1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of The experiential construction in Assamese
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper examines, from a Cognitive Linguistics perspective, the meaning and grammar of the experiential construction (EC) in Assamese, an Indo-Aryan language of Assam, India. This construction, which exclusively encodes experiential situations, marks the experiencer subject with either the dative or genitive case. Thus, it differs from the subject-verb (SV) intransitive construction, where the subject, whether a doer or an experiencer, is marked by nominative, absolutive, or ergative case, based on how the language organizes its subject and object marking.

This construction, a characteristic feature of many Southeast Asian languages, is commonly referred to as the ‘non-nominative subject construction’ (see e.g., Subbarao, 2012). However, we prefer ‘experiencer construction’ because it functions as a distinct structure specifically encoding experiential situations, rather than a secondary or irregular form. The current paper argues that the construction is grounded in a distinct conceptualization, including metaphorical mappings, that shapes its grammatical structure. This underlying conceptualization presents a fundamentally non-agentive perspective for the experiencer. The Assamese examples presented in this paper come from the authors themselves, who are native speakers of Assamese.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00241.bor
2025-10-28
2025-11-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00241.bor
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abbi, A.
    (1990) Experiential constructions and the ‘Subjecthood’ of the experiencer NPs in South Asian languages. InVerma, M. K. Verma & K. P. Mohanan (Eds.), Experiencer subjects in South Asian languages (pp.–). Stanford: CSLI publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Achard, M.
    (2015) Abstract locational subjects: Field and settings in French and English. InM-L. Helasvuo & T. Huumo (Eds.). Cognitive and interactional perspectives on noncanonical subjects (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L.
    (1988) Psych Verbs and θ-Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, , –. 10.1007/BF00133902
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133902 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bhaskararao, P., & Subbarao, K. V.
    (Eds.) (2004) Non-nominative subjects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Borah, G. K.
    (2011) Tense and aspect in Assamese: A few preliminary remarks. JDA, (). –.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. (2014) Bezbarua’s reflections on language. InM. M. Sarma & D. P. Nath (Eds), Lakshminath Bezbaroa: The architect of modern Assamese Literature (pp.–). Tezpur: Tezpur University Publication.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Butt, M.
    (2009) Modern approaches to case: An overview. InA. Malchukov & A. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of case (pp.–). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen, R.
    (2023) Figure-Ground in cognitive semantics. InF. T. Li (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive semantics (., pp.–). Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Evans, V., & Green, M.
    (2006) Cognitive linguistics: An Introduction. New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Heine, B.
    (1997) Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511581908
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581908 [Google Scholar]
  11. Heine, B., & T. Kuteva
    (2002) Word lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613463
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613463 [Google Scholar]
  12. Helasvuo, M-L., & Huumo, T.
    (Eds.) (2015) Subjects in constructions: Canonical and non-canonical. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Ikegami, Y.
    (1991) ‘Do-language’ and ‘Become-language’: Two contrasting types of linguistic representation. InYoshihiko Ikegami (Ed.), The empire of signs: Semiotic Essays on Japanese culture (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/fos.8.14ike
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fos.8.14ike [Google Scholar]
  14. Jokela, H., & Plado, H.
    (2015) Subject under generic conditions: Implied subjects in Finnish and Estonian if-clauses. InM-L. Helasvuo & T. Huumo (Eds.) Subjects in Constructions: Canonical and non-canonical (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Kövecses, Z.
    (2005) Metaphor in culture universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511614408
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
  16. Lakoff, G.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I. California: Standford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Vol. II. California: Standford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. (1999) Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110800524
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2009) Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214369
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369 [Google Scholar]
  22. Nath, D. K.
    (2013) Experiencer subject constructions and genitive case in Assamese. Research Scholar-An International Refereed e-Journal of Literary Explorations (RSIRJLE), (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Pajusalu, R.
    (2015) Hidden subjects in conversation: Estonian personless verb forms as referential devices. InM-L. Helasvuo & T. Huumo (Eds.) Subjects in constructions: Canonical and non-canonical (pp.–). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.16.03paj
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.16.03paj [Google Scholar]
  24. Park, C.
    (2014) Reference-point and blending in Korean non-nominative subject constructions. Studies in Language, (), –. 10.1075/sl.38.4.03par
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.4.03par [Google Scholar]
  25. Radden, G., & Dirven, R.
    (2007) Cognitive English Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clip.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2 [Google Scholar]
  26. Sawarni, B.
    (2025) Conceptual and grammatical linking of clauses in Assamese and Mising: A comparative study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Tezpur University.
  27. Subbarao, K. V.
    (2012) South Asian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139003575
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139003575 [Google Scholar]
  28. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Towards a Cognitive Semantics Vol. I: Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Verma, M. K., & Mohanan, K. P.
    (Eds.) (1990) Experiencer subjects in South Asian Languages. Standford: CSLI publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Yoon, J. H.
    (2004) Non-nominative subjects and case stacking in Korean. InP. Bhaskararao & K. V. Subbarao (Eds.), Non-nominative subjects (., pp.–). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.61.15yoo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.61.15yoo [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00241.bor
Loading
The experiential construction in Assamese
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00241.bor
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00241.bor
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00241.bor
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: Cognitive Linguistics ; experience construction ; Conceptual Metaphor ; Assamese ; non-canonical subject construction

Most Cited

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