Munaro (1998; 1999), and Poletto and Pollock (2004; 2015) agree that the in-situ position of wh-words in Bellunese is only apparent: the wh-element is not in TP-internal position, but has moved to the C-domain in the same fashion as canonical wh-words in Italian and in other Romance languages.5 The account of wh-in-situ in Bellunese put forward in this paper fully supports this claim, but differs in explaining the alternation between apparently in-situ and preverbal wh-elements with respect to a number of points.

Manzini and Savoia (2011) argue against Poletto and Pollock’s (2004; 2009) remnant-TP movement account in favour of an actual in-situ analysis of postverbal wh-items across NIDs. The Lombard data with which they challenge Poletto and Pollock’s (2004; 2009) analysis, however, yield ungrammaticality when tested in Lamonat and Sovramontino. This is especially true with respect to three points. First, as previously mentioned, in Lamonat and Sovramontino there is a rigid root vs. embedded asymmetry with respect to wh-in-situ. The phenomenon is only attested in root interrogatives and, conversely to Lombard varieties, wh-in-situ is ungrammatical in embedded interrogatives. Second, Lamonat and Sovramontino wh-in-situ is sensitive to strong and weak island constraints, whereas Lombard proper wh-in-situ is not. Munaro (1999) in fact notes that, in the Bellunese variety of Pagotto, apparent wh-in-situ is sensitive to strong and weak island constraints (Munaro, Poletto & Pollock 2001; Poletto and Pollock 2004). If Bellunese were a true wh-in-situ language, wh-islands would not hold (see Huang 1982). The data from Lamonat and Sovramontino are in line with Munaro’s (1999). Consider (48), (49) and (50):

The ungrammaticality of (48), (49) and (50) is respectively due to a complex-NP island, an adjunct island and a relative island (see Munaro 1999 for further discussion). Islands constrain the unbounded nature of wh-movement: a wh-element can potentially be an unlimited number of clauses away from its in-situ null copy, with which it establishes a long distant dependency. Munaro (1999), Poletto and Pollock (2004) argue that sensitivity to islands in Bellunese is evidence in favour of the ex-situ nature of the postverbal wh-item. It is important to note, however, that Manzini and Savoia (2011) argue that the differences between Lombard-type and Bellunese-type wh-in-situ can be accounted for in the context of surprising micro-variation in LF conditions among closely related varieties. In their account, wh-in-situ vs. wh-movement across NIDs is explained in terms of the LF interpretative alternation between overt scope (wh-fronting) and scope construal (wh-in situ). They argue that sensitivity to islands and the inability of wh-movement in embedded clauses can be explained on the basis of grammar-specific conditions on LF interpretative construals, rather than on different syntactic conditions on wh-movement itself.14

In light of Manzini and Savoia’s (2011) critique, the most compelling evidence against an actual in-situ analysis of postverbal wh-items in Lamonat and Sovramontino comes from the strict relative order between wh-adverbs/wh-indirect objects with respect to the in-situ lexical direct object. Let us consider the wh-question in (51):

Given our discussion in Section 4.1.3, the ungrammaticality of (51b) shows that the wh-adverb quand cannot appear in its base-generated position, but must undergo wh-movement (cf. 51a). The different empirical evidence with respect to wh-in-situ between Bellunese and Lombard strongly indicates that the syntactic mechanism at the basis of the phenomenon is not the same in the two NIDs. In line with Bonan (2017; 2019), I believe different accounts should be sought out for wh-in-situ across NIDs. Manzini and Savoia’s (2011) analysis fully captures wh-in-situ in Lombard, but an actual in-situ analysis of postverbal wh-items is incompatible with the Lamonat and Sovramontino data.

Finally, I want to point out that, in Lamonat and Sovramontino, wh-items can appear in their TP-internal base-generated position in echo questions. Let us consider the echo question in (52) and its non-echo question counterpart in (53):

The echo question in (52) translates into English ‘The dog ate WHAT?’. In Sovramontino and Lamonat, echo questions are marked prosodically by an echo intonation on the interrogative pronoun, which is uttered duplicating its final vowel. In (52), the wh-word chee truly occurs in-situ in its TP-internal base-generated position. A crucial difference between (52) and (53) is that the echo question does not exhibit SCLI, whereas, in the apparent wh-in-situ question in (53), SCLI is pivotal for the grammaticality of the question. Thus, the echo question in (52) is not characterised by an interrogative structure. The in-situ position of chee in (52) can be tested by replacing the bare wh-item with an aggressively non-d-linked wh-item (Pesetsky 1987): the result is an ungrammatical sentence, as shown in (54).

Aggressively non-d-linked wh-elements must move out of their TP-internal in-situ position, hence the ungrammaticality of (54). Aggressively non-d-linked wh-elements can instead surface in postverbal position in wh-questions with an interrogative structure (i.e. exhibiting SCLI), as shown in (55):

(55) is further evidence that, in root wh-questions, postverbal wh-items are not in their TP-internal base-generated position. In Section 5.3, I will further discuss the case of d-linked and aggressively non-d-linked wh-elements.

By adopting Belletti’s (2004; 2005) periphery of the vP, Bonan (2017; 2019) proposes a third theoretical account of wh-in-situ across NIDs based on Trevigiano.15 Bonan (2017; 2019) does not impose her analysis on all NIDs that exhibit wh-in-situ and crucially advocates a non-unitary analysis of wh-in-situ across NIDs. She claims that her analysis applies to Trevigiano and related varieties. As convincingly shown in her work, she claims that wh-in-situ in Trevigiano is the result of short wh-movement to Foc in Belletti’s (2004; 2005) left periphery of the vP. There are two main reasons not to adopt Bonan’s (2017; 2019) analysis in this paper. First, empirically, there is a clear difference between the Trevigiano data and the Lamonat/Sovramontino data with respect to wh-in-situ. Second, one of the aims of this paper is to show that the derivation of wh-questions in Sovramontino/Lamonat is comparable to that of Friulian (crucially, a NID that does not show wh-in-situ): by virtue of being a wh-fronting language, the Friulian data would be extremely difficult to account for by adopting an analysis that involves wh-movement to Belletti’s (2004; 2005) Foc in the vP periphery.

Let us briefly discuss the empirical differences between Trevigiano and Bellunese with respect to wh-in-situ. The first difference lies in the availability of wh-in-situ in embedded clauses. Trevigiano allows wh-in-situ in embedded contexts, whereas, as previously mentioned, Lamonat and Sovramontino do not. If, in Lamonat and Sovramontino, the postverbal wh-element targeted a TP-internal position (Foc in the vP periphery), the unavailability of embedded wh-in-situ would be difficult to justify.16 The second difference concerns the distribution between preverbal and postverbal wh-items. Bonan (2017; 2019) shows that, in Trevigiano root interrogatives, wh-items can indistinctively surface in either preverbal or TP-internal position (with the exception of cossa ‘what’ that is banned TP-internally). Crucially, the same is observed for d-linked wh-elements, which can be found in either wh-positions. In Trevigiano, wh-in-situ hence seems to be an optional phenomenon.17 In Lamonat and Sovramontino, on the other hand, there is a clear distinction between the wh-items that are licensed in preverbal position and those that are licensed in postverbal position: d-linked wh-elements, wh-items encoding mirativity and clitic wh-elements must surface preverbally, whereas tonic non-d-linked/non-mirative wh-items must surface in postverbal position. This fact suggests that a different set of functional projections is involved in the realisation of Bellunese wh-items, which is tightly linked to (i) the information structure status of the wh-items themselves (d-linked, mirative or focal), and (ii) their morpho-syntactic status (tonic vs. clitic). An analysis whereby d-linked and non-d-linked wh-items landed in the same TP-internal position would not be able to capture these differences. Third, the empirical evidence put forward in the previous sections of the paper on Lamonat and Sovramontino’s (i) complex T° and clitic auxiliaries, (ii) placement of tonic and clitic adverbs,18 and (iii) subject cleft-questions, would be difficult to reconcile with an analysis whereby postverbal wh-elements surface TP-internally in the periphery of the vP.

Having discussed the main analyses of wh-in-situ across NIDs, in the remainder of the paper, I will: (i) summarise the proposed analysis for apparent wh-in-situ questions in Lamonat and Sovramontino, (ii) account for Lamonat and Sovramontino’s different distribution of wh-items between the apparently in-situ and preverbal position, and (iii) show the resemblance between Lamonat/Sovramontino and Friulian with respect to the derivation of wh-questions.

In the previous sections, we have established that, in root interrogatives, the wh-element occurring in postverbal position undergoes wh-movement. We now need to determine which position it targets in the C-domain. In order to do so, I will adopt Rizzi’s (1997) seminal split-CP model. Rizzi (1997) claims that the CP encodes at least two types of information relating to both the ‘outside’ and the ‘inside’ of the clause. In his model, ForceP encodes information that looks at the higher structure of the clause and specifies its clausal type (i.e. interrogative, declarative or exclamative force); on the other hand, FinitenessP looks at the inside of the clause, namely at the content of the TP, and is responsible for marking finiteness. Rizzi’s (1997) split-CP model does not only encode force and finiteness, but also discourse-pragmatic information that relates to information structure. He claims that the topic-comment and the focus-presupposition articulations, namely TopicP and FocusP, are sandwiched in that hierarchical order between ForceP and FinitenessP. It is important to note that I will not adopt Rizzi’s model in its original form, but abide by Benincà and Poletto’s (2004) claim against the existence of a lower TopicP between FocusP and FinitenessP.

Let us go back to the interrogative pronoun che in (56). I repeat (56) in (58) below:

We cannot establish the landing site of che within Rizzi’s (1997) split-CP without first considering the behaviour of the surrounding constituents. Following Poletto’s (1993; 2000) claim that in Bellunese the wh-criterion is satisfied by SCLI alone, there is no need for the wh-element to land in the specifier position of the moved verb cluster (a-lo magnà) to fulfil the structural needs of the interrogative clause. Assuming that the locus of SCLI in Lamonat and Sovramontino is Force°, the wh-element must land in a position lower than ForceP. The next lower position is TopP. This position is recursive in nature (Rizzi 1997) and can give rise to a bundle of projections that characterises a Topic Field (Benincà & Poletto 2004). Given the focal nature of wh-elements and the lack of recursiveness of wh-items, I exclude that che in (27) lands in TopicP. In addition, bona fide topical elements (i.e. non-contrastive) are optional as they are the presupposed-known portion of the sentence (Lambrecht 1994); by contrast, wh-words always refer to some novel piece of information that the speaker wants to elicit from the hearer. There is also another reason to exclude TopicP: Top° is an unsuitable head for the transit of head movement (Rizzi 1997). Given that T-to-Force movement is necessary for the well-formedness of questions in Lamonat and Sovramontino, bona fide topical elements can never surface in the left periphery of the clause in wh- and yes/no questions (only frame-setters are in fact able to appear preverbally in root interrogatives, see Sections 4.1.3 and 6). The focal properties of wh-elements strongly suggest that the most obvious landing site for che in (27) is FocusP: a position that is above the TP layer, lower than ForceP and not topical in nature.

Focal XPs and wh-items share in fact the following properties: uniqueness, lack of a resumptive clitic, prosodic sentential stress and are incompatible with one another (Rizzi 1997; 2018; Cruschina 2012). As for the last point, apparently in-situ wh-items are incompatible with both contrastive/corrective and informational focal XPs, as shown in (59) and (60) respectively:

Note that the relevant constituent in narrow focus is in CAPITALS. In (59), the wh-element che cannot coexist with the contrastive/corrective focal element al gat, which in Lamonat and Sovramontino always surfaces preverbally (see De Cia 2018). The two NEIDs seem only to allow one focal element per sentence (see Rizzi 2018 on uniqueness of focus). This possibly translates into the inability of focal prominence to be recursive in the grammar of Lamonat and Sovramontino: focal prominence can only be assigned to one constituent per sentence. In (60), on the other hand, the wh-element and the informational narrow focal XP al gat potentially compete for the same syntactic position. This is true regardless of the order of focal element and wh-word (cf. 60b).19

Having identified the landing position of the apparently in-situ wh-word che in (58), let us briefly outline how the wh-element targets that position. In addition to an intrinsic [WH] feature, I assume that the wh-element also carries a [FOCUS] feature (à la Bianchi 1999). The [FOCUS] feature is primarily responsible for the surfacing of the wh-element in SpecFocusP. As for the [WH] feature, it does not need to be satisfied through spec-head agreement: the structural well-formedness of the question is ensured by SCLI alone via dynamic agreement (Poletto 1993). The wh-element is thus free to surface in SpecFocusP, fulfilling its discourse-pragmatic nature. This suggests that, in Lamonat and Sovramontino, the discourse-pragmatic nature of wh-elements is more prominent than their syntactic status as question operators. The simplified tree in (61) shows the proposed derivation of (58):

We now need to account for the behaviour of non-d-linked/non-mirative preverbal wh-elements, like the interrogative pronoun ond in (62):

In a nutshell, I propose that, in Lamonat and Sovramontino, non-d-linked/non-mirative preverbal wh-elements exhibit a different morpho-syntactic behaviour from canonical preverbal wh-elements in other Romance languages. Due to their clitic status, they do not undergo wh-movement on their own, but rely on the inflected verb for their realisation, mirroring very much the behaviour of preverbal clitics across NEIDs (see Benincà 1994). Non-d-linked/non-mirative preverbal wh-elements hence form a special class of wh-items that have clitic status.

In Sovramontino and Lamonat, non-d-linked/non-mirative preverbal wh-items and apparently in-situ (bare) wh-elements exhibit clear morpho-phonological and morpho-syntactic differences. Non-d-linked/non-mirative preverbal wh-elements are generally phonologically reduced and, unlike apparently in-situ wh-elements, cannot receive focal stress: they are ultimately atonic and prosodically rely on the verb cluster. The inability of wh-clitics to receive focal prominence can be appreciated by the fact that wh-clitics can co-occur with an XP in narrow focus within the same sentence. Given that the semantics of wh-interrogatives, it is difficult to devise a suitable and clear context in which an element in narrow focus coexists with a clitic wh-element; however, if the focal XP is the subject of the clause, a cleft-question obligatorily arises: the subject in narrow focus and the wh-clitic can coexist, as shown in (63):

Conversely to Lombard varieties (see Manzini & Savoia 2011), Lamonat and Sovrmontino wh-clitics cannot co-occur with apparently in-situ wh-items of equivalent meaning, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (64):

The only exception is the wh-clitic sa ‘what’, which can optionally co-occur with the equivalent tonic postverbal wh-item che, as shown in (65):

(65b) is comparable to Italian che cosa. The lexicalisation of the two wh-items is not an instance of a multiple wh-question, but the wh-clitic and the tonic wh-item are semantically interpreted as a single unit. Wh-doubling configurations are common across NIDs (see Manzini & Savoia 2005; 2011; Bonan 2019), but only optionally attested with sa in Lamonat and Sovramontino. Again, note that the co-existence of the clitic wh-item and the postverbal tonic wh-item is only possible because the former does not carry focal prominence. All other non-d-linked/non-mirative preverbal wh-elements (i.e. wh-clitics) show a strict syntactic distribution that is complementary to that of tonic postverbal wh-elements.

Let us consider examples (66), (67), (68) and (69) below. They show the distribution of the wh-clitic onde ‘where’ and its (apparently in-situ) tonic counterpart aonde ‘where’:

Examples (66) to (69) show that onde and aonde are not interchangeable. Onde can only appear pre-verbally, while purely focal aonde (i.e. non-d-linked/non-mirative) can only appear in apparently in-situ position. Onde is the clitic form of its tonic counterpart aonde. Besides its atonic status and the impossibility of carrying focal prominence, another straightforward piece of evidence can be put forward in support of the clitic status of onde: onde cannot be used in isolation, while aonde can (e.g. ‘where?’ to ask for a precise location).20

Across NIDs, clitic wh-elements are robustly attested (Manzini & Savoia 2005; 2011; Poletto & Pollock 2009; 2015). Poletto and Pollock (2009; 2015) put forward a three-way distinction between tonic, clitic and weak (à la Cardinaletti & Starke 1999) wh-elements. In this paper, I will only distinguish between clitic and tonic wh-words: a two-way distinction is, in fact, sufficient to account for the distribution and morpho-syntactic behaviour of non-d-linked/non-mirative preverbal wh-elements in Lamonat and Sovramontino (see also Manzini & Savoia’s 2011 criticism on weak wh-elements). Munaro and Poletto (2014) acknowledge the clitic status of some wh-elements across NIDs, exhaustively discussing the diachronic development of the wh-word where across NIDs. In order to account for the tonic-clitic divide across NIDs, they reconstruct the internal layering of the wh-word where based on its morphological composition. They claim that the wh-item where is made up of three sub-elements: i) a prepositional formative, which corresponds to either one of the following prepositions in ‘in’, di ‘of’, and da ‘from’, or a combination of them; ii) a vocalic formative o/u namely the wh-operator feature that developed from Indo-European wh- formative qw; and iii) a deictic locative element derived from various sources -nd, -v, or -la, expressing locative deixis. Following Munaro and Poletto’s (2014) analysis, in Table 2, I show the internal make-up of the tonic wh-word aonde in Lamonat and Sovramontino.

In light of Table 2, in its diachronic development, the clitic wh-element onde lacks the prepositional layer, resulting in a reduced morpho-phonological form. Also, the epenthetic final vowel -e is absent if the inflected verb to which it attaches starts with a vowel. Based on Poletto and Munaro’s (2014) discussion of the diachronic development of clitic and tonic where across NIDs, we can safely claim that a clitic wh-form of where is also present in Friulian. This will be particularly important in Section 6 where I will compare the derivation of wh-questions in Friulian and Lamonat/Sovramontino. Much like onde in Lamonat and Sovramontino, Friulian clitic la ‘where’ lacks Poletto and Munaro’s (2014) prepositional layer (compared to its tonic counterpart dulà ‘where’). The wh-questions in (70) and (71) are respectively examples of Friulian clitic form of ‘where’ la and its tonic counterpart dulà:

The Friulian clitic wh-form la exhibits the same behaviour as onde in Lamonat and Sovramontino: it cannot appear in isolation and, phonologically, relies on the inflected verb to which it attaches. In addition, both la and dulà cannot co-occur in the same sentence, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (72):

Besides where and what, Lamonat and Sovramontino exhibit a full set of clitic wh-items, as shown in Table 3 along with their tonic counterparts.

Clitic wh-forms systematically appear preverbally. Tonic wh-forms can only appear preverbally if they carry a salient discourse-pragmatic reading (i.e. d-linked or mirative). It is important to note, however, that how, how much, who and, in Sovramontino only, what have the same form in the tonic and clitic paradigm. The clitic wh-forms are nonetheless unstressed and tend to be phonologically reduced. For example, the clitic form of ‘how much’ loses its final –t when the following inflected verb starts with a consonant, but retains it if the following verb starts with a vowel, as shown in (73) and (74) respectively:

Similarly, the clitic form of ‘how’, come, loses its final vowel when the inflected verb starts with a vowel, as show in (75):

These phenomena are not attested with their tonic counterparts, which do not show any sensitivity to the following phonological environment and always appear in their full form in apparently in-situ position (or preverbal position if they bear a d-linked or a mirative interpretation, see Section 5.3).

