Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Ehrhart, Sabine

1 Issue per year


Covered by:
Elsevier - SCOPUS
Clarivate Analytics - Emerging Sources Citation Index
ERIH PLUS

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2300-9969
See all formats and pricing
More options …

On Georgian Preverbs

Tamar Makharoblidze
Published Online: 2018-06-15 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0009

Abstract

This paper describes the classification of the functions of preverbs in Georgian and the other Kartvelian languages as a contribution to the typology of this issue. Preverbs have different meanings and activities in different languages. The typological classification of the functions of preverbs reveals the four core functions: spatial, temporal, objective and lexical. This paper discusses verbal argument structure alternations encoded by preverbs. I argue that preverbs affect verbal valency changes and stimulate object role-shifting in Georgian verbs and other Kartvelian languages. I also argue that preverbs have a crucial role in object alternation across the languages.

Keywords: preverb; object; valency; verb; Georgian; Mingrelian; Svan; typology; morphology; syntax

References

  • Ackerman, Farrell, and Gerd Webelhuth. 1998. A Theory of Predicates. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

  • Allerton DJ. 2006. Valency grammar. In: Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. EK Brown, p. 301-314. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 2nd ed.Google Scholar

  • Asatiani, Irine. 1952. Zmniscinebi Zanurshi. [Preverbs in Zan] Tbilisi. (In Georgian)Google Scholar

  • Asatiani, Rusudan. 2009. A Dynamic Conceptual Model for the Linguistic Structuring of Space: Georgian Preverbs. Selected papers of the 7th International Symposium on LLC, . 38-47. Springer.Google Scholar

  • Blom, Corrien. 2005. Complex predicates in Dutch. Synchrony and diachrony. Ph.D. Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Utrecht: LOT Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Boeder, Winfried. 2005. The South Caucasian Languages. Lingua 115: 5-89.Google Scholar

  • Booij, Geert. 1990. The boundary between morphology and syntax: Separable complex verbs in Google Scholar

  • Bresnan J., Cueni A., Nikitina T., Baayen H. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In: Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, ed. G. Bouma, I. Krämer, J. Zwarts, pp. 69-94. Amsterdam: R. Neth. Acad. Sci.Google Scholar

  • Bresnan J., Nikitina T. 2009. On the gradience of the dative alternation. In: Reality Exploration and Discovery: Pattern Interaction in Language and Life, ed. L.H. Wee, L. Uyechi, p. 161-84. Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. Dutch. In: Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1990. Dordrecht: Foris, 45-63.Google Scholar

  • Booij, Geert & Van Kemenade, Ans. 2003. Preverbs: An introduction. Yearbook of Morphology 2003. Edited by Booij & Jaap van Marle. Kluwer Academic Publishers. New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow. 1-13Google Scholar

  • Dufresne, Monique, Dupuis Fernande, Tremblay Mireille. 2003. Preverbs and particles in Old French. Yearbook of Morphology 2003, Edited by Booij & Jaap van Marle. Kluwer Academic Publishers. New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow. 33-60Google Scholar

  • Cherchi, Marcello. 1997. Verbal tmesis in Georgian, Part II. Annali del Dipartimento di Studi del Mondo Classico e del Mediterraneo Antico Sezione Linguistica 19, p. 63-137.Google Scholar

  • Deeters, Gerhard.1930. Das Kartwelische Verbum. Leipzig: Markert & Petters. Google Scholar

  • Dehé , Nicole. 2002. Particle Verbs in English. Linguistik Aktuel / Linguistics Today. Vol.59. John Benjamins. Amsterdam.Google Scholar

  • den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Farrell, Patrick. 2005. English verb-preposition constructions: Constituency and order. Language 81(1): 96-137.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore Charles J. 1965. Indirect Object Constructions in English and the Ordering of Transformations. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Gurevich, Olga I. 2006. Constructional Morphology: The Georgian version, doctoral dissertation, Univeristy of California, Berkeley, available online at http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/dissertations/Gurevich_Dissertation_2006.pdfGoogle Scholar

  • Haiden, Martin. 2006. Verb particle constructions. In: Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, vol. 5, p. 344-375. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Haider, Hubert. 1997. Precedence among predicates. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1, p. 3-41.Google Scholar

