On the Treatment of Multiple-Wh-Interrogatives in Minimalist Grammars

As shown by Michaelis (2001a,b), Stablerian Minimalist Grammars (MGs) (Stabler 1997b, 1998, 2008) belong among the class of mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms as, e.g., characterized in Joshi et al. 1991. Crucially, mild context-sensitivity depends on what may—somewhat loosely—be referred to as resource-sensitivity, i.e., strictly limited combinability of syntactic objects. Within MGs, resource-sensitivity is implemented in terms of feature checking: each structure-building operation must consume (i.e. check and eliminate) features. In addition, the number of features of identical type accessible to an operation at a given stage of a derivation is strictly bounded. The core MG-constraint enforcing such an upper bound on available resources is the so-called Shortest Move Condition (SMC), which—in its most rigid version—allows no more than one feature of a given type to be available for attraction by some category requiring dependency formation. Consider the pair of German wh-interrogatives in (1).

[1]  Association Focus , 1999 .

[2]  G. Grewendorf.  Multiple Wh-Fronting , 2001, Linguistic Inquiry.

[3]  T. Reinhart.  Wh-in-situ in the Framework of the Minimalist Program , 1998 .

[4]  Günther Grewendorf,et al.  Scrambling in German and Japanese: Adjunction Versus Multiple Specifiers , 1999 .

[5]  Edward L. Keenan,et al.  Semantic Case Theory , 1989 .

[6]  Dong Seok Kim.  On the Typology of Wh-Questions , 1999 .

[7]  Jens Michaelis,et al.  A Note on the Complexity of Constraint Interaction: Locality Conditions and Minimalist Grammars , 2005, LACL.

[8]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  Focus and Presupposition in Dynamic Interpretation , 1993, J. Semant..

[9]  James McCloskey,et al.  Transformational Syntax and Model Theoretic Semantics , 1979 .

[10]  D. Pesetsky.  Phrasal Movement and Its Kin , 2000 .

[11]  E. Keenan.  Beyond the frege boundary , 1992 .

[12]  Norvin Richards,et al.  Movement in Language: Interactions and Architectures , 2001 .

[13]  H.G.A. Hughes,et al.  The Blackwell Companion to Syntax , 2006 .

[14]  L. Rizzi.  The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery , 1997 .

[15]  A. Watanabe.  Subjacency and S-structure movement of wh-in-situ , 1992 .

[16]  Asa Kasher,et al.  The Chomskyan Turn , 1993 .

[17]  Gosse Bouma,et al.  Constraints and resources in Natural Language Syntax and Semantics , 1999 .

[18]  Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng,et al.  Wh-in-situ, from the 1980s to Now , 2009, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[19]  Edward P. Stabler,et al.  Computing Quantifier Scope , 1997 .

[20]  J.F.A.K. van Benthem,et al.  Semantics and Contextual Expressions , 1989 .

[21]  E. Stabler.  1 Sidewards without copying , 2006 .

[22]  Stuart M. Shieber,et al.  Foundational issues in natural language processing , 1991 .

[23]  Veneeta Dayal.  Multiple‐Wh‐Questions , 2007 .

[24]  Edward P. Stabler,et al.  Derivational Minimalism , 1996, LACL.

[25]  E. Stabler.  Acquiring Languages with Movement , 2002, Syntax.

[26]  Hans-Martin Gärtner,et al.  On the Treatment of Scrambling and Adjunction in Minimalist Grammars 1 , 2002 .

[27]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Minimalist inquiries : the framework , 1998 .

[28]  C. Jan-Wouter Zwart,et al.  Syntactic and phonological verb movement , 2001 .

[29]  Richard S. Kayne.  Connectedness and binary branching , 1984 .

[30]  David J. Weir,et al.  The convergence of mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms , 1990 .

[31]  Gisbert Fanselow,et al.  The MLC and derivational economy , 2004 .

[32]  C. Rudin.  On multiple questions and multiple WH fronting , 1988 .

[33]  Edward P. Stabler,et al.  Remnant movement and complexity , 2000 .

[34]  Anna Szabolcsi.  Ways of Scope Taking , 1997 .

[35]  Marga Reis,et al.  What do Wh-imperatives tell us about Wh-movement? , 1992 .

[36]  Andreas Haida,et al.  The Indefiniteness and Focusing of Wh-Words , 2008 .

[37]  H. Alma,et al.  I and Me , 2002 .

[38]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The Minimalist Program , 1992 .

[39]  Alan Ryan,et al.  From left to right , 1997 .

[40]  Arthur Stepanov,et al.  Minimality effects in syntax , 2004 .

[41]  Arthur Stepanov,et al.  Cartography and licensing of wh-adjuncts: a cross-linguistic perspective , 2008 .

[42]  L. Rizzi.  Relativized Minimality Effects , 2008 .

[43]  Gert Webelhuth,et al.  Government and binding theory and the minimalist program : principles and parameters in syntactic theory , 1997 .

[44]  Jens Michaelis,et al.  Derivational Minimalism Is Mildly Context-Sensitive , 1998, LACL.

[45]  Theo Vennemann,et al.  Syntax - Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischerForschung , 1993 .

[46]  Arnim von Stechow,et al.  Current Issues in the Theory of Focus Probleme der Fokustheorie , 1991 .

[47]  L. Haegeman.  Elements of Grammar , 1997 .

[48]  Anna Szabolcsi,et al.  Weak islands and an algebraic semantics for scope taking , 1993 .

[49]  Joachim Sabel,et al.  Deriving Multiple Head and Phrasal Movement: The Cluster Hypothesis , 2001, Linguistic Inquiry.

[50]  Chris Collins,et al.  The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory , 2001 .

[51]  Josef Bayer,et al.  Wh-in-situ , 2006 .

[52]  Wolfgang Sternefeld,et al.  Improper movement and unambiguous binding , 1993 .

[53]  Jens Michaelis,et al.  Some Remarks on Locality Conditions and Minimalist Grammars , 2007 .

[54]  P. Materna,et al.  Logical Form , 2005 .

[55]  Gregory M. Kobele,et al.  Two Type 0-Variants of Minimalist Grammars , 2009 .

[56]  Edward P. Stabler,et al.  Computational Perspectives on Minimalism , 2011 .

[57]  Ileana Comorovski,et al.  Interrogative phrases and the syntax-semantics interface , 1996 .

[58]  Jens Michaelis.  An Additional Observation on Strict Derivational Minimalism , 2009 .

[59]  Marcus Kracht,et al.  Syntax in Chains , 2001 .

[60]  Jens Michaelis,et al.  On Formal Properties of Minimalist Grammars , 2001 .