Cover not available
Part of
Information Structure and Reference Tracking in Complex Sentences
Edited by Rik van Gijn, Jeremy Hammond, Dejan Matić, Saskia van Putten and Ana Vilacy Galucio
[Typological Studies in Language 105] 2014
► pp. 127–162

Questions and syntactic islands in Tundra Yukaghir

| Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
No island effects are observable in Tundra Yukaghir questions, which are possible in virtually all syntactic environments. It is argued that this feature of Tundra Yukaghir relates to its capability of explicitly marking focus domains. If a question word occurs in a syntactic island, the whole island is morphologically treated as a focus domain. In order to take scope and function as question markers, question words must remain within the focus domain, i.e. in the island clause. This syntactic configuration is reflected in the semantics of question islands, which are used to inquire about the identity of the whole island, not merely the denotation of the question word. Keywords: Tundra Yukaghir; content question; syntactic island; focus
Published online: 5 March 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.105.05mat
References (45)
References
Artstein, Ron. 2002. A focus semantics for echo questions. In Workshop on Information Structure in Context, Ágnes Bende-Farkas & Arndt Riester (eds), 98-107. Stuttgart: IMS, University of Stuttgart. [URL]Google Scholar
Bayer, Joseph. 2006. Wh-in-Situ. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. V, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 376-438. Malden MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2008. Islands. Language and Linguistics Compass 2: 151-167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Syntactic Islands. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Lisa. 2009. Wh-in-situ, from the 80s till now. Language and Linguistics Compass 3: 767-791. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. On a selective “violation” of the Complex NP Constraint. In Structure Preserved. Studies in Syntax for Jan Koster [Linguistik Actuell/Linguistics Today 164], Jan-Wouter Zwart & Mark de Vries (eds), 81-90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1995. Introduction. In Discourse Configurational Languages, Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), 3-27. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1980. Wh-constructions in Swedish and the relevance of subjacency. Proceedings of NELS 11: 89-108.Google Scholar
1997. Relative clause extractions in context. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 60: 51-79.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1973. On the Nature of Island Constraints. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
1982. Extractability in Danish and the pragmatic principle of dominance. In Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages, Elisabet Engdahl & Eva Ejerhed (eds), 175-192. Stockholm: Almquist & Wichsell International.Google Scholar
1997. The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2007. Information Structure. The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 2002. Echo-syntax and metarepresentations. Lingua 112: 871-900. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1892. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik 100: 25-50.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1981. Presupposition and conversational implicature. In Radical Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed.), 183-198. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haida, Andreas. 2008. Indefiniteness and focusing of question words. In Proceedings of SALT XVIII , Tova Friedman & Satoshi Ito (eds). [URL]
Hastings, Rachel. 2004. The Syntax and Semantics of Relativization and Quantification: The Case of Quechua. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Hoffmeister, Philip & Sag, Ivan. 2010. Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language 86: 366-415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Move wh in a language without movement. The Linguistic Review 1: 369-416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jary, Mark. 2010. Assertion. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ko, Heejeong. 2005. Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [Spec, CP] in the overt syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 867-916. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2005. Wh-in-situ and movement in Sinhala questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 1-51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krejnovič, Eruxim A. 1958. Jukagirskij jazyk. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
1982. Issledovanija i materialy po jukagirskomu jazyku. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
K05 = Kurilov, Gavril N. 2005. Fol’klor jukagirov. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Kush, Dave; Akira Omaki & Norbert Hornstein, 2009. Reanalyzing relative clause island effects. GLOW 32, Nantes. [URL]Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational Phonology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
M01 = Maslova, Elena. 2001. Yukaghir Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Maslova, Elena. 2003. Tundra Yukaghir. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Matić, Dejan & Wedgwood, Daniel. 2013. The meanings of focus: The significance of an interpretation-based category in cross-linguistic analysis. Journal of Linguistics 49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mycock, Louise. 2005. Wh-in-situ in constituent questions. In Proceedings of LFG05 , Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds), 313-333. Stanford: CSLI. [URL]Google Scholar
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1990. Quantification in the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In The Representation of (In)definiteness, Eric Reuland & Alice ter Meulen (eds), 98-129. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sabel, Joachim. 2002. A minimalist analysis of syntactic islands. The Linguistic Review 19: 271-315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shimojo, Mitsuaki. 2002. Functional theories of island phenomena: The case of Japanese. Studies in Language 26: 67-124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sobin, Nick. 1990. On the syntax of English echo questions. Lingua 81: 141–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 1996. Against LF pied-piping. Natural Language Semantics 4: 57-110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 2006. Strong vs. weak islands. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. IV, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 479-532. Malden MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Umbach, Carla. 2006. Non-restrictive modification and backgrounding. In Proceedings of the Ninth Symposium on Logic and Language , Beata Gyuris, László, Kálmán, Cristoph Piñón & Karoly Varasdi (eds), 152-159. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Jr., Robert D. 1994. Extraction restrictions, competing theories, and the argument from the poverty of the stimulus. In The Reality of Linguistic Rules [Studies in Language 26], Susan D. Lima, Roberta Corrigan & Gregory K. Iverson (eds), 243-259. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998. The acquisition of wh-questions and the mechanisms of language acquisition. In The New Psychology of Language, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 221-249. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
2005. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Nikitina, Tatiana & Alexandra Vydrina
2020. Reported speech in Kakabe: Loose syntax with flexible indexicality . Folia Linguistica 54:1 ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. 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.