Nanosyntax & Morphosyntactic Architecture in Saraiki & Indo-Aryan Languages

Nanosyntax and Morphosyntactic Architecture in Saraiki and Indo-Aryan Languages

by Riaz Laghari, Lecturer in English, NUML, Islamabad

Introduction

Saraiki, an Indo-Aryan language spoken in central western & southern Punjab, Parts of Sindh, Balochistan, and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan, and parts of India, presents a rich, transparent, and regular inflectional morphology, making it ideal for testing nanosyntactic hypotheses. Unlike English, which expresses tense mostly periphrastically, Saraiki lexicalizes tense, person, number, and mood in highly productive suffixal paradigms. Urdu, sharing Indo-Aryan roots, provides a comparative lens for analyzing feature decomposition and phrasal spell-out.

This post introduces Nanosyntax concepts, including functional sequence (fseq), phrasal spell-out, and the Superset Principle, and demonstrates how Saraiki provides empirical evidence for fine-grained syntactic structure. It is designed for linguistics enthusiasts, advanced students, and researchers interested in South Asian morphosyntax and formal syntax.

1: Understanding the T-Domain and the Functional Sequence (fseq)

In Nanosyntax, the verbal T-domain consists of a hierarchy of functional heads:

$$\text{[Mood [Tense [Aspect [v [Root]]]]]}$$

• Mood: Imperative, Subjunctive, Conditional
• Tense: Past, Future
• Aspect: Perfective, Imperfective
• v: Verbalizer
• Root: Lexical verb

Agreement features (Person, Number, Gender) are attributes of Tense or Mood, not separate AgrPs.

English contrast:

Sentence	Feature coverage
I will go	FutureP (lexicalized periphrastically)
She reads	PresentP + 3SG
I went	PastP + no overt agreement

Saraiki examples:

(main kresan) → DO-FUT.1SG.MS → I will do

و پڙه-سي (o paṛh-si) → DO-FUT.2SG.FS → She will read

(āsān vai-soon) → DO-FUT.1PL → We will go

T-domain tree (Saraiki future, 1SG)

MoodP

└─ TenseP [Future]

    └─ AgrP [1SG]

        └─ vP

            └─ Root:kar

2: Future Tense in Saraiki- Lexical Trees and Superset Principle

2.1 The Functional Sequence (fseq) for Saraiki Verbs

Following Harley & Ritter (2002) and Tromsø Nanosyntax, the Saraiki T-domain can be decomposed into a hierarchically ordered spine:

$$\text{FutP} > \text{NumberP} > \text{PersonP} > \text{ParticipantP} > \text{vP/Root}$$

Feature mapping:

Person	Participant	Author	Addressee	Remarks
1SG	[+]	[+]	–	Author is speaker
2SG	[+]	–	[+]	Addressee
3SG	–	–	–	Non-participant
PL	[+/–]	[+/–]	[+/–]	Plural treated via NumberP

2.2 Saraiki Lexical Entries

Each Saraiki future suffix is a lexicalized subtree of the fseq. The Superset Principle ensures that the largest applicable tree wins in competition.

2.2.1 –سوں / –sō̃ (1SG)

Lexical Tree:

[FutureP

   [NumberP (SG)

       [PersonP

           [AuthorP 1SG]

       ]

   ]

]

Spell-out: –سوں

Gloss: paṛh-sō̃ → read-FUT.1SG.MS

• Covers Future + 1SG features.
• Competes successfully when Person = 1 and Number = SG.

2.2.2 –سی / –si (2SG)

Lexical Tree:

[FutureP

   [NumberP (SG)

       [PersonP

           [AddresseeP 2SG]

       ]

   ]

]

Spell-out: –سی

Gloss: paṛh-si → read-FUT.2SG.MS

Spans Future + 2SG.

Smaller than –san; only triggers for singular addressee.

2.2.3 –سن / –san (Plural — Superset)

Lexical Tree (Default / Superset):

[FutureP

   [NumberP (PL)

       [PersonP

           [ParticipantP]

       ]

   ]

]

Spell-out: –سن

Gloss: paṛh-sen → read-FUT.PL.MS

Explanation:

• Covers 1PL, 2PL, 3PL.
• Largest tree → default winner for any plural structure (Elsewhere Principle).
• Syncretism arises naturally: same suffix for all plural persons.

2.3 Spell-out Competition Table (Maximalist Match)

Person	Number	Saraiki Suffix	Lexical Tree Size	Notes
1SG	SG	–سوں	Medium	Matches exactly
2SG	SG	–سی	Medium	Matches exactly
3SG	SG	–سی	Small	Hypothetical minimal entry
1PL	PL	–سن	Large / Superset	Covers all plural persons
2PL	PL	–سن	Large / Superset	Superset Principle applies
3PL	PL	–سن	Large / Superset	Superset Principle applies

2.4 Urdu Comparison: Distributed Lexicalization

Urdu Future Morphology: kar-ū̃-gā (I will do)

• Root: kar-
• Participant: -ū̃ (1SG)
• Future + Gender/Number: -gā

Observation:

• Urdu splits features into multiple lexical items.
• Each lexical item is smaller than Saraiki –sō̃, covering only part of the fseq.
• Saraiki is more compact → one suffix can cover Root + Tense + Person/Number.

2.5 English Comparison: Periphrastic Future

• Auxiliary will encodes FutureP.
• Root remains independent: I will read → FUT + vP separate.
• Minimal agreement (3SG-s) → less informative about fseq hierarchy.

Implication: Saraiki demonstrates maximal lexicalization, English minimal, Urdu intermediate.

2.6 Root Compaction and Phonological Spanning

The Saraiki verbal root (kar-) is not inert:
Merges with vP/Aspect head.
Undergoes phonological spanning to attach to suffixes.
Suffixes spell out top of the tree (Future + Number + Person).
Ensures the word remains monomorphemic in surface form despite rich internal structure.

Example:

Language	Form	Gloss
Saraiki	kar-esō̃	do-FUT.1SG.MS
Urdu	kar-ū̃-gā	do-1SG-FUT.MS
English	I will do	FUT periphrastic

---

Summary

Saraiki future suffixes are lexicalized trees spanning multiple fseq nodes.

• Superset Principle explains syncretism in plural forms.
• Foot-driven movement / phonological spanning ensures Root merges with suffix.
• Urdu vs. Saraiki: Split lexicalization vs. compact lexicalization.
• English: Periphrastic future highlights theoretical contrast.

3: Past Tense and Perfective Aspect in Saraiki

3.1 Saraiki Past Suffix Paradigms

Saraiki exhibits productive past tense suffixation that interacts with person, number, and aspect. The table below summarizes the canonical paradigms for the Multani dialect:

Person	Singular	Plural
1st	giya	gai
2nd	giya	gai
3rd	giya	gai

Example Sentences:

Form	Gloss	English Translation
main giya	DO-PAST.1SG.MS	I went
o giya	DO-PAST.3SG.MS	He went
asan gai	DO-PAST.1PL.MS	We went

Observations:

• The suffix –giy/ –a- encodes Tense + Person features.
• The plural suffix –gai acts as a superset covering all persons.
• Morphologically, the past is fusional, with multiple features encoded in a single suffix.

3.2 Lexical Trees for Saraiki Past Suffixes

Following the fseq:

$$\text{TenseP (Past)} > \text{AspectP (Perfective)} > \text{NumberP} > \text{PersonP} > \text{ParticipantP} > \text{vP/Root}$$

3.2.1 1SG Singular – giya/–

[PastP

   [AspectP (Perfective)

       [NumberP (SG)

           [PersonP

               [AuthorP 1SG]

           ]

       ]

   ]

]

Spell-out: –giya

Gloss: man giya → DO-PAST.1SG.MS

• Covers Past + Perfective + 1SG.
• Perfective placement below PastP is critical: governs split-ergativity in the language.

3.2.2 2SG Singular – giy-a

[PastP

   [AspectP (Perfective)

       [NumberP (SG)

           [PersonP

               [AddresseeP 2SG]

           ]

       ]

   ]

]

Spell-out: –giya

Gloss: tū → DO-PAST.2SG.MS

3.2.3 Plural – gai/ –ey (Superset)

[PastP

   [AspectP (Perfective)

       [NumberP (PL)

           [ParticipantP]

       ]

   ]

]

Spell-out: –gaiey

Gloss: asān gaiey → DO-PAST.PL.MS

• Acts as a default/superset, covering 1PL, 2PL, 3PL.
• Explains syncretism across plural persons, analogous to –san in the future tense.

3.3 Comparative Urdu and English

Language	Form	Gloss	Notes
Urdu	میں گیا	DO-PAST.1SG.MS	Past suffix –ا encodes Tense + Gender
Urdu	ہم گئے	DO-PAST.1PL.MS	Superset plural marker –ے
English	I went	DO-PAST	Minimal morphology, no agreement

Observation:

Urdu shows split lexicalization (Tense + Gender/Number).

Saraiki is more compact, often fusing Tense + Person + Number in one suffix.

English demonstrates periphrastic simplicity, highlighting the theoretical richness of Indo-Aryan paradigms.

3.4 Nanosyntactic Insight: Aspect and Ergative Alignment

The perfective AspectP is structurally below PastP, consistent with standard Nanosyntax.
This hierarchical placement explains split-ergativity in Saraiki:
Perfective transitive clauses license ergative marking on the agent.
Non-perfective or present tense clauses use nominative alignment.
The morphology reflects hierarchical feature containment: the suffix spells out Past + Perfective + Person/Number in one operation.

3.5 Summary

1. Saraiki past tense suffixes encode multiple features (Tense, Aspect, Person, Number).
2. Plural forms (-gaiey) are supersets, creating syncretism naturally.
3. Comparative Urdu data shows split lexicalization, English minimal morphology.
4. The Nanosyntactic framework explains both morphological regularity and ergative alignment via feature hierarchy and fseq decomposition.

4: Mood and Imperatives in Saraiki

4.1 Saraiki Imperative Paradigms

Saraiki imperatives encode Mood, Person, and sometimes Number in a single suffix, demonstrating fusional and phrasal spell-out properties. The Multani dialect paradigms are as follows:

Person	Singular	Plural
2nd	ڪَر-سيو	ڪَر-سن

Example Sentences:

Form	Gloss	English Translation
ڪَر-سيو!	DO-IMP.2SG.MS	Do! (singular)
ڪَر-سن!	DO-IMP.2PL.MS	Do! (plural)
ڪَر-سوں!	DO-FUT.1SG.MS	I will do!

Observations:

The imperative suffix –سو / –سن encodes Mood + Person/Number.

Singular/plural distinction is maintained through superset morphology.

These forms illustrate phrasal spell-out, where one morpheme covers multiple hierarchical features.

4.2 Lexical Trees for Saraiki Imperatives

4.2.1 2SG Singular –سيو / –so

Following the fseq:

$$\text{MoodP (Imperative)} > \text{TenseP} > \text{NumberP (SG)} > \text{PersonP (Addressee)} > \text{vP/Root}$$

[MoodP (IMP)

    [TenseP (null/future implied)

        [NumberP (SG)

            [PersonP (2SG)]

                [vP/Root]

            ]

        ]

    ]

]

Spell-out: –سو

Gloss: kar-sio! → DO-IMP.2SG.MS

The imperative head is structurally higher than TenseP.

The suffix covers the Person + Number features, consistent with Nanosyntactic Superset Principle.

4.2.2 2PL Plural –سن / –san

[MoodP (IMP)

    [TenseP (null/future implied)

        [NumberP (PL)

            [ParticipantP]

                [vP/Root]

            ]

        ]

    ]

]

Spell-out: –سن

Gloss: kar-sen! → DO-IMP.2PL.MS

The plural suffix –san acts as a default/superset, spelling out all plural persons.

Syncretism across plural forms is predicted by the Superset Principle.

4.2.3 Future 1SG Imperative –سوں / –sõn

In hortative or 1SG future commands, the suffix –سوں encodes Mood + Tense + 1SG Person.

Demonstrates feature fusion beyond standard imperatives.

4.3 Comparative Urdu Imperatives

Person	Singular	Plural
2nd	کرو!	کریں!

Observations:

Urdu imperatives split the lexicalization:

کرو! → 2SG, Mood + Root

کریں! → PL, Mood + Number

Comparison shows Saraiki has larger lexical items, more compactly realizing multiple functional heads.

4.4 English Imperatives

English Do! is a bare infinitive.

No overt agreement or tense morphology.

Contrasts with Indo-Aryan systems where Mood, Tense, and Person are explicitly encoded in morphology.

4.5 Nanosyntactic Insights

1. Mood heads dominate Tense and Number heads in the fseq, aligning with standard Nanosyntactic hierarchies.
2. Imperative suffixes are phrasal spell-outs, demonstrating fusion of multiple functional heads in a single morpheme.
3. Plural superset suffixes (-سن) illustrate the Superset Principle in action: the largest lexical tree compatible with the syntactic structure wins.
4. Comparative analysis highlights that Saraiki lexicalization is more compact than Urdu, while English lacks overt morphological marking, underscoring the theoretical significance of Indo-Aryan languages for Nanosyntax.

4.6 Summary

• Saraiki imperatives encode Mood, Person, and Number in one morphological unit.
• Lexical trees illustrate phrasal spell-out and Superset Principle.
• Comparative Urdu/English data emphasize cross-linguistic variation in morphological realization.

5: Agreement, Person, and Feature Containment

5.1 The Feature Geometry of Agreement

In the Nanosyntactic framework, agreement is hierarchically decomposed rather than treated as a monolithic node. Following Harley & Ritter (2002) and Starke (2009), we adopt the following agreement feature hierarchy (fseq):

$$[ \text{ParticipantP} [ \text{AuthorP (1st Person)} ] [ \text{AddresseeP (2nd Person)} ] [ \text{NumberP (SG/PL)} ] [ \text{GenderP (MS/FS/NS)} ] ]$$

Interpretation:

1st Person = Participant + Author

2nd Person = Participant + Addressee

3rd Person = Default (non-participant)

Number = Singular/Plural

Gender = Masculine/Feminine/Neuter (mostly Urdu; Saraiki largely lacks overt gender marking)

This hierarchy allows us to explain the phrasal spell-out of agreement in Saraiki and the split spell-out in Urdu.

5.2 Saraiki Agreement Morphology

Saraiki future suffixes clearly span multiple nodes in the fseq:

Person	Singular	Plural
1st	–saan	–soon
2nd	–siسی	–waisen
3rd	–si	–sen

Examples:

Form	Gloss	English Translation
main kresan	DO-FUT.1SG.MS	I will do
tu kresen	DO-FUT.2SG.MS	You will do
o kresi	DO-FUT.3SG.MS	He/She will do
اasan/tusan/o- kresen	DO-FUT.1/2/3PL.MS	We/You/They will do

Insights:

–wai-si/sen – spell out Tense + Participant + Number simultaneously.

The Superset Principle predicts syncretism: –sen- serves as the default plural spell-out, covering 1PL, 2PL, and 3PL because its lexical tree contains the relevant plural nodes.

5.2.1 Lexical Tree for –wanj (Plural Superset)

[FutureP

    [ParticipantP

        [AuthorP]

        [AddresseeP]

        [NumberP (PL)]

    ]

]

Spell-out: –vanj

Observation: The tree spans all plural persons, making –vanj- the largest compatible lexical entry in the competition.

5.2.2 Lexical Tree for 1SG –سوں

[FutureP

    [ParticipantP

        [AuthorP (1st Person)]

        [NumberP (SG)]

    ]

]

Spell-out: –سوں

Covers 1st person singular only.

Does not include plural or 2nd person nodes, thus obeying the Elsewhere Principle.

5.3 Urdu Comparison

Urdu future suffixes exhibit a split spell-out:

Person	Singular	Plural
1st	–ū̃	–ẽ
2nd	–e	–ẽ
3rd	–gā	–gē

Example:

Form	Gloss	English Translation
میں کروں گا	DO-FUT.1SG.MS	I will do
تم کرو گے	DO-FUT.2SG.MS	You will do
وہ کرے گا	DO-FUT.3SG.MS	He/She will do

Analysis:

Urdu splits the functional heads: –ū̃ / –e realizes Participant, –gā / –gī realizes Future + Number/Gender.

Comparison: Saraiki suffixes are larger lexical items, covering more features per spell-out operation.

5.4 English Minimal Agreement

English does not morphologically realize agreement in future tense.

3SG present: he walks → only present tense shows minimal agreement.

Future: I will do, he will do → no overt agreement, demonstrating absence of feature lexicalization.

5.5 Visual: Feature Containment (Venn Diagram)

          ┌─────────────┐
          │ FutureP     │
          │             │
          │ ┌─────────┐ │
          │ │ –سوں    │ │ 1SG
          │ └─────────┘ │
          │ ┌─────────┐ │
          │ │ –سی     │ │ 2SG
          │ └─────────┘ │
          │ ┌─────────┐ │
          │ │ –سوں     │ │ PL Superset
          │ └─────────┘ │
          └─────────────┘

• –ون contains the plural nodes for 1PL, 2PL, 3PL.
• –سوں / –سی are smaller trees, covering only their specific singular feature bundles.

5.6 Nanosyntactic Insights

• Superset Principle: The largest lexical item compatible with the syntactic tree wins the spell-out competition.
• Syncretism in Saraiki: –soon/san/sen- exemplifies how one suffix can spell out multiple plural persons.
• Cross-linguistic relevance: Urdu’s split spell-out contrasts with Saraiki’s compact lexicalization, while English provides an unlexicalized baseline, illustrating universality of the fseq even without morphology.
• Theory–data integration: These paradigms demonstrate how agreement, person, and number are fully decomposed in the Nanosyntactic hierarchy, allowing precise modeling of Indo-Aryan morphology.

6: Negation and Modal Interactions

6.1 Negation in the Nanosyntactic Hierarchy

In Nanosyntax, Negation is a functional head (NegP) that c-commands the T-domain:

$$[ \text{NegP} [ \text{TenseP} [ \text{ParticipantP} [ \dots ] ] ] ]$$

Consequences for spell-out:

1. NegP introduces scope over Tense, Mood, and Agreement.
2. The presence of NegP may block or modify the application of phrasal spell-out, depending on whether the suffix spans all heads in Tense + Participant + Number.

6.2 Saraiki Negation

Paradigm (Future Tense + Negation):

Person	Singular	Plural
1st	main na kresan	asan na kresoon
2nd	tu na kresen	tusan na kreso
3rd	o na kresi	o na kresen

Examples:

Form	Gloss	English Translation
main na kresan	DO-FUT.1SG.MS NEG	I will not do
tu na kresen	DO-FUT.2SG.MS NEG	You will not do
o na kresi	DO-FUT.3SG.MS NEG	He/She will not do
asan/tusan/o na kresen	DO-FUT.PL.MS NEG	We/You/They will not do

Insights:

NegP c-commands the T-domain, leaving the suffixes (–san-soon-sen) unchanged.

The Superset Principle still applies, as –sen covers all plural nodes even in the presence of negation.

No additional morphological markers are needed; negation is separate and outside the fseq of Tense + Agreement.

6.2.1 Lexical Tree Interaction

[NegP

    [TenseP

        [ParticipantP

            [AuthorP / AddresseeP]

            [NumberP]

        ]

    ]

]

Spell-out: -سوں / -سی / -san (unchanged)

NEG → separately realized as نه

• The verbal suffix still spells out the maximal compatible structure (Tense + Participant + Number).
• NegP does not interfere with feature containment; it simply c-commands the T-domain.

6.3 Urdu Negation

Paradigm (Future Tense + Negation):

Person	Singular	Plural
1st	میں نہیں کروں گا	ہم نہیں کریں گے
2nd	تم نہیں کرو گے	آپ نہیں کریں گے
3rd	وہ نہیں کرے گا	وہ نہیں کریں گے

Example:

Form	Gloss	English Translation
میں نہیں کروں گا	DO-FUT.1SG.MS NEG	I will not do

Insights:

• Urdu negation (نہیں) behaves similarly to Saraiki: NegP c-commands the T-domain.
• Due to split spell-out, the future morphemes –ū̃ / –gā still realize Tense + Agreement features independently of negation.

6.4 English Negation

English uses periphrastic negation with the auxiliary will not.
Example: I will not do
Negation c-commands Tense (will) but does not affect agreement (no overt person/number suffix).
Demonstrates that Nanosyntactic structure is present even when morphology is absent.

6.5 Modal Interactions

Negation interacts transparently with modals, e.g., Saraiki kresoon can combine with other modal-like expressions:

main shayad na kran → I may not do
In Urdu: میں شاید کروں گا نہیں → I may not do
Observation: The T-domain is always contained under NegP, regardless of modality, preserving the hierarchical spell-out system.

6.6 Comparative Insights

Language	Negation Type	Interaction with Tense/Agreement
Saraiki	preverbal نه	Tense/Agreement suffixes unaffected
Urdu	preverbal نہیں	Split Tense/Agreement unaffected
English	auxiliary + not	Morphologically minimal, periphrastic

• Saraiki and Urdu confirm Nanosyntax predictions: NegP c-commands T-domain but does not alter phrasal spell-out.
• English highlights abstract syntactic structure without overt morphology, supporting universality of the fseq.

Negation in Saraiki and Urdu interacts systematically with the T-domain, demonstrating that Superset-based spell-out is robust under c-commanding functional heads. This confirms that the Nanosyntactic hierarchy is actively realized, even under morphosyntactic modifiers, and provides a clean comparative benchmark with English.

7: Relative Clauses and Correlative Constructions

7.1 Introduction

Relative clauses in Saraiki provide an ideal testing ground for Nanosyntax because agreement within the embedded clause reflects the same T-domain hierarchy as matrix clauses. Moreover, Saraiki and Urdu exhibit relative-correlative constructions, which are rare cross-linguistically and allow us to observe phrasal spell-out across clause boundaries.

7.2 Saraiki Relative-Correlative Constructions

Example:

Saraiki	Gloss	English Translation
jhera banda asi o khush aey	REL person come-FUT.3SG.MS, he happy is	The person who will come is happy

• jhera → relativizer introducing the embedded clause
• -asi → Future suffix reflecting Tense + Person + Number
• Agreement: suffix in relative clause matches the embedded subject, not the matrix subject
• Implication: T-domain features are locally projected within the relative clause

Embedded T-domain Tree:

[CP RelP

    [TP TenseP

        [ParticipantP

            [AuthorP / AddresseeP]

            [NumberP]

        ]

    ]

    [vP Root ]

]

Spell-out: -asi covers Tense + Participant + Number

This shows that phrasal spell-out respects local hierarchical structure, even in embedded clauses.

Superset Principle still governs: the maximal suffix that covers the embedded T-domain wins.

7.3 Urdu Relative-Correlative Construction

Example:

Urdu	Gloss	English Translation
جو آدمی آئے گا، وہ خوش ہے	REL person come-FUT.3SG.MS, he happy is	The person who will come is happy

• Relative marker جو parallels Saraiki جيڪو
• -گا spells out Tense + Gender/Number for embedded subject
• Observation: Agreement is locally computed, like in Saraiki
• Shows that Superset Principle and fseq mapping apply across clauses

7.4 English Relative Clauses

Example:

The person who will come is happy

will realizes Tense periphrastically

no overt agreement except 3SG for auxiliary (he/she)

Demonstrates abstract T-domain structure without full morphological realization

7.5 Comparative Insights

Language	Relative Marker	Embedded T-domain Spell-out	Agreement Type
Saraiki	جو	-سيو / -سي / -سن	Phrasal, local
Urdu	جو	-گا / -گی / -گے	Phrasal, local
English	who	will	Minimal, periphrastic

• Saraiki and Urdu confirm that lexical items in the T-domain can span multiple functional heads in embedded clauses.
• English provides evidence for abstract hierarchical structure without overt morphological fusion.

7.6 Nanosyntactic Implications

1. Local Spell-Out: Embedded clauses project their own T-domain; phrasal spell-out is sensitive to the local subject.
2. Feature Containment: Maximal suffixes (Superset Principle) dominate agreement for each embedded feature bundle.
3. Areal Signature: Relative-correlative constructions in Saraiki and Urdu reflect a South Asian areal pattern, demonstrating how syntactic hierarchies interact with language-specific morphology.
4. Comparative Validation: English confirms that even minimal morphology is compatible with Nanosyntax’s abstract fseq, highlighting universality of the theoretical approach.

Saraiki relative-correlative constructions demonstrate that the T-domain hierarchy and phrasal spell-out operate robustly in embedded contexts, with suffixes faithfully realizing local person, number, and tense features. Urdu shows a parallel pattern, reinforcing the predictive power of the Superset Principle, while English provides a cross-linguistic contrast with minimal morphological realization. These observations strengthen the case for Nanosyntax as a universal model for Indo-Aryan languages.

8: The Syntax of the Root and Spell-out Algorithm

8.1 Introduction

In Nanosyntax, the verbal root is not a passive placeholder; it actively interacts with the functional sequence (fseq) to enable phrasal spell-out. In Saraiki, the root 'kar' (‘do’) climbs the functional hierarchy to align with the appropriate suffix, allowing a single lexical item (–سوں, –سي, –سن) to realize multiple features simultaneously. This section formalizes this foot-driven movement, compares it with Urdu and English, and demonstrates how different degrees of lexical coverage correspond to different morphological strategies.

8.2 Foot-Driven Movement in Saraiki

Example:
main kresan → DO-FUT.1SG.MS → I will do

Derivation Steps

Merge Root (kar): The verbal root enters the structure as the terminal of vP.

Merge Functional Heads: The fseq for the T-domain is built above the root:

[FutureP

   [ParticipantP

      [AuthorP]  ; 1st Person

      [NumberP]  ; Singular

   ]

   [vP Root ]

]

• Foot-Driven Movement (Phonological Spanning): The root climbs the functional spine to the left edge to satisfy a single-word spell-out requirement.
• Spell-Out: The suffix –سوں is a lexical entry covering [FutureP + ParticipantP + NumberP] according to the Superset Principle.
• Resulting Form: kresonn → DO-FUT.1SG.MS

8.3 Urdu Contrast: Split Spell-Out

Example:
میں کروں گا → DO-FUT.1SG.MS → I will do

kar- → Root

-ū̃ → Spells out [ParticipantP] (1st person singular)

-gā → Spells out [FutureP + Gender/Number]

Observation: The root remains fixed, and separate suffixes realize smaller portions of the fseq.

Implication: Urdu demonstrates partial compaction, contrasting with Saraiki’s fully fused T-domain spell-out.

8.4 English Contrast: Periphrastic Future

Example:
I will do

I → Subject

will → Future auxiliary

do → Root

Observation: English shows periphrastic realization, with the root and FutureP separated. Minimal agreement (3SG-s) marks only certain contexts.

Implication: Nanosyntactic structure exists, but the lexicon does not fuse Tense + Person + Number.

8.5 Comparative Summary

Feature	Saraiki	Urdu	English
Future Tense	Synthetic, fully fused	Semi-periphrastic	Periphrastic
Agreement Coverage	Tense + Person + Number	Tense or Person separately	Minimal (3SG-s)
Superset Lexical Entry	–سوں covers all PL	–ṅge covers PL only	None
Root Movement	Foot-driven spanning	Fixed root	Separate auxiliary
Morphological Strategy	Maximal compaction	Split spell-out	Periphrastic

8.6 Nanosyntactic Implications

1. Root–Suffix Integration: Saraiki demonstrates maximal phrasal spell-out, allowing a single lexical item to cover multiple nodes in the fseq.

1. Superset Principle in Action: –سوں exemplifies the Elsewhere Principle, winning for any 1PL/2PL/3PL combination where no more specific lexical entry exists.

1. Cross-Linguistic Contrast: Urdu shows intermediate compaction, English minimal. This illustrates how lexicalization granularity varies across languages while the underlying fseq remains universal.

1. Theoretical Significance: Foot-driven movement is a general mechanism for achieving maximal compaction in Nanosyntax, offering insights into Indo-Aryan morphology and informing universal theories of tense and agreement.

9: Cross-Linguistic Insights and Synthesis

9.1 Comparative Feature Table

Feature	Saraiki	Urdu	English
Future Tense	Synthetic, fully fused	Semi-periphrastic	Periphrastic, minimal agreement
Agreement	1SG/2SG/PL suffixes span multiple heads	Gender/number split across suffixes	3SG only
Mood	Imperative, subjunctive fused with Tense	Split across suffixes	Bare infinitive, no agreement
Root–Functional Integration	Foot-driven movement, maximal compaction	Fixed root, split spell-out	Separate auxiliary, minimal lexical coverage

9.2 Saraiki: Maximal Compaction

Saraiki demonstrates full phrasal spell-out, where a single lexical item (–سوں, –سي, –سن) realizes multiple nodes in the functional sequence (fseq). For example:
main kresan → DO-FUT.1SG.MS → I will do
Here, the suffix –سوں spells out [FutureP + ParticipantP + NumberP]. This maximal compaction allows:
Systematic syncretism across person and number.
Efficient lexicalization, reducing the number of morphemes needed per verb.
Predictable interaction with negation and embedded clauses.

9.3 Urdu: Partial Compaction

In Urdu, the fseq is realized across multiple smaller lexical entries, as in:

میں کروں گا → DO-FUT.1SG.MS → I will do

kar- → Root

-ū̃ → ParticipantP (1SG)

-gā → FutureP + Gender/Number

Key observations:

• The root remains fixed; separate morphemes spell out individual functional heads.
• Syncretism is constrained; plural forms may require distinct suffixes.
• Foot-driven movement is absent, reflecting a different lexicalization strategy.

9.4 English: Minimal Compaction

English uses periphrastic future constructions:

I will do → FUT + Root

Features:

• Future tense is realized by the auxiliary will, separate from the root.
• Agreement is minimal (3SG-s), demonstrating underspecified lexicalization.
• Highlights that Nanosyntactic structures exist even when overt morphology is sparse.

9.5 Typological Implications

Lexicalization Granularity: Saraiki, Urdu, and English show a gradient of compaction:

Saraiki > Urdu > English

Functional Sequence Universality: Despite surface differences, the fseq is universal: [Mood > Tense > Aspect > Participant > Number > Root].

Superset Principle in Action:

Saraiki’s –san acts as a superset lexical entry for plural forms.
Urdu splits the spell-out across morphemes.
English relies on auxiliary insertion rather than fusion.

Cross-Linguistic Insights:

Indo-Aryan languages (Saraiki, Urdu, Hindi) are ideal testbeds for Nanosyntax due to transparent morphology, productive paradigms, and systematic syncretism.

Even morphologically poor languages like English confirm the presence of abstract fseq structures, demonstrating theoretical generality.

9.6 Conclusion of Comparative Analysis

The comparison illustrates that differences in morphological expression do not imply differences in underlying syntactic structure. Saraiki’s fully fused, foot-driven spell-out, Urdu’s split spell-out, and English’s periphrastic realization all converge on the same functional sequence, providing strong empirical support for Nanosyntactic theory and highlighting the value of Indo-Aryan languages in refining universal feature hierarchies.

10: Exercises and Mini-Projects

The exercises below are designed to help readers consolidate their understanding of Saraiki Nanosyntax, feature hierarchies, and cross-linguistic comparison. Each task encourages hands-on analysis and application of the functional sequence (fseq), Superset Principle, and phrasal spell-out.

10.1 Predict Future Tense Forms

Task: Using the Saraiki future suffixes (–سوں, –سي, –سن), predict the correct form for the following verbs:

Verb (Root)	1SG	2SG	3SG	1PL	2PL	3PL
پڙه (paṛh → “read”)	?	?	?	?	?	?
لک (likh → “write”)	?	?	?	?	?	?

Instructions:

• Consider person and number features.
• Apply the Superset Principle to choose the appropriate suffix.
• Provide Leipzig-style glosses (e.g., DO-FUT.1SG.MS).

10.2 Translate into Urdu and English

Task: For the predicted Saraiki forms above, provide the Urdu equivalent using split spell-out suffixes (e.g., –ū̃, –gā, –gī) and the English periphrastic form using will.

Example:

Saraiki	Urdu	English
main kresan	میں کروں گا	I will do

10.3 Draw T-Domain Trees

Task: Draw functional sequence trees for at least one example verb in Saraiki:

1. 1SG Future: Illustrate [FutureP + ParticipantP + NumberP] and show foot-driven root movement.
2. 3PL Future: Show the Superset Principle in action with –سن covering all plural forms.
3. Contrast Urdu: Draw separate spell-out entries for the same verb in Urdu.

Instructions:

• Label all nodes clearly (FutureP, ParticipantP, NumberP).
• Show the phonological spanning of the root where applicable.
• Use arrows to indicate movement during spell-out.

10.4 Identify Superset Principle Applications

Task: Review the Saraiki plural suffixes (–سن) and identify how they act as Supersets:

1. Which plural forms do they cover?
2. Which lexical entries are overridden by more specific suffixes?
3. How does this explain systematic syncretism in the paradigm?

Instructions:

• Draw a Venn diagram showing feature containment and supersets.
• Highlight which suffix wins the competition in each feature bundle.

10.5 Mini-Project: Comparative Analysis

Task: Pick a set of verbs and create a mini-comparison table:

1. Saraiki forms (future, past, imperative)
2. Urdu forms (corresponding tense/mood)
3. English equivalents

Objective:

• Observe patterns of fusion vs. split spell-out.
• Identify how the fseq is realized differently across languages.
• Provide short commentary on how the Superset Principle and foot-driven movement explain Saraiki’s morphology.

10.6 Challenge Exercise (Advanced)

Task: Using the fseq [Mood > Tense > Aspect > Participant > Number > Root]:

• Predict how a new, unattested verb in Saraiki would inflect in imperative 2PL future.
• Explain which suffix would be chosen and why.
• Compare your prediction with how Urdu would realize the same verb.

10.7 Learning Outcomes

By completing these exercises, readers should be able to:

• Accurately spell out Saraiki verbal forms using nanosyntactic principles.
• Understand feature containment and the Superset Principle in action.
• Visualize and draw T-domain trees for different persons and numbers.
• Conduct cross-linguistic comparisons with Urdu and English.
• Apply foot-driven movement and phrasal spell-out theory to new data.

Appendix: Glosses and Conventions

This appendix provides standardized glosses, transliteration conventions, and feature abbreviations used throughout the minibook. All examples follow Leipzig Glossing Rules (Bickel 2010), adapted for Saraiki, Urdu, and English.

A1. Glossing Examples

Language	Surface Form	Gloss	Translation
Saraiki	پڙه-سی (paṛh-si)	read-FUT.3SG	He/She/It will read
Saraiki	(mān karesan)	DO-FUT.1SG.MS	I will do
Urdu	کرو-گا (kar-e-gā)	do-3SG-M.SG-FUT	I/He/She will do
English	I will read	FUT periphrastic	I will read
Saraiki	(mān giya)	DO-PAST.1SG.MS	I went
Urdu	میں گیا (maĩ gayā)	DO-PAST.1SG.MS	I went

A2. Saraiki Suffixes

Suffix	Function	Person/Number	Example
–سوں (-san/soon)	Future	1SG	main kresan → I will do
–سی (-si)	Future	2SG	tu kresen → You will do
–سن (-san)	Future	Plural (1PL, 2PL, 3PL)	asan kresoon→ We/They will do

A3. Urdu Suffixes

Suffix	Function	Gender/Number	Example
–گا (-gā)	Future	M.SG	میں کروں گا → I will do
–گی (-gī)	Future	F.SG	میں کروں گی → I will do
–گے (-ge)	Future	Plural	ہم کریں گے → We/They will do

A4. Feature Abbreviations (Leipzig Style)

Abbreviation	Meaning
1	1st person
2	2nd person
3	3rd person
SG	Singular
PL	Plural
MS	Masculine singular
FS	Feminine singular
FUT	Future tense
PAST	Past tense
NEG	Negation
IMP	Imperative
SUBJ	Subjunctive

A5. Transliteration Conventions

• Saraiki: Romanized using standard conventions; nasalization marked with ˜ (e.g., –sō̃on).
• Urdu: Romanized using phonetic equivalents; long vowels indicated with ā/ī/ū.
• Diacritics: Stress or vowel length is explicitly marked to avoid ambiguity in morphological analysis.

A6. Additional Notes

• Phonological Spanning: Saraiki roots may undergo vowel alternation to align with suffixes (e.g., kar- + e–soon/kre=san-kre-sen).
• Superset Principle Applications: –san acts as a default plural spell-out for 1PL, 2PL, 3PL.
• Cross-linguistic Comparison: English auxiliaries (will) realize FUT periphrastically; Urdu splits FUT and agreement across morphemes.

References

1. Baunaz, L., Haegeman, L., De Clercq, K., & Lander, E. (Eds.). (2018). Exploring nanosyntax. Oxford University Press.
2. Baunaz, L., Lander, E., De Clercq, K., & Haegeman, L. (2018). Nanosyntax: the basics. Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax, 3-56.
3. Bickel, B. (2010). Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: A multivariate analysis. In Clause linking and clause hierarchy (pp. 51-102). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
4. Bickel, B. (2010). Verb agreement and epistemic marking: a typological journey from the Himalayas to the Caucasus.
5. Bickel, B., & Gast, V. Towards a corpus-based typology of clause linkage: an analytical framework and case studies on non-local dependencies.
6. Caha, P. (2009). The nanosyntax of case.
7. Caha, P. (2018). Notes on insertion in Distributed Morphology and Nanosyntax. Exploring nanosyntax, 1, 57-87.
8. Comrie, B., Haspelmath, M., & Bickel, B. (2008). The Leipzig Glossing Rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses. Department of Linguistics of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology & the Department of Linguistics of the University of Leipzig. Retrieved January, 28, 2010.
9. Haspelmath, M. (2014). The Leipzig style rules for linguistics. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, URL http://www. uni-regensburg. de/sprache-literatur-kultur/sprache-literatur-kultur/allgemeine-vergleichende-sprachwissenschaft/medien/pdfs/haspelmath_2014_style_rules_ linguistics. pdf.
10. Harley, H., & Ritter, E. (2002). Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language, 78(3), 482-526.
11. Pantcheva, M. B. (2011). Decomposing path: The nanosyntax of directional expressions.
12. Starke, M. (2009). Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language. Nordlyd, 36(1), 1-6.
13. Starke, M. (2010). Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language. Nordlyd, 36(1), pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.7557/12.213
14. Taraldsen, K.T. (2019). An introduction to Nanosyntax. Linguistics Vanguard, 5.