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



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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  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]

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