Abstract

In Hindi-Urdu, a negation which seems to be inside an infinitival complement can have effects typical of a matrix negation, e.g., NPI licensing in the matrix. We show that this exceptional behavior of negation is only possible with restructuring infinitives. We argue that the infinitival V moves out of the restructuring infinitive and into the matrix, and that it forms a cluster with the main verb. This movement makes the negative marker appear to belong to the embedded clause, when in fact it is in the matrix, and behaves as a matrix negation (in terms of scope and other tests). We thus have a new criterion for restructuring in Hindi-Urdu, alongside Long Distance Agreement. The existence of these two criteria allows us to explore the diversity of restructuring complements in Hindi-Urdu and show that the optionality of Long Distance Agreement is not tied to the optionality of restructuring.

Highlights

  • 1 Introduction For a class of infinitival clauses in Hindi-Urdu, we find a puzzling state of affairs with negation: a negation which seems to be inside an infinitival complement has effects typical of a matrix negation, e.g., NPI licensing in the matrix

  • We propose that restructuring allows the infinitival verb to move into the matrix, where it forms a complex head with the main verb (Sect. 4): this cluster moves to the right of the matrix negative marker, deriving a surface order which falsely suggests an embedded negation; we discuss the implications of the apparent optionality of verb clustering for the theory of restructuring

  • 4.3 LDA, negation and restructuring There is one environment where we find an interaction between Long Distance Agreement and the size of the infinitival complement

Read more

Summary

Introduction

For a class of infinitival clauses in Hindi-Urdu, we find a puzzling state of affairs with negation: a negation which seems to be inside an infinitival complement has effects typical of a matrix negation, e.g., NPI licensing in the matrix. (10) Subject NPI: ek-bhii laṛke-ne seb nahĩ: khaa-yaa one-even boy-erg apple.m neg eat-pfv.msg ‘Not even a single boy ate apples.’. We claim that we can work out the relative position of NEG with respect to the canonical position of subjects in Hindi-Urdu, assuming that there is only one sentential negation per clause, and that it doesn’t move We can explain why the ALWAYS≫¬≫ANY reading is unavailable: the only way to derive it is by having hameshaa higher than NEG (remember that it can be higher or lower, per (13)), which requires scrambling the subject NPI higher than the canonical Spec,AspP position (so as to derive the surface order) and reconstructing it at LF. The NEG-above-Asp hypothesis is superior to its contender because it derives the relevant facts with fewer assumptions.

Let’s assume that NEG is nahĩ
Infinitival clauses
Analysis
Differences among restructuring complements
25 Compare with:
28 Double negation is possible under the order ‘nahĩ
Comparison with Mahajan 1990
32 These two points are in fact empirically incorrect
What if nahĩ: is not negative?
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call