the account of syntactic EQs which I will propose later. Consider embedded questions such as (4):. (4) Mary asked whether Tarzan likes Jane. The verb ask may ...
Lingua
81 (1990) 141-167.
ON THE SYNTAX Nicholas
SOBIN *
Department
of English,
Received
University
echo questions
questions
Culicover two
strategies
1990
from
have been considered
syntactic
types:
and syntax,
pseudo
EQs,
and syntactic
and unselective
tion of the frozen
descriptions
(1987: 122)). This article
them into the realm of normal
syntactic
analyzable
January
QUESTIONS
Little Rock, AR 72204, USA
(EQs) in English
(1976: 73); Pesetsky
COMP-freezing,
ECHO
of Arkansas,
as to be excluded
EQs which brings into
OF ENGLISH
July 1989; revised version
Frequently, normal
141
North-Holland
character
syntax.
involve
completely
binding
(Pesetsky
involve
from (e.g..
an analysis
question
EQs. The latter
of COMP
in terms of normal
which
proposes
so deviant of the latter
of English
Here, EQs are divided usual
a discourse
questioning
strategy
(1987)) of in-situ wh-phrases.
in syntactic
rules and principles
EQs results involved
called
Recogni-
in this type also being
in the syntax
of questions.
1. Introduction In generative linguistics, it is now a virtual article of faith that echo questions (EQs) such as (lb) do not (need not?) follow from the normal rules of syntax. (la) Jane is still dating Jack the Ripper. (1 b) Jane is still dating who t?
*
The following
quote is characteristic
‘ . . . The
relative
unrestrictedness
integrate
them into the analysis
I am indebted
suggestions Anna
of echo
Cardinaletti,
editors
contributions Noam
Iatridou,
Itziar Laka,
reaching
as to call for future
makes
Chris
Longobardi, work
and to a number
to this work.
Chomsky,
Giuseppe
questions
rather
Andy
include
Anne
Covington,
and David Psestsky. than integration
to attempt
(Culicover
to
(1976: 73))
of people for their very insightful
These people
Collins.
of EQs:
it unprofitable
of the more usual type of questions...’
to the anonymous
and other
of the usual treatment
Marie
Irene
Some suggestions
into the present
A. Black,
Heim,
Sabine
were so far-
text in order
to do
them justice. I am also grateful to various agencies at UALR, including ORSP, the Department of English, the School of AHSS, and the Office of the Provost for helping support my work off campus, and to the Department incomparable hospitality during
0024-3841/90/%3.50
0
of Linguistics my stay there.
and Philosophy
1990, Elsevier Science Publishers
at MIT for their support
B.V. (North-Holland)
and
142
N. Sobin i On the synmx of English echo questions
In this paper, I propose that the only ‘abnormal’ aspect of EQ formation is a discourse strategy (i.e., a strategy necessarily involving more than one sentence in some ‘normal’ language use context such as a conversation) that I will call COMP-freezing. Once this freezing of the COMP-MoveWh dimension is recognized, English EQs result automatically from an otherwise normal syntax of English questions. Section 2 of this paper sketches some basic features of EQs and divides them into two general syntactic types, each involving certain distinctive formation strategies. Section 3 presents details of the syntactic analysis of these two EQ types, one type involving COMP-freezing and unselective binding. Section 4 discusses aspects of EQs which, unlike COMP, are not frozen. Section 5 concludes.
2. Some basic features of EQs There are (at least) two types of EQs in English, classical or ‘syntactic’ EQs, which I have called ‘type i’ elsewhere (Sobin (1978)). and ‘pseudo’ EQs, which I have called ‘type ii’ (ibid.). As an initial illustration of each type, consider (2): (2a) U: Bill married Greta Garbo. (2b) E: Bill married who r? (2~) E: Who did Bill marry T? (I will argue more precisely below that the discourse context of an EQ is critical to explaining its syntax. Hence, I will use the abbreviations U to indicate an utterance and E or *E to indicate an acceptable or unacceptable EQ response to that utterance.) Utterance (2a) may be echoed in the two ways shown here. EQ (2b) illustrates a syntactic EQ response, a structure which is in certain critical respects a copy of U. In such EQs, any newlyintroduced wh-phrases appear in-situ. Another possible EQ to (2a) is (2~) a pseudo EQ, an apparently normally constructed question to which (2a) would be an answer. In what follows, I will discuss pseudo and then syntactic EQs in more detail. Preliminary to this discussion are some brief remarks on intonation and on the + / - WH character of COMP in EQs.
N. Sobin ! On the syntax
of English
echo quesfions
143
2.1. Brief remarks on intonation Common to EQs of both types is a final upward intonation, as the final upward arrow indicates in (1 b) above and in (2b-c), repeated below: (2a) U: Bill married Greta Garbo. (2b) E: Bill married who t? (2~) E: Who did Bill marry t? An EQ with simple shows.
downward
final
intonation
is unacceptable,
as (2d-e)
(2d) *E: Bill married who J? (2e) *E: Who did Bill marry _1? There are E’s with apparent final downward intonation, in response to a U which has upward intonation, as in (3). However, as in (3b), this downward intonation is preceded by a strong upward intonation; further, these E’s always seem to have an optional additional final upward intonation, for which a final downward intonation as in (3b) may be considered a sort of contraction. (3a) U: Does Mary still date Jack the Ripper? (3b) E: Does Mary still date Jack the Ripper(t)? Though much more could, and probably should, be said about will leave it, claiming that an EQ must have a(n) (underlying) intonation, which I will call ‘surprise’ intonation.
intonation, I final upward
2.2. The + I- WH character of EQ COMP I wish to establish here that an EQ COMP may be - WH (though it may also be + WH). This latitude in the content of EQ COMP will be crucial to the account of syntactic EQs which I will propose later. Consider embedded questions such as (4): (4) Mary asked whether
Tarzan
likes Jane.
The verb ask may have a complement
S’ whose COMP
is + WH, hence the
144
N. Sohin / On the syntax
of English
echo queslions
possibility of whether in COMP position in the embedded clause. In contrast, the verb believe does not take a complement S’ with a + WH COMP, as the ungrammaticality of whether in (5) indicates: (5) Mary believes Next, consider echo-questioned,
that/*whether
Tarzan
that the embedded as in (6):
likes Jane.
clausal
(6a) U: Mary believes that Bill dates Greta (6b) E: Mary believes that Bill dates who?
complement
of believe may be
Garbo.
The acceptable presence of that in the echoed embedded clause in (6) indicates that its COMP is - WH. Also, the COMP of root S is - WH. I conclude this as follows: a COMP of root S which is + WH allows subjectauxiliary inversion in the root S, but the subject-auxiliary-inverted version of (6b), given as (6~) below, is ungrammatical here. This is explained if the COMP of the root S here is - WH.lr2 (6~) *E: Does Mary believe that Bill dates who? Thus, given that all of the COMP that EQs may have - WH COMP.
positions
in (6b) are - WH,
it follows
3. An analysis of EQs This section advances the specifics of analyzing EQs into the two types pseudo and syntactic. Recognizing this distinction is critical to deriving EQs by a normal rather than by an abnormal syntax of English questions, even in light of difficulties such as the apparent superiority violations as in (7b): (7a) U: I wonder what Mozart brought. (7b) E: You wonder what who brought? ’ Chomsky and Lasnik (1977:487) suggest that an EQ such as ‘John saw who?’ results when COMP is [- WH]. However, this is the extent of their analysis of EQs. *
Sentence
(6~) is a grammatical
EQ to utterance
COMP in root S: (i) U: Does Mary believe that Bill dates Greta More will be said about this below.
(i), where the utterance Garbo?
itself has a + WH
145
N. Sobin / On the syntax of English echo questions
The details of pseudo EQs are spelled out first in order to clear the way for discussion of the construction of central interest here, syntactic EQs. 3.1. Pseudo EQs In more detail, one may think of the construction of pseudo EQs as follows: upon encountering a ‘questionable’ statement, the speaker may create a syntactically ‘normal’ question (but with surprise intonation) to which the questionable statement would be a syntactically normal declarative response. The declarative character of U is crucial. Thus, @a) may be echoquestioned as in (8b): (8a) U: Jill dates Mozart. (8b) E: Who does Jill date? However,
(9b) is not an acceptable
EQ to (9a), since (9a) is not declarative:
(9a) U: Does Jill date Mozart? (9b) *E: Who does Jill date? In using the phrase EQs, such as (8~):
‘syntactically
normal
question’,
I do not include
classic
(8~) E: Jill dates who? Such syntactic
EQs are the topic of the following
subsection.
3.2. Syntactic EQs I have labeled EQs such as (SC) ‘syntactic’ EQs because of their apparently distinct syntax involving unmoved w&phrases. Both pseudo EQs and syntactic EQs are strongly linked to the discourses in which they occur; however, I want to invoke Pesetsky’s (1987: 107 ff.) term ‘D(iscourse)-linked’ in connection with syntactic EQs because particular parts of syntactic EQs are clearly D-linked in the sense which Pesetsky intends.3 I will detail this below. I propose here that the formation of syntactic EQs involves the following elements : 3 Pesetsky binding.
(1987: 122. fn. 1) exempts
EQs
from
his analysis
of D-linking
and
unselecting
146
(i) (ii)
N. Sobin / On the syntax
of‘ English echo questions
surprise intonation (discussed above); COMP ‘freezing’ - an exact copy of the LF-str being echoed;
COMP
of the utterance
(iii) unselective (Baker-style) binding in LF of EQ-Introduced (D-linked, in-situ) w/z-phrases (Pesetsky (I 987)); (iv) a ‘copy’, possibly loose, of the non-COMP elements of the utterance being echoed.
Element (i) will not be dealt with further here. Since w/z-movement is to COMP, element (ii) is a freezing of the COMP- Wh-movement dimension of a syntactic derivation. Element (iii) is the mechanism which in part explains why certain EQs which appear to violate the Superiority condition, for example, are possible. Element (iii) also helps to explain which w&phrases in such EQs are intended to elicit a response and which are not. Elements (ii) and (iii) deal with ‘frozen’ parts of EQ structure. In other respects an EQ may be a less exact copy of the utterance being questioned, including, for example, inexact copying of sentence elements related to NP-movement. However, a complete investigation of this fourth element is beyond the scope of the present work. The following subsections will explore further each of these elements of EQ formation, excepting element (1). 3.2.1. An initial description qf COMP;freezing A very restrictive element of syntactic EQ formation is COMP-freezing, which can be initially characterized as follows. In constructing a syntactic EQ response to an utterance, the EQ COMP matches the COMP of the utterance in its + / - WH character and in any w&phrases which may be present in COMP structure. I will illustrate this first by considering three utterances of differing COMP structure, and acceptable and unacceptable EQ responses to them. The three utterances are given below as items (1Oaac). The EQ responses are given in (11). Following each EQ in (I 1) is a set of three markings, indicating the (un)acceptability of that EQ as a response to each of the utterances.
(10a) U: Frieda likes chocolate worms. (lob) U: Does Frieda like chocolate worms? (10~) U : Who likes chocolate worms?
N. So&n
/ On the syntax
of English
(11) EQs (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)
141
echo questions
(104 (lob) (1Oc) E E E *E *E *E E E E *E
Frieda likes chocolate worms? Frieda likes what? Does Frieda like chocolate worms? Does Frieda like what? Does who like chocolate worms? Does who like what? What does Frieda like? Who likes chocolate worms? Who likes what? What does who like?
*E *E *E *E *E *E *E E E *E
*E *E E E E E *E *E *E *E
Utterance (10a) is a declarative sentence whose COMP structure is simply - WH. As a declarative, it may serve as the declarative answer to a question, and thus pseudo EQs are possible with (lOa). The pseudo EQs to (10a) are (1 lc), (g), (h), and (i). The COMP-frozen syntactic EQs to (10a) are (1 la) and (b), which have - WH COMP (see section 2.2 above; the question character of (1 la) and (b) and other EQs is dealt with below in terms of unselective binding). In non-echo questions in English, if one or more u&phrases are present, a w/z-phrase must move to COMP (or SpecCP). Thus, (1 Id-f) are not pseudo EQs (normal questions). Question (1 lj) is also not a possible pseudo EQ to (lOa), since it is a Superiority violation.4 Utterance (lob) is a yes-no question whose COMP structure is + WH, with no additional w/z-phrases. Since it is not declarative, it is not a possible declarative response to a normal question; consequently, it admits no pseudo EQ responses. The only acceptable EQ responses to (lob) will be syntactic EQs with an identical + WH COMP structure, one which is vacant of any w/z-phrases. Thus the only EQ responses to (lob) are the syntactic EQs (1 lc-f). Utterance (10~) is a &z-question. Its COMP structure is + WH, but it also contains a &z-phrase, the subject who. The same considerations which bar pseudo EQs as responses to (lob) also bar them here. Thus the only EQ responses to (10~) are the syntactic EQs (1 lh) and (i), each of which contains 4 Originally, (Chomsky to Move
superiority
violations
were analyzed
(1977: 101)). In later analyses. Wh in LF (e.g., Chomsky
as violations
such structures
(1981:232ff.)).
of the Superiority
have been barred
Pesetsky
Condition
as ECP violations
(1987: 104ff.) analyzes
due
superiority
violations as violations of the Nested Dependency Condition again due to Move Wh in LF. I will not go further into these analyses at this point, except to say that under any of these analyses, a superiority violation is diagnostic of a movement in syntax or in LF. This is exploited by Pesetsky and in the account to follow.
148
N. Sobin ! On the syntax
c~f English
echo questions
COMP structure identical to (10~) in regard to the + / - WH character of COMP and &-phrases present in COMP. This is an initial characterization of COMP-freezing, which will be devela
oped further below. A key characteristic of syntactic EQs is that they may contain in-situ w/z-phrases not found in the triggering utterance. It is these phrases which I will discuss next. 3.2.2. Background to Baker-binding (unselective binding) in EQs Baker (1970) analyzed wh-questions in terms of an element Q, which would serve as a binder both for a wh-phrase in COMP and for M/h-phrases in-situ. Thus, a question like (12) might be represented as in (13): 5 (12) Who saw what? (13) [s, Qi,j whoi [s ti saw whatj]] Though (13) shows only one wh-phrase in COMP, the question asks for responses to both wh-phrases. This is accounted for in (13) by the dual (unselective) binding of whoi and what, by Qi,j. I will henceforth refer to this unselective binding as B(aker)-binding. More recent analyses (e.g., Chomsky (1981)) have proposed that Move Wh applies not only in the syntax but also in LF resulting in (14) a rough LF form for (12):6 (14) [s. what, [s, who, [s ei saw eJ]] In such a proposal, all wh-phrases in the COMP(s) of root S are being queried. Henceforth, I will refer to this type of binding as M(ovement)binding. I have presented a very sparse picture of these proposals here, since Pesetsky (1987: 98-101) presents a fine overview of them, and since they are historically quite familiar to most. I wish to turn now to Pesetsky’s use of them. Pesetsky notes that, though they have been considered alternative analyses, in fact they differ in at least one critical respect. The M-binding analysis involves certain movements (here, of what, to COMP) which the j As Pesetsky notes, structure (12b) contains elements not introduced by Baker, but found in later work.
For convenience,
I will roughly
follow Pesetsky’s
structural
format
in discussing
Q.
Later, I will try to sort out COMP structure including Q in terms of more recent work on COMP. 0 Structure (12~) and such subsequent structures follow Pesetsky’s practice (1987: 106; 122-123, fn. 10) that Move Wh in LF adjoins a nab-phrase to S’. See the references in Pesetsky for further details. In (12~). Move Wh applies in the syntax resulting in an S-structure positioned who and in-situ whal. In LF, Move Wh applies (invisibly) to adjoin
with a COMPwhar to S’.
N. So&n
B-binding
analysis
1 On the syntax
does not. Pesetsky
qf English
149
echo questions
goes on to propose
that both analyses
are available in natural language. His claim is supported by the fact that some constructions observe the Nested Dependency Condition (see below) while others do not. It is to these details that I now briefly turn. The asymmetrical extraction possibilities in (15) were noted and analyzed by Chomsky (1977) in terms of the Superiority Condition. (15a) Who saw what? (15b) *What did who see? Pesetsky (1987: 105) rejects a recast Superiority Condition account of (15) in favor of an account based on the Nested Dependency Condition, given here as (16): (16) Nested Dependency Condition (NDC) If two &-trace dependencies overlap,
one must contain
the other.
The NDC is claimed to be a condition on movement. Question (15a) is possible because the requisite w/z-movements of who in the syntax and of what in LF result in an LF structure which complies with (16) as illustrated in (17a): (17a) Is, what, [s. who, [s ei saw ej]]] (17b) [s, who, [s. what j [s ei saw ej]]] And as (17b) shows, question (15b) fails because the syntactic and LF whmovements result in an NDC violation in the LF structure of (15b). As Chomsky, Pesetsky, and others point out, however, some constructions appear to be grammatical, despite having overlapping dependencies. One such construction is (18) (= Pesetsky’s (25b)): (18) I told them, [what books,
[PRO, to read ej]]
Even though referential dependencies in (18) overlap rather than nest, this overlap does not violate the NDC because one of the overlapping dependencies does not involve movement or a w/z-phrase. Since the NDC specifically refers to ‘two w/z-trace dependencies’, the NDC is not violated by (18). Another apparent NDC violation is more problematic. Which-phrases do involve Move I+% but appear not to be restricted by the NDC, as the grammaticality of both sentences of (19) illustrates:
150
N. So&n
(19a) Which person
//On
Ihe s_vnmx
of English
echo quesliom
saw which film?
(19b) Which film did which person
see?
Noting this systematic deviation from an otherwise general condition, Pesetsky draws an interesting conclusion, namely that, like (18), such sentences as (19) do not meet the movement criterior for application of the N DC to these structures. That is, the &-phrase-in-situ does not undergo Move Wh in LF. And in response to the ensuing question of how the in-situ which-phrase is COMP-bound (a necessary structural feature to account for its status as a questioned item), Pesetsky claims that such phrases are unselectively bound (B-bound here) rather than M-bound. Thus, the LF structure for (19b) would be the B-bound structure (20): (20) [Qi,j which film, [which person,
saw ej]]
Since LF structure (20) does not involve two &-trace dependencies. it systematically escapes the NDC. However, a fundamental problem remains. If B-binding arbitrarily comes to the rescue whenever M-binding fails, then the empirical status of the NDC (and much else) is compromised. Or, viewed differently, if B-binding simply can be available when M-binding fails, why isn’t (I 5b) grammatical due to Bbinding? In response to such difficulties, Pesetsky proposes that each binding possibility is inherently restricted by the type of uh-phrase being bound. The relevant typing involves discourse as follows. Pesetsky divides wh-phrases into two types: Discourse-linked, or D-linked, and non-D-linked. Following Pesetsky’s characterization, D-linked \vhphrases are ones which depend on prior discourse for their felicitous use. Which-phrases, as in (19) and (21) below, exemplify the D-linked type. (21) Which person
ordered
which sandwich?
Use of the phrase which prrson, for example, is unfelicitous unless some set of people has been established as an object of discussion/discourse prior to the utterance. Such phrases are D-linked. Non-D-linked phrases are ones which require no such prior establishment. Thus, the wh-phrase what in (15) and in (22) below requires no prior context or reference : (22) What is Mary reading?
N. Sobin / On the syntax
of English echo questions
151
Pesetsky utilizes the (non-)D-linked distinction as follows: D-linked in-situ w/z-phrases are subject to B-binding, whereas non-D-linked n&phrases are subject to M-binding. Given that sentence (15b) involves non-D-linked whphrases, its LF structure is (17b), which violates the NDC. However, since sentence (19b) involves D-linked w/z-phrases, its LF structure is (20) a structure to which the NDC does not apply. In sum, taking NDC violations (such as (15b)) to be diagnostic of a movement analysis of the structure involved, Pesetsky claims that in natural languages, both M-binding and unselective binding (B-binding) exist. Mbinding is indicated when a structure observes movement constraints (e.g., the NDC), such as structures containing non-D-linked w/z-phrases. B-binding is indicated when a structure does not observe movement constraints, such as structures containing which-phrases. With this background, I now return to the analysis of EQs. 3.2.3. B-binding and COMP-freezing in syntactic EQs Here I wish to claim that the in-situ wh-phrases in syntactic EQs are further evidence for B-binding. The wh-phrases that I have in mind are those like what in (23b): (23a) U: Frieda (23b) E: Frieda
likes chocolate likes what?
worms.
While pseudo EQs such as (23~) utilize wh-phrases, linked wh-phrases involving M-binding. (23~) What does Frieda
these phrases
are non-D-
like?
In what follows, I wish to discuss the D-linked character of wh-phrases in syntactic EQs, the interaction of these phrases with the NDC, and finally some more specific mechanics of syntactic EQ formation, which involve the interaction of B-binding and COMP-freezing. As regards the discourse character of the in-situ wh-phrase in (23b), it seems in some reasonable sense to be D-linked. Question (23b) cannot be posed without the preceding context. With or without its surprise intonation, its wh-in-situ syntax disallows it as a discourse-initiating utterance. In contrast, question (23~) does not have the same status. Minus the surprise intonation, (23~) has the syntax of a normal question which may be discourse-initiating. It is not its syntax, but only the imposed surprise
intonation which licenses (23~) as some variety of EQ. The n#z-phrase in (23~) is non-D-linked. The preceding distinct characterization of the n&phrases in (23b) and (23~) predicts distinct behavior in the interaction of structures containing them with the NDC, and this prediction is correct, as will be evident. Consider the EQs in (25): (24a) U: Who likes chocolate worms? ( = 10~) (24b) U: What does Mozart like? (24~) U: Mozart likes chocolate worms. (25) EQs: (a) Who (b) What (c) Does (d) Does (e) Does
likes what? (= 1 li) does who like? (= 1 Ij) who like chocolate worms? Mozart like what? who like what? (= 1 If)
(24a) E (= 1 le)
*E *E *E *E
(24b) *E E *E *E *E
(24~) E *E *E “E *E
(In (25) as in (11) above, EQs are listed along with information about their acceptability as responses to the utterances in (24).) That (25a) is and that (25b) is not a possible pseudo EQ to even a declarative statement such as (24~) is accounted for by the NDC. As pseudo EQs. (25a) and (b) would involve normal question formation processes, which include a treatment of these &-phrases as non-D-linked. Thus, the structures containing them will involve M-binding, resulting in an LF structure for (25b), which violates the NDC. This structure is (26): (26) [s. whoi [S. what j [ei likes ej]] Thus, (25a) but not (25b) is a possible pseudo EQ to (24~). The derivation of (25b) as an EQ to (24b) involves detailing some of the interaction of COMP-freezing and B-binding, to which I now turn. The formation of syntactic EQs involves COMP-freezing and the introduction of a B-binder which is coindexed only with newly (EQ) introduced M./z-phrases. Assume that the relevant LF structure of (24b) (following Move Wh in LF) is (27) : (27) [s. what, [Mozart The formation
likes ej]]
of (25b) as an EQ to (24b) involves
freezing
the LF structure
153
N. Sobin 1 On the s_vntax ?f English echo questions
COMP
of the U and introducing
an appropriate
D-linked
w/z-phrase in place
of an EQ-triggering element such as Mozart of (24b). Accompanying the Dlinked &-phrase is a B-binder which is co-indexed with it. Thus, the relevant LF structure of (25b) is (28): ’ (28) [s. Qi whatj [whoi likes ej]] Some observations about the B-binder in (28) are in order here. First, Q is not co-indexed with all of the w/r-phrases in its clause. This is distinct from Baker’s original characterization of Q (cf. (13) above), but characteristic of the dual binding system which Pesetsky proposes and which is being argued for here. Thus, a non-echo question like (29a), containing a mixture of D-linked and non-D-linked n&-phrases, would yield LF (29b): 8 (29a) Who saw which film? (29b) [s. Qj whoi [ei saw which filmj]] Second, the B-binder in syntactic EQs is an unselective binder; as is true of B-binders in general, it is capable of binding more than one &-phrase, as the sentences in (30) illustrate. In (30), sentences designated with R are felicitous (or, with @;R, unfelicitous, etc.) responses to the EQ. (30a) U: Where does Shostakovich sell T-shirts? (30b) E: Where does who sell what? ’
The freezing
limitations 8
D-linked
of S-structure
COMP
on syntactic
&r-movement.
rrh-phrases
may undergo
follows Move
from the freezing Wh, as indicated
of LF-structure
in (20) above,
COMP
and the
or in (i-ii):
(i) Which film won the prize? (ii) [s. Q, which film, [e, won the prize]] Given this, the analysis a non-EQ violates
and
being presented
the contrasting
here correctly
grammaticality
predicts
of (v-vi),
the ungrammaticality
since the former,
of (iii-iv) as
but not the latter,
the NDC:
(iii) *Which film did who see? (iv) [s. who, [s. Q, which film, [er saw e,]]] (v) Which film did which person see (= 19b) (vi) [s. Qr,, which film, [which person,
saw e,]]
(= 20)
However, (viii) (= iii) above) is grammatical as a syntactic EQ to utterance (viii) is D-linked, and the NDC is not violated in its LF structure (ix). (vii) U: Which film did Mozart see? (viii) E: Which film did who see? (ix)
[s. Q,,, which film, [who, saw e,]]
(vii), since the who in
154
(30~) (30d) (30e) (3Of)
N. Sobin / On the syntax
R: Where does Shostakovich @R: In Belinda’s Boutique. ?@R: Shostakovich. ?@R: T-shirts.
of English echo questions
sell T-shirts?
