Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Introduction 1
Introduction
WH-Scope in South-Asian Languages
Complement Types, Directionality, and WH-Scope
Conclusion
Summary
References
All Topics
Computer Science

Wh-in-situCase #XXX

Profile image of Josef BayerJosef Bayer

2004

Related papers

The Syntax of Wh-In-Situ
TSAI DYLAN

Since Huang's seminal work on comparative syntax, the research on the structure and properties of in-situ wh-expressions has come a long way. This article distinguishes four types of wh-constructions in terms of Q(uestion)-operator binding and the morpho-syntactic makeup of individual languages. It is pointed out that building a wh-dependency in a language without wh-movement is driven by interpretive needs, and that it can be achieved through covert movement in Logical Form, unselective binding, Q-particle raising, or invisible operator movement in core syntax. In particular, an operator-variable pair can be built on a sentential scale in a robust analytic language such as Chinese. As a result, the quantificational dependency is established not through movement, but through (unselective) binding, which licensing strategy is correlated to the extensive usage of indefinite/polarity wh's across the board. In addition, various factors contributing to the asymmetries of wh-construals are laid out to account for an assortment of locality effects observed across languages, including argument vs. adjunct, referential vs. nonreferential, noun vs. adverb, D-linked vs. non-D-linked, phrase vs. feature, and sentential vs. verbal. Furthermore, the notion of "operator-in-situ" has become a prominent feature in the recent literature to characterize a class of wh-adverbials, which not only take a sentential scope, but also express eventuality causation according to their "height of interpretation." The usage typically involves why-and how come-like expressions, sometimes bordering on the speaker-oriented construals in the top layer of the left periphery. The role-playing nature of wh-in-situ thus leads to a deeper understanding of the inner working of UG, as to how the convergence of a quantificational dependency can be ensured for a particular operator-variable pair in a particular language.

View PDFchevron_right
The source of wh-morphology in questions and relative clauses
Radek Šimík

ConSOLE XV, 2008

Radek Šimík This paper proposes a solution to three related phenomena: (i) an asymmetry in scopal behavior of wh-phrases in questions and relatives, (ii) a symmetry between resumption (in Czech, Hebrew, and Greek relatives) and wh-relatives (in English), and (iii) a symmetry between gaps (as opposed to resumptives) and that-relatives. I make an explicit proposal concerning the fine-structure of operator DPs and argue that wh-morphology in questions and relatives is indicative of DP-internal quantification.

View PDFchevron_right
Semantic analysis of wh-complements
Martin Stokhof

Linguistics and Philosophy, 1982

View PDFchevron_right
A syntactic account of wh-in-situ in Turkish
Selçuk İşsever

Essays on Turkish Linguistics: proceedings of the 14th international conference on Turkish linguistics (6-8 August 2008), 2009

View PDFchevron_right
Syntactic QR in wh-in-situ languages
Yuko Yanagida

Lingua, 1996

Japanese is gererally recognized as a language in which there is no observable wh-movement. In this paper, it will be shown that there are two types of w&elements: one identifiable as w&operators and the other as non-quantificational variables. I claim that focus phrases and wh-operators undergo syntactic movement to a position that appears immediately above VP. This position is associated with a phrasal category, which I label Focus Projection (FocP). This paper discusses peculiar ordering restrictions in multiple questions in Japanese, as observed by Saito (1987, 1994) and Watanabe (1992). Given that operators undergo syntactic movement, I will provide a unified account for the ordering restrictions in relation to the Minimal Link Condition, as outlined by Chomsky (1992, 1995) and Chomsky and Lasnik (1993). ' I would like to thank John Whitman, John Bowers, Jim Gair and Takashi Imai for their insightful comments.

