Abstract
Bobaljik & Wurmband (2015) have recently developed a hypothesis that no language truly mixes wh-movement and wh-in-situ structures in its syntax, with seemingly optional wh-in-situ in a wh-movement language being analyzed as a question with declarative syntax. In this paper, we will present novel data from Colloquial Singapore English (CSE) which question this hypothesis. Instead of assuming that the Q-feature of the interrogative CWH head in a language must be specified in a binary manner (valued or unvalued), we will propose that this feature is underspecified in languages such as CSE. The proposed amendment is not only sufficiently restrictive to cover the type of languages predicted by B&W’s original hypothesis, but also flexible enough to accommodate languages with a mixed wh-system. We will further argue that contact-based explanations, though plausible, do not have to be taken as a reason for CSE to develop this specific trait, which could have developed under independent, non-contact situations. This position is supported by Malay and Ancash Quechua, two non-contact languages which nonetheless exhibit optional wh-in-situ like CSE.
Highlights
1 Introduction In their recent attempt to re-assess the important role of syntactic selection within the minimalist framework, Bobaljik & Wurmbrand (2015; hereafter B&W) propose that what appears to be optional wh-in-situ in an otherwise wh-movement language such as English is a question with declarative syntax (DSQ) – a declarative syntactic structure which is associated with interrogative semantics/pragmatics at the level of speech act
5 Wh-questions in Colloquial Singapore English (CSE) and the feature specification of the Cwh head We have shown that CSE, an overt wh-movement language like standard varieties of English, allows the Chinese-style genuine wh-in-situ configuration as a syntactic complement selected by interrogative verbs, contrary to the prediction made by B&W’s theory
We have argued that the availability of the wh-in-situ configuration in selected questions in CSE poses an empirical challenge to B&W’s otherwise cross-linguistically robust generalization that no language may truly mix English-type overt wh-movement and Chinese-type wh-in-situ structures
Summary
In their recent attempt to re-assess the important role of syntactic selection within the minimalist framework, Bobaljik & Wurmbrand (2015; hereafter B&W) propose that what appears to be optional wh-in-situ in an otherwise wh-movement language such as English is a question with declarative syntax (DSQ) – a declarative syntactic structure which is associated with interrogative semantics/pragmatics at the level of speech act. We have observed that other languages such as Mandarin Chinese allow the in-situ wh-construction in selected questions, the reason being that the Q-feature of the Cwh head in this type of language is valued, so that the syntactically interrogative CP can be created by unselective binding instead of overt wh-movement in languages such as English Given these two observations, B&W’s generalization in (1) entails an explicitly typological prediction that “[i]n their syntax languages are either wh-movement or wh-in-situ (more accurately, wh-in-focus) but no language (that we know of) truly mixes both constructions.” (B&W 2015: 14).. In the two sections, we will show that the wh-question paradigm in CSE is problematic for B&W’s generalization and conclude that B&W’s all-or-nothing claim regarding the availability of the different types of the same interrogative Cwh head in a single language does not survive close scrutiny
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
