Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 205–256 | Cite as

Wolof wh-movement at the syntax-morphology interface

Article

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the seemingly complex morphosyntax of \(\mathrm{A}'\)-movement in the Niger-Congo language Wolof. Wolof exhibits three different \(\mathrm{A}'\)-extraction effects: morphological marking of the cyclicity of movement, agreement in class between the wh-complementizer and the extracted phrase, and a subject/non-subject asymmetry, akin to the that-trace effect. The effects seem to surface in two seemingly different structural configurations, with their distribution not straightforwardly explainable as being of semantic of information-structural provenance. The analysis developed here advocates a unified syntax for all \(\mathrm{A}'\)-structures in Wolof, and aims to show that their surface morpho-syntactic properties can be understood as resulting from the general mechanisms underlying the operation Agree, such as the presence of particular uninterpretable features and their location, and the interaction of agreement with post-syntactic processes, specifically an OCP-type effect, akin to the Doubly-Filled-COMP Filter, resulting in post-syntactic impoverishment and complementizer allomorphy. This paper offers not only a unified analysis of \(\mathrm{A}'\)-extraction effects and maintains a unified syntax of \(\mathrm{A}'\)-extraction in Wolof, but crucially offers a principled account for the distribution of different shapes of the CP-layer in different instances of \(\mathrm{A}'\)-movement in Wolof.

Keywords

Wh-movement Complementizer agreement Complementizer allomorphy The that-trace effect Subject/non-subject asymmetries Morphological Optimality Contour Principle Doubly-Filled-Comp-Filter Dissimilation Impoverishment Obliteration Feature co-occurrence Wolof 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project started as a qualifying paper and evolved into a part of my dissertation, significantly influencing the overall direction of my research. Biggest thanks are due to Karlos Arregi for numerous discussions of various parts of this research and thorough comments on many versions of this paper. Thanks to Jason Merchant and David Pesetsky for their most helpful input, and especially to Julie Anne Legate and four anonymous NLLT reviewers for their very constructive criticism. I also wish to thank the audiences at NELS 42, LSA 86 and LSA 88, the students and faculty at the Linguistics Department at University of Potsdam and University of Göttingen, where various parts of this research were presented, for their thoughtful comments. Finally, I thank my many Wolof native speaker consultants, especially Aliou Sougou and Jean-Léopold Diouf, without whom none of this would be possible. This research was funded by the University of Chicago Linguistic Department’s Rella Cohn Fund for Graduate Research in Linguistics, the France Chicago Center François Furet Travel Grant and the National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant (BCS-1349105). All errors are my own.

References

  1. Ackema, Peter, and Ad Neeleman. 2004. Beyond morphology: Interface conditions on word formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Åfarli, Tor A. 1994. A promotion analysis of restrictive relative clauses. The Linguistic Review 11: 81–100. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aldridge, Edith. 2002. Nominalization and wh-movement in Seedig and Tagalog. Language and Linguistics 3: 393–427. Google Scholar
  4. Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell University. Google Scholar
  5. Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  6. Arregi, Karlos, and Andrew Nevins. 2007. Obliteration vs. impoverishment in the Basque g-/z- constraint. In Penn Linguistics Colloquium (PLC) 30, eds. Tatjana Scheffler, Joshua Trauberer, Aviad Eilam, and Laia Mayol. Vol. 13.1 of University of Pennsylvania working papers in linguistics, 1–14. Philadelphia: Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000280. Google Scholar
  7. Arregi, Karlos, and Andrew Nevins. 2012. Morphotactics. Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spell out. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar
  8. Benmamoun, Elabbas, and Heidi Lorimor. 2006. Featureless expressions: When morphophonological markers are absent. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 1–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bhatt, Rajesh. 1999. Actuality entailments of ability modals. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 17, eds. Kimary N. Shahin, Susan Blake, and Eun-Sook Kim, 74–87. Palo Alto: CSLI. Google Scholar
  10. Bhatt, Rajesh. 2002. The raising analysis of relative clauses: Evidence from adjectival modification. Natural Language Semantics 10: 43–90. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bhatt, Rakesh, and James Yoon. 1992. On the composition of COMP and parameters of V2. In West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 10, ed. Dawn Bates, 41–52. Stanford: CLSI. Google Scholar
  12. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2012. Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Phi-theory: Phi features across interfaces and modules, eds. Daniel Harbour, David Adger, and Susana Béjar. London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  13. Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after syntax. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  14. Bonet, Eulàlia. 1995. Feature structure of romance clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 607–647. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brame, Michael K. 1968. A new analysis of the relative clause: Evidence for an interpretative theory. Unpublished Manuscript, MIT. Google Scholar
  16. Calabrese, Andrea. 2010. Investigations on markedness, syncretism and zero exponence in morphology. Morphology 21: 283–325. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Caponigro, Ivano, and Daphna Heller. 2007. The non-concealed nature of free relatives: Implications for connectivity in specificational sentences. In Direct compositionality, eds. Chris Baker and Pauline Jacobson, 237–263. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  18. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  19. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  20. Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425–504. Google Scholar
  21. Demirdache, Hamida. 1991. Resumptive chains in restrictive relatives, appositives and dislocation structures. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  22. Dunigan, Melynda B. 1994. On the clausal structure of Wolof. Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. Google Scholar
  23. É. Kiss, Katalin 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74: 245–273. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology. Cambridge: MIT Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555–595. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Engdahl, Elisabet. 1985. Parasitic gaps, resumptive pronouns, and subject extractions. Linguistics 23: 2–44. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fox, Danny, and David Pesetsky. 2005. Cyclic linearization and syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31: 1–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goldsmith, John. 1976. Autosegmental phonology. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [Published, New York: Garland, 1979.] Google Scholar
  29. Halpern, Aaron. 1995. On the placement and morphology of clitics. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  30. Hankamer, Jorge, and Line Mikkelsen. 2002. A morphological analysis of definite nouns in Danish. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14: 137–175. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hankamer, Jorge, and Line Mikkelsen. 2005. When movement must be blocked: A reply to Embick and Noyer. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 85–125. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harizanov, Boris. 2014. Clitic doubling at the syntax-morphophonology interface: A-movement and morphological merger in Bulgarian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. doi:10.1007/S11049-014-9249-5.
  33. Hoekstra, Jarich. 1995. Preposition stranding and resumptivity in West Germanic. In Studies in comparative Germanic syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  34. Horn, Laurence. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Doctoral Dissertation, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. Google Scholar
  35. Horvath, Julia. 1986. Focus in the theory of grammar and the syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  36. Ka, Omar. 1987. Wolof phonology and morphology: A non-linear approach. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Urbana, IL. Google Scholar
  37. Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press, (linguistic inquiry monographs 25) edition. Google Scholar
  38. 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: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Laka, Itziar. 1990. Negation in syntax: On the nature of functional categories and projections. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  40. Leben, William. 1973. Suprasegmental phonology. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [Published, New York: Garland, 1979.] Google Scholar
  41. Lees, Robert B. 1960. The grammar of English nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar
  42. Lees, Robert B. 1961. The constituent structure of noun phrases. American Speech 36: 159–168. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Martinović, Martina. 2015a. Feature geometry and head-splitting: Evidence from the morphosyntax of the Wolof clausal periphery. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. Google Scholar
  44. Martinović, Martina. 2015b. Information structure of copular sentences in Wolof. In Annual Conference on African Linguistics (ACAL) 44, eds. Ruth Kramer, Elizabeth C. Zsiga, and One Tlale Boyer, 165–179. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Google Scholar
  45. Martinović, Martina. to appear. The topic-comment structure in copular sentences: Evidence from Wolof. In Berkeley Linguistic Society (BLS) 39. Berkeley, CA. Google Scholar
  46. Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37: 69–109. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McCarthy, John. 1986. OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 207–263. Google Scholar
  48. McCloskey, James. 2001. The morphosyntax of WH-extraction in Irish. Journal of Linguistics 37: 67–100. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McCloskey, James. 2002. Resumption, successive cyclicity, and the locality of operations. In Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program, eds. Samuel David Epstein and T. Daniel Seeley, 184–226. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Merchant, Jason. 2009. Phrasal and clausal comparatives in Greek and the abstractness of syntax. Journal of Greek Linguistics 9: 169–179. Google Scholar
  51. Ndiaye, Moussa D. 1995. Phonologie et morphlogie des alternances en Wolof: Implications théoretiques. Doctoral Dissertation, Université de Montréal. Google Scholar
  52. Nevins, Andrew. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 273–313. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nevins, Andrew. 2012. Haplological dissimilation at distinct stages of exponence. In The morphology and phonology of exponence, ed. Jochen Trommer. London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  54. Njie, Codu Mbassy. 1982. Description syntaxique du Wolof de Gambie. Dakar: Les Nouvelles Editions Africaines. Google Scholar
  55. Noyer, Rolf. 1997. Features, positions and affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  56. Percus, Orin. 1997. Prying open a cleft. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS), ed. Kiyomi Kusumoto. Vol. 27, 337–351. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  57. Perlmutter, David. 1971. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Google Scholar
  58. Pescarini, Diego. 2010. Elsewhere in romance: Evidence from clitic clusters. Linguistic Inquiry 41: 427–444. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pesetsky, David. 1998. Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation. In Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax, eds. Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis, and David Pesetsky. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  60. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 355–426. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  61. Potsdam, Eric. 2009. Austronesian verb-initial languages and wh-question strategies. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27: 737–771. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Potsdam, Eric, and Maria Polinsky. 2012. Questions and word order in Polynesian. In Topics in Oceanic morphosyntax, eds. Claire Moyse-Faurie and Joachim Sabel. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  63. Prince, Ellen F. 1978. A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language 54: 883–906. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Reglero, Lara. 2006. Spanish subcomparatives: The “obligatory gapping” strategy. In Hispanic Linguistic Symposium (HLS) 9, eds. Nuria Sagarra and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio, 67–78. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Google Scholar
  65. Richards, Norvin. 1997. What moves where in which language. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  66. Richards, Norvin. 1998. Syntax versus semantics in Tagalog wh-extraction. In UCLA occasional papers in linguistics 21: Recent papers in Austronesian linguistics, ed. Matthew Pearson, 259–275. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles Department of Linguistics. Google Scholar
  67. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Norwell: Kluwer Academic. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Russell, Margaret A. 2006. The syntax and placement of Wolof clitics. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL. Google Scholar
  69. Sauerland, Uli. 1998. The meaning of chains. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Google Scholar
  70. Sauerland, Uli. 2003. Unpronounced heads in relative clauses. In The interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures, eds. Kerstin Schwabe and Susanne Winkler, 205–226. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schachter, Paul. 1973. Focus and relativization. Language 49: 19–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Shlonsky, Ur. 2012. Notes on wh in situ in French. In Functional heads. The cartography of syntactic structures 7, eds. Laura Brugé, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro, and Cecilia Poletto, 242–252. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Torrence, Harold. 2005. On the distribution of complementizers in Wolof. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. Google Scholar
  74. Torrence, Harold. 2012a. The clause structure of Wolof: Insights into the left periphery. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  75. Torrence, Harold. 2012b. The morpho-syntax of silent wh-expressions in Wolof. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30: 1147–1184. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Torrence, Harold. 2013a. A promotion analysis of Wolof clefts. Syntax 16: 176–215. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Torrence, Harold. 2013b. The morpho-syntax of Wolof clefts: Structure and movement. In Cleft structures, eds. Katharina Hartmann and Tonjes Veenstra. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  78. Vergnaud, Jean Roger. 1974. French relative clauses. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations