INFORMATION TO USERS

T h is malarial was produced from a microfilm copy of tha original document. While th e most advanced tichnological meant to photograph tod reproduce this document have been used, the quality it heavily dependant upon the quality of the original subm itted.

T h e following explanation of techniques it provided to help you understand markings or patternswhich may appear on this reproduction.

I.T h e sign x "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Paga(s)". I f it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they ere spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent to ir sure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round Mack mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus causa a blurred image. You will find a good image of the pega in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper le ft hand jcomer of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in ajqual sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning it continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority o f users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photogiraphs if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Orde Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific you wish reproduced.

6. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as

University Microfilms International 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA St. John's Road, Tylar'a Groan High Wycombe. Bucks. England HPtO BHR 77-24,703 SIDDIQUI, Ahmad Hasan, 1934- THE SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS OF QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH, HINDI AND URDU: A STUDY IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1977 Language, linguistics

Xerox University MicrofilmsAnn , Arbor, Michigan 48106

© Copyright by

Ahmad Hasan Siddiqui

1977 THE SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS OP QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH, HINDI

AND URDU: A STUDY IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

By

Ahmad Hasan Siddiqui, B.A., M.A.

The Ohio State University

1977

Reading Committee: Approved By

Professor Donald R. Bateman Professor Frederic J. Cadora Professor Yamuna Kachru Professor David Stampc Advisor Department of Humanities Education To my parents and brothers ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my advisor and doctoral committee chairman

Professor Donald R. Bateman who has always boen so helpful and consider­ ate to me. His many constructive comments havo been particularly beneficial to the progress of this study. I am grateful to Professor

Yamuna Kachru under whose guidance I have carried out the present work.

I have much appreciation for her insightful comments and criticism of the dissertation and above all for her patience and availability in spite of her extremely busy schedule.

My committee members, Professors Frederic J. Cadora, David

Stampc and Donald R. Larson, the graduate school representative, are owed a special word of thanks for their time and their comments on my dissertation. I am indebted to Professor Braj B, Kachru for his discussions and comments on the dissertation. He has also been a source of constant oncouragement throughout my graduate studies in the United

States. I also wish to express my gratitude to Professor Frank Otto who has always encouraged me and taken an interest in my academic progress.

Special thanks are due to my colleague S, N. Sridhar for reading 4 and offering his insightful comments on the manuscript. 1 am also thankful to ray other colleagues, Sehba Ali, Tej K. Bhatia, Rajeshwari

Pandharipande and Basudeu Sharma with whom I have spent hours of lively and fruitful discussions.

iii I should like to acknowledge the assistance and facilities provided by the department of Linguistics, University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign during my research as a CIC scholar. I also appreciate the thesis research grant awarded me by the office of the International

Student and Scholarship services, the Ohio State University, Columbus.

Finally, I am most grateful to my brother Shamsul Zuha and his wife Ashraf Shams who have affectionately supported and encouraged me throughout my educational life at home and abroad,

iv VITA

July 1,1934 ...... Born - Ballia, Uttar Pradesh, India

1954...... B.A., Banaras Hindu University Varanasi, U. P., India

1957 ...... M.A,, English Literature, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India

1957-1958...... Lecturer in English, Haidry College, Saran, India

1959...... M.A. Urdu Literature, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India

1960-1962...... Lecturer in English, Chandauli Polytechnic, Varanasi, India

1965 ...... M.A. Gcnoral Linguistics and Phonetics, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, London

1965-1966...... Examiner, Senior Cambridge Board of Examinations, Cambridge, England

1965-1967...... Specialist in English, London Education Authority, London

1967-1969...... Teaching Assistant, Department of Lin­ guistics; Research Assistant, Division of English as a Second Language, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois

1970-1972...... Teaching Associate, Department of Lin­ guistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1973-1976 Research/Teaching Assistant, Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois

v 1974-1975...... Teaching Assistant, TESL, Bilingual/ BLcultural Program, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois

1976 ...... A.M., TESL, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois

PUBLICATIONS

"Notes on Queclaratives and Tag Questions in Hindi-Urdu," Studies in Linguistic Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 134-148, Fall 1973.

Hindi as a Second Language I, Bilingual Education Division of Illinois Office of Education, Chicago, Illinois.

The Language of Respect in Urdu: A Sociolinguistic Study (Forthcoming).

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Applied Linguistics

Studies in English Linguistics

Studies in South Asian Linguistics

Studies in Sociolinguistics

Studies in Second Language Acquisition

Studies in Foreign Language Education TABLE.OF CONTENTS

Pago ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... iii

VITA ...... v

LIST OF T A B L E S ...... x

SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS...... xi

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.0 Aim and Scope of the Study...... 1 1.1 The Importance of the T o p i c ...... 2 1.2 Review of Earlier Research...... S 1.2.1 Traditional Description...... 6 1.2.2 Structural Descriptions...... 9 1.2.3 Tranformationnl Generative Descriptions. . . . 11 1.2.3.1 Transformational works on Hindi-Urdu, 14 1.2.4 Recent Developments and Hindi-Urdu ...... 15 1.2.5 Studies on English Gr a m m a r...... 17 1.2.5.1 Traditional grammar ...... 17 1.2.5.2 Structural grammar...... 19 1.2.5.3 Transformational generativegrammar . 20

II. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES...... 24

2.0 Approaches to Relate Linguistics to LanguageTeaching 24 2.1 Contrastive Analysis...... 24 2.1.1 The CA Hypothesis...... 32 2.2 Error Analysis...... 36 2.2.1 A New Approach to an Old P r o b l e m ...... 38 2.3 Interlanguage...... 40

vii Chapter Page

III. QUESTION FORMATION IN-ENGLISH ...... 46

3.1 Yes-No Questions ...... 46 3.1.1 Traditional Description ...... 46 3.1.2 Chomsky's (1957) Analysis ...... 47 3.1.3 The Dummy 'Q' Analysis (Katz and Postal). . . 49 3.1.4 Derivation of YNQ from Alternative Questions. 53 3.1.5 The Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects of YNQ . . 58 3.2 WH-Questions...... 61 3.2.1 Wh-Form in Question and Relative Clauses. . . 62 3.2.2 Derivation of WH-Words...... 63 3.2.3 Movement in WH Questions...... 66 3.2.4 Constraints on Question Formation ...... 69 3.2.4.1 Complex NP constraint...... 70 3.2.4.2 Sentential subject constraint. .. . 71 3.2.4.3 Co-ordinate structureconstraint . . 72 3.3 Tag Questions...... 73 3.3.1 Derivation of Tag Questions...... 73 3.3.2 Complications...... 76 3.3.3 Tags of Complex Sentences...... 79 3.3.4 Intonation of Tag Questions...... 81 3.3.5 ’Constant' Tag Questions...... 82 3.3.6 Pragmatics of Tag Questions...... 83 3.4 Negative Questions ...... 84 3.4.0 Introduction...... 84 3.4.1 Negative Yes-No Questions ...... 84 3.4.2 Negative Wh-Quostions...... 89

IV. QUESTION FORMATION IN HINDI-URDU...... 95

4.0.0 Some Basic Grammatical Features of Hindi-Urdu. . . 95 4.0.1 Word O r d e r ...... 95 4.0.2 Noun-Verb Agreement...... 97 4.0.2.1 Number Agreement...... 97 4.0.2.2 Gender Agreement...... 98 4.0.3 Case Forms of Nouns...... 99 4.0.4 Pronouns...... 101 4.0.5 Formal Exponents of Politeness ...... 102 4.0.6 Reduplication...... 105 4.0.7 Vnria...... 106 4.1 ha-nn Questions...... 109 4.1.0 Introduction...... 109 4.1.1 ha-na Questions...... 110 4.1.2 Alternative Questions as Source of ha-na Questions 115 4.1.3 Intonation of ha-na Questions...... 117 4.1.4 Mobility of kya Particle...... 118 4.1.5 Constraints on ha-na Questions ...... 121

viii Chapter Page

4.1.5.1 Limiters Constraint...... 122 4.1.5.2 Co-occurrence Restriction...... 126 4.2. K-Questions in Hindi-Urdu...... 128 4.2.1 Introuction...... 128 4.2.2 K-Question Formation...... 131 4.2.3 Reduplication in K-Question ...... 135 4.2.4 Multiple k-Questions...... 138 4.3 Tag Quostions...... 140 4.3.1 Tag Question Formation...... 140 4.3.2 Other tag-like Morphemes...... 143 4.3.3 VP-Duplication...... 144 4.3.4 MiOi na1 Insertion...... 146 4.3.5 Tags of Complex Sentences...... 146 4.3.6 Limiter Constraint...... 148 4.3.7 Intonation of Tag Questions ...... 149 4.3.8 Semantics and Pragmatics of Tag Questions ...... 150 4.4 Negative Questions...... 151 4.4.0 Introduction...... 151 4.4.1 Negative ha-na Question ...... 151 4.4.2 Negative K-Questions...... 158

V. CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS ...... 166

5.1 Comparison of The Englishand Hindi-Urdu Yes-No Questions...... 166 5.2 Comparison of The English and Hindi-Urdu Information Question...... 177 5.3 Comparison of the Englishand Hindi-Urdu Tag Questions...... 188

VI. SOME PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS...... 200

6.0 Introduction...... 200 6.1 Theoretical Implications...... 200 6.2 Applied Implications...... 201 6.2.1 Application in Classroom Presentation...... 201 6.2.2 Materials Production ...... 205

VII. CONCLUSION...... 212

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 215

ix al Page U) & u N M Table TagQ Procosscs TagQ Case Forms Case WHQ Processes WHQ Processes YNQ rnmnl Forms Pronominal ...... LIST OF TABLES OF LIST * x ...... 191 173 100 183 102 SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

$ zero

+ cancatination symbol

* unacceptable/not woII formed

# boundary symbol

-— > Rewrite (P.S. Rule)

»— ^ Rewrite (Transformational Rule)

( ) items enclosed are optional

| | choose one of the list

X variable

[±] syntactic-semantic features that characterize an item

Adj Adjective

ART Article

Adv Adverb

Ag Agentive

Aux auxiliary

CA contrastive analysis

CONJ Conjunction

CONT Contour

Dat dative

Del Deletion

DO Direct Object

xi Det Determiner

EA Error Analysis f(cm) feminine

HNQ ha-na question

H-U Hindi-Urdu

ID Indirect object

1L Interlanguage

K- the question morpheme in Hindi-Urdu m marker

M(asc) masculine

MOD Modal

N Noun

NP Noun Phrase

NEG Negative

NL Native Language ob obligatory

°(bj) object obliq oblique op optional

Pi plural pol polite pro pronoun

Q Question morpheme

S Sontence

SAI Subject auxiliary inversion

xii sg singular

Spec specific

S(ubj) Subject

TL Target Language

TNS Tense

V Verb

VP Verb Phrase

WH Question morpheme beginning with Wh-

WHQ Wh-question

YNQ Yes-no question

xiii 4

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Aim and Scope of the Study

The present study has been undertaken with three goals in mind.

The first goal is to describo one aspect of the Hindi-Urdu syntax,

namely, question formation and provide a semantically based structural

comparison with question formation in English. Questioning, as wc know,

is one of the universals of human language and is one of the most basic

and important tools of human cognition and inter-personal interaction.

The second goal is to review and evaluate the theoretical claims

made in the literature on Contrastive Analysis (CA), Error Analysis

(EA) and Interlanguago (IL) as related to second language acquisition.

The third goal is to sec what pedagogical implications and

insights CA in general and this study in particular, con provide for

the teaching of question formation to the native speakers of Hindi-Urdu

learning English as a second language. At the same time, we shall also

explore the implications of this analysis to the acquisition of Hindi-

Urdu questions by native speakers of English learning Hindi-Urdu as a

foreign language.

One might question why there is a comparative study or con­

trastive analysis of the syntax and semantics of English and Hindi-Urdu

questions, As linguists and teachers of languages are familiar with

1 the fact that students learning a foreign language encounter many dif­ ficulties, which often result in 'errors'.

A large proportion of these errors are traceable to the 'pull of mother tongue' or native language interference. Contrastive Analysis of the learner's native language and the target language, it is claimed, would be a scientific way of dealing with errors of language inter­ ference.

As for the languages selected for CA, little needs to be said to explain the importance of English in the present day world context. In particular, English is taught in all Indian schools storting from a very early stago--a fact which makes India the country with the largest number of learners of English as a second language. Of these students the single most numerous group is comprised by students with Hindi-

Urdu as their mother tongue. Viewed in this light, the topic of the present dissertation is potentially of immense value for the teaching of English in India.

1.1 The Importance of the Topic

English is the chief second language of the Indian subcontinent and the Indian constitution recognizes it an associate official language of the Union, along with Hindi. The percentage of English speaking bilinguals in India is only 3% of the total population but in numerical terms this percentage translates as over 18 million people.* English is taught ns mentioned above at every level of education--primary, secondary and higher. In spite of an almost two-hundred-year-old tradition the teaching of English is still inadequate and the 2 pedagogical methods and materials leave much to be desired. One reason, among many others, for these limitations is that very little systematic research has been done on the teaching and learning of English in the

Indian linguistic and cultural context. In order to provide a per­ spective for understanding the Indian linguistic scene, it might not be out of place to discuss it briefly.

The cultural and linguistic history of India goes back to ap­ proximately four thousand years. This ancient land is also multi­ cultural and multi-linguistic. Over six hundred million people inhabit the land, that is, 15% of the world population. According to census of

India (1971), there are about i652 languages spoken as mother tongues in India. These languages belong to four different language families,

Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Tibeto-Burmnn and Austric. The multiplicity of languages and the number of language families makes the Idnian sub­ continent the eastern Tower of Babel. However, tho majority of speakers belong to the two main language families--Indo-Aryan (59%) and Dravidian

(20%)--representing 680 languages spoken in the country. There are 13 different scripts, tho majority of which are derived from tho Brahroi script, from which Devanagari— the script of the gods— used for Hindi, is also derived.

The Indian linguistic and socio-cultural scene presents a mosaic almost incredibly complex. It indeed is that, but not as confusing as the legendary Tower of Babel. Tho linguistic and cultural plurality is reflected in the constitution, which recognizes 15 major languages as the national language of India.^ Hindi is the official language of the country and English being an 'associate official language' functions in administration, education, legal system, journalism and in inter-state communication. It is the language of the elite and is taught all over in India.

Hindi, including Urdu, on the other hand, is spoken by approxi­ mately 46% of the country's population. As a digression I might add • a here that in terms of number of speakers, Hindi-Urdu ranks third among the world languages, the other two being Chinese and English, in that order.

In this study I treat Hindi and Urdu as hyphenated (Hindi-Urdu) one language for linguistic reasons. Hindi and Urdu are closely related languages. They originate from the same parent language known as Kh3fl boll which in turn goes back to Sanskrit for its syntactic 5 structures and phonological systems and basic vocabulary. The basic difference botween Hindi and Urdu lies in their script, Hindi as said above, is written in Dovanagri and Urdu in Perso-Arabic script. Major differences are found in their vocabulary in certain registers6--techni- cal, literary, legal, philosophical, religious, etc. Some minor dif­ ferences also lie in phonology. Hindi and Urdu are often referred to’ as high Hindi and high Urdu when they employ learned vocabulary from

Sanskrit and Arabic-Porsian respectively. A common or neutral form frequently used in colloquial speech is known as Hindustani.

It is interesting to note that in spite of so much talk of Hindi and Urdu as two separate languages (Urdu has even been considered an alien language!) the truth is that, in addition to the two languages being similar in their syntactic and phonological structures, Urdu contains approximately 75% native vocabulary and only 25% foreign I

vocabulary, Including English, Persian and Arabic (cf. G. Jain, 1962).

In sum, I have chosen Hindi-Urdu for the present investigation

and description not only because I am a native speaker of the language

but also because it is an important language of the subcontinent.

English, on the other hand, is the next important language learned and

taught throughout the length and breadth of India. There is a need for

intensive research on effective methods and materials for teaching of

English in India. Hence, tho problem of my dissertation is extremely

important. In it I hope to provido some insights for the toaching and

learning of English as a second language to the native speakers of

Hindi-Urdu both at home and abroad. Whatever contributions this study

makes will, of course, be limited to the area of question-formation.

1.2 Review of Earlier Research

The earlier research on the topic of this dissertation can be

divided into three groups. First, studies which discuss question for­

mation in Hindi-Urdu; second, studies which describe question formation

in English, third, studies which provide contrastive insights on the

subject.

Let me first discuss the studies on Hindi-Urdu grammar. These

studies are mainly of three types: traditional, structural and

transformational-generative or post-transformational generative— what is

often referred to as generative semantics. In the subsequent sections

I will discuss these in that order. The studies discussed here, as

one will notice from the titles, are not primarily concerned with the

present topic, but they discuss it briefly while discussing other

aspects of the Hindi-Urdu grammar. 6

1.2.1 Traditional Descriptions

Although the origin of the Hindi-Urdu literary tradition goes far back in the history, grammars in the modern sense came to be written in only early eighteenth century. Bofore this, the traditional grammarians 7 did not make a sharp distinction between poetics and grammar. Josua

Kctelcar, a Dutch ambassador, later associated with the Dutch East India

Company in India, wrote the first grammar of Hindustani in Latin in g 1715. He also compiled three vocabularies of Hindustani. His description is not of the standard language but of tho lingua franca which he was familiar with. An interesting point of his book is that there is no mention of tho particle n£ (agent marker) in Hindi-Urdu.

A couple of less significant Hindustani grammars were also writ- ten in Latin following Kotoloar's Portuguese work. A period which may be considered significant in that sorious work on the language began in it was the end of eighteenth century. John B. Gilchrist, who taught

Hindustani at the Fort William College, Calcutta, wrote Hindustani Gram­ mar in 1790 and Urdu Qawaid in 1809. These were perhaps the first systematic grammars written according to the Western, especially English, tradition. His work was followed by a succession of grammatical works on Hindustani: Thomas Roebuck's (1801) The English and Hindustani

Dictionary with a Grammar Prefixed, John Shakespeare's (1813) Urdu Gram­ mar, William Yates' (1824) Hindustani Grammar, Rev. M. T. Adams' (1827)

Hindi Vyakaran, Garcin doTassy 's (1829) Principles of Hindustani Language,

Duncan Forbes' (1846) A Grammar of Hindustani Language, Rev. W.

Ethrington's Grammar (1846) in Hindi entitled Bhasha-Bhaskar in 1871, and John N. Platts' A Grammar of the Hindustani or Urdu Language »

7

published in London in 1874. S. H. Kellog's A Grammar of the Hindi

Language (1875) is considered the best traditional grammar. This was

followed by E. Greaves' A Grammar of Modern Hindi published in 1896.

The above grammars although large in number and important for

the study of Hindi-Urdu, were not written solely from the educational

needs and motivations but also the strongest inspiration came from their

missionary spirt and work. All these grammars show the traditional

influence of Latin and Greek and devote many pages to morphology and

description of parts of speech. Very little has been said on syntax

and semantics specifically with reference to sentence types. For

example, Kellog in his grammar of 584 pages devotes only five para­

graphs (one and a half pages) to the syntax of questions in Hindi.

The ancient Indian grammatical tradition culminated in Paninl's

Sanskrit grammar Astadhyaya ’Eight cahpters'11 which became tho model

for later grammarians of the Indian languages just as Latin and Greek

were models for English and other European languages. In addition to

the European writers of grammars of Hindi-Urdu or what they colled

Hindustani, the first native writer who wrote on modern Indian languages

was Inshaullah Khan who wrote Darya-c-Latafat, the first Urdu grammar in

1802. After a gap of half a century, a number of grammars were written

in quick succession by eminent writers like Pandit Shri Lai (Bhasha

Chandroday 1856), Pandi Ramjatan (Bhasha-TatvabodhinI 1858), Navinchandra

Ray (Navin Chandroday 1868) and Raja Shiva Prasad Sitara-e-Hind (Hindi

Vyakaran). The last one defines and gives an account of the two styles

of the language which are referred to as Hindi and Urdu. 8

The above works were later followed by a few pedagogically moti­ vated grammars in the early twentieth century. The first such standard grammar of Hindi was written by Kamta Prasad Guru (Hindi Vyakarao) published by the NagrI PracharinI Sabha, Banaras, in 1920. The work shows the influence of Western, as well as the Sanskrit grammatical tradition. The roost exhaustive grammar of the Urdu language Qawaid-e-

Urdu was written by Ahdul Haq in early twentieth century which still is a standard traditional grammar. In addition, A. H. Harley's Colloquial

Hindustani (1944), T. Grahamo Bailey's Teach Yourself Urdu (1956),

Kishoridas Vajpeyi's Hindi Shabdanushasan (1957), Aryondra Shnrma's A

Basic Grammar of Modern Hindi (1957), R. C. McGregor^s (1972) Outlino of

Hindi Grammar are the widely used pedagogical grammars of Hindi-Urdu.

However, important as the traditional grammars are, they all follow either the Western or the Sanskrit tradition. As a result thoy

f t ” ^ suffer from not only, descriptive inadequacy but also from a dispro­ portionate attention to certain aspects of the language at the expense of others. For example, whereas hundreds of pages have been devoted to morphology and the description of parts of speech, very little has been said on the syntactic aspect of the language. This is the case in almost all the traditional grammars of Hindi-Urdu. For example, in

Kamta Prasad Guru's work of 586 pages, only 86 pages have been devoted to syntax in general and a few paragraphs to question formation in particular. As opposed to this, 370 pages have been devoted to the description of the morphology. Unlike Latin and Sanskrit, and similar to English, for Hindi-Urdu, organization of elements is more important than morphological processes. Similarly, Abdul Haq in a work of 381 pages has devoted 240 pages to morphological processes including the

parts of speech. He discusses syntax in 141 pages but only a few para­

graphs are on question formation, spread over five pages.

In these grammatical works, one finds very little description of

the processes of question formation. There are passing references to questions in connection with the description of interrogative pronominal

forms. For example, Aryendra Sharma, in the latest edition of his gram­ mar A Basic Grammar of Modern Hindi (1972), comprising 224 pages, discusses syntax very briefly in 14 pages. Question formation is dismissed in two paragraphs, (cf. Si 12 p. 50 and §192 p. 87).

1.2.2 Structural Descriptions

The second phase in the description of Indian languages in general and Hindi-Urdu in particular is the period beginning in tho middle of the present century. Between the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century there was a great emphasis on historical linguistics and grammars. Dissatisfaction arose with this preoccupation and researchers both in Burope and India turned to tho , study of a synchronic language. They came to be known as the structur­ alists or descriptivists who tried to make grammatical studies scien­ tific by means of rigorous classification of the recorded data of the 12 spoken language with objective methodologies and procedures. This structural approach renewed interest in spoken language as against written language. ^

It was after the 'SOs that the structural or descriptive ap­ proach was applied to various aspects of Indian languages. For example, W. S. Allen's 'A study in the analysis of Hindi sentence structure' published in Acta Linguistics VI (1950-51), J. G. Burton-Page1s

'Compound and Conjunct Verbs in Hindi' and 'Participail Forms in Hindi' were published in the Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African

Studies. Also P. Hacker's, Zur Funktion cimiger Hiffsverben in modern

Hindi, Mainz Akademic 1958, and Ramnath Sahai and Vishwajit Narain's

'The structure of Noun Phrase in Hindi' appeared in Indian Linguistics in 1964. These works do not show any deep insights into the structure and function of Hindi-Urdu. They even lack the insights formerly found in the traditional grammars. In their scientific zeal of taxonomic classification and objectivity, they often appear to be mechanically cataloging the data under investigation. Here, again, one finds very little on interrogation in Hindi-Urdu, except references in connection with the description of pronominal forms as, for example, in Sahai and

Narain (1964).

Another descriptive work which employs the Hallidayan model of

'Scale and Category' is that of Shivendra Vermas' A Study in the

Systemic Description of Hindi Grammar and Comparison of the Hindi and

English Verbal Group (1964). This work is based on the traditional grammar of Guru with some innovations and technical terms drawn from 13 the systemic theory. This cannot be said to be any improvement over the traditional treatment of the subject. The weakness of this and other works in this framework is not always the individual writer's or their works but that of the theory itself. Structural Linguistics lacked insights and looked at grammar/language as a mechanical phenomenon 14 rather than a meaningful aspect of human communication. 11

1.2.3 Tranformational Generative Descriptions

With the publication of Chomsky's Syntactic Structures in 1957

and Aspects of the Theory of Syntax in 1965, begins a new era in the

history of modern linguistics. Until now language was seen as written,

texts, or spoken and the grammarians engaged themselves as objective

observers and analyzers of the parts of language based on its surface

forms. The human linguistic activity was viewed as simply a mechanical

device to put different elements of a language together. Earlier gram­ marians lacked cxplicitncss and neglected the deeper levels of language

and they left much to the imagination of their readers. Transformation­

al grammar (TG) ushers in on era of belief in linguistic creativity of

the human mind. Linguists now began discussing fundamental questions

such as: what is the nature of human language; how does a child acquire

and master his native language and what is the capacity that enables a

native speaker to distinguish between the ill-formed and woll-formed

sentences, and further, how is a speaker able to utter and understand

an infinite number of novel sentences in his language. Syntactic

Structures provides the hypothesis that language is "a set (finite or

infinite) of sentences, each finite in length, and constructed out of

a finite set of elements." In other words, language is composed of an

infinite number of sentences and they, in turn, are constructed of a

limited number of formatives (morphemes) of the language. The goal of

a grammar (TG) then, is to specify explicitly how the elements are

organized to form the well-formed sentences of a language, for,

sentences are not a random collection of words strung together, for

example: 12

1. *Ka ek jana voh sam

of one to go he evening nor are they simply a linear arrangement of different morphemes as, for example:

2. mujhc voh dmir malum hota hdi

I dat.m. he rich appears

He appears to me to be rich.

3. mujhe voh 3mlr s3m3jhta h3i

I dat.m. he rich thinks

He thinks me to be rich.

If it were so, both the above sentences should be understood in the same way but this is not true. Both the sentences (2 and 3) have the same grammatical elements— subject, object, adjective, verb and identical arrangement. In the structural description both will have a repre­ sentation of the form (4)

4. N + N Ko + Adj + V

But both do not mean the same, nor are the subject and object in the same relationship to the verb. That is, in (2) mujhe functions as the subject of the sentence whereas in (3) it functions as the object of the verb. It shows that just the description of word classes is not sufficient. What is required in addition is a specification of the relations holding between elements in a sentence. The ambiguity of the above sentences of Hindi-Urdu can be explicitly shown according to hierarchical structuro of elements as in 5 and 6 below:

5. mujhe voh-S-- malum hota h3i 13

6. mujho^volp^-^^ s3m3jhta hBi

m31 3mlr hu

Both the verbs in (5) and (6) take a copula sentence as complement but there is a distinction. In (5) the verb malum hona requires that the subject of the complement be identical to the subject of the verb where as in (6) s3m3jhna requires that the subject of the embedded complement be identical to the object of s3m3jhna. In this way, although, surface realization appears identical, their deep structures are different as is clear from (5) and (6) above.

Thus TG provides a method to bring out the intrinsic relation­ ships among the elements in a sentence by means of their representation in the deep structure and at the same time constrains the formation of non-sentences os in (1) above. In order to form well-formed sentences,

TG provides four different kinds of rules, Phrase Structure rules (PS),

Transformational Rules (TR), Semantic Interpretation Rules (SIR's) and

Phonological Rules (PR). The (PS) rules specify the grammatical cate­ gories and constituent structures such as, S, NP, VP, etc. The TR's

% transform the deep structures to the surface form. SIR's specify the meaning associated with the output of deep structure, while the phono­ logical rules specify the pronunciation. The deep structure contains all the information needed for the semantic interpretation of the sentences. In this way a finite number of rules enables a speaker to create an infinite number of sentences. The theory offers thus a hypothesis for characterizing the human linguistic competence and its creativity. 14

1.2.3.1 Transformational works on Hindi-Urdu

The new linguistics, as one might call it, did not leave the

Hindi-Urdu grammar untouched. A number of scholars engaged in the new

endeavor to account for various aspects of Hindi-Urdu grammar. A few works may be said to have paved the way for future research along the transformational generative lines. These are Kali C. Bahai (1964): A

Study in the Transformational Analysis of the Hindi Verb; Yamuna Kachru

(1965): A Transformational Treatment of Hindi Verbal Syntax; and

Manindra K. Verma (1966): A Synchronic Comparative Study of the

Structure of the Noun Phrase in English and Hindi; K. V. Subbarao (1974):

Noun Phrase Complementation in Hindi.

Bahai (1964) falls between a structural description and a trans­

formational grammar. It deals with the underlying structures of com- 15 pound and conjunct verbs in Hindi.

Kachru (1965) discusses in greater detail the sub-class of verbs such as copula, intrasitive, transitive, compound and conjunct verbs in

Hindi. It also introduces the transformational derivation of passive and causative sentences, and explicitly formulates the processes involved in generating the derived nominal, adjectival and adverbial phrases. The work was a break-through in Hindi-Urdu grammar and constitutes a signifi­ cant contribution to the study of the Hindi-Urdu generative grammar and research.

Verma (1966) is the first comparative study of its kind and provides an insightful study of the Noun Phrase in Hindi. It compares the two structures--English and Hindi and brings out explicitly the similarities and differences between the two systems. This work gives IS a useful analysis of Hindi-Urdu NP which excels all the preceding ac­ counts of the subject.

Subbarao (1974) discusses the syntax of Noun Phrase complementa­ tion in Hindi in some detail and sets up rules for various types of complementizers in the language, ki-complementizer, ka...na-complcntizers, etc. His treatment of the subject is revealing. He also discusses certain deletion and extraposition phenomena in the language and shows that some of Ross' constraints arc violated in Hindi-Urdu.

1.2.4 Recent Developments and Hindi-Urdu

In the earlier section (1.2.3) wo discussed the generative trans­ formational grammar and works on Hindi-Urdu in this framework. The

Hindi-Urdu works were all done with reference to Chomsky 1957 and 1965 which establishes TG as a characterization of the competence of a native speaker. The principles of sentence formation in natural languages were accounted for in terms of four types of rules: syntactic rules that include Base rules, Transformational rules, Semantic interpretation rules and Phonological rules. Application of rules are further constrained, by Ross' and others' 'Constraints.'

All natural languages have different surface structures, but research has shown that these all have similar structures at the more abstract, deep level. Questioning, for example, is a common device to seek information among all natural languages, but the same goal is achieved in different ways in different languages. For example, English has a word order change in the interrogative sentence, whereas other languages such as Japanese, Hindi-Urdu, and Persian, do not show such 16 a change. Yet* all these languages have similar structures at the deep level, i.e., they all express the same meaning. To take another example, the surface organization of subject and verb is not necessarily that of nominative and verb since it may be in nominative in, say English, and in dative in Hindi-Urdu. However, in their deep structure both are 17 similar, i.e., the NP and VP stand in tho same semantic relationship.

By positing for each surface structure a different deep structure, tho concept of universal similarity of languages in the deep structure developed and at present the concept "univorsals of language" is well established.

The 'Aspects' model of linguistics, however, was soon found to be inadequate to account for all the linguistic facts on the basis of syntactic features only. Without incorporating constraints on deri­ vation (Ross, 1967) it was incomplete. The dichotomy of syntax and semantics was abandoned (McCawloy, Lakoff, Postal, etc.) and the (more abstract) generative semantics theory suporceded tho 'Aspects' frame­ work. This, however, does not imply that the Chomskyan revolution is outdated. The assumptions of TG are still the basis of most generative work in linguistics.

Nevertheless, the changes that have taken place are significant.

In addition to "grammaticalness," the notion "appropriateness" in a given context is also now relevant. This leads to the study of language in context. 'Appropriacy' and 'pragmatics' have become as much of con- 18 cern to linguists as 'grammaticality.' In the subsequent discussion in this dissertation, we will discuss in greater detail these aspects of grammar. 17

As for the research done along these lines on Hindi-Urdu one

finds a few scattered papers. One might cite here some of the works

by Y. Kachru as, for example, "The Semantics and Syntax of Causative 19 Constructions in Hindi-Urdu." The paper discusses not only the

syntactic organizations of causative verbs in Hindi-Urdu but also the

interplay and implications of semantic facts with syntactic forms.

1.2.5 Studies on English Grammar

The English language has a long tradition of grammars. Since

the list of works on English grammar in general and question formation

in particular is unmanageably long, I do not wish to discuss them all here. I will, however, discuss the relevant literature in the body of

tho text, whore appropriate, in terms of their theoretical and/or ap­ plied implications, or where it will be necessary to draw certain con­

clusions about their theoretical contribution.

Briefly, however, it should be noted that the works on English grammar can also be divided into three groups: traditional, structural or descriptive, and transformational generative, according to their , theoretical orientation.

1.2.5.1 Traditional grammar

The source of traditional English grammars is Greek and Latin just as the modern Indian grammars have Sanskrit, particularly Pagini's

Ashtadyhyayl as their source. The term grammar itself is derived from

Greek 'gramma' meaning "letter." The notion of grammar in Plato's writing is found in the form of parts of speech, such as noun and verbs. 20 These in turn are defined as 'actor' and 'action,' respectively. "A 13 pr'ondun is a word indicative of definite persons and is used in place of noun," was defined almost 2,000 years ago which is still current in 21 our schools. Aristotle defined tho noun and tho verb in his Do Inter- pretatione and added other parts of speech--the article which included 22 pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions--in Do Poetica, a book basically concerned with diction.

The earlier definitions wore used by the logician-grammarians of 23 Port Royal in their philosophical grammars. Their influence is seen 24 in the monumental work of Poutsma, A Grammar of Modern English.

Bishop Lowth wrote A Short Introduction to English Grammar, a New Ed.

(London, 1783), in which he gave simpler definitions of parts of speech which dominated the English schools for about a hundred years until

Henry Sweet's A Now English Grammar came out in 1891, Oxford.

Henry Sweet and William D. Whitney can be called the greatest modern English philologists and grammarians who applied analytical descriptive techniques to grammar in place of earlier prescriptivism.

Influenced by the Port Royal School, Sweet used form, function, and meaning in his description of the traditional parts of speech, although he could not at times keep the distinctions separate. He considered any sharp distinction between form and meaning artificial. Whitney's

Essentials of English Grammar (Boston, 1877) is an important work in which he uses techniques similar to Sweet. He is part prescriptivist, in comparison with Henry Sweet. "Grammar," for Sweet, "in the widest sense of the word is . . . both the science and the art of language."

He believed in "the statement and explanation of facts, without attempt- 25 ing to settle the relative correctness of divergent usages." He 19

emphasized, but not consistently, the relationship between form and

function in syntax.

It was the Danish scholar Otto Jesperscn in early twentieth

century who declared that form and function are inseparable in language.

He is perhaps the best and most thorough grammarian among the traditional

grammarians whose writings have so much appeal even for the generative

linguist of today. Although much influenced by Sweet, in basing his

analysis of parts of speech on form, function, and meaning, he de-

cmphasized the importance of definitions of grammatical categories.

Instead of defining tho word-classes, he devised formal criteria for 26 their classification which differ from language to language. This methodology, as we see, is in marked contrast to the earlier grammarians.

He is responsible for innovations in terminology and analytical tech­ niques, which are evident in Essentials of English Grammar (New York,

1933) in which he does not follow the parts of speech system of defi­ nition and arrangement. Instead, he discusses them under different constructions. His influence can be seen in tho modern linguistic

literature. We will see later in the body of the text how he deals with certain syntactic constructions in English. He keeps the tra­ ditional labels but uses analytical and descriptive methods in his * • grammatical works.

1,2.5.2 Structural grammar

The first half of the twentieth century was a period when structural linguistics and grammar dominated the European and American

linguistic activities. Ferdinand de Saussure, the father of structural­

ism, influenced linguists by his Course de Linguistique Generate (1916). 20

Bloomfield, Sapir, and Jespersen all were his contemporaries but dif­

ferent in the focus of their work. Especially, Jespersen, as described

above, remained an enlightened traditionalist. Sapir's Language (1921)

was an attempt to relate language with culture. Bloomfield's Language

(1933) opened a new period of structuralism in the United States. The

structuralists aimed at an objective, scientifically rigorous analysis

and description of speech. The emphasis shifted from the traditional

meaning-based subjective and proscriptive grammar to objective and

descriptive one. The concept of 'parts of speech' was replaced by

'form-classcs.'

Structuralism brought a new methodology to language pedagogy,

too (cf. 1.2.2). Language was viewed as behavior. As a result pattern

.practice became an important aspect of language teaching and learning.

Charles Fries' The Structure of English (1952) is a representative work

in which the 'slot' and 'filler' technique is used. Lator Lado and

Fries' series of books for English teaching became widely used. In our

schools these books are still used, though there are educationists who

are skeptical of their merits now. In their view, since language is

not a matter of habit formation only, it cannot be learned just by

rote memorization and pattern practice.

1.2.5.3 Transformational generative grammar

The transformational generative grammar as discussed earlier in’

(1.2.3) has revolutionized not only our thinking about language but

also our teaching methodology. In it the classical vagueness and

implied and inferred things have been made explicit and shown to be 21 logical and rule governed. The strucutral approach has been criticized and shown to be inadequate. We will have more on this topic later in the text. The theoretical orientation of the present work is that of the transformational generative grammar. As most works based upon this model relevant to our topic— question formation— have been discussed in the text of this study, I will not go into the details of these works in this chapter. 22

NOTES

*See Government of India Census 1971.

^Sec Braj Kachru (1969) 'English in South Asia' and also (1974) for an exhaustive report on the teaching of English in India.

3This figure is based on the reported mother tongues by their speakers. However, a more conservative estimate of 250 languages and 750 dialects is given by G. A. Grierson (1916) in Linguistic Survey of India, Vol. IX Part I.

^Somo of the languages have their specific regions defined. See for a detailed account, I). P. Pattnayak (1971) Distribution of Languages in India in States and Union Territories, Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore.

^For a detailed historical background see Beams 1872, Chatterji 1960, Grierson 1916, Haq 1975, Khan 1948, and Zore, 1932.

6,Rcgiser' is defined with roforenco to the use of language. Cf. Halliday, M.A.K. et al. 1964. 7 For the source in detail see Y. Kachru, 1965. Q See S. K. Chatterji: 'The Oldest Grammar of Hindustani', Indian Linguistics, Vol. 2, 1965 (Reprint edition of 1953-54).

®For oxamplc, Greaves states in tho preface to his grammar: "Primarily, however, tho work of compiling the grammar was undertaken with a view to those who came out as missionaries to this country, and who have tho very highost interests of the pcoplo at heart', and it was the hope that the book might thus in some humble way contribute to tho coming of Christ's Kingdom..."

10Cf. A Grammar of the Hindi Language, pp. 536-37.

^Panlnl's grammar, it is assumed, was tho culmination of a long line of earlier works on Sanskrit. It is interesting to note that ac­ cording to the modern linguistic literature his work is 'the earliest grammatical treatise extant on any Indo-European language, and the earliest scientific work in any Indo-European language, and in Bloom­ field's words 'one of the greatest monuments of human intelligence' (Robins 1967: 144). 23

12 Cf. Bloomfield Language 1932, Gleason Linguistics and English Grammar 1965.

*3For a detailed review see Kachru 1966.

*^For the inadequacy of structural grammar, in comparison with traditional grammar see R. B. Lees (1964) 'Transformational Grammar and the Fries Framework' in H. B. Allen, ed., Readings in Applied Linguis­ tics, Appleton-Century-Crafts, New York.

*9For a detailed critique see Kachru (1966).

^Thc above discussed works arc the Doctoral dissertations. For a detailed description of the transformational accounts of Hindi-Urdu see: Yamuna Kachru (1966) An Introduction to Hindi Syntax, University of Illinois, Urbana; M. K. Verma (1971) The Structuro of the Noun Phrase in English and Hindi, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi.

17Cf. Kachru et al., 1975: "The Notion of Subject in Hindi-Urdu." 18 See for detailed descriptions of this approach: G, Lakoff (1970), Labov (1969), McCawley (1968), Grice (1968), Austin (1962), among others,

19Y. Kachru (1976), in Shibatani, cd. (1976), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 6: "The Grammar of Causative Constructions." New York: Academic Press.

^9See, for a brief but excellent account of the classical gram­ marian: R. 11. Robins (1951), Ancient and Medieval Grammatical Theory in Europe, London. 21 Dionysius Thran was tho one who extended the parts of speech to eight and defined them formally, i.e., lexically and syntactically but not with consistency. See Dionysius Thrax: Techne Grammatike, trans. T. Davidson entitled "The Grammar of Dionysius Thrax" in Journal of Speculative Philosophy VIII (1874), pp. 326-339. 22 See Aristotle: De Interpretatione, trans. E. M. Edghill, The Works of Aristotle ed. W. D. Ross, London (1928), I, 16a.

^3See A. Arnauld 8 C. Lancelot: Grammairo Gonorale et Raisonnce de Port-Royal, Paris, 1660.

OA H. Poutsma (1904-26): A Grammar of Modern English. Groningen.

^^Henry Sweet (1891), p. xi.

Otto Jespersen, Tho Philosophy of Grammar, London: 1924 and Essentials of English Grammar, New York: 1933. CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES

2.0 Approaches to Relate Linguistics to Language Teaching

In the previous chapter we discussed in some detail the theo­ retical orientation of this study, i.e., transformational generative in the broader sense of the term, In this chapter, I will discuss tho ap­ plied aspect of the theory, i.e., Contrastive Analysis (CA) which is relevant to this study. Again, in carrying out tho proposed analysis tho approach will bo TG, incorporating the recent developments in tho theory. In order to put CA and the competing approaches known as Error

Analysis (EA) (Corder, 1967) and Intcrlanguage (IL) (Solinker, 1972) in perspective, I will discuss briefly the historical background, rationale, hypotheses, assumptions, claims and implications of the 'art and science* of CA for language pedagogy and materials development.

2.1 Contrastive Analysis

In recent literature, contrastive analysis has been considered

"fundamental to all of linguistics" and it is claimed that it "has important implications for language teaching."* The centrality of CA cannot be denied in linguistic research, for developing a general theory of language, 'language univorsals, language acquisition,' and the applied aspects of linguistics for example, comparison of languages, language translation and language teaching, whether second or foreign,

24 25 material preparation and text construction.

As an aside, I should point out a fine distinction, here, when we say a second language in contradistinction to a foreign language.

A second language is that which could be widely used in a country for purposes of education, administration, law, journalism and so forth as, for example, English in Canada for French Canadians, or in India.- It con be referred to as a foreign language when the language is not wide­ ly used for the above purposes. Instead its use is limited to certain specific areas of the country's affairs, for example, for business, tourism, etc., as, for instance, English in Japan.

Linguists, phoneticians and language teachers all have been interested in language pedagogy in both native and foreign languages one way or another. If we look back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century we find Henry Sweet, tho pionoer Phonetician interest­ ed in the practical aspect of language teaching and learning, lie recom­ mends language teaching "through connected texts followed by grammar analysis" and that the rules be illustrated by sentences which, in turn, should be "meaningful within themselves (cf. Sweet, 1926: 100)."

Harold Palmer (1922) was also interested in the teaching of foreign languages. Ho discusses the "illegitimate" substitutions made by English learners of French in phonology, lexis and grammar. He also recognizes cases of positive transfer but warns against "the temptation to replace habit-forming by analysis and synthesis (of problem items) (cf. Sweet, 1964, ed., p. 58)."

The third great scholar is Otto Jesporsen who had a keen interest in and worked on foreign language teaching. He suggests that teaching 26 a language should be contextually oriented and is against "mere lists of words" and "disconnected sentences (cf. Jespersen, 1904: 11)."

These scholars were also aware of the differences in learning situations, i.e., in a classroom or in a natural setting outside the classroom and

"the pull of the mother tongue" in a foreign language learning situation.

What developed later as audio-lingual method was actaully an outgrowth of Sweet, Palmer and Jespersen in which skills are presented in graded form in order of listening, speaking, reading and writing, i.e., in "the proper order" the way a child acquires his mother tongue

(Brooks, 1964: 144). However, it was in tho mid-twentieth century that Charles Fries made the pioneering statement that

The most effective materials (for foreign language toaching) arc those that are based upon a scientific description of tho language to bo learned carefully compared with a parallel description of the native language of tho learner (Fries, 1945: 9).

Fries' above declaration contained the basic assumptions of the CA hypothesis which was further developed by Lado in his Linguistics

Across Cultures (1957). Ho set down the principles of comparing two languages as well as cultures synchronically. This was the period when structural linguistics was in its heyday, and therefore the ap­ proach to language comparison was descriptive, too.

Structuralism influenced second language teaching, and tho audio- lingual method became the standard methodology in which grammatical analysis was less emphasized. Instead, rote memorization, pattern practice became the rule of language learning. The teaching materials were based on Lado's principle of tho native language and the second/ foreign (target) language. Often one notices the effectiveness of this 27 method which, in fact, is attributable--not to tho methodology but to the teaching contact hours in the audio-lingual method. Language was seen as a matter of habit and practice. Thcro was also a change from the earlier emphasis on language in a situational context to language in elemental context in the classroom.

The structuralist assumption, "to view each language in its own terms," theoretically precluded any comparison across languages. In spite of this contradiction, contrastive descriptions showed similari­ ties and differences in terms of 'the form' and 'the distribution* of the comparable forms.

The introduction of the transformational generative theory in the fifties led to yet another phase of CA. Structural linguistics con­ cerned with the taxonomic analysis based on the surface structure of languages, came to be criticized by the new linguists. This influenced the applied linguists involved in language comparison and language pedagogy. As a result of the application of tho analytical tools of tho linguistic theory, the CA's of two languages became more precise and explicit in their descriptions. As contrasted with the Structural­ ist approach, TG provided a theoretical basis for CA by establishing the concept of "universals of language."

On the TG model, a series called Tho Contrastive Structuro Series

(cf. Stockwcll and Bowen, 1965; Stockwell, Bowen G Martin, 1965;

Moulton, 1962, etc.) came out which began a new trend in CA. Most importantly, three specific features of TG influenced CA in this period. That is, (1) the Universal base hypothesis; (2) the distinction between the surface and deep structure of language utterances; and (3) 28 explicit and precise account of the phenomena in terms of economy, simplicity and adequacy of the linguistic description. The first, i.e., universal base hypothesis, assumes that all the natural languages arc alike in their abstract, deep level which, theoretically speaking, provides a basis for language comparability. The comparison becomes feasible with the universal linguistic grammatical primes such as S,

NP, VP or distinctive features in phonology, and semantic features in the lexicon for the purposes of uniformity in language description.

The concept of deep and surface structures in the description of two languages facilitates the analysis in capturing the underlying similari­ ty, in spite of the apparent surface dissimilarity in the languages.

It furthor helps capture the intention of the bilinguals about trans­ lation equivalences of sentences. The third characteristic of TG has made possible a vigorous and explicit methodology for CA. The TG model for CA has provided a scientific and insightful basis for language comparison.

In comparing two languages, tho prerequisite is a comparable description of the two languages and the descriptions should also be theoretically compatible with each other, i.e., both should have a similar theoretical basis for their descriptions. Comparison of two languages involves two important steps: 'selection* and 'comparability.'

The first question is how to select the items for comparison, i.e., tho entire languages or certain parts of them. Comparing two languages in toto is time consuming to the point of impracticality and is also wasteful. In the Firthian linguistics language is a "system of systems," Their 'Polysystemic' approach provides an alternative to 29 this cumbersome job and simplifies by comparing language subsystems as, 4 for example, the nominal or the pronominal subsystems in two languages.

This method may work in part for morphological categories or even in full in phonology which can be reduced to "item by item analysis of segment types" but does not work in syntactic descriptions where the comparison involves "a boundless class of possible sentences."** Another criterion for this purpose is suggested by those who believe in the

'explanatory' rather than tho predictive role of CA (cf. Catford, 1968;

5 Leo, 1968). They advocate that CA should be carried out on a

'partial' comparison of those items that have been found through error analysis to be most difficult for the second language learners. This criterion according to some (cf. Hamp, 1968) is of limited value. The latter argues that CA should bo able to provide "a theory adequate to explain cases not in our corpus." Langacker (1968) suggests a practical approach for CA to cover

. . . approximately tho same ground that the language teachor is called on to deal with explicitly in tho classroom. Within this area, common productive processes (such as infinitive embedding, for example) should be compared for the two languages with respect to the rules generating them.

The series in contrastive analysis has followed the above criterion, but Stockwell also admits that his approach was "somewhat tempered by (error analysis)" as the delimiting device in his selection.

At tho same time he claims that "the most useful basis for contrastive analysis is entirely theoretical (1968: 25)."

Another problem in CA is that of comparability or 'equivalence,'

There has been much disagreement as to the basis of equivalence. There are at least three different views on this point in tho literature:

(1) structural (or formal) equivalence; (2) translation equivalence; and

(3) both structural and translation equivalence. Among these, 'trans­ lation equivalence* has been widely used in CA descriptions. Zellig

Harris proposed in his "transfer grammar" that for a given sentence in

LA there will be only one "roughly unique" translation in LB. His

"transfer grammar" is based on the "minimal grammatical differences

(1954: 259)." Levenston, on the other hand, discusses the possibility of multiple translation equivalents and recommends "translation para­ digms" i.e., tabulation of items with contextual restrictions governing the use of each equivalent. According to Catford's theory of trans­ lation, "tho only basis for equating phonemes or for equating gram­ matical units in two languages is cxralinguistic— is substantial rather g than formal (1968: 164)." In his scheme of translation equivalence, interchangcability of items in a given situation is the test of equi- 7 valence (cf. 1965: 49).

Krzeszowski's (1971) has been one of tho most significant works on this problem. Ho shows the vigor and preciseness tho theory has gained from the TG and establishes that "equivalent sentences have identical deep structures, oven if on the surface they are markedly different (1971: 38)."

It has been shown (Bouton, 1975) that there are constructions which are translation equivalents and yet cannot be derived from a common deep structure in the sense of Krzeszowski (1971) with reference to notions of stativity, transitivity, tense/aspect, polarity of pre­ suppositions etc.. He suggests either a redefinition of 'deep structure' 31

to include 'contextual' structure, or the rejection of the hypothesis.

Fillmore (1965) has shown instances of translation equivalence

"which are constructed along non-analogous (structural) principles" and cases where sentences in one language cannot bo translated into another language at all (1965: 122)." For example, the Hindi-Urdu sentence;

1. mujh se ndhl soya jata

mo by not sleep

♦Can not be slept by mo

I can not sleep. cannot be translated in tho passive form in English. Take another example:

2. ndmdk tez hdi

salt fast is

♦The salt is fast.

3. *y3ha zindigl tez h3i

here life fast is

Tho lifo is fast here

What is acceptable in one language is not acceptable in the other.

Equivalent translation, therefore, is not an easy thing to achieve.

Kachru (1975), on the other hand, has also shown tho shortcomings of a purely structural notion of equivalence. Tho need for 'pragmatics' and 'conversational implicaturc' in addition to structural equivalence for defining 'equivalence' has been emphasized.

We have been discussing the problems involved inCA. We should also see what the rationale for CA is. The source for such studies is threefold: (1) practical experience of the language teachers; (2)

language contact and bilingualism; and (3) theory of learning.

An experienced teacher knows that the second/foreign language

learners make errors duo to the 'pull of mother tongue* as, for example,

when on Indian speaker of Hindi-Urdu fails to distinguish between an

interdental fricative and the aspirated consonant, we attribute it to

his mother tongue interference. Or, when a Hindi-Urdu speaker comes

out with a question 'What you are doing?' wo know that ho is earring

over his mother tongue structure to the English question.

The phenomenon of "interference" is a source of errors made by

bilinguals. In Weinrcich's words, interference is 'those instances of

deviation from the norms of either language which occur in the speech

of bilinguals as a result of their familiarity with moro than one

language (cf. 53: 1)."

The third source for the CA hypothesis is concerned with the

learning theory specially, the theory of 'transfer.' According to the theory of transfer, a learning task is either facilitated (positive * transfer) or hindered ('negative' transfer) by tho learning of a previous task in view of the degree of similarity and difference between

the two tasks. How much this is relevant to language learning is a quite evident.

2.1.1 The CA Hypothesis

In view of-different factors involved in contrastive studies CA presents hypotheses that have been discussed, supported, and denied, and controversies have arisen due to its claims and goals. There are 33 at least two main hypotheses which may be described as 'strong* and

'moderate.'

The strong version of the CA hypothesis claims (cf. Lee, 1968:

186) that

1. The prime or the sole cause of difficulty and error in foreign language learning is interference coming from the learners' native language.

2. The difficulties are chiefly, or wholly duo to the dif­ ferences between the two languages.

3. The greater these differences are, the more acute the learn­ ing difficulties will be.

4. The results of a comparison between the two languages arc needed to predict the difficulties and errors which will occur in learning tho foreign language.

5. What there is to teach can best be found by comparing the two languages and then subtracting what is common to them, so that 'what tho student has to learn equals the sum of the differences established by the contrastive analysis. (Valdman, 1966: 27)

It is noteworthy that not all linguists, theoreticians and practitioners of CA believe in all the above claims of strong hypothesis. People are doubtful about the role of CA as predictive of errors and difficulties.

On the basis of the abovo assumptions, the role of CA has also been much discussed in the literature. Nickel and Wagner (1968) claim that the role of CA is in both 'didactic* (limitation (solection), grading and exposition) and 'methodic' (actual classroom presentation) programing.*0 It is also claimed that the results of CA provide adequate criteria for test construction. Also, the teaching materials based on contrastive analysis provide a mentalistic approach to language teaching by means of explicit presentation of the similarities and differences between the native and the target languages involving 34 analytical and cognitive activity (see, for example, Stockwcll, 1968;

Rivers, 1968; Jacabovits, 1969; Moulton, 1968).

The application of CA has not covered all the aspects of language, namely, phonology, syntax and semantics. Most of the works have been done on phonology and very little on syntax and semantics. Perhaps the reason is that most of the descriptions available have been on phonology.**

But with the advent of generative theory the emphasis is shifted to syntax because "pronunciation is simply not that important . . . Grammar and meaning are at the heart of the matter (Stockwell, 1968: 22)."

Examples of the best syntactic CA, so far, are the volumes on contrastive studies series of the Center for Applied Linguistics. On vocabulary, one might add Oksaar (1972) which discusses the Gorman-Swedish meaning differences. There is a lack of work on lexicography for which Stockwcll says the best one can do is "listing with insight." Lado (1957) sug­ gested comparison of two cultures, but that has not been followed in any serious sense.

The CA hypothesis has been subjected to much criticism in recent literature, and new and alternate theories have been propounded which we will discuss in the subsequent soctions. The major criticism against

CA is with regard to its 'predictive* role and the 'theoretical* basis.

The critics of the predictive role of CA say that the native language interference is only one source of errors among many others. Hence the time spent on CA predicting errors is not worth tho effort. Secondly, j not all the predictions are true sinco not all the errors predicted show up in the learner performance. And thirdly, many errors that show up in learning are not predicted by CA. On these grounds, a priori or 3S predictive version is invalidated and instead they suggest an a posteri­ ori version of CA, i.e., the role of CA should be explanatory, limited 12 to the problem areas discovered by error analysis.

James (1971) in reply to such criticism says that the CA never claimed to account for all errors made by the learners, and non- occurance of certain predicted errors are due to avoidance of structure by the learner (cf. Corder, 1973; Schachter, 1974). CA cannot bo a component of Error Analysis, because EA, ideally, should be not only a taxonomic classification of data but also a corpus free theory of errors (cf. Hamp, 1968; Stockwcll, 1968). Moreover, CA brings out areas of difficulty that EA cannot suggest. Also, failure in prediction in certain particular instances doos not necessarily invalidate the theory. The proof of it is in the enormous work in the last decade supported by empirical results (see Duskova, 1969; Schachter, 1974, among othors) George (1972) shows that about one-third of all errors can be traced to native language interference. Stockwell (1968) stresses that so long as one of the variables that contribute to success or failure in language learning is the conflict between the linguistic systems, CA has its role to play in second/foreign language teaching methodology. This point of view is supported by the fact that the assumptions and methodology of CA has been, to some extent, incorporated in EA and IL.

The second criticism leveled against CA is that theoretically, it is incapable of accounting for the learner's behavior. Newmark and

Reibel (1968) think 'interference* is not the real cause but ignorance is the real cause of errors. Dulay and Burt (1972) think that CA is 36 ba&ed on Behavioristic conditioning theory which now has fallen on i evil days.

We may conclude this section with Corder's (1967) idea that CA is not incompatible with the TG's view of language learning as a hypo­ thesis testing process. The psychological basis of *interference* will, in this way, shift to that of 'transfer1 of training in that the learner relies on his experience of his native language as one of the initial hypotheses to bo tested in the second language learning situation.

2.2 Error Analysis

Error analysis is a device traditionally employed to classify and analyze the errors learners make in learning a new language. How­ ever, the traditional EA was not based on or backed by any particular theory of linguistics, psychology or pedagogy. Instead, its basis was the practical need of the classroom toacher. Its goal was purely pragmatic, for purposes of 'feed back' value in preparing teaching materials and sequencing the teaching items in accordance with the degree of difficulty. It also helped in decisions rogarding relative emphasis on difficult areas, devising remedial cxorcisos and selecting items for testing language proficiency.

The traditional EA follows a uniform method along the following linos: 13 1. Collection of data

2. Identification of errors

3. Classification of error types (e.g. agreement, articles, verb forms, aspects, etc.)

4. Statement of relative frequency of error types. 37

5. Identification of tho areas of difficulty in the target language

6. Therapy (remedial drills, exercises, lessons, etc.)*

To the above list, modern investigators (Duskova, 1969; Rossipal, 1978) have added:

7. Analysis of the source of errors (e.g., mother tongue inter­ ference, overgeneralization, inconsistencies in the spelling system of the target language, etc.)*

8. Determination of the degree of disturbance caused by the error (or the seriousness of tho error, in terms of com­ munication, norm, etc.).

The last two aspects of the EA make it more sophisticated and broad in its application. With tho CA*s claim for a predictive role, EA became a subject of interest to the investigators, Certain errors could neither be predicted nor could they be explained by CA. This led to a renewed interest in EA. The proponents of EA claimed to use EA as a primary pedagogical tool in view of the fact that:

1. EA does not suffor from the limitations of CA--i.c., it is not limited to errors caused by interlingual interference and transfer. EA brings out such intralingual errors as 'ovorgeneralization, ignorance of rule restrictions, in­ complete application of rules, hypothesizing false concepts, etc., besides other kinds of errors due to particular strategies employed in teaching (cf. Richards, 1971a).

2. EA, unlike CA, provides data on actual and not hypothetical problems and therefore is more economical for designing pedagogical strategies (Lee, 1968).

3. EA does not have to burdon itself with tho theoretical problems involvod in CA (e.g., selection, equivalence, etc.) (Wardaugh, 1976).

Some scholars (e.g., Wilkins, 1968) hove argued on the basis of above facts that a prior comparison of grammars is not necessary and that error-based analysis is "equally satisfactory, more fruitful and less time consuming." The experimental studies in Duskova (1969), Banathy 38 and Madarasz (1969), Richards (1971b) and Schachter (1974), among others, do not support such an extreme position. Their work further reveals that, just as there are errors that are not accounted for by

CA, there are those that do not show up in EA. Furthermore, EA has its role as a testing ground for the predictions of CA and functions to supplement the results of CA,

2.2.1 A New Approach to an Old Problem

Some British linguists, interested in the application of linguisitc insight to language teaching and learning have taken a fresh look at the traditional EA and have come out with a reinterpretation of the problem of errors (Corder, 1967; Selinker, 1969; Strevens, 1970;

Richards, 1971, among others).Their ideas have also introduced a new area of research usually known as Interlanguage (IL). Sometimes

EA and IL overlap in their description, but we will discuss them separately.

Since Corder (1967) the old notion of error has been modified from negative to something positive. He suggests a new interpretation to the learner's error on the basis of "the substantial similarities between the stragegies employed by the infant learning his native language and those of the second language learner." Traditionally

"errors" indicate a teacher-centered viewpoint of a learner's performance and are judged on the basis of the norms of the target language which, in his opinion, is erroneous. If we look at errors, he argues, from the perspective of the language loarner, the observed 'deviations' are no more 'errors' than the first approximations of a child learning his native language are errors. As the child tries hypotheses in learning 39 his mother tongue, the second language learner also tries out successive hypotheses about the structure of the target language. Notice this is a new line of thinking. From this point of view, the learner's "errors" or hypotheses are "not only inevitable but are a necessary" part of the second language learning process.

An important distinction is made between an 'error' and 'mistake.'

Mistakes, according to Corder, are deviations arising from performance factors, for example, memory limitations which might cause mistakes in the sequence of tenses and agreement in long sentences, spelling pro­ nunciation, fatigue, etc. Such mistakes arc random and are readily corrected by the learner when his attention is drawn to them. 'Errors,' on the other hand, are systematic,consistent dcviancics characteristic of the learner's linguistic system at a given stage of learning. In

Corder*s words:

Tho key point is that the learner is using a definite system of language at every point in his develop­ ment, although it is not . . . that of the second language. . . . Tho learner's errors are evidence of this system and are themselves systematic (1967).

Corder also introduces a new term "transitional competence" which refers to the intermediate systems in the process of learning a second language.

With reference to the goals of EA, there has been a shift from tho earlier applied aspect of error detection and remedial function to evolving a theory of learner performance. The study of systematic errors provides insights into the nature of language learning strategics.

It also sheds light on the hypotheses a learner employs during the intermediate stages of second language acquisition. The theoretical aspect of EA, in this way, is as important to study as the phenomenon 40 of child acquisition of language, and it can further provide insights into the processes of language learning.

Learner’s errors, Corder argues, "are not properly to be regard­ ed as right or wrong in themselves but only as evidence of a right or wrong system (Corder, 1973: 274)." The object of EA, thus is to describe the whole of the learner's linguistic system and to compare it * with that of the target language (1972). "That is why error analysis is a brand of comparative linguistic study."

2.3 Intcrlanguago

In the earlier section (2.2) we discussed the hypothesis about the targot language, i.e., a learner uses several intermediate systems in tho acquisition of tho TL. These successive systems on way to the mastery of the TL are variously named "Interlanguagos* (IL) (Selinker,

1969), 'approximative systems' (Nemser, 1969) and 'idiosyncratic dialects' (Corder, 1971a). The first term, however, being a neutral term, is more frequently used in this context.

The developments in EA and further in IL have been possible duo to the post-generative developments in child language acquisition (cf.

Cook, 1969, 1973). We find a parallelism between the developmental stages of child language and those of a second language learner, i.e., in his intermediate stages. The recent studios (cf. Klima 6 Bellugi,

1966) show that tho child language learning is a progression of self- contained, internally structured systems, getting increasingly similar to the adult language system.*5 As an aside, we might add here that this was the approach suggested for the study of second language learn­ ing advocated by Jakobson in 1941. 41

Defining an "approximative system," L , as a "deviant linguistic

system actually employed by the learner attempting to utilize the target

language," Nemser (1969) explains that the learner's system at a given

timo is (1) a patterned product of linguistic system of L ; (2) the £1 successive stages are evolving scries from minimal to maximal closeness

to TL; and (3) the learner's proficiency coincides with major variations 17 in learning experience.

Selinker, on the other hand, attempts to account for the phenomenon

of IL with reference to 'fossilization.' According to him,

Fossilizable linguistic phenomona are linguis­ tic items, rules and sub-systems which speakers of a particular NL will tend to keep in their IL relative to a particular TL, no matter what the ago of the learner or amount of explanation or instruc­ tion he receives in the TL (1972: 215).

Selinker further usos the term 'latent psychological structure,' which

is gcnotically determined and "which is activated whenever an adult

attempts to produce meanings, which he may have, in a second language he

is learning (1972: 229)." This structure, according to him, consists

of five central processes (language transfer, transfer of training,

strategies of second language learning, strategies of second language

communication, and overgcnoralization of TL linguistic material). To

those a few minor processes are added: hypercorroction, spelling pronunciation, cognate pronunciation, holophrase learning, etc. Each of

these processes "forces fossilizable material upon surface IL utterances,

controlling to a very largo extent the surface structures of these

sentences." It is correct to assume that "each of the analyst's predictions as to tho shape of IL utterances should be associated with

one or more of these . . . processes." 42

In passing, I should mention that tho processes 'language trans­

fer' and 'ovcrgencralization' arc self-explanatory, but transfer of

training refers to different training methods which affect the learner.

Selinker cites example of Serbo-Croatians learning English who find it

difficult to distinguish he/she in their use because the drills they

have practiced were based on 'ho' only. The second language learning

strategy reducing the TL to a simpler system, e.g., omission of function

words, plural markers, etc. The 'second language communication strategy'

refers to the situation when tho learner stops learning because he feels

that he has achieved a 'functional competence' in the TL, or that

certain elements are not considered crucial for effective communication

in the target language.

Selinker and Corder both consider IL as an autonomous system.

The data for its analysis consists of (1) the utterances of the NL produced by the learner; (2) IL utterances produced by the learner; and (3) TL utterances produced by the native speakers of that TL

(cf. Selinker, 1972: 214). Nemser (1971) provides evidence from the acquisition of phonology by Hungarian learners of English to show that

IL is structurally independent of NL and TL because tho IL utterances exhibit frequent and systematic elements not found in either NL or TL.

For the systematicity of deviant forms he posits two forces: demands of 'communication* force, the establishment of phonological, grammatical and lexical categories, and the demands of 'economy' force, the balance and order of the linguistic system. In view of lack of further detail­ ed work on IL the best we have got is a list of errors organized into 18 error types. It needs further research to validate the claim of IL. To summarize the discussion in this chapter, in connection with the second language acquisition, we have got three different and at 19 times overlapping theories, i.e., CA, BA and IL. With the development of later theories we find a shift in the attitude towards learner’s performance and errors made by thorn. While traditional EA considers

•errors' harmful, CA rcmainod neutral, but IL brought a revolutionary look at errors. These are no more errors in the IL framework. The deviations from TL norm are indicative of learners acquisition system.

It is concerned only with the interference from NL which is a limitation avoided by IL. NL interference is only one aspect of interference in

IL. While EA contrasts between the learner's performance and the TL, CA contrasts the NL and TL, but IL incorporates all three systems. IL incorporates the contrastive analysis of the learner's language with both his NL and the TL. The difference betwoen IL and CA is that ZL takes CA as on initial filtering device for the testing of hypotheses about tho other determinants of tho learner's language. Thus, it is clear that even in those models which attempt to "replace" CA, the basic assumptions and utility of CA are admitted. 44

NOTES

*cf. Charles A. Ferguson, 19G8, '’Contrastive Analysis and Language Development," in Alatis, 1968. 2 cf. Otto Jespcrscn, 1904, How to Teach a Foroign Language; see also Henry Sweet, 1899, The Practical Study of Languages and Harold Palmer, 1922, The Oral Method of Teaching Languages.

See for a detailed mothod of TG and its application: R. P. Stockwcll and J. D. Bowen, The Sounds of English and Spanish; R. P. Stockwell, J. D. Bowen and J. W. Martin, Tho Grammatical Strucures of English and German, among others.

^For the Firthian approach of linguistics and language analysis see Halliday et al., 1964 and Catford, 1968. C R. W. Langackcr points out this weakness in his Review of Stockwcll, Bowen and Martin, 1965, and Stockwell and Bowen, 1965, in Foundations of Language.

6Soe J. C. Calford, 1968, "Contrastive Analysis and Language Teaching," in Alatis, 1968.

^On translation see J. C. Catford, 1965, A Linguistic Theory of Translation, London. g Evidence of mother tongue interference is abundant. See, for example, Catford, 1968, Schachter, 1974. 9 cf. for the troatmont of transfer theory, Carroll, 1968, and Jacobovits, 1969.

^ S e e also Lado, 1957, and Halliday et al., 1964,

“ cf. such bibliographies as Hammer and Rice, 1965, and Gage, 1961.

“ see for details on this topic Leo 1968, Wilkins, 196B, Gradman, 1971, Richie, 1971, and Jackson, 1972, among others. 13 Data collection depended either on a "free" composition or from the examination answers. An example of this procedure is Fox (1968) in which, although the orientation is TG, tho data is collected from the foreign student's written composition on their proficiency test at the University of Illinois. 45

14See specially, S. P. Corder, 1967-, "The Significance of Learners' Errors." IRAL, S, 1967, 161-170.

^ S e e Edward Klitna and Ursula Bcllugi, 1966, "Syntactic Regulari­ ties in the Speech of Children," in Psycholinguisltc Papers, eds. J. Lyons and R. J. Wales, Tho Edingurgh University Press, 1966. « / cf. Roman Jakobson, 1941, Child Language and Phonological Universals, The Hague, Mouton, 1958s . . . Jako’bson, in tho words of Ferguson (1968), made clear the notion that a child's language is always a coherent system (although with more marginal features and fluctuation than adult lan­ guage) and that the development of a child's languago may profitably be regarded as a succession of stages, just as the history of a language may be. 17 cf. for details Nemser, (1969). Similar ideas hove been expressed by Corder (1967, 1971a), Selinker (1969, 1972), and Richards (1971b, 1973). 1 Q An excellent example of work showing systcmaticity and vari­ ability in the learner's intermediate language system (Phonological) in IL is L. J. Dickerson, 1974. 19 There is abundance of literature on tho theories summented hero dotails of which aro given in Lado (1957), Corder (1967), Nickel (1971), Selinker (1972), Richards (1974) and a good'critique' of these in Sridhar (1975). CHAPTER III

QUESTION FORMATION IN ENGLISH

3.1 Yes-No Questions

3.1.1 Traditional Description

Traditional grammarians distinguish two major sentence types: the declarative and the interrogative which involve making assertions or denials and asking questions or requesting information respectively.

Among interrogative sentences a further distinction is made between yes- no questions (henceforth YNQ) and Wh-quostions (hencoforth YNQ).

Jespersen (1933) describes them as follows:

There are two kinds of questions: 'Did he say that?' is an example of the one kind, and 'What did he say?' and 'Who said that?’ are examples of the other. In the former kind--nexus-questions— we call in question tho combination (nexus) of a subject and a predicate. In questions of the second kind wo have an unknown quantity x, exactly as in algebraic equation; we may therefore use the term x-quostions. The linguistic expres­ sion for this x is.an interrogative pronoun or pronominal adverb.

What Jespersen calls nexus-questions have been referred to, in contemporary linguistic literature as 'yes-no' questions since answers to such questions are limited to either 'yes' or 'no'. Further examples of YNQ are the following:

1. Are you sunburned?

2. Do you go swimming?

3. Is Nixon telling the truth?

46 47

4. Did you read the white house transcript?

The second type of questions, that is, x-questions in Jespersen's clas­ sification arc the information questions which contain one of a limited class of "question" words, e.g., who, what, when, etc. These questions require other than a simple yes-no for their answers. Sentences (5-8) below are illustrative: .

5. Who will take a trip to the moon?

6. What is the name of your puppy?

7. When did ho arrive?

8. Where do you learn yoga?

3.1.2 Chomsky's (1957) Analysis

In this section we shall discuss yes-no typo questions and a discussion of WH-questians will follow in the next section (3.2). In this section I will give an account of the procossos of formation in

English. This account is based on the works of Chomsky (1957, 1965),

Katz and Postal (1964), Klima (1964), Quirk, et al. (1972) and Stockwcll, et al. (1973). The following discussion will be in non-technical terms, avoiding vigorous formalizations so as to be intelligible to non­ linguists as well. In the following discussion my purpose has been to present all the relevant aspects of the problem in as straight-forward a manner as possible, considering the abstract and technical nature of the topic. I have tried to avoid getting into the details of mathemati­ cally precise formalizations of rules, although every effort has been made to make the generalizations maximally precise and explicit— and therefore empirically testable. This has been done with a view to making the discussion intelligible to linguists and non-linguists alike. I have, however, used the kind of tree-diagram that is used in the transformational generative literature wherever such diagram is needed in order to make the exposition clear. I will also introduce certain concepts as I go along wherever they aro crucial to the understanding of the linguistic phenomena involved.

I will begin by presenting some statement type declarative sentences and their interrogative counterparts. Consider tho following:

9a. They laugh.

10a. They con laugh.

11a. They have laughed.

12a. They are laughing.

9b. Do they laugh?

10b. Can they laugh?

lib. Have they laughed?

12b. Are they laughing?

A comparison of (9a-12a) with the corresponding questions (9b-

12b) reveals the following facts about the structure of the inter­ rogative sentences in English: whenever a declarative sentence contains a model such as can or an auxiliary such as have or be, these elements occur, before the subject (as in 9b-12b) in the interrogative. Let us for the soke of our discussion call this process Subject-Auxiliary-

Inversion (SAI). In case there is no model or auxiliary, a special form Do appears before the subject in the question (as in 9b). In case the sentence without model or auxiliary have a tense-marker attached to the verb, this tense-marker gets attached to the Dio in tho question as in the following: 49

13. They laughed.

14. Did they laugh?

The above information can be summarized as follows: the essential process by which questions arc formed in English is the process of SAI.

This process results in fronting tho model, if any, the auxiliary if any and the tense. In case there are no models or auxiliaries, the SAI re­ sults in a structure such as the following:

15. Tense-Subject-Predicate

Since tense in English is expressed by bound forms which cannot be pronounced by themselves, a form such as tto is introduced to which the tense-marker gets attached. Depending upon the tense distinction present or past and the properties of the subject (i.e. person and number), the combination of Do and tense appears as do, does or did.

Chomsky (1957) describes English question formation essentially in terms of this procoss of SAI.

3.1.3 The Dummy rQ1 Analysis (Katz and Postal)

Although this account of question-formation is substantially correct, notice that it does not explain why structures such as the following in which SAI has taken place arc not understood as questions

(Klima 1964):

16. Never again will I see your face.

17. Scarcely ever does she like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

We also find sentences that do not undergo SAI and yet they are well- formed and frequently used as YNQ as in (18-19) below:

18. You are coming? 50

19. You finished your paper?

The obvious answer is that (IS) and (19) arc understood as questions because of the rising intonation at the end of these sentences signified here by the question mark (?). This, however, raises a further question:

Why do interrogations have this special intonation? An attempt was mado

to answer this question in Katz and Postal (1964). In their detailed analysis of English questions thoy attempted to integrate semantics with linguistic description in general. In their description they introduce an abstract morpheme fQ' for the derivation of questions in

English. This prcscntential *Q* has both syntactic and semantic justification.

At the syntactic level tho abstract *Q1 triggers the SAI and it also explains certain co-occurrence restrictions. For instance, sentence (20) has the deep structure shown in (21).

20. Did Mary see John?

Mary Past V N

seei John A

After the abstract morpheme Q has triggered SAI, (20) appears as (22).

Q AUX NP

Past Mary V N

see John 51

Subsequently Do is introduced to carry the past tense morpheme. Q, of 2 course, has no phonological realization. They further claim that this

Q morcphcmo has a definite status. This argument runs as follows:

Certain adverbs such as 'perhaps', 'probably', 'certainly'., etc.,

cannot occur in questions as exemplified in (23):

23.

Probably \ Judith is a violinist.

[ Certainly]

23a. f♦Perhaps

♦ProbablyProbably \ is Judith a violinist?

♦Certainly

Therefore, the abstract morpheme Q has tho status of a sentence adverb.

Once it is selected no other adverb of the same class can occur with it.

We do not get sentences such as the following:

24. (♦Perhaps John will come.

♦Certainly

That is, only one sentence adverb is permitted in any sentence. Notice, however, that this explanation is at best dubious. Such adverbs can occur in tag questions as shown in (25).

25. Judith i: a violinist,

isn't she?

This will be discussed in detail in Section 3.3.

Also, there are a few negative preverbs such as 'hardly',

'scarcely', etc., which do not occur in YNQ as, for example, 52

26a. Sheila hardly drinks beer.

27a. Linda scarcely smokes cigars.

26b. *Does Sheila hardly drink beer7

27b. *Does Linda scarcely smoke cigars?

Some preverbs like 'ever* and 'any' cannot occur in declarative sentences but they do in questions. We also find the some/any alter­ nation both in questions and negatives as, for example,

28a'. *You want any book.

28b. Do you want any book?

29a. *You ever road comics.

29b. Do you ever read comics?

30a. S M wants some coffee.

30b. Does she want any coffoe?

31a. *She doesn't want some coffee.

31b. She doosn't want any coffoe.

At the semantic lovel, Katz and Postal interpret the existenco of tho sentence initial Q as an abstract performative3 standing for tho expression "I request that you answer". Furthermore, the per­ formative •Q ' accounts for tho paraphrase relation that holds between a question and its corresponding answering statement as given in the sets (32-34) below:

32a. Does Susan like whipped cream on her pie?

32b, Yes, Susan likes whipped cream on her pie.

32c. No, Susan doesn't like whipped cream on her pie.

33a. Is John ready to go?

33b. Yes, John is ready to go. S3

33c. No, John is not ready to go.

34a. Did Jane watch the impeachment committee hearing?

34b. Yes, Jano watched the impeachment committee hearing.

34c. No, Jane didn't watch the impeachment committee hearing.

Yes and no function in answers as sentence adverbs just as Q docs in questions.

In addition to 'Q* Katz and Postal propose a morpheme WH to ac­ count for the information questions. In order to account for SAI in questions and negative sentences, they follow Klima’s (1964) suggestion for negative sentences and state that both questions and negatives are 4 affective in meaning, and it is this feature that triggers SAI. Note that this still doesn't answer all the questions.

3.1.4 Derivation of YNQ from Alternative Questions

A third approach to account for YNQ is to derive it from the alternative question with a simple trigger WH instead of the Q and WH, as proposed by Katz and Postal and discussed above.^ Consider the

* following sentences:

35. Do you like ballets?

36. Have you seen a safari?

37. Will John come to the party?

38. Did Harriet type your paper?

39. Are you a Vietnam veteran?

40. Does Rita like Indian curry?

The YNQ (35-40) are best considered derived from, and a part of, the disjunctive structures as given in (41-46) below: 41. Do you like ballets or don't you like ballets?

42. Have you seen a safari or haven't you seen a safari?

43. Will John come to the party or won't John come to the party?

44. Did Harriet type you paper or didn't Harriet type your paper?

45. Are you a Vietnam veteran or aren't you a Vietnam veteran?

46. Docs Rita like Indian curry or doesn't Rita like Indian curry?

As we see, each of tho sentences in (41-46) has a negative dis­ junct in its full form which is not used by on English speaker. How­ ever, a shorter disjunctive corresponding to the fuller version is often used as exemplified in (47-52).

47. Do you like ballots or don't you?

48. Have you seen o safari or haven't you?

49. Will John come to the party or wouldn't he?

50. Did Harriet type your paper or didn't sho?

51. Are you a Vietnam veteran or aren't you?

52. Does Rita like Indian curry or doosn't sho?

Still another version resulting from further reduction of the sentences in (47-52) is as follows:

53. Do you like ballets or not?

54. Have you seen a safari or not?

55. Will John come to the party or not?

56. Did Harriet type your paper or not?

57. Are you a Vietnam veteran or not?

58. Does Rita like Indian curry or not?

Also, notice the negative YNQ in which tho first clause of the alter­ native is a negative and the second, an affirmative: 55

59. Don't you like ballets?

60. Don't you like ballets or do you like ballets?

61. Don't you like ballets or do you?

The sentences (35), (47), (53), and (59) are derived from the fuller version of alternative sentence (41) where choice is between the two alternative clauses. However, there are several steps involved in the derivation of YNQ which we need not go into here. The deep structure tree for (41) and the other related sentences is (62) below:6

62.

CONJ [+0RJ [+ WH] you like ballots you don't like ballets

A series of rules relate (62) to other structures such as (63-70).

63. Conjunction Spreading t = = ^

S ■

S S

CONJ S CONJ [+ OR] [+ OR] [+ WH] you like ballets [+ WH] you don't like ballets

64. WH Spreading

S

[+ WH] you like ballets CONT. you don't like ballots 56

65. Aux-Attraction

S

AUX

VP CONT CONJ you TNS

like ballets NS NEG I \ you [-paLt] ballets

66.

[+ WH] AUX NP VP CONJ

TNS you [+ WH] AUX VP /\ [-past] like ballets TNS NEG you [-past] allcts

67. WH-Deletion

TNS NP VP CONT CONJ _S

TNS NEG 57

68. Reduced Alternative •) Do you like ballets or don't you?

TNS VP CONT CONJ

[4- ORJ [-past] you like ballets TNS

NEG you [-past]

69. Do you like ballets or not?

TNS VP CONT /\ CONJ [+ OR] [-past] you like ballets NEG

70. Do you like ballets?

TNS NP [-past] you VN CONT

like balletts • * There are several advantages In'deriving YNQ from Alternative

Questions. This analysis of YNQ seems to bo more economical, simpler, » 7 and descriptively more adequate. It shows that the YNQ is a part of a larger pattern "alternative questions" and it also unifies the direct and indirect YNQ. This analysis has several advantages as, for example, 58 by deriving YNQ from the alternative questions Katz and Postal’s trigger

Q~which is unpronounceable--is eliminated. In support of this analysis of YNQ against Katz and Postal's we can say that it doesn'trequire the addition of any new rules in the grammar of English. In order to reduce the conjoined sentences of the alternative question, we need "Conjunction

Reduction" rule which is required in the grammar anyway. To facilitate the discussion, I cite examples of the 'Conjunction Reduction' rule below:

71a. John danced and Mary danced.

71b. John and Mary danced.

71c. Either John is foolish or John is a genius.

71d. Either John is foolish or a genius.

Notice that (71b) has an underlying structure similar to that of (71a).

Similarly (71b) has an underlying structure similar to (71a). In deriving tho (b) sentences, the grammar of English has to make use of a rule of conjunction reduction which deletes constituents under identity.

A similar rule is involved in doriving YNQ from alternative questions.

The analysis presented above is further supported by the theory of intonation developed in Kim (1968). According to this theory, the rising intonation in YNQ occurs because of its being a non-final clause

(as it is derived from the alternative structures), the second clause g of which carries the falling intonation.

3.1.5 The Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects of YNQ

The above description of the YNQ not only fits but also extends the semantic analysis of Katz and Postal since it includes a higher 59 sentence (Sadock 1969) in all YNQ as shown in {72),

72.

I request S

you answer S

{ £ * ) ‘

(72) is reduced by deletion as in (73).

73. S

The higher sentence analysis suggests that a YNQ involves two participants, a speakor, the "locutionary source" (henceforth LS) who requests another person, tho addressee or the "locutionary target"

(henceforth LT) who is expected to answer in affirmation or negation os to the truth or falsity of the alternatives provided in a YNQ. A theory of language, it is hold, has to be able to account for the information one can deduce from the sentences one hears. In tho case of the interrogative sentences, the hearer should be able to get some information about tho beliefs of the speaker concerning tho subject of the question asked. If, for instance, a speaker (LS) asks the question:

74. Do you care for a drink? tho hearer (LT) knows that the speaker believes that either the hearer cares for a drink or ho doesn't and, furthermore, the speaker has no particular feelings as to which of the alternatives is true. In other words the speaker is neutral as to the hearer's beliefs, especially when he asks a YNQ. This belief or opinion of the speaker (LS) 60 concerning the subject or topic of a question deduciblo by the addressee 9 (LT) is known as the "Presupposition" of the question. Fillmore (1969) suggests that the "presuppositions" of a sentence are "those conditions which must be satisfied before the sentence con be used to make an assertion, ask a question, give a command, express a feeling, etc."10

For instance, the sentence:

75. Has Margo stopped drinking? con only be used as a YNQ if the hearer (LT) understands the language

(Eng.) and knows the third person about whom the information is requested and furthermore the LS believes that Margo used to drink before. The speaker is neutral in his belief, that is, he has no prior feelings that either Margo has stopped drinking or that sho has not.

According to Katz, "the presupposition of a question is a proposition whose truth is the condition under which tho question expresses a request for information."** For example, the presupposition of (76) is the proposition expressed by (77):

76. Did Nixon resign from the Presidency?

77. Either Nixon resigned from the Presidency or Nixon did not resign from tho Presidency?

Tho answer to a question as, for example, a YNQ is the sentence that satisfies the request for information if it were true. Tho possible answer to tho above question (76) could be either (78) or (79):

78. Nixon resigned from the Presidency.

79. Nixon did not resign from the Presidency.

Corresponding to (78) and (79) stylistically short answers could be

'yes' and 'no' respectively. Whereas the LS has no specific presup­ positions when he asks a YNQ, he has definite presuppositions when he 61 asks a WHQ. For example, consider:

80. Who killed Bill7

81. Who did John kiss?

In (80), the LS must presuppose that (82) is true, and similarly in

(81), he must presuppose that (82) is true:

82. Someone killed Bill.

83. John kissed someone.

Thus, presuppositions of LS seem to be relevant for discussing questions and their meanings and for accounting for the relationship of questions and their possible answers. More on WHQ has been said in the following section (3.2). The presuppositions of LS also play a role in the negative questions. For instance, consider:

84. Aron't you coming7

85. Isn't John going to kiss the bride?

The implications of the above sentences are that the LS have reasons to believe that 'you' are planning to go with him, or that 'your' going would be appropriate and similarly, either that John was planning to kiss the bride or that it was the appropriate thing for John to do. f More will be said about this while discussing the negative questions in

(3.4).

3.2 WH-Questions

In this section I will discuss the second major type of questions in English, namely, the direct information questions or WH-questions

(henceforth WHQ). The description of WHQ in English is, again, based on Chomsky (1957, 1965), Katz and Postal (1964), Klima (1964), Bach 02

(1971), Quirk et al. (1972), and Stockwell ot al. (1973). As stated earlier, WHQ's are referred to as such because they contain a word— pronoun, adjective or adverb— beginning with Wh-, o.g., who, what, 12 where, when, how, etc. Consider, for example the following:

1. Who discovered the Nixon topes?

2. What will you do this evening?

3. Where have all the flowers gone?

4. When did man land on the moon?

5. How many languages can you speak?

6. Why do you play golf at night?

7. Which book did you finish last night?

8. Who(m) does Margaret like most?

9. Whose linguistic theory is the best?

10. How do you like your coffee?

In each of the above sentences, a constituent is questioned. The con­ stituent being questioned has different function in the clause, e.g., subject, object, adverb of location, time, or manner, quantity, causation, and possession. Each question, as we see, begins with a Wh- question word which is the basic feature of an information question or what we will call a WHQ. However, we do have a morpheme similar in form which functions in relative clauses. This phenomenon has been the subject of much discussion which I will take up in the following sections.

3.2.1 Wh-Form in Question and Relative Clauses

Chomsky (1957), Lees (1960), Katz and Postal (1964) and Kuroda

(1969) all consider who, which, etc., which occur in questions as the PLEASE NOTE: This page not Included 1n material received from the Graduate School. Filmed as received. UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS 64

Form Constituent

Who human noun What Non-human form What indefinite determiner Which definite determiner When time expression Where place forms Why adverb of reason How adverb of manner and adjective How Many quantity How Much

The WH form is derived from the structural configuration of Determiner and Noun, i.e., Dot + N, which represents a NP as given in (13) below:

13. NP

DET N

Wli RT ^one thing some place reason 1 manner time \------

An important fact in the derivation of WH forms is that the Noun has the feature [+ Pro] and tho ART [-specific] which yield the appropriate semantic interpretation of questions. However, if the noun is [-Pro] then the ART can bo [± Spec]. We need this + and - feature specification in order to get such sentences as (14a) and (14b) respectively.

14a. Which girl did you dance with on tho quad?

14b. What girl would dare dance on tho quad?

Notice also who, which, etc., are both pronouns and modifiers of nouns, for example,

15. Who came?

16. Which girl came? 65

In this case, Wh-modifies both specific and non-specific NP's.

Further to our earlier discussion of the distinction between WH- forms in questions and relative clauses, one more observation is in order. Tho ART in relative clauses has always the feature [+ spec].

This also shows that the two WH forms are in fact different and are derived differently.

The [± specific] property of noun phrase(s) or definiteness and indefinitcness plays an important role in the syntax and semantics of

English as well os in other languages as we will see later. With roferonce to English consider tho following sentences:

17. Who drove tho moon buggy?

18. Who ate the forbidden fruit?

19. What is in your hand?

20. What is bothering you?

These four sentences presupposo respectively:

21. Someone drove tho moon buggy.

22. Someone ate the forbidden fruit.

23. There is something in your hand.

24. Something is bothering you.

The indefinite nouns have been transformed to Who and What for animate and inanimate, respectively. Answers to the above questions could be, for example,

25. An American Astronaut drove the moon buggy.

26. Adam ate the forbidden fruit.

27. There is grass in my hand.

28. My contact lenses are bothering me. 66

In the above examples we see that Wh-forms occur in nondefinite environments. To support this I will cite a few more sentences:

29. Who else reached the top of the Everest?

29a. Someone else reached the top of the Everest.

28b. *Raina else reached the top of the Everest.

30. *Who do I horeby christen Archie Bunker?

30a. *1 hereby christen some baby Archie Bunkor. •

30b. I hereby christen this baby Archie Bunker.

Notice that a Wh-form can occur whero specific or nonspecific nouns occur but it fails in tho environment whore only a specific noun is required as in (30).

3.2.3 Movement in WH Questions

In tho sentences (17-28) we notice no difference in the order of words in the questions and tho answors, i.e., both have subject, verb, and object. But, os wc will see, English allows movement of constituents in questions. Ono of the characteristic features of English in parti­ cular and other SVO languages in general, is that they allow movement 13 in question formation (Greenberg, 1963). To be more precise, the question word which replaces the quostion NP is usually moved to the left of the subject of the sentence as in the following sentences:

31. What did you say to the chimpanzee?

32. When did Nixon resign?

33. Whero is tho treasure chest hidden?

34. How many tickets do you want for the play?

35. Who did you see yesterday? 67

In (31-35) the question words occur at the beginning of the sentences but the constituents which are questioned do not occur in the sentence initial position in the declarative counterparts of these sentences, which are given as (36-40), respectively:

36. You said something to the chimpanzee.

37. Nixon resigned at somotimo.

38. The treasure chest is hidden somewhere.

39. You want some tickets for the play.

40. You saw someone yesterday.

In these sentences the questioned olement occurs (underscored) in dif­ ferent positions, but, irrespective of their original position, the questioned constituents always occur in the sentence initial position in the questions. This shows that English has a grammatical device to move the questioned word phrase to the initial position of the sentence.

Notice that the fronting of WH-form also triggers tho auxiliary inver­ sion. (See the discussion of the process of subject auxiliary inver­ sion in tho previous section, 3.1).

Notice also that tho movement does not occur in a simple (one clause) sentence only. Very commonly tho WH-form is also moved from within a subordinate clause as, for example:

41. What did he say he was going to buy [X]?

42. Who did he promise ho would meet [X] on Saturday?

Another property of this WH movement rule is that it is un- 14 bounded, that is, it can move the WH-element indefinitely far from its original position, subject to general limitation on movement rules.

Consider, for example, the following questions in which WHQ movement is 68

15 seen to operate on several clause boundaries:

43. Who did you hear?

44. Who did you think, [that you heard]?

45. Who did Harriet say ^[that you thought [that you heard]]?

46. Who did John believe .[that Harriet said .[that you thought j[that you heard]]?

47. Who did Shorry guess [that John believed .[that Harriet said 2[that you thought j[that you heard]]]]?

As we will sec shortly, the movement is not aribtrary and limitless.

There arc constraints on tho movement rule which I will discuss below.

But before that, I would like to mention that tho use of several WH's in a question immediately adjacent to each other is not allowed.

Consider the following examples:

48. *When where did you buy tho cashmoro jacket?

49. *Why how did you cross the river?

50. *Who when, where went?

All (48-50) are not well-formod questions in English. Why is it so?

Because English does not, as some other natural languages (see Chapter

IV) allow stacking of WH-forms. Consider, however, tho following sentences.

51. Who is who?

52. Who kissed whom?

53. Who sent what to whom?

(51-53) ore all well-formed questions with more than one WH form. This kind of questions was not generated in Klima's analysis.1** However,

Katz 8 Postal's (1964) analysis recognized tho well formedness of sentences such as (51-53). 69

3.2.4 Constraints on Question Formation

As mentioned earlier, not all declarative sentences have their question counterparts in English, and we will see that the same condition

is true of other natural languages including Hindi-Urdu. In English certain types of declarativo structures cannot be questioned. Consider,

for example, tho following:

54a. I have got a headache.

54b. *What have I got7

SSa. That the President of U.S. lives in the White House is obvious.

55b. *Where is that the President of U.S. lives obvious?

Notice that logically (54b and 55b) are ill-formed but grammatically they are not. The ungrammaticality of such sentences needs to be ac­ counted for and the grammar constrained in such a way as to exclude such ill-formed utterances. A close examination of the nature of ungram­ matical questions reveals that they fall into several well-defined groups. These groups of ill-formed questions may be classified accord­ ing to the structural configuration of the constituents which ore questioned by the WH-quostion formation rule. Ross (1967), who has made an exhaustive study of this topic, accounts for the ungrammaticality of such sentences as arising from violation of certain putatively uni- 17 versa1 constraints on movement of constituents. Putting aside the technical details of the constraints themselves as stated by Ross (which are not germane to tho present discussion), I shall briefly point out the effects of the violation of the constraints with respect to question formation in English. (The effects on Hindi-Urdu will be discussed in a subsequent chapter). 70

3.2.4.1 Complex NP constraint

The first general constraint on question formation proposed by

Ross is the complex NP constraint. Consider the following sentences.

56a. Shiela knew the boy that rode bike with his sister.

56b. *Who did Shiela know the boy that rodo bike with?

57a. Peter saw the magician who was eating blades.

57b. *What did Peter see the magician who was eating?

58a. Mary met the man who had come from outerspace.

58b. *Whcro did Mary meet the man who had come from?

59a. Rhoda believed the claim that Archie did not likeSanford.

59b. *Who did Rhoda believe the claim that Archie did not like?

60a. Rhoda believed that Archie did not like Sanford.

60b. Who did Rhoda believe that Archie did not like?

Notice that in sentences (56-59), the questioned NP is part of a larger constituent (e.g., relative clause, or a noun clause in apposition to a head noun) which has the following structural configuration.

NP

NP

Such a configuration is termed "Complex NP" by Ross (1967). Movement of any NP that is inside a complex NP out of its clause results in ungrammaticality. The questions in sentences (56b-59b) all involve such a movement. Hence the questions are all ill-formed. In contrast, note that question (60b) is well-formed. This is because the questioned element does not originate in a complex noun phrase, instead it comes 71

from a simple NP, of the following structure.

62. NP

S

3.2.4.2 Sentential subject constraint

Another general constraint that is proposed by Ross to account

for a class of ungrammatical questions is the Sentential Subject Con­ straint. Consider the following sentences.

63a. Woody Hayes expected [that Ohio State would win the Rose Bowl].

63b. [That Ohio State would win the Rose Bowl] was expected by Woody Hayes.

63c. It was expected by Woody Hayes [that Ohio State would win the Rose Bowl].

63d. *What was that Ohio Stato would win expected by Woody Hayes?

(63a) is a well-formed sentence with the complement in object position.

(63b) has a sentential subject which in turn is extraposed (63c). How­ ever, when we move an element out of the Sentential subject clause, in order to form a question, it results in an ill-formed sentence, as in

(63d).

Some more examples of this phenomenon are given below.

64a. That India has the second largest population on earth is obvious.

64b. *What is that India has on earth obvious?

65a. That Lincoln abolished slavery is known to all.

65b. *Who is that abolished slavery known to all? 72

Ross explains the ungrammaticality of sentences such as (63d) as being due to the violation of a general constraint against moving an element contained within a sentential subject.

3.2.4.3 Co-ordinate structure constraint

Another general constraint on movement rules proposed by Ross has important consequences for the possibilities of question formation in

English. This is the co-ordinate structure constraint, which precludes movement of constituents contained within co-ordinate structures. Since question formation in English involves movement over a variable (see

Section 3.2.3 above), the process of question formation is also subject to the coordinate Structure Constraint. Notice, for example, the un­ grammaticality of the (b) sentences in the following:

66a. She visited her friend and parents.

66b. *Who did she visit her friend and?

67a. He bought flowers and perfumos.

67b. *tfhat did ho buy flowers and?

The ungrammaticality of tho (b) sentences is claimed by Ross to be due to the fact that the questioned constituents have been moved out of coordinate structures and thus violate the above constraint.

Note that one of the effects of the constraint for quostion formation is that it excludes conjunction of declarative and interrogative sentences. It is likely that the explanation for those constraints are far more general, cognitive, and far less strictly syntatic than Ross claims these to bo, but this is a matter not directly relevant for our present discussion. 73

3.3 Tag Questions

Tag questions are the third major question type of English which

are frequently used by the native speakers, especially in interpersonal

conversation. Tag questions form a special class of English questions

which differ from both Yes-No questions (3.1) and WH questions (3.2).

As we willsee, tag questions are characteristically distinctboth in

form i.e. structure and function i.e. meaning from all other types of

English questions.

We will see that the existence of tag questions is not unique to

English but the specific mechanism employed in their formation certainly is. A tag question is formed of at least two clauses; a statement and a question. The interrogative clause is tagged on to a declarative to form a tag question which could more descriptively be referred to as tagged statement or tag-on-statemont question. For example,

1. Mary is baking Christmas cookies, isn't she?

2. John didn't win the gamo, did he?

3.3.1 Derivation of Tag Questions

As one linguist has put it, "the syntax of tags is unpredict- 18 able." Because of its uniqueness and syntactic complexity, tag question formation has drawn the attention of many linguists in recent years. (Bolinger 1957, Klima 1964, Katz and Postal 1964, Rosenbaum

1966, and in the very recent past, Lakoff 1972, Cattell 1973 and Hudson

1975). Of these, tho essential features of Klima's analysis has found general acceptance in tho 1960's. Klima discussed only the major types of the tag questions such as, for example, 74

3. Hellen went to Paris, didn't she?

4. Hellen didn't go to paris, did she?

It must be noted that Klima fails to distinguish and account for other

(minor) types e.g., tag imperatives. However, we are not concerned with

those minor types in this study. Klima (1964) derives tag questions

from tho underlying simple yos-no questions. As a consequence, positive and negative tag qucstons are variants of positive and negative yos-no questions respectively, as, for example,

5a. Is Margaret taking the test?

Sb. Margaret is taking the test, isn't she?

6a. Is Margaret not taking the test?

6b. Margaret isn't taking the test, is sho?

According to Klima's analysis, (5a) and (6a) underlie (5b) and (6b) respectively. However, to soy that tag questions have underlying yos- no questions seems erroneous to mo. Because there are some cooccurrence restrictions of sentential adverbs on yes-no questions (3.1) which are not true of tag questions as, for examples.

7a. M s Linda certainly a cop?

7b. Certainly Linda is a cop, isn't sho?

8a. M s Linda certainly not a cop?

8b. Certainly Linda isn't a cop, is she?

Notice that sentential adverbs cannot co-occur with yos-no questions

(7a and 8a) while they do occur in tag questions. Secondly, tag questions do not mean quite the same thing as yes-no questions. This important semantic difference is not taken note of by Klima. 75

Some other linguists, for example, Rosenbaum (1966) consider tag

questions as variants, of negative yes-no questions. Consider the

following:

9a. Haven't you seen the Pyramids?

9b. You haven't seen the Pyramids, have you?

9c. You havo seen the Pyramids, haven't you?

In Rosenbaum's description, all the above three sentences are optional

variants of the same Negative yes-no question. This again fails to

recognize the fact that semantically yes-no questions and tag questions

are markedly different.

A third approach to the derivation of tog questions is that in which tho latter are derived from an underlying compound (implied in

Bollinger 1957) structuro. That is, tag questions are derived from a combination of a declarative sentence and an interrogative. At a later point in the derivation tho interrogative sentence is reduced. For

example,

10a. You have been to the moon.

10b. Have you not been to the moon?

11. You have been to the moon, haven't you?

1 0 (a) and (b) are combined and the interrogative is reduced to form the tag question in (11). Notice that the tag is marked off from the state­ ment by a comma.

A fourth approach currently discussed and accepted by the genera­ tive linguists is that of considering tag questions as involving a copying rule (Stockwell et al. 1973). Here the process of tag formation is something like this--the subject noun phrase and the Auxiliary with 76

Tense marker are copied front'the declarative sentence, made opposite to the main sentence in polarity and are then juxtaposed to the state­ ment. Tho subject NP is pronominalized in this copy and tho Subject-

Auxiliary Inversion (SAI) rule (3.1) then applies which results in a tag question. For example: 4 12a. Tho visitors havo gone up to the Sear’s Tower.

12b. Copy Rule: Tho visitors have

12c. Pronominalization: They have

12d. NEG-Incorporation: They havo not

12e. SAI: Havo not they?

12f. NEG Contraction: Haven't they?

12g. Tog Formation: Tho visitors have gono up to the Sears Tower, haven't they?

In tho snmo way, tho non-negative reverse polarity counterpart of the tag question will also bo formed as, for example,

13a. The visitors haven't gone up to tho Sears Tower,

13b. The visitors haven’t gone up to the Sears Tower, have thoy?

Tho copying devico for tho formation of tag questions lends simplicity and economy of description. It seems adequate for our present purpose.

3.3.2 Complications

Now that wo have established a sufficiently simple devico for the formation of tag questions, it will seem our problems are solved. Un­ fortunately this is not the end of tho road. As said above, the syntax of tag questions is unpredictable and far from uniform at times. Con­ sider the following sentences:

14a. I have five cents in my pocket, haven't I? 77

14b. I have five cents in my pocket, don't 17

The two versions of (14) are both judged as acceptable by native speak­

ers of English. For example, in one informal test out of a total of 46

respondents (native speakers of English) 26 came up with (a) forms and

20 with (b) sentences (cf. Langcndocn 1970: 13).

The problems with tag formation arise in regard to Polarity, sub­ ject prominalization, and the substitution of the auxiliary, i.e. Do

insertion. Consider the following sentences.

15a. 1 am going to call tho snake charmer, am I not?

15b. *1 am going to call tho snake charmer, amn't 17

15c. I am going to call tho snake charmer, aren't I?

15d. I am not going to call the snake charmer, am I?

16a. There are tigers in Indian jungles, aren't there?

16b. *Thero are tigers in Indian jungles, aren't they?

17a. *1 hove to finish it by four, haven't I?

17b. I have to finish it by four, don't I?

18a. *Seldom did Susan eat hot curry, didn't she? i 18b. Seldom did Susan eat hot curry, did she?

19a. Either Harry or Jackie will sing, won't they?

19b. Either Harry or Jackie will sing, won't sho?

19c. *Either Harry or Jackie will sing, won't he?

20a, Either Jackie or Harry will sing, won't he?

20b. Either Jackie or Harry will sing, won't they?

20c. ^Either Jackie or Harry will sing, won't sho?

All the above tag questions have some problems involved one way or

another. Sentences (15a) and (c) are acceptable to a native speaker, 78 but (b) is not. To a non-native speaker of English (15a) and (b) appear to be well formed, but not (c). The difficulty lies in the contracted negative with am. In English usage, aren't is tho standard form. In

16(a) is allright but (b) is not, although to a nonnative speaker the

latter would sound correct since tigers is tho logical subject. However,

(16) takes the tag 'aren't there* because there is the grammatical sub­ ject in the sentence hence the correctness of (a) and incorrectness of

(b). Similarly, (17b) seems strange, since don't I occurs in place of the expected haven't I. When have is not used as a helping verb, then do is inserted, which is what is going on in (17b). (18a) structurally seems to be allright and (b) does not but, in fact, the reverse is true.

The trick lies in the negative polarity item seldom. Since there is already negation in tho main clause, the polarity item tag requires positive tag. Sentences (19a) and (c) are interesting in that they pose a different problem. (19a) and (b) are both acceptable but not (c).

This is because English tends to use plural subject where either— or are involved and the tag either picks the plural subject or tho subject closest to the verb in such constructions. Precisely the same is true of (20a) and (b) but notice the difference: When a noun of feminine gender is closest to tho verb then the plural subject is preferred

(19a) but when a masculine noun is in that position, the subject of the tag is preferably masculine singular as in (20a). These are just a few examples of how tag questions aro not as straight forward as they are supposed to be. 79

3.3.3 Tags of Complex Sentences

So far we have considered simple tag questions i.e. tags formed on the simple main clause, not compound or complex sentences. To re­ capitulate, a polar tag is formed on the main declarative sentence by copying the subject and the aux and putting them in the reverse order.

The subject NP is pronominalized if it's not already a pronoun in the declarative sentence and (to is inserted if there is no aux except tense in the main clause. The subject copy differs in number, gender and person with tho subject and the inverted form is tagged on to the state­ ment. However, the situation becomes more complox with the complex sentences i.e. where there are more than one sentence in tho statement on which a tag is to bo formed. Consider the following sentences:

21a. Mary thinks it is going to snow tonight, doesn't sho?

21b. *Mary thinks it is going to snow tonight, isn't it?

22a. *1 suppose it is going to rain hard tonight, don't I?

22b. I suppose it is going to rain hard tonight, isn't it?

The well formedness of (21a) and illformedncss of (21b) may be explained by assuming that the tag should be formed on the higher sentences and 19 not on a subordinate (embedded) clause. But (22a) is incorrect and

(b) correct although the latter pair of sentences appear to be identical in structure with the pair (21a-b). The explanation is as follows: The use of suppose is performative hore and tag cannot be formed on per­ formative verbs (Lakoff 1969). However, consider the following entences:

23a. I don't suppose it is going to rain tonight, will it?

23b. *1 don't suppose it is going to rain tonight, won't it? 80

23c. *1 don’t suppose it is going to rain tonight, do I?

The above set of sentences appear to contradict what was just said regarding the impossibility of negating or questioning performatives.

However, a closer examination reveals that there is indeed no contra­ diction and that the apparent contradiction is duo to the interaction of tag formation with an altogether extraneous process, namely that of

Negative Transportation (cf. Fillmore 1963). Grammaticality of (23a) may bo easily explained if we assume that Neg-Transportation applies after Tag Formation. Under this analysis, the negative element in

(23a) originates in the embedded sentence. Then the tag is formed on the embedded (not the higher, performative) sentence (see above)— and 20 tho tag is, naturally, positive. Then Negativo Transportation applies, attaching tho Nog. to tho aux/Tense of tho higher clauso, thus creating an apparent counterexample to tho performative constraint on Tags.

Similarly, the ungrammaticality of (23b) is explained by the fact that the tag has to bo of the opposite polarity from the statement, and in this case, since tho embedded sontence is underlyingly negative, the tag should havo been positivo, it isn't. The ungrammaticality of the last member of the set (23c) is, of course, explained readily by the con­ straint on the questioning and/or negating Performatives.

Tho tag questions share certain properties with YNQ in that cer­ tain constraints hold true for both. Consider the following:

24a. *1 suppose she will finish the book tonight, don’t I?

24b. *Do I suppose she will finish the book tonight?

25a. *1 am worried, aren't I?

25b. *Am I worried? 81

The ungrammaticality of (24a) and (b) lies in the fact that a performa­ tive verb cannot be questioned (or negated) since it describes an action which is performed in the act of description (Austin 1955). Sentences

(25a) and (b) are also informed because the subject is asking with tho use of verbs of mental state whether they are true of him or not. In this respect of blocking the questioning or negation of performatives and vorbs of mental states, tag questions and yes-no questions behave similarly.

As a rule tag is formed on the higher sentence but it is also possible to form a tag on the lower sentence if and only if the higher sentence is a porformativo, for example,

26a. You told me that the meter maid had given you a ticket, didn't you?

26b. *You told mo that tho meter maid had given you a ticket, didn't she?

26c. I suppose the meter maid had given you a ticket, hadn't sho?

According to our prediction (26a) is wollformed, but (26b) is not since the tag is formed on tho lower sentence in tho latter. (26c), on the contrary, is wollformed although the tag formed on the lower sentence, tho reason being that there is a performative verb in tho higher sentence.

3.3.4 Intonation of Tag Questions

Related to the formation of tags on declarative is tho feature of intonation which, again, distinguishes tag questions from YNQ's. A

YNQ, as noted earlier (3.1) has always rising intonation whereas a tag question has primarily falling intonation which implies a confirmation of the assumption made in the declarative part of the tag question and 21 the expectation expressed by the tag. Notice also that the tone falls 82 on tho auxiliary of the tag part of a tag question, for example,

27. You wrote a bestseller last year, didn't you?

28. She doesn't like vegetarian food, docs she?

3.3.S 'Constant' Tag Questions

In addition to tho reversed tag questions (cf. 'polar interroga­ tive, ' Hudson 1975) there is another minor type of tag question in

English which is best described as constant tag questions. In a con­ stant tag question both the parts i.e., the declarative and the tag have the same orientation, positive-positive or negative-negative as, for example,

29. This is your pen, is it?

30. Evil Knivel is going to jump across the canyon, is he?

The intonation pattern here is in contrast to the commonly associated intonation with the reversed tag questions i.o. the formor has rising intonation whereas the latter has falling intonation. Characteristically this type of constant tag questions are usually profacod by so or oh implying conclusion by inference or recalling what has already been said. This kind of tag question has a force of sarcasm in its use

(cf. Lakoff 1972, Quirk et al. 1972: 392).

31. (So) You are going to be a marine, are you?

32. (Oh) You forgot to pay the rent, did you?

33. (So) You didn't swear at your friend, didn't you?

34. (Oh) You're not a female chauvinist, aren'tyou?

(31-32) are both positive constant tag questions and (33-34) the negative counterparts but all four sentencos are sarcastic in their force and effect. 83

3.3.6 Pragmatics of Tag Questions

The use of certain specific syntactic structure fulfills certain specific purpose in the conversational interaction between speakers.

In other words, different speech acts (Grice 1968, Scarle 1969, Gordon and Lakoff 1971) for example, making statement, requesting information or just confirmation of certain assumptions and issuing orders require the syntactic doviccs of declaratives, questions and imperatives re­ spectively. In using a statement tho spcakor is sure of the truth of his beliofs and assumptions and expects tho same of the hearer. In a question he is not sure, lacks information and seeks an appropriate answer. In an imperative he believes by virtue of his need or position that the order will bo carried out. But the use of a tag question implies a situation intermediate to a statement and a question whero the speaker shows that in English there is, among many others, a device of showing politeness to the addressee (cf. respect in Urdu 4.5) by means of the use of a tag question. Consider for example,

35. You would like black coffee, won't you?

36. Would you like black coffee?

(36) is a straight question but (35) implies 'I am sure you would like black coffee, but I'm just being polite to have your confirmation, too.

Talking of politeness, it is noteworthy that women being perhaps politer than men happen to use tag questions more often than men, according to one study in English (R. Lakoff 1975). Languages differ in the devices they employ to convey deference. This aspect is hot so explicitly coded in the syntax and morphology of English as it is in Japanese

(R. Lakoff 1972) and Hindi-Urdu (Siddiqui 1965). We will discuss this 84 aspect of question formation in Chapter IV.

3.4 Negative Questions

3.4.0 Introduction

In sections (3.1, 3.2 and 3.3) I have discussed the positive questions in the main except for some passing remarks on the negativized questions. In this section I will attempt to discuss in some detail tho formation of negative questions in English. (Tho Hindi-Urdu counter­ part of the negative questions will be discussed in section (4.4)). The following discussion will not go into intricate theoretical details 22 concerning negation in general, but rather will focus on the role of negation in negative questions first in English, and in a later section, in Hindi-Urdu. I will first take up the negative yes-no questions and later negative Wh-quostions. As for negative tag questions, these have already been discussed in section (3.3) above.

3.4.1 Negative Yes-No Questions

Negation, in general, is opposite of affirmation. A declarative sentence makes an assertion which could either be positive or negative as, for example:

1. Carter is a democrat.

2. Carter is not a democrat.

(2) is a denial of the assertion made in (1). It may appear that negative sentences, at least on the surface level, are assimple as affirmatives. However, consider the following:

3. Carter doesn't eat peanuts.

Superficially, (3) is a denial of the assertion (4): 85

4. Carter cats peanuts.

However, the negative sentence (3) could semantically be interpreted in three different ways, as in:

5. It is not Carter who eats peanuts.

6. It is not peanuts that Carter cats.

7. It is not that Carter eats peanuts (but he plants peanuts).

In (5) the subject is negated, in (6 ) the object is negated, and in (7) the action of eating is negated altogether. This interpretation has been offected by bringing specific items into the 'focus of negation1 which in turn marks a particular item with negative force. Tho nuclear stress falling on an item brings that item into focus. Also, notice that the intonation is contrastive (fall-rise) as in:

5*. Carter doesn't oat peanuts.

6 '. Carter doesn't oat peanuts.

7'. Carter doesn't eat peanuts.

Tho major negative morphemes, in English are no, and not which has n't as its contracted phonological form. The negative morpheme or particle occurs between the auxiliary and the main verb. The use of negative particles in natural languages including English and Hindi-Urdu brings 23 up the question of tho 'scope of negation’. By 'scope of negation' we mean "the stretch of language over which the negative meaning operates".

What follows the nogativc particle is considered to be under the scope of negation. Tho scope of negation in turn includes the 'focus of negation' as shown above.

The affirmative/negative assertion seems to be relatively simpler but the phenomenon becomes more complicated in interrogative 86 sentences. A negative yes-no question doesn't always convey the op­ posite meaning of an affirmative yes-no question, contrary to our general assumption based on the evidence of declarative assertions. Consider, for example:

8 . Did you read Hamlet?

9. Didn't you read Hamlot?

(8) is neutral in its presupposition but C9) is n°f really a negation of (8). It rather suggests that 'you read Hamlet, 1 and 'yes, I read

Hamlet' is the answer expected by the speaker from the addressee. Con­ sider further the following sentences:

10a. Don't you know the magic touch?

11a. Aren't they watching the T.V.?

12a. Haven't I met you somowhere?

13a. Wouldn't you like to have a drink?

14a. Couldn't John kiss the brido?

The use of above negative questions presupposes positive assertions as given in the corresponding (b) sentences in the following:

10b. You know the magic touch,

lib. They are watching the T.V.

12b. I have met you somewhere.

13b. You would like to have a drink.

14b. John could kiss the bride.

The use of negative questions often involves surprise or annoyance, and this feature of negative questions also distinguishes them from affirmative questions. This feature also contributes to their being interpreted as conveying positive meanings, as in: 87

15. Can't you keep quiet?

16. Didn't you know about the meeting tonight?

(15) expresses annoyance on the part of the speaker and (16) a surprise,

implying 'of course, you knew about the meeting.'

Negative questions in English are further distinct from such

questibns in other languages in that they use certain assertive and

non-assortivo forms such as some and any or someono and anyone,

respectively, in association with the negative particle no/not. The

implication of such uses are semantically significant in a given

situation. Assertive forms such as somebody occur in declarative

sentences whereas the non-assortive forms, such as anybody, yet, etc.,

occur in questions as, for example:

17a. Someone sent mo a bouquet.

17b. *Anyone sent mo a bouquot.

18. Did anyone send me a bouquet?

But also observe the following:

19a. Didn't someone send me a bouquet?

19b. Didn't anyone send me a bouquet?

(17a) is a statement and is well formed but (b) with any is not. In

questions, however, both someone and anyone can bo used as in (18) and

(19). But there is a difference in the use of the assertive non-

assertive forms in the negative questions. For example, (19a) means

'surely someone sont me a bouquet* and (19b) is simply a question whether anyone sent a bouquet or not. Yes-no questions like (19a) are

similar to tag questions with rising intonation which are neutral in their expectation as, for example: 88

20. John left this morning, didn't he?

When the negative questions contain assertive items as some, for example,

they are like (20) in effect.

In passing it should also be pointed out that the negative

particles have two forms: a full form and a contracted form, as we

have seen in the above sentences. It is worth noticing that in the

colloquial speech the particle and the auxiliary occur in complementary

contracted forms, for example:

21a. John's not going home?

21b. John isn't going home?

That is, when the negative particle is in its full form thon the auxili­

ary is contracted as in (21a) and when theparticle is contracted then

the auxiliary occurs in its full form and the negative is attached to

it as in (21b).

The use of full/contracted form of tho negative is related to the

distinction being formal and non-formal styles of speech, for example:

22. Did you not enjoy Margo Fontain's dance?

23. Didn't you enjoy Margo Fontain's dance?

Notice in the informal use the contracted particle occurs before the

subject as in (23) whereas in tho formal use, the uncontracted particle

occurs after the subject.

The question arises os to how tho negative questions are derived?

I shall now take up the question of the derivation of negative questions.

Recall the yos-no questions have alternative questions as their source in which an affirmative is followed by a negativo clause and finally the latter is deleted to form a positive yes-no question. In case of 89

a negativo yes-no, a similar underlying source, namely, the alternative

question is assumed, except that in this case, the negative clause oc­

curs before the positive and later in the derivation tho affirmative

clause is deleted as, for example:

24. Didn't you like the caviar?

2Sa. You didn't like the caviar or you like the caviar.

25b. You didn't like tho caviar.

25c. Didn't you like the caviar?

The source of (24) is (25a) which by delotion is reduced to (25b) and

then on the surfaco it is converted into a question as in (25c) which

is the samo os (24).

3.4.2 Negative Wh-Questions

Negation is a complicated phenomenon both in statements and questions as we have seen in (3.4.1). Negative yes-no questions often

have semantic polarity and polar effect from what thoy structurally

appear to be. It socms there is a positive polarity in at least yes-no

typo of negative questions. However, tho situation is much different with reference to negative Wh-questions in English.

Just as it is the case that not all statements have their question counterparts, so nlso, not all positive Wh-questions have their

negative counterparts. Consider the following sentences:

26a, Whose gloves are those?

26b. *Whoso gloves aren't these?

27a. Where have you put the glasses?

27b, *Where haven't you put tho glasses?

28a. How do you like it? 90

28b. *How don’t you like it7

29a. How are tho linguists these days?

29b. *How aren't the linguists these days?

All the (a) sentences in (26-29) arc well-formed and acceptable but the

corresponding (b) sentences are not. If negation involved making an assertion or question negative without any consideration of other properties in a sentence, then all the above questions should be well-

formed. All tho affirmative questions above conform to the speaker’s presuppositions whereas the negative questions do not. This is, indeed,

tho reason for tho acceptance and nonacccptance of the (a) and (b)

sentences respectively. (26a) presupposes that the gloves belong to someone. If it were not the case then, there was no need to ask such a question. Negative quostions involve the negation ofthis presupposi­

tion, honce their illformcdncss.

There is, however, one kind of Wh-question that is acceptable

both as an affirmative and as a negative. For example,

30a. Why are you loaving this ovcning?

30b. Why aren’t you leaving this evening? .

31a. Why do you skate in tho summer?

31b. Why don't you skate in the summer?

The sentences in (30) and (31) are well-formed because the presupposi­

tion 'for a reason1 is true in both the affirmative and negative

sentences. It is perhaps tho only Wh-question form which occurs in

straight-forward negative questions. The why questions are well-formed also because they contain the assertive disjunct 'for some reason' which is outside the scope of negation (3.4.1). This makes the negative 91 question acceptable and well-formed.

In addition, who and the adjectivized forms which and what in combination with a noun also occur in negative questions as, forexample:

32. Who didn’t show up in your class today?

33. Which girl hasn’t turned in thepaper yet?

34. What part of your study room isn'tcomplete yet?

In all of the above questions no presuppositions have been violated, hence they arc acceptable and well-formed.

The statement made earlier that Wh-questions do not normally permit negation should not bo taken to mean that negative Wh-questions are ruled out altogether. What is meant is that negative Wh-questions do not have tho same meaning as negation does in declaratives and other types of questions:

35a. Who is working on Semantics?

35b. Who isn't working on Semantics?

36a. What is in tho closet?

36b. What isn't in the closot?

37a. Which girl is bright?

37b. Which girl isn't bright?

38a. When will it be cold in Alaska?

38b. When won’t it be cold in Alaska?

In all (35-38) sentences, both the affirmative and negative, are well- formed and acceptable. But there is a difference. The (b) sentences, although negative in form are positive in meaning and effect as, for example, (35b) presupposes that 'everyone is working on Semantics', a positive assumption. In this way this and others in the set differ 92

from their positive counterparts as well as negative sentences which convoy a negative effect.

Tho above observations are evidence to the fact that negation,

in general, and negative questions, in particular, are complex in an interesting way. Especially interesting, from the point of view of pragmatics, is the use of negative questions to convey positive mean­ ing, as for example:

39a. Will you have a drink?

40b. Won't you have a drink?

The negative question (40b) can appropriately be used in a context where

(39a) would also bo usod with the same positive meaning. 93

NOTES

lOtto Jespersen (1933), Essentials of English Grammar, University of Alabama Press, University, Alabama, (pp. 304-305). 2 See Katz & Postal for detailed rules (p. 105).

The term "Performative" was first introduced by J. L. Austin (1961). See "Performative Utterances" in Philosophical Papors, Oxford Clarendon Press, 220-239. Also see his How To Do Things With Words, Oxford: OUP 1962.

^See Klima (1964) for a detailed description of what is mean by •Affective'.

5It's notcworth that Katz 6 Postal also derive YNQ from tho alternative question but only in indirect YNQ. Instead in this ap­ proach, the process applies to both simple and embedded YNQ.

^For a detailed description of the rules see Stockwoll ot al. (1973) Major Syntactic Structures of English, New York, Chicago: Holt, Rinehart 5 Winston, pp. 600-632. n See Chomsky (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax for the implications of adequacy, simplicity and economy in linguistic descrip­ tions (pp. 24-27).

®For a detailed description see Chin-Wu Kim (1968) Review of Philip Liberman, 'Intonation, Perception and Language1, in Language 44: 830-42. 9 Gottlob Frege (1892) introduced the notion "presupposition" in "On Sense and Reference". See Geach, Peter 8 Black, Max cds. (1960). Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, Oxford.

10C. J. Fillmore (1969) "Types of Lexical Information" in Kiefer Ferenc, ed. (1969) Studios in Syntax and Semantics, Dordrecht.

1JJ. J. Katz, (1973) Semantic Theory, New York, p. 210. 12 Notice tho difference in pronumciation of who, how, and tho rest. W is written but not pronounced in the former set. 13 See Greenberg, 1963, Univorsals of Language, The MIT Press. 94

^See J. Ross, 1967 for a detailed discussion of "boundedness".

1SSec P. Postal, 1971: 104.

*^See for details Kllma 1965. 17 Por a detailed theoretical discussion of these constraints, sec Ross 1967. 18 Sec Langcndocn (1970), a fascinating experimental study "The Walrus and tho Alligator" in Essential of English Grammar, pp. 10-31. IQ Sec Robin Lakoff, 1969 "A Syntactic Argument for Nog. Trans­ portation" in CLS V. 20 Notice that NEG.-transportation does not occur with any verb; it is possible only when there is a verb of a limited class-non-factive verbs of mental state such as think, suppose, believe, guess and want but not realize, feel or hope. 21 However, there could be rising intonation in the tag question too, when the speaker's presupposition remains neutral of in that the bearer could answer cither positively or negatively. 22 For detailed pioneering work on negation, sec Klima 1965. # 2^0n 'Scopo' and "Focus' of negation, see Quirk et al. 1973: 381-82. 95

CHAPTER IV

QUESTION FORMATION IN HINDI-URDU

4.0.0 Some Basic Grammatical Features of Hindi-Urdu

Before discussing the processes of question formation in Hindi-

Urdu, it is essential to briefly note salient characteristics of the syntax and semantics of the language. Tho following typologically important aspects will be discussed;

1 . Word order

2 . Noun verb agreement

3. Case forms of nouns

4. Pronouns

5. Formal exponents of politeness

6 . Reduplication

7. Varia.

4.0.1 Word Order

Most of the world's 5000 natural languages have been typological­ ly classified into three major types with reference to the basic order of meaningful elements in sentences, namely Subject-Verb-Object (SVO),

Subject-Object-Verb (S0V) and Verb-Subject-Object (VSO) (Greenberg,

1963).1 English and Modern Hebrew are examples of SVO languages and

Arabic of VSO. Hindi-Urdu and most of the other Indian languages as 96 well as Turkish and Japanese fall under SOV type of languages. The SOV order has been considered to be one of the defining features of South 2 Asia as a linguistic area. The SOV structure of Hindi-Urdu is exempli­ fied by (1),

1 . ldrka kitab p9rhr9ha h9i.

Boy book reading is

The boy is reading a book . where 19rka is the subject, kitab the direct object and p9yhr9ha h9i is the verb. If, however, there is an indirect object in a sentence then the order is: S ID DO V as, for example,

2 . I9pka javedko kitab dcr9ha h9i-

Boy Javcd to book giving is

The boy is giving a book to Javcd.

Notice additionally, that to say that Hindi-Urdu has SOV order doesn't mean that there doesn't exist any other order in the language as, for example,

3a. turn no kitab p9rhli * sov

you agent m. book read

you read tho book.

3b. p&rhli kitab turn no - v o s

read book you ag. m.

you read tho book.

Here we find a complete reversal of the word order. Such devices are employed just to bring certain items into focus. 97

4.0.2 Noun-Verb Agreement

4.0.2.1 Number Agreement 3 Languages differ in Noun-Verb agreement system. English has

this device with reference to number i.e., a verb agrees in number with its grammatical subject - a singular verb is used when the subject is singular and a plural with a plural subject. Hindi-Urdu also has such agreement. There is a two number system in Hindi-Urdu unlike some other languages like Arabic which has a three number system of agree­ ment, singular, dual and plural. The verb in Hindi-Urdu sentences must agree in number with the subject as, for example,

* 4a. 13fka aya •

boy came (sg)

the boy came.

4b. 13fko ae .

boys came (pi)

the boys come.

But this is not always true:

5a. 13rko no khana khaya .

boys agent m. food ate (sg)

the boys ate the food •

6a. 13fki ne kdpra dhoya *

girl ag.m. clothes washed

the girl washed the clothes •

6b. ldirkl ne kdpre dhoe *

girl ag.m. clothes washed

the girl washed the clothes. 98

This lack of agreement between the subject and the verb is due to the following constraint: when a transitive verb happens to be in per­ fective tense then the verb does not agree with the subject but instead it agrees with the object, in number, as in (6b.).

4.0.2.2 Gender Agreement

Unlike English in addition to number agreement, Hindi-Urdu has a system of gender agreement too. In other words, a masculine noun requires the verb to be in masculine form, and a feminine noun controls a femine verb. This agreement is straightforward in sentences such as,

7a. kutta bhuk r3ha h3i.

dog (masc) bark ing (mas) is

the dog is barking »

7b. billl dSuy r3hl h3i.

cat (fern) run ing (fern) is

tho cat is running.

Again, when a transitive verb is in perfective aspect,** the verb agrees in gender (as well as number, see above) with the object and not with the subject. Compare, for example, tho (a) and (b) forms of (8) and

(9).

8a. mohdn ne kela khaya .

Mohan ag.m. banana ate

Mohan ate a banana .

8b. ldrkl ne kela khaya .

girl ag.m, banana ate

the girl ate a banana • 99

9a. mohdn ne mijhai khal .

Mohan ag.m, sweets (fern) ate (fem)

Mohan ate sweets

9b. lSfki ne mijhal khal.

girl ag.m. sweets ate

the girl ate sweets.

Notice above that in (8a-b) irrespective of the gender of tho subject, the verb is masculine, and in (9a-b) the verb is feminine.

A rough and ready rule of thumb is that a noun ending in -a is masculine, as in 19rka 'boy' and a noun ending in -i is feminine, as in lBrki 'girl'. The -e/e ending forms signify masculine plural and the

-ya/i suffixation mark feminine plural, as, for example,

larkji ay£ m.sg.

larke aye m.pl.

larki^ ayl_ f .sg.

larkiyii ayl f . p 1.

kitab£ ay£ f .pi.

4.0.3 Case Forms of Nouns

Tho third characteristic feature of Hindi-Urdu is that the nouns inflect for case in addition to number and gender. Hindi-Urdu makes a distinction between direct and oblique cases in noun phrases. The direct case of a noun is that which is used without any change (except that the number and gender is indicated by the stem) as, for example,

10a. ldrka gorBha hBi .

boy singing is

the boy is singing . 9

100

10b. 13yke ko bulao .

boy oblique call

call the boy .

10c. 13rk5 ko bulao •

boys oblique call

call the boys *

lOd. sitara ko jana cahiye •

sitara oblique go should

sitara should go •

Direct case doesn't take any endings but the oblique cases take -e in singular and -o in plural as shown in the sentences in (10). The oblique case occurs in the context of a postposition. Notice that in contradistinction to English, Hindi-Urdu has postposition which is a characteristic feature of all the SOV languages (cf. Greenberg, 1963).

For case forms of pronouns see (4.4).

The following table shows the case forms of nouns:

Table 1 Case Forms

CASE MASCULINE DIRECT OBLIQUE

£ sg. ldrka 13rke CO 1 pi- lSpke l3fko FEf* INIME

ul • I3rkl I3fki CQ s8 l Pi- lSj-kiya lSfkiyo 101

4.0.4 Pronouns

Languages differ in the number of features overtly marked on

pronouns. Hindi-Urdu pronouns have a two term distinction in number —

singular and plural and three term distinction in person — first*

second and third persons. In addition* they have a three case dis­

tinction -- direct (nominative), genetive and oblique. The genetive is

also marked for the gender distinction -- masculine and feminine.

A description of the pronominal forms of Hindi-Urdu is not

complete unless it includes their pragmatic aspect, i.e. the social

norms of usage. With reference to the social norm and the use of pro­ nouns it is interesting to note that tho second person pronoun has a

three term distinction in terms of the degree of politenoss involved in

the interpersonal interaction (cf. tho use of tu vs, vous in French).

The third person pronouns are further distinguished for proximity and remoteness of the referent.

The following table will give a summary of the pronominal forms and their distinctive features.

The accusative/dative postposition ko may be contracted to -e following the oblique e.g, mujh + ko)mujhe, turn + ko>tumhe, us + ko>use* etc.

Notice that the direct form pronouns don't show any change in

the original form. Oblique forms are the stems which are used in the context of a following postposition. The genetive in Hindi-Urdu is designated by the use of a postposition -ka which shows up in third person pronouns. But the first and second person pronouns have specific forms ending in -ra and -ri for masculine and feminine respectively. 102

Tabic 2 Pronominal Forms

1st Person 2nd Person 3rd Person sg. pi. sg. pi Pro- Pro- CASE ximit.y Remote ximitjy Remote

SB. al. DIRECT m31 ham tu turn. yeh voh yeh voh ap ve

OBLIQUE mujh ham tujh turn, is us in un ap

mcra hdmara tera tumhara/ iska uska inka unka apka Masc. meri hdmari terl tumhari/ iskr uskl ink! unkl apkl Fem. Genetive

Postpositions. The common postpositions are as follows:

no agentive, used with agent of transitive verb in the perfective

ko acusative/dative

se Instrumental, ablative

mo, p9r, locative

ka genetive.

4.0.S Formal Exponents of Politeness

In the description of Hindi-Urdu syntax and semantics one must include the most pragmatically distinctive feature of the language — the category of politeness. By "category of politeness" we mean the various features that are involved in the linguistic scatter of the language and that are regularly used by the native speakers of Hindi-

Urdu appropriate to the intorlocutionary participants in a given situ­ ation.^ These features are sometimes implied in English but are not as 103 explicit formally nor so widespread as in Japanese, Thai, Persian,

Hindi-Urdu and other languages of the Indian subcontinent.

Formally, the category of politeness is marked, first, by the use of plural number where only singular is required; second, by certain special ending of the relevant forms; thirdly, by the use of words from a special set of such honorific lexical items.

It is noteworthy that the polite or honorific lexical items divide into two categories: native and non-native (derived from Sanskrit and

Arabic-Persian respectively). It is here that one notices a marked distinction in the use of high Hindi and high Urdu, for example,

1 1. apka subhnam kya hdi?

your good namo what is

what is your name? and

12. apka isme sdrlf kya hBi

your name good what is

what is your name?

Such lexical spread marks off their speakers as Hindi and Urdu speakers respectively. But there is a third neutral device to achieve the same deferential goal; namely by dropping the special lexical item for name, and in its place, using the common word nam 'name' together with the honorific second person, ajj, as, for example,

13. apka nam kya hdi?

your name what is

what is your name? 104

A non-deferential (neutral) way of asking one’s name would be:

14. tumhara nam kya hdi?

your name what is

what is your name?

Thus we are able to recognize a set of three forms which may be con­ sidered, by way of broad generalization', belonging to Hindi, Urdu and

Hindi-Urdu, or what is also called 'Hidustani',

Typically, Hindi-Urdu has a device to mark deference in two ways: one, by enhancing the position of the addressee or the person referred to; two, by humbling the speaker himself. Consider, for example,

15. apke dduldtxanc pdr ye

your wealth house at this

naclz kdl samko ( ayega

humble self tomorrow evening of will come

I'll come to your house tomorrow evening.

Notice that the speaker is using a two pronged deferencial device: in one, by referring to tho addressee's home as d3u!9txana 'house of wealth or mansion', and secondly by referring to himself as naclz an "humble self".

The two way device further brings the question of degrees of politeness or deference expressed in Hindi-Urdu. In the use of the language of respect we can establish three degrees of politeness; .one, employed with persons or things regarded higher than the speaker --be it in age, relation, education, social status or position -- , second, neutral used with equals, and third, to those considered lower to the speaker. These degrees are exhibited in the choice and use of 105 linguistic forms-nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives and postpositions.

4.0.6 Reduplication

In the linguistic convention of description, reduplication refers to those items in a language that are used twice at each time of their occurrence. This is another important feature of Hindi-Urdu. It is very commonly and frequently used in the daily speech by the native speakers as, for example,

16. cho^c cho£o b3cce

little little babies

little babies

17. uco uco mdkan

high high houses

tall houses

18. m3! gh3r ghdr gdya

I house house went

I went from house to house

19. vo c31te c3lte ruk g3ya

he walking walking stop went

he suddenly stopped on his way

2 0 . turn ne kya kya dekha

you ag.m. what what saw

what did you see?

In Hindi-Urdu all major morpheme classes can be used for reduplication.

Sentences (16 and 17) show adjectives reduplicated, (18) a noun, (19) a verb, and (20) shows that even question words can be reduplicated. 106

Reduplication often has an implication of added intensity, inclusiveness, duration and enumeration. In (20) for example, the implication is that

the speaker is not requesting information about any specific thing that the addressee saw, but rather about all that he saw, This topic will be discussed in more detail with reference to questions in a later section.

4.0.7 Varia

A striking feature of Hindi-Urdu is the absence of articles, so common in other languages such as English, French and Arabic, This does create interference in a foreign language learning as we will see later.

Another characteristic is the use of postpositions in Hindi-Urdu instead of prepositions as in English, Persian and French, This is typical of all SOV languages. Postpositions, as the term reveals, fol­ low the noun as, for example,

2 1 . gol mez pdr

round table on

on (the) round table.

A third feature is that Hindi-Urdu distinguishes not only nouns, pronouns and adjectives in number, gender and person, but also such distinction lies in the verbal system, Verbs usually occur in tho sentence final position in Hindi-Urdu. All verbs in Hindi-Urdu are conjunct, i.e. a combination of the main verb plus appropriate forms of copula, except the copula itself which has a simple form: hdi 'is', ho

•are', h3i.- 'are'. The infinitival forms end in -na which is dropped 107 before forming an appropriate verb for number, gender and person.

Syntactically, Hindi-Urdu is characterized by being a left branch­ ing language such as Japanese in contrast to right branching languages like English.

Deletion is a common phenomenon in Hindi-Urdu. The subject of a sentence is very frequently dropped in Hindi-Urdu as, for example,

2 2 . kdha g3e the?

where went were

where had (you) gone?

Also, the copula be is often deleted in negative sentences when in pre­ sent progressive tense:

23. turn ndhi ardhe he?

you not coming are

you are not comroing?

turn ndhi ardhe

ndhi ardhe $

This kind of deletion does not lead to ambiguity or vagueness since the features of the subject are coded on the verb.

Passivization is frequently used by the native speakers for purposes of expressing impersonal activity, ability and frequency. Con­ sider for example,

24. k3ha jata hBi***

said go is

it is said ••• 108

25. tnujh sc c3la ndhi jata

mo to go not go

I am unable to walk. I can't walk

26. cao pac b3je pi jati h3i

tea five o'clock drink go is

The tea is taken at four p.m.

Sentence (24) shows an impersonal use. (25) shows ability and (26) expresses something that is habitually done. Notice that the intransi­ tive verbs can also be passivized in Hindi-Urdu (cf. 25). Notice also that tho instrumental or b£ phrase is usually missing from the Hindi-

Urdu passive construction. In those cases where tho underlying subject is retained in the derived structure of the Passive, it is followed in a Post-positional phrase such as Ko z3ria or ke dwara (by/through).

27. Sohdn ke zdrie kitab bhejl g3i

So han by book send went

the book was sent by Ram

Another characteristic of Hindi-Urdu relevant for our purpose is the use of the Id particle both os a sentential complementizer as well as in conjoined clauses or Noun Phrases, for example,

28. usne k3ha Id voh ndhi aega

he said 'that' he not will come

he told he wont come

29. am cahiye Id 3mrud7

mango want 'that' guava

you want mangos or guavas? 109

Alternatively:

30. an cahiye ya dmrud?

mango want 'or* guova

you want mangos or guavas?

4.1 ha-na Questions

4.1.0 Introduction

In Hindi-Urdu as well as other South Asian languages, such as

Bengali, Marathi, Punjabi and Kannada, as in the case of other natural languages of the world, there arc several types of sentences distinguish­ ed in terms of thoir specific structures (Kachru 1966), For example, delcarativo, interrogative and imperative are three major types, among others, which differ from one another in their syntactic formation.

Another way of distinguishing them is with reference to their semantic properties and in that case, more appropriately, we refer to those types as statements, questions and commands as, for example:

1 . ndrgis cae b3na rdhi h3i.

Nargis tea making is

Nargis is making tea.

2 . ndrgis kya b3na rahi h3i?

Nargis what making is

What is Nargis making?

3. cae bdnaiyel

tea make

Please make some teal

These sentence types involve making assertions or denials, request for information and issuing orders, respectively. 110

Questions arc asked in several ways in Hindi-Urdu, In view of different inodes of request for information from an addressee* the Hindi-

Urdu speakers use different kinds of questions. The information sought

for by a speaker in a given interlocutionary situation* maybe (1) open- ended information concerning an indefinite (or non-definite) object of question; (2) an affirmation or negation by the hearer in respect of the topic in question; (3) a confirmation of the idea or belief--positive or negntive--of the speaker by tho addressee’; (4) agreement or disagree­ ment to the content of a negative question; (5) a recapitulation (nar­ ration) of a prior event; (6) clarification by subsequent repetition of a question; and (6) negative question.

The above uses are assigned to the following types of inter- rogativo sentonces in Hindi-Urdu

1 . Information questions

2 . Yos-no questions

3. Tag questions

4. Negative questions

5. Indirect questions

6 . Echo questions

In the subsequent sections, however, the last-two question types (5) and

(6 ) will not be included in our discussion.

4.1.1 ha-na Questions

In this section, I will discuss a question type which corresponds to the yes-no questions in English. In the following description, I will refer to the Hindi-Urdu counterpart as ha-na questions (henceforth Ill

HNQ). The reason for calling it so will be clear presently. Consider

the following set of sentences:

1 . kya tumhe hindl filme p3s3nd hcii?

Q you Indian movies like are

Do you like Indian movies?

2 . kya turn rozbol dckhne c31ogI?

Q You rosebowl to see will go

Will you go to see the Rosebowl?

3. kya usne sdfed hath! dekha?

Q he white elephant saw

Did he see the white elephant?

4. kya mSirl ne tajmdhdl dckha h3i?

Q Mary the Taj Mahal saw is

Has Mary seen the Taj Mahal?

Each of the above sentences (1) to (4) contains a question word kya

"what" inpresentential position. The one item kya functions in two different ways in Hindi-Urdu. In one function it is a Q-particle; in the other,

it is equivalent to English what. Answers to the above questions may correspondingly be:

5a. ha, mujhe hindl filme p3s3nd hdi.

Yes, to me Hindi movies liking are

Yes, I like the Hindi movies.

5b. na, mujhe hindl filme n3hl pdsdnd (h3i).

No, to me Hindi movies not liking (are)

No, I don't like Hindi movies. 112

6a. ha, mdi rozbol dekhne cdlugi.

Yes, I Rosebowl to see will go

Yes, I will go to see the Rosebowl.

6b. ndhi, mdl rozbol dekhne ndhi cdlugi.

No, I Rosebowl to see not will go

No, I will not go to see the Rosebowl.

7a. ha, usne sdfed hathl dckha.

Yes, he white elephant saw

Yes, he saw the white elephant.

7b. ndhi, usne sdfed hathl ndhi dekha.

No, he white elephant not saw

No, he didn't see the white elephant.

8a. ha, mdiri ne tajmdhdl dekha hdi.

Yes, Mary Taj Mahal saw is

Yes, Mary has seen the Taj Mahal.

r . 8b. nahl, mdiri ne tajmdhdl ndhi dekha (hdi).

No, Mary Taj Mahal not saw is

No, Mary hasn't seen the Taj Mahal.

It is precisely the possibility of answering such questions with either a ha ("yes") or ndh? ("no") that makes it convenient to refer to this 7 type of questions as ha-na questions. A question may arise here why

I use ha-na when the negative in the above sentences is ndhi. Without going into the details, it is sufficient to state here that although the particle ndhi has a wider distribution now, na is still felt to be the basic negative particle. Historically, ndhi is an emphatic form of na. Even now, na is used as parallel to ha in fixed expressions such 113 as "ha-na karna" to say "yes or no" and 1ha-na me jdvab derm" to answer

"yes or no" and so on.

The ha-na questions in Hindi-Urdu can be described following the same framework that was set up for the description of yes-no questions in English (3.1). To repeat, the "performative" analysis of questions seems adequate to account for both the English as well as Hindi-Urdu questions. The performative analysis will not only account for declarative and interrogative sentences as in (9) and (10) but will also account for the ungrammaticality of (lib):

9. rani mirce pdsdnd karti hdi.

Rani hot peppers like do is

Rani likes hot peppers.

10 . rani mirche pdsdnd kdrti hdi?

Rani hot pepper like do is

Does Rani like hot peppers?

11a. kya voh p3)fh r<*ha hdi?

Q he reading is

Is he reading?

lib. *kya voh pdjh rdha hdi ya kya vdh ndhi pdyh rdha hdi?

Q he reading is or not reading is

Is he reading or is he not reading?

lie. voh pd|“h rdha hdi ya ndhi pdrh rdha hdi?

What follows is a discussion of those properties of IINQ in Hindi-

Urdu which have to be taken into account in the description of question formation in language. 114

Consider the following sentences:

12a. kya tumne giznildind dekha?

Q you Disneyland saw

Did you see the Disneyland?

13a. kya ragnl ko hindl atl hdi?

Q Ragni to Hindi come is

Does Ragni know Hindi?

14a. kya ap is sal hindustan jardhe hdi?

Q you this year India going are

Are you going to India this year?

12b. tumno giznildind dekha hdi.

you Disneyland saw is

You have seen Disneyland.

13b. Ragni ko hindi atl hdi.

Ragni to Hindi come is

Ragni knows Hindi.

14b. ap is sal hindustan jardhe hdi .

you this year India going are

You are going to India this year.

Notice that each in (12) to (14) of the (a) sentences contains a question word in the beginning of the sentence. This is the first marker of the ha-na question at the surface level. Second, all the (b) sentences in (12) to (14) lack the question morpheme. We further notice that there is no change in the order of words in the two sets (a) and

(b), i.e., questions and statements. Thus, we can conclude that the formation of ha-na questions in Hindi-Urdu does not involve any change 115

in word order,

4.1.2 Alternative Questions as Source of ha-na Questions

Alternative questions (cf. 3.1, above) are structurally a combin­ ation of two ha-na questions joined by the conjunction ^a 'or'. As the term "alternative" suggests, such questions consist of an affirmative and a negative question, as, for example,

15a. *kya voh ardhl hdi ya kya voh ndhi r3hl hdi?

Q she coming is or Q she isn't coming

Is she coming or isn't she coming?

15b. kya voh ardhl h3i ya voh ndhi ardhl hdi?

Q she coming is or she not coming is

Is she coming or isn't she coming?

15c. voh ardhl hdi ya ndhi ardhl hdi?

she coming is or not coming is

(15a) is the source from which (15b) and (c) are derived. In

(b) the second occurrence of kya has been deleted under identity and in

(c) the sentential kya is also deleted after which what we have are the alternative questions as used by the native speakers of Hindi-Urdu.

As in English, the alternative questions can further be reduced to a point when they become similar to the YNQ of English. For instance

(16) is derived from (17a) below:

16. kya tara yoga kdr rdhi hdi?

17a. *kya tara yoga kdr rdhi hdi ya kya tara yoga

ndhi kdr rdhi hdi? 116

kya Del.: b. kya tara yoga k9r r9hl h9i ya tara yoga

n9hi k9r r9hl h9i7

kya Del.: c. * tara yoga k9r r9hl h9i ya kya tara yoga

n9hf k9r r9hl h9i?

Subj, Del.: d. kya tara yoga k9r r9hl h9i ya yoga

n9hl k9r r9hl h9i?

Be Del.: e. kya tara yoga k9r r9hl h9i ya 4> y°8a

n9hl k9r r9hl <#»?

VP Del.: f. kya tara yoga k9r r9hl h9i ya $ 4> 4>

n9hx 4*

NEG Del.: g. *kya tara yoga k9r r9hl h9i ya kya tara yoga

k9r r9hi h9i?

Conj. Del.: h. kya tara yoga k9r r9hi h3i?4> kya Del.: i.

Sentence (17a) is the source of both (16) and (17i) (cf, 17h). The

"kya-deletion" has been applied to the second occurrence of kya in

(17b) but if we apply the rule to the first occurrence as in (c) then we get an unacceptable sentence. In (17d) "subject deletion" has ap­ plied to the second conjunct; "copula-delotion" and "VP-deletion" have applied to (173) and (17f) respectively; to which NEG-deletion has been applied which leaves an unacceptable sentence as in (g). Finally after conjunction deletion which is obligatory after NEG-deletion* we get the well-formed sentence as in (h), which is the same as (16). And optionally* the sentential Q form kya is also deleted and we get the well-formed ha-na question (i). The last operation results in a characteristic feature of yes-no questions in general and ha-na 117 question in particular, i.e., the intonation. This we will consider in the following section.

4.1.3 Intonation of ha-na Questions

Questions in general and ha-na type of questions in particular have special intonation patterns that distinguish them not only from declarative sentences but other types of sentences, too. A declarative sentence in Hindi-Urdu has a falling intonation whereas a ha-na question has a rising intonation. This characteristic is also shared by other natural languages. Consider, for example;

18. hindustan me sa£h kBror adral rdhte hdi.

India in six-hundred million people live

There are six-hundred million people in India.

19. kya hindustan mo sa$h kBror adml rBhto hBi?

Q India in six-hundred million men live

Are there six-hundred million people in India?

(18) shows the falling intonation and (19) tho rising intonation. In writing, a period and a question mark, respectively, distinguish a statement from a ha-na question. This is a very useful device in tho absence of which there will not be any way to distinguish between tho following two sentences in writing.

2 0 . kBl laibreri khulegl

tomorrow library will open

21. kBl laibreri khulegl

tomorrow library will open 118

In (20) and (21) there is no way to figure out as to whether both are statements or questions since there is no apparent marker, i.e., kya, the marker of Q, in either sentence. Thus, it is the punctuation that marks the identical sentences either as a statement or a question. The same is true of falling and rising intonation in the spoken language.

The question arises, how do we get the rising intonation? In other words, what is the motivation or the mechanism that triggers a rising intonation in a ha-na question? One motivation for the rising intonation is the fact that a ha-na question is not derived from a statement but from an alternative question as in English. As has been discussed before (3.1), it has been experimentally shown that we get the rising intonation due to non-final position of the yes-no (and ha-na) questions in the underlying structure (kirn 1968). This is universally true in all natural languages. This fact ties up well with the above hypothesis that ha-na questions are derived from the alternative questions. Notice that the first conjunct of an alternative question O gets a rising intonation and the second one a falling intonation. The rising intonation in the first conjunct is marked before the second conjunct is deleted and thus we find tho rising intonation in ha-na question.

4.1.4 Mobility of kya Particle

Now, consider another set of ha-na questions in which the question word kya does not occur only in presentential position but moves from that position. Consider the following sentences: 119

22a, kya mohdn ne sonia ko bag me phul dia?

Q Mohan ag.m, Sonia to garden in flower gave

Did Mohan give flowers to Sonia in her garden?

22b. $ mohdn ne kya sonia ko bag me phul dia?

22c. mohdn no

22d. mohdn ne sonia ko bag me kya phul dia?

22e. *mohdn ne sonia ko bag me $ phul kya dia?

22f. mohdn ne sonia ko bag me phul $ dia kya?

What we notice in tho sentences in (22) is that there is a

progressive movement of the question particle kya from pre-scntential position to the post-sentential position through several possible inter­ mediate positions. All of the sentences (22a) through (22f) except (c) are wellformod and acceptable to native speakers. The unacceptability of (e) can be explained as follows: the particle kya cannot occur

between a noun and a verb in a verb phrase (VP) in Hindi-Urdu.

However, let us consider the following sentences for further justification or contradiction of what has been said in the above paragraph. □ 23a. mohdn ne sonia ko bag me kya phul dedia?

4 Mohan agent part. Sonia of garden in Q flower gave

'Did Mohan give flowers to Sonia in the garden?'

23b. mohdn ne sonia ko bag mo phul kya dedia?

23c. *mohdn ne sonia ko bag phul <(> de kya dia?

23d. mohdn ne sonia ko bag phul <|> dedia kya?

24a. ldta ke kya gane sun liye?

24b. ldta ke 4> gane kya sun liye? 120

24c. *l3ta ke gane sun kya liye?

24d. I3ta ke gane sun <)> liye kya?

In (23b) and (24b) we notice that the particle kya occurs between

the noun and the verb which contradicts the claim that kya cannot occur

between the noun and verb in a VP. We further notice that there is a

difference in the verb form in these sentences and those in (22). The

difference lies in the fact that the former are simple verbs whereas the

latter are compound verbs. Compound verbs allow for the particle to

occur between N & V in (VP). We also notice that the postposed Q

particle is perfectly alright here.

It is noteworthy that the occurrence of the Q particle in the

presentential position is an unmarked occurrence whereas other positions

are marked,^ However in all the possible positions for the particle in

a sentence, the initial and the final are the most favored and, hence,

frequently used ones. The use of the postposed particle in a ha-na

question also marks colloquial style and informality between the speakers.

It is noteworthy at this point that among the universals of

grammar proposed in Greenberg (1966) is a hypothesis that all the SVO

languages have an initial particle in yes-no questions and they also

position the question word in the sentence initial position. In con- s trast with this, all the SOV languages (and Hindi-Urdu is a SOV

language) which have qucstion-word particles, position their particle

at the end of the sentence. Both of these hypotheses do not seem to

hold true with reference to Hindi-Urdu data at least. Hindi-Urdu,

although a SOV language has the question particle in the initial posi­ tion which is in contradiction to Greengerg's hypothesis. Secondly, the 121 particle is placed with reference to the whole sentence, not at the end but rather at the sentence initial position. Hindi-Urdu does not bring any question word to the sentence initial position either. Further­ more, the hypothesis that in SOV languages movement is always to the left is not true at least in the case of Hindi-Urdu. Parenthetically, we might note that the movement toward the governing verb (cf. Bach

1971, Baker 1970) can be shown to hold when the particle is moved to the post-verbal position which is a marked position in Hindi-Urdu.

4.1.S Constraints on ha-na Questions

Since each sentence whether declarative or interrogative among other sentence types in all the natural languages have certain rules and system of their organization, construction and use, it follows that there will be certain constraints on their organization, construction and use of Hindi-Urdu sentences also. For example, a declarative sentence such as:

25. mujhe ye tdsvlr bdhut pdsdnd al.

to mo this picture very liking came

'I like this picture very much.' could be uttered by a guest in answer to the question:

26. kya apko ye t3svlr p3s3nd al?

Q to you this picture liko came

Did you like this picture? posed by the hostess who wants to have the opinion of the guest about a particular picture perhaps hung on the wall. However, it does not follow that all statements can be questioned or have an interrogative counterpart. There are certain constraints that are imposed on the 122

construction of ha-na questions: there are two categories of elements

that constrain the formation of ha-na questions:

1. Limiters

2. Adverbs

4.1,5.1 Limiters Constraint

There are a few particles such as hl^, to^ bhi. thorc (hi) in

Hindi-Urdu that are frequently used in declarative sentences. The

limiter particles are known os such because they impose certain limits

on the grammatical constituents of a sentence (Verma 1971). Consider

the following sentences:

27n. mdhatma gadhl ne Jhii bhardt azad kdraya tha.

Mahatma Gandhi part. India freed had

Mahatma Ghandi obtained freedom for India.

27b. kya mdhatma gadhi ne lu bhardt azad kdrayatha?

Q Mahatma Gandhi part. India freed had

Did Mahatma Gandhi obtain freedom for India?

27c. mdhatma gadhl ne hi bhardt azad kdraya tha?

Mahatma Gandhi part India freed had

Did Mahatma Gandhi obtain freedom for India?

The use of the particle h£ in both the statement (27a) and ha-na questions (27b) and (27c) is quite acceptable. That is, it can be used

in both a statement and a question. But, let us consider the next set of evidence with other limiters;

28a. tumhe to tez rogdnjos pdsdnd hdi,

you part, hot roghanjosh like is

You like hot Roghanjosh. 123

28b. *kya tumhe to te2 rogdnjosh pdsdnd hdi?

Q Do you like hot Roghanjosh?

Do you like hot Roghanjosh?

28c. *tumho to tez rogdnjosh pdsdnd hdi?

Q you part, hot Roghanjosh like is

Do you like hot Roghanjosh?

V 29a. firaq bhi Urdu ke ek bdje saer hdi.

Firaq also Urdu of a great poet are

Firaq is also a great poet of Urdu.

29b. kya Firaq bhi Urdu ke ek bdfe saer hdi?

Q Firaq also Urdu of a great poet are

Is Firaq also a great jaoot of Urdu?

29c. firaq bhi Urdu ke ok bdre saer hdi?

Q Firaq also Urdu of a great poet are

Is Firaq also a great poet of Urdu?

Sentence (28a) is a statement which contains a particle to "as far as you are concerned" and it is well-formed but when the same particle is used in questions (28b) and (28c), it makes them unacceptable. On the other hand (29a) to (29c) are well-formed with the particle bhi, "also."

However, the situation changes when we use another set of limiters which are best known as compound limiters. Consider the following sentences:

30a. krisna lu to gopio ko chefa kdrte the.

Krisna part, to gopies tease used to

Lord Krisna used to tease the gopies. 124

30b. •kya krisna In to gopio ko chefa kdrte the?

Q Krisna part, to gopies tease used to

Did Lord Krisna use to tease the gopies7

30c. •krisna hi^ t£ gopio ko chej*a kdrte the?

Q Lord Krisna part, to gopies tease used to

Did Lord Krisna use to tease the gopies?

«V . A*Ai 31a. rdvisdkdr bhi to dmrika me bdhut mdshur h3i.

Ravishanker also America is very famous is

Ravishankcr is also famous in America.

31b. •kya ravisdkdr bhi to 3mrika me b3hut mdshur hdi?

Q Ravishanker also America in very famous is

Is Ravishankcr also famous in America?

31c. •Ravisdkdr bhi to dmrika mo bdhut mdshur hdi?

Q Ravishanker also America in very famous is

Is Ravishanker also famous in America?

32a. h3r hindustan! thore hi hath! r3khta h3i.

every Indian part, elephant keeps is

Not every Indian has an elephant.

It is not the case that every Indian has an elephant,

32b. •kya h3r hindustan! thore hi hathl rdkhta h3i?

Q every Indian part, elephant keeps is

Does every Indian have an elephant?

Isn't the case that every Indian has an elephant?

32c. •her hindustan! thore hi hath! rdkhta hdi?

Q every Indian part, elephant keeps is

Does every Indian have an elephant? 12S

Isn't the case that every Indian has an elephant?

In (30), (31), and (32) compound limiters hi to, bhi to and thoye hi, respectively, are used. All the (a) sentences above are ac­ ceptable but the ha-na counterparts in all (b) and (c) sentences are unacceptable. In other words, the compound limiters do not allow ha-na questions. On the other hand, the simple (single) limiters hi, and bhi allow both a statement and a question but to and thore do not allow the ha-na questions.

As shown above the particle to_ does not allow questions but con­ sider the following set of sentences:

33a. *tum mdzaq to k3r r3he ho.

you joke part, doing are

You are kidding.

33b. *kya turn m3zaq t£ k3r r3ho ho?

Q you joke port, doing ore

Are you kidding?

33c. *tum mdzaq to^ k3r r3he ho?

Q you joke part, doing are

Are you kidding?

33d. turn m3zaq to ndhi k3r rdhe (ho)?

you joke part, not doing are

Is it the case that you are kidding?

Are you really kidding? 33e. ♦kya turn m3zaq t(> n3hl k3r r3he (ho)?

Q you joke part, not doing are

Isn’t tho caso that your are kidding?

Are you kidding?

In (33a) through (c) the particle to occurs after an object and as predicted, the sentences are not well-formed. But when used with the negative n3hl "not" i.e., to n3hl as in (d) the question is well- ► formed. However the ha-na question in (e) is still not acceptable.

The constraint here is that to n3hl can occur only in a ha-na question when the latter does not contain tho question word kya. Notice that to n3hi can occur in a statement as well: . „

34e, unhe am to n3hi p3s3nd (h3i).

them mangoes not liking is

She doe not like mangoes.

As far as mangoes are concerned she doesn't like them,

4.1.5.2 Co-occurrence Restriction

In addition to limiters that constrain ha-na questions, there, are certain adverbs that do not occur in the ha-na questions in Hindi-

Urdu. Consider the following sentences:

35a. voh lib3f$I ist3icu dekhne z3rur jaegl.-

She liberty statue to see certainly will go

She will certainly go to see the Statue of Liberty.

35b. ♦kya voh lib3rji is(3icu dekhne z3rur jaegl?

Q She liberty statue to see certainly will go

♦Will she certainly go to see the statue of liberty? 127

35c. voh lib3rfi istdicu dekhne z3rur jaegl?

36a. saed aj sam b3r£ giro.

Probably today evening ice fell

Probably it will snow this evening.

36b. *kya saed aj sam b3rf giro?

Q Probably today evening ice fell

* Will it probably snow this evening?

36c. *saed aj sam b3rf giro?

Probably today evening ice fell?

*Will it probably snow this evening?

37a. Voh muskil hi se c31 s3ktl h3i.

t She hardly walk can is

She can hardly walk.

37b. *kya voh muskil hi so c31 s3kti h3i?

Q she hardly walk can is

*Can she hardly walk?

37c. *voh muskil hi so c31 s3ktl h3i?

She hardly walk can is

*Can she hardly walk?

In (35a), (36a) and (37a) the adverbs z3rur "certainly", saed

"probably," and muskil hi se "hardly," respectively, are used. The declarative sentences are perfectly well-formed, but when the same adverbs are used in questions they are not acceptable, as in (b) and

(c) sentences above. 128

4.2 K-Questions in Hindi-Urdu

4.2.1 Introduction

In this section, I will discuss the syntactic and semantic properties of information questions (or k-qucstions) in Hindi-Urdu. The

K-questions are called as such because of the fact that all the question words employed in Hindi-Urdu begin with the sound /k/, e.g., kya, k3un, k3h5, k3b and so on (cf, wh-questions in English).

Just as in English, in Hindi-Urdu, too, any constitutent of a sentence can be questioned. Consider the following set of sentences:

1. K3un tore gin r3ha h3i?

Who stars counting is

'Who is counting the stars? 1

2 . tumhe kya cahiye?

You dat.m. what need

What do you want?

3. k31 tumne kya kiya?

Yesterday you subj.m. what did

4 'What did you do yesterday?

4. tumhe k3isa kurta pdsdnd h3i?

You dat.m. what kind of kurta like is

What kind of kurta do you like?

5. Cad p3r kitne adml g3i?

moon on how many men went

How man men went to the moon? 129

6 . Voh h3va ky5 pi r3hl h3i?

She air why drinking is

'Why is she inhaling air?

7. merl kitabe k3ha h3i?

My books where are

'Where are ray books?'

8 . ap hindustan k3b jaege?

You pol, India when will go

'When will you go to India?'

9. mlna Slaska k3ise gdl?

Mccna Alaska how went

'How did Mecna go to Alaska?'

10. pan kl dukan kidh3r hdi?

betol-leaf of shop which direction is

'Whore is the botcl-lcaf store?'

In sentence (1) the subject is questioned, in (2) the object, in (3) the verb, in (4) and (5) adjectives of quality and quantity, respective-

i ly, in (6-10) adverbs of reason, place, time, manner and direction respectively. Note that each question contains a question word which begins with a k-. The k-forms are comparable to English Wh-forms.

The Hindi-Urdu k-forms are derivable from Determiner + N which, in turn, are elements of NP (cf. Kachru: 1966). The derivational processes are as follows: ART + Personj | t-Dcf] a din I K3un Koi Pro ^ Kdunsa [+Def] DAnimate ] ciz Pro [:Person ] = ? Kya j3g3h Pro [:Place ] K3ha v3j3h + Pro [♦ Reason => Kyo v3qt Pro [+ Time =* K3b tdrdh T+ Pro 1 L+ Manner J => Kdisc [+Def] itna + Pro + Measure ^ Kitna ± Count t3r3f + Pro + Direction ^ KidhSr qisro + Pro + Kind ] Kdisa 131

The k-forms ending in a vowel -a change for number and gender as

follows:

12. Kitna > (Kitne \ [Mas.Sgj

However, Kya and K3ha are exceptions to this rule. Notice also that

these question words change in form in.the contexts of a dative, or oblique case with a following postposition (cf. 4.3.) as, for example:

13a. Kdunn > (kise, kisko [♦ Dir] < [+ Dat.s£, jkinhe, kinko [+Dat. pi.] kis I[+ obliq.sg.] kini [+ obliq.pl.]

13b. Koi > kisi [+ Dir] [oliq.]

14. Direct Case Number I Dative | Oblique

sing. kise, kisko kis kaun plural kinhe, kinko kin

koi --- kisiko kisx

4.2.2 K-Question Formation

The nature of information questions is such that they contain certain universal properties in all the natural languages. The forma­ tion of Hindi-Urdu jc-questions follow the same processes as discussed for English (3.2) above, except for a few language specific features.

One of the major differences between English Wh-questions and Hindi lt- questions is the word order. Another difference is that movement which 132 is obligatory in English is optional in Hindi-Urdu and takes place main­

ly to mark focus. In the subsequent discussion of Hindi-Urdu ^-questions we will presuppose the devices discussed for English above.

As discussed above, a k-question is a request for information about an indefinite nonspecific entity, that is, about a noun phrase.

In other words, k-qucstions are questions about noun phrase constituents in a sentence. That however does not mean that one cannot seek in­ formation about action, attributes, etc. with a k-question. Just as in

English Wh-Q's can question constituents other than NP also. Unlike

English, which involves movement in question formation, Hindi-Urdu requires 'insertion1 as the basic operation in questions. In others words, a questioned constituent is replaced by an appropriate lt-word which is transformationally derived in manners shown in (11) above.

Consider the following sentences:

15a. mdhatma gadhl dhinsa mante tho.

Mahatma gaudhi non-violence believed

'Mahatma Gandhi believed in non-violence'.

15b. mdhatma Gadhl koi elz mante the.

Mahatma Gandhi something believed

'Mahatma Gandhi believed in something'.

15c. mdhatma Gadhl Kya mante the?

Mahatma Gandhi what believed where

'What did Mahatma Gandhi believe in'?

(15a) is a simple statement in which a definite object dhinsa is used.

This definite object has been replaced by an indefinite object in

(15b) which in turn has been substituted by an appropriate Ic-form kya 133 in (ISc).

To give another example* if we want to question the subject of the sentence we will proceed in the following way:

16a. m3hatma gadhl dhinsa ke pujari the.

Mahatma Gandhi nonviolence of pol, worshipper were

'Mahatma Gandhi was a believer in nonviolence*.

16b. koi admi dhinsa ke pujari the.

someone non-violence of worshipper was

'someone was a believer in non-violence.'

16c. kdun dhinsa ka pujari tha?

Who non-violence of worshipper was

'Who was a believer in non-violence?'

In this case* the definite noun clauso in the subject position in {16a) has boon replaced by tho indefinite NP koi admi in (16b) which has further been substituted for by a J<-form kdun 'who*. Notice that there is no change in the order of words in the statement and the question* not oven in the intermediary structure in (16b). t Notice further, that there is a difference between the VP in the statement and the question in terms of their number* i.e.* singular and plural respectively. A question arises as to why it is so;

Because the plural number is used here for deference (cf. 4.0.5). In

(16a) the identity of the person is known to whom in the Indian social context, deference is to bo shown linguistically and one of the means is to use the plural agreement which is precisely what we have in (16a).

Now, (16b) and (c) show singular number in the VP, because of the in­ definiteness of the NP, i.e., the VP retains singular number. 134

In addition to k-insertion, k-movement is optionally involved in the formation of k-questions in Hindi-Urdu for focus, i.e., a questioned constituent is moved from its original position to another position which often is pre-verbal position (cf. post-verbal position in ha-na t « questions (4.1.3)). Consider the following set of sentences:

17a, godan kisne likha?

Cowoffer who wrote

'Who wrote the novel 'Godan'?'

18a. cad kl miJ:J:I kdun laya?

moon of dust who brought

'who brought the moon-dust?'

17b. kisi(admi)ne godan likha.

Godan someone wrote

'someone wrote 'Godan'.'

18b. koi(admi) cad kl mij^I laya.

moon of dust someone brought.

'Someone brought tho moon-dust.'

17c. Kisne godan likha?

Who Godan wrote.

Who wrote 'Godan'?

18c. Kdun cad kl mi$$i laya?

Who moon of dust brought

'Who brought the moondust?'

Sentences (17b) and (18b) underlie sentences (17c) and (18c) to which movement has been applied so as to move the questioned constituent to the right, i.e., the preverbal position in (17a) and (18a), 135

It is noteworthy that tho type of movement we have discussed above is not limited to questions only. This type of movement is pos­ sible in Hindi-Urdu declarative sentences also. It seems to be a device to bring a particular constituent in focus. In Hindi-Urdu, there are two positions in a clause which are focus positions, namely the sentence--initial position and the position to the left of the verb as, for example,

19. vohkitab m9l ne p9rh ll.

That book I read took

'I finished that book*.

20. m9i dilll pichle sal g9ya tha.

I Delhi last year went was

'I went to Delhi last year'.

For the purpose of focus, in CIS) the object has been brought to the initial position— a place usually occupied by the subject and in (20) the adverb of time is placed in tho preverbal position which is usually occupied by an object or an adverb of location. Howovor, more work is needed in order to be able to make conclusive statements about focus in

Hindi-Urdu.

t 4.2.3 Reduplication in K-Qucstion

One of the characteristics of Hindi-Urdu is that reduplication

(cf. 4.0.6) of items in a sentence is very common. Almost all the formatives except a few particles, conjunctions and postpositions are reduplicatable in the language, as, for example, 136

21a. Voh lal lal sari me 3cchi I3gti h3i.

She red red sari in good strike is

'She looks good in a red sari.1

21b. dilll me uce uce m3kan h3i.

Delhi in high high buildings

'There arc tall buildings in Delhi.'

In (21a) the use of reduplicated adjectives signal intensification and that of the ones in (21b) distribution. The use of a reduplicated form, thus suggests an intensive or a distributive moaning.

The k-questions are also subject to this feature of reduplication which is in contradistinction to English where no such feature is available. Consider the following set of scntonccs:

22a. bdcce dhlre dhlre jar3he the.

children slowly slowly going wcro

'The children were walking slowly.'

22b. *b3cce k3iso k3iso jar3he the?

children how how walking were

♦How how wore the children walking?

22c. bdcce k3iso jardhe the?

Children how walking were

How were the children walking?

Sentence (22a) contains a reduplicated adverb of motion but when the reduplicated aloments are substituted with reduplicated k-forms, here k3ise k3ise, we end up with an ill-formed question. However, when we use an wv-reduplicated k-form as in (22c), we get a well-formed question.

This seems to suggest that reduplicated k-forms are not permitted in 137

Hindi-Urdu. This, however, is not true, Consider the following sentences:

23a. m3! ne bhardt me djdnta, dlora 3ur tajmdhal dekhe.

I ag.m. India in Ajanta, Glora and Taj Mahal saw

'In India, I sow Ajanta, Hlora and the Taj Mahal.'

23b. tumne bhardt mo kya kya dekha?

You ag.m. India in what what saw.

♦What what did you seo in India?

'What did you soo in India?

Sentence (23a) a declarative contains more than one item— objects of tho verb--which may bo an appropriate answor to the question in (23b) which contains a reduplicated k-form. The question in (23b) is accept­ able but (22b) above which appears to have an identical structure is not on the same ground, i.e., it also has reduplicated k-form. This apparent contradiction is explained by hypothesizing that whereas a reduplicated form is used for both intensive and distributive functions in a declarative sentenco, it is only the distributive sense in which it is used in questions. Now, if we look at the above two sentences we notice that in (22b) an intensive context is involved which makes the reduplicated question ill-formed and therefore, a single k-form is ap­ propriate. On the other hand, the use of a reduplicated k-form as in

(23b) presupposes multiple items seen in India, hence the well-formed­ ness of the question. It is only the distributive meaning for which a duplicated form is used in questions in Hindi-Urdu. To a speaker of

English, a literal translation of a reduplicated Hindi k-question sounds fun; makes no sense, and is ungrammatical, as for example (23b). 138

♦What what did you see in Bombay?

However, this is a very productive device in Hindi-Urdu to ask about constituents with multiple members. The device is not unconstrained, though. The constraints relate to certain k-forms that cannot be reduplicated for the purposes indicated above. The two forms— kyo

’Why* and kitna 'how many' cannot be used as kyo kyo and kitna kltna respectively. That is, one uses the simple k-word oven in the context of a multiple presupposition about the object of the question.

4.2.4 Multiple k-Questions

In addition to single k-qucstions (4.2.2) and double k-questions

(4.2.3) Hindi-Urdu has another characteristically important typo of questions which may be labollcd as 'multiple k-quostions.' As the label suggests, this type of questions contain more than one k-form in the same sentence. Consider the following sentences:

24a. d9sr9th no ramko bar9h salka bSnvas dia.

Dasrath ag.m. to Ram twelve years oxilemont gave

'The king Dasrath exiled Rama for twelve years.'

24b. kisno, kiso, kitne salka b9nvas dia?

who whom for how many years exilement gave.

♦who whom for how many years gave exilement?

Who banished whom for how many years?

25a. Sur9ya no k91 ok ur9nt9st9ri dckhi.

Soraya yesterday one flying saucer saw

Soraya saw a flying saucer yesterday. 139

25b. kisnc k3b, kya dekha?

Who when what saw

*Who when saw what?

Who saw what and when?

The (a) sentences in (24) and (25) havo their respective question counter­

parts in (24b) and (25b). These questions are perfectly wellformed and

frequently used by the native speakers. In English, the question words must be intervened by other verbal, conjunct, etc,, elements to form the multiple questions.

As for the derivation of multiplo k-words, consider the following:

26a. bhai sahib k31 dakt3r so milne railgarise varandsl jaege.

brother tomorrow doctor with to see train by will go

Brother will go to see the doctor by traintomorrow.

26b. k-bhal sahib k-k3l k-dakt3r so milne

k-railgari so k-Varan3si jaege.

26c. koi adml kisi V3qt, kisi v3j3h se

kisi t3r3h so kisi j3geh jaega

26d. *k3un k3b kyo k3ise k3ha jaega?

Who when why how where will go

*Who will go whore why how where?

(26d) a well formed multiple k-question could appropriately have the answer in (26a). (26c) underlies (26d) which has an intermediary structure given in (26b). In other words, each questioned constituent has a k-form which has the surface form (26d).

Is there, one might ask a limit on the number of k-forms in a question? This is determined according to the syntactic and memory 140 constraints on the declarative sentences and their constituents. The syntactic constraints discussed above (3.2.4), inanely the complex NP constraint. Sentential subject constraint and coordinate structure con* straint all apply to k-questions in Hindi-Urdu.

4.3 Tag Questions

4.3.1 Tag Question Formation

In addition to ha-na questions and J<-questions in Hindi-Urdu there is a third subtype of questions, which correspond to English tag questions. The tag questions in Hindi-Urdu differ from their English counterparts (cf. 3.3). In English, as wo have seen earlier, the tag questions are composed of two parts: a declarative and an interrogative juxtaposed as the main clause and the tag clause respectively. In Hindi-

Urdu, a different syntactic device is used to achieve the same semantic goal.11 Consider, for example, the following sentences:

1. apne dj.Bnta dekha hdi na?

you Ajanta saw is not

'You have seen Ajanta, haven't you?'

2 . turn merl par$I me aoge na?

you my party in will come not?

'You will come to my party, won't you?'

3. dmita piano bajatl hdi na?

Amita piano ring is not

'Amita plays piano, doesn't she?' 141

4. Hindustani durte zyadat3r sari pdhdntl h3i na?

Indian women mostly saree wear not

'Indian women mostly wear sarees, don't they?'

Examples (1-4) all have a particle nia 'not' at the end of the sentences.

The addition of this particle in the sentence final position marks the sentence a tag question in Hindi-Urdu. In other words, the Hindi-Urdu tog question is a combination of, a declarative and the tag particle iw

(cf. Siddiqui 1974).

The addition of the tag particle na at the sentence final posi­ tion is not only true of positive tag questions but also of the negative tag questions in Hindi-Urdu as, for example:

5. turn muvl dekhne ndhl jaogc na?

you movie to see not will go not

•You won't go to see the movie, will you?'

6 . hindustani bdhut th3nd ndhl p3s3nd kdrtc na?

Indian very cold not like not

'Indians don't like it too cold, do they?'

7. s3bhl bhartl gost n3hi khate na?

all Indians.meat not cat not

Indians don't eat meat, do they?'

8 . bdnards ki galiya bdhut cduri n3hl hdl na?

Varanasi of lanes very wide not are not

The lanes in Varanasi aren't very wide, are they?

Examples (5-8) have all the same structure with tag particle na, despite the fact that the main clause contains o negative word n3hi. Those sentences are different from the earlier set (1-4) in that the former has 142 a positive orientation while the latter a negative orientation. Despite thisdifference in the polarity of the main clause, tag element is the same in Hindi-Urdu. Notice that the tag particle na literally means

'not' in other contexts and that is why its compatability with n3hl ’not* in the same sentence i.e. negative sentence.

Now, let us sec what happens when we change the position of the tag particle na in a sentence:

9. *apne 3j3nta n£ dckha h3i?

you ag.part Ajanta not saw is

You haven't seen Ajanta, have you?

10. *tum merl parti me na aoge?

you my party in not come

You will come to my party, won't you?

11a. *tumho gana na_ ata h3i?

to you to sing not come is

You know how to sing, don't you?

lib. tumhe gana ata na h3i?

you tosing come not is

You know how to sing, don't you?

12. turn muvl dekhne n3hl na jaoge?

you movie to see not not will go

'You won't go to see the movie, will you?'

13. abhl merl kitab n3hi iw al?

now my book not not come

My book hasn't arrived yet, has it? 143

Sentences (9-lla) are not well formed tag questions since na, the tag particle cannot occur in prevcrbal position except when it occurs between the main verb and the auxiliary as in (lib). It can, howevor, occur in preverbal position in negative tag questions as in (12) and

(13).

The sentences (12) and (13) are interesting also in view of their semantic implications. Syntactically both the sentences are similar but they differ in their interpretation and meaning. Sentence

(13) requires an acquicsence as tags in general do but (12) implies a threat.

The tag particle, as we have seen above, can be moved from the postposed position but it can not bo proposed all the way to the sentence-initial position as, for oxample:

14a. apko murg pdsdnd aya na?

14b. *na apko murg pdsdnd aya?

not to you chicken liking came

You liked the chicken, didn't you?

4.3.2 Other tag-like Morphemes

In addition to the type of tag questions we have discussed above there is another class of sentences which are also frequently used by the Hindi-Urdu speakers. Consider for example, the following:

15. cae t3yar h3i, 5?

tea ready is ha

The tea is ready, ho? 144

16. apne Idkard bhejdia, kyo?

you Eid card sent why

You sent the Eid card, didn't you?

17. turn numais dckhne cdlogl, sde?

you exhibition to see will go really

You will go to see the exhibition, really?

18. kd1 turn eSrpoyt jaogc, Jhlk?

tomorrow you airport will go, right?

You will go to the airport tomorrow, right?

The above sentences (15-18) have another set of postposod morphemes which function like na as tag particles. The particles na, kyo, s3o

£hlk, and a^ can be substituted for one another in the above sentences without change of meaning, i.e. the tag meaning. It should bo pointed out that (15) is specifically used in colloquial speech. One might also add, that this set of tog questions bears a similarity to some tag-like morphemos in English, as indicated by the cquivlents given in the translation.

4.3.3 VP-Duplication

Another device for forming a tag question in Hindi-Urdu is the use of repeated VP as part of the tag clause. Consider, for example, the following sentences.

19a. aj ap Jenis khelnc cdlegc, cdlege na?

today you tennis to play will go will go not

You will go to ploy tennis today, won't you? 145

19b. *aj ap tenis khclne cdlcge na, cdlegc?

20a. turn mujhe bdtik bdnana slkhaogl, sikhaogoi na?

you to me Batik to make will teach,will teach not?

You will teach me how to make Batik, won't you?

20b. *tum mujhe bdtik bBnana sikhaogl na, sikhaogi?

In (19a) and (20a) the na particle occurs at the end after the repeated

VP and both are acceptable sentences. But if the particle occurs before the repeated VP, then the sentences are not acceptable as in

(19b) and (20b).

The use of repeated VP is possible not only in positive tags but

* also in negative tag questions for example:

21a, turn dilli ndhl jaogc, ndhl jaogc, na7

you Delhi not will go, not will go not

You won't go to Delhi,will you? M 21b. *tum dilhl ndhl jaoge, jaoge na?

you Delhi not will go will go not

You won't go to Delhi, will you? N » 22a. turn gaja ndhl pite, ndhi pite na?

you marijuana not smoke, not smoke not

You don’t smoke marijuana, do you?

22b. *turo ganja ndhl pite, pite na?

you marijuana not smoke, smoke not * you don't smoke marijuana, do you?

As seen in the above sentences in the negative tag questions, not only the VP along with the rm particle is repeated but also the negative morpheme is copied which accounts for the grammaticality of (21a) and 146 and (22a) and the ungrammaticality of (21b) and (22b) respectively.

4.3.4 *h3i na* Insertion

In addition to the various devices discussed above there is another often used variety of tag questions. This kind of tag consists of the phrase h3i na 'isn’t (it)1 attached to the declarative sentence.

Consider for example:

23. turn ne cai pill, h3i na?

you Ag.m. tea drank is not

You have taken tea, haven't you?

24a. turn merl bat s3m3;jh g3e, h3i na?

you my matter understood is not

You understand me, don't you?

24b. *tum merl bat h3i na s3m3jhg3i? However, in this case both (23) and (24) have h3ina as the tag part, However , in this case we cannot move na in preverbal position as in (24b).

4.3.5 Tags of Complex Sentences

In the above sections we have considered simple tag questions.

Now we will see whether tag questions of complex sentences are possible in Hindi-Urdu. Consider the following sentences:

25. *moh3n ne bBtaya ki rita hdval j3hazc3lana

Mohan ag.m. told that Rita airplane to cause to walk

sikh r3i na?

learning is not

a. Mohan told me that Rita was learning to fly airplanes, didn't

he f 147

b. *Mohan told roe that Rita was learning to fly airplanes,

didn't she?

26. *mera xyal hdi ki gari jacukl hdi, na?

my thought is that train has left not

a, I think the train has left, hasn't it?

b. *1 think the train has left, don't I?

Sentence (25) and (26) both havo complex structures with the tag particle na. and both are unacceptable. In English however, (a) sentences are acceptable but (b) are not (cf. 3.3.3). It seems that in

Hindi-Urdu, tags cannot be formed on embedded sentences unlike in

English which permits it undor certain conditions.

However, there are some exceptions to the above observation.

Considor the following set of questions:

27a. tumne kdha tha ki javed acga, kyS?

you ag.m. said had that Jawed will come not

You said that Jawed will come, didn't you?

b. tumne kdha tha ki Javed aega, a?

c. tumne kdha tha ki Javed aega, £hlk?

d. tumne kdha tha ki Javed aega, sdc?

Sentences (a) and (b) aro acceptable when they contain ky5 or H in the complex tag questions. Sentences (c) and (d) are acceptable to me but

I won't be surprised if there are some difference of opinion among other native speakers according to their dialectal differences.

There is another set of tag questions which are different from the above and are perfectly acceptable. Consider the following: 148

28. tumne vada kia hdi ki samko aogc aoge na?

you ag.m. promised is that evening in will come will come not

You have promised to come this evening, haven't you?

w w 29. apne bataya tha ki ap ndhl pite, ndhl pite na?

you ag.m. told had that you pd. not drink, not drink not

You had told me that you didn't drink, didn't you?

Sentences (28) and (29) are well formed even when the tag consists of a complex structure. In both the sentences the VP has been repeated and in (29) the NEG is also repeated. This shows that the complex tag questions in Hindi-Urdu are possible whon the tag contains either morphemes kyo, 5, £hlk and sdc or when the VP is repeated.

4.3.6 Limiter Constraint

The use of a class of words or particles known as limiters (cf.

4.1.5.1) constrain certain constructions in Hindi-Urdu, It was shown, earlier in ha-na questions, no limiters except hl^ and bhl can occur.

However, the same particles can occur in the tog questions, with a few exceptions. Consider tho following:

30. ap to muSaire me pajhege, na?

you part, poetic symposium in will recite not

You would recite in the poetic symposium, won't you?

31. ap bhl to musaire me parhege, na?

you also poetic symposium in will recite not

You will also recite in the poetic symposium, won't you? 149

32. *ap thore(hl) musaire me pajhege, na?

you it is not the case poetic symposium in will reach not

It is not the case that you would recite in the poetic symposium,

is it?

Sentence (30) contains to and (31) thore(hi) of which the former is ac­

ceptable but the latter is not. The fact that ha-na questions cannot

take limiters in general and the tag questions can, except thore(hi). is a strong evidence to differentiate the two kinds of questions in Hindi-

Urdu.

4.3.7 Intonation of Tag Questions

We have already seen (in section 4.1), that a ha-na question in

Hindi-Urdu has always a rising intonation as do their English counter­ part (cf, 3.1). Rising intonation marks uncertainty or neutrality as to the possible answers to the question. On the other hand tag questions in Hindi-Urdu have always falling intonation as, for example:

33. Jafari sahib bri^is miyuzidm to bdhut pdsdnd hdi na?

Jafri pol. title obj.m. British Museus part, very like is.not

Mr. Jafri likes British Museum very much, doesn't he?

34. haid park me ghumne cdloge na?

Hyde park in to walk will go not

You will go to take a walk in the Hyde park, won't you?

Both (33) and (34) have a falling intonation. This is the basic in­ tonation pattern of Hindi-Urdu-tag questions. However, one might come across a speaker who dilalectly might use a rising intonation as well. 150

4.3.8 Semantics and Pragmatics of Tag Questions

The tag questions differ from ha-na questions not only syntactical­ ly but also semantically, and in their use as well. The presupposition of the speaker here is not neutral as is the case in ha-na and yos-no questions. In tag quostions the speaker believes in the proposition of the declarative part of the tag, be it positive or negativo, and expects only a confirmation of his belief and/or presupposition from the addressee.

As for the pragmatics of tag questions, they are often used in colloquial speech and it also marks a certain degree of informality and familiarity among the interlocutors. The use of tag questions also marks politeness on the part of the speaker in appropriate situations.

Related to this function of tags is the observation that they are often used by women speakers since thoy are traditionally believed to express more politeness in general in the Indian society (this doesn’t imply that converse is true of other societies like the western societies,

America or England). According to one study (Lakoff: 1975) women use more tag questions than men in English.

Inspite of the fact that tag questions are associated more with women than man, the tag questions both in English and Hindi-Urdu are frequently used by both malo, and female speakers in an appropriate situation.

To sum up, the Hindi-Urdu tag questions are relatively simple in their formation. They consist of a combination of a declarative sentence and a postposed na or a morpheme given in (4.3.5). Alternatively the main verb phrase is repeated in the tag to form a tag question. The 151 intonation of tag questions is primarily a falling one. Semantically, tag questions are distinguished by their use in confirmatory contexts, and pragmatically, they characteristically signal politeness and occur more frequently in colloquial speech.

4.4 Negative Questions

4.4.0 Introduction

In the above sections we have discussed affirmative questions in

Hindi-Urdu. In this section I will discuss the negative counterpart of

Hindi-Urdu questions. Wo will see the processes involved in the negative questions and then the restrictions, if any, on negative questions.

First I will take up the negative ha-na questions and then the negative

Jk-quostions in Hindi-Urdu.

4.4.1 Negative ha-na Question

There are three negative particles in Hindi-Urdu - nil, ndhl and m3t 'not* which are used in different kinds of negative sentences. Con­ sider the following sentences:

1 . suhol ne am khaya.

Suhail ag.m. mango ate

Suhail ate the mango,

2 . suhol ne am ndhl khaya.

Suhail ag.m. mango not ate

Suhail didn't eat the mango,

3. suhel am na khaol

Suhail mango not cat

Suhail don't eat the mango! 152

4. Suhcl am m9t khaol

Suhail mango not eat

Suhail, don't eat the mango!

5. *suhel nc am na khaya.

Suhail ag.m. mango not ate

Suhail didn't cat the mango,

6 . *suhol ne am m9t khaya.

Suhail ag.m. mango not khaya.

Suhail didn't cat the mango.

The negative particle n9hi can occur only in negative declarative sentences (as in 2) and the particles na and m9t can occur only in negative imperative sentences as in (3) and (4).^ (m9t is an emphatic prohibitive particle). The above statement of the distribution of negative particles in Hindi-Urdu is supported by the fact that sentences

(5) and (6) in which na and m9t are used in non-imperative (i.e. declarative) sentences, are ungrammatical, na, however, can occur in declarative sentences provided the structure is complex or where there is embedding as, for examplo:

7. Sur9ya ne muh p9r dup9££a isliye

Suraya ag.m. mouth on scarf for

r9kha ki usse h9sl na ruk s9kl

put that to her laught not stop can

Suraya covered her mouth with her scarf because she could

not control her laughing. 153

8. Sarita nc bBccc ko isliye £ika ldgaya

Sarita ag.m. baby to so that mark (on the forehead)

ki k3hl use n3t3r n3 13gjac«

that God forbid to him evil sight not strike

Sarita put the 'tika' on the baby's forehead loss he might

be subjected to an evil eye.

Or it could occur in answering a ha-na question (4.1) or tag quostion

(4.3).

We shall now turn to the behavior of negative particles in negative questions in the language. Consider the following sentences:

9a. Kya tumhe bdgall ati hai?

Q to you Bengali come is

Do you know Bengali?

9b. *Kya tumhe b3gall n3hl ati hai?

Q to you Bengali not come is

Do you Bengali not know?

Don't you know Bengali?

9c. Kya tymhe bSgnll n3hl ati?

Q to you Bengali not come

9d. tumhe b3gall n3hi ati Kya?

To you Bengali not come Q

9e. tumhe bdgall ndhl ati?

To you Bengali not come

Don't you know Bengali?

(9a) is an affirmative ha-na question and (b) is the negative counter­ part of (9), So is (c) except that the copula 'be' in Present tense has 154

been deleted. This accounts for the acceptability of (c)• In (d) the

question particle has been postposed and in (o) it has been deleted,

following the Hindi-Urdu rule of question formation (see 4.1.3).

Notice that the negative particle occurs in the preverbal position in

both statements and questions.

The other negative particle na 'not* also occurs in the negative

ha-na questions. Consider the following sentences:

10. *Kya turn p3njabi na bolte?

Q You Punjabi not speak

Don't you speak Punjabi?

11. Kya 3b turn mujh se na bologe?

Q Now you me to not will speak

Won't you now speak to me?

12. turn 3b mujh se na bologe?.

You now me to not will speak

Won't you speak to me now?

(10) is an ill-formed question but (11-12) are not. All three appear

to be negative ha-na questions. But in fact this is not true, (10) and

if the rest were the same then all should have been acceptable. The

reason why (11) and (12) are well-formed is that these are 'whimpera-

tives' (Sadock: 1970) rather than straight ha-na questions. A (1) whimperative is an imperative with a request. (11) in effect means 'I request you to speak with me and at the same time I ask you if you will not speak with me'. We observe therefore, from the above evidence that a negative question can take only n3hf and not na which is appropriate mainly for imperative sentences in Hindi-Urdu. 155

In any discussion of negation in general and negative questions

in particular we must take into account the 'scope of negation1 (cf.

Bhatia, 1973) and the 'focus of negation', 'Scope' refers to the

stretch of language over which negation is effective or the part in the

structure that is controlled by the negative particle (cf. 3.4). As we have seen above the negative particle occurs before the VP and

controls whatever follows it. Consider the following sentences:

13. kya susdma ne ndhl hoiI khell?

Q Sushma ag.m, Holi not play?

Didn't Sushma participate in throwing colored water?

In (13) holi khell is under the scope of negation. Notice that the negative particle could occur optionally between the N and V of a VP and it still controls the VP in this sentence.

Parts or elements in a negative question can also be considered as being the 'focus of negation' in Hindi-Urdu. By focus of negation we mean that certain elements are made more prominent in negative effect by putting nuclear stress. Consider the following sentences:

14a. kya bhartiy gae ndhl khate?

Q Indians cows not eat?

Don't Indians eat cows?

14b. kya bhartiy gae ndhl khate? s . „ / 14c. Kya bhartiy gae ndhl khate?

In (14a) bhartiy is under focus and means 'Is it not (the case) that Indians don't eat cows, (others eat it)? In (14b) the nucleus stress falls on the gae and it means 'Isn't it the case that Indians don’t eat cows, (they eat (maybe) vegetables)? In (14c) the concept of 1S6 eating has been negated altogether by stressing the particle and it semantically implies 'Isn't it the case that Indians don't eat the cow,

(maybe, they worship her)? Notice also that the contrastive intonation fall rise - conveys an affirmative meaning of a negative question.

Just as we noted earlier that not every statement has a question counterpart in Hindi-Urdu (section 4,1) so is it true that not all affirmative statements have negative counterparts, for example;

15a. m3i so rdha hu. —

Sleep ing am

I am sleeping

15b. *Kya m§i so r3ha hu?

Q Sleep ing am

Am I sleeping?

15c. Kya m3i n9hl so rdha hu?

Q I not sleep ing am 12 Aren't I sleeping?

The interpretation of (b-c) seems to be illogical since we can­ not question ourselvos (or others) while we are asleep. This accounts for the unacceptability of some of the negative questions.

The negative questions, as we noted with respect to English

(3.4), not only imply an affirmative meaning but often also convey other meanings, such as suggestion, surprise, disbelief, irritation and annoyance of and threat by the speaker. Consider for example the following sentences: 157

16a. ap ddva ndhl plege?

You pi. medicine not will drink

Won't you please take the medicine?

17a. turn 9b bdjo se bddtamlzi to ndhl karoge?

you now elders with rudeness emph. not will do

You won't be rude to the elders» anymore?

18a. tumhe dikhni ndhl deta?^

to you see not can

can't you see? N 19a. turn mujhe pdrhne ndhl doge?

you to me study not will

won't you allow me to study?

20a. sdcmuc, turn ndhl jaogc7

really, you not will go

won't you go, really?

The negative questions, in essence, are interpreted as follows:

16b. If I were you I would take the medicine.

17b, If you don't behave yourself then I am going to punish you.

18b. Of course, you can see well?

19b. Would you allow me to study without any interruption, please?

20b. I am surprised at your not going.

(16a) offers a suggestion, (17a) is a threat, (18a) expresses irritation (19a) shows annoyance and (20.a) surprise.

We have noted earlier in section (4,1.5.1) that limiters^con­ strain the formation of certain affirmative questions in Hindi-Urdu.

Similarly there are certain constraints on the formation of negative 158 ha-na questions as well. Consider, for example, the following:

21a. *kya apto cae n3hi piege?

Q You tea not drink

Won't you drink tea?

w 21b. Apto cae ndhl piege?

You 1. tea not drink

As for as you are concerned, I take it you won't drink tea.

(21a) is not well formed but (21b) is, with the use of a limiter.

This holds true with other limiters os well, just as in the case of positive ha-na questions,

4.4.2 Negative K-Questions

Negation in k-questions is as complex and interesting as it is in ha-na quostions. In the latter type of questions, wo have observed that negation has a kind of polarity of meaning but the k-questions, in addition, have other characteristics which we will discuss shortly.

Consider the following sentences:

22a. ap kdise hdi?

you pol. how are

How are you?

22b. *ap kdise n3hi h3i?

you pi. how not arc

♦How aren't you?

23a. turn bdnards se kdise nl?

you Banaras from how came

How did you come from Varanasi? 159

A * M 23b. ♦turn bdnards se kdise ndhl al?

you Varanasi from how not come

♦How didn't you come from Varanasi?

24a. von kdun hdi?

he who is

who is he?

24b. *von kdun ndhl hdi?

he who not is

♦who isn't he?

25a. gar! kdb aegi?

train when will come

when will the train come?

25b. ♦garl kdb ndhl aegi?

train when not will come

when won't the train come?

25c. gar! kdb tdk ndhi aegi?

train when till not will come

until when will the train not come?

All the (b) sentences in (22-25) above are the negative counter­ parts of the corresponding affirmative (a) sentences. The affirmatives are well-formed but the negatives are not. The reason the (b) sentences are unacceptable is that there is violation of the very presuppositions on which the questions are based. For example. (22a) presupposes you are in a certain state of condition and then the question is asked, but in (22b), we are negating the presupposition hence a well-formed question cannot be formed. However, notice that (25c) is acceptable 160 but (25b) is not. Why so? There is a difference: notice that (2Sc) presupposes that the railroad train does not come until a certain time

(which is unknown to the speaker). How, in that context, the negative question (c) does not violate any presupposition and the question is well-formed.

Not all negative k-questions are ill-formed. Consider, for example the following:

26a. turn kyo ddupte ho?

you why run are

Why do you run?

26b. turn kyo n3hi ddurte?

you why not run

Why don!t you run?

(26a) is an affirmative k-qucstion and (26b) its negative counterpart is well-formed. The main reason for it is that here no presuppositions are violated. In other words, the speaker presupposes that 'you are not running for some reason* which, in fact, is being asked. Thus the kyo-questions can be formed as negative questions whereas other k- questions constrain negation. In this connncction, one more observation is in order, namely, that (26b), and such other questions have a 'force of suggestion* whereas the following negative kyo-question does not:

27. turn kyo nBlu d3uje?

you why not run

Why didn't you run?

There is another feature of negative k-questions which dis­ tinguishes them from other negative questions in which the negative 161 counterparts do not quite correspond to the affirmative k-qucstions.

Consider for example, the following set of questions:

28a. hindl-urdu kdun bolta h3i?

Hindi-Urdu who speaks

Who speaks Hindi-Urdu?

28b. hindl-urdu k3un n3hl bolta?

Hindi-Urdu, who not speak

Who doesn't speak Hindi-Urdu?

28c. Everybody speaks Hindi-Urdu.

29a. mohdn kc pas kya h3i?

Mohan with what is

What docs Mohan have?

29b. mohdn ke pas kya n3hl hdi?

Mohan with what not is

What doesn't Mohan have?

29c. Mohan has everything

30a. 3pna bdcca kiso pyara h3i?

own child whom lovoly is

Who likes his owm child?

30b. 3pna bdcca kise pyara ndhl?

own child whom lovely not

Who doesn't like his own child?

30c. Everybody likes his own child.

In (28-30) the (b) sentences are the negative counterparts of the positive (a) sentences in (28-30). However, they cannot be inter­ preted literally; instead, they are understood as rhetorical questions 162

(cf. Pope 1972).

There is yet another interesting aspect of the affirmative k- questions. Often a speaker utters a positivo k-question but he intends

(and conveys) a negative meaning. Consider, for example, the following:

31a. K3un janta h3i?

Who knows

Who knows?

31b. Koi n3hl janta*

Somebody not know

Nobody knows (it).

32a. Kise malum?

Whom know

Who knows?

32b. KisX ko ndhl malum.

Anybody not know

Nobody knows (it).

33a. Y3ha kya h3i?

Hero what is

What is here?

33b. Ydha kuch ndhl

Here some not

There isn't anything here»

All the (a) sentences in (31-33) are positive k-questions which, in effect, convey a negative meaning as in the (b) sentences.

All that has been said in regard to (simple) negative k-questions above holds true, in the main, of the reduplicated k-questions as well 163

(4.2.3) as, for example:

34a. apne I3nd3n me kya kya dckha?

you pol. ag.m, London in what what saw

What different things did you see in London?

34b. apne 13nd3n me kya kya n3hl dekha?

you pol. ag.m. London in what what not saw

What different things did you not see in London?

35a. h3m logo nc kya kya ndhl dekha?

we people ag.m. what what not sec

What didn't we see?

35b. h3m logo ne sdbkuch dekhe

We people ag.m. everything saw

We saw all.

(34b) is a negative counterpart of (34o) and both are well-formed sentences. However (35a) although a negative, has an affirmative mean ing. This shows that the reduplicated negative k-questions behavo similarly to the single k-questions in their negative form.

To sum up, what wo have discussed in connection with the negative questions is a characteristic feature of the rhetorical questions, i.e. a rhetorical question has the force of opposite polarity. In other words, a positive question conveys a negative mean ing and a negative question that of a positive meaning. 164

CHAPTER IV

NOTES

*It is interesting to note that the most common order is SOV. Of the approximately 5000 languages in the world, 90% have SOV and SVO orders and only 10% have VSO order. 2 See Colin Masica 1976, Defining A Linguistic Area.

For a good treatment of some linguistic features of Hindi-Urdu in general and verbs in particular, see Yamuna Kachru (1965. An Introduction to Hindi Syntax, Urbana, Illinois.

4Sce Jeoffrey Hackman, 1976, An Integrated Analysis of the Hindi tense and aspect system, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana.

^For a detailed study of this feature, see Ahmad Siddiqui 1965, The Language of Respect in Urdu, M.A. thesis, University of London, London.

6Notice that rw is impossible in the second place in the answering sentence, 7 On the question answering system in Hindi, see Tej Bhatia 1974, "The coexisting answering systems and the role of prosuppositions, implications and expectations in Hindi simplex yes/no questions."

Notice that the rising intonation is a universal proporty of non-final speech acts and the falling intonation is that of a final speech act. For example, if one counts to five, one will notice that his pitch will remain high on each digit and will fall on the last one, i.e., the non-final digit utterance will get rising intonation. q In Hindi-Urdu it is very common to use compound verbs. The composition of such verb(s) is V.Stem operator (Kachru 1966). Often such verbs carry an overtone of completion or emphasis.

10. The concept of 'marked’ and 'unmarked' features in linguistics was first found in the writings of Trubetzkoy and Jakobson of the Prague Circle in the thirties.

**For a detailed analysis of negation in Hindi-Urdu and some other Indian languages, see Tej Bhatia 1977. "A syntactic and semantic description of negation in selected Indo-Aryan languages" (forthcoming University of Illinois Doctoral dissertation). 165

12 These, however, may be well-formed if wo interpret alternative­ ly 'will I sleep at your place', 'won't I sleep at your place', etc... 13 Deletion, as we know, is a frequent phenomenon in Hindi-Urdu. Saying a full form of ha-na question with kya sounds very bookish on the one end of the scale and on the other, just the VP with negation, if any, is common in colloquial form, However, the form in which the subject is deleted and the object is retained, constitutes a form mid­ way between the two extremes (cf. 4.0.7). CHAPTER V

CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS

5.1 Comparison of The English and Hindi-Urdu Yes-No Questions

In comparing English and Hindi-Urdu systems with reference to

yes-no questions we shall consider not only the differences but also the

similarities which causo difficulties and facilities respectively in

learning English or Hindi-Urdu as a second language. On another level,

we will examine not only the 'grnmmaticolity' in the two systems but

also 'appropriacy* which involves extralinguistic pragmatic considera­

tions.

First I will discuss features that are common to or shared by both the languages. In discussing yes-no questions in English (3.1) and

ha-na questions in Hindi-Urdu (4.1.1) we established a higher sentence or Performative sentence as the source for questions in general. In

other words, yes-no and ha-na questions have the same deep structuro;

it is in the surfaco realization that we encounter differences with

reference to their language specific features. Both are derived from

and are considered as subsets of alternative questions (3.1.4). Both

are used as reduced alternative questions and have the same type of

intonation patterns i.e. rising intonation. There is one form of yes-

no question that has the same declarative structure and rising intona­

tion in English as well as in Hindi-Urdu, except that each follows the

166 167 characteristic word order of the language, i.e., SVO in English and

SOV in Hindi-Urdu. For example:

ENGLISH HINDI-URDU

la. She will type my paper? lb. voh mera p3rca taip kBregl?

S V O S O V

she my paper type will do

Will she type my paper?

2a. You know Sanskrit? 2b. turn Sanskrit jnnte ho?

S V O you Sanskrit know ore

Do you know Sanskrit?

The question mark signals the rising intonation, it is a punctuation device, so no need for further marking. The above discussion exhausts all the similarities between the two systems. The rost is an account of differences between the two systems.

The basic contrast between yes-no and ha-na questions is seen in their respective word order. English has, as we noted earlier, one structure in declarative but a different one in tho interrogative.

Hindi-Urdu on the other hand, has tho same declarative order for both a statement and a question. The word order in English is changed by the inversion of tho subject and auxiliary in the sentence (tho phenomenon we designated as SAI (3.1.2). No such inversion is involved in the formation of ha-na questions in Hindi-Urdu except for purposes of focus (4.4.1). Consider for example:

3a. You are going home,

3b. Are you going home?

4a. turn ghar jar3he ho. 168

2 4b. turn gh3r ja rdhe ho?

The basic device is to add a question word at the sentence initial position which marks the sentence as a ha-na question =as, for example:

5a. turn bhardtna^ydm pds3nd kdrte ho.

you BharatNatyam to like are

You like Bharat Natyam,

5b. kya turn bhardtnajydm pdsdnd k3rte ho?

Q you Bharat Natyam to like are

'Do you like Bharat Natyam?'

Sc. kya tumhe bhar3t natydm pdsdnd h3i?

Q to you Bharat Natyam like is

Do you like Bharat Natyam?

Sentence (5a) is a statement, kya has been added at the beginning in

(b) to make it a ha-na question. Sentence (5c) however, is a variant in that the subjoct is in the dative form because of the type of verb used in the sentence.

Notice that the initial kya may optionally bo moved to the sentence final position,

5d. tumhe bhardt natyam pdsdnd hdi kya? which often marks familiarity and casual speech in Hindi-Urdu.

In English, SAI occurs in questions but when there is no auxiliary used for tense then Do in its appropriate form is used as, for example:

6a. He is eating mangoes.

6b. Is he eating mangoes? but 169

7a. He eats mangoes.

7b. Does he eat mangoes?

8a. Mary went to see the Taj Mahal.

8b. Did Mary go to see the Taj Mahal?

Scntecc 7a) is in the past tense, hence the past tense of do i.e. did * 1—1 in (8b). Also there is number agreement between the subject and cto, as, for example:

9a. Most American Indians live on the reservations.

9b. Do most American Idnians live on the resservation?

10a. Marlon Brando fights for the Indians,

lob. Does Marlon Brando fight for tho Indiana?

The phenomenon which we may term Do-support, not only in question formation but also in negation in declarative as well as interrogative sentences. Consider for example:

11a. He likes to be a bachelor,

lib. Does he like to be a bachelor?

11c. Does het.not liko to be a bachelor?

lid. Doesn't he liko to be a bachelor?

In (11a) we have a simple statement, in (lib) a yes-no positive ques­ tion but in (11c) a negative question. However, (lid) is the standard form of negative question where Neg. fronting has been applied i.e. the post-nominal position in the contracted form and attached to the . auxiliary. Notice a difference in the use of the negative in the above contracted and noncontracted forms. The contracted form attached with the Aux (lid) is a common and informal use whereas that of the non­ contracted and unattached form is a formal use in English (11c). 170

One might*parenthetically note that there is an important

semantic difference between the use of a positive yes-no question and

the use of a negative one. In general, a negative question is the op­

posite of positive but this is not quite true in the case of yes-no

questions. Consider the following;

12a. Did you swim lost night?

12b. Didn't you swim last night?

In (12a) the speaker is neutral in his belief and subsequently in the

expectation of a positive or negative answer from the addressee. But

in using (12b) the speaker is positive about his belief that the

addressee did swim last night. In other words the speaker means:

13. You swam last night.

Such negative questions carry positive presuppositions in English.

In Hindi-Urdu negative particle remains in its original position,

i.e. the prevorbal position as, for example:

Ha. tumne cad p3r adml utBrte n3hl dekha.

you moon on man landing not saw

You did not sco tho man landing on the moon.

14b. Kya turn no cad pdr adml utdrte n3hi dekha?

Q you moon on man landing not saw

'Didn't you sec the roan landing on the moon? M In (14a) and (14b) the negative particle n3hi remains in the same position.

In English yes-no questions, the Aux and the subject deletion is 3 not possible but in Hindi-Urdu, either Kya or tho subject or both can be easily deleted. Consider the following: 171

15a. Kya tumhe mdsaledar Khnnc ndhl pdsdnd? M 15b. tumhe mdsaledar Khanc ndhl pdsdnd?

4> <£ mdsaledar Khane ndhl pdsdnd?

Q you spicy food not like

Don't you like spicy food?

A stylistically different way of asking yes-no questions in both

English and Hindi-Urdu is to use the reduced alternative form with the conjoined negative particle.

16a. Did you see Ajanta or not?

16b. tumne djdnta dekha ya ndhi?

you ag.m. Ajanta saw or not?

But there is an alternative device in Hindi-Urdu:

16c. turn ne djdnta dekha ki^ ndhl?

♦did you see Ajanta that not?

Did you see Ajanta or not?

Although Jd elsewhere functions as a complementizer it functions like a disjunction in this construction.

We can summerizo the formal mechanisms involved in the production of English and Hindi-Urdu yes-no questions, in the following way:

17. ENGLISH YNQ: SAI

Positive Do-support

Rising Intonation 172

SAI

Do-support

Negative Neg-fronting Aux+NEG+Subj Neg-contraction

NEG-noncontraction (Aux+subj +NEG)

18. HINDI-URDU ha-na:

positiV(* Kya PreS

NEG kya ♦ NEG Insertion

Rising Intonation

Positive/NEG:fkya -.Deletion (optional) subj Polite h5-na: + plural

Positive/Neg: kya postposition (optional)

Some of tho above processes are optional, others obligatory. This in­ formation is presented in the following table.

In tho following table of 12 items wo notice only two features that are common in both the languages of which (1) is optional in

English but obligatory in Hindi-Urdu. No (3) is obligatory in both.

Here wo have no problem, so is with (1). But the most frequent form of yes-no question is with inversion i.e. SAI (2) which is absent from

H-U and causes problem to the learners of English as a second language.

Tho Hindi-Urdu speaker learning English has further problem with the situation where there is no auxiliary and ho has to add appropriate form of Ito a dummy auxiliary which carries tense. (5) and (6) involve mov­ ing the Neg. particle and attaching it to the Aux in contracted form.

Contraction is another problem for the H-U speakers who miss this often in declarative and other type of sentences as well. The following table 173

19. Tabic 3 YNQ Processes

No Features E H-U Common to E 8 H-U

1 Decl. Word order op ob

2 SAI ob 0

3 Rising Intonation ob ob

4 Do-Support ob 0

5 NEG-fronting op 0

6 NEG-Contraction ob 0

6a NEG in pre-V position 0 ob

7 Kya Pro-S. 0 ob

8 Kya Postpose 0 op

9 Kya Del. 0 op

10 Subj-Del. 0 op

11 Polite marker/plural 0 ob

12 NEG Copula-Del. 0 °P...

thus indicates clearly the complexity of the task facing a Hindi-Urdu speaker learning YNQ's in English.

The native speakers of English learning Hindi-Urdu as a foreign language have relatively easier task to perforin and few skills to learn in the formation of ha-na questions. All they have to do is add kya in the pre-S position (7) and since they already use the rising intonation with YNQ's in their own language it does not pose any problem. Once they learn to add kya in the sentence initial position they can also optionally postpose it or can delete it. However, they 174

have to learn subject deletion, a common phenomenon in Hindi-Urdu, as well as Be^deletion in the negative questions.

An important aspect of the language to be learned by the non-

native learners of H-U is the number category for politeness as, for

example:

20a. Kya tumhare dost parjl me ar3he h3i?

Q you pi. friend party in coming pi. are

♦Are your friend coming to tho party?

20b. *Kya tumhara dost parjl mo ar3ha h3i?

Q your sg. friend party in coming sg. is

Is your friend coming to the party?

Notico that although tho samo person is being referred to by both tumhara dost 'Your (sg.) friend' and tumhare dost 'Your (pi.) friend', only the

latter is acceptable in tho context. This is because in H-U, one must use tho plural number for deference. This is an area that is most significant and needs to be learnt by non-native speakers. It will be highly impolite to the point of insult if one asked a guest:

21a. Kya turn cae plogc?

Q you tea drink

'Will you drink tea?'

21b. 0 turn cae ploge?

21c. 0 0 cae ploge?

It is insulting because the plural form (indicating respect) is missing and hence is inappropriate in the context of the Indian social norm.

First, it would be better if one said^ 22a. Kya a£ cae plyege?

Q you pol. tea will drink pi.

Will you drink tea?

22b. 0 ap cae piycge?

22c. 0 cae piycge?

Second, it would be most appropriate not to ask directly but offer a

suggestion for drinking tea as, for example:

23a. b3i£hiyc mdi cae latl/bdnatl/bdnvatl hu.

sit pol. I tea bring/makc/causo to make, am

'Please sit down, I will bring/makc/have make tea,'

or

23b. b3ithiyc, sath cao pi jaegl.

sit pol. together tea drink will go

'please take a scat, we will have tea togcthor.' or some such other expression ratherthan astraight forward question.

This doesn't imply, however, that there is no such consideration or

expression in English to be learned by the learnersof English as a

second language. There are lexical and idiomatic devices but not syntactically transparent devices such as tho ones found in Hindi-Urdu.

As for other syntactic features for the non-native H-U speakers agreement in number, gender and case as is also required for other

types of sentences in the language, is necessary in the formation of ha-na questions. One specific structure to learn is the use of optative form of the verb in ha-na questions where English uses (a regular) a non-optative verb as for example. 176

25. Kya m3! 3nd3r au?

Q I in come

•May I come in?'

26. Kya s3bn3m guriya khelc?

Q Shabnam doll play

Should/can Shabnam play with dolls?

Notice that tho use of optative forms arc appropriate specifically in

seeking one's permission for both the speaker and the person referred

to.

The observations made above concerning the appropriate syntactic

forms required in asking certain typos of questions are proporly con­

sidered part of the pragmatics of interrogation in Hindi-Urdu. Related

to this topic is the question of norms of answering which are as im­

portant as the norms of questioning. This may be illustrated using an

example from English. When one person is being introduced to another

it is polite to say ’How do you do?* Now, although this utterance is

in form a question, pragmatically, it needs no answer, but rathor a

repetition of the question. This kind of linguistic interaction has

been termed 'phatic communion' by some linguists.4 A native speaker of

Hindi-Urdu learning English must, therefore, acquire not only tho

formal properties of questions in English but the pragmatic norms governing their use as well, so that he might not find himself in an

cmbarrasing position by, for example, attempting to provide an

elaborate account of the state of his health or wealth in response to a 'How do you do?' 177

5.2 Comparison of Tho English and Hindi-Urdu Information Question

The direct information questions in both English (3.2) and Hindi-

Urdu (4.2) as the label suggests, seek information. Both English and

Hindi-Urdu have a question word beginning with Wh- and JK- respectively in information questions. The remote structures of the Wh- and JC- questions are identical in that both are derived from higher performative clauses which distinguish them from their declarative counterparts as for example:

1. I ask of you.

you tell me S

The performative clauses aro deleted at the superficial level and what we have as a surface realization are the forms that look difforent in both the languages but perform the same function of seeking information.

One way of distinguishing yes-no and ha-na questions from other speech acts is the rising intonation (4.1.2). In information questions, on the other hand, the intonation is just the opposite of yes-no questions, i.e. the information questions have a falling intonation in both

English and Hindi-Urdu as for example:

2. Who is going to climb up Mount Eve___

3. K3un evrest p3r c3rhne jarSha noit

who Everest on climb going is

♦Who is going to climb up Mount Everest?

In (2) and (3) we have a question word who and k3un respectively and 1 178

they end in a falling intonation. Perhaps the falling intonation is a

universal feature of declarative and question word interrogativcs in

natural languages.

Perhaps as we will see in the following paragraphs, the super­

ficial differences outweigh the similarities in the formation of the

information questions in English and Hindi-Urdu. The most significant

difference between the two languages lies in the fact that English

requires movement and Hindi-Urdu does not in the formation of inter­

rogative sentences. In English, the Wh- words are first attached to the

constituents to be questioned in the sentence and second they are moved

to the front of tho question sentence. The fronting of Wh-form trig­

gers Subject-Auxiliary inversion which yields a well formed sentence.

Consider the following sentences:

4a. you saw 'Jaws' at someplace.

4b. you saw 'Jaws' Wh- at someplace.

4c. you saw 'Jaws' where

4d. whore you saw 'Jaws?'

4c. Where idd you see 'Jaws?'

4f, Where did you see 'Jaws?'

Sentence (4a) underlies (4f) since the presupposition of the question

is (a) which also functions as the source for the derivation of (f).

The intermediary structuro (b) has a Wh morophemo attached to the con­

stituent to be questioned which in (c) has been replaced by 'where'.

In (d) 'where' has been moved to tho front of the sentence but still the sentence is not well-formed yet. Since there is no Aux in the sentence the dummy Do in this case the pretrit form 'did has been added 179 in (e) and then SAI has applied to produce the question given in (4f).

There is no SAI involved in Hindi-Urdu (cf. yes-no/ha-na). In other words, there is no change from declarative to interrogative word order. But in the derivation of the Hindi-Urdu information questions two processes, the K- attachment and K-word insertion are involved.

Consider the following:

5a. tumne 3jdnta me koiciz dckhl.

you ag.m. Ajanta in something saw

Sb. tumne 3j3nta me k-kolchlz dckhl.

you Ajanta in Wh- something saw * Sc. tumne djdnta mo kya dekha?

you ag.m. Ajanta in What saw

What did you sec in Ajanta?

Sentence (Sa) undorlics (c) since (c) presupposes (a)• In (b) the £- has been attached to symbolize that the constituent is to be questioned.

Then an appropriate Jk- form i.e, kya has been inserted which produces the well-formed question in (Sc). Since movement is not required in

H-U as is essential in English, there is no k^- word to preface the question. However, if a constituent occurs in the subject position, then tho Ic-word i.e. k3un occurs in the sentence initial position as, for example:

6 . kdun aya?

Who came?

Notice that very often the j^-form occurs in preverbal position as, for example; 180

7. tBmasa k3b suru hoga?

show when begin will be

'when will the show begin?'

8 . ap 3gll gBrml kl chujjiyo me k3ha jaege?

you next summor of vacation in where go will

•Where will you go during next summer vacation?

No matter how long the sentence and whatever the intervening material between the subject and the verb, the k-words occur in preverbal position as in (7) and (8) above, except a few cases discussed earlier.

In negative Wh-questions, as is the caso with yes-no questions, the negative particle occurs after the auxiliary. For example,

9a. Who is coming to the party?

9b. Who isn't coming to the party?

10a. Why did you make a tall snowman?

10b. Why didn't you make a tall snowman?

The Negative k-questions in Hindi-Urdu, do not pose any problem since, in general the negative particle n3hi (and it's shorter form no) occurs before the Verb, For example,

11a. apko kBisI sapiya pdsdnd hdi?

you Dat.m. what kind of sarees like are

What kind of sarees do you like?

11b. apko k3isl sariya n31n p3s3nd (h3i)?

you Dat.m. what kind of sarees not like (are)

'What kind of sarees don't you like? 1

In (lib) the negative counterpart of (11a) the Neg, particle occurs before the VP and after k-word k3isl. 181

There are other two sub-types of k-questions in H-U which have

no counterparts in English— Reduplicated k-qucstions and Multiple k-

qucstions. The reduplicated questions (4.2.3) contain two k-forms of

the same type as, for example

12. tumne sad! kl dav3t me kya kya khaya?

you wedding of dinner in what what ate

What did you cat at tho wedding dinner?

The other type-multiple k-question (4.2.4) is actually a string k-

question in that it allows stacking of question words in a sentence.

Thisfeature is unlike in English that does not allow stacking of wh-

words as, for example.

13. hindustan ko k9b kdisc Bur kisse azadi mill?

India to when, how and from whom independence got

13a. *When how and from whom idd India get freedom?

13b. When and how and from whom did India get freedom?

14. k3b kisnc kise k3ha mat dl?

when who whom whore defeat gave

4 14a. *when who whom whore defeated?

14b. who defeated whom, when and where?

The English equivalents (13a) and (14a) of the H-U questions are both

unacceptable since a string of Wh-forms is not allowed. However,

(13b) and (14b) are acceptable. In the (b) sentences the stacking has

been constrained which make them normal English questions.

The differences and similarities in the processes involved in

the formation of direct information questions in English and Hindi-Urdu

are presented below: 17. English Wh-questions:

Wh-attachmcnt

Wh-movement

Positive Q* SAI

Do-support

Falling Intonation

Wh-attachment

Wh-movement

NEG-Fronting ^

NEGative Q NEG-Contract ion J

SAI

Do-support

Falling Intonation

18. Hindi-Urdu {(-questions:

{(-attachment

Positive Q IK-form insertion

Falling Intonation

K-attachment

{(-insertion

NEGative Q * NEG-incorporation

"Falling intonation

Some of these processes are optional and some are obligatory. What optional in one language could be obligatory in the other, These features are summarized in the following table: 183

19. Table 4 WHQ Processes

No Features E H-U Common to E ♦ H-U

1 Declarative word order 0 ob

2 SAI ob 0

3 Wh-/JC- attachment ob ob

4 Wh- movemont ob 0

5 WH-/JC- insertion 0 ob

6 Do-support ob 0

7 NEG-fronting op 0

8 NEG-Contraction ob 0

9 NEG-in pre-V position 0 ob

10 J(-Rcduplication 0 op

11 K-Multiplication 0 op6

12 NEG Copula-Del. 0 op

13 Subj-Del. 0 op

14 Plural of Respect 0 ob

15 Falling Intonation ob ob

The native speaker of Hindi-Urdu faces the basic problem of dif­

ferent word order in English as shown in item (1) above. The delcarative order is obligatory in H-U questions, but is not employed in English.

Instead, inversion is obligatory in English which causes problems for

Indian learners.

The H-U speakers tend to keep the declarative word order in the question too--a sign of the native interference in the acquisition of 184

a second language. For example the H-U speaker tends to say,

20a. *Why she is going out in the cold?

instead of

20b. Why is she going out in the cold?

or

21a. *When you will start the dishwasher?

instead of the correct form

21b. When will you start the dishwasher?

On the otherhand, English speakers learning tl-U will have no

difficulty with regard to the word order in a Hindi-Urdu question.

English and H-U speakers both will have no problem with regard

to the intonation pattern which is the same-falling--in both languages.

Processes (3-5) concern the use of question words. Both the

languages have a common obligatory process of wh-attachment to the

constituents to be questioned. However, the subsequent procedures are

different. In English the question word has to be moved to the sentence

initial position whereas in H-U there is no movement. Instead, the

i K-word is inserted in the pro-verbal position.

The H-U speaker has to learn to distinguish between who and what

on the one hand, and which which carries the feature + specific, on the other. The English speaker has, on the other hand, a more difficult

task to master--tho proper uso of the J(-forms, especially the 'dative'

and the 'oblique' forms. Those ore many and confusing to non-native

speakers, although they have a consistency of form and function. The

Hindi-Urdu speakers needs to learn the proper use of a pre-position 185 with a wh-form but the English counterparts have a more involved skill to learn. Consider the following one-to-one and one-to-many correspondence:

22. English Tindi-Urdu Reduplicated

kdun kdun

kya kya

kdunsa kdunsa kdunsa

Which kdunse kdunse kdunse

kdunsl kdunsl kdunsl

kise kise

kisko kisko kisko'7 Whom kinhe kinhe kinhe

kinko kinko kinko

kiska kiska kiska

kiske kiske kisko

kiskl kiskl kiskl Whose kinka kinka kinka

kinke kinke kinke

kinkl kinkl kindl

It is interesting to note that a large number of H-U counter­ parts of the English forms are available in the language. The English speaker has to choose from many against one. As we see above the choices are one to one (only two items), one to three (which), one to four (whom) and one to six (whose). The choices double when we take into account the 'Reduplicated' k^forms, which as discussed earlier, are frequently used items in H-U. Why is there such a large number of k-words in H-U, one might ask. This is due to the fact that H-U distinguishes k-forms not only in terms of number but also gender hence, 186 the seemingly incomprehensible large number of forms against a few

English forms that do not carry number and gender inflection and lack special forms in dative case.

There is, however, a system and regularity in the pattern in which these forms are organized in the language. If the foreign learner internalizes the feature(s) that make them regular then he is able to question in H-U with a native like competence. If, for example, the learner learns the rule that a masc. sg. word ending in -a changes to

-e and -I for plural and feminine gender, respectively then he can generalize other such forms and make his task less arduous.

Related with the lo-insertion is the problem of ^-multiplication which is optional in H-U but absent from English (11). There are multiple wh-qucstions in English but H-U multiple k-qucstions differ from English in that the latter docs not allow stacking i.e. the wh- forms must occur with intervening items in the questions. Compare, for example.

23. kisnc kiso kdb cuma?

who whom when kissed

23a. *who whom when kissed?

23b. *who kissed when whom?

24. who kissed whom and when?

Sentence (23) is a well-formed multiple k-quostion in H-U but when rendered into English (a) and (b) both versions are unacceptable due to stacking. However, the well formed English equivalent of (23) is

(24) in which the wh-words are interspersed with othor items, namely verb and conjunction. 187

For the H-U speakers learning English processes (6-8) pose great difficulty. Dcr-support is related to the process of SAI in that if there is no Aux in the sentence then this dummy item is introduced to function as an Aux and, subsequently, NEG is attached to this and contracted. In this case, the.learning consists of matching a category which lacks exponents in one language with one which has multiple exponents in the other:

25. H-U English

Do

Docs

Did

It is confusing also because of the fact that cto goes with not only 'I' but also 'we', 'you1 and ’they' whereas 'did1 goes with all the persons and does goes with 'he', 'she' and 'it'.

The NEG fronting and contraction, again, are absent from H-U and, conversely NOG retention in the preverbal position is lacking in

English. The H-U speaker has to internalize, in addition to SAI, NEG fronting and contraction, whereas English speaker must remember not to move the NEG from its original position.

Another set of features of H-U are (12) and (13) that involve

Be Deletion in case the question is negative and also subject deletion.

Both the processes are optional.

A distinct featuro of H-U is the form of respect which has syntactic as well semantic implication. One important way of showing respect is the use of plural of respect (PR) in H-U (14). This causes problem to a foreign learner. English nouns agree with verbs 188 in number and so does H-U but there is a non-agreement situation too, where deference is involved. For example,

26. apkl ma kya k3r r8hl h§i?

your mother what doing are

26a. *'What are your mother doing?'

26b. 'What i£ your mother doing?'

The English translation in (a) makes no sense and violates a general constraint, but (b) is a good question. However in Hindi-Urdu the verb has to disagree in number with the noun forplural ofrespect. Thisis also true of other forms such as nouns, pronouns, adjectives, etc. (see section 4.0}.

5.3 Comparison of the English and Hindi-Urdu Tag Questions

In this section we will compare the third typo of questions in

English and Hindi-Urdu — tag questions (3.3 and 4.3), A tag question is frequently used in conversational speech, as opposed to, say, formal speech. It differs from other types of questions in both English and

Hindi-Urdu. As noted earlier, tag questions, in English, have an extremely complicated structure compared to other natural languages such as French and Japanese.

There are certain features though that are common to both

English and Hindi-Urdu. Tag questions, first of all, do not seek information or answer in the negative or affirmative, but, rather, seek confirmation of a statement. The confirmation sought for by the speaker could be either positive or negative. Tag questions in both languages have a statement part and a tag part. In both languages tag questions 189 end in a falling intonation.

There is a number of important differences in the structure of tag questions in English and Hindi-Urdu. A tag question in English con­ sists of a statement and a tag appended to it. The structure of the tag in English, then, may be said to consist of two clauses. On the con­ trary, its counterpart in Hindi-Urdu consists of a single clause to­ gether with a postposcd particle. Consider the following:

1. She is smart, isn't sho?

2. He is a linguist, isn't he?

Both (1) and (2) consist of two parts each; the main clauses are a declarative sentence and the tag an interrogative one. Both are posi­ tive questions based on the declarative clause. However, they could be negative too as, for example:

3. They are not going to drink tonight, are they?

4. The tornado hasn't hit Champaign, has it?

Note that the main clauses in (3) and (4] both contain a negation. As a rule, tag questions exhibit what is termed polarity inversion, i.e. if the main clause is positive, then the tag will be negative and if the main clause is negative then the tag will bo positive, as in (1) and

(2), and (3) and (4) respectively.

Now consider the following sentences:

5. John took flying lossons, didn't ho?

6. Mary learned modern dancing, didn't she?

7. John and Mary love to eat popcorn, don't they?

All three sentences (5-7) contain a noun in thoir main clauses but in each the tag contains a corresponding pronoun. As we noted earlier, 190 the tag is formed by copying the subject (in pronominal form) and the auxiliary, and reversing their order. If the main sentence does not contain an auxiliary, the 'dummy* particle is inserted. The auxiliary,

(or do) attracts the contracted form of the negative not. The negative is used just in case the main sentence-is positive.

In Hindi-Urdu, on the other hand, the particle na 'not' is ap­ pended to the main clause, irrespective of whether the main sentence is positive or negative. For example:

8. CamskI ke riscp£3n me turn the na?

Chomsky of reception in you wore not

You were in Chomsky's reception, were you not?

9. CamskI ka lekcdr logone pdsdnd kia na?

Chomsky of lecture people like did not

People liked Chomsky's lecture, didn't they?

M 10. turn isno ndhi pdsdnd kdrto na?

you snow not like do not

You don't like snow, do you?

11. Su parti me ndhi arahl (hdi) na?

Sue party in not coming is not

Sue is not coming to the party, is she?

(8) and (9) are positive tag questions with a na postposed and (10) and

(11) ore their negative counterparts. Unlike in English, in the above sentences, no polarity is involved. The tag particle no is invariable in both positive and negative sentences. There is, however, a change in the position of the tag particle. It can optionally occur in pre­ verbal position as, for example, 12a. tumne nehru jl kl t3qrir sunl h3i na?

you ag.m. Nehru of speech listen Is not

You have listened to Nehru's speech, haven't you?

12b. turn ne nehru jl ki t3qrlr sunl na h3I

In view of certain similarities and differences in the features

of tag questions in English and Hindi-Urdu, we can summarize them in

the comparative table (13) below:

13. Table 5 Tag Q Processes

No Featurse E H-U Common to E + H-U

1 Declarative (main clause) ob ob X

2 Tagged statement ob ob X

3 A second 'interrogative' clause ob 0

4 Declarative and Negative particle 0 ob

5 Polar(ity) tag ob 0

6 Copy of Subj + Aux ob 0

7 DO-Support ob 0 •

8 Pronominalization ob 0

9 Tense agreement ob 0

10 SAI ob 0

11 Rising intonation op op X

12 Particle postposed 0 ob

13 Particle switch 0 op

14 VP-reduplication 0 op

15 Falling intonation ob ob X

16 NEG-Contraction ob 0 192

Tabic 5 (13) reveals that tag questions have some features and processes in common in the two languages. The common features are that both languages have a declarative in the main clause which further contains a tag (1) and (2) respectively. Both features are obligatory but the tag in English is an interrogative one (3) which is affected by copying the subject and auxiliary from the main clause (6), a process absent in Hindi-Urdu. In English, in case there is no auxiliary, an appropriate form of Do is inserted (7) and the subject is pronominalizcd

(8). The tense agrees with that of tho main clause (9) and then SAI applies (10). The tag is always of tho opposite polarity to the main clause (5), i.e. if the main clause is positive the tag is negative and if it is negative then the tag is positive, as for example:

14. You watch 'All in tho Family', don't you?

15. You don't watch 'Good Times', do you7

16. Susan will watch 'Maude' won't she?

17. Barb won't watch 'Mary Tyler Moore Show', will she?

18. Your dog is pretty smart, isn'tfit^?

he shcJ 19a. There arel9Vols of the Encyclopedia Britannica, aren't there?

19b. *There arel9Vols of the Encyclopedia Britannica, aren't they?

(14) is a positive and (IS) a negative tag question, respectively. Pro- nominalization is not required since the subject is already a pronoun.

However, Do is added to carry appropriate tense. (16) on the other hand, involves pronominalization since the main clause subject is a noun.

Further, the pronoun agrees in gender, number and person with the subject, 193 just as in (17). The situation is complicated in (18). In the Indian context, it is appropriate to refer to a dog using a neuter pronoun, but such usage might offend the master/mistress of the dog in the American context. This shows that the choice of pronoun can also at times pose a problem in the correct use of tag questions.

The rpoblem in (19) is a purely granunatical one. There is no noun or pronoun in the subject position in the main clause except that there is a dummy expletive there. The foreign learner of English will tend to put 'they' since the logical subject of the sentence is the books. However, grammatically there functions as subject, hence this is the correct form to be used in tho tag.

Consider tho following sentences where the problem is not with pronominalization but with the auxiliary:

20a. You have an Indian rug, haven't you?

20b. You have an Indian rug, don't you?

The native speakers themselves will have different versions. The

British speakers will tend to use (a) with have whereas the Americans will prefer (b) (don’t) since tho latter will consider have as the main verb. The foreign learner will have to follow the particular dialect he is learning: the British or the American.

Both English and Hindi-Urdu have one type of intonation for tags, namely the falling intonation. It is obligatory in English and in

Hindi-Urdu. In Hindi-Urdu, tho rising intonation (in certain dialects) seeks confirmation, whereas in English it is tho falling intonation that is used for this purpose. Tho rising intonation implies an inquiry in affirmation or negation. In the falling intonation, the speaker has 194 a positive supposition as to what he believes, and expects its con­ firmation from the listener. To bo more precise, Hindi-Urdu tags have rise-fall or rising intonation, not straight fall.

In Hindi-Urdu, instead of a tag in the form of an interrogative there is a particle na added to the declarative sentence (12) as for example:

21. tumhc jani karsdn p3s3nd h3i na?

You Johny Carson like are not

You like Johny Carson, don't you?

22a, Kam karne me tumhe p3risfanl to ndhi hot! na?

work to do in to you difficulty emph. not to be not.

You don't have any difficulty in work, do you?

^ y M ^ 22b. kam karne mo tumhe pdnsani to n3hl na hoti?

(21) is a positive tag question to which na has been postposed. (22a) and (22b) are negative tag questions. The difference between (a) and

(b) is that in the lattor the position of the particle from sentence final to preverbal has been changed but no difference in moaning. It seems Hindi-Urdu tag questions have a rising intonation in addition to a falling one common in English.

From tho point of an Indian learner, formation of the tag is what creates most difficulty since it is an entirely new process he has to learn, and the process itself is so complex. The Hindi-Urdu speaker first finds a one to one corclation in the dolcarative structure in the main clause. Hence this part of tag question formation does not pose any problems. The tag question is composed of two clauses, a delcarative and an interrogative. It is the interrogative part that 195

causes difficulty since it involves not only copying of Subject and

Auxiliary but also Do incorporation and an agreement in the tense and

in gender, number and person in tho subject of tho tag clause. In other

words, the Hindi-Urdu learner has to acquire a complex category which is

completely absent in his native language. The English learner of Hindi-

Urdu, on the other hand, has to learn a simple process of particle

postposing which docs not exist in English i.e.

23. English Hindi-Urdu

0 particle na

The relative complexity of tho task facing tho Hindi-Urdu learner of

English is presented in the following comparative table:

24. Hindi-Urdu English

copying of Subj. and Aux.

Pronominalization

Do support

SAI na addition _____ Tense agreement

Polarization of tag

Intonation

NEG-contraction

The English speaker has to learn at least two optional rules:

English Hindi-Urdu

0 ' _ — ------particle swith

VP-Reduplication

Further, he has to learn that rise-falling intonation is obligatory in

O Hindi-Urdu whereas it is optional in English: 196

English Hindi-Urdu

opt — Rising Inton — opt

oblig -- Falling Inton -- 0

Tho Hindi-Urdu speaker learning English has to learn what is obligatory

in Hindi-Urdu is optional in English and what is zero is obligatory in

English.

Considering the complexity of the process of tag formation in

English, it is not surprising that Hindi-Urdu learners make a number

of mistakes. It is also not surprising that most of their mistakes

arise from a transfer of their native language experience into their

English speech. For example, consider tho following:

25. *Hc has gone to see tho Yellowstone Park, isn't it?

26. *She likes to dance, isn't it?

27. *The guests will be here at 7 p.m., isn't it?

28. *Rama is a good crickoteer, isn't it?

29. It is raining hard, isn't it?

30. Chicago is a windy city, isn't it?

Sentences (25) through (28) are not well-formed English sentences because of the wrong tags in them, What we see is "isn't it" tagged on

to all the declarative sentences, It seems consistent and simple but not grammatical. The rule has been applied to (29) and (30) which are coincidentally correct as the pronoun, auxiliary and the tense all agree with the subject and verb of the statement.

Why is the above phenomenon so common among the Indian learners of English? There are two possible explanations. One, the structure of the English tag questions itself and two, the interference from the 197 native language. Now consider the following sentences:

31. voh yelo iston park dckhnc gdya h3i na?

he Yellowstone Park to see went is not

He has gone to see the Yellowstone park, hasn't he?

32. voh dans karna pdsdnd kdrti hdi na?

she dance to do like to is not

She likes to dance, doesn't she?

33. mchman ydha sat bdjc ayegc na?

guests here seven o'clock will come not

The guests will arrive hore at 7 p.m. won't they?

3

Rama cricket of a good player is not

Rama is a good crickot player, isn’t ho?

35. sdxt baris hordhl hdi na?

hard rain happening is not

It is raining hard, isn't it?

36. sikago me hdva bdhut tcz cdltl hdi na?

Chicago in air very fast walksis not

Chicago is a windy city, isn't it?

(31) through (36) are well-formed Hindi-Urdu tag counterparts of the

English sentences (25) through (30) respectively. Further consider the following:

37. yeh bat to sdhl hdi, hdi na7

this matter emph. true is, is not

This is true, isn't it? 198

38. tara y3ha ardhl h3i, h3i na?

tara here coming is, is not

Tara is coining here, isn't she?

(37) and (38) contain h3i na litterally "isn't it". This structure surfaces in the English tag questions irrespective of the person, number, gender and tense in the main clause which results in unacceptable tag questions. The learner, therefore, must acquire an awareness of the processes in English which are so different from the native Hindi-Urdu processes and, by constant practice, internalize them. 299

CHAPTER V

NOTES

*It could appropriately be said os tumhe s3nskrit at! h31 lit. 'sanskrit comes to you' which is more often used in the context of knowing an art, skill or language. But in order to bring out the semantic and syntactic parallelism, I have used the above form.

Although inversion is not essential in Hindi-Urdu but focus it is sometimes used as, for example (4b) could be uttered as: jo r3he ho gh3r turn? going are homo you 3 In intimate speech, however, such questions are possible: seen the movie? i.e. Have you seen the movie?

4"Phatic Communion" is a special kind of 'speech acts’ used to establish social interaction and ottiquctto. See Malinowski, 1935, Coral gardens and their magic, London, vol. 2, II.

5Howevor, movement is possible only in subj. position or for focus (see note 3).

Obligatory if the meaning demands distribution or multiple It-.

These may optionally be used as Kis Kisko and kin and kinko singular and plural respectively. 8 Differences in the intontation patterns exist among the speakers of Hindi-Urdu (cf. P. S. Ray 1969. "Tho Intonation of standard Hindi." CHAPTER VI

SOME PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

6.0 Introduction

In this chapter I shall discuss some implications and application of CA and this study to language pedagogy with reference to second/ foreign language acquistion in general and Hindi-Urdu and English in particular.

6.1 Theoretical Implications

In Chapter II we havo discussed the implications and shown the need of CA in language pedagogy. As we recall, according to CA hypo­ thesis, differences in two language structures i.e. native and the target language, correlate with the difficulty in the acquisition of the target language. For these, native language competence causes interfer­ ence in learning a second language. Linguistic theory can, therefore, benefit from CA in general and from this study in particular in that it brings out not only the formal distinctions and properties of the two languages but also the contextual and language specific properties such as 'the aspect of respect1 in Hindi-Urdu. This pragmatically important and relevant-features have linguistic exponents at each level of description. Without incorporating this important pragmatic aspect of the language in its description and comparison no study could be said to be complete. "It is therefore legitimate to have contrastive

200 201 studies not on structures, but on meaning (Kachr.u, 1975)." For example,

the syntactic constraints in Hindi-Urdu require a verb to be in agree­ ment with its subject in number i.e. a singular subject takes a singular verb and a plural verb agrees with a plural subject. But the pragmatic constraint requires that given an 'appropriate* environment or 'situa­ tion* a singular subject must take, for example, a plural verb. This violation of a syntactic rule is in conformity with a pragmatic rule in

Hindi-Urdu. Thus a formal description of a language has to incorporate the non-linguistic, pragmatic considerations and constraints which are essential parts of the language.

6.2 Applied Implications

We shall discuss three applied aspects of CA and this study in the following sections. First, the application of this study in class­ room presentation; SccondJits application to material production and finally,its implications on test construction for second language learning.

6.2.1 Application in Classroom Presentation

It is claimed, that CA provides explanatory insights for under­ standing errors committed by a learner at various levels (e.g, phonetic, phonological,lexical, grammatical and semantic) in second/foreign language learning. What I will do now is to use data from Hindi-Urdu and English to explain and illustrate this claim,

CA fails in its strong claim, that of predicting, since not all the learner's errors are predictable. The CA prediction doesn't match 202 one to one with the learner's errors because there are factors outside the scope of CA that cause errors. For exampleyanyone or all of the processes involved in the strategics of second language learning (cf.

2.3) can cause problems.

An effective teacher is one who has a command and thorough know­

ledge of his field and the subject he is teaching. In order to teach

English he is supposed to have a clear understanding of the type of

English he is going to teach, i.e. English as a first language, as a second language or as a foreign language. In the present context we arc concerned with the latter two varieties of English. Tho teacher is thus required not only to have the knowledge of the English language but also a knowledge of the linguistic background of his classroom students.

At this stage a contrastive analysis in general and this study in particular will be of immense help to the teacher. The linguistic awaroncss of the similarities and differences, which this study brings out can be a good practical guideline to gain insights into the processes involved in two systems that are under study for purposes of teaching. The teacher can benefit from this study in that he will be better informed and will be able to explain certain differences and similarities with regard to various aspects of English in general and question formation in particular.

The students with real motivation for learning the language will bo able to internalize the structure and processes involved in them better by explanation of relevant items than by being subjected to rote memory through structural drills, (for example, often uninteresting without situational context). They are to be encouraged to increase 203

their understanding of the processes, their syntactic and semantic

interplay and effects. For example,

1. *Where you are going?

2 . *Why you play the sterio so loud?

3. *you like bourbon on the rock.

4. ^Lawrence Olivier is a great actor, isn't it?

5. *Are you hearing the music?

6 . *My friend asked me where can he find a coke machine?

7a. How do you do?

7b, I am fine, thank you and how are you?

All the above starred sentences are ill-formed one way or another but all

tho errors noticed above cannot be related to the native language interfer­

ence, For example, (1) lacks SAI which can be said to be an effect of

the native language structure interference since SAI is not required in

Hindi-Urdu. Just the question word insertion marks a question in

contradistinction to a statement. Sentence (2) can be related to inap­

plication of the target language rule i.e. the use of Ito to carry the

tense. In other words this error is an intralingual error that arises due to the TL structure itself. In (3) if the intonation is falling

then it lacks do insertion as well as inversion. Sentence (4) is a

reflection of the native language structure-a case of interference.

Similarly, (S) could have been a well formed YNQ except that the verb is used in a non-stative context which, is a problem of generalization and

failure to distinguish between the stative and nori-stative verbs. Final­

ly (6 ), an indirect question (which is not discussed inthe present

study), violates the rule of indirect questionformation by applying

SAI which renders the question ill formed, Sentence (7) is a good 204 question but the answer is inappropriate. This inappropriacy results from a lack of the pragmatic knowledge of the use of the question in a given situation. This requires a knowledge of the cultural behavior of the native speakers of English,

In a classroom situation the teacher is required to have in­ formation on all those aspects of linguistic deviations and should not

« consider all errors as mistakes. Since all errors, are not mistakes, even when a student makes an error it should bo considered as his effort towards learning the TL. Further, the teacher should provide with the cultural norms and the pragmatic constraints for the use of an appropri­ ate question. The presentation of the materials should also be graded in regard to the difficulty of items to be taught, the contrasts presented in (4.1) above would bo useful in the classroom teaching of

English questions.

In the same way, the teacher of Hindi-Urdu to English speakers would benefit from the findings of this study and would be able to make his classroom teaching more effective with the insights provided here.

Further he will be able to help his pupils increase their competence in the target language with his experienced and insightful teaching.

"The ultimate purpose, as Kachru states, of language learning, and teaching is to obtain, or help the learners in obtaining, the competence in the target language that will enable him to engage in the creative activities that speaking, reading and writing a language involve."1 205

6.2.2 Materials Production

The quality of teaching often depends on the quality of teaching materials. The term "material" is used to refer to those language texts which are used as pedagogical aids in learning and teaching a language. In linguistically oriented materials (e.g. produced by

English Language Institute, Michigan) the insights gained by linguistics in general and CA in particular have been used for the toaching of

English to foreigners.. There is, however, no general agreement that

CA was used in a meaningful way in these materials. On the other hand, the contrastive scries published by the center for Applied Linguistics has provided insights into the learning of a target language although there are obvious shortcomings in these works too.

This study has emphasized the substantial along with the formal properties of languago. Further it has incorporated the pragmatic aspects which have syntactic consequences. These insights will be of great value if incorporated in materials.

The development of teaching materials has soveral components which are essential. Especially there are three most important and commonly considered but rarely done justico with are: first, selection; 2 second, grading; and third, sequencing.

In materials preparation, decisions with regard to the choice of specific "register" of the language and then the items crucial to be taught based on the frequency count is of prime importance. In the present context the selection is to be based from among the various question types that is deemed to be necessary for the second language learners. 206

The second component in materials preparation is that of ’grading*.

According to this concept, the materials developer or the text writer prepares units to be taught according to relative importance and needs of the particular group for which the material is being prepared. If, for example,the material is prepared for Hindi-Urdu speakers learning

English as a second language, then, the text should have materials relevant to both the skills written as woll as spoken with regard to learners background. On the other hand, if the matreial is for teach­ ing Hindi-Urdu to English speakers learning Hindi-Urdu as a foreign language, then perhaps language structure might be considered more important than the spoken form. The materials for the Hindi-Urdu learners should, among other things, also include the concept of

"politeness" in the language learning skills.

The materials, further have to be graded with respect to the familiar items to the unfamiliar items. For example, for Hindi-Urdu speakers, the simple verb inversion type YNQ should precede the text to tho ones that require Do incorporation.

Similarly the materials prepared for the English speakers should contain the single ^questions before the ’Reduplicated’ and Muliple k^questions. This leads us to the third component that we will discuss in the subsequent paragraphs.

The third component ’sequencing’ employs criteria somewhat similar to selection, in the material production. The text should comprise of items relevant to the learners and be sequenced in order of familiar to unfamiliar or easy to difficult items. For example in 207 teaching Hindi-Urdu question words the unmarked lexical forms such as k9un, kSisa etc., should precede those that are marked as, kisko, k3ise, kyok9r and so on.

Syntactically, the easy question forms should precede the dif­ ficult ones from the point of view of learner's error potential. This study provides, a hierarchy of difficulties in the acquisition of questions in English in terms of their structural and semantic com­ plexities as follows:

8 . 1. Tag questions 2. Wh questions 3. Negative questions 4. Yes-No questions

In the above hierarchy the type of questions at the top is the most difficult to acquire with gradual decrease in the difficulty to the last that seems least difficult in the above scheme.

In view of the above hierarchy of difficulties, the YNQ should come first in the sequence of teaching materials. There are, however, further considerations and items that should also form an order of teaching and information in the text. For example,

9. 1. Modals: will, is, are have, etc, 2. Wh-question forms 3. Do-periphrasis 4. Do + Wh-forms 5. Tag questions 6 . Polite questions

The above (1-6) summarizes the items involved in the question formation.

Teaching one type of question for example YNQ requires a knowledge of

SAI only after which one can procede to Wh-questions etc.

If, however the material is prepared for the English learner's of Hindi-Urdu then a possible hierarchy of difficulties could be as 208

follows:

10. 1. Polite questions 2. Multiple k-questions 3. Reduplicated k-questions 4. Negative questions 5. ha-na questions 6 . Tag questions

At the top of the hierarchy are 'Polite question's since they

involve not only formal considerations but also substantive or prag­ matic ones. At the bottom are TagQ which are the least difficult in

Hindi-Urdu. This, however, doesnot preclude any teaching of the 'forms

of respect' early in the instruction since they are an integral part of

the language and culture of the subcontinent.

An important aspect in sequencing materials is the type of

contexts in which the text is planned. For example, the substance and items should bo of immediate - relevance to the learners as, class­

room items and then should include items of wider range and context, as,for example, a wedding ceremony in an Indian village,

6.2.3 Test Construction

This study has implications for testing in that it provides a scientifically based pragmatic description of English and Hindi-Urdu

structures relevant to question formation. For the purpose of language predagogy, we also need to test what has been taught. The classroom

teacher is constantly busy in evaluating the progress of his learners

in terms of the goals of his teaching. The material developer also needs to include tests that could measure the success of the learners.

The test constructor specifically the language test constructor needs to base his test items on the data that test the students achievement 209 in terms of their acquisition of, in the present context, English and

Hindi-Urdu questions,

Tho test constructor can be more realistic, precise and effective in his efforts to test the learning by constructing test items on the basis of hierarchy of difficulties. The test will consist of not only formal aspects i.e. the syntactic structures of questions but also the semantic aspects i.e. the pragmatics of questions including politeness, so important Hindi-Urdu.

The test should be objective and more sophisticated than the traditional way of testing. An effective approach, specially to test the acquisition of questions seems to be to provide a test followed by a fewanswers to which the learners berequired toprovide appropriate questions. This will test their ability tocomprehend the question- answering system.

Another form of testing could consist of 1 transformations * ' in which learners are required to transform a given form to another as instructed, A third device is that of 'appropriacy1 which can be tested in multiple choice type of tests. For example,

1 0 . 1 . ap khana ( khaogo l khaoa

2 . turn khane ( khaega \ / khaoge 1 [ khaege J

3, turrharl ma p9rhatl f thl ) { the I I thl I

Tests like these can be more fruitful investing the degree of achievement, of the language learners. The same criteria apply to the 210 tests meant for the Hindi-Urdu speakers learning English as a second

language. It is,however, the wise application of the material and experience of the teacher that can provide a meaningfully realistic and effective instruction. CHAPTER VI

NOTES

*See Yamuna Kachru 1966: IS.

2For detailed description of teaching methodology, see Halliday ot al. 1964. The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching, especially Ch. 7, pp. 177-222. Also see Allen and Campbel 1972 (2nd ed.), eds. Teaching English as a Second Language: a Book of Readingsr Lester, 1973, Readings in Applied Transformational Grammar,among others.

211 CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this study is organized as follows; the 'Intro­ duction' presents the goals of this study, namely description of one area of the Hindi-Urdu grammar i.e. question formation and its systematic comparison, both semantic and syntactic, with question formation in

English. In addition,I have also provided a review of literature both in English and Hindi-Urdu. This chapter includes the background in-

f formation with reference to the teaching of English as a second language in Indian multi-linguistic/multi-cultural setting. It also includes a discussion of language teaching and a brief review of Generative

Transformational grammar, Generative Semantics and Pragmatics as theoretical basis of this study.

The second chapter consists of a brief discussion of the three competing theories, namely CA, EA and IL. EA provides data for CA and

IL provides a new look at the learner's errors. The old concept of errors as vice has been substituted by errors as virtue indicating efforts at acquistition of the target language. In other words, the negative attitude and teacher centered concept of errors have been changed to the student centered positive attitude toward learners hypothesis.

Since both the languages, English and Hindi-Urdu are subject of study here, I have first discussed a few major structures of questions

212 213 in English in Chapter III-. This provides the background information and syntactic and semantic complexities of questions against which we can appreciate the problems faced by a non-native learner of English as a second/foreign language. It has been shown that the structure of

English, in some cases, is extremely complex.

Tho subject ofquestion formation in Hindi-Urdu is discussed in

Chapter IV. This, an extremely important aspect of the Hindi-Urdu grammar was not discussed earlier in any detail. This is the first detailed attempt, consequently it suffers from the typical shortcomings of a first attempt. Still, I hope that this attempt will create an interest and open up avenues for future research in this area. I have described the major kinds of question formation processes and their syntactic and semantic properties. During tho discussions we have discovered that certain forms of questions are unique to Hindi-Urdu and are not applicable in English.

The two languages in contrast have been discussed in Chapter V.

Wo have discussed both the similarities and differences between English and Hindi-Urdu and have pointed out the structures that ore different and difficult for the learners of English and Hindi-Urdu.

In carrying out the contrastive analysis, we considered the paragmatic aspects of the respective languagos that are integral part of the languages.

In Chapter VI we have discussed the pedagogical implications of the study for the language teachers, the materiails developers and the test constructors. The study recommends new, generative transformational 214 and pragmatic approach to language instruction in general and the teach ing of questions in English and Hindi-Urdu in particular. 215

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adam, Rev. M. T. 1827. Hindi Bhasha ka Wyakarana: A Hindoo Grammar for the Instruction of the Young, In the Form of Easy Questions and Answers. Calcutta.

Alatis, James E. 1968, (Ed.) Contrastive Linguistics and Its Pedagogical Implications. Monograph Series on Language and Linguistics, No. 21, Georgetown University.

Allen, Harold B. 1965. Teaching English as a Second Language; A Book of Readings. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc. Second Edition. II. B. Allen and R. N. Campbell. 1972.

Allen, Walter S. 1950-51. "A Study in tho Analysis of Hindi Sentence Structure," Acta Linguistica VI.

Anwar, Mohammad S. 1973. The Grammatical Theory of Contrastive Analysis; A Now Approach^ Unpublished Onio State University Ph.D. dissertation. Columbus.

Anderson, S. R., and P. Kiparsky. Eds. 1973. A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Rinehart and Winston"!

Austin, John L. 1962, How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bach, Emmon, 1971. "Questions." Linguistic Inquiry, 2:153-166.

______. 1974. Syntactic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

______, and R. T. Harms. 1968. Eds. Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York.

Bahl, Knlicharnn. A Study on the Transformational Analysis of the Hindi Verb (Deportment of South Asian Studies, University of Chicago, mimeographed).

Bailey, T. Grahame. 1956. Teach Yourself Urdu. J. R. Firth and A. H. Harley (eds.). London: English Universities.

Baird, A. 1967. "Contrastive Studies and the Language Teacher." English Language Teaching, XXI, 130-135. 216

Baker, C. L. 1970. "Notes on tlie Description of English Questions: The Role of an Abstract Question Morpheme." Foundations of Language, 6:197-219.

Banathy, B. H., and P. H. Madarasz. 1969. "Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis." Journal of English as a Second Language, 4:77-92.

Bansal, R. K. 1969. The Intelligibility of Indian English. Monograph 4. Hyderabad: Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages.

Bazell, C. E. et al. Eds. 1966. In Memory of J. R. Firth. London: Longanaus.

Beams, John. Comparative Grammar of Modern Aryan Languages of India, 3 vols, London, 1872-79.

Bhatia, T. K. 1973. "On the Scope of Negation in Hindi." SLS, 3:2.

______. 1974. "The Coexisting Answering Systems and the Role of Presuppositions, Implications, and Expectations in Hindi Simplex Yes/No Questions," in CLS X.

______. 1975, Negation Through Question in Modern Hindi: Another Look, In Language Sciences.

Bhargava, P. S. 1968. Linguistic Interference from Hindi, Urdu and Punjabi and Internal Analogy in the Grammar of Indian English. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.

Bibliography of Indian English, A. 1972. Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages, Hyderabad.

Bokamba, Eamba G. 1976. Question Formation in Some Banut Languages. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.

Bolinger, D. L. 1957. "Interrogative Structure of American English." Publication of the American Dialect Society, No. 28, Alabama.

Borkin, Ann. 1971. "Polarity Items in Questions." In CLS, 7:53-63.

Bouton, Lawrence F. 1976. "The Problem of Equivalence in Contrastive Analysis." In IRAL.

Brooks, Nelson. 1964. Language and Language Learning: Theory and Practice, 2nd ed, New York,

Browne, Wayles. 1973. "Conjoined Questions and Conjoined Relative Clause in Serbo-Croatian." In Anderson and Kiparsky. 217

Burton-Page, John G. 1957. "Compound and Conjunct Verbs in Hindi." Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studios, XIX.

Cadora, Frederic J. 1970. "Some Linguistic Concomitants of Contactual Factors of Urbanization." Anthropological Linguistics. Vol. 12, No. 1, 10-19.

Carroll, J. B. 1968. "Contrastive Linguistics and Interference Theory." In Alatis.

Catford, J. C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press.

______. 1968. "Contrastive Analysis and Language Teaching." In Alatis.

Chafe, Wallace. 1968. "English Questions." Unpublished paper, University of California, Berkeley.

Chafe, W. L. 1970. Meaning and tho Structure of Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Chatterji, Suniti Kumar. 1935. "The Oldest Grammar of Hindustani." Indian Linguistics, 5.

______. 1960. Indo-Aryan and Hindi. Calcutta.

Chomsky, Carol. 1971, The Acquisition of Syntax in Children from 5 to 10. Research Monograph No. 57. The M.I.T. Press. Cambridge.

Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton and Co.

Chomsky, N. 1964a. "The Logical Basis of Linguistic Theory." In H. G. Lunt, cd., Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Massachusetts, August 27-31, 1962, pp. 914-1008. The Hague: Mouton and Co.

______. 1964b. "Current Issues in Linguistic Theory." In J. A. Fodor and J. J. Katz, eds., The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language, PP. 50-118. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

______. 1965. Aspects of tho Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: M.I.T, Press.

______. 1968. Language and Mind. Harcourt Brace, New York.

______, 1970. "Remarks on Nominallzation." In R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum, eds., Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Boston: Ginn Co. 218

Chomsky, N. 1971. "Deep Structure, Surface Structure and Semantic Interpretation." In D. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits, eds., Semantics; An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguis­ tics, and Psychology, pp. 183-216. London: Cambridge University Press.

_ . 1972. "Some Empirical Issues in the Theory of Transfor­ mational Grammar." In S. Peters, ed., Goals of Linguistic Theory, pp. 63-130. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

_ . 1973. "Conditions on Transformations." In S. R. Anderson and P. Kiparsky, eds., A Festschrift for Morris Halle, pp. 232-286. New York; Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Cole, P., and J. L. Morgan. Eds, 197S. Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts, Vol. 3. New York: Academic Press.

Cook, Vivien J. 1969. "The Analogy Between First and Second Language Learning." IRAL, VII/3.

Corder, S. P. 1967. "The Significance of Learner's Errors." IRAL, 5:161-170.

. 1971a. "Idiosyncratic Dialects and Error Analysis." IRAL, IX, 147-159.

_ . 1971b. "Describing the Language Learner's Language." CILT Reports and Papers, No. 6 , 57-64.

_ . 1974. "Tho Elicitation of Intcrlnnguagc." IRAL, Special Issue on the occasion of Bertil Halmberg's 60th birthday (ed. by G. Nickel), pp. 51-63.

Cowan, Ronnyne J. 1965. "Rending, Perceptual Strategies and Constras- tive Analysis." In TESL Studies, Vol. 1. Publication of tho Division of English os a Second Language, University of Illinois, Urbana.

Cygan, Jon. 1967, English Question Structures and Polish Learners. Universytet Im. Adama Mickiewicza W Poznnniu Glottodidactica, Vol. II. Nadbitka.

Dalvi, A. S. 1971. Urdu mo lisanynti tBhqiq, Oriental Booksellers, Kokil and Co., Bombay.

Di Pietro, Robert J. 1971. Language Structures in Contrast. Newbury House, Rowley, Mass.

Dingwall, W. 0. 1964. "Transformational Generative Grammar and Contrastive Analysis." In Language Learning, Vol. XIV, Nos. 3 and 4, 147-160. 219

Dubois, B., and I. Crouch. 1975. "The Tag Questions of Women's Speech: They Don't Really Use More of Them, Do They?" Language in Society, 4.3:389-294.

Dulay, Heidi C., and Marina K. Burt. 1972. "Goofing: An Indicator of Children's Second Language Learning Strategies." Language Learning, Vol. 22, No. 1.

Duskovtf, L. 1969. "On the Sources of Errors in Foreign Language Learning," IRAL, Vol. 7, 11-30.

Eddy Roulet. 1975. "Linguistic Theories, Descriptions of Language and Language Teaching." Language Theory, Linguistic Description and Language Teaching. Longman, 65-86.

Elliott, D, E. 1965. "Interrogation in English and Mandarin Chinese." POLA, No. 11. Ohio: Columbus, 57-117.

______. 1973. Review of The Syntax of Mandarin Interrogative. By Rand, in Language. March 1973.

Ethrington, Rev. W. 1873. Bhasha-Bhaskar, A Grammar of the Hindi Language, Benares.

Ferguson, C. A. 1968. "Contrastive Analysis and Language Development." In Alatis.

Fillmore, Charles J. 1964. "On the Notion 'Equivalent Sentence Structure.'" The Ohio State University Project on Linguistic Analysis, Report No. 11. Columbus, Ohio.

Fillmore, C. J., and D. T. Langcndocn. Eds. 1971. Studies in Linguistic Semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Firth, John R. 1957. Papers in Linguistics, 1934-51. London: Oxford University Press.

Fodor, J. A., and J. J, Katz. Eds. 1964. The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language^ Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Fox, Robert P. 1968. A Transformational Treatment of Indian English Syntax. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana.

Fries, Charles C. 1945. Teaching and Learning English os a Foreign Language. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.

Gage, William W. 1961, Contrastive Studies in Linguistics, A Biblio­ graphical Checklist Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. 220

George, H. V. 1972. Common Errors in Language Learning. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House,

Gleason, H. A., Jr. 1968. "Contrastive Analysis and Discourse Structure." Alatis.

Gordon, D., and G. Lakoff. 197S. "Conversational Postulates." In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan, eds., Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, 83-106. Identical to Gordon and Lakoff (1971) CLS #7.

Gradman, H. L. 1970. Tho Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis: What It Is and What It Isn't. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.

______. 1971. "The Limitations of Contrastive Analysis Predictions." Working Papers in Linguistics. University of Hawaii, III, 4:73-74.

Greaves, Edwin. 1933. Hindi Grammar (printed at the Indian Press Ltd., Allahabad).

Greenberg, J. (I. 1963. "Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements." In J. H. Green­ berg, ed., Universals of Language, pp. 73-113. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press.

Grierson, G. A. 1916. Linguistic Survey of India, Vol. IX, Part I (reprinted, Delhi! Motilal Banarsidass, 1967-68).

Guru, Knmata Prasad. 1952. Hindi Vyakaran, Banaras.

Hackman, Geoffrey J. 1976. An Integrated Analysis of the Hindi Tense and Aspect System! Unpublished University of Illinois Ph.D. dissertation.

Hall, Robert A., Jr. 1968. "Contrastive Grammar and Textbook Structure." Alatis.

Halliday, M. A. K., Angus McIntosh, and Peter S. Strevens. 1964. The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London, Longmans.

Hammer, John S., and F. A. Rice. 1965. A Bibliography of Contrastive Linguistics. Center for Applied Linguistics. Washington, D.C.

Hammarberg, Rjdrn. 1974. "The Insufficiency of Error Analysis." IRAL, Vol. XII, No. 3.

Hamp, E. P. 1968. "What a Contrastive Grammar Is Not, If It Is." In Alatis. 221

Harley, A. H. 1944. Colloquial Hindustani, with an "Introduction on Pronunciation and the Alphabet" by J. R. Firth. London.

Hasan, Ruqaiya. "The Verb 'Be' in Urdu." In Verhaar, J. W. M., ed., The verb Be and its synonyms. Foundations of Language, supplementary scries, Vol. 1, Part 2.

______. "Syntax and Semantics." In Biological and Social Factors Tn Psycholinguistics. John Morton, ed., University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Chicago, London, 1970.

Haq, Abdul. 1975. Qawaid-i-Urdu, 2nd ed. Delhi: Anjuman Taraqqi- e-Urdu (Hind).

Hudson, Richard A. 1975. "The Meaning of Questions." In Language, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 1-31.

Jain, Gyan C. 1962. "Urdu Bur Hindi ka lisanyati rista." In Urdu- i-Mualla, K. A. Farooqi, ed., Vol. 3, No. 4-5. University of Delhi, Delhi.

Jakobovits, Leon A. 1969. "Second Language Learning and Transfer Theory: A Theoretical Assessment." Language Learning, Vol. XIX, Nos. 1 and 2, 555-86,

______, and Gordon. 1974. The Context of Foreign Language Learning. Newbury House.

Jakobson, Roman. 1941. Kindcrsprache, Aphasic und Allgcmeinc Lautgesetze. Uppsala. The English version, Child Language, Aphasia and Phonological Universals. The Hague, Mouton, 1968.

James, Carl. 1971. "The Exculpation of Contrastive Linguistics." Nickel.

Jespersen, Otto. 1904. How to Teach a Foreign Language. London: Swan Sonncnschein and Co., Ltd.

______. 1924. Philosophy of Grammar. Copenhagen.

______. 1933. Essentials of English Grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Kdchru, Broj B. 1965. "The Indianness in Indian English." Word, 21:391-410.

______. 1966, "Indian English: A Study in Contextualization," In C. E. Bazell et al., eds. London: Longmous, 255-87. 222

Kachru, Braj B. 1969. "English in South Asia." In Thomas A. Sebeok, 627-78.

. 1973. Papers on South Asian Linguistics. Ed., SLS, Vol. 3, No. 2.

______. 1975a. "A Retrospective Study of the Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages and Its Relation to Indian Universities." In M. J. Fox, ed., Language and Development; A Retrospective Survey of Ford Foundation Language Projects 1952-74. New York: The Ford Foundation.

______. 1976. "On the Pragmatics of Indian English: How and Why English is Made to Do What It Does in the Indian Sociolinguistic Context." TESOL.

______, and Kachru, Yamuna. 1968. Studies in Hindi Linguistics. American Institute of Indian Studies, New Delhi.

Kachru, Yamuna. 1966. An Introduction to Hindi Syntax. Urbana: University of Illinois.

______, 1968. "The Copula in Hindi." In Foundations of Language, supplementary series, 6:2, 25-59.

______. 1970. Review of Untorsuchungon Zur Syntax des Hindi by P. Gaefkc, 1967. In Language, Vol. 46, No. 4.

______. 1974. "The Syntax and Semantics of the Causative Construc­ tion in English and South Asian Languages: Implications for Teaching of English os a Second Language." Paper presented at the IX TESOL Convention, Los Angeles.

______. 1976a. "On the Semantics of the Causative Construction in Hindi-Urdu." In Syntax and Semantics, ed. Mayoyoshi Shibatani. New York: Academic Press.

______. 1976b. "Contrastive Analysis in Syntax and Semantics." Unpublished paper, University of Illinois.

______, et al. 1975. "Tho Notion 'Subject': A Note on Hindi- Urdu, Kashmiri, and Panjabi." To appear In The Notion "Subject" in South Asian Languages. Madison: University of Wisconsin.

Kaifi, Brijmohan D. 1950. Kaifia. Karachi: Anjumnn Taraqqi-e-Urdu. 223

Katz, Jerrold J. 1972. Semantic Theory. Harper and Row, Publishers, New York, London.

______, and Paul M. Postal, 1964. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge: M,I.T. Press.

Keenan, E. L. 1971. "Two Kinds of Presupposition in Natural Language." In Fillmore and Langendoen. Eds. C. J. Fillmore and D. T. Lang- endoen.

Keenan, Edward L., and Robert D, Hull, 1973. "The Logical Presupposi­ tions of Questions and Answers." In Prasupositionon in der Lin^uistik und der Philosophic, ed. by Frank and Petofi. Athcnaum.

Khan, Inshaullah. 1828. Darya-c-Latafat. Murshidabad.

Khan, Masud H. 1948. Muqaddama tarikh-e-zaban-e-Urdu. Delhi.

Kirkwood, H. W. 1966. "Translation as a Basis for Contrastive Linguis­ tic Analysis." IRAL, Vol. IV,

Klima, Edward S. 1964. "Negation in English." In The Structure of Language. Ed. J. A. Fodor and J. J. Katz. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, pp. 246-323.

Krcszowski, Thomass P, 1971 "Equivalence, Congruence and Deep Structure." Nickel.

Kuno, Susumo, and Jane J. Robinson. 1972. "Multiple Wh Questions." Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. Ill, No. 4, pp. 463-487.

Labov, William. 1969. "The Logic of Non-Standard English." George­ town Monographs in Languages and Linguistics, No. 22.

______. 1970. ViTho Study of Language in Its Social Context." In J. A. Fishman, ed,, 1971:152-216.

Lado, Robert. 1957. Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor: Univer­ sity of Michigan.

Lakoff, George. 1971. "On Generative Semantics." In Steinberg and Jakobovits, 1971.

Lakoff, Robin. 1970. "Transformational Grammar and Language Teaching." In Lester, 1973, pp. 284-310,

Langacker, R, W. 1968. Review of Stockwell, Bowen and Martin (1965) and Stockwell and Bowen (1965) in Foundations of Language, Vol. 4, No. 2, May, 211-218. 224

Langacker, Ronald W. 1970, "English Question Intonation." In Sadock and Vanek, eds, pp. 139-161.

______. 1974, "The Question of Q." In Foundations of Language, 11, pp. 1-37.

Langendocn, D, T. 1970. Essentials of English. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York, Chicago, London.

Lee, W. R. 1968. "Thoughts on Contrastive Linguistics in the Context of Foreign Language Teaching." Alatis.

Lees, Robert B. 1960. Review of Bolinger's "Interrogative Structures of English." Word 16:119-25.

Lester, Mark. 1970. Readings in Applied Transformational Grammar. 2nd ed. 1973. New York: Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Macke/, W. F. 1966. "Applied Linguistics: Its Meaning and Use." English Language Teaching, 20:197-206.

McCawle/, James D. 1968. "The Role of Semantics in a Grammar." In Bach and Harms, eds (1968).

McGregor, R. S. 1972. Outline of Hindi Grammar. Oxford University Press. Ely House, London W~. 1.

Masica, Colin P. 1976. Defining A Linguistic Area. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Miltner, Vladimir. 1960-1961, "Tho Exosyntngmatic Relationships in Hindi." Bharatyya Vidya, XX-XXI.

______. 1962. "The Complex Syntactical Analysis of Hindi." Indian Linguistics, 23.

______. 1970. Theory of Hindi Syntax: Descriptive, Generative, Transformational. The Hague: Mouton and Co.

Moore, Ripley. 1965. A Study of Hindi Intonation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Morgan, Jerry L. 1969. "On the Treatment of Presupposition in a Transformational Grammar." CLS, 5:167-178.

______. 1975. "Some Interactions of Syntax and Pragmatics." In Peter Cole et al.( eds,, Syntax and Semantics.

Nemser, William. 1969. "Approximative Systems of Foreign Language Learners." ERIC:FD 026 639j also in IRAL, Vol. IX, No. 2, May, 1971. 225

Newmark, L., and D. Reibcl. 1968. "Necessity and Sufficiency in Language Learning." IRAL, Vol. 6 , 145-164.

Nickel, G. 1971a. (Ed.) Papers in Contrastive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

i ______. 1971b. (Ed.) Papers from the International Symposium on Applied Contrastive Linguisticsi Stuttgart. Bielefeld, Cornelsen-Vcllagen and Klasing.

______, and K. H. Wagner. 1968. "Contrastive Linguistics and Language Teaching." IRAL, Vol. 6 .

Oksaar, E. 1972. "On Contrastive Semantics: Experiments with the Polarity-Profile Method." Nickel, 1971b.

Oiler, John Jr., and Jack Richards (eds.). 1973. Focus on the Learner. Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

Palmer, Harold. 1922. The Oral Method of Teaching Languages. New York.

Pattanayaka, D. P. 1969. Aspects of Applied Linguistics. Asia Publishing House, Bombay, New York.

Pillai, K. T. 1973. Constrastive Linguistics and Language Teaching. Annamalainagar: Annamalni University.

Platts, John T. 1920. A Grammar of the Hindustani or Urdu Language. London.

Politzer, Robert L. 1965. "Some Reflections on Transfer of Training in Foreign Language Learning." IRAL, III/3, August, 1965, 171-177.

Polomc, E., Van Olphow et nl. (ed.) Language Testing and Criteria for South Asian Languages. Proceedings of the Austin Conference, May 1973.

Pope, Emily N. 1972. Questions and Answers In English. M.I.T. Ph.D. dissertation (forthcoming). The Hague: Mouton.

Postal, Paul M. 1964. "Underlying and Superficial Linguistic Structure." In H. E. Review, 31:2, pp. 246-66.

Quirk, Randolph et al. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London; Seminar Press.

Ravem, R. 1970. "Language Acquisition in a Second Language Environ­ ment." IRAL, 6 , 175-85, 226

Ray, Punya Sloka. 1969. "The Intonation of Standard Hindi." In Studies in Indian Linguistics. Ed. Bh. Krishnamurti. Centre of Advanced Study in Linguistics, Deccan College, Poona Univer­ sity and Annamalai University, Anamalai nagari, India.

Richards, Jack C. 1971a. "A Non-Contrastive Approach to Erron- Analysis," English Language Teaching, Vol. 25, 204-219.

______. 1971b. "Error Analysis and Second Language Strategies." Language Sciences, No. 17, October, 12-22.

______. 1972. "Social Factors, Intcrlanguagc and Language Learn- Tng." Language Learning, Vol. 22, No. 2, 159-188.

______. (In press.) (Ed.) Error Analysis-Perspcctives in Second Language Acquisition. Longmans.

Richie. 1967. "Some Implications of Generative Grammar for the Construction of Courses in English as a Foreign Language." Language Learning, Vol. 17.

Rivers, Wilga M. 1968. "Contrastive Linguistics in Textbook and Classroom." Alatis.

Robins, R. II. 1967. A Short History of Linguistics. London: Long­ mans.

Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1969. "On the Role of Linguistics in the Teaching of English." In Modern Studies in English. Ed. D. A. Reibel and S. A. Schane, pp. 467-481. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, M.I.T. Mass.

. 1970. "On Declarative Sentences." In R. A. Jacobs and F. S. Rosenbaum, eds. Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Ginn and Co., Waltham, Mass.

Sadock, Jerrold M. 1969. "Hypersentences." PIL 1:283-370.

______. 1974. Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. Academic Press, New York.

Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge, England.

Sebcok, Thomas. 1969. Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. V, South Asia. The Hague: Mouton.

Selinker, Larry F. 1969. "Language Transfer." General Linguistics, 9. 227

Selinker, Larry F. 1971. "A Brief Reappraisal of Contrastive Linguistics." Working Papers in Linguistics. University of Hawaii, III, 4, April, 1-10.

_ . 1972. "Interlanguagc." IRAL, Vol. X, No. 3, 209-231.

Sharma, Aryendra. 1958. A Basic Grammar of Modern Hindi. Central Hindi Directorate, Government of India. New Delhi, 2nd ed., 1971.

Siddiqui, Ahmad H. 1965a. The Language of Respect in Urdu, A Socio- linguistic Study. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of General Linguistics and Phonotics, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, London.

_ . 1965b. "The Form of Direct Address and Indirect Reference Tn Urdu." Paper presented at the Linguisting Meeting, University of London, London.

______. 1967. "Kinship Terms in. Urdu." Unpublished paper, University of Illinois, Urbana.

______. 1969. "Some Aspects of English and Hindi-Urdu Phonology: Problems in Learning English for Indian Speakers." Paper presented at the TESL Scminnr, University of Illinois, Urbana.

______. 1972. "Queclaratives in Hindi-Urdu." Unpublished paper, Ohio State University, Columbus.

. 1973. "Notes on Queclaratives and Tag Questions in Hindi- Urdu." Papers on South Asian Linguistics, SLS, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 134-148.

______. 1974. "Hybridizntion in Hindi-Urdu." Paper presented at the Third Annual Conference of the American Council of Teachers of the Uncommonly taught Asian Languages (ACTUAL), Denver, Colo.

______. 1974. Hindi as a Second Language. State of Illinois Office of Bilingual/Bicultural Education, Chicago, Illinois.

______. 1975. "Bilingualism and the Teaching of Hindi-Urdu in the American Bilingual/Bicultural Programs." Paper presented at the Fourth Annual International Bilingual/Bicultural Conference, Chicago.

. 1976. "Teaching Hindi-Urdu Question Formation to the Lj- Spcakers of English: A Study in Applied Linguistics." Paper presented at the SALA meeting, University of Illinois, Urbana.

Smackey, T. R., and R. Beym. 1969. "Tag Questions--Dangerous Psycho- linguistic Territory for TESOL." In IRAL, VII, pp. 107-116. 228

Sridhar, S. N, 197S. "Contrastive Analysis Error Analysis and Inter­ language: Three Phases of One Goal?" In SLS, Vol. 1, No. 1.

Steinberg, D. D., and L. A. Jakobovits. 1971. Semantics: An Inter­ disciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics, Anthropology, and Psychology. Cambridge: University Press.

Strevens, Peter S. 1970. "Two Ways of Looking at Error Analysis." ERIC:ED 037 714.

Stockwell, Robert F. 1968. "Contrastive Linguistics and Lapsed Time." Alatis.

Stockwell, R. P., and J. D. Dowcn. 1965. The Sounds of English and Spanish. Chicago, Tho University Press.

______, J. D. Bowen, and J. W. Martin. 1965. The Grammatical Structures of English and Spanish. Chicago, The University Press.

______, et al. 1973. The Major Syntactic Structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. '

Subbarao, K. V. 1974. Noun Phrase Complementation in Hindi. Unpub­ lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana.

Sweet, Henry. 1899. Tho Prnctical Study of Languages. Dent, reprinted, Oxford University Press, 1964.

Tewari, Udaynarain. 1955. Hindi Bhashn ka udgam aur vikas.

Ultan, R. 1969. "Some General Characteristics of Interrogative Systems." In Working Papers on Language Universals, 1:41-63.

Upshaur, J. A. H. 1962. "Language Proficiency Testing and the Con­ trastive Analysis Dilemma." Language Learning, Vol. 12, No. 2.

Vajpeyi, Kishoridas. 1959. Hindi Shabdanushasan. Banaras.

Varma, Dhirendra. 1933. Hindi Bhasha ka Itihas. Allahabad, reprinted 1961.

______. 1955. Navinn hindl vyakarna. Allahabad.

Verma, M. K. 1971. Tho Structure of the Noun Phrase in English and Hindi. Moti1al Banarasidass, Delhi.

Verma, S. K. 1964. A Study in Systemic Description of Hindi Grammar and Comparison of the Hindi and English Verbal Group. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh. 229

Wardbaugh, Ronald. 1974. Topics in Applied Linguistics. Newbury House Publishers Inc. Porsley, Mass.

Wayles, Browne. "Conjoined Questions and Conjoined Rel. Clauses in Serbo-Croatian." In Anderson and Kiparsky, 19, A Festschrift for Morris Halle, pp. 227-231.

Weinrich, Uriel.19S3. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. New York, Linguistic Circle ofNew York.

Whitman, R. A. 1970. "Contrastive Analysis: Problems and Procedures." Language Learning, Vol. XX, No. 2.

Whitman, R. L., and K. L. Jackson. 1972. "The Unpredictability of Contrastive Analysis." Language Learning, Vol. 22, No. 1.

Whitworth, G. C. 1907. Indian English: An Examination of the Errors of Idiom Made by Indians in Writing English. Lctchworth.

Wilkins, D. A. 1968. Review of Valdman (ed.). Trends in Language Teaching (1965).

Working Papers in Linguistics. 1971. University of Hawaii, III, 4. Papers from the Conference on Contrastive Linguistics and Language Universals.

Yates, William. 1855, Introduction to Hindoostanee Language in Three Parts, viz. Grammar with Vocabulary and Reading Lessons. Calcutta, 1827, 6th Edition.

______. 1847. A Dictionary of Hindoostanee and English. London and Calcutta.

Zore, M. Q. 1932. Hindustani Lisanyat. Hyderabad.

Zwicky, Arnold M., and Ann D. Zwicky. 1973. "How Come and What For." In Kachru et al. eds., pp. 921-933.

Zydatiss, Wolfgang. 1974. "A 'Kiss of Life' for the Notion of Error." IRAL, Vol. XII, No. 3, 231-238,