Cover not available

Article published In: Variation in C: Comparative approaches to the Complementizer Phrase
Edited by Jacopo Garzonio and Silvia Rossi
[Linguistic Variation 18:2] 2018
► pp. 299–314

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

Variation in wh-expressions asking for a reason

 | Kanda University of International Studies
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 1 February 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.00024.end
Abstract
In this paper, I will discuss some types of variation in wh-expressions asking for reasons such as why, what…for and how come with special attention to their base-generated positions in the framework of the cartography of syntactic structures. I will first discuss why and what…for to illustrate variation in the base-generated position of wh-expressions asking for reasons. I will next explore a new dimension in the cartography of syntactic structures by discussing some variation in the use of how come and the complementizer that among speakers.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Rizzi (2001, 2004) and Shlonsky and Soare (2011)
  • 3.Two reason projections
  • 4.How come
    • 4.1Background
    • 4.2Variations of how come questions
    • 4.3Capturing the variations of how come questions
      • 4.3.1 How come that = *in the absence of an intervening adjunct (many speakers)
      • 4.3.2 How come mod that = OK (many speakers)
      • 4.3.3How come that=OK even in the absence of an intervening adjunct (some speakers)
      • 4.3.4How come that=* even in the presence of an intervening adjunct (some speakers)
  • 5.Coda
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (26)
References
Borer, Hagit. 1984. Parametric syntax: Case studies in Semitic and Romance languages. Doredrech: Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 1991. Why and how come. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 151. 31–45.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Conroy, Anastasia. 2006. The semantics of how come . University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 141. 1–24.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. 1993. Evidence against ECP accounts of the that-t effect. Linguistic Inquiry 241. 557–561.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Endo, Yoshio. 2014. Two ReasonPs: What are(’nt) you coming to the United States For? In Ur Shlonsky (ed.), Beyond functional sequence, 220–231. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fitzpatric, Justin. 2005. The whys and how comes of presupposition and NPI licensing in questions. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 241. 138–145.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2012. Adverbial clauses, main clause phenomena, and composition of the left periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane, and Virginia Hill. 2014. Vocatives and speech act projections: A Case study in West Flemish. In Anna Cardinaletti, Guglielmo Cinque, and Yoshio Endo (eds.), On Peripheries, 209–236. Tokyo: Hituzi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Honda, Masatoshi. 2015. A compositional approach to the exclamatory use to the particle koto . Tsukuba English Studies 341. 125–142.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 2006. Special interrogatives. In Jenny Doetjes and Paz Gonzalez (eds.) Romance language and linguistic theory 2004, 247–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ochi, Masao. 2004. How come and other adjunct. Language and Linguistics 51. 29–57.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Portner, Paul & Raffaella Zanuttini. 2005. Nominal exclamatives English. In Robert Stainton and Ray Elugardo (eds.). Ellipsis and non-sentential speech, 57–67. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 2013. The complementiser system in spoken English. In Victoria Camacho-Taboada et al. (eds.), Information structure and agreement, 11–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. How come questions with how come are different? Ms. University of Essex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Colloquial English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.) Elements of Grammar 289–330. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. On the position of ‘Iint(errogative)’ in the left periphery of the clause. In Guglielmo Cinque and Giampaolo Salvi (eds.) Current studies in Italian syntax, 267–96. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Locality and left periphery. In Adriana Belletti (ed.) Structures and beyond, 104–131. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. On the form of chains. In Lisa Cheng and Norvert Corver (eds.), Wh-movement: Moving on, 97–133. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Some consequences of Criterial Freezing: Asymmetries, anti-adjacency and extraction from cleft sentences. In Peter Svenonius, (ed.), Functional structure from top to toe – The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 91, 19–54. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi & Ur Shlonsky. 2006. Strategies of subject extraction. in H.-M. Gärtner and U. Sauerland (eds), Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Berlin: Mouton, 115–60.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur & Gabriela Soare. 2011. Where’s ‘Why’? Linguistic Inquiry 421. 651–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Teramura, Hideo. 1992. Nihongo-no sntax to imi vol. 3 [The syntax and semantics in Japanese vol.3]. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold & Ann Zwicky. 1973. How come and what for. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 81. 173–185.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Endo, Yoshio
2020. Information structure, null case particle and sentence final discourse particle. In Information-structural perspectives on discourse particles [Studies in Language Companion Series, 213], ► pp. 223 ff. DOI logo
Endo, Yoshio
2022. Non-standard questions in English, German, and Japanese. Linguistics Vanguard 8:s2 ► pp. 251 ff. DOI logo
Radford, Andrew
2020. An Introduction to English Sentence Structure, DOI logo
Endo, Yoshido & Liliane Haegeman
2019. Adverbial clauses and adverbial concord. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue