In recent years, the use of pronoun-doubling constructions as alternatives to standard long-distance wh-questions, where the wh-phrase is spelled out only in the matrix clause, has received substantial attention in research of syntactic variation. However, the doubling phenomenon has scarcely been studied in the Uralic languages. This paper concentrates on Estonian complex, i.e. bi-clausal, wh-questions that contain the bridge verb arvama ’think’ or ütlema ’say’ and where the subject or object, either animate or inanimate, is being questioned. An acceptability judgement test and corpus analysis were applied to determine which pronominal patterns and to what extent are attested in such interrogative sentences. Both identical and non-identical doubling appear to be common in Estonian, although identical doubling is restricted to inanimate subject/object questions (the pronoun mis ’what’ introduces both clauses), while non-identical doubling is preferred if a person is questioned (the matrix clause is introduced by the pronoun mis ’what’ and the subordinate clause by the pronoun kes ’who’). Proposing a tentative syntactic analysis for the different doubling patterns, I argue that partial wh-movement involving two independent wh-chains is generally favoured and it also underlies identical doubling. Long-distance wh-movement, on the other hand, turns out not to be freely permitted in Estonian.
Allen, I. E., Seaman, C. A. 2007, Likert Scales and Data Analysis. - Quality Progress. The Official Publication of American Society for Quality. http://asq.org/quality-progress/2007/07/statistics/likert-scales-and-data-analyses.html.
Barbiers, S., Koeneman, O., Lekakou, M. 2008, Syntactic Doubling and the Structure of Chains. - Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Somerville, MA, 77-86. http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/26/paper1658.pdf.
Blalock, H. M. Jr. 1979, Social Statistics, New York.
Boef, E. 2013, Doubling in Relative Clauses. Aspects of Morphosyntactic Microvariation in Dutch, Utrecht. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/ 261909.
Cheng, L. 2000, Moving Just the Feature. - Wh-Scope Marking, Amsterdam, 77-100.
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.37.04che
Chomsky, N. 1995, The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, N. 2000, Minimalist Inquiries. The Framework. - Step by Step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Cambridge, MA, 89-155.
Davison, A. L. 1984, Syntactic Constraints on Wh-in-situ. Wh-Questions in Hindi-Urdu. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America.
Dayal, V. S. 1994, Scope Marking as Indirect Wh-Dependency. - Natural Language Semantics 2, 137-170.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01250401
Erelt, M., Erelt, T., Ross, K. 2007, Eesti keele käsiraamat, Tallinn.
Fanselow, G. 2006, Partial Wh-movement. - The Blackwell Companion To Syntax, Malden, MA, 437-492.
Fanselow, G., Mahajan, A. 2000, Towards a Minimalist Theory of Wh-Expletives, Wh-Copying, and Successive Cyclicity. - Wh-Scope Marking, 195-230, Amsterdam.
Featherston, S. 2004, Bridge Verbs and V2 Verbs. The Same Thing in Spades? — Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 23 (2), 181—209.
https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsw.2004.23.2.181
Felser, C. 2001, Wh-Expletives and Secondary Predication. German Partial Wh-Movement Reconsidered. — Journal of Germanic Linguistics 13, 5—38.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542701003178
Felser, C. 2004, Wh-Copying, Phases, and Successive Cyclicity. - Lingua 114 (5), 543-574.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00054-8
Horvath, J. 1997, The Status of ”Wh-Expletives” and the Partial Wh-Movement Construction of Hungarian. - Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 509-572.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005842214213
Horvath, J. 2000, On the Syntax of ”Wh-Scope Marker” Constructions. - Wh-Scope Marking, Amsterdam, 271-316.
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.37.11hor
Horvath, J. 2007, Separating ”Focus Movement” from Focus. - Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation, Amsterdam-Philadelphia, 108-145.
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.101.07hor
Huhmarniemi, S. 2012, Finnish A’-Movement. Edges and Islands, Helsinki (Studies in Cognitive Science 2: 2012).
Jamieson, S. 2004, Likert Scales. How to (Ab)use them. - Medical Education 38 (12), 1217—1218.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02012.x
Kaalep, H-J., Muischnek, K. 2002, Eesti kirjakeele sagedussõnastik, Tartu. http://www.cl.ut.ee/ressursid/sagedused/index.php?lang=en.
Klepp, M. 2001, Partial Wh-Movement in German, Dublin.
Kostoulas, A. 2014, How to Interpret Ordinal Data. https://achilleaskostoulas.com/2014/02/23/how-to-interpret-ordinal-data/.
Marácz, L. K. 1991, Asymmetries in Hungarian, San Sebastian.
Lubanska, M. 2004, Wh-Scope Marking in Polish. - Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 39, 73-88.
McDaniel, D. 1989, Partial and Multiple Wh-Movement. - Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7, 565-604.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00205158
Metslang, H. 1981, Küsilause eesti keeles, Tallinn.
Mus, N. 2015, Interrogative Words and Content Questions in Tundra Nenets, Szeged. http://doktori.bibl.u-szeged.hu/2764/1/Content_questions_in_TN_ Nikolett_Mus_2015_06.pdf
Pankau, A. 2013, Replacing Copies. The Syntax of Wh-Copying in German, Utrecht. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/288519
Rett, J. 2006, Pronominal vs. Determiner Wh-Words. Evidence from the Copy Construction. - Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 6, 355-374. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss6/rett-eiss6.pdf
Riemsdijk, H. C. van 1982, Correspondence Effects and the Empty Category Principle, Tilburg (Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature 12)..
Rizzi, L. 1992, Argument/Adjunct (A)symmetries. - Proceedings of North East Linguistic Society 22, 365-381.
Sabel, J. 1998, Principles and Parameters of Wh-Movement. Habilitationsschrift, Frankfurt/Main.
Salminen, T. 2012, Tundra Nenets. http://www.helsinki.fi/~tasalmin/sketch. html.
Schippers, A. 2010a, Partial Wh-Movement and Wh-Copying in Dutch. Evidence for an Indirect Dependency Approach. - Proceedings of the Thirty Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. February 6-7, 2010, Berkeley, CA, 338-352.
Schippers, A. 2010b, On the (Un)availability of Long-Distance Movement. - Movement and Clitics. Adult and Child Grammar, Newcastle upon Tyne, 39-62.
Schoorlemmer, E. 2009, Agreement, Dominance and Doubling. The morphosyntax of DP, Utrecht.
https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/13952/thesis_schoorlemmer_finaal.pdf?sequence=1.
Stepanov, A., Stateva, P. 2006, Successive Cyclicity as Residual Wh-Scope Marking. - Lingua 116, 2107-2153.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.06.002
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.06.004
The Uralic Languages, London-New York 1998.
Toft, Z. 2001, Is There Ever Multiple Wh-Movement? Evidence from Superiority Effects and Focus in Hungarian. - Durham Working Papers in Linguistics 7, 126-144.
Vainikka, A. 1989, Defining Syntactic Representations in Finnish. PhD Dissertation, Amherst.
Verhagen, A. 2006, On Subjectivity and Long-Distance Wh-Movement. - Subjectification. Various Paths to Subjectivity, Berlin-New York, 323-346. http://www.academia.edu/8847362/On_subjectivity_and_long_distance_Wh-movement_.
Грамматика современного удмуртского языка. Синтаксис простого предложения, Ижевск 1970.
Ненянг M. A. 2005, Русско-ненецкий разговорник, Санкт-Петербург.
