From Hell to Polarity: “Aggressively Non-D-Linked” Wh-Phrases as Polarity Items

Abstract

Pesetsky's (1987) ''aggressively non-D-linked'' wh-phrases (like who the hell; hereinafter, wh-the-hell phrases) exhibit a variety of syntactic and semantic peculiarities, including the fact that they cannot occur in situ and do not support nonecho readings when occurring in root multiple questions. While these are familiar from the literature (albeit less than fully understood), our focus will be on a previously unnoted property of wh-the-hell phrases: the fact that their distribution (in single wh-questions) matches that of polarity items (PIs). We lay out the key data supporting this claim, embed the PI nature of wh-the-hell phrases in the theory of polarity developed in Giannakidou 1998Giannakidou , 1999Giannakidou , 2001, and establish the link between the lexical content of these phrases and their PI status by identifying wh-the-hell as a dependent PI. We subsequently exploit the PI status of wh-the-hell to explain the more familiar puzzles mentioned above, showing that these are not peculiarities specific to wh-the-hell but manifestations of the general properties of the class of PIs that wh-the-hell belongs to. The syntactic aspects of the polarity analysis of wh-the-hell are shown to have important consequences for the fundamental properties of wh-movement in English.

Collocation, interpretation and explanation: The case of just any

“…This would be consonant with the fact that in Greek FCIs do not combine with words comparable to just (cf. Giannakidou, 1998Giannakidou, , 2001, and would justify the incorporation of a negative-attitude component as an added layer of meaning in the lexical FC item just any, as Den Dikken and Giannakidou (2002) have argued for the phrase the hell. While it would explain the frequency data compiled here, there are several difficulties with this account.…”

The internal structure of wh-elements and the diversity of wh-movement

“…Based on the cartographic analysis, according to which FocP is located below TopP and TopP below CP (in the sense of ForceP), Den Dikken and Giannakidou (2002) assume that wh-movement targets SpecCP in embedded clauses but SpecFocP in root contexts. Based on the cartographic analysis, according to which FocP is located below TopP and TopP below CP (in the sense of ForceP), Den Dikken and Giannakidou (2002) assume that wh-movement targets SpecCP in embedded clauses but SpecFocP in root contexts.…”

“…Adopting Den Dikken and Giannakidou's (2002) analysis of these wh-words, I will assume that the particle li is attached to a wh-element. Adopting Den Dikken and Giannakidou's (2002) analysis of these wh-words, I will assume that the particle li is attached to a wh-element.…”

“…One may assume(Den Dikken and Giannakidou 2002) that quantifier raising targets a position higher than ForceP when associated with a wide scope reading.…”

Invisible Last Resort

“…Ross (1969), Merchant (2001) for the analysis in (2) and Erteshik-Shir (1977), Pollman (1975) for the approach in (3)-it is the former that has become mainstream. This arguably has to do with the fact that Merchant (2001:120-127) presents no less than 10 arguments against a cleft analysis of sluicing.…”