Qu-morpheme Agreement and Wh-question Interpretations
Jason Ginsburg
University of Aizu
The following multiple wh-questions allow a pair-list response.
(1) Who read what? (Stroik 2009:66)(2) What did Pat give to whom? (Stroik 2009:66)(3) Who expects whom to win? (Stroik 2009:66)(4) Who wants Pat to read what? (Stroik 2009:74)(5) Who seems to whom to be smart?
(6) Which book was written by which author?
For example, it is possible to respond to (1) with the following:(7) John read Moby Dick, Mary read Crime and Punishiment, ….
However, the following multiple wh-questions, at least in certain dialects, allow only
single-pair answers.
(8) What did who see? (Stroik 2009:85)(9) Who believes that who left? (Stroik 2009:74)(10) Who believes that Chris read what? (Stroik 2009:74)
The single-pair response to (8) in (11a) is fine, but the pair-list response in (11b) is illformed.
(11) (a) John saw a movie.
(b) *John saw a movie, Mary saw a play, and Fred saw a music show.
I demonstrate that the availability of a pair-list reading depends on whether or not aQu-morpheme ‘Qu’ is able to form an Agree relation with two wh-phrases.
I propose that in (1-6) there is a Qu that forms an Agree relation with both whphrases, thereby making a pair-list interpretation possible, and in (8-10), Qu only
Agrees with one wh-phrase, thereby making only a single-pair response possible. I
follow Cable’s (2010) view that in languages such as English, a wh-phrase is basegenerated within a QuP as the complement of Qu, and that Qu must establish a featurechecking relation with C. Qu moves to C and brings its associated wh-phrase with it,thus resulting in wh-movement. I propose that in a multiple wh-question in English,
there can only be one Qu which is base generated together with one of the wh-phrases,
which is the wh-phrase that undergoes wh-movement. In addition, I propose that insome cases Qu Agrees with a single wh-phrase, in which case only a single-pair answer
is permitted, and in some cases Qu Agrees with two wh-phrases, thereby permitting apair-list response.
The base structure of (1-4) is shown in (12). The higher wh-phrase wh1 is basegenerated as the complement of Qu, and Qu initially Agrees with wh1. The features of
Qu percolate up to the QuP and probe for and Agree with the lower wh-phrase wh2.
Agree is signified by the bracketed subscripts referring to the relevant wh-phrase.

(12) [v*P [QuP Qu[F:1,2] wh 1] … wh 2…]
In (5-6), the lower wh-phrase wh1 is base generated as the complement of Qu and Qu
agrees with it. This QuP moves to subject position, where Qu probes for and Agreeswith wh2.
(13) [TP [QuP Qu[F:1,2] wh 1]… wh 2…[QuP Qu[F:1] wh 1]]
This Agreement of Qu with multiple wh-phrases in (12-13) gives both wh-phrases
scope and enables a pair-list interpretation once the QuP finally moves to [Spec, CP],
where it is licensed.
The lack of a pair-list interpretation for (8) is also accounted for. As shown in (14),the lower wh-phrase what is base generated as the complement of Qu. The QuP
undergoes wh-movement to [Spec, CP] over the higher wh-phrase who. When it arrives
in [Spec, CP], Qu undergoes a feature checking relation with C and becomesinactivated, a form of criterial freezing (Rizzi 2006). Since Qu becomes inactivated it
cannot probe for and Agree with who. Thus, a pair-list interpretation is not allowed.
(14) [CP [QuP Qu[F:1,2] what 1]… who 2…[QuP Qu[F:1] what1]]
It may be the case that who moves through the v*P edge on its way to CP, in accord
with Phase Theory (Chomsky 1999), but from this non-argument edge position it isunable to probe.
The lack of a pair-list interpretation in (9-10) also results from the inability of Qu toAgree with a second wh-phrase, as shown in (15). The higher wh-phrase wh1 is basegenerated within a QuP, and Qu Agrees with wh1. Qu continues to probe, but probing
is blocked by the C of the embedded clause, thus making it impossible for Qu to Agreewith wh2. This blocking effect is attributed to the features of Qu and the features of C
being of the same type, since Qu requires licensing by C.
(15) [v*P [QuP Qu[F:1] wh 1]… [CP [Cthat] wh2…]]
I demonstrate the details of how this Qu-agreement analysis accounts for the(non)availability of pair-list interpretations in a variety of multiple wh-questions.
References: [1] Chomsky, Noam. 1999. Derivation by phase. MITWPL 18. [2] Cable,Seth. 2010. Against the existence of pied-piping: Evidence from Tlingit. LinguisticInquiry 41:563-594. [3] Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions
and ECP effects. In Lisa Cheng and Norbert Corver (eds.), Wh-Movement: Moving on.
MIT Press, 97-134. [4] Stroik, Thomas S. 2009. Locality in Minimalist syntax. MITPress.