An analysis of each given data is provided below to demonstrate how the function of the question operator in unselective binding can affect wh-in-situ in NA.
It is relevant to introduce the scope of a wh-phrase using English examples before proceeding to the discussion. The scope of a wh-element is the CP of the question with which it is interpreted. In other words, when we move a wh-phrase into the specifier of CP, it ‘takes scope’ or ‘has scope’ over that which it c-commands. This concept can be clarified by the following examples:(29) Tom said thatAlice bought a book.(30) Tom wondered whatAlice bought t.(31) What did Tom say thatAlice bought t?In (29), one declarative statement is embedded inside another one.
In (30), the embedded clause has been changed into a question. The wh-element in (30) has scope or ‘narrow scope’ at the embedded CP. The whole of (31) is a question, and the wh-element has moved out of the embedded clause and up to the top of the main clause. In (31), the wh- element has scope or ‘wide scope’ at the matrix clause. The wide and narrow scopes are interpreted by the wh-elements in both LF movement and unselective binding. However, the fundamental difference between the two analyses is the question operator, as previously noted.The selectional restrictions of verbs can be observed in Najdi Arabic. Albaty (2013) examined the following three verbs: yas?el (ask/wonder), yaDun (think), and ya?rif (know).
To begin with, the lexical item yas?el (ask/wonder) bears a strong feature +wh; thus, it selects only an interrogative clause headed by the interrogative complementizer ?iða (if), as in the following example: (32) a. Mu?ammed yas?el (?iða) xhaled tazawad? Fatimah Muhammed wonder. 3sgmas if Khaled married. 3sgmas Fatimah ‘Muhammed wonders if Khaled got married to Fatimah’. (Albaty, 2013, p.
8) If the interrogative complementizer ?iða (if) is substituted by the declarative complementizer ?in (that), the sentence will be ill-formed due to the violation of the lexical selection of the interrogatives +wh of the verb, as demonstrated in the following example: (32) b. * Mu?ammed yas?el (?in ) xhaled tazawad? Fatimah Muhammed wonder. 3sgmas that Khaled married. 3sgmas Fatimah’*Muhammed wonders that Khaled got married to Fatimah.’ (Albaty, 2013, p.
8) Interestingly, if the embedded clause contains the in-situ-wh-element, the only possible interpretation is for the wh-phrase to take scope over the embedded clause not the matrix clause; therefore, it will be an indirect question, as shown in the following example: (32) c. Mu?ammed yas?el xhaled tazawad?. meen.
Muhammed wonder. 3sgmas Khaled married. 3sgmas who’Muhammed wonders Khaled got married to who.'(Albaty, 2013, p.8) Consequently, the selectional restrictions of the verb prevents the wh-element from taking matrix scope. As a result, the semantic interpretation of (32)c is (33)a not (33)b:(33) a. Muhammed wonders, for which x, Khaled got married to x.
b. * For which x, Mohammed wonders whether Khaled got married to x? The scope according to the unselective binding will be as follows: