MULTIPLE WH-QUESTIONS AND LEFT PERIPHERY *Masao Ochi
Osaka University

1. Introduction
The main goal of this paper is to present an empirical argument for positing
uninterpretable/unvalued features (henceforth uFs) in wh-dependencies in light of the ProbeGoal analysis. Focusing (almost exclusively) on the Case-agreement system, Chomsky in his
recent writings proposes the following condition for feature checking/valuation.
(1)

Probe and Goal must both be active for Agree/Move to apply.

Crucially, uFs are what render Probe and Goal active. In Case-agreement dependencies (i.e.,
A-dependency), the probe’s uninterpretable/unvalued φ-features and the goal’s Case features
play a crucial role in driving the computation. As an illustration, let us consider the following
simple example.
(2)

a.
b.

John was arrested t
T
was arrested John[uφ, EPP][iφ, uCase]

P (T in this case) seeks an active goal G in order to value and eliminate its uφ-features. The
object DP, with interpretable/valued φ-features, is G in this case. G is rendered active by thepresence of the uninterpretable/unvalued Case feature.
If we extend this picture to A’-dependencies, such as wh-constructions, we are led toposit uFs for the interrogative C and a wh-phrase. Following Chomsky (2000), let us
tentatively refer to them as Q-feature and wh-feature, respectively. According to thishypothesis, a wh-question such as (I wonder) what you bought would be analyzed in thefollowing manner. Consider (3). Due to the presence of the EPP-feature on C, Move is called
for. The Agree part of Move checks off the wh-feature of what and the Q-feature of C. Piedpiping applies to what, placing it in the specifier of CP and satisfying the EPP property of theprobe.

* This paper is based on a workshop presentation at the 3rd Kansai Annual Meeting of the English
Literary Society of Japan held at Kwansei Gakuin University on December 20, 2008, which was inpart based on the material included in Ochi (2004). I would like to thank the workshop participants for
useful comments and questions. I would also like to thank a number of people (linguists and nonlinguists) who provided crucial data on various occasions.
Nanzan Linguistics 7, 23-42©2011 Masao Ochi

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011

(3)

a.

C
you bought what
[uQ]
[iQ]
[EPP]
[uWh]

b.

what
C you bought t
[iQ]
[uQ]
[uWh] [EPP]

Some questions remain with such an attempt to extend the P-G system to whdependencies, however. In particular, there has been little, if any, justification for positinguFs in wh-dependencies. In the case of Case-agreement dependencies, postulation of uF is
well grounded: Case is morphologically visible in a number of languages and, crucially, it is astandard assumption in the filed that it plays no role in LF interpretation. On the other hand,
although wh-feature is morphologically visible in one form or another in a number oflanguages (as in English wh-), such feature is relevant for LF interpretation. Similarly, Qfeature of the interrogative C should be classified as [+interpretable]. Thus, this line ofextension of the probe-goal system needs ample empirical justification.
A potential advantage of positing uFs in wh-dependencies is in fact hinted at in
Chomsky (2000), and is fully explored by authors such as Rizzi (2006) and especially
Bošković (2008). Once an element moves into the specifier of the interrogative head, it isfrozen for a further movement. Consider the ungrammaticality of (4a) and a potential
derivational stage in (4b). Chomsky argues that if a syntactic object has all of its uFschecked/valued, it is no longer active, which is why who in this example cannot raise into thematrix clause.
(4)a. * Who do you wonder bought what?
b.
do you wonder [CP who C [TP t bought what]]

The goal of this paper is to provide additional support for analyzing wh-dependencies interms of the probe-goal system. I attempt to do this with the following descriptive
generalization (due originally to Chomsky 1973).
(5)

Uniformity Condition on Multiple Wh-questions1
A wh-element externally merged into the specifier of the interrogative CP cannot
participate in multiple wh-questions.

Chomsky’s (1973) original idea is that the interpretation of multiple wh-phrases must be
1

Chomsky’s (1973: 282) original formulation:(i)Assign a wh-phrase not in COMP to some higher structure [COMP +wh] and interpret as in (248)where the interpretation is uniform in this COMP node (note: (248) is a rule that interprets whquantifiers that bind a trace/variable).

- 24 -

Multiple Wh-questions and Left Periphery (M. Ochi)

uniform in terms of trace/variable binding: each and every wh-phrase interpreted by the sameinterrogative C must bind a trace/variable.
The following examples in (6), discussed in Chomsky (1973), will help us see the point.
(6a) obeys this restriction, assuming that what moves to the interrogative C in covert syntax,
leaving behind a trace, as illustrated in (7a). On the other hand, assuming that whether isdirectly merged with the interrogative C, (6b) runs afoul of this restriction, as shown in (7b).
(6)

a.
I wonder who bought what.
b. * I wonder whether John bought what.

(7)a.
I wonder [whoi, whatj Comp [ti bought tj]]b. * I wonder [whether, whatj Comp [IP John bought tj]]

One may nonetheless raise questions about the explanation of (6b) in terms of the uniformity
condition, since this example may be ruled out on independent grounds. In particular, themeaning assigned to such a sentence, e.g., “I wonder which of these things are such that John
did or didn’t buy them” (Hornstein 1995: chapter 7), may be pragmatically odd. Thus, weneed other, more convincing cases to establish the validity of the uniformity condition underdiscussion. In what follows, I will attempt to achieve two things. I will first confirm thevalidity of (5) on the basis of the behavior of adjunct wh-phrases in several languages. I willthen show how its effect can be derived under the probe-goal system as currently conceived
in the minimalist syntax.
2. Empirical Support for the Uniformity Condition on Multiple Wh-Questions
2.1 Chinese
According to Tsai (2008), the causal zenme ‘how come’ is base-generated in the C
domain. And this wh-element fails to occur in multiple wh-questions, regardless of the word
order among the wh-phrases and regardless of whether the wh-phrase occurring with zenme issubject as in (8) or object as in (9). This conforms to the generalization in (5).
(8)

a.

* (nimen,) shei zenme hui chuli
zhe-jian shi?
you guys who how
will handle this-Cl matter‘*How come who will handle this matter?’b. * (nimen,) zenme shei hui chuli
zhe-jian shi?
you guys how
who will handle this-Cl matter(9)a.

* ni zenme hui hena-zhong jiu?
you how
will drink which-kind wine‘*How come you will drink which kind of wine?’- 25 -

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011b. * zenme ni hui hena-zhong jiu?
how
you will drink which-kind wine

(Tsai 2008)

In addition, the distribution of weishenme offers potential support for the samegeneralization. In principle, weishenme may precede or follow the subject.
(10) a.

Ni weishenme mai-le shu?
you whybought book
‘Why did you buy a book?’b.

Weishenme ni mai-le shu?
why
you bought book
‘Why did you buy a book?’

Some speakers allow weishnme in multiple wh-questions.2 Crucially, for such speakers, there
is a tendency to disfavor weishnme in the position preceding the wh-subject.
(11) a.

Shei weishenme mei
who why
not

lai?
come

‘Who didn’t come why?’b. * Weishenme shei mei
why
who not(12) a.

lai?
come

Ni weishenme mai-le shenme?
you whybought what
‘Why did you buy what?’b.

??

Weishenme ni mai-le shenme?
why
you bought what

Now let us assume the following.
(13) a.
b.

weishenme does not undergo overt movement (i.e., the surface position ofweishenme reflects the merging site of this wh-adjunct).
weishenme is externally merged into the spec of CP when preceding the subject,and somewhere in the TP complement of C when following the subject.3

2

There seems to be a variation among speakers in this regard. Thus, Tsai (2008) reports that thereason weishenme cannot occur in multiple wh-questions (but even for him, the order shown in (11a)is judged to be better than that in (11b)).
3

See also Tsai (2008). See Ko (2005) and Soh (2005) for alternative views.

- 26 -

Multiple Wh-questions and Left Periphery (M. Ochi)

Under these assumptions, the degraded status of (11b) and (12b) can be regarded as reflecting
the effect of the uniformity requirement in (5).
2.2 How Come (Collins 1991)
The distribution of how come in multiple wh-questions is another instance falling under
the generalization in (5). Based on several facts about how come (in contrast to why),
including the lack of the long-distance construal of this wh-element as shown below, Collins(1991) argues that how come never undergoes movement, which means that the surface
position of how come directly corresponds to its merging site.
(14) a.
b.

Why did John say Mary left?
How come John said Mary left?

(ambiguous)(matrix only)

As pointed out by Collins, how come fails to participate in multiple wh-questions, unlike why.
This constitutes another case falling under (5).4(15) a.
Why did John buy what?
b. * How come John bought what?
Note that I will assume that how come is merged as the spec of CP, unlike Collins’ (1991)
proposal that it is a (complex) C head. One piece of potential evidence for this assumption
comes from the fact that how come licenses sluicing, which is normally assumed to require a
spec-head agreement (see Lobeck 1995).
(16) A:B:

I’d like to leave.
[CP With whom/Why/How come [C’ C [TP you would like to leave]]]?

2.3 Spanish Subject-Verb Inversion and Multiple Wh-Questions
The behavior of Spanish wh-adjunct potentially provides support for the generalizationin (5). Let us start with the observation that the subject-verb inversion is normally obligatory
in Spanish wh-questions as shown in (17), whereas it is optional with por qué as shown in(18).
(17) a.

* Qué
what

Juan
Juan

vio?
saw

‘What did Juan see?’
b.

4

Qué
what

vio Juan?
saw JuanCollins (1991) also resorts to Chomsky’s (1973) condition to exclude this example.

- 27 -

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011(18) a.

Por qué vio Juan
why
saw Juana Maria?
A Maria‘Why did Juan see Maria?’b.

Por qué Juan
why
Juan

vio a Maria?
saw A Maria

But consider the following data (see Uriagereka 1988, Boeckx 2008). While (19a) is
ambiguous with respect to the modification domain of por qué, the example in (19b), where
inversion does not apply, lacks the embedded reading of por qué. We can take this fact to be
an indication that inversion is in fact obligatory when por qué undergoes movement, short or
long-distance. This in turn shows that por qué has more than one merging site: It may be
merged somewhere in TP/vP and moves to the spec of CP as in (18a), or it may be directly
merged into the spec of CP (and hence no inversion takes place) as in (18b).
(19) a.

Por qué pensaste tú que
whythought you that

Juan vio a Maria?
Juan saw A Maria(ambiguous)‘Why did you think that Juan saw Maria?’b.

Por qué tú pensaste
why
you thought

que
that

Juan vio a Maria?
Juan saw A Maria(*embedded reading)

Now let us turn to the crucial fact: the lack of inversion affects the multiple wh-question with
por qué.5 Unlike (20a), (20b) does not have the ordinary pair-list reading.
(20) a.

Por qué razon hizo Juan que cosa?
whyreason did Juan what thing(pair-list answer)‘Why did Juan do what thing?’b.

Por qué razon Juan hizo que cosa?
whyreason Juan did what thing(single pair answer only)This fact could be attributed to (5). When por qué is directly merged into the spec of CP, it
disrupts the formation of the full-fledged multiple wh-question, with the single pair reading
somehow surviving (I need to set aside the question of how the single pair reading is
obtained).
2.4 Questions with an Attitude
2.4.1 Why the HellTwo other types of wh-adjuncts lend further support to the restriction under discussion.
5

Thanks to Juan Uriagereka (p.c.) for the data and discussion.

- 28 -

Multiple Wh-questions and Left Periphery (M. Ochi)

First, why the hell in English, like how come, which was discussed earlier, does not allow theembedded reading.
(21) a.
b.

Why did John say that Peter is upset?
Why the hell did John say that Peter is upset?

(ambiguous)(matrix only)

Let us assume that why the hell must be externally merged into the spec of the interrogative
CP. And this wh-phrase fails to participate in multiple wh-questions.
(22) a.
Why did you buy what?
b. * Why the hell did you buy what?
2.4.2 WHAT-questions with an Attitude (for Asking Reasons)
A peculiar type of ‘what’-questions found in several languages also confirms the validityof (5). As discussed by Ochi (1999, 2004), this type of wh-adjunct is found in a number oflanguages. For instance, was ‘what’ in German can be used to ask reasons, as illustrated by
the examples below. In order to distinguish this peculiar use of ‘what’ from its ordinary
usage, I will refer to the former as WHAT.
(23) a.

Was
schläfst du
WHAT sleepsyou

so lange?
so long‘Why (the hell) are you sleeping for so long?’b.

Was
tadelnWHAT blame

Sie
you

Hans denn?
Hans‘Why (the hell) are you blaming Hans?’
Two points should be noted here. First, as we can see in the examples above, WHATquestions exhibit verb second (V2) effects. Given the standard view about V2, i.e., that a verb
occupies the C-slot and whatever precedes the verb is located in the specifier of CP, we cansafely conclude that WHAT sits in the spec of the interrogative CP, just like other whphrases. Second, the use of WHAT is most natural in a context in which emotions such as
annoyance, impatience, and surprises etc. are accompanied by the utterance. In this sense, it issimilar to wh the hell phrase discussed in the previous subsection.6
Just like how come (section 2.2) and why the hell (section 2.4.1), WHAT-questions (i.e.,
was for asking reasons) in German do not allow a long-distance construal, as shown by thecontrast between warum ‘why’ in (24a) and WHAT in (24b).

6

This remark also applies to WHAT in Chinese and Japanese (to be discussed shortly).

- 29 -

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011(24) a.

Warum glaubst
whybelieveduyou

dass erthat heso lange schläft?
so long sleeps(ambiguous)‘Why do you believe that he sleeps so long?’b.

Wasglaubst
WHAT believe

duyou

dass erthat heso lange schläft?
so long sleeps(matrix only)‘Why (the hell) do you believe that he sleeps so long?’
The lack of the embedded reading in (24b) immediately follows if we suppose that WHAT in
German has the lexical property/requirement of being directly inserted into the specifier ofinterrogative CP and, consequently, no wh-movement is involved in this construction.
As expected, WHAT in German fails to occur in multiple wh-questions.7 As (25a) and(26a) show, warum ‘why’ occurs in multiple wh-questions under certain circumstances. I will
tentatively attribute the contrast between (25a) and (25b) to superiority effects involving an
adjunct wh-phrase in German (although it is often assumed that no superiority is observed inthis language). 8 In contrast, WHAT is not allowed in multiple wh-questions regardless of theword order, as shown in (25c-d) and (26b).

7

In addition to German, several other wh-fronting languages, such as Bulgarian, Hebrew, and
Hungarian allow the wh-phrase corresponding to ‘what’ to be used for asking reasons. Although I will
focus on German in this subsection, it should be noted that WHAT-questions in these languages
pattern together in the sense that they do not allow a long-distance dependency nor do they participate
in multiple wh-questions.
8

A comment is in order regarding wh-adjuncts in German. Haider (2000) claims that wh-adjuncts
cannot stay in situ in German, which seems to indicate that there is some variation among speakers
concerning this point. One source of this variation may be related to intonation patterns. According to
Wiltschko (1997), intonation patterns (which Wiltschko relates to the issue of D-linking) affect theacceptability of adjunct wh-in-situ. There are two possible intonation patterns for morphologicallycomplex wh-words like warum ‘why’. Either the wh-part is stressed (indicated below as WARum), or
the preposition part is stressed (waRUM). When warum is in the spec of CP, either stress pattern isallowed as shown in (i).
(i)

WARum/waRUM
what

hat Peter
has Peter

was getrunken?
what drunk‘Why did Peter drink what?’
When warum is in situ, however, only the pattern in which the wh-part is stressed is acceptable, as
shown in (ii) below.
(ii) Was
what

hat Peter WARum/?*waRUM getrunken?
has Peter why
drunk‘What did Peter drink why?’- 30 -

Multiple Wh-questions and Left Periphery (M. Ochi)(25) a.

Wer
schläft warum so lange?
who.NOM sleeps why
so long‘Who is sleeping why so long?’b. ??/*Warumwhy

schläft wer
so lange?
sleeps who.NOM so long

‘Who is sleeping why so long?’
c.

* Wer
schläft wasso lange?
who.NOM sleeps WHAT so long
‘Who sleeps why (the hell) so long?’d. * Was
schläft wer
WHAT sleeps who.NOM

so lange?
so long‘Who sleeps why (the hell) so long?’(26) a.

Warum tadeln
why
blame

Sie
you

wen?
who.ACC‘Why are you blaming who?’b. * Was
tadelnWHAT blame

Sie
you

wen?
who.ACC‘Why (the hell) are you blaming who?’(25c) is ruled out by our earlier assumption that WHAT in German has the lexical property
that it must be inserted into the specifier of interrogative CP. Further, (25d) may be ruled out
on a par with (25b), possibly as a superiority violation. Now, the crucial example is (26b).
Nothing other than the uniformity requirement (5) would rule out this example (thanks to
Klaus Abels, p.c. for the data).
There is empirical evidence for the claim that the merging site of WHAT is indeed thesource of the problem in (26b). The crucial evidence comes from Japanese and Chinese. As
discussed by Kurafuji (1996), Japanese also allows nani-o ‘what-ACC’ to be used for asking
reasons, as shown below. Kurafuji also shows that WHAT in Japanese allows long-distancedependencies. 99In both German and Japanese, WHAT occurs within the complement of a verb selecting aninterrogative clause, which clearly demonstrates the interrogative nature of this wh-phrase.
Furthermore, in both languages, WHAT does not easily occur in the complement clause of a factivetype predicate, as shown in (i) below. This sense, WHAT is akin to wh-the-hell, as shown in (ii) (seeden Dikken and Giannakidou 2002)- 31 -

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011(27) a.

Kimi-wa nani-omanga-oyondeiru no?10
you-TOP WHAT-ACC cartoon-ACC reading Q‘Why (the hell) are you reading such a thing as a cartoon?’b.

Kimi-wa [Hanako-ga
nani-omanga-oyou-TOP [Hanako-NOM WHAT-ACC cartoon-ACC
omou
think

yondeiru to]reading thatno?
Q

‘Why (the hell) do you think [that John is reading cartoons t]?’
It is therefore plausible that WHAT in Japanese need not be merged into the interrogative
specifier of CP (see Kurafuji 1996).
Chinese also allows this wh-construction and, not surprisingly, it patterns with Japanese(James Huang, p.c.).
(28) a.

ni shui shenme?
you sleep WHAT
‘Why (the hell) are you sleeping?’b.

ni renwei tamen
you think theyshui shenme?
sleep WHAT

‘Why (the hell) do you think [they are sleeping t]?’Crucially, WHAT in these two languages is fine in multiple wh-questions.
(29) a.

Dare-ganani-oTaro-bakari ijimeteiru no?
who-NOM WHAT-ACC Taro-only bullying Q‘Who keeps bullying Taro why (the hell)?’

(i)

a.

Ich frage mich / weissI
ask myself / know

nicht / *weiss, wasHans so gestresst ist.
not / know WHAT Hans that stressed is‘I wonder/don’t know/*know why Hans is so stressed.’ (German)b.

Boku-wa Taro-ga
nani-ohashitteiru (no) ka tazuneta / sir-anai / ??sitteiru.
I-TOP
Taro-NOM what-ACC running
Q asked/ know-not / ??know‘I asked/don’t know/??know why Taro is running.’ (Japanese)(ii) I wonder/don’t know/*know why the hell he is avoiding me.
10

This example is slightly degraded due to the double-o constraint (see Harada 1973) operating inJapanese. I will abstract away from this point, since it is also known that double -o is tolerated when
one of the -o phrases is an adjunct (see Kuroda 1992: chapter 6).

- 32 -

Multiple Wh-questions and Left Periphery (M. Ochi)b.

Shei shui shenme?
who sleep WHAT
‘Who is sleeping why (the hell)?

This fact indicates that there is no intrinsic property of WHAT that renders it incompatible
with other wh-phrases, since it does occur in multiple wh-questions, provided that it is merged
in a position other than the interrogative spec CP.
3. Deriving the Uniformity Condition
So far, we have seen ample cases to confirm the correctness of the uniformity condition
on multiple wh-questions (5). Now I would like to show that its effect follows rather naturally
under the probe-goal system. Let us assume the following:(30) a.
b.

Probe and Goal must both be active for Agree/Move to apply.
Each and every wh-phrase bears an uF.11

Before discussing how the probe-goal system explains the generalization in (5), we should
consider several types of wh-questions, starting with a single wh-question such as (I wonder)
what John bought. At the point of the derivation at which the interrogative C is introduced
into the structure, Agree holds of the C and what. The latter also moves and remerges with
the C head in order to satisfy the EPP property (whatever this property is).
(31) a.

C[TP John bought what ]
[uQ]
[uWh]
[EPP]

b.

[CP whatC[TP …… t ]][uWh] [uQ][EPP]

As for multiple wh-questions such as who bought what?, I adopt the proposals of Chomsky(2001b), Frampton et al. (1999), and Hiraiwa (2001) to the effect that the probe P can agreewith multiple goals in a simultaneous fashion, which means that intervention effects areevaded insofar as an intervening element is rendered inactive by P. Assuming that theinterrogative C agrees simultaneously with each and every wh-phrase which it interprets, theC in (32a) establishes an Agree relation with both who and what. Since English requires justone wh-phrase to move, the higher wh-phrase, who, remerges with the interrogative C.

11

Contrary to Bošković (2007). Note that, for the reason mentioned in section 1, I will continue to use
terms like uQ and uWh without committing myself to the exact labels/natures of such features.

- 33 -

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011(32) a.

b.

C[TP who bought what ]
[uQ]
[uWh]
[uWh]
[EPP]
[ who
C
[TP t bought what ]][uWh] [uQ]
[uWh]
[EPP]

Now let us turn to the multiple wh-question involving the reason adjunct wh-phrase. We saw
in the previous section that some of them must be merged into the spec of the interrogative
CP (e.g., the causal zenme ‘how come’ in Chinese, how come and why the hell in English, andWHAT in languages like German) whereas others may be merged there or elsewhere (e.g.,
weishnme in Chinese, why in English, and por qué in Spanish). For the sake of convenience, I
will use the term WHY to refer to those two types of reason adjunct wh-phrases. Let us startwith the situation in which WHY is merged somewhere in the complement domain of the C
head, an option available for some but not all instances of WHY. In this case, WHY is probed
by the C on a par with other whs.
(33) C … wh … WHY(order irrelevant)Now turn to the situation in which WHY is merged into the spec of the interrogative CP. I
assume that WHY in this case will act as a probe, taking care of the uQ-feature as well as the
EPP-feature of the interrogative C (see Ko 2005).
(34) [CP WHY[uWh]C[TP …… ]][uQ, EPP]

Now let us turn to the crucial configuration (exemplifying (5)).
(35) *WHY C [TP … wh … ](WHY is merged into its surface position)

Let us consider a point in the derivation at which the interrogative C is merged with TP, with
WHY still in the Numeration and ready to be introduced into the derivation.
(36) C[TP … wh … ]
[uQ]
[uWh]
[EPP]

N = {WHY}[uWh]

Two different derivational paths are available: (i) Agree holding of C and wh, and (ii) WHY
being merged into the specifier of the interrogative CP. As will be demonstrated below, nomatter which path is chosen, at least one of the uFs is bound to remain unchecked/unvalued.
Suppose that Agree holds of the C head and wh first. As shown in (37a) below, the uFs of theC head and the wh-phrase are taken care of. The next derivational step would be to have

- 34 -

Multiple Wh-questions and Left Periphery (M. Ochi)

WHY merged into the spec of CP, as shown in (37b). However, the uF of WHY remains.
(37) a.

b.

C[TP … wh … ]
[EPP]
[uWh]
[uQ]

WHY
C [TP wh ][uWh] [uQ][uWh]Suppose instead that WHY is merged into the structure immediately after the derivational
point shown in (36) is reached. As discussed above, I assume that WHY acts as a probe inthis configuration. Although this Agree relation could take care of the relevant features of
WHY and the C head, the uF of the wh-phrase in situ remains.
(38) WHY C[TP wh ][uWh] [EPP]
[uWh]
[uQ]

In short, once a configuration shown in (36) is constructed, the derivation is bound to crash in
one way or another. In the remainder of this paper, I would like to discuss a few issues arisingfrom this line of analysis.
4. An Alternative Analysis
Let us see if there is an alternative way to derive the effect of the uniformity requirementon multiple wh-questions (5) that does not resort to the idea that the probe and the goal
contain uFs in wh-dependencies. One possibility would be to allude to the idea that Move ispreferred to Merge (see Shima 2000). Consider again the German example in (26b). Supposethat the derivation has reached a point at which a decision has to be made with respect to an
application of the next operation between Move and Merge. If Move is forced at this point inaccordance with the principle under discussion, there is no way to introduce WHAT in the
structure, since German does not permit multiple specifiers in the domain of CP.
(39) whoC[IP … (who) … ][Q, EPP][wh]

N = {WHAT}

Although this is a potential way to derive the effect of (5) in German, it is not obvious if it
can be extended to the Chinese data in (11b) and (12b). Suppose that Chinese wh-in-situ
involves movement in covert syntax. Since Move > Merge is not operative in this language, it
is not obvious how those examples could be ruled out.
Furthermore, we can obtain a more direct argument against utilizing the Move > Merge
principle to derive the effect of (5). Notice that this alternative line of approach capitalizes on- 35 -

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011

the fact that German does not tolerate more than a single specifier. It is therefore interesting
to look at Bulgarian, a multiple wh-fronting language. As shown below, kakvo ‘what’ in
Bulgarian can be used to ask reasons, just like German was ‘what’ and Japanese nani-o‘what-ACC’:(40) Kakvo si se
WHAT aux selfumârlusila?
get down‘Why (the hell) are you so depressed?’This instance of kakvo ‘what’ (for asking reasons) does not allow a long-distance construal as
shown in (41b), just like its German counterpart. Thus, we can safely regard this instance of
kakvo as another instance of WHAT.
(41) a.

Zašto
why

mislisthink

ce Penkathat Penkae zamila taja kola?
wash this car‘Why do you think that Penka is washing this car?’b.

Kakvo mislis
WHAT thinkce Penkathat Penka(ambiguous)e zamila taja kola?
wash this car‘Why (the hell) do you think that Penka is washing this car?’(matrix only)

According to Rudin (1988), all the wh-phrases in multiple wh-constructions in Bulgarian arelocated in the spec of CP. Crucially, kakvo fails to occur in multiple wh-questions, regardlessof the order in which it appears, as shown in (42b) and (42c).
(42) a.

Koj zašto je zamiltaja
who why her za-wash this

kola?
car

‘Who is washing this car why?’b. * Kakvo koj je zamil
taja
WHAT who her za-wash this

kola?
car

‘Who is washing this car why (the hell)?’c.

* Koj kakvo je zamiltaja
who WHAT her za-wash this

kola?
car

‘Who is washing this car why (the hell)?’
If Move > Merge is all that is at stake, it is unclear how examples like (42b) and (42c) are
ruled out. With multiple specifiers of CP permitted in Bulgarian, it should be possible tomove one wh-phrase into a spec first, thus observing Move > Merge, and then insert another- 36 -

Multiple Wh-questions and Left Periphery (M. Ochi)

wh-phrase via External Merge.12 The alternative approach considered in this section should
therefore be rejected on empirical grounds.13
5. Potential Loophole
In section 3, we examined two different derivational paths at the point of the derivation
shown in (36), concluding that both of them will lead to a derivational crash. Let us elaborate
a little more on this issue by considering the following example.
(43) *Why do you wonder John bought what?
Imagine the derivational point shown in (44a). Two continuations are possible, just like in(36): (i) C probes and agrees with what, and (ii) why is externally merged. Suppose that theformer is chosen. As shown in (44b), the relevant features of C and what are taken care of,but the EPP-feature of the C head still needs to be taken care of. Now imagine that why ismerged at this point. This should satisfy the EPP property of C, as shown in (44c). The uF of
why still remains and the derivation continues, constructing the matrix clause. When thematrix C is introduced, all the relevant features are satisfied by the Agree holding of C andwhy followed by remerging of why into the spec of the matrix CP, as illustrated in (44d).
(44) a.

C
John bought what
[uQ]
[uWh]
[EPP]

N = { … WHY … }
[uWh]

b.

C
John bought what
[uQ]
[uWh]
[EPP]

c.

why
C
John bought what[uWh] [uQ]
[uWh]
[EPP]

d.

why
C
do you wonder [CP t CJohn bought what ][uWh] [uQ]
[uQ]
[uWh]
[EPP]
[EPP]

One way in which this unwanted derivation for (43) can be blocked would be to say thatwhen there is a choice between External Merge and Agree/Move in a situation like (33) and(44a), the former option is always chosen. Thus, instead of (44b), we obtain (45a), where why
12

WHAT may be merged into a higher spec, yielding the order shown in (42b), or into a lower spec(by ‘tucking-in’), yielding the order shown in (42c).
13

Of course, the discussion in this section does not reject Shima’s proposal. The point is that theMove over Merge Principle alone is not sufficient to derive the content of (5).

- 37 -

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011is the new probe agreeing with the C, and the latter can no longer serve as a probe, whichmeans that the uF of what remains unchecked/unvalued. The derivation continues and thematrix interrogative C is introduced. But this C head cannot agree with the uF of what
because the latter is too deeply embedded (due to minimality, the PIC, etc.), as illustrated in(45b).
(45) a.

b.

why
C John bought what[uWh] [uQ]
[uWh]
[EPP]

C do you wonder why
C John bought what[uQ]
[uWh] [uQ]
[uWh]
[EPP]
[EPP]

6. Wh-QP Interactions in the Left Periphery
Our discussion so far strongly favors the idea that merging sites of the reason wh-adjunctinclude the spec of CP and an additional position within TP/vP (see Collins 1991, Aoun and
Li 1993 among others) over an alternative hypothesis that all instances of WHY are always
merged into the spec of CP (see Rizzi 1999, Ko 2005, Stepanov and Tsai 2008 etc.). If thelatter hypothesis were correct, all instances of multiple wh-questions with WHY would be
expected to be equally excluded.
I would now like to briefly discuss scope interactions between WHY and the subject QP
and examine how these two competing hypotheses fare with the facts. Let us focus on thefollowing contrast noted by Collins (1991).
(46) a.
b.

Why did everyone leave?
How come everyone left?

(every > wh; wh > every)(*every > wh; wh > every)

I adopt Collins’ proposal that the ambiguity of (46a) is due to the movement of why,assuming that why is (or, can be) base-generated somewhere in the complement domain of C,
below the surface position of the subject QP, as shown in (47a). (46b) is unambiguous
because how come does not undergo movement at all (as shown in (47b)) and hence neverfalls within the scope of the subject QP. Essentially the same account could cover Chinese
data like (48).
(47) a.
b.

Why did [TP everyone leave t ]How come [TP everyone left ]- 38 -

Multiple Wh-questions and Left Periphery (M. Ochi)(48) a.

Meigeren dou
everyone all

weishenme da ta?
why
hit him(every > wh; wh > every)‘Why did everyone hit him?’b.

Weishenme
whymeigeren dou
everyone allda ta?
hit him(*every > wh; wh > every)

We should now consider whether or not this kind of contrast can be accommodated under the
hypothesis that WHY is always merged as the spec of CP. Fitzpatrick (2005) in fact provides
an interesting analysis along this line. He first argues that how come is exceptional among
English wh-phrases (including why) in that it is a factive wh-phrase, a point also noted by
Collins (1991). This is demonstrated by the contrast in (49). Why-questions like (49a) havethe flavor of a rhetorical question, as the speaker in this case expects a negative answer (e.g.,
He would not leave.). According to Fitzpatrick, (49b) is bad because of the conflict between
this negative-bias and the factive/presuppositional nature of how come, as summarized in(50). No such conflict arises in (49a) because why is not a factive wh-phrase.
(49) a.
Why would he leave?
b. * How come he would leave?
(50) a.
b.

Factive presupposition: He would leave.
Negative bias:
He would not leave.

Returning to the contrast in (46), Fitzpatrick analyzes the ambiguity of (46a) in terms of thecovert movement of the subject QP over why, as illustrated in (51a) below. He then suggeststhat the same covert movement is not available in (51b). This is where the factive nature of
how come becomes crucial for Fitzpatrick. His idea is that this property renders the TP
complement of how come an island (factive island), barring the (covert) movement of thesubject wh-phrase over how come.
(51) a.
b.

everyone [why [TP t left ]][how come [island everyone left ]]As for the Chinese data in (48), one could follow Ko (2005) and claim that (48a) is derived
from (48b) via the movement of meigeren across weishenme ‘why’ in Chinese (she assumes
the latter to be always merged into the spec of CP). Then, the ambiguity of (48a) can betreated on a par with that of (46a), the only difference between the two being the timing of the
movement of the subject QP (overt in Chinese and covert in English). Thus, it seems that thecontrast we see in examples like (46) and (48) can be accommodated successfully under thestronger hypothesis that WHY is always merged into the spec of CP (as well as under our
weaker position).

- 39 -

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011

There are empirical reasons to question this line of analysis, however. First, recall thatthe pre-modal (causal) zenme in Chinese is always base-generated in the C domain (Tsai
2008). Crucially, Tsai reports that the order of zenme and the subject QP does not affectscope. In particular, (52b) lacks the wide scope reading of meigeren ‘everyone.’(52) a.

(nimen,) zenme
meigeren hui dai
yi-ben shu?
you guys how come everyone will bring one-Cl book
‘How come everyone will bring one book?’b.

(wh > every; *every > wh)(nimen,) meigeren zenme
hui daiyi-ben shu?
you guys everyone how come will bring one-Cl book
‘How come everyone will bring one book?’(wh > every; *every > wh)This shows that movement of the subject QP across WHY in the spec of CP is indeed
possible, but it does not establish a new scope relation (for whatever reasons). This casts
doubt on the explanation of the ambiguity seen in (48a) in terms of the movement of thesubject QP. Turning to English, recall that there are reasons to suppose that why the hell in
English, like how come, is always merged into the spec of the interrogative CP. Crucially forus, the former is not factive, since examples like why the hell would he leave? are fully
acceptable. And yet, it behaves on a par with how come in disallowing the subject QP to takescope over it.
(53) Why the hell did everyone leave?

(wh > every; *every > wh)14

To sum up, the ambiguity of (46a) and (48a) should not be tied to the movement of thesubject QP. Rather, it arises via overt/covert movement of why and weishenme, which werebase-generated in the complement domain of the interrogative C.
7. Conclusion
In this paper, I first showed that Chomsky’s (1973) uniformity requirement on multiple
wh-questions is a valid cross-linguistic generalization. Then I showed how the probe-goalsystem, where uFs play a crucial role, can derive the nature of this uniformity. To the extent
that this analysis is successful, it supports the idea that probes and goals have uFs in whdependencies. The analysis also supports the idea of multiple feature-checking as asimultaneous operation. Finally, it also shows that probes and goals become inactive themoment their uFs are taken care of (see, for example, Epstein and Seely 2002). If suchfeatures were accessible for a short while even after checking/valuation (e.g., until the14

According to den Dikken and Giannakidou (2002), even the argument wh the hell fails to yield
scope ambiguity in examples like what the hell did everyone buy?. But my informants report that if we
use each instead of every, the wide scope reading of the subject QP becomes salient.
(i)What the hell did each girl buy?

