Return list of all LinguisticNotion

GET /data/api/linguisticnotions/
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

[
    {
        "id": 4,
        "name": "Argument structure",
        "description": "<h3>1. Introduction</h3>\r\n<p>Argument structure concerns the processes and relations involved in the syntactic realization of the semantic dependents of a predicate. Crucial notions in many treatments of argument structure in modern Western linguistics are 1. the notion of grammatical functions or grammatical relations, such as <em>subject</em> and <em>object</em> (including where structurally defined); and 2. the notion of semantic or thematic roles, such as <em>agent</em>, <em>patient</em>, etc. Argument structure concerns the interrelation of these two. Consider the following sentences:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(1)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        a. The cat saw the mouse.<br>\r\n        b. The cat ate the mouse.<br>\r\n        c. The cat fell asleep.\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>The first argument in each of the sentences is grammatically the <em>subject</em>, but the semantic roles of each argument in relation to its verb are different: <em>experiencer</em> in (1a), <em>agent</em> in (1b), and <em>theme</em> in (1c). While the theme is the subject in (1c), the <em>theme</em> in (1a) is the <em>object</em>; the object in (1b) has a different semantic role again, namely <em>patient</em>.</p>\r\n<p>These differences depend on the specific syntactic and semantic properties of the respective verbs. But any model of argument structure must also account for phenomena like passivization and causativization, processes which systematically alter the links between semantic roles and grammatical relations for some or all verbs or predicates in a language. For example, in the passive of (1a) the experiencer is no longer the subject, but either an (optional) oblique argument or an adjunct, while the theme is not an object but the subject.</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(2)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        The mouse was seen by the cat.\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>Modern approaches to argument structure depend in one way or another on the seminal work of Fillmore (1968), who first proposed a notion of &ldquo;Case&rdquo; relations, effectively the modern notion of semantic roles. Case relations depend on the semantic entailments of a predicate, but are (deep structure) grammatical categories which relate to surface grammatical relations such as subject and object. For example, Fillmore (1968: 60) proposes the following generalization for the 'unmarked' subject choice in English:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(3)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        If there is an A(gent), it becomes the subject; otherwise, if there is an I(nstrument), it becomes the subject; otherwise, the subject is the O(bjective).\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>Perlmutter and Postal (1977) rejected the early structural accounts of argument alternations like passivization, and sought to account for these processes rather in terms of operations on grammatical relations. They generalize the passive operation thus:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(4)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        a. A direct object of an active clause is the (superficial) subject of the 'corresponding' passive.<br>\r\n        b. The subject of an active clause is neither the (superficial) subject nor the (superficial) direct object of the 'corresponding' passive.\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>From these early, and in hindsight very preliminary, steps, much more sophisticated and descriptively adequate models have been developed. For example, it is vital not merely to acknowledge sets of different grammatical functions and semantic roles, but also to recognize that these roles stand in hierarchies, so that reference can be made to concepts like higher or lower grammatical functions, or the highest semantic role of a predicate. Many modern treatments of passivization, for example, follow Ostler (1979: 108) in treating it as an operation to &ldquo;delete the highest [semantic] role&rdquo; in the argument structure of a predicate.</p>\r\n<p>In these terms we can revisit the alternation between (1a) and (2) above. If, for the sake of illustration, we assume a principle that 'the highest semantic role becomes the subject', then (1a) is immediately accounted for, granted that experiencer is 'higher' on the hierarchy of semantic roles than theme. Given this principle, the passive in (2) must involve the deletion of the highest semantic role, following which the highest remaining semantic role is that of theme, which can now become the subject. If the experiencer was deleted from the argument structure of the verb, it can appear only as an adjunct phrase, hence its appearance in the optional 'by' phrase in (2).<a href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\">[1]</a></p>\r\n<h3>2. Case and grammatical functions in Sanskrit</h3>\r\n<p>For the most part, Sanskrit is a relatively standard old Indo-European language in relation to argument structural phenomena. It is a synthetic language distinguishing case, number and gender on nouns, and marking person and number of the subject on finite verbs. There are eight cases: nominative, accusative, instrumental, dative, ablative, genitive, locative and vocative. At its core, Sanskrit has nominative-accusative alignment: the sole argument of intransitive verbs (S) is treated in the same way as the agentive argument of transitive verbs (A), in distinction from the patientive argument of transitive verbs (O). Subjects of finite verbs (A/S) are nominative, while objects (O) are usually accusative. The instrumental, dative, ablative and locative are primary semantic rather than structural cases. As a nominative-accusative language, Sanskrit has a passive construction, in many ways parallel to the passive familiar from languages like English.</p>\r\n<p>Alongside this nominative-accusative core, however, Sanskrit also shows some evidence of ergative alignment. The past participle, which becomes increasingly frequent and one of the most common ways of expressing a simple past tense, agrees with the sole argument S when formed to intransitive verbs, but with the patientive argument O when formed to transitives. When a past participle is used as the head of a finite clause, then, S and O arguments pattern together, appearing in the nominative case, while A is treated differently, appearing in the instrumental; this is the origin of the ergative perfective in modern Indo-Aryan languages.</p>\r\n<p>There are additional complications and details here which go beyond the scope of the present discussion, and the construction with the past participle will not come into the discussion below. But the presence of this ergative construction in Sanskrit is worth bearing in mind, particularly given the apparent lack of a notion of 'subject' in the Indian tradition, a notion which is entirely natural and unproblematic in exclusively nominative-accusative languages, but which is problematized precisely by ergative phenomena.</p>\r\n<h3>3 Argument structure in the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em></h3>\r\n<p>Pāṇini does not use any concept akin to grammatical functions in his model of argument structure, but is crucially concerned with accounting for the relations between the semantic dependents of a verb and the surface case marking of those dependents. Just as in modern theories of argument structure, Pāṇini's system involves an intermediate level between the two, somewhat comparable to the 'Case' relations of Fillmore (1968), but more syntactically and less semantically determined. The relations of this intermediate level are called <em>kārakas</em>. The kārakas are grammatical categories defined in terms of the semantic relation between a verbal action and its arguments. The kārakas are defined in the following rules:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(5)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        Aṣṭ. 1.4.23: <em>kārake</em> 'In the designation of Kārakas:'</br>\r\n        Aṣṭ. 1.4.24: <em>dhruvam apāye 'pādānam</em> 'The term <em>apādāna</em> denotes the fixed point in the case of motion away.'<br>\r\n        Aṣṭ. 1.4.25: <em>bhītrārthānām bhayahetuḥ</em> '(The term <em>apādāna</em>) denotes the cause of fear of verbs with the meanings 'fear' or 'protect'.'<br>\r\n        Aṣṭ. 1.4.26&ndash;31: [Further contexts for the designation <em>apādāna</em>&hellip;]<br>\r\n        Aṣṭ. 1.4.32: <em>karmaṇā yam abhipraiti sa sampradānam</em> 'The term <em>sampradāna</em> denotes him who (the agent) intends as goal through the <em>karman</em>.'<br>\r\n        Aṣṭ. 1.4.33&ndash;41: [Further contexts for the designation <em>sampradāna</em>, with the exception in 38.]<br>\r\n        Aṣṭ. 1.4.37: <em>krudhadruherṣyāsūyārthānāṃ yaṃ prati kopaḥ</em> '(The term <em>sampradāna</em>) denotes one towards whom anger is felt with verbs with the meanings 'feel angry', 'injure', 'envy', 'find fault'.'<br>\r\n        Aṣṭ. 1.4.38: <em>krudhadruhor upasṛṣṭayoḥ karma</em> 'The term <em>karman </em>denotes one towards whom anger is felt with the verbs <em>krudh</em> 'feel angry' and <em>druh</em> 'injure' when co-occuring with preverbs.'<br>\r\n        Aṣṭ. 1.4.42: <em>sādhakatamaṃ karaṇam</em> 'The term <em>karaṇa </em>denotes the most effective means.'<br>\r\n        ...<br>\r\n        Aṣṭ. 1.4.45: <em>ādhāro 'dhikaraṇam</em> 'The term <em>adhikaraṇam</em> denotes the substratum (or locus).'<br>\r\n        Aṣṭ. 1.4.46: <em>adhiśīṅsthāsāṃ karma</em> 'The term <em>karman</em> denotes (the substratum or locus) with the verbs <em>śī</em> 'lie', <em>sthā</em> 'stand' and<em> ās</em> 'sit' when they have the preverb <em>adhi</em>.'<br>\r\n        Aṣṭ. 1.4.47&mdash;48: [Further contexts for the designation <em>karman</em> when denoting the substratum]<br>\r\n        Aṣṭ. 1.4.49: <em>kartur īpsitatamaṃ karma</em> 'The term <em>karman </em>denotes that which is most desired by the agent.'<br>\r\n        Aṣṭ. 1.4.50: <em>tathāyuktaṃ cānīpsitam </em>'(The term <em>karman</em>) denotes what is likewise connected even when not desired.'<br>\r\n        Aṣṭ. 1.4.51: <em>akathitaṃ ca</em> '(The term <em>karman</em>) also applies to something to which no other <em>kāraka </em>designation is given.'<a href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\">[2]</a><br>\r\n        Aṣṭ. 1.4.52: <em>gatibuddhipratyavasānārthaśabdakarmākarmakāṇām aṇi kartā sa ṇau</em> 'That which is the <em>kartṛ</em> with non-causative forms of verbs expressing motion, perception, eating, or with sound as a <em>karman</em>, or verbs without a <em>karman</em>, is designated <em>karman</em> in the causative.'<br>\r\n        ...<br>\r\n        Aṣṭ. 1.4.54: <em>svatantraḥ kartā</em> 'The term <em>kartṛ</em> denotes the independent role.'<br>\r\n        Aṣṭ. 1.4.55: <em>tatprayojako hetuś ca</em> 'The term <em>hetu</em> also (as well as <em>kartṛ</em>) designates the instigator of the <em>kartṛ</em> (in the causative).'<br>\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>These rules are in a section headed by Aṣṭ. 1.4.1&ndash;2, according to which whenever two or more technical terms can be applied to a single item, only a single term, the later one, can be applied. This creates a kind of hierarchy among the kārakas, in that the kārakas defined in later rules trump those defined in earlier rules, where both could apply. For example, if one is talking about cutting with an axe, one might ordinarily say:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(6)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>devadattaḥ</td>\r\n                <td>paraśunā</td>\r\n                <td>chinatti.</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>D.NOM</td>\r\n                <td>axe.INSTR.SG</td>\r\n                <td>cut.PRES.3SG</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n        </table>\r\n        'Devadatta cuts with an axe.'\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>An axe is an instrument of cutting, in Pāṇinian terms the 'most effective means', designated <em>karaṇa</em>, while the independent agent, the <em>kartṛ</em>, which in the active voice will get nominative case, is the human, Devadatta. But it is also possible to say:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(7)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>paraśuś</td>\r\n                <td>chinatti.</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>axe.NOM.SG</td>\r\n                <td>cut.PRES.3SG</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n        </table>\r\n        'The axe cuts.'\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>Here, since it receives nominative case and the verb is active, the axe must be the <em>kartṛ</em>. The tradition explains this partly by recourse to the perspective or scope of the expression, and partly to speaker intention: it is possible to restrict one's perspective, or the scope of an expression, to a sub-part of an event; in this case, if we exclude the human agent from consideration, a speaker may wish to speak of the axe as the independent actor. The point is that given such an understanding, the axe can qualify for both the label <em>karaṇa</em> and the label <em>kartṛ</em>, but since <em>kartṛ</em> is defined later, only that label will apply. For more detailed discussion, see Cardona (1974: 233ff.); see also <a href=\"/data/browse/linguisticnotions/6/\">'Subjecthood'</a>.</p>\r\n<p>The kārakas mediate between the semantic relations of arguments with their verbs and the morphosyntactic case marking of those arguments. There is a default relation between kārakas and case endings, summarized in the following table (specified in Aṣṭ. 2.3.2, 2.3.13, 2.3.18, 2.3.28, and 2.3.36):</p>\r\n\r\n<strong>Table 1</strong>\r\n<table>\r\n    <tr>\r\n        <th>Kāraka</th>\r\n        <th>Case</th>\r\n    </tr>\r\n    <tr>\r\n        <td>kartṛ</td>\r\n        <td>instrumental</td>\r\n    </tr>\r\n    <tr>\r\n        <td>karman</td>\r\n        <td>accusative</td>\r\n    </tr>\r\n    <tr>\r\n        <td>karaṇa</td>\r\n        <td>instrumental</td>\r\n    </tr>\r\n    <tr>\r\n        <td>sampradāna</td>\r\n        <td>dative</td>\r\n    </tr>\r\n    <tr>\r\n        <td>apādāna</td>\r\n        <td>ablative</td>\r\n    </tr>\r\n    <tr>\r\n        <td>adhikaraṇa</td>\r\n        <td>locative</td>\r\n    </tr>\r\n</table>\r\n\r\n<p>The kārakas are not directly equivalent to cases, however, since these default relations can be overridden by more specific rules. For example, Aṣṭ. 2.3.3 specifies the instrumental to designate the <em>karman</em> with the verb <em>hū</em> in Vedic, overriding the default association of <em>karman</em> with the accusative (Aṣṭ. 2.3.2):</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(8)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        Aṣṭ. 2.3.2: <em>karmaṇi dvitīyā</em> (<em>anabhihite</em>) 'Accusative case endings are used to indicate the <em>karman</em> when not otherwise expressed.'<br>\r\n        Aṣṭ. 2.3.3: <em>tṛtīyā ca hoś chandasi</em> (<em>anabhihite karmaṇi</em>) 'Instrumental case endings are also used to indicate the <em>karman</em> of the root <em>hu</em> 'sacrifice, oblate' in Vedic, when not otherwise expressed.'\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>More importantly, there is no default relation between a kāraka and the nominative case, but most clauses in Sanskrit have a nominative subject. By Aṣṭ. 2.3.1 (<em>anabhihite</em>), which governs the rules containing the default kāraka-case relations summarized in Table 1, these defaults apply only if the relations are not denoted by some other element. By Aṣṭ. 3.4.69 (<em>laḥ karmaṇi ca bhāve cākarmakebhyaḥ</em>), the abstract tense markers are introduced to denote the <em>kartṛ</em> or (in the passive) <em>karman</em> (or the action of the verb itself, with intransitives). Thus the abstract tense markers, which are ultimately replaced by the person/number suffixes on the verb, effectively cancel the default association of the <em>kartṛ</em> with instrumental case, or &ndash; in the passive &ndash; of the <em>karman </em>with accusative case. In the lack of other case specification, the nominative case applies (by Aṣṭ. 2.3.46). This neatly obtains the nominative case marking of the <em>kartṛ</em> in the active and of the <em>karman</em> in the passive.</p>\r\n<p>As discussed by Kiparsky (2002: 15&ndash;19), this system depends on three principles: every kāraka must be expressed by some morphological element (e.g. verb ending or case ending); no kāraka may be expressed by more than one morphological element; every morphological element must express something.</p>\r\n<p><strong>Argument alternations</strong></p>\r\n<p>For instance, consider the following active sentence:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(9)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>devadatta</td>\r\n                <td>odanaṃ</td>\r\n                <td>pacati</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>D.NOM</td>\r\n                <td>rice.ACC</td>\r\n                <td>cook.PRES.3SG</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n        </table>\r\n        'Devadatta cooks the rice.'\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>Since the verb is active, the verb ending denotes the <em>kartṛ</em> relation, so Devadatta appears in the nominative; the nominative expresses features like number, but no argument relation. The rice appears in the accusative, since it is the <em>karman</em>. But the same rules which licence this active sentence also permit a passive derivation. If instead of denoting the <em>kartṛ</em> with the verbal suffix, we choose to denote the <em>karman</em> with the verbal suffix, then the verb will appear in passive form (Aṣṭ. 1.3.13, 3.1.67), and the <em>karman</em> will appear in the nominative, while the <em>kartṛ </em>will appear in the instrumental:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(10)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>devadattena</td>\r\n                <td>odanaḥ</td>\r\n                <td>pacyate</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>D.INS</td>\r\n                <td>rice.NOM</td>\r\n                <td>cook.PASS.PRES.3SG</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n        </table>\r\n        'The rice is cooked by Devadatta.'\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>In this model, there is a free choice between active and passive: unlike in modern approaches to the passive, neither is primary, and the passive is not derived from the active. See also <a href=\"/data/browse/linguisticnotions/5/\">'Passive'</a>.</p>\r\n<p>The causative can also be derived mostly via rules already introduced above. There are two possibilities for the causative of a transitive verb in Sanskrit: in the active, the causer is always the nominative subject argument, and the object of the non-causative construction retains its object role (and case, usually accusative) in the causative, but what was the original subject of the non-causative surfaces either in the instrumental or the accusative.</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(11)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>a.</td>\r\n                <td>yajñadatto</td>\r\n                <td>devadattena</td>\r\n                <td>odanaṃ</td>\r\n                <td>pācayati</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td>Y.NOM</td>\r\n                <td>D.INS</td>\r\n                <td>rice.ACC</td>\r\n                <td>cook.CS.PRES.3SG</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>b.</td>\r\n                <td>yajñadatto</td>\r\n                <td>Devadattaṃ</td>\r\n                <td>vyākaraṇaṃ</td>\r\n                <td>bodhayati</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td>Y.NOM</td>\r\n                <td>D.ACC</td>\r\n                <td>grammar.ACC</td>\r\n                <td>learn.CS.PRES.3SG</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n        </table>\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>The causer is designated both <em>hetu</em> and <em>kartṛ</em> by Aṣṭ. 1.4.55 above. The verb ending denotes this <em>kartṛ</em>, and hence the causer appears in the nominative. The original <em>karman</em> of the corresponding active sentences remains unchanged, and so appears in the accusative. By the rules of default case assignment given above, the original <em>kartṛ</em> of the active sentence, which remains a <em>kartṛ</em> in the causative (but is distinct from the <em>hetu-kartṛ</em>), receives instrumental case. This accounts for (11a).</p>\r\n<p>(11b) requires a specific rule to license it. Aṣṭ. 1.4.52, given above, states that in the causative of certain verb classes the non-causative <em>kartṛ</em> is given a new designation of <em>karman</em>. This means it will get accusative case by the default case assignment rules. Interestingly, this rule implies a conception of derivation, or at least alternation, between non-causative and causative: a causative (at least in the specified verb classes) necessarily implies the existence of a non-causative, and in some sense the latter is the more basic or primary formation.</p>\r\n<h3>4 Argument structure in the non-Pāṇinian tradition</h3>\r\n<p>The Pāṇinian model of argument structure was never bettered in other strands of the Indian tradition. In some non-Pāṇinian grammars, the kāraka model is essentially adopted without change, or with certain apparent simplifications. For example, in the <em>Kātantra</em> exactly the same set of kārakas is assumed, but they are defined in somewhat circular terms:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(12)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        K 2.4.8: <em>yato 'paiti bhayam ādatte vā tad apādānam</em> 'That from which one departs or which one fears is <em>apādāna</em>.'<br>\r\n        K 2.4.10: <em>yasmai ditsā rocate dhārayate vā tat sampradānam</em> 'To whom one desires to give, is pleasing, or is owed, is <em>sampradāna</em>.'<br>\r\n        K 2.4.11: <em>ya ādhāras tad adhikaraṇam</em> 'That which is the substrate is the <em>adhikaraṇa</em>.'<br>\r\n        K 2.4.12: <em>yena kriyate tat karaṇam</em> 'That by which something is done is <em>karaṇa</em>.'<br>\r\n        K 2.4.13: <em>yat kriyate tat karma</em> 'That which is done is <em>karman</em>.'<br>\r\n        K 2.4.14: <em>yaḥ karoti sa kartā</em> 'He who does is <em>kartṛ</em>.'<br>\r\n        K 2.4.15: <em>kārayati yaḥ sa hetuś ca</em> 'He who causes to do is also the <em>hetu</em>.<br>\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>Here the kārakas <em>apādāna</em>, <em>sampradāna</em>, and <em>karaṇa</em> are defined using a relative construction with the default case specification for that kāraka. That is, for example, <em>apādāna</em>, which by the later case specifications is linked with ablative case, is itself defined in terms of the ablative case. (Case specifications are given in K 2.4.17&ndash;42.) The <em>karman</em> is effectively defined as the subject (or more precisely, nominative argument) of a passive verb, and similarly the <em>kartṛ</em> and <em>hetu</em> are respectively defined as the nominative arguments of an active non-causative and causative.</p>\r\n<p>Other non-Pāṇinian grammars avoid the kārakas altogether, attempting to specify a more direct connection between semantic relations and case. For example, Candragomin's <em>Cāndravyākaraṇa</em> adopts two approaches. Some rules directly connect case endings with meanings, for example:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(13)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        C 2.1.75: <em>dhārer uttamarṇe (caturthī)</em> 'the dative case expresses the creditor with the verb <em>dhāri</em> 'owe'.'\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>In other cases, names corresponding to the Pāṇinian kārakas are used, but these are not given any semantic definition, and are directly linked with case endings. For example, Candragomin directly links the accusative case endings with <em>āpya</em> 'that which is reached' (his term corresponding to Pāṇini's <em>karman</em>), while the genitive case is defined as expressing 'relation':</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(14)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        C 2.1.43: <em>kriyāpye dvitīyā</em> 'the accusative case expresses that which is reached through the action.'<br>\r\n        C 2.1.95: <em>ṣaṣṭhī saṃbandhe</em> 'the genitive case expresses relation.'\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>Now consider the following sentences:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(15)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>a.</td>\r\n                <td>mātaraṃ</td>\r\n                <td>smarati</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td>mother.ACC</td>\r\n                <td>remember.PRES.3SG</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td colspan=\"2\">'He remembers his mother.'</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>b.</td>\r\n                <td>mātuḥ</td>\r\n                <td>smarati</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td>mother.GEN</td>\r\n                <td>remember.PRES.3SG</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td colspan=\"2\">'He remembers his mother.'</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n        </table>\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>The verb <em>smṛ</em> 'remember' can take an object in either the accusative or genitive case.<a href=\"#_ftn3\" name=\"_ftnref3\">[3]</a> For Pāṇini, in both cases the object is the <em>karman</em>; the realization of the <em>karman</em> in the accusative follows from the default specifications introduced above; the option of realising the <em>karman</em> with the genitive case with verbs of remembering is specified by Aṣṭ. 2.3.52. For Candragomin, however, it is not possible to treat this, or comparable alternations, in terms of variable realization of the same underlying argument type. Rather, he is forced to have recourse to <em>vivakṣā</em> 'the intention of the speaker'. Since in (15a) the mother is given accusative case, the intention of the speaker of such a sentence is to indicate that the mother is the <em>kriyāpya</em>, the entity reached through the action of remembering. On the other hand, since in (15b) the mother appears in the genitive, the indication is merely that the mother is related to the action of remembering. As shown by Joshi and Roodbergen (1975: xvi&ndash;xix), this reliance on speaker intention is unable to properly constrain the grammar; essentially, we must assume that the only <em>vivakṣā</em> a speaker will use is one that will give a result in accordance with acceptable usage. In contrast, Pāṇini's kāraka system constrains the grammar by explicitly restricting its possible outputs.</p>\r\n\r\n<hr>\r\n\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\">[1]</a> This is an intentionally simplified illustration, merely aiming to show the basic aims and mechanics of argument structure models.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\" name=\"_ftn2\">[2]</a> This is the traditional interpretation, but Kiparsky (2002) argues that it is better to interpret this as referring to a <em>karman</em> which is ellipsed.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref3\" name=\"_ftn3\">[3]</a> It is not clear from the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> itself whether Pāṇini intended for the construction with the genitive case to entirely block the construction with the accusative case, or whether he intended both constructions to exist alongside one another. We follow the traditional interpretation, as found e.g. in the <em>Kāśikāvṛtti</em>, in assuming that Pāṇini intended the latter. Both constructions are attested in ordinary Sanskrit usage, in any case.</p>",
        "admin_notes": "",
        "admin_published": true,
        "meta_created_datetime": "2022-03-22T09:37:49.191955Z",
        "meta_lastupdated_datetime": "2022-08-03T12:09:11.731941+01:00",
        "meta_firstpublished_datetime": "2022-03-22T09:37:49.191670Z",
        "meta_citation_author": 2,
        "meta_created_by": 1,
        "meta_lastupdated_by": 1,
        "linguistic_notion": [
            5,
            6
        ],
        "author": [
            42,
            15
        ],
        "linguistic_field": [
            2,
            1
        ]
    },
    {
        "id": 5,
        "name": "Passive",
        "description": "<h3>1. Introduction</h3>\r\n<p>The term 'passive' refers to an argument structure alternation or operation common in languages with nominative-accusative morphosyntactic alignment, and to verb forms or constructions which exemplify this alternation.</p>\r\n<p>In all Western approaches to the passive, it is taken as derived in some way from a more basic structure, the active. (This is even true of models explicitly influenced by Pāṇini, such as that of Kiparsky 1987, 1988, 1997, 2001.) In very basic terms, the subject of a transitive active verb is either deleted or demoted to an oblique argument role, and the object of the transitive active construction becomes the passive subject. This operation is usually marked morphosyntactically on the verb. For example:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(1)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        a. ACTIVE: The cat saw the mouse.<br>\r\n        b. PASSIVE: The mouse was seen by the cat.\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<h3>2. The Indian tradition</h3>\r\n<p>The derivation of the passive in the Pāṇinian tradition is treated in <a href=\"/data/browse/linguisticnotions/4/\">'Argument structure'</a>. In contrast to all Western models, for Pāṇini the passive is not derived from the active, nor from any other more basic structure. Rather, the system is designed so that in any verbal construction there is a free choice between active and passive, which derive separately from an underlying set of relations which are entirely neutral to voice.</p>\r\n\r\n<img src=\"/static/images/researchdata/linguistic_notions/passive_1.png\" alt=\"Passive diagram\" style=\"width: 25em; max-width: 100%;\">\r\n\r\n<p>The Pāṇinian model implies an absolute equivalence between active and passive, since they both represent the same underlying sentence structure. However, the later tradition took different approaches to the question of the semantic correlation between active and passive. As discussed by Joshi (1993:17-18), Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa took a more traditional approach, treating active and passive as almost identical, bar the grammatical differences. So, for the sentence <em>Caitras taṇḍulān pacati</em> 'Caitra cooks the rice grains.', Joshi provides the following semantic paraphrase in line with Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa's view:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(2)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        <p><em>Ekatvāvacchinnacaitrābhinnakartṛko vartamānakālikas taṇḍulābhinnakarmaniṣṭhaviklittyanukūlaḥ phūtkārādirūpavyāpāraḥ</em>.</p>\r\n        <p>'An activity in the form of blowing [on the fire] etc., of which the agent is limited by singularity and nondifferent from Caitra, belonging to the present time, and favourable to the [result, namely] the becoming soft [of the rice grains] which [result] resides in an object non-different from rice grains.'</p>\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>For the corresponding passive sentence, Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa's analysis is almost identical, the only exception being that the expression of verbal agreement, which is attached to the agent in (2) [the sequence <em>ekatvāvacchinna</em> 'limited by singularity' at the start of (2)], is now attached to the patient (3) [the sequence <em>bahutvāvacchinna</em> 'limited by plurality' beginning the third word]:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(3)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        <p><em>caitrābhinnakartṛko vartamānakālikas bahutvāvacchinnataṇḍulābhinna-karmaniṣṭhaviklittyanukūlaḥ phūtkārādirūpavyāpāraḥ.</em></p>\r\n        <p>'An activity in the form of blowing [on the fire] etc., of which the agent is nondifferent from Caitra, belonging to the present time, and favourable to the [result, namely] the becoming soft [of the rice grains] which [result] resides in an object limited by plurality and non-different from rice grains.'</p>\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>In contrast, Nāgeśabhaṭṭa offers a rather different paraphrase of the passive, treating it as semantically different from the active, despite accepting the grammatical equivalence of active and passive in the Pāṇinian system. His paraphrase of the passive, corresponding to (3), is given by Joshi (1993: 18) as follows:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(4)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        <p><em>caitrābhinnakartṛkavartamānakālikavyāpārajanyā bahutvāvacchinnataṇḍulābhinnakarmikā viklittiḥ</em>.</p>\r\n        <p>'A becoming soft, of which the object is non-different from rice grain[s] limited by plurality, arising from an activity of the present time, of which [activity] the agent is non-different from Caitra.'</p>\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>That is, for Nāgeśa the passive denotes the result of an activity (i.e. the becoming soft), in contrast to the active which denotes the activity itself (the blowing etc.).</p>\r\n<p>The philosophical school of Nyāya treats not the verb, but the nominative argument (&asymp;subject), as the primary element of meaning in a sentence. In consequence, active and passive must be semantically distinct, because the primary meaning element in a passive is different from the corresponding active (Joshi 1993: 31-32).</p>\r\n<p>On the other hand, the Mīmāṃsā tradition treats active and passive as identical. Following Joshi (1993:36), the Mīmāṃsaka paraphrase for the sentence <em>Caitro grāmaṃ gacchati</em> 'Caitra goes to the village', and for the corresponding passive sentence, would be:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(5)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        <p><em>ekatvāvacchinnacaitrakartṛkā ekatvāvachinnagrāmaniṣṭhasaṃyogānukūlā vartamānakālikī bhāvanā</em>.</p>\r\n        <p>'A productive operation of present time favourable to [the result] conjunction (a quality) residing in the object village which is limited by singularity, of which (productive operation) Caitra limited by singularity is the agent.'</p>\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>In distinction from Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa's paraphrases, where the grammatical agreement of the verb with its subject is marked by the specification of number (<em>ekatvāvacchinna</em> 'limited by singularity', <em>bahutvāvacchinna</em> 'limited by plurality') only on the element with which the verb agrees, in the Mīmāṃsaka paraphrase both arguments appear with specification of number, meaning there is no difference between active and passive paraphrases.</p>",
        "admin_notes": "",
        "admin_published": true,
        "meta_created_datetime": "2022-03-22T09:38:29.562204Z",
        "meta_lastupdated_datetime": "2022-03-24T10:51:42.947880Z",
        "meta_firstpublished_datetime": "2022-03-22T09:38:29.561975Z",
        "meta_citation_author": 2,
        "meta_created_by": 1,
        "meta_lastupdated_by": 1,
        "linguistic_notion": [
            4
        ],
        "author": [
            22,
            37,
            15
        ],
        "linguistic_field": [
            2,
            1
        ]
    },
    {
        "id": 3,
        "name": "Periphrasis",
        "description": "<h3>1. Introduction</h3>\r\n<p>The term 'periphrasis' broadly refers to constructions in which a syntactic sequence of two (or more, at least in principle) words can be considered to represent the instantiation of a particular morphological form of a single lexeme. For example, in English the sequences <em>is playing</em> and <em>has played</em> can be considered to instantiate the present progressive and present perfect tenses, respectively, of the verb <em>play</em>, alongside the single-word simple present and past forms, respectively <em>plays</em> and <em>played</em>.</p>\r\n<p>Much recent work on periphrasis has adopted a fundamentally morphological approach to the phenomenon, often within a paradigmatic approach to the lexicon and morphological systems. Within such an approach, whenever a particular slot or set of slots in a morphological paradigm are filled by multiword sequences, we are dealing with periphrasis. An important question is then how to model this, given that we are dealing with single paradigm slots filled by (usually) two words, one of which words is usually identical with a word from a different morphological paradigm. For example, English <em>plays</em> unproblematically fills the paradigm slot of 3sg simple present for the verb <em>play</em>, and on some level or other this form can be treated as comprising the base form of the verb followed by a morpheme <em>-s</em>, which in English characterizes this particular paradigm slot. The 3sg present progressive <em>is playing</em>, on the other hand, involves not only a morphologically specific form of the lexical verb, <em>play-ing</em>, but also a form of a different verb, the 3sg simple present of <em>be</em>.</p>\r\n<p>Different ways of modelling this are conceivable. If one simply assumes that English present progressive paradigms come fully specified as two-word sequences, <em>am playing</em>, <em>are playing</em>, <em>is playing</em>, etc., then the clear identity relation between the first word of each sequence and the corresponding forms of the simple present of <em>be</em> cannot be captured: <em>is playing</em> fills the slot for 3sg present progressive of <em>play</em>, and <em>is</em> fills the slot for 3sg simple present of <em>be</em>, but there is no representation of the fact that the latter is a part of the former. Alternatively, then, one could assume that the slots of the English progressive paradigm are filled simply by the form <em>playing</em>, parallel therefore to the single words filling non-periphrastic slots of the wider verbal paradigm, but that these forms come with a strict requirement that a corresponding form from another paradigm (in this case the simple present of <em>be</em>) must co-occur with them.</p>\r\n<p>For further discussion of and references to work on periphrasis see Spencer (2006) and Lowe (2017).</p>\r\n\r\n<h3>2. Periphrasis in Sanskrit</h3>\r\n<p>The Sanskrit verbal system includes two formations which are traditionally (in the West) labelled 'periphrastic': the periphrastic future and the periphrastic perfect.</p>\r\n<p>The status of the periphrastic future is complex; it is argued not to be a true periphrasis by Lowe (2017). Historically, at least, the periphrastic future evidently derives from a collocation of an agent noun in &shy;&shy;<em>-tṛ</em> with an auxiliary form of the copula <em>as</em> 'be'. So, to the root <em>kṛ</em> 'do, make', the 1sg active periphrastic future, <em>kartāsmi</em>, is apparently simply derived from the sandhi of the nominative singular of the agent noun <em>kartṛ-</em> 'doer', i.e. <em>kartā&shy;</em>, with the 1sg. present of <em>as</em>, i.e. <em>asmi</em>: <em>kartā</em> + <em>asmi</em> &rarr; <em>kartāsmi</em>. However, other forms of the paradigm are less transparent. For example, first and second person dual and plural forms appear to show the <em>singular</em> of the agent noun, rather than dual or plural. So, 1pl. <em>kartāsmaḥ</em>, apparently from nom.sg. <em>kartā</em> + 1pl. <em>smaḥ</em>, rather than from nom.pl. <em>kartāraḥ </em>+ <em>smaḥ</em> as we might expect. In some forms of Sanskrit, however, in particular the language of the Sanskrit epics, unambiguous two-word sequences like <em>kartāraḥ smaḥ</em>, with expected number agreement, are found.</p>\r\n<p>Lowe (2017) shows that there are two 'dialects' of Sanskrit in regard to the treatment of the periphrastic future. In one, the periphrastic future is not necessarily anything more than a syntactic collocation of agent noun plus form of <em>as</em> 'be', and synthetic forms like <em>kartāsmaḥ</em> are never found. In contrast, in the other the periphrastic future is entirely non-periphrastic: it is a purely synthetic paradigm, with unambiguously two-word sequences like <em>kartāraḥ smaḥ</em> unattested. The Indian grammatical tradition, following Pāṇini, treats the periphrastic future in the latter manner, that is as an entirely synthetic, non-periphrastic, paradigm, and there is therefore nothing in its analysis which can speak to how the Indian grammatical tradition treated periphrasis.</p>\r\n<p>The periphrastic perfect is, by comparison, a remarkably clear case of inflectional periphrasis. The inherited synthetic perfect tense, due to the specific morphology of its formation, cannot be used with derived verbal stems (causatives, desideratives, intensives and denominatives) nor, for historical reasons, with a number of basic verbal roots. The periphrastic perfect fills this gap for these verbs / verbal stems; it is comprised of an invariant form of the lexical stem, ending in <em>-ām</em> (likely in origin accusative of an abstract noun), and an auxiliary, either the perfect of the root <em>kṛ</em> 'do, make' (exclusively in the earlier language), or the root <em>as </em>'be' (most commonly in the later language), or the root <em>bhū</em> 'become' (never in the earlier language, and rare later). For example, to the causative of the verb <em>gam</em> 'go', i.e. <em>gamaya-ti</em> 'makes go', the 3sg. perfect is <em>gamayāṃ cakāra</em> 'made go', where <em>cakāra</em> is 3sg perfect of <em>kṛ</em> 'do, make' (or alternatively <em>gamayām āsa</em> or <em>gamayāṃ babhūva</em>, mutatis mutandis). The periphrastic perfect shows a number of features which prove it cannot be treated as either a purely syntactic sequence (such as the fact that forms like <em>gamayām</em> have no independent existence), nor as a purely morphological sequence (since in early texts the two elements are sometimes found separated). It is therefore an ideal example of a true periphrasis. The periphrastic perfect is discussed further by Ozono (2016).</p>\r\n\r\n<h3>3. Periphrasis in the Aṣṭādhyāyī</h3>\r\n<p>As mentioned above, Pāṇini's <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī </em>shows no recognition that the so-called 'periphrastic future' has any periphrastic properties. In Pāṇini's system, the 'periphrastic future' is treated as a separate inflectional tense/mood formation with abstract marker <em>luṭ </em>(contrasting with present <em>laṭ</em>, aorist <em>luṅ</em>, etc.). The marker <em>luṭ</em> conditions the introduction of a suffix -<em>tās</em> (Aṣṭ 3.1.33), entirely parallel to the tense/mood markers of the unambiguously synthetic tenses and moods. The peculiarities of the inflectional endings of the periphrastic future, which reflect its origin in a collocation of agent noun plus copula, are treated by means of simple substitution rules (Aṣṭ 2.4.85, 7.4.50&mdash;52), in the same way that, for example, the endings specific to the perfect are derived by substitution of the 'basic' endings, and without any reference whatsoever to either the form of the agent noun in <em>-tṛ</em> or to any forms of the verb <em>as</em> 'be'.<a href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\">[1]</a> The only way in which the periphrastic future differs from any of the other synthetic tenses and moods, for Pāṇini, is that it does not behave like other finite verbs in losing its accent when non-initial in main clauses (Aṣṭ. 8.1.29). This historically reflects its origin in an expression containing a noun (which would not lose its accent in this context), but for Pāṇini is nothing more than an exception to the general rule for synthetic finite verbs.</p>\r\n<p>With the periphrastic perfect, the situation is different. Aṣṭ. 3.1.35&ndash;39 state the introduction of the suffix <em>-ām</em> after the relevant set of verbs / verbal stems when followed by the perfect marker <em>liṭ</em>. So for example:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(1)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        gamay + <em>liṭ</em> &rarr; gamay + ām + <em>liṭ</em>\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>Crucially, Aṣṭ 3.1.40 introduces the verb <em>kṛ</em> 'do, make' (Pāṇini's <em>kṛ&Ntilde;</em>) following this <em>ām</em>.<a href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\">[2]</a> The rule uses the word <em>anuprayujyate</em> 'is employed in addition after', which is here used to mark this use of <em>kṛ</em> as distinct from other ordinary uses of the verb. At Aṣṭ. 1.3.63 this 'additional employment' of <em>kṛ</em> is referred to using the associated noun, <em>anuprayoga</em>, ensuring that the scope of that rule applies only to <em>kṛ</em> used (in our terms) as an auxiliary in the periphrastic perfect, and not to <em>kṛ</em> in other contexts. This is the closest Pāṇini comes to an explicit recognition of periphrastic expression.</p>\r\n<p>This introduction of <em>kṛ</em> is specified as occurring <em>before liṭ</em>, which implies the introduction of the sequence <em>kṛ</em> + <em>liṭ</em>, which will produce the perfect forms of this verb. The <em>liṭ </em>which originally follows the lexical stem is deleted by Aṣṭ. 2.4.81. (The introduction of a new, and deletion of the old, <em>liṭ</em> is necessary to ensure the correct scope of further morphological operations, such as reduplication, conditioned by <em>liṭ</em>.) We therefore have the following derivation:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(2)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        gamay + ām + <em>liṭ</em> &rarr; gamay + ām + <em><span style=\"text-decoration: line-through;\">liṭ</span></em> + kṛ&Ntilde; + <em>liṭ</em>\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>Following the ordinary rules of suffixation, substitution and sandhi, this will produce a periphrastic form such as <em>gamayāṃ cakāra</em>. The processes which apply to derive the form of the auxiliary are exactly the same processes which apply to <em>kṛ</em> when used as a lexical verb. Aṣṭ. 1.3.63, mentioned above, is the only rule which distinguishes this auxiliary use of <em>kṛ</em>. It is an important rule for the periphrastic status of the construction, in that it specifies that the voice of <em>kṛ</em> when used in this construction depends on the voice requirements of the lexical verb. For example, the root <em>ās</em> 'sit' is a deponent verb, occurring only in the mediopassive voice. In the periphrastic perfect, this voice requirement is realised on the auxiliary: <em>āsāṃ cakre</em>, with 3sg. mediopassive perfect <em>cakre</em>, but never with active 3sg. <em>* āsāṃ cakāra</em>.</p>\r\n<p>In comparison with modern approaches to periphrasis, Pāṇini's treatment of the periphrastic perfect is similar to the approach sketched above, whereby the 'paradigmatic' form of the periphrastic perfect itself consists only of the form of the lexical stem itself, e.g. <em>gamayām</em>, but this comes with a collocation specification requiring the presence of the perfect of <em>kṛ</em>.</p>\r\n<p>It is not, however, clear whether Pāṇini intended to license any positional freedom for the two elements of the periphrastic perfect. The wording of Aṣṭ. 3.1.40 implies that the form of <em>kṛ</em> follows the suffix <em>ām</em>, and this is standardly interpreted as implying that it directly follows, i.e. that it is not possible for other words to intervene between the two forms. This understanding of the sense of <em>anuprayujyate</em> is first found in Kātyāyana. It is at least possible, however, that just as with the addition of <em>as </em>and <em>bhū</em> as auxiliaries this reflects not the original intention of Pāṇini, but the later grammar of the construction in Kātyāyana's form of the language. The matter requires further investigation.</p>\r\n\r\n<hr>\r\n\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\">[1]</a> The non-Pāṇinian <em>Kātantra</em> (K. 3.1.30) goes even further, treating the suffix+ending complexes of the periphrastic future as unsegmentable units, e.g. 2sg. <em>-</em><em>tāsi</em> in place of <em>-tās</em> + <em>-si</em> etc.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\" name=\"_ftn2\">[2]</a> Following Kātyāyana and Pata&ntilde;jali, the tradition takes Pāṇini's reference to the root <em>kṛ</em> in this case to include reference also to the roots <em>as</em> 'be' and <em>bhū</em> 'become'. The fact that they felt this was necessary shows that <em>as</em> and <em>bhū</em> were valid auxiliaries in the periphrastic perfect in their form of the language, but this does not necessarily mean that the same was the case for Pāṇini. The most likely explanation for Pāṇini's referring only to <em>kṛ</em> is that for him, as in the pre-Classical language more generally, this was the only possible auxiliary.</p>",
        "admin_notes": "",
        "admin_published": true,
        "meta_created_datetime": "2022-02-26T13:01:02.568130Z",
        "meta_lastupdated_datetime": "2022-03-24T10:53:27.567230Z",
        "meta_firstpublished_datetime": "2022-02-26T13:01:02.567226Z",
        "meta_citation_author": 2,
        "meta_created_by": 1,
        "meta_lastupdated_by": 1,
        "linguistic_notion": [],
        "author": [
            40,
            41,
            15
        ],
        "linguistic_field": [
            3,
            1
        ]
    },
    {
        "id": 1,
        "name": "Relative clauses",
        "description": "<h3>1. Introduction</h3>\r\n<p>Research on relative clauses in modern Western linguistics includes both more descriptive/typological angles such as distinguishing the different semantic and syntactic types of relative clause attested cross-linguistically, and more theoretical angles dealing with the formal syntactic and semantic analysis of relative clauses and their relation to the elements they modify and the matrix clauses they appear within. For a summary, see Nikolaeva (2006); for more detailed discussions see Alexiadou et al. (2000), de Vries (2002).</p>\r\n<p>Work on relative clauses in modern Western linguistics has been considerably influenced by the predominance of a particular relativization strategy in languages of the European linguistic area, in particular English. This strategy involves an embedded clause, which is syntactically subordinated to the head it modifies, and which contains, usually in first position, a relative pronoun coindexed with a gapped argument position in the embedded clause:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(1)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        The man who you thought I knew\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>In (1), the relative clause &lsquo;who you thought I knew&rsquo; is embedded within the noun phrase and subordinated to the head of the noun phrase, &lsquo;man&rsquo;. The relative pronoun &lsquo;who&rsquo; begins the relative clause, and is coindexed with the gapped object position of &lsquo;knew&rsquo;.</p>\r\n<p>As discussed by Comrie (1998), this relativization strategy is quite rare outside the European linguistic area, yet it has had a considerable influence on the development of analyses of relativization in modern Western linguistics, and on the analysis of other, typologically more common, relativization strategies.</p>\r\n\r\n\r\n<h3>2. Relativization in Sanskrit</h3>\r\n<p>In Sanskrit and other Indo-Aryan languages, the major relativization strategy is the relative-correlative construction. Correlatives are typologically rare, often limited to head-final languages (Downing 1973, Keenan 1985, de Vries 2002, Belyaev &amp; Haug 2020). In a relative-correlative construction, the relative clause contains a relative pronoun, and is adjoined at the left or right edge (in Sanskrit standardly the left) of the main clause, which usually contains a correlative pronoun; see (2).</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(2)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>[<sub>RC</sub></td>\r\n                <td><strong>yám</strong></td>\r\n                <td>u haivá</td>\r\n                <td>tát</td>\r\n                <td>paśávo</td>\r\n                <td>manuṣyéṣu</td>\r\n                <td><strong>kā́mam</strong></td>\r\n                <td>árohaṁs ]</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td>REL.ACC.SG.M</td>\r\n                <td>PTCL=very</td>\r\n                <td>then</td>\r\n                <td>cattle.NOM.PL.M</td>\r\n                <td>man.LOC.PL.M</td>\r\n                <td>desire.ACC.SG.M</td>\r\n                <td>obtain.IMPF.3PL</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n        </table>\r\n        <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>[<sub>MC</sub></td>\r\n                <td><strong>tám</strong></td>\r\n                <td>u haivá</td>\r\n                <td>paśúṣu</td>\r\n                <td><strong>kā́maṃ</strong></td>\r\n                <td>rohati ]</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td>CORREL.ACC.SG.M</td>\r\n                <td>PTCL=very</td>\r\n                <td>cattle.LOC.PL.M</td>\r\n                <td>desire.ACC.SG.M</td>\r\n                <td>obtain.PRS.3SG</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n        </table>\r\n        <p>\r\n            'What very desire the cattle then obtained among men, that very desire he (now) obtains among cattle.'<br>\r\n            (Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 2.1.2.7, cited by Hock 2011)\r\n        </p>\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>Sanskrit relative clauses are not embedded, but <em>conjoined</em> or <em>symmetrically adjoined</em> (Hock 1989, Davison 2009). Extensive work on the properties of correlative constructions has been undertaken on Hindi (e.g. Srivastav 1991, Bhatt 2003, among others).</p>\r\n<p>The differences in relativization patterns between Sanskrit and the European languages central to the development of modern linguistics are reflected in the rather different approach to analysing relative constructions found in the Indian tradition.</p>\r\n\r\n\r\n<h3>3. The <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> and the mainstream tradition</h3>\r\n<p>The analysis of relative clauses is not a central issue within the mainstream Indian linguistic tradition. Pāṇini&rsquo;s <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> does not explicitly treat any syntactic rules specific to the formation and use of relative clauses. In Sanskrit, finite verbs in relative clauses and certain other subordinate contexts are necessarily accented, in contrast to main clause verbs which are deaccented when non-initial. Yet even this morphophonological aspect is specified entirely formally, with reference to cooccurrence of forms of the relative pronoun (<em>yadvṛtta</em>, Aṣṭ. 8.1.66), rather than with reference to any functional properties of the clause. Similar is the specification of the optative mood for the verb in a specific semantic subset of subordinate clauses (Aṣṭ. 3.3.148-151).</p>\r\n<p>In defining the scope of the absolutives, Pāṇini does refer to some range of the function of relative clauses. The absolutives are specified for use in referring to an action which precedes the action of a following verb, and which has the same agent (<em>kartṛ</em>) (Aṣṭ. 3.4.21). But by Aṣṭ. 3.4.23 this is not the case when the prior action occurs in a clause with a form of the relative <em>yad</em>, unless there is another verb which effectively serves as the main predicate of the <em>yad</em> clause. In the absence of the absolutive suffixes, the verb form in the <em>yad</em> clause will be finite, and we will therefore have a relative clause. In other words, Pāṇini&rsquo;s specification for the absolutives shows that the scope of absolutives and relative clauses overlap in the case of reference to a prior event, e.g. &lsquo;having done this, he returned&rsquo; &asymp; &lsquo;when he had done this, he returned&rsquo;.</p>\r\n<p>While nothing more specific is said on finite relative clauses, Pāṇini does specify syntactic/semantic restrictions on the formation of present participial clauses (illustrated in 3), which can be thought of as a type of reduced relative clause.</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(3)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>[<sub>RC</sub></td>\r\n                <td><strong>Devadatta</strong></td>\r\n                <td>[ āsīnam</td>\r\n                <td>udyāne ]</td>\r\n                <td><strong>Yajñadattaṃ</strong></td>\r\n                <td>bravīti</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td>D.NOM.SG.M</td>\r\n                <td>sit.PTC.ACC.SG.M</td>\r\n                <td>garden</td>\r\n                <td>Y.ACC.PL.M</td>\r\n                <td>speak.PRS.3SG</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n        </table>\r\n        <p>\r\n            'Devadatta speaks to Yajñadatta (who is) sitting in the garden.'\r\n        </p>\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>Aṣṭ 3.2.124-126 specify the restrictions holding between the head of the relative clause and the participle, namely that the referent (&asymp;subject) of the participle is necessarily coreferent (<em>samānādhikaraṇa</em>) with an element in the sentence which is either non-nominative, in which case the participle may denote an event cotemporaneous with that of the main clause (as in 3), or, if the coreferent element is nominative, then there must be an additional semantic implication (such as cause) in the relation between the event denoted by the participle and that denoted by the main verb. For further details, see Lowe (2015: 329-335).</p>\r\n<p>More broadly, the Indian tradition did not draw the same distinction between main and subordinate clause as found in the Western tradition. Perhaps the most closely related notion is the contrast between <em>pradhāna-kriyā</em> &lsquo;predominant/primary verb/action&rsquo; and <em>guṇa-kriyā</em> &lsquo;qualifying verb/action&rsquo;, which might appear to represent a step towards distinguishing main from subordinate clauses, but in fact serves only to distinguish finite from non-finite clauses. Finite verbs are always <em>pradhāna-kriyā</em>; <em>guṇa-kriyā </em>is used only in relation to non-finite verb forms like absolutives and participles, whose subject positions are dependent on an argument from their matrix clause. The concept of <em>guṇa-kriyā</em> is therefore closer to modern notions of <em>control</em> in the broadest sense.</p>\r\n\r\n\r\n<h3>4. The Samanvaya tradition</h3>\r\n\r\n<p>In the <em>Samanvayadiś</em> and <em>Samanvayapradīpa</em> we find a more syntactically oriented discussion of relativization. Section 5 of the <em>Samanvayadiś</em> treats relations between clauses, and the treatment of relative clauses within this appears to be based on the assumption that there is no necessary hierarchical relationship between what in Western thought would be considered the main clause and the subordinate clause. This reflects the adjoined nature of relative clauses in Sanskrit. Rather, both clauses are self-contained, and in that sense independent, but they are connected due to a particular semantic relation existing between an element in each clause.</p>\r\n<p>Building on this assumption, the most basic or most complete means of expressing such a relation between clauses is when both clauses contain an explicit marker specifying the relation. The marker in one clause is the relative pronoun; the marker in the other is a corresponding demonstrative (correlative) pronoun. Thus, the relative-correlative structure (as in ex. 2) is taken to be the paradigm type of interclausal relations.</p>\r\n<p>In the relative-correlative case, the relation between the clauses is described as <em>śābda</em>, &lsquo;determined by the words&rsquo;, that is it is explicitly marked (<em>Samanvayadiś </em>5.1.1.1 [Slaje&rsquo;s numbering]). When at most one of the words expressing the connection between the clauses is present, we are dealing with relations which are <em>ārtha</em> &lsquo;determined by the meaning&rsquo;, that is contextually inferable but not explicit (SD 5.1.1.2).</p>\r\n<p>Logically, there are two possibilities: either the demonstrative pronoun or the relative pronoun is missing. In the former case, that is when a relative pronoun occurs in one clause, but there is no explicit demonstrative/correlative in the other, we are dealing with something more akin to the standard English-type relative clause. The <em>Samanvayadiś</em> distinguishes two subtypes of relative-only clausal connections. One is labelled <em>kalpita-karmādi-viṣaya</em> &lsquo;having as its range an inferred (demonstrative functioning as) patient or other grammatical role&rsquo; (SD 5.1.1.2.2), i.e. the relative is interpreted as being connected with a demonstrative pronoun which is inferred in a particular grammatical function. That is, in principle relative pronouns are understood as indicating a connection with another clause, a connection which can standardly only be picked up by a demonstrative pronoun in the other clause; in the absence of such a demonstrative, we infer an unexpressed demonstrative to pick up the connection with the relative. This first subtype refers to a relative-correlative structure in which the correlative is ellipsed or implied. For the following example, the <em>Samanvayapradīpasaṃketa</em> infers a correlative <em>sa</em> preceding <em>rākṣasendraḥ</em> in the main clause:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(4)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>[<sub>MC</sub></td>\r\n                <td>kathaṃ</td>\r\n                <td>rakṣyatāṃ</td>\r\n                <td>rāksasendraḥ ]</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td>how</td>\r\n                <td>protect.PS.IMP.3SG</td>\r\n                <td>R-lord.NOM.SG.M</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n        </table>\r\n        <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>[<sub>RC</sub></td>\r\n                <td>pāṇau</td>\r\n                <td>yasya...</td>\r\n                <td>candrahāsaḥ ]</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td>hand.LOC.SG</td>\r\n                <td>REL.GEN.SG.M</td>\r\n                <td>C.NOM.SG.M</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n        </table>\r\n        <p>\r\n            'How can the lord of the Rākṣasas be protected, (he) in whose hand is… (the sword) Candrahāsa?'<br>\r\n            (Bālarāmāyaṇa 9.25, cited by Hahn 2008, 217)\r\n        </p>\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>In the second subtype of clausal connection which involves only a relative pronoun, the relative is called <em>prakrānta-vastu-viṣaya</em> &lsquo;having as its range an object previously mentioned&rsquo; (SD 5.1.1.2.2). This is the familiar type of non-restrictive relative clause, where a relative clause functions as modifier to a noun whose reference is already fully specified in the context.<a href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\">[1]</a></p>\r\n<p>Alongside clausal connections which involve only the presence of a relative pronoun, the Samanvaya treatises set as parallel those clausal connections which involve only the presence of a demonstrative pronoun (SD 5.1.1.2.1). All uses of the demonstrative/anaphoric pronoun <em>tad</em> are categorized under this heading, including its use to refer to something outside the immediate linguistic context but in the shared world knowledge of the interlocutors. This takes us beyond the scope of relative clauses from the Western perspective into the scope of anaphora and pronominal reference, but from the perspective of the Samanvaya tradition, there is no fundamental difference between the two: both are means of indicating a semantic relation between two otherwise independent clauses, and both relate in parallel ways to the fully explicit means of indicating relations between two independent clauses, i.e. the relative-correlative construction.</p>\r\n<p>The typology of interclausal relations as understood in the Samanvaya tradition can be schematized in the following way:<a href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\">[2]</a></p>\r\n\r\n<img src=\"/static/images/researchdata/linguistic_notions/relative_clauses_1.png\" alt=\"Relative clauses diagram\">\r\n\r\n<p>The <em>Samanvaya</em> tradition also specifies a number of pragmatic constraints on acceptable usage of relative clauses, which go beyond the present scope. Similar and related observations on the use of relative clauses are found in <em>Alaṃkāraśāstra</em>, including in Mammaṭa&rsquo;s <em>Kāvyaprakāśa </em>and the <em>Vyaktiviveka</em>.</p>\r\n\r\n<hr>\r\n\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\">[1]</a> See Hahn (2008: 215-216). In Mammaṭa&rsquo;s <em>Kāvyaprakāśa</em>, (VII, fllg. v. 187) it is claimed that the relative pronoun <em>yad</em> can be used without the demonstrative only when it occurs in the later of two connected clauses (i.e. from our perspective when following the main clause), not in the earlier.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\" name=\"_ftn2\">[2]</a> This schematization is slightly simplified; a more complex categorization is put forward by Ruyyaka, commentator on Mahimabhaṭṭa&rsquo;s <em>Vyaktiviveka</em>, with additional mixed categories, as well as a category where neither relative nor demonstrative is explicit. See Hahn (2008: 58&mdash;71, esp. 68&mdash;69) for details.</p>",
        "admin_notes": "",
        "admin_published": true,
        "meta_created_datetime": "2021-06-23T10:02:15.687582+01:00",
        "meta_lastupdated_datetime": "2022-03-24T10:55:17.343270Z",
        "meta_firstpublished_datetime": "2021-06-23T10:02:15.687243+01:00",
        "meta_citation_author": 2,
        "meta_created_by": 3,
        "meta_lastupdated_by": 3,
        "linguistic_notion": [],
        "author": [
            4,
            5,
            9,
            25,
            15,
            10
        ],
        "linguistic_field": [
            2,
            1
        ]
    },
    {
        "id": 6,
        "name": "Subjecthood",
        "description": "<h3>1 Introduction</h3>\r\n<p>The notion 'subject' is an ancient one in the Western linguistic tradition, going back to at least Aristotle. In modern Western linguistics, the notion of 'subject' remains an important descriptive notion; in some theoretical approaches, grammatical relations like subject and object are derivative notions, definable in terms of e.g. phrase structural configuration; in others, subject and object remain basic categories of grammar. Going beyond theoretical distinctions, a wide array of crosslinguistic evidence shows that among the arguments of different types of predicates in most languages<a href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\">[1]</a> there is a privileged type of argument, a privileged argument position, which displays a set of distinctive, even unique, morphosyntactic properties in that language (e.g. Keenan 1976). Such properties include e.g. obligatoriness, particular case marking (e.g. nominative), particular syntactic position (e.g. Spec,TP), potential for deletion under coordination, ability to bind reflexive anaphors, etc., but differ somewhat between languages. However it is understood theoretically, recognizing this privileged argument role, the 'subject', is crucial in understanding and analyzing the many linguistic phenomena which depend on it.&nbsp;</p>\r\n<p>The Indian tradition, beginning with Pāṇini, is widely claimed to entirely lack the notion of 'subject' (e.g. Cardona 1974: 244&ndash;245). Kiparsky (2002) claims not only that the concepts of subject and object play no role in Pāṇini's grammar, but that in fact his grammar deals with some phenomena, e.g. agreement, the better for it. However, it has been argued by Keidan (2017) that the lack of the notion of subject in Pāṇinian grammar has been overstated, and that the later tradition, at least, does move towards a notion similar to the Western notion 'subject'.</p>\r\n<h3>2 The <em>kartṛ</em></h3>\r\n<p>The relevant notion in the Indian tradition is the <em>kāraka</em> relation <em>kartṛ</em>. For a more general introduction to the kārakas, <em>kartṛ</em>, and argument structure in the Indian tradition, see entry <a href=\"/data/browse/linguisticnotions/4/\">'Argument structure'</a>. The term <em>kartṛ</em> is often translated as 'agent'. As shown <a href=\"/data/browse/linguisticnotions/4/\">'Argument structure'</a>, the kāraka relations such as <em>kartṛ</em> are similar, but not identical, to the semantic roles of the Western tradition. The kārakas are not semantic, but grammatical categories, which mediate between semantics and the morphosyntactic realization of argument relations. Nevertheless, in textbook examples the <em>kartṛ</em> is equivalent to the notion of agent:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(1)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>devadatta</td>\r\n                <td>odanaṃ</td>\r\n                <td>pacati</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>D.NOM</td>\r\n                <td>rice.ACC</td>\r\n                <td>cook.PRES.3SG</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n        </table>\r\n        'Devadatta cooks the rice.'\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(2)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>devadattena</td>\r\n                <td>odanaḥ</td>\r\n                <td>pacyate</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>D.INS</td>\r\n                <td>rice.NOM</td>\r\n                <td>cook.PASS.PRES.3SG</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n        </table>\r\n        'The rice is cooked by Devadatta.'\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>In the derivation of both (1) and (2), Devadatta is assigned the role of <em>kartṛ</em>. In active sentences like (1), the <em>kartṛ</em> gets nominative case. In passive sentences like (2), the <em>kartṛ</em> appears in the instrumental case, while the <em>karman</em> (&asymp; logical object) appears in the nominative.</p>\r\n<p>Pāṇini's own semantic definition of <em>kartṛ</em> is usually interpreted as referring to an independent agent or actor:<a href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\">[2]</a></p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(3)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        Aṣṭ. 1.4.54: <em>svatantraḥ kartā</em> 'The term <em>kartṛ</em> denotes the independent actor.'\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>However, this implication of agency appears not always to work. For example, if one is talking about cutting with an axe, one might ordinarily say:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(4)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>devadattaḥ</td>\r\n                <td>paraśunā</td>\r\n                <td>chinatti.</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>D.NOM</td>\r\n                <td>axe.INSTR.SG</td>\r\n                <td>cut.PRES.3SG</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n        </table>\r\n        'Devadatta cuts with an axe.'\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>An axe is an instrument of cutting, in Pāṇinian terms the 'most effective means', designated <em>karaṇa</em>, while the <em>kartṛ</em>, understood as the independent agent, is the human, Devadatta. But it is also possible to say:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(5)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>paraśuś</td>\r\n                <td>chinatti.</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>axe.NOM.SG</td>\r\n                <td>cut.PRES.3SG</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n        </table>\r\n        'The axe cuts.'\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>Here, since it receives nominative case and the verb is active, the axe must be the <em>kartṛ</em>. Yet for an axe to cut there must be a human agent wielding it, and in any act of cutting the axe remains the instrument, the <em>karaṇa</em>. The tradition explains this partly by recourse to the perspective or scope of the expression, and partly to speaker intention: it is possible to restrict one's perspective, or the scope of an expression, to a sub-part of an event; in this case, if we exclude the human agent from consideration, a speaker may wish to speak of the axe as the independent argument, that is as the argument whose participation in the event is not dependent on another expressed argument. (The axe in any case retains the semantic properties associated with the label <em>karaṇa</em>, but since only one label can apply and since <em>kartṛ</em> is defined later in the grammar, only the label <em>kartṛ</em> will apply. See <a href=\"/data/browse/linguisticnotions/4/\">'Argument structure'</a>.)</p>\r\n<p>The notion of sub-parts of events leads to the notion of primary and subsidiary <em>kartṛs</em>. For example, the verb <em>cook</em> denotes the full sequence of situations involved in an act of cooking, from the mental effort of the agent, the putting the pot on the stove, putting water and grain in it, setting the fire, heating, etc. Besides referring to the composite as a whole, the verb can also refer to constituent parts. These constituent parts can be considered as having their own sets of arguments and hence kāraka relations. The composite/principal situation is the <em>pradhāna-kriyā</em>, and its <em>kartṛ</em> is the <em>pradhāna-kartṛ</em>, while each subsidiary situation, <em>guṇa-kriyā</em>, has a subsidiary agent, <em>guṇa-kartṛ</em>. So while in (5) there is still a human agent who is the <em>pradhāna-kartṛ</em> of the overall event of cutting, the agent of the subsidiary event of, say, the axe-blade moving through a piece of wood at speed, is the axe.</p>\r\n<p>In any case, we must reckon with uses of <em>kartṛ</em> which do not correspond to the notion of 'agent'. In fact, in active sentences there must be a <em>kartṛ</em>, and that <em>kartṛ</em> must appear in the nominative case, when expressed. In this sense, then, the <em>kartṛ</em> is more like the subject of an active verb, or 'logical subject', than specifically an agent.</p>\r\n<p>In terms of the possible scope of the term <em>kartṛ</em>, a complex but highly relevant construction is the so-called <em>karmakartṛ</em> construction, which corresponds to a type of fientive construction with theme subject. Consider the following sentences:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(6)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>a.</td>\r\n                <td>odanaḥ</td>\r\n                <td>pacyate</td>\r\n                <td>svayam</td>\r\n                <td>eva</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td>rice.NOM</td>\r\n                <td>cook.PASS.PRES.3SG</td>\r\n                <td>self</td>\r\n                <td>EMPH</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td colspan=\"2\">'The rice is cooked by Devadatta.'</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>b.</td>\r\n                <td>bhidyate</td>\r\n                <td>kāṣṭhaṃ</td>\r\n                <td>svayam</td>\r\n                <td>eva</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td>break.PASS.PRES.3SG</td>\r\n                <td>wood.NOM</td>\r\n                <td>self</td>\r\n                <td>EMPH</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td colspan=\"2\">'The wood splits itself.'</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n        </table>\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>(6a) looks superficially like a passive of (1), equivalent to (2) but without the explicit oblique agent. Similarly, (6b) looks like a passive of an active sentence such as <em>Devadattaḥ kāṣṭhaṃ bhinatti</em> 'D. breaks the wood.' However, this similarity is only apparent. It is not that the animate agent of the action is unexpressed; rather, there is no animate agent in the scope of the expression. Importantly, despite the passive morphology on the verb, the nominative arguments in (6) do not have the kāraka label <em>karman</em>, but <em>kartṛ</em>. This is licensed by Pāṇini in the following rule:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(7)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        Aṣṭ. 3.1.87: <em>karmavat karmaṇā tulyakriyaḥ (kartṛ)</em> 'A <em>kartṛ</em> which functions in relation to the action like a <em>karman</em> is treated like a <em>karman</em>.'\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>This rule refers to a <em>kartṛ</em> which is <em>karmaṇā tulyakriyaḥ</em> 'whose relation to the event is equivalent/comparable (<em>tulya</em>) to that of a <em>karman.</em>' With reference to the examples in (6), the rice and the wood are <em>kartṛ</em>s, even though their semantic relation to the events of cooking and breaking are that of a theme/patient, which would ordinarily be labelled as <em>karman</em>. By this rule, these <em>kartṛ</em>s are treated like <em>karman</em>s, resulting in the passive morphology on the verbs. That these arguments are in fact <em>kartṛ</em>s is clear from the fact that it is possible to say:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(8)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>kāṣṭhena</td>\r\n                <td>bhinnaṃ</td>\r\n                <td>svayam</td>\r\n                <td>eva</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>wood.INS</td>\r\n                <td>break.PST.PTC.NOM.SG.NT</td>\r\n                <td>self</td>\r\n                <td>EMPH</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n        </table>\r\n        'The wood split itself.'\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>Here the instrumental marking on the noun can only be explained if the noun has the label <em>kartṛ</em>.</p>\r\n<p>Initially, the <em>karmakartṛ</em> construction looks parallel to the case of the axe, discussed above: an argument with properties consistent with a 'lower' kāraka role gets the label <em>kartṛ</em> in the absence of an explicit human <em>kartṛ</em> in the scope of the expression. So just as the <em>karaṇa</em> 'axe' in (4) is labelled <em>kartṛ</em> in (5), so the <em>karman</em> of (1) becomes the <em>kartṛ</em> in (6a). However, this parallelism is only apparent. The construction illustrated in (6) and (8) is restricted by the tradition to a very specific semantic context: where the action of the verb comes about easily as a result of some particular property or properties of the argument in question. That is, (6a) means that the rice grains cook easily, more easily than normal, due to some quality of these particular grains; likewise with the splitting of the wood in (6b) and (8). This is close to the so-called 'middle construction' in English (Davidse &amp; Heyvaert 2007).</p>\r\n<p>Crucially, it is due to the particular property which facilitates the action of the verb that the argument in question is conceived of as a <em>kartṛ</em>. That is, we are not here dealing with a situation in which an argument with properties of one kāraka gets the label <em>kartṛ</em> merely because there is no other <em>kartṛ</em> in the scope of the expression. Rather, because of the specific semantics of the expression, an argument which in other contexts with the same verb would be treated as a <em>karman</em>, and which retains the same properties which justify that <em>karman</em> label, in this particular context is conceived as having the <em>kartṛ</em>-like, agent-like, property of independently causing (or at least, facilitating) the action of the verb.</p>\r\n<p>The <em>karmakartṛ</em> construction does not therefore mean that <em>karman</em>s can freely be given the label <em>kartṛ</em>, in the absence of a more appropriate potential <em>kartṛ</em>. For Pāṇini, it may have been the case that only with verbs which could participate in the <em>karmakartṛ</em> construction could a <em>karman</em> be potentially treated as a <em>kartṛ</em>. But for the later tradition, this freedom is granted to potentially any transitive verb. The <em>karmakartṛ</em> construction itself is restricted to two classes of verb, <em>karmasthakriyaka</em> and <em>karmasthabhāvaka</em>, verb classes in which the action or state expressed by the verb is conceived primarily in relation to the <em>karman</em>. This includes the verbs <em>pac</em> 'cook' and <em>bhid</em> 'split', but does not include <em>gam</em> 'go', where the action of the verb resides primarily in the <em>kartṛ</em>, the goer. For the later tradition, verbs like <em>gam</em> 'go' can still be used as intransitives expressing the 'ease' of a particular activity (9b), only they do not adopt the passive morphology characteristic of the <em>karmakartṛ</em> construction (9c):<a href=\"#_ftn3\" name=\"_ftnref3\">[3]</a></p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(9)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>a.</td>\r\n                <td>Devadatto</td>\r\n                <td>grāmam</td>\r\n                <td>gacchati</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td>D.NOM</td>\r\n                <td>village.ACC</td>\r\n                <td>go.ACT.PRES.3SG</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td colspan=\"2\">'Devadatta goes to the village.'</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>b.</td>\r\n                <td>grāmo</td>\r\n                <td>gacchati</td>\r\n                <td>svayam</td>\r\n                <td>eva</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td>village.NOM</td>\r\n                <td>go.ACT.PRES.3SG</td>\r\n                <td>self</td>\r\n                <td>EMPH</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td colspan=\"2\">'The village is easily gone to.'</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>c.</td>\r\n                <td>*grāmo</td>\r\n                <td>gamyate</td>\r\n                <td>svayam</td>\r\n                <td>eva</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td>village.NOM</td>\r\n                <td>go.PASS.PRES.3SG</td>\r\n                <td>self</td>\r\n                <td>EMPH</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td colspan=\"2\">(Intended: 'The village is easily gone to.'')</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n        </table>\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>What is important is that (b) cannot mean merely 'the village is gone to', without the further implication of ease due to some inherent property of the village. In fact, the apparent freedom for non-<em>kartṛ</em>s to get the label <em>kartṛ</em>, exemplified by the sentences in (4)-(5) above, is even further restricted. The tradition focuses on cases where this is possible, such as verbs of cutting, which can be construed with the instrument as the highest semantic argument in the scope of the expression. But this is certainly not possible with all verbs, or with all kārakas. For example, if one does not express the agent (<em>kartṛ</em>) of a verb of giving, one cannot simply reclassify the beneficiary (<em>saṃpradāna</em>) as <em>kartṛ</em>. Likewise with a verb of fearing, it is not possible to express the source of fear (<em>apādāna</em>) as the <em>kartṛ</em>:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(10)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>a.</td>\r\n                <td>devadatto</td>\r\n                <td>yajñadattāya</td>\r\n                <td>dadāti</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td>D.NOM</td>\r\n                <td>Y.DAT</td>\r\n                <td>give.PRES.3SG</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td colspan=\"2\">'Devadatta gives to Yajñadatta.'</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>b.</td>\r\n                <td>yajñadatto</td>\r\n                <td>dadāti</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td>Y.NOM</td>\r\n                <td>give.PRES.3SG</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td colspan=\"2\">'Yajñadatta gives.' (Cannot mean 'Yajñadatta is given (something).')</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n        </table>\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(11)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>a.</td>\r\n                <td>devadatto</td>\r\n                <td>yajñadattād</td>\r\n                <td>bibheti</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td>D.NOM</td>\r\n                <td>Y.ABL</td>\r\n                <td>fear.PRES.3SG</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td colspan=\"2\">'Devadatta fears Yajñadatta.'</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td>b.</td>\r\n                <td>yajñadatto</td>\r\n                <td>bibheti</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td>Y.NOM</td>\r\n                <td>fear.PRES.3SG</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n            <tr>\r\n                <td></td>\r\n                <td colspan=\"2\">'Yajñadatta fears.' (Cannot mean 'Yajñadatta is a source of fear.')</td>\r\n            </tr>\r\n        </table>\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>These restrictions are first discussed in the <em>Mahābhāṣya</em> on <em>Aṣṭ.</em> 1.4.23, and later e.g. by Helārāja in his <em>Prakīrṇaprakāśa</em> on <em>Vākyapadīya</em> 3.7.21.</p>\r\n<p>Is there anything in modern linguistic approaches to which the notion of <em>kartṛ</em> is equivalent? Undoubtedly, the use of the term <em>kartṛ</em> goes beyond an association with a notion of 'agent' specifically. The <em>kartṛ</em> is also not equivalent to the Western notion of <em>subject</em>; descriptively it is close to the logical subject or active subject, since the grammatical subject of every active verb is a <em>kartṛ</em>.</p>\r\n<p>It has been recognized by some authors that the Western notion of <em>subject</em> is a composite, a conflation of more than one relation or function. For Bhat (1991), those notions are 'topic' and 'agent'; for Falk (2006) those notions are pivot, somewhat equivalent to 'topic' and GF<img src=\"/static/images/researchdata/linguistic_notions/circumflex-2.png\" alt=\"circumflex\" class=\"circumflex\" style=\"width: 25px; height: inherit; position: relative; display: inline-block; margin: -24px 0 0 -24px;\">, the highest available grammatical function. Keidan (2017) relates the non-agent uses of <em>kartṛ</em> to Bhat's notion of 'topic', and suggests that <em>kartṛ</em>, like <em>subject</em>, is at least partially a conflation of the notions of topic and agent. But this is not quite satisfactory for a number of reasons, in particular since the subject of a passive (necessarily a <em>karman</em>) can display 'topic' properties.</p>\r\n<p>Rather, <em>kartṛ</em> is best understood as the grammatical instantiation of &theta;<img src=\"/static/images/researchdata/linguistic_notions/circumflex-1.png\" alt=\"circumflex\" class=\"circumflex\" style=\"width: 7px; height: inherit; position: relative; display: inline-block; margin: -24px 0 0 -9px;\">, the argument of a predicate which is highest on the semantic role hierarchy. (Within a 'proto-Role' approach like that of Dowty 1991, this would be the most proto-Agentive argument.) Thus it instantiates the agent, when an agent is present, but it may correspond to other semantic roles, in the absence of a higher role &ndash; and may override the instantiation of other semantic roles. By default, the highest semantic role is realised as the subject in active sentences, hence the association of <em>kartṛ</em> with both the active subject and the agent.</p>\r\n<p>However, the association of the highest available semantic role with <em>kartṛ</em> is not free, but depends on the lexical properties of the verb. The tradition focuses on cases where this is possible, such as verbs of cutting, which can be construed with the instrument as the highest semantic argument in the scope of the expression. But the possibility is in fact highly restricted. Given what we have seen above, we can propose two constraints which may account for most or all of the restrictions seen:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n    <label>(12)</label>\r\n    <div class=\"content\">\r\n        a. A patient/theme (→karman) with no agentive properties in context cannot get the label kartṛ.<br>\r\n        b. An argument which qualifies for a 'lower' kāraka label cannot get the label kartṛ if it could be misinterpreted as having the properties of an agent.\r\n    </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>(12b) explains why the axe can be a <em>kartṛ</em> in (5) but Yaj&ntilde;adatta cannot in (10b) or (11b). Because the axe is inanimate, its role in the action cannot be misinterpreted.</p>\r\n<p><strong>The Philosophical traditions</strong></p>\r\n<p>According to the tradition of Vyākaraṇa, as seen above, it is possible for non-animate entities to be <em>kartṛ</em>s. For the grammarians, this is a practical solution to the reality of argument realization in Sanskrit, and has no necessary philosophical implications.</p>\r\n<p>The traditions of Nyāya and Mīmāṃsā show more concern for identifying the true nature of <em>kartṛ</em>-hood, and of action in general. For the grammarians, the active finite verb endings designate the <em>kartṛ</em>, as discussed in <a href=\"/data/browse/linguisticnotions/4/\">'Argument structure'</a>. But for the Naiyāyikas (the philosophers of the Nyāya tradition), the active finite verbal endings denote <em>kṛti</em>, literally 'activity'. For the Naiyāyikas, every effect is ultimately the result of conscious activity on the part of an animate agent. Thus active finite verb endings denote conscious activity, and the <em>kartṛ</em>, which appears in the nominative in active sentences, is necessarily conscious and animate. This causes a problem for sentences like 'the axe cuts', or the common example <em>ratho gacchati</em> 'the chariot goes'. For the grammarians there is no problem in classifying an axe or a chariot as a <em>kartṛ</em>. But for the Naiyāyikas this is impossible; instead, they must have recourse to <em>lakṣaṇā</em> 'implication': since we cannot interpret an inanimate entity as <em>kartṛ</em>, we recognize that this cannot have been the intended meaning, and we infer the correct relation of the entity concerned to the verb concerned. Thus for the Naiyāyikas, inanimate entities are never classified as <em>kartṛ</em>, and the concept of <em>kartṛ</em> is correspondingly restricted to animate entities.</p>\r\n<p>The Mīmāṃsā viewpoint is for the most part equivalent to that of the Naiyāyikas, except that some schools of Mīmāṃsā widen the conception of 'activity' (for them, <em>bhāvanā</em> 'bringing into being') to include non-conscious activity, thus allowing for <em>kartṛ</em> to apply to inanimate entities, as in Vyākaraṇa. For further discussion see Joshi (1960).</p>\r\n\r\n<hr>\r\n\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\">[1]</a> Syntactically ergative and Philippine-type languages show two privileged positions with different properties corresponding to the types of properties typical of subjects in nominative-accusative languages. See Falk (2006) for discussion and analysis in relation to the notion 'subject'.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\" name=\"_ftn2\">[2]</a> The later tradition understands <em>kartṛ</em> in terms of their theory of verbal denotation: the <em>kartṛ </em>is the substratum (roughly, the locus) of the activity or action (<em>vyāpāra</em>/<em>kriyā</em>) which is part of the denotation of every verb.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref3\" name=\"_ftn3\">[3]</a> Ex. (9b) may seem fanciful to a reader with any decent knowledge of Sanskrit, but it is clearly licensed by the later grammarians, e.g. by Bhaṭṭojidīkṣita, <em>Siddhāntakaumudī</em> on Aṣṭ. 3.1.87.</p>",
        "admin_notes": "",
        "admin_published": true,
        "meta_created_datetime": "2022-03-22T09:38:52.280481Z",
        "meta_lastupdated_datetime": "2022-03-24T10:59:51.889316Z",
        "meta_firstpublished_datetime": "2022-03-22T09:38:52.280153Z",
        "meta_citation_author": 2,
        "meta_created_by": 1,
        "meta_lastupdated_by": 1,
        "linguistic_notion": [
            4
        ],
        "author": [
            29,
            19,
            15
        ],
        "linguistic_field": [
            2,
            1
        ]
    },
    {
        "id": 2,
        "name": "Suppletion",
        "description": "<h3>1. Introduction</h3>\r\n<p>Although its original reference is to the diachronic process by which two previously unrelated words or word stems come to be associated, resulting in a new, mixed paradigm (Boyé 2006), the term <em>suppletion</em> now more generally refers, in modern Western linguistics, to a synchronic alternation, a type of allomorphy in which the relation between allomorphs is not synchronically derivable. The English alternation between <em>go</em> and <em>went</em> is a well-known example.</p>\r\n<p>In talking about suppletion, the focus is generally on stem suppletion: two or more synchronically unrelated stems form the basis of different parts of an inflectional paradigm, while suffixation is (usually) not directly affected. In principle, it would be possible to consider affix allomorphy (whether inflectional or derivational) in terms of suppletion. But since affix allomorphy rarely involves synchronically relatable affixes, this would almost completely subsume the notion of affix allomorphy under suppletion. In some cases, it may be necessary to treat full words as suppletive, where it is not possible, or would be unduly complicated, to decompose a form into suppletive stem and regular affix; Boyé (2006) calls this &ldquo;inflectional form suppletion&rdquo;. Suppletion is usually an inflectional phenomenon, but can feed into derivational formations, as in Latin <em>lator</em> based on the suppletive stem <em>lat-</em> of the verb <em>ferre</em> &lsquo;bear&rsquo;.</p>\r\n<p>There is of course a gradient between &lsquo;regular&rsquo; morphological relations and unambiguously suppletive relations. At the one end we have allomorphs which are synchronically relatable by means of productive phonological rules (such as noun stems ending in voiced vs. unvoiced stop in German: <em>Tag</em> [tak] vs. <em>Tage</em> [tag-]), at the other end allomorphs which share no relatable phonological content (like English <em>go</em> vs.<em> went</em>). There are a variety of different approaches for where to draw the line in terms of which alternations should be derived by phonological rules, and which treated as suppletion.</p>\r\n<p>For a summary of issues in suppletion see Boyé (2006). For more detailed treatments see e.g. Dressler (1985), Mel&rsquo;čuk (1994), Veselinova (2006), Corbett (2007).</p>\r\n\r\n\r\n<h3>2. The Indian tradition</h3>\r\n<p>The ancient Indian tradition does not have a term or concept precisely equivalent to <em>suppletion</em>, but its approach to suppletive and suppletive-like phenomena reveals a number of interesting comparisons with Western thought. First and foremost, all phenomena which would be considered instances of suppletion are treated, in the Indian tradition, in terms of substitution (<em>ādeśa</em>).<a href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\">[1]</a> Substitution is one of the most important processes in Indian generative analysis, the means by which all allomorphy, and much allophony, is accounted for (including alternations of the German <em>Tag&ndash;Tage</em> type: Pāṇini would simply substitute [k] for [g] in the relevant forms).</p>\r\n<p>Pāṇini&rsquo;s <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī </em>provides no discussion of any conceptual difference between suppletion and other types of stem modification. There is, though, a practical distinction between stem modification (usually involving some kind of phonological substitution) which preserves some part of an original root, and stem modification in which an entire stem is replaced. For example, in the derivation of the present stems of the root <em>kṛ</em> &lsquo;do, make&rsquo;, namely <em>karo-</em> and <em>kuru-/kurv-</em>, the largely predictable morphophonological alternations are dealt with by means of substitution rules which have general application beyond merely this verb and these stems. For example, the vowel gradation which produces the root form <em>kar</em> (&lsquo;guṇa grade&rsquo;) from <em>kṛ</em> is a general process found across the language, constrained by morphological criteria and obeying regular phonological principles. It is specified by means of a substitution rule targeting the vowel of roots in the affected contexts (Aṣṭ. 7.3.84).<a href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\">[2]</a> Ultimately, these stem forms can be derived by means of generalizable rules involving common processes of stem modification such as suffixation and vowel gradation, formalized in terms of substitution. But crucially, at no point is the root as a whole (in whatever form) subject to substitution: the <em>k</em> of <em>kṛ</em> is never replaced, and thus in some real sense the stems <em>karo-</em> and <em>kuru-/kurv-</em> are modified forms of <em>kṛ</em>.</p>\r\n<p>In contrast, the suppletive stem <em>vadha-</em> to the root (and stem) <em>han</em> &lsquo;strike, slay&rsquo; is specified as a substitute for the root in its entirety in the relevant context (A. 2.4.42&ndash;44). As there is no generalization possible regarding the form alternation between <em>han</em> and <em>vadha</em>-, full substitution is the only option.</p>\r\n<p>However, full substitution of a root/stem is also employed in cases where there are obvious phonological similarities between stems. For example, Aṣṭ. 7.3.78&ndash;9 specifies a series of stem substitutions:</p>\r\n<ul>\r\n<li><em>pā</em> &gt; <em>piba-</em></li>\r\n<li><em>ghrā</em> &gt; <em>jighra-</em></li>\r\n<li><em>dhmā</em> &gt; <em>dhama-</em></li>\r\n<li><em>sthā</em> &gt; <em>tiṣṭha-</em></li>\r\n<li><em>mnā</em> &gt; <em>mana-</em></li>\r\n<li><em>dā</em> &gt; <em>yaccha-</em></li>\r\n<li><em>dṛś</em> &gt; <em>paśya-</em></li>\r\n<li><em>ṛ</em> &gt; <em>ṛccha</em>-</li>\r\n<li><em>sṛ</em> &gt; <em>dhāv</em>-</li>\r\n<li><em>śad</em> &gt; <em>śīya</em>-</li>\r\n<li><em>sad</em> &gt; <em>sīda</em>-</li>\r\n<li><em>j&ntilde;ā</em> &gt; <em>jā</em>-</li>\r\n<li><em>jan</em> &gt; <em>jā</em>-</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p>In some of these cases, we are dealing with fully suppletive stem alternants, i.e. stem alternants with no phonological similarity or relationship, as in <em>dṛś&ndash;paśya</em>. &nbsp;In other cases, a morphophonological relation between the root and the substitute is evident; for example, <em>ghrā&ndash;jighra</em> and <em>sthā&ndash;tiṣṭha</em> involve reduplication (as do <em>pā&ndash;piba </em>and <em>sad&ndash;sīda</em>, though more opaquely). Yet no distinction is made between these and cases like <em>dṛś&ndash;paśya</em>. It would certainly have been possible to frame a rule which derived, for example, <em>tiṣṭha-</em> from <em>sthā</em> and <em>jighra-</em> from <em>ghrā</em> (and perhaps most easily, <em>ṛccha-</em> from <em>ṛ</em>, simply by suffixation). Pāṇini&rsquo;s method here appears to be based on the principle of concision, rather than any conceptual notion of the degree of relation one stem bears to another. This is illustrated by the preceding rule, Aṣṭ. 7.3.77, which provides a contrast to 78-9: this rule takes the roots <em>iṣ</em>, <em>gam</em> and <em>yam</em>, and produces the stems <em>iccha-</em>, <em>gaccha-</em>, and <em>yaccha-</em> (instances of partial suppletion); it does this by substituting the final segments of these roots with <em>ccha</em>, rather than by substituting the roots in full. In this case the morphophonological relation is recognized, because it enables the same alternation to be specified for three roots in one concise statement, more concisely than if the three substitute stems were to be given in full in the grammar.<a href=\"#_ftn3\" name=\"_ftnref3\">[3]</a></p>\r\n<p>A particularly striking case is found in Aṣṭ. 2.4.41: the root <em>ve&Ntilde;</em> [ve-] &lsquo;weave&rsquo; is optionally substituted in full by what is superficially its sandhi variant <em>vay</em> [vay-], that is by a form which ought to be derivable from the base form of the root by fully productive and predictable phonological rules. The reason for this substitution is to prevent in the relevant contexts a further more general substitution which would apply to the unsubstituted vowel of <em>ve&Ntilde;</em> to produce a stem <em>vā</em>-. The somewhat unintuitive outcome is that resulting words which contain forms of the root most phonologically close to the original root form (e.g. the perfect tense <em>uvāya</em>) derive from the substituted root, while those which contain root forms phonologically more distant from the original (e.g. the alternative perfect tense, <em>vavau</em>) do not involve full root substitution and thus preserve unsubstituted the first segment of the root.</p>\r\n<p>One important point of dichotomy in the full root substitutions in the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> is their location in the grammar. Certain substitutions, including <em>han&ndash;vadha</em> and <em>ve&Ntilde;&ndash;vay</em>, occur early in the grammar (in book 2 of 8), and these substitutions can feed later suffixation processes. Other substitutions are specified later, such as those in 7.3.78&ndash;79 discussed above; these substitutions do not feed other morphological processes, but are purely formal stem variants. For example, substitutions specified in book 2 may feed derivational morphology, such as the substitution of the copula <em>as</em> &lsquo;be&rsquo; with <em>bhū</em>, which licenses derivational forms to this suppletive stem such as <em>bhavitavyam</em>, <em>bhavitṛ</em>. In contrast, no derivation is possible from stems like <em>tiṣṭha-</em>.</p>\r\n<p>As discussed, suffix alternations are also treated in terms of full or partial substitution. In some cases fully suppletive words or even paradigms are produced by concomitant root and suffix substitution. Aṣṭ. 3.4.84 specifies the optional replacement of the root <em>brū</em> &lsquo;speak, say&rsquo; with the stem <em>āh-</em>, together with concomitant replacement of present tense verbal affixes with (formally) perfect tense affixes, to produce forms such as 3sg. <em>āh-a</em>, 3pl. <em>āh-uḥ</em> &lsquo;says&rsquo; as alternatives for <em>brav-īti</em>, <em>bruv-anti</em> &lsquo;says&rsquo;. In rare cases, whole words are substituted in their entirety, where no morphological segmentation of the resulting form is either possible or profitable. This is the case with the enclitic forms of the personal pronouns (Aṣṭ. 8.1.20-23), e.g. 2du. acc./dat./gen. <em>vām</em> replaces the whole of the basic forms <em>yuvām</em>/<em>yuvā-bhyām</em>/<em>yuva-yoḥ</em>.</p>\r\n<p>A further important point is the centrality of meaning to Pāṇini&rsquo;s procedure, which stands alongside concision as one of the core driving features of his analysis. Returning to <em>āha</em>: is this really an instance of suppletion, given that it is optional? Or is optional suppletion merely synonymy? In terms of a paradigmatic morphology, there is no slot in the paradigm of <em>brū</em> which <em>āha</em> fills, or at least, its slot is already filled by <em>bravīti</em>. For Pāṇini the rationale is driven by meaning: <em>āha</em> is synonymous with <em>bravīti</em>, and it is only on this basis that one can be treated as a substitute for the other.&nbsp; Similarly, the comparative <em>śreyas</em> &lsquo;better&rsquo; and superlative <em>śreṣṭha</em> &lsquo;best&rsquo; are not derived, as historically appropriate and phonologically possible, from the word <em>śrī </em>&lsquo;radiant, holy&rsquo;, but from the historically unrelated, and phonologically more distant, adjective <em>praśasya</em> &lsquo;good, praiseworthy&rsquo; (Aṣṭ 5.3.60). The rationale is entirely semantic: Pāṇini cannot treat <em>śreyas</em> and <em>śreṣṭha</em> as comparative and superlative of <em>śrī</em>, despite their evident connection, because they no longer function semantically as regular comparative and superlative of this word. Rather, their meanings are effectively comparative and superlative of the meaning of <em>praśasya</em>, so Pāṇini treats them as derived from this adjective.</p>\r\n<p>Further on the linguistic reality of verbal suppletion in Sanskrit, and its relation to the full verb stem substitutions specified by Pāṇini, see Deshpande (1992).</p>\r\n\r\n<hr>\r\n\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\">[1]</a> The use of the term <em>ādeśa</em> to mean &lsquo;substitute, substitution&rsquo; is a feature of the Pāṇinian grammatical tradition, but this was not, as argued by Acharya (2017), Pāṇini&rsquo;s own use of the term.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\" name=\"_ftn2\">[2]</a> By Aṣṭ. 7.3.84 (together with 1.1.3), the vowel <em>a</em> replaces the <em>ṛ</em> of <em>kṛ</em>, giving an intermediate form <em>ka</em>, to which is necessarily appended an <em>r</em>, by Aṣṭ. 1.1.51.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref3\" name=\"_ftn3\">[3]</a> Aṣṭ. 7.3.77 is seven syllables long; if this rule were eliminated and the three substitutions were incorporated into the following rule, it would require 7.3.78 to be at least eleven syllables longer.</p>",
        "admin_notes": "",
        "admin_published": true,
        "meta_created_datetime": "2021-09-12T09:18:34.615675+01:00",
        "meta_lastupdated_datetime": "2022-03-24T11:06:25.902933Z",
        "meta_firstpublished_datetime": "2021-09-12T09:18:34.615378+01:00",
        "meta_citation_author": 2,
        "meta_created_by": 1,
        "meta_lastupdated_by": 1,
        "linguistic_notion": [],
        "author": [
            15
        ],
        "linguistic_field": [
            3
        ]
    }
]