Explore the vast range of titles available.

This paper discusses the status of island phenomena in Avatime, an endangered Kwa language of Ghana. We focus on clausal adjuncts, specifically noun complement clauses (NCCs). We show that while standard adjuncts are strong islands in Avatime, NCCs allow argument extraction. We suggest that this is related to the fact that NCCs in Avatime are not a type of relative clause. Instead, NCCs involve a kind of serial verb construction, which independently allows for extraction.

This volume investigates the clausal syntax of Wolof, an understudied Atlantic language of Senegal. The goals of the work are descriptive, analytical, and comparative, with a focus on the structure of the left periphery and left peripheral phenomena. The book includes detailed examination of the morpho‑syntax of wh‑questions, successive cyclicity, subject marking, relative clauses, topic/focus articulation, and complementizer agreement. Novel data from Wolof is used to evaluate and extend theoretical proposals concerning the structure of the Complementizer Phrase (CP) and Tense Phrase (TP). It is argued that Wolof provides evidence for the promotion analysis of relative clauses, an \"exploded\" CP and TP, and for analyses that treat relative clauses as composed of a determiner with a CP complement. It is further argued that Wolof has a set of silent wh‑expressions and these are compared to superficially similar constructions in colloquial German, Bavarian, Dutch, and Norwegian. The book also presents a comparison of complementizer agreement across a number of related and unrelated languages. Data from Indo‑European (Germanic varieties, French, Irish), Niger‑Congo (Atlantic, Bantu, Gur), and Semitic (Arabic) languages put the Wolof phenomena in a larger typological context by showing the range of variation in complementizer agreement systems.

This paper analyzes the morphology and syntax of wh-expressions and agreeing complementizers in Wolof, an Atlantic language. I argue that Wolof possesses a set of null wh-expressions, in addition to a set of overt ones. The null whexpressions occur in a relative clause-like construction in which they trigger agreement on a complementizer. I examine the properties of the null wh-expressions and compare them to their overt counterparts in Wolof. I provide evidence that the null wh-expressions, like the overt ones, move successive cyclically, and may trigger agreement on intermediate complementizers that occur in the movement pathway. I also compare the Wolof construction to a superficially similar complementizer agreement construction in the Bantu language Kinande, and to null operators in German and wh-drop in Dutch.

Two previously unstudied Mixtec languages -- Nieves Mixtec and Melchor Ocampo Mixtec -- are investigated, with special emphasis on free relative clauses and two related wh-constructions: interrogative wh-clauses and headed relative clauses. It is shown that both Mixtec languages make use of most wh-words found in interrogatives to form free relatives, i.e., non-interrogative wh-clauses like the bracketed one in Luca tasted [what Adam cooked]. Both languages exhibit the three kinds of free relatives that are attested cross-linguistically: definite free relatives (with the distribution and interpretation of defnite descriptions like in the example above), existential free relatives (occurring in the complement position of existential constructions), and -ever free relatives (occurring as arguments like I'll do [whatever you say] or as clausal adjuncts like [Whatever you say], I won't change my mind). Similarities and diferences are discussed between free relative clauses and headed relative clauses in both languages and between Mixtec wh-constructions and cross-linguistic patterns. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Two previously unstudied Mixtec languages—Nieves Mixtec and Melchor Ocampo Mixtec—are investigated, with special emphasis on free relative clauses and two related wh-constructions: interrogative wh-clauses and headed relative clauses. It is shown that both Mixtec languages make use of most wh-words found in interrogatives to form free relatives, i.e., non-interrogative wh-clauses like the bracketed one inLuca tasted[what Adam cooked]. Both languages exhibit the three kinds of free relatives that are attested cross-linguistically: definite free relatives (with the distribution and interpretation of defnite descriptions like in the example above), existential free relatives (occurring in the complement position of existential constructions), and-everfree relatives (occurring as arguments likeI'll do[whatever you say] or as clausal adjuncts like [Whatever you say],I won't change my mind). Similarities and diferences are discussed between free relative clauses and headed relative clauses in both languages and between Mixtec wh-constructions and cross-linguistic patterns. [KEYWORDS: Nieves Mixtec, Melchor Ocampo Mixtec, wh-words, wh-constructions, free relative clauses]

Two previously unstudied Mixtec languages-Nieves Mixtec and Melchor Ocampo Mixtec-are investigated, with special emphasis on free relative clauses and two related wh-constructions: interrogative wh-clauses and headed relative clauses. It is shown that both Mixtec languages make use of most wh-words found in interrogatives to form free relatives, i.e., non-interrogative wh-clauses like the bracketed one in Luca tasted [what Adam cooked]. Both languages exhibit the three kinds of free relatives that are attested cross-linguistically: definite free relatives (with the distribution and interpretation of defnite descriptions like in the example above), existential free relatives (occurring in the complement position of existential constructions), and -ever free relatives (occurring as arguments like I'll do [whatever you say] or as clausal adjuncts like [Whatever you say], I won't change my mind). Similarities and diferences are discussed between free relative clauses and headed relative clauses in both languages and between Mixtec wh-constructions and cross-linguistic patterns. [KEYWORDS: Nieves Mixtec, Melchor Ocampo Mixtec, wh-words, wh-constructions, free relative clauses]

This paper documents the morphosyntactic and semantic properties of headless relative clauses in a variety of Meꞌphaa spoken in Iliatenco, Guerrero, Mexico. Meꞌphaa possesses four types of headless relative clauses, which can be divided into two groups: those introduced by wh-expressions (free relative clauses), and those not introduced by wh-expressions. The former type is comprised of three varieties: maximal free relative clauses, which are largely productive, existential free relative clauses, which are limited to a few wh-expressions, and free choice free relative clauses, which are introduced by ájndo ‘until’. The second type of headless relative clause is simply introduced by a relativizer/subordinator. Nearly all Meꞌphaa wh-expressions participate in some or all kinds of free relative clauses. However, the inanimate argument wh-expression dí(ne) ‘what’ seems to be robustly impermissible in such constructions.