- 40 -

Multiple Wh-questions and Left Periphery (M. Ochi)

completion of a phase domain), we would lose an account of the uniformity condition.

References
Aoun, J. and Y.-H. A. Li (1993) Syntax of Scope, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Boeckx, C. (2008) Bare Syntax, Oxford.
Bošković, Ž. (2007) “On the Locality and Motivation of Move and Agree: An Even More Minimal
Theory,” Linguistic Inquiry 38, 589-644.
Bošković, Ž. (2008) “On the Operator Freezing Effect,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26,
249-287.
Chomsky, N. (1973) “Conditions on Transformations,” in S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky, eds., A
Festschrift for Morris Halle, 232-286, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Chomsky, N. (2000) “Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework,” in R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J.
Uriagereka, eds., Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik, MIT
Press, Cambridge, Mass., 89-155.
Chomsky, N. (2001a) “Derivation by Phase,” in M. Kenstowicz, ed., Ken Hale: A Life in Language,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1-52.
Chomsky, N. (2001b) “Beyond Explanatory Adequacy,” MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20.
Collins, C. (1991) "Why and How Come," MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15, 31-45.
Dikken, M. den and A. Giannakidou (2002) “From hell to Polarity: “Aggressively Non-D-linked” Whphrases as Polarity Items,” Linguistic Inquiry 33, 31-61.
Epstein, S. and D. Seely (2002) “Rule applications as Cycles in a Level-free Syntax,” in S. Epsteinand D. Seely, eds., Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, Blackwell, 6589.
Fitzpatrick, J. (2005) “The Whys and How Comes of Presupposition and NPI Licensing in
Questions,” in J. Alderete, C.-H. Han and A. Kochetov, eds., Proceedings of the 24th West
Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Cascadilla Press, 138–145.
Frampton, J, S. Gutmann, J. Legate and C. Yang (2000) “Remarks on “Derivation by Phase”: Feature
Valuation, Agreement, and Intervention,” unpublished ms., Northeastern University andMIT.
Haider, H. (2000) “Towards a Superior Account of Superiority,” in U. Lutz, G. Müller, and A. vonStechow, eds., Wh-Scope Marking, John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, 231–248.
Harada, S.-I. (1973) “Counter Equi NP Deletion,” Annual Bulletin of the Research Institute of
Logopediacs and Phoniatrics 7, 113-147.
Hiraiwa, K. (2001) “Multiple Agree and the Defective Intervention Constraint in Japanese,” in O.
Matushansky et al., eds., Proceedings of the 1st HUMIT Student Conference in Language
Research (HUMIT2000), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40, 67-80.
Hornstein, N. (1995) Logical Form: From GB to Minimalism, Blackwell.
Ko, H. (2005) “Syntax of Why-in-situ: Merge into [Spec, CP] in the Overt Syntax,” Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 23, 867-916.
Kurafuji, T. (1996) “Unambiguous Checking,” in M. Koizumi, M. Oishi and U. Sauerland, eds.,
Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics: Proceeedings of FAJL2, MIT Working Papers
in Linguistics 29, 81-96.
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1992) Japanese Syntax and Semantics, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lobeck, A. (1995) Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing, and Identification. Oxford.
Ochi, M. (1999) Constraints on Feature Checking, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.

- 41 -

Nanzan Linguistics 7: Research Results and Activities 2010 ~ 2011

Ochi, M. (2004) “How Come and Other Adjunct Wh-phrases: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective,”
Language and Linguistics 5.1, 29-57.
Rizzi, L. (1999) “On the Position “Int(errogative)” in the Left Periphery of the Clause,” unpublishedms., Università di Siena.
Rizzi, L. (2006) “On the Form of Chains: Criterial Positions and ECP Effects,” in L. L.-S. Cheng and
N. Corver, eds., Wh-movement: Moving on, MIT Press, 97-134.
Rudin, C. (1988) “On Multiple Questions and Multiple Wh-fronting,” Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 6, 445-501.
Shima, E. (2000) “A Preference for Move over Merge,” Linguistic Inquiry 31, 375-385.
Soh, H.-L. (2005) “Wh-in-situ in Mandarin Chinese,” Linguistic Inquiry 36, 143-155.
Stepanov, A. and W.-T. D. Tsai (2008) “Cartography and Licensing of Wh-Adjuncts: A CrossLinguistic Perspective,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26, 589–638.
Tsai, W.-T. D. (2008) “Left Periphery and How-why Alternations,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics
17, 83–115.
Uriagereka, J. (1988) On Government, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Wiltschko, M. (1997) “D-linking, Scrambling, and Superiority in German,” Groninger Arbeiten zur
germanistischen Linguistik 41, 107–142.

- 42 -