16 MWh, CWh, and Q-inference SP answers SP answers PL answers MWh questions denotation, by Q-inference CWh questions denotation
17 Languages surveyed Chinese Czech English (Estonian) German Greek Hebrew Hindi Hungarian Japanese Korean Macedonian Russian Spanish (Tagalog) (Vietnamese)
18 24 questions I.Who/what 1.Who read what? 2.What did who read? 3.*Who and what read? 4.*What and who read?
19 24 questions II.Who/where 1.Who saw her where? 2.Where did who see her? 3.*Who and where saw her? 4.*Where and who saw her? 5.Whom did she see where? 6.Where did she see whom? 7.* Whom and where did she see? 8.*Where and whom did she see?
20 24 questions III.Who/when 1.Who saw her when? 2.When did who see her? 3.*Who and when saw her? 4.*When and who saw her? 5.Whom did she see when? 6.When did she see whom? 7.* Whom and when did she see? 8.*When and whom did she see?
21 24 questions IV.Who/when 1. Where will she sing when? 2. When will she sing where? 3.Where and when will she sing? 4.When and where will she sing?
22 MWh/CWh overlap for who/what Chinese III Czech Greek III Hungarian Korean II Macedonian II Russian I, II, III Spanish IV
23 MWh/CWh overlap for who/where or who/when Chinese I, III Czech Greek II, III Hungarian Korean II Macedonian II Russian II, III Spanish IV
24 MWh/CWh overlap for where/when Chinese I, III Czech English I German I, II Greek III Hebrew II Hungarian Korean II, III
25 Conclusion The hypothesis is not supported. It may be true for some languages, but not for all. It needs fuller investigation with coordination plus sluicing. Some languages have SP/PL segregation, but in the opposite direction. In some languages, SP vs. PL is related to interpretive superiority.
26 Acknowledgments Thank you to all the native speaker informants who have provided translations and syntactic and semantic judgments for this project: Ben Chudnovsky, Ilija Doneski, Anna Feldman, Calixto Gonzales, Betya Goykhman, Patti Green, Jirka Hana, Hyeon-Seok Kang, Soyoung Kang, Yusuke Kubota, Sun- Hee Lee, Ilse Lehiste, Dmitry Levinson, Anikó Lipták, Xiaofei Lu, Arantxa Martín-Lozano, Detmar Meurers, Bettina Migge, Mineharu "JJ" Nakayama, Roberto Orci, Panayiotis Pappas, Mike Puchovich, Hongqi Rouzer, Jane Rubin-Kurtzmann, Le Nhan Thanh, Giorgos Tserdanelis, Shravan Vasishth, Amanda Whitman, Ellen Whitman, Philip Whitman, and Niina Zhang.
27 The Coordinated-Wh Project http://literalmindedlinguistics.com/Coord_Wh/home.html
28 References Only those reference that were directly cited in this talk are listed here. For a fuller bibliography on coordinated-wh questions, see the website for the Coordinated-Wh Project. Horn, Laurence R. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications (GURT 84), ed. by D. Schiffrin, 11-43. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Kazenin, Konstantin I. (ed.) 2002. On Coordination of WH-Phrases in Russian. Tuebingen. Lipták, Anikó. 2003. Conjoined Questions in Hungarian. Multiple-Wh Fronting, ed. by Cedric Boeckx and Kleanthes Grohmann. 141-60. Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today. Philadelphia: Benjamins.