Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 1–27 | Cite as

Finiteness in South Asian languages: an introduction

  • Thomas McFadden
  • Sandhya Sundaresan


Finiteness bears on issues pertaining to some of the most central properties of a clause: its tense, aspect, mood, agreement, the referential properties and case-marking of its subject and, more generally, the way in which the clause is anchored to a higher one or to the utterance context. And yet, given the increasing amount of empirical evidence challenging conventional definitions of finiteness, it remains one of the least understood concepts in linguistic theory. The series of eleven papers in this volume presents new evidence on the nature of finiteness from a number of hitherto under-studied languages, namely those of the Indo-Aryan and Dravidian language families spoken in South Asia. The hope is that these papers will encourage the reader to deepen their knowledge and simultaneously question their existing view of finiteness. The introduction below sets the stage for the rest of this volume: we briefly describe the content of the individual papers included here and situate them within the larger context of the rich dialogue on finiteness.


Finiteness OC pro pro-drop Agreement Coreference Deixis vs. anaphora 



We are extremely grateful to the participants of the workshop “Finiteness in South Asian Languages” held at the University of Tromsø in 2011, without whose attendance and insightful presentations, this volume would not have come to be, and of course to the authors of the papers included herein for their cooperation and commitment to this volume. Thanks also to our reviewers for taking time out of their busy schedules to comment on papers, often more than once, and to Marcel den Dikken, in particular, for his expert guidance with the editing process and for his unflagging enthusiasm, patience, and good humor throughout.


  1. Adger, David. 2007. Three domains of finiteness: A minimalist perspective. In Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, 23–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  2. Amritavalli, R., and K. A. Jayaseelan. 2005. Finiteness and negation in Dravidian. In The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, eds. Guglielmo Cinque and Richard S. Kayne, 178–220. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  3. Bianchi, Valentina. 2003. On finiteness as logophoric anchoring. In Temps et point de vue/tense and point of view, eds. Jacqueline Guéron and L. Tasmovski, 213–246. Nanterrem: Université Paris X. Google Scholar
  4. Borer, Hagit. 1989. Anaphoric AGR. In The null subject parameter, eds. Osvaldo Jaeggli and Ken Safir, 69–109. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brody, Michael. 2000. Mirror theory: syntactic representation in perfect syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 29–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butt, Miriam. 1995. The structure of complex predicates in Urdu. Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Google Scholar
  7. Caha, Pavel. 2009. The nanosyntax of case. Doctoral Dissertation, CASTL, University of Tromsø. Google Scholar
  8. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1989. Structured meanings, thematic roles, and control. In Properties, types, and meaning, eds. Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara Partee, and Raymond Turner. Vol. II of Semantic issues of studies in linguistics and philosophy, 131–166. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, eds. Stephen A. Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 232–285. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger. Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, eds. Robert Freidin, Carlos Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta, 133–166. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik. 1993. The theory of principles and parameters. In Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, eds. Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, and Theo Vennemann. Vol. 1, 506–569. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  15. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford studies in comparative syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  16. Culy, Christopher. 1994. Aspects of logophoric marking. Linguistics 32: 1055–1094. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2007. Distributed morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, eds. Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  18. Emonds, Joe E. 1969. Root and structure-preserving transformations. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT. Google Scholar
  19. Gair, James W. 2005. Some aspects of finiteness and control in Sinhala. In The yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics, eds. Rajendra Singh and Tanmoy Bhattacharya, 117–143. Berlin and New York: Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar
  20. Garrett, Andrew. 2012. The historical syntax problem: Reanalysis and directionality. In Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes, eds. Dianne Jonas, John Whitman, and Andrew Garrett, 52–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  21. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, eds. Ken Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  22. Hellan, Lars. 1988. Anaphora in Norwegian and the theory of grammar. Vol. 32 of Studies in generative grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  23. Hicks, Glyn. 2009. The derivation of anaphoric relations. Linguistik aktuell. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hooper, Joan, and Sandra Thompson. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 465–497. Google Scholar
  25. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  26. Landau, Idan. 2000. Elements of control: Structure and meaning in infinitival constructions. Studies in natural language and linguistic theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Landau, Idan. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22: 777–811. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Landau, Idan. 2013. Control in generative grammar: A research companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martin, Roger. 2001. Null case and the distribution of PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 141–166. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCloskey, James. 1985. Case, movement and raising in modern Irish. In Proceedings of WCCFL, Vol. 4, 190–205. Google Scholar
  31. Nikolaeva, Irina, ed. 2007. Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  32. Pesetsky, David, and Eesther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  33. Polinsky, Martha, and Eric Potsdam. 2002. Backward control. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 245–282. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424. Google Scholar
  35. Ramchand, Gillian, and Peter Svenonius. 2013. Deriving the functional hierarchy. Presented at GLOW 36. Google Scholar
  36. Raposo, Eduardo P. 1987. Case theory and Infl-to-Comp: The inflected infinitive in European Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 85–109. Google Scholar
  37. Reuland, Eric. 1983. Governing -ing. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 101–136. Google Scholar
  38. Reuland, Eric. 2001. Anaphors, logophors, and binding. In Long-distance reflexives, eds. Peter Cole, Gabriella Hermon, and C.-T. James Huang, 343–370. London: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  39. Ritter, Elizabeth, and Martina Wiltschko. 2009. Varieties of INFL: TENSE, LOCATION, and PERSON. In Alternatives to cartography, eds. Hans Broekhuis, Jeroen van Craenenbroeck, and Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  40. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. Liliane Haegeman, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 1991. Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical arguments. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9: 327–363. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann. 2004. The syntax of person, tense, and speech features. Italian Journal of Linguistics 16: 219–251. Edited by Valentina Bianchi and Ken Safir. Google Scholar
  43. Speas, Margaret. 2004. Evidentiality, logophoricity and the syntactic representation of pragmatic features. Lingua 114: 255–276. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Speas, Peggy, and Carol Tenny. 2003. Configurational properties and point-of-view roles. In Asymmetry in grammar, ed. Anna Maria Di Sciullo. Vol. I of Syntax and semantics, 315–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  45. Stowell, Tim. 1982. The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 561–570. Google Scholar
  46. Sundaresan, Sandhya, and Thomas McFadden. 2009. DP distribution and finiteness in Tamil and other languages: Selection vs case. Journal of South Asian Linguistics 2: 5–34. Google Scholar
  47. Svenonius, Peter. 2008. Complex predicates and the functional sequence. Nordlyd 35: 47–88. Google Scholar
  48. Szabolcsi, Anna. 2009. Overt nominative subjects in infinitival complements in Hungarian. In Approaches to Hungarian, eds. Marcel den Dikken and Robert M. Vago. Vol. 11 of Papers from the 2007 NYU Conference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  49. Taraldsen, Knut Tarald. 1978. On the NIC, vacuous application and the that-trace filter. Bloomington, Indiana, University Linguistics Club. Google Scholar
  50. Wiklund, Anna-Lena, Kristine Bentzen, Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, and Þorbjörg Hróarsdóttir. 2009. On the distribution and illocution of V2 in Scandinavian that-clauses. Lingua 119: 1914–1938. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS)BerlinGermany
  2. 2.Institut fúr Linguistik Universitát LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations