Languages are not often very flexible in reordering their heads and complements. Many languages have a fixed preference, for example, for either prepositions or postpositions (Dryer, 2013). If...Show moreLanguages are not often very flexible in reordering their heads and complements. Many languages have a fixed preference, for example, for either prepositions or postpositions (Dryer, 2013). If there are any occurrences of inversion, they are either obligatory, or at least, when optional, bound by restrictions; as can be seen in Broadwell (2006). Bidayuh - an Austronesian language of Borneo, a language not very well documented - shows some peculiar inversions of preposition and noun phrase. These inversions only occur with movement. The current study examines P-DP reordering for DP’s that have moved to the front of their simple matrix clause; to the front of their embedded clause; or out of their embedded clause, to the front of the matrix clause. It looks into several different prepositions and different matrix verbs, as well as different DP complements. All three movement conditions elicit different sets of restrictions on reordering P and DP. The data are discussed in the light of Merchant’s (2002) theory of swiping and Hartman and Ai’s (2009) account of it. Unfortunately, the current study cannot draw any hard conclusions. More research is needed.Show less
Relative pronouns in a variety of languages are analyzed. Earlier analyses focusing mainly on the Promotion Theory are evaluated and the Promotion Theory is rejected as it cannot elegantly explain...Show moreRelative pronouns in a variety of languages are analyzed. Earlier analyses focusing mainly on the Promotion Theory are evaluated and the Promotion Theory is rejected as it cannot elegantly explain resumptive pronouns and it cannot handle coordinated antecedents. It is concluded that an adequate theory cannot raise the antecedent out of the relative clause. A new theory is introduced that analyses relative clauses as being selected by an Adjectival Phrase with a phonologically null head while the relative pronoun is simply coreferential with the antecedent.Show less
In this thesis I examine the question that was left unanswered in Tulling (2014). Why can some SFP1s, like the Dutch hè, attach to [-Q]-questions, while most SFP1s are unable to attach to questions...Show moreIn this thesis I examine the question that was left unanswered in Tulling (2014). Why can some SFP1s, like the Dutch hè, attach to [-Q]-questions, while most SFP1s are unable to attach to questions? This paper focuses on rhetorical wh-questions. First the different theories on the structure and meaning of rhetorical questions are discussed. Then I define what I consider a rhetorical question, and provide tests to distinguish rhetorical questions from ordinary questions in Dutch. I argue against the proposal that ordinary questions and rhetorical questions are semantically and structurally the same (Copanigro & Sprouse 2007), and argue in favor of the idea that RQs and OQs are actually semantically and syntactically different from each other. Combining earlier theories on the semantics and structure of rhetorical questions (Han 2002, Obenauer & Poletto 2000) and generalizations on the structure of SFPs using the split-CP hypothesis (Law 2004, Sybesma & Li 2007), I propose the following to account for the main question of this paper: In contrary to wh¬-words in ordinary questions, which are positioned in [Spec, ForceP], the wh-words in rhetorical questions are positioned in [Spec, EpistP]. Following Sybesma & Li (2007) SFPs are base generated across the different layers of CP. The SFP1 hè is base generated in Epist0. SFP1s have an inherent feature [+SFP] which requires to be checked by all the relevant sentence information. In ordinary statements, the entire sentence moves to [Spec, EpistP] to check this SFP feature in sentences with hè. In RQs the wh-word carries all the relevant epistemic information of the sentence (Han 2002), and the SFP-feature can be checked. In ordinary questions there is no wh-word in EpistP, and the [+SFP]-feature cannot be checked; the sentence is ungrammatical. Show less
Westergaard et al. (2005, 2012) have shown that some dialects of Norwegian, contrary to Standard Norwegian, may violate the Verb Second requirement in some or all types of wh-questions. Focussing...Show moreWestergaard et al. (2005, 2012) have shown that some dialects of Norwegian, contrary to Standard Norwegian, may violate the Verb Second requirement in some or all types of wh-questions. Focussing on Northern Norwegian, I discuss the optionality of the Verb Second requirement in wh-questions with simplex wh-phrases in this dialect. Based on data from Norwegian informants, as well as previous literature on this dialect, an analysis of the optionality of Verb Second will be given. This analysis builds on Sportiche’s approach on clitic movement in Romance languages (1996). It is shown that in Northern Norwegian complex wh’s move like phrases, whilst simplex wh’s can move (long-distance) as phrases as well as heads, analogous to the movement of Romance clitics. As an alternative analysis, the possibility that Northern Norwegian simplex wh’s undergo phrasal movement but merge into C0, is also discussed on the basis of the head movement account by Matushansky (2006).Show less
