proceedings 2003/9/19 17:30 page 63 #67

Superiority Effects and Structural Distinctions in Polish and Czech wh-Questions

Roland Meyer University of Leipzig

Contents
1 2 3 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Superiority effects in Polish and/or Czech? . . . . . . . . . . . Acceptability studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Relative order of subject and object wh-pronouns . . . 3.1.1 Polish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 Czech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 wh-subject/wh-adjunct orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Polish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Czech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structural differences between Polish and Czech wh-questions 4.1 Single wh-questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Initial wh-phrases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2 Non-initial, preverbal wh-phrases . . . . . . . 4.2 Multiple wh-questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 64 65 65 65 66 67 67 67 68 69 69 69 71 73 75

Introduction

Slavic wh-questions have attracted much attention in the generative literature, mostly because of the fact that they involve the fronting of all their wh-phrases to the left clausal periphery (neglecting echo and special discourse-bound uses; cf. Toman 1981, Rudin 1988). At the same time, existing analyses disagree considerably about basic empirical issues, such as, e.g., the question whether the fronted wh-phrases have to stand in a xed linear order or may be ordered freely. A rst goal of this paper is to report the results of a series of controlled studies on wh-ordering effects (see section 2), showing that Polish and Czech pattern alike. wh-ordering constraints (superiority effects), have been taken as an indicator of syntactic structure for wh-questions across 63

proceedings 2003/9/19 17:30 page 64 #68

Page 64

Generative Linguistics in Poland

Slavic languages (Bokovi 1998, Bokovi 2002). The paper aims at showing that c c a classication based on superiority alone is not ne-grained enough: even closely related languages with the same superiority pattern may require quite different structural analyses for independent reasons (see section 3). Although these structures are at odds with the specic explanation of superiority effects in Bokovi (1998, 2002) as c it stands, it seems that relatively minor changes in the theory could accomodate them (cf. section 4).

Superiority effects in Polish and/or Czech?

As is well-known, the superiority condition holds strictly in English multiple questions (modulo discourse-linking, cf. Pesetsky 1987), banning overt wh-movement of a structurally lower wh-phrase across a structurally higher one which could have moved instead. Under the assumption that wh-phrases may not be generated in varying base orders, superiority effects can provide insights into differences in the syntactic structure of wh-questions across languages. According to Rudin (1988), those Slavic languages which move only one wh-phrase to CP-Spec and adjoin all others to IP, do not show strict superiority effects, although there are certain preferred whorders; the only Slavic language which moves all wh-phrases to CP-Spec (Bulgarian) obeys superiority rather strictly (see Billings and Rudin 1996 for important qualications). However, Rudin (1996) notes rather clear superiority effects for Russian, a language which otherwise behaves like the members of the former group and unlike Bulgarian; she concludes that superiority effects in Slavic languages might generally be just gradual preferences, rather than a reliable criterion. Bokovi (1998) uses superiority effects as key evidence for his analysis of Slavic c wh-questions and argues against all other criteria put forward in Rudin (1988). He establishes three different structural options: (i) wh-moving all wh-phrases to SpecC (Bulgarian), with superiority effects in all contexts; (ii) wh-moving one wh-phrase to CP-Spec and focus-moving the others to Agr P (Serbo-Croatian), with superiority effects only in embedded clauses and embedded-like contexts; and (iii) focus-moving all wh-phrases to a lower projection (Agr P), with no superiority effects at all. Unfortunately, the theoretical importance of superiority effects seems much more obvious than their empirical status; opposing opinions about the latter can be found throughout the literature (see Baszczak and Fischer 2001 and Meyer 2002 for overviews). The least disagreement concerns Czech, where neither Toman (1981), nor Rudin (1988) detect superiority effects, although the latter author mentions some preferences. For Polish, the judgments range from free wh-ordering (Toman 1981, Przepirkowski 1994, Citko 1997) over some preferences (Rudin 1988, 1996) to strong, syntactically relevant superiority effects (Cheng 1997, Dornisch 1998). However, nobody seems to have undertaken (or published) controlled studies of superiority effects with linguistically naive subjects. The common approach seems to be for the researcher to rely on his/her own introspective judgments. While there is nothing a priori wrong with introspection as a means of developing hypotheses, one would like to see the hypotheses supported or falsied by methodologically stricter studies, as is common practice in other elds (cf. Keller 2000 for discussion). The judgment studies reported here use the method of Magnitude Estimation, as described in Bard et al.

proceedings 2003/9/19 17:30 page 65 #69

Roland Meyer

Page 65

(1996), and Keller (2000). Participants were rst presented with a reference clause, to which they randomly assigned a numerical acceptability rating. They then saw a sequence of llers and test clauses, each of which had to be judged by assigning numerical ratings in proportion to the acceptability of the reference item: a test item estimated twice as good would get the double value of the reference clause, an item a third as good would be assigned a third of the value of the reference clause etc. It is the rationale behind Magnitude Estimation that subjects are actually able to provide relative acceptability judgments of this kind, much as they are able to judge the relative strength of stimuli in psychophysical experiments (cf. Bard et al. 1996 and Keller 2000). The proportional scale gives subjects maximal freedom to make as many ne-grained distinctions as they wish; being open in both directions, it ensures that there is no articial limit to (un)acceptability. Magnitude Estimation has been applied successfully in linguistic research (Bard et al. 1996, Keller 2000), also with respect to superiority effects (Featherston 2001). The studies on Czech and study #1 on Polish as reported here were realized over the internet, using the WebExp software package (Keller et al. 1998). Subjects were recruited by posting messages to catalogues and newsgroups; all participants who did not obviously violate the instructions took part in a random prize draw. Study #2 on Polish was conducted on paper in a seminar group at the University of Bydgoszcz.1 Study #1 was also repeated on paper and showed exactly the same signicant effects and interactions as its counterpart conducted over the internet. In order to avoid normative answers, subjects were instructed to imagine that they heard someone uttering the given sentence in conversation; their task was to judge intuitively the naturalness and acceptability of the item.

Acceptability studies

3.1 Relative order of subject and object wh-pronouns 3.1.1 Polish Beginning with the most basic case, the rst study checked for differences in acceptability between the wh-orders kto who kogo who and kogo who kto who . According to Stepanovs (1998) analysis of superiority effects in Russian, using cto what instead of kogo who as the object wh-phrase makes a clear differ ence. Thus, we introduced a further binary factor kogo vs. co-object for comparison, which will be dubbed O BJ -A NIMACY here. Since Bokovi s (1998, 2002) theory makes c an important difference between main and embedded clauses with respect to superiority effects, the main/embedded-distinction was included as a third binary factor (E MBEDDING)2 , leading to 8 superiority conditions. 8 different lexical realizations of these were distributed systematically over 4 questionnaires, so that each subject saw each lexical realization twice in two different conditions, and each condition twice
would like to thank the participants and Dana Karnowska for the opportunity to conduct the study. main/subordinate distinction is sometimes blurred in Slavic wh-interrogatives, because a putative matrix clause may be interpreted as an adsentential, with the putative subordinate clause as a main clause question (Bokovi 1997). The test items for all studies reported here were carefully designed in order to c resist such an interpretation.
2 The 1I

proceedings 2003/9/19 17:30 page 66 #70

Page 66

Generative Linguistics in Poland

with different lexical forms (Latin square design, cf. Keller 2000). All test items were matched for length and structure; a native speaker carefully controlled them for infrequent words and pragmatic plausibility. Under the prevailing view in the literature, we would expect no effect of wh- ORDER. According to Cheng (1997) and Dornisch (1998), on the contrary, there should be a clear effect. Under no theory advanced so far should the factors O BJ -A NIMACY and E MBEDDING play a role in Polish. Every subject had to judge 16 superiority examples, 18 long extractions (from another experiment) and 11 unrelated llers in random order. Data provided by 24 participants (age 1750) could be included in the evaluation. Results: An ANOVA revealed a signicant main effect of wh- ORDER (F (1,23) = 10,501, p = 0,004); F (1,7) = 35,549, p = 0,001), and a signicant interaction between wh- ORDER and O BJ -A NIMACY (F (1,23) = 13,703, p 0,001; F (1,7)=18,327, p = 0,004). No interaction between wh- ORDER and E MBEDDING and no other effects were found. Separate ANOVAs for kto kogo and kto co showed a signicant main effect of wh- ORDER only for the former combination (F (1,23) = 13,900, p = 0,001; F (1,7) = 37,874, p = 0,000), but no effect for the latter. Discussion: Somewhat unexpectedly, the results do indicate a wh-ordering preference, but only when both wh-pronouns range over animates. No ordering preference could be identied for the combination of an animate subject (kto who) with an inanimate object (co what). This pattern does not tie in at all with common case (nom acc) and animacy (animate inanimate) markedness constraints on word order, because the (acceptable) wh-sequence co kto violates both constraints, while the (relatively unacceptable) ordering kogo kto violates only one of them. Thus, the option for co to occur higher up in the wh-sequence should be viewed differently: e.g., it might be due to an idiosyncratic weak pronoun property, which can override a superiority conguration. Alternatively, one might argue that free wh-ordering is the basic case, with superiority effects showing up only for wh-phrases which have the same restriction, i.e., potentially range over the same set of referents. This idea seems more promising (because no clear superiority effects are observed for wh-arguments / wh-adjuncts either, see below), and it has a greater explanatory potential: Note that when the set of possible referents for the two wh-phrases is necessarily identical, as in questions asking about the direction of a reversible relation, the two wh-phrases must occur in a xed nom-acc order. On the other hand, combinations of lexically D-linked ktry which-phrases, which usually explicitly differ in restrictions, show no superiority effects (Pesetsky 1987). In any event, the Polish pattern clearly differs from the Bulgarian one, where superiority effects hold irrespectively of the (in)animacy of the wh-object (Billings and Rudin 1996). 3.1.2 Czech The method, conditions, and design of the test materials were the same as in the preceding two studies (plus two additional superiority conditions with double long extraction, not reported here). According to the literature, there should be no signicant effect of wh- ORDER or interaction with other factors, besides some unspecied preferences. A total of 20 superiority examples, 16 long extractions and 12 unrelated llers
                  

