Sinhala and Tamil: A Case of Contact-Induced Restructuring Harold Dharmasenan Thampoe Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the regulations for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at School of English Literature, Language and Linguistics Newcastle University September 2016 © Harold D. Thampoe 2016 All rights reserved Abstract The dissertation presents a comparative synchronic study of the morphosyntactic features of modern spoken Sinhala and Tamil, the two main languages of Sri Lanka. The main motivation of the research is that Sinhala and Tamil, two languages of diverse origins—the New Indo-Aryan (NIA) and Dravidian families respectively—share a wide spectrum of morphosyntactic features. Sinhala has long been isolated from the other NIA languages and co-existed with Tamil in Sri Lanka ever since both reached Sri Lanka from India. This coexistence, it is believed, led to what is known as the contact-induced restructuring that Sinhala morphosyntax has undergone on the model of Tamil, while retaining its NIA lexicon. Moreover, as languages of South Asia, the two languages share the areal features of this region. The research seeks to address the following questions: (i) What features do the two languages share and what features do they not share?; (ii) Are the features that they share areal features of the region or those diffused into one another owing to contact?; (iii) If the features that they share are due to contact, has diffusion taken place unidirectionally or bidirectionally?; and (iv) Does contact have any role to play with respect to features that they do not share? The claim that this research intends to substantiate is that Sinhala has undergone morphosyntactic restructuring on the model of Tamil. The research, therefore, attempts to answer another question: (v) Can the morphosyntactic restructuring that Sinhala has undergone be explained in syntactic terms? The morphosyntactic features of the two languages are analyzed at macro- and micro-levels. At the macro-level, a wide range of morphosyntactic features of Tamil and Sinhala, and those of seven other languages of the region are compared with a view to determining the origins of these features and showing the large scale morphosyntactic convergence between Sinhala and Tamil and the divergence between Sinhala and other NIA languages. At the micro-level the dissertation analyzes in detail two morphosyntactic phenomena, namely null arguments and focus constructions. It examines whether subject/verb agreement, which is different across the two languages, plays a role in the licensing of null arguments in each language. It also examines the nature of the changes Sinhala morphosyntax has undergone because of the two kinds of Tamil focus constructions that Sinhala has replicated. It is hoped, that this dissertation will make a significant contribution to the knowledge and understanding of the morphosyntax of the two languages, the effects of language contact on morphosyntax, and more generally, the nature of linguistic variation. i Dedication I dedicate this dissertation to God Almighty—the Father, Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit— for His abundant grace, provision, strength and wisdom, and my wife Grace for her love, care, patience and understanding without whom I would never have been able to start, continue or complete successfully my PhD. ii Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to the following who have contributed to the completion of my Doctoral studies. From the depths of my heart I thank Professor Anders Holmberg, one of my supervisors, for suggesting this fascinating topic. His inspiration, guidance, support and patience made this dissertation possible. I would also like to thank sincerely Dr. William van der Wurff, my other supervisor, for his encouragement, advice support and patience. His subtle insights and good humoured criticism have significantly enhanced the quality of my dissertation. I feel incredibly privileged to have you both as my supervisors, for you have made my research a rewarding and memorable experience. I wish to extend my sincere gratitude and appreciation to Professor Maggie Tallerman, Newcastle University, and Prof. Andrew Nevins, University College London, my panel of examiners, for their very useful questions, comments and suggestions at the viva and their comprehensive report, raising diverse issues which helped me immensely to improve my dissertation. I am ever grateful to Professor Anders Holmberg, Professor Noel Burton-Roberts, Professor Maggie Tallerman, Professor Martha Young-Scholten, Professor Karen Corrigan, Professor Steve Walsh, Dr. S. J Hannahs, Dr. Geoffrey Poole, Dr. Joel Wallenberg, Dr. William van der Wurff, Dr. Marie-Claude Tremblay, Dr. Cristina Dye, Dr. Hermann Moisl, Dr. Dawn Knight, Dr. Francis Jones and Mr. Scott Windeatt who taught me during the two year taught component of my PhD program. I gratefully acknowledge the grant awarded to me under the Scholarship Programme of the Higher Education for the Twenty First Century (HETC) Project, Ministry of Higher Education, Sri Lanka, without which I would not have been able to do my PhD. A special word of thanks goes to Professor Lalith Munasinghe, HRD Consultant, and his efficient team for all their assistance. I am also very thankful to Dr. D. M. S. Munasinghe and Dr. M. Alfred who acted as sureties to the bond for my study leave. I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to my brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles in Sri Lanka and in the UK for their invaluable prayers, encouragement, support, help in all its forms and for just being there always. I am greatly indebted to my wife, Grace, for the many sacrifices she has made for me. Her intuitions in the two languages have helped me analyze various morphosyntactic features of the two languages. Finally, I owe a debt of gratitude to God for His manifold mercies, not only for giving me this great opportunity in life, but for all He has done to help me finish it successfully. iii iv Table of contents Abstract i Dedication ii Acknowledgements iii Table of contents v List of abbreviations ix List of tables xiii List of figures xiv Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Research aim and objectives 1 1.2 Language classification 2 1.3 Contact-induced restructuring 6 1.4 Linguistic and areal typology 14 1.5 Languages in contact: Sinhala and Tamil 19 1.6 Methodology 27 Chapter 2 Features related to word order 33 2.1 Preliminaries 33 2.2 Features related to word order: a comparison 34 2.2.1 Order of subject, object, and verb 34 2.2.2 Order of subject and verb 34 2.2.3 Order of object and verb 34 2.2.4 Order of object, oblique, and verb 35 2.2.5 Order of adposition and noun phrase 35 2.2.6 Order of genitive and noun 36 2.2.7 Order of adjective and noun 36 2.2.8 Order of demonstrative and noun 37 2.2.9 Order of numeral and noun 37 2.2.10 Order of relative clause and noun 37 2.2.11 Order of degree word and adjective 38 2.2.12 Position of polar question particles 38 2.2.13 Position of interrogative phrases in content questions 39 2.2.14 Order of adverbial subordinator and clause 39 2.2.15 Relationship between the order of object and verb and the order of adposition and noun phrase 40 2.2.16 Relationship between the order of object and verb and the order of relative clause and noun 40 v 2.2.17 Relationship between the order of object and verb and the order of adjective and noun 41 2.3 Discussion 41 2.3.1 Features related to word order: implications of the comparison 42 2.3.1.1 Other word order issues: numerals, indefinite marker and negative marker 46 2.3.1.2 (In)definiteness 52 2.3.1.3 Prenominal relative clauses 56 2.3.1.4 Correlative clauses 57 2.1.3.5 The Sinhala question particle: a diachronic study 58 2.3.1.6 Interrogatives 60 2.3.1.7 Subordinate clauses 63 2.4 Conclusion 65 Chapter 3 Features related to simple clauses 67 3.1 Preliminaries 67 3.2 Features related to case and agreement: a comparison 68 3.2.1 Alignment of case marking of full noun phrases 68 3.2.2 Alignment of case marking of pronouns 69 3.2.3 Alignment of verbal person marking 69 3.2.4 Expression of pronominal subjects 70 3.2.5 Verbal person marking 71 3.2.6 Third person zero of verbal person marking 71 3.2.7 Order of person markers on the verb 72 3.2.8 Ditransitive constructions: the verb ‘give’ 72 3.3 Features related to valence and voice: a comparison 73 3.3.1 Reciprocal constructions 73 3.3.2 Passive constructions 74 3.3.3 Antipassive constructions 74 3.3.4 Applicative constructions 74 3.3.5 Periphrastic causative constructions 75 3.3.6 Nonperiphrastic causative constructions 76 3.4 Features related to negation and questions: a comparison 76 3.4.1 Negative morphemes 76 3.4.2 Order of negative morpheme and verb 77 3.4.3 Position of negative morpheme with respect to subject, object, and verb 78 3.4.4 Symmetric and asymmetric standard negation 78 vi 3.4.5 Subtypes of asymmetric standard negation 80 3.4.6 Negative indefinite pronouns and predicate negation 81 3.4.7 Polar questions 81 3.5 Features related to predication: a comparison 82 3.5.1 Predicative possession 82 3.5.2 Predicative adjectives 82 3.5.3 Nominal and locational predication 83 3.5.4 Zero copula for predicate nominals 84 3.5.5 Comparative constructions 84 3.6 Discussion 85 3.6.1 Features related to case and agreement: implications of the comparison 85 3.6.1.1 Case system 87 3.6.1.2 Agreement system 95 3.6.2 Features related to valence and voice: implications of the comparison 103 3.6.3 Features related to negation and question: implications