Appeared in Bayer, J, Tanmoy Bhattacharya & MT Hany Babu, 2007, Linguistic Theory and South Asian Languages/Essays in honour of K.A. Jayaseelan, pp.53-69, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Clausal Pied-Piping and Subjacency

K. Srikumar Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University, Agra, India.

When question-words in Malayalam are subjected to long distance dependencies, direct extractions across finite clausal complements are restricted by complement/non-complement asymmetry due to subjacency. However, clausal pied-piping rescues such long distance question-word dependencies. Long distance dependencies of question-words across infinitive complements, on the other hand, are possible adopting both strategies and are not affected by complement/non-complement asymmetry. This state of affairs obtains largely because finite clausal complements are held on the left periphery of the matrix clause, which is an adjunct position, while infinitival clausal complements are held in situ. Therefore, direct extractions from the former are sensitive to subjacency, while from the latter, it is not. The present article looks at this phenomenon from the minimalist point of view in terms of the MLC.

0. Introduction Malayalam has been argued to be a language employing clefting as the predominant strategy for forming question-word questions (Madhavan 1987, Srikumar 1992 and elsewhere, Jayaseelan 1989 and 1996).* Thus clefted question such as (1c) are preferred over unclefted questions like (1a).

(1) a. kuTTiy-e aarA nuLLi? child-acc. who pinched b. *aarA kuTTiy-e nuLLi? who child-acc. pinched ‘Who pinched the child?’ c. aarA aaNA kuTTiy-e nuLLiy--atA? who FOC child-acc. pinch-nomnr.. ‘Who is it that pinched the child?’

And when the question-words are not clefted, they are preferred in the preverbal position as shown by the contrast of (1a) and (1b).1 However, long distance question-word questions obtained through clefting from embedded finite clauses are restricted by the complement/non-complement asymmetry (Huang 1982).2

(2) a. ? aar-e aaNA [raaman t kaNDu ennA] niŋŋaL paRaññ--atA who acc. FOC saw COMP you said-nomnr.. ‘Who did you say that Raman saw?’ b. *aarA aaNA [t kuTTiy-e kaNDu ennA] niŋŋaL paRaññ-atA who FOC child-acc. saw COMP you said-nomnr. ‘Who did you say that saw the child?’

The asymmetry thus could, however, be circumvented if the clause containing the question-word is also pied-piped along with it (cf. Madhavan 1987, Srikumar 1992 and 1993). Clausal pied-piping was argued to be a mechanism to evade subjacency in Srikumar (1992, 1993) from the Barriers (Chomsky 1986) perspective. In this article, I shall show that a similar result obtains even under the minimalist dispensation, using an approach, without appealing to the notion of barriers, as in Takahashi (1994). 1. Background assumptions 1.1 Focus Movement Clefting has been analysed as a focus movement operation (cf. Hoh & Chiang 1990) in Srikumar (1992). Clefts in Malayalam form a biclausal structure, which is very similar to the analysis proposed for it in English in Rochemont (1986). The focus movement operation involves the attraction of the focus feature endowed constituent to [Spec, FP], accompanied by raising of the copula verb aaNA, which is inherently focused, to F. Both the ‘verbal’ features and ‘noun’ features of F in Malayalam are presumably strong, whereby they need checking off before spell-out. Given the fact that the object question-word in Malayalam is overtly Case marked at the surface, I shall assume that it enters into a checking relation for Case before reaching the FP and the subject NP too ‘moves’ to [Spec, IP] to check-off the strong nominative case feature of I, accompanied by V-raising to I to check-off the strong V features of tense in I. Therefore we may assume that the FP is located between the CP and the IP as in Srikumar (1994; cf. Jayaseelan 1996 for a different view). However, in clefts, as Hany Babu (1997) notes, the copula verb aaNA ‘be’, though finite, does not bear any tense information.3 So the IP node may not contain tense in the matrix clause in clefts. Focus movement could then be visualized as involving attraction of the questioned constituent to the Spec of FP, together with the Verb aaNA raising to F.

(3) FP Spec F’ IP F

… XP … aaNA

However, the focus movement outlined thus far would give rise to a word order problem, namely the inseparable sequence of the question-word and the FOC aaNA would be intervened by the residue of the clause. A way out may be found if we assume that the non-focused constituent being part of old or shared information raises to the Topic position above the Focus Phrase, subsequent to focus movement. Yet another possibility would be to assume that the verb gets incorporated into the head of the focus phrase (Jayaseelan 1989). Under this option, the ‘costly’ movement of the residue of the clause to topic is not necessary. For the present article we shall assume the latter option, though the former option may also be a viable one but at a cost. The argumentation that follows is largely unaffected by this decision. 1.2 Structural position of finite clausal complement in Malayalam The next assumption that we shall adopt here is regards the position of the finite clausal complement in Malayalam. We shall be relying upon the long felt observation that finite clausal complements in Malayalam are usually located in the left periphery of the matrix clause, which is an adjoined position.4 Thus notice the following contrast.

(4) a. raaman manuvin-e kaNTu ennA jooN vicaariccu acc. saw COMP thought b. jooN raaman manuvine kaNTu ennA vicaariccu acc. saw COMP thought ‘John thought that Raman met Manu’

Normally the sentence (4a) is employed and is felt to be natural, while the sentence (4b), though ok, does not sound natural in usage. Further the (b) sentence, if at all employed, appears to require a pause, i.e., a comma intonation after the clause initial matrix subject to sound permissible. Perhaps this may be taken to suggest that the matrix subject is adjoined to the IP to which the finite clausal complement is already adjoined.5

However, when pro-drop occurs in the lower clause under identity with a quantifier DP in the matrix clause, the finite clausal complement is preferred in situ.

(5) a. ellaavarumi [proi var-aam ennA] paRaññu everyone come-shall COMP said ‘Everybody said that he shall come’ b. ellaavarumi [proi var-um ennA] paRaññu everyone come-will COMP said ‘Everyone said that he will come’ c. ellavarumi [proi varunnu ennA] paRaññu everyone coming COMP said ‘Raman said that he is coming’ d. ? [proi varaam/varum/varunnu ennA] ellavarumi paRaññu

Here the preference for the in situ position shown by the finite clausal complement could be to facilitate the recovery of the referent for pro at the Conceptual-intentional interface. The possibility of the preclausal option with this sort of a construction shows that the finite clausal complement is reconstructed back in situ at the LF to satisfy the interface condition on referential recoverability for pro, i.e., to be c-commanded by its antecedent, which is a variable due to the LF raising of the quantifier.

Further evidence to support the thesis that finite clausal complements may be reconstructed back in situ to meet the interface requirement on interpretation could be gleaned from anaphora facts. The finite clausal complements with the logophor taan are usually preferred on the left periphery of the matrix clause.

(6) a. [taani kuTTikaL-e Sakaariccu ennA] raamani sammaticcu self children-acc. scolded COMP admitted b. ?raamani [taani kuTTikaL-e Sakaariccu ennA] sammaticcu self children-acc. scolded COMP admitted ‘Raman admitted that he scolded the children’

But the interpretation of the logophor taan is contingent on the presence of an appropriate c-commanding antecedent, a requirement that cannot be satisfied at the Articulatory-perceptual interface for (6a). So the assumption follows that the finite clausal complement in this case also must be reconstructed in situ at LF.

Another piece of evidence to show that finite clausal complements are located in the left periphery of the clause comes from clefting possibilities. It is well known that the focus plus aaNA combination can be scrambled to a variety of positions as shown below.

(7) a. [aarA aaNA] niŋŋaL-e kaNT-atA

who FOC you-acc. saw-nomnr.

b. niŋŋaL-e [aarA aaNA] kaNT-atA you-acc. who FOC saw-nomn c. niŋŋaL-e kaNT-atA [aarA aaNA] you-acc. saw-nomn who FOC ‘Who is it that saw you?’

But when the question-word is clefted over a long distance, the following contrasting variants are noticed.

(8) a. [aar-ej aaNA] [ raaman tj kaNTu ennA ]i niŋŋaL ti paRaññ-atA

who-acc. FOC saw COMP you said-nomnr. b. niŋŋaLk [aar-ej aaNA] [ raaman tj kaNTu ennA ]i tk ti paRaññ-atA you who-acc. FOC saw COMP said-nomnr. c. [ raaman tj kaNTu ennA]i niŋŋaL ti paRaññ-atA [aar-ej aaNA] saw COMP you said-nomnr. who-acc. FOC d. *[ raaman tj kaNTu ennA]i [aar-ej aaNA] niŋŋaL ti paRaññ-atA saw COMP who-acc. FOC you said-nomnr. ‘Who is it that you said Raman saw?’

The question-word and the copula may be shifted to the post subject position of the intermediate clause or end of the matrix clause, but not between the innermost embedded clause and the intermediate clause. This is an indication of the fact that the innermost finite clausal complement is left adjoined to the intermediate clause and is, hence, not separable from it.

The occurrence of the finite clausal complement on the left periphery is, we assume, a result of its getting adjoined to the matrix IP. But why should a finite clausal complement be shifted to the left periphery of its matrix clause? Notice that embedded infinitives are usually not preposed to the left periphery.

(9) a. raaman jooNin-ooTA [PRO var-aan] paRaññu soc. come-inf. told b. ?[PRO var-aan] raaman jooNin-ooTA paRaññu come-inf. soc. told ‘Raman told John to come’

The traditional analysis for these contrasts following Stowell (1981) was to treat these as consequences of case-rejection by finite clausal complement and the case-compatibility of the infinitival. As Hany Babu (p.c.) points out, this could also be due to control reasons, for observe that the preposed infinitive is alright when the controller also moves along, as in (9c) below.

(9) c. jooNin-ootA [pro var-aan] raaman paRaññu

soc. come-inf. told 2. Unbounded movement of question-words in Malayalam Now let us look at unbounded movement of question-words in Malayalam. We notice that it is subject to complement/non-complement asymmetry when the extraction of the question-words is across a finite clausal complement. However the asymmetry thus may be voided if the embedded clause too pied-pipes along with the question-word, as shown in (11).

(10) a. ? aar-e aaNA [raaman t kaNTu ennA] niŋŋaL paRaññ-atA who acc. FOC saw COMP you said-nomnr. ‘Who did you say that Raman saw?’ b. *aarA aaNA [t kuTTiy-e kaNTu ennA] niŋŋaL paRaññ-atA who FOC child acc. saw COMP you said-nomnr. ‘Who did you say that saw the child?’ c. *eviTe veccA aaNA [raaman t kuTTiy-e kaNTu ennA] where at FOC child acc. saw COMP niŋŋaL paRaññ-atA you said-nomnr. ‘Where did you say that Raman saw the child?’ d. *entinA aaNA [raaman t kuTTiy-e viLiccu ennA] niŋŋaL paRaññ-atA why FOC child acc. called COMP you said-nomnr. ‘Why did you say that Raman called the child t?’

(11) a. [raaman aar-e kaNTu ennA] aaNA niŋŋaL paRaññ-atA

who-acc. saw COMP FOC you said-nomnr. b. [kuTTiy-e aarA kaNTu ennA] aaNA niŋŋaL paRaññ-atA

child-acc. who saw COMP FOC you said-nomnr. c. [raaman kuTTiy-e eviTe veccA kaNTu ennA] aaNA niŋŋaL paRaññ-atA

child-acc. where at saw COMP FOC you said-nomnr. d. [raaman kuTTiy-e entinA viLiccu ennA] aaNA niŋŋaL paRaññ-atA child-acc. why saw COMP FOC you said-nomnr.

It may be observed that the finite clausal complements are held on the left periphery in the examples in (10).

The sentences (10a) and (10b) exhibit the subject-object asymmetry due to the familiar ECP effects in the Barriers framework (Chomsky 1986). Since the complementizer ennA is obligatorily present in the embedded finite clauses in Malayalam, the trace left behind by the moved subject question-word cannot be

properly governed by the only means available to it, i.e. antecedent government. The object question-word, on other hand, being lexically proper governed by the Verb is freely extractable, despite the presence of the overt complementizer, as is the case with English facts too. 2.1 A Minimalist account of unbounded movement in Malayalam Let us now look at a minimalist account of the phenomenon under consideration without appealing to the notion of barriers following Takahashi (1994). This theory argues for replacing the reformulated theory of Barriers proposed in Chomsky and Lasnik (1993) with a ‘Shortest Movement’ Condition (Chomsky 1993) based approach to movement, while retaining the restriction on adjunction proposed there. Hence the conditions relevant for movement are the following:

(12) a. Minimal Link Condition (MLC)

α must make the shortest move

(Chomsky 1994: p 401)

b. Adjunction to Subjects and Adjuncts is not allowed.

Further, the movement to [Spec, XP] is not by substitution, but by adjunction.

The path of ‘move’ undergone by the object question-word in (10a), repeated below, on its way to the matrix [Spec, FP], as is shown in the structural representation (14), suppressing irrelevant details.

(10) a. ? aar-e aaNA [raaman t kaNTu ennA] niŋŋaL paRaññ-atA who-acc. FOC saw COMP you said-nomnr. ‘Who did you say that Raman saw?’

The question-word moved from the object position of the innermost embedded clause adjoins to the VP of IP3, then to IP3, C’2, VP1, IP1 and finally to [Spec, FP]. As the innermost embedded clause C’3 is left adjoined to the intermediate embedded clause IP2

in (14) heading a non-trivial chain, the object question-word fails to target it. This is a consequence of the Uniformity Condition on chains (Chomsky and Lasnik 1993) stated as (13) requiring the trace and its antecedent to be uniform in phrase structural terms, i.e., be C’ in this case. So the question-word must ‘move’ straightaway from the IP3 –adjoined position to the [Spec, CP2].

(13) Uniformity condition on chains (UCC)

A chain CH is legitimate at LF only if it is uniform with respect to some property P, where P is determined at some position in a CH.

(14) FP Spec F’ [aarei [aaNAl]] IP1 F ti’’’ IP1 tl’’

NP I’

pro VP1 I ti’’ VP1 tl’ CP2 V Spec C’2 tl ti’’’ IP2 C

C’3

j IP2 atA IP3 C NP I’ ti’’ ennA niŋŋaL VP I IP3 paRaññv NP I’ tj tv raaman VP I

ti tk kaNTuk

In (14), since the link between the embedded IP3-adjoined position and the [Spec, CP2] position is not minimal, a mild subjacency effect would follow accounting for the marginal status of the construction.6

Next, let us look at the derivation of subject question-word extraction in (10 b), repeated below, shown in (15).

(10) b. *aarA aaNA [t kuTTiy-e kaNTu ennA] niŋŋaL paRaññ-atA who FOC child-acc. saw COMP you said-nomnr.

‘Who did you say that saw the child?’ (15) [FP [aarAi [aaNAl]] [F’ [IP1 ti’’’ [IP1 pro [I’ [VP1 ti’’ [VP1 [CP2 ti’ [IP2 [C’3 [IP3

ti kuTTiye kaNTu] ennA]j [IP2 niŋŋaL tj paRaññ]] -atA] tl ]] t l’]] tl’’ ] ] According to Takahashi (1994), following Baltin (1982) and Lasnik and Saito (1992), the IP-adjoined position constitutes the Topic position, accounting for sentences such as the following.

(16) John said that fish, Bill likes. Moreover, as Lasnik and Saito (1992) argue, an anaphor in the embedded object position, which does not have an antecedent in its own clause, may look up to an antecedent in the matrix clause, if it is topicalized as in (17b), voiding a Condition A violation it would have otherwise incurred. An anaphor in the embedded subject position cannot however be topicalized and thereby evade Condition A violation in this manner, as seen from (17c).

(17) a. *Johni thinks that Mary likes himselfi b. Johni thinks that himselfi, Mary likes c. *Johni thinks that himselfi likes Mary d. *[meeri tannetann-ei snehikkunnu ennA] jooNi vicaariccu himself-acc. loves COMP thought ‘Johni thought that Mary loves *himselfi/herselfi.’ e. [tannetann-ei, meeri snehikkunnu ennA] jooNi vicaariccu

himself-acc. loves COMP thought ‘Johni thought that himselfi/herselfi, Mary loves.’ f. *[tannetaani meeriy-e snehikkunnu ennA] jooNi vicaariccu himself acc. loves COMP thought ‘*Johni thought that himselfi loves Mary.’

Observe that a similar contrast can be reproduced in Malayalam as well. The assumption therefore follows that an NP in [Spec, IP] cannot be adjoined to the IP when extracted. As a result, the subject question-word of IP3 in (15) would skip two potential

landing sites i.e. the IP3 and also the C’3 due to the UCC as outlined earlier, thereby incurring a severe subjacency violation.

In (15), the subject question-word from the embedded clause could have voided missing a minimal link had it been possible to raise the verb in I to C to make [Spec, CP] and IP-adjoined positions equidistant from the [Spec, IP], assuming the global definition of equidistance in (18a) from Takahashi (1994).

(18) a. Equidistance α and γ are equidistant from β throughout a derivation if α and γ are in the

same minimal domain at some point of derivation. b. Minimal Domain

The minimal domain of a head α (MIN (α)) is the smallest subset K of DOM (α) such that for any γ ε DOM (α), some β ε K reflexively dominates γ. (Chomsky, 1993)

c. Domain The domain of a head α DOM (α) is the set of nodes contained in the least full-category maximal projection dominating α that are distinct from and do not contain α. (Chomsky, 1993)

In Frampton (1991) and Takahashi (1994), I-to-C verb raising was suggested to be the licensing factor allowing the corresponding English sentence without an overt complementizer in the embedded clause.7 (19) Who do you think [CP t’ [C’ I-C [IP t tI left]]]] ‘Who do you think left?’ In Malayalam, however, such a possibility is disallowed for two plausible reasons: one, since the complementizer ennA is not an affix, the verb does not perhaps raise to C in overt syntax and two, which is more important, the projection of C’3 to CP is barred since it heads a non-trivial chain.

Coming to the adjunct extraction path in (20), the surprising part is that it also traverses the same path as the object question-word in (14), but is yet felt to be worse.

(20) [FP [eviTe veccAi [aaNAl]] [F’ [IP1 ti’’’’ [IP1 pro [I’ [VP1 ti’’’ [VP1 [CP2 ti’’

[IP2[C’3 [IP3 ti’ [IP3 raaman ti kuTTiye kaNTu]] ennA]j [IP2 niŋŋaL tj

paRaññ]] -atA] tl ]] t l’]] tl’’ ] ] To explain this contrast, we shall take recourse to the theory of *-marking proposed by Chomsky and Lasnik (1993), which is an improved version of the theory of γ-marking in Lasnik and Saito (1984, 1992). To put it precisely, let us suppose that traces left by the operation of ‘move’ failing to make the shortest leap forward gets *-marked. Assuming thus, the subject trace in the lower [Spec, IP3] in (15), the intermediate trace of the object question-word in the embedded IP3-adjoined position in (14) and the same

trace for the adjunct extraction in (20) would be candidates for *-marking, producing representations given in (21).

(21) a. [FP [aarei [aaNAl]] [F’ [IP1 ti’’’’ [IP1 pro [I’ [VP1 ti’’’ [VP1 [CP2 ti’’

[IP2 [C’3 [IP3 *ti’ [IP3 raaman ti kaNTu]] ennA]j [IP2 niŋŋaL tj paRaññ]]

-atA] tl ]] t l’]] tl’’ ] ] b. [FP [aarAi [aaNAl]] [F’ [IP1 ti’’’ [IP1 pro [I’ [VP1 ti’’ [VP1 [CP2 ti’ [IP2 [C’3

[IP3 *ti kuTTiye kaNTu] ennA]j [IP2 niŋŋaL tj paRaññ]] -atA] tl ]] t l’]] tl’’ ] ]

c. [FP [eviTe veccAi [aaNAl]] [F’ [IP1 ti’’’’ [IP1 pro [I’ [VP1 ti’’’ [VP1 [CP2

ti’’ [IP2 [C’3 [IP3 *ti’ [IP3 raaman kuTTiye ti kaNTu]] ennA]j [IP2 niŋŋaL tj

paRaññ]] -atA] tl ]] t l’]] tl’’ ] ]

At LF, the only legitimate objects satisfying the principle of Full Interpretation (FI) by UCC are argument chains, adjunct chains and operator variable chains. The intermediate traces that violate the UCC have to be deleted at LF. The upshot of this would be the deletion of the intermediate traces of the object question-word in (21a), but the same trace for the adjunct extraction would stay at LF, since its chain forms a uniform chain of adjunct positions. A trace with the *-marking surviving to the interface LF, however, results in severe ungrammaticality i.e. an instance of ECP violation in the earlier framework of the theory. This would account for the contrast of embedded object extraction versus adjunct extraction in (14) and (20) above. But then, how does one explain the case of subject extraction, which is also a severe case of ungrammaticality on a par with adjunct-extraction. Notice that even though the intermediate traces could be deleted in principle, the offending trace in (21b) is the head of a non-trivial chain in an L-related position that cannot be deleted under any circumstances. So it is the persistence of this *-marked trace in an L-related position at LF which rules out the embedded subject extraction in (14).8 2.2 A consequence for clefts in Malayalam The analysis arrived at in the previous section has an interesting fall out for the treatment of clefting in Malayalam, which has been glossed over in earlier accounts. Clefts in Malayalam form a biclausal structure as mentioned in 1.1, which is similar to the one assumed for English clefts in Rochemont (1986).

(22) FP Spec F’ IP F pro I’ VP I CP V aaNA Spec C’ IP C … XP … -atA

Clefting in Malayalam permits extraction of any maximal phrase to the matrix [Spec, FP] position to be in a checking relation with the raised copula verb aaNA in F, as shown below.

(23) a. raaman aaNA innale lata-kkA kattA ezutiy-atA

FOC yesterday dat. letter wrote-nomnr. ‘It was Raman who wrote a letter to Lata yesterday.’ b. lata-kkA aaNA raaman innale kattA ezutiy-atA dat. FOC yesterday letter wrote-nomnr. ‘It was to Lata that Raman wrote a letter yesterday’

c. kattA aaNA raaman innale lata-kkA ezutiy-atA letter FOC yesterday dat. wrote-nomnr. ‘It was a letter that Raman wrote to Lata yesterday’ d. innale aaNA raaman lata-kkA kattA ezutiy-atA yesterday FOC dat. letter wrote-nomnr. ‘It was yesterday that Raman wrote a letter to Lata.’

However, the lack of a subject-object asymmetry in clefting in Malayalam is somewhat surprising, given the fact that the cleft sentence is headed by the complementizer -a[tA] with the default nominal morphology of third person neuter singular marked on the feature matrix accompanying it, according to the analysis of such configurations in Anandan (1985). Now this falls in place if we make the following natural assumptions. The particle -atA is an affixal complementizer and therefore it requires suffixing to the verb in overt syntax. The cleft sentence being non-finite stays in situ and is capable of projecting to CP if required. Suffixation of the complementizer -atA to the verb could then be ensured if the verb in I raises to left-adjoin to C before spell-out. This may explain why subject extraction through clefting is possible in Malayalam. For although the subject NP cannot adjoin to its IP, it can however pass through the Spec-CP, which here is equidistant with the IP-adjoined position, as a consequence of I-to-C raising of the Verb in the cleft sentence. 3. Clausal pied-piping In 2.1, we have seen that direct extraction of question-words across finite clausal complements is subject to the complement/non-complement asymmetry due to violations of MLC. Clausal pied-piping on the other hand is capable of rescuing these extractions.9 Both of these strategies involve movement to [Spec, FP] in the matrix clause. But the pied-piping strategy also involves an additional movement, i.e., a clause-internal question-word movement to [Spec, FP]. This is demonstrated by the unacceptability of the pied-piped sentences below, unaccompanied by clause-internal movement to [Spec, FP]. Further, if any constituent remains in the embedded clause other than the focussed constituent, it automatically undergoes ‘move’ to topic position above the FP to ensure preverbal positioning of the question-word. This topicalization operation is contingent on the occurrence of focus movement.10 Assuming Rizzi’s (1997) theory of the fine structure of the left periphery, the focus feature would then percolate to the maximal functional projection dominating a clause, which is perhaps the force phrase, thereby triggering pied-piping of the clause.

(24) a. [kuTTiy-ej [ aarAi [ nuLLiv ti tj tv ennA ]]] aaNA niŋŋaL paRaññ-atA child-acc. who pinch COMP FOC you said-nomnr.. b. *aarA kuTTiy-e nuLLi ennA aaNA niŋŋaL paRaññ-atA who child-acc. pinch COMP FOC you said-nomnr. ‘Who did you say that pinched the child?’

The obligatoriness of question-word movement to [Spec, FP] in its own clause is also shown by the preference for the preverbal position by question-words in indirect questions.

(25) a. * aarA kuTTiy-e sakaariccu ennA amma coodiccu who child-acc. scold COMP mother asked b. kuTTiy-e aarA sakaariccu ennA amma coodiccu child-acc. who scold COMP mother asked ‘The mother asked who scolded the child.’

The pied-piping strategy succeeds because it involves a chain composed of shorter ‘moves’ inside the most embedded complement clause, culminating in [Spec, FP] dominating the IP, accompanied by V raising to F; and another ‘move’ resulting in pied-piping of the clause to the matrix [Spec, FP], including adjunctions on IP2, C’2, VP1, and IP1 on way, where all links obey the MLC. The verb aaNA raised to F would then be able to bind and thereby check the percolated focus feature of the question-word contained within the finite clausal complement, if we assume some version of unselective binding (Nishigauchi 1990, and Pesetsky 1987). 3.1 Clausal pied-piping: an escape hatch for subjacency Pied-piping of clausal complements to effect long distance dependency for question- words has also been reported to exist in languages like Basque and Imbabura Quechua (cf. Ortiz de Urbina 1989, Cole and Hermon 1981, and Cole 1982). In Basque, for instance, besides direct question-word extraction from the embedded clauses to [Spec, CP] of the matrix clause, wh-movement may also be effected to [Spec, CP] of the embedded clause, which, in turn, triggers pied-piping of the embedded clause to [Spec, CP] of the matrix clause. Thus in the following sentences, while the (a) sentences illustrate the direct extraction strategy, the (b) sentences illustrate their parallels adopting the pied-piping strategy.

(26) Basque a. nor esan duzu [entzun du-ela peruk [joango dela paris-a]]? who say aux. hear aux-ela Peter go aux-ela to ‘Who did you say that Peter heard will go to Paris?’ b. [nor joango d-ela] esan du Jonek?

who go aux-ela say aux John ‘Who has John said will go?’

(27) Imbabura Quechua a. ima-ta-taq ni-nki pay ranti-squ-n-Ta? what-acc.-Q say-2 he buy-prf.-3-acc. ‘What do you say he bought?’ b. ima-ta ranti-sqa-n-ta-taq ni-nki? what-acc. buy-prf.-3-acc.-Q say-2 ‘What do you say he bought?’

Although no subject-object asymmetry is observed with respect to either strategies, as Ortiz de Urbina (1989), Cole (1982), and Cole and Hermon (1981) note, pied-piping rescues those structures where direct wh-extraction would have led to subjacency violations, i.e., Complex NPs and adjuncts.

(28) Basque a. [zeri ikusi] ondoren joan ziren hemen-dik what see after go aux. here from ‘They left after seeing what’ b. *zer joan ziren hemen-dik [t ikusi ondoren]? what go aux. here from see after ‘What did they leave after seeing?’

(29) Imbabura Quechua a. ima-ranti-sqa-n-ta-taq apamu-sqayki? what-buy-prf.-3-acc.-Q bring-1p-2 ‘What that he has bought will I bring you?’ c. *ima-ta-taq apamu-sqayki ranti-sqa-n-ta? what- acc.-Q bring-1p-2 buy-prf.-3-acc. ‘What will I bring you that he has bought?’

Even in Malayalam, though direct extractions of question-words are not permitted out of Complex NPs, clefting of the Complex NP is known to rescue them (cf. Madhavan 1987). In Srikumar (1992), this together with similar effects in adjuncts were argued to provide overt evidence for the LF pied-piping operation proposed by Nishigauchi (1990) for the apparent violations of Complex NP Constraint in languages such as Japanese, Korean and Chinese.

(30) a. *[ aar-ei aaNA] vaadyaarA [ [ t ti nuLLiy-a ] kuTTiy-e] talliy-atA

who-acc. FOC teacher pinched-rel. child-acc. beat-nomnr.

‘Who did the teacher beat the child that pinched?’ b. *[aarA aaNA] niŋŋaL [t vann-atin-A śeeSam] sthalam viTT-atA who FOC you come-nomnr.-dat. after place left-nomnr..

‘Who did you leave after came?’

(31) a. *[[[t aar-ei nuLLiy-a ] kuTTiy-e] aaNA] vaadyaarA talliy-atA

who-acc. pinched-rel. child-acc. FOC teacher beat-nomnr. ‘Who did the teacher beat the child that pinched?’ b. [[[raaman eŋŋane vaaŋŋiy-a ] pustakam] aaNA] niŋŋaL vaayicc-atA how bought-rel. book FOC you read-nomnr.. ‘You read the book that Raman purchased how?’ c. [[aarA vann-atin-A śeeSam] aaNA ] niŋŋaL sthalam viTT-atA who come -nomnr.-dat after FOC you place left-nomnr.. ‘After who came did you leave?’

Under our assumptions, these facts are readily accounted for. If we assume relativization to consist of the relative Operator movement to [Spec, CP] within the Relative Clause (RC), and RCs as adjuncts to NPs, then question-word extraction would yield the structural representation in (32). (32) [aarej aaNA … [NP tj’’ [NP [CP Oi [ *tj’ [IP tj ti … ]] Rel. ] [NP …]]] …] The question-word-movement within the RC in (32) for (30), for instance, will include adjunction to IP, but it will not be able to reach the [Spec, CP], for it is already occupied by the Operator; and secondly, the CP being an adjunct cannot be adjoined to, as per the restriction on adjunction assumed here. So the question-word would have to adjoin directly to the NP from the IP-adjoined position, skipping the potential adjunction site CP. Hence, the IP-adjoined trace will be *-marked because it fails to form a shorter movement link, whereby MLC violation follows. Similarly, in adjuncts such as (31) too, the same reasoning may be seen to apply. Even though no other operator element intervenes here, yet the question-word moving out of the adjunct fails to adjoin to the PP because of the restriction on adjoining to adjuncts. The intermediate trace of the moved question-word in the [Spec, CP] will therefore get *-marking, since it fails to make the shortest move possible. (33) [aarAj aaNA … [PP [CP*ti [ tj’ [IP … ti … ]] Rel. ] P] However, pied-piped movement of the Complex-NPs and adjuncts rescue these structures. In cases of pied-piping, it may be noted that the question-words are preferably held in the preverbal position, as seen from the contrast in (34).

(34) a. ??[[[aaR-kkA pustakam koTutta ] payyan-e] aaNA] niŋŋaL t kaNT-atA who dat. book gave-rel. boy-acc. FOC you saw

b. [[[pustakam aaR-kkA koTutta ] payyan-e] aaNA] niŋŋaL t kaNT-atA book who-dat. gave-rel. boy-acc. FOC you saw ‘To whom did you meet the boy who gave the book?’

This may be construed to obtain from movement of the question-word to the clause-internal [Spec, FP], thereby percolating the focus feature to the CP and NP dominating it. Then the focus identified Complex NP moves to the [Spec, FP], after adjoining to the IP on way. Thus we may assume that clausal pied-piping with the result of wide scope for question-words is primarily a strategy adopted to evade subjacency violations, i.e. MLC in current terms. 4. Conclusion To conclude, it appears that pied-piping of finite clausal complements to obtain wide scope for question-words is a mechanism adopted for doing away with2 subjacency violations, which direct extractions would have entailed otherwise. In infinitival complements on the other hand, clausal pied-piping is not absolutely necessary as shown below.

(34) a [ entA aaNA] saaRA kuTTiy-ooTA [PRO t vaayikk-aan] paRaññ-atA what FOC teacher child-soc. read-inf. said-nomnr. ‘What did the teacher tell the child to read?’ b. [entinA aaNA] raaman hariy-ooTA [PRO t var-aan] paRaññ-atA why FOC soc. come-inf. said-nomnr. ‘Why did Raman tell Hari to come?’ c. [eviTe aaNA] raaman hariy-ooTA [PRO t var-aan] paRaññ-atA where FOC soc. come-inf said-nomnr. ‘Where did Raman tell Hari to come?’ d. [[PRO entA vaayikk-aan] aaNA] saaRA kuTTiy-ooTA t paRaññ-atA what read-inf. FOC teacher child-soc .said-nomn e. [[PRO entinA var-aaan] aaNA] raaman hariy-ooTA t paRaññ-atA

why come-inf. FOC soc. said-nomnr. f. [[PRO eviTe var-aan] aaNA] raaman hariy-ooTA t paRaññ-atA where come-inf. FOC soc. said-nomnr.

This follows from the fact that infinitival complements are retained in situ and therefore extractions from them do not lead to a violation of MLC and UCC on chains. But resorting to clausal pied-piping in such cases too must be viewed as the concomitant of grammaticalization of clausal pied-piping as the primary strategy for obtaining long distance dependencies in the language. For languages such as Basque and Imbabura

Quechua too, the widespread tendency to employ clausal pied-piping for long distance dependency of question-words must be due to the same cause, i.e., grammaticalization of pied-piping as the primary strategy for effecting long distance dependencies for question-word questions. References Anandan, K. N. 1985. Predicate nominals in Malayalam and English. Hyderabad: CIEFL

Dissertation. Baltin, M. 1982. “A landing-site theory of movement rules.” Linguistic Inquiry 13:1-38. Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 1993. “A minimalist program for linguistic theory.” In The View from Building

20, Kenneth Hale and Samuel Keyser (eds), 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. [Reprinted in Chomsky 1995]

Chomsky, N. 1994. “Bare phrase structure.” MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.

Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H. 1993. “The theory of principles amd parameters.” In Syntax: An

International Handbook of Contemporary Research, vol. 1, J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld, and Th. Venneman (eds), 506–569. Berlin: de Gruyter. [Reprinted in Chomsky 1995.]

Cole, P. 1982. “On defining bounding nodes for subjacency.” Linguistic Inquiry 13: 139–145. Cole, P. and Hermon, G. 1981. “Subjecthood and islandhood: evidence from Quechua.”

Linguistic Inquiry 12: 1–30. Frampton, J. 1991. “Relativized minimality: a review.” Linguistic Review 8: 1–46. Hany Babu, M. T. 1997. The Syntax of Functional Categories. Hyderabad: Central Institute of

English and Foreign Languages Dissertation. Hoh, P. -S. and Chiang W.-Y. 1990. “A focus account of moved wh-phrases in S-structure in

Chinese.” Lingua 81: 47–73. Huang, C. -T. J. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge,

MA.: MIT Dissertation. Jayaseelan, K. A. 1984. “Control in some sentential adjuncts.” Berkeley Linguistics Society 10:

623–633. Jayaseelan, K. A. 1989. “Question-word movement in Malayalam”. Hyderabad: Central

Institute of English and Foreign Languages Ms. Jayaseelan, K. A. 1996. “Question-word movement to focus and scrambling in Malayalam.”

Linguistic Analysis 26: 63–83. Kayne, R. S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Lasnik, H. and Saito, M. 1984. “On the nature of proper government.” Linguistic Inquiry 15:

235–289. Lasnik, H. and Saito, M. 1992. Move α. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Madhavan, P. 1987. Clefts and Pseudoclefts in Malayalam. Hyderabad: CIEFL disseration.

Müller, G. 2000. “Shape conservation and remnant movement.” North-Eastern Linguistics Society 30: 1-15.

Nishigauchi, T. 1990. Quantification in the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Ortiz de Urbina, J. 1989. Parameters in the Grammar of Basque. Dordrecht: Foris. Pesetsky, D. 1987. “Wh-in-situ: movement and unselective binding.” In The Representation of

(In)definiteness, E.J. Reuland and A. ter Meulen (eds), 98-129. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Rizzi, L. 1997. “The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery.” In Elements of Grammar, L. Haegeman (ed), 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Rochemont, M. 1986. Focus in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Srikumar, K. 1992. Question-Word Movement in Malayalam and GB Theory. Hyderabad:

Osmania University Dissertation. Srikumar, K. 1993. “Unbounded question-word movement, clausal pied-piping and case filter

parameter.” International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics XXII.2: 29–41. Srikumar, K. 1994. “Clefts in Malayalam: a focussed movement approach.” In Paper from the

Fifteenth South Asian Language Analysis Roundtable Conference 1993, Alice Davison and F.M.Smith (eds), 322-330. Iowa City: South Asian Program, University of Iowa.

Stowell, T. 1981. Origins of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Dissertation. Takahashi, D. 1994. Minimality of Movement. Connecticut, Storrs: University of Connecticut

Dissertation. Ura, H. 1995. “Towards a theory of ‘strictly derivational’ economy condition.” In Papers on

Minimalist Syntax [MIT Working papers in Linguistics 27], Robert Pensalfini and Hiroyuki Ura (eds), 243-268. Cambridge, Mass.: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.

Notes * I wish to express my profound thanks to Josef Bayer and MT Hany Babu for offering very generous

comments on the previous drafts of this article, which have benefited me a lot. The usual disclaimers apply.

1. For obtaining long distance dependencies with question-words in Malayalam, clefting is the only strategy possible. Since Focus movement is preferred even in unclefted simple questions, the constructional focus construction, i.e. the clefts appear to be preferred as the predominant strategy for questioning in Malayalam. However, according to Hany Babu (1997), clefting is a strategy to escape the scope of tense, which is supposedly opaque for the question-operator in Malayalam. But preverbal question-words in simple sentences are not accommodated under this assumption, but could be accommodated under the assumptions made in this article.

2. However, there is no FOC-to-FOC movement in Malayalam corresponding to COMP-to-COMP movement in English for long distance dependencies involving direct extractions of question-words. This is unlike some of the languages adopting focus movement for question-word movement where a V-second phenomenon or the like is found in all the intervening clauses between the matrix clause and the base position of the moved question-word (cf. Urbina (1989).

3. Cf. Hany Babu (1997) for the argument that the copula verb aaNA in cleft construction is

tenseless but finite. I shall however assume that the subject position in the matrix clause is occupied by expletive pro, as in my earlier work.

4. Hany Babu (1997) also notes in passing the left periphery of finite clausal complements in Malayalam. For some, the finite clausal complements may also be situated on the right periphery in Malayalam

5. Hany Babu (p.c.) suggests that the contrast between (4a) and (4b) may have to do with prosodic reasons. My hunch is that it may be due to some discourse structural requirement such that the quotative clause may have to be topicalized.

6. An alternative derivation without incurring subjacency violation would be to assume the countercyclic movement wherein the question-word first moves out from the clausal complement in its base position without violating MLC and the clausal complement later adjoins to the intermediate clause, ie. IP2. However, this derivation is ruled by the principle of Economy of derivation, since the movement of the question-word is longer than it is in the cyclic derivation we are assuming in this article (cf. Ura 1995).

7. Notice however that this analysis would not be available if we assume the universal base hypothesis of Kayne (1994). Since the clausal complementizer in Malayalam is uniformly held in the clause-final position, we need some clausal movement to the spec of CP, which would however prevent IP adjunction in course of extractions from such clauses, thereby failing to draw the required contrasts here.

8. Notice however that this analysis would not be available if we assume the universal base hypothesis of Kayne (1994). Since the clausal complementizer in Malayalam is uniformly held in the clause-final position, we need some clausal movement to the spec of CP, which would however prevent IP adjunction in course of extractions from such clauses, thereby failing to draw the required contrasts here.

9. There is a restriction concerning the placement of pied-piped clause with a question-word in clefts (Hany Babu, p.c.). It may be situated at the left periphery as a consequence of focus movement, after the subject, a position it derives after the subject undergoes movement to Topic, but not at the right periphery.

a. [aarA vannu ennA aaNA] booban paRaññ-atA? who came COMP FOC said -nomnr. b. booban [aarA vannu ennA aaNA] paRaññ-atA? who came COMP FOC said -nomnr. c. ?*booban paRaññ-atA [aarA vannu ennA aaNA]?

said -nomnr. who came COMP FOC ‘Who is it that Boban said came?’

This restriction does not hold when question-words alone get clefted. Cf. d. [aarA aaNA] niŋŋaL-e kaNT-atA

who FOC you-acc. saw-nomnr. e. niŋŋaL-e [aarA aaNA] kaNT-atA

you-acc. who FOC saw-nomnr. f. niŋŋaL-e kaNT-atA [aarA aaNA]

you-acc. saw-nomnr. who FOC ‘Who is it that saw you?’

g. [aar-e aaNA] niŋŋaL kaNTu ennA paRaññ-atA who-acc. FOC you. saw COMP said-nomnr.

h. niŋŋaL [aar-e aaNA] kaNTu ennA paRaññ-atA you. who-acc. FOC saw COMP said-nomnr.

i. niŋŋaL kaNTu ennA paRaññ-atA [aare aaNA] you. saw COMP said-nomnr. who-acc. FOC ‘Who is it that you said you saw?’

So this restriction must have something to do with the pied-piping movement. Perhaps the pied-piped material along with the question-word must be able to bind its trace or be reconstructable in situ at LF.

10. This topicalization, we assume, is a shape conserving movement in the sense of Müller (2000) or repair strategy to ensure that the verb is clause-final in position. This may allow for stacking of several constituents in the preclausal position.