Semantics of explicator compound verbs in south Asian languages

Language Sciences, Volume 13, Number 2, pp. 161-180, 1991 0388-0001/91 $3.00+.00 Printed in Great Britain Pfxgamon Press plc

Semantics of explicator Corn~~d Verbs in South Asian Languages

Anvita Abbi

Juwuharlal Nehru University

Devi Gopalakrishnan

Jawaharlal Nehru University

ABSTRACT

The explicator compound verb (ECV) construction has been a focus of attention since its

recognition as a major areal feature of south Asian languages. An ECV construction refers to a sequence of two verbs VI and V2, in which the main verb of the sentence, generally VI in

SOV languages, is followed by another verb, i.e. V2. which is delexicalized in the construction.

It is possible to group all previous discussions on the topic into two categories. One, the

analyses of the forms and associated meanings of the construction in individual languages of the

area. Two, the consideration of broader issues such as, for instance, the common or most general

function of the construction as such, comparisons of explicators across languages in terms of

their forms, meanings, numbers and frequencies of usage, setectional constraints operating on

combinations of main verbs and explicators and degrees of grammaticalization. The present

paper is an attempt towards making a comparative areal survey of the ECV construction in terms

of semantic typology. With this end in view, explicator meanings are grouped into three major

types and further subtypes, with illustrations to show that each of the larger types and at least

one of the subtypes is represented by all languages of the area that have ECV constructions.

Also, characteristic traits are identified in the case of different language families with reference

to both the actual lexical items used as explicators as well as their meanings.

The study is based on representative data from languages belonging to all four language

families in India: Dravidian. Indo-Aryan. Tibeto-Burman and Austro-Asiatic.

INTRODUCTION

The explicator compound verb ECV, or serial verb’ as it is sometimes called, has

been the focus of considerable attention especially since its recognition as a major

area1 feature of South Asian languages (Masica 1976, Hook 1977, Kachru and

Pandharipande 1980). Studies consist of descriptions, in varying degrees of com-

plexity, of the phenomenon in individual South Asian languages (primarily belonging

162 Language Sciences, Volume 13, Number 2 (1991)

to the Indo-Aryan and Dravidian families), as well as more general discussions such

as those regarding the identification of a single function common to all explicators as

a class,* comparisons of explicators in terms of their numbers and frequency of

usage, and analyses of degrees of grammaticalization attained by explicators in dif-

ferent languages in the subcontinent.3

To avoid any confusion, let us first define the construction as we see it. By

explicator compound verb we mean a sequence of at least two verbs Vl and V2 where

the first member is the main or predicating verb and the second member, although

homophonous with an independent verb in the language, does not appear in its primary

lexical meaning; V2 only occurs in the sequence to mark the main verb Vl for

certain ‘grammatical’ features. Two illustrations, from Hindi and Malayalam, are

given below.

Hindi 1. vo aa gaya

he come GO-pst.

‘He came’

Malayalam 2. kuppi pot!1 pooyi

bottle break-cp GO-pst

‘(The) bottle broke’

In sentences I and 2, aa ‘come’ and pot!1 ‘break’ are the main verbs in stem and - participial forms respectively, while gaya ‘go’ and pooyi also ‘go’, both marked for

tense, are explicators that function as grammaticalized markers for features such as

‘perfectivity’ and ‘undesirability’. It is to be noted that the first part of the definition

rules out sequences such as the following from the group of constructions that we are

talking about.

Hindi 3. palang par jaa leeto

bed on go liedown (imp.)

‘Go and lie down on the bed.’

Malayalam 4. deevu tunika! kaIukI unakki

Devu clothes wash-cp dry -pst.

‘Devu washed and dried the clothes. ’

Further, to come to the second part of our definition, it is a special characteristic

of the explicator compound verb that it alternates with the corresponding simple verb

with no apparent change in the cognitive meaning of the predicate. We do not mean

by this statement that there is no meaning loss or gain in the use of the simple verb

Explicator Compound Verbs 163

in place of the ECV or vice versa, rather we simply assert that the use of one or the

other does not alter the truth value of the predication made in either case. In other

words, it can be said that the semantics of explicators has a significant role to play

at the level of discourse.4 Compare sentences 1 and 2 with sentences la and 2a, given

below for clarification of this point.

Hindi la. vo aaya

he come- pst.

‘He came.’

Malayalam 2a. kuppi pot!i

bottle break- pst.

‘(The) bottle broke. ’

Significantly, this second definitional constraint automatically excludes all tensual,

aspectual and modal auxiliaries from the class of explicators.

What we propose to do in this paper is to make a comparative area1 study of expli-

cator compound verbs not in terms of the lexical items used or their actual semantic

usages in the various Indian languages, but in terms of what most writers agree, either

explicitly or otherwise, are similar types of meanings indicated by explicators in these

languages. Analysis, however, demands cross linguistic comparison of the actual

lexical items used in the construction under consideration. See Tables 1-3 appearing

later in the paper. For purposes of the present study we have taken representative data

from languages belonging to all the four language families in India: Dravidian, Indo-

Aryan, Austro-Asiatic and Tibeto-Burman.

EXPLICATORS-SEMANTIC TYPES

First a brief note on the ‘types’ of meanings indicated by explicators in South Asian

languages. At the highest level, these meanings may be grouped into ASPECTUAL,

ADVERBIAL and ATTITUDINAL types. Each of these types can further be seen in

terms of several discrete or sometimes partially overlapping subtypes. Let us take a

quick look at these subtypes that represent (and this can be said with near certainty)

all the meanings indicated by explicators in the South Asian languages where they have

been studied so far.

The Aspectual subtype is the least differentiated one. Under it come the overlapping

meanings of perfectivity or action being seen as a whole, completion etc.


TABLE 1

Aspectual

Language Perfective/Action drawn to last point/Action seen as a

complete whole.

Indo-Aryan

Hindi

Punjabi

Kashmiri

Bengali

Marathi

Dravidian

Tamil

Malayalam

Telugu

Kannada

Kurukh

Austro-Asiatic

Santhali

Kharia

Gta

Tibeto-Burman

Meithei

jaa ‘go’, aa ‘come’, le ‘take’, de ‘give’ - - - -

jaa, ‘go’, aa ‘come’, lai ‘take’, de ‘give’ - - - -

hyun ‘take’, yun ‘come’, tshunun ‘wear’

jaa ‘go’, aaS ‘come’, ne ‘take’, de ‘give’ - - - -

za ‘go’, ye ‘come’, kad ‘draw’ 2

vitu ‘leave’, poo ‘go’, itu ‘put’ : :

ita ‘put’, poo ‘go’, ka!a ‘throw’ :

poo ‘go’, pett ‘keep’, wees ‘put’ - -

hoogu ‘go’, bitu ‘release’ :

kaal ‘go’, ci? ‘give’ -

NA

godna ‘pluck’. cona ‘go’

we ‘go’, bi? ‘give’ - -

thok ‘exit’

Kabui tan ‘do, finish’, lau ‘put’ - -

For instance:

Meitei 5. ay cat-thok-luy

I go - EXIT - pst

‘I went away’ (Perfective)

TA

BL

E

2

Att

itud

inal

Lan

guag

e H

umili

ty

Con

tem

pt

Res

pect

Su

rpri

se

at

unex

pect

edne

ss

Reg

ret

or

Cen

sura

bilit

y or

Und

esir

abili

ty

Ang

er

or

Dis

gust

or

Exa

sper

atio

n

Indo

-Ary

an

Hin

di

Punj

abi

Kas

hmir

i

Ben

gali

Mar

athi

le

‘tak

e’

-

Dra

vidi

an

Tam

il

Mal

ayal

am

Tel

ugu

Kan

nada

ko!

‘con

tain

’ ki

ti ‘t

ear’

ar

ul

‘gra

ce’

---L

ko!

‘con

tain

’ ta

!!a_

‘pu

sh’

arul

‘g

race

’ L

Kur

ukh

ci?

‘giv

e’

-

baith

‘s

it’

bai

‘sit’

- ga

tshu

n ‘g

o’

bosh

‘s

it’

bas

‘sit’

kala

‘t

hrow

’ _-

-.L

poot

u ‘p

ut’

PO0

‘go’

kala

‘t

hrow

’ L

poo

‘go’

kuur

con

‘sit’

tola

i ‘g

et

lost

’

oli

‘per

ish’

-z

_ F

tula

kya

‘des

troy

’ h z n

caaw

‘d

ie’

hoog

u ‘g

o’

haak

u ‘p

ut’

bi?

‘coo

k’

- kaal

‘g

o’

r

Con

tinue

d on

nex

t pa

ge

E

E

Lan

guag

e

Aus

tro-

Asi

atic

Sant

hali

Kha

ria

Gta

?

Tib

eto-

Bur

man

Hum

ility

C

onte

mpt

R

espe

ct

Surp

rise

at

unex

pect

edne

ss

Reg

ret

or

Cen

sura

bilit

y or

U

ndes

irab

jlity

Ang

er o

r D

isgu

st o

r E

xasp

erat

ion

Mei

thei

bi

‘gi

ve’

sin

‘arr

ange

’ -

- th

ok ‘

exit’

or ‘

copy

’ -

bi ‘

give

’ -

Kab

ui

kai

‘com

e’

TA

BL

E

3a

Adv

erbi

al

(Non

-man

ner)

Lan

guag

e B

enef

actio

n Ir

reve

rsib

le/

Don

e an

d E

mph

atic

/ A

ntic

ipat

ory

Intr

over

t O

vert

act

ion

with

out

Def

inite

ac

tion

done

ac

tion

actio

n Se

lf

Oth

er

got

over

re

med

y w

ith

in a

dvan

ce

Indo

-Ary

an

Hin

di

Punj

abi

Kas

hmir

i

Ben

gali

Mar

athi

le ‘

take

’ de

‘gi

ve’

daal

‘pu

t’

rakh

‘ke

ep’

le ‘

take

’ de

‘gi

ve’

- -

.z-.

- -

lai

‘tak

e’

de ‘

give

’ su

tt ‘

thro

w’

lai

‘tak

e’

d,

‘giv

e’

- .-

-z

- -

Ayu

n ‘t

ake’

ts

hunu

n ga

tshu

n ‘g

o’

tshu

nun

tshu

nun

‘wea

r’

‘wea

r’

‘wea

r’

ne ‘

take

’ de

‘gi

ve’

rakh

‘ke

ep’

- -

ghe

‘tak

e’

de ‘

give

’ ta

k ‘p

ut’

thev

‘ke

ep’

- 2.

.-

Dra

vidi

an

Tam

il

Mal

ayal

am

Tel

ugu

kol

‘con

tain

’ 9

‘giv

e’

poo

‘go’

--

J itu

‘pu

t’

2...

kol

‘con

tain

’ va

i ‘k

eep’

-.

-z

- ko

du ‘

give

’ po

o ‘g

o’

kala

‘th

row

’ va

i ‘k

eep’

-

--2

- ko

n ‘t

ake’

:

pet@

‘kee

p’

unc

‘kee

p’

- -

or ‘

cont

ain’

Kan

nada

ko

l ‘c

onta

in’

kodu

‘gi

ve’

: K

uruk

h ci

? ‘g

ive’

itu ‘

be’

: xacc

‘br

eak’

Con

tinu

ed o

n ne

xt p

age

TA

BL

E

3a

co

ntin

ued

Lan

guag

e B

enef

actio

n Ir

reve

rsib

le/

Don

e an

d E

mph

atic

/ A

ntic

ipat

ory

Intr

over

t O

vert

ac

tion

with

out

got

over

D

efin

ite

actio

n do

ne

actio

n ac

tion

Self

O

ther

re

med

y w

ith

in

adva

nce

Aus

tro-

Asi

atic

Sant

hali

Kha

ria

Gta

?

gdna

‘p

luck

’

Tib

eto-

Bur

man

Mei

thei

bi

‘g

ive’

-

srn/

sIl

tham

‘k

eep’

‘to

copy

’ or

‘to

be

in’

Kab

ui

TA

BL

E

3b

Adv

erbi

al

(Man

ner)

Lan

guag

e Su

dden

/

abru

pt

With

out

volit

ion

Del

iber

ate

Don

e w

ith

Don

e ea

sily

D

one

Vio

lent

/ In

tens

ivel

y/

diff

icul

ty

casu

ally

/ de

cisi

ve/

exha

ustiv

ely

care

less

ly

dras

tic

done

Indo

-Ary

an

Hin

di

uth

‘ris

e’

par

‘fal

l’

Punj

abi

Kas

hmir

i py

on

‘fal

l’

Ben

gali

0th

‘ris

e’

1

Mar

athi

Dra

vidi

an

Tam

il

par

‘fal

l’

- gats

hun

‘go’

fiy

un

‘tak

e’

bas

‘sit’

poo

.go’

et

u ‘t

ake

Mal

ayal

am

ka!a

‘t

hrow

’ po

o ‘g

o’

ka!a

‘t

hrow

’ un

daak

a

‘mak

e’

Tel

ugu

kott

‘hit,

--

X

stri

ke’

wee

s ‘p

ut’

daal

‘p

ut’

i ch

ar

‘lea

ve’

daal

‘p

ut’

: k

daal

‘p

ut’

h

de

‘giv

e’

-

cadd

‘l

eave

’ su

tt ‘t

hrow

’ --

X

tshu

nun

tshu

nun

‘wea

r’

‘wea

r’

phel

‘t

hrow

’ pa

r ‘f

all’

ph

el

‘thr

ow’

phel

‘t

hrow

’

tallu

‘p

ush’

po

otu

‘tos

s’

:

talla

‘p

ush’

2

wee

s ‘p

ut’

paar

es

‘thr

ow

away

’

Co

ntin

ued

o

n ne

xt p

ag

e

TA

BL

E

3b

corl

tiru

retl

Lan

guag

e Su

dden

/

abru

pt

With

out

volit

ion

Del

iber

ate

Don

e w

ith

Don

e ea

sily

D

one

Vio

lent

/ In

tens

ivel

y/

diff

icul

ty

casu

ally

/ de

cisi

ve/

exha

ustiv

ely

care

less

ly

dras

tic

done

Kan

nada

Kur

ukh

ci?

‘giv

e’

Aus

tro-

Asi

atic

Sant

hali

cot?

‘p

luck

’

hod

‘str

ip’

Kha

ria

Gta

hoog

u ‘g

o’

bidu

‘l

eave

’ bi

du

‘lea

ve’

--.I-

- na

aku

‘put

’ na

aku

‘put

’

bidu

‘l

eave

’

ci?

xacc

‘b

reak

’

ci?

‘giv

e’

- hod

‘str

ip’

Tib

eto-

Bur

man

Mei

thei

si

n/si

l ph

aw

that

‘b

reak

’

‘to

copy

’ or

‘d

isjo

in’

Kab

ui

born

‘s

tay’


Kannada 6. naanu ella haalannu kudIdu biduu eene

I all milk drink LEAVE&n-per.

‘I’ll drink up all the milk’ (completion)

The Adverbial subtype is of three kinds:

(i) Manner, indicating an action/event to be abrupt, non-volitional, deliberate, done

with difficulty, done easily, done casually, done decisively/drastically, intensively or

exhaustively.

For instance:

Punjabi 7. toshii ne kamm kar suttiaa

Toshi erg work do THROW-pst., mas. sg.

‘Toshi did the work (violently)’

(ii) Benefactive indicating whether an action is for oneself or another.

For instance:

Kurukh 8. nin enage ante svatar tas?oi ci?oi

you for me one sweater knit-interro. GIVE-interro-

‘Will you knit a sweater for me?’ (other-benefactive)

Bengali 9. basu bari kore niyeche

Basu house make TAKE-pst., 3p.

‘Basu built a house’ (self-benefactive)

(iii) Others such as irreversible action, an action done in anticipation or in advance,

done to get over with, marking emphasis, definiteness etc.

For instance:

Kashmiri 10. voii kyaa kar1, b1 goos y1 kE:m kErith

now what do I WENT this work having done

‘Now what shall I do, I have done this work’ (irreversible,

without remedy)

The Attitudinal subtypes mark attitudes of the speaker or narrator towards the

action or actor such as those of humility, respect, contempt, surprise, censurability

or undesirability and anger, disgust or exasperation. See examples 11 and 12 given

below.


Tamil 11. leksmi paatta- paad kiliccaa

Lakshmi song sing- pst. prt. TEAR-pst. fern...

‘Lakshmi sang a song’ (contempt)

Marathi 12. mi he kaay karuun basle

I this what do SIT- pst.

‘Oh ! what have I done’ (undesirability)

FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Two important points emerge on examination of explicator systems in individual

languages. Firstly, it is clear that explicators can be multi-functional. In other words,

an explicator in a language can have more than one function and this is true of most,

if not all, explicators in different languages. Illustration of this is provided by Hindi-

Urdu explicators le ‘take’ and de ‘give’ that show the meanings of ‘self-benefaction’

and ‘other-benefaction’, respe&ely, in some cases, and that of ‘perfectivity’ in

others.

13. a. ek kamiz silva lo

one shirt get tailored TAKE-imp.

‘Get a shirt made’ (for self)

13. b. Syaam ne saara dudh piiliya

shyam-erg. all milk drink TAKE-pst.

‘Shyam drank up all the milk’ (completive)

14. a. ek kamiz silva do

one shirt get tailored GIVE-imp

‘Get a shirt made’ (for another)

14. b. radha ne baat kah dii

Radha-erg. matter say GIVE-pst.

‘Radha revealed all’ (completive)

Another illustration of this is seen in the Austro-Asiatic language Kharia where the

explicator godna ‘pluck’ shows the meanings of ‘perfectivity’ as well as ‘intensity’5

Cf 15(a) (b) below:


15. a. ravan raja goej-god-ki

Ravan king die PLUCK-pst. intr.

‘Ravan the king died’ (perfective)

15. b. da?-te ho-te dul-gore-m

water-act that- in pour-PLUCK-imp., tr., 2 sg.

‘You throw away the water there’ (intensive/exhortative)

The second point to be noted is that explicators just as much as other grammatical

elements or lexical items can be homonymous. What this means is that a language may

use more than one explicator to mark the same meaning. To illustrate, Kannada

explicators hoogu ‘go’ and bidu ‘release’ both mark lack of volition. :

16. maguvige padadalli hunnu aaki hoogide

child (gen.) foot-in wound happen GO

‘Wounds developed in the child’s foot’

17. maguvige padadalli hunnu aaki bittide

child (gen.) foot-in wound happen LEAVE

‘Wounds developed in the child’s foot’

AREAL COMPARISON OF EXPLICATORS

Let us now move on from the situation in individual South-Asian languages to our

main concern in this paper which is a comparative overview of the phenomenon in

different languages of the area with special focus on the commonalities that underlie

the identification of the ECV as a major area1 feature in the languages of the region.

Such a comparative study yields the following conclusions by way of results.

(1) Invariably, with no more than a few exceptions (North Dravidian Kurukh

bi? ‘cook’, Dardic Kashmiri, tshunun ‘wear’, - Tibeto-Burman Meithei haw ‘grow’

and Austro-Asiatic Santhali got? ‘pluck’), the core of the explicator class in different

languages of the four language families is constituted of elements drawn from near

identical or at least closely similar lexical sets. A survey of data from some fifteen

Indian languages belonging to Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic and Tibeto-

Burman families indicates that explicators are mostly drawn from a common set

consisting of GO, COME, GIVE, TAKE, KEEP, PUT, SIT and FALL.6 This does

not mean, however, that all Indian languages have all the above-listed eight explicators,

or even that their explicators are exclusively drawn from this single set, but only that


at least the majority of explicators is in each case drawn from this set. Of course, it

is also true that certain explicators may be said to be typically Indo-Aryan (and Tibeto-

Burman as well) and others Dravidian: examples of the former are explicators COME

and SIT, while those of the latter are HOLD/CONTAIN and possibly THROW.

(2) Not all the languages show all subtypes of explicator meaning; what is more

significant, however, is that all have some explicator marking main verbs for at least

one of the subtypes of each of the three main types of meanings that have been noted

earlier. In Kurukh, for instance, where the range of meanings indicated by explicators

is nowhere as elaborate as in Indo-Aryan or even other Dravidian languages, one of

each type is represented. Thus, under the aspectual heading ‘perfectivity’ is marked

by explicators ci? ‘give’, kaal ‘go’, xacc ‘break’ and bi? ‘cook’ and under the

adverbial heading ci? ‘give’ and xacc ‘break’ mark ‘sudden&& and ‘nonvolitionality’ - respectively with ci? ‘give’ also indicating ‘other-benefaction’ and xacc ‘break’ and - ‘anticipatory action’. The attitudinal subtype is represented by ci? ‘give’ that marks - ‘contempt’ and bi? ‘cook’ and kaal ‘go’ indicating ‘surprise at unexpectedness’.

There is a related point that would be of interest here. Just as there are, as has

already been noted, explicators exclusive to members of a particular language family

alone, it is possible to identify certain subtypes of explicator meanings that are

similarly characteristic of one language family or the other. This is illustrated by one

of the uses of explicators TAKE and GIVE in Hindi and Punjabi, which is to mark

an action being introverted or overtly done, respectively. It is observed that this

semantic opposition is not manifested in any of the Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic or

Tibeto-Burman languages (See Table 3a).

Another instance of a semantic subtype whose marking is family specific, is the

representation of attitudes such as humility, contempt and respect in Dravidian

languages alone. (See Table 2.) However, it is also true that while serving as identity

markers of a genetic type, semantic parameters of the kind discussed above are not

found to be widespread, either in terms of their frequency or occurrence in languages

they are associated, or in terms of the number of languages they occur in within that

particular language family.

(3) It is seen that very often the same explicator (being cognates lexically) may

indicate different meanings in different languages. A case in point are the explicators

KEEP in Malayalam (vai) and Telugu (pett) that serve to mark an ‘anticipatory action’ - 2 in the first language and an ‘other-benefactive action’ in the second.

Malayalam 18. mohan vivaaham kalikyaan oRu

Mohan marriage do-for a

kuttiye kanda vaiccu

girl-act. see-pst. prt. KEEP. pst.

‘Mohan saw a girl whom he would marry later’


Telugu 19. miru nI k6saw pustakaw tecci pettandi

you for me book bring-KEEP

‘Bring the book for me !’ (benefactive)

Conversely, it is also possible to have the same meaning marked by two different

explicators in two languages. An illustration to substantiate this observation is

provided by the fact that Indo-Aryan languages in general employ TAKE to indicate

reflexive actions that are done for oneself while Dravidian languages use explicator

HOLD/CONTAIN in cases where this meaning is represented at all. (See Tables l-3

for details.)

It is well known that grammatical categories in language are not entirely fixed but

allow a range of semantic functions in their actual manifestations. These are either

language or culture specific or decided by the context of discourse. A clear case in

point is the notion of ‘perfectivity’ (seen to be a major explicator function) which takes

the shape of polysymous grammatical category when manifested in ECV constructions

of different languages. For instance, an action/event being ‘perfective’ is identified as:

:;;,

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

event or action seen as a whole;

completely done action;

action thoroughly or exhaustively done;

action drawn to the last point;

resultant state;

total achievement;

in the different South-Asian languages where the notion is marked by the use of an

explicator compound verb. Such variations in the cognition of the notion of ‘perfec-

tivity’ are not alarming as the larger semantic type, or often, subtype, is the same

from an area1 point of view. The variations from (i) to (vi) offer a range of semantic

functions which can be subsumed under one semantico-grammatical category i.e.

‘perfective’ in the South Asian context. It is this fact which is significant in identifying

South Asia as a semantic area.

(4) Predictably enough there are clear cases of mutual influence and borrowing to

be seen amongst languages of different language families that are spoken in bordering

areas. At one level this is reflected by the actual lexical items used as explicators.

Thus, for instance, while none of the Dravidian languages use SIT, which is typically

Indo-Aryan, as an explicator, it appears in one of the northern varieties of Telugu as

kuurcon (see Table 2). Similarly Konkani shows Dravidian influence both in the

presence of explicator udai ‘throw’ (not seen in other related Indo-Aryan languages

like Marathi) as well as in the absence of the typically Indo-Aryan explicator COME.

Lsc-IS/I--P


(5) The most important and noteworthy of all these points is the inescapable obser-

vation, made on the basis of a wide sweeping area1 survey of the semantics of the ECV

construction in Indian languages, that typologically there is similarity in the features

marked by explicators in South Asian languages. These are not, in other words, totally

dissimilar or semantically of diverse kinds, even in languages of different language

families. This is why we are able to catalogue all the functions of explicators in most

of the languages of this linguistic area using only a limited set of functional types;

nowhere do we find a semantically novel type that is unrepresented by even one

language of any one family.

Not only are the semantic functions of explicators of the same types and subtypes

but, as the table shows, their distribution vis-a-vis languages of different genetic

families and typological groups is even and thoroughly mixed. This means that almost

all the languages of the area have an explicator with a function corresponding to each

of the major types as well as to at least on of the smaller subtypes.’ This semantic

typology becomes all the more marked when we compare analogous structures in

languages of bordering east, and southeast Asian areas. A clear illustration of this is

provided by Chinese, where use of explicator-like verbal elements includes indication

of ‘resultativity’ such as in byan-chang ‘change so as to be good’ and ‘directionality’

as in pa-syachyu ‘climb down and away from speaker’ (pa climb using both hands

and feet and sya ‘descend’. (See Masica 1976.) It is seen that some Tibeto-Burman

languages like Meithei have ‘directionality’ as one of the major explicator functions

possibly due to geographic and cultural proximity with Burmese languages. Meithei

khat‘to tap’ and tha- ‘to fall’ can occur with main verbs indicating directionality of - the events being talked of. Consider:

20. ucek ama mathakta pay-khat ‘-Ii

a bird upwards fly TAP-prs.

‘A bird flies upwards’

2 1. ayna norJ thak-ta yag-khat-Ii

I- erg. sky look TAP-prs

‘I look up towards the sky’

22. isin adu khik-tha-i

water that splash-FALL- cont.

‘The water is splashing (down)’

23. isin adu pa-tha-re

water that flow - FALL - perf.

‘The water has overflown’ (down)


Yet another areaf contrast is provided by similar ‘serial verbs’ in West African

languages that convey, unlike ECVs in Indian languages, meanings relating to cases,

voice, causation etc. (Kachru 1988).

To conclude, we may say that explicators in South-Asian languages are drawn from

similar lexical sets consisting of similar types of verbs (nonstative, AL etc.) and are

used with main verbs in the respective languages, in private contrast with simple

verbs, to indicate similar types/range of meanings. It is true that at the level of actual

manifestations such as the number of explicators, their individual meanings etc., the

languages show differences, but they are strikingly similar from the point of view of

the semantic parameters involved. What ought to be of paramount interest is not the

fact that, for instance, Malayalam has an explicator to indicate an infensive6y done

action or that Kashmiri has another indicating an action done casually or carelessly,

or even that Meithei uses an explicator to mark abruptness, but the fact that all the

three languages, geographically distant and belonging to different genetic stocks but

one linguistic area, use a similar linguistic device to mark the main verb for a similar

type of meaning8 which happens to be, in the case that has been used to illustrate,

manner of action.

It is this semantic sameness or unity that is the underlying principle behind the

‘Indian-ness’ of South-Asian languages. Further, this semantic similarity among South

Asian languages is what lends credibility to the notion of a ‘semantic area’, possibly

one of the factors contributing to what is commonly known as the Indian culture or

ethos. Other linguistic markers of this semantic area include, besides explicator com-

pound verbs, reduplicatives and echo formations (Abbi 1987), words of perception

(Abbi 1991a) and dative constructions (Abbi 1991b, c), to name a few.

NOTES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The term ‘serial verb’ originated in the writings of scholars working on African

languages having what appeared to be similar structures. In the Indian context,

the term is used most commonly by Kachru and associates.

There has been much debate but little agreement on this issue. Refer to Hook

(1974), Porizka (1967-1969), Annamalai (1979) etc.

Cf: U.N. Singh, K.V. Subbarao and S.K. Bandyopadhyay (1986) and P.E. Hock

(1988).

This is possibly one of the reasons why foreign language learners who are most

often taught a language by means of isolated sentences prized out of their natural

discourse setting, find it difficult to comprehend the use of the construction.

Kharia data from Veena Malhotra (1982) Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.

Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.


6. Note that these are all action-location, action-process, or motion verbs. The use

of stative verbs is extremely rare.

7. It must be acknowledged that a germ of this idea is to be seen in Masica (1976)

who mentions in passing that Indian explicators are drawn from the same semantic

set and that therefore “ . . .not only do the items largely correspond but the cor-

respondence within Indo-Aryan for example, is semantic rather than etymological.

It is the semantic category that is important, not the history of individual stems”.

(P. 145) 8. Abbi (1991~) elsewhere used the terms ‘structural cognates’ for such phenomena,

where identity relationships between linguistic structuring and its associated mean-

ings can be established across genetically and typologically hetrogeneous languages.

9. Data here is drawn both from field-notes as well as secondary sources where

available.

10. Address correspondence to: Dr A. Abbi, Centre of Linguistics and English,

School of Languages, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.

REFERENCES

Abbi, Anvita

1987 Reduplicative Structures in South Asian Languages : A Phenomenon of

Linguistic Area, New Delhi: Centre for Linguistics and English, Jawaharlal

Nehru University.

Reduplication in South Asia. An Area1 Typological and Historical Study,

New Delhi: Allied Publishers.

1991a

1991b

199lc

“Experiencer Constructions and the ‘Subjecthood’ of the Experiencer NPs in

Asian Languages,” in Experiencer Subjects in Indian Languages, pp. 253-

65, M.K. Verma and K.P. Mohanan (eds), CSLI: Stanford University Press.

Semantic Unity in Linguistic Diversity, Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced

Studies Publication.

Agesthialingom, S. and G. Srinivasa Varma (eds)

1980 Auxiliaries in Dravidian (Seminar Papers), Annamalai University.

Annamalai, E.

1979 Aspects of Aspect in Tamil. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics

8.2. 260-7.

Bahuguna, L. Mohan

1982 A Contrastive Analysis of Hindi and Bengali Compound Verb. Unpub-

lished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Agra.

Bhat, D. N. S.

1979 Vectors in Kannada. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 8.2.

300-9.


Bhatia, Tej.

n.d. Punjabi. London: Croon Helm Series.

Dasgupta, Probal.

1977 “The Internal Grammar of Compound Verbs in Bangla,” Indian Linguistics

38.2. 68-85.

Ekka, F.

1979 “Some Aspects of Kurukh Aspect,” International Journal of Dravidian

Linguistics 8.2. 277-84.

Fedson, Vijayrani Jyothimuthu

1980 ne Tamil Serial or Compound Verb, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation

submitted to the University of Chicago, Illinois.

Gopalakrishnan, Devi

1985 Verb Sequences in Malayalam, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Jawaharlal

Nehru University, New Delhi.

Hook, P. E.

1974 The Compound Verb in Hindi, The Michigan Series in South and Southeast

Languages and Linguistics. No. 1. The University of Michigan.

1988 “Paradigmaticization: A Case Study from South Asia,” in Berkley

Linguistic Society 14. l-l 1.

1991 “The Compound Verb in Munda: An Area1 and Typological Overview,”

in India as a Linguistic Area Revisited A. Abbi (ed.), Language Sciences,

13. 161-80.

Kachru, Yamuna

1978 A Bibliography on Serial Verbs in West African and South Asian Languages,

Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Mimeographed.

1978 “The Serial Verbal Construction in South Asian and West African

Languages, ’ ’ Unpublished paper.

1984 “Verb Serialization in South Asian and African Languages: Research in

Progress, ” Unpublished paper.

Kachru, Y. and Rajeshwari Pandharipande

1980 “Towards a Typology of Compound Verbs in South Asian Languages.”

Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 10.1. 113-24.

Koul, Vijay

1984 Syntactico-Semantic Study of Compound Verbs in Kashmiri, Unpublished

Ph.D. Dissertation.

Krishnamurti, Bh.

1989 “Complex Predicates in Telugu,” Paper presented to the South Asian

Languages Analysis Roundtable (SALAXI). Madison: University of

Wisconsin.


Mahurkar , Sangeeta

1990 Explicators and the Compound Verb: A Konkani Exegisis, Unpublished

M.A. Dissertation. Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

Malhotra, Veena

1982 i?he Structure of Kharai: A Study of Linguistic Typology and Language

Change, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Jawaharlal Nehru University,

New Delhi.

Masica, C. P.

1976 Defining a Linguistic Area: South Asia, Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press.

Nayar, V. R. Prabodhachandran

1979 “Aspectual System in Malayalam.” International Journal of Dravidian

Linguistics 8.2. 289-99.

Pandharipande, Rajeshwari

1989 “Split Properlies of Serial Verbs in Marathi,” Paper presented at the

South Asian Languages Analysis Roundtable (SALAXI). Madison:

University of Wisconsin.

Poiika, Vincent

1967 “On the Perfective Verbal Aspect in Hindi,” Archiv Orientalni 35.

64-88, 208-3 1.


233-51.


19-47, 345-64.

Rajpurohit, B. B.

1973 “Compound Verbal Constructions in Kannada.” International Journal of

Dravidian Linguistics 2.2. 316-20.

Singh, U. N., K. V. Subbarao and S. K. Bandyopadhyay

1986 “Classification of Polar Verbs in Selected South Asian Languages,” in

South Asian Languages Structure, Convergence and Diglossia. pp. 244-69.

Bh. Krishnamurti et al. (eds). Delhi: Motilal Benarsidass, Vol. III.

Subbarao, K. V.

1979 Secondary Verbs in Telugu. International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics

8.2. 268-76.

Thoudam, P. C.

1980 A Grammatical Sketch of Meiteiron Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation.

Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

Semantics of explicator compound verbs in south Asian languages

Documents