Introduction
Multiple wh-fronting involves the movement of wh-words to the start of the sentence. Following Rudin’s (1988) typology on her seminal paper on the topic, we can classify languages into three groups with regards to how their syntax operates on both simple and complex content questions. In the first group are languages like Chinese where wh-words always remain in situ, i.e., they inherit the position of the noun phrase they replace in the sentence, as we see in example (1a) below. In the second group are languages like English, where simple questions (i.e., questions with only one wh-item) front the single wh-item while more complex ones only allow one wh-item to be fronted with the remaining wh-items remaining in situ (see example 1b). Finally we have a third group, which include among others Bulgarian or Romanian, that requires all wh-items to be moved clause-initially whenever possible. (In fact there is a fourth group, intermediate between the first and the second, and including languages like French, which allows for both the English-type and the Chinese-type treatment of multiple wh-items, as we see in example 1c below; but we will be ignoring this further distinction as it is not relevant for the purposes of this article.)
- (adapted from Rudin 1988: 1-2)
- Chinese
Ni
you
xiang-zhidao
wonder
Lisi
Lisi
weisheme
why
mai-le
bought
sheme?
what
‘What do you wonder why Lisi bought (it)?’- English
What did you give to whom?- French
Qu’as-tu donné à qui ? = Tu as donné quoi à qui ?
‘What have you given to whom’- Russian
Кто
who
что
what
когда
when
сказал?
said
‘Who said what when?’
Iridian belongs to this third group, as seen in example (1d), as do all Slavic languages and Romanian. Whether this characteristic is a consequence of Iridian syntax or brought about by the language’s contact with the Slavic languages is unclear. It is most likely the first case though, since as we see in the case of Hungarian and Romanian, both non-Slavic languages forming part of the larger Central and Eastern European linguistic area (which for simplicity we will call the Slavo-Germanic Sprachbund), although multiple wh- fronting (MWF) is characteristically Slavic, its diffusion to the other languages in the region is not complete:
- Hungarian (Kiss 2004: 100)
Kit
whom
vesz
marries
el
VM
ki
who
a
the
regény
novel’s
végén?
end-at
‘Whom does who marry at the end of the novel?’- Romanian (Rudin 1988: 449)
Cine
who
cu
with
ce
what
merge?
goes
‘Who goes by what?’ (i.e., means of transportation)
Wh-fronting in simple questions
The simple case of wh-fronting can be seen as an extension of Iridian’s preference for copular constructions in explanatory or clarificatory sentences. That the simple WF in Iridian is essentially a copular construction is made more overt in colloquial speech by the tendency to nominalise the whole verb phrase altogether.
Jede
who
to
dem
mila
song-acc
šviržek?
write-av-pf
‘Who wrote this song?’- With a nomimalised verb phrase (colloquial):
Jede
who
to
dem
mila
song-acc
šviržkou?
write-av-pf-nmlz
‘Who wrote this song?’ (Lit., Who is the person who wrote this song?)
This is not extraordinary though, as we also see this verb phrase nominalisation in forming questions in other languages such as in English, where a relative clause (which we can view as a weak form of nominalisation) may be equated with a wh-item, albeit the resulting construction is more marked and emphatic. Another example is with Tagalog, a non-MWF language of the second type, which, unlike Iridian that allows both a verbal predicate and a nominalised one, requires the latter to form questions.
Sino
who
ang
nom
nagsulat
<av>write
sa
obl
pader
wall
‘Who wrote on the wall?’ (Lit., Who is the person who wrote on the wall?)
Another feature Iridian shares with Tagalog and which is of direct consequence to how MWF is implemented in the language is how the thematic role of the wh-item affects the morphology of the verb phrase (nominalised or not) instead of the thematic role of the wh-item affecting its own morphology and the verb phrase remaining the same whatever wh-item is used. This is because wh-fronting promotes the wh-item to the topic position in the sentence and since Iridian syntax makes the morphology of the verb and the other elements of the sentence dependent on the thematic role of the topic, this means the conjugation of the verb phrase (specifically its grammatical voice) depends directly on which wh-item is used. As an indirect consequence of this, despite the wh-items being fully declinable, most questions are formed using the unmarked form of the question word. To illustrate this, consider the two pairs of sentences below in Iridian and Tagalog:
- Iridian
Jede
who
na
loc
kinotéka
cinema-acc
vižek?
see-av-pf
‘Who saw you in the theatre?’Jede
who
na
loc
kinotéka
cinema-acc
vednik?
see-pv-pf
‘Whom did you see in the theatre?’- Tagalog
Sino
who
ang
nom
tumawag
<av>call-pf
sa’yo
obl=2s
kanina?
a:while:ago
‘Who called you earlier?’Sino
who
ang
nom
tinawagan
<pv>call-pf
mo
2s.gen
kanina?
a:while:ago
‘Who did you call earlier?’
In the Iridian examples above, jede ‘who’ stayed the same in both sentences even though it was thematically the actor in the first and the patient in the second; in English, on the other hand, the nominative ‘who’ was used in the first and the accusative ‘whom’ in the second (although colloquially ‘who’ is also acceptable in the second sentence and is in fact more common).
