Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Algorithm Defining the Choice of ‘Active~Passive’ Formal Paradigms in Georgian

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Logic, Language, and Computation (TbiLLC 2015)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 10148))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1520 Accesses

Abstract

Two different formal paradigms traditionally referred to as ‘Active’ and ‘Passive’ are clearly distinguished in Georgian; however, there are many cases in which a simple semantic-functional interpretation of the paradigms cannot be given inasmuch as the constructions pointed out as ‘Active’ or ‘Passive’ can actually represent a variety of verb semantics: non-conversive passives (both dynamic and static), active intransitive processes, reflexives, reciprocals, potentials, deponents, etc. Thus, the problem with these paradigms is that it is difficult to predict the meaning from the form and, to such an extent, traditional terms ‘Active’ and ‘Passive’ actually have a conventional character. This paper suggests a cognitive model based on certain semantic features that define the choice of either the passive or the active formal paradigms for grammatical representations of so-called ‘medial’ verbs. The process of choice is organized as an algorithm with four stages of implicational rules and mirrors the hierarchically organized optimal dynamic process of linguistic structuring of an active~passive continuum.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The verb forms in the examples are glossed according to this tradition.

  2. 2.

    This assumes: Passive constructions are considered as conversive ones of the corresponding active constructions, where a Patient is promoted to the subject position along the following string of hierarchically organized functional relations: S > DO > IO, while an Agent is demoted and transformed into a prepositional phrase; therefore, it no longer represents a core argument defined by a verb valency.

  3. 3.

    The main distinguishing formal features are bolded and, in this paper, are conventionally numbered according to the Table 1 as f.1, f.2 …f.9.

  4. 4.

    For the polyfunctionality of the i-prefix see [2].

  5. 5.

    Verbs having passive form, but active semantics (so-called deponents) are analyzed in [11]

  6. 6.

    For some structural features of the so-called passive forms and their semantic interpretations see [7].

  7. 7.

    The feature ‘telicity’ was used by Dee Ann Holisky [6] for some intransitive-active verbs in Georgian, but we suppose that it is decisive for the whole process of formal representation of an active~passive continuum.

  8. 8.

    In Georgian so-called preverbs are preverbal affixes that show a direction/orientation of an action sometimes producing new semantics of a verb as well. Additionally, they form the future tense for transitive and conversive-passive verb forms as well as the perfective forms [8]. Inasmuch as the telicity is the property of a verb or verb phrase that presents an action or event as being complete in some sense (resp. perfective), preverbs formally represent telicity as well. Thus, telic verbs can distinguish the opposition between perfective and imperfective aspect represented in Georgian by preverbs, while for atelic verbs this is semantically excluded.

  9. 9.

    In other words, the morphosyntactic features are absolutely identical with the morphosyntactic features characteristic for the transitive and/or conversive-passive verb forms.

  10. 10.

    See [8] and compare with [5].

  11. 11.

    That is, if the arguments structure of a verb includes a patient, a verb is transitive, if not, intransitive.

  12. 12.

    A case pattern, in actual fact, is the main syntactic feature defining the grouping screeves into I, II and III series; see [8] and especially [5].

  13. 13.

    For the feature VL see [5, 6].

References

  1. Asatiani, R.: zmnur p’repiksul xmovanta punkcionaluri k’valipik’acia kartvelur enebši (The Functional Qualification of Verbal Vowel Prefixes in the Kartvelian languages). Macne, Tbilisi (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Asatiani, R.: Conceptual structure of reflexive and middle. In: Proceedings of 4th International Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation, pp. 5–16. ILLC scientific publications, Amsterdam (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Asatiani, R.: The information structure and typological peculiarities of the georgian passive constructions. In: Bezhanishvili, G., Löbner, S., Marra, V., Richter, F. (eds.) TbiLLC 2011. LNCS, vol. 7758, pp. 17–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36976-6_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Dowty, D.: Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3), 547–619 (1991). Linguistic Society of America

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Harris, A.C.: Georgian Syntax. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Holisky, D.A.: Aspect and Georgian Medial Verbs. Caravan Books, Delmar (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ivanishvili, M., Soselia, E.: A morphological structure and semantics of the georgian so-called passive forms. In: de Jongh, D., Zeevat, H., Nilsenova, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd and 4th International Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation, Batumi, Georgia, 12–16 September (1999). Borjomi, Georgia, September 23–28 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Shanidze, A.: kartuli enis gramat’ik’is sapudzvlebi (Fundamentals of the Georgian Language Grammar). TSU Press, Tbilisi (1973)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Shibatani, M.: Passives and related constructions: a prototype analysis. Language 61(4), 821–848 (1985)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Shibatani, M.: On the Conceptual Framework for Voice Phenomena. Linguistics 44(2), 217–269 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Tuite, K.: Deponent Verbs in Georgian. In: Bublitz, W., Boeder, W., von Roncador, M., Vater, H. (eds.) Philologie, Typologie und Sprachstruktur: Festschrift Für Winfried Boeder zum 65. Geburtstag, pp. 375–589. Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt am Main (2002)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia

    Rusudan Asatiani

Authors
  1. Rusudan Asatiani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rusudan Asatiani .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands

    Helle Hvid Hansen

  2. Department of Linguistics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA

    Sarah E. Murray

  3. School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom

    Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh

  4. Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Henk Zeevat

Glossary

0:

zero

1:

1st person

3:

3rd person

2:

2nd person

ACT:

Active

ADV:

adverbial case

AOR:

aorist

CV:

characteristic vowel

DAT:

dative

DO:

direct object

ERG:

ergative

FUT:

future

GEN:

genitive

IMP:

imperfect

IO:

indirect object

NOM:

nominative

NV:

neutral version

OINV:

inverted object

OV:

objective version

PASS:

passive

PL:

plural

PRF:

perfect

PV:

preverb

PRS:

present

PST:

past

PRT:

participle

S:

subject

SG:

singular

SINV:

inverted subject

SUBJ:

subjunctive

SV:

subjective version

THM:

thematic suffix

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany

About this paper

Cite this paper

Asatiani, R. (2017). An Algorithm Defining the Choice of ‘Active~Passive’ Formal Paradigms in Georgian. In: Hansen, H., Murray, S., Sadrzadeh, M., Zeevat, H. (eds) Logic, Language, and Computation. TbiLLC 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10148. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54332-0_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54332-0_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-54331-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-54332-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation