The purpose of this thesis is to investigate some researchers’ analyses of the derivation of multiple wh-questions containing two or three wh-phrases.
The form of multiple wh-questions varies from languages to languages. Depending on the ...
The purpose of this thesis is to investigate some researchers’ analyses of the derivation of multiple wh-questions containing two or three wh-phrases.
The form of multiple wh-questions varies from languages to languages. Depending on the typology of wh-movement to [Spec, CP] position. multiple wh-questions can be classified into the following types: (i) overt movement of all wh-phrases, (ii) overt movement of one wh-phrase, (iii) no overt movement of wh-phrases. The formation of the different multiple wh-questions is triggered by parametric properties in the languages of the world. In order to account for these, many experimental studies of multiple wh-questions have been investigated. This thesis tries to survey the works on multiple wh-questions such as Richards(1999), Pesetsky(2000), Boškovič(1999, 2002), and Grewendorf(2001).
Richards(1999) analyzes multiple wh-questions on the basis of the Principle of Minimal Compliance, a principle that allows the computational system to ignore parts of a syntactic structure that have already been checked with respect to a particular constraint. In other words, his idea is that if a constraint is obeyed, the portion of the structure in which it is obeyed can be ignored with respect to that constraint.
Pesetsky(2000) claims that the lexicon of individual languages has the properties of different functional category C such as C0-spec, C1-spec, and Cm-spec. According to his proposal, C in a class of languages like English and Bulgarian shows the properties of Cm-spec which require more than one specifier. C in German has C1-spec, which takes a single specifier. In some languages like Korean and Japanese, C takes C0-spec which does not require any specifier. Based on the assumption given above, Pesetsky(2000) analyzes multiple wh-constructions.
Boškovič(1999) explains multiple wh-constructions by distinguishing wh-movement from focus-movement. With wh-movement, only one of the wh-phrases with [wh] features moves to [Spec, CP] in order to be checked by Minimal Link Condition. Hence, wh-movement is subject to Superiority since the highest wh-phrase in the structure has to move first to [Spec, CP]. With focus-movement, on the other hand, all focused-elements move to [Spec, FocP]. Since Boškovič(1999) postulates that wh-movement precedes focus-movement, wh-phrases in focus-movement can move in any order. Thus focus-movement does not have to make reference to Superiority.
Grewendorf(2001) proposes that wh-elements do not individually move to [Spec, CP] but form a wh-cluster prior to wh-movement to [Spec, CP] and then the single complex, called wh-cluster, undergoes movement to [Spec, CP]. The formation of wh-clusters is motivated by the assumption that wh-elements can act as landing sites for wh-movement owing to lexical properties of wh-words. Namely, Grewendorf(2001) analyzes multiple wh-constructions, based on Wh-Cluster Hypothesis.
，韩语论文题目，韩语论文网站 |
