| Creator |
|
| Language |
|
| Publisher |
|
|
|
| Date |
|
| Source Title |
|
| Vol |
|
| First Page |
|
| Last Page |
|
| Publication Type |
|
| Access Rights |
|
| JaLC DOI |
|
| Related DOI |
|
|
|
|
|
| Related URI |
|
|
|
|
|
| Relation |
|
|
|
|
|
| Abstract |
The issue that must be settled in considering the structure and interpretation of wh-interrogatives is whether the wh-phrase in question occupies the CP-spec position at LF (after movement), or stays ...in its original ..-position: it will be interpreted as an operator in the former case, while it will be interpreted as a variable in the latter case. This paper provides critical reviews of two sets of discussions regarding this issue. (i) Pesetsky 1987, in proposing that a D-linked wh-phrase is interpreted as a variable, makes a remark that [NP which ...] in English can be D-linked while [NP what] cannot. While this distinction seems to be quite useful in analyzing wh-interrogatives in English, this paper shows that the Japanese counterparts of [NP which ...] and [NP what] do not exhibit the expected contrasts, which means that Japanese wh-words are not divided clearly into two groups in terms of 'D-linking'. (ii) Dayal 2002 reports that only some of the multiple interrogatives allow paired answers, and claims that they should be analyzed as containing a covert wh-movement. This paper shows that her discovery will not give us much help, since the multiple interrogatives which do not admit paired answers play a crucial role in her analysis, and their Japanese counterparts can in fact be followed by paired answers, contrary to our expectations.show more
|
Export Mendeley
kupl28-tanaka