Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 1105–1143 | Cite as

Wh-Fronting in a two-probe system

Article

Abstract

Prior work on wh-movement has distinguished among several types of wh-fronting languages that permit distinct patterns of overt and covert movement, instantiated for example by the Slavic languages, English, and German. This paper extends the cross-linguistic typology of multiple questions by arguing that Hebrew instantiates a new kind of wh-fronting language, unlike any that are discussed in the current literature. It will show that Hebrew distinguishes between two kinds of interrogative phrases: those that are headed by a wh-word (wh-headed phrases: what, who, [DPwhich X], where, how…) and those that contain a wh-word but are headed by some other element (wh-containing phrases: [NP N of wh], [PP P wh]). We observe the special status of wh-headed phrases when one occurs structurally lower in a question than a wh-containing phrase. In that case, the wh-headed phrase can be targeted by an Agree/Attract operation that ignores the presence of the c-commanding wh-containing phrase. The paper develops an account of the sensitivity of interrogative probing operations to the head of the interrogative phrase within Cable’s (2010) Q-particle theory. It proposes that the Hebrew Q has an EPP feature which can trigger head-movement of wh to Q and that a wh-probe exists alongside the more familiar Q-probe, and shows how these two modifications to the theory can account for the intricate dataset that emerges from the paper. The emerging picture is one in which interrogative probing does not occur wholesale but rather can be sensitive to particular interrogative features on potential goals.

Keywords

Wh-movement Q-particles Superiority Probe-goal relations 

References

  1. Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. Google Scholar
  2. Adger, David. 2007. A minimalist theory of feature structure. In Features, eds. Anna Kibort and Greville G. Corbett. London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  3. Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 673–711. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435–483. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14: 1–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belletti, Adriana, and Ur Shlonsky. 1995. The order of verbal complements: a comparative study. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 489–526. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhatt, Rajesh. 2005. Long distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23(4): 757–807. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borer, Hagit. 1995. The ups and downs of Hebrew verb movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 527–606. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cable, Seth. 2007. The grammar of Q: Q-particles and the nature of wh-fronting, as revealed by the wh questions of Tlingit. Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. Google Scholar
  10. Cable, Seth. 2010. The grammar of Q: Q-particles, Wh-movement and pied-piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Citko, Barbara. 2008. Missing labels. Lingua 118: 907–944. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A festschrift for Morris Halle, eds. Stephen Anderson and Paul Kiparsky. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, Noam. 1998. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15. Google Scholar
  15. Chomsky, Noam. 1999. Derivation by phase. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18. Google Scholar
  16. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Step by step: essays on minimalist syntax in honour of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin et al. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  17. Danon, Gabi. 2001. Syntactic definiteness in the grammar of Modern Hebrew. Linguistics 39(6): 1071–1116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dayal, Veneeta. 2002. Single-pair vs. multiple-pair answers: Wh in-situ and scope. Linguistic Inquiry 33(3): 512–520. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Falk, Yehuda. 1991. Case: abstract and morphological. Linguistics 29: 197–230. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fanselow, Gisbert. 1998. Minimal Link effects in German (and other languages). Paper presented at the 1998 MLC conference, Potsdam. Google Scholar
  21. Fanselow, Gisbert. 2004. The MLC and derivational economy. In The Minimal Link Condition, eds. Arthur Stepanov, Gisbert Fanselow, and Ralf Vogel, 73–124. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  22. Fanselow, Gisbert, Denisa Lenertovà, and Thomas Weskott. 2008. Studies on the acceptability of object movement to Spec, CP. In The discourse potential of underspecified structures, ed. Anita Steube, 413–437. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  23. Featherston, Sam. 2005. Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax: some wh-constraints in German. Lingua 115: 1525–1550. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  25. Fox, Danny. 2011. Towards an alternative perspective on superiority. Ms., handout for 24.952: Advanced Syntax, Spring semester 2011, MIT. Google Scholar
  26. Golan, Yael. 1993. Node crossing economy, superiority and D-linking. Ms., Tel-Aviv University. Google Scholar
  27. Grimshaw, Jane. 2005. Extended projection. In Words and structure, ed. Jane Grimshaw, 1–73. Stanford: CSLI. Originally circulated as a manuscript in 1991. Google Scholar
  28. Hagstrom, Paul. 1998. Decomposing questions. Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. Google Scholar
  29. Hamblin, Charles Leonard. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10(1): 41–53. Google Scholar
  30. Hornstein, Norbert, and Amy Weinberg. 1990. The necessity of LF. The Linguistic Review 7(2): 129–167. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Karttunen, Lauri. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(1): 3–44. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keine, Stefan, and Gereon Müller. 2011. Non zero/non-zero alternations in differential object marking. In Proceedings of NELS 39, eds. Suzi Lima, Kevin Mullin, and Brian Smith, Vol. 2, 441–454. Google Scholar
  33. Kishimoto, Hideki. 2005. Wh-in-situ and movement in Sinhala questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 1–51. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. É. Kiss, Katalin 1986. Against the LF-movement of WH-phrases. Ms, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest. Google Scholar
  35. Kuno, Susumu, and Jane J. Robinson. 1972. Multiple Wh questions. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 463–487. Google Scholar
  36. Landau, Idan. 1994. Dative shift and extended VP-shells. Tel-Aviv University thesis. Google Scholar
  37. Manzini, Maria-Rita. 1992. Locality. Vol. 19 of Linguistic Inquiry monograph series. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  38. McCloskey, James. 1990. Resumptive pronouns, A′-binding and levels of representation in Irish. In Syntax of the Modern Celtic languages, ed. Randall Hendrick. Vol. 23 of Syntax and semantics, 199–248. San Diego: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  39. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2001. EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In Ken Hale: a life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  40. Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2010. Why agree? Why move? Unifying agreement-based and discourse configurational languages. Vol. 54 of Linguistic inquiry monograph. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  41. Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: movement and unselective binding. In The representation of (in)definiteness, eds. Eric Reuland and Alice ter Meulen. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  42. Pesetsky, David. 1998. Principles of sentence pronunciation. In Is the best good enough? eds. Pilar Barbosa, Daniel Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis, and David Pesetsky. Cambridge: MITWPL/MIT Press. Google Scholar
  43. Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  44. Postal, Paul. 1998. Three investigations of extraction. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  45. Preminger, Omer. 2005. Argument-mapping and extraction. Tel-Aviv University thesis. Google Scholar
  46. Preminger, Omer. 2010. Failure to agree is not a failure: phi-agreement with post-verbal subjects in Hebrew. In Linguistic variation yearbook, eds. Jeroen van Craenenbroeck and Johan Rooryck, Vol. 9, 241–278. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  47. Preminger, Omer. 2011. Agreement as a fallible operation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. Google Scholar
  48. Radford, Andrew. 1993. Head-hunting: on the trail of the nominal Janus. In Heads in grammatical theory, eds. Greville G. Corbett, Norman M. Fraser, and Scott McGlashan, 73–113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reinhart, Tanya. 1998. Wh-in-situ in the framework of the Minimalist Program. Natural Language Semantics 6: 29–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Richards, Norvin. 1997. What moves where in which language? Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation. Google Scholar
  51. Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering trees. Vol. 56 of Linguistic inquiry monographs. Cambridge: MIT Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  53. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. Liliane Haegeman. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar
  54. Rizzi, Luigi. 2001. Relativized minimality effects. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, eds. Mark Baltin and Chris Collins, 89–110. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shlonsky, Ur. 1997. Clause structure and word order in Hebrew and Arabic: an essay in comparative Semitic syntax. Oxford studies in comparative syntax. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  57. Shlonsky, Ur, and Edit Doron. 1992. Verb second in Hebrew. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL), ed. Dawn Bates, Vol. 10, 431–435. Google Scholar
  58. Soare, Gabriela. 2007. A cross-linguistic typology of question formation and the antisymmetry hypothesis. Vol. 5 of Generative grammar in Geneva. Google Scholar
  59. Starke, Michael. 2001. Move dissolves into merge: a theory of locality. University of Geneva dissertation. Google Scholar
  60. Watanabe, Akira. 1992. Subjacency and S-structure movement of wh-in-situ. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 255–291. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wiltschko, Martina. 1997. D-linking, scrambling and superiority in German. In Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik, ed. Werner Abraham, Vol. 41. Germanistisch Institut, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Google Scholar
  62. Winter, Yoad. 1999. DP structure and flexible semantics. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS), eds. Masako Hirotani, Andries Coetzee, Nancy Hall, and Ji-yung Kim, Vol. 30. Rutgers University. Google Scholar
  63. Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2004. Sentential negation and negative concord. University of Amsterdam dissertation. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and PhilosophyMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations