subjecthood in hindi
Understanding what constitutes a subject in linguistics is a deceptively complex issue, especially when examined across the world’s languages. Unlike many grammatical terms (like verb or noun), “subject” does not have a universally agreed-upon definition in theoretical or descriptive linguistics. This confusion stems from the fact that languages vary widely in how they encode grammatical relations and in what they treat as “subject-like” elements.
In syntactic theory, core subject properties are diagnostic behaviors typically used to identify the subject in a sentence. The main ones are:
- Subject controls the understood subject in non-finite clauses.
→ Ram [PRO khelne gaya]. ("Ram went [to play].") - Subject can bind reflexive pronouns.
→ Ram-ne apne aap ko dekha. ("Ram saw himself.") - Subject can raise from embedded clauses.
→ Ram lagta hai [_ bimaar hai]._ ("Ram seems to be sick.") - Subject usually triggers verb agreement.
→ Ladki ja rahi hai. ("The girl is going.") → agreement in number/gender. - Some adverbs refer only to the subject.
→ Ram jaan-bujhkar gira. ("Ram fell on purpose.") → “on purpose” must modify the subject. - Subject tends to be the topic or focus.
→ Often sentence-initial in neutral word order.
These tests are used to identify subjecthood even when case marking is non-nominative, especially in Hindi.
1. Syntactic Minimalism and Argument Structure
Mohanan (1994) presented a pivotal generative account where subjecthood in Hindi is not determined by surface case (like nominative), but by argument hierarchy and syntactic configuration. She argued that ergative-marked arguments (e.g., “Ram-ne” in “Ram-ne roti khayi”) are true syntactic subjects despite their non-nominative case.
Reference: Mohanan, T. (1994). Argument Structure in Hindi. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 📘Link
2. Non-nominative Subjects and Voice Syntax
Montaut (2008, 2013) developed a typology of non-canonical subjecthood in Hindi, showing that oblique and dative-marked arguments often display subject properties—control, binding, and topicality—even when they are not agents.
Reference: Montaut, A. (2008). Oblique Main Arguments in Hindi. In Non-Nominative Subjects Vol. 2.
3. Subject as a Gradient, Not a Category
Ethan Poole (2016) proposed that subjecthood in Hindi is property-based and gradient. He showed that ergative or dative arguments may lack some properties (e.g., agreement) but retain others (e.g., control over PRO).
Reference: Poole, E. (2016). Deconstructing Subjecthood.
4. Morphological Ergative & Aspectual Condition
Finley (2010) argued that the presence of -ne is conditioned by aspect, not subjecthood. In Hindi, the perfective aspect determines ergative alignment, breaking down a direct link between morphology and syntactic function.
Reference: Finley, J. (2010). Aspectually-conditioned morphological ergativity in Hindi.
5. Comparative Syntax: Diachrony and Function
Butt (2012) traced the evolution of the ne-marker from a spatial marker to a subject marker, suggesting that subjecthood in Hindi is historically emergent and functionally aligned.
Reference: Butt, M. (2012). From Spatial to Subject Marker.
6. Subjecthood Tests in Hindi
Fatma (2023) applied classical diagnostics such as binding, control, and adverbial orientation to show that Hindi licenses multiple subject types, including ergative, dative, and oblique arguments.
Reference: Fatma, Z. (2023). Non-nominative Subjects in Kannauji and Hindi-Urdu.
7. Karaka Theory and Semantic Alignment
Debnath (2021) used Paninian grammar and pregroup logic to show that karaka relations in Hindi reflect semantic roles, which sometimes override morphological case in determining subject-like behavior.
Reference: Debnath, A. (2021). A Pregroup Representation and Analysis of Hindi Syntax.
8. Binding Theory and Voice⁰
Bhatia & Poole (2016) showed that Voice⁰, the head that introduces external arguments, determines subject-oriented adverbial behavior. Thus, subjecthood in Hindi is derivationally encoded, not simply morphological.
Reference: Bhatia, S., & Poole, E. (2016). Deriving Subject and Antisubject Orientation.
✅ Final Synthesis: A Research Proposition on Subjecthood in Hindi- Drawing from these foundational works, I propose the following testable definition:
In Hindi, a subject is any argument that satisfies a critical mass of syntactic and semantic diagnostics — including control over PRO, binding of reflexives, raising behavior, subject-oriented adverbial licensing, and discourse prominence — regardless of morphological case or surface position.
This means subjecthood is not tied to nominative or ergative morphology, but instead arises from syntactic behavior and functional prominence.
🔬 Validating Examples
| Construction Type | Example | Subject Properties Satisfied |
|---|---|---|
| Nominative | Ravi so raha hai | ✔ Agreement, ✔ Binding |
| Ergative | Ravi-ne roti khayi | ✔ Control, ✔ Subject role |
| Dative (Experiencer) | Mujhe gussa aaya | ✔ Reflexive Binding |
| Oblique (Control Test) | Mujhse apne aap par vishwas… | ✔ Reflexive Binding |
| Raising Construction | Ram lagta hai [__ bimaar hai] | ✔ Raising |
NOTE: This research framework welcomes expansion through dialectal data, corpus validation, and experimental psycholinguistic testing, making it ideal for advanced comparative and South Asian linguistic work.
If you found this useful, please cite this as:
Tripathi, Vivek (Jun 2025). subjecthood in hindi. https://iamalinguist.github.io.
or as a BibTeX entry:
@article{tripathi2025subjecthood-in-hindi,
title = {subjecthood in hindi},
author = {Tripathi, Vivek},
year = {2025},
month = {Jun},
url = {https://iamalinguist.github.io/blog/2025/understanding-idea-of-subject/}
}