a jounal of Glossa geneal linguistics Wilbu, Ronnie. 2017. Intenally-headed elative clauses in sign languages. Glossa: a jounal of geneal linguistics 2(1): 25. 1 34, DOI: https://doi.og/10.5334/gjgl.183 RESEARCH Intenally-headed elative clauses in sign languages Ronnie Wilbu Pudue Univesity, US wilbu@pudue.edu This chapte consides elative clause data fom sign languages in light of thei vaiation with espect to basic wod ode, nonmanual making, and pesence/absence of intenally-headed and extenally-headed elative clauses. Syntactically, a double mege catogaphic model (Cinque 2005a; b), following Bunelli (2011), is adopted. The diffeences acoss sign languages ae suggested to esult fom diffeences in aising equiements with espect to the elative clauses themselves and with espect to thei heads, athe than basic wod ode, use of complementizes, elative ponouns, o nominalizes, o (type of) nonmanual making. Typologically, it is noted that seveal of the SVO SLs have IHRCs, that at least one SOV SL does not have IHRCs, and that thee of the SLs have both intenally-headed (IHRCs) and extenally-headed (EHRCs) elative clauses. Keywods: sign language; non-manual making; intenally-headed; extenally-headed; elative clause 1 Backgound on sign language stuctues Typology of sign languages and thei contibutions to ou undestanding of language typology in geneal is a elatively ecent endeavo (Zeshan 2008; 2013). While it is quite clea that sign languages, like spoken languages, ae syntactically complex and typologically vaied, it is also the case that thee ae cetain things that occu in sign languages as a esult of the oppotunities pesented by the visual modality in which they ae poduced, such as inceased use of simultaneous infomation channels (eveything is visible and theefoe potentially available to be gammaticalized) and widespead use of locations in space (hoizontally and vetically). Thus, a geneal intoduction is needed befoe issues elated specifically to IHRC can be addessed. The most elevant aeas fo undestanding the stuctue of IHRCs ae (1) typological vaiation in wod ode, (2) gammatical use of non-manual making in addition to the manual paametes of sign stuctue, and (3) use of space fo efeential puposes (nouns and anaphos, veb ageement). 1.1 Typological vaiation acoss SLs This aticle pesents some of what is known about elative clauses in sign languages (SLs). This equies a qualification at the outset SLs as a goup ae undestudied: many do not yet even have thei basic wod ode established, much less moe complex syntax like RCs. Among those with established wod ode typology, even fewe have clea studies on elativization stategies. Ameican Sign Language (ASL), Italian Sign Language (Lingua Italiana dei Segni, LIS) and Geman Sign Language (Deutsche Gebadenspache, DGS) ae possibly the best studied, and theefoe will seve as the pototypes. Howeve, thee ae significant diffeences among SLs that indicate that they ae as vaied in thei syntax as spoken languages. Thus, genealizations fom the desciptions given hee should be made
At. 25, page 2 of 34 Wilbu: Intenally-headed elative clauses in sign languages with utmost caution. In addition, it is clea that even the best studied RCs ae subject to extensive debate with espect to the facts and the analyses. As an example of debate ove the facts, Bunelli (2011) caefully eviews the liteatue and data on wod ode and RCs in Sign Language of the Nethelands (Nedelandse Gebaentaal, NGT) and concludes that thee is no clea evidence that NGT has RCs despite suggestions fom pevious eseach (Van Gijn et al. 1998). As an example of ongoing changes in analysis, LIS RCs have been altenately chaacteized as (1) coelatives (Cecchetto et al. 2006), (2) nominalized clauses (Banchini & Donati 2009), and (3) odinay IHRCs and EHRCs (Bunelli 2011) (futhe details below). It has been obseved that basic wod odes in SLs ae eithe SVO o SOV, although the eason why othe odes have not been identified is not clea (Leeson & Saeed 2012; Napoli & Sutton-Spence 2014). ASL is SVO, wheeas both LIS and DGS ae SOV. Zeshan (2006) povides a concise discussion of difficulties associated with establishment of basic wod ode fo SLs. 1 The status of RCs themselves is thus much less well undestood than in spoken languages. Even among the vaious SLs investigated by my own eseach team ove the last 15 yeas (ASL; Coatian SL, Hvatski Znakovni Jezik, HZJ; Austian SL, Osteeichische Gebadenspache, ÖGS; Tukish SL, Tuk İşaet Dili, TİD), two (Coatian, Austian) will play no ole in the following discussion because thee has not yet been any attempt to detemine if RCs ae possible, given all the othe unansweed syntactic questions equiing attention befoe RCs can be addessed (fo example, how to detemine sentence boundaies o conduct constituent testing). That said, as will be shown below, thee ae IHRCs in ASL, despite its being an SVO language, which ae claimed not to have IHRCs, indicating that SLs can contibute to ou undestanding of language stuctue typology. To begin, the bette-studied SLs ae typologically divese with espect to elativization stategies. ASL, LIS, and TİD have been shown to have both intenally- (IHRC) and extenally- (EHRC) headed RCs (ASL: Liddell 1978; 1980; LIS: Cecchetto et al. 2006; Banchini 2007; 2014; Banchini & Donati 2009; Bunelli 2011; Cecchetto & Donati 2016; TİD: Kubus 2010; 2014; Kubus & Rathmann 2011). 2 Bazilian Sign Language (Lingua de Sinais Basileia, Lias) and Geman Sign Language (DGS) have so fa only been shown to have EHRC (Lias: Nunes & de Quados 2004; DGS: Pfau & Steinbach 2005). Hong Kong Sign Language (HKSL) has so fa only been shown to have IHRC (HKSL: Tang et al. 2010). Thus, not all SLs have IHRC, and despite initial thoughts to the contay, SLs ae as vaied in stuctue as spoken languages, at least in this domain. 3 Futhemoe, those SLs that have been shown to have IHRC, whethe the only stategy o not, do not all have 1 Fo some SLs, basic wod has been claimed to be topic-comment. This suggests some confusion on how basic wod ode should be detemined fo typological puposes. Undoubtedly the comment potion itself displays wod ode pefeences, and pesumably thee is some basic wod ode not dependent on intoduction of a topic that it is a comment about. Thee is also confusion in the SL liteatue on use of the tem topic with espect to diffeent levels of function (e.g. discouse, sentence, focus) (Wilbu 2012). Coulte (1979) claims that ASL is a topic pominent language, but povides neithe data no agumentation in suppot of this claim; the claim continues to pemeate the liteatue in vaious guises despite continuing lack of suppot (see also Sze 2015). 2 Fo the sake of completeness, Sign Language of the Nethelands (Nedelandse Gebaentaal, NGT, fomely SLN; Van Gijn et al 1998) should be mentioned. The basic wod ode is disputed (SVO: Van Gijn et al 1998; SOV: Bake 2008, discussed in Bunelli 2011). Bunelli (2011) epots that he is unable to suppot pevious claims that RCs on main clause subjects ae IHRCs and those on main clause objects ae EHRCs, with winkled nose/tensed uppe lip as the NMM ove the whole IHRC. Since he could not fimly establish what the RC situation eally is in NGT, it will not be discussed futhe. 3 Newpot & Supalla (2000) obseve that SLs tend to look moe simila to each othe than spoken languages do. Wilbu (2008) agues that this similaity in fom eflects the ecuitment by SLs of available physical esouces fom physics (duation, displacement, velocity, acceleation) and geomety (point, line, plane) fo lexical and gammatical puposes.
Wilbu: Intenally-headed elative clauses in sign languages At. 25, page 3 of 34 the same basic wod ode: ASL and HKSL ae SVO, wheeas LIS and TİD ae SOV. Despite this vaiation, Tang & Lau (2012) suggest that no SLs have yet demonstated penominal RCs, only postnominal. Howeve, Ichida (2010) indicates that Japanese Sign Language (Nihon Shuwa, NS) has both postnominal and penominal RCs, and that the typical EHRC is penominal. Futhe, Kubus (2014) points out clealy in his suvey of 9 SLs that it is not the case that it has been shown that these do not exist, but that some SLs simply have no data available; much the same point was made by Bunelli (2011) with espect to the existence of RCs in NGT. Thus, the existence of penominal RCs should be consideed an open question until much moe investigation has been conducted. Sepaate fom the issue of wod ode typology and elativization stategies, the data show that many stategies that ae used by IHRC in spoken languages also ae used in sign languages. These include doubling of the head, special making of the head fo what might be focus o specificity, and clause extenal detemines. Due to the oveview natue of this aticle, these will necessaily be of less impotance than the bigge issues of confiming that elative clauses ae indeed not adjuncts o conjuncts to the main clause, that the head is intenal fo IHRC, that diffeent languages with IHRC display diffeent syntax and mophology, that not all sign languages have IHRC, and the citical ole played by non-manual making. 1.2 Relevant stuctual commonalities of sign languages Thee ae two chaacteistics that all matue natual sign languages studied to date display: use of gammatical non-manual making (NMM), including face, head, and body; and use of space fo efeential puposes, to intoduce nouns into discouse fo futhe efeence, o to mak agument ageement on the veb. Only those aspects that ae elevant to undestanding RCs ae pesented hee. 1.2.1 The use of NMM Linguistic eseach has established the sepaation of gammatical NMM fom puely affective facial expessions (Bake & Padden 1978; Liddell 1978; Coulte 1978; 1979; Andeson & Reilly 1998). Weast (2008) established that affective expessions, e.g. happy vs angy, set the ange of motion within which the gammatical makes ae poduced. That is, a happy face will allow a geate excusion of gammatical ow aising than an angy face. Gammatical NMM has a shape onset (timing of the stat) and offset than affective facial expessions, and is tightly coodinated with the syntactic constituents that it maks. Also, thee is a clea distinction between co-speech facial gestues used by non-signing heaing people (fo example, negative headshake) and the gammatical NMM poduced duing signing (Wilbu & Patschke 1999), as well as a diffeent developmental pogession in signing vs non-signing childen (Andeson & Reilly 1998). Thus, the use of NMM fo syntactic puposes like RCs as discussed below must be undestood as pat of the gamma of each SL. NMM includes the head, eyes, nose, mouth, and shoulde/body. Within these aeas, specific aticulatos can be ecuited fo specific functions; fo example, within the eye aea, the ows, lids, and eyeballs (gaze) can seve diffeent functions. Similaly in the mouth aea, the uppe lip, lowe lip, lip cones, tongue and cheek ae potentially assigned diffeent functions. In addition, these makes may be edge makes (fo example, a single eyeblink) o they may be domain makes, holding ove a syntactic o posodic domain. At least in ASL, although not yet well-documented fo othe sign languages, non-manuals ae divided into uppe and lowe face aticulations, with the lowe face geneally making smalle advebial/adjectival functions within phases, and the uppe face scoping lage clausal domains. Liddell (1978) povided illustation of this diffeence (1) the question
At. 25, page 4 of 34 Wilbu: Intenally-headed elative clauses in sign languages NMM q (a cluste of aticulations) scopes the entie question, while the lowe mouth face advebial making mm, meaning with ease/enjoyment, only scopes the veb, which caies manually-shown continuous inflection (mophological eduplication, Wilbu 2009): 4 (1) q mm man fish[i:continuous] Is the man fishing with elaxation and enjoyment? One of the aticulations included in the cluste q is ow aise. We will see making potions of RCs in diffeent SLs with vaying degees of egulaity and suppot in the liteatue. Fo ASL, the function of has been shown to be moe geneal than q and RCs, occuing also in topics, conditional clauses, the wh-clause of wh-clefts, focus associates of lexical focuses, and geneic eadings of bae singula subjects, among othes. Wilbu (1995; 2011a) agues that in ASL is the ovet making of the semantic estiction of dyadic [ wh]-opeatos, thus not licensed to spead ove the c-command domain. This behavio stands in shap contast to that of monadic opeatos like negative and [+wh]; fo both of these, thei associated NMM, headshake and ow loweing, espectively, scope ove the c-command domain of each opeato. In constituents maked with, the eading is estictive, limiting the intepetation of the main clause/nuclea scope (following Patee 1991). Thus it makes sense that estictive RCs would cay the making in ASL. At the same time, it is impotant to undestand that while the system in ASL fo use of is well-studied, fo othe SLs that display on RCs, thei system of usage may diffe fom that of ASL, as will be seen fo LIS in Section 4.1. 1.2.2 Use of space Two impotant uses of space ae fo nominal efeence and veb ageement. Fo nominal efeence, the intoduction of a efeent that will be subsequently efeed to in a naative (specific o definite efeence) is usually accompanied by the identification of that efeent at an index point (locus) in space. This can be accomplished by a vaiety of means, all of which make clea to the viewe that the locus is being identified: (1) sign the noun at the locus (not always possible, given the place of aticulation (POA) of signs), (2) accompany the noun sign with a pointing sign (glossed ix fo index), which may follow, pecede, o occu simultaneous to the noun sign (fo discussion of pointing and ageement, see Wilbu 2013), and/o (3) accompany the noun sign with an eyegaze o head/ shoulde/body shift towads the locus, again eithe befoe, duing, o afte the noun sign. Subsequent efeence to that efeent is made by using that locus, which can be done with ponominal/classifie signs, index signs (pointing), eyegaze, and so on, just as long as it is clea to the viewe which efeent is intended. Some vebs pemit thei stating and/o ending locations to be modified to include a efeential locus fo indicating the subject o object. These ae often efeed to as ageeing vebs (o sometimes depicting vebs ) (fo an oveview of ageement, see Mathu & Rathmann 2012). The poblem that has aisen with the teatment of these vebs as standad veb ageement esults fom the obsevations that (1) not all vebs ae able to do this modification ( plain vebs ), appaently on phonological (body contact) athe 4 Standad notation of signs ae given in small capitals. Since most sign glosses (with the exception of e.g., LIS pe, LSC mateix) ae in English, I will give only an occasional intelinea gloss fo claity. Futhemoe, glosses ae chosen by the eseach community to eflect the meaning athe than mophology o phonology (e.g., no veb tense shown), and some ae faily abitay with espect to possible tanslations, fo example whethe the veb is labeled give o give-to, since both 1 give 3 o 1 give-to 3 would indicate an act of giving (of something) by fist peson to thid peson (with numbe sepaately maked).
Wilbu: Intenally-headed elative clauses in sign languages At. 25, page 5 of 34 than mophological, syntactic, o semantic bases, and (2) unlike spoken language ageement systems, SLs geneally show ageement most fequently with the object, and subject ageement is only allowable in combination with object ageement; that is, thee is no subject-only ageement, which is the most common type epoted fo spoken languages. Ageeing vebs vay acoss SLs, fo example, the ASL sign love is plain but its LIS countepat is (object-)ageeing. Thee ae two impotant subsets of ageeing vebs. One is the goup of vebs that shows ageement with locative aguments athe than pesonal efeent aguments ( spatial vebs ). The othe is a goup of vebs that display backwads ageement, in which the locus of the stating point of the veb is that of the object and the ending pointing is the subject ( backwads vebs ). Acoss SLs, backwads vebs vay such that knowing a veb is backwads in one SL does not entail that it will be backwads in anothe SL. Finally, sentences that involve plain vebs use othe stategies to mak ageement, such as sticte wod ode, NMM, and/o special ageement make signs (fo example, NGT, DGS, and ÖGS have ageement make signs). 2 Stategies fo RC Identification Aside fom obvious semantic estictiveness, thee ae geneally thee stategies that can be used to identify RCs in SLs: two manual makes (complementizes and elative ponouns), and non-manual making (NMM). Cecchetto (2012) obseves that no known SL uses wh-movement to fom RCs. 2.1 Manual makes: complementizes and ponouns Fo discussion hee, we will take complementize signs to be, by definition, unable to show modification fo locus ageement with any established efeent, and ponouns (and demonstatives) to be, by definition, equied to show such modification. This distinction will be elevant to sepaation of uses of the ASL sign THAT, and the subsequent analysis of the PE sign in LIS. 2.1.1 Complementizes Liddell (1978; 1980) initially identified the ASL demonstative and elative complementize THAT (one-handed vaiant only). This sign occus at the end of the RC (moe details below). As a complementize, THAT does not show spatial ageement with any nouns in the RC o in the main clause, that is, it does not move towads, o oient towads, any efeential location no is it made at that location but emains neutal in its fomation with espect to diection of movement, oientation, and place of fomation which ae the featues that could be changed to show ageement. In contast, in the focuse use, that may show such ageement but it is not equied, and in the demonstative use such ageement is equied. Also, as a geneal ule, use of that as a complementize fo staightfowad embedded clauses (not RCs) ae not ovet in ASL no, to my knowledge, othe SLs. A sentence with an ovet that complementize is usually anded as Englishy by native signes, eflecting the influence of the dominant spoken language; the liteatue suggests simila situations acoss bette-studied SLs. 2.1.2 Relative ponouns In contast to moe neutal complementizes, the use of elative ponouns as RC makes may involve ageement mophology. Both Geman SL (DGS) and Italian SL (LIS) have been shown to use elative ponouns. Relative ponouns show peson ageement by moving o oienting towad a noun locus. Such peson ageement is geneally notated fo SLs with subscipts using 1 fo fist peson, 2 fo second, and 3 fo thid, with thid futhe modified to disambiguate diffeent thid peson efeents, e.g. 3a, 3b. If only coefeence is of inteest, these ae usually witten with subscipt i, j, k etc.
At. 25, page 6 of 34 Wilbu: Intenally-headed elative clauses in sign languages DGS uses the elative ponoun labeled po (fo Relative ponoun) which shows diffeent fomation fo Human (po-h) and Non-human (po-nh) efeents. In addition, these elative ponouns may show peson ageement. LIS uses a elative ponoun with multiple labels in the liteatue. Cecchetto et al. (2006) called it poel, and offe a coelative analysis fo the RCs. Banchini & Donati (2009) efe to it as pe, and povide a counteagument that the LIS RCs ae estictive IHRC and analyze them as nominalized clauses with pe as a detemine. Bunelli (2011) subsequently analyzes pe as a demonstative and explains its ole in RCs and beyond (Section 4.1). 2.2 NMM of RCs Thee is so fa one common featue of all RCs in SLs: languages clealy mak the clause (o elative ponoun) with an identifiable and gammatical facial expession (NMM). As Tang & Lau (2012) note, the speading domain of these NMMs is a clue to the analysis of elativization stategies, as well as to veb complementation, embedded negation, among othes. Befoe the syntax of eithe the RC o the RC head noun can be discussed, the identification of RCs though NMM mophology needs to be undestood. 5 The two main issues ae (1) the elevant non-manual makings (the aticulatos and thei positions o movements), and (2) the ovet speading domain of the RC NMM. Of elevance to the discussion of IHRC, and RCs in geneal, is the uppe face/lage domain making. While SLs diffe as to the functions assigned to each NMM aticulation (which may be a single aticulato o a combination of aticulatos), and the clea sepaation of uppe and lowe face may not hold in othe SLs (o may also povide cues to othe functions, Boss & Hole 2015), RCs ae commonly maked by a lage domain NMM aticulation. In ASL, this is ow aising ( ). When eseaches ae not specific about which aticulatos ae involved, they may simply mak the RC with an indicato to show that it has some NMM that clealy identifies the syntactic constituent as RC. All epots of RCs show at least some NMM domain making ove the whole RC in some types of RCs, with othe options such as ove only the elative ponoun possible. The impotance of this making is faily well established Liddell (1978) demonstated that non-estictive (appositive) RCs in ASL do not show ow aise making, and without some such making in othe SLs, the clause is eithe not an RC (i.e., is an independent clause) o it is ungammatical. Details will be discussed fo each SL when possible below. In ASL, RCs ae maked with, with co-occuing backwad tilt of the head and muscle contaction that aises the cheek and uppe lip (Liddell 1978; 2003). Coulte (1983) agues that the RC making should be teated as a combination of topic ( plus chin up) and definite (aised uppe lip), but he also agued fo a conjoined analysis athe than embedded elativization, and this latte analysis has been ejected. Howeve, his analysis of the NMM, specifically the definiteness making, has not yet been evisited. Othe SLs have been epoted to use eithe as a main make o as an optional make, although none of them have yet been shown to have the moe geneal use of fo opeatos descibed fo ASL. Fo example, Kubus (2010; 2014) epots that TİD RCs ae maked with cheek aise and tensed uppe lip and a squint that behaves like the shaed knowledge squint discussed fo Isaeli SL (ISL) in Dachkovsky & Sandle (2009). He indicates that optional elativize/nominalize making includes aised eyeows ( ) and optional open mouthing /o/. Fo LIS elative clauses, Banchini & Donati (2009) epot the use of a complex make consisting of both and tensed eyes (the uppe aea of the face including eyes and cheeks, also possibly equivalent to the squint epoted fo ISL). 5 Reades ae efeed to Pfau et al. (2012) fo specialty chaptes explaining ponouns, wod ode, and NMM in addition to specific chaptes cited hee.
Wilbu: Intenally-headed elative clauses in sign languages At. 25, page 7 of 34 They note that occus in seveal syntactic envionments, including yes/no questions, conditionals, topics, and focus constuctions, and that tensed eyes seems to be used only in extaposed constituents. Howeve, Bunelli (2011) detemines that in fact tensed eyes is the pimay make of RCs, and that occus only on those RCs that ae also moved to TopicP in the left peiphey, making it clea that maks topics and conditionals, but not specifically RCs unless they ae also topics. If Bunelli is coect about LIS tensed eyes, then this language would not paallel ASL NMM in that the job pefomed by in ASL is split between and tensed eyes (and pehaps othe NMM). Anothe analysis explaining how the NMM functions ae divided will be needed, einfocing the need fo futhe eseach in NMM typology. 3 ASL RCs As indicated, not all SLs have IHRC and some SLs may have only IHRC. ASL can have both types, but they ae syntactic-position dependent: sentence-initial RCs cannot have extenal heads in the sense that if the head is extenal, the RC potion must be extaposed, leaving the extenal head in subject position. In addition, the RC complementize that is optional in non-final position, but is obligatoy in sentence-final RCs (Liddell 1978: 78). 6 The following examples, adapted fom Liddell (1978) and econfimed and extended by my own eseach, illustate both extenal (2a, b) and intenal (2c, d) heads, RCs on subject (2b, c) and object (2a, d) aguments of the main clause, and the pesence of that (2a, b, d). (2b) also illustates extaposition of the RC on the subject of the main clause (DOG) to the ight and the equiement of having that because the RC itself appeas in final position. (2c) shows that an initial IHRC need not have an ovet complementize that. (2) ASL EHRC and IHRC a. 1 ask 3 give 1 dog [[usula kick e ] that ] DP 1sg-ask-3sg give-1sg dog [Usula kick ]- that I asked him to give me the dog that Usula kicked. b. dog bite 1 [[e chase cat befoe] that ] DP The dog bit me that chased the cat befoe. c. [[dog chase cat] CP ] DP bak The dog that chased the cat baked. d. ix 1 feed [[dog bite cat ] that] DP I fed the dog that bit the cat. As (2a-d) illustate, the RC is maked by the extent of. Note that complementize that is outside of the domain of making. 7 This fact suggests that it occupies the RC head- 6 Tang & Lau (2012) povide an oveview of the diffeent foms of that discussed by Liddell. 7 To be clea, the only maks the estiction of the elative clause opeato (o any othe opeato that equies in ASL), and does not spead ove the c-command domain; thus, the entie CP is not in the scope of the, athe only the specifie position is so maked. As the head, that is not included in the making. This is the point of the discussion in 3.3.3. that shows how a elative clause with that can be taken as the focus of a focuse that, in which case the focus opeato takes eveything (which includes the entie CP) that is in the specifie of D (the second that is in head D) and puts on it. As a esult, this second pocess puts the RC that unde, wheeas without focuse that, the RC that does not get making.
At. 25, page 8 of 34 Wilbu: Intenally-headed elative clauses in sign languages final C position. It should be noted that ASL also has C on the ight in main clauses, thus RCs, whethe IHRC o EHRC, behave like main clauses in this espect. 8 3.1 Detemining the head of ASL IHRC Liddell (1978; 1980) demonstated that ASL IHRCs ae sometimes ambiguous, as (3a, b, c) show. (3c) also povides the evidence that these ae intenal heads, as the tempoal adveb ecently that pecedes dog, the head of the RC, scopes the veb chase in the RC, not the main veb come. (3) ASL IHRC with ambiguous head 9 a. [cat watch [dog eat hambuge]] ix 1 buy I bought the cat that watched the dog eat the hambuge. I bought the dog that the cat watched eat the hambuge. I bought the hambuge that the cat watched the dog eat. b. cat dog bite come home The cat that the dog bit came home. The dog that bit the cat came home. c. ecently dog that chase cat come home The dog that ecently chased the cat came home. The cat that the dog ecently chased came home. Citically, Liddell (1978) shows that that when used as the complementize cannot be sepaated fom the RC and can theefoe not be mistaken fo othe uses of that, such as the demonstative in subject position (4), because it is ungammatical if that is sepaated fom the RC. (4) *dog bite cat that ing hospital ( The cat the dog bit that s the one that was ought to the hospital.) Liddell obseved that thee ae seveal stategies that can be used to disambiguate the head in cases like (3a-c). 10 One stategy is to use intensification of the NMM: the muscle goups should be contacted moe seveely along with eithe thusting the head slightly fowad 8 Afte yeas of dispute concening the syntactic stuctue of ASL, especially the location of Spec, CP, the fact that all involved have concluded that the head of C is final is a ae point of ageement. That said, it is clea that ASL can be ecast using a Cinque catogaphy, following Kayne s (1994) pinciples of leftwad only movement and all phases having the stuctue Specifie-Head-Complement, and indeed Bunelli (2011) has done this fo LIS and NGT, in pat because he needs the subsequent oll-ups to obtain the coect ode with invesions inside the DP. ASL does not need such invesions, and the point hee is ultimately that ASL is an SVO language with IHRCS, thus fo legibility puposes (keeping tack of the RC complementize), I will leave the tees as shown hee. 9 The sign that in (3c) is labeled as that a by Liddell, who notes that this sign comes between the subject and the veb and diffeentiates eal RCs fom sequences of simple sentences and/o questions. Thee ae thee phonological vaiants of demonstative/elativize that, which Liddell labels that a, that b, and that c ; see Tang & Lau (2012) fo futhe discussion. I will follow subsequent tadition and use the gloss that fo all vaiants. 10 In cases whee the head is not ambiguous, Liddell epots that head signs ae consistently longe than nonhead signs, egadless of position effects. That is, final heads ae longe than final non-heads, both of which ae longe than initial o medial heads which ae longe than initial o medial non-heads, espectively.
Wilbu: Intenally-headed elative clauses in sign languages At. 25, page 9 of 34 o quick head nodding o both while signing the head sign (5). This additional making paallels the use of specific o focus making of the head in some spoken languages. (5) ASL IHRC with disambiguated head i dog bite cat come home The cat that the dog bit came home. A second disambiguation stategy is to change the wod ode to demonstative-modifienoun (6) (and also NMM intensification). (6) ASL IHRC with disambiguated head i that chase cat dog un-away The dog that chased the cat an away. Note that this example is not ambiguous with espect to the agent of chase it can only be intepeted as the dog, eflecting a modification of the moe geneal (S)VO ode. The thid head-disambiguating stategy is a combination of intensification, demonstative that, and copying of the RC head. The head can be copied to the end of the RC, whee it is also maked with intensifying NMM and peceded by that (7). (7) ASL IHRC with disambiguated head i [dog bite cat] that cat ix 1 feed I fed the cat that the dog bit. In all these cases it is quite clea that the head is inside the RC in ASL. Galloway (2011) povides two additional insights into disambiguating IHRC heads. One is that a subsequent ponoun can be useful. (8) illustates the disambiguating effects of subsequent that, self, and ix (indexing/pointing). With espect to the non-focusing ponoun ix (8c, 8d), special NMMs occu and the location whee they ae made (indicated by the subscipts) clealy identifies which antecedent is functioning as the head of the IHRC. 11 (8) a. gil a boow b book that gone It s [the book the gil boowed] that s missing. b. gil a boow b book self gone It s [the gil who boowed the book] who is missing. tense aised uppe lip c. gil a boow b book ix b gone [The book the gil boowed] is missing. lips togethe d. gil a boow b book ix a gone [The gil who boowed the book] is missing. 11 It may appea that that indicates inanimate and self indicates animate, but this is not a geneal behavio beyond IHRCs, as self may occu in self-elatives (Section 3.4.1) with both animate and inanimates, and that can occu as a focuse with animates (Wilbu 1994; Wilbu & Patschke 1998).
At. 25, page 10 of 34 Wilbu: Intenally-headed elative clauses in sign languages A second obsevation fom Galloway (2011) is that veb ageement, when possible, can make the head clea. In (9), a boow b shows that the gil boowed the book (fom someone else); the veb gone can then agee in location with the IHRC head shown by boow location a fo the gil, location b fo the book (its oigin). a b (9) a. gil a boow b book gone b [The book the gil boowed] is missing. b. gil a boow b book gone a [The gil who boowed the book] is missing. With a veb like ead, which is not an ageeing veb, the esulting fom emains ambiguous because thee is no coindexing of space to identify an antecedent fo the index on gone (10). (10) gil ead book gone a/b The gil who ead the book is missing. The book that the gil ead is missing. 3.2 Detemining the head of EHRCs We now deal with the question of whee the extenal head sits in EHRCs. ASL EHRCs povide a moe vaied pictue of the possible agument options fo heads and RCs than IHRCs; whethe this is the esult of language pefeence o an accident of the existing liteatue is had to say. Galloway (2014) obseves that IHRCs can occu in agument positions but that EHRCs cannot, being instead aised to clause-initial/left-peipheal position. (11) pesents seveal ASL EHRCs (including (2a) and (2b) fom Liddell, epeated hee as (11a) and (11b); the est fom my own field wok; t is a geneal indicato of topic NMM). In (11a), the RC modifies the dog which is the object of kick and of give; note that does not extend to it. In (11b), the RC modifies the extenal head and sentence subject dog, which has no ; the RC has been ightwad extaposed afte the veb bite. (11) a. 1 ask 3 give 1 dog [[usula kick e ] that ] DP I asked him to give me the dog that Usula kicked. b. dog bite 1 [[e chase cat befoe] that ] DP The dog that chased the cat befoe bit me. (Lit. The dog bit me that chased the cat befoe. ) t c. dog ix 1 see [[e chase cat] that] I saw the dog that chased the cat. t d. dog ix 1 see [john say [e chase cat] that] I saw the dog that John said (that) chased the cat. t e. dog ix 1 see [that [john say may chase e] that] I saw the dog that John said (that) May chased
Wilbu: Intenally-headed elative clauses in sign languages At. 25, page 11 of 34 In (11c-e), the head dog is fonted in topic position. (11d, e) show that the position of the unmoved head can be eithe subject o object and that it can be in an RC that is itself embedded unde anothe clause (note pesence of ove the whole RC and the pesence of that at the end). As indicated ealie, if dog wee extacted fom the RC and fonted, as agued by Liddell (1978; 1980), this would be a violation of the Complex NP Constaint, which would pohibit extaction of the head out of the constuction. It is possible to ague, following Lillo-Matin (1985; 1986; 1991) that dog is a base-geneated topic which licenses a null head inside the RC, o at least that they can involve long-distance dependencies. But the situation is moe complicated than these examples illustate. (12) shows that inside the RC can be an indiect wh-question containing the intenal head (position maked by e ); note how the that would nomally cove the whole RC is inteupted by the pesence of the [+wh], esulting in pat of the RC being maked with wh-q (ow loweing, among othe NMMs). Nonetheless, the RC begins with, and ends with the obligatoy that, outside of both the and the wh-q. We will see that this is as would be pedicted by ou aguments on behavio and the function of that (Section 3.3). (12) t wh-q a. dog ix 1 see [that john ask [whee may chase e] that ] I saw the dog that John asked whee May chased. t wh-q b. dog ix 1 see [that john ask [may chase e whee] that] I saw the dog that John asked whee May chased. wh-q c. ix 1 see dog [that john ask [whee may chase e] that] I saw the dog that John asked whee May chased. These examples make it hade to maintain an extaction analysis. Instead, we would want to have in (12a, b) an extenal head dog afte the veb see (as in (12c)), with that extenal one being fonted in ((11c, d); (12a, b)) to avoid constaint violations. While these data establish that the head can be extenal, they aise a numbe of questions that now must be addessed. In paticula, the following questions egading IHRCs equie special attention: 1. What is the geneal stuctue of ASL IHRCs? 2. How do we account fo the location of in the RC? 3. How do we know that THAT is a complementize in C and not a demonstative/nominalize in D? Afte these questions have been addessed, othe SL RCs will be eviewed to fill in the pieces and povide a oade pictue. Finally, we etun to the lage question of the global stuctue of IHRCs and EHRCs in Section 4.5 following Cinque (2005a; b), showing that a catogaphic analysis can be adopted acoss those SLs studied to date, as suggested by Bunelli (2011) (Section 4.3). 3.3 The stuctue of ASL IHRC 3.3.1 What is the geneal stuctue of the ASL elative clause? Liddell (1980) agued that the ASL RC is a complex NP. He also agued that if a single souce analysis fo both EHRCs and IHRCs was desiable, then it was pefeable fo EHRCs to be deived fom IHRCs with extenal heads esulting fom aising. Subsequently, MacLaughlin (1997) agued fo an aticulated DP in ASL, but ejected Kayne s (1994) aising analysis in which the RC CP itself is the complement of the head. If we wee to follow MacLaughlin, we would begin with the stuctue in (13), with D and N empty. Howeve, even though D is empty, MacLaugh-
At. 25, page 12 of 34 Wilbu: Intenally-headed elative clauses in sign languages lin agues that it is still definite. Fo he analysis to wok, the N slot needs to be available fo extaction of the head fom inside the CP to ceate EHRCs. As just discussed, such extactions ae undesiable because they lead to violations of the Complex Noun Phase constaint. (13) ASL RC [ DP D [ NP N CP ] It is pefeable instead to follow Bunelli (2011), who povides a geneal analysis fo LIS and NGT RCs using Cinque (2005a; b) as a model. The elevant diffeence hee is the assumption that thee ae two Meges, one fo the intenal head in the RC and anothe fo the extenal head. This assumption is conguent with the often obseved fact that the head may seve one function in the main clause and anothe in the RC (allowing sepaate theta ole assignments). Whethe an IHRC o an EHRC esults then follows fom whicheve head is highe afte syntactic pocesses ae completed, with the lowe head being deleted. Fo ou puposes, the diffeence compaed to pevious analyses of ASL is that neithe the intenal no the extenal head is empty (and, it should be noted, that following Cinque, the head need not be a N, but could be a full NP itself). That said, we will continue with the geneal stuctue in (13) fo the pupose of establishing the facts concening the location of NMM and the function of that. To efomulate all of the examples in the fom of Cinque s tees would be cumbesome fo the eade and would make the discussion of the data fom the oiginal souces unecognizable; eades ae efeed to Bunelli (2011) fo the full deivations. 3.3.2 How do we account fo the location of in the RC? In Section 2.2 on NMM making and its ole with espect to the gamma of SLs, we indicated that the liteatue suppots the idea that RCs have some type of clea NMM, and that a fequent mention was aised ows which coveed the elative ponoun (if pesent) o whole RC. Fo ASL, when (13) is expanded, the stuctue of CP is with the head C on the ight, as shown in (14) with the tee in (15). 12 (14) [ DP Ø D [ NP N [ CP TP [that] C ] CP ] NP ] DP (15) 12 Thee is a long liteatue on the syntax of ASL, which concludes that ASL has mixed headedness, C is on the ight, but D and othe heads ae on the left. ASL syntacticians agee that C is on the ight, and with the exception of Neidle et al. (2000), accept Spec, CP on the left. That said, to be consistent in a catogaphic analysis, C would have to be on the left, and vaious leftwad movements would be needed to achieve the C-final configuation. Fo now, we will assume that some potion of the deivation has aleady taken place to aive at this configuation. See also fn 8.
Wilbu: Intenally-headed elative clauses in sign languages At. 25, page 13 of 34 The key to undestanding in ASL is that it is associated with a dyadic, that is, estictive, opeato eflecting a special opeato-vaiable elationship between the RC and its head (shown in the tee as the [R] featue on C). Spec, CP and Spec, DP ae the taditional opeato positions. I have agued that coves the estiction of the opeato (following Patee 1991; the RC is the estiction, the nuclea scope is the head) and does not spead ove the c-command domain, in contast to NMM associated with monadic opeatos like negation and [+wh]. Thus, we expect to see on the mateial in Spec, CP but not on the mateial in C (Wilbu 1999; Wilbu 2011a). Fo RCs, this means we expect to see on TP (aised to Spec, CP), but not on that; this yields (16), which is applied to (2d) to give (17). (16) [ DP Ø D [ NP N [ CP [[ TP]] Spec, CP that ] CP ] NP ] DP (17) IX 1 feed [ DP Ø D [ NP N [ CP [[ TP dog bite cat] TP ] Spec, CP that ] ] ] CP NP DP 3.3.3 How do we know that THAT is in C and not in D? Given that C is on the ight in ASL, it is conceivable that the D head could also be on the ight and that could actually be located in D, with the estiction located in Spec, DP. We ae able to eject this hypothesis based on the behavio of focuse signs, which sit in the D head, and thei focus associates, which ae the complements of D that have been moved to Spec, DP (this movement being ovet) (18). that as a focuse is in a class that also includes the signs same even (not as pedicate), only only, and self self (emphatic, not eflexive), which have DP focus domains, with the focus associate located in Spec, DP and the focuse that outside of the (Wilbu 1994). (18) kim only-one get-a Only Kim got an A. (19) When RCs ae themselves the complements of focuse D that, sequences of that that can occu, that is, the complementize that followed by the focuse that. One diffeence between them in this sequence is that complementize that is maked with lean fowad, wheeas focuse that has lean back (Wilbu & Patschke 1998). 13 (20) shows the effect 13 Wilbu & Patschke (1998) descibe the use of leans as NMM fo semantic and pagmatic functions: fowad fo inclusion/assetion; backwad fo exclusion/ejection. Like [neg] and [wh], they have c-command domain.
At. 25, page 14 of 34 Wilbu: Intenally-headed elative clauses in sign languages of putting the IHRC in (17) into focus ((20a) adapted fom Liddell 1978: 76; analysis in (20b, c) fom Wilbu 1995). Note that now the complementize that, which is nomally outside the domain of, is coveed by this is a esult of moving the entie RC to the focus opeato estiction in Spec, DP, whee it gets fom focuse that. In addition, intensification ( i ) of the non-manual also appeas. In (20b, c) we see confimation that the RC complementize that is not in D because it occus inside the CP clause that the detemine that selects as its complement. (20) i a. ix 1 feed [[dog bite cat that] that] b. ix 1 feed [ DP [ Spec, DP ] [that] D[+foc] [ NP N [ CP [[ TP dog bite cat] TP ] Spec, CP [that] C ] CP ] NP ] DP i c. ix 1 feed [ DP [ Spec, DP [ NP N [ CP [ TP dog bite cat] [that] C ] CP ] NP ] Spec, DP [that] D[+foc] [e] NP ] DP (21) shows the focusing of RC, ceating sequence of that (in RC C) and that (focuse in D). (21) In addition, we also have examples whee D is not null but is occupied by demonstative that, as well as the pesence of that in the RC complementize slot. This was shown in (11e), epeated as (22), and the RC potion is labeled below it to identify the location and function of each that. t (22) dog ix 1 see [that [john say may chase e] that] dog ix 1 see [ DP [ D that] [ NP t N [ CP [john say [may chase e ]] that ] CP ] NP ] DP I saw that dog that John said (that) May chased. 3.4 Othe elativization stategies Othe aticles in this special issue deal with seveal taget questions that we can only comment on iefly hee. In paticula, we note that (1) ASL IHRCs cannot stand alone (ae not main clauses) as long as the making is pesent (only yes/no questions can be main clauses with ow aise coveing the entie clause); (2) it is not likely (but not yet demonstated) that ASL IHRCs can conjoin, because ASL geneally does not use ovet
Wilbu: Intenally-headed elative clauses in sign languages At. 25, page 15 of 34 conjunctions so sepaating a conjoined IHRC fom a complex/stacked IHRC would not be easy; and (3) it is not likely that ASL IHRCs can stack. Conjunction and stacking equie moe explicit investigation not only fo ALS but fo othe SLs as well. 3.4.1 self elatives In pevious eseach on ASL stuctues containing nominal makes, Fische & Johnson (1982) obseved a vaiety of stuctues with self othe than eflexives and suggested that the pimay function of self fo most signes is to mak definiteness. They also identified a scale of specificity, with classifies as the least specific and pointing/indexing as the most specific. Thee is a plain fom of self and a vaiant fom, which they gloss as selfg (self hitting the index finge of the non-dominant hand), which they suggested tends to be used in moe specific efeences than plain/single-handed self. Feo (1992) addessed the geneal elationship of eflexives and othe uses of self in spoken languages, noting that contastive focus making is a significant coss-linguistic function of self and that the eflexive use in English is a histoically late development. self does paticipate in the contast focus system in ASL (Wilbu & Patschke 1998). Fische and Johnson (1982) obseved that self is used to intoduce RCs containing new infomation. 14 self RCs can have an animate head (23, fom Fische & Johnson) o inanimate head (24, fom Fische & Johnson, and with making fom my own field wok). (23) long-time-ago have small gil self live yonde foest 15 A long time ago thee was a small gil who lived in the woods. (24) a. table self ix 3 tue wood ix 3 expensive A table that is made fom eal wood is vey expensive. b. deaf people aound pefe [movie self action like quote #aides othe quote seach-fo fie diffeent++] tend-to people love action Deaf people geneally pefe movies that have action like Raides of the Lost Ak, Chaiots of Fie, etc. c. ix 1 want husband self espect ix 1 I want a husband who will espect me. d. ix 1 hate deam self ix 1 naked in (fs)public I hate deams whee I am naked in public. These sentences do not display the same consistency in NMM as IHRCs, and the location of self(g) in the sentence is less pedictable, hence they ae bolded. Wheeas (24a) has the same making as othe IHRCs, and indeed has an IH table, the othes do not show on the self-rc at all. Othe NMM, such as mouth cones down and nose winkle, tend to occu with these constuctions but moe investigation is necessay to fully undestand the stuctue of these clauses and the diffeent functions that they may pefom (Wilbu 2011b). So fa, nothing equivalent has been epoted fo othe SLs. 14 Mathu (1996) pesents an inteesting analysis of self -RCs with self making pesuppositionality. 15 self is actually signed two-handed with the dominant hand hitting a non-dominant extended index finge; this is sometimes annotated self -1 o self -G, but the use of this sign compaed to the single-handed self is still unde investigation. Both vesions appea to be acceptable in this example.
At. 25, page 16 of 34 Wilbu: Intenally-headed elative clauses in sign languages 3.4.2 Fee elatives Anothe issue is the question of fee elatives. Citko (2009) agues that fee elatives shae an undelying stuctue with headed elatives, and that both ae dominated by DP. The diffeence is that fee elatives fill the DP with a moved wh-dp, wheeas headed elatives have the DP extenally geneated. These similaities lead to the issue of whethe ASL, o othe SLs, have fee elatives. In this egad, Cecchetto (2012: 309) notes that in no known sign language ae (full) elative clauses fomed by wh-movement. This is cetainly tue fo all of the ASL RCs above and, as will be seen, fo the othe SLs discussed in Section 4 below. Howeve these languages do have wh-signs and vaious wh-movement and in situ options (see summay in Cecchetto 2012: 307). In addition, ASL makes vey common use of the pseudocleft o wh-cleft, as shown in (25) (Wilbu 1996; Wilbu & Patschke 1999). (25) a. may pofession in-past what, ix toys oken may build again fo childen What May used to do as a pofession was epai childen s oken toys. b. paul buy which compute, mac The compute which Paul bought is a Mac. c. paul buy compute which, mac d. compute, paul buy which, mac e. *compute, which paul buy, mac Note the ight edge pefeence fo wh-wod in (25c e). (25b) shows that the wh-wod does not have to be at the ight edge if it appeas as pat of a d-linked complex NP (which compute), and (25e) demonstates that when sepaated fom its NP by topicalization, the wh-wod cannot appea elsewhee (even when fonted by a pocess that is acceptable in othewise full-fledged wh-clauses). This pefeence may be oveidden when the wh-wod can appea in situ, although vesions with wh-sign on the ight also occu (26): (26) a. anne see who in gaage, bill b. anne see in gaage who, bill The peson who Anne saw in the gaage was Bill. That the examples in (25) and (26) ae not sequences of (hetoical) questions followed by answes but constitute a complex stuctue dominated by a single CP at the top is seen clealy by thei embeddability (27). (27) a. ellen tell 1 which compute paul buy, mac b. ellen tell 1 compute, paul buy which, mac Ellen told me that the compute which Paul bought is a Mac.
Wilbu: Intenally-headed elative clauses in sign languages At. 25, page 17 of 34 Thus, thee is a fully functional set of wh-wods in ASL, but they ae not used as the heads of fee elatives. In English, both wh-cleft and fee elative stuctues ae possible (28): (28) a. What John did was bun the toast. Wh-cleft b. What John did was stupid. Fee elative In the wh-cleft (28a), John did something identified as bun the toast, the unclefted vesion of which is John buned the toast. The elationship between bun the toast and what was identified by Rapopot (1987) as efeential, that is, as denoting what John did. Note also that the wh-cleft can be evesed : Bun the toast is what John did. In the fee elative, what John did is neve identified; only the speake s evaluation that it was stupid is pesented. The compaable unclefted fom * John did which was stupid is also incomplete with espect to what John did, and the fee elative cannot be evesed: * Stupid is what John did. In ASL, the wh-cleft is pemissible because it povides the missing infomation, but the fee elative without the missing infomation is not (29). (29) a. john do++, bun toast b. *john do++, stupid It should be noted that the poblem with (29b) is not due to the focusing of stupid (30a) o of its evaluative natue (i.e., stupid [activity] = bun the toast) (30b) 16 : (30) a. john think sam what, stupid John thinks that Sam is stupid. (Lit. What John thinks Sam is is stupid. ) b. john stupid what, bun toast The stupid thing that John did was bun the toast. This leads to one othe unesolved issue with ASL elatives, which is the question of the use of one as an indefinite head in IHRCs. In fact, the use of indefinite heads, as well as quantifies, in geneal could use futhe eseach. Hee the issue is one of conflicting data. My own field wok (mostly Midwest) judges it to be unacceptable (31a), with a pefeed endition as the wh-cleft (31b). Howeve, Liddell (1978) cites an example (31c) fom his consultants (West Coast), so this may be a dialect issue. (31) a. *one may buy chevy that-pt the one (that) May bought is a Chevy b. may buy what, chevy (that) What May bought is a Chevy 16 Thee is one inteesting caveat on this pohibition fo fee elatives my data show examples in which such non-efeential, non-d-linked uses of what ae signed with a lexicalized fingespelled sign #what (coesponding to what FS in Wood 2004). Fist, this sign epesents a boowing fom English, as evidenced by its fomation (see Bentai 1998 fo discussion of phonological eduction fom fingespelling of English wods into ASL lexical signs) and by its use to fill an ASL gammatical gap no fee elative clauses fo signes whose fluency in English may be eflected with a moe English syntax style of signing. Second, this sign may not be used fo othe moe basic wh-sign functions, such as wh-questions and wh-clefts; Wood notes that it can be used in echo questions and indiect questions such as I wonde what John will eat. This suggests that thee may be gammatical development in pogess fo this usage though contact with English, and possibly then extended to fee elatives.