on the strategies for the formation of long-distance dependencies in subject questions

On the strategies for the formation of long-

distance dependencies in subject questions

Marcel den DikkenCUNY Graduate Center

&Meertens Institute (KNAW)

2

“Some dialects allow a wh-subject to be extracted provided that no complementizer precedes the empty embedded subject position, whereas other dialects allow the comple-mentizer at to occur in precisely that position. Yet other varieties allow the presence of at only if a resumptive pro-noun is inserted in the embedded subject position (e.g. the Bodø dialect of Norwegian, cf. Fiva 1991), and in some dialects som rather than at appears at the left edge of the embedded clause when a subject is wh-extracted to the matrix Left Periphery (cf. Nordgård 1988).”

From the description of the Nordic Center of Excelllence inMicrocomparative Syntax (NORMS; http://norms.uit.no/),with reference to the variation within Scandinavian with respect to subject extraction from finite subordinate clauses:

http://norms.uit.no/

3

“Some dialects allow a wh-subject to be extracted provided that no complementizer precedes the empty embedded subject position, whereas other dialects allow the comple-mentizer at to occur in precisely that position. Yet other varieties allow the presence of at only if a resumptive pro-noun is inserted in the embedded subject position (e.g. the Bodø dialect of Norwegian, cf. Fiva 1991), and in some dialects som rather than at appears at the left edge of the embedded clause when a subject is wh-extracted to the matrix Left Periphery (cf. Nordgård 1988).”

(2) who do you think *(that) read the book?

(2') who do you think (that) read the book?

(3) who do you think that he read the book?

(4) who do you think REL read the book?

(1) who do you think (*that) read the book?

4

(1) represents what is also found in Standard English:the ‘that-trace effect’.





(2) represents the situation found in Standard Dutch:the ‘anti-that-trace effect’.

(3) represents a resumption strategy common around theglobe as a way of ‘patching up’ what would otherwise fail.

(4) represents a strategy that is similar to or even identicalwith the well-known ‘que>qui rule’ of French.


(2') represents the situation found in some English dialects(e.g. Ozark English, Appalachian English).

5





(4) represents a strategy that is similar to or even identicalwith the well-known ‘que>qui rule’ of French.

(4') qui crois-tu {*que/qui} a lu le livre?


6





One thing that is interesting about all of these wh-questionsis that the wh-phrase is not pronounced in the clause in whichit ‘belongs’ but instead in a higher clause: these are all casesof long-distance wh-dependencies.

Another interesting thing about the long-distance wh-questionin (1) is that the subordinating conjunction (‘complementiser’)that, which can otherwise introduce an embedded finite clausein English and Scandinavian, must be absent: (1) works onlywith that omitted.


7

This ‘that-trace effect’ suggests that the long-distance wh-question in (1) is derived by movement of who from the clause embedded under think into the higher clause: suchmovement cannot proceed across that if the wh-phraseis a subject; that ‘blocks’ the movement of who.

(5) who do you think (*that) whowho read the book?


This silent copy must find an antecedent within the sameclause — but it doesn’t find one when that is present.

Movement of who leaves a silent copy or ‘trace’.

Movement out of the lower clause via a stopover onthe edge of that clause is ungrammatical:

8

This silent copy must find an antecedent within the sameclause — but it doesn’t find one when that is present.

Movement out of the lower clause via a stopover onthe edge of that clause is ungrammatical:

(5') *who do you think whowho that whowho read the book?

Movement of who leaves a silent copy or ‘trace’.

9(5') *who do you think whowho that whowho read the book?

NB: this is often taken to be the standard way to formlong wh-movement dependencies — but in my recentwork I have argued (on the basis of facts from i.a.Hungarian and Chamorro) that it is in fact ill-formed.

Movement to the edge of a clause is always terminal:onward movement from a clause edge is impossible.

So long wh-movement must exit the clause in one fell swoop,leaving an unlicensed copy of who when that is there.


When that is not there, the structure of the lower clause is reduced, and the silent copy does find a local antecedent.

10

an aside...

The literature is literally teeming with so-called evidence forsuccessive-cyclic movement through SpecCP:

• complementiser agreement

• embedded inversion

• quantifier float

• intermediate P-stranding

• etc. etc.

Upon inspection, none of this actually constitutes evidencespecifically for successive-cyclic movement through SpecCP.

See Den Dikken (2009) for detailed discussion.

I will pick out one case-study here: sentence processing.

11

Gibson & Warren (2004) [Syntax] present evidence for the presence of intermediate traces coming from English nativespeakers’ processing of long wh-questions.

In (xa), the reading time delay at pleased (caused by the dis-tance between the filler and the gap) is shorter than in (xb).

(x) a. the manager who the consultant claimed that the new

proposal had pleased will hire five workers tomorrowb. the manager who the consultant’s claim about the new

proposal had pleased will hire five workers tomorrow

(y) a. the consultant claimed that the new proposal hadpleased the manager who will hire five workers tomorrow

b. the consultant’s claim about the new proposal hadpleased the manager who will hire five workers tomorrow

In (ya,b), where no extraction is involved from the complementof pleased, no such difference in RTs at pleased is found.

12





The shorter RT at pleased in (xa) compared to (xb) is taken tosuggest that the gap following pleased is less distant from itsimmediate antecedent in (xa) than it is in (xb).

This in turn is taken to suggest that there is a wh-antecedent near the gap in object position in the embedded CP in (xa).

This wh-antecedent is taken to be an intermediate trace,situated in the embedded SpecCP position — because...

↓

13





Gibson & Warren also find a longer RT at that in (xa) than in the corresponding non-extraction case in (ya).

(y) a. the consultant claimed that the new proposal hadpleased the manager who will hire five workers tomorrow

b. the consultant’s claim about the new proposal hadpleased the manager who will hire five workers tomorrow

But they also note that the RT at about in (xb) is longer thanin the non-extraction case in (yb), so the longer RT at that in(xa) is not clear evidence for a trace specifically in SpecCP.

↓





Recall…


end of aside — back to (1)

15

Now that we have a sense of how (1) works, let us ask howthe long subject questions in (2)–(4) are built, and what it isthat makes varieties that have these types of long subjectquestions different from Standard English.






16

But the fact that (2) is grammatical with Comp included is remarkable: if the ungrammaticality of (1) with Comp includedfollows from a ban on movement of who across that (as justargued), then the grammaticality of (2) with Comp included could indicate that in such long subject questions there need not be movement of the wh-phrase out of the lower clause.



That in Dutch (2), the complementiser cannot be omitted is unremarkable: a finite subordinate in Dutch must alwaysbe introduced by either a wh-phrase or a complementiser.

But how can (2) not involve wh-movement out of the lower clause? Isn’t who the subject of the embedded clause in (2) just as it is in (1)?

17

Indeed it is — but it seems that in the Dutch-speaking world, it is possible for a wh-phrase to originate in a higher clauseand establish its connection with the lower clause via an‘associate’ in the lower clause.

Thus, colloquial varieties of Dutch can make long-distance wh-questions by employing, alongside the standard strategy in(6) (= (2)), a strategy featuring two tokens of the wh-phrase— the so-called ‘wh-copying’ construction, illustrated in (7).

(7) wie denk je wie het boek heeft gelezen?

In (7), the wh-phrase in sentence-initial position is not alone:it has what appears to be an identical twin, situated at the leftedge of the embedded clause.

(6) wie denk je *(dat) het boek heeft gelezen?

18

The map below shows the geographical distribution of the‘wh-copying’ construction in the Dutch-speaking world.

→ (6) is possible but not (7)

→ (7) is possible



19

In addition, there are several colloquial varieties of Dutchthat can make long-distance wh-questions by employing aninvariant wh-element wat ‘what’ in the higher clause and placing the ‘real’ wh-phrase at the edge of the lower clause— the so-called ‘wh-scope marking’ or ‘partial wh-movement’construction, illustrated in (8).


Here the ‘real’ wh-phrase is the wie ‘who’ downstairs; and thefact that its scope extends up to the higher clause is markedby the ‘scope marker’ wat ‘what’ upstairs.


(8) wat denk je wie het boek heeft gelezen?

20

The map below shows the geographical distribution of the‘wh-scope marking’ construction in the Dutch-speaking world.

→ (6) is possible but not (8)

→ (8) is possible



21




For all of (6)–(8), I propose that the wh-element in the higherclause is born in that clause — that is, none of these exam-ples involve long wh-movement.

The fact that ‘wh-copying’ (7) and ‘wh-scope marking’ (8) aregrammatical in colloquial Dutch paves the way towards ananalysis of the grammaticality of ‘that-trace violations’ (6).

For (8), this is most straightforwardly the case:wat is clearly not the subject of the embedded clause;all it does in this sentence is mark the scope of thewh-phrase wie, which is pronounced in the lower clause.

The ungrammaticality of (8') follows: wat in the lowerclause cannot mark scope, and is hence redundant.

(8') * wie denk je wat het boek heeft gelezen?

22




For (7), I propose an analysis that runs along parallellines: the wie pronounced in the lower clause has itsscope assigned by a scope marker in the higher clause;but whereas in (8) this scope marker is the ‘bare’ wh-word wat, in (7) the scope marker shows concord withthe wh-word in the lower clause.

Concretely, the person, number, and gender properties(including animacy) of the wh-word in the lower clauseare ‘copied over’ onto the scope marker ‘upstairs’.

23

(7) wat denk je wie[Pers/Num/Gen] het boek heeft gelezen?wie


Concretely, the person, number, and gender properties(including animacy) of the wh-word in the lower clauseare ‘copied over’ onto the scope marker ‘upstairs’.

24




So in neither of the ‘multiplicity’ cases in (7) and (8) is theremovement of a wh-phrase from the lower clause into thehigher clause.

Both scope-marking and ‘wh-copying’ constructionsinvolve two separate wh-dependencies: one in the higherclause, involving a scope marker (which may or maynot be ‘concordial’), and another in the lower clause.

25

With this analysis of the ‘multiplicity’ cases in place, let’s now return to the example in (6).

From (7)–(8), we have learnt that Dutch can form its long wh-dependencies via either of two ‘double-Dutch’ strategies, neither of which involves long wh-movement.

This makes it logically possible to envision a grammar forDutch long subject wh-dependencies that does not employlong wh-movement at all — that is, even (6) does notinvolve movement of wie from the lower clause into thehigher clause.

If (6) does not involve movement of wie from the lowerclause, the absence of a ‘blocking effect’ of dat follows.


26




If indeed (6) does not involve long wh-movement of wie,it could instead be very much like (7), with wie being a ‘concordial scope marker’.

But while in (7) the lower clause contains an overt element expressing at least the person, number, and gender propertiesof the wh-phrase, there is no such element in the lower clausein (6), which is introduced by the subordinator dat.

27




So if (6) is to involve ‘concordial scope marking’ ratherthan long wh-movement, what is it that wie is in a concord relationship with in this kind of sentence?

My answer: with itself — that is, there is in fact an instance of wie at the left edge of the lower clause in (6), but this wieis ultimately not spelled out.

28


Those properties are a subset of the full array of features borne by these elements; and as a result, the‘concordial scope marker’ and the introducer of the lower clause are not always strictly identical.

(9) a. wie denk je welk type je bent?b. wie denk je welk team er kampioen wordt?c. wie denk je welke topsportvrouw dit is?d. wie denk je welke stellen nog bij elkaar zijn?

Recall that in (7) the element introducing the lower clauseentertains a concord relationship with the upstairs scopemarker for its person, number, and gender properties.

29

Recall that in (7) the element introducing the lower clauseentertains a concord relationship with the upstairs scopemarker for its person, number, and gender properties.


Those properties are a subset of the full array of features borne by these elements; and as a result, the‘concordial scope marker’ and the introducer of the lower clause are not always strictly identical.

