{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03349282296650718, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03444976076555024, 'mean_word_length': 5.748387096774193, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
In Defense of Generalized Wh-Clustering

In earlier work (Gartner and Michaelis 2010), we argued that the treatment of multiple-wh-interrogatives within Stablerian Minimalist Grammars should be developed in terms of wh-clustering (Grewendorf 2001, Sabel 2001). This argument rests on the assumption that application of wh-clustering should be generalized to all languages. Here we defend that assumption against proposals by Grewendorf (2001) and Sabel (2001) to restrict wh-clustering to languages showing a particular morpholexical affinity in their inventories of interrogative and (pure) indefinite pronouns (Bhat 2000, Cheng 1991, Haspelmath 1997). Our defense of generalized wh-clustering focuses on showing that the locality-theoretic reasons given by Grewendorf (2001) to distinguish clustering languages from non-clustering languages lack systematicity. In particular, there seems to be no clear correlation between the morpholexical precondition for wh-clustering and the behavior with respect to superiority and additional wh-effects.