Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronic Dimensions of Alignment Typology
Edited by Eystein Dahl
[Diachronica 38:3] 2021
► pp. 457–501

Typology and diachrony of converbs in Indo-Aryan

ORCID logo | Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
| Ghent University
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 1987; Peterson 1998; Subbarao 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.
Keywords: Indo-Aryan, converb, cosubordination, alignment, absolute construction, differential subject marking, differential object marking, operator scope
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Alignment and converbal chains in IA
  • 3.Coordination, subordination and cosubordination
  • 4.Main argument marking in converbal chain constructions
    • 4.1A-marking
    • 4.2Differential object marking
  • 5.The subject identity constraint (SIC)
  • 6.Absolute constructions
  • 7.Scope of selected operators
    • 7.1Tense scope
    • 7.2IF scope
    • 7.3NEG-operator
    • 7.4Concluding remarks on the scopal properties of CVB
  • 8.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • Primary sources
  • References
Published online: 10 August 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.19067.str
References (77)
Primary sources
Bhānāvat, Narendra & Kamal, Lakshmi (eds.). 1997–1998. Rājasthānī gadya: vikās aur prakāś [Rajasthani prose: Development and publicity]. Āgrā: Śrīrām Mehrā end Kampanī. (RG.)Google Scholar
Dvivedī Silākārī, Loknāth. 1972 (ed.), Rāmāyankathā [The story of Ramayana]. Ilāhābād: Sāhitya bhavan limiṭeḍ.Google Scholar
Gautam, Manmohan. 1954. Jāyasīgranthavalī [Books of Jayasi]. Delhi: Rigal Buk Ḍipo. (J.)Google Scholar
Joshi, Maheshwar P. 1983. Rājanītiśāstra of Chāṇakya (Text and translation). Almora: Śri Malika Publications.Google Scholar
2009. Advent of polities in Uttarkhand (Kumaon and Garhwal). In Marie Lecomte-Tilouine (ed.), Bards and mediums: History, culture, and politics in the central Himalayan kingdoms, 327–371. Almora: Shri Almora Book Depot.Google Scholar
McGregor, Ronald S. 1968. The language of Indrajit of Orchā. A study of early Braj Bhāsā prose. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miśra, Viśvanāth P. 1994 (ed.), Bhūṣaṇa granthāvalī [Collected works of Bhushan]. Naī Dillī: Vāṇī prakāśan.Google Scholar
Pant, Mahes Raj. 2009. Towards a history of the Khasa empire. In Marie Lecomte-Tilouine (ed.), Bards and mediums: History, culture, and politics in the central Himalayan kingdoms, 293–326. Almora: Shri Almora Book Depot.Google Scholar
Prasad, Ram Chandra (ed.). 1994. Tulsidasa’s shriramacaritamanasa. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited.Google Scholar
Snell, Rupert. 1991a. The eighty-four hymns of Hita Harivaṃśa. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
. 1991b. The Hindi classical tradition. A Brajbhāṣā Reader. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.Google Scholar
Śarmā, Śrīrām. 1954. Dakkhinī kā padya aur gadya [Poetry and prose of Dakkhini]. Haidrābād: Hindī Pracār Sabhā.Google Scholar
References
Anderson, Stephen R. 1977. On the mechanisms by which languages become ergative. In Charles Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change, 217–264. Austin & London: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Arora, Harbir & K. V. Subbarao. 1989. Convergence and syntactic reanalysis: The case of so in Dakkhini. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 19(1). 1–18.Google Scholar
Auwera, Johan van der. 1998. Defining converbs. In Leonid 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Brigitte. 2000. Archaic syntax in Indo-European. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2010. Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: A multivariate analysis. In Isabelle Brill (ed.), Clause linking and clause hierarchy: Syntax and pragmatics, 51–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Multivariate typology and field linguistics: A case study on detransitivization in Kiranti (Sino-Tibetan). In Peter, Austin K., Oliver Bond, Lutz Marten & David Nathan (eds.), Proceedings of Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory 3, vol. 31, 1–11. London: SOAS University of London.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Yogendra P. Yādava. 2000. A fresh look at grammatical relations in Indo-Aryan. Lingua 110(5). 343–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bojałkowska, Krystyna. 2010. Opis składniowy imiesłowów przysłówkowych we współczesnym języku polskim [A syntactic description of converbs in modern Polish]. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika.Google Scholar
Bubenik, Vit. 1998. A historical syntax of late Middle Indo-Aryan (Apabhraṃśa). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 2001. A reexamination of the accusative to ergative shift in Indo-Aryan. In Miriam Butt & Tracy H. King (eds.), Time over matter: Diachronic perspectives on morphosyntax, 105–141. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Coupe, Alexander R. 2006. Converbs. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of languages and linguistics. 2nd edn., 145–152. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Eystein & Krzysztof Stroński (eds). 2016. Indo-Aryan ergativity in typological and diachronic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davison, Alice. 1981. Syntactic and semantic indeterminacy resolved: A mostly pragmatic analysis for the Hindi conjunctive participle. In Cole Peter (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 101–128. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 551. 59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark & Wichmann Søren. 2008. The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 orientale 531: 205–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Ebert, Karen. 2001. Südasien als Sprachbund. In Martin Haspelmath & Ekkehard König (eds.), Language typology and language universals (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunkationswissenschaft. Bd. 11.2), 1529–1539. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Emeneau, Murray. 1956. India as a linguistic area. Language 32(1). 3–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Stefanie. 2011. Differential Agent Marking and animacy. Lingua 121(3). 533–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A. & Robert D. Van Valin. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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
Haspelmath, Martin. 1995. The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In Martin 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Ekkehard König (eds.), 1995. Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – adverbial participles, gerunds (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 13). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1986. P-oriented construction in Sanskrit. In Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, Colin P. Masica & Anjani K. Sinha (eds.), South Asian languages: Structure, convergence and diglossia, 15–26. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Hoop, Helen de & Bhuvana Narasimhan. 2009. Ergative case-marking in Hindi. In Helen de Hoop & Peter de Swart (eds.), Differential subject marking (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 72), 63–78. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaworski, Rafał. 2014. [URL]
Kachru, Yamuna. 1981. On the syntax, semantics and pragmatics of the conjunctive participle in Hindi-Urdu. Studies in Linguistic Sciences 11(2). 35–49.Google Scholar
Kachru, Yamuna, Braj Kachru & Tej Bhatia. 1976. ‘Subject’. A note on Hindi-Urdu, Kashmiri and Punjabi. In Manindra 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
Khokhlova, Ludmila V. 1992. Trends in the development of ergativity in New Indo-Aryan. Osmania Papers in Linguistics 181. 71–89.Google Scholar
Khokhlova, Liudmila V. 2000. Typological evolution of Western NIA languages. Berliner Indologische Studien 13/141. 117–142.Google Scholar
2006. Sintaksičeskaja èvolucija zapadnyx novoindijskix jazykov v 15–20 vv. [Syntactic evolution of Western New Indo-Aryan languages in 15–20 c.] In Anna Dybo et al. (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
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
Li, Charles N. (ed.) 1976. Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(ed.) 1977. Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin & London: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Lohar, Gopal Thakur. 2012. Converbal constructions in Bhojpuri. Nepalese Linguistics 271. 217–222.Google Scholar
Masica, Colin P. 1976. Defining a linguistic area: South Asia. Chicago/London: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
McGregor, William B. 2010. Optional ergative case marking systems in a typological-semiotic perspective. Lingua 1201. 1610–1636. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olson, Michael L. 1981. Barai clause junctures: Toward a functional theory of interclausal relations. Australian National University, PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Peterson, John. 1998. Grammatical relations in Pāli and the emergence of ergativity in Indo-Aryan (LINCOM Studies in Indo-European Linguistics 01). München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
. 2002. The Nepali converbs: A holistic approach. In Rajendra Singh (ed.), Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2002, 93–133. New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Pirejko, Lija A. 1968. Osnovnye voprosy ėrgativnosti na materiale indoiranskix jazykov [Main issues of ergativity: Evidence from Indo-Iranian languages]. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Roberts, John R. 2016. Amele RRG grammatical sketch. SIL International.Google Scholar
Ruppel, Antonia. 2012. Absolute constructions in Early Indo-European. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saksena, Baburam. 1971 [1937]. Evolution of Awadhi. Delhi-Patna-Varanasi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Schumacher, Rolf. 1977. Untersuchungen zum Absolutiv im modernen Hindi. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sigorskij, Aleksandr. 2005. Deepričastija v jazyke xindi. [Converbs in the Hindi language] Sbornik naučnyx trudov / MGIMO(U) MID Rossii 21(36). 54–63.Google Scholar
Stroński, Krzysztof. 2011. Synchronic and diachronic aspects of ergativity in Indo-Aryan. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.Google Scholar
. 2014. On syntax and semantics of the past perfect participle and gerundive in Early NIA – Evidence from Eastern Pahari. Folia Linguistica Historica 351. 275–305.Google Scholar
Stroński, Krzysztof, Joanna Tokaj & Saartje Verbeke. 2019. A diachronic account of converbal constructions in Old Rajasthani. In Michela 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Subbārāo, Karumuri V. 2012. South Asian languages: A syntactic typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Šamatov, Azad N. 1974. Klassičeskij dakxini (Južnyj xindustani XVII v.) [Classical Dakkhini (Southern Hindustani of the 17th century)]. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Tikkanen, Bertil. 1987. The Sanskrit gerund: A synchronic, diachronic and typological analysis (Studia Orientalia 62). Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society.Google Scholar
. 1995. Burushaski converbs in their South and Central Asian areal context. In Martin 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert J. 2005. Exploring the syntax–semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert J. & Randy LaPolla. 1997. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, Saartje. 2013a. Ergativity and alignment in New Indo-Aryan languages. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. Differential subject marking in Nepali: The agent marker le in imperfective constructions. Linguistics 51(3). 585–610. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, Saartje & Ludovic De Cuypere. 2015. Differential subject marking in Nepali imperfective constructions: A probabilistic grammar approach. Studies in Language 39(1). 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verma, Manindra K. (ed.), 1976. The notion of subject in South Asian languages (South Asian Studies, Publication Series 2). Madison: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Wallace, William D. 1981. Object-marking in the history of Nepali: A case of syntactic diffusion. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 11(2). 107–128.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena & Ilja A. Seržant. 2018. Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. In Ilja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking (Studies in Diversity Linguistics), 1–40. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Yadav, Ramawatar. 2004. On diachronic origins of converbs in Maithili. Contributions to Nepalese Studies 31(2). 215–241.Google Scholar
Zoller, Claus P. 2008. Genitive marking of subjects in West Pahāṛī. Acta Orientalia 691. 121–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Cristofaro, Sonia & Guglielmo Inglese
2024. The diachronic emergence of alignment cross‑linguistically. Journal of Historical Linguistics 14:1 ► pp. 58 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.