Pawel Karnowski
Roland Meyer


Wh/Q-Interaction in Polish

1. This paper presents an analysis of contrasts like the following:

(1)     a.      Kto_i t_i pocalowal kazde dziecko?      (unambiguous)
                 who_nom   kissed   [every child]_acc
                 'Who kissed every child?'
         b.      Kogo_i pocalowalo kazde dziecko t_i?    (ambiguous)
                 who_acc kissed   [every child]_nom
                 'Who did every child kiss?'

The question in (1a) could be paraphrased as "For which person x, x kissed
every child y?" in its strongly preferred reading. (1b) could equally well
be understood as "For every child y, which person x was kissed by y?".
This phenomenon is well known in the literature as the so-called
wh/quantifier-interaction.
The standard analysis (May 1985, Aoun & Li 1993, among others) is based on
the relation between the quantifier and the chain of wh-movement at the
syntactic level of LF: In (1b), unlike in (1a), the quantifier
c-commands the trace of wh-movement. The reading in which the wh-phrase
takes scope over the quantifier is then always predicted to be available
(at any rate in languages with overt wh-movement), which seems to be
empirically justified.
In contrast, non-configurational approaches are proposed by Pafel (1998) for
German and Kuno et al. (1999) for English, Chinese and Japanese, taking
into account various syntactic, semantic and pragmatic factors which add
up to induce the correct scopal reading. Starting from this rather broad
perspective, we analyse the factors which influence the relative scope of
wh-phrases and quantifiers in Polish simple interrogative sentences.

2. One of these factors, obvious from (1), is the grammatical function of
the operators: A subject (moved or unmoved) can take scope over an object,
whereas only a *preceding (/wh-moved)* object can take scope over a
subject (with the scopally opposite reading remaining possible). But this
is not an absolute condition:

(2)	Kogo_i  zachwycil kazdy instrument t_i?  	(unambiguous)
	who_acc fill with enthusiasm [every instrument]_nom
	'Who did every instrument fill with enthusiasm?'

(2) is a case with an unmoved subject which is unable to take scope over
the wh-moved object. The only relevant contrast between (1b) and (2) seems
to concern the factor animacy: A quantifier restricted to animate beings
can outscope the wh-operator (cf. 1b), which a quantifier restricted to
inanimates cannot (cf. 2). Obviously, this fact contradicts the
predictions of a purely configurational approach.
=46urther factors, whose relevance for wh/Q-interaction we discuss in this
paper, are (i) the inherent distributivity of ordinary quantifiers, (ii)
D-linking of quantifiers and wh-phrases, and (iii) focusing.

3. The outcome of our analysis is a multi-factorial model based on Kuno
(1999) and Pafel (1998; 1999). The parallels between
wh/Q-interaction and ordinary quantifier-interaction lead to the
conclusion that the former is indeed a special case of the latter. We
argue that this parallel opens up an interesting perspective on properties
of wh-movement in Polish, which, according to Dornisch (2000), involves
overt quantifier raising. Furthermore, semantic factors relevant for
wh/Q-interaction seem to have an influence on superiority effects even in
a language like Bulgarian (Billings & Rudin 1994), which is much more clearl=
y
subject to superiority than Polish. Viewing superiority as a scope
phenomenon can provide an explanation for the respective weak effects in
Polish as well.


References

Aoun, J. & Y.A. Li. 1993. Syntax of Scope. Cambridge/Mass.: MIT.

Billings, L. & C. Rudin. 1994. Optimality and Superiority: A New Approach
to Overt Multiple Wh-Ordering. In J. Toman (ed.), Formal Approaches to
Slavic Linguistics 3. Michigan Slavic Publications, 35-60.

Chierchia, G. 1993. Questions with Quantifiers. Ntural Language Semantics
1(2), 181-134.

Dornisch, E. 2000. Overt Quantifier Raising in Polish. In Proceedings of
GLiP-1. Waszawa: IPIPAN, 47-58.

Karnowski, P. 2000. Zum realativen Quantorenskopus im Polnischen. To appear
in Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference FDSL, Leipzig 1999.

Kuno, S. et al. 1999. Quantifier Scope in English, Chinese, and Japanese.
Language 75, 63-111.

May, R. 1985. Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation.
Cambridge/Mass.:MIT.

Pafel, J. 1998. Skopus und logische Struktur: Studien zum Quantorenskopus
im Deutschen. Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340, Nr. 129. Tuebingen/Stuttgart.

Pafel, J. 1999. Interrogative Quantifiers within Scope. Linguistics
and Philosopy 22, 255-310.