Keywords: French Sign Language, Grammar, Subordination, Coordination, Relative clauses, Temporal clauses, estion-Answer-Pairs, free-relatives, Sentential complements, complementizer

 has to be further developed to integrate freerelatives as its ending point. Finally, we provide a rather extensive investigation of sentential complements in LSF, showing that, in their vast majority, they are subordinated to the main predicate. We also show that LSF displays various types of complements, either nite, non-nite, or introduced by a complementizer.

in the best environment I could dream of.

First of all, I am incredibly grateful for the help of my two advisors. Caterina Donati, whose availability, experience, and openness have provided me with the most useful tools for my thesis. Her support and her trust in every aspect related (or not) to my academic career have been fantastic self-con dence boosters. For her exigence and honesty, I also want to sincerely thank her as it helped me to mature my ideas and writings. I cheerfully thank Carlo Geraci, who introduced me to Sign Language Linguistics, accepted me as a Master student, and then as a Ph.D. student. His encouragement and respect for my autonomy have also helped me grow out of the student mold to take full control of my topic of interest. Both of my advisors have been exemplary in their patience in correcting my broken English, in driving my ideas but, more strikingly, in their genuine interest in helping me get the best future I could hope for. I will always cherish the three years I spent creating this work, thanks to both of you. Special thanks go to the people without whom nothing of this work could have been possible, my consultants and friends; Laurène Loctin, omas Lévêque, Valérie Jendoubi, Yohan Marcelino and all the Deaf people who wholeheartedly participated in my boring linguistic experiments. I also thank Valentina Aristodemo for our collaboration rich in results, laughter, and publications. Similarly, I thank Céline Pozniak for her collaboration, without whom the experimental chapter of this dissertation would have been thousand times more di cult. I am in debt with her patience in re-reading my work and correcting my mistakes.

For sharing their knowledge and for our thoughtful discussions, I thank Mirko Santoro and Jeremy Kuhn.

For their support and advice, I appreciated the help of all the members of my thesis supervision commi ee, Roland Pfau and Chris Reintges, as well as the head of the doctoral school at the time, Ioana Chitoran and the head of the LLF, Olivier Bonami. I also thank the research engineers who helped me with my analyses, Doriane Gras and Yair Haendler.

I would like to express my gratitude to the whole administrative team of the LLF, and in particular, to Viviane Makougni, Ali Dhibi, and Je Alexandre for their help and cheerfulness, despite my (too) repetitive visits.

For their time and reviews, I thank the members of my jury as well as all anonymous referees who helped to improve every stage of my work.

For the good laughs and all of these shared moments, I thank Ye, Julie e, Vincent, Angélique, Antoine, Chiara, Ingrid, Jiaying, Pa y, and so many more.

For dragging me out of my work routine and for their friendship, I want to sincerely thank my best friends who were all so kind and who nourished me (literally). Justine, for your long-lasting friendship, our complicity, our laughs, and cries, for everything. Monica, for all these hot chocolates, these ballets and operas but also for our joint-drawing-sessions and all this time spent together. Gerda, with whom I felt so connected on so many levels. Adriana, with whom we shared our sense of punctuality and our love of funny drawings. And also, Laura, who, in only two years, provided me with so much emotional support. To all of you, my dearest friends, I want to address an enormous thank you and can only hope to see you again soon.

I am especially grateful for the support and understanding that I received from my whole family.

Finally, to you, who makes my life so joyful, with whom we enjoyed so many adventures and have yet so many more thrilling experiences to live. To you, who always genuinely appreciates my work and believes in me more than I do, I dedicate my work to the amazing Dr. So ane Schaack.

Résumé

D ans ce e thèse, nous visons à étudier la complexité syntaxique de la LSF. Nous commenc ¸ons par le cas bien étudié (dans d'autres langues des signes) des stratégies de relativisation, qui instancient à la fois la subordination et l'enchâssement récursif. On a maintes fois fait valoir que ces propriétés sont au coeur des langues humaines ; par conséquent, les clauses relatives sont le porte-drapeau de chaque langue sous-étudiée visant à faire reconnaître son statut. En ce qui concerne la LSF, nous décrivons deux marqueurs manuels que nous analysons comme des pronoms relatifs de type D, ainsi qu'une stratégie alternative non marquée manuellement, et nous montrons que la LSF a des clauses relatives à la fois à tête interne et externe. Nous montrons que, selon le pronom relatif utilisé, les propositions relatives instancient di érentes propriétés sémantiques. Nous intégrons nos résultats dans le cadre formel de la grammaire générative. Nous étudions également le traitement des propositions relatives sujet et objet dans ce e langue, à travers l'adaptation d'un paradigme bien connu d'occulométrie. À travers ce e étude expérimentale, nous trouvons l'existence d'un avantage Sujet en LSF. Dans la deuxième partie de la thèse, nous étudions plusieurs phrases complexes : constructions temporelles, fausses questions et compléments sentenciels. Bien que nous sachions, d'après les recherches sur les langues parlées, que les constructions temporelles émergent à travers une variété de stratégies syntaxiques telles que la subordination, la juxtaposition ou la coordination, trouver leur équivalent dans les langues des signes est souvent un dé en raison de l'absence de complémenteurs et autres mots fonctionnels tels que les conjonctions de coordination. Ce e thèse explore les constructions temporelles en LSF et les inscrit dans une large perspective typologique. Nous montrons que les clauses temporelles en LSF sont très di érentes de celles trouvées en Langue des Signes Italienne (LIS). En particulier, les constructions LSF utilisent deux clauses coordonnées, et le marqueur temporel fait partie de la seconde conjonction. En ce qui concerne les fausses questions (QAP), une li érature de plus en plus abondante sur les langues des signes décrit ce e construction particulière, qui ressemble à une question suivie d'une réponse fragmentaire, mais qui n'est pas interprétée comme telle. Dans Kimmelman and Vink 2017, les auteurs proposent l'existence d'un processus de grammaticalisation, commenc ¸ant par des questions de recherche d'information et se terminant par une composante question-réponse, créant un pont entre deux des principales analyses qui ont été proposées dans la li érature pour prendre en compte ces constructions dans les langues des signes. Nous démontrons, sur la base d'une description détaillée des propriétés des QAP en LSF, que l'échelle de grammaticalisation proposée dans Kimmelman and Vink 2017 doit être développée davantage pour intégrer les relatives sans tête comme point nal. En n, nous présentons une étude assez approfondie des compléments sententiels en LSF, qui montre que, dans leur grande majorité, ils sont subordonnés au verbe principal qu'ils suivent. Nous montrons également que la LSF présente di érents types de compléments, qu'ils soient nis ou non nis, ou introduits par un complémenteur.

Mots-clés

Langue des Signes Franc ¸aise ; grammaire ; subordination; coordination ; propositions relatives ; clauses temporelles ; question/réponse ; relative sans tête ; compléments sententiels ; complémenteurs subscript numbers indicate points in the space used in verbal agreement and pronominalization. We use subscript '1' for a sign directed towards the body of the signer, '2' for a sign directed towards the addressee, and '3' for all other loci (can be subdivided into '3a', '3b ', etc.).

indicates the use of a classi er handshape that may combine with verbs of movement and location, the may be further speci ed using either a shape characteristic or the entity that is classi ed (e.g. or ).

S I G N indicates that a word is ngerspelled.

3 / 3 a pointing sign towards a locus in space; subscripts are used as explained above.

indicates the combination of two signs, be it the combination of two independent signs by compounding or a sign plus a x combination.

indicates that two words are needed to gloss a single sign.

++ indicates reduplication of a sign to express grammatical features such as plural or aspect.

SIGN As is common convention in the sign language literature, signs are glossed in small caps ( ) in the examples as well as in the text. Glosses are in English, irrespective of the sign language.

/xxx/ lexical marker: a mouth gesture or mouthing (silent articulation of a spoken word) associated with a sign; whenever possible, the phonetic form is given.

Lines above the glosses indicate the scope (i.e. onset and o set) of a particular nonmanual, be it a lexical, a morphological, or a syntactic marker. Some of the abbreviations refer to the form of a non-manual marker while others refer to the function.

bf body lean forward. neg syntactic negation marker: side-to-side headshake.

re raised eyebrows (e.g. topic, yes/no-question).

rg right gaze. se squinted eyes.

top syntactic topic marker: raised eyebrows, head tilted slightly back.

urg upward right gaze.

wh syntactic wh-question marker, frowned eyebrows and mouthing of the wh-word in French.

woe wide opened eyes.

y/n syntactic yes/no-question marker: raised eyebrows, forward head tilt.

xxii

List of Figures Illustration of Deaf

. 98 Semantic roles of complements

From [START_REF] Noonan | Complementation". Complex Constructions[END_REF]

Introduction 1.1 General introduction

Sign language research has been at the heart of growing literature over the past few decades, but a lot is still missing as far as grammatical descriptions of speci c sign languages are concerned.

Complete descriptions of most sign languages are not yet available, and this has negative consequences not only for linguists but also for a whole range of professionals who need to rely on a full description of the language, such as teachers, interpreters, or clinicians. Investigating sign language grammar is also very important for the concerned Deaf community itself; it provides arguments and tools to defend their status. Indeed, researching subordination in sign languages has a broad impact on general approaches to sign language linguistics and a speci c impact on the study of LSF. e broad impact concerns the status of language in the visual modality. Early research showed that SL have a phonological and a morphological domain [START_REF] Stokoe | Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf[END_REF]/2005) and that some level of syntactic organization is also accessible. However, clear cases of genuine embedding at the sentential level are very hard to document and demonstrate. e main reasons being the lack of overt complementizers and, in part, the poor understanding of the role of non-manual components.

e question about sentential subordination intersects an even broader and more delicate issue. In the relatively recent works by Chomsky (Hauser, Chomsky, and[START_REF] Hauser | e faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?[END_REF][START_REF] Fitch | e evolution of the language faculty: clari cations and implications[END_REF] and the debates stemming from them [START_REF] Pinker | e faculty of language: what's special about it?[END_REF] pushed the idea that the core component of human language understood in the strictest way is the recursive property (i.e., one speci c characteristics of human language syntax).

e power of recursivity can be easily detected once looking at cases of multiple embedding, which are instantiated both with sentential complementation and relative clauses. is debate about the core aspects of human language brought back the unsolved issue of subordination, embedding and recursivity in SL. e speci c impact of our work with the study of LSF is related to the fact that, despite (Old) French Sign Language being probably at the root of many European SL, and of ASL too, very li le research has been done on the syntax of this language. In this respect, we hope that our work will provide an important contribution to the empirical documentation of LSF. In this dissertation, we aim at investigating LSF grammar with a focus on complex sentences.

At the nominal level, we start by investigating relativization strategies in LSF, a well-studied topic in sign languages (see Section I.2.2 for a review). A er presenting the state of the art of both typological (Section I.2.1) and formal (Section I.2.3) accounts of relative clauses, we show in Chapter I.2 that LSF has genuine cases of relative clauses and that they can be both internally and externally headed. We will show that relative clauses are marked in three di erent ways: by using prosodic cues only (i.e., facial expressions and body postures), or by using one of the two manual signs. One is the classi er for person, which is speci c to human referents. e other is a particular kind of pointing sign and is available for all kinds of referents. In the last Chapter I.4, we present two experiments, one in French and one in LSF, to test the processing of relative clauses on a broader population, using an eye-tracking protocol. Doing so, we show 1) that it is possible to adapt a pre-existent audio-visual paradigm into a visual-only display. is nding paves the way for studying sign languages with the same ne-grained methodologies from which spoken languages theories bene t. We also show 2) that LSF presents the Subject Advantage in the processing of relative clauses, a process that appears universally a ested in spoken languages.

In the second part of this dissertation we investigate a number of complex sentences found in LSF with always the same question in mind: how are the two clauses related to each other? We start by comparing LIS and LSF temporal clauses (Chapter II.5) and, through their di erent pa erns across several syntactic tests, show that prima facie resemblance between two signed languages is by no means indicative of their underlying structure. In Chapter II.6, we turn to the analysis of 'false-questions', or QAP, in LSF. We show that they present di erent properties from their ASL, NGT and LIS counterparts. Along with an extensive review of the myths which continue to spread within the sign language literature on the topic, these results will lead us to propose a grammaticalization path leading from questions/answers to referential free-relatives. Finally, in Chapter II.7, we carefully investigate about y sentential complements in LSF. To determine how they are related to their main predicates, we conduct a systematic empirical work aiming at unearthing their syntactic properties. Along our path, we discover the use of a complementizer ' comp ' which is obligatory used to introduce commentative predicates, and optionally present in other cases.

We start this dissertation by providing a glimpse at the necessary background needed to be er understand the complexity of the Deaf community, the variations within the signing communities, and the LSF's speci c socio-linguistic context. We also present the linguistic speci cities induced by the visual modality of signed languages. We then introduce the needed bases of LSF's grammar before describing the methods we used throughout our researches.

Visualizing sign languages 1.2.1 Sociocultural background

In this thesis, we are investigating French Sign Language, the language of the French Deaf people. However, what does it mean to be Deaf with a capital D [START_REF] Woodward | Implications for sociolinguistic research among the deaf[END_REF])?

1.2.1.1 d/Deaf
is concept arose in reaction to the medical perspective onto deafness, on which Deaf individuals are primarily seen through the notions of impairment and de ciency. Within this perspective, Deaf people are considered mainly through a lack, which feeds stereotypes within the society about Deafs abilities and impact greatly their life (see [START_REF] Benvenuto | De quoi parlons-nous quand nous parlons de "sourds[END_REF], [START_REF] Myrdal | An American Dilemma New York: Harper and Row[END_REF][START_REF] Monaghan | Many ways to be deaf: International variation in deaf communities[END_REF][START_REF] Krentz | Deaf culture prevails[END_REF] or Skutnabb-Kangas 2003 for in-depth analysis of these phenomenons). A rather di erent narrative has nevertheless emerged in the past y years with the concept of 'Deafnicity' [START_REF] Lane | Histoire chronologique de la répression de la langue des signes en France et aux États-Unis[END_REF] and being 'Deaf'.

rough this word, [START_REF] Woodward | Implications for sociolinguistic research among the deaf[END_REF] aims at distinguishing the cultural construction (=Deaf) from the medical circumstance (=deaf). In this respect, Deaf individuals form a community (or even an ethnos, following Eckert 2010), which revolves mainly around its shared sign language and life experiences. Life experiences vary signi cantly across countries and contexts. For example, living in a village versus living in an urbanized area might in uence the degree of integration of the Deaf people within society. Similarly, having centralized education policies or, on the contrary, decentralized, are other factors of variations that have a de nite impact on Deaf lives. Nevertheless, [START_REF] Monaghan | Many ways to be deaf: International variation in deaf communities[END_REF] identify many common pa erns, universal throughout Deaf history. Among these pa erns, [START_REF] Monaghan | Many ways to be deaf: International variation in deaf communities[END_REF] say that there is not a time T in History which can be taken as being the precise origin of a Deaf community; they arise as soon as multiple Deaf individuals are together. O en this opportunity surfaces through schools and institutions. In France, more and more works are investigating the History of LSF and the Deaf community (see, for example, [START_REF] Cantin | DES ORIGINES DU NO ÉTOMALALIEN FRANC ¸AIS, PERSPECTIVES HISTORIQUES[END_REF][START_REF] Mo Ez | À s' obstiner contre les dé ciences, on augmente souvent le handicap: l'exemple des sourds[END_REF]. 1.2.1.2 e Deaf community e sign language of the Deaf communities (ASL for the American Deaf community, LSF for French Deafs) is at the heart of their culture and ethnos. [START_REF] Eckert | Toward a theory of deaf ethnos: Deafnicity ≈ D/deaf (hómaemonhomóglosson -homóthreskon)[END_REF] highlights the various distinctions within the 'Signing community', which includes all d/Deaf and non-d/Deaf individuals signing.

e members of the signing community vary greatly in terms of their hearing status, their SL uency, their age and mean of acquisition, and their contribution to the Deaf community. While being Deaf entails being part of the signing community, the reverse is not true, as illustrated in Figure [START_REF] Woodward | Implications for sociolinguistic research among the deaf[END_REF]. To describe the signing community [START_REF] Eckert | Toward a theory of deaf ethnos: Deafnicity ≈ D/deaf (hómaemonhomóglosson -homóthreskon)[END_REF] says: "Although SL uency is preferred, it is not required […] Anyone with interest in sign languages can be a member [of the signing community] for the duration of their interest. " (Eckert, 2010: 325)

Towards language recognition

As language is at the very heart of the Deaf culture, it is very relevant to document every SL. In this respect, the seminal work [START_REF] Stokoe | Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf[END_REF]/2005), acknowledging the language status of sign languages, has paved the way for their linguistic investigation and formalization. In France, 'Le réveil Sourd' (translated: e Deaf awakening) refers to the re-appropriation of their culture by Deafs in the 1970's 1 . Within this movement was Christian [START_REF] Cuxac | Le langage des sourds[END_REF], who signi cantly contributed to the recognition of the LSF as being a fully-edged language, di erent from French, until its legal recognition in 2005. While [START_REF] Cuxac | Le langage des sourds[END_REF]'s work has made it possible to identify the speci cities of visual languages through a system designed explicitly for their study, a lot more work remains about the descriptive, formal, and comparative dimensions, especially for LSF. is is precisely what we aim at doing in this dissertation, at least in the domain of subordination.

Accessing language through the visual modality

Sign languages are realized both through the hands and through non-manual markers. Regarding manual signs, three types of signs co-exist in the native lexicon of sign languages: core signs, classi ers [START_REF] Brentari | Native and Foreign Vocabulary in American Sign Language: A Lexicon With Multiple Origins[END_REF], and compounds [START_REF] Santoro | e Properties of compounds in LIS and LSF[END_REF]). While we will not go in the details of this classi cation, we repeat the gure proposed in [START_REF] Santoro | e Properties of compounds in LIS and LSF[END_REF] in Figure (2). Classi ers are generic morphemes, expressed through particular handshapes that iconically map a salient characteristic of the entity referred to [START_REF] Zwitserlood | 2.2 Pictures (a) Filler picture: F9 (b) Filler picture: F10 (c) Filler picture: F11 (d) Filler picture: F12 (e) Filler picture: F13 (f) Filler picture: F14 (g) Filler picture: F15 (h) Filler picture: F16 (i) Filler picture: F17 (j) Filler picture: F18 (k) Filler picture: F19 (l) Filler picture: F20 (m) Filler picture: F21 (n) Filler picture: F22 (o) Filler picture: F23 (p) Filler picture: F24 (q) Filler picture: F25 (r) Filler picture: F26 (s) Filler picture: F27 (t) Filler picture: F28 (u) Filler picture: F29 (v) Filler picture: F30 (w) Filler picture: F31 (x) Filler picture: F32 (y) Filler picture: F31 (z) Filler picture: F32 (aa) Filler picture: F33 C.3.2 Pictures (a) Item picture: I1 (b) Item picture: I2 (c) Item picture: I3 (d) Item picture: I4 (e) Item picture: I5 (f) Item picture: I6 (g) Item picture: I7 (h) Item picture: I8 (i) Item picture: I10 (j) Item picture: I11 (k) Item picture: I12 (l) Item picture: I13 (m) Item picture: I14 (n) Item picture: I15 (o) Item picture: I16 (p) Item picture: I17 (q) Item picture: I[END_REF].

Since sign languages use the visual modality, any visual cue may have an impact on the interpretation of the sentence. e 'NMMs' are pieces of information conveyed through other means than the hands; they can include movement of the body or the eyebrows, eye-gaze direction, and any other facial expression. ey can, for example, express declarative vs. interrogative force of a sentence, or negation, among other things [START_REF] Baker | Focusing on the Non-manual Components of ASL[END_REF], but they also play a role in determining the structure of relative clauses and other subordinate clauses (see for example Cecche o, [START_REF] Cecche O | Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language[END_REF]. As speci ed in the glossing conventions of this dissertation, we indicate the extension (or spreading) of NMMs over manual signs by using a line above the glosses. Each NMM has a label describing its meaning or its phonological features. In the example in [START_REF] Woodward | Implications for sociolinguistic research among the deaf[END_REF], the topicalized constituent is co-articulated with a topic NMMs, which is indicated by the line above the signs ' ' and ' '.

(1) top

[ASL] 'Next week, I'll see Bill. ' (Leeson & Saeed, 2012: 251)

Use of space

Space is used for several linguistic functions across sign languages; this includes references of time or nominals as well as, for example, agreement. Here we present an overview of how time can be mapped in space across SL.

Time

In [START_REF] Sinte | Le temps en langue des signes. Collection Rivages linguistiques[END_REF]'s book 'Le temps en langue des signes' ('Time in signed languages'), the author o ers a review of how time is expressed across sign languages. Along the line of previous crosslinguistic studies Pfau, Steinbach, and Woll (2012), the author remarks that temporality is mainly expressed through lexical items, spatial timelines, and NMMs. In fact, all these components interact to express ne grained degrees of temporal relations.

Regarding the spatial timelines, many authors [START_REF] Brennan | Language in sign: An international perspective on sign language[END_REF] for BSL, Engberg-Pedersen 1993 for NGT, Sallandre 2007 for LSF, [START_REF] Pizzuto | Terms for spatio-temporal relations in Italian Sign Language[END_REF] More speci cally, line number 1 (in red in Figure 3) is called the 'deictic line'. It takes the signer's body as the present reference and the space in front/behind him as the future/past. Line 2 (in green, from le to right on the horizontal plane) is the 'duration/continuity line'. e line number 3, (in purple from the elbow to the ngers of the non-dominant arm) is used for calendar events and anaphora in BSL while the line 4 (in blue, on the horizontal plane in front of the signer) is the 'mixed line' used for all three precedent functions. Additionally, the la er can express succession between speci c events. e 5 th line (in orange, on a vertical plane in front of the signer) refers to the succession of events organized as in an agenda in BSL. 2 Finally, line 6 (in pink, on the vertical ipsilateral plane) is called the 'ontological line' and refers to the life-time related event of individuals.

Out of these six lines, only the line number 1, which is visualized in Figure (3) as a horizontal line going from behind the signer to ahead of him, is consistently described cross-linguistically.

Reference to these lines can appear through movement and localization of the signs, or through body lean. e la er is the main non-manual cue used to express temporal information: leaning the body back expresses the past tense while leaning it forward expresses the future. is use of virtual lines goes beyond time reference; spatial realization is an essential aspect of sign languages that is visible at all levels of the linguistic input.

Nominals, reference, and agreement

A peculiar use of space which is typical of sign languages is when nominals are associated with a point in space, named locus. Nominals can be signed in a speci c location of the signing space and be referred back by pointing toward this localization, as in example (2) [START_REF] Liddell | American Sign Language syntax[END_REF][START_REF] Pfau | Relative clauses in German Sign Language : Extraposition and reconstruction[END_REF], Wilbur 1996 a. o.).

(2) Here is Mary i . She i received a gi .

We illustrate this process in Figure ( 4) and will explain it in more details while describing the LSF grammar. e loci can also be visible in the realization of some verbs and functions like agreement markers. Across SL, three main types of verbs have been identi ed by [START_REF] Padden | e relation between space and grammar in ASL verb morphology[END_REF]: spatial (cf. Fig. 5a), agreeing (Fig. 5b) and non-agreeing verbs (Fig. 5c). For the last two types, we prefer the terms 'directional' and 'plain', which are more neutral on whether some kind of agreement is present or not. Directional verbs are described by [START_REF] Padden | e relation between space and grammar in ASL verb morphology[END_REF] as verbs that contain agreement a xes for person and number for both the subject and the object.

e two arguments are expressed through movement, with, in general, the onset of the verb movement being the subject locus and the object locus, the o set (see Figure 5). Backward verbs, a subcategory of directional verbs, also use movement from one locus to the other but in the opposite direction, with the onset of the movement being the object of the verb. Plain verbs are realized on the body or neutral space and do not express agreement through movement. Spatial verbs, nally, contain locative a xes in their morphology.

Investigating the grammar of French Sign Language

In this section, we provide pieces of information about the grammar of LSF that will be needed to interpret the results of our thesis fully. is includes a description of the language's main grammatical properties, coming from the literature, whenever possible, or out of our work, whenever needed.

Word order in LSF

In LSF, the possibility to position nominals in space has led proponents of what Millet in Millet and Verlaine (2017) calls the 'divergent approach' (among many others Cuxac 1999[START_REF] Cuxac | Le langage des sourds[END_REF], Sallandre 2007[START_REF] Sallandre | Les unités du discours en Langue des Signes Franc ¸aise. Tentative de catégorisation dans le cadre d'une grammaire de l'iconicité[END_REF], to postulate this as mandatory. According to this view, the syntax is virtually absent from LSF which is said to be structured on pragmatic and semantic grounds, the use of space being at the heart of sentence realization. In this account, word order is described as follows: time of the event > location of the event > patient > bene ciary > agent > action. is is illustrated in example ( 3).

(3) Y , , , M i , J j j i . 'Yesterday, at school, the book, to Mary, John gave (it). ' is view has been partially challenged by [START_REF] Millet | Grammaire descriptive de la langue des signes franc ¸aise[END_REF], who analyses this order as a tendency contingent on a speci c type of se ing, the narrative one. e word order proposed should not be, in her proposal, considered a real feature of the grammar since the narrative se ing is di erent from the normal dialog one. e two modalities are distinguished by the presence of role-shi (i.e., the character playing), which is obligatory in the narrative se ing. In such case, the signer acts as a character of the sentence. According to [START_REF] Janzen | e construal of events: passives in American Sign Language[END_REF], this phenomenon has to go from agent to agent, except in the case of passive voice. In er et al. (2017b), [START_REF] Pfau | Relative clauses in German Sign Language : Extraposition and reconstruction[END_REF], Schlenker (2017a), Schlenker (2017bSchlenker ( ) or er et al. (2017a)), role-shi is characterized as involving body orientation as well as the use of classi ers to embody the character, with an optional shi in deictics. is se ing usually a ects the word order in requiring to posit elements of the 'play' with which the character will interact, as in example (4).

(4)

, ´

´ , ( ), , ´ , . rural, bumpy valley, green, grass green, surface, horse run happy. 'In the rural land, in a valley with reliefs, there is green grass, in the eld there is an horse who's happily running. ' from Bra ort et al. ( 2001): crdo-FSL-CUCO23 00:07 to 00:13

In Millet and Verlaine (2017), role-shi in LSF is described as a process involving the synchronized movement of the head, torso, and shoulders in which the signer signs very close from his body and face in order to show the act of impersonating. e face is also 'acting', meaning that the NMMs acquire an expressive meaning. Importantly, eye-gaze follows the perspective of the impersonated character, meaning that the signer stops looking at his addressee as long as the role-shi is happening. e narrative se ing is o en accompanied by the presence of classi ers identifying the character impersonated that are kept while the perspective is maintained (see Figure 6). A lot more work is needed to fully grasp the syntactic implications of role-shi , which goes beyond the purpose of the present thesis. Outside of the narrative se ing, Millet proposes a semi-divergent view in which the signer's space is horizontally and vertically subdivided into meaningful areas, what she calls the 'presemanticized model' (see Figure 7). en, the syntax of LSF surfaces mainly through movement between these areas and 'iconic' handshapes (what she calls the 'dynamic iconic model'). While we do not agree with this semi-divergent approach, there are descriptive aspects of Millet's work that are worth discussing in detail. She acknowledges that the word order of LSF is in the majority SOV or SVO. is is consistent with what we nd in our researches and what has been previously described by [START_REF] Coutinho | Approche polyphonique d'un récit produit en langue des signes franc ¸aise[END_REF] (who reports SVO as the main word order) and De Langhe et al. ( 2004) (who reports SOV as the basic one). [START_REF] Millet | Grammaire descriptive de la langue des signes franc ¸aise[END_REF], also specify the word order within the nominal group. ey show that the noun is, in general, signed rst with respect to possessives, demonstratives, predicative adjectives (as is the case in ASL Sandler and Lillo-Martin 2006) However, she notes that the reverse is also possible despite being less frequent. In the methodological part, we present additional evidence in favor of analyzing LSF as exibly presenting both SOV and SVO word orders.

Active versus passive voice

e di erence between active and passive voice has been unequally addressed across sign languages. Some authors (see among others [START_REF] Gee | American Sign Language and the human biological capacity for language[END_REF]Goodhart 1988 or Mallery 2001) deny the existence of a productive role of passivization in SL. On the other hand, [START_REF] Janzen | e construal of events: passives in American Sign Language[END_REF] and [START_REF] Leeson | Exploring the cognitive underpinning in the construal of passive events in Irish Sign Language (ISL)[END_REF], [START_REF] Leeson | Irish sign language[END_REF] have argued the opposite for ASL and Irish SL, respectively. According to these authors, the passive voice can be identi ed through either word order change or role-shi . In detail, [START_REF] Leeson | Irish sign language[END_REF] argue that in Irish SL, the passive voice forces the patient to be produced rst with the agent appearing a er or being le out. In ASL, [START_REF] Janzen | e construal of events: passives in American Sign Language[END_REF] argue that role-shi always goes from agent to agent except in the case of passive voice where it is the patient that is impersonated. erefore the presence of passive shi s the target of role-shi . is is illustrated in example ( 6).

(6) a.

CL cat active ' e cat catch the mouse. ' b.

CL mouse passive ' e mouse is caught by the cat. '

Adapted from Gui eny (2005): 305 ese two features are also found in Gui eny (2006) in LSF. e author proposes that the word order for the active voice is generally SVO or SOV with 'S' being the agent while in the passive voice, it has to be the patient. Interestingly, Gui eny (2006) argues that this change in word order only appears with directional verbs; plain verbs have to introduce the agent a er the verb through a 'by-phrase' headed by signs such as or .

Nouns

e distinction between nouns and verbs is o en problematic in sign languages (and not only) since some lexical items can function as both. For example the sentence in ( 7) could be interpreted as being either a noun-phrase (7a) or a verbal-phrase (7b). (7) / ? LSF a. 'Where is the paintbrush?' b. 'Where do you paint?' However, Millet correctly shows that the category 'noun' is necessary to describe LSF for several reasons. First proper names, as well as the vast majority of nouns referring to beings, animals, objects, or places, can only be nouns. In general, she proposes that signs which a) refer to an entity and b) do not display a morphology based on the movement needed to use the object, have to be nouns. To illustrate this last point compare the morpho-phonological properties of ' / ' in Figure ( 8), to ' ' and ' ' in Figure (9). Morphologically, ' ' is realized with a movement reproducing the action of painting. ' ' does not, leaving no ambiguity in its interpretation as a nominal. Verbs are, of course, also ambiguous with nouns. However, this is not systematically the case. Verbs are unambiguously identi ed through their distribution: i.e., their ability to combine with nouns and other markers. In particular, combination with negation is a clear marker of verbness, with' ' combining with verbs only and the negative marker ' ' (illustrated in Figure 10) appearing with nouns (see 8).

Adjectives and adverbials

It is not always easy to distinguish adjectives and adverbials in many languages. Here again, the di erence is mainly distributional: an adjective typically combines with a noun, an adverbial with a verb. Interestingly, [START_REF] Millet | Grammaire descriptive de la langue des signes franc ¸aise[END_REF] found also instances of adjective/adverbial NMMs like in (9).

(9) sad ' e man sadly walks'.

In (9), the emotion displayed non-manually has the function of modifying the verb. Other adverbials, manually realized, are found in LSF, among which the temporal adverbs ' ' and ' ' which will be very useful for our investigations; these adverbs mark either the beginning or the end of the clause, as shown in (10).

(10) a.

b.

'A dog scratched a cat yesterday. ' e position of temporal adverbs will be used here as a reliable cue to determine the edges of a clause cross-linguistically (see among others [START_REF] Neidle | e Syntax of Americain Sign Language : Functional Categories and Hierarchical Structure[END_REF][START_REF] Cecche O | Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language[END_REF][START_REF] Cecche O | Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language[END_REF]. 1.3.2.4 Pointing signs [START_REF] Millet | Grammaire descriptive de la langue des signes franc ¸aise[END_REF] groups under the term 'pointage'3 all linguistic elements directed towards a locus, whether manual or non-manual. is includes pointing realized through torso orientation ('shoulders' in her terminology), eye gaze, or through manual signs. In the la er subcategory, she di erentiates between indexicals (realized with the index nger) and the manual con gurations associated with a verb realization.

Finally, she identi es four di erent demonstratives glossed as pichenette , mainplate , ` for animates and ` for inanimates, of which we reproduced the illustrations provided by the author. Note that pichenette is the sign which we gloss as ' ' that plays an important role in relativization..

In formal literature, pointing are analyzed as pronominals (Pfau, Steinbach, andWoll 2012, er et al. 2017b or Pfau and Steinbach 2015, among many others), the locus in which they are realized is shared with the nominal they refer to.

Linkers

As for complex sentences, Millet and Verlaine (2017) use a generic term 'linker'4 to refer to functional elements such as conjunctions and prepositions.

ey only distinguish between 'paratactic' and 'hypotactic' types of relationship and acknowledge that more work is needed on this behalf. is is precisely what we o er to do in this dissertation.

Among the linkers identi ed by [START_REF] Millet | Grammaire descriptive de la langue des signes franc ¸aise[END_REF], we nd topicalization markers (' ' and ' ' cf. 11) and the causative linker ' ' (cf. 12) that are analyzed as having undergone a grammaticalization process from their nominal form to their grammatical function.

(11) [ ] [ ] [A ´ ] [ ´ ] [ ´ ] [B ] [ ´ 3] [
´ ] [I ] before a air America opposed president Bush IX-3 opposed Irak 'Before, as for America, President Bush was opposed to Iraq. '

(12) [ ] [ ] [
] [ ] train late responsible inondation ' e train is late because of the inondations. '

Other linkers are coordinators such as , , or the sign ' / '.

estions

To the best of our knowledge, very li le research has focalized on interrogative clauses in LSF. [START_REF] Millet | Grammaire descriptive de la langue des signes franc ¸aise[END_REF] observe that the wh-word tends to appear at the end of the sentence, but they provide no actual test to support this claim. In Geraci (In Prep.), on the other hand, the author found that the preferred strategy for asking wh-questions in LSF is to leave the wh-sign in situ (Geraci In Prep.). e examples show this in (13a)-(13b).

(13) LSF a.

'Who did the dog scratch?' b.

'Who scratched the cat?' Another type of question, which will receive extensive a ention in this dissertation are so-called 'false questions' or 'rhetorical questions'. While resembling questions in the lexical words used, they receive an assertive interpretation. eir rst description in LSF dates from 1983 with [START_REF] Moody | Introduction à l'histoire et à la grammaire de la langue des signes: entre les mains des sourds[END_REF]. However, to the best of our knowledge, their description remains very super cial. In Chapter II.6, we will apply syntactic and semantic tests to unearth their formalization.

Methodology

is dissertation applies eldwork methods following three main steps: baseline elicitation, syntactic/semantic surveys, and data assessment through the playback method (Schlenker 2010). All three steps are carried out with native informants of LSF who regularly collaborate with our lab but who crucially have no precise knowledge of our working hypotheses 5 . Additionally, we conduct psycholinguistic studies on a larger and broader population, whose methodology will be detailed in Chapter II.4. Here we present the methodology used to collect the data discussed in Chapters ( 3), ( 5), ( 6) and ( 7).

Word order

Following [START_REF] Comrie | Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology[END_REF], many tests are allowing to determine the dominant word-order of a language:

• Asking native informants

• Comparing frequency within a corpus.

• De ning which word order is the less marked (morpho-phonologically or syntactically)

• De ning which word order is prevalent in pragmatically neutral contexts (i.e., outside of topicalization, focalization, interrogation)

• Analyzing the correlations between heads and complements within the language.

As for the rst test, our informants present alternative preferences; while Laurène, omas and Yohan repeatedly preferred SVO (as shown in 14a), Valérie showed a clear preference for SOV word orders. Looking at corpus studies, [START_REF] Millet | Grammaire descriptive de la langue des signes franc ¸aise[END_REF] found more frequently SOV than SVO, while still nding the la er. ere is, however, no numbers provided. Within the literature, OSV is also frequently a ested (see De [START_REF] De Langhe | A propos des structures OSV en langue des signes franc ¸aise[END_REF]), but it requires at least the raising of the eyebrows over the object, which makes it more marked than its SOV or SVO alternatives and is probably a signal of topicalization, hence movement (see (14b)). ( 14) a.

' e man is pe ing the dog. ' b.

top 'As for the dog, the man is pe ing it. '

Additionally, we follow [START_REF] Millet | Grammaire descriptive de la langue des signes franc ¸aise[END_REF] in considering that the word order described in [START_REF] Cuxac | Le langage des sourds[END_REF] and subsequent works, corresponds to a speci c pragmatical se ing: narration. erefore, it is less neutral than, say, dialog.

Finally, if we turn to correlations between the ordering of heads with respect to their complements, we see the same ambivalence as expected by the two main SOV and SVO word orders. e NPs, for example, can either precede or follow DPs (see 15) just like they can either precede or follow possessives (see 16).

(15) a.

Head > Complement ' ree girls. ' b.

Complement > Head ' ree girls. ' ( 16) a.

M i 3 i Head > Complement 'Marie's house. ' b. M i 3 i
Complement > Head 'Marie's house. ' All these considerations amount to the conclusion that LSF present a exible word order between SVO and SOV, and between heads and complements in general.

is means that in the description of relative clauses (Chapter I.3), temporal clauses (Chapter II.5), sentential complements (Chapter II.7) and estion-Answer Pairs (Chapter II.6), LSF examples may be used with either order. Unless di erently speci ed, we assume the two alternatives to be always possible. e di erence is to be further quali ed either in terms of sociolinguistic variation or in terms of individual preferences.

Baseline elicitation

Depending on the topic we investigate, the elicitation of the baselines is realized through picturebased tasks (for relative-clauses and temporal clauses) or by showing extracts from corpora targeting the relevant structures (for question-answer pairs and sentential complements).

To investigate relativization strategies, since we had no prior knowledge of whether there existed such constructions in LSF, we had to create a protocol favorizing their production. ese structures being particularly complex, di erent methods have been adopted by Sign Languages researchers. In their study about LIS, Cecche o, [START_REF] Cecche O | Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language[END_REF] asked their informants to translate wri en Italian. In 2013, LI (2013) used the help of signed contexts given by an interpreter to elicit the sentences of her HKSL corpus.

In our study, we chose to avoid any interaction between wri en French and LSF. For this reason, we chose to use an elicitation task à la [START_REF] Hamburger | Relative acquisition[END_REF], based on pictures that we illustrate here. We started our elicitation with three kinds of pictures depending on what we wanted to elicit: subject relatives, object relatives, or adjunct relatives. Each of these was further split into three kinds of arguments: animate human, inanimate and animate non-human. We, therefore, started with nine situations to elicit. Finally, we tested the possibility for relative clauses to appear as the subject of the main clause, adding nine new situations to our procedure (see the full list in Appendix A).

We illustrate our method with the subject relative clause corresponding to the English equivalent of ( 17) for which we used pictures like the one in Figure 11.

(17) I prefer the little girl who pets the dog. (18) a.

'A girl pets a cat. ' b.

'A girl pets a dog. ' en we asked our informants which girl they preferred the most. We instructed the informant to start their answer by signing "I prefer" in order to favorize the production of a relativization strategy. Among the answers we obtained is the relative clause in ( 19):

(19) 1 . 'I prefer the li le girl who pets the dog. ' is elicitation strategy is an adaptation of the elicitation technique customarily used to elicit relative clauses in the language acquisition studies [START_REF] Hodgson | Relative clauses in colloquial Armenian: Syntax and typology[END_REF]. is has been proven extremely useful in our study.

We used a similar method to investigate temporal constructions by asking for the description of paired pictures. We asked the signers to produce a sentence for each picture, and, only a er, to sign a sentence organizing the two events in time. e target sentences obtained using the pictures in Figure ( 12 c.

[ lef t J ] re           [ right M ]
' Jean bought owers and before / at the same time / a er Marie stole a bike. '

For both chapters on QAP and sentential complements, we proceeded di erently since, here, we already knew precisely the structures we were interested in. erefore, we started by nding examples of both in corpora 6 and showed them to our informants. We then asked them to propose examples of their own, using the same structure or alternative sentence types. is allowed us to obtain minimally distinct sentences such as the pa ern in (21). Independently from the elicitation method chosen, we video-recorded all the baselines produced by our informants and processed next to their syntactic and semantic investigations.

Syntactic and semantic survey

is step aims at obtaining both positive and, more importantly, negative evidence about the structures we are interested in. Indeed, while using pictures or corpus-data was a necessary rst step, it does not allow us to distinguish between the performance (i.e., what is signed) and the competence of a signer (what could, or not, be signed). For these reasons, this step consists in asking our informants what is possible or not in LSF, regarding the sentence they recorded. For every topic of interest, we started by determining what the possible alternatives to the baseline recorded in the previous step regarding word order are. Beyond this point, the survey di ers for each structure, based on relevant typological milestones found in the literature. e aim is to determine the inherent properties of the structure at stake and, therefore, which analysis they should receive. Every answer was video-recorded so that we could ensure the robustness of our ndings through cross-validation between our informants. e detail of our investigation is given along with the literature survey in each relevant chapter.

e playback method

e 'playback method' elaborated in Schlenker (2010) consists of playing back every lmed u erance obtained in the two previous steps (from the baseline elicitation and syntactic/semantic survey) and ask all informants to rate them. It takes place in a di erent session, and, for each sentence, informants have to give a judgment on a seven-point scale regarding two di erent aspects: acceptability and felicity. e rst criterion checks if the sentence is well-formed, the second criterion checks whether the sentence matches the target picture or context. rough this procedure, we make sure that the data obtained can be generalized.

What comes out from this method is a set of data equally judged as good by our informants which we will consider as being grammatical in LSF, a set of data considered as very bad by our informants which we will consider as being agrammatical for LSF and a set of degraded data, on which more interpretations are allowed.

Part I

Subordination at the nominal level I n this rst chapter, we present the state of the art of the literature on relative clauses. While the topic has been extensively addressed over the years (see among many others De [START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF][START_REF] Bianchi | Headed relative clauses in generative syntax. Part I[END_REF][START_REF] Kayne | e Antisymmetry of Syntax[END_REF], Sauerland 2001[START_REF] Beninca | Kind-de ning relative clauses in the diachrony of Italian". Diachrony and Dialects: Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy[END_REF][START_REF] Branchini | On Relativization and Cle ing : An analysis of Italian Sign language[END_REF][START_REF] Carlson | Amount Relatives[END_REF], we enrich the framework by integrating a review of what is known about relativization strategies in sign languages. More precisely, the chapter is organized as follows: Section I.2.1 presents a review of the typology of relative clauses. It addresses the relevant parameters of variation, as well as the di erent types of Relative Clause (RC), found both in spoken and signed languages.

e review of relativization strategies across signed languages is provided in Section I.2.2. Finally, Section I.2.3 is dedicated to the formal frameworks used to account for the typological variations among RC.

Typological variations

Relative clauses are subordinate clauses modifying a nominal element (the head). ey typically contains a gap identical to the head when they are head-external. An example is given in ( 22). ( 22) She married the man [ who gap lived next door. ]

In ( 22), the noun 'man' is both the object of the main clause (She married the man) and the subject of the relative clause (the man lived next door). We represent this second role visually by adding a gap in the position in which the argument is missing. e relative clause itself, identi ed by square brackets, cannot stand on its own, so it is dependent on the main clause.

e externally headed relative clause presented in ( 22) is only one out of many relativization strategies that appear cross-linguistically and take a large variety of syntactic and semantic forms. To help to understand what uni es them, [START_REF] Branchini | On Relativization and Cle ing : An analysis of Italian Sign language[END_REF] proposes that their de ning properties should be recognized as: "… dependent clauses connected to the matrix clause by a syntactically and semantically shared pivotal element, […] overtly realized in either one of the two clauses, in both of them or neither one of them. " (Branchini, 2014:58) In this de nition, Branchini uses both semantic and syntactic properties, highlighting the need to consider both criteria when analyzing relativization strategies. In what follows, we will use the terms relativization strategy or relative construction to refer to all structures sharing these properties; 'relative clauses' is a subset of them. We will describe them along three fundamental axes: i) the type of projection they modify (a NP or a CP), ii) the position of the RC with respect to the head (internal or external, postnominal or prenominal) and iii) the semantic operation linking the head and the subordinate clause (restrictive, appositive, maximalizing or kind). All these properties will be addressed in our analysis of LSF relative clauses in Chapter I.3.

Relative markers

A rst step to identify relativization strategies is to nd whether they are signaled through the use of speci c markers, as is the case in many languages. Depending on the syntactic properties the relative marker can be either a Complementizer (Comp.), a Relative Pronoun (RelP), a Resumptive pronoun (ResP) or a Relative markers (RelM).

e complementizer (cf. example 23) is an element which is base-generated in C position.

(23) e boy (that) you saw is nice.

Comp.

is means that it has a xed position and presents no relation to the gap inside the RC. It usually carries no case, does not display agreement either1 , and can be optional depending on languages (Figure 13). In relative clauses, the complementizer is usually not sensitive to the status of the head (argument or adjunct). is is an essential distinction between complementizers and relative pronouns that will help us in determining the nature of the relative elements we will study.

Crosslinguistically, two major types of relative pronouns are a ested: those that derive from wh-words and those that derive from d-like pronouns (either a demonstrative or a noun), an example of each are presented in [START_REF] Stromswold | Localization of syntactic comprehension by positron emission tomography[END_REF] [START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF]. [START_REF] Stromswold | Localization of syntactic comprehension by positron emission tomography[END_REF] a.

e girl who came yesterday is nice. b. Ik heb één van de voetballers die bij Ajax spelen/speelt, gisteren ontmoet.

I have one of the football.players who with Ajax play PL /play SG yesterday met 'Yesterday I met one of the football players who plays with Ajax. '

Dutch, from (De Vries, 2002: 187) While these RelP di er in their morphology, they share their syntax. Indeed, they have to occupy an internal position from which they are raised (or copied depending on the frameworks) to the speci er of the CP, as shown in Figure (14) [START_REF] Bianchi | Headed relative clauses in generative syntax. Part I[END_REF][START_REF] Hulsey | Sorting out Relative Clauses[END_REF][START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF]. e RelP abstractly agrees with the head noun in gender and number but crucially not in case as it bears its own (see examples 25a and 25b). Unlike the complementizer, it receives a theta-role and can marginally be pronounced in the position of the gap. [START_REF] Lehmann | On the typology of relative clauses[END_REF] and Sauerland (2001) refer to this property as the 'gap function'.

(25) a.

e women [ whom you talked about ] are in the house.

b. e man [ whose name is wri en on the door ] is there.

e ResP plays the same semantic and syntactic role as RelP, but it remains in-situ (in the position of the gap, cf. example 26).

(26) ha-isha she-Yoav ohev ot-a . . . ResP the-woman REL-Yoav loves ACC -her 'the woman that Yoav loves . . . ' Israeli Hebrew, from De Vries ( 2001: 233) De [START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF] analyzes the resumptive pronouns as being the mirror image of the RelP in that they share their base position, but the la er rises to a higher position in the structure while the ResP does not raise2 , as illustrated in Figure (15). Since RelP and ResP are supposedly base-generated in the same position, we should never nd both of them at the same time in a relative clause. However, it is expected that each of them can co-occur with a complementizer. Indeed, the relative operator which moves overtly (RelP) or covertly (ResP) targets the speci er of the CP while the complementizer sits in C. ey are not in competition (unless other restrictions are at play, as the so-called doubly lled COMP lter, see footnote 1). For, example, Akan, a Kwa language of the Niger-Congo family [START_REF] Abrefa | A Closer Look at the Akan Relativiser[END_REF] Some languages mark relative constructions through a number of a xes or markers which act as relativizers.

e Korean example illustrates this in (28). Depending on their morphosyntactical operations, De [START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF] divides them further into nine various categories that we will not repeat here.

(28) John-un [ totwuk-i tomagka-n-un kes-ul] cap-ess-ta.

John-thief-run.away---catch--'John caught the thief that was running away. ' Korean, from [START_REF] Kim | E-type anaphora and three types of kes-construction in Korean[END_REF] What distinguishes relative markers from relative pronouns is that they never occupy the base position (i.e., the internal position where the relative operator is generated) but, contrary to complementizers, they o en display agreement with the head of the relative.

Languages can also present no relative markers at all. In this case, the identi cation of relativization strategies has to be done solely through the recognition of their syntactic and semantic properties.

Syntactic types of relativization strategies

Following most accounts (see a.o. [START_REF] Lehmann | On the typology of relative clauses[END_REF][START_REF] Dryer | Order of relative clause and noun[END_REF][START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF][START_REF] Bha | e raising analysis of relative clauses. Evidence from adjectival modication[END_REF][START_REF] Branchini | Relatively di erent: Italian Sign Language relative clauses in a typological perspective[END_REF], there exists six types of relativization strategies illustrated in (29) 3 Following the majority of accounts (see for example [START_REF] Caponigro | Free relatives as DPs with a silent D and a CP complement[END_REF],Bianchi 2002a[START_REF] Ross | Constraints on variables in syntax[END_REF], we leave the free-relatives as part of the relativization strategies. We will discuss this classi cation in Chapter I.3 as, according to other authors, this type should be considered on its own (Den Dikken 2001[START_REF] Grosu | Strange Relatives of the ird Kind[END_REF], Declerck 1994[START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF]. On the other hand, [START_REF] Dryer | Order of relative clause and noun[END_REF] and [START_REF] Beninca | Kind-de ning relative clauses in the diachrony of Italian". Diachrony and Dialects: Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy[END_REF] argue in favor of 7 types of relative clauses, adding adjoined relative clauses to the typology presented here. [START_REF] Dryer | Order of relative clause and noun[END_REF] distinguishes correlatives from adjoined relative clauses (as in Diyari [START_REF] Austin | A Grammar of Diyari[END_REF][START_REF] Dryer | Order of relative clause and noun[END_REF] based on the position of the NP modi ed by the clause. If it is in the dependent clause it is a correlative, if it is inside the main clause, it is an adjoined relative clause here. We will follow more traditional accounts which regroup the two types as correlatives [START_REF] Culy | e Syntax and Semantics of Internally Headed Relative Clauses[END_REF][START_REF] Lehmann | On the typology of relative clauses[END_REF][START_REF] Keenan | Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar[END_REF]. 4 ey are also called 'circumnominal relatives' by [START_REF] Lehmann | On the typology of relative clauses[END_REF], [START_REF] Culy | e Syntax and Semantics of Internally Headed Relative Clauses[END_REF] and De [START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF] among others.

d. Double-headed relative clauses (found in Kombaï, [START_REF] Dryer | Order of relative clause and noun[END_REF], in Hewa, Givón 1984, and Diegue ño, Culy 1990) e. Correlatives (as in Bambara, Bird 1968) f. Free-relatives (or headless relatives) e classi cation presented in (29) varies along di erent criteria such as a) the nature of the embedding relation between the main clause and the relative clause (modifying a NP or a CP) b) the presence of none (free relatives), one, or multiple heads (double-headed), c) the position of the head with respect to the RC itself (internal, external, linearly ordered before or a er the relative) and d) the presence of a co-referring pronoun in the main clause or in the relative clause. ese criteria are not mutually exclusive; a relativization strategy may be placed in several categories depending on the axis studied.

Modifying a NP or a CP

eir level of embedding can distinguish relativization strategies. e rst category is referred to as relative clause and groups together relatives that are nominally embedded (i.e., under a DP/NP of the main clause) as in Figure ( 16). e presence and position of the NP projection depends on the position of the head with respect to the RC.

A prototypical example is given by the English post-nominal relative clause in (30).

( As relative clauses are embedded under DPs, the construction is nominal in nature and its distribution is typically nominal (Den Dikken, Meinunger, and Wilder 2000[START_REF] Kayne | e Antisymmetry of Syntax[END_REF][START_REF] Keenan | Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar[END_REF][START_REF] Lehmann | On the typology of relative clauses[END_REF]. It can show nominal in ection, as in Japanese, where the accusative case marks the internally headed relative clause in (31). (Japanese, from Shimoyama 1999: 147) In this category, we nd IHRC, pre-and post-nominal EHRC (as in the English in 30), doubleheaded relative clause and free-relatives.

Some relativization strategies are modifying a CP instead of a DP. ese structures are called correlative constructions 5 . In this respect, they are clausal and are directly adjoined to the main clause, as in Figure ( 17 An example of a correlative clause is given in (32) with Bambara7 .

(32) [ n ye tyÈ mìn ye,] ò be fìnì fère.

[I COMPL man REL saw] D3 IMPF cloth:DEF sell ' e man I saw (, he) sells the cloth. '

(Bambara, from Bird 1968: 43) Correlatives can be separated from the main clause and, crucially, do not form a constituent with it. e presence of a co-referring pronoun (overt or covert, in italic in the gloss of 32) allows maintaining a semantic link between the head and the main clause.

Presence of a head

Relative clauses can have a single head, two heads, or none in which case they are called headless or free-relatives. An example of an Italian free-relative is given in (73).

(33) [ Chi svela il segreto] sarà punito Who reveals the secret be.fut. punish.pst "Who reveals the secret will be punished. "

(Italian, from Branchini 2014: 73)

In a double-headed relative clause, as in (34), the head is either repeated or is a larger generic noun.

(34) [ doü adiyano-no] doü deyalukhe8 sago give.3 . sago nished. " e sago that they gave is nished. " (Kombaï, from De Vries 1993) In single head relative clauses, relativization strategies vary typologically concerning the position of the head: whether it is internal to the RC or external to it. In the la er case, we also have to describe whether the head appears before or a er the relativized clause.

Head position

e head can be internal to the clause, as in Japanese IHRC (31) and Bambara correlatives in (32). e head can also be external in which case we nd either pre-or post-nominal RC9 . e two types present a di erent linear order. Pre-nominal EHRC display the RC rst and then the head, as in the Turkish example in (35). " e sago tree that they felled. "

(Maybrat, from Dol 1999: 137)

From a structural point of view, however, the two types are very similar since the head is generated in its base position and then raised outside the relative clause tp pre-or post-nominal position, respectively (see Figure 19). 19a) and pre-nominal (Figure 19b) relative clauses.

To summarize the di erent axes of typological variations we have seen so far, we provide the Table in [START_REF] Woodward | Implications for sociolinguistic research among the deaf[END_REF].

Relativization strategy Nominal Clausal

Number of heads

Head internal

Head external

Head

< RC RC < Head IHRC X 1 X NR 10 NR Pre-nominal EHRC X 1 X X Post- nominal EHRC X 1 X X Double- headed RC X 2 X Free- relatives X 0 NR Correlatives X 1 X( 11 ) NR
Table 1. Summary of typological variations across relativization strategies.

10 NR = Not relevant. [START_REF] Keenan | Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar[END_REF] note that it is not equally easy to relativize all syntactic positions. is is visible through several parameters. First, we nd a higher proportion of languages having SRC than languages with ORC, which in turn is larger than the number of languages allowing genitive RC. Additionally, languages displaying ORC are also displaying SRC while the reverse is not true. is shows that language internally, some positions can be available to relativization while others are not. ese observations led them to propose a typological scale ranging positions from the easiest to relativize to the hardest. [START_REF] Lehmann | On the typology of relative clauses[END_REF] further enriched this hierarchy with intermediate positions; the result is presented in the following Figure .   Keenan and Comrie's Accessibility hierarchy (enriched):

Subject/absolutive > Direct Object/ergative > Indirect Object > Genitive Complement > Temporal Complement > Adjuncts
Along this scale, [START_REF] Keenan | Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar[END_REF] argue in favor of three principles, referred to as "Primary Relativization Constraints". ese constraints entail that a) every language should present at least subject relative clauses, that b) if relativization over a lower step of the accessibility scale is allowed then it is also available to all higher positions and that c) such strategy can cut o at any point of the scale. In other words, if a relative clause is a ested in one position of the scale, then all other positions to its le in the scale should also be found as heads of relatives. Notice that this implication only goes in this direction12 .

A concrete example of the scale is shown by Swiss German. In this language, we nd ORC (cf. 37) and, as predicted, their le position on the scale, SRC (38).

(37) Ich hilf dat em Bueb, won i ( *en ) geschter gsee acc han.

Obj. Data in acquisition and processing also support the accessibility hierarchy. We will present a detailed review of the literature on this topic in Chapter I.4 where we discuss the processing of relative clauses in LSF. As a preview of that discussion, the majority of acquisition studies [START_REF] Costa | Subject-object asymmetries in the acquisition of Portuguese relative clauses: Adults vs. children[END_REF][START_REF] Guasti | A developmental study of subject and object relative clauses in Italian[END_REF][START_REF] Adani | Grammatical feature dissimilarities make relative clauses easier : A comprehension study with Italian children[END_REF][START_REF] Friedmann | De nitions as a window to the acquisition of relative clauses[END_REF][START_REF] Contemori | Intervention and a raction. On the production of subject and object relatives by Italian (young) children and adults[END_REF] among many others) indicates that object relative clauses are understood and produced later than subject relative clauses, showing that they are more complex as predicted by the accessibility hierarchy scale. In psycholinguistic studies, the linguistic complexity of sentences is correlated to their processing burden, whether it means longer time needed to understand or read them, more eye-movements, or any additional cognitive operation.

I
e complexity of ORC compared toSRC has been captured cross-linguistically through a large variety of experimental protocols [START_REF] Gibson | e dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity[END_REF][START_REF] Traxler | Working memory , animacy , and verb class in the processing of relative clauses[END_REF][START_REF] Yun | Uncertainty in processing relative clauses across East Asian languages[END_REF]. All in all, [START_REF] Keenan | Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar[END_REF]'s scale functions as a tool on which we will base our predictions in Chapter I.4.

e semantics of relative clauses

e semantics of relative clauses varies concerning the position in which the reference is (or is not) constructed. ree13 big classes have been identi ed [START_REF] Grosu | Strange Relatives of the ird Kind[END_REF] [START_REF]Super monsters II: Role shi , iconicity and quotation in sign language[END_REF] depending on their de ning macroscopic semantic properties. Each is exempli ed in [START_REF]Super monsters II: Role shi , iconicity and quotation in sign language[END_REF]. [START_REF]Super monsters II: Role shi , iconicity and quotation in sign language[END_REF] Relative clauses: semantic types a. restrictives [START_REF] Partee | Some transformational extensions of Montague grammar[END_REF][START_REF] Grosu | Strange relatives at the interface of two millennia[END_REF][START_REF] Bianchi | Headed relative clauses in generative syntax. Part I[END_REF][START_REF] Browning | Null operator constructions[END_REF][START_REF] Abusch | Sequence of tense and temporal de re[END_REF] b. non-restrictives, or appositives [START_REF] Smits | e relative and cle constructions of the Germanic and Romance languages[END_REF][START_REF] Grosu | Strange relatives at the interface of two millennia[END_REF] c. amount or maximalizing [START_REF] Carlson | Amount Relatives[END_REF][START_REF] Loccioni | Ge ing "the most" out of Romance[END_REF], Cinque 2019[START_REF] Grosu | Strange Relatives of the ird Kind[END_REF][START_REF] Heim | Where does the de niteness restriction apply? Evidence from the de niteness of variables[END_REF] e di erence in the semantic contribution of the material internal (the relative clause) or external (the head) to the RC is illustrated by [START_REF] Grosu | Strange Relatives of the ird Kind[END_REF] in Table (2). To be er understand what is captured by Table (2), look at appositives for which the reference is described as deriving solely from external material (the head). O en described as parenthetic, the appositive clause does not create any additional semantic operation (narrowing or maximalizing) to the reference provided by the head, which is, therefore, the only semantic contributor to the reference. sortal-external sortal-internal (Simple XPs) Appositives Restrictives Maximalizers (Simple CPs) In what follows, we will present each semantic type of relativization process and make explicit its semantic contribution to the construction of the reference. We will also present how these semantic types interact with the syntactic types we presented in the previous section.

Restrictive relative clauses

An example of a restrictive relative clause is provided in (42).

(42) e boys that are standing are tall.

In (42), the head 'boys' refers to a set of individuals sharing the property of being a boy, the subordinate clause 'that are standing' designates individuals who share the property of standing.

e intersection of both sets results in a restriction of the individuals initially referred to by the head. e head and the relative clause are necessary to understand who is the subject of the predicate 'are tall'.

More generally, restrictive RCs need to have a set they can intersect with. erefore they cannot have an already maximally de ned head, such as proper names or a pronominal head.

is is exempli ed in (43).

(43) a. *Mary who came yesterday is my neighbour. b. *We who have met Mary are privileged people.

Besides this semantic restriction, restrictive RCs can have all categories of heads; quanti ed, de nite, or non-speci c head (see example 44).

(44) I prefer looking for a/the/some job which ful lls my dreams.

Restrictive RC form a constituent with their head and display reconstruction phenomena (cf. 45). is is only possible if the restrictive clause is embedded under the external DP and if the relative's head occupies the gap position at some point in the derivation. Indeed, without this, the anaphora 'himself' in (45) could not be bound by the DP 'John' and would be ungrammatical14 .

(45) e pictures of himself i which John i liked gap are now in the garage.

Restrictive relatives are transparent for binding and allow extraposition across temporal adverbs, at least in some languages, as illustrated by example (46). What we see here is that the semantic operation of restricting the meaning still occurs whenever and adverb intervenes between the external head and the relative clause.

(46) I went to the house, yesterday, that is painted in pink. ey additionally present downward entailing environments, allowing Negative Polarity Items (NPI) licensing (cf. 47) and inde niteness e ects, as shown by the availability expletives as in the relative clause in (48).

(47) e nurses who requested any help from the surgeon received blame.

(48) e nurse took the needles that there were on the table before the surgeon arrived.

Finally, restrictive relatives can stack (i.e., when a rst RC restricts the set of individuals that the head refers to, and another RC further restricts the result), as illustrated by example (49).

(49) I like the cat i [ Rel1 that gapi came to my house ] [ Rel2 that the dog bite gapi . ] Multiple, recursive relative clauses, embedded in each other, are also possible as displayed in (50).

(50) e man stabbed the dog i [ Rel1 that gapi was chasing the cat j [ Rel2 that gapj caught the bird. ]]

Non-restrictive / Appositive relative

As brie y mentioned before, in appositives (cf. 51), the reference is constructed solely through the head. e relative clause itself does not have an impact (restricting or maximalizing) on the set of individuals selected by the head. It merely adds more information on the same set.

(51) e boys, who happen to be standing, are tall.

In example (51), the head refers to a set of individuals who share the property of being a boy as it was the case in (42). However, in this case, the appositive relative could be removed without a ecting the set of individuals selected by the nominal head 'boy' (example 52).

(52) e boys are tall.

Di erently from restrictive relatives, appositives can have pronouns and proper names as heads, as in ( 53).

(53) a. We, who are students, have less trouble nding an apartment.

b. Mary, whom you met at the party three weeks ago, is coming tomorrow.

Because of this property, appositive relative clauses have been analyzed following two major approaches. Either, they are similar to parenthetical constructions and are therefore only linked to the main clause at discourse level [START_REF] Espinal | e representation of disjunct constituents[END_REF][START_REF] Peterson | Non-restrictive relatives and other non-syntagmatic relations in a lexical-functional framework[END_REF][START_REF] Grosu | e gi ed mathematician that you claim to be: Equational intensional 'reconstruction'relatives[END_REF]. Or, they are generated in the grammar as coordinated structures (De Vries 2001) or as a special type of relative clause under a nominal projection containing also the head [START_REF] Huot | Appositions et relatives appositives[END_REF][START_REF] Cornilescu | Non-restrictive relative clauses, an essay in semantic description[END_REF], Demirdache 1991[START_REF] Kayne | e Antisymmetry of Syntax[END_REF][START_REF] Bianchi | e raising analysis of relative clauses: A reply to Borsley[END_REF]) 15 .

Independently from the approach chosen, appositives are de ned regarding a number of properties which we review here. According to both [START_REF] Branchini | On Relativization and Cle ing : An analysis of Italian Sign language[END_REF] and De [START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF], appositives accept inde nite and de nite heads (cf. 54), but they have to be speci c in some way, via the use of adverbs like 'certain'. e contrast in (55) shows this. Notice that in (55b), the meaning derived is restrictive.

(54) I saw the lion, which was lying in the sun, during my safari.

(55) a. Lions, which are lying in the sun, have a great life.

b. * I saw a lion, which was lying in the sun. c. I saw a certain lion, which was lying in the sun.

Nevertheless, like restrictive relatives, appositives can have all types of heads, whether DP, CPs (cf. 56), or QPs (57).

(56) I knew that to live a long life, which can be desirable, would not be compatible with living exciting adventures.

(57) I saw some friends, which were all from my homeland, at the conference venue.

However, appositive relatives do not present reconstruction e ects; this is shown by the ungrammaticality of (58), which displays an anaphora not bound by its referent. is property shows that appositives are not in the c-command domain of the main clause.

(58) * e picture's of himself i , that John i always liked, were lost in a re.

Similarly, they do not license NPI (cf. 59), prevent binding transparency and show de niteness e ects (contrarily to restrictive relatives) as illustrated by example 60.

(59) * e nurses, who requested any help from the surgeon, received blame.

(60) * e nurse took the needles, which there were on the table, before the surgeon arrived.

Finally, there is a debate in the literature about the possibility for appositive relatives to be stacked. According to De [START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF] and [START_REF] Grosu | Strange Relatives of the ird Kind[END_REF], appositives can stack, but the sentences are more acceptable if di erent relative pronoun in each new relative is used, as in (61). However, [START_REF] Branchini | On Relativization and Cle ing : An analysis of Italian Sign language[END_REF] notices that stacked appositive relatives cannot be embedded within each other, as shown by (62) (61) I want to see Mary i , who i still need to apologize for stealing my job k , about whom i none of my friends is happy, before she leaves for Canada.

(62) ? I want to see Mary i , who i must have forgo en my name j which j I had wri en on her notebook k , which k was o ered to her by my best friend, before she leaves for Canada.

Maximalizing / Amount / Degree relatives

Maximalizing relatives, rst referred to as amount relatives by [START_REF] Carlson | Amount Relatives[END_REF], super cially display the structure of restrictive relatives while varying in the semantic relation between the head and the RC; they display maximalization [START_REF] Grosu | Strange Relatives of the ird Kind[END_REF][START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF][START_REF] Branchini | On Relativization and Cle ing : An analysis of Italian Sign language[END_REF]). ey can be headed by a DP referring to entities (= e-type relatives, Grosu and Landman 2017) or by degree-phrases (= d-type relatives). Two examples are provided in (63)-( 64).

(63) I took the books that there were on your desk. e-type RC I took all the books.

(64) We will need the rest of our lives to drink the amount of wine they spilled that evening.

d-type RC (adapted from Grosu and Landman 2017: 9)

In ( 63), both the head and the RC contribute to the derivation of the reference. However, the presence of the expletive 'there' forces all individuals being 'book on the desk' to be selected. Hence, while super cially looking like a restrictive relative clause, the relative itself does not restrict the reference but maximize it. In d-type relatives as (64), the same semantic operation happens, but this time, what is maximalized is the reference of the whole degree phrase (i.e., the amount of wine). For this reason, amount relatives of the d-type have been analyzed on a par with equatives and comparatives [START_REF] Carlson | Amount Relatives[END_REF][START_REF] Heim | Where does the de niteness restriction apply? Evidence from the de niteness of variables[END_REF].

Interestingly, e-type relatives can also receive a d-type interpretation without presenting a visible measure phrase. is is the case of (65), which receives the same interpretation as its overt counterpart in (64).

(65) We will need the rest of our lives to drink the wine they spilled that evening.

to drink the same amount of wine, and not the speci c wine spilled that night.

In (65), the relative is headed by an entity, hence presenting a mismatch with the dinterpretation they receive [START_REF] Grosu | Strange relatives at the interface of two millennia[END_REF]. We will come back to the implication of such a mismatch on a formal level in Chapter I.3.

Amount relatives come with a set of properties distinguishing them from other types. First, they do not allow inde nite heads (cf. 66).

(66) *I took a book that there was on your desk.

Secondly, amount relatives do not allow all types of quanti ers [START_REF] Branchini | On Relativization and Cle ing : An analysis of Italian Sign language[END_REF], universal quanti ers are acceptable while existential ones are forbidden, as illustrated in (67).

(67) I took every/*each book that there were on your desk.

Just like restrictive relative clauses, amount relatives need to be headed by non-maximalized heads like nouns and unlike proper names (68).

(68) *I called Mary that there was in the room.

According to [START_REF] Heim | Where does the de niteness restriction apply? Evidence from the de niteness of variables[END_REF], [START_REF] Carlson | Amount Relatives[END_REF] and [START_REF] Grosu | e Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax[END_REF], this would also explain the impossibility for maximalizing relatives to stack, as shown by the ungrammaticality of ( 69).

(69) I suddenly noticed [ the three books that there were on your desk that (*there) had earlier been on my desk ]

(from Grosu and Landman (2017))

All in all, [START_REF] Carlson | Amount Relatives[END_REF] proposes three distinctive properties to identify amount relatives: the impossibility to stack, the selection by a strong determiner, and the impossibility to be used with a wh-relative pronoun (they have to be introduced by 'that' in English).

Interaction between the syntactic and semantic types

In the de nition of relativization strategies given by [START_REF] Branchini | On Relativization and Cle ing : An analysis of Italian Sign language[END_REF] we have seen that semantic and syntax interplay in these structures. is is highlighted by the fact that not every syntactic type can present every semantic interpretation. is has been thoroughly addressed through the literature (see [START_REF] Lehmann | On the typology of relative clauses[END_REF][START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF][START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF][START_REF] Branchini | On Relativization and Cle ing : An analysis of Italian Sign language[END_REF] or Cinque 2019 among many others), we sum the typological variations in Table (3).

We will consider syntax and semantic cues to be mutually informative in our investigation of LSF, following the Table (3). Indeed, as we will show now, the typological categories we presented so far have been successfully used to describe an ever-growing number of SL. We review the relativization strategies described for each of them in what follows.

Relative clauses in Sign Languages

While the syntactic investigation of sign languages is recent (the rst works dates from the 1970s) compared to the history of linguistic, the complex topic of relativization strategies has Prenominal EHRC

Postnominal EHRC

IHRC

Correlative Double-head 16 Free-relative Restrictive X X X Appositive X X ( 17 ) X ( 18) X

Maximalizing X

Adapted from De [START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF] Table 3. Interaction between the semantic and syntactic types of relativization strategies.

been the ag holder of more and more researchers in the will to demonstrate sign language' syntactic complexity. is particular research line was historically motivated by several claims [START_REF] Friedman | Space, Time, and Person Reference in American Sign Language[END_REF](Friedman or ompson 1977 are well-known examples) are well-known examples) arguing that sign languages were impoverished systems, lacking syntactic embedding or subordination. ese claims have been proven wrong by the seminal work of [START_REF] Liddell | American Sign Language syntax[END_REF] on ASL has proven them wrong and are addressed by more and more researchers as sign linguistics grows around the world. We propose here a review of this literature which will include ASL, LIBRAS, HKSL, LIS, DGS, T ÍD, JSL and LSC.

Relative markers

Across SL, a variety of relative markers have been identi ed. From a morphological standpoint, the majority of sign languages mark their relativization strategies through non-manual marking. An exception is JSL of which [START_REF] Penner | Relative Clauses in Japanese Sign Language[END_REF] say that it is not marked in any way apart from occasional topic markers. As an example of non-manual marking, ASL's relative clauses are signaled through the use of a set of NMMs: backward head tilt, raised eyebrows and tensed upper lip (Wilbur 2017).

Some SL additionally presents a manual sign dedicated to relativization strategies. In HKSL it is a sign described as pointing towards the right and showing the palm by LI (2013). In DGS, the relative pronoun is the same sign as the pointing sign or to the ' ' sign. In LIS, the -sign 19 presents the manual con guration of a pointing sign but is realized with a wrist rotation rather than a directional movement (Branchini and Donati 2009), as illustrated in Figure (20). e syntactic analysis of these manual signs vary greatly across SLs. Indeed, in ASL [START_REF] Liddell | American Sign Language syntax[END_REF] found the optional use of a complementizer glossed as ' '. In T ÍD, [START_REF] Kubus¸ | Relative clause constructions in Turkish Sign Language (Türk Ís ¸aret Dili -T ÍD)[END_REF] identi es an optional relative marker which can take di erent forms ( at, dual or plural) and is co-articulated with a set of NMMs such as raised eyebrows and optional "o"-shaped mouth. All relative clauses are identi ed in this language through raised cheeks, squinted eyes, tensed upper lip, and an optional head shake. Similarly, Mosella [START_REF] Sanz | e position of fronted and postposed relative clauses in Catalan Sign Language[END_REF] identi es an optional nominalizer in LSC, glossed as ' ', which can appear clause-nal or clause-initial, while raised eyebrows, body lean and optionally squinted eyes mark all relative clauses. In addition to the optional pronominal described before, which is analyzed by [START_REF] Tang | Coordination & Subordination[END_REF] as a demonstrative, HKSL' relative clauses are marked non-manually through an open mouth and direct eye-contact with the interlocutor [START_REF] Tang | Coordination & Subordination[END_REF]). e end of the RC is signaled through a blink and a head nod, which LI (2013) analyzes as a possible relative pronoun. [START_REF] Branchini | On Relativization and Cle ing : An analysis of Italian Sign language[END_REF] analyzes the sign ' ', present at the end of relative clauses in LIS, as being a determiner which signals the focalization of the relative clause. is goes against Cecche o, Geraci, and Zucchi (2006)'s analysis of ' ' as a relative pronoun. In LIBRAS, Nunes and adros (2005) describes no speci c relative markers while in DGS, [START_REF] Pfau | Relative clauses in German Sign Language : Extraposition and reconstruction[END_REF] found two obligatory relative pronouns alternating depending on the nature of the head, whether it is human or not. [START_REF] Happ | Deutsche Gebärdensprache. Ein Lehr-und Arbeitsbuch[END_REF] also found a di erent type of relative clause in DGS marked solely non-manually through pursed lips and a slight head nod.

In light of these facts, we see that sign languages instantiate all the di erent types of relative markers that were described in the precedent section20 .

Syntactic types of relativization strategies

All di erent syntactic types have been found across SL and will be presented here.

Modifying a NP or a CP

Relative clauses (i.e. relativization strategies modi ying a NP) have been found across all sign languages studied so far. For LIS (see 70), this structure has been argued in favor by [START_REF] Branchini | Relatively di erent: Italian Sign Language relative clauses in a typological perspective[END_REF] or [START_REF] Branchini | On Relativization and Cle ing : An analysis of Italian Sign language[END_REF] while Cecche o, [START_REF] Cecche O | Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language[END_REF] argued in favor of a correlative analysis. However, only ASL additionally allows correlative constructions, modifying a CP (Galloway 2011), as seen in example ( 71). e author analyzes two other types of correlatives, one with the head within the main clause (adjoined relative) and another with two heads instead of a co-referring pronoun.

(71)

rel j i i br j
' e cops shot the dog, that (one) bit the woman. '

Presence of a head

It has long been believed that SL cannot display free-relatives. Indeed, the most studied SL, ASL, does not present them (see among others, [START_REF] Liddell | American Sign Language syntax[END_REF][START_REF] Wilbur | Evidence for the function and structure of wh-cle s in American Sign Language[END_REF][START_REF] Hoza | Syntactic Structure and Discourse Function: An Examination of Two Constructions in American Sign Language[END_REF]). However, more recent studies on other sign languages have shown their presence in T ÍD (Kubus¸2011), LIS [START_REF] Branchini | On Relativization and Cle ing : An analysis of Italian Sign language[END_REF]Donati 2009,Branchini 2014) and JSL [START_REF] Penner | Relative Clauses in Japanese Sign Language[END_REF]. An example of each is provided in ( 72)-( 74 ; , '( ose) met before not being (there), he looked for (them); (his) friends not being (there), he swam away to look for (them). ' JSL, from Penner, Yano & Terasawa 2019: 10 e double-head correlative strategy found by [START_REF] Galloway | Why agreement ma ers: e syntax of relative clauses in ASL[END_REF] could be counted as an occurrence of a double-headed relative, though not being nominal. Further researches are needed in order to assess their precise properties.

For all other sign languages, the single head strategy is dominantly present.

Head position

In HKSL (cf. 75), LSC (cf. 76), and LIS (cf. 76), IHRC is the sole strategy allowed. As for LSC, the relative is obligatorily extraposed.

(75)

3 i [ RC 1 ]
L 'Lisa intimidated the female who was looking for the grandfather. ' HKSL, from Li, 2013: 24 (76) IHRC are the preferred strategies in T ÍD (Kubus¸2011) and ASL [START_REF] Tang | Coordination & Subordination[END_REF]) and one of the available options in JSL (Ichida 2010, Penner, Yano, and[START_REF] Penner | Relative Clauses in Japanese Sign Language[END_REF]. An example of each is provided in ( 77)-( 77). All of these languages also allow externally headed relative clauses.

(77) rel ' e dog which recently chased the cat came home. ' ASL, from Tang & Lau, 2012: 358)

[ rel i ] i
' e wall papers which some houses have should be removed. '

TID, from Kubus, 2011

Turning to EHRC, we have seen in the previous section that they could be either pre-or postnominal. Among the SL studied so far, JSL is the only one displaying pre-nominal EHRC, as illustrated in (78). is is the preferred strategy of this language. Among the other SL presenting post-nominal EHRC, it is the sole strategy available in both LIBRAS (Nunes and adros 2005) and DGS [START_REF] Pfau | Relative clauses in German Sign Language : Extraposition and reconstruction[END_REF], as illustrated in ( 80)-( 80).

(80)

1 [ [ 3 ] cp ] dp 'I know the book which is lying on the table. ' DGS, (Pfau & Steinbach, 2005: 515) [ ] ' e girl that fell o the bicycle is in the hospital. ' LIBRAS, from (Nunes and andros 2004: 180) Finally, post-nominal EHRC are also found in ASL and T ÍD, as shown in ( 81)-( 81).

( 81) 1 3 1

[ cp [ tp rel
] c ] 'I asked him to give me the dog that Ursula kicked. ' ASL, (Tang & Lau, 2012: 358) .

[ rel ] 'Cansu has sent a message. Samet, who did not see the message, called. '

TID, from Kubus 2010

A summary of the syntactic typological variations a ested in sign languages is provided in Table From the previous table, it emerges that SLs o er a similar level of complexity as spoken languages. Also, while in some cases one can argue for some in uence of the dominant spoken language (e.g., the postnominal position of RC in JSL) in several other cases the grammar of the individual SL is di erent from the grammar (e.g., LIS-Italian, LSC-Catalan/Spanish, and so on).

(4). SL IHRC Pre- nominal EHRC Post- nominal EHRC Correlative Free-relative European SL LIS X X X LSC X X X NA 21 DGS X X X X T ÌD X X Asian SL HKSL X X X NA JSL X SL in the Americas ASL X X LIBRAS X X X NA

Accessibility hierarchy

To the best of our knowledge, LIS is the only sign language to have been thoroughly described along the accessibility hierarchy 22 . In her book, [START_REF] Branchini | On Relativization and Cle ing : An analysis of Italian Sign language[END_REF] shows that LIS allows subject, object, and adjunct relatives as any argument or adjuncts of the main clause. An example of each is provided in example (82). Notice that, as described before, the relative clause is always extraposed to the le . From Branchini, 2014:191-192)

(

e semantics of relativization strategies

Semantic properties of relative clauses have not been systematically analyzed in SL; therefore, we cannot present the results of each of them in this respect.

In ASL, [START_REF] Galloway | Why agreement ma ers: e syntax of relative clauses in ASL[END_REF] shows the maximalizing nature of correlatives by showing that, contrary to both IHRC and EHRC, they cannot be combined with atelic verbs. In DGS, [START_REF] Pfau | Relative clauses in German Sign Language : Extraposition and reconstruction[END_REF] indicates that EHRC are compatible solely with a restrictive reading while the relative clauses identi ed by [START_REF] Happ | Deutsche Gebärdensprache. Ein Lehr-und Arbeitsbuch[END_REF] in the same language can only be understood as non-restrictive.

In T ÍD, the IHRC are only restrictives while the EHRC can be both non-restrictive and restrictive. As for free-relatives in this language, [START_REF] Kubus¸ | Relative clause constructions in Turkish Sign Language (Türk Ís ¸aret Dili -T ÍD)[END_REF] analyze them as being maximalizing. is is also what [START_REF] Branchini | On Relativization and Cle ing : An analysis of Italian Sign language[END_REF] proposes for free-relatives in LIS. In LSC, the IHRC are analyzed as being restrictive only while they are restrictive in LIS.

Finally, [START_REF] Branchini | On Relativization and Cle ing : An analysis of Italian Sign language[END_REF] identi es a strategy which is head external, lacks the ' ' sign and the IHRC set of NMMs as well. is strategy has an appositive reading.

All in all, SLs display all three di erent semantic types, showing as many variations as spoken languages do.

rough these studies, we can see that relativization strategies are as diverse in SL as they are in spoken languages. is comforts us in using the same typological tools across both spoken and signed modalities. We now turn to the formal frameworks proposed to account for the syntactic and semantic variations we have described so far.

Formal Frameworks

In the minimalist tradition, two23 widespread analyses of relative clauses are currently available, namely the Head Raising (HR) analysis [START_REF] Bianchi | Headed relative clauses in generative syntax. Part I[END_REF][START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF], Kayne 1994 among others) and the Head Matching (HM) analysis [START_REF] Carlson | Amount Relatives[END_REF], Sauerland 2000, among others).

Both can account for both IHRC and EHRC; herea er, we describe in detail their developments and implications. We will nish this section by presenting the double-head analysis, mainly proposed by [START_REF] Cinque | e prenominal origin of relative clauses". -(2014). " e semantic classi cation of adjectives. A view from syntax[END_REF] or Cinque (2015). is last framework tries to capture all syntactic and semantic typological types while unifying the two preceding theories within a single underlying structure.

Head-raising based theories

e core ingredients of the head-raising analysis (also called 'promotion theory', [START_REF] Culy | e Syntax and Semantics of Internally Headed Relative Clauses[END_REF]) are the following: the RC is the complement of a nominal projection, the head of the relative is generated within the relative clause, in its base position, and then raised to its surface position. Out of these (voluntarily) simple elements, shared by all versions of the raising analyses, debates have mainly concerned the nature of the nominal projection (DP? XP?) and the position of the external head (Spec CP rel ? External to the CP rel ?).

It is through [START_REF] Kayne | e Antisymmetry of Syntax[END_REF]'s seminal work on antisymmetry that the head-raising analysis of relative clauses became relevant in the linguistic literature. Seeding on [START_REF] Brame | A new analysis of the relative clause: Evidence for an interpretive theory[END_REF] or [START_REF] Vergnaud | French relative clauses[END_REF]'s work, the author proposes that the head of the relative clause is generated in its base position, but, as he notices that relative clauses are not theta-marked, he o ers that they have to depend on a functional head. Given their nominal nature, RC are analyzed by Kayne as complements of a determiner, an external D head. e relative pronoun is argued to be the rst determiner of the head, both of them rising to the le periphery of the relative clause. e head is then further raised to the speci er of DP, in order to be in the C-command domain of the external D head. e derivation is presented in Figure While adopted by authors such as [START_REF] Bianchi | Headed relative clauses in generative syntax. Part I[END_REF] and De [START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF], who extend this analysis to all types of relatives (with complementizers, without any relative pronoun, etc.), [START_REF] Bha | ree theories of relative clauses[END_REF] notices that this analysis does not account for the sentence presented in ( 83).

(83) e woman [ whom I loved ] and [ whom I always cherished ] was here, in front of me.

Indeed, in (83), the head does not form a constituent with the relative since it does not need to be present in the second conjunct. is pa ern leads Bha to propose that the head is further moved out of the relative clause CP, to land in an external position. Figure ( 22) illustrates his proposal.

While interesting, this proposal goes against Chomsky (1998)'s principle, which states that the label of the projection (here, NP) cannot be given by the moving element (the head) but has to be provided by the target itself. As an answer, [START_REF] Bha | ree theories of relative clauses[END_REF] proposes to change this ban in the case of relative clauses. Another way out of this debate is to adopt Cecche o and Donati (2014)'s proposal to re ne the way elements can label projections. In their theory, movement becomes the motivation of labeling, and they also extend the number of labels available by proposing a mixed label, made of both the probe and target labels. Another proposal comes from [START_REF] Bianchi | Headed relative clauses in generative syntax. Part I[END_REF] who proposes to add an intervening functional projection between the external DP and the relative CP 24 . We present the resulting structure in Figure ( 23).

As can be seen by comparing the three types of structures displayed so far, the variations across theories are ne-grained. In what follows, we will use the structure presented in Figure ( 22) since, similarly to Bianchi's proposal, it accounts for the constituency of the head with respect to the RC while providing a clear label in the landing projection. Independently from the analysis chosen, a raising analysis is needed to account for several properties linked to reconstruction e ects. A prototypical example comes with anaphor binding. Indeed, without postulating an internal position for the head, we cannot explain the acceptability of ( 84).

(84) e pictures of himself i which Mario i likes are on the table.

As brie y mentioned when presenting properties of restrictive relative clauses, anaphoras need to be bound by their referent in their local domain, at some point in their derivation (following Principle A of the binding theory [START_REF] Chomsky | Conditions on Transformations[END_REF]). Another example of reconstruction e ects comes from idioms. As shown by Bianchi (2002a) and De [START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF], relative clauses allow their head to present chunk of idioms as in ( 85).

(85) L'herbe qu'elle lui a coupé sous le pied n'est pas prête de repousser.

Lit. ' e grass which she cut under his feet is unlikely to grow again. ' ' e opportunity she stole from him is not likely to happen again. '

Similarly to anaphor binding, idioms have to be interpreted as forming a constituent, which is not possible if the two chunks are generated separately [START_REF] Marantz | On the Nature of Grammatical Relations[END_REF].

Finally, the raising analysis allows us to account for both IHRC and EHRC since the di erence between the two is just a ma er of movement of the head either in the surface syntax or at Logical Form (LF). e alternation between the two is presented in Figure [START_REF] Stromswold | Localization of syntactic comprehension by positron emission tomography[END_REF].

While the need for a rising analysis is hardly contested, a growing number of researchers have pinpoint facts that cannot be accounted for through this analysis alone.

Head-matching based theories

e matching analysis [START_REF] Lees | A multiply ambiguous adjectival construction in English[END_REF][START_REF] Sauerland | e meaning of chains[END_REF], Citko 2011 or Bha and Pancheva 2017) seeds on the idea that there is an external head merged to the main clause, which coexists with the internal base-generated one. e two heads are coreferential, and one of them has to be deleted at Phonological Form (PF). Moreover, the internal head is raised to the SpecCP of the relative clause. is process is illustrated in Figure (25).

Two variations of the head matching analysis have been proposed. e strong matching analysis (Bha 2015[START_REF] Schachter | Focus and relativization[END_REF][START_REF] Salzmann | Resumptive pronouns and matching e ects in Zurich German relative clauses as distributed deletion[END_REF]) and the weak matching analysis. e strong matching analysis allows a mismatch between the phonological form of the two heads but requires them to have the same semantics, as illustrated in ( 86). In ( 86), both heads are semantically similar, as shown by the equality between x and y.

e weak matching analysis requires no identity between the two heads as long as they co-refer such that the meaning is derived through one or the other. For this reason, the weak matching analysis can postulate the presence of a null operator, bearing the coreference solely with the full NP head. is operator can be either of the two heads. An example of the semantic derived is provided in (87).

(87) e owers a [[ which Op a ] j Charlo e wants j ] the owers λx. Charlo e want x.

An advantage of head matching theories is that it cuts out with the theoretical debate regarding labeling and projection since the (external) head is merged and not moved. Apart from this point, the head matching theory is needed to account for some cases in which reconstruction e ects are blocked, showing that the derivation is not raised. Extraposition, for example, prevents both anaphor and idiom chunks from appearing as the head of the relative, as shown in (88). Notice that, out of reconstruction e ects, extraposed relatives are perfectly acceptable (see 89).

(88) a. * ey took the pictures of himself i , yesterday, which Mario le on the table.

b. * Il ne pourra jamais faire repousser l'herbe, hier, qu'elle lui a coupé sous le pied. Int. 'He will never be able to grow the grass again, yesterday, she cut under his feet.

(89) ey took the pictures, yesterday, which Mario le on the table.

Another piece of evidence in favor of the head matching analysis is the absence of violation of Principle C in sentences such as (90). Notice that, if the proper noun had been bound at any point of the derivation, it would have yielded an ungrammaticality similar to (91) (90) e video of Justine a which she a has shown to Charlo e has a very high quality.

(91) *Which video of Justine ia that she a has shown i to Charlo e has a very high quality?

Finally, HM is the only hypothesis able to account for e-type relative clauses receiving a d-interpretation, aka amount relatives as in ( 92).

(92) I drink in two years the milk that he swallows in a day.

In (92), through HR, we have to postulate a hidden degree phrase being raised, while HM can allow one of the two heads to be di erent from the other.

Finally, notice that just like the raising analysis, the HM allows deriving both IHRC and EHRC as shown in Figure ( 26) 26 .

e majority of the proponents of the HM are in favor of having both analyses available within a linguistic system in order to derive the whole set of properties exhibited by relative clauses, (Cinque 2019, Sauerland 2002). On the one hand, Head Matching is required to derive the grammaticality of some cases of Principle C violation (see Cecche o and Donati 2015 for a possible case of overgeneration) and to account for extraposition/late merge of the relative clause [START_REF] Lebeaux | Relative clauses, licensing and the nature of the derivation[END_REF]). On the other hand, Head Raising is needed to account for kind readings [START_REF] Sauerland | Unpronounced Heads in Relative Clauses". e Interfaces, Deriving and interpreting omi ed structures[END_REF] and Principle B violations (Carlson 1977, Grosu and[START_REF] Grosu | Strange Relatives of the ird Kind[END_REF].

Now we turn to a recent analysis, proposed by [START_REF] Cinque | e prenominal origin of relative clauses". -(2014). " e semantic classi cation of adjectives. A view from syntax[END_REF], which aims at accounting for all the variations we have seen so far.

CP main … DP NP CP Rel C' … j … TP rel C (that)

e double-head hypothesis

In an a empt to unify all the possible syntactic and semantic derivations with a proposal framed in an antisymmetric framework [START_REF] Kayne | e Antisymmetry of Syntax[END_REF]), Cinque proposes a single, double-headed, prenominal structure integrated within a functional projection domain. is structure activates, moves, or deletes di erent elements, depending on the properties displayed by each relative type. e 'naked' structure is provided in Figure ( 27). To simplify, we removed intermediate projections (such as X') whenever possible. Following Cinque (2003)'s proposal, two heads are present within every relative clause, one external (a er the relative clause) and one internal, base-generated in its argumental position. Following the matching analysis principle, the external head is directly merged to its external position (the complement of FP 2 in Figure 27) and co-refers with the internal head.

en the relative clause itself is merged as the speci er of the functional projection FP 2 , in a prenominal position. rough this initial word order, Cinque (2019) a empts at unifying the order between all heads and their complements. is proposal roots on the observation that, across languages, complements (such as NP, AdjP…) have a xed order when they are on the le periphery of the head they modify. When on the right side, however, their order varies greatly crosslinguistically.

is is shown with the examples taken from [START_REF] Greenberg | Universals of language[END_REF] in ( 93)-( 94).

(93) A ested 27 order of complements on the le of the head noun (in bold) 27 is generalization is known as the Universal 20 and has been revised and implemented several times since 1963. e current version is the one proposed by [START_REF] Hawkins | Do second language learners acquire restrictive relative clauses on the basis of relational or con gurational information? e acquisition of French subject, direct object and genitive restrictive relative clauses by second language learners[END_REF]. Although typological research has shown that more options are a ested, the basic facts referred to by Cinque have always been con rmed (Cinque 2015). In ( 93), the order between all complements is xed. According to [START_REF] Greenberg | Universals of language[END_REF] we do not nd languages presenting an alternative order. On the other hand, for complements on the right of the head noun, we nd a variety of strategies acceptable.

To account for these facts, Cinque (2019) proposes that the true base-generated word-order has to be Complement > Head, all other surfacing word orders being derived by successive movements of the head to the le of the complement. Along the same line, he proposes to adopt the Linear Correspondance Axiom (LCA) (from Kayne 1994) but to inverse its order, thus stating SOV as the basic word order from which all the others derives (instead of the original SVO derived by the LCA).

With this theory in mind, the only merge position for a RC is prenominal. All other properties of relativization strategies (modifying a NP, a CP, being restrictive or maximalizing…) are obtained through di erent derivations. For example, to account for reconstructions e ects Cinque (2015) proposes to raise the internal head ( DP 1bis in Figure 28) to the speci er of the relative CP which now c-commands the external head (DP 2 ) which, in turn, is deleted under identity.

Now, with the relative pronoun, the whole DP 1bis would have been raised, and the external DP would have been erased (in a post-nominal EHRC strategy). To account for the blocking of reconstruction, Cinque proposes that it is the external head (DP 2 in Figure 28), which would have moved to the speci er of the functional projection FP. e internal head would still occupy the same position but would be the one erased under identity, just like in traditional HM proposals.

While very interesting, this model faces at least one founded criticism, already addressed to [START_REF] Kayne | e Antisymmetry of Syntax[END_REF]'s original LCA. Indeed, while both proposals present a seemingly highly constrained framework in terms of word order, lateralization of the complements and so on, such models are, however, very permissive regarding movement. Indeed, no intrinsic motivation is required for movement to occur, leaving the possibility to move any projection (in the limits of syntactic constraints on the number of nodes crossed, for example) in order to account for the surfacing word order. In that respect, this model is too permissive and becomes more descriptive than predictive. It fails to capture the di erences in relative types.

Appositive relative clauses

So far, we have presented the analyses competing to account for restrictive relative clauses. Regarding their appositive counterparts, a large number of hypotheses have also emerged throughout the literature. An overview is proposed in De [START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF] through the Table reproduced in (5). Table 5. Syntactic analyses of appositive relative clauses, summarized by De [START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF] In Table (5), the orphanage theories argue in favor of a link between the main clause and the appositive at a post-syntactic level only. An advantage of such accounts is that the binding and NPI e ects described in the previous Section are easily explained. On the other hand, they have to explain why, while being an 'orphan', the appositive is restricted in the position in which it can appear (on the right of the head).

Constituency accounts argue in favor of appositives being linked to the main clause at the syntactic level. Hence, they have to explain the binding and NPI e ects. On the other hand, these accounts present interesting insights on properties of appositives such as the fact that they form a constituent with the head (see 95 from De Vries 2002).

(95) Annie, die viool speelt, hee een nieuwe strijkstok gekocht. Dutch 'Annie, whom violin plays, has a new bow bought. '

In Dutch, like in German, the verb has to be second in main clauses. e sentence in (95) shows that the appositive forms a constituent with the head noun 'Annie'; thus, the verb is indeed in the second position. is property cannot be accounted if one adopts a parenthetical analysis of appositive relatives.

We will not detail all the arguments used by De [START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF] here. We instead sketch the outline of the author's analysis in order to use it later to account for LSF data.

Based on [START_REF] Marquis | e wh-feature and the syntax of restrictive and non-restrictive relatives in French and English[END_REF] and [START_REF] Koster | Extraposition as parallel construal[END_REF]'s work, De [START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF] takes appositive relatives as being light-headed free-relatives (with a pronominal, generally null, as their head) which are coordinated to the seeming head within the main clause. In Dutch, it is possible to see every component of this analysis through the covert/overt alternation presented in ( 96).

(96) a. Annie, ∅ die onze directrice is 'Annie, who is our manager. ' b. Annie, o ewel zij die onze directrice is 'Annie, or she who is our manager. '

from De [START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF]:219

In (96b), 'or' is the overt head of the conjunct projection proposed by De [START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF] and 'she' is the overt pronominal head modi ed by the appositive relative. e constituent made of the covert/overt pronominal and the light-headed free relative together is the conjunct of the prima facie head noun (Annie) within the main clause. e structure for (96a) is provided in Figure ( 29). In the following Chapter, we present LSF data and will implement our results following the frameworks we presented here.

C 3

Investigating LSF relativization strategies I n this chapter we present LSF relativization strategies. e data presented here have been elicited and assessed following the methodology explained in the introduction Chapter [START_REF] Woodward | Implications for sociolinguistic research among the deaf[END_REF]. We detail here the syntactic and semantic properties that we investigated in LSF. In Section I.3.1, we rst locate LSF within the typology presented in the previous Chapter. We will adopt the structure we have followed throughout the previous Chapter, by presenting the manual and non-manual marking strategies available in LSF before introducing its syntactic types and its semantics. ese ndings will pave the way for our formal analysis in Section I.3.2.

Typological categorization of LSF

Relative markers

We identi ed three di erent relative markers in LSF. ey all come with the same set of nonmanuals markings, which spreads di erently depending on the marker itself. e rst strategy is characterized by non-manual markings only (glossed herea er as 'rel'), which minimally spread over the head of the relative, as shown in example ( 97). e key nonmanual markers are: a) at least one part of the upper body -shoulders or torso-is oriented towards the locus where the head of the relative is located in the signing space b) eyebrows are raised, c) lips are tensed and d) upward or downward chin. Interestingly we found two other relativization strategies marked with overt manual signs. e rst manual marker in ( 98) is for human referents only (see the unacceptability of 99). It includes the classi er for 'person' in LSF (see Figure 31) and the same set of NMMs described above. e NMMs spread obligatorily on the relative marker (

) , as shown in ( 98), and optionally also over the head of the relative, as seen in example (100) and e second manual relative marker is the demonstrative sign 2 , glossed a er the mouthing marking it3 , which can be used for any head, whether human, non-human or inanimate. Here again, the manual sign is coarticulated with an upper-body orientation towards the head of the RC, raised eyebrows which can optionally spread over the head of the RC and the mouthing component (cf. As we have seen in the previous Chapter, relative markers can be analyzed either as complementizers, as relative pronouns, or as relative markers/nominalizers. In the case of both and , we will argue in favor of a relative pronoun analysis based on a) their agreement pa ern, b) their optional appearance inside the relative clause.

Starting from agreement, shows a plural in ection with a plural head, as in example (103) and Figure ( 34).

(103) 3 . 'She (Mary) met all the girls who were playing hopscotch. ' On the other hand, cannot be in ected for number. If the sign is repeated 'x' times, it will be interpreted as a demonstrative of 'x' entities. can still be used with plural heads, but the sentences are usually graded be er by our informants if it is combined with a quanti er or another sign designing the group of entities as in example ( 104).

(104) 3 . 'She met all the girls who were playing hopscotch. ' Whenever possible, displays nevertheless spatial agreement with the location of the head of the relative 4 , as can be observed in Figure (35) where the locus of the head ' '/' ' is used as the locus of ' '.

is realized either on the le or the right side of the signer without apparent relation with the head noun's locus. What needs to be noted is that displaying agreement with the head is commonly associated with relative pronouns, but it is not a su cient criterion to 4 ere is however a speci c instance of (cf. example 1 below), where it is signed at the end of the relative clause and realized in the neutral space, with the body leaning back which could be interpreted as a relative marker, nominalizing the whole sentence just like the 'kes' particle in Korean [START_REF] Kim | E-type anaphora and three types of kes-construction in Korean[END_REF]). We will address this case in (3.2.2.1).

(1)

1 [ ] 'I prefer situations in which a man is pe ing a dog (in general). ' evaluate the nature of these markers since some languages do present some form of agreement on complementizers.

For this reason, we elicited all possible word order with our informants (see Methodology in the Introduction) and found ( 105) and ( 106) to be acceptable options, although slightly degraded.

In these examples, and can both be found in a position internal to the relative clause. In (105), the head ' ' is the object of the relative clause and appears in its base position (in an SOV order). In (106), the temporal adverb ' ' marks the edge of the relative clause, which entails that any lexical element on its le , such as the head ' ', is therefore within the relative clause. More importantly, in both examples, the relative markers and are found next to the head. In this respect, both relative markers behave like relative pronouns. Recall from Chapter I.2 that only relative pronouns are base generated in the gap position and might optionally appear here. e same test can exclude that they are clitic on some speci c elements like the verb, for instance.

e fact that the two pronouns are normally dislocated to the le side of the relative clause is evidence that they are not resumptive pronouns (De Vries 2002). erefore, we analyze and as two relative pronouns. None of them can be used as a wh-word in a question, while they both appear in combination with nouns in simple sentences such as ( 108) and ( 109). (110) a.

'Someone entered (the room). '

For further semantic properties of and outside of their relative use, see [START_REF] Kuhn | Pluractionality, iconicity, and scope in French Sign Language[END_REF] and Schlenker (2018), respectively. Regarding LSF, a rst property to be considered is the (in)dependence of the relativized clause. To determine how LSF behaves in this respect, we presented our informants with the relative clause only. e resulting sentences are presented in ( 111) and ( 112). When the relative pronoun used is ' ', as in ( 111), the isolated relative is judged acceptable although slightly degraded. '

' is interpreted here as its pronominal alternative (which can be translated by 'someone'). However, for this interpretation to hold, the set of relative NMMs must be ignored. Such a repair-strategy is not available with ' ', which cannot refer to an individual by itself. erefore, the unacceptability of (112) shows that the relative clause depends on the main clause and cannot appear on its own, in an out-of-the-blue context.

is piece of datum argues in favor of a relative clause analysis since correlative constructions, being clausal, are more likely to be accepted in isolation 5 .

Another argument in favor of identifying LSF strategies with RCs comes from their behavior concerning islandhood. Relative clauses are known to be strong islands as opposed to sentential complements [START_REF] Ross | Constraints on variables in syntax[END_REF]. is is illustrated in English. While you can ask a question from the main clause (see 113a-114a) and from a complement clause (113b), you cannot ask a question from a relative clause constituent (114b). e question pa ern can also be used to reject other competing analyses, such as coordination or juxtaposition. With coordinated clauses, for example, they only allow symmetric extraction from both clauses at the same time ( = 'across-the-board'), as illustrated with English in (115). In that respect, the pa ern in ( 114)-( 114a) is not compatible with a coordinated analysis. Both clauses e same contrast is found in LSF, as can be seen by comparing sentential complements in (116) to relative clauses in (117) 6 (116) shows that it is possible to ask a wh-question out of a complement clause. Crucially, when the wh-sign is inside the relative clause, as in (117), the sentence is unacceptable 7 . e contrast between (117b) and (117c) shows that the islandhood only concerns the subordinate clause, hence rejecting a coordinated analysis. We take the asymmetry between complement and relative strategy as evidence that the constructions at stake are genuine cases of subordination at the nominal level, hence relative clauses.

Up to this point, we saw examples of relative clauses si ing as the object of the main verb. It is also possible to have relative clauses as the subject of the main verb. We di erentiate these cases from topicalized, fronted, relative clauses such as (118). Just like any other DP, relative clauses can be fronted. When a sentence is fronted, it appears with clear markers of topicalization (raised eyebrows and chin up), as shown in (118). By contrast, no such marker appears in the sentence in (120). is indicates that this is the canonical word order for relative clauses, allowing us to conclude that the relative clauses are here in their base (subject) position.

(120)

[ rel ] ' e dog who plays with the cat today runs fast. ' (121) re ' e vet who is curing the dog eats fries. ' e possibility for the relative clause to appear both in subject and object position is another evidence against a correlative analysis since these constructions have to be extraposed (see Chapter I.2).

In the light of these data, we analyze the relativization strategies instantiated in LSF as clear cases of relative clauses, i.e., clauses modifying a NP, the head.

Presence of a head

roughout the examples provided so far, we have seen that LSF presents headed relative clauses. It is also possible to nd headless alternatives, free-relatives. In this case the clause is introduced by a wh-element (see 122) and the NP is not referential, as seen by the contrast between ( 122) and ( 123). We will consider free-relatives separately, which will be treated in Chapter II.6.

Position of the head

In most cases, LSF relative clauses are externally headed and post-nominal (see 124a) but we also found cases of internally headed relative clauses, as in (124b).

(124) a.

1 [ gap ] 'Today, I prefer the vet who is curing the dog. ' (. . . Yesterday I preferred the vet who was curing the cat.) b.

1 [ ] 'I prefer the vet who is curing the dog today. ' (. . . not the one that is curing the cat.)

We use the temporal marker '

' as an indication of the edge of the clause. In (124a), '

' modi es the main clause, which indicates that the relative clause has been extraposed to the right of the temporal adverb. is is only compatible with an externally headed analysis.

In (124b), the adverb scopes over the subordinate clause only, so it has to be part of the RC. is indicates that the head of the relative is also within the subordinate clause, hence internal. With object relatives, the evidence for the co-existence of both externally and internally headed relative clauses is even more explicit, as shown in ( 125).

(125) a.

1

[ gap ] 'I prefer the dog which the man pets. ' b.

1 a [ a ] 'I prefer the dog that the man pet. '

In these examples, the head of the RC is the object of the verb ' ' and it can appear either externally (125a) or in-situ as in (125b).

Accessibility Hierarchy

Following Keenan and Comrie's accessibility hierarchy, repeated below, it was easier to elicit subject relative clauses than any other type, with adjunct relatives being the hardest to produce for our informants.

Keenan and Comrie's Accessibility hierarchy (enriched):

Subject/absolutive > Direct Object/ergative > Indirect Object > Genitive Complement > Temporal Complement > Adjuncts
In (126) we show examples of subject relative clauses (cf. 126a), object RCs (cf. 126b), and adjuncts RCs. It is possible to relativize an indirect object (cf. 126c), a temporal adjunct (cf. 126d) and other PP adjuncts (cf. 126e).

(126) a.

1 SRC 'I prefer the li le girl who pets the dog. ' b.

1 ORC 'I prefer the toothbrush that the boy use. ' c.

3 Ind. Obj. 'At the meeting today I met the girl to whom yesterday my colleague said bravo. ' d.

1 Temp. Adj. 'I am not available on the date in which the meeting was xed, let's move it. ' e.

1 Adjunct DP 'I prefer the dog with whom the woman walks. ' Overall, relative clauses in LSF could be built virtually out of any constituent (subject, object, genitive, or adjunct), whether human, non-human or inanimate. is is illustrated in (127), ( 128) and ( 129). 1 Non-human 'I prefer the dog with whom the woman walks. ' c.

1 Inanimate 'I prefer the toothbrush that the li le girl paint with. '

We also found cases in which the head corresponds to the entire event described by the relative clause, as illustrated in example (130a). Notice that this strategy is not available with and appears solely when the relative marker occurs at the end of the sentence, a er the temporal adverb which marks the right edge of the relative clause. e meaning of example (130a) is the same as the one in (130b), with an overt head.8 (130) a.

1 [ ] center b.

1 [ ] 'I prefer those situations in which a vet cures a dog today. '

We will give a full-edged analysis of this structure in Section I.3.2.2.1. Let us anticipate that there are two lines of analysis compatible with the data presented here; either a) the clause-nal is a nominalizer, like the 'kes-' particle in Korean [START_REF] Kim | E-type anaphora and three types of kes-construction in Korean[END_REF]) or b) LSF displays an extra-step of the accessibility hierarchy by allowing the head of the relative clause to be the whole event.

Semantics of relative clauses in LSF

LSF instantiates all three semantic types described in Chapter I.2 across di erent constructions. We will see that relative clauses using the pronoun or with NMMs only are restrictive. ' '-relative, on the other hand, are appositives. Finally, only ' ' appears to allow for maximalizing interpretations.

Restrictive relative clauses

-relatives display properties and meaning typical of restrictive relatives 9 . As is typical of restrictive RC, -relatives cannot modify a proper name 10 , as shown by the unacceptability of (131).

(131) * 1 M 'I prefer Mary, who pets the dog. ' Recall from Chapter I.2 that this restriction is due to the semantic operation, which requires that the relative clause modi es a set of individuals which it can restrict. With proper names, there is no restriction possible.

In addition, is it possible to stack -relatives as in sentence (132).

(

) i j j [ k k [ gap ] 132
] ' e man stabbed the dog which was chasing the cat which caught the bird. '

In (132), the relative clauses are embedded within each other, with each referring to a nominal embedded in the RC. It is also possible to have a stacked relative clause that restricts the same head multiple times, as in ( 133). ( 133)

1 i i [ RC1 gap j ] foc i [ RC2 gap k ] 'I choose
the cat which is playing with the girl which caught the bird. ' e second is realized in the same locus as the head noun (

) and the rst but is further marked through wide opened eyes and a small pause, which accentuate its coreference with the head.

However, -relatives cannot modify inde nite heads as shown in example (134)).

(134) 1 rel 3 1. 'At school, I always look for the/*a student who can help me. ' In (134), the only available interpretation is de nite. is might be due to the origin of as a demonstrative, which, by de nition, selects an entity. A possible argument in favor of this conclusion comes from the singular versus plural pa ern we described earlier; cannot be in ected for number. Interestingly, only the -relative strategy allows an inde nite interpretation, as shown in ( 135).

(135) 1 3 1. 'At school, I always look for a student who can help me. ' e overall pa ern described here shows that restrictive relatives exist in this language. 9 Unfortunately, we cannot test reconstruction e ects in LSF at the moment as very li le is known about nouns, pronouns, and anaphoras in this language. 10 In our master thesis, we argued for the contrary. is conclusion was due to a wrong interpretation of this restriction. Indeed, we presented contexts with multiple individuals sharing the same name, obtaining, therefore, restrictive relative clauses that we misinterpreted as appositives based solely on the nature of the head (proper name). We correct this mistake here.

Non-restrictive/Appositive relative clauses

-relatives, on the other hand, have an appositive interpretation. ey present the opposite pa ern of -relatives. Starting with NP modi cation, can modify proper names as in sentence (136). Note that this is also possible for NMMs-relatives. -and NMMs-relatives cannot stack. is is shown by the unacceptability of ( 137) and ( 138).

(137) * 1 i ( i ) [ RC1 gap j ] ( i ) [ RC2 gap ]
Intended: 'I choose the girl, who is playing with the cat, who eats an ice-cream. '

(138) * i j ( j ) [ k ( k ) [ gap ] ]
Intended ' e man stabbed the girl who was chasing the boy who caught the bird. ' e last property of -relatives is shared with -relatives; they require some speci city in the head they modify, as shown in ( 139). Here, however, we argue that this behavior is a further indication of the appositive nature of the . We have seen that can receive an inde nite interpretation in sentences such as (110a), repeated as (140).

(140)

'Someone entered the room. '

Recall additionally that, contrarily to , can be in ected for number. erefore, the impossibility to obtain an inde nite interpretation in (139) cannot be due to the sign ' ' itself. It seems then that ' '-relatives and some NMMs-relatives are appositives.

Maximalizing relative clauses

Amount relatives can only be expressed through the use of . In (141), the sentence is ambiguous between an amount (= d-type) and a restrictive (= e-type) reading. Recall from Chapter I.2 that this is analyzed by [START_REF] Grosu | e Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax[END_REF] as a subtype of maximalizing relatives.

(141) raised , 1 'I couldn't drink the champagne you spilled yesterday. ' (… because that champagne is spoiled)

'I couldn't drink the amount of champagne you spilled yesterday. ' (… because it's too much for me) However, such ambiguity is not always present. Consider for instance the scenario in (142) and the two options in (142a) and (142b). In this case, the relative receives only the einterpretation with no further marking. In order to receive an amount interpretation, an amount classi er must be overtly used (142b).

(142) Scenario:

ere is a huge bowl full of rice on the side of a table. Marie walks by and knocks the bowl. e rice falls on the oor. a.

1 'I cannot eat the rice that fell and spread on the oor. ' # 'I cannot eat the amount of rice that fell and spread on the oor. ' b.

1 SAS 'I cannot eat the rice that fell and spread on the oor (even if you pile it up again). ' 'I cannot eat the amount of rice that fell and spread on the oor. ' An interesting question is now what accounts for the di erence between ' ' and ' '. Why is the amount reading directly available with but not with ? If we follow our idea that is only compatible with speci c heads (whether amount or entities), we can nd what di erentiates from . e la er is an initialized form (the handshape 'refers to the le er "R" of the LSF manual alphabet) and not a classi er (cf. Figure 36). While for ' ', the morphology of the sign includes a classi er used to refer to the (bo le of) champagne (cf. Figure 37). Summarizing, -clauses can be ambiguous between restrictive and amount readings (cf. 141). However, such ambiguity is only available if the head of the relative clause contains an overt classi er, whether incorporated or not in the nominal head.

Two interesting hypotheses derive from this nding and should be addressed in further sign language studies. e rst one is that -relatives can be used as diagnostics for the presence of a classi er in signs. e second one being that, following [START_REF] Aristodemo | Visible degrees in Italian Sign Language[END_REF] and [START_REF] Mantovan | e syntax of nominal modi cation in Italian Sign Language (LIS)[END_REF], some classi ers could be analyzed as containing a degree-phrase11 . LSF presents EHRC relative clauses but can also display internally headed relative clauses. ey can either display no overt relative markers or a relative pronoun. Every constituent of the relative clause (and the relative clause itself) can be relativized. Relatives with the human-only relative pronoun, , are appositive. Relatives with ' ' can be both restrictive and maximalizing. e strategy without manual signs can, in principle, be used both in appositive and restrictive relative clauses. We can now implement LSF in the SL typology of relativization strategies in Table (6).

SL IHRC Pre- nominal EHRC Post- nominal EHRC Correlative Free-relative European SL LSF X X 12 LIS X X X LSC X X X NA 13 DGS X X X X T ÌD X X Asian SL HKSL X X X NA JSL X SL in the Americas ASL X X LIBRAS X X X NA

LSF relative clauses: a formal approach

e data from LSF can be accounted for using any of the main analyses presented in Chapter I.2, namely head-raising, head-matching, and double-headed accounts. We will start by presenting the derivation of appositive relatives in LSF (with as a relative pronoun) and will turn to the analysis of -relatives. e NMMs strategy will not be analyzed on its own since many parameters are still unknown to us.

-relatives

We have seen in the previous Section that -relatives are appositive in nature. In this respect they can be analyzed either at discourse level (the 'orphanage' analyses, [START_REF] Espinal | e representation of disjunct constituents[END_REF] or [START_REF] Grosu | e gi ed mathematician that you claim to be: Equational intensional 'reconstruction'relatives[END_REF] or at a syntactic level (the 'constituency' analyses, De [START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF][START_REF] Huot | Appositions et relatives appositives[END_REF][START_REF] Cornilescu | Non-restrictive relative clauses, an essay in semantic description[END_REF]. We implement the la er hypothesis by following De [START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF] in proposing that they specify a coordinated light-headed relative.

In this respect, ' ' could potentially be analyzed in two ways; as the head of the coordinated relative or as the relative pronoun modifying it. We argue that it is the pronominal and that the relative itself is only marked through non-manual markers.

is roots on the alternation we have seen in the subsection I.3.1.4.2, in which the same results were obtained with or without overtly expressed. As a reminder, consider the appositive sentence in (136), repeated here as ( 143).

-relatives

at the end

As we have mentioned in the previous section, some -relatives can receive a 'situation' meaning. is only appears when is articulated in the neutral signing space and at the end of the relative. We repeat the relevant example in (145).

(145)

1 [ ] rel 'I prefer situations in which a man is pe ing a dog (in general). '

As we said, the data presented here points either towards an interpretation of the clause-nal as a nominalizer or as a relative pronoun taking the whole event as its head.

If the ' '-nal is a relativizer, in the terms of De Vries 2001's classi cation, it is di erent from the non-nal ' ' relative pronoun. Recall from the previous section that one of the main arguments in favor of analyzing ' ' as a relative pronoun came from the possibility to nd it in an internal position, as seen in ( 105), repeated here as ( 146). ( 146)

1 [ rel ] 'I prefer the dog which the man is pe ing. ' ese data are not compatible with a relativizer analysis since this kind of relative markers has to be at the edge of the relative clause (see Chapter I.2 again).

We think that -nal is the same as non nal, a relative pronoun. Since usually follows the head it modi es, ' -nal' is simply taking the whole event as its head.

is analysis is supported by the pa ern presented in (147).

(147) a. When we introduce the overt noun ' ', as in (147b), is again found on the right of the head which it modi es. We see that the interpretation of (147b) and ( 147b) is the same. Meanwhile, if we try to have both the overt sign and the -nal, the sentence is unacceptable. is contrast shows that the head of the relative is the material to the le of . erefore, when is nal (see 147a-145), the head of the relative is the whole event. In order for the analysis to be coherent with the idea that the entire TP/CP is the head we must assume that the constituent is nominalized. Once nominalized it can move to the canonical position of heads in RC leaving to its right (see Figure 46 in the next subsection for the analysis).

An additional argument in favor of analyzing -nal constructions as simple relative clauses in which the whole relative is the head comes from the agreeing and non-manual marking properties shared by both constructions.

Recall from the previous section that agrees in space with the head it modi es. Similarly, the non-manual markers include raised eyebrows, the mouthing '[pi]', and the body turned towards the place of realization of .

In -nal constructions, the sign is realized in the neutral signing space, with raised eyebrows, the mouthing '[pi]' and the body leaned backward (Figure 39). is could be taken as a piece of evidence that it agrees with the whole event and not with a speci c participant of the relative.

Summing up, we will analyze all instantiations of seen so far as being relative pronouns. -relatives are usually restrictive in nature, and we propose to analyze them with a classical analysis in the next subsection.

Analysis

Externally headed relative

We choose to implement here a version of the headraising analysis proposed by Cecche o and Donati (2010) but recall that LSF data could t any of the analyses as they behave like typical restrictive relatives. Our choice is justi ed by the fact that raising and relabeling operations will be useful throughout this thesis, especially to account for the grammaticalization path we describe in Chapter II.6.

Under Cecche o and Donati (2010)'s approach, just like other head-raising analyses, the head and the relative pronoun are generated inside the relative clause and then moved to its edge to create an operator-variable chain. e D dominating the relative clause is merged externally, as part of the main clause. e NP head raises from the relative CP to an external position next to the determiner. As a lexical item, the head labels the relative clause as a nominal projection, hence providing it with the nominal features that are necessary to meet the selectional requirements of the external D head. As a summary, we provide the nal structure in Figure [START_REF]Super monsters II: Role shi , iconicity and quotation in sign language[END_REF]. With respect to word order, more work is needed to account for the alternation head > versus > head, presented in (149a)-(149b).

(149) a.

1 .

b. 1 . 'I prefer the vet who cures the dog. ' It is possible to argue that the order > head presents an externally merged . In this case, would be a simple demonstrative, base generated as the head of the external DP (see Figure 42). Another possibility is to consider that could raise as up as to be able to label the structure (see Figure 43). In that respect, it could raise as the external DP head. would then be considered as freely alternating between the two positions (SpecCP or above CP), depending on the preferred word order. e two proposals are tentative and require further investigation.

Internally headed relative

e derivation of IHRC is similar to the externally headed alternative, to the exception that the head and the relative pronoun stay where they are generated, and only the wh-features (the operator) moves covertly to SpecCP [START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF].

erefore the derivation of (105) repeated as ( 150) is presented in ( 44).

(150) 1 [ rel ] 'I prefer the dog which the man is pe ing. '

CP main IP I' VP V' DP main CP rel C' [ ] k TP C wh k D V t j DP t i I j 1 DP i C Figure 44. Structure of IHRC relatives in LSF
Similarly to EHRC, the possibility to nd sentences such as (107), repeated here as (151), can be accounted for by either considering that is externally merged as a demonstrative or is raised in order to provide the structure with nominal features, leaving the head alone in its base position. However, we chose to analyze -nal as a regular case of the relative pronoun . In this respect, either should be analyzed as taking both DP and IP as complements, or the IP is nominalized before being combined with . e two assumptions will require ne-grained investigations to receive empirical back-up.

In the Introduction of this thesis, we mentioned that space plays a preponderant role within SL grammars. Based on the agreeing pa ern of -nal (in the neutral signing space) and its non-manual marking (the body is leaned backward), it can be argued that the clause itself is associated with a locus to which refers. is would imply that all sentences can potentially be nominalized in LSF, by being signed in a speci c space and thus being associated with a locus. Aristodemo and Geraci 2017 argued that something very similar holds for temporal clauses. If we adopt this analysis, does not require to be made compatible with IP and it can be analyzed as simply taking regular nominal as complements, hence no extra step is required in the derivation and the structure is similar to that of externally headed relatives (see Figure 46)14 . e nominalized IP is the complement of the DP headed by . en the DP moves to the speci er position of the relative CP, as in externally headed relatives. Finally, the head is moved further as the head of the relative clause, providing it with the nominal features required to be selected by the external DP.

CP rel C' DP XP IP I' VP V' DP V t j DP t i I j DP i X ∅ nominalizer D C (a) Step 1: Derivation of the CP rel CP rel C' DP t i C ∅ DP i (b)
Step 2: The head moves to the specifier of CP.

DP main XP CP rel C' DP t i C DP i XP t m D ∅ X m D (c) Step 3:
The head is raised as the specifier of the DPmain.

CP main IP I' VP V' DP main XP CP rel C' DP t i C DP i XP t j D ∅ X j D V t j DP t i I j 1 DP i C (d)

Summary

In this Chapter we found that LSF possesses several di erent relativization strategies. e main strategy is to use externally headed relative clauses, but internally headed relatives are also a ested. LSF uses two types of relative pronoun:

for human heads and for all types of heads.

relatives have been shown to display non-restrictive interpretation. -relatives display either restrictive or maximalizing interpretation. However, the la er is severely constrained to heads bearing a classi er of size and shape. Additionally, we have seen that LSF relatives can be virtually derived from every step of Comrie (1989)'s accessibility hierarchy and further. e whole relative clause can be taken as the head of the relative when raised to the le of . Finally, relative clauses can also be realized only non-manually, but this strategy is harder to control and analyze as many covert parameters could be at play here. It will need further researches to capture its complexity.

Based on this rst description of relative clauses in LSF, we conducted deeper and broader analyses of their processing in LSF. is is what we turn to now.

C 4 Psycholinguistic investigation

T his chapter presents an experimental investigation of the distinction between subject and object relative clauses in LSF. e rst question we wanted to answer was whether there exists an asymmetry in the processing of subject and object relative clauses. e reason why this is important is due to the fact that the syntax of LSF relative clauses is such that it allow us to make speci c predictions about processing e ects on these constructions. is is treated in Section I.4.3. We are also interested in investigating whether the processing of relative clauses is a ected by the age of acquisition of LSF. is chapter is organized as follows; we will start by reviewing in greater details the literature on asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses, we will then present the advantages and limitations of the eye-tracking method to investigate this question. Section I.4.2 presents an innovative use of the visual world paradigm on an already studied population; French speakers. By showing that the results obtained with our visual-only protocols replicate those obtained with the original design, we con rm its viability for it to be used on a Deaf population. Consequently, Section I.4.3 presents our investigation of LSF relative clauses processing which resulted in the detection of a Subject Advantage.

Asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses

As we have discussed in the rst chapter of this thesis, relative clauses accessibility varies greatly depending on their nature. Object relative clauses are found less frequently across languages than subject relative clauses, as illustrated by [START_REF] Keenan | Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar[END_REF]'s accessibility hierarchy.

is asymmetry is be er known as the 'Subject Advantage'. e Subject Advantage is at the center of many controversies and debates revolving around a) the reasons explaining its presence and b) its universality.

Accounting for complexity: syntax

Many researchers have tried to capture what makes ORC more complex than SRC, but this topic entails at least two aspects that need to be de ned: what does it mean to be more complex (i.e., from a descriptive point of view) and what explains and predicts such complexity?

As for the rst question, the large variety of methodologies used to detect and rank complexity follows the mo o that if something requires less (time to acquire, time to process, cognitive resources, etc.), then it has to be easier. Accordingly, if something is easier, then it should be produced more frequently across and within languages (Hawkins 2004).

Following this logic, [START_REF] Diessel | e acquisition of complex sentences[END_REF] study of English children's production, concludes that SRC are easier than ORC since the former are produced at an earlier age and in higher proportion than the la er. In their self-paced reading task, [START_REF] King | Individual Di erences in Syntactic Processing : Working Memory e Role of[END_REF] observed that English adults read ORC signi cantly slower than SRC and obtained lower accuracy scores in comprehension questions. Similarly, for English speakers again, [START_REF] Traxler | Working memory , animacy , and verb class in the processing of relative clauses[END_REF] 's eyetracking study captures a Subject Advantage in the form of longer xations on ORC compared to SRC. [START_REF] Müller | Event-related potentials elicited by spoken relative clauses[END_REF] associate complexity to a higher electrical signal of the Le Anterior Negativity (LAN) in their Electroencephalogram (EEG) study, and an increased signal is associated to complexity in functional Magnetic Resonance Imagery (fMRI) studies [START_REF] Constable | Sentence complexity and input modality e ects in sentence comprehension: an fMRI study[END_REF]) and Positron Emission Tomography (PET) studies [START_REF] Stromswold | Localization of syntactic comprehension by positron emission tomography[END_REF]), all con rming the Subject Advantage in English.

What we see here is that the SRC were consistently found to be easier than ORC, no ma er the method of investigation. Nevertheless, why is it so? A large number of hypotheses have been proposed on the ma er. Two general tendencies can be highlighted: some hypotheses, based on Hale (2006)' surprisal theory, focus on inherent properties of relative clauses to explain asymmetries, while others focus on their frequency in the linguistic input 1 . In other words, they argue that ORC are harder to process due to the low probability to nd them in the linguistic signal. is entails that, when speakers hear an ORC they are surprised -or forced to revise their previous hypotheses on the outcome -which leads to greater calculation/time needed to understand the sentence. What is predictive of complexity in such theories is the frequency of representation across the linguistic signal. With these criteria in mind, we can interpret the accessibility hierarchy of [START_REF] Keenan | Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar[END_REF] that we discussed in the previous Chapters as capturing this tendency. While an advantage of such theories comes from the possible generalization of the complexity metrics (i.e., what is less frequent is more complex), one problem lies in their circularity: they do not explain why ORC are less frequent than SRC in the rst place. If they are not satisfactory on an explanatory standpoint, they do prove themselves useful for applied linguistics as they allow arti cial networks to calculate the right probabilities for structures to appear.

On the other hand, a large variety of hypotheses try to nd some inherent property of ORC, which could explain and predict their additional complexity when compared to SRC. e hypothesis [START_REF] Bever | e cognitive basis for linguistic structures[END_REF]) a ributes the processing burden of ORC to its dissimilarity to canonical word order in a language. In that respect, it constitutes the premises of frequencybased theories. e hypothesis [START_REF] Sheldon | e role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English[END_REF]) relies on the idea that ORC are harder to process due to the competition when the object of the main clause, the head, also happens to be the object of the relative clause. If this theory held, we would expect the Subject Advantage to disappear when SRC are in the subject position as in (152). Results from [START_REF] Miyamoto | Subject / Object Asymmetries in the Processing of Relative Clauses in Japanese[END_REF] show that this is not the case. ORC are read slower than SRC no ma er their syntactic role withing the matrix clause and their case marking.

(152)

e girl [who helped the robber ] was arrested by a policeman.

SRC S nom [ Rel nom V O acc ] V O obl
In the hypothesis [START_REF] Macwhinney | e processing of restrictive relative clauses in Hungarian[END_REF], the burden of processing ORC is a ributed to the need for the listener/reader to switch perspective twice. More precisely, they consider that a rst change in perspective shi s from the subject of the main clause to the subject of the relative clause and that a second change shi s back from the subject of the RC to the subject of the main clause when the verb of the main clause is encountered. is is illustrated in example (153).

(153) e girl who helped the robber was arrested by a policeman. SRC No shi , the subject of both clauses is the same.

(154) e girl that [ shif t the robber helped [ shif t was arrested by a policeman. ORC Shi from the subject of the main clause to the subject of the RC. Shi back from the subject of the RC to the subject of the main clause.

If such a theory holds, we predict the same processing burden each time the relative clause is in object position, no ma er its nature (Subject or Object). As seen throughout the di erent experiments cited above, this is not what is observed.

In all three hypotheses, the metrics for complexity is directly linked to variation from a norm. [START_REF] King | Who Did What and When ? Using Word-and Clause-Level ERPs to Monitor Working Memory Usage in Reading[END_REF] and [START_REF] King | Individual Di erences in Syntactic Processing : Working Memory e Role of[END_REF] studies have shown that complexity is rather linked to working memory and syntax. is nding is at the core of two alternative hypotheses; the L D [START_REF] Gibson | e dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity[END_REF] hypothesis and the S D hypothesis [START_REF] Hawkins | Processing complexity and ller-gap dependencies across grammars[END_REF]. Both of them rely on the idea that speakers need to keep the head of the RC in their memory until they encounter its base position in the relative clause, the gap. In the structural account, the complexity arises from the greater number of nodes and projections that the parser has to cross in ORC compared to SRC. In the linear account, the principle is the same, but the complexity arises from the higher number of words that need to be stored and kept in working memory. While the structural account predicts a universally shared Subject Advantage, the linear distance predicts cross-linguistic variations depending on the typology of the relative clause (i.e., prenominal vs. post-nominal). It also predicts on line di erences if one manipulates linear distance language internally (by adding more intervening words, for example).

From a structural point of view, objects will always be more deeply embedded than subjects, no ma er the surfacing word order. is is illustrated by the comparison between ( 155) and ( 156). 155), the head crosses three nodes2 while it crosses ve nodes in (156). Notice that, with another relative strategy such as prenominal externally headed RC, the result is the same. We present the tree of the Turkish example (35), repeated here as (157)). We see in the Turkish example that the number of projections crossed-out is the same as in the English sentence. Now, if we adopt the linear hypothesis, the number of words crossed by the parser varies according to surface word order. Compare the object relatives in English in (158) and in Turkish in (159).

(158) e cat that the dog kicked gap . English (159) [[ pro gec ¸en yaz ada -da gap gör-düg-üm ] kis ¸i -ler ] Turkish last summer island-LOC see -FN -1.SG person -PL ' e people who(m) I saw on the island last summer' In (159), only one word is crossed since the gap and its ller, the head, are closer to each other. In this language, the sentence is therefore predicted to be easier than the subject relative clause (see 160).

(160) [[ gap gec ¸en yaz ada -da ben-i gör-en ] kis ¸i -ler ] Turkish last summer island -LOC I -ACC see-(y) An person -PL ' e people who saw me on the island last summer' On the other hand, in English, (158) shows that the ller crosses four elements before reaching its nal position, while in the subject alternative, it only crosses the relativizer. Based on this comparison, the linear hypothesis predicts ORC to be harder to process than SRC, in English.

Is the Subject Advantage universal?

A large number of psycholinguistic studies have found the existence of a Subject Advantage within several languages [START_REF] Frauenfelder | Monitoring around the relative clause[END_REF]Mehler 1980 for German, Traxler et al. 2005 for English, [START_REF] Yun | Uncertainty in processing relative clauses across East Asian languages[END_REF]for Japanese, Baudi er et al. 2011 for French, a.o.). ese results led to the idea that the Subject Advantage is universal, contra to the ' prediction.

e debate is still open, however, as can be seen through the case of Mandarin Chinese or more recent multi-factorial studies [START_REF] Vasishth | Argument-head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and antilocality e ects[END_REF]. Similarly, in acquisition, [START_REF] Chen | e acquisition of relative clauses in spontaneous child speech in Mandarin Chinese[END_REF] show that ORC surfaces before SRC in the production of the children, while [START_REF] Lau | Acquisition of relative clauses in Cantonese: A multi-factorial analysis[END_REF] found that children produce fewer errors for SRC than for ORC.

is mixed picture goes hand in hand with a growing literature showing that not all object relative clauses are equal, especially when we add semantic and pragmatic factors into the picture [START_REF] Vasishth | Argument-head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and antilocality e ects[END_REF]. [START_REF] Mak | e in uence of animacy on relative clause processing[END_REF] or Mak, Vonk, and Schriefers (2006) show that inanimate heads in ORC drastically reduce the Subject Advantage in English. Similarly, [START_REF] Friedmann | e acquisition of relative clause comprehension in Hebrew: A study of SLI and normal development[END_REF] show that children easily understand ORC if the relative clause has a pronominal subject as in example ( 162).

(162) I prefer the princess [ that you draw gap ].

Pragmatics:

Other factors, such as the e ect of saliency in the preceding context [START_REF] Roland | Discourse expectations and relative clause processing[END_REF], Hale 2016), have led more and more researchers to consider that the Subject advantage is the result of the interaction of multiple factors. For example, [START_REF] Hodgson | Relative clauses in colloquial Armenian: Syntax and typology[END_REF] proposes that, in Mandarin Chinese, syntactic subjects are less commonly associated with topics than it can be the case in other languages. is could reduce the salience of the head of the relative clause in contexts, decreasing the subject advantage observed in other languages.

A solution to be er isolate the factors at play in the Subject Advantage is proposed by [START_REF] Pozniak | Le traitement des relatives dans les langues : une approche comparative et multifactorielle[END_REF], who conducted a cross-linguistic study (French, English, Mandarin Chinese, and Cantonese) using the same experimental design. Using an eye-tracking protocol in which she controls for animacy and context e ects, she found that there exists a Subject Advantage in all four languages, although varying in intensity. In our study, we will only focus on whether there is a subject advantage in LSF without a empting to manipulating the other factors mentioned so far. For this reason, we chose to adopt and adapt Pozniak (2018)'s protocol, to add LSF to the cross-linguistic pool of data on the Subject Advantage.

Using eye-tracking to investigate relative clauses processing 4.1.3.1 Tracking eyes to obviate decision-making bias

Eye-tracking refers to several methods that aims at tracking and describing eye movements while performing a task. ey usually provide information regarding eye movement's path and its speed. e rst observation of the importance of eye movements dates back to 1900, when an ophthalmologist noticed that, while reading, eyes make quick non-linear movements (= saccades) [START_REF] Legge | A Brief History of Eye-Tracking[END_REF]. With the help of measuring devices dedicated to this use, seminal works such as [START_REF] Yarbus | Eye movements and vision[END_REF] and later [START_REF] Cornsweet | Accurate two-dimensional eye tracker using rst and fourth Purkinje images[END_REF], demonstrated the robustness of eye-tracking data compared to self-reported data (answers which are given 'consciously' by participants). Participants can be biased in their answers. One consequence of this is that the will to give a good impression can bias the active choice of an answer, to conform to social expectations, or because of self-con dence issues. On the other hand, eye movements conclusively show participants' focus of a ention. For this very reason, eye-tracking methods have also been primarily used in the marketing and advertisement domains [START_REF] Schiessl | Eye tracking and its application in usability and media research[END_REF]).

Eye tracking to understand language and world processing

In the linguistic eld, the use of eye-tracking has been claimed to be more informative and productive compared to behavioral methods like self-paced reading, rapid visual stimulations, or lexical decision tasks [START_REF] Rayner | Eye movements in reading: Psycholinguistic studies[END_REF]Sereno 1994,Hyönä, Laine, and[START_REF] Hyönä | E ects of a word's morphological complexity on readers' eye xation pa erns[END_REF].

Eye-tracking is now more and more used to investigate all levels of the linguistic process, from phonological aspects to sentence processing (see [START_REF] Duchowski | Eye Tracking Methodology: eory and Practice[END_REF][START_REF] Holmqvist | Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures[END_REF] or Sagarra and Hanson 2011 for a review). Several experimental designs exploit this device, one of them, the Visual World Paradigm (VWP), permits to record the eye-movements while performing an audio-visual task: objects or pictures are presented visually while a sentence is displayed aurally. is paradigm has been used to investigate many linguistic domains ranging from word recognition [START_REF] Tanenhaus | Language processing in the natural world[END_REF] to semantic processing [START_REF] Sekerina | Using the Visual World Paradigm to Study Retrieval Interference in Spoken Language Comprehension[END_REF]) (see Hue ig, Rommers, and Meyer 2011 for a review of experimental works using this method). While some authors prefer recording eye movements and xations on the whole screen, others advocate in favor of de ning speci c areas that are directly relevant to the research question. ese are called Area Of Interest (AOI). Researchers de ne some areas that participants are likely to consider while processing input. For example, in (163), the two competitors are likely to be considered at di erent points of the sentence processing. [Auditory stimulus] "Please nd the correct princess, meaning, the beautiful princess that paints the fencer on the picture" e pictures are displayed at the same time as the sentence.

e VWP initially involves two sensory modalities: the visual modality is used to display two pictures on a screen while a sentence is played on earphones. Both sounds and pictures happen at the same time, allowing them to follow, through eye-tracking, the wandering of the participants' eye-gaze as they evaluate the pictures with respect to the sentence they are hearing.

For items, participants see two competing pictures: one corresponds to a subject relative interpretation ('the princess that draws the fencer'), and the other one corresponds to a relative object interpretation ('the princess that the fencer draws'). For each pair of pictures, the stimulus displayed is counterbalanced across conditions, meaning that for a single item picture, half of the participants will hear a SRC stimulus, while for the other half will hear an ORC. Similarly, for a single item, the position of the correct picture is counterbalanced such that, for half of the participants, the correct answer will be on the right (whether it is SRC or ORC) and for the other half it will be on the le . is is illustrated in Figure ( 50).

e result is four di erent lists containing the same number of SRC on the right, SRC on the le , ORC on the right, and ORC on the le and each list displaying the item pictures only once. With this design [START_REF] Pozniak | Le traitement des relatives dans les langues : une approche comparative et multifactorielle[END_REF] is able to minimize e ects of lateralization (e.g. if the correct answer is always on the right, this bias participants' answers) and possible e ects of character saliency (e.g. if a character is accidentally more salient than others and also happens to be the correct answer, it can bias the participants).

Items are randomly alternating with llers, which are the same across all four lists. Fillers are such that the two alternatives are simple pictures comparing objects or animals, as can be observed in Figure ( 51).

[Auditory stimulus] "Please nd the correct picture, that is to say the picture showing a dog. " e function of the llers is two-folded. 1) Participants do not need the same level of concentration throughout the whole experiment and can rest with llers. 2) To obtain an objective measure of a ention and comprehension since, if participants are lower than chance 5 on such an easy task, they cannot be expected to perform typically on items.

Finally, all trials are introduced by a slide, the context, stating, from le to right, the characters which will appear in the following item/ ller (see 164).

(164) a. Context Item: Here are two pictures, both with a pirate, a princess, and a fencer. b. Context Filler: Here are two pictures a dog and a boot. ese contexts help participants to identify faster each character within the item/ ller pictures, and it also allows each character to be equally salient in the context. e experiment is made of three constitutive steps (Instructions, practice, and experiment), with a time break in the middle to allow participants to rest and refresh. Each trial follows the following order:

Trial structure:

Context > Fixation point > Item or Filler > Greenlight > (If no bu on pressed: Warning sign)

For our experiments, we used the same pictures, protocol, and stimuli (translated in the language tested) as [START_REF] Pozniak | Le traitement des relatives dans les langues : une approche comparative et multifactorielle[END_REF], to the di erence that we adapted the original audio-visual design to a visual-only display (to be suitable with a Deaf population). Hence, our rst goal was to verify whether similar results could be obtained in the two versions of the test.

For that purpose, we started by conducting an experiment on French native speakers to be compared with previous results obtained in this population. In other words, we started by testing a language for which the Subject Advantage had already been proven through many studies, including through Pozniak (2018)'s audio-visual protocol, in order to control if a visual-only protocol could replicate the e ect.

Visual-only French experiment : design 4.2.1.1 Eyelink

We designed the experiment using the so ware Experiment Builder™and retrieved the experiment data using Data Viewer™. Both so wares are issued by the SR-Research enterprise, which produces the device we used, the Eyelink II, a head-mounted headband with two cameras lming whichever eye is selected. As is the case for most eye-tracking devices, the pupil is identi ed through the di usion of infrared light, re ecting on the retina of participants.

One of the advantages of this device is that it leaves participants relatively free in their movements, allowing them to hold an additional controller (used for self-reported measures) while being in a comfortable position. Before the session, we tested the dominant eye for each participant using the Miles test [START_REF] Miles | Ocular dominance in human adults[END_REF]) and recorded it consequently. Participants wearing glasses or lenses were also accepted as long as it did not interfere with the recording.

Visual World Paradigm

In our need to change the protocol to a visual-only display, we decided to separate the screen in two vertical spaces: the upper space was used to display the competing pictures while the lower space was used to display the sentence, the stimulus. We positioned pictures on the two sides of the screen while the stimulus was displayed in the center to allow maximal di erentiation of the three zones. Each element (i.e., the two pictures and the stimulus) was coded as AOI for the eye-tracker.

e stimuli used were videos displaying a wri en French sentence, frame by frame, every two seconds (see Figure 52). e duration between each video frame has been determined a er a pilot study, our goal being to nd the right pace to allow both language uidity and to give enough time to participants to investigate the pictures while receiving the linguistic input.

Calibration

e calibration process took between 5 to 10 minutes, depending on participants, and consisted of a 9-points validation scheme. Calibration phases took place before and a er the practice, a er the break, and during the experiment, if needed. Following standard procedures, the xation point appearing before each item/ ller purposely served as a calibration check and ensured the correct capture of eye-gaze.

Material and variables manipulated

e protocol includes 24 items and 25 llers as well as a training phase made of a mix of 10 items/ llers, whose results were excluded from the analysis. In this experiment, just like Pozniak (2018), we manipulate two variables; subject and object. ey are counterbalanced following a two by two design (Latin square) (see Appendix C for the complete list of items and llers).

Participants

We tested 21 native French speakers for our experiment. One was excluded based on their native bilingualism. Consequently, we analyzed the results of the 20 participants le . Our participants were mostly coming from Paris and its surroundings, aged between 20 and 69 years old, with a mean age of 36 years old (sd = 16). For this study, we collected data from 18 women and two men. Each participant's results are associated with a code, and no individual results will be presented. Every participant received a compensation of 8 euros for their participation 6 .

Procedure

We received participants in the eye-tracking room of the Université de Paris. e experiment lasted a total of 45 minutes. Participants received compensation of 8 euros for their participation and transportation costs.

A er adjusting the eye-tracker, participants read the wri en instructions of the experiment on the screen. Participants sat approximately 45 cm away from the computer screen.

At the end of the stimulus display, participants were also asked to validate an answer manually. To do so, they had to press either the right or the le bu on on a controller. e bu on could only be pressed at the end of the stimulus. Hence, we ensured that the participants had seen the whole sentence before answering.

ey had a one-second span to answer, whose boundaries were signaled by a green light. In case they did not answer in time, a warning sign appeared (see Figure 53). is measure is a way for us to control for comprehension but also to give a concrete goal to our participants, which naturally leads them to look more at the picture they want to validate [START_REF] Hawkins | Processing complexity and ller-gap dependencies across grammars[END_REF].

We also repeated the instructions orally to ensure that every aspect of the experiment was understood. e training phase was used as an opportunity to re-explain the instructions when they were not applied. A er the calibration, we le our participants alone in the room. Following Pozniak (2018)'s design, each item and each ller was introduced by a context explaining the objects/animals/characters which were going to appear in the tested condition as in example (165).

(165) a. Context for items:

Vous allez voir deux images présentant chacune un pirate, une princesse et un escrimeur. 'You will see two pictures with a pirate, a princess and a fencer. ' b. Context for llers:

Vous allez voir deux images présentant un chien et une bo e. 'You will see two pictures with a dog and a boot. '

Participants were informed that the order of u erance in the context corresponded to the order from le to right of the objects/animals/characters in the actual condition.

To summarize, the general design is precisely the same as used in [START_REF] Pozniak | Le traitement des relatives dans les langues : une approche comparative et multifactorielle[END_REF], except for the modality of the stimulus display.

Hypotheses

Our hypotheses are straightfoward. Given that subject relative clauses are easier to process than object relative clauses in French, if the visual-only protocol works we should nd a signi cant di erence in the proportions of eye xations on the correct pictures between the two conditions.

Similarly, the answer should be found faster for subject relative clauses than for object relative clauses.

Results

We will start by showing the results corresponding to the accuracy of the participants, namely which bu on they pressed when answering at the end of the stimulus.

Comprehension

We have a ternary dataset since we coded '1' for correct answers, '0' for incorrect answers and '-1' for lack of bu on pressing. We planned to exclude participants displaying more than 25 % misses, which did not happen in this group. We then kept the binary set of data made of '1'(correct) and '0'(incorrect) as our dependent variables. Results were analyzed with the R so ware (R Development Core Team, 2005) using the Laplace Approximation model, a generalized linear mixed model t by maximum likelihood using the glmer function (package lme4, [START_REF] Bates | Parsimonious mixed models[END_REF]. e independent variables we manipulated were the two kinds of relative clauses, namely 'Subject Relative Clause' and 'Object Relative Clause'. e random variables are the participants and the items. e results are presented in Figure (7).

Condition

Percentage of correct answers As expected, the results show high levels of accuracy in both conditions, with a mean performance of around 91 percent. Overall the accuracy is slightly be er for the SRC with an accuracy of 96% against 86% for the ORC. e di erence between the two condition is signi cant (sd=0.5, z-value= 3.2 and p-value < 0.01), see the Appendix (C) for the detailed statistics. is comforts the relevance of our design.

Visual processing

We now turn to the eye-tracking data, namely, the proportion of xation of each AOI.

Validation of the visual paradigm

e results were analyzed with R. We used the Eyetracking-R package [START_REF] Dink | eyetrackingR: An R library for eye-tracking data analysis[END_REF] to clean, analyze and plot our data 7 . e independent variables were the same as before, but the dependent ones are now the di erent areas of interest. Following previous experiments using the VWP [START_REF] Pozniak | Le traitement des relatives dans les langues : une approche comparative et multifactorielle[END_REF], we analyzed our data through mixed linear models [START_REF] Barr | Random e ects structure for con rmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal[END_REF] in which we included time and present the results in Figure ( 54). e two plots correspond to the two conditions, namely Subject relative and Object relative. e three curves correspond to the proportion of xation of the correct picture, the incorrect picture, and the video stimulus. e x-axis represents the average time of items within trials. Measurement starts at the display of the head of the relative clause. e y-axis represents proportions within 50ms timebins. In these results, we observe that participants start by looking exclusively at the videosentence and progressively drop it to look more at pictures. Remember that the underlying question here was: 'Are participants able to look at a stimulus and compare possible answers at the same time?'. A er statistical analysis, the answer is clearly 'yes'. Indeed, the general shape of the curve shows that participants are still able to compare and explore the pictures.

Asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses

e results presented above do not provide a clear answer to the question of the presence of an asymmetry in processing subject and object relative clauses in French because we compare two di erent kinds of data: the images, which correspond to correct and incorrect answers, and the video stimulus, which is not an answer. To be er compare correct and incorrect answers, we have to look at the proportions of eye gaze when looking at a picture.

To obtain these data, we calculated the proportion of xations corresponding to participants looking at the images.

is was obtained by calculating the proportion of correct xations divided by the sum of the proportion of incorrect and correct answer xations8 . e results of this operation are presented in Figure ( 55). We see here the direct comparison of xations on the correct versus incorrect pictures, depending on the condition. In Figure ( 55), we see that the SRC are understood faster than ORC. e Sa erwait's linear mixed model (see Appendix C) t by maximum likelihood, shows that there is a signi cant e ect of Relative Clause Type both across items (coef= -0.4, SE = 1,96, t = -20.8, p <.001)9 and across participants (coef=4.3, SE=2, t = 21.39, p< .001). is e ect means that it takes more time to process ORC than SRC and that the la er are processed more accurately than the former.

We thus con rm that the visual-only paradigm is able to capture the signi cant Subject advantage both across participants and across items in French.

Discussion

rough our visual-only paradigm, we e ectively replicated the results obtained in its audiovisual alternative, as can be seen through the comparison of both designs' results in Figures Interestingly, it shows that, in French, the SRC are understood quicker and be er than ORC independently from the sensory modality used for stimulus display.

Few remarks are still needed. e critical elements of our design are the speed of stimulus display and its naturality. Regarding speed, we had to nd the right pace at which participants could receive the linguistic input while still being able to investigate the pictures (recall that we wanted to compare data over time, not once the sentence nished). erefore, future visual-only studies should also conduct pilot studies, as we did, to nd the right pace of display.

As for the naturality of the French sentences used, a founded critic could be the way u erances were segmented. Indeed, recall that an advantage of eye-tracking studies over self-paced reading tasks is that it allows presenting ecologic data at a natural pace. In our design, the sca ered nature of the stimulus is visible in the presence of the peaks in video-sentences xations in Figure (54). In future experiments, this point could be improved by using a dynamic display of the sentence (i.e., like in a movie generic instead of being chopped).

Nevertheless, with all these considerations in mind, the striking result of this study is that we were able to replicate the previous ndings on French across protocol displays. We can, therefore, con rm that the asymmetry between SRC and ORC is very robust in French. Now that we have demonstrated the validity of our protocol in an already investigated language, we can use it to study LSF.

Testing relative clauses asymmetry on Deaf signers 4.3.1 Design

e design used was the same as the French visual-only protocol. We used the same eyelink, the visual world paradigm, and manipulated the same variables.

Material

e only di erence lies in the stimuli displayed, which are LSF video and not wri en French (see Figure 57). e stimuli were elicited with Lorène Loctin, who also recorded the instructions of the experiment and calibration procedures. She additionally signed half of the contexts while the other half was signed by omas Lévêque, another Deaf consultant regularly collaborating with our team. We recorded the same 24x4 items (following the Latin square design) and 25 llers as in the French protocol, and ten practice items/ llers. No wri en French was involved at any stage of the experiment itself.

As for the French protocol, we checked the pace of the video-stimuli through a pilot study involving 5 Deaf people. At normal speed10 , our participants were not able to look at the LSF sentences while investigating the competing pictures. We slowed the videos down to 50 % of their original pace and controlled that the resulting videos were correctly understood and appeared natural to our pilot group. Similarly to the French experiment, we collected both eye-tracking data, across time, and accuracy input through bu on pressing on the controller.

Items and Fillers

All the pictures were the same as in the French experiment, hence coming from [START_REF] Knoeferle | Actions and roles: Using depicted events for disambiguation and reinterpretation in German and English[END_REF].

All the videos were annotated through ELAN in order to obtain the time code corresponding to critical signs, namely, for the subject relative clause: the head, the relative pronoun , the verb of the relative clause, its object and the end of the sentence (cf. Figure 58), and, for the object relative clause: the head, the relative pronoun, the subject of the RC, its verb and its end as well. We used only -relative clauses since, as explained in Chapter I.3, it is the only strategy that is clearly restrictive, hence compatible with the se ing.

e mean of the time codes was then used to visually indicates them on the plot. is allowed us to understand at which moment of the sentence were the correct AOI xated by participants. Additionally, we asked our consultant to use the classi er ' ' before every nounphrase depicting a human being in items. Indeed, while its presence is optional in many professional nouns, its presence is obligatory in a subset of them (cf. example 166). To avoid undesirable e ects linked to its presence/absence, we preferred having it everywhere.

(166) a. * 'Mayor (of the town). ' b.

'Factory worker. '

As for llers, we used other types of sentences, question/answers, to make sure that the sentences were easier than for the items, and that there was no use of as a demonstrative to avoid priming e ects. An example of both SRC and ORC items and a ller, are provided in Examples ( 167)-( 168). e full list is provided in Appendix (C).

(167) Items a. , SRC 'Please choose the correct princess, meaning the beautiful princess who paints the fencer. ' b.

, ORC 'Please choose the correct princess, meaning the beautiful princess who the fencer paints. ' (168) Filler a.

. 3 'Please choose the correct picture. at is the dog. '

Participants

We recorded data from 33 Deaf signers. We collected meta-data regarding their signing background (age of rst exposure to LSF, presence or not of Deaf relatives, modality of communication with parents, siblings, other relatives, type of education whether oralist, bimodal or mostly LSF…) through a questionnaire 11 (see Appendix C) in order to be more representative, we included native/near-native signers and early/late signers. e meta-data have been anonymized following the CER-PD 12 and the CNIL 13 recommendations.

As mentioned in the introduction, the population of Deaf signers varies signi cantly in their linguistic background. In our group we recruited 15 native/near native 14 (mean age of acquisition = 1.3 y.o., SD = 1.3) and 18 early and late LSF/signers (mean age of acquisition = 9 y.o., SD = 6.3) 15 . We analyzed the results of the whole group of participants and controlled for e ects of age of acquisition in accuracy scores. On average, the majority of participants were signing in their everyday life with their Deaf partners, children or friends, and a minority wore a hearing-aid. We also have a considerable age variation since participants range from 19 to 72 years old, with a mean of 39 years old. We recorded data from 18 women and 15 men.

Procedure

We received participants in the eye-tracking room of the Université de Paris. e experiment had a total duration of 1 hour. Participants received 20 euros as compensation for their time and transportation costs 16 .

Instructions were provided in LSF on screen and we repeated them in LSF to ensure maximum clarity. Here again, the training phase was used as an opportunity to explain be er the instructions (namely the need for participants to look at the image they choose, as quick as they nd the answer). e rest of the procedure was the same as in the French experiment. A er the 9-points calibration phase, items and llers appeared randomized on-screen, always preceded by a LSF context and a calibration xation point. A break was o ered in the middle of the experiment. 11 e questionnaire is an adaptation of the Sign-Hub's questionnaire, elaborated for the needs of this project. We shortened it a bit and translated it into French. To ensure its understanding by our participants, we signed and explained every question upon request.

12 Comité d' Éthique pour la Recherche -Paris Descartes 13 Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés.

14 Exposed to a sign language before the age of 3. 15 In fact, we collected data from a person who started signing at 31 years old, presenting the double of age than the second participant in rank of the latest age of acquisition. erefore, we decided to consider him/her as an outlier and consequently excluded her/him from our analysis. 16 On LABEX EFL fundings 'Opération Relatives', which covered both reimbursements of participants' cost and every other aspect such as the material used for this study.

Hypotheses

Here again, the prediction is straightforward; if there is an e ect of relative clauses type, we should observe an asymmetry in the proportion of xations between the two conditions. So, if SRC are easier than ORC, the correct answers in the rst condition should be xed longer and more accurately than in the second condition.

Results

Comprehension

For self-reported answers, we excluded participants who provided no answers (i.e., they just did not press any bu on in time) for more than 25% of the trials17 . For the LSF group, this corresponded to 3 participants. Two of them were also part of the six participants excluded for displaying less than 70% of accuracy on llers. Such a low accuracy is interpreted either as a lack of a ention, a lack of LSF understanding, or a factor which surely prevented them from performing correctly on the items as well. All in all, we discuss the accuracy measures of 25 participants. is is presented in Table ( We see in Table ( 8) that the SRC are accurately understood in 81% of the cases on average, while ORC are accurately understood in 69% of the cases. Using the same Laplace Approximation as in the previous experiment, we see that the condition had a signi cant e ect on accuracy (sd=0.9, z-value=2.8, and p-value<0.01), comparable to the one observed for French native speakers.

So far, we mentioned the presence of both native and non-native LSF signers. We wanted to see whether this distinction correlates with accuracy. For this purpose, using the generalized linear mixed model again, we used the age of acquisition as a predictor of the overall accuracy and found that it had a marginal e ect (coef. =-0.06, SE = 0.04, z-value = -1,7, p<0.1). ere was no interaction between the age of acquisition and the conditions, as presented in Figure ( 59).

e absence of interaction shows that the later the LSF is acquired, the lesser participants' overall performance is likely to be. is is in line with previous studies showing that the age of acquisition of sign language can lead to di erences in the linguistic competence of adult signers (Friedmann andNovogrodsky 2004, Emmorey et al. 1995).

Visual processing

Following what we did in the French experiment, we conducted our data analysis using the Eyetracking-R package [START_REF] Dink | eyetrackingR: An R library for eye-tracking data analysis[END_REF] to clean and analyze our data.

Validation of the task design

e independent variables we manipulated were again the two conditions, SRC and ORC. Other randomized independent variables were the participants and the items. Dependent variables were the three possible AOIs, and Time was used as a predictor. We rst checked whether participants looked solely at the LSF-stimuli or if they were able to look at pictures at the same time. Results are presented in Figure ( 60). e curve of xations on the video-stimulus is sharply decreasing as the sentence progresses, showing that participants are indeed investigating the pictures. With the data presented in Figure ( 61), we observe an asymmetry between subject relative clauses and object relative clauses. Just like the French experiment, we consider that the correct answer is found when the correct AOI is xed and that the curve of xations follows an increasing path. Looking in greater details at the results, we can observe that the understanding of subject relative clauses happens before object relative clauses. e di erence between conditions is signi cant both across items (coef. = -0.27, SE = 1.8, t = -15.1, p<0.001) and across participants (coef. = 0.26, SE = 1.8 1.8, t = 14.9 , p<0.001).

Discussion

rough our visual-only adaptation of Pozniak (2018)'s audio-visual protocol, we have been able to investigate the processing of relative clauses in LSF. e results indicate that this language presents a Subject Advantage since signers process SRC faster and be er than ORC.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the rst time that such an asymmetry is tested in sign language. We can now conclude that the phenomenon of Subject advantage also extends across sensory modalities.

Along our path, we also showed that it is possible to adapt the existing protocol into a visual-only display to make them suitable for Deaf studies. In this respect, our study paves the way for future ne-grained investigations of sign language processing. A nal aspect that we believe further researches could face is the interaction between the age of acquisition and linguistic performance. In our study, we operated a simple separation between native and non-native, leaving the la er as a very diverse group. In this respect, further studies presenting a ne-grained division of the age of rst exposure should be carried out.

Conclusion Part I

T hroughout the rst Part of this dissertation, we have demonstrated that LSF behaves like any language in showing the ability to embed, recursively, clauses into others. In the rst chapter, we presented the state of the art of the literature on relative clauses, enriching the framework with a review of relativization strategies in sign languages. We also reviewed the di erent formal frameworks used to account for the typological variations among RC in the literature. In the second chapter, we presented the formal analysis of LSF based on the data presented previously and the competing syntactic theories. We have shown that LSF uses in majority externally headed relative clauses introduced by , or through non-manual marking. We have also shown that all participants of an event can be relativized, whether human, non-human, or inanimate. It is even possible to take the whole clause as the head of the relative, as we have seen in the -nal strategy. We nished our description by implementing all LSF data within a head-raising framework.

In the third chapter of the Part, we experimentally investigated the processing of relative clauses in LSF. To do so, we replicated a previous psycholinguistic study conducted on Chinese, French, and English speakers, that we adapted to a visual-only modality.

rough our eyetracking experiments, we have shown that there is a Subject Advantage in LSF. is demonstrates that languages are processed similarly, no ma er the modality used to convey/receive it. Along our path, we have seen that these promising results could pave the way to the adaptation of other traditional eye-tracking paradigms to be used for investigating sign languages. T his chapter presents a study of LSF temporal constructions. While we know from spoken language research that temporal constructions can be expressed through a variety of syntactic strategies involving subordination, juxtaposition, and coordination, nding their equivalent in sign languages is o en a challenge due to the absence of overt complementizers and other function words such as coordinators. is study explores temporal constructions in LSF and frames them within a broad typological perspective. We show that LSF temporal clauses are very di erent from those of Italian Sign language (LIS). Speci cally, LSF constructions are composed of two coordinated clauses, and the temporal marker is integrated into the second conjunct.

Introduction

Temporal constructions are complex syntactic structures whereby an adverb expresses a temporal relation between the events described in two clauses. Syntactically, temporal constructions can be expressed by using several strategies (subordination, coordination, and juxtaposition), and languages vary typologically concerning the strategy adopted.

ese constructions have been investigated in spoken languages from a syntactic, semantic, and typological point of view. However, very few studies have focused on this topic in sign languages. Our Chapter aims to ll this gap by investigating the syntax of temporal constructions in LSF from a syntactic perspective and to systematically compare them to their LIS counterparts studied in [START_REF] Aristodemo | Visible degrees in Italian Sign Language[END_REF].

We organize the Chapter as follows: Section II.5.2 presents an overview of temporal constructions in spoken languages as well as several diagnostic tools to identify the di erent syntactic strategies. Section II.5.3 focuses on sign languages and, in particular, we report the case of LIS temporal constructions in which [START_REF] Aristodemo | Visible degrees in Italian Sign Language[END_REF] has applied these tools. In Section II.5.4, we apply the same diagnostic to LSF data, showing that LSF temporal constructions are instances of asymmetric coordination. Section II.5.5 integrates LSF results in a typological perspective and nally, Section II.5.6 concludes the chapter.

Temporal constructions in spoken language: typology and diagnostics

In spoken languages, temporal constructions usually involve a complex syntactic structure made of two clauses. e main strategy used to express them is subordination, namely a con guration where one clause is syntactically dependent on another. Semantically, they express a temporal relation between the events described by the two clauses [START_REF] Tobert | Language typology and syntactic description: Complex constructions[END_REF]. is relation can be of precedence, succession or simultaneity, as illustrated respectively by the English before-, a erand when-clauses in (169).

(169) a. John arrived before Marie fell. b. John arrived a er Marie fell. c. John arrived when Marie fell.

In several languages, before-clauses are characterized by the presence of negation. is is due to the semantic interpretation of the construction, which states that, by the time the event named in the main clause took place, the event expressed by the subordinate clause has not yet happened. e presence or absence of negation is a typological parameter of variation. For instance, a negative marker is optional in Mandarin, while it is obligatory in Lakhota, as illustrated in ( 170) and ( 171). wahokon-wica-kiye admonish-3 -'Before he died, he admonished his children. ' (Buechel 1939: 251) Negation can also be observed in languages such as Italian and French (cf. 172-173), while in English the negative environment is made visible through the presence of negative polarity items, such as any and ever (cf. 174). ( 172 Temporal information can also be expressed using other syntactic strategies. One possibility is a juxtaposition, which involves two independent clauses (cf.175). Another strategy is asymmetric coordination in which the two clauses are coordinated, as in (176). ( 175 176) comes from the temporal adverb, which creates a semantic dependency between the time of the two events. In contrast with what happens in symmetric coordination, here, inverting the two conjuncts provokes a change in meaning [START_REF] Culicover | Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination[END_REF][START_REF] Vries | Asymmetric Merge and Parataxis[END_REF].

In some cases, temporal constructions are also expressed by using relative clauses 2 . is is the case in Mandarin, where the head noun shihou 'time' is used, as in (177), or in Swahili, in which the relative marker po is inserted in the subordinate clause, as shown in ( 178). ( 177 From a morphological point of view, all the complex syntactic con gurations presented so far display distinguishing properties: the presence of a linker o en characterizes coordination; juxtaposition does not contain a linker; subordination contains elements such as complementizers, relative pronouns and/or relative particles.

e three strategies also display di erent syntactic properties that can be readily revealed by applying several syntactic tests such as inversion, the possibility to stand in isolation, and wh-extraction [START_REF] Ross | Constraints on variables in syntax[END_REF]. Inversion applied to juxtaposed clauses results in a pragmatically odd structure (see 179); it reverses the interpretation in asymmetric coordination 3 e three di erent strategies also behave di erently as far as extraction possibilities are concerned, as illustrated by the English sentences in ( 185)-( 187). Given that the structures we are interested in contain two clauses, wh-extraction can be performed, in principle, in three di erent ways: symmetrically4 , by extracting the same wh-element from the two clauses at the same time (see examples 185a,186a and 187a); from the rst clause only (cf. 185b, 186b and 187b ) and/or from the second clause only (cf. 185c, 186c and 187c). ( 185 e examples in (185) show that, in juxtaposition, it is not possible to ask a question either symmetrically or in one of the two clauses. As expected for coordination, the examples in (186) show that only the symmetric extraction is permi ed (see 186a). In such structures, asking a question from only one of the two conjuncts always results in ungrammaticality (cf. 186b-186c).

Finally, subordinated temporal clauses (cf. 187) allow extraction in a symmetrical fashion5 (cf 187a) and from the main clause (see 187b) but, crucially, not from the subordinated one (187c) 6 . Table (10) summarizes the results of the wh-extraction test applied to the three syntactic con gurations.

Wh-extraction

Both Second clause First clause Juxtaposition X X X Asymmetric coordination X X Subordination X
Table 10. Summary of the extraction pa ern depending on syntactic properties, rationale.

Temporal constructions in Sign Languages

In the Introduction of this dissertation, we have described the non-manual means to convey temporal information through the use of spatio-temporal lines. However, temporality can also be conveyed using manual lexical items. Indeed, [START_REF] Pfau | Sign language: an international handbook[END_REF] show that, in sign languages, the time of the u erance is primarily indicated through temporal adverbials, just like in spoken languages. Cross-linguistically, temporal adverbs can be found sentence-initial, sentence-nal, and/or between the subject and the verb. For example, ASL display all three possibilities, as shown in (188).

(188) a. ASL 'John will buy a car tomorrow. ' b.

'John will buy a car tomorrow. ' c.

'John can buy a car tomorrow. ' (from Aarons 1994: 238)

In their study of LIS' temporal clauses, Aristodemo and Geraci (2017) used these temporal adverbs as accurate indicators of the presence of temporal clauses.

Italian Sign Language

e rst description of temporal adverbs in LIS comes from [START_REF] Pizzuto | Terms for spatio-temporal relations in Italian Sign Language[END_REF] who describe the phonological, morphological, and semantic properties of eight di erent spatio-temporal signs. In their paper, [START_REF] Pizzuto | Terms for spatio-temporal relations in Italian Sign Language[END_REF] argue that some temporal adverbs can only be used in coordinated contexts (e.g., the sign ' ') while others (e.g., ' ') can be "the only appropriate choice when the relationship between two events placed in a sequence is one of subordination". However, they do not provide any supporting evidence for this claim. [START_REF] Aristodemo | Visible degrees in Italian Sign Language[END_REF] lled this gap by providing a detailed analysis of LIS temporal clauses in terms of subordinated structures akin to relativization. eir work is supported by both the observation of non-manual markers and the result of the application of the diagnostic tools presented in Section II.5.2. e following examples illustrate respectively a before-, a whenand an a erclause in LIS.

(189) a.

re

/ f uture [ NMM ],
b.

re

[ NMM / ], c. re [ NMM ],
' e secretary bought the stamps

     before when a er     
the boss sold the stocks. '

Regarding non-manual marking, temporal constructions in LIS display two di erent types of eyebrow-raising. e rst (i.e. re) spreads on the temporal clause, while the second (i.e.

) spreads on the temporal marker only. is type of distribution of non-manuals is typical of other subordinate clauses, such as if-clauses, le dislocated sentential complements, and comparative correlatives in which raised eyebrows spread on the entire clause.

From a morphological point of view, before-clauses involve the presence of a either the negative word or the future marker f uture (cf. 189a), while a erand when-clauses do not. Furthermore, in when-clauses the temporal relation is expressed using ' ' followed by ' ' or by the relative marker 7 (cf. (189b)). Moving to syntactic properties, [START_REF] Aristodemo | Visible degrees in Italian Sign Language[END_REF] show that temporal constructions in LIS have a xed order. It is not possible to invert the two clauses as shown by the ungrammatical sentences from (190) to (192). is property has already been observed for other types of subordinated structures in LIS, such as if -clauses (Bara ieri 2006). Note that the same observation has been made by Wilbur (2016) for adverbial clauses in ASL. In this respect, temporal clauses in sign languages behave di erently from their spoken language counterparts in which inversion is allowed without a change of meaning, as already shown in example ( 181 )

         NMM NMM NMM         
Intended meaning: Before/when/a er the boss sold the stocks.

Finally, as expected for subordinate clauses, wh-extraction is possible only from the second clause, as shown in (194), but not from the rst one (cf. 195). is indicates that the rst clause is subordinated to the second clause since island e ects Ross 1967 prevents extraction. (194)

Wh-extraction

Isolation Both Subordinate clause Main clause Juxtaposition X X X Coordination X X X Subordination X X LIS X X
Table 11. Summary of the extraction pa ern found in LIS.

In their analysis, [START_REF] Aristodemo | Visible degrees in Italian Sign Language[END_REF] propose that the subordinate clause is headed by a Degree Phrase (DegP), which is generated as a VP adjunct and is then le -adjoined to the main IP, as shown in (198). A semantic analysis justi es the choice of the degree phrase in terms of comparative constructions.

Investigating temporal constructions in French Sign Language

We can now use the diagnostic tests to investigate temporal constructions in LSF. Doing so, we will verify whether the conclusions we just drew for LIS can extend to this neighboring language.

e baseline

e baselines of temporal clauses in LSF are presented in (199). is chapter focuses on the three lexical items ' ',' ' and ' ', leaving aside other types of temporal constructions which are worth further investigations. e glosses in (199) include pieces of information about NMMs and localization of signs in space (square brackets and 'le /right' mention indicate the side on which the sentence is signed).

(199) a. We see in (199) that, no ma er the temporal marker, the set of NMMs is the same: the rst clause is signed on the le side of the signing space while the second is realized on the right one. It is worth noticing that this type of marking is typical of coordinated structures in sign language descriptions (see er et al. 2017a), and it di ers from the one found in LIS baselines.

As for the manual signs, Figure ( 62) illustrates the LSF temporal markers used by our informants.

is signed with the handshape , a forward movement and a change in the orientation of the palm. is also articulated with a handshape but it has a backward movement. Finally, is a complex sign composed by two sub-parts, the sign for is a symmetrical two-handed sign with a handshape in which the two hands move toward each other, while the sign for has a forward movement with an handshape change from to .

(a) ' '.

(b) ' '.

(c) ' '.

Testing the syntactic properties

In this section, we test how LSF temporal constructions behave with respect to the diagnostics we introduced in Section II. 5.2. is ne-grained investigation is necessary to establish the nature of the syntactic relation between the two clauses of LSF temporal constructions. To verify if the construction involves two separate sentences, we tested whether the second clause can stand alone. e results are presented from (202a) to (202c). 202c) show that the second clause can be expressed in isolation. However, given that no manual coordinator is present in LSF, it is di cult to determine whether the isolated clause corresponds exactly to the second part of the temporal construction or if the signer produces a new independent sentence. A piece of evidence for the la er option could be the absence of the right localization of the sentences in (202a)-(202c). To deepen our investigation, we apply the inversion test.

In this case, we observe that in LSF, it is possible to swap the two clauses (cf. 203). is result highlights an important di erence between LIS and LSF. In the former, the inversion results in ungrammaticality.

(203)

[ lef t J ]           [ right M .]
'Jean bought owers and a er/before/at the same time Marie bought a vase. ' a. [ lef t M ] [ right J ] 'A er (now), Marie will buy a vase and Jean will buy owers. ' However, if we compare the translation of the LSF sentences in ( 203) and those obtained a er inversion in (203a)-(203c), we observe that the meaning changed a er inversion. In the baseline, the events are temporally related one to the other. A er inversion, the two events are both temporally located before/at the same time/a er the time of the u erance. ere is no order between them anymore.

ese results, summarized in Table ( 12), coupled with the pieces of evidence from nonmanual components converge towards analysis in terms of a coordinated structure. However, they are not su cient to entirely exclude alternatives analyses such as juxtaposed clauses.

Inversion Isolation

Juxtaposition Pragmatic problems

Asymmetric coordination Change of meaning X Subordination X e extraction tests will shed light on this ma er. Here, predictions are straightforward: if we can extract from both clauses at the same time, the syntactic structures cannot be juxtaposed.

LSF

Change of meaning

e symmetric extraction is compatible with both coordinated and subordinated clauses. On the other hand, if one can extract from a clause but not from the other, this is only compatible with a subordination analysis. is is due to island-e ects that prevent extraction from the subordinate clause.

e results for LSF are presented in examples (204)10 .

(

) [ lef t J ] re       [ right M ] 204
'Jean bought owers and before/at the same time/a er Marie stole a bike. ' a. Extraction from the rst clause only

*[ lef t ] re       [ right M ]?
Intended meaning: '*Who bought owers and before/at the same time/ before Marie stole a bike?' b. Extraction from the second clause only

*[ lef t J ] re       [ right ]?
Intended: '*Who Jean bought owers and before/at the same time/a er stole a bike?' c. Extraction from both clauses

[ lef t W ] re       [ right gap ]?
'Who bought owers and before/at the same time/a er stole a bike?' e sentences in ( 204a) and ( 204b) show that asymmetric wh-questions are not possible, while the sentence in (204c) shows that symmetric question on both clauses at the same time is allowed. ese results point towards coordination and are not compatible with an analysis in terms of juxtaposition or subordination (see Table ( 13)) 11 .

Both First clause Second clause Juxtaposition X X X Asymmetric coordination X X Subordination X LSF X X
Table 13. Extraction pa erns compared to LSF data.

Analysis

LSF temporal constructions are coordinated clauses with a temporal marker in the second conjunct. is analysis is based on the sum of our previous observations: the non-manual marking of LSF temporal clauses is typical of coordination; i) it is ungrammatical to use a relative pronoun; ii) the two clauses can be inverted but inversion results in a di erent interpretation of the sentence and; iii) extraction can only be symmetrical. We summarize these results in Table (14). LSF behaves consistently like coordinated structures except for the isolation test. We a ribute this di erence to the absence of the typical non-manual markers of coordination (i.e., right/le use of space) in the sentences expressed in isolation. As discussed in the previous section, this could be an a empt by the signer to rescue the sentences in order to produce simple declarative grammatical u erances.

Wh-extraction

Isolation Inversion Both First clause Second clause Juxtaposition pragmatic X X X Coordination X Change meaning X X Subordination X X X LSF Change meaning X X
Regarding the temporal markers, we analyze them as comparative elements, capitalizing on Aristodemo and Geraci (2017)'s analysis of LIS. is choice follows from preliminary observations that LSF temporal markers display the same iconic properties that we found in LIS. e timeline is mapped onto the signing space, and, as for LIS, the amplitude of the movement of the temporal markers can be iconically modulated along this line.

We analyze LSF temporal clauses as two asymmetrically coordinated clauses with the second conjunct containing a degree phrase, as illustrated by the syntactic structure in ( 205). e pro in the structure is an anaphoric pronoun that refers to the degree time established in the rst clause.

Typological remarks

LSF and LIS do not belong to the same typological class. While at rst look, LIS and LSF temporal constructions seem to di er only in their word order (cf. 206-207), once we take into account the set of non-manual markers, the distinction between the two languages becomes clearer. In LIS, the whole sentence is signed in the neutral space in front of the signer. Moreover, the rst clause is signed with the eyebrows raised, which is a typical marker of subordination. is is not the case for LSF, which adopts the standard marking of coordination by signing the two clauses on the two opposite sides of the signing space (see Figure ( 64)). ( 206) re G nmm M LIS 'Gianni will buy owers a er which Maria will buy a vase. '

(207) [ lef t J ] re [ right M ]
LSF 'Jean will buy owers and a er that Marie will buy a vase. ' Regarding the manual signs, the two languages display other di erences. While LIS allows a negative element and the presence of a relative marker, LSF does not. ese observations are additional indications that LIS and LSF di er in their syntactic structure.

[ lef t J ]
However, to a ain the conclusion, a more sophisticated investigation was needed. A er observing the outcomes of several tests, namely isolation, inversion, and question-pa ern, the di erences became striking: LIS and LSF display two separate syntactic structures (see Table 15). rough this ne-grained investigation, we have shown that sign languages can display the same typological variation that we nd in spoken languages. LIS temporal constructions are conveyed through a subordinate clause akin to relativization, just like Swahili (178), while LSF express them using a coordinated structure. Regarding the presence of negation in before-clauses, it is interesting to remark that in sign languages, we observe the same kind of distinction found in spoken languages. While in LIS, the negative marker is obligatory; this is not the case for LSF 12 .

Along the same line, the results of our study con rm that syntactic diagnostics used to investigate spoken languages can also be applied to sign languages, but with great caution. Indeed, as the research on sign languages grows, modality-speci c properties come to light. For example, unlike spoken languages, subordinate clauses in sign languages tend to display a xed order. Indeed, Wilbur (2016) observes that ASL adverbial clauses, including temporal clauses (cf. 208), usually precede the main clause, as in LIS.

(208)

hn++

[

], 'Mary le when the bell rang. ' is is also the case for other types of subordinate structures such as relative clauses in LIS [START_REF] Branchini | Relatively di erent: Italian Sign Language relative clauses in a typological perspective[END_REF], DGS [START_REF] Pfau | Relative clauses in German Sign Language : Extraposition and reconstruction[END_REF] or HKSL [START_REF] Tang | Coordination & Subordination[END_REF].

e overt realization of functional words is another example of a typological variation between spoken and signed languages.

ese elements are conveyed through non-manual marking in the visual modality, while they are o en lexicalized in spoken languages [START_REF] Baker | Focusing on the Non-manual Components of ASL[END_REF].

Even if some properties can be modality-speci c, comparative studies between sign and spoken languages are still relevant since both modalities display the same type of typological variation.

Summary

In this chapter, we have investigated the syntax of temporal constructions in French Sign Language, concluding that they involve asymmetric coordination. Evidence for this analysis comes from morpho-phonological and syntactic properties. Temporal constructions in LSF display the typical non-manual marking of coordinated structures, that inversion of the two clauses provokes a change of meaning and that wh-extraction is only possible across-the-board. We compared our results to those of a previous study on temporal clauses in Italian Sign Language concluding that, despite a prima facie similarity between LIS and LSF constructions, an in-depth and detailed syntactic investigation reveals that the syntactic structure used in LSF is di erent from the one used in LIS, which involves subordination. ese results con rm that temporal constructions in the visual modality exploit the same typological categories available in spoken languages.

C 6 estion-Answer pairs

A growing literature has emerged on sign languages describing a particular construction that looks like a question followed by its fragment answer, but which crucially is not interpreted as such. In the sign language literature, it has successively been referred to as pseudocle s [START_REF] Wilbur | Evidence for the function and structure of wh-cle s in American Sign Language[END_REF][START_REF] Branchini | On Relativization and Cle ing : An analysis of Italian Sign language[END_REF], rhetorical questions [START_REF] Hoza | Syntactic Structure and Discourse Function: An Examination of Two Constructions in American Sign Language[END_REF], questionanswer constituents (Davidson, Caponigro, and Mayberry 2008a), or, more recently, QAP in [START_REF] Kimmelman | estion-answer pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands[END_REF]). We will adopt here this most recent theory-neutral terminology. Across these works, a number of arguments have been made to reject a pseudocle analysis. Some of these arguments are based on the languages' properties, others, on the pseudocle s literature. For the la er category, we will show that most of them are, in fact, improper generalizations and simpli cations, which should not be taken as conclusive arguments against a pseudocle analysis. Regarding the properties of Sign languages themselves, we study here LSF QAP 1 and show that this language does not display the same strategy as ASL, NGT, and LIS. e four languages are minimally distinct, leading us to postulate the existence of a grammaticalization process between them. In that respect, we will extend [START_REF] Kimmelman | estion-answer pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands[END_REF]'s proposal, in order to integrate LSF and LIS data.

is chapter is organized as follows: the rst Section II.6.1 describes the linguistic properties of the QAP displayed across sign languages, including our work on LSF. e second Section II.6.2 addresses each argument made over the SL literature against a pseudocle analysis and discusses it in perspective with the general linguistic literature on the topic. Finally, the last Section II.6.3 argues for a grammaticalization process which takes information-seeking questions as its base and turn them progressively into free-relatives. e rst mention of these structures dates back to [START_REF] Moody | Introduction à l'histoire et à la grammaire de la langue des signes: entre les mains des sourds[END_REF] description of what is still called 'false-question'. is name is part of the LSF lexicon and refers to the same structures we analyzed. While we found traces of a memoir named 'Etude syntaxique de la question rhéthorique en LSF' (translation: Syntactic study of LSF's rhetorical question.), we were never able to read its content, despite our a empts. We thus propose our own analysis in this chapter. Chapter 6. estion-Answer pairs

(209) [ Q-constituent br J
], [ A-constituent ] 'What John bought is a book. ' [START_REF] Caponigro | Ask, and tell as well: question-answer clauses in American Sign Language[END_REF] In ( 209), the signer subsequently produces what looks like a question ('J ') and its answer ('a book') as a focalization strategy.

In the literature, it goes under many names; from rhetorical questions [START_REF] Hoza | Syntactic Structure and Discourse Function: An Examination of Two Constructions in American Sign Language[END_REF] to pseudocle s [START_REF] Wilbur | Evidence for the function and structure of wh-cle s in American Sign Language[END_REF][START_REF] Branchini | On Relativization and Cle ing : An analysis of Italian Sign language[END_REF] depending on authors and analyses. We use, from now on, the most recent term " estion-Answer Pairs" (QAP) [START_REF] Kimmelman | estion-answer pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands[END_REF] as a purely descriptive term to refer to any construction super cially displaying a sequence of a question followed by a fragment answer, u ered by a single signer.

On a super cial level, QAP look like pseudocle s both by the constituents at play (a wh clause and a focalized constituent) and by their pragmatic use.

Cle sentences come in a variety of shapes. In the literature, the term 'cle s' can either refers to 'it-cle s', as in ( 210), or 'wh-cle s' in which case they are o en called pseudocle s (see 211). We will keep this name from now on.

(210) It was a dog who made that weird noise. ( 211) What made that weird noise was a dog.

Pseudocle s are further divided between Predicational PseudoCle (PPC) (as 212) and SPC (as 213) [START_REF] Ross | Constraints on variables in syntax[END_REF]. e di erence between the two constructions is semantic and, as argued by many authors2 , also syntactic. Many di erent terminological terms have been used to refer to the pre-and post-copular parts of the constructions. To avoid any confusion, we will refer to the pre-copular constituent (between brackets in 212 and 213) as the wh-or the question-constituent. We will refer to the post-copular constituent as the answer-constituent or the counterweight. In ( 212), the wh-constituent is a free-relative, a DP. In this respect, even without knowing what was cooked, we can predicate the property of it being delicious.

In ( 213), on the other hand, the wh-constituent introduces a variable of which the counterweight speci es the value. So, at the end of a predicational pseudocle , we have no precise knowledge of what was cooked, while at the end of a speci cational pseudocle , we do. e value 'courge es farcies' has lled the gap of the wh-cle . We will describe the properties of the two constructions in the next section thoroughly.

Previous studies of QAP in sign languages

It is the super cial resemblance between QAP and pseudocle s which justi es that they were primarily analyzed as such by [START_REF] Wilbur | Evidence for the function and structure of wh-cle s in American Sign Language[END_REF]. Later on, ASL's QAP have received di erent analyses, varying on the type and number of clauses that were claimed to be involved in the construction. e main features of the analyses are summarized in Table (16).

In their corpus study on NGT, [START_REF] Kimmelman | estion-answer pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands[END_REF] highlight the coexistence of di erent forms of QAP in NGT, some surfacing as two clauses and others as one single clause.

is nding leads the authors to postulate the existence of a grammaticalization process actually at play in NGT and in ASL by which two separate clauses eventually get merged into one undergoing morpho-phonological and semantic transformations (see Figure 65). rough the corpus study of NGT, the authors argue that the process does not get as far as pseudocle s based on the observation that "even the clearly grammaticalized QAP show some properties that are incompatible with a wh-cle analysis" (Kimmelman and Vink 2017, p. 440). e data we obtained in LSF, along with Branchini (2014)'s work on LIS, point towards the opposite conclusion as we will now demonstrate by o ering detailed description of the properties of the QAP in LSF.

Morpho-phonological properties

As observed in ASL and LIS, QAP in LSF do not display the morpho-phonological properties of questions. Indeed both rhetorical (example 214b) and information-seeking questions (example 214a) are signed with the eyebrows furrowed. On the other hand, QAP are realized with raised eyebrows and chin (see example 214c). ese NMMs are most of the time restricted to the whword, but depending on the signer, they can spread on the whole question constituent, as shown in Figure (66). It should also be noted that the answer-constituent in QAP can optionally be introduced by a sign glossed as , which does not have a precise translation but resemble 'well', a ller. Finally, although we do observe polar question/answer sequences in spontaneous speech (see example 215), we follow [START_REF] Wilbur | Evidence for the function and structure of wh-cle s in American Sign Language[END_REF] in excluding them from the QAP group on interpretive grounds. Indeed, these constructions are similar to those rhetorical questions that can be used in spoken French and English and are interpreted as a sort of exclamative expressions denoting surprise or shock. In (66a), the NMMs associated to QAP are limited to the wh-word while in (66b), they are spreading over the whole question constituent.

In order to go beyond this observation and verify that NMMs actually distinguish questions and QAP, we conducted a preliminary study with our three informants using a discrimination task. We presented them with 8 pairs of cut QAP and questions. For QAP (example 216b), we cut the videos at the end of the wh-sign, before a transition movement could occur, removing the answer constituent. To avoid giving unwanted hints, we cut all the videos of questions making sure that the wh-signs (example 216a) had the same duration as in QAP. We then presented all the videos in a randomized order, asking the informants to determine which were true questions. All of them performed at the ceiling in the task, identifying only and all questions as being such.

ese results cannot be interpreted conclusively since more complex, controlled, and representative experiments need to be conducted, but they seem to con rm the existence of two very di erent structures displaying distinct morpho-phonological properties.

(216) a. Additionally, as reported for ASL, LIS and NGT (Davidson, Caponigro, and Mayberry 2008b[START_REF] Branchini | On Relativization and Cle ing : An analysis of Italian Sign language[END_REF]and Kimmelman and Vink 2017 respectively), every wh-word normally available for questions can also be found in QAP. An example of each is presented in (217). ( 217) a. ' e woman is cooking, the reason why she invites the director is so the two of them can discuss their big project for the future. '

An important remark has to be made regarding the use of the wh-word ' ' (see example 217g). Although it does appear in QAP, it is obligatorily followed by the ' ' sign. is might be due to the fact that, in LSF, also translates as 'because' in declarative sentences such as (218). might be necessary in questions and QAP in order to disambiguate the why/because meaning.

(218) M i 3 i 3 i 'Marie is sick because she forgot her scarf yesterday. ' With the description of the morpho-phonological properties of LSF QAP, we can conclude that QAP are very similar in the four sign languages under investigation: in all of them QAP do not pa ern like a proper question.

Syntactic properties of question answer pairs

As noted in [START_REF] Wilbur | Evidence for the function and structure of wh-cle s in American Sign Language[END_REF] and [START_REF] Caponigro | Ask, and tell as well: question-answer clauses in American Sign Language[END_REF], the syntax of content questions and QAP di er. LSF pa erns like the three other sign languages described in the literature in this respect, and this is rst shown by the fact that the whole QAP can only be embedded under a verb taking a non-interrogative clause as its complement (see example 219). Following the reasoning of [START_REF] Caponigro | Ask, and tell as well: question-answer clauses in American Sign Language[END_REF], we can show that the 'answer' constituent of the QAP does not involve direct speech quotation, since we do not observe role shi 3 nor switching in the reference pa ern when a pronominal is introduced (see example 220). ( 220)

3 i i j
1 i * /k Available: 'Pierre hopes that the person to whom Jean o ers a gi is my (signer) girlfriend. ' Not Available: 'Pierre hopes: "the person to whom Jean o ers a gi is my (P ierre) girlfriend. "' Chapter 6.

estion-Answer pairs

Another manifest piece of evidence for a syntactic di erence comes from word order and is speci c to LSF. While the main strategy to create questions is in situ for both information-seeking and rhetorical questions [START_REF] Geraci | Description of French Sign Language phenomena[END_REF] as shown in example (214a) and (214b) in the previous subsection, QAP require the wh-word to be at the right edge of the question clause (see example 214c).

is obligatory movement hints in the direction of a syntactic change of the wh-constituent from CP to DP. e movement of the wh-word is required to generate the appropriate constituent (i.e., a nominal element). is particular process can be easily analyzed within Cecche o and Donati (2014)'s framework4 as we have seen in Chapter I.2.

In ASL and NGT, authors also observe other di erences between questions and QAP concerning doubling: the doubling of the wh-element is signi cantly less used or impossible in QAP while it is present in rhetorical questions. is di erence could not be observed in LSF since the doubling of the wh-word is barely used in content questions and in general. In LIS, [START_REF] Branchini | On Relativization and Cle ing : An analysis of Italian Sign language[END_REF] shows that the wh-word used in QAP cannot pied-pipe any material, di erently from its indirect and matrix questions alternatives.

Finally, an essential property of QAP across sign languages, which also holds for LSF, is that the question-constituent and the answer-constituent cannot be inverted: this is shown in example ( 221). is property is used as a conclusive argument against a pseudocle analysis (Hoza et al. 1997, Davidson, Caponigro, andMayberry 2008b or Kimmelman and Vink 2017) 5 we will come back to the reasons against such a conclusion in the next Section.

To summarize, the syntactic and morpho-phonological features of LSF QAP are really close to their counterparts in ASL, LIS and NGT. While we do acknowledge the similarity between these constructions, we show now that LSF QAP also present some syntactic and semantic properties which single LSF out and discourage a uni ed account of the four languages.

LSF QAP & syntactic variation

In their article about ASL, [START_REF] Hoza | Syntactic Structure and Discourse Function: An Examination of Two Constructions in American Sign Language[END_REF] notice that the equivalent of (222a), in which the negation only scopes over the answer constituent and not over the whole pseudocle , is not possible in ASL (see example 222b) 6 . Interestingly, in LSF, QAP do allow negation: a QAP more or less equivalent to (222a), namely (222c) is perfectly acceptable. In the same article, Hoza et al. (ibid) remark that QAP in ASL cannot be interrogated while this is possible with pseudocle s in English (see example 223a and example 223b). ey used this di erence as a proof of the question-nature of QAP. ? ASL [START_REF] Hoza | Syntactic Structure and Discourse Function: An Examination of Two Constructions in American Sign Language[END_REF] In LSF, on the other hand, it is possible to interrogate a QAP: see ( 224). is is clearly against an analysis of the LSF construction as including a question, since questioning a question is not possible. All in all, we observe clear syntactic di erences between ASL QAP and LSF QAP. While QAP in ASL di er from pseudocle s of the English type for a number of properties, this is less true for LSF. For this reason the analyses that have been proposed for ASL, with the latest being Caponigro and Polinsky (2011)'s analysis of the question-constituent as an embedded question, cannot be extended to LSF. In LSF, the question-constituent is clearly di erent from a question from a syntactic point of view.

Semantic properties of question answer pairs

e semantics of QAP and pseudocle s across languages is a complex topic. A crucial aspect on which QAP, questions, and rhetorical questions are semantically distinct regards their 'answer'. Following [START_REF] Belnap | estions and answers in Montague grammar[END_REF]'s answerhood thesis, questions have to be characterized with respect to their answers. In this perspective, information-seeking questions are de ned as requiring an answer which, crucially, must come from the addressee. On the other hand, rhetorical questions do not require answers (see, for example, 225).

(225) Have we ever seen such a coward? If they receive an answer, it can come from the u erer itself or the addressee since the answer to the question is understood as shared between the two [START_REF] Groenendijk | Type-shi ing rules and the semantics of interrogatives[END_REF]Stokhof 1989, Caponigro and[START_REF] Caponigro | e non-concealed nature of free relatives: Implications for connectivity in speci cational sentences[END_REF]. QAP behave like neither of the two types of questions since they require an answer constituent (like wh-questions, unlike rhetorical questions), which has to be u ered by the same person (unlike both rhetorical and wh-questions).

Another semantic aspect of being considered here is the semantic properties of the answerconstituent.

In the literature about spoken languages, the description of various semantics aspects (connectivity e ects, referentiality and exhaustivity among others) leads to the identi cation of di erent types of pseudocle s (PPC and SPC), to be further classi ed into subtypes (Type A and Type B SPC, see next Section). Regarding LSF, just like ASL, li le is known about referential expressions, anaphora and pronominals. More careful studies are required before being able to use them as evidence of the presence or absence of connectivity e ects. As a result, most researches on the semantics of QAP in SL focus on the absence or presence of exhaustivity. In other terms, the need for the answer-clause to provide the complete (hence exhaustive) answer to the discourse-level question. is property has been argued to distinguish pseudocle s from questions and QAP altogether.

In ASL, [START_REF] Caponigro | Ask, and tell as well: question-answer clauses in American Sign Language[END_REF] argue that the di erence between pseudocle s and QAP lies in the optionality of exhaustivity e ects for the la er. According to the authors, pseudocle s are obligatorily interpreted as being exhaustive, while QAP exceptionally allow non-exhaustive answers. We will address more thoroughly the relevance of this argument in the next section based on Declerck (1994)'s work.

In LSF, QAP are not exhaustive; the answer-constituent can be a sub-part of the possible answers available in the context. is is shown in ( 228) and ( 229) in which we replicated two tests proposed in [START_REF] Strickles | Focus constructions in ASL: evidence from pseudocle ing and doubling[END_REF] to identify exhaustivity in ASL.

e rst test compares the possibility for a second signer to refute a sentence based on its lack of exhaustivity. For example, a non-exhaustive declarative sentence as (226), cannot be refuted like the exhaustive sentence in ( 227). In example ( 228), we see that the QAP in LSF cannot be refuted by a second signer on the pretext that it is not exhaustive.

(228) Context: Marie bought chocolate, milk, co ee and a banana:

A: , 'What Marie bought was milk, chocolate, and co ee. ' B: # , 2 , M 'No, you're wrong! Marie also bought a banana!' As a second test, we observe that LSF allows the answer constituent to be made of an also-clause (see example 229) di erently from ASL [START_REF] Strickles | Focus constructions in ASL: evidence from pseudocle ing and doubling[END_REF]).

(229) J 'What Jeanne likes is also music. '

In this respect, LSF QAP behaves neither like pseudocle s nor like ASL QAP. However, this criterion does not appear to be an optimal diagnostic since it is not valid cross-linguistically and is subject to individual variations (Den Dikken 2001). While it holds for pseudocle s in English, it does not hold, say, in French: in the dialogue in (230a), the reply of B is awkward; and the also-sentence in (230b) is possible. 'What she likes is also dance. ' e results of this short overview con rm our conclusion that QAP in LSF and in ASL are di erent since the la er displays exhaustivity while the former does not. We will argue in Section II.6.2 that this semantic behavior is not necessarily indicative of the underlying surface of the QAP, contrarily to Caponigro and Davidson (2011)'s approach.

Free-relatives, predication and referentiality

As presented in the introduction of this Chapter, typical predicational pseudocle s in English involve a free-relative constituent. Yet [START_REF] Hoza | Syntactic Structure and Discourse Function: An Examination of Two Constructions in American Sign Language[END_REF], [START_REF] Caponigro | Ask, and tell as well: question-answer clauses in American Sign Language[END_REF] and [START_REF] Wilbur | Evidence for the function and structure of wh-cle s in American Sign Language[END_REF] argue that ASL does not have free-relatives at all; wh-words are never used in relative constructions in ASL.

In LSF, on the other hand, there is some evidence for a relative use of wh-words: example (231) illustrates this.

(231) br 2 'You can eat whatever (you) prefer. ' Nevertheless, unlike what has been reported for LIS [START_REF] Branchini | On Relativization and Cle ing : An analysis of Italian Sign language[END_REF], this construction appears to be severely restricted: in particular, the free-relative in (231) can only be interpreted as a free-choice free-relative (of the type "-ever"). If we try to force its referentiality, as in ( 232), the result is unacceptable. Similarly to ASL and NGT, the impossibility to predicate over the question-constituent excludes the possibility to analyze it as being an entirely referential DP-like element.

Since very li le is known about adjectives in SL, we wanted to make sure that the asymmetry observed between (233a)-(233b) was not linked to their use in the answer constituent 7 .

To distinguish between the two factors (adjective or predication), we elicited an ambiguous (between speci cational and predicational) QAP, which involved no adjectives in LSF. e sentence is presented in (234).

(234) IX 1 3 'What I don't eat dog food. ' * whatever meal I don't eat, I give it to the dog Predicational (the thing) I don't eat is the dog's food.

Speci cational Chapter 6.

estion-Answer pairs

In (234), only the speci cational reading is available.

A straightforward account for SL data would then be that unlike English which displays both speci cational and predicational pseudocle s, LSF only displays speci cational pseudocle s.

We present a summary of the properties of the signed languages in Table (17

constituent / No doubling X X X X X X NGT Raised eye- brows Preferably on the right of the q- constituent / No doubling X X X X X X LSF Raised eye- brows
Forced on the right of the qconstituent X X X X

LIS

Raised eyebrows

On the right of the constituent NA X NA NA NA In the light of the morpho-phonological, syntactic and semantic properties of LSF QAP, we analyze them as being speci cational pseudocle s and provide the syntactic structure in If we are right, this entails that LSF represents a further step in the grammaticalization process proposed by [START_REF] Kimmelman | estion-answer pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands[END_REF]. e same is true for LIS. We will present the full process in the last section of this chapter.

Our conclusion in favor of a speci cational pseudocle analysis was already proposed in SL literature [START_REF] Wilbur | Evidence for the function and structure of wh-cle s in American Sign Language[END_REF][START_REF] Caponigro | Relative embeddings : a Circassian puzzle for the syntax / semantics interface[END_REF][START_REF] Kimmelman | estion-answer pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands[END_REF] but the authors themselves systematically rejected it based on several arguments. Because of their repetition across studies, some of these arguments appeared to be stronger than they were. By reviewing each of these arguments, we will show that they are o en referring to a part of the truth and should not be maintained across future studies.

Persistent myths about pseudocle s in Sign Language literature

Many authors conclude that QAP cannot be analyzed as speci cational pseudocle s based on many arguments linked to the nature of questions and of pseudocle s. In what follows, we will try to review the validity of each of these arguments in connecting them to the wider literature on questions and pseudocle s. Along our path, we will show that the two phenomena are very intricately connected and that a neat opposition between the two is impossible to maintain.

In particular, speci cational pseudocle s have been analyzed as involving 'questions under disguise' by many authors (see [START_REF] Ross | e frozenness of pseudocle s-towards an inequality-based syntax[END_REF], Den Dikken 2001[START_REF] Schlenker | Clausal equations (a note on the connectivity problem)[END_REF] among others).

6.2.1 Claim 1: 'No language displays speci cational pseudocle s only.'

By far, the most widespread and hurtful claim is that no language exists such that it only displays SPC. is claim can be traced back to [START_REF] Hoza | Syntactic Structure and Discourse Function: An Examination of Two Constructions in American Sign Language[END_REF], who repeat one of the conclusions from [START_REF] Iatridou | Pseudocle s crosslinguistically[END_REF]'s study of Modern Greek pseudocle s in a less nuanced tone than the source study they cite.

Hoza et al. claim: " (…), [START_REF] Iatridou | Pseudocle s crosslinguistically[END_REF] have found no languages with pseudocle s only [of the speci cational type]. is is precisely the kind of language that Wilbur (1996) claims ASL to be. " (Hoza et al. 1997:18).

However, in the study cited, the authors are considering the notions of speci cational and predicational pseudocle s in a speci c theoretical framework, along with [START_REF] Akmajian | On deriving cle sentences from pseudo-cle sentences[END_REF] legacy. In this respect, all pseudocle s (whether PPC or SPC) involve a free-relative as their question-constituent, within a predicative copular sentence. erefore the typological terms are homonymous but not synonymous to PPC and SPC as [START_REF] Higgins | e pseudo-cle construction in English[END_REF] originally de ned them. To avoid mixing them, we call SPC and PPC in Akmajian and Iatridou & Varlokosta's terms: SPCb and PPCb.

In detail, the sentence in ( 235) is ambiguous between two readings, one in which a property is directly predicated of the question constituent referent ( which they call speci cational) and one corresponding to a free-choice interpretation in which a property is indirectly predicated of the question-constituent (that they call predicational).

(235) What Bu ers is is silly.

[Bu ers] is silly SPCb [Bu ers' property] is silly PPCb

Along [START_REF] Iatridou | Pseudocle s crosslinguistically[END_REF] and [START_REF] Akmajian | On deriving cle sentences from pseudo-cle sentences[END_REF], the speci cational-b reading of the sentence translates as 'Bu ers is silly', the property of being 'silly' is directly predicated of 'Bu ers'. On the predicational-b reading, the sentence translates as 'a property of Bu ers is silly', so, for example, if he is a y hunter, this particular property is being predicated over by the predicate of being silly. In this respect, since both readings involve free-relatives and are, thus, nominal, the distinction between the two interpretations is instead one of directness. In SPCb, a property is directly predicated of the subject of the wh-clause. In PPCb, being silly is predicated of another property of the subject of the wh-clause. Crucially, in both cases, there is predication. Another way to explain the di erence between the two is that in the SPCb interpretation, we know who is silly since it predicates over Bu ers. In the PPCb interpretation, however, we do not know the property being predicated of: this is a free-choice relative.

Challenged by Den Dikken (2001), Den Dikken, Meinunger, and Wilder (2000) or [START_REF] Ross | Constraints on variables in syntax[END_REF], this usage of the terms also diverges from the de nition provided by [START_REF] Higgins | e pseudo-cle construction in English[END_REF], [START_REF] Ball | -cle s[END_REF] or [START_REF] Declerck | Studies on copular sentences, cle s and pseudo-cle s[END_REF]. According to these authors, speci cational sentences in general, including pseudocle s, present a variable and a value that speci es it. Predicational sentences, on the other hand, do not present variables; they predicate the value of a referent. If we repeat our previous example in (236), we can see how the di erence plays in the semantic operations they lead.

(236) What Bu ers is is silly.

[Bu ers is x]. x= being silly. SPC [Bu ers' property] is silly.

PPC

As can be observed by the comparison between ( 236) and ( 235), the 'speci cationalB' reading coming from [START_REF] Iatridou | Pseudocle s crosslinguistically[END_REF] is the same as the predicational reading de ned by [START_REF] Higgins | e pseudo-cle construction in English[END_REF]. What [START_REF] Iatridou | Pseudocle s crosslinguistically[END_REF] are comparing in their article are referential free-relatives and free-choices free-relatives. In this respect, their de nition of speci cational pseudocle refers to cases in which the reference is clearly established, as typical of referential 'what' free-relatives. eir de nition of predicational pseudocle s, on the other hand, corresponds to pseudocle s that can be paraphrased by 'whatever' as in (237), the so-called free choice free-relatives.

(237) What Bu ers is is silly.

Bu ers is silly SPCb / PPC Whatever Bu ers is is silly PPCb / PPC erefore, the conclusion of [START_REF] Iatridou | Pseudocle s crosslinguistically[END_REF] regarding the absence of languages displaying speci cational pseudocle s only, does not apply to the SL data we presented in the previous section. eir conclusion should instead be reworded as 'there exist languages with both referential and free-choice free-relatives, but none displaying only referential free-relatives. '.

Finally, [START_REF] Hoza | Syntactic Structure and Discourse Function: An Examination of Two Constructions in American Sign Language[END_REF] do not explain the reason for the availability of either of the two readings advocated by [START_REF] Iatridou | Pseudocle s crosslinguistically[END_REF]. Nevertheless, it is worth noticing that [START_REF] Iatridou | Pseudocle s crosslinguistically[END_REF] a ributes the availability of the free-choice reading (a.k.a the PPCb reading) to the lexical item, which introduces free-relatives and pseudocle s in the language they studied. Indeed, in Modern Greek, Bulgarian [START_REF] Izvorski | On the Type of be and the Nature of the wh-clause in Speci cational Pseudocle s[END_REF] or Portuguese [START_REF] Ross | e frozenness of pseudocle s-towards an inequality-based syntax[END_REF], the lexical items used to introduce free-relatives are not derived from wh-words; they are dedicated words for these contexts. ey have a universal quanti er force, precisely like 'whatever', and cannot be interpreted as denoting a speci c individual.

To summarize the argument presented here, the claim made by [START_REF] Iatridou | Pseudocle s crosslinguistically[END_REF] only concerns predicational pseudocle s, which they divide into two subtypes. What they compare are these two subtypes, di erentiated by the lexical element introducing them. e question of speci cational pseudocle s (as de ned by [START_REF] Higgins | e pseudo-cle construction in English[END_REF][START_REF] Declerck | Studies on copular sentences, cle s and pseudo-cle s[END_REF]) is barely addressed in the paper.

However, PPC and SPC have to be considered as two separate syntactic and semantic objects, as we will see in the next sections.

6.2.2 Claim 2: 'Pseudocle s should be reversible' e claim that pseudocle s should be reversible (i.e., that the wh-clause should be able to appear before or a er the copula) is too simplistic. It mixes all types of pseudocle s, while only speci cational sentences appear to be reversible. is important speci city of speci cational sentences is illustrated in examples ( 238)-( 239). ( 238) What So ane is is cool.

a.

[So ane is z]. z = being cool. SPC 'So ane is cool' b.

[So ane's property] is cool PPC 'So ane is something and this thing is cool. ' While a sentence presenting the order wh-clause > answer-constituent (as 238) is ambiguous between an SPC and a PPC interpretation, the inverted sentence in ( 239) is only compatible with a SPC interpretation. is distinction is true for all types of predicational sentences [START_REF] Moro | e raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure[END_REF] Many authors [START_REF] Ross | Constraints on variables in syntax[END_REF][START_REF] Akmajian | On deriving cle sentences from pseudo-cle sentences[END_REF][START_REF] Higgins | e pseudo-cle construction in English[END_REF]or Faraci 1970 among others) have noticed that the sentences in (241) present di erent properties. We adopt Den Dikken, Meinunger, and Wilder (2000) conventions by referring to the wh-constituent as 'wh' and the answer constituent as XP. 241a) is therefore the inverted version [START_REF] Prince | A comparison of wh-cle s and it-cle s in discourse[END_REF]; c) the two constructions are separate constructions, each being generated independently [START_REF] Ross | Constraints on variables in syntax[END_REF], Den Dikken 2001, Den Dikken, Meinunger, and Wilder 2000).

In this last proposal, Den Dikken, Meinunger, and Wilder (2000) follow [START_REF] Ross | Constraints on variables in syntax[END_REF] in proposing that there exist two types of speci cational pseudocle s, the one surfacing as wh > XP, the type A, involves a topic and a comment, while the one surfacing as XP > wh, the type B, involves a free-relative as its wh-clause. eir proposal is based on the di erent syntactic properties which di erentiate Type A from Type B SPC. We present some of them here. Chapter 6. estion-Answer pairs 6.2.2.0.1 Pied-piping In some languages like German, speci cational pseudocle s presenting the order wh > XP allow pied-piping (see example 242) while those presenting the other order (XP > wh) pa ern like free relatives: they forbid pied-piping (see 243).

(242) mit wem Maria gesprochen ha e, war mit Peter wh > XP Lit. 'With whom Maria spoken had was with Peter. ' (243) a. * mit Peter war mit wem Maria gesprochen ha e XP > wh Lit. 'With Peter was with whom Maria spoken had b. * mit wem Maria gesprochen ha e kam gerade ins Zimmer. free relative Lit. 'With whom Maria spoken had came just into the room. ' from Den Dikken, Meinunger, and Wilder (2000):64 6.2.2.0.2 Multiple wh Similarly, it is possible to construct Type A SPC (i.e., wh > XP ) with multiple wh-words. While this is judged marginal in English (see 245), [START_REF] Meinunger | A monoclausal structure for (pseudo-) cle sentences[END_REF] found it possible in German (see 244). Notice that multiple wh-words are an acceptable strategy in questions in both languages (example 246).

(244) wer hier wem geholfen hat war die Hilde dem Heinz (und nicht umgekehrt) German Lit. 'Who here whom helped has was the Hilde the Heinz (and not reverse). ' (249) Free relative a. * wer hier wem geholfen hat scheint die Hilde dem Heinz gewesen zu sein. German Lit. 'who here whom helped has seems the Hilde the Heinz been to be. ' b. *who ordered what should come to fetch it at the counter English 6.2.2.0.3 Wh-words restrictions Type B SPC allow a larger set of wh-words than the Type A SPC [START_REF] Declerck | Studies on copular sentences, cle s and pseudo-cle s[END_REF]. Indeed, in English, it is less acceptable to have 'who', 'when', 'where', 'why' and 'how' heading the pseudocle in Type A than in Type B, as illustrated by the contrast in ( 250)-( 251).

(250) Type A SPC a. Who I meant was the police chief. b.

Where the accident took place is here. c.

When the countryside is most beautiful is in Autumn. d.

Why he did it is lack of money.

e. How it should be done is with a gentle touch.

Judgments and examples from [START_REF] Declerck | Studies on copular sentences, cle s and pseudo-cle s[END_REF]:41

(251) Type B SPC a. e police chief was who I meant.

b. Here is where the accident took place.

c. Autumn is when the countryside is most beautiful.

d. Lack of money is why he did it.

e. With a gentle touch is how it should be done.

ere are many other properties (adverbial modi cation or connectivity e ects, for example) for which the Type A and Type B SPC behave di erently. On this respect, considering the two constructions as being unrelated -from a syntactic point of view -appears as a reasonable hypothesis. In this line, the absence of reversibility in sign languages QAP could be used as an additional argument that the Type A and Type B are di erent constructions.

To summarize, rejecting a pseudocle analysis based on the fact that the question-and answer-constituent are not reversible is not as strong as an argument as it appeared. Indeed, [START_REF] Schlenker | Clausal equations (a note on the connectivity problem)[END_REF] or [START_REF] Iwasaki | On the Semantics of Speci cational Pseudocle s and Comparative Correlatives[END_REF] use the theory developed in Den Dikken, Meinunger, and Wilder (2000) and Den Dikken (2001) to argue in favor of two separate constructions for the two orders. [START_REF] Hoza | Syntactic Structure and Discourse Function: An Examination of Two Constructions in American Sign Language[END_REF] and [START_REF] Caponigro | Relative embeddings : a Circassian puzzle for the syntax / semantics interface[END_REF] underline the absence of structures presenting a wh-word outside of questions in ASL and use this as an argument against analyzing QAP as pseudocle s. e rationale is as follows: since there is no relative clause presenting wh-word in ASL, there is no reason to postulate that the question-constituent is a relative clause (= a free-relative). We have already seen in Subsection II. 6.1.4, that this claim does not extend to LSF which presents some cases of free-relatives.

Claim 3: 'Pseudocle s involve relative clauses'

What we want to show now is that the claim itself and its use do not have solid basis. We separate it into two sub-claims: a) 'relative clauses and free-relatives present the same lexical items' and b) 'pseudocle s always include a free-relative'9 . 6.2.3.0.1 Relative clauses and free-relatives share the same lexical items Caponigro (2003) investigates 150 languages and states that questions, free-relatives, and relative clauses either share the same lexical items or display strategies shared among questions and free-relatives only.

In no languages did he found the other way around: free relatives and relative clauses pa erning alike and being di erent from questions. Similarly, Catasso (2013) concludes that " ese constructions [free-relatives ndlr] are considered to signi cantly di er from headed RCs in that they […] utilize a set of relative pronouns which is completely unlinked to that of restrictive or appositive RCs" (ibid,: 274).

In other words, nding a strategy used for relative clauses does not entail that it has to be shared by free-relatives. is argument is, therefore, vacuous. e fact that wh-elements are not used in relative clauses in ASL does not entail that they are not used in free-relatives. Chapter 6. estion-Answer pairs 6.2.3.0.2 Pseudocle s include a free-relative We already partially addressed this claim when we dig into reversibility. In doing so, we highlighted some properties distinguishing Type A SPC on the one hand from PPC and Type B SPC on the other hand. As a summary, remember that they pa ern di erently concerning pied-piping, multiple wh, or wh-words restrictions. In what follows, we dig deeper into their di erences by presenting some of the connectivity e ects which further distinguish pseudocle s containing a free-relative from pseudocle s which do not.

Again, free-relatives are found in both PPC and Type B SPC. Type A SPC, on the other hand, have either been analyzed on a par with the two others [START_REF] Akmajian | On deriving cle sentences from pseudo-cle sentences[END_REF][START_REF] Blom | Syntaktische theorie en taalbeschrijving[END_REF][START_REF] Heggie | e syntax of copular sentences[END_REF][START_REF] Declerck | Studies on copular sentences, cle s and pseudo-cle s[END_REF] or Guéron 1992 among others) or as involving a wh-question instead [START_REF] Cli On | e English pseudo-cle[END_REF][START_REF] Faraci | On the deep question of pseudo-cle s[END_REF][START_REF] Ross | Constraints on variables in syntax[END_REF][START_REF] Grimes | e thread of discourse[END_REF][START_REF] Seuren | Discourse semantics[END_REF], Den Dikken, Meinunger, and Wilder 2000, Den Dikken 2001[START_REF] Schlenker | Clausal equations (a note on the connectivity problem)[END_REF].

For proponents of a free-relative approach to Type A SPC, the surface structure is that of a copular sentences taking a free-relative as wh-constituent. In this respect, they do not di er from their predicational alternative, nor Type B pseudocle s. e free-relative is generated in a small clause à la [START_REF] Moro | Dynamic antisymmetry[END_REF] (Figure 68), complement to the copula. e alternation between Type A and Type B SPC is seen as equivalent/symmetric, depending on which constituent moves to the subject position. Analyzing pseudocle s as involving free-relatives allows us to explain why they can freely alternate with 'th-' relatives10 , the impossibility to have yes/no questions and the restrictions about the wh-words, which can appear in some of the pseudocle s.

However, unifying all pseudocle s under a single structure does not allow us to explain the di erences we mentioned so far between the three structures. Nor can it account for the variation in connectivity e ects present across these structures. In Type A SPC, a range of connectivity e ects are observable, which do not surface in the two other types. is is the case of NPI licensing, as shown in (252).

(252) a. What John didn't buy was any books.

Type A SPC/*PPC e behavior of Type A SPC is problematic under current assumptions if we assume a structure as in Figure ( 68): here a pronoun or an R-expression in the free-relative should not be able to C-command the post-copular constituent. A possible interpretation of these data is that the wh-constituent is base generated in a C-commanding position when we observe connectivity e ects (Den Dikken, Meinunger, and Wilder 2000[START_REF] Ross | Constraints on variables in syntax[END_REF][START_REF] Schlenker | Clausal equations (a note on the connectivity problem)[END_REF]. Hence, nding connectivity e ects in Type A SPC but not in Type B nor PPC indicates that the three constructions do not share their syntactic structure. As we will see in the following claims, Type A SPC can be analyzed as involving a hidden question. is is the line of analysis we also adopt in the last section of this Chapter.

To summarize this point, it is not the case that all pseudocle types share the same structure. In that respect, they do not necessarily involve free-relatives. Additionally, free-relatives do not need to share their lexical items with relative clauses.

6.2.4 Claim 4: 'Pseudocle s do not take a full clause as their answer-constituent' e claim that pseudocle s do not accept full clauses as their answer-constituent is used by [START_REF] Hoza | Syntactic Structure and Discourse Function: An Examination of Two Constructions in American Sign Language[END_REF], [START_REF] Caponigro | Relative embeddings : a Circassian puzzle for the syntax / semantics interface[END_REF] or [START_REF] Kimmelman | estion-answer pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands[END_REF]. It comes again from the idea that pseudocle s have to take free-relatives as their subject. We have seen, in the review of the previous claims, that this conclusion is not unequivocally accepted in the literature about pseudocle s.

It is true that predicational pseudocle s and Type B SPC (i.e., those presenting the order XP > wh) are analyzed across the literature as copular sentences in which the wh-constituent is a DP (free-relative). ese constructions indeed forbid the counterweight to be clausal, an IP. is is illustrated in ( 255)-( 256). However, in the case of Type A SPC [START_REF] Faraci | On the deep question of pseudo-cle s[END_REF], [START_REF] Ross | Constraints on variables in syntax[END_REF] or Den Dikken, Meinunger, and Wilder (2000) note that they can have full IP counterweight as shown in (257). how much be.1SG worked how.much be.2SG worked you 'I worked as much as you did. ' f. Lu sò fa e [pecca l-i fa e tu]. why it be.1SG done why it-be.2SG done you 'I did it for the same reason why you did it. ' from Mantenuto & Caponigro 2019:12-13 In the light of these data, it appears that languages vary in the variety and type of wh-element that can head a free-relative, and hence, given that PPC and Type B SPC involve free-relatives, this is also true of these more complex constructions. Now, among Type A SPC, 'what' is the most common strategy used to introduce the question constituent, with only one occurrence of another wh-word surfacing in corpus studies of English [START_REF] Geluykens | Focus Phenomena in English. An Empirical Investigation into cle and Pseudo-Cle Sentences[END_REF], Collins 1991/2002[START_REF] Heggie | e syntax of copular sentences[END_REF]. In his article, [START_REF] Akmajian | On deriving cle sentences from pseudo-cle sentences[END_REF] acknowledges the rarity of alternatives to 'what' in Type A SPC but proposes that acceptable sentences headed by every type of wh-word can still be found, as shown in ( 261).

(261) a. What we need is Jerry drunk.

b. Where John nally ended up was in Berkeley. c. When John arrived was at ve o'clock. d. Why John went to the bookstore was to buy a book about pseudocle s. e. How John did it was by using a decoder. f. ? Who John visited was Bill. from Akmajian 1979:18-19 What could possibly explain the asymmetry found between wh-questions, free-relatives (hence PPC and Type B SPC) and Type A SPC with respect to wh-words distribution? [START_REF] Declerck | Studies on copular sentences, cle s and pseudo-cle s[END_REF] provides one possible explanation. He remarks that speci cational sentences as a whole (so questions or SPC, for example) require to be provided with the correct value for their operator. In this respect, [START_REF] Declerck | Studies on copular sentences, cle s and pseudo-cle s[END_REF] notes that 'who', in questions, can either require a speci cational answer or a description (see 262). He remarks similar ambiguity in 'where'-, 'how'-and 'when'questions.

(262) -Who was the girl who came into the o ce yesterday?

a. -Justine (speci cational) b. -She was an actress (description) e descriptive answer is not providing the reference of the value, hence its use in a focalization strategy as a pseudocle s is not optimal. Having variation in the possible answers could lead to lesser use of these wh-words in speci cational pseudocle s.

For all the sentences in (261), 'who' included, the judgment and frequency of occurrence are greatly improved when they present 'th'-relative, meaning relative headed by a nite class of nouns such as 'the reason', 'the place', 'the moment' or 'the person' in (263). decide to consider such 'th-' relatives on a par with wh-relatives (but see [START_REF] Hankamer | On the non-cyclic nature of WH-cle ing[END_REF] against this analysis). One could see these heads as being the solution to the ambiguity in the answers accepted by the wh-words. In speci cational pseudocle s, the nature of the variable is further speci ed to force a speci cational answer-constituent.

To summarize, claiming that pseudocle s are always constrained in the wh-word which can be used and, thus, QAP should not be analyzed as such needs to be nuanced. While this claim does not hold for free-relatives cross-linguistically, and, hence, for Type B SPC and PPC, it is correct for Type A speci cational pseudocle s. In the la er section, we will show that this property is symptomatic of the relationship between questions, 'th-relatives', and Type A SPC.

6.2.7 Claim 7: 'Pseudocle s have to be exhaustive' e argument that pseudocle s have to be exhaustive is taken indirectly by [START_REF] Caponigro | Ask, and tell as well: question-answer clauses in American Sign Language[END_REF] and Davidson, Caponigro, and Mayberry (2008b) as an evidence that QAP are not pseudocle s in ASL. In their analyses, they argue that pseudocle s have to be interpreted as carrying exhaustivity while ASL's QAP can optionally be non-exhaustive, hence being di erent from pseudocle s. is leads them to argue in favor of an exhaustivity operator in order to explain the ambiguity with respect to exhaustivity in ASL's question-answer-constituent.

We already explained how the question of pseudocle exhaustivity was not entirely satisfying from a cross-linguistic perspective and that it did not seem to be valid for LSF or French (see Subsection II.6.1.4).

Additionally, again, PPC and SPC do not pa ern alike since predicational pseudocle s do not display exhaustivity, as shown by the contrast between ( 264) and ( 265).

(264) What you cooked is delicious. PPC (265) What you cooked is a cake. SPC

In (264), the sentence is not understood as if only one thing was cooked, while the sentence (265) is understood as meaning that a cake, and nothing else, was cooked. Nevertheless, is the meaning derived an obligatory requirement of speci cational pseudocle s? [START_REF] Declerck | Studies on copular sentences, cle s and pseudo-cle s[END_REF] and [START_REF] Delahunty | Speci cational copular sentences and pseudocle s, A case study[END_REF] analyze the exhaustivity triggered by ( 265) as being a conversational implicature (hence facultative) and not a logical presupposition nor an entailment either. eir diagnostics classically come from truth values, since in these cases, if the entailed sentence is false, then the entailing sentence must also be false, by de nition. An example is provided with a Type B SPC in (266) but it also applies to Type A SPC.

(266) Premise 1. If it was John who le the room, then only one person le the room.

Premise 2. Mary also le the room. Conclusion. It was not John who le the room.

from Declerck 1988:29 If the entailment in (266) was the exhaustivity ('then only one person le the room') then the conclusion should have been that 'it is not true that only one person le the room'. is is not what we obtain in (266).

Another argument proving that the exhaustivity is not entailed in speci cational sentences is visible through the negation of the sentences in ( 267)-( 268). 267) entails ( 268), then (267) could NOT be true if ( 268) is false. is is not what we nd as there is no reason to rule out the possibility that John was among the people who le the room. In such a situation, we cannot say that ( 267) is false, we can say that it is incomplete.

In the light of these data, [START_REF] Delahunty | Speci cational copular sentences and pseudocle s, A case study[END_REF] and [START_REF] Declerck | Studies on copular sentences, cle s and pseudo-cle s[END_REF] analyze exhaustivity as being a simple conversational implicature, following Gricean maxims [START_REF] Grice | Logic and conversation[END_REF] of quality (the speaker should provide the correct value for the variable) and quantity (the speaker should provide all required information, not less, not more).

In addition, we can cite Den Dikken ( 2001): 'any copular construction that has an exhaustiveness implicature is speci cational; but not every speci cational copular sentence necessarily has this exhaustiveness implicature ' (ibid: 30). is is in line with the variation we observed between ASL and LSF.

To summarize, predicational pseudocle s do not trigger exhaustivity, and not all specicational pseudocle s do either. For those triggering exhaustivity, it is rather a conversational implicature than an entailment, which leaves more space for cross-linguistic variations. In ( 269), the answer-constituent does not specify the value of the question constituent. In this respect, it is indirect. e actual value is provided later on. Such behavior is present in information-seeking questions and their answers (see 270) but is hardly accountable on a pseudocle perspective, as shown with the ungrammaticality of ( 271).

(270) -What does John want?

-He is super cial, so he wants a Rolex before his 50's.

(271) *What John wants is he is super cial, so he wants a Rolex before his 50's.

A similar fact is discussed in Den Dikken, Meinunger, and Wilder (2000). ey use restrictions on complementizer ellipsis as a diagnostic of the syntactic nature of the pseudocle counterweight. e complementizer 'that' cannot be deleted in subject clauses and Type B SPC as shown by the ungrammaticality of ( 272).

(272) a. *(that) he was injured was what she said.

Type B SPC b. *(that) he was injured suprised us.

Subject Clause is is explained by the fact that Type B SPC sits in the subject position of a copular construction, and subject clauses need to be introduced by 'that' in English (see 272b).

In contrast, Type A SPC allows both alternatives as illustrated in ( 273).

(273) a. What Mary said was that John was hurt. b. What Mary said was John was hurt.

However, the authors notice that NPI are no longer licensed when 'that' is elided, as shown by the contrast in ( 274).

(274) a. What Mary didn't say was that anybody was hurt.

b. *What Mary didn't say was anybody was hurt.

To explain this contrast, Den Dikken, Meinunger, and Wilder (2000) propose that (274b) is not an elided version of (274a), but rather an indirect answer 13 . In their analysis, indirect answers come as nite IPs and can also surface with verbs like 'happen' as shown in ( 275). ( 275) What happened was he fell over.

As can be seen in ( 275), no material of the question-constituent is repeated in the answerconstituent; hence it is indirect. erefore, the claim that pseudocle s admit no indirect answers is, again, a generalization.

Notice though that it is true that the phenomenon at stake appears very limited. Den Dikken, Meinunger, and Wilder (2000) propose that indirect answers are permi ed in pseudocle s only if the answer-constituent allows to select an individual within the set of individuals referred to by the wh-word itself. In the case analyzed, 'what' requires a proposition or an event, which is what is provided by the answer-constituent.

To summarize, Type A SPC allow indirect answers in a much more restricted sense than ASL QAP or questions/answers. is is a point of similarity rather than an argument against a QAP analysis. Who ate the cake is nobody. [START_REF] Declerck | Studies on copular sentences, cle s and pseudo-cle s[END_REF] provides an interesting account to explain the need for the complement of pseudocle to be referential. If we analyze speci cational sentences as introducing a variable that needs to receive a value, it is clear that a non-referential argument will not ful ll this need. e variable will be le with no semantic content. In this respect, despite being also described as speci cational sentences, questions and pseudocle s behave di erently.

To summarize, the claim that pseudocle s do not admit non-referential answers is supported in the literature. Now, as suggested by [START_REF] Kimmelman | estion-answer pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands[END_REF], a grammaticalization process entails the coexistence of the di erent structures in the hierarchy within the same language. Hence, nding QAP with non-referential counterparts does not prevent from nding actual SPC.

Summary

In the light of this review, it appears that a large portion of the arguments which have been made in the SL literature against a pseudocle analysis of QAP need to be toned down. e rst of such myths being the claim that 'no languages present speci cational pseudocle s only' which has never been demonstrated. To help future research, we provide the summarizing Table in (18).

What appears as crucial to be retained from the investigation we carried throughout this section is that many arguments are not new; they were already creating debates as early as in the 1970s. In this perspective, we do not see why these claims should be used against an analysis of sign languages QAP as relevant to the wider research on pseudocle s. It should be the other way around, QAP in SL contribute to the debate on pseudocle s and questions in disguise. With the ne-grained di erences we noted between ASL, NGT, LSF and LIS's QAP, we have enough material to propose a grammaticalization process which starts with question-answer pairs and ends with referential free-relatives, used in predicational pseudocle s.

In what follows, we will a empt at highlighting the links between each step of this process, using data from both spoken and signed languages. 18. Arguments used in the SL literature against a pseudocle analysis: Review

When questions nd answers by themselves

Our aim, in this Section, is to capitalize on SL data to help re ne the grammaticalization hypothesis proposed by [START_REF] Kimmelman | estion-answer pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands[END_REF] by extending the process until SPC pseudocle s and free-relatives. More broadly, we want to ll the blanks in the relation between questions/answers and SPC. 6.3.1 Kimmelman and Vink (2017): A premise on questions [START_REF] Kimmelman | estion-answer pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands[END_REF] argue in favor of a grammaticalization process at play in NGT, which would explain the coexistence of di erent kinds of QAP (with two clauses or only one) as well as several morpho-syntactic changes. However, the authors exclude that this process has gone beyond a mono-clausal question-answer constituent à la Davidson, Caponigro, and Mayberry (2008b). We repeat their scale in Figure ( 69). LIS data already suggest that the grammaticalization process should be extended as this language instantiates referential free-relatives, which can be used in predicational pseudocle s [START_REF] Branchini | On Relativization and Cle ing : An analysis of Italian Sign language[END_REF].

In LSF, which exhibits a distinct syntactic change forcing the wh-element to move to the edge of the clause in QAP and some cases of free-choice free-relatives, we believe that the grammaticalization process has to integrate two other intermediate steps.

e path we propose is presented in Contrary to [START_REF] Kimmelman | estion-answer pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands[END_REF], we do not include rhetorical questions in our scale. According to [START_REF] Groenendijk | Type-shi ing rules and the semantics of interrogatives[END_REF] or [START_REF] Jacobson | e short answer: implications for direct compositionality (and vice versa)[END_REF], rhetorical questions do not require an answer. ey have even been considered on a par with content questions in [START_REF] Caponigro | Rhetorical questions as questions[END_REF] with the only di erence that the possible answer to rhetorical questions is part of the common ground (i.e., the shared knowledge) of the two interlocutors. What concerns us is the case of actual questions requiring an answer.

Step 1. estion/Answer

A: [ CP [+q] wh(x)] B:[ CP answer(x') ]14

As we have already mentioned in the previous section, questions are be er analyzed together with their answers. As such, they are o en treated in terms of estion-Answer Pairs. To avoid confusing this term with the QAP structure found across sign languages; we will refer to estion/Answer when we are talking about a question u ered by an interlocutor and an answer provided by someone else. e rst step of the grammaticalization process described here starts with typical whquestions in which the wh-word requires a rather speci c answer. For example, 'who' requires an individual (or a de nition, recall Declerck 1988) 'where', a place, and so on. In absolute, the act of asking a question forces to obtain an answer, but this one does not need to ll the requirement imposed by the wh-word. See for example (278). All the answers from (278a) to (278c) are valid answers. e content of the answers seems, at least partially, governed by pragmatic principles, since they have to be informative and in relation with the topic discussed in the question (see the unacceptability of 278f). ere are also semantic restrictions. If a direct answer is provided, as in (278e), it has to be within the domain determined by the wh-word of the question (who).

Interestingly, questions allow indirect answers (278d) as well as non-informative or nonreferential answers such as (278c). is is because the person u ering a question assumes her addressee knows the answer but might be wrong. Following [START_REF] Declerck | Studies on copular sentences, cle s and pseudo-cle s[END_REF] and [START_REF] Higgins | e pseudo-cle construction in English[END_REF], questions and their answer can be considered as speci cational in that the question contains a variable which requires a value, which is speci ed by the answer. Crucially, the variable allows for a broad set of possible values. Now, consider a case in which the person asking a question knows the answer, but her addressee(s) does not necessarily. Like a teacher in front of the classroom. What would be the purpose of asking a question which we already know the answer to? Just like teachers do, it allows us to highlights a piece of information, to focalize it. Accordingly, the teacher producing a question that she already knows the answer to is already diverting the wh-word and the question from their original use. e question does not seek an answer per se; it seeks a focalized constituent. Notice that in this case, the answer may well be non-referential (i.e., a student can answer with 'I don't know'). We think that this quest for a focalized constituent instead of an answer is the rst act of a process of 'referentialization', which leads to the second step of our path: discourse-level question-answer combination.

Step 2. Discourse-level question-answer combination

A: [ CP [+q] wh(x)] [ CP answer(x') ]
is step is also present in [START_REF] Kimmelman | estion-answer pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands[END_REF]'s path. What distinguishes this type of question/answer from the previous one is that the question and its answer are produced by the same person, as a focalization strategy. at questions/answers are linked at the discourse level is not new; it is also proposed by [START_REF] Jacobson | e short answer: implications for direct compositionality (and vice versa)[END_REF] to account for elided answers.

is structure is widely a ested in sign languages, as we have seen, but also in spoken languages where it is similarly used to focalize a constituent. Again, this construction di ers from rhetorical questions in that it requires an answer and that the answer does not need to be known by the addressee. If we go back to the example of the teacher, he can well decide to save time by asking a question and, instead of waiting for the audience to answer, provide the answer directly. In that respect, this step of the path is yet further removed from the original purpose of a question since the answer is not required to be provided by someone else. As the prosodic distance between the question and its answer is o en reduced, it is less and less likely that the answer will be provided by someone else.

rough extensive use of this strategy, the question and its answer get to be linked at a syntactic level [START_REF] Caponigro | Free relatives as DPs with a silent D and a CP complement[END_REF]Davidson 2011 or Jacobson 2016). is is the third step, the question-answer constituent.

Step 3. estion Answer Constituent

A:

[ CP [ IP [+q] wh(x) ] α spec [ IP answer(x') ]]
e last step of [START_REF] Kimmelman | estion-answer pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands[END_REF] path, estion Answer Constituent roots in [START_REF] Caponigro | Ask, and tell as well: question-answer clauses in American Sign Language[END_REF] analysis of ASL QAP in which the questioned constituent clearly displays some properties of embedded questions. Furthermore, the whole construction presents clausal properties. On [START_REF] Caponigro | Ask, and tell as well: question-answer clauses in American Sign Language[END_REF]'s analysis, the whole construction is a declarative copular clause in which the subject (the question-constituent) is an interrogative CP, and the answer constituent is an IP with elided material. e silent copula is analyzed as an identity operator, returning the truth value '1' only if the question-and answer-constituents are logically equivalent. While we agree with the outline of [START_REF] Caponigro | Ask, and tell as well: question-answer clauses in American Sign Language[END_REF]'s analysis, we think that the copula is not yet an identity operator but still a speci cational operator.

Hence, the answer-constituent is not identical to the question-constituent; it speci es its variable.

Just like in Step 2, the variable contained in the question still seeks a value within the answer or as the answer itself, but the domain of this search is further reduced. What leads from this construction to speci cational pseudocle s, our fourth step, is the further matching between the variable and the value a ributed. 6.3.5 Step 4. Speci cational pseudocle s

[ CP [ IP wh(x) ] α spec [ D/IP answer(x') ]]
In speci cational pseudocle s, as we have seen in the previous section, the answer-constituent is preferably a fragment. Also, indirect answers are limited to cases that are compatible with the domain selected by the wh-word. What appears to be the shi here is that the whole question clause is not anymore asking for any answer (non-referential, indirect, and so on); it has to correspond to the domain selected by the wh-word precisely. In other words, the question-constituent is not a question anymore but the wh-word within it continues to introduce a variable that needs to be speci ed by a value.

is narrowing of the variable/value domain could account for the lack of polar questions in speci cational pseudocle s; the wh-word requires a speci c constituent. is step is further supported by LSF QAP data which clearly present non-question clausal properties (recall that the QAP can be questioned, contra to ASL data) while mainly presenting Type A SPC properties. 6.3.6 Step 5. Identi cational (speci cational) pseudocle s

[ CP [ IP wh(x) α ident [ DP answer(x') ]]]
e h step, which we call identi cational pseudocle s, helps to se le the debate among semanticists about the nature of the copula. According to [START_REF] Higgins | e pseudo-cle construction in English[END_REF], [START_REF] Ross | Constraints on variables in syntax[END_REF] or [START_REF] Declerck | Studies on copular sentences, cle s and pseudo-cle s[END_REF], SPC are, as their name indicates, specifying in nature and not identifying or equative. In that respect, by providing a value to a variable, they 'reveal' it, but they do not equate it. is is disputed by other researchers such as [START_REF] Schlenker | Clausal equations (a note on the connectivity problem)[END_REF] or [START_REF] Sharvit | Connectivity in speci cational sentences[END_REF] who argue the opposite.

Data from Hebrew might help to support the h step we propose. [START_REF] Heller | On the relation of connectivity and speci cational pseudocle s[END_REF] identi es three di erent kinds of pseudocle s; predicational pseudocle s, speci cational 'neutral' pseudocle s and speci cational 'agreeing' pseudocle s. What we call identi cational speci cational pseudocle s corresponds, in fact, to the la er type. We argue that this corresponds to the identifying use of the copula. Interestingly, the three kinds of pseudocle s use di erent types of copulas in Hebrew. e PPC use the copula glossed as 'H' (see 279), the neutral SPC use the non-agreeing copula glossed as 'Z' in (280) and the agreeing SPC use the same copula except that it agrees with its complement, as shown in ( 281). Agreeing SPC what that-Descartes found H(m)/Z(n)/Z(f) proof(f) to-existence the-god 'What Descartes found is/was a proof of God's existence. ' While the question-constituent in PPC in Hebrew is undoubtedly referential (see Heller 2002 for a long list of tests), both types of SPC have a non referential wh-constituent. eir di erences are summarized in the Table ( 19), from [START_REF] Heller | On the relation of connectivity and speci cational pseudocle s[END_REF]): 277. Heller (2002) accounts for their di erences by showing that while neutral SPC (i.e., our 4th step) select for cross-categorical answer-constituents, agreeing SPC (i.e., identi cational SPC, our 5th step) select only for real-world individuals. In this respect, the answer constituent could be analyzed as being turned into a DP. e copula also changes from a semantical standpoint since it becomes equative. e wh-word becomes more referential in that it further restricts its accepted values. 15Table 19. Di erences between identificational and specificational pseudocle s in Hebrew. From [START_REF] Heller | On the relation of connectivity and speci cational pseudocle s[END_REF]: 277 6.3.7 Step 6. Free-choice free-relative

[ DP [ IP wh(x)-answer(x') ]]
In the sixth step of our grammaticalization path, the free-choice free-relatives, the whconstituent is now fully nominal. Indeed following Den Dikken, Meinunger, and Wilder (2000), [START_REF] Grosu | Strange Relatives of the ird Kind[END_REF] or Caponigro (2003), '-ever' free-relatives are undoubtedly DPs. To explain how this process takes place, we can use the presence of the morpheme '-ever' as indicative of a syntactic change. is is precisely what [START_REF] Citko | On the Distribution of-kolwiek'ever'in Polish Free Relatives[END_REF] proposes. e author argues that the presence of the equivalent of the '-ever' morpheme in Polish, '-kolwiek', is required on a syntactic level to bear the maximalizing operator present in their semantic interpretation.

Interestingly, on a semantic standpoint, addition of '-ever' carries two di erent interpretations: ignorance (282) or indi erence of the speaker (283).

(282) Whatever she cooked yesterday, it was really delicious. Ignorance (283) I'll eat whatever he cooks tonight, I'm starving.

Indi erence

We will focus here on the 'ignorance' part, which is redundant of the internal semantic of the wh-word itself. So far, we have said that the wh-word contains a variable that needs to be valued; in this respect, it continues to ask for an answer. '-Ever' free-relatives continue to carry însurat cu sora mea. who you-has a acked yesterday is married with sister-the my 'Who a acked you yesterday is married to my sister. ' From Grosu & Landman (1998): 155 If these structures were to be integrated into our path, they would follow speci cational pseudocle s, presenting similar semantic values but, crucially, integrated into a CP. e equative function of the copula is redundant and hence erased. the meaning of questions (i.e., ignorance about an answer) while being syntactically referential, a DP.

An interesting ally of this theory might be [START_REF] Iatridou | Pseudocle s crosslinguistically[END_REF]'s work. Recall that translated into our typological framework, the conclusions of [START_REF] Iatridou | Pseudocle s crosslinguistically[END_REF] are that no language displays referential free-relatives alone. ey either display free-choice free-relatives only (if the lexical word did not originate from questions) or both free-choice and referential free-relatives.

is conclusion could indicate that free-choice free-relatives necessarily precede the other type in an evolutionary path since, if they were independent, we should nd either one, the other, or both.

Additionally, the contrast between the referential (231) and non-referential (123) free-relative in LSF, repeated here as ( 284) is accounted for if we consider that LSF has not yet reached the last step of the process. Now, with the free-choice free-relative being available in the syntactic strategies of a language, it can be used in a pseudocle construction. 6.3.8 Step 7. Referential free-relative.

[ DP [ IP wh(xx') ]] is leads us to the nal step of our process, where the construction involves a semantically and syntactically referential free-relative. Depending on the analysis, the DP layer hides a maximal operator which allows to select for any individual selected by the domain of the variable within the wh-word (Caponigro 2003). e wh-word has to raise in order to leave a variable that can be bounded by the maximal operator. Now that free-relatives are available in the grammar, they can be used, as any DP, as the subject of a copular clause, in which case they are in a predicational pseudocle . is is in line with [START_REF] Frascarelli | Pseudo)cle s at the syntax-prosody-discourse interface[END_REF]'s analysis, which argues that pseudocle s can only be speci cational and that PPC are simple predicate sentences which happen to have a free-relative as their subject.

e di erence between LIS referential free-relatives and LSF free-choice free-relatives can be accounted for by considering that LIS is at the last step of the grammaticalization process.

Summary

What seems to be happening is that questions progressively lose their ignorance features to acquire more and more referentiality both syntactically and semantically as a focalizing strategy.

is process forces two separated CPs to be linked under a single CP, where the two former CPs get more and more nominalized. e di erent steps of our hierarchy allow us to explain the di erence between ASL QAP, which are integrated into a syntactic structure but are still questions in nature as they cannot be interrogated. In LSF, however, it is possible to ask a question on top of a question-answer pair. In that respect, we think that it is one step further than ASL. Additionally, we nd cases of free-choice free-relatives in LSF which are not found in ASL, moving LSF one further step forward. In LIS we nd referential free-relatives which are not found in LSF, meaning that LIS is one step ahead of LSF. e process is summarised in Figure ( 71). Following [START_REF] Kimmelman | estion-answer pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands[END_REF], we do not believe that being at a particular step of the process prevents previous steps to be available on the scale within a language. We also think that, once the two nal steps of the hierarchy are reached, DP free-relatives become available to be used as the subject of a copular sentence, hence a predicational pseudocle .

Introduction

In this section, we will start by presenting the semantic and syntactic properties of sentential complements, before presenting the syntactic tests which we applied to each LSF predicate in this study.

Semantic complementation

Sentential complements are primarily clustered and described through their semantic properties.

e concept of semantic complementation refers to the interdependence of two 'states of a airs' [START_REF] Cristofaro | Subordination. Reprinted with corrections and rst published in paperback[END_REF]).

e rst one is induced by the main verb, which requires a speci cation, provided by the second verb, within the sentential complement. Syntactically, the main predicate is (di)transitive so that, without its sentential complement, it is incomplete (see example 285).

(285) Marie wants

        
an apple to go to the cinema that Agathe leaves the place * ()

        
Sentential complements are described in terms of their semantic content and its interaction with the main verb's semantics. We will detail this interaction for each semantic class. Sentential complements are enclosed within either realis or irrealis modality (see Figure 72). Depending on languages, the distinction between the two can be morphologically marked through the use of a speci c verbal in ection. For example, in Catalan and other romance languages, irrealis sentences are systematically identi ed through the use of the subjunctive. Finally, sentential complements can be categorized through their (in)dependence regarding their time reference. Indeed, the main predicate can impose a time reference, as in ( 286), where 'have to' only allows future or potential time reference. In other cases, the sentential complement can have an independent time reference. is is the case of the complement of 'hope' in (287). We will mention these properties whenever relevant, but our focus will mainly be on the semantic predicate classes, established in er et al. (2017b), a er [START_REF] Noonan | Complementation". Nunes, Jairo and Ronice Müller de adros[END_REF], to which we turn now. Since there exists twelve classes1 of predicates allowing for sentential complements, and since the di erences between each class can be ne-grained, we will always present their formal description directly followed by the LSF relevant data.

e strong semantic link between the main and dependent clauses explains why sentential complements are considered as favorable contexts for syntactic subordination to occur. For this reason, we will submit LSF data to several syntactic tests in order to reveal their properties. We describe the syntactic tests we used in the next section.

Syntactic complementation

roughout this dissertation, we used a variety of tests to detect the presence of syntactic subordination in LSF. For both relative clauses and temporal constructions, the extraction patterns were used as evidence for islandhood properties and coordinated/subordinated behavior (see Chapter I.2 & II.5). We also used the dependent/independent nature of clauses to reveal their syntactic status. For both constructions and QAP, we additionally used the distribution of morpho-phonological properties such as non-manual markers, as evidence of either subordination or coordination (see Chapter II.6). In the la er case of QAP, we interpreted pronouns' reference as an indication of embedding (versus role shi ), especially when selected by verbs like 'say' and 'ask' (recall example 220). All of these tests were proven very useful for our investigation and will, therefore, be used again to probe the nature of sentential complements and determine whether we have clear cases of subordination or not.

As we have stated in the previous subsection, sentential complements are primarily grouped according to their semantic contribution to the main verb they are a ached to. For this reason, [START_REF] Noonan | Complementation". Complex Constructions[END_REF], [START_REF] Givón | Syntax: A functional-typological introduction[END_REF] or [START_REF] Cristofaro | Subordination. Reprinted with corrections and rst published in paperback[END_REF] acknowledge that they can vary greatly in their syntactic properties. For example, some are islands for extraction while others are not; some can present non-nite and/or nite forms; others can have an overt subject while allowing a covert alternative, and so on.

For all these reasons, applying only one test to all of them could lead to incomplete and possibly misleading results. To fully grasp the syntactic nature of each sentential complements we will analyze, it is a combination of tests that we have to use. For each test, we present the rationale, and its behavior, when combined with other tests, will be explicated through a decision tree presented at the end of this section. 205), ( 5), and ( 6) to investigate relative and temporal clauses as well as QAP and has to be taken with caution. Indeed, the absence of overt complementizers in LSF quickly leads to possible reinterpretations of isolated sentential complements as being independent root independent clauses2 . For example, a sentence such as (288) could be cut in two, with the second clause being able to stand in isolation (see 289). Notice that the optionality of the complementizer in English leads to the same results. To minimize the risk for the sentence to be judged on its own, we cut already existing sentences in two in order to preserve the original NMMs. In other words, we did not ask our informants to sign parts of a sentence out of the blue; we showed them a cut video corresponding to the isolated sentential complement and asked for their judgments.

With these parameters in mind, only positive results in which our informants are judging the sentential complement as unable to stand alone will be taken as being informative. In other terms, nding that a sentential complement is judged acceptable in isolation will indicate that we need to carry on our syntactic investigation.

Control or raising predicates: covert subject test

e second test we will be using throughout this section is to test whether the sentential argument must have a covert subject. To avoid confusion between the surfacing subject of the main clause and the subject of the sentential complement, we will use the terms NP1 and NP2, respectively. In example (290), NP1 is 'Marie' and NP2 is covert (the gap is indicated through an underscore line).

(290) Marie wants to go to the cinema.

In control or raising predicates, NP2 is covert. If we nd similar cases in LSF, we will conclude that the sentential complement is indeed subordinated.

In nitival or nite: tense test

Some verbs allow both covert and overt NP2. In such cases, we need to determine (when the subject is covert) whether this is a pro-drop or an in nitive PRO. If this is the la er, then the sentential complement should not allow for tense.

For example, predicates such as 'have to' in English are not compatible with tense (see 291a) and the ungrammaticality of (291b)-(291c).

(291) a. Marie has to PRO i nish the movie.

b. *Marie has to that Agathe nishes the movie. c. *Marie has to that nishes the movie.

However, predicates can present more than one strategy. e verb 'want', similarly to 'have to', can take an in nitival clause without an overt subject as in ( 292), but, crucially, also with an overt subject (see 293).

(292) Marie i wants PRO i/ * j to nish the movie.

(293) Marie i wants Agathe j to nish the movie.

Following [START_REF] Kayne | e Antisymmetry of Syntax[END_REF], [START_REF] Noonan | Complementation". Complex Constructions[END_REF] or er et al. (2017b), the presence of an in nitival form is an indicator of subordination.

In LSF, there is no clear distinction between nite and non-nite forms expressed in the morphology of verbs. We do nd, as also noted by [START_REF] Millet | Grammaire descriptive de la langue des signes franc ¸aise[END_REF], tense markers such as the sign glossed ' ', which indicates the future tense (see 294).

(294) a. 13 ' e girl is going to be 13 years old. ' b. i 3 i ' e interpret is going to present his work. ' As such, it reveals the presence of a tense phrase in the sentential complement, and the impossibility of combining ' ' with the sentential argument's verb will be taken as evidence of its in nitival nature.

Deictics and shi in reference: NP2/IX-1 test

In linguistic theories, a shi in indexicals is generally interpreted as an evidence of the presence of direct speech which is considered as being not subordinated to the main verb [START_REF] Noonan | Complementation". Complex Constructions[END_REF] 3 . is is the case in the English example in (295) in which the rst-person pronominal is interpreted as referring to the subject of the main predicate, Marie, hence shi ing from the narrator's perspective (in example 296).

(295) Marie imagines: "I M arie could stop being a linguistic example" (296) Marie imagines that I Charlotte stopped using her name in my examples.

When we investigated QAP in Chapter II.6, we used the reference of rst-person pronominals as evidence of their embedded status. is implication is not reciprocal; nding role-shi does not automatically entail that we are facing juxtaposition. Indeed, [START_REF] Schlenker | Clausal equations (a note on the connectivity problem)[END_REF] has shown that despite the shi in indexicals, role-shi in ASL was still displaying properties of syntactic subordination, hence presenting a speci c type of direct speech. ese results were not replicated in LSF, and we will avoid any conclusions on the topic. Here, when we encounter role-shi , we will acknowledge it as such, without using it as a predictor for subordination/lack of subordination.

estion pattern: question on each clause

Up to this point, we have mentioned tests revealing the presence of either speci c predicates (control or raising predicates) or in nitival clauses, but these are not the only forms of sentential complements. Taking again the example of 'want', we can see in (297) that, in English, this verb can also take nite clauses as complements4 .

(297) Marie wants that Agathe nishes the movie.

To determine the syntactic link between the main and the second clause, we will apply the extraction test, which was very useful across our topic of interest within this dissertation.

Again, due to the variety of shapes which sentential complements can take, there are some independent parameters (parasitic gaps, islandhood…), which could prevent us from asking a question inside the sentential complement. As such, when trying to extract material from the second clause, only positive evidence will be taken as being informative. Negative evidence will lead to the last test of our decision tree, extraction from the main clause.

In that respect, we will adopt van Gijn ( 2004)'s rationale: if we can ask a question on arguments of the main clause alone, then the two sentences are not coordinated. Recall from previous chapters that in the case of coordination, only the symmetric extraction, across the board, is available as in (298).

(298) What did Mary like and John hate ?

Non manual marking

For every class of predicates, we will describe the non-manual markers associated with the clause. We will use the conventions established in er et al. (2017b) and presented in the introduction of this thesis. We will use these markers to nuance the conclusions derived from the tests we applied.

Procedure and decision tree

All in all, not all tests will be required for every sentential complement tested in this study. Some properties can lead to quicker decisions. For example, the impossibility to stand in isolation for the sentential complement leads to an immediate analysis of it as being syntactically dependent, hence subordinated to the main clause. Similarly, the obligation for the sentential complement's subject (NP2 in Figure 73) to be covert is indicative of raising or a control predicate, consequently being subordinated. To sum up the tests we will apply and the conclusions which can be drawn from them, we created the decision tree presented in Figure ( 73). In the discussion of this Chapter, we provide a summary table of all the results we obtained (Table 22). NP1 refers to the subject of the main clause. NP2 refers to the subject of the sentential complement.

Semantic classes of predicates

Since there are many syntactic tests to be applied to a large number of semantic classes, we organize the chapter as follows: every subsection represents a class of sentential-complementtaking predicates; their rst subsection presents the description found in the literature, while the second subsection presents LSF data. Within the LSF subsection, we introduce the predicates we found with both examples and photographic illustrations. We then proceed to the number of tests required by our decision tree (some predicates require fewer tests than others). is means that we will present the isolation test, followed, depending on the results, by the covert/overt nature of NP2, the possibility for ' ' to appear within the sentential complement, the reference associated to the rst person pronominal 1 when it is the NP2 and, nally, the extraction test. For every cluster of predicates, we will also present the non-manual markers associated with their realization.

Finally, throughout our description of LSF data, we will always start by presenting all the predicates we investigated with examples and gures.

e translation provided in English serves as an illustration of the general meaning of each predicate, irrespective of their syntactic properties.

Utterance predicates 7.2.1.1 Main properties

U erance predicates involve predicates like 'say' or 'inform' and express the transfer of information from an agent (the subject of the predicate) to his interlocutor, which can be le out or expressed overtly. For these predicates, the sentential complement represents the information itself. [START_REF] Cristofaro | Subordination. Reprinted with corrections and rst published in paperback[END_REF] and [START_REF] Noonan | Complementation". Nunes, Jairo and Ronice Müller de adros[END_REF] remark that the complement can either be a direct quotation (cf. example 299, in which case no judgment about the information itself is given and deictics have to be shi ed, or an indirect quotation (cf. example 300).

(299) He said:'I like your shirt. ' (300) He said that he liked my shirt.

In (299), there is a shi in the pronominals used from the third person to the rst and second person. e reference of the rst person pronominal is shi ed from the speaker's perspective (compare with 300) to the u erer's. is is characteristic of direct speech.

e availability of the two strategies varies across languages. For example, Shina and Agta have been reported as languages presenting no indirect quotation strategy (May eld 1972, Bailey 1924) 5 . U erance predicates are non-factive since no judgment about the truth of the sentential complement can be established. In general, they are nite TP or CP at the indicative mode, but some languages use the subjunctive in indirect speech only or future tense [START_REF] Noonan | Complementation". Complex Constructions[END_REF]. Finally, the time reference of complement verbs is independent of the main clause.

LSF

We provide an example of every verb collected in (301), they are all illustrated in Figure ( 74).

, and are all agreeing verbs and in the examples they show 3 rd person subject agreement and 1 st object agreement.

Finally, some languages may use speci c complementizers to introduce the sentential complements of propositional a itude predicates. In English, for example, 'if' and 'whether' are directly linked to these predicates while in Irish, these contexts give rise to wh-complementizers.

LSF

We provide an example for every verb in (318), an illustration is provided in Figure ( 76). All the verbs presented in (318) are non-directional and behaved the same regarding syntactic tests.

Isolation test

When isolated, the rst part of the sentence is unacceptable (319), while the second part of the sentence is weird when markers such as corned-down mouth and squinted eyes are present as in (320). However, with raised eyebrows, the complement alone is perfectly acceptable; this is the case for the complement of in ( 321).

(

Complementizer in LSF

In this subsection, we want to explain in more signi cant detail the reasons which lead us to analyze comp as a complementizer. is is the fourth use we propose for the sign ' '; hence we need to explain a) why it is not the interrogative wh-word, b) why it is not the wh-word used in QAP and c) why it is not the wh-word used in free-choice relatives.

7.2.13.1

comp does not introduce questions comp is not interpreted as being interrogative by any of our informants. It is also associated with di erent morpho-phonological features.

e interrogative ' ' is co-articulated with a mouthing component [kwa], corresponding to the French interrogative word 'quoi'. It also has to be signed with frowned/low eyebrows (see Figure 91). On the other hand, comp is signed with tensed lips (Figure 92a), raised eyebrows and with a shorter movement, both in time and in 'hands', as the sign can also be realized single-handedly (Figure 92b). 'Marie is sad that she will go to the cinema. e movie sucks. '

In the light of these properties, we are thus facing two di erent functions for two di erent strategies; the pseudo-cle strategy is used for focalization, it is optional and can present di erent wh-words. e complementizer strategy has to be ' ', and it is obligatory to introduce nite sentential complements with some verbs.

7.2.13.3

comp does not introduce a free-choice relative

We have seen in Chapter II.6 that there are free-choice relative clauses in LSF introduced by , as illustrated in ( 231) repeated here as ( 452).

(452) br 2 'You can eat whatever (you) prefer. ' It is quite clear that the sentence in (451) cannot receive a free-relative interpretation: neither the main clause nor the subordinated one can be interpreted as nominal in this context.

Finally, when we asked our informants to explain the use of the ' comp ' strategy, they said that it creates a link between the verb and what follows. We would not have be er described the function of complementizers.

Discussion

On non-manual marking

Regarding the non-manual markings, we have identi ed several non-manual markers that are systematically associated with some predicates and semantic content.

Indeed, we saw that the presence of a corned-down mouth was indicative of a hypothetical proposition (see Figure 93), while in ated cheeks indicated the absence of knowledge (Figure 94). On the other hand, squinted eyes indicated non-asserted knowledge, coming from guesses (see Figure 96). As for pretence predicates, they were all marked through an upward right gaze, indicative of non-real worlds (see Figure 97). It is interesting to notice the shared behavior between manipulative, u erance, and perceptive predicates; they are all realized with a body or head turn, spreading over the main verb and the sentential complement. Additionally, the verb is marked with eye gaze directed at the event, as shown in Table According to Noonan's repartition of semantic roles across realis and irrealis modalities (Figure 98), u erance and perceptive predicates are realis while manipulative predicates are irrealis. If this question will need more in-depth investigation the minimal pair given by (in which the set of NMMs is present, see Figure 99a) and (in which it is absent, Figure 99b) could o er insights on the link between evidentiality (the fact that the situation has to be witnessed/take place) and a change in the whole body orientation.

To conclude our remarks on NMMs, we have also noticed that most predicates' meaning were emphasized through 'intensi er' markers. ey could represent emotions as for commentative, fear, or achievement predicates but could also represent the act referred by the verb (as for modal predicates, for example). ese markers were spreading over the verb only and did not appear to help the syntactic process. A possible interpretation could be to consider them as adverbs, following [START_REF] Millet | Grammaire descriptive de la langue des signes franc ¸aise[END_REF]. More work on this topic is needed.

On complementizers

Now, our investigations have also led us to notice the use of a complementizer without which some commentative predicates could not take nite sentential complements. Glossed as comp , its position within the sentence, its non-manual marking (raised eyebrows) as well as its clear wh-element origin are all strikingly similar to the wh-word used in QAP described in Chapter II.6. While the two are primarily di erentiated by their purpose (the la er being a focalization strategy, the former introducing sentential complements), we believe that their resemblance is no coincidence. Indeed, we have seen throughout the cross-linguistic comparison of sign languages in Chapter II.6 that the QAP is ge ing more and more nominalized. In this context, comp seems to be in the complementizer position, hence heading the CP projection instead of si ing in its speci er like the former ' ' wh-word. In this respect, LSF might provide interesting insights into the wh-morphology of many spoken language's complementizers.

While we mainly described the obligatory presence of comp for possibly ambiguous predicates such as or , we have already seen that its use can be wider. Indeed, the sentence in (314), repeated here as (453), presents a single-handedly signed comp introducing its sentential complement.

comp can also be used to introduce the sentential complement of ' ', as shown by example (454).

( comp might be at the beginning of its use as a complementizer. To conclude, our investigations have con rmed that semantic complementation is indeed a very favorable environment for syntactic subordination since the vast majority of predicates we identi ed take subordinated sentential complements. We provide a summary of our results in Table (22).

W ith the investigation of temporal clauses, question-answer pairs, and sentential complements in LSF, we have seen that the study of sign language grammar can shed light on ne-grained typological variations within signed languages, on general linguistic categories and the language investigated itself.

rough the comparison of LIS and LSF temporal clauses, we highlighted that the two signed languages present two di erent underlying structures. Despite a prima facie resemblance, LIS temporal clauses are subordinated while LSF ones are coordinated. ese results were made visible through syntactic and semantic tests, which we then applied to the investigation of QAP in LSF.

In the Chapter II.6, we showed that LSF QAP exhibit Type A speci cational pseudocle s properties and analyzed them as involving a topic-comment structure (following Den Dikken, Meinunger, and Wilder 2000). Moreover, we showed that the study of this particular construction in sign languages could inform general linguistic analyses as the ne-grained di erences we found between ASL/NGT, LSF and LIS lead us to propose a grammaticalization process taking question/answer as its starting point and referential free-relatives as its ending point. In doing so, we contributed to the debate on the question origin of both speci cational pseudocle s and free-relatives.

Finally, we investigated Sentential complements in LSF using the same syntactic tests, which prove to be very useful throughout this dissertation. Along our path, we saw that LSF displays syntactically various sentential complements from nite and non-nite subordinated complements to role-shi complements. Additionally, we showed that LSF has a productive use of a complementizer as well as some speci c NMMs marking subordination.

Conclusion

W hen we started our investigation of French Sign Language syntax, we had in mind two fundamental questions: is this language allowing recursive embedding, and does it display dependent, subordinated clauses? With the study of relative clauses in LSF, we have answered positively to both questions. e broad impact of these ndings concerns the status of language in the visual modality as we demonstrate the presence of genuine embedding at the nominal level. Hence, the debates revolving around the idea that the core component of human language is the recursive property should not threaten SL status. In a more speci c perspective, our work provide an important contribution to the empirical documentation of LSF.

In fact, we have shown that LSF has a sophisticated, ne-grained system that displays externally/internally headed relative clauses, headed by constituents varying both in animacy (human, non-human and inanimate) and in nature (from subject/object to the whole event). rough isolation and extraction tests, we have con rmed that relative clauses were subordinated to the main clause and that they were islands. We also showed that the relative marker introducing the relative clause a ected its semantic interpretation. In that line, the mirror properties of -relatives and -relatives lead us to propose two di erent analyses. Since -relatives can stack and be recursively embedded within each other, they are restrictive. ey can additionally introduce amount relatives as long as a classi er for quantity is present (whether realized as an independent sign or within the morphology of the head noun). As -relatives can modify proper names, cannot stack or be recursively embedded, and require the head noun to carry some speci city traits, they are appositive. e non-manual marking strategy requires more investigation but appears to be at least compatible with appositive and maximalizing interpretations. Our research showed that highly abstract constraints on language structure (e.g., amount relatives) interacts with iconic properties of the language like the classi er system, showing that both formal and iconic principles are not in contradiction with each other but rather "conspire" to shape the grammar of SL. In answering the main questions, other important issues emerged that were contingent on the particular ndings about LSF. Speci cally, the fact that LSF has both object and subject externally headed relative clauses allowed us to make concrete predictions about the processing of these constructions. A ached to this empirical question, other issues emerged on the most appropriate methodology to test the predictions. Standard research techniques could not immediately be exported to SL. An intensive work of adaptation to languages in the visual modality was needed. Since our work represents the rst a empt at addressing this aspect by transforming an audiovisual protocol into a visual-only display, we carefully validated it through a rst experiment carried on French. In this language, the presence of a subject advantage has been demonstrated through several methods [START_REF] Labelle | Predication, wh-movement, and the development of relative clauses[END_REF][START_REF] Fragman | Grammaire et pouvoir global de computation: deux sources de di cultés possibles dans la production des relatives chez les enfants francophones[END_REF][START_REF] Guasti | Relative clause formation in Romance child's production[END_REF], including the (audio-) VWP [START_REF] Pozniak | Le traitement des relatives dans les langues : une approche comparative et multifactorielle[END_REF]). e fact that we replicated this e ect with our visual-only display proves that the protocol we created is reliable. Using it to investigate LSF, we discovered the presence of a subject advantage, making the processing of subject relative clauses easier (and faster, and more accurate) than for object relative clauses. is experimental approach also allowed us to include a broader and more diverse population of LSF signers, hence allowing us to generalize our previously-made conclusions about LSF relative clauses.

While the rst part of the dissertation was more oriented to address big theoretical questions with empirical data coming from LSF, the second part of the dissertation full lls the second main aspect of our research, namely language documentation. In this part we provided a wide study on sentential complementation in LSF and two detailed studies on two speci c constructions: one are estion-Answer constructions, as these are quite common both in LSF and in other SL. e other are temporal constructions, as an individual case study on adjunct subordination. Although this part was more empirically oriented, the ndings led me to provide concrete answers to other theoretical and typological questions that were open in SL linguistics and beyond. For temporal clauses, we compared LSF / / clauses to their LIS counterparts. Regarding LIS, the impossibility for the temporal clause to stand alone or to be inverted, the asymmetric and symmetric extraction pa ern and the non-manual marking of the clauses were clear indicators of subordination. However, LSF presented the opposite pa ern on every test just mentioned: the temporal clause can stand alone, its inversion with the other clause leads to a change in meaning, questions can only be formed on both clauses at the same time and the set of NMMs, namely the le /right localization of the two clauses, is typical of coordination.

ere are many more temporal constructions that still need to be analyzed in LSF; still, our study shows that sign languages display ne-grained typological variations which, crucially, are captured by the theoretical tests described in the literature.

is relationship between sign languages and previously established literature is mutually informative, as we have shown through the study of QAP in LSF. Indeed, in this chapter, we have shown that the 1970s old debate about the question-nature of free-relatives and speci cational pseudocle s is still relevant and can be answered through the study of sign language data. Our arguments root on the ne-grained di erences between QAP in ASL and NGT, LSF, and LIS, but also on other constructions described in the spoken language literature. In ASL and NGT, the authors argued that the QAP involves an embedded question and an embedded answer, which form a syntactic constituent (Davidson, Caponigro, and Mayberry 2008b[START_REF] Caponigro | Ask, and tell as well: question-answer clauses in American Sign Language[END_REF][START_REF] Kimmelman | estion-answer pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands[END_REF].

is analysis is based on the syntactic and semantic properties of the question-constituent (absence of doubling, range of wh-words available, cannot be inverted nor questioned …) and of the answer-constituent (can be a full clause or an indirect answer, has to be exhaustive, cannot be negated …). LSF QAP, on the other hand, can be negated, present an obligatory movement of the wh-word to the right edge of the wh-constituent and allow questions on the whole clause. We showed that this was incompatible with an analysis in terms of embedded questions and argued in favor of a Type A speci cational pseudocle analysis based on their shared pa ern in terms of preventing inversion of the two clauses and predicating over the wh-constituent. Additionally, the presence of free-choice freerelatives in LSF (but not in ASL) and the absence of referential free-relatives in this language (but not in LIS), led us to consider that speci cational pseudocle s, free-choice free-relatives, and referential free-relatives are three di erent steps of the grammaticalization process we support. Along these lines, we considered QAP instantiated in the di erent sign languages as di erent steps leading from question/answer to referential free-relatives. Finally, we turned our a ention to sentential complementation as, due to the robust semantic link between main predicates and their complements, it represents a likely environment for subordination to appear [START_REF] Noonan | Complementation". Complex Constructions[END_REF](Noonan or er et al. 2017b)). In this chapter, the problem remained the same: how are linked the two clauses of these complex constructions, on a structural level? To answer this question, we used the syntactic and semantic tests which were proven useful throughout this thesis, in a systematic and applied approach. We provided an extensive review of the di erent sentential complements and strategies found in LSF and found that all sentential complements (but one,

) were subordinated to the main predicate they completed. Nevertheless, sentential complements varied on other aspects such as niteness, or the forced control of their reference by the (raising or control) main predicate, as summarized in the table we provided at the end of the chapter. Strikingly, we identi ed a wh-like complementizer, comp , mandatory to introduce some nite sentential complements and optional for others.

A er comparing it to the wh-word introducing questions, QAP, and free-choice free-relatives, we concluded that it was yet another, di erent, use of comp , to be considered on its own. is discovery goes directly against the commonly accepted claim that sign languages do not present complementizers. If tested carefully and systematically, instances of complementizers could surface in other SL as well.

rough all the investigations we carried in this dissertation, we have shown that the study of LSF goes beyond the interest of the language itself; it informs us on a broader level about human languages and their possibilities. With the study of relative clauses, we have shown that the whole event can be taken as the head of the relative, hence extending the Accessibility Hierarchy [START_REF] Comrie | Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology[END_REF]) to a step beyond adjuncts. rough the investigation of QAP we provided new arguments in favor of concealed question approaches to speci cational pseudocle s [START_REF] Schlenker | Clausal equations (a note on the connectivity problem)[END_REF], Den Dikken 2001[START_REF] Iwasaki | On the Semantics of Speci cational Pseudocle s and Comparative Correlatives[END_REF]. We also helped the debate about the similarity between free-relatives and questions, extending the grammaticalization process defended in [START_REF] Kimmelman | estion-answer pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands[END_REF]. On a more basic level, we also made progress in the typological description of variations across both signed and spoken languages by integrating LSF to the pool of data available regarding temporal clauses and sentential complements.

From a methodological perspective, we have shown that most tools used to investigate spoken languages can also be informative and relevant to study signed languages. Juxtaposition, coordination, or subordination can be reliably identi ed through several semantic and syntactic tests. Psycholinguistic methods can be adapted to t the visual-only display needed to investigate signed languages (Chapter I.4). We have shown that this adaptation needs to be controlled carefully, however, through an experiment on an already studied language. With the same caution, we hope that our review of the claims about QAP 'do and don't' (Chapter II.6), which we summarized through a table, will be useful to scholars interested in this topic.

To conclude, we hope that our dissertation will contribute to a racting more and more researchers towards the study of sign languages and LSF and that it will help future sign language researchers with the practical toolbox we tried to elaborate on along with our work.

Résumé substantiel

L orsque nous avons commencé notre enquête sur la syntaxe de la langue des signes franc ¸aise, nous avions à l'esprit deux questions fondamentales : ce e langue présente-t-elle des structures complexes sous la forme de phrases subordonnées et ces dernières peuvent-elles s'enchâsser les unes dans les autres, de manière récursive ? En étudiant les propositions relatives en LSF, nous avons répondu positivement aux deux aspects de ces questions. Au travers de ces résultats, nous démontrons la présence de subordination et de récursivité au niveau nominal, con rmant ainsi que les langues visuelles démontrent la même complexité syntaxique que les langues orales. Par conséquent, les débats tournant autour de l'idée que l'élément central du langage humain est la propriété récursive ne devraient pas menacer le statut des langues signées. Dans une perspective plus spéci que, nos travaux apportent une contribution importante à la documentation empirique de la grammaire de LSF. De fait, nous avons montré que la LSF présente un système sophistiqué, variant nement dans sa sémantique et dans sa syntaxe. En e et, on trouve en LSF des propositions relatives à tête externe ou interne, qui peuvent modi er des constituants variant à la fois en nature sémantique (humains, non humains et inanimés) et en nature syntaxique (du sujet/objet à l'événement entier). Grâce au test syntaxique de l'isolation, nous avons con rmé que les propositions relatives en LSF étaient subordonnées, et donc dépendantes, de la proposition principale. Par le test syntaxique de l'extraction, nous avons aussi montré que les propositions relatives en LSF sont, comme leur équivalent dans les langues orales, des îlots pour les questions malgré l'absence d'extraction à la forme phonologique. Par ailleurs, nous avons également montré que le pronom relatif introduisant la proposition relative a ectait son interprétation sémantique. Ainsi, les propositions relatives introduites par et celles introduites par rec ¸oivent deux analyses di érentes. Les propositions introduites par sont enchâssables de manière récursive et peuvent aussi modi er plusieurs fois la même tête, elles sont donc restrictives. Elle peuvent en outre introduire des relatives de quantité si un classi eur de quantité est présent (qu'il soit réalisé comme un signe indépendant ou dans la morphologie du signe modi é, la tête). Inversement, les propositions relatives introduites par peuvent modi er des noms propres, ne peuvent pas s'enchâsser ou modi er plusieurs fois la même tête, et requièrent que la tête de la relative porte certains traits sémantiques de spéci cité, ces propositions sont donc appositives. En n, la stratégie consistant à marquer les propositions relatives seulement avec des marqueurs non-manuels nécessite plus de recherches, mais elle semble au moins compatible avec une analyse appositive et maximale/de quantité. Notre recherche a ainsi montré que les contraintes très abstraites liées à la structure de la langue (par exemple, l'opération de maximalisation) interagissent avec les propriétés iconiques telles que le système de classi eurs, montrant que les principes formels et iconiques ne sont pas en contradiction les uns avec les autres mais, au contraire, intéragissent pour former la grammaire des langues signées. Alors que nous répondions aux questions principales, d'autres questions importantes sont apparues, du fait des conclusions propres à la LSF. En particulier, le fait que la LSF présente à la fois des propositions relatives objet et sujet nous a permis de faire des prédictions concrètes quant au traitement de ces constructions. Dans la li érature psycholinguistique, il a en e et été montré à travers de nombreuses langues orales qu'il existe une asymétrie entre ces relatives ; les propositions relatives sujet sont comprises plus facilement et plus rapidement que les propositions relatives objet. Il n'existe cependant aucune étude en la matière pour les langues signées, notamment du fait que les techniques de recherche standard sont souvent audio-visuelles et donc, de prime-abord, inadapté à l'étude des langues signées. C'est pourquoi il était nécessaire de nous interroger avant tout sur la méthodologie la plus appropriée pour tester nos prédictions en LSF. Après avoir adapté le protocole dit du Monde Visuel (VWP) à une présentation uniquement visuelle, nous avons pris soin de me re à l'épreuve notre nouveau design en étudiant d'abord le franc ¸ais. En e et, dans ce e langue, la présence d'un avantage en faveurs des propositions relatives sujet a été démontrée au moyen de plusieurs méthodes [START_REF] Labelle | Predication, wh-movement, and the development of relative clauses[END_REF][START_REF] Fragman | Grammaire et pouvoir global de computation: deux sources de di cultés possibles dans la production des relatives chez les enfants francophones[END_REF]ou Guasti and Cardinale i 2003), y compris via la version audio-visuelle du Monde Visuel [START_REF] Pozniak | Le traitement des relatives dans les langues : une approche comparative et multifactorielle[END_REF]. Nous disposions ainsi d'une paire minimale nous perme ant de comparer les résultats obtenus pas [START_REF] Pozniak | Le traitement des relatives dans les langues : une approche comparative et multifactorielle[END_REF] avec la version audio-visuelle et nos propres résultats obtenus avec la version visuelle du même protocole. De fait, nous avons e ectivement reproduit l'avantage du sujet décrit par [START_REF] Pozniak | Le traitement des relatives dans les langues : une approche comparative et multifactorielle[END_REF], montrant ainsi la validité et la abilité de notre version du protocole. À la lumière de ces résultats, nous avons pû l'utiliser pour étudier la LSF, nous perme ant de découvrir la présence d'un avantage sujet dans ce e langue également, rendant le traitement des propositions relatives sujet plus facile (et plus rapide et plus précis) que pour les relatives objet. Plus largement, ce e approche expérimentale nous a permis d'inclure une population plus représentative (en nombre et en variation des conditions d'acquistion) de Sourds signant la LSF, ce qui nous a permis de généraliser nos conclusions antérieures sur les propositions relatives en LSF.

Alors que la première partie de ce e thèse cherchait à adresser les grandes questions théoriques grâce aux données expérimentales et empiriques de la LSF, la seconde partie de ce e thèse s'intéresse au deuxième aspect principal de notre recherche, la documentation linguistique. Dans ce e partie, nous avons fourni une vaste étude sur la complémentation clausale en LSF et deux études détaillées sur deux constructions spéci ques : les fausses questions (ou QAP) d'une part, car elles sont assez courantes tant en LSF que dans les autres langues signées et les constructions temporelles d'autre part, qui représentent une étude de cas de la subordination adjointe. Bien que ce e seconde partie soit plus descriptive, les résultats m'ont amené à apporter des réponses concrètes à d'autres questions théoriques et typologiques qui restaient ouvertes en linguistique des langues signées et au-delà. Pour les clauses temporelles, nous avons comparé les propositions temporelles intégrant les signes / / en LSF à leur équivalent en LIS. En ce qui concerne la LIS, l'impossibilité pour la clause temporelle d'être autonome ou inversée avec la principale, le schéma d'extraction asymétrique et symétrique et le marquage non manuel des clauses étaient des indicateurs clairs de subordination. Cependant, la LSF a présenté le schéma inverse pour chacun des tests mentionnés ci-dessus : la clause temporelle peut apparaître de manière autonome, son inversion avec l'autre clause entraîne un changement de sens, les questions ne peuvent être formées que sur les deux clauses en même temps et l'ensemble des NMMs, à savoir la localisation gauche / droite des deux clauses, est typique de la coordination. Il y a encore beaucoup d'autres constructions temporelles à analyser en LSF ; cependant, notre étude montre que les langues des signes présentent de nes variations typologiques qui, de manière cruciale, sont identi ables par les tests théoriques décrits dans la li érature. Ce e relation entre les langues des signes et la li érature pré-existante est mutuellement informative, comme nous l'avons montré par l'étude des QAP en LSF. En e et, dans ce chapitre, nous avons montré que le débat datant des années 1970 quant à la nature des questions, des propositions relatives libres et des clivées est toujours d'actualité et peut être adressé par l'étude des langues des signes. Nos arguments s'appuient sur les nes variations entre les QAP présentes en ASL et NGT, en LSF et en LIS, mais aussi sur d'autres constructions décrites dans la li érature à propos des langues orales. En ASL et en NGT, les auteurs soutiennent que les QAP impliquent une question et une réponse enchâssées sous une proposition principale, formant ainsi un constituant syntaxique (Davidson, Caponigro, and Mayberry 2008b[START_REF] Caponigro | Ask, and tell as well: question-answer clauses in American Sign Language[END_REF]ou Kimmelman and Vink 2017). Ce e analyse est basée sur les propriétés syntaxiques et sémantiques du constituant-question (absence de doublement, étendue des mots wh-disponibles, non réversibilité et absence de marqueurs de négation…) et du constituant-réponse (peut être une phrase complète ou une réponse indirecte, doit être exhaustif…). En revanche, en étudiant les QAP en LSF, on remarque que le schéma n'est pas exactement le même. En e et, les QAP peuvent être niées, présentent un mouvement obligatoire du mot wh à la droite du constituantquestion et peuvent même être questionnées. Nous avons montré que cela était incompatible avec une analyse en termes de questions enchâssées et avons plaidé en faveur d'une analyse de structure pseudo-clivée spéci cationelle de type A [START_REF] Declerck | Studies on copular sentences, cle s and pseudo-cle s[END_REF]) sur la base des propriétés partagées par les deux structures. En outre, la présence d'un certain type de propositions relatives sans tête, dites à choix libre, en LSF (mais pas en ASL) et l'absence des relatives sans tête dites référentielles dans ce e langue (mais pas en LIS), nous a amené à considérer que les pseudo-clivées spéci cationalles, les relatives sans tête à choix libres et celles dites référentielles sont trois étapes di érentes du processus de grammaticalisation que nous soutenons. Dans ce e optique, nous avons considéré les QAP présentées dans les di érentes langues signées étudiées jusqu'à présent comme di érentes étapes de ce processus menant de la question/réponse à des propositions relatives sans têtes référentielles.

En n, nous nous sommes penchés sur la complémentation clausale car, en raison du lien sémantique solide entre les prédicats principaux et leurs compléments, elle représente un environnement favorable pour que la subordination apparaisse [START_REF] Noonan | Complementation". Complex Constructions[END_REF](Noonan ou er et al. 2017b)). Dans ce chapitre, le problème est resté le même : comment sont liées les deux clauses de ces constructions complexes, au niveau structurel ? Pour répondre à ce e question, nous avons utilisé les tests syntaxiques et sémantiques qui se sont avérés utiles tout au long de ce e thèse, dans une approche systématique et appliquée. Nous avons fourni un examen approfondi des di érents compléments et stratégies trouvés dans LSF et avons constaté que tous les compléments sententiels (sauf un,

) étaient subordonnés au prédicat principal qu'ils complètent. Néanmoins, les compléments clausals variaient sur d'autres aspects tels que le caractère ni/non-ni ou le contrôle forcé de leur référence par le prédicat principal (par montée ou contrôle), tel que résumé dans le tableau que nous avons fourni à la n de ce chapitre. Surprenamment, nous avons identi é un complémenteur de type wh, comp , obligatoire pour introduire certains compléments nis et facultatif pour les autres. Après l'avoir comparé à l'élément wh introduisant les questions, les QAP, ou les propositions relatives sans tête, nous avons conclu qu'il s'agissait bien d'un complémenteur, dédié à introduire la subordination, à considérer isolément des autres cas. Ce e découverte va directement à l'encontre de l'a rmation communément admise selon laquelle les langues des signes ne présentent pas de complémenteurs. Testés avec soin et systématiquement, des instances de complémenteurs pourraient également apparaître dans d'autres langues signées.

À travers toutes les recherches que nous avons menées dans ce e thèse, nous avons montré que l'étude de la LSF va au-delà de l'intérêt de la langue elle-même ; elle nous informe à un niveau plus large sur les langues humaines et leurs possibilités. Avec l'étude des propositions relatives, nous avons montré que la proposition elle-même peut être considérée comme la tête de la relative, étendant ainsi la Hiérarchie proposée par [START_REF] Comrie | Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology[END_REF] au-delà des adjoints. Grâce à l'étude des QAP, nous avons fourni de nouveaux arguments en faveur d'approches arguant que les pseudo-clivées speci cationnelles intègrent des questions cachées [START_REF] Schlenker | Clausal equations (a note on the connectivity problem)[END_REF], Den Dikken 2001ou Iwasaki 2012). Nous avons également contribué au débat sur la similarité entre les relatives sans tête et les questions, en étendant le processus de grammaticalisation défendu dans [START_REF] Kimmelman | estion-answer pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands[END_REF]. Sur un plan plus fondamental, nous avons également progressé dans la description typologique des variations entre les langues des signes et les langues parlées en intégrant la LSF à l'ensemble des données disponibles concernant les clauses temporelles et les compléments sententiels. D'un point de vue méthodologique, nous avons montré que la plupart des outils utilisés pour étudier les langues orales peuvent également être informatifs et pertinents pour étudier les langues des signes. La juxtaposition, la coordination ou la subordination peuvent être identi ées de manière able par plusieurs tests sémantiques et syntaxiques. Les méthodes psycholinguistiques peuvent être adaptées à un a chage uniquement visuel, nécessaire à l'étude des langues des signes (chapitre I.4). Nous avons montré que ce e adaptation doit cependant être soigneusement contrôlée par une expérience sur une langue déjà étudiée. Avec la même prudence, nous espérons que notre examen des mythes au sujet des QAP (Chapitre II.6), que nous avons résumé dans un tableau, sera utile aux chercheurs intéressés par ce sujet.

En conclusion, nous espérons que notre thèse contribuera à a irer de plus en plus de chercheurs vers l'étude des langues des signes et des LSF et qu'elle aidera les futurs étudiants en langue des signes avec la boîte à outils pratique que nous avons essayé de développer en parallèle à nos travaux. Prière de trouver l'image correcte, c'està-dire l'image qui montre un chien.

11

Voici deux images avec un pull et un sabre.

Prière de trouver l'image correcte, c'està-dire l'image qui montre un pull.

12 Voici deux images avec un chien et une bo e.

Prière de trouver l'image correcte, c'està-dire l'image qui montre une bo e.

13

Voici deux images avec une roue et une main.

Prière de trouver l'image correcte, c'està-dire l'image qui montre une roue.

14

Voici deux images avec une bo e et un sabre.

Prière de trouver l'image correcte, c'està-dire l'image qui montre un sabre.

  ethnos and its position with respect to the Deaf and Signing community, elaborated on the basis of Eckert (2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Brentari's model of SL lexicon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Timelines in space, elaborated on the basis of Sinte (2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Illustration of loci in space with respect to the signer's body. . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Illustration of the three types of verbs: spatial, agreeing and plain, in ASL. . . . 6 Role-shi in LSF where the signer impersonates a cow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 e pre-semanticized space model. From Millet and Verlaine (2017) . . . 8 / = one sign can be interpreted as referring either to an object or a verb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 / = need two separate signs to express either the object or the verb 10 Negative marker in LSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Image used to elicit subject relative clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Example of elicitation picture for the target sentences in (20). . . . . . . . . . . 16 Structure of a Complementizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Structure of a Relative Pronoun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Surface structure of a Resumptive pronoun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Structure of relative clauses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Structure of correlatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Structure of Nominally-embedded (Figure 18a) and adjoined (Figure 18b) internally headed relativization strategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Structure of post-nominal (Figure 19a) and pre-nominal (Figure 19b) relative clauses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 ' ' in LIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Derivation of relative clauses à la Kayne. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Derivation of relative clauses à la Bha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Derivation of relative clauses à la Bianchi (& Bha ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Derivation of both Internally Headed Relative Clause (IHRC) and Externally Headed Relative Clause (EHRC) with raising derivation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Head matching derivation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Derivation of both IHRC and EHRC with matching derivation. . . . . . . . . . . 49 Full structure from Cinque (2019). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Derivation of ' e pictures of himself that John likes' through Cinque's model. . 52 Appositive structure à la De Vries, 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Signs for (the head) and (the verb) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 relative marker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Non-manual marking of the sentence in (100) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Non-manual marking of (101) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 xxv From Noonan, 1985: 106 . . . . . . 73 Decision tree designed to help highlighting the presence of subordination in the sentential complements we will analyze. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 U erance predicates in LSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Propositional a itude predicates in LSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Non-manual marking of changing depending on the degree of certainty of the agent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Pretence predicates in LSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Commentative predicates I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Commentative predicates II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Commentative predicate III: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Fear predicates in LSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Desiderative predicates in LSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Deonctic modals in LSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Achievement predicates in LSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Knowledge predicates in LSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Manipulative predicates in LSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 (Actual) manipulative predicates in LSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Phasal predicates in LSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Perception predicates in LSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Interrogative ' ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Complementizer ' comp ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Corned-down mouth or 'doubt-mouth' in LSF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 In ated cheeks indicate the absence of knowledge in LSF. . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Wide open eyes in LSF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Squinted eyes in LSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Upward right gaze in LSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Comparison of non-manual markers for and . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 1 .

 1 Figure 1. Illustration of Deaf ethnos and its position with respect to the Deaf and Signing community, elaborated on the basis of Eckert (2010).

Figure 2 .

 2 Figure 2. Brentari's model of SL lexicon.

  for LIS or Johnston 1991 for AUSLAN) argue that these are visual representation of time in the signing space. Sinte (2015) lists a total of six di erent timelines described in the literature. Based on the author's description of each line, we produced the Figure in (3).

Figure 3 .

 3 Figure 3. Timelines in space, elaborated on the basis of Sinte (2015).

Figure 4 .

 4 Figure 4. Illustration of loci in space with respect to the signer's body.

Figure 5 .

 5 Figure 5. Illustration of the three types of verbs: spatial, agreeing and plain, in ASL.

Figure 6 .

 6 Figure 6. Role-shi in LSF where the signer impersonates a cow.He uses both hands to sign the classi ers for ' ' and maintains this classi er with his le hand while signing ' ' then ' ' with his right hand. Sentence and pictures are from Bra ort et al.(2001)

Figure 7 .

 7 Figure 7. The pre-semanticized space model.From[START_REF] Millet | Grammaire descriptive de la langue des signes franc ¸aise[END_REF]

  Figure 8. / = one sign can be interpreted as referring either to an object or a verb

  work none ' ere is no work. ' From Millet and Verlaine (2017): 224Finally, combination with aspectual markers such as ' ' or ' ' is also a clear feature teasing apart verbs from nouns.

Figure

  Figure 10. Negative marker in LSF

Figure 11 .

 11 Figure 11. Image used to elicit subject relative clauses

  ) are shown in example (20). All the pictures used are presented in Appendix (B).

Figure 12 .

 12 Figure 12. Example of elicitation picture for the target sentences in (20).

  (20) a. J Jean bought owers. b. M Marie stole a bike.

Figure 13 .

 13 Figure 13. Structure of a Complementizer

Figure 14 .

 14 Figure 14. Structure of a Relative Pronoun

Figure 15 .

 15 Figure 15. Surface structure of a Resumptive pronoun

Figure 16 .

 16 Figure 16. Structure of relative clauses.

( 31 )

 31 Yoko-wa [Taro-ga sara-no ue-ni keeki-o oita-no]-o tabeta Yoko-Top [Taro-Nom plate-Gen on-Loc cake-Acc put-NM]-Acc ate. 'Yoko ate the piece of cake which Taro put on a plate. '

Figure 17 .

 17 Figure 17. Structure of correlatives.

Figure

Figure 18 .

 18 Figure18. Structure of Nominally-embedded (Figure18a) and adjoined (Figure18b) internally headed relativization strategies.

( 35 )

 35 [ Orhan-in gör-düg-u ] adam cik-ti [ Orhan-gap see--.3 ] man leave-" e man that Orhan saw le . " (Turkish, from Andrews 1975:152)Post-nominal EHRC, on the other hand, present the reverse order with the head preceding the relative clause. is is illustrated in Maybrat in (36).

( 36 )

 36 aof [ro ana m-fat ] sago [rel 3pl 3obj-fell gap ]

Figure 19 .

 19 Figure19. Structure of post-nominal (Figure19a) and pre-nominal (Figure19b) relative clauses.

Figure 20 .

 20 Figure 20. ' ' in LIS.

'

  Gianni forgot the contract that Piero signed. ' LIS,(Cecche o & Donati, 2014: 8)

  that you all know, the movie called 10 Laws-you heard of it? Seen it? ' JSL, from Penner, Yano & Terasawa 2019: 7 JSL also displays post-nominal EHRC as shown in example (79) by[START_REF] Penner | Relative Clauses in Japanese Sign Language[END_REF] and[START_REF] Ichida | Introduction to Japanese Sign Language: Iconicity in language[END_REF].

  ll explain (things) to the young people of the company, [who are there lined up in front of me]. ' JSL, from Penner, Yano & Terasawa 2019: 9

  to the vet the dog that eats a lot. ' c. ORC in subject position rel i i i ( i ) ' e dog that I took to the vet eats a lot. ' d. ORC in subject position rel i i k k ( i ) 'Paolo washed the dog that I found yesterday. ' e. Adjunct Relative Clause (ARC) in an argumental position the key near the table where my son plays. '

  (21).

Figure 21 .

 21 Figure 21. Derivation of relative clauses à la Kayne.

Figure 22 .

 22 Figure 22. Derivation of relative clauses à la Bha

Figure 23 .

 23 Figure 23. Derivation of relative clauses à la Bianchi (& Bha )

Figure 24 .

 24 Figure 24. Derivation of both IHRC and EHRC with raising derivation.

Figure 25 .

 25 Figure 25. Head matching derivation.

  a [[ which owers a ] j Charlo e wants j ] the ower λx. Charlo e want λy. (x=y and ower(y))

  EHRC, the internal head is deleted at PF. IHRC, the internal head is deleted at PF.

Figure 26 .

 26 Figure 26. Derivation of both IHRC and EHRC with matching derivation.

Figure 27 .

 27 Figure 27. Full structure from Cinque (2019).

  a. Demonstrative > Numeral > Adjective > Noun b. * Adjective > Numeral > Demonstrative > Noun (94) A ested order of complements on the right of the head noun (in bold) a. Noun > Demonstrative > Numeral > Adjective b. Noun > Demonstrative > Numeral > Adjective

Figure 28 .

 28 Figure 28. Derivation of 'The pictures of himself that John likes' through Cinque's model.

Figure 29 .

 29 Figure 29. Appositive structure à la De Vries, 2002.

  the vet who cures the dog. ' What seems to ma er the most here is to contrast the head of the relative clause with the rest of the relative clause, as can be observed in Figure (30) 1 .(a) Head of the relative realized with an up-chin, contrasting with the verb.(b) Head of the relative realized with a lower chin, contrasting with the verb.

Figure 30 .

 30 Figure 30. Signs for (the head) and (the verb)

Figure 1 Figure 32 .

 132 Figure 31.relative marker

Figure

  the sign glossed as 'CE-pichene e' in[START_REF] Millet | Grammaire descriptive de la langue des signes franc ¸aise[END_REF], who analyze it as a demonstrative but does not mention its use in relative clauses.

  Figure 33. Non-manual marking of (101)

Figure 34 .

 34 Figure 34. Plural agreement on .

  the dog which the man is pe ing. ' (106)[ 1 [ rel ]] 'I prefer the vet who is curing the dog today. '

Figure 35 .

 35 Figure 35. Spatial agreement between the head and .

  this mug. ' Furthermore, can be used as an independent pronominal element, as shown in (110).

3. 1 . 2

 12 Syntactic type of relativization strategy 3.1.2.1 Modifying a NP or a CP In Chapter I.2, we have distinguished two main types of relativization strategies depending on the constituent they modify: correlative constructions modify CPs, and relative clauses modify NPs.

  (111) ( rel ) '(who) cures dog. ' ' person who cures dog. ' (112) * ( rel ) '(who) cures dog. '

( 113 )

 113 Sentential complement: Mary said [ that the man is pe ing the dog.] a. Who said that the man is pe ing the dog? Main clause b. What did Mary say that the man was pe ing ? Sub. clause (114) Relative Clause: Mary prefers the man [ who is pe ing the dog.] a. Who prefers the man who is pe ing the dog? Main clause b. *What does Mary prefer that the man who is pe ing ? *Sub. clause

( 115 )

 115 Coordinated clause: Mary eats bananas and Jean drinks beer. a. *Who eats bananas and Jean drinks beer? *First clause b. *Who Mary eats bananas and drinks beer? *Second clause c. Who eats bananas and drink beer?

  who sleeps, I prefer (it). '

  eat what prefer 'You can eat whatever (you) prefer. ' (123) * 1 2 Intended: 'I know what you prefer. '

( 127 )

 127 Subject relatives: a. 1 Human 'I prefer the vet who cures the dog. ' b. 1 Non-human 'I prefer the dog who sleeps. ' c. 1 Inanimate 'I prefer the napkin which covers the lighter. ' (128) Object relatives: a. 1 Human 'I prefer the man that the dog lick. ' b. 1 Non-human 'I prefer the dog that the man pet. " c. 1 Inanimate 'I prefer the toothbrush that the boy use. " (129) Adjunct relatives: a. 1 Human 'I prefer the woman with whom the man dances. ' b.

  Mary, who pets the dog. ' Additionally,

  school, I always look for the/*a student who can help me. '

Figure

  Figure 36. ' ' in LSF

  Figure 37. ' ' in LSF

Figure 38 .

 38 Figure 38. Derivation of appositive relatives in LSF.

  those situations in which a vet cures a dog today. ' c. * 1 [ ]

Figure 39 .

 39 Figure 39. Realization of -final

3 : 5 :

 35 Step 1: Derivation of the CP rel .Step 2: Raising of the relative DP ( + N) in Spec CP. Raising of the head in an external position, providing the relative CP with nominal features. Derivation of the main clause.

Figure 40 .

 40 Figure 40. Step by step derivation of EHRC -relatives in LSF.

Figure 41 .

 41 Figure 41. Structure of EHRC relatives in LSF.

Figure 42 .

 42 Figure 42. is an external determiner.

Figure 43 .

 43 Figure43. is raised higher, to label the structure.

Figure 45 .

 45 Figure 45. as a relativizer on the right of the relative clause

  Step 4: Derivation of the main clause.

Figure 46 .

 46 Figure 46. -final = . Relative pronoun analysis

Figure 47 .

 47 Figure 47. Derivation of the overt 'situation' alternative.

  e main ones are summarized in Yun et al. (2015)'s Table reproduced in Figure (48).

Figure 48 .

 48 Figure 48. Summary of hypotheses about the Subject Advantage-From Yun et al. (2015)

( 157 )

 157 [ Orhan-in gör-düg-u gap ] adam cik-ti [

  a. [ yaoqing fuhao de] guanyuan xinhuaibugui RC Subj invite tycoon REL o cial have bad intentions " e o cial who invited the tycoon had bad intentions. " b. [fuhao yaoqing de] guanyuan xinhuaibugui RC Obj tycoon invite REL o cial have bad intentions " e o cial who the tycoon invited had bad intentions". from Gibson & Wu 2013 Most studies on languages presenting prenominal EHRC, such as Japanese, Korean or Turkish, agree on the presence of a Subject Advantage (see among others Miyamoto 2003, Kwon et al. 2013, Kwon et al. 2010, Lin and Bever 2006, O'Grady, Lee, and Choo 2003, Slobin and Zimmer 1986 or Özge, Marinis, and Zeyrek 2009 among others) which rules out the linear hypothesis. However, the literature about the processing of Mandarin Chinese's relative clauses reports mixed results, with a pool of researches arguing in favor of the Subject Advantage (Lin and Bever 2006, Wu 2009, Lau 2016 or, more recently, Jäger et al. 2015 and Huang 2019 a.o.) and another arguing the contrary (Gibson 2000, Qiao, Shen, and Forster 2012 or Chen and Shirai 2015 a.o.).

4. 1 . 2 . 2

 122 Other factors contributing to the interpretation of Relative clauses 4.1.2.2.1 Features: Traxler et al. (2005),

  (163) 'I appreciate exotic fruits like apples 'In her work,[START_REF] Pozniak | Le traitement des relatives dans les langues : une approche comparative et multifactorielle[END_REF] has used e ectively the VWP to investigate relative clauses processing. is convinced us to replicate her study on LSF.4.2 Adapting eyetracking protocol to a visual-only design3 4 e original protocol used in Pozniak (2018) has an audio-visual design (illustrated in Figure49). e pictures are from[START_REF] Knoeferle | Actions and roles: Using depicted events for disambiguation and reinterpretation in German and English[END_REF] and have been validated across multiple experimental designs (see[START_REF] Pozniak | Le traitement des relatives dans les langues : une approche comparative et multifactorielle[END_REF] or Knoeferle et al. 2003 a.o.).

Figure 49 .

 49 Figure 49. Audio-visual protocol, used in Pozniak (2018).

3

  is section is based on a joint-work with Dr. Céline Pozniak.

Figure 50 .

 50 Figure 50. Example of the four alternatives presented across the four lists of items.

Figure 51 .

 51 Figure 51. Example of a filler.

Figure 52 .

 52 Figure 52. Illustration of the visual-only display for French participants.

Figure 53 .

 53 Figure 53. Illustration of the structure of each trial.

Figure 54 .

 54 Figure54. Fixation of correct picture (green), incorrect (red) picture and video-sentence (blue) in subject relative (right panel) and object relative (le panel) conditions. e x-axis represents time and the y-axis represents the proportion of xations. e black bars help situating each key element of the sentence, the head (0ms), the relative pronoun (2000ms), the verb (if it is a SRC) or subject (if it is a ORC) of the relative clause (4000ms) and the object or verb (6000ms).

Figure 55 .

 55 Figure 55. Fixation of correct pictures in subject relatives (red) and object relative (blue) conditions.

Figure 56 .

 56 Figure 56. Correct fixations in SRC and ORC using the audio-visual Visual World Paradigm (data from Pozniak 2018).

Figure 57 .

 57 Figure 57. Experimental display of an item in LSF.

Figure 58 .

 58 Figure 58. Screen capture of ELAN interface and the template used to retrieve the time codes of each critical sign.

Figure 59 .

 59 Figure 59. Accuracy of LSF participants in function of the age of acquisition of the LSF .

Figure 60 .

 60 Figure60. Fixation of correct picture (green), incorrect (red) picture and video-stimulus (blue) in subject relative (right panel) and object relative (le panel) conditions. e x-axis represents time and the y-axis represents the proportion of xations on the correct image. e black bars help situating each key element of the sentence, the head (0ms), the relative pronoun ( 2700ms), the verb or subject of the relative clause ( 5000ms) and the object or verb ( 6900ms).

Figure 61 .

 61 Figure61. Fixation of correct pictures in subject relatives(red) and object relative(blue) conditions. e x-axis represents time and the y-axis represents the proportion of xation on the correct image. e black bars help situating each key element of the sentence, the head (0ms), the relative pronoun ( 2700ms), the verb or subject of the relative clause ( 5000ms) and the object or verb ( 6900ms).

  arrived, we had already gone home.[START_REF] Robert | Adverbial clauses[END_REF]

  e secretary bought the stamps when the boss sold the stocks. ' (192) a. * b. * c. * intended: ' e secretary bought the stamps a er the boss sold the stocks. 'Applying the isolation test (cf. 193),[START_REF] Aristodemo | Visible degrees in Italian Sign Language[END_REF] reject the juxtaposed analysis

  [ lef t J ] re [ right M ] 'Jean bought owers and a er Marie stole a bike. ' b. [ lef t J ] re [ right M ] 'Jean bought owers and before Marie stole a bike. ' c. [ lef t J ] re [ right M ] 'Jean bought owers and at the same time Marie stole a bike

Figure 62 .

 62 Figure 62. The signs ' ' (a), ' ' (b) and ' ' (c).

[Figure 63 .

 63 Figure 63. Non-Manual marking in LSF

  owers and a er/before/at the same time Marie bought a vase. ' same time (as now/as we are talking), Marie bought a vase. ' (now), Marie will buy a vase. ' e sentences (202a)-(

  same time (as now), Marie bought a vase and Jean bought owers. ' c. re A

( 205 )

 205 Surface structure of temporal constructions in LSF

Figure 64 .

 64 Figure 64. Comparison of non-manual markers for A er-clauses in LIS and LSF.

  want to focus on here is illustrated in ASL in example (209).

1

 1

( 212 )

 212 [ What Charlo e cooked ] is delicious. PPC (213) [ What Charlo e cooked ] are courge es farcies. SPC

  whom o ered owers to the girl is (,well,) the boy. ' Laughing? No (I wasn't)!' ' e person whom o ered owers to the girl was the boy. ' (a) Spreading of the NMMs on the wh-word only. 'Where Marie went to school was in Marseille. ' (b) Spreading of the NMMs on the whole wh-constituent.

Figure 66 .

 66 Figure 66. Spreading of the NMMs in estion-Answer Pairs.

i br 3 i

 3 ' e person to whom the boy o ers owers is his girl ancee. ' boy hugs his mom is in front of the town-hall. d. br 'How the boy arrives to school is by walking. e. br 'What the boy is doing next Sunday is going to the cinema. ' (of vases) that Mary does not want to buy is three vases. ' g. br ,

  that what Marie eats is a strawberry. '

  book is what Jean bought. '

  ate were not almonds. '

  Jean ate Chocolate?'

( 226 )

 226 Context: Marie bought chocolate and a banana: A: Marie bought a banana. B: # 'No you're wrong! Marie also bought chocolate!' (227) Context: Marie bought chocolate and a banana: A: Marie bought only a banana. B: 'No, you're wrong! Marie also bought chocolate!'

(

  230) a. Context: Marie likes chocolate and strawberries: A: Ce qu'elle aime c'est le chocolat. 'What she likes is chocolate. ' B: # Non tu te trompes! Elle aime aussi les fraises!. 'No, you're wrong! She also likes strawberries!' b. Ce qu'elle aime c'est aussi la danse.

  I know what you prefer. ' is pa ern is con rmed by the contrast between (233a) versus (233b). (233) LSF a. M Speci cational 'What Marie ate was a dessert. ' b. *M Predicational 'What Marie ate was delicious. '

FigureFigure 67 .

 67 Figure 67. Derivation of LSF specificational pseudocle , following Den Dikken,Meinunger, and Wilder (2000).

( 239 )

 239 Being cool is what So ane is. a. z = being cool. [So ane is z] SPC 'So ane is cool' b. * Is cool [So ane's property] PPC *'So ane is something and this thing is cool. '

  , as shown by example (240). (240) a. Sco is mean. b. *Mean is Sco .

(

  241) a. What Charlo e eats is a cake. wh > XP b. A cake is what Charlo e eats. XP > wh ere are in fact three di erent ways to consider the variation in (241); a) (241a) is the base sentence and (241b) is derived by movement from it ( irk 1972, Declerck 1988); b) (241b) is the base case and (

  hat was bestellt? German b. Who ordered what? English Crucially, Type B SPC (i.e. XP > wh ) and free relatives can not display multiple wh-words, as illustrated in examples (247)-(249), from Den Dikken (2001):71-73. (247) *die Hilde dem Heinz war wer hier wem geholfen hat German Lit. ' e Hilde the Heinz was Who here whom helped has' from Meinunger (1998) (248) *Tom (ordered) a beer and Jim a watermelon ip was who ordered what.English from[START_REF] Hankamer | On the non-cyclic nature of WH-cle ing[END_REF]

  Figure 68. Derivation of Type A (68a) and Type B (68b) SPC with a small clause structure

(

  255) *What Fonzy is is Fonzy is cool. PPC (256) *He drank a beer is what Georges did.Type B SPC

( 257 )

 257 What Georges did was [ IP he drank a beer ] Type A SPC c. Sò cucinite lu suche ['nda faciave nonne]. how be.1SG cooked the.SG.M sauce.SG.M how did.3SG grandma 'I cooked the sauce how my grandma did it. ' d. Me ne sò ijte [quand'-a arrivite Marie]. when REFL of.it be.1SG gone when-have.3SG arrived 'I le when Marie arrived. ' e. Sò fatijte [quande hi fatijte tu].

  John nally ended up was in Berkeley. b. e moment when John arrived was at ve o'clock. c. e person who John visited was Bill Most authors (Den Dikken 2001 or Collins 1991/2002 among others)

( 267 )

 267 It was JOHN who le the room. a. It was not John who le the room → another person has le the room. (268) Only one person le the room. a. ¬ [ Only one person le the room ] → Multiple people le the room If (

  B SPC involve a free-relative True for Type B SPC False for Type A SPC 'Pseudocle s do not take full clauses as their counterweight' True for PPC Type A SPC preferably elid parts of the answer-constituent True for Type B SPC False for Type A SPC ' e question part of pseudocle s cannot be a yes/no question'

Figure 69 .

 69 Figure69. Grammaticalization process,[START_REF] Kimmelman | estion-answer pairs in Sign Language of the Netherlands[END_REF]

Figure

  Figure 70. Grammaticalization process of estion/Answer into free-relatives

(

  278) -Who is Angélique? a. -My colleague. b. -Angélique is my colleague. c. -I have no idea. d. -I saw Caterina congratulating her. e. -*Angélique is in the kitchen. f. -# It is sunny outside.

(

  279) ma ?e-dan haya hu mo'il la-xevra PPC what that-Dan was H helpful to-the-society 'What Dan was is helpful to society. ' (280) ma ?e-dan haya ze mo'il la-xevraNeutral SPC what that-Dan was Z helpful to-the-society 'What Dan was was helpful to society. ' (281) ma ?e-dekart maca hu/ze/zot hoxaxa le-kiyum ha-el

  eat what prefer 'You can eat whatever (you) prefer. ' b. * 1 2 Intended: 'I know what you prefer. '

Figure 71 .

 71 Figure 71. Grammaticalization process from questions/answers to referential free-relatives

Figure 72 .

 72 Figure 72. Complement roles and modalityFromNoonan, 1985: 106

  ll quit her job tomorrow to try her luck outside of linguistic examples someday that Charlo e had a good time yesterday

  7.1.2.1 Dependency: isolation test e isolation test has already been used in Chapters (

  (that) Agathe will go to the cinema. ' (289) A re 'Agathe will go to the cinema. '

Figure 73 .

 73 Figure 73. Decision tree designed to help highlighting the presence of subordination in the sentential complements we will analyze.

1 '

 1 unsure that Agathe went to the cinema. ' g. M woe re A 'Marie does not think that Agathe went to the cinema. 'MM Marie thinks she knows that she will go to the cinema. ' 'Marie believes that I go to the cinema. '

Figure 77 .

 77 Figure 77. Non-manual marking of changing depending on the degree of certainty of the agent.

Figure

  Figure 91. Interrogative ' '

Figure 93 .

 93 Figure 93. Corned-down mouth or 'doubt-mouth' in LSF.

Figure 94 .

 94 Figure 94. Inflated cheeks indicate the absence of knowledge in LSF.

Figure 95 .

 95 Figure 95. Wide open eyes in LSF.

Figure 96 .

 96 Figure 96. Squinted eyes in LSF

Figure 97 .

 97 Figure 97. Upward right gaze in LSF

  (

  21).

  main verb (→ the end)

Figure 99 .Figure 98 .

 9998 Figure 99. Comparison of non-manual markers for and

Figure 103 . 1 "Figure 104 . 1 "Figure 106 .

 10311041106 Figure 103. Picture used to elicit " 1

Figure 107 . 1 "Figure 108 .

 1071108 Figure 107. Picture used to elicit " 1

Figure 109 .

 109 Figure 109. Picture used to elicit " 1

Figure 110 .

 110 Figure 110. Picture used to elicit a er/before/same time relations between the event 'Jean buys flowers' and 'Marie steals a bike'.

Figure 111 .

 111 Figure 111. Picture used to elicit a er/before/same time relations between the event 'Jean buys flowers' and 'Marie buys a vase'.

  Figure 112. Practice pictures

Table of Contents

 of General introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Visualizing sign languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Accessing language through the visual modality . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2.3 Use of space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2.3.1 Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2.3.2 Nominals, reference, and agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.3 Investigating the grammar of French Sign Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.3.1 Word order in LSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.3.1.1 Active versus passive voice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.3.2 Syntactic categories in LSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.3.2.1 Nouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.3.2.2 Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.3.2.3 Adjectives and adverbials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1.3.2.4 Pointing signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.3.2.5 Linkers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.3.3 estions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.4 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1.4.1 Word order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

	Sign Languages names Abbreviations Glosses conventions List of gures List of tables 1 Introduction AUSLAN AUstralian Sign LANguage. BSL British Sign Language. DGS German Sign Language Gebärdensprache. HKSL Hong Kong Sign Language. Irish SL Irish Sign Language -Teanga Chomharthaíochta -Deutsche na h Éireann. JSL Japanese Sign Language -Nihon Shuwa, NS. LIBRAS Brazilian Sign-Language -Língua de sínaís Brasíleíra . LIS Italian Sign Language -Lingua dei Segni Italiana. LSC Catalan Sign Language -Llengua de Signes Cata-ARC Adjunct Relative Clause. Comp. Complementizer. EEG Electroencephalogram. EHRC Externally Headed Relative Clause. fMRI functional Magnetic Resonance Imagery. HM Head Matching. HR Head Raising. IHRC Internally Headed Relative Clause. LAN Le Anterior Negativity. LCA Linear Correspondance Axiom. LF Logical Form. NMMs Non Manual Markers. 1.1 Sign Languages names xvii xix xxi xxvii xxx 1 Abbreviations Glosses conventions ASL American Sign Language. AOI Area Of Interest. 1 3
	NPI	lana. Negative Polarity Items.
	LSF ORC	French Sign Language -Langue des Signes Object Relative Clause.
	PET	Franc ¸aise . Positron Emission Tomography.
	NGT PF	Sign language of the Netherland -Nederlandse Phonological Form.
	PPC	Gebarentaal . Predicational PseudoCle .
	T ÍD QAP	Turkish Sign Language -Türk Ís ¸ret Dili . estion Answer Pairs.
	RC	Relative Clause.
	RelM	Relative markers.
	RelP	Relative Pronoun.
	ResP	Resumptive pronoun.
	SL	Sign Language.
	SPC	Speci cational PseudoCle .
	SRC	Subject Relative Clause.
	VWP	Visual World Paradigm.
		xvii xix

1.2.1 Sociocultural background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2.1.1 d/Deaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2.1.2 e Deaf community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2.1.3 Towards language recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2.2 . . 13 1.4.2 Baseline elicitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1.4.3 Syntactic and semantic survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1.4.4 e playback method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

  " . . . . . . . . . . 107 Picture used to elicit " 1 " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Picture used to elicit " 1 " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Picture used to elicit " 1 " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Picture used to elicit a er/before/same time relations between the event 'Jean buys owers' and 'Marie steals a bike'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Picture used to elicit a er/before/same time relations between the event 'Jean buys owers' and 'Marie buys a vase'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Practice pictures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

:140 . . . . . . . 100 Picture used to elicit " 1 " . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Picture used to elicit " 1 " . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Picture used to elicit " 1 " . . . . . . . . . 103 Picture used to elicit " 1 " . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Picture used to elicit " 1 " . . . . . . . . . . 105 Picture used to elicit " 1 " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Picture used to elicit " 1 113 Filler pictures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Item pictures. Item 9 was excluded from the analyses to obtain 24 items. . . . .

  and numerals (see examples in 5).

	(5) Word order within the nominal group
	a. [ P	] [	] [`	] // [	]
	Pierre cat his savage
	'Pierre's cat is savage. '		From Millet and Verlaine (2017): 327
	b. [	] [ ¸ ] [		]eps1
	notebook this give ix-1
	'Give me this notebook. '		From Millet and Verlaine (2017): 292
	c.
	'A cute baby. '
	d.
	'Two girls'

  Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2.2.1 Externally headed relative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2.2.2 Internally headed relative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2.2.3 -nal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Accounting for complexity: syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2 Is the Subject Advantage universal? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2.1 e case of Mandarin Chinese prenominal relative clauses. . . 4.1.2.2 Other factors contributing to the interpretation of Relative clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2.2.1 Features: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2.2.2 Pragmatics: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.3 Using eye-tracking to investigate relative clauses processing . . . . . . . 4.1.3.1 Tracking eyes to obviate decision-making bias . . . . . . . . . 4.1.3.2 Eye tracking to understand language and world processing . . 4.2 Adapting eyetracking protocol to a visual-only design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.4 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Testing relative clauses asymmetry on Deaf signers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.3 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.4 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.5 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.6 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

	3.2.2.2
	4 Psycholinguistic investigation 4.1 . C 2 Relativization strategies across languages and theories
		4.2.5.2.1	Validation of the visual paradigm . . . . . . . . . . .
		4.2.5.2.2	Asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses . .
	4.2.6 4.3.6.1	Comprehension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
	4.3.6.2	Visual processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
		4.3.6.2.1	Validation of the task design . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
		4.3.6.2.2	Asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses . .
	4.3.7 Conclusion Part I

4.2.1 Visual-only French experiment : design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1.1 Eyelink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1.2 Visual World Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1.3 Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1.4 Material and variables manipulated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 4.2.5.1 Comprehension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.5.2 Visual processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2.1 Items and Fillers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

  , allows both Comp. and ResP as shown in example (27).

	(27) àbÒfrá i (nÚ) [â Òi -bÚ-Ù kòf í nÚ] a-da
	child (DEF) Comp. ResP-3sg-sub beat-PST Ko det PERF sleep
	' e child who beat Ko is asleep'
	Akan, from Abrefa 2016: 3

  ) [ CP main [ DP e [ N P student [ CP rel who gap writes her thesis ]]] might sleep someday.]

looking for the boy who is always late. ' However, for each position on the right of direct object, another strategy using a resumptive pronoun has to be used. is is illustrated with indirect object in (39). (39) Ich suech acc de Bueb, wo mer *( em ) es Buech ggee dat hand

	help.1 the.	boy C (him) yesterday seen have.1
	'I help the boy who I saw yesterday. '
	(38) Ich suech acc de Bueb, wo ( *er ) immer z spaat chunt nom	Subj.
	I search.1 the.	boy C (he) always too late come.3
	'I'm I search. the.	boy C he.	a book given have.1	Ind. Obj.
	'I am looking for the boy who we gave a book to. '
				(Swiss German, example taken from De Vries 2002)
	In English, all positions of the scale can be heads of post-nominal externally headed relative
	clauses, hence with a gap (example 40).
	(40) a.	e girl [ who came to your place ] is nice.	Subj.
	b.	e girl [ that you recommended ] is nice.	Obj.
	c.	e girl [ with whom you danced ] is nice.	Adj.

Table 2 .

 2 Scale of reference construction fromGrosu and Landmann (1998)

Table 4 .

 4 Summary of typological variation accross Sign Languages.

  .

	(116) Sentential complement:
	a. M	[		]		Baseline
	'Marie said that the woman is cuddling the dog. '
	b.	[		]		Main clause
	'Who said that the woman is cuddling the dog?'
	c. M	[		]		Sub. clause
	'What did Marie say that the woman is cuddling?'
	(117) Relative clause:
				rel
	a. M		[	( )	]	Baseline
	'Mary prefers the woman who is cuddling the dog. '
				rel
	b.	[	( )	]	Main clause
	'Who prefers the woman who is cuddling the dog. '
				rel
	c. * 2	[	( )	]	*Sub. clause
	Intended meaning: 'What is the animal such that you prefer the woman that is
	pe ing it?'

Table 6 .

 6 Summary of typological variation accross Sign Languages, LSF included.

Table 7 .

 7 French native: mean accuracy with respect to the condition, object and subject relative clause.

	Subject relative clauses	96 %
	Object relative clauses	81 %
	Average	91 %

Table 8 .

 8 8). LSF signers: mean accuracy with respect to the condition, object and subject relative clause.

	Condition	Percentage of correct answers
	Subject relative clauses	81 %
	Object relative clauses	69 %
	Average	75 %

Table 9 .

 9 Après que Pierre achètera un portable, Jean prendra le train 'A er Pierre will buy a cellphone, Jean will take the train. ' Moving to the isolation test, we observe that juxtaposition allows isolation (cf. 182), while asymmetric coordination and subordination do not, as shown in (183) and (184). Results of inversion and isolation

	(cf. 180); while in

  ) Paul ate a strawberry. A er that, Marie stole a bike.

				gap ?
	b. * What did Paul eat	gap . A er that, Marie stole a bike?
	c. * What did Paul eat strawberries. A er that, Marie steal	gap ?
	(186) Paul ate a strawberry and a er that, Marie stole a bike.
	a.	What did Paul eat	gap and a er that, Marie steal	gap ?
	b. * What did Paul eat	gap and a er that, Marie stole a bike?
	c. * What did Paul eat a strawberry and a er that, Marie steal	gap ?
	(187) Paul ate a strawberry a er Marie stole a bike.
	a.	What did Paul eat	gap a er Marie stole	gap ?
	b.	What did Paul eat

a. * What did Paul eat gap . A er that, Marie stole gap a er Marie stole a bike? c. * What did Paul ate a strawberry a er Marie stole gap ?

  a. Aristodemo argues that the adverbial forms a constituent with the rst clause. See[START_REF] Aristodemo | Visible degrees in Italian Sign Language[END_REF] for more details on this aspect.To summarize, LIS temporal constructions involve a subordinate clause. ey are characterized by a xed order with the subordinate clause preceding the main clause and the temporal marker between them. All the properties just discussed, summarized in Table (11), point towards this conclusion.

								wh
	(197) a.	pg	/		f uture ,			t what	(	)
		'What did Piero pay before Gianni ate?'
								wh
	b.	pg	,		t what	(	)
		'What did Piero pay when Gianni ate?'
								wh
	c.	pg	,		t what	(	)
		'What did Piero pay a er Gianni ate?'
							NMM
					f uture	, t who
			re	NMM
		b.			, t who
			re NMM
		c.	, t who
				  	before	  
		'Who bought the stamps	when		the boss sold the stock?'
				 	a er	 
					re		NMM
	(195) a. * t who		/	f uture	,
			re	NMM
		b. * t who			,
			re NMM
		c. * t who		,				  	before	  
		Intended meaning: Who is such that the secretary bought the stamps,	when
								 	a er	 
		s/he sold the stock?'
	Extraction from both clauses is also possible, as shown by the sentences in (196) and (197)
	in what can be interpreted as an instance of a parasitic gap 9 .
		topic
	(196) a.	pg			/	f uture ,	t pizza	(	)
		'Pizza, Piero pay before Gianni ate. '
		topic
		b.	pg	,			t pizza	(	)
		'Pizza, Piero pay when Gianni ate. '
		topic
		c.	pg	,			t pizza	(	)
		'Pizza, Piero pay when Gianni ate. '
	9	e acceptability judgments are degraded due to independent reasons. Example (196) that involves object
	topicalization is acceptable.

re / 8

Table 12 .

 12 Results of inversion and isolation for LSF

Table 14 .

 14 Summary of the syntactic tests for LSF

Table 15 .

 15 LSF and LIS mirror results to all syntactic tests.

Table 16 .

 16 Analyses of question-answer pairs in ASL.

	Figure 65. Grammaticalization process, Kimmelman and Vink (2017)
			discourse-level
	(regular question	→) rhetorical question →	question-answer	→	question-answer clause
			combination

Table 17 .

 17 Summary of the properties of QAP across SL.

  [START_REF] Chomsky | Conditions on Transformations[END_REF] are also visible in Type A but not in Type B SPC and PPC, as shown respectively in (253) and (254).

	b. *Any books is what John didn't buy.	Type B SPC
	Conditions B and A e ects ((253) Condition B
	a. What he i is is proud of him * i/j .	Type A SPC
	b. Proud of him i/j is what he i is.	Type B SPC
	(254) Condition A
	a. What he i is is proud of himself i .	Type A SPC
	b. *Proud of himself is what he i is.	Type B SPC
	c. What John likes is important to him i /*himself i	PPC
		from Schlenker (2003):6
		from Sharvit (1999)

  Whenever the NP2 is ' 1', it refers to the signer. Notice that this is expected since one usually does not push or convince oneself. Nevertheless, this property rules out the possibility for the sentential complement to be role-shi . Regarding the question pa ern, it is possible to have questions about the second clause only, as illustrated in example (428). Regarding questions, it is possible to create one about the arguments of the second clause, as shown in (445).

	7.2.12.2.6 estions on the second clause (445) wh M rg,ht
	'What did Marie hear the neighbor (doing)?'
	7.2.12.2.7	estions on the rst clause Similarly, it is possible to create a question on the
	main clause only, as seen in example (446).
		wh	bt,rg
	(446)
	'Who saw the neighbors arguing?'
	7.2.12.2.8 Summary Perceptive predicates in LSF take subordinated nite sentential com-
	plements.
			bt,rg
	(424) *	M
	Lit. 'Marie propose. '
			bt
	(425) #	A
	Lit. 'Agathe going to the cinema. '
	se ere is no strong unacceptability of the isolated sentential complement. Hence we continue
	) * M
	our syntactic tests.
			cdm,se
	(320) ?	A
	re 7.2.10.2.3 Covert NP2 and use of tense As expected from their semantics, the presence
	(321) M of the a ectee is obligatory, which means that the NP2 cannot be covert with or without the A
	'Marie think not Agathe goes to the cinema. ' tense marker (see 426).
	(426) a. * M
	7.2.2.2.3 NP2 forcefully covert? Regarding the subject of the sentential complement (NP2 Int. 'Marie commands to go to the cinema. '
	in our decision tree), propositional a itude predicates allow complements with either overt (see b. * M
	318) or covert subjects in LSF. Lit. 'Marie commands will go to the cinema. '
	7.2.2.2.4 Is ' ceptable (illustrated with ' compatible with the predicate? in (322)). erefore the sentential complement is nite. e tense marker is always ac-(322) a. se,cdm,ht M woe 7.2.10.2.4 Indexical shi ? (427) M 1
			'Marie is not sure that she goes to the cinema. '
	'Marie proposes me to go to the cinema. '
			se,cdm,ht
	b.	M
	'Marie is not sure that she will go to the cinema. ' estions on the second clause (428) M 7.2.10.2.5 A ?
	'What does Marie command Agathe to buy?'

7.2.2.2.5

Shi in indexicals? Turning to the overt strategy, whenever the NP2 is the rstperson pronominal 1, it refers to the signer, as shown in (323) with . (g) ' '. (h) ' '.

Figure 88. (Actual) manipulative predicates in LSF 7.2.10.2.2 Isolation test In general, the main clause cannot appear in isolation (424). Similarly, the presence of the body turn leads informants to judge the sentential complements as being questionable (see 425).

Table 21 .

 21 List of predicates marked by a body/head turn and right gaze in LSF .

Table 23 .

 23 Contexts and stimuli used in the training phase.

C.1.2 Pictures

  Number Context (code: IC number in the LSF videos) Stimuli (code: I number in the LSF videos) Merci de trouver le bon policier, donc le beau policier qui surveille le facteur. 2b. Merci de trouver le bon policier, donc le beau policier que le facteur surveille 2d. Merci de trouver le bon facteur, donc le facteur assidu qui surveille le policier 1e. Merci de trouver le bon facteur, donc le facteur assidu que le policier surveille Merci de trouver le bon footballeur, donc le beau footballeur qui tâche l'amazone 4b. Merci de trouver le bon footballeur, donc le beau footballeur que l'amazone tâche 4d. Merci de trouver la bonne amazone, donc l'amazone séduisante qui tâche le footballeur. 4e. Merci de trouver la bonne amazone, donc l'amazone séduisante que le footballeur tâche Number Context (code: IC number in the LSF videos) Stimuli (code: I number in the LSF videos) 5 Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un coureur, une in rmière et un prêtre. 5a. Merci de trouver le bon coureur, donc le coureur fort qui pousse l'in rmière 5b. Merci de trouver le bon coureur, donc le coureur fort que l'in rmière pousse 5d. Merci de trouver la bonne in rmière, donc la belle in rmière qui pousse le coureur. 5e. Merci de trouver la bonne in rmière, donc la belle in rmière que le coureur pousse Merci de trouver la bonne journaliste, donc la jolie journaliste qui meno e le marin 6b. Merci de trouver la bonne journaliste, donc la jolie journaliste que le marin meno e 6d. Merci de trouver le bon marin, donc le jeune marin qui meno e la journaliste. 6e. Merci de trouver le bon marin, donc le jeune marin que la journaliste meno e 7Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un musicien, une ouvrière et un golfeur.7a. Merci de trouver la bonne ouvrière, donc l'ouvrière séduisante qui questionne le golfeur 7b. Merci de trouver la bonne ouvrière, donc l'ouvrière séduisante que le golfeur questionne 7d. Merci de trouver le bon golfeur, donc le beau golfeur qui questionne l'ouvrière. 7e. Merci de trouver le bon golfeur, donc le beau golfeur que l'ouvrière questionne. Merci de trouver le bon boulanger, donc le boulanger bienveillant qui dessine la diablesse 8b. Merci de trouver le bon boulanger, donc le boulanger bienveillant que la diablesse dessine 8d. Merci de trouver la bonne diablesse, donc la méchante diablesse qui dessine le boulanger . 8e. Merci de trouver la bonne diablesse, donc la méchante diablesse que le boulanger dessine. Merci de trouver le bon serveur, donc le beau serveur bienveillant qui vise la mécanicienne 9b. Merci de trouver le bon serveur, donc le beau serveur que la mécanicienne vise 9d. Merci de trouver la bonne mécanicienne, donc la belle mécanicienne qui vise le serveur. 9e. Merci de trouver la bonne mécanicienne, donc la belle mécanicienne que le serveur vise. Merci de trouver la bonne patineuse, donc la jolie patineuse qui pointe l'enchanteur 10b. Merci de trouver la bonne patineuse, donc la jolie patineuse que l'enchanteur pointe 10d. Merci de trouver le bon enchanteur, donc l'enchanteur adorable qui pointe la patineuse. 10e. Merci de trouver le bon enchanteur, donc l'enchanteur adorable que la patineuse pointe. Merci de trouver la bonne serveuse, donc la belle serveuse qui scotche l'indien 11b. Merci de trouver la bonne serveuse, donc la belle serveuse que l'indien scotche 11d. Merci de trouver le bon indien, donc l'indien adorable qui scotche la serveuse. 11e. Merci de trouver le bon indien, donc l'indien adorable que la serveuse scotche. Merci de trouver le bon ûtiste, donc le gentil ûtiste qui coi e la sportive 12b. Merci de trouver le bon ûtiste, donc le gentil ûtiste que la sportive coi e 12d. Merci de trouver la bonne sportive, donc la jolie sportive qui coi e le ûtiste. 12e. Merci de trouver la bonne sportive, donc la jolie sportive que le ûtiste coi e. Merci de trouver le bon lycéen, donc le jeune lycéen qui couronne la sirène 13b. Merci de trouver le bon lycéen, donc le jeune lycéen que la sirène couronne 13d. Merci de trouver la bonne sirène, donc la belle sirène qui couronne le lycéen. 13e. Merci de trouver la bonne sirène, donc la belle sirène que le lycéen couronne. Merci de trouver la bonne religieuse, donc la jeune religieuse qui pique l'ouvrier 14b. Merci de trouver la bonne religieuse, donc la jeune religieuse que l'ouvrier pique 14d. Merci de trouver le bon ouvrier, donc le jeune ouvrier qui pique la religieuse. 14e. Merci de trouver le bon ouvrier, donc le jeune ouvrier que la religieuse pique. Merci de trouver la bonne grand-mère, donc la gentille grand-mère qui lme le commerc ¸ant 15b. Merci de trouver la bonne grandmère, donc la gentille grand-mère que le commerc ¸ant lme 15d. Merci de trouver le bon commerc ¸ant, donc le beau commerc ¸ant qui lme la grandmère. 15e. Merci de trouver le bon commerc ¸ant, donc le beau commerc ¸ant que la grand-mère lme.16Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un ma eux, une fée et un baigneur.16a. Merci de trouver le bon baigneur, donc le beau baigneur qui éclabousse la fée 16b. Merci de trouver le bon baigneur, donc le beau baigneur que la fée éclabousse 16d. Merci de trouver la bonne fée, donc la fée mystérieuse qui éclabousse le baigneur. 16e. Merci de trouver la bonne fée, donc la fée mystérieuse que le baigneur éclabousse. Merci de trouver le bon docteur, donc le vieux docteur qui enchante l'athlète 17b. Merci de trouver le bon docteur, donc le vieux docteur que l'athlète enchante 17d. Merci de trouver la bonne athlète, donc la jolie athlète qui enchante le docteur. 17e. Merci de trouver la bonne athlète, donc la jolie athlète que le docteur enchante. Merci de trouver la bonne mariée, donc la belle mariée qui arrose le facteur 19b. Merci de trouver la bonne mariée, donc la belle mariée que le facteur arrose 19d. Merci de trouver le bon facteur, donc le jeune facteur qui arrose la mariée. 19e. Merci de trouver le bon facteur, donc le jeune facteur que la mariée arrose. Merci de trouver le bon randonneur, donc le randonneur fort qui convie l'hôtesse 20b. Merci de trouver le bon randonneur, donc le randonneur fort que l'hôtesse convie 20d. Merci de trouver la bonne hôtesse, donc la belle hôtesse qui convie le randonneur. 20e. Merci de trouver la bonne hôtesse, donc la belle hôtesse que le randonneur convie. Merci de trouver la bonne Japonaise, donc la Japonaise étrange qui salit le cinéaste 22b. Merci de trouver la bonne Japonaise, donc la Japonaise étrange que le cinéaste salit 22d. Merci de trouver le bon cinéaste, donc le beau cinéaste qui salit la Japonaise. 22e. Merci de trouver le bon cinéaste, donc le beau cinéaste que la Japonaise salit. Merci de trouver la bonne malade, donc la malade a aiblie qui paie l'Africain 23b. Merci de trouver la bonne malade, donc la malade a aiblie que l'Africain paie 23d. Merci de trouver le bon Africain, donc l'Africain mystérieux qui paie la malade. 23e. Merci de trouver le bon Africain, donc l'Africain mystérieux que la malade paie. Merci de trouver le bon skieur, donc le brave skieur qui masque la nageuse 25b. Merci de trouver le bon skieur, donc le brave skieur que la nageuse masque 25d. Merci de trouver la bonne nageuse, donc la nageuse courageuse qui masque le skieur. 25e. Merci de trouver la bonne nageuse, donc la nageuse courageuse que le skieur masque.

	1 2 2a. 3 Voici deux images avec à chaque fois une patiente, un réceptionniste et une dame 1a. Merci de trouver la bonne patiente, donc la patiente a aiblie qui regarde le réceptionniste. 1b. Merci de trouver la bonne patiente, donc la patiente a aiblie que le réceptionniste re-garde. 1d. Merci de trouver le bon réceptionniste, donc le jeune réceptionniste qui regarde la patiente. 1e. Merci de trouver le bon réceptionniste, donc le jeune réceptionniste que la patiente regarde. Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un facteur, un policier et un touriste. Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un pirate, une princesse et un escrimeur. 3a. Merci de trouver la bonne princesse, donc la belle princesse qui dessine l'escrimeur 3b. Merci de trouver la bonne princesse, donc la belle princesse que l'escrimeur dessine 3d. Merci de trouver le bon escrimeur, donc le bel escrimeur qui dessine la princesse 3e. Merci de trouver le bon escrimeur, donc le bel escrimeur que la princesse dessine 4 Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un garagiste, une amazone et un footballeur. 4a. 6 Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un marin, une journaliste et un médecin. 6a. 8 Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un clown, une diablesse et un boulanger. 8a. Number Context (code: IC number in the LSF videos) Stimuli (code: I number in the LSF videos) 9 Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un serveur, une mécanicienne et un chevalier. 9a. 10 Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un détective, une patineuse et un enchanteur. 10a. 11 Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un lu eur, une serveuse et un indien. 11a. 12 Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un prisonnier, une sportive et un utiste. 12a. Number Context (code: IC number in the LSF videos) Stimuli (code: I number in the LSF videos) 13 Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un lycéen, une sirène et un militaire. 13a. 14 Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un ouvrier, une religieuse et un musicien. 14a. 15 Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un cowboy, une grand-mère et un commerc ¸ant. Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un docteur, donc la sorcière mystèrieuse que l'adolescent éclaire. 15a. 17 Context (code: IC number in the LSF videos) Stimuli (code: I number in the LSF videos) 18a. Merci de trouver la bonne danseuse, une sorcière et un balayeur. 21b. Merci de trouver le bon adolescent, donc le bel adolescent que la sorcière éclaire 21d. Merci de trouver la bonne sorcière, donc la sorcière mystèrieuse qui éclaire l'adolescent. 21e. Merci de trouver la bonne sorcière, Number Context (code: IC number in the LSF videos) Stimuli (code: I number in the LSF videos) mousquetaire 17a. Number 18 Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un réceptionniste, une danseuse et un pécheur. donc la danseuse désirable qui frappe le réceptionniste 18b. Merci de trouver la bonne danseuse, donc la danseuse désirable que le réceptionniste tape 18d. Merci de trouver le bon réceptionniste, donc le réceptionniste fort qui tape la danseuse. 18e. Merci de trouver le bon réceptionniste, donc le réceptionniste fort que la danseuse tape. 19 Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un soldat, une mariée et un facteur. 22 Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un cinéaste, une Japonaise et un gendarme. 22a. 23 Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un arbitre, une malade et un Africain. 23a. 24 Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un garagiste, une femme d'a aires 24a. Merci de trouver le bon apiculteur, donc le gentil apiculteur qui régale la femme d'a aire 24b. Merci de trouver le bon apiculteur, donc 19a. 20 Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un marcheur, une hôtesse et un randonneur. Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un adolescent, 21a. Merci de trouver le bon adolescent, donc le bel adolescent qui éclaire la sorcière et un apiculteur. le gentil apiculteur que la femme d'a aire régale 24d. Merci de trouver la bonne femme d'a aires, donc la gentille femme d'a aires qui régale l'apiculteur. 24e. Merci de trouver la bonne femme d'a aires, donc la gentille femme d'a aires que l'apiculteur régale. 25 Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un skieur, une nageuse et un 20a. 21 25a.
	une athlète et un
	roi.

Table 30 .

 30 Contexts and stimuli used as Items.

Table 32 .

 32 French native speakers fixation proportions across items: the Sa erwait's linear mixed model, fit by maximum likelihood

Table 33 .

 33 French native speakers fixation proportions across participants: the Sa erwait's linear mixed model, fit by maximum likelihood

Table 36 .

 36 LSF signers fixation proportions across items: the Sa erwait's linear mixed model, fit by maximum likelihood

Table 37 .

 37 LSF signers fixation proportions across participants: the Sa erwait's linear mixed model, fit by maximum likelihood

Several works show that there was a strong Deaf community, signing in old LSF well before the Deaf awakening, see[START_REF] Pélissier | Iconographie des signes: faisant partie de l'enseignement primaire des sourds-muets[END_REF] or[START_REF] Cantin | DES ORIGINES DU NO ÉTOMALALIEN FRANC ¸AIS, PERSPECTIVES HISTORIQUES[END_REF]

Under closer inspection, line 5 might not be linked with time itself but rather with the concept of ordering and prioritizing. Data from LSF support this claim since the same vertical line is used to refer to the ranking of categories, competitors or even the succession of oors in a building.

'pointers' in English.

'Joncteurs' in French.

More precisely, omas Lévèque (28 yo), Laurène Loctin (28 yo), Yohan Marcelino (29 yo) were recruited by the Sign Language Group of the Institut Jean Nicod and Valérie Benjoubi (38 yo) by the Laboratoire de Linguistique Formelle of the Université de Paris. We deeply thank them all for their precious help throughout all these years.

We mainly used the LS-COLLINS corpus

is is challenged by data from French with the opposition qui/que or from Irish where the complementizer is sensitive to the case of the elements passing through. Interestingly, in relative clauses, complementizers can constitute exceptions to the 'that'-trace e ect.

In De[START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF], the author proposes that a covert movement, carried by a relative operator, happen in the resumptive case

is includes adjoined relative clauses if considered as a separate type from correlative.

Note that, if we adopt a double-headed analysis à la[START_REF] Cinque | e prenominal origin of relative clauses". -(2014). " e semantic classi cation of adjectives. A view from syntax[END_REF], this distinction disappears as every relative clause type is base-generated in a pre-nominal position. e distinctions between all types then come from di erent syntactic derivations.

For adjoined relative clauses, see Diyari:(1) Nani wila-ni yata-la Nana-yi [ yiinda-nani ] 1 .woman-speak-'I'll talk to the woman who is crying. '(Diyari, from Austin 1981: 210)

Note that very few work exists on double headed relative clauses, however, De[START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF],[START_REF] Culy | e Syntax and Semantics of Internally Headed Relative Clauses[END_REF],[START_REF] Dryer | Order of relative clause and noun[END_REF] and Cinque (2014) remark that the second head is either the same as the internal one or a more general one such as "thing".

As well as adjoined RC if they are considered as a separate type from correlatives.

In which case they can be called adjoined relative clauses.

e uni-directionality of the scale is the de ning character of typological universals[START_REF] Greenberg | Universals of language[END_REF].

[START_REF] Prince | Towards a Social Science of Language: Papers in honor of William Labov[END_REF],[START_REF] Beninca | La frase relativa in orentino antico[END_REF],[START_REF] Beninca | Kind-de ning relative clauses in the diachrony of Italian". Diachrony and Dialects: Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy[END_REF] andCinque (2015) propose to identify a fourth type of semantic relation: the kind identifying relatives. While this type is considered on a par with amount reading by[START_REF] Carlson | Amount Relatives[END_REF] andGrosu (2014), the fore mentioned authors single them out based on their semantic peculiarity. Contra to other semantic types of relatives, kind de ning relative clauses cannot construct by themselves a reference, they have to modify a nominal predicate. ey are distinguished by their irrealis mood and the fact that they only provide the features of the class to which the head noun belongs[START_REF] Beninca | Kind-de ning relative clauses in the diachrony of Italian". Diachrony and Dialects: Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy[END_REF]. In[START_REF] Woodward | Implications for sociolinguistic research among the deaf[END_REF], we see that the reference of the relative clause is given by the subject of the predicate, Paul.(1) Paul is a man (that) you can count on.

Following Principle A of pronouns binding in generative grammar[START_REF] Sauerland | e meaning of chains[END_REF]).

[START_REF] Cinque | e prenominal origin of relative clauses". -(2014). " e semantic classi cation of adjectives. A view from syntax[END_REF] provides a third analysis which a empts at capturing both hypotheses who proposes that there exists in fact two kinds of non-restrictive relative clauses.e integrated ones, generated by the grammar, and the non-integrated ones, linked to the head at the discourse level. While English only presents the non-integrated appositives, Italian che/cui versus il quale relative clauses would instantiate the two. e main argument comes from the fact that the two kind of appositives pa ern symmetrically regarding a number of properties, but, crucially, di ers along others.

Due to the small amount of researches on this syntactic type, we completed the table based on[START_REF] Berry | A description of Abun: a West Papuan language of Irian Jaya[END_REF]'s work which states that double-headed relative clauses are limited to the non-restrictive semantic type.

See Basilico (1996) andCinque (2019) against this view.

See Lüpke (2005)),[START_REF] Beninca | Kind-de ning relative clauses in the diachrony of Italian". Diachrony and Dialects: Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy[END_REF],[START_REF] Morshed | Relativization in Bengali[END_REF] against this view.

[START_REF] Cecche O | Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language[END_REF] and as ' ' in[START_REF] Aristodemo | Visible degrees in Italian Sign Language[END_REF].

Interestingly, for headed relative clauses, the SL studied so far presents d-like relative pronouns (i.e., derived from a determiner) and no wh-like relative pronouns. In LIS,[START_REF] Branchini | On Relativization and Cle ing : An analysis of Italian Sign language[END_REF] found that free-relatives, on the other hand, are realized with a wh-like relative pronoun. In Chapter II.6, we show a similar nding in LSF.

NA = Not Addressed.

In fact LI (2013) describes both subject and object relative clauses in HKSL.

We do not discuss here previous accounts in favor of an Head external-only / adjunct RC analysis[START_REF]Word and object MIT press[END_REF][START_REF] Chomsky | On wh-movement[END_REF][START_REF] Jackendo | X syntax: A study of phrase structure[END_REF] since, to the best of our knowledge, no defender of this theory has been able to account for reconstruction e ects, idiom pa ern and all other pieces of evidence indicating that the head of the relative has to be internal at some point of the derivation.

Originally, Bianchi (2002b) proposed that the intervening projection should be within the relative CP, however,[START_REF] Bha | ree theories of relative clauses[END_REF] shows that adopting such structure derives the wrong word order. He proposes to have the functional projection outside of the relative CP. is is what we present here.

In the weak alternative the internally headed relative analysis is not so straight forward as the internal element is a phonologically silent Op (seeSauerland 2002).

A similar, non-marked, strategy has been described by[START_REF] Millet | Grammaire descriptive de la langue des signes franc ¸aise[END_REF] for whom LSF's relative clauses are primarily identi able by the uency linking the main and dependent clauses. No mention of speci c non-manuals is provided.

is is not the only sign marked by the mouthing [pi] in LSF. Few others, such as the one expressing condition or the one expressing properties typical of a person or a group of individuals, share this mouthing. We do not analyze them in this dissertation and will thus unequivocally refer to the relative marker as ' '.

i.e. rated

out of 7 by our informants

Notice that their independence would be from a syntactic point of view only. Recall that the de nition of relativization strategies involve a notion of syntactic and/or semantic dependence. Correlatives depend semantically from their main clause.

We present here the results for and NMMs relatives. relatives resulted in mixed results, varying across informants. is might be due to their semantic interpretation (see Section I.3.2) or to the ambivalent nature of .

LSF is an in-situ wh-language. It has been reported in the literature that wh-situ languages may not show the same types of islandhood as wh-movement languages. It is clear that LSF does not belong to these languages as one cannot ask wh-question with a wh-sign si ing inside the relative clause.

Notice also that this 'situation'-meaning is still present when the whole relative clause is fronted as in (1), con rming that the relative clause is topicalized and moved from its base position.(1) top rel

' I prefer situations in which a dog sleeps. '

Indeed, by comparing the overt amount expressed in (142b) and the covert amount expressed through the bo le-classi er used in ' ', we could argue that the two are of the same nature: they express degrees. e di erence being that one is incorporated in a sign while the other is not.

Only free-choice free-relatives, see Chapter II.6.

NA = Not Addressed.

Notice that if is simply compatible both with DP and IP, then the derivation is sensibly the same to the exception that we do not need a nominal projection anymore.

e frequency of appearance is calculated through corpus studies

Illustrated by the blue nodes in the tree

e experimental presented here received the validation from the ethical committee 'CER-PD' (Comité d' Éthique pour la Recherche -Paris Descartes), see Appendix (C)

And, in fact, lower than 70 % since, considering the simplicity of the task, they should perform at high stake.

On LABEX EFL fundings 'Operation Relatives', which covered both reimbursements of participants cost and every other aspect such as the material used for this study.

We excluded trials presenting more than 25% of Trackloss, meaning that the eye-tracker was not properly calibrated or that, during the trial, participants were not looking enough at the AOIs. See eyetracking-r.com for complete documentation of the package.

In formula: % correct / (% correct + % incorrect)

Since ORC is coded as negative and the coe cient of this e ect is negative, it means the dependent variable is higher for the negative-coded condition, namely ORC.

In fact, our informant, Laurène, signs very fast. Other informants' production might not need to be slowed down that much.

Note that these participants were excluded from accuracy analysis but not automatically from the eye-tracking measures since pressing a bu on under time pressure is not correlated with the visual behavior.

is chapter is based on a joint work with Dr. Valentina Aristodemo.

[START_REF] Bha | Conditionals[END_REF] propose an analysis of when-clauses in term of free relatives.

Note that in this case, we keep the conjunction between the two clauses. Otherwise, it would result in ungrammaticality.

is is also called the 'across-the-board' (ATB) strategy[START_REF] Ross | Constraints on variables in syntax[END_REF]).

is phenomenon is usually referred to as a 'parasitic gap' when associated with an island, such as the temporal adjunct, see[START_REF] Levine | Parasitic gaps in English: Some overlooked cases and their theoretical implications[END_REF] for an extensive description.

e ungrammaticality of (187c) is traditionally reduced to an adjunct island violation[START_REF] Ross | Constraints on variables in syntax[END_REF].

Note that the gloss is taken from[START_REF] Aristodemo | Visible degrees in Italian Sign Language[END_REF]'s thesis but it is exactly the same as described in[START_REF] Donati | Challenging linearization: simultaneous mixing in the production of bimodal bilinguals[END_REF] and Cecche o,[START_REF] Cecche O | Strategies of relativization in Italian Sign Language[END_REF]

Note that LSF uses mainly an in-situ strategy for questions (see[START_REF] Geraci | Description of French Sign Language phenomena[END_REF][START_REF] Hauser | Relative clauses in LSF. Typology and analysis[END_REF], which explains the absence of gaps in (204c)-(204b).

Recall from Chapter I.2 that despite being an in-situ language, LSF displays islandhood e ects and typicalextraction behavior. Hence, we use in the table the term 'extraction' as a generic term referring to either LF or PF extraction movement.

e presence of NPI has not yet been studied in LSF. erefore, a more in-depth investigation is needed to check whether LSF behaves like English in allowing NPI in before-clauses.

See among others[START_REF] Schlenker | Clausal equations (a note on the connectivity problem)[END_REF], Declerck 1994[START_REF] Frascarelli | Pseudo)cle s at the syntax-prosody-discourse interface[END_REF] or Den Dikken 2001

Recall from the Introduction that Role-shi is characterized by the signer's act of impersonating one's perspective.

Recall that along with Cecche o and Donati (2014)'s analysis, labeling, and re-labeling operations motivate movement. In that respect, the movement of the wh-word is needed to re-label the structure. Contra to Cecche o andDonati (2015), however, we will argue that the change is progressive, with the syntactic properties of the DP being merged late in the process of grammaticalization.

Inversion and predication are not described in[START_REF] Branchini | On Relativization and Cle ing : An analysis of Italian Sign language[END_REF] in relation to LIS.

Personal discussions with ASL native signers brings up to our knowledge that, in fact, this might also be possible in ASL contra to what is said by the authors.

See Fornasiero 2018 who analyze adjectives as bound morphemes, hence not compatible with a post-copular position such as (233b).

Di erent syntactic derivations have been proposed in the literature, we choose to implement here the analysis proposed by Den Dikken,Meinunger, and Wilder (2000) for reasons which will become more evident in the next section.

We could have provided a third sub-claim, c) free-relatives are relative clauses, we will address this point in the last section of this Chapter.

For a counterargument, see[START_REF] Hankamer | On the non-cyclic nature of WH-cle ing[END_REF] who argues that they do not alternate freely since 'th-' relatives semantically identify instead of predicating. ey are not on a par with free-relatives in this respect.

To support their analysis, the authors show that elision cannot delete part of the focalized constituent, hence 'that' should not be able to be deleted. See Den Dikken,Meinunger, and Wilder (2000): 59 for further description of ellipsis pa erns.

We adopt here our own conventions, the ' x' ' aims at capturing the fact that the answer provides the adapted value for the variable x.

An intermediate step between the 5 th and the 6 th could be irrealis free-relatives. We have very few pieces of literature explaining their whereabouts.[START_REF] Grosu | Strange Relatives of the ird Kind[END_REF] cite them as being part of the 'relatives of the third kind'.ey are characterized by their irrealis mood, which makes them not fully referential. For this reason,[START_REF] Grosu | Strange Relatives of the ird Kind[END_REF] and De[START_REF] De Vries | Pa erns of relative clauses[END_REF] analyze them as being bare CP. An example from Romanian is provided in[START_REF] Woodward | Implications for sociolinguistic research among the deaf[END_REF].(1) Cine te-a atacat ieri e

In[START_REF] Noonan | Complementation". Complex Constructions[END_REF], the author presents two more classes which are not adopted either in[START_REF] Cristofaro | Subordination. Reprinted with corrections and rst published in paperback[END_REF] nor in er et al. (2017b). ese classes are negative predicates and coordinate predicates, which, to the best of our knowledge, are not found in LSF. For these reasons, we leave them out of the picture.

Recall that this is what happened for temporal -clauses in LSF, when we presented the sentence in isolation.

Except if we adopt[START_REF] Cristofaro | Subordination. Reprinted with corrections and rst published in paperback[END_REF]'s de nition of subordination which focuses on semantic dependence; hence she analyze direct speech as being subordinated to the u erance verbs which it has to complete. From a syntactic standpoint, which is our perspective, this de nition is too broad and will, therefore, not be adopted

Notice that in a pro-drop language such as Italian (297) could also appear without an overt pronoun and still characterize as a nite clause.

[START_REF] Cristofaro | Subordination. Reprinted with corrections and rst published in paperback[END_REF] considers that the di erence between direct and indirect speech does not regard syntax but semantics instead (the rst one is a quotation of the sound produced, the second, a report of u erance) and that they both are complements of the main verb and, therefore, embedded.

Note that this is the case for most signs referring to thoughts, like or .

[START_REF] Noonan | Complementation". Complex Constructions[END_REF] also classes predicates such as 'imagine' in this category despite having previously associated it to the pretence-class. While we agree with the rationale, we prefer to keep together real-world perception verbs and leave 'imagine' as a pretence verb.

Full link: h ps://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1eQaXqNBETr5mkyqW5VsskEvrWrGSsFR-?usp=sharing

Acknowledgements

I can wholeheartedly say that this dissertation is the result of three incredible years spent

estion-Answer pairs ey also note that with verbs other than 'do', this option is degraded (258). Still, it is not as bad as the cases in ( 255) and ( 256).

(258) ? What Georges drank was Georges drank a beer.

Based on this contrast, they argued that the de ning property of SPC is that the counterweight, the answer-constituent, contains material which is preferably elided under identity restrictions. When it is not, the sentence is degraded. Remember that in QAP, there is no preference for an elided answer constituent.

6.2.5 Claim 5: ' e question part of pseudocle s cannot be a yes/no question' is argument has been raised in the SL literature but is not, and should not be considered, restricted to it. [START_REF] Faraci | On the deep question of pseudo-cle s[END_REF]'s early proposal to analyze Type A SPC as involving a hidden question instead of a free-relative, was challenged by the very same argument by [START_REF] Huddleston | e sentence in wri en English[END_REF] and [START_REF] Akmajian | On deriving cle sentences from pseudo-cle sentences[END_REF]. It is a fact that polar questions are impossible in a Type A SPC (see 259).

(259) *Whether John bought a present was no (he didn't). SPC is argument has not been challenged in the literature. However, its strength should not be overestimated. Wh-questions and polar questions are di erent, in particular in that a constituent answer can not follow the la er. is restriction might directly explain why a polar question cannot be used as a focalization strategy. Recall that, for LSF, it is instead an exclamative strategy than a focalization strategy.

6.2.6 Claim 6: 'Cross-linguistically pseudocle s are always constrained in the wh-words which can be used'

With respect to wh-words used in pseudocle s, one has again to distinguish between the three di erent main types of pseudocle s we discussed so far. We consider PPC and Type B SPC on a par with respect to this property since they are both using free-relatives as their question-constituent. Type A SPC will be considered on their own. While free-relatives have long been thought to allow every wh-word but 'why' (Caponigro 2003 or Cecche o and[START_REF] Cecche O | Relativization in Italian Sign Language ( LIS ): e missing link of relativization[END_REF], data from Mesoamerican languages, Romanian and Teramano 11 (Mantenuto and Caponigro Submi ed 2019) show otherwise. In Teramano for example, free-relatives can be headed by 'who' (260a), 'where' (260b), 'how' (260c) , 'when' (260d), 'how much' (260e) and, crucially, 'why' 12 (260f).

(260) Teramano free-relatives a. Chiame [ci'-a cucinite a la feste]. who call.1SG who-have.3SG cooked at the.SG.F party.SG.F 'I will call {the one}/{those} who cooked at the party. ' b. Je so nate [addu'-/du'-/u'-a nite li ginitur-a mi] where I be.1SG born where/where/where-have.3SG born the.PL.M. parent.PL.M-a POSS.1SG 'I was born where my parents were born. ' 11 Teramano is a language variety of Italian from Abruzzo, it belongs to the Upper Southern Italian languages. 12 e authors remark that the free-relative involving 'why' can also receive a causative interpretation in which 'why' receive the meaning of because. is reminds LSF data on 'why' QAP. T hroughout this dissertation, we saw that subordination, whether nominal or sentential, correlates with several properties that can be made visible through a variety of syntactic tests. We have also highlighted the intertangling of syntax and semantics in all the speci c cases we studied. In this chapter, we focus on what we will call a 'favorable' se ing for subordination to appear: sentential complements. is expression refers to a class of clauses which semantically complete the main predicate. ese predicates are o en also selected as complement arguments, thus being also syntactically embedded. However, cross-linguistically, other competing strategies such as coordination or juxtaposition are a ested. In what follows, we will start by a short reminder of the properties which can be taken as pieces of evidence for syntactic subordination. We will then o er an extensive review of the di erent semantic classes of predicates taking sentential complements, using the classi cation adopted in [START_REF] Noonan | Complementation". Complex Constructions[END_REF] 1 Non-manual marking Interestingly, we nd the same set of non-manual markers across all three predicates (see Figure 74): the signer's body is turned towards the NP1 (the subject of the main clause) location, the eye gaze is directed at the receiver. Finally, eyebrows raise either throughout the whole clause or from the main predicate to the end of the sentence.

No clear pause is present. erefore we do not postulate the presence of separate sentences. We will verify this observation with the syntactic tests we presented at the beginning of this chapter.

Isolation test

We start with the isolation test and show that the rst clause, containing the u erance predicate, cannot appear alone. We illustrate it with in (302). is con rms that the second clause is its syntactic argument in the strict sense. On the other hand, when we present the sentential complement alone (303), judgment varies across our informants. ere is no strong unacceptability but rather an impression of weirdness due to the non-manual markers, especially the body turn, which felt weird if the sentence was presented alone. We pursue our investigations.

NP2 forcefully covert?

e verbs ' ', ' ' and ' ' are directional (see the Introduction for a presentation of the di erent types of verbs; directional, plain and spatial).

rough the directionality of the verb's movement or con guration, we can encode information regarding the person corresponding to the addressee and the signer (1st, 2nd and 3rd persons). With the verbs and , the addressee of the u erance can also be unspeci ed in which case the direction of the verb goes from the signer to his interlocutor. Compare Figures (74a) x'

Regarding the pa ern of the complement, the complement of usually has an overt subject (NP2 in our decision tree), but it can also be covert (304). In this case, the reference of the embedded verb is the agent of the main verb, no ma er the direction of the verb (see 304 and 305).

(304) a. For and on the other hand, the NP2 has to be overt, as shown by the unacceptability of ( 306) and ( 307).

(306) a. *M 'Marie signs to me that she will go to the cinema. ' is property shows that the sentential argument is nite.

Shi in indexicals?

Regarding the test on indexicals, when the NP2 is the rst person pronominal ' 1', the reference can be either the signer himself (309) or the NP1, Marie. In the la er case, the signer impersonates the agent, and a shi in non-manual marking shows this: the signer's face mimics the agent speaking. In this case, the shi in reference to the rst-person pronominal indicates that the sentence presents role-shi .

(309) re

M

x amorce bt re,woe 1 'Marie says that I go to the cinema. ' Following our decision tree, we will, therefore, focus on the other case without role-shi .

7.2.1.2.6

estion about the second clause It is possible to ask a direct question within the second clause only, as shown by the acceptability of (310). 'Who does Marie inform me that is coming tomorrow?'

In that respect, the second clause could well be analyzed as being subordinated. We also tested whether we could ask a question on the material of the rst clause only, in order to con rm this diagnostic. 7.2.1.2.7 estion about the rst clause Depending on the directionality of the verb, asking a question on the main clause gives rise to di erent pa erns. When the form ' 3 1 ' is used, the extraction seems degraded as shown in (311).

(311) # 3 1 A ? 'Who signed to me that Agathe/she goes to the cinema?' According to our informants, this is due to the directionality of the verb which encodes that the information was given to the signer himself. erefore, it is strange that (s)he ignores 'who' told her/him something. In that respect, the impossibility of asking questions on the clause is due to pragmatic reasons. is is con rmed by the pa ern presented in (312) with '

x '.

(312) le bt

x A ? 'Who signed that Agathe goes to the cinema?'

We see here that when the addressee of the main verb is not the rst person, it is possible to ask a direct question on the main clause. is pa ern is the same for and (313-314).

(313) le ht

x A ?

(314) le x bt,re ? 'Who signed that Agathe/she goes to the cinema?' 7.2.1.2.8 Summary In light of these results, and considering the shared pa ern between , , and , we provide the same analysis for the three verbs: their sentential complement is nite and syntactically subordinated to them.

Propositional attitude predicates 7.2.2.1 Main properties

Propositional a itude predicates express the speaker/signer's con dence in the truth of the proposition corresponding to their complement. In English, it includes verbs such as 'to believe', 'to doubt' or 'to assume'. Depending on languages, the NP1 can be required to be overt, or the various propositional a itudes can be expressed through adverbs modifying a single verb dedicated to that purpose. Some of these predicates might be impersonal and include an expletive subject as in example (315).

(315) It's certain that Mary will come tomorrow.

Propositional a itude predicates can be overtly speci ed as being either positive or negative, as in (316).

(316) Carlo wrongly thinks that Caterina is coming too.

According to [START_REF] Cristofaro | Subordination. Reprinted with corrections and rst published in paperback[END_REF], the complement of such predicates is non-factive since the truth of the proposition itself is not evaluated. She remarks, however, that some languages like Italian make a distinction between propositions being likely or unlikely by using indicative and subjunctive, respectively (cf. example 317).

(317) Italian a. Carlo è convinto che Caterina arriverà 'Carlo is convinced that Caterina will come (indicative). ' b. Carlo è convinto che Caterina arrivi.

'Carlo is convinced that Caterina might come. ' (e) ' '.

(f) ' '.

(g) ' '.

Figure 76. Propositional a itude predicates in LSF 7.2.2.2.1 Non-manual Markers Interestingly, the set of non-manual markers varies along two axes: the assertive character of the knowledge and its hypothetical aspect. For non-asserted knowledge, corresponding to an information guessed, it is realized with squinted eyes (see Figures 76b,76d, 76c, 82d and 76a). When is it an asserted belief ( , and ), it is signed with wide opened eyes 7 (see Figures 76f, 76g and76e). Additionally, the hypothetical character of the statement is indicated through a mouthing component. Whenever the experiencer doubts his belief, the signer produces a 'doubt'-mouth (= corner down mouth (cdm)) 8 .

Using these two markers, we can obtain a scale of certainty depending on the combination of the di erent NMMs, which we illustrated in (20).

Note that a single verb can present di erent degrees of certainty, it is not obligatorily encoded in its morphology, as can be observed by the comparison of two occurrences of : one expressing certainty and the other one expressing a guess (Figure 77).

When observing the spreading of the NMMs, we see that in the vast majority, they spread from the main verb to the end of the sentence.

is could be taken as an indicator of the e de ning property of pretence predicates is to take propositions about the non-real world as complements. ey carry no presupposition about the possible realization of the event in the real world. ey can have either an agent (for predicates like 'imagine') or an experiencer (for predicates like 'make-believe') subject.

(326) Caterina imagines that Ada is ve years old again.

(327) Charlo e makes Carlo believe that she nished her thesis.

Even if the propositional content of the sentential complement is interpreted as being irrealis, the use of indicative is a ested even in languages distinguishing irrealis/realis through the opposition indicative/subjunctive. As an example, it requires the assertive mode in Spanish even though the language distinguishes between assertive and non-assertive content (cf. 328).

( . is nonmanual marker spreads over the verb only and is crucial in deriving the irrealis interpretation. Indeed, ' ' can be used as a pretence predicate when marked through this NMMs (see Figure 78e). We present a minimal pair involving two versions of ' ', one with the upward right gaze and the other without, in (330)-( 331). e semantic di erence between the two uses is highlighted in the translation. In addition to the non-manual marking of the verb itself, pretence predicates are signed with the head turned towards one side. is marker spreads over the whole sentential complement.

Pretence verbs presented in ( 329) are all realized on the upper part of the head 9 . As for syntactic tests, all predicates behave alike through every step of our evaluation process.

Isolation test

Pretence predicates show that the main clause cannot appear isolated from its complement, while the sentential complement is fully acceptable alone, we illustrate the contrast in (332). ( 332 ht re M re 'Marie gets the idea that she will go to the cinema, for the lion king. ' 7.2.3.2.5 Shi in indexicals? When the subject of the embedded verb is 1, it is interpreted as being the signer with no role-shi , as shown in (334), which is coherent with a subordinated analysis.

(334) M se bt re,tl

1

[ laugh] 'Haha, Marie imagines that I'm going to the cinema. ' 7.2.3.2.6 estion on the second clause As seen in example (335), it is possible to create direct questions with wh-signs targeting elements of the complement clause of pretence predicates.

(335) a. 7.2.3.2.7 estion on the rst clause Along the same line, it is also possible to asymmetrically ask a direct wh-question on the matrix subject (336). us, the two clauses have to be subordinated.

( [START_REF] Noonan | Complementation". Complex Constructions[END_REF] and [START_REF] Cristofaro | Subordination. Reprinted with corrections and rst published in paperback[END_REF] or factive by [START_REF] Kempson | Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics[END_REF], provide an emotional evaluation of their complement proposition. ey di er from propositional a itude predicates in that the comment they provide on their complement is either a judgment ('be strange') or a mental a itude towards it ('regret' or 'like'), as shown in example (337). Also, in contrast with propositional a itude predicates, the event described in the complement is presupposed to be true. ( 337) Charlo e regrets that few politicians seem concerned about the climate change.

Similarly to propositional a itude predicates, their subject is the experiencer of the main verb. e complements can be either nite or in nitival and usually take an indicative form in languages that do not distinguish between assertive/non-assertive or indicative/subjunctive. In languages like French, the complement takes the subjunctive mode as in ( 338)-( 339).

(338) Je regre e que tu ne saches pas parler franc ¸ais.

1st-sg regret that 2nd-sg neg-part know:subj neg-adv speak:inf French 'I regret that you do not speak French. '

(339) C'est formidable que tu viennes demain.

Expl great that 2nd-sg come:subj tomorrow 'It's great that you come tomorrow. '

Commentative predicates can also take in nitival complements like in (340).

(340) It's strange for Justine not to answer.

Additionally, the commentative complement is usually topic in nature, meaning that it has already been introduced in the discourse. According to [START_REF] Noonan | Complementation". Complex Constructions[END_REF], many languages present only adjectives in this class.

LSF

All the predicates studied are presented in example (341). Within this class of predicates, we identi ed subcategories; therefore, we will provide the illustrations within each subpart.

(341) a. M In all commentative predicates presented in (341), the set of non-manual marking shares the peculiarity of displaying the emotion linked to the semantic content of the verb. For example, (Figure 79c) is signed with a sad face (raising eyebrows and corner down mouth) while (Figure 79a) is signed with a smiling face (smile, raised eyebrows and wide-open eyes). Most of the time, the emotion-markers appear on the verb only, but they can also spread to the end of the sentence. We will see, however, that the constructions within this class present various pa erns when confronted with the syntactic tests. erefore, in what follows, we grouped the predicates that have similar behavior. (

Lit. 'Marie likes/dislikes/hates/despises/is sad to will go to the cinema. '

Following our decision tree, since a) the NP2 is covert and refers to the experiencer of the main predicate, and, b)

is not allowed, we analyze the sentences in (342) as commentative predicates taking in nitival sentential complements.

Interestingly, for all of them, the presence of comp licenses the use of the tense marker ' ' even with a covert NP2, as illustrated with in example (346).

(

'Marie is sad that she will go to the cinema. e movie sucks. ' erefore we have a minimal distinction between the pa erns with (345) and without (346) the presence of comp : the rst strategy is in nitival while the second is nite. is is con rmed by the fact that comp surfaces everytime there is an overt NP2 in the complement (see example 347). With respect to our decision tree, the isolation test has revealed that the nite strategy, introduced by ' comp ', is dependent on the main clause, hence subordinated. However, since this is the rst time that, to the best of our knowledge, a complementizer is described in LSF, we continue our syntactic tests to complete our diagnostic. e predicates and are also non-directional and di er from the rst group of commentative predicates in that they do not require the presence of comp . Additionally, the two predicates are mainly used with an overt NP2, while the rst category presented a preference for covert NP2. We present the baseline in (351) and illustrations of the predicates in Figure ' & ' ' Similarly to the rst cluster of verbs, the results of our syntactic analysis are in favor of a subordinated analysis. Both and take nite sentential complements. ' Crucially, when the NP2 is 1, the reference associated is Marie, the NP1, this is shown by the translation in (361).

(361) M emo-,bt,rg 1 hs 'Marie says: 'Sorry, I cannot go to the cinema. '

As explained before, this shi in reference is indicative of the presence of role-shi . Hence we have no clear indication of the presence of subordination in this predicate since we could not obtain an alternative without role-shi . e extraction pa ern further enhances our diagnostic as it is impossible to extract from the main clause only (see 362). is is not compatible with either a subordinated analysis nor a coordinated analysis.

(362) *W A Lit. 'Who: 'sorry Agathe go to the cinema?' Crucially, when asked to produce a question for which the answer would be 'Marie', the only possible strategy is to use the verb ' ' (see example 363).

(363) le re tilt,le A ? 'Who says: "I'm sorry that Agathe goes to the cinema". ' 7.2.4.2.18 Summary: ' ' Whenever judging sentences containing ' ', signers automatically analyze them as introducing direct speech. For all these reasons, we do not think that this predicate takes a subordinated sentential complement. e evidence provided by the context of use leads us to propose that they are evaluative adjectives which have to be u ered (as shown by the obligation for either role-shi or use of ) from an identi able source.

General summary

In the light of our analyses, the commentative predicates in LSF are , , , , , and . ey all require subordinated sentential complements and the majority of them requires the use of an overt complementizer.

Fear Predicates

Main properties

e class of fear predicates is semantically characterized by the fact that the main verb expresses a certain degree of concern/fear towards the (possible) realization of its complement. An example is given in (364).

(364) Nicolas is afraid to be rejected from his school.

Languages vary in how they express the probability of the complement proposition to happen (subjunctive vs. indicative) or with respect to the positive/negative evaluation of the event itself. Latin, for example, uses negation to express a positive evaluation (compare 365a and 365b).

(365) Latin a. Vereor ne accidat fear.1sg neg happen.3sg 'I fear that it may happen. ' Positive b. Vereor ut accidat fear.1sg comp happen.3sg 'I fear that it may not happen. ' Negative From [START_REF] Greenough | Allen and Greenough's new Latin grammar for schools and colleges, founded on comparative grammar[END_REF] e complement of fear predicates can also be nite.

(366) I am afraid that Marie will jump from the cli . When isolated, their complements are judged as strange due to the non-manual markers, but they are still acceptable (see 370).

(370) M 'Marie hesitates whether she will go to the cinema. ' 7.2.5.2.4 Shi in indexicals? As their is no shi in the reference of 1, role-shi is not instantiated in this case (374). A ? 'Who does not want that Agathe goes to the cinema?' 7.2.5.2.7 Summary In the light of the tests, the fear predicates in LSF all take nite subordinated sentential complements.

Desiderative predicates 7.2.6.1 Main properties

In the class of desiderative predicates [START_REF] Noonan | Complementation". Nunes, Jairo and Ronice Müller de adros[END_REF] and [START_REF] Cristofaro | Subordination. Reprinted with corrections and rst published in paperback[END_REF] integrate all verbs expressing explicitly a desire for the sentential complement to happen. e desiderative class resembles that of the fear predicates since we nd the subject of the main verb again as the experiencer. Also, the complement is the event wished for. Among others, predicates such as 'want', 'hope' or 'desire' belong to this category. We present an example in (377).

(377) Timothée hopes to become the best baker. e literature divides desiderative predicates into three semantic classes: the ones which express hopes, the others expressing wishes, and the 'want'-class. ey are primarily di erentiated because of the realization of their complement and the presupposition about it. Regarding past tense, the 'hope' class gives no presupposition about the actual realization of the event while the 'wish' class presupposes that the event will not happen/had not happened. 'Want' class, on the other hand, cannot take past complements referring to an event which did not happen, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (380).

(378) I hope Marie has won the game.

I have no idea whether she won or not.

(379) I wish Marie had won the game. Marie did not win the game.

(380) *I want Marie to have won the quiz.

Both subjunctives and indicatives forms can be used, depending on languages and, similarly, we nd in nitives and nite clauses cross-linguistically. As for the main predicate, multiple languages use the subjunctive as a way to add a desiderative value to a main verb, as shown in the Catalan example (381). In this case, following our decision tree, we consider the sentential complement to be in nitival and thus subordinated to the main verb.

Another strategy is possible with an overt NP2, as presented in example ( 386).

(386) M woe A 'Marie desires that Agathe goes to the cinema. '

We continue our syntactic investigation of this strategy only.

A

? 'Who wants that Agathe goes to the cinema?' 7.2.6.2.7 Summary In the light of the properties we have seen so far, we conclude that the desiderative predicates of LSF can take two types of subordinated sentential complements: in nitival and nite clauses.

Modal predicates 7.2.7.1 Main properties

By modal class, we refer here to deontic modals that express an obligation ('have to') or permission ('can'). [START_REF] Noonan | Complementation". Nunes, Jairo and Ronice Müller de adros[END_REF] adds to this class the predicates expressing an ability such as 'be able' and removes epistemic modals, which express degrees of knowledge and shall be identi ed as part of the knowledge-class.

(390) Justine must try the sh and chips in Chicago.

(391) Angélique might get lost in San Diego. e complements of modal predicates precise the restriction on the deontic domain expressed by the main verb, but they have a determined time reference. Indeed, they can refer either to events in the future or to potential ones.

e vast majority of modal complements are subjunctives and/or in nitival across languages.

(392) Charlo e doit rendre sa thèse demain.

Charlo e must submit:INF poss-3sg dissertation tomorrow 'Charlo e must submit her thesis tomorrow.

In some languages, using a subjunctive on the main clause itself can provide a modal interpretation.

LSF

An example of all the verbs we found is presented in (393) and illustrated in Figure , however, is a single hand sign and is two-handed (see Figures 84a-84b). e la er expresses a stronger obligation than the former 10 . Additionally, can appear at the beginning of the sentence, before the subject, to express a general obligation. 10 In fact depending on the orientation of the non-dominant hand, one can derive slightly di erent meanings. When the palm is facing the ceiling, as in Figure (84b), it expresses a strong obligation. When it faces the interlocutor, it is a compound of and , which pictures a legal obligation. Achievement predicates (whether positive or negative) take complements that share the same time reference as the main predicate. ey refer to the manner or reason for the success (or failure) of the achievement described by the sentential complement.

Among positive achievement predicates, we can cite verbs such as 'dare', 'remember to' or 'manage', see (395), for example.

(395) Nadia remembered to send the le er to her sister.

On the negative side, when the achievement was not reached, we nd predicates such as 'try', 'forget' or 'fail to', as illustrated in (396).

(396) Corinne forgot to buy bread on the way home.

e complements are usually non-nite, especially in the case of negative predicates, as shown in (397).

(397) Jean-Christophe avoids talking about politics in the presence of his daughter. Following the de nition of achievement predicates, each predicate presented in (398) expresses the manner following which the event described by the sentential complement was realized. Verbs such as ( 399)-( 400) are excluded from this category since the sentential complement refers to knowledge and not achievement. ese examples will be treated in the relevant section.

(399) M Following our decision tree, this is indicative of the interdependence of the two clauses. e NP2 pa ern further con rms this. 7.2.8.2.3 NP2 forcefully covert? For , and , it is impossible to have an overt NP2 as seen by the unacceptability of ( 403). In the achievement reading, it is also unacceptable for and .

( 7.2.9 Knowledge / semi factive predicates 7.2.9.1 Main properties

In the class of knowledge/semi factive predicates, we nd verbs expressing knowledge ('know', 'be acquainted', '…) and its acquisition ('learn', 'discover'…). eir complement expresses the content of this knowledge and is presupposed to be true (cf. 404).

(404) So ane knows [ that Charlo e will also come to London ].

Most verbs of this class also express the manner through which the knowledge is acquired. is is the case of predicates like 'be surprised' or 'to realize'. e complement does not need to be topical in nature and most o en presents new information not previously introduced in the discourse.

In this category, we also nd some perceptive verbs which are diverted from their original 'direct perception' meaning (405).

(405) I see that Justine le .

I notice…

In some languages, we nd various strategies to indicate if the perceptual predicate is used as a knowledge predicate or to describe an actual perception. For example, [START_REF] Kouwenberg | Berbice Dutch[END_REF] observes the use of an additional complementizer 'dati' when the verb 'to see' is used in the knowledge interpretation in Berbice Dutch Creole (example 406). ( 406 A 'Marie remembered that Agathe goes to the cinema. ' 7.2.9.2.1 Non-manual markers Regarding non-manual markers, knowledge predicates in LSF are primarily accompanied by a non-manual emphasise expressing the degree of knowledge. For example, ' '(Figure 86f is signed with a negative headshake and in ated cheeks, which is also a gesture used in French to express the absence of knowledge. For knowledge acquired in a surprising way( ' ', Figure 86d, or ' ', Figure 86g) the non-manual markers re ect this aspect through wide-open eyes and raised eyebrows. All these examples are illustrated in Figure ( 86). Here again, all the predicates are non-directional. (e) ' '.

(f) ' '.

'

(g) ' '.

Figure 'Marie has understood that (she/we) will be eating crepes tonight. ' 7.2.9.2.4 Shi in indexicals? With overt NP2 (see examples 407), it is possible to have a rst-person pronoun as the subject of the sentential complement, in which case it refers to the signer. is is illustrated by example (413) and rules out the possibility for it to be direct speech.

(413) M bt hn,se re 1 'Marie knows that I go to the cinema tonight. ' erefore, the sentence does not present role-shi and is most likely subordinated. 7.2.9.2.5 estions on the second clause Regarding the question pa ern, it is possible to create one about arguments of the second clause only, as illustrated with in (414).

(414) wh M woe comp ? 'What did Marie understood that she/we will eat tonight?' is piece of data goes against a coordinated analysis. 7.2.9.2.6 estions on the rst clause It is also possible to ask questions on an argument of the main clause only as in ( 415).

(415) a. ? 'Who discovered that Agathe goes to the cinema tonight?' 7.2.9.2.7 Summary In the light of our syntactic tests, knowledge predicates in LSF all take subordinated nite sentential complements.

Manipulative predicates 7.2.10.1 Main properties

Manipulative predicates entail causation, with either an agent as their subject or a situation as a cause. is is the case of predicates like 'make someone do something' and 'force' as well as more indirect cases such as 'ask' and 'require'.

(416) Angélique made Charlo e buy a computer. Finite (417) Charlo e forced Angélique to pay her back.

In nitive (418) Angélique hi ing Charlo e i made her i call the police. Situation as subject ese verbs are usually object control predicates. Indeed, the agent of the subordinated verb is the a ectee of the manipulative predicate. In (416), the a ectee, Charlo e, is the one buying a computer, not the manipulative Angélique. We see through (419), that the complement of the verb is indeed the whole clause and not the second NP.

(419) *Angélique made Charlo e.

Manipulative verbs are o en mistaken for u erance verbs due to their semantic proximity; in both cases, speech is involved. We talk about illocutionary acts [START_REF] Austin | How to do things with words[END_REF]) when the manipulation is permi ed through an u erance, as with 'ask' in English (cf. 420).

(420) Marie asks Agathe to do the laundry.

Marie speaks to Agathe to ask her this.

Whether the resulting situation is indeed realized can be expressed across languages through di erent means like subjunctive/indicative or subordination/parataxis. ere is a group of verbs that directly involve an act of manipulation. ey are all marked through a speci c non-manual marker (the tongue moving inside of the jaw), which indicates that the agent is willingly manipulating the a ectee (see Figure 87). ey present a di erent word order from the predicates we found so far, as seen in examples (421).

(421) a. However, upon closer inspection, these sentences do not qualify as predicates taking a sentential complement. Indeed, in the description we provided, manipulative predicates are object control meaning that they presented an agent, an a ectee, and a resultative situation of which, crucially, the a ectee is the subject. In (421), the person going to the cinema is, in fact, the agent of the verb, Agathe. rough this, we see that verbs such as ' ' or ' ' take Agathe as their subject and Marie as their complement. is is made salient by the word order and the topic NMMs marker which spread over the complement.

e resulting situation, 'to go to the cinema', is instead an adjunct. Since we are focusing on sentential complements (and not adjuncts), we will leave them out of our present study.

Another group of verbs is suitable. ey are presented in (422) and illustrated in Figure Here, as described in the previous section, the subject of the main clause manipulate the a ectee into doing something. e impossibility, most of the time, to have only the a ectee as a complement, supports the fact that the whole sentence is the complement, as in ( 423).

(423) *M A 'Marie commands Agathe. ' 7.2.10.2.1 Non-manual markers e manipulative predicates in LSF are marked through non-manual markers similar to those used for u erance predicates: the body of the signer is oriented towards the a ectee location, and this spreads over the whole sentential predicate. Regarding eye gaze direction, however, it is also directed towards the a ectee (see Figure 88) while it was directed towards the agent in u erance predicates. In this category, the verbs are partially directional (only the object of the verb is expressed as the endpoint of the movement) and pa ern alike throughout all the syntactic tests. (e) ' '.

(f) ' '.

Hence the two clauses cannot be coordinated.

7.2.10.2.6 estions on the rst clause It is also possible for the manipulative predicates to have questions on the main clause only, as in ( 429).

(429) re W rg,ht ht A ? 'Who pushes Agathe to go to the cinema?' 7.2.10.2.7 Summary In the light of our investigations, it appears that the verbs we presented in this category are all manipulative predicates taking subordinated nite sentential complements.

7.2.11 Phasal / aspectual predicates 7.2.11.1 Main properties Also called 'aspectual' [START_REF] Newmeyer | e underlying structure of the begin-class verbs[END_REF], these predicates refer to inception, continuation, iteration, or termination of an action that the sentential complement describes. e main verb expresses the phase at which the subject (an agent) is, and puts it in relation to the action described by the dependent verb (430).

(430) So ane continues to write his thesis. [START_REF] Cristofaro | Subordination. Reprinted with corrections and rst published in paperback[END_REF] argues that this property of pu ing an explicit relation between two predicates distinguishes them from ordinary aspectual markers such as 'now' or the perfect/imperfect contrast (cf. example 431).

(431) So ane is writing his thesis.

→ One predicate

In (431), we have no indications of whether the subject is at the beginning, end, or middle of his action.

Across languages, strategies di er on whether the phasal predicates take a sentential complement (TP or CP), an in nitival complement, or expresse the phase through an adverbial clause. Regarding sentential forms, they are generally in nitival. Apart from complementation, phasal notions can be expressed through verbal morphology (a xes, particles, or reduplication).

LSF

Aspectual information, as well as the phasal status of verbs, are o en directly encoded in the morphology of the verb itself through reduplication or modulations of the movement path [START_REF] Kuhn | Pluractionality, iconicity, and scope in French Sign Language[END_REF]. Nevertheless, few predicates correspond to the description provided by [START_REF] Noonan | Complementation". Nunes, Jairo and Ronice Müller de adros[END_REF], an example of each is presented in (432). Some illustrations are presented in (c) ' '.

Figure 89. Phasal predicates in LSF 7.2.11.2.1 Non-manual markers Regarding non-manual markers, we observe a slight marking emphasizing the meaning of the verb. For example, (Figure 89b) is signed with a frowned face and a headshake while (Figure 89c) is marked by an assertive head nod which can spread over the whole complement. Both and (Figure 89a) can be used with a di erent word order, preceding the subject, as illustrated in (433).

(433) a. is change in word order does not appear to a ect the non-manual markers used nor the meaning derived from the sentence. 7.2.11.2.2 NP2 forcefully covert? All three predicates take sentential complements presenting covert NP2 only. e unacceptability of (434) shows this.

(434) *M A Int. 'Marie begins to make Agathe go to the cinema. '

In that respect, they are either control or raising predicates.

Is '

' compatible with the predicate? Additionally, it is not possible to insert a er the main verb, while it is perfectly acceptable before (see 435).

(435) a. Lit. 'Marie stop will go to the cinema' 7.2.11.2.4 Summary In the light of these results, the sentential complement appears to be in nitival, hence subordinated to the phasal predicates.

7.2.12 Perceptive predicates 7.2.12.1 Main properties e perceptive class contains verbs referring to the sensory mode through which an event is perceived. is is the case of predicates like 'see ', 'smell', 'hear' or 'watch' 11 . eir complements describe the event perceived and are o en realized through participial clauses (cf. 436).

(436) John saw the pilot drowning.

With perceptive predicates, the subject of the complement sentence is the direct object of the main verb. In addition to participial, complements can be in nitival or nite, as in example (437).

(437) a. Marie entend la voiture démarrant dans l'allée.

Marie hear:pst the car start:PARTpst in the alley b. Marie entend la voiture qui démarre dans l'allée.

Marie hear:pst the car which start:FIN in the alley c. Marie entend la voiture démarrer dans l'allée.

Marie hear:pst the car start:INF in the alley. 'Marie hears the car starting in the alley.

It is essential here to remark that the sentence in (437b) is a pseudo-relative. is means that, while it looks like a relative clause, semantically, it is the whole event that serves as the complement of the main verb. is is so, despite the NP acting prima facie as its direct object. Indeed, in (438), 'Justine' is not hearing 'Charlo e' but the whole event corresponding to her playing piano.

(438) Justine hears Charlo e playing piano. . 'Marie did not see Agathe going to the cinema. ' 7.2.12.2.1 Non-manual markers Regarding the non-manual markers, almost all perceptive predicates are signed with the body leaning towards the perceived situation. e eyegaze being also directed towards it (see Figures 90d, 90a and90b). ese non-manual markers spread from the main predicate to the end of the sentence. Interestingly, the only predicate which goes whithout this NMMs is ' ' (Figure 90c), where there is nothing to be perceived. In this respect, the body lean and eyegaze could be interpreted as a marker of evidentiality. 'Agathe goes to the cinema. ' 7.2.12.2.3 NP2 forcefully covert? To qualify as a complex sentence, the NP2 of the sentential complement has to be overt. If it is covert, it is interpreted as absent, in which case the sentence is interpreted as being mono-clausal as shown in (442).

(442) le,ht M 'Marie hears piano. ' 7.2.12.2.4 Is the predicate compatible with tense markers? Arguments of perceptive predicates are nite, as seen by the acceptability of (443). In this case, however, we used the tense marker ' ' (following [START_REF] Millet | Grammaire descriptive de la langue des signes franc ¸aise[END_REF]) as the future tense was not compatible with the perceptive act.

(443) M lg,le,ht 'Marie heard that the neighbor have been arguing. ' 7.2.12.2.5 Shi in indexicals?

ere is no role-shi in complements of perceptive predicates, as seen by the reference associated with ' 1' in (444). ( 444)

'Marie caught me going to the cinema. '

12 Recall from the Introduction that both SVO and SOV are a ested word orders in LSF. e position of the sentential complement depends on our informants' preferred word order. e two alternatives are however equivalent. Additionally, recall from examples (349) or ( 414), repeated here a er as ( 447) and ( 448), that comp can be used within questions, along with other interrogative words.

(

Lit. 'Marie likes/dislikes/hates/despises/is sad to will go to the cinema. '

Appendices

In this dissertation we have elicited data through eldwork methods. To do so, we used LSF examples found on line or within corpora whenever possible, or we elicited the constructions we were interested in through drawings we realized. In this Appendix, we start by presenting the pictures which we used to elicit relativization strategies in LSF, when we had no idea whether they existed or not.

We then present the two pictures we used in the temporal clauses investigation.

Regarding the psycholinguistic experiment, we a ached the ethical-commi ee validation of our project and then present the long list of material (stimulus and pictures) we used in our procedure. We also present the details of the statistical models we used to investigate accuracy and visual processing in the two populations we studied. All the sentences are given in French, as it does not make much sense to put the equivalent glossed in LSF. e LSF stimuli are accessible at the following address: Folder-LSF 1 .

Number

Context (code: FC number in the LSF videos)

Stimuli (code: F number in the LSF videos)

Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un voleur, un samurai et un prêtre.

Prière de trouver le prêtre correct, c'està-dire le prêtre bienveillant qui observe le samurai sur l'image.

Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un détective, un scienti que et une princesse.

Prière de trouver le détective correct, c'est-à-dire le détective a entif qui xe le scienti que sur l'image.

Voici deux images avec à chaque fois une lle e, une guerrière et un espion.

Prière de trouver la guerrière correcte, c'est-à-dire la guerrière courageuse qui menace l'espion sur l'image.

Voici deux images avec à chaque fois une fée, un pompier et une enseignante.

Prière de trouver l'enseignante correcte, c'est-à-dire l'enseignante autoritaire qui surveille le pompier sur l'image.

Voici deux images avec à chaque fois un cosmonaute, une gymnaste et un menuisier.

Prière de trouver la gymnaste correcte, c'est-à-dire la gymnaste souple qui sanctionne le cosmonaute sur l'image.

Voici deux images avec une poule et une enveloppe.

Prière de trouver l'image correcte, c'està-dire l'image qui montre une enveloppe.

Voici deux images avec une autruche et un pied.

Prière de trouver l'image correcte, c'està-dire l'image qui montre une autruche.

Voici deux images avec une ferme et un crocodile.

Prière de trouver l'image correcte, c'està-dire l'image qui montre un crocodile.

Voici deux images avec une noix et une roue.

Prière de trouver l'image correcte, c'està-dire l'image qui montre une noix.

Voici deux images avec une main et un âne.

Prière de trouver l'image correcte, c'està-dire l'image qui montre un âne.

Voici deux images avec un peigne et un bol.

Prière de trouver l'image correcte, c'està-dire l'image qui montre un peigne.

Voici deux images avec une lampe et un bol.

Prière de trouver l'image correcte, c'està-dire l'image qui montre un bol.

Voici deux images avec un bouc et une jambe.

Prière de trouver l'image correcte, c'està-dire l'image qui montre un bouc.

Voici deux images avec un bouc et une scie.

Prière de trouver l'image correcte, c'està-dire l'image qui montre une scie.

Voici deux images avec un coeur et une jambe.

Prière de trouver l'image correcte, c'està-dire l'image qui montre un coeur. Voici deux images avec un sac et un lit.

Merci de trouver la bonne image, donc l'image avec le lit.

Voici deux images avec un sac et un phare.

Merci de trouver la bonne image, donc l'image avec le sac. Voici deux images avec un lit et une clé.

Merci de trouver la bonne image, donc l'image avec la clé.

Voici deux images avec un phare et une clé.

Merci de trouver la bonne image, donc l'image avec le phare.

Voici deux images avec une montre et une chaise.

Merci de trouver la bonne image, donc l'image avec la chaise.

Voici deux images avec une montre et un carton.

Merci de trouver la bonne image, donc l'image avec la montre.

Voici deux images avec une chaise et un train.

Merci de trouver la bonne image, donc l'image avec le train.

Voici deux images avec un carton et un train.

Merci de trouver la bonne image, donc l'image avec le carton.

Voici deux images avec un gant et un chat.

Merci de trouver la bonne image, donc l'image avec le chat.

Voici deux images avec un gant et un car.

Merci de trouver la bonne image, donc l'image avec le gant.

Voici deux images avec un chat et une brosse.

Merci de trouver la bonne image, donc l'image avec la brosse.

Voici deux images avec un bus et une brosse.

Merci de trouver la bonne image, donc l'image avec le car.

Voici deux images avec une luge et une eur.

Merci de trouver la bonne image, donc l'image avec une eur.

Voici deux images avec une luge et une ûte.

Merci de trouver la bonne image, donc l'image avec une luge.

Table 24. Contexts and stimuli used as Fillers. For every context, the table contains all four variations corresponding to the four possible lists presented in the experiment. email : cer_parisdescartes@services.cnrs.fr ; jacqueline.fagard@parisdescartes.fr ; david.brami@parisdescartes.fr PROTOCOLE : Étude expérimentale de la compréhension des phrases complexes en Langue des Signes Française.

Noms du/ des chercheur(s) : Charlotte Hauser, Céline Pozniak

Email pour la correspondance : charlotte.hauser@live.fr; celine.pozniak@gmail.com; caterina.donati@linguist.univ-paris-diderot.fr