Chapter published in:
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2018: Selected papers from 'Going Romance' 32, Utrecht
Edited by Sergio Baauw, Frank Drijkoningen and Luisa Meroni
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 357] 2021
► pp. 97–116

Chapter 5
The structure and interpretation of ‘non-matching’ split interrogatives in Spanish

| Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
The goal of this paper is to analyze the properties of (a special type of) ‘split interrogative’ (SI) constructions in Spanish. SIs are wh-questions followed by a phrase that constitutes a possible answer, the ‘tag’. The overall structure is interpreted as a yes/no question (as in what did John bring, a book?). In standard cases, the tag matches the (case and thematic) features of the wh-element. Nevertheless, in (spoken Peninsular) Spanish what I will call ‘Non-matching Split Interrogatives’ (NMSI) are also possible. In these cases, the wh-element and the XP in the tag may not match; instead, it is the dummy (neuter) qué “what” that heads the wh-clause. I investigate these cases and propose a (biclausal) analysis involving an ellipsis process similar to the one taking place in fragments (Merchant 2004). To support this hypothesis, I focus on a the fact that: in NMSI there is a form-meaning mismatch that, to my knowledge, has gone unnoticed both in theoretical and descriptive studies.
Keywords: split interrogatives, focus, Spanish, neuter qué , ellipsis, fragment answers, scope marker
Article outline
  • 1.Split interrogatives
  • 2.Non matching split interrogatives
    • 2.1Properties
    • 2.2The structure of NMSI. Monoclausal analyses
  • 3.A biclausal analysis for NMSI. Ellipsis and ‘extended’ reading
    • 3.1Properties of NMSI
    • 3.2The interpretation of NMSI
    • 3.3Non matching pseudocleft constructions and ‘extended’ interpretation
  • 4.Reconstruction: Constraints on movement and idioms
  • 5.Ellipsis: NMSI and fragment answers
  • 6.Ellipsis in (Right) dislocation structures
  • 7.The non-matching property: The neuter qué and Scope Markers
  • 8.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 December 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.357.05fer
References
Arregi, Karlos
2010 Ellipsis in split questions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28(3). 539–592. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brandner, Ellen
2000 Scope Marking and Clausal Typing. In Uli Lutz, Gereon Müller & Arnim von Stechow (eds.), Wh-scope marking, 45–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Camacho, José
2002 Wh-doubling: Implications for the syntax of wh-movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33. 157–164. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Contreras, Joan M. & Francesc Roca
2007 D’oracions interrogatives: les interrogatives escindides. Caplletra 42. 145–184.Google Scholar
Van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen
2010 The Syntax of ellipsis. Evidence from Dutch dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta
1994 Scope Marking as indirect wh dependency. Natural Language Semantics 2. 137–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 Scope Marking: Cross-linguistic variation in indirect dependency. In Uli Lutz, Gereon Müller & Arnim von Stechow (eds.), Wh-scope marking, 157–194. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel
2006 Relators and linkers. The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel, André Meinunger & Chris Wilder
2000 Pseudo-clefts and ellipsis. Studia Linguistica 54(1). 41–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Soriano, Olga
2009 On the nature of covert operations. The case of focus in Spanish pseudoclefts. In Enoch Oladé Aboh, Elisabeth van der Linden, Josep Quer & Petra Sleeman (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory, 87–109. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
2005 Words and structure. Stanford, CA: CLSI Publications.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia
2000 On the syntax of “wh-scope-marker” constructions: Some comparative evidence. In Uli Lutz, Gereon Müller & Arnim von Stechow (eds.), Wh-scope marking, 271–316. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Irurtzun, Aritz
2017 On the nature and distribution of split wh-questions in Basque. Paper presented at the 27th Colloquium on Generative Grammar, Madrid, Spain, May 17–19.
Kiss, Katalin É.
1998 Identificational focus versus informational focus. Language 74. 245–273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kluck, M. Elisabeth
2011 Sentence amalgamation. Groningen: LOT, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lorenzo, Guillermo
1994–95  Qué expletivo en preguntas dislocadas. Archivum Ovetensis XLIV-XLV. 423–446.Google Scholar
López Cortina, Jorge
2009 Split questions, extended projections, and dialect variation. In Joseph Collentine, Maryellen García, Barbara Lafford, & Francisco Marcos Marín (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 11th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 219–230. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Lutz, Uli, Gereon Müller & Arnim von Stechow
2000 Wh-scope marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason
2004 Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 661–738. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Munaro, Nicola & Jean-Yves Pollock
2005 ‘Qu’est-ce-que.qu)-est-ce-que?’ A case study in comparative Romance interrogative syntax. In Guglielmo Cinque & Richard S. Kayne (eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, 542–606. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ott, Denis
2014 An ellipsis approach to contrastive left-dislocation. Linguistic Inquiry 45(2). 269–303. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ott, Denis & Mark de Vries
2014 Right-dislocation as deletion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34(2). 641–690. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert
2012 On the prosody and syntax of right-dislocation. Paper presented at Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft (DGfS), Frankfurt, Germany, March 7–9.
Uriagereka, Juan
1995 Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26. 79–123.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. Luisa
1998 Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar