The Typology of Wh‐Movement, Wh‐Questions in Malay

Abstract

This article investigates the complex facts of Malay wh-questions, and suggests a theory of how Malay wh-questions fit into the typology of wh-questions permitted by a Minimalist conception of Universal Grammar. The paper examines the principles that account for overt wh-movement, wh-in-situ and partial wh-movement in Malay. We argue that the apparent optionality seen in Malay reduces to whether, in the lexicon, a question word consists of an operator and variable combined in a single word, or of a variable bound by a separate, phonologically null operator. We then apply the analysis based on Malay to other languages (primarily, to Chinese and English), and show that the principles employed for Malay are sufficient to explain the variation in wh-question formation among these languages.

Reconciling meng- and NP Movement in Indonesian

“…Furthermore, meng-has several restrictions on its distribution that are difficult to explain under the assumption that meng-is simply a voice marker. As previously noted by, e.g., Saddy (1991) and Cole and Hermon (1998), meng-cannot appear in a clause within which a complement to the verb has been extracted. Descriptively, this has been characterized as movement of a wh-NP over a verb marked with meng-forcing the 'deletion' of meng- (Cole and Hermon 1998).…”

“…As previously noted by, e.g., Saddy (1991) and Cole and Hermon (1998), meng-cannot appear in a clause within which a complement to the verb has been extracted. Descriptively, this has been characterized as movement of a wh-NP over a verb marked with meng-forcing the 'deletion' of meng- (Cole and Hermon 1998). In sum, meng-is unable to appear in its usual environment (on semantically transitive verbs) in case of overt successive-cyclic NP movement 'over' the verb.…”

“…In partial movement contexts, meng-can appear on verbs above the landing site of the wh-NP. In wh-in-situ contexts, meng-can appear on any verb in the sentence, indicating that it is only overt NP movement that is incompatible with the presence of meng-on a verb (as argued by Cole and Hermon 1998 The appearance of meng-on a verb is not incompatible with other types of whmovement over it. Movement of a wh-adverbial (11) over a verb does not prohibit its bearing meng-, nor does the movement of a wh-PP (12).…”

“…Movement of a wh-adverbial (11) over a verb does not prohibit its bearing meng-, nor does the movement of a wh-PP (12). (12) also illustrates that the incompatibility of meng-with wh-movement is not the result of an argument/adjunct distinction, but is instead the result of an NP/other kinds of XP distinction (as noted by Cole and Hermon 1998 In sum, previous analyses of meng-as a 'voice', 'agentivity', or 'transitivity' marker leave several important questions unanswered. Why must such a marker be incompatible with wh-NP movement 'over' the verb hosting it, but not be troubled by movement of a wh-PP or a wh-adverbial?…”

Universal Grammar and the Second Language Classroom

“…Korean wh-expressions are generally assumed to be variables, whose quantificational force is determined through binding by a quantificational operator (like Chinese wh-expressions) (Aoun & Li, 2003;Cole & Hermon, 1998;Gill, 2004, Gil & Tsoulas, to appear;Kim, 1989;Nishigauchi, 1990; among others). According to Choi (2009) gives nwukwu its existential quantifier sense.…”