Formal Approaches to South Asian Languages (E-Journal)
Not a member yet
116 research outputs found
Sort by
Malayalam-Kannada Code-mixing
Full text linkThis paper presents the results of a pilot study undertaken to see the possible limits of code-mixing among Malayalam-Kannada bilinguals in a syntactic context of featural mismatch. The results of the study reiterate that the fact that despite being influenced by psycholinguistic factors like being primed with the language of the task paragraph, simultaneous (balanced) bilinguals can make the choice of strategy based on structural factors, but sequential bilinguals do not access syntactic structure while making these decisions. The latter’s choice of strategy is based either on the acquisitional factor of MT/non-MT or on psycholinguistic factors from the task design
Processing of Relative Clauses in Malayalam
Full text linkA study of the processing of relative clauses may offer insight into how a range of processes involving structural manipulation by way of movement might be realized in the mind. In this paper, I elucidate a self-paced reading experiment that investigates the processing of relative clauses in Malayalam. I use singly embedded relative clauses and counterbalance each item by varying the position of the RC in the sentence, and the gapping (subject or object) from the clause. I observe a slight preference for object relative clauses, and explain my results using an expectation based model
Relative Deletion
Full text linkHindi-Urdu exhibits a lesser-known form of ellipsis known as Relative Deletion (RD) (Mishra 2024; van Craenenbroeck & Lipt´ak 2006), where verbal and phrasal material in relative clauses is elided, leaving only the relative phrase and one or more remnants. This study presents an in-depth analysis of RD, examining its behavior across various syntactic structures, including equatives and temporal/locative relative clauses. We examine the influence of case-marking on, and location of, the relative pronoun on the well-formedness of RD. The study compares RD with sluicing and gapping, highlighting their locality profiles and constraints. Notably, RD requires the antecedent to originate within the clause to which the relative clause is attached, a feature that parallels restrictions found in English gapping (Johnson 2009) and not sluicing (Ross 1969). In addition, we explore apparent instances of non-local RD, where deletion seems to cross clause boundaries, posing a syntactic puzzle that raises further questions about the mechanisms of ellipsis in Hindi-Urdu
Phases are Read-Only: Evidence from Hindi-Urdu
Full text linkUnder Chomsky (2000, 2001)’s Phase Impenetrability Condition, phases induce Transfer of their complements, rendering the complements inaccessible. As a consequence, cross-phasal dependencies are ruled out. Recent work onphases has suggested that instead of being eliminated, transferred phase complements remain in the syntax (Bo?skovi´c 2003; Obata 2010; Chomsky 2012; Chomsky et al. 2019). In this paper, I expand on the idea of spelled out phase complements being visible but not completely accessible for syntactic processes. I propose a Read-Only view of phases, wherein phase complementsare not deleted from the narrow syntactic derivation for inspection after undergoing Transfer, but the featural content of the phase complement becomes unalterable. The major consequence of this view is a nuanced conception of phase locality, such that some cross-phasal dependencies—namely those that do not require feature valuation of a transferred element—are possible. Cross-phasal dependencies that do value features of transferred elements continue to remain impossible, like in standard phase theory. I show that Hindi-Urdu ?-agreement and case assignment bear out the predictions of Read-Only withregard to cross-phasal dependencies. ?-agreement by a higher probe with a transferred goal, where the goal itself is not altered, is possible in Hindi-Urdu. On the other hand, accusative case assignment into a spelled out phase complement—which involves valuing the case feature of the transferred goal—is impossible. However, the same transferred DP that cannot be accusative is able to condition dative case on a DP in a higher phase. I argue that no notion of phases—other than Read-Only—accounts for the Hindi-Urdu pattern. The phase locality imposed by Read-Only offers a new way of accommodating dependencies between elements belonging to different phases in a principled way
Scrambling in Bengali: An A-/A’-Movement Distinction
Full text linkBengali is an SOV language (Bhatt & Dayal 2007), known for its flexible word order. Elements in a phrase can be moved to other positions, both within and across clausal boundaries, in a process called scrambling (David 2015). This study aims to provide a comprehensive description of scrambling in Bengali and argues that scrambling manifests in two types of movement in this language: A- and A’-. It further argues that the type of scrambling involved (Avs. A’-) is predictable from the syntactic environment based on the following generalization: A’-movement is possible only when a Spec,CP position is available as a landing site. Given this, scrambling in Bengali supports the position-based approach to the A-/A’- distinction, recently argued for in Keine (2018). Building on previous literature on scrambling in other SOV languages, such as Hindi (Keine 2018; Dayal 1994; Mahajan 1990, 1994) and Japanese (Sato & Goto 2014; Saito 1985, 1992), this paper investigates scrambling in four syntactic environments, each with a different scrambling profile: 1) vP-internal movement; 2) clause-internal movement; 3) cross-non-finite clause movement; and 4) cross-finite clause movement. Two well-established tests are used to discern A-movement from A’-movement: i) A-movement can obviate weak crossover effects and lead to reciprocal binding; ii) A’-movement can reconstruct for Condition A. It is demonstrated that vP-internal scrambling is unambiguously A-movement, while clause-internal scrambling may be both A- and A’-movement. Additionally, cross-clausal movement out of non-finite clauses can be both A- and A’-movement, but cross-clausal movement out of finite-clauses is unambiguously A’-movement
Processing of stacked NPs in embedded sentences in Malayalam
Full text linkThe paper examines the effect of stacked NPs in centre-embedded sentences in Malayalam and uses the experimental results to compare two theories of processing difficulty: Gibson (2000)’s Dependency Locality Theory (DLT) and Hale (2001)’s Surprisal Theory. Crucially, the study also looks at the definite vs. non-definite NP distinction in Malayalam in a stacked NP context. Non-definiteness in Malayalam is indicated by having the determiner oru before the noun; a non-definite NP in a centre-embedded sentence disrupts NP stacking. A self-paced reading task is run using single and double-embedded sentences in Malayalam with the embedded NP alternating between definite and non-definite conditions. The test is designed to determine if (i) stacked NPs in a centre-embedded sentence result in a processing difficulty (ii) having oru preceding an NP affects processing. The results showed that processing difficulty increases with the addition of each NP; NPs from the embedded clauses take longest to be read. When the embedded NP is preceded by oru, reaction time significantly drops at oru and the following NP, indicating that the determiner facilitated integration of theNP, disrupting NP stacking. The results were compared against the predictions of DLT and Surprisal models. We found that the anticipation based Surprisal account best accounted for the results for Malayalam. 
‘-Te/-e’marker as a plural in Bangla
Full text link
The current work deals with the morphological marker -Te/-e in Bangla. It analyzes the form, function, and structural position of the marker and proposes that, among various other roles, this marker yields the interpretation of a plural marker in restricted contexts. This study further claims that along with -raa, -Te is another associative plural in the language found with conjoined DPs with added ‘collective’ or ‘together’ semantics. This claim becomes interesting in the backdrop of Bangla being a classifier language. This novel proposal deconstructs the dominant thesis regarding the absence of plural in a numeral classifier language. It also suggests that the definition of the plural is much more varied than what has been discussed in the literature. 
A Preliminary Description of vanthu in Spoken Tamil
Full text linkAlthough vanthu has only been described as a filler word or discourse marker in spoken Tamil, this word is being used in various grammatical functions in colloquial Tamil speech. An analysis of the syntactic constraints and distribution of The occurrences of vanthu in one Tamil speaker shows that vanthu is being used primarily as a topic marker, then as a copula, a discourse marker, and a quotative. This analysis of vanthu suggests a change in progress occurring in colloquial spoken Tamil and confirms the necessity of more formal linguistic analysis to be done in this informal register of Tamil speech which can reveal phenomena that cannot be observed in formal or written registers of Tamil. 
The unique functionality of Urdu light verb jaa and Voice head variation
Full text linkVariation in the properties and structural position of Hindi-Urdu light verbs is well-established. Similar accounts across the literature agree on three positions within the verbal spine: a lower v/V position, an intermediate position, and a high external-argument-introducing head (see Butt & Ramchand, 2005; Suliman, 2015; Sobolak, 2023). In this paper, we add light verb jaa to this discussion. Specifically, we show that jaa occupies an external-argument-introducing Voice head, using evidence from instrumental causers in jaa-constructions. We also show that, within the Voice head typology, Voice-jaa is distinct from the canonical active and passive Voice heads, and is, in fact, akin to Voice in marked anticausatives
Language contact and sound change: Reasons for mutual unintelligibility between formal and colloquial registers of Tamil
Full text linkTamil has since its origination been diglossic, separating the formal high register from the colloquial low register. These two registers are currently mutually unintelligible (Shanmugam Pillai 1965). This analysis explores the reasons why they became unintelligible, which are proposed to be two-fold: historic language contact between Tamil and Sanskrit; and sound changes demonstrated using the Comparative Method. It has been suggested that the decline in mutual intelligibility is due to the removal of Sanskrit loanwords from the formal high register during the Tamil Purist Movement of the 20th century (Kailasapathy 1979). The earliest evidence of Tamil and Sanskrit reciprocal borrowing dates to the first Tamil literary works (Krishnamurti 2003). Where and when this language contact occurred is unclear, but it may have occurred during overlapping occupation of the Indus River Valley region by Sanskrit and Proto-Dravidian (Steever 2009). During the 20th century, the formal register replaced these loanwords with Tamil equivalents wherever possible (Kailasapathy 1979). Currently, low register Tamil is composed of 50% loanwords whereas high register Tamil is composed of only 20% loanwords (Krishnamurti 2003). It has been attested, however, that some diglossia was present before contact between Tamil and Sanskrit. Early diglossia can thus instead be explained by sound changes, which also account for current differences between the registers not attributed to loanwords. Sound changes identified in this analysis include: syncope, apocope, paragoge, stop to fricative lenition, and others. This analysis finds that language contact and sound changes contributed to the decline in intelligibility between formal and colloquial Tamil, however the nature of the language contact is still under investigation