Related to this but let’s make it a separate thread.
This is about adjuncts and multiple wh-questions, as in What does the cat see where?
I am working on a pseudolanguage right now where there is generally SVO word order and obligatory fronting of one (and exactly one) wh-phrase.
Suppose for a moment that adjuncts generally go after the head, so The cat sleeps there is good and There the cat sleeps isn’t.
Here’s some questions:
In sentences like Who saw what?, saw what is licensed by the normal head-comp rule, however who is attached via Head-Filler rule, and so the VP must first undergo subject extraction. This is despite the fact that who appears in the normal subject position. This is the analysis that we want, yes? (That’s what the ERG does, too).
Now with adjuncts, does this mean, if the adjunct appears in its normal position but it is a wh-phrase, what should I be doing? Should there be adjunct extraction or not?
Something like: What does the cat see where?
Below there isn’t an auxiliary, this is a pseudolanguage:
In the left tree, the cat sees [ SLASH what] where is licensed by a Head-Adjunct rule (NB: I had to create a special one which does not insist on an empty slash-list; still need the regular one to rule out The cat sleeps where). Then the whole thing is licensed by wh-question rule, attaching what. This seems symmetric to what I am already doing for Who sees what?
On the right, what the cat sees is licensed by wh-question rule, and then the adjunct is extracted and attached, by the same special Head-Adjunct rule.
Which direction should I be taking?