  • Hale Ken, Keyser Samuel J. 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Handbook of Linguistics 2003. Edited by Aronoff Mark & Rees-Miller Janie. Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Harris, Alice. 2003. Preverbs and their origin in Georgian and Udi. In: Yearbook of Morphology 2003. Edited by Booij & JaapGoogle Scholar

  • van Marle. Kluwer Academic Publishers. New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow .Google Scholar

  • Harris, Alice. 1978. Number Agreement in Modern Georgian. The Classification of Grammatical Categories. International Review of Slavic Linguistics, vol. 3.No.1-2. ed. by Anthony Vanek, p. 75-98.Google Scholar

  • Hewitt, George. 1995. Georgian: a structural reference grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. Small clause results. Lingua 74, p. 101-139.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hoekstra, Teun. 1992. Aspect and theta-theory. In: Thematic Structure, I.M. Roca (ed.), Berlin / New York: Foris, p.145-174.Google Scholar

  • Holisky, Dee Ann. 1981. Aspect theory and Georgian aspect. In: Tense and Aspect (Syntax and Semantics), vol. 14, ed. P.J. Tedeschi and A. Zaenen. New York: Academic Press, p. 127-144.Google Scholar

  • Ivanishvili, Marine & Soselia, Eter. 2009. Preverbs in Megrelian. In: 8th International Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language, and Computation. Revised Selected Papers, p. 240-249.Google Scholar

  • Keyser, Samuel & Roeper, Thomas. 1992. Re: The abstract clictic hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 23, p. 89-125.Google Scholar

  • Kobalava, Bela. 2002. gv- zmniscinis minishvnelobisatvis megrulshi. [For the meaning of gv-preversb in Mengrelain]. Enatmecnireebis sak’itxebi - 2002. Tbilisi.Google Scholar

  • Léonard Jean Léo & Alain Kihm. 2014. Mazatec verb inflection: Revisiting Pike (1948) and comparing four dialects. In: Patterns in Mesoamerican morphology, Léonard, J. L. & Kihm, A. (eds), Paris, Michel Houdiard Editeur, p. 26-76.Google Scholar

  • Levin, Beth. 2006. English Object Alternations: A Unified Account. Stanford University, Stanford, CA. http://web.stanford.edu/~bclevin/alt06.pdf (access May 2017).Google Scholar

  • Levin, Beth. 2015. Semantics and Pragmatics of Argument Alternations. Annual Review of Linguistics 1, p. 63- 83. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125141CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Levin, Bert & M Rappaport Hovav (1995) Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Li, Yafei. 1999. Cross-componential causativity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17, p. 445-497.Google Scholar

  • Lüdeling, Anke. 2001. On Particle Verbs and Similar Constructions in German. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

  • Makharoblidze, Tamar. 2012. The Georgian Verb. LINCOM Studies in Caucasian Linguistics 20.Google Scholar

  • Makharoblidze, Tamar. 2012. On the Category of Version. Kadmosi vol.4. Ilia State University. Tbilisi, p. 154-213.Google Scholar

  • Makharoblidze, Tamar. 2010. Lingvist’ turi c‘erilebi II Linguistic Papers II. Tbilisi. Nekeri, p.77-101.Google Scholar

  • Margolis, Max. 1909. The Greek Preverb and Its Hebrew-Aramaic Equivalent. The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Oct., 1909), p. 33-61Google Scholar

  • Martirosov, Aram. 1956. Tsindebulisa da tandebulis istoriuli urtiertobisatvis kartulshi. [The historical relationship between preverbs and postpositions in Georgian.] Iberiul-k’avk’asiuri enatmecniereba 8, p. 39-46.Google Scholar

  • McGillivray, Barbara. 2013. Latin preverbs and verb argument structure. New insights from new methods. In: Argument Structure in Flux: The Naples-Capri Papers, E. van Gelderen, J. Barðdal, M. Cennamo (eds.), Oxford University Press, p.119-134.Google Scholar

  • McIntyre, Andrew. 2003. Preverbs, Argument Linking and Verb Semantics: Germanic Prefixes and Particles. In: Yearbook ofGoogle Scholar

  • Morphology 2003. Edited by Booij & Jaap van Marle. Kluwer Academic Publishers. New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, MoscowGoogle Scholar

  • McIntyre, Andrew. 2007. Particle verbs and argument structure. Language and Linguistics Compass 1(4): 350-367.Google Scholar

  • Müller, Stefan. 2000. Complex predicates. Habil. Thesis, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken.Google Scholar

  • Müller Stefan, Wechsler Stephen. 2014. Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics 40:1-76Google Scholar

  • Neeleman, Ad & Weerman, Fred. 1993. The balance between syntax and morphology: Dutch particles and resultatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11, 433-475.Google Scholar

  • Johanna Nichols. 1986. Head Marking and Dependent Marking Grammar. Language vol. 62 no.1,p. 56-119. http://hosting03.snu.ac.kr/~korean/old/data/morphology/Nichols(1986).pdf (access May 2017).Google Scholar

  • Olsen, Susan. 2000. Against incorporation. In: Johannes Dölling and Thomas Pechmann (eds.), Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 74, 149-172. University of Leipzig: Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Rappaport M. Hovav, Levin B. (2008) The English dative alternation: the case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44:129-67Google Scholar

  • Rappaport M. Hovav, Levin B. 2012. Lexicon uniformity and the causative alternation. In: The Theta System: Argument Structure at the Interface, ed. M. Everaert, M. Marelj, T. Siloni, p. 150-76. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. PressGoogle Scholar

  • Rappaport Hovav M. 2014. Lexical content and context: the causative alternation in English revisited. Lingua 141:8-29.Google Scholar

  • Schmidt, Karl Horst (1969) Zur Tmesis in den Kartvelsprachen und ihren typologischen Parallelen in indogermanischen Sprachen. Giorgi Axvledians. Tbilisi State University, p. 96-105.Google Scholar

  • Shanidze, Akaki. 1980,[1953]. Kartuli enis gramat’ik’is sapudzvlebi. [Fundamentals of the grammar of the Georgian language.] Works, vol. III. Tbilisi State University.Google Scholar

  • Stiebels, Barbara & Wunderlich, Dieter. 1994. Morphology feeds syntax: The case of particle verbs. Linguistics 32, 913-968. Google Scholar

  • von Stechow, Arnim. 1995. Lexical decomposition in syntax. In: U. Egli et al. (eds.), Lexical Knowledge in the Organization of Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins, p. 81-117.Google Scholar

  • Svenonius, Peter. 1997, 2005. The verb-particle alternation in the Scandinavian languages, Ms. The Georgian National Corpus Project. http://gnc.gov.ge/gnc/static/portal/gnc.htmlGoogle Scholar

  • Thompson S.A. 1995. The iconicity of ‘dative shift’ in English: considerations from information flow in discourse. In: Syntactic Iconicity and Linguistic Freezes, ed. M. E. Landsberg, p. 155-75. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Troms. (www.hum.uit.no/a/svenonius) ScanDiaSyn conference, Leikanger (August)Google Scholar

  • Topuria, Varlam. 1967 [1931]. Svanuri ena, I: Zmna [The Svan Language, I: The Verb]. Shromebi I [Published as volume Works I] Tbilisi. Mecniereba.Google Scholar

  • Tschenkeli, Kita. 1958. Einführung in die georgische Sprache, Band 1. Zürich: Amirani. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online http://wals.info/chapter/84Google Scholar

  • Kevin Tuite, Liminal morphosyntax: Georgian deponents and their kin. Université De Montréal. http://www.mapageweb.umontreal.ca/tuitekj/publications/Tuite-liminalmorph.pdf (Access: May 2017).Google Scholar

  • Uturgaidze, Tedo. 2002. Gramat’ik’uli k’at’egoriebisa da mati urtiertmimartebistvis kartul zmnaşi [For the grammatical categories and their relations in Georgian verbs]. A. Chikobava Institute of Linguistics. Tbilisi.Google Scholar

  • Veshapidze, Irakli. 1967. Zmnisc’ini dzvel kartul enashi. [The preverb in the Old Georgian language.] Tbilisi State University.Google Scholar

  • Vogt, Hans (1971) Grammaire de la langue Géorgienne. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar

  • Zeller, Jochen. 2001. Particle Verbs and Local Domains. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Zeller, Jochen. 2003. Moved preverbs in German: displaced or misplaced? In: Yearbook of Morphology, edited by Booij & Jaap van Marle. Kluwer Academic Publishers. New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow, p. 179-212.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-07-31

Accepted: 2018-03-19

Published Online: 2018-06-15


Citation Information: Open Linguistics, Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 163–183, ISSN (Online) 2300-9969, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0009.

Export Citation

© 2018 Tamar Makharoblidze, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in