Qu-morpheme Positional Variation in Sinhala Yes/No Constructions*
Jason Ginsburg
University of Aizu
jginsbur@gmail.com

Abstract:
In Sinhala yes/no constructions, a question morpheme can either occur in a clause-peripheral position thatappears to be C or in a non-peripheral position that appears to be below TP. In this paper, I argue that the
distribution of Sinhala Qu-morphemes results from the existence of two types of Qu-morpheme; bothtypes contain an interpretable Qu-feature, but one type also contains an uninterpretable Focus-feature. Theinterpretable Qu-feature is responsible for typing a clause as an interrogative by valuing an unintepretableclausal typing feature in C, and the uninterpretable Focus-feature is responsible for giving an associatedphrase scope by being valued by an interpretable Scope feature in C.

1. Introduction
Sinhala is a language with a Qu-morpheme (question morpheme) dә that can appear in clause-final
position. For example, the statement in (1a) becomes a yes/no construction when dә ‘Qu’ is added to theend of a clause, as shown in (1b). The fact that the addition of dә results in a yes/no construction isevidence that dә is a Qu-morpheme – it is a morpheme that is responsible for typing a clause as aninterrogative. Also, note that the verb ends in –a, glossed as ‘-A’.1(1) (a) Kolәmbәtә basekaka tienәwa.
Colombobus

be.A‘There is a bus to Colombo.
(b) Kolәmbәtә
Colombobasekaka tienәwa dә?
bus

be.A

Q

‘Is there a bus to Colombo.’ (Gair 1970:139)
Notably, the Sinhala Qu-morpheme is not confined to clause-final position; it can occur in a TP-internal
position as a suffix on a focused phrase. In (2a), the Qu-morpheme appears in the typical clause-final
position, but in (2b), it appears as an affix on the nominal ee potә ‘that book’, and a yes/no construction
results. Similarly, in (2c), the Qu-morpheme appears with the TP-internal adjunct hetә ‘tomorrow’.

*I thank Andrew Carnie, Sandiway Fong, Heidi Harley, and Simin Karimi for discussion of various issues
presented in this paper. All errors are my own.
1
I follow Sumangala (1992) in glossing –a as ‘-A’.

(2) (a) Chitra eepotә kieuwa dә?

Chitra that book read.A Qu‘Did Chitra read that book?’(b) Chitra [ee potә]-dә kieuwe?
Chitra that book-Qu read.E‘Was it that book that Chitra read?’ (Kishimoto 2005:11)(c) Sirihetә-dәwaduwæaedә

Siri tomorrow-Qu woodworkingkәrәnne?
do-PRES.E‘Is it tomorrow that Siri does woodworking?’ (Gair & Sumangala 1991:96)
The semantics of (2a) and (2b) differ in that in (2b) the phrase ee potә ‘that book’, to which the Qumorpheme is affixed, receives a focused interpretation, as evidenced by the clefted English gloss. Thisappears to be a form of identificational focus, in accord with Kiss’ (1998) view that an identificational
focus refers to new information and to an exhaustive set (all elements of a set).2 Also, when the Qumorpheme appears in a TP-internal position (2b-c), the verb occurs with an -e ending, which I gloss as‘-E’.3 This verbal ending differs from the ‘-A’ verbal suffix that occurs when a Qu-morpheme appears inclause-final position, as in (2a).
Three descriptive facts about these constructions are of importance for this analysis. First, thepresence of the Qu-morpheme is responsible for a yes/no interrogative interpretation. Second, when the
Qu-morpheme attaches onto a TP-internal phrase, as in (2b-c), this phrase becomes focused, as indicatedby the clefted glosses. The third fact about these constructions is that the verb ending differs dependingon where the Qu-morpheme is pronounced. When the Qu-morpheme occurs in clause-final position, theverb has an ‘-A’ suffix (2a). The verb also appears with this suffix in non-interrogative constructions suchas (1a) above. When the Qu-morpheme appears in a TP-internal position, the verb of the clause that the
Qu-morpheme is associated with occurs with the ‘-E’ ending (2b-c).
In this paper I provide a new account of these Sinhala yes/no construction facts that is compatible
with Phase Theory (cf. Chomsky 1999, 2000, 2004, 2006). This account relies on the idea that the Sinhala
Qu-morpheme comes in two forms – both forms contain an interpretable Qu-feature and one form also
contains an uninterpretable Focus-feature. These features enter into a probe-goal checking relationshipwith a scopal C head.

2. Previous Proposals
Sumangala (1992) analyzes the Sinhala Qu-morpheme dә as being the head of a FocP projection and a2

An identificational focus corresponds to a cleft in English, such as “it was a hat” inMary picked for herself (Kiss 1998:250)”.
3
I follow Sumangala (1992) in glossing -e as ‘-E.’“It was a hat that

focused phrase as being its complement. The FocP is argued to have an operator in its specifier position
that binds a focused phrase. This is shown in (3a). When the Qu-morpheme is in clause-final position, theoperator focuses the entire phrase. When the Qu-morpheme is in a TP-internal position, the operator binds
the relevant focused phrase and the operator raises to the matrix [Spec, CP], as shown in (3b).
(3) (a) [Op [XP [dәFoc] Foc’] FocP](b) [OP …[Op [XP [dәFoc] Foc’] FocP]…CP]The Sinhala Qu-morpheme appears to be responsible for typing a clause as an interrogative (compare 1ab) and if the Qu-morpheme is simply the head of a Focused phrase, as in Sumangala’s analysis, it is notclear how clausal typing occurs.
Previous analysis also face certain difficulties with respect to Phase Theory. Kishimoto (2005) andHagstrom (1998) develop analyses of wh-questions (not yes/no questions) in Sinhala (which allows a Qumorpheme to appear in a TP-internal position adjacent to a wh-phrase) that rely on LF movement of a Qu
element from a position adjacent to a wh-phrase. These analyses, as well as that of Sumangala, face theproblem of how movement of a Qu element occurs through phase boundaries. A Qu-morphemethatoriginates within the complement of the head of a v*P phase cannot be directly attracted by a higher C
head unless it moves to the v*P phase edge.
In this paper, I adopt the idea, based on these previous analyses, that there is something akin to
movement in a Sinhala yes/no construction with a TP-internal Qu-morpheme, although I propose that the
Qu-morpheme does not actually move. Rather, its associated features move. Furthermore, this movement(which consists of reinsertion into a subnumeration and re-Merge into the derivation) occurs before SpellOut and it occurs in a manner that is consistent with Phase Theory.

3. Proposals
I assume that a Qu-morpheme is responsible for typing a clause as an interrogative, presumably via
valuation of an uninterpretable feature in C. This follows work by Katz & Postal (1964), Aoun & Li
(1993), Chomsky (1995), among others who take the position that a Qu element in a clausal typing
projection is responsible for giving a clause an interrogative interpretation.4 This Qu-element appears
overtly in languages such as Sinhala, as shown in (1-2) above.
I further propose that there are two types of Qu-morpheme that occur in Sinhala, shown in (4a-b).
(4) (a) Qu[iQu](b) Qu[iQu,uFoc]
The Qu-morpheme in (4a) has an interpretable Qu-feature, iQu. This iQu feature can type a clause as aninterrogative by valuing an uninterpretable feature in C that I refer to as uTyp, which is an uninterpretable

4

Aoun & Li (1993) take the position that a clausal typing projection in a yes/no construction contains[+Qu,-wh] features.

feature that when valued turns a clause into an interrogative, statement, etc. The type of Qu-morpheme in(4a) is Merged directly in C, where its iQu values the uTyp feature on C – resulting in an interrogative
clause, as shown in (5), where vTyp in C refers to a uTyp that has been valued by the interpretable iQu.
(5)

CP
C[vTyp]Qu[iQu]The Qu-morpheme in (4b) has both an interpretable Qu-feature, iQu, and an uninterpretable Focus-feature,uFoc. The iQu, like the iQu of the Qu-morpheme in (4a), is responsible for typing a clause as aninterrogative. The uninterpretable Focus-Feature uFoc is valued by an interpretable feature, which I referto as iScp (an interpretable feature responsible for scope) on C. CP is notably a projection where whphrases obtain scope (cf. May 1985). Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that it has an interpretable
scope feature, iScp, that can give a phrase scope.5 Valuation of the uFoc by iScp gives the phrase that the
Qu-morpheme is associated with an identificational focus interpretation (see section 1 above). I proposethat this type of Qu-morpheme in (4b) is Merged in a position adjoined to a focused phrase, as shown in
(6).
(6)

XP
XP

Qu[iQu,uFoc]

In order for a derivation containing this type of Qu-morpheme to converge successfully, the Qu/Focusfeature bundle of the Qu-morpheme must undergo a feature-valuation relation with C of the form shownin (7), whereby the iQu of the Qu-morpheme values the uTyp in C (the valued feature is represented byvTyp) and the uFoc feature of the Qu-morpheme is valued by the iScp feature of C (the valued feature isrepresented by vFoc).
(7) […Qu[iQu,vFoc]…C[vTyp,iScp] CP]
I propose that feature valuation between C and a Qu-morpheme is a reciprocal relation that is similar
to the case checking relation proposed by Chomsky (1999, 2006, etc). Chomsky, essentially, proposesthat v* and (non-defective) T have uninterpretable phi-features and interpretable structural case, and thatv* or T behaves as a probe that searches for a matching goal - a DP that has an interpretable phi-feature.
A DP has an interpretable phi-feature and uninterpretable structural case. When T or v* forms an Agreerelation with a DP, the interpretable phi-feature on the DP values the uninterpretable phi-feature of v* orT, and the interpretable case feature of v* or T values the uinterpretable case feature of the DP. In asimilar manner, I propose that C can have its uTyp feature valued by an iQu associated with a Qumorpheme, and a uFoc of a Qu-morpheme can be valued by an iScp feature on C.
5

In a wh-question such as ``what did you buy?’ a wh-phrase gets scope and ‘what’ is presumably in [Spec, CP]. If a

non-wh-phrase gets scope, as in the relevant Sinhala constructions discussed in this paper, then this phrase receives a
focus interpretation, but the resulting construction cannot be a wh-question.

Feature checking is constrained by Phase Theory. I follow the Phase Theory view that v* and C arestrong phases and when the head of a (strong) phase is Merged into a derivation, the complement of thenext lower phase, if present, is sent to Spell-Out (Chomsky 2004). For example, in (8), when C is Merged,
YP, the complement of v*, is sent to Spell-Out and C can only access up to the v*P edge.
(8) [C [TP T [v*P v* YP ]]]I also propose that there is an operation of Last Resort (Chomsky 1995) that is constrained by Phase
Theory. Last Resort is defined in (9a) - an element with an uninterpretable feature that is contained withina phase that is about to be sent to Spell-Out is reinserted into a higher subnumeration as an operation of
Last Resort.6 For example, in (9b), assume that X and Y are strong phase heads and α is an element withan uninterpretable feature. When X is Merged, the complement of the next lower phase head Y will besent to Spell-Out. Thus, when X is Merged, I propose that α, with an uninterpretable feature, is subject toa Last Resort operation - it is reinserted into the current subnumeration, and then it can be re-Merged intoa derivation.
(9) Last Resort:(a) When an element with an uninterpretable feature is contained within a structure that is about to besent to Spell-Out, it will (when possible) be reinserted into the current subnumeration.
(b) Last Resort [ XP X [YP Y α]]
In this paper, I take the position that the Qu- and Focus-features of the TP-internal Sinhala Qumorpheme (4b above) form a Qu/Focus feature bundle of the form ‘[iQu,uFoc]’ that under the appropriate
circumstances (when contained within a phase that is about to be sent to Spell-Out), separates from its
associated Qu-morpheme and undergoes Last Resort reinsertion into the current sub-numeration. Then it
can be selected and re-Merged into the derivation, thus enabling it to undergo a feature valuation probegoal relation with C.

