Tibetan as a Wh-in-situ language

Tibetan as a Wh-in-situ languageNational Tsing Hua UniversityGraduate InstituteOfLinguistics吳 濠 丞Howard Wue-mail: hao012250@hotmail.com

Tibetan as a Wh-in-situ languageNo movement. Not appropriate to Lhasa Tibetan.■ For and against INTERVENTION EFFECTS■ Functional category versus scrambling and wh-movementInformant:Name: Khenpo Nyiyak (Tibetan)Age: 42 (1969/6/25)Khenpo=> 通 過 佛 學 院 學 習 , 認 證 , 考 試 而 來 的 稱 號( 博 士 )Education:Birth place:LanguageSpoken:How manyyears inTaiwan?From age 6,7(reading and writing) to whole lifeQinghai 青 海Kham, Lhasa Tibetan, Mandarin(in simple conversation)Lhasa Tibetan: start from 1986(in India) to now2004 till now, (8~9) years2

Tibetan as a Wh-in-situ language2. Previous Studies & New Findings in Tibetan2.1 LF examination >Locality:■ Adjuncts in languages with overt wh-movement cannot be extracted out of an island■ These cases are much worse than sentences in which a wh-argument (e.g., an object) isextracted from the same environmentsFor example: (1) a. *Whyi do you wonder whether John left ti?b. *Whyi do you believe the claim that John said Bill left ti?(2) a. ??What do you wonder whether John bought?b. ?*Whoi do you believe the claim that John said Mary saw ti?(from Lasnik and Saito 1992)3

Tibetan as a Wh-in-situ language■The same pattern of contrast can also be found with wh-in-situ in multiple questions. Thatis, we cannot leave wh adjuncts in-situ in an island. In addition, Similar patterns are alsofound in languages like Mandarin Chinese, which do not have overt wh-movement.For example: (3) Húfei xiAng-zhi dào shéi wèishénme shengqì (?)„Hufei want-know who why get-angry‟a. „Hufei wonders who gets angry why.‟b. „for which x, x a person, Hufei wonder why x gets angry‟c. *what is the reason x, Hufei wonders who gets angry for x‟(cited: Cheng 2009) It can be interpreted as a matrix question; it can only be a matrix question asking forwhich person, but not for which reason.However, in Tibetan we can switch both argument (who) and adjunct (why) around, andthat we find the same interpretation in declarative sentence. As the following shows:(4)Nga rang ha ko song ka recini su kong tsou long re 1Me know PRF why who angry ASP Yes(Declarative)Past„I wonder why gets angry who‟„ 我 想 知 道 誰 為 什 麼 生 氣 ‟1NOTE:„re‟ in sentence final position carries different sense. It can carries the sense of yes-noquestion, third person, have or indicating a past event.4

Tibetan as a Wh-in-situ language=>what is the reason x, me wonders who gets angry for x (asking for the reason)Notice: If we switch the argument (who) and adjunct (why) around, the interpretation isstill asking for which reason but not for which person.=> The intonation is changing in this sentence for asking the question■ Example (5) illustrates a typical (ungrammatical) example of an adjunct in-situ in acomplex NP island.(5)*Qiaofeng xihuAn Bótong wèishénme xia de shu?Qiaofeng like Botong why write de bookIntended: „For what reason x such that Qiaofeng likes the book that Botong wrote for x?‟(cited Cheng2009)However, we find in Tibetan:(6)Niyak ka re ci ni jigmme yiksuk la kaaki reNeo Why Jigmme writing mood___ like have„Why Neo likes Jigmme‟s writing?‟„ 尼 奧 為 什 麼 喜 歡 傑 米 寫 的 字 ?’(V+have)Intended: „For what reason x such that Neo likes the letters that Botong wrote for x?‟Here, we find in Tibetan that adjunct (Why) has been scrambled out of the complex NPisland. On the other hand, it is also possible to leave the adjunct (why) in complex NP island,5

Tibetan as a Wh-in-situ languageand is grammatical in Lhasa Tibetan, yet it is less spoken by people.> 2.2 Selectional Requirements■ It is well-known that different verbs select for different types of complement clauses. Forinstance, verbs such as ask require an interrogative complement, while believe must havea declarative complement, and know can take both.Example in Mandarin:(7)Huangróng xiangxìn Guojìng mai-le shanme?Huangrong believe Guojing buy-perf what„What does Huangrong believe that Guojing bought?‟(8) Qiáofeng wèn wo Guojìng mAi-le shanme/*shuQiaofeng ask me Guojing buy-perf what/book„Qiaofeng asked me what Guojing bought./*Qiaofeng asked meGuojing bought the book.‟(9) Bótong zhidào Huángróng xihuan shéi (?)Botong know Huangrong like whoa. „Botong knows who Huangrong likes.‟b. „Who does Botong know Huangrong likes?‟(Huang 1982)6

Tibetan as a Wh-in-situ languageIf in-situ wh-phrases undergo movement at LF, the selectional requirements of the verbcan be satisfied the same way as in English.In Tibetan, we find the following example:(10)Nga rang Jiggme ki ka re nu na ici yu +reMe Jiggme ERG what bought conj believe have(3 rd )(declarative)‘What do I believe that Jigmme bought?‟„ 我 相 信 傑 米 買 了 什 麼 ?‟(11)Niyak ki tsewa la Jigmme ki ka re deb nu songNeo GEN ask mood Jigmme ERG what book bought PRF( 動 作 的 聯 繫 詞 )„Neo ask me what Jigmme bought?‟*‟Neo asked me Jiggme bought the book‟.‘ 尼 奧 問 我 傑 米 買 了 什 麼 ’Notice: There is an invisible me in this context.(12)Niyak ki hako ki re Jigmme su la kaaki reNeo GEN know ASP have Jigmme who Mood like have‘Neo knows who Jigmme likes‟ ’Who does Neo know Jigmme likes?‟„ 尼 奧 知 道 傑 米 喜 歡 誰 ?‟7

Tibetan as a Wh-in-situ languageJohn-top Mary-nom what-acc bought whether who-dat asked Q„Who did John ask t whether Mary bought what?‟b. ??John-wa [Mary-ga nani-o katta ka dooka] Tom-ni tazuneta no?John-top Mary-nom what-acc bought whether Tom-dat asked Q„What did John ask Tom whether Mary bought t?‟c. ??John-wa [dare-ga nani-o katta ka dooka] Tom-ni tazuneta no?John-top who-nom what-acc bought whether Tom-dat asked Q„What did John ask Tom whether who bought t?‟He argues that the operator part of the wh-word in Japanese moving to SpecCP). This issupported by data showing that an interrogative clause constitutes an island for S-structure movement(such as scrambling) in Japanese. The second level of movement is at LF. (Watanabe‟s proposal thussupports the view that subjacency only constrains overt operations.)=>Watanabe‟s proposal opens up a new way of looking at wh-in-situ: a non-overt part of awh-element undergoes movement in overt syntax.A similar example can be found in English:a. Whoi did John ask ti [whether Mary bought what]?b. ??Whati did John ask Tom [whether Mary bought ti]?10

Tibetan as a Wh-in-situ languageThe sentence is grammatical. The standard explanation is that who undergoeswh-movement in overt syntax, not crossing any island since it originates outside of the islandand the second wh-word what only undergoes wh-movement at LF.In Tibetan, we found a similar example to Japanese:(17)Niyak ki ke chia su la tsi re [re ma re Jigmme ki ka re nu re]Neo GEN talk who mood ask whether Jigmme ERG what bought have„ Neo asked who [whether Jigmme bought what]?‟„ 尼 奧 問 誰 是 不 是 傑 米 買 了 什 麼 ?‟(18)( 是 不 是 )*Su la Niyak ki kechia tsi re [re ma re Jigmme ki kare nu re]Who Neo GEN talk__ ask [whether Jigmme ERG what bought have]( 是 不 是 )*„Whoi did Neo ask ti [whether Jigmme bought what]?‟„ 誰 尼 奧 問 是 不 是 傑 米 買 了 什 麼 ?‟In these two examples17 and 18, we found out that although „who‟ originate outside ofthe interrogative clause constituent, not violating any Subjacency effect, it still can not moveto Spec of CP. On the other hand, „what‟ can be moved to Spec of CP by scrambling. As thefollowing examples show:(19)11

