The Contexts Limiting the Scrambling of Multiple Wh-Phrases
- Merve Kiymaz, Middle East Technical University
- Glendinning Lecture Theatre 2D67, UWE Bristol
Turkish is generally said to be wh-in-situ language(Erguvanlı 1984, Akar 1990, Özsoy 1990, 1996, Kornfilt 1997).When wh-phrases appear displaced it is because they are scrambled. In this paper, I investigate whether the order of wh-phrases that are scrambled is fixed or free and identify the contexts that require a fixed order and the contexts that do not.
There are constraints for some of the wh-phrases which are in preverbal areas. The wh- words nasıl and nereye cannot appear freely in any preverbal position except for the immediately preverbal position as we see in (1) (Akar, 1990). Normally, the wh-phrases are immediately adjacent to the verb. However; the wh- phrases except for nasıl and nereye which she entitles as VP-internal adjunct wh-phrases may appear in positions other than the immediate preverbal area (Akar, 1990).
1 . a) *[S’ Nasıl[S [ NP Merve] [vp ti dans eder ]]
How-NOM Merve dance-AOR
“How does Merve dance?”
b) *[ S’ Nereye [S [ NP Ayşe] [ VP ti gitti]]]
Where-DAT Ayşe go-PAST
“Where did Ayşe go?”
For multiple wh-constructions I found two constraints on the scrambling of the wh-phrases. First one is the animacy effect. I would like to argue that an inanimate wh-object cannot scramble over an animate wh-subject even when it bears stress. Also, when an inanimate wh-phrase is with another inanimate one, it cannot scramble over the other wh-phrase. This suggests that animacy is a factor affecting the scrambling possibilities of wh- phrases in Turkish.
2 . a) KİM kimi gördü?
Who-NOM who-ACC see-PAST
“Who saw who?”
b) ?KİMİ kim gördü?
who-ACC Who-NOM see-PAST
“Who saw who?”
3 . a) NE neyi yedi?
What-NOM what-ACC eat-PAST?
“What ate what?”
b)*NEYİ ne yedi?
What-ACC what-NOM eat-PAST?
“What ate what?”
4 . a) KİM neyi pişiriyor?
Who-NOM what-ACC cook-PROG
“Who is cooking what?”
b) ???NEYİ kim pişiriyor?
what-ACC Who-NOM cook-PROG
“Who is cooking what?”
5 . a) KİM ne pişiryor?
Who-NOM what-ACC cook-PROG
“Who is cooking what?”
b) *NE kim pişiriyor?
what-NOM who-NOM cook-PROG
“Who is cooking what?”
In (4b) and (5b), specificity is the factor determining the grammaticality of the sentences.The inanimate wh-phrases should be specificied with accusative marker if they are not verb-adjacent as we can observe in the examples above. The reason why (4b) is severely degraded but not ungrammatical may be that it meets the requirements of only specificity but not animacy. Furtherly, Turkish does not allow non-specific objects to appear in the sentence-initial positions even in declarative sentences (Kural, 1992). Since Turkish is wh-in-situ language, the constraints for the scrambling of non-specific objects -namely the lexical NP counterparts of the wh-phrases to the sentence-initial position may also be valid for the wh-phrases.
Secondly, I would like to argue that the adjunct wh-phrases which are both VP-internal and VP-external cannot scramble to the sentence initial positions and be topicalized in multiple questions when they are with argument wh-phrases. The argument wh-phrases which are both animate and inanimate can scramble to the sentence-initial position more freely than the adjunct wh-phrases .
6 . a) *Nereye Ahmet neyi koyuyor?
where-DAT Ahmet what-ACC put-PROG
“Ahmet is putting what to where?
7 . a) *Ahmet nasıl kimi öper?
Ahmet how-NOM who-ACC kiss-AOR
*“Who does Ahmet kiss how?
There are constraints for some of the wh-phrases which are in preverbal areas. The wh- words nasıl and nereye cannot appear freely in any preverbal position except for the immediately preverbal position as we see in (1) (Akar, 1990). Normally, the wh-phrases are immediately adjacent to the verb. However; the wh- phrases except for nasıl and nereye which she entitles as VP-internal adjunct wh-phrases may appear in positions other than the immediate preverbal area (Akar, 1990).
1 . a) *[S’ Nasıl[S [ NP Merve] [vp ti dans eder ]]
How-NOM Merve dance-AOR
“How does Merve dance?”
b) *[ S’ Nereye [S [ NP Ayşe] [ VP ti gitti]]]
Where-DAT Ayşe go-PAST
“Where did Ayşe go?”
For multiple wh-constructions I found two constraints on the scrambling of the wh-phrases. First one is the animacy effect. I would like to argue that an inanimate wh-object cannot scramble over an animate wh-subject even when it bears stress. Also, when an inanimate wh-phrase is with another inanimate one, it cannot scramble over the other wh-phrase. This suggests that animacy is a factor affecting the scrambling possibilities of wh- phrases in Turkish.
2 . a) KİM kimi gördü?
Who-NOM who-ACC see-PAST
“Who saw who?”
b) ?KİMİ kim gördü?
who-ACC Who-NOM see-PAST
“Who saw who?”
3 . a) NE neyi yedi?
What-NOM what-ACC eat-PAST?
“What ate what?”
b)*NEYİ ne yedi?
What-ACC what-NOM eat-PAST?
“What ate what?”
4 . a) KİM neyi pişiriyor?
Who-NOM what-ACC cook-PROG
“Who is cooking what?”
b) ???NEYİ kim pişiriyor?
what-ACC Who-NOM cook-PROG
“Who is cooking what?”
5 . a) KİM ne pişiryor?
Who-NOM what-ACC cook-PROG
“Who is cooking what?”
b) *NE kim pişiriyor?
what-NOM who-NOM cook-PROG
“Who is cooking what?”
In (4b) and (5b), specificity is the factor determining the grammaticality of the sentences.The inanimate wh-phrases should be specificied with accusative marker if they are not verb-adjacent as we can observe in the examples above. The reason why (4b) is severely degraded but not ungrammatical may be that it meets the requirements of only specificity but not animacy. Furtherly, Turkish does not allow non-specific objects to appear in the sentence-initial positions even in declarative sentences (Kural, 1992). Since Turkish is wh-in-situ language, the constraints for the scrambling of non-specific objects -namely the lexical NP counterparts of the wh-phrases to the sentence-initial position may also be valid for the wh-phrases.
Secondly, I would like to argue that the adjunct wh-phrases which are both VP-internal and VP-external cannot scramble to the sentence initial positions and be topicalized in multiple questions when they are with argument wh-phrases. The argument wh-phrases which are both animate and inanimate can scramble to the sentence-initial position more freely than the adjunct wh-phrases .
6 . a) *Nereye Ahmet neyi koyuyor?
where-DAT Ahmet what-ACC put-PROG
“Ahmet is putting what to where?
7 . a) *Ahmet nasıl kimi öper?
Ahmet how-NOM who-ACC kiss-AOR
*“Who does Ahmet kiss how?