Chapter 5
The structure and interpretation of ‘non-matching’ split interrogatives in Spanish
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.
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
References (25)
References
Arregi, Karlos. 2010. Ellipsis in split questions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28(3). 539–592. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Camacho, José. 2002. Wh-doubling: Implications for the syntax of wh-movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33. 157–164. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Contreras, Joan M. & Francesc Roca. 2007. D’oracions interrogatives: les interrogatives escindides. Caplletra 42. 145–184.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2010. The Syntax of ellipsis. Evidence from Dutch dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dayal, Veneeta. 1994. Scope Marking as indirect wh dependency. Natural Language Semantics 2. 137–170. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers. The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
den Dikken, Marcel, André Meinunger & Chris Wilder. 2000. Pseudo-clefts and ellipsis. Studia Linguistica 54(1). 41–89. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grimshaw, Jane. 2005. Words and structure. Stanford, CA: CLSI Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kluck, M. Elisabeth. 2011. Sentence amalgamation. Groningen: LOT, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lorenzo, Guillermo. 1994–95. Qué expletivo en preguntas dislocadas. Archivum Ovetensis XLIV-XLV. 423–446.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lutz, Uli, Gereon Müller & Arnim von Stechow. 2000. Wh-scope marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 661–738. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ott, Denis. 2014. An ellipsis approach to contrastive left-dislocation. Linguistic Inquiry 45(2). 269–303. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ott, Denis & Mark de Vries. 2014. Right-dislocation as deletion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34(2). 641–690. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zubizarreta, M. Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Eguren, Luis & Cristina Sánchez López
2023.
Los pronombres interrogativos complejos del españolel quéylo qué.
Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 139:3
► pp. 711 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.