Embedded questions and sluicing in Georgian and Svan

David Erschler

doi:10.5070/l911029246

Abstract

Georgian and Svan exhibit a construction similar to classical sluicing: that is, translational analogs are grammatical of sentences like ‘Mary cooked something, but I don’t know what’. I provide a description of these phenomena and show that this construction in both languages satisfies standard tests for sluicing. I show that wh-movement in Georgian targets a lower position than in, say, English, namely, Spec FocP. Accordingly, I argue that the account developed in Toosarvandani (2008) for Persian and Van Craenenbroeck & Liptak (2006, 2013) for Hungarian is applicable in this case as well. Specifically, sluicing-like constructions in Georgian are derived by movement of wh-phrases into this position and subsequent deletion of the complement of the FocP. The syntax of the Svan counterpart of this construction differs in some crucial aspects and its analysis is yet to be obtained.

Highlights

GB/Minimalist analyses of the simple sentence structure were proposed in Nash-‐Haran (1992), Nash (1995), and McGinnis (1995, 1997), but admittedly the evidence for structural priority between arguments is fairly elusive, as shown by Amiridze (2006), Wier (2011), and Wier (2014), and constituency tests are not clear
The language shows pro-‐drop and is famous for its complex splits in case-‐ marking of main arguments, see, e.g., Harris (1981) for a thorough description
It is not clear whether Georgian has a DP: I am not aware of any evidence for the existence of covert D in Georgian, whereas overt articles are definitely not attested, see Bošković (2009) for arguments against positing the existence of a DP under such circumstances. 2.2 Wh-‐questions in Georgian In Georgian simple clauses, wh-‐movement proceeds into the preverbal position, Harris (1981), which structurally corresponds to Spec FocP, Nash (1995)

Summary

DAVID ERSCHLER

Argument Sprouting rezo č’ams, magram ar vici ra-‐s Rezo.NOM eats but NEG I.know what-‐DAT ‘Rezo eats but I don’t know what.’ b. Adjunct Sprouting rezo movida, magram ar vici vis=tan ertad Rezo.NOM s/he.arrived but NEG I.know who.DAT=with together ‘Rezo arrived, but I don’t know with whom.’ 4.3 Island repair. Adposition drop in sluicing Famously, the movement cum deletion theory of sluicing makes the following prediction, Merchant (2001: 91): if the language does not allow adposition stranding in wh-‐questions, it will not allow adposition drop under sluicing either This generalization is not free from exceptions, see, e.g. Sag & Nykiel (2011) and Leung (2014), and some effort has been spent to provide alternative derivations to sluicing-‐ looking sentences that ostensibly violate it, see, a.o., Stjepanovic (2012) and Rodrigues et al (2009).

TP t vin t dɣes

12. Conclusion