Now imagine what would happen if there were not apartial concord but a full concord relationship betweenthe scope marker and the lower wh-element.

30

What we end up with as a result of full concord betweenthe two wh-elements is a situation in which we have twofully identical wh-elements in the syntactic structure,one looking down on (‘c-commanding’) the other.

(10) wat denk je wie[ALL FEATURES] het boek heeft gelezen?wie

When we now want to linearise and spell out the resultof full concord in (10), we face a dilemma: one cannot precede or follow oneself.

To avoid a contradiction, the phonology realises theoutput of the derivation in (10) by spelling out only thehigher of the two wh-elements.

31

With the lower wh-element left unrealised, we wouldnow seem to derive (6'), which is ungrammatical.


But (6') is independently rejected by the requirementthat the left edge of a subordinate finite clause in Dutch may not be left empty.

An overt subordinating conjunction is therefore neededwhenever full-concordial scope marking takes place in along wh-question in Dutch. So (10) comes out as (6) (=(2)).

(6') *wie denk je het boek heeft gelezen?

(6) wie denk je dat het boek heeft gelezen?

dat

32

Not all languages allowing subject wh-extraction across alexical complementiser show the ‘anti-that-trace’ effect in (2),however: there are varieties of Scandinavian and English(such as Ozark and Appalachian English) which have (2').



There are indeed attested cases of ‘wh-copying’ and ‘wh-scope marking’ ─ but no systematic study has been done.


The logic of the foregoing discussion leads us to assimilatethese varieties of Scandinavian and English to Dutch in thesense that they (can) represent their long wh-dependenciesas ‘concordial scope marking’.

33

(12) who do you think which celebrity has the best hair?



There are indeed attested cases of ‘wh-copying’ and ‘wh-scope marking’ ─ but no systematic study has been done.


(10)–(12) and other cases like them are all readily attestedon Google; (12) is particularly interesting because it showsonce again (like Dutch (9)) that so-called ‘wh-copying’ is notliterally the copying of the lower wh-phrase.

(11) who do you think who has most influenced you?

(10) what do you think who is the best politician?

34




There is often no simple way of telling whether such senten-ces are produced by native speakers of English or not.




But Gutiérrez’s work on L2 acquisition of English long wh-questions observes that one of the five L1 adult controlsproduced constructions of the type in (10)–(12) (though noexact details are provided).

35








An interesting case is (13), taken from an article in HarvardBusiness and reprinted in Business Week ─ the article is byUmair Haque, probably a non-native speaker, but it musthave been given the nod by the copy-editors.

(13) who do you think who should be thinking in terms of

markets instead of platforms?

36








My hypothesis is that such sentences do indeed occur inthe spontaneous speech of English speakers who have (2').

Within Germanic at least, acceptance and production of that-trace sequences should be systematically correlated withacceptance and production of ‘multiplicity’ in wh-questions.

37




So English speakers who accept and produce that-tracesequences are basically speakers of Dutch ─ except for thefact that their grammar (unlike that of Dutch) allows a nullleft periphery for finite complement clauses.





38




NB: it is not the case that acceptance and production of that-trace sequences should be universally correlated withacceptance and production of ‘multiplicity’ in wh-questions!





39




NB: it is not the case that acceptance and production of that-trace sequences should be universally correlated withacceptance and production of ‘multiplicity’ in wh-questions!




Acceptance and production of that-trace sequences can comeabout in other ways as well ─ e.g. in the way proposed byRizzi (1982) for Italian: extraction from a position below I'.

This is arguably the right analysis for that-trace sequences inpro-drop languages (such as Italian and Hungarian).

40




Back to (10)–(12)…




And in fact, production of ‘wh-copying’ and ‘wh-scope marking’constructions by second-language learners of English is quitecommon.

Recall that it is often not clear whether such sentences areproduced by native speakers of English or not.

41

Thus, Gutiérrez (2005, 2006) notes the following patternfor Spanish and Basque learners of English (examplespartly uniformised; MdD):

(14) what do you think who lived in the house?

(16) what do you think which baby had eaten the cake?

(15) who do you think who lived in the house?

(17) who do you think which baby had eaten the cake?

42

Gutiérrez has found that the total number of ‘wh-copying’ and‘wh-scope marking’ constructions was significantly higher forsubject questions than for object and adjunct questions.

This is an interesting finding ─ it suggests that L2 learners ofEnglish actively substitute wh-copying and wh-scope markingfor physical long displacement, and that they do so especiallyto get around the problem of how to extract the subject from afinite clause with a lexical complementiser.

That wh-copying or wh-scope marking should be preferred tophysical long displacement is easy to understand from thepresent perspective: all three strategies involve scope mark-ing, but pure wh-scope marking and wh-copying are ‘cheaper’in that they involve either no concord between the scope marker and its associate at all, or partial concord, whereasphysical displacement of the subject of the lower clause is acase of full concord, affecting a larger bundle of features.

43

Gutierrez has found that the total number of ‘wh-copying’ and‘wh-scope marking’ constructions was significantly higher forsubject questions than for object and adjunct questions.

This is an interesting finding ─ it suggests that L2 learners ofEnglish actively substitute wh-copying and wh-scope markingfor physical long displacement, and that they do so especiallyto get around the problem of how to extract the subject from afinite clause with a lexical complementiser.

That wh-copying or wh-scope marking should be especiallycommon in the case of long subject questions also follows:whereas for other types of long-distance question formationa successive-cyclic movement derivation is available (via vP-edges only, not stopping over in SpecCP), for long subjectquestions such a derivation fails (for non-pro-drop languagessuch as English): fell-swoop extraction of the subject from CPleaves an unlicensed trace in SpecIP.





Recall…

45

(14) what do you think who lived in the house?

(16) what do you think which baby had eaten the cake?

(15) who do you think who lived in the house?

(17) who do you think which baby had eaten the cake?

So L2 learners’ elevated tendency to produce wh-copying orwh-scope marking in long subject questions follows from UG.

The wh-copying and wh-scope marking strategies are thesimplest solution to the problem of subject extraction over that.

46

Note that UG influence here is not marginal: the scope mark-ing strategy is fundamental to long subject questions.

Recall that it is the only way for non-pro-drop languages toform a wh-dependency with the subject of a finite full-CP.

Standard English does not use this strategy: it instead formsall of its wh-dependencies via movement, forcing the finitecomplement clause in long subject questions to be reducedin size (to IP).

But there is certainly no dearth of Germanic languages thatemploy the scope marking strategy for the formation of theirlong subject wh-dependencies ─ scope marking (esp. full-concordial SM) is much more common than is often thought.

47

Besides scope marking, Germanic (and UG in general) ex-tensively exploits resumptive prolepsis in the formation oflong wh-dependencies.

The pattern in (3), which I noted at the outset (found in somevarieties of Scandinavian), is a representative of this strategy:it base-generates the wh-constituent proleptically in the matrixclause (cf. Cinque 1990); who binds a resumptive downstairs.


I will have nothing more to say about this strategy here today(but see Den Dikken 2009 for details for Hungarian).

48

A fourth pattern we encountered at the outset is the oneillustrated in (4).

This pattern, also found in certain Scandinavian varieties(and arguably also instantiated by the French ‘que>qui rule’),treats the embedded clause as a relative clause associatedwith the upstairs wh-element.



49

The pattern in (4) is also manifest in some dialects of Dutch,as seen in (20), which is an alternative to the wh-copying con-struction in (7).

(20) wie denk je die het boek heeft gelezen?


(21) wat denk je die het boek heeft gelezen?


The relative pronoun option even extends to the wh-scopemarking construction: there are a few Dutch dialects whichproduce (21), a variant of the wh-scope marking case in (8).

The patterns in (20) and (21) are both rare, but their syntaxis of significant interest.

50

Footnote: Google finds a few cases of the type in (20) inGerman (see (i)); (21) appears unattested on the German-language web, but note that (21) is also very rare in Dutch.





