| (123) |
|
billi dudh piti hai
cat milk drink+PRES
(Cat drinks milk.) |
| (124) |
|
ram kitab par raha hai
ram book read+PRES
(Ram is reading a book.) |
|
|
| In (123),
the agreement is with billi. In (124), the agreement
is with ram. In order to account for agreement mukhya
can be a useful notion. In (123), billi is the agent
and, thus, the mukhya. In (124), ram is the agent
and thus, the mukhya in the sentence. So
the agreement rule can be stated as follows: |
| (125) |
|
(i) INFL agrees
with the NP with no
lexical
CM attached to it, and
(ii) if the clause contains more than one
such NP,
INFL
agrees with mukhya. |
|
|
| What is the status of
mukhya in syntactic theory? Is mukhya
a concept relevant to the grammar of Hindi and some
(or all) languages, at least of the Indo-Aryan and
Dravidian groups alone? In this regard attention
may be paid to some observations of Chomsky's, who
like classical Sanskrit grammarians, seems to feel
the necessity for assigning a special status to
one constituent of a clause although the manner
of doing so is not the same. In "Conditions
on Transformations" (Chomsky; 1973) he introduced
the idea that subject is "superior" to
the phrases in the predicate. In LGB he observes
that"… the subject is the most prominent
nominal element". We suggest that syntactic
theory needs a notion of the most prominent argument
of a predicate, which is called here. |
| The anaphor-antecedent
relationship in some causative constructions alongside
the passive construction deserve attention. Consider
the following: |
| (126) |
|
ram ne mohan se apna homework
karvaya
i
j i,j
ram CM mohan CM self's homework do+CAUS+PAST
(Ram made Mohan do his homework.) |
| (127) |
|
ram ne mohan se
apni kavita sunvayi
i j
i,j'
Ram CM mohan CM self's poem recite+CAUS+PAST
(Ram made Mohan recite his poem.) |
|
|
| karva and sunva
are causative verbs. As certain passive constructions,
these causative sentences also are ambiguous. However,
there is considerable variation of opinion regarding
the status of these sentences too, as in the case
of the passive ones. Some speakers find the sentences
ambiguous while others do not. For those who find
them ambiguous, there is a strong preference for
the interpretation in which the anaphor refers to
the agent, ram. In short, both, the causative
and the passive constructions pose the same kind
of problem, namely, an unexpected element is regarded
by some at least, as an antecedent of the anaphor.
The unexpected element in the causative is the se
phrase and in the passive the ko phrase.
The ne phrase is (126) and (127) and the
passive dwara phrase are not unexpected antecedents,
both being agents in their respective constructions. |
| Causative predicates demand
agents and agent-instruments, referred to in traditional
Indian grammars as prayojak karta (initiator
agent) and prayoja karta (performer agent).
Now, mukhya is the agent in the causative
predicates karva and sunva in (126)
and (127) respectively. But, being an agentive element,
if not a full agent, the agent-instrument seems
to acquire some mukhya-hood in the grammar
of some speakers. Therefore, they find the sentence
ambiguous but find the interpretation in which the
agent is the antecedent of the anaphor much more
acceptable. |
| What seems to happen in
the passive construction is the following: The passive
construction highlights the theme over others. It
may be because of this that the theme assumes mukhya-hood
to some extent in the grammars of at least some
speakers. As a result, when the mukhya is
present, the theme is something like the "secondary
mukhya, quite like the se phrase in the causative
construction. That is why, although the preferred
interpretation is the one in which the antecedent
of the anaphor is the agent, there is a less preferred,
interpretation in which the antecedent of the anaphor
is the highlighted theme. In the absence of the
agent, which, as is well-known, the passive construction
permits, the "secondary" mukhya
becomes the only possible antecedent of the anaphor.
This also explains why sentences like the following
are not ambiguous for any native speaker: |
| (128) |
|
ram dwara mohan ko apni kahani
sunayi gayi
i
i
ram CM mohan CM self's story tell+PAST
(Mohan was told his story by Ram.) |
| (129) |
|
ram dwara mohan
ko apni kitab di gayi
i
i
Mohan was given his book by Ram.)
|
|
|
| In each of these the dwara
phrase is the mukhya. The apna phrase
is the highlighted "secondary" mukhya.
Since the anaphor itself is a part of the "secondary
mukhya phrase, of necessity, it has to refer to
the only remaining possible antecedent, the mukhya.
If the sentences do not contain the dwara
phrase the sentences are ungrammatical, as expected. |
|
|
|
|
