| Turning to the difference between the argument
and non-argument anaphors, the former are required by
the Projection Principle ( or alternatively, for the satisfaction
of the S-selectional properties) while the latter are
not. As is obvious, argument anaphors (henceforth A-anaphors)
occur in argument positions whereas the N.A. - anaphors
do not occur in those positions. This is demonstrated
by (2), (3) and (4) below: |
| (2) |
|
ram ne apneap ko shabashi
di
*Ø
*apneap
*svayam |
| |
|
ram
CM self CM congratulate+PAST
*Ø
*himself
*himself |
| |
|
(Ram
congratulated himself.) |
|
| |
| (3) |
|
ram
|
apneap
Ø
*apneap ko
*svayam ko |
khana kha raha hai
|
| |
|
ram |
himself
Ø
*self CM
*self CM
|
food eat+PRES |
| |
|
(Ram
is eating food all by himself.) |
|
| |
| (4) |
|
dono
teamo ke kaptano ne |
paraspar
Ø
*apneap ko
*svayam ko |
| |
|
both
teams CM captains CM |
among themselves
Ø
*self CM
*self CM |
| |
|
vartalap
conversation
|
kiya
do+PAST |
| |
|
(The
captains of both the teams talked to each other.) |
|
| |
| (2) is grammatical when the A-anaphor apneap occurs
in an agrument position. is an N.A-anaphor occurs in its
place or when the A-anaphor be not occur, it becauses
ungrammatical. This is to be expected because, in either
case, the Projection Principle is violated, verb de
(give) being ditransitive. |
| |
| (3) is grammatical when an N.A.-anaphor is
used or when the relevant positon remains empty. But when
an A-anaphor occurs in that positon, the sentence becomes
ungrammatical since this violates the Projection Principle.
The same holds for (4). |
| |
| As the question of the choice of antecedents
by A-anaphors, it has been shown that c-command and subject
are in adequate to capture the anaphor antecedent relationship
in Hindi. It is possible that anaphors in Hindi do not
choose their antecedents in terms of such configurational
and grammatical functional notions; the basis of their
choice may be the thematic roles that the arguments bear.
It may not be an unreasonable hypothesis to pursue at
this stage (to be modified later.) After all, the traditional
grammars of English had treated the core cases of anaphor-antecedent
relationship as "semantic", observing that the
doer of the action is at the same time the receiver of
the results of that action. Sinha (1976) maintains that
in Hindi apna chooses agent as its antecedent. We begin
the discussion about the antecedent choice of A-anaphors
in Hindi with the reciprocal ek dusre. Consider: |
| |
