Malagasy as an optional multiple wh-fronting language

More concealed pseudoclefts in Malagasy and the Clausal Typing Hypothesis

“…It captures the predicate behavior of the initial wh-phrase and it unites the analysis of wh-questions and the focus construction. Potsdam (in press) shows that it also provides a superior analysis of certain multiple-wh questions documented and analyzed in Paul (2000) and Sabel (2003). 13 Given the structure in (64), the subject of the wh-phrase predicate need not actually contain a relative clause.…”

“…Sabel (2002Sabel ( , 2003 is the primary proponent of such an approach although it is assumed in MacLaughlin (1995), Pensalfini (1995), andPotsdam (2003). Wh-questions, such as (21a), resemble English wh-fronting examples and can be assigned a familiar structure, (21b).…”

“…Under the FRONTING ANALYSIS (Sabel, 2002(Sabel, , 2003, such questions have an English-like, wh-movement derivation in which the wh-phrase moves to a clause-initial spec,C: (6) [ (Dahl, 1986;Paul, 2001a), wh-questions are covert pseudoclefts in which the wh-phrase is a predicate and the remaining material is a headless relative clause in subject position: (7) [ Both analyses are compatible with the observed word order and both have proponents in the literature but only the pseudocleft analysis, which I argue for, is compatible with the CTH.…”

“…In section 3.1 I present Sabel's (2002Sabel's ( , 2003 fronting analysis of wh-questions. Section 3.2 develops the non-movement pseudocleft analysis based on Paul (2001a).…”

Clause structure and adjuncts in Austronesian languages (review)

“…Compare the focus structure in (8) The arguments for this analysis are very data-rich, and Potsdam develops a number of useful diagnostics that could easily be applied to other languages. In addition to presenting a compelling analysis of single wh-questions, he addresses the issue of supposed multiple wh-questions in Malagasy (Sabel 2003) (10) is acceptable (in my experience, many speakers cringe hearing this), Sabel uses such data to argue for optional multiple wh-fronting, a rather unexpected turn of events for an Austronesian language. Potsdam's analysis of these questions maintains the structure in (9) and simply places the second wh-word inside the subject part of the question-it is thus similar to a possessor, and the whole question in (10) could be literally translated as "Where is whose buying of rice?".…”