Skip to main content
Log in

Hindi pseudo-incorporation

  • Published:
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper argues that Hindi incorporation is, in fact, pseudo-incorporation, involving noun phrases rather than nouns. Furthermore, it shows that there is no requirement that the incorporated nominal surface as a morphological or even a syntactic unit with the verb. Such loosely aligned nominals can nevertheless be identified as incorporation on the basis of semantic intuitions having to do with number interpretation, anaphora, and certain properties typically associated with lexical processes. Contrary to standard assumptions, it is argued that the target of pseudo-incorporation is specified for number. Singular incorporated nominals in Hindi are shown to be semantically singular, with number neutrality arising as a consequence of interaction with aspectual operators. Taking aspectual information into account is also shown to have interesting implications for current approaches to the semantics of incorporation, one in which the incorporated nominal introduces a discourse referent, and one in which it functions as a predicate modifier. A closer look at the effect of aspect on anaphora, for example, does not unequivocally support the predicate modification view of pseudo-incorporation. The paper draws on data from Hungarian, and to some extent Danish, to explore the cross-linguistic applicability of the claims made on the basis of Hindi. Most notably, a distinction between Hungarian verbs with respect to incorporation of bare singulars provides striking confirmation of the claim that number morphology is semantically visible in pseudo-incorporation. It also addresses restrictions on the productivity of pseudo-incorporation in light of the proposed analysis of pseudo-incorporation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Asudeh, Ash, and Line Hove Mikkelsen. 2000. Incorporation in Danish: Implications for interfaces. In A collection of papers on head-driven phrase structure grammar, eds. Ronnie Cann, Claire Grover, and Philip Miller, 1–15. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, Mark. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatt, Rajesh. 2005. Long distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23: 757–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bittner, Maria. 1994. Case, scope and binding. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butt, Miriam. 1993. Object specificity and agreement in Hindi/Urdu. In Proceedings of CLS 29, eds. Katharine Beals et al., 89–103. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, Gregory. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Chierchia, Gennaro. 1992. Anaphora and dynamic binding. Linguistics and Philosophy 15: 111–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, Sandra, and William Ladusaw. 2003. Restriction and saturation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cusic, David. 1981. Verbal plurality and aspect. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.

  • Dayal, Veneeta. 1999. Bare NPs, reference to kinds and incorporation. In Proceedings of semantics and linguistics theory 9, eds. Tanya Matthews and Devon Strolovitch, 35–51. Ithaca: CLC Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayal, Veneeta. 2003. Bare nominals: Non-specific and contrastive readings under scrambling. In Word order and scrambling, ed. Simin Karimi, 67–90. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dayal, Veneeta. 2004. Number marking and (in)definiteness in Kind Terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27: 393–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Hoop, Helen. 1992. Case configuration and noun phrase interpretation. PhD thesis, University of Groningen, Groningen.

  • Deo, Ashwini. 2006. Tense and aspect in Indo-Aryan languages: Variation and diachrony. PhD thesis, Stanford University.

  • Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elbourne, Paul. 2001. E-type anaphora as NP-deletion. Natural Language Semantics 9: 241–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enç, Mürvet. 1986. Tense without scope: An analysis of nouns as indexicals. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.

  • Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farkas, Donka, and Henriette de Swart. 2003. The semantics of incorporation: From argument structure to discourse transparency. Palo Alto: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambhir, Vijay. 1981. Syntactic restrictions and discourse functions of word order in standard Hindi. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

  • Heim, Irene. 1990. E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 137–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hook, Peter Edwin. 1979. Hindi structures: Intermediate level. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Center for South and Southeast Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Semantics and contextual expressions, eds. Renate Bartsch, Johan van Benthem, and Peter van Emde Boas, 75–111. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. In Events and grammar, ed. Susan Rothstein, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krifka, Manfred, Francis J. Pelletier, Gregory Carlson, Alice ter Meulen, Gennaro Chierchia, and Godehard Link. 1995. In genericity: An introduction. In The generic book, eds. Gregory Carlson and Francis J. Pelletier, 1–124. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasersohn, Peter. 1995. Plurality, conjunction and events. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, Beith. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan, Anoop. 1992. The specificity condition and the CED. Linguistic Inquiry 23: 510–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massam, Diane. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19: 153–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medin, Douglas, and Cynthia Aguilar. 1999. Categorization. In The MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences, eds. Robert Wilson and Frank Keil, 104–106. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60: 847–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mithun, Marianne. 1986. On the nature of noun incorporation. Language 62: 32–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohanan, Tara. 1995. Wordhood and lexicality. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 13: 75–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Öztürk, Balkiz. 2003. Pseudo incorporation in Turkish. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 139–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porterfield, Leslie, and Veneeta Srivastav. 1988. (In)definiteness in the absence of articles: Evidence from Hindi and Indonesian. In Proceedings of the west coast conference on formal linguistics, ed. Hagit Borer, 265–276. Somerville: Casadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postal, Paul. 1969. Anaphoric islands. Chicago Linguistic Society 5: 205–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17: 409–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadock, Jerrold. 1980. Noun incorporation in Greenlandic: A case of syntactic word formation. Language 56: 309–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadock, Jerrold. 1986. Some notes on noun incorporation. Language 62: 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stump, Gregory. 1981. The interpretation of frequency adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 629–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stvan, Laurel. 1998. The semantics and pragmatics of bare singular noun phrases. PhD dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.

  • Van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998. Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions. Palo Alto: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Geenhoven, Veerle. 2004. For-adverbials, frequentative aspect and pluractionality. Natural Language Semantics 12: 135–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verma, Manindra K. 1966. The noun phrase in Hindi and English. New Delhi: Motilal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wescoat, Michael. 2002. On lexical sharing. PhD Thesis, Stanford University.

  • Yanovich, Igor. 2007. Incorporated nominals as antecedents for anaphora, or how to save the thematic arguments theory. In Proceedings of the 31st Penn linguistic colloquium, eds. Joshua Tauberer, Aviad Eilam, and Laurel MacKenzie, 267–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zucchi, Alessandro, and Michael White. 2001. Twigs, sequences, and the temporal constitution of predicates. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 223–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Veneeta Dayal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dayal, V. Hindi pseudo-incorporation. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 29, 123–167 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9118-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9118-4

Keywords

Navigation