Cover not available

In:The Lexicon–Syntax Interface: Perspectives from South Asian languages
Edited by Pritha Chandra and Richa Srishti
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 209] 2014
► pp. 127–148

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Ditransitive structures in Hindi/Urdu

 | Northeastern University
Published online: 25 March 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.209.06mal
This chapter makes the following two language specific claims; (a) Hindi/Urdu involves two types of ditransitive constructions, corresponding to the prepositional dative constructions and the double object constructions as in languages like English, and (b) the two constructions are not derivationally connected, and are a result of two distinct ditransitive verbs in Hindi/Urdu, namely the “send” type verbs and the “show” type verbs. The two types of verbs have different argument structures and as a consequence two different verb phrase structures. The difference between the two types of verbs however doesn’t get reflected in the word – order in Hindi/Urdu because of the feature-driven movement of the objects to the edge of the vP.
References (36)
References
Abraham, Werner. 2010. Types of transitivity. Intransitive objects and untransitivity – and the logic of their de signs: Ways to keep apart derivation in syntax and the lexicon. In Transitivity: Form, Meaning, Acquisition, and Processing [Linguistic Aktuell/Linguistics Today 166], Patrick Brandt & Marco GarcíaGarcía (eds), 15–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation. A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid & Johnson, Kyle. 2004. Double objects again. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 97–123. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh & Dayal, Veneeta. 2007. Rightward scrambling as rightward Remnant movement. Linguistic Inquiry 38(2): 287–301. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, Tanmoy & Andrew, Simpson. 2011. Diagnosing double object constructions in Bangla/Bengali. Lingua 121: 1067–1082. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2007. Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Roots: Linguistics in Search of its Evidential Base [Studies in Generative Grammar], Sam Featherston & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds), 77–99. Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Nikitina, Tatiana. 2009. The gradience of the dative alternation. In Reality Exploration and Discovery: Pattern Interaction in Language and Life , Linda Uyechi & Lian Hee Wee (eds), 161–184. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana & Baayen, R. Harald. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation , Gerlof Boume, Irene Kraemer & Joost Zwarts (eds), 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. QR obeys superiority: Frozen scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2): 233–273. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Double object constructions disguised as prepositional datives. Linguistic Inquiry 41(2): 287–305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language , Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), 1–50. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1965. Indirect Object Construction in English and the Ordering of Transformation. Monographs on Linguistics Analysis . Mouton: The Hague.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M. 1974. Semantics and Syntactic Regularity . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel J. 1994. Limits on Arguments Structure. MIT Manuscript.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 1995. Subjects, Events, and Licensing, PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. If you have, then you can give. In: B. Agbayani and S.-W. Tang, eds. Proceedings of the 15th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics . Stanford, CA.: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoji, Hajime. 1985. Logical Form Constraints and Configurational Structures in Japanese. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Seattle.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kidwai, Ayesha. 2000. XP-adjunction in Universal Grammar: Scrambling and Binding in Hindi-Urdu . New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335–392.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mahajan, Anoop. 1997a. Against a rightward movement analysis of extraposition and rightward scrambling. In Scrambling , Shigeo Tonoike (ed.), 93–124. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malhotra, Shiti. 2005. Asymmetry of Objects and the Larsonian VP-shell for Hindi/Urdu. M.Phil dissertation, University of Delhi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Movement and Intervention Effects. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar , Sam Mchombo (ed.), 113–150. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matsuoka, Mikinari. 2003. Two types of ditransitive constructions in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 12: 171–203. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazurkewich, Irene & White, Lydia. 1984. The acquisition of the dative alternation: Unlearning over generalizations. Cognition 16: 261–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2003. Lethal Ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 47–95. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 1997. Against optional scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 1–26.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru & Tsujioka, Takae. 2004. Argument structure and ditransitive verbs in Japanese. Journal of East-Asian Linguistics 13: 1–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oehrle, Richard T. 1976. The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternations. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax . Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition; the Acquisition of Argument Structure . Cambridge, MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing Arguments. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2001. An Idiomatic Argument for Lexical Decomposition. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 183–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simpson, Andrew & Bhattacharya, Tanmoy. 2003. Obligatory overt wh-movement in a Wh-in situ language. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 127–142. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue