Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The morpho-syntax of silent wh-expressions in Wolof

  • Published:
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper analyzes the morphology and syntax of wh-expressions and agreeing complementizers in Wolof, an Atlantic language. I argue that Wolof possesses a set of null wh-expressions, in addition to a set of overt ones. The null wh-expressions occur in a relative clause-like construction in which they trigger agreement on a complementizer. I examine the properties of the null wh-expressions and compare them to their overt counterparts in Wolof. I provide evidence that the null wh-expressions, like the overt ones, move successive cyclically, and may trigger agreement on intermediate complementizers that occur in the movement pathway. I also compare the Wolof construction to a superficially similar complementizer agreement construction in the Bantu language Kinande, and to null operators in German and wh-drop in Dutch.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Torrence (2000, 2003), Zribi-Hertz and Diagne (2002), and Koopman (2006) for specific analyses of na-clauses.

  2. See Sy (2003) for detailed discussion of Wolof noun classification.

  3. There are no u-forms that correspond to ‘why’ or ‘how many’. For the St. Louis dialect there is no u-form that can be used to ask ‘when’. However, some speakers of the Dakar dialect do allow this.

  4. In simple u-questions, the u-form is stressed (Zribi-Hertz and Diagne 2002) and pronounced with audibly higher pitch than the rest of the question. To the ear, the pitch begins very high on the u-form and rapidly drops. Impressionistically, this is also an intonational property of yes/no questions, wh-questions, and focus cleft clauses in Wolof. See Rialland and Robert (2001) for details on Wolof intonation.

  5. Wolof has three morphosyntactically distinct cleft constructions: subject, non-subject, and predicate focus (Sauvageot 1965; Church 1981; Njie 1982; Robert 1986; Kihm 1999; Torrence 2005, 2008b).

  6. Space considerations preclude discussion of these constructions here.

  7. I exemplify only with a strong island. However, relativization and u-construction questions are constrained by strong and weak islands (Torrence 2005).

  8. Church (1981) makes this observation.

  9. For most speakers that I have worked with, there is in fact no u-form that can be used to ask a ‘when’ question. However, for some Dakar speakers, it is possible to form a ‘when’ question with a b-u clause. Note that this is not possible for the speakers consulted for this paper:

    1. (i)
      figure al

  10. Dunigan (1994:137–139) takes the u-construction to contain a silent wh-operator and –u- to belong to the ‘Σ’ category, which takes TP as its complement. It is thus very similar to the one presented here.

  11. A null wh can occur in a multiple wh-question as long as the other wh-elements are overt wh-expressions and can remain in situ:

    1. (i)
      figure an

  12. Thanks to Marcel den Dikken for pointing me to Cardinaletti’s work and the case of wh-drop in Dutch.

  13. See also Svenonius and Kennedy (2006). They argue that some Northern Norwegian dialects possess a null wh-degree operator that undergoes obligatory movement to the C-domain.

  14. The analog of u-chains is also available in relative clauses for u/i/a-forms, although I exemplify here only with an i-chain:

    1. (i)
      figure ax

    This further strengthens the link between relative clauses and the interrogative u-construction.

  15. I discuss the agreement in terms of movement through SpecCP, however another implementation is possible. Rackowski and Richards (2005) and Den Dikken (2010) argue that wh-movement proceeds from an embedded clause through the matrix SpecvP, and not through SpecCP of the embedded clause. Under this implementation, the agreeing C establishes an AGREE relation with the (null or overt) wh-expression in its base position. This is manifested as complementizer agreement. The wh-expression then moves to SpecvP of the matrix clause, bypassing the embedded SpecCP. Thus, there is C-agreement without movement through SpecCP. Under this view, successive cyclicity is preserved as successive cyclic movement through SpecvP. Thanks to Marcel den Dikken for suggesting this alternative.

  16. Interestingly, there is a split in Dutch among speakers that allow wh-drop with respect to extraction from embedded clauses:

    1. (i)
      figure ay

    (i) is an instance where wat orginates in an embedded clause. That (i) is ungrammatical for some speakers follows if the dropped wh-expression cannot undergo successive cyclic movement for those speakers.

  17. This interrogative-relative distinction makes Wolof similar to (some dialects of) English, as observed by Zwicky (2002). He shows that the Doubly Filled Comp Filter can be violated in (embedded) questions but not in relative clauses:

    1. (i)

      I’m not sure what kind of a ban that FIFA has in mind. (Adapted from Zwicky 2002:222; ex. (1))

    Zwicky does not describe these as cases of Doubly Filled Comp Filter violations. He refers to them as “wh + that clauses”. He says of his data set, “Certainly, none of them is of a transparently relative type, that is, there are no examples of ordinary restrictive relatives with wh + that” (p. 223). Zwicky argues that the English construction is not like the cases of Doubly Filled Comp violations that are found in some Germanic varieties.

  18. This example is adapted from Schneider-Zioga (2007c:46; ex. (1)). In that work, the class 7 agreeing complementizer kyo is glossed as “wh-agr”.

  19. Schneider-Zioga also shows that complementizer agreement can amnesty certain island violations. I do not discuss these here as I am unable to construct analogous violations for Wolof.

  20. This was pointed out by Marcel den Dikken (p.c.).

  21. Thanks to a reviewer for pointing out the connection to Merchant’s (2001) analysis.

  22. Thanks to a reviewer for bringing Baltin’s analysis to my attention.

References

  • Baker, Mark. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baltin, Mark. 2006. Doubly-filled comps are not doubly filled comps. Ms., New York University, New York.

  • Buell, Leston. 2002. Swahili amba-less relatives without head movement. In UCLA working papers in linguistics 8: Papers in African linguistics 2, ed. Harold Torrence, 86–106. Los Angeles: University of California Los Angeles Department of Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardinaletti, Anna. 1994. La sintassi dei pronomi. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Formal syntax, eds. Peter William Culicover, Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Church, Eric. 1981. Le systeme verbal du Wolof. Documents Linguistiques, N∘ 27. Dakar: Université de Dakar, Département de Linguistique Générale et de Langues Négro-Africaines.

  • Den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Review of Phases of interpretation. Journal of Linguistics 43: 440–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Den Dikken, Marcel. 2010. Arguments for successive-cyclic movement through SpecCP. In Linguistic variation yearbook 2009, ed. Jeroen van Craenenbroeck, 89–126. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunigan, Melynda B. 1994. On the clausal architecture of Wolof. PhD diss., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

  • Greenberg, Joseph. 1963. The languages of Africa. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haegeman, Liliane. 1992. Theory and description in generative syntax: A case study in West Flemish. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kihm, Alain. 1999. Focus in Wolof: a study of what morphology may do to syntax. In The grammar of focus, eds. Georges Rebuschi and Laurice Tuller, 245–273. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopman, Hilda. 2006. Word formation in syntax and mirror order violations: Wolof and Japanese. Paper presented at University College London, October, 2006.

  • Kratzer, Angelika, and Junko Shimoyama. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In The proceedings of the third Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics, ed. Yukio Otsu, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Migeod, Frederick William Hugh. 1911. The languages of West Africa. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevins, Andrew, Cilene Rodrigues, and Luis Vicente. 2006. Cleaving the interactions between sluicing and P-stranding. In Romance languages and linguistic theory, selected papers from going Romance, eds. Leo Wetzels and Jeroen van der Weijer, 175–198. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 1990. Quantification in the theory of grammar. Vol. 37 of Studies in linguistics and philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Njie, Codu Mbassy. 1982. Description syntaxique du Wolof de Gambie. Dakar: Les Nouvelles Editions Africaines.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rackowski, Andrea, and Norvin Richards. 2005. Phase edge and extraction: A Tagaolg case study. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 565–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rialland, Annie, and Stéphane Robert. 2001. The intonational system of Wolof. Linguistics 39: 893–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar: Handbook in generative syntax, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–338. Dordrecht: Kluwer Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert, Stéphane. 1986. Le Wolof: Un exemple d’expression morphologique de l’emphase. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 81: 319–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sapir, J. David. 1971. West Atlantic: An inventory of the languages, their noun class systems and consonant alternation. In Current trends in linguistics 7: Linguistics in Sub-Saharan Africa, ed. Thomas Sebeok, The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauvageot, Serge. 1965. Description synchronique d’un dialecte Wolof: Le parler du Dyolof. Dakar: Institut Fondamental D’Afrique Noire.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 1995. Specifier/head agreement in Kinande. Cahiers Linguistiques d’Ottawa 23: 67–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 2007a. Wh-agreement reflects resumption, not movement. Paper presented at The 81st Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, January, 2007.

  • Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 2007b. Anti-agreement, anti-locality and minimality. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25: 403–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 2007c. Wh-agreement and bounded unbounded movement. Ms., California State University, Fullerton, United States.

  • Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 2009. Wh-agreement and bounded unbounded movement. In Merging features, eds. José Brucart, Anna Gavarró, and Jaume Solà, 46–59. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Svenonius, Peter, and Christopher Kennedy. 2006. Northern Norwegian degree questions and the syntax of measurement. In Phases of interpretation, ed. Mara Frascarelli, 129–157. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sy, Mariame Iyane. 2003. Wolof noun classification: A constraint-based approach. Los Angeles: University of California MA Thesis.

  • Torrence, Harold. 2000. Verb movement in Wolof. Los Angeles: University of California MA Thesis.

  • Torrence, Harold. 2003. Verb movement in Wolof. In Papers in African linguistics 3, Vol. 9 of UCLA working papers in linguistics, ed. Jason Kandybowicz. Los Angeles: University of California Los Angeles Linguistics Department.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrence, Harold. 2005. On the distribution of complementizers in Wolof. PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles.

  • Torrence, Harold. 2008a. Aspects of the left periphery of wh-questions in Wolof. Paper presented at Syntax Seminar at Leiden University, November, 2008.

  • Torrence, Harold. 2008b. The morphosyntax of Wolof clefts: A′-movement properties. Paper presented at ZAS Workshop on Clefts, November, 2008.

  • Van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen, and Aniko Lipták. 2005. Ellipsis in Hungarian and the typology of sluicing. In Proceedings of the Seoul 2005 international conference on generative grammar, eds. Kiyong Choi and Changguk Yim, 103–134. Seoul: Hankook.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, W.A.A. 1989. Atlantic. In The Niger-Congo languages: A classification and description of Africa’s largest language family, eds. John Bendor-Samuel and Rhonda Hartell, 81–104. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zribi-Hertz, Anne, and Lamine, Diagne. 2002. Clitic placement after syntax: Evidence from Wolof pronouns and person markers. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20: 823–884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwicky, Arnold. 2002. I wonder what kind of construction this example illustrates. In The construction of meaning, eds. David Beaver, et al., 219–248. Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all of the people without whom this paper could not have been written and who helped determine its final form. These include first my very generous Wolof consultants: Mariame Sy, Khady Tamba, Mustapha Djigo, Seynabou Ndoye, and Fallou Ngom. I heartily thank Leston Buell, Ivano Caponigro, Allard Jongman, Jason Kandybowicz, Gregory Kobele, Hilda Koopman, Haiyong Liu, Sara Rosen, Dominique Sportiche, Tim Stowell, and audiences at UCLA, the University of Kansas, and the Università Milan-Bicocca for comments, criticism, and encouragement. Many thanks go out to three NLLT reviewers who read over multiple versions of this paper and provided detailed comments and suggestions at every step, and to Marcel den Dikken for his insightful feedback on almost all aspects of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, University of Kansas, 1541 Lilac Lane, Blake Hall-Room 427, Lawrence, KS, 66044-3177, USA

    Harold Torrence

Authors
  1. Harold Torrence
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harold Torrence.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Torrence, H. The morpho-syntax of silent wh-expressions in Wolof. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 30, 1147–1184 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-012-9175-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-012-9175-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation