation between the verb and its complements' for constituent in SPEC(CP), i.e. are assumed to appear in the the free-constituent languages (see e.g: Stowell, .1981:124), position of the first interrogative element. which may change the above analysis since the (4b:in-situ) In the above sections also the following properties of structure has been so far excluded mainly because of the the Vh. Movement were illustrated: Czech obeys the 'marked' vs. 'unmarked' distinction, which is. not a reliable Doubly-Filled Comp Filter prohibiting the co-occurrence of an base for any evaluation. 69 70 structure with the first wh-word in SPEC(CP) and all the others adjoined to Comp, is claimed for Polish in Cichocki :(1983). Cichocki's analysis, however, puts the other;wh-words, on assumed position of the Czech clitics, ! which would contradict the obligatory ordering of the clitics and the optional Ordering of the following wh-words, as presented in the next 'section, As . well as the distinct character of clitics and wh-wOrds. NOTES TO•CHAPTER 2 Similar examples are presented e.g. for Polish and RusSian in 1 Wachowicz (1974); for Polish, Czech, and Toman (1982), and for Bulgarian, in Russian Serbo-Croatian, Polish, Czech, and Rumanian in Rudin (1988).. • Rudin mentions VP7adjunction as an alternative to IP-adjunction, trying to keep in line with Chomsky (1986), who 'disallows adjunction of Wh-phrases to IP, for reasons internal to his Barriers treatment of subjacency and related phenomena.' ( RUdin, 1988:489). For the formulation of the Empty Category Principle, which requires empty 'category (here wh-trace) to be Properly governed, Rudin uses the notions of 'lexical PF,' and i.e. head government at , gaVernment', a ''binding condition' requiring an A' anaphor to be _ A'-bound in its Domain at LF. The governing relations are assumed as m-commanding relations; and the Domain is'the ' first claUse (IP or CP) or NP which contains an accessible' c--commanding SUBJECT (R,1988:477). In Kuno and Robinson (1972) the distinctiOn between the minimal apprepriate answer is used as a diagnostic for a unique vs. multiple interrogative element in a given sentence. According to Jackendoff (1972) 'negation and wh are governed ., by essentially the same semantic rules' (Jackendoff, .1972:350) which for the author means they are both subject to his 'Modal projection rule' , (p.348) defining the scope of the element by the same modal operator. Whichever operator it may be, the LF position of all wh-elements would then be equal. However there is no reason to assume the same interrogative and position of both arbitrary-negative wh's at the S-structure as well. Comparably, when Jackendoff states that ' Negation must be'determined from the surface configuration' (Jackendoff, 1972:348) he mentions any (which seems to be a kind of equivalent to the arbitrary-negative wh's in , Czech) as an lexical item of some/any alteratien and only structurally dependent on neg. It appears within its scope, but the same position of the neg and any is in fact often excluded by his right-to-left condition, at least in English. Moreover RUdin's evaluation of the Czech examples is not always reliable. E.g. her example (19) showing a 'fully grammatical' long-distance Wh Movement in Czech is probably the only example which may pass even the standard grammar requirements. On the other hand, Rudin's example (27a) showing the impossibility Of Wh island violation in Czech would be excluded by the fact that.the fronted subject wh-word would be related to the0 dropped subject of the matrix clause. (See footnote' in the previous Chapter.) The latter example is, however, hard to evaluate properly, since the Czech sentence is not equivalent to . the English translation offered in Rudin's text. 4 The standard unmarked position of verbal arguments and sentential adjuncts in Czech can be stated as following the verb, i.e. on the left Side of VP, but their equally common, marked position is preceding the verb.! The multiple question Wh Movement may, then, be only some stylistic reordering which need not be reflected in syntax at all. If this were true, then there would be little reason to deal with MWhQ's in the way presented in this work. An apparently similar concept is presented also in Milner and Sternefpld (1993), who introduce TP with a head T (=topic). But the aUthors require the topicalised elements to be [-wh], therefore their TP is net a suitable landing site for the non-initial •wh-elements, even if topicalisation is dealt with as a phenomenon related to Wh Movement. 6 'According to Rudin (1988:485) such a two-constituent 71 10 The Polish postverbal position of the clitics.might be explained by the fact that the pronoun is 'stressed', as Wachowicz states (W,1974:294): Some pronouns in Czech have the weak and strong forms not unambiguously distinguishable. (E.g. 7//1/ 'her' (ACC/DAT) are the only available forms for the 3 ps pronoun ona 'she'.) Such pronouns could appear following a verb as well. 11 In Rivero (1991) a split IP for Czech is presented, containing TP(+AgrP?) AspP(Aux?) - NegP - VP. The author derives the IP structure from the obligatory ordering fnegV INF - Auxfin) in null-subject n affirmative root clapses. Rivero assumes that V' incorporates with Neg' and t4 whole cluster moves. (Long Head Movement) into C', skipping the Aux 72 generated'in AspP and risen into T ° . Rivero proposes this concept contrary to the ' traditional Slavic approaches... f ocusing on the A ux as a clitic' ( R, 16 The conjoined Wh-words are supposed to represent a kind of sentential ellipsis also according to Petr (1987:417), where the conjunction is explained as motivated by a similar form and the same subordinate , relation to the verb. Similar ellipsis does not seem to be excluded either for English, at least for_ the conjoined relative PP wh-proferms, as presented in e.g. Gazdar, Pullum, Sag, Wasow ,(1983). Moreover' as far as•I am aware, adjunct interrogative , words can be' conjoined in English As well. (e.g. °Wheh and where did you buy it?'), while conjoined argument Wh-words would also he much less acceptable in Czech. 17 The 'component' 2e 'that' may be written together with the interrogative word; or separately. The - same component 2e 'that' also forms a part of many compound conjunctions, often already inseparable. 1991:323). However, the LHM fails to apply 'if a item is generated in or moved to a slot preceding specCPP 'Wh-phrases, within CP (i.e. i.e. • Focus-phrases and pre-A ux subjects inhibit LHM (R, 1991:325f), and therefore Rivero's concept is not directly relevant to the topic of this work. I will present the Aux 'traditionally' as a clitic (since clitics are in this work shown to adjoin C, it makes no difference), with no stipulations about the position of the verb in null-subject affirmative clauses with V - Aux ordering. 12 For Slavic languages usually some kind of ModP is argued as a top IP (in e.g. Dimitrova-Vulchanova (1992). I would suggest such a ModP comprising some negative features as well because negation is usually eneugh, to replace the whole clausal structure in question tags and similar constructions in Czech, because in negative clauses both subject and verb are negated, i.e. they may be suggested to be both dominated by a potential NegP, and also because of the indefinite/negative interpretation of the following wh-words in multiple wh-questions, as mentioned above. Any precise definition would, however, demand more detailed study than can be and now. Therefore I am going to use the offered he withoUt any specification. For ARGP and marking IP TP (as offered in Rivera (1991), Dimitrovova-Vulchanova (1992), and as follows from requirements on null-subject languages presented in Jaeggli and Safir (1989:33), a one-node representation is used here. 13 In .case of one functional head barrier, i.e. when e.g an AUX verb does not raise to C and AgrP remains opaque, Haverkort (1993:39-47) explains the movement of a clitic out from AgrP as a result of a vacuous movement of the whole AgrP into the lower transparent SpecTP position. Using the concept of specifier-head agreement presented in Barriers, the vacuous movement renders AgrP transparent. 14 ' Contrary the wh-words, the multiple to characteristics which indicate the CP recursion or CP adjunction may be found with many focused elements, as presented e.g. for Welsh fronted constructions in Tallerman (1993). 15 Recall also a similar suggestion in Chapter 1, where the Czech verbs were claimed to have 'vague' subcategorisational frames when compared with English; such an ambiguity has been .stated as a possible explanation for their limited use in the 'bridge structures'. 73 18 In Rivero's (1991) concept taking the AUX bV't. 'be': for a non-clitic element, (30) may present the clitics. mu 'him' and to 'it' adjoined to some INFL fi lctional head, which may be evidenced by - -the position of the subject in the paraphrased (30):below, 'She claimed we should not have given it:to Tvrdila, ie my JSME (*my). MU TO (?my) claimed-she, that we are-me (*we) him it (?we) nemeli davat. not-have to give and also by the unacceptable (33): and (34). For the ordering of the wh-words,, clitics, and the AUX,:this difference is not crucial, and I leaVe the status of the AUX open. 19 However, both the particle 2e 'that' and the affix -s 'are' are not fully. standard .,. Neither. are the multiple wh-questions with :More than two interrogative words common or especially salient. 'To combine all these factors and then . -- evaluate the acceptability of the results, is often controversial. Therefore this section could not stand as an independent argument and its being a part of some broader context seems inevitable. And the, fully applies for the following section, because also no long distance Wh movement is standard in Czech. 20 The presence of the Le 'that' complementiser introducing the embedded clause in the sentences like (381 substantially supports the analysis of the first wh-word in the matrix clause SPEC(CP) as moved frop the embedded clause, which is relevant.espeolally with the adjunct wh-words (see also foothote in Chapter 1).. 74 . . Emonds, T.E. (1976) A Transformational Approach to English Syntax, Academic Press, Inc. Bibliography Emonds, J.E . (1978) 'The Verbal Complex V'-V. in French', Linguis tic Inquiry 9, (151-175. Clitics, 'Wackernagel's Revenge: S.R. (1993) Anderson, Morphology, and the Syntax of Second Po6ition', Language 69, 68-98. Emonds, J.E. (1985) A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories, Faris, Dordrecht. AnYadi, S. and Tamrazian, A. (1993) 'Wh Movement in Armenian and Ruhr German!, in UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 5, Dpt. of Phonetics and Linguistics, University College LOndon. Firbas, J. (1992) Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication, Cambridge University Press. Sag, I.A., Wasow, T. (1483) Gazdar, G., Pullum, G.K., 'Coordination and Transformational Grammar', Linguistic Inquiry 14, 663-676. Bach, E. (1971) 'Questions', Linguistic Inquiry 2, 153 166. - Baker, C.L. (1970) 'Notes on the Description of English Questions . ; The ROle of an Abstract Question Morpheme', Foundation of Language 6,197-219. . _ Banfield, A. (19.73) 'Narrative Style and the Grammar of Direct and. Indirect Speech', Foundations of Language 10, 1-39. • Bolinger, D.L: (1978) 'Asking More Than One Thing at a Time' in Hiz, H., ed., Questions. Reidel, Dordrecht, 107-150. Green, G. M. (1989) Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Inc. Grimshaw, T.(1979) 'Complement Selection and the Lexibon', Linguistic Inquiry 10, 279-326. Haegeman, L..(1991) Government & Binding Theory, Blackwell. , Haverkort, M. (1993) Clitics and Parametrization. Case Studies in the Interaction of Head Movement. Phenomena, EUROTYP (8) Working Paper VIII, 2. Borer, H. (1985) 'Anaphoric AGR', in Jaeggli, O., and Safir K.a., eds., The Null Sublect Parameter, Kluwer Academic 'Publishers 1989, 69-109. Jackendoff, R. (1972) Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT. Press. 'Bouchard,' D. (1984) On the Content of Empty Categories', Foris :Publications, Studies'in Generative Grammar, Dordrecht. Bresnan, J.W. (1970) 'On Complementizers: Toward a Syntactic Theory of Complement Types', Foundations of Language 6, 297-321. . Kayne, R.S. (1980) 'Extensions of Binding and Case-Marking', Linguistic Inquiry 11, 74-96. Kuno, S. and Robinson, 3.3. (1972) 'Multiple Wh Questions', Linguistic Inquiry 3, 463-487. Brody, M. (1991) 'Economy, Earliness and LF-based Syntax', in UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 3, Dpt. of Phonetics . and Linguistics, University College London, 25-32. Lasnik, H. & Saito, M. (1984) '01 -1 the Nature of Proper Government', Linguistic Inquiry 15, (235-289. E.W.III BroWne . „ 'Conjoined (1972) Question a Limitation on English Surface Structures' Inquiry 3, 223-226. Words and Linguistic Lenerz, J. (1985) 'Diachronic Syntax: Verb . Position and COMP in German', in Taman, J., ed., Studies in German Grammar, Foris Publications, Dordrecht, 103-133. Chomsky, N, _(1977) 'On WH Movement', in Culicover, P.W., Wasow, • T., and Akmajian, 'eds., Formal Syntax. `Academic Press, 71-132. Muller, G. and Sternefeld, W. (1993) 'Improper movement and unambiguous binding', Linguistic Inquiry 24, 461-507. chomskyi . N. (1981) Lectures o Government and Bindin Foris publications, Dordrecht. Pollock, 3.-Y. (1989) 'Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP', Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365-424. Chomsky, N. (1986) Barriers, MIT Press. Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M. (1992) .' Clitics in 'EUROTYP (8) Working Papers, Volume 4, 1-50. Petr, J. and col. (1986/1987) Mluvnice destiny II, III (Czech Grammar), Academia, Praha. SlaVic't in Riemsdijk & Williams (1986) Introduction to the Theory of Grammar, MIT Press. 75 76 (1991) 'Long Head Rivero, M.L. Movement and Negation: Serbo-Croatian vs. Slovak and Czech', The Linguistic Review 8, 319-351. . Radford, A. (1981) Transformational Syntax, CUP 1985. Radford, A. (1988) Transformational Grammar, CUP. Reinhart, T. (1981) 'A Second COMP Position', in Belletti, Brandi, and Rizzi, eds., Theory ot Markedness in Generative Grammar (GLOW 1979), Scuola Normale di Pisa: Pisa, 517-558. Rizzi, L. (1978) 'Nominative Marking in Italian Infinitives and the Nominative Island Constraint', in Heny, F., ed., Binding and Filtering, Croon Helm Ltd, London, 1981, 129-157. Rizzi, L. (1991) 'Residual Verb Second and the Wh-Criterion', Technical Reports in Formal and Computational Linguistics 2, Faculte des Lettres, Universite de Geneve. Rudin, C. (1988) 'On Multiple Questions and Multiple Wh Fronting', Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 445-;501. Stowell, T. (1981) Origins of Phrase Structure, unpublished MIT dissertation. Tallerman, M. (1993) Fronting Constructions in Welsh; paper - presented in LAGB Autumn Meeting, Bangor, Sept. 1993. Toman, J. (1982) 'Aspects of Multiple wh-movement in Polish and Czech', in May, R. and Koster, J., eds., Levels of Syntactic Representation, Foris, Dordrecht, 293-302. Toman, J. (1991) 'Anaphors in binary trees: an analysis of Czech reflexives', in Koster, J. and Reuland, E., eds., Long-distance anaphora, CUP. Toman, J. (1992) 'A Note on Clitics and Prosody', EUROTYP (8) working Papers, Volume 4, 113-118. Wachowicz, K.A. (1974) 'Against the Universality of a Single Wh-Question Movement', Foundations of Language 11, 155-166. Wachowicz, K.A. (1978): 'Q-Morpheme HyPotheSis'i in Hiz, ed., Questions, Reidel, DordreCht, 151-164. 77