146 ROBERT D. VAN VALIN, JR.
other languages which exhibit the contrast in (133). This is clearly related to
the semantics of the complement-taking predicate; for example, regret is
f active, while say and believe are not, but this is not the whole story. The
explanation of these facts will again involve an investigation of the influ
ence of the lexical semantic properties of the matrix predicate on the infor
mation structure of the sentence. It should be noted that the correlations in
(134) are not universal. In Lakhota, for example, an overt complementizer
is compatible with either narrow focus possibility and with both question
formation possibilities. (The examples in 136 are from Williamson 1984.)
(135) a. [Hoksila etq hél naz\pi kí] ilúkca he?
boy some there 3PL.stand CMPL 2SG.think
"Do you think that some boys were standing there?"
b. [Mary mathó etq wqwichayake kí] ilúkca he?
bear some 3sc3pL.see CMPL 2SG.think Q
"Do you think that Mary saw some bears?"
(136) a. [Tuwá hél naz\he ki] ilúkca he?
who there 3SG.stand.CONT CMPL 2SG.think Q
"Who do you think that is standing there?"
b. [Mary tuwá wqyqke ki] ilúkca he?
who 3sG.3sG.see CMPL 2SG.think Q
"Who do you think that Mary saw?"
The etq-test shows that the focus of a yes-no question can fall on either the
clause-initial (135a) or the immediately pre-verbal NP (135b), and WH-
question formation is possible with respect to either position, as the exam
ples in (136) demonstrate. Thus the presence or absence of a complemen
tizer does not correlate with marked focus possibilities in complement
clauses in Lakhota, unlike English. This must also be explained.
The second class of cases of lexical semantic influence on question for
mation involves instances in which principles (111) and (130) are not met,
and yet question formation is possible. A well-known example of this is sen
tences like What did Mary make the claim that Fred bought? in which ques
tion formation is possible with the question word functioning as an argu
ment of the verb in a noun complement clause, a clear violation of (111). It
has often been noted (e.g. Ross 1967), however, that make the claim is vir
tually synonymous with claim and therefore this sentence is treated for
question formation as if it were What did Mary claim that Fred bought?.