Abstract
In this paper, three key issues in multiple wh-questions in English and Korean are revisited. The first issue explores how all wh-words are connected with a complementizer in multiple wh-questions. It is clarified that each wh-word is licensed in terms of scope and interpretation by establishing a specific relation with a Comp containing an appropriate feature set. The second issue delves into how Multiple Agree can be applied to multiple wh-words in long-distance multiple agreement relations, despite the resulting violation of the Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC). To solve this challenge, Convergence-Based Transfer (or Spell-Out) is introduced as a solution. In this framework, Transfer is applied to DP, VP, vP, TP, and CP, etc., if they are convergent, even though they are not phases, effectively avoiding PIC problems. Finally, the paper considers the contrasts in the scope interpretation of multiple wh-questions in English and Korean. In certain instances of multiple wh-questions, one of the embedded wh-words remaining in the embedded C takes scope differently in the two languages. The discussion explores the possibility that the contrast arises due to the different linking mechanisms (Multiple Agree vs. Multiple Binding) used in English and Korean.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Convergence English Language & Literature Association
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
