A General Theory of Wh-Questions, Partial Wh-Movement andRelated Matters
Shigeo Tonoike

Keio Linguistic Colloquium

June 4th & 5th, 2022
Day 1 13:00-15:00

Part 1. A General Framework (Tonoike (2019, in preparation))
1. Overt Syntax Condition(1) Internal Merge (IM) can see only SOs with a(n associated) phonetic shape.
(2) a. No covert movement of any kindb. Islands do not block IM unless they have a phonetic shape. (Rescue by PF deletion
eliminated)(3) a. Extension Condition regulates both IM and EM.
b. Inclusiveness Condition regulates IM.
c. Inactivity Condition (?) (See below.)
Reasons for eliminating covert operations
It cannot be emphasized enough that if covert movement were allowed in any form (be it byliteral covert movement or by copy theory of movement coupled with a lower copy pronounced),(a) languages would exhibit all sorts of weird behavior, and(b) languages would be unlearnable.
Just an example(4) a. 学生の誰かが教授の誰もを憎んでいる unambiguousb. 教授の誰もを学生の誰かが憎んでいる ambiguousc. Some student hates every professor
ambiguous(5) a. If covert movement were allowed, (4a) would be wrongly predicted to be ambiguous.
b. If it is claimed that Japanese does not allow covert operation to apply to (4a) (Cf. Rigidity
Condition) and causes it to have the structure of (4b), then the language would be
predicted to be unlearnable due to lack of observable positive evidence.
2. Quantifier Scope (QR eliminated)(6) a. Operator Variable Constructions (OVCs) hold in situ
b. Determiners function as variables
Fox (2002) Trace Conversion (Variable Insertion + Determiner Replacement)(7) a. John offended every linguist àQR+Trace Conversion
b. every linguist lx [John offended the linguist x]
c. Violation of Chomsky’s (1995) Inclusiveness Condition (l, x, the)(8) a. John offended all the linguists
b. all (the?) linguists lx [John offended the the linguist x]
In-Situ Operator Variable Constructions (O(perator), V(ariable), R(estriction))(l, x, eliminated)1(9) a.

DP
b.
DP
c.
DP
2
2
2
all
D’
every D’some D’22
2
the linguists
the linguist
the linguist
O V
R
O V
R
O V
R
(10) a. everybody [every [the body]] (the spelled out as null)b. somebody [some [the body]](11) a. a student [a [the student]]
b. some student [some [the student]]c. every student [every [the student]](12) the à ∅ /Q except when Q=all/both∅=Null Spell-Out
Japanese (Tonoike 1987, 1991; Ueda 1990): Case particles as determiners(13) a. dare-ka-ga
a’. dare-mo-ga
R O D=VR O D=Vb. some the body
every the body
O
V R
O V R
(14) Indeterminate (未定詞) Kuroda (1965)
a. dare=body=Indeterminate
b. nani=thing=Indeterminatec. doko=where=Indeterminate
d. itu=time=Indeterminate(15) a. do+no-gakusee-ka-ga b. do+no-gakusee-mo-ga
R
O V
R
O V
b. some the student
every the student
O V R
O V R
(16) a. Japanese: Indeterminatoràdo(+no)= (未定化詞)
b. English: Indeterminatorà∅(17) Ko-So-A-Do
ko-re so-re a-re
do-re
re=thing
ko-ko so-ko a(so)-ko do-ko
ko=placeko-itu so-itu a-itu
do-ituitu=thing/person
ko-yatu so-yatu a-yatu do-yatu yatu=thing (derogatory)
nani
da-re
itu
Quantifier Scope Ambiguity: Overt QR (Rightward Adjunction)(18) a. [v*P Every-the-body [v*’ loves some-the-body]] every>some Overt QR à
b. [v*P [v*P Every-the-body [v*’ loves the]] [some-the body]] some>every
Japanese: Left Branching Structure + Overt QR=Scrambling(19) a. Dare-mo-ga dare-ka-o aisi-teiru Unambiguous (Said to be the basic order)
b. Dare-ka-o dare-mo-ga aisi-teiru Ambiguous (Said to be scrambled)
Note on notation: /X/=the sound of X, {X}=the meaning of X, X=/X/+{X}2

(20) a. [v*P [v*’Dare-ka-o {aisi}] dare-mo-ga]] /aisi/-teiru
mo>kaOvert QR of dare-ka-oà
b. [v*P ’Dare-ka-o [v*P [v* o {aisi}] dare-mo-ga]] /aisi/-teiru ka>mo(Ambiguity of (19b))
Overt QR of dare-mo-gaà
c. [v*P Dare-mo-ga [v*P [v*’dare-ka-o {aisi}] ga v*P]] /aisi/-teiru mo>ga(Non-ambiguity of (19a)3. Typology of Internal Merge (“Free Merge”, Probe-Goal eliminated)
3.1. A-Movement (Driven by Case and Agreement )Featural Reaction under Adjacency Condition (DP-EPP deduced and Inheritance eliminated)(21) a. [VP V
DP] à [VP V
DP]
Acc f
f
Acc
b. [TP T [v*P DP [v*’ v* VP]]] à [TP /DP/ [T’ T [v*P {DP} [v*’ v* VP]]]] /X/=sound of X
Nom f
Nom
f
{X}=meaning of X
c. [VP V [TP to [v*P DP v* VP]]] à[VP /DP/ V [TP to [v*P {DP} v* VP]] (ECM)
Acc
f
Acc f
See 3.3. & 6.3.
d. chemical reaction (burning of methanol)
2CH3OH+3O2 = 2CO2+4H2O
methanol+oxyegenàcarbon-dioxide+water
Early/Late Merge (Reconstruction/Piggybacking eliminated)(22) a. Somebody seems to know the answer some>seem, seem>some
Early Merge (Reconstruction eliminated)b. [seems [to [some-the-body know the answer]]] àc. [/some-the-body/ seems [to [{some-the-body} know the answer]]] seem>some
Late Merge (Piggybacking eliminated)d. [seems [to [the know the answer]]] A-Movement + Late Mergeà
e. [some-the-body [seems [to [the know the answer]]]]some>seem
3.2. A’-Movement
3.2.1 Wh-Movement (See Part 2 later this afternoon)
3.2.2. Relativization (Driven by a need to receive a q-role)
DP Movement Approach to Relativization(23) a. the picture of himself (that/which) John painted
b. [CP C [TP John painted the2 picture of himself]] the2=two copies of thePredicate Formation (aka Wh-Movement)à
c. [CP the+/the/ picture of himself C [TP John painted {the}]]DP Extraction (q-movement)à
d. [DP the picture of himself] [CP /the/ C [TP John painted {the}]] CP Adjunctionà
e. [DP [DP the picture of himself] [CP /the/ C [TP John painted {the}]]]Merge to a q-positionà
f. /the/àwhich or Càthat
3.3. Head Movement
Lexical Complex and Excorportation (Inheritance eliminated)Standard Head Raising3

(24) a. [v*P v* [VP V ..]] à[ v*P v*-V [VP V …]]
b. [CP C [DP T ..]] à [CP C-T [DP T ..]] (Subject Aux Inversion)
Chomsky’s puzzle : Cyclicity points to syntactic process; Semantic vacuity points to PF process.
(25) a. [v*P v* [VP read DP]] à [v*P v*-read [VP read DP]] (v*àV)b. Did you know that? (TàC)
c. Had I known that =If I had known that (TàC?)
Excorporation Analysis (Tonoike (2009, 2015a), Egashira and Tonoike (2010))(26) a. [VP v*-read DP] à [v*P v*-/read / [VP {read} …]]
b. [TP /you/ [T’ Q-did know that]] à [CP Q-/did/ [TP /you/ {did} know that]]]c. [TP /I/ IF-had [v*P known that]] à[ IF-/had/ [TP /I/ {had} [v*P known that]]]French/German: Cyclic Excorporation of V to C(27) a. Connaissez-vous son nom?
b. Weißen Sie seinen Namen?
(28) a. [Q-T-v*-connaissez son nom] à[Q-/connaissez/ [/vous/ T [{vous} v* [{connaissez} son nom]
LF : [CP Q [TP T [v*P vous v* [VP connaissez son nom]]]]b. [Q-T-v*-weißen seinen Namen] à[Q-/weißen/ [/Sie/ T [{Sie} v* [{weißen} seinen Namen]]]]
LF: [CP Q [TP T [v*P Sie v* [VP weißen seinen Namen]]]]c. [Q-/do/ [/you/ {do} [{you} v* [know his name]]]]
LF: [CP Q [TP do [v*P you v* [VP know his name]]]]Japanese: bound morphemes(29) a. 証拠を隠したの(は明らかだ)
b. [証拠を kaku-si-ta-no] kaku=V, si=v*, ta=T, no=C
c. [CP [TP [v*P [VP 証拠を{kaku}]{si}]{ta}]/kaku-si-ta/-no]
LF [CP [TP [v*P [VP 証拠を kaku]si]ta]no]3.4. q-Movement: Pronominalization/Reflexivization/Relativization (Sideward Movement)(30) a. The student thinks he/she is a genius.
b. The student believes himself/herself to be a genius.
c. I bought the picture of himself that John painted
3.4.1. Pronominalization(31) a. thinks that the2 student is a genius
b. LF: the student thinks that the is a genius
c. PF: the student thinks that he/she is a genius (the spelled out as he/she)
3.4.2. Reflexivization(32) a. The student believes himself/herself to be a genius
b. [VP v*-believes [to [the2 student’s self be a genius]]] Raising àc. [the+/the/ student’s /self/ [v*-believes [to [{the’s self} be a genius]]]] Excorporationà
d. [v*-/believes/ [the+/the/ student’s /self/ [{believes} [to [{the’s self} be a genius]]]]
Reflexivizationà
e. [the student v*-/believes/ [/the’s self/ [{believes} [to [{the’s self} be a genius]]]]4

the’s self spelled out as himself/herself
f. LF [the student v* [believe [to [the’s self be a genius]]]]3.4.3. Relativization(33) a. bought[that [John painted the2 picture of himself]b. [VP bought [DP [DP the /picture of himself/ [/the/ that [John painted {the picture ofhimself}]]]]]
Ellipsis (PF deletion eliminated)
More than one copy of a meaning {X} with one phonetic shape /X/(34) a. I will help you if I can.
b. v* if I can help you
Sideward Movementà{help you}c. [v* help you][if I can {help you}]d. [[I will help you] [if I can {help you}]]5Day 1 15:15-17:15

Part 2. A General Theory of Wh-Questions
1. Cross-linguistic Allomorphy: Disjunction and Conjunction Functions
Indeterminates, Ka and Mo; Or and Some and Every and And
Existential and Universal Quantifiers(1) a. doko-ka = some-whereb. doko-mo=every-where(2) doko (N) = where (Adv)a. Indeterminates in the sense of Kuroda (1965)
b. Denotes a contextually defined set of places (say Kyoto, Nara and Kobe)(3) a. ka=some (Existential quantifier)b. mo=every (Universal quantifier)Logical Connectives(4) a. Kyoto-ka Nara-ka, Kobe-ka =(either) Kyoto, (or) Nara, or Kobe
b. {Kyoto, Nara, Kobe} ka = or {Kyoto, Nara, Kobe} (Cf. Fr. ou Kyoto, ou Nara, ou Kobe)
unordered set àlinearization(5) a. Kyoto-mo, Nara-mo, Kobe-mo = Kyoto, (and) Nara and Kobe
b. {Kyoto, Nara, Kobe} mo = and {Kyoto, Nara, Kobe} (Cf. Fr. et Kyoto, et Nara, et Kobe)
unordered set àlinearization(6) a. ka=or(Disjunction)b. mo=and (Conjunction) Cf. Kyoto-to, Nara-to, Kobe-to To takes only set of Ns.
Surprising Homonymy(7) a. ka=some, ka=or
b. mo=every, mo=and
Surprising Synominy(8) a. some=or
b. every=and(8’) Logical expressions
a. ka=some=$ mo=every="b. ka=or=Ú
mo=and=ÙLakoff (1974)(9) a. To hell with Lyndon Johnson and/*or Richard Nixon.
b. To hell with everybody/*somebody.
Japanese(10) a. Johnson-mo/*ka Nixon mo/*ka kuso-kurae‘(Lit.) Both Johnson and Nixon eat feces’b. Doitu-mo/*ka kuso kurae‘ (Lit.) Everybody eat feces.’(11) a. Every and and are compatible with cussing expressions, but not some and or.
b. Mo is compatible with cussing expressions, but not ka.
c. (11a) is highly unsatisfactory.
(11’) Kalish, Montague and Mar (1964) Logic: Techniques of Formal Reasoning
a. ka=some=Ú mo=every=Ù (disjunction and conjunction signs)
b. ka=or=Ú
mo=and=Ù
(existential and universal quantifiers)
2. A Proposal: Disjunction and Conjunction Functions(12) a. ka=some=or: a disjunction function (d) that takes a set and gives back a member
6b. mo=every=and: a conjunction function (c) that takes a set and gives back all its members
c. Choice function? Disjunctive/Conjunctive Choice Functions?
See von Heusinger (2004).
(13) a. A set can be an indeterminate (=WH) doko={Kyoto, Nara, Kobe}
b. A set can be created for the occasion {Kyoto, Nara, Kobe}(14) a. doko-ka{Kyoto, Nara, Kobe} d à Kyoto
b. some-where d {Kyoto, Nara, Kobe} à Kyoto
c. Kyoto-ka, Nara-ka, Kobe-ka.
{Kyoto, Nara, Kobe} d à Kyoto
d. (either) Kyoto, (or) Nara, or Kobe d {Kyoto, Nara, Kobe} à Kyoto(15) a. doko-mo = {Kyoto, Nara, Kobe} c à {Kyoto, Nara, Kobe}
b. every-where = c {Kyoto, Nara, Kobe} à{Kyoto, Nara, Kobe}
c. Kyoto-mo, Nara-mo, Kobe-mo.
{Kyoto, Nara, Kobe} c à {Kyoto, Nara, Kobe}
d. Kyoto, (and) Nara, and Kobe
c {Kyoto, Nara, Kobe} à {Kyoto, Nara, Kobe}
Cross-linguistic allomorphy(16) JapaneseEnglish (complementary distribution)a. dàkadàsome / N(⊃indeterminate (contextually determined set))dàor/{A, B ...} = (a nonce set)b. càmocàevery / N(⊃indeterminate (contextually determined set))càand / {A, B ...} = (a nonce set)(17) a. d takes a set and gives back (at least) one of its members
b. c takes a set and gives back all its members(18) Cussing expressions in English and Japanese are compatible with c, but not with d.
Suppletion(19) Japanese paradigm is systematic; English paradigm has a large-scale suppletion.
doko-ka/modare-ka/monani-ka/mo
itu-ka/mosome/every+placesome/every+one/body some/every+thingsome/every+time
some/every+where*some/every+who*some/every+what *some/every+when(20) Old English
hwā
who/whatsome+one/thing (d+hwā)ge+hwā, (?who/what-ever) every+one/thing (ge+hwā)
ge=c (intensifier)In passing (for those who are skeptical of the parallelism between ka and mo)(21) a. naze-ka/*modoo-ka=someway or other doo-mo=(in) every way
b. *some/every-why (for some/*?every reason)c. Naze/why denotes an open set. c requires a closed set because it has to exhaust the set ingiving back its value, while d can take an open-ended set because it only has to give backone member. (the exception that proves the rule)(22) a. John-mo ki-ta ‘ John also came’.
A-mo = {{…} A} mob. *John-ka ki-ta. ‘*Either John came’*A-ka = *{{…} A} ka(One would simply say John-ga ki-ta)
Cf. John-ka Bill-(ka) ga ki-ta. ‘Either John or Bill came’.
Comparatives (bit of a mystery)(23) a. omot-ta yori kasiko-i.
‘smarter than (I) thought’7

(I) thought than smarterb. omot-ta yori-ka kasiko-i ‘smarter than (I) thought’c. omot-ta yori-mo kasiko-i ‘smarter than (I) thought’(24) a. smarter than either John or Bill Cf. J-yori-ka, B-yori-ka kasiko-ib. smarter than both John and Bill Cf. J-yori-mo B-yori-mo kasiko-i
3. Interim Conclusions(25) a. In Western philosophy, disjunction (or) and existential quantifiers (every) are considered
completely unrelated, and so are conjunction (and) and universal quantifiers (every).
b. However, or and some are allomorphs of d, and and and every are allomorphs of c.
c. If Japanese had been the native language of Western philosophers, they would havedevised a much different logical system.
4. Ka/Mo and (Wh-)Questions/Concessives(26)
Japanese (clause-final ka/mo)English (clause-initial WH)a. (kimi-ga) doko-e it-ta-ka (siranai)(I don’t know) where you went?
You-nom where-to went-KA (I don’t know)b. (kimi-ga) doko-e it-te-mo
Wher-ever (you) went,
you nom where-to go-if-MO(No matter where you go,)c. (kare-ga) Kyoto-e it-ta-(no) ka (siranai)(I don’t know) if he went to Kyoto
he-nom Kyoto-to went(C)KA (I don’t know) Did he go to Kyoto?
d. (kare-ga) Kyoto-e it-te mo(even) if he goes to Kyoto
he-nom Kyoto-to go MO
e. Old English oþþe(r) =either/or, if(Jayaseelan (2008), also for Japanese ka = Sinhala də)English: “Wh-Movement”(27) a. where you went ß you went whereb. wherever you went ß you went whereverc. if he went to Kyoto ß he went if to Kyoto
d. even if he went to Kyoto ß he went even if to Kyoto
Japanese: Ka/Mo Movement Tonoike (1992, 1995), Hagstrom (1993, 1998)(28) a. (kimi-ga) doko-e-ka it-ta à (Kimi-ga) doko-e it-ta-ka
you-nom where-to went KA
b. (kimi-ga) doko-e-mo it-te à (kimi-ga) doko-e it-te-mo
you-nom where-to go-if MO
c. (kare-ga) Kyoto-e-ka it-ta à (kare-ga) Kyoto-e it-ta ka
he-nom Kyoto-to went KA
d. (kare-ga) Kyoto-e-mo it-te à(kare-ga) Kyoto-e it-te mo
he-nom Kyoto-to go-if MO(29) Kakari-musubi (Classical Japanese, up until the 14th century)
doko-e ka kimi-no yuki-taru (clause internal ka)
where-to you-gen went(=adnominal ending as opposed to indicative ending)“Where have you gone?” adnominal superseded indicative by the 14th century

8Mysteries(30) a. Why English exhibits Wh-Movement?
b. What drives Wh-Movement in English?
c. Why Japanese does not move what appears to be a wh-phrase like doko-e? In otherwords, why Japanese is a so-called wh-in-situ language?
etc.
The mysteries are solved if,(31) a. d and c are involved in (wh-)questions and (wh-)concessives in all languages, andb. d and c can be overt or covert (phonetically null), andc. d and c move by themselves if and only if they are overt and free morphemes (likeJapanese ka and mo), andd. the meanings of (24a-b) as a wh-question and a wh-concessive are captured by thesemantics of the indeterminate doko-e and the semantics of ka and mo as d and c.
(32) a. Wh-Movement in English is not the movement of the indeterminate but the movement ofd and c, the indeterminate moving to provide d and c with a vehicle.
b. This falls out from the Overt Syntax Condition: (Tonoike 2007b)
A syntactic object can undergo movement (Internal Merge) if and only if it has an
associated phonetic form (i.e., a vehicle to move in).
c. d-/where/ you went {where} ß you went d-whered. c-/where/ you went {where} ß you went c-where (c-/where/=wherever)
5. Little Digression
Surprising homonymy is not an isolated phenomenon limited only to Japanese.
Szabolsci (2015:1): Athabaskan, East Asian, South-East Asian, Slavic, and Finno-Ugric
languages
Hungarian and Japanese. [bold face mine S.T.](33) a. vala-ki
dare-ka‘someone’b. (vagy) A vagy B
A-ka B(-ka)‘A or B’c. vagy száz
hyaku-nin-to-ka ‘some one hundred =approx.. 100’
d. val-, vagy-‘be’ participial & finite stems
e. -dare-ga V …-ka ‘Who Vs?’
f. S-eS-ka‘whether S’(34) a. mind-en-ki
dare-mo‘everyone/anyone’b. mind A mind B
A-mo B-mo‘A as well as B, both A and B’
A is (és) B is
‘A as well as B, both A and B’
c. A is A-mo
‘A too/even A’
6. Semantics of Wh-Questions/Concessives
Wh-Questions
Hamblin (1973)(35) Denotation of a wh question = the set of possible answers to it.
(36) a. The indeterminate doko-e/where denotes a contextually determined set of places {Kyoto,
Nara, Kobe} (or destinations).
b. The TP kimi-ga doko-e itta/you went where denotes a contextually determined set of
propositions:c. {kimi-ga Kyoto-e itta, kimi-ga Nara-e itta, kimi-ga Kobe-e itta}
d. {you went to Kyoto, you went to Nara, you went to Kobe}
9

Karttunen (1977)(37) a. Denotation of a question = the set of propositions expressed by its true answers
b. Because “Tell me what you bought” doesn’t ask you to give a set of possible answers. It
asks you to give the true answer(38) a. Ka takes the set of propositions denoted by TP as its argument, and gives at least one
member back as a true statementb. d (TP) = CP = Karttunen’s definition=kimi-ga Kyoto-e it-ta/you went to Kyoto
Wh-Concessives(39) a. Suppose that TP in (26b) denotes a set of conditionals.
ex. {if you go to Kyoto, if you go to Nara, if you go to Kobe}b. Mo as c takes this set of conditionals and gives back all its members. Hence, theconcessive meaning “no matter whether you go to Kyoto, Nara, or Kobe.”
c. c(TP)=CP “under all conditions”(40) a. d: Pick the correct proposition(s). More generally, Pick (at least) one
b. c: Pick all the conditionals. More generally, Pick all(41) d and c have allomorphs in English in complementary distributiond has (at least) three allomorphs, some, or and d, where d is abstract.
a. d à some / N(⊃WH) WH=indeterminate
b. d à or /{ … } {…} =nonce set
c. d à d / [TP .. WH..] WH=indeterminate
d. d à d / if (or d àif
TP Old English (oþþe(r) =either/or, if
Cf. d-Had I known that… =If I had known
e. d à d / Aux (resulting in Subject-Aux Inversion)(42) c has (at least) four allomorphs in English: every, and, -ever and evena. c à every / N(WH)b. c à and /{ … } {…} =nonce set àc. c à -ever /[TP .. WH..] WH =indeterminate
d. c à even /if or àeven if
e. Etymologically every=ever+each1(43) d and c in Japanesea. d à ka (except in matrix CP where d is spelled out as null or as↑)b. c à mo(44) a. [d/where/ [C [TP you went {where}]]] ß[CP C [TP you went [d where]]]b. [[doko-e-ka
it-ta TP] (no) CP]à [[doko-e it-ta TP] (no) ka CP]
where-to-KA went C
where-to went C KA(45) a. [CP /where/-ever [CP C [TP you went {where}]] ß[CP C [TP you went [where-ever]]]b. [[doko-e-mo
it-te TP] C CP]à [[doko-e
it-te TP] C mo CP]
where-to MO go-if
wherer-to go-ifMOc. -ever is a bound morpheme, so it cannot be separated from /where/.
(46) Wh-Movement is driven by the need of d and c to move to SpecCP where they take the TP
as its argument, not the putative need to create an operator-variable construction.

1

I am grateful to Miyuki Nomura for pointing this out to me.

10

7. Further Evidence
7.1. Dutch and JapaneseBarbiers, Koeneman and Lekakou (2010: (19),(33))(47) a. Jan heeft wat gegeten.
'John has eaten something.'
NOT: 'What has Jan eaten? 'a’ wat=[D [NP d-wat]]=somethingb. Wat heeft Jan gegeten?
'What has Jan eaten?'
NOT: 'Jan has eaten something.'b’ wat=[DP d [DP wat]](48) a. Wie het weet, (die)mag het zeggen.
Who it knows D-PRON. may it say-INF‘Whoever knows it may say it.’a’ wie= [DP c [DP wie]]b. Wat je weet, (dat) mag je zeggen.
What you know D-pron. may you say'Whatever you know you can tell.'
wat=[DP c [DP wat]](49) a. Waar je ook gaat
where you also go‘Wherever you go’
a’ [waar ook] ook= ca” /War/{ook} je /ook/{war} gaat
b. Wat je ook doet
what you also do‘Whatever you do’
b’ [wat ook] ook= cb” /Wat/{ook} je /ook/{wat} doetc. ook =also, too, as well, likewise, either
c’ ook=c

Cf.

John-wa nani-ka-otabe-ta-top what-ka-acc eat-past‘John ate something’Cf. [DP [NP nani ka] o]=something
Cf. John-wa nani-o tabe-(masi)-ta-ka-top what-acc eat-(pol)-past-ka‘What did John eat?’Cf. [DP [DP [NP nani] o] ka]
Cf. Sore-o dare-ga sitte-i-te mo
it-acc know
who-MO-nom‘whoever knows it …’
Cf. [DP [DP [NP dare] ga] mo]]Cf. kimi-ga nani-o sitte-ite-mo…
you-nom what-acc know-if-MO‘Whatever you know …’ b’
Cf. [DP [DP [NP nani]o] mo]
Cf. doko-e itte-mo
where-to go-also‘Wherever (you/I) go,’Cf. [DP [DP doko-e] mo] mo= cCf.
Cf.

nani-o site-mo
what-acc do-also‘Whatever (you/I) do,’[DP [DP nani o] mo] mo= c

Cf.
Cf.

mo=also, too, as well, even, either
mo=c

7.2. Chinese
Jing Crystal Zhong (p.c) and Zhong (2007))Base-generation of abstract Disjunction Function (d)(50) a. Ni xihuan shui(?)
you like
who"Who do you like?/ You like someone"b. Zhangsan
yiwei Lisi mai-leshenme?
Zhangsanthink Lisi buy-ASP
what"What does Zhangsan think Lisi bought?"
c. Zhangsan
jideLisi mai-leshenme(?)
Zhangsanremember
Lisi buy-ASP
whati) "Zhangsan remembers what Lisi bought"ii) "What does Zhangsan remember that Lisi bought?"

11

(51) a. [CP d [TP Ni xihuan shui]]?
a’[[CP [TP Ni xihuan [d shui]]]?
you like
who
you likesomeone"Who do you like?"“You like someone?”b. [CP d [TP Zhangsan yiwei [CP [TP Lisi
mai-le shenme]]?
Zhangsan thinkLisibuy-ASP what
"What does Zhangsan think that Lisi bought"c. [CP [TP Zhangsan jide
[CP d [TP Lisi mai-le shenme]]]Zhangsan remember
Lisi buy-ASP what
"Zhangsan remembers what Lisi bought"
d. [CP d [TP Zhangsan jide
[CP [TP Lisi mai-le shenme]]]]?
Zhangsan remember
Lisi buy-ASP
what"What does Zhangsan remember that Lisi bought?"
Conjunction Function : dou(52) ta shui dou bu xihuan
he who all not like"He does not like anyone"
No wh concessives: No-matter strategy(53) Bùguǎnnǐ qù nǎNo matter you go where“No matter where you go,”8. Typology of WH-Questions(54) a. Wh-In-situ: d base-generated in SpecCP.
[d C […. WH…]]
ex. Chinese (No subjacency violation)b. Apparent Wh-in-situ: Free morpheme overt d[[ …WH-d ...] C] --->[[...WH…] C d] d=overt free morpheme[…[DP [NP [CP … WH…]] NP]D d]…] C] --->[…[DP [NP [CP … WH…]] NP]D]…] C d]ex. Japanese (No subjacency violation)c. Wh-movement: d associated with an indeterminate[C […d WH…]] --->[d /WH/ C […{WH}…]]d=phonetically null /WH/=the sound of WH, {WH}=the meaning of WH
ex. English (Subjacency respected)
9. In-Situ Operator -Variable Constructions Revisited(O=operator, V=variable, R=restriction, Ind=Indeterminator)(55)
Japanese
Englisha. da-re-ka-ga
some the body
Ind-N-$-D
$
D N
R
O V
O
V
R
b. da-re-mo-ga
every the body
Ind-N-"-D
"
D N
R
O V
O
V R
c. da-rewh-person
Ind N
12

d. do-no gakusee-ka-ga
Ind-gen student-$-DR
OV
e. do-no gakusee-mo-ga
wh-gen student-"-D
R
OV

some the studentO
V R
every the student
OVR

Cf. all the students
O V R

10. Typology of IM Revisited(56) a. Wh-Movement is driven by the need of d to raise to SpecCP.
b. A-movement is driven by a mutually beneficial need of a head and a DP to assign Caseand agree.
c. A’-movement is simply that: phrasal movement that is not A-movement. (There is nomonolithic group of movements sharing a common property, other than not being driven
by Case and agreement.)
11. Double Dilemma(57) a. d in SpecCP takes TP as its argument.
b. Taking an argument is a property of a head.
c. d should be in C.
Solution
Featural Reaction: A feature value can move between SpecXP and X(58) a.
TP
b.
TP
2
2
T’
/DP/
T’
2
à
Nom 2
T
v*P
T
v*P
Nom 2
f 2
DP
{DP}
f
(59) aCPCP22[d]/what/ C’à/what/ C’
2
ei
C
TP
C
TP
wo
[d] woyou bought {what}
you bought {what}
b.

CP
2
C’
ka
ru [d]
TPC
wokimi-ga nani-o katta

CP
2
à
C’
ka
ru
TP
C
wo [d]
kimi-ga nani-o katta(60) WH-EPP deduced: In wh-movement languages (where d originates with an indeterminate)movement to SpecCP is the only way for d to be in C, just like movement to SpecTP is the only
way for a Case feature value and f feature to move between the subject DP and T.

13

Parallelism between the two EPP cases(61) a.
WH-EPPCP
2d /WH/ C’
2CTPru… {WH} …

b.

14

DP-EPP
TP
2/DP/ T’
Nom 2
T
v*P
f 2
{DP} …

Day 2
Part 3. Partial Wh-movement/Wh-Expletive/Scope Marking language
1. Overview of Partial Wh-Movement Languages
1.1. Hindi Lahiri (2003: 507)
(1) jaun kyaa soctaa hai ki bil-ko kis-nedekhaa (Lahiri 2003:507 (28))
John what thinks that Bill-ACC who-ERG saw‘‘Who does John think that Bill saw?’’(2) jaun kisne soctaa hai ki bil-ko dekhaa [S.T.]John who thinks that Bill-ACC saw‘‘Who does John think that Bill saw?’’
1.2. German (Lahiri 2003: 505 (10), from van Riemsdijk (1983)(3) a. Mit wem glaubt Karl daß Maria gesprochen hat
with whom think Karl that Maria spoken has ‘“Who does Karl think Maria has spoken to?”b. Was glaubt Karl, mit wem Maria gesprochen hat“Who does Karl think Maria has spoken to?”1.3. Hungarian (Lahiri 2003:505 (11a) from Horvath 1997 and Horvath (2000: (5b))(4) a. Mit
gondolsz, hogy kit la ́
tottJa ́ nos?
what-ACC think-2sg that who-ACC saw-3sg John-NOM‘‘Who do you think that John saw?’’b. Kerdeztek, hogy kit
hivott fel Mari.
asked-3pl that who-acc called up Mary-nom“They asked who Mary had called up”
1.4. Romani (MacDaniel 1989)(5) a. Kasi [IP o Demiri mislinol [CP ti so [IP i Arifa dikhla ti]]]? McDaniel (1998: 569(8a)whoDemir think
what Arifa saw“Whom does Demir think that Arifa saw?”
b. Soi [IP o Demiri mislinol [CP kasi [IP i Arifa dikhla ti ]]?
McDaniel (1998: 569(8b)what Demir think
who
Arifa saw
“WHAT does Demir think whom Arifa saw?”(6) Unique property of Romani partial wh-movement
Of the two morphemes kas and so, either order is possible.
1.5. Mong Leng (Bruhn (2007) “LF Wh-Movement in Mon Leng”)“The language has an LF wh-movement that obeys islands.”(7) a. Leej twg nyam Maab? (Bruhn (6b))
wholike Mang“Who likes Mang?”b. Lauj nyam leej twg? (Bruhn (6b))
Lao like who“Who does Lao like?”15

(8) a. Lauj paub leej twg nyam Npis. (Bruhn (8a))
Lao know who like Be“Lao knows who likes Be.”b. Lauj paub Npis nyam leej twg.
(Bruhn (8b))
Lao know Be like who“Lao knows who Be likes.”(9) a. Complex NP Island (Bruhn 2007:13 (51b))*Lauj pum tug txivneej kws
leej twg nyam?
Lao see cl man
rel-pro who
like“Who did Lao see the man that __ likes?”b. Adjunct Island (Bruhn 2007:13 (52b))*Nwg nyob nuav ruaqhov nwg nyam dlaabtsi?
3sg live here because 3sg like what
“What does he live here because he likes __ ?”c. WH-Island (Bruhn 2007:14 (53b))*Lauj tsi tau qha
koj saib tug tsuv puas tau noj dlaabtsi?
Lao not have tell 2sg whether cl tiger Q have eat what
“What has Lao not told you whether the tiger has eaten __ ?”d. Clausal Subject Island (Bruhn 2007:14 (54b))*Qhov leej twg nyam koj yog qhov zoo?
that who
like 2sg be cl
good‘“Who that __ likes you is good?”
The relevance of the “Partial Wh-Movement” data:(10) a. They pose a potential threat to the proposed theory of wh-questions.
b. Or they provide further support for it.
2. Two Approaches to Partial Wh-Movement(11) a. Direct Dependency Analysis: LF Movement of WH to replace WH-expletive
van Riemsdijk (1983), McDaniel (1998), Bayer (1996), Cheng (2000), Dayal (1994: 96)
b. Indirect Dependency Analysis: “Literal Interpretation” [S.T]
Dayal (1994: 96), Herburger (1994) and Horvath (1997)
2.1. Problems with the two approaches from the view point of the proposed theory(12) a. Direct Dependency Approach uses a covert (LF) operationb. Indirect Dependency Approach requires a special semantic mechanism.
3. Scope Freezing: An Overview (Defining property of partial wh-movement)(13) How many books does John think that Bill read? (ambiguous) Lehiri 2003: 519 (65))
a. What is the number of books (such that) John thinks that Bill read those books? (widescope)b. What is the number such that John thinks that Bill read that many books? (narrow scope)16

3.1. Scope Freezing in Hindi (Lehiri 2003: 519 (68))(14) rameS kyaa soctaa hai ki raam-ne kitnii kitabeN paRhiiN?
Rames what thinks that Ram-ERG how many books read-PST ‘“How many books does Rames think that Ram read?’’(unambiguous, narrow scope of wh-numeral phrase, no wide scope construal available)(15) rameS kitnii kiabeN
soctaa hai ki raam-ne paRhiiN? (presumably ambiguous)Rames how many books thinks that Ram-ERG read-PST ‘“How many books does Rames think that Ram read?’’ [S.T.]
3.2. Scope Freezing in German (Lehiri 2003: 537 (125))(16) a. Wo glaubt/sagt sie, daß Fox populärer ist als er ist?
where believes/says she that F. popular-er is than he isb. Was glaubt/sagt sie, wo Fox populärer ist als er ist?
what believes/says she, where F. popular-er is than he is(125a) (=(16a) [S.T]) is ambiguous: the object of the propositional attitude in question can either
be inconsistent or consistent. (125b)[=(16b) [S.T]] is unambiguous. (Lehiri 2003: 537))(17) a. Consistent object of attitude: Lehiri 2003: 537 (126))
For which place x, in her belief worlds is Fox more popular at x than Fox is popular at x
in the real world?
b. Inconsistent object of attitude:
For which place x, in her belief worlds is Fox more popular at x than Fox is popular at x?
3.3. Scope Freezing in Hungarian (Lahiri 2003:538 (129))(18) a. Mit
akarsz, hogy hány
ko:nyvet olvasson el
János?
what-acc want-you that how-many book-acc read-subj.-3sg perf John
“What do you want? How many books should John read?” unambiguous=narrow scopeb. Hány ko:nyvet
akarsz, hogy elolvasson János?
How many book-acc want-you that read John
“How many books do you want John to read?” ambiguous
4. A Proper Treatment of Partial Wh-Movement: Wh-Expletive as a Disjunction Function
4.1. Proposal: The so-called scope marking elements are all instances of d.
4.1.1 German (A hybrid language: d =was or null)(19) a. Mit wem glaubt Karl daß Maria gesprochen hat
with whom think Karl that Maria spoken has ‘‘Who does Karl think Maria has spoken to?’’b. Was glaubt Karl, mit wem Maria gesprochen hat‘‘Who does Karl think Maria has spoken to ?’’Two allomorphs of d: d and was (was is ambiguous between disjunction function and regular
WH=what)Like English(20) a. [CP C [TP Karl glaubt [CP daß [TP Maria gesprochen [d mit wem] hat]]]][d with whom][d mit wem] raises to SpecCP=daß --->
b. [CP C [TP Karl glaubt [CP [d /mit wem/] [CP daß [TP Maria gesprochen {mit wem} hat]]]][d /with whom/]{with whom}17/glaubt/ raises to C & d /mit wem/ raises to SpecCP --->
c. [CP [d /mit wem/ C-/glaubt/ [TP Karl {glaubt} [CP daß [TP Maria {mit wem} gesprochen hat]]]][d /with who(m)/{with whom}
Like Japanese(21) a. [CP C [TP Karl glaubt [CP C [TP Maria [was mit wem] gesprochen hat]]]]with whom KA[was /mit wem/] raises to SpecCP --->
b. [CP C [TP Karl glaubt [CP was /mit wem/ C [TP Maria gesprochen {mit wem} hat]]]]/with whom/ KA{with whom}/glaubt/ raises to C & was raises to SpecCP --->
c. [CP was C-/glaubt/ [TP Karl {glaubt} [CP /mit wem/ C [TP Maria gesprochen {mit wem} hat]]]]KA/with whom/{with whom}d. German (Partial wh-movement)
Japanese
CP

CP

ri
was
ri
glaubt

Karl

ri
rp ka

CP

CP

wu
mit wenri

wu -nom thought C
wp toMaria gesprochen hat

dare-to Maria-ga hanasi-ta

who-with

Karl-ga omot-ta

no

that

-nom spoke(19a-b) are exactly the same with respect to the way d in SpecCP (in C after featural reaction)
takes TP as its argument. Why mit wem moves to SpecCP in (21a) is still a mystery. See below.
4.1.2. Hindi: A hybrid language: kyaa as d(22) a. jaun kyaa soctaa hai ki bil-ko kis-ne dekhaa (=1)
John what thinks that Bill-ACC who-ERG saw‘‘Who does John think that Bill saw [sic]?’’ Should be “saw Bill”
b. jaun kisne soctaa hai ki bil-ko dekhaa [S.T.] (=2)
John what thinks that Bill-ACC who-ERG saw‘‘Who does John think that Bill saw?’’
Two allomorphs of d: d and kyaa
Like Japanese(23) a. [C [TP jaun soctaa [CP hai [TP ki bil-ko [kyaa kis-ne]
dekhaa]]]] --->
John thinksthat Bill-ACC [KYAA who-ERG saw
b. [CP C [TP jaun soctaa [CP kyaa hai [TP ki bil-ko kis-ne dekhaa]]]] --->
c. [CP kyaa C [jaun soctaa [CP hai ki bil-ko kis-ne dekhaa]]]--->V-raising, Topicalization
d. [CP /jaun/ [CP kyaa C-soctaa [TP {jaun} [CP hai [TP ki bil-ko [kis-ne] dekhaa]]]]]
Cf. Manetta (2012): Wh-Movement to SpecVP
Cf. Simpson and Bhattarya (2003) Wh-Movement to SpecCP (for Bangla)
Possibly: Movement of kyaa to SpecCP via SpecVP, where it receives Case.
Like English(24) a. [CP C [TP jaun soctaa [CP hai [TP ki bil-ko [d kis-ne]
dekhaa]]]] --->
John thinks that
Bill-ACC [d who-ERG saw
18

b. [CP d /kis-ne/ C [TP jaun soctaa [CP hai [TP ki bil-ko {kis-ne} dekhaa]]]]--->V-raising, Topicalization (Simpson and Bhattacharya 2003)
c. [CP /jaun/ [CP [d /kis-ne/] C-/soctaa/ [TP {jaun } {soctaa} [CP hai [TP ki bil-ko {kis-ne}
dekhaa]]]]]
4.1.3. Hungarian: Horvath (1997:533 (33))(25) a. Kivel
akarodhogy beszéljek?
Who-with want-2sg-def.DO that talk-subjnc.-1sg
Lit. With whom do you want that I talk?
b. Mitakarszhogy kivel beszéljek?
what-ACC want-2sg-indef.DO that. who-with talk-subj.-1sg
Lit. What do you want with whom I talk?
(26) One extra factor: Case Marking on wh-expletivea. Two allomorphs of d: d and mi (mit [Acc] vs. mi [Nom] vs. mire [Allative])b. Mi goes to SpecVP to get Case before going to SpecCP(27) a. [C [akarod[hogy [d kivel]
beszéljek]]]--->want-2sg-def.DO. that
who-with talk-subjnc.-1sg
b. [d /kivel/ C [akarod[hogy {kivel}
beszéljek]]]want-2sg-def.DO that. who-with talk-subjnc.1sg
c. Agreement in definiteness with kivel (possibly in SpecVP)(28) a. [C [akarsz[hogy [mi-kivel]
beszéljek]]] àRaising to SpecVP
want-2sg-def.DO that. what-who-with talk-subjnc.1sg
b. [C [mit-akarsz [hogy kivel
beszéljek]]]àRaising to SpecCP
ACC indefthat who-with talk-subjc.1sg
c. [mit C [akarsz [hogy [kivel]
beszéljek]]]
4.1.4 German Multiple Partial WH-Movement (Sternfeld (1999: 5 (11)) (Riemsdijk (1983))(29) Was glaubst du, was Peter meint, was Hans sagt, was Klaus behauptet,
What believes you what Peter thinks what Hans says what Klaus claims
mit wem Maria gesprochen hat?
with whom Maria talked
hasLit. ‘What do you believe what Peter thinks what Hans says what Klaus claims with whom
Maria has talked?’ (Sternfeld (1999:5 (11))
Sternfeld (1999: 5 Footnote 1)(30) a. %Was glaubst du, was Peter meint, was Hans sagt, mit wem Klaus behauptet daß Maria
gesprochen hat?
b. %Was glaubst du was Peter meint mit wem Hans sagt daß Klaus behauptet daß Maria
gesprochen hat?
c. %Was glaubst du mit wem Peter meint daß Hans sagt daß Klaus behauptet daß Maria
gesprochen hat?
d. %Mit wem glaubst du daß Peter meint daß Hans sagt daß Klaus behauptet daß Maria
gesprochen hat?
(31) a. Was requires a Case value in order to be spelled out (Cf. Hungarian)b. Clausal complement taking verbs can have Case values to assign, but Case cannot be
assigned to the clausal complement.
c. It follows that n copies of was are needed with n verbs to assign a Case value.

19

The derivation of (30)(32) a. [C du glaubst, [C Peter meint, [C Hans sagt, [C Klaus behauptet, [daß Maria gesprochen
Case
Case
Case
Case
3
3
3
was mit wem hat]]]]] was =/was/ + {was}=dWas3 mit wem raising to SpecCP (to use it as an escape hatch and may be for focus)
b. [C du glaubst, [C Peter meint, [C Hans sagt, [C Klaus behauptet, [was 3 /mit wem/ daß
Case
Case
Case
Case
Maria gesprochen {mit wem} hat]]]]]
Was3 mit wem raises to the next SpecCP
c. [C du glaubst, [C Peter meint, [C Hans sagt, [was3 /mit wem/ C Klaus behauptet, [daß
Case
Case
Case
Maria gesprochen {mit wem} hat]]]]]
Was3 raises to SpecVP=sagt for Case; One /was/ gets a Case value.
d. [C du glaubst, [C Peter meint, [C Hans was 3 sagt, [mit wem C Klaus behauptet, [daß
Case
Case
Maria gesprochen {mit wem} hat]]]]]
Was3 raises to SpecCP
e. [C du glaubst, [C Peter meint, [was 3 C Hans sagt, [mit wem C Klaus behauptet, [daß
Case
Case
Maria gesprochen {mit wem} hat]]]]]
Was2 raises to SpecVP=meint for Case; One /was/ gets a Case value.
f. [C du glaubst, [C Peter was2 meint, [/was/ C Hans sagt, [mit wem C Klaus behauptet,
Case[daß Maria gesprochen {mit wem} hat]]]]]
Was2 raises to SpecCP
g. [C du glaubst, [was2 C Peter meint, [/was/ C Hans sagt, [/mit wem/ C Klaus behauptet,
Case[daß Maria gesprochen {mit wem} hat]]]]]
Was raises to SpecVP=glaubst for Case; It gets a Case valueh. [C du was glaubst, [/was/ C Peter meint, [/was/ C Hans sagt, [/mit wem/ C Klaus
behauptet, [daß Maria gesprochen {mit wem} hat]]]]]
Subject-Aux Inversion
i. [C-/glaubst du was {glaubst}, [/was/ C Peter meint, [/was/ C Hans sagt, [/mit wem/ C
Klaus behauptet, [daß Maria gesprochen {mit wem} hat]]]]]
Was raises to SpecCP
j. [Was C-/glaubst/ du {glaubst}, [/was/ C Peter meint, [/was/ C Hans sagt, [/mit wem/ C
Klaus behauptet, [daß Maria gesprochen {mit wem} hat]]]]](33) a. Improper Movement? A’-Movement to SpecCP followed by A-Movement to SpecVP
b. Only d is undergoing successive cyclic A’-Movementc. Each copy of /was/ undergoes A-Movement to SpecVP and then A’-movement to
SpecCP.
d. Therefore, no violation of Improper Movement Condition, even if it is a valid condition.
(Romani and Mong Leng to be discussed later)

20

5. Scope Freezing
5.1. English (Lack of Scope Freezing)(34) How many books does John think that Bill read? (ambiguous)
a. What is the number of books (such that) John thinks that Bill read those books? (widescope)b. What is the number such that John thinks that Bill read that many books? (narrow scope)(35) a. John does think that Bill read [d [how [many the books]]].
b. John does think that Bill read [[d [how many]] the books]]]
Or Late Merge(36) a. [[d how many books] John does think that Bill read [D]]]] (wide scope)b. [[d how many /D /books/ John does think that Bill read [{D books}]]] (narrow scope)
5.2. Hindi(37) rameS kyaa soctaa hai ki raam-ne kitnii kitabeN paRhiiN?
(=43)
Rames what thinks that Ram-ERG how many books read-PST“How many books does Rames think that Ram read?”(unambiguous, narrow scope of wh-numeral phrase, no wide scope construal available)
5.3. Japanese: Floating Quantifier Possibility(38) a. [(Kimi-wa) Bill-ga [nan-satu-no hon-o]-ka
kat-ta] to omoi-masu-ka
you-topnom how-many-gen book-acc bought that think-pol-KA“How many books do you think Bill bought?”(wide scope reading only)b. [(Kimi-wa) Bill-ga [nan-satu]-ka hon-o kat-ta] to omoi-masu-ka
you-topnom how many book-acc bought that think-pol-KA“Lit. How many do you think Bill bought books? (narrow scope reading only)c. [(Kimi-wa) Bill-ga hon-o[nan-satu]-ka kat-ta] to omoi-masu-ka
you-top
nom book-acc how many bought that think-pol-KA“Lit. How many do you think Bill bought books? (narrow scope reading only)
Quantifier Scrambling
Hindi: (Manetta (2019:48 (11))(39) a. Base order: S IO [QP Q DO-NP] V
Raam-ne Mohan-ko[saarii kitabeeN] laut⋅aa dii
Ram-ERG Mohan-DAT all
books
return give.PFV‘Ram returned all the books to Mohan.’b. Short scrambling: S DO-NPi IO [QP Q ti] V
Raam-ne kitabeeNi Mohan-ko [saarii ti] laut⋅aa dii
Ram-ERG books Mohan-DAT all
return give.PFV(Manetta (2012:48 (12))(40) Postverbal: S IO [QP Q ti] V DO-Npi
Raam-ne Mohan-ko[saarii ti] laut⋅aa dii
kitabeeNi.
Ram-ERG Mohan-DAT all
return give.PFV books (Déprez 1990:23)
Floating Quantifier Analysis(41) a. Raam-ne Mohan-ko saarii kitabeeN laut⋅aa dii

21

b. Raam-ne kitabeeN Mohan-ko saarii laut⋅aa diic. Raam-ne Mohan-ko saarii laut⋅aa dii kitabeeN(42) a. [C rameS soctaa [hai ki raam-ne [kyaa kitnii] kitabeN paRhiiN]]
Rames thinks that Ram-ERG what how many books read-PST
b. [rameS [kyaa [C-soctaa [hai ki raam-ne kitnii katabeN paRhiiN]
Rames what
thinks that Ram-ERG how many books read-PST.
c. The narrow scope reading falls out if Hindi quantifiers like kitnii are all floatedquantifiers.
5.4. German(43) a. Wo glaubt/sagt sie, daß Fox populärer ist als er ist? (Lehiri 2003: 537 (125))
where believes/says she that F. popular-er is than he is(glaubt/sagt>wo, wo>glaubt/sagt)
b. Was glaubt/sagt sie, wo Fox populärer ist als er ist?
what believes/says she, where F. popular-er is than he is(glaubt/sagt>wo)(44) a. [CP C [TP sie glaubt/sagt, [CP C [TP Fox populaärer ist als er ist [was wo]]]]] (embedded)à
b. [CP C [TP sie glaubt/sagt, [CP was /wo/ [CP C [TP Fox populärer ist als er ist {wo}]]]] à
c. [CP was [TP sie glaubt/sagt, [CP /wo/ C [TP Fox populärer ist als er ist {wo}]]]]
glaubt/sagt>wo(43b)(45) a. [CP C [TP sie glaubt/sagt [was wo], [CP C [TP Fox populaärer ist als er ist]]]] (matrix)à
b. *[CP was C [TP sie glaubt/sagt wo, [CP C [TP Fox populärer ist als er ist]]]] (43b)c. This derivation is ruled out because in German partial wh-movement is banned in a
simplex sentence. (I am grateful to Yasuhito Hosaka and Josef Bayer (p.c.) for
confirming this.)(46) a. [CP C [TP sie glaubt/sagt, [CP daß [TP Fox populärer ist als er ist d-wo]]]] (embedded) àb. [CP C [TP sie glaubt/sagt, [CP d /wo/ daß [TP Fox populärer ist als er ist {wo}]]] à
c. [CP d /wo/ [TP sie glaubt/sagt, [CP daß [TP Fox populärer ist als er ist {wo}]]]]
glaubt/sagt > wo
(43a)(47) a. [CP C [TP sie glaubt/sagt [d wo], [CP daß [TP Fox populärer ist als er ist]]]] (matrix)à
b. [CP d /wo/ C [TP sie glaubt/sagt {wo}, [CP daß Fox populärer ist als er ist]]]]wo>glaubt/sagt (43a)5.5. Hungarian(48) a. akarsz, hogy mit hány ko:nyvet olvasson el János à
b. Mit akarsz, hogy hány ko:nyvet olvasson el János? (want>how many books)
want
how many books
Piggybacking(49) a. akarsz, hogy [d hány ko:nyvet] elolvasson János à
b. [d hány /D/ ko:nyvet] akarsz, hogy {D} elolvasson János(how many books>want)c. [d /hány ko:nyvet/] akarsz, hogy [{hány ko:nyvet} elolvasson János(want > how many books)
Late Merge(50) a. akarsz, hogy (d) D elolvasson János à
b. [d hány /D/ ko:nyvet] akarsz, hogy {D} elolvasson János

22

(how many > want)
Early Merge(51) a. akarsz, hogy [d hány D ko:nyvet] elolvasson János à
b. [d /hány D ko:nyvet/] akarsz, hogy [{hány D ko:nyvet} elolvasson János(want>how many)

23

Part 4. Related Matters: Tying Up Loose Ends
1. Hindi Expletives: there, kyaa and yeh(1) a. raam yeh jaantaa hai ki ramaa kis-se baat karegii (Lahiri 2003:503 (3))
Ram this know-PR that Ramaa who-INS talk-do-FUT“Ram knows who Ramaa will talk to”
b. raam kyaa soctaa hai ki kOn laRkii kis-sebaat karegii (Lahiri 2003:503 (4))
Ram what think-PR that which girlwho-INS talk-do-FUT“Which girl does Ram think will talk to who?”
Proposal: Case Solution(3) Expletives serve to eliminate unassigned Case values.
English expletive there(4) a. [are [Part] [books on the desk]] books raises to SpecBE for Partitive Caseàb. [/books/ [Part] are [{books} on the desk]]
Merge of Pres with Nominative Case value, Head-raising of arec. [Pres-/are/[Nom] [/books/ [Part] {are} [{books} on the desk]]] EM of there àd. [there [Nom] Pres-are [/books/ [Part] {are}[{books} on the desk]]]English expletive it(5) a. We hold it to be true that all men are created equalb. *We hold that all men are created equal to be truec. [v*-hold [Acc] to be true that all men are created equal] EM of it à
d. [it[Acc] v*-hold to be true that all men are created equal Excorp. à
e. v*-/hold/ [it [Acc] {hold} to be true that all men are created equal
Going back to Hindi(6) a. jaantaa [Acc] hai ki ramaa kis-se baat karegii (where kis-se has raised to SpecCP)
know-PRthat Ramaa who-INS talk-do-FUT
EM of yeh
b. yeh [Acc] jaantaa hai ki ramaa kis-se baat karegii(7) a. soctaa [Acc] hai ki kOn laRkii kyaa kis-se baat karegii
kyaa raises to SpecVP
b. kyaa [Acc] soctaa hai ki kOn laRkii kis-se baat karegii(1a-b) are parallel and both involve “expletives” that are merged to receive Case. But noexpletive replacement of any kind takes place.
2. Romani MacDaniel (1989)(8) a. Kasi [IP o Demiri mislinol [CP ti so [IP i Arifa dikhla ti]]]? McDaniel (1998: 569(8a)whoDemir think
what Arifa saw
Whom does Demir think that Arifa saw?
b. Soi [IP o Demiri mislinol [CP kasi [IP i Arifa dikhla ti ]]?
McDaniel (1998: 569(8b)what Demir think
who
Arifa saw
WHAT does Demir think whom Arifa saw?
(9) Unique property of Romanian partial wh-movement
Of the two morphemes kas and so, either order is possible.
(10) a. McDaniel’s Absorption account: scope marker and true wh-phrase coindexed.
b. The central claim of the Disjunction Function Movement Account is that wh-questions
involve disjunction function and not operator binding.

24Proposal(11) a. Kas ‘who’, ko ‘where’ etc. = Wh-word (indeterminate),b. So=Disjunction Function containing a feature (complex) d, represented as d/so/. The sopart does not have any semantic content other than d itself.
c. The two are adjoined to each other as d-so-kas and form a lexical complex.
d. They undergo initial wh-movement to the first SpecCP.
e. If left as it is, d undergoes Wh-Movement to the next higher SpecCP with /so/, leaving
kas behind giving (8b), as illustrated in (12a-b-c).
f. Kas can provide d with a vehicle to ride in (“Vehicle Change”)(A featural reaction can occur between d/so/ and /kas/, placing d with /kas/. When dundergoes Wh-Movement to the next higher SpecCP with /kas/, it leaves {kas} and /so/behind, giving (8a), as illustrated in (13a-b-c)).
(12) a. [C’C [o Demiri mislinol [C’ C [TP i Arifa dikhala d/so/-kas]]]] Wh-Movement --->
Demir think
Afifa saw
whob. [C’C [o Demiri mislinol [CP d/so/-/kas/ C [TP i Arifa dikhala {kas}]]]] Wh-Movment--->c. [CP d/so/ [o Demiri mislinol [CP /kas/ C [TP i Arifa dikhala {kas}]]]] =(8b)(13) a. [C’C [o Demiri mislinol [C’ C [TP i Arifa dikhala d/so/-kas]]]] Wh-Movement --->
Demir think
Afifa saw
whob. [C’C [o Demiri mislinol [CP d/so/-/kas/ C [TP i Arifa dikhala {kas}]]]] Featural Reactionà
c. [C’C [o Demiri mislinol [CP d/kas/-/so/ C [TP i Arifa dikhala {kas}]]]] Wh-Movment--->d. [CP d/kas/ C [o Demiri mislinol [CP /so/ C [TP i Arifa dikhala {kas}]]]] =(8a)3. Mong Leng (Bruhn (2007) LF Wh-Movement in Mon Leng)(14) “The language has an LF wh-movement”
a. Leej twg nyam Maab?
(Bruhn (6b))
wholike Mang“Who likes Mang?”b. Lauj nyam leej twg?
(Bruhn (6b))
Lao like who“Who does Lao like?”c. Lauj paub leej twg nyam Npis. (Bruhn (8a))
Lao know who like Be“Lao knows who likes Be.”
d. Lauj paub Npis nyam leej twg. (Bruhn (8b))
Lao know Be like who“Lao knows who Be likes.”(15) “The language has an LF wh-movement that obeys islands.”
a. Complex NP Island (Bruhn 2007:13 (51b))*Lauj pum tug txivneej kws
leej twg nyam?
Lao see cl man
rel-pro who
like‘Who did Lao see the man that __ likes?’b. Adjunct Island (Bruhn 2007:13 (52b)*Nwg nyob nuav ruaqhov nwg nyam dlaabtsi?
3sg live here because 3sg like what
‘What does he live here because he likes __ ?’c. WH-Island (Bruhn 2007:14 (53b))25

*Lauj tsi tau qha koj saib
tug tsuv puas tau noj dlaabtsi?
Lao not have tell 2sg whether cl tiger Q have eat what
‘What has Lao not told you whether the tiger has eaten __ ?’d. Clausal Subject Island (Bruhn 2007:14 (54b))*Qhov leej twg nyam koj yog qhov zoo?
that who
like 2sg be cl
good‘Who that __ likes you is good?’(16) “Although no movement is involved, it is possible to interpret leej twg or dlaabtsi in an
embedded clause as taking wide scope to form a matrix wh-question. These long-distancereadings are allowed with the matrix verb-complementizer construction has tas ‘say that,’which introduces the embedded clause” (Bruhn 2004: 4)(17) a. Lauj has tas Maab nyam Npis. (Bruhn 2004: 4 (12)Lao say that Maab like Be‘Lao said that Mang likes Be.’b. Lauj has tas leej twg nyam Npis?
Lao say that who
like Be‘Who did Lao say likes Be?’c. Lauj has tas Npis nyam leej twg?
Lao say that Be like who‘Who did Lao say Be likes?’(18) a. Lauj has tas tug tsuv tua tug us. (Bruhn 2004: 4 (13)Lao say that cl tiger kill cl duck
‘Lao said that the tiger killed the duck.’b. Lauj has tas dlaabtsi tua tug us?
Lao say that what kill cl duck
‘What did Lao say killed the duck?’c. Lauj has tas tug tsuv tua dlaabtsi?
Lao say that cl tiger kill what
‘What did Lao say the tiger killed?’(19) “When the upstairs clauses consist of such (serialized) elements, leej twg or dlaabtsi may
be arbitrarily-deeply embedded and still take wide scope: (Bruhn 2004: 5)(20) a. Koj xaav has tas Lauj has tas leej twg nyam Npis?
2sg think say that Lauj say that who like Be‘Who do you think Lao said likes Be?’b. Koj xaav has tas Lauj has tas Npis xaav has tas Maab nyam leej twg?
2sg think say that Lauj say that Be think say that Mang like who‘Who do you think Lao said Be thinks Mang likes?’c. Koj xaav has tas Lauj has tas Npis xaav has tas Maab nyam dlaabtsi?
2sg think say that Lauj say that Be think say that Mang like what
‘What do you think Lao said Be thinks Mang likes?’(21) Bruhn’s analysis, if correct, presents an insurmountable difficulty to the Disjunction
Function Analysis coupled with the Overt Syntax Condition because it allows islands toblock LF-movement.

26

3.1. An Alternative: Partial Wh-Movement Account: tas=C and has=d(has4=4 copies of /has/and one {has}) (Wh-Movement to Specv*P ignored)(22) a. Matrix complementizer is null=C.
b. The sequence has-has gets reduced to has.
c. Has gets spelled out as null in the matrix SpecCP(23) a. [C Koj xaav [CP tas Lauj has [CP tas Npis xaav [CP tas Maab nyam [DP has4 dlaabtsi]]]]]
2sg think
C Lauj say
C Be think C Mang likewhatb. [C Koj xaav [CP tas Lauj has [CP tas Npis xaav [CP has4 tas Maab nyam [DP dlaabtsi]]]]]
c. [C Koj xaav [CP tas Lauj has [CP has3 tas Npis xaav [CP /has/ tas Maab nyam [DPdlaabtsi]]]]]
d. [C Koj xaav [CP has2 tas Lauj has [CP /has/ tas Npis xaav [CP/has/ tas Maab nyam [DPdlaabtsi]]]]]
e. [has C Koj xaav [CP /has/ tas Lauj has /has/ tas [CP /has/ tas Npis xaav [CP /has/ tas
Maab nyam [DP dlaabtsi]]]]]
f. [has C Koj xaav [CP /has/ tas Lauj has /has/ tas [CP /has/ tas Npis xaav [CP /has/ tas
Maab nyam [DP dlaabtsi]]]]](24) a. C is null in matrix CPs in English and many other languages.
b. The sequence of no-no gets simplified to no in Japanese.
no=Genitive Marker, no=pro-noun like one
John-no-no “John’s one” àJohn-no “John’s”
c. Null spell-out of matrix has is learnable.
d. Has receives Case from xaav ‘think’, has ‘say’, etc
Given (24c), (15a-d) can be reanalyzed as involving disjunction function movement violatingislands.
(25) a. Complex NP Island (Bruhn 2007:13 (51b))*[has C [Lauj pum [DP tug txivneej kws[CP t leej twg nyam]]
Lao seecl manrel-prowho
like‘Who did Lao see the man that __ likes?’b. Adjunct Island (Bruhn 2007:13 (52b))*[ has C [Nwg nyob nuav [ruaqhov nwg nyam t dlaabtsi]]]
3sg live here because 3sg likewhat
‘What does he live here because he likes __ ?’c. WH-Island (Bruhn 2007:14 (53b))*[ has C [Lauj tsi tau qha koj [saibtug tsuv puas tau noj t dlaabtsi]]]
Lao not have tell 2sg whether cl tiger Q have eat what
‘What has Lao not told you whether the tiger has eaten __ ?’d. Clausal Subject Island (Bruhn 2007:14 (54b))*[ has C [qhov t leej twg nyam koj yog qhov zo]
that
who
like 2sg be cl
good‘Who that __ likes you is good?’27

4. Kakarimusubi & Sinhala
Sinhala Kishimoto (2005, 2018)(26) a. Chitra monəwa də gatte?
(Kishimoto 2005 (1))
Chitra what
Q bought-E“What did Chitra buy?”
b. *Chitra monəwa də gatta?
(Kishimoto 2005 (3))
Chitra what
Q bought-A“What did Chitra buy?”c. *Chitra monəwa gatta/gattedə?
(Kishimoto 2005 (4))
Chitra what bought-A/bought-E Q“What did Chitra buy?”(27) a. Okina-wa nani-o-ka
motikaeri-taru(Classical Japanese)
top what-acc-KA bring.home-past-adnominal
What did the old man bring home?
b. *Okina-wa
nani-o-ka motikaeri-tari(Classical Japanese)
old.man-top what-acc-KA bring.home-past-indicative
What did the old man bring home?
c. Okina-wa
nani-o-ka motikaeri-tari(Classical Japanese)
old.man-top what-acc-KA buring.home-past-indicative
The old man brought home something(28) a. Ranjit [kau də aawa kiyəla] danne?
(Kishimoto 2005 (6a))
Ranjit who Q came-A that know-E“Who does Ranjit know came?”b. Ranjit [kau də aawe kiyəla] dannəwa:(Kishimoto 2005 (6b))
Ranjit who Q came-E that know-A“Ranjit knows who came”
c. *Ranjit [kauru aawa kiyəla] dannəwa dəRanjit who came-A Q that know-A(29) a. Ranjit [kauru aawa də kiyəla] dannəwa(Kishimoto 2005 (7a))
Ranjit who came-A Q that know-A“Ranjit knows who came”
b. kiidenek potə kieuwa də?
(Kishimoto 2005 (7b))
how.many book read-A Q“How many (people) read the book?”(30) a. Ranjit [kiidenek enəwa kiyəla] dannəwa də?
(Kishimoto 2005 (9a))
Ranjit how.many come-A thatknow-A Q“How many (people) does Ranjit know will come?”b. Ranjit [kiidenek enəwadə kiyəla] dannəwa(Kishimoto 2005 (9b))
Ranjit how.many come-A Q that know-A“Ranjit knows how many (people) will come”(31) a. Ranjit [kau də aawe kiyəla] dannəwa(Kishimoto 2005 (11a))
Ranjit who Q came-E that know-A“Ranjit knows who came”
b. kiidenek də potə kieuwe?
(Kishimoto 2005 (11b))
how.many Q book read-E“How many (people) read the book? “28(32) a. Ranjit [Chitra kiidenek də dækka/*dække kiyəla] danne? (Kishimoto 2005: Note 4(ia))
Ranjit Chitra how.many Q saw-A/saw-E that know-E“How many (people) does Ranjit know that Chitra saw?”b. Ranjit [Chitra kiidenek dækka/*dække kiyəla] dannəwa də? (Kishimoto 2005: Note 4(iia))
Ranjit Chitra how.many saw-A/saw-E that know-E“How many (people) does Ranjit know that Chitra saw?”(33) a. Ranjit [Chitra kiidenek də dække kiyəla] dannəwa/*danne. (Kishimoto 2005: Note 4(ib))
Ranjit Chitra how:many Q saw-E that know-A/know-E“Ranjit knows how many (people) Chitra saw”
b. Ranjit [Chitra kiidenek dækka də kiyəla] dannəwa/*danne. (Kishimoto 2005: Note 4(iib))
Ranjit Chitra how:many Q saw-A that know-A/know-E“Ranjit knows how many (people) Chitra saw”
Island Sensitivity (Kishimoto: də moves by LF movement and LF movement obeys islands)(34) a. *oyaa [[Chitra kaa-tə də dunnə] potə] kieuwe?
(Kishimoto 2005: (46a))
you Chitra who-DAT Q gave book read-E (complex NP)“To whomi did you read the book that Chitra gave ti?”b. *Chitra [[Ranjit monəwa də gattakiənə] katəkataawə] aehuwe?
Chitra Ranjit what
Q bought-A thatrumor
heard-E (complex NP)“Whati did Chitra hear the rumor that Ranjit bought ti?” (Kishimoto 2005: (46b))c. *[Chitra monəwa də kanə kotə] Ranjit pudumə unee? (Kishimoto 2005: (46c))
Chitra what
Q ate time Ranjit surprise became-E (adjunct)“Whati was Ranjit surprised when Chitra ate ti?”d. ??Chitra [Ranjit monəwa də gattakiyəla] kendiruwe? (Kishimoto 2005: (46d))
Chitra Ranjit what
Q bought-A that whispered-E (manner of speaking)“Whati did Chitra whisper that Ranjit bought ti?”e. ?*Ranjit [Chitra monəwa də kieuwa də-naeddə kiyəla] danne? (Kishimoto 2005: (46b))
Ranjit Chitra what
Q read-A whether that know-E (wh-island)
Whati does Ranjit know whether Chitra read ti?
Kishimoto’s proposal(35) a. The wh-scope is marked either by e-marking on the verb or by movement of də.
b. When scope is marked by e-marking on the verb, də undergoes LF movement.
c. Both overt movement of də and covert movement of də obey islands, hence the degradedstatuses of (34).
d. (36a-e) below do not violate islands because LF movement of də is from outside theislands.
(36) a. oyaa [[Chitra kaa-tə dunnə potə] də kieuwe? (Relative Clause)you
Chitra who-DAT gave book Q read-E“You read the book that Chitra gave to who?”a’. Chitra が誰にやった本を君は読みましたか
b. Chitra [[Ranjit monəwa gattakiənə](Complex NP)
Chitra Ranjit whatbought-A thatkatəkataawə] də æhuwe?
rumor
Q heard-E“Chitra heard the rumor that Ranjit bought what?”b’. Ranjit が何を買ったと言う噂を Chitra は聞きましたか29

c. [Chitra monəwa kanə kotə] də Ranjit pudumə unee? (Adjunct Clause)
Chitra what
ate time Q Ranjit surprise became-E“Ranjit was surprised when Chitra ate what?”c’. Chitra が何を食べた時に Ranjit は驚きましたか
d. [Chitra [Ranjit monə potə gattakiyəla] də kendiruwe? (Chitra Ranjit what book bought-A that Q whispered-E“Chitra whispered that Ranjit bought what book?”d’. Ranjit がどの本を買ったと Chitra はささやきましたか
e. Ranjit [Chitra monəwa kieuwa də-næddə kiyəla də danne?
Ranjit Chitra what
read-A whether that Q know-E“Ranjit knows whether Chitra read what?”e’. Chitra が何を買ったかどうかを Ranjit は知っていますか
Possible counterevidence against the Overt Syntax Condition.
Alternative: Movement of the E-ending.
(37) a. d exists (as a feature bundle) in dəb. The e-ending originates with WH-də as in WH-də-e.
c. d (as a feature bundle) moves from də to e by featural reaction.
d. Only the e-ending moves from WH-də-e, and in the absence of e-ending d moves (onlywith how many).
(38) a. [ … WH-də[d]-e … V] à Featural Reaction
b. [ … WH-də-e[d] … V] à Function Movementc. [ … WH-də … V e[d]](39) a. [[ … WH-də[d] … C] kiyəla] à Function Movementb. [[ … WH … C-də[d]] kiyəla]
Kakarimusubi in Classical Japanese(39) a. [[Izure-no hi]ni-ka[d]]-an kuni-ni kaer à Featural Reaction
which day-on-KA
home-to returnb. [[Izure-no hi]ni-ka]-an[d] kuni-ni kaer à Function Movementc. [[Izure-no hi]ni-ka kuni-ni kaer]-an[d]“When will I return home?”(40) a. [Izure-ka-an no hi]ni kuni-ni kaer-à *[Izure-ka-an no hi]ni kuni-ni kaer-an
which KA day-on home-to return-willb. [Izure-ka no hi]ni kuni-ni kaer-ansome day-on home-to return-will“I will return home some day”
5. Contrastive Stress2
Lin (2014)(41) Ni xiang-zhidao Lisi zai nali mai-le shenme (Lin 2014)
you wonder
Lisi at where buy-Asp what2

I am grateful to Jacob Algrim for pointing out the problem of resolving ambiguity of the following example.

30

(i) “What is the thing x such that you wonder where Lisi bought x?”(ii) “Where is the place x such that you wonder what Lisi bought at x?
b. How can (41) be disambiguated?
Answer: Contrastive Stress
Hasegawa (2003) observes:(42) a. Lasnik and Saito’s (1992) example requires contrastive stress on the two wh-phrases withmatrix scope.
b. WHO wonders what WHO bought?
c. *WHO wonders what who bought?
Proposal:(43) a. Each d assigns contrastive stress to its associated indeterminate(s), and each new
assignment of contrastive stress reduces the existing contrastive stress by one notch a la
SPE stress assignment rules.
b. Association of indeterminates with d is carried out when they are merged and each of theassociated indeterminates receives contrastive stress.
c. Contrastive stress associated with a higher d supersedes/reduces contrastive stressassociated with a lower d.
(44) a. d1-(WHO1, WHO1) d2-WHAT2 (A, B) = set of A and B
b. [C [[d 1-(WHO1, WHO1) bought d 2-WHAT2] WH-Movement of d 2àc. [d2-/WHAT2/ C [d1-(WHO1, WHO1) bought {what2}]] Merge of wonders àd. [wonders [d2-/WHAT2/ C [d1-(WHO1, WHO1) bought {what2}]]]
Sideward Movement of d1-WHO1à
e. [d1-WHO1 [wonders [d2-/WHAT2/ C WHO1 bought {what2}]]]
Reduction of /WHAT2/ to /what2/
f. d1-WHO1 [wonders [d2-/what2/ C WHO1 bought {what2}]]]
g. PF: WHO wonders what WHO bought(45) a. d1-SHENME1 d 2-ZAI NALI2 Sideward Movement àb. [d 1 [ni xian-zhidao [d 2 [Lisi ZAI NALI2 mai-le SHENME1]]]]
Reduction of ZAI NALI2à
c. [d1 [ni xian-zhidao [d2 [Lisi zai nali2 mai-le SHENME1]]]] =(41aii)(46) a. d2-SHENME2 d1-ZAI NALI1 Sideward Movement àb. [d1 [ni xian-zhidao [d 2 [Lisi ZAI NALI1 mai-le SHENME2]]]]
Reduction of SHENME2
b. [d1 [ni xian-zhidao [d2 [Lisi ZAI-NALI1 mai-le shenme2]]]]
Kai-Ying Lin (p.c) agrees though he feels ambiguity is clearer with shen-me replaced by she-medong-xi(47) a. [ni xiang-zhidao [shei mai-le SHE-ME-Dong-Xi]]]]"What is the thing x such that you wonder who bought x?"b. [ni xiang-zhidao [SHEI mai-le she-me-dong-xi]]]]"Who is the person x such that you wonder what x bought?"
6. Deducing ECP from the Overt Syntax Condition (formally known as Inactivity
Condition)
6.1. Licit Derivation31

(48) a. Who did you see?
b. [VP v*-see [DP d who]] (Case assigned upon merge)c. [v*P v*-/see/ [VP {see} [DP d who]]]d. [v*P you v*-/see/ [VP {see} [DP d who]]]e. [v*P [DP d /who/] [v*P you v*-/see/ [VP {see} [DP {who]]]]](/who/ is the designated vehicle of d)
6.2. Illicit Derivations violating the OSC
6.2.1. Nominative Trace Effect (ECP, That-trace filter)(49) a. *Who do you think that did it?
b. [TP T [v*P [DP d who] …]] (Only /who/ moves. < Economy)c. [TP /who/ T [v*P [DP d {who}]…]]
d . [CP that [TP /who/ T [v*P [DP d {who}]…]]] Movement of d is blocked by OSC.
(50) a. [CP/TP C-T [v*P [DP d who] …]]
b. [CP/TP [DP d /who/] C-T [v*P {who} …]] (/who/ is the designated vehicle of d)
6.2.2. Accusative Trace Effect (For-To Filter)(51) a. *Who would you like for to leave?
b. [TP T [ModP to [v*P [DP d who] …]]]c. [TP /who/ T [ModP to [v*P [DP d {who}]…]]]]d. [CP for [TP /who/ {for} [ModP to [v*P [DP d {who}]…]]]] (d lacks a designated vehicle)
6.2.3. Dative Trace Effect(52) a. *Who did you give the book?
b. [VP [DP d who] v*-v-give the book]c. [vP v*-v-/give/ [VP [DP d who] {give} the book]]d. [vP /who/ v*-v-/give/ [VP [DP d {who}] {give} the book]]e. [v*P v*-/give/ [vP /who/ v [VP [DP d {who}] {give} the book]]]f. [v*P you v*-/give/ [vP /who/ v [VP [DP d {who}]{give} the book]]](d lacks a designated vehicle)(53) a. Who did you give the book to?
b. [PP to [DP d who]] ((/who/ is the designated vehicle of d)
6.2.4. Genitive Trace Effect(54) a. *Whose did you buy three books?
b. [NumP three [NP [DP d who] books]]c. [NumP /whose/ three [NP [DP d {who}] books]]d. [DP the [NumP /whose/ three [NP [DP d {who}] books]]] (d lacks a designated vehicle)
Cf. Whose three books did you buy? < [DP d D [NumP /whose/ three [NP {whose} books]]]
6.2.5. Partitive Trace Effect(55) a. *How many packages were there placed on the table? (Chomsky 2001)
b. [BeP Q-Past-were [placed [DP d how many packages] on the table]]32

c. [BeP /how many packages/ [BeP Q-Past-were [placed [DP d {how many packages}] on thetable]]]
d. [TP Q-Past-/were/ [BeP /how many packages/ {were} [placed [DP d {how many
packages}] on the table]]]e. [there [Q-Past-/were/ [BeP /how many packages/ {were} [placed [DP d {how many
packages}] on the table]]] DP
f. [CP Q-/were/ [TP there [Past [BeP /how many packages/ {were} [placed [DP d {how many
packages}] on the table]]]]] (d lacks a designated vehicle)(56) a. How many packages were placed on the table?
b. [CP/TP Q-were placed [d how many packages] on the table]c. [CP/TP d /how many packages/ Q-were placed {how many packages} on the table]
6.3. ECM (A Problem?)(57) a. Who do you believe to have broken into your house?
b. [v*-believe [TP [d who] to have broken into your house]] àc. [v*P v*-/believe/ [VP d /who/ {believe} [TP [{who}] to have broken into your house]]](58) a. [CP C [TP T [to [have [v*P [DP d who] v*-/broken/ [VP {broken} into your house]]]]]A’ Movement to SpecCPà
b. [CP [DP d /who/] [C [TP T [to [have [v*P [DP {who}] v*-/broken/ [VP {broken} into yourhouse]]]]]]] (/who/ is the designated vehicle of d)Merge of v*-believec. [v*P/VP v*[Ag]-believe[Acc] [CP [DP d /who/] [C [TP T [to [have [v*P [DP {who}] v*-/broken/[VP {broken} into your house]]]]]]]]
A’ and A Movement to Specv*P/VP
d. [v*P/VP [DP d /who/] [v*[Ag]-believe[Acc] [CP C [TP T [to [have [v*P [DP {who}] v*-/broken/[VP {broken} into your house]]]]]]]
Acc assigned to [DP d /who/]e. [v*P/VP [DP d /who/ [Acc]] [v*[Ag]-believe [CP C [TP T [to [have [v*P [DP {who}] v*-/broken/[VP {broken} into your house]]]]]]]
Merge of you (Ag assigned to you)f. [v*P you[Ag] [v*P/VP [DP d /who/ [Acc]] [v*-believe [CP C [TP T [to [have [v*P [DP {who}] v*/broken/ [VP {broken} into your house]]]]]]](g. [v*P d /who/ [Acc] [v*P you[Ag] [v*-/believe/ [VP {believe} [CP C [TP T [to [have [v*P [DP{who}] v*-/broken/ [VP {broken} into your house]]]]]]]]

7. Concluding Remarks(59) a. Partial Wh-Movement/Wh-expletive/Scope Marking Structures fall within the Disjunction
Function Theory of wh-questions if we make the following assumptions.
b. d can come in (at least) two allomorphs, an abstract morpheme d, which can be associatedwith an indeterminate (i.e, a wh)-phrase), or base-generated in SpecCP, or an overt (free)morphemes like ka in Japanese, was in German, mit in Hungarian, kyaa in Hindi, or hasin Mong Leng. Overt free morphemes can have more than one copy, with each copy
having an unvalued Case feature so that they stop at an appropriate SpecVP to receive a
Case value before raising to SpecCP as in Hindi, Hungarian, German, and Mong Leng,etc.
33

c. ECP is reduced to the Overt Syntax Condition (what is formerly known as the Inactivity
Condition).
Acknowledgements
What I reported in these talks would not have materialized if Satoshi Kinsui had not invited me tojoin his NINJAL research project titled “A Diachronic Contrastive Study of JapaneseInterrogatives” (2013-2016). The core part of the disjunction movement approach to wh-questions
developed during my participation in the project. I am grateful to the members of the researchgroup and the attendees of the conferences where I reported my proposals for their comments on
the earlier versions of the proposal.
The part dealing with partial wh-movement is the product of my research as a visiting colleague atthe Department of Linguistics, the University of Hawaii at Manoa (November 2021-May 2022). I
am grateful to the Linguistics Department for their hospitality and to the attendees of the Tuesday
Seminar where I reported on the result of my research for their insightful comments.

References
Barbiers, Koeneman and Lekakou (2010) “Syntactic Doubling and the Structure of Chains.”
Journal of Linguistics:1-46
Barss, Andrew, Ken Hale, Ellavina Tsosie Perkins, and Margaret Speas (1991) “Logical formand barriers in Navajo.” In James Huang and Robert May (eds.), Logical Structure andLinguistic Structure, 25-47. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Bayer, Joseph (1996) Directionality and Logical Form: On the Scope of Focussing Particles andWh-in situ. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Bruhn, Daniel (2007) “LF Wh-Movement in Mong Leng.” Term Paper, UC Berkeley
Department of Linguistics.
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen (2000) ““Partial” Wh-Movement.” In Luther Chen-Shen Liu and Kazue
Takeda (eds.) UCI working Papers in Linguistics 4: 27-50.
Chomsky, Noam (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam (2001) “Derivation by Phase.” In In Michael Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A
Life in Language: 1-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dayal, Veneeta Srivastav (1994) “Scope Marking as Indirect Wh Dependency.” Natural
Language Semantics 2, 137–170.
Déprez, Viviane (1990) On theTypology of Positions and Chains. Doctoral dissertation, MIT,
Cambridge, MA.
Egashira, Hiroki and Shigeo Tonoike (2010) 「不活性条件と主要部移動の Excorporation 分
析」日本言語学会第 141 回大会口頭発表[“Inactivity Condition and an Excorporation
Analysis of Head Movement” 141st Meeting of Linguistic Society of Japan]
Fanselow, Gisbert and Anoop Mahajan (2000) “Towards a Minimalist Theory of Wh-Expletives,
Wh-Copying, and Successive Cyclicity.” In Lutz, Müller, von Stechow (eds.), Wh-Scope
Marking, 192-230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fox, Danny (2002) “Antecedent-contained Deletion and the Copy Theory of Movement.”
Linguistic Inquiry 33:63-96.
Hagstrom, Paul Alan (1993) Decomposing Questions. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
34

Hagstrom, Paul Alan (1998) “The Movement of Question Particles.” NELS 30: 275-286.
Hamblin, Charles L. (1973) “Questions in Montague English.” Foundations of Language 10: 41–
53.
Herburger,E.,1994. “A Semantic Difference between Full and PartialWh-Movement in German.”
A Talk at LSA.
Hasegawa, Kinsuke (2003)『⽣成⽂法の⽅法−英語統語論のしくみ』研究社 [Methods ofGenerative Grammar: Organization of English Syntax, Tokyo, Kenkyusha.
von Heusinger, Klaus and Ruth Kempson (2004) “Choice Functions in Semantics.” Research on
Languages and Computation 2: 307-308.
von Heuisinger, Klaus (2004) “Choice Functions and the Anaphoric Semantics of Definite NPs.”
Research on Languages and Computation 2: 309-329.
Horvath, Julia (1997) “The Status of ‘Wh-expletives’ and the Partial Wh-movement
Construction of Hungarian.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 509–572.
Horvath, Julia (2000) “On the Syntax of “Wh-Scope Marker” Constructions: Some Comparative
Evidence.” In Lutz, Müller, von Stechow (eds.), Wh-Scope Marking: 271-316.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Horvath, Julia (2013) “Focus, (Non-)Exhaustivity, and Intervention Effects in Wh-in-situ
Argument Questions.” The Linguistic Review 30(4): 585–617.
Jayaseelan, K. A. (2008) “Question Particles and Disjunction.” Ms., Central Institute of English
and Foreign Languages, Hyderabad
Karttunen, Lauri (1977) “Syntax and Semantics of Questions.” Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 3–
44.
Kishimoto, Hideki (2005) “Wh-in-situ and Movement in Sinhala Questions.” Natural Language& Linguistic Theory 23: 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-6574-0
Kishimoto, Hideki (2018) “Some Asymmetries of Long Distance Scope Assignment in Sinhala.”
In Kunio Nishiyama, Hideki Kishimoto and Edith Aldridge (eds) Topics in Theoretical
Asian Linguistics: Studies in Honor of John B. Whitman.: 73-96. Amsterdam, John
Benjamins.
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki (1965) Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language.
Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.
Lahiri, Utpal (2003) “On the Proper Treatment of “Expletive Wh” in Hindi.” Lingua 112: 501540.
Lakoff, George (1974) “On Generative Semantics.” In Danny D. Steinberg and Leon A.
Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics; an Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics andPsychology, 232-296. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito (1992) Move a: Conditions on Its Application and Output.
Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
Lahiri, Uptal (2002) “On the Proper Treatment of “expletive wh in Hindi” Lingua 112: 501-540.
Lin, Jo-Wang (2014) “Wh-Expressions in Mandarin Chinese.” In C.-T. James Huang, Y.-H.
Audrey Li and Andrew Simpson (eds.) The Handbook of Chinese Linguistics. Hoboken,
NJ. Wiley-Blackwell.
Lutz, Uli, Gereon Müller and Arnim von Stechow (2000) (eds.), Wh-Scope Marking.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Manetta, Emily (2012) “Reconsidering Rightward Scrambling: Postverbal Constituents in HindiUrdu.” Linguistic Inquiry 43: 43-74.

35

McDaniel, Dana (1998) “Partial and Multiple Wh-Movement.” Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 7: 565-604.
van Riemsdijk, Henk (1983) “Correspondence Effects and the Empty Category Principle.”
Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 12: 1-19. University of Tilburg.
Schauber, Ellen (1979) The Syntax and Semantics of Questions in Navajo. New York: Garland.
Simpson, Andrew and Tanmoy Bhattarya (2003) “Overt Wh-Movement in a Wh-in-Situ
Language.” Linguistic Inquiry 34: 127-142.
Sternefeld, Wolfgang (1999) “Wh-Expletives and Partial Wh-Movement: Two Non-Existing
Concepts?” Ms, Universität Tübingen.
Szabolsci, Anna (2015) “What Do Quantifier Particles Do?” Linguistics and Philosophy 38, 159204.
Tonoike, Shigeo (1987) “Nonlexical Categories in Japanese.” Language and Culture 4:83-97.
Institute of Language and Culture, Meiji Gakuin University.
Tonoike, Shigeo (1991) “Comparative Syntax of English and Japanese.” In Heizo Nakajima (ed.)
Current English Linguistics in Japan. 460-506. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter.
Tonoike, Shigeo (1992) “Operator Movements in Japanese.” Meiji Gakuin Review 507(84): 78142.
Tonoike, Shigeo (1995) “Japanese as an OVS language.” In Shosuke Haraguchi and Michio
Funaki (eds.), Minimalism and Linguistic Theory, 105-133. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Tonoike, Shigeo (2007a) “Japanese and the Symmetry of Syntax (Review Article: Movement
and Silence, by Richard S. Kaine, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005).” English
Linguistics 24(2): 654-683.
Tonoike, Shigeo (2007b) “Banning Covert Operations,” Paper presented at Tuesday Seminar,
Department of Linguistics, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.
Tonoike, Shigeo (2014)「演算子-変項構造と WH 疑問文」変項構造とWH疑問文」『日本
語疑問文の通時的・対照言語学的研究報告書(1)』，21-48. 国立国語研究所．
[“Operator-Variable Constructions and WH Questions.” Research Report DiachronicContrastive Study of Japanese Interrogatives (1): 21-48. National Institute for Japanese
Language and Linguistics.]
Tonoike, Shigeo (2015a) “Excorporation and Parametric Variation between English andJapaense: Merge or Agree.”『慶応大学言語文化研究所紀要』第４６号, 267-300.
Tonoike, Shigeo (2015b) “A General Theory of Wh-Questions.” Tuesday Seminar, Linguistics
Department, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa.
Tonoike, Shigeo (2015c)「日本語の疑問文と「か」と「も」」『日本語疑問文の通時的・対照言語学的研究報告書(2)』77-99,国立国語研究所．[“Japanese Interrogative
Sentences and the Particles Ka and Mo.” Research Report Diachronic-Contrastive Study ofJapanese Interrogatives (2): 77-99. National Institute for Japanese Language andLinguistics.
Tonoike, Shigeo (2015d) 「日英語における多重 WH 構文の扱いと島の制約」『日本語疑問文の通時的・対照言語学的研究報告書(2)』 61-75. 国立国語研究所．[“Multiple
Wh-questions in Japanese and English and Island Constraints.” Research Report
Diachronic-Contrastive Study of Japanese Interrogatives (2), 61-75. National Institute forJapanese Language and Linguistics.]
Tonoike, Shigeo (2019)「第７章 WH 演算子-変項構造: WH 疑問文の一般理論」『ミニマリスト日英語比較統語論』，197-226. 東京：開拓社．[“Chapter 7: WH

36

Operator-Variable Constructions: A General Theory of Wh Questions.” In Minimalist
Comparative Syntax of English and Japanese, 197-226. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.]Tonoike, Shigeo (in preparation) “Chapter 7: WH Operator-Variable Constructions: A General
Theory of Wh Questions.” In Minimalist Comparative Syntax of English and Japanese.
Ueda, Masanobu (1990) Japanese Phrase Structure and Parameter Setting. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Winter, Yoda (2004) “Functional Quantification.” Research on Languages and Computation 2:
331-363.
Zhong (2017) “Comparative Syntax of Mandarin Chinese and English.” Class presentation, Ling
750X, University of Hawaii at Manoa.

37