On the strategies for the formation of long-distance dependencies in subject questions

1. On the strategies for the formation of long-distance dependencies in subject questions Marcel den Dikken CUNY Graduate Center & Meertens Institute (KNAW)

2. From the description of the Nordic Center of Excelllence in Microcomparative Syntax (NORMS; http://norms.uit.no/), with reference to the variation within Scandinavian with respect to subject extraction from finite subordinate clauses: “Some dialects allow a wh-subject to be extracted provided that no complementizer precedes the empty embedded subject position, whereas other dialects allow the comple-mentizer at to occur in precisely that position. Yet other varieties allow the presence of at only if a resumptive pro-noun is inserted in the embedded subject position (e.g. the Bodø dialect of Norwegian, cf. Fiva 1991), and in some dialects som rather than at appears at the left edge of the embedded clause when a subject is wh-extracted to the matrix Left Periphery (cf. Nordgård 1988).”

3. (1) who do you think (*that) read the book? (2) who do you think *(that) read the book? (2') who do you think (that) read the book? (3) who do you think that he read the book? (4) who do you think REL read the book? “Some dialects allow a wh-subject to be extracted provided that no complementizer precedes the empty embedded subject position, whereas other dialects allow the comple-mentizer at to occur in precisely that position. Yet other varieties allow the presence of at only if a resumptive pro-noun is inserted in the embedded subject position (e.g. the Bodø dialect of Norwegian, cf. Fiva 1991), and in some dialects som rather than at appears at the left edge of the embedded clause when a subject is wh-extracted to the matrix Left Periphery (cf. Nordgård 1988).”

4. (1) who do you think (*that) read the book? (2) who do you think *(that) read the book? (2') who do you think (that) read the book? (3) who do you think that he read the book? (4) who do you think REL read the book? (1) represents what is also found in Standard English: the ‘that-trace effect’. (2) represents the situation found in Standard Dutch: the ‘anti-that-trace effect’. (2') represents the situation found in some English dialects (e.g. Ozark English, Appalachian English). (3) represents a resumption strategy common around the globe as a way of ‘patching up’ what would otherwise fail. (4) represents a strategy that is similar to or even identical with the well-known ‘que>qui rule’ of French.

5. (1) who do you think (*that) read the book? (2) who do you think *(that) read the book? (2') who do you think (that) read the book? (3) who do you think that he read the book? (4) who do you think REL read the book? (4') qui crois-tu {*que/qui} a lu le livre? (4) represents a strategy that is similar to or even identical with the well-known ‘que>qui rule’ of French.

6. (1) who do you think (*that) read the book? (2) who do you think *(that) read the book? (2') who do you think (that) read the book? (3) who do you think that he read the book? (4) who do you think REL read the book? One thing that is interesting about all of these wh-questions is that the wh-phrase is not pronounced in the clause in which it ‘belongs’ but instead in a higher clause: these are all cases of long-distancewh-dependencies. Another interesting thing about the long-distance wh-question in (1) is that the subordinating conjunction (‘complementiser’) that, which can otherwise introduce an embedded finite clause in English and Scandinavian, must be absent: (1) works only with that omitted.

7. (1) who do you think (*that) read the book? This ‘that-trace effect’ suggests that the long-distance wh- question in (1) is derived by movement of who from the clause embedded under think into the higher clause: such movement cannot proceed across that if the wh-phrase is a subject; that ‘blocks’ the movement of who. Movement of who leaves a silent copy or ‘trace’. This silent copy must find an antecedent within the same clause — but it doesn’t find one when that is present. Movement out of the lower clause via a stopover on the edge of that clause is ungrammatical: (5) who do you think (*that) who read the book?

8. Movement of who leaves a silent copy or ‘trace’. This silent copy must find an antecedent within the same clause — but it doesn’t find one when that is present. Movement out of the lower clause via a stopover on the edge of that clause is ungrammatical: (5') * who do you think whothatwho read the book?

9. NB: this is often taken to be the standard way to form long wh-movement dependencies — but in my recent work I have argued (on the basis of facts from i.a. Hungarian and Chamorro) that it is in fact ill-formed. Movement to the edge of a clause is always terminal: onward movement from a clause edge is impossible. So long wh-movement must exit the clause in one fell swoop, leaving an unlicensed copy of who when that is there. When that is not there, the structure of the lower clause is reduced, and the silent copy does find a local antecedent. (5) who do you think (*that) who read the book? (5') * who do you think whothatwho read the book?

