Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-23T21:42:28.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards a new typology of coordinated wh-questions1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2012

BARBARA CITKO  and
MARTINA GRAČANIN-YUKSEK
BARBARA CITKO*
Affiliation:
University of Washington, Seattle
MARTINA GRAČANIN-YUKSEK*
Affiliation:
Middle East Technical University, Ankara
*
Authors' addresses: (Citko)University of Washington, Department of Linguistics, Box 354340, Seattle, WA 98195-4340, USA[email protected]
(Gračanin-Yuksek)Middle East Technical University, Department of Foreign Language Education, 06800 Ankara, Turkey[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, we develop a new typology of multiple wh-questions with coordinated wh-pronouns. We motivate the existence of three distinct structures for such questions: one mono-clausal and two bi-clausal. We use four kinds of diagnostics to determine which of the three structures is available in a particular language: the availability of both multiple wh-questions and wh-questions with coordinated wh-pronouns, coordination of two argument wh-phrases, transitivity restrictions and superiority effects.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 1 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

We would like to thank Olga Arnaudova, Çiler Hatipoğlu, Roumyana Pancheva, Dafina Raţiu, and Oana Savescu for help with judgments. Earlier versions of this work have been presented at NELS 40, 84th Annual LSA Meeting, Sarajevo Linguistic Gathering 4 and SinFonija 2, a colloquium at the University of Washington, and the SLS Workshop in Slavic Linguistics at Indiana University. We thank the audiences of the meetings, as well as two anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees and the editors for very substantial and insightful comments. We alone remain responsible for any omissions or misrepresentations.

References

REFERENCES

Abbott, Barbara. 1976. Right node raising as a test for constituenthood. Linguistic Inquiry 7, 639–642.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Arnaudova, Olga, Browne, Wayles, Rivero, Maria Luisa & Stojanovic, Danijela (eds.). 2004. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics #12 (FASL): The Ottawa Meeting 2003, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Bánréti, Zoltán. 1992. A mellérendelés [Coordination]. In Kiefer, Ferenc (ed.), Strukturális Magyar nyelvtan I. Mondattan [Structural Hungarian grammar I: Syntax], 715–797. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Barss, Andrew. 2000. Minimalism and asymmetric wh-interpretation. In Martin et al. (eds.), 31–52.Google Scholar
Billings, Loren & Rudin, Catherine. 1996. Optimality and superiority: A new approach to overt multiple wh-ordering. In Toman, Jindrich (ed.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics #3 (FASL): The College Park Meeting, 35–60. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. 1990. Syntactic complexity: Evidence for discontinuity and multidomination. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. 1994. Derived constituent order in unbounded dependency constructions. Journal of Linguistics 30, 349–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. 2003. Against ConjP. Lingua 115, 461–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 1996. Selection and the categorial status of infinitival complements. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 14, 269–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 1997. Superiority effects with multiple wh-fronting in Serbo-Croatian. Lingua 102, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 1998. Wh-movement and wh-phrases in Slavic. Presented at the Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax Workshop, Spencer, IN.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2001. On the nature of the syntax–phonology interface. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2002. On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 351–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, Wayles. 1972. Conjoined questions and the limitation on English surface structure. Linguistic Inquiry 3, 223–226.Google Scholar
Carnie, Andrew. 2008. Constituent structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chaves, Rui P. 2008. Linearization-based word-part ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 31, 261–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen-Main, Joan. 2006. On the generation and linearization of multi-dominance structures. Ph.D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin et al. (eds.), 89–155.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by Phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, Adriana (ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol.3, 104–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Sauerland, Uli & Gärtner, Hans-Martin (eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language?, 1–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 1998. An ATB analysis of free relative clauses. The Thirty-fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 34): The Main Session, 69–81.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2000. Parallel Merge and the syntax of free relatives. Ph.D. dissertation, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2003. ATB wh-movement and the nature of merge. The North East Linguistics Society (NELS) 33, 87–102.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2005. On the nature of merge: External merge, internal merge and parallel merge. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 475–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2006. Determiner sharing from a crosslinguistic perspective. In Pica, Pierre (ed.), Linguistic variation yearbook, 73–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2011a. Multidominance. In Boeckx, Cedric (ed.), Handbook of linguistic minimalism, 119–142. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2011b. Symmetry in syntax: Merge, move and labels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citko, Barbara. In press. The puzzles of wh-questions with coordinated pronouns. In Biberaurer, Theresa & Roberts, Ian (eds.), Challenges to linearization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Comorovski, Ileana. 1996. Interrogative phrases and the syntax–semantics interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 2002. Single-pair versus multiple-pair answers: Wh-in-situ and scope. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 512–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 2006. Multiple wh-questions. In Everaert & Van Riemsdijk (eds.), vol. III, 275–326.Google Scholar
Dukova-Zheleva, Galina. 2010. Questions and focus in Bulgarian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Endgahl, Elisabet. 1986. Constituent questions. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Everaert, Martin & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.). 2006. The Blackwell companion to syntax, vols. I–V. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gärtner, Hans-Martin. 1999. Phrase-linking meets minimalist syntax. The West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 18, 159–169.Google Scholar
Gärtner, Hans-Martin. 2002. Generalized transformations and beyond: Reflections on minimalist syntax. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia & Merchant, Jason. 1998. Reverse sluicing in English and Greek. Linguistic Review 15, 233–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodall, Grant. 1983. A three-dimensional analysis of coordination. The Nineteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 19), 146–154.Google Scholar
Goodall, Grant. 1987. Parallel structures in syntax. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gračanin-Yuksek, Martina. 2007. About sharing. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Gračanin-Yuksek, Martina. In press. Linearizing Multidominance Structures. In Biberaurer, Theresa & Roberts, Ian (eds.), Challenges to linearization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grebenyova, Lydia. 2004. Interpretation of Slavic multiple wh-questions. In Arnaudova et al. (eds.), 169–186.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, Gunther. 2001. Multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 87–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gribanova, Vera. 2009. Structural adjacency and the typology of interrogative interpretations. Linguistic Inquiry 40, 133–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1993. Minimal projection, heads, and optimality (Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Sciences Technical Report 4).Google Scholar
Hagstrom, Paul. 1998. Decomposing questions. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Haida, Andreas & Repp, Sophie. 2011. Mono-clausal question word coordinations across languages. The North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 39.1, 361–374.Google Scholar
Heringa, Herman. 2012. A multidominance approach to appositional constructions. Lingua 122, 554–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, James & May, Robert. 1981. Questions, quantifiers, and crossing. The Linguistic Review 1, 41–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken & Bodomo, Adams. 2008. Object-sharing and symmetric sharing: Predicate-clefting and serial verbs in Dàgáárè. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26, 795–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. et al. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Peterson, Peter. 2002. Relative constructions and unbounded dependencies. In Huddleston & Pullum et al. , 1031–1096.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian. 2004. Topicality and superiority in Bulgarian wh-questions. In Arnaudova et al. (eds.), 207–228.Google Scholar
Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1998. Coordination. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasai, Hironobu. 2007. Multiple dominance in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin. 2002. On coordination of wh-phrases in Russian. Ms., Tübingen University & Moscow State University.Google Scholar
Kliashchuk, Mikalai. 2007. L'interrogation coordonnee dans le langues slaves. In Radišić, Milica (ed.), The 2007 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 14 pp. http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/∼cla-acl/actes2007/Kliashchuk.pdf (accessed 23 May 2012).Google Scholar
Lambova, Mariana. 2003. On information structure and clausal architecture: Evidence from Bulgarian. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Law, Paul. 1991. Effects of head movement on theories of subjacency and proper government. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Levine, Robert D. 1985. Right node (non-)raising. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 492–497.Google Scholar
Lipták, Anikó. 2003. Conjoined questions in Hungarian. In Boeckx, Cedric & Grohmann, Kleanthes (eds.), Multiple wh-fronting, 141–160. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipták, Anikó. 2011. Conjoined questions in Hungarian: A language without sharing? Presented at the Leiden Syntax Circle, 8 June.Google Scholar
Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.). 2000. Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1982. Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 91–106.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2007. Spurious coordination in Vlach multiple wh-fronting. Presented at the Mid-America Linguistics Conference, University of Kansas, Lawrence, 26–28 October.Google Scholar
Moltmann, Friederike. 1992. Coordination and comparatives. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Muadz, Husni. 1991. Coordinate structures: A planar representation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Niinuma, Fumikazu. 2010. Across-the-board and parasitic gap constructions in Romanian. Linguistic Inquiry 41, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 2001. Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 303–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ojeda, Almerindo. 1987. Discontinuity, multidominances and unbounded dependency in Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. In Huck, Geoffrey J. & Ojeda, Almerindo (eds.), Discontinuous constituency (Syntax and Semantics 20), 257–282. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, John & Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Nouns and noun phrases. In Huddleston & Pullum et al. , 323–523.Google Scholar
Payne, John, Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2007. Fusion of functions: The syntax of once, twice and thrice. Journal of Linguistics 43, 565–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Peters, Stenley & Ritchie, Robert. 1981. Phrase-linking grammar (Technical Report). Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Raţiu, Dafina. 2010. A multidominance approach to conjoined questions in Romanian. Presented at DGfS, Humboldt University, Berlin.Google Scholar
Raţiu, Dafina. 2011. A multidominance account for conjoined questions in Romanian. In Herschensohn, Julia (ed.), Romance linguistics 2010, 257–270. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 1997. What moves where in which language. Ph.D.dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2001. On movement in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk. 2006. Free relatives. In Everaert & Van Riemsdijk (eds.), vol. II, 338–382.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rudin, Catherine. 1988. On multiple questions and multiple wh-fronting. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6, 445–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey. 1975. The single mother condition. Journal of Linguistics 11, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Tanya. 2010. Spurious coordination in Russian multiple WH. Presented at the 2010 LSA Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
Sinopoulou, Ourania. 2009. Wh&wh questions in Greek. Presented at the 19th International Symposium on Theoretical & Applied Linguistics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 3–5 April.Google Scholar
Skrabalova, Hana. 2006. Parataxe apparente et coordination des interrogatifs en tchèque. In Isabelle, Bril & Rebuschi, Georges (eds.), Coordination et subordination: Typologie et modélisation, 231–242. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Speas, Margaret Jean. 1994. Null argument in a theory of economy and projection. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17, 179–208.Google Scholar
Tomaszewicz, Barbara. 2011. Against spurious coordination in multiple wh-questions. The West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 28, 186–195.Google Scholar
Vermaat, Willemijn. 2003. Question formation: Slavic languages. Ms., Utrecht University.Google Scholar
de Vries, Mark. 2003. Three-dimensional grammar. Linguistics in the Netherlands 20, 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vries, Mark. 2005. Coordination and syntactic hierarchy. Studia Linguistica 59, 83–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vries, Mark. 2009. On multidominance and linearization. Biolinguistics 3, 344–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wescoat, Michael Thomas. 2002. On lexical sharing. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Whitman, Neal. 2002. Category neutrality: A type-logical investigation. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Whitman, Neal. 2004. Semantics and pragmatics of English verbal dependent coordination. Language 80, 403–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitman, Neal. 2006. The Coordinated-wh Project. http://literalmindedlinguistics.com/Coord_Wh/home.html (accessed 23 May 2012).Google Scholar
Wilder, Chris. 1999. Right node raising and the LCA. The West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 18, 586–598.Google Scholar
Wilder, Chris. 2008. Shared constituents and Linearization. In Johnson, Kyle (ed.), Topics in ellipsis, 229–258. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1978. Across-the-board rule application. Linguistic Inquiry 9, 31–43.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1981. Transformationless grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 645–653.Google Scholar
Zhang, Niina N. 2007. The syntactic derivations of two paired dependency constructions. Lingua 117, 2134–2158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Niina. 2009. Coordination in syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zoerner, Cyrile Edward. 1995. Coordination: The syntax of &P. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar