DOCSLIB.ORG

Reflexivization Strategies in Georgian

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Reflexivization Strategies in Georgian Published by LOT Phone: +31 30 253 6006 Trans 10 Fax: +31 30 253 6000 3512 JK Utrecht e-mail: [email protected] the Netherlands http://wwwlot.let.uu.nl/ Cover illustration: Tell Myself. Copyright c Claudia Fernety. Reproduced here with the kind permission of the artist ISBN-10: 90-76864-96-9 ISBN-13: 978-90-76864-96-9 Copyright c 2006 Nino Amiridze. All rights reserved. This dissertation is typeset using LATEX. Reflexivization Strategies in Georgian Reflexivisatie Strategieen¨ in het Georgisch (met een samenvatting in het Nederlands) Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Utrecht op gezag van de Rector Magnificus, Prof. Dr. W. H. Gispen, ingevolge het besluit van het College voor Promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen op donderdag 30 maart 2006 des ochtends te 10:30 uur door Nino Amiridze geboren op 30 september 1971 te Tbilisi Promotores: Prof. Dr. M. B. H. Everaert Prof. Dr. E. J. Reuland Contents Acknowledgments ix Abbreviations xiii 1 Introduction 1 2 Notes on Georgian Morphosyntax 7 2.1 Introduction................................ 7 2.2 Agreement Marking in Georgian . 8 2.3 Screeves or TAM Paradigms........................ 12 2.4 Case and Agreement Patterns of Georgian . 15 2.4.1 Introduction . 15 2.4.2 Case Alignment and TAM, Volition, Verb Class Distinction . 16 2.4.3 Georgian is not an Ergative Language . 24 2.4.4 Georgian is neither a “Split-Ergative” Language . 27 2.4.5 Conclusion ............................ 32 2.5 What Kind of Verbs Are Relevant for Anaphoric Binding? . 32 2.5.1 Introduction . 32 2.5.2 Some Classifications of Verbs . 32 2.5.3 The Verbs Relevant for Anaphoric Binding in Georgian . 38 2.5.4 Conclusion ............................ 40 2.6 Summary ................................. 40 3 Binding Issues in Georgian 41 3.1 Introduction................................ 41 3.2 Literature on Georgian Reflexives and Reciprocals . 41 3.3 Binding Conditions of the Government and Binding Theory . 43 3.4 The Complex Reflexive Phrase POSS+tav- ................ 49 3.4.1 Introduction . 49 3.4.2 Domain and C-Command . 49 v 3.4.3 Binding and Word Order . 51 3.4.4 S/O Asymmetries . 61 3.4.5 The Determiner of the Complex Reflexive Phrase POSS+tav- . 66 3.4.6 The Complex Reflexive Phrase POSS+tav- as a Determiner . 85 3.4.7 Conclusion ............................ 91 3.5 The Simple Reflexive Pronoun tav- .................... 92 3.5.1 Introduction . 92 3.5.2 Is the Simple Reflexive tav- the Same POSS+tav- Strategy? . 92 3.5.3 Domain and C-Command . 102 3.5.4 Binding and Word Order . 104 3.5.5 POSS+tav-, tav- and Sub-Classes of Transitive Verbs . 104 3.5.6 Conclusion ............................110 3.6 The Georgian Reciprocals . 111 3.6.1 Introduction . 111 3.6.2 The Form of the Reciprocals . 111 3.6.3 Domain and C-Command . 116 3.6.4 Binding and Word Order . 127 3.6.5 Number Agreement of Reciprocals in Georgian . 129 3.6.6 Conclusion ............................134 3.7 Summary .................................134 4 Outline of Reflexivization Strategies in Georgian 137 4.1 Introduction................................137 4.2 TheReflexivityFramework. .137 4.3 Nominal Reflexivization in Georgian . 142 4.3.1 Introduction . 142 4.3.2 The POSS+tav- Strategy .....................142 4.3.3 The Simple tav- Strategy.....................153 4.3.4 Conclusion ............................157 4.4 Verbal Reflexivization . 157 4.4.1 Introduction . 157 4.4.2 Reflexive Pre-Radical Vowel i- ..................157 4.4.3 Non-Reflexive Pre-Radical Vowel i- ...............168 4.4.4 Conclusion ............................179 4.5 Summary .................................180 5 “Anaphors” that Violate the Binding Theory 183 5.1 Introduction................................183 5.2 The Use of the Phrase POSS+tav- in Object Camouflage . 183 5.3 The Use of the Phrase POSS+tav- in Wish Formulae . 191 5.4 The Reflexive Phrase POSS+tav- as a Subject Argument . 194 5.5 The Reciprocal ertmanet- as a Subject Argument . 197 vi 5.6 Summary .................................198 6 Anaphors and Agreement 199 6.1 Introduction................................199 6.2 Anaphor Agreement Effect . 199 6.3 Modified Anaphor Agreement Effect . 201 6.4 Georgian and the (Modified) Anaphor Agreement Effect . 206 6.5 Reflexivity Theoretic Explanation for Subject Anaphors . 207 6.6 Georgian and the Reflexivity Theoretical Explanation . 210 6.7 Summary .................................216 7 Georgian Anaphors as a Subject Argument 219 7.1 Introduction................................219 7.2 CanItBeCalledBinding? . .220 7.3 Georgian Subject Anaphors and their Postcedents . 226 7.3.1 Introduction . 226 7.3.2 The Aspect/Property of Reading of the Subject Anaphors . 226 7.3.3 The Image/Representation of Reading of the Subject Anaphors 230 7.3.4 Conclusion ............................238 7.4 Summary .................................239 8 Conclusions 241 A Some Classes of Verbs in the Screeves of the Three TAM Series 243 A.1 The 1-Argument Unaccusative -c. itld-/-c. itl- “turn red” . 243 A.2 The 1-Argument Unergative -cin- “laugh” ................250 A.3 The Transitive -c.ˇr-/-c.ˇer- “wound” ....................255 B Notes on the Grammaticalization of tav- “head” 281 Bibliography 291 Index 309 Samenvatting 313 ÞiÙÑe Öe (Georgian Summary) 315 Curriculum Vitae 317 vii Acknowledgments I would like to express my gratitude to my advisors Martin Everaert and Eric Reuland. I appreciate their constant help with my research as well as with practical matters during my stay at the OTS or even after moving from the Netherlands. Without their commit- ment, encouragement, insightful comments and motivating discussions the thesis might not be completed. I am very grateful to the members of the dissertation committee, for reading this work carefully on such a short notice. This work got improved thanks to the following people who have read the whole dissertation, or discussed issues in one or more parts of it, at several stages of writ- ing: Elena Anagnostopoulou, Rusudan Asatiani, Sergey Avrutin, Winfried Boeder, Pe- ter Cole, Norbert Corver, Alexis Dimitriadis, Thomas Gamkrelidze, Alice C. Harris, Gabriella Hermon, Ekkehard Konig,¨ Tanya Reinhart, Kakhi Sakhltkhutsishvili, Maaike Schoorlemmer, Yakov G. Testelec, Kevin Tuite, Mario van de Visser. The attention and help offered by Alice Harris over the last ten years has been invaluable. Her constructive comments on the drafts on various topics, sometimes on a short notice, have been extremely useful. I benefited a lot from the native speaker judgments, the knowledge of language(s) or expertise in their fields by Xabier Artiagoitia (Basque), Balthasar Bickel (Nepali), Win- fried Boeder (Georgian), George Hewitt (Georgian), Marine Ivanishvili (Georgian), Katalin E.´ Kiss (Hungarian), Itziar Laka (Basque), Katja Lyutikova (Bagwalal, Avar- Andic group of Dagestanian languages), David Paitschadze (Greek), Zurab Sarjveladze (Old / Middle / Modern Georgian), Eter Soselia (Georgian), Svetlana Toldova (Dages- tanian) as well as by the participants of the Basque discussion list (2001) and FUNKNET discussions (2000, 2002) on reflexives and reciprocals as subjects. During several LOT summer/winter schools I had an opportunity to discuss the subject uses of anaphors with Bill Croft and Anna Siewierska and to have shorter pre- sentations at the courses offered by Ekkehard Konig¨ and Peter Cole. I thank them for taking a close look at the Georgian data, and for their questions, suggestions, interest and the opportunity to present my work. I have been almost always extremely overloaded during my stay in Utrecht and, ix therefore, not able to participate in many social events. This makes me even more appreciate those small coffee breaks during a day when I could talk with my colleagues, discuss things or simply tell/listen to a joke. I am grateful to Sergey Avrutin, Olga Borik, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul, Takaaki Hara, Anna Mlynarczyk, Øystein Nilsen, Kakhi Sakhltkhutsishvili, Balazs´ Suranyi,´ Willemijn Vermaat, Nadya Vinokurova for sharing their thoughts and good mood with me. I am grateful to Sergio Baauw, Jan Don, Esther Kraak for their help with organiza- tional issues at the beginning of my project and to Keetje van den Heuvel for her help in the final phrase. Giorgi Burkadze, Thea Gagnidze, Irina Kutateladze, Pien and Joris van Leeuwen, Kakhi Sakhltkhutsishvili and Lela Rietkerk have been very helpful and kind during my stay in Utrecht. Some part of this work has been written in Austria. I am grateful to Eric and Martin for allowing me to work away from the Institute, for their always immediate help both with the research and with organizational issues. Special thanks to Simone van Weteringen for her help with getting my documents translated and legalized into German in time. I appreciate the help from many people who made my moving to Austria a lot easier and as less stressful as possible, among them first of all Temur, my husband, Bruno Buchberger, Daniela and Claudio Dupre,´ Brigitte and Helmut Lam- plmaier, Maria and Max Mayr, Kakhi Sakhltkhutsishvili. I am very grateful to Manuel Kauers and Christian Vogt for their German lessons at RISC (University of Linz). Spe- cial thanks to Natia Borashvili, Besik Dundua, Adrian Craciun,ˇ Jeannette and Ralf Hemmecke, Mircea Marin, Bogdan Matasaru, Koji Nakagawa, Cleo and Petru Pau, Florina Piroi, Yulita Popova, Nikolaj Popov, Carsten Schneider, Heba and Mohamed Shalaby, and Ibolya Szilagyi for their company at many social occasions at RISC as well as outside of it. Nadya Vinokurova has been very kind to offer a place to stay during my visits from Austria to the Netherlands. I had many memorable and nice occasions of spending time with old friends of mine, Marika Butskhrikidze and Bedri Drini in Leiden as well as with friends of my family, Nana Aptsiauri and Yuri Burkadze in Krimpen a/d IJssel. Back home I owe a lot to the members of the Linguistics department, Tbilisi State University and the typology department of the Institute of Oriental Studies, Georgian Academy of Sciences, for sharing their knowledge, experience and time with me.
Recommended publications
  • International Congress I Problems and Prospects Of

    International Congress I Problems and Prospects Of

    The Georgian National Academy of Sciences Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University Georgian Patriarchate INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS I PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS OF KARTVELOLOGY Tbilisi, 2015 ABSTRACTS 49 Zaza Alexidze (Georgia, Tbilisi) The Issue of Language and Statehood in Georgian Literature and Politics of Old and Recent Period 1. At the turn of IV-III centuries B.C., when King Parnavaz was establishing the first unitary Georgian State, the peak of the process was the declaration of Geor- gian as a State language and creation of the Georgian writing system. 2. In the early fourth century, when Iberia was left without a descendent of the Parnavazids, local nobles invited a certain Persian prince Mihran, in Georgia known as Mirian, as king. Mirian married the last female descendant of the Parnavazid dynasty, “he loved the Georgians, forgot Persian, learned Georgian and adorned the tomb of Parnavaz”. Georgian remained as Iberia’s state language. 3. In the VI-VII centuries, when the Kingdom of Kartli started to become unit- ed, church service in the borderline provinces of Georgia was conducted in the Georgian language even for the non-Georgian-speaking parish. This process of unifi- cation of the Georgian lands was known by the introduction of the unifying term “Entire Kartli” and the construction of the Cross Monastery near Mtskheta, “The Protector of the Entire Kartli”. 4. Due to Arab invasion, Georgia lost independence and fell into parts. However, in the X century the process of unification started anew. The Georgia of David the Builder and King Tamar was gradually developing. Based on the 13-centuries’ experience, a genius Georgian scholar expressed a simple and clear idea: “Kartli is the land where the liturgy is performed in Georgian and all prayers are said in the Georgian language”.
  • Georgian a Learner's Grammar

    Georgian a Learner's Grammar

    Georgian A Learner’s Grammar Second Edition This new edition of Georgian: A Learner’s Grammar is a completely revised and updated guide to the fascinating and most widely spoken language of the Caucasus. This Grammar presents the language in the form of grammatical descriptions supplemented with dialogues and reading passages. Full attention is given to script reproduction and recognition, pronunciation, lexis and individual points of grammar. There is also a varied and extensive range of exercise work. Features of this new edition include: • Highlighting of verbal roots throughout the grammatical sections and vocabularies • Some extra exercises for practice of verb forms • Use of the new Georgian currency • Examples of Georgian literature, both poetry and prose, each with its own self-contained vocabulary. This new edition provides a key to the exercises, Georgian–English vocabu- lary lists and a glossary of grammatical terms. George Hewitt is Professor of Caucasian languages at SOAS, London University, and has been a Fellow of the British Academy since 1997. 1111 2 3 4 5 6 7111 Georgian 8 9 1011 1 2 A Learner’s Grammar 3111 4 5 6 7 Second Edition 8 9 20111 1 2 3 4 5 George Hewitt 6 7 8 9 30111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 40111 1 2 3 44111 First published 1996 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016 Second edition published 2005 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group © 1996, 2005 George Hewitt This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2006.
  • The Rise and Fall and Revival of the Ibero‑Caucasian Hypothesis*

    The Rise and Fall and Revival of the Ibero‑Caucasian Hypothesis*

    John Benjamins Publishing Company This is a contribution from Historiographia Linguistica XXXV:1/2 © 2008. John Benjamins Publishing Company This electronic file may not be altered in any way. The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only. Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute. For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com The Rise and Fall and Revival of the Ibero‑Caucasian Hypothesis* Kevin Tuite Université de Montréal 1. Introduction Let us consider, for a moment, the languages of the world not as means of communication or components of ethnic or social identity, but rather as objects of scholarly investigation. If one were to classify groups of languages according to the ethnolinguistic affiliations of the researchers who study them, then at one end of the scale, let us say the right, would be those language families primarily studied by native speakers of a language belonging to that family, and at the left end those studied by non-native speakers. The Indo-European, Finno-Ugrian, and perhaps some of the major Asian language families would be at or close to the right end of the scale.
  • MORPHOSYNTACTIC COMPLEXITY: a TYPOLOGY of LEXICAL SPLITS Greville G

    MORPHOSYNTACTIC COMPLEXITY: a TYPOLOGY of LEXICAL SPLITS Greville G

    MORPHOSYNTACTIC COMPLEXITY: A TYPOLOGY OF LEXICAL SPLITS Greville G. Corbett University of Surrey A key notion in understanding language is ‘possible word (lexeme)’. While there are lexemes that are internally homogeneous and externally consistent, we find others with splits in their inter - nal structure (morphological paradigm) and inconsistencies in their external behavior (syntactic requirements). I first explore the characteristics of the most straightforward lexemes, in order to establish a point in the theoretical space from which we can calibrate the real examples we find. I then schematize the interesting phenomena that deviate from this idealization, including supple - tion, syncretism, deponency , and defectiveness. Next I analyze the different ways in which lex - emes are ‘split’ by such phenomena. I set out a typology of possible splits, along four dimensions: splits that are (i) based on the composition/feature signature of the paradigm versus those based solely on morphological form; (ii) motivated (following a boundary motivated from outside the paradigm) versus purely morphology-internal (‘morphomic’); (iii) regular (extending across the lexicon ) versus irregular (lexically specified); (iv) externally relevant versus irrelevant: we expect splits to be internal to the lexeme, but some have external relevance (they require different syntac - tic behaviors). I identify instances of these four dimensions separately: they are orthogonal, and therefore not dependent on each other. Their interaction gives a substantial typology, and it proves to be sur - prisingly complete: the possibilities specified are all attested. The typology also allows for the un - expected patterns of behavior to overlap in particular lexemes, producing some remarkable examples. Such examples show that the notion ‘possible word’ is more challenging than many lin - guists have realized.
  • Reflexivization Strategies in Georgian

    Reflexivization Strategies in Georgian

    Reflexivization Strategies in Georgian Published by LOT Phone: +31 30 253 6006 Trans 10 Fax: +31 30 253 6000 3512 JK Utrecht e-mail: [email protected] the Netherlands http://wwwlot.let.uu.nl/ Cover illustration: Tell Myself. Copyright c Claudia Fernety. Reproduced here with the kind permission of the artist ISBN-10: 90-76864-96-9 ISBN-13: 978-90-76864-96-9 Copyright c 2006 Nino Amiridze. All rights reserved. This dissertation is typeset using LATEX. Reflexivization Strategies in Georgian Reflexivisatie Strategieen¨ in het Georgisch (met een samenvatting in het Nederlands) Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Utrecht op gezag van de Rector Magnificus, Prof. Dr. W. H. Gispen, ingevolge het besluit van het College voor Promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen op donderdag 30 maart 2006 des ochtends te 10:30 uur door Nino Amiridze geboren op 30 september 1971 te Tbilisi Promotores: Prof. Dr. M. B. H. Everaert Prof. Dr. E. J. Reuland Contents Acknowledgments ix Abbreviations xiii 1 Introduction 1 2 Notes on Georgian Morphosyntax 7 2.1 Introduction................................ 7 2.2 Agreement Marking in Georgian . 8 2.3 Screeves or TAM Paradigms........................ 12 2.4 Case and Agreement Patterns of Georgian . 15 2.4.1 Introduction . 15 2.4.2 Case Alignment and TAM, Volition, Verb Class Distinction . 16 2.4.3 Georgian is not an Ergative Language . 24 2.4.4 Georgian is neither a “Split-Ergative” Language . 27 2.4.5 Conclusion ............................ 32 2.5 What Kind of Verbs Are Relevant for Anaphoric Binding? . 32 2.5.1 Introduction .
  • Binding Issues in Georgian

    Binding Issues in Georgian

    Chapter 3 Binding Issues in Georgian 3.1 Introduction The goal of Chapter 3 is to introduce the problems of binding in Georgian to the reader, and to outline the characteristics of reflexives and reciprocals. Section 3.2 gives a brief overview of the literature on Georgian reflexives and reciprocals. Section 3.3 deals with some basic concepts of the Government and Binding (GB) Theory according to which Georgian reflexives and reciprocals will be evaluated in the remaining sections in this chapter. In Section 3.4 the Georgian complex reflexive phrase consisting of a nominal head (grammaticalized body-part noun tav- “head”) preceded by a nominal specifier (possessive pronoun) is considered. Section 3.5 deals with another reflexiviza- tion strategy—the simple reflexive pronoun tav- which is diachronically related but, as argued in this dissertation, synchronically distinct from the POSS+tav-. Section 3.6 is concerned with Georgian reciprocals. Section 3.7 contains a summary of the chapter. 3.2 Literature on Georgian Reflexives and Reciprocals Specialist literature on Georgian reflexives and reciprocals produced by Georgian scho- lars is mostly concerned with their morphological form and diachronic origin. For instance, the largest investigation of the pronominal system of Georgian (and that of the other Kartvelian languages and the dialects) by [Mar64a] is solely devoted to the form and the origin of various classes of pronouns, among which are also reflexive possessive pronouns, reflexive pronouns and reciprocals.1 [Sha73, p. 42-43] believes the reflexive tav- to belong to the personal pronouns. However, [Sha73], to distinguish tav- from other personal pronouns, calls the ”personal pronoun” tav- a reflexive too (uk.