No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Partial Wh-Movement in Indonesian, Criterial Freezing, and Sub-Extraction
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 March 2024
Abstract
This paper develops a new analysis of partial wh-movement in Indonesian, a construction which raises seemingly challenging problems for criterial freezing. It is proposed that partially-moving wh-phrases in Indonesian are structured as focused expressions properly containing a wh-interrogative phrase. It is argued that the derivation of partial wh-movement in Indonesian involves sub-extraction, or movement out of a moved element, to evade a freezing violation that would otherwise ensue. More specifically, it involves focus movement of the focused XP to the intermediate non-interrogative C-system, followed by sub-extraction of the QP from the XP to the matrix interrogative C-system. The analysis receives independent empirical support from the amelioration of freezing effects observed in focused wh-questions in Japanese.
Résumé
Cet article développe une nouvelle analyse du déplacement-qu partiel en indonésien, une construction qui soulève des problèmes apparemment difficiles pour le gel critériel. Il est proposé que les syntagmes Qu- à déplacement partiel en indonésien sont structurés comme des expressions focalisées contenant un syntagme Qu- interrogatif. Il est avancé que la dérivation du déplacement- qu partiel en indonésien implique une sous-extraction, ou un déplacement hors d'un élément déplacé, afin d’éviter une violation du gel qui s'ensuivrait autrement. Plus précisément, il s'agit d'un mouvement de focalisation du XP focalisé vers le système C intermédiaire non-interrogatif, suivi d'une sous-extraction du QP du XP vers le système C interrogatif matriciel. L'analyse trouve un soutien empirique indépendant dans l'amélioration des effets de gel observée dans l'interrogation focalisée en japonais.
Keywords
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2024
Footnotes
This research was supported by KAKENHI Grant Number 19K00560. I would like to thank the audience members at the workshops held at Sogang University (December 2019) and Tohoku University (February 2020) for valuable discussions. All errors are my own.
References
Abels, Klaus. 2012. Phases: An essay on cyclicity in syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2017. Labeling (Romance) causatives. In Elements of comparative syntax: Theory and description, ed. Aboh, Enoch, Haeberli, Eric, Puskás, Genoveva, and Schönenberger, Manuela, 13–46. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1995. Morphosyntax: The syntax of verbal inflection. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2007. On the locality and motivation of move and agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38(4): 589–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2008. On the operator freezing effect. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26(2): 249–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2011. On unvalued uninterpretable features. In Proceedings of NELS 39, ed. Lima, Suzi, Mullin, Kevin, and Smith, Brian, 109–120. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2015. From the Complex NP constraint to everything: On deep extractions across categories. The Linguistic Review 32(4): 603–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2018. On movement out of moved elements, labels, and phases. Linguistic Inquiry 49(2): 247–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2021. On smuggling, the freezing ban, labels, and tough-constructions. In Smuggling in syntax, ed. Belletti, Adriana and Collins, Chris, 53–95. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Mchombo, Sam A.. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chichewa. Language 63(4): 741–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, Michael. 1995. Lexico-logical form: A radically minimalist theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cable, Seth. 2007. The grammar of Q: Q-particles and the nature of wh-fronting, as revealed by the wh-questions of Tlingit. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Cheng, Johnny Hsu-Te. 2012. Ellipsis: Its correlates with phases and movement. Paper presented at GLOW 35, University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 1991. On the typology of wh-questions. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 1997. “Partial” wh-movement. In UCI Working Papers in Linguistics 3, ed. Liu, Luther Chen-Sheng and Takeda, Kazue, 27–50. Irvine, CA: Irvine Linguistics Students Association.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 2000. Moving just the feature. In Wh-scope marking, ed. Lutz, Uli, Müller, Gereon, and Stechow, Arnim von, 77–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1976. Conditions on rules of grammar. Linguistic Analysis 2(3): 303–352.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of projections: Extensions. In Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honor of Adriana Belletti, ed. Domenico, Elisa Di, Hamann, Cornelia, and Matteini, Simona, 3–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter. 1982. Subjacency and successive cyclicity: Evidence from Ancash Quechua. Journal of Linguistic Research 2(4): 25–58.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter, and Hermon, Gabriella. 1998. The typology of wh-movement: Wh-questions in Malay. Syntax 1(3): 221–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Peter, and Hermon, Gabriella. 2000. Partial wh-movement: Evidence from Malay. In Wh-scope marking, ed. Lutz, Uli., Müller, Gereon, and von Stechow, Arnim, 101–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Peter, Hermon, Gabriella, and Aman, Norhaida. To appear. Clefted questions in Malay. In Malay/Indonesian Linguistics, ed. Gil, David and Collins, James. London: Curzon Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 1994. Economy of derivation and the generalized proper binding condition. Linguistic Inquiry 25(1): 45–61.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2005a. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8(2): 81–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2005b. A smuggling approach to raising in English. Linguistic Inquiry 36(2): 289–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter, and Rochemont, Michael. 1983. Stress and focus in English. Language 59(1): 123–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter, and Wexler, Kenneth. 1977. Some syntactic implications of a theory of language learnability. In Formal syntax, ed. Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, 7–60. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Samuel D. 1992. Derivational constraints on A-chain formation. Linguistic Inquiry 23(2): 235–259.Google Scholar
Fortin, Catherine. 2009. On the left periphery in Indonesian. In Proceedings of Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA) XVI, ed. Paul, Ileana, Chung, Sandra, Finer, Daniel, and Potsdam, Eric, 29–43. London, ON: University of Western Ontario.Google Scholar
Gallego, Ángel. 2009. On freezing effects. Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 1(1): 33–51.Google Scholar
Groat, Erich, and O'Neil, John. 1996. Spell-out at the LF interface. In Minimal ideas, ed. Abraham, Werner, Epstein, Samuel D., Thráinsoon, Höskuldur, and Jan-Wouter Zwart, C., 113–139. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2003. Prolific domains: On the anti-locality of movement dependencies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harwood, William. 2013. Being progressive is just a phase: Dividing the functional hierarchy. Doctoral dissertation, Ghent University.Google Scholar
Hicks, Glyn. 2009. Tough-constructions and their derivation. Linguistic Inquiry 40(4): 535–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 1986. FOCUS in the theory of grammar and the syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 2000. Interfaces vs. the computational system in the syntax of focus. In Interface strategies, ed. Bennis, Hans, Everaert, Martin, and Reuland, Eric, 183–206. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 2005. Separating “Focus movement” from focus. In Phrasal and clausal architecture, ed. Karimi, Simin, Samian, Vida, and Wilkins, Wendy K., 108–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1995. Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax. In Clause structure and language change, ed. Battye, Adrian and Roberts, Ian, 140–169. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative grammatical studies of the Japanese language. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Kusumoto, Akio. 2001. Jyookensetu-ni arawareru ‘saiteigen’ no toritatesi ‘sae’ ni tuite [On the at-least usage of ‘sae’ in conditional clauses]. Bachelor's thesis, Kyushu University.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, and Saito, Mamoru. 1992. Move α: Conditions on its applications and outputs. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, and Uriagereka, Juan. 1988. A course in GB syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maeda, Masako. 2019. Feature-relativized criterial freezing. Studies in Generative Grammar 29(1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2005. Going through a phase. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49, ed. McGinnis, Martha and Richards, Norvin, 157–181. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
McDaniel, Dana. 1989. Partial and multiple wh-movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 7(4): 565–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1998. Incomplete category fronting: A derivational approach to remnant movement in German. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2010. On deriving CED effects from the PIC. Linguistic Inquiry 41(1): 35–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon, and Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 1993. Improper movement and unambiguous binding. Linguistic Inquiry 24(3): 461–507.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon, and Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 1996. A′-chain formation and economy of derivation. Linguistic Inquiry 27(3): 480–511.Google Scholar
Muriungi, Peter Kinyua. 2005. Wh-questions in Kitharaka. Studies in African Linguistics 34(1): 43–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1990. Quantification in the theory of generative grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nissenbaum, Jonathan. 2000. Investigations of covert phrasal movement. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Pafel, Jürgen. 2000. Absolute and relative. On scope in German wh-sentences, W-…W-constructions included. In Wh-scope marking, ed. Lutz, Uli, Müller, Gereon, and Stechow, Arnim von, 333–358. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1998. Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. In Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax, ed. Barbosa, Pilar, Fox, Danny, Hagstrom, Paul, McGinnis, Martha, and Pesetsky, David, 337–383. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1972. On some rules that are not successive cyclic. Linguistic Inquiry 3(2): 211–222.Google Scholar
Rackowski, Andrea, and Richards, Norvin. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagalog case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36(4): 565–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies: Optimal and costly computations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, ed. Haegeman, Liliane, 281–337. Kluwer: Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. In Wh-movement: Moving on, ed. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen and Corver, Norbert, 97–133. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2010. On some properties of criterial freezing. In The complementizer phase, ed. Phoevos Panagiotidis, E., 17–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2015. Cartography, criteria and labeling. In Beyond functional sequence, ed. Shlonsky, Ur, 314–338. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2016. Labeling, maximality and the head–phrase distinction. The Linguistic Review 33(1): 103–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochemont, Michael. 1978. A theory of stylistic rules in English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael. 1986. Focus in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1974. Three batons for cognitive psychology. In Cognition and the symbolic processes, ed. Weimer, Walter B. and Palermo, David S., 63–124. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sabel, Joachim. 2000. Partial wh-movement and the typology of wh-questions. In Wh-scope marking, ed. Lutz, Uli, Müller, Gereon, and Stechow, Arnim von, 409–446. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saddy, Douglas. 1991. Wh-scope mechanisms in Bahasa Indonesia. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 15, ed. Cheng, Lisa & Demirdache, Hamida, 183–218. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Stoyanova, Marina. 2008. Unique focus: Languages without multiple wh-questions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, Daiko. 1994. Minimality of movement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticutt, Storrs.Google Scholar
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 1994. On economizing the theory of A-bar dependencies. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 2012. Spell-out and the minimalist program. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Uribe-Echevarria, Maria. 1992. On the structural positions of subjects in Spanish, and their consequences for quantification. In Syntactic theory and Basque syntax, ed. Lakarra Andrinua, Joseba Andoni and Ortiz de Urbina, Jon, 447–493. Donostia: Gipuzkoako Foru Aldundia.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Akira. 1992. Subjacency and S-structure movement of wh-in-situ. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 1(3): 255–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, Akira. 2001. Wh-in-situ languages. In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, ed. Baltin, Mark and Collins, Chris, 203–225. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yanti, . 2000. A reference grammar of Jambi Malay. Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Yoshida, Tomoyuki. 1999. LF subjacency effects revisited. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 34, ed. Lin, Vivian, Krause, Cornelia, Bruening, Benjamin, and Arregi, Karlos, 1–34. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Yoshida, Tomoyuki. 2016. On the interpretation of indeterminate pronouns in Japanese. Educational Studies 58:57–65. Tokyo: International Christian University.Google Scholar