Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T01:39:51.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Copy Control in Telugu1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2009

YOUSSEF A. HADDAD
YOUSSEF A. HADDAD*
Affiliation:
Lebanese American University
*
Author's address: Department of Humanities, Lebanese American University, P.O. Box 36, Byblos, Lebanon[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The main purpose of this paper is to document a phenomenon of copy adjunct control in Telugu, a Dravidian language, and to provide a derivation of the relevant structures within the framework of the Minimalist Program. Copy adjunct control is a relation of co-identity between the subject in the matrix clause and the subject in an adjunct of the same structure. Both subjects are pronounced. I analyze Copy Control structures as instances of multiple copy spell-out derived via movement, whereby movement is understood as copy-plus-merge. Decisions concerning the pronunciation of copies are prepared for in the syntax, but they are made on the phonological side of the computation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 69 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

I would like to thank Eric Potsdam for all his support and valuable feedback. I am also grateful to Brent Henderson, Ann Wehmeyer, and two anonymous JL reviewers for their useful comments. All the data, unless otherwise specified, was collected during interviews with the following consultants: Karthik Boinapally, Mahesh Tanniru, Santhosh Kopidaka, Venicata Ramana Cheekoti, Krishna Chaitanya Nimmagadda, Sankara Sarma V. Tatiparti, Jithendra Gudapati, and Abita Gudapati. The material in this paper is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. BCS 0131993; Eric Potsdam and Maria Polinksy are the principal investigators. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

REFERENCES

Aoun, Joseph, Choueiri, Lina & Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Resumption, movement, and derivational economy. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 371–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arora, Harbir Kaur & Subbarao, Karumuri Venkata. 2004. Syntactic change and convergence. In Peri, Bhaskararao & Karumuri, Venkata Subbarao (eds.) Non-nominative subjects, vol. 1, 25–47. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bejar, Susana & Massam, Diane. 1999. Multiple case checking. Syntax 2, 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Islands and chains: Resumption as stranding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, Hornstein, Norbert & Nunes, Jairo. 2007. Overt copies in reflexive and control structures: A movement analysis. In Anastasia, Conroy, Chunyuan, Jing, Chizuru, Nakao & Eri, Takahashi (eds.) University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 15, 1–46.Google Scholar
Chao, Wynn & Sells, Peter. 1983. On the interpretation of resumptive pronouns. In Peter, Sells & Charles, Jones (eds.) North East Linguistics Society (NELS) 13, 47–61.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1998. Minimalist inquiries: The framework (MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Roger, Martin, David, Michaels & Juan, Uriagereka (eds.) Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Michael, Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Adriana, Belletti (ed.) Structure and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 3, 104–131. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1978. Case marking and grammatical relations in Polynesian. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Davison, Alice. 1981. Syntactic and semantic indeterminacy resolved: A mostly pragmatic analysis for the Hindi conjunctive participle. In Peter, Cole (ed.) Radical pragmatics, 101–128. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny & Pesetsky, David. 2005. Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31, 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franks, Steven & Bošković, Željko. 2001. An argument for Multiple Spell Out. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 174–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grohmann, Kleanthes. 2003. Prolific domains: On the anti-locality of movement dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haddad, Youssef A. 2007. Adjunct control in Telugu and Assamese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth, Hale & Samuel, Keyser (eds.) The view from Building 20: Essays in in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2003. On control. In Randall, Hendrick (ed.) Minimalist syntax, 6–81. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray & Culicover, Peter. 2003. The semantic basis of control in English. Language 79, 517–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jayaseelan, K. A. 2004. The serial verb construction in Malayalam. In Veneeta, Dayal & Anoop, Mahajan (eds.) Clause structure in South Asian languages, 67–91. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kachru, Yamuna. 1981. On the syntax, semantics and pragmatics of the conjunctive participle in Hindi-Urdu. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 11, 36–49.Google Scholar
Kandybowicz, Jason. 2006. Conditions on multiple copy spell-out and the syntax–phonology interface. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kissock, Madelyn Jean. 1995. Reflexive-middle constructions and verb raising in Telugu. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Klaiman, M. H. 1981. Volitionality and subject in Bengali: A study of semantic parameters in grammatical processes. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 1984. The syntax of verbs. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. 1997. Telugu. In Sanford, Steever (ed.) The Dravidian languages, 202–240. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. 2003. The Dravidian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju & Gwynn, J. P. L.. 1985. A grammar of modern Telugu. Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [Reprinted in 1979, New York: Garland.]Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1978. Case-marking, canonical sentence patterns, and counter-equi in Japanese (a preliminary survey). In John, Hinds & Irwin, Howard (eds.) Problems in Japanese syntax and semantics, 30–51. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of control. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22, 811–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1995. Last Resort and Attract F. In Leslie, Gabriele, Debra, Hardison & Robert, Westmoreland (eds.) Sixth Annual Meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-America (FLSM 6), 62–81. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Lee, Felicia. 2003. Anaphoric R-expressions as bound variables. Syntax 6, 84–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linholm, James Milton. 1975. The conceptual basis of the Tamil adverbial participle. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Martin, Roger. 1996. A Minimalist theory of PRO and control. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Masica, Colin P. 2005. Defining a linguistic area: South Asia. New Delhi: Chronicle Books. [First published in 1976, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.]Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2006. Polyvalent case, geometric hierarchies, and split ergativity. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 42, 1–19.Google Scholar
Monahan, Philip. 2003. Backward object control in Korean. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 22, 356–369.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2000. Shape conservation and remnant movement. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 30, 1–15.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 1995. The copy theory of movement and linearization of chains in the Minimalist Program. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 2001. Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 303–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of chains and sideward movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, Jairo & Uriagereka, Juan. 2000. Cyclicity and extraction domains. Syntax 3, 20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pandharipande, Rajeshwari V. 1997. Marathi. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria & Potsdam, Eric. 2002. Backward control. Linguistic Inquiry 3, 245–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, Maria & Potsdam, Eric. 2003. Control in Malagasy. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 19, 173–187.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria & Potsdam, Eric. 2004. Malagasy control and its theoretical implications. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 30, 365–376.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria & Potsdam, Eric. 2006. Expanding the scope of control and raising. Syntax 9, 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potsdam, Eric. 2006. Backward object control in Malagasy: Against an empty category analysis. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 25, 328–336.Google Scholar
Rao, Anuradha. 2002. Null objects in Telugu and English: Merge, Binding Theory, and pro-drop. Ph.D. dissertation, Center Institute of English and Foreign Languages, Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
San Martin, Itziar. 2004. On subordination and the distribution of PRO. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Subbarao, Karumuri Venkata & K[aur] Arora, Harbir. 2005. The conjunctive participle in Dakkhini Hindi-Urdu: Making the best of both worlds. Presented at Prof. M. B. Emeneau Centenary International Conference on South Asian Linguistics. http://www.ciil.org/Main/Announcement/MBE_Programme/Keynote.htm.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple Spell-Out. In Samuel, Epstein & Norbert, Hornstein (eds.) Working Minimalism, 251–282. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1982. Dépendances et niveaux de représentation en syntaxe. Ph.D. dissertation, Université de Paris VII.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 15, 203–238.Google Scholar