npi presentation

31
NPI in Tamil and Telugu Rahul Balusu Gurujegan Murugesan Rajamathangi Shanmugam Lissim 9 3 June 2015

Upload: rah-ul

Post on 06-Dec-2015

63 views

Category:

Documents


5 download

DESCRIPTION

NPIs

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: NPI Presentation

NPI in Tamil and Telugu

Rahul BalusuGurujegan Murugesan

Rajamathangi Shanmugam

Lissim 93 June 2015

Page 2: NPI Presentation

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

Page 3: NPI Presentation

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’

Page 4: NPI Presentation

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:

Page 5: NPI Presentation

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:

Page 6: NPI Presentation

(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:

Page 7: NPI Presentation

(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

Page 8: NPI Presentation

(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’

Page 9: NPI Presentation

The paradigm

neg GOOD BAD

before BAD GOOD

restriction of Universal BAD GOOD

Less than three BAD GOOD

Conditionals BAD GOOD

Context -um -aavatu

Page 10: NPI Presentation

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

Page 11: NPI Presentation

(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’

Page 12: NPI Presentation

(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’

Page 13: NPI Presentation

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

Page 14: NPI Presentation

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

Page 15: NPI Presentation

(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’

Page 16: NPI Presentation

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

Page 17: NPI Presentation

Intermediate conclusion

Generalization 5 :wh-um is a non strict strong NPI

Generalization 6: wh-aavatu is a non strict weak NPI

Page 18: NPI Presentation

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’

Page 19: NPI Presentation

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’

Page 20: NPI Presentation

wh-um, is it an unary Neg ?

The licensing conditionIsland effectDegree modification

Generalization 7: It suggests that it is an Unary Neg NPI

Page 21: NPI Presentation

wh-aavatu ?

The distribution of wh-aavatu

neg BAD

before GOOD

restriction of Universal GOOD

Less than three GOOD

Conditionals GOOD

Page 22: NPI Presentation

Semantic distribution of wh-aavatu

DE AA AM

Page 23: NPI Presentation

The Puzzle

The Bagel’s problem

Page 24: NPI Presentation

The Puzzle

The Bagel’s problem

Page 25: NPI Presentation

To sound it more Dravidian!

We shall call the Bagel’s ‘The vadai problem’

Page 26: NPI Presentation

To sound it more Dravidian!

We shall call the Bagel’s ‘The vadai problem’

Page 27: NPI Presentation

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’

Page 28: NPI Presentation

Some facts about wh-aavatu

*Neg > wh-aavatu

√NPI licensor > NEG > wh-aavatu

Page 29: NPI Presentation

Some facts about wh-aavatu

*Neg > wh-aavatu

√NPI licensor > NEG > wh-aavatu

Baker/Szabolcsi:

*Neg > PPI

√NPI licensor > NEG > PPI

Page 30: NPI Presentation

Semantic distribution of wh-aavatu

DE AA AMPPI

Page 31: NPI Presentation

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