3.3.2.2. Position(s) within the matrix clause
Although the unmarked order when the object is a noun phrase is SOV (SYNTAX 2.3.1.1), finite object clauses resist sitting between the matrix subject and the matrix verb. As a matter of fact, a finite object clause normally precedes or follows the matrix clause. The following are examples of an object clause that follows (a) or precedes (b) the matrix clause that contains the verb hope.
bl-right
a. gianni hope maria leave
‘Gianni hopes Maria will leave.’
re bl-b
b. maria leave gianni hope
‘Gianni hopes Maria will leave.’
If the object clause is sentence initial, it can be resumed by the sign pe. pe is the determiner-like element also present in relative clauses (SYNTAX 3.4). In the following sentence, the embedded clause is articulated on the side of the dominant hand (as indicated by body lean towards the right) and pe is articulated after the embedded clause in the same area of the signing space to indicate that it refers to the object clause.
bl-r
pietroa ixa cake eat all pe gianni sure
‘Gianni is sure that Pietro ate all the cake.’
In the following sentence, the embedded clause is also articulated with a body lean towards the right. pe, whichfollows the main subject,is articulated with the same body lean.
bl-r bl-r
gianni car seize maria pe warn
‘Gianni spreads the news that Gianni stole a car.’
The choice between sentence initial (with or without pe) and sentence final position is fairly free, as confirmed by the following pairs in which the sentence (a) contains a sentence final object clause and the sentence (b) contains a sentence initial object clause:
i) Clausal argument of say:
a. gianni say pietroa ixa cake eat all
‘Gianni says that Pietro ate all the cake.’
re
b. pietro cake eat all gianni say
‘Gianni says that Pietro ate all the cake.’
ii) Clausal argument of sure:
a. gianni sure pietroa ixa cake eat all
‘Gianni is sure that Pietro ate all the cake.’
bl-right
b. pietro cake eat all gianni know sure
‘Gianni knows for sure that Pietro ate all the cake.’
iii) Clausal argument of see:
bl-right
a. gianni see maria leave
‘Gianni saw Maria leaving.’
b. maria leave gianni see
‘Gianni saw Maria leaving.’
iv) Clausal argument of happy:
a. gianni happy pietro leave
‘Gianni is happy that Pietro left.’
re
b. pietro leave gianni happy
‘Gianni is happy that Pietro left.’
v) Clausal argument of complain:
a. gianni complain train go_away CL(curved open V): ‘get_on’ neg_o
‘Gianni complained that the train left and he could not board it.’
b. train go_away CL(curved open V): ‘get_on’ neg_on gianni complain
‘Gianni complained that the train left and he could not board it.’
Non-finite object clauses occupy a different position, though. This is shown in the following sentences, in which we can infer that the object clause is non-finite because: i) it cannot contain a tense or aspectual auxiliary and ii) the null subject in the object clause is interpretatively dependent (it refers to the main clause subject gianni in the (a) sentence and to the main clause indirect object maria in the (b) sentence). In both sentences the non-finite object clause appears between the matrix subject and the matrix verb, a position in which finite object clauses do not normally occur.
re
a. gianni contract put_signature forget
‘Gianni forgot to sign the contract.’
re
b. chef ixa mariaa meat eat forcea
‘The cook forced Maria to eat meat.’
However, non-finite object clauses (like finite clauses) can also be found in the left periphery of the sentence.
contract put_signature gianni forget
‘Gianni forgot to sign the contract.’
If the main verb takes both an indirect object and an object clause, the following two orders are attested.
bl-right
re
a. gianni pietro persuade leave
‘Gianni convinced Pietro to leave.’
bl-right
b. gianni persuade pietro leave
‘Gianni convinced Pietro to leave.’
Finally, both finite and non-finite clauses can appear in another type of structure. In this structure, the main verb is followed by the sign qartichoke and the object clause immediately follows. This structure, which is very productive, is illustrated in (a) with a finite object clause and in (b) with a non-finite object clause.
wh bl-b
a. gianni say qartichoke pietroacara poss3a seizea
‘Gianni said that someone stole Pietro’s car.’
wh bl-b
b. gianni forget qartichoke contract put_signature
‘Gianni forgot to sign the contract.’
Although these sentences may seem bi-clausal constructions involving a question and an answer, they are likely to be special cases of subordination, possibly to be related to free relatives (SYNTAX 3.4). For instance, they do not have the same non-manuals and intonation of question-answer pairs, as shown by the pair (a) and (b) below, which are the question-answer pairs corresponding to (a) and (b) above.
bl-left
wh
a. A: gianni say qartichoke
bl-right
B: pietroacar poss3a seize
‘What did Gianni say?’ ‘Someone stole Pietro’s car.’
bl-left
wh
b. A: gianni forget qartichoke
bl-right
B: contract put_signature
‘What did Gianni forget?’ ‘To sign the contract.’
This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant Agreement No 693349.