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

760RAJESH BHATTIn (2a), the subject and the object are both non-overtly case-markedand so the participial verb and the auxiliary both agree with thesubject, which is structurally the most prominent non-overtly casemarkedargument. In (2b), the subject is overtly case-marked. Nowthe object is the structurally most prominent non-overtly casemarkedargument and the participial verb and the auxiliary agreewith it and not the overtly case-marked subject. When all argumentsare overtly case-marked as in (3), the participial verb and the auxiliarydisplay default agreement which corresponds to the features[3MSg].(3) Ergative Subject, Overtly marked accusative objectRahul-ne kitaab-ko par:h-aa thaaRahul-Erg book-Acc read-Pfv.MSg be.Pst.MSg‘Rahul had read the book.’2.2. Long Distance AgreementLong Distance Agreement (LDA) refers to the phenomenon of a verbagreeing with an argument that is not its own. (4) exemplifies LDA.The matrix verb chaah ‘want’ agrees with kitaab ‘book’, which is notan argument of chaah ‘want’.(4) Vivek-ne [kitaab par:h-nii] chaah-iiVivek-Erg book.F read-Inf.F want-Pfv.FSg‘Vivek wanted to read the book.’Chaah ‘want’ in (4) does not agree with its subject. This is not surprisinggiven that its subject Vivek is overtly case-marked. In fact,LDA can only take place if the matrix verb has no non-overtly casemarkedarguments of its own. However, chaah ‘want’ does agree withthe object of its complement clause. This is surprising given thedescription of agreement in the previous section.LDA has several properties, two of which are briefly outlined inthe following discussion. The remaining properties will be introducedalong with the analysis.2.2.1. OptionalityIt has been noted by several authors that LDA in environments like(2) is optional (Hook 1979; Davison 1988; Mahajan 1989; Butt1995).