On Representations in Morphology Case, Agreement and Inversion in Georgian Author(S): Stephen R

On Representations in Morphology Case, Agreement and Inversion in Georgian Author(s): Stephen R. Anderson Source: Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Jul., 1984), pp. 157-218 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4047487 Accessed: 26/10/2009 15:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Natural Language & Linguistic Theory.

http://www.jstor.org STEPHEN R. ANDERSON

ON REPRESENTATIONS IN MORPHOLOGY CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN*

0. INTRODUCTION As a fundamentalbuilding block of linguisticstructure, the morphemeis supposedto be the locus of the phonologicalexpression of meaningand of grammatical categories. Traditionally, morpheme-based theories con- strued these categories as being in a more or less one-to-one relationwith discrete substringsof phonological structureor FORMATIVES. If this were an adequateview, it would reduce the 'morphologicalrepresentation' of a word to the sequence of formativescomposing it, where each formativeis (uniquely)associated with some semantic materialor grammaticalcate- gories as its content. Especially in the treatmentof inflection,though, the range of classical puzzles concerningthe natureof 'morphemes'refuses to dissolve; and closer analysissuggests a rather different picture from the usual 'beads on a string' view of morphologicalstructure. The observations of Aronoff (1976) concerning 'morphemes'with no isolable meaning already recall the literature of the 1940's and 1950's (e.g., Hockett 1947 and the controversiesprovoked by this paper). The currentdevelopment of morphologicaltheories not based on morphemes can be traced to Matthews' (1972) discussion of these traditionalprob- lems, and his proposals for a WORD AND PARADIGM view of inflectional structure. Such a view substitutesan inventory of rules modifying word

* This paper represents a revision of material presented under the same title to the Workshopon LexicalPhonology and Morphologyat StanfordUniversity, 1 March,1983; to the GLOW Colloquium at York, England on 30 March, 1983, and to the Caucasian Colloquiumat the Universityof Hull in July, 1983. I have benefitedfrom comments provided on these and related issues by MichaelHammond and Alan Timberlake.Special thanksare due to Alice Harris and George Hewitt, as well as Frank Heny and several anonymous referees for this journal,for extensive and detailed commentson an earlierversion of this paper. Informationon Georgian comes from the sources listed in the referencesbelow, as well as fromwork with Tamara 'Japaridze at UCLA and classeswith YolandaMarchev at the Universityof Zurich. Naturally,none of the above should be held in agreementwith my views, or responsiblefor my errorsor failure to take their advice. The present paper was preparedwhile the authorwas supportedby a post-Doctoralfellowship from the American Council of LearnedSocieties; supportfrom the Committeeon Research at UCLA is also acknowledged.

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2 (1984) 157-218. 0167-806X/84/0022-0157 $06.20 ? 1984 by D. Reidel PublishingCompany 158 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON structure(by affixation,internal change, etc.) for the usual inventory of morphemes. These rules depend on a representationof the inflectional structureof forms which is not directlyderivable from the constituentsof phonological form, however, and whose natureremains to be elucidated. These questions of representation arise particularly clearly in the inflectional theory of Anderson (1977, 1982, 1984a), where a notion of MORPHOSYNTACTIC REPRESENTATION forms the interface between syntactic and phonological structure. This kind of representationcan be expected to have its own properties which are worthy of closer investigation. The representations in question can be traced to the proposals of Chomsky (1965), who presents the terminal elements of P-Markersas complex symbols or internally unstructuredcomplexes of features. In addition to features of subcategorization(and selection), some of these features represent inflectional properties (e.g., case, agreement, tense, etc.), and it is assumed that rules of grammarwhich are not part of the syntax per se establish a correspondencebetween these complex symbols and actual sequences of phonologicallyrealized formatives. Recent work in morphologydevelops this picture further,showing that these symbols have a significantinternal structure which forms the basis of a system of morphologicaloperations mapping them onto phonological form. These operations are the morphologicalrules which establish correspondences between morphosyntacticand phonologicalform, and which thus replace (at least in the domain of inflection) a list or lexicon of 'meaningful' grammaticalmorphemes. This paper explores the propertiesof such morphosyntacticrepresentations,the rules that create and modifythem, and the role they play in the grammar,on the basis of an analysis of case marking and agreement in Georgian. The interest of Georgian for such purposes lies in the fact that the inflectionalmorphology of this language is substantiallymore complex than that of more familiarlanguages, and thus provides a better test of the expressive power of a proposed morphological theory. Nonetheless, despite the inherentinterest of the Georgianfacts, the goal of the paper is not simply to provide an analysisof Georgian, but to clarify the natureof morphosyntacticrepresentations. The structureof the paperis as follows. In section 1, we sketch the basic propertiesof verbal agreementand case markingin Georgian, limitingthe discussionto sentences whose verbs appearin one of the two fundamental tense/aspect series. We then review the evidence for associatingparticular grammaticalpositions with particularagreement and case markingmor- CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 159

phology, establishingthe role of the notions of subject, direct object and indirect object in Georgian. Section 2 discusses the INVERSION con- structionwhich is found in the thirdtense/aspect series, and also in the first and second series for a specific set of verbs; the relation of this constructionto those discussedin section 1 is treated.An analysisof inversion proposedby Harris(1981, 1982, 1983) is presented;the explanatoryscope of this analysis is explored, and arguments are presented against the syntactic relation-changingprocess on which it depends. An alternative, purelymorphological account suggested (but not arguedfor) by Anderson (1982) is then introduced. The discussion in sections 1 and 2 recapitulatesfacts about Georgian from the literature,as well as Harris'analysis. This duplicationof material available elsewhere seems necessary for the benefit of the majority of readers, who will not be familiar with either the facts or their prior analysis;indulgence is begged of those readerswho are better prepared.It is particularlyimportant to stressfrom the outset the crucial relianceof the present paper on Harris' work: her insights into the structure of the Georgian verbal system are relied on heavily here, and the analysis eventually arrived at bears close similaritiesto hers (though with some essentialdifferences). Indeed, the presentpaper can be regardedboth as a critical response to Harris' work and as an application of the theory of inflectionexplored here. Section 3 then goes on to explore the morphology of Georgian agreement in greater detail, on the basis of a discussion of the morphosyntacticrepresentations that should be assigned to the various verb classes in the language. It is concluded that when these representationsare adequately explicated, no independent rule of Inversion (even a morphological one) is required,though a morphologicalrestructuring operation analogous to the relationalrule of 'Unaccusative'plays a role in the account. A comprehensiveset of agreement and case markingrules are proposed which explicitly accommodate a wide range of apparently complex phenomena in a simple and natural way. One result of this analysis is the elimination of arbitrarylexical markers for the various conjugation classes in the language. Section 4 then provides conclusions and a summaryof results.

1. BASIC MORPHOLOGICAL AND SYNTACTIC CATEGORIES IN GEORGIAN

Georgian is well-known for the complexity of its inflectional apparatus, 160 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON and especiallyfor the dependenceof the case-markingsystem on the tense of the verb. There are roughly a dozen tense-aspect forms (called 'screeves' in the recent literature)in which Georgianverbs can appear;the exact inventorydepends on whetherthe Imperativeis treatedas a separate form, whether the partiallyobsolete conjunctive perfect is included, and whetherone includes the rare imperfectiveaorist form as a distinct tense. These tense-aspectforms can be divided into three basic series: Series I or the 'Present(-future)'series, Series II or the 'Aorist' series, and Series III or the 'Perfect' series. Of these, Series I and II are conveniently treated together both because they share certain propertiesand because Series III is demonstrablysecondary to them in every conceivable way: in morphological structure, in semantics and in usage, and also historically. Whether there is also a syntactic difference between Series III and the others will be a matter of considerableinterest below.

1.1 Agreementand case markingin SeriesI and II For the reasons just discussed, we postpone the discussion of Series III until section 2 below, and begin by summarizing the properties of agreement and case markingin the more basic series.

1. 1.1 Agreement Series I and II show the same morphologicalpatterns of agreementwithin the verb. Subjects, (direct) objects, and indirect objects can condition agreementin their clause; however, there are only two positions in which this agreement material is found. Agreement is marked either 1) as a prefix, preceding the verb root (and any pre-radicalor 'version' vowel), but following a verbal prefix (the latter usually have perfective significance,and are separatedfrom the rest of the verb in citations with the boundary'='); or 2) as a suffix, following the rest of the verb stem. Where more than one agreement prefixmight appearto be motivated, or more than one such suffix,only one of each appearsovertly (see Anderson 1982, 1984 as well as table I below for some of the details of the disjunctive relationshipsinvolved here). In sketching the agreementsystem at this point, before exemplifyingit, we run the risk of incomprehensibility.The details of this discussion, however, are of limited importance: it is only the overall categories of agreement markersthat need be attended to for what follows. Nonethe- less, the details (which are summarized below in table I) must be introducedat some point. CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 161

TABLE I Basic verbal agreement markers

(Subject) (D.O.) (Indirect Object) Series: v m h u e a Person/Number

lsg v. In- m- mi- me- mn- 2sg 0 g- g- gi- ge- ga- 3sg -s,-a 0 h_a u- e- a- lpl v-... -t gv- gv- gvi- gve- gva- 2pl -t g- -t g- -t gi '-t ge- - -t ga- *-t 3pl -enb 0 ha u- e- a-

a h, s, x or 0, depending on the following segment. b -en, -an, -es, -on, or -nen depending on tense and verb class.

Since Georgian is at least prima facie an ergative language (or possibly more accurately, as Harris 1981 argues at length, an 'active' language: see section 1.1.2.2 below), one might raise the question of which NP in a clause is properly called its subject. The syntactic evidence on this point is quite clear, however (cf. section 1.2 below), and confirms a decision to call 'subject' that NP which usually corresponds to the subject in a translation into English or other languages with familiar structure. With this understanding, we can then claim that all and only subjects (of either transitive or intransitive verbs) are marked on the verb with markers from what we can call (with Sanije 1980) the v-series. These appear in the first column of table I: v- marks first person and 0- second person; the suffix -s or -a (depending on the verb's conjugation class) marks third singular, and the third plural is indicated by one of the suffixes -en, -an or -nen (again depending on conjugation class). Examples will appear below in later sections. The direct object is marked on the verb with markers from what Sanije (1980) calls the m-series. These are the prefixes of the second column of table I: m- for first person singular, gv- for first person plural, or g- second person, and 0- for third person. Indirect objects (which may appear with either transitive or intransitive verbs) are marked on the verb in one of four distinct, but related ways. Following the terminology of Aronson (1982a, 1982b), we can refer to these markers as the h-series, the u-series, the e-series and the a-series. Each of these (shown in the third through sixth columns of table I) can be regarded as made up of a marker from the (direct object marking) m-series, followed by 0 (for the h-series) or one of the pre-radical vowels i, e or a (for the u, e, and a series, respectivelvV 162 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON

The indirect object markers differ from simple sequences of direct object markerplus preradicalvowel in the thirdperson. The thirdperson h-series markeris s, h, x or 0 (dependingon the following consonant),and the thirdperson u-series markerconsists in replacingthe pre-radicalvowel i otherwisecharacteristic of this series by u. Evidence that indirectobject markingis distinct from direct object marking(plus a pre-radicalvowel), then, consistsof two facts: first,the thirdperson h-series markerh-, s- or x- has no parallel in direct object marking; and second, the marker u- uniquely marks indirect objects, since a simple combination of third person directobject markingwith preradicalvowel i (markingsome other function, such as the future stem of medial verbs, subjective version, etc.) yields simply i rather than u. Which of the four series will markindirect objects in a particularverb is a lexical property of the verb stem (cf. Aronson 1982b for arguments againstthe traditionalclaim that this differenceis semanticallybased). We represent this property in lexical entries by including the (only partially predictable)preradical vowel in the entry for each verb; since the lexical entries for verbs with and withoutindirect objects must be kept distinctin any event, there is no loss of generalityentailed in doing this. One final element in the person markingsystem is the pluralizingsuffix -t, which appears on a verb (replacing a final third person -s from the v-series, if the form would otherwisehave one) to markplurality in either first or second person subjects or second person (direct or indirect) objects. The reader whose head is still above water in this mass of details will note that these are precisely the cases in which a non-third person actant'splurality is not explicitly indicated by the form of its corresponding marker(i.e., firstplural subject or second pluralsubject or object). At most one -t appears in a form, even if two would be motivated (in the event of a first person plural subject combined with second person plural object, for example). Examplesentences and forms cited below will be provided with glosses in which these elements are identified.The analysisof agreementmarking is largely uncontroversial(though we have simplifiedsome points here, especially with regard to the marking of third person subjects), and the argumentsbelow should be comprehensiblewithout committingthe facts just reviewed to memory. There is one point, however, which requiressome furtherdiscussion. It will be recalled that the Georgian verb provides room for only one prefix and one suffix:what, one may ask, of the case in which three distinct NPs CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 163

must be overtly agreed with? The problem arises specificallyunder two sets of circumstances:1) where a firstperson subject (markedby v-) and a non-null object prefixshould co-occur; and 2) those cases in which both a direct and an indirect object ought to be marked by prefixes.In the first case, the markerv- simply fails to appear; this is effected by making the rule which would introduce it disjunctive with respect to the other agreement prefixation rules, as detailed elsewhere (Anderson 1982). Under these circumstancesthe fact that the subject is first person can often be deduced from other aspects of the verb's marking.In the case of co-occurringdirect and indirectobjects, a problemis only presentedwhen the direct object is other than third person, since third person direct objects are markedwith no overt affix. When a non-third person direct object is combined with an indirect object (of any person),the normalagreement process is suspendedand an alternativeconstruction (called "OBJECT CAMOUFLAGE" by Harris 1981) is used. This involves replacing the first or second person direct object pronoun by a form consisting of a possessive plus tavi 'head'. These tavi-phrases are normally reflexive in meaning, but under the special circumstances of object camouflage, their anaphoric interpretationis suspended and they serve as simple pronouns. Their relevance to this construction lies in the fact that (although their reference is to first or second person,)they are grammaticallythird person NP, and thus call for 0 direct object agreement; they thereby allow the language to evade the limitationsof the formalapparatus at the disposalof its agreementsystem. Furtherdiscussion of the object camouflageconstruction will be found in section 3.5.1.

1.1.2 Case marking The agreementsystem summarizedin table I appliesequally to both Series I and Series II forms. The case marking of Noun Phrases, however, depends on a number of mutually independent parameters:a) the tense Seriesof the verb of the clause; b) the lexical class of this verb; and c) the grammatical relation which the NP bears. The overall system of case marking is summarizedbelow in table II (at the end of section 2.1). We discuss the facts of case markingin non-invertedclauses whose verb bears a tense from Series I or II immediately below; the case marking and agreement properties of the inversion construction which appears with Series III tenses and with certain verbs (those of lexical class IV) in other series as well will be treated in section 2. 164 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON

1.1.2.1 SeriesI. The tenses which make up Series I are the present, the imperfect, the future, the conditional, and two subjunctives. In the majorityof cases, the future differsfrom the present, the conditionalfrom the imperfect, and one subjunctive from the other by the addition of a lexically idiosyncraticperfectivizing pre-verb which we write in parentheses when it has this function, followed by the '=' boundary. Subjects of all verbs whose tense is from Series I appear in the NOMINATIVE case, which is markedon a noun either by no suffixor by a final -i (if the stem ends in a consonant).Transitive verbs in Series I take a direct object which appearsin the ACCUSATIVE case; this is markedon the noun by the suffix-s. Indirectobjects (regardlessof the transitivityof the verb) appear in the DATIVE case; this is formally identical with the accusative, and is also marked by -s. Traditional grammars treat the dative/accusativeas a single case on the basis of this formal identity, but for expository convenience we treat this syncretism as homophony between two distinct categories. The analysisbelow does not depend in any essential way on a difference between 'dative' and 'accusative',and could easily be reformulatedin more traditionalterms. The points discussedthus far are illustratedin (1)-(3). The sentences in (1) exemplify an intransitive verb in the present tense, marked for its subject by a memberof the v-series. The pronounin (lb) and subsequent examples appearsin parentheses to indicate that (as in many languages, especiallythose with extensive inflectionalagreement systems), it normally appears only when emphatic. It should be noted that first and second person pronounsin Georgiando not-varyfor case; case is indicatedin the glosses of these elements only by analogy to that which would be formally markedon a third person NP in the same position.

(1) a. ivane c'veb- a John (NOM) lies-down-3SBJ John is lying down, going to bed. b. (me) v- c'vebi I (NOM) 1SBJ-lie-down I am lying down, going to bed.

The examples in (2) represent a transitive verb, and thus have an m-series marker to identify their object as well as a v-series markerfor their subject. These sentences are in the futuretense, indicatedby the fact that the verb forms are preceded by the appropriate perfectivizing CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 165 pre-verb.Note that the 3rd personobjects in (2a,b) call for 0 markersfrom the m-series. (2) a. ivane mc'er-s mo- k'lav- s John (NOM) insect-ACC PVB-kill- 3SBJ John will kill the insect.

b. (me) ivane-s mo- v- k'lav I (NOM) John- ACC PVB-lSBJ-kill I will kill John.

c. ivane (sen) mo- g- k'lav- s John (NOM) you(SG., ACC) PVB-2SGDO-kill- 3SBJ John will kill you. The examples in (3) contain indirect objects. The verb of (3a) is intransitive;since this form takes indirectobjects from the u-series, its IO is markedby u (following the preverb a= in this future tense form). The verb in (3b, c) also takes u-series markers;since its direct object is third person, this is not overtly markedin the form. (3) a. es saxl- i ivane-s a- u- sendeb-a this house-NOM John- DAT PVB-3IO-built: 3SBJ This house will be built for John. b. (me) v- u- xat'av deda- s I (NOM) I SBJ-3 IO-paint mother-DA T surat- s picture-A CC (=DAT) I am paintingmother a picture. c. deda c. mi- xat'av-s (me) surat- s mother (NONf) 1 IO-paint- 3 SBJ me(DAT) picture- ACC Mother is painting me a picture.

1.1.2.2 SeriesII. The tenses which make up Series II consist of the aorist, the optative, and the imperative(virtually always identical with either the aorist or the optative, depending on person). While the case markingof NPs associated with verbs whose tense comes from Series I tenses is a simple and straightforwardexample of a nominative/accusativesystem parallelto that of familiarEuropean languages, that associatedwith verbs whose tense comes from Series II is somewhatmore unusual. 166 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON

It is necessary first of all to distinguishbetween two classes of intransitive verbs: MEDIAL verbs such as qeps '(he) barks', goravs '(he) rolls', musaohs '(he) works', lap'arak'obs'(he) speaks', and many others; and NON-MEDLAL intransitivessuch as ic'erebs '(it) gets written', xdeba '(it) happens', elodeba '(he) is waiting for (him, it)'. The class of medials has traditionallybeen treated as simply a set of exceptions to the supposedly normal behavior displayed by non-medial intransitives, but a recent detailed study by Holisky (1981a) makes it clear that the medial verbs constitute a large, productive, class whose behavior is morphologically, syntacticallyand semanticallycoherent (cf. also Harris1981) and no more 'exceptional' than that of the non-medials. Holisky characterizes the medial verbs semanticallyas the set of verbs denoting agentive, atelic activities (cf. also Holisky 1981b). We make no attempt to evaluate this description here, since our concern is to describe morphological and syntactic differences between medial and non-medial intransitivesrather than their semantics. The distinction between medial and non-medial intransitives, and between both of these and transitiveverbs, is a lexical one whose precise representationwill be discussed in section 3. As a purely descriptive convenience, we adopt below the terminology of Harris, according to which transitive verbs are characterizedas belonging to 'class I', non- medial intransitivesto 'class II', and medial intransitivesto 'class III'. The additional category of 'class IV' or 'indirect' verbs will be discussed in section 2 below. Given this classification,we can say that the subjects of verbs of both class I and class III appear in the ERGATIVE case when their tense is a member of Series II. This case is formallymarked on nouns by the suffix -M(a). Subjectsof non-medialintransitives (class II), in contrast,appear in the NOMINATIVE (exactly as with Series I tenses). Since direct objects also appear in the nominative, we would have a system of the ergative type associated with the tenses of Series II if we confined our attention to the non-medialexamples of intransitiveverbs. Finally,indirect objects appear in the DATIVE case in Series II just as in Series I. In light of the existence (and completely non-marginalstatus) of the medial intransitives,however, the correct descriptionof the case marking system in sentences with verbs in Series II tenses is arguably as an ACTIVE system, as proposed by Harris (1981). We ignore here the question of whether the semantic difference between medial and non- medial verbs is precisely that usually associated in the literaturewith the 'active' systemssometimes described for American Indianlanguages such CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 167

as Dakota, Choctaw, etc. The label 'active' is used here to mean simply that there are two classes of intransitiveverbs, one whose subjects share formal propertieswith the subjects of transitives,and one whose subjects share formal propertieswith direct objects. We illustratebelow the patternof case markingin sentences with Series II verbs, as well as the pattern of their agreement (which is essentially identical with that found in Series I examples). (4a, b) contain a non- medial verb in the aorist; their subjects are therefore in the nominative. The verb of (4c), in contrast,is a medial intransitive,whose subject is thus in the ergative. (4) a. ivane mo- k'vd-a John (NOM) PVB-died-3SBJ John died.

b. (me) mo- v- k'vdi I (NOM) PVB-lSBJ-died I died. k'at'a-m ik'navl- a cat- ERG meowed-3SBJ The cat meowed.

In (5), the verb is transitive.Its subject is thus ergative, and its object nominative. (5) a. ivane-m mc'er-i mo- k'l- a John- ERG insect-NOM PVB-killed-3SBJ John killed the insect.

b. (me) ivane mo- v- k'ali I (ERG) John (NOM) PVB-1 SBJ-killed I killed John.

The sentences in (6) contain indirect objects, which occur in the dative regardless of the transitivity of the associated verb. In all of these exampfes,the indirectobject is reflected by a markerfrom the u-series. In (6a, b) the verb is transitive and its subject therefore appears in the ergative, its direct object in the nominative. The verb of (6c) is a non-medial intransitive,while that of (6d) is a medial intransitive;the subject of the former is thus nominative, and the subject of the latter 168 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON ergative. These case markingfacts are the same as in the examplesabove where no IO was present. (6) a. (me) da- v- u- xat'e deda- s I(ERG) PVB- 1SBJ-3 1O-painted mother-DAT surat- i picture-NOM I painted mother a picture.

b. deda- m da- mi- xat'- a (me) mother-JERGPVB-1 I0-painted-3SBJ me(DAT) surat- i picture-NOM Mother painted me a picture.

c. es saxl- i ivane-s a- u- send-a this house-NOM John- DAT PVB-3IO-built-3SBJ This house was built for John.

d. megobr- is jayl-ma ivane-s u- qep- a neighbor- GEN dog- ERG John- DAT 3IO-barked-3 SBJ The neighbor'sdog barked at John.

1.1.3 Summary In the discussion that follows, it is not the detailed formal expressionof particularcategories that will be of interest,but ratherthe extent to which agreement and case marking are correlated with syntactic categories defined by structuralpositions (or by grammaticalrelations). We have observed that verbal agreement marking distinguishes three structural categories: SUBJECT, DIRECT OBJECT, and INDIRECT OBJECT. These distinctionsare made regardlessof tense or of the transitivityof the verb. While case markingdistinguishes the same three categories, it does so in different ways depending on tense (Series I vs. Series II) and verb class (transitive, or class I; non-medial intransitive, or class II; and medial intransitive,or class III).

1.2 Syntacticproperties associated with particular terms The morphologicaldifferences between Series I and Series II just sur- CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 169 veyed naturallylead to the questionof whether there exist corresponding syntactic differences. In order to answer this, we must first establish syntactic properties that are associated with given positions in grammatical structure, and then determine how the distribution of these properties is related to morphologicalcharacteristics. With this goal in mind, Harris(1981) providesan extensive surveyof the syntacticstructure of Georgian within the frameworkof Relational Grammar.She isolates a numberof propertiesof NPs which appearto depend on the grammatical relation they bear within the sentence; since reference to these grammatical relations can plausibly,be seen as part of the description of the properties involved (necessarily,in a frameworklike that of Relational Grammar,but at least implicitlyin other theories as well), the propertiesin question can serve as criteria for the identification of grammatical relations borne by NPs in cases where the analysisis in doubt. Harris argues that despite the morphologicaldifferences, the syntactic structureof sentences is the same in Series I and II. That is, the same NP which serves as 'subject' in a sentence with a verb in Series I is identified by syntacticcriteria as the subjectif the verb is put in a Series II tense with its concomitant morphological changes; and the same for direct and indirect objects. This conclusion is thus an intra-linguisticanalog of the line of argument in Anderson (1976) that syntactic criteria identify the same NPs as 'subject', 'direct object', etc. in 'ergative/absolutive'and in 'nominative/accusative'languages.' Some of the properties identified by Harris are common to subjects, direct objects, and indirectobjects; they thus serve to distinguishthe class of such 'terms' from other, 'non-term' NPs. Terms, for example, are reflected in the verb by agreement (as we have seen above), while non-terms are not. Similarly(and, we will suggest below, closely con- nected with the facts of agreement),non-emphatic pronouns are generally

' There are two qualifications that must be made to the statement that grammatical relations in one language correspond in a relatively straightforward way to those in another. On the one hand, individual lexical items in one language may show exceptional correspondences with their closest equivalents in some other language. For example, French Mes an_s me manquentis semanticallybut not structurallyparallel to its English gloss I miss my friends: the subject of naquer corresponds to the object of miss and the indirect object corresponds to the subject of miss. On the other hand (and more significantly), a small fraction of the world's languages, of which Dyirbal is by far the most celebrated example, show a quite different association between grammatical relations and semantic roles than that characteristic of English and most other languages. The existence of such languages, as pointed out in Anderson (1976), actually increases the significance of the conclusion elsewhere, since it establishes the point that the correspondence between morphology and syntax which 'ergative' languages suggest is actually a possible one, though incorrect in most instances. 170 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON omitted in the position of terms,while non-termpositions such as genitive modifiersand objects of post-positionsmust be filled either by full NPs or by overt pronouns. Of more interest for our discussion, however, are propertiesthat distinguishone term position from another.The following sub-sections note some of the syntactic characteristics of the most importantterms, the subject and the direct object.

1.2.1 Subjects An importantdistinguishing property of subjects is the fact that they are the only NPs that can serve as the antecedentof (non-possessive)reflexive expressions. Georgian reflexives are formed from the noun stern tav-, which occurs independently with the sense 'head'. The person of the reflexiveNP is indicated(always if firstor second person,optionally if third person) by a possessive pronounmodifying tav-. Such 'tav-reflexives'can occur in direct or indirect object position, or as objects of postpositions; they are alwaysinterpreted as coreferentialwith the subject of their clause. Thus sentence (7) below unambiguouslyindicates that the paintingwill be done for the benefit of the painter himself: (7) mxat'varidaxat'avs vanos tavis- tvis painter will-paint Vano-ACC self- GEN-for

The painteri will paint Vano, for himself i,*j. An obviously related construction with tavis serves as a possessive reflexive. In the case of possessives,however, the antecedent is not limited -to the subject of the clause, and such cases therefore do not provide evidence for subject-hood. Another systematic property of subjects is revealed in the morphologically derived causative construction.When an intransitiveverb is made causative, the subject of the related simpleverb appearsas the direct object of the correspondingcausative: (8) mama-m mzia avari'sa father-ERG Mzia-NOM caused-to-exercise Father made Mzia exercise. In causative verbs correspondingto basic transitiveverbs, the indirect object of the causative correspondsto the subject of the basic verb: (9) mama-m mzia- s daantebina cecxli father-ERG Mzia-DAT caused-to-light fire-NOM Father made Mzia light the fire. CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 171

Unfortunately,as Harris(1981: 291) points out in another connection, the patternof NPs in associationwith causativesshows less than we might like it to. This is because indirect objects of intransitive verbs also correspond to indirect objects of the related causatives. Therefore, the indirect object of the causative in (9) could in theory have that status either because it correspondsto the subject of a transitive,or because it corresponds to the indirect object of an intransitive; and since it is precisely the choice between these two possibilitiesthat is most often in question, causatives have limited value as evidence in this connection.

1.2.2 Direct Objects An interesting property of direct objects is the fact that they undergo raising to subject position when their clause is embedded under advili 'easy' and similarpredicates. This constructionis illustratedin (10) below: (10) sarvali advili-a ninos-tvis sesak'eravad trouserseasy- be Nino-for to-sew Trousers are easy for Nino to sew. (or 'to sew for Nino') The fact that only direct objects, and not either subjects or indirect objects, are available to be raised in this constructionis illustratedby the fact that sentence (11) below is ungrammatical,regardless of whethernino is interpreted as underlying subject of esak'erad 'to sew' or as a benefactive indirect object: (11) *nino advili-a sarvl- is sesak'eravad Nino easy- be trousers-GEN to-sew *Nino is easy to sew trousers(for). Another propertyof direct objects has already been illustrated:in the causative of a transitiveverb, the direct object correspondsto the direct object of the correspondingbasic verb. Sentence (9) above illustratesthis pattern. Again, however, the value of such facts as evidence is limited: direct objects of causatives may correspond either to direct objects of basic transitives,or to subjects of basic intransitives(cf. (8)). Another propertyof direct objects which figuresin Harris'discussion is the fact that certain transitiveverbs show suppletive stem forms, depending on propertiesof their direct objects. Thus, the verb (gads = )a-gdeb 'throw'only occurs with singulardirect objects, while (gada=)qri 'throw' is used with plural direct objects; similarly,the verb (da=)ban 'wash' is used only with personal (human)direct objects, while the corresponding verb (ga=)recxav 'wash' is used with non-personal (non-humanor in- 172 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON animate) direct objects. The relevance of this to the status of particular NPs in the clause is argued to derive from the apparentlyvalid generalization that if a transitiveverb shows suppletionfor some propertyof one of its arguments,the relevant argumentis always the direct object (and not the subject). It is by no means clear that these facts are actually relevant to the syntactic analysis of Georgian, however. When we consider intransitive verbs, we find a numberthat show similarsuppletion based on properties of their subject: thus, (da=)Jdeb 'sit down' is used with singularsubjects, while (da=)sxdeb is used with plural subjects; and c'evs '(he) is lying down' is used with personalsubjects, while devs '(it) is lying down' is used with non-personalsubjects. These facts show that not only direct objects can cause suppletion, but subjects as well. The full generalizationthus appears to be that suppletion is governed by the properties of an intransitivesubject or a transitiveobject. In fact, we suggest, this generalizationis only indirectlyconnected with the syntacticrelations involved: the apparentrelation arises because these are preciselythe positionsoccupied by the NP filling the semanticrelation (or '0-role') of THEME in the interpretationof a clause. We suggest that it is the propertiesof themes that are relevant to the choice of suppletive verbs. A similar proposal is made by Hewitt (1983). The importanceof themes in grammaticalstructure is well known (cf., e.g., Anderson 1977b and references there); given the semantic nature of the restrictions involved in suppletion, it is particularlyplausible that they should be controlledby an aspect of semantic,rather than syntacticstructure. But in that case, the facts of suppletionare not directlyrelevant to identifyingthe grammaticalrelation a NP bears.

