See veebileht kasutab küpsiseid kasutaja sessiooni andmete hoidmiseks. Veebilehe kasutamisega nõustute ETISe kasutustingimustega. Loe rohkem
Olen nõus

Pronominal Doubling in Estonian Complex Wh-Questions

Allkivi, Kais (2018).

Pronominal Doubling in Estonian Complex Wh-Questions

. Linguistica Uralica, 54 (2), 81−103.10.3176/lu.2018.2.01.
ajakirjaartikkel
Allkivi, Kais
  • Inglise
Küsivate-siduvate asesõnade topeltkasutus eesti põimküsilausetes // Сдвоенное употребление вопросительно-относительных местоимений в сложноподчиненных вопросительных предложениях эстонского языка

Pronominal Doubling in Estonian Complex Wh-Questions

Linguistica Uralica
0868-4731
54
2
2018
81103
Ilmunud
1.1. Teadusartiklid, mis on kajastatud Web of Science andmebaasides Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, Emerging Sources Citation Index ja/või andmebaasis Scopus (v.a. kogumikud)
Teadmata
SCOPUS

Viited terviktekstile

dx.doi.org/10.3176/lu.2018.2.01

Seotud asutused

Lisainfo

In recent years, the use of pronoun-doubling constructions as alterna- tives to standard long-distance wh-questions, where the wh-phrase is spelled out only in the matrix clause, has received substantial attention in research of syntac- tic variation. However, the doubling phenomenon has scarcely been studied in the Uralic languages. This paper concentrates on Estonian complex, i.e. bi-clausal, wh-questions that contain the bridge verb arvama ’think’ or ütlema ’say’ and where the subject or object, either animate or inanimate, is being questioned. An accept- ability judgement test and corpus analysis were applied to determine which pronominal patterns and to what extent are attested in such interrogative sentences. Both identical and non-identical doubling appear to be common in Estonian, although identical doubling is restricted to inanimate subject/object questions (the pronoun mis ’what’ introduces both clauses), while non-identical doubling is preferred if a person is questioned (the matrix clause is introduced by the pronoun mis ’what’ and the subordinate clause by the pronoun kes ’who’). Proposing a tentative syntactic analysis for the different doubling patterns, I argue that partial wh-movement involving two independent wh-chains is generally favoured and it also underlies identical doubling. Long-distance wh-movement, on the other hand, turns out not to be freely permitted in Estonian.
syntactic variation, syntactic doubling, long-distance wh-movement, partial wh-movement, indirect dependency approach, interrogative pronouns, Estonian