The syntax and semantics of optional wh-movement: The case of Egyptian Arabic

Abstract

In forming wh-questions, Egyptian Arabic (EA) exhibits apparent optional wh-movement whereby both options of fronting the wh-phrase or leaving it in situ are possible. I argue in this dissertation that optionality in EA wh-question formation does not contradict minimalist assumptions since the two options of fronting or leaving the wh-phrase in situ correspond to two different derivations that have two different syntactic structures and two different semantic interpretations. As a consequence, I do not adopt the idea that wh-movement is triggered by a [+wh] feature and I also reject the covert LF movement of wh-in-situ. I claim that wh-question formation in EA is driven by focus and propose that focus is embodied in the form of an intonational morpheme. There are two distinct options to form wh-questions in EA, so I claim that there are two distinct focus morphemes that enter the computational system: an information focus morpheme and a contrastive focus morpheme. When the information focus morpheme enters the derivation, it is a variable that is bound to the focused constituent in-situ. When the contrastive focus morpheme enters the derivation with the operator illi which has scopal properties and EPP features that accounts for its leftward location in the clause, it is bound to the particle illi. Being bound to the operator illi, the contrastive focus morpheme is located at the left-periphery of the clause. When a wh-phrase enters the derivation with the contrastive focus morpheme and the particle illi, it moves to the leftward position triggered by features of the focused morpheme. Fronting of the wh-phrase is therefore triggered by features of the particle illi. However, the particle illi is not always present when the wh-phrase is fronted. This occurs with subject wh-phrases where the presence of the particle is optional and with adjunct wh-phrases where fronted adjunct wh-phrase cannot occur with illi. In case of the subject wh-phrase, wh-in-situ form is not possible because subject wh-phrase must always be fronted for two reasons: EPP features which trigger movement of the wh-phrase to [Spec, TP] and contrastive focus features which trigger movement of the subject wh-phrase from [Spec, TP] to [Spec, FP], the latter, which is interpreted as information focus, contains an overt illi particle but not the former, which denotes contrastive focus. In case of the object wh-phrase, fronted wh-phrase is always associated with an overt illi particle. In the case of adjunct wh-phrase, the fronted wh-phrase can never take an overt illi particle. I postulate that the presence of the particle illi in the derivation is triggered by an overt movement of the wh-phrase (this happens with subject wh-phrase denoting contrastive focus and fronted object wh-phrases). The absence of the particle illi with adjuncts suggests that adjuncts wh-phrases do not undergo movement but are adjoined to the derivation postcyclically.