Indirect scope marking again: a case for generalized question formation

  • Anikó Lipták
  • Malte Zimmermann
Open Access


In this paper we describe and analyse a particular scope marking construction that has not received attention in the generative literature so far: scope marking into relative and noun-associate clauses, which we will refer to as adjunct scope marking. In this type of scope marking system, a wh-element in an embedded adjunct clause takes matrix scope when it occurs in a clause that syntactically and semantically modifies a wh-phrase in the matrix. These facts provide unambiguous evidence for the indirect dependency approach to wh-scope marking advocated by Dayal (1994, Natural Language Semantics, 2, 137–190; 2000, Scope Marking: Cross linguistic variation in direct dependency. In U. Lutz, G. Müller, & A. V. Stechow (Eds.), Scope Marking (pp. 157–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins), where the embedded question provides a semantic restriction for the matrix wh-element. Dayal’s theory will be extended to provide a compositional analysis of these constructions. The extended approach argues for a generalization of the question-formation procedure to different clause types, as first advocated in Sternefeld (2001, Partial movement constructions, pied piping, and higher order choice functions. In C. Féry, & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Audiatur Vox Sapientiae. A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow (pp. 473–486). Berlin: Akademieverlag).


Choice Function Relative Clause Embed Clause Head Noun Short Answer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bach E., Cooper R. (1978). The NP-S analysis of relative clauses and compositional semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2, 145–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bayer J. (1984). COMP in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review, 3, 209–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck S. (1996). Quantified structures as barriers for LF movement. Natural Language Semantics, 4, 1–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, S. (2004). A semantic explanation for intervention effects. In C. Meier, & M. Weisgerber (Eds.), Proceedings of the conference “sub8 – Sinn und Bedeutung”, Arbeitspapier Nr. 177, FB Sprachwissenschaft Universität Konstanz, pp. 25–50.Google Scholar
  5. Bennis H. (1986). Gaps and dummies. Foris, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  6. Bobaljik, J., & Thrainsson, H. (1998). Two heads aren’t always better than one. Syntax, 1, 37–71.Google Scholar
  7. Bruening, B. (2006). Differences between the Wh-Scope Marking and Wh-Copy Constructions in Passamaquoddy. Linguistic Inquiry, 37(1), 25–49.Google Scholar
  8. Cheng, L. (2000). Moving just the feature. In U. Lutz, G. Müller, & A. V. Stechow (Eds.), Wh-Scope marking, (pp. 77–99). Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N. (1991). Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In R. Freidin (Ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative grammar (pp. 417–454). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dayal, V. (1994). Scope marking as indirect Wh-dependency. Natural Language Semantics, 2, 137–170.Google Scholar
  12. Dayal, V. (2000). Scope marking: Cross linguistic variation in indirect dependency. In U. Lutz, G. Müller, & A. V. Stechow (Eds.), Wh-scope marking (pp. 157–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  13. Dayal, V. (2002). Single-pair vs. multiple-pair answers: Wh in-situ and Scope. Linguistic Inquiry, 33(3), 512–520.Google Scholar
  14. Dudás, K. (2002). A részleges wh-mozgatás lehetséges modellje /A feasible way of modelling partial wh-movement/. In M. Maleczki (Ed.), A magyar nyelv leírásának újabb módszerei 5 (New methods of describing present-day Hungarian), (pp. 109–136) SZTE, Szeged.Google Scholar
  15. Fanselow, G., & Mahajan, A. (2000). Towards a minimalist theory of Wh-expletives, Wh-copying and successive cyclicity. In U. Lutz, G. Müller, & A. V. Stechow (Eds.), Wh-Scope marking, (pp. 195–230). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  16. Fukui, N. (1986). A theory of category projection and its applications. Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  17. Golden, M. (1995). Interrogative Wh-movement in Slovene and English. Acta Analytica, 14, 145–186.Google Scholar
  18. Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  20. Hamblin C.L. (1973). Questions in montague English. Foundations of Language, 10, 41–53Google Scholar
  21. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. dissertation. UMass Amherst.Google Scholar
  22. Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Herburger, E. (1994). A semantic difference between full and partial Wh-movement in German. Paper presented at SLA 1994, Boston.Google Scholar
  24. Hiemstra, I. (1986). Some aspects of Wh-questions in Frisian. North-Western European Language Evolution, 8, 97–110.Google Scholar
  25. Höhle, T. (2000). The Appositive or scope indicating?. In U. Lutz, G. Müller, & A. V. Stechow (Eds.), Wh-scope marking (pp. 249–270). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  26. Hoekstra, E., & Zwart, J.-W. (1994). De struktuur van de CP /The structure of CP/. Spectator, 23(3), 191–212.Google Scholar
  27. Hoekstra, J. (1993). The split CP hypothesis and the Frisian complementizer system, ms., Fach Friesische Philologie, University of Kiel.Google Scholar
  28. Horvath, J. (1995). Partial Wh-Movement and the Wh “scope-markers”. In I. Kenesei (Ed.), Approaches to Hungarian, Vol. 5 (pp. 69–124). Szeged: JATE PressGoogle Scholar
  29. Horvath, J. (1997). The status of “wh-expletives” and the partial movement construction in Hungarian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15, 509–572.Google Scholar
  30. Horvath, J. (1998). Multiple WH-phrases and the WH-scope-marker strategy in Hungarian Interrogatives. Acta Lingustica Hungarica, 45, 31–60.Google Scholar
  31. Horvath, J. (2000). On the syntax of “Wh-Scope Marker” constructions: Some comparative evidence. In U. Lutz, G. Müller, & A. V. Stechow (Eds.), Wh-scope marking (pp. 271–316). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  32. Huang, C. T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  33. Karttunen L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 3–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keenan, E. (1985). Relative clauses. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol II (pp. 141–170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kenesei, I. (1994). Subordinate clauses. In F. Kiefer, & K. É.Kiss (Eds.), The syntactic structure of Hungarian, (pp. 275–354). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kuroda, S.-Y. (1972). The categorical and the thetic judgement: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language, 9, 153–185.Google Scholar
  37. É. Kiss, K. (1987). Configurationality in Hungarian. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
  38. Lahiri, U. (2002). On the proper treatment of “expletive wh” in Hindi. Lingua, 112, 509–572.Google Scholar
  39. Lipták, A. (2001). On the syntax of wh-items in Hungarian. LOT dissertation series Vol. 45, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  40. Lipták, A. (2004a). Scope marking in Hungarian. In A. Breitbarth, & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Triggers, Studies in Generative Grammar 75 (pp. 259–292). Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.Google Scholar
  41. Lipták, A. (2004b). Adjunct scope marking: New arguments for Dayals approach. In K. Moulton, & M. Wolf (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 34 (pp. 405–423). Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  42. Mahajan, A. (1990). The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory, Ph.D. dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  43. Marácz, L. (1990). Asymmetries in Hungarian, Ph.D. dissertation. University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  44. Marvin, T. (1999). Multiple Wh-movement in relation to CP-and IP-absorption, ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  45. McDaniel, D. (1989). Partial and multiple Wh-movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 7, 565–604.Google Scholar
  46. Merchant, J. (to appear). Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy Google Scholar
  47. Moltmann F. (1997). Intensional verbs and quantifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 5, 1–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moro, A. (1997). The raising of predicates. Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Müller, G. (1995). A-bar syntax. The study of movement types. New York: Mouton.Google Scholar
  50. Pafel, J. (2000). Absolute and relative. On scope in German Wh-sentences, was-... w-Constructions included. In U. Lutz, G. Müller, & A. V. Stechow (Eds.), Wh-scope marking (pp. 333–358). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  51. Partee, B. (1975). Montague grammar and transformational grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 6, 203–300.Google Scholar
  52. Reis, M. (1992). The Category of invariant alles in Wh-clauses: On syntactic quantifiers vs. quantifying particles in German. In R. Tracy (Ed.), Who climbs the grammar tree (pp. 465–492). Niemeyer, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  53. Reis, M. (2000). On the parenthetical features of German was...constructions and how to account for them. In U. Lutz, G. Müller, & A. V. Stechow (Eds.), Wh-scope marking (pp. 359–407). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  54. Riemsdijk, H. van. (1983). Correspondence effects and the empty category principle. In Y. Otsu, et al. (Eds.), Studies in generative grammar and language acquisition (pp. 5–16). Tokyo: ICU.Google Scholar
  55. Rosenbaum, P. (1967). The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. Stechow, A. von, & Zimmermann, T. E. (1984). Term answers and contextual change. Linguistics, 22, 3–40.Google Scholar
  57. Stepanov, A. (2000). Wh-scope marking in Slavic. Studia Linguistica, 54, 1–40.Google Scholar
  58. Sternefeld, W. (2001). Partial movement constructions, Pied Piping, and higher order choice functions. In C. Féry, & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Audiatur Vox Sapientiae. A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow (pp. 473–486). Berlin: Akademieverlag.Google Scholar
  59. Sternefeld, W. (2002). Wh-expletives and partial Wh-movement: Two non-existing concepts? In W. Abraham, & C. J.-W. Zwart (Eds.), Issues in Formal German(ic) Typology (pp. 285–305). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  60. Stowell T. (1981). Origins of phrase structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  61. Surányi, B. (2003). Multiple operator movements in Hungarian, LOT dissertation series. Vol. 72, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  62. Szabolcsi, A. (1994). The noun phrase. In F. Kiefer and K. É.Kiss (Eds.), The syntactic structure of Hungarian (pp. 179–274). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  63. Torrego, E., & Uriagereka, J. (1989). Indicative dependence, ms., University of Massachusetts at Amherst & University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  64. Varga L. (2002). Intonation and Stress. Evidence from Hungarian. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. de Vries, M. (2002). The Syntax of relativization, LOT dissertation series. Vol. 53, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  66. Zimmermann, T. E. (2005). Monotonicity in Opaque Verbs, ms., Goethe University, Frankfurt/Main.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, Leiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Humboldt Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations