The present study explores the progressive constructions in different Balochi dialects from a diachronic and an areal linguistic point of view. Previous studies on different Balochi dialects (Buddruss 1988; Baranzehi 2003; Farrell 2003; Axenov 2006; Ahangar 2007; Jahani and Korn 2009; Nourzaei et al. 2015; Korn and Nourzaei 2019; Korn 2020, 2017a and 2017b) have described progressive constructions, but discussion from a diachronic and an areal linguistic point of view is largely lacking. I will argue that the diversity of progressive constructions in Balochi dialects is a result of language contact and diffusion rather than an internal historical development that can be explained in terms of grammaticalization. In addition, there is no trace of a morphological progressive construction in written samples of Balochi. The general imperfective marker =a= (verbal clitic) covers ongoing meaning. To the extent that this marker has lost its ongoing meaning and become a general indicative marker in the present domain, the language has filled the progressive gap with new constructions which are basically a result of language and dialect contact. The new progressive constructions are mainly periphrastic constructions that represent either direct or indirect code copying from dominant languages and other Balochi dialects.

This paper investigates the usage and frequency of what is referred to as K-suffixes in three Balochi dialects, namely Koroshi, Coastal and Sistani Balochi. It shows that K-suffixes are most likely the reflexes of earlier evaluative morphology, traditionally termed “diminutives,” and are characterized by a high degree of multi-functionality. While in Coastal and Sistani Balochi evaluative functions continue to dominate, they have been largely lost in Koroshi Balochi, and the suffix is now used to indicate definiteness. The development appears to have been spearheaded by female speakers, and its frequency is also dependent on genre and speech situation. Data is taken from an extensive corpus of spoken Balochi narratives and from a questionnaire with thirty-six speakers. The results suggest that evaluative morphology can develop into definiteness marking, with the development passing over a stage of combination with deictic markers. The paper concludes that the development of definiteness marking can proceed down a pathway that is distinct from the one normally assumed for demonstrative-based definite marking, though the endpoint may be similar. This is the first detailed documentation of this process for any Iranian language, and one of the few well-documented cases of a non-demonstrative origin of definiteness marking worldwide.