Journal article
Carol Genetti
Studies in Language, vol. 29(1), 2005, pp. 35-87.
Studies in Language, vol. 29(1), 2005, pp. 35-87.
View PDF
Cite
Cite
APA
Click to copy
Genetti, C. (2005). The Participial Construction of Dolakhā Newar : Syntactic Implications of an Asian Converb. Studies in Language, 29(1), 35–87. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.29.1.03gen
Chicago/Turabian
Click to copy
Genetti, Carol. “The Participial Construction of Dolakhā Newar : Syntactic Implications of an Asian Converb.” Studies in Language 29, no. 1 (2005): 35–87.
MLA
Click to copy
Genetti, Carol. “The Participial Construction of Dolakhā Newar : Syntactic Implications of an Asian Converb.” Studies in Language, vol. 29, no. 1, 2005, pp. 35–87., doi:10.1075/sl.29.1.03gen.
BibTeX Click to copy
@article{genetti2005a,
title = {The Participial Construction of Dolakhā Newar : Syntactic Implications of an Asian Converb},
year = {2005},
issue = {1},
journal = {Studies in Language},
pages = {35-87.},
volume = {29},
doi = {10.1075/sl.29.1.03gen},
author = {Genetti, Carol}
}
ABSTRACT
The terms “(clause) chaining” and “converbal constructions” are used for the classification of similar types of clause linkage. Chaining is generally used for constructions which do not entail subordination, while converbs are defined as subordinate. In Dolakha Newar adverbial and “participial” clauses are not syntactically distinct, but neither are they subordinate. I propose that the term “converb” be redefined as a clause linkage strategy that subsumes adverbial clauses and clauses akin to the Dolakhae “participial”, and that there be no requirement that converbs be either subordinate or adverbial. I provide an analysis of “case prolepsis”, the casemarking of an argument by a verb in a non-adjacent clause, and argue that this results from the participial construction applying at a distinct level of clause structure.
The terms “(clause) chaining” and “converbal constructions” are used for the classification of similar types of clause linkage. Chaining is generally used for constructions which do not entail subordination, while converbs are defined as subordinate. In Dolakha Newar adverbial and “participial” clauses are not syntactically distinct, but neither are they subordinate. I propose that the term “converb” be redefined as a clause linkage strategy that subsumes adverbial clauses and clauses akin to the Dolakhae “participial”, and that there be no requirement that converbs be either subordinate or adverbial. I provide an analysis of “case prolepsis”, the casemarking of an argument by a verb in a non-adjacent clause, and argue that this results from the participial construction applying at a distinct level of clause structure.