View PDFchevron_right
Multiple Wh-Construction and Its Interpretations in Chinese *
Roger Liao

This paper investigates the syntax and semantics of multiple wh-questions (MWHs) in Chinese, which, being a clear case of wh-in situ language, qualifies as a useful tool to reexamine earlier proposals on the same issue in wh-movement languages. On the syntax part, based on Subjacency conditions and other blocking effects, we argue that even in Chinese, one of the wh-phrases in the MWHs must move at LF in order to trigger the pair-list reading (PL), a proposal that reflects a generalization in Bošković . On the semantic interface, inspired by a proposal in Beghelli (1997), we propose that the nature of the LF movement for the pair-list reading is focus-related. We show that through the focus semantics, we can straightforwardly derive the 'question-on-question effect' in Hagstrom (1998) and the 'conjoined speech acts' analysis in . Furthermore, since focus is by definition exhaustive, we also derive the exhaustivity of the pair-list reading without any ad hoc stipulations. As for single-pair readings (SP), the ability of Chinese wh-phrases to remain in situ provides a mechanism for them to be unselectively bound by the Q-morpheme, which in semantics is interpreted as a choice function, as in . The result is that a single-pair answer suffices as an answer to MWHs.

View PDFchevron_right
Syntactic doubling and the structure of wh-chains
Sjef Barbiers

Journal of Linguistics, 2010

View PDFchevron_right
Jarai wh-questions: Pseudoclefting, wh-raising, & clause structure
Joshua Jensen

Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, 2011

Overview & Goals: This study investigates wh-questions in Jarai (Austronesian, Vietnam; SVO). Using diagnostics in Potsdam & Polinsky (2009), I argue that some clause-initial wh-phrases in Jarai originate as the predicate of a pseudo-cleft structure, while others move from a subcategorized argument position. Evidence: I present four arguments that Jarai has two routes to clause-initial wh-phrases. The first three pieces of evidence show that in questions containing the particle pô (2), the remainder is a headless relative clause, unlike the remainder in questions without pô (1). First, the particle pô occurs as a dummy head in headless relative clauses outside of wh-questions (3). Second, Jarai uses a special negative form, ƀu-djơ̆ ‘neg’, for negating a DP in copular clauses; this negator can be used in pô-questions but not in questions without pô. Third, the postnominal demonstrative anŭn ‘that’ can occur at the right edge of a pô-question (4a), indicating that the remainder is a DP; but its occurrence at the end of a question without pô is unacceptable (4b). The final piece of evidence shows that the wh-phrase in pô-questions originates as the predicate. As (5a) shows, hlơi can appear clause-finally in a pô-question as the complement of an optional copula. However, hlơi in non-pô-questions cannot be clause-final (5b). Further Issues & Analysis: Having argued that the wh-phrase in a pô-question is the predicate in a pseduo- cleft structure, the word order in (2) (compared to (5a)) needs to be explained given that canonical word order in Jarai is subject-initial and predicate-final. I propose that (5a) shows the base-generated structure of pseudo- cleft questions, with hlơi merged in the predicate. In (2), the wh-phrase has undergone wh-fronting out of the predicate. Theoretical Implications: Cole & Hermon (2008) have argued that SVO clauses in Toba Batak (Austrone- sian; VOS) are derived by VP-fronting followed by raising of the subject. Because Jarai’s SVO word order is atypical for western Malayo-Polynesian languages, it would be attractive to show that SVO in Jarai, too, is VP-raising with subsequent subject-raising. Nevertheless, the presence of wh-argument fronting rules out this route to Jarai SVO word order, assuming with Oda (2005) and Potsdam (2009) that VP-raising is inconsistent with wh-raising. Thus, the presence of wh-fronting in Jarai offers a useful diagnostic for adjudicating between different plausible accounts of Jarai SVO clause structure (see Chung (2008) for other arguments).

View PDFchevron_right
Obligatory Overt Wh-Movement in a Wh-in-Situ Language
Tanmoy Bhattacharya

Linguistic Inquiry, 2003

Bangla has commonly been assumed to be an SOV wh-in-situ language. Here it is suggested that both of these characterizations are incorrect and that Bangla actually has obligatory overt wh-movement from a basic SVO word order. This is disguised by a conspiracy of factors but revealed in restrictions on wh-scope and certain apparently optional word order possibilities with complement clauses. Adopting a different perspective on the SOV status of Bangla allows for a simple explanation of the patterns observed and raises the possibility that other ''wh-in-situ'' languages may also have (obligatory) overt whmovement.

View PDFchevron_right
The syntax of wh-questions in unaccusative and (Un)ergative structures in Mehri language: A Phase-based approach
Prof. Abdul Hafeed A L I Fakih

PLoS ONE, 2023

The Mehri Language is an endangered language spoken in eastern Yemen, a subgroup of the Semitic language family, and a Southern Arabic language. The syntax of Mehri wh-questions has not been explored within minimalism; hence, there is a morpho-syntactic need to provide a modern analysis of wh-questions in order to show how the interrogative structures can be derived. This study aims to examine the syntax of the wh-question movement in Mehri's unaccusative/ergative and unergative structures and answer the following questions within Chomsky's (2000 and 2008) Phase-based Theory: (i) Does the Mehri language allow fronting of wh-phrases to [Spec-CP]? And (ii) how can wh-movement in Mehri unaccusative and (un)ergative structures be accounted for? This work presents a novel analysis of whquestion movement in unaccusative/ergative and unergative structures in Mehri; it demonstrates that the source head C triggers the movement of wh-adjunct and wh-subject phrases. In wh-adjunct extraction, two strategies are employed: overt wh-fronting and whin-situ; when the head Foc inherits an edge feature from C, wh-adjunct overtly undergoes movement from its original position within v*P to the left peripheries of [Spec-FocP] and subsequently to [Spec-CP]. When the lexical wh-adjunct remains within v*P, its question features covertly move to [Spec-CP], because the head Foc does not inherit an edge feature from C. In wh-subject extraction, the wh-subject overly undergoes movement to [Spec-CP] because C obligatorily inherits the edge feature to the head Top, which triggers movement of the illogical subject in unaccusative/ergative structures and the logical external specifier in unergative structures to [Spec-CP]. Moreover, Mehri obeys the Phase Impenetrability Condition of Chomsky, where wh-subject and wh-adjunct phrases must pass through certain phases until [Spec-CP].

View PDFchevron_right

References (85)

  1. Aoun, J.: 1985, A Grammar of Anaphora, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  2. Aoun, J., N. Hornstein and D. Sportiche: 1981, "Aspects of wide scope quantification," Journal of Linguistic Research 1, 67-95.
  3. Aoun, J. and Li, Y.-H.A.: 1993, "Wh-elements in situ: syntax or LF?," Linguistic Inquiry 24, 199-238.
  4. Baker, C.L.: 1970, "Notes on the description of English questions: the role of an abstract question morpheme," Foundations of Language 6, 197-219.
  5. Bal, B. K.: 1990, COMP and Complementizers in Oriya and English, Doctoral dissertation, Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages, Hyderabad (India).
  6. Bayer, J.: 1990, Directionality of Government and Logical Form: A Study of Focusing Particles and Wh-Scope, Habilitationsschrift, Universität Konstanz.
  7. Bayer, J.: 1995, "On the origin of sentential arguments in German and Bengali," in H. Haider, S. Olsen and S. Vikner (eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
  8. Bayer, J.: 1996, Directionality and Logical Form: On the Scope of Focussing Particles and Wh-in-situ. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
  9. Bayer, J.: 1997, "CP-extraposition as argument shift," in: D. Beerman, D. LeBlanc & H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), Rightward Movement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  10. Bayer, J.: 1998, "Two types of covert movement,"paper presented at the Workshop on Acquisition and Variati- on in Syntax and Semantics. SISSAL Trieste, 03.-06.09.1998.
  11. Bayer, J.: 1999a, "Final complementizers in hybrid languages, Journal of Linguistics 35, 233-271.
  12. Bayer, J.:1999b, "Bound focus in German, or how can association with focus be achieved without going seman- tically astray?" in G. Rebuschi & L. Tuller, (eds.), The Grammar of Focus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  13. Bayer, J. and J. Kornfilt: 1994, "Against scrambling as an instance of Move-," in N. Corver and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), Studies on Scrambling, de Gruyter, Berlin.
  14. Bech, G.: 1955/57, Studien über das deutsche Verbum Infinitum, Niemeyer, Tübingen, (reprinted 1981).
  15. Cheng, L.: 1991, On the Typology of Wh-Questions, Ph.D.dissertation, MIT Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  16. Chierchia, G.: 1991, "Functional WH and weak crossover," in: D. Bates (ed.), Proceedings of WCCFL 10, Stan- ford, 75-90.
  17. Choe, J. W.: 1987, "LF-movement and pied-piping," Linguistic Inquiry 18, 348-353.
  18. Chomsky, N.: 1973, "Conditions on transformations," in S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
  19. Chomsky, N.: 1977, "On WH-movement," in P. Culicover, T. Wasow and A. Akmaijan (eds.), Formal Syntax, Academic Press, New York.
  20. Chomsky, N.: 1995, The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  21. Chung, S., W. Ladusaw and J. McCloskey: 1995, "Sluicing and logical form," Natural Language Semantics 3, 239-282.
  22. Cole, P. and G. Hermon: 1994, "Is there LF wh-movement?," Linguistic Inquiry 25, 239-262.
  23. Cole, P. and G. Hermon: 1998, "The typology of wh-movement and wh-questions in Malay," Syntax 1, 221- 258.
  24. Comorovski, I.: 1996, Interrogative Phrases and the Syntax-Semantics Interface, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
  25. Dayal, V.: 1994, "Scope marking as indirect WH dependency," Natural Language Semantics 2, 137-170.
  26. Dayal, V.: 1996, "Scope marking: in defence of indirect dependency," in U. Lutz & G. Müller (eds.), Papers od Wh-Scope Marking, Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, 76.
  27. Erteschik-Shir, N.: 1990, "Wh-questions and focus," Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 117-149.
  28. Farkas, D.: 1981, "Quantifier scope and syntactic islands, Chicago Linguistic Society 7, 59-66.
  29. Fiengo, R. and J. Higginbotham: 1981, "Opacity in NP," Linguistic Analysis 7, 395-422.
  30. Fiengo, R., C.-T. J. Huang, H. Lasnik and T. Reinhart: 1988, The syntax of wh-in-situ," in H. Borer (ed.) Pro- ceedings of the 7 th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Stanford.
  31. Grewendorf, G, and J. Sabel: 1994, "Long scrambling and incorporation," Linguistic Inquiry 25, 263-308.
  32. Grimshaw, J.: 1991, Extended projection. ms. Brandeis University.
  33. Grosu, A.: 1994, Three Studies in Locality and Case, Routledge, London.
  34. Haider, H.: 1993a, Deutsche Syntax -generativ: Vorstudien zur Theorie einer projektiven Grammatik, Narr, Tübingen.
  35. Haider, H.: 1993b, "Detached clauses -the later the deeper," ms. Universität Stuttgart.
  36. Haider, H.: 1996, "Towards a superior account of superiority," in U. Lutz & G. Müller (eds.), Papers od Wh- Scope Marking, Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, 76.
  37. Hamblin, C. L.: 1973, Questions in Montague English," Foundations of Language 10, 41-53.
  38. Heim, I.: 1982, Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massa- chusetts, Amherst Massachusetts.
  39. Higginbotham, J.: 1993, "Interrogatives," in K. Hale and S.J. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  40. Higginbotham, J. and R. May: 1981, "Questions, quantifiers, and crossing," The Linguistic Review 1, 41-80.
  41. Hornstein, N.: 1995, Logical Form: From GB to Minimalism, Blackwell, Oxford.
  42. Huang, C.-T. J.: 1982, Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, Ph.D.dissertation, MIT Cam- bridge, Massachusetts.
  43. Huang, C.-T. J. and R. May (eds.): 1991, Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
  44. Jayaseelan, K. A.: 1998, "Questions, quantifiers and polarity in Malayalam," ms. Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages, Hyderabad.
  45. Jespersen, O.: 1924, The Philosophy of Grammar, reprinted 1992 by The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  46. Kamp, H.: 1981, "A theory of truth and semantic representation," in J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen and M. Stokhof (eds), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Amsterdam.
  47. Kamp, H. and U. Reyle: 1993, From Discourse to Logic, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
  48. Karttunen, L.: 1977, "Syntax and semantics of questions," Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 3-44.
  49. Kayne, R.: 1994, The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  50. Kayne, R. 1998: "Overt vs. covert movement," Syntax 1, 128-191.
  51. Koopman, H.: 1984, The Syntax of Verbs, Foris, Dordrecht.
  52. Koopman, H.: 1995, "The spec-head configuration," ms. UCLA, Los Angeles.
  53. Kuroda, S.-Y.: 1965, Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language, Ph.D.dissertation, MIT Cam- bridge, Massachusetts.
  54. Kvam, S.: 1983, Linksverschachtelung im Deutschen und Norwegischen, Niemeyer, Tübingen.
  55. Lowenstamm, J: 1977, "Relative clauses in Yiddish: A case for movement, " Linguistic Analysis 3. 197-216.
  56. Mahajan, A.: 1990, The A/A-bar Distinction and Movement Theory, Ph.D.dissertation, MIT Cambridge, Massa- chusetts.
  57. Mahajan, A.: 1994, "Against the relevance of subjacency at LF: The case of Hindi WH," Linguistic Inquiry 25, 171-179.
  58. McDaniel, D.: 1989, "Partial and multiple WH-movement," Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7, 565- 604.
  59. Merchant, J.: to appear, "A'-chain uniformity and islands in Greek sluicing," Studies in Greek Linguistics 19, University of Thessaloniki.
  60. Moritz, L. and D.Valois: 1994, "Pied-piping and specifier-head agreement," Linguistic Inquiry 25, 667-707.
  61. Müller, G. and W. Sternefeld: 1993, "Improper movement and unambiguos binding," Linguistic Inquiry 24, 461-507.
  62. Nishigauchi, T.: 1986, Quantification in Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts. Amherst. Nishigauchi, T.: 1990, Quantification in the Theory of Grammar, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
  63. Noonan, M.: 1985, "Complementation," in T. Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol.2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  64. Pesetsky, D.: 1987, "WH-in-situ: movement and unselective binding," in Reuland and ter Meulen (eds.).
  65. Reinhart, T.: 1991, "Elliptic conjunctions -non-quantificational LF," in A. Kasher (ed.).
  66. Reinhart, T.: 1992, "Wh-in-situ: an apparent paradox," in P. Dekker et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Am- sterdam Colloquium.
  67. Reinhart, T.: 1997, "Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions," Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 335-397.
  68. Reinhart, T.: 1998, "Wh-in-situ in the framework of the minimalist program," Natural Language Semantics 6, 29-56.
  69. Reis, M. 1996, "On was-parentheticals and was ... w-constructions in German," in U. Lutz & G. Müller (eds.), Papers od Wh-Scope Marking, Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340, 76.
  70. Riemsdijk, H. van: 1983, "Correspondence effects and the Empty Category Principle," in Y. Otsu et al. (eds.), Studies in Generative Grammar and Language Acquisition, Editorial Committee, Tokyo.
  71. Rizzi, L.: 1990, Relativized Minimality, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  72. Rizzi, L.: 1991, "Residual verb second and the Wh-criterion," Technical Reports in Formal and Computational Linguistics 2, University of Geneva.
  73. Rizzi, L.: 1995, "The fine structure of the left periphery," ms. University of Geneva.
  74. Ross, J.: 1967, Constraints on Variables in Syntax Ph.D. dissertation, MIT Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  75. Ruys, E.: 1998 "Unexpected wide scope phenomena," SynCom ## Sabel, J.: 1998, Principles and Parameters of Wh-movement, Habilitation thesis, University of Frankfurt/M. Simpson, A. and T. Bhattacharya: 2000, Wh clausal pied piping in Bangla. NELS 30. GLSA, Amherst.
  76. Srivastav, V.: 1991a, WH Dependencies in Hindi and the Theory of Grammar, Ph. D.dissertation, Cornell Uni- versity, Ithaca, NY.
  77. Srivastav, V.: 1991b, "Subjacency effects at LF: The case of Hindi WH," Linguistic Inquiry 22, 762-769.
  78. Srivastav, V.: 1991c, "The syntax and semantics of correlatives," Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 637-686.
  79. Staudacher, P.: 2000, [###], in J. Bayer and C. Römer (eds.), Von der Philologie zur Grammatiktheorie. Fest- schrift für Peter Suchsland zum 65. Geburtstag. Niemeyer, Tübingen.
  80. Stechow, A von.: 1996, "Against LF pied-piping," Natural Language Semantics 4, 57-110.
  81. Szabolcsi, A. and F. Zwarts: 1993, "Weak islands and an algebraic semantics for scope taking," Natural Lan- guage Semantics 1, 235-284.
  82. Trissler, S. and U. Lutz: 1992, "Einige Überlegungen zu syntaktischen +w-Merkmalen, Interrogativsätzen und w-Phrasen im Deutschen," Arbeitsberichte des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340 Sprachtheoretische Grundla- gen für die Computerlinguistik 7, 105-178.
  83. Wahba, W.: 1991, "LF movement in Iraqi Arabic," in C.-T. J. Huang and R. May (eds.), Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
  84. Watanabe, A.: 1992, "WH-in-situ, subjacency and chain formation," MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 2. Webelhuth, G.: 1989, Syntactic Saturation Phenomena and the Modern Germanic Languages, Ph.D.dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Massachusetts.
  85. Wiltschko, M.: 199? [###]

Related papers

On Wh-movement and the Nature of Wh-Phrases – Case Re-Examined
Olga Beaulac

2005

The difference in wh-movement vs. wh-in-situ strategies in the formation of wh-questions cross-linguistically is often attributed to the fact that wh-elements differ in their morphological properties. This paper argues that wh-expressions are universally the same in that they are underspecified wh-proforms whose semantics/ quantificational force is undetermined while in a lexicon. Once selected for computation a wh-proform can be combined with another element (particle/suffix) resulting in interrogative, relative, existential or universal functional constructs. We argue that the driving force of whmovement is the internal need of a [+ Q]-feature of a question operator to be in an appropriate position, where it can be interpreted at the interfaces.

View PDFchevron_right
ON THE SYNTAX OF "WH-SCOPE-MARKER" CONSTRUCTIONS: SOME COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE
Julia Horvath

John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2000

View PDFchevron_right
Partial Wh-Movement and The Typology of Wh-Questions
Joachim Sabel

2000

View PDFchevron_right
Exhaustivity and the Syntax of Wh-interrogatives: The case of Hungarian
Julia Horvath

Hungarian wh-interrogatives are reexamined in light of Exhaustivity operator (EI-Op) analysis for movements earlier (mis)construed as triggered by a syntactically active [Focus] feature. Taking a fresh look at the EI-Op proposal, the paper reexamines what drives obligatory wh-preposing in interrogatives, its potential landing sites and relation to preposed nonwh-phrases, and analyzes the role played by the syntactic EI-Op, a clausal EI 0 head, and the head of CP (Force 0 ) in wh-movement and interpretation. I motivate a variant of the cross-linguistically attested phrasal Q-particle, namely a [Q]-bearing EI-Op heading Hungarian "wh-phrases", and show the EI 0 clausal head to trigger overt "wh-movement", and the [Q]-feature of the head of CP to only undergo ' Agree' with the [Q]-bearing EI-Op phrase (alias wh-phrase).

View PDFchevron_right
Focus, exhaustivity and the syntax of Wh-interrogatives
Julia Horvath

Approaches to Hungarian, 2013

Hungarian wh-interrogatives are reexamined in light of Horvath's (2007) Exhaustivity operator (EI-Op) analysis for movements earlier (mis)construed as triggered by a syntactically active [Focus] feature. Taking a fresh look at the EI-Op proposal, the paper reexamines what drives obligatory wh-preposing in interrogatives, its potential landing sites and relation to preposed non-wh-phrases, and analyzes the role played by the syntactic EI-Op, a clausal EI 0 head, and the head of CP (Force 0) in wh-movement and interpretation. I motivate a variant of the cross-linguistically attested phrasal Q-particle, namely a [Q]-bearing EI-Op heading Hungarian "wh-phrases", and show the EI 0 clausal head to trigger overt "wh-movement", and the [Q]-feature of the head of CP to only undergo 'Agree' with the [Q]-bearing EI-Op phrase (alias wh-phrase).

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Computer Science
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved