Empty Categories in the Hindi-Urdu binaa Participle Clause

• Authors: Alice Davison
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Hindi-Urdu has an oblique participle construction meaning ‘without’, which resembles a parasitic gap construction in other languages. These other languages, like English, have obligatory movement to the left which is a condition on a parasitic gap, as in wh- question sentences. But in Hindi-Urdu, questions do not require leftward movement, allowing the question word to stay in situ. In addition, this participle is possible with statements as well, suggesting that Hindi-Urdu does not have parasitic gaps or obligatory A ’ movement. T his paper explores the actual nature of this participle, concluding that it has a PRO subject and null pronoun object.

Keywords

EN

Hindi-Urdu; empty categories; null pronouns; parasitic gaps; participle clauses; A ’; wh movement; questions and statements; PRO subjects

• Publisher: Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk
• Journal: Lingua Posnaniensis
• Year: 2013
• Volume: 55
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 25-39

Dates

published

2013-12-01

online

2014-06-17

Contributors

author

Alice Davison

• University of Iowa

References

• Chomsky Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: K luwer P ublishing Company.
• Chomsky Noam. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of Government and Binding. Cambridge: MIT P ress.
• Chomsky Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge: MIT P ress.
• Chomsky Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT P ress.
• Davison Alice. 2000. “Lexical A naphors and P ronouns in H indi/Urdu.” In: Lust et al. 2000: 397-470.
• Davison Alice. 2008. “A Case Restriction on Control: Implications for Movement.” Journal of South Asian Linguistics 1(1), 29-54. Tiger.sprachwiss.uni-konstanz.de/~jsal/ojs/index.
• Davison Alice. 2013. “Varieties of Control in South A sian L anguages: A P aradoxical Situation for UG .” P aper presented at Formal Approaches to South Asian Languages, USC, March 2013.
• Engdahl Elisabet. 1983. “Parasitic G aps.” Linguistics and Philosophy 6, 5-34.[Crossref]
• Gurtu Madhu. 1992. Anaphoric Relation in Hindi. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.
• Hook Peter, Pardeshi Prashant. 2013. “Prenominal N oun Modifying Constructions in Marathi and the N oun Phrase A ccessibility H ierarchy.” Lingua Posnaniensis 55(2), 77-89 (this volume).
• Huang C.T. J ames. 1984. “On the Distribution and Reference of E mpty P ronouns.” Linguistic Inquiry 15, 531-574.
• Lust Barbara C., Wali Kashi, Gair James W., Subbarao K.V. (eds.). 2000. Lexical Anaphors and Pronouns in Selected South Asian Languages: A Principled Typology. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Mahajan Anoop. 1990. The A/A-Bar Distinction and Movement Theory. MIT PhD dissertation.
• Manetta Emily. 2010. “Wh E xpletives in H indi-Urdu: T he vP P hase.” Linguistic Inquiry 41(1), 1-34.[Crossref]
• Manetta Emily. 2013. “Signs of Movement: P arasitic G aps in H indi-Urdu.” P aper presented at Formal Approaches to South Asian Languages, USC, March 2013.
• Manzini Rita. 1983. “Control and Control T heory.” Linguistic Inquiry 14(3), 421-446.
• Mohanan K .P. 1983. “Functional and A naphoric Control.” Linguistic Inquiry 14(4), 641-674.[WoS]
• Mohanan Tara. 1993. “Case A lternations on O bjects in H indi.” South Asian Language Review 3(1), 1-30.
• Munn Alan. 1994. “A Minimalist A ccount of Reconstruction A symmetries.” Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 24, 397-410.
• Nunes Jairo. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sidewards Movement. Cambridge: MIT P ress.
• Rizzi Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge: MIT P ress.
• Webelhuth Gert. 1989. Syntactic Saturation Phenomena and the Modern Germanic Languages. U niversity of Massachusetts PhD dissertation.
• Webelhuth Gert. 1992. Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. O xford: O xford U niversity P ress.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/linpo-2013-0011