The clitic nature of non-d-linked/non-mirative preverbal wh-elements is primarily responsible for their preverbal position. In the syntactic treatment of wh-clitics, I adopt Kayne’s (1991) generalisation that clitics attach to the heads of functional categories. In this regard, I propose that wh-clitics attach to the verb cluster and hence surface in the locus of SCLI. The behaviour of wh-clitics is hence comparable to that of satellite clitics across NEIDs (see Benincà 1994). In Lamonat and Sovramontino, wh-clitics cliticise onto verb cluster, which undergoes T-to-Force movement, surfacing thus in preverbal position, as shown in (76a) and (76b) below:

As argued in Section 4.1.4, the well-formedness of the question is assured by SCLI alone, which licenses a silent wh-operator in SpecForceP through dynamic agreement (Poletto 1993; 2000). It is reasonable to assume that clitic wh-elements are also equipped with a [WH] feature and hence are able to lexicalise the wh-operator in SpecForceP. However, their clitic status is evidence against such analysis. I instead propose that wh-clitics cliticise onto the verb cluster under the complex T°, which undergoes T-to-C movement to the locus of SCLI, yielding their preverbal position.

Having accounted for the different distribution between apparently in-situ purely-focal wh-elements and non-d-linked/non-mirative preverbal wh-elements (i.e. wh-clitics), in the next section, I will discuss the last type of wh-items found in Lamonat and Sovramontino: preverbal tonic wh-elements, which carry either a d-linked or a mirative interpretation.

Let us start our discussion by accounting for the behaviour of d-linked wh-items (Pesetsky 1987). I have in fact not yet proposed an analysis for the type of wh-questions in (77) and (78):

In (77) and (78) a tonic wh-element is fronted. (77) and (78) seem to challenge the analysis of the behaviour of wh-elements in Lamonat and Sovramontino that I have developed so far: the data, in fact, show that tonic wh-elements can appear in preverbal position (as well as in apparently in-situ position). However, in (77) and (78), the preverbal position of the tonic wh-elements is systematically justified by their d-linked interpretation (in the sense of Pesetsky 1987; 2000). It follows that the preverbal position of tonic wh-elements is not identical to the preverbal position of clitic wh-elements, but it is a discourse-pragmatically salient structural position.

In (77), which jumper refers to a limited set of jumpers whose existence and characteristics are known by the interlocutors: it is part of the knowledge shared by speaker and hearer. Similarly, in (78), what refers to a limited set of items that the speakers can choose from: implicitly, the speakers know what these items are. De Cia (2018) provides an analysis of d-linked wh-elements in Lamonat and Sovramontino. He claims that, by virtue of being equipped with a [WH] feature and a [CONTRASTIVE] feature, d-linked wh-elements can occupy SpecForceP, which is a privileged structural discourse-pragmatic position in Lamonat and Sovramontino where contrastiveness is satisfied. It is important to note that following Molnár’s (2002; 2006) arguments on contrastive focus, De Cia (2018) does not conceive contrastiveness as a categorical discourse-pragmatic notion, but as a continuum. The degree of contrastiveness is determined by the properties of the set containing the contrastive element with respect to its size and the accessibility of alternatives. In the contrastiveness continuum, De Cia (2018) argues that d-linked wh-elements are placed in the middle, serving the membership in a finite set of entities discourse-function. This is particularly true of lexically restricted wh-items of the type ‘which X’, which, not surprisingly, virtually always trigger such discourse-pragmatic reading. The d-linked interpretation of a wh-element is tightly linked to common ground management (Krifka 2007; Krifka & Musan 2012): the landing position of a d-linked wh-element is hence a discourse-pragmatically salient one.

De Cia (2018) notes a key difference between non-d-linked wh-elements and their d-linked counterpart: d-linked wh-elements cannot be clefted, as shown in (79b):

The postverbal position of che in (79b) makes it impossible for the tonic wh-item to encode a d-linked interpretation: che in (79b) can only have a focal exhaustive interpretation as regular clefted tonic wh-items. In order to be interpreted as a d-linked wh-item, the wh-element must appear out of the cleft in preverbal position, as shown in (79a): it cannot be realised in apparently in-situ position, but must move to the left peripheral position, in which it can check its [CONTRASTIVE] feature, namely in SpecForceP. The same tonic wh-item (being it bare or prepositional) can hence appear either preverbally or postverbally, depending on its discourse-pragmatic interpretation as either purely focal (postverbal position) or d-linked (preverbal position),21 as shown in (80):

Crucially, the preverbal position of the prepositional wh-item in (80b) triggers a d-linked interpretation, which can be paraphrased as ‘with whom of a previously mentioned/presupposed set of people does your father work?’.

The discourse-pragmatic specialisation of the preverbal position, which, according to De Cia (2018) is also activated in declarative sentences hosting a contrastive XP, is a residual property of Lamonat and Sovramontino’s Force-V2 system (in the sense of Wolfe 2016): the V2 prefield has been reanalysed as a discourse-pragmatically salient position that hosts contrastive XPs (De Cia 2018). As far as root interrogatives are concerned, we have claimed that SpecForceP is occupied by a wh-operator, which satisfies the wh-criterion and derives from dynamic agreement (Poletto 1993; 2000). This position, however, is available to d-linked wh-elements by virtue of carrying both a [WH] and a [CONTRASTIVE] feature. The [WH] feature allows the d-linked wh-element to lexicalise the wh-operator. Purely contrastive XP (equipped with a [CONTRASTIVE] feature, but lacking a [WH] feature) are indeed banned by this position in root interrogatives.22 Note that, given the structural position of the preverbal wh-item and the verb cluster, it follows that nothing can intervene between the d-linked wh-item and the verb cluster. This prediction is indeed borne out in Lamonat and Sovramontino. As previously mentioned, the only non-interrogative XPs that can appear preverbally in root interrogatives are scene-setting elements that are base-generated in a projection higher than ForceP (Poletto 2000; Benincà & Poletto 2004; Greco & Haegeman 2016). As a consequence, it is possible to have a frame-setter preceding a preverbal wh-item, but nothing can intervene between the wh-item and the verb cluster. The special behaviour of this type of wh-elements in Bellunese is known in the literature, but has not been fully addressed in terms of discourse-pragmatics. Poletto and Pollock (2004) claim that d-linked wh-elements are not licensed in focal postverbal position, but higher in the left-peripheral space. Munaro (1998) notes that, in Bellunese, wh-elements that are structurally complex, like (77), are not licensed in apparently in-situ position, but must appear preverbally. In terms of frequency, d-linked wh-elements are more often part of a complex DP (‘which X’), than bare wh-words. As a consequence, d-linked wh-elements are often more structurally complex than non-d-linked wh-words; however, this is not always the case, as shown in (78). I claim that the internal structural complexity of the tonic wh-word does not predict its syntactic position within the clause: what determines the preverbal position of a tonic wh-element is its salient discourse-pragmatic interpretation.