That (30~) is a possible direct response to EQ (30b), and that (30d-f) seem deficient or incomplete as responses to the EQ suggest the analysis of the LF structure of (30b) given in (31): (31) [s, Qi,j where,
[whoi sells what, e,]]
The multiple indices on Q in (31) indicate binder. (See also examples in footnote 8.) A third and quite interesting aspect involvement in what 1 will label as ‘scope the sentences of (30). Following generally recall that a sentence like (32) has a scope (32) Who remembers
where we bought
its treatment
here as an unselective
of B-binding in these EQs is its narrowing’. This too is evident in the observations of Baker (1970) ambiguity.9 what?
Felicitous answers to (32) may respond only to the who, as in (33) or may respond to the who and to the what of the embedded question. as in (34). (33) Jill and Mary do. (34) Jill remembers where we bought where we bought the lotion, etc.
the magazine,
Mary
remembers
In an M-binding analysis, the ambiguity is accounted for by assigning two different scopes to what. On the narrow scope interpretation of what, Move Wh in LF moves what to the lower COMP, a position indicating that what is not being questioned.‘O The resultant LF is (35),11 with (33) as a proper answer. 9 This is discussed very adequately
by Pesetsky, and I reiterate it here only for textual clarity. lo Thus, in sentences with one or more wh-phrases in an embedded clause as in (i). the whphrases have only narrow scope and are not ‘questioned’ elements. (i) Mary remembers where we bought what. I1 LF (35) seems to violate the NDC. Since Pesetsky utilizes the NDC and claims that perhaps a different version of it is necessary (see especially pp. 122-123, footnotes 7-9), and since the NDC (superiority)
is being used as a diagnostic,
ECP account of superiority data presented here.
I will simply stick with it here. However,
and other related
phenomena
I feel that an
might work more uniformly
over the
N. Sobin 1 On the syntax
(35) [s, who, [s ei remembers
of English echo questions
[s, what, [s, where,
[s we bought
155
ej e,]]]]]
On the wide scope interpretation of what, Move Wh in LF moves what to the root COMP, a position indicating that what, along with who, is a questioned element. The resultant LF is (36) with (34) as a proper answer. (36) [s, what, [s. whoi [s ei remembers
[s. where,
[s we bought
ej e,]]]]]
Thus it is consistently w&phrases which are in root COMP (e.g., (35) and (36)) and w/z-phrases B-bound in root COMP (e.g., (20)) which are questioned elements. In the context of these considerations, a striking aspect of EQs is that they appear to behave differently; EQs involve what I have labeled earlier as ‘scope narrowing’. This is illustrated in the comparison of U (30a) and EQ (30b/31). Where in (30a) is in root COMP position, and a non-EQ response to (30a) would provide an answer to where, such as (30d). However, in the case of EQ (30b/31), where is in the same apparent syntactic position as in (30a), but (30d) is not an appropriate response to the EQ. (Karttunen (1977: 12) makes similar observations.) Thus, it is as though an original wh-phrase in root COMP position (where) had been reassigned narrow scope in a complex sentence. This is particularly paradoxical since apparently lower whphrases appear to supersede where as questioned items. Thus, the best response to (30b/31) is (30~). I propose that these facts are due in part to the other major feature of the analysis here, COMP-freezing. COMP-freezing may be characterized more specifically as follows. Any wh-phrase in the utterance which has moved to COMP in syntax or in LF, or which is B-bound in COMP, is frozen when constructing a syntactic EQ to that utterance. That is, the COMP(s) involved is not an available landing site for any other (EQ-introduced) wh-phrases, and further, none of the original wh-phrases associated with COMP are available for further or different binding. It is LF COMP, which contains the syntactic and LF wh-movements and B-binders, which is frozen in the construction of a syntactic EQ. Thus, COMP-freezing limits co-indexing of the B-binder of a syntactic EQ to EQ-introduced wh-phrases which are necessarily in-situ and which are conventionally D-linked (making them available for B-binding). COMP-freezing in effect turns original wh-phrases into ‘background’ elements not subject to questioning. With this characterization, it is only the newly introduced B-binder of the root COMP of a syntactic EQ which indicates the elements being questioned.
156
N. Sobin / On the syntax
of English
echo questions
For descriptive purposes, we might think of frozen COMP elements carrying a feature [ + F]. Adding some details, the relevant LF structure utterance (24b) might be represented as in (37): l2 (24b) U: What does Mozart (37)
[s. what,
as of
like?
+ WH [s Mozart
likes ej]]
With COMP-freezing and the additional of (25b) as a syntactic EQ will be (38):
B-binder,
the relevant
LF structure
(25b) E: What does who like? (38) [s, Qi [s, whatj -t WH [s who, likes ej]]]
[+Fl
[+Fl I2
Ignoring
(Chomsky
for now issues about
(1986)), (37) might
how COMP
be represented
(+/-
WH) should
be treated,
in CP notation
as (i), and (38) as (ii):
(i) /\ SpecCP
7’\
I whati
C
I2
I
/Mozart
+WH (ii)
likes ej
C?
/\ SpecCP
‘Qi
/*\ SpecCP
2’1
I what
C
I2
I
[+Fl
whoi likes e,
+WH
[+Fl (See Rudin
(1988: 480) for alternative
contents of traditional Iz. Since M-binding therefore elsewhere intend
COMP is from
analyses
of the adjunction
of n+phrases
is the sequence of SpecCP and C elements SpecCP. I assume that binding generally
to SpecCP.)
The
which accompany is from SpecCP
any and
that B-binding is from SpecCP. The inclusion of + I- WH in (37) and allows for a more perspicuous and uniform presentation of COMP-freezing,
to make no claims here as to whether
from LF structure.
these elements
are present
(38) and though I
in or simply recoverable
N. Sobin / On the syntax
ofEnglish
157
echo questions
As noted above, it is the sequence of wh-phrases contained in or B-bound in COMP of the root S (see footnote 12) which comprises the list of elements being questioned. Thus, in (24b/37), it is whatj which is being questioned. In an ordinary multiple-wh-question like (15a) (with LF structure (39)), it is what, and whoi which are questioned. (Isa) (39)
Who saw what? [s, what, [s, who,
+ WH [s ei saw ej]]]
(Following Pesetsky’s claim that Move Wh in LF results in an S’-adjunction (of whatj to S’ in (39)) the questioned (‘root’ COMP) material will be the COMP material of all of the S’s containing the highest S node.) Thus, I claim here that, by convention, the fact that whatj in the syntactic EQ (25b/38) is not a questioned element is due to its frozen (+ F) state. This is a plausible solution since the questioned element who, of (25b/38) is B-bound in root COMP, and its binding element Q, is superior to other COMP material (what,), which is now conventionally interpreted as having narrow scope due to its [ + F] status. In sum, the B-binder in syntactic EQs is thus far the normal unselective binder as Pesetsky characterizes such binders, and not a special device. Any apparent special limitations on it are due to COMP-freezing. Under this analysis, syntactic EQ (30b) is assigned LF structure (40): (30b) Where does who sell what? (40)
[s, Qi,j [s, where,
[+Fl
+ WH [s who, sells whatj e,]]]
[+Fl
Here, the scope interpretation of where, is ‘narrow’, and it is only who, and what, which are questioned elements. There is one other aspect of the B-binder that I wish to consider here, namely, the notion of a ‘supporter’ for Q. Consider sentence (41a) and its LF structure (41 b). (41a) Mary knows who saw which film. (41 b) [s, - WH [s Mary knows [s, Qj[s, whoi + WH [s ei saw which filmJ]]]] Also, consider
non-echo
question
(42a) and its LF structures
(42a) Who knows who saw which film?
(42b-c):
158
N. Sobin / On the syntax
(42b) [s8 whoi
+ WH [s ei knows
of English
echo questions
[s. Qj [s, who,
+ WH
[s e, saw which
fil~jlllll (42~) [s8 Qj [s. who,
+ WH
[s ei knows
[s. who,
+ WH [s ek saw which
fil~jlllll As Baker (1970) and others since have noted, sentence may only be a questioned element if also contains a wh-phrase which is a questioned ,film is not a questioned element. However, questioned element, a wh-phrase assigned wide This is indicated by possible responses to (42) (43) Mary knows who saw Tarzan,
a wh-phrase in an embedded the root sentence containing it element. Thus in (41) which which film in (42) may be a scope as in LF structure (42~). such as (43):
Max knows who saw Flush Gordon,
etc.
Thus, in order for a Q binding a D-linked wh-phrase in an embedded sentence to have wide scope, it must have a supporting wh-phrase in root COMP. l 3 So far as I can ascertain, such ‘supporter’ phenomena are still not wellunderstood. Consideration of syntactic EQs adds other facts to this picture. Consider an utterance such as (44), and a syntactic EQ to it and its LF structure such as (45): l4 (44) U: I know that Mary likes chocolate worms. (45a) E: You know that Mary likes what? (45b) [s. Qi [s, - WH [s you know [s. that [s Mary likes whati]]]]]
[+Fl (46)
R: Chocolate
[+Fl worms!
Since (45a) may be responded to with (46), it is clear that its binder may have wide scope as in (45b). Interestingly, the B-binder lacks a wh-phrase supporter in root COMP. Thus, a frozen COMP appears to be another type of element which supports a B-binder. To speculate, both Move Wh and COMP-freezing are processes which affect COMP and which are involved in formulating questions. So perhaps it is any process which alters/sets the binderlwh-phrase characteristics of a COMP which makes that COMP a possible Q-supporter. Obviously, this is a problem requiring much more investigation. ‘A This is also true of &phrases indicate. I4 I assume
moved in LF, as similar consideration
here that that and whether are lexicalizations
of items (32-36) would
of - WH and + WH respectively.
N. Sobin 1 On the syntax
Another
interesting
aspect
159
of English echo questions
of such syntactic
EQs as (45) is that
root COMP appears to allow/support the B-binder. The embedded will not. This is evidenced in the U-EQ-R series in (47): (47a) (47b) (47~) (47d) (47e)
U: Mozart knows that Mary likes chocolate E: Who knows that Mary likes what? R: Mozart knows that Mary likes chocolate @R: Mozart! @R: Chocolate worms!
only the COMP
worms. worms!
Utterance (47a) is like (44) except for an EQ-triggering element in its root S (Mozart). EQ (47b) shows an additional root S who, in addition to the embedded S what found in (45a). The only complete response to EQ (47b) is R (47~). If R (47d) were a sufficient response to EQ (47b), this would indicate that what of (47b) could have narrow scope (i.e., that what could be B-bound in the lower COMP). However, both responses (47d) and (47e) seem equally deficient. This indicates that it is only the root COMP of (47b) which allows/ supports a B-binder for the EQ-introduced wh-phrases. Thus, the LF-structure of EQ (47b) appears to be only (48): (48) [sp Qi,j [s, - WH [s whoi knows [s, that
[s Marty
likes whatj]]]]]
[+Fl
[+Fl
One possible account of this limitation is as follows. Consider the COMP structures which are c-commanded by a frozen COMP to be a frozen-COMP network. Then, (49) may hold: (49) No new COMP COMP network.
elements
may
be introduced
internal
to a frozen-
Prohibition (49) would automatically limit the B-binder to a position superior to the highest frozen COMP and would also limit the EQ-introduced whphrases to in-situ position, in effect limiting such wh-phrases to being Dlinked and bound by a Q in (actually, superior to the other elements of) root COMP. Thus, any + F COMP might support a B-binder, but the binder cannot appear internal to the frozen-COMP network. Since COMPs within a structure are often related by Move Wh and wh-traces (COMP-to-COMP movement), COMP networks already exist. Thus, (49) may simply be a result (or a further specification) of COMP-freezing. It is not just COMP, but the
COMP
network
of a structure
which is frozen in the formation
of a syntactic
EQ. Having
dealt
so far in this section
with some
details
of B-binding
and
COMP-freezing in the formation of syntactic EQs, I would like to consider next some other apparent syntactic oddities of EQs which follow straightforwardly from the description which I have proposed here. 3.3. Some minor syntactic
anomalies
explained
The preceding description of EQs accounts automatically for some otherwise anomalous looking structures. Some have already been dealt with and others will be discussed here. Though each is minor, taken together they lend support to the analysis. One phenomenon already discussed is apparent superiority (NDC or ECP) violations, as in an EQ response like (25b) to a U like (24b). Another apparently anomalous structure which is similar in moving an inferior constituent is illustrated in EQ (50b) in response to U (5Oa): (50a) U: What does Mary think (Sob) E: What does Mary think
Mozart baked? r&o baked?
EQ (50b) appears to violate the W/z-Island c0nstraint.i 5 That it in fact does not can be seen by inspecting the LF structures of (50a-b), given as (51a-b) respectively : (51a) [s. what, + WH [s Mary thinks [s, - WH [s Mozart baked ei]]]] (51 b) [s, Qj [s, what, + WH [s Mary thinks [s, - WH [s whoj baked ci]]]]]
[+Fl [+Fl
[+Fl
COMP-freezing and the addition of a B-binder for whoj retain the - WH character of the embedded COMP in the syntactic EQ. All formulations of the W/z-Island constraint phenomena specify a + WH COMP as crucial to the existence of any W/z-Island. Therefore, under the B-binding and COMPfreezing analysis of (50b), none will block it. I 5 Chomsky (I 964: 72-73) was first to observe that embedded questions form an island (following here the terminology of Ross (1967)) from which a wh-phrase (i) *What do you wonder who likes? Various accounts have been given of Wh-Island phenomena,
may not be extracted, but all assume
the island is + WH. I wish to show here that (50b) under the present Island in the first place.
analysis
as in (i):
that the COMP
of
is simply not a Wh-
of English
N. Sobin / On the syntax
161
echo questions
Another apparent anomaly is that in EQs, verbs which are subcategorized so as not to allow a + WH complement sentence, appear to violate this think, in contrast to wonder, requires a subcategorization. For example, - WH complement sentence, accounting for the unacceptability of (52b): (52a) Max thinks Mary ate the pie. (52b) *Max thinks who ate the pie. (52~) Max wonders who ate the pie. However, verbs like think appear such as (Sob) above and in (53b): (53a) U: Max thinks (53b) E: Max thinks
Mozart
to violate
this subcategorization
in EQs,
ate the pie.
wlho ate the pie?
As should by now be apparent, under the COMP-freezing and B-binding analysis, think in such EQs as (50b) and (53b) in fact does not occur with anything but the - WH COMP for which it is subcategorized. Finally, in non-EQ syntax, the complementizer that and a wh-word, as in (54~) do not co-occur: (54a) Max knows that Mary ate the pie. (54b) Max knows who ate the pie. (54~) *Max knows that who ate the pie. A number of factors bar (54c),r6 and hence it is potentially the EQ (55b) is possible: (55a) U: Max knows (55b) E: Max knows Once again,
problematic
that
that Shostakovich ate the pie. that who ate the pie?
the present
analysis
allows
it, in part by requiring
that who of
(55b) be in-situ, avoiding the mechanisms which bar (54~). Each of the preceding EQ facts is something which appears to conflict with otherwise established pieces of an analysis of English grammar. In each case, I6
Ordinarily
in English,
a &-phrase
contain
only one lexical item at S-structure.
phrase
in COMP
(1977: 146)).
should
be
must
move to COMP,
Further,
uninterpretable
which
the combination
except
(again,
in English)
of - WH COMP
in a relative
clause
(e.g.,
may
and a whChomsky
162
N. Sohin / On the syniu.~ of English
echo questions
the present analysis of syntactic EQs accounts for the EQ structure in question without positing an exception to any of the already established descriptive pieces. Taken together, these results offer a measure of support for the analysis of EQs presented in this section. While COMP or the COMP network is frozen in forming syntactic EQs, there are other respects in which such EQs may vary from the utterances which they echo. One respect in which syntactic EQs are not frozen is in the sister transformation to Move Wh, namely, Move NP. The next section deals with this aspect of syntactic EQs.
4. Unfrozen parts of syntactic EQs Though the COMP network of a syntactic EQ is frozen, a syntactic EQ need not copy the utterance in other dimensions. For example, a syntactic EQ may differ from U in particle movement characteristics, as (56) illustrates: (56a) U: Mary gobbled (56b) E: Mary gobbled
the chocolate up what?
worms
up.
Perhaps more significantly, while the Move WhjCOMP dimension is frozen, the complementary part of Move Alpha, namely, Move NP, appears not to be. Thus, in echo to (57a), (57b) is possible. (57a) U: Mozart has been arrested by the police. (57b) E: The police have arrested who‘? Although the derivational history of (57a) includes NP-movement of Mozart from object to subject position, no such movement is involved in deriving (57b). However, as the preceding analysis demands, (57a) and (b) do match in COMP structure, both being - WH. The demand for matched COMP structure between U and a syntactic EQ, despite differences in derivation in regard to Move NP, is further demonstrated in (58): (58a) (58b) (58~) (58d)
U: Has Mozart been arrested by the police? E: Has who been arrested by the police? E: Have the police arrested who? *E: Who have the police arrested?
N. Sobin / On the syntax qf English echo questions
Utterance
(58a) has a simple
+ WH COMP.
So do syntactic
163
EQs (58b) and
(c). However, in (58d), who, since it precedes the inverted auxiliary have, is clearly a part of COMP. Hence, (58d) fails as a syntactic EQ to (58a), since its COMP structure is not frozen with respect to that of the utterance. Further, (58d) fails as a pseudo EQ to (58a), since (58a) is not a potential declarative response to (58d). Thus under either formation strategy, (58d) is not well-formed as an EQ to (58a). Next consider the U-EQ set (59): (59a) U: Who has been visited by Mozart? (59b) E: Who has been visited by who(m)? (59~) *E: Who has visited who(m)? The LF structure
of (59b) is (60), and the LF structure
of (59~) is (61):
(60) [s, Qi [s. who, + WH [s ej has been visited ej by who(m)i [ + F] [ + F] [s ej has been visited ej by who(m),]]] (61) [s. Qi [s. who, [s, who, + WH [s ei has visited ej]]]] Clearly, (59b/60) shows a frozen COMP with respect to (59a), and (59c/61) does not. Hence, only the former is a possible syntactic EQ here. Further, since (59~) is not a possible pseudo EQ to (59a) (since (59a) is a question), (59~) simply fails as a possible EQ to (59a). In sum, syntactic EQs appear to allow variance in derivational history from the utterances which they echo so long as that variance does not reside within the COMP network. There may be other respects in which syntactic EQs are free from or are limited by the structure of the utterances which they echo. I leave this as a subject for further research.
5. Conclusions
and remaining questions
Basically, what I have presented here is an analysis of EQs which utilizes normal structures and normal rules and principles of English syntax. Bbinding in syntactic EQs is normative unselective binding of D-linked phrases. COMP-freezing is a discourse strategy which operates with COMP structures formulatable by normal syntactic processes. Hence, EQs in this analysis are not the unruly constructions which counterexemplify much of English syntax, but rather, they are a predicted product of normal syntax. As
such, they provide support for the dual M-binding/B-binding system, which Pesetsky has suggested is available in natural language syntax. This analysis has some interesting consequences. One consequence is that discourse strategies (again, strategies necessarily involving more than one sentence) may involve specific pieces of sentence syntax (I include LF syntax here). Such a finding invites further inquiry into the nature of discourse strategies and their interface with syntax. A second consequence is the possibility that transformational (syntactic) Move Wh is obligatory in English. EQs have sometimes been used to argue for the optional character of Move Wh. However, as this analysis posits, Move Wh is blocked from moving syntactic-EQ-introducted &-phrases due to COMP-freezing. Thus, the effect of COMP-freezing here may be to render an obligatory rule inapplicable since a requisite part of the structural description of or convention for moving a cvh-phrase is not present, namely, a COMP landing site. Elsewhere, Move WI7 strongly appears to be obligatory, as in relative clauses such as (62): (62a) The girl who Max loves (62b) *The girl Max loves who While it may still be the case that Move Wh is optional but driven by other factors, the present analysis removes the central piece of direct evidence for this optionality. A third consequence is that surprise intonation is independent of syntax. It was noted above that surprise intonation accompanies all EQs (including pseudo EQs), and it was argued that no particular values for COMP are associated with EQs beyond the freezing requirement for syntactic EQs. Thus, surprise intonation appears to be a correlate of function rather than of syntax. Clearly, it is not a manifestion of a + WH COMP. Finally, since COMP-freezing makes critical appeal to the entity or sequence of entities called COMP, this analysis supports the class of syntactic hypotheses which posit COMP. There is also a number of open questions which remain. One involves some particulars of COMP-freezing. Consider the U-EQ set (63): (63a) U: I heard that Mary likes chocolate worms. (63b) E: You heard (that) Mary likes what? While the - WH aspect of COMP
is frozen in (63b), its realization
as thaf or
165
N. Sobin / On the syntax of English echo questions
‘null’ is not. The problem (64) :
becomes
more interesting
in light of the U-EQ
set
(64a) U: Mozart seems to like the apple pie. (64b) ???E: It seems that who likes the apple pie? In contrast to (64a), (64b) shows no NP movement and a tensed complement S. To the extent that (64b) is an appropriate EQ here, the for complementizer (or its ‘null’ counterpart) appears to group with that under COMP-freezing. Perhaps both are lexicalizations of - WH. To me, (64b) is very marginal as an EQ to U (64a), but I leave the question open. Another question concerns the phrasal syntax of EQ-introduced (D-linked) wih-phrases. Consider EQ-U set (65): (65a) U: Mary ate the large grasshopper. (65b) E: Mary ate the what? (65~) E: Mary what? In CP notation substituted for Move Wh will of that phrase
” The rough respectively.
(Chomsky (1986)), both (65b) and (65~) show a what which is non-maximal categories of N and I, respectively.17 Ordinarily, move a maximal phrase to COMP, even though only a subpart contains actual wh morphology, as in (66):
CP structures
for
the NP in (65b)
and
the sentence
N*
fij
/\ Det
N’
I
I
the (ii)
what C2
/\ SpecCP
C’
/\ 12
COMP
I
e
M&y
what,
(65~) are (i) and
(ii),
(66) In which pool does Mary
swim?
In (66) one might say that the wh feature is inherited by PP, thereby allowing PP to move as a Mth-phrase to COMP. However, in the case of the &-phrases in (63, their ~4 character does not seem to be inherited by XMax. Thus, (67) is not a possible question: (67) *The what did Mary eat? The nature of such ullz-phrases bears much further study. Finally, unaddressed so far is the problem of analyzing phrase is introduced, as in (68b): (68a) U: Bill is dating (68b) E: Bill is dating
Greta Greta
EQs where no NA-
Garbo. Garbo?
Despite the focal stress on Greta Garbo, EQ (68b) may be responded of the ways given in (69): (69a) R: (Yes,) Greta (69b) R: (Yes,) Bill. (69~) R: Yes.
to in any
Garbo.
In contrast to this situation, if U (68a) is responded to with an EQ containing a WA-phrase, as in (70) then of the responses to EQ given in (69) only (69a) is a possible response to (70) and then only without the JVS. (70) E: Bill is dating
who(m)?
Thus it appears that simple focal stress may not involve the same bindervariable relation found in b~h questions which limits the responses to ,{#I questions to structures centrally involving the &-phrase. Within the EQ analysis presented here, there are different possibilities for the structural analysis of (68b). One is (71) where no B-binder is present, since there is no item requiring binding. (71) [S. - WH [s Bill is dating
[+Fl
GG]]
of English echo questions
N. Sobin / On the s~vntnx
In (71) the frozen COMP indicates the question Alternatively, if it is desirable for external reasons the structure is (72): (72) [s. Qi [s, - WH [s Bill is dating
167
character of the sentence. that Q be present, perhaps
GG]]
[+Fl In (72), the B-binder is like a quantifier in a logical expression like (73), where the quantifier need not be bound to a variable in order for the expression to be well-formed. (73) 3 x (1 (mc)) I leave this possibility
of vacuous
quantification
as an open question.
References Baker,
C.L..
question
1970. Notes
morpheme.
Chomsky,
on the description
Foundations
N., 1964. Current
structure
of lanquage.
Chomsky, Chomsky,
of English
of Language
issues in linguistic
50-I 18. Englewood
questions:
The role of an abstract
6, 1977219. theory.
In: J. Fodor
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
and J. Katz
(eds.), The
Hall.
N., 1977. Essays on form and interpretation. New York: North-Holland. N., 1981, Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky.
N., 1986. Barriers.
Cambridge,
Chomsky,
N. and H. Lasnik,
1977. Filters and control.
Culicover,
P., 1976. Syntax.
New York:
Karttunen,
L., 1977. Syntax
Pesetsky,
D.. 1987. Wh-in-Situ:
ter Meulen, Ross, J.R., Rudin. C., Linguistic
Academic
and semantics
1988. On multiple Theory 6, 445-501.
of questions.
8, 425-504.
and Philosophy
binding.
In: E.J. Remand
of (in)definiteness,
98-129.
in syntax.
1986. Norwood,
questions
Inquiry
Linguistics
on variables
as: Infinite syntax!,
Linguistic
Press.
and unselective
Movement
(eds.). The representation 1967. Constraints
MA. Published
MA: MIT Press.
and
multiple
Doctoral
Cambridge, dissertation.
1, 3-44. and A.G.B.
MA: MIT Press. MIT,
Cambridge,
NJ: Ablex. Wh fronting.
Natural
Language
and
Sobin, N., 1978. On echo questions in English. In: D. Lance and D. Gulstad (eds.), Papers from the 1977 Mid-America Linguistics Conference, 2477259. University of Missouri, Columbia,
