* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LINGUIST List logo Eastern Michigan University Wayne State University *
* People & Organizations * Jobs * Calls & Conferences * Publications * Language Resources * Text & Computer Tools * Teaching & Learning * Mailing Lists * Search *
* *
LINGUIST List 18.2149

Mon Jul 16 2007

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

Editor for this issue: Hunter Lockwood <hunterlinguistlist.org>

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
Directory
        1.    Youssef Haddad, Adjunct Control in Telugu and Assamese
Message 1: Adjunct Control in Telugu and Assamese
Date: 15-Jul-2007
From: Youssef Haddad <yhaddadfsu.edu>
Subject: Adjunct Control in Telugu and Assamese
E-mail this message to a friend
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:
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.




Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue



Please report any bad links or misclassified data

LINGUIST Homepage | Read LINGUIST | Contact us

NSF Logo

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.