3.7 Constituent interrogative sentences
3.7.4 Constituent interrogatives in DGS
3.7.4.5 Syntactic analyses: two possiblities
wh
[which car]ipaultibuy [which car]i i. *%Initial complex wh+extraction:
*%
wh
[which car]ipaultibuy whichi
j. *%Final complex wh+extraction:
%*whichipaultibuy [which car]whi
The examples from (118a) to (118c) are, as discussed, the ones that could also con-tain awh-phrase contained in a PP (e.g., with who). Thus, it is clear that we need to provide two specifier positions. The bracketed temporal adverbs indicate the clause-initial position in declarative sentences. The structure in (118d) is the neutral way to ask a question containing a complexwh-phrase, (118e) shows a left-branch extraction, (118f) the illicit left-left-branch extraction. The example in (118g) shows a slightly marked, but grammatical construction with a clause-final com-plexwh-phrase. In (118h), the illicit doubling of a complexwh-phrase is illustrated and (118i) shows the possible doubling. Finally, (118j) shows that the opposite option with an extracted simple wh-element clause-initially and a clause-final complexwh-phrase is not a licit structure in DGS.
In the following I will propose two different models to account for the data in (118). The first model will follow the rightward-movement tradition and the second model will follow the Kayneian idea that the order specifier–head–com-plement is fixed (thus, all heads will be left-headed and all specifiers will also be to the left). Both accounts will need to make use of remnant movement.
3.7.4.5 Syntactic analyses: two possiblities
If we follow the van Craenenbroek model, we would assume that CP1, but not CP2is a possible host for complexwh-phrases. Similar to Strijen Dutch (see page 111), the general landing site for simplewh-phrases andwh-phrases contained in a PP is CP2. These assumptions will hold for both models.
I will first show how to implement this in a mixed-branching structure. SpecCP2 is right-branching in this model, aswh-phrases obviously occur to the right in DGS. In contrast to simplewh-phrases andwh-phrases contained in a PP, com-plex wh-phrases cannot be hosted in CP2 (again similar to Strijen Dutch), but are base-generated in CP1, that I take to be the mirror image of CP2, i.e., left-branching (note that I simply posit that the heads are on the same side as the specifiers in the following).
A simple constituent interrogative like beer buy who is then derived by mov-ing the wh-phrase who to SpecCP2, as shown in (119a). A clause-initial con-stituent interrogative like who beer buy is derived by first moving thewh-phrase who to SpecCP2and from there, in a cyclic fashion, to SpecCP1. In this case, the intermediate copy of who (in SpecCP2) is deleted. Additionally, it is possible to spell out this copy resulting in a doubling construction (who beer buy who).
These options are shown in (119b). The optional deletion of the copy in SpecCP2
is indicated by the gray color of thewh-phrase.
One advantage of this modeling possibility is that the more marked case, i.e.
sentences containing a clause-initial simplewh-phrase, needs an additional move-ment step (as well as the doubling construction which is generally more marked than awh-question with only onewh-phrase).
(119) a. CP1
The next step is to account for complexwh-phrases like which computer. Under the assumption that complexwh-phrases are base-generated in SpecCP1, we
sim-ply get the structure in (120a). Following van Craenenbroek’s ideas completely, one could assume empty operator movement in this case too. Additionally, it is possible to account for left-branch extraction, as shown in (120b). This case could be seen as an overt manifestation of the empty operator movement. Com-bining the two mechanisms results in the partial doubling found with complex wh-phrases (e.g., which computer paul buy which).
The structures in (120) also account for the ill-formedness of doubling in cases of complex wh-phrases, as there is only one possible host for this type of wh-phrase, namely SpecCP1. Left-branch extraction to the left, however, should be possible in principle. And indeed, it is (this would probably be cyclical as well).
However, extracting the operator to the left makes it adjacent to the first sign in the sentence that, in this case, leads to the odd reading ‘Which Paul is buying a computer?’
(120) a. CP1
SpecCP1
which computeri
C1
C1° CP2 C2 IP paul buy
C2°
SpecCP2 whoi
which computer paul buywh
b. CP1
SpecCP1
computeri
C1
C1° CP2 C2 IP
paulticomputer buy C2°
SpecCP2 whichi
paulticomputer buy whichwhi
The last thing to model is a clause-final complexwh-phrase. For this, an addi-tional remnant movement needs to be assumed. The tree in (121) shows how this could be implemented in the current model. It is, however, unclear into which position this movement would be, but one could assume that it is SpecForceP.
(121) ForceP SpecForceP
something here
Force
Force° CP1
SpecCP1
which computeri
C1
C1° CP2
C2
IP paultibuy
C2°
SpecCP2
whichi
The additional remnant movement is not that farfetched as the resulting structure is more marked than the clause-initial one. Thus, again, a marked structure is derived by an additional movement step.
One open point is the spreading behavior of the non-manuals. Considering the insights gained about polar interrogatives from the previous section, we could say that the IntP is located above thewh-landing sites. The spreading of the non-manuals can, again, be assumed to be regulated by Int° which should be right-headed to account for the non-manuals being strongest clause-finally. This is indeed the case. Additionally,wh-question in DGS can always be followed by p-ug. This sign was also described for constituent interrogatives in other sign languages. Notably, Aboh & Pfau (2010) analyze the clause-final palm-up gesture inwh-questions in the Sign Language of the Netherlands as an instantiation of Inter°. In Sign Language of the Netherlands and in DGS, the palm-up gesture is found in the very last position of the clause. Compare the data from Aboh & Pfau (2010: 111) in (122) and the DGS examples in (123).
(122) Sign Language of the Netherlands (Aboh & Pfau 2010: 111) poss2bike steal who p-ugwh
‘Who stole your bike?’
(123) a. maria angry pam who p-ugwh
‘At whom is Maria angry?’
b. who pam maria angry p-ugwh
‘Who is angry at Maria?’
Thus, if p-ug is indeed located in Inter° and if this head is also triggering the non-manuals in constituent interrogatives, the proposed model is completely in line with the data. Assuming that the non-manuals are triggered by Inter° in both, polar and constituent questions, however, poses the question why the non-manuals in polar and constituent questions differs in DGS. I will leave this open for further research.
Alternatively, a similar idea would be to modelwh-movement in DGS similar to what was proposed for Northern Italian earlier (cf. page 112), i.e., with an addi-tional projection between CP1and CP2. While this model clearly is more elegant, as it is possible to construct it in a more Kayneian way (with all specifiers and heads to the left) it has the disadvantage of requiring a lot more (remnant) move-ment steps that are hard to motivate and an additional projection. The overall model would have the structure in (124).
In this model, it has to be assumed that after all movement steps are completed, the remainder of the clause is moved into the specifier of the InterP. Assuming that it is feature checking between SpecInterP and Inter° that triggers the non-manual markings, all material is accompanied by brow lowering with the inten-sity peak being clause-final.
(124) InterP
SpecInterP Int
Inter° CP1
SpecCP1 CP1
C1° XP
SpecXP X
X° CP2
SpecCP2 CP2
C1° IP
I will start again with clause-final simple wh-phrases – ignoring the fact that, in the end, all remaining material moves to SpecInter for the moment. First, the wh-phrase is moved into SpecCP2 and then, the rest of the clause is moved into SpecXP. This is shown in (125a). Clause-initial simplewh-phrases are modeled by one additional step, namely by moving thewh-phrase into the specifier of SpecCP1. This option is shown in (125b). Again, the more marked structure (the clause-initial simplewh-phrase) is derived by additional movement and doubling is, again, achieved by not deleting the copy that is created in the first movement step.
(125) a. CP1 SpecCP1 CP1
C1° XP SpecXP X
X° CP2
SpecCP2
whati CP2
C1° IP paultibuy Step 1
Step 2
paul buy whatwh
b. CP1 SpecCP1
whati
CP1 C1° XP SpecXP X
X° CP2
SpecCP2
ti
CP2
C1° IP paultibuy Step 1
Step 3
Step 2
what paul buywh
Now, we need to account for clause-initial complexwh-phrases. Again, this is an easy task, as they are simply base-generated in SpecCP1. This is shown in (126).
Left-branch extraction is shown in (126b). Again, partial doubling with complex wh-phrases can be seen as a combination of the two processes in (126).
(126) a. CP1 SpecCP1 which computer
CP1 C1° XP SpecXP X
X° CP2
SpecCP2 CP2
C1° IP paul buy which computer paul buywh
b. CP1 SpecCP1 CP1
C1° InterP SpecInterP Inter
Inter° CP2
SpecCP2
whichi CP2
C1° IP
paulttcomputer buy paul computer buy whichwh
Real doubling of complexwh-phrases is also disallowed in the model proposed in (126) as there is only one host projection for complexwh-phrases.
As mentioned, there are several drawbacks in this second model as one needs to assume an additional layer of functional structure and additional movement steps that are hard to motivate. It shows, however, that it is possible to model the complex empirical data with this kind of model. On the whole, splitting up the CP following van Craenenbroeck (2010; 2012) seems to be a promising account for constituent interrogatives in sign languages.
Before turning to imperatives in DGS, I will briefly describe some minor tion types in DGS, namely alternative questions, tag questions, suggestive ques-tions, and rhetorical questions.