Anne Abeillé

Gilles Boyé

Dunstan Brown

Patricia Cabredo Hofherr

Greville Corbett

Berthold Crysmann

Ger- Ald Gazdar

Stefan Müller

Ivan A Sag

Gregory Stump

Jesse Tseng

Gert Webelhuth This

Modern Persian conjugation makes use of five periphrastic constructions. We contrast the properties of these five constructions and argue that they call for different analyses. We propose contrasting analyses relying on the combination of an HPSG approach to feature geometry and syntactic combination, and an approach to paradigm organization and morphological exponence based on Paradigm Function Morphology. This combination of analytic tools allows us to treat the whole array of periphrastic constructions as lexical in origin-no phrasal construction or multi-word lexical entry of any kind is required.

 distinguish five conjugational periphrastic construction types. The passive construction is based on an inflected form of šodan 'become' preceded by a perfect participle (1). So-called 'perfect' forms are based on an inflected form of budan 'be' preceded by a perfect participle (2). The auxiliary is a full word (2a) or a clitic, (2b) depending on tense and mood, and giving rise to different syntactic and semantic properties. The future is formed with a special present tense form of xâstan 'want' followed by a bare stem (3). Finally, the progressive is based on an inflected form of dâštan 'have' followed by a finite form (4). 1

(1) In this tâblo painting foruxte sold mi-šav-ad.

Synthetic conjugation in HPSG/PFM

Before we address the analysis of periphrastic forms, we start with an account of synthetic conjugation. (5) lists the synthetic subparadigms of the lexeme xaridan 'buy', using the positive 2SG form as an illustration.

(5) a. Finite forms:

i. Simple present: mi-xar-i ii. Simple bounded past: xarid-i iii. Simple unbounded past: mi-xarid-i iv. Simple subjunctive: be-xar-i v. Imperative: be-xar b. Nonfinite forms:

i. Infinitive: xarid-an ii. Present participle: xar-ande iii. Perfect participle: xarid-e iv. Gerund: xar-ân Persian verbs exhibit a morphomic stem alternation (here xar vs. xarid). Neither stem is predictable from the other in general, and both stems are used in a combination of contexts which do not form a natural class. Affixal exponents realize unbounded aspect in the indicative (mi-), irrealis mood (be-), negation (na-or ne-, not illustrated here), type of nonfinite form (-e vs. -ande vs. -an vs. -ân), and subject agreement for finite forms. Within Paradigm Function Morphology, this rather simple position class system can be accounted for using the series of rule III II I IV V na-mi-stem-selection -e -am ne--ande -i/∅ be-an -ad/∅ -im -id -and

Table 1: Rule blocks for Persian synthetic conjugation blocks outlined in table 1. Remember that in PFM, realization rules are organized in successive blocks. When attempting to realize a given set of morphosyntactic feature, the most specific applicable rule within the block is chosen. ( 6) are sample rules from block V, written in an attribute-value matrix format.2 : while (6a) asks that finite verbs with a 2SG subject take the suffix -i, the more specific (6b) indicates that the suffix is dropped in the imperative.

(

6) a. PHON X LID Y , σ : PER 2 NB sg -→ PHON X⊕i LID Y (block V) b. PHON X LID Y , σ :     PER 2 NB sg MOOD imper     -→ PHON X LID Y (block V)
Since the integration of HPSG and PFM will be essential to our account of periphrastic conjugation, it is important that we specify how we intend to do it. The task is not trivial, because of PFM's reliance on comparisons of feature structure descriptions, which can not easily be formulated in existing description languages for HPSG grammars. Rather than attempting a direct integration, we propose to use a PFM grammar to further constrain the class of signs satisfying an HPSG theory. Specifically, we rely on a slight reorganization of the feature geometry for head values as in (7), where MORSYN groups features that get realized in inflection and LID assigns a specific index to each lexeme [START_REF] Spencer | Inflecting clitics in Generalized Paradigm Function Morphology[END_REF][START_REF] Sag | SIgn-Based Construction Grammar: An Informal Synopsis[END_REF]. We then define a version of PFM that is exactly like that of [START_REF] Stump | Inflectional Morphology. A Theory of Paradigm Structure[END_REF] except for the fact that typed feature structures are used to model morphosyntactic feature bundles instead of category structures à la [START_REF] Gazdar | Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar[END_REF]. The meta-constraint in (8) then links the two grammars.

(7) head→     head LID lexemic-index MORSYN morsyn     (8) Morphology-syntax

interface (preliminary version)

A sign of type word meeting the description

     PHON 1 HEAD LID 3 MORSYN 4     
is well-formed only if the PFM grammar licenses phonology 1 as a realization of the features 4 for the lexeme 3 .

The passive

The passive in Persian is a typical complex predicate construction, whose properties are parallel to those of copula-predicative complement constructions. The auxiliary šodan is clearly the head: all inflectional information, e.g. negation (9), is realized on the auxiliary. The participle-auxiliary sequence is syntactically flexible: adverbs may intervene (10), the auxiliary may be scrambled over the participle (11), and long-distance fronting of the participle is possible (12).

SBJV-buy.S1-1PL

'I think that if this painting is sold, we can buy a car with the money.'

To account for this we rely on an argument composition analysis in the spirit of [START_REF] Hinrichs | Linearizing AUXs in German verbal complexes[END_REF] and subsequent work. Specifically we propose the lexical entry in (13) for the auxiliary lexeme šodan, giving rise to analyses such as that in Figure 1. Under our analysis there is no passive participle, and subject demotion is effected directly in the auxiliary's entry. This is appropriate

S 1 NP in tâblo 2 PP be Maryam 3       V[perf-part] LID foruxtan LEX + SUBJ NP COMPS 1 NP, 2 PP       foruxte             V [prs,3sg] LID šodan-aux SUBJ 1 COMPS 3     V[perf-part] LEX + SUBJ NP COMPS 1 , 2     , 2             H mišavad
Figure 1: Analysis of a passive sentence because (i) perfect participles are always active except in the periphrastic passive constructions-participial clauses with transitive head verbs take direct objects ( 14), and (ii) for semantic reasons there is no hope of using the same lexical entry for the auxiliary šodan and the full verb šodan (contrary to what happens in languages where the passive auxiliary coincides with the copula). Moreover, we assume a flat structure, wich allows for an easy account of the free reordering of the participle, auxiliary and valents. The specification [VC -] on the participle inhibits the formation of a verbal complex-see below for a contrasting analysis of perfect periphrases.

(13

)                       HEAD LID šodan-aux CONT 2 ARG-ST 1 ,               FORM part PERFECT + POL + CONT 2 ARG-ST NP, 1 ⊕ L LEX + VC -               ⊕ L                       (

Morphologized vs. truly periphrastic forms

In the complex present and the complex unbounded past, the perfect participle combines with the present clitic form of the auxiliary, which is homophonous with the exponent of subject agreement except for 3SG (there is also a nonclitic form of present budan, but it may not be used in this construction). In the complex bounded past and complex subjunctive, the perfect participle combines respectively with the bounded past and subjunctive forms of the auxiliary. Finally the complex perfect cumulates two forms of the auxiliary: the participle bude and the present form clitic (here =i).

There is strong evidence that the forms historically based on the clitic auxiliary have undergone morphologization in contemporary Persian. First, the sequence cannot be interrupted in any way; in particular, adverbs are excluded (16), as is participle fronting (17). Second, the distribution of the unbounded aspect marker mi-is otherwise unexplainable: it is the full construction, not the participle, that is unbounded. Finally, colloquial Persian allows a form of vowel reduction in the 3SG that is peculiar to these forms (18a): comparable contructions where the clitic auxiliary combines with an adjective do not give rise to the same pattern (18b Compare now the situation of forms that are based on a nonclitic auxiliary. The participle-auxiliary combination is more constrained than it is in the passive; in particular, neither adverbs ( 19) nor pronominal affixes (20) can occur between the two verb forms, and negation must be realized on the participle (21). In addition, scrambling is excluded ( 22). However, the combination is not lexical, since the participle can be extracted ( 23 'I don't think that s/he has sold this painting.'

Morphosyntactic import

The use of a form based on budan may realize two distinct morphosyntactic features. The complex bounded past (24) and complex subjunctive (25) express respectively the past perfect and the subjunctive perfect. The complex unbounded past however does not express perfectivity at all. Rather, it has an evidential value [START_REF] Windfuhr | The verbal category of inference in Persian[END_REF][START_REF] Lazard | L'inférentiel ou passé distancié en persan[END_REF][START_REF] Jahani | Expressions of indirectivity in spoken Modern Persian[END_REF]. Whereas the simple bounded past is used when the speaker has direct evidence for what she is asserting, the complex bounded past is used in contexts where the evidence is only indirect, as in ( 26). 'According to Omid, Maryam was building this house in 1950.'

The complex present is ambiguous between a perfect and an evidential value: it can be interpreted either as a present perfect (27a) or as a bounded past with indirect evidentiality (27b). Finally, the complex perfect expresses both perfectivity and indirect evidentiality: it is the indirect evidential equivalent of the complex bounded past (28). Note that this corresponds transparently to the fact the the complex perfect includes two realizations of the copula. ( 27 As can be seen in Table 3.2, if the present perfect is ignored, morphosyntactic properties align nicely with morphologized vs. syntactic combinations: the morphologized forms are used for indirect evidentiality, as stated by rules (29); while the truly periphrastic forms are used to express the perfect. The fact that the present perfect is unexpectedly synthetic calls for an paradigmatic analysis: this seems to be a standard case of syncretism, where the exponents used to realize a certain feature set (here indirect bounded past) are reused in some unrelated part of the paradigm. Specifically one should assume a rule of referral along the lines of (30). The rule states that any present perfect form of a lexeme Y will be identical to the indirect bounded past form of Y with the same specifications for all features except tense, aspect and evidentiality (here, the relevant remaining features are person, number and polarity).

Y (block IV) b. PHON X LID Y , σ :     EVID indir PER 3 NB sg     -→ PHON X⊕ast LID Y (block V) (30) PHON X LID Y , σ : TNS prst PRF + -→          PHON refer       PHON X LID Y , σ\      TNS pst ASP bnd PRF - EVID ind      , I-V       LID Y          (blocks I-V)

Analyzing the perfect periphrases

We construct the analysis of perfect periphrases in two steps. First we present a syntactic analysis of perfect forms based on argument composition, and show what is unsatisfactory with such an approach. Next we present a way of arriving at the same syntactic analysis by inflectional means. Finally we discuss alternatives and potential problems.

τ differ from those in σ. The function refer takes as arguments an indexed phonological form, a morphosyntactic specification and a rule block sequence, and outputs the result of applying to this indexed phonological form and this morphosyntactic specification the restriction of the PFM grammar to these rule blocks. The motivation for deriving the present perfect from the indirect bounded past rather than the other way around is the economy of paradigms: this allows us to state the rules of exponence realizing suffixes -e and -ast in a natural way, as applying to all and only evidential forms. Notice that the orientation of the rule of referral might not correspond to the directionality of the diachronic morphologization process.

A failed analysis based on argument composition

As a first step, we present an analysis that is a variation of the analysis presented above for the passive. ( 31) is a candidate entry for the present form of the auxiliary bud. This states that the auxiliary is a past perfect form which takes a perfect participle complement and inherits the participle's arguments. Because the past participle is marked as [VC +], the auxiliary and participle form a verbal complex, as indicated in figure 2 and thus can not be seperated by elements that are not allowed to occur inside a verbal complex. Rigid word order is a consequence of the LP rule in (32). In addition, since the participle is an argument of the auxiliary, this analysis will allow for the extraction of the participle within any HPSG approach to extraction.

(

)                                      PHON bud HEAD              LID budan-aux MORSYN           tns pst PRF + AGR PER 3 NB sg POL +                        ARG-ST 1 ,                HEAD       verb FORM part PRF + POL +       LEX + VC + ARG-ST 1 ⊕ L                ⊕ L                                      (32)        HEAD       verb FORM part PRF + VC +              ≺ [ ] 31
While this analysis is appropriate as far as syntax is concerned, its integration with the analysis of synthetic conjugation is problematic. First, the perfect auxiliary must be stipulated to be defective for all nonperfect forms, and to have perfect forms that are homonymous to the nonperfect forms of the ordinary copula; thus the purported perfect auxiliary is inflectionally deeply abnormal. Second, we need to derive the fact that there is no present form of the perfect auxiliary (remember that the present perfect is a morphologized form). There are two ways this could be done. We could further stipulate that the perfect auxiliary is defective for

  S SUBJ COMPS   1 NP Maryam 3 NP in tâblo   V ′ SUBJ 1 COMPS 3   H 2   V[perf-part] LEX + VC +   foruxte   V [prf,bnd,pst,3sg] SUBJ 1 COMPS 2 , 3   H bud Figure 2:
The syntactic structure of perfect periphrases the present, despite the fact that the ordinary copula it derives from has perfectly good present forms (in fact, two sets of such forms: clitic and nonclitic ones). Or we could assume that some form of competition between morphology and syntax is taking place [START_REF] Poser | Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items[END_REF]-but the postulation of such competitions is notoriously difficult to state precisely, and quite alien to the design properties of HPSG. Finally, we need to find a way of stating that the passive auxiliary can not take the perfect auxiliary as its complement: while (33a) is well-formed, (33b) is not. While these problems can definitely be circumvented by specifying an appropriately complex inflectional paradigm for the perfect auxiliary, it is striking that many conterintuitive stipulations are needed just because it is not possible to state that the periphrastic perfect is part of the inflectional paradigm of the main verb. The next subsection attempts to modify the framework in a way that allows for the formulation of such an analysis.

An alternative solution: exponence as valence

As the last subsection stressed, what we need is a way to treat perfect forms as part of the inflectional paradigm [START_REF] Ackerman | Paradigms and Periphrastic Expression[END_REF], while allowing for the fact that they correspond to a combination of two words, one of which may be extracted. The solution we explore here can be stated informally as follows: a perfect form of a lexeme Y is a word whose phonology is borrowed from that of a form of the lexeme budan, but which subcategorizes for a perfect participle of this same lexeme Y . For instance, the 3SG positive complex bounded past of xaridan meets the description in (34), which is exactly like (31) except for the fact that it is an instance of the lexeme xaridan.

(34)                                  PHON bud HEAD           LID xaridan MORSYN       tns pst PRF + AGR 2 POL +                 ARG-ST 1 ,                HEAD       verb FORM part PRF + POL +       LEX + VC + ARG-ST 1 ⊕ L                ⊕ L                                 
The challenge now is to derive (34) in a principled way, while integrating it within an inflectional system where perfect forms may be realized either synthetically or periphrastically. The approach we propose is based on an extension of the power of realization rules in the spirit of [START_REF] Spencer | Inflecting clitics in Generalized Paradigm Function Morphology[END_REF]. In classical PFM, realization rules relate phonology-lexemic index pairs to phonology-lexemic index pairs. We propose that valence lists be added to the picture: realization rules now relate triplets of a phonological representation, a lexemic index, and an argument structure specification. The meta-constraint in ( 8) is updated as in ( 35), so that argument structure is examined at the morphology-syntax interface.5

(35) Morphology-syntax interface (preliminary version)

A sign of type word meeting the description

       PHON 1 ARG-ST 2 HEAD LID 3 MORSYN 4       
is well-formed only if the PFM grammar licenses phonology 1 and arguments 2 as a realization of the features 4 for the lexeme 3 .

The rule licensing (34) is given in (36). To realize a feature structure σ verifying [PRF +], one should refer the phonology to that of the corresponding bounded positive nonperfect form of budan, and add to the argument list a requirement for a form of Y realizing the same feature set except for the fact that it is a participle.

(36)    PHON X LID Y VAL Z   , σ : PRF + -→                    PHON refer       PHON X LID budan VAL Z   , σ\    PRF - ASP bnd POL +   , I-V    LID Y VAL Z⊕        LEX + VC + HEAD   LID Y MORSYN σ\ FORM part                            
The proposed analysis makes the following correct predictions. First, negation is handled correctly: the phonology of the head word is constrained to be that of a positive form of budan, whereas the participle shares its polarity value with that of the head word. Thus the head will never carry a negation prefix, but its negative polarity value will be realized as a prefix on the participle it selects. Second, the complex perfect is predicted to exist without stipulation: because evidentiality is morphologized and available for all past forms, rule (36) will generate an indirect past perfect with the phonology of an indirect bounded past form of budan. Figure 3 illustrates the relevant analysis. Third, the analysis correctly predicts that (33a), and not (33b), is grammatical. This is because the passive auxiliary, as a lexeme, can be put in the perfect; whereas there is no sense in which one can put the perfect auxiliary in the passive, because there is no such thing as a perfect auxiliary lexeme. The analysis of (33a) is shown in Figure 4.

Finally we account straightforwardly for the nonexistence of a periphrastic present perfect. Since ( 36) is an inflectional realization rule, it interacts with the rule of referral in (30) under the logic of rule specificity: thus the existence of (30) overrides the application of (36). In this sense the current analysis of the periphrastic perfect is syntactically reductionist: periphrasis is reduced to valence; no phrasal constructions or lexical entries are needed. We assume a notion of rule competition, but this competition is segregated to the inflectional component, where it is arguably needed for independent reasons. Thus no competition between morphology and syntax (e.g. [START_REF] Poser | Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items[END_REF][START_REF] Bresnan | Lexical-functional syntax[END_REF] needs to be orcherstrated.

Discussion

The analysis of the Persian perfect outlined above attempts to capture the traditional intuition of periphrastic inflection. While there are many ways one might

  S SUBJ COMPS   1 NP Maryam 3 NP in tâblo   V ′ SUBJ 1 COMPS 3   H 2     V[perf-part] LID foruxtan LEX + VC +     foruxte     V [bnd-past,indir,prf,3sg] LID foruxtan SUBJ 1 COMPS 2 , 3     H bude-ast
Figure 3: Analysis of a sentence in the complex pefect: 'Reportedly, Maryam had sold this painting.'

  S SUBJ COMPS   2 NP in tâblo 3         V[perf-part] LID foruxtan LEX + SUBJ 1 COMPS 2 VC -         foruxte   V ′ SUBJ 2 COMPS 3   H 4         V[perf-part] LID šodan-aux SUBJ 2 COMPS 3 LEX + VC +         šode     V [bnd-past,3sg] LID šodan-aux SUBJ 2 COMPS 4 , 3     H bud
Figure 4: Perfect-passive interaction: analysis for (33a) attempt to reach this goal in the context of HPSG (see in particular [START_REF] Ackerman | A Theory of Predicates[END_REF], the specific design goal here has been to devise an analysis that meets as much as possible both the analytical habits of HPSG syntax and of realizational morphology. Thus as far as clausal syntax is concerned, our analysis is undistinguishable from an argument composition analysis, and we have attempted to account for all relevant syntactic features of the construction. On the other hand, the lexical analysis is as close as possible to standard realizational morphology; in particular it relies heavily on the architecture of rule blocks and rule competition to generate the correct lexical representations.

While we fully assume this research strategy, alternatives are readily conceivable that meet different design goals but produce very similar analyses. For instance, turning the analysis into a standard HPSG analysis, with item-and-process morphology encoded via lexical rules, is easy: one just needs to recast rules such as ( 30) and ( 36) as lexical rules, and modify the morphosyntactic descriptions (using quite a bit of negation and disjunction and/or fine-tuning the type system) so as to make them mutually exclusive. The resulting system is more conservative from an HPSG perspective, although one may doubt that it is more perspicuous.

A different issue raised by the current analysis is its interaction with the analysis of coordination. Coordination of participles is possible in the perfect in Persian, just as it is in the passive (37). This can not be treated as a simple instance of constituent coordination under our analysis: because we assume that the auxiliary is really an inflected form of the main verb, there is no single lexeme of which bud is the realization in (37). While this is definitely a problem, it is a familiar one, reminiscent of issues pertaining to coordinations of unlikes. We see two potential solutions. First, we could assume an ellipsis-based analysis of (37) along the lines of analyses proposed by [START_REF] Yatabe | The Syntax and Semantics of Left-Node Raising in Japanese[END_REF][START_REF] Crysmann | An Asymmetric Theory of Peripheral Sharing in HPSG: Conjunction Reduction and Coordination of Unlikes[END_REF]Beavers and Sag, 2004). Second, we could assume a richer ontology of LID values where a neutralized value common to both participles is assigned to the coordinate phrase in (37), extending work in the tradition of [START_REF] Daniels | On a Type-Based Analysis of Feature Neutrality and the Coordination of Unlikes[END_REF][START_REF] Levy | Coordination and Neutralization in HPSG[END_REF][START_REF] Sag | Coordination and underspecification[END_REF]. This neutralized value could then serve as an appropriate input for rule (36). 6 Whether these strategies prove fruitful will have to wait for future research, and in particular for a detailed empirical study of coordination in Persian.

( The periphrastic future does not enter into paradigmatic relations with syncretic inflection. Thus it could be accounted for entirely within syntax. On the other hand, syntactic rules do not manipulate portions of the periphrastic constructionnotably, the nonauxiliary part of the future can not be fronted. Thus nothing precludes either a purely morphological analysis.

There is however one argument favouring a purely morphological analysis, although it is not a very strong one. The future auxiliary looks like a present tense form of xâstan 'want', except that it does not carry the unbounded auxiliary normally found in the present. If we were to treat the future construction as phrasal, we would thus need to set up the grammar so that the morphology output supplementary forms, the distribution of which we would then need to constrain drastically within syntax. 7 We thus opt for a purely morphological analysis. 8 We propose to use the rule in (39), which is a double portmanteau rule of referral. To find the 7 The nonfinite form appears to be a bare past stem. Words homophonous to a bare past stem are used in two other contexts: in the bounded past with a 3SG subject, where the exponent of agreement is null; and in the impersonal complement of some modal verbs such as bâyastan 'must, be necessary' (1).

( 8 One could argue from the fact that object clitics can be realized either on the auxiliary (i) or on the nonfinite form (ii) that they should be treated as two distinct syntactic atoms; but since we treat object clitics as affixes anyway, the question is moot. In any case, the analysis in (39) can readily be extended to account for (i), but an account of (ii) will need to rely on more extensive revisions.

)     PHON X LID Y ARG-ST Z     , σ : TNS fut -→                     PHON refer         PHON xâh LID Y ARG-ST Z     , σ, V     refer         PHON X LID Y ARG-ST Z     , σ\ TNS pst , I     LID Y ARG-ST Z                     39

The progressive

All unbounded forms may give rise to a progressive interpretation, but that interpretation can also be forced by using the periphrastic construction illustrated in (4). Unlike the ones we discussed so far, this construction results from the grammaticalization of a finite complement clause construction, and all relevant evidence points to the fact that an embedded clausal structure is still present. 9 The nonauxiliary verb is unmistakably a finite form; it occurs on the right of the auxiliary, as finite complement clauses occur on the right of their head. No complementizer can be used, but complementizers are optional for finite complements (40). Complements normally occur between the two verbs; they can scramble to the left of the auxiliary, but this is also possible with clausal complements (41). Finally, object clitic pronouns must be realized on the nonauxiliary verb, and cannot climb to the auxiliary (42). This data can be accounted for by assuming a slightly idiosyncratic lexemic entry for the auxiliary dâštan. This entry assumes that prog is a subtype of the ASPECT value unbd (unbounded). As a result of its lexeme-level specification, this auxiliary is defective for all subparadigms except the present, the unbounded past and the complex unbounded past, in accordance with the facts. The subject of the complement is constrained to be an nc-pro, the type of pro-dropped subjects, and coindexed with the auxiliary's subject. The analysis is illustrated in Figure 5.

(43)                         HEAD   LID dâštan-aux MORSYN 1 ASP prog   CONT 2 ARG-ST IND 3 ,              MORSYN 1 MARKING none CONT 2 SUBJ nc-pro IND 3 COMPS                                      S 1 NP Maryam             V LID daštan-aux MORSYN 0 TNS prs ASP prog SUBJ 1 IND 4 COMPS 2             H dârad 1          

  see her/him.' phonology of a future form, one needs to concatenate the output of block IV on the form xâh with a bare past stem of the lexeme being realized.(

'

  Maryam wants to go to theatre with Omid everyday.' 9 Persian raising and control constructions normally rely on a finite unsaturated complement clause. Infinitival complements are available only in a very formal register.

Figure 5 :

 5 Figure 5: Analysis for (4) 'Maryam is selling the painting.'

  ).

	(19) * Maryam	dide	hatman	bud-aš
	Maryam	seen	certainly	be.S2-PAF.3SG
	(20) a. Maryam	dide	budaš.
	Maryam	seen	be.S2-PAF.3SG
	'Maryam had seen him.'
	b. * Maryam	dide-aš	bud.
	Maryam	seen-PAF.3SG	be.S2
	(21) Maryam	Omid-râ	na-dide	bud.
	Maryam	Omid-DDO	NEG-seen	be.S2
	'Maryam hadn't seen Omid.'
	(22) * Maryam	Omid-râ	bud	dide.
	Maryam	Omid-DDO	be.S2	seen
	(23) Foruxte	fekr		ne-mi-kon-am	[ bâš-ad	in
	sold	thought	NEG-UNBD-do.S1-1SG	be.SBJV-3SG	this
	tâblo=râ					].
	painting=DDO

Two different conventions are currently used to write PFM rules, defined respectively in[START_REF] Stump | Inflectional Morphology. A Theory of Paradigm Structure[END_REF] and[START_REF] Ackerman | Paradigms and Periphrastic Expression[END_REF]. The AVM format we use here is meant to ease the integration with HPSG, although the change is little more than syntactic sugar.

The only piece of evidence pointing in the other direction is the possibility for the auxiliary to have wide scope over a coordination of participles. However the existence of sublexical coordination in numerous languages calls into question whether this is a strong argument against a morphological analysis. We leave this issue for future research.

This is a portmanteau rule of referral covering blocks I to V, thus bypassing completely synthetic exponence. σ \ τ is the description that is identical to σ except where the features mentioned in

The formulation of this constraint presupposes that the HPSG grammar says nothing about individual lexical entries, and that most of the usual HPSG theory of the lexicon is recast as part of the morphological component.

Notice that the postulation of neutralized LID values is needed anyway to allow for constituent coordination under the assumptions of[START_REF] Sag | SIgn-Based Construction Grammar: An Informal Synopsis[END_REF]. Thus the issue raised by our analysis is an issue that needs to be addressed anyway.

work was supported by a grant from Agence Nationale de la Recherche and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft to the Franco-German project 'PER-GRAM: Theory and Implementation of a Head-driven


The present paper approaches the French interrogative system from a non-derivational perspective, aiming to provide an analysis that accounts not only for its own complexity (optional simplex and complex variants of the same question in formal French and in situ questions in informal French), but for its differences with other languages (English) as well. As will be shown, the choice of the theoretical framework (OT-LFG) is motivated by important lexical differences between the two languages, which cannot be captured solely by OT-type constraints.

Introduction

The syntax of interrogatives (be it constituent or polarity, single or multiple) has vast literature in transformational grammar, dealing mainly with English, and is considered as an important field of analysis in non-derivational frameworks as well (Grimshaw 1995[START_REF] Ackema | [END_REF][START_REF] Ginzburg | [END_REF]. 1 The present analysis focuses on French main clause interrogatives and shows how the non-derivational framework of OT-LFG (Optimality Theory and Lexical Functional Grammar) (Kuhn 2001[START_REF] Sells | Introduction[END_REF], Abeillé 2007) can account for this system in its whole complexity. As some significant lexical differences between languages (in this case, English and French) show, the OT-type constraint ranking needs to be completed by a lexicalist theory encoding these lexical differences.

In Optimality Theory [START_REF] Prince | [END_REF], Grimshaw 1995, Kager 1999) Universal Grammar consists of a set of soft (violable) constraints on well-formedness and individual grammars are constructed by the reranking of these constraints. The expression that satisfies the higher ranked constraints is the optimal, thus, the grammatical one; the others are then considered ungrammatical.

The OT architecture contains an Input that consists of elements from the lexicon. A general structure generator (Gen) constructs candidate expressions from the Input that constitute the candidate set. In the evaluation part, the optimal candidate is selected, based on the language-specific constraint-hierarchy.

The paper is structured as follows. After a short overview of previous OT analyses, the system of French interrogatives will be presented with examples, followed by some important conclusions that have to be taken into account by the analysis. Then comes the analysis itself, starting with the presentation of the framework and concluding with its major claims and their realizations within this architecture. Finally, some examples illustrate the proposed analysis.

Let us first consider analyses in the framework of Optimality Theory treating interrogatives and French phenomena. For this, a short introduction of OT is offered. In Optimality Theory [START_REF] Prince | [END_REF], Grimshaw 1995, Kager 1999) Universal Grammar consists of a set of soft (violable) constraints on well-formedness and individual grammars are constructed by the reranking of these constraints. The expression that satisfies the higher ranked constraints is the optimal, thus, the grammatical one; the others are then considered ungrammatical.

The OT architecture contains an Input that consists of elements from the lexicon. A general structure generator (Gen) constructs candidate expressions from the Input that constitute the candidate set. In the evaluation part, the optimal candidate is selected, based on the language-specific constraint-hierarchy. In Pesetsky's account (1997) there is a preference in French for the complementizer to be pronounced instead of the adjacent relative pronoun, if this latter is not modified (2-5): 2

In non-subject relatives the complementizer que is pronounced instead of the relative pronoun (qui ) preceding it:

(1) la the In the OT framework, analyses of interrogatives have been proposed, concentrating on English. According to Grimshaw (1995Grimshaw ( , 1996)), subject-auxiliary inversion and do-insertion 2 In subject relatives the complementizer appears in another form: qui (i) la fille qui est partie the girl that has left in English interrogatives can be accounted for by the following constraints: interrogative operators must appear in specifier positions (CP), no headless projections (auxiliary movement and do-insertion), Stay (economy constraint: no movement, lexical verbs cannot move to C). [START_REF] Ackema | [END_REF] give an OT analysis of multiple questions in English, Bulgarian, Czech and Chinese/Japanese, with different constraint-rankings: QMark (a question must be overtly question-marked), QScope (Q+ elements must c-command the VP at surface structure), Stay. However, neither of these analyses can be applied to French without some necessary adaptations. The present analysis is based on the constraints defined by [START_REF] Ackema | [END_REF], with some modifications, elaborated later on. In what follows the French main clause interrogative system will be presented, to point out some crucial differences with English, and problems the analysis can encounter.

The French main clause interrogative system

In French main clause interrogatives, depending partly on the register, there are three ways of asking the same question. The first type, at first sight, contains subject-auxiliary inversion. In the second, the question is biclausal, the main clause containing inversion of a dummy verb and a pronoun, whereas the content question follows it with indicative word order in the embedded clause. The third version is present in colloquial French, which is considered as a different grammar. In this latter case, the monoclausal question is used without inversion and interrogativity is indicated only by rising intonation at the end of the sentence. Consider the following examples:

Polar Interrogatives

All 3 types are present.

(

Wh-Interrogatives

In Wh subject interrogatives, on the other hand, this is not always the case. In animate questions there are only two possibilities, since the colloquial question falls together with the monoclausal formal one. However, in inanimate subject interrogatives, the would-be monoclausal question is not grammatical. In object interrogatives the tripartite difference as described above is again present.

• Subject:

-Inanimate:

( ? who

(informal)
Who are you looking for? (21) *Cherchez-vous qui ? (22) *Est-ce que vous cherchez qui ? It has to be pointed out that unlike English, French interrogatives do not contain subjectauxiliary inversion at all.3 Instead, French contains interrogative verb forms in its lexicon. According to Huot (1987) andMiller &Sag (1997) French bound pronominal-clitics (complement or enclitic) are best analyzed as lexical pronominal affixes forming one single lexical unit (word) with the verb4 (Huot (1987), Miller andSag (1997)). Similarly, a class of suffixes qualify verbs as interrogative in French, incorporating the subject as well (the hyphenated verb forms in the examples (9-23) all illustrate this phenomenon). The clitic status of these elements can be justified by the fact that since they cannot appear as subjects, the subject has to be present in the clause as well:

(23) Paul Paul part-il leave pl2pres he ? (clitic doubling)
Paul, is he leaving?

In addition, they cannot take scope over coordinated verbs, unlike ordinary pronouns:

(24) Il He Il as a personal pronoun can take scope over coordinated verbs, unlike the homonymous lexical affix, which must be present on each verb: From the above data we can draw the following conclusions. French simple questions contain interrogative verbs with enclitics, the bi-clausal complex alternative is constructed with clitic-inversion in the matrix clause (and indicative word order in the embedded clause), and both the wh-word and the verb are in situ in colloquial French. The presence of interrogative verb forms with enclitics is, therefore, a lexical difference to be taken into consideration by any analysis.

As shown by example ( 23), the wh-word must precede est-ce que, and cannot be in situ in the case of interrogative verb forms; see ( 22).5 On the whole, a conflict between two tendencies can be observed: question-marking with interrogative verb forms (simple questions), or the avoidance of these (indicative word order) in the matrix clause (colloquial French), and the biclausal alternative, which is the combination of the two, satisfying one in the matrix and the other in the embedded clause.

There are three main problems to be solved by the analysis. First of all, in inanimate subject interrogatives only the complex, bi-clausal alternative is possible, neither the simplex one with the interrogative verb form nor the in situ question is allowed. Secondly, in the other cases, however, optionality can be observed between the simplex and complex versions that cannot be accounted for by a register difference. Thirdly, the role of qui/que in the qu'est-ce qui/qu'est-ce que constructions has to be made clear.

Let us deal with the third problem first and compare the French and English systems of wh-words and complementizers:

WH operator Complementizer qui (anim) que (inanim) que, qui who, what, etc. that what (non-standard) 6
As seen in the tableau, both qui and que can function as a wh-operator or as a complementizer. In the present analysis, they both appear in the que/qui est-ce qui/que constructions, as wh operators in initial positions and as complementizers in the other (both qu'est-ce qui and qui est-ce qui refer to subjects; in all other cases, however, these constructions end in que, the non-subject complementizer). From this it follows that there are two lexical entries belonging to qui and que. This is a second issue in which LFG, a lexicalist theory, facilitates the representation.

As for the second problem, optionality, we can anticipate that with the help of the OT-LFG architecture, the analysis can capture the free choice between the simplex and complex alternatives, as shown below.

Concerning the first issue, it is important to emphasize that this can also be stated in lexicalist terms. More precisely, it is a lexical characteristic of que that it cannot appear in subject positions, or, from another point of view, cannot be in nominative case. This accounts for the fact that the sentence *que vous dérange, see example (9), is ruled out as ungrammatical and there is no optionality in inanimate subject interrogatives.

Before going on to the proposed analysis, the que/quoi alternance needs some clarification. As can be seen from the above examples, quoi is the wh-word in in situ questions, but it is ungrammatical with interrogative verb forms. A possible explanation goes as follows. Que, as a weak form, is always cliticized on to a verb, whereas quoi, as a strong form does not have to be. Quoi, on the other hand, cannot be fronted, whereas que cannot appear in situ (qu'est-ce qui is used as the only possibility). In an OT-LFG analysis, this is also treated in the lexical entries: que cannot be a subject (as already pointed out) and quoi cannot be focalised (unless made heavy by an adjunct 7 ).

7 However, when modified, quoi can be fronted: This can be integrated into the analysis by postulating that quoi cannot be focused unless it is syntactically heavy (Abeillé & Godard 1999b). This is made explicit by the following equation:

(ii) quoi d'autre what else NP→ NP AP ↑=↓ ↓=(↑ADJUNCT) (↑WEIGHT)=c heavy
The extraction rule is:

(iii) S→ NP S (↑FOC)=↓ ↑=↓ (↑Q)= c + (↑Q)= + (↑FOC)= GF(↑SUBJ/OBJ/...) (↑WEIGHT)= heavy
The OT principles are used in the present analysis 8 in order to account for the optionality between the simplex and complex versions of the interrogatives. However, as has already been shown, certain factors (interrogative verb forms in French, qui/que as wh-word and complementizer and the que/quoi difference) necessitate lexical specifications that would be problematic to include in an OT framework.

In OT-LFG [START_REF] Sells | Introduction[END_REF], Kuhn 2001) the OT framework is completed by elements of Lexical-Functional Grammar. The Input is built from the lexical entries of the particular items and is presented as an LFG-type feature matrix, containing the common information content of the candidates. From this, G inviol , comprising a set of universal rewrite rules, constructs various c-structures with a corresponding, more detailed f-structure. In this version of the theory the Generator component is conceived as a function between the set of f-structures and that of the candidates (the power set of the analyses in G inviol ). The evaluation of these candidates happens in an OT manner. Let us have a look at the lexical entries of the already treated wh words:

qui 1 OP (↑PRED)='pro' (↑Q)=+ (↑ANIM)=+ qui 2 COMP (↑Q)=- que 1 OP (↑PRED)='pro' (↑Q)=+ (↑ANIM)=- (↑CASE) =nom (FOC↑)= ↓ (SUBJ↑)¬= ↓ que 2 COMP (↑Q)=- quoi OP (↑PRED)='pro' (↑Q)=+ (↑ANIM)=- (↑CASE) =nom
As shown above, different entries belong to qui /que as wh-words and complementizers: Q+ and Q-, respectively, referring to the interrogative or non-interrogative nature of the given element. Moreover, que is specified as non-subject, and the lexical entry of quoi is neutral with respect to focus status.

In what follows we turn to the core of the analysis. It is proposed that the simplex and complex versions of the questions belong to different, but very similar inputs. This accounts for the fact that although their meaning is practically the same (the dummy interrogative verb in the main clause of the complex question does not contribute to it semantically), they are structurally different. The Input belonging to the complex version does not contain the dummy interrogative verb, which can be added to it in some of the candidates. Adding noninput elements to certain candidates is perfectly possible in OT-terms. Such candidates are penalized by the Faithfulness constraint which requires that the Output contain only Input elements and only those, but can, at the same time, satisfy higher-ranking constraints and thus be selected as the optimal candidate.

The input of the complex question is, therefore, an embedded clause (as indicated by the complementizer que-) provided with a wh-word, or a Q+ feature in polar interrogatives, embeddedness being the only difference between the two inputs. Due to the similarity of these inputs, Gen, in both cases, generates candidate sets that intersect with each other, i.e. the candidate set belonging to the simplex question contains the bi-clausal alternative and vice versa; however, in both cases, the evaluations rule out the candidates containing more faithfulness violations than the one closer to the input. The evaluation belonging to the simplex one yields the simplex question as an optimal candidate outruling the complex that is less faithful to the input and vice versa.

Before looking at some examples, consider the constraints used in the present analysis:

1. QMark: a question must be overtly Q (question) marked. This can be fulfilled by the presence of an interrogative (Q+) operator followed by an interrogative verb (with enclitic) in French or by subject-auxiliary inversion in English, or, in matrix yes-no questions, by clitic inversion in French or subject-auxiliary inversion in English.

2. QScope: Q+ elements must have scope over the clause they Q mark 3. Lexical verb: lexical verbs cannot Q-mark a question 4. Faithfulness: the output contains all elements that are also included in the input and only those Proposed rankings:

Language/Order French 1 2 3 4 English, colloquial French 3 1 4 2 As the different rankings already reveal, formal and informal French are treated as different grammars. Interestingly, it seems that English and informal French follow the same pattern in constraint-ranking. In what follows, we will examine some examples of formal French and then compare them to informal French and English.

Inanimate object interrogatives

In inanimate object interrogatives, optionality can be observed between the simplex and complex versions:

(27) Que faites-vous ? / Qu'est-ce que vous faites ?

What are you doing?

The Inputs, differring only in the EMB+ feature are as follows:

1. Que faites-vous ?

                                 pred 'do ↑ subj , ↑ obj ' tns pres mood ind Q + subj     pred 'pro' num pl pers 2     obj           pred 'pro' anim - foc + case acc Q +                                           
2. Qu'est-ce que vous faites ?

                              pred 'do ↑ subj , ↑ obj ' tns pres mood ind Q - subj     pred 'pro' num pl pers 2     obj        pred 'pro' anim - case acc Q +                                     
The candidate sets are built from these inputs. Nothing prevents the structure generator (G inviol ) from adding or suppressing elements in the inputs. The second input is, in fact an embedded clause with a non-interrogative verb form (indicated by the complemetizer Q-), in which a Q+ wh-word is also present. In order for the question to get Q-marked, a dummy interrogative verb must be inserted in the optimal candidate. Given the similarity of the inputs, the two candidate sets intersect. In some candidates belonging to the simplex question, the dummy interrogative verb might appear, whereas others belonging to the complex question might be constructed with an interrogative verb, a type of faithfulness violation. A possible example of the intersection of the candidate sets is shown in the following:

The intersection of the candidate sets (a subset):

1 The first evaluation, belonging to the first input, selects the simplex question as the optimal candidate, whereas the complex is chosen in the second. The main reason behind this is the different number of faithfulness violations they commit with respect to the input the evaluation corresponds to. In the first case, the dummy verb is introduced in the complex candidate, which becomes Q-whereas in the second, the simplex candidate is not embedded and changes the verb interrogativity. All the other candidates violate higher-ranking constraints, such as the scope of the wh-word or question-marking.

Animate subject interrogatives

In animate subject interrogatives the same optionality can be observed between the simplex and complex questions.

(28) Qui 1 who veut want sg3pres manger eat ? / Qui 1 est-ce qui 2 veut manger ?

Who wants to eat?

The inputs are the following:

1. Qui veut manger ?

                                      pred 'want ↑ subj , ↑ xcomp ' tns pres mood ind Q + subj             pred 'pro' Q + anim + case nom num sg pers 3             xcomp       pred 'eat ↑ subj ' mood inf subj []                                             2. Qui est-ce qui veut manger ?                                       pred 'want ↑ subj , ↑ xcomp ' tns pres mood ind Q - subj             pred 'pro' Q + anim + case nom num sg pers 3             xcomp       pred 'eat ↑ subj ' mood inf subj []                                            
The difference is the same as for object questions, the complex candidate appears as an embedded clause, whereas the simplex is a main clause. Logically, in the case of subject questions we cannot suppose interrogative verb forms, since there is no subject to be incorporated by the complex verb form. Therefore, it is only the wh-word, qui, that question-marks the interrogative. Some examples from the intersection of the candidate sets:

1. qui 2 veut manger 2. qui 1 veut manger 3. qui 1 qui 2 veut manger 4. qui 1 est-ce qui 2 veut manger The evaluations will bring the same results, the simplex candidate in the first case and the complex in the second, due to the different number of faithfulness violations with respect to the inputs.

1.

Cand The faithfulness violations committed are the following. The complex question contains the complementizer and the dummy verb (not present in the simplex input), whereas the simplex question is not embedded and does not contain the complementizer (as required by the input belonging to the complex question).

After the formal French examples let us turn to informal French and English, which operate, with the same constraint hierarchy.

Informal French

In informal French, the wh-word is always in situ. The input is similar to that of the simplex candidate in formal French, but due to the different constraint hierarchy, another candidate is selected as the optimal one.

(29) Vous cherchez qui ? Input: As can be seen from the tableau, interrogative verb forms are penalized by the first constraint in the hierarchy, thus the formal French-type question is out. The winner is the candidate in which the verb form is non-interrogative, but it is question-marked and more faithful to the input. 10 Let us now turn to English, which we propose has the same constraint hierarchy in the evaluation as informal French.

                              pred 'look for ↑ subj , ↑ obj ' tns pres mood ind Q + subj     pred 'pro' num pl pers 2     obj        pred 'pro' anim + case acc Q +                                      A subset

English

In English, we will examine a polar interrogative with do-insertion. The analysis offered here differs from that of Grimshaw (1995) in that it does not imply movement and from that of Grimshaw (2001) as well. In this latter, structure itself is submitted to economy (although Head and Specifier are obligatory, their absence violate the corresponding constraints) and word order is accounted for by alignment constraints (ex. Head Left or Specifier Left). The same goal is attainable in the present approach by the flexible c-structures, where no constituent is obligatory, they are present in order to satisfy more abstract requirements, such as Q-marking (that can be done in several ways).

(30) Do you speak French?

10 A challenge to the analysis is the question qui tu vois ?, which is an amalgamation of formal and informal French (the verb form is not interrogative, and the wh word is not in situ). This type is present in informal French, which points towards the reconsideration of the role of the QScope constraint in the grammar of informal French.

The input looks as follows: Input: Since candidate c violates the LexV constraint, ranked high in English, and candidates b and c are not question-marked, the question with do-insertion is selected as the optimal candidate.

                            pred 'speak

Conclusion

Going back to the main problems such an analysis has to account for, we can draw finally the following conclusions. Optionality in formal French between the simplex and complex questions is accounted for in an OT manner, by the different number of faithfulness violations with respect to the different but very similar inputs. On the other hand, problems, such as that of que and quoi and thus that of inanimate subject interrogatives are treated in the lexical entries, specifying que as a non-subject and quoi as a non-focus, justifying the role of a lexicalist theory in the analysis. Finally, we have also shown that the differences between languages cannot only come from the different constraint rankings, but from lexical differences as well, as English does not possess interrogative verb forms, unlike French.

  ↑ subj , ↑ obj '

					
					
					
	tns	pres			  
	mood ind			 
					
	Q	+			 
					
		 pred 'pro' 		 
					
	subj	  num sg	 		 
		 pers 2			  
					
		 pred 'French'		  
	obj	   pers 3		  	  
		num sg			
	A possible subset of the candidate set:
	1. do you speak French
	2. you speak French
	3. speak you French
	4. you do speak French
	Evaluation:
	Cand/Constr LexV QMark Faith QScope
		candidate 1			*	*
		candidate 2			*!
		candidate 3	*!
		candidate 4			*!	*

I would like to thank Anne Abeillé and Mark Newson for their useful comments about earlier versions of this paper, as well as the anonymous reviewer for the equally important remarks.

I thank Anne Abeillé for pointing this out to me.

This is a basic lexical difference between English and French, which shows that the different ranking of the same constraints is not enough when determining differences between particular langugaes.

Adjunct interrogatives follow the pattern of examples (14-23), and the analysis works identically in their case as well.

I thank Mark Newson for pointing out the non-standard use of what to me.

Legend: optimal candidate, * constraint violation; !* fatal violation


Anna Gazdik

Miriam Butt

Tracy Holloway

MULTIPLE QUESTIONS IN FRENCH AND IN HUNGARIAN AN LFG ACCOUNT

In this paper we propose an LFG account of multiple questions in French and in Hungarian. It will be argued that (together with clausal coordination) six main types of multiple questions can be identified in the two languages, which can be associated with different readings. Multiple questions in which both question words are in the same clause can be ambiguous between a pair list and a single pair reading, whereas in the case of clausal coordination, which is analyzed as an elliptical structure, only the single pair reading is available. We identify some problems, like that of two preverbal question words in Hungarian, or the ambiguity concerning D-linkedness in French. We then propose an LFG analysis in which information structure is projected at a different level of analysis, containing semantic information as well, and in which the different question words can belong to different sets, TOPIC and FOCUS, respectively.

Introduction

In this paper I discuss multiple questions in French and in Hungarian. Multiple questions have received much attention in the literature, mostly in transformational frameworks. The main challenge was to account for the different types occurring in languages, such as multiple fronting in Bulgarian or Romanian, single fronting in English, or in situ wh-questions in Chinese. The aim of the present paper is twofold. First, it concentrates on two typologically different languages and attempts to provide a coherent analysis for both. Second, it will argue that an analysis should rely on both syntactic and discourse information: this is why an account in the framework of Lexical-Functional Grammar will be proposed. In section 2, we introduce some generalities about multiple questions, such as pair-list vs. single pair readings and D-linkedness. In the next section, we present the data, associating the different syntactic structures with possible interpretations. In section 4, we introduce the LFG approach to information structure, which proves to be crucial in the analysis, then we go on to the proposed analysis, which we illustrate with examples in the subsequent section.

Generalities

In a multiple question we find more than one information gap in a sentence. In syntactic terms, it means that a sentence contains more than one question word, like in the following French example:

(1) Qui who a has dit said quoi what ? [French] Who said what?

In the example, the question refers to the subject and the object at the same time.

It is commonly accepted that a multiple question can be answered in two ways. Some of them license a pair-list, others a single-pair answer, and some are ambiguous between the two. To decide which answer is appropriate, in certain cases only the context provides the clue, but some languages express this difference explicitly in syntax. Let us examine such examples from French (2)-(3).

(2) Q:

Qui who est is parti left quand when

?

Who left when?

A: John left in the morning, Mary in the afternoon, and Jane in the evening.

(3) Q: Qui who est is parti left et and quand when

?

Who left and when?

A: John left in the morning. In French, the example in (2) asks for a pair-list answer, whereas the equivalent (3) with coordination is more naturally answered with a single pair. In other languages (like Romanian), it is possible to accumulate wh-words in sentence-initial-position, which license a pair-list answer, whereas the coordination of wh-words licenses a single-pair answer. As we will see later, the pair-list interpretation can be analyzed as a function applying between the two wh-words [START_REF] Krifka | For a structured meaning account of questions and answers[END_REF]), in which each element (or partition) of the set denoted by the first is paired up with one element denoted by the other wh-word.

An important factor about pair-list questions is the observation that one of the question words denotes a contextually given set, which the locutor and the interlocutor can partition in the same way [START_REF] Comorovski | Interrogative Phrases and the Syntax-Semantics Interface[END_REF]), and the range of felicitous answers is limited by this set [START_REF] Pesetsky | Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding[END_REF]). 1 Pesetsky (1987) and [START_REF] Comorovski | Interrogative Phrases and the Syntax-Semantics Interface[END_REF] call this set D(iscourse)-linked, referring to the fact that the set has already been introduced into the discourse. 2 [START_REF] Ginzburg | Interrogative Investigations. The Form, Meaning and Use of English Interrogatives[END_REF] argue, on the other hand, that neither (none) of the sets has to be contextually determined, like in (4).

(4) Which recently published reports should be made required reading for which government departments? [START_REF] Ginzburg | Interrogative Investigations. The Form, Meaning and Use of English Interrogatives[END_REF], p. 248)

According to the authors, any new public official can ask (4), without knowing a defined set of reports. We believe, on the other hand, that without the context the issue is very difficult to judge. However, the modifier recently published makes it possible to establish a context and to restrict the possible reports to those published recently, which is, in a way, a contextually determined set, even if the new public official cannot list them by title. Note that without the above mentioned modifier the sentence is less acceptable, if we suppose that the locutor does not know any of the reports (5):

(5) #Which reports should be made required reading for which government departments?

In this article we will therefore keep the term D-linked to refer to wh-words denoting sets that are contextually determined or salient in the discourse. Just like the type of answer expected to the question, D-linkedness can also determine syntactic structure. In some languages, D-linked question words tend to precede non-D-linked ones, and similarly, the constituents corresponding to the D-linked question word precede their non-D-linked counterparts in the answer. Let us consider the following Hungarian examples ( 6)-( 7 In example (6), the question asks for the enumeration of all the people present at the party and then about the thing each of them brought. In (7), on the other hand, all the things brought to the party are listed and then identified with a person. In the English translation, apart from the passive, the definite article in the answer to (7) also expresses this change of perspective. This function of the D-linked whphrase is referred to by [START_REF] Kuno | Grammar and Discourse Principles: Functional Syntax and GB Theory[END_REF], as the Sorting Key Hypothesis, where the linearly first question word determines the organization of the information in the answer.

In the next section, our aim will be to investigate how the pair-list/single-pair difference is expressed in the two languages. As we will see, some syntactic structures are ambiguous between the two readings, whereas others have clearly only one possible interpretation. Then, we will also examine the problem of how the D-linked question word can be identified in French.

The Data

Possible syntactic structures

Based on the syntactic structure, we can identify five main types of multiple questions in the two languages. A sixth structure also exists, but it is argued to contain clausal coordination and thus does not qualify as a true multiple question.

All question words extracted (only in Hungarian)

As we have seen above, all question words can appear preverbally in Hungarian, both in main and in embedded clauses: These questions all license a pair-list reading, determined by the structure of the question. This means, that the answer to (8) pairs up a set of people with ways of presenting, the answer to (9) a set of things with things, and the answer to (10) a set of people with time slots. According to a plausible explication [START_REF] Kálmán | Magyar leíró nyelvtan[END_REF], the expected answer to such a question can be a direction, or, more precisely, the direction of the relation between the denotations of the two question words and not the denotations themselves. In other words, this means that the question contains two (or more) forms of the interrogative word ki (who), mi (what) or melyik (which), or some locative question word hol, honnan, hová (where, from where, to where).

3

In French, for this type the pair-list is the preferred reading, but the single pair answer is not excluded either. We can find examples for both, especially if both question words are arguments. Let us consider the following examples: However, in some examples, one of the readings is excluded on pragmatic grounds. For instance, in the case of unique events, only the single-pair reading is available: The ungrammaticality of this example shows that the preferred reading, especially in cases where one of the question words is an argument and the other is an adjunct, is the pair-list. The tendency can be explained by the fact that there is another structure available (clausal coordination), which, in turn, licenses only single pair answers.

All question words in situ (only in French)

Similarly to the previous type, both readings are available in these questions. This type is, as we have shown above, the informal equivalent of the second structure. Let us have a look at the following examples:

Constituent coordination in initial position

In Hungarian, almost all kinds of question words can be coordinated. This structure typically triggers a single-pair answer: burglary.POSS Before one could get information only from the milkman or the postman about who went on holiday and when, or usually who is not at home in which part of the day. Nowadays, on the other hand, burglars prepare for the burglary of the chosen houses and flats with some research on the internet.

In French, only question words with the same grammatical function (for instance: subject, object, adjunct) can be coordinated: The coordination of two arguments with the same function, on the other hand, cannot always be considered as a multiple question, since it does not contain two information gaps in the sentence. Its function is rather the enlargement of the domain set of the question, for instance, to cancel the restriction imposed by qui (who) that the answer has to be animate. Concerning the interpretation, similarly to Hungarian, the single-pair reading is preferred, but the pair-list reading is also possible, depending on the context (single or general event):

(32) (single-pair reading) The possibility of the pair-list reading suggests that the question words are in the same clause, and that the structure contains constituent and not clausal coordination with ellipsis in the first conjunct. As we will see, the pair list reading is not available in the sixth type, which, in turn, will be considered as clausal coordination.

Interestingly, at first sight, it is also possible in French to coordinate wh-words with different functions, if the verb is in the infinitive. Consider the following example: According to Anne Abeillé (p.c.), however, this is only possible if the verb has an optional argument (in both examples, the object is optional) and thus the sentences are elliptical structures with right-noderaising of the infinitive.

Constituent coordination in situ

In spoken French, the coordinated interrogative constituent can also appear in situ. When and where did the conference take place?

In case if the second/sentence-final question word is an adjunct, this type is difficult to distinguish from clausal coordination.

Clausal coordination

In this sixth type of multiple questions, the structure consists of two coordinated clauses with ellipsis in the second clause. In this case, only the single pair reading is available in both languages, which we can consider as an argument for the biclausal analysis. In this case, in order to answer the question à combien or hányan (how many), it has to be accommodated [START_REF] Ginzburg | On some semantic consequences of turn taking[END_REF] that the person invited is actually coming to the party.

Another argument for the biclausal analysis is the fact that when both question words are arguments, the second one must be optional. This is possible only in the case of verbs that have both a transitive and an intransitive use: On the other hand, in the structure that contains sentence-final coordination, sometimes two readings are possible depending on the verb [START_REF] Gracanin | About Sharing[END_REF]: the first is called the it-reading, referring to the fact that the verb is understood as transitive in both clauses, like in the following example: However, when both interrogative words are obligatory arguments, the preverbal coordination is grammatical.

The structure is perfectly possible with an argument and an adjunct (46) or with two adjuncts (50), if the argument is in the first clause: *When was here and who?

From this it follows that examples (36)-( 37) are indeed the coordination of two clauses. If it is an adjunct that is coordinated sentence-finally, or both are in the preverbal field, the sentence is grammatical. This supports the view that in this example constituents and not clauses are coordinated. ((48) She argues that the structure cannot be elliptical, since then the verb should be definite. However, [START_REF] Bánréti | A mellérendelés és az ellipszis nyelvtana a magyarban[END_REF] shows that the rule of ellipsis in Hungarian is not so strict with respect to the agreement with the definiteness of the object, as it is in the case of tense and mood endings, i.e. even if the overt verb and the one falling under ellipsis are of different conjugations, the sentence can be grammatical. These are the reasons why we analyze structure 4 and 5 as constituent and structure 6 as sentential coordination. In what follows we will not deal with sentential coordination, since they do not qualify as true multiple questions according to the definition we presented above. After considering the data, we identify some problems that have to be accounted for by the analysis proposed.

Problems

Two preverbal question words in Hungarian

In Hungarian, only one preverbal focus is permitted: Nevertheless, if question words are considered as a subtype of focus, it is surprising why two of them can appear in the preverbal position in Hungarian, which can accommodate only one focus in a declarative sentence. One type of analysis would be to assume that question words, in spite of all the prosodic, syntactic and semantic similarities, are not a subtype of focus, and what makes them similar is that they play similar roles in the discourse, i.e. that they constitute the most prominent parts of question-answer pairs. In this case, the information structure architecture should not contain the focus as a primitive category, but more neutral ones that can be filled differently in declaratives and interrogatives. Another way is to claim that interrogative words constitute a special type of focus that are subject to different restrictions in Hungarian. This is what [START_REF] Mycock | A New Typology of Wh-Questions[END_REF] proposes: she argues that this is why two of them can precede the finite verb in Hungarian. This way, focus can be kept as an information structure primitive, but it has to be signaled whether its interrogative or not. However, the different categorization itself does not explain the phenomenon. A third possibility is to claim that only one of these preverbal interrogative words can be considered as focus. This is what we will propose in this article, keeping in mind that an analysis following either of the two other directions would also be possible.

D-linkedness in French

Contrary to the Hungarian data, where the D-linked or Sorting key question word is identifiable from the syntactic position, this difference is not manifested in the syntax in French. Since word order is more rigid in French, the order, or the syntactic position of the question words, does not change according to the discourse-status of the question words.

Triomphe

The linguists visited the Eiffel Tower, the psychologists the Arc de Triomphe... Both the question and the answer are ambiguous between a contextually determined set of tourists and a contextually determined set of monuments. However, the interlocutor is aware of the fact that s/he has to enumerate exhaustively all the tourist groups or all the monuments and pair them up with an element of the other set. What helps, in this case, is the context, and not syntactic or prosodic information. The contextual difference means that the difference between the question words is encoded in the information structure and not at the other levels of linguistic analysis. The parallel architecture of Lexical-Functional Grammar will make it possible to account for these differences, since it dissociates discourse functions from syntax and prosody.

Question words denoting the same type of set

We have seen above that in structure 3, not all question words can appear in Hungarian, but only those that denote the same type of set. Again, this is a semantic restriction that cannot easily be captured in syntax. As we will see, according to a recent proposal [START_REF] Dalrymple | Glue and information structure[END_REF], in LFG semantic information is integrated into the information structure, and both are related to, but dissociated from the syntax. Again, what we see is that the information structure architecture that a certain theory assumes plays a crucial role in the analysis of the phenomena. After looking at the last problematic point, we continue with the introduction of the concept of information structure in LFG.

Coordination of different functions

In French, coordinated constituents have to share all their functions (e.g. subject and topic), whereas in Hungarian, almost all preverbal question words can be coordinated (if they do not denote the same type of set):

(55) Ki who és and mikor when ment went moziba? cinema-to Who went to the cinema and when?

The question is then, what is the common function that constitutes the basis of the coordination. [START_REF] Lipták | On the Syntax of Wh-items in Hungarian[END_REF] and [START_REF] Skrabalova | Parataxe apparente et coordination des interrogatifs en tchèque[END_REF] claim that this function is that they are focussed. This means that in Hungarian (and in some other languages, like in Czech), the identity of at least one function the conjuncts share is enough to obtain a grammatical coordination. In other languages, like in French, all functions have to be shared by the conjuncts. However, two non-interrogative foci cannot be coordinated in the preverbal position:

( Although the universal quantifiers are syntactically not in the designated focus position (this follows from the fact that the verbal particle precedes the verb and in the presence of a focussed constituent it follows it), their prosody and use4 makes them similar to focussed constituents, syntactically they differ from them. This example clearly shows that focus as a semantic/information structure concept cannot always be associated with fixed syntactic positions. Rather, focussed elements can appear at different parts of the sentence in Hungarian. It seems thus that in Hungarian the common (grammatical or discourse) function has to be completed by some common lexical feature: an interrogative or universal quantifier. Again, this shows that levels other than the syntactic play a crucial role in the grammar of multiple questions.

The information structure in LFG

In earlier versions of the LFG framework, discourse functions were integrated in the functional structure, linked via functional uncertainty (one syntactic unit was associated with two functions at the same time, for instance topic and subject). The projection of the information structure as a separate level of representation was motivated by the following problems.

First of all, this meant that different kinds of information were represented in the same structure. This goes against the LFG way of representing information at different levels of representation [START_REF] Choi | Optimizing Structure in Context: Scrambling and Information Structure[END_REF], [START_REF] Dalrymple | Glue and information structure[END_REF]).

Secondly, [START_REF] King | Focus domains and information structure[END_REF] argues that encoding discourse functions in the f-structure leads to circularity, in the case where it is only the verb, without its arguments, that is focussed. This is why she proposes an independent level of representation, where discourse functions are encoded, with their bare predicate value (without their arguments).

Another reason why a separate level of information structure is necessary is that syntactic constituents do not correspond systematically to constituents of information structure, like in the following example:

(58) It was the RED shirt that Mary gave to John, not the blue one.

In (58) the whole constituent the RED shirt that is clefted; however, it is only the element RED that is focussed. This difference can be captured if clefting and focalization are represented at different levels. [START_REF] Butt | Structural topic and focus without movement[END_REF] propose that the information structure consists of four sets, which are defined by the combination of two features: new +/-and prominent +/-. The TOPIC set contains elements that are prominent, but not new, the (Information) FOCUS set contains new and prominent elements, whereas old and not prominent elements belong to BACKGROUND and new but not prominent ones to COMPLETIVE INFORMATION. Although this classification simplifies the definition of discourse functions, for instance, foci are not always new, and prominence is, in some cases, difficult to define [START_REF] Krifka | Basic notions of information structure[END_REF]), we will base our analysis on this architecture, with some precision of the sets mentioned above. We will consider as FOCUS elements that are answers to questions.5 These are not necessarily new, since some of the answers can already be introduced in the discourse, for instance in the case of questions which require the choice between two possibilities already present in the question:

(59) -Who did you invite to the party, Mary or John? -John.

In our analysis, the TOPIC set will contain elements that are contextually determined and salient in the discourse, bearing at the same time prosodic and/or syntactic prominence (the latter meaning, in most cases, a position in the left periphery of the sentence). It is important to remark that topic here corresponds to sentential topic and not to discourse topic, referring to one element of the sentence and not to the question under debate in the whole discourse [START_REF] Beyssade | Prosody and information[END_REF]), although the two are related: sentence topics constitute subtopics or subquestions of the Question under Discussion/Discourse Topic. All other elements will be placed in the set of BACKGROUND INFORMATION. In the next section we examine how the LFG architecture can account for the problems mentioned above. [START_REF] Dalrymple | Glue and information structure[END_REF] proposes that the information structure categories contain the semantic description of the particular elements. Our data confirm this. As we will see in the concrete examples, some phenomena are best accounted for by referring to semantic features within an information structure category. In addition, the pair-list reading can also be derived from such a representation.

In the next section we examine how the LFG architecture can account for the problems mentioned above.

5 The proposed analysis

Two preverbal question words in Hungarian and D-linkedness in French

Both of the problems mentioned above are related to the fact that, in pair-list questions, one of the question words differs from the other in some respects (semantics, prosody, etc.). Since this difference plays an important role in the answer, we propose that (in the already presented information structure architecture) the D-linked/Sorting key question words belong to the TOPIC set, and the other(s) to the FOCUS set.

It has already been suggested in the literature that D-linked, or in some languages, initial interrogative words, share some properties with topics, in that they are both contextually determined, given, and salient in the discourse. [START_REF] Surányi | Mechanisms of wh-saturation and interpretation in multiple wh movement[END_REF] argues that Hungarian high wh-phrases, although not moved by topicalization, are interpreted at interfaces as topics, since, like topics, they invariably quantify over presupposed sets, and constituents that correspond to these wh-phrases appear in the topic, and not in the focus position in Hungarian. Unfortunately, the claim that an element is not moved by topicalization, but is interpreted at interfaces as a topic, is difficult to formalize in a minimalist framework that aims to account for all phenomena in syntax, via movement to various functional projections, which, in turn express discourse or semantic information. It seems, therefore, that an LFG approach, in which information structure is treated independently from syntax, is a more adequate framework to account for this phenomenon.

Another argument supporting this claim is that constituents corresponding to D-linked/Sorting key question words in the answer are contrastive topics [START_REF] Büring | On d-trees, beans, and b-accents[END_REF]). In Hungarian pair-list questions the question words cannot be preceded by (other) contrastive topics: In French, in the answers to pair-list questions, only one XP gets prosodically distinguished, the one corresponding to the non-D-linked question word [START_REF] Marandin | Focus informationnel[END_REF]). The others bear a certain type of accent that [START_REF] Beyssade | Prosody and information[END_REF] call C-accent and relate to the so-called B-accent in English [START_REF] Jackendoff | Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar[END_REF], [START_REF] Büring | On d-trees, beans, and b-accents[END_REF]). Both are supposed to encode contrastive topics. Let us consider the following example: Hungarian is not the only language in connection with which the claim about the topic status of high wh-phrases has been made. According to [START_REF] Jaeger | Topicality and superiority in Bulgarian wh-questions[END_REF] topic-fronted objects are clitic-doubled in colloquial Bulgarian. He also notices that wh-phrases in multiple questions are also subject to cliticdoubling, in which case superiority effects are cancelled, and argues for the topicality of high wh-phrases in Bulgarian.

Furthermore, [START_REF] Grohman | Top issues in questions: Topics-topicalization-topicalizability[END_REF] shows that only topicalizable elements can intervene between two wh-phrases in German multiple questions and proposes that therefore all wh-phrases undergo topicalization. It is not our aim here to contest Grohmann's analysis (for instance the discourse status and semantics of lower wh-phrases is clearly different from that of initial ones), but to show that the topicality of wh-words has been claimed in connection with various languages, based on a variety of criteria (syntactic position, cliticization, intervention).

In addition, some semantic similarities can also be observed between these wh-phrases and topics: both tend to be given, referential, salient in the discourse and to denote a contextually determined set of entities.

The analysis proposed is thus the following. At the level of information structure, D-linked/Sorting key question words belong to the TOPIC set, but they can be associated with different syntactic positions, depending on the language. In Hungarian they precede non-D-linked question words, whereas in French they can be sentence-initial, just like sentence-final ones. The advantage of this approach is that it does not suppose that question words are exceptional in that there can be two (interrogative) preverbal foci in Hungarian, and that this cancels the apparent ambiguity in pair-list questions in French. Consider the analysis of Hungarian ( 6) and ( 7):

Functional structure Information Structures Ki mit hozott a bulira? (Who brought what to the party?)

                   PRED 'hoz ↑ SUBJ , ↑ OBJ , ↑ OBL ' SUBJ PRED 'pro' KI OBJ PRED 'pro' MIT OBL PRED 'a bulira' TNS PAST                        TOP ki FOC mit BACKGR hozott a bulira    
Mit ki hozott a bulira? (What was brought by whom to the party?)

    TOP mit FOC ki BACKGR hozott a bulira    
The two questions have the same f-structure, but they have different c-structures and different information structures. In the first case ki (who) belongs to the topic set and mi to the focus set, whereas in the second, it is the other way round. These information structure categories are associated with syntactic positions in Hungarian, but other encodings are also possible in other languages. The French example is represented in a similar way: Functional Structure Information structure Quel groupe a visité quel monument ? (Which group visited which monument?)

           PRED 'visiter ↑ SUBJ , ↑ OBJ ' Q SUBJ PRED 'quel groupe' OBJ PRED 'quel monument'                    TOP QUEL GROUPE FOC QUEL MONUMENT BACKGR VISITER                 TOP QUEL MONUMENT FOC QUEL GROUPE BACKGR VISITER        
In these French examples, the questions have not only the same f-structure, but the same c-structure as well (the presentation of this latter is beyond the scope of this paper). What makes the interpretational difference between them is the information structure.

Restrictions on sentence-final question words in Hungarian

Concerning the formalization of this phenomenon, we can suppose that the lower interrogative word in the structure must share some (semantic) feature with the higher one (animacy, specificity or location) and this accounts for the fact that they belong to the same lexeme and denote the same type of set. These features are distributive, characterizing the whole set of interrogative words at the level of information structure, which means that the unification fails if they have different values.

Functional structure Information structure Ki hívott meg kit a bulira? (Who invited whom to the party?)

                   PRED 'meghív ↑ SUBJ , ↑ OBJ , ↑ OBL ' SUBJ PRED 'pro' KI OBJ PRED 'pro' KIT OBL PRED 'a bulira' TNS PAST                                             TOP FOC                                              KI Q ANIM + SPEC-             KIT Q ANIM + SPEC-                                              BACKGR hívott meg a bulira                         
In the LFG architecture, since semantic information is integrated into the information structure, it is possible to indicate the distributive features of the set there. The treatment of interrogative words in this case is similar to that of coordination, which is also represented in LFG as a set. Let us now have a look at coordination and the emerging problems.

Coordination

Coordination is analyzed in LFG as a set [START_REF] Dalrymple | Lexical Functional Grammar, volume 34 of Syntax and Semantics[END_REF]), in which the elements have to share certain features. The general rule of coordination is the following:

Rule: S → XP Conj XP ↓∈↑ ↑=↓ ↓∈↑ From the data we have seen above it seems (in LFG terms) that in Hungarian sharing a function at one level (f-or i-structure) is enough for the coordination to be grammatical: this contrasts with French, where the conjuncts have to share all their functions at all levels. However, besides the common information structure set, the conjuncts also share some lexical features in Hungarian (for instance the fact that they are interrogative). Again, this also supports the view that semantic information is integrated into the information structure. Consider the following example from French =(30):

Où et quand a eu lieu la conférence ? (Where and when did the conference take place?)

                             TOP FOC        Q KI MIKOR        BACKGR ment moziba          

Conclusion

In this paper we have proposed an LFG account of multiple questions in French and in Hungarian. We have identified five (or, together with clausal coordination, six), different structures in the two languages and seen that they are (except for the first Hungarian structure) compatible with both a pair-list and a single-pair reading, if the question words are in the same clause. However, the following tendency can be observed: when the interrogative words are arguments, both the pair-list and the single pair readings are possible, whereas the pair-list reading is preferred in the case of adjuncts (if at least one of the question words is an adjunct), since an alternative structure also exists (clausal coordination), which is, in turn, only compatible with the single-pair reading. We identified four problems and argued that the LFG framework is suitable for handling all of them, because of its modular architecture, separating the different levels of linguistic information. Concerning the puzzle of two preverbal (interrogative) foci in Hungarian and the syntactic ambiguity of D-linkedness in French we proposed that D-linked/Sorting key question words belong to the topic set at information structure, since they share many properties with (contrastive) topics. Concerning the restrictions on preverbal and postverbal question words, and the coordination of question words with unlike functions, we have proposed that they are due to semantic features that question words are supposed to share in the focus set of the information structure. In Hungarian, apart from sharing some lexical features, conjuncts have to belong to the same set at at least one level of representation, whereas in French these are shared at all levels.

  brought by John, the cookies by Mary.

  John to tell him the truth.

  Who went to the cinema and when?This structure seems to complement the second type in that it is not felicitous if the two question words denote the same type of set:(24) *Ki who és and ki-be who-into szeretett loved bele? PRT *Who and with who fell in love? However, in some contexts, the pair-list reading is also acceptable:

?

  Who or what approved of maternal breastfeeding?In other cases, however, it is indeed a multiple question: Mr. Martin and what is his rank?

?

  Whom should we consult and when, in case a couple has problems having a child?

?

  Who is going to give a talk and about what?In (40) parler (talk) cannot appear in its transitive use. In Hungarian, with these verbs only the transitive reading is possible when the interrogative words are in a preverbal position and one of them refers to the object:(41) Mit what és and miért why olvasott? read.PAST What did s/he read and why did s/he read it? What did s/he read and why did s/he read it?

*

  /he read and why did s/he read it? However, in the second case, two readings are possible: the first is the above mentioned it-reading, and the second is the at all reading.(44)Miért why olvasott read.PAST és and mit? what Why did s/he read (what s/he was reading) and what did s/he read?/Why did s/he read at all and what did s/he read?The at all reading is only possible if the transitive and the optionally transitive use of the same verb can be coordinated in the same sentence, which means that the above structure contains clausal coordination.The examples with obligatory arguments are ungrammatical: Who is going to do and what?

  JOHN went to the cinema YESTERDAY EVENING.If both J ÁNOS and TEGNAP ESTE are focussed, one of them (in this case TEGNAP ESTE, since J ÁNOS is the subject), has to appear in a postverbal position (we leave it now open if this position is in situ or sentence-final): the cinema YESTERDAY EVENING.

  did they say about him when?

  students study syntax, those of the second year semantics.

  .1.2 One question word extracted, the other(s) in situ

	This structure is possible in both languages. Let us consider Hungarian first:
	(11) Ki	hívott	meg	kit	a	bulira?
	who	invited	PRT	whom	the	party-to
	Who invited whom to the party?
	This type of question, contrary to the previous one, usually expects a single-pair answer. We should
	note, however, that acceptability judgements show great variation and some speakers would even answer
	such questions with a pair-list. Interestingly, for some speakers, this structure is grammatical, only if the
	question words denote the same type of set:
	(12) ?? Ki		mondott	mit?
		who	said	what
	Who said what?
	(13) Honnan			utazol		hova?
	from where	travel.2SG	where
	From where to where are you travelling?
	(14) Melyik	lány	táncolt	melyik	fiúval?
	which	girl	danced	which	boy-with
	Which girl danced with which boy?

  We will see see other arguments supporting this view. Le us have a look at some examples: You certainly know everything, but what precisely would he have said when he lied and why did he lie?The arguments supporting the biclausal analysis are the following: First of all, the second part of the sentence can presuppose that the first question is already answered and can thus refer only to one of the possible answers to the question, like in the following invitations to

	(36)	À	qui		as-tu	parlé	et	pourquoi	? [French]
		to	whom	have you	spoken	and	why
		To whom did you speak and why?
	(37) Ti		persze		biztosan	nagy	tudorok	vagytok,	de	pontosan	mit	hazudott	volna
		you	of course	certainly	big	scientists	are,	but	precisely	what	lied	AUX
		és		miért?	[Hungarian]
		and		why
	a party:
	(38) Dites-nous tell us		si if	vous you	venez come	et and à PREP	combien, how many,	pour in order that we	qu'on could	puisse us organize
		s'organiser		en		fonction.
		in					function
		Tell us if you come, and if so, how many of you, so that we can take it into consideration during
		the organization.
	(39) Léci,		léci,		jelezzen,	aki		még	nem	tette,	hogy	jön-e	és	hányan!!!
		please	please	write,		who	yet	not	did,	that	comes-CL	and	how many
		Please please, tell me if you come and if so, how many of you!

  and (49) are grammatical with preverbal coordination.)Concerning Hungarian,[START_REF] Lipták | On the Syntax of Wh-items in Hungarian[END_REF] points out that the conjugation type of the finite verb differs from what we would expect based on the supposed non-elliptical counterpart of the sentence:

	(50) Nem	érdekel,	hogy	mit	készítesz		és	hogyan	készíted.
	not	interests,	that	what	make.2SG.INDEF	and	how	make.2SG.DEF
	I am not interested in what you make and how (you make it).
	(51) Nem	érdekel,	hogy	[mit	és	hogyan]	készítesz.
	not	interests,	that	[what	and	how]	make.2SG.IND
	I am not interested in what you make and how (you make it).

  PRED 'avoir lieu ↑ SUBJ , ↑ OBL , ↑ OBL '

				Functional structure				Information Structure
												
								TOP
													
	 					 	 		 	Q	 	 
	 	SUBJ	PRED 'la conférence'		 	 	FOC		O	Ù		 
												
												
	    		     	PRED 'pro' O Ù	     	    	  	BACKGR	  la conférence a eu lieu   QUAND	  
		OBL				
						
	 		   	PRED 'pro' QUAND	   	 
						
						
						
		TNS	PAST		
	A similar Hungarian example:
	Ki és mikor ment moziba? (Who went to the cinema and when?)
			Functional structure		Information Structure
	
		PRED 'megy ↑ SUBJ , ↑ OBL '
	
	
	 	SUBJ	PRED 'pro' KI
	
	
	  	OBL	PRED 'moziba'
	
	
	 	ADJ	PRED 'pro' MIKOR
	
	
	
		TNS	PAST

† I would like to thank Anne Abeillé and András Komlósy for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this paper, as well as my fellow students at the Université Paris 7 for the discussion of the data. The usual disclaimers apply.

This means that, for example, in order to give a pair-list answer to a multiple question referring to the students, the interlocutor does not have to know them individually, but they can list them by their nationalities.

[START_REF] Pesetsky | Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding[END_REF] claims, in a transformational framework, that D-linked wh-phrases do not have to move to Comp at LF, but can take scope, whereas non-D-linked ones must move, since the former are no quantifiers, but the latter are.

The examples come from the Hungarian National Corpus

This sentence cannot be uttered out of the blue. Just like in the case of focus, this sentence is also a correction or the answer to a question.

A more precise definition that takes account of all focus-related phenomena would also include parallelism and corrections, in which the focussed constituents are the parts of, the sentence that are in parallel with, or correct parts of previous sentences. The common property with answers to questions is the fact that sentences containing foci cannot be uttered out of the blue, but always as a reaction to the preceding context. These other uses of focus are, however, beyond the scope of the present study.