Genitive Subjects in Assamese

IRJMSH Vol 15 Issue 1 [Year 2024] ISSN 2277 – 9809 (0nline) 2348–9359 (Print) Genitive Subjects in Assamese Dr. Diganta Kumar Nath, Associate Professor in English Morigaon College. 1. Introduction: Experiencer Subjects vs. Objects Sentential subjects generally bear the nominative Case. Chomsky (1981) claims that subjects are case marked nominative by an INFL which contains AGR. If an INFL is infinitival and contains no AGR, the subject is not case marked. In Chomsky (1981, 1986) the verb has no role in determining the subject’s Case. However, the Experiencer Subject Constructions found in South Indian Languages present a counter-example to Chomsky’s claim and call for an explanation. According to the standard analysis of this construction (Kachru (1970), Masica (1976) and Sridhar (1976)), verbs of certain (perhaps, semantically definable) classes mark their subjects dative in these languages. However, in case of Assamese, the so-called Experiencer Subjects are found to be in genitive Case. Assamese, along with Bangla is characterized by an extensive use of genitive subjects, not found so frequently in other Languages. Consider the following sentences: (1)(Hindi) Mujhe bhukh lagii he I-DAT hunger feel aux ‘I am hungry.’ (2) (Bangla) Aamaar khide peeche (3) (Assamese) mor bhok laagise I-GEN hunger feeling ‘I am hungry.’ The phenomenon of Genitive Subject Constructions can in general be seen as attached to experiential predicates, i.e., all those predicates, which opt for an experiential reading on one of their arguments or participants. On the basis of experiential theta role attributed to the arguments, predicates have been broadly divided into two types – (a) Subject Experiential Verbs, whose subjects undergo a mental/psychological change as in (1-3), and (b) Object Experiential Verbs whose objects are the arguments to undergo the change of state as in (4) and (5): (4) The alarm frightened the crowd in the hall. (5) Her accent amused the audience. In the examples(4) & (5), the objects, (i.e., the crowd and the audience) are the ones to undergo a particular change in the emotional state, that of fear and of amusement. However, as this focus International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity ( IRJMSH ) www.irjmsh.com Page 223 IRJMSH Vol 15 Issue 1 [Year 2024] ISSN 2277 – 9809 (0nline) 2348–9359 (Print) of this paper is Experiencer Subjects in Assamese, we are not going to examine the Experiencer Objects. Instead, in the following few sections we will discuss the typical semantic role that the Genitive Experiencer Subjects have. 2. Experiencer Subjects and Goal Theta Role Some studies of Dative-Experiencer Subjects have defined the experience theta role as a typical example of a semantic role, which is an “amalgamation of two or more thematic meanings” (Mohanan&Mohanan (1988), Mohanan (1994)). The general conclusion of these studies is their analysis of the semantics ofthese specific subjects as aggregation of the two abstract notions of goal and possession. This can in general be extended to Genitive-Experiencer Subject also. Verma and Mohanan (1990) say: “Interestingly enough, both the goal subject and the possessor subject appear in the dative Case in Malayalam and both appear in genitive Case in Bangla as well as Bhojpuri.” Here, Assamese is like Bangla. Consider the following sentences: (6) Malayalam (a) enikka panni vannu I-DAT fever come ‘I have fever.’ (b) kuttiќќadhaaralampanamunta Child-DAT plenty money have-PRES ‘The child has a plenty of money.’ (7) Bangla (a) aamaar jOrh oeche I-GEN fever has-been ‘I have fever.’ (b) cheleTaar Onek Taakaa aache Child-GEN plenty money have-PRES ‘The child has a plenty of money.’ (8) Assamese (a) mor jar hOise I-GEN fever is-being ‘I have fever.’ (c) laraator bahut taka aase Boy-GEN plenty money have ‘The boy has a plenty of money.’ The subjects in (a) sentences have the goal theta role and in (b) sentences it has the possessor theta role. Notice that the subjects in the Malayalam sentences take dative Case to mark both the goal and possessor theta role whereas in Bangla and Assamese they take the genitive Case to mark the same. Mohanan (1994) states that the ‘amalgamation of the semantics’ is a general process and that the other semantic role, as for instance the agent theta role, can be derived from the schematic representations of the action depicted by the predicates. Mohanan assumes the Lexical Functional International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity ( IRJMSH ) www.irjmsh.com Page 224 IRJMSH Vol 15 Issue 1 [Year 2024] ISSN 2277 – 9809 (0nline) 2348–9359 (Print) Grammar (LFG) framework. The essential idea of this particular grammatical theory is that lexical information is distributed at all the four levels, that of the Semantic Structure, Argument Structure, Grammatical Function Structure, and Grammatical Category Structure. The knowledge about each lexeme, which is acquired by the child exposed to the language, would consist of its idiosyncratic properties relating to phonetic, semantic, morphological and syntactic structure. According to this theory, the precise explanation for a sentence like (9) would be formulated on the basis of the general principle of the association of the thematic role and the Case and the relation of the subject with specific Case, each relation corresponding to a separate level, shown in (10). (9) Hindi Mujhe bhukh lagi: he I DAT hunger feel is ‘I am hungry.’ (10) GOAL ARGUMENT DATIVE SEMANTIC STRUCTURE ARGUMENTSTRUCTURE GRAMMATICAL-FUNCTIONAL STRUCTURE (Mohanan, 1994:114) The argument with the semantic role of Goal (i.e., the entity towards whom the particular feeling/state is directed) indirectly corresponds to the dative Case in this specific grammatical framework. However, LGF differs from the Principles and Parameters (P&P) framework in that the former adopts a direct association between theta role and Case. In LFG, a nominal with a particular theta role at one level automatically receives a particular Case at another level showing one to one correspondence between the two modules in the grammar. The interaction between the components in the grammar takes place through the mapping ofexpressions from one level to another, where mapping is defined as translation of the lexeme’s specific properties at each of the structures in (10). This view contradicts the P & P approach, where each component corresponds with the other component only through the structurally represented properties in the derivations. According to the P & P approach, there is no one to one correspondence between theta role and Case. If Monahan’s assumptions were in the right direction, we would expect the experiencer/goal theta role to be assigned to the external argument of the constructions in (7) and (8). The respective nominals would have received a dative Case in a framework that subscribes to a strict mapping of Case and theta role. However, in the sentences, the nominals receive genitive Case. The LFG account of theta role and Case is unable to explain why the experiential subjects in these sentences do not receive dative Case. Thus the sentences reaffirm the P&P claim that Case Theory and Theta Theory are two different principles in the grammar and do not come as part of the lexical knowledge of the language. Thus, it is reasonably clear that we cannot attain any success in understanding the semantics of the Experiencer Subject Constructions if we restrict ourselves to the traditional notions of theta role. However, irrespective of the theoretical assumptions, it is International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity ( IRJMSH ) www.irjmsh.com Page 225 IRJMSH Vol 15 Issue 1 [Year 2024] ISSN 2277 – 9809 (0nline) 2348–9359 (Print) still possible to explore the kinds of predicate types that require a genitive NP, which may be perceived as a subject at some level. What follows here is a list of predicate types requiring genitive subjects in Assamese. 3. Predicate Types Requiring Genitive Subjects in Assamese As stated earlier, researchers have identified a large class of meanings associated with the Experiencer Subject Constructions in various languages. Verma (1979) identify several basic predicate types associated with ‘quirky’ subjects. These include mental or physical experiences, non-volitionality, permission, ability, possession, subjectivity and obligation. The following are a few types of predicates requiring genitive subjects in Assamese: (A) State of sickness (11) mor kããh hOise I-GEN cough be-pre. ‘I have a cold.’ (B) State of consciousness (12) mor manat aase je …… I-GEN memory be COMP ‘I remember that…’ (C) Physical state (13) mor kastah Oise I-GEN trouble is-being ‘I have got a trouble.’ (14) mor bhok laagise I-GEN hunger feeling ‘I am feeling hungry.’ (D) Emotional state (15) tomaar aananda laagise You-GEN happiness feeling ‘You are feeling happy.’ (16) teõr dukh laagise S/he-GEN sorrow feeling ‘S/he is feeling sorrow.’ (E) State of things in one’s personal situation (17) mor kaam aase I-GEN work is-being ‘I have work.’ (18) mor xamai naai I-GEN time not have ‘I do not have time.’ International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity ( IRJMSH ) www.irjmsh.com Page 226 IRJMSH Vol 15 Issue 1 [Year 2024] ISSN 2277 – 9809 (0nline) 2348–9359 (Print) All except (E) fit into the general designation of psychological predicates; (E) however seems to fit into the appellation “the state of things”. Constructions of inalienable possession also fit into this type, such as (19-20): (19) mor etaa lOraa aase I-GEN one boy have ‘I have a boy (20) aamaar dukhan haat aase We-GEN two hands have ‘We have two hands.’ The type inalienable possession is interesting. Assamese uses the same construction for “alienable” possession as in (21) (21) teõr ejan saakar aase He-GEN one servant has ‘He has a servant.’ However, like Hindi, a marked alienable construction is also available in Assamese. In such constructions, Assamese makes use of postpositions like “usarat” or “lagat” as in (22) & (23): (22) teõr lagat ejan saakar aase He-GEN with one servant has ‘He has one servant.’ (23) mor lagat/usarat etaa kalam aase I-GEN with one pen have ‘I have a pen.’ 4. Subjecthood and Genitive Case In the preceding discussion we assumed that the genitive NPs denoting the experiencer in an Experiencer Subject Construction is a subject. But what is the motivation or justification for considering the experiencer as subject? One flip answer is that they translate that way into English. And since English is the new Latin of grammatical standards, or analytical templates, we had better look very hard before denying it that status. Talking about the Experiencer Subjects presumes that we know what subject is, and that we want to talk about it because it is a special variety. But more seriously, what are the criteria that we could take into account in deciding on the subjecthood of these NPs? We bring in a variety of notions as they suit us, such as, deep subject, surface subject, logical subject, subject as the specifier node (Chomsky 1981, 1982), subject as the external argument or as element attributed to the verb’s “external theta role”, subject as the indexical relation, subject as a primitive notion in Relational Grammar, subject as the “derivative” notion of structural configuration, the big SUBJECT, AGR as subject, etc. etc. Subjectis not a unified notion and it can be parameterized according to language. As pointed out by Verma (1976) for Nepali, we have to accept the notion of varying degree of subjecthood. The concept of ‘subject’ is best defined in purely structural terms, as the syntactically most International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity ( IRJMSH ) www.irjmsh.com Page 227 IRJMSH Vol 15 Issue 1 [Year 2024] ISSN 2277 – 9809 (0nline) 2348–9359 (Print) prominent element in a sentence (Chomsky1981). Prominence here refers to certain syntactic properties such as agreement, binding, control and movement. The prototypical “nominative” subject obeys all these properties, thus in (24), it triggers subject-verb agreement, while in (25), it binds the reflexive: (24) mai/tumi kitaap parhi aasõ/aasaa I/You-NOM book-ACC read. be-pre-1p/2p. ‘I/you am/are reading books.’ (25) raam-e inijarei sabi saai aase Ram-NOM self picture-ACC look-cnp be-pre-3p ‘Ram is looking at his own picture.’ Unlike nominative subjects, genitive subjects cannot trigger subject verb agreement: (26) mor/tomaar/teõr gharaloi manat par-is-e I/You/He-GEN home-to remember ‘I/You/He remember(s) home.’ There are other inconsistencies in their behaviour. For instance, unlike constructions with nominative subjects, the Experiencer Subject Constructions cannot be passivised to allow the experiencer to change its grammatical role. Like Hindi dative subjects, genitive subjects also show conflicting behaviour in constructions where the “repeated subject NP” is deleted in the second clause, as in (27). A similar construction works perfectly with a nominative subject as in example (28). (27) (28) *mor tomaaloi manat parilaru # kaandiboloi dharilõ I-GEN you-to remember-P and # weep-to start-1p ‘I remembered you and started crying.’ mai tomak manat pelaalõ aaru # kaandiboloi dharilõ I-NOM You-ACC remembered-1p and # weep-to start ‘I remembered you and started crying.’ These inconsistencies of genitive subjects have led to the debate on the validity of the status of subjecthood given to thetheme. However, genitive subjects, like nominative subjects, serve as antecedents of reflexcives as in (29). (29) mor nijar kathaa manat paril I-GEN self story remember ‘I remember myself.’ In view of the limited subject properties, one may question the subject status of these NPs. It seems, this is related to the notion of prominence in one way or another. As pointed out in Verma (1988), the notion of prominence gets into the definition of subject International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity ( IRJMSH ) www.irjmsh.com Page 228 IRJMSH Vol 15 Issue 1 [Year 2024] ISSN 2277 – 9809 (0nline) 2348–9359 (Print) as well as topic. This would mean that we either abandon the notion of a strictly configurational subject or provide for a principled mechanism for the structural coding of thematic prominence, and thereby accord the experiencer the status of subject as necessary. One way to conceptualize this and then accomplish it in phrase structure terms could be as suggested below. There is a hierarchy relation between arguments: ‘Agent’ is higher than “Experiencer”, “Experiencer” is higher than ‘Goal’ and ‘Goal’ is higher than ‘theme’. The highest argument is the “external” argument and becomes the subject. Therefore, in the absence of an Agent, the Experiencer becomes the subject. This is what underlies the notion of a logical subject. The noun, which shows up as the syntactic subject in such a construction, namely, the “theme”, is one that is in fact lower in the argument hierarchy. All subjects start out as VP subjects [Spec, VP]. This then gets promoted at S-structure to the [Spec, IP] position to be the sentential subject. This applies quite naturally to the Agentive Subject, and also to the Experiencer or Logical Subject, unless it is inherently Case marked in the argument structure of the predicate. However, the Experiencer Subject of Assamese is inherently Case marked genitive (as many other South Asian languages Case mark their Experiencer Subjects dative) and so will not become the sentential subject. The theme, on the other hand, will. Since the experiencer is pre-associated (i.e., has a lexically marked Case), the theme becomes the most prominent argument, by default, and gets to be realized as the sentential subject. theme. However, genitive subjects, like nominative subjects, serve as antecedents of reflexives as in (29). (29) mor nijarei kathaa manat paril I-GEN self story remember ‘I remember myself.’ In view of the limited subject properties, one may question the subject status of these NPs. It seems, this is related to the notion of prominence in one way or another. As pointed out in Verma (1988), the notion of prominence gets into the definition of subject as well as topic. This would mean that we either abandon the notion of a strictly configurational subject or provide for a principled mechanism for the structural coding of thematic prominence, and thereby accord the experiencer the status of subject as necessary. One way to conceptualize this and then accomplish it in phrase structure terms could be as suggested below. There is a hierarchy relation between arguments: ‘Agent’ is higher than “Experiencer”, “Experiencer” is higher than ‘Goal’ and ‘Goal’ is higher than ‘theme’. The highest argument is the “external” argument and becomes the subject. Therefore, in the absence of an Agent, the Experiencer becomes the subject. This is what underlies the notion of a logical subject. The noun, which shows up as the syntactic subject in such a construction, namely, the “theme”, is one that is in fact lower in the argument hierarchy. All subjects start out as VP subjects [Spec, VP]. This then gets promoted at S-structure to International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity ( IRJMSH ) www.irjmsh.com Page 229 IRJMSH Vol 15 Issue 1 [Year 2024] ISSN 2277 – 9809 (0nline) 2348–9359 (Print) the [Spec, IP] position to be the sentential subject. This applies quite naturally to the Agentive Subject, and also to the Experiencer or Logical Subject, unless it is inherently Case marked in the argument structure of the predicate. However, the Experiencer Subject of Assamese is inherently Case marked genitive (as many other South Asian languages Case mark their Experiencer Subjects dative) and so will not become the sentential subject. The theme, on the other hand, will. Since the experiencer is pre-associated (i.e., has a lexically marked Case), the theme becomes the most prominent argument, by default, and gets to be realized as the sentential subject. Since the ‘theme’ argument is not Case marked inherently, it has to move to the[Spec, IP] position to get/check its Case and be in agreement with INFL and be the sentential subject. The ‘Experiencer’ NP, then, is adjoined left to the I node, to act as the subject of the sentence or to perform various functions of the subject and still does not become a structural subject directly under the IP node requiring nominative Case. The theme NP can then move to the [Spec, IP] to get the nominative Case checked and be the structural subject in agreement with INFL. 5. Conclusion In this paper we considered genitive subject constructions and found that the genitive subjects are experiencers or recipients, while nominative subjects are volitional agents or initiators of action. The person who experiences an emotion or feeling is expresses in the genitive Case when the person has no control over his emotions. If the emotion is expressed intentionally or voluntarily, the subject is assigned the nominative Case. We considered the subject properties of these NPs and in view of the limited subject properties, came to the conclusion that they are not structural subjects. The theme, on the other hand, is. Genitive subjects are inherently Case marked and is adjoined left to the I node, to act as the subject of the sentence for various control functions. We found that genitive subjects occur with unaccusative verbs that incorporate the bare nominal to form a complex predicate, and this complex predicate triggers genitive subjects in Assamese. References Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht. Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. Praeger, New York. Jayaseelan, K.A. (2000). ‘IP-internal Topic and Focus Phrase’, CIEFL Occasional Papers, CIEFL. Hyderabad. Kachru, Y. (1970). ‘The syntax of ko-sentences in Hindi-Urdu’, Papers in Linguistics 2:2, University of Illinois, Urbana. Masica, C. (1976). Defining a Linguistic Aria: South Asia. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Mohanan, T. (1994). Argument Structure in Hindi. Stanford: CSLI. Mohanan, K. P. & T. Mohanan (1988). ‘Dative Subjects in Malayalam: Semantic Information in Syntax’, Paper presented at 17th South Asian Conference, Madison. International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity ( IRJMSH ) www.irjmsh.com Page 230