persian and english multiple wh-questions in contrast: a study of binary, d-linked, and ternary multiple wh-questions

This paper examines the distributional pattern of whelements in persian and english multiple whquestions (mwqs) based on a grammaticality judgement (gj) task administered to persian speakers of english (pses) and native speakers of persian (nses). using a oneshot design, the gj task elicited the intuition of 30 randomly assigned persian speakers of english and 30 native speakers of english on the full range of multiple whconfigurations combining 6 types of whelements (i.e. who, what, where, when, how and why) in the whoperator (i.e. wh1) and whinsitu (i.e. wh2) positions. the data were analysed using hierarchical cluster analysis, and grammatical and ungrammatical mwqs were sharply distinguished into separate clusters in the resulting dendrogram. the results of the study revealed that (i) 7 out of 30 possible ordered pairs of persian mwqs were clustered as grammatical ones and the rest were clustered as ungrammatical ones, and (ii) there are significant differences in terms of the grammaticality of persian/english binary and ternary mwqs, while there is generally no significant difference between nses’ ratings of english dlinked mwqs and pses’ ratings of the translationequivalent persian dlinked mwqs. the results of the study have pedagogical implications for teaching persian to nonnative speakers of persian in terms of the order of teaching different types of persian mwqs, the contexts for the use of such structures, and the proficiency level at which persian mwqs could be taught to nonnative speakers of persian.extended abstractin chomsky’s government and binding theory, a number of parameters have been the subject of a plethora of investigations. one of the parameters of ug which has received attention of linguists in the past decade or so is the whparameter. in addition to the variation between languages with respect to single whquestions (i.e. whmovement vs. whinsitu), it has been noted that languages also differ in the way they produce multiple whquestions (mwqs). in english mwqs, there is a single strict constraint on the movement of whelements known as the superiority effect, where the whphrase that ccommands the other moves to speccp. in contrast, persian is a language with a productive scrambling property, which demonstrates two basic strategies for the formation of mwqs: (i) multiple whinsitu, where whelements are not subject to the superiority effect, (ii) optional multiple whfronting with multiply filled specifiers (i.e. [+mfs]), where whwords are bound to the superiority effect. there are specific conditions under which the violation of the superiority effect in english mwqs disappears, and their ungrammaticality is ameliorated: d(iscourse)linking and ternary (nonbinary) whquestions. as the overarching goal of the study, this paper examines the distributional pattern of whelements in persian and english multiple whquestions (mwqs) based on a grammaticality judgement (gj) task administered to persian speakers of english (pses) and native speakers of persian (nses). more specifically put, the study intends to answer the two research questions: (i) how do native speakers of persian distinguish among the six types of wh2 elements in persian binary multiple whquestions (mwqs)?, and (ii) are there any grammaticality differences between english native speakers’ ratings of english binary, dlinked and ternary mwqs and persian native speakers’ ratings of translationequivalent persian binary, dlinked and ternary mwqs? since the purpose of the present study

Persian and English Multiple Wh-questions in Contrast: A Study of Binary, D-linked, and Ternary Multiple Wh-Questions

This paper examines the distributional pattern of whelements in Persian and English multiple whquestions (MWQs) based on a Grammaticality Judgement (GJ) task administered to Persian speakers of English (PSEs) and native speakers of Persian (NSEs). Using a oneshot design, the GJ task elicited the intuition of 30 randomly assigned Persian speakers of English and 30 native speakers of English on the full range of multiple whconfigurations combining 6 types of whelements (i.e. who, what, where, when, how and why) in the whoperator (i.e. wh1) and whinsitu (i.e. wh2) positions. The data were analysed using hierarchical cluster analysis, and grammatical and ungrammatical MWQs were sharply distinguished into separate clusters in the resulting dendrogram. The results of the study revealed that (i) 7 out of 30 possible ordered pairs of Persian MWQs were clustered as grammatical ones and the rest were clustered as ungrammatical ones, and (ii) there are significant differences in terms of the grammaticality of Persian/English binary and ternary MWQs, while there is generally no significant difference between NSEs’ ratings of English Dlinked MWQs and PSEs’ ratings of the translationequivalent Persian Dlinked MWQs. The results of the study have pedagogical implications for teaching Persian to nonnative speakers of Persian in terms of the order of teaching different types of Persian MWQs, the contexts for the use of such structures, and the proficiency level at which Persian MWQs could be taught to nonnative speakers of Persian.Extended AbstractIn Chomsky’s Government and Binding theory, a number of parameters have been the subject of a plethora of investigations. One of the parameters of UG which has received attention of linguists in the past decade or so is the whparameter. In addition to the variation between languages with respect to single whquestions (i.e. whmovement vs. whinsitu), it has been noted that languages also differ in the way they produce multiple whquestions (MWQs). In English MWQs, there is a single strict constraint on the movement of whelements known as the Superiority effect, where the whphrase that Ccommands the other moves to SpecCP. In contrast, Persian is a language with a productive scrambling property, which demonstrates two basic strategies for the formation of MWQs: (i) multiple whinsitu, where whelements are not subject to the Superiority effect, (ii) optional multiple whfronting with multiply filled specifiers (i.e. [+MFS]), where whwords are bound to the Superiority effect. There are specific conditions under which the violation of the Superiority effect in English MWQs disappears, and their ungrammaticality is ameliorated: D(iscourse)linking and ternary (nonbinary) whquestions. As the overarching goal of the study, this paper examines the distributional pattern of whelements in Persian and English multiple whquestions (MWQs) based on a Grammaticality Judgement (GJ) task administered to Persian speakers of English (PSEs) and native speakers of Persian (NSEs). More specifically put, the study intends to answer the two research questions: (i) How do native speakers of Persian distinguish among the six types of wh2 elements in Persian binary multiple whquestions (MWQs)?, and (ii) Are there any grammaticality differences between English native speakers’ ratings of English binary, Dlinked and ternary MWQs and Persian native speakers’ ratings of translationequivalent Persian binary, Dlinked and ternary MWQs? Since the purpose of the present study