Raising & Control in Hindi Complex Predicates

Hindi possesses a productive class of complex predicates formed from the

combination of a nominal element (the host) with a light V (LV). These are traditionally
called conjunct verbs (CVs); Bahl (1974) and Mohanan (1994) both discuss this
construction extensively. (1) and (2) provide examples of CVs:
(1)

raam-ko sab baat-eN yaad

ho-tii
haiN.
Ram-DAT all thing-PL memory be-HAB(f.sg.) are
Ram remembers everything.

(2)

siitaa-ne mohan-ko maaf

ki-yaa.
Sita-ERG Mohan-DAT forgiveness do-PERF(m.sg.)
Sita forgave Mohan.

In this talk, I provide a syntactic analysis of the argument structure of CVs. While
CVs with different LVs look very similar on the surface, I will demonstrate that the
choice of LV determines whether a CV should be analyzed as an instance of raising, or as
one of control. In particular, I contrast the behavior of ho- be/become CVs (raising)
with kar- do CVs (control).
In sentences like (1) above where the LV is ho-, the case of the subject is
determined by the host NP. For example, (3) and (4) below show how the case of the
subject varies with the host chosen:
(3)

darvaazaa nau baje

band ho-taa
hai.
door
nine oclock closed be-HAB(m.sg.) is
The door is closed at nine oclock.

(unmarked subject)

(4)

aapuu-ko khaane-kii icchaa hu-ii.

Apu-DAT food-GEN desire be-PERF(f.sg)
Apu wanted food.

(dative subject)

To account for this variation, I suggest a structure where the subject originates inside the
hosts NP. It receives its theta-role from, and is lexically case-marked by, the host N.
Based on evidence from binding phenomena and the position of adverbials, I argue that the
subject then raises from this base position to spec-TP.
However, in sentences like (2) with the LV kar- do, the host NP has no influence
on the case of the subject. If we consider the kar- counterparts of the CVs seen in (3) and
(4), we see that the case-marking distinction is neutralized:
(5)

raam-ne darvaazaa nau baje band ki-yaa.

(ergative subject)
Ram-ERG door
nine oclock closed be-PERF(m.sg.)
Ram closed the door at nine oclock.

(6)

aapuu-ne khaanee-kii icchaa k-ii.

Apu-ERG food-GEN desire do-PERF(f.sg.)
Apu wanted food.

(ergative subject)

In fact, the subjects of kar- CVs behave like the subjects of ordinary transitive Vs. These
kar- CVs are also often the causative counterparts of ho- CVs formed with the same host
(e.g., band ho- be/become open and band kar- open (trans.), saaf ho- be/get clean and
saaf kar- clean (trans.)).
To account for these facts, I argue for a VP-shell analysis of kar- CVs. An inner
VP, identical to a ho- CV, is merged with a causative small v. The CVs subject originates
in spec-vP, rather than inside the hosts maximal projection. The host receives its AGENT
theta-role from the small v, then raises to a higher position to be case-marked. Since the
subject is never in a local configuration with the host, the lexical case-marking effects seen
above with ho- CVs are absent. This analysis contrasts with what Grimshaw & Mester
(1988) argue for a similar construction (N + suru do) in Japanese, where the LV is said to
lack any theta-roles to assign. Since some selectional restrictions can still be shown to
hold between subject and host (e.g., animacy restrictions), I posit a PRO (coindexed with
the subject) inside the host NP, resting in the same position from which raised subject of
ho- CVs originate.
References
Bahl, K. C. (1974) Studies in the Semantic Structure of Hindi: Synonymous Nouns and
Adjectives with karanaa, volume 1. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Grimshaw, Jane, and Armin Mester. (1988) Light Verbs and q-Marking. Linguistic
Inquiry 19:2, pp. 205-232.
Mohanan, Tara. (1994) Argument Structure in Hindi. Stanford: CSLI Publications.