Eckardt • HS Questions and Answers • 26.4.

2006

The Syntax of Questions

Background: Liliane Haegeman, Jacqueline Gueron. 1999. English Grammar. Malden, Blackwell. pp.
45-50, pp. 169-184, pp. 521-528, pp. 545-555.
Liliane Haegeman. 2006. Thinking Syntactically. Malden, Blackwell.

Haegeman and Gueròn cover the following data in H+G 1999.

• Elementary Data
• First Analysis in terms of CP/IP
• Evidence from extraction
• Topic, Focus and the inner structure of CP
• LF movement of wh
• Binding data: Licensing reflexives in wh-constituents

1. Elementary Data (pp. 45-50)

Questions in English are viewed as derived from assertions. In order to derive a question,

a. start with a full assertion

b. replace the constituent to be asked for by an appropriate question pronoun or phrase
c. put the question phrase to the front of the sentence
d. + subject aux inversion (which will be looked at in more detail later).

At the “original” location of the constituent to be asked for, we will notate a “trace” (t) with an index (i)
shared by the wh-constituent.

(1) The young linguist will meet him in the local gallery after lunch.
(2) a. Whomi will the young linguist meet ti in the local gallery after lunch?
b. Wherej willl the young linguist meet him tj after lunch?
c. Whenk will the young linguist meet him in the local galllery tk?

(Remember that, vice versa, questions are also used as one important diagnostic for constituency in
syntax: What can be asked for is a likely candidate for a constituent.)

More than one wh-phrase

If a question asks for more than one constituent (in English), all other wh-phrases remain where the
corresponding constituent in an assertion would belong (“in situ”).

(3) a. Whomi will the young linguist meet ti where after lunch?
b. * Whomi wherej will the young linguist meet ti tj after lunch?

Not all languages follow this pattern. Note that e.g. Bulgarian can front all wh-constituents in the
sentence.

Bulgarian

(4) a. Koj na kogo kakvo beše kazal?

who to whom what was said
‘Who had said what to whom?’
b. * Kakvo na kogo koj beše kazal?

Izvorski, R. 1995. Wh-movement and Focus-movement in Bulgarian. In R. Eckardt and V. van

Geenhoven (eds.), ConSole II Proceedings, The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics, pp. 54-67.

1
In other languages, e.g. Chinese or Japanese, the wh-constituent is not moved at all.

(5) Zhangsan kandao shenme?

Zhangsan saw what
‘What did Zhangsan see?’

English questions where a single wh-constituent remains in situ are generally judged as marked by
native speakers. Sentences like (6) are not acceptable as self-contained questions. They can be used,
however, as “echo-questions” directly copying a preceding utterance.

Discussion: Are German in-situ questions echo questions? Are they unmarked independent
questions?

(6) Und Ihre gnädige Frau Mutter möchte was für ein Zimmer?
Sie haben wen getroffen?
Als Hannibal über die Alpen ritt, hatte er was für Tiere dabei?
Ingrid kommt wann?

2. First Analysis in Terms of CP/IP (pp. 169-176)

Standard assumptions about the structure of English clause structure:

IP = the core clause, including subject, inflection (I), the verb phrase (VP) with its complements and
adjuncts.
CP = the highest clause level which reflects the functional and speech act status of an utterance
(embedding, focussing, questioning, imperative; more?)

(7) a. Thelma will meet Louise after lunch

b. (sample tree)

(8) Whomi will Thelma meet ti after lunch?

Hypothesized movements in English:

(a) auxiliary is moved from I to C. (If there was no AUX in the original sentence, do has to be inserted.)
(b) wh-constituent is moved to SpecCP.

(9) sample tree for (8)

2
Embedded questions in English:

(10) a. Tom said that Thelma will meet Louise after lunch.
b. *Tom asked that Thelma will meet Louise after lunch.
c. Tom asked whether Thelma will meet Louise after lunch.
d. Tom asked whomi Thelma will meet ti after lunch.

Selectional properties of embedding verbs

Syntax of embedded question
(Syntax of embedded declarative)

Verbs like say, think, believe ... select declarative sentences as clausal complements.
Verbs like ask, wonder, investigate select interrogative sentences as clausal complements.
Verbs like determine, decide, know, … can take either kind of complement.

(11) Thelma knew that Louise was driving an old Ford.

Thelma knew what Louise was driving.

Comment: It is still open whether the selectional properties of embedding verbs arise by syntax or
semantics of the embedding verbs. Haegman’s account is strictly syntactic (i.e. the embedding verbs
select clause types like they assign case). However, consider complex embedding structures like in
(12):

(12) *Thelma believed who was coming.