(ia) wer glaubst Du der Du bist?(ib) wer denkst Du der das bezahlt?

The patterns in (20) and (21) are both rare, but their syntaxis of significant interest.

51

Note that (21') is ungrammatical: the invariant wh-element wat must appear in the higher clause.





For (8') I provided an account in the foregoing that capitalisedon wat being a scope marker for the wh-constituent in thelower clause: putting the scope marker in the lower clausewould render it redundant.

In this respect, (21) is exactly like (8): for recall that (8') is badas well.

The fact that (21') is likewise ill-formed suggests that wat is ascope marker in (21) as well.

(8') * wie denk je wat het boek heeft gelezen?

(21') * die denk je wat het boek heeft gelezen?

52

This likely follows straightforwardly from the fact that the relative pronoun in the higher clause fails to markthat clause as a question: a Dutch constituent questionalways needs a wh-element at its left edge; so (20') isuninterpretable as a question, and there is no othersensible interpretation available for it either.





Now note that (20') is ungrammatical as well: the wh-elementwie in the higher clause and the relative pronoun die in thelower clause cannot change places.

(20') *die denk je wie het boek heeft gelezen?

53





So die in (20) and (21) is a genuine relative pronoun.

Where does this leave us when it comes to the analysis ofthese long wh-dependencies?

What is a relative pronoun doing in the subordinate clause ofa long-distance wh-question?

54


First let us return to (7).

For (7), I have proposed an analysis in terms of ‘partial-concordial scope marking’.

Concretely, the person, number, and gender properties(including animacy) of the wh-word in the lower clauseare ‘copied over’ onto the scope marker upstairs.





55





To (20), the ‘concordial scope-marking’ analysis can beapplied as well — the only difference with (7) is thatthis time there is no wh-element in the embeddedclause but a relative pronoun instead.

This relative pronoun arguably occupies the same slotin the structure as does the wh-pronoun in (7).

56

(20) wat denk je die[Pers/Num/Gen] het boek heeft gelezen?wie





Since the scope marker originating in the higher clauseis itself inherently [+wh], the concord relationship betweendie and the scope marker is just what is needed to turnthe scope marker into wie.

The use of die in the lower clause in (20) is really moreeconomical than that of wie in the lower clause in (7).

57

(21) wat denk je die[Pers/Num/Gen] het boek heeft gelezen?





XNow that we have the outlines of an account for (20),the analysis of (21) is straightforward: it is basically analogous to (20); the only difference between themis that in (20) there is concord between the die andthe scope marker upstairs, whereas in (21) there is nosuch concord.

58





So in none of the ‘multiplicity’ cases is there movement of awh-phrase from the lower clause into the higher clause.

Both wh-scope marking and wh-copying constructionsinvolve two separate wh-dependencies: one in the higherclause, involving a scope marker (which may or maynot be ‘concordial’), and another in the lower clause,involving either a wh-element or (more economically)a relative pronoun.

59

For the apparent long-distance wh-movement construction in(6), I also proposed a ‘concordial scope marking’ analysis.


In particular, I proposed that (6) involves full concordbetween the scope marker and its associate downstairs.

Full-concordial scope marking is spelled out in the phonologyin a form that is indistinguishable on the surface from theoutput of long-distance wh-movement: only the higher of thetwo wh-elements is spelled out (to avoid a linearisation con-flict at PF).


60




With (6) analysed without long movement of wie, and insteadin terms of ‘full-concordial scope marking’, the absence of a‘that-trace effect’ in Dutch is directly relatable to the existence,in colloquial varieties of Dutch, of wh-copying and wh-scope marking constructions.

61

English must form its long wh-questions via movementfrom the lower clause into the higher clause: it does nothave wh-scope marking or wh-copying in its adult grammar.

(22) * who do you think that is gonna jump?

Since adult English can only form its long wh-questionsvia movement, it cannot avoid the that-trace effect. But children learning English as a first language arewell known to produce ‘that-trace violations’ as in (22).

Interestingly, studies on children’s acquisition of wh-dependencies in English (Thornton 1990, McDaniel, Chiu& Maxfield 1995) report that children who produce andaccept (22) also produce and accept scope-marking and/or ‘wh-copying’ constructions of the type in (23)–(24).

(24) * who do you think who is gonna jump?

(23) * what do you think who is gonna jump?bad for adultsfine for youngchildren

62

McDaniel et al. elicited grammaticalitity judgements for(22), (23) and (24) from children aged 2;11–5;7, using the following protocol:


“If someone kissed Grover, but we don’t know who,does it sound OK if I asked Nelly this way:‘Nelly, who do you think that kissed Grover?’”



63



“If someone kissed Grover, but we don’t know who,does it sound OK if I asked Nelly this way:‘Nelly, what do you think who kissed Grover?’”



64



“If someone kissed Grover, but we don’t know who,does it sound OK if I asked Nelly this way:‘Nelly, who do you think who kissed Grover?’”



They found that in all cases in which a child accepted(23) or (24), the child also accepted (22); on the otherhand, children lacking (23)/(24) tended to reject (22).

# accept (22) # reject (22)children with (23)/(24) 37 0children w/o (23)/(24) 24 42

65




This correlation between allowing that-trace sequencesand having wh-scope marking and/or wh-copying followsdirectly from what we have talked about.

English-speaking children who allow that-trace sequenceshave the grammar of adult Dutch — for some time (80% ofyoungest children, 56% of middle group, 17% of oldest).




66

Spanish/English bilinguals do not appear to allow ‘that-traceviolations’ under code-switching — not even across the Spanish finite complementiser que.

(25) * who do you think that va a venir?

Thus, not only is (25) ungrammatical, so are (26) and (27).(The data are from Woolford 1984 [Revue québ. de ling.].)

(27) * quién piensas tú que will come?

(26) * who do you think que va a venir?

The only acceptable switches in long subject wh-questionsare the ones in (28) and (29) (with (29) subject to variation).

(28) ? who do you think va a venir?

(29) % quién piensas tú will come?

Why are the switches in (25)–(27) all disallowed, andhow come the ones in (28) and (29) succeed (for some)?


So (Standard) English cases of long subject wh-fronting fromfinite clauses must involve bare-IP complementation.


Recall…

(Standard) English cannot extract a subject-wh from a finiteCP because no local antecedent is available for the subjecttrace in (5), and (5') (which is universally illegitimate) or wh-scope marking are unavailable as well.

But Spanish is a pro-drop language, hence can form legit-imate that-trace sequences in the way proposed by Rizzi(1982) for Italian: via extraction from a position below I'.

Such extraction is arguably contingent on inversion of the verbaround the subject (providing a local licenser for the trace).


Answer: the Extended Projection Principle (EPP).


What does the difference between English and Spanishwith respect to subject extraction stem from?

What is it that makes English unable to leave the subjectbelow I'?

So when the finite verb in a particular clause is English, weknow that SpecIP must be filled, hence that long subject wh-extraction will succeed only if CP is not projected.

What is the EPP rooted in?

Answer: properties of finite verb inflection.

69

In (28), the finite verb of the embedded clause is Spanish, and the English matrix verb is compatible with selection of a bare IP, so long subject extraction is expected to be legitimate.


In (27), the finite verb of the embedded clause is English, soraising to SpecIP is needed; subject extraction across CP fails.

(27) * quién piensas tú que will come?


But what’s up with the examples in (25), (26) and (29)?

(28) ? who do you think va a venir?


Why are the switches in (25) and (26) disallowed, andhow come (29) is subject to speaker variation?

70

In (26), the derivation in the embedded clause proceeds viainversion, followed by fell-swoop movement of the subject intothe matrix clause (without a stopover in SpecCP).

So (26) violates locality.

Such a derivation is contingent on the matrix verb agreeingwith the complement clause (Rackowski & Richards 2005).


But the English matrix verb cannot agree with the Spanish CP.

71

In (25), the English verb can agree with the English CP, sohere the problem lies elsewhere.


Recall that in order for the subject to extract across a finite CP,a local licenser for its trace must be available — and inversionmakes this possible in Spanish (the lg of the lower clause).

But such Spanish-specific functional structure is not licensedin the complement of an English C.

Inversion requires functional structure outside IP.

So (25) needs inversion in order for wh-movement to work,but does not support the F-structure required for inversion.

72

(29) ‘varies from quite good to quite bad’, for which Woolfordhas no account.

(ii) V takes a CP complement without a complementiser

There are two logically possible scenarios on my account:

Option (ii) satisfies categorial selection but forces CP to beEnglish (Spanish CP must be headed by overt que).

Option (i) has no output: it violates the selectional restrictionsimposed by V=Spanish (Spanish verbs must select full-CP finite complements, tolerate no finite bare-IP complements).

(i) V takes a bare IP complement

But V=Spanish cannot agree with an English CP: recall *(26).


So how can (29) survive, and why is it good only for a subsetof Spanish/English bilinguals?

73

Since option (ii) forces the complement-CP to be English,and since V=Spanish cannot agree with an English CP...

(ii) V takes a CP complement without a complementiser

the only way we can make (29) survive is by not forcing V to agree with CP.

So (29), for the speakers for whom it is good, must involve ascope marking derivation, involving two separate wh-chains,one in the lower clause and one in the higher clause.

Extraction from CP forces the matrix V to agree with CP(Rackowski & Richards 2005).



74

Recall that Spanish L2 learners of English make use of scope marking derivations quite a bit:

The production and acceptance of scope marking derivationsamong Spanish L2 learners of English and Spanish/Englishbilinguals is very likely subject to speaker variation.(Probably not every speaker in Gutiérrez’s experiments pro-duced scope marking or wh-copying.)

So the distribution of (14) and (15) among Spanish L2 learn-ers of English and that of (29) among Spanish/English bilin-guals are both a function of the distribution of scope marking.



(14) what do you think who lived in the house?(15) who do you think who lived in the house?

75

What we have found, then, is that there are at leasttwo strategies to form long wh-dependencies featuringa single wh-phrase and no resumptive pronoun:

One strategy is to represent them structurally in termsof three local dependencies: one in the higher clause,involving local movement of a scope marker, one in thelower clause, involving local movement of the wh-phraseassociated to the scope marker, and one linking thescope marker to its associate, facilitating concord.

The other strategy involves long-distance movement ofthe wh-phrase itself, from the lower clause into thehigher clause.

Conclusion

76

Both strategies to form long wh-dependencies havetheir own pros and cons:

The concordial scope-marking strategy has the benefitof representing an apparent long-distance dependencyin the form of a series of local dependencies — localdependencies are less costly (read: easier for theparser to deal with) than long-distance dependencies.But this benefit is offset by the fact that this strategyneeds to exploit two movements plus concord.

The long-distance movement strategy has the benefitof exploiting just a single movement operation.But this benefit is offset by the fact that this movementoperation creates a costly long-distance dependency.

Conclusion

77

Long-distance wh-dependencies always come at a cost.Different grammars put the cost in different accounts.

Dutch, child-English and L2-English prefer to avoid the for-mation of literal long-distance movement dependencies, by exploiting concordial scope marking. Concomitantly, sinceDutch, child-English and L2-English do not literally move awh-phrase out of a lower clause into a higher one, they haveno trouble with that-trace sequences.

Adult L1-English, on the other hand, prefers not to useconcordial scope-marking dependencies, and must insteadperform long-distance wh-movement. Concomitantly, sincelong wh-movement of a subject across a lexical conjunctionis prohibited, adult L1-English shows that-trace effects.

Conclusion

Thank you very much.

Marcel den Dikken

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

on the strategies for the formation of long-distance dependencies in subject questions

Documents

embedded subject position

subject extraction

embedded clause

dialects som

standard english

left edge

english dialectse

ozark english