Romance Interrogative Syntax

Formal and typological dimensions of variation

| University of Cambridge
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027208453 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027260123 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
This monograph offers an innovative understanding of the mechanisms involved in Romance ‘optional’ wh-in situ. New supporting evidence in favour of Cable’s (2010) Grammar of Q is presented, as well as novel implementations of his original theory. In particular, it is claimed that wh-in situ idioms are characterised not only by language-specific choices between Q-projection and Q-adjunction, and between overt and covert movement of Q, but also in terms of the locus where they check the features relevant to wh-questions: while some languages check both [q] and [focus] in C, others make use of the clause-internal vP-periphery to check [focus]. Thanks to the vast amount of data presented and discussed, along with the predictions and theoretical contributions made, this monograph will be of interest to a wide range of specialists in human language, from typologists to Romance specialists and formal syntacticians, but also to the many experts in languages with overt Q-particles who wonder why Romance specialists have long been so resistant to the implementation of silent Q-particles in their theoretical models.
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 266]  2021.  xiv, 252 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
xi–xii
Conventions
xiii
Projections (and X′-related notations)
xiv
Introduction
2–21
Chapter 1. Wh-in situ in Northern Italian dialects
24–53
Chapter 2. On short movement of clause-internal wh-elements: Wh-to-Foc
56–90
Chapter 3. Wh-to-Foc is focus-driven
92–129
Chapter 4. More on Trevisan wh-in situ
132–162
Chapter 5. On the theory of Romance wh-in situ
164–219
Conclusions
222–236
References
237–250
Index
251
References

References

Aboh, E.
2006If we see focus, you go left and I go right! Paper presented at the International Conference on Bantu Grammar, SOAS, London, April 2006.Google Scholar
2007Leftward focus versus rightward focus, the Kwa-Bantu conspiracy. In Bantu in Bloomsbury: Special Issue on Bantu Linguistics [SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics 15]. N. C. Kula & L. Marten (eds), 81–104. London: SOAS, University of London.Google Scholar
Adli, A.
2006French wh-in-situ questions and syntactic optionality: Evidence from three data types. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 25(2): 163–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alcalà, C. R.
2014Syntactic Constraints on Topicalization Phenomena. PhD dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Aldridge, E.
2009Short wh-movement in Old Japanese. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 17, S. Iwasaki, H. Hoji, P. Clancy & S. Sohn (eds), 549–563. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
2010Clause-internal wh-movement in Archaic Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19(1): 1–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ambar, M. & Veloso, R.
2001On the nature of wh-phrases, word order and wh-in situ. Evidence from Portuguese, French, Hungarian and Tetum. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 1999. Selected Papers from ‘Going Romance’ 1999 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 221], Y. D’Hulst, J. Rooryck & J. Schroten (eds), 1–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Antinucci, F. & Cinque, G.
1977Sull’ordine delle parole in italiano: 1’Emarginazione. Studi di Grammatica Italiana 6: 121–146. Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.Google Scholar
Aoun, J.
1986Generalized Binding: The Syntax and Logical Form of Wh-interrogatives [Studies in Generative Grammar 26]. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Aoun, J. & Li, Y. A.
1993Wh-elements in situ: Syntax or LF? Linguistic Inquiry 24(2): 199–238.Google Scholar
Aoun, J. & Hornstein, N. & Sportiche, D.
1981Some aspects of wide scope quantification. Journal of Linguistic Research 1(3): 69–95. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Arnaiz, A.
1993N-words and wh-in-situ in Spanish. ASJU XXVII 3: 785–814.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L.
1970Notes on the description of English questions. The role of an abstract question morpheme. Foundations of Language 6(2): 197–219.Google Scholar
Baker, M.
1999On the interplay of the universal and the particular: Case studies in Edo. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society 35, S. J. Billings, J. P. Boyle & A. M. Griffith (eds), 265–289. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baunaz, L.
2005The Grammar of French Quantification [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 83]. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
2011The syntax and semantics of wh in-situ and existentials: The case of French. Leiden Working Papers in Linguistics 2(2): 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baunaz, L. & Patin, C.
2011Prosody refers to semantic factors: Evidence from French wh-words. In Actes d’interface, discours & prosodie 2009, H.-Y. Yoo & E. Delais (eds), 97–107. Paris: Université Paris 7: Paris.Google Scholar
Beck, S.
2006Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14(1): 1–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beck, S. & Kim, S.-S.
1997On wh- and operator scope in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6: 339–384. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A.
1990Generalized Verb Movement: Aspects of Verb Syntax. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
2004Aspects of the low ip area. In The Structure of ip and cp. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, L. Rizzi (ed.), 16–51. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2005Extended doubling and the vp periphery. Probus 17(1): 1–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Clefts and wh in situ: Some notes. Paper presented at the Lisbon COST-Meeting, 6–8 July, 2006.Google Scholar
Benincà, P.
