Cornell University
Library
Cornell UniversityLibrary

eCommons

Help
Log In(current)
  1. Home
  2. Cornell University Graduate School
  3. Cornell Theses and Dissertations
  4. The Left Periphery, Wh-in-situ and A-bar Movement in Lubukusu and other Bantu Languages

The Left Periphery, Wh-in-situ and A-bar Movement in Lubukusu and other Bantu Languages

File(s)
wasike dissertation acknowledgement.pdf (23.65 KB)
Biography, acknowledgement
wasike dissertation abstract.pdf (9.06 KB)
Abstract
wasike dissertation.pdf (1.25 MB)
Main article
Permanent Link(s)
https://hdl.handle.net/1813/4029
Collections
Cornell Theses and Dissertations
Author
Wasike, Aggrey
Abstract

This study examines the structure of the left periphery, wh-in-situ and A-bar movement in Lubukusu, Kiswahili and Runyoro. It is shown in the study that these languages do not show an argument-adjunct asymmetry. With the exception of 'why', wh-adjuncts can occur in-situ in Islands just like wh-arguments. In addition, Lubukusu in-situ wh-adjuncts, except 'why' give rise to an intervention effect, just like wh-arguments. The unique behavior of 'why' does not reflect an argument-adjunct asymmetry. Rather, it follows from the fact that 'why' is base generated in the left periphery. To the extent that there is no argument-adjunct asymmetry, there is little reason to postulate LF-phrasal movement, contrary to Huang (1982). Secondly, it is shown in the study that 'how' has a syntax that is distinct from that of other wh-phrases. For instance, only 'how' obligatorily agrees with the subject. I argue that this is due to the status of 'how' as a functional head that lacks interpretable phi-features. The fact that 'why' but not 'when' and 'where' also lacks interpretable phi-features suggests that the referential ~ non-referential adjunct distinction should be captured in terms of these features. Thirdly, it is shown that wh-phrases can be in-situ in an object Complex NP, but not in a subject Complex NP. I attribute this restriction to Fiengo and Higginbotham's (1981) specificity condition. Fourthly, the study highlights the differences between relativization of subjects and non-subjects. For instance, while the former triggers wh-agreement, the latter doesn't. These differences are attributed to the location of the feature that drives movement under relativization. In the case of subjects, this feature is located in Fin, but in non-subjects, it is located in Force. The former triggers movement to Spec of FinP, the latter, movement to Spec of ForceP through Spec of PredP. A related issue is the structure of the left periphery. The study shows that the left periphery is more complex than is currently assumed. In addition to the functional projections in Rizzi's 1997 structure, two new projections, PredP and PronP are required.

Sponsorship
Graduate School, Cornell University;
Department of Linguistics, Cornell University;
Institute for African Development, Cornell University
Date Issued
2006-12-20T16:46:52Z
Keywords
Syntax
•
Lubukusu
•
Left Periphery
•
Wh-in-situ
•
Relative clause
•
Clefts
•
Bantu
•
Wh-adjuncts
Type
dissertation or thesis

Site Statistics | Help

About eCommons | Policies | Terms of use | Contact Us

copyright © 2002-2026 Cornell University Library | Privacy | Web Accessibility Assistance