1887
Volume 18, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-6834
  • E-ISSN: 2211-6842
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In this paper, I will discuss some types of variation in wh-expressions asking for reasons such as , and with special attention to their base-generated positions in the framework of the cartography of syntactic structures. I will first discuss and 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 and the complementizer among speakers.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lv.00024.end
2019-02-01
2019-05-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Borer, Hagit
    1984Parametric syntax: Case studies in Semitic and Romance languages. Doredrech: Foris. 10.1515/9783110808506
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808506 [Google Scholar]
  2. Chomsky, Noam
    2001 Derivation by phase. InMichael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cinque, Guglielmo
    1999Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Collins, Chris
    1991 Why and how come. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics15. 31–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Conroy, Anastasia
    2006 The semantics of how come. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics14. 1–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Culicover, Peter W.
    1993 Evidence against ECP accounts of the that-t effect. Linguistic Inquiry24. 557–561.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Endo, Yoshio
    2014 Two ReasonPs: What are(’nt) you coming to the United States For?InUr Shlonsky (ed.), Beyond functional sequence, 220–231. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Fitzpatric, Justin
    2005 The whys and how comes of presupposition and NPI licensing in questions. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics24. 138–145.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Haegeman, Liliane
    2012Adverbial clauses, main clause phenomena, and composition of the left periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199858774.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199858774.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Haegeman, Liliane, and Virginia Hill
    2014 Vocatives and speech act projections: A Case study in West Flemish. InAnna Cardinaletti, Guglielmo Cinque, and Yoshio Endo (eds.), On Peripheries, 209–236. Tokyo: Hituzi.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Honda, Masatoshi
    2015 A compositional approach to the exclamatory use to the particle koto. Tsukuba English Studies34. 125–142.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Obenauer, Hans-Georg
    2006 Special interrogatives. InJenny Doetjes and Paz Gonzalez (eds.) Romance language and linguistic theory 2004, 247–73. 10.1075/cilt.278.12obe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.278.12obe [Google Scholar]
  13. Ochi, Masao
    2004How come and other adjunct. Language and Linguistics5. 29–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Portner, Paul & Raffaella Zanuttini
    2005 Nominal exclamatives English. InRobert Stainton and Ray Elugardo (eds.). Ellipsis and non-sentential speech, 57–67. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/1‑4020‑2301‑4_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2301-4_3 [Google Scholar]
  15. Radford, Andrew
    2013 The complementiser system in spoken English. InVictoria Camacho-Taboada (eds.), Information structure and agreement, 11–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.197.01rad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.197.01rad [Google Scholar]
  16. 2015 How come questions with how come are different?Ms. University of Essex.
  17. 2018Colloquial English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108552202
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108552202 [Google Scholar]
  18. Rizzi, Luigi
    1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. InLiliane Haegeman (ed.) Elements of Grammar289–330. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑5420‑8_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2001 On the position of ‘Iint(errogative)’ in the left periphery of the clause. InGuglielmo Cinque and Giampaolo Salvi (eds.) Current studies in Italian syntax, 267–96. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2004 Locality and left periphery. InAdriana Belletti (ed.) Structures and beyond, 104–131. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2006 On the form of chains. InLisa Cheng and Norvert Corver (eds.), Wh-movement: Moving on, 97–133. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2014 Some consequences of Criterial Freezing: Asymmetries, anti-adjacency and extraction from cleft sentences. InPeter Svenonius, (ed.), Functional structure from top to toe – The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol.9, 19–54. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199740390.003.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199740390.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  23. Rizzi, Luigi & Ur Shlonsky
    2006 Strategies of subject extraction. inH.-M. Gärtner and U. Sauerland (eds), Interfaces + Recursion = Language?Berlin: Mouton, 115–60.
  24. Shlonsky, Ur & Gabriela Soare
    2011 Where’s ‘Why’?Linguistic Inquiry42. 651–69. 10.1162/LING_a_00064
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00064 [Google Scholar]
  25. Teramura, Hideo
    1992Nihongo-no sntax to imi vol. 3 [The syntax and semantics in Japanese vol.3]. Tokyo: Kurosio.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Zwicky, Arnold & Ann Zwicky
    1973 How come and what for. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics8. 173–185.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lv.00024.end
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.00024.end
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): come , CP , Criterial Freezing , how , ReasonP , what for and why
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error