Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWasike, Aggrey
dc.date.accessioned2006-12-20T16:46:52Z
dc.date.available2011-12-20T07:20:12Z
dc.date.issued2006-12-20T16:46:52Z
dc.identifier.otherbibid: 6476239
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1813/4029
dc.description.abstractThis 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.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipGraduate School, Cornell University; Department of Linguistics, Cornell University; Institute for African Development, Cornell Universityen_US
dc.format.extent9273 bytes
dc.format.extent24221 bytes
dc.format.extent1310989 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectSyntaxen_US
dc.subjectLubukusuen_US
dc.subjectLeft Peripheryen_US
dc.subjectWh-in-situen_US
dc.subjectRelative clauseen_US
dc.subjectCleftsen_US
dc.subjectBantuen_US
dc.subjectWh-adjunctsen_US
dc.titleThe Left Periphery, Wh-in-situ and A-bar Movement in Lubukusu and other Bantu Languagesen_US
dc.typedissertation or thesisen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Statistics