| Chapter - II |
| |
| Section 1:a |
| First we the issue of antecedents for anaphors.
The following is a categorization of the anaphors in Hindi: |
| (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
| (1) |
|
ek dusre paraspar svayam
apneap
apneap (without a CM)
(with
a CM (without a CM)
svayam
apna
(with
a CM)
apna
- apna
(reduplicated
apna)
apna
|
|
| |
All
anaphors, argument - non-argument, lexical, non-lexical,
- derive their reference from their antecedents. Besides,
they all have to find their antecedents within a limited
domain. They, however differ in certain respects. |
| |
The
difference between lexical and non-lexical anaphors
is that the latter are the result of movement and the
moved element and the anaphor (i.e., to trace) are coindexed
by convention. Hence, in a manner of speakeing, there
is no "assignment" of antecedent to a non-lexical
anaphor (when the -movement satisfies the usual requirements);
the antecedent of the non-lexical anaphor is, informally
speaking, pre-determined in this sense. Notice that
we have mention trace of S (as in Extraposition) alone
as the non-lexical anaphor in Hindi. We have not mentioned
NP-trace since we find no clear case for postulating
NP-movement in syntax. In Hindi. Geetha (1986) has perserasively
argued that there is no NP-movement in the syntax of
Tamil, in which wh-elements remain in place, and there
is no subject raising. She accounts for the active -
passive relationship in terms of a lexical redundancy
rule. All her arguments against NP-movement in Tamil
apply to Hindi too. |
|
|
|