2. THE INVERSION CONSTRUCTION The facts surveyedto this point are quite straightforward,if a bit complex: aside from the point that Series I and Series II tenses differ in their associated case-marking (though not agreement) patterns, the morphological and syntacticproperties of Georgianare not especially unusual in comparisonwith other languages. But the language also illustratesyet anotherpattern of case-markingand agreement,which, while by no means isolated in cross-linguistic terms, is nonetheless remarkable.This is the 'inversion'construction. CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 173

2.1 Morphologicalproperties of 'inverted'forms. Under certain circumstances (to be described immediatelybelow), the apparent subject of transitive verbs, as well as of intransitives of the 'medial'class, appearsin the dative case, ratherthan the nominative(as is usual with Series I tenses) or the ergative (as is usual with Series II). At the same time, instead of being indicated on the verb with markersfrom the v-series (which,it will be recalled, normallymarks subject agreement),it is marked with an element from the u-series, or in the case of certain exceptional verbs, with elements from one of the other sets normally employed to mark indirect objects. The subject in this constructionthus behaves morphologicallyin exactly the way indirectobjects behave in the constructionsdiscussed in section 1. . At the same time, under the same circumstances,the apparentdirect object of a transitiveverb appearsin the nominativecase. We can recall that this is the normal case for direct objects with Series II (though not Series I) tenses, but in contrast to these, direct objects in the 'inverted' forms are indicated on the verb by markers from the v- (or 'subject') series. A further complication arises from the fact that the verbs in questionare followed by a suffixedform of the verb qopna 'be', agreeing in person with a first or second person direct object. This peculiarity (considered as a part of 'v-series agreement') is also found in agreement with the subjects of present.forms of some non-invertedverbs (especially medials), and so is not isolated within the morphology of Georgian. It does, however, reinforcethe conclusion that in the 'inverted'forms, direct objects have the morphologicalproperties of subjects. As far as the indirect objects of 'inverted' transitiveor medial intransitive verbs are concerned, these can only appear in the form of a post-positionalphrase markedby -tvis. In its other uses in the language, this post-position can generally be glossed 'for', and it overlaps in its semanticswith the range of interpretationsassigned to indirectobjects. In the 'inverted'forms, (notional)indirect objects are not markedon the verb at all, and their appearanceis limited to such -tvis phrases. Finally, we can note that when non-medial intransitiveverbs appear under the conditions that call for 'inverted' forms of other verbs, no correspondingchanges in case markingor agreementare observed. Their subjects, that is, appearin the nominativeand are markedby the v-series on the verb;.andtheir indirectobjects (if present)appear in the dative and are indicated by one of the appropriateseries of markers. 174 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON

There are two sets of circumstancesunder which such 'inverted' forms are found. The first of these is in the final group of tenses, those classified in traditionaldescriptions as Series III and including the perfect, pluperfect, and conjunctive perfect. Although Series III is usually called the 'Perfect Series' in the literature, these tenses are not 'perfects' in a standardsense. They are rathertense forms whose main use is to describe events the speaker has not actually witnessed, but rather inferred (cf. Aronson 1982a, Harris 1981, Sanije 1980, and other references cited in these works for extensive discussion of the semantics of the Georgian Series III tenses). The perfect is also the basic past tense in negative contexts corresponding to the (non-negative) aorist. With non-medial intransitives(whether or not they take an indirect object), as we noted above, there is no inversion. Although in this case the internalformation of the Series III tenses is differentfrom that associatedwith transitivesand medial intransitives, it is nonetheless clear from their syntactic and semantic distributionthat the same set of tenses is involved. Invertedforms are also found in Series I and II forms of a particularset of verbs, mostly involving perception,emotion, ability,or mental attitude. These we refer to as constituting'class IV' following the terminology(due to Harris)introduced above for the other lexical classes of verbs. The class IV verbs in Georgian (i.e., those that show inversionin all tense series and not only in Series III) are cognate with verbs that often show similar, inverted behavior in other languages on a locally idiosyncratic basis. Compare, for example, archaic English Me thinks, Italian A Giorgio piacciono le sinfonie di Beethoven 'Georgio likes the symphonies of Beethoven', or Russian Emu zaxotelos' rabotat' doma 'He felt like working at home'. In all of these cases the notional subject experiencer shows the morphologicalcharacteristics of an indirect object. An over-emphasison the partialsemantic coherence of the set of verbs making up class IV can lead to a mistaken appreciationof the status of inversion in Georgian. Merlan (1982), for example, effectively limits her discussion of Georgian inversion constructionsto a considerationof the class IV examples, and concludes that the cross-linguisticsimilarity just noted is sufficientto force us to consider the inverted forms as having (at all levels) a syntaxwhich is directlyrevealed by their surface morphology. Since her discussion takes none of the relevant syntactic evidence into account, however, and largely ignores the problem of inversion in Series III tenses, this conclusion seems unwarranted.The semantic similarities between class IV verbs in Georgian and those that show some sort of inverted structure in other languages remain simply suggestive (and CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 175

nothing more) until an adequate and explicit account is available of the relation between syntactic and semantic categories in the languages involved. We have nothing to say here about the semantic characteristics of some verbs which make them candidatesfor such 'inverted'syntax in many languages;what is importantabout them in Georgianis the fact that their constructionis the same as that associatedwith a much wider set of verbs (i.e., classes I and III as well) under certain systematic conditions (namely,when their tense is one of those in Series III). We now illustrate the properties of the inversion construction. The sentences in (12) below are negatives corresponding to non-negative sentences in the aorist;their tense is thus the 'perfect',a memberof Series III: (12) a. (me) ar da- mi- xat'av-s dedis- tvis I(DAT) not PERF- 11O- paint- 3SBJ mother-for surat- i picture- NOM I didn't paint a picture for mother. b. deda- s ar da- u- xat'av-s cem-tvis mother- DAT not PERF- 31O- paint- 3SBJ me- for surat- i picture-NOM Mother didn't paint a picture for me.

The verb in (12) is a basic transitive(class I); its subject thus appearsin the dative and is marked on the verb by what is normallyan indicatorof indirectobjects. The direct object is in the nominative,and shows concord with a 'subject' marker,while the indirectobject appearsin a tvis-phrase and is not marked on the verb at all. The same morphologicalproperties can also be observed for the subjects of class III (medial intransitive) verbs, as shown by (13): (13) a. k'at'a- s ar u- k'navli- a cat- DAT not 31O- has meowed- 3 SBJ The cat has not meowed.

b. (me) ar mi- k'ivli- a I (DAT) not IO- have screamed- 3 SBJ I didn't scream. 176 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON

Note that in (13), the medialverbs are inflectedwith a 3sg 'subject'marker (regardlessof the person of their actual subject, which correspondsto an 'indirect object' marker).They thus behave (by morphological analogy with class I verbs) as if they had a dummy3sg direct object. This fact will play a role in the analysisbelow. In (14) below, we illustratea verb from class IV, the class that shows 'inversion'in all tenses. These sentences have their verbs in the present tense, which would normallycall for nominative subjects marked by the v-series, and accusative objects marked by the m-series; instead we find dative subjectsmarked by the u-series, and nominativeobjects markedby the v-series (plus an enclitic form of the copula, when the object is non-thirdperson): (14) a. (me) ana mi- qvar-s I (DAT) Anna (NOM) 1IO- love- 3SG I love Anna.

b. ana- s (me) v- u- qvar-var Anna- DAT me (NOM) 1SG- 3IO- love- am Anna loves me. Membershipin class IV, with its associatedinversion in all tenses, is not limited to transitiveverbs. A few intransitivesbelong to this class as well; like the Series III forms of intransitivemedials, these verbs appear to be inflected for a dummy 3sg direct object. (15) a. (me) m- jinav- s I (DAT) 1IO- sleep- 3 SG I'm sleeping.

b. vano- s s- jinav- s Vano- DAT 3 IO- sleep- 3 SG Vano is sleeping. At this point, we have introducedall of the patternsof case markingand agreementwhich occur in Georgian as a function of verb class and tense Series. A summaryof these patternsis presented in Table II below.

2.2 Harris' analysis of inversion The questionraised by the inversionconstruction, of course, is whetheror not the morphological properties of such sentences are an accurate CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 177

TABLE II Case markingand agreementpatterns PatternA: Subject Direct Object IndirectObject

Case-Marking Nominative Accusative Dative Agreement v-series m-series h-, etc. series

PatternB: Subject Direct Object IndirectObject

Case-Marking Ergative Nominative Dative Agreement v-series m-series h-, etc. series

PatternC ('inverted'clauses): Subject Direct Object IndirectObject

Case-Marking Dative Nominative (tvis-phrase) Agreement h-, etc. series v-series (none)

Distributionof PatternsA, B, and C:

Series: I II III

Verb Class: 1 (Transitive) A B C 2 (Non-MedialIntransitive) A A A 3 (Medial) A B C 4 (Inversionverbs) C C C

indicatorof their syntactic structure.Is it the case, that is, that in a clause whose verb has a tense from Series III, the NP corresponding to the subject of the same clause with a Series I or II tense is in fact a structural indirectobject? An analysisthat did not posit majorstructural differences correlated with such tense differences would have an immediate appeal.

2.2.1 The syntacticstructure of inversionclauses Harris(1981) argues that in inversion forms, the dative NP is indeed the syntacticsubject and the nominativeNP is the direct object. She bases this conclusion on the same constructions that she uses to demonstratethe structuralparallel between Series I and Series II (non-inverted)forms. For 178 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON example, in Series III clauses (as in Series I and II), only the notional subject can serve as the antecedentof tav-reflexives.Sentence (16) below, whose verb is in the 'perfect' tense, illustrates this; note the ungram- maticality of the variant (16b), in which the reflexive is in the position which appearsmorphologically to be an indirectobject and the antecedent in what appearsmorphologically to be that of the subject: (16) a. gela- s turme da- u- rc'munebi-a tavisi Gela-DAT evidentlyPVB-3IO-convince- 3 SBJ self's tavi self-NOM Evidently Gela has convinced himself.

b. *tavis tav- s da- u- rc'munebi-a gela self s self-DAT PVB-3IO-convince- 3SBJ Gela-NOM (*Evidentlyself has convinced Gela.) Evidence from other sources bearing one way or the other on this issue is not easy to obtain. For instance, when we consider -causatives,the evidence from Series III forms is not immediatelyrelevant, since it is the causative verb itself that is 'inverted'in such structures(as the bearer of tense) ratherthan the basic verb from which it is derived. We might then turn to class IV verbs: since these appear 'inverted' in all tense forms, it might appearthat they have a basicallyinverted structure, which ought to be reflected in the form of their causative. (17) a. vano- m gela- s se- a- jul- a Vano- ERG Gela- DAT PVB- 31O- caused to hate- 3SBJ nik'o Niko-NOM Vano made Gela hate Nik'o.

b. (mat) t'usayi mo- asiv- es they-ERG prisoner-NOMPVB- caused hunger- 3PLSBJ They let the prisonergo hungry, they starved the prisoner. Unfortunately,the causativeof a transitiveclass IV verb such as m-jul-s 'I hate him' as in (17a) is of no relevance to the issue at hand. In this structurethe argument(gela) correspondingto the notional subject of the basic verb 'hate' does appearas an indirectobject, which is what we would CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 179

expect if it were basically the subject of a transitive;and the argument (nik'o) correspondingto the notional object of 'hate' appearsas a direct object, again as we would expect for a basic direct object. As noted above (and by Harris1981, p. 291), this is exactly the same as the resultwe would predict if the person hated were structurallythe subject of (an intransitive verb) m-jul-s, and the hater the indirect object. In the case of an intransitiveinversion verb such as m-sia 'I am hungry',however, the fact that the NP with morphologicalindirect object propertiesin association with the basic verb appearsas a direct object with the causativeas in (17b) confirmsits notional status as a subject. Turning to raising constructions,there is again no evidence available from Series III tense forms,since the clause from which an object is raised (in, e.g., sentence (10) above) is necessarilynon-finite (i.e., appearsin a form that bears no tense). With regard to class IV verbs, we see that indeed the notionalobject of such a verb can be raised,and no other NP in the clause has this possibility: (18) direkt'ori AZvili-a vanos- tvis sesajuleblad director-NOMeasy- is Vano- for to hate The director is easy for Vano to hate. Harris (1981: 292) notes, however, that this fact is also equivocal in its bearing, because the verb m-jul-s (like most other inversionverbs) has a related form (se=) i-juleb 'begin to hate someone', a class I verb built on the same root. Since non-finite forms involve the neutralizationof class differences among verbs with the same stem and preverbsuch as this, one could argue that (18) arises from raising the object of the class I verb, rather than the (commoner) class IV verb. Of course, sentence (18) is consistent with an analysiswhich treats the embeddedverb as the class IV form, and raises its direct object - but it does not provide positive evidence for this analysis. Harriscites some additionalfacts in supportof her conclusion,including suppletionfor number,animacy, and tense with invertedverbs, the facts of number agreement, and the marking of 'retired terms'. We suggested above that the facts of suppletion are not directly relevant to the determinationof syntactic structure,since these are related to semantic rather than syntactic relations. The facts of number agreement will be discussed below in section 2.3.4, where they will be seen to reinforce the conclusion that NPs with the morphologicalproperties of indirectobjects in inversion constructionsare in fact subjects. The facts of 'retiredterm' 180 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON

markingwill not be dealt with separatelyhere, though I do not feel they provide substantialadditional support for proposalsabout the underlying structureof inversion structures. We conclude, however, that such facts as there are either supportor are at least consistent with the claim that 'inverted' clauses (i.e., those containing Series III tense forms or class IV verbs) have the same syntactic structureas others. Given the obvious parallelsbetween Series I and II, on the one hand, and Series III on the other, we accept here Harris' claim that the two should be analyzedas having the same basic structure, in particularthe same subject and object NPs. It remains, however, to account for the morphologyof the 'inverted'forms.

2.2.2 A syntacticanalysis of inversion Within the frameworkof Relational Grammar,Harris (1981) provides a resolution of the apparentlycontradictory aspects of the inversion construction. The essence of that analysis is the following: since NPs in inversion clauses have the same subject and object properties as the correspondingNPs in non-inversion clauses, we can assign all types of clause a common underlying structure (at least as far as grammatical relations are concerned). However, in the presence of the two inversion- triggeringfeatures ([class IV] as a propertyof the verb, or [Series III] as a property of its tense), the morphology corresponding to the syntactic subject is that of an indirectobject; and that correspondingto a syntactic direct object is that of a subject. Therefore, a rule can be posited which demotes subjects to indirectobject; anotherrule then promotes the direct object to the status of a subject: (19) a. Inversion: Subject-> Indirect Object (triggered by class IV verbs or Series III tense forms) b. Unaccusative: In the absence of a Subject, a Direct Object becomes a Subject The process is split into two rules, Harris argues, because the Unac- cusative rule (19b) is necessary independently of the inversion con- structionalone. In particular,all clauses with verbs of class II (non-medial intransitives)have underlyingrepresentations containing a direct object, but no subject; and this direct object is promoted to subject by the same rule (19b) that functions in the inversion construction. It is beyond the scope of this article to evaluate this proposal(equivalent to the suggestion of a class of 'unaccusative'verbs in a numberof other languages; cf. e.g. CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 181

Postal 1977, Perlmutter1983 and referencesthere, Burzio 1981, etc.), but within Georgian we suggest that it does not have independentmotivation beyond the facts that a) it provides a descriptionof the differencebetween class II and class III; b) it relatesthe structureof class II to that of passives; and c) it requires no apparatusbeyond that necessary to describe inversion. We returnto these points below. Given the rules in (19), inversion clauses (such as that in (20), containinga verb of class IV) will be given a Relationalstructure such as that below: _ (20) s- julebi- a vano- s direkt'ori 3IO- hate- 3SBJ Vano- DAT director Vano hates the director.

In this structure,vano is underlyinglysubject and direkt'or direct object: the former undergoes demotion (from '1' to '3') by rule (19a), with the result that the clause no longer has a subject; and (19b) promotes direkt'or to subject status. The resulting structure provides a suitable basis for morphologicalmarking of the NPs involved. Harris'relational analysis provides a compact and elegant account of the facts of inversionconstructions, and their relation to other aspects of Georgian syntax. The only controversialaspect of this analysisis the fact that it treats inversion as an essentially syntactic (rather than morphological) phenomenon,by positing a rule which alters syntactic grammatical relations and then treating the morphology as straightforward given the change made by this rule. The reason this is problematicis the following:evidence for an initialstructure in which inversionclauses have the same structure as non-inversion clauses derives from syntactic phenomena. Morphological evidence for this structure is either highly problematic in theoretical terms (number agreement; cf. section 2.3.4 below) or of unclear status in the grammar ('retired term marking'). Arguments for the (derived) indirect object status of the surface dative NP, on the other hand, are exclusively morphological: they consist essentially of the facts of case markingand verb agreement. An analysis which expressedthe morphologicalproperties of the constructionwithout requiring (otherwise unmotivated) changes in syntactic structure, and 182 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON

which did not lose generalizationscaptured in the syntacticanalysis, would enjoy at least the advantage of conceptual economy. Theories other than that of Relational Grammar typically posit a connection between structuralpositions and semanticroles such that even in the presence of a syntactic relation-changing inversion rule, the description of Georgian inversionmust involve another, essentiallymor- phological component. For example, an analysiswithin the frameworkof Lexical FunctionalGrammar (Bresnan 1982) would requirea lexical rule associating a difference in role assignment with the morphology of the relevant inversion structures,if the grammaticalrelations in the surface form of inversion structures differ from those in corresponding non- inverted forms. On the assumptions of Government/Binding theory (Chomsky 1981), both direct and indirect object are sub-categorized positions, and each must thus be assigned a 6-role. In order to avoid a violation of the 6-criterion,this means that the 6-role normallyassigned to subjects must be re-assigned to indirect object position instead. A Government/Bindinginterpretation of Harris'analysis thus requiresus to posit a lexical rule which (at least) associates this change in 6-role assignment (as well as the absorption of case from the direct object position) with inversion morphology,assuming that there is movement in such constructions. Note that the syntactic analysisrequires that Inversion(taking this term to refer to the pair of rules in (19), including Unaccusative) essentially must not interactwith other relation-changingrules. This is because other rules which change relations (e.g., passive, raising) do not apply to the output of inversion, and inversion does not apply to their output either. The one exception to this is the formationof causatives,to which inversion can apply; but this process would be described as lexical rather than syntactic by grammariansworking in frameworksother than Relational Grammar,and so cannot be called a clear counterexampleto the claim that inversion is not fed by genuinely syntactic rules. The failure of Inversion to feed other rules follows (in Harris' formulation)from the fact that such other rules have structuralrequirements that are inconsistent with the output of inversion. The second half of the generalization,however, is describedby Harrisby imposingthe condition that "Inversion[i.e., (19a) above] only applies to initial subjects" (Harris 1981, p. 247). As a result, the formulationof Inversionbecomes global in character (since it must refer simultaneously to the fact that a given argument is a subject, and to the fact that it was initially a subject), a consequence which most views of syntaxwould reject. On the other hand, CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 183

Inversion must precede (and feed) the morphological rules of case marking and agreement. An alternativeanalysis should attempt to make these interactions follow as far as possible from more general con- siderationsof the inter-relationof morphologyand syntax.

2.3. Problemswith a syntacticanalysis of inversion In the previoussection, we suggested some reasonsto believe that it might be preferablea priori to describe the facts of the inversion construction within the limits of the morphological system of Georgian, rather than adopting an analysisinvolving a change of syntacticstructure such as that posited by Harris.In this section we providesome more explicit arguments againstthe syntacticapproach. In each case, the thrustof our observations is that the structureunderlying inversion constructionsshould be main- tained unchanged: either the syntactic rule of Inversion leads to a structure which is in some way ill-formed, or there is evidence that the posited underlyingstructure (rather than the outputof syntacticInversion) is appropriate as a derived structure as well. If we assume that no alteration of the underlying structure is involved in an account which treats inversionas a fact about the structureof inflectedwords ratherthan as a fact about the syntax of 'inverted' clauses, these argumentssupport such an analysis.

2.3.1 The well-formednessof the movementinvolved Recall the effect of rule (19a) above, the central part of the syntactic analysis of inversion. This rule demotes subjects (in the presence of an appropriatetrigger) to indirect objects; the result is a structurewith no subject NP. In the case of transitiveverbs, this lacuna is immediatelyfilled through the operation of (19b), promoting the former direct object to subject. Intransitiveverbs can undergo inversion too, however - at least those like k'navis 'meows',which belong to class III (the medials). In this case there is no NP availableto occupy subject position.Within Relational Grammar, this would violate the 'Final-1 Law', which stipulates that clauses must have a surfacesubject; it is thus necessaryto posit a syntactic dummy element which occupies subject position (either directly, or by advancementfrom direct object position). Within the Government/Bindingtheory, inversion structureslike (21) below would violate otherwise valid binding conditions if they involved genuine syntactic movement, since movement from subject to indirect 184 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON object position would leave a subject trace bound only by an NP in indirect object position. Such a trace would not be c-commanded by its antecedent, and thus the structurewould not be well formed.

(21) S

NP VP

NP V

[e]i NP V

' [kat a-s]i cat-DAT 0 u-k'navli-a 3 IO- meowed-3SBJ The cat has meowed. (perfect tense) We have representedindirect object position as a daughterof VP, and treated direct objects as daughtersof V; nothing hinges on this detail, so long as indirect object position is a part of some projection of V within which the main verb can be subcategorizedfor its complements, while subject position is external to the maximumprojection of V. The analysis must reflect the fact that direct and indirect objects are independently subcategorizedby the verb while subjects are not. The ill-formednessof the antecedent-tracerelation in (21) under the bindingtheory of Chomsky(1981) has no obvious resolution;note that we cannot assumethe trace is simply'covered' by a syntacticdummy element (such as English there),since regardlessof the morphologicalindication on the verb, this position cannot be filled by an overt pronoun or other element under any circumstances.In contrast, the morphological treatment of inversion involves no movement from subject to indirect object position, and results in no structure that is problematicfor the binding theory. The subject NP continues to fill the subject position, regardlessof its morphologicalreflection, and no trace in that position must be bound by an element subordinateto it. CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 185

2.3.2 Non-finiteforms and the natureof verbclasses Verbs which are not marked for tense and agreement must not trigger syntactic inversion,regardless of whetheror not they contain roots whose finite forms can be inflected as belonging to class IV. In sentence (22) below, we see that the dependentsof sejuleba 'to hate' are markedas they would be in a normal,active nonfinitestructure: tkven is markedwith the post-position mier, as is normal for a transitive subject (n.b.: not an indirect object), while cemi megobrisis a genitive, the normalform for a direct object dependent of a non-finiteform: (21) cem-tvis gaugebaria tkven mier cemi me-for incomprehensibleyou by my megobr- is sejuleba friend- GEN hating For me it is incomprehensiblethat you would hate my friend. An adequate grammarmust thus ensure that infinitiveforms like gejuleba do not trigger inversion, even if they correspondto class IV verbs. This raises the issue of what it means for a verb to belong to 'class IV' (or any other class). The evident generalizationhere (suggested to me by Alice Harris)is that "a non-finiteform has no class":i.e., that class is a fact aboutfinite inflection.Therefore, on an analysisthat treatsinversion not as syntactic structuralchange but ratheras a fact about a verb's agreement morphology,there is nothing furtherto be said to ensure that inversionis blocked in non-finiteforms even for those verbs which otherwiseundergo it everywhere (i.e., class IV): lack of inversion follows directly from the fact that such forms have no agreementmorphology to 'invert'. An analysisthat treats inversionas syntactic, however, does not derive this consequenceso directly.This is because the Inversionrule is said to be triggeredby two conditions:Series III inflection(for verbs of class I or III) and class IV verbs. Harris shows that no reference to verb class is necessary on her account to prevent inversion in Series III forms from applyingto verbs of class II, but the inversionrule must still refer to class IV forms. While it is true that the notion of 'class IV' is only relevant to finite forms, and thus that non-finite forms could never be subject to inversion,it remainsthe case that the referenceto class IV inflectionin the syntactic Inversion rule is in principle independent of the actual agreement morphology itself. As we will see below, the morphological account does not posit any lexical indication of class beyond the 186 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON agreement morphology, and the operation of inversion is a completely predictablesubpart of the developmentof certainfinite forms (ratherthan being triggered by a reference to those forms in the syntax), so the generalization that non-agreeing forms have no 'class' in the relevant sense is a tautology.

2.3.3 Wordorder Georgian has considerable freedom of surface word order within the clause, but the extent of this freedom has sometimes been exaggerated (e.g. by Hammond1981 who argues that the language has completelyfree order, suggesting a 'non-configurational'account of its syntax). There is fairly clearly a neutral order in declarative sentences, deviations from which have special stylistic motivations (emphasis, highlighting of new information, etc.). Based on a study of texts by Pochua, Vogt (1971) argues that the neutral word order has the subject in initial position; the direct object is adjacent to the verb (on either side), and the indirect object (if present) is either on the other side of the verb from the direct object or separated from the verb by this latter NP. Schematically,the occurringneutral orders are: S-V-DO-IO, S-DO-V-IO, and S-10-DO-V. This suggests that a structurealong the lines of that posited in (21) above is appropriate,with word order being unspecified internal to the pro- jections of V.2 Permutationsbeyond those of the neutralorder would then be produced by late stylistic rules, whose operation is irrelevant to the syntax per se. What is importanthere is the fact that the central generalizationabout neutral word order concerns the position of the subject: this is sentence initial. Furthermore,among the subjects which obey this principleare the (basic,or underlying)subjects of sentences that have undergoneinversion. This is illustrated below for both types of inversion structure: (23a) contains a verb of class IV, and (23b) has a verb in the pluperfect(a series III tense).

2 The account developed here predicts a fourth possible neutral order: S-IO-V-DO. That this is not cited by Vogt as having the same status as the other three mentioned here shows that some additional principle(s) are at work in determining Georgian word order: hardly a remarkable conclusion. In this case, we might propose that a non-subject immediately preceding the verb is most naturally interpreted as its direct object, if possible. We have no independent evidence for this claim, but it does not seem implausible; and in any event, what is at stake is this section is the ordering property of subjects. CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 187

(23) a. mama- s tavisi svilebi u- qvar-s father- DAT self's children3IO- love- 3 SBJ Father loves his children.

b. deda- s gogo da- e- mal- a mother-DA T girl PVB- 3IO- had hidden- 3SBJ Mother had hidden (pluperfect)the little girl. The fact that the notionalsubject occupies the same position in (neutral) word order regardlessof whether the constructioninvolves inversion or not follows trivially if we assume it continues to be a subject (despite its morphologicalreflection). On an analysisinvolving syntacticinversion, on the other hand, it is necessary to formulate the relevant generalizations about word order in an inherently global fashion. Harris (1981, p. 302) thus states that the "'first subject that is a final term' regularlyoccupies the first position" - a formulationwhich is unavoidableif the underlying subject ceases to be a subject in the surface structures of inversion constructions,but which requiresreference simultaneouslyto the surface status of a NP and to its derivationalsource.

2.3.4 Numberagreement The conditions on number agreement in Georgian are somewhat more complex than those on person agreement.Essentially, the verb agrees with any first and second person NP in number if it agrees with that NP in person; but verbs agree with third person NP in numberonly if these are subjects. The agreement in some cases is by a markerwhich is syncretic with the person marker:thus, the thirdperson plural v-series markers-en, etc., represent both person and number; as does the first person plural m-series markergv-. Where no such syncretic markerexists (i.e., for first or second person v-series markers, and for second person m-series markers),number agreement is by means of the suffix-t 'plural'. Because third person NPs that are marked on the verb with markers from series other than the v-series are generally non-subjects, nothing normallyappears on the verb to indicate theirplurality. The one exception is in the inversion construction: here a marker of the u-series (or other 'indirect object series',3 when requiredby a particularverb) in the third

3 Note that the labels on the columnsin Table I referto the grammaticalrelations borne by. the correspondingNP's in non-invertedforms only. The essence of the syntacticaccount of 188 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON person may be accompaniedby the plural marker-t in agreementwith a 3pl NP: (24) svileb- s tavisi mama u- qvar- t children-DAT self's father-NOM 31O- love- PL The children love their father. Interestingly,a third person plural (direct object) NP marked on the verb with a v-series marker in the inversion construction cannot show numberagreement, and must agree as if it were singular: (25) mama- s tavisi svileb- i u- qvar-s/ father- DAT self s children-NOM 3IO- love- 3 SGSBJ/ *u- qvar- en 31O- love- 3PLSBJ The father loves his children. Given the generalization that third person NP can trigger plural agreement if and only if they are subjects4, these facts provide further supportfor the claim that the subject in an inversion constructionis the same as that in a non-inversionstructure. inversion is the claim that these labels are also applicable to (the surface structure of) inverted clauses. On the analysisbeing developed here, this is not the case; but we will continue to refer to v-series agreement as 'subject-agreement',to u-, b-, etc. series agreement as 'indirect-object-agreement',and so on, for want of a better alternative. Context should make clear the extent to which the 'indirect-object'in a reference to 'indirect-object-agreement',etc., should be taken seriously. 4 Hewitt (1983) argues that in some cases, the indirectobjects of relative intransitiveverbs can triggerplural agreement: (i) ra mo- u- vid- a- t mat what (NOM) PVB- 3IO- came- 3SG- PL 3PL-DAT What came over them? He also notes that, while Harrisdescribes the verb da-e-k'arg-ain (iia) below as not showing plural agreement because muoblebs'parents' is an indirect object, she also suggests that e-k'sg-eb-a-t in (iib) does have plural agreement, because here zmnebs 'verbs' is the subject of an invertedverb: (ii) a. msobl- eb- s da- e- k'arg- a bavivi parent- PL- DAT PVB-3IO- lost- 3SBJ child The child was lost to the parents. b. evian zmn- eb- s v e- k'argeb-a- t v-having verb- PL- DAT v (NOM) 3IO- lose- 3SBJ- PL Verbs in v lose v. CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 189

