Wh-doubling in German Sign Language

References

1. Abner, Natasha
   2011 Wh-words that go bump in the right. InMary 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]
2. Bhatt, Rajesh
   2003 Locality in correlatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory21(3). 485–541. 10.1023/A:1024192606485
   https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024192606485 [Google Scholar]
3. Branchini, Chiara, Anna Cardinaletti, Carlo Cecchetto, Caterina Donati & Carlo Geraci
   2013 Wh-duplication in Italian Sign Language (LIS). Sign Language & Linguistics16(2). 157–188. 10.1075/sll.16.2.03bra
   https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.16.2.03bra [Google Scholar]
4. 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 Linguistics5(1): 108. 10.5334/gjgl.1094
   https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1094 [Google Scholar]
5. Bross, Fabian
   2020b The clausal syntax of German Sign Language: A cartographic approach. Berlin: Language Science Press.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Chung, Sandra, William A. Ladusaw & James McCloskey
   1995 Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics3(3). 239–282. 10.1007/BF01248819
   https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01248819 [Google Scholar]
7. Cinque, Guglielmo
   2016 On the double-headed analysis of “headless” relative clauses. InLudovico Franco & Paolo Lorusso (eds.), Linguistic variation: Structure and interpretation, 169–196. Boston & Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Cinque, Guglielmo
   2020 The syntax of relative clauses: A unified analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108856195
   https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108856195 [Google Scholar]
9. Dayal, Veneeta
   2012 Locality in wh quantification: Questions and relative clauses in Hindi. Dordrecht: Springer.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Felser, Claudia
    2004 Wh-copying, phases, and successive cyclicity. Lingua114(5). 543–574. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(03)00054‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00054-8 [Google Scholar]
11. Ginzburg, Jonathan & Ivan Sag
    2000 Interrogative investigations. Stanford: CSLI publications.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Groat, Erich
    2015 Total transfer, dynamic labeling, and transfer remnants. InGünther Grewendorf (ed.), Remnant movement, 257–320. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781614516330‑010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614516330-010 [Google Scholar]
13. 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]
14. Hartmann, Katharina & Tonjes Veenstra
    2013 Introduction. InKatharina Hartmann & Tonjes Veenstra (eds.), Cleft structures, 1–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.208.01har
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.208.01har [Google Scholar]
15. Hedberg, Nancy
    1990 Discourse pragmatics and cleft sentences in English. University of Minnesota PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Hedberg, Nancy
    2000 The referential status of clefts. Language76(4). 891–920. 10.2307/417203
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417203 [Google Scholar]
17. Herrmann, Annika, Sina Proske & Elisabeth Volk
    2019 Question-answer pairs in sign languages. InMalte Zimmermann, Klaus von Heusinger & Edgar Onea (eds.), Questions in discourse, 96–131. Leiden & Boston: Brill. 10.1163/9789004378322_005
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004378322_005 [Google Scholar]
18. Hiraiwa, Ken & Shinichiro Ishihara
    2002 Missing links: Cleft, sluicing, and “no da” construction in Japanese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics431. 35–54.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Hiraiwa, Ken & Shinichiro Ishihara
    2012 Syntactic metamorphosis: Clefts, sluicing, and in-situ focus in Japanese. Syntax15(2). 142–180. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2011.00164.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00164.x [Google Scholar]
20. Hoekstra, Jarich
    1993 The split CP hypothesis and the Frisian complementizer system. Ms. Frisian Academy.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Höhle, Tilman N.
    2000 The w-…w-construction: Appositive or scope indicating?InUlrich Lutz, Gereon Müller & Armin von Stechow (eds.), Beiträge zur deutschen Grammatik, 249–270. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.37.10hoh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.37.10hoh [Google Scholar]
22. Hole, Daniel
    2011 The deconstruction of Chinese sh…de clefts revisited. Lingua121(11). 1707–1733. 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.07.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.07.004 [Google Scholar]
23. Katz, Jerrold J. & Paul M. Postal
    1967 An integrated theory of linguistic description. Synthese17(1).
    [Google Scholar]
24. Kimmelman, Vadim
    2013 Doubling in RSL and NGT: A pragmatic account. InMaria 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]
25. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Koulidobrova, Elena
    2017 Elide me bare: Null arguments in American Sign Language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory35(2). 397–446. 10.1007/s11049‑016‑9349‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-016-9349-5 [Google Scholar]
27. Koulidobrova, Helen & Leyla Zidani-Eroglu
    2018 A few arguments for isomorphic sluicing in ASL. Manuscript, online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-few-arguments-for-isomorphic-sluicing-in-ASL-Aug-Koulidobrova/bf52f2a158e6fb068bd6c48255178b3a3f98b482, received19 February 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Lobeck, Anne C.
    1995 Ellipsis: Functional heads, licensing, and identification. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195091816.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195091816.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
29. McDaniel, Dana
    1989 Partial and multiple wh-movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory7(4). 565–604. 10.1007/BF00205158
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00205158 [Google Scholar]
30. Meinunger, André
    1998 A monoclausal structure for (pseudo-)cleft sentences. InPius N. Tamanji & Kiyomi Kusumoto (eds.), Proceedings of NELS, vol.281. 283–298.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Merchant, Jason
    2001 The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands, and the theory of ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199243730.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199243730.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
32. Merchant, Jason
    2019 Ellipsis: A survey of analytical approaches. InJeroen van Craenenbroek & Tanja Temmermann (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis, 19–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.2
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.2 [Google Scholar]
33. Murphy, Andrew
    2016 What copying (doesn’t) tell us about movement: Remarks on the derivation wh-copying in German. InKatja 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]
34. Neidle, Carol, Judy Anne Kegl & Benjamin Bahan
    1994 The architecture of functional categories in American Sign Language. Talk presented atHarvard University, Cambridge, MA.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Nunes, Jairo & Ronice Müller de Quadros
    2005 Duplication of wh-elements in Brazilian Sign Language. InLeah Bateman & Cherlon Ussery (eds.), Proceedings of NELS, vol. 351. 463–477. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Pankau, Andreas
    2014 Replacing copies: The syntax of wh-copying in German. Utrecht: University of Utrecht PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Petronio, Karen
    1993 Clause structure in American Sign Language. Washington: University of Washington PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Petronio, Karen & Diane Lillo-Martin
    1997 WH-movement and the position of Spec-CP: Evidence from American Sign Language. Language731. 18–57. 10.2307/416592
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416592 [Google Scholar]
39. Pfau, Roland & Heleen Bos
    2016 Syntax: Simple sentences. InAnne Baker, Beppie van den Bogaerde, Roland Pfau & Trude Schermer (eds.), The linguistics of sign languages: An introduction, 117–147. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.199.06pfa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.199.06pfa [Google Scholar]
40. Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach
    2005 Relative clauses in German Sign Language: Extraposition and reconstruction. InLeah Bateman & Cherlon Ussery (eds.), Proceedings of NELS, vol.351. 507–521. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Rohdenburg, Günter
    2003 Cognitive complexity and horror aequi as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers in English. InGünter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 205–250. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110900019.205
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110900019.205 [Google Scholar]
42. Ross, John Robert
    1970 On declarative sentences. InRoderick Jacobs & Peter Rosenbaum (eds.), English transformational grammar, 222–272. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Rugna, Giuseppe
    2020 German wh-copying: A top-down analysis. Quaderni di Linguistica e Studi Orientali61. 187–219.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Srivastav, Veneeta
    1991 The syntax and semantics of correlatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory9(4). 637–686. 10.1007/BF00134752
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134752 [Google Scholar]
45. van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen
    2004 Ellipsis in Dutch dialects. Leiden: Leiden University PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
46. van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen
    2010a Complex wh-phrases don’t move: On the interaction between the split CP-hypothesis and the syntax of wh-movement. InPhoevos Panagiotidis (ed.), The complementizer phase: Subjects and operators, 236–260. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199584352.003.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199584352.003.0010 [Google Scholar]
47. van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen
    2010b Invisible last resort: A note on clefts as the underlying source for sluicing. Lingua120(7). 1714–1726. 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.01.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.01.002 [Google Scholar]
48. van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen
    2010c The syntax of ellipsis: Evidence from Dutch dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
49. van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & Anikó Lipták
    2006 The crosslinguistic syntax of sluicing: Evidence from Hungarian relatives. Syntax9(3). 248–274. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2006.00091.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2006.00091.x [Google Scholar]
50. Vincente, Luis
    2019 Sluicing and its subtypes. InJeroen van Craenenbroek & Tanja Temmermann (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis, 117–143. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.22
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198712398.013.22 [Google Scholar]
51. Wilbur, Ronnie
    1996 Evidence for the function and structure of wh-clefts in American Sign Language. International Review of Sign Linguistics221. 209–256.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Zeshan, Ulrike
    2004 Interrogative constructions in signed languages: Crosslinguistic perspectives. Language801. 7–39. 10.1353/lan.2004.0050
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0050 [Google Scholar]