BAILEY 2013 PhD thesis final corrected - Newcastle · PDF file ·...
Transcript of BAILEY 2013 PhD thesis final corrected - Newcastle · PDF file ·...
The Syntax of Question Particles
Laura Rudall Bailey
Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
School of English Literature, Language and Linguistics/
Centre for Research in Linguistics and Language Sciences
Newcastle University
Examined: November 2012
Submitted: April 2013
ii
Abstract
Cross-linguistically, languages are largely head-initial or head-final. Most permit
some disharmony, but Holmberg (2000) and Biberauer, Holmberg & Roberts
(2012), among others, have argued that the structure shown in (1) is ruled out,
where YP is Xs complement and ZP is Ys complement:
(1) *[XP [YP Y ZP] X]
In structures such as (1), a head-final phrase immediately dominates a head-
initial phrase, violating the so-called Final-Over-Final Constraint (FOFC).
Descriptively however, final question particles are readily found in languages
with VO order, resulting in a structure that appears to violate FOFC. (2)
illustrates this violation in Tetun (an Austronesian language of East/West
Timor), and (3) shows the structure, with a final question particle k
immediately dominating a head-initial TP:
(2) la b sekola k? 2S not go school or (Said to child playing:) Didn't you go to school? (Van Klinken 1999: 212)
(3)
iii
If k constitutes the C head of CP, as is standardly assumed, the structure in (3)
violates FOFC.
I show, following Aldridge (2011), that these particles are best analysed as
disjunctive elements, heading an elided clause:
(4) [ConjP CP [Conj CP]]
The particle is the head of the phrase, with the second CP as its complement and
the first (pronounced) CP in Spec,ConjP. This solves the FOFC problem because
the particle is not final, and therefore the derivation does not include a head-
final phrase dominating a head-initial phrase. Instead, the particle precedes its
complement (which is not pronounced), and the clause that it follows (which is
pronounced) is its specifier. I provide evidence for this position through
typological investigation and theoretical analysis.
In addition, the various proposals that have been put forward in the literature to
avoid this FOFC-violation are considered, but are shown to be problematic in
different respects. I discuss the idea that particles are not heads (Biberauer,
Holmberg & Roberts 2012). However, they cannot be specifiers and an
adjunction analysis fails to explain their properties, so it is unclear what they
could be if not heads. Julien (2001), Lee (2005, 2008) and Simpson & Wu (2002)
argue that final particles are derived by TP-movement to a Topic or Focus
position. This is a promising explanation, but fails to derive the difference
between final particles and other types. If the particle is syncategorematic
(Biberauer, Holmberg & Roberts 2012), the fact that they appear in fixed
positions is mysterious. Processing explanations of the data (Hawkins 2004,
Philip 2012) go some way towards deriving the FOFC facts but do not, among
other things, explain the high number of final particles in VO languages.
The syntax of question particles is discussed in detail, and it is proposed that
polar questions consist of two functional heads in combination: Force, giving a
(main clause) question illocutionary force, and Polarity, giving a (neutral)
iv
question open polarity. A true polar question particle is therefore related to one
or both of these heads:
(5)
With this background, the argument is defended in subsequent chapters that
some particles cannot be true question elements in this sense and are instead
instantiations of the disjunction. Cross-linguistic data demonstrate that final
particles in VO languages differ from other types of question particle (initial
particles, or final particles in OV languages) in very rarely marking embedded
questions: they do so in only one language in the corpus. Homophony between
the question particle and disjunction in many languages, combined with attested
grammaticalisation paths, adds support to this claim. Furthermore, this analysis
explains a number of properties of such particles in addition to their propensity
to violate FOFC, including their frequent absence from negative questions,
alternative questions and wh-questions. All of these are straightforward
consequences of the particle being a disjunction. Finally, the analysis is applied
to a particular language, Thai, as a case study, and it is compared with languages
of the other types. It is shown that the disjunctive analysis is best able to explain
the data and offer an elegant explanation of the FOFC facts.
v
Acknowledgements
I gratefully acknowledge the generous support of the Arts and Humanities
Research Council. In addition, I received financial assistance from the Faculty of
Humanities and Social Sciences, the School of English Literature, Language and
Linguistics, and the Centre for Research in Linguistics and Language Sciences.
My deep gratitude is due to my main supervisor, Anders Holmberg. His guidance,
humour and inspiration have been invaluable. My second supervisor, Geoff
Poole, offered wisdom when it was needed most. I thank both of them sincerely.
I was fortunate to be involved with the Newcastle-Cambridge project Structure
and linearization in disharmonic word orders. Theresa Biberauer, Ian Roberts,
Michelle Sheehan and Sten Vikner helped me to formulate my ideas in their early
stages. Michelle has also been a mentor and a friend.
Theresa Biberauer was also a wonderful external examiner, and has given me an
enormous amount of help, advice and information over the last five years. I also
thank my internal examiner, William van der Wurff, for his careful consideration
of my work, his interest in it and his support.
I thank Somphob Yaisomanang, Nami Kaneko, Olcay Sert and Caroline Cordier
for providing data, and Leanne Stokoe for proofreading. Chapter 5 is based on
collaboration with Anders Holmberg, Magorzata Krzek, Michelle Sheehan and
Mais Sulaiman. Paula Rudall and Richard Bateman kindly hosted me in London.
I am grateful to all my friends, colleagues, and staff at Newcastle University. I
have been supported and inspired from the first day I sat in a linguistics lecture.
And finally, I thank my family. My parents, Gae and Chris, have given me financial
support as well as the more intangible kind. My partner Tony has given me
practical help, wrangling my references, but most of all has given me love and
support throughout. I thank him for everything.
vi
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ v
Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1. Background .......................................................................................................................... 3
1.1.1. Minimalism .................................................................................................................. 3
1.1.2. The Split CP .................................................................................................................. 7
1.1.3. The Linear Correspondence Axiom ................................................................ 11
1.1.4. The Final-Over-Final Constraint ...................................................................... 15
1.2. Outline of the thesis ....................................................................................................... 17
Chapter 2. A Word Order Generalisation ........................................................................... 18
2.1. Word order generalisations ....................................................................................... 18
2.1.1. Co-occurrence of language properties .......................................................... 21
2.2. Question particles in the worlds languages ....................................................... 26
2.3. Final question particles do not appear in embedded questions ................ 33
2.3.1. The question particle may mark embedded questions in OV
languages, and in languages with initial question particles ................................ 37
2.3.2. Final question particles cannot mark embedded questions in VO
languages ................................................................................................................................... 50
2.4. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 76
Chapter 3. VOQ is a FOFC Violation .................................................................................. 79
3.1. Empirical evidence for FOFC ..................................................................................... 81
3.1.1. Unattested word orders ...................................................................................... 82
3.1.2. Gaps in variable word order languages ........................................................ 87
3