Morpho-syntactic and semantic properties of finiteness in Telugu relative clauses
Abstract
One of the most challenging and interesting notions in descriptive and theoretical linguistics is finiteness. In Telugu, it doesn’t contribute towards direct analysis and is a complicated phenomenon. This paper explores how different grammatical theories represent the finiteness; the nature of the finiteness in relation to Telugu relative clauses; and how morpho-syntactic and semantic properties decide whether a clause is finite or non-finite. It also investigates the notion of finiteness and formulates criteria to decide it in Telugu. It further explains two types of relative clauses namely Dravidian (Dr) type and Indo-Aryan (IA) type and takes up the Indigenous Dr type first and sees to what extent it meets the criteria for finiteness. Second, the IA type that Telugu and Dr Languages borrowed from Sanskrit is in some ways different from the original IA correlative although it is modelled on that pattern. Dr correlative is always pre-nominal and it uses an interrogative pronoun unlike the correlatives in Hindi and other IA languages which use relative pronouns. However, based on theoretical and empirical evidence, this paper provides a description of both these Telugu relative clauses and explores how finiteness is realized in terms of formal and functional perspectives.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Alexopoulou, T. (2006). Resumption in relative clauses. Natural. language & linguistic theory, 24(1), 57-111.
Andrews, A. D. (2007a). Relative clauses. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 2, 206–236.
Bai, B. L. (1985). Some notes on correlative constructions in Dravidian. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications, (20), 181-190.
Chamoreau, C., & Estrada-Fernández, Z. (Eds.). (2016). Finiteness and Nominalization (Vol. 113). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cowper, E., & Hall, D. C. (1999). Semantic composition and syntactic structure: English inflection. Canadian Linguistic Association, Université de Sherbrooke.
Cowper, E. (2002). Finiteness. Manuscript. University of Toronto.
Creider, C. (1978). The syntax of relative clauses in Inuktitut. Etudes/Inuit/Studies, 95-110.
De Vries, M. (2002). The syntax of relativization. Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics. Netherlands.
Dik, S. C. (1997). The theory of functional grammar: the structure of the clause. Walter de Gruyter.
Dixon, R. M. W. (1972). The Dyirbal language of north Queensland, (Vol. 9). CUP Archive.
George, Leland M and Jaklin Kornfilt. (1981). Finiteness and Boundedness in Turkish. In Binding and Filtering. Frank Heny., ed. London: Croom Helm.
Givon, T. (1990). Voice and De-transitivization. Syntax: a functional typological introduction, 2, 563-644.
Hengeveld, K. (1998). Adverbial clauses in the languages of Europe. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 335-420.
Hogg, R. (1992). The Cambridge history of the English language. Volume I: The beginnings 1066.
Huddleston, R. (1988). English grammar: An outline. Cambridge University Press.
Josephs, L. S. (2019). Palauan reference grammar. University of Hawaii Press.
Julien, M. (2000). Syntactic heads and word formation: A study of verbal inflection. University of Tromsø.
Irina Nikolaeva, (2007). Finiteness Theoratical and Emperical Foundations. Oxford University Press. New York.
Irina Nikolaeva, (2010). Typology of finiteness. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(12), 1176-1189.
Kissock, M. J. (2014). Evidence for ‘finiteness’ in Telugu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 32(1), 29-58.
Klumpp, J., & Burquest, D. A. (1983). Relative clauses in Piapoco. International Journal of American Linguistics, 49(4), 388-399.
Krishnamurti, B., & Gwynn, J. P. L. (1985). A grammar of modern Telugu. Oxford University Press, USA.
Krishnamurti, B. (2003). The Dravidian languages. Cambridge University Press.
Kuno, S. (1973). The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kurniawan, E., & Davies, W. D. (2015). Finiteness in Sundanese. Oceanic Linguistics, 1-16.
McFadden, T., & Sundaresan, S. (2014). Finiteness in South Asian languages: an introduction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 32(1), 1-27.
Noonan, M. (1992). A Grammar of Lango. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Platero, P. R. (1974). The Navajo relative clause. International Journal of American Linguistics, 40(3), 202-246.
Shanmugam, S. V. (1972). Gender-number sub-categorization in Dravidian. Agesthialingom, S. and Shanmugam, SV (eds.). 1972. In Proceedings of the Seminar on Dravidian Linguistics (pp. 23-58). Hyderabad.
Sharvit, Y. (1999). Functional relative clauses. Linguistics and Philosophy, 447-478.
SubbÄrÄo, K. V. (2012). South Asian languages: A syntactic typology. Cambridge University Press.
Sudharsan, A. (2014). Tense, Aspect and Agreement in Kannada. Indian Linguistics (a journal of the Linguistic Society of India), Vol. 75, Pune.
Sudharsan, A. (2014). Subordination in Kannada: Evidence against finiteness constraint. Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 19 (4), 17-22.
Suman, K. (2015). Finiteness in Telugu Formal and Functional Perspectives. Ph. D dissertation, EFL University.
Sundaresan, S. (2014). Making sense of silence: Finiteness and the (OC) PRO vs. pro distinction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 32(1), 59-85.
Van Riemsdijk, H. C. (2006). Free relatives. The Blackwell companion to syntax, 338-382.
Underhill, R. (1972). Turkish participles. Linguistic inquiry, 3(1), 87-99.
Wachtel, T. (1979). Nouns, Relative Clauses, and Pragmatic Control. Linguistic Inquiry, 511-514.
Yimam, B. (1987). Relative clauses in Oromo. Journal of Ethiopian studies, 20, 60-74.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
ISSN 1305-578X (Online)
Copyright © 2005-2022 by Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies