NPI Presentation
description
Transcript of NPI Presentation
NPI in Tamil and Telugu
Rahul BalusuGurujegan Murugesan
Rajamathangi Shanmugam
Lissim 93 June 2015
Two types of NPI
wh-um wh-aavatu
yaar-um yaar-aavatu who
ethuv-um eth-aavatu which
eppoth-um eppoth-aavatu when
ethu-um ethu-aavatu why
engei-um engei-aavatu where
Why they are NPI ?
Initial observation:
(1) *yaar-um vitt-ukku va-nt-aar-kal
who-um house-DAT come-PST-3-PL
Intended: ‘Someone came home’
(2) *yaar-aavatu vitt-ukku va-nt-aar-kal
who-aavatu house-DAT come-PST-3-PL
Intended: ‘Someone came home’
Licensors for wh-um and wh-aavatu
(3) yaar-um vitt-ukku pokalai
who-um house-DAT go(NEG)
‘Nobody went home’
(4) *yaar-aavatu vitt-ukku pokalai
who-um house-DAT go(NEG)
‘Nobody went home’
With Negation:
Licensors for wh-um and wh-aavatu
(6) yaar-aavatu var-athu-kku munnadi vaday-ai saapitudu
who-aavatu come-NMZ-DAT before vada-ACC eat
‘Before anyone comes, eat the vada’
(5) *yaar-um var-athu-kku munnadi vaday-ai saapitudu
who-um come-NMZ-DAT before vada-ACC eat
‘Before anyone comes, eat the vada’
With before clause:
(7) *enta book-um padicha ella pasangal-um paas aaitnga
any book-um read all boys-um pass become
‘Every boy who read any book, passed’
(8) enta book-aavatu padicha ella pasangal-um paas aaitnga
any book-aavatu read all boys-um pass become
‘Every boy who read any book, passed’
Licensors for wh-um and wh-aavatu
With restriction of Universals:
(10) mu:nn
u
peruk-um koranja peru yaarai-aavatu paar-t-aanga
three people less people who-aavatu See-PST-3PL
‘Less than three people saw anyone’
(9) *mu:nnu peruk-um koranja peru yaarai-um paar-t-aanga
three people less people who-um See-PST-3PL
‘Less than three people saw anyone’
With less than three:
Licensors for wh-um and wh-aavatu
(11) *ni: yaar-ai-um paarti-naa en-kitte sollu
you wh-ACC-UM see-IF 1SG-LOC tell
‘If you see anybody, tell me’
With conditionals:
Licensors for wh-um and wh-aavatu
(12) ni: yaar-ai-aavatu paarti-naa en-kitte sollu
you wh-ACC-aavatu see-IF 1SG-LOC tell
‘If you see anybody, tell me’
The paradigm
neg GOOD BAD
before BAD GOOD
restriction of Universal BAD GOOD
Less than three BAD GOOD
Conditionals BAD GOOD
Context -um -aavatu
The paradigm
Generalization 1: wh-um is a super strong NPI
Generalization 2: wh-aavatu is a weak NPI, which does not occur in anti-morphic context
(13) mani yaar-ai-um paarkalai-nnu banu so-nn-al
mani wh-ACC-um see(NEG)-COMP banu say-PST-3SF
‘Banu said Mani didn’t see anybody’
Locality
Clause-mate Negation
(14) *mani yaar-ai-aavatu paarkalai-nnu banu so-nn-al
mani wh-ACC-aavatu see(NEG)-COMP banu say-PST-3SF
‘Banu said Mani didn’t see anybody’
(15) Mani yaar-ai-um paar-t-aan-nu banu sollalai
Mani wh-ACC-um see-PST-3SGM-COMP banu say(NEG)
‘Banu did not say that Mani saw anybody’
Locality
Matrix Negation
(16) mani yaar-ai-aavatu paar-t-aan-nu banu sollalai
mani wh-ACC-aavatu see-PST-3SGM-COMP banu say(NEG)
‘Banu did not say that Mani saw anybody’
The locality paradigm
Clause-mate Negation GOOD BAD Tamil
Matrix Negation GOOD GOOD
Context -um -aavatu
With non-Neg raising verbs
Clause-mate Negation GOOD BAD Telugu
Matrix Negation BAD GOOD
The locality paradigm
Generalization 3: wh-um is a non strict NPI in Tamil and a strict NPI in Telugu
Generalization 4: wh-aavatu is also non strict NPI
(17) mani yaar-ai-um paar-t-aan-nu banu ninaikalai
mani wh-ACC-um see-PST-3SGM-COMP banu think(NEG)
‘Banu did not think that Mani saw anybody’
‘Banu thought that Mani did not see anybody’
Locality
With Neg raising verbs
(18) mani yaar-ai-aavatu paar-t-aan-nu banu ninaikalai
mani wh-ACC-aavatu see-PST-3SGM-COMP banu think(NEG)
‘Banu did not think that Mani saw anybody’
‘Banu thought that Mani did not see anybody’
Locality
With Neg raising verbs:
Tamil allows neg raising reading when um-NPI is in subject or object position of the embedded clause
Telugu allows neg raising reading when um-NPI is only in the subject position but not in the object position
Intermediate conclusion
Generalization 5 :wh-um is a non strict strong NPI
Generalization 6: wh-aavatu is a non strict weak NPI
wh-um, is it an unary Neg ?
Island effect: The complex NP constraint
(20) [*yaarum enn-ai adipanga-gra nambikai] enakku illai
wh-um 1SG-ACC beat-CMPZ belief 1SG-DAT NEG
‘I don’t have the belief that anyone will beat me’
(19) [yaarum enn-ai adikka maatang-gra nambikai] enakku iru-nt-atu
wh-um 1SG-ACC beat won’t belief 1SG-DAT be-PST-3N
‘I had the belief that anyone won’t beat me’
wh-um, is it an unary Neg ?
Degree modifier:
(21) Mani kitta thatta yaar-ai-um paarkalai
Mani nearly wh-ACC-um See (NEG)
‘Mani saw almost nobody’
(21) *Mani kitta thatta yaar-ai-oo paarkalai
Mani nearly wh-ACC-DISJ See (NEG)
‘Mani saw almost somebody’
wh-um, is it an unary Neg ?
The licensing conditionIsland effectDegree modification
Generalization 7: It suggests that it is an Unary Neg NPI
wh-aavatu ?
The distribution of wh-aavatu
neg BAD
before GOOD
restriction of Universal GOOD
Less than three GOOD
Conditionals GOOD
Semantic distribution of wh-aavatu
DE AA AM
The Puzzle
The Bagel’s problem
The Puzzle
The Bagel’s problem
To sound it more Dravidian!
We shall call the Bagel’s ‘The vadai problem’
To sound it more Dravidian!
We shall call the Bagel’s ‘The vadai problem’
Some facts about wh-aavatu
(22) *Mani yaar-ai-aavatu paarkalai
Mani wh-ACC-aavatu see(NEG)
‘Mani didn’t see anybody’
(23) ni: yaar-ai-aavatu paarkalai-naa en-kitte sollu
2SG wh-ACC-aavatu see(NEG)-IF 1SG-LOC tell
If you don’t see anybody ,tell me’
Some facts about wh-aavatu
*Neg > wh-aavatu
√NPI licensor > NEG > wh-aavatu
Some facts about wh-aavatu
*Neg > wh-aavatu
√NPI licensor > NEG > wh-aavatu
Baker/Szabolcsi:
*Neg > PPI
√NPI licensor > NEG > PPI
Semantic distribution of wh-aavatu
DE AA AMPPI
Intermediate conclusion -2
Generalization 5 :wh-um is a non strict strong NPI
Generalization 6: wh-aavatu is a non strict weak NPI
The revision:
Generalization 6: wh-aavatu is a non strict weak NPI in DE and AA context and in AM context it is a PPI