Sabina Halupka-Reetar

University of Novi Sad

halupka.resetar@ff.uns.ac.rs

PARTIAL WH-CONSTRUCTIONS: A CONSEQUENCE OF

FEATURE VALUES1
Abstract: Partial wh-constructions, attested in wh-ex situ languages as diverse as German, Hungarian,
Russian, Polish and Serbian, are characterized by a wh-word in sentence initial position, which is not
interpreted as a true wh-word: it does not add to the meaning of the question. It is usually taken to be a whexpletive, linked to the true wh-element sitting in SpecCP of the lower clause, as in the Serbian example
ta misli, koga e Ana pozvati? That the true wh-word is interpreted in the initial SpecCP and that the
matrix wh-word acts as a scope-marker for the true wh-word sitting in a lower position is claimed to be
supported by the fact that the above Serbian sentence has the same meaning as its equivalent involving long
distance wh-movement: Koga misli da e Ana pozvati? (see also Stepanov 1997, Bokovi 1998).
Interestingly, although English is also a wh-ex situ language, partial wh-constructions are not allowed:
*What do you think who Ann will invite? (see also Collins 1997, Sabel 2000), but long distance whquestions like Who do you think Ann will invite? are perfectly well-formed. The paper followes Felser
(2001) in arguing that long-distance wh-movement and partial wh-movement constructions do not have the
same derivation and sets out to explain the difference between English and Serbian with respect to the
availability of the partial wh-construction in terms of the difference in the values of the features [wh] and
[focus] on the functional head C.
Key words: wh-phrase, partial wh-construction, syntax, feature value, focus.

1. Introduction
Various definitions of partial wh-movement exist in the abundant literature dealing with
this phenomenon from a generative perspective but there seems to be general consensus that
movement is partial whenever a phrase has been displaced but its final landing site is below the
position where it meets the relevant requirements, which is scope position in the case of whelements.
Accordingly, the term partial wh-construction (rather than wh-movement, for reasons to
be explained below) will be used in this paper to refer to instances of questions in which the whphrase has not moved all the way to the matrix SpecCP position, as is the case with long whmovement illustrated in (1a) but has instead moved only to a high position in the lower CP (1b).
However, it still has in its scope the matrix SpecCP, now harbouring a scope marker (was), as
illustrated by the following German examples (adapted from McDaniel 1989):
(1) a. [Mit wem]i glaubt [TP Hans [CP ti dass [TP Jakob jetzt ti spricht]]]?2
with whom thinks Hans <with whom> that Jakob no<with whom> speaks
With whom does Hans think that Jakob is now talking?
b. Was glaubt [TP Hans [CP [mit wem]i [TP Jakob jetzt ti spricht]]]?
what thinks Hans with whom Jakob now <with whom> speaks
WHAT3 does Hans believe with whom Jakob is now talking?
Wh-prepositional phrases are not the only kind of elements subject to this type of
movement: which and whose-phrases may also undergo partial movement. Also, when the
sentence contains more than two clauses, the wh-phrase of the embedded clause may move to any
1

The paper is the result of research conducted within project no. 178002 Languages and cultures in space
and time funded by the Ministry of Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia.
2
The letter t is used to mark the trace/copy of a moved element.
3
Capital WHAT is used to indicate the scope marker, non-existent in Standard English.

SpecCP position - the highest (2a), the lowest (2b), as well as (all) the intermediate position(s)
(2c):
(2) a. Wessen Onkeli glaubst [TP du [CP ti dass [TP Irene sagte [CP ti dass [Jakob ti besucht]]]?
Whose uncle do you think Irene said that Jakob is visiting?
b. Was glaubst [TP du [CP was [TP Irene sagte [CP [wessen Onkel]i [TP Jakob ti besucht]]]?
WHAT do you think Irene said whose uncle Jakob is visiting?
c. Was glaubst [TP du [CP [wessen Onkel]i [TP Irene sagte [CP ti dass [TP Jakob ti besucht]]]?
WHAT do you think whose uncle did Irene say Jakob is visiting?
Like German, Serbian is also a language which fronts wh-phrases. In fact, unlike
German, Serbian obligatorily fronts all wh-phrases in multiple wh-questions. Similarly to
German, partial wh-constructions can also be observed in Serbian, both with prepositional phrases
(3) and which/whose-phrases (4):
(3) a. [CP [S kim]i Jovan misli [CP ti da Petar sada razgovara ti]]?
with who.Instr John.Nom think.Pres.3sg that Peter now talk.Pres.3sg
With whom does John think Peter is now talking?
b. [CP ta Jovan misli [CP [s kim]i Petar sada razgovara ti]]?
what.Acc John.Nom think.Pres.3sg with who.Instr Peter now talk.Pres.3sg
WHAT does John think with whom Peter is now talking?
(4) a. [iju sestru/kog pacijenta]i Jovan misli [CP ti da e Marija posetiti ti]?
whose.Acc sister.Acc /which.Acc patient.Acc John.Nom think.Pres.3sg that Mary.Nom
will visit.Pres.3sg
Whose sister/Which patient does John think Mary will visit?
b. ta Jovan misli [CP [iju sestru/kog pacijenta]i e Marija posetiti ti]?
what.Acc John.Nom think.Pres.3sg whose.Acc sister.Acc /which.Acc patient.Acc
Mary.Nom will visit.Pres.3sg
WHAT does John think whose sister/which patient Mary will visit?
Of course, it might be the case that we are actually looking at two separate questions in
the above examples (e.g. What do you think? and Whose sister will Mary visit? in (4b)), since
Serbian displays the same word order in matrix and embedded clauses, unlike German, with V2
in the matrix clause and V-final embedded clauses. In addition, an intonation break between the
two clasuses is, naturally, also possible. However, partial wh-constructions can be used in indirect
questions (in German and Serbian likewise):
(5) a. Ich weiss nicht [CP was [TP Hans glaubt [CP [mit wem]i [TP Jakob jetzt ti spricht]]]].
(adapted from McDaniel 1989)
I know not what Hans thinks with whom Jakob now <with whom> speaks
I don't know WHAT Hans thinks with whom Jakob is now talking.
b. Ne znam [CP ta [TP Marija misli [CP kogai [TP Jovan voli ti]]]].
not know.Pres.1sg what.Acc Mary.Nom think.Pres.3sg who.Acc John.Nom love.Pres.3sg
I don't know WHAT Mary thinks whom John loves.
Additionally, the meaning of the partial wh-construction with the scope marking whword (6a) is often claimed to be semantically closely related to that of the corresponding question
involving long wh-fronting (6b), i.e. ta is often taken to be only a scope marker and the only whscope marker.
(6) a. [CP [ta] misli [CP kogai Jovan voli ti]]?
what.Acc think.Pres.2sg who.Acc John love.Pres.3sg
WHAT do you think who John loves?
b. [CP [Koga]i misli [CP ti da Jovan voli ti]]?
who.Acc think.Pres.2sg that John love.Pres.3sg
Who do you think that John loves?
English resembles German in disallowing multiple wh-fronting (7), but it differs from
German in disallowing partial wh-constructions (8), too.

(7) a. *Who what saw?

b. *Why whom John invited?
(8) *What does John believe who Mary loves?
The aim of the paper is to offer an analysis of the type of partial wh-constructions found
in Serbian and by way of comparing several partial wh-movement languages to make a step
forward in trying to provide a principled account of what licenses the use of partial whconstructions in a language and thereby predict which natural languages are likely to employ this
construction and which are more likely to disallow it.
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 lays out some theoretical and terminological
issues concerning partial wh-movement and addresses various aspects of partial whconstructions. Section 3 provides data from Serbian which illustrate the peculiarities of the partial
wh-construction in this language so that in Section 4 an attempt can be made at pinpointing the
type of wh-construction involved in Serbian and an analysis can be offered, the highlight of
which is the proposal that the observed difference between English(-type languages which
disallow partial wh-constructions) and Serbian(-type languages which allow these) can be
explained by referring to the different values of the features [wh] and [focus] in the two (types of)
languages. Section 5 summarizes the key points made and suggests further issues to be explored.
2. Partial wh-movement some theoretical issues and types
Although the type of partial wh-constructions dealt with in this paper is that in which a
wh-phrase fails to reach initial position in the matrix clause (as in examples (1b, 2b-c, 3b, 4b, 5,
6a) above), crosslinguistically, one clarification is in order at this point. Namely, the partial whconstructions analysed here are not partial in the defective sense - it is not that they are
incomplete in any sense. A different issue is at hand here: unlike e.g. English (9) and German
(10), Serbian is a multiple wh-fronting language, which means that in multiple wh-questions, all
the wh-words are obligatorily fronted, as in (11):
(9) a. Who saw whom?
b. *Who whom saw?
(10) a. Wer hat wen gesehen?
who has whom seen
Who saw whom?
b. *Wer wen hat gesehen?
(11) a. Ko koga tue?
who.Nom who.Acc beat.Pres.3sg
Who is beating whom?
b. *Ko tue koga?4
The fact that the fronted wh-phrases may occur in any order in Serbian, both in matrix
and embedded contexts (cf. Halupka-Reetar 2011) leads to the conclusion that in this language
there never is wh-movement and so, the Superiority condition, requiring the highest wh-phrase to
4

Note, though, that this word order is perfectly acceptable as an echo-question, to express the hearers
disbelief or surprise at what they have heard or to request that the sentence be repeated, e.g. in the
following context:
(1) (In the schoolyard, 8-yeard old skinny John gets into a fight with 12-yeard old Peter. Mary is
witnessing the fight and reporting to her friend, Ann, over the phone.)
Mary: Jovan tue Petra.
John.Nom beat.Pres.3sg Peter.Acc
John is beating up Peter.
Ann: Ko tue KOGA?
Who.Nom beat.Pres.3sg who.Acc
Who is beating up WHOM?

move (first) is never violated (see Bokovi 1997, 2007 for the interaction between wh-movement
and the Superiority condition). Multiple wh-questions are actually formed as a result of the
attract-all-focus feature of the C head, requiring that all elements which have the corresponding
focus feature front to a position directly below C.5
Now, if there is no wh-movement in a language, obviously there is no partial whmovement, either, which is exactly why it appears to be more reasonable to talk about partial whconstructions, because this term covers languages in which wh-fronting is an instance of whmovement, as well as those in which it is the result of focusing (and also those which apparently
allow both wh-in situ as well as multiple wh-fronting without Superiority effects, e.g. Romani, as
reported in McDaniel 1989).
Crosslinguistically, several distinct types of partial wh-constructions have been noted and
accordingly, various competing analyses have been proposed to account for the data. Fanselow
(2006) lists the following types of partial wh-constructions:
(a) simple partial movement (i.e. construction) characterized by partial displacement of the
wh-phrase and occurring in languages with full wh-movement and the wh-in-situ strategy
(some Malay and Athabascan languages but also in Iraqui Arabic, German and Romani in
some contexts);
(b) partial movement with a scope-marking particle (e.g. Albanian)
(c) partial movement with scope marking by the most unmarked wh-word (e.g. German was,
Serbian ta, Hungarian mit, Czech co, and many other languages);
(d) clausal pied-piping involving partial movement, found in Basque (and in a very restricted
way in certain varieties of German), where the wh-phrase moves to the SpecCP of the
complement clause (partial movement), following which the whole clause raises to the
LF-scope position of the wh-phrase.
The same author notes that partial movement in constructions other than questions might
also be possible, e.g. in relative clauses or topicalization and focus movement, as these are also
instances of operator movement, like wh-movement. And as expected, in Romani and in some
dialects of German partial movement is indeed possible in relative clauses and so is topicalization
in embedded contexts in English (e.g. He said that the clergy, he resents but not *That the clergy
he resents is obvious because topicalization is impossible within islands and tensed clauses are
islands).
Several competing accounts have been proposed for type (c) partial wh-constructions,
observable among other languages in Serbian and characterized by the co-existence of a real whword dislocated to a position within the embedded CP and the most unmarked wh-word,
assuming initial position in the matrix clause, as in the Serbian example (5), repeated here for
conveniences sake:
(12) [CP [ta] misli [CP kogai Jovan voli ti]]?
what.Acc think.Pres.2sg who.Acc John love.Pres.3sg
WHAT do you think who John loves?
The accounts of this type of construction fall into two large groups, one of which is based
on the idea of direct dependency existing between the scope marker and the real wh-word and the
other arguing against such a relation. Thus, the direct-depedency approaches stemming from
Riemsdijk (1982) assume that the wh-scope marker (ta what) and the real wh-word (koga
whom) are linked to the same chain, either as a result of the insertion of an expletive-like
element to mark the LF scope of the wh-word which has left its base position but has not moved
all the way up to its LF scope position (McDaniel 1989, Mller 1997) or as the result of feature
movement, an approach which invariably views wh-movement as movement of a wh-feature
with the amount of material necessarily pied-piped varying among individual languages and the
most unmarked wh-element being the phonetic instantiation of moving only the wh-feature
5

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

(Hiemstra 1986, Cheng 2000). Very importantly, all the direct-dependency approaches view
partial wh-movement as a surface alternative to long distance wh-movement, and as will be
argued below, such analyses generally fall short of explaining why long distance whdependencies are sometimes formed by means of a scope marker and in other cases by means of
standard long distance wh-movement. In fact, most direct-dependency approaches suggest that
partial wh-movement may generally surface in long distance wh-movement languages, since
partial wh-movement is contingent upon long distance wh-movement. The free variation of long
distance movement and partial wh-movement that such analyses predict is argued against by
empirical evidence, which point to the fact that these constructions are usually in complementary
distribution (cf. Stepanov and Stateva 2006).
The indirect-dependency approaches, on the other hand, propose that the sentence initial
wh-phrase is linked to the clause that immediately dominates the true wh-phrase. Again, several
lines of reasoning can be distinguished here. One holds that the sentential pronoun, always
homophonous with a word that can be used to ask for propositions, is a standard argumental whphrase (Dayal 1994) and the relationship between the initial wh-phrase and its CP associate is one
between a sentential/expletive pronoun and its associate, as becomes obvious when one compares
(13) with (14) (examples adapted from Fanselow 2006: 451):
(13) Was denkst du [wer gekommen ist]?
what think.Pres.2sg you who come is
WHAT do you think who has come?
(14) Ich habe es bedauert [dass Hans Maria eingeladen hat]
I have.Pres.1sg IT regretted that Hans Maria invited have.Pres.3sg
I regretted that Hans invited Mary.
The second approach, proposed by Horvth (1997), Mahajan (1996, 2000), Fanselow
and Mahajan (1996, 2000), treats the sentence initial wh-phrase as an expletive (the whcounterpart of sentential expletives), which needs to be replaced by the clause containing the real
wh-word at LF. Thus, the LF of (13), given in (15) below, has identical semantic values as the
standard long-distance question given in (16):6
(15) [Wer gekommen ist] denkst du? (LF representation)
(16) Weri denkst du dass ti gekommen ist?
who think.Pres.2sg you that <who> come is.Pres.3sg
Who do you think that has come?
The third type of account, advocated by Felser (2001) and adopted in this paper, rests on
the claim that the scope marker is not an expletive subject to replacement, but that it is base
generated, a true argument that is theta-licensed by the matrix verb. The matrix verb and the
embedded CP are assumed to form a syntactically complex predicate, of which the scope marker
is the semantic subject (see also Den Dikken 2009).
The benefit of all the indirect-dependency approaches then is that, contrary to directdependency approaches, they do not have trouble in explaining why partial wh-movement and
long distance wh-movement constructions do not generally coexist in a language, as they are
fundamentally different structures. This is also corroborated by the cross-linguistic distribution of
long distance wh-movement versus partial wh-movement constructions. Namely, as Schippers
(2009) points out, these constructions are usually in complementary distribution: languages that
employ long distance wh-movement generally do not allow partial wh-movement, and vice versa.
An apparent exception to this pattern seem to be German and Hungarian, which allow both partial
wh-movement (in the broad sense) and long-distance wh-movement, but also Serbian, as shall
become evident in the next section, which explores the peculiarities of partial wh-constructions
in Serbian.
6

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

3. Partial wh-constructions in Serbian

This section aims at establishing the behaviour of partial wh-constructions in Serbian.
The data will show the extent to which this construction conforms to several generalizations
concerning it, such as anti-locality, the structural position of ta, its properties and mobility but
also the nature and properties of the clause containing the real wh-word regarding extraction,
binding, case and other issues.
In line with the indirect dependency accounts, ta and the real wh-word must not appear
in the same clause as there is no slot for the expletive in the clause containing the real wh-word,
as in the following examples:
(17) a. *TA ko spava?
WHAT who.Nom sleep.Pres.3sg
Who is sleeping?
b. *TA spava ko?
WHAT sleep.Pres.3sg what.Nom
Who is sleeping?
As pointed out above, Serbian is a multiple wh-fronting language, which instantly
explains why (17b) should be ungrammatical the wh-word ko (who) has not fronted.
Additionally, ta and the true wh-word being in the same clause, they would have to be directly
related, which appears not to be possible. In (17a), ta and the fronted wh-phrase ko would have
to occupy the same slot, in the same clause, which, as just pointed out, is not possible. Instead,
only (18) is allowed:
(18) Ko spava?
who.Nom sleep.Pres.3sg
Who is sleeping?
ta will be argued to be a propositional proform (cf. ta misli? What do you think?),
neutral with respect to the declarative/ interrogative distinction in that it can serve as a proform
for either type of sentence (cf. Felser 2001).
Also, the fact that (6a) and (6b) have the same meaning supports the claim that ta
(what) is not a true wh-word in these examples. Further evidence for this claim comes from the
fact that while (19a) can be answered by nita (nothing), (19b) cannot, because ta is not a
question word here:7
7

According to some of my informants, the associate in a partial wh-construction may be a combination of a

yes/no-question and a constituent question an entity that is not known to exist outside this construction:
(1) ta misli, da li sam se s kim srela?
what.Acc think.Pres.2sg Q Aux.Cl.1sg se with who.Instr met.Part.sg
WHAT do you think, did I meet whom?
I do not have an explanation for this but the fact that even those informants who find the above question
tilted agree that it can only be answered by (2a), but not (2b-c) suggests that we are not looking at a partial
wh-construction in (1) but rather at two separate questions (the second of which appears to be ignored after
the first one is answered negatively). Thus, ta is interpreted as a true question word here.
(2) a. Nita.
Nothing.
b. Ne.
No.
c. S Jovanom.
With John.
Note that the same cannot be claimed of questions like (3): although here, too, we have ta and the yes/no
question particle da li, but the partial wh-construction can be answered with da (yes) or ne (no), but not
with nita (nothing), proving that ta is not a true interrogative phrase.
(3) ta misli, da li je srean?
what.Acc think.Pres.2sg Q Aux.Cl.3sg happy
WHAT do you think? Is he happy?

(19) a. ta je Jovan kupio? Nita.

what.Acc Aux.Cl.3sg John.Nom bought.Part.sg nothing.Acc
What did John buy? Nothing.
b. ta misli koga je Jovan pojubio? *Nita. / Nikog.
what.Acc think.Pres.2sg who.Acc Aux.Cl.3sg John.Nom kissed.Part.sg nothing.Acc
nobody.Acc
WHAT do you think who John kissed? Nothing./ Nobody.
Interestingly, however, if the lower clause is the complement of a noun, the partial whconstruction is disallowed (examples along the lines of Fanselow and Mahajan 2000:203):
(20) a. *ta veruje priu koga Marija voli?
what.Acc believe.Pres.2sg story.Acc who.Acc Mary.Nom love.Pres.3sg
WHAT do you believe the story whom Mary loves?
b. ??Koga veruje priu da Marija voli?
who.Acc believe.Pres.2sg story.Acc that Mary.Nom love.Pres.3sg
Who do you believe the story that Mary loves?
Regarding the case of ta, although the Nominative and Accusative case forms of this
pronoun do not formally differ in Serbian, we shall assume in what follows that ta occurs in
matrix clause initial position in Accusative case (see below for the reasoning behind this claim).
What is certainly not allowed is for ta to bear the case of the true wh-phrase in the lower CP,
which proves (at least) that the two are not directly related:
(21) a. {tai /*emui} misli, emui se Jovan nada?
what.Acc / what.Dat think.Pres.2sg what.Dat se John.Nom hope.for.Pres.3sg
WHAT do you think what John hopes for?
b. {tai /*egai} misli egai se boji?
what.Acc / what.Gen think.Pres.2sg what.Gen se fear.Pres.3sg
WHAT do you think what (s)he is afraid of?
c. {tai /*S kimi} misli s kimi se Marija posvaala?
what.Acc / who.Instr think.Pres.2sg who.Instr Mary.Nom quarreled.Part.sg
WHAT do you think who Mary quarrelled with?
The next issue concerns the exact structural position of ta. Its ultimate position is
undoubtedly a left-peripheral position in the matrix clause where it marks the matrix clause as a
direct question. However, in some dialects of Serbian, it appears that ta may combine with a
further wh-element in the matrix clause, in any order:
(22) a. Ko ta misli, [koga je ore video]?
who.Nom what.Acc think.Pres.3sg who.Acc Aux.Cl.3sg George.Nom seen.Part.sg
Who WHAT thinks, whom George has seen?
b. ta ko misli, [koga je ore video]?
same
If the judgements are indeed correct, this can only suggest that in the relevant dialects of
Serbian, the proform ta of the partial wh-construction occupies the same position as the true
matrix wh-word ko who, otherwise the order of these two would have to be fixed.
Another interesting observation concerns the possibility of ta occurring in a position
lower than the matrix SpecCP position provided that there is another proform in a higher SpecCP
position, as shown in (23). However, a true wh-word in matrix SpecCP position cannot license ta
in a lower SpecCP (24):
(23) a. Ko ta / ta ko misli, ta Ana veruje, koga je Jovan prevario?
who.Nom what.Acc / what.Acc who.Nom think.Pres.3sg what.Acc Ann.Nom
believe.Pres.3sg who.Acc Aux.Cl.3sg John.Nom tricked.Part.sg
WHAT does who think WHAT Mary believes who John tricked.
(24) *Ko misli ta Ana veruje, koga je Jovan prevario?

who.Nom think.Pres.3sg what.Acc Ann.Nom believe.Pres.3sg who.Acc John.Nom

tricked.Part.sg
Who thinks WHAT Ann believes who John tricked.
Example (23) supports the claim that the matrix wh-word ko (who) and ta (what)
may occupy the same SpecCP as well as the fact that more than one proform may be licensed but
only as long as there is also a proform in the matrix clause (or in every higher clause): note that
both the matrix and the middle clause contain ta indirectly related to the embedded wh-word
koga (whom) in the most deeply embedded clause. At the same time, (24) proves that the matrix
ko (who) and the proform ta (what) are not related, which is why ko cannot extend the scope
of ta, as shown above.
Not only does it appear that in multiple embedding structures, each intermediate clause
must normally be introduced by a separate instance of ta, but the data also confirm that the
proform is even allowed to raise. In other words, while (25a) contains three instantiations of ta,
in (25b) ta seems to have raised into successive SpecCP positions8 until it reached the matrix
SpecCP position. Note, however, that if ta raises, the presence of the complementizer da is
obligatory (24c). This is due to the fact that in Serbian, finite embedded clauses are always
signalled by either a complementizer (like da that, da li whether, jer because, etc.) or a
fronted wh-word. Embedded finite clauses with a null complementizer and a raised wh-word of
the English type shown in (26a) are unacceptable in Serbian (26b):
(25) a. tai misli tai je Marija rekla tai e nam Petar otkriti [koga Jovan voli]i?
what.Acc think.Pres.2sg what.Acc Aux.Cl.3sg Mary.Nom said.Partsg what.Acc
Aux.Cl.Fut.3sg we.Cl.Dat Peter.Nom reveal.Inf who.Acc John.Nom love.Pres.3sg
WHAT do you think, WHAT Mary said, WHAT Peter will reveal to us, who John
loves?
b. tai misli ti da je Marija rekla ti da e nam Petar otkriti [koga Jovan voli]i?
what.Acc think.Pres.2sg that Aux.Cl.3sg Mary.Nom said.Part.sg that Aux.Cl.Fut.3sg
we.Cl.Dat Peter.Nom reveal.Inf who.Acc John.Nom love.Pres.3sg
same
c. *tai misli ti Marija je rekla ti Petar e nam otkriti [koga Jovan voli]i?9
what.Acc think.Pres.2sg Mary.Nom Aux.Cl.3sg said.Part.sg Peter.Nom Aux.Cl.Fut.3sg
we.Cl.Dat reveal.Inf who.Acc John.Nom love.Pres.3sg
(26) a. Whoi do you think [CP ti [John saw ti]]?
b. *Kogai misli [CP ti [Jovan je video ti]]?
who.Acc think.Pres.2sg John.Nom Aux.Cl seen.Part.sg
Who do you think John saw?
Thus, wh-raising across clausal boundaries must be signalled overtly. Remember,
however, that the proform ta can also fulfill this signalling function in Serbian (25a) as there
seem to be no restrictions on the number of proforms (al long as there is no ore than one per
clause) but at the same time, ta does not license a wh-word in situ nor in the same clause where
it surfaces.

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

Having determined the position of the proform let us now turn to the embedded CP.
Unlike German and Hungarian-type languages, which only allow the partial what-construction in
the context of constituent questions, for most speakers of Serbian this construction is also
acceptable in the context of the yes/no-question (similarly to Polish and Russian, among other
languages, cf. Fanselow 2006: 461) as long as the matrix verb accepts both types of questions as a
complement compare in this respect the matrix verbs misliti think of (27) and eleti wish in
(28): while the first verb type clearly licenses both wh- and yes/no-interrogative complements (as
well as declarative ones), the latter verb type only allows wh-questions, but not yes/no-questions.
(27) a. ta misli, ko je doao?
what.Acc think.Pres.2sg who.Nom Aux.Cl.3sg come.Part.sg
WHAT do you think? Who came?
b. ta misli, da li je dola?
what.Acc think.Pres.2sg Q Aux.Cl.3sg come.Part.sg
WHAT do you think? Did she come?
(28) a. ta eli, koga da ljubi?
what.Acc wish.Pres.2sg who.Acc da kiss.Pres.2sg 10
WHAT do you want? Who to kiss?
b. *ta eli, da li da pita?
what.Acc wish.Pres.2sg Q da ask.Pres.2sg
Since wh-infinitives like (29) are allowed in Serbian anyway (though the da+Present
tense form is more common), the category of infinitive clauses as legal associates of the proform
ta will not be further explored here as it is clearly not dependent on partial wh-constructions.
(29) Koga eli pozvati?
who.Acc wish.Pres.3sg invite.Inf
Who does (s)he wish to invite?
According to native speaker judgements, no extraction is allowed out of the embedded
CP containing the true wh-word, neither of the wh-word nor of a topicalized element if there is
another wh-phrase in the same CP. This is, of course, expected, given the wh-island condition,
which disallows extraction out of an embedded clause introduced by a wh-word and it results in
the impossibility of raising kojoj (to which) of (30a) out of the most deeply embedded clause
containing also the wh-word koga (whom) (and across the scope marker ta) as well as the
impossibility of raising the topicalized object Jovana (John.Acc) out of the embedded CP and
into matrix-clause initial position.
(30) a. *Evo glumice kojoj se ne seam ta je Jovan traio koga da predstavimo.
here actress.Gen who.Fem.Dat se not remember.Pres.1sg what.Acc John.Nom
ask.Part.sg who.Acc da present.Pres.1pl
Here is the actress to whom I do not remember WHAT John asked who we should
introduce to her.
b. *Jovana ne znam ta Ana misli kako bismo mogli da ubedimo.
John.Acc not know.Pres.1sg what.Acc Ann think.Pres.3sg how Aux.Cl.Past.1pl could
da convince.Pres.1pl
As for John, I do not know WHAT Ann thinks how we could convince him.
The data discussed so far all appear to support the claim that the embedded CP has the
status of complement rather than of adjunct.11 Additional evidence comes from the fact that a
10

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

pronoun in the embedded CP associate can be bound by a quantifier in the matrix clause. Thus, in
(31a) the pronominal clitic mu (to him) can be bound by the matrix QP svaki student, and so can
the pronoun o njemu (about him) of (31b) be bound by niko (nobody). Naturally, in both
cases, the pronoun may also be bound by an XP outside the sentence, as the indices show.12
(31) a. ta misli [svaki student]i, kada e mui/j se upisati ocena?
what.Acc think.Pres.3sg every.student.Nom when Aux.Cl.Fut.3sg he.Cl.Dat se enter.Inf
mark.Nom
WHAT does every student think? When will he have the grade entered (into his
record)?
b. ta nikoi ne veruje, kakve prie [o njemu]i/j iri njegova ena?
what.Acc nobody not believe.Pres.3sg what-like.stories.Acc about him spread.Pres.3sg
his.wife.Nom
WHAT does nobody believe what kind of stories his wife spreads about him?
Another characteristic of the partial wh-construction in Serbian seems to be its flexibility
with respect to negative islands. Namely, in many languages, the wh-proform may not appear in a
negative clause or when there is a negative QP in the clause, as illustrated by the German
example in (32). Under the current approach, this is due to a condition on negative questions to
the effect that they require D-linked domains. That is, to the extent that it makes any sense at all
to ask a negative question such as What dont you believe?, it is necessary that a (finite) set of
possible answers can be presupposed, or is previously established in the discourse (as it would
otherwise be impossible to enumerate all the things that X does not believe). Given this, the
hypothesis that ta is a CP-proform explains why negative long distance wh-movement structures
are possible in German (32b) while negative partial wh-constructions (32a) are not. The same
carries over to Serbian, as illustrated by the examples in (33).13 Once again, we have clear
12

The same claim can also be made about sentences with a null subject, e.g.
(1) [Nijedan student]i ne zna ta je [profesor] j rekao kada e pro i/j/k polagati ispit.
no student.Nom not know.Pres.3sg WHAT Aux.Cl.3sg professor.Nom said.Part.sg when
Aux.Cl.Fut.3sg pro sit.Inf exam.Acc
No student knows when the professor said that he will take the exam.
13
The situation observed here should not be taken to suggest that in Serbian (and perhaps other languages
that behave in the way illustrated above) negation may intervene between fronted wh-words, even though
for some speakers, it does seem to be able to intervene between a quantifier and its restrictor, as shown in
the paired examples below:
(1) a. Ko koga nije poljubio?
who.Nom who.Acc Neg.Aux.Cl.3sg kissed.Part.sg
Who didnt kiss whom?
b. *Ko nije koga poljubio?
(2) a. Koje je Jovan kupio cipele?
which.Acc Aux.Cl.3sg John.Nom bought.Part.sg shoes.Acc
Which shoes did John buy?
b. ??Koje nije Jovan kupio cipele?
which.Acc Neg.Aux.Cl.3sg John.Nom bought.Part.sg shoes.Acc
Which shoes did John not buy?
The explanation is trivial: in Serbian, true wh-interrogative phrases (i.e. non-echo and non-D-linked) have
to front obligatorily and the sequence of wh-words may only be broken by clitics (and contrastive elements,
see Halupka-Reetar 2012). As nije is not a clitic (unlike its positive counterpart je), it cannot occur
between the fronted wh-words. The reason why both sentences of the second pair are well-formed is that in
multiple wh-questions it apparently suffices to front the wh-element of wh-interrogative phrases to SpecCP,
leaving the complement behind (presumably, because it does not contribute to checking the attract-all
feature of C). Alternatively, of course, the whole wh-phrase can be fronted, which would result in the wellformed Koje cipele nije kupio Jovan?

evidence that the partial wh-construction is derivationally not related to the long movement
strategy.
(32) a.*Was glaubt keiner wen sie liebt?
what.Acc believe.Pres.3sg nobody who.Acc she.Nom love.Pres.3sg
WHAT does nobody believe who she loves?
b. Wen glaubt keiner dass sie liebt?
who.Acc believe.Pres.3sg nobody that she.Nom love.Pres.3sg
Who does nobody believe that she loves?
(33) a. *ta Jovan ne veruje, koga Marija voli?
what.Acc John.Nom not.Aux.Cl.3sg believe.Pres.3sg who.Acc Mary.Nom love.Pres.3sg
WHAT does John not believe who Mary loves?
b. Koga Jovan ne veruje da Marija voli?
who.Acc John.Nom not.Aux.Cl.3sg believe.Pres.3sg that Mary.Nom love.Pres.3sg
Who does John not believe that Mary loves?
Obviously, a sound theory is needed to explain the data presented above. The next section
attempts to propose an analysis of the partial wh-construction in Serbian in terms of the features
and values of the functional head C.
4. The proposal: features and values of wh-phrases
Numerous proposals and analyses of the partial wh-construction exist in the literature,
based on data from very diverse languages but what still seems to present a problem is whether
the various instantiations of this construction should be treated (a) as biclausal (the approach
favoured by English data); (b) as a parenthetical with the wh-phrase as an argument and the
clausal associate as a modifier (in Hindi, see Dayal 1994); (c) as a clausal expletive-associate pair
with the associate being a complement (as argued for Hungarian in Horvth 1997); (d) as a scopemarking construction with the wh-phrase, an NP-expletive, as part of chain formation (see Mller
1997 for German); (e) as a scope-marking construction with the wh-word as a scope-marking
particle (in Iraqui Arabic, as argued by Ouhalla 1996); or (f) as scope marking with no wh-phrase
left (as in Japanese).
In light of the above sets of examples and the generalizations concerning the contexts and
conditions necessary for the application of the partial wh-construction in Serbian, it appears that
the proposal put forward by Felser (2001) can be applied to Serbian with very little modification.
Namely, she does not analyse the embedded clause of partial wh-constructions as a question in its
own right, which is only semantically linked to the subordinate clause (as is the case in Dayals
original approach, cf. Dayal 1994, 2000), but proposes a complex predicate approach, in which
the matrix verb and the embedded interrogative clause together form a syntactically complex
predicate whose semantic subject is the putative object expletive (ta in Serbian). She suggests
that the scope marker originates in the specifier of VP, where it is assigned the theta-role of
Theme. It checks structural accusative and raises further to matrix SpecCP to check the features
of the matrix C. The embedded CP is an unselected complement of V that is licensed not through
theta-marking but through being predicated of the object pronoun, the scope marker ta. Sentence
(6a) ta misli koga Jovan voli? then has the following simplified structure (disregarding all
movement but the raising of the wh-elements):
(34) [CP tai v [VP ti [V misli [CP kogaj . Jovan voli tj]]]
As pointed out by Den Dikken (2009), this perspective on the basic structure of the
partial wh-construction provides a proper base position for the scope marker, gives it a role to
play in the structure (by making it the subject of predication inside the matrix VP) and enables it
to engage in a structural Case and -feature checking relationship with the matrix v, which turns
out to be precisely what we need in order to account for the Serbian data.

Though the embedded CP resembles relative clauses in serving as a predicate of the

scope marker in the matrix clause, it is important to note that the subject of the CP associate must
be an interrogative wh-pronoun, Felser (2001) points out it cannot be a non-wh-pronoun or a
wh-pronoun in a non-interrogative context. This is supposedly the consequence of the
interrogative concord relationship between the embedded CP and the matrix wh-word (similar to
the case concord between the subject and a predicate nominal observable in many languages
including Serbian). This concord relationship is presumably subject to a locality restriction:
closest c-command.
Now, given that the scope marker always takes on the same form in Serbian (ta),
regardless of what the true wh-word sitting in the embedded CP is, we do not want there to be full
concord between the scope marker and the wh-constituent (as then we would expect the two to
have the same form). As this concord relationship is contingent on closest c-command, we have
independent evidence that wh-fronting in Serbian is indeed to a position lower than embedded
CP, possibly to a focus position just below C (as suggested by Bokovi 2007, Stjepanovi 1999,
2003), so that it is separated from the matrix ta by C (a phase head), which in turn is the closest
candidate for a concord relationship with ta in the main clause. The only concord relationship
that is possible between ta and the embedded C is one of wh-interrogativity. The interrogative
concord obtained in partial wh-constructions between ta and the embedded clause via the [+wh]
feature can only be determined locally, through the predication relation itself. The complex
predicate analysis presented here provides the necessary configuration for interrogative concord
to obtain.
To illustrate the proposed account, consider (35b), the partial derivation of (35a):
(35) a. ta misli, koga sam poljubila?
what.Acc think.Pres.2sg who.Acc Aux.Cl.1sg kissed.Part.sg
WHAT do you think who I kissed?
b. [CP tai [vP pro v [VP ti [V misli [CP [C [FocP/DRP kogaj [ pro sam poljubila tj]]]
Under the assumption that due to the feature values of the functional head C, the true
wh-phrase does not raise to the embedded SpecCP but to a lower position (maybe a
SpecFocP/SpecD(iscourse) R(elated) P(rojection), see Halupka-Reetar 2012), the closest
candidate for the concord relationship with the proform ta raised into the matrix SpecCP position
is the embedded C.
Now consider the situation in English: since C has the value attract-one-wh-phrase,
exactly one and necessarily the highest wh-phrase has to raise to SpecCP in interrogative clauses.
It follows that English is a wh-movement language. This, in turn, implies that the closest
candidate for the concord relationship is not C but the wh-phrase in the embedded SpecCP, thus
we predict that English will not allow the partial wh-construction. Example (37), corresponding
to (35a) above, shows that the prediction is borne out:
(36) a. Who said what?
b. *What did who say?
(37) *What do you think, who I kissed?
Let us also examine Hungarian, a language standardly claimed to involve focus-fronting
of wh-phrases rather than wh-movement. Again, given that the raising of kit involves focusing
rather than wh-movement, as evidenced by the fact that the preverb meg- occurs postverbally, the
scope marker mit sitting in the SpecCP position of the matrix clause will not be able to enter into
a concord relationship with kit, but will have to do so with the embedded C:
(38) Mit gondolsz, (hogy) kit cskoltam meg?
what.Acc think.Pres.2sg that who.Acc kiss.Past.1sg VP
WHAT do you think who I kissed?
The fact that the verbal prefix meg- occurs in postverbal position is taken to signal that
the immediately preverbal position, the focus position, is occupied by kit whom. Note that

unlike Serbian, in Hungarian, the complementizer hogy that precedes the focused phrase,
making the Felser (2001)-type account directly applicable to the data from this language.
Returning now to Serbian examples, given that in the partial wh-construction ta is a
theta-marked object pronoun capable of licensing a predicative CP in embedded position,14 it
satisfies the selectional requirements of the matrix verb, and is capable of bearing the role of
Theme unlike the embedded interrogative CP. The hypothesis that ta is the internal argument
of the matrix verb correctly predicts that the partial wh-contruction strategy should be unavailable
if the complement of V is a complex DP/NP,15 as this is itself capable of carrying the role of
Theme. This is exactly the case in Serbian, as shown in (20) above. On the other hand, being an
object pronoun, ta is expected to receive Accusative case marking even though Nominative
and Accusative case forms ta are morphologically non-distinct, ta can co-occur with a
Nominative case marked DP/NP in the matrix clause (pro in (21), Marija in the example below),
but not an(other) DP/NP complement of the matrix verb (20).
(39) {tai /*emui} misli Marija, emui se Jovan nada?
what.Acc / what.Dat think.Pres.3sg Mary.Nom what.Dat se John.Nom hope.for.Pres.3sg
WHAT does Mary think what John hopes for?
The fact that ta cannot occur in the same case form as the wh-word in the embedded CP
(21) supports the current analysis in which these two are not expected to be in a direct
dependency relation.
Example (22), which shows that (at least for some speakers of Serbian) ta may also cooccur with a the matrix wh-word ko (who), remains unaccounted for at this stage of the
research, since on the one hand, the proform is required to raise to SpecCP in order to check the
features of the matrix C but on the other, the fact that ta and the matrix wh-word ko can appear
in any order suggests that they share the same structural position. This is just another piece of the
wh-puzzle I will not have more to say about here. However, what the current proposal does
account for is the fact that the embedded CP in partial wh-constructions is essentially noninterrogative and it only becomes [+wh] through the concord relation with the c-commandng
matrix [+wh] proform. Thus, we correctly predict that in Serbian, given that the embedded C has
an attract-all value for the focus feature, the true wh-words will never raise to SpecCP and the
partial wh-construction will be available. We also correctly predict that in English, since C
invariably has the attract-one value for the wh-feature but its focus feature is valued negatively
(meaning that focus fronting does not occur), partial wh-constrcutions will never be allowed
because the matrix proform will alwazs enter a concord relationship with the true wh-word in the
embedded SpecCP position.
Also, under the present analysis, examples like (25b) with intermediate ta-clauses can be
accounted for as involving ordinary long distance extraction of ta from the intermediate clause
(cf. Felser 2001), whereas in the case of (25a), we would be looking as multiple wh-raising, with
each wh-expression being part of a separate wh-chain. Note that nothing prevents the latter
strategy from being applied more than once in the same sentence, i.e. nothing prevents ta from
occurring in the SpecVP of more than one verb.
Obviously, the current proposal needs to be tested on many more languages, those that
are standardly claimed to focus-front wh-phrases (e.g. Russian) as well as those that clearly
examplify wh-movement languages. It would also be interesting to explore whether the proposed
analysis can be extended to French-type languages, which have been claimed to allow focus14

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

movement of wh-phrases in some contexts but require wh-movement in others (see Bokovi
2007).
5. Closing remarks
The paper examines a special type of construction, termed partial wh-construction,
characterized by a wh-word in the matrix clause, associated with an embedded CP containing a
true wh-word. Following Felser (2001), it is argued that the construction should be analyzed as
involving a theta-marked object proform in an indirect dependency relationship with the
embedded clause, viewed as an unselected complement of the matrix verb, and as such only
construable predicatively. A concord relationship is established with respect to the [+wh] feature
between the matrix proform and true wh-word in SpecCP of the embedded clause, or, if whwords do not move to SpecCP (as is the case with focus-fronting languages), the relationship in
question will have to be established with the embedded C.
With an analysis along these lines, and assuming that languages differ with respect to the
values of features, it is proposed that in English the functional head C, dominating the clause, has
the attract-one value for the [wh] feature and that it is valued negatively for the [focus] feature.
This means that since a wh-word always raises to SpecCP, the partial wh-construction will not be
available in this language (i.e. the proform would never get to establish the concord relationship
with the embedded C because the wh-word sitting in SpecCP is a closer candidate).
Regarding Serbian, a language in which wh-fronting is taken to be an instance of
focusing rather than wh-movement, the prediction that the partial wh-construction will be
available is in fact borne out given that the embedded wh-word will focus front to a position
lower than C and will never be able to establish a concord relationship with the matrix proform.
Nevertheless, the presented account certainly requires further insights into the CP layer,
especially into the exact landing site of fronted wh-phrases but no less importantly into pinning
down the locus of topicalized and focused phrases relative to the complementizer. The fact that
the complementizer da occurs in a lower position than the embedded wh-phrase does not
necessarily undermine the approach presented as it may well be the case that da (of the
da+Present tense construction) does not occupy the highest head position in the CP field after
all, it may co-occur with the interrogative complementizer da li, which clearly indicates that da
and da li cannot be occupying the same structural position. Still, as most of the Serbian data
presented in the paper seem to be accounted for and the analysis is also supported by other
languages, it seems to be safe to predict that focus-fronting languages will allow the partial whconstruction.

Literature
Bokovi, . 1998. Wh-movement and wh-phrases in Slavic. Paper presented at the Comparative
Slavic
Morphosyntax
Workshop,
Bloomington,
Indiana.
Available
at
http://www.indiana.edu/~slavconf/linguistics/index.html
Bokovic, . 2005. On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia
Linguistica 59, 1-45.
Bokovi, . 2007. A note on wh-typology. Proceedings of FDSL 6, 159-170.
Bokovi, . 2008. What will you have, DP or NP? In Proceedings of the North East
Linguistic Society 37. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 101-114.
Bokovi, . 2009. More on the no-DP analysis of article-less languages. Studia Linguistica
63, 187-203.
Cheng, L. 2000. Moving Just the Feature. In U. Lutz, G. Mller and A. von Stechow (eds.), WhScope Marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 77-99.

Collins, C. 1997. Local Economy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Dayal, V.1994. Scope Marking as Indirect Wh-Dependency. Natural Language Semantics 2, 137170.
Dayal, V. 2000. Scope Marking: Cross-Linguistic Variation in Indirect Dependency. In U. Lutz,
G. Mller and A. von Stechow (eds.), Wh-Scope Marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
157193.
Despi, M. 2011. Syntax in the Absence of Determiner Phrase. Doctoral dissertation, University
of Connecticut.
Dkken, Marcel den 2009. On the nature and distribution of successive cyclicity. Adjunction,
resumption, and scope marking as the roads to success in long-distance relation building.
Paper presented at the Conference on Minimalist Approaches to Syntactic Locality,
Budapest, August 2009. Ms., CUNY Graduate Center.
Fanselow, G. 2006. Partial Movement. In M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell
Companion To Syntax, Volume III, Malden, CA: Blackwell Publishing. 437-492.
Fanselow, G. and A. Mahajan 1996. Partial Movement and Successive Cyclicity. In U. Lutz and
G. Mller (eds.), Papers on Wh-Scope Marking. Working Papers of the SFB 340.
University of Tbingen. 131161.
Fanselow, G. and A. Mahajan (2000). Towards a Minimalist Theory of Wh-Expletives, WhCopying, and Successive Cyclicity. In U. Lutz, G. Mller and A. von Stechow (eds.),
Wh-Scope Marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 195230.
Felser, C. 2001. Wh-expletives and secondary predication: German partial wh-movement
reconsidered. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 13, 5-38.
Halupka-Reetar, S. 2011. Reenini fokus u engleskom i srpskom jeziku [Sentential focus in
English and Serbian]. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet.
Halupka-Reetar, S. 2012. (Contrastive) Focus and wh-movement in Serbian. Ms, University of
Novi Sad.
Hiemstra, I. 1986. Some Aspects of Wh-Questions in Frisian. Nowele 8, 97-110.
Horvth, J. 1997. The status of Wh-expletives and the partial Wh-movement construction in
Hungarian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15, 509-572.
Ivi, M. 1972. O upotrebi glagolskih vremena u zavisnoj reenici: prezent u reenici s veznikom
da. Zbornik matica srpske za filologiju i lingvistiku, 13/1, 43-55.
Mahajan, A. 1996. Wh-Expletives and the Syntax of Partial Movement. In U. Lutz and G. Mller
(eds.), Papers on Wh-Scope Marking: Working Papers of the SFB 340. University of
Tbingen. 163-177.
Mahajan, A. 2000. Towards a Unified Treatment of Wh-Expletives in Hindi and German. In U.
Lutz, G. Mller and A. von Stechow (eds.), Wh-Scope Marking. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins. 317-332.
McDaniel, D. 1989. Partial and Multiple Wh-Movement. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 7, 565-604.
Mller, G. 1997. Partial Wh-Movement and Optimality Theory. The Linguistic Review 14: 249306.
Ortiz de Urbina, J. 1990. Operator feature percolation and clausal pied-piping. MIT Working
Papers in Linguistics 13, 193-208.
Ouhalla, J. 1996. Remarks on the Binding Properties of Wh-Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 27,
676-707.
Progovac, Lj. 1998. Determiner phrase in a language without determiners. Journal of Linguistics
34, 165179.
Riemsdijk, Henk C. van 1982. Correspondence Effects and the Empty Category Principle.
Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 12. Tilburg: KUB.

Sabel, J. 2000. Partial wh-movement and the typology of wh-questions. In U. Lutz, G. Mller,
and A. von Stechow (eds.), Wh-scope marking. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins. 409-446.
Schippers, A. 2012. Some people are repeaters. Medial copy spell-out in long-distance whdependencies. Proceedings of ConSOLE XVII, 269-288.
Stepanov, A. 1997. On partial wh-movement in Russian. Ms., U. of Connecticut, Storrs.
Stepanov, A. & Stateva, P. 2006. Successive cyclicity as residual wh-scope marking. Lingua 116,
2107-2153.
Stjepanovi, S. 1999. What do second position cliticization, scrambling and mulpitple whfronting have in common? Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Stjepanovi, S. 2003. Multiple wh-fronting in Serbo-Croatian matrix questions and the matrix
sluicing construction. In C. Boeckx and K. Grohmann (eds.), Multiple wh-fronting.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 255-284.