Absolute and Relative. On Scope in German Wh-Sentences, W- … W-Constructions Included

Successive cyclicity as residual wh-scope marking

“…The first piece of evidence showing that WSM and wh-LDD questions are not semantically equivalent, and have in fact different LFs, due to Pafel (2000) (see also von Stechow (2000) and references therein) has to do with scope interaction between quantifiers like everyone and the wh-scope marker. Consider the following pair:…”

Wh-Expletives and Secondary Predication: German Partial Wh-Movement Reconsidered

“…Moreover, the lack of certain scope interactions observed by Pafel (2000) indicates that contrary to what is assumed under the partial movement approach, was is not replaced by the "real" w h -phrase at LF. Moreover, the lack of certain scope interactions observed by Pafel (2000) indicates that contrary to what is assumed under the partial movement approach, was is not replaced by the "real" w h -phrase at LF.…”

“…(adapted from Höhle 2000:257) As has been noted by Höhle (2000), Pafel (2000), and others, the copy construction does not pattern fully with the was ... w construction, though. who think you who right has 'Who do you think is right?'…”

Reconsidering the Indirect Dependency Approach to Wh-Scope Marking

“…If we consider, for example, quantifer binding, we encounter the intervention effect (see Beck 1996, Pafel 2000. That is, the only quantifiers that can occcur in the superordinate clause of a WSM question are arguably those that can outscope the wh-scope marker at LF (for discussion, see Krifka 2001).…”