| The goal of this thesis is to show that there is a syntactic position specified for an exhaustive interpretation. A constituent that can be interpreted exhaustively bears a [foc(us)]-feature, and enters into an agreement relation with a functional category Foc(us). This means that an identificational focus and a nominal wh-phrase bear the same feature, establish the same kind of agreement, and in some languages undergo the same kind of movement.; The suggested analysis adopts Chomsky's (1998, 1999) minimalist framework. Chapter 2 reviews several major minimalist concepts, and proposes a new constraint on locality.; In Chapter 3, I demonstrate that the suggested analysis accounts for various facts about focus sentences and wh-questions in ‘focus’ languages such as Hungarian, Basque, and Serbo-Croatian. Focus languages are peculiar in that an EPP-feature is obligatorily associated with a [foc]-feature of a coal, which induces an obligatory ‘focus’-movement to SPEC-Foc. Therefore a focus and a nominal wh-phrase, but not an adverbial wh-phrase, undergo the same movement.; Chapter 4 considers focus- and wh-phenomena in Japanese. Japanese is slightly different from ‘focus’ languages in that an EPP-feature is optionally associated with a [foc]-feature of a goal, which induces an optional ‘focus’-movement to SPEC-Foc. Under this assumption, it follows that a nominal wh-phrase optionally moves out of v*P to have an exhaustive interpretation. I also show that the suggested analysis accounts for a strong island effect of a focalized wh-clause and anti-superiority effects.; Chapter 5 considers focus- and wh-phenomena in English. In English, an EPP-feature is never associated with a [foc]-feature of a goal, which means that neither a focus nor a nominal wh-phrase undergoes ‘focus’-movement. However, they establish the same agreement relation with Foc. It explains why a focus and a nominal wh-phrase cannot cooccur. The suggested analysis also accounts for the facts about multiple wh-questions and weak island phenomena. |