Thelma could not believe who was coming.

Implementation: An interrogative clause is headed by a C which carries a [+WH] feature. This feature
percolates (is shared by) the phrase CP (= also [+WH]). This is the external syntactic “signal” for the
embedding verb to check.
Analogously, a declarative clause is headed by a C which carries a [-WH] feature. This feature
percolates (is shared by) the phrase CP (= also [-WH]).

Embedded yes/no questions:

(13) Tom wonders whether Thelma will meet Louise after lunch.
b. (structure for a.)

3
Embedded constituent questions:
(14) Tom wonders whenk Thelma will meet Louise tk.
b. (structure for a.)

Comment: In English, embedded questions are not compatible with overt complementizers (that). It is
therefore assumed that the presence of a [+WH] feature in C blocks the possibility to use overt
complementizers. Observe that this is a weak constraint, not observed e.g. in dialects like Bavarian.

(15) Da Hiasl frogt sich wo dass da Sepp blim is.

‘der Hiesel fragt sich wo daß der Sepp geblieben ist.’

English also allows infinite embedded questions.

(16) a. I wonder whom to meet.

b. structure for a.

(Note that the subject argument of the embedded infinitive is instantiated with an empty element which
is co-indexed with its “controller”, the person who is supposed to count as the subject argument. This
mechanism is adopted from noninterrogative cases like TomI promises [ eci to empty the trash ])

*A difference between whether and if.

whether can introduce both infinite and finite clauses.
All other complementizers are restricted to either infinite clauses ( for – to) or to finite clauses
(if, that).
Haegman proposed that whether is in SpecCP with an empty C head. In that position, whether can not
control the finiteness features of the embedded IP. All other complementizers, in contrast, are located
in the C head and hence can impose selectional restrictions on the embedded IP.

3. Movement and locality: evidence from extraction (pp. 176 – 184)

Interrogative constituents can move beyond the clause in which they originate.

(17) Cleo asked whomk they will meet tk tomorrow.

4
 Cleo asked [CP whomk [IP they think [CP that [IP they will meet tk tomorrow.] ] ] ]
Cleo asked whenk they will meet Sue tk.
Cleo asked [CP whenk [IP they said [CP that [IP they will meet Sue tk.] ] ] ]

Even more than one declarative complementizer can be crossed (see p. 177).

(18) I asked whom they thought that Bill had said that Ann would see.
I asked [CP whomk [IP they thought [CP that [IP Bill had said
[CP that [IP Ann would see tk ] ]]]]]

Crossing interrogative complementizers, however, quickly reduces the acceptability of the resulting
sentences. Add your grammaticality judgment in __ and the major clause structure below each
sentence.

(19) a. __ I wonder whomk they will meet tk tomorrow.

b. __ I asked whomk they wonder whether they will meet tk tomorrow.

(19) c. __I asked whomi they wonder whenj they will meet ti tj .

d. __ I asked howi they wonder whether they will meet Mary ti .

e. __ I inquired howi they wonder whenj they will entertain Mary tj ti.

Discussion of (19.e): The intended (missing) reading would be

‘I asked: what is the manner such that you wonder when to entertain Mary in that
manner?’; with possible answers
‘Going to the circus: We wondered when to entertain Mary by going to the circus.’
‘Playing chess: We wondered when to entertain Mary by playing chess.’
‘Baking a cake: We wondered when to entertain Mary by baking a cake.’ etc.

Compare

(20) I wonder howk they think that the boar should be killed tk.

Empirical observation: that can intervene between the wh-clause and its base position (in any number,
as long as the sentence can still be understood). Intervening wh-clauses make sentences marked, or
even unacceptable.

Theoretical implementation:

Hiking and Resting: It is assumed that wh-movement is “local”. If a wh-constituent has to move out of a
CP, it has to find a place to take a rest within the CP that it shall leave.
Finding a proper place: In order to take its rest, the wh-constituent needs to find a suitable, empty
place in CP.
Suitable: The resting position has to be of the same kind as the eventual landing site: SpecCP.
Empty: Two constituents are not allowed to share the same SpecCP. (Evidence: It is never allowed to
have two overt constituents in the same SpecCP. Constituents are not allowed to do in hiding what is
impossible overtly.)

Previous assumptions:
that, if are assertive complementizers located in C.
Whether, and other wh-constituents are located in SpecCP.

Prediction:
whether and other wh-constituents block wh-movement. (see above)
that does not block wh-movement. (see above)
if does not block wh-movement. (wrong, see below.)

5
Testing the last prediction:

(19) ??I guessed whomi they wondered whether Mary thinks that she will marry ti.

Crossing that is not the problem ...

(20) I guessed whomi Mary thinks that she will marry ti.

... but crossing whether seems to be.

(21) I guessed whomI Mary wonders whether she will marry ti.

Rescue “hack”: “if still is a question complementizer. So it might somehow endow the presence of
another [+WH] feature in its SpecCP, which in turn blocks the resting site for further wh-constituents.”
(better explanations wait to be found)

The immovable subject

While object constituents can be extracted out of embedded assertion clauses, subjects can not
(“subject-object asymmetry”).

(22) I guessed whomj Mary thinks that she will invite tj .

I guessed whoi Mary thinks that ti will invite her.
I guessed whoi Mary thinks ti will invite her.

In addition, subjects that are moved out of embedded interrogative clauses give rise to unacceptable
sentences — which are even worse than the instances of object extraction that were discussed above.
Extracted subjects are particularly intolerant against nonempty adjacent SpecCP and C. (For details
see p. 181).
Comparable effects arise for moved adjunct wh-elements.

Summary:
1. movement must not cross a wh-element
2. subject wh-phrases must not cross any element in the adjacend SpecCP
3. movement of wh-adjuncts (why, how, when, where) across wh-elements leads to
ungrammaticality.
More restrictions on movement of wh-constituents will be reviewed on May 10.

4. Topic, Focus, and the inner structure of CP

Nonstandard sentences like in (23) are usually ignored in a first look at the syntax of English.

(23) I swear [CP that [ during the holidays, on no account will I watch TV ]]

This lead to the assumption that CP can, given the appropriate conversational situation, rhetoric
intention, etc., host positions that serve to introduce Topical material (TopP “topic phrase”) and
focussed material (FocP “focus phrase”). Schematically

(24)

6
Interestingly, topical material can be used in questions as well.

(25) a. During the holidays, why did they invite Tom?

b. I wonder why during the holidays they invited Tom.
c. Why, during the holidays, did they invite Tom?

The following patterns are grammatical:

topic – wh-phrase – subject (root clause)
wh-phrase – topic – subject (embedded question)

These patterns are judged to be ungrammatical:

topic – wh-phrase – subject (embedded question)
(26) *I wonder during the holidays why they invited Tom.
wh-phrase – aux – topic – subject
(27) *Why did during the holidays they invite Tom?

The data discussed in H+G 1999 suggest the following underlying analysis:
In root questions, the wh-clause is in SpecFocP.
In embedded questions, the wh-clause is in SpecCP.

(28) Structure of (25.a)

(29) Structure of (25.b)

Here we meet the assumption that focus phrases can host wh-clauses. H+G 1999 discuss evidence
from Hungarian that offers classical support for this kind of shared structural position (we will come
back to these examples). The analysis for English takes over ideas that were first suggested for
Hungarian.

7
5. LF movement (pp. 538 – 550)

So far, we have followed the strategy to view clause-initial wh-phrases as moved phrases that are
coindexed with a trace that remains in the “original” position of the wh-constituent. While the
movement offers indication (in English) at what level the question word takes scope, the trace reflects
the thematic ties between the verb and the question constituent.
Some of the major theories of question semantics make essential use of this constellation. In
the weeks to come, we will see interpretation strategies that take the constellation
question operatori [ … ti … ]
as their starting point.
What happens if a question contains some wh-constituent in situ? (More generally, what
happens in wh-in situ languages like Chinese or Japanese?) H+G recapitulate that, for very general
reasons, syntactic theory (in the GB tradition) assumes a structural level of LF (logical form) which
serves as the input structure for semantic interpretation. Quantifier scope is one classical kind of
example that is commonly used to illustrate the fact that surface linear order does not always reflect
the logical core of an utterance or sentence.

(30) A flag was hanging in front of every window.

(salient: “each window has one flag”)
(31) A policeman controlled every passenger.
(salient: “one policeman who did all the passengers”)

Briefly put, at the level of LF the sentence material gets fixed for semantic interpretation. This “fixing”
can include further movements of constituents to convenient places; the directions and range of this
hidden movement, however, should be very limited and controlled. (More on this on May 10th).

Coming back to the interpretation of wh-in-situ, H+G propose that wh-phrases in situ can undergo
movement at LF if necessary. Schematically, the following kind of LF movements may be envisaged:

(32) Whenk did Tom reveal the secret to whom tk?

[ to whomi whenk didv [ Tom tv reveal the secret ti tk ] ]
serving as input to interpretation rules that operate on structures of the kind
[ question operatori question operatork [ … ti …tk … ] ]

We will take up this idea next week when turning to a first theory of semantic interpretation.

(6. Binding Data, pp 551 ff. We will not consider binding data this term.)