Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 651–697 | Cite as

The optionality of movement and EPP in Dholuo

  • Seth CableEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper argues that the relatively free position of subjects in Dholuo (Nilo-Saharan; Kenya, Tanzania) provides remarkably clear evidence that the specifier positions of preverbal functional projections in the language need not be filled. In this sense, the language provides direct evidence for a strong parameterization of the classic EPP (or equivalent conditions), one that allows the existence of languages where no DP need occupy the specifier position of any verbal functional projection at any level of representation. Furthermore, it is shown that the optionality seen in subject raising extends to other movement types of the language, including wh-movement. This suggests a picture where the presence of an ‘EPP-feature’ Chomsky (2000) on a given functional head is systematically optional in the language. Finally, it is argued that the existence of a limited set of environments where subject raising is obligatory provides support for the theory of Agreement locality put forth by Bobaljik and Wurmbrand (2005).

Keywords

EPP Dholuo Post-verbal subjects Subject positions Optional wh-movement Agreement locality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Deepest thanks are owed to Milton Joshua Obote and Martina Achieng’, the principal language consultants for this project. Their generosity and patience are tremendous, and I am deeply grateful for the time they have given in helping me to learn their language. Erokamano ahinya kuom puonja! Special thanks are also owed to Mark Baker, Rajesh Bhatt, Viviane Déprez, Jane Grimshaw, Kyle Johnson, Angelika Kratzer, Caitlin Light, Ken Safir, Joel Wallenberg, Jim Wood, Ellen Woolford, and three anonymous reviewers for NLLT, for helpful comments and input upon earlier versions of this work. I’d also like to thank audiences at the University of Pennsylvania (NELS 41) and Rutgers University. Finally, I would like to thank the graduate students in Structure of a Non-Indo-European Language (UMass Amherst, Fall 2009): Noah Constant, Chloe Gu, Clint Hartzell, Suzi Lima, Kevin Mullin, Anisa Schardl, Pasha Siraj and Brian Smith.

References

  1. Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1998. Parameterizing AGR: Word order, V-movement and EPP-checking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 491–539. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alrenga, Peter. 2005. A sentential subject asymmetry in English and its implications for complement selection. Syntax 8(3): 175–207. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barlow, A. Ruffell. 1951. Studies in Kikuyu grammar and idiom. Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons Ltd. Google Scholar
  4. Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Dianne Jonas. 1996. Subject positions and the roles of TP. Linguistic Inquiry 27(2): 195–236. Google Scholar
  5. Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Susi Wurmbrand. 2005. The domain of agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 809–865. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A governing-binding approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  7. Carstens, Vicki. 2005. Agree and EPP in Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 219–279. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen. 1991. On the typology of WH questions. PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  13. Collins, Chris. 2005. A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax 8: 81–120. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis, Henry, Lisa Matthewson, and Scott Shank. 2004. On the presuppositionality of clefts in Samish and St’át’imcets. In Studies in Salish linguistics in honor of M. Dale Kinkade, eds. Donna Gerdts and Lisa Matthewson, 100–117. Missoula: University of Montana. Google Scholar
  15. Denham, Kristin. 2000. Optional Wh-movement in Babine-Witsuwit’en. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 199–251. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Bare plural subjects and the derivation of logical representations. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 353–380. Google Scholar
  17. Doron, Edit. 2000. VSO and left-conjunct agreement: Biblical Hebrew vs. modern Hebrew. In The syntax of verb initial languages, eds. Andrew Carnie and Eithne Guilfoyle, 75–96. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  18. Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–595. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Embick, David, and Alec Marantz. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 1–53. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fanselow, Gisbert. 2006. Partial Wh-movement. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, volume III, eds. Martin Everaert, Henk van Riemsdijk, Rob Goedemans, and Bart Hollebrandse, 437–492. London: Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jaeggli, Osvaldo, and Kenneth J. Safir. 1989. The null subject parameter and parametric theory. In The null subject parameter, eds. Osvaldo Jaeggli and Kenneth J. Safir, 1–44. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74: 245–273. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koster, Jan. 1978. Why subject sentences don’t exist. In Recent transformational studies in European languages, ed. Samuel J. Keyser, 53–64. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  24. McCloskey, James. 1996. Subjects and subject positions in Irish. In The syntax of the Celtic languages: A comparative perspective, eds. Robert D. Borsley and Ian Roberts, 241–283. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moulton, Keir. To appear. Not moving clauses: Connectivity in clausal arguments. Syntax. Google Scholar
  26. Okoth-Okombo, Duncan. 1997. A functional grammar of Dholuo. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Google Scholar
  27. Omondi, Lucia Ndong’a. 1982. The major syntactic structures of Dholuo. Berlin: Dietrich Riemer Verlag. Google Scholar
  28. Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  29. Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam. 2002. Backward control. Linguistic Inquiry 33(2): 245–282. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Polinsky, Maria, and Eric Potsdam. 2012. Backward raising. Syntax 15: 75–108. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Richards, Norvin. 2010a. Affix support and the EPP. Ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. Google Scholar
  32. Richards, Norvin. 2010b. Uttering trees. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  33. Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Floris. Google Scholar
  34. Roberts, Ian G.. 2005. Principles and parameters in a VSO language: A case study in Welsh. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. St. Joseph’s Society. 1920. A handbook of the Kavirondo language. Nairobi: Caxton Printing and Publishing Works. Google Scholar
  36. Svenonius, Peter. 2002. Subjects, expletives, and the EPP. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  37. Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1980. On the NIC, vacuous application, and the that-trace filter. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Google Scholar
  38. Tucker, A.N. 1994. A grammar of Kenya Luo (Dholuo). Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Google Scholar
  39. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Massachusetts AmherstAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations