Sebastian Sulger (Konstanz): Genitive subjects in Hindi-Urdu

Possessive Copula Constructions in Hindi/Urdu
Sebastian Sulger, Department of Linguistics, University of Konstanz
Hindi/Urdu does not have a verb corresponding to English have. To express possessive relations, speakers
use the verb ho ‘be’ in combination with a genitive phrase (the possessor) marked by the genitive case
marker ka/ke/ki and another, zero-marked phrase (the possessee). The genitive case marker inflects for
number and gender and interestingly agrees with the other, zero-marked possessee phrase with respect to
these features. Examples are given in (1). 1
Mohanan (1994) assumes that the genitive-marked phrases in (1) are subjects. She sets apart these
cases of genitive subjects which are clearly governed by meaning from another class of genitive subjects
occurring with noun+verb complex predicates (CPs), which she argues make use of structural, nonsemantic
case assignment by the nominal of the CP (an example with the CP vIcar hona ‘thought be’ is
given in (2)). She provides arguments for the subjecthood of the genitive-marked nominals in (1) and (2),
using a battery of tests regarding control, pronominal coreference and the reflexive pronoun Apna ‘self’.
Although she does not go into detail as to the status of the “truly possessive” constructions as in (1), she
maintains that in both cases the genitive-marked phrase constitutes an independent argument, namely the
subject of the predication. However, if the genitives in (1) are in fact subjects, two questions immediately
catch our attention: 1. What is the grammatical functional status of the other (possessee) nominal? 2. How
can we account for the agreement enforced between the genitive case marker on the subject and the other
nominal?
The possessive constructions in (1) are in the focus of this paper. I argue that these sentences in fact
constitute instances of an intransitive possessive copula construction (PCC). There is ample evidence for
a structure as in (3), where we have a single complex subject NP embedding the possessor phrase:
• Intransitive copula constructions are documented and attested in Hindi/Urdu (examples given in (4)).
• In pragmatically unmarked contexts, the semantics of the PCC are mirrored by other intransitive
copula constructions; the sentence invariably receives an existential reading, and the possessee (the
head of the subject under this analysis) can only ever be an indefinite.
• The agreement between the possessor and the possessee phrase is expected if we assume an analysis
where the possessor is embedded in a complex subject NP.
• Pre-nominal genitives are well-understood and well-documented in the literature of Hindi/Urdu
(Mohanan 1994, Kachru 2006, Raza 2010).
• If we assume a genitive subject, we have to deal with the question on how this subject is licensed.
Both Mohanan (1994) and Kachru (2006) have argued that genitive case may only be licensed by a
nominal, so that the question arises: How is the possessor raised to the subject function? 2
• If we assume a complex subject with an embedded possessor, the licensing of the genitive occurs in
a straightforward manner: nominals are known to optionally specify a possessive theta role, which
is realized as a distinct grammatical function.
The subject tests applied by Mohanan (1994) are reconsidered in the light of this analysis. When all the
facts are considered, they turn out to not be sufficient for identifying the possessors of (1) as the sentences’
subjects. For example, NP-internal possessives have been shown to be able to be eligible antecedents
for reflexive pronouns in other languages, as they are argued to be discourse-oriented (Chisarik & Payne
2001). I argue that, by consequence, the Apna ‘self’ test by Mohanan (1994) does not successfully single
out the possessor as the subject in sentences such as (5).
1Possessor subjects may also be formed using the complex postposition ke pas ‘near’, see e.g. Sulger (2011); I do not focus
on these subjects in the context of this paper.
2Possessor Raising as described by e.g. Payne & Barshi (1999) is not attested for Hindi/Urdu, nor is it known to occur with
copula verbs.

Semantically, the genitive phrases are not confined to possession, but may realize different relations
between the nominals (cf. Barker 1995, Chisarik & Payne 2001). Among them, in Hindi/Urdu, are
attribution (6a) and quality (6b) relations. Therefore, they are argued to link to unrestricted functions in
the sense that they may realize a variety of different thematic roles.
I implement the analysis of Hindi/Urdu PCCs in the theoretical framework of Lexical-Functional
Grammar (LFG, Dalrymple 2001). The copula is an intransitive verb selecting a single thematic role,
a theme, in its argument structure. This theme is linked to the subject function of the main clause as
per the subject condition (Dalrymple 2001, Bresnan 2001). When a possessor is realized, an additional
“theme” role is selected by the theme via a lexical process; this “internal” theme is linked to the subject
function inside the main clause’s subject (see (7) and the resulting functional structure in (8)). In LFG, the
SUBJ function is taken to be both discourse-oriented and unrestricted, reflecting the two salient properties
of the Hindi-Urdu genitive discussed above. The agreement between the possessor and the possessum can
then be taken care of by standard LFG techniques. In sum, the analysis I propose explains the facts in a
more natural manner and readily presents an explanation for the agreement patterns and semantic effects
observed.
(1) a. nadya=ka/*=ki mAkan hE
Nadya.F.Sg.Obl=Gen.M.Sg.Nom/*=Gen.F.Sg.Nom house.M.Sg.Nom be.Pres.3P.Sg
lit. ‘There is a house of Nadya’s.’ = ‘Nadya has/owns a house.’
b. nadya=ki/*=ka Almari hE
Nadya.F.Sg.Obl=Gen.F.Sg.Nom/*=Gen.M.Sg.Nom cupboard.F.Sg.Nom be.Pres.3P.Sg
lit. ‘There is a cupboard of Nadya’s.’ = ‘Nadya has/owns a cupboard.’
(2) ram=ka g h Ar laut.-ne=ka vIcar
Ram.M.Sg.Obl=Gen.M.Sg.Nom home.M.Sg.Nom return-Inf.M.Sg.Obl thought.M.Sg.Nom
t h -a
be.Past-M.Sg
‘Ram was thinking of returning home.’ Mohanan (1994), p. 180
(3) [[nadya=ka]GEN mAkan]SUBJ hE
(4) a. xUda hE
god.M.Sg.Nom be.Pres.3P.Sg
‘There is a god.’
b. pArti hE
party.M.Sg.Nom be.Pres.3P.Sg
‘There is a party.’
(5) ram=ke Apna ek b h i b�t.a nAhĩ t h -a
Ram.M.Sg.Obl=Gen.M.Sg.Obl self.M.Sg.Nom one even son.M.Sg.Nom not be.Past-M.Sg
lit. ‘There was not even one son of Ram’s own.’ = ‘Ram didn’t have even one son of his own.’
Mohanan (1994), p. 181
(6) a. lahor=ka Sehr
Lahore=Gen.M.Sg.Nom city.M.Sg.Nom
‘the city of Lahore’
b. xof=ka lAmha
fear.M.Sg.Nom=Gen.M.Sg.Nom moment.M.Sg.Nom
‘moment of fear’

(7) Linking analysis:
ho < th < th > >
| |
[-o, -r] [-o, -r]
| |
SUBJ SUBJ
(8) ⎡
⎤
PRED ‘ho’
⎢ ⎡
⎤ ⎥
⎢ PRED ‘mAkan’ ⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎡
⎤ ⎥
⎢ ⎢
⎥
⎢ ⎢ PRED ‘nadya’ ⎥
⎢SUBJ
⎢
⎢ ⎢SUBJ
⎣ ⎦ ⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎢ CASE genitive ⎥
⎢ ⎣
⎦ ⎥
⎢ CASE nominative
⎥
⎣
⎦
TENSE present
Selected References
Barker, Chris. 1995. Possessive Descriptions. CSLI Publications.
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-Functional Syntax. Blackwell.
Chisarik, Erika and John Payne. 2001. Modelling Possessor Constructions In LFG: English and Hungarian.
In Butt, Miriam and Tracy Holloway King, eds., Nominals: Inside and Out. CSLI Publications.
Dalrymple, Mary. Lexical Functional Grammar, volume 34 of Syntax and Semantics. Academic Press,
2001.
Kachru, Yamuna. 2006. Hindi. John Benjamins.
Mohanan, Tara. 1994. Argument Structure in Hindi. CSLI Publications.
Payne, Doris L. and Immanuel Barshi. 1999. External Possession: what, where, how and why. In Payne
& Barshi, eds., External Possession. John Benjamins.
Raza, Ghulam. 2010. Analyzing the Structure of Urdu NPs with Multiple Genitives. Proceedings of the
Conference on Language & Technology 2010, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Sulger, Sebastian. 2011. A Parallel Analysis of have-Type Copular Constructions in two have-Less Indo-
European Languages. Online Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference, Hong Kong University, Hong Kong.
CSLI Publications.