ON WH-NOMINAL/ADVERB INTERACTION AND THE LEFT PERIPHERY∗
Barry C.-Y. Yang
National Tsing Hua University

1.

Introduction
It is generally observed that wh-movement exhibits Superiority effect:(1) a. Whoi ti bought whatb. *Whati did who buy ti
Huang’s (1982) ECP account can account for the superiority effect above. (1b) is out because
the subject trace is not properly governed (neither head-governed nor antecedent-governed) as
illustrated in (2b):(2) a. [whatj [whoi]]i [ ti buy tj ]b. *[whoi [whatj]]j [ ti buy tj ]↑ECP can also account for the in-situ wh-adjuncts cases in (3), since as illustrated in (4) the
adjunct trace tj is not properly governed:(3) a. * Who arrived why?
b. * Who fixed the car how?

(Reinhart 1998)(Bošković 2000)(4) a. *[whyj [whoi]]i [ ti left tj ]↑b. *[howi [whoi]]i [ ti fixed the car tj ]↑Yet, ECP cannot explain the following superiority cases since both the wh-traces will beproperly head governed after LF-movement:This paper was mostly presented at Tsing Hua - Nanzan Workshop on Movement and Interpretation,
Nazan University, Nagoya, Sept. 14-15, 2006. I thank Mamoru Saito, Dylan Tsai, Yuji Takano,Hisatsugu Kitahara, and Hiroshi Aoyagi for the comments and discussions. All errors are mine alone.
∗

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1, 165-186© 2007 Barry C.-Y. Yang

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1(5) a. */?Whom did Lucie discuss what with e?

(Reinhart 1998)

b. */?Who did Lucie persuade who [PRO to visit e]? (Reinhart 1998)
Similarly, the crossing effect in (6) cannot be accounted for by ECP since both wh-traces areproperly head-governed:(6) a. ?Which booki do you know whoj to persuade tj to read ti

b. *Whoj do you know which booki to persuade tj to read ti.
“Attract Closest” can be of help here: (Chomsky 1995, Bošković 1997, Kitahara 1997,
Richards 2001)(7) Attract (Richards 2001)
An attractor K attracts a feature F, creating a copy α’ of an element α containing F,
and Merging α’ with K. The relations between α’, K, and F must all obey Shortest.
The basic idea of Attract Closest is that the attractor will always attract the closest element
first. The Attract Closest directly rules out the standard Superiority effect as in (1b) and the
puzzling ECP case for Huang in (5) since in these examples what are attracted first by theC-head are not the closest wh-words.
Meanwhile, the crossing effect in (6) is nicely accounted for. As one can see from thederivation in (8) (=(6a)), when the sentence is built up to the embedded C, the highest
wh-word who is attracted first to check the relevant [+Q] feature (8b). Later when thesentence hits the matrix C, the second wh-word which book is attracted (8d) since the first
wh-word who has checked its uninterpretable feature and thus remains inert to the matrix
C-head.
(8) a. Step 1[Q [ to persuade who to read which book]]]]b. Step 2[whoj [to persuade tj to read which book]]]c. Step 3[Q [you know [whoj [to persuade tjto read which book]]]d. Step 4[Which booki [you know [whoj to persuade tj to read ti]]]Also, some cases of wh-argument/adjunct interaction can be explained by Attract Closest,- 166 -

On Wh-nominal/adverb Interaction and the Left Periphery (B. C.-Y. Yang)assuming the wh-adjunct why a VP adverbial. (9a) is ruled out simply because the wh-object
who is not the closest element to C.
(9) a. *Whoi did [IP you [VP see ti ]why]?

(Lasnik & Saito 1984:242)

b. Whyi did you buy what ti?

(Huang 1982, Saito 2003)

However, if we turn back to the other in-situ wh-adjunct cases in (3) (repeated below),
Attract Closest is of no help here.
(3) a.
b.

*Who arrived why?

(Huang 1982, Reinhart 1998, Saito 2003)*Who fixed the car how?

(Bošković 2000)

Both Reinhart (1998) and Saito (2003) suggest that why in English should not remain in-situ.
For Reinhart, in-situ wh-adverbs do not denote first order Choice function variables; for Saito
why should always check the primary sub-feature of Q. Simply put, why should move first in
English. This accounts for (3) and (9) above.
But still when how/why interacts with the wh-subject as exemplified in (10), thewhy-move-first approach (Reinhart 1998, Saito 2003) demands more explanation since both
why and how have moved first:(10) a.
b.

*Why did who leave?
*How did who fix the car?

(Cheng & Demirdash 1990, Pesetsky 2000)

It seems that none of the above mentioned approaches can provide a satisfactory account.
Now, turning to relevant Chinese examples, one will find that they exhibit even moreinteresting phenomena. Generally speaking, Chinese simplex sentences allow multiple
occurrences of wh-nominal as in (11).
(11) Shei mai-le shenme?
who buy-Prf what
‘Who bought what?’
Since Chinese is a language without overt wh-movement, it is not easy to observe thesuperiority effect. To see this, we can only embed the multiple wh-clause with the matrix
interrogative predicate like wonder as exemplified in (12). Yet, no superiority effect isobserved because either the wh-subject or the wh-object can take the matrix scope (Huang
1982:267(198)):1
1

Richards (2001:245) suggests that Chinese wh-words do obey Superiority (contra Huang (1982)).
That is, Attract Closest seems to also apply at LF:- 167 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1(12) Ni xiang-zhidao [shei mai-le shenme]?
you want-know who buy-Prf whata. Lit. ‘Who do you wonder ___ bought what?’b. Lit. ‘What do you wonder who bought ___?’
More interestingly, in Mandarin Chinese a wh-nominal generally cannot co-occur with awh-adverb:2(13) a. *Shei weishenmeR likai?
who whyleave(Chen & Rooryck 2002: (49b), Hunag 1982:545(57))‘Who left why?’b. *WeishenmeR shei hui cizhi? (Tsai 2004: (77))
why
who will resign‘Why will who resign?’
Please note that in this paper the wh-adverbs are limited to the reason-why weishenme ‘why’
and the manner-how zenme(yang) ‘how’. Both the reason-why and the manner-how are thegenuine wh-quantifiers subject to island constraints at LF (Tsai 1994, 1999, see also Reinhart
1998). A superscript is added to indicate the reading of the wh-adverbs, i.e., weishenmeRreferring to the reason-why, zenme(yang)M, the manner-how.
ECP and Attract Closest cannot explain (13a) while the why-move-first approach cannot
explain (13b). In section 2, I will illustrate a general paradigm of the wh-nominal/adverb
interaction in simplex and complex sentences in Mandarin Chinese. Section 3 lists potential
accounts for the paradigm illustrated in section 2 and shows that none of them can account for(i)Jingcha xiang-zhidao [shei sha-lepolice want-know
who kill-Prfshei]?
whoa. ‘Whoi are the police trying to find out whoj ti killed tj?
b. *‘Whoj are the police trying to find out whoi ti killed tj?
According to my informants, including myself, both readings in (i) are acceptable. Even though (ia) ismore prominent, (ib) is still fine. In other words, there is no apparent superiority effect in such an
example. Our judgment is therefore akin to Huang’s (1982:267(198)) judgment.
2

We use the term wh-nominal and wh-adverb in this study instead of the traditional term
wh-argument and wh-adjunct because according to Tsai (1994, 1999) wh-nominals refer to bothwh-arguments and nominals-encoded wh-adjucts, e.g. purpose-why and method/instrument-how, bothof which are subject to unselective binding, whereas wh-adverbs, e.g. reason-why and manner-how aregenuine wh-operators/quantifiers which have to undergo LF-movement to take their scopes. In thisstudy, all the wh-adverbs interacting with wh-nominals are limited to the LF-moving
operators/quantifiers.

- 168 -

On Wh-nominal/adverb Interaction and the Left Periphery (B. C.-Y. Yang)

this paradigm. Section 4 provides a plausible analysis involving intervention effect. Section 5
concludes this study with possible theoretical implications and consequences.
2.

More observations

In what fllows, I will show that in simplex sentences, a wh-nominal cannot co-occur with awh-adverb/A-not-A-operator in Mandarin Chinese, regardless of the ordering. On the other
hand, When embedded with an interrogative matrix predicate like ‘wonder’, the wh-nominal
can co-occur with the wh-adverb/A-not-A-operator. Meanwhile, only the wh-nominal can takethe matrix scope at LF.
2.1

The simplex sentence

Let’s look at the simplex sentences first. The examples in (14-17) suggest that a wh-adverb
cannot co-occur with a wh-nominal.
(wh-subject vs. why)(14) a. *Shei weishenmeR likai?
who whyleave(Chen & Rooryck 2002: (49b))‘Who left why?’b. *Shei weishenmeR bu lai?
who why
not come(Huang 1982:545)‘Who does not come why?’c.??Shei weishenmeR hui cizhi?
who why
will resign(Tsai 2004: (77a))‘Who will resign why?’d. *WeishenmeR shei hui cizhi?
why
who will resign(Tsai 2004: (77b))‘Who will resign why?’(wh-object vs. why)(15) a.??WeishenmeR ni mai-le shenme?
why
you bought what

(Ochi 2003, due to J. Huang)‘Why did you buy what?’3

3 Ochi (2003) provides an example, due to J. Huang, where why can co-occur with what in Chinese:- 169 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

b. *Ni weishenmeR hui kangjian shei?
you why
will seewhom‘Why will you see whom?’c. *Ni weishenmeR hui pa
shei?
you why
will afraid whom
‘Why are you afraid of whom?’(wh-subject vs. how)(16) a. *Shei zenme(yang)M duen nurou?
who how
stew beef‘Who stewed beef how?’b. *Shei zenme(yang)M pa Zhangsan?
who howfear Zhangsan‘Who fears Zhangsan how?’(i)Ni weishenme mai-le shenme?
you whybought what
‘Why did you buy what?’

For me, this sentence can only denote, if any, the purpose-why reading which according to Tsai
(1999b) is due to the purpose-why being merged in VP-adjoined position. The sentence thus only has
the reading akin to ‘For what purpose did you buy what?’
The following tests from Stepanov and Tsai (2006) can prove my claim. They suggest that thesentient verb and the locative-existential predicate require the non-agentive subjects which in turn are
only compatible with the reason-why. Now, the weishenme ‘why’in the following example is restricted
to the reason-why reading and the sentence is not acceptable.
(transitive sentient verb)(ii) *Ni weishenme pa
you why
fear

shenme?
what‘Why did you fear what?’(locative-existential predicates)(iii) *Chuang-shang weishenmetang-le shenme-ren?
bed-o
why
lie-Prf what-person
Lit. ‘On the bed why lies who?’- 170 -

On Wh-nominal/adverb Interaction and the Left Periphery (B. C.-Y. Yang)(wh-object vs. how)(17) a. *Zhangsan zenme(yang)M xiu shenme?
Zhangsan how
fix what‘How did Zhangsan fix what?’b. *Zhangsan zenme(yang)M pa shei?
Zhangsan how
fear who‘How does Zhangsan fear who?’
Meanwhile, since Huag (1982) the A-not-A question in Chinese has been patterned withwh-questions where the A-not-A operator undergoes LF-movement and is subject to island
constraints. Interestingly, the A-not-A operator simply cannot co-occur with a wh-nominal:(wh-subject vs. A-not-A)(18) a. *Shei xi-bu-xihuan Lisi?
who like-not-like Lisi

(Huang 1982:545)

Lit. ‘Who likes Lisi or not?’b. *Hui-bu-hui
shei xihuan Lisi?
will-not-will who like
Lisi
Lit. ‘Will it be the case or not that who likes Lisi?’(wh-object vs. A-not-A)(19) *Nixi-bu-xihuan shei?
you like-not-like whom
Lit. ‘You like whom or not?’A general pattern is illustrated below where either ordering of the wh-nominal and thewh-adverb/A-not-A-operator is ruled out:(20) a. *[‘who/what’ … ‘why/how/A-not-A’ …]
b. *[‘why/how/A-not-A’ … ‘who/what’ …]
2.2.

The complex sentence

Let’s look at the complex sentences now. As first observed by Huang (1982), when embedded
as interrogative clauses, the above mentioned sentences in Chinese turn out to be good. The
wh-nominals can co-occur with the wh-adverbs reason-why or manner-how or the A-not-A
operator. Meanwhile, only the wh-nominals in question can take the matrix scope.

- 171 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1(wh-subject vs. ‘why’/‘how’/A-not-A)(21) a. Ni xiang-zhidao [shei weishenmeR mai-le shu]
you want-know
who whybuy-Prf book

(Huang 1982:525)4?Lit. ‘Who do you wonder ___ why bought books?’#Lit. ‘Why do you wonder who ___ bought books?’b. Ni xiang-zhidao [shei zenme(yang)M mai-le shu]
you want-know
who howbuy-Prf book

(Huang 1982:526)?Lit. ‘Who do you wonder ___ how bought books?’#Lit. ‘How do you wonder who ___ bought books?’c. Ni xiang-zhidao [shei xi-bu-xihuan ni]
you want-know
who like-not-like you(Huang 1982:530)?Lit. ‘Who do you wonder ___ likes you or not?’#Lit. ‘Is it the case or not that you wonder who likes you?’(wh-object vs. ‘why’/‘how’/A-not-A)(22) a. Ni xiangzhidao [Lisi weishenmeR mai-le shenme]
you wonder
Lisi whybuy-Asp what

(Huang 1982:526)?Lit. ‘What do you wonder why Lisi bought ___?’#Lit. ‘Why do you wonder Lisi ___ bought what?’b. Ni xiangzhidao [Lisi zenme(yang)M mai-le shenme]
you wonder
Lisi howbuy-Asp what

(Huang 1982:526)?Lit. ‘What do you wonder how Lisi bought ___?’#Lit. ‘How do you wonder Lisi ___ bought what?’c. Ni xiangzhidao [Lisi
you wonder
Lisi

xi-bu-xihuan shei]
like-not-like who?Lit. ‘Who do you wonder whether Lisi likes ___ or not?’#Lit. ‘Is it the case or not that you wonder Lisi likes who?
A general pattern is illustrated below where only the wh-nominal can take the matrix scope at
LF.

4Still the matrix reading of who is not so natural. My informants would have to parse the sentence fora while to get it. Yet, it has a sharp contrast with the unacceptable matrix why reading. I therefore put a“?” to the matrix who reading and a “*” to the matrix why reading.

- 172 -

On Wh-nominal/adverb Interaction and the Left Periphery (B. C.-Y. Yang)(wh-subject vs. ‘why’/‘how’/A-not-A)(23) S-S: [… ‘wonder’ [‘who/what’ … ‘why/how/A-not-A’ …]]
a. LF: ?[‘whoi/whati’] [… ‘wonder’ [ ti … ‘why/how/A-not-A’ …]]
b. LF: *[‘whyj/howj/A-not-Aj’] [… ‘wonder’ [ ‘who/what’ …tj…]](wh-object vs. ‘why’/‘how’/A-not-A)(24) S-S: [… ‘wonder’ [‘why/how/A-not-A’ … ‘who/what’ …]]
a. LF: ?[‘whoi/whati’] [… wonder [‘why/how/A-not-A’ … ti …]]
b. LF: *[‘whyj/howj/A-not-Aj’] [… wonder [ tj … ‘who/what’ …]]
Summary:
In Simplex sentences, a wh-nominal CANNOT co-occur with a wh-adverb/A-not-A
operator, regardless of the ordering.
When embedded with the interrogative matrix predicate ‘wonder’, the wh-nominal CAN
co-occur with the wh-adverb/A-not-A-operator. Meanwhile, only the wh-nominal cantake the matrix scope at LF.
3.

Potential accounts

The following accounts can only partially explain the paradigm illustrated above.
3.1.

Subjacency account

Although the complex sentences in (21-22) seem to exhibit the weak island effect, we do notknow why the simplex sentences in (14-18) are ruled out since there is no way for any of thewh-elements to violate Subjacency.
3.2.

ECP account

ECP cannot explain why (15), (17) and (19) involving wh-objects are out since obviously thewh-object trace, tj, is properly head-governed as illustrated in the general structure (25), evenif we assume Comp-indexing (Aoun, Hornstein, & Sportiche 1981) at LF and Huang’s (1982)
LF-movement of in-situ wh-words.
(25) [‘whatj’ [‘whyi/howi/A-not-Ai’]]i [IP ti …[VP V tj ](= the LF of (15), (17) and (19))

Meanwhile, as Bošković (2000:(24)) points out, the ECP account cannot explain the overt
wh-nominal/adverb interaction in the overt wh-fronting languages such as Bulgarian (see also
Haider 1986). In (26) the wh-adjunct trace is not properly governed after Comp-indexing.

- 173 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1(26) [CP [[Koj] kak] [C’ e kupil kniga]]
who how is bought book
‘Who bought the book how?’
3.3.

