Cover not available

In:Topics in Theoretical Asian Linguistics: Studies in honor of John B. Whitman
Edited by Kunio Nishiyama, Hideki Kishimoto and Edith Aldridge
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 250] 2018
► pp. 73–96

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 4
Some asymmetries of long distance scope assignment in Sinhala

 | Kobe University
Published online: 12 December 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.250.05kis
Sinhala is classified as a wh-in-situ language; wh-phrases do not undergo movement, and most typically, their scope is determined relative to the (LF) position of a separable Q element associated with them. Nevertheless, some wh-phrases are not associated with separable Q elements and in such cases, the scope of wh-phrases is determined by a null operator base-generated in the local Spec-CP. In pseudo-cleft constructions, different conditions apply to null operator insertion, since a null operator is inserted in the local Spec-CP if true adjuncts (reason and manner adjuncts) are placed in focus position. I argue that when null operator insertion takes place, no A′-movement is implemented, so that the host wh-phrases are not allowed to have long distance construal. The difference in conditions on null operator insertion give rise to four distinct patterns of wh-questioning in wh-focus and pseudo-cleft constructions.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2. Wh-constructions with and without pseudo-clefting
    • 2.1General characteristics
    • 2.2Pseudo-clefting
    • 2.3Island effects and overt particle movement
  • 3.The peculiar scope phenomena
    • 3.1Wh-phrases with non-separable Q
    • 3.2Null operator strategy in the pseudo-cleft construction
    • 3.3Scope asymmetries
    • 3.4The Japanese case
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • References
References (19)
References
Aoun, J. & Li, Y. A. 1993a. Wh-elements in situ: Syntax or LF? Linguistic Inquiry 24: 199–238.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1993b. Syntax of Scope. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brody, M. 1995. Lexico-Logical Form. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chandralal, D. 2010. Sinhala [London Oriental and African Language Library 15]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gair, James. 1983. Non-configurationality, movement, and Sinhala focus. Paper presented at the Linguistic Association of Great Britain, Newcastle, September 1983. Published in Gair 1998: 50–64.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gair, J. 1998. Studies in South Asian Linguistics: Sinhala and other South Asian Languages. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gair, J. & Sumangala, L. 1992. What to focus in Sinhala. In Proceedings of the Eighth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 93–108. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Groat, E. & O’Neil, J. 1996. Spell-out at the LF interface. In Minimal Ideas: Syntactic Studies in the Minimalist Framework [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 12], W. Abraham, S. D. Epstein, H. Thráinsson & C. J- W. Zwart (eds.), 113–139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hagstrom, P. 1998. Decomposing Questions. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kishimoto, H. 1992. LF pied piping: Evidence from Sinhala. Gengo Kenkyu 102: 46–87.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2005. Wh-in-situ and movement in Sinhala questions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23: 1–51.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ko, H. 2005. Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [Spec, TP] in the overt syntax. Natural Language & LinguisticTheory 23: 867–916.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murasugi, K. 1991. Noun Phrases in Japanese and English. A Study in Syntax, Learnability, and Acquisition. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2000. Japanese complex noun phrases and the antisymmetry theory. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (eds.), 209–234. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 1998. Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. In Is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax, P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis & D. Pesetsky (eds.), 337–383. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saito, M. 1985. Some Asymmetries in Japanese and Their Theoretical Implications. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Takahashi, D. 1997. Move-F and null operator movement. The Linguistic Review 14: 181–196.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue