Tanmoy Bhattacharya
@du.ac.in
Professor, Department of Linguistics
University of Delhi
EDUCATION
Ph.D. (1995), University of Hyderabad
Ph.D. (1999), University College London
RESEARCH INTERESTS
Language: Evolution, Peopling, Sign Language/Linguistics, Language and Education
Linguistics: Generative Syntax, Indo-Aryan, Tibeto-Burman and Austroasiatic Typology and Syntax, Morphology, Psycholinguistics
Disability Studies: Critical DisabilityStudies, Inclusive Education, Deaf Studies
Scopus Publications
Scholar Citations
Scholar h-index
Scholar i10-index
Scopus Publications
Tanmoy Bhattacharya
De Gruyter
Tanmoy Bhattacharya
Springer Singapore
One of the issues confronting higher education in India is iniquitous access for different social groups. Among the prominent disparities leading to inequity in higher education participation, disability does not figure in the collective consciousness of various institutions. In this context, I will propose that a clear delineation between the role and function of Enabling Units and Disability Studies Centres must be understood and respected since the genesis of the two ideas, namely, service and knowledge, traditionally follows different routes to achieve a common goal, that of improving the status of persons with disabilities in the society. However, an overlap in the nature of the products of the sectors is unavoidable and in fact not entirely unwelcome if disability studies were to act as the ‘theoretical arm’ of the disability rights movement. However, this ultimate situation need not obfuscate the difference in the origins of paths taken. Apart from seeking clarity of purpose in policy documents, this chapter importantly raises the question of the contribution of knowledge to service (and vice versa) and proposes the notion of a subfield ‘Disability Studies Extension’, a thorough understanding of the nature of which is essential for identifying either service or knowledge.
Tanmoy Bhattacharya
Springer India
Tanmoy Bhattacharya and Andrew Simpson
Oxford University Press
Tanmoy Bhattacharya and Andrew Simpson
Elsevier BV
This paper examines whether the complex paradigm of patterns reported for ditransitive verbs in Japanese by Miyagawa (1997) and Miyagawa and Tsujioka (2004) might appear in another genetically unrelated but typologically similar SOV scrambling language, Bangla/ Bengali. A striking parallelism is found in the two languages, which adds strength to the proposal in Miyagawa (1997) and Miyagawa and Tsujioka (2004) that certain languages allow for variation in the underlying projection of Themes and Locative Goals and there is no fully fixed, single structuring of the lower arguments of ditransitive verbs. Such conclusions about the base forms of double object constructions are shown to have potentially broader implications bearing on the Universal Base Hypothesis.
Andrew Simpson and Tanmoy Bhattacharya
MIT Press - Journals
Bangla has commonly been assumed to be an SOV wh-in-situ language. Here it is suggested that both of these characterizations are incorrect and that Bangla actually has obligatory overt wh-movement from a basic SVO word order. This is disguised by a conspiracy of factors but revealed in restrictions on wh-scope and certain apparently optional word order possibilities with complement clauses. Adopting a different perspective on the SOV status of Bangla allows for a simple explanation of the patterns observed and raises the possibility that other “wh-in-situ” languages may also have (obligatory) overt wh-movement.