1.

Introduction:

2. Functions of the -kar constructions

The -kar particle primarily features as the main verb in Complex Predicate constructions, which

is a productive syntactic phenomenon in Hindi. It can form predicates with nouns, adjectives,

and with other verbs. There are two distinct types of V-V compound relationships the particle

establishes, one where it retains its original semantics as the main verb, the other where it adopts

‘converbial’ interpretation.

(1) N-V predicate: ‘mehnat karna’

Suresh-ne pariksha ke liye Mehnat ki

Subj.NOM Exam hard work do.PERF
‘Suresh worked hard for the exam.

(2) Adj-V predicate: ‘saaf karna’

Meetu Karma Saaf karega

Subj Room Clean do.FUT.M
‘Meetu will clean the room.’

(3) V-V predicate: ‘kar lena’

Mohit Kaam Kar lega

Subj Work Do take.FUT.M

‘Mohit will do the work.’

(4) V-V predicate

 Madhu uth- chai pee- Akhbar padh- office Ko Nikal Gyi
kar kar kar
Subj wake- tea drink- Newspaper read- office LOC leave.PAST go.Perf.F
‘After waking up, drinking tea, reading newspaper left for office.’

As is evident from the translation, (4) is to be distinguished from (1), (2) and (3). (4) depicts a

series of events in succession, with one subject being shared across different clauses; it exhibits a

macro-event, (a morning ritual), with each clause describing one event in the chain. Moreover,

the utterance has the additional semantics of ‘correlational coherence’ brought to light by the

usage of -kar, not as a light verb but as a clause chaining device instead. This ‘clause-chaining’

function will be discussed at length later in the paper. (5) shows an instance of -kar having two

distinct functions (and syntactic structures) in the same construction,

(5)

mene kapde dhokar kaam Khatam kar lia

I.NOM clothes wash work Finish Do take.PERF

‘Having washed the clothes, I finished my work.’

Other functions of -kar include (6), where (as noted by Davison 1985), the -kar clause lends a

conditional interpretation to the utterance, especially if the main verb carries future tense.

(6) Aisa kar-ke Tum Kursi Tod Doge

So do- You Chair Break give.FUT
‘If you do that, you’ll break the chair.’/ ‘If you do things that way, you’ll break the chair.’
[Davison 1985:8]
(7)

Teen baj-kar Bees Minat Hue

Three Strike Twenty Minutes happen.PAST.PERF
‘It is twenty minutes after three’
Literally: Three having struck, twenty minutes occurred.

(8) exhibits the manner adverbial interpretation of -kar.

(8) Mein yaha chal-kar Aya

I here Walk Come.PERF.M
‘I came here by walking.’

(9) Yah Baat Sun kar Bhi usei Krodh Nahi Aya
This Matter Hear Also He.DAT Anger Not come.perf
‘Even though he heard this matter, he did not get angry.’
(Davison 1981:112)
Inclusive particles (like also) when used alongside the -kar particle, lend a concessive

interpretation to the utterance.

3. Clause Chaining/ Conjunctive Participle

This section intends to focus on the clause chaining function of the -kar particle. The

phenomenon of clause chaining is most commonly associated with West African Languages (eg.

Osam 1994) and has recently been worked on in Indo Aryan Languages like Oriya (Beermann &

Hellan 2002). A clause chain involves a series of (VP) clauses bearing a sequential relationship

with one another. All adjoined clauses barring one are non-finite, and the tense feature of the one
fully inflected verb determines the tense feature of the utterance as a whole. (Payne 1997: 321;

Kroeger 2004:242-250) (see Longacre (1985: 263-83) for more on chaining). Similar to (8) other

examples of the phenomenon are provided below:

(10)

Ghar jaa-kar Muh dho-kar khana kha-kar Ramesh So gaya

Home Go Face Wash Food eat Subj Sleep go.perf
‘Having gone home, washing face, eating food, Ramesh went to sleep.’

(11)

Mohan Kitab padh-kar lekh Likhega

Subj Book Read Essay wrote.Fut.Masc.
‘After reading the book, Mohan will write an essay.’

(12)

Mene Aam ache se dho-kar dhyan-se Kata

I.NOM Mango well. Wash Carefully cut.perf
‘I cut the mango carefully after having washed it well.’

(13)

*baarish Khoob ho-kar Fasle Achi Hui

Rains Well Fall crops Well Happened
Intended: ‘It having rained well, the crops grew well’.
(Subbarao 2012: 276)
As can be inferred from the data presented, subject sharing is obligatory across VP chains (at

least in Hindi), object sharing however, is not. The PRO subject of the -kar clause is obligatorily

controlled by the matrix subject. In addition, as illustrated in (11), and (12), each verb in the

sequence has its own direct object and/or adverbial modifier, i.e, their own independent object

domain.

The following are instances of negation in clause chains.

(14). a.

Wo Patra padh-kar Bola

He Letter read speak.perf
‘He spoke after reading the letter’.
b.) *wo Patra Na padh-kar Bola
He Letter Not Read speak.perf
‘He spoke after reading the letter’.
(Bhatia 1978: 143)

(15.a.) Raja aa-kar kitab Padhne Laga

King Come Book read.inf.obl strike.perf.
‘Having come, the kind began to study the book.’

b.) Raja Na aa-kar kitab Padhne Laga

King Not Come Book read.inf.obl strike.perf.
‘Having come, the kind began to study the book.’
(Ibid: 142)
(16)

a.) Who Ghaas Khane Ki jagah patte Kha raha hai

 3ps. Grass Eat- Of place leaves Eat Remain Is
inf.obl
‘He is eating leaves in place of/instead of eating grass’.

b.) Woo Ghaas Na kha kar patte Kha raha hai

3ps. Grass Not Eat-inf.obl Leaves Eat Remain Is
‘Instead of eating grass, he is eating leaves.’
(Bhatia 1978: 159)

The above sentences have all been taken from Bhatia (1978), who claims that (14b) and (15b)

are ill-formed while (16b) is not. He claims that this difference is based on world knowledge

rather than grammatical knowledge. However, we can see that (16b) is only considered

acceptable because of its concessive/instead of nature. Negation is not possible with the non

finite -kar clauses. Additionally, negating the main verb leads to ambiguity as illustrated in (17).

(17)

Ravi Rishvat le-kar kaam Nahi Karta

Subj Bribes Take Work Not Do
(Subbarao 1996)
(i) ‘Ravi takes bribes but does not do the work.’
(ii) ‘Ravi does not take bribes, but (still) does the work’.

According to Subbarao 1996, (17) is interpreted as (i) when the matrix verb is in the scope of the

negative, and as (ii) when the negative has scope only over the non-finite -kar clause.
As for interaction of interrogatives with VP chains, the position of the question particle

determines the scope of the question, as illustrated in the following examples.

(18)

Kya Tum Aam dho-kar khaogi?

QP 2ps Mago Wash Eat.FUT
Literally: ‘Will you wash the mangoes before eating?’
‘Will you eat washed mangoes?’

In (18) it the washing of the mangoes which is being questioned, rather than the eating. (19) on

the other hand has scope over the finite verb.

(19)

Tum Aam dho-kar Kya khaogi?

2ps Mago Wash QP Eat.FUT
‘After washing the mangoes, what will you eat?’

4. Form of the -kar construction

The construction takes on two forms which are identical in their semantics- ‘kar/ke’,

‘Padhkar/Padhke’ both are translated as ‘Having read’. Grierson (ed. 1885: 65) provides an

explanation for this alternation by tracing the development of preverbs in Hindi.

…‘Conjunctive Particle is formed by adding ‘ke’ to the 1st verbal noun. Thus dekhke, deke,

payke. The word ke commonly called the conjunctive part of ‘kar’ is in reality no such thing. It is

derived independently from the Vaidik ‘karya’ (Skr. Kritva), hence Pr. ‘kria’ (Hem Cha. IV,

271) and Bihari (with elision of r) ke. Hence dekhke, means ‘having done the action of seeing’…
As for the grammatical category, other diachronic research (Hook 1991, Tikkanen 1987,

Hendriksen 1944, Chatterji 1926) lead us to believe that the modern V-V complex predicate in

Hindi-Urdu had its origins in the Sanskrit “gerund” or “absolutive” suffixes as in -tv¯a(ya), or -

ya/y¯a. These derivational morphemes came to be reanalyzed as an indeclinable participle (e.g.,

Whitney 1889:345–360) more recently, termed as conjunctive participle (CP). Davison (1986)

claims that syntactically, -kar functions as both an affix which carries perfective aspect and as a

clause connective, whereas ‘the semantic content of -kar is perfective, very general aspectual

meaning, rather than some collection of aspectual, temporal, causal, conditional or manner

adverbial meaning’

The conundrum, here, lies in the fact that there is no consensus about how to classify such

constructions. While some have categorized the -kar clause as an affix carrying perfective aspect

like (Davison 1979,1981) others (Abbi 1984, Davison 1981, Kachru 1981, Kellogg 1938) have

labelled it as a conjunctive participle (Subbarao 1996, 2002), or as a converb ().

In recent years, ‘converbs’, (“verbal adverbs” (Hasplemath 1995: 4)) have been recognized as a

cross linguistically valid grammatical category. Properties of the particle (which usually occurs

as a verbal affix) include an absence of tense and agreement features, dependency on a finite

verb in the same utterance, clause linking, and sequencing of events (Bickel 1998, Genetti 2005,

Hasplemath and König 1995, Masica 1991). Bickel 1998 attributes an additional

‘narrative/clause chaining’ function to converbs found in some Asian languages, which their

European counterparts lack. All the aforementioned properties can be attributed to -kar which

seems to be an optimal candidate for this classification.

However, the issue with putting ‘-kar’ under the category of converbs would be labelling it as a

subordinating device, like that in Davison (1979, 1981). Clause-chains are neither subordinate

nor coordinate in nature. Unlike coordination, VP chains involve an asymmetry in the verbs

involved, with only one verb being inflected, while the others remain ‘frozen’ in past tense,

which is uncharacteristic of coordination markers. Additionally, NP extraction out of one the

coordinates is possible which would not have been the case if it was a true instance of

coordination owing to the coordinate island constraint (Ross 1967).

(20)

Yah Vo Machli Hai Jisko mene dhokar Chaval banakar saath khaya
This 3ps.REL Fish is.PRES which.REL I.NOM wash Rice Cook together Ate.PERF
‘It is this fish that I washed, then after making rice, ate (the rice and fish) together.’

As for evidence against true subordination, in (10) for example, there is no instance of

embedding at all simply because neither clause fulfills any argument role for the other.

Nonetheless, there exists a dependency relationship between the VP chains because the tense

interpretation of the non-finite verbs is determined by the final finite verb, which does not

constitute as complete subordination. Foley and Van Valin (1984: 240-263), following Olson

(1981) put forth an interesting distinction between embedded dependent clauses (subordinate

clauses) and non-dependent embedded clauses which they term ‘cosubordination’. The

relationship between the linked clauses in the VP chains is classified under the same. (Foley and

Van Valin’s 1984, more recently Good 2003). A detailed discussion on cosubordination is

beyond the scope of the paper.

Another distinct line of analysis is that of the ‘-iccu’ particle in Dravidian Malyalam as a Serial

Verb Construction. This is similar to Beermann and Hellan 2002 for fellow Indo-Aryan language
Oriya, which features a clause chaining construction with ‘-i’ (glossed as ‘dependent marker’)

comparable to -kar in Hindi. The authors classify the constriction as a subtype of Serial Verb

Constructions, as well. Figure 1 depicts a rough typology of SVC constructions as featured in

Beermann and Hellan 2002. Osam 1994 and Kroeger 2001 provide more details concerning the

dichotomy between VP-/Clause- Chaining and Integrated SVCs.

Figure 1. Rough typology of notions referring to mono-clausal complex verbal structures

[Mono-clausal complex verbal structure]

‘SVC’ ‘Complex Predicate’

'VP-/Clause-chaining' 'Integrated SVC' 'V-N-sequence', 'V-V-sequence', ...

This analysis is also deemed plausible for the -kar construction, based on the characteristics of

Hindi Compound Verb as posited by Hook (1974).

“…(1) the compound verb expresses perfective aspect and is the marked member of a privative

opposition perfective-imperfective (2) one of the functions of the compound verb is to express

the completion of one action relative to the completion of another (3) if a verb is stative then it is

non-compound (4) if there is no possibility of an action of event’s being anticipated, it is

expressed with a non-compound verb.”

Butt’s ideas of complex predicates involve a grammatical complex structure (with two or more

semantic heads) and the grammatical function structure as that of a simple predicate (single

subject and no embedding). Again, all the features outlined above can be attributed to the -kar

clausal construction.
 5. Analysis

I intend to follow a similar line of analysis for the -kar construction in Hindi, with it being

classified as a non finite VP functioning as an adjunct to the matrix V’ which is similar to the

position of adverbial adjuncts in Hindi (as in (21) below).

(21)
Seema daud-kar aai.
Subj.ERG Run Come.PERF
Seema came running.

Figure 2.

We can extend the same structure to constructions like (11) (repeated below), with a slight

modification. Since VP-chains are independent predicates, which function as a series of adjuncts
that modify a single finite verbal head, we will posit the existence of a INFL node as well, one

that is non-finite, lacking tense and agreement (following Jayseelan (2017) and Beermann and

Hellan (2002)).

(11)
Mohan Kitab padh-kar Lekh Likhega
Subj Book Read Essay wrote.Fut.Masc.
‘After reading the book, Mohan will write an essay.’

Figure 3.
As for sentences like (22) which exhibit the phenomenon of ‘object sharing’, we assume that the

SVC construction has an empty category pro (similar to the ‘argument sharing’ in the analysis of

Ewe by Collins (1997) since Hindi has both null subjects and null objects.

(22)

Mene aam Dhokar khaya

I.NOM mango Wash Eat
‘I ate a mango after washing (it).’

Figure 4.
6. References

• Beermann, D., K. Sahoo, and L. Hellan . 2001. What is ‘Argument Sharing’? A case

study on argument sharing under VP-serialization in Oriya. ms, NTNU.

• Bickel, Balthasar. 1998. Review of Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective, by Martin

Haspelmath and Ekkehard König, eds. Linguistic Typology 2:381-397.

• Davison, Alice. 1979. Some mysteries of subordination. Studies in Linguistic Sciences,

Vol. 9, No. 1 1979.

• Davison, Alice. 1981. Syntactic and semantic indeterminacy resolved: a mostly

pragmatic analysis for the Hindi conjunctive participle. In: Cole Peter (ed), 1981. Radical

pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 101–128.

• Dwarikesh, Dwarika P. 1971. The historical syntax of the conjunctive participial phrase

in the New Indo-Aryan dialects of the Madhyadesa ( Midland ) of Northern India.

• Good, Jeff. 2003. Clause combining in Chechen. Studies in Language. 27. 113-170.

10.1075/sl.27.1.05goo.

• Haspelmath, Martin 1995. The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In

Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb

Forms—Adverbial Participles, Gerunds. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 13

• Hook, Peter Edwin. 1974. The Compound Verb in Hindi. Center for South and Southeast

Asian Studies: The University of Michigan.

• Kachru, Yamuna. 2006. Hindi. (London Oriental and African language library, 12.)

Philadelphia: Benjamins

• Longacre, Robert E. 1985. “Sentences as combinations of clauses”. In: Shopen, Timothy

(ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, volume II 235–286. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

• Mohanan, T. 1994. Argument Structure in Hindi. CSLI Publications, Stanford.

• Osam, E.K.1994. From Serial Verbs to Prepositions – The road between. In

Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 47,1.
• Peterson John. 2002. “The Nepali converbs: a holistic approach.” In: RajendraSingh
(ed.): Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics. New Delhi/Thousand
Oaks/London: Sage Publications. 93-133.
• Subbarao, Karumuri. V. 2012. South Asian Languages: A Syntactic Typology. New
York: Cambridge University Press
• Taylor, Chris. 2006. The Perfect Converb? Semantically-Related Functions of the Sinhala
Conjunctive Participle. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 32. 415.
10.3765/bls.v32i1.3478.
• Tokaj, Jolanta. 2016. A comparative study of participles, converbs and absolute
constructions in Hindi and Medieval Rajasthani. Lingua Posnaniensis. 58. 10.1515/linpo-
2016-0007.
• Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface. New York:
Cambridge University Press
• Yadav, Ramawatar. 2004. On Diachronic Origins of Converbs in Maithili. Contributions
to Nepalese Studies. Vol. 31. No. 2.