Wh Movement and Multiple Questions in Czech

ABSTRACT

NH MOVEMENT AND MULTIPLE QUESTIONS IN CZECH

Ludmila VeselovskA

•In the following work some aspects of Wh Movement in

Czech are presented, with the main fochs on multiple s.

• wh-queStions.

In Chapter 1 the simple Mon-echo wh-questions and

indirect wh-questions are shown. Wh' Movement frdt non-CP

infinitival structures is indicated' as standard in Czech,

while long-distance Wh Movement from the embedded CP clauses

is opJy . marginally acceptable.

In Chapter 2 the multiple wh-questions in Czech are

displayed in more detail with a brief survey of some relevant

literature. The phenomena discussed concern word-Order,

position of inserted elements, clitiC position, and some

substandard possibilities of extraction from the embedded-

multiple wh-questions. The arguments given in Chapter '2 as

a whole support the IP-adjoined analysis of the non-first

wh-words in the multiple wh-questions in Czech.

Dissertation submitted in partial requirement for the Degreeof Master of Arts in Applied Linguistics to School of English

Durham University

1993

fi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the University of Durham and the

British Council, as well as the PalackY University in Olomouc

and my family at home, which enabled me to Study, and provided

me with all the financial, moral, and emotional support that

was necessary during the course. The following work also would

hardly come into being without the help of my friends in the

Czech RepubliC who never refused to spend their.pvenings going

• through my endless lists of crazy sentences...

To. • be a student at Sehool of EngliSh at the Durham

University was a pleasure for me. I owe thanks and excuse to

all' my teachers: while I was making them bear my occasional

excesses, they have introduced me into spheres of knowledge

which I have found mostly reasonable or/and exciting. The

patience of my supervisor, Joseph E. Emonds, is unforgettable.

None of them can be blamed for any of my faults in the

following work, bUt any of its positive features should justly

be accounted for by their influence.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ............................................

1 SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF WH MOVEMENT IN CZECH

1.1 Simple direct.wh-questions ........................ 3

1.2 Indirect wh-questions .............................. 8

1.3 S-structure position of the Czech wh-elements ...... 10

1.4 LON:distance Wh Movement ......................... 17

1.5 Summary of Chapter 1 .............................. 26

Notes to Chapter 1 ...................................... 28

MULTIPLE QUESTIONS IN CZECH 31

2.1 Introduction ..................................... 31

2.2 Some previous analyses of multiple questions ....... 32

2.3.1 Word-order, Focus, and related phenomena ...... 37

2.3.2 Parentheticals, subject position, . wh-order ..... 41

2.4.1 Wh-words and clitic position ...................... 47

2.4.2 A note about the IP structure ..................... 52

2.4.3 Conjoined wh-words ................................ 57

2.4.4 Clitic affix and the particle fe ....................... 59

2.5 Wh extraction from the multiple wh-question ....... 64

2.6 Summary of Chapter 2 .............................. 67

Notes to Chapter 2 ...................................... 71

Bibliography ............................................ 75

INTRODUCTION

In the following work some aspects of Wh Movement in

Czech are presented, with the main focus on multiple

wh-questions. I have chosen this topic mainly because there is

no other substantial literature about CzeCh in a given

framework, and Wh Movement seemed to be restricted to the

periphery of the sentence. Even if it was not possible not to

mention the word-order distinctions, it was possible to avoid

many equally complex phenomena demanding appropriate analysis:

A number of issues were also mentioned and left unexplained

since they were beyond the limits of this work and its author.

Chapter 1 Some Characteristics of Wh Movement in Czech

In Chapter 1 some general information about Wh Movement

in Czech is presented, demonstrating the simple non-echo

wh-questions in section 1.1, and embedded wh-questions in

1.2. In section 1.4 extraction of the wh-element from

infinitival structures is discussed, and examples of .

long-distance Wh Movement are analysed. The position of the

[+wh) complementisers is discussed in 1.2 and some

characteristics of the bridge structures are suggested in 1.4.

The chapter presents Czech as a language with a syntactic

movement of the interrogative wh-element into a SPEC(CP)

position, with a standard and obligatory movement of the

wh-element from the embedded infinitival structures analysed

as IP's or VP's, and with a restricted substandard

long-distance Wh Movement from the embedded finite clauseS.'

Even if in Chapter 1 no detailed analysis is presented of any

phenomena, as a whole the Chapter represents an introduction

which was required because of the lack of literature

concerning Czech for the following analysis of the multiple

wh-questions.

Chapter 2 Multiple Ouestiens in Czech

Chapter 2 presents an analysis of the multiple

wh-questions in Czech. The relevant literature is briefly

mentioned in section 2.2. In sections 2.3- 2.5 some aspec'ts of

Czech multiple questions are displayed in more detail,

concerning the relation to the focus of the sentence, .

Word-order, position of inserted elements, clitic position in

Czech, and limited possibilities of extraction from. the

embedded multiple wh-questions. The arguments given in Chapter

2, as presented in this work support the analysis of the

multiple wh-elements in Czech as claimed .in e.g. Lasnik and

Saito (1984) for Polish, or Rudin (1988) for polish and 'Czech,

i.e. the SPEC(CP) position for the first wh-element, and the

IP-adjoined position of the subsequent, non-initial wh-words

in the multiple wh-questions in Czech.

In this work no explicit theoretical framework is

presented, but the arguments are baSed on the tasnik-and

Saito's (1984) analysis of Wh Movement and Chomsky's Barriers

(1986). The works by other authorsare cited if relevant for

the text, and are mostly not incompatible with.the same

framework.

CHAPTER 1

SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF WH MOVEMENT IN CZECH

Simple direct wh-questions

Wh Movement in direct and indirect questions has long

been analysed as a kind of Wh Fronting when a wh-element

generated inside the clause moves into the pre-sentence

Position; e.g. in Emonds - (1976:188) Wh Movement is presented

as a ' substitution of a phrase node dominating WEI for the

sentence-initial COMP node'. Since Chomsky's (1977) On Wh

Movement the phenomenon is taken for a kind of constituent

extraction the left, comprising question extraction

together with relative clause extractions, topicalisations,

etc. I am not going to deal with any of the other structures,

even if in the Government & Binding framework they are all

analysed in a similar way: the main reasons being a lack of

structural equivalents of some of the phenomena in Czech and

a,latk pf space for a detailed analysis of the distinctions.

In simple direct questions Wh Movement applies within one

clauSe as e monocyclic transformation. Wh Movement is,

however, a movement that can (at least in English and many

other languages) operate across many clausal boundaries, being

a form of an unbounded dependency construction. As an example

of a more general Move Alpha transformation, Wh Movement is

subject to general rules of movement and language specific

parametric Variation. Its interclausal application ' is

restricted with the COMP-to-COMP Condition ('Move a wh-phrase

to CORP' Van Riensdijk and Williams, 1986:64) to a movement

from the COMP position to a higher COMP position only. The

obligatoriness of Wh Movement is a result of interacting

principles of subcategorization and interpretation.

Van Riemsdijk & Williams (1986:65) give examples

(repeated below) of the obligatory Wh Movement in English

(la), and of the optional Wh Movement in French (lb). (lc)

presents the Czech equivalents showing the obligatory

syntactic• movement of the wh-element in a direct non-echo

wh-question.

(1) (a,b: VR&W,1986:65)

(a) John ate what? : echo-question interpretationWhat did John eat? . : direct non-echo wh•question

(b) Tu as vu qui? / Qui as-tu vu?you have seen who / who have you seen

(c) Jenidek snddl co? : echo-question interpretationJohnny ate what

Ty jsi videl koho? : echo-question interpretationyou saw who

Co OnAdl Jenidek? : direct non-echo wh-questionwhat ate Johnny'What did Johnny eat?'

Koh+) jsi vid41? : direct non-echo wh-questionWho saw-you:'Who did you see?'

The position of the moved wh-elements in direct non-echo

questions is more recently stated as 'pre-C position' for the

specifier-initial languages, such as English or Czech (e.g. in

Radford, 1988:501). In the following sections I am going to

presume the 'C-specifier analysis' of Wh Movement as presented

e.g. in Chomsky's Barriers (1986).

The following examples (2-4) present the variety of

constituents that can undergo Wh Movement in a Czech direct

non-echo wh-question: in (2) a subject NP and its internal

constituents, i.e. AP and PP, in (3) an object NP and its

internal constituents, in (4) an adjunct NP. (The traces are

marked, but without detailed analysis 'of the original

extraction site, simply to aid understanding.)

(2)(a) Kdo t ti to dal?whow tw to-you it gave' Who t gave it to you?'

yterd ddvde t se ti libi nejvice?which girl tw to-you likes best'Which girl t do you like best?'

* S dim [mut t pfinedl Pavlovi to knihu?* with what [man tw brought to-Paul the bookLit: 'With what man t did bring the book to Paul?'

* MIA a aim [ t pfinesl Pavlovi to knihu?* man with what, [tw brought to-PaUl the bookLit: 'Man with what t did bring the book to Paul?'

(2): to extract a wh-subject NP is possible; to question an

adjective phrase within the extracted subject a noun phrase is

possible as well. (2c-d) show that to question a noun phrase

within the prepositional phrase postmodyfiing the subject noun

phrase is ungrammatical.

•3a,b) show the same as (2) for an object noun phrase,

even if to extract an adjective phrase from the object noun

phrase seems to be possible, as shown in (3c).

Koho mma MAtenka nejradéji t ?who has MASenka!Who does Masenka most-likelike most t ?'

Jaky dixm / jak velky diam si chce koupit t ?which housev/how big housew wants-he to-buy tw'Which house/how big a house does he want to buy t ?'

? qaky si chce koupit t dAm?? which

'Whichw wants-he (to)buy tw house

does he want to buy a t house?'

(d) * S aim si chce koupit clAlm t':?* with what, wants-he to-buy houseLit: 'With what does he want to buy

tw

a house t ?'

There :Ls no significant asymmetry between the extractions.

from NP in the positions of subject (2) and adjunct in the

following (4); both are equally wrong.

(4)(a) Kam / Na co jsi to polcAil t ?wherew / on whatw did-you it put . tw'Where / On what did you put it t 7 ,

(b) ? Na jakk jsi to polc;i1 ( t stul7PP •

? On which, did-you it . put ( tw table?Lit: 'On which did you put it t table?'

(c) * Jaky jsi to polofil [ PrIna t* whichw did-you it put [ PPon t , table?

', .14t: Which did you put it on.t table?

Leaving aside the explanation of the distinctions betWeen

acceptability in (3c/d), it is possible to say, that extraction

from within the noun phrase is not possible in Czech in away

comparable with. English: The examples in (2-4) - present.

extraction from the NP which is an external argument (2), an

internal argument (3) and an adjunct (4). They show that the

Nmax presents a barrier for movement. The distinct levels of

acceptability may be stated as the difference between the

extraction of an N complement, whiCh is easier. han the'

extraction of an N'complement. In (3c) the object NP is

L-marked by a verb which subcategorises for a NP complement

and Case-marks it, thus voiding the barrier. 1

Consider than the following (5) repeating the impossible

stranding of prepositions in Czech demonstrated already in

(4c). Evpn if some examples can be paraphrased by a single

verb, pied piping of the preposition is obligatory for .10

(b)

(c)

(d)

0 hem mu bude povidat t ?about what him will-he tell t'About what will he tell him t ?'

(b) * dem, mu bude povidat o t ?* - whatLo d . him will-he tell about two

'What will he tell him about t ?

(5)(a)

Movement and excluded for NP Movement in Czech. Example (5b)

shows preposition stranding in Wh Movement and (5c) in. NP

(passive) movement, whete the stranding becomes 'doubly'

unacceptable because while in (5b) it would be theoretically

,passible to relate the adequately case-marked whpronotn to

the stranded preposition, in (5c) the nominative case demanded

for the subject of a passive verb clashes with the case

required by the preposition. The ungrammatical (5d) then shows

the pass.ivization of a prepositional verbal complement.

(c . ) * 116co bylo dohodnuto na t.* something,' was agreed on t-ACC

(d) Nam (* Na nêco ) bylo dohodnuto t.somethingNom (*on somethingACC) was agreed-ACC- t.

The 'reanalysis' of a verbal complex (of a 'Natural

Predicate'), as presented for NP Movement in English in e.g.

Radford"(1988:431-433 or 496-498) into one 'semantic unit' is

not poSsible with a Czech [verb + preposition].

In Kayne (1981) the impossibility of stranding the

piepositiOn is presented as a result of a different Case

:assignment by a verb and a preposition. ' P can assign oblique

• case • .only to an NP for which it is subcategorized whereas

1 v can assign objective Case somewhat more freely,.

particular to any NP that it governs' and ' reanalysis between

two lexical categories is possible only if the two govern in

-. the same 'way.' ( Kayne, 1981:363-4). This would mean that in

Czech, as in French and contrary to English, prepositions

cannot govern structurally. Kayne's hypothesis relates this

phenomena to the absence of 'exceptional Case-marking' in

French. However, in 1.4. examples of IP infinitival clauses in

Czech are presented, which are analysed as 'exceptional

Case-marking' structures. There are also prepositions' in Czech

( marginally) introducing infinitival (IP) clauses and

therefore Kayne's suggestion for French cannot be applied fOr

Czech without more detailed analysis.

The impossibility of stranding a preposition in Czech

together with the above mentioned NP constraint show thg.t in

Czech direct .non-echo wh-questions it is posSible to extract

only the complete constituents (maximal projections)

immediately dominated by IP or some V projection. Extraction

of a wh-element of any lower maximal constituent in a simple

direct wh-question is never fully grammatical.

1.2. Indirect wh-questions

While direct questions are structures in which the

interrogative clause is an independent sentence (as..e.g. all

the examples in the above section), indirect questions are

complex sentential structures. The interrogative part in the

indirect question is an embedded clause which is an argument

of a matrix clause verb. 2

An indirect question is a kind of indirect speech in

which the reproduced proposition has the form of a question.

Indirect speech is usually introduced by a subordinating

go' I . 'to go'are used

question

subject,

??togo.'

* pfijit-li.* to come •

• behaviour in several structures.

In Bresnan (1970) the following examples (9a,b)

to show that if is ungrammatical when the indirect

appears at the beginning of a complex Sentence'in the

i.e. NP, position.

(10) 'John doesn't know, whether/where he will

(a) Jan nevi, JESTLI/ZDA/ZDALI ptijde. /John not-know-he, ?COMP will-come-he /

(b) Jan rievi, pfijde-LI.John not-know-he, will-come-he-?COMP '/

moved into the sPEC(CP) in the Czech wh-questions (following

Chomsky's Barriers). On the other side, complementisers, e.g.

the [-wh) that, are standardly expected to appear in the head

position, i.e. C, with the exception of [+whl complementisers,

or at least with the exception of some of them: those which

are analysed to be in SPEC(CP) as well. In English the

distinct positions are argued also for the two [+wh)

complementisers if and whether because of their distinct

questions are translated as zd., -1i, zdali or lest21 in

Czech. (see e.g. Petr (1986:220-227). Their use is presented

in (10), which shows that when introducing -finite•

subordinate clause, all of the wh-elements, as in EfigliSh, are

grammatical. With an infinitival verb, however, none of the

complementisers seem to be ideal, while the wh-words (10c) are

fully acceptable. (The complementisers are represented•in the, •

translation only as '?COMP' or '7'.)

(c) Jan nevi, KAM / KDY ptijde. / ptijit,

(9) (Bre, 1970:310f) (a) Whether he'll come is not known.John not-know-he,WHERE/WHEN will-come-he / to come-

(b) * If he'll come is not known.Among other differences between whether and i f in.

Another structure where if, contrary to ; whether- , is not

acceptable is introducing the infinitival clause, as shown

e.g. in Borer (1985:76) on the examples (9c,d).

(9) (B.4)1. 4985:76) (c) John doesn't know whether to leave.

(d) * John doesn't know if to leave..

In a footnote Borer (1985:106) cites B.Palek who claims

that similar distinction appears in Czech. In the following

text I am going to present examples showing that with the.

exception of semantic distinctions, there is no difference

between the syntactic behaviour of the Czech

wh-complementisers, and in the same time that their position

is apparently distinct from that of the other wh-constituents.

The English whether and if introducing indirect yes/no

11

English, as mentioned in Emonds (1985:286-291), the

impossibility of if occurring in case-marked NP positions

following prepositions is discussed. The following (11a) shows

that all Czech complementisers are ungrammatiCal when preceded

by a preposition: (11b) gives the correct form with

a case-marked resumptive pronoun to 'it'. 6

(11)(a) * Patrani po ZDA/zDALI/JESTLI/ptiel-LI, bylo•marne.* investigating of 7/7/? came-he/? was in Vain'Investigation of whether/*if he came, was in vain:'

(b) PAtrâni po tom, zda/zdali/jestli bylo maVle.investigating of it(1,0C); 7/7/? came-he, was in vain.

The following example (12) shows, that all Czech

wh-complementisers also lack the inherent 'positive meaning',

which seems to be contained' in whether but not. in IX.

12

in the Czech translation as

kekla mi; "Zitratold-she me: tomorrow' She told me, "I will

well.

to tady potkäm."you here will-meet-Imeet you here tomorrow."'

rotind

.(6)(a)

conjunction ffe 'that' in Czech, while indirect questions are

' introduced by a wh-element. At least since. Baker (1970),

indirect wh-questions are accepted as presenting the same kind

of mil Movement as the direct non-echo wh-questions.

In Banfield (1973) indirect speech is claimed to be

derived independently from direct speech constructions, and

a number of distinctions are presented concerning structures

and elements which appear in English exclusively in one or the

other form. 3 In (10) (which is Banfield's simplified (1))

e.g. Personal pronoun ( you/me) and spatial and temporal

demonstrative elements ( here/there, tomorrow/today) are

changed according to the new context. The same changes are

( b) kekla mi, 2e dnes me tam pOtkS. •told-she me, that today me there will-meet-she

• ' She told me that she would meet me there today.

In English also the tense is related to the new context

( will/would) following the English tense shift rule for

indirect speech, while in Czech the tenses in direct and

indirect speech are identical (in (10) it is the future).

As for the Subject/Aux inversion in direCt wh-questions,

in Czech at least some auxiliaries or finite verbs appear

preferably in pre-subject position (in case of a standard

elauSe with, no element stressed). A possible example is given

In (7).

( 7) Komu bude KryetAfek (?? bude) pomehat?to-who will KrygtAfek (?? will) help,' Who will KryStilfek help?'

Although the example (8) shows a similar distinction for

an indirect wh-question, the level of acceptability of the

standard affirmative word-order in the indirect question is

much higher than in (7b)

(8)(b) Ptal se, .komu buds EryAtIlfek (?bude) pomehat.asked-he, to-who will Kry6tAfek (?will) helpHe asked who Kryetilfek will help?' •

(7) and (8) then demonstrate that even if the inversion in

Czech questions need not be obligatory, it is, unlike in

English, possible in both direct and indirect questions at the

PF level. 4 Whether this inversion is a syntactic movement of

the auxiliary or finite verb into the C position (as an in

English questions) or some later 'Stylistic Inversion'

adjoining the subject to the VP, which is mentioned in e.g.

Bouchard (1989), is not going to be decided here. 5

1.3. 8-structure position of the Czech wh-elements

All the Czech examples of wh-questions, both direct and

indirect, presented above contain an ;.overt [-1-wh] element in

a 'presentential position'. The presence of a wh-word or

wh-complementiser at the beginning of a sentence is supposed

to indicate the presence of the S-bar, i.e. CP projection,

which is the position of either the wh-element itself or of

some operator binding it. Within Stowell's (1581) concept of

the CP projection, however, two positions are available:

Specifier CP = SPEC(CP) and COMP = C. In the previous section

the extracted wh-words (i.e.constituents) were assumed to be

10

(12) * chtal vedgt ZDA/ZDALI/JESTLI nebo ne prgi.He wondered whether / * if or not it rains.

(10), (1/), and (12) present the structures where the

English if complementiser would be the equivalent of all the

Czech forms. No difference between the behaviour of the Czech

complementisers could be observed, leaving aside the fact that

only zda is used introducing causative and only iest1i

conditional, clauses. The position of the wh-complementisers

was evidenced as distinct from the other wh-words. Therefore

C, i.e. the position of the English if, is assumed here to be

the position of all the Czech wh-complementisers.

The analysis of the -// postfix complementiser supports

the above claim. Assuming the movement of the finite,

inflected verb, i.e. of the verb containing the TENSE and AGR

features, into the I position (as presented for e.g. French in

Emonds (f978:165), or Pollock (1989:366)), there is no reason

to expect the infinitival verb (containing no TENSE and no AGR

features) to undergo the same process. The distance between

the position of the infinitive inside VP and CF may be enough

to prevent a suffix appearing anywhere inside CP to appear on

infinitival forms (as presented in (10b) and (13b)).

Then there are still two possibilities how to relate the

finite verb and the affix complementiser: either to suggest

(13)(a) * Ptal se, NAgenka* Asked-he, Magenka came-?Litt 'He asked, whether Magenka had come.'

(b) Ptal se, pkiSla-LI MagenkaAsked-he, came-? Magenka'He asked whether Mdgenka came.'

The latter variant assumes the movement ofI Containing

the finite verb into C, excluding again the infinitival forms

simply by the fact that infinitival verb cannot become the

member of V+.1 cluster. The movement of I into C, howeVer,

would be blocked by the presence of a complementiser, if -1i

were present in C, because the 0-wh) features are,'contrary to .

that and similar 'neutral' complementisers, supposed to be

present at the D-structure (see e.g. Bresnan (1970:315f). The

solution would be to assume that the [+wh] features are'

present in SPEC(C) but become overtly .realized by the -/i

suffix on the head C later on (as may be suggested by its

position in the end of the word). The postverbal position of

the subject, as presented in (13), would then he predicted.

A similar suggestion is mentioned also in Toman (1992): 7

The analysis presented above, then, may. be enlarged on

the other' Czech [+wh] complementisers as well. S. will assume

their position in C (even it they contained the (+whr-featureS

appearing in SPEC(CP)), and the position of the" other

wh-constituents in SPEC(CP).

both of them in I, or both of them in C. The former variant

would predict that in such structures the subject will precede

the verb. Consider then the following example (13)

demonstrating the obligatory postverbal position of overt

subject in clauses with the -/i postfix complementiser.

13

In Lasnik & Saito (1984) a number of' LF filters are

presented, which define the characteristics of interrogative

complements. Two of these filters are cited here as (141.

(14)

'(183) A 1-4-whj Camp must have a (+whj head.. (184) A [-wh] Comp must not have a (4-wh] head...

14

(15) Polish: (L&S,1984:75)

Spotkalds metczyzne,you met the manLit.: 'Whomi did you

(16) Czech:

(a) * Potkal jai mute, kterl-koho zabil?* you met the man who whom killed

(b) . ? Potkallsi mute, kter7 zabil koho?? You met the man who killed whom

(c) . * Koho i jsi potkal mute, kteil zabil t.* who did you meet en who killed ,et the m h killd ti

•

Comparing the Czech examples (16) with the Polish

embedded 'relative Clause/question (15), it shows that while

'Polish need not have a [i-wh] interrogative COMP specified at

S-structure, i.e. a relative clause can be understood as an

indirect . question as well, the Czech equivalent (16a) is

ktOryi kogo 2who whommeet the man

t1 zabil t2killed

who killed t.?'

(187) if a language L has syntactic Wh Movement, (183)(184) apply at S-structure in L.' ( L&S,1984:287)

and The difference between the Czech verbs taking embedded

questions and embedded propositions is presented in (17) and

.L&5 demonstrate an example of an.interrogative relative

clause in Polish which contains an interrogatiye wh-element

following a relative wh-element. For the authors the relative

•pronoun occupies the SPEC(CP) position and the interrogative

. wh-element is adjoined to IP. That is why they take the

filters. (14) as LF filters and not S-Structure filters for

Polish. Consider the comparison of Polish and Czech below

(18) below (notice the distinct complementisers).

(17) (a) Kdo vi, . jestli / * to si to Kuba koupil?Who knows whether/ * that it Kuba bought?

(b) Kdo vi, co / * to si Kuba koupil?Who knows what / * that Kuba bought?

(c) Kdo vi, jestli / * te' si co Kuba koupil?Who knows whether / * that what Kuba bought what?

(17) shows that in Czech, unlike Polish, if the verb

subcategorizes for an interrogative clausal complement, i.e.

for an embedded question, its COMP must contain a fronted

eleként in S-structure: either [+wh] complementiser

or wh-constituent (17b). The L&S LF filter (183, here in

seems relevant for the S-structure in Czech.

Example (18) shows that if a verb subcategorizes for

a (-wh] complement only (18a), i.e. for an embedded

proposition, its complement must not contain a [+wh] element

in the . S-structure (19b), suggesting that the L&S's LF filter

(184, here (14)) applies in S-structure in Czech as well

((18a) is acceptable as an echo-question).

(18)(a) * Maruka si mysli, ie si Toma§ek koupil co?* MaruAka thinks that TomaSek bought what?

(b) MaruLka si,mysli, to /*jestli /*co si (to) Tomd6ek•koupil.MaruAka thinks that/*whether/*what (it) TomAgek bought.

There are two ways that the [-wh] embedded proposition in

Czech can be questioned, both of them enlarging the scope of

the (+wh] to the matrix clause. The following (19) shows the

standard correct form where the wh-word is syntactically

ungrammatical. .p.6b) is acceptable as an echo question only.

(16c) shows the . impossibility of a movement of the wh-word to

' the . higher SPEC(CP) position, presenting a Complex NP

constraint violation (i.e. Wh extraction from the finite

relative clause modifying a noun).

1516

related to (ir subcategorised and case-marked by) the matrix

verb. The emb dded clause is not an indirect question but

a kind of a elative clause with a resumptive pronoun (in

(19), to 'it' which is a clitic) related to (subcategorised and

case-marked by the verb in the embedded clause.

(19)

0 Lem si [Marugka mysli t (le si to [ Tomggek keupil t ]]]About whati(Marugka thinks ti[that iti.[Tomagek bought til'What does Marugka think thaE Tomagek sought?!

(20) presents the colloquial variant containing long-distance

movement of the wh-word to the matrix clause SPEC(CP).

(20) % Co.1[Marugka mysli (te si [TomAgek koupil ti]]]]

What- [Marugka thinks [that [Tomagek bought ti]l)/What does Marugka think that Tomagek bought?

The characteristics of the matrix-clause complementiser

position in Polish are given by L&S as ' we assumed that

Polish is distinct from English in that the matrix Comp is not

specified for a value of (whj.' ( L&S, 1984:284). (20) shows,

however, that a matrix clause in colloquial Czech may be

specified for a value of [+wh] and that long-distance Wh

Movement is not strictly prohibited in Czech.

1.4. Long-distance

Extraction of the wh-element in Czech is fully standard

from.the infinitival structures. The following (21a,b) shows

infinitival complements of modal and 'want' verbs. Notice the

obligatory climbing of the clitics mu 'him' and to 'it'

17

originating in the embedded clause, and obligatory subject'

control of the infinitival subject. (Clitics are written in

Capital letters.)

(21)(a) Karel MU TO musel/chtgl e odevzdat t tKarel himcl itc2 must-ed/wanted e i to-give tc tc2 :' Karel had/wanted to give it to

( b)Komu TO Karel musel/chtel (*komu) odevzdat t t 7to-whowl itc2 Karel must-ed/wanted (*to-who) to-give t wl ec .2who did Karel have/wanted to give it?'

The following (22) presents Exceptional Case Marking

structures following the verbs of perception and 'believe'

' type of matrix predidates. In (22a) the obligatory plitic

climbing '(of to 'it') and obligatory object control of the

infinitival subject are indicated again.

(22)(a) Karel HO TO videl/nutil e dglat t.Karel him itm saw/made ec to-do tm .Karel saw/made him do it.'

(b) co HO Karel videl/nutil (*co) delat t ?what,, him Karel saw/made (*what) to-do'What did Karel saw/made him do?'

Notice that in neither (21b) nor (22b) is the'wh-element

acceptable as an element introducing the infinitival

Structure. This indicates that neither (21)hr (22). present

a CP clause. Using the concept of the missing CP projection,

the properties indicated above appear natural. If the landing

site for the extracted wh-word is in SPEC(CP) position, than

the only one available is the matrix-clause SPEC(CP). Since no

Subjacency effects are noted (and a clitic movement is

obligatory), I suggest the above structures to be preferably

VP structures in (21), and IP•struCtures in (22).,.8 In.any caso

-the maximal projection is L-marked by a matrix verb and 'as

18

such does not present a barrier. The trace in the embeddeda Czech equivalent acceptable example of English

infinitival structure is assigned a Case by the infinitive,long-distance Wh Movement (see Chomsky's (1986:29)).

the intermediate traces bay be thought of as .adjoined to VP

(following Barriers), and the wh-word appears in the position

of the operator indicating the scope of the wh-question. Both

lexical and antecedent government are possible in (21-22) and

no Superiority distinctions can be observed.

Compare the standard Czech obligatory Wh Movement from

- the structures in (21) and (22) with the infinitival

pomplements in (23). Following the above criteria, (23) is

assumed to be a CP structure. In contrast to (21) and (22)

notice the clitics which in (23) cannot appear inside the

matrix clause, the 'subject of the infinitive of arbitrary

reference, and the possible insertion of the wh-element in

front ot the infinitival clause.

(23)(a)

laigta (*TO) vdddle/vyzvidala, komu TO e odevzdat t t .Miga.I(*it) knew/wondered, to-who,, it,2 BARB give t, 1 t,•44isa knew/wondered, who to give it to.T

( b) komu Mi6a vödela/vyzvidela (TO) odevzdat (TO)?• - * to-who' MiSa knew/wondered (it) togive (it)

Lit: 'Who did Miga know to give it?'

The' matrix clause predicates in (23) are subcategorised for

a [+wh] complement and the embedded infinitival complement

must be overtly marked for [+wh]. (23b) shows that further

extraction of the wh-element is not possible, since the

infinitival clause would lackany overt [-Ewh] complementiser.

The. UngraMmaticality of (23b) resembles the

ungrammaticality of the extraction of the wh-element from the

embedded -finite clause as presented in (24) which gives

(24) * Jak si Jan mysli tys opravil to auto t* how John thinks you're repaired the car t

'How does John think you fixed the car t 7°

Long distance Wh Movement is said (see L&S (1984),

Radford (1981:237), Anyadi and Tamrazian (1993), Riemsdi.jk &

Williams (1986:294)) not to appear in Polish, Russian,

Armenian; or German, and in Chomsky's early works is presented

as restricted (the WHisland condition) also in English. L&S

(1984:274), however, show examples of long distance movement

of the wh.-elements extracted out of subjunctive complements in

Polish. Their Czech equivalents are given in (25a,b) together

with two example's of substandard long-distance Wh Movement

from the embedded finite clauses (25c,d).

(25)(a) ? Co chtel Jakub, aby Lenka koupila t-7What wanted Jakub. that Lenka bought t' What did Jakub want that Lanka buy t 7'

(b) ? Kdo chtal Jakub, aby t koupil chleba?who wanted Jakub that t bought bread'Who did Jakub want that t buy bread?'

(c) ? Co vedal Jakub, to ma 2' Lenka koupit t 7what knew Jakub that should' Lenka buy t'What did Jakub know that Lenka should buy t ?'

(d) 7 Kdo vadel Jakub, 2e t ma koupit chleba?who knew Jakub that t should buy a bread ''Who did Jakub know that t should buy a bread?'

Both (25a,b) and (25c,d) have standard forms connecting the

wh-word directly to the matrix-clause verb with resumptive

pronouns in the embedded clause, as shown in (19) above.

The examples (26) and (27) of an inserted parenthetical

clause (26) and of an acceptable long-distance Wh Movement

20

simple form, if it is followed by a structure analysable as

CP. Both this characteristics are going to be briefly

discussed in the following paragraphs.

In Chomsky (1977) long distance Wh Movement is stated as

' a langvage-specific COMP-CORPwh-pbrase from CORP to a higher(COMP, X, wh-phrase, vbl), wherespecial properties'.

movementCOMP over aX contains

rule (44): movebridge' and '(45)a VP with certain

( Ch., 1977:85)

The COMP-COMP movement can, then , be blocked by conditions on

(27) indicate that the colloquial form of long-distance Wh

Movement presents a distinct structure. 9 Notice the presence

of the complementiser ge ' that', punctuation (a pause), and

the position of a clitic AUX affix -s = jsi :are'.

(26)

(7jsi) tikal jsi, (*te) mu to JardUfka dale t 7(?are) said are-you, (*that) him it aareafka gave twyou said, did Jardafka give it to him?

(27) Rde's tikal, to (*) mu to Jarlafka dale. t 7where'rew said, that (*) him it JarCiafka gave tw'Whore did you say Jardilfka gave it to him?'

In both (26) and (27) the fronted wh-word is case-marked and

belongs to the subcategorisational frame of the second

predicate. In (26) the parenthetical and wh-question remain

syntactically independent (the clitic in the parenthetical

follows 'the first constituent' within the parenthetical, the

complementiser is unacceptable, commas mark pauses). In (27)

the clitic follows the extracted wh-word and the

complementiser marks the second clause as subordinate.

The introductory matrix-clause clause in Czech, however,

compared to the similar structures in English, allows only

little variety of predicates and seems to demand the most

rules of interpretation, ie. 'the bridge conditions', which

are relevant for the structure of the matrix clause and

characteristics of its predicate. In Van RiemSdijk and

Williams (1986:294) the 'bridge verbs' are suggested . tobethe

verbs that can make the following CP A'-transparent, which•.

means that the COMP (non-argument) position in the embedded

clause becomes accessible to external government.

It seems that the criteria restricting .the . number - of

possible 'bridge verbs.' can be derived from the fact that

indirect questions are wh-complements of the matrix-clause

predicates. As stated in Grimshaw (1979),

6 ... Ed• a'predicate-complementPair to' be well formed, threeconditions mist be satisfied. The predicate and, 16s complementmust be semantically compatible; the complement must meet theidiosyncratic selectidnal conditions encoded in the semanticframe of the predicate; and the complement must meet the (alSoidiosyncratic) syntactic conditions . encoded in - -thesubcategorization frame of the predicate."

( Grimshaw, 1979:325,)

The subbategorisation frales of matrix verbs expresS-

codcpurence restrictions on prediCates in terms of syntactic

categories, specifying the optionality or obligatorineSs of

the sister phrasal constituents for which the, predicate As

subcategorized. Embedded questions are,Characterized by'the

Rde,wherew ,' Where,

subcategorization frame containing an optional or Obli:gatery

sentential complement, e.g. find out, V:+ I s t WH].

The Czech verbs of communication are mostly ditransitive

and their complements are both + NP, NP and + NP, clause.

At the same time .the complement selection is only optional and

they may be used as the verbs of action requiring no,

argUment. The vague subcategorisation frames of most of the

semantically acceptable 'bridge verbs' present a problem,

21 22

since they hardly ever exclude the possibility of relating the

fronted wh-,word to the matrix clause predicate, which may be

subcategorised for optional complements of the sate kind. 10

Consider also that there is only a limited number of, .

asyndetIc complex sentence structures in Czech, and that

a subordinate : clause must be introduced by an overt

complementiser `(as seen in the ungraimatical (24)).

Combining the obligatory presence of a complementiser

. with a possible requirement of the matrix clause verb on the

overt [±wh] specification, of its clausal complement, the

results may be predicted and are presented in the following

examples ..(28):: If a connecting eletent is obligatory and

subcategorized as [+wh], then it cannot be removed from the

embedded clause (28a). If the selected connector may be I-wh)

as well, the wh-eleMent may move to the main clause SPEC(CP)

and be'replaced with a neutral that (28b). If the selected

connector must,be [-wh] than the wh-element moves (280. 11

.(28)(a) 'Ptd se, *2e /jestli/komu to delaAsk-he, *that/whether/who it gave-sheHe asks *that/who/whether she gave it to'

.* Komu se ptd, 2e to dela?"* Whom ask-he, that it gave-she?

' Who did he ask she gave it to?'

Aikame, te/komu to 41a ( Krygitiifkovi)SaY7we, that/who it gave-she to (K.)'We say that/who she gave it to (K).'

Komu tikdd, 2e /(*) to dale?WhoM say-I, that/(*) it gave-she?Who do you say she gave it to?'

( c) • Myslim si, 2e/*komu to dela.Think-I that/*who it gave-she.'I think who she gave it to.'

Komu si mysliA, 2e to dela?who think-you, that it gave-she'Who do you think she gave it?'

23

Consider then the example (29) respecting the above

requirements (the embedded clause is introduced with

a subcategorised [4-whj complementiser, while another wh-word

is removed into the SPEC(CP) of the matrix clause)

(29) as ptd, jestli to?? Komuask-he, whether it?? Whomdid he ask whether'Who

The (29) example presents a Wh Island Constraint

violation which is in L&S analysed as resulting from the

position of the [+wh] element in the SPEC(CP) of the embedded

clause, where it blocks a cyclic movement of the other

wh-element ..., The [+wh] features in Czech occupy the SPEC(CP)

position also in Czech, and therefore the LEIS (1984) analysis

can be used for the Czech examples as well.

Comparing the Wh-extraction from infinitival vs. finite

structures, and the restrictions stated above, tha conditionsrestrict

which #ieuMmui* the ,acceptability of the long distance Wh

Movement in Czech are as the following (30)

(30)(A) . the unambiguous analysis of the relations betWeen thewh-word and matrix clause vs. embedded clause predicates,(b) a [±wh] specification of the matrix clause predicate,(c) the presence of the CP projectOn.

The analysis of long distance Wh Movement presented in

e.g. Chomsky (1986) demands traces to be properly governed' and

no more than one bounding node for subjacency to be crossed.

With regard to the levels of unacceptability, the violating

government of the trace, i.e. the Empty Category Principle, is

suggested to present usually worse results than violation of

subjacency.

Following the above concept, the violation of (30a)

24

dale?gave-she?she gave it to?'

results in Czech in structures which are usually not

analysable, while violation of (30b,c) presents only a certain

lower (substandard) level of acceptability.

Since there is no difference between the extracted

obligatory complement (25a,c), subject (25b,d), or adjunct

(26), the standard distinction between lexical vs. antecedent

government . does not seem applicable. In Barriers the

intermediate traces of , the moved wh-constituents are

subsequently VP adjoined and placed in SPEC(CP) positions. If

any of these positions would be defined as accessible for the

government by the matrix clause verb, then the violation of

(28a) could be stated in terms of a 'closer potential

governor' interfering the chain link, which would result in

a violation of the Empty category Principle. 12

The restriction on movement presented by Lasnik and Saito

(1984) for Polish, i.e. prohibition of the syntactic movement

from an A' position, would on the other hand present a kind of

subjacency violation. The bounding nodes for subjacency may be

felt in colloquial Czech to be distinct from standard Czech.

In Barriers the difference between Italian and English is

discussed, and 'the parametric variation is restricted to

subjacency, not government, so that "extra barriers" have no

effect on adjunct movement.' (Chomsky, 1986a:39) Assuming that

standard Czech takes both tensed IP and CP for barriers to

movement, while in colloquial Czech only one of them is

relevant, we may get the observed distinctions. Any such

statement would, however, require more detailed discussion,

and analyses of also other possibilities of extraction, which

is beyond the scope of this work.

25

1.5. Summary of Chapter 1

The syntactic Wh Movement of a wh-element into, the

presentential position in direct non-echo wh-questions in

Czech was introduced in 1.1. The variety ofsnoved wh-elements

comprises the maximal NP, AP, and PP constituents immediately

dominated by IP or some V projection. The difference between

the wh-element in the pre-complementiser position and in situ

(i.e. in echo-questions) is clear and suggests the origin'al

post-verbal extraction site of the removed internal argument

constituents.

In 1.2 and 1.3 some properties of indirect questions were

presented, showing that the complementiser of the embedded

question is obligatorily specified for a (1-Wh) interrogative . •

feature at the S-structure, and the complementiser of .the

matrix clause can be specified for [+wh) in colloquial Czech.

The [-F.wh] complementisers in Czech appear in a form of suffix

realised on a finite verb, and as separate words. The:position

of all the [A-wh] complementisers is assumed to be ..in Comp;

while those of the wh-wordS in SPEC(CP), as in Chomskyr(1986),

In 1:4. some examples of extraction of:the Wh-elements

were demonstrated. The 'Wh Movement from the infinitiVal

compleMents argued to be non-CP structures was shown as

obligatory in standard Czech, while the movement from within

the CP infinitival complements was presented as acceptable

only for some speakers. The CP projection represents a barrier

for external government, movement of clitics and Wh Movement. -

Another restriction for a movement of the Wh-word into-the

26

bridge structures, which -must preferably be analysed as not

allowing any structural relation between the fronted

wh-element and the matrix clause,predicate.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 1

1 Some acceptable counter-examples to the aboveevaluations may be explained by a kind of ambiguityallowing analysis of the postnominal prepositional NPmodifier as an adjunct. (5b) indicates that when suchan ambiguous analysis is semantically excluded, thesame structure is unacceptable.

(a) V jakem obalu ptines1 tu knihu t ?in which cover brought-he the book t'In which cover did he bring the book t ?'

(b) * S jakym ndzvem ptines1 tu knihu t 7* with which title brought-he the book t

'With which title did he bring the book t ?'

2 For more detailed characteristics of the introductory,predicates see e.g. Grimshaw (1979). Some are'preSehted in the following section, too.

3 Banfield (1973) states more distinctions than arepresented in the following paragraphs. While theoccurrence of the 'expressive elements' in direct andindirect speech in Czech if comparable with theirdistribution in English, to compare the grammaticalstructures referred to in her 'last-cyclic or roottransformation' section is complicated by a freeCzech constituent-order, which makes it difficult todistinguish any special constructions fortopicalisation or dislocation.

The differences between grammatical vs. ungrammaticalword-order can in most cases be better viewed asdifferenCes between marked vs. unmarked varieties. Inthe following text I am going to use the marking '?'or '.??' for the marked word-order, where 'marked'means 'pragmatidally marked', i.e. possible and fullyacceptable but in some context only, to make itdistinct from the starred examples, which . areungrammatical, i.e. not acceptable in any context.

main clause .pre-sentential position was derived from the

. obligatory overt [+wh] marking of the clause interpreted as

,a question.

,;The long-distance Wh Movement is presented as

e.,substandard variant motivated by obligatory selection of

[±wh] clausal complements by a matrix clause predicates. The

restrictions on long distance Wh Movement presented above

result from the restrictions on the government of the

intermediate traces, i.e. froM the properties required by

The prethence of a Cp projection represents a barrier that

cannot be crossed without the use of the lower SPEC(CP)

position. The examples given above indicate that Czech

respects the Wh Island restriction, suggesting that the

SPEC(Cp).of the embedded clause is used for cyclic movement.

. The distinction between acceptability of the long-distance Wh

Movement in standerd and colloquial Czech was suggested to be. -

a result of a distinction in perception of the bounding nodes

for Subjacency in each of:them.

Bouchard (1988:155) cites Xayne & Pollock (1978), whoclaim that in French a wh-phrase in COMP triggers thesubject adjunction to the right of the VP. A similarpossible solution is finally suggested here in 2.4.2for Czech as well.

Any complementiser would be ungraMmatical followinga preposition, however, in Czech. A resumptivepronoun would be necessary after the preposition with

28

all of them, suggesting that the case assigned bya transitive preposition must be realised in anadjoined nominal element (i.e. Case is to be realisedmorphologically).

Toman (1992) presents -/i and the finite verb ' asa zero-bar phrase resulting (in somewhat simplifiedterms) from Age or NegPhrase° Incorporation. In thisstruqture 71i is the complementizer, hence it appearsin Cu .l(Toman, 1992:117)

A possible distinction between the VP and IP analysesmay be presented as e.g. the restrictions on thebinding domain for the anaphoric reflexive clitic se(-self). As indicated in the following examples thereflexive anaphors remain within the ECM=IPinfinitival clause (b), but move from the SUBJECTlessVP's (a).

Karel SE musel/chtel vykoupat (*SE)Karel ; selfi/*k had/wanted to-bath (*self)'Karel had/wanted to take a bath himself.'

Karel RAS (*SE) nutil/vid61 t koupat SEKarel; usk (*self) forced/saw t to-bath selfv *i

-"Karel made/saw us to take a bah ourselves.'

In'Lenerz (1985) examples of apparent long-distancemovement in German is presented for the structurescontaining the verb 'weenen "believe' in the matrixclause. The author does not take it for an argumentthat a COMP node in German may become an escape hatchfor the embedded clause element, but claims, that'waen may have lost its verbal character and may

have been regarded as some kind of sentential adverbor particle like bitte, 'please' and danke 'thankyou'. Also it may be the case that speakers did notassume there to be a S'-boundary between the matrixpredicate and its complement V/final 'clause', thelatter being considered as similar to the infinitivalcomplement.' (Lenerz, 1985:113).The examples presented by Lenerz, however,exclusively concern fronted embedded clauses and notWh Movement, and the 'when' structures are presentedas .the only acceptable ones. On the other hand inAnyadi and Tamrazian (1993) Ruhr German is shown asapplying long-distance Wh Movement in a way roughlycomparable with Czech, and several 'bridge verbs'(i.e.glauben or sagen) are used.

An example of such interference between the matrixclause predicate and the fronted wh-word occurs alsoin the following example, with a ' pro crossover' in

29

(c) where the pronominal pro is presented as Aboundby a wh-element, violating thus Principle B of theBinding Theory. similar examples may be mistaken forarguments suggesting the impossibility of subjectextraction, i.e. of the ungoverned position: ofa subject even in Czech. (Notice the indexing of thewh-element indicating its relations to the predicteagreement features.)

Kdo tikal, to ptijde?(a) whoi t i said-he i that proi/A will-come-he i/A

'Who said that he would come?'(0) * whoi pro said-heA , that ti will-come-hei

'Who did hesay (that) will come?'(c) * whoi prof said-hei that ti will-come-hei

,The subject wh-word is morphologically marked fornominative of the 2rd person singular pronoun. If itprecedes a finite verb with AGRfeatures for irdperson. singular with a null-subject, the emptyposition for subject will always be taken for a Whtraceooindexed with the subject wh-word. Thereforethe bridge structure with null subject and 3psagreement is not a structure permitting long distancemovement of subject.

11 The kind of 'obligatory' movement presented here maybe compared with the obligatory movement ininfinitival structures lacking the CP projection. Inthe finite clauses there is a CP projectionavailable; this projection, however, issubcategorised for a [-wh] element. The subjunctiveclauses are always [-wh] clausal complements and thelong-distance Wh Movement from these structures istherefore predicted.

(a)

(b)

12 Recalling the Riemsdijk and Williams concept of 'Al-- transparent' bridge predicates, it may bepreferably the lower SPEC(CP) position that beComesgoverned, given the difference between the [+wh] and[-wh] complement selection as would suggest .(30b).The concept would however have to become more'A'-non-transparent', at least for the Czech examples:presented here, if it is to prevent the intermediate •trace from being interfered with. Alternatively"thefact that the finite verb is in the I position ats-structure in Czech may result in the governed trace .of the moved wh-element adjoined to the matrix clauSeVP, which would capture. the interference . of thesubject wh-trace as well, (if it is ,the INFL positionfrom which subject is governed).

In such a concept - adjunct wh-words are alwaysstructurally ambiguous and their relation to eithera matrix clause or embedded clause , predicate is •a result of semantic or pragmatic factors only.

30

2.1. Introduction

the preceding

a language with syntactic

CHAPTER 2

MX.H.,TIPLE QUESTIONS IN CZECH"

chapter Czech was presented as

Wh Movement placing the wh-elementS

at the beginning of the wh-question. This characteristic makes

czech comparable with e.g. English, but while in English

multiple wh-questions only one wh-element appears in the

vresentential position and all the others remain 'in SitU', in

Czech' multiple wh-questions (MWhQ) all wh-words move to the

'.'_presentential position' at the S-structure. Examples of the

Czech direct and indirect MWhQ's are given in (1)

-(1)(a). Kdo Co koupil?Who, what 2 [t 1 bought t

(b) Kdo koupil co? .................... echo queStionWho l [ ti bought what]

(c) Zajima më, kdo co ptinese.wonder-I whoi what 2 [t1 brings t 2 ]'I wonder who will bring what.'

(d) Zajima m4, kdo pf-inese co. ..wander-I .whol [t1 brings what]

(la) is a direct MWhQ, (lb) is acceptable only

on.Oo 'what' as an echo question, (lc) is an

and (1a) is again an echo form of embedded MWhQ. 1

In dealing with Wh Movement in terms of an operator

binding its variables, all the wh-elements appear at LF in the

positions where they can bind their traces within the scope

required, i.e. at the LF level all the wh-elements are to be

- found in the relevant SPEC(CP) position. The examples of

MWhQ's in Czech may suggest that the wh-elements in

pre-sentential, position are in their LF positions at the

S-structure already, i.e. no subsequent LF movement into

SPEC(CP) is required. Such an analysis would, however,

contradict the observed characteristics of the multiple

wh-words in Czech, and also face certain theoretical problems

mentioned in the following sections.

2.2. Some previous analyses of multiple questions

The abstract question morpheme Q posited as a 'meaningful

deep structure segment with a performative reading in Katz and

Postal (1964) was 'revised' in Baker (1970) and applied to

both direct and indirect wh-questions. Baker's Q-Morpheme was

introduced as an operator binding wh-variables (i.e. the

questioned constituents which were derived by means of the Wh

Insertion inside the clause and co-indexed with the operator).

Baker's Replacement Rule places one of the wh-elements in the

pre-sentential position, where the presence of the rah-element

triggers the Subject/Aux Inversion in,' the following direct

questions in e.g. English. The co-indexing of wh-words with

their traces enables more than one of the wh-elements to be

bound inside the clause, which makes it possible different

structures for sentences with different scopes of separate

wh-words. The Replacement Rule, however, predicts that only

one of the wh-words is fronted. Similar predictions were

derived also from Bresnan's (1970) analysis of'the [+wh]

complementiser, which may be viewed as a more syntactic

echo question

with a stress

embedded MWhQ,

31 32

5'

COMP S

COMP

(2)(Teman,:82:(27))

COMP

WH1

counterpart to the abstract Q-Morpheme.

The operator status of the clause initial morpheme Q was

challenged in e.g. Kuno and Robinson (1972), where the

ambiguity of some MWhQ's was explained by pragmatic factors.

Baker's mechanism of Q-binding was exchanged for the clause

Mate Constraint requiring, multiple •wh-words with the same

scope to be clause mates at the time of application of Wh

Movement. The authors pointed out a relation between the

fronted full constituents and wh-words, and formalised it in

the Double Dislocation Constraint prohibiting the dislocation

of more than one constituent.

In Wachowicz (1974) the 'single Wh question movement'

derived from Baker's Single Q-morpheme Hypothesis was rejected

because of the existence of MWhQ's with more than one

wh-element fronted in e.g. Polish and . Russian. Such multiple

structures seemed to contradict the concept of Baker's

Replacement Rule, since 'after the replacement there is no

Q-morpheme left that could lexjcalize'. ( W,1974:164).

Wachowicz argued that all the wh-elements in the multiple

questions are moved by a question movement (i.e. they are not

'in situ') when fronted. She mentioned the relation between

the 'free word order phenomena' which enables the languages

showing multiple fronted wh-words to also extract more than

one topicalised element into the pre-verbal position, and she

rejects Kuno and Robinson's (1972) Double Dislocation

constraint on movement. Wachowicz did not propose any

formalised concept for the MWhQ's; all restrictions that she

applied on the MWhQ's were based on discourse constraints. The

same analysis was repeated in Wachowicz (1978)•

An attempt to explain the MWhQ's within the . 'concept of

unique Wh Movement can be found in Taman (1982)• The author•:

claims that even if only one position in Comp is available

universally, there are still at least two acceptable analyses

of the MWhQ's whiCh do not contradict the multiple filled'COmp

constraint: either the fronted wh-words form a single complex

constituent, or not all the wh-elements are in - Comp, Toman "

demonstrates examples in Polish, Czech, and Russian, .which

support the second of the possible explanations,i.e.that the

wh-wOrds are not a single constituent, and their parts,do not

appear in the same positions in the sentence. The presence pf

adjoined Wh-elements in pre-sentential position is suggested

to be a result of scrambling, which appears in all Slavio

languages. 'However, the assumption that scrambling' is '

adjunction to S is not particularly clear' ( 41982:299 •). The

structure which Toman offers for the MWhQ is given in the

following (2)

Taman (referring to Reinhart (.1981)) mentions also

a possibility of a COMP analysis which would make more than

one node in Comp available, because such an 'extra' position

could be used for the non-initial fronted wh-words'.

Reinhart's (1981) analysis of the Hebrew COMP is, however,

better understood as an argument for SPEC(CP) and C nodes

33

CP

SPEC(CP) IP

IP

IP

CP

SPEC(CP) IP

( t )WH 2 ( t )WH3 ( )

within the CP projection, and is hardly useful for Toman's

alternative:analysis.

In Lasnik and Saito (1984) Stowell's (1981) concept of CP

'. dontaining. SPEc(cP) and C is used for the analysis of Wh

. Movement. Polish examples of MWhQ's are analysed with the

first wh-word!in the SPEC(CP) position and the other wh-words

' adjoined to IP: This 'IP-adjoined' analysis is followed also

in e.g. Haegemann (1991)as a supporting argument for the

Government and Binding concept of the cyclic Wh Movement

through/into the SPEC(CP) position.

In Rudin (1988) the author argues that the sentence

structure and conditions on movement, as proposed by Chomsky

in Barriers, do not exclude either adjunction to IP or to the

other non-argument maximal projection, i.e. to CP. Rudin

claims that both the possibilities presented in the following

(3) appear, i.e. IP-adjunction (3a) and CP adjunction (3b) of

the non-initial wh-words.

(3)(b)

Rudin argues that Bulgarian and Rumanian MWhQ's represent

the structure ( 3a). She calls those languages

'Multiple-Wh-Fronting Languages', replaces the Doubly-Filled

S-Structure or LF.

Czech and Polish area according to Rudin (1988)

'non-Multiple-Wh-Fronting Languages' which respect the

constraint on SPEC(CP) adjunction at S-Structure and PF. This

specification groups Czech; Serbo-Croatian, and Polish with

English, French, and Chinese (Rudin, 1988:494). What makes all

these languages different is the Wh Movement of the multiple

wh-words at S-Structure: while Czech and Polish move all

wh-words into A'.-positions, English moves only the first one,

and Chinese moves none. The following (4) paraphrases Rudin's

schemes . , for Czech (4a) and English (4b) S-Structure positions

of the multiple wh-elements.

(4)(a) ...Czech (4)(b) ...English

The structure (4a:IP-adj) in Rudin's framework predicts

that Czech prohibits co--occurrence of wh-words with overt

complementisers, respects the WH Island Constraint,' and allows

MWhQ's with more than one wh-word moved to A' positions in

random ordering, since all the traces are A'-hound and

governed at the required levels (Rudin, 1988:495). 2

(3)(R,88:(2c,d))

(3)(a) s'1 1

Comp S Comp Sor or I

SpeJcCP SpecCP WH

'WH - WH WH

S.

. comp Constraint with the 'Condition on SPEC(CP) Adjunction

Constraint' •Rudin, 1988:490)), and claims that the above

In Rudin's (1988) article most

in Bulgarian, some in Rumanian, and

of the examples are given

Serbo-Croatian. Czech is

languages do not respect the Constraint at either PF or in many places mentioned only briefly. 3 In the following

35 36

sections I am going to follow Rudin's (1988) arguments, to

show that even if the choice is not unambiguous, the

preferable analysis for the Czech MWhQ's is the structure

presented above as (4a:IP-adj). I am not going to refer

systematically to any other language, Polish being the only

exceptiqn, since Polish is presented as the closest equivalent

to Czech.

2.3.1. Word-order, Focus, and related phenomena .

To argue that the MWhQ's in Czech are a phenomenon

distinct. from something like English MWhQ's presented in

abundance in e.g. Bolinger (1973), one argument should be

advanced: it is necessary to show that all the fronted

wh-elements in Czech are moved, which need not be the case if

Czech Were entirely a free constituent-order language. 4

In the above Chapter, however, the 'echo-questions' were

presented, and the position of wh-elements in such 'in situ'

structures was taken for the extraction site in both simple

and MWhQ's. Also all the authors dealing with this phenomenon

made a distinction between stylistic reordering and multiple

Wh Movement into some syntactically definable position(s);

such positions being derived from the characteristics of the

wh-words.

The origin of the wh-words is standardly assumed as

inside the questioned constituents. In the pre-Q-Morpheme

analysis in Chomsky (1957) the wh-words were derived from

definite- pronouns and fully-specified constituents.. In Katz

and Postal (1964) from indefinite pro-forms, : and similarly in

Bach (1971) the interrogative pro-constituents are claimed to

be based universally on indefinite pro-forms. The author also

relates the position of wh-words to the position of the theme

of the sentence.. The relation between the focused full --

constituents and multiple wh-words in the sentence structure

is pointed out also in Kuno and Robinson (1972), Wachowicz

(1974), Toman (1982), and Rudin (1988). The relation between..

indefiniteness and the theme, however,. is not`-so obvious.

Czech is taken for a language in which the:' correlations

between the order of syntactic constituencies in a sentence

and the discourse role of the information which a particular

constituent represents' is the main parameter for the surfaCe,

word-order (Green, 1989:128). In Firbas (1992) the notion of

definite vs. indefinite in Czech is discussed, and the

equivalentS of indefinite articles in e.g. English are

unambiguously taken for 'signals of rhemacity', not of the

focus (Firbas, 1992:21).

The interrogative wh-words are then exceptions, since in

wh-questions the 'interrogative word is alwayS the feCus of

the question' (Petr, 1986:595). The ftonting of the wh-words -

may be therefore motivated by a general tendency te.place . the

thematic elements to the beginning of.the claUse. The question

remains, however, which syntactic position (if any) can be,

defined as a position of a focus and .whether such.a position. „ .

is really the position of the fronted wh-elements.

The position of a wh-word in a simple wh-question_ • is

SPEC(CP), and therefore the assumed fronted focus position

would preferably inbe SPEC(CP) as well. The IP-adjoined.

3738

analySis of the Other wh-words would contradict such

a Position of the focus even if the adjunction of the

non-initial wh-words to IP in NWhQ represents a kind of

compromise if SPEC(CP) becomes unavailable.

An exclusive syntactic position for Focus is presented in

e.g. Brody (1991) as an FP projection of the head F, situated

betweehIF and CP. While the [-hwh] elements move to SPEC(CP),

the. focused elements move to the specifier or head of.FP. The

Focus 'Criterion presented by Brody (1991) is a variant of.

Rizzi's - (1991) Wh-Criterion requiring a mutual specifier-head

Configuration of the focused X ° and XP. Within this framework,

howeVer, the non-initial wh-elements are not supposed to befocused or topicalised and are suggested to be standardly

adjoined to a lower IP.5

•In Dimitrova-Vulchanova (19_92) a construct FRONT, is

introduced to apply to the description of a clause-initial

structure in Slavic free constituent-order languages. In both

main and subordinate clause FRONT dominates the top IP

projection (in Dimitrova-Vulchanova's terminology the maximal

functional V-main projection) and seems to be replacing both

SPEC(CP) and C. The standard position of subject, i.e.

SPEC(IP), is suggested to be identical with FRONT, which 'is

to.be,seen as a landing site for all topicalized constituents

and fronted verbs' and it 'can contain material non-specified

for -category'. (D.-V.,1992:2,31). FRONT must be filled with .

a given number of elements only, and clitic clusters

right-adjoin to the filled FRONT. The author states the number

of possible elements in the Czech FRONT as one (in Bulgarian

there are at least three possible). Then, if. such

a one-member Czech FRONT precedes clitics (which seems to

describe the reality perfectly), it cannot be taken for the

place where the non-initial wh-words in Czech appear. For the

non-initial wh-words following clitics in Serbo-Croatian,

Dimitrova-Vulchanova advances another 'secondary fronting site

which immediately precedes the main verb and where 'mildly'

fronted constituents (such as the rest of wh-constituents in

multiple wh-constructions) occur'. (D.-V., 1992:44). The

position of the secondary FRONT is suggested to bp rather

V-main than IP adjunction, but V-main apparently means some

upper functional IP projection as well.

I do ' ,not reject or propose the existence of some

T(opic)P or F(ocus)P following CP, but the attempt to state

a new syntactically unique projection for the topicalised

elements in a free-constituent language, as presented in the

above paragraphs, puts together all kinds of Wh Movement with

topicalization, pragmatic and stylistic reordering, in a way

which is not fully justified (at least it is not justified up

to now). Therefore F am not going to use the notion of Focus,

Topic, or FRONT as terms strictly relevant for the syntactic

position of the other wh-words, presenting the above analyses

as possible explanations for the leftwards movement of all the

wh-werds in the Czech MWhQ's. A similarly vague suggestion is

presented also in Toman (1992), where both the clitic and

multiple Wh movements are claimed to be 'overt manifestations'

of the movements which result in 'obliterating the distance

between the :syntax of Logical Form and that of Surface

Structure' (Toman 1992:117).

39 40

2.3.2 Parentheticals, subject position, and wh-order

The word-order examples used for the analysis of the

Czech and Polish MWhQ's in Toman (1982) and in Rudin (1988),

argue for the (4a:IP-adj) analysis, and they are as follows:

The wh-words in Czech multiple question do not form a single

constituent, and the non-initial wh-words precede the unmarked

subject of the clause. Moreover the wh-words do not follow any

strict ordering, i.e. they are freely exchangeable, which

supports the rejection of a (3a:SP(C)-adj) structure requiring

in a given framework the shared SPEC(CP) position to be

indexed by only one (the first) of wh-elements.

The multi-constituent character of the multiple wh-words

is derived mainly from the position of inserted clitics, which

is presented in more detail in the next section 2.4.1, and

froth the possibility of inserting a parenthetical clause among

the wh-words. The following example (5) repeats Rudin's

examples (49) with an inserted parenthetical clause.

. _l'he evaluation may differ, but in any case the' inserted

parentheticals suggest the multi- (at least two-) constituent

nature of the multiple fronted wh-words, which is

contradictory to the (3a:SPEC(CP)adj) structure. 6.

The pre-subject position of all the fronted wh-words,

which forms one of the main arguments for 'the -(4a:IP-adj)

analysis in TAS (1984), is presented also for Polish in .Rudin

(1988), and its Czech equivalent is shown in the 'following (fi)

(6)(R, 1988:489)

(a) Polish: Kogo komu Jan/on przedstawil?Czech: Koho komu Jan/on ptedstavil?

whom to-who Jan/he -introduced'Who did Jan/he introduce to who?'

(b) Polish: * Kogo Jan/on komu przedstawil?Czech ? Koho Jan/on komu ptedstavil?

whom Jan/he to-who introduce

(6b), unacceptable in Polish, makes Rudin reject the

possibility of adjunction to. VP. 7 Contrary to Polish, the:

Czech equivalent in (6b) with the subject preceding the other

wh-word, is evaluated as only 'marked', and in fact many less

(5) ( R, 1988:469)

(a) Rdo, podia tebe, co komu dal?who, according to you, what to-whom gave'Who, according to you, gave what to who?'

(b) Rd° co (? podle tebe) komu, podia tebe, dal?who what(?according to you) to-whom,according to you,gave

Rudin states that the position of parenthetical clauses

is fully optional in languages , like Czech. It' would be more

precise to say that all the positions are possible, but within

the range of marked vs. unmarked variants, the parenthetical

is unmarked either following the first or the last wh-word.

41

marked examples could be given with subjects preceding the

non-initial wh-words, as e.g. the following (7) and (8).

(7) Co jsem jA komu kdy uddlala?what am I to-whom when done'What have I ever done to anybody?'

(8) (a) ? Co jsem kdy komu - já uddlala?what am when towhom I done

(b) * Co jsem jd uddlala kdy komu?what am I done when to-,whom

(8b) presents a possible echoequestion, showing' that .

pre-verbal position of wh-words is obligatory, while (8a)

42

shows that` in such a sentence the subject following all the.

wh-Words is not especially salient. Notice, however, that

while (7) is certainly a kind of wh-question, the English

translation suggests, that its interpretation-is not likely to

. he a multiple wh-question.

In Bach (1971) 'the indefiniteness assumption' for the .

interrogative words is presented as 'consistent with the fact

that :interrogative words and indefinite pronodns are often

morphologically related or even identical' ( Bach, 1971:158),

and examples are given in Japanese, Greek, German', etc. In

Wadhowicz (1974) the indefinite pronouns in Polish are

presented as being 'almost exactly as the interrogative

pronouns, the only difference being that the indefinite

, prohouns have a specificity marker.' ( Wachowiez; 1974:159). The

.specificity marker has a 'tendency to be dropped' in Polish.

WaOhOwicz shows examples of 'multiple questions' with only one

wh-element moved and all : the-others in post-verbal positions.

The author calls such sentences 'clarifying questions' that

are

interpreted by most speakers as yes/no questions

containing indefinite pronouns. An example with its Czech

structural equivalent is given in (9)

(9) Polish: Nie rozumiem, kto Wyjechal kiedy?Czech.: * NeVim, kdo odjel kdy.

not-understand-I who left: . when'I don't understand: who left when?'

- The Czech variant of the Polish 'clarifying questions'

would be an echo-question, since the second wh-werd does not

move from the post-verbal position.

The Czech indefinite pronouns are derived from the

interrogatives with the ná- 'some' prefix as presented in the

following (12).

(10) Kdo / nakdo Co / ndco Kde / nekd etc.who/somebody What/something Where/somewhere

The relation is moreover not only morphological. In Petr

(1986:568f) MWhQ's are mentioned from the point of view of

appropriate answers, and some (nonspecified) MWhQ's are given,

to show that only the first interrogative pronoun is

interrogative (requires the answer), while the others may as

well be interpreted as indefinite pronouns. Such questions

then do not differ semantically from the questions containing

only one (the first) interrogative element. 8

The indefinite interpretation of the 'non-initial

wh-words in (7) is close to the English any or -ever pronouns.

Moreover the required answer for such questions is negative.

For the example presented in (7) it would be 'Nothing (...to

nobody, never)'. (If the first wh-word is answered, the answer

is fully acceptable).

The wh-words following the 'subject and preceding the verb

in Czech, even if moved, contrary to the Polish 'indefinite

pronouns!, may then be analysed as not interrogative.

Therefore their adjunction to some IP projection lower than

the top one, which seems to be evident in (7), cannot be taken

as a position of the interrogative wh-words in multiple wh

questions in Czech, but as a position of indefinite•(from the

point of view positive/negative?) elements. 9

If the post-subject positions of the non-initial

wh-elements in the Czech MWhQ's may be excluded by the

4344

'Who gave what to who.'

Kdo komu co dal, nevfm.who to-who what gave I don't know.

? Co kdo komu dal, nevfm.what who to-who gave I don't know

?,, Komu kdo co dal, nevfm.„

to-who who what gave I don't know.

? Co komu kdo dal, nevfm.what to-who who gave I don't know

In the aboye example only (12a) is likely to be understOod

a rather unambiguous multiple question; the others seem to

indefinite/negative interpretation of the non-initial

wh-words, than the interrogative wh-words in Czech

obligatorily precede the overt subject. Both interpretations,

then, argue against the (4b:in situ) structured» Czech.

The third argument for the (4a:IP-adj) structure in both

Taman (1982) and Rudin (1988) concerns the mutual ordering of

the fronted wh-words. The authors demonstrate that no such

obligatory ordering in Czech can be found. The following (11)

repeats the Rudin's examples (61)

(11)(R,1988:475) 'Who invited whom when I don't know.'

(a) Kdo kdy koho pozval, nevfm.who when whoM invited I don't know.

(b) Kay kdo koho pozval, nevfm.when who whom invited I don't know

(c) . Koh° kdy kdo pozval, nevfm.whom when who invited I don't know

If all the

examples in (11) are acceptable, then within

the concept of LF Wh Movement, the head of COMP indexing, and

proper government, as used in L&S (1984), in any of

(3a:SP(C)-adj) or (4a:IP-adj) or (4b:in situ) structures all

the wh-traces must be lexically governed at appropriate levels

in Czech- Recalling that no pure Superiority constraints were

observed in the Section 1.4 above for the long-distance Wh

Movement either, such a conclusion is even strengthened.

Rudin (1988) makes optional ordering one of the main

arguments for the difference between the (3a:SP(C)-adj) and

(4a:IP-adj) structures, since when all the wh-words appear

inside one SPEC(CP) node (as claimed for Bulgarian in Rudin

therefore non-lexically governed wh-traces must be "excluded by

appropriate ordering. Rudin's claim, however, need not bb

unambiguously accepted, since the following, (12)"

reveal that with arguMent wh-words the ordering Subject

- indirect object. --direct object seems to be preferred also

in Czech.

require the answer for the first interrogatiVe word -only,

i.e. they may be interpreted as simple wh-questions With -

indefinite/negative pronouns. Since such a possibility is not'-

excluded either for (11b,c), the lexical , government of subject

may be not so clear in Czech, and the Ordering of the fronted

fah-words cannot be used as a decisive argument for or againSt .

any of the structures offered above,

In the following section the mutual position of clitiös

and wh-words is shown, which supports the multiconstituent

character of the multiple wh-words .suggested already by the

inserted ParentheticalS and by the position of the subject.

(1988)), the resulting cluster can get only one index and

45 46

(15) Batka MI TOBdtka me it'Betka gave

dela (* MI TO) / * Bétka TO MI dala (TO MI)gave (* me it) / * Batka it me gave (it me)me it.' 'Betka gave it to me.'

' Wh-words and clitic position

The possible relation between the positions . of weak

: pronouns and wh-words in Polish and Russian MWhQ's was

mentioned already in Wachowicz (1974:160). The author,

- however, presented arguments for the difference between the• -

movement of the weak pronouns (Clitic Movement) and the.

movement of the wh7constituents ( Wh Movement). Her Polish

eXampleslare repeated in the following (13) and (14) with

their. Czech equivalents (clitics are written in capital

letters-in the Czech sentences).

(13)(Pol;W,1974:(20))

Polish: (a) Monika to widziala (b) Monika widziala to.Czech: Monika TO vidala * Monika vidala

Monica it saw Monica saw it

Czech: (c) Videla TO.saw-she it.'She; saw•it'

, For the Polish (13a) Wachowicz claims the movement of the

clitic to 'it' from the. post-verbal position to the pesition

preceding the finite' verb to be optional, i.e. (13b)

acceptable. The Czech examples (13a-c) present the only

grammatical possibilities in Czech, with the clitic folloWing

the finite affirmative verb only if it means becoming the

second constituent, as in (13c) . 10 The example (14) presents

similar structures with a wh-Constituent.

' (14)(Pol:W, 1974:(23)) 'What did Monica give to who?'

Polish: (a) Co komu Mooika dela? (b) * Co Monika komu dala?Czech: - Co komu Monika dada? ? Co 14onika komU dala?

. What whom Monica gave? what Monica whom gave?

The Polish starred (14b) compared with grammatical (13b) makes

'47

Wachowicz claim that ' there is no necessary connection between

pronoun movement and the position of wh-words in the

sentence... (It) indicate(s) that wh-words in Polish and

Russian are moved by a question movement' (W,1974:161).

The Czech examples in (14) show the two structures with

different interpretations of the non-initial wh-elements:

(14a) is a multiple question with both wh-words interrogative,

(14b) is a simple wh-question with the other wh-words

perceived as indefinite/negative pronouns, as discussed in the

previous section:

Both the Polish and Czech examples in (13) and (14) argue

for the (3a.'SR(C)-adj) or (4a:IP-adj) structures, and both of

them exclude the (4b:in situ) variant. They show that the

clitic movement in Czech is more constrained than the movement

of the non-initial wh-elements. Compare the example (14) above

with the following (15)

The clitic position in (15) is one of those quite rare

word-order varieties in Czech where grammaticality judgements

are sharp. (15) shows that the ordering of the clitics is

obligatory [indirect object - direct object], and they move to

the 'second position' obligatorily (other ordering or position

of the clitics are perceived as ungrammatical). Similar

principles are observed by' the wh-words only in unmarked

forms, and with a dropped subject the distinctions between the

different interpretations of the non-initial wh-words become

even more vague.

48

In Toman (1982:295) the concept of the difference between

the clitic and wh-movement is accepted and the Polish examples

demonstrate the mutual positions of the clitics and the other

wh-words. The Czech examples are given in the-following (15)

(16)

(a) Kdo MU TO kdy . dal? (b) ?? Kdo kdy MU TO dal?who him it when gave who when him it gave'Who gave it to him when?'

(c) * Ado MU kdy TO dal?who him when it gave

The impossibility of inserting a wh-word inside the

clitic cluster in (16c) makes evident the distinct position of

clitics and wh-words. The unmarked (16a) then shows that

a clitic position preferably precedes the non-initial

wh-word, thus demonstrating the multi-constituent character of

the wh-,words.

The position of Czech clitics has been repeatedly

mentioned in this work, without any structural suggestions. In

the following paragraphs some brief analyses of the clitic

position in Czech are going to be presented.

Referring to Zwicky, Anderson (1993) states the

differene between the simple ( ' purely phonological in

nature') clitics and special clitics (A,1993:74). The clitics

described in this work are then 'the special clitics', i.e.

accentless, mostly pronominal elements: in Czech weak personal

pronouns, weak reflexive pronouns, some adverbial and AUX-be

elements, and discourse particles. The ' clitic placement in

Czech involves movement into the Wackernagel Position' (Toman,

1982:301), where the clitic elements appear as a group right

after the initial stressed word of the sentence (Petr,

1986:619)•

In Anderson (1993) the relation between the functional

categories and morphology is discussed, and clitic placement

is presented as an example of evident interaction between the

morphology and syntax. The 'second' position of clitics may.be

in various languages defined either phonetically (the first

stressed word), syntactically (the first constituent), or

pragmatically (the focus). In Toman (1982:298) the author

claims that the Czech clitics follow ' the first maximal

be definede •

are analysed

with the Sulle result, and the following (17) is proposed

(17)Let us assume that at least one of{ the following

statments is true:(32) A clitic must be locally Supported by Comp.. .

(33) A clitic must be locally supported by Inn. If the first condition is true, its instantiation in Czech

will result in right-adjunction of clitics to CoMp.-If thesecond condition is true the instantiation in Czech willrequire left-adjunction to Infl

illax . Both instantiationsammount to the 'Wackernagel effect' in terms of stringadjacency.' (Taman 1991:162)

Let us recall the choice relevant here, i.e. between the

paraphrased (3a) and (4a) structures. The possible . positions

of clitics are marked following Toman's suggestions above

(3')(a)

CP CP1

r---- 1 iSP(CP)

1

C' SPEC(CP)t

1i

1 : 1SP(CP) WB 2 C : C

. 11 r-11-1 , (

WH1 0

constituent, i.e. the clitic -position can

syntactically. In Toman (1991) reflexive clitics

Cr

( 4') ( ) '

SP(CP) Will 0 (c1)1 IP

(c1) 2 Iv

t t 22

IP

( c1) 1t -IPI

WH2

(c1) - IP

t1

t2

4950

In (7), analysing the clitic AUX -Isom 'am' as adjoined to C,

the subject in SPEC(IP), and the finite verb immediately

dominated by there is no position available for a maximal•

Assuming that clitics in Czech usually precede the other

wh•words (as shown in (1.6)), the structure (4a) with the other

wh-wordS" left-IP-adjoined would suggest the clitics

right-adjoined to C, i.e. (4a 1 :IP-adj.) above, since such

a structure would make the ordering obligatory. Assuming the

orderingnot unambiguous, the left7IP-adjoined clitics, as in

(1a2:IP-adj.), would allow the other wh-wprds to have

a certain amount of freedom since all the.elements would be

adjoined to some projection of IP. Any of these concepts seems

to exclude the (3a:sp(c)7adj) variant, since it predicts that

the clitics obligatorily follow the wh-words.

However, within Stowell's (1981) concept of the

bar-notation, and restrictions On movement as presented in

Chomsky (1986:4-6), the dooccurrence of clitics and

wh-elements in the same place does not seem possible, assuming

the clitics and wh-words to have a distinct status: wh-words

being maximal projections of a ,given constituent, while

clitics are adjoined to the.heada. Then, the movement of the

wh-constituent can be a movement to some SPEC position, or an

• adjUnction to a nonargument maximal category only. The

movement of a X category, on the other hand, would be a Head

to Read' movement, i.e. in case of the clitics, an adjunction

to another X0 category.

In the above conception, the (4a 2 :IP-adj.) variant; i.e.

both . clitics and wh-words adjoined to IF seems to exclude the

-ordexj.7ng jclitic + non-initial wh-word] since the wh-word

would be adjoined to some maximal projection of IP, while the

clitics would follow, being adjoined to (its) head. It seems

evident that theoretical assumptions also prefer the

(4a:IP-adj) structure, which provides either the COMP or some

INFL head for clitics.

2.4.2. A note about the IP structure

The Czech MWhQ's presented in this Chaptercontain the

finite verb which contains all verbal categories in Czech, and

therefore it Was assumed to appear in the top IP projectiOn

head, m-commanding the subject in the nominative. Since the

interrogative multiple wh-words precede both of them, no

detailed analysis of the IP structure was presented up'to now.

In the above section, however, the concept of the bar notation

and conditions on movement were briefly sketched, which are

accepted in this work, and within such a framework at least

a brief nate concerning the inner structure of IP is needed,

if some definable position is to be 'stated for the two

possible interpretations of the the multiple non-initial

wh-words. 11

Recall those wh-words interpreted as indefinite/negative

pronouns, which were presented as appearing after the subject

but obligatorily preceding the verb. The example (7) is

repeated below

(7') Co jsem já komu kdy udgaala?what am I 'to-whom when done'What have I ever done to anybody?'

51 52

cP

SPEC(CP) C'

IpTOP

(l8)(=-7)'What have I ever done to anybody?'

Isp ( IpTOP) ,,TOP

DpsuB TOP fT+AgrP .

r_L_, I 1 1• ? tct WH2 T+AgrP'

I 1

WH1 0 cl

WH3•

rah-constituent, providing adjunction is restricted to

nonargument maximal projections (Chomsky, 1986:6).

Without dealing with the wider implication of the

following statement, I propose the T+Agr projection being not

the top functional head of the Czech 'split IP', claiming

however, that the subject, which must raise to T+AgrP to get

a Case, may raise to the top IP specifier as well.

In the sentences containing the indefinite/negative

multiple wh-words, like (7) above, the top IP functional head

may be empty (with the trace of the clitic AUX only), its SPEC

containing the subject. The non-initial .wh-words may then

appear adjoined to some lower maximal projection. A suggested

position of the indefinite wh-words is demonstrated in (18).

T+AgrP

tSUB T +Agr'/

T+Agr VP: .Co l . jeem ja

to-whom2 when 3 ugYala? [=.komu 2 kdy 3 V

what1 an I

done t1t2t1

If the top IP is stated as a kind of modal or negation

functional head, then the indefinite/negative wh-word

following such a head can get its negative interpretation just

by being within the scope of such a head, exactly as demanded

for negative elements in Jackendoff (1972:350), as cited .in

foothote9 above. The interrogative wh-words are correctly

excluded from getting such indefinite/negative features since

they are presented as adjoined to the maximal projectien•of

the modal or negation functional head. 12 ,

In Haverkort (1993) clitic movement is presented as an

instance of head movement which adjoins clitics to the highest

functional head accessible to them. The Movement is related to

the raising movement of the verb -(both finite and infinite),

because it is the verb that must 'void the barriers' for the

subsequent movement of a clitic. The distinct positiOn of

clitics in tai' resulting string can be derived from (or often

serves as evidence of) the final position of the verb • on the

split IP scale.

The position of Vfin the above (18) is separated.from

the clitic AUX be by two maximal projections, which is top

many for Haverkort's conditions of clitic movement, 13 - this . '

distance, however, is common in Czech (and not, only with the,

clitic AUX). Therefore either some more vacuous movement's

would have to apply to void the barriers or preferably,

another mechanism of the clitic movement has to be worked out.

I will not present any here.

For the analysis of the 'StyliStic Inversion.' in

wh-questions mentioned in section 1.2 above, similar split IP:,

could be used. The Stylistic Inversion in Frendiveis'in

Haverkort (1993) interpreted as a position of the subject in

the SPEC of some lower, non-top functional IP (in the

author's concept SPEC(TP) appears to be the candidate). The

53 54

following J19a• shows Haverkort's (1993:21) French

Wh7question with a clitic, (19b) a Czech wh-question with

a reflexive clitic si , and (19c) a . multiple wh-question.

Haverkort claims that in (19a) the verb raises to C allowing

the clitic to cross the IP barrier and adjoin to the highest

•accessible head C. (19a) shows a Subject/AUX Inversion, which

is evident in the Czech examples (19b,c) as well.

(19)(a)(Hav,93:21) Quand l'a-t-i1 lu?when it has he read.

(b) ..Co SI bude Kryftlifek (?bude) pf.dt na vanoce?. what REFL will K.. (?will) wish for Christtas

'•What Will K. want for Christmas?'

(c)` Co SI kdy bude (?kdy) Kry6tnfek (?bude) plat?what REFL when will (?when) K. (?will) wish'What will K. want when?'

No structure presented in ..section 2.2, however, would be

acceptable for (19c), supposing the non-clitic AUX bude 'will

be' raised to C, with C allowed to contain one element only.

If the clitics adjoin to functional heads, the one most

plausible for the reflexive si in (19) : is C, which is divided

from-the subject by both wh-Word and bude 'will be', but it

still precedes the subject.

Recalling the IP structure suggested above,

Subject/AUX,Verb Inversion in (19b,c) may instantiate the case

of AUX becoming (obligatorily?) the IPT°P head, with the

- Subject remaining in SPEc(TI-AgrP). The interrogative multiple

wh-words in the examples (19b,c) can be adjoined to the IP T°P

(which is the position in this work stated as IP-adjunction,

i.e. ..the preferable (4a:IP-adj) variant). The example (19b)

may have a structure presented below as (20). The infinitival

verb following the future-AUX is supposed to stay inside VP,

AUX moves through the TA-Agr head to get the Tcnse+Agr

features, its obligatory raising being a result of an

interrogative Subject/AUX Inversion structure.

(20)(=l9b)'What will K. want when?'

prat ti t2to-wish t 1 t2

The 'split IF is introduced here as a 'multiplied' IP,

with the only apparent purpose to get the positions needed for

the analysis. Similar results might be achieved by multiplying

the CP projection, i.e. by CP adjunction or taking CP for .

recursive. I prefer the split IP mainly,because the strings of

elements usually contain a verb or AUX, and I take IF for

a kind of finite verb projeCtion, while the connection . of CP

and the verb is less obvious to me. There are also properties

of the multiple wh-cluster mentioned below which make the

adjunction to CP or the recursive CP less preferable.

The multiple wh-words appear in embedded clauses as well

as in root . clauses. The embedded clauses are s-selected •

arguments of main clause verbs and an adjunction to

a s-selected argument is prohibited by either Chomsky's

CPr 1 1

SPEC(CP) C'

. C1 : 1

TOP: rhTp n TOP

WHI..0 Cl : IP

. . . I mnn: WH2 sp(IpTOP) ',..........

: : 0 r 1

: : 1T+AgrPAl.1Xi T

: DP Agr'I ' /-1Agri VP<-

Co l si kdy 2 bude Kryatafekwhat, REFL when 2will KryStafek

5556

(1986) restrictions on movement or McCloskey's (1992)

Adjunction Prohibition. To take a multiple wh-element as

a result of a recursive CP projection, on the other hand,

would not explain why the number of wh-elements is not limited

to one i.e. why the pattern is iterative, and why at the same

time all the elements which indicate the presence of the comp

node preferably follow only the first wh-eloment. 14

2.4.3. Conjoined wh-words

A 'possible. counter-argument for the multi-constituent

analysis of the fronted wh-words may be be found in conjoined

structures as presented e.g. in the following (21), where the

clitics AUX isi 'you are' and weak pronoun le 'them' follow

both the wh-words. (21-23) show the Czech paraphrases of the

Serbo-Croatian examples given in Browne (1972)

(21)(S-c:Browne,1972:223) Kdy a kde . JSI JE videllwhen and where AUX them saw-you'Where have you seen them when?'

Browne (1972) claims that the wh-words in English must be

'free' constituents, while in Serbo-Croatian they can be

'bound' parts of the sentence, i.e. each wh-word representing

a constituent of a distinct (elliptically omitted)

interrogative clause. The author cites. Czech as having the

same characteristics as Serbo-Croatian (Browne, 1972:226f). He

suggests 'the difference to be a result of the distinct

'distributional characteristics of the verb' which he

demonstrates with the Serbo-Croatian equivalent of the

following Czech example (22) where the Czech verb need not be

57

followed by its subcategorised argument.

(22) Rozbil to eklo? Ano, rozbil.broke-he the glass? - yes, broke-he'Did he break the glass? - Lit: Yes he broke.'

(22) makes Browne argue that while the ver in English demands

all its selected arguments to be realised in the.S-structure:,:

Serbo-Croatian can have the arguments present in the ciepi

structure only:15

It is not clear to me how the author derives

the , possibility of conjoined wh-words from the aboVe 'stated

characteristics of the verb: he probably assumes that ik the." '

verb can represent the whole sentence' structure without' its

arguments, then an argument can represent the whole structure

without the verb as well. Then the conjoined .wh-words 4o not

represent different kinds of constituents (where conjunction

seems unlikely), but conjunction of the Whole clauses within

one constituent. 16

With no further specification of the kind of conjunction

involved, I accept Browne's analysis, assuming that the

example (21) presents two conjoined .wh-words in SPEC(CP),.

i.e. one constituent only, which is 'the first constituent'

relevant for the 'the second position'; -Of the clitics.

' To see that the conjoined . structure is distinct from tli6

MWhQs which are discussed, in this Chapter, compare . .the

position of the clitics isi and ie in (21) with the following

(23).

(23)(a) Xdy JSI JE kde (*JSI JE) videl?when AUX them where (*AUX them) saw-you'When have you seen them where?'

(b) * Kdy a JSI JE (a) kde videl?when and AUX them (and) when saw-you .

58

Example (23a) presents non-conjoined wh-words, where the

poSition of clitics is obligatory after the first wh-element.

Given the second position' of the clitics for obligatory, the

unacceptable (23b) shows that the presence of the overt

conjunction a 'and' is enough for the one•constituent

behaviour of the conjoined wh-words. The multi-constituent

analysis appropriate for the wh-words in (23a) indicates that

the non-initial. whwords in such structures obligatorily

follow the clitics, which is. the main argument for preferring

the (4a111,77adj) analysis.

2.4.4.- Clitic affix and the particle ge

In the following example (24) two affixes are presented,

which can be added to the wh-word fronted in the wh-question:

an affix or particle ge 'that' in (24a) . and 2nd p/sg/pres AUX

be -s 'are' in :(24b). (The particle and affix are written in

capital letters in the following examples.)

(24) C62E : ti Eligka tikala?whatTHAT to.-you Eligka said'What did Eligka say to you?'

. (25) ' KomuS to dal?to-whom're it gave-you!who did you give it to?'

The added particle ge 'that' makes the interrogative word

'expressive', and such ' expreSsive interrogatives are used .

mainly in colloquial speech.' ( Petr, 1986:95). 17 Because the

-function- of connector is assumed in Czech to be obligatory for

the definition of conjunction, ge 'that' is taken for

a 'particle' also when it appears at the beginning of

independent sentences, where it is interpreted as an an

expressive element. In interrogative sentences the particle

suggests their being a reaction to some previous context, and

it presumes some following response as well. The following

(26) shows an example of a sentence where ge 'that' replaces

in fact the yes/no question structure.

(26) to pfijde pozdeji?that will-come-he later'(Have you said/Does it mean) that he will come later?

Because of its position at the beginning of the sentence

and close relation to the ge 'that' complementiser4 I will

assume that the position of the 'particle' ge 'that' which

appears on the interrogative wh-words is related (in (26)

probably identical) to the original position of the neutral

complementiser ge 'that', i.e. Comp,

In HWhQ the particle ge can be added to any interrogative

word, but its standard, least marked position is always with

the first of them, as presented in the following (27a). Far

worse is the result with more than one particle in one

multiple question as shown in (27b,c) /

(27) 'Who brought what to who?'

(a) Coll; komu kdo ptinesl?what-that to-who who brought?

(b) ?? Co komu(E) kdo(tE) pfinesl?what to-who-(that) who(that) brought

(c) * Co2E komu(2E) kdo(2E)? ptinesl?what-that to-who-(that) who(that) brought

The structure (4a:IP-adj) with the first wh-word fronted

6059

is obviously the most suitable for the position of the

affix-particle, since the complementiser is supposed

immediately to follow the first wh-word.

The question remains, whether the . particle is occupying

the complementiser's position, or is added to the SPEC(CP)

position of the wh-word. The following (26a) shows that if the

Consider also the other affix element co-occurring with

the wh-words, which was introduced in (25). The -s 'are' affix .

is a 2nd person/singular AUX be, a part of analytical past •

tense or passive. This form of AUX be behaves as a clitic in

Czech. The following (29) shows that in a sequence of several

ciitics the AUX be is always the first, preceding .all- the

first wh-word is separated with a parenthetiCal, the particle other clitics (all clitics are in capital letters).

is acceptable only with the interrogative word.

(28)(a) Rdo(2E), ptala ae, (*2E) pkijde ptitTsti taiden?Who(that), asked-she, (*that) comes next week?'Who, asked she, comes next week?'

(28b) on the other hand demonstrates that if the first

wh-word. is fronted (to the matrix clause SPEC(CP)), the

particle is possible even when the embedded clause is

introduced by a 2g 'that' complementiser.

•(28)(b) Coft si myslela, 2E ji MikuIdA donese?what-that thought-she, that to-her M. will-bring'What did she think that Mikulag will bring to her?'

Taking the particle for a complementiser, we would have .

to assume . for (28b) the structure where both lower SPEC(CP)

and C were fronted, and then the lower C filled again with

another neutral 2e 'that', which would be rather

unconventional. I present examples (28) as arguments for the

position of ffe 'that' particle in SPEC(CP) position. The affix

form on the wh-word may be a result of the prohibition on two

phonetically realised items inside the CP projection, which

otherwise. is observed in Czech, and which is claimed by Rudin

(1988:494) as a characteristic of 'non-Multiple- -Wh-Fronting

Languages', i.e. Czech.

(29) Vdera JSEM MU TO Oval do vlastnich rukou.yesterday am him it gave to his-own .hands'I gave it yesterday to him, into his own hands`.'

The following example (30) presents the past AUX be

folloWing a complementiser of the embedded clause, which Shows-

that the AUX follows the complementiser. .

(30) Tvrdila, to JSME MU TO nemeli daVat.claimed-she, that are-we him it not-haVe to give'She claimed we should not have given it to him.'

Tvrdila, JSME ( e) MU TO...claimed-she are-we (that) him it

In (31) the past AUX be is following the wh-Vord, showing

that both the full form of AUXand affie AUX precede the other

clitic to 'it'

(31) Romu JSME / Xomu$ TO potom m61(i) dat?to-who are-we / to-who're it then should give'Who were we (you) to give it to, then?'

* Romu TO JSME / * Tomu TOS potom 44.t?to-who it ARE-we / to-who it're it then should give'

(29),(30),and (31) indicate at the same time the position of

the clitics as a right-adjunction to C (the adjuncts May be

'topicalised' in SPEC(CP) in (29) and (30)).18

* Vdera MU JSEM TO daval / * Vdera MU TO JSEM davalyesterday him am it gave / Yesterday him it am gave

61

(36a) shows one (either subject or object) wh-word fronted,

and the sentence is more acceptable than (36b), which fronts

both of them. (36c) on the other side supports. the

affix, which is not the case in (34). The acceptable

of (33) and (34) are offered in (35), with both 2e

'that' and -s 'are' connected.

63

Consider then the position

Presented in (32).

-(32) 'What did you give to who?' ..

(a)' 1omuS co dal? CoS komu dal?to-who're what gave-you? what're to-who gave-you

(b) ?? Koisu COS dal? 7? Co komuS dal?to-who what're gave-you what to-who're gave-you

`Even : if the unacceptability of the ?? examples in (32b) is not

fully comparable with the ungrammatical ones in (31), the

''are' is, certainly preferred right after the first

wh-word. In line with the assumed position of is 'that'

partible, I .suggest the -s ' are' affix to be •a part of the

SPEC(CP) as well. .

There are, however, MWhQ's where both the affixes appear.

In the following (33) three wh-words are presented, and in

(34) the clitic to it is inserted. Both (33) and (34) show

the -s 'are° affix bound to the position assumed for C.

(33) ?? Kdy2E komu coS dal?when-that to-who what're gave-you'When did you give what to who?'

(34) - * Rdy2E TO komuS ( TO) dal?what-that it to-who're (it) gave-you'When did you give it to who?'

.(34) May be presented as an argument of the verbal character

Of the AUX,!since the clitiC adjoined to C may require its•

presence in C. However, the same sentence without any AUX will

be correct, so I prefer the explanation requiring the AUX

glitic.,to obey the clitic movement before it becomes realised

(35)(a) Kdy (*TO) 2ES - TO komu (*TO) dal?what (*it) that're it to-who (*it) gave-you'When did you give it to who?'

(b) 7 Kdy komu 2ES TO dal?what to-who that're it gave-you

.'When did you give it to who?'

Recalling that the spelling is not normative in these

colloquial forms, (35a) may be considered as a variant to

(34), with both the ffe 'that' particle and the -s 'are' affix

added to the first wh-word, and (35b) as equiValent to (32b)

or (27b,c).

No matter how the relation of both the particle and AUX

affix to the SPEC(CR) position can be stated, the examples

(34) and .( 35) strongly support the multi-constituent analysis

of the wh-words, since they require the C being in between the

first and the other wh-words. At the same time the examples

argue against a repeatedly recursive CP projection predicting

sentences like J32b) or (27b,c) are acceptable. 19

2.5. Wh extraction from the multiple wh-question

In the above sections a number of arguments were

presented showing the multi-constituent character of the

multiple wh-words. Here some more are going to be added.

If the wh-words in Czech do not form a single

constituent; it could also be expected that if 'one of them are

extracted, then the others may remain in the embedded clause.

The following (36) indicates that this seems to be correct.

affix in a MWhQ as

64

ktOryi kogo 2ktell kohowho whommeet the man

tl zabil t2zabilkilled

who killed t.?'

one-constituent analysis of conjoined wh-words. clause. Notice the position of the neutral 2e 'that°

Kdo /komu si myslia, to ( mu) bude pomahat?who

s /to-who

o'Who/whom do think-you that (t )(him)will help (to )

you think (he) will help (him)?'

(b) ? Edo komu si mysliA, 2e bude pomahat?whos

. to-whoo think-you that (ts ) will help (to )Lit:'Who whom do you think will help?'

(c)

Edo a komu si mysli4, to (*a komu) bude ponAhat?who,Who

and to-Who, think-you that (*and totwhoo ) will help (to ).do you think will help, and whom?'

In Lasnik and Saito (1984) the IP-analysis of the

wh-words in Polish is based on examples of wh-words following

a complementiser (37a) or a relative pronoun (37b).

(37)(a)(Pol:L&S,1984:11)

Maria mysli, [ s pte co Janek kupil]* Marie si mysli, to co si janek koupilMaria thinks that what Janek bought'What does Maria think that Janek bought?'

( h)(Pol:1A5,1984:75)

Polish: SpOtkales metdzyzne,Czech: * Potkal jai mute,

you met the manLit.: 'whoni did you

As stated in Chapter 1, the Czech equivalents of the

Polish examples in (37) are ungrammatical, because in Czech

either the matrix clause or the embedded clausal "compleMent

must be overtly specified for the interrogative [+wh] feature,

if the sentence is to be interpreted as a question.

The post-complementiser position of the non-initial

wh-word can, however, be observed in Czech in a non-fuliy

standard long distance movement from a multiple question. The

following example (38) presents a wh-extraction from a MWhQ,

where the first wh-word is removed to the matrix clause

SPEC(CP) and the non-initial wh-word remains in the embedded

complementiser, which may be optionally inserted at. the

beginning of the embedded multiple question.

(38)(a) Kdo's fikal, (te) kdy (*te) pozve Mart/Skil?Who're-you said, (that) when (*that) invites Mary?Lit: 'Who did you say (that) when invites Mary?'

In (38a) the only acceptable position of the optional 2e .

'that' complementiser is preceding the other , wh-word." (38b)

shows my suggested structure of (38a).

(K3d:b)'s fikal, [CP t' to [ IP,:kdy [ IP ts pzv Marugku tA ?:Who,Pre-you say, [ CP t'$

s

that[ I' whe

A

nA ( IP ts invites-Mary:tA .?Who do you say invites Mary when?'

In*Rudin (1988) the languages that do not allow

adjunction to SPEC(CP) at S-Structure, i.e. Czech, respect the

Wh Island Constraint, since the lower SPEC(CP) is filled and'

indexed with the first wh-word.. The (38b) analysis assumes-the'

non-initial wh-word in an IP-adjoined'position and'•eavee the

CP projection empty if no overt neutral Complementiser as

preSent; this may be used to explain an apparent violation of

the Wh Island ConStraint in Czech.

As shown in Chapter 1 example (29), the presence of an.

overt [+wh] complementiser makes any/ extraction imposeible.

The following (39a) shows an acceptable embedded. MWhQ, and

(39b) presents the unacceptable extraction of any of the

wh-words from such a clause.

(39)(a) Ptam se, jestli kdy (*jestli) .komu co dal.-

ask-I whether whsh (*whether) to-whom what gave7ho.'I ask, whether he gave what to whom when.°

( b)

* Rdy/komu/co se ptdm, jestli (kdy/komu/co) dal?when/to-whom/what ask-I whether (when/te-whom/what) gave-he.'When/whom/what do I ask, whether he gave (whom/what/when)..1.

(36)(a)

Polish:Czech:

65

The subcategorisational frame of the matrix clause verb

in (39) requires a [+wh] complement. If this [-1-wh] complement

is . [+wh] complementiser, it 'Must precede (as shown in

(.39a)) all the other wh-elements, and blocks the extraction of

any of.them. The analysis assuming that the [+wh] features of

the [+wh] •complementiser occupy the lower SPEC(CP), predicts

such results.

The.structure presented for the non-initial wh-words in

(3a:SP(C)-adj) would explain the obligatory first position of

the [-i-wh] .complementiser only if it were placed in the Spec of.

_soma recUrsive!CP, and even then it would be necessary to

state some rule which Would make the complementiser precede

all the .other wh-words adjoined to or in (some lower?)

SPEc(CP). consider also the position of clitics preceding the

other wh-words, as presented in the following (40), which

'again disfavours the (3a:SP(C)-adj) analysis

(40k Ptal se, jestli. MU TO kdy (*mU to) Eya slibila.asked he whether him it where (*him it) EVa promised'He asked whether Eva had promised it to hiM when.'

The structure (4a:IP7,.adj), with p..[+wh] compleMentiser as

the fitst wh-element,' predictS the obligatory precedence of

the•[+wh] complementiser. The clitics can be then adjoined to

C in (40), preceding the non-initial wh-wordS, which are

argued here to be adjoined to IP.

2.6. Summary of Chapter 2

In section 2.2 several papers discussing multiple

whqueStiens in Czech or other Slavic languages were reviewed,

with the analyses of the multiple wh-elements claimed by their

authors. Following Rudin (1988) three structures for the

position of the wh-words were proposed: first, all the

wh-words adjoined to SPEC(CP) (see the example (3'a) in 2.4.1

above); second, only the first wh-word in SPEC(CP) and the

others adjoined to SPEC(IP) (see the (41) below); and third,

the structure similar to the English multiple queStion, i.e.

With the first wh-word in SPEC(CP) and the others 'in situ'

(see the example (4b') in 2.4.1 above).

In section 2.3 the Wh Movement of all the interrogative

wh-words was demonstrated as obligatory and resulting in

non-marked'` word-order, which is the main argument excluding

the (4b:in-situ). structure. Suggesting that the wh-elements

are inherently 'marked', the free constituent-order derived

from the focus-topic sequence was stated as the motivating

factor for the S-structure position of the wh-elements,

together with the impossibility of placing more than one

element in the SPEC(CP) position.

The arguments presented in section 2.3 can be summarised

as follows:

(i) The possibility of inserting a parenthetical clause

supports taking the multiple wh-words as a multi-constituent

structure;

(ii) the interrogative (but not the 'indefinite/negative')

wh-words in Czech obligatorily precede the Overt subject, and

all non-echo wh-elements precede the finite main verb; and

(iii) the ordering of the wh-elements is not strictly

definable but certain sequences seem to be preferred.

In 2.4 the positions of clitics, the particle ge 'that'

6867

CPt

SPEC(CP) c'

IP

Assuming,

wh-elements int o

L&S conception,

hoWever, the LF movement of all the

the appropriate SPEC(CP), which can, in the

have only one index, the arbitrary Wh word

(41).

-p and the affix -s 'are' supported the multi-constituent

structure of the wh-words with the first of them being

separable from the others, and with the Comp node being in

between: The results were supported by the examples of the

long-distance movement of the MWhQ presented in section 2.5.

The arguments in the above sections indicate the proposed

(4a) structure as the most plausible structure of the Czech

MWhQ with multiple wh-words which are all interpreted as

interrogative. The (4a) scheme is repeated below as (41).

overt complementiser and Wh-word inside the CP projection,

as well as the Oh Island Constraint which disallows extraction

of the wh-word from a CP projection containing the (-teah)

element. To decide whether the Comp Adjunction Constraint

stated in Rudin .(1988:490) really applies Czech at .both.

S-structure and PF, the possibility ,of topicalised elements in

SPEC(CP) would have to be- investigated in more detail. As for

the wh-words, they are analysed here as not adjoiried to ,

SPEC(CP) before LF:

WH1

IP

WH2 WH 3IP

ti t2 -t3

The 'multiple' wh-question with only one interrogative

element and the non-initial wh-words interpreted as

indefinite/negative prpnouns have been argued to be distinct

from the MWhQ. Some suggestions about the position of

indefinite/negative wh-words can be found in section 2.4.2 but

without a . proPerly detailed analysis.

In 2.4.3 conjoined wh-words (with the obligatory

conjunction and) were mentioned, which represent one conjoined

constituent in SPEC(CP), i.e. are assumed to appear in the

position of the first interrogative element.

In the above sections also the following properties of

the Vh. Movement were illustrated: Czech obeys the

Doubly-Filled Comp Filter prohibiting the co-occurrence of an

sequence in the MWhQ's still presents a problem for the - proper

governMent of wh-traces in Czech: If both interrogative and

indefinite/negative wh-words appear in A-bar:positiona, as is

claimed, at least for the tormer, in the above Chapter, the

structure requires both external and internal arguments as

well as adjuncts to be lexically governed in - Czech:

AlternativelY antecedent government must becothe acceptable 'fOr

subject and adjuncts at PF or S-structure, which is basically

the solution used in Rudin (1988) . where the traces are

lexically governed at. PF and A' bound within .their domain at

LF. It is also possible to introduce some other concept of

a governmentrelation between the verb and its complements' for

the free-constituent languages (see e.g: Stowell, .1981:124),

which may change the above analysis since the (4b:in-situ)

structure has been so far excluded mainly because of the

'marked' vs. 'unmarked' distinction, which is. not a reliable

base for any evaluation.

7069

1 0

NOTES TO•CHAPTER 2

Similar examples are presented e.g. for Polish andRusSian in 1 Wachowicz (1974); for Polish, Czech, andRussian in Toman (1982), and for Bulgarian,Serbo-Croatian, Polish, Czech, and Rumanian in Rudin(1988).. •

For the formulation of the Empty Category Principle,which requires empty 'category (here wh-trace) to beProperly governed, Rudin uses the notions of 'lexical

, gaVernment', i.e. head government at PF,' anda ''binding condition' requiring an A' anaphor to be

_ A'-bound in its Domain at LF. The governing relationsare assumed as m-commanding relations; and the Domainis'the ' first claUse (IP or CP) or NP which containsan accessible' c--commanding SUBJECT (R,1988:477).

Moreover RUdin's evaluation of the Czech examples isnot always reliable. E.g. her example (19) showinga 'fully grammatical' long-distance Wh Movement inCzech is probably the only example which may passeven the standard grammar requirements. On the otherhand, Rudin's example (27a) showing the impossibilityOf Wh island violation in Czech would be excluded bythe fact that.the fronted subject wh-word would berelated to the dropped subject of the matrix clause.(See footnote' 0 in the previous Chapter.) The latterexample is, however, hard to evaluate properly, sincethe Czech sentence is not equivalent to . the Englishtranslation offered in Rudin's text.

4 The standard unmarked position of verbal argumentsand sentential adjuncts in Czech can be stated asfollowing the verb, i.e. on the left Side of VP, buttheir equally common, marked position is precedingthe verb.! The multiple question Wh Movement may,then, be only some stylistic reordering which neednot be reflected in syntax at all. If this were true,then there would be little reason to deal withMWhQ's in the way presented in this work.

An apparently similar concept is presented also inMilner and Sternefpld (1993), who introduce TP witha head T (=topic). But the aUthors require thetopicalised elements to be [-wh], therefore their TPis net a suitable landing site for the non-initial•wh-elements, even if topicalisation is dealt with asa phenomenon related to Wh Movement.

6 'According to Rudin (1988:485) such a two-constituent

structure with the first wh-word in SPEC(CP) and allthe others adjoined to Comp, is claimed for Polish inCichocki :(1983). Cichocki's analysis, however, putsthe other;wh-words, on assumed position of the Czechclitics, ! which would contradict the obligatoryordering of the clitics and the optional Ordering ofthe following wh-words, as presented in the next'section, As . well as the distinct character of cliticsand wh-wOrds.

Rudin mentions VP7adjunction as an alternative toIP-adjunction, trying to keep in line with Chomsky(1986), who 'disallows adjunction of Wh-phrases toIP, for reasons internal to his Barriers treatment ofsubjacency and related phenomena.' ( RUdin, 1988:489).

In Kuno and Robinson (1972) the distinctiOn betweenthe minimal apprepriate answer is used asa diagnostic for a unique vs. multiple interrogativeelement in a given sentence.

According to Jackendoff (1972) 'negation and wh aregoverned., by essentially the same semantic rules'(Jackendoff, .1972:350) which for the author meansthey are both subject to his 'Modal projection rule' ,(p.348) defining the scope of the element by the samemodal operator. Whichever operator it may be, the LFposition of all wh-elements would then be equal.However there is no reason to assume the sameposition of both interrogative andarbitrary-negative wh's at the S-structure as well.Comparably, when Jackendoff states that ' Negationmust be'determined from the surface configuration'(Jackendoff, 1972:348) he mentions any (which seemsto be a kind of equivalent to the arbitrary-negativewh's in , Czech) as an lexical item of some/anyalteratien and only structurally dependent on neg. Itappears within its scope, but the same position ofthe neg and any is in fact often excluded by hisright-to-left condition, at least in English.

The Polish postverbal position of the clitics.mightbe explained by the fact that the pronoun is'stressed', as Wachowicz states (W,1974:294): Somepronouns in Czech have the weak and strong forms notunambiguously distinguishable. (E.g. 7//1/ 'her'(ACC/DAT) are the only available forms for the 3 pspronoun ona 'she'.) Such pronouns could appearfollowing a verb as well.

11 In Rivero (1991) a split IP for Czech is presented,containing TP(+AgrP?) AspP(Aux?) - NegP - VP. Theauthor derives the IP structure from the obligatoryordering fnegV INF - Auxfin) in null-subject

naffirmative root clapses. Rivero assumes that V'incorporates with Neg' and t4 whole cluster moves.(Long Head Movement) into C', skipping the Aux

7271

generated'in AspP and risen into T° . Rivero proposesthis concept contrary to the ' traditional Slavicapproaches... focusing on the Aux as a clitic' ( R,1991:323). However, the LHM fails to apply 'if aitem is generated in or moved to a slot precedingwithin CP (i.e. specCPP i.e. 'Wh-phrases,

• Focus-phrases and pre-Aux subjects inhibit LHM (R,1991:325f), and therefore Rivero's concept is notdirectly relevant to the topic of this work. I willpresent the Aux 'traditionally' as a clitic (sinceclitics are in this work shown to adjoin C, it makesno difference), with no stipulations about theposition of the verb in null-subject affirmativeclauses with V - Aux ordering.

12 For Slavic languages usually some kind of ModP isargued as a top IP (in e.g. Dimitrova-Vulchanova(1992). I would suggest such a ModP comprising somenegative features as well because negation is usuallyeneugh, to replace the whole clausal structure inquestion tags and similar constructions in Czech,because in negative clauses both subject and verb arenegated, i.e. they may be suggested to be bothdominated by a potential NegP, and also because ofthe indefinite/negative interpretation of thefollowing wh-words in multiple wh-questions, asmentioned above. Any precise definition would,however, demand more detailed study than can beoffered he and now. Therefore I am going to use themarking IP withoUt any specification. For ARGP andTP (as offered in Rivera (1991),Dimitrovova-Vulchanova (1992), and as follows fromrequirements on null-subject languages presented inJaeggli and Safir (1989:33), a one-noderepresentation is used here.

13 In .case of one functional head barrier, i.e. whene.g an AUX verb does not raise to C and AgrP remainsopaque, Haverkort (1993:39-47) explains the movementof a clitic out from AgrP as a result of a vacuousmovement of the whole AgrP into the lower transparentSpecTP position. Using the concept of specifier-headagreement presented in Barriers, the vacuous movementrenders AgrP transparent.

14 ' Contrary to the multiple wh-words, thecharacteristics which indicate the CP recursion or CPadjunction may be found with many focused elements,as presented e.g. for Welsh fronted constructions inTallerman (1993).

15 Recall also a similar suggestion in Chapter 1, wherethe Czech verbs were claimed to have 'vague'subcategorisational frames when compared withEnglish; such an ambiguity has been .stated asa possible explanation for their limited use in the'bridge structures'.

The conjoined Wh-words are supposed to representa kind of sentential ellipsis also according to Petr(1987:417), where the conjunction is explained asmotivated by a similar form and the same subordinate ,

relation to the verb. Similar ellipsis does not seemto be excluded either for English, at least for_ theconjoined relative PP wh-proferms, as presented ine.g. Gazdar, Pullum, Sag, Wasow ,(1983). Moreover' asfar as•I am aware, adjunct interrogative , words can be'conjoined in English As well. (e.g. °Wheh and wheredid you buy it?'), while conjoined argument Wh-wordswould also he much less acceptable in Czech.

The 'component' 2e 'that' may be written togetherwith the interrogative word; or separately. The - same .component 2e 'that' also forms a part of manycompound conjunctions, often already inseparable.

In Rivero's (1991) concept taking the AUX bV't. 'be':for a non-clitic element, (30) may present theclitics. mu 'him' and to 'it' adjoined to someINFL filctional head, which may be evidenced by - -theposition of the subject in the paraphrased (30):below,

'She claimed we should not have given it:to

Tvrdila, ie my JSME (*my). MU TO (?my)claimed-she, that we are-me (*we) him it (?we)

nemeli davat.not-have to give

and also by the unacceptable (33): and (34). For theordering of the wh-words,, clitics, and the AUX,:thisdifference is not crucial, and I leaVe the status ofthe AUX open.

However, both the particle 2e 'that' and the affix-s 'are' are not fully. standard .,. Neither. are themultiple wh-questions with :More than twointerrogative words common or especially salient. 'Tocombine all these factors and then . -- evaluate theacceptability of the results, is often controversial.Therefore this section could not stand as anindependent argument and its being a part of somebroader context seems inevitable. And the, fullyapplies for the following section, because also nolong distance Wh movement is standard in Czech.

20 The presence of the Le 'that' complementiserintroducing the embedded clause in the sentences like(381 substantially supports the analysis of the firstwh-word in the matrix clause SPEC(CP) as moved fropthe embedded clause, which is relevant.espeolallywith the adjunct wh-words (see also foothote inChapter 1)..

16

17

18

19

7374 .

BroWne .„ E.W.III (1972) 'Conjoined Questiona Limitation on English Surface Structures'Inquiry 3, 223-226.

Chomsky, N, _(1977) 'On WH Movement', in Culicover, P.W.,Wasow, • T., and Akmajian, 'eds., Formal Syntax.`Academic Press, 71-132.

chomskyi . N. (1981) Lectures o Government and Bindin Forispublications, Dordrecht.

Chomsky, N. (1986) Barriers, MIT Press.

Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M. (1992) .' Clitics in'EUROTYP (8) Working Papers, Volume 4, 1-50.

Words andLinguistic

SlaVic't in

Bibliography Emonds, T.E.Syntax,

(1976) A Transformational Approach to EnglishAcademic Press, Inc.

Anderson, S.R. (1993) 'Wackernagel's Revenge: Clitics,Morphology, and the Syntax of Second Po6ition', Language 69, 68-98.

AnYadi, S. and Tamrazian, A. (1993) 'Wh Movement in Armenianand Ruhr German!, in UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 5, Dpt. of Phonetics and Linguistics, University CollegeLOndon.

Bach, E. (1971) 'Questions', Linguistic Inquiry 2, 153 - 166.

Baker, C.L. (1970) 'Notes on the Description of EnglishQuestions .; The ROle of an Abstract Question Morpheme',Foundation of Language 6,197-219.

. _Banfield, A. (19.73) 'Narrative Style and the Grammar of Direct

and. Indirect Speech', Foundations of Language 10, 1-39.

• Bolinger, D.L: (1978) 'Asking More Than One Thing at a Time' ,

in Hiz, H., ed., Questions. Reidel, Dordrecht, 107-150.

Borer, H. (1985) 'Anaphoric AGR', in Jaeggli, O., and SafirK.a., eds., The Null Sublect Parameter, Kluwer Academic'Publishers 1989, 69-109.

'Bouchard,' D. (1984) On the Content of Empty Categories', Foris:Publications, Studies'in Generative Grammar, Dordrecht.

Bresnan, J.W. (1970) 'On Complementizers: Toward a Syntactic .

- Theory of Complement Types', Foundations of Language 6, 297-321.

Brody, M. (1991) 'Economy, Earliness and LF-based Syntax', inUCL Working Papers in Linguistics 3, Dpt. of Phonetics

. and Linguistics, University College London, 25-32.

Emonds, J.E . (1978) 'The Verbal Complex V'-V. in French',Linguis tic Inquiry 9, (151-175.

Emonds, J.E. (1985) A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories,Faris, Dordrecht.

Firbas, J. (1992) Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication, Cambridge University Press.

Gazdar, G., Pullum, G.K., Sag, I.A., Wasow, T. (1483)'Coordination and Transformational Grammar', LinguisticInquiry 14, 663-676.

Green, G. M. (1989) Pragmatics and Natural LanguageUnderstanding, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Inc.

Grimshaw, T.(1979) 'Complement Selection and the Lexibon',Linguistic Inquiry 10, 279-326.

Haegeman, L..(1991) Government & Binding Theory, Blackwell.

Haverkort, M. (1993) Clitics and Parametrization. Case Studies in the Interaction of Head Movement. Phenomena, EUROTYP(8) Working Paper VIII, 2.

Jackendoff, R. (1972) Semantic Interpretation in GenerativeGrammar, MIT. Press.

Kayne, R.S. (1980) 'Extensions of Binding and Case-Marking',Linguistic Inquiry 11, 74-96.

Kuno, S. and Robinson, 3.3. (1972) 'Multiple Wh Questions',Linguistic Inquiry 3, 463-487.

Lasnik, H. & Saito, M. (1984) '01 -1 the Nature of ProperGovernment', Linguistic Inquiry 15, (235-289.

Lenerz, J. (1985) 'Diachronic Syntax: Verb . Position and COMPin German', in Taman, J., ed., Studies in German Grammar,Foris Publications, Dordrecht, 103-133.

Muller, G. and Sternefeld, W. (1993) 'Improper movement andunambiguous binding', Linguistic Inquiry 24, 461-507.

Petr, J. and col. (1986/1987) Mluvnice destiny II, III (CzechGrammar), Academia, Praha.

Pollock, 3.-Y. (1989) 'Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, andthe Structure of IP', Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365-424.

Riemsdijk & Williams (1986) Introduction to the Theory ofGrammar, MIT Press.

7576

Rivero, M.L. (1991) 'Long Head . Movement and Negation:Serbo-Croatian vs. Slovak and Czech', The Linguistic Review 8, 319-351.

Radford, A. (1981) Transformational Syntax, CUP 1985.

Radford, A. (1988) Transformational Grammar, CUP.

Reinhart, T. (1981) 'A Second COMP Position', in Belletti,Brandi, and Rizzi, eds., Theory ot Markedness inGenerative Grammar (GLOW 1979), Scuola Normale di Pisa:Pisa, 517-558.

Rizzi, L. (1978) 'Nominative Marking in Italian Infinitivesand the Nominative Island Constraint', in Heny, F., ed.,Binding and Filtering, Croon Helm Ltd, London, 1981,129-157.

Rizzi, L. (1991) 'Residual Verb Second and the Wh-Criterion',Technical Reports in Formal and Computational Linguistics 2, Faculte des Lettres, Universite de Geneve.

Rudin, C. (1988) 'On Multiple Questions and Multiple WhFronting', Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6,445-;501.

Stowell, T. (1981) Origins of Phrase Structure, unpublishedMIT dissertation.

Tallerman, M. (1993) Fronting Constructions in Welsh; paper- presented in LAGB Autumn Meeting, Bangor, Sept. 1993.

Toman, J. (1982) 'Aspects of Multiple wh-movement in Polishand Czech', in May, R. and Koster, J., eds., Levels of Syntactic Representation, Foris, Dordrecht, 293-302.

Toman, J. (1991) 'Anaphors in binary trees: an analysis ofCzech reflexives', in Koster, J. and Reuland, E., eds.,Long-distance anaphora, CUP.

Toman, J. (1992) 'A Note on Clitics and Prosody', EUROTYP (8) working Papers, Volume 4, 113-118.

Wachowicz, K.A. (1974) 'Against the Universality of a SingleWh-Question Movement', Foundations of Language 11,155-166.

Wachowicz, K.A. (1978): 'Q-Morpheme HyPotheSis'i in Hiz,ed., Questions, Reidel, DordreCht, 151-164.

77