Superiority account

The superiority account cannot explain why the wh-nominal/adverb interactions in
simplex sentences as in (14-19) are ruled out since they do not violate the Superiority
condition (even if we adopt mechanisms like Attract Closest and Fewest Steps (Chomsky
1995, Bošković 1997, Kitahara 1997, Richards 2001)). On the other hand, even though we
may treat the complex sentences in (22) as the crossing phenomenon like the English case in(6), we do not know why the same phenomenon disappears in (21) where the higher
wh-subject presumably can be fixed in the embedded CP while the lower
wh-adverb/A-not-A-operator takes the matrix scope.
3.4.

Merging ‘why’ at CP (Epstein 1998, Ko 2003, 2006, Stepanov & Tsai 2006)

For Stepanov & Tsai (2006), they can explain Chinese examples in (14d) and (15) (general
structure illustrated below) by assuming the Unselective Binding analysis (Tsai 1994) since
the slot for merging a Q-operator at CP has already been taken by wheishenme ‘why’
rendering the Unselective Binding unavailable.
(27) *[CP ‘why’ [IP …‘who/what’…]↑(no binder for the wh-nominal)
Yet, they are vague in the examples like (14a-c) and (21a) (general structure illustrated below
as (28)) where they suggest that it is “the wh-subject that renders an intervention effect for apotential LF movement/Agree of the reason why”. This seems to suggest that the wh-adverb
why is adjoined to IP and undergoes subsequent LF-movement to CP, instead of being merged
at CP.
(28) *[CP ‘who’ ‘why’ [IP …]
For Ko (2003, 2006), she judges the paradigm in (14d) and (15) to be grammatical, which, as
already shown in footnote 3, can be acceptable only with the purpose-why reading. What weare discussing here is the reason-why reading with which the paradigm in (14d) and (15) can
not be grammatical.
For the paradigm in (14a-c) (general structure illustrated in (28) above), she suggests that
wh-topicalization is never possible in Chinese, contrary to fact (see Jianxin Wu 1999 for a
detailed illustration on Chinese wh-topicalization (or focus movement)). Even so, she stillcannot explain why (21a) (repeated below) is acceptable.

- 174 -

On Wh-nominal/adverb Interaction and the Left Periphery (B. C.-Y. Yang)(21) a. Ni xiang-zhidao [shei weishenmeR
you want-know
who whymai-le shu]buy-Prf book

(Huang 1982:525)?Lit. ‘Who do you wonder ___ why bought books?’#Lit. ‘Why do you wonder who ___ bought books?’
Furthermore, the “merging-why-at-CP” approach cannot be extended to constructions
involving the other wh-adverb manner-how and the A-not-A operator, which exhibit the same
pattern as the wh-adverb reason-why with respect to the wh-nominal/adverb interaction in
Mandarin Chinese.
4.

An intervention effect accountIn this section I would like to propose that the paradigm illustrated in section 2 can be
explained by the intervention effect (de Swart 1992, Beck 1996, Beck and Kim 1997,
Pesetsky 2000, Ko 2003). More specifically, the ungrammatical sentences/readings in theparadigm in section 2 are attributed to the intervention effects on the LF-moving wh-adverbs/
A-not-A-operator. On the other hand, the grammatical sentences/readings in the same
paradigm are simply due to the fact that Chinese wh-nominals generally do not exhibit
intervention effect. Before we move on to the analysis, a brief introduction to intervention
effect is necessary.5
5What is under discussion in this paper is different from the “strong” notion of intervention effectdeveloped by Kim (2002, 2005) and Beck (2005). They limit their discussions to a core set ofintervention effect, i.e., focus effect, since it enjoys a stable blocking phenomenon across languages.
(i)*[CP Qi [FocP […whi …]]](Kim 2002, 2005)

By “strong” I mean that even in Mandarin Chinese the wh-nominals are also ruled out by the focus
effect as exhibited in (ii) where shi (focus marker similar to English cleft construction), zhiyou ‘only’,
lian ‘even’ are focus markers.
(ii) a.

*Shi Zhangsan
SHI Zhangsan

chi-leshenme?
eat-ASP what

‘What was x such that it was Zhangsan that ate x?’b. ?*Zhiyou
only

ZhangsanZhangsanchi-leshenme?
eat-ASP what

‘What did only Zhangsan eat?’c. ?*Lian
Zhangsan dou chi-leeven Zhangsan all eat-ASP

shenme?
what‘What did even John ate?’
In this paper, what is served as the diagnostics on covert movement is the “weak” notion ofintervention effect to which only the wh-adverbs are sensitive as already exhibited in the contrast- 175 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

4.1.

Intervention effect in Mandarin Chinese

Generally speaking, the intervention effect may serve as a diagnostics on covert
wh-movement. As illustrated in (29), a scope-bearing element X blocks the LF-movement ofa wh-word:(29) Intervention effect*whi… X … whi …,
where X is a scope-bearing element, and the wh-dependency is created by
LF movement of a wh-word(adapted from Ko 2003)
The German example below shows that LF-movement of the in-situ wh-word wen ‘whom’ orwo ‘where’ is blocked by an intervening scope-bearing element niemand ‘nobody’. Hence thesentences are ruled out.
(German, Beck 1996:3)(30) a. ??Was glaubt niemand wen Karl gesehen hat?
what believes nobody whom Karl seenhas
‘Who does nobody believe that Karl saw?’b. ??Wen hat niemand wo
gesehen?
whom has nobody where seen
‘Where did nobody see whom?’
In Mandarin Chinese, wh-nominals are not sensitive to intervention effect whereas
wh-adverbs/A-not-A-operator are sensitive to it (Cheng & Rooryck 2002, Tsai 2004, Soh
2005, ):
(wh-nominal)(31) a. Suoyou de xuesheng dou jian-guo
shei?
all
DE student all meet-EXP who‘Who has all the students meet?’b. Ta mei jian-guo shei?
he NEG meet-EXP who‘Who has he not meet?’between (31) and (32). (See Yang 2006 for the discussion on the strong/weak contrast in intervention
effect.)- 176 -

On Wh-nominal/adverb Interaction and the Left Periphery (B. C.-Y. Yang)(wh-adverb)(32) a. Ta weishenmeR/zenme(yang)M da
Lisi?
he why/howbeat Lisi‘Why/how did he beat Lisi?’b. *Bingfei ta weishenmeR/zenme(yang)M da Lisi?
nothe why/howbeat Lisi
Lit. ‘Why/how was it not the case that ___ he beat Lisi?’c.. *Suoyou de xuesheng dou weishenmeR/zenme(yang)M da
Lisi?
all
DE student all why/howbeat Lisi‘Why/how did all the students beat Lisi?’(A-not-A operator)(33)a. Ta hui-bu-hui jian
he will-not-will meet

Lisi?
Lisi

‘Will he or not meet Lisi?’b. *Bingfei ta hui-bu-hui
jian Lisi?
nothe will-not-will meet Lisi
Lit.‘It is not the case that he will meet Lisi or not?’c.. *Suoyou de xuesheng dou hui-bu-hui
jian Lisi?
all
DE student all will-not-will meet Lisi
‘Will all the students meet Lisi or not?’Meanwhile, it is suggested in the literature that that Chinese wh-nominals should involve
no movement at all whereas wh-adverbs do undergo covert movement (or feature movement)(Tsai 1994, 1999, Reinhart 1998, Cheng & Rooryck 2002). It is therefore safe to investigate
into the intervention effect of these LF-moving wh-adverbs/A-not-A-operator which, as will
be clear later, in turn leads to the ungrammatical sentences/readings discussed in the paradigm
in section 2.
4.2.

Attract Closest revisited

I will maintain Attract Closest in my analysis. Though at first sight it seems not to beable to account for the language paradigm in section 2, I propose that by assuming Tsai’s(1994) unselective binging (or Reinhart’s (1998) Choice Functional approach) and Rizzi’s left
periphery system of CP, the Attract Closest may remain intact while the paradigm underdiscussion is well accounted for.
Let’s recapitulate the problems of Attract Closest first. As one can tell from example (12)- 177 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1(repeated below) which involves two wh-nominals, Attract Closet would predict it to exhibit
crossing phenomenon as in (6), contrary to fact (see also footnote 1).
(12) Ni xiang-zhidao [shei mai-le shenme]?
you want-know who buy-Prf whata. Lit. ‘Who do you wonder ___ bought what?’b. Lit. ‘What do you wonder who bought ___?’On the other hand, as already mentioned in section 3.3, Attract Closet cannot explain why all
the simplex sentences in (14-19) involving wh-nominal/adverb interaction are ruled out. Also,with respect to crossing effect in the complex sentences in (21) and (22), there is no knowing
why only the wh-nominal takes the matrix scope since at least in (21) the higher wh-subject
presumably can be fixed in the embedded CP while the lower wh-adverb/A-not-A-operator
takes the matrix scope in the same vein as (6).
For the constructions involving two wh-nominals like (12), the unselective binding
approach (Tsai 1994, see also Reinhart 1998) comes in handy. The unselective binding is
generally assumed to be insensitive to locality effect. Therefore, either wh-nominal can bebound by either Q-operator as illustrated in (34). Hence, no crossing effect is observed.
(34) Ni xiang-zhidao [shei mai-le shenme]?
you want-know who buy-Prf whata. Qx [you wonder Qy[who(x) bought what(y)]]b. Qy [you wonder Qx[who(x) bought what(y)]]For the constructions involving wh-nominal/adverb interaction, I will adopt Rizzi’s(1999) “Split-CP” system where CFOC is the merging site for a Q-operator binding thewh-nominals and CINT is the landing site for the LF-moving wh-adverbs/A-not-A-operator.
Simply put, what is traditionally assumed to be one C-head as the attractor for bothwh-nominals and wh-adverbs is now split into two independent C-heads, CFOC and CINT,
attracting their corresponding wh-elements.
(35) [CINT … CFOC [IP … ]]where CINT = the landing site for wh-adverbs/A-not-A-operator; CFOC = the merging site
for a Q-operator binding the wh-nominals ‘who/what’
The basic idea to account for the wh-nominal/adverb interaction is this. Since Chinese
wh-nominals do not exhibit intervention effect while wh-adverbs/A-not-A-operator do exhibit
so, what leads to the ungrammatical sentences/readings in the wh-nominal/adverb interactionis then the intervention effect of the LF-moving wh-adverbs/A-not-A-operator. Namely, these
LF-moving elements are the intervenees. Meanwhile, the Q-operator responsible for licensing
wh-nominals in Chinese serves as the intervener.

- 178 -

On Wh-nominal/adverb Interaction and the Left Periphery (B. C.-Y. Yang)(36) [CINT …

CFOC Q-OPx [IP …wh(x)… ‘why/how/A-not-A’… ]] (order irrelevant)↑Intervener
LF-movement

In this sense, Attract Closest remains intact. On the one hand CFOC is responsible for the
wh-nominals only. The Q-operator merged at CFOC unselectively binds its corresponding
wh-nominals regardless of a higher wh-adverb or A-not-A operator because the wh-nominals
and the wh/adverbs/A-not-A-operator are of different type (Tsai 1994, Reinhart 1998). On theother hand the CINT attracts its corresponding wh-adverbs/A-not-A-operator, only that thesubsequent LF-movement of the wh-adverb/A-not-A-operator may be blocked by anintervening Q-operator merged at CFOC.
In what follows, I will illustrate in detail the derivations for the wh-nominal/adverb
interactions in the left periphery of CP.
4.3.

Simplex sentence

Recall that in Chinese simplex sentences a wh-nominal generally cannot co-occur with awh-adverb, regardless of the ordering of these two types of wh-elements. In this section I
show that such a phenomenon results from the intervention effect on the LF-moving
wh-adverbs/A-not-A-operator. Let’s start from the general structure (20a) (repeated below)
where ‘who/what’ precedes ‘why/how/A-not-A’.
General structure I:(20a) *[‘who/what’ … ‘why/how/A-not-A’ …]
Derivations:(37) a. Structure before LF-operation[CINT[+Q] … CFOC[+Q] [‘who/what’ … ‘why/how/A-not-A’ …]
b. Step 1: Merging a Q-operator at CFOC[+Q] to bind who/what (Tsai 1994)[CINT[+Q] … CFOC[+Q]Q-OP [‘who/what’ … ‘why/how/A-not-A’ …]
c. Step 2: CINT[+Q] attracts ‘why/how/A-not-A’, triggering intervention effect[CINT[+Q] … CFOC[+Q]Q-OP [‘who/what’ … ‘why/how/A-not-A’ …]

As one can tell from (37c), the Q-operator merged at CFOC serves as a scope-bearing element
which in turn blocks the LF-movement of ‘why/how/A-not-A’, an obvious intervention effect.
Now, let’s try the other ordering (20b) where ‘why/how/A-not-A’ precedes ‘who/what’:- 179 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

General structure II:(20b) *[‘why/how/A-not-A’ … ‘who/what’ …]
Derivations:(38) a. Structure before LF-operation[CINT[+Q] … CFOC[+Q] […‘why/how/A-not-A’ … ‘who/what’ …]
b. Step 1: Merging a Q-operator at CFOC[+Q] to bind who/what[CINT[+Q] … CFOC[+Q]Q-OP […‘why/how/A-not-A’ … ‘who/what’…]
c. Step 2: CINT[+Q] attracts why/how/A-not-A, triggering intervention effect[CINT[+Q] … CFOC[+Q] Q-OP [ …why/how/A-not-A …… who/what …]

Note that in (38b) the ‘why/how/A-not-A’ does not block the unselective binding of thewh-nominal ‘who/what’ from the Q-operator merged at CFOC since on the one handunselective binding does not follow locality constraint, while on the other hand what the
O-operator needs is the wh-nominal serving as a variable, instead of the quantifier-/operatorlike wh-adverbs/A-not-A-operator. Meanwhile, (38c) exhibits the same intervention effect asin (37c).
In this section, I have shown that the reason why in Chinese simplex sentences awh-nominal generally cannot co-occur with a wh-adverb/A-not-A-operator is because of theintervention effect on the LF-moving wh-adverb/A-not-A-operator. In the next section, I willshow that in Chinese complex sentences, where a wh-nominal interacts with a wh-adverb/
A-not-A-operator in the embedded clause, it is still the intervention effect that filters out the‘why/how/A-not-A’ reading.
4.4.

Complex sentence

Recall that when the ungrammatical sentence in the previous section is further embeddedwith a matrix interrogative predicate like ‘wonder’, the whole complex sentence turns out tobe grammatical and only the wh-nominals can take the matrix scope reading. This section
works on such derivations in detail. I will show that the matrix ‘why/how/ A-not-A’ reading is
ruled out due to the intervention effect.
Let’s start from the general structure (23a) and in the following derivations (39) I show
how the matrix ‘why/how/A-not-A’ reading is ruled out:
General structure III:(23a) [… ‘wonder’ [‘who/what’ … ‘why/how/A-not-A’ …]]- 180 -

(matrix who/what reading only)On Wh-nominal/adverb Interaction and the Left Periphery (B. C.-Y. Yang)

Derivations: (*matrix ‘why/how/A-not-A’ reading)(39) a. Structure before LF-operation[CINT[+Q] … ‘wonder’ [ CFOC[+Q] [‘who/what’ … ‘why/how/A-not-A’ …]]
b. Step 1: Merging a Q-operator at CFOC[+Q] to bind who/what[CINT[+Q] … ‘wonder’ [CFOC[+Q]Q-OP [‘who/what’ … ‘why/how/A-not-A’ …]]
c. Step 2: CINT[+Q] attracts why/how/A-not-A y (intervention effect))[CINT[+Q] … ‘wonder’ [CFOC[+Q]Q-OP [‘who/what’ … ‘why/how/A-not-A’ …]](39a) is the structure before LF-operation. Due to principles of economy, only the necessary
head for interpretation is projected. Here we want ‘why/how/A-not-A’ to take the matrix scope
while ‘who/what’, the embedded scope, so the CINT is projected at the matrix CP while the
CFOC is projected at the embedded CP.6 In (39b) a Q-operator is merged at CFOC binding‘who/what’. Nothing goes wrong with this step. In (39c), however, the subsequent
LF-movement of ‘why/how/A-not-A’ is blocked due to the intervening Q-operator. Therefore,
the matrix ‘why/how/A-not-A’ reading is never possible.
Now, I show how the matrix ‘who/what’ reading is derived. To yield the desired reading,
the CFOC is projected at the matrix CP whereas the CINT is projected at the embedded CP (40a).
In (40b) the embedded CINT attracts the closest corresponding wh-element ‘why/how/A-not-A’.
Nothing goes wrong with this step. In (40c), a Q-operator is merged at the CFOC of the matrix
CP. The Unselective Binding relation is built up between the Q-operator and it corresponding‘who/what’. No intervention effect is observed and the matrix ‘who/what’ reading is
successfully derived.
Derivations: (matrix ‘who/what’ reading)(40) a. Structure before LF-operation[CFOC[+Q] … ‘wonder’ [ CINT[+Q] [‘who/what’ … ‘why/how/A-not-A’ …]]
b. Step 1: CINT[+Q] attracts why/how/A-not-A[CFOC[+Q] …‘wonder’ [ CINT[+Q] [‘who/what’ … ‘why/how/A-not-A’ …]]

6

Even if both the CINT and CFOC are projected in the embedded CP to avoid the cyclicity violation, thederivations still work as (39) suggests, only that the intervention effect occurs at the embedded CP
when ‘why/how/A-not-A’ first lands at the embedded CINT crossing the intervening Q-operator at theembedded CFOC.

- 181 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

c. Step 2: Merging a Q-OP at matrix CFOC[+Q] binding the in-situ who/what(no intervention effect)[CFOC[+Q]Q-OP… ‘wonder’ [ CINT[+Q] ‘whyi/howi/A-not-Ai’ [who/what ... ti …]

Similar derivations can also be observed in the general structure (24a) (repeated below) where‘why/how/A-not-A’ precedes ‘who/what’ in the embedded clause. Following my illustration
above, one can easily tell only the matrix ‘who/what’ reading is possible whereas the matrix‘why/how/A-not-A’ reading is ruled out by the intervention effect.
General structure IV:(24a) [… ‘wonder’ [‘why/how/A-not-A’ … ‘who/what’ …]]
Derivations: (*matrix why reading)(41) a. Structure before LF-operation[CINT[+Q] … ‘wonder’ [ CFOC[+Q](‘who/what’ reading only)[‘why/how/A-not-A’ … ‘who/what’ …]]

b. Step 1: Merging a Q-OP at embedded CFOC[+Q] binding the in-situ ‘who/what’[CINT[+Q] … ‘wonder’ [ CFOC[+Q]Q-OP [‘why/how/A-not-A’ … ‘who/what’ …]]

c. Step 2: CINT[+Q] attracts ‘why/how/A-not-A’ (intervention effect))[CINT[+Q] … ‘wonder’[ CFOC[+Q]Q-OP [‘why/how/A-not-A’ … ‘who/what’ …]]

Derivations: (matrix ‘who/what’ reading)(42) a. Structure before LF-operation[CFOC[+Q] … ‘wonder’ [ CINT[+Q] [‘why/how/A-not-A’ … ‘who/what’ …]]
b. Step 1: CINT[+Q] attracts why/how/A-not-A[CFOC[+Q] … ‘wonder’ [ CINT[+Q] [‘why/how/A-not-A’ … ‘who/what’ …]]

c. Step 2: Merging a Q-OP at matrix CFOC[+Q] binding the in-situ ‘who/what’[CFOC[+Q] Q-OP… ‘wonder’ [ CINT[+Q] ‘whyi/howi/A-not-Ai’ [‘who/what’ … ti …]]

5. Theoretical implication and consequence
At first sight, the Attract Closest adopted in this paper seems to be selective in the sensethat different C-heads attract their corresponding wh-elements (CFOC attracts ‘who/what’ and
CINT attracts ‘why/how/A-not-A’. Yet, such a concern can be eased with the checking theory
where different elements are checked by their corresponding checking heads. The attractor- 182 -

On Wh-nominal/adverb Interaction and the Left Periphery (B. C.-Y. Yang)

only attracts the elements of the relevant features corresponding to the attractor. Therefore,
the Attract Closest remains virtually intact.
Meanwhile, as Dylan Tsai (p.c.) points out, assuming two independent C-heads within
the same CP would lead to the situation where the wh-elements attracted by the higher C
c-command and thus scope over those attracted by the lower C. For the wh-nominals, in thisstudy the wh-nominals are unselectively bound by a Q-operator merged at CFOC, which is on apar with the Baker-style “absorption”. Therefore, the wh-nominals take the same scope within
one CP. As for the wh-adverbs/A-not-A-operator, there is no knowing if they, i.e.,‘why/how/A-not-A’ at CINT, do scope over ‘who/what’ at CFOC within one CP domain since in
Mandarin Chinese these two types of wh-elements cannot co-occur in a simplex sentence. We
may simply assume that the whole CP is one general scope domain for wh-elements even if
the CP is split into two or more layers. I will leave the issue open.
The analysis addressed in this study may have the following typological prediction. In a
CP-prominent language, such as Chinese, wh-nominals and wh-adverbs have their
independent positions/projections at CP respectively. Attract Closest thus attracts thewh-elements of the same kind/feature as the attractor, i.e., CFOC attracts wh-nominals while
CINT attracts wh-adverbs. On the other hand, in a non-CP-prominent language, such as English,
there is only one C-head. Attract Closest simply attracts the closet wh-element regardless of
its type.
With such a typological prediction, let’s go back to the English cases (3) and (9),repeated below, and try to account for the distribution with an intervention account.
(3) a. *Who arrived why?
b. *Who fixed the car how?

(Huang 1982, Reinhart 1998, Saito 2003)(Bošković 2000)(9) a. *Whoi did [IP you [VP see ti ]why]?

(Lasnik & Saito 1984:242)

b. Whyi did you buy what ti?

(Huang 1982, Saito 2003)

Suppose English is a non-CP-prominent language where, unlike Chinese, only one C-head is
projected for the wh-movement. In (3) the wh-subject who is attracted first due to Attract
Closest. Yet, subsequent LF-movement of why/how would cross the intervening who,
triggering intervention effect.7 (9a) is out simply because what is attracted first is not thehigher VP-adjunt why, a violation of Attract Closest. On the other hand, (9b) is acceptablebecause the wh-object undergoes covert phrasal movement which according to Pesetsky’s(2000) characterization does not induce intervention effect.

7

I assume multiple specifier approach for the single C-head in English so that the first wh-word is
attracted to the lower SpceCP while the second wh-word, the higher SpecCP.

- 183 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1(43) Intervention effect (universal characterization)
A semantic restriction on a quantifier (including wh) may not be separated from thatquantifier by a scope-bearing element.
(Pesetsky 2000:67)
The same reasoning extends to the sentence ‘Who bough what?’ in English where thewh-object what undergoes covert phrasal movement. Hence, no intervention effect isobserved.
How about (44)? We may have two possible solutions. The first one is that they both
violate Attract Closest since why/how is lower than the wh-subject who. The second one isthat the wh-subject in these sentences undergo feature movement (Pesetsky 2000) so that
following Pesetsky’s characterization above, these sentences are ruled out due to intervention
effect.8(44) a. *Why did who buy the books?

(Huang 1982:559(92b))b. *How did who fix the car? (Cheng & Demirdash 1990:(18b), Pesetsky 2000: fn. 95)

References:
Aoun, J., N. Hornstein and D. Sportiche. 1981. Some Aspects of Wide Scope Quantification. Journalof Linguistic Research 1, 69 - 95.
8

As pointed out by Yuji Takano (p.c.), the first solution, Attract Closest approach, is not thedetermining factor since the following sentence is still out:(i)*Why did John think who bought the book?

In the above sentence "why" is obviously the closest wh-element to the matrix C-head, whereas thesentence is still ruled out. Therefore, the first possible solution doesn't seem to work.
The following argument suggests that the second solution inspired by Pesetsky's (2000) notion ofintervention effect may be the right one. Pesetsky's reasoning is this. He suggests that the following
wrong sentences are due to the intervention effect where the wh-phrase ‘which person’ undergoesfeature movement so that the semantic restriction of it and its Q/wh feature is intervened by a negation
marker:(ii)*Which book didn't which person read?
(cf. Which book did which person not read?)(iii)*Which book didn't John think which person read?
(cf. Which book did John think which person didn't read?)(Pesetsky 2000:60)

Following Pesetsky, we may judge the in-situ wh-subject ‘which person’ here above as undergoing
feature movement, sensitive to intervention effect. With this reasoning, we may account for theungrammaticality in (44) and (1) above at the same time. That is, both the wh-subject ‘who’ in (44)and (1b) undergo feature movement, which then is sensitive to intervention effect.

- 184 -

On Wh-nominal/adverb Interaction and the Left Periphery (B. C.-Y. Yang)

Beck, Sigrid. 1996. Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement. Natural Language Semantics
4:1, 1-56.
Beck, Sigrid. 2005. Intervention Effects Follow from Focus Interpretation, ms.
Beck, S. and S.-S. Kim. 1997. On wh- and operator scope in Korean. Journal of East Asian
Bošković, Željko (1997). On certain violations of the Superiority Condition, AgrO, and. economy ofderivation. Journal of Linguistics 33(1), 227-254.
Bošković, Željko. 2000. Sometimes in SpecCP, Sometimes In-situ, in R. Martin, D, Michael and J.
Uriagereka (eds.), Step by Step, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 53-88.
Cheng, L. and Hamida Demirdash. 1990. Superiority Violations, ms.
Cheng, L. and J. Rooryck. 2002. Types of wh-in-situ, ms. Leiden University.
Epstein, Samuel David. 1998. Overt scope marking and covert verb-second. Linguistic Inquiry 29:
181-227.
Haider, Hubert. 1986. Affect α: A reply to Lasnik and Saito, On the nature of proper government.
Linguistic Inquiry 17: 113-126.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical Relation in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
Kim, S.-S. 2002. Intervention effects are focus effects. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10, CSLI
Publication, 615-628.
Kim, S.-S. 2005. Focus intervention effects in questions. Paper presented at TEAL Workshop 3,
Harvard University.
Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1997. Elementary Operations and Optimal Derivations, MIT Press, Cambridge,
Mass.
Ko, Heejeong. 2003. Syntax of Why-in-situ: Merge into [Spec, CP] in the overt syntax, ms.
Ko, Heejeong. 2006. On the structural height of reason wh-adverbials: acquisition and consequences,ms.
Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito. 1984. On the Nature of Proper Government. Linguistic Inquiry
15.2:235-289
Ochi, Masao. 2003. How come and Other Adjunct Wh-phrases: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective.
Language and Linguistics, Vol. 5, Iss. 1, pp. 29-57.
Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal Movement and Its Kin, MIT Press.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1998. Wh-in-situ in the framework of the minimalist program. Natural Language
Semantics 6, 1:29-56.
Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in language: Interactions and architectures. OUP: Oxford.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1999. On the position of “Int(errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause. Ms.
Università di Siena.
Rudin C. 1988. On Multiple Questions and Multiple WH-Fronting. Natural Language and Lingustic
Theory. 6. 445-502.
Saito, Mamoru. 2003. Some Remarks on Superiority and Crossing. 4th GLOW in Asia, Seoul, Korea.
Soh, Hui-Ling. 2005. WH-in-situ in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 143-155.
Stepanov, Arthur and Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai. 2006. The Hows and Whys of How and Why: Unselective
Binding and Merger of Wh-Adjuncts, ms.
Tsai,W.-T. Dylan. 1994. On economizing the theory of A-bar dependencies. Doctoral dissertation,
MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 1999. The hows of why and the whys of how. In Francesca Del Gobbo and
Hidehito Hoshi (eds.), UCI Working Papers in Linguistics 5, 155-184.
Tsai,W.-T. Dylan. 2004. Left periphery and how-why alternations, ms.
Wu, Jianxin. 1999. Syntax and semantics of quantification in Chinese. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Maryland at College Park.

- 185 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

Yang, Barry C.-Y. 2006. Intervention Effects and Left Periphery. In Proceedings of the 8th Soul
International Conference on Generative Grammar (SICOGG8), Soomyung Women’s
University, Seoul.

- 186 -