Persian and English Multiple Wh-questions in Contrast: A Study of Binary, D-linked, and Ternary Multiple Wh-Questions

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of English, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

2 Department of English, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

This paper examines the distributional pattern of wh-elements in Persian and English multiple wh-questions (MWQs) based on a Grammaticality Judgement (GJ) task administered to Persian speakers of English (PSEs) and native speakers of Persian (NSEs). Using a one-shot design, the GJ task elicited the intuition of 30 randomly assigned Persian speakers of English and 30 native speakers of English on the full range of multiple wh-configurations combining 6 types of wh-elements (i.e. who, what, where, when, how and why) in the wh-operator (i.e. wh1) and wh-in-situ (i.e. wh2) positions. The data were analysed using hierarchical cluster analysis, and grammatical and ungrammatical MWQs were sharply distinguished into separate clusters in the resulting dendrogram. The results of the study revealed that (i) 7 out of 30 possible ordered pairs of Persian MWQs were clustered as grammatical ones and the rest were clustered as ungrammatical ones, and (ii) there are significant differences in terms of the grammaticality of Persian/English binary and ternary MWQs, while there is generally no significant difference between NSEs’ ratings of English D-linked MWQs and PSEs’ ratings of the translation-equivalent Persian D-linked MWQs. The results of the study have pedagogical implications for teaching Persian to non-native speakers of Persian in terms of the order of teaching different types of Persian MWQs, the contexts for the use of such structures, and the proficiency level at which Persian MWQs could be taught to non-native speakers of Persian.
Extended Abstract
In Chomsky’s Government and Binding theory, a number of parameters have been the subject of a plethora of investigations. One of the parameters of UG which has received attention of linguists in the past decade or so is the
wh-parameter. In addition to the variation between languages with respect to single wh-questions (i.e. wh-movement vs. wh-in-situ), it has been noted that languages also differ in the way they produce multiple wh-questions (MWQs). In English MWQs, there is a single strict constraint on the movement of
wh-elements known as the Superiority effect, where the wh-phrase that
C-commands the other moves to Spec-CP. In contrast, Persian is a language with a productive scrambling property, which demonstrates two basic strategies for the formation of MWQs: (i) multiple wh-in-situ, where wh-elements are not subject to the Superiority effect, (ii) optional multiple wh-fronting with multiply filled specifiers (i.e. [+MFS]), where wh-words are bound to the Superiority effect. There are specific conditions under which the violation of the Superiority effect in English MWQs disappears, and their ungrammaticality is ameliorated: D(iscourse)-linking and ternary (non-binary) wh-questions. As the overarching goal of the study, this paper examines the distributional pattern of wh-elements in Persian and English multiple wh-questions (MWQs) based on a Grammaticality Judgement (GJ) task administered to Persian speakers of English (PSEs) and native speakers of Persian (NSEs). More specifically put, the study intends to answer the two research questions: (i) How do native speakers of Persian distinguish among the six types of wh2 elements in Persian binary multiple wh-questions (MWQs)?, and (ii) Are there any grammaticality differences between English native speakers’ ratings of English binary, D-linked and ternary MWQs and Persian native speakers’ ratings of translation-equivalent Persian binary, D-linked and ternary MWQs? Since the purpose of the present study 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Adli, A. (2010). Constraint cumulativity and gradience: Wh-scrambling in Persian. Lingua, 120, 2259–2294.
Bley-Vroman, R., & Yoshinaga, N. (2000). The acquisition of multiple wh-questions by high-proficiency non-native speakers of English. Second Language Research, 16, 3–26.
Boeckx C. & Grohmann, K. K. (2004). Submove: Towards a unified account of scrambling and D-linking. In D. Adger, C. de Cat & G. Tsoulas (Eds.), Peripheries (pp. 341–357). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Bolinger, D. (1978). Asking more than one thing at a time. In H. Hiz (Ed.), Questions (pp. 107–150). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Bošković, Ž. (1998). On the interpretation of multiple questions. In J. Fodor, S. J. Keyser & A. Brand (Eds.), Essays for Noam Chomsky’s 70th birthday (pp. 1–9). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In S. R. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), Festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 232–286). New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.
Clifton, C. Jr., Fanselow, G. & Frazier, L. (2006). Amnestying superiority violations: Processing multiple questions. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 51–68.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Donkers, J., Hoeks, J. C. J., & Stowe, L. A. (2013). D-linking or set-restriction? Processing which-questions in Dutch. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1-2), 9–28.
Fanselow, G. & Frisch, S. (2004). Effects of processing difficulty on judgments of acceptability. In G. Fanselow, C. Féry, R. Vogel, & M. Schlesewsky (Eds.), Gradience in grammar: Generative perspectives (pp. 291–316). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Featherston, S. (2005). Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax: Some wh-constraints in German. Lingua, 115(11), 1525–1550.
Fedorenko, E. & Gibson, E. (2010). Adding a third wh-phrase does not increase the acceptability of object-initial multiple-wh-questions. Syntax, 13(3), 183–195.
Fodor, J. D. (1978). Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 9, 427–473.
Fodor, J. D. (1989). Empty categories in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 3, 155–209.
Frazier, L., & Clifton, C., Jr. (2002). Processing “d-linked” phrases. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 633–659.
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 1–76.
Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: a distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Y. Miyashita, A. Marantz, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain (p. 95–126). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Grohmann, K. K. (2000). Prolific peripheries: A radical view from the left. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.
Hagstrom, P. (1998). Decomposing questions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Hofmeister, P. (2007). Retrievability and gradience in filler-gap dependencies. In Proceedings of the 43rd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
Hofmeister, P. (2008). Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Stanford University.
Hofmeister, P., Jaeger, T. F., Arnon, I., Sag, I. A., & Snider, N. (2013). The source ambiguity problem: Distinguishing the effects of grammar and processing on acceptability judgments. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(1/2), 48–87.
Hornstein, N. (1995). Logical form: From GB to Minimalism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Huang, C. T. J. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Karimi, S. (2005). A minimalist approach to scrambling: Evidence from Persian. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Karttunen, L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics & Philosophy, 1, 3–44.
Kuno, S. & Robinson, J. J. (1972). Multiple wh-questions. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 463–487.
Kuno, S. & Takami, K. (1993). Grammar and discourse principles: Functional syntax and GB theory. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lotfi, A. R. (2003). Persian wh-riddles. In C. Boeckx & K. K. Grohmann (Eds.), Multiple wh-fronting (pp. 161–186). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pesetsky, D. (1987). Wh-in-situ: movement and unselective binding. In E. Reuland & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), The representation of (in)definiteness (pp. 98–129). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Pesetsky, D. (2000). Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Radford, A. (2009). Analysing English sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Raghibdoust, S. (1993). Interrogative constructions in Persian. MA thesis, University of Ottawa.
Raghibdoust, S. (1994). Multiple wh-fronting in Persian. Cahiers Linguistics D’Ottawa, 21, 27–50.
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rudin, C. (1988). On multiple questions and multiple wh-fronting. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 6, 445–501.
Stroik, T. S. (1995). Some remarks on superiority effects. Lingua, 95, 239–258.
Stroik, T. S. (2009). Locality in minimalist syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Warren, T., & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85, 79–112.
Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages
Volume 10, Issue 1 - Serial Number 21
Special Issue English
April 2021
Pages 249-284

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 07 August 2021
  • Revise Date: 06 September 2021
  • Accept Date: 21 September 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics