Towards a new typology of coordinatedwh-questions

Abstract

<jats:p>In this paper, we develop a new typology of multiple<jats:italic>wh-</jats:italic>questions with coordinated<jats:italic>wh-</jats:italic>pronouns. We motivate the existence of three distinct structures for such questions: one mono-clausal and two bi-clausal. We use four kinds of diagnostics to determine which of the three structures is available in a particular language: the availability of both multiple<jats:italic>wh-</jats:italic>questions and<jats:italic>wh-</jats:italic>questions with coordinated<jats:italic>wh-</jats:italic>pronouns, coordination of two argument<jats:italic>wh-</jats:italic>phrases, transitivity restrictions and superiority effects.</jats:p>

Strategies of wh-coordination

“…The typologically oriented study of Citko & GracaninYuksek (2010) argues that bulk sharing, just like small coordination, is a freely available strategy in free CMWQ languages, and they offer another diagnostic to differentiate between the two: superiority effects in some languages. Citko & Gracanin-Yuksek (2010) argue that when CMWQs use a monoclausal strategy, they exhibit the same pattern of superiority in CMWQs as in multiple fronting. This happens to be the case in Russian, Croatian or Polish, where neither constructions show effects of superiority, and this also happens to be the case in Bulgarian in which both constructions do.…”

“…For these reasons, bulk sharing can be said to represent a bi-clausal CMWQ with monoclausal properties. This type of CMWQ can, according to Citko & Gracanin-Yuksek (2010), only occur in languages with multiple wh-fronting: since there is only one set of arguments projected in these structures, the movement of wh-phrases up to the CP level qualifies as multiple movement and is thus only allowed in languages that allow for multiple fronting in general.…”

“…With who and who refl-has met "Who met whom?" Citko & Gracanin-Yuksek (2010) are actually aware of this and interpret this effect as evidence that collective predicates have to use the mono-clausal structure with small coordination. Why this should be the case is not very evident (the two arguments here are just as obligatory as they are with non-collective predicates like repair) and is furthermore not supported by the observation that collective predicates can occur with the prosodic earmarks of bulk-sharing, as shown in the following examples from colloquial Romanian.…”

“…The literature on CMWQs is sizeable. Among work dedicated to this phenomenon, one finds case studies of their syntax in individual languages (Bánréti 1992;Giannakidou & Merchant 1998;Kazenin 2002;Lipták 2003;Merchant 2007;Zhang 2007;Gribanova 2009;Gracanin-Yuksek 2007;Tomaszewicz 2011;Raţiu 2010, Citko to appear), typologically oriented comparative syntactic studies (Citko & Gracanin-Yuksek 2010;Haida & Repp in press) as well as proposals about the functional use and semantics of CMWQs (Whitman 2004;Gribanova 2009;Tomaszewicz 2011, to appear).…”

“…The second is to link the available strategies of CMWQ-formation to the typological properties of the languages they are found in. In this second goal, the present paper follows in the pioneering footsteps of Citko and Gracanin-Yuksek (2010) and Haida & Repp (in press) and expands somewhat on these by discussing interlanguage and inter-speaker variation in a larger set of data as well as by paying attention to the prosody of CMWQs when relevant. At this juncture, it is important to point out that this paper will ignore those aspects of the interpretation and functional use of CMWQ that are not directly relevant to understanding the syntax of these constructions.…”