Comparative Morphosyntax of Pakistani Languages: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives
Statement
This post is designed to move students decisively from theoretical consumption to theoretical production. Through the fusion of comparative morphosyntax, competing formal frameworks, and strict methodological standards, it positions Pakistani languages at the center of contemporary syntactic inquiry and prepares graduates for meaningful participation in international linguistic research.
Rationale
This post provides advanced training in comparative morphosyntax, using Pakistani languages as empirically rich testing grounds for contemporary syntactic theory. Moving beyond single-language description and single-framework analysis, it equips students with the theoretical depth, methodological discipline, and technical skills required for original research and international publication. Central emphasis is placed on core Indo-Aryan phenomena, scrambling, case and agreement, split ergativity, cliticization, complex predicates, and syntax–prosody interaction, situated within a principled comparison of the Minimalist Program and Lexical-Functional Grammar.
Objectives
By the end of the post, students will be able to:
Critically evaluate competing syntactic frameworks and their predictions
Conduct rigorous comparative morphosyntactic analysis of Pakistani languages
Apply formal theory to raw linguistic data using international standards
Defend a coherent theoretical position grounded in empirical evidence
Produce high-level research suitable for conference presentation or publication
Outline
1: Orientation, Data Ethics, and Technical Standards
- Pakistani languages in global syntactic theory
- Ethical considerations in working with non-standardized and bilingual speech communities
- Data sources: elicitation, narratives, corpora
- Introduction to Leipzig Glossing Rules
Technical orientation:
Pre-formatted LaTeX/TikZ templates for trees and LFG f-structures- Arborator and web-based tools as interim alternatives
2: Models of Grammar and Theoretical Commitments
- Architecture and assumptions of Minimalism and LFG
- What constitutes explanation vs description
- The role of abstraction, economy, and formal constraint
- Choosing and justifying a theoretical framework
3: Configurationality, Scrambling, and Clause Structure
- Configurational vs non-configurational languages
- Scrambling as a diagnostic phenomenon
- Movement-based accounts (Minimalism) vs base-generation (LFG)
- Introduction to Phase Theory
- Empirical focus: scrambling constraints in Urdu vs Hindko
4: Case Systems and Argument Licensing
- Structural vs inherent case
- Differential Object Marking (DOM)
- Case as syntactic feature vs morphological reflex
- Cross-linguistic comparison within Pakistani languages
5: Split Ergativity in Pakistani Languages (I)
- Aspect-conditioned ergativity in Indo-Aryan
- Nominative–ergative alternations
- Urdu, Punjabi, and Saraiki contrasts
- Parametric vs construction-based explanations
6: Split Ergativity (II): Agreement, DSM, and Clitics
- Agreement asymmetries and long-distance agreement
- Differential Subject Marking (DSM) and experiencer constructions
- Saraiki pronominal clitics and agreement without overt case
- Contrast with Urdu’s non-clitic system
- Minimalist vs LFG analyses
7: Tense, Aspect, and Modality
- Morphological vs periphrastic TAM systems
- Future marking across Pakistani languages
- Diachronic perspectives on TAM development
- Interface of syntax, morphology, and semantics
8: Negation, Polarity, and Scope
- Structural position of negation
- Negative concord
- Scope ambiguities and interpretive effects
- Cross-framework treatment of polarity
9: Wh-Constructions and Information Structure
- Wh-movement vs wh-in-situ strategies
- Focus, topic, and discourse-driven scrambling
- Syntax–pragmatics interface
10: Complex Predicates and Vector Verbs
- Light verb constructions and clause union
- Vector verbs (e.g., kar lena vs kar dena)
- Dialectal variation in vector verb semantics
- Comparative evaluation:
- Minimalist vP shell
- LFG argument-fusion analysis
11: Syntax–Prosody Interface
- Prosodic phrasing and word order
- Stress and focus in Punjabi and Hindko
- Limits of syntax-only explanations
- Interface-driven variation
12: Language Contact and Micro-Variation
- Urduization and syntactic convergence
- Contact-induced change
- Dialect leveling and regional identity
- Implications for theory and documentation
13: Student Presentations and Peer Review
- Research presentations (one phenomenon, one framework)
- Structured peer review of draft papers
- Training in scholarly critique and revision practices
14: From Seminar to Dissertation
- Identifying publishable research questions
- Pakistani languages in international syntactic debates
- Transition from coursework to PhD proposal and grant applications
Technical Infrastructure
- Shared repository (GitHub / Drive) containing:
- LaTeX tree and f-structure
- Leipzig Glossing Rules guide
- UTF-8 character Urdu--Pakistani languages
Detailed Post: Comparative Morphosyntax of Pakistani Languages: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives
- LaTeX tree and f-structure
- Leipzig Glossing Rules guide
- UTF-8 character Urdu--Pakistani languages
1: Orientation, Data Ethics, and Technical Standards
A: Pakistani Languages in Global Syntactic Theory
Focus: Intellectual framing & motivation
Learning Objective
Students understand why Pakistani languages matter theoretically, not just descriptively, and what this era demands at university level.
Why “Urdu-only” syntax is theoretically insufficient
The invisibility of Saraiki, Hindko, Pothwari in global theory
Pakistani languages as theory-testing laboratories, not “data suppliers”
Pakistani Languages in Global Syntax
What Indo-Aryan languages contribute:
Scrambling
Split ergativity
Complex predicates
Agreement asymmetries
Why these phenomena challenge:
Universalist claims
English-centric assumptions
Course Architecture Overview
Minimalism vs LFG as competing explanations
Why theoretical pluralism ≠ theoretical confusion
What counts as success in this post:
Publishable argument
Defended framework
Clean data
Discussion
Which construction in your native language do you think current theory does not explain well?
Short student reflections (no pressure for technical detail)
Outcome
Intellectual buy-in
Students understand expectations
Anxiety reduced; curiosity activated
B: Data Sources and Ethical Responsibility
Focus: Methodology & research integrity
Learning Objective
Students learn how syntactic data is produced, evaluated, and ethically managed, especially in bilingual contexts.
The Myth of “Neutral Data”
Why syntactic judgments are not objective facts
The role of speaker background
Data Sources in Syntax
Elicitation
Strengths: control, precision
Risks: leading questions, Urdu interference
Narratives & spontaneous speech
Strengths: naturalness
Limitations: gaps, ambiguity
Grammars & corpora
When they help, and when they mislead
Ethical Issues in Pakistani Contexts
Non-standardized dialects
Bilingual speakers and code-mixing
Dialect prestige and self-correction
Informed consent and anonymization
Mini Case Analysis
Same sentence from:
an Urdu-dominant speaker
a rural Saraiki-dominant speaker
Discussion:
Which data is theoretically more valuable and why?
Outcome
Students stop treating data as “given”
Early prevention of weak academic evidence
Ethical awareness established from the very beginning
C. 3: Technical Standards & Hands-On Orientation
Focus: Skill-building & confidence
Learning Objective
Students gain practical familiarity with international technical standards and lose fear of formal tools.
Why Technical Standards Matter
Why papers get rejected
The role of glossing and trees in credibility
“Good ideas fail without clean presentation”
Introduction to Leipzig Glossing Rules
What must be glossed
What must NOT be glossed
Common Pakistani mistakes:
Over-translation
Mixing gloss and meaning
Inconsistent abbreviations
Demonstration
Raw sentence → interlinear gloss → free translation
Focus on clarity, not complexity
Technical Tools Overview
Pre-formatted LaTeX/TikZ templates
LFG f-structure template
Arborator and web-based tools (backup options)
Hands-On Activity
Students gloss one simple sentence from their native language
No trees yet, only clean glossing
Outcome
Technical intimidation removed
Standards introduced gently but firmly
Students leave feeling capable, not overwhelmed
Takeaway
By the end, students:
understand the theoretical importance of Pakistani languages,
know how to collect and evaluate data responsibly, and
can produce properly glossed linguistic examples.
2: Models of Grammar and Theoretical Commitments
A: Two Models of Grammar- Minimalism vs LFG
Focus: Architectural contrast
Learning Objective
Students understand how Minimalism and LFG conceptualize grammar differently, not just terminologically but architecturally.
Opening Question
What does a grammar explain: structures, meanings, or human cognition?
Minimalist Architecture
Core assumptions:
Syntax as a generative computational system
Narrow Syntax, Lexicon, Interfaces
Key mechanisms:
Merge
Feature checking
Agree
Phases (CP, vP)
Ontological commitment:
Grammar as a mental object
LFG Architecture
Parallel structures:
c-structure (phrase structure)
f-structure (functional relations)
Lexical mapping
No movement; constraints instead
Ontological commitment:
Grammar as an abstract system of correspondences
Initial Contrast
Movement vs correspondence
Derivations vs representations
What each framework refuses to assume
Outcome
Students grasp deep architectural differences
B: Explanation vs Description in Syntactic Theory
Focus: Epistemology of theory
Learning Objective
Students learn to distinguish true theoretical explanation from descriptive restatement.
Warm-Up Example
A scrambling sentence in Urdu
Two analyses:
“This order is allowed.”
“This order results from feature-driven movement.”
Discussion: Which is explanation?
What Counts as Explanation?
Explanation in Minimalism:
Reduction
Feature economy
Interface conditions
Explanation in LFG:
Constraint satisfaction
Functional completeness and coherence
The Danger of Over-Description
Labeling without accounting
Rephrasing data as “analysis”
Why journals reject descriptive papers
Comparative Exercise
Same dataset:
Minimalist account
LFG account
Identify:
What is explained
What is stipulated
Outcome
Students learn to argue, not annotate
Clear sense of what university-level explanation requires
C: Abstraction, Economy, and Choosing a Framework
Focus: Intellectual responsibility
Learning Objective
Students learn how and why to commit to a framework, rather than mixing theories opportunistically.
Why Abstraction Is Inevitable
Syntax is not surface order
Why invisible structure is necessary
The cost of “data literalism”
Economy and Formal Constraint
Economy in Minimalism:
Fewer operations
Feature minimization
Constraints in LFG:
Well-formedness conditions
Constraint interaction
Why “simpler-looking” analyses are not always better
How to Choose a Framework
Questions students must ask:
What phenomenon am I studying?
Does it involve movement?
Does morphology do the work?
Is variation lexical or structural?
When Minimalism is better
When LFG is better
Framework Commitment Exercise
Students write:
One phenomenon from their language + one framework they would tentatively use and why.
Outcome
Students understand theoretical responsibility
Framework choice becomes principled, not fashionable
Takeaway
By the end, students:
understand the architectural logic of Minimalism and LFG,
can distinguish explanation from description, and
are prepared to defend a theoretical stance in future.
3: Configurationality, Scrambling, and Clause Structure
Focus: Students explore word order flexibility, theoretical diagnostics, and empirical contrasts between Urdu and Hindko, grounded in Minimalist and LFG frameworks.
A: Configurationality vs Non-Configurationality
Learning Objective: Students understand what it means for a language to be configurational or non-configurational and why this distinction matters in syntactic theory.
Opening Concept
Definitions:
Configurational languages: hierarchical, fixed clause structure (e.g., English)
Non-configurational languages: flexible word order, discontinuous constituents (e.g., many Indo-Aryan languages)
Importance for syntax theory:
How word order interacts with movement, agreement, and interface rules
Theoretical Implications
Minimalist view:
Hierarchical tree structures, phases
Movement operations required to satisfy features
LFG view:
Flat base-generated structures allowed
Functional relations encoded in f-structure, independent of linear order
Empirical Discussion
Urdu and Hindko as case studies:
SOV as canonical, but heavy scrambling occurs
Discontinuous constituents: object fronting, topicalization
Cross-linguistic implications for parameter setting
Interactive Exercise
Students compare a scrambled sentence vs canonical sentence in Urdu/Hindko
Question: Does it require movement or is it base-generated?
Outcome
B: Scrambling as a Diagnostic Phenomenon
Learning Objective: Students apply scrambling diagnostics to evaluate competing theoretical analyses.
Scrambling Defined
What counts as scrambling vs free word order
Properties: optionality, scope, binding effects, constraints
Movement-Based Accounts (Minimalism)
Feature-driven movement
Phase boundaries and cyclic movement
Scrambling across CP and vP phases
Predictions:
Extraction constraints
Binding and agreement effects
Base-Generation Accounts (LFG)
Linearization vs hierarchical function
Scrambling as variation in c-structure
Functional coherence in f-structure remains intact
Advantages for non-configurational languages
Hands-On Mini Analysis
Provide students with 3–4 Urdu/Hindko sentences
Task:
Identify whether Minimalist movement would apply
Sketch functional relations in LFG f-structure
Outcome
C: Phase Theory and Empirical Focus
Learning Objective: Students understand phase theory and apply it to scrambling constraints in Urdu and Hindko.
Introduction to Phase Theory
Phases: CP and vP as computational units
Phase impenetrability and its role in movement
Predictions for long-distance scrambling
Scrambling Across Phases
Example sentences:
Object fronting within vP
Topicalization across CP
Testing Minimalist predictions vs LFG representations
Empirical Focus: Urdu vs Hindko
Urdu: optional scrambling, CP-bound constraints
Hindko: SOV word order with some flexibility, some long-distance scrambling
Discussion:
Does Hindko violate Minimalist phase constraints?
How does LFG encode these variations without movement?
Class Exercise
Students propose one sentence from their own language
Analyze:
Minimalist derivation: movement/phase issues
LFG representation: c-structure + f-structure
Share and discuss interpretations
Outcome
Clear distinction between configurational and non-configurational languages
Scrambling as a diagnostic tool for theoretical frameworks
Understanding phase boundaries in Minimalism and functional mapping in LFG
Experience applying theory to real-world Pakistani language data
4: Case Systems and Argument Licensing
Focus: Students explore how case is assigned, licensed, and realized across Urdu, Hindko, Saraiki, and Pothwari, and how theories (Minimalism vs LFG) explain argument structure.
A: Structural vs Inherent Case
Learning Objective: Understand different types of case and their theoretical roles in syntax.
Introduction to Case
Definition: Morphological marking of grammatical relations
Importance for argument licensing and agreement
Structural Case
Nominative/Accusative assigned by T° or v°
Role in movement (Minimalist perspective)
Examples from Urdu and Hindko:
Subject of transitive verbs (NOM) vs object of transitive verbs (ACC)
Inherent Case
Dative, Ergative, Locative as inherent features
Non-movement-based licensing
Cross-linguistic examples from Indo-Aryan languages:
Experiencer verbs
Benefactive constructions
Discussion / Mini Exercise
Students identify whether given arguments in Urdu/Hindko sentences bear structural or inherent case
Compare Minimalist derivation vs LFG f-structure assignment
Outcome
B: Differential Object Marking (DOM)
Learning Objective: Examine how animacy, specificity, and definiteness affect case marking, especially in Urdu and related languages.
Introduction to DOM
Definition and typology
Why some objects receive special marking while others do not
Minimalist Perspective
Feature checking and object movement
Conditions under which ACC case appears
Interaction with agreement and word order
LFG Perspective
f-structure representation of object functions
Constraint-based assignment without movement
Encoding optionality and hierarchy (animacy > definiteness)
Hands-On Exercise
Analyze sentences with human vs non-human objects
Decide whether DOM is structural, inherent, or optional
Draw both Minimalist derivation and LFG mapping for one example
Outcome
C: Case as Syntactic Feature vs Morphological Reflex + Cross-Linguistic Comparison
Learning Objective: Connect theoretical case assignment to actual morphology and compare patterns across languages.
Case as Syntactic Feature
Features vs overt marking
Minimalist: Case drives movement/valuation
LFG: Functional roles and well-formedness constraints
Morphological Reflex
How structural features manifest on nouns and pronouns
Examples: Urdu -ne/-ko, Saraiki clitics, Hindko agreement
Cross-Linguistic Comparison
Urdu: Ergative in perfective past tense (split ergativity)
Hindko: freer object marking, clitic agreement
Saraiki: combination of overt markers and clitics
Discussion: Implications for typology and parameter-setting
Mini Student Task
Students bring a sentence from their own native dialect
Analyze:
Case feature (structural/inherent)
Morphological reflex
Predict how Minimalism vs LFG would encode it
Share observations in class
Outcome
Takeaways
Structural vs inherent case distinctions
Differential Object Marking explained theoretically and empirically
Minimalist vs LFG approaches to case and argument licensing
Cross-linguistic awareness of Pakistani language variation
5: Split Ergativity in Pakistani Languages (I)
Focus: Students analyze aspect-conditioned ergativity, understand cross-linguistic patterns, and evaluate theoretical explanations (Minimalist parametric vs construction-based accounts).
A: Introduction to Split Ergativity
Learning Objective: Students understand the basic concept of split ergativity and its theoretical significance.
Opening Concept
What is split ergativity?
Languages where ergative alignment appears only in certain contexts
Contrast with full ergative or nominative-accusative systems
Indo-Aryan pattern: Aspect-conditioned split
Perfective vs imperfective
Past tense transitive verbs often trigger ergative marking
Theoretical Significance
Why split ergativity challenges simple parametric assumptions
Connection to argument licensing and case assignment
Relevance for Minimalism: movement, feature-checking, phase effects
Relevance for LFG: f-structure constraints and alignment
Empirical Data Overview
Urdu: Past perfective transitive verbs → Ergative -ne
Punjabi & Saraiki: Similar patterns, but differences in agreement marking
Example sentences:
Urdu: Ali-ne kitaab parhi
Punjabi: Ali-ne kitab parhi
Saraiki: show clitic variations
Discussion
Compare aspect-conditioned patterns
Question: Why does imperfective avoid ergativity?
Students begin identifying parametric vs construction-based explanations
Outcome
B: Nominative–Ergative Alternations
Learning Objective: Examine alternation patterns and constraints and connect them to theoretical frameworks.
Review of Key Concepts
Structural vs inherent case from the previous part
Scrambling influence on ergative subjects
Nominative–Ergative Alternation
Perfective past transitive: Ergative subject, agreement on object
Imperfective/present: Nominative subject, agreement on subject
Examples from Urdu, Hindko, Saraiki, Punjabi
Minimalist Analysis
Feature-driven case assignment
Aspect as a trigger for ergative valuation
Interaction with phase boundaries and movement
LFG Analysis
Ergative assignment as a f-structure constraint
Functional role mapping remains coherent
Construction-based predictions vs parametric predictions
Class Exercise
Students analyze 2–3 sentences:
Identify subject case (NOM/ERG)
Predict agreement pattern
Sketch Minimalist derivation or f-structure representation
Outcome
C: Parametric vs Construction-Based Explanations
Learning Objective: Critically evaluate why split ergativity arises and how different theories account for it.
Opening Framing
Parametric vs construction-based debate
Parametric: one feature triggers ergativity universally in certain contexts
Construction-based: each construction has its own independent alignment rules
Parametric Accounts
Aspect as parameter (perfective triggers ERG)
Interaction with other syntactic phenomena:
Agreement projection
Scrambling and focus
Predictive strengths and weaknesses
Construction-Based Accounts
Ergative-marked transitive pasts as construction-specific rules
Explains variation across dialects and idiolects
Can account for unusual exceptions better than strict parametric view
Comparative Exercise
Students are given 3–4 sentences from Urdu, Punjabi, Saraiki
Task:
Predict subject marking
Decide whether parametric or construction-based analysis better fits each example
Justify reasoning
Wrap-Up Discussion
Key takeaways:
Split ergativity is aspect-conditioned
Minimalist parametric accounts vs LFG/construction-based approaches
Outcome
Takeaways
Aspect-conditioned ergativity is central to Indo-Aryan syntax
Nominative–ergative alternations show interplay of aspect, agreement, and movement
Students understand parametric vs construction-based theoretical approaches
Empirical skill reinforced with Urdu, Punjabi, Saraiki, and Hindko data
6: Split Ergativity (II): Agreement, DSM, and Clitics
Focus: Students analyze agreement patterns, Differential Subject Marking, and pronominal clitics, comparing Saraiki and Urdu, using Minimalist and LFG perspectives.
A: Agreement Asymmetries and Long-Distance Agreement
Learning Objective: Students understand how agreement behaves differently in ergative vs nominative contexts and can analyze long-distance agreement patterns.
Review of Split Ergativity
Aspect-conditioned ergativity recap (previous section)
Implications for subject vs object agreement
Agreement Asymmetries
Urdu: object agreement in perfective past; subject agreement in imperfective
Saraiki: clitic agreement enables subject marking without overt case
Long-distance agreement examples:
Embedded clauses, control verbs
Interaction with scrambling
Minimalist Analysis
Agree operation, feature valuation, and phase constraints
How clitics provide agreement without overt DP movement
Limitations and predictions
Mini Exercise
Students analyze 2–3 example sentences in Saraiki and Urdu
Identify the agreement controller and target
Sketch Minimalist derivation for at least one
Outcome
B: Differential Subject Marking (DSM) and Experiencer Constructions
Learning Objective: Examine how subjects are differentially marked and how this interacts with argument structure.
Introduction to DSM
Definition: subject marking depends on semantic/animacy features
Examples in Indo-Aryan languages
Experiencer Constructions
Dative or marked subjects in psychological verbs
Saraiki examples: experiencer marked differently than agent
Urdu: standard nominative subjects; less DSM
Theoretical Analysis
Minimalist:
Case valuation and feature-driven assignment
Interaction with split ergativity
LFG:
f-structure encoding of marked subjects
Coherence and completeness constraints
Class Exercise
Provide sentences with experiencer verbs
Task: Identify DSM, assign features, compare Minimalist derivation vs LFG f-structure
Outcome
C: Saraiki Pronominal Clitics and Comparative Analysis
Learning Objective: Analyze Saraiki clitics as a unique agreement strategy and contrast with Urdu’s non-clitic system.
Pronominal Clitics in Saraiki
Overview: placement, agreement, optionality
How clitics encode subject/object without overt case marking
Contrast with Urdu
Urdu requires overt DP + case for agreement
Saraiki clitic system: minimal overt case, rich agreement
Minimalist vs LFG Analyses
Minimalism:
Clitics as agreement probes
Feature-checking without movement
LFG:
Clitics mapped directly onto f-structure
Functional coherence maintained without movement
Compare predictions and empirical coverage
Hands-On Exercise
Students analyze 2–3 Saraiki sentences with pronominal clitics
Assign Minimalist features and LFG f-structures
Discuss which framework better explains clitic agreement patterns
Outcome
Takeaways
Agreement asymmetries highlight interaction of case, aspect, and movement
DSM and experiencer constructions illustrate morphosyntactic nuance
Saraiki pronominal clitics provide a unique testing ground for Minimalism and LFG
Prepares students for next topic on Tense, Aspect, and Agreement Systems
7: Tense, Aspect, and Modality (TAM)
Focus: Students analyze morphological vs periphrastic TAM systems, compare future marking, and explore the syntax-morphology-semantics interface in Urdu, Saraiki, Hindko, and Pothwari.
A: Morphological vs Periphrastic TAM Systems
Learning Objective: Understand the distinction between morphological and periphrastic expression of tense, aspect, and modality, and their syntactic implications.
Introduction to TAM
Definitions of Tense, Aspect, Modality
Why TAM is crucial for argument licensing and clause structure
Morphological TAM
Affixal marking in Urdu and Saraiki
Examples:
Perfective: -a, -i, -e
Imperfective: auxiliary + participle
Implications for Minimalist derivation: feature checking, movement
Periphrastic TAM
Auxiliary constructions (e.g., verb + hona / rahna)
Future marking with modal auxiliaries
LFG perspective: f-structure encodes tense and aspect, linear order less critical
Exercise
Students classify sample sentences from Urdu/Hindko/Saraiki:
Morphological vs periphrastic
Identify syntactic vs semantic contribution
Outcome
B: Future Marking across Pakistani Languages
Learning Objective: Examine future tense strategies and their typological variation.
Future Tense in Urdu
Portmanteau suffix -ga/-gi/-ge encoding future + agreement
Interaction with person, number, and gender
Saraiki, Hindko, and Pothwari
Variation in suffixation, auxiliary verbs, and cliticization
Examples:
Saraiki: -si/-sun
Hindko: periphrastic constructions using auxiliary
Predictive differences for Minimalist and LFG frameworks
Diachronic Perspective
Historical development of future markers
Borrowings, analogical leveling, and cliticization
Implications for parametric theory
Mini Exercise
Students analyze future-marked sentences from 2–3 languages
Identify underlying features and morphological realization
Sketch derivation (Minimalist) or f-structure (LFG)
Outcome
Students can compare future marking strategies
C: Interface of Syntax, Morphology, and Semantics
Learning Objective: Integrate syntactic, morphological, and semantic analysis of TAM systems.
Interface Concept
Syntax-Morphology: feature valuation, affix placement
Syntax-Semantics: aspectual interpretation, temporal reference
Minimalist Analysis
How TAM features trigger movement or agreement
Interaction with ergativity, scrambling, and argument structure
LFG Analysis
f-structure encodes tense/aspect features
Constraint satisfaction ensures semantic interpretation
Multiple realization of TAM markers without changing functional roles
Hands-On Comparative Exercise
Given sentences with different TAM marking in Urdu, Saraiki, Hindko
Students identify:
Morphological vs periphrastic realization
Syntactic position of auxiliary or clitic
Semantic contribution
Minimalist derivation vs LFG f-structure
Outcome
8: Negation, Polarity, and Scope
Focus: Students examine the syntax and semantics of negation, explore negative concord, and analyze scope ambiguities, comparing Minimalist and LFG approaches across Urdu, Saraiki, Hindko, and Pothwari.
A: Structural Position of Negation
Learning Objective: Students understand where negation occurs in the clause and its implications for syntactic theory.
Introduction to Negation
Types of negation: sentential vs constituent
Importance in argument licensing, scope, and interpretation
Structural Position
Minimalist perspective:
Negation as a functional head (Neg°)
Interaction with TP and vP
Effect on subject/object movement and agreement
LFG perspective:
Negation encoded in f-structure
Mapping to semantic interpretation without requiring movement
Empirical Focus
Urdu: nahin, nahi placement
Saraiki/Hindko: clause-final vs preverbal negation patterns
Interaction with auxiliary verbs and perfective aspect
Exercise
Students identify Neg° position in example sentences
Draw Minimalist tree or LFG f-structure
Compare cross-linguistic differences
Outcome
B: Negative Concord and Polarity
Learning Objective: Examine negative concord phenomena and interaction with polarity items.
Introduction to Negative Concord
Definition: multiple negative elements in a sentence yield single negation
Examples: Urdu, Saraiki, Hindko
Cross-Linguistic Patterns
Sentences with NPIs, negative indefinites
Urdu: koi nahin, kabhi nahi
Saraiki/Hindko: clitic doubling of negation
Minimalist Analysis
Neg° probes and Agree operation with NPIs
Feature percolation for multiple negatives
Movement and interpretation
LFG Analysis
f-structure representation of negative concord
Semantic constraints for NPIs and negation
Compare cross-framework predictions
Outcome
C: Scope Ambiguities and Interpretive Effects
Learning Objective: Explore how negation interacts with other operators, creating scope ambiguities and interpretive effects.
Scope Basics
Negation vs quantifiers
Sentence-level vs constituent-level negation
Semantic consequences for truth-conditions
Empirical Examples
Urdu: Har admi ne koi kitab nahin parhi
Ambiguity: "No person read any book" vs "For every person, there exists a book not read"
Saraiki/Hindko: similar examples with clitic negation
Minimalist and LFG Analyses
Minimalist: scope determined by movement and hierarchical structure
LFG: scope encoded in f-structure + semantic interpretation
Compare predictions for ambiguous readings
Exercise
Students identify possible readings in sample sentences
Draw Minimalist derivation or LFG semantic f-structure
Discuss cross-linguistic differences
Outcome
Takeaways
Structural position of negation impacts syntax and semantics
Negative concord is a robust phenomenon in Pakistani languages
Polarity and scope interactions highlight cross-framework analysis
Students build empirical and theoretical skills in both Minimalist and LFG frameworks
9: Wh-Constructions and Information Structure
Focus: Students examine wh-movement, wh-in-situ, and the interaction of scrambling with focus and topic, comparing Urdu, Saraiki, Hindko, and Pothwari.
A: Wh-Movement vs Wh-In-Situ
Learning Objective: Understand how different Pakistani languages implement wh-questions and analyze theoretical implications.
Introduction to Wh-Constructions
Definition and typology: fronting vs in-situ strategies
Cross-linguistic variation: SOV languages and wh-placement
Wh-Movement
Minimalist: feature-checking and movement to [Spec, CP]
Constraints: island effects, phase boundaries
Urdu and Punjabi examples: kaun aya?, kis ne kitaab parhi?
Wh-In-Situ
LFG perspective: wh-elements remain in base position
Semantic focus or f-structure encoding
Saraiki/Hindko examples: keda kitaab parhi? (in-situ alternatives)
Exercise
Compare 3–4 sentences from Urdu, Saraiki, Hindko
Identify whether wh is moved or in-situ
Predict Minimalist derivation vs LFG f-structure
Outcome
B: Focus, Topic, and Discourse-Driven Scrambling
Learning Objective: Examine how discourse information drives word order variation in SOV languages.
Introduction to Information Structure
Topic vs focus distinction
Interaction with sentence pragmatics
Scrambling as Focus/Topic Marker
Urdu: preverbal object scrambling for focus
Saraiki/Hindko: flexible order influenced by discourse
Minimalist account: movement to [Spec, FocP/TopP]
LFG account: focus/topic encoded in functional structure without movement
Empirical Analysis
Sentences with wh-questions and scrambling
Effects on interpretation and emphasis
Exercise
Students analyze 3–4 sentences for:
Scrambled vs base order
Focus/topic marking
Derivation (Minimalist) vs f-structure (LFG)
Outcome
C: Syntax–Pragmatics Interface
Learning Objective: Integrate syntactic operations with pragmatic effects in wh-constructions and scrambling.
Interface Overview
How syntax interacts with discourse, focus, and topic
Implications for cross-framework analysis
Minimalist Analysis
Movement triggered by [Foc] or [Top] features
Phase theory predicts wh-landing sites and scope effects
LFG Analysis
Functional structures encode discourse features
No overt movement needed; constraints maintain interpretive coherence
Hands-On Exercise
Provide mixed sentences with wh-elements and scrambled objects
Students:
Identify discourse function
Derive Minimalist tree
Encode f-structure in LFG
Compare interpretive outcomes across frameworks
Outcome
Takeaways
Wh-questions in Pakistani languages exhibit movement and in-situ strategies
Scrambling is often discourse-driven
Syntax–pragmatics interface provides critical insights for both Minimalist and LFG analyses
Students build cross-framework analytical skills
10: Complex Predicates and Vector Verbs
Focus: Students examine light verb constructions, vector verbs, and dialectal variation, and compare Minimalist vP-shell analyses vs LFG argument-fusion analyses.
A: Introduction to Complex Predicates and Light Verbs
Learning Objective: Understand what constitutes a complex predicate and the syntactic/semantic role of light verbs.
Introduction to Complex Predicates
Definition: multi-verb constructions expressing single semantic event
Types in Indo-Aryan: verb + light verb (vL), verb serialization
Light Verb Constructions
Core idea: main verb contributes lexical semantics, light verb contributes grammatical features
Urdu examples: kar lena, liya in kitaab parh li
Saraiki/Hindko parallels and contrasts
Theoretical Significance
Minimalist: vP-shell for light verb + main verb structure
LFG: Argument-fusion captures merged semantic roles
Relevance for cross-linguistic variation and argument licensing
Exercise
Students identify complex predicates in sample sentences
Draw vP-shell tree (Minimalist) or f-structure (LFG)
Outcome
B: Vector Verbs and Dialectal Variation
Learning Objective: Examine vector verbs and their variation across dialects, including subtle semantic contrasts.
Introduction to Vector Verbs
Definition: verbs combining lexical verb + light verb to produce nuanced meaning
Examples:
kar lena (do and complete)
kar dena (do and give/affect)
Dialectal Variation
Urdu, Saraiki, Hindko, Pothwari: subtle semantic shifts
Example sentences for each dialect
Discussion of pronominal agreement and argument realization
Analytical Exercise
Students compare 2–3 vector verbs in different dialects
Identify lexical contribution vs light verb contribution
Discuss semantic differences and syntactic realization
Minimalist vs LFG Preview
Minimalist: vP-shell accounts for argument projection and scope
LFG: Argument-fusion merges multiple roles into single functional unit
Outcome
C: Comparative Evaluation: Minimalist vs LFG Analyses
Learning Objective: Critically evaluate how different frameworks analyze complex predicates and vector verbs.
Review of Key Examples
Recap sentences with kar lena, kar dena
Highlight argument patterns and clitic behavior
Minimalist vP-Shell Analysis
Structure: [vP Light Verb [vP Main Verb DP]]
Feature checking, movement, and agreement projection
Predictions for cross-dialectal variation
LFG Argument-Fusion Analysis
Functional structure merges roles of main verb + light verb
Maintains syntactic flexibility while ensuring semantic coherence
Class Exercise
Students analyze 2–3 vector verbs
Draw vP-shell trees (Minimalist)
Encode f-structures (LFG)
Discuss which framework better accounts for dialectal differences
Outcome
Takeaways
Complex predicates and vector verbs are central to Pakistani Indo-Aryan syntax
Light verbs contribute grammatical meaning, main verbs carry lexical semantics
Comparative framework analysis (Minimalist vP-shell vs LFG argument-fusion) reinforces theoretical and empirical skills
11: Syntax–Prosody Interface
Focus: Students examine how prosody interacts with syntax, including word order, stress, and focus, using Urdu, Punjabi, Hindko, and Saraiki as empirical data.
A: Prosodic Phrasing and Word Order
Learning Objective: Understand how prosodic structure constrains or interacts with syntactic structure.
Introduction to Syntax–Prosody Interface
Definition: mapping of syntactic constituents to prosodic units
Importance for word order and interpretation
Prosodic Phrasing
Major units: intonational phrase, phonological phrase
Relation to clause boundaries and scrambling
Empirical Focus
Urdu, Punjabi, Hindko: prosody-driven word order variations
Example: preposing of focus element aligns with intonation
Contrast with canonical SOV structure
Exercise
Students mark prosodic boundaries in sample sentences
Analyze alignment with syntactic constituents
Outcome
B: Stress, Focus, and Information Structure
Learning Objective: Examine how stress and focus interact with syntax and discourse.
Stress Patterns in Pakistani Languages
Lexical vs phrasal stress
Stress-sensitive movement and interpretation
Focus-Driven Movement
Punjabi/Hindko: preverbal focus elements
Scrambling influenced by prosody and discourse
Minimalist: [FocP] feature drives movement
LFG: focus encoded in f-structure
Empirical Analysis
Compare Urdu vs Hindko/Punjabi focus marking
Observe tonal and stress differences affecting interpretation
Exercise
Students annotate stress and focus in example sentences
Predict syntactic derivation (Minimalist) or f-structure (LFG)
Outcome
C: Limits of Syntax-Only Explanations and Interface-Driven Variation
Learning Objective: Integrate syntax, prosody, and discourse, highlighting limits of purely syntactic analyses.
Theoretical Motivation
Cases where syntax alone cannot explain word order variation
Role of prosody and discourse in constraint satisfaction
Interface-Driven Variation
How prosody modifies predictions of Minimalist and LFG analyses
Examples:
Contrastive focus placement
Wh-movement with prosodic constraints
Cross-Linguistic Comparison
Urdu, Saraiki, Hindko, Punjabi
Highlight typological and dialectal differences in prosody-syntax mapping
Hands-On Exercise
Students analyze sentences with conflicting syntactic vs prosodic predictions
Determine how Minimalist trees or LFG f-structures must adapt
Discuss interface-driven variation in interpretations
Outcome
Takeaways
Prosody interacts with syntax to influence word order and focus
Stress and intonation can override canonical syntactic predictions
Cross-framework analysis (Minimalist vs LFG) highlights interface-driven variation
Students gain tools for empirical, dialect-sensitive syntactic research
12: Language Contact and Micro-Variation
Focus: Students analyze contact-induced change, dialect leveling, and micro-variation, emphasizing Urdu, Saraiki, Hindko, Pothwari, and Punjabi, linking empirical observation to theoretical models.
A: Urduization and Syntactic Convergence
Learning Objective: Understand how language contact with Urdu influences syntax in regional languages.
Introduction to Urduization
Definition: influence of Urdu on lexical, morphological, and syntactic structures
Sociolinguistic background: prestige, media, education
Syntactic Convergence
Features borrowed or aligned with Urdu:
Word order shifts
Auxiliary constructions
Case marking and agreement patterns
Empirical examples:
Saraiki/Hindko sentences showing convergence
Theoretical Implications
Minimalist: feature borrowing, parameter resetting
LFG: f-structure adaptation for convergent constructions
Challenges for modeling micro-variation
Exercise
Students identify Urdu-influenced constructions in regional corpora
Compare with native patterns
Discuss Minimalist vs LFG representation
Outcome
B: Contact-Induced Change and Dialect Leveling
Learning Objective: Examine how sustained contact shapes dialectal micro-variation.
Introduction to Contact-Induced Change
Borrowing, calquing, structural alignment
Historical and sociolinguistic factors
Dialect Leveling
Loss of regional features, homogenization of syntax
Examples from Hindko and Pothwari: loss of clitic distinctions, auxiliary variation
Interface with prosody, word order, and agreement
Micro-Variation Analysis
Minimalist: parametric variation across contact-influenced dialects
LFG: feature fusion or multiple realizations in f-structure
Implications for modeling syntactic diversity
Exercise
Students compare 2–3 dialect samples
Identify convergent and divergent syntactic patterns
Propose Minimalist tree or LFG f-structure representations
Outcome
C: Implications for Theory, Documentation, and Research
Learning Objective: Link empirical findings from language contact and micro-variation to syntactic theory, documentation, and research design.
Implications for Theory
How contact challenges rigid parameterization
Integrating micro-variation into Minimalist and LFG models
Documentation Challenges
Non-standardized dialects
Bilingual interference and data reliability
Ethical considerations revisited
Research and Fieldwork Application
Designing corpora for contact-induced variation
Comparative analysis for publication-quality data
Hands-On Exercise
Students outline a mini-research proposal on contact-induced change in a selected dialect
Identify theoretical framework, target features, and methodology
Outcome
Takeaways
Language contact drives syntactic convergence and micro-variation
Dialect leveling and Urduization have measurable syntactic effects
Students integrate fieldwork, theory, and documentation skills
Prepares research scholars for original research and publication
13: Student Presentations and Peer Review
Focus: Students present their research projects, engage in structured peer review, and receive training in scholarly critique, reinforcing cross-framework analysis and empirical rigor.
A: Research Presentations- Part I
Learning Objective: Students present a selected phenomenon from Pakistani languages using their chosen theoretical framework.
Introduction
Guidelines for presentation:
One syntactic phenomenon (e.g., scrambling, complex predicates, ergativity)
One theoretical framework (Minimalism or LFG)
Empirical data from Urdu, Saraiki, Hindko, Pothwari, or Punjabi
Student Presentations
Each student presents 7–10 minutes
Focus on:
Problem statement and research question
Data sources and methodology
Theoretical analysis (tree/f-structure)
Preliminary conclusions
Instructor Feedback
Highlight strengths, methodological rigor, and theoretical clarity
Outcome
B: Research Presentations- Part II & Peer Review Introduction
Learning Objective: Complete presentations and introduce structured peer review.
Remaining Presentations
Complete all remaining student presentations
Ensure every student receives instructor commentary
Introduction to Peer Review
Purpose: constructive critique to improve clarity, argumentation, and data analysis
Peer review checklist:
Clarity of research question
Appropriateness of data
Correct application of chosen framework
Strength of empirical and theoretical argument
Peer Review Exercise
Students exchange draft papers
Annotate strengths and weaknesses using checklist
Outcome
C: Scholarly Critique and Revision Practices
Learning Objective: Train students in high-level academic revision and preparing work for publication.
Instructor Demonstration
Show example of a draft paper
Highlight common issues in argumentation, data presentation, framework alignment
Suggest strategies for revision
Peer Review Discussion
Students discuss peer feedback in pairs or small groups
Identify actionable revisions
Emphasize constructive language and evidence-based critique
Planning Revision
Students create a revision plan:
Structural improvements (organization, clarity)
Theoretical improvements (framework consistency, argument strength)
Empirical improvements (data annotation, glossing, trees/f-structures)
Set deadlines for final submission
Outcome
Takeaways
Students consolidate empirical, theoretical, and technical skills
Peer review trains critical, constructive engagement with academic work
Final papers reflect original research grounded in Pakistani languages and cross-framework analysis
14: From Seminar to Dissertation
Focus: Students synthesize course learning to identify publishable research questions, situate Pakistani languages in global syntactic debates, and prepare for PhD proposals and grant applications.
A: Identifying Publishable Research Questions
Learning Objective: Develop skills to formulate research questions suitable for high-level publication.
Introduction
Criteria for a publishable research question:
Novelty
Theoretical significance
Empirical feasibility
From Seminar Data to Research Focus
Review phenomena studied (scrambling, ergativity, complex predicates, etc.)
Identify gaps or unresolved issues in Pakistani language syntax
Exercise
Students draft 2–3 potential research questions
Peer discussion to evaluate novelty, scope, and feasibility
Instructor Feedback
Highlight questions with potential for journal publication
Suggest framing strategies for clarity and theoretical impact
Outcome
B: Situating Pakistani Languages in International Syntax Debates
Learning Objective: Connect regional data to global theoretical frameworks.
Overview of International Syntactic Debates
Minimalism, LFG, HPSG, RRG, etc.
Current trends: argument structure, ergativity, micro-variation
Empirical Contribution of Pakistani Languages
Case studies: Saraiki split-ergativity, Hindko clitic agreement, Urdu complex predicates
How these phenomena challenge or support existing theories
Exercise
Students map their own phenomena to international debates
Identify which frameworks best capture the data
Discuss potential for conference presentations or journal submission
Discussion
Encourage articulation of why Pakistani language data matters globally
Highlight opportunities for comparative Indo-Aryan research
Outcome
C: Transitioning to PhD Proposal and Grant Applications
Learning Objective: Prepare students to convert seminar work into a formal PhD research proposal and apply for funding.
From Seminar Paper to PhD Proposal
Structuring a proposal:
Research questions
Literature review
Methodology (fieldwork, corpora, theoretical analysis)
Expected contribution
Grant Applications and Funding Strategies
Overview of national and international funding sources
Aligning proposal aims with funder priorities
Importance of clear methodology and feasibility
Exercise
Students outline a PhD proposal draft:
Title, research questions, target languages, and framework
Peer feedback on clarity, originality, and feasibility
Identify potential funding sources for their topic
Outcome
Takeaways
Seminar research becomes publishable and fundable
Pakistani languages provide unique empirical leverage in global syntax debates
Students leave the course prepared for PhD proposal, fieldwork, and academic publication
Research Projects: Comparative Morphosyntax of Pakistani Languages
Context:
These projects align with Comparative Morphosyntax of Pakistani Languages: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. Scholars are expected to use Minimalist Program and Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) as primary frameworks, with optional secondary perspectives (Functional, RRG, interface-based). All projects require strict adherence to Leipzig Glossing Rules, tree/f-structure representation, and rigorous empirical analysis.
1. Split Ergativity and Aspect in Pashto
Target Language(s): Pashto (Northern & Southern dialects)
Phenomenon: Aspect-conditioned ergativity, Differential Subject/Object Marking (DSM/DOM), argument alignment variation
Framework: Minimalist Program / LFG
Methodology:
Elicitation of narrative texts from diverse dialects
Annotate data using Leipzig Glossing Rules
Represent syntactic structures using LaTeX/TikZ and f-structures
Compare with Indo-Aryan ergative patterns (Urdu, Punjabi, Saraiki)
Expected Deliverables:
Annotated corpus with glossed examples
Minimalist vP-shell analyses and LFG argument-fusion representations
Draft manuscript suitable for conference submission or journal
2. Cliticization and Long-Distance Agreement in Sindhi
Target Language(s): Sindhi (standard and dialectal varieties)
Phenomenon: Subject/object clitics, long-distance agreement, argument structure asymmetries
Framework: Minimalist Program / LFG
Methodology:
Collect elicited sentences, narratives, and embedded clauses
Annotate clitic placement, agreement patterns, and argument structure
Generate tree/f-structure representations to test theoretical predictions
Expected Deliverables:
Glossed Sindhi corpus with focus on clitics
Comparative analysis of Minimalist vs LFG predictions
Draft manuscript ready for journal submission
3. Scrambling, Focus, and Information Structure in Punjabi
Target Language(s): Eastern & Western Punjabi dialects
Phenomenon: Wh-movement vs wh-in-situ, scrambling, discourse-driven focus and topicalization, syntax–prosody interface
Framework: Minimalist Program / LFG
Methodology:
Record spoken narratives and elicited sentences
Annotate word order variation, focus, and intonation
Model phenomena using phase theory (Minimalism) and f-structures (LFG)
Expected Deliverables:
Tree and f-structure representations of scrambling and focus constructions
Comparative analysis across dialects
Draft paper with theoretical discussion
4. Case Marking and Morphosyntactic Typology in Brahui
Target Language(s): Brahui (primary dialects in Balochistan)
Phenomenon: Structural vs inherent case marking, split alignment, argument licensing
Framework: Minimalist Program / LFG
Methodology:
Fieldwork or secondary corpora to collect elicited and naturalistic examples
Analyze nominal and verbal morphology in alignment patterns
Apply cross-framework analysis for typological comparison with Indo-Aryan and Iranian languages
Expected Deliverables:
Annotated dataset of case marking and agreement patterns
Theoretical comparison using Minimalist and LFG models
Manuscript draft for international linguistics publication
5. Syntax–Prosody Interface in Gilgiti/Shina
Target Language(s): Gilgiti/Shina (multiple dialects of Gilgit-Baltistan)
Phenomenon: Prosodic phrasing, stress-driven word order variation, focus marking, syntax–prosody interaction
Framework: Minimalist Program / LFG
Methodology:
Record narratives and elicited dialogues
Annotate stress, focus, and prosodic phrasing
Compare predictions of Minimalist movement vs LFG interface models
Expected Deliverables:
Prosody-syntax annotated dataset
Tree/f-structure models illustrating interface-driven variation
Research paper with cross-dialectal analysis
6. Comparative Analysis of Vector Verb Constructions
Target Language(s): Urdu, Saraiki, Punjabi, Hindko, Pashto, Sindhi
Phenomenon: Light verb constructions, vector verbs, argument structure variation, cross-dialectal semantic differences
Framework: Minimalist Program / LFG
Methodology:
Collect and annotate dialectal examples of vector verbs
Model argument structure and clause union using vP-shell (Minimalism) and argument-fusion (LFG)
Cross-linguistic comparison of semantic contributions and syntactic constraints
Expected Deliverables:
Annotated cross-dialectal corpus
Minimalist and LFG analyses
Comparative manuscript with theoretical implications
7. Language Contact and Micro-Variation
Target Language(s): Sindhi, Pashto, Gilgiti/Shina, and other minority languages
Phenomenon: Urduization, syntactic convergence, dialect leveling, contact-induced micro-variation
Framework: Minimalist Program / LFG
Methodology:
Collect older and contemporary texts, elicited narratives, and corpora
Analyze contact-induced syntactic changes and parametric shifts
Annotate using Leipzig Glossing Rules and tree/f-structure representations
Expected Deliverables:
Data demonstrating syntactic convergence and contact effects
Framework-based comparative analysis
Draft paper with empirical and theoretical insights
8. Tense, Aspect, and Modality Across Language Families
Target Language(s): Indo-Aryan, Iranian, Dravidian (Punjabi, Saraiki, Pashto, Brahui)
Phenomenon: Morphological vs periphrastic TAM systems, future marking, aspectual distinctions
Framework: Minimalist Program / LFG
Methodology:
Collect comparable elicitation frames and corpora
Annotate tense/aspect/mood distinctions
Evaluate cross-framework predictions for TAM phenomena
Expected Deliverables:
Cross-linguistic TAM dataset
Minimalist vs LFG analysis of morphological and periphrastic forms
Comparative manuscript suitable for publication
Project Portfolio: Comparative Morphosyntax of Pakistani Languages
| # | Project Title | Target Language(s) | Phenomenon | Research Question | Primary Hypothesis | Framework | Methodology | Expected Deliverables | Suggested Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Split Ergativity and Aspect in Pashto | Pashto (Northern & Southern dialects) | Aspect-conditioned ergativity, DSM, DOM | Does aspect-conditioning in Pashto drive split ergativity across dialects? | Northern Pashto shows more regular ergative alignment than Southern; DSM interacts with aspect predictably | Minimalism / LFG | Narrative corpus + elicitation, Leipzig glossing, LaTeX/TikZ trees & f-structures | Comparative analysis, Minimalist & LFG trees, draft manuscript | 6–8 months: 3 months data collection, 2 months analysis, 1–2 months writing |
| 2 | Cliticization and Long-Distance Agreement in Sindhi | Sindhi | Subject/object clitics, long-distance agreement | How do clitic placement and long-distance agreement interact in Sindhi syntax? | Sindhi clitics enable long-distance agreement that can be modeled under both Minimalism and LFG | Minimalism / LFG | Elicitation + embedded clause examples, glossing, f-structure mapping | Annotated corpus, comparative theoretical analysis, draft paper | 6–7 months: 2 months data, 3 months analysis, 1–2 months manuscript |
| 3 | Scrambling, Focus, and Information Structure in Punjabi | Eastern & Western Punjabi | Wh-movement, scrambling, discourse-driven word order | Does scrambling in Punjabi obey Minimalist phase constraints, or is it base-generated? | Eastern Punjabi shows freer scrambling than Western; discourse effects modulate word order | Minimalism / LFG | Spoken narratives, elicitation, prosody annotation, glossing, tree/f-structure | Trees/f-structures, focus marking, comparative write-up | 6 months: 2 months elicitation, 2 months analysis, 2 months write-up |
| 4 | Case Marking and Morphosyntactic Typology in Brahui | Brahui | Structural vs inherent case, alignment patterns | How does Brahui case marking compare typologically with Indo-Aryan languages? | Brahui exhibits split alignment conditioned by tense/aspect; structural vs inherent case distinctions are crucial | Minimalism / LFG | Fieldwork or corpora, glossing, f-structures | Typological analysis, Minimalist/LFG modeling, research paper | 8–10 months: 3 months data, 3–4 months analysis, 2–3 months manuscript |
| 5 | Syntax–Prosody Interface in Gilgiti/Shina | Gilgiti/Shina | Stress, intonation, word order | How does prosody interact with syntax in Gilgiti/Shina across dialects? | Prosodic phrasing predicts word order variation and focus; Minimalist vs LFG yields different explanatory power | Minimalism / LFG | Recorded narratives, prosody annotation, tree/f-structure modeling | Prosody-syntax mapping, cross-dialectal comparison, manuscript draft | 7–8 months: 2–3 months recordings, 3 months analysis, 2 months writing |
| 6 | Comparative Analysis of Vector Verb Constructions | Urdu, Saraiki, Punjabi, Hindko, Pashto, Sindhi | Light verb constructions, argument structure | How do vector verbs differ cross-linguistically in structure and semantics? | Argument structure variations correlate with Minimalist vP-shell vs LFG argument-fusion predictions | Minimalism / LFG | Elicitation, corpus analysis, glossing, tree/f-structure | Cross-linguistic paper, trees/f-structures, theoretical evaluation | 8 months: 3 months data, 3 months analysis, 2 months writing |
| 7 | Language Contact and Micro-Variation | Sindhi, Pashto, Gilgiti/Shina | Contact-induced change, dialect leveling, Urduization | How does Urdu contact influence syntax and micro-variation in minority languages? | Urduization leads to syntactic convergence observable in word order and agreement patterns | Minimalism / LFG | Historical texts, contemporary corpora, fieldwork, glossing | Data-based analysis, theoretical evaluation, draft manuscript | 6–7 months: 2 months data, 3–4 months analysis, 1 month write-up |
| 8 | Tense, Aspect, and Modality Across Language Families | Indo-Aryan, Iranian, Dravidian (Punjabi, Saraiki, Pashto, Brahui) | TAM marking, periphrastic vs morphological | How do TAM marking strategies vary across families, and what cross-framework predictions hold? | Morphological TAM is preferred in Dravidian; periphrastic TAM dominates Indo-Aryan; Minimalist and LFG predict complementary patterns | Minimalism / LFG | Comparative elicitation, glossing, f-structure/tree annotation | Cross-linguistic TAM analysis, comparative paper, theoretical modeling | 9 months: 3 months data, 4 months analysis, 2 months manuscript |
Key Expert-Level Features
