Featured Linguist!

Jost Gippert: Our Featured Linguist!

"Buenos dias", "buenas noches" -- this was the first words in a foreign language I heard in my life, as a three-year old boy growing up in developing post-war Western Germany, where the first gastarbeiters had arrived from Spain. Fascinated by the strange sounds, I tried to get to know some more languages, the only opportunity being TV courses of English and French -- there was no foreign language education for pre-teen school children in Germany yet in those days. Read more

Donate Now | Visit the Fund Drive Homepage

Amount Raised:


Still Needed:


Can anyone overtake Syntax in the Subfield Challenge ?

Grad School Challenge Leader: University of Washington

Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info

New from Oxford University Press!


What is English? And Why Should We Care?

By: Tim William Machan

To find some answers Tim Machan explores the language's present and past, and looks ahead to its futures among the one and a half billion people who speak it. His search is fascinating and important, for definitions of English have influenced education and law in many countries and helped shape the identities of those who live in them.

New from Cambridge University Press!


Medical Writing in Early Modern English

Edited by Irma Taavitsainen and Paivi Pahta

This volume provides a new perspective on the evolution of the special language of medicine, based on the electronic corpus of Early Modern English Medical Texts, containing over two million words of medical writing from 1500 to 1700.

Summary Details

Query:   Sum: multiple wh-XP interrogatives
Author:  Carsten Breul
Submitter Email:  click here to access email
Linguistic LingField(s):   Syntax

Summary:   Dear all

A big THANK YOU to the 27 people who have replied to my
recent query on multiple wh-XP interrogatives (repeated

I have tried to classify the judgements on a four grade
scale: ok, slightly marginal (?), strongly marginal (??-
?*), unacceptable (*). Squeezing the replies onto this
scale, I get the following result :

sentence (1): ok: 2; ?: 3; ??-*?: 5; *: 17
sentence (2): ok: 3; ?: 3; ??-*?: 3; *: 18

Quite a number of speakers who found the sentences
unacceptable pointed out that they are possible if produced
as a request for repetition of something unheard. E.g., in
the words of one informant:

"the only way I can get an O.K. reading is if the context
is completely different, and the only version that works
for me is if A has said "What did [garbled] bring?", and B
replies "What did WHO bring?""

This, however, is not what I was after, actually it would
have been better if I had explicitly ruled this
interpretation out. The background and objective of my
query was this:

I read about multiple wh-XP interrogatives in Erteschik-
Shir (1997, esp. 6.1-6.2), Pesetsky (1987) Dornisch (1995;
and via Dornisch about Comorovski (1989)) and Bolinger
(1978). Pesetsky e.g. says:

"[W]e might expect Superiority effects [i.e. contrasts of
the kind exemplified by _Who ate what?_ versus *_What did
who eat_?] to disappear even with _who_, _what_, and _how
many books_, if we can force these _wh_-phrases to be D-
linked." (Bolinger gives many examples where Superiority
does not seem to hold.)

'Discourse- (D-) linking' means that the referents of the
wh-XPs "be drawn from the sets established in the
discourse". While _who_, _what_ are said to be "normally
not D-linked", _which_-NPs are said to be (Comorovski:
inherently) D-linked.

I was unsure if Pesetsky means that EACH or only the
initial wh-XP in a multiple wh-XP interrogative has to be
(contextually made) D-linked. In my sentences (1) and (2)
in the context from Dornisch, it is only the fronted object
wh-XP that is (contextually made) D-linked. If I understand
Erteschik-Shir correctly, the subject wh-XP has to be
(contextually made) D-linked in any case, if the
Superiority effect is to disappear (a topic set has to be
available, in her terms). This seems to be supported by the
informants' judgement, for most of them reject (1) and (2).
But note that many of the informants suggested

(3) Who brought what?
(4) Who brought which present?

as the correct alternatives for (1) and (2). I don't think
that 'the guests' as a non-individualised set qualifies as
a topic set (only the set of individual guests would), so
the acceptability of (3) and (4) is problematic for (my
understanding of) E.-S. as well.

Bolinger in Hiz (ed.), _Questions_, 1978.
Dornisch 1995 see below.
Erteschik-Shir, _The dynamics of focus structure_, 1997.
Pesetsky in Reuland & ter Meulen (eds.), _The
representation of (in)definiteness_, 1987.

- -------
The query:

In a study of the syntax of multiple wh-XP interrogatives
in Polish, Ewa Dornisch ("Discourse-Linking and Multiple
_wh_-Questions in Polish", in Gussmann, E. (ed.),
_Licensing in Syntax and
Phonology_, 1995) describes the following context for
multiple wh-XP

"After A's birthday party, A and B are standing in front of
the table on which the gifts are piled. B wants to know who
gave A each particular gift."

I would like to know if the following multiple wh-XP
are acceptable for speakers of English in this context:

(1) What did who bring?
(2) Which present did who bring?

Dr. Carsten Breul
Universitaet Duisburg
FB 3; Anglistik
47048 Duisburg

LL Issue: 10.1870
Date Posted: 04-Dec-1999
Original Query: Read original query


Sums main page