URDU POSTPOSITION PHRASES

http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/glr.2021(VI-II).24      10.31703/glr.2021(VI-II).24      Published : Jun 2021
Authored by : Muhammad Athar Khurshid , Hina Azad , Samreen Riaz Ahmed

24 Pages : 224 - 238

    Abstract

    Urdu postpositions need to be clearly defined because long as an accurate concept of Postposition Phrases is chalked out, the concepts of Noun and Verb Phrase will also remain incomplete. The available literature describes them either semantically (traditional approach), or in Lexico-Functional-Grammar. Neither approach differentiates between their roles as case markers and postpositions. Nor is their basic structure described. The researcher has tried to minimize the confusion between their mixed roles of case markers, grammatical functions, and postposition. Disagreeing with the existing theory of Urdu PPs, the researcher has defined and classified them in the framework of generative grammar. This paper elaborates the internal structure of Urdu PPs, their maximal and intermediate projections, and their distribution in the clause structure. In addition to that, their overt and covert roles have also been pointed out here.

    Key Words

    Postpositions, Complement, Adjunct, Genitive, Instrumental, Locative, Accusative, Dative, Oblique

    Introduction

    Butt (1995) used the epithet 'complex' for Urdu predicates. Certainly, they are so, but no less complex are Urdu Noun Phrases. A major source of complexity in NPs are a few particles that often accompany them. Most of the researchers term these particles as case clitics. But some eminent researchers, like Schmidt (1999), considered them postpositions. Both sides missed one aspect of these particles. They forgot they performed both roles, postpositions and case markers. In addition to them, they also marked grammatical relations. The gigantic task before the researchers is to mark a boundary line between their various functions and suggest a theory as to when the above-mentioned particles assume the function of a postposition. We believe that analysis in generative grammar may resolve some of the confusions. 

    Literature Review

    According to Anderson (2006) The word case is derived from the Latin casus, and means a falling. The old grammarians regarded the nominative as the upright case, and all the others as falling from that. Hence the use of the words decline and declension. (Of course, the nominative cannot be a real case, because it is upright and not falling) (p. 18).

    Urdu NPs carry two types of cases: (1) Nominative case, (2) Oblique case. The nominative case is only an abstract case, which remains phonetically unpronounced. Oblique case appears through different markers: [ne], [ko], [m??], [p?r], [t??k], [se], and [k?, ke, ki]. [ne] is the Ergative case marker which appears on subject agent arguments. [ko] marks Accusative/Dative cases. As an Accusative marker, [ko] marks Object themes, but in the infinitive and passive constructions, it may appear on subject themes too. Dative [ko] may appear on the subject, indirect object arguments, and also on adjuncts. Another set [p?r], [se], [t??k] are Locative case markers (Koul, 2008; Butt, 2006; Kachru, 2006; Butt and King, 2004; Schmidt, 1999; Mohanan, 1990). Generally, they appear on oblique object (PP object) (Valin, 2004, Woolford, 2006) arguments (Rizvi, 2008), or on adjunct phrases. There is another clitic with three variants: [k?] is masculine singular, [ki] is feminine singular, [ke] is plural for both. This is the Genitive marker, and functions like the free genitive, ‘of’ (Carnie, 2013). 

    The above-mentioned case markers exist as clitics. Butt (1995) calls them case clitics. Schmidt calls them postpositions. As the majority of the syntacticians consider them case markers, we will also follow this term, until we redefine this concept in the coming pages. In Urdu, Nominative and Oblique noun forms show different plural suffixes. [a] is usually used as a singular masculine marker on nominative nouns, and [e] as the plural masculine marker, [i] as a singular feminine marker, and [?] as a plural feminine marker. At the same time, singular vocative maker, and singular oblique marker also appear as [e]. In addition to this, [e] also appears as the agreement feature between nouns and case clitics. In vocative form, they are actualized as [e] on a singular, and as [õ] on plural NPs. In oblique form, they appear as [e] on a singular, and as [o] on plural NPs. Though their plural forms are different, yet their singular forms are phonetically alike. But these apparently similar markings are two different features. Oblique markings [e] and [o] are the agreement feature between a noun and its case marker (Butt and King, 2004). In this paper, we will term it as Oblique Agreement Feature (OAF). They are going to play a very important role in defining Urdu PPs. The vocative markings [e] and [o?] are not the agreement features. They are the addressing styles. Though they are not the topics of the present study, yet we may need their plural form [o?] to sort out oblique forms.

    It is generally observed that Oblique Agreement Feature (OAF) [e] precedes a case marker, and appears as a suffix on the nouns, and their respective adjectives and determiners that end on [?] sound. In this way, OAF [e] forms as a chain link between the determiner, the adjective, and the noun in a DP. For example,

     

    Nominative Singular Masculine Noun

    Doosra bara masla hal ho gaya.

    [?d?u?s. ra  b?.??a ?m?s.?la h?l ho ??.?ja]

    ????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???

    ?d?u?s.r -a 

    b?.?? -a

    ?m?s.?l -a

    h?l

    ho

    ??.?j  -a

    second.m.s.

    big. m.s.

    problem.m.s.NOM

    solved

    be

    went.m.s.PERF.

    The second main problem was solved.

     

    Nominative Plural Masculine Noun

    Doosre bare masle hal ho gae.

    [?d?u?s.re b?.??e ?m?s.?le h?l ho ??e]

    ??????????????? ?? ????

    ?d?u?s.r  -e 

    b?.?? -e

    ?m?s.?l  -e

    h?l

    ho

    ??     -e

    second.m.p.

    big. m.p.

    problem.m.p.NOM

    solved

    be

    went.m.p.PERF.

    The second main problem was solved.

     

    Nominative Singular Feminine Noun

    Doosri bari larki khari ho gai.

    [?d?u?.sri b?.??i ?l??.ki. k?.?i ho ??i]

    ?????  ???  ???? ???? ?? ????

    ?d?u?.sr-i

    b?.??-i

    ?l??.k-i

    k?.?-i

    ho

    ??   -i

    second.f.s.

    big.f.s.

    girl.f.s.NOM

    stood.f.s.

    be

    go. f.s.PERF.

    The second big girl stood up. 

     

    Nominative Plural Feminine Noun

    Doosri bari larkiyan khari ho gain.

    [?d?u?.sri b?.??i ?l??.ki.jã k?.?i ho ???]

    ?????  ???  ?????? ???? ?? ????

    ?d?u?.sr-i

    b?.??-i

    ?l??.ki.-ja?

    k?.?-i

    ho

    ??      -?

    second.f.s.

    big.f.s.

    girl.f.   p.NOM

    stood.f.s.

    be

    go.f.p.PERF.

    The second big difficulty is resolved.

     

    Oblique Singular Masculine Noun

    Doosre bare masle ne sar utthaya.

    [?d?u?s.re  b?.??e ?m?s.?le ne s?r ????a. ja]

    ????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ????????

    ?d?u?s.r-e 

    b?.??-e

    ?m?.sl -e

    ne

    s?r

    ????a.j-a

    second.m.Obl

    big.m.Obl

    problem.m.OAF

    ERG

    head.m.s.NOM

    lift. m.s.PERF.

    The second big problem emerged

     

    Oblique Plural Masculine Noun

    Doosre bare maslon ne sar utthaya.

    [?d?u?s.re  b?.??e ?m?s.?lõ ne s?r ????a. ja] 

    ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ????????

    ?d?u?s.re 

    b?.??e

    ?m?.s?l    -o?    

    ne

    s?r

    ????a.-j-a

    second.m.p.

    big. m.p.

    problem.m.p.OAF

    ERG

    head.m.s.NOM.

    lift.   m.s.PERF.

    The second big problem emerged.

     

    Oblique Singular Feminine Noun

    Doosri bari larki ne hath utthaya.

    [?d?u?.sri b?.??i ?l??.ki ne ha??? ????a.ja]

    ?????  ???  ???? ?? ???? ????????

    ?d?u?.sr-i

    b?.??-i

    ?l??.k-i  Ø

    ne

    ha???

    ????a.j-a

    second.f.s.

    big.f.s.

    girl. f.s.OAF

    ERG

    hand.m.NOM

    raise.m.s.PERF

    The second big girl raised hand.

     

    Oblique Plural Feminine Noun

    Doosri bari larkiyon ne hath utthae.

    [?d?u?.sri b?. ??i ?l??.ki.jo? ne ha??? ????ae]

    ?????  ???  ?????? ?? ???? ????????

    ?d?u?.sr-i

    b?. ??-i

    ?l??.k-i.jo?

    ne

    ha???

    ????   -a -e

    second.f.s.

    big.f.s.

    girl.  f.p.OAF.

    ERG

    hand.m..NOM

    raise.  m.p.PERF.

    The second big girl raised hand.

     

    The nouns that don not end on [?] sound do not carry it phonetically. It rather silently sits on every noun head that precedes a case marker. So, most of the nouns that precede a case marker apparently bears no OAF, but logically it is always there, and its presence can be tested. The null presence of OAF can be verified by three tests: (1) replacement with a parallel NP that end on [?], (2) insertion of a pre-modifier that ends on [e], (3) replacement with plural variant that ends on [o?]. On the other hand, sometimes, OAF exists, overtly, or covertly, but no case marker is seen. Such environments are often observed around adjunct NPs. The presence of an OAF hints at the presence of a silent postposition (Kachru, 2006). For example,


     

    Voh daak khaanay gaya.

    [?oh ????k.?x??.ne ??.?j?].

    ?? ??????? ????

    ?oh

    ????k.?x??.n            -e

    Ø

    ??.?j     -?

    he.pron.m.3.s.NOM

    post office.m.3.s.OAF

    case clitic   

    went.m.3.s.PERF.

    He went to the post office.

    Nominative case is different from null case clitic. Nominative case is not preceded by an overt or covert OAF.

     

    Schmidt (1999, pp. 68-86) has defined all single case markers as simple postpositions, and their combinations as serial postpositions. For example, [me? se]. She has also given a long list of chunks which she calls compound postpositions. Most of them are the expressions carrying genitive markers in various combinations. Some of the examples of compound postpositions are given below. Case markers are coloured blue, concrete and null OAF, null case marker, null case markers, null NPs also coloured red,


     

    [ka] + Oblique Noun + Case Marker

    [ki ??.?d????h se]

    because of

    [ke s?.?b?b se]

    because of

    [ke ?z?r.je (se)]

    by means of

    [ke t??r p?r]

    by way of

    [ke m?. ?q?.ble me?]

    in comparison with

    (Schmidt, 1999, p. 81)

     

    [ka] + Oblique Noun (OAF) + Ø Case Marker

    [ke s??t?h (Ø Case Marker)]

    with

    [ke x?.?l??f (Ø Case Marker)]

    against

    [ke ????.st?e (Ø Case Marker)]

    in order to

    [ki 't??.r?f (Ø Case Marker)]

    towards

    [ki d???.???h (Ø Case Marker) ] 

    in place of

    [ke ?.?l??.?? (Ø Case Marker)]

    in addition to

    (Schmidt, 1999, p. 82)

     

    [ka] + Oblique Adjective(OAF) + Ø NP

    [ke m?.?t???.l?q (ØNP)]

    about

    [ke m?.?t???.b?q (ØNP)]

    according to

    [ke ?br??.b?r (ØNP)]

    equal to, similar to

    (Schmidt, 1999, p. 82)

     

    [ka] + Oblique Adverb (OAF)

    [ke b??d?] Ø

    after

    [ke ?pi?.t??he]

    behind, after

    [ke ?u?.p?r]

    above

    [ke ?p??s]

    near

    [ke s?.'?a]

    except for

    (Schmidt, 1999, p. 83)

     

    Postpositional Sequences

    [m?? se]

    out of

    [ke ?u?.p?r se]

    over

    [ke ?ni?.t??e se]

    out from under

    [ki ?t??.r?f se]

    via

    (Schmidt, 1999, p. 85)

     

    Kachru (2006) classifies Hindi/Urdu postpositions as simple postpositions (p. 103), complex postpositions (pp. 104-06), and zero postpositions (p. 107). Kachru’s concept of complex postpositions and Koul’s compound postpositions are very similar.

      

    [ke ??n.d??r]

    inside

    [ke ?b??.h?r]

    outside

    [ke ?p??s]

    near

    [ke s?.???]

    without

    [ke ?u?.p?r]

    above

    [ke l?.?je]

    for

    [ke ?ni.?t??e]

    under

    [ke ?s??m.ne]

    in front of

    [ke z?r.'je]

    by

    [ke ?pi?.t??he]

    behind

    [ke ?p??s]

    near

    [ki b?.???l me?]

    next to

    [ki b?.?d???e]

    instead of

     

     

     

    She also gives the concept of zero postpositions (p. 107). In her opinion, a few directional simple postpositions like [t??k], [p?r], and [ko] sometimes remain phonetically unpronounced, though their trace may easily be sensed in certain slots. In the latter part of this paper, such situations will be discussed in detail.

    Koul (2008) describes Urdu/Hindi postpositions semantically. He has given the following list of compound postpositions (p. 57):


     [ke ?.?l??.??]

    in addition to

    [ke ?bi??t??]

    inside of

    [ke ??n.d??r]

    inside

    [ke ?l?? b???]

    about

    [ke ???.?e]

    In front of

    [ke l?.?je/????.st?e]

    For 

    [ke ???r ?p??r]

    through

    [ke l???q]

    appropriate

    [ke ???s ?p??s]

    near about

    [ke s??t?h]

    along with

    [ke b??d?]

    afterwards

    [ke ?s??m.ne]

    in front of

    [ke ?p??r]

    across

    [ke m?.?q??.ble me?]

    in comparison with

    [ke ?p??s]

    near

    [ke j?.?h???/h???]

    at some place

    [ke ?u?.p?r]

    above

    [ki ?t??.r?f]

    towards

    [ke b?.??er/s?.???]

    without

    [ki t??.?r?h] 

    like 

    [ke ?b?d?.le]

    in place of

    [ki d???.???h ]  

    in place of

    [ke ?br??.b?r] 

    equal

    [se ?b??.h?r]

    out of

    [ke ?b??.h?r]

    outside

    [se ?p?h.le] 

    before

     

    Butt and King (2004, p. 18) have preferred to classify simple and compound postpositions as case phrases and postposition phrases. They take those constituents as postpositions which fall in adjunct slot and perform possessive, spatial, or temporal functions. She presents the following list of Urdu postpositions:

     

    [ke ?pi?.t??he]

    behind

    [ke ?p?h.le]

    before 

    [ke ?ni.?t??e]

    under

    [ke ?p??s]

    next to

    [ke ?u?.p?r]

    over

    [ke s??t?h]

    with

    [ke ??n.d??r]

    inside

    [ke l?.?je]

    for

    [ke ?s??m.ne]

    in front of

    [ki ?t??.r?f]

    in the direction of

    [ke ???.?e]

    in front of (further along)

    [ke b??d?]

    after

    Butt and King (2004, p. 18)

     

    Rizvi (2008) mostly borrows from Butt and King (2004), but he introduces a concept of tetravalent argument structures of Urdu verbs. He calls Locative marked NPs oblique phrases.

    Davison (2004) and Mohanan (1990, p. 80) describes the constituent structure of a clitic phrase as:

     

    The problem with all the above theories is that they have mainly focused subject and object NPs, and have ignored adjunct slots where adpositions mainly belong. Postpositions usually describe possessions, spatial, and temporal relations. Butt (1995), and Butt and King (2004) have taken the same positions, but they have not explored this possibility in detail. Moreover, Butt and King have studied Urdu postpositions in the LFG framework. They have not described the constituent structure of Postposition Phrases and their formal distribution. We aim to accomplish this missing part.

     

    Research Questions

    The information obtained from the available literature raises the following questions:

    1.       Adjunct slots are not solely occupied by compound postpositions. Simple and zero postpositions also may sit there. Are they also postpositions too?

    2.       In addition to occupying the adjunct slots, compound postpositions also function as complements of subject and object NPs. Shouldn’t they also be labelled as postposition phrases?

    3.       Pre-modifying adjectives may also take complement/adjunct phrases. Aren’t they PPs either?

    4.       The Concepts of compound postposition (Kachru, 2006; Koul, 2008), and the concept of postposition phrases (Butt and King, 2004) do not represent a single constituent, according to X Bar theory. Elements of two different constituents have been merged into a third single constituent. How can it be reduced to its basic constituents?

    The researcher presumes that the structure of Urdu PPs can be mapped by comparing them with English PPs. 

    Method

    The research design is qualitative. The researcher has depended mainly on the secondary data, collected from the works of Schmidt (1999), Kachru (2006), Koul (2008), and Butt and King (2004), and on personal ‘intuition’ and ‘grammaticality judgment’ (Carnie, 2013, p. 15). The available data was analyzed in X bar background, as described by Carnie (2013). 

    The researchers plan to follow X Bar theory to describe the distribution of head and complement phrase, and the projection of adjunct phrases in NPs, VPs, AdjPs, AdvPs, and IPs. ? NP VP

    NP? (Adj.P) (Comp. PP) N (Chhota sa sonay ka chamcha; Sonay ka chhota sa chamcha)

    Adj.P? (AdvP) (Comp. PP) Adj. (Voh bohat purani moseeqi ka mahir he)

    Adjunct P ? Comp. NP P (Zara kitabon ke neechey or Kitabon ka zara neechey)

    PP? (NP) P

    Data Analysis

    Keeping in mind other researchers’ opinions, and confusions arising thereof, I have tried to redefine the concept of Urdu Postposition Phrases. In my opinion, this issue can be resolved if we try to map this concept onto the concept of English Preposition Phrases. By this, many, if not all, of the questions may be answered. Cases marked on subject and Object NPs may be dropped from the list of postpositions. However, cases marked on the complement or adjunct phrases of subject NPs will be considered postposition heads. Cases marked on the NPs falling in complement and adjunct slots are postpositions. Case markers heading oblique phrases (Rizvi, 2008) are also postpositions. This will make a long list of PPs: Genitive Phrase (GENP), Locative Phrase (LOCP), Instrumental Phrase (INSP). In addition to them, a few new concepts are introduced here. They are Accusative Adjunct Phrase (AAP), Oblique Adjunct Phrase (OAP), and Oblique Agreement Feature (OAF). These concepts will be described in detail in the coming pages.

    Before we proceed with this concept, we should know how Urdu constituent structure is arranged. Urdu is the head last language. In contrast with the top to bottom arrangement in the tree diagram of an English structure, Urdu lexical items follow bottom to top arrangement pattern. An example is given below:


    Ameer ghareebon ki madad kartay hain.

    [?.?mi?r ??.?ri?bõ ki m?.?d??d? k?r.t?e h??]

    ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ????

    ?.'mi?r

    ??.'ri?.b  -o?

    k       -i

    m?.'d??d?

    'k?r.- t?         -e

    h            -??

    rich.3.p.m.NOM

    poor.3.p.m.OAF

    GEN.f.

    help.3.s.f.NOM

    do.IMPERF.p.

    be.PRES.p.

    The rich help the poor.



    Complement PPs
    Genitive Phrases appear as complement phrases. Their structure can be described as follows:  

    They also function as complement nodes of Adj. and Adv heads. For example,

    2

    kamre ka darvaza

    [?k?m.re ka d??r.????.za]

    ???? ??   ???????

    ?k?m.r           -e        

    k-     -a

    d??r.????.za

    room.m.3.s.OAF

    GEN.m.

    door.m.3.s.NOM

    door of the room.

    3

    Akhbar kay mutabiq

    [?x.'b??r ke m?.'t??.b?q] 

    ????? ?? ??????

    ?x.?b??r                  Ø

    k-       -e

    m?.?t??.b?q

    newspaper.m.3.s.OAF

    GEN.OAF.

    according

    According to the newspaper.

    4

    Mez kay ooper.

    [mez ke ?u?.p?r]

    ??? ??  ?????

    mez     Ø       Ø

    k-       -e

    ?u?.p?r Ø

    table.f.3.s.OAF

    GEN.OAF.

        on.OA

    On the table.



    Though usually Genitive phrases occupy complement slots, yet they are not the only option. In 5, a Locative Phrase is used as the complement of an adjective head. vo

     

     

    5

    mez per mojood glass.

    [mez p?r m?.'d??u?d? ?l??s]

    ??? ?? ????? ?????

    mez              Ø

    p?r

    m?.'d??u?d?

    ?l??s

    Table.f.3.s.OAF

    LOC.(on)

    present.adj.

    glasses.m.3.p.NOM

    Glasses present on the table

    The above trees present complement and head combination of different phrases. Verb phrases get direct object NPs as their complements. They may also have PPs in their argument structures. Rizvi (2008) calls such structures Oblique Phrases. We will discuss them later.

    Adjunct PPs

    Adjunct phrases are optional PPs that sit on the sister nodes of N', Adj', Adv', and I'. Their examples are given below:


     

     

    6

    mez per glass.

    [mez p?r ?l??s]

    ??? ?? ?????

    mez              Ø

    p?r

    ?l??s

    Table.f.3.s.OAF

    LOC.(on)

    glasses.m.3.p.NOM

    Glasses on the table

     

     

     

    7

    un main behtar.

    [?n me? ?beh.t??r]

    ??? ??? ?????

    ?n             Ø

    me?

    ?beh.t??r]

    them.3.p.OAF

    LOC.(among)

     better

     Better among them

     

     

     

    8

    hud se bahar.

    [h?d? se ?b??.h?r]

    ?? ?? ?????

    h?d?            Ø

    se

    ?b??.h?r

    limit.f.3.s.OAF

    INS.(from)

    beyond.

    Beyond limit.


Dative Adjunct Postposition (DAP)

Dative [ko] may mark appear on subject, indirect object DPs. Being an inherent case, it is specific to goal/experiencer roles (Woolford, 2006). But, it also appears on adjunct NPs. As a part of an argument, it is assigned as a case marker at AgrOP specifier position (Woolford, 2006); but adjuncts are not arguments. How can we justify its presence on adjuncts? We are left with only one option. In adjunct PPs, [ko] is not a dative case. It is rather a postposition.

[ko] is a very flexible case marker that may jump into any slot. DPs in subject, direct object, indirect object, adjunct positions may carry [ko]. In 9 and 10, Accusative Adjunct Phrases are shown in the adjunct slots of NP, AdjP, AdvP, VP, IP. An extraordinary feature of [ko] is that it may exist as a silent case marker too. Further detail is given below:

 

 

9

Thaanay ko gaya.

[?t????.ne ko ??.?j?]

????? ?? ????

?t????.ne                        Ø

 ko

??.?j     -?

police station.m.3..s.OAF

AA

went.m.s.PERF.

Went to the police station.

 

 

 

10

 Shaam ko gaya.

[???m ko ??.?j?]

??? ?? ????

???m                Ø

 ko

??.?j     -?

evening.f.3.s.OAF

AA

went.m.s.PERF.

Went in the evening.

Spatial adjuncts are projected in VPs, and temporal adjuncts in IPs.

 

Oblique Adjunct Phrase (OAP)

Null presence of ko and some other case markers creates an interesting situation. For example, compare the following structures: 

[?oh ???m ko ?e ??]

(presence of ko confirms the silent presence of OAF on the NP ???m).

[?oh 't????.ne Ø ??.'j?]

(presence of OAF [e] on 't????.ne confirms the silent presence of a null case marker/postposition).

?oh '??.le s??l Ø ?e ??]

(presence of [e] on AdjP ['??.le] confirms the silent presence of OAF on the NP sal, and, thereby, the presence of a silent case marker/postposition on the NP).

Often postpositions are skipped at VP and IP adjunct positions, but their traces stay. The presence of a silent postposition is indicated by the presence of Oblique Agreement Feature (OAF) [e] that links a complement phrase to its case head. It becomes phonetically present when the complement N ends on [?] sound. For example,     


 

 

11

Ali thaanay ko gaya.

[?.?li?t????.ne ko ??.?j?]

??? ????? ?? ????

?.?li            Ø

?t????.n                          -e

ko

??.?j     -?

Ali.m.3.s.OAF

Police Station.m.3.s.OAF

AA

went.m.s.PERF.

Ali went to the police station.


In the above diagram, Accusative [ko] marks an adjunct NP [?t????.na]. The adjunct NP [?t????.ne] agrees with the Accusative marker [ko]. Now compare it with another structure [?.?li ?t????.ne Ø ??.?j?]. In this sentence, [ko] slot lies vacant but its semantic sense can still be felt. Thus I have labelled the null Accusative phrase as Oblique Adjunct Phrase (OAP).


 

 

12

Ali thaanay gaya.

[?.?li ?t????.ne ??.'j?]

??? ????? ????

?.?li            Ø

?t????.n                          -e

Ø

??.?j     -?

Ali.m.3.s.OAF

Police Station.m.3.s.OAF

AA

went.m.s.PERF.

Ali went to the police station.

 

 

13

Glass melay farsh par giray. [?l??s ?m?.le f?r? p?r ???.re]

??? ? ????  ???  ????? ?

?l??s

?m?.l  -e

f?r?                  Ø    

p?r

???.r          -e

glass.f.3.s.NOM

dirty.OAf

basket.f.3.s.OAF

LOC.(on)

fell.m.p.PERF.

Glasses fell on the dirty floor. 

 

 

 

14

Glass baaskit main giray. [?l??s ?b??s.k?t me? ???.re]

??? ?  ?? ??? ??? ??? ?

?l??s

?b??s.k?t          Ø    

me?

???.r          -e

glasses.f.3.p.NOM

basket.f.3.s.OAF

LOC.(in)

fell.m.p.PERF.

Glasses fell in the baskit.


In addition to the above OAP and AAP, some other constituents like LOCP, INSP, INFP and GERP may also be used as adjunct phrases. For example, 


 

 

15

larka bus say school gaya.

[?l??.k? b?s se sku?l ??.?j?]

???? ?? ?? ???? ????

?l??.k    -?

b?s           Ø

se

sku?l

??.?j      -?

boy.3.s.m.NOM

bus.f.3.s.OAF

INS.(by)

school.m.3.s.NOM.

went.m.s.3.PERF

The boy went to school by bus.

 

 

 

16

khailnay kay liyay

[?k?el.ne ke l?.?je]

?????? ?? ?????

?k?el.n    -e

k          -e

l?.?j    -e

play.Inf.OAF

GEN.OAF

taking.OAF.

in order to play



In the above lines, the researcher has suggested that in case of silent [ko], Oblique Agreement Feature (OAF) may be taken as the Postposition head. The reason is that sometimes null postpositions remain unidentified.  For example, when the following items fall in adjunct slot, it becomes difficult to assess which postposition follows them, and whether any known postposition follows them at all. It is difficult to identify the postposition in null slot, but the spatial or temporal sense can easily be realized on Oblique Agreement Feature (OAF). I hypothesize that the null postpositions transfer their semantic sense to the agreement feature which begins to head Oblique Adjunct Phrase (OAP). The objection may be raised that Oblique Adjunct (OA) itself often remains unpronounced. This is true but its logical presence can easily be tested, and there is no confusion over the possibility of presence of any other item in its null slot. In other words, it is pronounced or not, there is no doubt in its presence.

Postpositional Sequences

Usually, postpositions head the NP, AdjP, and AdvP INFP, GERP complements and adjuncts; but in Urdu, postpositions may also head PP complements in the following way:  


 

 

 

17

Fridge main say.

[fr?d?? me? se]

??? ??? ???

fr?d??               Ø

   me?

se

fridge.m.3.s.OAF

LOC.(in)

INS.(from)

out of the fridge.

 

 

 

 

18

Chhat par say.

[t????t? p?r se]

??? ?? ???

t????t?           Ø

p?r

se

roof.f.3.s.OAF

LOC.(on)

INS.(from)

from the roof


Schmidt (1999) has cited some other examples of postpositional sequences. They are: [ke ?u?.p?r se], [ke ?ni?.t??e se], [ki ?t??.r?f se] etc. Butt and King (2004), Kachru (2006), Koul (2008), have also cited genitive/instrumental combinations with NPs as postposition phrases. But these chunks cannot be described according to X bar theory. [ke] and [se] are the genitive and Instrumental heads respectively. As Urdu is the head right language, the complement NPs should precede the head. But in the above examples, NPs rather follow the head. Butt and King (2004) have stipulated adjunct slot for postposition phrases. But the examples of postposition they’ve cited are all Genitive combinations. Whereas, locative, instrumental, dative, and null cases also hold positions in adjunct slot. For example,12. [?. ?li ?t????.ne Ø ??. ?j?] 14. [?l??s ?b??s.k?t me? ???.re] In the 14 above, [?b??s.k?t me?] is an adjunct PP, headed by a locative marker. In 12, [?t????.ne] falls in the adjunct slot, and no case marker/postposition follows it. It, therefore, becomes a postposition in itself. The researcher has termed it as Oblique Adjunct [e].   

Conclusion

Though this theory is not final yet, but it does point out flaws in the older theory of Urdu Postposition Phrases, and suggests an alternative scheme to address this issue. With the help of the old theories, neither we can describe the complement structures of NPs, and VPs, nor those of adjunct phrases. Moreover, this scheme also distinguishes postpositions from case markers. 

References

  • Anderson, J. M. (2006). Modern grammars of case. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Butt, M. (1995). The structure of complex predicates in Urdu. Stanford, California, CA: CSLI Publications, Center for the Study of Language and Information.
  • Butt, M., & King, T. H. (2004). The status of case. In Veneeta Dayal and Anoop Mahajan (Eds.), Clause structure in South Asian languages (pp. 153-198). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Butt, M. (2006). Theories of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Carnie, A. (2013). Syntax: A generative introduction (3rd . ed.). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Davison, Alice. (2004). Structural case, lexical case and the verbal projection. In Veneeta. Dayal and Anoop Mahajan (Ed), Clause structure in South Asian languages (pp. 99-225). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Koul, O. N. (2008). Modern Hindi grammar. Springfield, VA, Virginia: Dunwoody Press.
  • Mohanan, T. W. (1990). Arguments in Hindi. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University, Stanford, California, CA.
  • Rizvi, S. M. J. (2008). Indications of Urdu tetravalent verbs having 'oblique agents' in the argument structure. In M. Butt and H. King (Eds.), Proceedings of the LFG08 Conference (pp. 434- 453). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
  • Schmidt, R. L. (1999). Urdu: An ultimate grammar. Oxon: Routledge.
  • Valin, Jr, R. D. V. (2004). An Introduction to syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Woolford, E. (2006). Lexical Case, Inherent Case, and Argument Structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 37(1), 111-130.

Cite this article

APA

CHICAGO

    CHICAGO : Khurshid, Muhammad Athar, Hina Azad, and Samreen Riaz Ahmed. 2021. "Urdu Postposition Phrases." Global Language Review, VI (II): 224 - 238 doi: 10.31703/glr.2021(VI-II).24

HARVARD

    HARVARD : KHURSHID, M. A., AZAD, H. & AHMED, S. R. 2021. Urdu Postposition Phrases. Global Language Review, VI, 224 - 238.

MHRA

    MHRA : Khurshid, Muhammad Athar, Hina Azad, and Samreen Riaz Ahmed. 2021. "Urdu Postposition Phrases." Global Language Review, VI: 224 - 238

MLA

    MLA : Khurshid, Muhammad Athar, Hina Azad, and Samreen Riaz Ahmed. "Urdu Postposition Phrases." Global Language Review, VI.II (2021): 224 - 238 Print.

OXFORD

    OXFORD : Khurshid, Muhammad Athar, Azad, Hina, and Ahmed, Samreen Riaz (2021), "Urdu Postposition Phrases", Global Language Review, VI (II), 224 - 238

TURABIAN