2001The position of topic and focus in the left periphery. In Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, G. Cinque & G. Salvi (eds), 39–64. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
2006A detailed map of the left periphery of medieval Romance. In Crosslinguistic Research in Syntax and Semantics: Negation, Tense and Clausal Architecture, R. Zanuttini, H. Campos, E. Herburger & P. Portner (eds), 53–86. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. & Poletto, C.
1997Introduzione. In Strutture interrogative dell’Italia settentrionale [Quaderni di Lavoro ASIS 1], P. Benincà & C. Poletto (eds). Padua: Consiglio Nazionale delle Richerche.Google Scholar
2004A case of do support in Romance. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22 (1): 51–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004bTopic, focus, and V2. Defining the cp sub-layers. In The Structure of cp and ip. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 2, L. Rizzi (ed.), 52–75. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Benincà, P. & Vanelli, L.
1982Appunti di sintassi veneta. Guida ai Dialetti Veneti IV: 7–38.Google Scholar
Bianchi, V.
2006On the syntax of personal arguments. Lingua 116(2): 2023–2067. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013On ‘focus movement’ in Italian. In Information Structure and Agreement [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 197], V. Camacho-Taboada, Á.L. Jiménez Fernández, J. Martín-González & M. Reyes-Tejedor (eds), 193–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biezma, M.
2018Givenness and the difference between wh-fronted and wh-in-situ questions in Spanish. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory: Selected Papers for Going Romance 29 [Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 13], J. Berns, H. Jacobs & D. Nouveauz (eds), 21–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biloa, E.
1997Functional Categories and the Syntax of Focus in Tuki [Studies in African Linguistics 2]. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Bocci, G.
2004Contrastive focalisation on topics and preverbal subjects in Italian: Syntax free prosodic focalization or syntactic movement to focp? Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 29: 3–59.Google Scholar
2013The Syntax – Prosody Interface. A Cartographic Perspective with Evidence from Italian [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 204]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C.
1999Decomposing French questions. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 6(1): article 6. https://​repository​.upenn​.edu​/pwpl​/vol6​/iss1​/6 (4 August 2020).Google Scholar
Boeckx, C., Stateva, P. & Stepanov, A.
2000Optionality, presupposition, and wh-in situ in French. In Romance Syntax, Semantics, and L2 Acquisition. Selected papers from the 30th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Gainesville, Florida, February 2000 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 216], J. Camps & C. R. Wiltshire (eds), 57–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D.
1978Asking more than one thing at a time. In Questions [Synthese Language Library. Texts and Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 1], H. Hiz (ed.), 107–150. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bonan, C.
2017Sé or c’est? On the cartography of clefts. In GG at G (Generative Grammar in Geneva) X: 131–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017bArguing against a one-fits-all derivation for Northern Italian insituness. Quaderni di Lavoro ASIt 20: 49–76.Google Scholar
2018On insituness and (very) low wh-positions. The case of Trevigiano. In GG at G (Generative Grammar in Geneva) XI: 21–41. Special Issue: Proceedings of the 1st SynCart Workshop “From Maps to Principles” , G. Samo, K. Martini & G. Bocci (eds), CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019On Clause-internally Moved Wh-phrases. Wh-to-Foc, Nominative Clitics, and the Theory of Northern Italian Wh-in situ. PhD dissertation. Université de Genève. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Accepted. On focal and wh-projections, indirect wh-questions, and quantificational chains. To appear in A. Nicolae & A. Dragomirescu eds. Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2017 Selected papers from ‘Going Romance 31’ Bucharest
Bonan, C. & Shlonsky, U.
accepted]. ‘why’ in situ in Northern Italian dialects: evidence from Trevisan. In G. Soare ed. Why is ‘why’ unique? Its syntactic and semantic properties. Proceedings of the 2017 SLE meeting, University of Zürich
Bošković, Z.
1997Superiority effects with multiple wh-fronting in Serbo-Croatian. Lingua 102(1): 1–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Sometimes in [Spec cp], sometimes in-situ. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalism in Honor of Howard Lasnik, R. Martins, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (eds), 53–88. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001On the interpretation of multiple questions. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 1(1): 1–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33(3): 351–383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, J.
1993The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4): 591–656.Google Scholar
Bruening, B. & Thuan, T.
2006Wh-questions in Vietnamese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15(4): 319–341. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brugè, L.
2002The position of demonstratives in the extended nominal projection. In Functional Structure in dp and ip. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 1, G. Cinque (ed.), 15–53. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Cable, S.
2010The Grammar of Q. Q-Particles, Wh-Movement, and Pied-Piping. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Calabrese, A.
1984Multiple questions and focus in Italian. In Sentential Complementation, W. De Geest & Y. Putseys (eds), 67–74. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, A.
2001A second thought on emarginazione: Destressing vs. right dislocation. In Current Studies in Italian Syntax. Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi, G. Cinque & G. Salvi, G. (eds), 117–135. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
2002Against optional and null clitics. Right dislocation vs. marginalization. Studia Linguistica 56: 29–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Towards a cartography of subject positions. In The Structure of cp and ip. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 2, L. Rizzi (ed.), 115–165. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. & Repetti, L.
2008The phonology and syntax of preverbal and postverbal subject clitics in northern Italian dialects. Linguistic Inquiry 39(3): 523–563. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Proclitic vs enclitic pronouns in northern Italian dialects and the null-subject parameter. In Syntactic Variation: The Dialects of Italy, R. D’Alessandro, A. Ledgeway & I. Roberts (eds), 119–134. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. & Starke, M.
1999The typology of structural deficiency: On the three grammatical classes. In Clitics in the Language of Europe, H. van Riemsdijk (ed.), 145–233. Berlin: The Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Carnie, A.
2006Syntax: A Generative Introduction. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chang, L.
1997Wh-in-situ Phenomena in French. MA thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Cheng, L.L.-S.
1991On the Typology of Wh-questions. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
2003Wh-in-situ. Glot International 7(4): 103–109.Google Scholar
Cheng, L.L.-S. & Bayer, J.
2017Wh-in-situ. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (eds), 1–44. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cheng, L.L.-S. & Downing, L. J.
2012Against FocusP: Arguments from Zulu. In Contrasts and Positions in Information Structure. Exploring the Interfaces: Case Studies, I. Kušerová & A. Neeleman (eds), 247–266. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, L.L.-S. & Rooryck, J.
2000Licensing wh-in-situ. Syntax 3(1): 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002Types of wh-in-situ. Ms, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Chiou, M. & Vlachos, C.
2017The pragmatics of wh-in situ questions in Greek. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting on Greek Linguistics. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
1957Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1964Current Issues in Linguistic Theory [Janua Linguarum Series Minor 38]. Berlin: The Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
1965Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1973Conditions on transformations. In Festschrift for Morris Halle, S. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (eds), 232–286. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and WinstonGoogle Scholar
1976Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2: 303–349.Google Scholar
1977On wh-movement. In Formal Syntax, P. W. Culicover, T. Wasow & A. Akmajian (eds), 71–132. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1981Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1982Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1986Barriers. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1989Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. MIT Press Scholarship Online. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993A minimalist program for linguistic theory. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 1. Cambridge MA: The MIT press.Google Scholar
1995The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1998Minimalist Inquiries. The Framework [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics]. Cambridge MA: MIT.Google Scholar
2000Minimalist inquiries. The framework. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (eds), 89–155. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, M. Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2005On phases. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Cinque, G.
1990Types of A′-bar Dependencies [Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 17]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1994On the evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance dp . In Paths Towards Universal Grammar. Studies in Honor of Richard S. Kayne, G. Cinque, J. Koster, J.-Y. Pollock, L. Rizzi & R. Zanuttini (eds), 85–110. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
1999Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
(ed.) 2006Restructuring and Functional Heads. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 4. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. & Rizzi, L.
(eds) 2010Mapping Spatial PPs. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 6. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cole, P. & Hermon, G.
1994Is there LF wh-movement? Linguistic Inquiry 25(2): 239–262.Google Scholar
1998The typology of wh-movement: Wh-questions in Malay. Syntax 1: 221–258. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cruschina, S.
2006Informational focus in Sicilian and the left periphery. In Phases of Interpretation [Studies in Generative Grammar 91], M. Frascarelli (ed.), 363–385. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W.
1976Syntax. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dauenhauer, N. M. & Dauenhauer, R.
2000Beginning Tlingit. Juneau: Sealaska Heritage Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Dayal, V.
2002Single-pair versus multiple-pair answers: Wh-in-situ and scope. Linguistic Inquiry 33(3): 512–520. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017Does Hindi-Urdu have feature-driven wh-movement to Spec,vP? Linguistic Inquiry 48(1): 159–172. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
den Besten, H.
1983On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 3], W. Abraham (ed.), 47–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Déprez, V., Syrett, K. & Kawahara, S.
2013The interaction of syntax, prosody, and discourse in licensing French wh-in-situ questions. Lingua 124: 4–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Downing, L. J.
2011Questions in Bantu languages: Prosodies and positions. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 55.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, K.
1995Discourse Configurational Languages. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Ernst, T.
2002The Syntax of Adjuncts [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 96]. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Etxepare, R. & Uribe-Etxebarria, M.
2005In situ wh-phrases in Spanish: Locality and quantification. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 33: 9–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012El movimiento de constituyentes. In Las preguntas de qu- in situ en español: Un análisis derivacional, J. M. Brucart & A. J. Gallego (eds), 251–271. Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
Fiengo, R., Huang, J., Lasnik, H. & Reinhart, T.
1988The syntax of wh-in-situ. In Proceedings of West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 7, H. Borer (ed.), 81–98. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Figueiredo Silva, M. C. & Grolla, E.
2016Some syntactic and pragmatic aspects of WH-in-situ in Brazilian Portuguese. In The Morphosyntax of Portuguese and Spanish in Latin America, M. A. Kato & F. Ordóñez (eds), 259–285. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Finer, D. L.
2014Movement triggers and reflexivization in Korean-English code switching. In Grammatical Theory and Bilingual Codeswitching, J. MacSwan (ed.), 37–62. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fowlie, M.
2013Order and optionality: Minimalist grammars with adjunction. In Proceedings of the 13th Meeting on the Mathematics of Language, A. Kornai & M. Kuhlmann (eds), 12–20. Stroudsburg PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
2014Adjunction and minimalist grammars. In International Conference on Formal Grammar 14 [Lecture Notes in Computer Science 8612], G. Morrill, R. Muskens, R. Osswald & F. Richter (eds), 34–51. Heidelberg: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, M. & Hinterhölzl, R.
2007Types of topics in German and Italian. In On Information Structure, Meaning and Form [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 100], S. Winkler & K. Schwabe (eds), 87–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garzonio, J.
2016On complexity of interrogative syntax in Northern Italian dialects. In Complexity, Variation, and Isolation [Linguae & Litterae 56], R. Baechler & G. Seiler (eds), 95–116. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giusti, G.
2002The functional structure of noun phrases. A bare phrase structure approach. In Functional Structure in dp and ip. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 1, G. Cinque (ed.), 54–90. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, S. & Sternefeld, W.
1990Scrambling and Barriers [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 5]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L.
1996Verb second, the split cp and null subjects in early Dutch finite clauses. Geneva Generative Papers 4(2): 133–175.Google Scholar
Hagstrom, P.
1998Decomposing Questions. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Hamlaoui, F.
2010On the role of phonology and discourse in Francilian French wh-questions. Journal of Linguistics 47: 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harriehausen, B.
1990Hmong Njua: Syntaktische Analyse einer gesprochenen Sprache mithilfe daten-verarbeitungstechnischer Mittel und sprachvergleichende Beschreibung des südostasiatischen Sprachraumes. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, J. & May, R.
1981Questions, quantifiers and crossing. The Linguistic Review 1(1): 41–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Honcoop, M.
1998Dynamic Excursions on Weak Islands. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Horvath, J.
1986Focus in the Theory of Grammar and the Syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Huang, J.C.-T.
1982Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
1991Modularity and Chinese A-not-A questions. In Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language: Essays in Honor of Yuki Kuroda, C. Georgopoulos & R. Ishihara (eds), 305–332. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hulk, A. & Pollock, J.-Y.
2001Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. M.
1979Phonology and noun structure. In Aghem Grammatical Structure. With Special Reference to Noun Classes, Tense-aspect and Focus Marking [Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 7], L. M. Hyman (ed.), 1–72. Los Angeles CA: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
2005 Focus marking in Aghem: Syntax or semantics? Paper presented at the Conference on Focus in African Languages, ZAS Berlin.Google Scholar
Iatridou, S.
1990About Agr(P). Linguistic Inquiry 21(4): 551–577.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S.
1972Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, O. & Safir, K. J.
1989The Null Subject Parameter [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15]. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. A.
1996Question-word movement to focus and scrambling in Malayalam. Linguistic Analysis 26: 63–83.Google Scholar
2001Questions and question-word incorporating quantifiers in Malayalam. Syntax 4(2): 63–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jiménez, M. L.
1997Semantic and Pragmatic Conditions on Word Order in Spanish. PhD dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Jin, D.
2014Contradiction, wh-questions and complex islands in Chinese. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 21(1): article 15. https://​repository​.upenn​.du​/pwpl​/vol21​/iss1​/15 (4 August 2020).Google Scholar
Johnson, K.
1991Object positions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9(4): 577–636. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kahnemuyipour, A.
2001On wh-questions in Persian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique 46 (1-2): 41–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kahombo, M.
1992Essai de grammaire du Kihunde [Hamburger Beiträge zur Afrikanistik 1]. Münster: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
Kaiser, G. A. & Quaglia, S.
2015In search of wh in-situ in Romance; an investigation in detective stories. In Charting the Landscape of Linguistics: On the Scope of Josef Bayer’s Work, E. Brandner, A. Czypionka, C. Freitag, T. Constantin & A. Trotzke (eds), 92–103. Konstanz: University of Konstanz. <https://​ling​.sprachwiss​.uni​-konstanz​.de​/pages​/WebschriftBayer​/2015​/contents​.html (1 August 2020).Google Scholar
Karimi, S.
2003Word Order and Scrambling. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Karimi, S. & Taleghani, A.
2007Wh-movement, interpretation, and optionality in Persian. In Clausal and Phrasal Architecture: Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 101], S. Karimi, V. Samiian & W. Wilkins (eds), 167–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kato, M.
2003The interpretation and derivation of wh-in-situ constructions in Brazilian Portuguese. Ms, UniCamp.Google Scholar
2013Deriving “wh-in-situ” through mouvement in Brazilian Portuguese. In Information Structure and Agreement [Linguistics Today/Linguistik Aktuell 197], V. Camacho- Taboada, Á. L. Jiménez Fernández, J. Martín-González & M. Reyes-Tejedor (eds), 175–192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. S.
1972Stylistic inversion in French interrogatives. In Generative Studies in Romance Languages, J. Casagrande & B. Saciuk (eds), 70–126. Rowley MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
1975French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1983Connectedness. Linguistic Inquiry 14(2): 223–249.Google Scholar
1991Romance clitics, verb movement, and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 22(4): 647–686.Google Scholar
1994The Antysymmetry of Syntax [Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 25]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1998Overt vs covert movement. Syntax 1(2): 128–191. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, G. Cinque & R. Kayne (eds), 3–69. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. S. & Pollock, J.-Y.
(2000) New thoughts on stylistic inversion. In Inversion in Romance, A. Hulk & J.-Y. Pollock (eds), 107–163. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2012Toward an analysis of French hyper-complex inversion. In Functional Heads. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 7, L. Brugè, A. Cardinaletti, G. Giusti, N. Munaro & C. Poletto (eds). Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kidway, A.
2000 xp-adjunction in Universal Grammar: Scrambling and binding in Hindi-Urdu. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Kishimoto, H.
2005Wh-in-situ and movement in Sinhala questions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23(1): 1–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kitagawa, Y. & Roehrs, D. & Tamioka, S.
2004Multiple wh-interpretations. In Generative Grammar in a Broader Perspective: Proceedings of the 4th Glow in Asia, H.-J. Yoon (ed.) 209–233. Seoul: Seoul National University.Google Scholar
Ko, H.
2005Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [SPEC,cp] in the overt syntax. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23(4): 867–916. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kotek, H.
2014Composing Questions. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kokek, H.
2016Covert pied-piping in English multiple wh-questions. Linguistic Inquiry 47(4): 669–693. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krapova, I.
2002On the left periphery of the Bulgarian sentence. Working Papers 12: 107–128. Venice: Università Ca′ Foscari Venezia.Google Scholar
Krapova, I. & Cinque, G.
2008On the order of wh-phrases in Bulgarian multiple wh-fronting. In Formal Description of Slavic Languages: The 5th Conference, Leipzig 2003, U. JunghannsG. ZybatowR. MeyerL. Szucsich (eds), 318–336. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. & Robinson, J. J.
1972Multiple wh-questions. Linguistic Inquiry 3(4): 463–487.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. & Saito, M.
1992Move-α. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, A.
2012From Latin to Romance. Morphosyntactic Typology and Change. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, M.-H.
1991A parametric Approach to Code-mixing. PhD dissertation, SUNY at Stony Brook.Google Scholar
Lin, J. W.
1992The syntax of zenmeyang ’how’ and weishenme ’why’ in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 293–331. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Longobardi, G.
1988Symmetry Principles in the Theory of Syntax. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
Lurà, F.
1987Il dialetto del Mendrisiotto. Descrizione sincronica e diacronica e confronto con l’italiano. Zurich: Edizione Banche Svizzere.Google Scholar
Mahajan, A.
1990The A/A′ Distinction and Movement Theory. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Manetta, E.
2010Wh expletives in Hindi-Urdu: The vP phase. Linguistic Inquiry 41(1): 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Peripheries in Kashmiri and Hindi-Urdu: The Syntax of Discourse-Driven Movement [Language Faculty and Beyond 4]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R.
2012On the substantive primitives of morphosyntax and their parametrization: Northern Italian subject clitics. In Representing Structure in Phonology and Syntax [Studies in Generative Grammar 124], M. van Oostendorp & H. van Riemsdijk (eds), 167–194. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014Grammatical categories: Strong and weak pronouns in Romance. Lingua 150: 171–201. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, M. R. & Savoia, L. M.
2005I dialetti italiani e romanci. Morfosintassi generativa I–III. Allessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
2011Wh-in situ and wh-doubling in Northern Italian varieties: Against remnant movement. Linguistic Analysis 37(1-2): 79–113.Google Scholar
Mathieu, É.
1999French wh in situ and the intervention effect. In UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 11, C. Iten & A. Neeleman (eds), 441–472. London: University College London.Google Scholar
2002The Syntax of Non-canonical Quantification: A Comparative Study. PhD dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Mathieu, É.
2004The mapping of form and interpretation: The case of optional wh-movement in French. Lingua 114(9): 1090–1132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mathieu, É.
2009Les questions en français: Micro- et macro-variation. In Le français d’ici: Études linguistiques et sociolinguistiques de la variation, F. Martineau, R. Mougeon, T. Nadasdi & M. Tremblay (eds). Toronto: Éditions du Gref.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J.
2001The morphosyntax of wh-extraction in Irish. Journal of Linguistics 37(1): 67–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002Resumption, successive cyclicity, and the locality of operations. In Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program, S. D. Epstein & T. D. Seely (eds), 184–226. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, D.
1986Conditions on Wh-Chains. PhD dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
1989Partial and multiple wh-movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7(4): 565–604. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mirdamadi, F. S.
2018Intervention Effects in Non-local Dependencies: Evidence from Persian. PhD dissertation, Université de Genève. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, S.
2001The EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, M. Kenstowicz (ed.), 293–388. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2005EPP and semantically vacuous scrambling. In The Free Word Order Phenomenon: Its Syntactic Sources and Diversity, J. Sabel & M. Saito (eds), 181–220. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Moro, A.
1997The Raising of Predicates. Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 80]. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Munaro, N.
1995On nominal wh-phrases in some North-Eastern Italian dialects. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 20: 69–110Google Scholar
1997Proprietà strutturali e distribuzionali dei sintagmi interrogativi in alcuni dialetti italiani settentrionali. PhD dissertation, Università Ca′ Foscari Venezia.Google Scholar
1999Sintagmi interrogativi nei dialetti italiani settentrionali. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
2005Grammaticalization, reanalysis, and cp layering. In Grammaticalization and Parametric Variation, M. Battlori, M.-L. Hernanz, C. Picallo & F. Roca (eds), 29–47. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Munaro, N. & Obenauer, H.-G.
1999On underspecified wh-elements in pseudo-interrogatives. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 9(1-2): 181–253.Google Scholar
Munaro, N. & Poletto, C. & Pollock, J.-Y.
2001Eppur si muove! On comparing French and Bellunese wh-movement. In Linguistic Variation Yearbook 1, P. Pica (ed.), 147–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ndayiragije, T.
1999Checking economy. Linguistic Inquiry 30(3): 399–444. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nishigauchi, T.
2002Scrambling and reconstruction at LF. Journal of the Linguistic Society of Japan 121: 49–105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Obenauer, H.-G.
1994Aspects de la syntaxe A-barre: Effets d’intervention et mouvement des quantifieurs. PhD dissertation, Université Paris 8.Google Scholar
2004 Nonstandard wh-questions and alternative checkers in Pagotto. In Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery [Interface Explorations 9], H. Lohnstein & S. Trissler (eds), 343–384. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Special interrogatives – left periphery, wh-doubling, and (apparently) optional elements. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2004: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’, Leiden, 9–11 December 2004 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 278], J. Doetjes & P. Gonzalvez (eds), 247–273. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oiry, M.
2011A case of true optionality: Wh-in situ patterns like long movement in French. Linguistic Analysis 37(1-2): 115–142.Google Scholar
Pan, V. J.
2014Wh-ex-situ in Mandarin Chinese: Mapping between information structure and split cp . Linguistic Analysis 39(3-4): 371–413.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M.
1971Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D.
1987Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In The Representation of (In)definiteness [Current Studies in Linguistics 14], E. J. Reuland & A. G. B. ter Meulen (eds), 204–251. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000Phrasal Movement and its Kin [Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 37]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pires, A. & Taylor, H. L.
2009The syntax of wh-in-situ and common ground. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 43(2): 201–215.Google Scholar
Poletto, C.
1993Subject clitic-verb inversion in north eastern Italian dialects. In Syntactic Theory and the Dialects of Italy, A. Belletti (ed.), 95–135. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
2000The Higher Functional Field. Evidence from Northern Italian Dialects. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Pollock, J.-Y.
1989Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of ip . Linguistic Inquiry 20(3): 365–424.Google Scholar
2006Subject-clitic inversion, complex inversion and stylistic inversion in French. In Syncom. The Syntax Companion V, M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (eds). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Poletto, C. & Pollock, J.-Y.
2000On the left periphery of some Romance wh-questions. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 20(2).Google Scholar
2004On wh-clitics and wh-doubling in French and some North Eastern Italian Dialects. Probus 16: 241–277. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005On wh-clitics, wh-doubling and apparent wh-in-situ in French and some North Eastern Italian dialects. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 33: 135–156.. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Another look at wh-questions in Romance: The case of Mendrisiotto and its consequences for the analysis of French wh-in-situ and embedded interrogatives. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2006. Selected Papers from Going Romance, Amsterdam 7–9 December, 2006 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 303], D. Torck & W. L. Wetzels (eds), 199–258. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015Arguing for remnant movement in Romance. In Remnant Movement, G. Grewendorf (ed.), 135–178. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Reglero, L.
2007Wh-in-situ interrogatives in Spanish. Probus 19: 267–297. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reglero, L. & Ticio, E.
2008Wh-in-situ and the Spanish dp: Movement or no movement? University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 14(1), article 24. https://​repository​.upenn​.edu​/pwpl​/vol14​/iss1​/24 (4 August 2020).Google Scholar
Reinhart, T.
1998Wh-in-situ in the framework of the minimalist program. Natural Language Semantics 6 (1): 29–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Renzi, L. & Vanelli, L.
1983I pronomi soggetto in alcune varietà romanze. Studi in onore di G.B. Pellegrini. 23–50. Padua: University of Padua.Google Scholar
Richards, N.
2000An island effect in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9(2):187–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L.
1982Issues in Italian Syntax [Studies in Generative Grammar 11]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1986Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17(3): 501–557.Google Scholar
1990Relativized Minimality. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1996Residual verb second and the wh-criterion. In Parameters and Functional Heads, A. Belletti & L. Rizzi (eds), 63–90. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
1997The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, L. Haegeman (ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001On the position int(errogative) in the left periphery of the clause. In Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi [North Holland Linguistic Series. Linguistic Variations 59], G. Cinque & G. Salvi (eds), 287–296. Amsterdam: North HollandGoogle Scholar
2004Locality and left periphery. In Structures and beyond. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 3, A. Belletti (ed.), 3–15. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2004cOn the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. Ms, University of Siena.Google Scholar
2005On some properties of subjects and topics. In Proceedings of the XXX Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, L. Brugè, G. Giusti, N. Munaro, W. Schweikert & G. Turano (eds), 203–224. Venice: Cafoscarina.Google Scholar
2006On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Wh-movement: Moving on [Current Studies in Linguistics 42], L.L.-S. Cheng & N. Corver (eds), 97–134. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2006On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Wh-movement: Moving On, L.L.-S. Cheng & N. Corver (eds), 97–133. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2010On some properties of criterial freezing. In The Complementizer Phase: Subjects and Operators, E. P. Panagiotidis (ed.). Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016EPP and ECP revisited: The role of labeling. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 10. Selected papers from Going Romance 28, Lisbon , E. Carrilho, A. Fiéis, M. Lobo & S. Pereira (eds), 211–232. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. & Bocci, G.
2017Left periphery of the clause: Primarily illustrated for Italian. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn, M. Everaert & H. C. van Riemsdijk (eds) Oxford: Blackwell. 589–638. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. & Roberts, I.
1989Complex inversion in French. Probus 1(1): 1–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. & Shlonsky, U.
2007Strategies of subject extraction. In Interfaces + Recursion = Language? Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics [Studies in Generative Grammar 89], U. Sauerland & H.-M. Gärtner (eds), 115–160. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Roberts, I.
2007bDiachronic Syntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2010Agreement and Head Movement. Clitics, Incorporation, and Defective Goals [Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 59]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rochemont, M.
1986Focus in Generative Grammar [Studies in Generative Linguistic Analysis 4]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. R.
1967Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
1986Infinite Syntax! Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Roussou, A., Vlachos, C. & Papazachariou, D.
2013In situ, ex situ and (non-)echo questions. In Major Trends in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics: Selected Papers from the 20th International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics 3, N. Lavidas, T. Alexiou & A. M. Sougari (eds), 475–494. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rudin, C.
1988Multiple questions in South Slavic, West Slavic, and Romanian. The Slavic and East European Journal 32: 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1988On multiple wh-questions and multiple wh-fronting. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6(4): 445–501. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saito, M.
1989Scrambling as semantically vacuous A′-movement. In Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure. M. Baltin & A. Kroch (eds), 182–200. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1999Wh-quantifier interaction and the interpretation of wh-phrases. In Linguistics: In Search of the Human Mind, M. Muraki & E. Iwamoto (eds), 588–621. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, V.
2015The Interaction of Focus, Givenness, and Prosody. A Study of Italian Clause Structure. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Samo, G.
2018A Criterial Approach to the Cartography of V2. PhD dissertation, Université de Genève. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schweikert, W.
2005The Order of Prepositional Phrases in the Structure of the Clause [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 83]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scott, G.-J.
2002Stacked adjectival modification and the structure of nominal phrases. In Functional Structure in dp and ip. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 1, G. Cinque (ed.), 91–120. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Seiter, W. J.
1980Studies in Niuean Syntax. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, U.
1997Clause Structure and Word Order in Hebrew and Arabic: An Essay in Comparative Semitic Syntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2012Notes on wh in situ in French. In Functional Heads. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 7, L. Brugè, A. Cardinaletti, G. Giusti, N. Munaro & C. Poletto (eds), 242–252. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, U. & Soare, G.
2011Where’s ‘why’? Linguistic Inquiry 42(4): 651–669. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. A.
2000The locus of case and agreement. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 65: 65–108.Google Scholar
Sinopoulou, O.
2008Multiple questions and apparent wh-in situ: Evidence from Greek. Proceedings of ConSOLE XV: 223–246.Google Scholar
Soh, H. L.
2005Wh-in-situ in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistic Inquiry 36(1): 143–155. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, D.
1998Subject clitics in French and Romance: Complex inversion and clitic doubling. In Partitions and Atoms of Clause Structure, D. Sportiche, 308–378. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Starke, M.
2001Move Dissolves into Merge: A Theory of Locality. PhD dissertation. Université de Genève.Google Scholar
Stepanov, A. & Tsai, W.-T. D.
2008Cartography and licensing of wh-adjuncts: A crosslinguistic perspective. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26(3): 589–638. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stepanovic, S.
1999What do Second Position Cliticization, Scrambling, and Multiple Wh-fronting Have in Common? PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Suñer, M.
1991Indirect questions and the structure of cp: Some consequences. In Current Studies in Spanish Linguistics, H. Campos & F. Martínez-Gil (eds), 283–308. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P.
2008Projections of P. In Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 120]. A. Asbury, J. Dotlašil, B. Gehrke & R. Nouwen (eds), 63–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. & Zwarts, F.
1992Weak islands and an algebraic semantics for scope taking. Natural Language Semantics 1(3): 235–284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Takita, K. & Yang, B.C.-Y.
2014On multiple wh-questions with ‘why’ in Japanese and Chinese. In Japanese Syntax in Comparative Perspective, M. Saito (ed.), 92–103. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Torrego, E.
1984On inversion in Spanish and some of its effects. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 103–129.Google Scholar
Tsai, W.-T. D.
1994On Economizing the Theory of A-bar Dependencies. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1999On lexical courtesy. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8: 39–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tsimpli, I.-M.
1998Individual and functional readings for focus, wh- and negative operators: Evidence from Greek. In Themes in Greek Linguistics II [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 159], B. Joseph, G. Horrocks & I. Philippaki-Warburton (eds), 197–227. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tual, L.
2017The status of embedded wh-in-situ in French: An experimental investigation. Paper presented at RI 17: Romance Interrogatives, Konstanz Universität, Germany.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J.
1996Aspects of the syntax of clitic placement in western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry 26(1): 79–123.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, H. C. & Corver, N.
1994Studies on Scrambling: Movement and Non-movement Approaches to Free Word Order Phenomena [Studies in Generative Grammar 41]. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, H. C. & Williams, E.
1986Introduction to the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vlachos, C.
2014Wh-inquiries into Modern Greek and their theoretical import(ance). Journal of Greek Linguistics 14(2): 212–247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wahba, W. A.-F. B.
1991LF movement in Iraqi Arabic. In Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 40], C.-T. J. Huang & R. May (eds), 253–276. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, A.
1992Subjacency and s-structure movement of wh-in-situ. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1: 255–291. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003Loss of overt wh-movement in Old Japanese. In Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change, D. W. Lightfoot (ed.), 179–195. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watters, J.
1979Focus in Aghem: A study of its formal correlates and typology. In Aghem Grammatical structure. With special reference to noun classes, tense-aspect and focus marking [Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 7], L. M. Hyman (ed.), 137–197. Los Angeles CA: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, G.
1989Syntactic Saturation Phenomena and the Modern Germanic Languages. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Willis, G.
2000On the distribution of resumptive pronouns and wh-trace in Welsh. Journal of Linguistics 36(3): 531–573. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Xu, L.
1990Remarks on LF movement in Chinese questions. Linguistics 28: 355–382.Google Scholar
Yoshida, K.
1995Syntax and Semantics of Wh-quantifier Interactions. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Subjects
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009060 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Syntax
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2020055024