/ instituut voor de Nederlandse taal / Taalportaal
bibliography glossary about
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Saterfrisian
  • Afrikaans
Show all
    11.3.1.4.Multiple wh-questions
    quickinfo

    Section 11.3.1.1, sub II, has shown that wh-movement is normally obligatory in Standard Dutch, which may be accounted for by the hypothesis that wh-movement derives an operator-variable chain in the sense of predicate calculus: an example like (238a) can be translated more or less directly into the informal semantic formula in (238b).

    238
    a. Wati leest Peter ti?
      what  reads  Peter
      'What is Peter reading?'
    b. ?x (Peter reads x)

    Notable exceptions to the obligatoriness of wh-movement are the so-called multiple wh-questions of the type in (239); in examples like these only a single wh-phrase is moved into clause-initial position while the second (third, etc.) is left in situ; all wh-phrases must be accented (which is indicated by small caps).

    239
    a. Wie heeft wat gelezen?
      who  has  what  read
      'Who has read what?'
    b. Wie heeft wie wat gegeven?
      who  has  who  what  given
      'Who has given what to whom?'

    This section discusses questions of the type in (239), subsection I starts with discussing two characteristics of multiple wh-questions: (i) they have a so-called pair-list reading, and (ii) all wh-phrases must be accented, subsection II continues with a discussion of the syntactic function of the wh-phrases involved in multiple wh-questions, subsection III discusses the fact that the second (third, etc.) wh-phrase in (239) cannot undergo wh-movement but remains in situ, and relates this to the fact that the wh-phrase in situ may occur in strong islands, subsection IV concludes by discussing word order restrictions on multiple wh-questions: the wh-phrases involved tend to appear in the unmarked order of their non-interrogative counterparts. Before we start, we should raise a warning flag since the examples like (239) can also be interpreted as (multiple) echo-questions; native speakers should therefore avoid reading the examples in the following subsections with an exclamative contour.

    readmore
    [+]  I.  Semantic and phonetic characteristics: the pair-list reading and intonation

    In multiple questions, wh-movement applies to just a single wh-phrase; the second (third, etc.) is left in situ. At first, this may seem surprising given the hypothesis discussed in Section 11.3.1.1, sub II, that wh-movement is needed to create operator-variable chains. For this reason it has been argued that examples like (240a) involve covert (invisible) movement of the second wh-phrase; see, e.g., May (1985) and Lasnik & Saito (1992). It might also be the case, however, that the second wh-phrase may remain in situ because it does not take scope independently, as the formula ?x ?y (x has read y) does not properly express the meaning of example (240a). Multiple questions instead have a so-called pair-list reading, which is given in (240b). A proper answer thus consists of a list of ordered pairs <x,y>: Marie has read Max Havelaar by Multatuli, Jan has read De Kapellekensbaan by Louis-Paul Boon, Els has read De zondvloed by Jeroen Brouwers, etc.

    240
    a. Wie heeft wat gelezen?
      who  has  what  read
      'Who has read what?'
    b. ? <x,y> (x has read y)

    We refer the reader to Van Riemsdijk & Williams (1986:ch.13), Dayal (2006) and Bayer (2006) for reviews of proposals that are able to derive the pair-list reading without movement of the second wh-phrase. In order to avoid confusion it should be pointed out that the notion of ordered pair used above of course refers to the specific case of just two wh-phrases. The notion of n-tuple would have been more appropriate in order to include cases with three or more wh-phrases such as (241a), but we will follow the general practice of simply using the notion pair-list reading.

    241
    a. Wie heeft wat aan wie gegeven?
      who has  what  to whom  given
      'Who has given what to whom?'
    b. ? <x,y,x> (x has given y to z)

          Example (242a) shows that multiple questions need not be main clauses but can also be embedded. An informal semantic representation of this example is given in (242b): John wondered for which ordered pairs <x,y> it is true that x has read y.

    242
    a. Jan vroeg zich af [wie wat heeft gelezen].
      Jan wondered  refl  prt   who  what  has  read
      'Jan wondered who has read what.'
    b. Jan wondered: ?<x,y> (x has read y)

    The wh-phrases in (240a), (241a) and (242a) are clause-mates, but this is not necessary: example (243a) shows that the second wh-phrase can also be more deeply embedded. This example again has a pair-list reading, which is given in (243b). A proper answer should provide a list of pairs <x,y> such that it is true that x says that Peter is reading y: Marie says that Peter is reading Max Havelaar, Jan says that Peter is reading De Kapellekensbaan, etc.

    243
    a. Wie zegt [dat Peter wat leest]?
      who  says   that  Peter  what  reads
      'Who says that Peter is reading what?'
    b. ? <x,y> (xsays that Peter is reading y)

          It is important to note that pair-list readings do not arise if the second wh-phrase occupies a scope position itself. This is illustrated in (244), in which wat'what' is wh-moved into the initial position of the embedded clause (as indicated by the trace; note that we do not indicate the trace of the matrix subject who for the sake of simplicity of representation). Examples like these can only be interpreted as in (244b); proper answers to such questions identify the agent of the matrix verb, but not the theme of the embedded verb: Marie (vroeg zich af wat Peter leest)'Marie (wondered what Peter is reading)'.

    244
    a. Wie vroeg zich af [wati Peter ti leest]?
      who wondered  refl  prt.   what  Peter  reads
      'Who wonders what Peter is reading?'
    b. ?x (x wondered: ?y (Peteris reading y))

          Multiple questions do not only have a special meaning but also a characteristic intonation pattern: both wh-phrases must be accented, which has been indicated in the examples above by small caps. This will help us to distinguish multiple wh-questions from regular wh-questions like the primeless examples in (245), in which the unaccented pronoun wat is interpreted existentially, that is, with the meaning "something". This results in the informal semantic representations given in the primeless examples.

    245
    a. Wie heeft (er) wat gelezen?
      who  has  there  something  read
      'Who has read something?'
    a'. ?x ∃y (xhas read y)
    b. Jan vroeg zich af [wie (er) wat heeft gelezen].
      Jan wondered  refl  prt.   who  there  something  has  read
      'Jan wondered who has read something.'
    b'. Jan wondered: ?x ∃y (x has read y)

    The examples in (245a&b) also show that it is possible to include the expletive er'there' in regular questions, which is consistent with the fact that the non-D-linked subject pronoun wie'who' is compatible with it; cf. Wie komt er?'Who is coming?'. Although judgments are subtle, it seems clear to us that adding the expletive to multiple questions like (240a)/(242a) is more difficult. If the judgments on the resulting examples in (246) are indeed correct, this suggests that wh-phrases in multiple questions are (to a certain extent) D-Linked. This would of course fit in nicely with the pair-list readings of such questions, as these seem to involve entities from the domain of discourse. We leave this suggestion for future research.

    246
    a. ? Wie heeft er wat gelezen?
      who  has  there  what  read
      'Who has read what?'
    b. ? Jan vroeg zich af [wie er wat heeft gelezen].
      Jan wondered  refl  prt.   who  there  what  has  read
      'Jan wondered who has read what.'
    [+]  II.  Syntactic function of the wh-phrases

    The wh-phrases in the examples given in Subsection I are all arguments. The examples in (247) show more specifically that the subject may form a pair with the direct object, the indirect object, or a triple with both objects.

    247
    a. Wie heeft wat aan Peter gegeven?
      who has  what  to Peter  given
      'Who has given what to Peter?'
    b. Wie heeft zijn boek aan wie gegeven?
      who has  his book  to whom  given
      'Who has given his book to whom?'
    c. Wie heeft wat aan wie gegeven?
      who has  what  to whom  given
      'Who has given what to whom?'

    The examples in (248) show that the subject need not be involved; the pair may also involve two objects; the two examples in (248) illustrate this for constructions with respectively a nominal and a prepositional indirect object.

    248
    a. Wie heeft Jan/hij wat gegeven?
      who has  Jan/he  what  given
      'Who has Jan/he given what?'
    b. Wat heeft Jan/hij aan wie gegeven?
      what  has  Jan/he  to whom  given
      'What has Jan/he given to whom?'

          The fact illustrated above that in situ wh-phrases can be embedded in prepositional indirect objects raises the expectation that they can also be embedded in prepositional objects. The examples in (249) shows that this prediction is borne out. It should be noted that the acceptability of example (249b) is special in that the sequence op wat'for what' is normally replaced by the pronominal PP waarop'for what' in (249b'), but a Google search (7/17/2014) shows that both sentences occur on the internet; the number of results, which have been manually checked, are given within square brackets.

    249
    a. Wie wacht op wie?
      who  waits  for who
      'Who is waiting for whom?'
    b. Wie wacht op wat?
    3 hits
      who  waits  for what
      'Who is waiting for what?'
    b'. Wie wacht waar op?
    9 hits
      who  waits  where  for
      'Who is waiting for what?'

    Given the special nature of the (b)-examples in (249) we we will provide one more example of this alternation with the phrasal verb recht hebben (op)'to be entitled to' in (250). Both forms occur relatively frequently on the internet; the raw results of our Google search (7/17/2014) are again given within square brackets. Example (250b) is interesting in its own right, as it shows that the R-pronoun waar is preferably moved leftward (the non-split pattern does occasionally occur on the internet but is much less frequent). This shows that the earlier claim that the second wh-phrase remains in situ is only true in as far as it cannot undergo wh-movement.

    250
    a. Wie heeft recht op wat?
    36 hits
      who  has  right  to what
      'Who is entitled to what?'
    b. Wie heeft waar recht op?
    51 hits
      who  has  right to what
      'Who is entitled to what?'

    Multiple wh-questions are not affected by the location of the prepositional object (cf. Koster (1987:213); the primeless examples in (251) show that the object op wie/wat can occur before or after the main verb in clause-final position; example (251b') shows that in the case of the pronominal PP waarop, the placement before the main verb seems to gives a better result.

    251
    a. Wie heeft <op wie> gewacht <op wie>?
      who has  for who  waited
      'Who has waited for whom?'
    b. Wie heeft <op wat> gewacht <op wat>?
      who has  for who  waited
      'Who has waited for what?'
    b'. Wie heeft <waarop> gewacht <?waarop>?
      who has    for.what  waited
      'Who has waited for what?'

          Multiple wh-questions are also possible with wh-adjuncts. This holds especially for spatial waar'where' and temporal wanneer'when', but it is also at least marginally possible for adjuncts like waarom'why' and hoe'how' (the latter are impossible in English if the first wh-phrase is a subject; see Lasnik & Saito 1992:ch.1). In order to give an indication of the relative frequency of these cases, we give the raw results of our Google search (7/17/2014) on the string [wie heeft waar/wanneer/waarom/hoe] within square brackets. The results for hoe are rather flattering as they include many cases in which hoe functions as a degree modifier but natural examples do occur; (252c) is in fact taken from the internet.

    252
    a. Wie heeft waar/wanneer geslapen?
    245/242 hits
      who has  where/when  slept
      'Who has slept where/when?'
    b. Wie heeft waarom geklaagd?
    28 hits
      who has  why  complained
    c. Wie heeft hoe gestemd?
    23 hits
      who has  how  voted

    Haider (2010: Section 3.4) claims that the difference between English and Dutch (and German) is a more general difference between VO- and OV-language. Haider also notes that adverbs like waar'where' and wanneer'when' can co-occur in multiple questions, while adverbs like waarom'why' and hoe'how' cannot (regardless of their order); we illustrate this in (253).

    253
    a. Wanneer heb je waar geslapen?
      when  have  you  where  slept
      'When have you slept where?'
    b. * Waarom heb je de televisie hoe gerepareerd?
      why  have  you  the television  how  repaired
    b'. * Hoe heb je de televisie waarom gerepareerd?
      how have  you  the television  why  repaired

    Note that the (b)-examples are fully acceptable if the second wh-phrase is omitted, so that we must be dealing with a co-occurrence restriction on waarom and hoe; we refer the reader to Haider (2010:119ff.) for the claim that this restriction is universal and should be related to the semantic type of these adverbial phrases.

    [+]  III.  Island-sensitivity

    Subsection I mentioned that the fact that the second (third, etc.) wh-phrase is left in situ has led to the claim that it undergoes covert (invisible) movement. A serious problem for this claim is that the second wh-phrase may occur in various positions in which traces of wh-phrases normally cannot. We will illustrate this here for a number of islands that are strong in Dutch; see Section 11.3.1.3. In order to not complicate the discussion unnecessarily, we confine ourselves to wh-phrases functioning as arguments.

    [+]  A.  Embedded questions

    The examples in (254) show first that while long wh-movement from an embedded yes/no-question is impossible, it is fairly easy to associate a wh-phrase embedded in a yes/no-question with a wh-phrase in the matrix clause. Example (254a) again requires a pair-list answer: Marie wonders whether Peter is reading Max Havelaar, Jan wonders whether Peter is reading De Kapellekensbaan, etc.

    254
    a. Wie vraagt zich af [of Peter wat leest]?
      who  wonders  refl  prt.   if  Peter  what  reads
      'Who wonders whether Peter is reading what?'
    b. * Wati vraagt Jan zich af [of Peter ti leest]?
      what  wonders  Jan refl  prt  whether  Peter  reads

    The examples in (255) provide similar examples with embedded wh-questions; while long wh-movement from an embedded yes/no-question is impossible, it is again fairly easy to associate a wh-phrase embedded in a wh-question with a wh-phrase in the matrix clause. Since the embedded subject who is in a scope position and so does not participate in the multiple question (see the discussion of (244a) in Subsection I), (255a) requires a pair-list reading of the following type: Marie wonders who read Max Havelaar, Jan wonders who read De Kappelekensbaan, etc.

    255
    a. Wie vroeg zich af [wie wat leest]?
      who  wonders  refl  prt.  who  what  reads
      'Who wonders who is reading what?'
    b. * Wati vroeg Jan zich af [wie ti leest]?
      who  wonders  Jan refl  prt.  who  reads

    For completeness' sake, observe that (255a) is ambiguous. It can also be interpreted as a regular question with an embedded multiple question: ?x wondered: ?<y,z> (y has read z). On this interpretation, the question can simply be answered by a single noun phrase: Marie (vroeg zich af wie wat leest)'Marie (wondered who is reading what)'.

    [+]  B.  Adjunct clauses

    The examples in (256) show that while long wh-movement from an adjunct clause is impossible, it is fairly easy to associate a wh-phrase embedded in an adjunct clause with a wh-phrase in the matrix clause. Note in passing that the adjunct follows the complementive jaloers and must therefore be in clause-final position.

    256
    a. Wie werd jaloers [nadat Peter wat gekregen had]?
      who  became  jealous   after  Peter what  gotten  had
      'Who became jealous after Peter had gotten what?'
    b. * Wati werd Jan jaloers [nadat Peter ti gekregen had]?
      what  became  Jan jealous   after  Peter  gotten  had
    [+]  C.  Complex noun phrase

    The examples in (257) show that while long wh-movement from a complement clause of a noun is impossible, it is fairly easy to associate a wh-phrase embedded in such a complement clause with a wh-phrase in the matrix clause. Observe that the complement clause need not be adjacent to the noun but may also be placed in clause-final position: cf. Wie heeft het gerucht verspreid [dat Peter wat gezegd had].

    257
    a. Wie heeft [het gerucht [dat Peter wat gezegd had]] verspreid?
      who  has   the rumor   that Peter  what  said  had  spread
      'Who has spread the rumor that Peter had said what?'
    b. * Wati heeft Jan [het gerucht [dat Peter ti gezegd had]] verspreid?
      what  has  Jan   the rumor   that  Peter  said  had  spread

    We expect similar judgments for examples like (258) with relative clauses but our informants seem to have difficulties with examples like (258a); the contrast with (258b) is still clear, however.