Multiple wh-fronting
In simple cases where MWF does not involve extraction of the wh-item from a wh-item embedded in another clause, it is the first wh-item that determines the grammatical voice in which the main verb is marked. Unlike normal nouns, however, the remaining wh-items are normally not conjugated to show their relationship to both the verb and the main wh-item.
Jede
who
ježe
what
jeme
when
hloupškou?
ask-av-pf-nmlz
‘Who asked what when?’
An exception to this would be when the same wh-item is used for elements with different roles in the sentence, in which case, Iridian requires all but one of the identical wh-items to be explicitly marked. In case one of these identical wh-items is in the topic position, the non-topic wh-items are the ones marked.
*Jede
who
jede
who
jeme
when
vednikou?
see-pv-pf-nmlz
‘Who saw whom when?’Jeme
when
jede
who
jední
by-whom
vednikou?
see-pv-pf-nmlz
‘When did who see whom?’Jede
who
jeme
when
jední
by-whom
vednikou?
see-pv-pf-nmlz
‘Who was seen by whom when?’
Most sentences that have multiple identical wh-items, however, contain an actor-patient pair of either jede ‘who’ or ježe ‘what’; in these cases, notwithstanding the above rules, the marked wh-item takes the genitive and become jední ‘whose, by whom, by what’ regardless of the thematic role of the wh-item in the topic. An identical wh-item pair (separated by a ‘and’) may be used however in case the second item was fronted from an embedded clause (see 8c).
Jede
who
jední
by-whom
vednikou?
see-pv-pf-nmlz
‘Who was seen by whom?’Jede
who
jední
by-whom
vižkou?
see-av-pf-nmlz
‘Who saw whom?’Jede
who
a
and
jede
who
žiknice
say-pv-pf-quot
to-že
rel=quot
žičkou?
say-av-pf-nmlz
‘Who told you (they) told whom?’
>As in Bulgarian and Romanian (and interestingly, unlike nearby Czech and Polish), all wh-items are required to be fronted in Iridian whenever possible, even if this means extracting the wh-item from an embedded clause. Unlike Bulgarian, however, where the wh-item is moved to a position linguists call SpecCP (cf. Rudin, ibid.), which may precede a separate topic element, Iridian wh-movement involves promotion of the main wh-item to the topic position, which must always be the first element of the sentence. Compare for example the following sentences:
- Bulgarian (ibid., 451)
Борис
Boris
на
to
кого
whom
какво
what
каза
said
че
that
ще
he will
даде?
give-3s
‘What did Boris say that (he) will give to whom?’- Iridian
Ježe
what
jehát
to:whom
Borisám
Boris-agt
dejatnách
give-pv-ctpv
to
rel
žiknou?
say-pv-pf-nmlz
‘What did Boris say that (he) will give to whom?’
Another restriction in Bulgarian is the impossibility of wh-movement to the same clause for both a relative and an interrogative wh-item. Since Iridian does not use wh-items in relative clauses, this restriction does not apply in the language, and moreover would not normally require MWF.
- Bulgarian (ibid., 451-2)
*Човека,
the-man
който
who-rel
какво
what
не
neg
знаеш
know-2s
че
that
е
has
купил
bought
‘The man who you don’t know what he bought…’Човека,
the-man
който
who-rel
не
neg
знаеш
know-2s
какво
what
казват
say-3pl
че
that
е
has
купил
bought
‘The man who you don’t know what they say that he bought …’- Iridian
Ježe
what
kupinenice
buy-pv-pf-quot
to
rel
zázběrovneví
neg-know-pv-cont
ko
lnk
maša
man
‘The man who (you) don’t know what (they) say that he bought …’
Even in the case of nested subordinate clauses, Iridian requires that all wh-items be moved to the beginning of the sentence. The order in which the fronted wh-items appear must reflect the order in which the original clauses were embedded in the sentence:
- First-order nesting (single subordinate clause)
[Avt
car
sám
refl.agt
kupinenice
buy-pv-pf-quot
to-že]
rel=quot
Marek
Marek
žiček.
say-av-pf
‘Marek told me he bought a car.’Jede
who
jední
by:whom
[ježe
what
kupinenice
buy-pv-pf-quot
to-že]
rel=quot
žičkou?
say-av-pf-nmlz
‘Who told whom (he) bought what?’- Second-order nesting (two subordinate clauses)
[[Avt
car
sám
refl.agt
kupinenice
buy-pv-pf-quot
to]'
rel
Tomáš
Tomáš
žiknice
say-pv-pf-quot
to-že]''
rel=quot
Marek
Marek
žiček.
say-av-pf
‘Marek told me he told Tomáš he bought a car.’Jede
who
[a
and
jede
who
[ježe
what
kupinenice
buy-pv-pf-quot
to]'
rel
žiknice
say-pv-pf-quot
to-že]''
rel=quot
žičkou?
say-av-pf-nmlz
‘Who told (you) he told whom that he bought what?’
As in most other languages, complex structures like this are often simplified in actual usage. Colloquial Iridian would normally only tolerate first-order nesting of questions, with any extra wh-item relegated to an explanatory clause introduced by ase.
Jí
2s.acc
ješ
exst
jede
who
ježe
what
kupinenice
buy-pv-pf-quot
to-že
rel=quot
žiknice
say-pv-pf-quot
ko
lnk
žičkou,
say-av-pf-nmlz
ase
expl
jede
who
ša?
dem.anim
‘Who told you he told whom that he bought what?’
We see that the MWF in embedded clauses is a direct consequence of Iridian’s verb-final clause structure. Each embedded wh-clause can be removed freely without changing the structure of the clause where it was nested. Each clause functions independently of the other clauses and as we have mentioned earlier, moreover, it is the wh-item within each embedded clause that determines the morphology of the embedded verb phrase, not the wh-item nor the main verb phrase from the main clause.
Further examples
Like Bulgarian, Iridian allows the extraction of wh-items from one or more embedded questions. Iridian’s SOV word order, however, in comparison to Bulgarian’s SVO order, and its head-final branching means Iridian wh-fronting in embedded questions appears more overt in Iridian than in Bulgarian. MWF in embedded questions in Iridian requires the attachment of the particle ane ‘whether’ to the leftmost wh-item.
- Bulgarian (ibid., 457)
Видях
saw-1s
една
a
книга,
book
която
which
се чудя
wonder-1s
[[кой
who
знае]'
knows
кой
who
продава.]''
sells
‘I saw a book which I wonder who knows who sells (it).’[Jede
who
ane
whether
[a
and
jede
who
slouvežit
sell-av-sup.purp
to]'
rel
zběrovželě
know-av-subj.ipf-quot
to-že]''
rel=quot
zaměc
wonder-conv.ipf
važime
think-av-prog
ko
lnk
tóm
book
vdenik.
see-pv-pf
‘(I) saw a book which (I) wonder who knows who sells (it).’
MWF can also be seen in relative wh-clauses. Clauses of this type are formed using the clitic -te, whose main function is to explicitly mark the focus of the sentence, but here extends to the creation of a relative clause. Since it is still, at least superficially, a focus particle, it can only appear once in the sentence, and in the case of multiple wh-items must be attached to the leftmost one.
The addition of -te makes the wh-clause take an indefinite meaning.
Jede-te
who=foc
jena
where
stojunit
go-lv-sup.purp
to
rel
česčivou
like-av-cont-nmlz
ně
pl=
malně
language-acc
znohouščáš.
study-av-sup.nec
‘Whoever wants to go anywhere needs to learn languages.’- *Jede-te jena-te stojunit, etc.
- *Jede jena-te stojunit, etc.
Jede-te
who-foc
shraženou
die-av-nmlz
záhevorneví.
neg-know-pv-cont
‘I don’t know who(ever) died.’Shraženou
die-av-nmlz
záhevorneví.
neg-know-pv-cont
‘I don’t know the person who died.’
Conclusion
In this post we presented a sketch of the multiple wh-fronting phenomenon in Iridian and compared it with the phenomenon as it appears in other languages in the region. We have argued that Iridian MWF is an indirect consequence of the underlying word order of the language and of its persistent head-final branching, and not as one might think a direct result of its extensive contact with Slavic languages throughout history. We supported this argument by showing that Iridian MWF is more similar to Romanian and Bulgarian MWF in requiring wh-movement in embedded clauses, instead of the system found in neighbouring Czech or Polish where embedded wh-items are kept in situ. Iridian differs from Romanian and Bulgarian, nonetheless, in a few key aspects, including (1) the tendency to nominalise the main verb phrase and present the question as an equative construction between the wh-item and the nominalised verb phrase; (2) the free order in which fronted wh-items are presented in Iridian, unlike Romanian or Bulgarian, which gives preference in most cases to the nominative over the accusative; and (3) the way in which relative wh-items affect interrogative wh-items less prominently in Iridian, leading to, among others, persistence of wh-fronting in embedded questions even in places it would not have been possible in Romanian or Bulgarian.
Finally, although sufficient care has been taken in providing a good enough theoretical foundation for this article, this analysis was not built on any single linguistic theory. This was written by a non-linguist for non-linguists with the aim of providing a brief description of the MWF phenomenon in Iridian mainly through comparison with other languages; as such I hope the reader who finds himself in a more comfortable linguistic footing than myself may excuse my errors, theoretical or otherwise.
Bošković, Željko. 2003. “On wh-islands and obligatory wh-movement contexts in South Slavic.” In Multiple wh-fronting, edited by Cedric Boeckx and Kleanthes K. Grohmann, vol. 64. Linguistic Aktuell. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kiss, Katalin É. 2004. The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge syntax guides. Cambridge University Press.
Rudin, Catherine. 1988. “On multiple questions and multiple wh-fronting.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6:445–501 [Link to the article]