parallel merge

The present study investigates across the board wh-movement in Sanandaji Kurdish language, based on parallel merge approach of Citko (2005) in multidominant structure. The evidence in the data indicates that, wh-arguments in the object position of the transitive verb (inside vp), which contain essential information, do not move to the scope position of wh-phrase and behave in-situ and remain in their base generated position, in this case we can say that, ATB-movement cannot affect wh-questions in the object position. Also, the data showed that, wh-arguments can be preposed to the left periphery of the structure, if they are shared between two conjuncts. On the other hand, data containing conjuncts with a single pair reading does not impair the absolute assumption of wh-in-situ in Sanandaji Kurdish and in this sense, it cannot be claimed that the wh-questions exhibit mixed behavior. Likewise, in Sanandaji Kurdish, the ATB-movement of the wh – adjuncts to the left periphery is the result of topicalization and focusing, which often occupies the specifier position within a Focus phrase. In addition, the data showed that the movement of the wh-adjuncts, in the coordinate configuration in Sanandaji Kurdish is optional and is conducted in the logical form (LF) and receives information focus.

Wh-coordination is a descriptive term used to refer to configurations where two wh-constituents are conjoined. Wh-coordination bears descriptive resemblances to conventional coordination and multiple wh-questions. However, closer inspection of wh-coordination reveals that it is different in both semantic and syntactic respects. In terms of its semantics, wh-coordination yields a single-pair reading, as opposed to the pair-list reading forced by multiple wh-questions. As for its syntactic properties, wh-coordination violates the Coordination of the Likes Law (Williams 1987), as opposed to conventional coordination. To explain such intrinsic characteristics of wh-coordination, we will advance a syntactic analysis of such constructions in terms of Parallel Merge and Multidominance. Crucially, on the basis of their syntactic and semantic peculiarities, it is argued that clauses containing wh-coordination have a bi-clausal structure, with VPs and TPs parallel-merged, where each wh-constituent is merged within its respective dominating clause and consequently, the two clauses are conjoined in the CP level. Under this analysis, coordination of the wh-constituents is only apparent; the real coordination occurs at the CP level of clauses containing the wh-constituents. The superficial coordination of the wh-constituents is an epiphenomenon ensuing from the linearization of bi-clausal conjunction.