Two predictions follow from our discussion so far: (i) lexically restricted wh-items that do not carry an immediate d-linked interpretation should appear postverbally in apparently in-situ position, (ii) aggressively non-d-linked wh-elements (see Pesetsky 1987) should appear postverbally, as, de facto, they lack a d-linked interpretation. While the first prediction is fully borne out, the second needs some further discussion and the introduction of the concept of mirativity. As for (i), lexically restricted wh-items without a d-linked interpretation must appear postverbally, as shown in (81):

In (81) no d-linked interpretation is available, hence the postverbal position of the lexically restricted wh-item. Note, however, that the same lexically restricted wh-element must instead surface preverbally if it bears a d-linked interpretation, as shown in (82):

In (82), there holds a contrastive relationship between the number of books read by the speaker and the number of books read by the hearer. The latter is encoded in the lexically restricted wh-item, which must thus appear preverbally.

As for (ii) aggressively non-d-linked wh-items, they can unexpectedly appear in both preverbal and postverbal position. It is possible to identify two categories of aggressively non-d-linked wh-items: (i) those roughly translating into ‘what the hell’ (che dal ostia/che ostia, che dal demonio/che demonio), and (ii) those translating roughly into ‘what the fuck’ (che mona, che cazzo). The first group can surface in either preverbal or postverbal position, whereas the second group seems to be only felicitous in preverbal position. In Lamonat and Sovramontino, these wh-items are mainly uttered when the speaker wants to convey surprise, disappointment, incredulity or anger. This is especially true of the second group of aggressively non-d-linked wh-items. This aspect brings us to the last type of discourse-pragmatically salient tonic wh-items that can appear in preverbal position: wh-XPs encoding mirativity (in the sense of Cruschina 2012). The possibility of aggressively non-d-linked wh-items to surface preverbally is hence not justified by the fact that they carry a [CONTRASTIVE] feature (in fact, they cannot as they are by definition non-d-linked), but because of their mirative interpretation (see Cruschina 2012). I here therefore propose two possible analyses for aggressively non-d-linked wh-items (as well as more generally tonic wh-items) that carry a [MIRATIVE] feature and hence must surface in preverbal position. Either (i) we expand on De Cia’s (2018) proposal and argue that the residual V2 prefield is a generalised discourse-pragmatically salient position that can host both contrastive (i.e. d-linked) and mirative XPs endowed with a [WH] feature, or (ii) we assume that mirative XPs land in a dedicated functional projection (à la Bianchi et al 2015; 2016), which, according to Bianchi et al. (2015; 2016), is located higher than ForceP. Both analyses correctly predict that no XP can intervene between the wh-item and the verb cluster. Given that d-linked wh-items cannot co-occur with a mirative XP, I believe that adopting an analysis whereby the V2 prefield has been reanalysed as a salient discourse-pragmatic position that can host contrastiveness and mirativity is more empirically and theoretically sound. I will nonetheless leave this point open for debate. Going back to aggressively non-d-linked wh-items, it is important to note that if a mirative interpretation is not in place, they must appear postverbally. Mirativity is not only a discourse-pragmatic reading available to aggressively non-d-linked wh-items, tonic bare and prepositional wh-items can also have a mirative interpretation. In such case tonic wh-items must surface preverbally to satisfy their [MIRATIVE] feature. Let us consider the wh-question in (83):

The wh-question in (83) features a tonic wh-item (aonde) and was uttered by an angry mother, whose son was late for lunch. In this particular context, (83) can be paraphrased as ‘where the hell have you been?!’ employing an aggressively non-d-linked wh-item. Given the discourse-pragmatic context, the wh-element in (83) does not land preverbally because of a d-linked interpretation: its preverbal position is instead due to its mirative interpretation. Figure 2 summarises the overall distribution of wh-items in Lamonat and Sovramontino.23

Having analysed and discussed the behaviour of clitic and tonic wh-elements, and the effect of information structure on tonic wh-items, it is time to take the investigation a step forward with the following question: why are apparently in-situ wh-elements only present in certain NEIDs and not in others? By comparing Lamonat and Sovramontino with Friulian, I will claim that wh-in-situ is the result of a deeper microparametric variation across NEIDs that involves the locus of SCLI.