On Multiple Wh-Fronting - University of Chicago

368 ZÏ E L J K O B O SÏ K O V I Ćdeletion should take place in nontrivial chains. Thus, Chomsky (1995) argues that on the readingon which himself in (47) refers to Joe, the tail of the chain created by wh-movement of whichpicture of himself is deleted so that himself remains in Spec,CP, where it is c-commanded by Joebut not Jim. On the other hand, on the reading on which himself refers to Jim, himself is deletedin the head of the chain and remains in the structure in the tail of the chain, where it is c-commanded by and local to Jim. 2 7(47) Joe wonders [ C P [which picture of himself] [ IP Jim bought [which picture of himself]]]By contrast, it is often assumed that no choice about where deletion should take place in nontrivialchains is available in PF, the head always being the sole survivor, as in (48).(48) a. The student was arrested the student.b. *The student was arrested the student.c. *The student was arrested the student.d. *The student was arrested the student.However, a number of authors have argued that in PF there is also a choice concerning whichmember of a nontrivial chain survives deletion (see Bobaljik 1995, Brody 1995, Groat and O’Neil1996, Runner 1998, Hiramatsu 1997, Pesetsky 1997, 1998, Richards 1997, Roberts 1997, Franks1998, Nunes 1999, BosÏ ković 2001). Of particular interest here is the proposal made by Franks(1998), who argues that just as in LF there is a preference for deletion in the head position ofnontrivial chains (at least with operator-variable chains), so also in PF deletion in the tail ofnontrivial chains (i.e., deletion of lower copies) is just a preference. More precisely, a lowermember of a chain is pronounced instead of the head of the chain iff pronunciation in the headposition would lead to a PF violation, provided that the violation can be avoided by pronouncingthe lower member of the chain. 2 8 (By head of a chain I mean the highest member of a sequenceof copies created by movement of the same element. I disregard the fact that in some cases twodifferent chains, an A-chain and an Ā-chain, are created by movement of the same element, asin Who i t i seems t i to t i know it?)Let us see what the proposal entails for (37). The ungrammaticality of (13b) and (16a) showsthat there is a syntactic requirement—namely, focus—that forces all wh-phrases in SC to movein overt syntax. This should also hold for the second sÏta in (37), which then also must undergofocus movement. As a result, (37) has the following S-Structure representation. (I am ignoringthe lower copy of the first sÏta.)(49) [ F P sÏ ta sÏ ta i [uslovljava sÏ ta i ]]what what conditions what27 Chomsky’s analysis is slightly more complicated. He also argues that there is a preference for deletion in the headof operator-variable chains, motivated by *John wondered which picture of Tom i he i liked.28 Pesetsky’s (1997, 1998) system, which antecedes Franks’s, is very similar to it (see also Bobaljik 1995, Hiramatsu1997,BosÏ ković2001).However, Pesetsky does not explicitly claim that only PF considerations can license lower pronunciation,a position I wish to maintain.