Liudmila V. Khokhlova

The type of bilingualism and multilingualism of the urban intellectual elites in India is absolutely different from the bilingualism of the intellectual elite formed by previous generations. In spite of the permanent increase in the number of people identifying themselves as “native speakers” of various Indian languages and in spite of the role of the official propaganda claiming to provide support to mother tongues and especially to Hindi, the role of mother tongues as tools of expressing intellectual demands of the speakers and of preserving cultural traditions of the society is rapidly decreasing. The symmetrical type of bilingualism of the “parents” is gradually substituted by the recessive bilingualism of the younger generation.

This paper is aimed at analyzing the grammaticalization of unaccusative/unergative opposition in Hindi. The main diagnostic construction which serves to explicate the opposition of unaccusative vs. unergative verbs is passive construction. It will be shown that unaccusative and unergative verbs do not form homogenous classes and may be divided into three groups on the basis of their syntactic and semantic properties. The first class includes initially unaccusative verbs with valency on involitional (animate or inanimate) subjects: girnā ‘fall’. The unaccusative verbs with valency on animate subjects may acquire volitional meaning in special contexts or through metaphorical shifts: marnā ‘die of covid – die for the Motherland’. The second class is made up of initially unergative verbs with agentive animate subjects: bhāgnā ‘run’. Many verbs of this class may also have valency on inanimate subjects. In such cases they acquire involitional meaning: uṭhnā ‘rise’ (about a man – clouds, smoke). The third class consists of verbs that have valency either on volitional (animate) subject or on involitional (animate or inanimate) subject: milnā ‘meet’ (meet with somebody deliberately vs. unexpectedly; be received about money, etc.). Passive transformation in all the three classes is possible only when the verb has volitional meaning. Causative construction can also be used in order to distinguish between unergative and unaccusative verbs: only non-accusative verbs can form causatives with valency on involitional causer. The paper also discusses compound verbs formed by combining the main and the light components. Our analysis of the compatibility of non-accusative and non-ergative verbs in compounds brings to the conclusion that the non-ergative or non-accusative semantics of verbal combinations is always determined by meaning of the main, but not of the light verb.

The article examines differential object marking and the erosion of ergativity in Western Indo-Aryan languages.

The paper attempts to analyze the ways of typological evolution of four Western New Indo-Aryan (NIA) languages: Hindi-Urdu, Rajasthani, Punjabi and Gujarati. In the majority of Western NIA languages the consistent ergative strategy typical for the beginning of its development later gave way to the neutral, then — to the contrastive one, which was replaced in some paradigms by the accusative system of case marking. Multidirectional processes of morphosyntactic evolution were observed at the beginning of the New Indian period. Later the changes in coding strategies as well as the changes in rules of verbal agreement became predominantly unidirectional. In certain languages, the ergative construction maintained the gendernumber agreement with the marked direct object, in others the marked direct object blocked verbal agreement. Split ergativity, characteristic of the initial period of Indo- Aryan syntactic structure, has been preserved in most Western New Indo-Aryan languages (NIA). The only exception is Dakhini where the ergative case marking got initially extended to the entire system of aspectual and tense forms, later the system returned to the nominative-accusative type. Typical for ergative systems free elision of the ergative agent got established in Apabhramsha in the beginning of the NIA period (14–15 centuries), but practically does not appear in modern languages. Co-referential omissions of ergative type were observed in Middle Indo-Aryan and in Early NIA periods, in modern NIA languages they are ungrammatical. So, with the exception of minor deviations, the evolution of the morphosyntactic systems of Western NIA languages shows a unidirectional movement towards decrease in the ergative morphology and syntax.

The paper describes the relationship between historical changes in syntactic coding strategies and the rules of co-referential deletion in the history of Western Indo-Aryan languages. It will be shown that the evolution from nominative-accusative to ergative type, and then a partial return to the nominative-accusative model of syntactic coding manifested itself not only in morphological marking and verbal agreement, but also in the domain of syntactic ergativity — the rules of clausal combination and co-referential deletions. The nominative-accusative strategy of syntactic coding was typical for Old Indo-Aryan period. In the Middle Indo-Aryan it was replaced by a “split” ergative one: sentences with perfective verbal forms were structured according to the ergative model. The Middle Indo-Aryan and the beginning of the New Indo-Aryan period show the most consistent features of morphological ergativity. In the course of historical development, the ergative strategy (S=P≠A) gives way to a neutral one (S=P=A), then a contrastive one (S≠P≠A), which in a significant part of Rajasthani nominal paradigms, as well as in Punjabi pronominal paradigms, was later replaced by accusative system of case marking (S=A≠P). Middle and early New Indo-Aryan languages demonstrated both the peak of morphological ergativity and various deviations from the classical accusative model of clause combinations and coreferential deletions. Later, with the transition to a contrastive and nominative-accusative system of case marking, the rules of clausal combination and coreferential deletions acquired a consistently accusative character. Middle and early New Indo-Aryan languages had one more feature of syntactic ergativity: the Agent in ergative construction was only a secondary figure in the sentence and could be easily omitted. In most modern Western NIA languages Agent omission is impossible.