UCLA

This dissertation examines the formation of questions in Sm’algyax (Maritime Tsimshianic;ISO: tsi; British Columbia, Alaska) based on new fieldwork. The first part outlines the complex morphosyntactic reflexes of both local and long-distance Ā-movement, including wh-movement, relativization, and focus. Although Sm’algyax exhibits a rigidly ergative pattern in terms of number and person agreement, it shows a unique three-way distinction when extracting core arguments of a predicate. The extraction of an intran- sitive subject, a transitive subject, and a direct object are all marked differently. This reveals an underlying structural distinction between intransitive subjects and transitive objects that is not apparent when these elements remain in their in-situ positions. Moving beyond local movement, I show that long-distance movement is possible and exhibits the same morphosyntactic marking found in local movement in each intermediate clause. This provides clear evidence that cross-clausal movement does not occur in “one fell swoop”, but rather involves intermediate landing spots along the way (Chomsky, 1986, 2000; McCloskey, 2000; Chomsky, 2001; Rackowski & Richards, 2005; Chomsky, 2008; van Urk & Richards, 2015). The second part focuses on a unique set of markers in Sm’algyax—referred to as interrogative clitics—that appear in both wh-questions and polar questions. I show that they are sensitive to a root/non-root clause distinction: they may appear in root/matrix questions, but not embedded questions. Their appearance in matrix questions is sensitive to whether those questions are in some sense canonical questions or not. I analyze the interrogative clitics as operators that appear in a high, peripheral syntactic position, and select for an interrogative clausal complement. Finally, I turn to the linear positioning of the interrogative clitics in the clause, and show that they occupy a typologically rare second-last position. I show that appealing to the syntax, phonology, or a combination of syntax and phonology does not capture their distribution. Instead, I argue that the penultimate linearization implicates a distinct morphological component.