Advertisement

Quantification in Hindi

Chapter
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 97)

Abstract

After presenting some basic genetic, historical and typological information about Hindi, this chapter outlines the quantification patterns it expresses. It illustrates various semantic types of quantifiers, such as generalized existential, generalized universal, proportional, definite and partitive which are defined in the Quantifier Questionnaire in chapter “The Quantifier Questionnaire”. It partitions the expression of the semantic types into morpho-syntactic classes: Adverbial type quantifiers and Nominal (or Determiner) type quantifiers. For the various semantic and morpho-syntactic types of quantifiers it also distinguishes syntactically simple and syntactically complex quantifiers, as well as issues of distributivity and scope interaction, classifiers and measure expressions, and existential constructions. The chapter describes structural properties of determiners and quantified noun phrases in Hindi, both in terms of internal structure (morphological or syntactic) and distribution.

Keywords

Hindi Quantification patterns Semantic Morpho-syntactic Quantifiers Classifiers Determiners Quantified noun phrases 

References

  1. Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 435–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anand, P., & Nevins, A. (2006). The locus of ergative case assignment: Evidence from scope. In A. Johns, D. Massam, & J. Ndayiragije (Eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues (pp. 3–25). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhatia, T. (1978). A syntactic and semantic description of negation in South Asian languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Univeristy of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  4. Bhatia, S., Iyer, J., & Kaur, G. (2013). Comparatives in Hindi-Urdu: Puzzling over ZYAADAA. LISSIM Working Papers 1(1).Google Scholar
  5. Bhatt, R. (2012). Many or more: The Hindi-Urdu degree word zyaadaa and the analysis of bare comparatives. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. www.fosssil.in/manymore.pdf
  6. Bhatt, R., & Anagnostopoulou, E. (1996). Object shift and specificity: Evidence from ko-phrases in Hindi. In L. M. Dobrin, K. Singer, & L. McNair (Eds.), Papers from the 32nd regional meeting of the Chicago linguistics society (pp. 11–22). Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
  7. Bhatt, R., & Dayal, V. (2007). Rightward scrambling as rightward remnant movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 38, 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhatt, R., & Takahashi, S. (2011). Reduced and unreduced phrasal comparatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29, 581–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Butt, M. (1993). Object specificity and agreement in Hindi/Urdu. In Papers from the 29th regional meeting of the Chicago linguistics society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
  10. Dayal, V. (1996). Locality in wh quantifictaion. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dayal, V. (2004). Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27, 393–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dayal, V. (2011). Hindi pseudo-incorporation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29, 123–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dayal, V. (2013). On the existential force of bare plurals across languages. In I. Caponigro & C. Cecchetto (Eds.), From grammar to meaning: The spontaneous logicality of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kachru, Y. (1980). Aspects of Hindi grammar. Delhi: Manohar.Google Scholar
  15. Kalin, L. (2014). Aspect and argument licensing in Neo-Aramaic. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  16. Kumar, R. (2006). Negation and licensing of negative polirty items in Hindi syntax. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Lahiri, U. (1998). Focus and negative polarity in Hindi. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 57–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mahajan, A. (1990a). The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  19. Mahajan, A. (1990b). LF conditions on negative polarity licensing. Lingua 80, 333–348.Google Scholar
  20. Mahajan, A. (1997). Rightward scarambling. In D. Beerman, D. LeBlanc, & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Rightward movement (pp. 185–213). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mohanan, T. (1994). Argument structure in Hindi. Dissertations in Linguistics. CSLI Publications, Stanford.Google Scholar
  22. Montaut, A. (2004). A grammar of Hindi (Lincom studies in Indo-European linguistics). Munich: LINCOM GmbH.Google Scholar
  23. Uribe-Etxebarria, M. (1995). Negative polarity item licensing, indefinites and complex predicates. In M. Simons, & T. Galloway (Eds) Proceedings from semantics and linguistic theory V. Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar
  24. Verma, M. (1971). The structure of the noun phrase in English and Hindi. Delh/Patna/Varabnasi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations