Cover not available
Article published In:
Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 26:2 (2023) ► pp.258–275
Squib

Wh-doubling in German Sign Language

Why not sluicing?

ORCID logo | University of Stuttgart
Wh-doubling is a widely attested phenomenon in sign languages. Several analyses are found in the literature assuming, for example, base-generation of one of the doubles or making (heavy) use of remnant movement. Using data from German Sign Language, this article discusses the possibility that the structure might be derived from a relative clause embedded under a wh-question which finally undergoes sluicing. It will be argued that such an account correctly predicts the distribution of the wh-phrases found in German Sign Language doubling constructions.
Keywords: wh-doubling, focus doubling, sluicing, syntax, German Sign Language
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The data to be accounted for and the basic hypothesis
  • 3.Comparable constructions in other languages
  • 4.A relative-clause sluicing analysis of wh-doubling in DGS
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 September 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.22005.bro
References (52)
References
Abner, Natasha. 2011. Wh-words that go bump in the right. In Mary Byram Washburn, Katherine McKinney-Bock, Erika Varis, Ann Sawyer & Barbara Tomaszewicz (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 24–32.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2003. Locality in correlatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(3). 485–541. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Branchini, Chiara, Anna Cardinaletti, Carlo Cecchetto, Caterina Donati & Carlo Geraci. 2013. Wh-duplication in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Sign Language & Linguistics 16(2). 157–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bross, Fabian. 2020a. Encoding different types of topics and foci in German Sign Language: A cartographic approach to sign language syntax. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1): 108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020b. The clausal syntax of German Sign Language: A cartographic approach. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra, William A. Ladusaw & James McCloskey. 1995. Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics 3(3). 239–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2016. On the double-headed analysis of “headless” relative clauses. In Ludovico Franco & Paolo Lorusso (eds.), Linguistic variation: Structure and interpretation, 169–196. Boston & Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2020. The syntax of relative clauses: A unified analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta. 2012. Locality in wh quantification: Questions and relative clauses in Hindi. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Felser, Claudia. 2004. Wh-copying, phases, and successive cyclicity. Lingua 114(5). 543–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan & Ivan Sag. 2000. Interrogative investigations. Stanford: CSLI publications.Google Scholar
Groat, Erich. 2015. Total transfer, dynamic labeling, and transfer remnants. In Günther Grewendorf (ed.), Remnant movement, 257–320. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Happ, Daniela & Marc-Oliver Vorköper. 2014. Deutsche Gebärdensprache: Ein Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch [German Sign Language: A text- and workbook]. Frankfurt am Main: Fachhochschulverlag.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina & Tonjes Veenstra. 2013. Introduction. In Katharina Hartmann & Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Cleft structures, 1–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy. 1990. Discourse pragmatics and cleft sentences in English. University of Minnesota PhD dissertation.
. 2000. The referential status of clefts. Language 76(4). 891–920. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, Annika, Sina Proske & Elisabeth Volk. 2019. Question-answer pairs in sign languages. In Malte Zimmermann, Klaus von Heusinger & Edgar Onea (eds.), Questions in discourse, 96–131. Leiden & Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken & Shinichiro Ishihara. 2002. Missing links: Cleft, sluicing, and “no da” construction in Japanese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 431. 35–54.Google Scholar
. 2012. Syntactic metamorphosis: Clefts, sluicing, and in-situ focus in Japanese. Syntax 15(2). 142–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, Jarich. 1993. The split CP hypothesis and the Frisian complementizer system. Ms. Frisian Academy.Google Scholar
Höhle, Tilman N. 2000. The w-…w-construction: Appositive or scope indicating? In Ulrich Lutz, Gereon Müller & Armin von Stechow (eds.), Beiträge zur deutschen Grammatik, 249–270. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hole, Daniel. 2011. The deconstruction of Chinese sh…de clefts revisited. Lingua 121(11). 1707–1733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. & Paul M. Postal. 1967. An integrated theory of linguistic description. Synthese 17(1).Google Scholar
Kimmelman, Vadim. 2013. Doubling in RSL and NGT: A pragmatic account. In Maria Balbach, Lena Benz, Susanne Genzel, Mira Grubic, Agata Renans, Sören Schalowski, Maja Stegenwallner & Amir Zeldes (eds.), Information structure: Empirical perspectives on theory, 99–118. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
Koulidobrova, Elena. 2012. When the quiet surfaces: ‘Transfer’ of argument omission in the speech of ASL-English bilinguals. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut PhD dissertation.
. 2017. Elide me bare: Null arguments in American Sign Language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 35(2). 397–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koulidobrova, Helen & Leyla Zidani-Eroglu. 2018. A few arguments for isomorphic sluicing in ASL. Manuscript, online: [URL], received 19 February 2020.
Lobeck, Anne C. 1995. Ellipsis: Functional heads, licensing, and identification. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, Dana. 1989. Partial and multiple wh-movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7(4). 565–604. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meinunger, André. 1998. A monoclausal structure for (pseudo-)cleft sentences. In Pius N. Tamanji & Kiyomi Kusumoto (eds.), Proceedings of NELS, vol. 281. 283–298.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Ellipsis: A survey of analytical approaches. In Jeroen van Craenenbroek & Tanja Temmermann (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis, 19–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Andrew. 2016. What copying (doesn’t) tell us about movement: Remarks on the derivation wh-copying in German. In Katja Barnickel, Matías Guzmán Naranjo, Johannes Hein, Sampson Korsah, Andrew Murphy, Ludger Paschen, Zorica Puškar & Joanna Zaleska (eds.), Replicative processes in grammar, 149–188. Leipzig: Institut für Linguistik, Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Neidle, Carol, Judy Anne Kegl & Benjamin Bahan. 1994. The architecture of functional categories in American Sign Language. Talk presented at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Nunes, Jairo & Ronice Müller de Quadros. 2005. Duplication of wh-elements in Brazilian Sign Language. In Leah Bateman & Cherlon Ussery (eds.), Proceedings of NELS, vol. 351. 463–477. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Pankau, Andreas. 2014. Replacing copies: The syntax of wh-copying in German. Utrecht: University of Utrecht PhD dissertation.
Petronio, Karen. 1993. Clause structure in American Sign Language. Washington: University of Washington PhD dissertation.
Petronio, Karen & Diane Lillo-Martin. 1997. WH-movement and the position of Spec-CP: Evidence from American Sign Language. Language 731. 18–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Heleen Bos. 2016. Syntax: Simple sentences. In Anne Baker, Beppie van den Bogaerde, Roland Pfau & Trude Schermer (eds.), The linguistics of sign languages: An introduction, 117–147. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach. 2005. Relative clauses in German Sign Language: Extraposition and reconstruction. In Leah Bateman & Cherlon Ussery (eds.), Proceedings of NELS, vol. 351. 507–521. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2003. Cognitive complexity and horror aequi as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English. In Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 205–250. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1970. On declarative sentences. In Roderick Jacobs & Peter Rosenbaum (eds.), English transformational grammar, 222–272. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Rugna, Giuseppe. 2020. German wh-copying: A top-down analysis. Quaderni di Linguistica e Studi Orientali 61. 187–219.Google Scholar
Srivastav, Veneeta. 1991. The syntax and semantics of correlatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9(4). 637–686. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2004. Ellipsis in Dutch dialects. Leiden: Leiden University PhD dissertation.
. 2010a. Complex wh-phrases don’t move: On the interaction between the split CP-hypothesis and the syntax of wh-movement. In Phoevos Panagiotidis (ed.), The complementizer phase: Subjects and operators, 236–260. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. Invisible last resort: A note on clefts as the underlying source for sluicing. Lingua 120(7). 1714–1726. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010c. The syntax of ellipsis: Evidence from Dutch dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & Anikó Lipták. 2006. The crosslinguistic syntax of sluicing: Evidence from Hungarian relatives. Syntax 9(3). 248–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vincente, Luis. 2019. Sluicing and its subtypes. In Jeroen van Craenenbroek & Tanja Temmermann (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis, 117–143. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie. 1996. Evidence for the function and structure of wh-clefts in American Sign Language. International Review of Sign Linguistics 221. 209–256.Google Scholar
Zeshan, Ulrike. 2004. Interrogative constructions in signed languages: Crosslinguistic perspectives. Language 801. 7–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
video

Video - Example 1

Video - Example 4b

Video - Example 4d

Video - Figure 1 (top)

Video - Figure 1 (middle)

Video - Figure 1 (bottom)