LINGUIST List 20.2049
|
Wed Jun 03 2009
Diss: Syntax: Ginsburg: 'Interrogative Features'
Editor for this issue: Nick Prokup
<nick linguistlist.org>
|
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
|
Directory
1. Jason
Ginsburg,
Interrogative Features
Message 1: Interrogative Features
|
Date: 02-Jun-2009
From: Jason Ginsburg <jginsburgmail.com>
Subject: Interrogative Features
 E-mail this message to a friend
Institution: University of Arizona
Program: Department of Linguistics
Dissertation Status: Completed
Degree Date: 2009
Author: Jason Ginsburg
Dissertation Title: Interrogative Features
Dissertation URL: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~jginsbur/Academic/RESEARCH_files/JGDissertation.pdf
Linguistic Field(s):
Syntax
Dissertation Director:
Simin Karimi
Heidi Harley
Andrew Carnie
Andrew Barss
Dissertation 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 relevant
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 to a scope position (for example,
in English), or with movement of a wh-phrase to a non-scopal position (for
example, in some dialects of German). I also examine other phenomena
involving wh-phrases. I show how wh-feature movement can influence
well-formedness of a wh-construction. I explain why, in certain cases, what
would normally be an ill-formed construction can be repaired via the
addition of a wh-phrase. I examine why some languages, but not others,
allow multiple wh-constructions. Lastly, I investigate the odd behavior of
the wh-phrase 'why,' which behaves differently from other wh-phrases. This
work is novel in that it provides a unified analysis of cross-linguistic
and language internal variation in the structures of yes/no and
wh-constructions.
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
|
|
Please report any bad links or misclassified data
LINGUIST Homepage | Read
LINGUIST | Contact us
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.
|
|
