Syntax of Kam Questions in Taiwanese

[[abstract]]This thesis deals with the issue of Taiwanese k?m questions, including their syntax and question type. I study the distribution of k?m on the basis of the rigid order of k?m preceding the focus marker s?. By this method, I eschew the incompatibility of k?m and high adverbs and reveal that, contrary to what is prevalently held in the literature, k?m occupies a relatively high syntactic position in CP domain. On the other hand, I also demonstrate that low positions in which k?m appears in a word string are consequences of topicalization as a device for some constituents to escape the scope of focus. This analysis basically follows the proposals in which topicalization is taken as the major focus device in topic-prominent languages (refer to R. L. Cheng (1983) among others). As a result, I pinpoint Taiwanese k?m under MoodP (? la Boya Li 2006, also refer to Rizzi 1997, 2001). Regarding the question type, in addition to proposing that k?m occupies a distinct syntactic position, I further demonstrate that k?m behaves quite differently from A-not-A sequences and that k?m questions cannot be the alternative realization of A-not-AB questions (refer to Huang 1988b, 1991). Based on Tsai’s (2008) studies on wh-elements, I show that the long-distance scope dependency and island effects, observed by Huang (1988b, 1991), do not support the claim that k?m questions are wh-questions. Following R. L. Cheng (1997), Tang (1998, 1999), Crosland (1998), and Hsieh (2001), I propose that k?m questions are actually yes-no questions. Moreover, I point out that k?m questions are not peculiar among their peers by indicating that all yes-no questions share a common structure in which topicalization and the focus projection collaborate closely. Aside from the general categorization of questions, I also show that k?m exhibits a different relationship with focus from other yes-no question markers. Therefore, I suggest that k?m is base-generated under FocP as a focus operator before it moves to MoodP. To explain the ambiguous usage of k?m, I introduce two old rhetorical question markers in Taiwanese and posit that k?m was a pure neutral question marker before the obsolescence of its rhetorical sibling, k?n.