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. ukceviti in the terminology of [Sha73]).2 In the Syntax of Modern Georgian [Kva96] various 1In the preface to [Mar64a] the author notes that it is unfortunate that two additional chapters on the syntax of pronouns and word formation have been removed in the printing process because of the economy of place. 2This view on the tav- being a personal pronoun seems to be shared by other Georgian linguists. For instance, [Sar97] also includes reflexive pronouns among personal pronouns. This perspective on 41 42 Chapter 3. Binding Issues in Georgian issues are discussed, among them types of sentences (simple vs. complex, affirmative vs. interrogative vs. negative), parts of speech, functions of cases. However, anaphoric dependencies or reference maintenance are not among those issues. However, there are studies concerning the syntax of reflexives and reflexivization in Georgian. The 1973 dissertation by Braithwaite [Bra73] uses the concept of tav-ization, the operation which turns indirect and direct object into a phrase with a grammatical- ized body-part tav- “head” as its head.3 Since the very phrase appears not only in reflexive, but also in other contexts (for instance, in object camouflage cases, see Sec- tion 5.2), [Bra73] avoids calling (i) the use of tav- a pure reflexivization strategy, and (ii) the operation involving the application of tav- a reflexivization process. [Har81], a study in relational grammar, discusses reflexivization involving pronom- inal tav- and possessive pronominal tavis- as its determiner. The pronominal reflexive tav- is argued to be coreferent with the subject of its clause and thus, to serve as a test for subjecthood. The singular and plural reflexive possessive pronouns tavis- and taviant- can be coreferent with any argument of the verb (whether it is subject, indirect object or direct object) but not with postpositional phrases. In relational terms, this means that reflexive possessives serve as a test for termhood. [Har81] talks about tav-reflexivization ([Har81, pp. 23-27]), while bringing exam- ples with the pronominal tav- preceded by a determiner, a possessive pronoun (i.e., tavis- tav-). However, this dissertation will distingish between the two strategies—(i) tav- pronominal preceded by a determiner, a possessive pronoun (i.e., the POSS+tav- reflexivization strategy) and (ii) the tav- pronominal alone, without a determiner, but with the obligatory presence of the verbal reflexive marker i- in the verb form. It will be argued that, although diachronically related, the two strategies are principally dif- ferent (see Subsection 3.5.2 as well as subsections 4.3.2, 4.3.3 within the Reinhart and Reuland Reflexivity Theory [RR93]). The most recent paper [Apr03] also continues the Georgian tradition by calling tav- a personal pronoun. Additionally, [Apr03] calls tavis- and taviant- possessive reflexives. However, it would be more precise to qualify them as reflexive possessives Georgian reflexives as personal pronouns must be motivated by the cases in which the phrase headed by tav- does not serve as a reflexive but as a 3rd person phrase, namely in object camouflage cases (see Section 5.2). The term object camouflage from [Har81] is used for cases when a 3-argument verb takes either a 1st or a 2nd person theme argument. Since any 3-argument verb form in Georgian is by default coded for a 3rd person theme argument, the 1st and 2nd person theme argument cannot properly agree with the verb. In order to overcome this, 1st or 2nd person theme arguments are camouflaged into 3rd person phrases via a phrase headed by a grammaticalized body-part noun tav- “head” preceded by a determiner, a possessive pronoun (that is the phrase formally identical to the complex reflexivization strategy, namely, the POSS+tav- phrase). The possessive makes reference to the person of the theme argument (of the 1st/2nd person) and the head of the phrase tav- functions as a 3rd person strategy making the whole phrase a 3rd person phrase. Thus, by the head tav-, determined by a possessor of the 1st or 2nd person, theme arguments of 3-argument verbs are camouflaged into 3rd person phrases in order to properly agree with the 3-argument verb form (by the default form associated exclusively with the 3rd person theme argument). 3The term tav-ization is used also in [Asa82] after [Bra73]. 3.3. Binding Conditions of the Government and Binding Theory 43 rather than as possessive reflexives. The reason for this is that both tavis- and taviant- are possessives just like the 1st person singular and plural possessive pronouns cem-ˇ , cven-ˇ , 2nd person singular and plural possessive pronouns sen-ˇ , tkven- and 3rd person singular and plural possessive pronouns mis-, mat- (Example 3.4.37). The difference between the 3rd person singular mis-, plural mat- and the 3rd person singular tavis- and plural taviant- is that the former are simple possessives while the latter are reflexive possessives (see Subsection 3.4.5). [Apr03] considers the root tav-, on which both the “personal reflexive” tav- and “possessive reflexive” tavis-, taviant- are based, to be borrowed from a noun tav-i “head”. Literature on grammaticalization in general and the works on grammatical- ization of body-part nouns in particular (see [Mor72, Hei97, Mat99, Sch99, Hei99, KS00b, Kon01]¨ among others) have successfully shown that languages never borrow any element from one construction and take it into another. It is rather the case that the use of the element gets extended into other construction(s). The root tav- came to be used in different constructions, not because it was borrowed from the lexeme tav-i “head”, but because the lexeme became delexicalized and consequently grammatical- ized and suitable for being used in those constructions. Since the simple tav- often participates in idioms where it is difficult to speak of canonical reflexivity (that is, binding between the subject and the object), [Apr03] prefers to discuss the reflexive phrase with the tav- as a head and with a modifier, a possessive pronoun. It is claimed in [Apr03] that “the word tav-i alone is not enough to express reflexivity.” However, contrary to [Apr03], it will be argued in this disserta- tion that the simple tav- indeed is a reflexivization strategy. It is diachronically related [AL02] but synchronically distinct from the POSS+tav- reflexivization strategy (see Subsection 3.5.2 as well as the subsections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3). Furthermore, [Apr03] claims that the tav- never occurs as a subject. The present dissertation will also show that indeed the simple tav- strategy can never appear as a subject with a reflexive reading but only with its original body-part reading (Exam- ple 4.3.22a, 4.3.22b). However, in this dissertation, it will be argued that the POSS+tav- reflexivization strategy can indeed appear as a subject argument of verbs (Chapter 7). Georgian is not unique in having a reflexivization strategy marked by ergative as a subject argument, since there are languages both in the areal (for instance, Dargwa [Kib97], Bagwalal [Lju99b]) and beyond it (for instance, Basque [Art03], Modern Greek [Ana99], Hungarian [Kis87], Nepali [BY00]) which show subject uses of re- flexives as well. 3.3 Binding Conditions of the Government and Binding The- ory Binding Theory (BT) is one of the modules of the Government and Binding (GB) model of grammar given in [Cho81, Cho82, Cho86]. Binding Theory is concerned with in- 44 Chapter 3. Binding Issues in Georgian terpretive dependencies between nominal expressions and offers a set of grammatical principles to explain these relations. The main three grammatical principles, binding conditions, as presented in [Cho81] are the following: Condition A. An anaphor is bound in its Governing Category. Condition B. A pronominal is free in its Governing Category. Condition C. An R-expression is free. Thus, within the Binding Theory, nominal expressions fall in either of these three categories: anaphors, pronominals and referential expressions (R-expressions).4 Condition C will be discussed first. When an element is free, it means that its interpretation does not depend on anything else. For instance, the R-expression John in 3.3.1 selects a particular referent from the discourse and is not dependent on any other nominal expression(s) for its interpretation.