Linguistic Notion List Api
Return list of all LinguisticNotion
GET /data/api/linguisticnotions/?format=api
[
{
"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 “Case” 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 “delete the highest [semantic] role” 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. 1.4.26–31: [Further contexts for the designation <em>apādāna</em>…]<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. 1.4.33–41: [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—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. 1.4.1–2, 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 – in the passive – 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 (2009), 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 2.4.17–42.) 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–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 (2009) 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": "2022-11-17T14:39:00.026617Z",
"meta_firstpublished_datetime": "2022-03-22T09:37:49.191670Z",
"meta_citation_author": 2,
"meta_created_by": 1,
"meta_lastupdated_by": 1,
"linguistic_notion": [
11,
9,
8,
5,
10,
6
],
"author": [
42,
15
],
"linguistic_field": [
2,
1
],
"meta_citation_additional_authors": []
},
{
"id": 11,
"name": "Case",
"description": "See entry <a href=\"/data/browse/linguisticnotions/4/\">'Argument structure'</a>.",
"admin_notes": "",
"admin_published": true,
"meta_created_datetime": "2022-12-12T16:07:09.392906Z",
"meta_lastupdated_datetime": "2023-10-19T16:05:30.616430+01:00",
"meta_firstpublished_datetime": "2022-12-12T16:07:09.392663Z",
"meta_citation_author": 2,
"meta_created_by": 2,
"meta_lastupdated_by": 2,
"linguistic_notion": [
4
],
"author": [],
"linguistic_field": [],
"meta_citation_additional_authors": []
},
{
"id": 9,
"name": "Causative",
"description": "The causative is discussed in the entry <a href=\"/data/browse/linguisticnotions/4/\">'Argument structure'</a>.",
"admin_notes": "",
"admin_published": true,
"meta_created_datetime": "2022-12-12T16:02:44.722491Z",
"meta_lastupdated_datetime": "2023-10-19T16:06:12.923577+01:00",
"meta_firstpublished_datetime": "2022-12-12T16:02:44.722283Z",
"meta_citation_author": 2,
"meta_created_by": 2,
"meta_lastupdated_by": 2,
"linguistic_notion": [
4
],
"author": [],
"linguistic_field": [],
"meta_citation_additional_authors": []
},
{
"id": 13,
"name": "Compounding",
"description": "<p>A compound can be defined in very basic terms as a word that is made up of two or more words. Compounds thus show properties of both morphological formation (the whole constitutes a word) and syntactic formation (the whole is constituted by two or more related words), to the extent that there is an ongoing debate on which component of the grammar is responsible for their formation (Bauer 2006).</p>\r\n<p>Compounding is a highly productive process in Sanskrit. The Indian grammatical tradition focused primarily on the process of compound formation, particularly with a view to how transparently, or otherwise, the meaning of the compound can be derived from the meaning of its parts. The better known subject of Indian grammatical thought on compounding, however, at least within Western linguistics, is that of the classification of compounds, an area where Indian influence on the West is at least superficially obvious, in the introduction of classificatory terms such as <em>bahuvrīhi, dvandva, </em>etc.</p>\r\n\r\n<h3>1. Definition and properties of compounds</h3>\r\n<p><em>Samāsa</em> is the technical name employed in the Indian grammatical tradition to designate both the process of compounding and the form obtained by such a process. Compounding as an operation applies to fully inflected words which are semantically connected, not just juxtaposed, according to Aṣṭ. 2.1.1 <em>samarthaḥ padavidhiḥ</em>, “an operation (<em>vidhi) </em>concerning fully inflected words (<em>pada</em>) applies to words which are semantically connected (<em>samartha</em>)”.<a href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\">[1]</a> Pāṇini devotes a large section to compounding in Aṣṭ. 2.1.1-2.2.38.</p>\r\n<p>Compounding two or more words (<em>pada</em>) results in a <em>prātipadika</em> 'nominal stem', which is also the output of the major derivational morphological processes in Sanskrit, such as <em>kṛt</em> and <em>taddhita</em> suffixation. Being a nominal stem, the compound as a whole receives a case-affix and thereby itself attains the status of word (<em>pada</em>); see example (1).</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><em>guru-aḥ</em> +</td>\r\n <td><em>kula-am</em> →</td>\r\n <td><em>guru-kula-</em> →</td>\r\n <td>[<em>guru-kula</em>]<em>-am</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>teacher-GEN.SG</td>\r\n <td>family-NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>'teacher's family-NOM.SG'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>The elements entering compound formation are fully inflected words complete with case-endings (or person/number endings, in the rarer case of compounded verbs). The case-endings of the constituent words are standardly deleted in the process of compound formation, as shown in (1). In certain irregular compounds, known as <em>aluksamāsa</em> ('non-deletion compounds'), the first member may retain its original case-ending, as shown in (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><em>dūrād-āgata-</em></td>\r\n <td>'come from afar'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>far.ABL-come</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>As a nominal stem, any compound can be subject to further derivation. For example, the suffix <em>-vat </em>is shown suffixed to an underived word in (3a), but it can also be assigned to a compound stem, such as <em>asattva-vacana-</em> in (3b). Any compound can also be further compounded with another word, as shown in (4); this potential for recursion is productively employed, leading to very long compounds.</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>a.</td>\r\n <td><em>bāla-vat</em></td>\r\n <td>'like a boy'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>boy-like</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>b.</td>\r\n <td>[<em>asattva-vacana</em>]<em>-vat</em></td>\r\n <td>'like the statement of (its) non-existence'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>nonexistence-statement-like</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\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>[<em>nadī-tīra-</em>]<em>-i</em> +</td>\r\n <td><em>grāma-s</em> →</td>\r\n <td>[[<em>nadī-tīra-</em>]-<em>grāma</em>-]</td>\r\n <td>'village on the shore of a river'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>river-shore-LOC</td>\r\n <td>village-NOM</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>Sanskrit compounds display syntactic properties that are not commonly found with compounds in other languages. For instance, Patañjali (on Aṣṭ 2.2.1, Mbh. 1.360.20) notes that Sanskrit allows constructions called <em>asamartha</em> or 'non-constituent' compounds, in which there is a syntactic relation between a subordinate compound member and a word outside the compound. This possibility is generally excluded in other languages (Di Sciullo and Williams 1987).<a href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\">[2]</a> For example, in (5) the compound-external word <em>devadattasya</em> is construed with the word <em>guru, </em>which is a subordinate member of the compound; it is not construed with the compound as a whole.</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><em>devadattasya</em></td>\r\n <td>[<strong><em>guru</em></strong><em>-kulam</em>]</td>\r\n <td>'the family of Devadatta's teacher'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>D.GEN.SG</td>\r\n <td>teacher-family.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>Another interesting syntactic property of Sanskrit compounds is their potential lack of anaphoric islandhood. All Sanskrit pronouns have forms for use in compounds, including the demonstrative and relative pronouns, which usually refer to elements outside the compound in which they appear, e.g. (6) (Lowe 2015).</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><em>tvā́-dūta-</em></td>\r\n <td>'having you as messenger'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>you-messenger</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>This particular property has not received special attention in the Indian grammatical tradition, since it follows the regular pattern of compound formation in Sanskrit, but it goes beyond the possibilities available in most other languages, including English. The fact that subordinate elements of Sanskrit compounds can entertain syntactic relations outside the compound is evidence for the syntactic, rather than morphological, formation of compounds in Sanskrit, according to Lowe (2015). Nevertheless, within the Indian tradition, the result of compound formation is unquestionably the same as the result of other morphological processes, namely a word (<em>pada</em>).</p>\r\n\r\n<h3>2. Classification</h3>\r\n<p>There is a large variety of compound types in Sanskrit, though many are relatively rare. Pāṇini classified compounds into four broad classes, which are described in detail in Aṣṭ. 2.1 and 2.2. These classes are labelled: <em>tatpuruṣa</em>, <em>bahuvrīhi</em>, <em>dvandva</em> and <em>avyayībhāva</em>.</p>\r\n<p>The term <em>tatpuruṣa</em> covers a wide range of compounds, but the canonical type involves the implication of a case relation between the first element (a noun) and the second element (noun or adjective), as in (1), (2), (4) and (7). This type of compound is termed “determinative” by Whitney (1889); modern Western classifications also use the term “subordinative” (or “subordinate” for Scalise and Bisetto 2009).</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><em>svarga-patita-</em></td>\r\n <td>'fallen from heaven'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>heaven-fallen</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>An important subtype of <em>tatpuruṣa</em> is <em>karmadhāraya</em>, the most common varieties of which are the combination of an adjective with the noun it modifies, e.g. (8a), the combination of adjective and adjective/adverb or adverb and adjective, where the first member modifies the second, e.g. (8b), and the combination of two nouns which both refer to the same entity(es), e.g. (8c). <em>Karmadhāraya</em> compounds are called “descriptive” by Whitney; in the terms of Scalise and Bisetto (2009) they mostly fall under the type “attributive/appositive” by Scalise and Bisetto, but also (in the type in 8c) under the type “coordinate”.</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>a.</td>\r\n <td><em>priya-vayasya-</em></td>\r\n <td>'dear friend'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>dear-friend</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>b.</td>\r\n <td><em>udagra-ramaṇīya-</em></td>\r\n <td>'intensely lovely'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>intense-lovely</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>c.</td>\r\n <td><em>rāja-ṛṣi-</em></td>\r\n <td>'a seer who is also a king'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>king-seer</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p><em>Bahuvrīhi</em> compounds can be thought of as a kind of reduced relative clause. A common type is an adjective followed by a noun, where the referent of the compound is an entity which is in some way described by the adjective+noun sequence. So the compound in (9) refers to some entity whose ears are long. <em>Bahuvrīhis </em>are called “possessive” compounds by Whitney, but possession is only one of the possible relations between the head of the compound and the referent of the compound. They have largely been equated with the term “exocentric” in Western linguistics, but again <em>exocentric </em> is a broader category than the Sanskrit category of <em>bahuvrīhi</em> (Bauer 2017).<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><em>dīrgha-karṇa-</em></td>\r\n <td>'long-eared, whose ears are long'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>long-ear</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p><em>Dvandva</em> compounds are compounds of coordinate nouns. There are two types: <em>itaretara dvandva</em>, e.g. (10a), and <em>samāhāra</em> <em>dvandva</em>, e.g. (10b). In the first type, the compound adopts the gender and declension of the final member and its number, dual or plural, depends on the sum of the number of its constituent members. In the second type, the compound is invariably singular and neuter; the elements referred to by the compound are seen as a composite unit.<a href=\"#_ftn4\" name=\"_ftnref4\">[4]</a> <em>Dvandva</em> compounds are called “copulative” by Whitney (1889); “coordinative” or “coordinate”<a href=\"#_ftn5\" name=\"_ftnref5\">[5]</a> are largely corresponding terms in the Western tradition.</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><em>deva-asurāḥ</em></td>\r\n <td>'gods and demons'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>god-demon.NOM.M.PL</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>b.</td>\r\n <td><em>bhūta-bhavyam</em></td>\r\n <td>'past and future'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>past-future.NOM.NT.SG</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>Finally, <em>avyayībhāvas</em> are compounds involving a preposition and a governed noun, functionally equivalent to an adverbially used prepositional phrase, e.g. (11). This class is not much discussed in Western classifications, probably because other languages do not have a distinctive class defined by precisely the features that define it in Sanskrit (Bauer 2017).</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><em>bahir-grāma-</em></td>\r\n <td>'outside the village'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>outside-village</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>Patānjali proposes that Pāṇini's fourfold classification of compounds can be justified semantically, based on the predominance, <em>pradhānatva</em>, of the members of the compound. So, in <em>avyayībhāva</em> compounds the first member is semantically predominant; in <em>tatpuruṣas</em> the second member is predominant; in <em>dvandvas</em> both members are predominant, and in <em>bahuvrīhis</em> an external element is predominant. This notion of predominance thus effectively represents a notion of semantic headedness, and on some level relates to the distinction between endocentric and exocentric compounds. This cross-classification can be interpreted as a four-way classification based on the interaction of two binary features:</p>\r\n\r\n<table>\r\n<tbody>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td> </td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p>+FIRSTPREDOM</p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p>-FIRSTPREDOM</p>\r\n</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td>\r\n<p>+SECONDPREDOM</p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p><em>dvandva</em></p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p><em>tatpuruṣa</em></p>\r\n</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td>\r\n<p>-SECONDPREDOM</p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p><em>avyayībhāva</em></p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p><em>bahuvrīhi</em></p>\r\n</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n</tbody>\r\n</table>\r\n\r\n<p>However, the later grammarians Bhaṭṭojidīkṣita and Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa show that this semantic interpretation of Pāṇini's categories is flawed; all four categories include compounds which do not fit the semantic definition proposed by Patañjali. Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa's conclusion is that these categories have no semantic definition, but are mere arbitrary labels applied by Pāṇini for the convenience of his grammatical system.</p>\r\n<p>The modern Western tradition is familiar with only the four-way division of compounds given by Pāṇini, but in fact there are a number of competing and complementary classificatory systems in the Indian tradition. For example, Bhaṭṭojidīkṣita's <em>Vaiyākaraṇasiddhāntakārikā</em> 28 presents a purely morphological classification based on the types of words that combine in a compound. According to Aṣṭ 2.1.4 <em>saha supā</em>, a word that ends in a nominal ending (<em>sUP</em>) compounds with another word ending in a nominal ending (<em>sUP</em>). Bhaṭṭojidīkṣita, however, refers to six possible combinations: <em>sUP </em>'inflected noun' <em>+ sUP</em> 'inflected noun', e.g. (12a); <em>sUP </em>'inflected noun'<em>+ tiṄ </em>'inflected verb'<em>, </em>e.g. (12b); <em>sUP </em>'inflected noun'<em> + nāman</em> 'nominal stem', e.g. (12c); <em>sUP </em>'inflected noun'<em> + dhātu</em> 'verbal root', e.g. (12d); <em>tiṄ </em>'inflected verb' <em>+ tiṄ </em>'inflected verb', e.g. (12e); and <em>tiṄ </em>'inflected verb' <em>+ sUP </em>'inflected noun', e.g. (12f).</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n <label>(12)</label>\r\n <div class=\"content\">\r\n <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>a.</td>\r\n <td><em>rājan-as</em></td>\r\n <td><em>puruṣa-s</em></td>\r\n <td>→</td>\r\n <td><em>rāja-puruṣaḥ</em></td>\r\n <td>'king's servant'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>king-GEN.SG</td>\r\n <td>servant-NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>king-servant.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>b.</td>\r\n <td><em>pari-s</em></td>\r\n <td><em>abhūṣayat</em></td>\r\n <td>→</td>\r\n <td><em>pary-abhūṣayat</em></td>\r\n <td>'he decorated (all round)'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>around-NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>decorate.IMPF.3SG</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>around-decorate.IMPF.3SG</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>c.</td>\r\n <td><em>kumbha-am</em></td>\r\n <td><em>kāra-</em></td>\r\n <td>→</td>\r\n <td><em>kumbha-kāraḥ</em></td>\r\n <td>'potter'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>pot-ACC.SG</td>\r\n <td>maker</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>pot-maker.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>d.</td>\r\n <td><em>āyata-am</em></td>\r\n <td>√<em>stu</em></td>\r\n <td>→</td>\r\n <td><em>āyata-stūḥ</em></td>\r\n <td>'panegyrist'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>extended-ACC.SG</td>\r\n <td>praise</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>extended-praise.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>e.</td>\r\n <td><em>pibata</em></td>\r\n <td><em>khādata</em></td>\r\n <td>→</td>\r\n <td><em>pibata-khādatā</em></td>\r\n <td>'invitation to drink and eat'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>drink.IMP.2PL</td>\r\n <td>eat.IMP.2PL</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>drink.IMP.2.PL-eat.IMP.2.PL-NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>f.</td>\r\n <td><em>jahi</em></td>\r\n <td><em>stambha-am</em></td>\r\n <td>→</td>\r\n <td><em>jahi-stambhaḥ</em></td>\r\n <td>'he who repeatedly strikes a post'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>strike.IMP.2.SG</td>\r\n <td>post-ACC.SG</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>strike.IMP.2.SG-post.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>A different, two-fold, morphological classification is also found: <em>luksamāsa</em> vs. <em>aluksamāsa</em>. The first type refers to regular compound formation in which the case-affix appears only at the end of the compound, e.g. (1) or (12a); the second type refers to those irregular compounds that retain the case affix in the first member, as shown in (2) above.</p>\r\n<p>A two-way classification based on semantics, rather than morphology, is given by Jayāditya (Murti 1974: 78). According to the Naiyāyika Jagadīśa, Jayāditya classified compounds primarily as either <em>nitya </em>(obligatory) or <em>anitya</em> (optional). According to Patañjali, the meaning of a <em>nityasamāsa</em> cannot be expressed with an analytical phrase, while the meaning of an <em>anityasamāsa</em> corresponds directly to the meaning of the analytical phrase from which it is derived. Take, for example, the compound in (13a). Its sense can be expressed by the phrase in (13b), making it an <em>anitya </em>compound.</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n <label>(13)</label>\r\n <div class=\"content\">\r\n <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>a.</td>\r\n <td><em>vīra-puruṣaḥ</em></td>\r\n <td>‘hero-man, hero, a heroic man’</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>hero-man.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>b.</td>\r\n <td><em>vīraḥ</em></td>\r\n <td><em>puruṣaḥ</em></td>\r\n <td>'a man (and, i.e. who is) a hero'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>hero.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>man.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>However, the sense of the compound in (14a) cannot be expressed by the phrase in (14b) because its meaning is more specific than that of the analytic phrase, referring to a particular species of snake. The same is true for the compound in (15a), which refers to a particular species of rice, without any necessary attribution of the colour red.</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n <label>(14)</label>\r\n <div class=\"content\">\r\n <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>a.</td>\r\n <td><em>kṛṣṇa-sarpa-</em></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>'cobra'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>black-serpent</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>b.</td>\r\n <td><em>kṛṣṇaḥ</em></td>\r\n <td><em>sarpaḥ</em></td>\r\n <td>'black serpent'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>black.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>serpent.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\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><em>lohita-śāli-</em></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>'a variety of rice'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>red-rice</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>These examples involve semantic specialization, but other factors may serve to make a compound <em>nitya</em>, for example the <em>upapada</em> compounds where the second member cannot be used as an independent word.</p>\r\n<p>These and other Indian classification systems for compounds are discussed in detail by Murti (1974).</p>\r\n\r\n<h3>3. Compound meaning: <em>ekārthībhāva</em> and <em>vyapekṣā</em></h3>\r\n<p>While the (or rather, an) Indian approach to compound classification is well known in the Western linguistic tradition, perhaps the more central object of thought in the Indian tradition was the process of compound formation, in particular the semantic process and the relation between the meaning of the compound and that of its constituent members.</p>\r\n<p>The view of Kaiyaṭa interpreting Patañjali is that there are four possible approaches to meaning in compounding (cf. Murti 1974):</p>\r\n\r\n<table style=\"text-align: center;\">\r\n<tbody>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td>\r\n<p><em>nityapakṣa</em></p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td colspan=\"3\">\r\n<p><em>vṛttipakṣa/ kāryapakṣa</em></p>\r\n</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td> </td>\r\n<td colspan=\"2\">\r\n<p><em>ekārthībhāva</em></p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p><em>vyapekṣā</em></p>\r\n</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td>\r\n<p>↓</p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p><em>jahatsvārthā</em></p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p><em>ajahatsvārthā</em></p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p>↓</p>\r\n</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td>\r\n<p>↓</p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p>↓</p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p>↓</p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p>↓</p>\r\n</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td>\r\n<p>View 1</p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p>View 2</p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p>View 3</p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p>View 4</p>\r\n</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n</tbody>\r\n</table>\r\n\r\n<p>Table 1: Four possible views of compounding</p>\r\n<p>In the first view (<em>nityapakṣa / nityaśabdavāda</em>), compounds are independent units with underived meanings; their derivation from phrases is a grammatical fiction. This reflects a broader philosophical stance within the grammatical tradition which held that words and even whole sentences or utterances are, in reality, unitary, and that grammatical derivation is unreal. This view is most strongly advocated by the grammarian-philosopher Bhartṛhari, but at least in relation to compounds this view significantly antedates him, being evident in the work of Patañjali, for whom it may have been the preferred approach (so Murti 1974).</p>\r\n<p>In contrast, under the <em>vṛttipakṣa / kāryaśabdavāda</em>, compounds are in some real sense modifications of syntactic units, and the compound meaning is derived in some way from the meanings of the words that constitute it. The simplest of the views falling under this heading is that of <em>vyapekṣā</em>: the meaning of a compound is essentially the same as the meaning of the syntactic phrase from which it derives. The combination in compound denotes the relation (which in the phrase is denoted by the explicit syntactic relation, marked by case endings, etc.).</p>\r\n<p>Under <em>ekārthībhāva</em>, compounds are morphologically and semantically derived, as under <em>vyapekṣā</em>, but here the meaning of compounds is understood to be different, and specifically unitary, in comparison with the meaning of the corresponding analytical phrase. Within this there are two possible approaches to the semantic process by which the unitary compound meaning is derived: i) <em>jahatsvārthā vṛtti </em>and ii)<em> ajahatsvārthā vṛtti</em>. The process (<em>vṛtti</em>) can be understood to be <em>jahatsvārthā </em>'(wherein) the words' own meanings are abandoned'; that is, in a compound like <em>rājapuruṣa</em> 'king's servant' (12a), the constituent words <em>rājan </em>and <em>puruṣa</em> do not continue to express their respective meanings in the compound, but denote only the unitary (and therefore separate) compound meaning.</p>\r\n<p>Alternatively, the process can be understood as <em>ajahatsvārthā </em>'(wherein) the words' own meanings are not abandoned'; on this understanding the words in a compound continue to express their own meanings, while also denoting the unitary (and therefore separate) compound meaning.</p>\r\n<p>This is far from the only approach to classifying possible approaches to the compounding process in the Indian tradition. A rather different approach is advanced by Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa, who presents an innovative interpretation of Patañjali in which <em>jahatsvārthā vṛtti </em>is equated with <em>ekārthībhāva</em>, and <em>ajahatsvārthā vṛtti</em> with <em>vyapekṣā. </em>Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa rejects the <em>nityapakṣa</em> as a viable option, and thus reduces the four-way inventory of possible viewpoints to two.</p>\r\n\r\n<h3>4. Ekaśeṣa</h3>\r\n<p>See the <a href=\"/data/browse/linguisticnotions/14/\">Coordination</a> and <a href=\"/data/browse/linguisticnotions/12/\">Ellipsis</a> entries.</p>\r\n\r\n<hr>\r\n\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\">[1]</a> The precise meaning of this sūtra has been discussed in the tradition. For instance, <em>samartha</em> is interpreted as “capable”, i.e. a compound is capable of reflecting the meaning of the syntactic phrase.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\" name=\"_ftn2\">[2]</a> These constructions have been examined within different frameworks in the literature (Lowe 2015, Molina-Muñoz 2013, Gillon 1994, Kiparsky 1982, among others).</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref3\" name=\"_ftn3\">[3]</a> See Pontillo (2021) for an in-depth discussion of exocentric compounds in Western linguistics and the re-interpretation of Aṣṭ. 2.2.24 <em>anekam anyapadārthe</em>.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref4\" name=\"_ftn4\">[4]</a> For a more detailed description on the multiple types of coordination, see the “Coordination” entry in the LINGUINDIC database.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref5\" name=\"_ftn5\">[5]</a> Whitney (1896: 488) refers to <em>āmreḍita</em> constructions under copulative compounds, headed “Repeated Words”, and several modern scholars classify them as iterative compounds (Delbrück 1893, Renou 1952). In fact <em>āmreḍitas</em> are not considered compounds by Pāṇini but merely iterated words. However, Śākalya in the <em>Ṛgvedapadapāṭha</em> treats them as compounds (Ditrich 2011).</p>",
"admin_notes": "",
"admin_published": true,
"meta_created_datetime": "2023-06-27T12:49:08.430526+01:00",
"meta_lastupdated_datetime": "2023-08-24T22:58:04.156130+01:00",
"meta_firstpublished_datetime": "2023-06-27T12:49:08.430110+01:00",
"meta_citation_author": 4,
"meta_created_by": 1,
"meta_lastupdated_by": 1,
"linguistic_notion": [
16
],
"author": [
17,
29,
52,
27,
39,
22,
41,
15
],
"linguistic_field": [
3,
2,
1
],
"meta_citation_additional_authors": [
2
]
},
{
"id": 15,
"name": "Control",
"description": "<p>In modern linguistics, the term <em>control</em> refers to a construction (or family of constructions) in which there is coreference between an argument of a matrix predicate and an argument of a(n often nonfinite) predicate embedded under that matrix predicate. For example, in (1), there is a single overt NP (<em>Devadatta</em>) which surfaces as a syntactic and semantic argument of the matrix predicate (<em>try</em>), but which also functions as the semantic argument of the embedded predicate (<em>understand</em>). In early Transformational Grammar, control phenomena were analysed in terms of <em>Equi-NP deletion </em>(i.e. deletion of one of the two identical NPs) (Landau 2013). Control is now understood as an anaphoric relation between the matrix argument and a null pronoun in the subject position of the embedded verb.</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><strong>Devadatta<sub>i</sub> </strong><u>tried</u> [ (pro<sub>i</sub>) <u>to understand</u> Pāṇini's grammar. ]</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>\r\n V1\r\n V2\r\n </td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>A related construction is that seen in (2), called <em>raising</em>, where the NP <em>Devadatta</em> is the syntactic subject of the matrix predicate (<em>seem</em>), but functions as a semantic argument (here <em>experiencer</em>) of the embedded predicate and is not a semantic argument of the matrix predicate. The transformational understanding of this construction is that the argument in question starts out in the embedded clause and “raises” to the subject position of the matrix.</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><strong>Devadatta<sub>i</sub> </strong><u>seemed</u> [ (e<sub>i</sub>) <u>to understand</u> Pāṇini's grammar.]</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>\r\n V1\r\n V2\r\n </td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>The constructions in (1) and (2) are similar in the fact that there is a single NP which surfaces in the main clause but syntactically or semantically functions as the subject of the embedded verb; the differences lie in the selectional properties of the main verbs.</p>\r\n<p>In the Indian grammatical tradition, there was a similar concern with understanding such shared arguments, with particular reference to embedded infinitival complements (with the infinitive <em>-tum</em>) and embedded adjunct absolutive clauses (primarily with the absolutive <em>-tvā</em>). The discussion centers on the 'identical agents condition', and the meaning of the nonfinite form as denoting either the agent (<em>kartṛ</em>) or the action (<em>bhāva</em>). However, the treatment of each of these forms (absolutive and infinitive) differs to some extent.</p>\r\n\r\n\r\n<h3>1. The Sanskrit Data</h3>\r\n\r\n<h4>1.1. The absolutive</h4>\r\n<p>One of the two main control constructions found in Sanskrit involves an embedded absolutive adjunct clause (<em>-tvā</em>). For example, in (3), the main verb is <em>pibati</em> 's/he drinks' and the absolutive verb is <em>gatvā</em> 'having gone'. According to Aṣṭ. 3.4.21 <em>samāna-kartṛkayoḥ pūrva-kāle</em>, when two actions have the same agent (<em>kartṛ</em>),<a href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\"><sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup></a> the affix -<em>tvā</em> comes after the verb referring to the earlier of the two. Hence, the tradition understands two conditions for the use of the absolutive in this rule: temporal precedence (<em>pūrva-kāla</em>) and both the finite and nonfinite forms share the same agent (<em>samāna-kartṛ</em>), which is <em>rāma</em> in (3).</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 <em>\r\n <td>rāmo</td>\r\n <td>grāmaṃ</td>\r\n <td><strong>gatvā</strong></td>\r\n <td>jalaṃ</td>\r\n <td>pibati</td>\r\n </em>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>R.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>village.ACC.SG</td>\r\n <td>go.ABS</td>\r\n <td>water.ACC.SG</td>\r\n <td>drink.PRS.3SG</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td colspan=\"5\">'Having gone to the village, Rama drinks water.'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<h4>1.2. The infinitive</h4>\r\n\r\n<p>The other kind of control constructions found in Sanskrit involve an embedded infinitival complement clause (<em>-tum</em>). According to Pāṇini, the infinitive <em>-tum</em> has five main functions: (i) expressing purpose of another action<a href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\"><sup><sup>[2]</sup></sup></a>, e.g. (4a); (ii) with words denoting 'enough'<a href=\"#_ftn3\" name=\"_ftnref3\"><sup><sup>[3]</sup></sup></a>, e.g. (4b); (iii) with words denoting 'time'<a href=\"#_ftn4\" name=\"_ftnref4\"><sup><sup>[4]</sup></sup></a>, e.g. (4c); (iv) with verbs of 'desire'<a href=\"#_ftn5\" name=\"_ftnref5\"><sup><sup>[5]</sup></sup></a>, e.g. (4d); and (v) with verbs of 'ability'<a href=\"#_ftn6\" name=\"_ftnref6\"><sup><sup>[6]</sup></sup></a>, e.g. (4e). Of these five constructions, the tradition has focused on the control constructions (4d) and (4e), and to some extent the purposive use in (4a).</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 <em>\r\n <td>a.</td>\r\n <td>rāmo</td>\r\n <td><strong>bhoktum</strong></td>\r\n <td>odanaṃ</td>\r\n <td><u>pacati</u></td>\r\n </em>\r\n <td>(purpose)</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>R.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>eat.INF</td>\r\n <td>rice.ACC.SG</td>\r\n <td>cook.PRS.3SG</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td colspan=\"5\">'Rama cooks rice to eat.'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <em>\r\n <td>b.</td>\r\n <td>rāmo</td>\r\n <td><strong>gantum</strong></td>\r\n <td><u>alam</u></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </em>\r\n <td>(with words 'enough')</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>R.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>go.INF</td>\r\n <td>able-enough. IND</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td colspan=\"5\">'Rama is able enough to go.'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <em>\r\n <td>c.</td>\r\n <td><strong>gantuṃ</strong></td>\r\n <td><u>kālaḥ</u></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </em>\r\n <td>(with words 'time')</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>go.INF</td>\r\n <td>time.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td colspan=\"5\">'(It is) time to go.'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <em>\r\n <td>d.</td>\r\n <td>rāma</td>\r\n <td><u>icchaty</u</td>\r\n <td>odanaṃ</td>\r\n <td><strong>bhoktum</strong></td>\r\n </em>\r\n <td>(with verbs of 'desire')</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>R.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>desire.PRS.3SG</td>\r\n <td>rice.ACC.SG</td>\r\n <td>eat.INF</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td colspan=\"5\">'Rama<sub>i</sub> wants (e<sub>i</sub>) to eat rice.'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <em>\r\n <td>e.</td>\r\n <td>rāmaḥ</td>\r\n <td>kaṭaṃ</td>\r\n <td><strong>kartuṃ</strong></td>\r\n <td><u>śaknoti</u></td>\r\n </em>\r\n <td>(with verbs of 'ability')</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>R.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>mat.ACC.SG</td>\r\n <td>do.INF</td>\r\n <td>can.PRS.3SG</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td colspan=\"5\">'Rama<sub>i</sub> is able (e<sub>i</sub>) to make a mat.'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n\r\n<h3>Identical Agents Condition</h3>\r\n\r\n<p>As mentioned above, the condition of identical agents is stated for the use of the absolutive (<em>-tvā</em>) according to Aṣṭ. 3.4.21 <em>samāna-kartṛkayoḥ pūrva-kāle</em>. Example (5) illustrates an absolutive embedded in a main clause with an active finite verb: here, <em>devadattaḥ</em> is both the agent of the subordinate action of cooking denoted by the absolutive (<em>paktvā</em>), and the agent of the action of eating expressed by the main verb (<em>bhuṅkte</em>).</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 <em>\r\n <td><strong>paktvā</strong></td>\r\n <td>odanaṃ</td>\r\n <td><u>bhuṅkte</u></td>\r\n <td>devadattaḥ</td>\r\n </em>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>cook.GER </td>\r\n <td>rice.ACC.SG</td>\r\n <td>eat.PRS.3SG</td>\r\n <td>D.NOM.SG</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td colspan=\"4\">'Having cooked (it), Devadatta eats the rice.'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>The crucial question is the case-marking on the nouns, in particular <em>devadatta</em>. As described in <a href=\"/data/browse/linguisticnotions/4/\">'Argument structure'</a>, a <em>kartṛ</em> ('agent') by default receives an instrumental case ending, unless the <em>kāraka</em> role is denoted by the verb, in which case the nominative ending is used, by Aṣṭ. 2.3.46 <em>prātipadikārtha-liṅga-parimāṇa-vacana-mātre prathamā</em>.<a href=\"#_ftn7\" name=\"_ftnref7\"><sup><sup>[7]</sup></sup></a> In (5), the finite verb ending denotes the agent role which <em>devadatta</em> bears with respect to the action expressed by the main verb. Following Aṣṭ. 3.4.67 (<em>kartari kṛt</em> 'the affixes called <em>kṛt</em> are used in the sense of a <em>kartṛ</em> 'agent''), the absolutive suffix <em>-tvā</em>, which is a <em>kṛt</em> affix, likewise denotes the agent role that <em>devadatta</em> bears with respect to the action expressed by the absolutive. Thus both agent roles associated with <em>devadatta</em> are denoted by verbal endings, and so the nominative case applies, correctly, to <em>devadatta</em>.</p>\r\n<p>The infinitive <em>-tum</em>, like the absolutive <em>-tvā</em>, is a <em>kṛt</em> affix; hence, it should also express the agent. For infinitives, the condition of identity of agents is explicitly stated only for infinitival constructions with verbs of 'desire', according to Aṣṭ. 3.3.159 <em>samāna-kartṛkeṣu tumUN</em> 'the affix <em>-tumUN </em>is used after a verbal root used in conjunction with a verb meaning 'to desire', provided that the agent (<em>kartṛ</em>) of both actions is identical.' Hence, in (4d), repeated here as (6), <em>icchati </em>'s/he wants' and <em>bhoktum</em> 'to eat' must share the same agent, <em>Rāma</em>.</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 <em>\r\n <td>rāma</td>\r\n <td><u>icchaty</u></td>\r\n <td>odanaṃ</td>\r\n <td><strong>bhoktum</strong></td>\r\n </em>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>R.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>want.PRS.3SG</td>\r\n <td>rice.ACC.SG</td>\r\n <td>eat.INF</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td colspan=\"4\">'Rama<sub>i</sub> wants (pro<sub>i</sub>) to eat rice.'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>Deshpande (1980) argues that the identical agent condition is not limited to infinitives with verbs of 'desire', but can be extended to cover uses of the infinitive as a complement to other verbs too, since there are hardly any usages of <em>-tum</em> found in Sanskrit literature which violate this condition (see von Böhtlingk 1887, 1888, Speyer 1896: 67, and Hook 1980 for exceptions). This is seen in example (7), in which <em>rāma</em> is the agent of both the infinitive (<em>bhoktum</em>) and the main verb (<em>śaknoti</em>). This construction is licensed by Aṣṭ. 3.4.65 <em>śaka-dhṛṣa-jñā-glā-ghaṭa-rabha-labha-krama-sahārhāsty-artheṣu tumun</em> which comes under the general rule Aṣṭ. 3.4.1 <em>dhātu-sambandhe pratyayāḥ</em>. This rule refers to the use of the affix <em>-tumUN</em> after a verbal root used in conjunction with verbs meaning 'to be able to', etc. when there is some relation between the two actions (<em>dhātu-sambandha</em>).</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 <em>\r\n <td>rāmaḥ</td>\r\n <td><u>śaknoty</u></td>\r\n <td>odanaṃ</td>\r\n <td><strong>bhoktum</strong></td>\r\n </em>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>R.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>can.PRS.3SG</td>\r\n <td>rice.ACC.SG</td>\r\n <td>eat.INF</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td colspan=\"4\">'Rama<sub>i</sub> can (pro<sub>i</sub>) eat rice.'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>As with the absolutive example in (5), the two examples with infinitives in (6) and (7) work perfectly well on the assumption that the non-finite verb ending denotes the agent: the subject, <em>rāma</em> in both examples, has two agent roles, but both are denoted by the respective verb endings, and so <em>rāma</em> gets nominative case, correctly.</p>\r\n<p>When the absolutive appears in a clause with a passive main verb, as in (8), the situation is more problematic. In (8), the absolutive <em>-tvā</em> should still denote the agent (<em>kartṛ</em>), but the passive verb ending -<em>te</em> in <em>bhujyate</em> denotes the object (<em>karman</em>), according to Aṣṭ. 3.4.69 <em>laḥ karmaṇi ca bhāve cākarmakebhyaḥ</em> and Aṣṭ. 1.3.13 <em>bhāva-karmaṇoḥ</em>. Hence, there is a conflict. <em>Devadatta</em> is the agent of both actions, but only one of its agent roles is expressed by a verbal ending (its role with respect to the action of the absolutive, expressed by the ending of the absolutive). In the same way, the rice in (8) is the <em>karman</em> of both actions; one of these roles is expressed by a verbal ending (its role with respect to the action of the finite verb, expressed by the finite verb ending), while the other role (its role with respect to the action of the absolutive) is not. The question is then how to determine the case marking. <em>Odana</em> 'rice' should appear in the nominative, and <em>devadatta</em> in the instrumental, as shown in (8), but as stated both words have one of their roles expressed and the other unexpressed by a verbal ending, so the question is how to resolve this conflict in one direction in the case of <em>odana</em>, but in the other direction in the case of <em>devadatta</em>.</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 <em>\r\n <td>odanaḥ</td>\r\n <td><strong>paktvā</strong></td>\r\n <td>bhujyate</td>\r\n <td>devadattena</td>\r\n </em>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>rice.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>cook.ABS</td>\r\n <td>eat.PASS.3SG</td>\r\n <td>D.INS.SG</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td colspan=\"4\">'Rice, having been cooked, is eaten by Devadatta.'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>Pāṇini does not address this conflict, but Kātyāyana proposes that one should consider the absolutive <em>-tvā</em> (and the infinitive <em>tum</em>) as denoting the same thing (<em>adhikaraṇa</em>) which is denoted by the main finite verb in the same sentence. On the rule Aṣṭ 3.4.26 he adds the specification <em>ā ca tumUNaḥ samānādhikaraṇe</em> 'suffixes up to <em>tumUN</em> (i.e. including the absolutive and infinitive) denote the same thing (i.e. <em>kāraka</em>) denoted by the main verbal affix' (Deshpande 1981). In other words, the absolutive would be interpreted as passive when the main verb is passive, and hence denote the object (<em>karman</em>) and not the agent (<em>kartṛ</em>).<a href=\"#_ftn8\" name=\"_ftnref8\"><sup><sup>[8]</sup></sup></a></p>\r\n<p>Kātyāyana's proposal works as long as the main verb and embedded verb do not have different objects. So, in (8), if we take the absolutive as denoting the <em>karman </em>role, then we can say that both <em>karman</em> roles of <em>odana</em> are expressed by verbal endings, so it should get nominative case, while neither <em>kartṛ</em> roles of <em>devadatta</em> are expressed by verbal endings, meaning that it should get instrumental case.</p>\r\n<p>With infinitival complements, if the main verb and infinitive both take an object, that object must be shared; see the example in (9), which is the passive of (6). But even in infinitival complements we can have some complications. For example, in (10), passives of (7), the main verb is a form of <em>śak</em>, which is inherently intransitive (<em>akarmaka</em>). But in (10a), <em>odana</em> appears in the nominative case, apparently as the object (<em>karman</em>) of the passive form of <em>śak</em>, which is what we would expect for transitive main verbs (as in (8)). Alternatively, <em>odana</em> may appear in the accusative case, as in (10b). Deshpande (1980, 1981) and Kiparsky (2009) address these constructions, and the question of how the argument structure of <em>śak</em> + infinitive can be understood so as to license these structures.</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 <em>\r\n <td>rāmeṇa</td>\r\n <td><u>iṣyate</u></td>\r\n <td>odano</td>\r\n <td><strong>bhoktum</strong></td>\r\n </em>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>R.INS.SG</td>\r\n <td>desire.PASS.3SG</td>\r\n <td>rice.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>eat.INF</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td colspan=\"4\">'Rice is wanted to be eaten by Rama.'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\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 <em>\r\n <td>a.</td>\r\n <td>rāmeṇa</td>\r\n <td><u>śakyate</u></td>\r\n <td>odano</td>\r\n <td><strong>bhoktum</strong></td>\r\n </em>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>R.INS.SG</td>\r\n <td>can.PASS.3SG</td>\r\n <td>rice.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>eat.INF</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td colspan=\"4\">'Rice is wanted by Rama to eat.'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <em>\r\n <td>b.</td>\r\n <td>rāmeṇa</td>\r\n <td><u>śakyate</u></td>\r\n <td>odanaṃ</td>\r\n <td><strong>bhoktum</strong></td>\r\n </em>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>R.INS.SG</td>\r\n <td>can.PASS.3SG</td>\r\n <td>rice.ACC.SG</td>\r\n <td>eat.INF</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td colspan=\"4\">'Rice is wanted by Rama to eat.'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>Turning back to absolutives, it is not necessary for absolutive and finite verb to share the same <em>karman</em>; see example (11).</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 <em>\r\n <td>a.</td>\r\n <td>rāmo</td>\r\n <td>grāmaṃ</td>\r\n <td><strong>gatvā</strong></td>\r\n <td>jalaṃ</td>\r\n <td>pibati</td>\r\n </em>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>R.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>village.ACC.SG</td>\r\n <td>go.ABS</td>\r\n <td>water.ACC.SG</td>\r\n <td>drink.PRS.3SG</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td colspan=\"5\">'Having gone to the village, Rama drinks water.'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <em>\r\n <td>b.</td>\r\n <td>rāmeṇa</td>\r\n <td>grāmaṃ</td>\r\n <td><strong>gatvā</strong></td>\r\n <td>jalaṃ</td>\r\n <td>pīyate</td>\r\n </em>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>R.INS.SG</td>\r\n <td>village.ACC.SG</td>\r\n <td>go.ABS</td>\r\n <td>water.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>drink.PASS.3SG</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td colspan=\"5\">'Having gone to the village, the water is drunk by Rama.'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>Kātyāyana's proposal that the ending of the absolutive denotes the same <em>kāraka</em> as the finite verb fails here: it cannot account for the accusative in (11b). The finite verb in (11b) is passive, so must denote its <em>karman</em>, the water (<em>jala</em>). But if the absolutive follows the finite verb, then it would have to denote its <em>karman</em>, the village (<em>grāma</em>), and then <em>grāma</em> should occur in the nominative case, which it does not.</p>\r\n<p>Patañjali points out the problems in Kātyāyana's proposal and states that the absolutive (and also the infinitive) neither denotes agent (<em>kartṛ</em>) nor object (<em>karman</em>), but invariably denotes only <em>bhāva</em> 'action' (<em>avyayakṛto bhāve bhavanti</em>). So, according to Patañjali's analysis, in example (11a) the affix <em>-ti</em> on the main verb denotes the agent (<em>kartṛ</em>), while the absolutive affix <em>-tvā</em> denotes action or <em>bhāva</em>, while in (11b) the suffix on the main verb denotes the <em>karman</em>, and the absolutive affix again denotes <em>bhāva</em>. This however causes a problem in (11a): the agenthood of <em>rāma</em> with respect to the finite verb is denoted by the finite verbal ending, but its agenthood with respect to the action of the absolutive is not denoted by a verbal affix. We once again have a conflict, and Patañjali does not explain how we resolve this in such a way that <em>rāma</em> gets the expected nominative case.</p>\r\n<p>Bhartṛhari proposes that the case endings of nouns which have multiple kāraka roles in relation to different verbs are determined by their <em>kāraka</em> relation to the main verb (Deshpande 1981). So, in example (11a), since the agenthood of <em>rāma</em> with respect to the main action of drinking is expressed by the verbal affix <em>-ti</em> in the main verb <em>pibati</em>, his agenthood with respect to the subordinate action of going (<em>gatvā</em>) 'appears', i.e. is treated, as if it has been expressed (<em>abhihitavat prakāśate</em>), even though it has not been expressed by the absolutive -<em>tvā </em>(or by any other element). The accusative <em>grāmam</em> in (11b) and <em>odanam</em> in (10b) depend on the nonfinite forms and not the main verbs. By recognizing a hierarchy between main (<em>pradhānakriyā</em>) and subordinate (<em>guṇakriyā</em>) actions, all case-marking problems are resolved.</p>\r\n<p>Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa also states, in agreement with Patañjali, that the absolutive <em>-tvā</em> (as well as the infinitive <em>-tum</em>) does not express the agent (<em>kartṛ</em>), but rather action (<em>bhāva</em>). Following Bhartṛhari, he maintains that in examples like (5) and (8), <em>odana</em> 'rice' is the object of both actions, and <em>devadatta </em>is the agent of both actions. When the sense of agent (in the active) or object (in the passive) is expressed by the main verb, the agent/object appears in the nominative. The question of whether a <em>kāraka</em> role is <em>abhihita </em>'expressed' or <em>anabhihita</em> 'non-expressed' by the ending of the main verb determines which case endings are to be added to a nominal stem, in preference to any question of a <em>kāraka</em> relation to a subordinate verb. For Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa, the notion that main and subordinate verb necessarily share the same <em>kartṛ</em>, as well as notions such as the temporal precedence of the absolutive, derive contextually.</p>\r\n\r\n<hr>\r\n\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\"><sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup></a> On the <em>kāraka</em> relations such as <em>kartṛ</em> and <em>karman</em>, see <a href=\"/data/browse/linguisticnotions/4/\">'Argument structure'</a>, <a href=\"/data/browse/linguisticnotions/6/\">'Subjecthood'</a>, and <a href=\"/data/browse/linguisticnotions/8/\">'Objecthood'</a>. Here we use the term 'agent' as a translation for <em>kartṛ</em> for convenience.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\" name=\"_ftn2\"><sup><sup>[2]</sup></sup></a> Aṣṭ. 3.3.10 <em>tumun-ṇvulau kriyāyāṁ kriyārthāyām</em>.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref3\" name=\"_ftn3\"><sup><sup>[3]</sup></sup></a> Aṣṭ. 3.4.66 <em>paryāpti-vacaneṣv alam-artheṣu</em>.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref4\" name=\"_ftn4\"><sup><sup>[4]</sup></sup></a> Aṣṭ. 3.3.167 <em>kāla-samaya-velāsu tumun</em>.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref5\" name=\"_ftn5\"><sup><sup>[5]</sup></sup></a> Aṣṭ. 3.3.159 <em>samāna-kartṛkeṣu tumun</em>.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref6\" name=\"_ftn6\"><sup><sup>[6]</sup></sup></a> Aṣṭ. 3.4.65 <em>śaka-dhṛṣa-jñā-glā-ghaṭa-rabha-labha-krama-sahārhāsty-artheṣu tumun</em>.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref7\" name=\"_ftn7\"><sup><sup>[7]</sup></sup></a> This rule states that if a <em>kāraka</em> has been already denoted by another affix (Aṣṭ. 2.3.1 <em>anabhihite</em>), then the nominative case ending is added after the relevant nominal stem, denoting merely the meaning of the stem, gender, and number.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref8\" name=\"_ftn8\"><sup><sup>[8]</sup></sup></a> The Samanvaya tradition also discusses constructions with shared <em>karmans </em>(e.g. <em>Samanvayapradīpasaṃketa</em> 55 [Hahn 2008: 200 ll. 6-12 and 202 ll. 1-2]).</p>",
"admin_notes": "",
"admin_published": true,
"meta_created_datetime": "2023-10-13T20:57:28.774827+01:00",
"meta_lastupdated_datetime": "2023-10-16T15:08:28.123255+01:00",
"meta_firstpublished_datetime": "2023-10-13T20:57:28.774358+01:00",
"meta_citation_author": 4,
"meta_created_by": 1,
"meta_lastupdated_by": 1,
"linguistic_notion": [
16
],
"author": [],
"linguistic_field": [
2,
1
],
"meta_citation_additional_authors": [
3
]
},
{
"id": 14,
"name": "Coordination",
"description": "<p>The term <em>coordination</em> refers to the juxtaposition of two or more words or phrases under a single phrasal node, often linked by a conjunction such as <em>and</em> or <em>or</em>. Unlike subordination, in which one element is asymmetrically embedded within another, coordination gives the appearance of being symmetric in many ways; for example, the conjuncts are typically all constituents of the same category. All languages appear to possess coordination constructions of some kind, but there is considerable cross-linguistic variation in how coordinate phrases are structured and marked. For instance, coordinate constructions may lack an overt conjunction (<em>asyndetic coordination</em>) or have some overt linking device (<em>syndetic coordination</em>) (Haspelmath 2006).</p>\r\n<p>Modern linguistic work on coordination has focused on accounting for its interaction with other syntactic phenomena. For example, <em>extraction</em> out of a coordinate structure fails if it targets only one conjunct (1a), but is acceptable if the extraction targets all conjuncts equally (1b). Another area of interest is ellipsis; for example, the fact that when two sentences are conjoint, some material (often the verb) is missing in the second conjunct (1c). Another is <em>Right Node Raising</em>, the phenomenon in which a shared argument surfaces at the right periphery of a coordinate structure (1d). Finally, agreement patterns (feature resolution) in coordination show a wide range of complex and sometimes asymmetric behaviour cross-linguistically.</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>a.</td>\r\n <td>*Who did you see Ravi and _?</td>\r\n <td><em>Coordinate Structure Constraint</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>b.</td>\r\n <td>What does Meera like _ and Shakuntala hate _?</td>\r\n <td><em>Across-the-Board Constraint</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>c.</td>\r\n <td>Devadatta ate rice, and Yajñadatta _ lentils.</td>\r\n <td><em>Gapping</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>d.</td>\r\n <td>Radha prepares, and Krishna eats, the food.</td>\r\n <td><em>Right Node Raising</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>In the Indian grammatical tradition, we find discussions on the different values of the particle <em>ca</em> 'and' in a sentence, as well as the coordinate value of <em>dvandva </em>compound formations. Principles of gender and person resolution in coordinated structures also emerge from their specification in grammars, although they are not the topic of explicit comment.</p>\r\n\r\n<h3>1. Coordination in Sanskrit</h3>\r\n<p>The most common conjunction in Sanskrit is the particle <em>ca </em>'and'. The rule in Pāṇini's <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> (ca. 400 B.C.) which is central to the later discussion is Aṣṭ. 2.2.29 <em>cārthe dvandvaḥ </em>'(when two or more words ending in a case suffix are semantically related to each other (<em>samartha</em>) and) stand in a relation expressible by <em>ca</em> 'and', they are (optionally) made into a compound; and the compound so formed is called <em>dvandva</em>.' Purely on the basis of the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> one could assume a variety of different approaches for interpreting the meaning of <em>ca </em>(<em>cārtha</em>) and the conditions for <em>dvandva </em>compound formation, and this is indeed what we find discussed in the later tradition.<a href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\">[1]</a></p>\r\n<p>In the tradition following the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em>, two main rephrasings of rule Aṣṭ. 2.2.29 can be found. First, in his <em>vārttikas</em> (possibly ca. 250 B.C.), Kātyāyana rephrases the rule as <em>yugapadadhikaraṇavacane dvandvaḥ</em> 'a <em>dvandva</em> is formed when the items meant are simultaneously referred to.' For Kātyāyana this reformulation is necessary to account for cases where the sense of <em>ca</em> is understood but a compound should not be formed. An example of this is given by Patañjali: see below (2) (the words in issue are marked in bold). In this way, the notion of simultaneous reference becomes a constraint for compounding.</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><em>ahar ahar</em></td>\r\n <td><em>nayamāno</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>daily</td>\r\n <td>carry-off.PTCL.NOM.SG</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n <tr>\r\n <td><strong><em>gām</em></strong></td>\r\n <td><strong><em>aśvaṃ</em></strong></td>\r\n <td><strong><em>puruṣaṃ</em></strong></td>\r\n <td><strong><em>paśum</em></strong></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>cow.ACC.SG</td>\r\n <td>horse.ACC.SG</td>\r\n <td>man.ACC.SG</td>\r\n <td>domestic-animal.ACC.SG</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n <tr>\r\n <td><em>Vaisvasvato</em></td>\r\n <td><em>na</em></td>\r\n <td><em>tṛpyati</em></td>\r\n <td><em>surāyā</em></td>\r\n <td><em>iva</em></td>\r\n <td><em>durmadī //</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>V.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>NEG</td>\r\n <td>satisfy.PRS.3SG</td>\r\n <td>liquor.GEN.SG</td>\r\n <td>like</td>\r\n <td>drunkard.NOM.SG</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n <p>'Vaivasvata is not satisfied (even by) daily carrying off (to death) a cow, a horse, a man, (and) a domestic animal, just like a drunkard (is not satisfied) with liquor.'</p>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>Patañjali (ca. 150 B.C.) rejects Kātyāyana's rephrasing; his own solution to account for cases such as the one found in (2) is to understand <em>cārthe</em> as <em>cena kṛte 'rthe</em> 'when the sense (of <em>ca</em>) is conveyed by the word <em>ca</em>'. Patañjali further enumerates (<em>Mahābhāṣya</em> 2.2.29.15 (1: 434.9−13)) four different senses of the word <em>ca</em> listed in the table below.</p>\r\n<table>\r\n<tbody>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td>\r\n<p>Meanings of <em>ca</em></p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p>Previous discourse</p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p>What is said</p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p>What is understood</p>\r\n</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td>\r\n<p><strong><em>samuccaya</em></strong></p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p><em>nyagrodhaḥ</em> (?)</p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p><em>plakṣaś ca</em></p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p><em>nyagrodhaś ca</em></p>\r\n</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td>\r\n<p><strong><em>anvācaya</em></strong></p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p><em>nyagrodhaḥ</em> (?)</p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p><em>plakṣaś ca</em></p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p><em>plakṣa</em> is dependent/subordinate</p>\r\n</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td>\r\n<p><strong><em>itaretarayoga</em></strong></p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p>N/A</p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p><em>plakṣaś ca nyagrodhaś ca</em></p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p>each accompanied by the other</p>\r\n</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n<tr>\r\n<td>\r\n<p><strong><em>samāhāra</em></strong></p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p>N/A</p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p><em>plakṣaś ca nyagrodhaś ca</em></p>\r\n</td>\r\n<td>\r\n<p>a single whole consisting of both</p>\r\n</td>\r\n</tr>\r\n</tbody>\r\n</table>\r\n<p>Table 1: Meanings of <em>ca</em> according to Patañjali</p>\r\n<p>Note from the table above that in the case of <em>samuccaya</em> and <em>anvācaya </em>the conjunction of items referred to seems to be based on nouns found in two distinct sentences. This is not explicitly stated by Patañjali. We can infer that compound formation is not allowed in either of these two cases where the semantic connection indicated by <em>ca</em> crosses over from one sentence to another, as shown in the context presented by Kaiyaṭa in (3). The difference in meaning between <em>samuccaya </em>and <em>anvācaya</em> is determined by the context and whether <em>plakṣa</em> is considered dependent.</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>a.</td>\r\n <td><em>nyagrodho</em></td>\r\n <td><em>dṛśyatām!</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>banyan tree.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>see.IMP.PASS.3SG</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td colspan=\"2\">'Look at the banyan tree!'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>b.</td>\r\n <td><em>plakṣaś</em></td>\r\n <td><em>ca.</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>fig tree.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>and</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td colspan=\"2\">'And [equally,] the fig tree.'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>The other two types, <em>itaretarayoga</em> and <em>samāhāra</em>, do allow compound formation. Based on the examples provided by Patañjali, one can infer further (as Nāgeśa does) that <em>dvandva</em> formation is tied to the occurrence or otherwise of <em>ca</em> after each constituent member within a single sentence and under one action. That is, compounding is only possible when all nouns to be compounded are each followed by <em>ca</em>. If one or more nouns are not followed by <em>ca</em>, compounding is not licit (= <em>samuccaya</em> or <em>anvācaya</em>).</p>\r\n<p>Under Patañjali's reformulation of <em>cārthe</em> there is also no need for a special rule to distinguish between <em>itaretarayoga</em> and <em>samāhāra</em>, as was the case with Kātyāyana's reformulation, since the dual and plural is used 'naturally' in <em>itaretarayoga</em>, e.g. (4b), given the sense of 'each accompanied by the other'; and the singular in <em>samāhāra</em>, e.g. (5b), given the sense of 'a single whole (unitary meaning) consisting of both'.</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>a.</td>\r\n <td><em>plakṣaś</em></td>\r\n <td><em>ca</em></td>\r\n <td><em>nyagrodhaś</em></td>\r\n <td><em>ca</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>fig tree.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>and</td>\r\n <td>banyan tree.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>and</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td colspan=\"4\">'the fig tree and the banyan tree individually'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>b.</td>\r\n <td><em>plakṣa-nyagrodhau</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>fig tree-banyan tree.NOM.DU</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>'the fig tree and the banyan tree individually'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\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>a.</td>\r\n <td><em>plakṣaś</em></td>\r\n <td><em>ca</em></td>\r\n <td><em>nyagrodhaś</em></td>\r\n <td><em>ca</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>fig tree.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>and</td>\r\n <td>banyan tree.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>and</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td colspan=\"4\">'the fig tree and the banyan tree collectively'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>b.</td>\r\n <td><em>plakṣa-nyagrodham</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>fig tree-banyan tree.NOM.NT.SG</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>'the fig tree and the banyan tree collectively'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>The four functions of <em>ca</em> given above are the most widely found in the Indian tradition, and they are characterised by referring to item coordination. Beyond these four, the tradition teaches further meanings of <em>ca</em>. For instance, the Sanskrit thesaurus <em>Amarakośa</em> (ca. 500 A.D.) lists these four (terming the third <em>itaretara</em> instead of <em>itaretarayoga</em>) and adds a fifth, <em>pādapūraṇa</em> 'filling of a verse-quarter' (this function is also given to the particles <em>tu, hi, sma, ha, </em>and <em>vai</em>). This is a purely metrical function; that is, the particle <em>ca</em> 'and' is sometimes used in metrical texts merely to fill the metre, and with no functional load. In addition, Vardhamāna's <em>Gaṇaratnamahodadhi</em> (ca. 1150 A.D.), a commentary on a <em>gaṇapāṭha</em>, ascribes nine meanings to the word <em>ca</em>. These meanings are listed in (6):</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>1.</td>\r\n <td><em>anvācaya</em></td>\r\n <td>(aggregation of a less important item)</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>2.</td>\r\n <td><em>samāhāra</em></td>\r\n <td>(collective combination)</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>3.</td>\r\n <td><em>itaretara</em></td>\r\n <td>(mutual connection)</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>4.</td>\r\n <td><em>samuccaya</em></td>\r\n <td>(aggregation)</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>5.</td>\r\n <td><em>viniyoga</em></td>\r\n <td>(command?)</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>6.</td>\r\n <td><em>tulyayogitā</em></td>\r\n <td>('equal joining', a figure of speech)</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>7.</td>\r\n <td><em>avadhāraṇa</em></td>\r\n <td>(emphasis, use of <em>ca </em>as <em>eva</em>)</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>8.</td>\r\n <td><em>hetu</em></td>\r\n <td>(causal implication)</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>9.</td>\r\n <td><em>pādapūraṇa</em></td>\r\n <td>(filling of a verse-quarter)</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<h3>2. Gender resolution</h3>\r\n<p>Gender resolution in the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> is dealt with under the purview of a process called <em>ekaśeṣa</em> 'remaining of one'. <em>Ekaśeṣa</em> reflects a strict view of the denotation of stems: the underlying assumption is that one occurrence of a stem necessarily has a single, and singular, reference. Dual and plural reference must then derive from simplification of a sequence of multiple occurrences of the same stem. For example, if we want to refer to two trees, we begin with two instances of the stem <em>vṛkṣa</em> 'tree', underlyingly, and then delete one, as shown in (7), before adding the dual ending.</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><em>vṛkṣa</em></td>\r\n <td><em>vṛkṣa</em></td>\r\n <td>→</td>\r\n <td><em>vṛkṣa <del>vṛkṣa</del></em></td>\r\n <td>→</td>\r\n <td><em>vṛkṣa-au</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>tree</td>\r\n <td>tree</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>tree-NOM.DU</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td colspan=\"6\">'Two trees'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>Cases of gender resolution necessarily involve either dual or plural reference. For example, we might want to say that Rāma (masculine) and Sītā (feminine) are worthy of worship (<em>pūjanīya</em>). This can be expressed in Sanskrit as (8).</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><em>rāmaḥ</em></td>\r\n <td><em>sītā</em></td>\r\n <td><em>ca</em></td>\r\n <td><em>pūjanīyau</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>R.NOM.M.SG</td>\r\n <td>Sītā.NOM.F.SG</td>\r\n <td>and</td>\r\n <td>worship-worthy.NOM.M.DU</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td colspan=\"4\">'Rāma and Sītā are worthy of worship.'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>The word <em>pūjanīyau</em> here must be treated as derived by <em>ekaśeṣa </em>from a sequence of two singular forms, one masculine (referring to Rāma) and one feminine (referring to Sītā): <em>pūjanīyaḥ pūjanīyā. </em>This is reduced to <em>pūjanīyau</em> by the same process exemplified above for <em>vṛkṣau</em> in (7), but in this case we must also account for the gender. The question is, if only one of the words <em>pūjanīyaḥ </em>and <em>pūjanīyā</em> remain under <em>ekaśeṣa</em>, is it the masculine or the feminine? Aṣṭ. 1.2.67 <em>pumān striyā</em> teaches that when masculine (<em>pumān</em>) and feminine (<em>strī</em>) occur together in the case of <em>ekaśeṣa</em>, the masculine remains. That is, masculine and feminine resolve to masculine, as in (8).</p>\r\n<p>In the same way, Aṣṭ. 1.2.69 <em>napuṃsakam anapuṃsakenaikavac cāsyānyatarasyām</em> teaches that in the case of <em>ekaśeṣa</em> of a neuter and a non-neuter, it is the neuter that remains. For example, given the following coordinated phrase in (9),<a href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\">[2]</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><em>śuklaś</em></td>\r\n <td><em>ca</em></td>\r\n <td><em>kambalaḥ</em></td>\r\n <td><em>śuklā</em></td>\r\n <td><em>ca</em></td>\r\n <td><em>bṛhatikā</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>white.M.SG</td>\r\n <td>and</td>\r\n <td>blanket.M.SG</td>\r\n <td>white.F.SG</td>\r\n <td>and</td>\r\n <td>mantle.F.SG</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td><em>śuklaṃ</em></td>\r\n <td><em>ca</em></td>\r\n <td><em>vastram</em></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>white.NT.SG</td>\r\n <td>and</td>\r\n <td>garment.NT.SG</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td colspan=\"6\">'a white blanket and a white mantle and a white garment'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>to refer to all three as white one must assume the following, in (10).</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><em><del>śukla</del></em></td>\r\n <td><em><del>śuklā</del></em></td>\r\n <td><em><em> śukla<del></em></td>\r\n <td>→</td>\r\n <td><em>śuklāni</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>white(M)</td>\r\n <td>white.F</td>\r\n <td>white(NT)</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td>white.NOM.NT.PL</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td colspan=\"5\">'White things (pl.)'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>Given that Aṣṭ. 1.2.67 specifies that masculine trumps feminine, and Aṣṭ. 1.2.69 that neuter trumps non-neuter, we can conclude that specifies the following hierarchy for gender resolution <strong>neuter > masculine > feminine</strong>.<a href=\"#_ftn3\" name=\"_ftnref3\">[3]</a></p>\r\n\r\n<h3>3. Person Resolution</h3>\r\n<p>In contrast to the treatment of gender resolution, there are no rules in the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> explicitly treating situations where different grammatical persons interact. However, the rules treating person occur in a section of the grammar which is governed by Aṣṭ. 1.4.2 <em>vipratiṣedhe paraṃ kāryam</em> 'in case of conflict the later rule applies'. In particular, Aṣṭ. 1.4.105 specifies second person endings in the case of an (explicit or implicit) second person reference, and Aṣṭ. 1.4.107 specifies first person endings in the case of an (explicit or implicit) first person reference. By virtue of being the later rule, only Aṣṭ. 1.4.107 will apply. For example, in (11), we find both first and second person reference, so that both Aṣṭ 1.4.105 and 107 can apply. By virtue of being the later rule, only Aṣṭ. 1.4.107 applies, so that the first person is chosen for the verb. Here, then, we have first person and second person resolving to first person.</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><em>ahaṃ</em></td>\r\n <td><em>ca</em></td>\r\n <td><em>tvaṃ</em></td>\r\n <td><em>ca</em></td>\r\n <td><em>pacāvaḥ</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>I</td>\r\n <td>and</td>\r\n <td>you</td>\r\n <td>and</td>\r\n <td>cook.1.DU</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td colspan=\"5\">'I and you [we] cook.'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>The third person is taught in Aṣṭ. 1.4.108 <em>śeṣe prathamaḥ</em>, which specifies it in a context referred to by the word <em>śeṣe</em> 'in the remainder', namely where there is neither second person nor first person reference. It follows from this that the third person is the lowest on the person hierarchy: 1 > 2 > 3.</p>\r\n<p>We take the account presented here to represent Pāṇini's original model for person resolution. Other interpretations have been proposed, such as the traditional solution, utilizing Aṣṭ. 1.2.72 <em>tyadādīni sarvair nityam</em>, and the recent proposal of Mocci and Pontillo (forthcoming). See the latter paper for details on both.<a href=\"#_ftn4\" name=\"_ftnref4\">[4]</a></p>\r\n\r\n<p>While the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> treats person resolution only inferentially, the <em>Kātantrasūtra</em> (K) and the <em>Saṃkṣiptasāra</em>, two non-Pāṇinian grammars, have <em>sūtra</em>s explicitly teaching person resolution in coordination. K 3.1.3<em> trīṇi trīṇi prathamamadhyamottamāḥ</em> teaches the technical terms <em>prathama</em> 'third person', <em>madhyama</em> 'second person', and <em>uttama</em> 'first person' to the verb endings. The next <em>sūtra</em>, K 3.1.4 <em>yugapadvacane paraḥ puruṣāṇām</em>, teaches that when occurring simultaneously, the later term in K 3.1.3's <em>prathama-madhyama-uttama</em> prevails—in other words, it teaches the following person hierarchy: 1 > 2 > 3. <em>Saṃkṣiptasāra</em> 2.21 <em>teṣāṃ paraḥ kriyākālaikatve</em> (p. 138) teaches essentially the same thing: when two or more actions occur at the same time, the later term among <em>prathama-madhyama-uttama</em> prevails—in other words, the same person hierarchy 1 > 2 > 3.</p>\r\n\r\n<h3>4. Summary on resolutions</h3>\r\n<p>We see then, that there is no single method of specifying feature resolution in the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> or the Indian grammatical tradition more generally. While the hierarchy of gender resolution in the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> is dealt with by rules explicitly treating co-occurrence of different genders, person resolution is dealt with by precedence relations between rules, leading to an implicit hierarchy. This contrast is likely due to the differing status of these features in the grammar. While the person feature has to be defined and specified in the grammar in any case, gender is not a general part of the grammatical specification. So the rules that specify person are placed within a particular part of the grammar where their relative order can affect the desired hierarchy in cases where resolution is needed. But there are no such rules for gender, leading to the need for separate rules which serve only to control gender resolution where needed.</p>\r\n\r\n<h3>5. Ellipsis in coordination</h3>\r\n<p>See <a href=\"/data/browse/linguisticnotions/12/\">Ellipsis</a>. See also Agreement.</p>\r\n\r\n<hr>\r\n\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\">[1]</a> For the following discussion, cf. (in part) Roodbergen (1974: 138-194).</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\" name=\"_ftn2\">[2]</a> Aṣṭ. 1.2.69 additionally states that when there is resolution of neuter and non-neuter to neuter, the resulting form may optionally take singular number, so <em>śuklam</em> is a possible alternative outcome in (10).</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref3\" name=\"_ftn3\">[3]</a> This is the general pattern. Additional specifications relating to gender resolution in particular semantic fields are treated in Aṣṭ. 1.2.66 and Aṣṭ. 1.2.73. Hock (2012) compares the complex patterns of feature resolution found in Vedic Sanskrit with Pāṇini's prescriptions, and finds some differences.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref4\" name=\"_ftn4\">[4]</a> Compared with the Pāṇinian hierarchy, we find diverging practices in Sanskrit texts, e.g. (12) - (14).</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n <label>(12)</label>\r\n <div class=\"content\">\r\n <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n <tr>\r\n <td colspan=\"7\">First person, second person, and third person resolve to first person:</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td><em>nakulaḥ</em></td>\r\n <td><em>sahadevaś</em></td>\r\n <td><em>ca</em></td>\r\n <td><em>bhīmasenaś</em></td>\r\n <td><em>ca</em></td>\r\n <td><em>pārthiva</em> /</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>N.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>S.NOM.SG </td>\r\n <td>and</td>\r\n <td>Bh.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>and</td>\r\n <td>lord.VOC.SG</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td><em>ahaṃ</em></td>\r\n <td><em>ca</em></td>\r\n <td><em>tvaṃ</em></td>\r\n <td><em>ca</em></td>\r\n <td><em>kaunteya</em></td>\r\n <td><em>drakṣyāmaḥ</em></td>\r\n <td><em>śvetavāhanam</em> //</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>I.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>and</td>\r\n <td>you.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>and</td>\r\n <td>K.VOC.SG</td>\r\n <td>see.FUT.1PL</td>\r\n <td>Ś.ACC.SG</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td colspan=\"7\">'Nakula, Sahadeva, Bhīmasena, I and you, O Kaunteya, will see Śvetavāhana.' (<em>Mahābhārata </em>3.141.23)</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n <label>(13)</label>\r\n <div class=\"content\">\r\n <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n <tr>\r\n <td colspan=\"7\">First person, second person, and third person resolve to third person:</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td><em>ahaṃ</em></td>\r\n <td><em>ca</em></td>\r\n <td><em>tvaṃ</em></td>\r\n <td><em>ceyaṃ</em></td>\r\n <td><em>ca</em></td>\r\n <td><em>pūrvabhave</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>I.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>and</td>\r\n <td>you.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>and=this.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>and</td>\r\n <td>former-life.LOC.SG</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td><em>bhaginyo</em></td>\r\n <td><em></em></td>\r\n <td><em>'bhūvan.</em></td>\r\n <td><em></em></td>\r\n <td><em></em></td>\r\n <td><em></em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td colspan=\"2\">blessed.NOM.M.PL</td>\r\n <td>be.PST.3PL</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td colspan=\"7\">'I and you and she were sisters in a former life.' (<em>Śukasaptatī</em>)</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n <label>(14)</label>\r\n <div class=\"content\">\r\n <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n <tr>\r\n <td colspan=\"7\">Second person and third person resolve to third person:</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td><em>tvaṃ</em></td>\r\n <td><em>vahnir</em></td>\r\n <td><em>munayo</em></td>\r\n <td><em>vasiṣṭhagṛhiṇī</em></td>\r\n <td><em>gaṅgā</em></td>\r\n <td><em>ca</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>you.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>fire.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>sage.NOM.PL</td>\r\n <td>V.-wife.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>G.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>and</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td><em>yasyā</em></td>\r\n <td><em>vidur</em></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>which.GEN.F.SG</td>\r\n <td>know.PFT.3PL</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n\r\n <tr>\r\n <td><em>māhātmyaṃ</em></td>\r\n <td><em>yadi</em></td>\r\n <td><em>vā</em></td>\r\n <td><em>raghoḥ</em></td>\r\n <td><em>kulagurur</em></td>\r\n <td><em>devaḥ</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>greatness.ACC.SG</td>\r\n <td>if</td>\r\n <td>or</td>\r\n <td>R.GEN.SG</td>\r\n <td>family-senior.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>god.NOM.SG</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td><em>svayaṃ</em></td>\r\n <td><em>bhāskaraḥ /</em></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>self</td>\r\n <td>sun.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td colspan=\"6\">'[…] whose (f.) greatness you, Fire, the sages, the wife of Vasiṣṭha, and Ganges, or the head of the family of Raghu, the god Sun Himself, [all] knew […]' (<em>Uttararāmacarita </em>4.5ab)</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>Note that while the Sanskrit in both (12) the <em>Mahābhārata </em>and (13) the <em>Śukasaptatī </em>is not considered as of a 'high' register, the <em>Uttararāmacarita</em> in (14) is thought to be written in good, 'high' Classical Sanskrit. A more comprehensive study of the evidence from Sanskrit literature is needed to understand the variation found here.</p>",
"admin_notes": "",
"admin_published": true,
"meta_created_datetime": "2023-06-27T12:56:29.744084+01:00",
"meta_lastupdated_datetime": "2023-08-23T15:32:59.788277+01:00",
"meta_firstpublished_datetime": "2023-06-27T12:56:29.743806+01:00",
"meta_citation_author": 3,
"meta_created_by": 1,
"meta_lastupdated_by": 1,
"linguistic_notion": [
16
],
"author": [
39,
11,
37,
41,
15,
54
],
"linguistic_field": [
2,
1
],
"meta_citation_additional_authors": [
2
]
},
{
"id": 12,
"name": "Ellipsis",
"description": "<p>The term 'ellipsis' in grammatical theory most generally refers to linguistic material being omitted, deleted, or simply left unpronounced. The omitted material is needed for the full interpretation of a sentence, but it is not expressed because it can be recovered from the linguistic or real-world context (Winkler 2006: 109). Modern studies of ellipsis concentrate on formalizing the licensing and recoverability conditions for such elided constituents.</p>\r\n<p>All natural languages permit ellipsis, but they differ with respect to which constituents can be elided in which configurations. For example, in English the focus has been on elided material in the context of coordination, as shown in the examples in (1). These constructions differ in terms of what is elided (whether a word or a phrase) and whether the ellipsis is discourse-bound (e.g. VP-ellipsis) or sentence-bound (e.g. gapping), resulting in a range of different types.</p>\r\n\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\"><label>(1)</label>\r\n <div class=\"content\">\r\n <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n <tr><td>a. Saraswati plays the sitar and Krishna _ the flute.</td><td>(Gapping)</td></tr>\r\n <tr><td>b. They play the sitar but Yajñadatta doesn’t _.</td><td>(VP-Ellipsis)</td></tr>\r\n <tr><td>c. They play the sitar better than Krishna does _ the flute.</td><td>(Pseudogapping)</td></tr>\r\n <tr><td>d. Saraswati plays the sitar and Ravi _, too.</td><td>(Stripping)</td></tr>\r\n <tr><td>e. Someone’s playing the sitar but I don’t know who _.</td><td>(Sluicing)</td></tr>\r\n <tr><td>f. Shiva played the drum with one hand and Devadatta with two _.</td><td>(NP-Ellipsis)</td></tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n\r\n<p>In Sanskrit, arguments seem to be freely omissible. So NP ellipsis, at least, is not syntactically constrained as it is in English. In modern work on the Indian grammatical tradition, the term 'ellipsis' tends to have a broader sense than the phenomena in (1). 'Ellipsis' is used for all linguistic phenomena which involve some sort of incompleteness of the surface structure or expression (Deshpande 1985, 1989). Within this broader use of the term, a distinction can be drawn between what is assumed as elided but does not obtain any special provision in Pāṇini's grammar, i.e. 'natural ellipsis', and the ellipsis phenomena that are explicitly governed by rules, i.e. 'prescriptive ellipsis' (Deshpande 1985, 1989). Other Sanskrit studies have focused on actual occurrences of ellipsis in coordination in corpus data (such as Gillon 2010), but we will focus here on the treatment in the grammatical tradition.</p>\r\n\r\n\r\n<h3>1. General notion of elision: <em>lopa</em></h3>\r\n\r\n<p>The term used in the grammar to refer to elision or deletion in a general sense is <em>lopa</em>. Pāṇini defines <em>lopa </em>in Aṣṭ. 1.1.60: <em>adarśanaṃ lopaḥ</em> '(the technical term) <em>lopa</em> is defined as non-perception (of a speech-element)'. 'Non-perception' is itself defined in the <em>Kāśikā</em> as non-hearing (<em>aśravaṇa</em>) and non-pronunciation (<em>anuccāraṇa</em>). <em>Lopa</em> can 1) function as a substitute for a perceptible element of grammar, that is, it can function as a zero-substitute for any stem, suffix or segment; 2) it can refer to a situation where the meaning of a word is understood but the word is not used. The first is the 'prescriptive ellipsis' of Deshpande; the second is his 'natural ellipsis'.</p>\r\n<p>The term <em>lopa</em> is most commonly used in Pāṇini's grammar to refer to 'prescriptive ellipsis', i.e. deletion, of phonemes or suffixes in grammatical derivations (Filliozat 1991: 678). For example, Aṣṭ. 6.1.66 <em>lopo vyor vali</em> states that <em>lopa </em>of <em>v</em> or <em>y</em> occurs before any consonantal segment except <em>y</em>; this rule accounts for the elision/deletion of stem- or root-final <em>y</em> before consonantal suffixes, as e.g. in the formation of the past participle <em>ūta-</em> 'woven' to the root <em>ūy</em>- 'to weave': <em>ūy</em>- + <em>ta-</em> → <em>ū<span style=\"text-decoration: line-through;\">y</span></em>- + <em>ta- → ūta-</em> 'woven'.</p>\r\n<p><em>Lopa </em>is a type of substitute (<em>ādeśa</em>), and the item which is substituted is called the <em>sthānin</em>. In the case of 'natural ellipsis', the term <em>lopa</em> is not commonly found, but the term <em>sthānin</em> is, suggesting the occurrence of <em>lopa</em>. For example, Pāṇini uses the term <em>sthānin</em> to refer to the optional non-occurrence (pro-drop) of the second person pronoun <em>tvam </em>in sentences like (2), in Aṣṭ. 1.4.105 <em>yuṣmady upapade samānādhikaraṇe sthāniny api madhyamaḥ</em> 'second person is used when co-referential with an attendant word 'you', even if substituted'. According to Kiparsky (1982), without this statement the elision of the pronoun in (2) would precede and bleed the verbal agreement rule, resulting incorrectly in a third person ending on the verb. In order to prevent this from happening, it is necessary to state explicitly that agreement applies even when the pronouns are deleted. Kiparsky argues that this is evidence that 'free deletion' interacts with the rules of Pāṇini's grammar.</p>\r\n\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\"><label>(2)</label>\r\n <div class=\"content\">\r\n <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n <tr><td><em>(tvam)</em></td><td><em>pacasi.</em></td></tr>\r\n <tr><td>you</td><td>cook.PRS.2.SG</td></tr>\r\n <tr><td colspan=\"2\">'You cook.'</td></tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n\r\n<p>The term <em>sthānin</em> is also used in Aṣṭ. 2.3.14 <em>kriyārthopapadasya ca karmaṇi sthāninaḥ</em> to account for the use of dative case in a construction suchas (3a). The rule states that dative is used to denote the object of an infinitive verb (e.g. <em>āhartum</em> 'to fetch') which has been elided(<em>sthānin</em>). That is, the verb 'go' itself cannot govern a purposive dative argument, although it can govern a dative expressing the goal of motion. But the grammaticality of (3a) alongside (3b) is understood with reference to an (assumed) ellipsed infinitive.</p>\r\n\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\"><label>(3)</label>\r\n <div class=\"content\">\r\n <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n <tr><td>a.</td><td><strong><em>edhebhyo</em></strong></td><td><em>gacchāmi.</em></td></tr>\r\n <tr><td></td><td>firewood.DAT.PL</td><td>go.PRS.1.SG</td></tr>\r\n <tr><td></td><td colspan=\"2\">'I am going for (to fetch) the firewood.'</td></tr>\r\n\r\n <tr><td>b.</td><td><strong><em>edhebhyo</em></strong></td><td><em>gacchāmi.</em></td></tr>\r\n <tr><td></td><td>firewood.DAT.PL</td><td>go.PRS.1.SG</td></tr>\r\n <tr><td></td><td colspan=\"2\">'I am going to the firewood.'</td></tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n\r\n<p>Although Pāṇini does not use <em>lopa</em> to refer to the phenomenon illustrated in (3a), Kātyāyana explicitly uses the term to refer to a similar construction, in his Vārttika 1 on Aṣṭ. 2.3.28 <em>pañcamī-vidhāne lyab-lope karmaṇy upasaṃkhyānam</em> 'in the prescription for the fifth case, an addition should be made (to allow the fifth case) for the patient when there is <em>lopa</em> of a gerund'. In this case the sentence in (4a) is assumed to derive from an underlying structure as in (4b), with deletion of the gerund.</p>\r\n\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\"><label>(4)</label>\r\n <div class=\"content\">\r\n <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n <tr><td>a.</td><td><em>prāsādāt</em></td><td><em>prekṣate.</em></td></tr>\r\n <tr><td></td><td>palace.ABL.SG</td><td>watch.PRS.3.SG</td></tr>\r\n <tr><td></td><td colspan=\"2\">'He watches from the palace.'</td></tr>\r\n\r\n <tr><td>b.</td><td><em>prāsādam</em></td><td><strong><em>āruhya</em></strong></td><td><em>prekṣate.</em></td></tr>\r\n <tr><td></td><td>palace.ACC.SG</td><td>climb.GER</td><td>watch.PRS.3.SG</td></tr>\r\n <tr><td></td><td colspan=\"3\">'Having climbed the palace, he watches.'</td></tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n\r\n<p>One rule in which the term <em>lopa</em> is explicitly used to refer to 'natural ellipsis' of words in Pāṇini is Aṣṭ. 8.1.63 <em>cādilope vibhāṣā</em>, which indicates that when <em>ca, vā, ha, aha</em> or <em>eva</em> are elided, the first verb optionally retains its accent. For example, (5) involves two clauses in what we might consider to be asyndetic coordination; this is analysed as involving <em>lopa</em> of the coordinating conjunction <em>ca</em> 'and', and the optional retention of accent on the finite verb (which would otherwise be lost in this position in a main clause) is explained with reference to this (assumed) <em>lopa</em>.</p>\r\n\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\"><label>(5)</label>\r\n <div class=\"content\">\r\n <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n <tr><td><em>śuklā</em></td><td><em>vrīhayo</em></td><td><em><strong>bhávanti/bhavanti,</strong></em></td><td><em>śvetā gā</em></td><td><em>ājyāya</em></td><td><em>duhanti.</em></td></tr>\r\n <tr><td>white</td><td>rice-grains</td><td>be.PRS.3.PL</td><td>white cows</td><td>ghee.DAT.SG</td><td>milk.PRS.3.PL</td></tr>\r\n <tr><td colspan=\"6\">'There are white rice grains, (and) they milk white cows for ghee.'</td></tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n\r\n<p>Given the use of the term <em>lopa</em> for both 'prescriptive ellipsis' within the system of grammatical derivation and for 'natural ellipsis', i.e. omission of syntactic material, Deshpande (1989: 122) observes that at the time of Pāṇini there was no clear distinction between ellipsis/deletion as such and simple 'non-usage' (<em>aprayoga</em>) of an otherwise expected word.</p>\r\n\r\n\r\n<h3>2. Ellipsis of the copula</h3>\r\n\r\n<p>In Sanskrit, purely nominal sentences, that is sentences consisting purely of a subject noun phrase and a predicate noun or adjective phrase, but no explicit finite verb, are common. As in modern Western linguistics, the question arose as to whether such sentences should be understood to contain an ellipsed copula verb. In defining the notion of 'sentence', Kātyāyana, <em>Vārttika</em> 11 on Aṣṭ. 2.3.1 claims that every sentence must have a finite verb, and that hence in nominal sentences a copula must be understood: […] <em>astir bhavantīparaḥ prathamapuruṣo </em>'<em>prayujyamāno </em>'<em>py asti </em>'a third person form of the verb <em>as</em> 'to be' in the present tense (i.e. <em>asti </em>[sg.], <em>staḥ</em> [du.], or <em>santi</em> [pl.]), even though it may not have been used (in the surface sentence), still exists (in that sentence).' For Kātyāyana, then, a sentence such as (6a) must be an elliptical form of (6b). Deshpande (1987) shows that Kātyāyana's position is different from that assumed in the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em>, where it appears to be the case that Pāṇini does not require every sentence to necessarily involve a finite verb.</p>\r\n\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\"><label>(6)</label>\r\n <div class=\"content\">\r\n <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n <tr><td>a.</td><td><em>rāmo</em></td><td><em>'yodhyāyām.</em></td></tr>\r\n <tr><td></td><td>Rama.NOM.SG</td><td>Ayodhyā.LOC.SG</td></tr>\r\n <tr><td></td><td>'Rama is in Ayodhyā.'</td><td></td></tr>\r\n\r\n <tr><td>b.</td><td><em>rāmo 'yodhyāyām</em></td><td><strong><em>asti</em></strong></td></tr>\r\n <tr><td></td><td></td><td>be.PRS.3SG</td></tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n\r\n<p>The <em>Samanvayadiś</em>, a non-Pāṇinian Sanskrit grammar on syntax from Kashmir dating to possibly c. 1100 AD, offers an interesting view with regard to the meaning of the supplied copula. Quoting part of <em>Vārttika</em> 11 on Aṣṭ. 2.3.1 (see above), it states that a verb <em>asti</em> 'is',<em> bhavati </em>'is, becomes'<em>,</em> or <em>vidyate</em> 'is, is found' is to be supplied where no verb is explicitly uttered. Regarding the meaning of such a supplied <em>asti</em>, <em>bhavati</em>, or <em>vidyate</em>, it offers two alternative views. Under the first (conventional) view, such a verb expresses a general existence (<em>sattāsāmānyavācin</em>); that is, it retains its basic copular/identificatory sense. The second view is more interesting: such a verb expresses, rather, a general action and is for indicating any particular verb (<em>kriyāsāmānyavāci dhātūpalakṣaṇaparam</em>). In other words, the supplied <em>asti</em>, <em>bhavati</em>, or <em>vidyate</em> can stand for any verb and is like a verbal equivalent of the pronoun, a 'pro-verb' much like some uses of English <em>do</em>. Which lexical verb or meaning is referred to by this 'pro-verb' depends on the context.</p>\r\n\r\n\r\n<h3>3. <em>Ekaśeṣa</em>: A special type of deletion?</h3>\r\n\r\n<p>Another case of elision discussed in the Indian grammatical tradition, starting with Pāṇini, is the notion of <em>ekaśeṣa</em>. <em>Ekaśeṣa </em>is introduced by Pāṇini in Aṣṭ. 1.2.64 <em>sarūpāṇām ekaśeṣa ekavibhaktau</em> 'there is remaining of one (<em>ekaśeṣa</em>) in case of multiple identical forms with the same case ending'. This is Pāṇini's approach to dual and plural number: granted an assumption that any single occurrence of a stem should have a single referent, dual and plural reference is derived by assuming as many individual occurrences of a stem as required for the number of referents, and then assuming deletion of all but one of these. For example, if we want to refer to two trees, we begin with two instances of <em>vṛkṣa</em> 'tree', underlyingly, and then delete one, as shown in (7). This process is different from 'natural ellipsis' in that it is explicitly prescribed by the rules of the system.</p>\r\n\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\"><label>(7)</label>\r\n <div class=\"content\">\r\n <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n <tr><td><em>vṛkṣa-s</em></td><td><em>vṛkṣa-s</em></td><td>→</td><td><em>vṛkṣa-<del>s vṛkṣa-s</del></em></td><td>→</td><td><em>vṛkṣau</em></td></tr>\r\n <tr><td>tree-NOM.SG</td><td>tree-NOM.SG</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>tree-NOM.DU</td></tr>\r\n <tr><td colspan=\"6\">'Two trees'</td></tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n\r\n<p>In the case of simple dual and plural marking, <em>ekaśeṣa </em>is an obligatory process, applying to sequences which would otherwise undergo compounding. That is, a dvandva compound like <em>vṛkṣa-vṛkṣa- </em>'two trees' is not possible, in Pāṇini's system. But some <em>ekaśeṣa </em>processes are optional, as specified in Aṣṭ. 1.2.69-71. For example, Aṣṭ. 1.2.71 generates the form in (8b) from the one in (8a), by specifying that, optionally, only the masculine form remains when these two words co-occur in the same case. As this is optional, the compound in (8c) is also possible.</p>\r\n\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\"><label>(8)</label>\r\n <div class=\"content\">\r\n <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n <tr><td>a.</td><td><em>śvaśrū</em></td><td><em>śvaśuraḥ</em></td></tr>\r\n <tr><td></td><td>Mother-in-law.NOM.SG</td><td>father-in-law.NOM.SG</td></tr>\r\n\r\n <tr><td>b.</td><td><em>śvaśurau</em></td><td></td></tr>\r\n <tr><td></td><td>father-in-law.NOM.DU</td><td></td></tr>\r\n <tr><td></td><td>'Mother- and father-in-law'</td><td></td></tr>\r\n\r\n <tr><td>c.</td><td><em>śvaśrū-śvaśurau</em></td><td></td></tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n\r\n<p>Although not directly referred to as <em>lopa</em>, <em>ekaśeṣa</em> 'remaining of one' evidently involves the same notion of underlyingly present linguistic material which is eliminated in the derivation of the surface form.</p>\r\n\r\n\r\n<h3>4. Later traditions and the interpretation of ellipsis</h3>\r\n\r\n<p>In Indian schools of thought, there are three requirements for any syntactic construction: <em>saṃnidhi </em>'proximity', <em>yogyatā</em> 'appropriateness' and <em>ākāṅkṣā</em> 'expectancy'. The syntactic unity of the sentence depends mainly on <em>ākāṅkṣā</em>, or the mutual expectancy of the words.</p>\r\n<p>Sometimes, even when some of the words are missing, they could be easily understood as implied from the context, allowing verbal comprehension. This means that ellipsis is conditioned mainly by the two conditions <em>saṃnidhi </em>'proximity' (at least in the sense of mental proximity of the missing item to the explicit material) and <em>ākāṅkṣā</em> 'expectancy' (that is the syntactic and/or semantic expectancy of the explicit material for the missing item). According to Filliozat (1991), words should be close to one another in actual use, and if a word is not used it should be present in the mind in order to be understood. Hence, in cases of ellipsis the elided term is present in the mind because there is a communicable intention of the speaker or because it has been mentioned in a previous sentence (or even in a subsequent sentence).</p>\r\n<p>In the Indian philosophical traditions of <em>Mīmāṃsā</em>, <em>Nyāya</em>, and <em>Vedānta</em> (dealing with ritual hermeneutics, logic, epistemology, metaphysics, among other topics), there are debates on exactly what is supplied in the case of an elliptical sentence. The Bhāṭṭa school of Mīṃāmsā as well as Vedānta and Nyāya adopt the view of <em>padādhyāhāra</em> 'supplying of words', arguing that one must supply the missing words in order to provide the missing meaning. This depends on a conception of meaning which ties it directly to words: linguistic meaning cannot arise without an associated word supplying that meaning. In contrast, the Prābhākara school of Mīmāṃsā adopts the view of <em>arthādhyāhara</em> 'supplying of meanings', arguing that one can directly supply meanings without invoking the missing words (Deshpande 1989: 114 and Raja 1958: 28).</p>\r\n<p>For example, when the elliptical sentence consisting of only the accusative noun <em>dvāram</em> 'door' is uttered, as in (9), to attain the intended verbal knowledge of 'shut the door', under the <em>padādhyāhāra</em> view, one would supply a word (here an imperative verb) such as <em>pidhehi</em>, which then provides the meaning of 'shut'; under the <em>arthādhyāhāra</em> view, however, one would directly supply the meaning 'shut' without supplying any additional word.</p>\r\n\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\"><label>(9)</label>\r\n <div class=\"content\">\r\n <table class=\"no-borders\">\r\n <tr><td><em>dvāram!</em></td></tr>\r\n <tr><td>door.ACC.SG</td></tr>\r\n <tr><td>'(Shut the) door!'</td></tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n\r\n<p>Mīmāṃsā theorists argue that it is through <em>arthāpatti</em> 'postulation of a fact' that we cognize the omitted word or idea in an elliptical sentence. This same process applies beyond language; for example, on seeing that Devadatta, who is known to be alive, is not at home, his presence outside is presumed.</p>\r\n<p>According to Raja (1958), there are two kinds of incomplete sentences: the normal elliptical sentence where the syntactic expectancy is not fully satisfied, and the syntactically complete sentence where the psychological expectancy is not fully satisfied. These are referenced by the terms <em>adhyāhāra</em> and <em>vākyaśeṣa</em>, respectively, by Bhoja in his <em>Śṛṅgāraprakāśa</em>. The first is the type seen in (9); the second is more like pragmatic inference. For example, in the sentence 'the road is full of thieves' an inferred meaning 'do not go that way' can be derived through <em>vākyaśeṣa</em>.</p>\r\n<p>Bhartṛhari argues that if what appears to be part of another sentence is capable of conveying a complete sense in the particular context in which it is used, that is also to be considered as a complete sentence. For example, if <em>dvāram</em> is used to mean the same as <em>dvāraṃ pidhehi</em> 'shut the door', the former should not be considered a reduced version of the latter, but the two should be considered distinct sentences (Raja 1958). This contrasts with the assumption of <em>adhyāhāra</em>, of either variety, in such cases.</p>\r\n\r\n<h3>5. Ellipsis in coordination. See Coordination.</h3>",
"admin_notes": "",
"admin_published": true,
"meta_created_datetime": "2023-03-10T11:38:32.527067Z",
"meta_lastupdated_datetime": "2023-04-05T15:18:02.472499+01:00",
"meta_firstpublished_datetime": "2023-03-10T11:38:32.526743Z",
"meta_citation_author": 4,
"meta_created_by": 1,
"meta_lastupdated_by": 1,
"linguistic_notion": [],
"author": [
17,
50,
11,
15
],
"linguistic_field": [
2,
1
],
"meta_citation_additional_authors": []
},
{
"id": 7,
"name": "Grammar",
"description": "<h3>1. The term 'grammar'</h3>\r\n<p>As discussed by Aarts (2006: 113), the term <em>grammar</em> can be used in a variety of ways. In a broad sense, <em>grammar</em> can refer to syntax and morphology, as against e.g. phonology or semantics, and may refer more concretely to an explicit description of the morphological and syntactic features of a language. Expanding from this general sense, in more theoretical terms <em>grammar</em> may refer to the system of rules underlying a language-user's linguistic competence, or to an explicitly constructed system of rules which describe or which can generate grammatically correct forms of a language. Expanding again, <em>Universal Grammar</em> refers to the shared underlying linguistic competence common to all humans, on the basis of which individual languages, with their own specific grammars, are formed. In these theoretical senses too, <em>grammar</em> tends to be restricted primarily to syntax and morphology (and often merely syntax), but can also have wider scope.</p>\r\n<h3>2. 'Grammar' in the Indian tradition</h3>\r\n<p>The closest relevant term in the Indian tradition is <em>vyākaraṇa</em>, which is indeed standardly translated as 'grammar'. <em>Vyākaraṇa</em> as a term refers to an intellectual discipline, a field of science, which includes within its scope much of the range of linguistic analysis which in the West would broadly fall under the term 'grammar'. But its precise scope does not match our term 'grammar' precisely, and the subdivision of linguistic enquiry implied by these terms consequently differs.</p>\r\n<p><em>Vyākaraṇa</em> as a field developed within a predominantly Brahmanical ritualistic culture. It was in origin one of the six auxiliary disciplines for the study and preservation of the sacred Vedic literature, the <em>vedāṅgas </em>'limbs of the Veda'. Beside <em>vyākaraṇa</em>, these included three other fields related to the study of language, phonetics (<em>śikṣā</em>), metrics (<em>chandas</em>) and semantic explanations or etymology (<em>nirukta</em>), and the non-language-related disciplines of ritual instruction (<em>kalpa</em>) and astronomy (<em>jyotiṣa</em>).</p>\r\n<p>As evidenced by its earliest surviving work, the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> of Pāṇini, <em>vyākaraṇa</em> was at an early period the most sophisticated and scientific of the <em>vedāṅgas</em>. Pāṇini's importance in the development of Indian scientific thought has been compared to that of Euclid in the west (e.g. by Staal 1965). The <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī </em>is earliest (surviving) monument of Indian scientific thought, and it was highly influential in the development of the later scientific traditions in India. In this sense the status of the tradition of <em>vyākaraṇa</em> in ancient India was more like that of mathematics or physics in the modern Western world: it was in some sense the original, the prototypical science and a fundamental influence on all other fields of science.</p>\r\n<p>We have no access to the earlier origins of the field of <em>vyākaraṇa</em>; Pāṇini's <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> has in a very fundamental way already moved beyond the origins of <em>vyākaraṇa</em> as a discipline purely for the study and preservation of the Vedas, since the primary focus of the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> is the spoken language rather than the language of the sacred texts (cf. Emeneau 1955: 145–146). Yet the scope of the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em>, and in consequence the scope of much of the later tradition of <em>vyākaraṇa</em>, remains at least to some extent determined by its position alongside the other vedāṅgas. Phonetics, that is (for the Indian tradition) the study of the articulation of speech sounds, was excluded from the scope of <em>vyākaraṇa</em>, since it fell under the tradition of <em>śikṣā</em>. At least in the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em>, semantic concerns are likewise beyond the purview of <em>vyākaraṇa</em>, since they fell under the tradition of <em>nirukta</em>.<a href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\">[1]</a></p>\r\n<p>As evidenced by the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em>, at least, <em>vyākaraṇa </em>encompasses the study of the form and formation of linguistic expressions including, in Western terms, the fields of syntax, morphology, and phonology. In this sense it is quite close to the broad sense of English <em>grammar</em>, but including also the study of abstract sound systems. The Indian tradition made no clear division between syntax, morphology and phonology, treating them as a single field of study, and as part of a single system by which the Sanskrit language could be analysed.<a href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\">[2]</a></p>\r\n<p>Beside the <em>vedāṅgas </em>mentioned above, other later intellectual traditions also engaged in linguistic analysis of the Sanskrit language, including the study of poetics, <em>alaṃkāraśāstra</em>, and the philosophical systems of <em>Mīmāṃsā</em> 'ritual exegesis' and Nyāya 'logic'. But the scope of <em>vyākaraṇa </em>was never restricted by or defined in relation to these traditions, and in fact there was considerable overlap and interaction between these traditions, in particular between <em>vyākaraṇa</em> and the philosophical traditions.</p>\r\n<h3>3. 'Generative' grammar</h3>\r\n<p>Morphologically, the word <em>vyākaraṇa</em> derives from the verb <em>vi-ā-kṛ</em>, which literally means 'distinguish, separate, differentiate'. In reference to language, it could most naturally be taken therefore to mean 'analysis'. It has alternatively been argued, however, to mean '(word)-formation', based on (some of) the uses of <em>vi-ā-kṛ</em> in reference to language in the Vedic literature.<a href=\"#_ftn3\" name=\"_ftnref3\">[3]</a></p>\r\n<p>Whatever the original sense of <em>vyākaraṇa</em>, the earliest surviving output of the tradition, the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em>, is a 'grammar' in the concrete sense of a model of a particular language, Sanskrit. It is not a descriptive or analytical model, but a generative model, which takes as building blocks the base morphological units – verbal roots, nominal stems, particles, affixes, etc. – and produces as output a syntactically coherent phonological representation ready for articulation. As noted by Chomsky (1965: v), the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> is a 'generative grammar' “in essentially the contemporary sense of this term.”</p>\r\n<p>The <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> was so influential a work that not only was all earlier work of the <em>vyākaraṇa</em> tradition lost, but in addition all later work within the tradition was heavily influenced by it, to the extent that no other type of grammar (e.g. descriptive) of Sanskrit was ever produced within the tradition. This is true even of the so-called 'non-Pāṇinian' grammars. While the 'Pāṇinian' tradition of <em>vyākaraṇa</em> recognized only the authority of the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> as a grammar of Sanskrit, from the first centuries AD various 'non-Pāṇinian' traditions of <em>vyākaraṇa</em> developed, producing and recognizing as authoritative grammars of Sanskrit other than the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em>. Śarvavarman's <em>Kātantrasūtra</em> (c. 50 AD) and Candragomin's <em>Candrasūtra</em> (c. 450 AD) are two of the most influential among these non-Pāṇinian grammars. But all such grammars remained fundamentally Pāṇinian in the sense of sharing the underlying conception and approach of the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em>, that is taking base morphological units and combining them to form a grammatically correct phonological representation as output.</p>\r\n<h3>4. Sanskrit and the underlying aims of <em>vyākaraṇa</em></h3>\r\n<p>While the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> and other grammars produced within the tradition of <em>vyākaraṇa</em> can be compared with notions of a generative grammar in the modern Western linguistic tradition, the modern notion of a Universal Grammar underlying the grammars of all human languages may have been rather alien to the grammarians of ancient India. In origin, and for the most part, <em>vyākaraṇa</em> had only a single linguistic object: Sanskrit. As the language of the sacred Vedic texts, and as (in slightly different form) the spoken language of the Brahmanical elite who undertook <em>vyākaraṇa</em>, Sanskrit was the divine and perfect language from which one could not meritoriously deviate. Beginning with Tamil in the early centuries AD, traditions of grammatical analysis developed which did take other languages as their object of study. But like the Sanskritic tradition these remained focused on one language, and there was never a search for broader principles underlying the grammars of multiple languages.</p>\r\n<p>Within the Sanskritic tradition of <em>vyākaraṇa </em>there did develop a desire to specify grammatical rules for the Prakrits, forms of Middle Indo-Aryan which became literary languages in close interaction with Sanskrit. In works such as the <em>Siddhahaimacandra</em> of Hemacandra Sūri (12<sup>th</sup> century AD), rules are given to derive Prakrit forms from Sanskrit bases; that is, one starts with a generative grammar for Sanskrit, and then add rules which take the resulting Sanskrit forms and transform them into Prakrit. This was not so much based on an understanding of the historical relations between Sanskrit and the Prakrits (according to which the latter can be seen to derive from something quite similar to the former), but more based on the idea of Sanskrit as the only perfect, divine, language, such that other languages can only be derivations (or deviations) from it. In this sense, then, one could in fact see the study of Sanskrit, at least for this part of the ancient Indian tradition, as their conception of the study of Universal Grammar.</p>\r\n<p>A related question is the degree to which the tradition of <em>vyākaraṇa</em> was descriptive or prescriptive. For Pāṇini's <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em>, at least, the answer appears to be both. “As far as the classical language is concerned, the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> is simultaneously descriptive and normative: everything it says about Sanskrit is quite clear based on genuine observations of actual usage as well as a native speaker's intuitions about potential usage, but it is at the same time understood that this usage, exactly as described in the grammar, constitutes a norm to be followed by all speakers” (Kiparsky 1979: 4). The <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> notes and licenses grammatical variation, sometimes attributing alternatives to different geographical areas, and as shown by Kiparsky (1979), often marks alternatives as either more common (or, from a prescriptive perspective, preferable) or rarer (/dispreferred).</p>\r\n<p>For the later tradition, Sanskrit was a learned language, no longer anyone's native tongue, and what constituted grammatical Sanskrit was, at least in principle, determined entirely by the prescriptions (as they were seen) of grammatical tradition. That this was not entirely the case is clear from the fact that the later grammarians at times have to force the wording of the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> to fit the grammar they knew; and in non-Pāṇinian grammars, particularly those of Buddhist and Jain origin, a range of formations not licensed by Pāṇini were accepted and licensed. But even while the normative function of <em>vyākaraṇa</em> was prominent, the purpose of grammar was never purely to distinguish 'correct' linguistic usage from incorrect: understanding the structure of the 'grammatically correct' Sanskrit defined by the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> (or other grammars), and understanding and refining the grammatical system itself, together with its underlying theoretical assumptions, remained a focus of grammatical inquiry.</p>\r\n<h3>5. The later vyākaraṇa tradition</h3>\r\n<p>Particularly from the work of Bhartṛhari (c. 500 AD) onwards, the scope of <em>vyākaraṇa</em> as a field widened to include linguistic-philosophical and semantic concerns. In terms of semantics, there developed a concern with understanding and specifying the relations between the linguistic forms produced by the grammar and the verbal knowledge or understanding (<em>śābdabodha</em>) which results from the comprehension of that linguistic form. This includes going beyond the literal meaning of a linguistic expression to include aspects of meaning which are contextually based. In this later stage of the tradition, there is particularly close engagement with the philosophical traditions of Mīmāṃsā and Nyāya, which had similar interest in the nature and functioning of verbal knowledge.</p>\r\n\r\n<hr>\r\n\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\">[1]</a> The task of grammar is to specify word forms, not meanings: the grammar defines which forms are to be used under which semantic conditions, but never what meaning is to be understood from a form (Scharf 2011: 40). As discussed below, semantic concerns become much more prominent in the later <em>vyākaraṇa</em> tradition.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\" name=\"_ftn2\">[2]</a> Phonological concerns are also a part of the tradition of <em>śikṣā</em>, but only as far as concerned the sound correspondences and alternations between the different recitation patterns of the main Vedic texts. The phonological scope of <em>vyākaraṇa</em> encompasses everything relevant to the spoken language, as well as relevant features of the Vedic texts.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref3\" name=\"_ftn3\">[3]</a> Compare Thieme (1982: 23–34) and Bronkhorst (2011: 10–13).</p>",
"admin_notes": "",
"admin_published": true,
"meta_created_datetime": "2022-11-16T10:40:35.710956Z",
"meta_lastupdated_datetime": "2022-11-16T15:09:12.738614Z",
"meta_firstpublished_datetime": "2022-11-16T10:40:35.710715Z",
"meta_citation_author": 2,
"meta_created_by": 2,
"meta_lastupdated_by": 2,
"linguistic_notion": [],
"author": [
17,
42,
49,
15,
43
],
"linguistic_field": [
3,
4,
1
],
"meta_citation_additional_authors": [
3,
4
]
},
{
"id": 16,
"name": "Lexical vs Functional Categories",
"description": "<h3>1. Introduction</h3>\r\n\r\n<p>The distinction between <em>lexical</em> and <em>functional</em> categories is a well-known one in Western linguistics. It is both long-standing (possibly dating back as early as Aristotle)<a href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\"><sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup></a> and widely adopted; although the details may vary, most modern syntactic theories include both notions. The basic idea behind this distinction is that, within a sentence, some morphemes<a href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\"><sup><sup>[2]</sup></sup></a> play more formal or grammatical roles than others. For example, in (1)</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n <label>(1)</label>\r\n <div class=\"content\">\r\n Helen took a bag and a book.\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>'and' has the formal function of conjoining the two nominal phrases 'a bag' and 'a book'. As such, its role is different from both that of 'bag' and of 'book'. In formal semantic terms, the extension of 'bag' and 'book' is a set of entities (type <e, t>), whereas that of 'and' is a more complex function operating on sets (hence, a higher type than <e, t>).</p>\r\n<p>One way in which this distinction is often characterized is in terms of 'meaningfulness', with lexical categories argued to be meaningful and functional categories meaningless or, at least, less meaningful than lexical categories. As often, this is partly a question of terminology; whether or not we think functional categories to be meaningless necessarily depends on how we define 'meaning'. It remains a valid point, however, that, even if we think of functional categories as meaningful, the meaning of 'and' in (1) will still be a different type of meaning from that of 'bag' (we can label it in different ways, e.g. grammatical <em>vs</em>. contentive meaning).</p>\r\n<p>This basic intuition that lies at the heart of the lexical-functional distinction is well-established in Western linguistics. Issues arise when we move beyond theory and attempt to systematically apply the lexical-functional classification to real languages, in terms of how competing criteria should be applied to yield a consistent and meaningful classification. The literature on the topic suggests a range of classification criteria, including the types of morphological and syntactic processes that a morpheme can undergo (Rizzi and Cinque 2016) or the number of elements belonging to a given class of morphemes, that is whether the class is closed (i.e. consists of a quantifiable number of elements) or open (i.e. its members cannot be finitely enumerated). For some linguists, there is a complete overlap between lexical and open classes, functional and closed ones, whereas for others, other criteria bear more weight.</p>\r\n<p>One of the greatest challenges comes from those categories of words that appear to share characteristics with both lexical and functional categories as traditionally defined and do not fall neatly into either. In English, this is the case with prepositions (Carlson 1983: 94 n.2). In the literature, prepositions are variously classified as lexical (Chomsky 1970) or functional (Carnie 2013); Abney (1987), instead, argues that they are unspecified for lexical-functional status. In the light of this and similar problems, perhaps a better approach is to think of the lexical-functional distinction as a gradient rather than a strict dichotomy. If lexical and functional are two extremes of a <em>continuum</em>, prepositions may lie somewhere in between the two.<a href=\"#_ftn3\" name=\"_ftnref3\"><sup><sup>[3]</sup></sup></a></p>\r\n\r\n\r\n<h3>2. The Sanskrit Grammatical Tradition</h3>\r\n\r\n<p>The Western concepts of lexical and functional categories are a question of both syntax and semantics. Although they are often thought of primarily in relation to meaning, most of the criteria that allow us to identify and define them are syntactic. In the Sanskrit grammatical tradition, there is no exact equivalent of the Western lexical-functional distinction. Most, if not all, the words that in Western terms would be classified as functional, in the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī </em>belong to the group of <em>avyayas</em>, 'indeclinables' (see below).<a href=\"#_ftn4\" name=\"_ftnref4\"><sup><sup>[4]</sup></sup></a> Because of how the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī </em>works, certain notions cut across <em>avyayas</em> and other categories that in Western terms would count as lexical. Crucially, for the purposes of derivation, <em>avyayas</em> classify as nominal stems.<a href=\"#_ftn5\" name=\"_ftnref5\"><sup><sup>[5]</sup></sup></a></p>\r\n<p>In practical terms, this means that an adposition like <em>anu </em>in (2) is derived in the same way as the noun <em>nadīm</em>.</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><em>nadīm</em></td>\r\n <td><em>anu</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>river.ACC.SG</td>\r\n <td>along</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td colspan=\"2\">'along the river'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>To derive <em>anu</em>, we follow Aṣṭ. 4.1.2 and add an inflectional ending. Unlike for <em>nadīm</em>, however, we then need to delete the ending on <em>anu</em>, because it is an <em>avyaya</em> (Aṣṭ. 2.4.82)<em>. </em>Although this adding and then deleting of inflectional endings complicates the derivation of <em>avyayas</em>, it simplifies the grammar at a higher level by, for example, streamlining the definition of the important category <em>pada</em> 'word'. The parallelism between <em>avyayas</em> and other categories thus serves the overall aims of concision and economy of the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em>.</p>\r\n<p>Besides their derivation, the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī </em>discusses the functions of various subgroups of<em> avyayas </em>(e.g. the grammatical operations that they can trigger, such as retroflexion or particular accentual patterns; their relation to the verb in a sentence etc.), as well as the meanings of individual <em>avyayas</em>. These are essential to the complex classification of indeclinables that the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī </em>develops. Within <em>vyākaraṇa</em>, however, it is the later grammarians (at least as early as Bhaṭṭojidīkṣita; see section 3) who add yet another dimension to the discussion of the semantics of indeclinables, distinguishing between two ways in which a word can bring out meaning (denotation and manifestation; see below) and debating how <em>avyayas </em>as a group fit into this picture by comparison with other types of words.</p>\r\n<p>The question at issue for these grammarians is whether <em>avyayas </em>have a 'meaning' of their own and how they interact with the meaning of the words to which they are associated in the sentence. What grammarians mean when they speak of 'meaning' is quite specific to the particular semantic theorizing of <em>vyākaraṇa</em>. In Western linguistics (1 above), the key distinction underlying the lexical-functional divide lies in the type of information that a word (or morpheme) provides, lexical for lexical categories and grammatical for functional ones. Depending on one's notion of meaning, one may consider those words that convey grammatical information to be less 'meaningful', but there is generally no doubt that every word directly conveys at least some type of information.</p>\r\n<p>Within the discussion of <em>avyayas</em>, 'meaning' is analyzed both in terms of what a word signifies and how that signification is expressed. In grammatical texts, the most general term for 'meaning' is <em>artha</em>, a highly polysemous word, whose uses range from a generic, unqualified sense of 'meaning' (covering more than one type of semantic concept, see below) to more specific types of meaning. Sometimes <em>artha </em>even stands for the referent of a word, that is, the object corresponding to that word in the extralinguistic world.<a href=\"#_ftn6\" name=\"_ftnref6\"><sup><sup>[6]</sup></sup></a></p>\r\n<p>In the discussion of the semantics of indeclinables, the use of <em>artha </em>is closely related to two fundamental aspects of the <em>vyākaraṇa</em> theory of meaning: the notions of <em>śakti</em> and <em>lakṣaṇā</em> (the powers conveying the primary and secondary meanings of a word), and the distinction between <em>vācaka</em> ('denotative') and <em>dyotaka </em>('manifesting') words.</p>\r\n<p>In the tradition, <em>śakti</em> and <em>lakṣaṇā </em>are two powers of signification whereby a word expresses different types of meanings.<a href=\"#_ftn7\" name=\"_ftnref7\"><sup><sup>[7]</sup></sup></a> <em>śakti</em> is the 'denotative power' determining the essential or primary meaning (<em>śakya</em> meaning) of a word. <em>lakṣaṇā</em>, instead, is the power whereby a word expresses any 'inferential' meanings (<em>lakṣya</em> meanings) that it may additionally have; these secondary meanings directly depend on the essential meaning and are based on convention. The standard example is <em>gaṅgā</em>. The primary meaning of this word is 'Ganges'; hence, <em>gaṅgā </em>has a <em>śakti </em>or denotative power whereby it expresses the meaning 'Ganges'. However, we can conventionally use <em>gaṅgā</em> to mean 'the bank of the Ganges', as in the phrase <em>gaṅgāyāṃ ghoṣaḥ</em> 'the village is on the bank of the Ganges'. This is a secondary, <em>lakṣya</em>, meaning and <em>gaṅgā </em>expresses it by <em>lakṣaṇā</em>. Despite the relative clarity of this example, the distribution of the meanings of words between <em>śakti</em> and <em>lakṣaṇā </em>is not always easy to determine and it appears to have been a point of divergence among grammarians themselves.</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n <label>(3)</label>\r\n <div class=\"content\">\r\n <table>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>Meaning of word <em>x</em></td>\r\n <td>Power of expression of word <em>x</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td><em>śakya</em></td>\r\n <td><em>śakti</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td><em>lakṣya</em></td>\r\n <td><em>lakṣaṇā</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>This notion of powers whereby a word expresses its own meanings interrelates with another fundamental distinction: that between denotation and manifestation. These are two modes in which a word can bring out meaning. Denotation is the mode by which a word brings out <em>its own</em> primary and secondary meaning(s). Thus, <em>gaṅgā </em>is said to be <em>vācaka</em> 'denotative' of both its primary meaning 'Ganges' and of its secondary meaning 'the banks of the Ganges'. These two meanings are in turn said to be <em>vācya </em>(literally 'to be denoted') meanings of <em>gaṅgā</em>.</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n <label>(4)</label>\r\n <div class=\"content\">\r\n <table>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>Meaning of word <em>x</em></td>\r\n <td>Power of expression of word <em>x</em></td>\r\n <td>Meaning of word <em>x</em> according to the denotation/manifestation distinction</td>\r\n <td>Definition of word <em>x</em> according to the denotation/manifestation distinction</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td><em>śakya</em></td>\r\n <td><em>śakti</em></td>\r\n <td><em>vācya</em></td>\r\n <td><em>vācaka</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td><em>lakṣya</em></td>\r\n <td><em>lakṣaṇā</em></td>\r\n <td><em>vācya</em></td>\r\n <td><em>vācaka</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>However, there are words that have neither a primary nor, consequently, a secondary meaning, and which therefore have neither <em>śakti</em> nor <em>lakṣaṇā</em>. Such words are, therefore, never <em>vācaka</em> 'denotative'. But besides denotation, there is another way in which a word can bring out a meaning; this is manifestation. When a word indirectly expresses a meaning that is directly expressed (denoted) by another word, it is said to be <em>dyotaka</em>, 'manifesting', of that meaning. In the case of manifestation, the meaning being manifested must necessarily be a <em>vācya </em>meaning of some other word and this meaning is somehow 'activated' by the <em>dyotaka</em> word. The meaning that is being expressed is accordingly termed <em>dyotya</em>, 'what is to be manifested' in relation to the manifesting word.</p>\r\n<p>This whole discussion plays into the grammarians' conceptualization of the meaning of <em>avyayas</em>, the main questions being whether <em>avyayas </em>are <em>vācaka</em>, because they have a meaning of their own, or whether they have no meaning but are still <em>dyotaka </em>of the meaning of other words in the sentence. In (5), for instance,</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><em>īśvaram</em></td>\r\n <td><em>anubhavati</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>Lord.ACC.SG</td>\r\n <td>experience.PRES.3SG</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td colspan=\"2\">'(S)he experiences the Lord.'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>the problem is how to analyze the semantics of the preverb <em>anu</em> in relation to that of the verb <em>bhavati </em>and of the compound verb<a href=\"#_ftn8\" name=\"_ftnref8\"><sup><sup>[8]</sup></sup></a> <em>anubhavati </em>as a whole. On its own, the root <em>bhū</em>- means 'become' and it is only when it is combined with <em>anu </em>that we get the meaning of 'experience'. Grammarians thus consider three options; whether the meaning of 'experience' is fundamentally expressed by: 1. the simple root <em>bhū</em>-, 2. the preverb <em>anu </em>or 3. a combination of the two. Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa, whose <em>Vaiyākaraṇabhūṣaṇasāra</em> contains one of the most detailed extant discussions of the semantics of <em>avyayas</em>, argues strongly in favour of the first option. According to him, the meaning of 'experience' is a secondary, <em>lakṣya</em>, meaning, of the verbal root <em>bhū</em>- and <em>bhū</em>- expresses this meaning by <em>lakṣaṇā</em>.<a href=\"#_ftn9\" name=\"_ftnref9\"><sup><sup>[9]</sup></sup></a> Thus <em>bhū</em>- is 'denotative' (<em>vācaka</em>) of its own secondary meaning. On the contrary, <em>anu </em>does not have a meaning of its own but is said to 'manifest' the meaning of 'experience' when it combines with <em>bhū</em>-; that is, it is <em>dyotaka</em> of it.</p>\r\n<p><em>anu</em> and<em> bhū</em>- thus play different roles in relation to the meaning of 'experience' and, likewise, 'experience' counts as a different type of meaning for the preverb and the verbal root. From the perspective of <em>bhū</em>- itself, 'experience' is a <em>vācya</em> meaning; from that of <em>anu</em>, it is a <em>dyotya</em> meaning.<a href=\"#_ftn10\" name=\"_ftnref10\"><sup><sup>[10]</sup></sup></a></p>\r\n<p>To go back to the concept of <em>artha </em>and its uses, grammarians quite ambiguously employ <em>artha</em> both generically in reference to any type of meaning, whether <em>vācya </em>or <em>dyotya</em>, or more specifically in relation to <em>vācya</em> meanings only. When they use <em>artha </em>in the laxer, more general sense, a preverb like <em>anu </em>can be said to be <em>arthavat</em>, 'having<em> artha</em>', because it expresses a <em>dyotya </em>meaning.</p>\r\n<p>As seen (section 1 above), in the Western lexical-functional distinction, functional categories are sometimes thought of as being less meaningful than lexical ones. In this case, the 'meaningfulness' of a word depends on the type of information that this conveys. In the Sanskrit tradition, what matters is the relation that a word has to a specific meaning. The same type of information can count as a <em>vācya </em>or a <em>dyotya</em> meaning depending on the word from whose perspective it is analyzed. The 'meaningfulness' of a word then depends on whether it expresses information by denotation or manifestation. The distinction thus lies not so much in the type of information expressed by a word but in the way that that word can express meaning, whether its own or that of another word. Of the two relations to meaning, that of a <em>dyotaka</em> word is always less direct than that of a <em>vācaka</em> word because it depends on the latter; that is to say, a <em>dyotaka</em> element can only be <em>dyotaka</em> in relation to a meaning that is <em>vācya</em> by some other element.</p>\r\n<p><u></u></p>\r\n\r\n\r\n<h3>3. The <em>prādi</em> list</h3>\r\n\r\n<p>In the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em>,<em> avyayas </em>are organized according to a complex classification system based on such criteria as the grammatical operations that they can trigger. Table (6) illustrates the different types of <em>avyayas </em>identified and the main Pāṇinian <em>sūtras</em> where they are defined.</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n <label>(6)</label>\r\n <div class=\"content\">\r\n <img src=\"/static/images/researchdata/linguistic_notions/lexical-vs-functional-categories-1.png\" alt=\"Lexical vs Functional Categories diagram\">\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>When grammarians discuss the semantics of <em>avyayas</em>, they mostly focus on the group of the <em>nipātas</em>, which further divide into the <em>prādi </em>and <em>cādi </em>lists (as well as some non-<em>prādi gatis</em>). Besides <em>ca</em> 'and', the <em>cādi</em> list includes other extremely common indeclinables, such as <em>vā </em>'or', <em>iva </em>'like', <em>cet </em>'if' etc.<a href=\"#_ftn11\" name=\"_ftnref11\"><sup><sup>[11]</sup></sup></a> In the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em>, members of the <em>prādi</em> list receive different designations depending on their function within the sentence, thus dividing into four groups in total: preverbs (<em>upasargas</em>), such as <em>anu</em> in (5), those indeclinables that are morphologically identical to preverbs but function as independent adverbs or adpositions (<em>karmapravacanīyas</em>), such as <em>anu </em>in (2), and <em>prādis </em>when they function neither as preverbs nor as adpositions. All <em>prādis</em> that are <em>upasargas</em> also get the name <em>gati</em>, which is responsible for different operations.</p>\r\n<p>The distinction between the <em>prādi </em>and <em>cādi</em> lists is central to the discussion of the semantics of <em>nipātas</em>. A question which grammarians consider is whether all <em>nipātas </em>should be analyzed like <em>anu </em>in (5) or whether there is a difference between the <em>prādi </em>and <em>cādi</em> lists. In relation to this question, as elsewhere in his commentary, Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa sets the view of the logicians, Naiyāyikas, against that of the grammarians. The logicians' stance on the matter is clear; they consider all indeclinables belonging to the <em>prādi </em>list to be <em>dyotaka</em> and all those belonging to the <em>cādi </em>list to be <em>vācaka</em>. The grammarians, instead, and Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa with them, argue that all <em>nipātas</em>, <em>cādis </em>included, are <em>dyotaka</em>.</p>\r\n<p>In his refutation of the logicians, Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa quotes the grammarian Bhaṭṭojidīkṣita (c. 1600 AD) as an authority for the view that both <em>prādis</em> and <em>cādis</em> are <em>dyotaka</em>. This view, if we trust Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa's reading of Bhaṭṭojidīkṣita, is likely to have been the standard opinion among grammarians since at least the latter's time. The views of grammarians earlier than Bhaṭṭojidīkṣita are more difficult to reconstruct and, as always, one needs to be careful not to read back notions that quite clearly belong to the later tradition but for whose beginnings we have less evidence.</p>\r\n<p>Patañjali (c. 150 BC) is a case in point. In general, he does not seem to be particularly interested in the question of denotation <em>vs</em>. manifestation. In the whole of the <em>Mahābhāṣya</em>, the terminology associated with the two concepts only occurs very limitedly; there are just a handful of instances of <em>dyotya </em>and none of <em>dyotaka</em>. More importantly, Patañjali seems never to openly engage with the issue.<a href=\"#_ftn12\" name=\"_ftnref12\"><sup><sup>[12]</sup></sup></a> Although later grammarians occasionally quote passages from the <em>Mahābhāṣya</em> when arguing that <em>nipātas</em> are <em>dyotaka</em>, one may suspect that for Patañjali, the distinction between denotation and manifestation was not as strongly defined or as central as in later grammarians.</p>\r\n<p>Bhartṛhari (c. 450 AD), instead, seems to have considered some <em>nipātas </em>to be <em>vācaka</em> (<em>Vākyapadīya </em>2.192).<a href=\"#_ftn13\" name=\"_ftnref13\"><sup><sup>[13]</sup></sup></a> Among the <em>prādis</em>, Bhartṛhari's view of preverbs seems to have been that they are <em>dyotaka</em>, and thus to be in line with that of the later tradition.<a href=\"#_ftn14\" name=\"_ftnref14\"><sup><sup>[14]</sup></sup></a> While, then, we can know with some certainty that from Bhaṭṭojidīkṣita onwards, grammarians considered all <em>prādis</em> and <em>cādis</em> to be <em>dyotaka</em>, it is harder to know how the discussion had developed earlier on. After Bhaṭṭojidīkṣita and Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa, Nāgeśabhaṭṭa (c. 1700 AD) offers an extensive and elaborate discussion expanding on those of his predecessors in support of the grammarians' position.</p>\r\n\r\n\r\n<h3>4. The <em>cādi</em> list</h3>\r\n\r\n<p>If we trust Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa, while both grammarians and logicians agreed that <em>prādis </em>are <em>dyotaka</em>, in his day the semantics of<em> cādis</em> were a matter of controversy. Grammarians argued that they are <em>dyotaka</em>, whereas logicians that they are<em> vācaka</em>. As regards earlier grammarians, it is again difficult to know what Patañjali's position was. He discusses the meanings of <em>ca</em> at length (see <a href=\"/data/browse/linguisticnotions/14/\">'Coordination'</a>) and from the perspective of later grammarians, we should think of these meanings as meanings by manifestation (<em>dyotya</em>). Patañjali himself, however, does not openly touch upon the question of whether <em>ca</em> is <em>vācaka </em>or <em>dyotaka</em>. Instead, as regards Bhartṛhari, although the evidence is rather limited, it seems that he may have agreed with later grammarians, considering <em>cādis </em>to be <em>dyotaka</em>.<a href=\"#_ftn15\" name=\"_ftnref15\"><sup><sup>[15]</sup></sup></a></p>\r\n<p>As mentioned (see section 3), besides <em>ca</em>,<em> cādis</em> include well-known indeclinables such as <em>vā</em> 'or', <em>iva </em>'like' and <em>cet</em> 'if'. The list is quite disparate and also contains words that look quite different from <em>ca</em> or other conjunctions, such as<em> śaśvat </em>'perpetually' and <em>yugapad </em>'at the same time'.</p>\r\n<p>When discussing the semantics of <em>cādis</em>, the grammarians' argument parallels that for <em>prādis</em>. Consider the following example.</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><em>caitra</em></td>\r\n <td><em>iva</em></td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>Caitra.NOM.SG</td>\r\n <td>like</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td colspan=\"2\">'Like Caitra.'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>According to Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa's argument, the indeclinable <em>iva</em> has no meaning of its own. In (7), <em>sādṛśya</em> 'likeness' is a part of the latent (<em>lakṣya</em>) meaning of <em>caitra </em>and <em>iva </em>is simply <em>dyotaka</em> of this secondary meaning; i.e. it brings it out by manifestation. This is to say that <em>caitra</em>, whose primary meaning is (the PN) 'Caitra', can also secondarily mean 'like Caitra'. Unlike for <em>prādis</em>, Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa does not discuss the semantics of <em>cādis</em> in detail, but it can be plausibly supposed that the same argument always holds true, i.e. that every noun has a secondary meaning that is characterized by <em>sādṛśya</em>. The word for 'man' thus also secondarily means 'like a man', that for 'horse' 'like a horse' etc. The indeclinable <em>iva </em>selects these secondary meanings, exactly as preverbs select the secondary meanings of the verbal roots that they are joined with. The exact same reasoning applies to the other <em>cādis</em>.</p>\r\n\r\n\r\n<h3>5. Why manifestation?</h3>\r\n\r\n<p>This idea that such meanings as coordination or 'likeness' (7) are in a way inherent to every word and that <em>ca</em> and<em> iva</em> merely bring them out may appear rather surprising. Why not just suppose that <em>iva</em> means 'like' rather than thinking that 'likeness' is a property of the secondary meaning of all nouns? Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa offers specific reasons why <em>cādis </em>are <em>dyotaka</em>, but the main argument seems to be analogy with the <em>prādis</em>. It is an important point in the <em>Vaiyākaraṇabhūṣaṇasāra </em>that all <em>nipātas</em> should receive the same treatment and, given that Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa believes <em>prādis</em> to be <em>dyotaka</em>, this conclusion should be extended to <em>cādis</em>. In fact, <em>prādis</em> always remain the focus of Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa's analysis.</p>\r\n<p>When discussing <em>anubhavati</em> in example (5), we saw that Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa listed three possible ways of analyzing this compound verb before opting for the view that preverbs are <em>dyotaka </em>and that the meaning of a compound verb is, properly speaking, a meaning of the root only. The two other options were to take 'experience' as a meaning of the preverb <em>anu </em>(i.e. to make the preverb <em>vācaka</em>) or to take it as the meaning of <em>anubhavati </em>as a complex whole.</p>\r\n<p>Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa refutes the former option at length and the latter with the brief comment <em>gauravāt</em>, 'because it would be cumbersome'. In fact, thinking of a compound verb as a complex may not necessarily seem like an unreasonable approach. Outside of the Indian tradition, there are examples of 'compositional' approaches to the semantics of compound verbs, whereby the meaning of a compound verb is interpreted as the combination of the meaning of the preverb and that of the root. This is the approach adopted, for instance, by Hettrich and his team in their studies on preverbs and local particles in Sanskrit.<a href=\"#_ftn16\" name=\"_ftnref16\"><sup><sup>[16]</sup></sup></a> The preverb itself is analyzed as carrying some type of basic meaning(s) contributing to the meaning of the compound verb.</p>\r\n<p>On some level, Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa too thinks of a compound verb as a unit of preverb and verbal root, but for him, its meaning underlyingly belongs to the verbal root only. The reason for this choice is tightly connected to the general architecture of the grammar, as well as to specific technical issues. Both types of problems are encapsulated by the comment <em>gauravāt</em>. When grammarians speak of <em>gaurava</em>, they generally refer to a lack of economy of the relevant argument. In the present case, as commentators explain, the problems are that the <em>Dhātupāṭha</em>, the list of Sanskrit verbal roots, would need to be modified (because the combinations of preverbs and roots would now need separate entries from those of the simple roots and the number of entries would consequently be expanded by countless new roots) and that the processes of augmentation and reduplication would yield incorrect results.</p>\r\n<p>In <em>vyākaraṇa</em>, derivation is thought of as starting from meaning; that is, the derivation starts in order to express something that the speaker wants to say. The necessary grammatical forms and operations are chosen on the basis of the meanings that need to be expressed. Let us suppose that the meaning that needs to be expressed is that of 'experience'. If 'experience' is the meaning of the compound verb as a whole, rather than just of one of its parts, we are forced to take <em>anubhū</em>- as a root separate from <em>bhū</em>- and, consequently, as the starting point for our derivation. But this would be highly uneconomical for the grammarians because it would require the creation and addition of countless new roots to the <em>Dhātupāṭha</em>.</p>\r\n<p>Starting from <em>anubhū</em>- would also produce ungrammatical results. The main concern is the position of the augment (<em>āgama</em>) and reduplication in compound verbs. Because of how derivation works in Pāṇinian grammar, both augmentation and reduplication are operations that should take place before the root is joined with the preverb. An augment is always prefixed to a root (<em>dhātu</em>), e.g. <em>abhavat </em>'(s)he was' from the root <em>bhū</em>-. In a compound verb, the augment needs to come in between the preverb and the stem, as in the imperfect <em>anv</em>-<em>a</em>-<em>bhavat </em>'(s)he experienced'. To correctly derive this form, <em>anu</em>- can only be added once we have already obtained <em>abhavat</em>. If we started from the compound form, <em>anubhū</em>-, we would derive the ungrammatical form *<em>ānubhavat</em>. Similarly, the root first needs to be reduplicated before the preverb can be attached or the preverb itself would end up being reduplicated.</p>\r\n<p>In the light of these two fundamental problems of economy and correct grammatical derivation, a better solution is inevitably one that does not force us to analyze <em>anubhū</em>- as a root. By ascribing the meaning of 'experience' to <em>bhū</em>- alone, grammarians do not need to take the compound verb as their starting point and can thus derive the correct forms.</p>\r\n<p>Compound verbs are not the only case where grammarians avoid a compositional approach to semantics; one common approach to the semantics of compounds (<em>samāsas</em>) is to regard a compound as an independent unit whose meaning is underived, rather than resulting from the simple combination of the meanings of its constituent members (see <em>nityapakṣa </em> under <a href=\"/data/browse/linguisticnotions/13/\">'Compounding'</a>). Although the semantic analysis of <em>samāsas</em> is distinct from that of compound verbs, here too we have a case in which the whole is not merely the combination of its parts.</p>\r\n\r\n\r\n<h3>6. Other<em> dyotakas</em></h3>\r\n\r\n<p><em></em></p>\r\n<p><em>nipātas </em>are not the only words to be defined as <em>dyotaka </em>by the <em>vyākaraṇa </em>tradition. Although discussions on manifestation <em>vs</em>. denotation tend to focus on <em>nipātas</em>, there are also e.g.<em> pratyayas</em> 'suffixes' that, in certain contexts, count as <em>dyotaka</em>. For instance, this is the case with the absolutive-forming suffix -<em>Ktvā</em> that we find in e.g. <em>gatvā</em> 'having gone'. In general, the agent of an absolutive needs to be coreferential with that of the governing verb (see <a href=\"/data/browse/linguisticnotions/15/\">'Control'</a>). This condition is called <em>samānakartṛkatvam</em> 'the state of having the same <em>kartṛ</em>'. In the <em>Ktvādyarthanirṇaya </em>of Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa's <em>Vaiyākaraṇabhūṣaṇasāra</em>, -<em>Ktvā</em> is said to be <em>dyotaka</em> of <em>samānakartṛkatvam</em>.</p>\r\n\r\n<hr>\r\n\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\"><sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup></a> Carlson (1983).</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\" name=\"_ftn2\"><sup><sup>[2]</sup></sup></a> It is better to speak of 'morphemes' rather than 'words' because this generally allows for a more comprehensive description (Rizzi and Cinque 2016: 140). That said, both 'word' and 'morpheme' remain somewhat problematic notions in linguistics.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref3\" name=\"_ftn3\"><sup><sup>[3]</sup></sup></a> Sometimes there may even be differences between the members of the same category. Cf. the difference between semantic and grammatical prepositions, as theorized within Lexical-Functional Grammar (Börjars 2019: 55-8).</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref4\" name=\"_ftn4\"><sup><sup>[4]</sup></sup></a> If we speak of functional morphemes rather than full independent words, then there is also a great number of functional morphemes that belong to another group, that of <em>pratyayas</em> 'suffixes'.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref5\" name=\"_ftn5\"><sup><sup>[5]</sup></sup></a> Aṣṭ. 1.2.45 <em>arthavad adhātur apratyayaḥ prātipadikam</em> 'A nominal stem is any meaningful part of speech that is neither a verbal root nor a suffix nor a form that ends with a suffix (except those listed in the subsequent rule)'.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref6\" name=\"_ftn6\"><sup><sup>[6]</sup></sup></a> This 'realistic' (Deshpande 1972: 6ff.) sense of <em>artha</em> is occasionally used by Patañjali (c. 150 BC). In the later grammarians, however, <em>artha</em> generally refers to conceptual entities only.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref7\" name=\"_ftn7\"><sup><sup>[7]</sup></sup></a> The tradition also recognizes two other important concepts that play a role in discussions about 'meaning' (<em>vyañjanā</em> and <em>tātparya</em>), for which see <a href=\"/data/browse/linguisticfields/6/\">'Linguistic Fields: Pragmatics'</a>.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref8\" name=\"_ftn8\"><sup><sup>[8]</sup></sup></a> This is how Western linguistics traditionally terms verbs when they are combined with preverbs, as opposed to 'simple' or 'uncompounded' verbs. In the Indian tradition, instead, these would not technically count as 'compounds'.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref9\" name=\"_ftn9\"><sup><sup>[9]</sup></sup></a> The use that Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa makes of the term <em>lakṣaṇā </em>in this context is not shared by all grammarians. Most grammarians acknowledge that the example of <em>gaṅgā</em> above involves <em>lakṣaṇā</em>. But some, unlike Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa, would talk of 'experience' in (5) as another primary meaning of <em>bhū</em>-, that is, another meaning expressed by <em>śakti</em>. Even so, they would still agree with the rest of Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa's analysis and take <em>anu</em> to be <em>dyotaka </em>(see immediately below).</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref10\" name=\"_ftn10\"><sup><sup>[10]</sup></sup></a> <em>Vaiyākaraṇabhūṣaṇasāra</em>, <em>Nipātārthanirṇaya </em>323-4.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref11\" name=\"_ftn11\"><sup><sup>[11]</sup></sup></a> See Dyen (1939) for the complete list.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref12\" name=\"_ftn12\"><sup><sup>[12]</sup></sup></a> Bandyopadhyay (1981: 50-1) argues that Patañjali regarded preverbs as <em>dyotaka</em> but, unlike later grammarians, also accepted that some <em>nipātas</em> could be <em>vācaka</em>. Bandyopadhyay's evidence, however, is at best slim. His interpretation of <em>Mahābhāṣya</em> 1.30.1-32.11, for instance, is based on an unsupported interpretation of <em>artha</em> as <em>vācya artha</em>.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref13\" name=\"_ftn13\"><sup><sup>[13]</sup></sup></a> <em>nipātā dyotakāḥ kecit pṛthagarthābhidhāyinaḥ</em> | <em>āgamā iva ke 'pi syuḥ sambhūyārthasya vācakāḥ</em> ||</p>\r\n<p>'Some <em>nipātas </em>are <em>dyotaka</em>; others are independently meaningful (<em>arthābhidhāyinaḥ</em>); some, exactly like grammatical augments, express a meaning by denotation (<em>vācakāḥ</em>) when they are combined with another word'.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref14\" name=\"_ftn14\"><sup><sup>[14]</sup></sup></a> The discussion is at <em>Vākyapadīya</em> 2.187-91. On the notion of <em>anumāna</em>(<em>s</em>) that emerges in this passage, see Akamatsu (1999).</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref15\" name=\"_ftn15\"><sup><sup>[15]</sup></sup></a> <em>cādayo na prayujyante padatve sati kevalāḥ </em>| <em>pratyayo vācakatve 'pi kevalo na prayujyate</em> || (<em>Vākyapadīya</em> 2.194) '<em>ca</em> etc. are not employed on their own, even if they count as words (<em>padatve</em>), (exactly as) suffixes (<em>pratyayas</em>) are not employed on their own, even if they are denotative (<em>vācakatve</em>)'. See Panchal and Kulkarni (2019: 65). In this passage, denotation (<em>vācakatve</em>) seems to be referring to <em>pratyayas </em>only, especially given that the two halves of this verse are apparently meant to be parallel (with <em>padatve</em> referring to <em>cādis</em> and <em>vācakatve </em>to <em>pratyayas</em>). If <em>cādis </em>are not <em>vācaka</em>, then it follows that they are <em>dyotaka</em>.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref16\" name=\"_ftn16\"><sup><sup>[16]</sup></sup></a> For instance, in Casaretto and Schneider (2015: 225), a preverb is defined as a morpheme whose function is 'to modify the verb semantically. Both constituents may retain their original meanings (cf. Lat. <em>ex</em>-<em>ire</em> 'go out'), or they may be subject to lexicalization'. Generally, such an approach at least implicitly underlies diachronic studies on Sanskrit preverbs. The standard account of the development of preverbs in Sanskrit (as in other Indo-European languages) is that they started out as independent words signalling location or changes of location (local particles), before becoming tied to the verb. Under such premises, a diachronic study of preverbs will most probably involve some notion of compositionality in order to describe the progressive lexicalization of two separate words as a single one. Indian grammarians, however, are thinking of the language synchronically and do not discuss anything like the development from local particles to preverbs that we find in IE studies<em>.</em></p>",
"admin_notes": "",
"admin_published": true,
"meta_created_datetime": "2023-11-26T13:42:17.123631Z",
"meta_lastupdated_datetime": "2024-01-14T20:36:19.197393Z",
"meta_firstpublished_datetime": "2023-11-26T13:42:17.123313Z",
"meta_citation_author": 5,
"meta_created_by": 1,
"meta_lastupdated_by": 1,
"linguistic_notion": [
13,
15,
14
],
"author": [
17,
29,
22,
37,
41
],
"linguistic_field": [
6,
2
],
"meta_citation_additional_authors": []
},
{
"id": 8,
"name": "Objecthood",
"description": "<h3>1. Introduction</h3>\r\n<p>Like the closely related notion of 'subject', the notion of 'object' is an ancient one in the Western linguistic tradition, and in modern Western linguistics 'object', like 'subject', remains an important descriptive notion. In theoretical approaches, the status of the notion object largely stands or falls with that of subject: subject and object may be derivative notions, definable in terms of e.g. phrase structural configuration, or they may be treated as basic categories of grammar.<a href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\">[1]</a></p>\r\n<p>Unlike the notion of subject, that of object remains relatively understudied and under-defined. The lack of detailed and specific treatments of object and objecthood was noted by Börjars and Vincent (2008), and this relative neglect has continued, their own brief paper the only notable exception since Plank (1984).</p>\r\n<p>Part of the problem in studying the category of object is the apparent lack of absolutely clear definitional criteria. While it has been shown that a number of syntactic operations target subjects specifically, or can be used to distinguish subjects from other grammatical functions, the situation is rather more problematic in the case of objects. As discussed by Börjars and Vincent (2008), the role of the object in passivization - namely, that the object in the active becomes the subject in the passive - is in some respects the most obvious and most robust criterion, but in fact even this is inadequate for defining the notion of object, since on the one hand there are objects - e.g. secondary objects - which cannot become subjects in the passive, and on the other, in certain circumstances non-object oblique arguments may become subjects in the passive.</p>\r\n<p>Börjars and Vincent (2008) discuss a number of other issues in the definition of objecthood, including the relation between 'core objects' and secondary objects, between objects and clausal complements, the notions of cognate objects, pseudo-objects, and object expletives, and the relation between the notion of object and the notion of Theme, which they take to be extremely close.</p>\r\n\r\n<h3>2. The Indian tradition: the <em>karman</em></h3>\r\n<p>In the ancient Indian grammatical tradition, the closest notion corresponding to the Western 'object' is the category of <em>karman</em>. This is one of the <em>kārakas</em>, abstract argument structure categories discussed in detail in <a href=\"/data/browse/linguisticnotions/4/\">'Argument structure'.</a></p>\r\n<p>As one of the kāraka labels, <em>karman</em> applies at a level of abstract representation which does not necessarily map one-to-one to the surface structure. So, in a prototypical active sentence, the <em>karman</em> does indeed correspond to the 'object', and the argument concerned is marked with the characteristically objective case-marking, accusative; but in the corresponding passive sentence the same argument retains the label <em>karman</em>, even though it surfaces in the nominative case, that is from a Western perspective as the subject. On some level, then, <em>karman</em> corresponds to what is sometimes called the 'logical object' (that is, roughly, the argument which would be the object in a prototypical active usage).</p>\r\n<p>In Pāṇini's <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em> there are three main rules defining the kāraka <em>karman</em>:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n <label>(1)</label>\r\n <div class=\"content\">\r\n <p><em>Aṣṭ</em>. 1.4.49 <em>kartur īpsitatamaṃ karma</em> 'The term <em>karman</em> denotes that which is most desired by the agent.'</p>\r\n <p><em>Aṣṭ</em>. 1.4.50: <em>tathāyuktaṃ cānīpsitam</em> '(The term <em>karman</em>) denotes what is likewise connected even when not desired.'</p>\r\n <p><em>Aṣṭ</em>. 1.4.51: <em>akathitaṃ ca</em> '(The term <em>karman</em>) also applies to something to which no other kāraka designation is given.'</p>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>The first two rules attempt a semantic definition of the role of the <em>karman</em>. The first appears to have the status of the prototypical case, where the <em>karman</em> represents the argument which the agent most desires (to obtain, create, reach, affect) through the action in question. This relation is prototypical insofar as it is taken as the basis for the extension, by <em>Aṣṭ</em>. 1.4.50, to cases where the argument in question is not desired (in whatever way) by the agent. The obvious difficulty in providing a clear semantic definition of the <em>karman</em> reflects the difficulty for modern Western linguistic theory of defining the semantic role of Theme, which underlies a part of the semantic range which Pāṇini was here trying to capture.</p>\r\n<p>The semantic definition, and semantic range, of the <em>karman</em> became a more extensive topic of discussion in the later grammatical tradition, as discussed below. But the third rule in (1), <em>akathitaṃ ca</em>, provides more of a syntactic extension of the scope of <em>karman</em>, which complicates its definition in a similar way to the problems discussed above with the Western notion of <em>object</em>. The traditional interpretation takes this rule as referring to secondary objects in double object constructions, such as:<a href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\">[2]</a></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>devadattaḥ</td>\r\n <td>gāṃ</td>\r\n <td>payaḥ</td>\r\n <td>dogdhi</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>D.NOM</td>\r\n <td>cow.ACC</td>\r\n <td>milk.ACC</td>\r\n <td>milk.3SG</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td colspan=\"4\">‘Devadatta milks milk (from) the cow.’</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>In this sentence, what Devadatta most desires through his action is the milk, so the label <em>karman</em> applies to the word <em>payaḥ</em> by <em>Aṣṭ</em>. 1.4.49. Here, the cow bears no other distinct kāraka relation to the action of the verb, and so falls under the scope of <em>Aṣṭ.</em> 1.4.51, and is also given the label <em>karman</em>.<a href=\"#_ftn3\" name=\"_ftnref3\">[3]</a> This ultimately accounts for the accusative case marking on both words. The 'akathita' <em>karman</em>, here the cow, is understood as being <em>apradhāna</em> 'non-primary', while the <em>karman</em> which receives its label from the earlier rule is the <em>pradhāna</em> 'primary' <em>karman</em>. This appears to be close to the distinction between core object and secondary object in Western linguistic theory. However, the distinction here is primarily semantic; crucially, it is not the case that the <em>pradhāna-karman</em> is syntactically primary. For most ditransitive verbs, in fact, it is the non-primary <em>karman</em> which becomes the subject in the passive. Only four of the sixteen verbs traditionally listed as ditransitive by the tradition show promotion of the <em>pradhāna</em>-<em>karman</em> to subject in the passive (Deshpande 1991).<a href=\"#_ftn4\" name=\"_ftnref4\">[4]</a></p>\r\n<p>Whatever the differences between the notions of primary vs. non-primary <em>karman</em> and core vs. secondary object, the designation of two arguments of a ditransitive verb as <em>karman</em> raises the same problem encountered with the definition of object in the Western tradition: promotion to the subject in the passive (or, in the Indian context, being co-referenced by the verbal ending in the passive) is no longer a definitional feature of being a <em>karman</em>/object.</p>\r\n<p>In other respects, though, the assignment of the label <em>karman</em> is fundamentally associated with the ability of an argument to become the subject in the passive. It is also associated, though less absolutely, with assignment of accusative case, the grammatical object case in Sanskrit. For example, <em>Aṣṭ.</em> 1.4.52 applies to the causative of some verbs, assigning the role <em>karman</em> to the argument that was the <em>kartṛ</em> in the corresponding non-causative. This rule ultimately licenses the accusative case marking on the causee with causatives of intransitive and some other verbs, and also licenses the 'promotion to subject' of the causee in the passives of such causatives.</p>\r\n<p>Other rules assign the term <em>karman</em> to arguments of certain verbs which would otherwise be given a different kāraka label. For example:</p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"example\">\r\n <label>(3)</label>\r\n <div class=\"content\">\r\n <p><em>Aṣṭ</em>. 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'.'</p>\r\n <p><em>Aṣṭ</em>. 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-occurring with preverbs.'</p>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>According to the first rule in (3), the argument of a verb like <em>krudh</em> 'feel angry' which expresses the object of anger is given the kāraka label <em>sampradāna</em>; this label is linked with the dative case. According to the second rule in (3), on the other hand, with a preverb-verb complex like <em>abhi-krudh</em> 'feel angry towards' the same argument will get the label <em>karman</em>. This means it will appear in the accusative case:</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>a</td>\r\n <td>devadatto</td>\r\n <td>yajñadattāya</td>\r\n <td>krudhyati</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>feel_angry.3SG</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td colspan=\"3\">'Devadatta feels angry towards Yajñadatta.'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td>b</td>\r\n <td>devadatto</td>\r\n <td>yajñadattāya</td>\r\n <td>abhikrudhyati</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>feel_angry.3SG</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n <tr>\r\n <td></td>\r\n <td colspan=\"3\">'Devadatta feels angry towards Yajñadatta.'</td>\r\n </tr>\r\n </table>\r\n </div>\r\n</div>\r\n\r\n<p>The classification of the source of anger as <em>sampradāna</em> with the basic verb but <em>karman</em> with the prefixed verb predicts also that this argument could become the passive subject only with the prefixed verb.<a href=\"#_ftn5\" name=\"_ftnref5\">[5]</a></p>\r\n<p>Further on the category <em>karman</em> in the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em>, see the discussion of <em>karmavadbhāva</em> under <a href=\"/data/browse/linguisticnotions/6/\">'Subjecthood'</a>.</p>\r\n<p>The term <em>karman</em>, then, does not correspond precisely to the notion of object familiar in the Western linguistic tradition. It is also not the same as semantic role notions like Patient or Theme, although (as for 'object') all or most Patient or Theme arguments will get the label <em>karman</em>. It is closest to the descriptive notion of 'logical object', and shares with this the association with the subject role in the active, but it also encompasses secondary objects and, as discussed, includes primary and secondary objects which cannot become passive subjects.</p>\r\n\r\n<h3>3. Types of <em>karman</em></h3>\r\n<p>Building on the partially semantic definition of the <em>karman</em> in the <em>Aṣṭādhyāyī</em>, the great grammarian-philosopher Bhartṛhari, in <em>Vākyapadīya</em> 3.7.45-46, developed a seven-fold categorization of the <em>karman</em> which became authoritative in the Pāṇinian tradition. The following discussion is based on the later presentation by Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa, in the <em>Subarthanirṇaya</em> of his <em>Vaiyākaraṇabhūṣaṇasāra</em>.<a href=\"#_ftn6\" name=\"_ftnref6\">[6]</a></p>\r\n<p>The seven types of <em>karman</em> are: <em>nirvartya</em> 'to be brought about', <em>vikārya</em> 'to be altered', <em>prāpya</em> 'to be obtained', <em>audāsīnyena yat prāpyam</em> 'what is obtained through indifference', <em>yat kartur anīpsitam </em>'what is not desired by the agent', <em>saṃjñāntarair anākhyātam</em> 'what is not explained by another label', <em>anyapūrvaka </em>'that which was previously something else'.</p>\r\n<p>The first three of these are subdivisions of Pāṇini's <em>īpsitatama</em> 'most desired' type, that is the prototypical <em>karman</em> defined in <em>Aṣṭ.</em> 1.4.49 (see ex. 1). The action of an agent can be intended to bring about the creation of a thing, e.g. <em>ghaṭaṃ karoti</em> 'he makes a pot', where the pot is the <em>nirvartya</em> 'to be brought about' <em>karman</em>. The action of an agent can also be intended to bring about the alteration of one material into another; this is the <em>vikārya</em> 'to be altered' <em>karman</em>. Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa recognizes two variants of this type: first, where something comes about through elimination of another material, and second where we are dealing with alteration of attributes. Examples of each respectively are <em>kāṣṭhaṃ bhasma karoti</em> 'he makes the firewood into ashes' and <em>suvarṇaṃ kuṇḍalaṃ karoti</em> 'he makes the gold into an earring'.</p>\r\n<p>The third type of the prototypical <em>karman</em> is the <em>prāpya</em> 'to be obtained', e.g. <em>ghaṭaṃ paśyati</em> 'he sees the pot'. While the <em>nirvartya</em> and <em>vikārya</em> <em>karman</em>s are close to the semantic role of Patient, the <em>prāpya-karman</em> appears to be closest to the semantic role of Theme: this subtype of <em>karman</em> is crucially unaffected by the action of the verb.</p>\r\n<p>The fourth and fifth types of <em>karman</em> correspond to the <em>anīpsita</em> 'undesired' <em>karman</em> of Pāṇini's <em>Aṣṭ.</em> 1.4.50. The division recognizes that the attitude of an agent towards a patient/theme-like argument, where that attitude is not one of desire (to obtain, reach etc.) may be one of either indifference or active aversion. The former is the <em>karman</em> which is <em>audāsīnyena yat prāpyam</em> 'what is obtained through indifference' (alternatively called <em>udāsīna</em> 'indifferent'), e.g. <em>tṛṇaṃ spṛśati</em> 'he touches the blade of grass'. The latter is the <em>karman</em> which is <em>yat kartur anīpsitam </em>'what is not desired by the agent' (also called <em>dveṣya</em> 'hated'), e.g. <em>viṣaṃ bhuṅkte</em> 'he eats poison'.</p>\r\n<p>The secondary <em>karman</em>, Pāṇini's <em>akathita</em> type defined in 1.4.51, remains a distinct type in this classification too: <em>saṃjñāntarair anākhyātam</em> 'what is not explained by another label', e.g. <em>gāṃ dogdhi</em> 'he milks the cow'.</p>\r\n<p>The seventh type recognizes as distinct those cases where the label <em>karman</em> is assigned to arguments of specific verbs or preverb-verb complexes where we would otherwise expect a different kāraka label, such as the case of <em>abhi-krudh</em> discussed above. Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa's term, <em>anyapūrvaka </em>'that which was previously something else' interestingly acknowledges a kind of derivational process here; his example parallels our example above: <em>krūram abhikrudhyati</em> 'he is angry with the cruel man'.</p>\r\n<p>The <em>karman</em> defined in <em>Aṣṭ.</em> 1.4.52, that is where the <em>kartṛ</em> of a non-causative verb is labelled <em>karman</em> in the corresponding causative, is not counted as a type of <em>karman</em>, underlyingly, but as a type of <em>kartṛ</em>, the so-called <em>karmakartṛ</em>.</p>\r\n\r\n<h3>4. The semantic basis of the <em>karman</em></h3>\r\n<p>Alongside deeper consideration of the categorization of types of <em>karman</em>, the later tradition also developed theories of the semantic basis of <em>karman­-</em>hood<em>. </em>The following discussion is again based on Kauṇḍabhaṭṭa's <em>Vaiyākaraṇabhūṣaṇasāra</em>, <em>Subarthanirṇaya</em>, and see further Sarma and Grimal (2013: 3-7).</p>\r\n<p>A verbal root fundamentally expresses some kind of <em>kriyā</em> 'action'. <em>Kriyā</em> consists of two parts: <em>vyāpāra</em> 'activity', and <em>phala</em> 'result'. These two aspects of <em>kriyā</em> reside in particular substrata, and in the case of an ordinary transitive verb, the <em>vyāpāra</em> resides in the <em>kartṛ</em> (≈ the agent or active subject), while the <em>phala</em> resides in the <em>karman</em>.</p>\r\n<p>The <em>karman</em>, then, can be defined as the <em>kriyājanyaphalāśraya</em> 'the substratum of the result brought about by the action'. For example, in the sentence <em>odanaṃ pacati</em> 'he cooks rice', the rice is the <em>karman</em> by virtue of its being the location of the result of the action, namely the softening which is the intended result of the cooking.</p>\r\n<p>This definition is not quite sufficient, in fact, because in the case of intransitive verbs the <em>vyāpāra</em> 'activity' and <em>phala</em> 'result' are understood both to reside in the agent, e.g. <em>Devadattas tiṣṭhati</em> 'Devadatta stands', where Devadatta is the one to whom the result of his action applies. In addition, in some cases the <em>phala</em> 'result' can be understood as residing in both the <em>kartṛ </em>and the <em>karman</em>, e.g. <em>caitro grāmaṃ gacchati</em> 'Caitra goes to the village', where the co-location which is the result of the act of going applies equally to Caitra and the village. For both cases there are two possible solutions: we could add a specification to the effect that the <em>karman</em> is not the substratum of the <em>vyāpāra</em> 'activity' of the action (as well as being the substratum of the result). Alternatively, and more simply, one can understand a kind of blocking relation: the label <em>karman</em> applies to the substratum of the result of an action, but where the label <em>kartṛ </em>would also apply (as it does to the substratum of the <em>vyāpāra</em>), the latter trumps the former.</p>\r\n<p>The notion of transitivity can then be defined in these terms (Joshi 1960): either as <em>svārthaphalavyadhikaraṇavyāpāravācitva </em>'the state of denoting activity which has a different locus from the result which is the meaning of the root' or <em>svārthavyāpāravyadhikaraṇaphalavācakatva</em> 'the state of denoting the result which has a different locus from the activity which is the meaning of the root'.</p>\r\n<p>The <em>phala</em> of an action can be of two types: <em>bhāva</em> 'state' or <em>kriyā</em> 'action'; the difference between these is understood by the tradition in terms of whether there is or is not some kind of movement. This means that there can be two types of <em>karman</em>, one which is the substratum of a <em>phala </em>which is a <em>bhāva</em>, and one which is the substratum of a <em>phala</em> which is a <em>kriyā</em>. For example, in the sentence <em>ghaṭaṃ pacati</em> 'he bakes the pot', the <em>phala</em> resulting from the action of baking is the change of colour of the pot; such a use of <em>pac</em> 'cook' is called <em>karmasthabhāvaka</em> 'denoting a state residing in the <em>karman</em>'. In contrast, in the sentence <em>kāṣṭhaṃ bhinatti</em> 'he splits the logs', the result of the action of splitting involves a movement, a <em>kriyā</em> 'action', on the part of the logs; such a use of <em>bhid</em> is called <em>karmasthakriyaka</em> 'denoting an activity residing in the <em>karman</em>'.</p>\r\n\r\n<hr>\r\n\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\">[1]</a> The classic argument for the existence of grammatical relations like subject and object as base categories of grammar is by Perlmutter and Postal (1977); in one form or another the argument was accepted in grammatical theories like Lexical-Functional Grammar, Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, and Relational Grammar, but was rejected by Chomsky (1981: 123-124). See further Pollard and Sag (1994: 118-123).</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\" name=\"_ftn2\">[2]</a> See in particular Deshpande (1991), and also on ditransitive verbs Joshi and Roodbergen (1975), and Hock (1985). An alternative interpretation of this rule is given by Kiparsky (2009).</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref3\" name=\"_ftn3\">[3]</a> It can alternatively be interpreted as a source, and given the kāraka label <em>apādāna</em>; this would result in ablative case marking.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref4\" name=\"_ftn4\">[4]</a> Deshpande surveys the various attempts within the tradition to resolve the lack of consistency in which of the <em>karman</em>s is targeted in the passive, but the tradition presents no final solution.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref5\" name=\"_ftn5\">[5]</a> Although in fact, a passive of <em>krudh</em> does not appear to be attested.</p>\r\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref6\" name=\"_ftn6\">[6]</a> See also Vergiani (2013), who summarizes Bhartṛhari's categorization and discusses its adaptation in the Tamil grammatical tradition and some other later authors.</p>",
"admin_notes": "",
"admin_published": true,
"meta_created_datetime": "2022-12-12T15:59:05.405069Z",
"meta_lastupdated_datetime": "2023-07-25T23:14:05.804048+01:00",
"meta_firstpublished_datetime": "2022-12-12T15:59:05.404803Z",
"meta_citation_author": 2,
"meta_created_by": 2,
"meta_lastupdated_by": 2,
"linguistic_notion": [
4,
5,
10,
6
],
"author": [
17,
22,
15
],
"linguistic_field": [
1
],
"meta_citation_additional_authors": []
},
{
"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 (≈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": "2023-11-26T13:54:16.639189Z",
"meta_firstpublished_datetime": "2022-03-22T09:38:29.561975Z",
"meta_citation_author": 2,
"meta_created_by": 1,
"meta_lastupdated_by": 1,
"linguistic_notion": [
4,
8
],
"author": [
22,
37,
15
],
"linguistic_field": [
2,
1
],
"meta_citation_additional_authors": []
},
{
"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 ­­<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</em>, with the 1sg. present of <em>as</em>, i.e. <em>asmi</em>: <em>kartā</em> + <em>asmi</em> → <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—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. 3.1.35–39 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> → 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>kṛÑ</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> → gamay + ām + <em><span style=\"text-decoration: line-through;\">liṭ</span></em> + kṛÑ + <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 Patañjali, 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
],
"meta_citation_additional_authors": []
},
{
"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 ‘who you thought I knew’ is embedded within the noun phrase and subordinated to the head of the noun phrase, ‘man’. The relative pronoun ‘who’ begins the relative clause, and is coindexed with the gapped object position of ‘knew’.</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 & 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’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’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. ‘having done this, he returned’ ≈ ‘when he had done this, he returned’.</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 (≈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> ‘predominant/primary verb/action’ and <em>guṇa-kriyā</em> ‘qualifying verb/action’, 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>, ‘determined by the words’, that is it is explicitly marked (<em>Samanvayadiś </em>5.1.1.1 [Slaje’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> ‘determined by the meaning’, 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> ‘having as its range an inferred (demonstrative functioning as) patient or other grammatical role’ (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> ‘having as its range an object previously mentioned’ (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’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’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’s <em>Vyaktiviveka</em>, with additional mixed categories, as well as a category where neither relative nor demonstrative is explicit. See Hahn (2008: 58—71, esp. 68—69) for details.</p>",
"admin_notes": "",
"admin_published": true,
"meta_created_datetime": "2021-06-23T10:02:15.687582+01:00",
"meta_lastupdated_datetime": "2023-11-26T13:55:21.289726Z",
"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
],
"meta_citation_additional_authors": []
},
{
"id": 10,
"name": "Semantic roles",
"description": "<p>There is nothing precisely equivalent to the notion of semantic roles, or 'thematic roles', in the Indian tradition. The closest categories are the <em>kārakas</em>, but these are more abstract grammatical categories than semantic categories. See the entries 'Argument structure' and 'Subjecthood'.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>The kāraka <em>kartṛ</em> is argued to be equivalent to a notion of the most proto-agentive role in the entry <a href=\"/data/browse/linguisticnotions/6/\">'Subjecthood'</a>.</p>\r\n\r\n<p>On the relation between the kāraka <em>karman</em> and the semantic roles of Patient and Theme, see the entry <a href=\"/data/browse/linguisticnotions/8/\">'Objecthood'</a>.</p>",
"admin_notes": "",
"admin_published": true,
"meta_created_datetime": "2022-12-12T16:06:45.054444Z",
"meta_lastupdated_datetime": "2023-10-19T16:05:48.633109+01:00",
"meta_firstpublished_datetime": "2022-12-12T16:06:45.054194Z",
"meta_citation_author": 2,
"meta_created_by": 2,
"meta_lastupdated_by": 2,
"linguistic_notion": [
4,
8,
6
],
"author": [],
"linguistic_field": [],
"meta_citation_additional_authors": []
},
{
"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. </p>\r\n<p>The Indian tradition, beginning with Pāṇini, is widely claimed to entirely lack the notion of 'subject' (e.g. Cardona 1974: 244–245). Kiparsky (2009) 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 in <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> (≈ 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 & 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 θ<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 – 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 Yajñadatta 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": "2023-08-23T10:37:04.159593+01:00",
"meta_firstpublished_datetime": "2022-03-22T09:38:52.280153Z",
"meta_citation_author": 2,
"meta_created_by": 1,
"meta_lastupdated_by": 1,
"linguistic_notion": [
4,
8,
10
],
"author": [
29,
19,
15
],
"linguistic_field": [
2,
1
],
"meta_citation_additional_authors": []
},
{
"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 “inflectional form suppletion”. 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> ‘bear’.</p>\r\n<p>There is of course a gradient between ‘regular’ 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’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–Tage</em> type: Pāṇini would simply substitute [k] for [g] in the relevant forms).</p>\r\n<p>Pāṇini’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> ‘do, make’, 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> (‘guṇa grade’) 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> ‘strike, slay’ is specified as a substitute for the root in its entirety in the relevant context (A. 2.4.42–44). 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. 7.3.78–9 specifies a series of stem substitutions:</p>\r\n<ul>\r\n<li><em>pā</em> > <em>piba-</em></li>\r\n<li><em>ghrā</em> > <em>jighra-</em></li>\r\n<li><em>dhmā</em> > <em>dhama-</em></li>\r\n<li><em>sthā</em> > <em>tiṣṭha-</em></li>\r\n<li><em>mnā</em> > <em>mana-</em></li>\r\n<li><em>dā</em> > <em>yaccha-</em></li>\r\n<li><em>dṛś</em> > <em>paśya-</em></li>\r\n<li><em>ṛ</em> > <em>ṛccha</em>-</li>\r\n<li><em>sṛ</em> > <em>dhāv</em>-</li>\r\n<li><em>śad</em> > <em>śīya</em>-</li>\r\n<li><em>sad</em> > <em>sīda</em>-</li>\r\n<li><em>jñā</em> > <em>jā</em>-</li>\r\n<li><em>jan</em> > <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–paśya</em>. In other cases, a morphophonological relation between the root and the substitute is evident; for example, <em>ghrā–jighra</em> and <em>sthā–tiṣṭha</em> involve reduplication (as do <em>pā–piba </em>and <em>sad–sīda</em>, though more opaquely). Yet no distinction is made between these and cases like <em>dṛś–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’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>veÑ</em> [ve-] ‘weave’ 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>veÑ</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–vadha</em> and <em>veÑ–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 7.3.78–79 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> ‘be’ 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> ‘speak, say’ 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> ‘says’ as alternatives for <em>brav-īti</em>, <em>bruv-anti</em> ‘says’. 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’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. Similarly, the comparative <em>śreyas</em> ‘better’ and superlative <em>śreṣṭha</em> ‘best’ are not derived, as historically appropriate and phonologically possible, from the word <em>śrī </em>‘radiant, holy’, but from the historically unrelated, and phonologically more distant, adjective <em>praśasya</em> ‘good, praiseworthy’ (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 ‘substitute, substitution’ is a feature of the Pāṇinian grammatical tradition, but this was not, as argued by Acharya (2017), Pāṇini’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
],
"meta_citation_additional_authors": []
}
]