Reference to dependencies in multiple-wh questions

Haoze Li, NYU

Abstract

This paper probes cross-sentential anaphora to dependencies in multiple-wh questions. Intuitively, a multiple-wh question establishes a dependency between wh-expressions when it admits a pair-list answer. Given a model involving a set of boys and a set of gifts, the multiple-wh question in (1) is seeking to identify the proper pairing between these two sets. In other words, this question presupposes that there is a dependency between the boys and the gifts: for each boy, there is a gift such that he bought it.

(1) Which boy bought which gift?
        Answer: Bob bought the Thomas train, Tim the Brio train, and Sam the Lego train.

This dependency-seeking question can support cross-sentential anaphora. For example, in (2), the plural pronoun refers to all the boys ranged over by the wh-expression which boy, while the singular pronoun is evaluated relative to the value of them: for each boy in the set retrieved by them, it is understood to be the gift that he bought.

(2) Which boy bought which gift and who did each of them send it to?
        Answer: Bob bought the Thomas train, Tim the Brio train, and Sam the Lego train. They all sent the gifts to their sisters.

In addition, the dependency is also accessible to the singular pronouns in (3). Unlike (2), (3) does not involve distributivity. The value of he varies from boy to boy, and correspondingly, it is interpreted relative to different boys, i.e., for each boy, it refers to the gift that he bought.

(3) Which boy bought which gift and who did he send it to?
        Answer: Bob bought the Thomas train and sent it to Ada; Tim bought the Brio train and sent it to Dora, and Sam bought the Lego train and sent it to Eva.

In this paper, I propose that these two kinds of reference to dependencies in multiple-wh questions result from two different mechanisms. The pattern illustrated by (2) is analogous to the phenomenon known as quantificational subordination (Karttunen 1969; van den Berg 1996; Brasoveanu 2010). The pattern illustrated by (3) is a natural result of conjoining a multiple-wh question with another question.