The problem is that on a syntactic analysisof inversion, these subjects have ceased to be subjects at the point agreement applies: Inversionhas demoted them to indirectobjects. The statementof numberagreement for non-subjectsmust thus refer both to the grammaticalrelation borne by a given NP on the surface, and to the fact that this NP was originally a subject. The implicitly global formulationprovided by Harris (1981, p. 219) states that "[a] thirdperson nominal triggersNumber Agreement in the verb of which it is a final term if [...]it is the firstsubject of that verb that is a final term." In contrast, on a purely morphological account, the fact that third person 'indirectobject' agreementis sensitive to numberonly in inversion constructions (and conversely, third person 'subject' agreement is in- sensitive to number in exactly the same forms) follows directly and non-globallyfrom the fact that exactly subjectstrigger plural agreement with third person NPs. If such subject agreement material eventually undergoes translation as 'indirect object' markers, it nonetheless can reflect number. On the other hand, whether a non-subject eventually

Since the verbs in these sentences appearto be the same (withthe exceptionof their tense), the claim that the datives in them bear differentrelations appears to be an inconsistency. In fact, the phenomenonin questionis ratherwidespread. Tschenkeli (1958, pp. 484-490) discussesit at some length, and cites some apparentlynear-minimal pairs: (iii) a. kurd- i ga- e- p'ar- a p'oliciel- eb- s thief- NOM PVB- 3IO- escape- 3SBJ police- PL- DAT The thief escaped from the police. (emphasis:the thief managedto get away from the police) b. p'oliciel- eb- s ga- e- p'ar- a- t kurd-i police- PL- DAT PVB- 3IO-escape- 3SBJ-PL thief- NOM The thief escapedfrom the police. (emphasis:the police are the affected ones, in that they had the misfortuneto have the thief escape from them) According to Tschenkeli, this apparentlyinverted use of relative instransitiveverbs (evidenced by word order and especially by the possibilityof plural agreement with an 'indirectobject') arisesspecifically when the indirectobject is interpretednot simplyas a goal or 'undergoer'of the action described,but as affected by it or an experiencerof it. This suggeststhe resolutionof the apparentinconsistency in the sentencescited by Harris: for a large class of verbs, two interpretationsare availablewhich differ not in their basic sense, but rather in the way described by Tschenkeli. Since the morphologicalpatterns associated with relative intransitiveverbs and with inverted (class IV) verbs are almost identical,shifts between these classes usuallyhave no formalreflection beyond that shown as the differencebetween (iia) and (iib), (iiia) and (iiib). We have to do here then not with an inconsistentdescription, or with optionalnumber marking associated with syntacticindirect objects, but ratherwith switchesbetween two inflectionalclasses dependingon whetherthe dative NPs associatedwith certainverbs are interpretedas experiencersubjects or simplyas affected goals. 190 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON

triggers 'subject'or 'object' agreement markers,there is no way for it to reflect number in the third person. Naturally, it remains for us to substantiatethis claim with an explicit analysisbelow, but it is clear that essential aspects of the syntactic account (in particular,the need to have syntactic inversion demote subjects to indirectobjects before agreement applies) will necessitate a global statement of number agreement - something that might be avoided if subjects in inversion constructions remain subjects.

2.4. An alternativeto the syntacticanalysis In the previoussections we have seen that while the syntactictreatment of inversion offered by Harris provides an elegant account of most of the facts, there are some reasons to believe that an alternative might be preferable. In particular,an analysis which did not involve a syntactic movement rule could avoid several specific difficulties, including the necessity to posit global formulationsof certain rules. Further,since the inversionconstruction necessitates a lexical rule linked to the morphology of inversioncategories in at least some frameworks,it is worth askinghow much of the work of describingthe inversionconstruction can be done in this way. On the basis of such considerations, a preliminary morphological formulationof inversionwas proposed by Anderson (1982) in the context of a generaldiscussion of inflectionalmorphology. That analysiswas based on the theoryof EXTENDED WORD AND PARADIGM morphology,originat- ing in proposalsof Anderson (1977), and ultimatelyof Matthews(1972). As noted in the introductionto the present paper,.the central notion of that view of inflection is the replacement of specific morphemes (in the sense of minimalunits pairing sound with meaning) by rules relating the form of an inflectedword to its morphosyntacticrepresentation. The latter is taken to be a complex symbol, containing features indicating the categories of inflectionalmorphology that are representedby the form in question. In these terms, Anderson (1982) proposed that inversion could be formulatedas an operationon morphosyntacticrepresentations alone, makingno change whatsoeverin the syntacticstructure of sentences. Such an analysisremoves inversionfrom the syntaxin the usualsense, and treats it as strictly an aspect of the inflectionalmorphology of words. Essentialto the morphologicaldescription of inversionis the notion that morphosyntacticrepresentations have internal structure, for it is this structurewhich is to be manipulatedby the proposed rule. This proposal CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 191

was originallymade by Anderson(1977), in the context of a descriptionof the inflectionalmorphology of the Algonquianlanguage Potowatomi.This- language, like Georgian, presents a situation in which verbs must agree with more than one NP (i.e., with both subject and object), and in which the two sets of agreementfeatures must be kept distinct (since e.g. 'I saw you' and 'you saw me' are inflected differently).It was suggested that the difference between e.g. subject and object agreement features within the morphosyntacticrepresentation of a single verb could be representedby a hierarchicalstructure5, in which one of the sets of features is treated as a unitaryblock co-ordinatedwith membersof anotherset, in a way which is clearly recursive. Suppose, for example, we have a language in which verbs must agree (separately) with both subjects and objects; and in which there are generalizationsacross the two sets which lead us to believe it would be inappropriateto treat this by simply duplicating the agreement features (distinguishing a feature [+lsg Subject] from another feature [+lsg Object], for example). In that case, we might assume that there are two partsto the agreementrule: one copying featuresfrom the object onto the verb, and one copying features from the subject. Assumingfor concreteness' sake that the object agreementrule operatesfirst, once it has applied the verb will be characterizedfor agreementfeatures. When the subject agreement rule now comes to apply, its result is determined by the principle that a rule adding features to a complex already specified for those features does so by creating a new layer of (hierarchical)structure within the morphosyntactic representation. The result could thus be pictured as in (26): (26) [Tense, Aspect, etc.; Subject features [Object features]] Features such as tense and aspect are not affected by the 'layering' involved, since these are specified only once and thus do not come under the domain of the convention in question. For further discussion of the mechanics of this proposal, see Anderson (1982) and references there. With reference to Georgian, we see that up to 'three layers of hierar-

5 Hierarchicalorganization is not, of course, the only possible way to reflect formallythe structurewhich must be attributedto morphosyntacticrepresentations. Ordered n-tuples of featuresets, for example,would do as well. Any representationwhich keeps the varioussets of inflectionalfeatures apart, and allows for the statementof a subordinationconvention, would do as well. We choose hierarchicalstructure simply for concreteness'sake; it is not clear what sort of evidence would allow us to distinguish among the various formal possibilitiesavailable. 192 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON chical structuremust be recognized and created by the agreement rules, since the subject, direct object, and indirect object can condition agreement on the verb. Let us assume that, in this general case, the outermost layer of structure in the morphosyntacticrepresentation of verbs corresponds basically to the features of the subject (at least in non-invertedforms), and thus is used to trigger markersfrom the v-series. The innermostlayer, in contrast,can be taken to correspondto the direct object, and to triggerm-series markers; an intermediatelayer corresponds to an indirect object, and triggersmarkers from the h-, u-, e-, or a- series (dependingon the particularverb). We could then treat the basic morphosyntacticrepresentations of class I (transitive)verbs as in (27a) below. Drawingon the analogybetween class I and class III (medial intransitive) verbs in their inflection, we could suggest that the latter have the same, two-layered structure,except that the inner layeris necessarilyspecified as an 'inflectionaldummy': that is, as third person singular with no reference. This dummy, note, represents merely a fact about the verb's inflection: since it does not correspondto any subcategorizedargument, it does not representa syntactic dependent of the verb. It also does not correspondto any distinguishableaspect of the logical form of medial verbs (though insofaras membershipin this class is semantically predictable, its appearance is deducible from whatever semantic factors are involved in this prediction). (27) a. Class I: [tense/aspect, Subject [Direct Object]] Class III: [tense/aspect, Subject [ 0 (3sg.)] ] Given this structure;we could then treat inversion as a rule operatingon morphosyntacticrepresentations, which has the effect of extracting the innermostlayer of a two-layeredstructure, adjoining it as a new outermost layer, and leaving an 'inflectionaldummy' as its trace: (28) Inversion: [ X person/number[ person/number ] ] 1 2 3 -- 3+[ 1 2 [ 0,3sg Condition:X includes "Series III" or "Class IV" Rule (28), of course, has no effect whatsoeveron the syntacticstructure of clauses in which the affected morphosyntactic representationsappear since it appliesonly to the latter.The resultof applyingit to (27a) will be to convert that structureinto a three layered one like (29): (29) [tense/aspect, Direct Object [ Subject [0, 3sg]]] CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 193

Notice that now the features agreeing with the direct object are in a position to trigger v-series markers, while those associated with the subject are in a position to trigger 'indirectobject' markers- exactly the correct result for the agreementproperties of the inversion construction. Rule (28) can thus describe the basic facts of agreement in Georgian inversion structures without necessitating any alteration of syntactic structure.It will be seen that this provides a potentialway of resolving the problem which arose on the syntactic analysis.In order to conclude that this account is adequate,however, we must extend it so that its empirical coverage approaches that of Harris' description. We must therefore expand the range of verb classes covered by the analysis,and also provide a mechanismof (surface)case marking that is integratedwith it. It is to these tasks that we now turn.

3. Developingthe morphologicalanalysis In the previous section, a preliminaryaccount of inversion was sketched that treats this phenomenon as morphological rather than syntactic in character. As the basis of that analysis, a schematic view of the morphosyntactic representation of Georgian verbs was presented, and a concrete proposal was made concerning the morphosyntacticrepresentations of class I and class III verbs. In order to give this account enough substanceto make it a seriouscompetitor with Harris'syntactic analysis of inversion, there are a numberof areas in which it must be developed: a) the range of verb classes included must be extended to cover all of those that are distinguishedin the traditionalclassification; b) the assumptions made about the operationof agreementmust be translatedinto an explicit set of agreement rules; and c) an account of case marking must be developed that is appropriately integrated with the description of agreement.

3.1 Extendingthe analysis to otherverb classes The usual classificationsof Georgian verbs (in e.g. Tschenkeli 1958, Aronson 1982a, and other works listed in the References section below) are based on several distinctions. First, transitive verbs (those taking a direct object) with non-invertedstructure are distinguishedfrom others; following Harris, we refer to these as 'class I'. Secondly, among the intransitiveverbs the medials are distinguishedfrom the non-medials on several grounds:in part these concern the verb-internalmorphology (e.g., formationof the future stem of medials with preradicalvowel i- and stem 194 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON formant-eb, ratherthan with a preverb),but they also include the fact that medials take their subject in the ergative in Series II tenses while non-medials take nominative subjects in all series; and the fact that medials undergo inversion in Series III while non-medials do not. The non-medialsare treated as class II, while the medials are assigned to class III. Finally, the verbs which show inversion in all tense series are treated separatelyas class IV. The analysis suggested in the previous section concerns only the basic forms of verbs from classes I and III. We now extend it to include verbs from these classes with indirect objects (section 3.1.1), and verbs of class II (section 3.1.2). In section 3.1.3 we propose a refinement of the formulation of Inversion which recognizes the similarities between inverted verbs and relative verbs of class II.

3.1.1 Relative verbs In addition to the distinctions among basic classes, there is a further parameterwhich cross-classifieswith them: the abilityof a verb to govern syntactically an (agreeing) indirect object. Since the inversion construction does not allow for agreement with a NP other than the subject and direct object, this possibility does not arise within class IV; but in classes I, II, and III we must distinguishRELATIVE verbs (those taking a syntactic indirect object in addition to their basic argument(s)) from non-relative forms. Frequently, relative and non-relative variants (i.e., formswith and withoutan indirectobject) exist for the same basic verb; as these differ in their inflection(reflecting the extra argumentpresent in the relative form), they must be distinguishedin the morphology. In the previous section, we introduced the notion of hierarchically structuredrepresentations of the agreement features of verbs. Using the abbreviationsFsbj, FDO, and FlO to represent the features of agreement with the subject, the direct object, and the indirect object respectively; 'T/A' to indicate the features of tense and aspect; and 0 to indicate a feature complex appropriatefor agreement with a third person singular argumentbut uncorrelatedwith any NP in the sentence, we recapitulate the proposed treatmentof the agreement structureof class I and class III verbs in (27) as (30)

(30) I: [T/A, FSbj [ FDO]]

III: [T/A, FSbj [O]] The morphosyntacticrepresentations of relative forms of these verbs CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 195 ought to differ from (30) by containingan additionallayer of structure;on the assumptionsmade above about the operationof the rules spelling out agreement, the layer showing agreementwith an indirect object ought to be the middle one of three. This yields the following schematic representations for relative class I and III verbs:

(31) I: [T/A, FSbj[ FIO[ FDO]]] III: [T/A, Fsbj[ FIo [ 0 ] ] ] From the descriptionof inversionin section 2.1, it will be recalled that inverted verbs cannot show agreement with a syntactic indirect object. Instead, their indirect object appears as the object of the postposition -tvis, in a syntacticallyindependent phrase. There are two approacheswe could take to these facts: either we could assume that inversion,as a side effect, converts an indirect object to such a phrase; or we could assume that inversion is simply not applicable to relative verbs, and that the relevant forms are supplied from the corresponding non-relative verb together with a syntacticallyindependent phrase. Of these two approaches,it is the formerthat is taken in Harris'analysis. As a general principleof RelationalGrammar, when any rule assignssome relation to an argument, any other argument that (previously) was assigned that relation becomes a 'chomeur'. When Harris' rule of In- version demotes a subject to indirect object, then, any existing indirect object becomes an indirect object chomeur; such arguments are later marked with the post-position-tvis. Since the morphological account of inversion being developed here does not involve any re-arrangementof syntactic structure, such an approachis not open to us. Instead,we claim simplythat relative verbs do not as such undergo inversion. In a sentence such as (32a), which has undergone inversion because its tense is from Series III, the -tvis phrase must thus be treated as a strictly external argument of the verb. The verb in such a sentence is not itself relative.

(32) a. turme rezo- s u- cukebi- a samajuricem- tvis apparentlyRezo- DAT 310- gave- 3SBJ bracelet me- for ApparentlyRezo gave me a bracelet.

b. rezo- m m- acuk- a samajuri Rezo- EGR 1SGIO- gave- 3SBJ bracelet Rezo gave me a bracelet. 196 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON

But if we thus claim that it is a non-relativeverb which appearsinverted in (32a), how do we account for its apparentsynonymy (apart from tense and aspect) with the relative form in (32b), which is in the aorist and thus does not show inversion? The problem, of course, is that a relative verb assigns one more semantic role than its non-relative counterpart; and yet that role is apparentlypresent in the interpretationof a sentence like (32a), which we claim has a non-relative verb. The resolution of this difficulty which suggests itself is to argue that the role in question is assigned not directly by the verb, but indirectlyby the post-position-tvis. The situationis thus completely analogous to that in the English passive, where both the Govemment/Bindingtheory and Lexical FunctionalGrammar claim that the subject's (agent) semantic (or theta) role is assigned indirectlyby the preposition by; a similarmove is argued for by Marantz(1981). The claim that the post-position-tvis can assigna semanticrole which is alternativelyassigned directly by a verb to its indirectobject is a necessary one in Georgian grammarin any event. For one thing, quite independent of the inversion construction,it is often (though not always) possible to paraphrase a relative verb by a non-relative form plus a tvis-phrase (Tschenkeli 1958, p. 383): (33) a. me v- u- sxam st'umar-s vino- s I 1SBJ-3IO-pour guest- DAT wine-ACC I pour out wine for the guest. b. me v- asxam st'umrisa-tvis vino- s I 1SBJ- pour guest- for wine- ACC I pour out wine for the guest. Secondly, such indirectassignment of semanticroles is also necessaryin connection with oblique dependentsof non-finiteforms: (34) a. vasli v- iqide masc'avleblis-tvismisacemad apple 1SBJ- bought teacher- for to-give I bought an apple to give to the teacher.

b. sacukarijneli- a anzoris-tvismisacemad gift difficult-is Anzor- for to-give Gifts are difficultto give to Anzor. Sentence (34a) involves a purposeclause, and (34b) a raised object. Both CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 197 constructionsinvolve a non-finite form which cannot govern an indirect object directly; in such a case, the semantic role of the indirect object is assigned by the post-position -tvis. These sentences are discussed by Harris (1981, p. 173) as examples of the marking of 'retired' indirect objects, but if one does not derive such non-finite verbs from tensed clauses, the alternativeis simply to recognize -tvis as a potential indirect assigner of the semantic roles which can be assigned directly by finite relative verbs to their indirect objects. We can conclude from these facts that only non-relativeverbs of classes I and III need undergo inversion (ignoringclass IV for the present)in the presence of Series III tenses, but if that is the case, it must be explained how inversionis blocked in the correspondingrelative forms. We suggest that this follows from an independentlynecessary constraint:if rule (28) above appliedto representationssuch as those in (31), the result would be a morphosyntacticrepresentation with four layers, not three - and such a representationcould not be translatedby the rules that supply the overt markersof morphologicalcategories (recall that agreement distinguishes exactly threecategories of agreeing element). In conformitywith this, we propose that the grammarof Georgianeffectively filtersout any representations with more than three layers of structure: (35) *[ W[X[ Y[z]]]] This effect of the morphologyis independentlymotivated by the need to block certain other constructions,such as causativesof relative transitive verbs6, and "version-objects" together with indirect objects (cf. Vogt

6 As noted by Harris(1981, pp. 99f.), Vogt (1971, p. 132), and other authors,occasional forms are cited in the Georgiangrammatical literature that seem to call for agreementwith four NPs, two of which are apparentlyindirect objects. These are generallynot found in the standardlanguage, and their existence as other than abstractgrammatical possibilities (e.g., as causativesof causatives of transitiveverbs) is not at all clear. George Hewitt (personal communication)points out a particularlyfascinating example from a fairystory for children appearingin the Georgian newspaperfor Georgiansabroad Samsoblo: aramcda aramceg erl'emalixar- eb- s ar not and not that ram bull- PL- ACC not mo- mi- k'vlevino- t PVB- 1SGIO-let-kill- 2PL Under no circumstancesare you to let the bulls kill that ram for me. As Hewitt notes, "If 4-place verbs are interpretableby childrenfrom fairy-tales,we should perhaps be careful about dismissing them from practical grammarsof the language." Nonetheless,their marginalstatus is clear. We have nothingfurther to say here about these forms. 198 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON

1971, Harris 1981); it will also have the effect of blocking inversion in relative forms of class I and III verbs.

3.1.2 Verbsof class II We turn now to the non-medial intransitiveverbs, or class II. In their non-relative forms, these are maximallysimple in structure:they agree with only one argument (the subject), and show no trace of any purely formal inflectional element such as the dummy 'object' found with the medial intransitives.There is thus no reason to attributeany structureto their morphosyntacticrepresentation beyond that in (36):

(36) [T/A, FSbj] We have remarkedabove that inversion applies to (non-relative)verbs of classes I and III but fails to apply to class II; but there is no difficultyin explainingthis fact. The structuraldescription of rule (28) above calls for a morphosyntacticrepresentation with (at least) two layers of structure,and if the structurein (36) is assigned to non-relativeclass II verbs, these will fail to meet that requirement.Their failureto invert thus follows from (36). Tuming to the relative forms of class II, we note that these show agreement with both the subject and the indirect object. On the general assumptionswe have made thus far about the relation between layers of structure in a morphosyntacticrepresentations and classes of agreement elements, we would like to assign these verbs a representationwith three layers of structure,the middle one of which is occupied by the featuresof the indirect object. This leaves two layers to be filled; we propose that in these verbs, the subject agreement features are marked in the innermost layer, and the outermost layer is filled by an inflectionaldummy:

(37) [T/A, 0 [ FoI [ Fsbj ]]] As with other relative verbs, these fail to undergoinversion in Series III tenses. Representation(37) immediatelyaccounts for that fact, since rule (28) would convert it into a structureviolating (35). This representationexpresses the similaritiesbetween subjects of class II verbs and objects of transitive verbs (capturedin Harris' analysis by treating class II subjects as underlyingobjects, and having them undergo the 'unaccusative' rule). In particular,many class II forms are passives correspondingto transitiveverbs of class I. On the present analysis,what subjects of class II verbs have in common with direct objects of class I verbs is agreement with an innermostlayer of morphosyntacticstructure, CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 199 not the underlyinggrammatical relation they bear in their clause. The most unusualfeature of (37) is undoubtedlythe fact that it contains an obligatory inflectional dummy in its outermost structurallayer. We have already suggested the existence of such dummies in the charac- terizationwe gave of the inflectionalrepresentations of medial verbs, but in fact they must be more widely distributedthan this. For example, the assumption that the lexical representationsof some (classes of) verbs require an obligatory dummy morphological element is independently necessary to account for verbs like da-u-k'ravs 'he plays it (an instrument)' which are inflectedas if they took an indirectobject but with which no non-dummyindirect object can appear. A number of other verbs in Georgian show such purely formal inflection for elements which cannot appear among their arguments(Tschenkeli et al. 1960-74); the notion of inflectional dummies in morphosyntacticrepresentation provides an ap- paratuswhich is necessary to describe these facts.

3.1.3 A morphological'unaccusative' rule At this point, we have suggested schematic morphosyntacticrepresentations for Georgian verbs of classes I-III, and also for relative forms. A problemarises in connection with the representationsuggested for relative verbs of class II, however. If we continue to assume that the normalverb agreementrule insertsa subject markerin accord with the featureson the outermostlayer of structure(as in all other classes of verbs consideredthus far), this will fail to give the correct resultsfor relative class II verbs if their subjectsfeatures are indeed located on the innermostlayer of a three-layer structure.The obvious alternative,that of treatingrelative class II verbs as having the structure in (38), is unsatisfactorybecause this is the same representationassigned to relative verbs of class III, and the two sets must be kept distinct for inflectionaland case-markingpurposes.

(38) [FSbj [FIO [ 0 ] ] ] The other possibilityis to assume that relative verbs of class II have the morphosyntacticrepresentation (37) at the time they are inserted into a structure,and that it is this representationthat is relevant to the assignment of case (see section 3.3 below); but that internal to the set of morphologicalrules which develop the actual surfaceform of an inflected verb, these representationsundergo a morphologicalrestructuring so that their subject features appearin the correct position. Such a rule would be the morphologicalanalog of Harris' 'Unaccusative': 200 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON

(39) 'Unaccusative' [ X 0 [ Y Z] ] ] 12 3 4 1 4 [3 [0]]] Rule (39) substitutes the content of an innermost layer of a three- layeredstructure for an inflectionaldummy in the outermostlayer, leaving a dummy as its trace. The effect is to cause specified features in such a representationto trigger v-series affixes,instead of m-series ones. Clearly, this rule is directly analogous to the Unaccusative rule posited in Harris' analysis; but with the difference that, since it affects only the morphosyntacticrepresentation of words, it does not entail any movement or other alterationin syntactic structure. But now we can observe that rule (39) performs a change which duplicates part of rule (28) (Inversion):the transferof features from an innermostlayer of structureto the outermostlayer. We can thus remove that part of the change from (28), if the latter rule simply inserts an additional (initially empty) layer of structure in inversion forms. The resulting simplified rule still applies, like the original morphological Inversionrule (28), in that part of the syntaxwhich is responsiblefor the construction of the morphosyntactic representation relevant to case markingand agreement.

(40) Inversion: SeriesIII X[ Y] ] 1 2 3 [ 1 0 [ 2 [ 3]]] Rule (40) must apply in the syntax,and feeds rule (39), which applies to morphosyntacticrepresentations in the course of the development of inflected word forms in the phonology. The latter rule will thus perform the required restructuringon inversion forms as well as on the relative class II forms for which it was originallymotivated. The Inversionrule (40) operates on the morphosyntacticrepresentation of a verb, and has the consequence that a 'dummy'layer of agreement is presentin the outermostlayer of structurewhen the verb belongs to Class IV or is in a series III tense. We will see in sections 3.2 and 3.3 that this dummy plays an important role in the processes of case marking and agreementin inverted clauses, but there is still somethingunsettling about rule (40). As it stands, it compromisessomewhat our claim that Inversion should be treated as a fact about inflectional morphology,rather than a syntactic process, since rule (40) crucially applies in the syntax. An account that avoided this result would be preferable,but before develo- CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 201 ping such an alternative (in section 3.4 below), we must first detail our assumptionsabout the operation of case markingand agreement.

3.2 The descriptionof Georgianverb agreement At this point, we have presented a picture of Georgian inflectional morphology that extends to most of the productive verb classes of the language. It is necessarynow to provide a more explicitaccount of the way in which the necessary morphosyntacticrepresentations underlying this morphologyare developed. We assume,in line with Anderson (1982), that there are two aspects to this issue. On the one hand, a morphosyntacticrepresentation of inflected words is developed within the syntax, without direct reference to the peculiaritiesof individuallexical items that might eventually be inflected in accord with it. Within the lexicon, on the other hand, individualitems are providedwith some inflectionalspecifications that indicate their local idiosyncrasies.At a minimum,for instance, lexical items in virtually all languages are characterizedas [+Noun], [+Verb], etc. (or perhaps for some other set of features which make the same divisions among major word class). Individual stems within the lexicon may be more narrowlyspecified: thus, for example, the stem thoughtin English is characterizedspecifically as [+Verb, +Past], while think-is simply [+Verb]. We presumethat lexical stems are grouped together into paradigms of items differing only in inflectional properties.When a lexical item comes to be inserted into a phrase marker,it is associated with a particularposition; this position is identifiedinflectionally by the morphosyntacticrepresentation developed for it in the syntax.The stem that is insertedin such a position is then that memberof the relevant paradigmwhich is most specificallycharacterized, consistent with the morphosyntactic representationof the position in question. For concreteness' sake, we assume here that the overall grammarin which this account is embedded follows the lines of the Govern- ment/Binding theory, though an analogous picture could be developed without significant alteration in other theories such as that of Lexical Functional Grammar. Consistent with this framework, and with the morphological assumptionsjust outlined (developed in more detail by Anderson (1982)), we posit a set of (syntactic) agreement rules that operate in the syntax to construct an agreement marker in INFL. This marker reflects the properties of a particularstructure; since INFL will 202 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON eventually be attached to the main Verb of the clause, an inflected verb which is inserted into such a structure must itself have an inflectional representation which is non-distinct from that in INFL. The lexical representations of individual Georgian verb stems characterize their inflectionalproperties in terms of how many layers of structurethey are inflected for, and whether any of these layers are requiredto be null. We assumethat Georgianhas (at least) enough configurationalstructure to allow subject, direct and indirect object to be distinguished, either directly in phrase structure representationsor indirectly in functional structure (on the assumptionsof Bresnan 1982). As we noted above in section 2.3.3, this is not totally uncontroversial;it is contrary to the proposal of Hammond (1981), for example, though consistent with observed word-ordergeneralizations. In any event, it is clear that verbs must be able to be subcategorized for direct and indirect objects independently, and we assume that whatever structural difference this reflects is also visible to the agreement rules. Within this overall picture, we propose that a set of rules operates to copy inflectionallyrelevant featuresfrom the argumentsof a verb in order to constructthe representationof agreementin INFL. This representation is initially characterized only for tense and aspect (in terms of an appropriatefeature system, in particularone that recognizes the division of Georgian 'screeves' or tense/aspect categories into three series). We then formulatethe following agreement rules: (41) a. (obligatory)Copy referentialindex and person/numberfeatures from Direct Object or if there is no Direct Object, copy index and features from the Subject b. (optional) Copy referentialindex and person/numberfeatures from Indirect Object c. (optional) Copy referentialindex and person/numberfeatures from Subject d. (optional)Add null reference and 3sg features Presumably,rules such as those in (41) should be formulatedwithin an appropriategeneral notation for agreement processes. In the absence of such a theory, we simply state them in ordinary language, but some general properties of agreement which we clarify below are implicit in them. We assumethat such a set of rules constitutesa scHEMA in that they interact as a unit with other rules, and that there is a significantinternal CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 203 organizationto the set; though again, in the absence of a comprehensive theory of agreement,it is difficultto substantiatethese assumptionshere. Besides these generalproperties, a numberof remarksare called for on the details of this schema. 1) As already remarked in section 2.4, we assume that when an agreement rule adds features and an index to a complex symbol that already contains others, the previous materialis organized into an inner layer of structureby general convention (as proposedin Anderson 1977a, 1982). As a result, (41) constructsmulti-layered structures with respect to the agreementfeatures. The tense/aspectfeatures remain in the outermost layer, since no additional features from this group are assigned beyond those generated in the base. Naturally,if (41) were to lead to a structure with four layers,such a representationwould be blocked by (35). Thus, at least one of the four sub-rules in (41) must fail to apply in any given representationif a well-formedstructure is to be obtained. 2) [+Plural]is only copied from non-subjectsin the presence of first or second person. This could be accomplishedin at least two ways: either a rule might make all third person non-subjects [-Plural]; or else the constraintcould be built into (41) directly. Largely for aesthetic reasons, we preferto assumethat non-subjectthird person NPs are all inflectionally [-Plural] by rule (or convention), though of course they may be semantically (and internally)plural. In any event, some version of this generalization must be built into any analysis(as noted in section 2.3.4), since the same plural NP (e.g. bavsv-eb-s 'child-plural-dative')will show plural agreement if it is a subject (in an inversion construction),but singular agreement if a non-subject. 3) Finally, we assume that any of the rules in (41) may introduce an empty referentialindex with 3sg agreement features (i.e., an inflectional dummy) instead of copying. Note that this operation (equivalent to applyingrule (41d) instead)will in general only yield well-formedresults if the grammaticalposition referred to by the sub-rule in question is not filled; as we will see in the next section, if an NP in an argumentposition does not trigger agreement, it will fail to be assigned case, violating a general requirement.With regard to the subject, either rule (41a) or rule (41c) can effect the agreement necessaryto allow case-assignmentto this position. The possibilityof insertinginflectional dummies instead of actual agreementmaterial does not representa syntacticfact about the language, but rather reflects the fact that a number of different inflectional types exist for the verbs in the lexicon, correspondingto the various classes we have discussed above. 204 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON

Though we will not demonstratethis fact in detail here, it should be clear that the rules in (41) allow us to produce morphosyntacticrepresentations corresponding to all of the inflectional classes we have posited above. Exampleswill be providedbelow of lexical entries that correspond to each of the possibilitiesallowed within this schema.

3.3 Case marking We must now provide an account of the assignmentof case to the NPs that serve as argumentsof Georgian verbs. It will be recalled from sections 1 and 2 that case marking,like agreement, varies from one constructionto another;one of the advantagesof Harris'syntactic analysisof inversionis the fact that it provides a direct account of the differences between case marking in inversion and non-inversion structures.We must thus show that the morphologicaldescription can do as well. Implicitin the analysisdeveloped thus far is the claim that case marking is effected by a set of rules which take into account the morphosyntactic representation in INFL, which includes the agreement representation developed by the rules in section 3.2. At least some reference to the content of INFL is a necessary assumption in any event, since case marking of subjects and objects is sensitive to the tense series of the clause. As apart of the process of agreement, not only are inflectional features copied from NP into INFL, but also a relation is established between the referentialindex of such NPs and this element. Let us call this relation 'co-superscripting',and assume that it forms a subcase of the relation of PROPER GOVERNMENT (cf. Chomsky 1981 and related work). Using the ad hoc notation '/pg' to mean 'when properly governed by', we can formulatethe case-markingrules as follows:

(42) a. NPi [+Ergative] /pg [+Series II, i [X]] b. NPi [+Dative] /pgI X[ i [ Y ]] ] c. NPi [+Accus.] /pg [-Series II, j [ i]] or /pg [-Series II, j [ X[ i]]] d. NPi --)[+Nominative] /pg [+V] Rule (42a) assigns ergative case to NPs that are co-super-scriptedwith the outer layer of a representationwhich contains (at least) two layers,and which bears a tense from Series II. The rule thus applies to the subjects of Class I and Class III verbs in these tenses; note that it does not affect the subject of a class II verb, since either a) the verb is non-relative,and thus has only one layer, or b) the features of such a subject NP with a relative CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 205 class II verb only come to be in the outer layer of structurein the course of the operationof the rules developing the inflectionalform of verbs within the phonology. At the point the case markingrules apply (essentially,at the end of the syntax),these features are still in the innermostlayer of the morphosyntacticrepresentation. Rule (42b) assigns dative case to a NP which is co-super-scriptedwith the middlelayer of a three-layerrepresentation. This class includesexactly the indirect objects of relative verbs (of any class), and the subjects of inversion verbs (which come to occupy the middle layer as a result of the operation of rule (40)). Rule (42c) assignsaccusative case (syncretic,it will be recalled,with the dative).Thisrule appliesonly in tenses other than those of Series II (in fact, only in Series I, thoughthis fact does not have to be separatelynoted), and affects NPs that are co-superscriptedwith a layer of the morphosyntactic representationwhich is not the outermost.This rule furtherrequires that the outermost layer be co-superscripted with some argument; this prevents the assignmentof accusative to the subjects of relative class II verbs and the direct objects of 'inverted'verbs. The two sub-cases of this rule could be unified as '/pg [-Series II, j[(X)[i]]]' under some convention to the effect thatwhenever an (X) option is not taken, the vacuous layer of bracketsdisappears. Rule (42d) is the 'elsewhere'case of the schema. It assigns nominative case to NPs that are not assigned some other case, but which are co-superscriptedwith some layer of morphosyntacticagreement structure. this includes: a) subjects of Series I verbs, regardless of their class; b) subjects of non-inverted(i.e., class II) verbs in Series III; c) direct objects of Series II verbs, which cannot be assigned accusative because of the restriction in rule (42c); and d) direct objects of (inverted) Series III or class IV verbs. In order for this rule to apply correctly, we assume a convention of disjunctiveordering that appliesto the schema:with respect to a given NP, the rules are appliedin sequence, and once a given rule has applied no furtherrules are examined. This mechanism(or somethinglike it) is a necessarypart of the grammar of Georgian, since the occurring differences of overt (or 'surface') case must be describedin some way. Given it, however, no additionaldevice of 'abstract'Case (cf. Chomsky 1981) is necessary: we need only say that every overt NP must be assigned a surface case. As we remarkedin the preceding section, it is this requirementthat ensures that every argument of a verb will be markedin its agreement representation,since if some NP were not so marked,rule (42) could not apply to assign it a surface case, 206 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON

and the 'case filter' just alluded to would block the structure.This is one instance (among others; cf. Anderson 1984b for a rather different example) in which the apparatusnecessary to account for the surface distribution of elements in a rich inflectional (case marking) system obviates an appeal to the rathermore abstractnotion Chomskymakes use of for English and other languages with minimal overt markingof NPs. Further investigation is clearly warranted of the difference between languages in which the notion of abstractCase is motivated and those in which it can be dispensedwith.

3.4 A refinementof the Inversionrule Returningto the Inversion rule (40), we can note that it operates on the morphosyntacticrepresentation in INFL, and that its consequence is effectively to render 'dummy agreement' in the outermost layer of structure(rule (41d) above) obligatorywhen the verb belongs to Class IV or is in a series III tense. Thus far we have said nothing about the morphosyntacticrepresentations of class IV verbs. We know that they must undergo inversion, which we now see consists in the addition of an outer-layer inflectional dummyto a representationwhich is otherwisethat of a class I or III verb. We could ensure exactly this effect if we were to representClass IV verbs lexically with an inflectional structure containing a dummy outer layer: [0 [-{-]]] (where'0' indicatesa specifieddummy and '-' indicatesa position whose content is not further specified). A verb with such an inflectional representationcould not be inserted unless (41d) had applied. This is preciselythe same as the representationgiven to relative verbs of class II (reflectingthe fact that both are inflected precisely with 'subject' and 'indirectobject' markers);the two differ in that relative class II verbs are subcategorizedto take an indirect object, while class IV verbs are subcategorizedfor a direct object. As a consequence of this difference in argumentstructure, and its effect on the operation of rule (41), the same inflectionalmaterial will correspondto very differentpositions in syntactic structure. This difference, however, falls out automatically from the system developed above. But now the same treatment can be extended to Series III forms, eliminatingaltogether the need for a distinct Inversion rule in the syntax. Since the Perfect stem is formallyidiosyncratic to a certain extent, it must in any case be entered in the lexicon. We want the Perfect stem to correspond to an 'inverted' representation:i.e., one with an additional CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 207

outer-layer inflectional dummy superimposedon the representationof a class I or III verb. We can accomplishthis by including,in the lexical rule which forms the Perfect stem, the following systematic relation between the inflectionalrepresentations of the Perfect and non-Perfect stem:

(43) [+V Xt Y]I 4? [+V, +Series III, 0 [ X [ Y ] ] ] Recall that on the syntactic analysis of inversion, a lexical rule was required in order to specify the redistributionof semantic roles between inverted and non-inverted structures (at least on the assumptions of Government/Bindingtheory or of Lexical Functional Grammar).This function of the rule is not necessaryon the analysisdeveloped here, since semantic roles are in general associatedwith a constantsyntactic position. All we need say is that Perfect stems differ in their inflectionalrepresentation from the other stems of a given verb in the way specifiedin (43). Of course, we must also include the fact that a semantic role which would be assigned to an indirectobject of a relative verb can be indirectlyassigned by the postposition -tvis in association with the Perfect stem of a correspondingnon-relative verb. We must also include whatever informationcan be systematizedabout the formal characteristicsof the Perfect stem; for instance, the fact that the Perfect stem involves replacementof any pre-radicalvowel by i- (and the additionof this vowel to stems that otherwisedo not have a pre-radical vowel). As an example, the verb (da=)a+nt+eb 'light (a fire)', with subcategorizationframe [ DO] and inflectionalrepresentation [-[-] ] (i.e., a member of class I), has a Perfect stem da=i+nt+i with the same subcategorization frame, but the inflectional representation [0[-[-]]]. As advocated at the end of section 3.1.3, we have thus eliminated 'inversion'as a distinct rule in either the syntax or the morphology:what remains of it is the fact that 'inversion' structures are inflectionally characterizedby a three-layermorphosyntactic representation, the outer layer of which is an inflectional dummy. This comes about either as a lexical property of the verb as a whole (for 'class IV' verbs), or of its Perfect stem (which is used in all series III tenses). Inversion verbs share this propertywith relative verbs of class II, as well as the applicabilityof rule (39), Unaccusative, in the course of the phonologicaldevelopment of the surface form of such verbs.

3.5 Residual issues Before concluding, there are some points which require additionaldis- 208 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON

cussion. Among these are the phenomenonof object camouflage,the way in which the several partsof the morphologicalanalysis interact with each other, the resolution of problems raised by the syntactic analysis, and finally an illustrationof the lexical characteristicsattributed to various sorts of verbs under the present analysis.

3.5.1 ObjectCamouflage We noted in section 1 that there is one set of circumstancesunder which the morphologyof verb agreement in Georgian is unable to manifestthe relationbetween a verb and all of its arguments.This problemarises when the verb has a non-thirdperson direct object (calling for a non-0 marker from the m-series), and also an indirect object (calling for a non-zero marker from one of the four indirect object series). The facts are illustratedby the sentences in (44): (44) a. vano anzor- s a- dareb- s givi- s Vano Anzor- ACC 3IO- compare-3SBJ Givi- DAT Vano is comparing Anzor to Givi.

b.*vano (sen) g- a- dareb- s givi- s Vanoyou 2DO- 3IO- compare-3SBJ Givi- DAT (Vano is comparingyou to Givi.)

c. vano sens tav- s a- dareb- s givi- s Vano your self- ACC 3IO- compare-3SBJ Givi- DAT Vano is comparingyou to Givi.

Sentence (44a) shows that the verb (se=) a-dareb 'compare'takes both a direct and an indirectobject; but from the ungrammaticalityof (44b) we can see that when the indirectobject is present,the direct object cannot be second person. Parallel examples would show the same thing for first person direct objects. Instead,the constructionthat is used is that in (44c): the expression sens tavs (ceemstavs for first person singular, and similar forms for first or second person plural), normally a reflexive pronoun, substitutes for the impossible form. Since these reflexives, although referring to second (or first) person are grammaticallythird person, the constraintis not violated. In the course of her analysis,Harris (1981, pp. 48ff.) proposesto account for these facts by generatingfirst and second person direct objects freely, but then converting them to possessive pronoun+ tavi phrases if the CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 209 clause contains an indirect object. Within a theory (such as Govern- ment/Binding or Lexical Functional Grammar)that disallows structure- building rules, pronominalizationtransformations, and the like, such an analysiswould be excluded. The only available alternativeis to generate the possessive+ tavi phrasesdirectly, and then account separatelyfor a) the absence of normal first and second person direct objects in the presence of an indirect object; and b) the non-reflexiveinterpretation of the possessive+ tavi phrase. In fact, the grammarmust generate possessive+ tavi phrases in any event, to wit, the tav-reflexives we referredto in earlier sections of this paper. The problem is that these are normally interpreted as reflexive anaphors, and must be c-commanded by a coreferential subject within their clause. This latter property(on the assumptionsof Chomsky 1981, for example)is a consequence of their lexical statusas [+Anaphor];but in the object camouflageconstruction (44c), no such antecedent is present (or necessary). What we need to say, then, is that first and second person anaphorsare (exceptionally)[-Anaphor] underthe conditionsof the object camouflage construction. Since possessive+ tavi phrases are not possible with [-Anaphor] interpretationoutside of these circumstances,we propose that a special rule of interpretationis involved:

(45) + m [NP possessive+ tavi ]i /pg[ X [ Y [ i]]] .+you Optionally , [-Anaphor] (where X, Y are non-null) Although this rule allows us to generate the correct interpretationfor (44c), it does not yet account for the ungrammaticalityof (44b). The reasonfor the absence of such sentences is apparent:they directlyreflect a limitation of the expressive possibilities of the morphology of verb agreement, since a non-null m-series marker and an indirect object markerwould compete for the same 'slot' in the morphologyof the verb form. The situationis thus the same as for the filter (35), which prevents verbs inflectedfor more than three arguments:there is simplynot enough formalapparatus available to accommodatesuch cases. The grammarthus behaves as if the following filter applied to morphosyntacticrepresentations:

(46) +me 210 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON

Ideally,we should be able to derive both (35) and (46) as theoremsfrom general constraints on the operation of the rules of morphological expression;but since the purposeof this paper is to examine the syntactic side of agreementmorphology rather than its phonological side, we leave open the issue of how this should be done. This subsection is intended simply to show that the facts of object camouflage can be incorporated into our a7nalysiswithout excessive difficulty. It might be objected that we have decomposed a single phenomenon into two separate, complementaryparts: rule (45), and the constraintin (46). This does not seem an implausiblemove, however,since we maintainthat there are indeed two aspects to the phenomenon:a) the impossibility of certain verb forms, and b) a special interpretationof otherwise-reflexiveexpressions which allows the missing meanings to be expressed. Only by decomposingthe facts in the above way does it seem possible, for instance, to look for an explanationof the constraintin (46) along the lines suggested in the preceding paragraph.

3.5.2 Interactionof agreement,case marking, and inversion The account presented above involves several distinct components: a) a set of case-markingrules; b) a set of agreement rules; c) a set of lexical representations,including lexical rules which express systematicrelations among these; and d) a set of rules which formallyrealize the verbal forms correspondingto the morphosyntacticrepresentations of the inflectional categories of words (in particular,verbal agreement morphology). It is necessaryto say a few wordsabout the ways in which these elements of the analysis interact. We note firstthat the case markingrules (42) cannot (intrinsically)apply until after the creation of an indexed morpho-syntacticrepresentation in INFL by means of the Agreementrules (41). Since the only syntacticreflex of 'inversion' is the necessity to apply agreement rule (41d) in order to insert an 'inverted' verb (Class IV or Series III) from the lexicon, the relative orderingof 'Inversion'and Case markingthus follows automatically. Within the phonology, surface forms of words are developed. A preliminarystep in this process is the re-arrangementof morphosyntactic representations performed by Unaccusative (39); this is followed by (morphological) verb agreement marking. Morphological agreement is the schema (still within the phonology)which introducesv-series markers in agreement with the outermost layer of morphosyntactic structure, CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 211 h-,u-,e- or a-series markersin agreement with a middle layer (second of three), and m-series markersin agreement with the innermostof two or three layers. Since the rules of Case markingapply in the syntax, they are naturallyinsensitive to the effects of Unaccusative (which applies in the phonology).

3.5.3 Resolutionof the problemspresented by a syntacticview It is worth reviewing briefly the advantages presented by the morphological view of inversion, agreement, and related phenomena advocated here in comparison to the syntactic analysis of the same phenomena.A numberof problemsarose on that view, it will be recalled, which related to the central claim of the syntactic inversion analysisthat the surface grammaticalrelations of inversionclauses were differentfrom the underlying grammaticalrelations. Since the morphological analysis does not posit any such reorganization of grammatical relations in inversion clauses, such problemsas those of improperlybound traces and the statement of word order and rule interactions without recourse to global formulationsobviously do not arise on this account. Similarly,the fact that non-finite forms of otherwise class IV verbs do not show inversion follows directly from the treatment of inversion as a part of agreement marking(i.e., of finite inflection). The case of number agreement in inversion clauses is a particularly interestingone. Recall that on the syntactic analysis,a global formulation of this rule was inevitable:agreement cannot operate until after Inversion (and Unaccusative);but at this point it is necessaryto say that thirdperson indirect objects trigger plural agreement only if they were originally subjects. On the morphological analysis, no such global reference is necessary: the Agreement rule (41) copies the morphologicalfeature of number in third person NPs if and only if they are subjects. This can be determined on a strictly local basis, and refers only to the grammatical relations borne by an NP in s-Structure. Subsequently,within the phonological component, Unaccusative (39) may have the effect of relocating subject agreement features which are not on an outermost layer of structure;indeed, the only way the feature [+Plural] can appearin conjunctionwith [3rd Person]on a non-outermost layer is by first being placed in an outer layer by subject agreement, and then having a new outer layer created by dummy-agreement.None of these processes require reference to more than one representationat a time, however. The limited circumstancesin which plural marking cor- 212 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON relates with a third person markerfrom an indirect object series are thus describedwithout the use of global rules; indeed, there is no possible role for globality to play in this phenomenon, since no structurallydistinct syntactic representationsare involved in the analysis.

TABLE III Sample lexical entries for verbs of various types

Subcateg. Inflection Class I (transitive verbs):

(da=)c'er 'write' [_ DO] [-[-] da=i+c'er+i [perfect stem] [ DO] [+Ser. III 0[-[-D] (no=)p'ar+av 'steal s.t. from s.o.' [ DO, IO] [-[- [-m (da=)i+mat'+eb 'add s.t. to s.t.' [ DO, 10] [-[- [-m (da=)i+k'r+av 'play (an instrument)' [ DO] [-[0 [H

Class II (non-medial intransitives):

(mo=)xd+eb 'happen, occur' [ ] [-] (da=)i+c'er+eb 'be written' [.] [-] (0=)e+lod+eb 'wait for s.o., s.t.' [ 10] [0 [4-]] (mi=)e+c'er+eb 'be written to s.o.' [ 10] [0[-[-]

Class III (medial intransitives):

qep 'bark' [-] [-[0D] i+qepn+i [perfect stem] [] [+Ser. III 0 [-[0]]] (da=)i+qep 'bark at s.o.' [ IO] [-[-[0] i+cin+i 'laugh' [_] [-[0]] (da=)cin+i 'laugh at s.o.' [ IO] [-[-[0]D c vim 'rain' [] [0 [0]]

Class IV ("Indirect" verbs)

i+qvar 'love' [ DO] [0 [-[-]] a+k'l+i 'lack' [ DO] [0 [-[-]] gon+i 'think, seem [ (DO)] [0 [-[-]1 jin+av 'sleep' [-] [0 [-[0]] CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 213

3.5.4 Examplesof lexical representations Recall that in order for a specific verb to be lexically insertedinto a given syntacticstructure, it is necessarythat the structurein which it is to appear a) satisfy its subcategorization requirements, and b) contain a mor- phosyntacticcomplex symbol that is consistent with its lexically assigned inflectionalrepresentation. The various classes of verbs distinguishedin the traditionalschema differ in respect of these properties;however, there are also differences among verbs withinthe same class. Examplesof some lexical specificationsare given in table III above. Note in particularthat althoughwe have only provideda small numberof Perfect stem entries, as examples,this does not imply that other verbs do not have such additional stems in their lexical representations.Quite independentof the questionof such additional stems characterizedfor a particular tense or series of tenses, most verb roots in Georgianare capableof serving as the bases of a large number of somewhat idiosyncratic formations, and a glance at Tschenkeli et al. (1960-74) will quicklyconvince the reader of how much more there is to be said about any Georgian verb.

4. CONCLUSIONS In the precedingsections, we have developed the principalcomponents of an analysis of verbal agreement, case-marking, inversion, and related phenomena in Georgian. The most important aspect of this treatment throughout has been the extent to which it is a description of the .morphologyof the language, employing mechanisms necessary for the description of inflectional morphology rather than the mechanisms of syntax. In particular,no alterationsof syntactic structure are posited to account for the inversion construction (or for the difference between Series I and Series II tenses). To the extent to which this account is well-motivated, it establishes our basic descriptive points: 'Inversion' in Georgian is a fact about morphology,not a rule of the syntax. While the morphological analysis of this paper differs in fundamental ways from the syntactic treatmentof Harris(1981, 1982, 1983), there are also many obvious similarities.For example, both analyses make use of a rule of 'Unaccusative',with somewhatsimilar functions. Both differentiate the subjects of class II and class III verbs by treatingthe former as having similaritiesto direct objects of other verbs, where the subjects of class III verbs are similarto transitivesubjects. Otherparallels could be added; the major difference remains the fact that the present analysis locates these 214 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON parts of the grammarof Georgian in the inflectionalmorphology of the language, while Harrislocates them in syntactic rules and structures. This differenceis hardlysurprising. The theory of RelationalGrammar, within which her analysis is formulated, cannot be said to contain an explicit theory of morphology, in the sense of a set of systematic mechanismsfor relatingthe inflectionalproperties of words and their role in a syntactic structure to their surface form. Once we provide a morphological frameworkin which to discuss these issues we see that Harris' insights about the structure of the language are fundamentally correct, and can be maintainedin larger part, but that they pertainto the morphologyrather than to the syntax. Beyond the basic descriptive issue of how to treat inversion, however, the analysis above justifies a certain numberof broaderconclusions, not limited to Georgian. We take up some of these below, in increasingorder of their generality.

4.1 Class markers In the analysis defended here, the several classes of Georgian verbs are differentiatedlexically in terms of independentlymotivated morphosyntactic (or inflectional) representations,rather than by arbitrary 'conjugation-class' markers.For example, a 'class IV' diacritic is no longer necessary,since such verbs are uniquelyidentified by the combinationof subcategorizationrequirements and inflectionalproperties for which they are lexically specified. In fact, all of the variousGeorgian verb classes are now uniquely specified in this way, and no separate arbitrarymarkers of conjugation class membershipare necessary at all in the lexicon. On Harris'analysis, she argues (1981, pp. 228ff.) that conjugationclass markersare similarlyunnecessary, though they are used throughouther descriptionas a purelyexpository convenience. The inflectionalpattern of a given verb is supposed to follow from the set of arguments it takes, together with the locations of these in (underlyingthe surface) syntactic structure.While this is surely true (given her syntactic assumptions)for membershipin classes 1, 2, and 3, the fact that a verb belongs to class 4 is not similarlydeducible from the pattern of its arguments:rather, this is relatedto the fact that it undergoesinversion. The morphologicalproperty of class 4 inflection must thus be accessible to the syntactic rule of Inversion,or else the specific derivationalhistory of the structurein which a verb appearsmust be accessible to the rules of inflection.Either of these is a variety of interactionbetween word formationprocesses and syntactic CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 215 structure which a restrictive theory would like to exclude; they are unnecessaryon an analysislike the present one, in which the locality of reference of inflectionalproperties is preserved. Naturally, the elimination of arbitrarymarkers of inflectional class membership (other than structurallymotivated aspects of the form of wordsbelonging to such classes) is defendedhere only for Georgian;but it remainsto be seen whether, in other languageswhere arbitrarypartitions of the lexicon are generally posited to account for differences in inflectionalproperties, it may not be possibleto reduce this arbitrarinessin light of independentlymotivated propertiesof lexical entries. For example, in those Romance languages where verbs are traditionallyorganized into arbitraryclasses ('first conjugation', 'second conjugation', etc.), it seems quite likely that representationsof verb stems provided with a thematic vowel in the lexicon could eliminate the need for such an unilluminatingdivision (cf. Platt 1981 for one such attempt). The point is a moderatelysubtle one, since it could be maintainedthat the theme vowels simply act as diacriticson such an analysisof Romance verb classes. It can be argued,however, that the morphologymust contain some principleto insertthese vowels in any event, and that prohibitingany subdivisionof verb stems other than one which is substantivelymotivated in such a way yields a more restrictive theory than one which allows explicit diacriticsunrelated to any unitarystructural characteristic of the forms they categorize. Naturally, the validity of this suggestion is impossible to assess clearly until it has been exploredin more concrete detail in actual analyses.

4.2 The natureof agreement The rules above make crucial use not only of agreement in inflectional features between a verb and its arguments, but also of (some sort of) 'co-indexing' relation between the morpho-syntacticrepresentations in INFL, which eventually determineagreement in verbs, and the NPs they agree with. Such co-indexing is familiarin the case of subject agreement, and in fact plays a crucial role in the Government/Bindingtheory in governing the subject position in finite clauses; it is less obvious for non-subjects. Stowell (1981), however, has proposed that verbs are co-indexed with all of their subcategorizedarguments in order to yield a unified definition of 'proper government'. In the case of Georgian, one prediction which results from this is that all positions reflected in agreement are automaticallyproperly governed, from which it follows 216 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON

(correctly) that such positions may be unfilled phonetically. One could express this in current idiom by saying that Georgian is a generalized 'Pro-drop'language. A further instance in which coindexing between non-subjects and agreementis necessaryis cited in Anderson (1974). In the Abkhaz-Abaza languages, a verb-initial agreement marker /y/ (marking third person plural or neuter singular intransitive subjects or transitive objects) is deleted if and only if the verb is immediatelypreceded in linear order by the NP with which it is co-indexed. In fact, when one considersinflectional systems of even moderate complexity,the plausibilityof the position that all agreeing arguments (and not only the subject) are co-indexed in the verb is considerable. The relation of co-indexing that is involved, however, is clearly differentfrom that obtaining between freely occurring NPs. In sentences containinga reflexive phrase,it is clear that the agreementelement related to the subject must be kept separate from that relating to the object, despite the fact that the 'reference'of the two is the same. If the subject is first or second person, for example, the reflexive will have different agreement features (namely, third person singular) from those of its antecedent, and the two must be kept separatedin the morpho-syntactic representationof the verb. It is for such reasons that we have referredto 'co-superscripting'rather than 'co-indexing' as the relation obtaining between an argument and the morphosyntactic representation of agreement in the clause.

4.3 The natureof morphosyntacticrepresentations Finally,we conclude that analysessuch as that presentedhere validate the notion of a morphosyntacticrepresentation with significantinternal structure, and of rules which create and manipulate such representations without effecting other syntactic structure.As long as one confines one's attention to languages with relatively simple inflection, it is possible to sweep inflectional morphology under the rug to a considerable extent, assuming that the formal categories of inflected words bear a rather straightforwardrelation to the syntactic structuresin which they appear. Just as it would be extremelydangerous to generalize about the theory of segmental phonology on the basis solely of analysesof Chinese (however extensive), though, it is unlikely that an adequate picture of inflectional morphology can be derived from the study of lanauages like English, German, and French in which this aspect of grammatical structure is CASE, AGREEMENT AND INVERSION IN GEORGIAN 217

relatively impoverished. A closer study of a language like Georgian suggests richer possibilities for the apparatusdescribing the traditional domain of inflection- possibilitieswhich might be productivelyexplored even in languages like English, where the data are not rich enough to motivate them by themselves.

REFERENCES

Anderson,Stephen R.: 1974, 'On Dis-AgreementRules', LinguisticInquiry 5, 445-451. : 1976, 'On the Notion of Subject in Ergative Languages',in C. Li (ed.), Subject& topic,Academic Press, New York, pp. 1-23. 1977a, 'On the FormalDescription of Inflection',in W. A. Beach, S. E. Fox, and S. Philosoph(eds.), Papersfrom the ThirteenthRegional Meetingof the Chicago Linguistic Society,pp. 15-44. 1977b, 'Commentson the Paperby Wasow:the Role of the Themein Grammatical Analysis', in P. W. Culicover, T. Wasow, and A. Akmajian (eds.), Formal Syntax, Academic Press, New York, pp. 361-377. :1982, 'Where'sMorphology?', Linguistic Inquiry 13, 571-612. 1984a, 'Rules as "Morphemes"in a Theory of Inflection', in D. Rood (ed.), Proceedingsof the 1983 Mid-AmericaLinguistics Conference, Boulder, University of Colorado. 1984b, 'KawakwalaSyntax and the Govemment/BindingTheory', in E. Cook & D. Gerdts (eds.), Syntax & Semantics 16: The Syntax of Native AmenricanLanguages, Academic Press, New York, pp. 21-75. Aronoff, Mark: 1976, WordFormation in GenerativeGrammar, MIT Press, Cambridge. Aronson, Howard:1982a, Georgian:A Reading Grammar,Slavica, Columbus,Ohio. : 1982b, 'On the Status of Version as a GrammaticalCategory in Georgian', Folia Slavica 5, 66-80. Bresnan,Joan (ed.): 1982, The MentalRepresentation of GrammaticalRelations, MIT Press, Cambridge. Burzio, Luigi: 1981, IntransitiveVerbs and Indian Auxiliaries, unpublishedPh.D. dissertation,MIT, Cambridge. Chomsky,Noam: 1965, Aspectsof the Theoryof Syntax,MIT Press, Cambridge. :1981, Lectureson Governmentand Binding, Foris, Dordrecht. Hammond,Michael: 1981, 'GeorgianVerbal Agreementand AbstractCase', Presentedat LSA Annual Meeting, New York. Harris,Alice: 1981, GeorgianSyntax, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. :1982, 'Georgianand the UnaccusativeHypothesis', Language 58, 290-306. 1983, 'Inversion as a Rule of Universal Grammar:Georgian Evidence', in D. Perlmutter(ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar,vol. II, Universityof Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 259-291. Hewitt, B. G.: 1983, review of Harris 1981, Lingua 59, 247-274. Hockett, Charles: 1947, 'Problemsof MorphemicAnalysis', Language 23, 321-343. Holisky,Dee Ann: 198la, Aspectand GeorgianMedial Verbs,Caravan Press, Delmar, NY. 1981b, 'Aspect theory and GeorgianAspect', in P. Tedeschi and A. Zaenen (eds.), Tense and Aspect (=Syntax & Semantics vol. 14), Academic Press, New York, pp. 127-144. Jorbenaje,B. A.: 1981, 'Principystanovlenija inversionnyx glagolov v gruzinskomjazyke' [Principlesof the Formationof InversiveVerbs in Georgian],Annual of Ibero-Caucasian Linguistics8, 66-77. 218 STEPHEN R. ANDERSON

Marantz, A.: 1981, On the Nature of Grammatical Relations' unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Matthews, Peter: 1972, Inflectional Morphology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Merlan, Francesca: 1982, 'Another Look at Georgian "Inversion"', Folia Slavica 5, 294-312. Perlmutter, David: 1983, 'Personal vs. Impersonal Constructions', NLLT 1, 141-200. Platt, D.: 1981, 'Old Provenqal Verb Inflection: The Balance Between Regularity and Irregularity', in T. Thomas-Flinders (ed.), UCLA Occasional Papers 4: Working Papers in Morphology, Dept. of Linguistics, UCLA. Postal, Paul: 1977, 'Antipassive in French', Linguisticae Investigationes 1, 333-374. ganije, Ak'ak'i: 1980, Kartuli gramat'ik'is sapujvlebi [Fundamentals of Georgian Gtammar; republication of 1973 editon], Georgian Academy of Sciences Press, Tbilisi. Stowell, Timothy: 1981, The Origins of Phrase Structure, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Tschenkeli, Kita: 1958, Einfuhrung in die georgische Sprache, Amirani Verlag, Zurich. [with assistance of Yolanda Marchev, et al.]: 1960-1974, Georgisch-Deutsches Worterbuch,Amirani Verlag, Zurich. Vogt, Hans: 1971, Grammaire de la langue georgienne, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.

Dept. of Linguistics University of California Los Angeles, CA 90024 U.S.A.