Wh-Questions in Vietnamese

Wh-questions in Vietnamese NELS 35 Conneticut, 22- 24 Oct. 2004

Benjamin Bruening Thuan Tran University of Delaware University of Delaware

1. Wh-in-situ in Vietnamese1

(1) a. Tân mua gì ( thê)? Tan buy what (PART) ‘What did Tan buy?’ b. *Gì Tân mua? What Tan buy ‘What did Tan buy?’

1.1 Two approaches to wh-in-situ

A. Movement

Chomsky (1973), Huang (1982): all wh-phrases in natural languages undergo movement to clause- initial position to form an operator-variable relation. Languages differ with respect to where this movement applies: in overt syntax or at LF.

(2) a. [ what j who i [ t i bought tj ] ] English

b. [ gi j [Tân mua t j ] ] Vietnamese

LF B. Non-movement

Baker (1970), Cole and Hermon (1994), among others: A Q-morpheme as an operator in the Comp of the interrogative clause unselectively binds all free variable in its c- command domain. (3) a. [ [ who i t i bought whatj ] ]

1 It should be noted that there are three main dialects of Vietnamese: Northern, Central and Southern dialects. The judgments in this paper are from the second author, a speaker of the Central dialect, and three other native speakers, of whom two are from the central part and one from the north. The particles used in this paper are of the northern dialect, but as far as I am aware, the particles in the three dialects are different only in form, not in function.

1 b. [ Q i [ Tân mua gi i ]]

Claim: Both strategies are used in Vietnamese. 1. LF movement without a question particle. 2. Unselective binding with a question particle. 2. Types of wh-phrases-in-situ.

2.1 Wh-phrases in argument positions: long distance reading possible.

(4) Tân biêt ai đi New York. Tan know who go New York a. Tan knows for which person x, x went to New York. b. For which person x, Tan knows that x went to New York.

Biêt ‘know’: selects [+WH] or [ -WH] propositions.

Particles only occur in matrix clauses. Only the long distance reading is allowed in (5).

(5) Tân biêt ai đi New York thê? Tan know who go New York PART For which person x, Tan knows that x went to New York.

Noi ‘say’ selects [-WH] propositions. Only matrix wh-question reading is allowed. Wh- particles are optional.

(6) Tân noi Thơ đã găp ai ( thê)? Tan say Tho ASP meet who (PART) For which person x, Tan says Tho met x. *Tan says for which person x Tho met x.

Muôn- biêt ‘want to know’: selects [+WH] proposition. No matrix wh-question reading is allowed. So, wh-particles are not allowed either.

(7) Tân muôn- biêt Thơ đã găp ai (*thê) Tan want know Tho ASP meet who (PART) Tan wonders for which person x Tho met x. *For which person x, Tan wonders Tho met x.

2.2 Wh-phrases in non-argument position:

2 Adjunct wh-phrase ‘why’ : base-generated at Spec, CP. No long distance reading is available.

(8) a. Tân biêt [tai sao Thơ đi New York.] Tan know why Tho go New York Tan knows for which reason x, Tho went to New York for x. *For which reason x, Tan knows Tho went to New York for x. b. *Tân biêt [Thơ đi New York tai sao.] Tan know Tho go New York why Tan knows for which reason x, Tho went to New York for x.

3. Diagnostics of Movement

Diagnostics of LF movement show up in wh-questions without wh-particles, but 3.1 disappear in wh-questions with wh-particles.

Subjacency Effects

3.1.1 Complex NP Constraint

(9) a. *Tân sẽ thich noi chuyên vơi [NP ông bac sĩ [CP đã chưa- bênh choai ] ]? T FUT like talk story with CL doctor ASP cure give who ‘Who will Tan like to talk to the doctor who cured?’ b. Tân sẽ thich noi chuyên vơi [NP ông bac sĩ [CPđã chưa- bênh cho ai ] ] thê ? T FUT like talk story with CL doctor ASP cure give who PART ‘Who does Tan like to talk to the doctor cured?’

3.1.2 Sentential Subject Constraint

(10) a. * [CP Ai bỏ- đi ] sẽ khiên cho moi- ngươi bôi rôi? Who leave FUT make give everyone embarrass ‘That who leaves will make everyone embarrassed?’ b. [CP Ai bỏ- đi ] khiên cho moi- ngươi bôi rôi thê? Who leave make give everyone embarrass PART ‘That who has left made everyone embarrassed?’

3.1.3 Adjunct Island Constraint

(11) a. * Tân sẽ nôi- giân [CP vi ai về sơm]? T FUT get angry because who leave early ‘Tan will get angry because who leaves early?’ b. Tân nôi -giân [CP vi ai về sơm] thê ? T get angry because who leave early PART ‘Tan got angry because who leaf early?’

3.2 LF Blocking Effects

3 Beck (1996): LF-movement cannot cross negation or a quantifier.

LF (12) * […X i …[ Q or Neg …[ … t i …]]]

(13) a. ?? Wer hat niemanden wo angetroffen? Who has nobody where met ‘Who didn’t meet anybody where?’ b. Wer hat wo niemandem angetroffen? Who has where nobody met ‘Who didn’t meet anybody where?’

In Vietnamese:

 Wh + cung =    blocks question reading without wh- particles. (14) a. Ai cung thich bong- đa. Who CUNG like football ‘Everyone likes football.’ b. * Ai cung thich gi? Who CUNG like what ‘What does everyone like?’ c. Ai cung thich gi thê? Who CUNG like what PART ‘What does everyone like?’

 Neg + wh = NPI  NPI blocks question reading without wh- particle.

(15) a. Chăng ai mơi Tân. Neg who invite Tan ‘No one invites Tan.’ b. Chăng ai mơi ai. Neg who invite who *‘Who did no one invite?’ ‘No one invited anyone.’ c. Chăng ai mơi ai thê? Neg who invite who PART ‘Who did no one invite?’ (16) a. Tân biêt chăng ai găp ai.

4 Tan know Neg who meet who ‘Tan knows no one met anyone.’ *‘Who does Tan know no one met?’ b. Tân biêt chăng ai găp ai thê? Tan know Neg who meet who PART ‘Who does Tan know no one met?’2

LF blocking is a constraint on movement, not on binding.

(17) * [ CP __ NPI … wh … ]

√ [ CP OP i NPI … wh i … ]

Conclusion:  Vietnamese has both LF wh- movement and unselective binding. Similar to Pesetsky 1987: two options in English: D-linked wh-phrases don’t move and get interpreted via unselective binding. Non-D-linked wh-phrases move.

(18) a. Who bought what? b. *What did who buy? c. Which book did which person buy?

Absence of Superiority Effect in (18c) as opposed to the presence of it in (18b): who must move at LF but which person is bound in situ.

4. What is the particle?

4.1. D-linking:

Pesetsky (1987): answers are drawn from a presupposed set.

A D-linked wh-phrase can occur without a wh-particle.

2 Sentential negation by different particles: one blocks questions, the other does not. (i) Tân không mơi ai. Tan Neg invite who ‘For which person x, Tan did not invite x.’ ‘There is not any person x such that Tan invited x.’ (ii) Tân chăng mơi ai. Tan Neg invite who *‘For which person x, Tan did not invite x.’ ‘There is not any person x such that Tan invited x.’

5 Situation:  Suppose there are three objects for a prize won by a contestant in a game show.  The show leader who wonders which object the winner will take will use (19a), not (19b).  (19b) would be felicitous in a situation where the contestant has made his choice already and the enquirer (for example, an audience) wonders which was chosen.

Hence, wh-particles are not required in D-linking contexts.

(19) a. Anh chon cai nao? you choose Cl which ‘Which do you choose?’ b. ?#Anh chon cai nao thê? you choose Cl which PART ‘Which do you choose?’

Non-D-linked context can have a wh-particle.

Situation: A pedestrian sees a policeman in the middle of a noisy crowd. He comes over and asks the policeman.

(20) Chuyên gi xãy ra thê? story what happen PART ‘What happened?’

Conclusion:

 wh-particles not D-linking.

4.2 Discourse-related: Realis vs. Irrealis

Wh-particles encode realis mood: Presuppose event’s occurrence.

Wh-particles presuppose the existence of the entities described by the wh-phrases and encode realis mood.

Situation: A sees Tan is talking to a person, and asks B who it is. (21a) is felicitous; (21b) is unacceptable. If A wants to know about Tan’s plan, that is, who Tan is going to talk to, then (21c) is felicitous.

(21) a. Tân đang noi chuyên vơi ai thê? Realis Tan ASP talk story with who PART

6 For which person x, Tan is talking to x. b. ???Tân đang noi chuyên vơi ai? Tan ASP talk story with who For which person x, Tan is talking to x. c. Tân sẽ noi chuyên vơi ai? Irrealis Tan ASP talk story with who For which person x, Tan will talk to x.

Situation: A enters and sees B is watching TV. A asks B what he is watching. (22a) is felicitous; (22b) unacceptable. If A wants to know what B plans to watch later, then (22c) is felicitous.

(22) a. (Anh) đang xem gi thê? Realis (you) ASP watch what PART For which x, you are watching x. b. ???? (Anh) đang xem gi? (you) ASP watch what For which x, you are watching x. c. Tôi nay anh đinh xem gi? Irrealis tonight you plan watch what For which x, you intend to watch x tonight.

A contrast between past and non-past: Particles for past and no particles for non-past? NO. Consider the following.

Imagine an interview where subjects are asked about a famous person, for example, about the British Queen. The interviewer wants to know who would have suffered most if the Queen had passed away two years ago, and who will suffer most if she passes away next year.

(23) a. Ai vô-cung đau-khô nêu- như Nư Hoang qua đơi cach-đây hai năm (*thê )? who endless hurt suffer if as Queen pass life ago two year PART ‘Who would have suffered most if the Queen had passed away two years ago?’ b. Ai sẽ vô- cung đau- khô nêu- như sang năm Nư Hoang qua đơi (* thê )? who ASP endless hurt suffer if as come year Queen pass life PART ‘Who will suffer most if the Queen passes away next year?’

In (23a) the hypothetical event is in the past, and that in (23b) is in the future. Yet, the use of the particle is ungrammatical in both sentences because both are irrealis (conditional).

Is the occurrence of wh-particles optional? Back to examples (1), (4) and (5) repeated here as 24a,b,c respectively.

7 (24) a. Tân mua gì ( thê)? Tan buy what (PART) ‘What did Tan buy?’ b. Tân biêt ai đi New York. Tan know who go New York i. Tan knows for which person x, x went to New York. ii. For which person x, Tan knows that x went to New York. c. Tân biêt ai đi New York thê? Tan know who go New York PRT For which person x, Tan knows that x went to New York.

(24a) with a particle presupposes that Tan bought something, without a particle, no presupposition of the event at all. Similarly, (24c) presupposes that Tan knows, but (24b) does not.

4.2.4 D-linked wh-phrases.

D-linked wh-phrases improve in islands even without wh-particles.

Situation: Suppose at a book fair, any reader can meet their favorite author. A asks B about Tan. B’s answers must be either the whole sentence as in (26a) or the whole island as in (25b). (25c) is not felicitous.

A. Tân sẽ găp [NP ngươi [CP đã viêt quyên sach nao ]]? Tan ASP meet human ASP write Cl book which ‘Tan will meet the person who wrote which book?’ B. a Anh ây sẽ găp [NP ngươi [CP đã viêt quyên sach bay trên quây Z]] he will meet human ASP write Cl book display on counter Z ‘He will meet the person who wrote the book displayed on counter Z.’ b. [NP Ngươi [CP đã viêt quyên sach bay trên quây Z.]] human ASP write CL book display on counter Z The person who wrote the book displayed on counter Z. c. *Quyên sach bay trên quây Z. The book displayed on counter Z.3

Suggestion:

Pied-piping effect (Nishigauchi, 1986): wh-movement moves the entire island that contains a wh-phrase to the operator position of the matrix clause as well as the wh- phrase, which moves within the relative clause.

3 The judgment is not consistent among native speakers as to the grammaticality of (25c). However, everyone prefers (25a,b) to (25c).

8 This explains the contrast with a single -word answer in the case of islands with particle shown in (26) (26) A. Tân thich noi chuyên vơi [NP ông bac sĩ [CP [IP đã chưa bênh cho ai] ] thê? Tan like talk story with CL doctor ASP cure give who PART ‘Who does Tan like to talk to the doctor who has cured?’ B. Mary. ‘Mary’

5. Interim conclusion.

 LF movement applies when wh-questions are not accompanied by wh-particles. a. non-D-linked: wh-phrase moves. b. D-linked in certain islands: pied-pipes island.  Unselective binding applies when wh-questions are accompanied by wh-particles.

6. Embedded Questions.

(27) a. [Tân sẽ mua [NP ngôi nha [CP ma ai đã xây dưng ]]*(thê )]? Tan ASP buy Cl house REL who ASP build PART ‘Who will Tan buy the house that built?’ b. [Lan muôn biêt [CP Tân sẽ mua ngôi nha ma ai đã xây dưng (* thê )]] Lan want know Tan ASP buy Cl house REL who ASP build PART ‘Lan wants to know who Tan will buy the house that built.’

 Island constraints are always absent from embedded questions.  Yet, embedded Qs never have an overt particle.  Additionally, why would a discourse particle associated with realis mood also be an unselective binder?

Following a suggestion from S. Tomioka, we propose that the Q binder is always null, but needs to be licensed by an overt X 0:

 Embedded Qs: licensed by higher V.  Matrix Qs: licensed by overt discourse particles.

(28) Null Q licensing

a. Embedded. b.Matrix

V0 CP CP PART

9  IP  IP

7. Conclusion a. Two approaches:  LF movement without a question particle.  Presence of null Q licensed by a question particle: Unselective binding. b. No correlation between unselective binding and D-linking: wh-particles do not D- link wh-phrases, but license the unselective binder. c. Universal role for D-linking: wh-phrase does not move by itself.

References

Beck, S (1996) ‘Quantified Structures as Barriers for LF Movement,’ Natural Language Semantics 4, 1-56 Chomsky, Noam (1977), ‘On WH-Movement,’ In Peter Culicover, Thomas Wason, and Cole, Peter, and Gabriella Hermon (1998), ‘The Typology of Wh-Movement: Wh-Questions in Malay,’ Syntax 1: 221-258. Comorovski, Ileana (1996), Interrogative Phrases and the Syntax-Semantics Interface, Kluwer, Dordretcht. Diesing, Molly, (1992), Indefinites, MIT. Đinh-Hoa, Nguyên, (1997), Vietnamese, John Benjamins Publishing Co. The Netherlands & USA Nishigauchi, Taisuke, (1986) Quantification in Syntax, Ph.D dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Pesetsky, David (1987), ‘Wh-in-Situ: Movement and Unselective Binding,’ in Eric Reuland and Alice ter Meulen (eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 98 -129. Reinhart, Tanya (1998), Wh-In-Situ in the Framework of the Minimalist Program, Natural Language Semantics, 6: 29-56. Tomioka, S (2004), Pragmatics of LF Intervention Effects Are Topic Effects, ms. University of Delaware. Tomioka, Satoshi (2004), Personal communication.