User:Cjfox45/Wh-movement

Multiple Wh-Questions
In languages, a sentence can contain more than one wh-question. These interrogative constructions are called multiple wh-questions,

e.g: Who ate what at the restaurant?

In the underlying syntax, the wh-phrase closest to Spec-CP is raised to satisfy selectional properties of the CP: the [+Q] and [+Wh-EPP] feature requirements of C. The wh-phrase further away from Spec-CP stays in its base position (in situ).

e.g: [Whoi did you help  who  ti make what?]

This syntactic movement yields the sentence fronting of the closest wh-phrase and leaves the more remote wh-phrase in situ.

In the example above, the trace-movement [ti] indicates underlying movement of the closest wh-phrase: [who] is raised from its canonical position which, in the underlying syntax structure of this sentence, followed directly after the transitive verb [help], because the VP selects as its VP complement a direct object DP. The closest wh-phrase is raised to Spec-CP, while the further wh-phrase [what ] is kept in situ.

Superiority Condition
The superiority condition determines which wh-phrase moves in a clause that contains multiple wh-phrases. This is the outcome of applying the attract closest principle, where only the closest candidate is eligible for movement to the attracting head that selects for it. If the farther wh-phrase moves instead of the preceding wh-phrase, an ungrammatical structure is created (in English). Not all languages have instances of multiple-wh movement governed by the superiority condition, most have variations. There is no uniformity found across languages concerning the superiority condition.

For example, see the following English phrases:

a. [Whoi did you ask  who ti to buy what?]

b. *[Whati did you ask who to buy  what ti?]

It should be noted that the subscript "ti" or "i" are used to mark coreference. "t" represents a trace, while both "ti" and "i" represent that the words refer to each other and the same entity.

In a., the closer wh-phrase [who] moves up towards Spec-CP from being the subject of the VP [who to buy what]. The second wh-phrase [what] remains in-situ (as the direct object of the VP[who to buy what]). This is to satisfy the [+Q Wh] feature in the Spec-CP.

In b., the farther wh-phrase [what] has incorrectly moved from the direct object position of the VP[who to buy  what ] into the Spec-CP position. The closer wh-phrase to Spec-CP [who] has remained in-situ as the subject of the VP[ who  to buy what]. This sentence contains a violation of the attract closest principle, as the closest candidate was not moved, rather the farther candidate. This sentence is ungrammatical which is marked by the asterisk (*).

German
German does not show the expected effects of the superiority condition during clauses with multiple wh-phrases. German appears to have a process that allows the farther wh-phrase to "cross-over" the closer wh-phrase and move, not remaining in-situ This movement is tolerated and has less consequences than when compared with English.

For example, see the following German phrases:

a. b. In a., the gloss shows that the wh-phrase [what] has "crossed over" wh-phrase [what] and is now in Spec,CP to satisfy the [+Q Wh] feature. This movement is a violation of the attract closest principle, which is what the superiority condition is based upon.

Mandarin Chinese
Mandarin is a wh-in-situ language, which means that it does not exhibit wh-movement in constituent questions. In other words, wh-words in Mandarin remain at the end of the sentence, contrasting with wh-movement in English where the wh-word would move in constituent questions.

In-situ
The following example illustrates multiple wh-movement in Mandarin, and is written in pinyin for the sake of simplicity and clarity: This example demonstrates that the wh-word "what" in Mandarin remains in-situ at Surface structure, while the wh-word "why" in Mandarin moves to proper scope position and, in doing so, c-commands the wh-word that stays in-situ.

Matrix scope
The scope of wh-questions in Mandarin is also subject to other conditions depending on the kind of wh-phrase involved. The following example can translate into two meanings: This example illustrates the way certain wh-words such as "who" and "what" can freely obtain matrix scope in Mandarin.

Attract Closest
In reference to the Attract Closest principle, where the head adopts the closest candidate available to it, the overt wh-phrase in Mandarin moves to proper scope position while the other wh-phrase stays in-situ as it is c-commanded by the wh-phrase first mentioned. This can be seen in the following example, where the word for "what" stays in-situ since it is c-commanded by the phrase in Mandarin meaning "at where": As these examples show, Mandarin is a wh-in-situ language, exhibits no movement of wh-phrases at Surface structure, is subject to other conditions based on the type of wh-phrase involved in the question, and adheres to the Attract Closest principle.

Bulgarian
ln Bulgarian, the [+ wh] feature of C motivates multiple Wh-word movements, which leads to multiple specifiers. It requires formation of clusters of wh-phrases in [Spec,CP] in the matrix clause. This is different from English because in English, only one Wh-word moves to [Spec,CP] when there is multiple wh-words in a clause. This is because in Bulgarian, unlike English, all movements of wh-elements take place in the syntax, where movement is shown overtly. The phrase structure for Wh-words in Bulgarian would look like is shown in Figure 1 below, where a Wh-cluster is formed under [Spec, CP]. In Bulgarian and Romanian, a Wh-element is attracted into [Spec,CP] and the other Wh-elements are adjoined into the first Wh-word in [Spec,CP]. In Example 1, we see that the both Wh-words underwent movement and are in a [Spec,CP] cluster.

Attract Closest
The Attract Closest is a principle of the Superiority Condition where the head which attracts a certain feature adopts the closest candidate available to it. This usually leads to the movement of the closest candidate.

Slavic languages are grouped in to two different S-structures concerning the movement of Wh-elements at [Spec,CP] (Rudin, 1998). One group includes the languages: Serbo-Croatian, Polish, and Czech where there is only one Wh-element in [Spec,CP] at S-structure. The other group contains Bulgarian and Romanian which have all of their Wh-elements in [Spec,CP] at S-structure. In the first group mentioned, the Attract Closest principle is present and the Wh-word that is closest to the attracting head undergoes movement while the rest of the Wh-elements remain in-situ. The second group of languages, the Attract Closest principle occurs in a slightly different way. The orderof the way the Wh-word moves is dictated by their proximity to [Spec,CP]. The closest Wh-word to the attracting head undergoes movement first and the next closest one follows suit, and on and on. In that way the Superiority effect is present in Serbo-Croation, Polish, and Czech in the first Wh-element, while in Bulgarian and Romanian, it is present in all of the Wh-elements in the clause.

The Attract Closest principle explains a crucial detail about the order of which Wh-words move first in the tree. Since the closest Wh-word is moved first, there is a particular order that appears. Wh-Subjects goes before Wh-objects and Wh-adjuncts (Grewendorf, 2001). This is seen in Example #2 and Example #3. Example #3 also shows that there can be more than two Wh-words in [Spec,CP] and that no matter how many Wh-words are in the clause they would all have to undergo movement.

In-situ
In Bulgarian, we see in Example #4, that to defer from forming a sequence of the same Wh-words, a Wh-element is allowed to remain in-situ as a last resort (Bošković, 2002).

French
In French, multiple wh-questions have the following patterns:

a) In some French interrogative sentences, wh-movement can be optional. 

1.The closest wh-phrase to Spec CP can be fronted (i.e., moved to Spec CP from its covert base position in deep structure to its overt phonological form in surface-structure word order);

2. Alternatively, wh-phrases can remain in situ. In the above example, sentences (1) and (2) are both grammatical and share the same meaning in French. Here the choice of using one form of question over the other is optional; either sentence can be used to ask about the two particular DP constituents expressed by two 'wh-words' . In French, the second sentence could also be used as an ' echo question '. By contrast, in English the grammatical structure of the second sentence is only acceptable as an' echo question ': a question we ask to clarify the information we hear (or mishear) in someone's utterance, or that we use to express our shock or disbelief in reaction to a statement made by someone. For echo questions in English, it is typical for speakers to emphasize the wh-words prosodically by using rising intonation. These special instances of using multiple wh-questions in English are essentially "requests for the repetition of that utterance".

  

b) In other French interrogative sentences, wh-movement is required 

The option of using of wh-in situ in French sentences with multiple wh-questions is limited to specific conditions. There exists "a very limited distribution" of its usage.

French wh-in situ occurs only:


 * 1) in matrix clauses (aka, main clauses)
 * 2) these matrix clauses must not have an overt complementizer (i.e. complementizer is 'phonologically null')
 * 3) in 'short-distance' questions (i.e., wh-movement not blocked by an wh-island constraint)

Wh-in situ usage is not allowed in French when these criteria are not met.

 Wh-in situ is not allowed: 


 * 1) in embedded questions

2. in questions with overt complementizers

 

3. in 'long-distance' questions

In sum, the choice between wh-movement and wh-in situ in French sentences with multiple wh-questions is not arbitrary; the choice is constrained by specific conditions.