The Distribution of Null Operators in Gujarati Christina M. Willis ...

The Distribution of Null Operators in Gujarati
Christina M. Willis, University of Texas at Austin
cmwillis@mail.utexas.edu
There is cross-linguistic variation regarding whether a language permits null operators, and if it
does so, where. In this paper we address the availability of null operators in Gujarati relative
constructions, and the constraints on their distribution.
In English we find null operators in relative clauses (cf. 1), but not in free relatives (cf. 2)
or questions (cf. 3). Like English, Hindi-Urdu does not permit null operators in questions and free
relatives/correlatives. However, in contrast to English, Hindi-Urdu does not allow for null
operators in relative clauses (cf. 4).
At this point, we could posit that languages do not permit null operators in questions and
free relatives, but have the option to permit them in headed relatives. This would go along with
the intuition expressed in work by Jacobson (1988; 1995), Rullmann (1995), and Izvorski (1998)
that there are close parallels between the semantics of free relatives and questions. A closer look
at cross-linguistic variation among the modern Indo-Aryan languages does not bear out such an
assumption. Like Hindi-Urdu we find that Gujarati does not permit null operators in headed
relative clauses (cf. 5). But Gujarati does not match Hindi for all relative clause constructions.
Following work by Srivastav (1991), and Dayal (1996), we assume correlative clauses to
be (essentially) free relatives. Correlative clauses in Gujarati, however, allow for null operators
(cf. 6). The structure in (6) is a genuine correlative and not a reduced relative clause. First of all,
the relative clause CP can be separated from the demonstrative phrase it is associated with (cf. 7).
In addition, reduced relatives are participial, they do not involve finite tense while (6) and (7) do
([chhe], 'be-prs.'). Further, reduced relatives are not permitted on active transitive past participles,
while correlatives (with or without null operators) are. We conclude that Gujarati correlatives
permit null operators.
Further investigation of the distribution of null operators in Gujarati correlatives reveals
that they are available only in simple correlatives (cf. 6, 7), and not in multi-headed correlatives
(cf. 8). We propose that the asymmetry between the availability of null operators in simple vs.
multi-head correlatives is a result of the following:
(i) Null operators need to be locally licensed (cf. 9); null operators in English relative clauses
are only licensed under a [Spec, head] relationship with a relative C 0
(cf. Jacobson 1983, Kayne 1994, Bianchi 1999 a.o.).
(ii) Different structures underlie simple and multi-head correlatives (cf. Wali 1982, Bhatt
2000): simple correlatives start locally adjoined to the demonstrative phrase that they are
associated with, while the multi-headed correlative starts locally adjoined to the smallest
IP that contains all the demonstrative phrases that the correlatives are associated with. We
argue that the local adjunction to demonstrative phrase structure is crucial in providing the
local configuration required for the licensing of the null operator. Since this structure is
unavailable to multi-headed correlatives, null operators are not licensed there.
We will also talk about the relationship between correlatives with null operators in
Gujarati and a long distance pre-relative construction in Marathi, and the potential link with the
Dravidian languages which seem to lack overt relative operators altogether.
(1) a. the food [Opi that [you cooked ti]]
b. the food [whichi C 0 [you cooked ti]]

(2) a. I ate [[what] i [you cooked ti]]
b. *I ate [Op i you cooked ti]
(3) a. [What] i did you cook ti?
b. *Op i did you cook ti?
(4) vo laRkii [*(jo) khaRii hai] laambi hai
DEM girl *(REL) standing-f. is tall-f. is
'The girl who is standing is tall.' (Srivastav, 1991; Dayal, 1996)
(5) te chhokri [*(je) laambi chhe] ubhi chhe
DEM girl *(REL) standing-f. is tall-f. is
'The girl who is standing is tall.'
The demonstrative phrase associated with the correlative CP in (6-9) is in bold.
(6) [φREL-XP ubhi chhe] [te chhokri laambi chhe]
standing-f. is DEM girl tall-f. is
'The girl standing is tall'. (Literal: [(who) is standing], that girl is tall)
(7) a. [je chhokro Sita sathe vat kari rahyo chhe], [Rita-ne te chhokro game chhe]
REL boy Sita with talk do PROG is Rita-DAT DEM boy like is
'Rita likes the boy who is talking to Sita.'
b. [φREL-XP Sita sathe vat kari rahyo chhe], [Rita-ne te chhokro game chhe]
Sita with talk do PROG is Rita-DAT DEM boy like is
'Rita likes the boy who is talking to Sita.'
(Literal: [(which boy) is talking to Sita], Rita likes that boy.)
(8) a. [je chhokrae je chhokrine joi] [te chhokra-e te chhokri-ne pasand kari]
REL boy-ERG REL girl-ACC saw DEM boy-ERG DEM girl-ACC like did
Literal: Which boy saw which girl, that boy liked that girl.
b. *[φREL-XPi φREL-XPj joi] [te chhokra-e te chhokri-ne pasand kari]
see-pst. DEM boy-ERG DEM girl-ACC like did
(9) a. the book Op that John likes
b. the book whose/*Op author C 0 John likes
SELECTED REFERENCES
Bhatt, R. (2000). "Locality in Apparently non-local Relativization: Correlatives in the
Modern Indo-Aryan Languages," In Press.
Cardona, G. (1965). A Gujarati Reference Grammar, The University of Pennsylvania
Press, Philadelphia.
Dayal, V. (1996). Locality in Wh-quantification: Questions and Relative Clauses in
Hindi, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 62, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Jacobson, P. (1988) 'The Syntax and Semantics of Free Relatives,' paper presented at
LSA Winter Meeting, New Orleans.
Srivastav, V. (1991). "The syntax and semantics of correlatives," Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 9, 637-686.
Wali, K. (1982). ``Marathi Correlatives: a conspectus,’’ in P.J. Mistry, ed. South Asian
Review: studies in South Asian Languages and Linguistics, SALA Journal 6.1,
South Asian Literary Association, Jacksonville, Florida, 78-88.