Abstract
Several phenomena in Passamaquoddy clearly distinguish wh-scope marking with ‘what’ from an apparently similar wh-copy construction. These facts argue for a theory of wh-scope marking like that in Bruening 2004 (based on Dayal 1994), where the embedded question is the syntactic and semantic restriction on the matrix wh-word ‘what’. The wh-copy construction, in contrast, is best analyzed as spelling out multiple copies of a long-distance movement chain. This copy theory is extended to scope marking with tan and comparatives in Passamaquoddy.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
