Article published in:
Signs and Structures: Formal Approaches to Sign Language Syntax
Edited by Paweł Rutkowski
[Benjamins Current Topics 71] 2015
► pp. 39–70

WH-duplication in Italian Sign Language (LIS)

| Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia
| Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca
| Laboratoire de linguistique formelle, Université Paris Diderot
| Institut Jean-Nicod CNRS Paris
This paper focuses on those WH-questions in Italian Sign Language (LIS) featuring two lexically identical WH-signs. We show that WH1 (the first WH in linear order) is shorter than WH2 (the second WH in liner order). However, there is evidence that this different duration is due to a phrase final lengthening, as WH2 occupies a sentence-final position. We therefore conclude that the two WH-signs are identical full copies: one sitting in Spec,CP on the right in LIS and the other one sitting in Spec,FocusP on the left. We show that this construction yields a (focused) cleft question interpretation and we speculate that both copies are phonologically realized because the WH-signs in Spec,CP and Spec,FocusP are the heads of two distinct chains. Finally, we distinguish identical WH-duplication from improper WH-duplication, namely cases where one of the two WH-elements is what we call Qartichoke, an underspecified interrogative sign only surfacing in WH-questions.
Published online: 17 September 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.71.03bra
References
Aboh, Enoch O. & Roland Pfau
2010 What’s a wh-word got to do with it? In Paola Benincà & Nicola Munaro (eds.), Mapping the left periphery: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 5, 91–124. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Abner, Natasha
2010 Wh-words that go bump in the right. In Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 24–32. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Barbiers, Sjef, Olaf Koeneman, Marika Lekakou, & Margreet van der Ham
2008 Microvariation in syntactic doubling. Bingley: Emerald. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bertone, Carmela & Anna Cardinaletti
2011 Il sistema pronominale della lingua dei segni italiana. In Cardinaletti, Cecchetto & Donati (eds.), Grammatica, lessico e dimensioni di variazione nella LIS, 141–156.Google Scholar
Branchini, Chiara
2007 On relativization and clefting in Italian Sign Language (LIS). PhD dissertation, Università di Urbino, Italy.
Branchini Chiara & Caterina Donati
2009 Relatively different: Italian Sign Language relative clauses in a typological perspective. In Anikó Lipták (ed.), Correlatives cross-linguistically, 157–191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Branchini, Chiara & Carlo Geraci
2011 L’ordine dei costituenti in LIS: risultati preliminari. In Cardinaletti, Cecchetto & Donati (eds.), Grammatica, lessico e dimensioni di variazione nella LIS, 109–122.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Michal Starke
1999 The typology of structural deficiency. A case-study of the three classes of pronouns. In Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), Clitics in the languages of Europe. EALT/EUROTYP 20–5, 145–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna, Carlo Cecchetto & Caterina Donati
(eds.) 2011 Grammatica, lessico e dimensioni di variazione nella LIS. FrancoAngeli: Milano, Italy.Google Scholar
① ② ③ ④
Cecchetto, Carlo
2012 Sentence types. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook (HSK — Handbooks of linguistics and communication science), 292–315. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, Carlo, Carlo Geraci & Sandro Zucchi
2006 Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25. 945–975. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 Another way to mark syntactic dependencies: The case for right-peripheral specifiers in sign languages. Language 85(2). 278–320. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Checchetto, Alessandra, Carlo Cecchetto, Carlo Geraci, Maria Teresa Guasti & Sandro Zucchi
2011 Una varietà molto speciale: la LISt (Lingua dei Segni Italiana tattile). In Cardinaletti, Cecchetto & Donati (eds.), Grammatica, lessico e dimensioni di variazione nella LIS, 201–211.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1995 The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2008 On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria-Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald
1979 Pragmatics, implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Geraci, Carlo
2006a LIS (lingua dei segni italiana) tra ricerca e divulgazione. PhD Dissertation, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca.
2006b Negation in LIS (Italian Sign Language). In Leah Bateman & Cherlon Ussery (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 35, 217–229. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Geraci, Carlo, Katia Battaglia, Anna Cardinaletti, Carlo Cecchetto, Caterina Donati, Serena Giudice & Emiliano Mereghetti
2011 The LIS corpus project: A discussion of sociolinguistic variation in the lexicon. Sign Language Studies 11(4). 528–574. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geraci, Carlo & Robert Bayley
2011 Chi, cosa, dove, perché, quando: la distribuzione dei segni wh- in LIS. In Cardinaletti, Cecchetto & Donati (eds.), Grammatica, lessico e dimensioni di variazione nella LIS, 125–141.Google Scholar
Geraci, Carlo, Robert Bayley, Anna Cardinaletti, Carlo Cecchetto & Caterina Donati
2015 Variation in Italian Sign Language (LIS): The Case of Wh-signs. Linguistics 53(1). 125–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geraci, Carlo & Carlo Cecchetto
2013 Neglected cases of rightward movement. When wh-phrases and negative quantifiers go to the right. In Heike Walker, Gert Webelhuth & Manfred Sailer (eds.), Rightward movement in a comparative perspective, 211–241. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kato, Mary A. & Ilza Ribeiro
2009 Cleft sentences from Old Portuguese to Modern Portuguese. In Andreas Dufter & Daniel Jacob (eds.), Focus and background in Romance languages, 123–154. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard
1994 The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Law, Paul
2005 Questions and clefts in Malagasy. In Jeffrey Heinz & Dimitrios Ntelitheos (eds.), Proceedings of AFLA XII, UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 12, 195–209.
Munaro, Nicola
1999 Sintagmi interrogativi nei dialetti italiani. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
Neidle Carol, Judy Kegl, Dawn MacLaughlin, Benjamin Bahan & Robert Lee
2000 The syntax of American Sign Language: Functional categories and hierarchical structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Neidle, Carol
2002 Language across modalities: ASL focus and question constructions. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2(1). 71–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, Jairo
2004 Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo & Ronice M. de Quadros
2006 Duplication of WH-elements in Brazilian Sign Language. In Leah Bateman & Cherlon Ussery (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 35, 463–477. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Paul, Ileana
2001 Concealed pseudo-clefts. Lingua 111. 707–727. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Petronio, Karen & Diane Lillo-Martin
1997 WH-Movement and the position of Spec-CP: Evidence from American Sign Language. Language 73(1). 18–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia & Jean-Yves Pollock
2004 On wh-clitics and wh-doubling in French and some North-Eastern Italian dialects. Probus 16. 241–272. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Norvin
2010 Uttering trees. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
2001 On the position ‘‘Int(errogative)’ in the left periphery of the clause. In Guglielmo Cinque & Giampaolo Salvi (eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax. Essays offered to Lorenzo Renzi, 287–296. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
2010 On some properties of criterial freezing. In Phoevos Panagiotidis (ed.), The complementiser phase: Subjects and operators, 17–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy
1989 Phonological representation of the sign. Dordrecht: Foris CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy & Diane Lillo-Martin
2006 Sign language and linguistics universals. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van der Sandt, Rob A.
1988 Context and presupposition. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike
(ed.) 2006 Interrogative and negative constructions in sign languages. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.Google Scholar
Zucchi, Sandro
2009 Along the time line: Tense and time adverbs in Italian Sign Language. Natural Language Semantics 17. 99–139. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zucchi, Sandro, Carol Neidle, Carlo Geraci, Quinn Duffy & Carlo Cecchetto
2010 Functional markers in sign languages. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages (Cambridge Language Surveys), 437–492. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar