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