Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 283–306 | Cite as

Separating tense and finiteness: anchoring in Dravidian

  • R. Amritavalli
Article

Abstract

Finiteness cannot be identified with Tense. What is currently understood as Tense must be seen as a complex of features with two functions: event anchoring or finiteness, and temporality and tense interpretation; these features need not always occur together on one element. Finite negative clauses in Dravidian languages are matrix non-finite complements to a negative element. The non-finite clause can have a tense interpretation, but the constructs ‘selected tense’ or ‘dependent tense’ (Landau 2004) appear to be irrelevant to it. Finite negative clauses seem rather to separate tense interpretation and clausal anchoring. Dravidian anchors the clause to the world of the utterance by virtue of Mood: the anchors are a finite neg element, agreement, and modals. Neg and agreement select different verbal complements, in accordance with their polarity; consequently, affirmative and negative clauses look superficially very different.

Keywords

Finiteness Tense Anchoring Nominative Dravidian Negation Polarity 

References

  1. Akmajian, Adrian. 1977. The complement structure of perception verbs in an autonomous syntax framework. In Formal syntax, eds. Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow, and Adrian Akmajian, 427–460. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  2. Amritavalli, R. 1977. Negation in Kannada. Master’s thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby. Google Scholar
  3. Amritavalli, R. 2000. Kannada clause structure. In Yearbook of South Asian languages, ed. Rajendra Singh, 11–30. New Delhi: Sage India. Google Scholar
  4. Amritavalli, R. 2004. Some developments in the functional architecture of the Kannada clause. In Clause structure in South Asian languages, eds. Veneeta Dayal and Anoop Mahajan, Studies in natural language and linguistic theory, 13–38. Boston: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amritavalli, R. 2010. Person checking in nominative and ergative languages. In Proceedings of GLOW in Asia VIII, 80–87. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press. Google Scholar
  6. 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. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  7. Amritavalli, R., and K. A. Jayaseelan. 2007. Clause structure and early acquisition of split ergativity and negation. In GLOW in Asia VI: Parametric syntax and language acquisition. Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Google Scholar
  8. Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  9. Enç, Mürvet. 1987. Anchoring conditions for tense. Linguistic Inquiry 18(4): 633–657. Google Scholar
  10. Hany Babu, M. T. 1996. The structure of Malayalam sentential negation. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 25(5): 1–15. Google Scholar
  11. Hany Babu, M. T., and P. Madhavan 2002. The two lives of -unnu: A response to Amritavalli and Jayaseelan. CIEFL Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10. Google Scholar
  12. Hariprasad, M. 1989. Negation in Telugu and English. M. litt thesis. CIEFL: Hyderabad. Google Scholar
  13. Jayaseelan, K. A. 1984. Control in some sentential adjuncts of Malayalam. Berkeley Linguistics Society 10: 623–633. Google Scholar
  14. Kayne, Richard S. 1991. Italian negative imperatives and clitic climbing. Ms., New York: CUNY. Google Scholar
  15. Krifka, Manfred. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25(3–4): 209–257. Google Scholar
  16. Landau, Idan. 2004. The scale of finiteness and the calculus of control. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22: 811–877. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lin, Jo-wang. 2006. Time in a language without tense: The case of Chinese. Journal of Semantics 23: 1–53. Google Scholar
  18. Lin, Jo-wang. 2010. A tenseless analysis of Mandarin Chinese revisited: A response to Sybesma 2007. Linguistic Inquiry 41(2): 305–329. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Menon, Mythili. 2011. Revisiting finiteness: The need for tense in Malayalam. Paper presented at FISAL: Tromsø. Google Scholar
  20. Ramadoss, Deepti, and R. Amritavalli 2007. The Acquisition of functional categories in Tamil with special reference to negation. Nanzan Linguistics Special Issue 1: Papers from the Consortium Workshops on Linguistic Theory, 67–84. Graduate Program in Linguistic Science: Nanzan University. Google Scholar
  21. Ritter, Elizabeth, and Martina Wiltschko. 2005. Anchoring events to utterances without tense. In Proceedings of the 24th West coast conference on formal linguistics, eds. John Alderete et al., 343–351. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. www.lingref.com, document #1240. Accessed 10 July 2013. Google Scholar
  22. Ritter, Elizabeth, and Martina Wiltschko. 2009. Varieties of infl: Tense, location, and person. In Alternatives to cartography, ed. Jeroen van Craenenbroeck. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000780/current.pdf. 31 August 2013. Google Scholar
  23. Schiffman, H. F. 1974. Complex negation in Tamil: Semantic and syntactic aspects. Jaffna, Sri Lanka. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference of Tamil Studies. Google Scholar
  24. Stowell, T. 1982. The tense of infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 561–570. Google Scholar
  25. Stowell, T. 1995. The phrase structure of tense. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, eds. Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 277–291. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  26. Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1991. Syntactic properties of sentential negation: A comparative study of Romance languages. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The EFL UniversityHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations