Cover not available

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

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

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

 | Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Published online: 17 December 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.357.05fer
Abstract
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Camacho, José. 2002. Wh-doubling: Implications for the syntax of wh-movement. Linguistic Inquiry 33. 157–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Contreras, Joan M. & Francesc Roca. 2007. D’oracions interrogatives: les interrogatives escindides. Caplletra 42. 145–184.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2010. The Syntax of ellipsis. Evidence from Dutch dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 1994. Scope Marking as indirect wh dependency. Natural Language Semantics 2. 137–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers. The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel, André Meinunger & Chris Wilder. 2000. Pseudo-clefts and ellipsis. Studia Linguistica 54(1). 41–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 2005. Words and structure. Stanford, CA: CLSI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kluck, M. Elisabeth. 2011. Sentence amalgamation. Groningen: LOT, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorenzo, Guillermo. 1994–95. Qué expletivo en preguntas dislocadas. Archivum Ovetensis XLIV-XLV. 423–446.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Lutz, Uli, Gereon Müller & Arnim von Stechow. 2000. Wh-scope marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 661–738. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Ott, Denis. 2014. An ellipsis approach to contrastive left-dislocation. Linguistic Inquiry 45(2). 269–303. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ott, Denis & Mark de Vries. 2014. Right-dislocation as deletion. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34(2). 641–690. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue