Advertisement

Long Distance Agreement in Hindi-Urdu

  • Rajesh Bhatt
Article

Abstract

This paper provides a new analysis of the phenomenon of Long Distance Agreement in Hindi-Urdu and argues for a dissociation between case and agreement. Long Distance Agreement involves a verb agreeing with a constituent inside the verb’s clausal complement. Long Distance Agreement and Object Agreement in Hindi-Urdu are shown to involve the same structural configurations. They both involve a head (T0) agreeing with an argument whose case-features T0 does not value. In particular, it is argued the operation Agree of Chomsky (1998, 1999, 2001) needs to be reformulated to be able to handle the facts of Hindi-Urdu Long Distance Agreement. The analysis is largely motivated on the basis of evidence from Hindi-Urdu but is shown to extend to the Long Distance Agreement facts of Tsez (Polinsky and Potsdam 2001) and Kashmiri (Subbarao and Munshi 2000).

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence Structural Configuration Clausal Complement Agreement Fact Object Agreement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aissen, Judith L. and David M. Perlmutter. (1983). ‘Clause Reduction in Spanish’, in D. M. Perlmutter (ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar, Vol. 1, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 360–404. [originally published in 1976.].Google Scholar
  2. Belletti, Adriana. 1988‘The Case of Unaccusatives’Linguistic Inquiry19134Google Scholar
  3. Benmamoun, Elabbas. 1992‘Structural Conditions on Agreement’Broderick, K. eds. Proceedings of NELS 22GLSAAmherst MA1732Google Scholar
  4. Bickel, Balthasar, Yogendra, P. Yadava 2000‘A Fresh Look at Grammatical Relations in Indo-Aryan’Lingua110343373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. (1995). Morphosyntax: The Syntax of Verbal Inflection, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  6. Boeckx, Cedric. (2003). ‘Intricacies of Icelandic Agreement’, ms., University of Maryland/Harvard University.Google Scholar
  7. Butt, Miriam. 1993. ‘Hindi/Urdu Infinitives as NPs’, in Y. Kachru (ed.), South Asian Language Review: Special Issue on Studies in Hindi-Urdu, 3 51–72.Google Scholar
  8. Butt, Miriam. (1995). The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu, Dissertations in Linguistics, CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA. Doctoral thesis at Stanford University, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. Butt, Miriam, Tracy Holloway, King. 2004‘The Status of Case’Dayal, V.Mahajan, A. eds. Clause Structure in South Asian LanguagesKluwerDordrecht153198Google Scholar
  10. Cardona, George. 1965A Gujarati Reference GrammarThe University of Pennsylvania PressPhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  11. Chomsky, Noam. (1998). Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework, No. 15 in MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, MITWPL, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, Noam. (1999). Derivation by Phase, No. 18 in MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, Noam. (2001). ‘Beyond Explanatory Adequacy’, ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  14. Chung, Sandra. 1998The Design of AgreementUniversity of Chicago PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  15. Comrie, Bernard. 1984‘Reflections on Verb Agreement in Hindi and Related Languages’Linguistics22857864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davison, Alice. 1988‘Constituent Structure and the Realization of Agreement Features’Macleod, L.Larson, G.Brentari, D. eds. Papers from the 24th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics SocietyChicago Linguistics SocietyChicago4153Google Scholar
  17. Davison, Alice. (1991). ‘Feature Percolation and Agreement in Hindi-Urdu’, Paper presented at the South Asian Conference, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  18. Davison, Alice. 2004‘Structural Case, Lexical Case, and the Verbal Projection’Dayal, V.Mahajan, A. eds. Clause Structure in South Asian LanguagesKluwerDordrecht119225Google Scholar
  19. Dayal, Veneeta. (1999). ‘Bare NPs, Reference to Kinds, and Incorporation’, in Proceedings of SALT IX, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, Cornell Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  20. Dayal, Veneeta. to appear. ‘Number Marking and (In)definiteness in Kind Terms’, Linguistics and Philosophy 27.Google Scholar
  21. Dayal, Veneeta Srivastav. (1994). ‘Binding facts in Hindi and the Scrambling Phenomenon’, in M. Butt, T. H. King, and G. Ramchand (eds.), Theoretical Perspectives on Word Order in South Asian Languages, No. 50 in CSLI Lecture Notes, CSLI, Stanford, CA, pp. 237–262.Google Scholar
  22. Deo, Ashwini and Devyani Sharma. (2002). ‘Typological Variation in the Ergative Morphology of Indo-Aryan Languages’, ms., Stanford.Google Scholar
  23. Fox, Danny. 2000Economy and Semantic Interpretation, No. 35 in Linguistic Inquiry MonographsMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoekstra, Teun. (1994). ‘Have as Be Plus or Minus’, in G. Cinque, J. Koster, J.-Y. Pollock, L. Rizzi and R. Zanuttini (eds.), Paths towards Universal Grammar: Studies in Honor of Richard S. Kayne, Georgetown Studies in Romance Linguistics, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, pp. 199–215.Google Scholar
  25. Hook, Peter Edwin. (1979). Hindi Structures: Intermediate Level, No. 16 in Michigan Papers on South and South-East Asia, Center for South and South-East Asian Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  26. Hook, Peter Edwin and Omkar N. Koul. (1984). ‘Pronominal Suffixes and Split Ergativity in Kashmiri’, in O. N. Koul and P. E. Hook (eds.), Aspects of Kashmiri Linguistics, No. 12 in Series in Indian Languages and Linguistics, Bahri Publications, New Delhi, pp. 123–135.Google Scholar
  27. Kidwai, Ayesha. 2000XP-adjunction in Universal Grammar: Scrambling and Binding in Hindi-UrduOxford Studies in Comparative Syntax, Oxford University PressNew York, NYGoogle Scholar
  28. Lasnik, Howard. 1999Minimalist AnalysisBlackwell PublishingOxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Lavine James, E., Robert, Freidin. 2001‘The Subject of Defective T(ense) in Slavic’Journal of Slavic Linguistics10253289Google Scholar
  30. López, Luis. 2002‘On Agreement: Locality and Feature Valuation’Alexiadou, A. eds. Theoretical Approaches to UniversalsNo. 49 in Linguistik Aktuell John BenjaminsAmsterdam165209Google Scholar
  31. Magier, David S.. (1983). Topics in the Grammar of Marwari, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  32. Mahajan, Anoop Kumar. (1989). ‘Agreement and Agreement Phrases’, in I. Laka and A. K. Mahajan (eds.), Functional Heads and Clause Structure, No. 10 in MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, MITWPL, Cambridge, MA, pp. 217–252.Google Scholar
  33. Mahajan, Anoop Kumar. (1990a. The A/A-bar distinction and Movement Theory, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  34. Mahajan Anoop, Kumar. 1990‘LF Conditions on Negative Polarity Licensing’Lingua80333348Google Scholar
  35. Mahajan Anoop, Kumar. 1995‘Active Passives’Aranovich, R.Byrne, W.Preuss, S.Senturia, M. eds. Proceedings of the 13th West Coast Conference on Formal LinguisticsCSLIStanford, CA286301Google Scholar
  36. Mohanan, Tara. 1995‘Wordhood and Lexicality: Noun Incorporation in Hindi’Natural Language and Linguistic Theory1375134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Polinsky, Maria, Eric, Potsdam. 2001‘Long-Distance Agreement and Topic in Tsez’Natural Language and Linguistic Theory19583646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rizzi, Luigi. 1978‘A Restructuring Rule in Italian Syntax’Keyser, S.J. eds. Recent Transformational Studies in European LanguagesNo. 3 in Linguistic Inquiry Monographs MIT PressCambridge, MA113158[Originally published in 1976.]Google Scholar
  39. Subbarao Karumuri, Venkata. 2001‘Agreement in South Asian Languages and Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework’Bhaskararao, P.Subbarao, K.V. eds. The Yearbook of South Asian Languages 2001Sage PublicationsThousand Oaks, London, New Delhi457492Google Scholar
  40. Subbarao, Karumuri Venkata and Sadaf Munshi. (2000). ‘Agreement in Kashmiri and Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework’, ms, The University of Delhi.Google Scholar
  41. Gelderen, Elly. 1992Verbal Agreement and the Grammar Behind Its Breakdown: Minimalist Feature CheckingMax Niemeyer VerlagTübingenGoogle Scholar
  42. Verma, Manindra Kumar and Tara Nath Sharma. (1979). Intermediate Nepali Structure, Vol. 1, Manohar, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  43. Wali, Kashi, Omkar, N. Koul. 1997Kashmiri: A Cognitive-descriptive Grammar, Descriptive GrammarsRoutledgeLondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Wescoat, Michael T. (2000). ‘Hindi and the Typology of Noun Incorporation: An Analysis with Lexical Sharing’, ms, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  45. Wescoat, Michael T. (2001). On Lexical Sharing, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. To appear.Google Scholar
  46. Wurmbrand, Susanne. (1998). Infinitives, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  47. Wurmbrand, Susanne. (2001). Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure, No. 55 in Studies in Generative Grammar, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of Massachusetts at Amherst South CollegeAmherst

Personalised recommendations