Table Of ContentMinimality and wh-in-situ in Malayalam1
Athulya Aravind, MIT
[email protected]
NELS 46, Concordia University,October 16-18, 2015
1 Introduction
1.1 An enriched wh-typology?
• It is generally thought that wh-in-situ and wh-movement are comparable in
expressive power.
• Despite differences in the surface position of the wh-phrase, the English (1a)
and the Japanese (1b) are both grammatical long-distance questions.
(1) a. What did John say [Mary bought ___]?
b. Hideki-ga [Kyoko-ga nani-o ka-tta ka] i-ta
Hideki-nom [Kyoko-nom what-acc buy-past Q] say-past
‘What did Hideki say Kyoko bought?’
÷× The puzzle:
Unlike Japanese, languages like Hindi and Iraqi Arabic seemingly disallow
long-distance wh-in-situ. Why do some languages, but not others, display
clause-boundedness of wh-in-situ?
÷× One answer: Parametric variation (e.g. Ouhalla 1996, Simpson 2000)
There are at least two subclasses of wh-in-situ, which vary wrt the locality of
wh-licensing (e.g. Simpson 2000).
⊳ Restricted scope (Hindi, Iraqi Arabic): in-situ wh-phrases cannot take
scope outside of the immediately local finite clause.
⊳ Unrestricted scope (Japanese, Mandarin): in-situ wh-phrases have po-
tentially unbounded scope.
1ThankstoAdamAlbright,KenyonBranan,SabineIatridou,NorvinRichards,RogerSchwarzchild,CoppevanUrk,
MichelleYuanandespeciallyDannyFoxandDavidPesetskyforcommentsandgenerousfeedback.
1
1.2 This talk
• At least for some cases, apparent clause-boundedness can be shown to be
epiphenomenal and not due to a radically different syntax for wh-in-situ.
• I draw on evidence from Malayalam (Dravidian), which has been argued to
have only clause-bound wh-in-situ, based on cases like (2) (Srikumar 2007,
Madhavan 2013).
(2) ∗[ Sita eethu pustakam vaayich-ennu ] Raman vicaarichu?
Sita which book read-comp Raman thought
Unavailable reading: ‘Which book did Raman think Sita read?’
• I will show that the restricted scope of the wh-phrase in cases like (2) is not
due to a general clause-boundedness constraint on wh-in-situ, but the result
¯
ofaperniciousinteractionbetweenwh-AgreementandA-operationsaffecting
embedded clauses.
2 Wh-in-situ asymmetries
• Wh-phrases in Malayalam can appear in their base position and produce or-
dinary question interpretations:2
(3) a. Questioned element: Object
Raman eethu pustakam vaayi-chu?
Raman which book read-pst
‘Which book did Raman read?’
2In-situwh-expressionsinMalayalamdonotundergocovertmovement. FollowingPesetsky(2000),Beck(2006),
Cable (2010), and Kotek (2014), I use Focus-Intervention effects as a diagnostic for genuine in-situ interpretation.
Focus-relatedelementslikemaatram‘only’areprohibitedfromsurfacec-commanding anin-situwh-phrase,asillus-
tratedin(i).Scramblingthewh-phraseabovetheinterveningelementcanrescuethestructure(ii).
(i) ∗Rajanpustakangalmaatramaar-kke okkekoduthu?
✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿
Rajan booksonly who-datall gave
‘WhoalldidRajangiveonlybooksto?’
(ii) Rajanaar-kke okkepustakangalmaatramkoduthu?
✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿✿
Rajanwho-datall booksonly gave
‘WhoalldidRajangiveonlybooksto?’
2
b. Questioned element: Subject
Eethu kutti ee pustakam vaayi-chu?
Which child this book read-pst
‘Which boy read this book?’
c. Questioned element: Adjunct
Raman eppol ee pustakam vaayi-chu?
Raman when this book read-pst
‘When did Raman read this book?’
• Generally, wh-phrases inside non-finite clauses can take matrix scope (4).
(4) Non-finite clauses
Raman [eethu pustakam vaayikk-aan] shramichu?
Raman [which book read-inf] tried
‘Which book did Raman try to read?’
• However, the scope of in-situ wh-phrases inside finite clausal complements
appears to be highly restricted.
• In (5), where the wh-phrase is embedded in the complement of a verb like
know, which can take both interrogative and declarative complements, only
the embedded question interpretation is available.
(5) [ Sita eethu pustakam vaayich-ennu ] Raman-u ariyaam
Sita which book read-comp Raman-dat know
Embedded Q: ‘Raman knows which book Sita read.’
✕
Matrix Q: ‘For which book x does Raman know that Sita read x?’
• In (6), we have a wh-phrase inside the finite complement of a verb like think.
An embeddedquestion interpretation is unavailable and as a result, the struc-
ture is simply ungrammatical.
(6) ∗[ Sita eethu pustakam vaayich-ennu ] Raman vicaarichu?
Sita which book read-comp Raman thought
Intended: ‘Which book did Raman think Sita read?’
3
• First blush conclusion: The scope of wh-expressions in Malayalam is finite-
clause-bound.
÷× Confound:
Inadditiontobeingfinite,theembeddedclausesintheexamplesaboveap-
pearinapreposedpositionasopposedtothecanonicalobjectposition.
÷× Key Question:
Whatisresponsiblefortheunavailability ofwide scope—finiteness orthe
fronted clause position?
÷× Answer in this talk:
It is clause position and not finiteness, that is directly relevant for wh-
scope.
3 Clausal fronting and wh-in-situ
3.1 Properties of fronted clauses
• Though Malayalam is a uniformly head-final SOV language, clausal comple-
ments can and sometimes must appear to the left of the matrix subject.
⇒ Feature-driven movement
¯
• ClausesgettotheirfrontedpositionviaA-movement(concreteexamplesgiven
in §3.1.1).
⊳ Obligatory reconstruction for Principle C
⊳ Island sensitivity
⊳ Parasitic-gap licensing
¯
⊳ Interaction with other types of A-movement
• I assume a feature-driven approach to movement, and for concreteness, will
stipulate a triggering feature [fr] on a designated left-peripheral head, H,
which is responsible for fronting.
4
⇒ Weight matters!
• The obligatoriness of fronting appears to be related to the heaviness of the
clause, which correlates, albeit not perfectly, with finiteness of the clause.
⊳ Finite clauses with all arguments overtly realized are required to front.
⊳ Non-finite clauses and exceptionally “light” finite clauses may optionally
front.3
• Recentaccountsofclausalextrapositionhaveconvergedontheideathatclauses
evacuate their medial position in SOV languages4 to avoid “prosodic mon-
sters” (Truckenboldt 1995, Gobbel 2007, Fery 2011, 2015, Manetta 2012, Hart-
man 2013, a.o).
• Such an account is consistent with the Malayalam facts.
Argument 1: Clausal fronting has no recognizable interpretive effects.
∎
Argument 2:Obligatorinessoffrontingremainsunchangedwithcategory-change —nomina
∎
counterparts of CPs that would otherwise front must also front.
(7) No nominalization
a. [ Sita War and Peace vaayichu ennu ] Raman ennode paranju
Sita War and Peace read comp Raman to.me told
‘Raman told me that Sita read War and Peace.’
b. ??Raman ennode [ Sita War and Peace vaayichu ennu ] paranju
Raman to.me Sita War and Peace read comp told
‘Raman told me that Sita read War and Peace.’
(8) Nominalization
a. Sita War and Peace vaayichu enn-athe Raman ennode
Sita War and Peace read comp-nomnl Raman to.me
paranju
told
‘Raman told me that Sita read War and Peace.’
3SimilarpatternshavebeenobservedbyPotsdamandEdminston(2015)forMalagasy.FinitecomplementsinMala-
gasyobligatorilyextraposeunlesstheembeddedsubjectisnon-overt.
4SeeDryer(1980)foratypologicalsurveyshowingthatclausalmovementtoaperipheralpositioniscommonplace
forSOVlanguages.
5
b. ??Raman ennode [ Sita War and Peace vaayichu enn-athe ]
Raman to.me Sita War and Peace read comp-nomnl
paranju
told
‘Raman told me that Sita read War and Peace.’
Argument 3: Heavy non-finite clauses also front obligatorily.
∎
(9) a. [ Sita veett-il var-aan ] Raman aagrahichu
Sita home-loccome-inf Raman wished
‘Raman wished for Sita to come home.’
b. ??Raman [ Sita veett-il var-aan ] aagrahichu
Raman Sita home-loccome-inf wished
‘Raman wished for Sita to come home.’
• Ifaprosodicapproachisontherighttrack,thenclausalfrontingcanbethought
of as a mechanism by which the language derives a structure that can poten-
tially pass through a prosodic filter.
¯
3.1.1 Clausal fronting as A-movement
Argument 1: Fronted clauses obligatorily reconstruct for binding:
∎
(10) Principle C
∗[ Raman aane class-il onnaaman ennu ] avan vicaarichu
i i
Raman cop class-in first comp he thought
i i
‘He thought that Raman is first in class.’
Argument 2: Clausal fronting cannot escape islands, as illustrated with rela-
∎
tive clauses in (11):
(11) ∗[ Sita War and Peace vaayichu ennu ] njaan [ t t paranj-a]
CP i CP
Sita War and Peace read comp I [ said-rel]
aaL-e kandu
i
person-acc saw
Intended: ‘I saw the person who said that Sita read War and Peace.’
6
Argument 3:Clausalfrontinglicensesparasiticgaps,5 asillustratedbythecon-
∎
trastbetween(12a) and(12b), whichdifferminimallywrtto theoccurrenceof
clausal fronting.
(12) a. [ War and Peace vaayikk-aan ] Raman ___ ishtapped-aathe
War and Peace read-inf Raman enjoy-without
shramichu
tried
‘Raman tried to read War and Peace without enjoying the activity.’
b. ??Raman [ War and Peace vaayikk-aan ] ishtapped-aathe
Raman War and Peace read-inf enjoy-without
shramichu
tried
¯
Argument 4: Clausal fronting interacts with other A-movement operations.
∎
Inacleftconstruction,clausescanfrontonlyifnoclause-internalelementhas
undergone clefting:
(13) a. [ Sita War and Peace vaayichu ennu ] Raman aane [ t t
i i CP
Sita War and Peace read comp Raman cop
paranj-athe ]
said-nomnl
‘It’s Raman who said that Sita read War and Peace.’
5NB:ThisisnotaperfecttestinMalayalam, asitisatopicdroplanguageandtheexpectedungrammatical cases
are only somewhat degraded. There is nevertheless a contrast betweens in A- and A’-movement constructions wrt
parasiticgaplicensing,whichIwillmakeuseofhere.Forinstance,(5)and(5)revealacontrastbetweenagapinpassive
constructionandacleft,anuncontroversialA’-movementconstructioninthislanguage.
(i) A-movement:passive
??WarandPeaceRaman-aal[___vaayikk-aathe]verukka-ppettu
War andPeaceRaman-by read-without hate-pass
‘WarandPeacewashatedbyRamanwithoutreading.’
(ii) A-barmovement:cleft
WarandPeaceaaneRaman[___vaayikk-aathe]verukkunn-athe
WarandPeacecop Raman read-without hates-nomnl
‘It’sWarandPeacethatRamanhateswithoutreading.’
7
b. ∗[ Sita t vaayichu ennu ] War and Peace aane [ Raman t
i i CP
Sita read comp War and Peace cop Raman
paranj-athe ]
said-nomnl
‘It’s War and Peace that Raman said that Sita read.’
3.2 Interaction with wh-scope
÷× Main observation:
Whenamatrix-scopetaking wh-phraseoccurs inside afronted clause, the
resulting structure is ungrammatical.
• The crucial test cases involve clauses for which fronting is non-obligatory.
• For such cases, we see that when the clause appears in its base position, em-
bedded wh-phrases can take matrix scope:
(14) Non-finite clauses
Raman [eethu pustakam vaayikk-aan] shramichu?
Raman [which book read-inf] tried
‘Which book did Raman try to read?’
(15) Light finite clauses
Nee [enthu patti ennu] vicaarichu
You [what happenedcomp] thought
‘What did you think happened?’
• Aminimalmodificationoftheexamplesaboveintermsofclausepositionwill
result in a change in grammaticality (16 - 17)
• The (b) examples show that fronting is generally available with these comple-
ment types.
(16) a. ∗[eethu pustakam vaayikk-aan] Raman shramichu?
[which book read-inf] Raman tried
‘Which book did Raman try to read?’
8
b. [War and Peace vaayikk-aan] Raman shramichu.
[War and Peace read-inf] Raman tried
‘Raman tried to read War and Peace.’
(17) a. ∗[enthu patti ennu] nee vicaarichu
[what happenedcomp] you thought
‘What did you think happened?’
b. [abhatham patti ennu] njaan vicaarichu
[mistake happened comp] I thought
‘I thought a mistake happened.’
÷× Note:
For wh-containing clauses that obligatorily front, neitherthe fronted nor the
in-situ option is available when it contains a wh-expression.
⊳ A fronted heavy clause with an embeddedwh is illicit in the same way as
e.g. (17a).
⊳ An unfronted heavy clause with an embedded wh is illicit because of the
general ban on medial heavy clauses.
3.3 Interim summary
• Wh-in-situ in Malayalam is not uniformly clause-bounded.
• What creates scope islands for wh-phrases is clausal fronting, and the corre-
lation between fronting and wh-scope cross-cuts finiteness distinctions:
⊳ Both finite and non-finite clauses license wide-scope for embedded wh
when the clause is in-situ.
⊳ Both finite andnon-finiteclauses failtolicensewide-scopeforembedded
wh when the clause fronts.
• The relationship between wh-scope and finiteness is at best indirect. There
is a strong tendency for finite clauses to front, leading to the appearance of
finite-clause-boundedness.
9
4 A Minimality-based approach to restricted scope
÷× Revised Puzzle:
Why does fronting of an embedded clause block wide-scope of in-situ wh-
phrases within it?
÷× Answer in this talk:
¯
Clausal fronting and wh-Agreement, both A-operations, interact with fatal
consequences:
⇒ [fr]-features block Agree between C and wh
The[fr]-featuresontheheadoftheembeddedclausearesufficientlysim-
ilarto[wh]-featuresthattheyinterveneforAgreebetweenahigherCand
an embedded wh-phrase.
⇒ Interrogative C blocks Agree between H and [fr]
The interrogative C erroneously Agrees with the clause-head, using up
features relevant for fronting and leaving the higher head H without a
suitable goal.
4.1 Ingredients
¯
1. A feature-geometry for A-elements
(see also Starke 2001, Rizzi 2004, Abels 2010)
¯
• FeaturesintheA-domainareorganizedintoanarticulatedhierarchyasin(18).
Features lower in the hierarchy to entail the higher ones
• Notation: Throughout, I will use the following notation to mark entailment
relations: [specific] → [general].
¯
(18) [A]
[Q] [fr] [Top] [...]
[wh] [Foc]
10
Description:The test method was granted regulatory approval for phototoxicity testing The
3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test (3T3 NRU PT) is designed to detect
