Overt Quantifier Raising in Polish
It has been traditionally assumed in generative syntax literature 
that Quantifier Raising (QR) universally takes place in the covert 
component. In this paper I will argue that in Polish QR is operative 
in the overt component. 
	Examples such as (1) demonstrate that in Polish multiple-wh-
questions wh-phrases other than the first one must raise but 
potentially only as far as the immediately preverbal position; any 
further movement on their part is optional (cond.aux.=conditional 
auxiliary, part.=participle, M=marked, capitals denote heavy stress). 

	(1)	a.	Co   by        Anna komu    polecila?
			what cond.aux. Anna to-whom recommend-part.
			"What would Anna recommend to whom?"
		b.	Co komu by Anna poleci_a?
		c.	MCo by Anna polecila KOMU? 
	(1) immediately makes us wonder: what drives the movement of komu 
"to whom" in (1a)? Horvath (1986), Yanagida (1995), and Boskovic 
(1997) argue that movement of a wh-phrase to the immediate preverbal 
position is driven by the Focus-feature of the wh-phrase. Yanagida 
proposes the existence of a Foc(us)P(hrase) immediately above VP. 
Aoun and Li (1993) propose that in the universal clause structure VP 
is immediately dominated by the Question Projection (QuP), the head 
of which carries the features [Qu] and [wh]. Under their account komu 
raises to the Spec of QuP in (1) to check the features [Qu] and [wh] 
of the head Qu. 
	I demonstrate that neither of the above approaches, either in terms 
of the Focus-feature or in terms of [Qu] or [wh], can account for the 
whole range of relevant data. Among others, it is difficult to see 
how either one of them could account for the Polish data presented in 
(2) and (3). 
	(2)	a.	Anna nikogo nie 	 widziala.
			Anna nobody Negation saw
			"Anna didn't see anybody."	
		b.	MAnna nie widziala NIKOGO.

	(3)	a.	Anna cos 		widziala.	
			Anna something	saw
			"Anna saw something."
		b.	MAnna widziala COS.
	In (2) the negative object pronoun nikogo 'nobody' must be fronted 
in the neutral context. (3) demonstrates that existential quantifiers 
must also move to the preverbal position in the unmarked context. The 
movement to the preverbal position illustrated in (2)-(3) cannot be 
driven by either [Qu] or [wh]. In addition, (1)-(3) demonstrate that 
when the relevant categories carry focal stress they are not forced 
to move. This fact clearly indicates that the Focus-feature by itself 
is not sufficient to explain the movement phenomena illustrated in 
(1)-(3).
	Consequently, I offer an alternative solution, drawing on the 
proposal of Kiss (1991), who argues for the existence of overt QR in 
Hungarian. All of the categories which undergo fronting to the 
immediately preverbal position in (1)-(3) are quantifiers. In 
addition, I will demonstrate that in Polish (like in Hungarian) the 
overt fronting of a quantifier to the preverbal position fixes the 
scope of the quantifier. Since QR is generally recognized as the 
instrument by means of which quantifier scope is fixed, this fact 
clearly supports the proposal that the movement illustrated in (1)-
(3) is (overt) QR. Furthermore, if we adopt Lasnik and Stowell's 
(1992) analysis of focused elements as quantifiers, the overt QR 
hypothesis also accounts for the data that have so far been analyzed 
in terms of Focus-movement. 
	In addition, I will present evidence in support of Chomsky's 
(1995:377) formulation of QR in terms of feature-driven movement. 
Chomsky proposes that QR is driven by the morphological feature 
[quant], carried by quantifiers. Polish, Hungarian, Japanese, and 
Chinese, among others, provide morphological evidence supporting 
Chomsky's proposal.

REFERENCES:

Aoun, Joseph and Audrey Li. 1993. Wh-Elements In-Situ: Syntax or LF?. 
Linguistic Inquiry 24:199-238.	

Boskovic, Zeljko. 1997. Multiple Wh-fronting and Economy 		
of Derivation. To appear in Proceedings of WCCFL 16. University of 
Washington.

Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT 
Press.

Horvath, Julia. 1986. FOCUS in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax 
of Hungarian. Foris, Dordrecht.  

Kiss, Katalin E. 1991. Logical structure in syntactic structure: the 
case of Hungarian. In Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure: 
Cross-Linguistic Perspectives, ed. C.-T. James Huang and Robert May. 
Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Lasnik, Howard, and Tim Stowell. 1991. Weakest Crossover. 
Linguistic Inquiry 22:687-720.

Yanagida, Y. 1995. Focus Projection and Wh-Head Movement. Doctoral 
dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.