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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

782RAJESH BHATTto find its case-licensor higher in the tree. In (41a), the licensor is finiteT 0 and the embedded object appears in the nominative.I adopt Wurmbrand’s (2001) proposal for restructuring but with aprincipled difference in that I allow for restructuring infinitives inHindi-Urdu to license accusative case. The deviation from Wurmbrand’s(2001) proposal is a principled one because Hindi-Urdu is awell-known exception to Burzio’s Generalization (see Mahajan 1995,a.o.). Passivization does not block licensing of accusative case inHindi-Urdu.(42) Sita-ko Ram-dwaaraa d:a˜ :t:-aa ga-yaaSita-Acc Ram-by scold-Pfv.MSg PASS-Pfv.MSg‘Sita was scolded by Ram.’In addition the facts involving ‘Long Passive’ that motivated the caselicensingcomponent of Wurmbrand’s (2001) analysis do not obtainin Hindi-Urdu. The verb let, which allows for LDA and has beenshown by Butt (1995) to be a restructuring predicate, can be passivizedin Hindi-Urdu, but the embedded object of its infinitivalcomplement cannot appear in the nominative.(43) [Sita-ko mujhe/*m~E piit:-ne] di-yaa ga-yaaSita-Dat me.Acc/I.Nom hit-Inf.Obl give-Pfv.MSg Pass-Pfv.MSg‘Sita was allowed to hit me.’ (=‘Someone let Sita hit me.’)The unacceptability of the embedded object appearing in the nominativeindicates that restructuring infinitives in Hindi-Urdu do nothave a structure where they do not license accusative. If they did, wewould expect the embedded object to appear in the nominative.The structures I adopt for restructuring and non-restructuringinfinitival complements of verbs like chaah ‘want’ differ in whetherthey involve the projection of a PRO subject.(44)a. Hindi-Urdu Restructuring Infinitive:[Subject [v [ VP V RV [Inf 0 [ vP v [ VP V OBJ]]]]]]b. Hindi-Urdu Non-Restructuring Infinitive:[Subject [v [ VP V NRV [Inf 0 [ vP PRO v [ VP V OBJ]]]]]]We can now motivate an assumption we made earlier concerning therole of PRO in the infinitival clause. The assumption was that thePRO was invisible for the purposes of agreement. This was why it didnot serve as a closer Goal than the embedded object for the matrix T 0
LONG DISTANCE AGREEMENT IN HINDI-URDU 783Probe. With the structures in (44) in hand, the invisibility of PROfollows straightforwardly. It is just not projected in a restructuringinfinitive. When it is projected, as in a non-restructuring infinitive,it blocks Long Distance Agreement by functioning as a closerGoal than the embedded object. The correlation between restructuringand LDA is now related to the structure of restructuringinfinitives. This structural difference between restructuring andnon-restructuring infinitives will also be relevant in our analysis ofthe optionality of Long Distance Agreement, as we shall see insection 6.Apart from a syntactically projected subject, non-restructuringinfinitives can have additional structure. In (33b), for example, theinfinitival clause is overtly case marked, suggesting the presence ofadditional syntactic structure. Restructuring infinitives, however,never have additional structure. This helps derive a generalizationnoted in Hook (1979:29) and Butt (1995:78) that LDA is not possibleout of an overtly case-marked infinitival clause. The presence of thecase-marking implicates additional structure, which in turn rules outthe restructuring and therefore LDA.4.3. Infinitives and GerundsThis is a good point to add to the discussion the fact that infinitivalclauses in Hindi-Urdu have nominal properties. Butt (1993, 1995)gives many arguments for analyzing Hindi-Urdu infinitival clauses asnoun phrases. These arguments are based on the isomorphy ofinfinitival and nominal morphology and the ability of infinitival verbsto receive case-marking, among others. I accept the basic thrust ofButt’s arguments but I believe her conclusion that all infinitivalclauses in Hindi-Urdu are NPs is too strong. The fact of the matter isthat there is no morphological distinction between gerunds andinfinitivals in Hindi-Urdu. This does not mean that a form withgerundive/infinitival morphology is necessarily a gerund (i.e. anNP). The facts from LDA provide a way to distinguish betweengerunds and infinitivals. Gerunds, like NPs, have /-features oftheir own even though these features may be default features. Infinitivalson the other hand do not have valued features of theirown. They may, however, have their features covaluated by ahigher finite T 0 head.One way to force a gerundive analysis is to examine structureswith internally case-licensed genitive subjects. Genitive subjects are
Page 1 and 2: Natural Language & Linguistic Theor
Page 3 and 4: LONG DISTANCE AGREEMENT IN HINDI-UR
Page 25: LONG DISTANCE AGREEMENT IN HINDI-UR
Page 37 and 38: From the perspective of the overall
Page 51: LONG DISTANCE AGREEMENT IN HINDI-UR

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?