1. Reasons for looking at EQs English echo questions (EQs) are exemplary untutored constructions; however, they appear to operate contrary to the system of ‘normal’ question formation. Thesis EQs are explained in terms of independently necessary scope assignment mechanisms and a complementizer which subordinates the utterance being echoed and ‘freezes’ its CP structure. No norms of question formation are violated. The EQ challenge The problems posed by EQs (relative to ‘normal’ question formation) include the following: (i)simple wh-in-situ (‘Mary saw who?’); (i)apparent Superiority violations (‘What did who see?’); (iii) apparent verb movement without wh movement (‘Has Mary seen what?’); (iv) requisite wide scope for an EQ-introduced wh- phrase (underlined in these examples), and requisite narrow scope for other wh phrases (only who in ‘What did who see?’ is being asked about in the EQ); (v) partial wh marking (eg the what) possible in EQs but not in normal questions (‘You saw the what?’, but not *‘The what did you see?’) The scope of wh-phrases Preliminary to the analysis of EQs is the question of how wh-phrases get wide or narrow scope. C L Baker (1970) noted the wh-scope ambiguity in (1), where (1a) may be answered by (1b) with what having narrow scope, or by (1c) with what having wide scope. (1)a. Who knows where Mary bought what? b. Bill does. c. Bill knows where she bought the soap, Jane knows where she bought the toothpaste, etc. Echo Question Syntax Nicholas Sobin Echo Question Syntax Nicholas Sobin Proposal for scope assignment: Following Baker (1970), Chomsky (2000) and of Adger (2003) and Adger & Ramchand (2005), a wh-phrase in a WHQ bears a feature [uwh: ] which is uninterpretable for lack of a scope value. An interrogative complementizer C WH (feature composition: C WH [Int, Q, uwh* ]) assigns a scope value to a wh-phrase by assigning its (that is, C WH ’s) label as the requisite value for [uwh: ], effectively binding the wh-phrase to that C WH. C WH probes every wh-phrase in its domain and it may value (or not) any of the wh-phrases in its domain. However, the [uwh*]/EPP feature of interrogative C WH can only be satisfied by raising to its SpecCP a wh-phrase which is both scope-valued and ‘nearest’ to C WH (following the MLC). A wh-phrase left in-situ with an unvalued [uwh: ] may receive a value from a higher C WH by being assigned the label of that higher C WH. Thus, the ambiguity in (1) is explained in terms of the two possible scope assignments in (2). (2)a. [ Who [uwh: C i ] C i [uwh*] knows [ where [uwh: C j ] C j [uwh*] Mary bought what [uwh: C j ] ]] ? b. [ Who [uwh: C i ] C i [uwh*] knows [ where [uwh: C j ] C j [uwh*] Mary bought what [uwh: C i ] ]] ? Two types of EQs Pseudo EQs :Echo intonation Formed along lines of ‘normal’ interrogatives (no ‘echo’ syntax) Only used to question a declarative (3)a. U: Mary saw a flying saucer. b. PseudoEQ: What did Mary see? Syntactic EQs :Echo intonation Comp Freezing--a copy of the CP structure of U C EQ --an EQ complementizer which (i) takes CP of U as a complement thereby giving wh-phrases of U narrow scope, and (ii) scope-binds all EQ-introduced interrogatives, giving them wide scope a (possibly loose) copy of non-CP elements of U Mechanisms of syntactic EQ formation -Comp Freezing: If CP of U is declarative, this declarative CP must be used in a syntactic EQ: (4)a. U: Mary had tea with Cleopatra. b. E: Mary had tea with who?(= a syntactic EQ) c. E: Who did Mary have tea with?(= a pseudo EQ) d. E: Did Mary have tea with Cleopatra?(= a pseudo EQ) e. E: *Did Mary have tea with who? If CP of U is YNQ-interrogative, this interrogative CP must be used in a syntactic EQ: (5)a. U: Did Mary have tea with Cleopatra? b. E: Did Mary have tea with who?(= a syntactic EQ) c. E: *Who did Mary have tea with?(= a pseudo EQ) d. E: *Mary had tea with who? The University of Texas at El Paso If CP of U is wh-interrogative, this wh-interrogative CP must be used in a syntactic EQ: (6)a. U: What did Dracula drink at Mary’s party? b. E: What did who drink at Mary’s party?(= a syntactic EQ) c. E: *Who drank what at Mary’s party?(= a pseudo EQ) d. E: *Did who drink what at Mary’s party? Non-CP material need not show strict copying, as in (7) and (8). However, the same variation is not available if it involves elements in frozen CP, as in (9) and (10). (7)a. U: Has Mary eaten the fried worms? b. E: Has what been eaten by Mary? (8)a. U: Have the Martians been taken to the airport by Bob? b. E: Has Bob taken who to the airport? (9)a. U: Who was spotted by the Martians? b. E: Who was spotted by who?/c. E: *Who spotted who? (10)a. U: Who did the Martians spot? b. E: Who did who spot?/c. E: *Who was spotted by who? -Unselective binding by C EQ : All EQ-introduced ‘interrogative-marked’ phrases bear [ui-m: ], which requires a scope value. EQs utilize C EQ (feature composition: C EQ [Int, ui-m]) which assigns scope to any interrogative-marked expression, including ‘fully wh-marked’ interrogative phrases as in (6), ‘partially- marked’ interrogative phrases, as in (11), and intonationally-marked interrogative phrases as in (12). C EQ has no EPP property. (11) a. U: What did the vampire drink at Mary’s party? b. E: What did the what drink at Mary’s party? (12)a. U: What did Dracula drink at Mary’s party?(= (6a)) b. E: What did DRACULA drink at Mary’s party? Sample EQ structures with unselective binding (13) a. U: What did Dracula drink at Mary’s party?(= (6a)) b. E: What did DRACULA drink at Mary’s party?(= (12b)) b’. [ CP [ CEQ Int, ui-m] [ CP What[uwh: C WH ] [ CWH did [Int, Q, uwh*] ] [ TP DRACULA[ui-m: C EQ ] drink at...? c. E: What did who drink at Mary’s party?(= (6b)) c’. [ CP [ CEQ Int, ui-m] [ CP What[uwh: C WH ] [ CWH did [Int, Q, uwh*] ] [ TP who[ui-m: C EQ ] drink at …