Ergativity and Verbal Agreement in Hindi

Abstract

Hindi belongs to the type of ergative-absolutive language in terms of Case morphology system. The study of ergativity enables us to interpret the correlation between case marking and verbal agreement. With respect to ergativity, Hindi shows verbal agreement patterns that a noun phrase which is in the ergative case cannot label the occurrence of verbal agreement while a noun phrase which is in nominative case can. In this paper, I discuss why ergative case blocks verbal agreement, how nominative case trigger agreement, and what ergativity is. Three different approaches have been implemented to analyze the ergative agreement. One of them is based on the lexical case marking that any NPs which are lexically case marked cannot license verbal agreement. Thus, ergative case marking cannot trigger agreement. However, this approach does not explain how ergative case get its case, and how nominal case marking can trigger. Second approach is proposed by Chomsky (1995) that the active element can control agreement; AgrS is active in nominative-accusative while AgrO is active in ergative-absolutive. Hence, the object NP which is in absolutive case triggers verbal agreement in ergative-absolutive. But, this approach also does not provide how ergative case is assigned as structural case. Lastly, Davison (1999 and 2002) suggests the alternative to these approaches that ergative case is checked by the specifier of aspect and tense. An NP that is checked by the specifier of AgrS deserves to label the occurrence of verbal agreement. In the analysis of verbal agreement pattern in Hindi, the essential component to my claim is compiled with a modification of Davison's proposal. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to illustrate how ergative case blocks verbal agreement, how ergative case gets structural case, and to interpret the correlation between nominal case marking and verbal agreement.