Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T04:07:01.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Les questions multiples : le débat continue

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Denis Liakin
Denis Liakin*
Affiliation:
Concordia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article we offer an alternative analysis of multiple questions in Russian that is not only related to topic and focus, but also to other discourse factors. The characteristics that put Russian is the same group as Chinese and Japanese also apply to other multiple wh fronting languages such as Bulgarian, Romanian, and Serbo-Croatian, which, according to previous classification, belong to two different groups. We argue that multiple wh fronting languages can be classified on the basis of the presence of a functional category D-WhP in the left periphery of the matrix or embedded clause. This category is related to the discourse and the speaker’s intentions—one of the wh phrases is more important to the speakers than the others.

Résumé

Résumé

Dans cet article nous proposons une analyse alternative des questions multiples en russe qui n’est pas reliée uniquement à la topicalisation et la focalisation, mais aussi à d’autres facteurs du discours. Les critères qui mettaient le russe dans le même groupe de langues comme le chinois et le japonais s’appliquent également à d’autres langues à déplacement multiple des syntagmes wh comme le bulgare, le roumain et le serbo-croate, qui, selon la classification antérieure, font partie de deux groupes différents. Nous proposons de subdiviser ce groupe de langues en fonction de la présence de la catégorie fonctionnelle D-WhP dans la périphérie gauche de la proposition matrice ou dans celle de l’enchâssée interrogative. Cette catégorie est reliée au discours et aux intentions du locuteur—un des syntagmes wh est plus important pour le locuteur que les autres.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , November 2007 , pp. 279 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2007 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Références

Boskovic, Željko. 1997. Superiority effects with multiple wh-fronting in Serbo-Croatian. Lingua 102:1–20.Google Scholar
Boskovic, Željko. 1998. Wh-phrases and wh-movement in Slavic. Communication présentée au Congrès Comparative Slavic Morphosyntax, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
Boskovic, Željko. 2001. On the nature of the syntax-phonology interface : Cliticization and related phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Boskovic, Željko. 2002. On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33:351–383.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa. 1991. On the topology of wh-questions. Thèse de doctorat, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa. 1997. On the typology of wh-questions. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. Dans A Festschrift for Morris Halle, sous la dir. Anderson, de Stephen et Kiparsky, Paul, 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language, its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Derivation by phase. Dans Ken Hale : A life in language, sous la dir. Kenstowicz, de Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20:1–28.Google Scholar
W., Culicover Peter, et Rochemont, Michael. 1983. Stress and focus in English. Language 50:123–165.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74:245–273.Google Scholar
Hong, Mingpyo. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of questions and alternatives. Thèse de doctorat, University of Texas.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 1986. FOCUS in the theory of grammar and the syntax of Hungarian. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Hamblin, Chris. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10:41–53.Google Scholar
King, Tracy Holloway. 1994. Focus in Russian yes-no questions. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 2:92–120.Google Scholar
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1994. Layered specifiers. Dans Proceedings of tne 24th annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, Vol. 1, sous la dir. Gonzàlez, de Mercè, 255–269, Amherst, MA: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1995. Phrase structure in minimalist syntax. Thèse de doctorat, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Lambova, Mariana. 2000. The typology of multiple wh-fronting in Slavic revisited. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics : The Philadelphia Meeting, 1999, sous la dir. King, de Tracy Holloway et Sekerina, Irina, 238–258. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Liakin, Denis. 2003. La focalisation des SD en russe. La revue québécoise de linguistique 31:191–208.Google Scholar
McCoy, Svetlana. 2001. Colloquial Russian Particles -TO, ZHE, and VED’ as set-generating (“kontrastive”) markers: A unifying analysis. Thèse de doctorat, Boston University.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal Movement and its Kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 1997. What moves where when in which language? Thèse de doctorat. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 1998. The principle of minimal compliance. Linguistic Inquiry 29:599–629.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. Dans Elements of grammar : Handbook in generative syntax, sous la dir. Haegeman, de Liliane, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael. 1978. A theory of stylistic rules in English. Thèse de doctorat, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Rochemont, Michael. 1986. Focus in generative grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats E. 1985. Association with focus. Thèse de doctorat, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Rudin, Catherine. 1988. On multiple questions and multiple wh-fronting. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6:445–501.Google Scholar
Rudin, Catherine, King, Tracy Holloway et Izvorsky, Romyana. 1996. Focus in Bulgarian and Russian yes-no questions. Dans University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 21 : Proceedings of Workshop on Focus, sous la dir. Benedicto, de Elena, Romero, Mariebel et Tomioka, Satoshi, 209–225. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Stepanov, Arthur. 1997. On wh-fronting in Russian. Dans Proceedings of the 28th annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, sous la dir. Tamanji, de Pius N. et Kusumoto, Kiyomi, 453–467. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Strahov, Natalya. 2001. A scrambling analysis of Russian WH-questions. Dans Proceedings of the annual workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics : The Bloomington Meeting, 293–311. Michigan: Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1981. The semantics of Topic-Focus articulation. Dans Formal methods in the study of language, sous la dir. Groenendijk, de Jeroen, Janssen, Theo et Stokhof, Martin, 513–540. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
Tisheva, Yovka, et Dzhonova, Marina. 2002. Information structure and clitics in TreeBanks. Ms., Faculty of Slavonic Languages, St. Kl. Ohridsky University, Sofia, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
Tomić, Olga Misšeska. 1996. The Balkan Slavic clausal clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14:811–872.Google Scholar