Different triggers for successive-cyclic movement in Sinhalese and Japanese
wh-questions*
Hisashi Morita
Aichi Prefectural University, [email protected]
1 Introduction
[Movement mechanism]
(i) Move to the target
[CP C … wh ]
[uWH, EPP] [WH]
e.g. What did Mary buy t ?
 [CP whi C … ti ]
[WH] [uWH, EPP]
(ii) Move to non-targets (successive-cyclic movement)
[CP1 C1
…
[CP2 C2 … wh … ] … ]
[uWH]
[WH] What causes this movement?
e.g. [CP1 What do you think [CP2 t that Mary bought t ]]?
Possibility 1: an EF (or EPP) feature in C2
Chomsky (2007)
Possibility 2: Agree between C2 and wh.
Then what feature?
Main claim Both of the possibilities are necessary in natural language.
2 Assumptions about wh-questions in Japanese and Sinhalese
① Wh-expressions move to C, spec covertly via Agree. (Morita (2013b))
② The intervention effect is syntactic (Hagstrom (1998), Morita (2013a))
(1) The intervention effect:
*C
…
intervener
[uWH]
[WH]
wh
…
[WH]
(2) a.* {kaurude/kaurut} mokakdə kiwi-e?
someone/everyone what
said-Q
b. mokakdəi {kaurude/kaurut} ti kiwi-e?
‘What did {someone/everyone} say?’
*
This study has been supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) from Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science (#24720181).
(3) a. ??{dareka/daremo}-ga nani-o itta no?
someone/everyone-Nom what-Acc said Q
b. nani-oi {dareka/daremo}-ga ti itta no?
‘What did {someone/everyone} say?’
Unstable grammatical judgment on the intervention effect  non-syntactic accounts
such as Tomioka (2007).
Morita (2013a): two types of wh-questions, via movement or unselective-binding
(see also S. Watanabe (1995) and Bruening and Tran (2006))
One way to find movement wh-questions: availability of multiple-pair answers
(4) Q:
Mary-ga docchi-no gakusei-ni sono hon-o yondeageta no?
-Nom which-Gen student-Dat that book-Acc read
Q
‘‘To which student of the two did Mary read that book?’
A1: Mary-ga John-ni sono hon-o yondeagemasita.
‘Mary read that book to John.’
(single-pair)
A2: * Mary-ga John-ni, sosite Taroo-ni sono hon-o yondeagemasita.
‘Mary gave that book to John and to Taro.’
(multiple-pair)
(5) Q: Mary-ga docchi-no gakusei-ni docchi-no hon-o yondeageta no?
-Nom which-Gen student-Dat which-Gen book-Acc read
Q
‘‘To which student of the two did Mary read which book of the two?’
A1: Mary-ga John-ni kocchira-no hon-o yondeagemasita.
‘Mary read this book to John.’
(single-pair)
A2: Mary-ga John-ni kochira-no hon-o, sosite Taroo-ni achira-no hon-o
yondeagemasita.
(multiple-pair)
‘Mary gave this book to John, and that book to Taro.’
(6) Q: (??) Daremo-ga docchi-no gakusei-ni docchi-no hon-o
yondeageta no?
everyone which-Gen student-Dat which-Gen book-Acc
read
Q
‘To which student of the two did everyone read which book of the two?’
A1: John-ni kocchira-no hon-o yondeagemasita.
‘(Everyone) read this book to John.’
(single-pair)
#/*
A2: John-ni kochira-no hon-o, sosite Taroo-ni achira-no hon-o
yondeagemasita.
(multiple-pair)
‘(Everyone) read this book to John, and read that book to Taro.’
 only unselective binding is available.
3 Data
3.1 Lifting of the intervention effect in embedded context (Tomioka (2007))
(7) Ranjit [CP2 {kaurude/kaurut} mokakdə gatta kiyəla] kiwi-e?
Ranjit
someone/everyone what bought that said-Q
‘What did Ranjit say [CP that {someone/everyone} bought]?’
(cf. (2)a)
(8) Mary-wa [CP2 {dareka/daremo}-ga
nani-o katta to] itta no?
-Top someone/everyone-Nom what-Acc bought that said Q
‘What did Mary say [CP that {someone/everyone} bought]?’
(cf. (2)a)
(9) Q: Ken-wa [CP2 daremo-ga docchi-no
seito -ni docchi-no hon -o
-Top everyone-Nom which-Gen student-Dat which-Gen book-Acc
yondeageta to] omotteiru no?
read
C think
Q
‘To which student does Ken think that everyone read which book?’
A: Ken-wa [CP2 daremo-ga kono seito-ni kono hon-o,
ano seito -ni
-Top everyone-Nom this student-to this book-Acc that student-to
sono hon-o yondeageta to] omotteimasu.
that book-Acc read
C think
‘Ken thinks that everyone read this book to this student, and that book to
that student.’ (multiple-pair)
Morita (2013a: 74), slightly adapted.
 Wh-movement has happened.
Then why is no intervention effect detected?
Possibility 1: EF insensitive to the intervener
Possibility 2: some feature other than [WH]
3.2 Long-distance questions of ‘why’
(10) ?* Ranjit [CP2 Chitra mokədə aawa kiyəla] kiwi-e?
Ranjit
Chitra why came
C
said-Q
‘Why did Ranjit say [that Chitra came t]?’ (Kishimoto (2005: 43), adapted)
(11)
Mary-wa [CP2 Ken-ga naze kita to] itta no?
-Top
-Nom why came that said Q
‘Why did Mary say [that Ken came t]?
Japanese: category-insensitive  [EF ]
Sinhalese: if not [EF ], then what feature?
4 Successive-cyclicity caused by [Focus] in Sinhalese
4.1 Interaction with long-distance scrambling
Long-distance scrambling:
(12) a. Ranjit [CP2 Siri
ee potə gate kiyəla] kiiwa.
Ranjit
Siri that book bought that said
b. ee potəi Ranjit [CP2 Siri
ti gate kiyəla] kiiwa.
‘Ranjit said that Siri bought that book.’
(13) a. Mary-wa [CP2 John-ga
sono hon-o katta to] itta.
-Top
-Nom that book-Acc bought that said
b. sono hon-oi Mary-wa [CP2 John-ga
ti katta to] itta.
‘Mary said that John bought that book.’
Scrambling in wh-questions:
(14) a. Ranjit [CP2 kaudə ee potə gate kiyəla] kiiw-e?
Ranjit
who that book bought that said-Q
b. * ee potəi Ranjit [CP kaudə ti gate kiyəla] kiiw-e?
‘Who did Ranjit say[CP t bought that book]?’
(15) a.
b.
Mary-wa [CP2 dare-ga
sono hon-o katta to] itta no?
-Top
who-Nom that book-Acc bought that said Q
sono hon-oi Mary-wa [CP2 dare-ga ti
katta to] itta no?
‘Who did Mary say [CP t bought that book]?’
 scrambling and wh-movement to intermediate C are in competition in
Sinhalese.
 The same feature: [Focus]
However,
(16)
Ranjit-tə oyaa [CP Chitra ti monəwadə dunn-e kiyəla] dannəwa.
Ranjit-Dat you
Chitra
what
gave-Q that
know
‘To Ranjiti, you know what Chitra gave ti .’
 No competition between scrambling and wh-movement to the target C.
4.2 Long-distance scrambling of why and other types of wh-expressions
(17) a. * mokədə i Ranjit [CP2 Chitra ti aawa kiyəla] dann-e?
why
Ranjit
Chitra came
that know-Q
‘Why did Ranjit know [that Chitra came t]?’
b. monəwadə i Ranjit [CP2 oyaa gatta ti kiyəla] dann-e?
what
Ranjit
you bought that know-Q
‘What did Ranjit know that you bought?’
(18) a. * naze i Mary-wa [CP2 Ken-ga ti kita
to] shuchoositeiru no?
why
-Top
-Nom came that
claim
Q
‘Why does Mary claim [that Ken came t]?’
b. nani-o i Mary-wa [CP2 Ken-ga ti katta
to] shuchoositeiru no?
what-Acc -Top
-Nom bought that claim
Q
‘What does Mary claim that Ken bought t?’
 scrambling to intermediate C does not apply to ‘why’ in Sinhalese (or
Japanese): ‘why’ cannot possess [Focus].
 if (intermediate) successive-cyclic movement of wh-expressions is triggered
by the same feature, i.e. [Focus], which causes long-distance scrambling,
then the ungrammaticality of (10) follows. (Sinhalese)
 scrambling and successive-cyclic movement of wh-expressions are initiated
by different features in Japanese; hence, the grammatical judgment of (10)
and (15).
4.3 Interim summary
The derivation of long-distance wh-questions:
wh-expressions
except why
why
Sinhalese
[WH, Focus]
[WH]
Japanese
[WH]
([Focus] for
scrambling)
[WH]
intermediate
C
[uFocus]
target C
[uWH
(,uFocus)]
[EF ]
[uWH]
([uFocus] for ([uFocus] for
scrambling)
scrambling)
(EPP is omitted.)
5 Evidence for focus in Sinhalese wh-questions
5.1 Interpretation
(19) oyaa mokakdə dækk-e
you what saw-E
‘What did you see?’
‘What is it that you saw?’
Sumangala (1992: 212), slightly adapted
5.2 Focus construction
(20) Chitra ee
potə tamay kieuw-e.
Chitra that book FOC
read-E
‘It was that book that Chitra read.’
Kishimoto (2005:11)
5.3 Answers to how many NP questions
(21) Q:
kiidenekdə potə kieuw-e?
how.many book read-Q
‘How many people are there who read the book?’
A:# kauruwat kieuwe nææ
anyone read not
‘No one read it.
Kishimoto (2005: 9), slightly adapted
(22) Q:
nannin
-ga sono hon-o
yonda no?
how.many.people-Nom that book-Acc read Q
‘How many people read the book?’
A: daremo sore-o yomanakatta yo.
anyone that-Acc read.not
‘No one read it.’
Non-focused part is presupposed: ‘someone read the book’ (Sinhalese)
Conclusion
Intermediate stages of successive-cyclic movement can be achieved with at
least two methods: [EF ] and Agree.
A remaining question: what distinguishes overt from covert movement?
Probe or Goal? - Goal (Groat and O’Neil (1996))
References
Barss, Andrew (2000) “Minimalism and Asymmetric Wh-Interpretation,” in R. Martin,
D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step by Step, MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 31-52.
Beck, Sigrid and Shin-Sook Kim (1997) “On WH- and Operator Scope in Korean,”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6, 339-384.
Bruening, Benjamin and Thuan Tran (2006) “Wh-Questions in Vietnamese,” Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 15, 319-341.
Chomsky, Noam (2007). “Approaching UG from Below,” in U. Sauerland and H.-M.
Gärtner (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Languages?: Chomsky’s Minimalism and
the View from Syntax-Semantics, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 1-29.
Dayal, Veneeta. (2002) “Single-pair versus multiple-pair answers: WH-in-situ and
Scope,” Linguistic Inquiry 33, 512-520.
Groat, Erich and John O’Neil (1996) “Spell-Out at the interface: Achieving a unified
syntactic computational system in the minimalist framework,” in W. Abraham, S.D.
Epstein, H. Thrainsson, and C. J.-W. Zwart (eds.), Minimal Ideas, John Benjamins,
Amsterdam, 113-139.
Hagstrom, Paul (1998) Decomposing Questions, doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Hiraiwa, Ken and Shinichiro Ishihara (2002) “Missing Links: Cleft, Sluicing, and ‘no da’
construction in Japanese,” MIT Working Papers in Linguistic 43, 35-54.
Huang, C.-T. James (1982) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar,
doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Kishimoto, Hideki (2005) “WH-IN-SITU and Movement in Sinhala Questions,” NLLT
23: 1-51.
Morita, Hisashi (2013a) “Ambiguous Wh-questions in Japanese,” Mulberry 62, 61-77.
Morita, Hisashi (2013b) “Ultimate Pied-piping in Japanese and Sinhala,” JELS 30,
313-319.
Pesetsky, David (1987) “Wh-in situ: Movement and unselective binding,” In E. Reuland
and A. ter Meulen (eds.), The Representation of (in)definiteness, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 98-129.
Pesetsky, David (2000) Phrasal Movement and Its Kin, MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Sumangala, Lelwala (1992) Long-distance dependencies in Sinhala: The syntax of focus
and WH questions, doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.
Tomioka, Satoshi (2007) “Pragmatics of LF intervention effects: Japanese and Korean
interrogatives,” Journal of Pragmatics 39, 1570-1590.
Watanabe, Shin (1995) Aspects of Questions in Japanese and Their Theoretical
Implications, doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.