Interrogative Features

INTERROGATIVE FEATURES by Jason Robert Ginsburg A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2009 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Final Examination Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by Jason Robert Ginsburg entitled Interrogative Features and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Date: 15 December 2008 Simin Karimi Date: 15 December 2008 Andrew Barss Date: 15 December 2008 Andrew Carnie Date: 15 December 2008 Heidi Harley Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate’s submission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement. Date: 15 December 2008 Dissertation Director: Simin Karimi 3 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED: Jason Robert Ginsburg 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee Simin Karimi, Andrew Barss, Andrew Carnie, and Heidi Harley for their excellent guidance. I would especially like to thank my advisor Simin Karimi for all of her help. She read numerous drafts of my work and provided excellent comments. Our numerous meetings led to many improvements in this work. I thank Heidi Harley for her excellent suggestions and clear explanations. Thanks go to Andrew Carnie for his detailed comments and suggestions. I also thank my language consultants: Dalila Ayoun, Rusty Barrett, Junko Ginsburg, Simin Karimi, Sunjing Ji, and Hyun Kyoung Jung. I am indebted to all of my professors at the University of Arizona. Special thanks go to Sandiway Fong for his instruction in my minor of Computational Linguistics and Mike Hammond for his guidance, both in the Spam lab and as department head. Much thanks go to my classmates at the University of Arizona. I thank my parents for their support and encouragement. Lastly, I am deeply indebted to my wife Junko for her patience and support. 5 DEDICATION To Junko and Rachel. 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................... 10 ABBREVIATIONS................................. 12 CHAPTER1 Introduction ............................ 14 CHAPTER 2 Theoretical background . 20 2.1 Introduction................................ 20 2.2 Operationsofthefacultyoflanguage . .. 21 2.2.1 Lexicalitems ........................... 22 2.2.2 Numeration ............................ 22 2.2.3 Select ............................... 23 2.2.4 Merge,Move,andAgree . 23 2.3 Phrasestructure ............................. 25 2.4 Theleftperiphery ............................ 30 2.5 Basicclausestructure. .. .. 38 2.6 Islandeffects ............................... 43 2.6.1 Government and Binding Theory accounts . 44 2.6.2 MinimalistProgramaccounts . 47 2.6.3 The absence of island-effects . 64 2.7 Interventioneffects ............................ 66 2.8 Headmovement ............................. 68 2.9 Conclusion................................. 70 CHAPTER 3 Qu-features and Qu-morphemes . 71 3.1 Introduction................................ 71 3.2 EvidenceforaQu-feature . 71 3.3 Multiple Qu-morphemes in a single language . ... 75 3.4 Conclusion................................. 82 CHAPTER 4 Yes/no constructions . 83 4.1 Introduction................................ 83 4.2 TypesofQu-morphemes . 83 4.2.1 OvertQu-morphemes. 85 4.2.2 CovertQu-morphemes . 92 4.2.3 AnovertorcovertQu-morpheme . 96 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued 4.2.4 Summary ............................. 98 4.3 Qu-morphemesinTyp .......................... 99 4.3.1 ModernJapanese ......................... 99 4.3.2 English...............................101 4.4 TP-internalQu-morphemes . .103 4.4.1 Sinhala...............................108 4.4.2 Okinawan .............................123 4.4.3 PremodernJapanese . .127 4.4.4 Tup´ı ................................131 4.4.5 Ewen................................132 4.4.6 Summary .............................134 4.5 Conclusion.................................134 CHAPTER 5 Qu-morphemes in wh-constructions . .136 5.1 Introduction................................136 5.2 Clause-peripheral Qu-morphemes . 138 5.2.1 Mandarin .............................138 5.2.2 Japanese..............................139 5.2.3 Summary .............................141 5.3 English...................................141 5.3.1 The standard American English facts . 141 5.3.2 Accounts of the subject/non-subject wh-construction assym- metry ...............................145 5.3.3 AnalysisofEnglishfacts . .150 5.3.4 OzarkEnglish...........................154 5.3.5 Summary .............................158 5.4 Qu-morphemesinvariouspositions . 159 5.5 Qu-morphemesandislandeffects . .170 5.6 Remaining problems regarding TP-internal Qu-morphemes in Sinhala 177 5.6.1 Embedded wh-constructions . .177 5.6.2 Matrix wh-constructions . .181 5.6.3 Summary .............................183 5.7 Comparison with previous analyses . 183 5.8 Conclusion.................................189 CHAPTER 6 Wh-features in single wh-constructions . .191 6.1 Introduction................................191 6.2 Agree ...................................197 6.3 Wh-featuremovement . .204 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued 6.4 Wh-phrasalmovement . .215 6.5 Partial wh-movement...........................221 6.5.1 German ..............................222 6.5.2 Albanian..............................231 6.5.3 Remaining issues concerning partial wh-movement . 238 6.6 Wh-phrasal movement, Agree, and partial wh-movement in a single language:Malay .............................243 6.7 French: wh-phrasal movement and wh-feature movement in a single language..................................252 6.8 Conclusion.................................259 CHAPTER 7 Wh-movement that forms a wh-phrase . .. .262 7.1 Introduction................................262 7.2 Wh-in-situlanguages . .263 7.3 Overt wh-movementlanguages. .284 7.3.1 Basque...............................284 7.3.2 Tlingit...............................288 7.3.3 English...............................292 7.4 Conclusion.................................294 CHAPTER 8 Multiple wh-constructions . .295 8.1 Introduction................................295 8.2 Agreelanguages..............................296 8.3 Wh-feature movement followed by Agree: Japanese . 298 8.4 Wh-phrasal movement followed by Agree: English . 302 8.5 Previous analyses of additional wh-effects ...............305 8.6 Multiple wh-featuremovement. .309 8.7 Languages that disallow multiple wh-constructions. .314 8.8 Conclusion.................................316 CHAPTER 9 The weird behavior of why ...................319 9.1 Introduction................................319 9.2 Why is base generated in [Spec, TypP] . 322 9.2.1 Japanese,Korean,andPersian. .323 9.2.2 Mandarin .............................327 9.3 Further evidence that why must appear in [Spec, TypP] . 329 9.4 Feature movement may proceed from why in some languages . 333 9.5 Why andislandeffects . .. .. .339 9.6 Conclusion.................................342 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued CHAPTER10 Conclusion. .344 References......................................352 10 ABSTRACT There has been a great deal of work examining the structures of yes/no and wh- constructions that has led to many important developments in linguistic theory. In this dissertation, I extend this work by developing a theory that explains how the behavior of Qu-morphemes (question morphemes) and wh-phrases in interrogative constructions in several different languages is influenced by ‘interrogative features.’ The interrogative features are 1) a Qu-feature, which is responsible for typing a clause as an interrogative, 2) a wh-feature, which is responsible for giving a wh- phrase scope, and 3) a Focus-feature, which is responsible for focusing certain rel- evant phrases. The main focus of this work is on explaining the influence of these interrogative features on the positions of question morphemes and wh-phrases. In the first part of this work, I examine the behavior of Qu-morphemes. I account for why a Qu-morpheme must appear in the clause periphery in certain languages, such as Japanese, whereas it can appear in a non-clause-peripheral position in other languages, such as Sinhala. I explain how a Qu-feature associated with a Qu-morpheme types a clause and why there is variation in the positions of Qu-morphemes. The second part of this work focuses on the behavior of wh-phrases. I account for why wh- constructions can be formed with an in-situ wh-phrase (for example, in Japanese), with movement of a wh-phrase

Load more