The Syntax of Question Particles

Laura Rudall Bailey

Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

School of English Literature, Language and Linguistics/

Centre for Research in Linguistics and Language Sciences

Newcastle University

Examined: November 2012

Submitted: April 2013

ii

Abstract

Cross-linguistically, languages are largely head-initial or head-final. Most permit

some disharmony, but Holmberg (2000) and Biberauer, Holmberg & Roberts

(2012), among others, have argued that the structure shown in (1) is ruled out,

where YP is Xs complement and ZP is Ys complement:

(1) *[XP [YP Y ZP] X]

In structures such as (1), a head-final phrase immediately dominates a head-

initial phrase, violating the so-called Final-Over-Final Constraint (FOFC).

Descriptively however, final question particles are readily found in languages

with VO order, resulting in a structure that appears to violate FOFC. (2)

illustrates this violation in Tetun (an Austronesian language of East/West

Timor), and (3) shows the structure, with a final question particle k

immediately dominating a head-initial TP:

(2) la b sekola k? 2S not go school or (Said to child playing:) Didn't you go to school? (Van Klinken 1999: 212)

(3)

iii

If k constitutes the C head of CP, as is standardly assumed, the structure in (3)

violates FOFC.

I show, following Aldridge (2011), that these particles are best analysed as

disjunctive elements, heading an elided clause:

(4) [ConjP CP [Conj CP]]

The particle is the head of the phrase, with the second CP as its complement and

the first (pronounced) CP in Spec,ConjP. This solves the FOFC problem because

the particle is not final, and therefore the derivation does not include a head-

final phrase dominating a head-initial phrase. Instead, the particle precedes its

complement (which is not pronounced), and the clause that it follows (which is

pronounced) is its specifier. I provide evidence for this position through

typological investigation and theoretical analysis.

In addition, the various proposals that have been put forward in the literature to

avoid this FOFC-violation are considered, but are shown to be problematic in

different respects. I discuss the idea that particles are not heads (Biberauer,

Holmberg & Roberts 2012). However, they cannot be specifiers and an

adjunction analysis fails to explain their properties, so it is unclear what they

could be if not heads. Julien (2001), Lee (2005, 2008) and Simpson & Wu (2002)

argue that final particles are derived by TP-movement to a Topic or Focus

position. This is a promising explanation, but fails to derive the difference

between final particles and other types. If the particle is syncategorematic

(Biberauer, Holmberg & Roberts 2012), the fact that they appear in fixed

positions is mysterious. Processing explanations of the data (Hawkins 2004,

Philip 2012) go some way towards deriving the FOFC facts but do not, among

other things, explain the high number of final particles in VO languages.

The syntax of question particles is discussed in detail, and it is proposed that

polar questions consist of two functional heads in combination: Force, giving a

(main clause) question illocutionary force, and Polarity, giving a (neutral)

iv

question open polarity. A true polar question particle is therefore related to one

or both of these heads:

(5)

With this background, the argument is defended in subsequent chapters that

some particles cannot be true question elements in this sense and are instead

instantiations of the disjunction. Cross-linguistic data demonstrate that final

particles in VO languages differ from other types of question particle (initial

particles, or final particles in OV languages) in very rarely marking embedded

questions: they do so in only one language in the corpus. Homophony between

the question particle and disjunction in many languages, combined with attested

grammaticalisation paths, adds support to this claim. Furthermore, this analysis

explains a number of properties of such particles in addition to their propensity

to violate FOFC, including their frequent absence from negative questions,

alternative questions and wh-questions. All of these are straightforward

consequences of the particle being a disjunction. Finally, the analysis is applied

to a particular language, Thai, as a case study, and it is compared with languages

of the other types. It is shown that the disjunctive analysis is best able to explain

the data and offer an elegant explanation of the FOFC facts.

v

Acknowledgements

I gratefully acknowledge the generous support of the Arts and Humanities

Research Council. In addition, I received financial assistance from the Faculty of

Humanities and Social Sciences, the School of English Literature, Language and

Linguistics, and the Centre for Research in Linguistics and Language Sciences.

My deep gratitude is due to my main supervisor, Anders Holmberg. His guidance,

humour and inspiration have been invaluable. My second supervisor, Geoff

Poole, offered wisdom when it was needed most. I thank both of them sincerely.

I was fortunate to be involved with the Newcastle-Cambridge project Structure

and linearization in disharmonic word orders. Theresa Biberauer, Ian Roberts,

Michelle Sheehan and Sten Vikner helped me to formulate my ideas in their early

stages. Michelle has also been a mentor and a friend.

Theresa Biberauer was also a wonderful external examiner, and has given me an

enormous amount of help, advice and information over the last five years. I also

thank my internal examiner, William van der Wurff, for his careful consideration

of my work, his interest in it and his support.

I thank Somphob Yaisomanang, Nami Kaneko, Olcay Sert and Caroline Cordier

for providing data, and Leanne Stokoe for proofreading. Chapter 5 is based on

collaboration with Anders Holmberg, Magorzata Krzek, Michelle Sheehan and

Mais Sulaiman. Paula Rudall and Richard Bateman kindly hosted me in London.

I am grateful to all my friends, colleagues, and staff at Newcastle University. I

have been supported and inspired from the first day I sat in a linguistics lecture.

And finally, I thank my family. My parents, Gae and Chris, have given me financial

support as well as the more intangible kind. My partner Tony has given me

practical help, wrangling my references, but most of all has given me love and

support throughout. I thank him for everything.

vi

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ v

Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1

1.1. Background .......................................................................................................................... 3

1.1.1. Minimalism .................................................................................................................. 3

1.1.2. The Split CP .................................................................................................................. 7

1.1.3. The Linear Correspondence Axiom ................................................................ 11

1.1.4. The Final-Over-Final Constraint ...................................................................... 15

1.2. Outline of the thesis ....................................................................................................... 17

Chapter 2. A Word Order Generalisation ........................................................................... 18

2.1. Word order generalisations ....................................................................................... 18

2.1.1. Co-occurrence of language properties .......................................................... 21

2.2. Question particles in the worlds languages ....................................................... 26

2.3. Final question particles do not appear in embedded questions ................ 33

2.3.1. The question particle may mark embedded questions in OV

languages, and in languages with initial question particles ................................ 37

2.3.2. Final question particles cannot mark embedded questions in VO

languages ................................................................................................................................... 50

2.4. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 76

Chapter 3. VOQ is a FOFC Violation .................................................................................. 79

3.1. Empirical evidence for FOFC ..................................................................................... 81

3.1.1. Unattested word orders ...................................................................................... 82

3.1.2. Gaps in variable word order languages ........................................................ 87

3