Trends in South Asian Linguistics

Ghanshyam Sharma, John J. Lowe

• Publisher: De Gruyter Mouton
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9783110753141
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Languages
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

The field of South Asian linguistics has undergone considerable growth and advancement in recent years, as a wider and more diverse range of languages have become subject to serious linguistic study, and as advancements in theoretical linguistics are applied to the rich linguistic data of South Asia. In this growth and diversity, it can be difficult to retain a broad grasp on the current state of the art, and to maintain a sense of the underlying unity of the field. This volume brings together twenty articles by leading scholars in South Asian linguistics, which showcase the cutting-edge research currently being undertaken in the field, and offer the reader a comprehensive introduction to the state of the art in South Asian linguistics. The contributions to the volume focus primarily on syntax and semantics, but also include important contributions on morphological and phonological questions. The contributions also cover a wide range of languages, from well-studied Indo-Aryan languages such as Sanskrit, Hindi, Bangla and Panjabi, through Dravidian languages to endangered and understudied Tibeto-Burman languages. This collection is a must-read for all scholars interested in current trends and advancements in South Asian linguistics.

A cross-linguistic approach to sentential subjects in Kannada

Anuradha Sudharsan

Abstract

In Kannada, only nominalized clauses can occupy the canonical subject position whereas non-nominalized clauses can occupy only the object position. Nominalized clauses have an overt D head, whereas non-nominalized clauses lack it. Two factors explain this subject/object asymmetry. Firstly, finite T is always +Case, whereas only transitive v has Case. Secondly, the fact that only nominalized clauses can occupy Case positions shows that only an overt nominal head can receive Case. A (Non-)Overt Head Constraint is proposed to exclude non-nominalized clauses from Case positions. Cross-linguistic facts corroborate this claim and also explain why that-clauses in English tend to extrapose.

Keywords: Nominalized clauses, overt head, case positions, non-nominalized clauses, Caseless positions, (non-)overt head parameter,

1 Introduction

This paper examines asymmetries in the behavior of sentential subjects (hereafter SSs) and sentential objects (hereafter SOs) in Kannada and in other languages, in the light of controversies regarding the subjecthood of the initial that-clause in English, and attempts to resolve these controversies by offering an alternative account of that-clauses. In languages like Kannada, nominalization of CP (and IP) clauses are available while in languages like English nominalization of CP clauses is not available. It is this distinction that determines the distribution of SSs and SOs across languages.

An analysis of Kannada data shows that only nominalized clauses can occupy the Case-marked canonical subject position whereas non-nominalized clauses are not allowed in this position, but are allowed in the object position. Nominalization converts a CP clause (or an IP clause) into a DP clause with an overt D head. Non-nominalized clauses, on the other hand, are bare CP clauses without a D head, overt or non-overt, and hence they are not eligible for Case. This asymmetry in the behavior of the subject and object clauses comes from two factors. Firstly, it is due to the distinct Case-licensing properties of the functional heads T and v. Case/D feature is always available on finite T/I. Therefore, SpecIP position is always Case-marked. As for v, it determines the argument structure of a clause and assigns theta-roles to its arguments, but does not always assign Case. Only transitive verbs assign Case, especially when they subcategorize for a DP argument. So v is +Case when it subcategorizes for a DP argument and it is -Case when it subcategorizes for a CP argument. This way, SpecvP is not always Case-marked unlike SpecIP. Secondly, the fact that only DP clauses can occupy a Case position ...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• On the syntax of comparative clauses in Vedic Sanskrit … like someone eating the foam off the water
• Some questions about yád in Vedic
• A statistical model of syntactic and non-syntactic factors affecting relative clause placement in Hindi
• Optionality and variation in agreement in some participles in Hindi-Urdu
• A cross-linguistic approach to sentential subjects in Kannada
• Relation between animacy and case marking in Eastern Indo-Aryan languages
• Participles with a semantic void in Koints
• Competition between vectored verbs and factored verbs in Hindi-Urdu, Marathi and Gujarati
• How similarly do Hindi rakhnā and Japanese oku PUT behave as a V2? A corpus-based comparative analysis
• The use of vector verbs in early modern Tamil
• Reflexive and reciprocal marking in Mising
• Reciprocals in Kokborok — A Case of Syntactic Convergence
• A cognitive semantic analysis of locative and spatial constructions in Bangla
• Revisiting Pāṇini’s generative power
• Hindi root allomorphy: Insights from phonological and morphosyntactic theory
• Lexeme and speech syllables in English and Hindi. A case for syllable structure
• List of contributors
• Index of authors
• Index of languages
• Index of subjects