Cartography and licensing of wh-adjuncts: a cross-linguistic perspective

Stepanov, Arthur; Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan

doi:10.1007/s11049-008-9047-z

Cited by 86 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As for Kiezdeutsch, while the KiDKo corpus contains 2065 examples of a wh-word followed directly by the finite verb, there are only two examples of direct interrogatives with V3 word order: (17) and (18) Interestingly, all three of these exceptional examples involve a wh-word with the meaning 'why'. In view of the cross-linguistic exceptionality of why-questions (see e.g., Rizzi 1990: 46-48;Hornstein 1995: 147-150;Ko 2005;Crain et al 2006;Stepanov and Tsai 2008;Shlonsky and Soare 2011;Walkden 2014: 118-121), this may not be an accident. If why may be merged directly into (the highest) SpecCP rather than moved there, as proposed by Ko (2005), the possibility of such examples in fact falls out from the analysis proposed in the following section.…”

Section: Cases In Which V3 Is Ruled Outmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language contact and V3 in Germanic varieties new and old

Walkden

2017

J Comp German Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Certain recently-attested varieties of Germanic V2 languages are known to deviate from the strict V2 requirement characteristic of the standard. This is the case, for example, for Kiezdeutsch, a new German dialect, as well as urban vernacular varieties of Danish, Norwegian and Swedish: descriptively speaking, in these varieties, subject-verb inversion may be absent under certain well-defined conditions. In this article I outline those conditions and the type of syntactic analysis required to account for them, claiming that an articulated left periphery is needed to account for the findings. The similarity of the V3 patterns found in these new varieties, which are geographically isolated from each other but which share a characterization in terms of the demographics of their speaker groups, invites a diachronic account in terms of language contact. I argue that transfer cannot account for V3, but that a scenario of sequential simplification and complexification is able to do so. Finally, turning to Old English, which exhibits similar (though not identical) V2/V3 alternations, I argue that a similar synchronic analysis can be upheld and that its diachronic origins may well also have been similar-a case of using the present to inform our approach to the past.

show abstract

Section: Cases In Which V3 Is Ruled Outmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language contact and V3 in Germanic varieties new and old

Walkden

2017

J Comp German Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…33). In Tsai ( , 2011Tsai ( , 2015 and Stepanov and Tsai (2008), different layers are proposed for different readings of the relevant wh-adverbs like how and why. (34) illustrates the instrumental reading of how that is situated in a lower position in the left periphery and it occupies the IntP position (i.e.…”

Section: Embeddability Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recall that in the left periphery established in Tsai ( , 2015 and Stepanov and Tsai (2008), ForceP is dedicated to the adverbial wh-words in a position higher than the standard question projection.…”

Section: Sqp and Iforcepmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whether these heads/projections whose existence has been argued for in Italian are universally true is still an issue. However, this hypothesis helps us to study the left periphery in many other languages, for instance, Chinese (Paul 2002, 2015, Badan 2007, Stepanov and Tsai 2008, 2011, 2015, Pan 2011b. Based on the previous work, this article intends to establish an even more fine-grained cartography of the Mandarin left-periphery.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mandarin peripheral construals at the syntax-discourse interface

Pan¹

2015

The Linguistic Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inspired by the split-CP hypothesis, different orders of the functional projections in the left periphery are proposed for Chinese. Based on previous studies, this paper proposes the following hierarchy for Chinese: AttitudeP1 > AttitudeP2 > Special QuestionP > Illocutionary ForceP > Only-focusP > Sentential.AspectP > TP. These projections host sentence final particles (SFP) or null operators. When the compared projections are both head-final, the syntactic word order reflects the relevant hierarchy; when the compared projections are not uniformly head-final, their scope interaction reflects the order. This study shows that the higher a projection, the more subjective its interpretation and the harder it can be embedded. For instance, being subject-oriented sentential aspects and only-type focus are not directly linked to the speaker's attitude and therefore, they can be embedded and be interpreted within the subordinate clause. As for the SFPs linked to illocutionary forces, some can be embedded, while others cannot. Special questions and the SFPs expressing the speaker's mood, interjection and attitude cannot be embedded at all. This fact is regarded as an indirect argument in favor of my proposal.Keywords: left-periphery, sentence final particles, Mandarin Chinese, root, Main Clause Phenomena IntroductionAdopting the split-CP hypothesis (Rizzi 1997, among others), a number of generative linguists have been working on the "cartography" of the left-periphery with the aim of establishing a map, as detailed as possible, of the functional projections in the CP domain. The study of Italian (Cinque 1999, Rizzi 2004, Benincà and Poletto 2004, Cinque and Rizzi 2008 shows that functional projections which host elements such as topics, foci, interrogative words, different adverbs, etc. are hierarchically ordered in precise ways. Whether these heads/projections whose existence has been argued for in Italian are universally true is still an issue. However, this hypothesis helps us to study the left periphery in many other languages, for instance, Chinese (Paul 2002, 2015, Badan 2007, Stepanov and Tsai 2008, 2011, 2015, Pan 2011b. Based on the previous work, this article intends to establish an even more fine-grained cartography of the Mandarin left-periphery. It will also show in what way the hierarchy of the functional projections proposed here is compatible with the previously established orders. The general conclusion of this study reveals that the

show abstract

“…He argues that the logical form that properly captures the semantics of Why-interrogatives inducing focus association (e.g. (79), (80)) does not involve a "mid-sentence trace", and, therefore, why must be base-generated in the Spec_CP position (see also Ko 2005;Stepanov and Tsai 2008). 27 In addition, Rizzi (2001) shows several differences between Why-Interrogatives and other wh-interrogatives in Italian and he also concludes that why does not move.…”

Section: Base-generation Of Whymentioning

confidence: 99%

The syntax of Why-Stripping

Yoshida

Nakao

Ortega-Santos

2014

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates a clausal ellipsis construction involving the adverbial wh-phrase why and a non-wh-remnant, hereafter Why-Stripping. We show that Why-Stripping exhibits movement properties such as connectivity effects in the same way as Sluicing (with argument wh-phrases) and Stripping, and claim that Why-Stripping involves movement of the focused phrase (e.g. Mary) followed by clausal ellipsis. Furthermore, based on the fact that Why-Stripping does not show strict locality restrictions, unlike Sluicing with why, we claim that why in WhyStripping is base-generated in the Spec_CP position while Sluicing with why involves adjunct wh-movement. According to this view, there are two types of why: one that moves and the other that does not move. It is shown that the latter induces focus association and participates in Why-Stripping. Thus, the investigation of Why-Stripping contributes to revealing the nature of the syntax of why itself.

show abstract

Cartography and licensing of wh-adjuncts: a cross-linguistic perspective

Cited by 86 publications

References 30 publications

Language contact and V3 in Germanic varieties new and old

Language contact and V3 in Germanic varieties new and old

Mandarin peripheral construals at the syntax-discourse interface

The syntax of Why-Stripping

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About