Under the Surface of the South Asian Linguistic Area:

More on the Syntax of Derived Transitives and Causatives in Kashmiri1

Peter Edwin Hook Ashok Kumar Koul

University of Michigan Brown University

Over the years as Emeneau's and Masica's pioneering work on South Asia as a linguistic area
has been further extended, elaborated and refined, we find that the areally defined cross-linguistic
parallels they discovered are not monolithic in nature. That is, 1. there is incomplete congruence in
the geographical distribution of typologically related parallels (for example, while all South Asian
languages have postpositions and Adj-N order, they do not all have the SOV constituent order that
is supposed to be harmonic with these two features2; see Hook 1976; and, 2. parallels in structure
are not necessarily matched by parallels in meaning or vice versa (for example, in Hook 1982 it is
shown that the same set of semantic distinctions expressed by the compound verb construction in
languages like Hindi or Telugu is expressed by a formally distinct system of adverbial particles in
certain languages of southern Rajasthan.)
Proceeding along the same vein, in the present paper we show that the often-noted area-
linguistic parallels in morphological structure that relate verbs like those meaning 'learn' and 'do' to
those meaning 'teach' and 'have (someone) do' in the languages of South Asia are not always
matched by corresponding parallels in syntactic behavior. For example, in both Hindi and Kashmiri
'teach' is derived from 'learn' by suffixation: siikh > sikhaa in Hindi and hyech > hychinaav in
Kashmiri. Furthermore, the case frames associated with each member of each pair appear to be
analogous:
3
(1) laRkii hisaab siikh rahii hai
4
girl.Nom math learn -ing is
'The girl is learning arithmetic.'
1
This paper is based in part on data that was obtained by P. Hook during a field trip to Kashmir in 1985 funded by the
American Institute of Indian Studies and in part on introspection by A. Koul in Syracuse in 1987. The present version
was drafted during 1999-2000 at the Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa at the Tokyo
University of Foreign Studies.
2
For many years typologists counted Adj-Noun order as one of the prime elements in the play of harmonics (left-
branching or "head-final" as opposed to right-branching or "head-initial" languages). However, in his 1992 Language
article Dryer shows conclusively that Adj-Noun order does not correlate with Object-Verb or with Verb-Object order.
3
Transcription system for Hindi-Urdu is that in general use in the Indo-Aryan linguistics literature except that
contrastive length in vowels is shown by doubling (not by macron or colon), nasality in vowels is shown by
capitalization (not by tilde or following capital N), the retroflexion of apical stops and flaps is shown by capitalization
(not by a sublinear dot) and palatal fricatives are represented by capitalization of the symbols for the corresponding
dental fricatives (not by diacritics).
4
Abbreviations used in this paper include the following:
Abl.............................ablative F........................feminine N(om).................nominative
A(cc)......................accusative Fut..........................future Obl............................oblique
CP........conjunctive participle Gen.....................genitive PP...................past participle
D(at).............................dative Hon...................honorific pl.................................plural
Def..............................default M.....................masculine Pst.........................past tense
Emp............emphatic particle N............................neuter sg.............................singular
E(rg)..........................ergative NF....................non-finite Val...........valency-increasing
affix
 5
(2) kuur chi hyisaab hyech-aan
girl.Nom is math learn-ing
'The girl is learning arithmetic.'

(3) maasTar laRkii-ko hisaab sikh-aa rahaa hai

teacher girl-Dat math learn-Val -ing is
'The teacher is teaching arithmetic to the girl.'

(4) maasTar chu kooryi hyisaab hyech-inaav-aan

teacher is girl.Dat maths learn-Val-ing
'The teacher is teaching arithmetic to the girl.'
However, Hindi-Urdu morphosyntax treats the same noun as being direct object of both the basic
and the derived predicates; Kashmiri does not. In ergative tense-aspect combinations, the Hindi-
Urdu verb agrees in gender and number with the same noun in the base clause (5) and the
corresponding trivalent (6):

(5) laRkii-ne hisaab siikh-aa

girl-Erg math(Msg) learn-Pst.Msg
'The girl learned arithmetic.' (siikhaa agrees with hisaab)

(6) maasTar-ne laRkii-ko hisaab sikh-aa-yaa

teacher-Erg girl-Dat math(Msg) learn-Val-Pst.Msg
'The teacher taught arithmetic to the girl.' (sikhaayaa agrees with hisaab)

Similarly, in ergative combinations of tense and aspect in Kashmiri, the basic (underived) predicate
agrees in gender and number with its patient. But unlike in Hindi-Urdu, its derived trivalent
counterpart agrees in gender and number with the causee (or "downstairs agent"):

(7) kooryi hyoch hyisaab

girl.Erg learnt.Msg math(Msg)
'The girl learned arithmetic.' (hyoch agrees with hyisaab)

(8) maasTaran hyech-ineev kuur hyisaab

teacher.Erg learn-Val.Pst.Fsg girl.Nom math(Msg)
'The teacher taught arithmetic to the girl.' (hyechineev agrees with kuur)

Furthermore, in Hindi, the passive forms of the base and the corresponding derived trivalent have
the same noun as subject:

(9) hisaab siikh-aa gay-aa

math(Msg) learnt-PP.Msg went-Msg

5
The transcription used here for Kashmiri is the one developed by Kenneth Hill in his class in linguistic field methods
at the University of Michigan in 1984. It is a phonemic transcription in which palatalization of consonants is indicated
by /y/, phonemic length in vowels by doubling, and retroflexion of apical stops by upper case T and D. Single /e/ is a
central mid vowel unless preceded by /y/ and followed by word boundary or a palatalized consonant. Then it is fronted.
The vowel /ee/ is long central mid except when fronted by a preceding and a following /y/. The vowels /i/ and /ii/ are
high central unrounded except when fronted by a preceding /y/. The long vowels /oo/ and /uu/, the back allophone of /ii/
and the front allophone of /ee/ have a noticeable glide toward mid-central position. Only the front allophones of /i/ and
/ii/ follow the inherently affricates /c/, /ch/ and /j/ and the palatal fricative /S/.
 'Arithmetic was learnt.' (hisaab is the surface subject)

(10) hisaab laRkii-ko sikh-aa-yaa gay-aa

math(Msg) girl-Dat learn-Val-Pst.Msg went-Msg
'Arithmetic was taught to the girl.' (hisaab is the surface subject)

In Kashmiri, the passive of the derived transitive promotes the causee to subject (compare (11) and
(12):

(11) hyisaab aav hyech-ini

math(Msg) came.Msg learn-Inf
'Arithmetic was learnt.' (hyisaab is the surface subject)

(12) kuur aayi hyisaab hyech-inaav-ini

girl.Nom came.Fsg math learn-Val-Inf
'The girl was taught arithmetic.' (kuur is surface subject)

This last suggests that the causee in Kashmiri is more able to assume subject properties than its
counterpart in Hindi. The Kashmiri causee presides, as it were, over its own clause. A multiclausal
structure for Kashmiri causatives is indicated by: 1) The compound verb construction: In Hindi
vector or "explicator" verbs [viz, diyaa 'GAVE' in (13) and (14)] are external to the causative affix -
vaa:

(13) laRke-ne darvaazaa khol diyaa

boy-Erg door.Nom open GAVE
'The boy opened the door (for someone).'

(14) mAI-ne laRke-se darvaazaa khul-vaa diyaa

I Erg boy-from door.Nom open-Val GAVE
'I had the boy open the door (for someone).'

In Kashmiri, vector verbs may be internal to the causative affix. That is, the causative affix may
appear not as part of the main verb but as part of the vector6:

(15) darivaazi dyut-n-akh khuul-yith

door.Nom GAVE-3sE-3pD open-CP
'He opened the door for them.'

(16) darivaazi dy-oovu-m-akh su khuul-yith

door.Nom GIVE-Val.Pst-lsE-3pD he.Nom open-CP
'I had him open the door for them.'

A multiclausal structure for causatives is also indicated by 2) the construal of conjunctive

participles: In Hindi-Urdu agents of conjunctive participles must be interpreted as being
coreferential with the causal agent:

(17) ghar aa-kar laRke-ne ye kaam kiyaa

home come-CP boy-Erg this work did

6
This fact about the relative ordering of the causative morpheme and the Kashmiri vector verb was first noticed by
Vijay Kaul in his dissertation (1985) and cited in Hook and Koul 1984:114. Its significance for the analysis of the
Kashmiri causative is explored in Hook and Koul (Forthcoming), Chapter 9.
 'The boy came home and did this job.'

(18) ghar aa-kar mAI-ne laRke-se ye kaam kar-aa-yaa

home come-CP I-Erg boy-from this work do-Val-Pst
'I came home and had the boy do this job.'

In Kashmiri, the agent of a conjunctive participle may be coreferential either with the causal agent
or with the causee:

(19) larkan ker yi keem gari yi-th

boy.Erg did this work home come-CP
'The boy came home and did this job.'

(20) mye kar-inoov laDki yi keem gari yi-th

I.Erg do-Val.Pst boy.Nom this work home come-CP
A: 'I had the boy come home and do this job.'
B: 'I came home and had the boy do this job.'

Moreover, Kashmiri causees retain the ability to serve as the antecedent for the reflexive
possessive adjective panun 'X's own'. As with Hindi-Urdu's apnaa, use of panun is required if the
possessor is coreferential with the agent NP [see Hook 1985 and Wali et al 1999]:

(21h) mAI-ne apne kapRe dhoye

I-Erg self's clothes washed

(21k) mye chely paniny palav

I.Erg washed self's clothes
'I washed my clothes.'

In Hindi-Urdu causatives the causee cannot be the antecedent of apnaa:

(22) laRkii-ne mujh-se apne kapRe dhul-aa-ye

girl-Erg me.Obl-from self's clothes wash-Val-Pst.Mpl
'The girl had me wash her (*my) clothes.'

In Kashmiri causatives, however, the reflexive possessive panun may be anteceded either by the
causal agent or by the causee:

(23) kooryi chal-inoovu-s bi paniny palav

girl.Erg wash-Val.Pst-lsN I.Nom self's clothes
'The girl had me wash my (or her) clothes.'

In sum, the Kashmiri causee, unlike its cousins in the rest of Indo-Aryan, seems to meet most of
the criteria used to identify ordinary agents. When viewed from the point of view of case-marking
and verb morphology, what appears at first glance to be a uniform reliance in Indo-Aryan languages
on "predicate raising" or "Clause Union" (or Lexicalist analogues) in the formation of derived
polyvalents (see Hook and Koul 2000) turns out on more penetrating enquiry to mask quite
divergent principles of syntax. In particular, it seems that Kashmiri, with causees that are less
tightly integrated into the predicate argument structure of derived polyvalents than are their
analogues in Hindi-Urdu, Panjabi, Gujarati and Bengali, invites a multiclausal analysis of its
valency system.
 The consequences for study of South Asia as a linguistic area are intriguing. From what
information is available on the subject, it seems that the causee in Central and Northeast Asian
languages shows similarities in its syntax to that of Kashmiri (rather than to that of Hindi-Urdu,
Panjabi, and other more southerly Indic languages).
I. In Korean and Japanese (as in Kashmiri), it is the causee (rather than the patient of the
underived or basic predicate) that appears as subject in the corresponding passive:
(24) kim-swungkyeng-i totwuk-ul cap-key toy-ess-ta
Kim-policeman-Nom thief-Acc catch-CP become-Pst-Indic
'Officer Kim was made to catch the thief.' (Cho 1987)
II. In these languages (as in Kashmiri) reflexive possessives in causatives have ambiguous reference
(Kuno 1973:294
(25) John-ga Mary-ni zibun-no uti-de hon-o yom-ase-ta
John-Nom Mary-Dat self-Gen house-Loc book-Acc read-Val-Pst
'John had Mary read the book in his /her house.'
III. Korean "supporting verbs" (whose functions are similar to those of compound verb auxiliaries or
"vector verbs" in Indo-Aryan) may appear between the stem of the base and the causative morpheme
or auxiliary [cf. Kashmiri sentence (16)]:
(26) nay-ka insu-eykey i sensayng-nim-ul yek-ey mosieta tuli-key-ha-y(e)ss-ta
I-Nom Insu-Dat Lee teacher-Hon-Acc station-to take.CP GIVE-Cmp-Val-Pst
'I had Insu do Teacher Lee the favor of taking him to the station.'
(Kuno and Kim 1985:85)
IV. In Japanese the agent of a conjunctive participle may be coreferential with the causee. In (27)
renzo is the agent of mot-te ‘take-CP’ and the causee of kosaseta ‘(I) had x come’:
(27) renzo-ni uti-ni hon-o mot-te ko-sase-ta7
Renzo-Dat house-to books-Acc take-CP come-Val-Pst
'I had Renzo bring the books to the house.'
In coordinate structures less frozen than motte kuru 'to bring' (lit: 'take and come') and motte iku 'to
take away' (lit: 'take and go') the construal of causal agent versus causee in conjunctive participles
dominated by causative predicates depends on word order. In (30) the agent of the conjunctive
participles ki-te ‘come-CP’ is coreferential with the (causal) agent of benkyo-o saseta ‘(I) had x
study’:
(28) uti-ni ki-te renzo-ni benkyoo-o s-ase-ta
house-Loc come-CP Renzo-Dat study-Acc do-Val-Pst
A: '(I) came to the house and had Renzo study.'
B: *'(I) had Renzo come to the house and study.'
In (29) the agent of ki-te must be taken as co-referential with the causee of benkyo-o saseta:
(29) renzo-ni uti-ni ki-te benkyoo-o s-ase-ta
Renzo-Dat house-Loc come-CP study-Acc do-Val-Pst
7
We are indebted to Dr. Gen Isoe (University of Michigan 1993) for the original data on which (27) and (28) are
modeled and to Misato Kobayashi (University of Pennsylvania and Institute for Study of Languages and Cultures of
Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies) for the data in (29).
 A: *'(I) came to the house and had Renzo study.'
B: '(I) had Renzo come to the house and study.'
In Central Asia the Orkhon Turkic inscriptions found in the eighth century AD show that the
conjunctive participle was able to refer to the causee [(30) as cited in Tekin (1968)]:

(30) yoq(q)aru at yät-ä yadaΦïn ïΦac& tutun-u aΦ-tur-t-um

upwards horses lead-CP on.foot tree hold-CP ascend-Val-Pst-1sg
'I had (them) go up leading their horses and holding on to trees.' (Tonyukuk, N 1.4)
If this and the other syntactic features we have examined here hold for modern Altaic languages
as a group, we shall have evidence that the northern lobe of the Indo-Turanian linguistic area (see
Masica 1983 and Masica forthcoming) to a large extent shares the property of multi-clausality in its
causative syntax. In this respect Kashmiri (possibly along with some of its Himalayan neighbors)
shows affinities not with the rest of South Asia but with Central and Northeast Asia.

References

Balachandran, Laxmi Bai. 1971. Case Grammar of Hindi with a Special Reference to the Causative
Sentences. Cornell University dissertation.
Cho, Euiyon. 1987. Korean causatives in relational grammar: arguments against the clause union
analysis. Proceedings of the 1987 Harvard Workshop on Korean Linguistics. Seoul: Hanshin.
Dryer, Matthew. 1992. The Greenbergian Word-order Correlations. Language 69:81-138.
Emeneau, M.B. 1974. The Indian linguistic area revisited. In Southworth and Apte, Eds. Contact
and Convergence in South Asian Languages (special issue). International Journal of Dravidian
Linguistics 3:92-134.
_______. 1956. India as a linguistic area. Language 32:3-16.
Hook, P.E. 1987. Linguistic areas: getting at the grain of history. In Festschrift for Henry
Hoenigswald on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday. George Cardona and Norman H. Zide,
Eds. Tuebingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Pp. 155-168.
_______. 1982. South Asia as a semantic area: forms, meanings and their connections. South Asian
Review 6:30-41.
_______. 1976. Is Kashmiri an SVO Language? Indian Linguistics 37:133-142.
P.E. Hook and O.N. Koul. Forthcoming. Kashmiri: a study in comparative Indo-Aryan. Tokyo:
Institute for Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.
Kaul,Vijay K. 1985. The Compound verb in Kashmiri. PhD dissertation, Kurukshetra Univ.
Koul, O.N., and P.E. Hook, Eds. 1984. Aspects of Kashmiri Linguistics. Delhi: Bahri.
Kuno, Susumu, and Young-Joo Kim. 1985. The honorific forms of compound verbals in Korean.
In Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics. Seoul: Hanshin.
Magier, David. 1981. Causatives and South Asian Languages. Unpublished manuscript. University
of California, Berkeley.
Masica, Colin P. Forthcoming. The definition and significance of linguistic areas: Methods,
pitfalls, and possibilities (with special reference to the validity of South Asia as a linguistic
area). In South Asia Yearbook 2001: Papers from the Symposium on South Asian Languages:
Contact, Convergence and Typology. P. Bhaskararao and K.V. Subbarao, Eds. Delhi: SAGE.
_______. 1983 'South Asian languages: typological coincidence or areal convergence?' Paper
presented at the 35th annual meeting of the Association of Asian Studies.
_______. 1976. Defining a Linguistic Area: South Asia. Chicago: Univ of Chicago Pr.
Tekin, Talât. 1968. A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic. Uralic and Altaic Series, volume 69.
Bloomington: Indiana University Publications.
Wali, Kashi, O.N. Koul, P.E. Hook, and A.K. Koul. 1999. Lexical anaphora in Kashmiri. In Lexical
Anaphors and Pronouns in some South Asian Languages: A Principled Typology. K. Wali, B.
Lust, J. Gair, and K.V. Subbarao, Eds. The Hague: Mouton.