In my ongoing work (see also Miestamo 2007; 2009), (5) I have found the following types of structural asymmetry between interrogatives and declaratives that seem to recur cross-linguistically and may thus form relevant subtypes of asymmetric interrogatives in a typological classification of PIs: 1.
An easily observable structural difference between interrogatives and declaratives in Uralic languages is the change in word order found in Finnic, Saamic and Permic languages.
In Lavukaleve, both focus (19a) and non-focus (19b) constructions are found in declaratives, but the interrogative marker is itself a focus marker and interrogatives are therefore always focus constructions (19c).
In Moseten, we see another example in which PIs are asymmetric vis-a-vis declaratives in that they must use a focus construction.
Another way in which interrogatives are found to differ structurally from declaratives in Uralic languages is the neutralization of some grammatical distinctions made in the corresponding declarative.
Frota's data on EP suggest that local intonational movements analyzed with a bitonal structure may reveal differences between imperatives and declaratives that are not evident when only comparing F0 maxima.
The sentences were repeated three times each (33 declaratives and 33 imperatives per informant) in a pseudo-randomized order for a total of 132 imperative and 132 declarative tokens.
In the present study, there is considerable variation of tonal alignment in the data; however, the variation does not demonstrate a categorical distinction between imperatives and declaratives.
Differences between the imperatives and declaratives for pitch-accent type (based on tonal alignment) are manifest in the use of the early H pitch movement and the intonational deaccenting of words (see Figure 5).
The female speaker SP exhibits a slight preference for the marked early H pitch accent in imperatives, compared to declaratives, and the tendency to deaccent in neutral declaratives more than in the imperative utterances.
When it was used in affirmative declarative sentences it did not necessarily give the sentence emphasis, as it does today.
Now it seems that periphrastic do-constructions in affirmative declarative sentences were more widespread initially in formal speech, where their frequency maximum was concentrated on trial texts (cf.
In affirmative declarative sentences periphrastic do-constructions began to be employed in various contexts with a slightly higher use in the present tense (743 instances, i.
Assumptions about the decline of periphrastic do in affirmative declarative sentences
Towards the end of the 16th century and the beginning of the 17th century periphrastic do-constructions had reached their highest usage in affirmative declarative sentences.