| Section
V: a |
| (140) |
|
an anaphor must be bound
in P such that it
does not violate (135) where P is not greater
than a Complete Proposition (CP*). |
|
|
| Complete Proposition is merely a different
notation for tensed S. Since there is no single syntactic
category corresponding to P or P we feel the need for
introducing terminology that are not syntactic Hence,
CP* The following pieces of data demonstrate the correctness
of (140). |
| (141) |
|
ram apne se nafrat karta hai
i i
ram self CM hatred do+PRES
(Ram hates himself.) |
| (142) |
|
ram ne apne ko shishe
me dekha
i i
ram CM self CM mirror CM see+PAST
(Ram saw himself in the mirror.) |
| (143) |
|
[ram aur sita] ne ek dusre
ko kitabe di
i
i
ram and sita CM each other CM books give+PAST
(Ram and Sita gave books to each other.) |
| (144) |
|
[ram aur shyam] ne apni-apni
kitabe pari
i
i
ram and sita CM each's-each's books read+PAST
(Ram and Sita read their respective books.) |
| (145) |
|
[ram aur shyam] me paraspar
i
i
ram and shyam CM (amongst) themselves
vartalap hua
conversation be+PAST
(Ram and Shyam had a conversation.) |
| (146) |
|
ram ne apni kitab pari
i
i
ram CM self's book read+PAST
(Ram read his own book = Ram read his book.) |
| (147) |
|
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.) |
| (148) |
|
[ram aur sita] ko ek dusre
ki kitabe acchi lagi
i
i
ram and sita CM each other CM books good feel+PAST
(Ram and Sita liked each other's books.) |
| (149) |
|
[ram aur shyam] ka ek
dusre ke ghar jana
i
i
ram aur shyam CM each other CM home go+Nom
thik nahi
proper NEG
(It is not proper for Ram and Shyam to go to each
other's house.) |
|
|
| In (141) -(145) P is the root S, which contains
a mukhya distinct from the anaphor. As expected
the anaphor is bound by the distinct mukhya in
P. In (146) - (148) P is the possessive phrase. Since,
P, here, does not contain a mukhya distinct from
the anaphor, going by (`140), the anaphor has to be bound
in the P' which is the root S. The anaphors in (146) -
(148) are duly bound by the mukhya in P'. In (149), P
is the embedded constituent, the ka-na construction.
This contains a mukhya distinct from the anaphor
and the anaphor is correctly bound by it. |
| It may be recalled the earliest discussion
on svayam has remained incomplete. We return to
it. We pointed (120) reproduced below: (120) the N.A-anaphor
svayam relates to the NP it immediately precedes. (120)
makes it clear that the binding domain of svayam
can involve only the anaphor itself and the immediately
following NP. The difference between the binding domain
of svayam and the other anahors is clear. Whereas
the domain of other anaphors is P or P' constructed with
notions like predicate, mukhya etc., the only relevant
notion for the binding domain of svayam is precedence. |
| This reinforces our conclusion that svayam
should be treated as an anaphor of a distinctly different
category. Both in the choice of its antecedent and in
the specification of its binding domain it differs from
the rest of the anaphors. There is no need to spell out
a new binding domain for svayam. An elegant statement
about svayam is still (120). |
| Whereas in (140), an anaphor which has ben
assigned as antecedent has been characterized as a bound
element, in (120), the concept that is used is "relate".
We wish to suggest, thereby, that svayam is not
a dependent element in the same sense as the other anaphors
are, in other words their sementic features are notidentical,
so svayam does not require reference in the way
other anaphors do. However, it has to be related to an
NP. This is reminiscent of the Hindi emphatic element
hi (in the sense of "only"/ "alone")
and tak (in the sense of "even"). Which
also have to be related to an immediately preceding NP
or CP, (the distinction is not relevant here), irrespective
of the theta-role of that NP. Consider the following sentences: |
