(1) | The scope of a wh- phrase in a question is determined with respect
to some full answer to the question.
The wh- phrase's scope in the question is the IP that corresponds to the root node in the full answer. |
In (2), the wh- phrases are highlighted in red, and their scope is indicated by underlining.1
(2) | a. | Question: | Wheni did | [IP the visitors arrive ti ] ? | |
Full answer: | [IP The visitors arrived at noon. ] | ||||
b. | Question: | Whoi do | [IP the parents think that the children saw ti ] ? | ||
Full answer: | [IPThe parents think that the children saw the teacher. ] |
It is useful to think of the wh- phrases in (2) as marking
their scope in the sense that they move from inside their scope to the
edge of it. In structural terms, a wh- phrase moves to the specifier of
the lowest projection that dominates its scope. We will refer to this
position as the wh- phrase's scope-marking position or
scope position.
Wh- in situ
In English, wh- phrases generally come to occupy their scope position by
wh- movement. In other languages, however, wh- phrases do not undergo
wh- movement, but instead remain in situ (that is, in the
position where the wh- phrase enters the derivation of the question,
whether by substitution or adjunction). Such wh- in situ
languages include Chinese, Hindi, Korean, and Japanese, among many
others. (3) gives the Japanese counterparts of (2).2
Once again, the wh- phrases are highlighted in red, and their scope
indicated by underlining. As is evident, a wh- phrase in a wh- in situ
language is contained within its scope, rather than moving to the edge
of it. (We assume that the question marker -ka is the overt
counterpart to the silent complementizer that we have been assuming for
English questions; this is why it is represented outside of the IP, in
the clause-final position that is expected given the head-final
character of Japanese phrase structure.)
The abbreviations used in the glosses are: acc(usative), loc(ative), nom(inative), pl(ural), pres(ent tense), que(stion), top(ic). |
(3) | a. | Question: | [IP kengakusha-wa itsu tsuki- mashita- ] ka ? visitor top when arrive past que 'When did the visitors arrive?' | |
Full answer: | [IP kengakusha-wa hiru-ni tsuki- mashita ] . visitor top noon at arrive past 'The visitors arrived at noon.' | |||
b. | Question: | [IP ryoshin-wa kodomo-tachi-ga dare-o mi- ta to omoi- masu- ] ka ? parents top child pl nom who acc see past that think pres que 'Who do the parents think that the children saw?' | ||
Full answer: | [IP ryoshin-wa kodomo-tachi-ga sensei- o mi- ta to omoi- masu ] . parents top child pl nom teacher acc see past that think pres 'The parents think that the children saw the teacher.' |
(4) | a. | [CP Which movie did
[IP the children watch
| |
b. | The parents asked [CP which movie [IP the children watched
| ||
(5) | a. | [CP | |
b. | ryoshin-wa [CP |
For convenience, we will continue to use the terms 'wh- movement' and 'wh- in situ' to refer to languages, questions, and so on, in which the highest and lowest copies of a wh- phrase are pronounced, respectively. |
Independent evidence in favor of the copy theory of movement comes from the judgments of speakers of certain languages who do not allow ordinary long-distance movement. For instance, there are speakers of German who reject the examples in (6), while accepting the corresponding wh- copy questions in (7).
(6) | a. | % | Wen denken die Besucher, dass sie gesehen haben? who-acc think the visitors that they seen have 'Who do the visitors think that they saw?' |
b. | % | Wen denkst du, dass Martin meint, dass du magst? who-acc think you that believes that you like 'Who do you think that Martin believes that you like?' | |
(7) | a. | Wen denken die Besucher, wen sie gesehen haben? who-acc think the visitors who-acc they seen have same as (6a) | |
b. | Wen denkst du, wen Martin meint, wen du magst? who-acc think you who-acc believes who-acc you like same as (6b) |
The overt repetition of the wh- phrase in (7) lends strong support to the idea that wh- phrases move through Spec(CP) in long-distance movement. In addition, it supports the idea that grammars can differ as to which copies of movement are pronounced. (8) and (9) give isomorphic structures for (6) and (7), which differ only in which links are pronounced: only the highest one in ordinary long-distance wh- movement, or all links except the lowest in the coresponding wh- copy questions. ø indicates the silent counterpart of the complementizer dass 'that'; like modern standard English, the varieties of German under discussion allow either Spec(CP) or C, but not both, to be filled with overt material in subordinate clauses.
(8) | a. | [CP Wen denken die Besucher, [CP | |||||
b. | [CP Wen denken die Besucher, [CP wen ø sie | ||||||
(9) | a. | [CP Wen denkst du, [CP |
(10) | a. | Was denken die Besucher, wen ø sie | |
b. | Was denken die Besucher, mit wem ø sie |
For comparison, (11) shows the full wh- movement counterparts of (10), where the wh- phrase functions as a scope marker on its own.5
(11) | a. | Wen denken die Besucher, | |
b. | Mit wem denken die Besucher, |
The scope of the wh- phrase needs to be indicated in one of the two ways just presented. The absence of scope marking results in severe ungrammaticality, as shown in (12).
(12) | a. | * | Denken die Besucher, wen ø sie |
b. | * | Denken die Besucher, mit wem ø sie |
The scope-marking wh- phrase in (10) is often called a wh- expletive. The idea is that the relationship between it and the true wh- phrase is comparable to the relationship between the expletive subject and the logical subject in the expletive there construction. In that construction, the logical subject occupies a VP-internal position marking its function as an argument of a verb (we will remain agnostic about the exact location of the position), and expletive there occupies Spec(IP), marking the subject's function as the subject of predication. It is this higher position that the logical subject occupies in an ordinary sentence without expletive there. As (13) shows, the higher position cannot be left empty.
(13) | a. | There | remain | several vexing problems. | - analogous to (10) | |
b. | Several vexing problems | remain | - analogous to (11) | |||
c. | * | Remain | several vexing problems. | - analogous to (12) |
The analysis of partial wh- movement that we will propose relies on the copy theory of the movement as well as on the idea that the elements that the syntax manipulates are not words per se, but rather features or bundles of features that are spelled out by the morphology. This idea was introduced in earlier chapters in connection with possessive marking on pronouns and tense marking on verbs in English.
Features | Spellout | ||||
(14) | a. | [person: 3] [number: sing] [gender: masc] [case: poss] | → | his | |
b. | [root: sing] [tense: past] | → | sang |
In the present case, let us assume that wh- phrases consist of a wh- feature and some remaining substantive content. This syntactic dichotomy corresponds semantically to a so-called wh- quantifier (which takes scope over some proposition) and a restriction on the quantifier. For instance, if the wh- quantifier is restricted to humans, the bundle consisting of the features [wh: +] and [human: +] is spelled out as who. Otherwise, the wh- quantifier is spelled out by default as what. In ordinary wh- movement, the wh- feature and the features that are associated with it in its in-situ position always move together. In partial wh- movement, however, the feature bundle moves only as far as the next highest Spec(CP). After that, the wh- feature moves on alone. When the sentence is spelled out, lone wh- features are spelled out as the language's default wh- word. Under this analysis, partial wh- movement is partial in two distinct (though related) senses. First, the true wh- phrase moves only part of the way to its scope position. Second, the wh- phrase in the scope position contains only part of the features of the true wh- phrase. The derivations that we are proposing for the partial movement in (10a) and its full movement counterpart in (11a) are indicated schematically in (15).
(15) | a. | [wh: +] | denken die Besucher, | [wh: +] [human: +] | ø | sie | [ [ | gesehen haben? | |
b. | [wh: +] [human: +] | denken die Besucher, | [ [ | dass | sie | [ [ | gesehen haben? |
In instances of partial wh- movement with more than two clauses, the true wh- phrase can move to the lowest Spec(CP) or to the intermediate one. The two options are shown in (16a,b). (16c) gives the variant with full wh- movement by way of comparison. For simplicity, we show the questions after the features have been spelled out.
(16) | a. | [CP Was denkst du, [CP was ø Martin meint, [CP wen ø du | |
b. | [CP Was denkst du, [CP wen ø Martin meint, [CP | ||
c. | [CP Wen denkst du, [CP |
Although adult English does not exhibit wh- copy questions or partial wh- movement, both types of questions have been reported for child English (Thornton 1995:187), as illustrated in (17) and (18).
(17) | a. | Who do think who Grover wants to hug? | |
b. | Who do you think who's in there, really, really, really? | ||
(18) | a. | What do you think what Cookie Monster eats? | |
b. | What do you think what the baby drinks? |
The availability of partial wh- movement in child English raises a subtle issue. We have been assuming that the various constructions that we have been discussing (ordinary long-distance wh- movement, wh- copy questions, and partial wh- movement) are generated by grammars that are parametrically slightly distinct. But the fact that wh- copy questions and partial wh- movement occur in acquisition suggests the possibility that these variants aren't generated by separate grammars, but that they reflect a failure to properly implement structures that are generated by the adult standard grammar. We know that speakers make performance errors under taxing conditions, and long-distance wh- movement imposes a greater processing load than does local wh- movement, especially for speakers with immature cognitive resources. Under this latter view, wh- copy questions and partial wh- movement are comparable to the restart questions that we mentioned in Chapter 1.
(19) | Is the boy who was holding the plate, is he crying? |
As it turns out, both views are correct - for different speakers
(Crain and Thornton 1998:196-198). Some
children produce wh- copy questions and partial wh- movement only rarely
and under special conditions (for instance, at the beginning of an
experimental session, when they are more nervous than later on). For
such children, it is reasonable to assume that the nonadult questions
are in fact performance errors. But other children produce the nonadult
questions consistently and independently of various factors that favor
performance errors (such as beginning of session, young age, and
distance between the scope position and the in-situ position, whether
measured in terms of numbers of words or number of intervening clauses).
For such children, it is reasonable to assume that the nonadult
questions are generated by grammars that are parametric options of
Universal Grammar, although they happen not to be the grammars in use in
the child's language community. Analogous reasoning of course extends
to adult usage, leading us to assign a different status to the one-time
production of a wh- copy question by a highly embarrassed English
speaker than to the consistent production of such questions by an entire
speech community.
A final note is in order. Even if it had turned out that wh- copy
questions and partial wh- movement were performance errors every time
they occurred for all speakers, these phenomena would still provide
insight into the speakers' underlying grammars. The reason is that even
indubitable performance errors respect the structures generated by the
grammar and therefore provide evidence concerning them.6 The canonical example is slips of the
tongue, like the classic examples in (20). Such errors provide clear
evidence that syllables consist of onsets and rhymes (as indicated by
hyphenation), since they involve switching onsets.
(20) | You have h-issed all my m-ystery lectures ... in fact, you have t-asted the whole w-orm. |
Speech errors like the hypothetical example in (21), though conceivable in principle, never occur because they do not respect syllable structure.
(21) | * | ... in fact, you have ter-sted the whole wa-me. |
Analogously, there are hypothetical errors concerning wh- movement that are attested in neither child English nor German. For instance, the examples in (22) involve pronouncing copies of the wh- phrase right after each subject.
(22) | a. | * | Do [IP you what think that [IP Cookie Monster what
likes ] ] intended meaning: 'What do you think that Cookie Monster likes?' |
b. | * | Glauben [IP die Besucher wen, dass [IP sie wen gesehen haben ] ] think the visitors who-acc that they who-acc seen have intended meaning: 'Who do the visitors think that they saw?' |
Given the absence of such "crazy" errors, we can conclude that wh-
copy questions and partial wh- movement provide evidence for cyclic wh-
movement to Spec(CP), parametric variation concerning the spellout of
traces, and the existence of syntactic features - completely
independently of whether these constructions are performance errors.
Where to move?
Hungarian questions
(23) gives a Hungarian sentence with so-called neutral order.
(23) | Emöke látta Attilá-t tegnap este. saw acc yesterday evening 'Emöke saw Attila last night.' |
In such neutral sentences, which are felicitous as answers to the question What happened?, the subject occupies clause-initial position and precedes the verb. By contrast, in wh- questions like (24), the clause-initial position is occupied by the wh- phrase, and the subject follows the finite verb.
(24) | a. | Ki -t látott Emöke tegnap este? who acc saw yesterday evening 'Who(m) did Emöke see last night?' | |
b. | Mikor látta Emöke Attilá-t? when saw acc 'When did Emöke see Attila?' |
It is noteworthy that answers to such questions preserve the constituent order of the question when the answer is intended as an exhaustive answer to the question. In fact, under such an interpretation, the variant without subject-verb inversion is ungrammatical.
(25) | a. | Attilá-t látta Emöke tegnap este. acc saw yesterday evening 'Emöke saw Attila (and no one else) last night.' | |
b. | Tegnap este látta Emöke Attilá-t. yesterday evening saw acc 'Emöke saw Attila last night (and only then).' | ||
(26) | a. | * | Attilá-t Emöke látta tegnap este. |
b. | * | Tegnap este Emöke látta Attilá-t. |
As expected if focused phrases (including questioned phrases) move to the same syntactic position, questions with focused constituents are ungrammatical in Hungarian.
(27) | a. | * | Ki -t tegnap este látta Emöke? who acc yesterday evening saw 'Who(m) did Emöke see last night?' |
b. | * | Mikor Attilá-t látta Emöke? when acc saw 'When did Emöke see Attila?' |
The constituent order in (24) and (25) is reminiscent of English questions), and so it is natural to propose that focused phrases move to Spec(CP) in Hungarian, with concomitant movement of the verb to C. But contrary to what that proposal predicts, the complementizer hogy 'that' precedes the wh-/focus position in various types of subordinate clauses: in ordinary complement clauses with a focused constituent, in indirect yes/no questions with a focused constituent, and in indirect wh- questions. (Hungarian is a so-called null subject language, so the subjects of finite clauses can be silent, as they are in the matrix clauses in the following examples.)
(28) | a. | Azt mondják, hogy Attilá-t látta Emöke tegnap este. it say-3pl that acc saw yesterday evening 'They say (it) that Emöke saw (only) Attila last night.' | |
b. | Azt mondják, hogy tegnap este látta Emöke Attilá-t. it say-3pl that yesterday evening saw acc 'They say (it) that Emöke saw Attila last night (only).' | ||
(29) | a. | Azt kérdeztük, hogy Attilá-t látta-e Emöke tegnap este. it asked-1pl that acc saw que yesterday evening 'We asked (it) whether Emöke saw (only) Attila last night.' | |
b. | Azt kérdeztük, hogy tegnap este látta-e Emöke Attilá-t. it asked-1pl that yesterday evening saw que acc 'We asked (it) whether Emöke saw Attila last night (only).' | ||
(30) | a. | Azt kérdeztük, hogy ki -t látott Emöke tegnap este. it asked-1pl that who acc saw yesterday evening 'We asked (it) who(m) Emöke saw last night.' | |
b. | Azt kérdeztük, hogy mikor látta Emöke Attilá-t. it asked-1pl that when saw acc 'We asked (it) when Emöke saw Attila.' |
The examples in (28)-(30) clearly show that the target of focus movement in Hungarian cannot be Spec(CP), but rather must be some lower position. Accordingly, it has been proposed that the clausal structure of Hungarian is as indicated schematically in (31).
(31) | [CP [C hogy [FocP Focus [FocVerb]
[IP Subject ... |
It is worth noting that the facts presented above are also
consistent with an alternative structure in which FocP and IP in (31) are
replaced by IP and VP, respectively. Under this alternative, Spec(IP)
would not be the position for subjects, as it is in English, but rather
the position for wh- and focused constituents. The canonical position
for subjects would be Spec(VP), and nominative case would be checked by
finite I in the head-spec configuration, as it clearly is in Welsh and
Irish.
In addition to Spec(FocP), wh- movement can also target Spec(CP) in
Hungarian - namely, in relative clauses. We can't tell this directly
since relative pronouns, as in English, can't co-occur with the
complementizer.
Hungarian relative clauses
(32) | a. | a férfi aki-t (*hogy) Emöke látott tegnap este the man who acc that saw yesterday evening 'the man who(m) Emöke saw last night' | |
b. | a nap amikor (*hogy) Emöke látta Attilá-t the day when that saw acc 'the day when Emöke saw Attila' |
However, focus movement is possible in relative clauses (though not in questions - recall the ungrammaticality of (27)). This is as expected if relative pronouns move to a position distinct from Spec(FocP).
(33) | a. | a férfi aki-t tegnap este látott Emöke the man who acc yesterday evening saw 'the man who(m) Emöke saw last night (only) | |
b. | a nap amikor Attilá-t látta Emöke the day when acc saw 'the day when Emöke saw (only) Attila' |
2. As noted in Chapter 7, Note 3, topic -wa marking overrides
nominative -ga marking in Japanese matrix clauses. For
simplicity, we give matrix clauses here, since case marking is not at
issue.
3. Even languages that
ordinarily require wh- movement allow wh- in situ under certain
circumstances. For instance, English echo questions commonly
exhibit wh- in situ (see Information versus echo questions for examples), and
all but one wh- phrase is required to remain in situ in English multiple
wh- questions like (i).
(i) | a. | Who | ||
b. | * | Who what |
4. A classic reference for
partial wh- movement is McDaniel 1989, which
discusses the phenomenon in German and Romani. Lutz
et al. 2000 is a collection of papers providing a cross-linguistic
survey of partial wh- movement and wh- scope marking more generally.
5. As we noted in the previous
section, not all German speakers accept long-distance wh- movement as
in (6).
6. Performance errors also
provide insight into the structure of various cognitive domains other
than language. For instance, if an instructor misremembers the names of
Jeannine and Mark as Jennifer and Michael, that tells us that names are
organized in her memory by first letter. Another person might
misremember Jeannine as Evelyn because Jeannine resembles Evelyn; for
such a person, names would be organized by facial similarity.
Exercises and problems
Exercise 13.1
Given what you know about wh- movement, which (if any) of the following
sentences are expected to be grammatical in Hungarian?
(1) | a. | Relative out of question: | a férfi aki-nek kérdezik, hogy mi -t mondott Emöke the man who dat asked-3pl that what acc told 'the man such that they asked what Emöke told him' | |
b. | a titok ami -t kérdezték, hogy ki -nek mondta Emöke the secret which acc asked-3pl that who dat told 'the secret such that they asked to whom Emöke told it' | |||
(2) | Relative out of relative: | a férfi aki-t Emöke hívta a nöt aki ismeri the man who acc called the woman who knows 'the man such that Emöke called the woman who knows him' | ||
(3) | Question out of relative: | Ki- t hívott Attila a nöt aki ismer? who acc called the woman who knows 'Who is the person such that Attila called the woman who knows that person?' | ||
(4) | a. | Question out of question: | Ki- nek kérdezik, hogy mi- t mondott Emöke? who dat asked-3pl that what acc told 'Who is the person such they asked what Emöke told that person?' | |
b. | Mi- t kérdezték, hogy aki-nek mondta Emöke? what acc asked-3pl that who dat told 'What is it such that they asked to whom Emöke told it?' |