proceedings 2003/9/19 17:30 page 67 #71

Roland Meyer

Page 67

in random order had to be judged. 25 participants (age 1661) could be included in the evaluation. Results and discussion: In an overall ANOVA, the factor wh- ORDER showed a signicant main effect in the by-subjects analysis, though not in the by-items analysis (F (1,24)=11,755, p =0,002; F (1,9)=2,430, p =0,153). There was a signicant interaction between wh- ORDER and O BJ -A NIMACY (F (1,24) = 14,871, p 0,001; F (1,9)=38,654, p =0,000), but no interaction between wh- ORDER and E MBEDDING and no other effects. Seperate ANOVAs for the conditions with the wh-object koho who on the one hand, and with the wh-object co what on the other, indicate a signicant effect of wh- ORDER for kdo/koho (F (1,24)=24,145, p =0,000; F (1,9)=10,612, p =0,010), but no such effect for kdo/co. Thus, as in Polish, we found a contrast between animate and inanimate object wh-phrases with respect to wh-order: While the wh-sequence co what kdo who was judged equally acceptable as the superiority-conform nom-acc variant, there was a preference for nom acc in the case of all-animate wh-sequences. This effect was not predicted. As above, it cannot be easily expressed by a constraint favoring animate inanimate word orders. 3.2 wh-subject/wh-adjunct orders 3.2.1 Polish A second study tested for superiority effects with subject/adjunct and object/adjunct wh-phrases. Given that adverbial adjuncts can occupy a wide range of surface positions in Slavic clauses, it is not immediately clear where they are merged into the tree, i.e., if they should induce superiority effects with wh-arguments at all. The study reported here concentrates on combinations of kto who and kogo whom with the manner adverb jak how, which should be generated in the domain of the lexical verb for reasons of focus assignment and relative adverbial scope (see Szucsich 2002 for discussion). According to Cheng (1997) and Dornisch (1998), we would have to expect a preference for wh-arguments to precede the wh-adjunct. According to the prevailing view in the literature, there should be no effect of wh-ORDER. Each participant had to judge 8 items for the subject/adjunct conditions, 8 for the object/adjunct conditions, 6 examples of so-called wh-scope constructions (beyond the scope of this paper) and 13 unrelated llers, i.e., 35 sentences altogether. The materials were presented on paper to 31 students of a seminar group at the University of Bydgoszcz, Institute of Political Science. 24 subjects could be included in the evaluation; there were no signicant effects of wh-order, neither between wh-subject and wh-adjunct (jak how), nor between wh-object and wh-adjunct. The result of the second Polish study thus fails to support the claim in the literature that there is a superiority effect with wh-arguments wh-adjuncts. 3.2.2 Czech For Czech, wh-adjunct/-argument orders were tested as part of two separate studies. On the basis of the existing literature, we would expect no superiority effects in this domain. The rst study contained the 4 wh-subject / wh-adjunct conditions (whORDER E MBEDDING) with jak how and kdo who. Each participant had to judge 8 superiority examples, along with 24 multiple questions with discourse-linked refer                   

proceedings 2003/9/19 17:30 page 68 #72

Page 68

Generative Linguistics in Poland

ents, 8 long extractions and 8 unrelated llers, a total of 48 sentences. Data provided by 24 subjects (age 2055) could be included in the evaluation. Results and discussion: In the analysis of variance, the factor wh-ORDER showed no signicant main effect; there was a signicant main effect of E MBEDDING (F (1,23)=10,220, p =0,004; F (1,7)=9,535, p =0,018) and a nearly signicant interaction with wh-ORDER (F (1,23)=3,735, p =0,066; F (1,7) = 4,924, p =0,062). Separate ANOVAs for main and embedded clauses indicate a non-signicant preference for jak kdo over kdo jak only in embedded clauses (F (1,23) = 2,285, p =0,144; F (1,7)=6,573, p =0,037), but no effect at all in main clauses. Altogether, we found no clear superiority effect for wh-subject / wh-adjunct orders, except for a slight but unreliable preference in embedded clauses. Apparently, lexical factors come into play here as well. The second study involved the 4 wh-object/wh-adjunct conditions for jak how and koho whom. Participants had to judge 8 of these examples, along with 8 items concerning multiple wh-questions and discourse-linking, 16 long extractions and 11 unrelated llers, for a total of 43 sentences. Data provided by 32 speakers (age 1765, average 26.0) could be included in the evaluation. Results and discussion: An ANOVA revealed a non-signicant overall preference of jak koho over koho jak (F (1,31) = 2,802, p 0,104; F (1,7)=2,162, p 0,185), and a signicant main effect of E MBEDDING (F (1,31)=16,533, p =0,000; F (1,7)=24,009, p =0,092). There was no interaction between these effects. Separate analyses of variance for main and embedded clauses showed a (non-signicant) ordering preference only for main clauses (F (1,31)=3,779, p =0,061; F (1,7)=2,882, p =0,133), but no effect at all for embedded clauses. Thus, Czech seems to show only a weak preference for jak koho over koho jak in main clauses, but the effect is not signicant and may not be taken for granted. 3.3 Conclusion The Magnitude Estimation studies reported show that Polish and Czech fall into the same typological group with respect to superiority effects: Both languages show no ordering preferences for (i) pronominal (animate) wh-subjects and inanimate whobjects, and for (ii) pronominal argument wh-phrases and the adjunct wh-phrase jak how. At the same time, they do show a subject object preference for animate wh-pronouns. Parallel studies on Russian have shown ordering preferences also for the inanimate object conditions, as well as between wh-subject pronouns and the wh-adjunct kak how (Meyer 2002). Therefore, I suppose that the method chosen is sensitive and selective enough so that the lack of preferences detected here reects an actual lack of superiority effects. Interestingly, the acceptability data discussed here closely match the frequency distribution of the various wh-orders in multiple whquestions, as they can be found in text corpora (see Meyer 2002 for details). Regarding Bokovi s (1998, 2002) classication, both Czech and Polish should probably belong c to class (iii) mentioned above, i.e., their wh-phrases should move only to check a focus feature and adjoin to Agr P.
      !                   

proceedings 2003/9/19 17:30 page 69 #73

Roland Meyer

Page 69

Structural differences between Polish and Czech wh-questions

4.1 Single wh-questions 4.1.1 Initial wh-phrases Against the above conclusion, most analyses of Czech and Polish take it for granted that a sentence-initial wh-phrase occupies the CP-Spec position (cf. Przepirkowski 1994 for an exception). Is there any further empirical evidence that could decide between these two positions? Relevant elements which may show up in xed positions high enough in the structure are (i) complementizers and (ii) auxiliary clitics. Let us review them in turn. A wh-phrase followed by a complementizer is only admissible with an echo reading in Polish: (1) CO czy nie napisaam? [PL] what whether not wrote1. SG . FEM Didnt I write WHAT?

(C HILDES-PL)

I assume that the obligatorily stressed co what in these examples occupies a CPexternal position reserved for emphatic, contrastive foci (see section 4.1.2 for further evidence), rather than the usual landing site of interrogative wh-phrases. A special case relevant here is the phenomenon of ze-support: If ze in examples like (2) Dokad (ze) to zmierzacie? where-to EMPH EXPL head2. PL Where are you heading?
"

(Banski 2001, 200)

was indeed a spell-out of C (Banski 2001, 200), then (2) would constitute overt evidence for the wh-phrase occupying CP-Spec. However, given that suppletive ze can also occur in other positions in the clause (e.g., in I , see Banski 2001), one may not take (2) as safe evidence that the wh-phrase is in CP-Spec. (In fact, Banski assumes that the position of the wh-phrase in (2) is xed and that it provides evidence for z being in C .) In Czech, the situation is slightly more complicated: Not only are echo wh-phrases typically followed by e (cf. Grepl and Karlk 1998, 101), but also true wh-phrases in embedded clauses may occur in combination with e: (3) na kter e rovin e [...] bez monosti pesn lokalizace, r without possibility exact localizationGEN . SG on which E layer se to vlastn intencionalita nachz. [CZ] e REFL ACC there MP intentionality resides [...] without being able to locate exactly, on which layer intentionality resides. (CNK)
" " "

The question here is whether e always acts as a true C -element, or rather as a modal particle. Ackema and Neeleman (1998) take examples similar to (3) as evidence for the wh-phrase sitting in CP-Spec. However, the e occurring in combination with embedded wh-phrases does not behave like a true e-complementizer: It may split a

proceedings 2003/9/19 17:30 page 70 #74

Page 70

Generative Linguistics in Poland

wh-phrase in front of the clitic cluster (see (3)), a conguration which is clearly blocked with a bona de complementizer e, e.g., in an echo wh-question:3 (4) *[ Zbv j p t minut.] KOLIK e e casu j zbv? [CZ] remains herDAT ve minutes how-much E time herDAT remains [ She has ve minutes left.] HOW much time has she left?

I conclude that combinations of wh-phrase and e in Czech are either (i) echo questions with a complementizer e or (ii) true interrogatives with a modal particle e. Data as in (3) does not constitute direct evidence for the wh-phrase occupying CP-Spec. The structural position of auxiliary clitics in Polish is a matter of long-standing debate. Looking supercially like verbal inectional endings, they may occur attached to the l-participle (the unmarked option for many contemporary speakers). But they may also in principle attach to almost any other, preverbal constituent (see Borsley and Rivero 1994 for some exceptions), and they can behave morphonologically like clitics rather than sufxes also when attached to the verb (see Banski 2001). As re gards clitics and wh-phrases, the basic observations are illustrated in (5a)(5b): (5) a. b. Co(- ) s komu(- ) s da? what-PF - AUX whom-PF - AUX gave What did you give to whom? (Borsley and Rivero 1994, 408f) pan by si zaliczy? e Do ktrej kategorii to which categoryGEN sir SBJ - AUX REFL count Into what category would you classify yourself? (APTC)

One or more wh-phrases may precede the clitic auxiliary (cf. (5a)), and the auxiliary may be separated from the wh-phrases by other XPs. It seems clear that the perfect auxiliary can in principle occur in C , since it may be part of complementizers like ze- that-2.sg.pt, czy-s ie whether-2.pl.pt or zeby-m that-sbj.1.sg, which, accord s c ing to Banski (2001), involve syntactic cliticization. The question remains, however, whether the auxiliaries in (5a)(5b) also have to occur so high up in the tree. Dornisch (1998) presupposes a system of functional projections CPTPTransitivityPVP, with the subject obligatorily raising up to TP-Spec. Then, by in (6) has to be located in C and co occupies CP-Spec. (6) Co by Anna komu polecia? whatACC SBJ A.NOM whoDAT recommend What would Anna recommend to whom?
" "

(Dornisch 1998, 118 (2))

$ # %

As Junghanns and Zybatow (1997) argue, NPs do not have to move overtly to P-Speccheck their case feature in Russian; they may, however, scramble into Agr positions, or adjoin to Agr to be interpreted as a topic. But even in this system, the surface position of the wh-phrase in (6) would obviously have to be CP-Spec. Only an analysis in which the subject in (6) might scramble to a position below Agr , e.g., to TP, could be compatible with the idea that co adjoins to Agr P (cf. Bokovi 1998 c
3 Note that (4) is acceptable as a non-echo question, with a modal particle conveying doubt or astonishment.

'

&

proceedings 2003/9/19 17:30 page 71 #75

Roland Meyer

Page 71

for Serbo-Croatian and Stepanov 1998 for Russian) although more has to be said with respect to komu (see section 4.2).4 But note that we need a scrambling position between VP and TP anyway to derive word orders like
) 43 ) 43 1 2( ) 0(

(7)

[...] je li [ [ b dzie] ona [ odpowiednio s e [ if FUT- AUX she correspondingly [...], if she will be prepared correspondingly

przygotowana]]] prepared

(GW)

Then (6) does not necessitate the movement of the rst wh-phrase to Spec-CP: the subject could have been scrambled to a TP- or VP-adjoined position. In Czech, (2nd position-)clitics constitute clearer evidence for the surface position of wh-phrases. Essentially, auxiliary clitics are placed syntactically into a high head position (see Lenertov 2001) and form a cluster with reexive and pronominal clitics which is either immediately adjacent to C or seperated from C by exactly one focused phrase (cf. (8a)) or by a pronoun (cf. (8b)). (8) a. A co Ema by, mysl, rekla? [zeptal se.] and what Ema SBJ think2. SG said asked REFL ACC And what would Ema say, do you think? [he asked.] (CNK, cf. Lenertov 2001) [...] a co j si pak po nu bez c tebe? and what I REFL DAT then begin without you and what will I be doing without you then?
" "

b.

(CNK)

The only obvious way to ensure the adjunction of wh-phrases to Agr P and the proper clitic placement at the same time, would be to explain the positioning of clitics as a pure PF phenomenon (see Bokovi 2001 for such an approach to Serbo-Croatian c and some remarks on Czech). However, it is unclear how a pure PF principle could cover clitic-3rd effects as in (8a)(8b). The suggestion by Bokovi (2001) that foci c introduce separate prosodic phrases with clitic placement occurring only in the next prosodic phrase, does not help for (8b), and it cannot explain why only one XP may intervene (see Lenertov 2001 for further problems with a PF account). Thus, Czech clitic placement constitutes quite robust evidence for exactly one wh-phrase entering the C-domain.5 To sum up, while we nd evidence that the rst wh-phrase has to raise up to the C-domain in Czech, it could in principle be susceptible to movement to CP-Spec or to a lower projection in Polish. 4.1.2 Non-initial, preverbal wh-phrases As has sometimes been noted in the literature (e.g., by Willim 1989), XPs may precede the wh-phrases in spoken Polish:
4 I presuppose throughout like most recent analyses of Polish clitics that the auxiliary in (6) is located in a syntactic head position and not randomly attached at PF. 5 In fact, two wh-phrases may precede the clitics, when they carry a special single-pair, D-linked reading and form a compact syntactic cluster (Lenertov 2001, Meyer 2002).

proceedings 2003/9/19 17:30 page 72 #76

Page 72

Generative Linguistics in Poland

(9)

a. b.

[Nast pnie pyta drugiego:] A ty ile e jeste winien? s then asked the-other and you how-much are owing [Then he asked the other:] And how much do you owe (him)? (NT) [Co ja powiem ministrowi? Co ja powiem mediom?] LUdziom what I say1. SG . PF ministerDAT what I say1. SG . PF medaDAT peopleDAT co powiem? [Ludzie si z e was smieja!] what say1. SG . PF people REFL from you laugh3. PL [What should I tell the minister? What should I tell the media?] What should I tell the PEOPLE? [People will laugh at you!] (from the movie Kiler)

Usually, the wh-phrase has to be focused in this construction, and the preposed item is a contrastive topic (cf. (9a)). But in rarer cases, such as (9b), the preposed XP can form the only focus. Structures parallel to the one in (9a) have been analyzed either as adjunctions to CP (with the wh-phrase in its usual position Bokovi 1998 for c Serbo-Croatian, Mller and Sternefeld 1993 and Stepanov 1998 for Russian), or as simple CPs where the wh-phrases remain below the C-domain (see Brown and Franks 1995 for Russian). While there is good overt evidence for adjunctions to CP also in embedded clauses in spoken Russian, there is no such overt evidence in Polish. The rare examples of czy whether-main clauses like (10) which we can nd in the CHILDEScorpus, involve only the preposing of subjects (or adjuncts), obligatorily set off by an intonation break, or they contain a resumptive pronoun. I propose to analyze such examples as containing left dislocated topics with a resumptive pronoun. Only in the case of proposed subjects is overt resumption unnecessary (pro-drop). (10) [(Dziecko:) A czy rzeczka jest g boka? (Babcia:) Jak maa rzeczka to nie jest e g boka, a jak wi ksza, to jest g boka. (child:) and is a river deep? (granny:) e e e When it is a small river, then it is not deep, but when it is a bigger river, then it is deep.] (child:) A morze czy jest g bokie? e and sea whether is deep And is the sea deep? (C HILDES -PL)

Preposing to embedded interrogative clauses is sharply ungrammatical in Polish (differing from casual Russian, cf. Mller and Sternefeld 1993). (11) *Juz wiesz, nowa szko e gdzie / czy buduja? already know2. SG new schoolACC where whether build3. PL

Turning to Czech, note that preposing in front of wh-phrases is unacceptable for most speakers (unless the preposed item is set off by a clear intonation break, cf. below), although even some grammars mention construed examples like (12) a. (*)A maminka kdy se vrt? and mom when REFL ACC returns And when will mom come back?

(Grepl and Karlk 1998, 465)

proceedings 2003/9/19 17:30 page 73 #77

Roland Meyer

Page 73

b. (*)A penze kdy si vyzvedne? and money when REFL DAT withdraw And when will you withdraw the money (from your account)? (Dane et al. 1987, 328) Only 2 out of my 15 informants (students of Charles University) would allow (12a) (12b) at all without a clear intonation break; 10 speakers who were asked for more minute judgments found (12a) more acceptable than (12b), favoring the insertion of a presumptive pronoun in (12b), three thought (12b) ungrammatical. It should be noted that there are at least two possible sources of confusion related to the above construction, which may create an illusion of acceptability. First, reexive clitics have become pinned to 2nd position only fairly recently in the history of Czech. Some speakers, especially if they are intuitively aware of a certain freedom in clitic placement, could avail of a wh in situ analysis for (12a)(12b) (wh in situ being fully acceptable in colloquial Czech). For most speakers, however, the presence of the clitic after the wh-phrase seems to be incompatible with wh in situ. Second, the preposing of a single, contrastively focused phrase in front of subordinate wh-interrogatives is grammatical in cases like (13) ... ale PETR kde bydl, to nevm. but P.NOM where lives that know-not1. SG ... but where PETER lives, that I dont know.

The only authentic example of an XPwh-phraseclitic sequence to be found in the (spoken part of) CNK is of the kind illustrated in (13). Note that the ungrammaticality of (12a)(12b) cannot be due to clitic placement (clitics being able to occur in third position in wh-interrogatives see (8a)(8b)). I conclude that a ban on unrestricted CP-adjunction in Czech must be responsible for the exclusion of (12a)(12b). For both languages, we have seen good reasons not to resort to CP-adjunction.6 At the same time, wh-phrases can be preceded by preposed XPs rather freely in spoken Polish, but not in Czech. This fact can be attributed to a difference in the landing site of the moved wh-phrase, which may be below the C-domain in Polish, but only in CP-Spec in Czech. 4.2 Multiple wh-questions An obvious potential problem for Bokovi s (1998) and Stepanovs (1998) analyses c of non-superiority languages concerns material intervening between the wh-phrases. While phrasal adjunction in between might still take place, at least syntactic heads in an intervening position should be excluded. Dornischs (1998) example (6) shows that this is not the case.7 Bokovi (1997) suggests that the focus feature which attracts the c wh-phrases out of VP might be scattered over the Agr system, i.e., reside in AgrSP or AgrOP, as needed. But this idea would certainly have to be further spelled out
6 A further, more theory-dependent one would be that long scrambling is severely ungrammatical in both Polish and Czech (cf. the approach to Russian taken in Mller and Sternefeld 1993). 7 Borsley and Rivero (1994), struggling with the same problem, suggest that the Polish subjunctive auxiliary by, clearly a syntactic head, might exceptionally adjoin to IP as a phrase.

proceedings 2003/9/19 17:30 page 74 #78

Page 74

Generative Linguistics in Poland

after all, the focus feature should still attract all wh-phrases to the same projection. Note also that neither in PL, nor in Czech can the problem be relegated to conditions on clitic placement: The non-clitic future auxiliary may intervene between the whphrases just as well: (14) a. b. Co Ania b dzie komu szya? [PL] e whatACC A.NOM FUT- AUX whoDAT sew What will Ania sew for whom? (Dornisch 1998, 136 (27)) bude cemu [... nedostate n komunikace,] (kdo se c insufcient communication who REFL ACC FUT- AUX what v novat)... [CZ] e devote [... bad working ethics, insufcient communication] (who will devote himself to what) (CNK)

The proper conclusion seems to be that non-rst wh-phrase(s) in Polish and Czech can be licensed either above or below T . But could they remain even below the Agrsystem? Polish wh-phrases pose a well-known puzzle for an approach that assumes the syntactic derivation of the sequence Verb auxiliary clitic via verb raising (Borsley and Rivero 1994, Witko 1996): s (15) a. komu da? Co s what-AUX - PF 2. SG whom gave What did you give to whom? b. *Co dae komu? s what gave whom
5 "

(Borsley and Rivero 1994, 409f)

When both wh-phrases have moved out of VP and checked their relevant features, then V-raising up to the base position of the auxiliary should make no difference; but such a derivation is obviously unavailable. Instead, the lower wh-phrase komu appears to have remained in situ leading to unacceptability out of context. Generally, whphrases which stay inside the VP have to be focused (Dornisch 1998) and receive an obligatorily D-linked interpretation. The situation in Czech is surprisingly different. In examples like (16), the main verb can intervene between the wh-phrases without causing unacceptability. The example does not require focus on the postverbal wh-phrase or a D-linked reading either, but has the unmarked falling sentence accent on the internal argument hlas. (16) [Kdo sleduje tenisov tisk, dozv se,] kdo dal komu hlas. who follows tennis press get-to-know REFL who gave whoDAT voteACC [Those who follow the tennis news, will get to know] who gave whom his vote. (CNK)

Some evidence that the verb has indeed moved up may be gained from the possibilities of adverb placement as in (17):

proceedings 2003/9/19 17:30 page 75 #79

Roland Meyer

Page 75

(17)

Kdo (?*necht n ) dal (?*necht n ) komu necht n e e e e e e duvod k who unwillingly gave unwillingly whom unwillingly reason for hdce? quarrel Who gave whom unintentionally a reason for quarrelling?

It is well-known that the nite verb tends to leave the VP and raise to a higher position in Czech for a variety of syntactic and information-structural reasons (see Junghanns 2002). The pattern in (16) is actually the one which would be expected for Polish, if the putative verb raising to the head hosting the auxiliary clitic had applied. Data like those in (15b)(17) thus suggest parametric variation with respect to verb movement: head movement of the nite verb out of the VP can apply rather freely in Czech, but it does not apply in Polish. This means, in turn, that l-participle auxiliary complexes have to be formed within the VP in Polish, an idea pursued by Borsley (1999) to handle further asymmetries between the future auxiliary and the clitic auxiliaries. For our analysis of wh-movement, it means that the lower licensing position for wh-phrases is not as high up as the Agr-System; rather, it has to be VP.

Conclusion

Controlled studies on linguistic acceptability suggest that Polish and Czech multiple wh-questions fall into the same typological group with respect to superiority effects. According to the theory developed by Bokovi (1998, 2002), this means that all whc phrases should adjoin to Agr P overtly in both languages, to check a focus feature. The comparative evidence gathered here leads to a renement of this picture. In Polish, there are no clear 2nd-position effects which would call for wh-movement to CP-Spec, and clitic movement to C is not obligatory. At the same time, noninterrogative XPs may precede the wh-phrases rather freely, although CP-adjunction has to be excluded. Thus, the wh-phrase in a single wh-question is obviously able to surface lower in the structure than CP-Spec. Concerning multiple wh questions, I argued that potential interveners between the two wh-phrases signal a lower licensing position for the second wh-phrase than has been usually assumed, namely as an adjunct to VP. In Czech, on the other hand, clitic placement into a syntactically dened position in the C-domain (which is justied independently, see Lenertov 2001) forces the assumption that the highest wh-phrase occupies CP-Spec in main and embedded clauses. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that, other than in Polish single wh-questions, nothing may precede the wh-phrase (disregarding cases of wh in situ). In Czech multiple wh-questions, the nite verb may surface between the wh-phrases without inducing unacceptability or a specic discourse-linked reading (focusing each of the wh-phrases). This option is unavailable in Polish. I attribute it to an independent difference in verb movement, rather than to differences in whmovement. Regarding wh-phrases themselves, we have to assume that the movement of one wh-phrase to CP in Czech is not motivated by a focus- or wh-feature, because that would inevitably predict superiority effects. Note that one could hypothesize that the wh-phrases undergo a two-step movement process: First, they all check their
"

proceedings 2003/9/19 17:30 page 76 #80

Page 76

Generative Linguistics in Poland

focus features in the lower licensing position; second, one of them checks a strong wh-feature in CP-Spec. Since all wh-phrases count as equidistant with respect to the second step, there would be no superiority effects. However, the latter derivation has to be excluded in embedded Serbo-Croatian wh-questions, to ensure strong superiority effects there. To guarantee this, Bokovi (1997, 99ff.) resorts to a general principle c precluding further A-movement once an operator-variable chain has been formed. Our Czech evidence suggests that only two ways out remain: Either the general principle assumed by Bokovi (1997) has to be a mere language-specic option, subject c to variation. Or the further movement of the wh-phrase to CP-Spec in Czech has to be a PF-phenomenon which does not count as A-movement. We hope to have shown how Polish and Czech wh-questions differ in empirical detail, although both belong to the same coarse typological group, lacking superiority effects in the strong, syntactic sense. Two main sources for this variation have been identied: (i) obligatory movement to CP-Spec, independently of wh-licensing, and (ii) verb movement out of the VP. Further research has to show the exact motivation of these two movement processes.

References
Ackema, P. and Neeleman, A. (1998). Optimal questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16, 443490. Banski, P. (2001). Morphological and Prosodic Analysis of Auxiliary Clitics in Polish and English. Ph.D. thesis, Uniwersytet Warszawski, Warszawa. Bard, E., Robertson, D., and Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72(1), 3268. Billings, L. and Rudin, C. (1996). Optimality and superiority: A new approach to overt multiple wh-ordering. In J. Toman, editor, Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The College Park Meeting, 1994, volume 38 of Michigan Slavic Materials, pages 3560. Michigan Slavic Publications, Ann Arbor. Baszczak, J. and Fischer, S. (2001). Multiple Wh-Konstruktionen im Slavischen: State of the Art Report, volume 14 of Linguistics in Potsdam. Universitt Potsdam. Borsley, R. (1999). Weak auxiliaries, complex verbs and inected complementizers in Polish. In R. D. Borsley and A. Przepirkowski, editors, Slavic in HPSG, pages 2959. CSLI Publications, Stanford. Borsley, R. and Rivero, M.-L. (1994). Clitic auxiliaries and incorporation in Polish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12, 373422. Bokovi , . (1997). Fronting wh-phrases in Serbo-Croatian. In M. Lindseth and c S. Franks, editors, Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Indiana Meeting 1996, volume 42 of Michigan Slavic Materials, pages 86107. Michigan Slavic Publications, Ann Arbor. Bokovi , . (1998). Wh-phrases and wh-movement in Slavic. Technical report, Dec partment of Linguistics, University of Connecticut. Bokovi , . (2001). On the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface. Cliticization and Rec lated Phenomena, volume 60 of North Holland Linguistics Series: Linguistic Variations. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

proceedings 2003/9/19 17:30 page 77 #81

Roland Meyer

Page 77

Bokovi , . (2002). On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 351383. c Brown, S. and Franks, S. (1995). Asymmetries in the scope of Russian negation. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 3, 239287. Cheng, L. (1997). On the Typology of Wh-Questions. Garland, New York. Citko, B. (1997). On multiple WH movement in Slavic. In . Bokovi , S. Franks, c and W. Snyder, editors, Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Connecticut Meeting, 1997, volume 43 of Michigan Slavic Materials, pages 97114, Ann Arbor. Michigan Slavic Publications. Dane, F., Grepl, M., and Hlavsa, Z., editors (1987). Mluvnice cetiny, volume 3. Academia, Praha. Dornisch, E. (1998). Clitics and Multiple Wh-Movement in Polish. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University. Featherston, S. (2001). Universals and the counter-example model: Evidence from wh-constraints in German. ms., University of Tbingen (to appear in: Linguistics). Grepl, M. and Karlk, P. (1998). Skladba cetiny. Votobia, Brno. Junghanns, U. (2002). Klitische Elemente im Tschechischen: Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme. In T. Daiber, editor, Linguistische Beitrge zur Slavistik aus Deutschland und sterreich. IX. JungslavistInnen-Treffen, Mnchen 2000. Sagner, Mnchen. Junghanns, U. and Zybatow, G. (1997). Syntax and information structure in Russian clauses. In W. Browne, E. Dornisch, N. Kondrashova, and D. Zec, editors, Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Cornell Meeting, 1995, volume 39 of Michigan Slavic Materials, pages 289319. Michigan Slavic Publications, Ann Arbor. Keller, F. (2000). Gradience in Grammar: Experimental and Computational Aspects of Degrees of Grammaticality. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh. Keller, F., Corley, M., Corley, S., Konieczny, L., and Todirascu, A. (1998). WebExp: A Java Toolbox for Web-Based Psychological Experiments. Users Guide for WebExp 2.1. Lenertov, D. (2001). On clitic placement, topicalization and CP-structure in Czech. In G. Zybatow, U. Junghanns, G. Mehlhorn, and L. Szucsich, editors, Current Issues in Formal Slavic Linguistics, volume 5 of Linguistik International, pages 294305, Frankfurt. Peter Lang. Meyer, R. (2002). Zur Syntax der Ergnzungsfrage in einigen slavischen Sprachen. Ph.D. thesis, Universitt Tbingen, Tbingen. Mller, G. and Sternefeld, W. (1993). Improper movement and unambiguous binding. Lingustic Inquiry, 24(3), 461507. Pesetsky, D. (1987). Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen, editors, The Representation of (In)Deniteness, pages 98129. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Przepirkowski, A. (1994). Critical Review of Approaches to Multiple Wh-Movement. Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh. Rudin, C. (1988). On multiple questions and multiple fronting. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 445501. Rudin, C. (1989/1996). Multiple wh-questions South, West, and East: A Government-

proceedings 2003/9/19 17:30 page 78 #82

Page 78

Generative Linguistics in Poland

Binding approach to the typology of wh-movement in Slavic languages. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 39/40, 103122. Stepanov, A. (1998). On wh-fronting in Russian. In P. N. Tamanji and K. Kusumoto, editors, Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, volume 28, pages 453467. Szucsich, L. (2002). Nominale Adverbiale im Russischen Syntax, Semantik, Informationsstruktur, volume 414 of Slavistische Beitrge. Sagner, Mnchen. Toman, J. (1981). Aspects of multiple wh-movement in Polish and Czech. In R. May and J. Koster, editors, Levels of Syntactic Representation, pages 293302. Dordrecht: Foris. Willim, E. (1989). On Word Order: A Government-Binding Study of English and Polish. Zeszyty naukowe uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego: Prace j zykoznawcze 100. e Witko , J. (1996). Pronominal argument placement in Polish. Wiener Linguistische s Gazette, 57-59, 147194.

Sources: APTC CNK GW RT NT Adam Przepirkowskis Toy Corpus Czech National Corpus Gazeta Wyborcza Rozmowy telefoniczne (Pisarkowa 1975) New Testament

Roland Meyer Department of Slavonic Languages and Literature University of Regensburg 93040 Regensburg Germany

I EF c 6 ` d S C I c I 6 b X C `F Y X 9 V U A 6 T S R 6 I Q I GF E C A 9 7 84@@P8@8@8P@a28W@88BPH4DB@86