Ever read a sentence that felt like a movie trailer, building suspense with a rapid-fire sequence of actions before the final, dramatic reveal? You might read: A figure emerges from the fog… silently scales the wall… slips through an open window… and reaches for the diamond. In English, we use separate clauses or phrases to build this kind of tension. But what if a language could bake that entire sequence into the very structure of a single, flowing verb?
Welcome to the world of Papuan languages, spoken on the island of New Guinea, the most linguistically diverse place on Earth. Here, in this hotbed of human communication, we find a grammatical feature that is both elegant and mind-bending: verb chaining. It’s a system where speakers can string together a long, potentially indefinite series of verbs, creating a narrative cascade that only resolves with the very last word.
What is a Verb Chain?
At its core, verb chaining is a way of constructing sentences where a sequence of actions is described by a series of verbs leading up to one main, “final” verb. Think of it like a train. The engine at the back is the final verb. It has all the power: it carries the crucial grammatical information like tense (past, present, future), mood (indicative, imperative), and the person and number of the subject (I, you, she, they).
All the other cars in front of it are the medial verbs. These are grammatically stripped-down versions of verbs. They describe the preceding actions but are dependent on the final verb for their full meaning. They can’t stand alone as a complete sentence, just as a single train car isn’t going anywhere without an engine.
The result is a structure that feels very different from a typical English sentence. Instead of “She walked to the river, she caught a fish, and she cooked it”, a Papuan language might structure it as a single grammatical unit, something like: “River-walk-ing, fish-catch-ing, she-it-cook-PAST.”
This isn’t just a stylistic choice; it’s a fundamental part of the grammar. The story unfolds chronologically, action by action, pulling the listener along until the final verb provides the context and resolution.
A Look Under the Hood: Medial vs. Final Verbs
Let’s take a classic example from the Kalam language of Papua New Guinea, made famous by the linguist Andrew Pawley. Consider this sentence:
yad am-mon, wdn ap-mon, anep b-mon, yad ay-p-yn.
Let’s break it down piece by piece:
- yad am-mon: “I go-ing” (am = go, -mon is a medial verb marker)
- wdn ap-mon: “firewood get-ing” (ap = get, -mon is the same medial marker)
- anep b-mon: “house come-ing” (b = come, -mon again)
- yad ay-p-yn: “I sleep-PRES-1SG” (ay = sleep, -p-yn is the final verb ending for ‘I do X now’)
The complete thought is: “Going, getting firewood, and coming to the house, I sleep.” Notice how the first three verbs are in a dependent, medial form. They set the stage. The final verb, ay-p-yn, is the only one that is fully inflected, telling us the action is happening in the present and is being done by “I.” All the suspense built by the preceding actions resolves in the simple act of sleeping.
The Genius of Switch-Reference
This is where verb chaining goes from a neat structural quirk to a work of grammatical genius. If you have a long chain of actions, how do you keep track of who is doing what? What if the subject changes mid-sentence?
English uses pronouns or repeats names: “John ran, and then he saw Mary, and then she waved.” Many Papuan languages have a much more elegant and efficient solution built right into the medial verbs: switch-reference.
Switch-reference is a system of grammatical markers (usually suffixes on the medial verbs) that signal to the listener whether the subject of the next verb will be the same as the current one or different.
- Same-Subject (SS) Marker: This says, “Hold on, the person doing this action is also doing the next one.”
- Different-Subject (DS) Marker: This says, “Get ready, the subject is about to change!”
How It Works in Practice
Imagine a simplified scenario. The verb endings `-SS` and `-DS` represent these markers.
Scenario 1: Same Subject
The woman [the pig see-SS], [it kill-FINAL.PAST].
The `-SS` marker on “see” tells you that the subject of “see” (the woman) is the same as the subject of the next verb, “kill.” The sentence means: “The woman saw the pig and she killed it.”
Scenario 2: Different Subject
The woman [the pig see-DS], [it run-away-FINAL.PAST].
Here, the `-DS` marker on “see” is a signal that the subject is about to switch. The subject of “see” (the woman) is different from the subject of “run away” (the pig). The sentence means: “The woman saw the pig and it ran away.”
This is an incredibly economical way to manage information. It allows for complex, multi-participant narratives to unfold within a single, tightly-woven sentence without ambiguity. It’s a grammatical GPS for tracking characters through a story.
A Different Way of Telling a Story
Verb chaining isn’t just a grammatical curiosity; it reflects a distinct narrative style. It prioritizes a chronological, event-driven account of the world. The focus is on the flow of actions, one leading inexorably to the next. For the listener, it requires holding a sequence of events in working memory, waiting for the final verb to anchor the entire chain in time and context.
This structure challenges the assumptions many of us have about language, which are often based on the subject-verb-object model of English and other European languages. It shows us that there are other, equally valid and sophisticated ways to organize thought and experience into words.
The verb chains of New Guinea are a testament to human cognitive and linguistic creativity. They are intricate verbal tapestries that weave together action, time, and perspective in a way that is both utterly foreign and deeply logical. They are, in a sense, the final word on just how diverse language can be.