| { |
| "paper_id": "2020", |
| "header": { |
| "generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0", |
| "date_generated": "2023-01-19T09:01:17.549296Z" |
| }, |
| "title": "On the syntax of negative wh-constructions in Korean", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Okgi", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kim", |
| "suffix": "", |
| "affiliation": { |
| "laboratory": "", |
| "institution": "University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee", |
| "location": { |
| "postBox": "P.O. Box 413", |
| "postCode": "53201-0413", |
| "settlement": "Milwaukee", |
| "region": "WI" |
| } |
| }, |
| "email": "okgikim@uwm.edu" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": "", |
| "venue": null, |
| "identifiers": {}, |
| "abstract": "This paper investigates the syntax of Negative WH-Constructions (NWHCs) in Korean and argues, under Coniglio and Zegrean's (2012) split-ForceP framework, that NWH-phrases like mwe-ka and ettehkey, which are basegenerated above or at the edge of IP, undergo covert movement to the split-Force domain to reflect their sensitivity to clause type and turn the original information-seeking force into the speaker-oriented rhetorical force. 1 Introduction This paper examines so-called Negative WH-Constructions (henceforth, NWHCs) in Korean, which are exemplified by (1) (Cheung, 2008; 2009) (throughout the paper, small capital letters are used in glossing NWH-items to distinguish them from ordinary wh-items). 12 (1) a. pi-ka mwe-ka o-ni?! rain-NOM WHAT-NOM come-QUE 'No way is it raining. (It isn't raining.)'", |
| "pdf_parse": { |
| "paper_id": "2020", |
| "_pdf_hash": "", |
| "abstract": [ |
| { |
| "text": "This paper investigates the syntax of Negative WH-Constructions (NWHCs) in Korean and argues, under Coniglio and Zegrean's (2012) split-ForceP framework, that NWH-phrases like mwe-ka and ettehkey, which are basegenerated above or at the edge of IP, undergo covert movement to the split-Force domain to reflect their sensitivity to clause type and turn the original information-seeking force into the speaker-oriented rhetorical force. 1 Introduction This paper examines so-called Negative WH-Constructions (henceforth, NWHCs) in Korean, which are exemplified by (1) (Cheung, 2008; 2009) (throughout the paper, small capital letters are used in glossing NWH-items to distinguish them from ordinary wh-items). 12 (1) a. pi-ka mwe-ka o-ni?! rain-NOM WHAT-NOM come-QUE 'No way is it raining. (It isn't raining.)'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Abstract", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "body_text": [ |
| { |
| "text": "b. ku-ka ettehkey i pangpep-ulo he-NOM HOW this way-in sihem-ul thongkwaha-l exam-ACC pass-CONN swu.iss-keyss-ni?! can-FUT-QUE 'No way could he pass the exam in this way. (He couldn't pass the exam in this way.)' c. Mary-ka eti Seoul-ul Mary-NOM WHERE Seoul-ACC ttena-l swu.iss-keyss-ni?! leave-CONN can-FUT-QUE 'No way would Mary be able to leave Seoul. (Mary wouldn't be able to leave Seoul.)' d. ku-ka encey sip-nyen ceney chayk-ul he-NOM WHEN 10-year ago book-ACC ss-ess-ni?! write-PST-QUE 'No way did he write the book ten years ago. (He didn't write the book ten years ago.)'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "As seen from the English translations, NWHCs are used to express the speaker-oriented rhetorical/refutatory force and not the information-seeking force typically conveyed by ordinary wh or yes/noquestions (Cheung, 2008; 2009; Saruwatari, 2015; Yang, 2015) . That is, positive NWHCs have the illocutionary force of a negative assertion, as in (1), and negative NWHCs have the illocutionary force of a positive assertion, as in (2).", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 205, |
| "end": 219, |
| "text": "(Cheung, 2008;", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 220, |
| "end": 225, |
| "text": "2009;", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 226, |
| "end": 243, |
| "text": "Saruwatari, 2015;", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF11" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 244, |
| "end": 255, |
| "text": "Yang, 2015)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(2)", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "{ettehkey/mwe-ka} John-i HOW/WHAT-NOM John-NOM tayhakwensayng-i ani-ni?! graduate.student-NOM not-QUE 'No way is John not a graduate student. (He is a graduate student.)'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "1.1 Differences from information-seeking and rhetorical wh-questions", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "NWHCs behave differently from both informationseeking and rhetorical wh-questions in some respects. First, while an ordinary wh-adjunct cannot cooccur with another adjunct of the same kind in the same clause, as in 3, such adjunct doubling is allowed in NWHCs, as in (1b-d) (Cheung, 2008; 2009) .", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 274, |
| "end": 288, |
| "text": "(Cheung, 2008;", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 289, |
| "end": 294, |
| "text": "2009)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(3) a. *Mary-ka eti Seoul-ey ka-ss-ni? Mary-NOM where Seoul-to go-PST-QUE 'Where did Mary go to Seoul?' b. *Mary-ka encey ocen hansi-ey Seoul-ey Mary-NOM when a.m. 1-at Seoul-to ka-ss-ni? go-PST-QUE 'When did Mary go to Seoul at 1 a.m.?' Second, the NWH-item mwe-ka 'WHAT-NOM' functions as an adverbial, just like the other NWHitems, though it is isomorphic to the ordinary whargument mwe-ka 'what-NOM'. Evidence supporting this idea is that the NWH-item WHAT can occur with a subject in an intransitive construction, as in (1a). In a similar vein, Yang (2015) takes Chinese NWH-items shenme 'WHAT' and nali 'WHERE', exemplified in (4), as wh-adverbials which are highly grammaticalized and have nothing to do with interrogativity (cf. Cheung, 2009) . 4zhe-ci huiyi, {nali/shenme} ta hui this-Cl meeting WHERE/WHAT he will lai?! come 'This meeting, it is not the case that he will come.' (adapted from Yang (2015))", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 549, |
| "end": 560, |
| "text": "Yang (2015)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 736, |
| "end": 749, |
| "text": "Cheung, 2009)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Third, NWH-adverbials have lost their lexical meanings. For example, the NWH-phrases mwe-ka 'WHAT-NOM' and ettehkey 'HOW' do not quantify over things/entities and manners/methods, respectively, but contribute only to the negative/positive assertion (Cheung, 2008; Yang, 2015) .", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 249, |
| "end": 263, |
| "text": "(Cheung, 2008;", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 264, |
| "end": 275, |
| "text": "Yang, 2015)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Finally, NWHCs must be uttered after the interlocutor's statement as a way to express disapproval toward the interlocutor. That is, they cannot be uttered discourse-initially or out of the blue (Cheung, 2009; Yang 2015 ).", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 194, |
| "end": 208, |
| "text": "(Cheung, 2009;", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 209, |
| "end": 218, |
| "text": "Yang 2015", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF15" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "This paper aims to address the following two research questions:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Research questions", |
| "sec_num": "1.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 Where is the base position of NWH-adverbials?", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Research questions", |
| "sec_num": "1.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 Do they undergo LF-movement from their base position to a higher functional projection? If so, why?", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Research questions", |
| "sec_num": "1.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "As for the first question, the paper argues that NWHadverbials are base-generated above or at the edge of IP (Cheung, 2008) . As to the second question, the paper proposes that under Coniglio and Zegrean's (2012) split-ForceP hypothesis where ForceP is split up into two projections, namely C(lause) T(ype) and ILL(ocutionary Force), the NWH-phrase moves covertly from its base position to [Spec,CTP] to reflect its sensitivity to clause type and then moves to [Spec,ILLP] to derive the speaker-oriented rhetorical force.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 109, |
| "end": 123, |
| "text": "(Cheung, 2008)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Research questions", |
| "sec_num": "1.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "In Section 2, I argue that NWH-adverbials originate above or at the edge of IP. In Section 3, I argue that NWH-phrases undergo LF-movement from their base position to the Force domain in the left periphery. In Section 4, I propose a novel twostep movement approach to NWHCs from the split-ForceP perspective. In Section 5, I summarize the main arguments of the paper.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Roadmap of the paper", |
| "sec_num": "1.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "2 Base-generation above or at the edge of IP Through investigating how NWH-adverbials behave with respect to negative island effects and scopal interactions with quantifiers, I argue here that NWHadverbials originate above or at the edge of IP.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Roadmap of the paper", |
| "sec_num": "1.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 Negative island effects: The examples in (5) illustrate the how-why asymmetry with regard to a Negative Island Effect (NIE), a phenomenon in which negation blocks extraction of certain (wh-)phrases (Rizzi, 1990 ; Shlonsky and Soare, 2011):", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 200, |
| "end": 212, |
| "text": "(Rizzi, 1990", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF7" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Roadmap of the paper", |
| "sec_num": "1.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(5) a. Why didn't Geraldine fix her bike? b. *How didn't Geraldine fix her bike? (Shlonsky and Soare 2011: (14) )", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 81, |
| "end": 111, |
| "text": "(Shlonsky and Soare 2011: (14)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Roadmap of the paper", |
| "sec_num": "1.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The asymmetry receives a natural account if we follow Rizzi (2001) and Tsai (2008) in assuming that unlike manner/instrumental how base-generated below negation, reason why is directly merged in the CP region. On this view, why is immune to the NIE since it originates above negation, as illustrated in (6a), whereas how violates the NIE as it undergoes LF-movement to its scope position in the CP domain, as illustrated in (6b). As observed in (7a), way 'why' does not exhibit the NIE, just like English why, indicating that way is base-generated above negation (Ko, 2005; 2006) . On the other hand, the ill-formedness of (7b) suggests that manner/instrumental ettehkey, which corresponds to English how, originates below negation.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 54, |
| "end": 66, |
| "text": "Rizzi (2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 71, |
| "end": 82, |
| "text": "Tsai (2008)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF13" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 563, |
| "end": 573, |
| "text": "(Ko, 2005;", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 574, |
| "end": 579, |
| "text": "2006)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Roadmap of the paper", |
| "sec_num": "1.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "With the ettehkey-way asymmetry described above in mind, let us consider the following NWHC examples:", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Roadmap of the paper", |
| "sec_num": "1.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(8) a. salam-i ettehkey cwuk-ci human.being-NOM HOW die-CONN anh-ni?! not-QUE 'No way do human beings not die. (Human beings die.)' b. John-i mwe-ka maykcwu-lul John-NOM WHAT-NOM beer-ACC masi-ci anh-ass-ni?! drink-CONN not-PST-QUE 'It is not true that John didn't drink beer. (John drank beer.)'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Roadmap of the paper", |
| "sec_num": "1.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "As observed here, the NWH-adverbials ettehkey and mwe-ka are not sensitive to negation in the clause with which they are construed, indicating that they are base-generated above negation. Meantime, one may point out here that the insensitivity of NWHadverbials to the NIE would be due to their nonmovement at LF from their base position below NegP. However, as we will see below in Section 3, NWH-adverbials are taken to move at LF.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Roadmap of the paper", |
| "sec_num": "1.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022 Scopal interactions with quantifiers: The example in (9) illustrates that the negation evoked by NWH-adverbials always takes scope over the subject Quantifier Phrase (QP) (Cheung, 2008) . 9(context: there are only three people in the group: John, Mary, and Mimi.)", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 173, |
| "end": 187, |
| "text": "(Cheung, 2008)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Roadmap of the paper", |
| "sec_num": "1.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "{mwe-ka/ettehkey} motwu-ka WHAT-NOM/HOW everyone-NOM haksayng-i-ni?! student-COP-QUE (i)", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Roadmap of the paper", |
| "sec_num": "1.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "It is not the case that everyone is a student. (NEG > everyone) (ii) For each person x, x is not a student. (*everyone > NEG) (9i) is compatible with a situation where the speaker believes that some members of the group are not students (e.g. only John is a student). (9ii) is compatible with a situation where nobody in the group is a student. However, the second reading is unavailable. This scopal pattern may follow from the assumption that NWH-adverbials are base-generated above IP (or at the edge of IP as argued by Cheung (2008) ). Since the NWH-adverbial is initially merged above IP, it is impossible to interpret the NWH-item under the (raised) subject QP. 3", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 523, |
| "end": 536, |
| "text": "Cheung (2008)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Roadmap of the paper", |
| "sec_num": "1.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Korean exhibits another asymmetry between way and other wh-operators, in that unlike the former, the latter cannot be preceded by a Scope Bearing Element (SBE) like amwuto 'anyone'. This phenomenon has been known as an intervention effect (Beck and Kim, 1997; Beck, 2006; among others (10) shows that the wh-argument mwues-ul 'what-ACC' must precede the SBE amwuto 'anyone'. On the other hand, (11) illustrates that the wh-adjunct way can precede or follow the corresponding SBE.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 239, |
| "end": 259, |
| "text": "(Beck and Kim, 1997;", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 260, |
| "end": 271, |
| "text": "Beck, 2006;", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 272, |
| "end": 284, |
| "text": "among others", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Intervention effects", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "To account for such an asymmetry in intervention effects, Ko (2005) , adapting a proposal of Beck and Kim (1997) , proposes the following intervention effect constraint on wh-movement at LF: 3 I leave further investigation of the exact base position of NWH-adverbials to future work.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 58, |
| "end": 67, |
| "text": "Ko (2005)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 93, |
| "end": 112, |
| "text": "Beck and Kim (1997)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF0" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Intervention effects", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "4 SBEs also include man 'only', anh 'not', pakkey 'only' (NPI), to 'also', nwukwunka '(non-specific) someone', and nwukwuna 'everyone' (Ko, 2005) . 12Intervention Effect (Ko, 2005: 871) : At LF, a wh-phrase cannot be attracted to its checking (scope) position across an SBE.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 135, |
| "end": 145, |
| "text": "(Ko, 2005)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF4" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 170, |
| "end": 185, |
| "text": "(Ko, 2005: 871)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Intervention effects", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Let us examine how the constraint captures the asymmetry, particularly under Ko's (2006) split-CP analysis of wh-licensing, according to which way in an interrogative clause is directly merged into its checking position [Spec,Int(errogative)P], while other wh-phrases covertly move to [Spec,Foc(us)P], higher than IntP, for feature checking. 5 In (10a), the wh-argument mwues-ul must undergo LF-movement to [Spec,FocP] to be licensed. However, the SBE amwuto induces the intervention effect by blocking the LF-movement, resulting in a derivational crash. This is why (10a) is ruled out. The well-formedness of (10b) is because the overt scrambling of the whargument over the SBE avoids the intervention configuration. In (11a), unlike the wh-argument, the wh-adjunct way can be preceded by the SBE. This is because way does not move at LF as it is initially licensed in its base position, i.e. [Spec,IntP] , before the overt scrambling of the SBE over it. 6 The wellformedness of (11b) is simply because way is not located in the intervention configuration. Now let us take a look at the following NWHCs regarding intervention effects:", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 77, |
| "end": 88, |
| "text": "Ko's (2006)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 894, |
| "end": 905, |
| "text": "[Spec,IntP]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 956, |
| "end": 957, |
| "text": "6", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Intervention effects", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(13) A: Nobody is a student here. Ko (2006) suggests only two functional heads, Int and Foc, for licensing ordinary wh-phrases and uses the terms C Int and C Foc to avoid unnecessary confusion with Rizzi's (1999 Rizzi's ( , 2001 ) split-CP system in Italian in (i), where Int is configured higher than Foc.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 34, |
| "end": 43, |
| "text": "Ko (2006)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 198, |
| "end": 211, |
| "text": "Rizzi's (1999", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 212, |
| "end": 228, |
| "text": "Rizzi's ( , 2001", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF10" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Intervention effects", |
| "sec_num": "3.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Force (Top) Int (Top) Foc (Top) Fin IP ... (Rizzi, 1999) haksayng-i ani-ni?! student-NOM not-QUE '(int.) It is not the case that nobody is a student here. (Some of the members are students.)'", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 43, |
| "end": 56, |
| "text": "(Rizzi, 1999)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF9" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "(i)", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "As shown in (13B ), the NWH-adverbials are not allowed to follow the SBE. If the intervention effect constraint in (12) is on the right track, the contrast between (13B) and (13B ) suggests that NWHadverbials undergo LF-movement. The sensitivity of NWH-adverbials to intervention effects induced by quantificational adverbs further supports the argument that NWH-phrases move at LF. To illustrate such an intervention effect, let us first look at the Hungarian data in (14).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "(i)", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(14) a. *Mindig kit hit\u00e1 meg? always who-ACC invited PV 'Who did you invite all the time?' b. kit hit\u00e1 meg mindig? who-acc invited PV always 'Who did you invite all the time?' (adapted from den Dikken 2003)The examples here illustrate that the wh-phrase kit 'who-ACC' cannot follow but must precede the adverb of quantification mindig 'always'. To explain this paradigm, Lipt\u00e1k (2001) suggests that the illformedness of sentences like (14a) is attributed to intervention effects: the quantificational adverb harmfully intervenes between the wh-phrase and the interrogative C [ To be more specific, the quantificational phrase, which occupies [Spec,Dist(ributive)P] higher than FocP, blocks the feature movement of the wh-phrase from [Spec,FocP] to C [+wh] , resulting in a derivational crash. Yang (2007; discusses Chinese NWHCs (in his term, refutatory wh-questions) in terms of the aforementioned intervention effect so as to suggest that NWH-items merged at FocP undergo covert movement to ForceP to derive the speaker's refutatory force. To illustrate, consider the following contrast:", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 371, |
| "end": 384, |
| "text": "Lipt\u00e1k (2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 575, |
| "end": 576, |
| "text": "[", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 750, |
| "end": 755, |
| "text": "[+wh]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 793, |
| "end": 804, |
| "text": "Yang (2007;", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "(i)", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "(16) a. {*meitian/*changchang} {nail/shenme} everyday/often WHERE/WHAT ta hui lai?! he will come 'Everyday/often it is not the case that he will come.' b. {nail/shenme} ta {meitian/changchang} WHERE/WHAT he everyday/often hui lai?! will come 'Everyday/often it is not the case that he will come.' (adapted from Yang (2007)) He argues that the deviance of (16a) is because the quantificational phrase like meitian 'everyday' and changchang 'often' blocks LF-movement of the NWH-phrase into ForceP, giving rise to the intervention effect within the CP field (Cheung, 2008) . Meantime, there is no such intervention effect in (16b) since the NWH-phrase is located in a higher position than the SBE and thus freely moves to For-ceP at LF. When it comes to Korean NWHCs, the following examples illustrate that they exhibit the same intervention effect as Chinese counterparts: Assuming that the quantificational phrase like hansang 'always' is sitting in [Spec,DistP] higher than FocP as argued by Lipt\u00e1k (2001) , the contrast in (17) suggests that the NWH-phrase undergoes LFmovement from its base position to a higher functional projection above DistP in the CP region. 7", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 311, |
| "end": 323, |
| "text": "Yang (2007))", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF14" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 556, |
| "end": 570, |
| "text": "(Cheung, 2008)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 993, |
| "end": 1006, |
| "text": "Lipt\u00e1k (2001)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF6" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "(i)", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "It has been proposed that NWH-phrases move at LF to a higher functional projection. In this respect, then, two important questions arise as to (i) what is the functional projection to which NWH-phrases move at LF and (ii) why they undergo LF-movement to the assumed functional projection. In addressing the first issue, I argue here that NWH-phrases move covertly to ForceP, given that they closely interact with both clause type and illocutionary force encoded in ForceP (Rizzi, 1997; cf. Coniglio and Zegrean, 2012) . In what follows, let us look at some evidence for the argument. 8 The interaction of NWH-adverbials with illocutionary force is evidenced by their inability to occur in embedded clauses, as in (18): pragmatically, elements conveying the expressive force (i.e. the speaker's subjective opinion and attitude) can only be carried out by direct speech (Pan, 2015) . 18*motun salam-i John-i every person-NOM John-NOM {mwe-ka/ettehkey} haksayng-i-nci WHAT-NOM/HOW student-COP-QUE a-ni?! know-QUE '(int.) Does every person know that John is not a student?'", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 472, |
| "end": 485, |
| "text": "(Rizzi, 1997;", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF8" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 486, |
| "end": 517, |
| "text": "cf. Coniglio and Zegrean, 2012)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 584, |
| "end": 585, |
| "text": "8", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 868, |
| "end": 879, |
| "text": "(Pan, 2015)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The interaction with illocutionary force and clause type", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "If the NWH-phrase in (18) occurs in the matrix clause instead of the embedded one, then the resulting sentence becomes well-formed, as in (19) . In this case, as one can expect, the NWH-phrase is only associated with the matrix clause, as seen from the English translation, since it cannot originate within the embedded clause. 19{mwe-ka/ettehkey} motun salam-i WHAT-NOM/HOW every person-NOM John-i haksayng-i-nci a-ni?! John-NOM student-COP-QUE know-QUE 'It is not the case that every person knows whether John is a student or not.' NWH-adverbials' interaction with clause type can be verified by the fact that they can occur only in yes/no questions, as in (20a), but not in whquestions, as in (20b), declaratives, as in (20c), imperatives, as in (20d), or exclamatives, as in (20e In what follows, I will address the remaining issue of why NWH-adverbials undergo LF-movement to ForceP, within Coniglio and Zegrean's (2012) split-ForceP framework.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 138, |
| "end": 142, |
| "text": "(19)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The interaction with illocutionary force and clause type", |
| "sec_num": "3.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "The close interaction of NWH-adverbials with both illocutionary force and clause type is reminiscent of adverb-based discourse particles like Italian tanto. Dohi (2020) suggests that sentence-initial tanto interacts with clause type, given that it occurs only in wh-questions, as in (21a), or declaratives, as in (21b), but not in other clause types like imperatives, as in (21c). (Dohi, 2020) In addition, he suggests that tanto also interacts with illocutionary force, in that it pragmatically functions to modify the original illocutionary force of the utterance where it occurs. To illustrate this, let us consider (22). (Dohi, 2020: 5) (22a) can be interpreted as an information-seeking question (or a rhetorical one), but if tanto is inserted into the utterance, the result in (22b) is interpreted only as a rhetorical question, which has been derived by the discourse particle modifying the original information-seeking force on Dohi's view.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 157, |
| "end": 168, |
| "text": "Dohi (2020)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 381, |
| "end": 393, |
| "text": "(Dohi, 2020)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 625, |
| "end": 640, |
| "text": "(Dohi, 2020: 5)", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Similarities with adverb-based discourse particles", |
| "sec_num": "4.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "To account for the peculiar properties of tanto, Dohi modifies Zimmermann's (2004) analysis of the German discourse particle wohl, within Coniglio and Zegrean's (2012) split-ForceP hypothesis where ForceP is split up into two different projections, namely C(lause) T(ype) and ILL(ocutionary Force). By so doing, he argues that the adverbbased discourse particle tanto is base-generated in [Spec,CTP] and enters into a Spec-Head agreement relationship with the CT head codified as a clausetype operator such as decl for declaratives and int for interrogatives. This agreement relationship captures the discourse particle's sensitivity to clause type. He further argues that tanto merged in [Spec,CTP] moves at LF to [Spec,ILLP] ", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 63, |
| "end": 82, |
| "text": "Zimmermann's (2004)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF16" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 389, |
| "end": 399, |
| "text": "[Spec,CTP]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 689, |
| "end": 699, |
| "text": "[Spec,CTP]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 715, |
| "end": 726, |
| "text": "[Spec,ILLP]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Similarities with adverb-based discourse particles", |
| "sec_num": "4.1" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Given the similarities between NWH-adverbials and adverb-based discourse particles like tanto in closely interacting with both clause type and illocutionary force, it would be reasonable to apply Dohi's (2020) split-ForceP analysis to NWHCs. 10 Therefore, from the split-ForceP perspective, I propose the following two-step movement approach to licensing NWHadverbials with no interrogativity:", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 196, |
| "end": 209, |
| "text": "Dohi's (2020)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF3" |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "A split-ForceP approach to NWHCs", |
| "sec_num": "4.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "A split-ForceP approach to NWHCs", |
| "sec_num": "4.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Step 1: The NWH-adverbial first moves covertly from its base position to [Spec,CTP] to agree with a question morpheme like ni with [+Q, -WH], in a Spec-Head relationship, to reflect its sensitivity to clause type, i.e., obligatory occurrence in yes/no questions.", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 73, |
| "end": 83, |
| "text": "[Spec,CTP]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "A split-ForceP approach to NWHCs", |
| "sec_num": "4.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "\u2022", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "A split-ForceP approach to NWHCs", |
| "sec_num": "4.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Step 2: The NWH-adverbial then moves to [Spec,ILLP] to derive the speaker-oriented rhetorical force through modifying the original information-seeking force codified as the privative operator ? in ILL 0 . 11", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "A split-ForceP approach to NWHCs", |
| "sec_num": "4.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "On this split-ForceP analysis, for instance, the NWHC in (20a), repeated below in (24a), is assumed to be derived like (24b): In the meantime, wh-phrases used in ordinary information-seeking questions do not need to undergo covert movement into the split-ForceP region, since, unlike NWH-adverbials, they do not modify the original interrogative force and are insensitive to clause type, occurring in (embedded) declaratives as in (25a), (embedded) imperatives as in (25b), and exclamatives as in (25c). ", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "A split-ForceP approach to NWHCs", |
| "sec_num": "4.2" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Based on the observations so far, we can postulate the following left periphery for ordinary wh-phrases (Ko, 2006) and NWH-adverbials at LF: According to the proposed LF structure, we can predict that different from NWH-phrases, ordinary whphrases may not be sensitive to the intervention effect induced by quantificational adverbs, since they are assumed not to move covertly to the split-Force domain and DistP is located higher than both FocP and IntP where ordinary wh-phrases are licensed. This prediction is borne out by the following attested examples: In (27a), the SBE hangsang can precede way 'why' without inducing the intervention effect since way, directly merged in [Spec,IntP] , does not move across the SBE at LF. In (27b), the wh-argument mwues-ul has scrambled over way, indicating that it is located in the CP region in overt syntax. In this case, the wh-argument can be preceded by the SBE, simply because DistP is configured higher than FocP. That is, the SBE in [Spec,DistP] does not have an effect on LF-movement of the wh-argument to its checking position [Spec,FocP] .", |
| "cite_spans": [ |
| { |
| "start": 104, |
| "end": 114, |
| "text": "(Ko, 2006)", |
| "ref_id": "BIBREF5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 680, |
| "end": 691, |
| "text": "[Spec,IntP]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 984, |
| "end": 996, |
| "text": "[Spec,DistP]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "start": 1080, |
| "end": 1091, |
| "text": "[Spec,FocP]", |
| "ref_id": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "The assumed left peripheral map", |
| "sec_num": "4.3" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "This paper has investigated the syntax of negative wh-constructions in Korean, which, to my knowledge, has not been much discussed in the literature. Under the split-ForceP hypothesis, it has been argued that NWH-adverbials like mwe-ka 'WHAT-NOM' and ettehkey 'HOW', which are base-generated above or at the edge of IP, covertly move to [Spec,CTP] to reflect their sensitivity to clause type and then move to [Spec,ILLP] to turn the original information-seeking force into the speaker-oriented rhetorical force. I hope the discussion presented in this paper contributes to a better understanding of the left periphery of the clause in Korean.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Summary", |
| "sec_num": "5" |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Cheung (2008) notes that there are only three NWH-items in Korean: ettehkey 'HOW', encey 'WHEN' and eti 'WHERE'. But, as given in (1a), the wh-phrase mwe-ka 'WHAT-NOM', where mwe is the contracted form of mwues, can also be used as an NWH-item. SeeSaruwatari (2015) for Japanese NWHCs using nani-ga 'WHAT-NOM and doko-ga 'WHERE-NOM'.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "If way occurs in an embedded declarative clause, it is required to move covertly to the matrix IntP[+Q] to take scope(Ko, 2005;2006).", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Yang (2015) takes Top(ic)P as the functional projection hosting quantificational adverbs.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Tsai (2008) argues that while Chinese causal zenme 'how' is placed at Int, denial zenme originates at the head of ForceP to reflect the change of illocutionary force, i.e. from eliciting information to denial.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "It is possible for the NWH-word to occur in a yes/no question with a wh-indefinite like mwe (the contracted form of mwues), as shown in (i).(i) mwe-ka John-i mwe-lul WHAT-NOM John-NOM something-ACC mek-ess-ni?! eat-PST-QUE 'No way did John eat something.'", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| }, |
| { |
| "text": "Here I avoid discussing whether NWH-adverbials are adverb-based discourse particles. I leave the issue to future research.11Yang (2015) notes that the speaker-oriented rhetorical force is strong enough to override the original interpretation of an interrogative wh-question.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "back_matter": [ |
| { |
| "text": "I would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions.", |
| "cite_spans": [], |
| "ref_spans": [], |
| "eq_spans": [], |
| "section": "Acknowledgments", |
| "sec_num": null |
| } |
| ], |
| "bib_entries": { |
| "BIBREF0": { |
| "ref_id": "b0", |
| "title": "Intervention Effects Follow from Focus Interpretation", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Sigrid", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Beck", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Shin-Sook", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Sigrid", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Kim", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1997, |
| "venue": "Journal of East Asian Linguistics", |
| "volume": "14", |
| "issue": "4", |
| "pages": "339--384", |
| "other_ids": { |
| "DOI": [ |
| "10.1007/sl1050-005-4532-yBeck" |
| ] |
| }, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Beck, Sigrid. 2006. Intervention Effects Follow from Fo- cus Interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 14:1- 56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/sl 1050-005-4532-y Beck, Sigrid and Shin-Sook Kim. 1997. On wh-and operator scope in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 6(4):339-384. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008280026102", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF1": { |
| "ref_id": "b1", |
| "title": "Negative wh-construction and its semantic properties", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Lawrence", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Cheung", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": ";", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Yam-Leung", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Ucla", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Lawrence", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Cheung", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Yam-Leung", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2008, |
| "venue": "Journal of East Asian Linguistics", |
| "volume": "18", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "297--321", |
| "other_ids": { |
| "DOI": [ |
| "10.1007/s10831-009-9051-2" |
| ] |
| }, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Cheung, Lawrence Yam-Leung. 2008. The negative wh- construction. PhD dissertation, UCLA. Cheung, Lawrence Yam-Leung. 2009. Negative wh-construction and its semantic properties. Jour- nal of East Asian Linguistics, 18:297-321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-009-9051-2", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF2": { |
| "ref_id": "b2", |
| "title": "Splitting up Force: Evidence from discourse particles", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Marco", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Coniglio", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Iulia", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Zegrean", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2003, |
| "venue": "John Benjamins. den Dikken, Marcel", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "77--98", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Coniglio, Marco and Iulia Zegrean. 2012. Splitting up Force: Evidence from discourse particles. In Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman, and Rachel Nye (eds.), Main clause phenomena: New horizons, 229-255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. den Dikken, Marcel. 2003. On the morphosyntax of wh-movement. In Cedric Boeckx and Kleanthes Grohmann (eds.), Multiple wh-fronting, 77-98. Ams- terdam: John Benjamins.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF3": { |
| "ref_id": "b3", |
| "title": "CP-internal discourse particles and the split ForceP hypothesis", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Atsushi", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Dohi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2020, |
| "venue": "Lingua", |
| "volume": "233", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": { |
| "DOI": [ |
| "10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102757" |
| ] |
| }, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Dohi, Atsushi. 2020. CP-internal discourse particles and the split ForceP hypothesis. Lingua 233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102757", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF4": { |
| "ref_id": "b4", |
| "title": "Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [Spec, CP] in the overt syntax", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Heejeong", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Ko", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2005, |
| "venue": "Natural Language & Linguistic Theory", |
| "volume": "23", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "867--916", |
| "other_ids": { |
| "DOI": [ |
| "10.1007/s11049-004-5923-3" |
| ] |
| }, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Ko, Heejeong. 2005. Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [Spec, CP] in the overt syntax. Natural Lan- guage & Linguistic Theory, 23(4):867-916. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-004-5923-3", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF5": { |
| "ref_id": "b5", |
| "title": "On the Structural Height of Reason Wh-Adverbials: Acquisition and consequences", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Heejeong", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Ko", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2006, |
| "venue": "Wh-Movement: Moving on", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "319--349", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Ko, Heejeong. 2006. On the Structural Height of Rea- son Wh-Adverbials: Acquisition and consequences. In N. C. Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng and Norbert Corver (eds.), Wh-Movement: Moving on, 319-349. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF6": { |
| "ref_id": "b6", |
| "title": "On the syntax of wh-items in Hungarian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leiden. Pan, Victor Junnan", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Anik\u00f3", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Lipt\u00e1k", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2001, |
| "venue": "The Linguistic Review", |
| "volume": "32", |
| "issue": "4", |
| "pages": "819--868", |
| "other_ids": { |
| "DOI": [ |
| "10.1515/tlr-2016-1005" |
| ] |
| }, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Lipt\u00e1k, Anik\u00f3. 2001. On the syntax of wh-items in Hun- garian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leiden. Pan, Victor Junnan. 2015. Mandarin peripheral construals at the syntax-discourse interface. The Linguistic Review, 32(4):819-868. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2016-1005", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF7": { |
| "ref_id": "b7", |
| "title": "Relativized Minimality", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Luigi", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Rizzi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1990, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF8": { |
| "ref_id": "b8", |
| "title": "The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Luigi", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Rizzi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1997, |
| "venue": "Elements of Grammar", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "281--337", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The Fine Structure of the Left Pe- riphery. In L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of Grammar, 281-337, Kluwer, Dordrecht.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF9": { |
| "ref_id": "b9", |
| "title": "On the Position of \"Int(errogative)\" in the Left Periphery of the Clause", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Luigi", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Rizzi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 1999, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Rizzi, Luigi. 1999. On the Position of \"Int(errogative)\" in the Left Periphery of the Clause. Ms, Universit\u00e1 di Siena.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF10": { |
| "ref_id": "b10", |
| "title": "On the position of 'Int(errogative)' in the left periphery of the clause", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Luigi", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Rizzi", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2001, |
| "venue": "Current studies in Italian syntax", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "267--296", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Rizzi, Luigi. 2001. On the position of 'Int(errogative)' in the left periphery of the clause. In Guglielmo Cinque and Giampaolo Salvi (eds.) Current studies in Italian syntax, 267-296. Amsterdam: Elsevier.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF11": { |
| "ref_id": "b11", |
| "title": "Wh-NP rhetorical questions in Japanese and Chinese. Shizen Gengo-e-no Rironteki Apurooti", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Asuka", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Saruwatari", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2015, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Saruwatari, Asuka. 2015. Wh-NP rhetorical questions in Japanese and Chinese. Shizen Gengo-e-no Riron- teki Apurooti [Theoretical Approaches to Natural Lan- guages]. 21-30. Osaka University.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF12": { |
| "ref_id": "b12", |
| "title": "Where's 'Why'? Linguistic Inquiry", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Ur", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Shlonsky", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "Gabriela", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Soare", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2011, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "42", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "651--669", |
| "other_ids": { |
| "DOI": [ |
| "10.1162/LINGa00064" |
| ] |
| }, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Shlonsky, Ur and Gabriela Soare. 2011. Where's 'Why'? Linguistic Inquiry, 42:651-669. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/LING a0 0064", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF13": { |
| "ref_id": "b13", |
| "title": "Left periphery and howwhy alternations", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Wei-Tien", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Tsai", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Dylan", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2008, |
| "venue": "J East Asian Linguist", |
| "volume": "17", |
| "issue": "83", |
| "pages": "83--115", |
| "other_ids": { |
| "DOI": [ |
| "10.1007/s10831-008-9021-0" |
| ] |
| }, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 2008 Left periphery and how- why alternations. J East Asian Linguist ,17(83):83- 115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-008-9021-0", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF14": { |
| "ref_id": "b14", |
| "title": "Rhetoric/Disapproving wh and Intervention Effect. unpublished manuscript", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Barry", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Yang", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Chung-Yu", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2007, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Yang, Barry Chung-Yu. 2007. Rhetoric/Disapproving wh and Intervention Effect. unpublished manuscript. Harvard.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF15": { |
| "ref_id": "b15", |
| "title": "Locating Wh-Intervention Effects at CP", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Barry", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Yang", |
| "suffix": "" |
| }, |
| { |
| "first": "", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Chung-Yu", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2015, |
| "venue": "", |
| "volume": "", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "153--186", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Yang, Barry Chung-Yu. 2015. Locating Wh-Intervention Effects at CP. In Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai (ed.), The Car- tography of Chinese Syntax, 153-186. Oxford: Oxford University Press.", |
| "links": null |
| }, |
| "BIBREF16": { |
| "ref_id": "b16", |
| "title": "Discourse particles in the left periphery", |
| "authors": [ |
| { |
| "first": "Malte", |
| "middle": [], |
| "last": "Zimmermann", |
| "suffix": "" |
| } |
| ], |
| "year": 2004, |
| "venue": "ZAS Papers in Linguistics", |
| "volume": "35", |
| "issue": "", |
| "pages": "543--566", |
| "other_ids": {}, |
| "num": null, |
| "urls": [], |
| "raw_text": "Zimmermann, Malte. 2004. Discourse particles in the left periphery. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 35:543-566.", |
| "links": null |
| } |
| }, |
| "ref_entries": { |
| "FIGREF0": { |
| "uris": null, |
| "text": "newspaper-ACC read-QUE '(int.) No way does John always read a newspaper.' b. {mwe-ka/ettehkey} hangsang John-i WHAT-NOM/HOW always John-NOM sinmwun-ul ilk-ni?! newspaper-ACC read-QUE 'No way does John always read a newspaper.'", |
| "type_str": "figure", |
| "num": null |
| }, |
| "TABREF8": { |
| "html": null, |
| "text": "24) a. {mwe-ka/ettehkey} Mary-ka", |
| "num": null, |
| "content": "<table><tr><td>WHAT-NOM/HOW</td><td>Mary-NOM</td></tr><tr><td>haksayng-i-ni!?</td><td/></tr><tr><td>student-COP-QUE</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">'It is not true that Mary is a student.'</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">b. [ ILLP mwe-ka i /etthekey i [ CTP t i [ TP</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">Mary-ka haksayng-i]-ni [+Q, -WH] ]?]</td></tr></table>", |
| "type_str": "table" |
| }, |
| "TABREF10": { |
| "html": null, |
| "text": ") [ ILLP NWH i [ CTP t i [ DistP [ FocP wh [ IntP way [ IP ... ]]]]]]", |
| "num": null, |
| "content": "<table/>", |
| "type_str": "table" |
| } |
| } |
| } |
| } |
