Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T17:13:03.230Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Wh-Constructions and Wh-Dependencies

from Part 3 - Syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2024

By
Barbara Citko
Edited by
Danko Šipka  and
Wayles Browne
Danko Šipka
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Wayles Browne
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Get access

Summary

The present chapter presents an overview of the core properties of two core types of wh-dependencies in Slavic languages: wh-questions and relative clauses. It focuses on the properties of these dependencies that Slavic languages are famous for, such as multiple wh-fronting and left branch extraction. Another property of Slavic wh-questions reviewed in this chapter is left-branch extraction and the correlation between the lack of overt articles and the availability of left-branch extraction. The second part of this chapter discusses relative clauses, including what might be dubbed non-canonical relative clauses, such as free relatives and correlatives.

Keywords

dependencywh-wordswh-constructionwh-dependencywh-movementwh-phrasewh-question
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Slavic Linguistics , pp. 282 - 303
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bhatt, R. (2002). The raising analysis of relative clauses: Evidence from adjectival modification. Natural Language Semantics, 10, 43–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, V. (1999). Consequences of Antisymmetry: Headed Relative Clauses, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, V. (2000). The raising analysis of relative clauses: A reply to Borsley. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billings, L. & Rudin, C. (1996). Optimality and superiority: A new approach to overt multiple wh-ordering. In Toman, J., ed., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 3. The College Park Meeting, 1995, Ann Arbor, MI. Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 35–60.Google Scholar
Bondaruk, A. (1995). Resumptive pronouns in English and Polish. In Gussmann, E., ed., Licensing in Syntax and Phonology, Lublin: Folium, pp. 27–55.Google Scholar
Borsley, R. D. (1983). A note on the Generalized Left Branch Condition. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 169–174.Google Scholar
Borsley, R. D. & Jaworska, E. (1989). On Polish PPs. Linguistics, 27, 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2002). On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 351–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2005). On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica, 59, 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2009). More on the no-DP analysis of article-less languages. Studia Linguistica, 63, 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Ž. (2009). On relativization strategies and resumptive pronouns, In Zybatow, G., Junghanns, U., Lenertová, D., & Biskup, P., eds., Studies in Formal Slavic Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics and Information Structure. Proceedings of FDSL 7, Leipzig 2007, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 79–93.Google Scholar
Broihier, K. (1995). Optimality-Theoretic Rankings with Tied Constraints. Slavic Relatives, Resumptive Pronouns, and Learnability. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. & Grimshaw, J. (1978). The syntax of free relatives in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 331–391.Google Scholar
Browne, W. (1972). Conjoined question words and the limitation of English surface structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 223–226.Google Scholar
Browne, W. (1986). Relative Clauses in Serbo-Croatian in Comparison with English. PhD thesis, University of Zagreb.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh-movement. In Culicover, P., Wasow, T., & Akmajian, A., eds., Formal Syntax, New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Citko, B. (1998). On multiple wh movement in Slavic. In Bošković, Ž, Franks, S., & Snyder, W., eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 6. The Connecticut Meeting, 1997, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 97–114.Google Scholar
Citko, B. (2001). Deletion under identity in relative clauses. In Kim, M. & Strauss, U., eds., Proceedings of the 31st North East Linguistics Society, Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications, pp. 131–146.Google Scholar
Citko, B. (2005). On the nature of Merge: External Merge, Internal Merge, and Parallel Merge. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 475–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citko, B. (2006). The interaction between across-the-board wh-movement and Left Branch Extraction. Syntax, 9, 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citko, B. (2009). What don’t free relatives, correlatives, and wh-questions have in common? In Lipták, A., ed., Correlatives Crosslinguistically, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 49–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citko, B. (2010). On the distribution of -kolwiek ‘ever’ in Polish free relative clauses. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 18, 221–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citko, B. (2011). Symmetry in syntax: Merge, Move and Labels, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citko, B. & Gračanin-Yuksek, M. (2013). Towards a new typology of coordinated wh- questions. Journal of Linguistics, 49, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citko, B. & Gračanin-Yuksek, M. (2016). Multiple (coordinated) (free) relatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 34, 393–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citko, B. & Gračanin-Yuksek, M. (2020). Conjunction saves multiple sluicing: How *(and) why?, Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 5(1): 92. doi: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1112.Google Scholar
Citko, B. & Gračanin-Yuksek, M. (2021). Merge: Binarity in (Multidominant) Syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corver, N. (1990). The Syntax of Left Branch Extraction. PhD thesis, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Dimova, E. (2014). A new look at multiple free relatives: Evidence from Bulgarian. Paper presented at SLS 9, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
Dukova-Zheleva, G. (2010). Questions and Focus in Bulgarian. PhD thesis, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Dyła, S. (1984). Across-the-board dependencies and case in Polish. Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 701–705.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. & Ćavar, D. (2002). Distributed deletion. In Alexiadou, A., ed., Theoretical Approaches to Universals, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 65–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisiak, J., Lipinska-Grzegorek, M., & Zabrocki, T. (1978). An Introductory English-Polish Contrastive Grammar, Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Franks, S. (1995). Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franks, S & Progovac, L. (1994). On the placement of Serbo-Croatian clitics. Indiana Linguistic Studies, 7, 69–78.Google Scholar
Giltner, D. (2018). Head-Raising and Head-Matching in Russian Relative Clauses: Diagnostic Study. Honors thesis, University of WashingtonGoogle Scholar
Gračanin-Yuksek, M. (2007). About Sharing, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Gračanin-Yuksek, M. (2013). The syntax of relative clauses in Croatian. Linguistic Review, 30. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2013-0002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gračanin-Yuksek, M. (2017). Conjoined wh-questions. In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H., eds., The Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed., Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1127–1161.Google Scholar
Gribanova, V. (2009). Structural adjacency and the typology of interrogative interpretations. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 133–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grebenyova, L. (2006). Sluicing puzzles in Russian. In Lavine, J., Franks, S., Tasseva-Kurktchieva, M., & Filip, H., eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 14. The Princeton Meeting, 2005, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 157–171.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G. (2001). Multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 87–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groos, A. & van Riemsdijk, H. (1981). Matching effects in free relatives: A parameter of core grammar. In Brandi, L., Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L., eds., Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar, Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.Google Scholar
Guz, W. (2017). Resumptive pronouns in Polish co relative clauses. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 25, 95–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hladnik, M. (2015). Mind the Gap. Resumption in Slavic Relative Clauses. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Izvorski, R. (1996). The syntax and semantics of correlative proforms. In Kusumo, K., ed., Proceedings of NELS 26, pp. 133–147.Google Scholar
Jacobson, P. (1995). On the quantificational force of English free relatives. In Bach, E. et al., eds., Quantification in Natural Languages, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 451–486.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2003). Topicality and superiority in Bulgarian wh-questions. In Arnaudova, O., Browne, W., Rivero, M. L., & Stojanović, D., eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Languages 12. The Ottawa Meeting, 2003, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 207–228.Google Scholar
Hulsey, S. & Sauerland, U. (2006). Sorting out relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics, 14, 111–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krapova, I. (2010). Bulgarian relative and factive clauses with an invariant complementizer. Lingua, 120, 1240–1272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krapova, I., & Cinque, G. (2008). On the order of wh-phrases in Bulgarian multiple wh- fronting. In Zybatow, T. et al., eds., Formal Description of Slavic Languages: The Fifth Conference (FDSL5), Leipzig 2003, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 318–336.Google Scholar
Matushansky, O. (2001). More of a good thing: Russian synthetic and analytic comparatives. In Toman, J., ed., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 10. The Second Ann Arbor Meeting, 2001, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 143–161.Google Scholar
Mitrenina, O. (2010). Correlatives: Evidence from Russian. In Zybatow, G. et al., eds., Formal Studies in Slavic Linguistics: Proceedings of Formal Description of Slavic Languages 7.5, Frankfurt am Main, 2010, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 135–151.Google Scholar
Pancheva, R. (2006). Phrasal and clausal comparatives in Slavic. In Lavine, J., Franks, S., Tasseva-Kurktchieva, M., & Filip, H., eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 14. The Princeton Meeting, 2005, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 236–257.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, A. (2007). The universality of DP: A view from Russian. Studia Linguistica, 61, 59–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1998). Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. Is the best good enough? In Barbosa, P., Fox, D., Hagstrom, P., McGinnis, M., & Pesetsky, D., eds., Optimality and Competition in Syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 337–384.Google Scholar
Pęzik, P. (2015). Spokes: A search and exploration service for conversational corpus data. In Odijk, J., ed., Selected Papers from the CLARIN 2014 Conference, October 24–25, 2014, Soesterberg, The Netherlands [Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings, 116], Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press, pp. 99–109.Google Scholar
Progovac, L. (1998). Determiner phrase in a language without determiners. Journal of Linguistics, 34, 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, N. (2001). Movement in Language: Interactions and Architectures, Oxford & New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on Variables in Syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Rudin, C. (1988). On multiple questions and multiple wh fronting. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 6, 445–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudin, C. (2007). Multiple wh-relatives in Slavic. In Compton, R., Goledzinowska, M., & Savchenko, U., eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 15. The Toronto Meeting, 2006, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 282–307.Google Scholar
Rudin, C. (2013). Aspects of Bulgarian Syntax: Complementizers and Wh Constructions, 2nd revised ed., Bloomington, IN: Slavica.Google Scholar
Scott, T. (2012). Whoever Doesn’t Hop Must Be Superior: The Russian Left-Periphery and the Emergence of Superiority. PhD thesis, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar
Šimík, R. (2016). On the semantics of Czech free relatives. In Zikova, M. & Caha, P., eds., Linguistica Brunensia 64/1: Festschrift for Petr Karlik, Brno: Masaryk University, pp. 109–129.Google Scholar
Šimík, R. (2018). Ever free relatives crosslinguistically. In Sauerland, U. & Solt, S., eds., Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 22, Vol. 2, ZASPiL 61, ZAS, Berlin, pp. 375–392.Google Scholar
Sobin, N. (1990). On the syntax of English echo questions. Lingua, 81, 141–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stepanov, A. (1998). On wh-fronting in Russian. In Tamanji, P. N & Kusumoto, K., eds., NELS 28, Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 453–467.Google Scholar
Stepanov, A. (2000). WH-scope marking in Slavic. Studia Linguistica, 54, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturgeon, Anne. (2007). Another look at multiple wh-questions in Czech. In Compton, R., Goledzinowska, M., & Savchenko, U., eds., Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 15. The Toronto Meeting, 2006, Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 402–416.Google Scholar
Szczegielniak, A. (2004). Relativization That You Did. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Tomaszewicz, B. (2011). Against spurious coordination in multiple wh questions. In Washburn, M. B. et al., eds., Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 186–195.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. (1988). On Government. PhD thesis, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, J.-R. (1974). French Relative Clauses. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Veselovská, L. (2021). Wh-Questions: A Case Study in Czech. Olomouc Modern Language Monographs, Volume 11, Olomouc: Palacky University Olomouc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vries, M. De. (2002). The Syntax of Relativization. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Wachowicz, K. A. (1974). Against the universality of a single wh-question movement. Foundations of Language, 11, 155–166.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×