Query Details
| Query Subject: |
(non)topicalizability of wh-phrases
|
| Author: | Liang Chen |
| Submitter Email: | click here to access email |
| Query: |
Dear colleagues, There seems to be language variation with respec to topicalizability of wh-phrases in world languages. For example, Lasnik and Uriagereka (1988:15) notes the impossibility of syntactic topicalization in English, as shown by the contrast in (1) below. (1) a. Who said that John likes who? b. * Who said that who John likes? In addition,the topicalization of subject is equally bad in English. In Chinese, however, equivalent of (1b) in (2) is good. (2) shei shuo shei zhangsan hen xihuan who say who Zhangsan very like It is also possible to construct subject cases. My questions are: a. What are the languages which are similar to English or CHinese? b. In those languages similar to CHinese w.r.t. topicalizability of wh-phrases, is it certain that the process involved is topicalization? Say, is it scrambling or other process? How to determine which is which? c. It is suggested that the English (1b) might be accounted for in terms of the conflict of information status of "topicalized' elemen and 'wh-phrases'. That is: topicalized elements in English contain old information, while "wh-phrases" seek for new information. Is it the case that topicalized elements contain old information in every language? How to determine this? Any comments and suggested references on this issue are highly appreciated. As usual, I will post a summary if there is enough feedback. References: Lasnik, H. and J. Uriagereka. 1988 A course in GB syntax: Lectures on Binding and Empty Categories. MIT Press, CA, MA. Epstein, S. D. 1992. Derivational constraints on A'-Chain Formation. LI 23: 235-259. Best, Liang Chen 337 Mansfield Road Department of Linguistics University of Connecticu Storrs, CT 06269-1145 |
