There are four different constructions for expressing ‘why’ in Cuzco Quechua, namely imanaqtintaq, imapaqtaq, imaynapitaq and imaraykutaq. Analytic tools from the syntax-semantics interface are...Show moreThere are four different constructions for expressing ‘why’ in Cuzco Quechua, namely imanaqtintaq, imapaqtaq, imaynapitaq and imaraykutaq. Analytic tools from the syntax-semantics interface are used to highlight the differences between these why-structures. Imanaqtintaq seems to behave like ‘how come’. Syntactic restrictions related to the fact that this combination of morphemes does not leave a trace are shown. Examples of these restrictions are the fact that imanaqtintaq does not have a pair-list reading and the fact that quantifiers cannot take scope over this wh-element. The underlying meaning of imapaqtaq comes from the benefactive marker -paq. Due to pragmatics imapaqtaq could also be interpreted as ‘why’. Imaynapitaq is strongly related to imaynataq ‘how’. The causal aspect that the method-reading of imaynataq shows in relation to the presupposition of the question can also be found in imaynapitaq. This results in the fact that imaynapitaq takes an event as a reason or cause for the proposition of the question. Imaraykutaq is the most transparent why-structure. This combination of morphemes is closest to the English ‘why’ and can be used to obtain any kind of reason or cause. Since imaraykutaq has the broadest meaning, it is barely used. The other forms might provide a more specific gap related to the proposition of the question. This results in a more sufficient way of updating the knowledge of the one asking the question.Show less
In this research I try to find out what Italian learners of the French language know about the position and the form of the subject in French wh-questions. I do this by executing a judgment test,...Show moreIn this research I try to find out what Italian learners of the French language know about the position and the form of the subject in French wh-questions. I do this by executing a judgment test, in which the participants have to judge a list of grammatical and agrammatical sentences. The main question of this thesis is whether the Italian learners have a preference for the (Dutch) V2-structure - which seemed to be the case in Kroeskop's thesis (2011) - and also whether the Italian language plays a part in this.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
