Questions and syntactic islands in Tundra Yukaghir
Dejan Matić | 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
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Boeckx, Cedric. 2008. Islands. Language and Linguistics Compass 2: 151-167. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Boeckx, Cedric. 2012. Syntactic Islands. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cheng, Lisa. 2009. Wh-in-situ, from the 80s till now. Language and Linguistics Compass 3: 767-791. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1995. Introduction. In Discourse Configurational Languages, Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), 3-27. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1980. Wh-constructions in Swedish and the relevance of subjacency. Proceedings of NELS 11: 89-108.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Engdahl, Elisabet. 1997. Relative clause extractions in context. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 60: 51-79.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1973. On the Nature of Island Constraints. PhD dissertation, MIT.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The Dynamics of Focus Structure. Cambridge: CUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information Structure. The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 2002. Echo-syntax and metarepresentations. Lingua 112: 871-900. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Frege, Gottlob. 1892. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik 100: 25-50.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grice, Paul. 1981. Presupposition and conversational implicature. In Radical Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed.), 183-198. New York NY: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hoffmeister, Philip & Sag, Ivan. 2010. Cognitive constraints and island effects. Language 86: 366-415. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Move wh in a language without movement. The Linguistic Review 1: 369-416. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jary, Mark. 2010. Assertion. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2005. Wh-in-situ and movement in Sinhala questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 1-51. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Krejnovič, Eruxim A. 1958. Jukagirskij jazyk. Moscow: Nauka.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Krejnovič, Eruxim A. 1982. Issledovanija i materialy po jukagirskomu jazyku. Leningrad: Nauka.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
K05 = Kurilov, Gavril N. 2005. Fol’klor jukagirov. Moscow: Nauka.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kush, Dave; Akira Omaki & Norbert Hornstein, 2009. Reanalyzing relative clause island effects. GLOW 32, Nantes. [URL]![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational Phonology, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
M01 = Maslova, Elena. 2001. Yukaghir Texts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Maslova, Elena. 2003. Tundra Yukaghir. Munich: Lincom.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1990. Quantification in the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sabel, Joachim. 2002. A minimalist analysis of syntactic islands. The Linguistic Review 19: 271-315. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sobin, Nick. 1990. On the syntax of English echo questions. Lingua 81: 141–167. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
von Stechow, Arnim. 1996. Against LF pied-piping. Natural Language Semantics 4: 57-110. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Valin, Jr., Robert D. 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Valin, Jr., Robert D. 2005. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
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.