LISSIM 6
June 1-15, 2012@ Kangra
Selected Essays
V1+V2 complex predicate structures in Hindi
Benu
Sharan
MPhil, JNU
The current line of research that I have been following concerns a syntactic and semantic analysis of some V1+V2 complex predicate structures in Hindi.This research has suggested that some V1+V2 verbal compounds that have a non-finite verb form as V1may be analysed on the lines proposed by Wurmbrand (2001)[1] as Restructuring and Non-Restructuring in which the two verbs may or may not syntactically be realized as one verbal complex. TheV2 light verbs under consideration are structurally different from the Explicator Compound Verb(ECV) constructions that are typical of Indo-Aryan languages.These predicates,unlike their ECV counterparts, are not entirely bleached of their semantic content and contribute to the truth conditions of the sentence.
(1)
rAm
ro˙i khA letA thA
(ECV)
Ram-NOMbread-ACC
eat take- IMPERF.MASC.SG AUX.PST.3P.MASC.SG
(2) rAm ro˙i khA s«ktA thA (Restructuring)
Ram-NOMbread-ACC
eat can-IMPERF.MASC.SG AUX.PST.3P.MASC.SG
“Ram could eat bread.”
(3)
rAm
ro˙i khA pAAtA thA
(Restructuring)
Ram-NOMbread-ACC
eat able-IMPERF.MASC.SG AUX.PST.3P.MASC.SG
“Ram was able to eat bread.”
(4)
rAm-koro˙i
khAnA AAtA thA
(Non-Restructuring)
Ram-DATbread-ACC eat-INFI.MASC.SG come-IMPERF.MASC.SG
AUX.PST.3P.MASC.SG
“Ram knew how
to eat bread.”
Wurmbrand (2001) suggests that Germaninfinitives undergo a process of restructuring with the matrix verb, so that the resultant complex structure can be reanalysed as one complex predicate.The Hindi light verbs /s«k/ and /pAA/ were found to be structurally similar to the German infinitives, as in (2) and (3).The matrix verb selects for a bare VP complement that is unmarked for a Tense feature, that is, it lacks ‘propositional or force properties such as tense, negation or complementizer’. This absence of the functional projections of T and v in this embedded complement and consequently a lack of an embedded structural case position/assigner, causes the embedded object to enter into a case relation with a functional projection of the matrix verb.Evidence for this arose in the impossibility of Negation to have embedded scope in these structures as can be seen in (5) and (6).
(5) s«nA kItAAb lIkh n«hi s«kti hE
sana-NOMbook-ACC write NEG. can-IMPERF.FEM.SGAUX.PRES.3P.FEM.SG
“Sana cannot write a book.”
(*Sana can not write a book.)
(6) s«nA kItAAb p«}h n«hi pAegi
sana-NOMbook-ACCread NEG. able-FUT.1P.FEM.SG
“Sana will not be able to read the book.”
(*Sana will be able to not read the book.)
In a Non-Restructuring structure, on the other hand, such as in (4), the embedded verb projects a TP, an assumption which leads to the understanding that the Specifier position of this embedded TP is filled by a phonologically null category PRO, co-indexed with the matrix subject.
What remains to be explained in this analysis, if more empirical arguments can be given to validate that these light verbs are restructuring and non-restructuring predicates, that is,besides the impossibility of Negation to intervene between V1andV2for scope and interpretation. The use of these predicates in what Wurmbrand calls ‘long passive’ structures, seems to strengthen the claim about these light verbs being restructuring and non-restructuring (see (7),(8) and(9)), but raises some fundamental questions about passive constructions in Hindi which I seek to resolve by looking at the Case assignment/relations that arise, and movement, if any, in these constructions.
(7) seb khAyA- jAs«kta hE s«nA-se
apple-NOMeat-Perf.MASc.SG. go can-IMPERF.MASC.SG AUX.PRES.3P.FEM.SGsana-INSTR.
“Anapple can be eaten by Sana.”
(8) seb khAyA- jApAAtA hE s«nA-se
apple-NOMeat-Perf.MASc.SG. go can-IMPERF.MASC.SG AUX.PRES.3P.FEM.SG sana-INSTR.
“An apple is
eatable by Sana.”
(9) *sebkhAyA-jaAAtAhEs«nA-se
Another observation that seems to put the analysis done so far under question is that the presence of the Emphatic particle /bhi/ in restructuring predicates allows Negation to have matrix as well as embedded scope, as can be seen in (10) and (11) below
(10)s«nA kItAAb bhin«hi lIkh s«kti hE
sana-NOMbook-ACC EMPH. NEG. write can-IMPERF.FEM.SG AUX.PRES.3P.FEM.SG
“Sana can not even write a book.”
(Matrix scope of Negation: It is not even possible that Sana write a book.)
(11)s«nA kItAAbn«hi bhi lIkh s«kti hE
sana-NOMbook-ACC NEG. EMPH. write can-IMPERF.FEM.SG AUX.PRES.3P.FEM.SG
“Sana can even not write a book.”
(Embedded scope of Negation: It is possible that Sana not write a book.)
On the other hand, use of the emphatic particle by itself, as in (12) and (13), brings in the issue of how Focus may play a role in the interpretation of these constructions.
(12) s«nA kItAAb p«}hbhi s«kti hE
sana-NOMbook-ACCread EMPH. can-IMPERF.FEM.SGAUX.PRES.3P.FEM.SG
Sana can also read the book (that is, besides not reading the book)
(13)s«nA kItAAbbhi p«}h s«kti hE
sana-NOMbook-ACEMPH.readcan-IMPERF.FEM.SG AUX.PRES.3P.FEM.SG
Sana can also read a book (that is, besides reading a magazine or a newspaper.)
These observations and their implications, if any, for an improved understanding of the theoretical assumptions that underlie the study,are some of the areas which I will be exploring in the near future.
Attending LISSIM6 will be an opportunity to sharpen and add to my knowledge of the theories of syntax and semantics and interacting with and learning from the renowned faculty is sure to be a rewarding experience. Thisexperience will enable me to answer some of the unexplained questions as mentioned above, and hopefully contribute substantially to the understanding of these structures.
[1]Wurmbrand, S. (2001) Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure.Mouton de Gruyter. New York.
For enquiries, write to
secretary@fosssil.in
