Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T09:01:01.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Wh-questions in Persian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Arsalan Kahnemuyipour
Arsalan Kahnemuyipour*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores wh-questions in Persian and examines how the “clausal typing hypothesis” and the “focus-fronting analysis” fare with respect to Persian wh-questions. It is shown that Persian wh-questions involve obligatory movement of wh-phrases to a preverbal focus position. This movement is different from syntactic wh-movement in that it does not involve movement of the wh-phrase to [Spec, CP], whose trigger is a [+wh] feature in C. Thus, in terms of the typology of wh-questions, Persian is neither a syntactic wh-movement nor a wh-in-situ language; rather, it should be classified with languages such as Aghem, Basque, Hungarian, Kirundi, and Serbo-Croatian, in which wh-phrases have been argued to undergo focus movement. It is shown that Persian does not seem to share the properties of Serbo-Croatian, another focus-fronting language. Some possible explanations are provided and the theoretical implications are discussed.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article porte sur les questions wh- en persan et examine la validité de l’hypothèse «clausal typing» et de l’analyse «focus-fronting», en ce qui concerne les questions wh- persanes. Il est démontré que les questions wh- persanes obligent le mouvement des expressions wh- à une position préverbale de focalisation. Ce mouvement ne correspond pas au mouvement wh- syntaxique puisqu’il n’y a pas mouvement de l’expression wh- à [Spec, CP], dont le déclenchement est un trait [+wh] en C. Donc, en termes de typologie des questions wh-, le persan est ni une langue à mouvement wh- syntaxique, ni une langue à wh- in situ. Elle se classifierait plutôt comme l’aghem, le basque, le hongrois, le kirundi et le serbo-croate, des langues dans lesquelles le mouvement des expressions wh- est généralement analysé comme un mouvement de focalisation. Il est démontré que le persan ne partage pas les propriétés du serbo-croate, une autre langue à mouvement de focalisation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 46 , Special Issue 1-2: The Syntax of Iranian Languages , June 2001 , pp. 41 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, C.L. 1970. Notes on the description of English questions. Foundations of Language 6:197–219.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 1997a. Fronting wh-phrases in Serbo-Croatian. In The Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Indiana meeting 1996, ed. Lindseth, Martina and Franks, Steven, 86–107. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 1997b. Superiority effects with multiple wh-fronting in Serbo-Croatian. Lingua 102:1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 1998a. Wh-movement and wh-phrases in Slavic. Paper presented at the Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax Workshop, Spencer, Indiana.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 1998b. On the interpretation of multiple questions. Ms., University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2000a. On multiple feature-checking: Multiple wh-fronting and multiple head-movement. In Working minimalism, ed. Epstein, Samuel and Hornstein, Norbert, 159–187. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2000b. Sometimes in [Spec, CP], sometimes in-situ. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 53–88. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa L. 1991. On the typology of wh-questions. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa L. 1997. On the typology of wh-questions. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1989. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10: Functional heads and clause structure, ed. Laka, Itziar and Mahajan, Anoop, 43–74.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. Categories and transformations. In The minimalist program, 219–394. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriageteka, Juan, 89–155. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. To appear. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Kenstowicz, Michael. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam and Lasnik, Howard. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8:425–504.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Some universale of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of language, ed. Greenberg, Joseph H., 73–113. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hagstrom, Paul. 1998. Decomposing questions. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 1986. Focus in the theory of grammar and the syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin. 1995. Discourse configurational languages. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1985. On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3:217–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ndayiragije, Juvénal. 1999. Checking economy. Linguistic Inquiry 30:399–444.Google Scholar
Ndayiragije, Juvénal. 2000. The ergativity parameter. Invited talk presented at MIT.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. Haegeman, Liliane, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochemont, Michael. 1986. Focus in generative grammar. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stjepanović, Sandra. 1995. Short-distance movement of wh-phrases in Serbo-Croatian matrix clauses. Ms., University of Connecticut, oStorrs.Google Scholar
Stjepanović, Sandra. 1999. What do second position cliticization, scrambling, and multiple wh-fronting have in common? Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar