LONG DISTANCE AGREEMENT IN HINDI-URDUw This paper ...

768RAJESH BHATTIn section 7.2, the divergences between AGREE and Agree will bebrought out and an assimilation of the two will be presented.Using AGREE, finite T 0 identifies the nearest argument withvisible /-features and uses them to value its /-features. In (18a), thenearest visible /-features are those of the subject, and finite T 0 usesthem to value its unvalued /-features, resulting in subject agreement.The subject in (18b) is overtly case-marked and as a result of a Hindi-Urdu specific restriction, 4 its /-features are not visible. The closestvisible /-features now belong to the object, and therefore finite T 0uses them to value its /-features, resulting in object agreement. Finally,if there are no visible /-features in the domain as in (18c), theunvalued /-features of T 0 receive a default realization i.e. [3MSg].(18)a. subject agreement:Mona amruud khaa-tii thiiMona.F guava.F eat-Hab.F be.Pst.FSg‘Mona used to eat guavas.’b. object agreement:Ram-ne imlii khaa-yii thiiRam.M-Erg tamarind.F eat-Pfv.F be.Pst.FSg‘Ram had eaten tamarind.’c. default agreement:Mona-ne is kitaab-ko par:h-aaMona.F-Erg this.Obl book.F-Acc read-Pfv.MSgthaabe.Pst.MSg‘Mona had read this book.’The above discussion is able to derive the agreement on T 0 . Butas (18a,b) show, participles also agree with whatever T 0 is agreeingwith. There are two options available here. The first option assumesthat only /-complete T 0 (i.e. finite T 0 ) can function as aProbe in Hindi-Urdu. T 0 tries to locate an element with /-features.The closest head which has a putative /-feature specification is theparticipial head Asp, which could be habitual or perfective (cf.19). 54 The nature of this restriction and its crosslinguistic distribution are discussed insection 3.2.2.5The various heads in (19) are shown as head-initial merely to aid the exposition.Their actual directionality is irrelevant for the structural point being made here.