    258
    a. % Wie kent [de man [die wat gezegd had]]?
      who knows   the man   rel  what  said  had
      'Who knows the main who said what?'
    b. * Wat kent Jan [de man [die ti gezegd had]]?
      what  knows  Jan  the man   rel said  had

    For completeness' sake, the examples in (259) are added to show that simple noun phrases that uncontroversially block wh-extraction of their PP-complement do not block the association of a wh-phrase with the subject of the matrix clause. Observe that the PP-complement may also be in extraposed position; cf. Wie zal morgen zijn klacht intrekken tegen wie?

    259
    a. Wie zal morgen [zijn klacht [tegen wie]] intrekken?
      who  will  tomorrow   his complaint  against who  withdraw
      'Who will withdraw his complaint against who tomorrow?'
    b. * [Tegen wie]i zal Jan [zijn klacht ti] morgen intrekken?
      against who  will  Jan   his complaint  tomorrow  withdraw
    [+]  D.  Coordinate structures

    Coordinate structures differ from the strong islands discussed in the previous subsections in that they do not allow embedding of the in situ wh-phrase. The (a)- and (b)-examples are all unacceptable, the only option being replacement of the full coordinate structure by a single wh-phrase, as in the (c)-examples.

    260
    a. * Wie heeft [[een boek] en [wat]] gekocht?
      who has    a book  and  what  bought
    a'. * Wati heeft Jan [[een boek] en [ ti ]] gekocht?
      what  has  Jan     a book  and  bought
    b. * Wie heeft [[wat] en [een CD]] gekocht?
      who has    what  and   a CD  bought
    b'. * Wati heeft Jan [[ ti ] en [eenCD]] gekocht?
      what  has  Jan  and   a CD  bought
    c. Wie heeft wat gekocht?
      who  has  what  bought
      'Who has bought what?'
    c'. Wati heeft Jan ti gekocht?
      what  has  Jan  bought
      'What has Jan bought?'
    [+]  E.  Conclusion

    The multiple wh-questions in the first three subsections above are all rated as being fully grammatical, although it may be that some speakers have problems with them for reasons related to their complexity. However, what is at stake here are the relative acceptability contrasts with the fully unacceptable wh-extraction cases, which all native speakers of Dutch will be able to replicate; see Bayer (2006:389) for similar pairs from German. We may therefore conclude that strong islands may normally embed the second (third, etc) wh-phrase in multiple wh-questions, with one notable exception: embedding the second wh-phrases in a coordinate structure is impossible. The fact that the formation of a multiple wh-question is normally not island-sensitive can be seen as an argument against the covert wh-movement approach of generative grammar from the 1980ʼs, which found its more or less definite form in Lasnik & Saito (1992); we refer the reader to the seminal work in Hornstein (1995) for a relatively early argument in favor of eliminating covert movement from the theory.

    [+]  IV.  Superiority condition

    Multiple questions with interrogative pro-forms like wat'what' and waar'where' seem to adhere to fairly strict order restrictions in the sense that the canonical word order is not affected by wh-movement. The examples in (261) show that in transitive constructions the subject normally precedes the direct object, just as in declarative clauses such as dat <*dat boek> Jan <dat boek> gekocht heeft (which we give here in its embedded form to eliminate the interference of topicalization).

    261
    a. WieSubject heeft watDO gekocht?
      who  has  what  bought
      'Who has bought what?'
    b. *? WatDO heeft wieSubject gekocht?
      what  has  who  bought

    It is worth noting that examples like (261b) are claimed to be acceptable in German (cf. Haider (2010:115), which may be due to the fact that the order of subjects and objects is less strict in German than in Dutch.
          For ditransitive constructions the tendency to preserve the unmarked order in multiple wh-questions means that the order of the nominal arguments will be: subject > indirect object > direct object. We illustrate this in (262) for multiple wh-questions based on the reference sentence dat Jan/Hij Marie/haar een boek wil geven'that Jan/he wants to give Marie/her a book'. The asterisk in (262b') indicates that the intended interpretation is not available.

    262
    a. WieSubject wil Marie/haarIO watDO geven?
    subject > direct object
      who  wants  Marie/her  what   give
    a'. * WatDO wil wieSubject Marie/haarIO geven?
    b. WieSubject wil wieIO een boekDO geven?
    subject > indirect object
      who  want  who  a book  give
    b'. * WieIO wil wieSubject een boek geven?
    c. WieIO wil Jan/hijSubject watDO geven?
    indirect object > direct object
      who  wants  Jan/he what  give
    c'. ?? WatDO wil Jan/hijSubjectwieIO geven?

    Subjects and direct objects tend to precede prepositional indirect objects in multiple wh-questions, although speakers seem to be less rigid in this case. We illustrate this in (263) for questions based on the reference sentence dat Jan een boek aan Marie wil geven'that Jan wants to give a book to Marie'. The fairly acceptable status of (263b') might be related to the fact that the prepositional indirect object may precede direct objects in focus constructions; cf. dat Jan aan Marie een boek wil geven.

    263
    a. WieSubject wil een boek aan wieIO geven?
    subject > prepositional IO
      who  wants  a book  to whom  give
    a'. ?? Aan wieIO wil wieSubject een boek geven?
    b. WatDO wil Jan aan wieIO geven?
    direct object > prepositional IO
      what  wants  Jan to whom  give
    b'. ? Aan wieIO wil Jan watDO geven?

    Nom-dative verbs normally allow the DO-subject and the indirect object to occur in both orders and this also seems to hold for multiple wh-questions with these verbs. We show this in (264) for questions based on the reference sentence dat <dat boek> Peter <dat boek> goed is bevallen'that that book pleases Peter much'. One should be aware that examples of this kind cannot be used to argue that Dutch is like German in that it does not impose any ordering restrictions on the subject and the object in multiple wh-questions.

    264
    a. WatSubject is wieIO goed bevallen?
    DO-subject > indirect object
      what  is who  well pleased
      'What has pleased who much?'
    b. WieIO iswatSubject goed bevallen?
    indirect object > DO-subject
      who  is what  well pleased

    Subjects and direct objects normally precede prepositional objects, and (265) shows that this order is maintained in multiple wh-questions. The (a)-examples are based on the reference sentence dat Jan op zijn vader wacht'that Jan is waiting for his father' and the (b)-examples on the reference sentence dat de rechter Peter tot het betalen van een boeteveroordeelde'that the judge sentenced Peter to pay a fine'.

    265
    a. WieSubject wacht op wiePO?
    subject > prepositional object
      who  waits  for who
      'Who is waiting for who?'
    a'. ?? Op WiePO wacht wieSubject?
    b. WieDO veroordeelde de rechter tot watPO?
    direct object > prepositional object
      who  sentenced  the judge  to what
      'Who did the judge sentence to what?'
    b'. *? Tot watPO veroordeelde de rechter wieDO?

    Subjects normally also precede spatial/temporal adverbial phrases. Although there may be a slight preference for objects to precede such adjuncts, both orders seem to be acceptable in multiple wh-questions, which is in line with the fact that the order of objects and spatial/temporal adverbial phrases also varies in the middle field of the clause: dat hij <de man> gisteren/in Amsterdam <de man> heeft ontmoet'that he met the man yesterday/in Amsterdam'.

    266
    a. WieSubject heeft hemDO waar/wanneer ontmoet?
    subject > adjunct
      who  has  him  where/when  met
    a'. ?? Waar/Wanneer heeft wieSubject hemDO ontmoet?
    b. WieDO heeft hij waar/wanneer ontmoet?
    direct object > adjunct
      who  has  he  where/when  met
    b'. (?) Waar/Wanneer heeft hij wieDO ontmoet?
    adjunct > direct object
      where/when  has  he  who  met

    The generalization that seems to cover all the cases above is that the wh-phrase whose canonical position is closest to the clause-initial position will be the one that undergoes wh-movement. This generalization may perhaps follow from some version of Chomsky's (1973) superiority condition(in which superiority refers to asymmetric c-command) if we adopt the view that linear order is ultimately derived from the structural, hierarchical relation between phrases; see Kayne (1994) for an influential formalization of this idea. We will not explore this option here, but simply use the notion of superiority condition as a convenient label for the generalization mentioned above.
          Although the superiority condition provides a relatively adequate description of the order of the interrogative pro-forms in the earlier examples, it seems to run afoul of cases involving more complex wh-phrases. This can be illustrated fairly easily by means of examples with a complex wh-subject and a complex wh-object; many speakers allow both order orders in (267). We refer the reader to Dayal (2006: Section 2) for a review of similar facts from English.

    267
    a. Welke student heeft welk boek gelezen?
      which student  has  which book  read
      'Which student has read which book?'
    b. % Welk boek heeft welke student gelezen?
      which book  has  which student  read
      'Which book has which student read?'
    References:
    • Bayer, Josef2006<i>Wh</i>-in-situEveraert, Martin & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)The Blackwell companion to syntax5Malden, MA/OxfordBlackwell Publishing
    • Bayer, Josef2006<i>Wh</i>-in-situEveraert, Martin & Riemsdijk, Henk van (eds.)The Blackwell companion to syntax5Malden, MA/OxfordBlackwell Publishing
    • Chomsky, Noam1973Conditions on transformationsAnderson, Stephen & Kiparsky, Paul (eds.)A festschrift for Morris HalleNew YorkHolt, Rinehart, and Winston71-132
    • Dayal, Veneeta2006Multiple-<i>wh</i>-questionsEveraert, Martin & Riemdijk, Henk van (eds.)The Blackwell companion to syntax3Malden, MA/OxfordBlackwell Publishing275-326
    • Dayal, Veneeta2006Multiple-<i>wh</i>-questionsEveraert, Martin & Riemdijk, Henk van (eds.)The Blackwell companion to syntax3Malden, MA/OxfordBlackwell Publishing275-326
    • Haider, Hubert2010The syntax of GermanCambridgeCambridge University Press
    • Haider, Hubert2010The syntax of GermanCambridgeCambridge University Press
    • Haider, Hubert2010The syntax of GermanCambridgeCambridge University Press
    • Hornstein, Norbert1995Logical Form: from GB to minimalismOxfordBlackwell
    • Kayne, Richard S1994The antisymmetry of syntaxLinguistic inquiry monographs ; 25Cambridge, MAMIT Press
    • Koster, Jan1987Domains and dynasties. The radical autonomy of syntaxDordrecht/ProvidenceForis Publications
    • Lasnik, Howard & Saito, Mamoru1992Move α. Conditions on its applications and outputLinguistic Inquiry MonographsCambridge, MA/London
    • Lasnik, Howard & Saito, Mamoru1992Move α. Conditions on its applications and outputLinguistic Inquiry MonographsCambridge, MA/London
    • Lasnik, Howard & Saito, Mamoru1992Move α. Conditions on its applications and outputLinguistic Inquiry MonographsCambridge, MA/London
    • May, Robert1985Logical form: its structure and derivationLinguistic inquiry monographs 12Cambridge, MAMIT Press
    • Riemsdijk, Henk van & Williams, Edwin1986Introduction to the theory of grammarCurrent studies in linguistics seriesCambridge, Mass.MIT Press
    About this article
    Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver
    Category: Dutch Syntax
    Publication date: 22 November 2023
    Keywords: AccentAdjunctDO-subjectCoordinate StructureInterrogative ClauseNoun PhraseQuestionSuperiorityWh-question
    report errorprintcite
    Jump to:
    X