18.2149, Diss: Syntax: Haddad: 'Adjunct Control in Telugu and Assamese'

[LINGUIST Network]

LINGUIST List: Vol-18-2149. Mon Jul 16 2007. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 18.2149, Diss: Syntax: Haddad: 'Adjunct Control in Telugu and Assamese'

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews: Randall Eggert, U of Utah  
         <reviews at linguistlist.org> 

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, 
and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Hunter Lockwood <hunter at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 15-Jul-2007
From: Youssef Haddad < yhaddad at fsu.edu >
Subject: Adjunct Control in Telugu and Assamese

 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:53:39
From: Youssef Haddad < yhaddad at fsu.edu >
Subject: Adjunct Control in Telugu and Assamese 
 


Institution: University of Florida 
Program: Program in Linguistics 
Dissertation Status: Completed 
Degree Date: 2007 

Author: Youssef A. Haddad

Dissertation Title: Adjunct Control in Telugu and Assamese 

Dissertation URL:  http://www.ling.ucsd.edu/~fukuda/haddad_y_diss.pdf

Linguistic Field(s): Syntax

Subject Language(s): Assamese (asm)
                     Telugu (tel)


Dissertation Director(s):
Brent Henderson
Eric Potsdam
Ann Wehmeyer

Dissertation Abstract:

My study explores Adjunct Control in two South Asian languages, Telugu
(Dravidian) and Assamese (Indo-Aryan), within the Minimalist Program of
syntactic theory. Adjunct Control is a relation of obligatory
co-referentiality between two subjects, one in the matrix clause and one in
an adjunct/subordinate clause of the same structure. Telugu and Assamese
have non-finite Conjunctive Participle (CNP) clauses that function as
adjuncts. Both languages show evidence of Adjunct Control into CNP clauses.

Three types of Adjunct Control are examined. These are Forward Control, in
which only the matrix subject is pronounced; Backward Control, in which
only the subordinate subject is pronounced; and Copy Control, in which case
both subjects are pronounced. Telugu licenses all three types of Adjunct
Control, while Assamese licenses only Forward and Copy Control. Sentences
(1-3) are examples from Telugu. 


(1)	Forward Control
[aakali		wees-i] 	Kumar		sandwic 	tinnaa-Du
[hunger	      fall-CNP]		Kumar.NOM	sandwich	ate-3.M.S
'Having felt hungry, Kumar ate a sandwich.'


(2)	Backward Control
[Kumar-ki 	aakali		wees-i] 	sandwic	        tinnaa-Du
[Kumar-DAT 	hunger		fall-CNP]	sandwich        ate-3.M.S
'Having felt hungry, Kumar ate a sandwich.'


(3)	Copy Control
[Kumar-ki 	aakali	wees-i] 	atanu/Kumar    sandwic	tinnaa-Du
[Kumar-DAT 	hunger	fall-CNP]	he/Kumar.NOM  sandwich	ate-3.M.S
'Having felt hungry, Kumar ate a sandwich.'

I analyze Adjunct Control as movement, providing a detailed account of the
conditions that drive and constrain each type of control. I suggest that
the subject starts out in the adjunct before it moves to the matrix clause.
The result is non-distinct copies of the same element in both clauses.
Decisions regarding the pronunciation of copies take place on the
phonological side of the computation. The pronunciation of one copy only
(the matrix or adjunct copy) results in Forward or Backward Control. The
pronunciation of both copies results in Copy Control. 





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-18-2149