2024. №55, 70-89
The article discusses novel data regarding the syntax of wh-questions in Tatyshly Udmurt (Permic < Uralic). Specifically, it argues that wh-questions in Tatyshly Udmurt are derived in situ, i.e. the wh-phrase does not have to move to the left periphery of the clause to get interpreted. Two major approaches to this phenomenon in the literature model it through the covert movement of the wh-phrase to the left periphery of the relevant clause or postulate a special mechanism of in situ interpretation to derive the meaning of the wh-questions. The elicited data from Tatyshly Udmurt support the second approach. First, the scope of wh-phrases is insensitive to most syntactic islands (finite and non-finite adjunct clauses, coordinate structures, embedded wh-questions), which is usually served as a diagnostic against covert movement of those items. The exceptions to this generalization are also discussed. Specifically, it discusses the ban on wh-in-situ in finite relative clauses and nominalized complement sentences and issues such constraints pose to current analyses. Second, Tatyshly Udmurt demonstrates (Focus) Intervention, when the presence of some semantic operators preceding the wh-phrase makes the sentence significantly worse. I discuss attested cases of (Focus) Intervention in the language as well as possible generalizations of the list of interveners. Finally, no Superiority Effect is attested in Tatyshly Udmurt, which means that wh-phrases in multiple questions can be arranged in any order with respect to one another.
Keywords: Tatyshly Udmurt, wh-in-situ, Islands, Focus Intervention, Superiority