4. Analysis
When the Sinhala Qu-morpheme occurs in a clause-peripheral position, as in (2a) above, it is most likely
directly Merged in C. First of all, direct Merge in C is the most economical operation (cf. Chomsky 1995).
Merge of an element from a numeration into a derivation must occur. If a Qu-morpheme were to move,then it would have to be Merged, undergo movement, and then be Merged again. Secondly, the C head in
Sinhala occurs clause-finally. Sinhala is an SOV language with head-final projections (Sumangala 1992).
For example, the noun minissu ‘people’ and the verb bivva ‘drink- PAST’ follow their complements in(10a-b) respectively. 7
6

I thank Sandiway Fong, with whom I developed the idea of this type of Last Resort operation.
Sinhala allows scrambling. When there is scrambling, a complement need not precede its head. However,
if one considers the underlying word order of scrambled constructions to be SOV, then the head must
follows its complement in the underlying structure.
7(10) (a) NP: gamee

minissuvillage-GEN people‘people of the village’(b) V*P: tee
tea

bivva
drink- PAST

‘drank tea’ (Sumangala 1992: 41)
Since the Qu-morpheme occurs at the end of the clause in constructions such as (2a) above, a natural
assumption is that it occurs in C.
Thus, example (2a) with a clause-final Qu-morpheme can be accounted for as shown in (11). The
Qu-morpheme dә, of type (4a), is Merged directly in C, where its interpretable Qu-feature iQu values theuninterpretable Type feature, uTyp, of C, and thereby types the clause as an interrogative, as represented
by the resulting vTyp feature in C.
(11) [[Chitra
Chitraee potәkieuwa TP]

that bookread[dә[iQu+vTyp] C] CP]QuWhen a Qu-morpheme does not appear at the clause-periphery, as in (2b) repeated below, I haveclaimed that it is in a TP-internal position.
(2) (b) Chitra [ee potә]-dә

kieuwe?

Chitra that book-Qu read.E‘Was it that book that Chitra read?’ (Kishimoto 2005:11)
As noted above, projections in Sinhala are head-final. Therefore, if the Qu-morpheme dә in (2b) were inC, then everything preceding it would have to be in a higher position, such as the specifier of CP. But if
this were the case, then it is not clear where the verb kieuwe ‘read-E’ would occur, since C linearly
follows the v*P projection housing the verb. The verb would have to undergo rightward movement, or bea remnant of a complex series of leftward movements. On the other hand, if the Qu-morpheme occurs
below the TP in a position adjoined to the object, then the word order facts are accounted forstraightforwardly.
In constructions such as (2b), I propose that the presence of an uninterpretable Focus-feature, uFoc,
within a Qu-morpheme, as in (4b) above, forces the Qu-morpheme to be Merged TP-internally adjacent toa phrase that is the focus of the interrogative. For example, in (12), the Qu-morpheme dә is adjoined to an
XP that is contained in a TP-internal position.
(12) [[…[XP]-dә[uFoc,iQu] XP]… TP]… CP]
A Qu-morpheme with a Focus-feature cannot be Merged directly in C because then its Focus-feature
would not be associated with a phrase that needs to be focused.
As noted above in section 1, there is a phenomenon of verbal agreement in Sinhala whereby a verb
appears with an ‘-A’ or ‘-E’ suffix. When the Qu-morpheme occurs clause-finally, the verb occurs withthe ‘-A’ ending. The ‘-A’ ending is something akin to a default verbal ending, as suggested by Gair andSumangala’s (1991:94) statement that the ‘-A’ affix ‘‘is the most common [verbal affix] in finite
independent sentences”. Below is an example of a declarative sentence with the default ‘-A’ ending on
the verb.
(13) Chitrapotә

gatta.

Chitra book bought.A‘Chitra bought the book.’ (Kishimoto 2005:4)
When the Qu-morpheme appears in a TP-internal position, the ‘-E’ ending appears on the verb, as in (2b).
I propose that this ‘-E’ ending is the Spell-Out of a moved Qu/Focus-feature bundle. Only tensed verbs
appear with these suffixes (Gair & Sumangala 1991). Therefore, a reasonable assumption is that a tensed
verb raises as high as T, as is claimed by Gair & Sumangala (1991).
I am now in a position to account for constructions such as (2b) in which the Qu-morpheme occurs as
an affix on the TP-internal phrase ee potә ‘that book’. The derivation proceeds as follows. (14a) shows
the structure of the subnumeration that forms the v*P. (14b) is the resulting v*P that is formed after
selection and Merge of the LIs (Lexical Items) from the subnumeration in (14a). The Qu-morpheme dә isMerged in a position adjoined to the DP ee potә ‘that book’ and the Qu-morpheme contains a Qu/Focus
feature bundle ‘[iQu,uFoc]’.
(14) (a) Subnumeration: [Chitra, ee potә, dә[iQu,uFoc], kieuw](b) Derivation: [Chitra [ee potә]-dә[iQu,uFoc] kieuw v*P](15a) below shows the subnumeration of the CP, and (15b) shows the resulting CP that is formed after
Merge of T and C. I assume that the verb moves to T - the crossed out kiew signifies a copy of the verb.
Note that the matrix C contains an interpretable Scope feature iScp and an uninterpretable Type featureuTyp.
(15) (a) Subnumeration: [C[uTyp,iScp], T](b) Derivation: [[[Chitra [ee potә]-dә[iQu,uFoc] kieuw v*P] kieuw TP] C[iScp,uTyp] CP]
At the point at which C is Merged, in accord with Phase Theory, the complement of v* will be sent toSpell-Out. However, the Qu-morpheme contains the uninterpretable feature uFoc that needs to be valued.
Thus, at the point at which C is Merged, I propose that the Qu/Focus-feature bundle ‘[iQu,uFoc]’ isreinserted into the sub-numeration, as shown in (16a). Crucially, the feature bundle is able to separate
from its associated morpheme. Then, as shown in (16b), the Qu-feature bundle ‘[iQu,uFoc]’ is re-Merged
into the derivation in C, where it is pronounced as an –e ‘-E’ suffix of the verb.
(16) (a) Subnumeration: [[iQu,uFoc]](b) Derivation: [[[Chitra [ee potә]-dә[iQu,uFoc] kieuw v*P] kieuw TP] -e[iQu,vFoc+iScp,vTyp] CP]
Crucially, the iQu values uTyp on C, resulting in vTyp, and iScp on C values the uFoc of the Qu/Focusfeature bundle, resulting in vFoc and thereby giving the DP ee potә ‘that book’ a focus interpretation.
This analysis also accounts for the fact that a Qu-morpheme in Sinhala can take scope outside of theclause that it appears in. In (17) the Qu-morpheme dә is attached to nimal-Tә ‘Nimal-DAT’ in theembedded clause and a matrix yes/no construction results; the embedded clause is not a yes/noconstruction.
(17) Gunee [SirieekәGune Siri

Nimal-Tә-dә

dunnakiyәla]that/it Nimal-DAT-Qu give- PAST.A that]kivve?
say- PAST.E‘Is it to Nimal that Gune said that Siri gave it?’ (Adapted from Sumangala 1992:135)
In this case, the verb of the embedded clause has the default ‘-A’ ending and the matrix verb, which is theverb of the clause in which the Qu-morpheme has scope, has the ‘-E’ ending; the verb of the clause that is
typed as an interrogative by the Qu-morpheme appears with the ‘-E’ ending. Example (17) is accounted
for as follows. The subnumeration of the embedded v*P is given in (18a) and the resulting v*P is shownin (18b). The Qu-morpheme is Merged in a position adjoined to the DP Nimal-Tә ‘Nimal-DAT’.
(18) (a) Subnumeration: [Siri, eekә, Nimal-Tә, dә[iQu,uFoc], dunn](b) Derivation: [Siri eekә [Nimal-Tә]-dә[iQu,uFoc] dunn v*P](19a) shows the subnumeration of the remaining elements of the embedded CP, where kiyәla ‘that’ is a C
head and –a is a T head, and (19b) shows the CP that results from selection and Merge of these LIs.
(19) (a) Subnumeration: [kiyәla, -a](b) Derivation: [[[Siri eekә [Nimal-Tә]-dә[iQu,uFoc] dunn v*P] dunn–a TP] kiyәla CP]
At the point at which the C head kiyәla is Merged, the Qu-morpheme is contained within the v*
complement that is about to be sent to Spell-Out. Thus, at this point, the Qu/Focus-feature bundle‘[iQu,uFoc]’ is reinserted into the sub-numeration, as shown in (20a), and then Merged at the edge of theCP (20b). I propose that out of the need for the subnumeration to be emptied, the Qu/Focus feature bundle
adjoins to the CP edge. There is no feature checking that results from this adjunction operation since theembedded C has no uninterpertable features that need to be checked - its uTyp feature has been valued bykiyәla ‘that’.
(20) (a) (a) Subnumeration: [[iQu,uFoc]](b) Derivation: [[[Siri eekә [Nimal-Tә]-dә[iQu,uFoc] dunn v*P] dunn-a TP] kiyәla+[iQu,uFoc] CP]
The matrix v*P subnumeration is shown in (21a) followed by the resulting v*P that is formed after Mergeof the LIs in (21b).
(21) (a) Subnumeration: [Gunee, kivv](b) [Gunee [[[Siri eekә [Nimal-Tә]-dә[iQu,uFoc] dunn v*P] dunn-a TP] kiyәla+[iQu,uFoc] CP] kivv v*P]
The subnumeration of the matrix CP is shown in (22a), followed by the derivation that results from
Merge of the LIs in (22b).
(22) (a) [C[iScp,uTyp], T](b) [[[Gunee [[[Siri eekә [Nimal-Tә]-dә[iQu,uFoc] dunnv*P] dunn-a TP] kiyәla+[iQu,uFoc] CP] kivvv*P]
kivv TP] C[iScp,uTyp] CP]
At the point at which the matrix C is Merged, the Qu-feature bundle ‘[iQu,uFoc]’ again undergoes Last

Resort reinsertion into the subnumeration, as shown in (23a). The Last Resort operation occurs because
the feature bundle still contains an uninterpretable feature, uFoc, and it is contained within an elementthat is about to be sent to Spell-Out, the complement of the matrix v*. Then the feature bundle is selected
and Merged as shown in (23b).
(23) (a) Subnumeration: [[iQu, uFoc]](b) [[[Gunee [[[Siri eekә [Nimal-Tә]-dә[iQu,uFoc] dunnv*P] dunn-a TP] kiyәla+[iQu,uFoc] CP] kivv v*P]
kivv TP] -e[iQu,vFoc +iScp,vTyp] CP]
The derivation converges because the Qu/Focus feature bundle and C undergo a successful featurechecking relation (the uTyp feature and uFoc features are valued). The Qu/Focus feature bundle ispronounced as –e ‘-E’.
In this manner, a Last Resort process enables the Qu/Focus-feature bundle to move from a TPinternal position to a clause peripheral position without violating the constraints imposed by Phase
Theory. There is no need to postulate an EPP feature or other element at a Phase Edge to attract the
Qu/Focus-feature bundle. The feature bundle undergoes Last Resort reinsertion into the subnnumerationand then is re-Merged at a CP edge, without an EPP feature needed to attract it.

There is also no

violation of the Head Movement constraint (Travis 1984) or Minimal Link Condition (Chomsky 1995) 8
since the Qu/Focus-feature bundle never moves through an intervening filled position.

5. Related PhenomenaThis analysis also extends to other constructions in Sinhala as well as to similar phenomena in otherlanguages.
Other clausal typing morphemes in Sinhala can appear TP-internally and focus an adjacent phrase.
The following examples show that tamay ‘certainty’ can either appear in the clause periphery (24a) or
TP-internally (24b). When it occurs TP-internally in (24b), it focuses hetә ‘tomorrow’ in the same mannerthat a TP-internal Qu-morpheme does, as in (2c) above.
(24) (a) Gunәpaalә heTә

gallu

Gunapaala tomorrowyanәva-tamay?

Galle go-A-CERTAINTY‘It is for sure that Gunapala is going to Galle tomorrow.’(b) Gunәpaalә

heTә-tamay

gallu yanne?

Gunapaalatomorrow- CERTAINTY

Galle go.E

‘It is certainly tomorrow that Gunapala is going to Galle.’ (Sumangala 1992:131)
Also, lu ‘reportative,’ nee ‘tag question’ and yæ ‘dubitative’ can occur either clause peripherally or clauseinternally (cf. Sumangala 1992:131-132). These facts can be accounted for under the current analysis. The
8

The Head Movement Constraint and Minimal Link Condition account for certain intervention effects.
These rules are requirements that an element not move, nor be attracted over, an intervening element of thesame type.

relevant clausal-typing morpheme is base-generated in a position adjacent to a salient phrase. A Last
Resort process of reinsertion into the sub-numeration and re-Merge into the derivation results in clausal
typing and in the relevant phrase receiving a focus interpretation. In these cases, however, the clausal
typing morpheme contains a feature other than iQu that values the uTyp on C, thereby resulting in a noninterrogative clause.
There are also other languages that have similar phenomena – a Qu-morpheme can occur either in theclause periphery or in a TP-internal position. In Okinawan, mi can appear at the end of a clause to form a
yes/no construction (25a), or the Qu-morpheme ga can occur in a TP-internal position adjacent to afocused phrase (25b).
(25) (a) John-ga
John-NOM

ich-u-mi?
go-PRES-Qu‘Is John going?’(b) John-ga-ga

ich-u-ra?

John-NOM-Qu go-pres-RA‘I wonder if JOHN is going?’ (Miyara 2001:27)
In Premodern Japanese, the Qu-morpheme ya appears in clause-final position in (26a), and in (26b), it
appears in a TP-internal position.
(26) (a) Ware woMebasira-zu ya?

ACC TOP know-not.CONC Qu‘Don’t you know me?’ (Ise Monogaari, per Whitman 1997:165)(b) Ofotomo no
Otomo

Dainagon

GEN

φa

[tatu

no

councilor TOP dragon GEN

kubi

no

tama

ya]

torite oφasitaru?

head GEN

gem

Qu

take

come

‘Did Otomo-no-Dianagon get the gems on the dragon’s head?’ (Taketori Monogatari: 859,
per Whitman 1997:161)
The following examples are from Sateré-Mawé in which the Qu-morpheme apo can occur in a clausefinal (27a) or TP-internal position (27b).
(27) (a) Ere-ket kahato apo?
2s-sleep very Qu‘Do you sleep well?’(b) Etu-nug

kahu

teran

2s-make beautiful want

apo ui-yat?
Qu 1s-house‘Do you want to fix my house?’ (Summmer Institute of Linguistics 1978, per Brandon &Seki 1984:83-84)
Similarly, in Assuriní, the Qu-morpheme pa can occur clause finally (28a) or TP-internally (28b).

(28) (a) Karoa o-ata

a-ha

pa?

Karoa 3-hunt 3-go Qu‘Is Karoa hunting?’(b) Itasoa

pa

ere-reke?

Triangle Qu

2s-have

Do you have a triangle?’ (Nicholson 1978, per Brandon & Seki 1984:84)
Although I leave detailed analyses of these constructions for further investigation, the proposals presented
in this paper can account for these data. A clause-final Qu-morpheme lacks a uFoc feature and is Merged
directly in C. A Qu-morpheme with a uFoc feature is Merged in a position adjacent to a salient phrase,
and then a Qu/Focus-feature bundle separates from the Qu-morpheme and undergoes a Last Resort
process that enables it to be re-Merged in C.

6. Conclusion
This analysis accounts for the perplexing fact that the Sinhala Qu-morpheme dә is not confined to a single
position in a yes/no question in a way that is compatible with Phase Theory. The position of the Qumorpheme depends on whether or not it contains an uninterpretable Focus-feature uFoc. A Qu-morphemeof type (4a) contains a iQu but no uFoc. Thus, it is Merged directly in C, where its iQu values a uTypfeature, resulting in a yes/no construction. A Qu-morpheme of type (4b) contains both a iQu and a uFoc.
This Qu/Focus-feature bundle undergoes a Last Resort process of reinsertion into a subnumeration and reMerge into a derivation at a higher point, thereby enabling the iQu feature to value the uTyp on C and theuFoc to be valued by the iScp on C. This analysis thus shows that in some languages, such as Sinhala(and probably also in Okinawan, Premodern Japanese, Sateré-Mawé, Assuriní, etc.) there is, in certain
cases, a close connection between a clausal typing element and focus, whereby a Qu-morpheme contains
an uninterpretable Focus-feature. Further investigation could shed light on the nature of this connection
between focus and clausal typing. Lastly, I have examined languages (primarily Sinhala) that I propose
contain two types of Qu-morpheme (4a-b) that may occur in a yes/no construction. However, there may
be languages that only contain one of these types of Qu-morpheme. For example, in Japanese and Koreana Qu-morpheme is confined to the clause periphery, suggesting that only the Qu-morpheme of type (4a)may be present in a yes/no question. I leave this issue for further analysis.

References:

Aoun, Joseph, & Yen-hui Audrey Li. 1993. Wh-elements in situ: Syntax or LF. Linguistic Inquiry 24.199-238.

Brandon, Frank Roberts, & Lucy Ferreira Seki. 1984. Moving interrogatives without an initial +WH node in Tupí. In
Syntax and semantics, volume 16: The syntax of Native American Languages, ed. by Eung-do Cook & Donna B.
Gerdts, 77-103. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, Inc.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambrige, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1999. Derivation by phase. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics: MIT occasional papers inlinguistics number 18.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Steep by step, ed. By Roger Martin, David Michaels,& Juan Uriagereka, 89-155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic
structures, volume 3, ed. By Adriana Belletti, 104-131. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2006. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory; essays in honor of Jean- Roger
Vergnaud, ed. By Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero, & Maria-Luisa Zubizaretta, 133-166. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Gair, James W. 1970. Colloquial Sinhalese clause structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Gair, James W., & Lewlala Sumangala. 1991. What to focus in Sinhala. In The proceedings of the Eastern States
Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) ’91, 93-`08. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
Hagstrom, Paul. 1998. Decomposing questions. Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.
Katz, Jerrold, & Paul Postal. 1964. An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kishimoto, Hideki. 2005. Wh-in-situ and movement in Sinhala questions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
23.1-51.
Kiss, Katalan E. 1998. Identificational Focus versus Information Focus. Language 74.245-273.
May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miyara, Shinsho. 2001. Wh-questions in Okinawan. Linguistic Analysis 30.25-66.
Nicholson, V. C. 1978. Aspectos da lingual Assuriní. Brasília: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Sumangala, Lelwala. 1992. Long distance dependencies in Sinhala: The syntax of focus and WH questions. Cornell
University dissertation.
Summer Institue of Linguistics. 1978. Livro de frases Sateré-Mawé Português. Brasília: Summer Institute of
Linguistics.
Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
dissertation.
Whitman, John. 1997. Kakarimusubi from a comparative perspective. In Japanese/Korean linguistics 6, ed. By Ho
min Sohn & John Haig, 161-178. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.