Volume 38, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Non-finite forms constitute an important component of the verbal system of Indo-Aryan (IA) languages. On the one hand, some of them, such as e.g., converbs, have already received proper attention in historical linguistics and typological literature, with regard to Old Indo-Aryan (OIA), Middle Indo-Aryan (MIA) and New Indo-Aryan (NIA) (cf. Tikkanen 1987Peterson 1998Subbarao 2012 among others). Other forms, such as participles, have usually been analysed in the wider context of reorganisation of a finite verbal system which led to alignment change (for recent discussion see Dahl and Stroński 2016). On the other hand, adverbial participles or infinitives have so far been under-studied (cf. Sigorski 2005), particularly within early NIA. This period in the history of IA languages witnessed several important morphosyntactic developments and still requires in-depth study, particularly due to the lack of well-edited corpora. The aim of the present paper is to partly fill this gap by highlighting major trends in the development of constructions based on various non-finite forms in early NIA. We focus on main argument marking in converbal chain constructions and its interplay with the animacy hierarchy. We demonstrate a relative stability of differential case marking (DCM), focusing mainly on conditions on differential subject marking (DSM) and differential object marking (DOM). In addition, we compare converbal chain constructions with participial absolute constructions (AC). Finally, in order to give a holistic view of converbal constructions, we verify the type of linking instantiated by them, focusing on three scopal parameters in converbal constructions (Tense, Illocutionary Force and Negation) and using the apparatus of Role and Reference Grammar and Multivariate Analysis.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bhānāvat, Narendra & Kamal, Lakshmi
    (eds.) 1997–1998Rājasthānī gadya: vikās aur prakāś [Rajasthani prose: Development and publicity]. Āgrā: Śrīrām Mehrā end Kampanī. (RG.)
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Dvivedī Silākārī, Loknāth
    1972 (ed.), Rāmāyankathā [The story of Ramayana]. Ilāhābād: Sāhitya bhavan limiṭeḍ.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Gautam, Manmohan
    1954Jāyasīgranthavalī [Books of Jayasi]. Delhi: Rigal Buk Ḍipo. (J.)
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Joshi, Maheshwar P.
    1983Rājanītiśāstra of Chāṇakya (Text and translation). Almora: Śri Malika Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2009 Advent of polities in Uttarkhand (Kumaon and Garhwal). InMarie Lecomte-Tilouine (ed.), Bards and mediums: History, culture, and politics in the central Himalayan kingdoms, 327–371. Almora: Shri Almora Book Depot.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. McGregor, Ronald S.
    1968The language of Indrajit of Orchā. A study of early Braj Bhāsā prose. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Miśra, Viśvanāth P.
    1994 (ed.), Bhūṣaṇa granthāvalī [Collected works of Bhushan]. Naī Dillī: Vāṇī prakāśan.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Pant, Mahes Raj
    2009 Towards a history of the Khasa empire. InMarie Lecomte-Tilouine (ed.), Bards and mediums: History, culture, and politics in the central Himalayan kingdoms, 293–326. Almora: Shri Almora Book Depot.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Prasad, Ram Chandra
    (ed.) 1994Tulsidasa’s shriramacaritamanasa. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Snell, Rupert
    1991aThe eighty-four hymns of Hita Harivaṃśa. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 1991bThe Hindi classical tradition. A Brajbhāṣā Reader. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Śarmā, Śrīrām
    1954Dakkhinī kā padya aur gadya [Poetry and prose of Dakkhini]. Haidrābād: Hindī Pracār Sabhā.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Anderson, Stephen R.
    1977 On the mechanisms by which languages become ergative. InCharles Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change, 217–264. Austin & London: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Arora, Harbir & K. V. Subbarao
    1989 Convergence and syntactic reanalysis: The case of so in Dakkhini. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences19(1). 1–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Auwera, Johan van der
    1998 Defining converbs. InLeonid Kulikov & Heinz Vater (eds.), Typology of verbal categories: Papers presented to Vladimir Nedjalkov on the occasion of his 70th birthday (Linguistische Arbeiten 382), 273–282. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110913750.273
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110913750.273 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bauer, Brigitte
    2000Archaic syntax in Indo-European. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110825992
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110825992 [Google Scholar]
  17. Bickel, Balthasar
    2010 Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: A multivariate analysis. InIsabelle Brill (ed.), Clause linking and clause hierarchy: Syntax and pragmatics, 51–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.121.03bic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.121.03bic [Google Scholar]
  18. 2011 Multivariate typology and field linguistics: A case study on detransitivization in Kiranti (Sino-Tibetan). InPeter, Austin K., Oliver Bond, Lutz Marten & David Nathan (eds.), Proceedings of Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory 3, vol.3, 1–11. London: SOAS University of London.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Bickel, Balthasar & Yogendra P. Yādava
    2000 A fresh look at grammatical relations in Indo-Aryan. Lingua110(5). 343–373. 10.1016/S0024‑3841(99)00048‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(99)00048-0 [Google Scholar]
  20. Bojałkowska, Krystyna
    2010Opis składniowy imiesłowów przysłówkowych we współczesnym języku polskim [A syntactic description of converbs in modern Polish]. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Bubenik, Vit
    1998A historical syntax of late Middle Indo-Aryan (Apabhraṃśa). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.165
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.165 [Google Scholar]
  22. Butt, Miriam
    2001 A reexamination of the accusative to ergative shift in Indo-Aryan. InMiriam Butt & Tracy H. King (eds.), Time over matter: Diachronic perspectives on morphosyntax, 105–141. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Coupe, Alexander R.
    2006 Converbs. InKeith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of languages and linguistics. 2nd edn., 145–152. Oxford: Elsevier. 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00183‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00183-8 [Google Scholar]
  24. Dahl, Eystein & Krzysztof Stroński
    (eds) 2016Indo-Aryan ergativity in typological and diachronic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.112
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.112 [Google Scholar]
  25. Davison, Alice
    1981 Syntactic and semantic indeterminacy resolved: A mostly pragmatic analysis for the Hindi conjunctive participle. InCole Peter (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 101–128. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Dixon, R. M. W.
    1979 Ergativity. Language55. 59–138. 10.2307/412519
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412519 [Google Scholar]
  27. 1994Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611896
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611896 [Google Scholar]
  28. Donohue, Mark & Wichmann Søren
    2008The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Drocco, Andrea
    2017 Rājasthānī features in medieval Braj prose texts: The case of differential object marking and verbal agreement in perfective clauses. Annali di Ca’ Foscari. Serie orientale53: 205–234. doi:  10.14277/2385‑3042/AnnOr‑53‑17‑7
    https://doi.org/10.14277/2385-3042/AnnOr-53-17-7 [Google Scholar]
  30. Dwarikesh, Dwarika Prasad Sharma
    1971 Historical syntax of the conjunctive participle phrase in New Indo-Aryan dialects of Madhyadesa (Midland) of northern India. University of Chicago, PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Ebert, Karen
    2001 Südasien als Sprachbund. InMartin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Language typology and language universals (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunkationswissenschaft. Bd. 11.2), 1529–1539. Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Emeneau, Murray
    1956 India as a linguistic area. Language32(1). 3–16. 10.2307/410649
    https://doi.org/10.2307/410649 [Google Scholar]
  33. Fauconnier, Stefanie
    2011 Differential Agent Marking and animacy. Lingua121(3). 533–547. 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.10.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.10.014 [Google Scholar]
  34. Foley, William A. & Robert D. Van Valin
    1984Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Grierson, George A.
    2005 [1916]Linguistic survey of India. Vol. 9: Indo-Aryan family. Central group; Part IV: Specimens of the Pahāṛī languages and Gujurī. Delhi: Low Price Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Haspelmath, Martin
    1995 The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. InMartin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – adverbial participles, gerunds (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 13), 1–55. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110884463‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110884463-003 [Google Scholar]
  37. Haspelmath, Martin & Ekkehard König
    (eds.) 1995Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – adverbial participles, gerunds (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 13). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110884463
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110884463 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hock, Hans Henrich
    1986 P-oriented construction in Sanskrit. InBhadriraju Krishnamurti, Colin P. Masica & Anjani K. Sinha (eds.), South Asian languages: Structure, convergence and diglossia, 15–26. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hoop, Helen de & Bhuvana Narasimhan
    2009 Ergative case-marking in Hindi. InHelen de Hoop & Peter de Swart (eds.), Differential subject marking (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 72), 63–78. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6497‑5_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6497-5_4 [Google Scholar]
  40. Jaworski, Rafał
  41. Kachru, Yamuna
    1981 On the syntax, semantics and pragmatics of the conjunctive participle in Hindi-Urdu. Studies in Linguistic Sciences11(2). 35–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Kachru, Yamuna, Braj Kachru & Tej Bhatia
    1976 ‘Subject’. A note on Hindi-Urdu, Kashmiri and Punjabi. InManindra K. Verma (ed.), The notion of subject in South Asian languages (South Asian Studies, Publication Series 2), 79–108. Madison: University of Wisconsin.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Khokhlova, Ludmila V.
    1992 Trends in the development of ergativity in New Indo-Aryan. Osmania Papers in Linguistics18. 71–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Khokhlova, Liudmila V.
    2000 Typological evolution of Western NIA languages. Berliner Indologische Studien13/14. 117–142.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 2006 Sintaksičeskaja èvolucija zapadnyx novoindijskix jazykov v 15–20 vv. [Syntactic evolution of Western New Indo-Aryan languages in 15–20 c.] InAnna Dybo (eds.), Aspekty komparativistiki 2 [Aspects of comparative studies] (Orientalia et Classica: Trudy Instituta vostočnyx kul’tur i antičnosti; Vyp. XI), 151–186. Moskva: Rossijskij Gosudarstvennyj Gumanitarnyj Universitet.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Klaiman, Miriam H.
    1978 Arguments against a passive origin of the IA Ergative. Chicago Linguistic Society: Papers from the 14th Regional Meeting. 204–216.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Li, Charles N.
    (ed.) 1976Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. (ed.) 1977Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin & London: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Lohar, Gopal Thakur
    2012 Converbal constructions in Bhojpuri. Nepalese Linguistics27. 217–222.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Masica, Colin P.
    1976Defining a linguistic area: South Asia. Chicago/London: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. McGregor, William B.
    2010 Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua120. 1610–1636. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.010 [Google Scholar]
  52. Olson, Michael L.
    1981 Barai clause junctures: Toward a functional theory of interclausal relations. Australian National University, PhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Peterson, John
    1998Grammatical relations in Pāli and the emergence of ergativity in Indo-Aryan (LINCOM Studies in Indo-European Linguistics 01). München: Lincom Europa.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 2002 The Nepali converbs: A holistic approach. InRajendra Singh (ed.), Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2002, 93–133. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Pirejko, Lija A.
    1968Osnovnye voprosy ėrgativnosti na materiale indoiranskix jazykov [Main issues of ergativity: Evidence from Indo-Iranian languages]. Moskva: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Roberts, John R.
    2016Amele RRG grammatical sketch. SIL International.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Ruppel, Antonia
    2012Absolute constructions in Early Indo-European. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139019736
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139019736 [Google Scholar]
  58. Saksena, Baburam
    1971 [1937]Evolution of Awadhi. Delhi-Patna-Varanasi: Motilal Banarsidass.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Schumacher, Rolf
    1977Untersuchungen zum Absolutiv im modernen Hindi. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Sigorskij, Aleksandr
    2005 Deepričastija v jazyke xindi. [Converbs in the Hindi language] Sbornik naučnyx trudov / MGIMO(U) MID Rossii21(36). 54–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Stroński, Krzysztof
    2011Synchronic and diachronic aspects of ergativity in Indo-Aryan. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 2014 On syntax and semantics of the past perfect participle and gerundive in Early NIA – Evidence from Eastern Pahari. Folia Linguistica Historica35. 275–305.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Stroński, Krzysztof, Joanna Tokaj & Saartje Verbeke
    2019 A diachronic account of converbal constructions in Old Rajasthani. InMichela Cennamo & Claudia Fabrizio (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2015. Selected papers from the 22nd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Naples, 27–31 July 2015 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 348), 424–441. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.348.20str
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.348.20str [Google Scholar]
  64. Subbārāo, Karumuri V.
    2012South Asian languages: A syntactic typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139003575
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139003575 [Google Scholar]
  65. Šamatov, Azad N.
    1974Klassičeskij dakxini (Južnyj xindustani XVII v.) [Classical Dakkhini (Southern Hindustani of the 17th century)]. Moskva: Nauka.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Tikkanen, Bertil
    1987The Sanskrit gerund: A synchronic, diachronic and typological analysis (Studia Orientalia 62). Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 1995 Burushaski converbs in their South and Central Asian areal context. InMartin Haspelmath & König Ekkehard (eds.). Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – adverbial participles, gerunds (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 13), 487–528. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110884463‑016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110884463-016 [Google Scholar]
  68. Van Valin, Robert J.
    2005Exploring the syntax–semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610578
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610578 [Google Scholar]
  69. Van Valin, Robert J. & Randy LaPolla
    1997Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166799
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166799 [Google Scholar]
  70. Verbeke, Saartje
    2013aErgativity and alignment in New Indo-Aryan languages. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292671
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292671 [Google Scholar]
  71. 2013b Differential subject marking in Nepali: The agent marker le in imperfective constructions. Linguistics51(3). 585–610. 10.1515/ling‑2013‑0021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0021 [Google Scholar]
  72. Verbeke, Saartje & Ludovic De Cuypere
    2015 Differential subject marking in Nepali imperfective constructions: A probabilistic grammar approach. Studies in Language39(1). 1–23. 10.1075/sl.39.1.01ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.39.1.01ver [Google Scholar]
  73. Verma, Manindra K.
    (ed.) 1976The notion of subject in South Asian languages (South Asian Studies, Publication Series 2). Madison: University of Wisconsin.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Wallace, William D.
    1981 Object-marking in the history of Nepali: A case of syntactic diffusion. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences11(2). 107–128.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena & Ilja A. Seržant
    2018 Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. InIlja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking (Studies in Diversity Linguistics), 1–40. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Yadav, Ramawatar
    2004 On diachronic origins of converbs in Maithili. Contributions to Nepalese Studies31(2). 215–241.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Zoller, Claus P.
    2008 Genitive marking of subjects in West Pahāṛī. Acta Orientalia69. 121–151. 10.5617/ao.7389
    https://doi.org/10.5617/ao.7389 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error