REMARKS AND REPLIES 131

Echo Questions in the Minimalist Program

Nicholas Sobin

English echo questions present numerous challenges to the analysis

of interrogatives, including (a) simple wh-in-situ (You saw who?); (b)
apparent Superiority violations (What did who see?); (c) apparent verb
movement without wh-movement (Has Mary seen what?); and (d)
requisite wide scope only for echo-question-introduced wh-phrases
(underlined in these examplesonly who in What did who see? is
being asked about). Such apparently contrary features may be ex-
plained in terms of independently necessary scope assignment mecha-
nisms and a complementizer that subordinates the utterance being
echoed and freezes its CP structure. No norms of question forma-
tion are violated.

Keywords: echo questions, unselective binding, scope, question forma-

tion

English echo questions (EQs) such as (1) are rarely if ever discussed in recent minimalist-oriented
syntax.1
(1) Mary saw what?
When they are considered, they are usually mentioned fleetingly and in the context of pedagogi-
cally oriented discussions such as Adger 2003:352353 and Carnie 2007:342343. The rhetorical
intent in such works (which I do not fault here) is to put them aside, since they appear to counter-
exemplify general claims about question formation such as the obligatoriness of wh-movement.
However, there is much more to be said about them. They give the appearance of being far more
contrary than the works just cited suggest, and consequently they are of great interest and relevance
to analyses of question formation since they are clearly in the realm of automatic and un-
tutored knowledge, just the sort of linguistic knowledge that generative grammar has had the
aim of explaining since its inception.
The analysis to follow is oriented along the general lines of works such as Chomsky 2000
(as are Adger 2003 and Carnie 2007) and Adger and Ramchand 2005. Adger and Carnie each
suggest that EQs somehow involve a different C from that employed in non-EQ interrogatives.

My sincerest thanks to two anonymous reviewers, whose insightful comments have contributed substantially to the
present form of this article. My thanks also to those who offered substantial input to much earlier incarnations of the
article, including Jon Amastae, Noam Chomsky, Chris Collins, and Irene Heim. Any remaining errors are mine alone.
This article is dedicated to C. L. Baker, my dissertation supervisor at The University of Texas, whose pioneering
work on interrogatives and unselective binding has been fundamental to much subsequent work, including the present
piece.
1
Ginzburg and Sag (2001) offer an account of such questions within the framework of Head-Driven Phrase Structure
Grammar/Construction Grammar. Their work also deals with some of the phenomena analyzed here. Since the aim of
this article is simply to offer an analysis within Minimalist Program (MP) assumptions, a point-by-point comparison is
not offered here. However, such a comparison may prove of considerable interest as a topic for future work.

Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 41, Number 1, Winter 2010

131148
2010 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
132 REMARKS AND REPLIES

(For earlier work along similar lines, see Sobin 1990.) This is the line I will pursue here, though
as I will demonstrate, EQ formation is somewhat more complex than these works claim and at
the same time less contrary to non-EQ syntax than appearances would suggest. Section 1 recounts
key syntactic features of EQs that appear contrary to normal question formation. Section 2
considers Adgers (2003) characterization of EQs and certain evidence against it. Section 3 deals
with the derivation of non-EQ interrogatives, including the assignment of scope to wh-phrases
(also a key factor in analyzing EQs). Section 4 offers an analysis of EQs that accounts in detail
for their key syntactic features. Section 5 summarizes the analyses and offers speculations on the
composition of other Cs.

1 The Echo Question Challenge

EQs present considerable challenges to theories of interrogative syntax predicated on the behavior
of non-EQ interrogatives. Though many of the aspects of EQ behavior have been spelled out in
earlier works, I include them here for completeness. In Sobin 1978, 1990, 2009, I divide EQs
into two general types: pseudo EQs, which are simply normally formed questions but with EQ
intonation (a strong upward intonational contour), and syntactic EQs. It is the latter type that poses
serious descriptive and explanatory challenges. Among the apparently contrary characteristics of
such EQs are those described in sections 1.11.3.

1.1 Wh-in-Situ
Though wh-movement has frequently been considered obligatory in English, syntactic EQs typi-
cally manifest wh-in-situ. (In offering examples, I will use U to designate an utterance and E to
designate an EQ response to it.) The most widely recognized instance of non-wh-movement is
found in examples like (2).
(2) a. U: Mary had tea with Cleopatra.
b. E: Mary had tea with who? ( a syntactic EQ)
Though it is also possible to say (2c), this is an example of a pseudo EQ (a syntactically normal
question). The limited EQ-character of pseudo EQs will become more apparent in later examples.
(2) c. E: Who did Mary have tea with? ( a pseudo EQ)
The wh-in-situ characteristic of syntactic EQs extends to other more dramatic cases such as
(3) and (4).
(3) 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?
(4) a. U: What did Dracula drink at Marys party?
b. E: What did who drink at Marys party? ( a syntactic EQ)
c. E: *Who drank what at Marys party? ( a pseudo EQ)
 REMARKS AND REPLIES 133

(3a) is a yes/no question (YNQ) and may only be echoed with a syntactic EQ that preserves the
YNQ character of (3a), namely, the syntactic EQ in (3b). An EQ with declarative syntax such
as (3d) fails. Also, a pseudo EQ response such as (3c) fails; a pseudo EQ is only appropriate for
echoing a declarative, as in (2). Similar restrictions hold in (4). Here, the syntactic EQ (4b)
preserves the wh-interrogative character of the U (a feature of EQ formation that will be made
more explicit below), even at the apparent cost of violating Superiority. And very interestingly,
the normally mandatory observance of Superiority, as manifest in (4c), is not viable for echoing
(4a).
Overall, the rigid wh-in-situ requirement for EQs induces far more apparent syntactic idiosyn-
crasy than seen in (1) and (2), the sort of example that those offering brief discussion or analysis
of EQs normally limit themselves to. But there are yet further complications.

1.2 Root Scope

When a wh-phrase is introduced into an EQ, such as the who in (4b), this phrase is necessarily
assigned what I will term root scope. That is, like a wh-phrase in Spec,CP of a normal (non-EQ)
root interrogative (possibly with other in-situ wh-phrases, as in What did Mary see? or Who saw
what?), a proper response entails giving a value for any such wh-phrase. In an EQ, this is true
whether or not the EQ-introduced wh-phrase itself is located in the root clause. Thus, even the
deeply embedded EQ-introduced who in sentence (5b) has root scope.
(5) a. U: Who said that Mary thinks that Max was having tea with Dracula?
b. E: Who said that Mary thinks that Max was having tea with who?
Interestingly, not only does the EQ-introduced wh-phrase get root scopein fact, all other wh-
phrases from the original U, even those in an apparent root scope position, do not have root scope
in the EQ. Thus, the only viable response to the EQ (4b) (repeated here) is (6a). (EQ responses
are marked R.)
(4) a. U: What did Dracula drink at Marys party?
b. E: What did who drink at Marys party?
(6) a. R: Dracula!
b. R: *Dracula drank wine!
c. R: *Wine!
The same is true of EQ (5b), where only the low wh-phrase calls for a response.

1.3 Partially Wh-Marked Expressions

Also unlike non-EQ interrogatives, EQs allow what I will term partially wh-marked DPs. In more
detail, by the term fully wh-marked DP, I refer to wh-expressions such as what, which book, with
what, and how, expressions in which wh-marking either is Determiner-related (as in which book)
or subsumes an entire DP or adjunct expression (as in with what or how). I will refer to other
interrogative-marked expressions such as the what, where the D head is not apparently subsumed
134 REMARKS AND REPLIES

in the wh-marking, as partially wh-marked.2 While such expressions cannot appear in normal
non-EQ interrogatives, either raised to Spec,CP or in situ, as illustrated in (7ab), they may appear
in EQs, as in (8) and (9).
(7) a. *The what did Mary see? (non-EQ)
b. *Who saw the what? (non-EQ)
(8) a. U: Who saw the flying saucer?
b. E: Who saw the what?
(9) a. U: The Martians asked for more spaghetti.
b. E: The who asked for more spaghetti?

1.4 Summary of Problems

In sum, syntactic EQs look significantly problematic in several ways. An EQ-introduced wh-
expression remains in situ, even to the point of apparently defying norms of question formation.
Syntactic EQ formation may require moving a verb but not a wh-phrase, as in (3b), or not observing
Superiority, as in (4b). EQ-introduced wh-expressions get root scope regardless of position, and
the scope of other wh-phrases is subordinated regardless of position. In fact, the EQ-introduced
who in EQ (5b) is more than two TPs distant from the top, but nonetheless is assigned root scope
in that it (and not the higher original wh-phrase of the U) may elicit a response. Finally, EQs
admit partially wh-marked expressions that are disallowed in non-EQ interrogatives. The analysis
offered in section 4 addresses all of these properties and some others yet to be noted.

2 Other Accounts of Echo Questions

I will assume that non-EQ interrogatives (including pseudo EQs) are formed pretty much along
the lines discussed in Chomsky 2000, Adger 2003, and Carnie 2007. In the sketch below, I will
follow the outlines of the pedagogically oriented discussion of Adger 2003 for two reasons. First,
it aims at some degree of descriptive completeness in this realm, providing a more concrete
backdrop for a discussion of syntactic EQ formation. Second, it makes substantive proposals
about features and the feature composition of various Cs also relevant to this discussion. (Claims
of significance for the feature analysis proposed at various points in Adger 2003 can be found
in Adger 2006.)

2.1 Derivation of NonEcho Question Interrogatives

Adger (2003) proposes that question formation involves a C with the feature [Q] and a strong
uninterpretable feature [uwh*]. T-to-C movement is triggered by [Q]. The feature [uwh*] (or
alternatively the EPP/edge feature of interrogative C) triggers movement of a wh-phrase to

2
This is only a provisional characterization of this phenomenon. There is undoubtedly more to discover about it,
but it is worth mentioning here since it intersects with question formation. As far as I can see, nothing in the analysis
of question formation to be offered here would be negatively affected by further details of this phenomenon.
 REMARKS AND REPLIES 135

Spec,CP. YNQs are claimed to use the same C as wh-questions (WHQs), with [uwh*] being
satisfied by merger of an expletive wh-operator into Spec,CP. Constructions such as (10), in
which both the wh-phrase and the expletive wh-operator are involved, are claimed to be blocked
semantically since the wh-phrase triggers for which x . . . semantics, and the wh-operator in
turn triggers is it true that p semantics, a conflict resulting in gibberish.
(10) *Did Mary see who? (as a normal question)

2.2 Echo Questions as a Nonsyntactic Phenomenon

Adger (2003) does not discuss the analysis of (10) as an EQ, but in response to EQs such as (11),
he characterizes EQs as in (12).
(11) Mary saw who?
(12) a. C on an EQ does not bear [Q] (i.e., it is not interrogative).
b. EQs do not have the for which x . . . semantics; instead, they ask for the repetition
of a word.
In sum, They are not questions in the normal sense of the word, and dont seem to involve the
kind of semantics we have been attributing to the feature [Q] on C (p. 352).
One possible interpretation of this analysis is that EQs are quotative. The analysis might
be restated in the following terms:3
(13) Semantics for EQs
Which expression X is such that you said . . . X . . . ?
On this account, EQs would not be a syntactic phenomenon (i.e., they would not have an indepen-
dent syntactic derivation), and so we should expect to see the original utterance U being frozen
in the EQ, some portion of the U simply being replaced by a wh-phrase. Such an account would
predict correctly that we might find constructions apparently exhibiting verb movement without
wh-movement as in (3b) or (10), or apparent Superiority violations as in (4b). However, the
freezing of the U in the EQ is more complex. As I will detail below, while certain portions of
the U are frozen, other portions are not. Thus, we find U-EQ sequences such as (14).
(14) a. U: Has Mary eaten the fried worms?
b. E: Has what been eaten by Mary?
Further, the U and the EQ may show different agreement and deictic elements, as in (15).
(15) a. U: I am having tea with Cleopatra.
b. E: You are having tea with who?
Neither of these possible U-EQ sequences is compatible with or predicted by a quotative analysis.
Thus, EQs seem to actively involve syntax.

3
My thanks to the anonymous reviewers for their insights into this and other possible interpretations and ramifications
of Adgers analysis of EQs.
136 REMARKS AND REPLIES

Another observation that goes against characterizing EQs as in (13) is that EQ wh-phrases
show an animacy distinction (who vs. what).4 This should not be so if an expression rather than
a referent is being asked for, since the normal form for asking about an expression is simply
what.
Another interpretation of an analysis such as Adgers (2003) is that EQs are essentially a
pragmatic phenomenon.5 Thus, one might use the EQ-introduced wh-phrase simply to draw atten-
tion to a portion of the U being echoed for a variety of possible pragmatically determined purposes
ranging from genuine interrogation (for which x . . . semantics), to doubting what someone has
said, to trying to coerce someone into altering an utterance known to be false in a case where
the correct answer is known. However, the problem with using such possible pragmatically driven
purposes to separate EQs as pragmatic and distinct from other (syntactic) non-EQ interroga-
tives is that any interrogative can be put to such alternative pragmatic uses (e.g., Can you pass
the salt?). For purposes of this discussion, I will refer to this phenomenon of shifting away from
the ideal syntactic/semantic function of an interrogative to some other pragmatic purpose as
pragmatic intrusion.6 So, just as we see it at work in a U-EQ sequence like (16ac), we also see
it at work in a sequence like (17ac), involving a U and a non-syntactic-EQ interrogative (marked
Q).
(16) a. U: I fought off ten ninjas.
b. E: You fought off who? (meaning here that the ten ninjas part is not believable)
c. R: OK, I only fought off a Cub Scout.
(17) a. U: I fought off ten ninjas.
b. Q: Who did you fight off? (same meaning as (16b))
c. R: OK, I only fought off a Cub Scout.
Since both syntactic EQs and non-EQ interrogatives are subject to pragmatic intrusion, it is hard
to determine if one clause type is more susceptible to it than the other. But it is noteworthy
that syntactic EQs allow a broader range of interrogative-marked forms than do mainstream
interrogatives, including partially wh-marked ones, and even words with special emphasis as in
(18b).
(18) a. U: What did Dracula drink at Marys party?
b. E: What did DRACULA drink at Marys party?
c. R: Dracula!
d. R: *Dracula drank wine!
e. R: *Wine!
On the face of it, this fact in itself may suggest that EQ-introduced interrogative-marked expres-
sions are subject to a broader pragmatic range, still allowing for the neutral possibility of for

4
Again, my thanks to an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out.
5
My thanks to another anonymous reviewer for noting this possibility.
6
This term is similarly employed by Ginzburg and Sag (2001:264).
 REMARKS AND REPLIES 137

which x . . . semantics for wh-expressions. The possibility that EQ-introduced interrogative-

marked expressions can have such a broader interpretive range will be accommodated in the
analysis presented below.
Even allowing this, EQs still have other properties whose general description and explanation
are normally deemed to be in the realm of syntax: for example, verb movement (sometimes
without wh-movement) and wh-movement (sometimes in apparent violation of Superiority/the
Minimal Link Condition, etc.). Since it is not clear how pragmatics could deal with these (or that
it should), then given that a quotative analysis is not sufficient, these aspects of EQs still appear
to be structural and in the realm of syntactic explanation.
Carnies (2007) proposal, offered in response to EQs like (11), is that EQs involve a C with
only a feature [INT] (intonation), which triggers no movement, and which signals the phonology
to impose upward final intonation on an EQ or a like intonational question. This analysis does
not appear to offer any additional insights into EQs.

3 The Syntax of NonEcho Question Interrogatives

3.1 Assumptions
What I have just sketched should not be taken as a critique of Adgers (2003) and Carnies (2007)
analyses, since the rhetorical intent of these analyses is simply to exclude EQs from a more
pedagogically oriented presentation of non-EQ interrogative syntax. Yet they offer a plausible
starting point for this discussion. Given the observations just made about EQs, there is clearly
much more to be said about them and about how they might be analyzed in the context of a more
general minimalist-oriented analysis of interrogatives. Some of the assumptions we will focus on
particularly are these:
(19) Some basic minimalist-oriented assumptions
a. There is no LF level or LF movement.
b. The features of lexical items drive syntactic derivation.
c. Some features (traditionally called strong and denoted by *) trigger movement
or are associated with a feature (EPP/edge) that triggers such movement. Other
features are checked/deleted/resolved in situ.
In what follows, I will sketch some relevant basic aspects of question formation in general and
then offer an analysis of EQs that addresses their apparently contrary syntactic features.

3.2 The Scope of Wh-Phrases

Following the basic analysis of English interrogatives sketched in section 2.1, wh-phrases are
merged into argument or adjunct positions. An interrogative C bearing the feature [uwh*] (or an
EPP feature) probes into TP, locates the nearest wh-phrase (as dictated by the Minimal Link
Condition (MLC)), and triggers its movement to Spec,CP. Any other wh-phrases are left in situ
(or wherever they have been deposited by other noninterrogative syntactic processes). Yet to be
included in this picture is the mechanism of scope assignment to wh-phrases, a key aspect of
138 REMARKS AND REPLIES

question formation first analyzed in Baker 1970 and later discussed in other key works such as
Pesetsky 1987.7 In this discussion, I follow Baker, Pesetsky, and others, who characterize the
scope of a wh-phrase as being derived from the complementizer that it is (somehow) associated
with.
Wh-phrases in simple root WHQs such as (20) have wide scope, or what I have termed
above root scope; a fully informative response to such a WHQ entails giving values for each
wh-phrase.
(20) Who bought what?
When a question like (20) is embedded in a declarative clause as in (21), no such response is
called for, and we can say that these wh-phrases have narrow or embedded scope; their only
role is within the embedded question. That is, they are not objects of inquiry; a question is not
being posed.
(21) I asked who bought what.
As noted and analyzed first by Baker (1970) and later by others, a surprising ambiguity arises in
sentences like (22).
(22) Who knows where Mary bought what?
This question may be answered by (23) or (24).
(23) Bill does.
(24) Bill knows where she bought the soap, Jane knows where she bought the toothpaste,
etc.
That is, what in the embedded clause in (22) may have the embedded scope expected from its
surface position, as shown by the answer in (23), or it may somehow be assigned root scope, as
shown by the answer in (24). Pesetsky (1987) (and many other authors, all following Chomsky
1976 and later works) argues that possible assignment of root scope to embedded what is due to
possible LF movement of what into the root clause. Pesetsky further argues that both movement
(overt movement as well as LF movement) and unselective Baker (1970)style binding are avail-
able processes in the derivation of questions. However, the more recent assumptions of MP ban
LF movement (see (19)), so we are again left with the question of how an in-situ wh-phrase gains
scope either within or beyond its clause of origin. The approach I will develop here relies on
expanding the role of unselective binding. I will discuss two possibilities for doing this. The first
involves establishing in C a fairly traditional unselective binder. The second involves using C
itself more directly as valuing a scope feature on wh-phrases.

7
Works such as Lasnik and Saito 1992 and Epstein 1998 deal with various aspects of scope marking assuming the
availability of an LF component. Here, I will not offer a detailed account of scope marking; rather, I will posit a gross
non-LF mechanism for the sake of sketching a general backdrop for the ensuing analysis of EQs. Many details about
scope marking of wh-phrases in non-EQ interrogatives need to be worked out; however, they do not bear directly on
scope marking in EQs.
 REMARKS AND REPLIES 139

3.2.1 A Traditional Unselective Binder It is often assumed that overt movement of a wh-
phrase to Spec,CP is sufficient to establish its scope. But what of the other wh-phrases in a
multiple-wh-phrase interrogative? To begin to address this question, let us consider adjusting the
feature composition of the interrogative C as shown in (25).8
(25) C[Int, Q, uwh*, BWH ]
I will take [Int] on C as an interpretable force feature [Interrogative] (in contrast to [Decl(arative)]).
Partially following Adgers (2003) casting of these features, if [Q] triggers T-to-C movement in
root questions, then it may be claimed to be absent from C in embedded questions, which are
nonetheless interrogative. The feature [uwh*] (or [uwh] associated with EPP) plays the same role
here as in Adgers analysis. In addition to these features, this interrogative C has a binding feature,
really a binding function, [BWH ]. This function is described as in (26) and in the discussion to
follow.9
(26) BWH (XPi ) N Si
[wh]
Question formation involving (26) works as follows. Interrogative C probes for and looks at every
fully wh-marked constituent (DP/PP) in its domain. (See below for further characterizations of
these terms.) Once C has established a probe relation with every wh-phrase, the function [BWH ]
may evaluate (or not evaluate) any of these in-situ and unscoped wh-phrases. Each such evaluation
produces a scope operator Si in C which binds that wh-phrase XPi , giving the wh-phrase its scope
via this binding relation with C. If more than one wh-phrase is evaluated by [BWH ], then the
sequence of Ss produced may be conflated into a single unselective binder, as in (27).
(27) Si , Sj, . . . Sn N Si, j, . . . , n
If a wh-phrase is not immediately evaluated, then a higher interrogative C with [BWH ] may
evaluate it and give it a wider scope. An interrogative C can only satisfy its [uwh*]/EPP feature
by raising a wh-phrase that is scope-bound by [BWH] and that, following the MLC, is the nearest
wh-phrase. Since this raised wh-phrase has been assigned a scope by [BWH ] of C, it cannot raise
further; long wh-movement will apply only to unscoped wh-phrases raised to the Spec,CP
of noninterrogative Cs.10 (In languages such as Ukrainian, where all wh-phrases are raised, perhaps

8
Chomsky (2000), offering a different feature architecture, proposes that C with an uninterpretable feature [Q]
probes and matches a wh-phrase with interpretable [Q] and uninterpretable [wh]. The wh-phrase is active until its uninter-
pretable [wh] is checked and deleted, allowing for the possibility of multiple movements. The possibility of such an
uninterpretable wh-feature on a wh-phrase is pursued here in the feature valuation analysis of interrogatives to be offered
later.
9
Adger and Ramchand (2005) offer a view of what may be construed as scope assignment to items in situ in relative
clause formation in terms of -abstraction. While relative clauses allow only a single item to be relativized, questions
allow multiple items to be questioned. Given the complexities that this fact would entail, in this article I employ the more
classic descriptive mechanism of coindexation binding in the traditional unselective binder analysis.
10
I will assume that declarative Cs bear a gratuitous EPP feature and have no scope assignment function, so that
long movement is facilitated and the wh-phrase involved is still open for scope binding by a higher CWH .
140 REMARKS AND REPLIES

[uwh*] is not checked/deleted/resolved unless all of the wh-phrases it finds are raised.11 For
languages like Chinese that do not exhibit wh-movement, the interrogative C may have [BWH]
and lack [uwh*]/EPP. Though this picture of movement is very unrefined at this point, it is
consistent with the MP view that differences in the feature composition of lexical items account
for or explain crosslinguistic differences in derivation. Of course, many details remain to be
worked out.)
As sketched in section 1.2, the term fully wh-marked constituent (DP/PP) refers to wh-
expressions such as what, which book, with what, and where, expressions in which wh-marking
is either Determiner-related (in a DP) or subsumes an entire argument or adjunct expression (as
with a PP). I will refer to other interrogative-marked expressions such as the what, where the D
head is not apparently subsumed in the wh-marking, as partially wh-marked. Though such expres-
sions may appear in EQs, they cannot appear in normal non-EQ interrogatives, either raised to
Spec,CP or in situ, as illustrated in (28ab).12
(28) a. *The what did Mary see? ( (7a))
b. *Who saw the what? ( (7b))
At least from a descriptive standpoint, it is possible to attribute the nonappearance of partially
wh-marked expressions in non-EQ interrogatives to the complementizer: they are invisible to
C[Int, Q, uwh*, BWH] and hence cannot get a scope.
Next, by the term domain of C used earlier (the domain within which C probes wh-phrases
for possible scope binding), I refer to a region within the c-command domain of C. (I will
abbreviate C[Int, Q, uwh*, BWH ] as CWH .) When the CWH of a root interrogative goes on the
hunt for unscoped wh-phrases in lower clauses, there appears to be a two-TP limit on such a
search. This is indicated by the fact that the only response to (29) is (30a); (30b) seems odd at
best.
(29) [ CP Who CWH1 [ TP says [ CP that [ TP Bill knows [ CP where CWH2 [ TP Mary bought
what . . .
(30) a. Jane does.
b. ?*Jane says that Bill knows where Mary bought the towels, Zelda says that Bill
knows where Mary bought the sheets, . . .

11
See Richards 1998 and later Pesetsky and Torrego 2001 for more detailed analysis and discussion of multiple
wh-movement. In most recent accounts that I am aware of, it is the interrogative complementizer that is viewed as the
trigger for such movement.
12
One reviewer notes possibly problematic expressions like the underlined one in the non-EQ interrogative The host
of which party did Dracula insult?, where the highest D is not subsumed in interrogative marking. To my own ear, this
is pretty marginal. However, assuming that it is possible, this expression contains as the key element dictating its interroga-
tive status the sort of expression that has been characterized above as fully wh-markednamely, the expression which
party. Thus, it appears similar to other expressions containing a fully wh-marked constituent such as With which hand
did Dracula sign the letter?, which can be pied-piped to Spec,CP in a non-EQ interrogative.
 REMARKS AND REPLIES 141

Thus, although what of (22) may be bound by the C in either clause, the CWH1 in (29) appears
unable to reach what more than two TPs away, and so (30b) is not a possible response to (29).
Now, returning to the question of why (28ab) are ungrammatical, one possible explanation
is that these sentences violate a semantic interface requirement for interpretability such as (31).
(31) The Scope Requirement
All interrogative-marked constituents must have a scope (Baker 1970, Pesetsky
1987) in the sense of being associated with some interrogative C.
That is, an interrogative-marked constituent is only interpretable if it is scope-bound by a particular
C. Otherwise, it cannot be fully interpreted as something actually being asked about, or not being
asked about; it lacks scope in Bakers and Pesetskys sense. This requirement would hold for all
interrogative-marked expressions, including fully and partially wh-marked constituents. Thus, the
sentences in (28) fail for lack of a scope assignment to their partially wh-marked DPs. They are,
to use the common term, gibberish. This analysis thus establishes binding relations with a
traditional unselective binder present in C very much like the ones discussed and illustrated
in Pesetsky 1987:100.
3.2.2 Unselective Binding through Feature Valuation There is also the possibility of a somewhat
different and perhaps simpler analysis based on the mechanism of feature checking through
valuation (see Chomsky 2000, Adger 2003, Adger and Ramchand 2005). For example, the [uCase]
feature of a DP is argued to be unvalued and in need of a Case value. This is assigned to it by
a c-commanding probe with a Case to assign; the [uCase] feature of the DP is thus valued and
checked in situ. Perhaps an interrogative-marked constituent also bears such a feature that requires
valuation. Following Chomskys claim that wh-phrases bear an uninterpretable feature [wh], what
if this feature is [uwh: ], and it is uninterpretable because it lacks a scope value (again, in Bakers
and Pesetskys sense), that is, a connection to or identification with some C? Lets suppose that
C in WHQs simply has the feature composition in (32).
(32) C[Int, Q, uwh*]
In this proposal, C assigns a scope value to a wh-phrase by assigning its own label as the requisite
value for [uwh: ], effectively binding the wh-phrase to itself. As in the earlier proposal, C 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 can only be satisfied by raising to its Spec,CP
a wh-phrase that is both scope-valued and nearest to C (again following the MLC). A wh-
phrase left in situ with an unvalued [uwh: ] may receive a value from a higher C (as discussed
earlier) by being assigned the label of that higher C. Also, as in the earlier proposal, a wh-phrase
raised to a noninterrogative Spec,CP that will undergo long movement must not have a scope
value. Wh-movement cannot raise from Spec,CP a wh-phrase that has been assigned a scope; a
higher interrogative C can only see and hence affect unscoped wh-phrases to which it might give
its label. The different valuation possibilities would explain the scope ambiguity of what observed
by Baker (1970) in sentences like (22) (repeated here), as shown in (33).
142 REMARKS AND REPLIES

(22) Who knows where Mary bought what?

(33) a. [who [uwh: Ci] Ci[uwh*] knows [where [uwh: Cj ] Cj[uwh*]
Mary bought what [uwh: Cj ]]]
b. [who [uwh: Ci ] Ci[uwh*] knows [where [uwh: Cj ] Cj[uwh*]
Mary bought what [uwh: Ci ]]]
(Here, uwh indicates that the uninterpretable feature has been checked or valued.) In (33a), Cj
has valued what for scope, giving it narrow (embedded) scope. In (33b), Cj has opted not to value
what for scope, leaving it open to valuation by Ci , which gives it wide (root) scope. If [uwh: ]
on a wh-phrase fails to receive a scope value, then the derivation crashes owing to the presence
of an uninterpretable feature, a general minimalist mechanism for blocking derivations.
To incorporate multiple-wh-movement languages like Ukrainian into this picture, we might
speculate that the interrogative C in Ukrainian has the following features:
(34) C[Int, uwh**]
[uwh**] indicates a C with a super EPP feature, one that must value [uwh: ] on all wh-phrases
in its domain and move all of them to its Spec,CP(s) (in contrast to [uwh*], which is satisfied
by moving a single wh-phrase to Spec,CP). Chinese, with no wh-movement, may then have the
interrogative C shown in (35).
(35) C[Int, uwh]
Here, no movement is triggered, and [uwh] of C simply probes and scope-values the [uwh: ]
feature of any wh-phrases in situ. This analysis seems to satisfy the Activation Condition proposed
in Chomsky 2000, which requires any constituent participating as a goal to have an uninterpretable
(or unvalued) feature. Here, all wh-phrases (or more broadly, as we will see, all interrogative-
marked phrases) are active.13
The preceding is a very rough sketch of non-EQ question formation. However, it is sufficient
to provide a background against which to consider the syntax of English EQs, the major concern
of this article to which we now turn.

4 An Analysis of Echo Question Formation

As shown in Sobin 1978, 1990, 2009, EQ formation appears to crucially involve a discourse
strategy that pays considerable heed to the hard syntax. I will first sketch the discourse strategy,
called Comp freezing, and then proceed to other aspects of the derivation of EQs. Data strongly
pointing toward the existence of this process were mentioned in connection with the possible
quotative analysis of EQs in section 2. It is developed further here.

13
The proposal that English interrogative C may probe all wh-phrases in its domain is now supported by a couple
of observations. First, this must be true in (e.g.) Slavic languages, which move all wh-phrases, so perhaps it is universal.
Second, the limitation of wh-phrases that move to Spec,CP to fully wh-marked ones also extends to wh-phrases in multiple
WHQs that remain in situ, that is, ones that could have moved to Spec,CP but for Superiority, locality, and so on. If C
is the key factor in limiting movable wh-phrases to fully wh-marked ones, as proposed here, then it is simplest to propose
that C relates to all wh-phrases in its domain and imposes the same limitation in all cases.
 REMARKS AND REPLIES 143

4.1 Comp Freezing

Comparing the CP structure of EQs with that of the Us that they echo reveals that syntactic EQs
are formed in part by freezing the CP structure of the U being echoed. The CP structure that
I am referring to here is the classic one consisting of C, Spec,CP, and C.14 Thus, consider the
good and bad EQs related to each of the following sentence types. Some are repeated from above.
First consider EQs related to declaratives, as in (2ac), repeated in (36) with additional items.
(36) 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?
Here, (36a) may be echoed with the two pseudo EQs (36cd), which are interrogatives formed
along normal lines; but the only available syntactic EQ is (36b), which has a declarative CP
structure like that of the U.
Next, consider EQs related to YNQs, as in (3), repeated here in (37).
(37) 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?
As (37ad) show, only a simple apparent YNQ-type CP as in (37b) may be used in echoing the
YNQ (37a). The same sort of restriction on the form of the apparent CP of the EQ is evident in
EQs of WHQs, as in (4ac), repeated here in (38) with an additional item.
(38) a. U: What did Dracula drink at Marys party?
b. E: What did who drink at Marys party? ( a syntactic EQ)
c. E: *Who drank what at Marys party? ( a pseudo EQ)
d. E: *Did who drink what at Marys party?
Here too, the CP structure of the EQ appears restricted to the structure evident in the U.
While the CP structure of the U is frozen in forming the EQ (with some relaxation for minor
form differences such as correct verb agreement forms), non-CP aspects of the structure may
vary much more (as noted in section 2.2). Thus, (39b) and (40b) are possible EQs related to (39a)
and (40a), respectively.
(39) a. U: Has Mary eaten the fried worms? ( (14))
b. E: Has what been eaten by Mary?
(40) a. U: Have the Martians been taken to the airport by Bob?
b. E: Has Bob taken who to the airport?

14
EQs in fact provide interesting evidence against Rizzis (1997) split CP analysis for English. See Sobin 2009.
144 REMARKS AND REPLIES

As a final observation here, given that the TP elements of a U are not frozen in position in
a corresponding EQ but the CP elements are, we get some interesting evidence that subject wh-
phrases indeed move to Spec,CP. Consider the sentences in (41) and (42).
(41) a. U: Who was spotted by the Martians?
b. E: Who was spotted by who?
c. E: *Who spotted who?
(42) a. U: Who did the Martians spot?
b. E: Who did who spot?
c. E: *Who was spotted by who?
As in (39) and (40), active and passive can fluctuate between U and EQ when the major elements
affected are not in the frozen CP. If one of them is, then given Comp freezing, active/passive
fluctuation should no longer be possible. Since this is what we see in (41) and (42), we are led
to the conclusion that subject wh-phrases are located in Spec,CP.
Having sketched out Comp freezing, we are now in a position to more precisely characterize
the derivation of EQs.

4.2 Echo Question Formation and CEQ

Syntactic EQs exhibit the four properties in (43).
(43) Properties of syntactic EQs
a. Surprise (strong upward) intonation (the only property shared with pseudo EQs)
b. Frozen CP (Comp freezing): a copy of the CP structure of the U being echoed, with
possible latitude for minor requisite verb form differences, but strongly retaining
the Decl/YNQ/WHQ character of the CP structure15
c. Binding of EQ-introduced interrogative-marked constituents by a complementizer
CEQ that selects the frozen CP structure of the U as its complement
d. A (possibly loose) copy of the non-CP elements of the U
Property (43a) is straightforward, and properties (43b) and (43d) were discussed above. Property
(43c) involves a complementizer CEQ with its own unique feature composition. Since we have
discussed two approaches to establishing unselective binding, I will spell out each possible related
analysis of CEQ and its operation.
4.2.1 Unselective Binding in Echo Questions If we follow the first approach, that of creating
an unselective binder in C as sketched in section 3.2.1, then CEQ may be composed of the features
in (44), with a function BEQ characterized in (45).

15
Also, the surface form but not the basic content of C may vary somewhat. For instance, a complementizer that
in a U may be echoed with a that , and vice versa, but the basic [wh] character of C must remain intact. Refer to the
earlier works on EQs for further details.
 REMARKS AND REPLIES 145

(44) C[Int, BEQ]

(45) BEQ (XPi ) N Si
[i-m]
CEQ , bearing the feature [Int], is interrogative, but it lacks the features [uwh*] and [Q] that drive
movement of wh-phrases and verbs.16 However, it has a binding function [BEQ] similar but not
identical to [BWH]. The [i-m] in (45) is a feature of interrogative-marked expressions XP that are
introduced into an EQ, including fully and partially wh-marked constituents, and even intonation-
ally marked ones, as exemplified in (18) (repeated here).
(18) a. U: What did Dracula drink at Marys party?
b. E: What did DRACULA drink at Marys party?
c. R: Dracula!
d. R: *Dracula drank wine!
e. R: *Wine!
[BEQ] finds and binds all interrogative-marked constituents (ones bearing the feature [i-m]) intro-
duced in the EQ. Unlike BWH, which sees only fully wh-marked expressions bearing [wh], [BEQ ]
looks at the full range of interrogative-marked constituents (ones bearing [i-m]), and it searches
for them at a greater depth.17 Thus, whereas the what of the non-EQ interrogative (29) (repeated
here) has difficulty getting root scope, as shown in (30b), the who of the EQ (5b) (also repeated
here), which is as deeply embedded, easily gets root scope.
(29) [ CP Who CWH1 [ TP says [ CP that [ TP Bill knows [ CP where CWH2 [ TP Mary bought
what . . .
(30) a. Jane does.
b. ?*Jane says that Bill knows where Mary bought the towels, Zelda says that Bill
knows where Mary bought the sheets, . . .
(5) a. U: Who said that Mary thinks that Max was having tea with Dracula?
b. E: Who said that Mary thinks that Max was having tea with who?
Item (46) illustrates the resulting structure of EQ (4b) under the analysis proposed here.
(4) a. U: What did Dracula drink at Marys party?
b. E: What did who drink at Marys party?
(46) [ CP[ CEQ Int, Si ] [ CP whatj[wh] [ CWH did[Int, Q, uwh*, Sj ] [ TP whoi[i-m] drink whatj[wh]
at . . .

16
The feature [uwh(*)] is not needed on C to obtain for which x . . . semantics, since in Adgers (2003) analysis
(as discussed earlier), both YNQs and WHQs have this feature.
17
A wh-phrase must have a scope to be interpretable, and it may bear either [wh] or [i-m] to meet this requirement.
Either feature will allow the wh-phrase to get a scope from the correct scope-assigning C. A mismatch between this
feature and the type of C will simply result in a crash, since the wh-expression will fail to get a scope.
146 REMARKS AND REPLIES

The indices on the interrogative-marked phrases here are simply those of the interrogative constitu-
ents themselves that [BWH ] of CWH and [BEQ ] of CEQ have created scope binders for. Any
interrogative-marked phrase needs a scope (per (31)). A fully wh-marked phrase may get a scope
by bearing either [wh] or [i-m]. CWH will scope-bind only the former, and CEQ only the latter.
The fact that CEQ always takes the U with its CP frozen as its complement entails that any wh-
phrase that originally had root scope in the U loses it in the EQ, where it is now in a subordinate,
embedded position.
In addition to the scope facts and the ability of EQs to scope-bind all interrogative-marked
constituents, this analysis explains the other seemingly contrary characteristics of EQs described
in section 1. In apparent cases of Superiority violations (as above) or verb movement without
wh-movement, the normal restrictions actually are observed in forming the EQ. Since CWH is
probing and raising only [wh]-bearing phrases, and CEQ is probing and raising only [i-m]-bearing
phrases, at no point is a restriction like Superiority ever actually violated.
4.2.2 Binding through Feature Valuation in Echo Questions Following the alternative view of
scope assignment that involves feature valuation from C, we might say that CEQ has the feature
composition in (47).
(47) CEQ[Int, ui-m]
The feature [Int] indicates that CEQ is interrogative; in its pragmatically unskewed use, it tries to
elicit a WHQ-like response. The uninterpretable feature [ui-m] is what triggers CEQ as a probe
for any interrogative-marked expressions. CEQ does not have an EPP aspect or [Q] and cannot
trigger any raising. As noted earlier, CEQ assigns scope to a broader range of interrogative-marked
expressions than does CWH . All interrogative-marked phrases introduced in the EQ, including
wh-phrases, here bear an unvalued feature, [ui-m: ], which also requires a scope value in order
for the interrogative-marked expression to be interpretable. So, while CWH is limited to valuing
[uwh: ], CEQ values [ui-m: ]. Thus, an EQ like (18b), repeated here, would have roughly the
structure in (48), and one like (4b), also repeated here, would have the structure in (49).
(18) a. U: What did Dracula drink at Marys party?
b. E: What did DRACULA drink at Marys party?
(48) [ CP[ CEQ Int, ui-m] [ CP what[uwh: CWH ] [ CWH did[Int, Q, uwh*]] [ TP DRACULA[ui-m:
CEQ ] drink what at . . .
(4) b. E: What did who drink at Marys party?
(49) [ CP[ CEQ Int, ui-m] [ CP what[uwh: CWH ] [ CWH did[Int, Q, uwh*]] [ TP who[ui-m: CEQ ]
drink what at . . .
All EQ-introduced interrogative-marked expressions must be assigned a scope value by
CEQ , though this need not be stipulated. If scope assignment is optional for CEQ as it is for CWH ,
then the only EQs that will not crash are those in which all EQ-introduced interrogative-marked
expressions are scope-valued by CEQ .
 REMARKS AND REPLIES 147

Finally, English EQs must be root clauses. They cannot be embedded, as seen in (50).18
(50) *Bill asked what did who drink at Marys party?
Descriptively, it appears that interrogative-complement-taking verbs like ask are limited to select-
ing a normal interrogative CP complement (a WHQ or a YNQ), guaranteeing that all EQs are
root clauses. This may in turn be due to a discourse factor: EQs are immediate responses to a
preceding utterance, something it is hard to envision the embedded EQ of (50) as being, and so
(50) is impossible.

5 Conclusion and Discussion

In sum, syntactic EQs involve a C ( CEQ ) that takes a U as its complement (the CP of that U
being frozen) and binds any EQ-introduced interrogative-marked expressions. Pseudo EQs do not
involve CEQ . Thus, they are limited to questioning declarative propositions, as normal questions
generally appear to do. The analysis just offered points toward the existence of a variety of
complementizers differentiated by feature composition, in compliance with a major thesis of MP
analysis: variance in syntactic derivation is driven by the distinctive feature composition of differ-
ent lexical items. One of these complementizers, CEQ , interacts with constructions containing
other Cs in such a way that EQs appear to massively violate norms of English question
formation. However, as I have just argued, no such norms are actually violated. Further, the fact
that the interrogative expressions that are scope-bound by CEQ bear [i-m] or [ui-m: ], as opposed
to [wh] or [uwh: ], allows for the possibility that they might be singled out as being more
susceptible to pragmatic intrusion, though this is still a matter of some speculation.
This analysis also points toward a different analysis of YNQs from the one sketched earlier.
Given that the explanation of scope requires, in addition to features like [uwh*], some mechanism
that gives scope to in-situ wh-phrases, it becomes quite plausible that YNQs involve a comple-
mentizer CYN , which has the feature composition in (51).
(51) CYN[Int, Q]
(I assume here, as Adger (2003) suggests, that [Q] triggers verb movement.) Without [BWH ] or
some version of [uwh], such a C lacks the ability to probe or scope-bind any wh-phrases. This
correctly predicts that sentences like (10) (repeated here) are impossible as non-EQs, since an in-
situ wh-phrase such as who in (10) cannot be assigned a scope. This may be construed either as
a violation of the Scope Requirement (31) or as an inability to value the uninterpretable feature
[uwh: ] on who, as discussed above.
(10) Did Mary see who?
Thus, the expletive wh-operator proposed by Adger in connection with YNQs is unnecessary.

18
My thanks to an anonymous reviewer for this example. Ginzburg and Sag (2001) also make note of this fact.
148 REMARKS AND REPLIES

References
Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Adger, David. 2006. Remarks on minimalist feature theory and Move. Journal of Linguistics 42:663673.
Adger, David, and Gillian Ramchand. 2005. Merge and Move: Wh-dependencies revisited. Linguistic Inquiry
36:161193.
Baker, C. L. 1970. Notes on the description of English questions: The role of an abstract question morpheme.
Foundations of Language 6:197219.
Carnie, Andrew. 2007. Syntax. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chomsky, Noam. 1976. Essays on form and interpretation. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax
in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89156.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Epstein, Samuel David. 1998. Overt scope marking and covert verb second. Linguistic Inquiry 29:181227.
Ginzburg, Jonathan, and Ivan A. Sag. 2001. Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning, and use of
English interrogatives. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1992. Move . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In The representation of (in)definite-
ness, ed. by Eric J. Reuland and Alice G. B. ter Meulen, 98129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Ken Hale: A
life in language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 355426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Richards, Norvin. 1998. The Principle of Minimal Compliance. Linguistic Inquiry 29:599629.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. by Liliane Haegeman,
281337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Sobin, Nicholas. 1978. On echo questions in English. In Papers from the 1977 Mid-America Linguistics
Conference, ed. by Donald Lance and Daniel Gulstad, 247259. Columbia: University of Missouri,
University Extension Division.
Sobin, Nicholas. 1990. On the syntax of English echo questions. Lingua 81:141167.
Sobin, Nicholas. 2009. Echo questions and split CP. In Dislocated elements in discourse: Syntactic, semantic,
and pragmatic perspectives, ed. by Benjamin Shaer, Philippa Cook, Werner Frey, and Claudia
Maienborn, 95113. New York: Routledge.

Department of Languages and Linguistics

The University of Texas at El Paso
500 W. University Avenue
El Paso, TX 79968
njsobin@utep.edu
Copyright of Linguistic Inquiry is the property of MIT Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.