On Wh-Elements in Central Kurdish: A Minimalist Approach

Salih Ibrahim Ahmed

doi:10.21271/zjhs.24.4.17

Salih Ibrahim Ahmed University of Raparin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21271/zjhs.24.4.17

Keywords: CK, Copy Delete, EPP, Merge, Wh-element

Abstract

The paper sheds light on the status of wh-elements in Central Kurdish (CK) with respect to the framework of the Minimalist Program (MP). From across the globe, there exist various types of languages whose wh-elements behave according to wh-parameter. There are languages whose wh-elements move, some others have in-situ wh-elements, and there are others in which the movement is optional. This paper aims to observe CK wh-elements in an empirical way to indicate their parametric features and their conformance to the universal principles. The notion of movement in MP is included within merge, which falls into two types: Internal merge (I-merge) and External merge (E-merge). Another important term in connection with overt movement is the Extended Projection Principle (EPP) according to which the subject position should be occupied by a phonologically expressed constituent. A fact to be known is that not all languages, among them CK, conform to this principle. The violation of certain CK wh-elements to this principle varies because they do not function in the same way. The paper presents several results revealed in the conclusion section which can be regarded as the contribution of the paper to the field of the generative syntax. One of the conclusions arrived at in the paper is that CK wh-elements are not considered as one inseparable set since they behave differently.

References

Btoosh, M. A. (2010). Wh-movement in Standard Arabic: an optimality-theoretic account. In
Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 46 (1). (pp. 1-26).
Cheng, L.L. (2003). Wh-in-situ. In Glot International vol. 7, No. 4 (pp. 103-109). Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing.
Chomsky, N. (2001). Beyond explanatory adequacy. Unpublished manuscript, MIT.
Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of projection. In Lingua, 130, Special Issue “Core Ideas and
Results in Syntax”, (pp.33-49).
Chomsky, N. (2015a). The minimalist program (20th anniversary ed.). Massachusetts: MIT.
Chomsky, N. (2015b). Problems of projection: Extensions. In E. Di Domenico, C. Hamann,
& S. Matteini (Eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond – Studies in honour of Adriana
Belletti (pp. 3-16). John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Cook, V. J., & Newson, M. (2007). Chomsky’s universal grammar: an introduction (3rd ed.).
Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Grewendorf, G. (2015). The internal structure of wh-elements and the diversity of wh-
movement. In M. van Oostendorp & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Representing structure in
phonology and syntax (pp. 85-114). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, Inc.
Hornstein, N. (2018). The minimalist program after 25 years. In Annual Review of
Linguistics, 4. (pp. 49-65).
Lotfi, A. R. (2006). Feature sharing v. feature checking: An analysis of Persian pre- and post-
verbal CPs. In California Linguistic Notes vol. (XXXI), No. 1. (pp. 1-23)
Kato, T. (2009). Two types of covert wh-movement. In Berkeley Linguistic Society vol. 35,
No. 1. (pp. 168-177).
Radford, A. (2004). Minimalist syntax. Cambridge: CUP.
Rizzi, L. (2015). Notes on labeling and subject positions. In E. Di Domenico, C. Hamann, &
S. Matteini (Eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond – Studies in honour of Adriana
Belletti (pp. 17-46). John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Rizzi, L. (2016). EPP and ECP revisited: the role of labeling. In Romance Languages and
Linguistic Theory 10 (pp. 211-232). Lisbon: John Benjamins Publishing.
Szczegielniak, A. (2001). Polish optional movement. In G. Alexadrova & O. Arnaudova
(Eds.), The Minimalist Parameter. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory Series (pp. 125-
148).
Tallerman, M. (2015). Understanding syntax (4th ed.). London: Routledge.