Sabina Halupka-Rešetar University of Novi Sad halupka.resetar@ff.uns.ac.rs

PARTIAL WH-CONSTRUCTIONS: A CONSEQUENCE OF FEATURE VALUES 1

Abstract: Partial wh-constructions, attested in wh-ex situ languages as diverse as German, Hungarian, Russian, Polish and Serbian, are characterized by a wh-word in sentence initial position, which is not interpreted as a true wh-word: it does not add to the meaning of the question. It is usually taken to be a wh-expletive, linked to the true wh-element sitting in SpecCP of the lower clause, as in the Serbian example Šta misliš, koga će Ana pozvati? That the true wh-word is interpreted in the initial SpecCP and that the matrix wh-word acts as a scope-marker for the true wh-word sitting in a lower position is claimed to be supported by the fact that the above Serbian sentence has the same meaning as its equivalent involving long distance wh-movement: Koga misliš da će Ana pozvati? (see also Stepanov 1997, Bošković 1998). Interestingly, although English is also a wh-ex situ language, partial wh-constructions are not allowed: *What do you think who Ann will invite? (see also Collins 1997, Sabel 2000), but long distance wh-questions like Who do you think Ann will invite? are perfectly well-formed. The paper followes Felser (2001) in arguing that long-distance wh-movement and partial wh-movement constructions do not have the same derivation and sets out to explain the difference between English and Serbian with respect to the availability of the partial wh-construction in terms of the difference in the values of the features [wh] and [focus] on the functional head C. Key words: wh-phrase, partial wh-construction, syntax, feature value, focus.

1. Introduction

Various definitions of partial wh-movement exist in the abundant literature dealing with this phenomenon from a generative perspective but there seems to be general consensus that movement is partial whenever a phrase has been displaced but its final landing site is below the position where it meets the relevant requirements, which is scope position in the case of wh-elements.

Accordingly, the term partial wh-construction (rather than wh-movement, for reasons to be explained below) will be used in this paper to refer to instances of questions in which the wh-phrase has not moved all the way to the matrix SpecCP position, as is the case with long wh-movement illustrated in (1a) but has instead moved only to a high position in the lower CP (1b). However, it still has in its scope the matrix SpecCP, now harbouring a scope marker (was), as illustrated by the following German examples (adapted from McDaniel 1989):

(1) a. [Mit wem]i glaubt [TP Hans [CP ti dass [TP Jakob jetzt ti spricht]]]?2 with whom thinks Hans <with whom> that Jakob no<with whom> speaks ‘With whom does Hans think that Jakob is now talking?’ b. Was glaubt [TP Hans [CP [mit wem]i [TP Jakob jetzt ti spricht]]]? what thinks Hans with whom Jakob now <with whom> speaks ‘WHAT 3 does Hans believe with whom Jakob is now talking?’ Wh-prepositional phrases are not the only kind of elements subject to this type of

movement: which and whose-phrases may also undergo partial movement. Also, when the sentence contains more than two clauses, the wh-phrase of the embedded clause may move to any 1 The paper is the result of research conducted within project no. 178002 Languages and cultures in space and time funded by the Ministry of Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia. 2 The letter t is used to mark the trace/copy of a moved element. 3 Capital WHAT is used to indicate the scope marker, non-existent in Standard English.

SpecCP position - the highest (2a), the lowest (2b), as well as (all) the intermediate position(s) (2c):

(2) a. Wessen Onkeli glaubst [TP du [CP ti dass [TP Irene sagte [CP ti dass [Jakob ti besucht]]]? ‘Whose uncle do you think Irene said that Jakob is visiting?’ b. Was glaubst [TP du [CP was [TP Irene sagte [CP [wessen Onkel]i [TP Jakob ti besucht]]]? ‘WHAT do you think Irene said whose uncle Jakob is visiting?’ c. Was glaubst [TP du [CP [wessen Onkel]i [TP Irene sagte [CP ti dass [TP Jakob ti besucht]]]? ‘WHAT do you think whose uncle did Irene say Jakob is visiting?’ Like German, Serbian is also a language which fronts wh-phrases. In fact, unlike

German, Serbian obligatorily fronts all wh-phrases in multiple wh-questions. Similarly to German, partial wh-constructions can also be observed in Serbian, both with prepositional phrases (3) and which/whose-phrases (4):

(3) a. [CP [S kim]i Jovan misli [CP ti da Petar sada razgovara ti]]? with who.Instr John.Nom think.Pres.3sg that Peter now talk.Pres.3sg ‘With whom does John think Peter is now talking?’ b. [CP Šta Jovan misli [CP [s kim]i Petar sada razgovara ti]]? what.Acc John.Nom think.Pres.3sg with who.Instr Peter now talk.Pres.3sg ‘WHAT does John think with whom Peter is now talking?’

(4) a. [Čiju sestru/kog pacijenta]i Jovan misli [CP ti da će Marija posetiti ti]? whose.Acc sister.Acc /which.Acc patient.Acc John.Nom think.Pres.3sg that Mary.Nom will visit.Pres.3sg ‘Whose sister/Which patient does John think Mary will visit?’ b. Šta Jovan misli [CP [čiju sestru/kog pacijenta]i će Marija posetiti ti]? what.Acc John.Nom think.Pres.3sg whose.Acc sister.Acc /which.Acc patient.Acc Mary.Nom will visit.Pres.3sg ‘WHAT does John think whose sister/which patient Mary will visit?’ Of course, it might be the case that we are actually looking at two separate questions in

the above examples (e.g. What do you think? and Whose sister will Mary visit? in (4b)), since Serbian displays the same word order in matrix and embedded clauses, unlike German, with V2 in the matrix clause and V-final embedded clauses. In addition, an intonation break between the two clasuses is, naturally, also possible. However, partial wh-constructions can be used in indirect questions (in German and Serbian likewise):

(5) a. Ich weiss nicht [CP was [TP Hans glaubt [CP [mit wem]i [TP Jakob jetzt ti spricht]]]]. (adapted from McDaniel 1989)

I know not what Hans thinks with whom Jakob now <with whom> speaks ‘I don't know WHAT Hans thinks with whom Jakob is now talking.’ b. Ne znam [CP šta [TP Marija misli [CP kogai [TP Jovan voli ti]]]]. not know.Pres.1sg what.Acc Mary.Nom think.Pres.3sg who.Acc John.Nom love.Pres.3sg ‘I don't know WHAT Mary thinks whom John loves.’ Additionally, the meaning of the partial wh-construction with the scope marking wh-

word (6a) is often claimed to be semantically closely related to that of the corresponding question involving long wh-fronting (6b), i.e. šta is often taken to be only a scope marker and the only wh-scope marker.

(6) a. [CP [Šta] misliš [CP kogai Jovan voli ti]]? what.Acc think.Pres.2sg who.Acc John love.Pres.3sg ‘WHAT do you think who John loves?’ b. [CP [Koga]i misliš [CP ti da Jovan voli ti]]? who.Acc think.Pres.2sg that John love.Pres.3sg ‘Who do you think that John loves? English resembles German in disallowing multiple wh-fronting (7), but it differs from

German in disallowing partial wh-constructions (8), too.

(7) a. *Who what saw? b. *Why whom John invited?

(8) *What does John believe who Mary loves? The aim of the paper is to offer an analysis of the type of partial wh-constructions found

in Serbian and by way of comparing several partial wh-movement languages to make a step forward in trying to provide a principled account of what licenses the use of partial wh-constructions in a language and thereby predict which natural languages are likely to employ this construction and which are more likely to disallow it.

The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 lays out some theoretical and terminological issues concerning partial wh-movement and addresses various aspects of partial wh-constructions. Section 3 provides data from Serbian which illustrate the peculiarities of the partial wh-construction in this language so that in Section 4 an attempt can be made at pinpointing the type of wh-construction involved in Serbian and an analysis can be offered, the highlight of which is the proposal that the observed difference between English(-type languages which disallow partial wh-constructions) and Serbian(-type languages which allow these) can be explained by referring to the different values of the features [wh] and [focus] in the two (types of) languages. Section 5 summarizes the key points made and suggests further issues to be explored.

2. Partial wh-movement – some theoretical issues and types

Although the type of partial wh-constructions dealt with in this paper is that in which a wh-phrase fails to reach initial position in the matrix clause (as in examples (1b, 2b-c, 3b, 4b, 5, 6a) above), crosslinguistically, one clarification is in order at this point. Namely, the partial wh-constructions analysed here are not partial in the defective sense - it is not that they are incomplete in any sense. A different issue is at hand here: unlike e.g. English (9) and German (10), Serbian is a multiple wh-fronting language, which means that in multiple wh-questions, all the wh-words are obligatorily fronted, as in (11):

(9) a. Who saw whom? b. *Who whom saw?

(10) a. Wer hat wen gesehen? who has whom seen ‘Who saw whom?’ b. *Wer wen hat gesehen?

(11) a. Ko koga tuče? who.Nom who.Acc beat.Pres.3sg ‘Who is beating whom?’ b. *Ko tuče koga?4

The fact that the fronted wh-phrases may occur in any order in Serbian, both in matrix and embedded contexts (cf. Halupka-Rešetar 2011) leads to the conclusion that in this language there never is wh-movement and so, the Superiority condition, requiring the highest wh-phrase to 4 Note, though, that this word order is perfectly acceptable as an echo-question, to express the hearer’s disbelief or surprise at what they have heard or to request that the sentence be repeated, e.g. in the following context:

(1) (In the schoolyard, 8-yeard old skinny John gets into a fight with 12-yeard old Peter. Mary is witnessing the fight and reporting to her friend, Ann, over the phone.) Mary: Jovan tuče Petra. John.Nom beat.Pres.3sg Peter.Acc ‘John is beating up Peter.’ Ann: Ko tuče KOGA? Who.Nom beat.Pres.3sg who.Acc ‘Who is beating up WHOM?’

move (first) is never violated (see Bošković 1997, 2007 for the interaction between wh-movement and the Superiority condition). Multiple wh-questions are actually formed as a result of the attract-all-focus feature of the C head, requiring that all elements which have the corresponding focus feature front to a position directly below C.5

Now, if there is no wh-movement in a language, obviously there is no partial wh-movement, either, which is exactly why it appears to be more reasonable to talk about partial wh-constructions, because this term covers languages in which wh-fronting is an instance of wh-movement, as well as those in which it is the result of focusing (and also those which apparently allow both wh-in situ as well as multiple wh-fronting without Superiority effects, e.g. Romani, as reported in McDaniel 1989).

Crosslinguistically, several distinct types of partial wh-constructions have been noted and accordingly, various competing analyses have been proposed to account for the data. Fanselow (2006) lists the following types of partial wh-constructions:

(a) simple partial movement (i.e. construction) characterized by partial displacement of the wh-phrase and occurring in languages with full wh-movement and the wh-in-situ strategy (some Malay and Athabascan languages but also in Iraqui Arabic, German and Romani in some contexts);

(b) partial movement with a scope-marking particle (e.g. Albanian) (c) partial movement with scope marking by the most unmarked wh-word (e.g. German was,

Serbian šta, Hungarian mit, Czech co, and many other languages); (d) clausal pied-piping involving partial movement, found in Basque (and in a very restricted

way in certain varieties of German), where the wh-phrase moves to the SpecCP of the complement clause (partial movement), following which the whole clause raises to the LF-scope position of the wh-phrase. The same author notes that partial movement in constructions other than questions might

also be possible, e.g. in relative clauses or topicalization and focus movement, as these are also instances of operator movement, like wh-movement. And as expected, in Romani and in some dialects of German partial movement is indeed possible in relative clauses and so is topicalization in embedded contexts in English (e.g. He said that the clergy, he resents but not *That the clergy he resents is obvious because topicalization is impossible within islands and tensed clauses are islands).

Several competing accounts have been proposed for type (c) partial wh-constructions, observable among other languages in Serbian and characterized by the co-existence of a real wh-word dislocated to a position within the embedded CP and the most unmarked wh-word, assuming initial position in the matrix clause, as in the Serbian example (5), repeated here for convenience’s sake:

(12) [CP [Šta] misliš [CP kogai Jovan voli ti]]? what.Acc think.Pres.2sg who.Acc John love.Pres.3sg ‘WHAT do you think who John loves?’

The accounts of this type of construction fall into two large groups, one of which is based on the idea of direct dependency existing between the scope marker and the real wh-word and the other arguing against such a relation. Thus, the direct-depedency approaches stemming from Riemsdijk (1982) assume that the wh-scope marker (šta ‘what’) and the real wh-word (koga ‘whom’) are linked to the same chain, either as a result of the insertion of an expletive-like element to mark the LF scope of the wh-word which has left its base position but has not moved all the way up to its LF scope position (McDaniel 1989, Müller 1997) or as the result of feature movement, an approach which invariably views wh-movement as movement of a wh-feature with the amount of material necessarily pied-piped varying among individual languages and the most unmarked wh-element being the phonetic instantiation of moving only the wh-feature

5 For a focus-raising analysis of wh-words in Serbian see in particular Bošković (2007).

(Hiemstra 1986, Cheng 2000). Very importantly, all the direct-dependency approaches view partial wh-movement as a surface alternative to long distance wh-movement, and as will be argued below, such analyses generally fall short of explaining why long distance wh-dependencies are sometimes formed by means of a scope marker and in other cases by means of standard long distance wh-movement. In fact, most direct-dependency approaches suggest that partial wh-movement may generally surface in long distance wh-movement languages, since partial wh-movement is contingent upon long distance wh-movement. The free variation of long distance movement and partial wh-movement that such analyses predict is argued against by empirical evidence, which point to the fact that these constructions are usually in complementary distribution (cf. Stepanov and Stateva 2006).

The indirect-dependency approaches, on the other hand, propose that the sentence initial wh-phrase is linked to the clause that immediately dominates the true wh-phrase. Again, several lines of reasoning can be distinguished here. One holds that the sentential pronoun, always homophonous with a word that can be used to ask for propositions, is a standard argumental wh-phrase (Dayal 1994) and the relationship between the initial wh-phrase and its CP associate is one between a sentential/expletive pronoun and its associate, as becomes obvious when one compares (13) with (14) (examples adapted from Fanselow 2006: 451):

(13) Was denkst du [wer gekommen ist]? what think.Pres.2sg you who come is ‘WHAT do you think who has come?’

(14) Ich habe es bedauert [dass Hans Maria eingeladen hat] I have.Pres.1sg IT regretted that Hans Maria invited have.Pres.3sg ‘I regretted that Hans invited Mary.’ The second approach, proposed by Horváth (1997), Mahajan (1996, 2000), Fanselow

and Mahajan (1996, 2000), treats the sentence initial wh-phrase as an expletive (the wh-counterpart of sentential expletives), which needs to be replaced by the clause containing the real wh-word at LF. Thus, the LF of (13), given in (15) below, has identical semantic values as the standard long-distance question given in (16):6

(15) [Wer gekommen ist] denkst du? (LF representation) (16) Weri denkst du dass ti gekommen ist?

who think.Pres.2sg you that <who> come is.Pres.3sg ‘Who do you think that has come?’

The third type of account, advocated by Felser (2001) and adopted in this paper, rests on the claim that the scope marker is not an expletive subject to replacement, but that it is base generated, a true argument that is theta-licensed by the matrix verb. The matrix verb and the embedded CP are assumed to form a syntactically complex predicate, of which the scope marker is the semantic subject (see also Den Dikken 2009).

The benefit of all the indirect-dependency approaches then is that, contrary to direct-dependency approaches, they do not have trouble in explaining why partial wh-movement and long distance wh-movement constructions do not generally coexist in a language, as they are fundamentally different structures. This is also corroborated by the cross-linguistic distribution of long distance wh-movement versus partial wh-movement constructions. Namely, as Schippers (2009) points out, these constructions are usually in complementary distribution: languages that employ long distance wh-movement generally do not allow partial wh-movement, and vice versa. An apparent exception to this pattern seem to be German and Hungarian, which allow both partial wh-movement (in the broad sense) and long-distance wh-movement, but also Serbian, as shall become evident in the next section, which explores the peculiarities of partial wh-constructions in Serbian.

6 Note that this approach also predicts clausal pied-piping of the type observed e.g. in Basque. For details see Ortiz de Urbina (1990).

3. Partial wh-constructions in Serbian

This section aims at establishing the behaviour of partial wh-constructions in Serbian.

The data will show the extent to which this construction conforms to several generalizations concerning it, such as anti-locality, the structural position of šta, its properties and mobility but also the nature and properties of the clause containing the real wh-word regarding extraction, binding, case and other issues.

In line with the indirect dependency accounts, šta and the real wh-word must not appear in the same clause as there is no slot for the expletive in the clause containing the real wh-word, as in the following examples:

(17) a. *ŠTA ko spava? WHAT who.Nom sleep.Pres.3sg ‘Who is sleeping?’ b. *ŠTA spava ko? WHAT sleep.Pres.3sg what.Nom ‘Who is sleeping?’

As pointed out above, Serbian is a multiple wh-fronting language, which instantly explains why (17b) should be ungrammatical – the wh-word ko (‘who’) has not fronted. Additionally, šta and the true wh-word being in the same clause, they would have to be directly related, which appears not to be possible. In (17a), šta and the fronted wh-phrase ko would have to occupy the same slot, in the same clause, which, as just pointed out, is not possible. Instead, only (18) is allowed:

(18) Ko spava? who.Nom sleep.Pres.3sg ‘Who is sleeping?’

Šta will be argued to be a propositional proform (cf. Šta misliš? ‘What do you think?’), neutral with respect to the declarative/ interrogative distinction in that it can serve as a proform for either type of sentence (cf. Felser 2001).

Also, the fact that (6a) and (6b) have the same meaning supports the claim that šta (‘what’) is not a true wh-word in these examples. Further evidence for this claim comes from the fact that while (19a) can be answered by ništa (‘nothing’), (19b) cannot, because šta is not a question word here:7

7 According to some of my informants, the associate in a partial wh-construction may be a combination of a yes/no-question and a constituent question – an entity that is not known to exist outside this construction:

(1) Šta misliš, da li sam se s kim srela? what.Acc think.Pres.2sg Q Aux.Cl.1sg se with who.Instr met.Part.sg ‘WHAT do you think, did I meet whom?’

I do not have an explanation for this but the fact that even those informants who find the above question tilted agree that it can only be answered by (2a), but not (2b-c) suggests that we are not looking at a partial wh-construction in (1) but rather at two separate questions (the second of which appears to be ignored after the first one is answered negatively). Thus, šta is interpreted as a true question word here.

(2) a. Ništa. ‘Nothing.’ b. Ne. ‘No.’ c. S Jovanom. ‘With John.’

Note that the same cannot be claimed of questions like (3): although here, too, we have šta and the yes/no question particle da li, but the partial wh-construction can be answered with da (‘yes’) or ne (‘no’), but not with ništa (‘nothing’), proving that šta is not a true interrogative phrase.

(3) Šta misliš, da li je srećan? what.Acc think.Pres.2sg Q Aux.Cl.3sg happy ‘WHAT do you think? Is he happy?’

(19) a. Šta je Jovan kupio? Ništa. what.Acc Aux.Cl.3sg John.Nom bought.Part.sg nothing.Acc ‘What did John buy?’ ‘Nothing.’ b. Šta misliš koga je Jovan pojubio? *Ništa. / Nikog. what.Acc think.Pres.2sg who.Acc Aux.Cl.3sg John.Nom kissed.Part.sg nothing.Acc nobody.Acc ‘WHAT do you think who John kissed?’ ‘Nothing.’/ ‘Nobody.’

Interestingly, however, if the lower clause is the complement of a noun, the partial wh-construction is disallowed (examples along the lines of Fanselow and Mahajan 2000:203):

(20) a. *Šta veruješ priču koga Marija voli? what.Acc believe.Pres.2sg story.Acc who.Acc Mary.Nom love.Pres.3sg ‘WHAT do you believe the story whom Mary loves?’ b. ??Koga veruješ priču da Marija voli? who.Acc believe.Pres.2sg story.Acc that Mary.Nom love.Pres.3sg ‘Who do you believe the story that Mary loves?’

Regarding the case of šta, although the Nominative and Accusative case forms of this pronoun do not formally differ in Serbian, we shall assume in what follows that šta occurs in matrix clause initial position in Accusative case (see below for the reasoning behind this claim). What is certainly not allowed is for šta to bear the case of the true wh-phrase in the lower CP, which proves (at least) that the two are not directly related:

(21) a. {Štai /*Čemui} misliš, čemui se Jovan nada? what.Acc / what.Dat think.Pres.2sg what.Dat se John.Nom hope.for.Pres.3sg ‘WHAT do you think what John hopes for?’ b. {Štai /*Čegai} misliš čegai se boji? what.Acc / what.Gen think.Pres.2sg what.Gen se fear.Pres.3sg ‘WHAT do you think what (s)he is afraid of?’

c. {Štai /*S kimi} misliš s kimi se Marija posvađala? what.Acc / who.Instr think.Pres.2sg who.Instr Mary.Nom quarreled.Part.sg ‘WHAT do you think who Mary quarrelled with?’

The next issue concerns the exact structural position of šta. Its ultimate position is undoubtedly a left-peripheral position in the matrix clause where it marks the matrix clause as a direct question. However, in some dialects of Serbian, it appears that šta may combine with a further wh-element in the matrix clause, in any order:

(22) a. Ko šta misli, [koga je Đorđe video]? who.Nom what.Acc think.Pres.3sg who.Acc Aux.Cl.3sg George.Nom seen.Part.sg

‘Who WHAT thinks, whom George has seen?’ b. Šta ko misli, [koga je Đorđe video]? same

If the judgements are indeed correct, this can only suggest that in the relevant dialects of Serbian, the proform šta of the partial wh-construction occupies the same position as the true matrix wh-word ko ’who’, otherwise the order of these two would have to be fixed.

Another interesting observation concerns the possibility of šta occurring in a position lower than the matrix SpecCP position provided that there is another proform in a higher SpecCP position, as shown in (23). However, a true wh-word in matrix SpecCP position cannot license šta in a lower SpecCP (24):

(23) a. Ko šta / Šta ko misli, šta Ana veruje, koga je Jovan prevario? who.Nom what.Acc / what.Acc who.Nom think.Pres.3sg what.Acc Ann.Nom believe.Pres.3sg who.Acc Aux.Cl.3sg John.Nom tricked.Part.sg ‘WHAT does who think WHAT Mary believes who John tricked.’

(24) *Ko misli šta Ana veruje, koga je Jovan prevario?

who.Nom think.Pres.3sg what.Acc Ann.Nom believe.Pres.3sg who.Acc John.Nom tricked.Part.sg ‘Who thinks WHAT Ann believes who John tricked.’ Example (23) supports the claim that the matrix wh-word ko (‘who’) and šta (‘what’)

may occupy the same SpecCP as well as the fact that more than one proform may be licensed but only as long as there is also a proform in the matrix clause (or in every higher clause): note that both the matrix and the middle clause contain šta indirectly related to the embedded wh-word koga (‘whom’) in the most deeply embedded clause. At the same time, (24) proves that the matrix ko (‘who’) and the proform šta (‘what’) are not related, which is why ko cannot extend the scope of šta, as shown above.

Not only does it appear that in multiple embedding structures, each intermediate clause must normally be introduced by a separate instance of šta, but the data also confirm that the proform is even allowed to raise. In other words, while (25a) contains three instantiations of šta, in (25b) šta seems to have raised into successive SpecCP positions8 until it reached the matrix SpecCP position. Note, however, that if šta raises, the presence of the complementizer da is obligatory (24c). This is due to the fact that in Serbian, finite embedded clauses are always signalled by either a complementizer (like da ‘that’, da li ‘whether’, jer ‘because’, etc.) or a fronted wh-word. Embedded finite clauses with a null complementizer and a raised wh-word of the English type shown in (26a) are unacceptable in Serbian (26b):

(25) a. Štai misliš štai je Marija rekla štai će nam Petar otkriti [koga Jovan voli]i? what.Acc think.Pres.2sg what.Acc Aux.Cl.3sg Mary.Nom said.Partsg what.Acc Aux.Cl.Fut.3sg we.Cl.Dat Peter.Nom reveal.Inf who.Acc John.Nom love.Pres.3sg ‘WHAT do you think, WHAT Mary said, WHAT Peter will reveal to us, who John loves?’ b. Štai misliš ti da je Marija rekla ti da će nam Petar otkriti [koga Jovan voli]i? what.Acc think.Pres.2sg that Aux.Cl.3sg Mary.Nom said.Part.sg that Aux.Cl.Fut.3sg we.Cl.Dat Peter.Nom reveal.Inf who.Acc John.Nom love.Pres.3sg same c. *Štai misliš ti Marija je rekla ti Petar će nam otkriti [koga Jovan voli]i?

9 what.Acc think.Pres.2sg Mary.Nom Aux.Cl.3sg said.Part.sg Peter.Nom Aux.Cl.Fut.3sg we.Cl.Dat reveal.Inf who.Acc John.Nom love.Pres.3sg

(26) a. Whoi do you think [CP ti Ø [John saw ti]]? b. *Kogai misliš [CP ti Ø [Jovan je video ti]]? who.Acc think.Pres.2sg John.Nom Aux.Cl seen.Part.sg ‘Who do you think John saw?’ Thus, wh-raising across clausal boundaries must be signalled overtly. Remember,

however, that the proform šta can also fulfill this signalling function in Serbian (25a) as there seem to be no restrictions on the number of proforms (al long as there is no ore than one per clause) but at the same time, šta does not license a wh-word in situ nor in the same clause where it surfaces.

8 For an account which views A’-movement as always being terminal see Den Dikken 2009. The author claims that if SpecCP is a terminal landing-site, truly successive-cyclic A’–movement may only proceed via vP–edge adjunction positions, as in Rackowski & Richards’ (2005) analysis, where it is the Agree relationship between the matrix v and the complement–CP that ‘opens up’ the CP, allowing movement out of CP without a stop-over on its edge. For the sake of simplicity, I will not elaborate on this matter here, let me just note that under this approach, the successive cyclic movement of šta in (25b) would proceed via vP-adjoined positions rather than through successive SpecCP positions. 9 The change in the word order is the result of the clitic second effect in Serbian requiring clitics to encliticize onto the first (overt) phonological word/phrase.

Having determined the position of the proform let us now turn to the embedded CP. Unlike German and Hungarian-type languages, which only allow the partial what-construction in the context of constituent questions, for most speakers of Serbian this construction is also acceptable in the context of the yes/no-question (similarly to Polish and Russian, among other languages, cf. Fanselow 2006: 461) as long as the matrix verb accepts both types of questions as a complement – compare in this respect the matrix verbs misliti ‘think’ of (27) and želeti ‘wish’ in (28): while the first verb type clearly licenses both wh- and yes/no-interrogative complements (as well as declarative ones), the latter verb type only allows wh-questions, but not yes/no-questions.

(27) a. Šta misliš, ko je došao? what.Acc think.Pres.2sg who.Nom Aux.Cl.3sg come.Part.sg

‘WHAT do you think? Who came?’ b. Šta misliš, da li je došla? what.Acc think.Pres.2sg Q Aux.Cl.3sg come.Part.sg

‘WHAT do you think? Did she come?’ (28) a. Šta želiš, koga da ljubiš?

what.Acc wish.Pres.2sg who.Acc da kiss.Pres.2sg 10 ‘WHAT do you want? Who to kiss?’ b. *Šta želiš, da li da pitaš? what.Acc wish.Pres.2sg Q da ask.Pres.2sg Since wh-infinitives like (29) are allowed in Serbian anyway (though the da+Present

tense form is more common), the category of infinitive clauses as legal associates of the proform šta will not be further explored here as it is clearly not dependent on partial wh-constructions.

(29) Koga želi pozvati? who.Acc wish.Pres.3sg invite.Inf ‘Who does (s)he wish to invite?’

According to native speaker judgements, no extraction is allowed out of the embedded CP containing the true wh-word, neither of the wh-word nor of a topicalized element if there is another wh-phrase in the same CP. This is, of course, expected, given the wh-island condition, which disallows extraction out of an embedded clause introduced by a wh-word and it results in the impossibility of raising kojoj (‘to which’) of (30a) out of the most deeply embedded clause containing also the wh-word koga (‘whom’) (and across the scope marker šta) as well as the impossibility of raising the topicalized object Jovana (‘John.Acc’) out of the embedded CP and into matrix-clause initial position.

(30) a. *Evo glumice kojoj se ne sećam šta je Jovan tražio koga da predstavimo. here actress.Gen who.Fem.Dat se not remember.Pres.1sg what.Acc John.Nom ask.Part.sg who.Acc da present.Pres.1pl ‘Here is the actress to whom I do not remember WHAT John asked who we should introduce to her.’ b. *Jovana ne znam šta Ana misli kako bismo mogli da ubedimo. John.Acc not know.Pres.1sg what.Acc Ann think.Pres.3sg how Aux.Cl.Past.1pl could da convince.Pres.1pl ‘As for John, I do not know WHAT Ann thinks how we could convince him.’

The data discussed so far all appear to support the claim that the embedded CP has the status of complement rather than of adjunct.11 Additional evidence comes from the fact that a

10 The da+Present tense verb form in complement clauses corresponds in meaning to the infinitive and is more widespread than the infinitive in present-day Serbian, while the infinitive occurs more in Croatian (see Ivić 1972). 11 Note, however that the embedded CP will be argued to be an unselected complement of V that is licensed not through theta-marking but through being predicated of the object pronoun šta, as suggested in Felser (2001) for German.

pronoun in the embedded CP associate can be bound by a quantifier in the matrix clause. Thus, in (31a) the pronominal clitic mu (‘to him’) can be bound by the matrix QP svaki student, and so can the pronoun o njemu (‘about him’) of (31b) be bound by niko (‘nobody’). Naturally, in both cases, the pronoun may also be bound by an XP outside the sentence, as the indices show.12

(31) a. Šta misli [svaki student]i, kada će mui/j se upisati ocena? what.Acc think.Pres.3sg every.student.Nom when Aux.Cl.Fut.3sg he.Cl.Dat se enter.Inf mark.Nom ‘WHAT does every student think? When will he have the grade entered (into his record)?’ b. Šta nikoi ne veruje, kakve priče [o njemu]i/j širi njegova žena? what.Acc nobody not believe.Pres.3sg what-like.stories.Acc about him spread.Pres.3sg his.wife.Nom ‘WHAT does nobody believe what kind of stories his wife spreads about him?’

Another characteristic of the partial wh-construction in Serbian seems to be its flexibility with respect to negative islands. Namely, in many languages, the wh-proform may not appear in a negative clause or when there is a negative QP in the clause, as illustrated by the German example in (32). Under the current approach, this is due to a condition on negative questions to the effect that they require D-linked domains. That is, to the extent that it makes any sense at all to ask a negative question such as What don’t you believe?, it is necessary that a (finite) set of possible answers can be presupposed, or is previously established in the discourse (as it would otherwise be impossible to enumerate all the things that X does not believe). Given this, the hypothesis that šta is a CP-proform explains why negative long distance wh-movement structures are possible in German (32b) while negative partial wh-constructions (32a) are not. The same carries over to Serbian, as illustrated by the examples in (33).13 Once again, we have clear

12 The same claim can also be made about sentences with a null subject, e.g.

(1) [Nijedan student]i ne zna šta je [profesor]j rekao kada će pro i/j/k polagati ispit. no student.Nom not know.Pres.3sg WHAT Aux.Cl.3sg professor.Nom said.Part.sg when Aux.Cl.Fut.3sg pro sit.Inf exam.Acc ‘No student knows when the professor said that he will take the exam.’

13 The situation observed here should not be taken to suggest that in Serbian (and perhaps other languages that behave in the way illustrated above) negation may intervene between fronted wh-words, even though for some speakers, it does seem to be able to intervene between a quantifier and its restrictor, as shown in the paired examples below:

(1) a. Ko koga nije poljubio? who.Nom who.Acc Neg.Aux.Cl.3sg kissed.Part.sg

‘Who didn’t kiss whom?’ b. *Ko nije koga poljubio?

(2) a. Koje je Jovan kupio cipele? which.Acc Aux.Cl.3sg John.Nom bought.Part.sg shoes.Acc ‘Which shoes did John buy?’ b. ??Koje nije Jovan kupio cipele? which.Acc Neg.Aux.Cl.3sg John.Nom bought.Part.sg shoes.Acc ‘Which shoes did John not buy?’

The explanation is trivial: in Serbian, true wh-interrogative phrases (i.e. non-echo and non-D-linked) have to front obligatorily and the sequence of wh-words may only be broken by clitics (and contrastive elements, see Halupka-Rešetar 2012). As nije is not a clitic (unlike its positive counterpart je), it cannot occur between the fronted wh-words. The reason why both sentences of the second pair are well-formed is that in multiple wh-questions it apparently suffices to front the wh-element of wh-interrogative phrases to SpecCP, leaving the complement behind (presumably, because it does not contribute to checking the attract-all feature of C). Alternatively, of course, the whole wh-phrase can be fronted, which would result in the well-formed Koje cipele nije kupio Jovan?

evidence that the partial wh-construction is derivationally not related to the long movement strategy.

(32) a.*Was glaubt keiner wen sie liebt? what.Acc believe.Pres.3sg nobody who.Acc she.Nom love.Pres.3sg ‘WHAT does nobody believe who she loves?’ b. Wen glaubt keiner dass sie liebt? who.Acc believe.Pres.3sg nobody that she.Nom love.Pres.3sg ‘Who does nobody believe that she loves?’

(33) a. *Šta Jovan ne veruje, koga Marija voli? what.Acc John.Nom not.Aux.Cl.3sg believe.Pres.3sg who.Acc Mary.Nom love.Pres.3sg ‘WHAT does John not believe who Mary loves?’ b. Koga Jovan ne veruje da Marija voli? who.Acc John.Nom not.Aux.Cl.3sg believe.Pres.3sg that Mary.Nom love.Pres.3sg ‘Who does John not believe that Mary loves?’

Obviously, a sound theory is needed to explain the data presented above. The next section attempts to propose an analysis of the partial wh-construction in Serbian in terms of the features and values of the functional head C. 4. The proposal: features and values of wh-phrases

Numerous proposals and analyses of the partial wh-construction exist in the literature, based on data from very diverse languages but what still seems to present a problem is whether the various instantiations of this construction should be treated (a) as biclausal (the approach favoured by English data); (b) as a parenthetical with the wh-phrase as an argument and the clausal associate as a modifier (in Hindi, see Dayal 1994); (c) as a clausal expletive-associate pair with the associate being a complement (as argued for Hungarian in Horváth 1997); (d) as a scope-marking construction with the wh-phrase, an NP-expletive, as part of chain formation (see Müller 1997 for German); (e) as a scope-marking construction with the wh-word as a scope-marking particle (in Iraqui Arabic, as argued by Ouhalla 1996); or (f) as scope marking with no wh-phrase left (as in Japanese).

In light of the above sets of examples and the generalizations concerning the contexts and conditions necessary for the application of the partial wh-construction in Serbian, it appears that the proposal put forward by Felser (2001) can be applied to Serbian with very little modification. Namely, she does not analyse the embedded clause of partial wh-constructions as a question in its own right, which is only semantically linked to the subordinate clause (as is the case in Dayal’s original approach, cf. Dayal 1994, 2000), but proposes a complex predicate approach, in which the matrix verb and the embedded interrogative clause together form a syntactically complex predicate whose semantic subject is the putative “object expletive” (šta in Serbian). She suggests that the scope marker originates in the specifier of VP, where it is assigned the theta-role of Theme. It checks structural accusative and raises further to matrix SpecCP to check the features of the matrix C. The embedded CP is an unselected complement of V that is licensed not through theta-marking but through being predicated of the object pronoun, the scope marker šta. Sentence (6a) Šta misliš koga Jovan voli? then has the following simplified structure (disregarding all movement but the raising of the wh-elements):

(34) [CP štai … v [VP ti [V’ misliš [CP kogaj …. Jovan voli tj]]] As pointed out by Den Dikken (2009), this perspective on the basic structure of the

partial wh-construction provides a proper base position for the scope marker, gives it a role to play in the structure (by making it the subject of predication inside the matrix VP) and enables it to engage in a structural Case and Ø-feature checking relationship with the matrix v, which turns out to be precisely what we need in order to account for the Serbian data.

Though the embedded CP resembles relative clauses in serving as a predicate of the scope marker in the matrix clause, it is important to note that the subject of the CP associate must be an interrogative wh-pronoun, Felser (2001) points out – it cannot be a non-wh-pronoun or a wh-pronoun in a non-interrogative context. This is supposedly the consequence of the interrogative concord relationship between the embedded CP and the matrix wh-word (similar to the case concord between the subject and a predicate nominal observable in many languages including Serbian). This concord relationship is presumably subject to a locality restriction: closest c-command.

Now, given that the scope marker always takes on the same form in Serbian (šta), regardless of what the true wh-word sitting in the embedded CP is, we do not want there to be full concord between the scope marker and the wh-constituent (as then we would expect the two to have the same form). As this concord relationship is contingent on closest c-command, we have independent evidence that wh-fronting in Serbian is indeed to a position lower than embedded CP, possibly to a focus position just below C (as suggested by Bošković 2007, Stjepanović 1999, 2003), so that it is separated from the matrix šta by C (a phase head), which in turn is the closest candidate for a concord relationship with šta in the main clause. The only concord relationship that is possible between šta and the embedded C is one of wh-interrogativity. The interrogative concord obtained in partial wh-constructions between šta and the embedded clause via the [+wh] feature can only be determined locally, through the predication relation itself. The complex predicate analysis presented here provides the necessary configuration for interrogative concord to obtain.

To illustrate the proposed account, consider (35b), the partial derivation of (35a): (35) a. Šta misliš, koga sam poljubila?

what.Acc think.Pres.2sg who.Acc Aux.Cl.1sg kissed.Part.sg ‘WHAT do you think who I kissed?’

b. [CP štai …[vP pro v [VP ti [V’ misliš [CP [C [FocP/DRP kogaj …[ pro sam poljubila tj]]] Under the assumption that due to the feature values of the functional head C, the true

wh-phrase does not raise to the embedded SpecCP but to a lower position (maybe a SpecFocP/SpecD(iscourse) R(elated) P(rojection), see Halupka-Rešetar 2012), the closest candidate for the concord relationship with the proform šta raised into the matrix SpecCP position is the embedded C.

Now consider the situation in English: since C has the value attract-one-wh-phrase, exactly one and necessarily the highest wh-phrase has to raise to SpecCP in interrogative clauses. It follows that English is a wh-movement language. This, in turn, implies that the closest candidate for the concord relationship is not C but the wh-phrase in the embedded SpecCP, thus we predict that English will not allow the partial wh-construction. Example (37), corresponding to (35a) above, shows that the prediction is borne out:

(36) a. Who said what? b. *What did who say?

(37) *What do you think, who I kissed? Let us also examine Hungarian, a language standardly claimed to involve focus-fronting

of wh-phrases rather than wh-movement. Again, given that the raising of kit involves focusing rather than wh-movement, as evidenced by the fact that the preverb meg- occurs postverbally, the scope marker mit sitting in the SpecCP position of the matrix clause will not be able to enter into a concord relationship with kit, but will have to do so with the embedded C:

(38) Mit gondolsz, (hogy) kit csókoltam meg? what.Acc think.Pres.2sg that who.Acc kiss.Past.1sg VP ‘WHAT do you think who I kissed?’ The fact that the verbal prefix meg- occurs in postverbal position is taken to signal that

the immediately preverbal position, the focus position, is occupied by kit ‘whom’. Note that

unlike Serbian, in Hungarian, the complementizer hogy ‘that’ precedes the focused phrase, making the Felser (2001)-type account directly applicable to the data from this language.

Returning now to Serbian examples, given that in the partial wh-construction šta is a theta-marked object pronoun capable of licensing a predicative CP in embedded position,14 it satisfies the selectional requirements of the matrix verb, and is capable of bearing the role of Theme – unlike the embedded interrogative CP. The hypothesis that šta is the internal argument of the matrix verb correctly predicts that the partial wh-contruction strategy should be unavailable if the complement of V is a complex DP/NP,15 as this is itself capable of carrying the role of Theme. This is exactly the case in Serbian, as shown in (20) above. On the other hand, being an object pronoun, šta is expected to receive Accusative case marking – even though Nominative and Accusative case forms šta are morphologically non-distinct, šta can co-occur with a Nominative case marked DP/NP in the matrix clause (pro in (21), Marija in the example below), but not an(other) DP/NP complement of the matrix verb (20).

(39) {Štai /*Čemui} misli Marija, čemui se Jovan nada? what.Acc / what.Dat think.Pres.3sg Mary.Nom what.Dat se John.Nom hope.for.Pres.3sg ‘WHAT does Mary think what John hopes for?’

The fact that šta cannot occur in the same case form as the wh-word in the embedded CP (21) supports the current analysis in which these two are not expected to be in a direct dependency relation.

Example (22), which shows that (at least for some speakers of Serbian) šta may also co-occur with a the matrix wh-word ko (‘who’), remains unaccounted for at this stage of the research, since on the one hand, the proform is required to raise to SpecCP in order to check the features of the matrix C but on the other, the fact that šta and the matrix wh-word ko can appear in any order suggests that they share the same structural position. This is just another piece of the wh-puzzle I will not have more to say about here. However, what the current proposal does account for is the fact that the embedded CP in partial wh-constructions is essentially non-interrogative and it only becomes [+wh] through the concord relation with the c-commandng matrix [+wh] proform. Thus, we correctly predict that in Serbian, given that the embedded C has an attract-all value for the focus feature, the true wh-words will never raise to SpecCP and the partial wh-construction will be available. We also correctly predict that in English, since C invariably has the attract-one value for the wh-feature but its focus feature is valued negatively (meaning that focus fronting does not occur), partial wh-constrcutions will never be allowed because the matrix proform will alwazs enter a concord relationship with the true wh-word in the embedded SpecCP position.

Also, under the present analysis, examples like (25b) with intermediate šta-clauses can be accounted for as involving ordinary long distance extraction of šta from the intermediate clause (cf. Felser 2001), whereas in the case of (25a), we would be looking as multiple wh-raising, with each wh-expression being part of a separate wh-chain. Note that nothing prevents the latter strategy from being applied more than once in the same sentence, i.e. nothing prevents šta from occurring in the SpecVP of more than one verb.

Obviously, the current proposal needs to be tested on many more languages, those that are standardly claimed to focus-front wh-phrases (e.g. Russian) as well as those that clearly examplify wh-movement languages. It would also be interesting to explore whether the proposed analysis can be extended to French-type languages, which have been claimed to allow focus-

14 In Serbian, the embedded CP in partial wh-constructions may also be a yes/no-question. I will have nothing to say about this type of sentences although I assume that the account presented here is largely applicable to this type of embedded clauses. 15 There is controversy regarding the question whether Serbian, a language with no determiners, projects a DP above the NP or not. For the current analysis, this question is irrelevant but for different approaches see Progovac (1998), Bošković (2005, 2008, 2009), Despić (2011) and references cited therein.

movement of wh-phrases in some contexts but require wh-movement in others (see Bošković 2007).

5. Closing remarks

The paper examines a special type of construction, termed partial wh-construction, characterized by a wh-word in the matrix clause, associated with an embedded CP containing a true wh-word. Following Felser (2001), it is argued that the construction should be analyzed as involving a theta-marked object proform in an indirect dependency relationship with the embedded clause, viewed as an unselected complement of the matrix verb, and as such only construable predicatively. A concord relationship is established with respect to the [+wh] feature between the matrix proform and true wh-word in SpecCP of the embedded clause, or, if wh-words do not move to SpecCP (as is the case with focus-fronting languages), the relationship in question will have to be established with the embedded C. With an analysis along these lines, and assuming that languages differ with respect to the values of features, it is proposed that in English the functional head C, dominating the clause, has the attract-one value for the [wh] feature and that it is valued negatively for the [focus] feature. This means that since a wh-word always raises to SpecCP, the partial wh-construction will not be available in this language (i.e. the proform would never get to establish the concord relationship with the embedded C because the wh-word sitting in SpecCP is a closer candidate).

Regarding Serbian, a language in which wh-fronting is taken to be an instance of focusing rather than wh-movement, the prediction that the partial wh-construction will be available is in fact borne out given that the embedded wh-word will focus front to a position lower than C and will never be able to establish a concord relationship with the matrix proform. Nevertheless, the presented account certainly requires further insights into the CP layer, especially into the exact landing site of fronted wh-phrases but no less importantly into pinning down the locus of topicalized and focused phrases relative to the complementizer. The fact that the complementizer da occurs in a lower position than the embedded wh-phrase does not necessarily undermine the approach presented as it may well be the case that da (of the da+Present tense construction) does not occupy the highest head position in the CP field – after all, it may co-occur with the interrogative complementizer da li, which clearly indicates that da and da li cannot be occupying the same structural position. Still, as most of the Serbian data presented in the paper seem to be accounted for and the analysis is also supported by other languages, it seems to be safe to predict that focus-fronting languages will allow the partial wh-construction. Literature Bošković, Ž. 1998. Wh-movement and wh-phrases in Slavic. Paper presented at the Comparative

Slavic Morphosyntax Workshop, Bloomington, Indiana. Available at http://www.indiana.edu/~slavconf/linguistics/index.html

Boškovic, Ž. 2005. On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59, 1-45.

Bošković, Ž. 2007. A note on wh-typology. Proceedings of FDSL 6, 159-170. Bošković, Ž. 2008. What will you have, DP or NP? In Proceedings of the North East

Linguistic Society 37. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 101-114. Bošković, Ž. 2009. More on the no-DP analysis of article-less languages. Studia Linguistica

63, 187-203. Cheng, L. 2000. Moving Just the Feature. In U. Lutz, G. Müller and A. von Stechow (eds.), Wh-

Scope Marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 77-99.

Collins, C. 1997. Local Economy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Dayal, V.1994. Scope Marking as Indirect Wh-Dependency. Natural Language Semantics 2, 137-

170. Dayal, V. 2000. Scope Marking: Cross-Linguistic Variation in Indirect Dependency. In U. Lutz,

G. Müller and A. von Stechow (eds.), Wh-Scope Marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 157–193.

Despić, M. 2011. Syntax in the Absence of Determiner Phrase. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.

Dkken, Marcel den 2009. On the nature and distribution of successive cyclicity. Adjunction, resumption, and scope marking as the roads to success in long-distance relation building. Paper presented at the Conference on Minimalist Approaches to Syntactic Locality, Budapest, August 2009. Ms., CUNY Graduate Center.

Fanselow, G. 2006. Partial Movement. In M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell Companion To Syntax, Volume III, Malden, CA: Blackwell Publishing. 437-492.

Fanselow, G. and A. Mahajan 1996. Partial Movement and Successive Cyclicity. In U. Lutz and G. Müller (eds.), Papers on Wh-Scope Marking. Working Papers of the SFB 340. University of Tübingen. 131–161.

Fanselow, G. and A. Mahajan (2000). Towards a Minimalist Theory of Wh-Expletives, Wh-Copying, and Successive Cyclicity. In U. Lutz, G. Müller and A. von Stechow (eds.), Wh-Scope Marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 195–230.

Felser, C. 2001. Wh-expletives and secondary predication: German partial wh-movement reconsidered. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 13, 5-38.

Halupka-Rešetar, S. 2011. Rečenični fokus u engleskom i srpskom jeziku [Sentential focus in English and Serbian]. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet.

Halupka-Rešetar, S. 2012. (Contrastive) Focus and wh-movement in Serbian. Ms, University of Novi Sad.

Hiemstra, I. 1986. Some Aspects of Wh-Questions in Frisian. Nowele 8, 97-110. Horváth, J. 1997. The status of ‘Wh-expletives’ and the partial Wh-movement construction in

Hungarian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15, 509-572. Ivić, M. 1972. O upotrebi glagolskih vremena u zavisnoj rečenici: prezent u rečenici s veznikom

da. Zbornik matica srpske za filologiju i lingvistiku, 13/1, 43-55. Mahajan, A. 1996. Wh-Expletives and the Syntax of Partial Movement. In U. Lutz and G. Müller

(eds.), Papers on Wh-Scope Marking: Working Papers of the SFB 340. University of Tübingen. 163-177.

Mahajan, A. 2000. Towards a Unified Treatment of Wh-Expletives in Hindi and German. In U. Lutz, G. Müller and A. von Stechow (eds.), Wh-Scope Marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 317-332.

McDaniel, D. 1989. Partial and Multiple Wh-Movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7, 565-604.

Müller, G. 1997. Partial Wh-Movement and Optimality Theory. The Linguistic Review 14: 249-306.

Ortiz de Urbina, J. 1990. Operator feature percolation and clausal pied-piping. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 13, 193-208.

Ouhalla, J. 1996. Remarks on the Binding Properties of Wh-Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 676-707.

Progovac, Lj. 1998. Determiner phrase in a language without determiners. Journal of Linguistics 34, 165–179.

Riemsdijk, Henk C. van 1982. Correspondence Effects and the Empty Category Principle. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 12. Tilburg: KUB.

Sabel, J. 2000. Partial wh-movement and the typology of wh-questions. In U. Lutz, G. Müller, and A. von Stechow (eds.), Wh-scope marking. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 409-446.

Schippers, A. 2012. Some people are repeaters. Medial copy spell-out in long-distance wh- dependencies. Proceedings of ConSOLE XVII, 269-288.

Stepanov, A. 1997. On partial wh-movement in Russian. Ms., U. of Connecticut, Storrs. Stepanov, A. & Stateva, P. 2006. Successive cyclicity as residual wh-scope marking. Lingua 116,

2107-2153. Stjepanović, S. 1999. What do second position cliticization, scrambling and mulpitple wh-

fronting have in common? Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Stjepanović, S. 2003. Multiple wh-fronting in Serbo-Croatian matrix questions and the matrix

sluicing construction. In C. Boeckx and K. Grohmann (eds.), Multiple wh-fronting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 255-284.