10. an aside... The literature is literally teeming with so-called evidence for successive-cyclic movement through SpecCP: • • complementiser agreement • • embedded inversion • • quantifier float • • intermediate P-stranding • • etc. etc. Upon inspection, none of this actually constitutes evidence specifically for successive-cyclic movement through SpecCP. See Den Dikken (2009) for detailed discussion. I will pick out one case-study here: sentence processing.

11. Gibson & Warren (2004) [Syntax] present evidence for the presence of intermediate traces coming from English native speakers’ processing of long wh-questions. a. the manager who the consultant claimed that the new proposal had pleased will hire five workers tomorrow b. the manager who the consultant’s claim about the new proposal had pleased will hire five workers tomorrow a. the consultant claimed that the new proposal had pleased the manager who will hire five workers tomorrow b. the consultant’s claim about the new proposal had pleased the manager who will hire five workers tomorrow In (xa), the reading time delay at pleased (caused by the dis- tance between the filler and the gap) is shorter than in (xb). In (ya,b), where no extraction is involved from the complement of pleased, no such difference in RTs at pleased is found.

12. Gibson & Warren (2004) [Syntax] present evidence for the presence of intermediate traces coming from English native speakers’ processing of long wh-questions. ↓ a. the manager who the consultant claimed that the new proposal had pleased will hire five workers tomorrow b. the manager who the consultant’s claim about the new proposal had pleased will hire five workers tomorrow The shorter RT at pleased in (xa) compared to (xb) is taken to suggest that the gap following pleased is less distant from its immediate antecedent in (xa) than it is in (xb). This in turn is taken to suggest that there is a wh-antecedent near the gap in object position in the embedded CP in (xa). This wh-antecedent is taken to be an intermediate trace, situated in the embedded SpecCP position — because...

13. Gibson & Warren (2004) [Syntax] present evidence for the presence of intermediate traces coming from English native speakers’ processing of long wh-questions. ↓ a. the manager who the consultant claimed that the new proposal had pleased will hire five workers tomorrow b. the manager who the consultant’s claim about the new proposal had pleased will hire five workers tomorrow a. the consultant claimed that the new proposal had pleased the manager who will hire five workers tomorrow b. the consultant’s claim about the new proposal had pleased the manager who will hire five workers tomorrow Gibson & Warren also find a longer RT at that in (xa) than in the corresponding non-extraction case in (ya). But they also note that the RT at about in (xb) is longer than in the non-extraction case in (yb), so the longer RT at that in (xa) is not clear evidence for a trace specifically inSpecCP.

14. (1) who do you think (*that) read the book? end of aside — back to (1) Recall… Movement to the edge of a clause is always terminal: onward movement from a clause edge is impossible. So long wh-movement must exit the clause in one fell swoop, leaving an unlicensed copy of who when that is there. (5) who do you think (*that) who read the book? (5') * who do you think whothatwho read the book?

15. (1) who do you think (*that) read the book? (2) who do you think *(that) read the book? (2') who do you think (that) read the book? (3) who do you think that he read the book? (4) who do you think REL read the book? Now that we have a sense of how (1) works, let us ask how the long subject questions in (2)–(4) are built, and what it is that makes varieties that have these types of long subject questions different from Standard English.

16. (1) who do you think (*that) read the book? (2) who do you think *(that) read the book? That in Dutch (2), the complementiser cannot be omitted is unremarkable: a finite subordinate in Dutch must always be introduced by either a wh-phrase or a complementiser. But the fact that (2) is grammatical with Comp included is remarkable: if the ungrammaticality of (1) with Comp included follows from a ban on movement of who across that (as just argued), then the grammaticality of (2) with Comp included could indicate that in such long subject questions there need not be movement of the wh-phrase out of the lower clause. But how can (2) not involve wh-movement out of the lower clause? Isn’t who the subject of the embedded clause in (2) just as it is in (1)?

17. Indeed it is — but it seems that in the Dutch-speaking world, it is possible for a wh-phrase to originate in a higher clause and establish its connection with the lower clause via an ‘associate’ in the lower clause. Thus, colloquial varieties of Dutch can make long-distance wh- questions by employing, alongside the standard strategy in (6) (= (2)), a strategy featuring two tokens of the wh-phrase — the so-called ‘wh-copying’ construction, illustrated in (7). (6) wie denk je *(dat) het boek heeft gelezen? (7) wie denk je wie het boek heeft gelezen? In (7), the wh-phrase in sentence-initial position is not alone: it has what appears to be an identical twin, situated at the left edge of the embedded clause.

18. The map below shows the geographical distribution of the‘wh-copying’ construction in the Dutch-speaking world. → (6) is possible but not (7) → (7) is possible (6) wie denk je *(dat) het boek heeft gelezen? (7) wie denk je wie het boek heeft gelezen?

19. In addition, there are several colloquial varieties of Dutch that can make long-distance wh-questions by employing an invariant wh-element wat ‘what’ in the higher clause and placing the ‘real’ wh-phrase at the edge of the lower clause — the so-called ‘wh-scope marking’ or ‘partial wh-movement’ construction, illustrated in (8). (6) wie denk je *(dat) het boek heeft gelezen? (7) wie denk je wie het boek heeft gelezen? (8) wat denk je wie het boek heeft gelezen? Here the ‘real’ wh-phrase is the wie ‘who’ downstairs; and the fact that its scope extends up to the higher clause is marked by the ‘scope marker’ wat ‘what’ upstairs.

20. The map below shows the geographical distribution of the‘wh-scope marking’ construction in the Dutch-speaking world. → (6) is possible but not (8) → (8) is possible (6) wie denk je *(dat) het boek heeft gelezen? (8) wat denk je wie het boek heeft gelezen?

21. The fact that ‘wh-copying’ (7) and ‘wh-scope marking’ (8) are grammatical in colloquial Dutch paves the way towards an analysis of the grammaticality of ‘that-trace violations’ (6). For all of (6)–(8), I propose that the wh-element in the higher clause is born in that clause — that is, none of these exam- ples involve long wh-movement. (6) wie denk je *(dat) het boek heeft gelezen? (7) wie denk je wie het boek heeft gelezen? (8') * wie denk je wat het boek heeft gelezen? (8) wat denk je wie het boek heeft gelezen? For (8), this is most straightforwardly the case: wat is clearly not the subject of the embedded clause; all it does in this sentence is mark the scope of the wh-phrase wie, which is pronounced in the lower clause. The ungrammaticality of (8') follows: wat in the lower clause cannot mark scope, and is hence redundant.

22. For (7), I propose an analysis that runs along parallel lines: the wie pronounced in the lower clause has its scope assigned by a scope marker in the higher clause; but whereas in (8) this scope marker is the ‘bare’ wh- word wat, in (7) the scope marker shows concord with the wh-word in the lower clause. (6) wie denk je *(dat) het boek heeft gelezen? (7) wie denk je wie het boek heeft gelezen? (8) wat denk je wie het boek heeft gelezen? Concretely, the person, number, and gender properties (including animacy) of the wh-word in the lower clause are ‘copied over’ onto the scope marker ‘upstairs’.

23. (7) wat denk je wie[Pers/Num/Gen] het boek heeft gelezen? wie (7) wie denk je wie het boek heeft gelezen? Concretely, the person, number, and gender properties (including animacy) of the wh-word in the lower clause are ‘copied over’ onto the scope marker ‘upstairs’.

24. So in neither of the ‘multiplicity’ cases in (7) and (8) is there movement of a wh-phrase from the lower clause into the higher clause. (6) wie denk je *(dat) het boek heeft gelezen? (7) wie denk je wie het boek heeft gelezen? (8) wat denk je wie het boek heeft gelezen? Both scope-marking and ‘wh-copying’ constructions involve two separate wh-dependencies: one in the higher clause, involving a scope marker (which may or may not be ‘concordial’), and another in the lower clause.

25. With this analysis of the ‘multiplicity’ cases in place, let’s now return to the example in (6). From (7)–(8), we have learnt that Dutch can form its long wh- dependencies via either of two ‘double-Dutch’ strategies, neither of which involves long wh-movement. (6) wie denk je *(dat) het boek heeft gelezen? This makes it logically possible to envision a grammar for Dutch long subject wh-dependencies that does not employ long wh-movement at all — that is, even (6) does not involve movement of wie from the lower clause into the higher clause. If (6) does not involve movement of wie from the lower clause, the absence of a ‘blocking effect’ of dat follows.

26. If indeed (6) does not involve long wh-movement of wie, it could instead be very much like (7), with wie being a ‘concordial scope marker’. (6) wie denk je *(dat) het boek heeft gelezen? (7) wie denk je wie het boek heeft gelezen? (8) wat denk je wie het boek heeft gelezen? But while in (7) the lower clause contains an overt element expressing at least the person, number, and gender properties of the wh-phrase, there is no such element in the lower clause in (6), which is introduced by the subordinator dat.

27. So if (6) is to involve ‘concordial scope marking’ rather than long wh-movement, what is it that wie is in a concord relationship with in this kind of sentence? (6) wie denk je *(dat) het boek heeft gelezen? (7) wie denk je wie het boek heeft gelezen? (8) wat denk je wie het boek heeft gelezen? My answer: with itself — that is, there is in fact an instance of wie at the left edge of the lower clause in (6), but this wie is ultimately not spelled out.

28. (7) wat denk je wie[Pers/Num/Gen] het boek heeft gelezen? wie Recall that in (7) the element introducing the lower clause entertains a concord relationship with the upstairs scope marker for its person, number, and gender properties. Those properties are a subset of the full array of features borne by these elements; and as a result, the ‘concordial scope marker’ and the introducer of the lower clause are not always strictly identical. (9) a. wie denk je welk type je bent? b. wie denk je welk team er kampioen wordt? c. wie denk je welke topsportvrouw dit is? d. wie denk je welke stellen nog bij elkaar zijn?

29. (7) wat denk je wie[Pers/Num/Gen] het boek heeft gelezen? wie Recall that in (7) the element introducing the lower clause entertains a concord relationship with the upstairs scope marker for its person, number, and gender properties. Those properties are a subset of the full array of features borne by these elements; and as a result, the ‘concordial scope marker’ and the introducer of the lower clause are not always strictly identical. Now imagine what would happen if there were not a partial concord but a full concord relationship between the scope marker and the lower wh-element.

30. (10) wat denk je wie[ALL FEATURES] het boek heeft gelezen? wie What we end up with as a result of full concord between the two wh-elements is a situation in which we have two fully identicalwh-elements in the syntactic structure, one looking down on (‘c-commanding’) the other. When we now want to linearise and spell out the result of full concord in (10), we face a dilemma: one cannot precede or follow oneself. To avoid a contradiction, the phonology realises the output of the derivation in (10) by spelling out only the higher of the two wh-elements.

31. (10) wat denk je wie[ALL FEATURES] het boek heeft gelezen? wie dat With the lower wh-element left unrealised, we would now seem to derive (6'), which is ungrammatical. (6') * wie denk je het boek heeft gelezen? But (6') is independently rejected by the requirement that the left edge of a subordinate finite clause in Dutch may not be left empty. An overt subordinating conjunction is therefore needed whenever full-concordial scope marking takes place in a long wh-question in Dutch. So (10) comes out as (6) (=(2)). (6) wie denk je dat het boek heeft gelezen?

32. (1) who do you think (*that) read the book? (2) who do you think *(that) read the book? (2') who do you think (that) read the book? Not all languages allowing subject wh-extraction across a lexical complementiser show the ‘anti-that-trace’ effect in (2), however: there are varieties of Scandinavian and English (such as Ozark and Appalachian English) which have (2'). The logic of the foregoing discussion leads us to assimilate these varieties of Scandinavian and English to Dutch in the sense that they (can) represent their long wh-dependencies as ‘concordial scope marking’. There are indeed attested cases of ‘wh-copying’ and ‘wh- scope marking’ ─ but no systematic study has been done.

33. (1) who do you think (*that) read the book? (2) who do you think *(that) read the book? (2') who do you think (that) read the book? (10) what do you think who is the best politician? (11) who do you think who has most influenced you? (12) who do you think which celebrity has the best hair? (10)–(12) and other cases like them are all readily attested on Google; (12) is particularly interesting because it shows once again (like Dutch (9)) that so-called ‘wh-copying’ is not literally the copying of the lower wh-phrase. There are indeed attested cases of ‘wh-copying’ and ‘wh- scope marking’ ─ but no systematic study has been done.

34. (1) who do you think (*that) read the book? (2) who do you think *(that) read the book? (2') who do you think (that) read the book? (10) what do you think who is the best politician? (11) who do you think who has most influenced you? (12) who do you think which celebrity has the best hair? There is often no simple way of telling whether such senten- ces are produced by native speakers of English or not. But Gutiérrez’s work on L2 acquisition of English long wh- questions observes that one of the five L1 adult controls produced constructions of the type in (10)–(12) (though no exact details are provided).

35. (1) who do you think (*that) read the book? (2) who do you think *(that) read the book? (2') who do you think (that) read the book? (10) what do you think who is the best politician? (11) who do you think who has most influenced you? (12) who do you think which celebrity has the best hair? There is often no simple way of telling whether such senten- ces are produced by native speakers of English or not. An interesting case is (13), taken from an article in Harvard Business and reprinted in Business Week ─ the article is by Umair Haque, probably a non-native speaker, but it must have been given the nod by the copy-editors. (13) who do you think who should be thinking in terms of markets instead of platforms?

36. (1) who do you think (*that) read the book? (2) who do you think *(that) read the book? (2') who do you think (that) read the book? (10) what do you think who is the best politician? (11) who do you think who has most influenced you? (12) who do you think which celebrity has the best hair? There is often no simple way of telling whether such senten- ces are produced by native speakers of English or not. My hypothesis is that such sentences do indeed occur in the spontaneous speech of English speakers who have (2'). Within Germanic at least, acceptance and production of that- trace sequences should be systematically correlated with acceptance and production of ‘multiplicity’ in wh-questions.

37. (1) who do you think (*that) read the book? (2) who do you think *(that) read the book? (2') who do you think (that) read the book? (10) what do you think who is the best politician? (11) who do you think who has most influenced you? (12) who do you think which celebrity has the best hair? So English speakers who accept and produce that-trace sequences are basically speakers of Dutch ─ except for the fact that their grammar (unlike that of Dutch) allows a null left periphery for finite complement clauses. Within Germanic at least, acceptance and production of that- trace sequences should be systematically correlated with acceptance and production of ‘multiplicity’ in wh-questions.

38. (1) who do you think (*that) read the book? (2) who do you think *(that) read the book? (2') who do you think (that) read the book? (10) what do you think who is the best politician? (11) who do you think who has most influenced you? (12) who do you think which celebrity has the best hair? NB: it is not the case that acceptance and production of that- trace sequences should be universally correlated with acceptance and production of ‘multiplicity’ in wh-questions! Within Germanic at least, acceptance and production of that- trace sequences should be systematically correlated with acceptance and production of ‘multiplicity’ in wh-questions.

39. (1) who do you think (*that) read the book? (2) who do you think *(that) read the book? (2') who do you think (that) read the book? (10) what do you think who is the best politician? (11) who do you think who has most influenced you? (12) who do you think which celebrity has the best hair? NB: it is not the case that acceptance and production of that- trace sequences should be universally correlated with acceptance and production of ‘multiplicity’ in wh-questions! Acceptance and production of that-trace sequences can come about in other ways as well ─ e.g. in the way proposed by Rizzi (1982) for Italian: extraction from a position below I'. This is arguably the right analysis for that-trace sequences in pro-drop languages (such as Italian and Hungarian).

40. (1) who do you think (*that) read the book? (2) who do you think *(that) read the book? (2') who do you think (that) read the book? (10) what do you think who is the best politician? (11) who do you think who has most influenced you? (12) who do you think which celebrity has the best hair? Back to (10)–(12)… Recall that it is often not clear whether such sentences are produced by native speakers of English or not. And in fact, production of ‘wh-copying’ and ‘wh-scope marking’ constructions by second-language learners of English is quite common.

41. Thus, Gutiérrez (2005, 2006) notes the following pattern for Spanish and Basque learners of English (examples partly uniformised; MdD): (14) what do you think who lived in the house? (15) who do you think who lived in the house? (16) what do you think which baby had eaten the cake? (17) who do you think which baby had eaten the cake?

42. Gutiérrez has found that the total number of ‘wh-copying’ and ‘wh-scope marking’ constructions was significantly higher for subject questions than for object and adjunct questions. This is an interesting finding ─ it suggests that L2 learners of English actively substitute wh-copying and wh-scope marking for physical long displacement, and that they do so especially to get around the problem of how to extract the subject from a finite clause with a lexical complementiser. That wh-copying or wh-scope marking should be preferred to physical long displacement is easy to understand from the present perspective: all three strategies involve scope mark- ing, but pure wh-scope marking and wh-copying are ‘cheaper’ in that they involve either no concord between the scope marker and its associate at all, or partial concord, whereas physical displacement of the subject of the lower clause is a case of full concord, affecting a larger bundle of features.

43. Gutierrez has found that the total number of ‘wh-copying’ and ‘wh-scope marking’ constructions was significantly higher for subject questions than for object and adjunct questions. This is an interesting finding ─ it suggests that L2 learners of English actively substitute wh-copying and wh-scope marking for physical long displacement, and that they do so especially to get around the problem of how to extract the subject from a finite clause with a lexical complementiser. That wh-copying or wh-scope marking should be especially common in the case of long subject questions also follows: whereas for other types of long-distance question formation a successive-cyclic movement derivation is available (via vP- edges only, not stopping over in SpecCP), for long subject questions such a derivation fails (for non-pro-drop languages such as English): fell-swoop extraction of the subject from CP leaves an unlicensed trace in SpecIP.

44. Recall… Movement to the edge of a clause is always terminal: onward movement from a clause edge is impossible. So long wh-movement must exit the clause in one fell swoop, leaving an unlicensed copy of who when that is there. (5) who do you think (*that) who read the book? (5') * who do you think whothatwho read the book?

45. So L2 learners’ elevated tendency to produce wh-copying or wh-scope marking in long subject questions follows from UG. The wh-copying and wh-scope marking strategies are the simplest solution to the problem of subject extraction over that. (14) what do you think who lived in the house? (15) who do you think who lived in the house? (16) what do you think which baby had eaten the cake? (17) who do you think which baby had eaten the cake?

46. Note that UG influence here is not marginal: the scope mark- ing strategy is fundamental to long subject questions. Recall that it is the only way for non-pro-drop languages to form a wh-dependency with the subject of a finite full-CP. Standard English does not use this strategy: it instead forms all of its wh-dependencies via movement, forcing the finite complement clause in long subject questions to be reduced in size (to IP). But there is certainly no dearth of Germanic languages that employ the scope marking strategy for the formation of their long subject wh-dependencies ─ scope marking (esp. full- concordial SM) is much more common than is often thought.

47. Besides scope marking, Germanic (and UG in general) ex- tensively exploits resumptive prolepsis in the formation of long wh-dependencies. The pattern in (3), which I noted at the outset (found in some varieties of Scandinavian), is a representative of this strategy: it base-generates the wh-constituent proleptically in the matrix clause (cf. Cinque 1990); who binds a resumptive downstairs. (3) who do you think that he read the book? I will have nothing more to say about this strategy here today (but see Den Dikken 2009 for details for Hungarian).

48. A fourth pattern we encountered at the outset is the one illustrated in (4). This pattern, also found in certain Scandinavian varieties (and arguably also instantiated by the French ‘que>qui rule’), treats the embedded clause as a relative clause associated with the upstairs wh-element. (3) who do you think that he read the book? (4) who do you think REL read the book?

49. The pattern in (4) is also manifest in some dialects of Dutch, as seen in (20), which is an alternative to the wh-copying con- struction in (7). The relative pronoun option even extends to the wh-scope marking construction: there are a few Dutch dialects which produce (21), a variant of the wh-scope marking case in (8). The patterns in (20) and (21) are both rare, but their syntax is of significant interest. (7) wie denk je wie het boek heeft gelezen? (20) wie denk je die het boek heeft gelezen? (8) wat denk je wie het boek heeft gelezen? (21) wat denk je die het boek heeft gelezen?

50. Footnote: Google finds a few cases of the type in (20) in German (see (i)); (21) appears unattested on the German- language web, but note that (21) is also very rare in Dutch. (ia) wer glaubst Du der Du bist? (ib) wer denkst Du der das bezahlt? The patterns in (20) and (21) are both rare, but their syntax is of significant interest. (7) wie denk je wie het boek heeft gelezen? (20) wie denk je die het boek heeft gelezen? (8) wat denk je wie het boek heeft gelezen? (21) wat denk je die het boek heeft gelezen?