On the interaction of aspect and ability in two Hindi/Urdu constructions

Complex predicates with the Hindi/Urdu light verb le (‘take’) show an unexpected pattern of interpretation in composition with grammatical aspect. Perfective le has a completive meaning (Singh 1990), but a dispositional (modal) interpretation arises in the imperfective (Butt 1997). This paper pursues a unified analysis of le: I compare le predicates to uses of the English implicative manage, and its aspectual alternation to the actuality entailments of the Hindi/Urdu ability modal sak (Bhatt 1999). The account builds on prior work (Nadathur 2023a,b) to argue that all three predicates share reference to a complex causal structure, predicting the observed patterns of interpretation in combination with the contrastive semantics of (im)perfective aspects

Four Puzzles and Affixal N in Hindi

Four puzzles in Hindi morphosyntax are “default agreement,” an “oblique stem,” suppletion in the nominative plural, and number-case synthesis. These phenomena are not unrelated. I analyze T’s ?-features as nominal category features: N (the so-called “gender ?-feature(s)”), Num, and D, or Person. The default value -aa of the categorial feature N (“Affixal N,” “N-stem”) is reflexively overt in Hindi. “Default agreement,” which surfaces in the absence of Agree, is this affixal N at T. Taking Case as a categorial feature, I argue that the nominative case feature is minimally [N-on-T]. N surfacing as -aa on T without Agree, an -aa-marked subject noun must check [N-on-T] by “reverse” Agree to get nominative case; N-aa becomes a “nominative stem” (N-ee is the ‘elsewhere’ stem). The Hindi Number suffixes are “portmanteaux,” not “syncretic.” NUM is a nasal feature spelt out on a structural Case feature: on [N-on-T] (spelt out aa) in the nominative, and elsewhere, on [V], the accusative case-feature common to all oblique cases (spelt out -oo). This explains the various plural suffix-shapes, and why plural agreement on V manifests as just a [nasal] feature (as NUM has no vowel -aa prior to nominative case assignment, the vowel in the NOM PL suffix -a?a? is absent in agreement). The form expected as the NOM.M.PL noun is *N-aa-a?a?. This form suffers spell-out failure, and suppletion occurs. This analysis of Hindi Number and Case explains the near-universal silence of nominative case as a ‘direct’ or self-licensing case that manifests only in “?-agreement” at T

Malayalam-Kannada Code-mixing

This paper presents the results of a pilot study undertaken to see the possible limits of code-mixing among Malayalam-Kannada bilinguals in a syntactic context of featural mismatch. The results of the study reiterate that the fact that despite being influenced by psycholinguistic factors like being primed with the language of the task paragraph, simultaneous (balanced) bilinguals can make the choice of strategy based on structural factors, but sequential bilinguals do not access syntactic structure while making these decisions. The latter’s choice of strategy is based either on the acquisitional factor of MT/non-MT or on psycholinguistic factors from the task design

Processing of Relative Clauses in Malayalam

A study of the processing of relative clauses may offer insight into how a range of processes involving structural manipulation by way of movement might be realized in the mind. In this paper, I elucidate a self-paced reading experiment that investigates the processing of relative clauses in Malayalam. I use singly embedded relative clauses and counterbalance each item by varying the position of the RC in the sentence, and the gapping (subject or object) from the clause. I observe a slight preference for object relative clauses, and explain my results using an expectation based model

Verbalization as Re-categorization of Lexical Categories in Santali

A well-known lexicon-syntax debate in the generative tradition concerns whether word formation occurs in the lexicon or in syntax (Bruening, 2018; Embick & Noyer, 2007). This paper builds on the idea of word formation/ categorization as a syntactic process, focusing on verbalization. In the literature that takes categorization as a syntactic process, verbalization is considered either idiosyncratic or compositional (Arad, 2003). Typological literature (Rijkhoff & van Lier, 2013; Peterson, 2011, 2010; Rau, 2013) indicates that Austro- Asiatic (AA) languages such as Santali and Kharia possess flexible verbal categorization, where a root x can behave like both a noun (N) and a verb (V), defying the N-V distinction that is found in most languages. However, I show empirical support from Santali, an AA language spoken in the Indian states of Odisha and Jharkhand, to argue that verbal categorization is a compositional syntactic process in Santali, where any root must go through a categorization process forming an N or adjective (A) before getting verbalized. Santali displays high semantic transparency in verbalization, where the verbalized items have a predictable meaning of an N or A. This paper analyzes Santali fluid verbalization and compares it with the kinds of verbalization seen in English. It also questions how re-categorization (verbalization of lexical categories, not roots) incurs a predictable meaning in the verbalized structures and which head of the structure takes care of the semantic transparency or compositionality in Santali

Familiar Definite Marking in Magahi

This paper investigates the nominal suffix -waa in Magahi, an Eastern Indo-Aryan language. Existing accounts of -waa vary from analyzing it semantically in terms of familiarity and non-honorificity (Alok 2022), diminutivity (Atreya & Sinha 2020), or definiteness (Kumar 2020) and syntactically in terms of whether it projects a head in the nominal spine (Kumar 2020) or not (Alok 2012, 2022). I argue that -waa is a familiar definite marker, similar to the German strong article (Schwarz 2009) and Akan familiar article (Arkoh & Matthewson 2013), with additional presuppositions of non-uniqueness (Owusu 2022) and non-honorificity. Additionally, I argue that -waa can either be generated as the definite allomorph of the general classifier (Kumar 2020) and undergo CLF to D movement, or be be base generated in D (Simpson 2005)

Relative Deletion

Hindi-Urdu exhibits a lesser-known form of ellipsis known as Relative Deletion (RD) (Mishra 2024; van Craenenbroeck & Lipt´ak 2006), where verbal and phrasal material in relative clauses is elided, leaving only the relative phrase and one or more remnants. This study presents an in-depth analysis of RD, examining its behavior across various syntactic structures, including equatives and temporal/locative relative clauses. We examine the influence of case-marking on, and location of, the relative pronoun on the well-formedness of RD. The study compares RD with sluicing and gapping, highlighting their locality profiles and constraints. Notably, RD requires the antecedent to originate within the clause to which the relative clause is attached, a feature that parallels restrictions found in English gapping (Johnson 2009) and not sluicing (Ross 1969). In addition, we explore apparent instances of non-local RD, where deletion seems to cross clause boundaries, posing a syntactic puzzle that raises further questions about the mechanisms of ellipsis in Hindi-Urdu

Scrambling in Bengali: An A-/A’-Movement Distinction

Bengali is an SOV language (Bhatt & Dayal 2007), known for its flexible word order. Elements in a phrase can be moved to other positions, both within and across clausal boundaries, in a process called scrambling (David 2015). This study aims to provide a comprehensive description of scrambling in Bengali and argues that scrambling manifests in two types of movement in this language: A- and A’-. It further argues that the type of scrambling involved (Avs. A’-) is predictable from the syntactic environment based on the following generalization: A’-movement is possible only when a Spec,CP position is available as a landing site. Given this, scrambling in Bengali supports the position-based approach to the A-/A’- distinction, recently argued for in Keine (2018). Building on previous literature on scrambling in other SOV languages, such as Hindi (Keine 2018; Dayal 1994; Mahajan 1990, 1994) and Japanese (Sato & Goto 2014; Saito 1985, 1992), this paper investigates scrambling in four syntactic environments, each with a different scrambling profile: 1) vP-internal movement; 2) clause-internal movement; 3) cross-non-finite clause movement; and 4) cross-finite clause movement. Two well-established tests are used to discern A-movement from A’-movement: i) A-movement can obviate weak crossover effects and lead to reciprocal binding; ii) A’-movement can reconstruct for Condition A. It is demonstrated that vP-internal scrambling is unambiguously A-movement, while clause-internal scrambling may be both A- and A’-movement. Additionally, cross-clausal movement out of non-finite clauses can be both A- and A’-movement, but cross-clausal movement out of finite-clauses is unambiguously A’-movement

Borrowing and disappearance of light verbs: Loan-verb integration in Indian languages

In this paper, I discuss patterns of loan-verb integration attested in Indian languages and show that certain English verbal borrowings in languages like Hindi and Marathi can either be accommodated into the host language using a supporting light verb or be directly integrated to carry the host language’s verb morphology without needing to undergo any means of verbalization. I argue that syntactic analyses which assume the existence of a common (or identical) verbal functional structure between the donor and recipient (or host) languages to be a prerequisite for direct integration of loan verbs fail to adequately explain this optionality of direct integration. Instead, I show that it is the degree of bilingualism of speakers which makes direct integration of loan verbs into the target language possible; and propose that verbal borrowings are borrowed with an understanding that they are verbs – irrespective of whether they are accommodated using a light verb construction or not

It’s about time!: Relating structure, the brain, and comparative syntax

Studying language in the brain is hard. We’ve identified a left-lateralized ‘language network’ that supports language comprehension across languages, individuals, and ages. However, it\u27s proven difficult to relate the parts of this language network to spe-cific representations or computations. Why is it so hard to get better insight into the functions of the pieces of the language network? One reason is that careful, cross-lin-guistic comparison across languages is still in its infancy in neurolinguistics. Another reason is that our theories of language comprehension are largely informed by results from serial, slow, word-by-word reading tasks. To understand how the brain processes and represents grammatical knowledge, we need to carefully vary and contrast lan-guages and modalities – our theories of language should not be over-fit to one language or one kind of task. Here, I show how different reading paradigms in Bengali (Bangla), Hindi/Urdu, Nepali, and English can refine our understanding of the brain bases of language