Abstract
There are two competing analyses of wh-scope marking in the world's languages: the direct dependency analysis, which posits LF movement of an embedded wh-phrase; and the indirect dependency analysis, which does not. I show here that both analyses are necessary to account for wh-scope marking: Passamaquoddy (Algonquian) actually possesses two different scope marking constructions, which I argue to differ in exactly the ways that would be expected if one were a direct dependency and the other an indirect dependency. The facts of Passamaquoddy also argue for a syntactic analysis of the indirect dependency that generates the scope marker and the embedded question as a constituent.
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.
