Partial wh-movement in Polish |
|
Maja Lubanska (Wroclaw) |
Natural languages employ various
strategies to form questions. A number of languages form wh-questions,
like those in (1), in which one or more wh-phrases located in an
embedded clause have scope in a higher clause. The scope is indicated by the
presence in the higher clause of a distinct wh-word, which typically
takes the form of ‘what’ in a language, and appears to have no other semantic
function. Hence the term partial wh-movement, since the meaningful wh-phrase
moves at surface structure only to an intermediate [-wh] position on its way to the [Spec, CP] of the matrix clause.
(1) a. Wasi glaubst du [CP wanni
sie ti gekommen ist]?
[+wh] think
you when she
come is
‘When do you think that she came?’ (Müller 1997)
b. Jaki myslisz kogoi Janek kocha ti?
[+wh] think whom Janek loves
‘Who do you think that John loves?’
The conflicting evidence gained by
looking at wh-scope marking constructions in different languages
contributes to the ongoing discussion (see for instance Lutz, Müller, and von
Stechow 2000), which does not seem to be on the way to work out a unified
approach for all languages. The main objective of my presentation is to enter
this discussion with the aim of advocating the focus movement analysis of wh-scope
marking questions in Polish. In the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995), movement
is driven by the need to check features. A crucial question concerning the
fronting of wh-phrases is what forces
their movement. According to the results of recent research (Sabel 1998, 2000),
these are [+wh] and [+focus] features
that are involved in wh-movement in
all languages. This idea provides the basis for the analysis which
straightforwardly accounts for the fact that some languages allow for partial wh-movement,
whereas others do not. The parametric property responsible for this difference
is the value of two features which trigger the movement – the [+wh]- and
[+focus]-feature. The differences
between languages with respect to wh-parameter can be analysed as
resulting from the difference in the strength of the features of the functional
heads that trigger wh-movement. Since only a strong [+focus]-feature may
trigger the movement to a [-wh]-position,
partial wh-movement, as Sabel (1998) observes, may serve as a
diagnostic: if a language allows for partial wh-movement, then overt wh-movement
is triggered by [+focus]-feature. In the case when a language does not allow
for partial wh-movement, wh-movement is triggered by [+wh]-feature.
The analysis in terms of feature values correctly excludes partial wh-movement in English, in which wh-movement results from the need to
check a strong [+wh], not
[+focus]-feature.
In accordance with Sabel’s (1998,
2000) hypothesis, I will argue that in Polish the movement in the construction
under discussion is triggered exclusively by the strong focus feature. The
advocated analysis may clear up the wh-movement
facts like the recognition of partial wh-movement
and the lack of successive cyclic wh-movement
in the syntax of Polish. A feasible explanation may be given if we assume that
the traditional wh-movement is not attested in partial wh-movement construction in Polish.
References:
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The
Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Lutz, Uli, Gereon Müller, and Arnim von Stechow. 2000. Wh-Scope Marking. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Müller, Gereon. 1997. ‘Partial Wh-movement
and Optimality Theory’. The
Linguistic Review 14: 249-306.
Sabel, Joachim. 1998. Principles
and Parameters of Wh-Movement. Habilitationsschrift, University of
Frankfurt/Main.
Sabel, Joachim. 2000. ‘Partial
Wh-Movement and the Typology of Wh-Questions’. In: Uli Lutz, Gereon Müller, and Arnim von Stechow
(eds.). Wh-Scope
Marking. 409-446.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Stepanov, Arthur. 2000. ‘Wh-Scope
Marking in Slavic’. Studia Linguistica 54: 1-40. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Willim, Ewa. 1989. On Word Order:
A Government-Binding Study of English and Polish. Kraków: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Prace
Językoznawcze. Zeszyt 100.