Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Case Inversion in Georgian: Syntactic Properties and Sentence Processing

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Case, Word Order and Prominence

Part of the book series: Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics ((SITP,volume 40))

Abstract

The morphological and syntactic facts from Georgian create a unique puzzle for the study of sentence processing. The word order is characterized by considerable freedom and case marking is not uni-directionally associated with θ-roles. This article presents a grammatical account of Georgian case marking and a study on incremental sentences processing. The empirical findings show that case is indeed a more reliable cue than word order in processing clauses with thematically ambiguous arguments. Furthermore, the obtained data suggest an asymmetry between dative experiencers and dative actors, such that only the revision of the thematic properties of the latter is associated with high processing cost.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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.

    Exceptions to these generalizations (e.g., verbs with two accusative objects, verbs with genitive and accusative) are lexically conditioned.

  2. 2.

    The sets of affixes display many instances of overlap, in particular whenever two argument markers compete for a single available slot. Without proceeding into details, the resolution of these conflicts is determined by the interaction of morphotactic constraints and constraints derived by the person and argument hierarchies (see detailed account in Anderson 1984).

  3. 3.

    Hence, causativization can be only used as a diagnostic for the case properties that depend on inflection within class 1.

  4. 4.

    The 77 missing values were distributed in the obtained data of 26 speakers, such that at least one valid reaction time was available for every speaker in every condition in both experiments.

  5. 5.

    Following a proposal by Raaijmakers et al. (1999), we only report the subject analysis (averaging over items), since item variability is experimentally controlled.

  6. 6.

    The verbs sč’irdeba, avic’q’deba, enat’reba and aint’eresebs share some morphological properties with class 2/class 1 verbs, however they both have an inversive argument structure, hence they have to be considered together with the class 4 verbs.

Abbreviations

1:

1st person

2:

2nd person

3:

3rd person

AOR:

Aorist

CAUS:

Causative

DAT:

Dative

ERG:

Ergative

FUT:

Future

GEN:

Genitive

INV.S:

Inversive subject

INV.O:

Inversive object

IO:

Indirect object

NOM:

Nominative

PASS:

Passive voice

PRF:

Perfect

PL:

Plural

PR:

Preverb

PFV:

Perfective

PV:

Preradical vowel

S:

subject

SG:

Singular

THM:

Thematic suffix

References

  • Amiridze, N. 2005. Georgian reflexives in subject function in special contexts. In Proceedings of the HPSG05 conference, ed. S. Müller, 455–472. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amiridze, N. 2006. Reflexivization strategies in Georgian, LOT Dissertation Series. Utrecht: LOT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, S.R. 1984. On representations in morphology: Case, agreement and inversion in Georgian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 157–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apridonidze, S. 1986. sit’q’vatganlageba axal kartulši [word order in Modern Georgian]. Tbilisi: Mecniereba.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronson, H.I. 1989. Inflection vs. derivation in Georgian conjugation. In The non-Slavic languages of the USSR: Linguistic studies, ed. H.I. Aronson, 1–19. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asatiani, R. 1982. mart’ivi c’inadadebis t’ip’ologiuri analizi [Typological Analysis of Simple Sentence]. Tbilisi: Mecniereba.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asatiani, R. 2007. The main devices of foregrounding in the information structure. In Logic, Language and Computation, 6th International Tbilisi Symposium on LLC, Tbilisi 2005, Revised selected papers, ed. B. ten Cate and H.W. Zeevat, 21–31. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asatiani, R. 2008. Information structure in Georgian. In The expression of information structure: The interaction of syntax and phonology in cross-linguistic perspective, ed. S. Skopeteas, S. Hellmuth, G. Fanselow, and C. Féry. Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asatiani, R., and M. Ivanishvili. 2007. Semantics and typology of dative subjects (on the Georgian data). In Proceedings of the fourteenth Amsterdam Colloquium-2003, ed. P. Dekker and R. van Rooy, 69–75. Amsterdam: The University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, E., S. McNew, B. MacWhinney, A. Devescovi, and S. Smith. 1982. Functional constraints on sentence processing: A cross-linguistic study. Cognition 11: 245–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blevins, J.P. 2005. Thematic inversion in Georgian. Ms. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornkessel, I., B. McElree, M. Schlesewsky, and A. Friederici. 2004. Multi-dimensional contributions to garden path strength: Dissociating phrase structure from case marking. Journal of Memory and Language 51: 495–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornkessel, I., and M. Schlesewsky. 2006. The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review 113(4): 787–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornkessel, I., M. Schlesewsky, and A. Friederici. 2002. Grammar overrides frequency: Evidence from the online processing of flexible word order. Cognition 85: B21–B30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornkessel, I., M. Schlesewsky, and A. Friederici. 2003. Eliciting thematic reanalysis effects: The role of structure-independent information during parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes 18: 268–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., and M. Schlesewsky. 2009. Processing syntax and morphology: A neurocognitive perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butt, M., and T.H. King. 2005. The status of case. In Clause structure in South Asian languages, ed. V. Dayal and A. Mahajan, 153–198. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N.. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. 2005. On phases, Ms. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67: 547–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fanselow, G. 2000. Optimal exceptions. In The lexicon in focus, ed. B. Stiebels and D. Wunderlich, 173–209. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanselow, G. 2002. Quirky subjects and other specifiers. In More than words, ed. B. Kaufmann and B. Stiebels, 227–250. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanselow, G., R. Kliegl, and M. Schlesewsky. 1999a. Processing difficulty and principles of grammar. In Constraints on language: Aging, grammar and memory, ed. S. Kemper and R. Kliegl, 171–202. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanselow, G., M. Schlesewsky, D. Cavar and R. Kliegl. 1999b. Optimal parsing: Syntactic parsing preferences and Optimality Theory. Ms., Potsdam: University of Potsdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felser, C., H. Clahsen, and T. Münte. 2003. Storage and integration in the processing of filler-gap dependencies: An ERP study of topicalization and wh- movement in German. Brain and Language 87: 345–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiebach, C., M. Schlesewsky, and A. Friederici. 2002. Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German WH questions. Journal of Memory and Language 47: 250–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw, J. 1997. Projections, heads and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 373–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A.C. 1981. Georgian syntax: A study in relational grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A.C. 1990. Georgian: A language with active case marking. Lingua 80: 47–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A.C. 1993. Georgian. In Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld and T. Vennemann, 1377–1397. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemforth, B. 1993. Kognitives parsing: Repräsentation und verarbeitung sprachlichen wissens. Sankt Augustin: Infix.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, G. 1987. Georgian: Ergative or active? Lingua 71: 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, G. 1995. Georgian: A structural reference grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Hoop, H., and M. Lamers. 2006. Incremental distinguishability of subject and object. In Case, valency and transitivity, ed. L. Kulikov, A. Malchukov, and P. de Swart, 269–287. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joppen-Hellwig, S. 2001. Verbklassen und Argumentlinking. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krems, J. 1984. Erwartungsgeleitete Sprachverarbeitung. Frankfurt: Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacWhinney, B., E. Bates, and R. Kliegl. 1984. Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 23: 127–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGinnis, M. 1997. Case and locality in L-syntax: Evidence from Georgian. In MITWPL 32: The UPenn/MIT Roundtable on Argument Structure and Aspect, ed. H. Harley. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGinnis, M. 2004. Lethal ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry 35(1): 47–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perlmutter, D.M., and P.M. Postal. 1986. Some proposed laws of basic clause structure. In Relational grammar 1, ed. David M Perlmutter, 81–128. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raaijmakers, J.G.W., J.M.C. Schrijnemakers, and F. Gremmen. 1999. How to deal with the “­language-as-fixed-effect fallacy”: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory and Language 41: 416–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Röhm, D., I. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, and M. Schlesewsky. 2007. The internal structure of the N400: Frequency characteristics of language related ERP component. Chaos and Complexity Letters 2(2): 365–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skopeteas, S., and G. Fanselow. 2009. Effects of givenness and constraints on free word order. In Information structure: Theoretical, typological and experimental perspectives, ed. M.Zimmerman and C. Féry, 307–331. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skopeteas, S., and G. Fanselow. 2010. Focus in Georgian and the expression of contrast. Lingua 120: 1370–1391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skopeteas, S., C. Féry, and R. Asatiani. 2009. Word order and intonation in Georgian. Lingua 119(1): 102–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiebels, B. 2000. Typologie des Argumentlinkings: Ökonomie und Expressivität. Habilitationsschrift: Heinrich-Heine University of Düsseldorf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tschenkéli, K. 1958. Einführung in die georgische Sprache, Bd. I-II. Zürich: Amirani Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuite, K. 1987. Indirect transitives in Georgian. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 296–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolford, E. 2006. Lexical case, inherent case and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1): 111–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wunderlich, D. 1997. Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 27–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yip, M., J. Maling, and R. Jackendoff. 1987. Case in tiers. Language 63(2): 217–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks go to Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Caroline Féry, Robin Hörnig, Matthias Schlesewsky, Barbara Stiebels, Shravan Vasishth, Thomas Wier, the editors of this volume and an anonymous reviewer for stimulating discussions. We are grateful to Shorena Bartaia, Tamar Khisanishvili and Tamar Kvaskhvadze that contributed their grammaticality intuitions about Georgian sentences. Many thanks also to Ani Asatiani, Shorena Bartaia, Nana Chidrashvili, Natja Dundua and Nutsa Tsereteli who collaborated in the development and the performance of the experiments in Tbilisi. This paper evolved within the project D2 ‘Typology of Information Structure’, which is part of the SFB 632 ‘Information Structure’ at the University of Potsdam/Humboldt University Berlin (funded by the DFG).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Linguistics Department, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

    Stavros Skopeteas & Gisbert Fanselow

  2. Faculty of linguistics and literary studies, University of Bielefeld, 10 01 31, 33501, Bielefeld, Germany

    Stavros Skopeteas

  3. Institute for Oriental Studies, Georgian Academy of Sciences, Tbilisi, Georgia

    Rusudan Asatiani

Authors
  1. Stavros Skopeteas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gisbert Fanselow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rusudan Asatiani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stavros Skopeteas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Language & Communication, Vrij Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, Netherlands

    Monique Lamers

  2. , Center for Language & Cognition, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Oude Kijk in 'tJatstraat 26, Groningen, 9712 EK, Netherlands

    Peter de Swart

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Class 1 (Experiment I)

dač’ris ‘he/she will wound him/her’; dabans ‘he/she will wash him/her’; dak’argavs ‘he/she will loose him/her’; irčevs ‘he/she chooses him/her’; a γmertebs ‘he/she admires him/her’; k’lavs ‘he/she kills him/her’; xedavs ‘he/she sees him/her’; at’arebs ‘he/she carries him/her’; malavs ‘he/she hides him/her’; da γlis ‘he/she makes him/her tired’; acek’vebs ‘he/she causes him/her to dance’; avar ǯišebs ‘he/she makes him/her to exercise’; am γerebs ‘he/she makes him/her to sing’; atamašebs ‘he/she causes him/her to play’; amušavebs ‘he/she makes him/her to work’; amepebs ‘he/she puts him/her on the throne’.

1.2 Class 2 (Experiment II)

elodeba ‘he/she waits him/her’; šeepereba ‘he/she suits him/her’; šeesabameba ‘he/she fits him/her’; šeesat’q’viseba ‘he/she corresponds him/her’; etamašeba ‘he/she plays with him/her’; elap’arak’eba ‘he/she speaks with him/her’; ečxubeba ‘he/she fights/quarrels him/her’.

1.3 Class 4 (Experiment II)

st’umrobs ‘he/she visits him/her’; uq’vars ‘he/she loves him/her’; s ӡuls ‘he/she hates him/her’; mosc’ons ‘he/she likes him/her’; avic’q’deba ‘he/she forgets him/her’; axsovs ‘he/she remembers him/her’; enat’reba ‘he/she misses him/her’; sč’irdeba ‘he/she needs him/her’; aint’eresebs Footnote 6 ‘he/she interests/wonders him/her’.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Skopeteas, S., Fanselow, G., Asatiani, R. (2012). Case Inversion in Georgian: Syntactic Properties and Sentence Processing. In: Lamers, M., de Swart, P. (eds) Case, Word Order and Prominence. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, vol 40. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1463-2_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation