Article published In: Review of Cognitive Linguistics: Online-First Articles
The experiential construction in Assamese
Form and meaning
Published online: 28 October 2025
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00241.bor
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00241.bor
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, K. V. (2012). South
Asian languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ). 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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Literature review
- 3.Cognitive Linguistics and the Experiential Construction
- 3.1Do-language and Become-language
- 3.2Reference point and the EC
- 3.3Figure-Ground and the EC
- 3.4Metaphor in the EC in Assamese
- 4.The EC in Assamese: A detailed description
- 4.1The verb lag ‘be attached’
- 4.2The verb ah ‘to come’
- 4.3The verb por ‘to fall’
- 4.4The verb dhor ‘to form/lodge on’
- 4.5The verb ghot ‘to happen’
- 4.6The verb ula ‘to appear/come out’
- 4.7The verb phut ‘to sprout/emerge’
- 4.8The verb ho ‘to be/become’
- 4.9The verb as ‘to exist’
- 4.10The verb thak ‘to stay’
- 4.11The verb uth ‘to rise’
- 4.12The verb bhaŋ ‘to fall apart’
- 4.13The verb gus ‘to detach’
- 4.14The verb hor ‘to disappear’
- 5.Conclusion
- Notes
References
References (30)
Abbi, A. (1990). Experiential
constructions and the ‘Subjecthood’ of the experiencer NPs in South Asian
languages. In Verma, M. K. Verma & K. P. Mohanan (Eds.), Experiencer
subjects in South Asian
languages (pp. 253–265). Stanford: CSLI publications.
Achard, M. (2015). Abstract locational subjects: Field and settings in French and English. In M-L. Helasvuo & T. Huumo (Eds.). Cognitive and interactional perspectives on noncanonical subjects (pp. 101–139). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych
Verbs and θ-Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic
Theory, 61, 291–352.
Bhaskararao, P., & Subbarao, K. V. (Eds.) (2004). Non-nominative subjects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2014). Bezbarua’s
reflections on language. In M. M. Sarma & D. P. Nath (Eds), Lakshminath
Bezbaroa: The architect of modern Assamese
Literature (pp. 223–224). Tezpur: Tezpur University Publication.
Butt, M. (2009). Modern
approaches to case: An overview. In A. Malchukov & A. Spencer (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of
case (pp. 27–43). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chen, R. (2023). Figure-Ground
in cognitive semantics. In F. T. Li (Ed.), Handbook
of cognitive
semantics (4/21., pp. 3–29). Brill.
Heine, B. (1997). Possession:
Cognitive sources, forces, and
grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heine, B., & T. Kuteva. (2002). Word
lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Helasvuo, M-L., & Huumo, T. (Eds.). (2015). Subjects in constructions: Canonical and non-canonical. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ikegami, Y. (1991). ‘Do-language’
and ‘Become-language’: Two contrasting types of linguistic
representation. In Yoshihiko Ikegami (Ed.), The
empire of signs: Semiotic Essays on Japanese
culture (pp. 285–326). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jokela, H., & Plado, H. (2015). Subject under generic conditions: Implied subjects in Finnish and Estonian if-clauses. In M-L. Helasvuo & T. Huumo (Eds.) Subjects in Constructions: Canonical and non-canonical (pp. 73–98). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor
in culture universality and
variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations
of Cognitive Grammar I. California: Standford University Press.
Nath, D. K. (2013). Experiencer
subject constructions and genitive case in Assamese. Research Scholar-An International Refereed
e-Journal of Literary Explorations
(RSIRJLE), 1(3), 1–9.
Pajusalu, R. (2015). Hidden subjects in conversation: Estonian personless verb forms as referential devices. In M-L. Helasvuo & T. Huumo (Eds.) Subjects in constructions: Canonical and non-canonical (pp. 43–72). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Park, C. (2014). Reference-point
and blending in Korean non-nominative subject constructions. Studies in
Language, 38(4), 717–751.
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive
English Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sawarni, B. (2025). Conceptual
and grammatical linking of clauses in Assamese and Mising: A comparative study [Unpublished
doctoral dissertation]. Tezpur University.
Talmy, L. (2000). Towards
a Cognitive Semantics Vol. I: Concept Structuring
Systems. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Verma, M. K., & Mohanan, K. P. (Eds.). (1990). Experiencer subjects in South Asian Languages. Standford: CSLI publications.
Yoon, J. H. (2004). Non-nominative
subjects and case stacking in Korean. In P. Bhaskararao & K. V. Subbarao (Eds.), Non-nominative
subjects (21., pp. 265–314). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.