Tibetan as a Wh-in-situ languageNiyak ki kechia su la tse re [re ma re Jigmme ki kare nu re]Neo GEN talk who mood ask [whether Jigmme ERG what bought have]( 是 不 是 )„ Neo asked who [whether Jigmme bought what]?‟„ 尼 奧 問 誰 是 不 是 傑 米 買 了 什 麼 ‟(20)Kare Niyak ki kechia su la tsi re [re ma re Jigmme ki nu re]What Neo GEN talk who mood ask whether Jigmme ERG_ bought have„What i did Neo ask who [whether Jigmme ti bought ]?‟„ 尼 奧 問 什 麼 誰 是 不 是 傑 米 買 了 ‟In 20, I assume that the first level ( sensitive to Subjacency at S-structure movement)„who‟ originate outside of the interrogative clause constituent which has not violate anysubjacency effect. On the other hand, on the second level movement „what‟ moves at LFwhich supports what Watanabe (1992) has claimed. (subjacency only constrains overtoperations.)>2.5 Alternatives to Covert wh-Movement, from the approach of Minimalist program.Test: No movement: Choice Function.■ Reinhart (1998) first argues that there is in fact no LF wh-movement involved inwh-in-situ questions■ With no actual wh-movement taking place in syntax or at LF, Reinhart addresses thequestion of how in-situ wh-words can be interpreted.Example in Mandarin:12

Tibetan as a Wh-in-situ language(21)Zhangsan mai-le shanmeZhangsan buy-perf whata. „which x, x a thing, such that Zhangsan bought x‟b. „which x, such that Zhangsan bought x, x a thing‟If we assume that the wh-word shenme „what‟ in (21) has not undergone traditionalwh-movement at LF, the interpretation indicated in (21a) is not easily attained. Instead, wewould have (21b). In other words, if an in-situ element is left in-situ and we interpret itwithout any extra mechanism (with simple absorption or unselective binding), then therestriction of the wh-element also remains in-situ.We have a similar Tibetan example as the following; however we do not findrestrictions with wh-element remain in situ. Instead, we get the wide scope reading. As thefollowing show:22.Niyak ki kare nu reNeo GEN what bought have‘What did Neo buy?‟„ 尼 奧 買 了 什 麼 ’ X „which x, such that Neo bought x, x a thing‟ √ „which x, x a thing, such that Zhangsan bought x‟Since I have only one example in counter arguing against „no movement approach‟, it is13

Tibetan as a Wh-in-situ languagenot solid enough. Further investigation to the choice function is still needed.>2.6 For or against INTERVENTION EFFECTS■ Beck (1996), working under the assumption that there is LF wh-movement, shows that inGerman an in-situ wh-phrase in a scope-marking sentence or in a multiple questioncannot be c-commanded by a negation.(23)a. ??Wen hat niemand wo gesehen?Whom has nobody where seen„Where did nobody see whom?‟In Tibetan, we have a similar pattern. As the following show:(24)Niyak ki kare nu ki mareNeo Gen what bought ASP not„Neo what did not buy ?‟„ 尼 奧 沒 有 買 什 麼 ?(25)However it is also not possible for a negation to proceed and c-command in-situ-wh-phrase inLhasa Tibetan. As the following show:*NIyak ki mare kare nu kiNeo Gen not what bought ASP*„Neo did not buy what?‟14

Tibetan as a Wh-in-situ language„ 尼 奧 沒 有 什 麼 買 ?‟(26)Or*Mare Niyak ki kare nu kiNot Neo Gen what bought ASP*‘Didn‟t Neo buy what?‟*„ 沒 有 尼 奧 什 麼 買 ?‟It seems to support what Beck (1996) has claimed. On the other hand, it also supportswhat Beck and Kim (1997) has claimed in which scrambles the wh-phrases over theinterveners cancels the intervention effect.(27)a. *Amuto muôs-ûl sa-chi anh-ass-ni? (=Beck & Kimanyone what-acc buy-chi not do-Past-Q 1997, ex. 2a,b)b. Muôs-ûli amuto ti sa-chi anh-ass-ni?what-acc anyone buy-chi not do-Past-QAs the following example shows in Tibetan:(28)Kare Niyak ki nu ki mare ___What Neo Gen bought ASP not„What Neo didn‟t buy?‟„ 尼 奧 沒 有 買 什 麼 ‟15

Tibetan as a Wh-in-situ languageIt is also possible to find Modals which do not block wh-in-situ. In this case, it is similarto Mandarin Chinese and English. As the following in Tibetan show:(29)Tsi rang sang nin deb nuka tso ki remare deb de kare reYou tomorrow book buy go ASP MODAL book CONNECT whatYes‘Are you going to buy a book tomorrow, yes or not? What is the book?‟„ 你 明 天 是 不 是 要 去 買 書 , 是 什 麼 樣 的 書 ?In this sentence, it is divided into two parts of speech. As the definition of „Modalswhich do not trigger intervention‟ in Mandarin and English is not clear. The unclear part iswhether it is based on one part of speech or two parts of speech. However, the above Tibetansentence is just trying to show that it is possible for a Modal in a sentence which does nottrigger intervention effect.3. Functional category versus wh-movement and scramblingFukui (1989: 101) notes that English has subject-verb agreement, which leads him topostulate that English has the category of functional heads, including C, which projects thespecifier into which a wh-phrase moves. Hence English has overt wh-movement.The presence of INFL, and the concomitant agreement with its specifier, requires thesubject to raise to this specifier position.But Japanese lacks anything that resembles agreement; it has no subject-verb agreement,for example. Japanese therefore lacks the category of functional categories, hence lacks16

Tibetan as a Wh-in-situ languagewh-movement.Kuroda (1988) has a similar proposal, although he assumes that Japanese has functionalheads and specifiers that project from them. Kuroda introduces a parameter based on thenotion of what he calls “X-Agreement.”Kuroda’s parameter (1988: 10)Languages are parameterized as to whether X-Agreement is forced or not.Objects (and PPs), which are likewise licensed by particles, hence also not dependent onfunctional heads, move freely above this subject.For Kuroda, the possibility of scrambling in Japanese arises from the fact that thespecifier of IP need not be filled due to the non-forced agreement nature of the language.(cited: Miyagawa 2004:4)Now, let‟s consider from the Tibetan perspective:Tibetan has also Subject verb agreement; nonetheless it is less restricted as English.17

Tibetan as a Wh-in-situ languageWe can infer from the verb following particle yin (first and second person) and re (thirdperson).As the following shows:(30)Tse rang kabar la tsoki yinYou where Mood go 2P (second person)„Where are you going?‟„ 你 要 去 哪 裡 ?‟(31)Ko kabar la tsoki reHe where Mood go 3P (third person)„Where is he going‟„ 他 要 去 哪 裡 ?‟However, sometimes we can use re as first person as well, but it‟s not often.It seems like Tibetan also has the functional categories (agreement), however it stilllacks wh-movement as was proven from the previous examples. It is contrary to theperspective from what Fukui (1989: 101) has noticed.Beside, scrambling is found in Tibetan. However, unlike Japanese in which Objects (andPPs) and Objects in Turkish( Miyagawa 2004) can move freely above the subject. It isusually the Subject that above the Object in Tibetan.Nonetheless, it is not necessarily contradict Kuroda‟s approach in which he suspend[s]judgment…as to whether or not, or how, X-Agreement is conceptually combined with18

Tibetan as a Wh-in-situ languagephenomena of agreement in the more usual sense of the term, for example, gender andnumber agreement between a noun (subject) and a (finite) verb”(Kuroda 1988: 10).4. Conclusion>Lhasa Tibetan is a Wh-in-situ language!■ No overt wh-movement is found■ Scrambling is found■ The interpretation from Selectional Requirements is different from English andChinese.■ Subjancency effect is respected at different level which supports the claim byWatanabe (1992).■ Different principle and parameters of functional category with regard to scramblingor wh-movement is found in Lhasa Tibetan.19

Tibetan as a Wh-in-situ languageReferences (Partial):Cheng, L.L.-S (2009).Wh-in-situ from the 1980s to now. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3 (3), pp. 767-791.Cheng, L.L.-S (2003)Wh-in-situ. Glot International, 7 (4), pp. 103-109.Cheng, L.L.-S (2003)Wh-in-situ. Glot International, 7 (5), pp. 129-137.Cheng, L.L.-S & Rooryck, J.E.C.V. (2000)Licensing Wh- in situ. Syntax, 3, pp. 1-19.Shigeru Miyagawa (2004).“Wh-in-situ and Scrambling in the Context of Comparative Altaic Syntax,”Proceedings of the First Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics, MIT WorkingPapers in Linguistics. Spring 2004.Pesetsky, David. 1987.Wh in situ: Movement and unselective binding. In Representation of (In)definiteness, eds.Eric Reuland and Alice Ter Meulen, 98-129. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 1994a.On nominal islands and LF extractions in Chinese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory12:121-175.Watanabe, Akira. 1992a.Subjacency and S-structure movement of wh-in-situ. Journal of East Asian Linguistics1:255-291.王 志 敬 著 : 藏 語 拉 薩 口 語 語 法 北 京 市 : 中 央 民 族 大 學 , 1994.胡 坦 著 : 藏 語 研 究 文 論 北 京 市 : 中 國 藏 學 , 2002[ 民 91].胡 坦 著 : 拉 薩 口 語 讀 本 胡 坦 , 索 南 卓 噶 編 北 京 巿 : 民 族 , 1999.張 怡 蓀 : 藏 漢 大 辭 典 張 怡 蓀 主 編 北 京 巿 : 民 族 , 1985.20