wh-fronting questions (as in English) are analyzed as wh-movement while wh-in-situ questions (as in Chinese) are analyzed as LF movement or unselective binding. Optionality between the two types of questions is observed in many languages, however, upon closer inspection, a stream of previous literature argues that only one strategy is truly available in any given language. Cheng (1991) and Faure & Palasis (2021) argue that wh-fronting languages in Indonesian and Colloquial French are not derived by wh-movement, while Chang (2016) argues that wh-in-situ questions in Colloquial Singapore English (CSE) are not derived from unselective binding or LF movement but are declarative syntax questions. Bobaljik & Wurmbrand (2015) explicitly propose that a language can either have the true wh-in-situ or the wh-movement strategy, but not both.

This paper uses CSE as a case study and argues that it allows true wh-movement and true wh-in-situ questions. CSE has been argued to only allow wh-movement by some (Chang 2016) and to only allow wh-in-situ by others (Lan 2016). This study experimentally tests the predictions made by these analyses and shows that the patterns are best accounted for if both ‘true’ wh-movement and ‘true’ wh-in-situ questions exist in CSE (see also Sato & Ngui 2017), thus challenging the previous analyses for CSE, and the cross-linguistic generalization in Bobaljik & Wurmbrand 2015.

In this article, we describe and explain patterns of variation in acceptance of amn’t in varieties of Scots, drawing upon data from the Scots Syntax Atlas. Partly in line with findings from Bresnan (2001), we show that amn’t is much more widely accepted in inversion environments (amn’t I?) than in declaratives (I amn’t), but nevertheless, amn’t in declaratives is still accepted in certain regions of Scotland. We combine the productivity-based explanation of the amn’t gap in Yang (2016, 2017) with new insights into the syntax of Scots negation from Thoms et al. (2023) to provide a predictive account of the attested variation.

In this paper, I analyze an intricate morphological pattern in Murrinhpatha which involves reordering of the dual marker ngintha and an alternation in the form of its adjacent morpheme. I will argue that the pattern strongly suggests an analysis in Stratal Optimality Theory: first, phonological correlates of morphological structure provide evidence for cyclic domains within the word. Second, the phenomenon can be derived using independently motivated morphological constraints, thus supporting the idea that morphology is an independent module of grammar with different optimization mechanisms, but the same stratal split as phonology. The cyclic architecture of the word provides a straightforward explanation for the placement of the dual marker and the resulting allomorphy of the classifier stem without resorting to ad hoc mechanisms such as position classes. Furthermore, the cyclic structure neatly accounts for multiple exponence of [dual] through the daucal (dual/paucal) classifier stem and ngintha. My analysis suggests that this overexponence results from the blocking of ngintha in the first cycle and the selection of the featurally more specific daucal stem. However, ngintha is not strictly bounded to the first cycle, and its realization is delayed until the second cycle.

In this paper, we compare the comprehension of the speech act meaning of non-canonical speech acts (i.e., rhetorical questions and surprise-disapproval questions) with the comprehension of indirect speech acts (i.e., indirect requests). Both speech act types are ‘mixed’ in the sense that they involve secondary and primary illocutionary forces, but our hypothesis is that they differ in their degree of how salient their primary illocutionary force is: On the one hand, the primary illocution is signaled by non-contextual cues (non-canonical speech acts); on the other hand, it is derived via pragmatic inferencing (indirect speech acts). We thus expect their comprehension processes to be different. We conducted a judgment experiment to test whether both speech act types differ regarding how accurate the primary illocutionary force is identified and regarding how fast that force can be identified. Our results suggest that non-canonical speech acts and indirect speech acts are indeed two distinct pragmatic and psychological phenomena: While non-canonical speech acts are more accurately identified with their primary illocutionary force than indirect speech acts, participants need more time to perform this identification for non-canonical speech acts than for indirect speech acts. Our findings shed new light on the mapping between linguistic form and illocutionary force and on the pragmatic typology of speech acts in general.

Expletive subject clitics (ESCs) are pronominal elements that occur in impersonal contexts with which no individual reference is associated. Their presence strikingly distinguishes northern Italo-Romance varieties from standard Italian. We target this structural incongruence by studying the occurrence of ESCs in present-day Opitergino, a virtually unstudied Venetan variety. We explore the question of whether, in the wake of a profound transformation in the sociolinguistic environment that occurred between the first half of the 20th century and early 2020 years, the contact between Opitergino and now-dominant Italian has induced change in the Opitergino ESC system. To test whether change has occurred and to what extent, we compare the results of an extensive online survey we conducted in 2022 with the baseline rules we extracted from speakers born before 1942. We observe that while the system is overall stable, a thread of change is ongoing and manifests in (a) rule weakening in declaratives and (b) erosion of the obligatoriness of ESCs in interrogatives. We argue that this change is likely to be an effect of contact, resulting in structural convergence but not in loss, and affected the part of the ESC system that features more optionality, namely, the domain of declarative clauses.

Greenberg’s Universal 42 states that all languages have pronominal categories involving at least three persons and two numbers. However, this characterization fails to capture the properties of pronouns in Japanese, which are not bundles of person, number and gender features (so-called phi-features); rather, they contain sociolinguistic information about the interlocutors. We propose that these properties are structurally determined. Following Ritter and Wiltschko, we assume that the highest layer of structure in nominals is interactional structure. As for phi-features, we adopt the standard assumption that they are represented internal to the determiner phrase (DP). We propose that the distinctive properties of Japanese pronouns follow from the hypothesis that they spell out elements of the interactional structure and not the DP. We show that the lack of phi-features in Japanese pronouns correlates with other properties of this language’s grammar. Support for this analysis comes from languages where pronouns with phi-features can optionally be used to encode formality (e.g. German and French). We propose that in these languages, formal pronouns originate within the DP but are interpreted in the interactional structure. Finally, we suggest that this analysis may extend to imposters and vocatives in that they may also be interpreted in the interactional structure.

Contrast, adversative and corrective can all be represented by er in Classical Chinese, but they are lexicalized respectively by er, danshi and ershi in Modern Chinese. The two lexicalization systems suggest that the opposition relations have commonalities as well as differences. In the framework of relevance theory and ‘three domains’, this study argues that the three opposition relations are in different cognitive domains, at different representational levels, and trigger different inferences, which accounts for their diverse lexicalizations in Modern Chinese. The opposition relations also have cognitive or metaphorical connections with each other, which justifies their unified actualization in Classical Chinese. The pragmatics-cognitive framework could also account for interlinguistic data.

Hanging Topic Left Dislocations are widely deemed to constitute root phenomena, though they occasionally appear in embedded contexts. I submit that the apparent embeddability of left dislocations is merely illusory: they are in actuality matrix phenomena in disguise. A novel cross-linguistic contrast is brought to light: in English, subordinate hanging topics are broadly attested, and they can occur with or without a secondary complementizer. In Spanish, by contrast, embedded hanging topics that are not followed by a secondary complementizer are not part of the grammar, a pattern that extends to Dutch. Left-peripheral analyses assuming an elaborated left periphery fall short of capturing this contrast non-stipulatively. Nevertheless, the recent paratactic approach to recomplementation (i.e. double-complementizer) structures, which assumes that such constructions involve two matrix sentences linked paratactically and that the secondary complementizer flags a restart in discourse, provides a more satisfactory account of the English–Spanish asymmetry: the difference between the two languages ultimately reduces to the possibility of omitting subordinating complementizers in English but not in Spanish. On this view, embedded left dislocations are in fact undercover root constructions, in line with their generally accepted characterization as Main Clause Phenomena.