| (87)
|
|
the
antecedent of an A-anaphor in Hindi, must be
either
the agent or the perceiver (the domain to be specified
later).
|
| |
|
|
|
| For the various N.A-anaphors we have the
formulations reproduced below: |
| (52) paraspar and choose agent alone as antecedent. |
| This holds for apneap as well. |
| (65) |
|
(i) |
svayam's antecedent is the agent. |
| |
|
(ii) |
svayam's antecedent is the argument that it immediately
procedes |
| |
|
|
|
|
| (86) apna's antecedent must be the possessor
in its possessive phrase. |
| |
| Thus whereas the theta-role of arguments
determines the antecedent choice of all anaphors, whether
A or N.A., precedence is relevant to the antecedent choice
in the case of only one anaphor, namely, svayam.
This is very unnatural because theta-role and precedence
are etirely different, entirely unrelated notions. One
would suspect if something is amisss. A reconsideration
of svayam seems to be in order. |
| |
| Let us propose that svayam is not
really a single anaphor; there are two svayam's
in the grammar, svayam, and svayam. Now, let svayam
choose its antecedent on the basis of theta-role information
and svayam on the basis of precedence. Further
let us propose that |
| |
| (a)
|
|
any
sentence-internal svayam be regarded as svayam |
| (b) |
|
an occurrence of svayam that immediately
precedes an NP is svayam. |
|
| |
| A sentence in which svayam precedes
an NP and is sentence-internal would be ambiguous; by(a)
above, it will have agent as its antecedent and by (b)
above, it will be related to the following NP. If this
proposal is validated, then, the anomaly concerning svayam,
referred to above, will be resolved. Consider the following
sentences. Going by (a) above svayam in (88) is
svayam going by (b), svayam in (89) is svayam. |
| |
| (88) |
|
*bhishma ne apni sena ki madad se usko svayam
i i
bhishma CM self army CM help CM him himself
parast kiya
defeat+PAST
|
|
