| (31) |
|
ram dwara mohan ko apni mithai di gayi
i i
Ram CM mohan CM self's sweet give Passive+PAST
(By
Ram was given his own sweet to Mohan)
(His own sweet were fiven by Ram to
Mohan)
|
| |
|
|
| (32) |
|
mohan ko apne class ka monitor banaya
gaya
i i
Mohan CM self's class CM monitor made
Passive+PAST
(Mohan was made the monitor of his class)
|
|
| Existing
literature does not consider ram dwara and mohan
ko as subject phrases of the sentences. |
|
| Now,
consider (33) below: |
| (33) |
|
ram se apna kam nahi hoga
i i
ram CM self's work NEG be+FUTURE
(Ram will not be able to do his work)
|
|
| |
The
anaphor apna refers to ram in the sentence.
However, relevant literatur will not consider
ram se to be the subject phrase of the sentence,
thereby further, substantiating the claim
that subject need not necessary be the antecedent
of anaphors in Hindi. Consider (34): |
| (34) |
|
ram dwara naukar se apna ghar saf karvaya
gaya
i i
i,j
Ram CM servant CM self house clean do+
CAUS Copula+ PAST
(Ram made the servant clean his house)
|
| |
|
|
| (35) |
|
is ambiguous with apna referring
to ram in one interpretation and to
naukar in the other. However,
neither ramdwara nor naukar
se would be accepted as subject phrase
going by the relevant literature. Even
if one of the two phrases is accepted
as the subject phrase, one could not
account for apna referring to
the other, that is, the non-subject
phrase. |
|
| |
To
conclude, the LGB theory cannot account for
anaphor-binding in certain constructions of
Hindi. Even if modifications are made the
desired results are not achieved. The theory
does not yield satisfactory results for at
least the following reasons: |
