I would like to ask two questions about "free relative clauses" like the one shown in . I am not a native speaker of English, but I feel that "what appears to be" in  acts as a hedge, expressing speaker's uncertainty about "no sense of reality". Is this intuition correct?
 Sue has what appears to be no sense of reality.
The second question is whether there is contrast between [2a] and [2b] in terms of grammaticality.
[2a] Sue has what appears to be no sense of reality and neither do I.
[2b] Sue has what appears to be no sense of reality and so do I.
The point behind this question is whether negative expressions such as "no" that are embedded in what looks like the relative clause ("what appears to be") can have scope over the matrix clause ("Sue has"). If "no" can have scope over the matrix, the sentence in question will be combined with a “neither”-tag as in [2a] but not with a “so”-tag as in [2b].