Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part I Comparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part II Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- Part III Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- 19 Agreement and Concord
- 20 Head Dependencies
- 21 A-dependencies
- 22 Anaphoric Dependencies
- 23 The Comparative Syntax of Nominal Quantifiers
- 24 Ā-dependencies and Successive Cyclic Movement
- 25 From Interrogatives to Relatives
- Part IV Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
25 - From Interrogatives to Relatives
A Comprehensive Account of wh-Constructions
from Part III - Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2026
By
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language And Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 The Comparative Syntactic Enterprise
- Part I Comparative Syntax: Theory, Methodology, and Data Collection
- Part II Comparative Syntax: Building Blocks and Combinatorial Properties
- Part III Comparative Syntax: Dependency Relations and Dependency Marking
- 19 Agreement and Concord
- 20 Head Dependencies
- 21 A-dependencies
- 22 Anaphoric Dependencies
- 23 The Comparative Syntax of Nominal Quantifiers
- 24 Ā-dependencies and Successive Cyclic Movement
- 25 From Interrogatives to Relatives
- Part IV Comparative Syntax: Interfaces
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter looks at the mutual relationships among a number of types of wh-constructions. I propose that wh-constructions (and wh-words) are organized in what I call a wh-hierarchy – beginning with simplest wh-interrogatives, going via (un)conditionals and correlatives, free relatives, and light-headed relatives, and finishing with the most complex headed relatives. This hierarchy is claimed to follow from an incremental structural growth of wh-words, mirroring the growth of the respective wh-clauses (Foc-Top-Rel-Mod). The hierarchy receives empirical support from many grammatical and linguistic domains, particularly morphology (wh-word lexicalization patterns), syntax (wh-in-situ vs. ex-situ, structural height of the wh-movement landing site), typology (cross-linguistic availability of wh-words in the individual constructions), diachrony, and L1 acquisition. The chapter builds on data from a range of genealogically and geographically distant languages, including Indo-European, Uralic, Caucasian, Mesoamerican, and Papuan.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Comparative Syntax , pp. 824 - 866Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Abenina-Adar, M. 2019. Know whether and -ever free relatives. Semantics and Pragmatics 12(19): 1–46. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.12.19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, D., and Ramchand, G.. 2005. Merge and move: Wh-dependencies revisited. Linguistic Inquiry 36(2): 161–193. https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389053710729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguilar-Guevara, A., Aloni, M., Port, A., Šimík, R., de Vos, M., and Zeijlstra, H.. 2011. Semantics and pragmatics of indefinites: Methodology for a synchronic and diachronic corpus study. In Dipper, S. and Zinsmeister, H. (eds.), Bochumer Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 3: Proceedings of the workshop Beyond semantics: Corpus-based investigations of pragmatic and discourse phenomena, 1–16. Bochum. www.linguistics.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/bla/.Google Scholar
Aloni, M. 2007. Free choice and exhaustification: An account of subtrigging effects. In Puig-Waldmüller, E. (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, 16–30. Barcelona: Pompeu Fabra University. https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2007.v11i0.628.Google Scholar
Andrews, A. D. L. 1975. Studies in the Syntax of Relative and Comparative Clauses. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Antonio-Ramos, P. 2021. Headless relative clauses in San Pedro Mixtepec Zapotec. In Caponigro, et al. (eds.), 221–259.Google Scholar
Arkadiev, P. 2020. Syntax in morphological guise: Interrogative verbal morphology in Abaza. Linguistic Typology 24(2): 211–251. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2020-5004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arkadiev, P., and Caponigro, I.. 2021. Conveying content questions without wh-words: Evidence from Abaza. In Grosz, P. G., Martí, L., Pearson, H., Sudo, Y., and Zobel, S. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 25, 73–94. London: University College London, and Queen Mary University of London. https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2021.v25i0.925.Google Scholar
Assmann, A. 2014. Case stacking in nanosyntax. In Assmann, A., Bank, S., Georgi, D., Klein, T., Weisser, P., and Zimmermann, E. (eds.), Topics at InfL [Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 92], 153–196. Leipzig: University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Bacskai-Atkari, J., and Dékány, É.. 2021. Cyclic changes in Hungarian relative clauses. In Jónsson, J. G. and Eythórsson, T. (eds.), Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Change, 1–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Balusu, R. 2017. Free choice relatives in Telugu. In Hohaus, V. and Rothe, W. (eds.), Proceedings of TripleA 3: Fieldwork Perspectives on the Semantics of African, Asian, and Austronesian Languages, 70–84. Tübingen: Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen. https://doi.org/10.15496/publikation-15364.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S., Koeneman, O., and Lekakou, M.. 2010. Syntactic doubling and the structure of wh-chains. Journal of Linguistics 46(1): 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226709990181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassi, I., Hirsch, A., and Trinh, T.. 2022. Pre-DP only is a propositional operator at LF: A new argument from ellipsis. In Starr, J. R., Kim, J., and Öney, B. (eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, 814–830. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v1i0.5358.Google Scholar
Bauer, J. 1960. Vývoj českého souvĕtí [Studie a práce lingvistické 4]. Prague: Nakladatelství Československé akademie ved.Google Scholar
Beck, S. 2006. Intervention effects follow from focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 14(1): 1–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-005-4532-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belyaev, O., and Haug, D.. 2020. The genesis and typology of correlatives. Language 96(4): 874–907. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2020.0065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benincà, P. 2001. The position of topic and focus in the left periphery. In Cinque, G. and Salvi, G. (eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi, 39–64. Amsterdam: North Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertollo, S., and Cavallo, G.. 2012. The syntax of Italian free relative clauses: An analysis. In Baunaz, L. and Socanac, T. (eds.), Generative Grammar in Geneva 8, 59–76. http://www.unige.ch/lettres/linge/syntaxe/journal/volume_huit_2012.html.Google Scholar
Bertrand, N. 2023. When phonology outranks syntax: Postponed relative pronouns in Pindar. Glossa: a Journal of General Linguistics 8(1). https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.9842.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. 2003. Locality in correlatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21(3): 485–541. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024192606485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, R. 2011. Hindi–Urdu Unconditionals with caahe. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
Bianchi, V. 2000. Some issues in the syntax of relative determiners. In Alexiadou, A., Law, P., Meinunger, A., and Wilder, C. (eds.), The Syntax of Relative Clauses, 53–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.32.02bia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bittner, M. 2001. Topical referents for individuals and possibilities. In Hastings, R., Jackson, B., and Zvolenszky, Z. (eds.), SALT 11: Proceedings from the 11th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 36–55. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v11i0.2854.Google Scholar
Bjorkman, B. M., and Zeijlstra, H.. 2019. Checking up on (ϕ)-Agree. Linguistic Inquiry 50(3): 527–569. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, J., and Wurmbrand, S.. 2015. Questions with declarative syntax tell us what about selection? In Gallego, Á. and Ott, D. (eds.), 50 Years Later: Reflections on Chomsky’s Aspects [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 77]. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Borise, L. 2023. The syntax of wh-phrases, narrow foci, and neg-words in Georgian. The Linguistic Review 40(2): 173–215. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2023-2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branan, K., and Erlewine, M. Y.. 2023. Anti-pied-piping. Language 99(3): 603–653. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2023.a907013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brasoveanu, A. 2008. Uniqueness effects in correlatives. In Grønn, A. (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12, 47–65. Oslo: ILOS.Google Scholar
Brasoveanu, A. 2012. Correlatives. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. 1968. The development of wh questions in child speech. Journal of Verbal Learning and Behavior 7(2): 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(68)80002-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, J. 2004. Phase Structure, Phrase Structure, and Quantification. PhD dissertation, University of York, UK.Google Scholar
Bylinina, E., and Testelets, Y.. 2005. Sluicing-based indefinites in Russian. In Franks, S., Gladney, F., and Tasseva-Kurktchieva, M. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 13: The South Carolina Meeting 2004, 355–364. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Bücking, S. 2021. The grammar of PP-like free relatives: Evidence from subordinate wo-clauses in German. Linguistic Inquiry 53(4): 753–779. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cable, S. 2005. Free Relatives in Tlingit and Haida: Evidence That the Mover Projects. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Cable, S. 2008. Wh-Fronting in Hungarian Is Not Focus-Fronting. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Cable, S. 2010. The Grammar of Q: Q-Particles, wh-Movement, and Pied-Piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caponigro, I. 2003. Free Not to Ask: On the Semantics of Free Relatives and Wh-Words Cross-Linguistically. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Caponigro, I. 2019. In defense of what(ever) free relative clauses they dismiss: A reply to Donati and Cecchetto (2011). Linguistic Inquiry 50(2): 356–371. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caponigro, I. 2021. Introducing headless relative clauses and the findings from Mesoamerican languages. In Caponigro, et al. (eds.), 1–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197518373.003.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caponigro, I. in press. Still free to have a wh-phrase: A reply to Donati, Foppolo, Konrad, and Cecchetto 2022. Linguistic Inquiry advance publication. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caponigro, I., and Fălăuş, A.. 2019. (Re)introducing multiple wh-constructions: Where we were, how we proceeded, what still needs to be taken care of. Introductory lecture at the Workshop on Complex Multiple wh-Constructions, Nantes, November 2019.Google Scholar
Caponigro, I., Torrence, H., and Zavala, R. (eds.). 2021. Headless Relative Clauses in Mesoamerican Languages. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, A., and Starke, M.. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: On the three grammatical classes. In van Riemsdijk, H. (ed.), Clitics in the Languages of Europe, 145–290. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. L.-S. 1991. On the Typology of wh-Questions. PhD dissertation, MIT. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/13938.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. 2006. Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the “logicality” of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37(4): 535–590. www.jstor.org/stable/4179384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. 2013. Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G., and Caponigro, I.. 2013. Questions on questions and free relatives. Presented at Sinn und Bedeutung 18, University of the Basque Country, September 2013.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1977. On wh-movement. In Culicover, P. W., Wasow, T., and Akmajian, A. (eds.), Formal Syntax, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chung, S., and Ladusaw, W. A.. 2006. Chamorro evidence for compositional asymmetry. Natural Language Semantics 14(4): 325–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-007-9007-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 2020. The Syntax of Relative Clauses: A Unified Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citko, B. 2004. On headed, headless, and light-headed relatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22(1): 95–126. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NALA.0000005564.33961.e0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clancy, P., Jacobsen, T., and Silva, M.. 1976. The acquisition of conjunction: A crosslinguistic study. In Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 12, 71–80. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1998. Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design 1. 59–85. http://elies.rediris.es/Language_Design/LD1/comrie.pdf.Google Scholar
Daskalaki, E. 2020. Types of relative pronouns. In Bárány, A., Biberauer, T., Douglas, J., and Vikner, S. (eds.), Syntactic Architecture and Its Consequences II: Between Syntax and Morphology, 277–296. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4280653.Google Scholar
Dayal, V. 1996. Locality in wh-Quantification: Questions and Relative Clauses in Hindi [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 62]. Dordrecht: Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4808-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, V. 1997. Free relatives and ever: Identity and free choice readings. In Lawson, A. (ed.), SALT 7: Proceedings from the 7th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 99–116. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v7i0.2787.Google Scholar
Dayal, V. 2004. Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27(4): 393–450. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:ling.0000024420.80324.67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Déchaine, R.-M., and Wiltschko, M.. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33(3): 409–442. www.jstor.org/stable/4179198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dékány, É., Gugán, K., and Tánczos, O.. 2020. Contact-induced change in Surgut Khanty relative clauses. Folia Linguistica 54(1): 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2020-2026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Del Gobbo, F. 2003. Appositives at the Interface. PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Demirdache, H. 1991. Resumptive Chains in Restrictive Relatives, Appositives, and Dislocation Structures. PhD dissertation, MIT. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/13518.Google Scholar
Demirok, Ö. 2017a. A compositional semantics for Turkish correlatives. In Kaplan, A., Kaplan, A., McCarvel, M. K., and Rubin, E. J. (eds.), WCCFL 34: Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 159–166. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. http://lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/34/paper3308.pdf.Google Scholar
Demirok, Ö. 2017b. Free relatives and correlatives in wh-in-situ. In Lamont, A. and Tetzloff, K. (eds.), NELS 47: Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. 2004. The Acquisition of Complex Sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döhler, C. 2018. A Grammar of Komnzo [Studies in Diversity Linguistics 22]. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1477799.Google Scholar
Donati, C., and Cecchetto, C.. 2011. Relabeling heads: A unified account for relativization structures. Linguistic Inquiry 42(4): 519–560. https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donati, C., Foppolo, F., Konrad, I., and Cecchetto, C.. 2022. Whatever his arguments, whatever-relatives are not free relatives: A reply to Caponigro’s reply. Linguistic Inquiry 53(3): 522–550. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00413.Google Scholar
Dryer, M. S. 2013. Position of interrogative phrases in content questions. In Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, ch. 93. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/93.Google Scholar
Duncan, P. T. 2022. Documenting what’s in almost every narrative: Free relative clauses in Kiksht. International Journal of American Linguistics 88(3): 271–323. https://doi.org/10.1086/719842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, R. 2007. Inherent focus on wh-phrases. In Puig-Waldmüller, E. (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, 209–228. Barcelona: Pompeu Fabra University.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, K. 2002. The Syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fălăuş, A., and Nicolae, A.. 2022. Additive free choice items in unconditionals. Natural Language Semantics 30(2): 185–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-022-09192-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, K. 2000. Whatever. In Jackson, B. and Matthews, T. (eds.), SALT 10: Proceedings from the 10th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 27–39. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v10i0.3101.Google Scholar
Flynn, S., and Foley, C.. 2004. On the developmental primacy of free relatives. In Csirmaz, A., Gualmini, A., and Nevins, A. (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 48: Plato’s Problem: Problems in Language Acquisition, 59–69. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Flynn, S., and Lust, B.. 1980. Acquisition of relative clauses: Developmental changes and their heads. In Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 1, 33–45. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Friedmann, N., Belletti, A., and Rizzi, L.. 2021. Growing trees: The acquisition of the left periphery. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 6(1): 131. https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5877.Google Scholar
Fuß, E., and Grewendorf, G.. 2014. Freie Relativsätze mit d-Pronomen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 33(2): 165–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawron, J. M., and Harada, Y.. 1996. Indefinites, conditionals, and quantification. In Nakagawa, H. (ed.), A Cognitive Study of Situatedness in English and Japanese: Toward a Flexible Natural Language Processing Systems, 81–96. Yokohama National University.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, A., and Cheng, L. L.-S.. 2006. (In)definiteness, polarity, and the role of wh-morphology in free choice. Journal of Semantics 23(2): 135–183. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffl001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, N., and Truswell, R.. 2020. Which-hunting in Medieval England. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 65(3): 326–349. https://doi.org/10.1017/cnj.2020.11.Google Scholar
Grohmann, K. K. 2006. Top issues in questions: Topics, topicalization, topicalizability. In Cheng, L. L.-S. and Corver, N. (eds.), Wh-Movement: Moving On, 249–288. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grosu, A. 2016. The semantics, syntax, and morphology of transparent free relatives revisited: A comparison of two approaches. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34(4): 1245–1280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-016-9333-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haida, A. 2007. The Indefiniteness and Focusing of Question Wh-Words. PhD dissertation, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, D. P., and Caponigro, I.. 2011. On the semantics of temporal when-clauses. In Li, N. and Lutz, D. (eds.), SALT 20: Proceedings from the 20th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 544–563. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v20i0.2566.Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10(1): 41–53. www.jstor.org/stable/25000703.Google Scholar
Hanink, E. A. 2021. DP structure and internally headed relatives in Washo. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 39(2): 505–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-020-09482-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198235606.001.0001.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1998. How young is Standard Average European? Language Sciences 20(3): 271–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(98)00004-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haudry, J. 1973. Parataxe, hypotaxe et corrélation dans la phrase latine. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 68: 147–186.Google Scholar
Heine, B., and Kuteva, T.. 2006. The Changing Languages of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199297337.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, K., Iatridou, S., and Roelofsen, F.. 2023. Quexistentials and focus. Linguistic Inquiry 54(3): 571–624. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiraiwa, K. 2020. The origin and architecture of existential indeterminates in Okinawan. In Farrell, P. (ed.), Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 5(1), 384–394. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America. https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v5i1.4705.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, K., and Nakanishi, K.. 2021. Japanese free choice and existential indeterminates as hidden clauses. In Sinitsyna, J. and Tatevosov, S. (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 93: Proceedings of the 15th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL15), 45–58. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Hirsch, A. 2016. A compositional semantics for wh-ever free relatives. In Bade, N., Berezovskaya, P., and Schöller, A. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 20, 341–358. http://semanticsarchive.net/sub2015/SeparateArticles/Hirsch-SuB20.pdf.Google Scholar
Hladnik, M. 2015. Mind the Gap: Resumption in Slavic Relative Clauses. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University. www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/390_fulltext.pdf.Google Scholar
Hoffner, H. A., and Melchert, H. C.. 2008. A Grammar of the Hittite Language, Part 1: Reference Grammar. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Horvath, J. 2013. Focus, exhaustivity, and the syntax of wh-interrogatives: The case of Hungarian. In Brandtler, J., Molnár, V., and Platzack, C. (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 13: Papers from the 2011 Lund Conference, 97–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.13.06hor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huggard, M. 2011. On wh-(non-)movement and internal structures of the Hittite preposed relative clause. In Jamison, S. W., Melchert, H. C., and Vine, B. (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, 83–104. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
Huggard, M. 2015. Wh-Words in Hittite: A Study in Syntax–Semantics and Syntax–Phonology Interfaces. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1gb9f3dg.Google Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. A. 2001. Questions and question-word incorporating quantifiers in Malayalam. Syntax 4(2): 63–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, L. 1977. Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(1): 3–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00351935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katis, D. 1997. The emergence of conditionals in child language: Are they really so late? In Athanasiadou, A. and Dirven, R. (eds.), On Conditionals Again, 355–386. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.143.20kat.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J. J., and Postal, P. M.. 1964. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. L., and Comrie, B.. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63–99. www.jstor.org/stable/4177973.Google Scholar
Kellert, O. 2018. Questions with definite markers in (Old) Romance, with focus on Old Spanish. Isogloss 4(1): 55–84. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/isogloss.56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenesei, I. 1994. Subordinate clauses. In Kiefer, F. and Kiss, K. É (eds.), The Syntactic Structure of Hungarian: Syntax and Semantics, 275–354. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1995. Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax. In Battye, A. and Roberts, I. (eds.), Clause Structure and Language Change [Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax], 140–167. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluge, A. 2017. A Grammar of Papuan Malay [Studies in Diversity Linguistics 11]. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.376415.Google Scholar
Kondrashova, N., and Šimík, R.. 2013. Quantificational properties of neg-wh items in Russian. In Kan, S., Moore-Cantwell, C., and Staubs, R. (eds.), NELS 40: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 2, 15–28. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Kotek, H. 2016. Covert partial wh-movement and the nature of derivations. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1(1): 25. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.49.Google Scholar
Kotek, H., and Erlewine, M. Y.. 2016. Unifying definite and indefinite free relatives: Evidence from Mayan. In Hammerly, C. and Prickett, B. (eds.), NELS 38: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 2, 241–254. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Kotek, H., and Erlewine, M. Y.. 2018. Non-interrogative wh-constructions in Chuj (Mayan). In Keough, M., Weber, N., Anghelescu, A., Chen, S., Guntly, E., Johnson, K., Reisinger, D., and Tkachman, O. (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Structure and Constituency of the Languages of the Americas (WSCLA) 21, 101–115. University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1991. The representation of focus. In von Stechow, A. and Wunderlich, D. (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, 825–834. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110126969.10.825.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A., and Shimoyama, J.. 2002. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Otsu, Y. (ed.), Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics, 1–25. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A., and Shimoyama, J.. 2017. Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Lee, C., Kiefer, F., and Krifka, M. (eds.), Contrastiveness in Information Structure, Alternatives and Scalar Implicatures [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 91], 123–143. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10106-4_7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labelle, M. 1990. Predication, wh-movement, and the development of relative clauses. Language Acquisition 1(1): 95–119. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la0101_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, K.-O. 1991. On the First Language Acquisition of Relative Clauses in Korean: The Universal Structure of COMP. PhD dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. 1984. Der Relativsatz: Typologie seiner Strukturen – Theorie seiner Funktionen – Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Lipták, A. 2004. On the correlative nature of Hungarian left-peripheral relatives. In Shaer, B., Frey, W., and Maienborn, C. (eds.), ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35: Proceedings of the Dislocated Elements Workshop, 287–313. Berlin: Zentrum für allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Lipták, A., and Aboh, E.. 2013. Sluicing inside relatives: The case of Gungbe. In Aalberse, S. and Auer, A. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2013, 102–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.30.08lip.Google Scholar
Liu, M. 2016. Mandarin wh-conditionals as interrogative conditionals. In Moroney, M., Little, C.-R., Collard, J., and Burgdorf, D. (eds.), SALT 26: Proceedings from the 26th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 814–835. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v26i0.3955.Google Scholar
Luo, Q.-P., and Crain, S.. 2011. Do Chinese wh-conditionals have relatives in other languages? Language and Linguistics 12(4): 753–798.Google Scholar
Lyutikova, E., and Sideltsev, A.. 2023. Relative construction in Hittite: A corpus-based case study in syntax–prosody interface. Journal of Historical Linguistics 13(3): 375–460. https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.22014.lyu.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahajan, A. 2000. Relative asymmetries in Hindi correlatives. In Alexiadou, A., Law, P., Meinunger, A., and Wilder, C. (eds.), The Syntax of Relative Clauses, 201–229. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marušič, F., Mišmaš, P., Plesničar, V., and Šuligoj, T.. 2018. Surviving sluicing. In Lenertová, D., Meyer, R., Šimík, R., and Szucsich, L. (eds.), Advances in Formal Slavic Linguistics 2016, 193–215. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2545523.Google Scholar
Menéndez-Benito, P. 2005. The Grammar of Choice. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/AAI3193926.Google Scholar
Meyer, R. 2017. The C system of relatives and complement clauses in the history of Slavic languages. Language 93(2): e97–e113. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mihoc, T. 2021. Aspectual Operators: Temporality, Evaluativity, and Polarity Sensitivity. Ms., Canonical. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/006213.Google Scholar
Mitrenina, O. V. 2012. The syntax of pseudo-correlative constructions with the pronoun kotoryj (“which”) in Middle Russian. Slověne 1(1): 61–73. https://doi.org/10.31168/2305-6754.2012.1.1.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitrović, M. 2016. A relative syntax and semantics for Slovenian. In Marušič, F. and Žaucer, R. (eds.), Formal Studies in Slovenian Syntax: In Honor of Janez Orešnik, 221–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/la.236.10mit.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Packard, J. L. 1988. The first language acquisition of prenominal modification with de in Mandarin. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 16(1): 31–54.Google Scholar
Pancheva Izvorski, R. 2000. Free Relatives and Related Matters. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. https://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI9965537.Google Scholar
Pankau, A. 2018. The matching analysis of relative clauses: An argument from anti-pronominal contexts. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 21(2): 189–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-018-9097-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, G., and Caponigro, I.. 2016. The puzzling degraded status of who free relative clauses in English. English Language and Linguistics 20(2): 341–352. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674315000325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 2007. Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories. Paper presented at the Leipzig-Harvard Workshop on Morphology and Argument Encoding. Ms., MIT. https://home.uni-leipzig.de/jtrommer/Harvard/pesetsky.pdf.Google Scholar
Polian, G., and Aissen, J.. 2021. Headless relative clauses in Tseltalan. In Caponigro, et al. (eds.), 403–443. https://people.ucsc.edu/~aissen/PUBLICATIONS/headless.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, M. 2015. Tsez Syntax: A Description. Ms., University of Maryland. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002315.Google Scholar
Probert, P. 2015. Early Greek Relative Clauses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, G. 1997. Questions, polarity, and alternative semantics. In NELS 27: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 383–396. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Rawlins, K. 2013. (Un)conditionals. Natural Language Semantics 40(2): 111–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-012-9087-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reilly, J. S. 1982. The Acquisition of Conditionals in English. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Reilly, J. S. 1986. The acquisition of temporals and conditionals. In Traugott, E. C., ter Meulen, A., Reilly, J. S., and Ferguson, C. A. (eds.), On Conditionals, 309–331. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. 1998. Wh-in-situ in the framework of the Minimalist Program. Natural Language Semantics 6(1): 29–56. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008240014550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Riemsdijk, H. 2017. Free relatives. In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd ed., ch. 116. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom116.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar: A Handbook of Generative Syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. 2001. On the position of “int(errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause. In Cinque, G. and Salvi, G. (eds.), Current Studies in Italian Syntax: Essays Offered to Lorenzo Renzi, 267–296. Oxford: Elsevier North-Holland.Google Scholar
Romero, M., and Meertens, E.. 2022. Q-particles and islands in Sinhala wh- and polar questions. Acta Linguistica Academica 69(1): 104–127. https://doi.org/10.1556/2062.2022.00470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudin, C. 2009. The Bulgarian relative marker -to. In Franks, S., Chidambaram, V., and Joseph, B. (eds.), A Linguist’s Linguist: Studies in South Slavic Linguistics in Honor of E. Wayles Browne, 403–422. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Ruys, E. 2023. On the semantics of wh-. In Onoeva, M., Staňková, A., and Šimík, R. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 27, 554–570. Prague: Charles University. https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2023.v27.1086.Google Scholar
Rybová, M. 2023. Die Beziehung zwischen Evaluativität und Indefinitheit am Beispiel der zusammengesetzten Indefinitpronomina im Tschechischen. PhD dissertation, University of Regensburg / Charles University, Prague.Google Scholar
Sabel, J. 1998. Principles and Parameters of Wh-Movement. PhD. thesis, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University.Google Scholar
Salzmann, M. 2019. A new version of the matching analysis of relative clauses: Combining deletion under recoverability with vehicle change. In Krifka, M. and Schenner, M. (eds.), Reconstruction Effects in Relative Clauses [Studia Grammatica 75], 187–224. Berlin: de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783050095158-006.Google Scholar
Schwartz, A. 1971. General aspects of relative clause formation. In Working Papers on Language Universals 6, 139–171. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED094567.Google Scholar
Sharma, V. 1974. A Linguistic Study of Speech Development in Early Childhood. PhD dissertation, Agra University.Google Scholar
Siegel, J. 2019. The relative pronoun strategy: New data from southern New Guinea. Studies in Language 43(4): 997–1014. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.18040.sie.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šimík, R. 2008. Specificity in (Czech) relative clauses. In Witkoś, J. and Fanselow, G. (eds.), Elements of Slavic and Germanic Grammars: A Comparative View, 177–198. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Šimík, R. 2009. Hamblin pronouns in modal existential wh-constructions. In Babyonyshev, M., Kavitskaya, D., and Reich, J. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL) 17: The Yale Meeting 2008, 187–202. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Šimík, R. 2011. Modal Existential Wh-Constructions. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen. www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/269_fulltext.pdf.Google Scholar
Šimík, R. 2013. Modal existential wh-constructions as affordance descriptions. In Chemla, E., Homer, V., and Winterstein, G. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 17, 563–580. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/Dk3NGEwY/Simik.pdf.Google Scholar
Šimík, R. 2016. On the semantics of Czech free relatives. In Ziková, M. and Caha, P. (eds.), Linguistica Brunensia 64/1: Festschrift for Petr Karlík, 109–129. Brno: Masaryk University. https://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/135453.Google Scholar
Šimík, R. 2018. Ever free relatives crosslinguistically. In Sauerland, U. and Solt, S. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 22, vol. 2, 375–392. Berlin: Leibniz-Center General Linguistics. https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/sub/index.php/sub/article/view/112.Google Scholar
Šimík, R. 2020. Doubling unconditionals and relative sluicing. Natural Language Semantics 28(1): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-019-09157-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šimík, R. 2021. Free relatives. In Gutzmann, D., Matthewson, L., Meier, C., Rullmann, H., and Zimmermann, T. E. (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Semantics, vol. 2, 1033–1070. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118788516.sem093.Google Scholar
Šimík, R., Matiasovitsová, K., and Smolík, F.. 2023. From correlativization to relativization: A view from Czech L1-acquisition. In Gappmayr, P. and Kellogg, J. (eds.), BUCLD 47: Proceedings of the 47th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, vol. 2, 702–714. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. www.lingref.com/bucld/47/BUCLD47-56.pdf.Google Scholar
Šimík, R. K. Matiasovitsová, and Smolík, F.. 2024. Wh-word acquisition in Czech: Exploring the growing trees hypothesis. Language Acquisition. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2024.2366804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sportiche, D. 2005. Division of labor between merge and move: Strict locality of selection and apparent reconstruction paradoxes. In Proceedings of the Workshop Divisions of Linguistic Labor, The La Bretesche Workshop, UCLA.Google Scholar
Srivastav, V. 1991a. Subjacency effects at LF: The case of Hindi wh. Linguistic Inquiry 22(4): 762–769. www.jstor.org/stable/4178751.Google Scholar
Srivastav, V. 1991b. The syntax and semantics of correlatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9(4): 637–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starke, M. 2001. Move Dissolves into Merge: A Theory of Locality. PhD dissertation, University of Geneva. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000002.Google Scholar
Starke, M. 2009. Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language. In Svenonius, P., Ramchand, G., Starke, M., and Taraldsen, K. T. (eds.), Tromsø Working Papers on Language and Linguistics: Nordlyd 36.1 [Special issue on nanosyntax], 1–6. Tromsø: CASTL. www.ub.uit.no/baser/nordlyd.Google Scholar
Starke, M. 2018. Complex left branches, spellout, and prefixes. In Baunaz, L., Haegeman, L., De Clercq, K., and Lander, E. (eds.), Exploring Nanosyntax, 239–249. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190876746.003.0009.Google Scholar
Stepanov, A. 1998. On wh-fronting in Russian. In Tamayi, P. and Kusumoto, K. (eds.), NELS 28: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 453–467. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. 2019. Unconditionals and free choice unified. In Blake, K., Davis, F., Lamp, K., and Rhyne, J. (eds.), SALT 29: Proceedings of the 29th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, 320–340. Washington, DC: Linguistic Society of America. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v29i0.4616.Google Scholar
Thornton, R. 2016. Acquisition of questions. In Lidz, J. L., Snyder, W., and Pater, J. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Developmental Linguistics, 310–340. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199601264.013.14.Google Scholar
Tredinnick, V. 2005. On the Semantics of Free Relatives with -ever. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Urbańczyk, S. 1935. Wyparcie staropolskiego względnego jen, jenze przez pier pierwotniepytajne który [Rozpray wydziału filologicznego 65]. Nakład Polskiej Akademji Umiejętności.Google Scholar
de Vries, M. 2002. The Syntax of Relativization. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam. www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/053_fulltext.pdf.Google Scholar
de Vries, M. 2005. The fall and rise of universals on relativization. Journal of Universal Language 6(1): 125–157. https://doi.org/10.22425/jul.2005.6.1.125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiland, B. 2009. Aspects of Order Preservation in Polish and English. PhD dissertation, University of Poznań. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000906.Google Scholar
Wiland, B. 2018. A note on lexicalizing ‘what’ and ‘who’ in Russian and Polish. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 54(4): 573–604. https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2018-0023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiang, Y. 2021. A hybrid categorial approach to question composition. Linguistics and Philosophy 44(3): 587–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-020-09294-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yagi, Y. 2022. Unifying concessives and unconditionals in Japanese. In Benz, J. and Chen, Y. (eds.), University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 28(1): Proceedings of the 45th Annual Penn Linguistics Conference, Article 24. Philadelphia, PA: Penn Graduate Linguistics Society. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol28/iss1/24.Google Scholar
Yanovich, I. 2005. Choice-functional series of indefinites and Hamblin semantics. In Georgala, E. and Howell, J. (eds.), SALT 15: Proceedings from the 15th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 309–326. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. https://doi.org/10.3765/salt.v15i0.2921.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, H. 2004. Sentential Negation and Negative Concord. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam dissertation. www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/101_fulltext.pdf.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, H. 2007. Modal concord is syntactic agreement. In Friedman, T. and Gibson, M. (eds.), SALT 17: Proceedings from the 17th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 317–332. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, M. 2018. Embedded questions and concealed relative questions in Hausa and Akan. In Bogal-Allbritten, E. and Coppock, E. (eds.), Proceedings of TripleA 4, 1–16. Tübingen: University of Tübingen. https://doi.org/10.15496/publikation-24505.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter
complies with version 2.2 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range
of users and attains the highest
(AAA)
level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive
accessibility guidelines.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
Visual Accessibility
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.