A FOCUS-MOVEMENT ACCOUNT ON CHINESE MULTIPLE SLUICING*
Liching Livy Chiu
National Tsing Hua University

1

Introduction

It is not surprising at all that multiple sluicing is possible in the multiple fronting
languages. However, multiple sluicing is also found in some of the in-situ languages such as
Japanese and Mandarin Chinese. In Mandarin Chinese (MC) multiple sluicing is generally
prohibited as exhibited in (1).1(1) *moren da-le women ban de ren, dan wo bu zhidao *(shi) shei shei
someone hit-Asp our class pos. person, but I not know be who who'Someone hit a person of our class, but I don't know who whom'
Yet, when the second wh-remnant is replaced with a wh-adjunct, the sentence turns out to be
good:(2) …, dan wo bu zhidao *(shi) shei zai-nali…, but I not know be who at-where'…, but I don't know who where'
This paper will explain the contrast between (1) and (2). We argue for the existence ofovert syntactic movement that yields the multiple sluicing in Mandarin Chinese. The relevant
phenomenon is derived by attributing the arguments and adjuncts to different syntactic
operations as will be clear later. Section 2 observes further conditions on MC multiple
Sluicing. Section 3 briefly reviews two approaches in dealing with Chinese sluicing to see
how these two approaches may cope with the data observed in previous sections. Section 4
illustrates our solution. Section 5 concludes the study.

*

This paper benefits much from discussions with Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai, Jonah Lin, and Jiewu Wei.
Thanks are also given to our informants--Shichi Stella Yeh, Weiche Li, and Chun Edison Chang. Allerrors are ours own.
1

The wh-argument in Chinese sluicing obligatorily requires shi-support whereas the wh-adjunct doesnot. Since it is not our main focus in this paper, we will simply present the data without arguing for its
status.
Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1, 23-31© 2007 Liching Livy Chiu

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

2.

Further observation

In this section, we show further restrictions on MC multiple sluicing. First, the order ofthe wh-remnants is absolutely strict. The wh-adjunct must follow the wh-argument as thecontrast exhibited in (3-4).
(3) a. moren diao-le qian, dan wo bu zhidao *(shi) shei zai-nali
someone lost-Asp money but I not know *(be) who at-where'Someone lost money, but I don't know who where'
b. *…, dan wo bu zhidao zai-nali *(shi) shei…, but I not know at-where be who'…, but I don't know where who'
(4) a. Zhangsan da-le moren, dan wo bu zhidao *(shi) shei weishenme
Zhangsan hit-Asp someone, but I not know be who why'Znangsan hit someone, but I don’t konw who why.'b. *…, dan wo bu zhidao weishenme *(shi) shei…, but I not know why
be who'…, but I don't know why who'
Second, multiple sluicing in Chinese is possible only if the antecedents of the two
wh-remnants are clausemate with each other. Consider the following:(5) moren gaosu Zhangsan [xuexiao you yi-chanyianjian],someone tell Zhangsan school have one-CL lecture
dan wo bu zhidao *(shi) shei zai-nali
but I not know *(be) who at-where'Someone told Zhangsan that there is a lecture at school, but I don't know who where'
The wh-adjunct zai-nali 'where' here can only be associated with an implicit adjunct in thematrix clause, instead of the embedded one. We thus get a reading questioning who told
Zhangsan the news and where he told the news. It is impossible to get an embedded reading
questioning where the speech would be held.
The relevant accounts on the clausemate condition are also available in the literature(Nishigauchi 1998; Takahashi 1994). The example is as in (6). We will argue later that thiscondition follows from the phase theory in which wh-phrases in different phase domain could
not be linearized together.

- 24 -

A Focus-Movement Account on Chinese Multiple Sluicing (L. L. Chiu)(6) *Hanako -ga
dareka -ni [ Taro -ga nanika-o tabeta to] iituketa rasii ga,
H.
-nom smone. -dat T. -nom smthg.-acc ate
C toldseem but‘It seems that Hanako told someone that Taro ate something, but . . . ’Boku -wa [ dare-ni
nani-o(da) ka] wakara -nai
I
-TOP who-DAT what-ACC COP Q know -NEG
‘I don’t know to whom what.’3.

Possible accounts

In this section we briefly review two accounts of Chinese Sluicing, the null-pro approachand the focus movement approach, and see how these two accounts can cope with theobservation thus far.
3.1 The null-pro approach
Wei (2004) proposes that the structure of sluicing in Mandarin Chinese involves anull-pro and a base-generated wh-remnant as illustrated in (7).
(7) Zhangsan mai-le mo-ge-dongxi, dan wo bu zhidao [pro *(shi) sheme].
Zhangsan buy-Asp some-CL-thing, but I not know
be what'Zhangsan bought something, but I don't know what.'
This analysis captures the in-situ nature of Chinese wh-elements and allows us to deal with
the Island Repair phenomenon (cf. Chung1995, Merchant 1999). Wei further characterizes thestatus of pro in his framework as subject pro, referring to certain nominal in the antecedentclause, and event pro, refereeing to the event denoted by the antecedent clause.
However, one of the fatal problems of the pro analysis is on the interpretation of theelided constituent. Sluicing structure displays a strict-sloppy ambiguity as in (8). The missing
anaphor taziji ‘himself/ herself’ in the sluiced clause could be interpreted either as why Lisi
was scolded or why Zhangsan was scolded. But when the subject preceding the copular isrealized, the only interpretation is the strict reading (9). This approach then must explain how
the sloppy reading in the sluicing structure (8) is possible.
(8) Zhangsan zhidao taziji
PN.
know himself

weisheme bei ma,
Lisi yie zhidao (shi) weisheme.
why
past-scold, PN. also know LINK why.

'Zhangsan knows why he was scolded, and Lisi also knows why'

- 25 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1(9)Zhangsan zhidao taziji weisheme bei ma,
Lisi yie zhidao zhe-jian-shi
PN.
know himself why
past-scold, PN. also know this matter
weisheme
why.

shi
LINK

Second, one would suggest a coordination analysis where the multiple wh-remnants areconjoined by some implicit conjunction, say he ‘and’ or yiji ‘and’. This may endorse Wei’s(2004) account which treats the wh-remnants as base-generated (predicational) nominals.
(10) …, dan wo bu zhidao [pro *(shi) shei (he/yiji) zai-nali]]…, but I not know
be who and/and at-where'…, but I don't know who and where.'
Yet, adopting this approach, we still do not know why two wh-arguments cannot co-occur
with each other in Chinese multiple sluicing since in principle two arguments can beconjoined by some conjunction.
(11) * …, dan wo bu zhidao [pro *(shi) [ shei (he) shei]]…, but I
not knowbe who and whom'…, but I don't know who and whom.'Third, the null-pro approach would not be able to account for the clausemate condition
since the null-pro can be freely referring to entities/events of the matrix clause or theembedded clause. Take (5), repeated here:(5)

moren gaosu Zhangsan [xuexiao you yi-chanyianjian],someone tell Zhangsan school have one-CL lecture
dan wo bu zhidao *(shi) shei zai-nali
but I not know *(be) who at-where'Someone told Zhangsan that there is a lecture at school, but I don't know who where'

If we allow only one nominal-pro in the sluiced clause as in (12), it seems to be able toaccount for the clausemate condition because it questions who is the person and where he is,both of which are within the matrix clause, as required by the clausemate condition. However,upon closer inspection, one will find that the real reading is the one questioning who told
Zhangsan the news and where the event (of his telling the news) happened, which is notpredicted by the nominal-pro approach. Moreover, if the pro is an event-pro, we will get an
ungrammatical sentence since the event represented by pro cannot be predicated by who. Thatis, it is simply ungrammatical to say the event is who.

- 26 -

A Focus-Movement Account on Chinese Multiple Sluicing (L. L. Chiu)(12) …, dan wo bu zhidao [pro *(shi) shei zai nali]
but I not know*(be) who at where
but I don't know who where'
Even if we might postulate two independent pros as the following, where the first pro is anominal-pro and the second pro is an event-pro, such an postulation will be too powerful.
(13) …, dan wo bu zhidao [pro *(shi) shei] [pro zai-nali]
but I not know*(be) who
at-wherebut I don't know who where'
This reasoning is this. Either pro may be freely referring to entities/events of the matrix clauseor the embedded clause. The clausemate condition is thus not maintained because the second
pro may refer to the event in the embedded clause while the first pro refers to someone in thematrix clause.
In the following subsection, we will see how the other approach may fare with theparadigm discussed so far.
3.2

The focus movement approach

Wang (2002, 2005) and Wang and Wu (2005) propose that the wh-remnants in Chinese
sluicing construction should have undergone overt focus movement. As illustrated in (14)shenme 'what' is attracted from within IP before Spell-Out to check the feature [+Foc].
PF-deletion is then applied to IP to yield the surface form.
(14) …, dan wo bu zhidao [CP OPi[+Q] [C shi [FP shenmei [F[+Foc] [IP … ti …] ]]]]…, but I not knowbewhat'…, but I don't know what'
However, additional constraints have to be enforced so that the above observed distributions
can be accounted for.
Let’s start with the multiple wh-sluicing first. Takahashi (1993) assumes multiple Spec
positions to account for multiple wh-remnants in Japanese. Yet, it cannot explain why in
Chinese Sluicing two wh-arguments cannot co-occur. On the other hand, Takahashi (1994)
suggests that in Japanese multiple wh-sluicing constructions one wh-element may adjoin onto
the other wh-element to form an amalgamated wh-phrase. This amalgamated wh-phrase thenmoves to the Spec position of CP. Though an additional constraint (15) would have to be
enforced, such an analysis may explain the clausemate condition in Japanese.
(15) Adjunction of a wh-phrase to another wh-phrase cannot cross a clausal boundary.
(Takahashi 1994: 289)

- 27 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

For Mandarin Chinese, however, the adjunction account in Japanese still cannot explain
why two wh-arguments cannot be adjoined together as already demonstrated in (1). In thefollowing section we would like to propose our solution to the restrictions on MC multiple
sluicing.
4. Solution
To propose a movement account of the wh-phrases in wh-in-situ language might seem tobe unreasonable. But recently, some attention Richard (2001) Lasnik (2006) has been paid
onto the repair phenomenon of ellipsis structures. The idea is rather straightforward. A
wh-dependency is composed of a head and a trace, so the PF realization of an utterance needs
an instruction on which part of the chain to be realized. In a feature driven theory of A-bar
dependency, languages are divided into at least two types in relation to two different strengthsof features. A strong-feature-driven movement demanded its head to be realized and aweak-feature-driven dependency would result in the in-situ wh. In the structure of ellipsis, thedeletion of a constituent would repair the invalid realization by forcing the A-bar dependency
to realize its head. The multiple focus movement is in line with such an idea. When more than
one item is under focus, they must be somehow repaired in the ellipsis.
Before we present our solution, let’s recapitulate the characteristics of multiple sluicing
in Mandarin Chinese:(16)
a. Number: Multiple sluicing does not allow more than one wh-argument, whereas
no such restriction required for wh-adjuncts.
b. Ordering: Wh-adjuncts cannot precede any wh-argument.
c. Clausemateness: The antecedents of the two wh-remnants must be clausemate
with each other.
Base on the above observation, we propose that the wh-argument and wh-adjunct in MC
multiple sluicing in effect undergo different syntactic operations. For the first property (16a),
we suggest that there be only one Specifier position of FP to situate the wh-argument as theprocess of Substitution. Wh-adjuncts, on the other hand, can only adjoin to FP as adjunction.
In this fashion, more than one adjunct can be derived on the sluice.
For the second property (16b), we propose that after the wh-argument is attracted to theSpec FP, it still needs to undergo further movement to some higher projection in CP to checkthe relevant D-linking feature due to its D-linking/specific property (cf. Yang 2006). Hence,
the ordering between the wh-argument and the wh-adjunct is always fixed as illustrated in thefollowing diagram.

- 28 -

A Focus-Movement Account on Chinese Multiple Sluicing (L. L. Chiu)

(17)

CP

wh-argumentiFP

wh-adjunct

FP
ti

F’
F

IP

For the third property (16c), two proposals are in hand, i.e., Takahashi (1994) and Fox &Pesetsky (2003). For Takahashi’s (1994) analysis, as is mentioned above we would have to
add an additional constraint (15) regulating long distance adjunction. Also, further raising of
the wh-argument from the amalgamated wh-complex to the Topic position is not possible
since this amalgamated chunk is already fixed. For Fox & Pesetsky’s (2003) approach, theordering of the multiple wh-remnants may still be decided if both the wh-remnants undergo
overt movement. Therefore, we will have to figure another way out. We hereby propose thatthe clausemate condition of sluicing is related to the phase theory and the Attract Closest(Boskovic 1997, Kitahara 1997, Richards 2001). Suppose before wh-movement andsubsequent deletion the structure of multiple wh-construction is as (18). Now, when thematrix C-head Attracts the wh-phrase the check the relevant features, the closest wh-phrase,
wh-phrase1, is attracted by Attract Closet condition. When it comes to the second wh-phrase,
wh-phrase2, it has already been spelt out and cannot be attracted further. Subsequent deletion
would wrongly delete the wh-phrase2.
(18)[CP C[+Q] [IP… wh-phrase1… [CP [IP… wh-phrase2 … ]Even if the wh-phrase2 can first move to the SpecCP position to avoid being spelt out early asin (19a), when the derivation comes to the matrix C-head, by Attract Closest it is thewh-phrase1 that will be first attracted to the matrix SpecCP as illustrated in (19b). Assumingthat Attract Closet will have to attract elements of the same clause, when it comes to (19c),
further movement of the wh-phrase2 to the matrix clause will not be acceptable.
(19)

a. Step 1[FP shi [+F]

[IP… wh-phrase1… [FP wh-phrase2 [+F] shi [IP… t2 … ]b. Step 2[FP wh-phrase1 shi [+F] [IP… t1… [FP wh-phrase2 shi [+F] [IP… t2 … ]- 29 -

Nanzan Linguistics: Special Issue 1, Vol. 1

c. *Step 3[FP wh-phrase1 shi [+F] [IP … t1… [FP wh-phrase2 C[+Q] [IP… t2 … ]
5. Concluding Remarks
This article discusses an idiosyncratic paradigm of multiple sluicing where
wh-argument/adjunct asymmetries are observed in both the number and the order of thewh-remnants. We argue that such a paradigm of MC multiple sluicing results from different
syntactic operations on the focus projection, FP. Specifically, one and only one wh-argument
is attracted to the [Spec, FP] to check the relevant feature [+Foc] as a process of Substitution
while multiple wh-adjuncts may be adjoined to FP as Adjunction. The correct ordering isfacilitated via further movement of the wh-argument to the Topic position of CP to check therelevant D-linking feature. Finally, the clausemate condition is accounted for with the help ofPhase theory and Attract Closest.

References
Adams, Perng Wang. 2004. The Structure of Sluicing in Mandarin Chinese, In Penn Working Papers
in Linguistics, 10.1:1-16. University of Pennsylvania.
Aoun, Joseph, and Yen-hui Audrey Li. 2003. Essays on the Representational and Derivational Natureof Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bošković, Željko 1998. On the Interpretation of Multiple Questions. ms. University of Connecticut.
Bošković, Željko. 2002. On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33:351-383.
Grewendorf, Günther. 2001. Multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 32:87-122.
Huang, C.-T. James 1982. Logical Relation in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, PhD Dissertation,
MIT.
Lasnik, Howard. 2006. Repair by Ellipsis, ms. University of Maryland.
Merchant, Jason 1999. The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and Identity in Ellipsis, PhD
Dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1998. ‘Multiple sluicing’ in Japanese and the functional nature of wh-phrases.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7:121-152.
Pesetsky, D. 1987 Wh-in-situ: Movement and Unselective Binding, in E. Reuland and A. Ter Meulen(eds.) Representation of (In)definiteness, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in language: Interactions and architectures. OUP: Oxford.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery, in L. Haegeman (eds.) Elements ofGrammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Ross, John R. 1969. Guess who? In R. Binnick, A. Davison, G. Green, and J. Morgan (eds.),
Proceedings of CLS 5:252-286.
Simpson, Andrew and Tanmoy Bhattacharya. 2003. Obligatory overt wh-movement in a wh-in-situ
language. Linguistic Inquiry 34:127-142.
Shyu, Shu-Ing. 2001. Remarks on object movement in Mandarin SOV Order. Language andLinguistics 2. 93-124.

- 30 -

A Focus-Movement Account on Chinese Multiple Sluicing (L. L. Chiu)

Takahashi, Daiko. 1993. Movement of Wh-Phrase in Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory 11, 655-678.
Takahashi, Daiko. 1994. Sluicing in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 3:265-300.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan 1994 On Nominal Islands and LF Extraction in Chinese. Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 12, 121-175.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 1999. On Economizing the Theory of A-bar Dependencies, Garland, New York.
1994 PhD Dissertation, MIT
Chung, Sandra, William Ladusaw, and James McCloskey. 1995. Sluicing and Logical Form. Natural
Language Semantics 3: 239-282.
Wang, Chyan-an Arthur. 2002. On Sluicing in Mandarin Chinese, Master Thesis, National Tsing Hua
University, Taiwan.
Wang, Chyan-an Arthur. 2005 On Sluicing in Mandarin Chinese. ms.
Wang, Chyan-an Arthur. and Wu, Hsiao-hung Iris. 2005. Sluicing and Focus Movement in Wh-in-situ
Languages. To appear in Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 2006:12.1
Wei, Ting-chi. 2004. Predication and Sluicing in Mandarin Chinese. PhD Thesis, National
Kaohsiung Normal University.
Yang, Barry C.-Y 2006. A Note on Island Repair. ms. National Tsing Hua University.

- 31 -