Multiple Left-Branch Extraction Under Sluicing

The general goal of this paper is to explore the interaction between multiple whfronting, left-branch extraction (LBE) and sluicing, with the hope of finding insights into the nature of each of the phenomena. One of the issues I will address is why, even though LBE is available in certain multiple wh-fronting languages (e.g. Russian, Serbo-Croatian), multiple LBE is prohibited in these languages. In order to solve this puzzle, we will take a close look at the processes underlying LBE as compared to regular wh-movement. In Section 3, I will argue that LBE, unlike regular wh-movement, is headmovement to a Topic head above TP, essentially a scrambling type of move. The account builds on the unified analysis of d-linking and scrambling developed by Boeckx and Grohmann (2004) and draws on the connection between LBE and movement of d-linked wh-phrases. The conclusion that will be reached is that prohibition against multiple LBE is a result of a minimality violation (i.e. Minimal Link Condition of Chomsky (1995)). The analysis in Section 3 will provide a ready solution to another puzzle, namely, why multiple LBE violations are not repaired by sluicing, given that sluicing is known to repair certain types of derivations. The answer will come from the fact that sluicing cannot repair minimality violations in principle, and violations of multiple LBE are analyzed as minimality violations

Interpretation of Slavic Multiple Wh-Questions

This paper shows that the Relativized Minimality account is not sufficient to rule out SP readings in languages other than languages with overt syntactic wh-movement. My analysis of PL/SP readings distribution relies on the lexical properties of the Q-morpheme, specifically proposing that the absence of the SP reading can be the direct result of the absence of the Q-morpheme of a particular kind. This approach raises the degree of explanatory adequacy in that it explains crosslinguistic parameterization based on the properties of individual lexical items

Multiple Interrogatives in Child Language

The goal of this paper is to explore how children acquire the syntactic and semantic properties of multiple interrogatives. Consider the examples of multiple interrogatives from English in (1) and from Russian in (2). (1) Who bought what? (2) Kto čto kupil? [Russian] who what bought ‘Who bought what?’ Already we can see the syntactic differences between these two languages: in English, only one wh-phrase is fronted, while in Russian, as in all Slavic languages, all wh-phrases are fronted. Moreover, there are some semantic differences in multiple interrogatives across languages, which will be demonstrated in section 2. These language-specific properties must be acquired by the child from the available input. After examining the availability and the nature of the relevant cues in the input, I conclude that there is very little evidence in the input with respect to the syntax and semantics of multiple interrogatives. Therefore, this is an interesting area for the study of language acquisition, since we will be able to see what hypotheses the learners make in the absence of reliable evidence in the input

Sluicing Puzzles in Russian

The general goal of this paper is to explore the properties of sluicing (IPellipsis) in Russian and to see how the Russian data shed light on the general processes underlying the phenomenon of sluicing. The first issue we will address is what positions wh-remnants occupy in sluicing constructions in Russian, considering the properties of wh-movement in Russian. We will then turn to sluicing with multiple wh-remnants, which I will refer to as multiple sluicing, following Takahashi (1994). Here we will investigate how the interpretative properties of multiple interrogatives in Russian affect the multiple sluicing possibilities in this language. Finally, I will present the data showing that superiority effects emerge under sluicing in Russian. This is unexpected, given that Russian does not exhibit superiority effects in corresponding non-elliptical interrogatives. In addressing the question of what causes superiority effects under sluicing, I will propose an analysis which makes use of an independent property of ellipsis, namely, quantifier parallelism

Multiple Interrogatives in Child Language

The goal of this paper is to explore how children acquire the syntactic and semantic properties of multiple interrogatives. Consider the examples of multiple interrogatives from English in (1) and from Russian in (2). (1) Who bought what? (2) Kto čto kupil? [Russian] who what bought ‘Who bought what?’ Already we can see the syntactic differences between these two languages: in English, only one wh-phrase is fronted, while in Russian, as in all Slavic languages, all wh-phrases are fronted. Moreover, there are some semantic differences in multiple interrogatives across languages, which will be demonstrated in section 2. These language-specific properties must be acquired by the child from the available input. After examining the availability and the nature of the relevant cues in the input, I conclude that there is very little evidence in the input with respect to the syntax and semantics of multiple interrogatives. Therefore, this is an interesting area for the study of language acquisition, since we will be able to see what hypotheses the learners make in the absence of reliable evidence in the input

Sluicing and Multiple Wh-fronting.

This paper explores multiple wh-fronting under Sluicing. Contrary to previous proposals that an interrogative +wh complementizer licenses TP-ellipsis, I propose that +focus feature licenses this ellipsis operation. Assuming the deletion analysis of sluicing, following Ross (1969), I argue for focus-licensed sluicing based on data from Slavic languages like Russian and Polish, where it is possible to have focused R-expressions as remnants of sluicing. I demonstrate how semantic restrictions in multiple interrogatives are maintained under sluicing, presenting a new argument for the clausal structure of the sluice. Finally, I explore Superiority effects under sluicing, deriving those from parallelism in variable binding

Sluicing in Slavic

The goal of this paper is to explore the properties of sluicing (i.e., clausal ellipsis) in Slavic languages. In turn, we will see how the Slavic data shed light on the nature of general processes underlying sluicing. First, I determine what positions wh-remnants occupy in sluicing constructions in Slavic, given the properties of wh--movement in each language. Contrary to the standard analyses, where an interrogative +wh- complementizer licenses TP-ellipsis, I argue that it is actually the +focus feature that is responsible for licensing sluicing in Slavic. The proposal is further extended to languages other than Slavic. I also demonstrate how the interpretation of multiple interrogatives in a given language affects the availability of multiple sluicing (i.e., sluicing with multiple wh--remnants) in that language. Finally, I explore a surprising manifestation of Superiority effects in sluicing structures in languages that do not exhibit Superiority effects in non-elliptical structures. I derive those Superiority effects from an independent property of ellipsis, namely, scope parallelism

Multiple Left-Branch Extraction Under Sluicing

The general goal of this paper is to explore the interaction between multiple whfronting, left-branch extraction (LBE) and sluicing, with the hope of finding insights into the nature of each of the phenomena. One of the issues I will address is why, even though LBE is available in certain multiple wh-fronting languages (e.g. Russian, Serbo-Croatian), multiple LBE is prohibited in these languages. In order to solve this puzzle, we will take a close look at the processes underlying LBE as compared to regular wh-movement. In Section 3, I will argue that LBE, unlike regular wh-movement, is headmovement to a Topic head above TP, essentially a scrambling type of move. The account builds on the unified analysis of d-linking and scrambling developed by Boeckx and Grohmann (2004) and draws on the connection between LBE and movement of d-linked wh-phrases. The conclusion that will be reached is that prohibition against multiple LBE is a result of a minimality violation (i.e. Minimal Link Condition of Chomsky (1995)). The analysis in Section 3 will provide a ready solution to another puzzle, namely, why multiple LBE violations are not repaired by sluicing, given that sluicing is known to repair certain types of derivations. The answer will come from the fact that sluicing cannot repair minimality violations in principle, and violations of multiple LBE are analyzed as minimality violations

Sluicing Puzzles in Russian

The general goal of this paper is to explore the properties of sluicing (IPellipsis) in Russian and to see how the Russian data shed light on the general processes underlying the phenomenon of sluicing. The first issue we will address is what positions wh-remnants occupy in sluicing constructions in Russian, considering the properties of wh-movement in Russian. We will then turn to sluicing with multiple wh-remnants, which I will refer to as multiple sluicing, following Takahashi (1994). Here we will investigate how the interpretative properties of multiple interrogatives in Russian affect the multiple sluicing possibilities in this language. Finally, I will present the data showing that superiority effects emerge under sluicing in Russian. This is unexpected, given that Russian does not exhibit superiority effects in corresponding non-elliptical interrogatives. In addressing the question of what causes superiority effects under sluicing, I will propose an analysis which makes use of an independent property of ellipsis, namely, quantifier parallelism

Agreement in Russian Secondary Predicates

This paper will be concerned with the distribution of Case marking in Russian secondary predicates. I will particularly analyze Case alternations in simple matrix clauses and control configurations. I account for these facts by distinguishing NP-movement structures from the structures containing a null pronominal. This general topic is often referred to as the Second Dative. However, it is somewhat misleading because Dative Case marking happens to be very unproductive in secondary predicates in Russian, with a more general paradigm involving actually Instrumental Case