This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Tuite: Vamling review 13-03-02 — 1
Review of Complementation in Georgian by Karina Vamling [Travaux de l’institut de linguistique de Lund #23; Lund University Press, 1989] 165 pp.
Long-time readers of this journal will have already made the acquaintance of the Georgian language through the works of the late Hans Vogt, who was one of the first non-Georgians to undertake its detailed investigation. The book under review — Complementation in Georgian [henceforth CIG] by Karina Vamling [KV] — represents an attempt to devise a formal model for generating a certain class of complex constructions in Georgian. The word ‘complement,’ as used here, denotes clauses — including nominalized clauses — which function as the subject or object of a matrix (main) predicate. The data presented in CIG show that the distribution of verb forms in complement clauses correlates with a semantic distinction, described below, between ‘Truth’ and ‘Action’ information modalities. The author also compiles and analyzes data on control in Georgian, and, on the basis of these and other facts, proposes a model for one segment of the Georgian lexicon. 1.1. Verb forms and complement types. The Georgian language has a dozen or so verb forms (also known as ‘screeves’ in the Kartvelological literature). They can be grouped, on the basis of morphological and syntactic characteristics, into three series. Within each series verb forms are distinguished by, among other things, the suffixes they allow. These suffixes are portmanteau forms, indicating tense and mood as well as the person and number of the NP controlling Set V (or ‘subject’) agreement. The distribution of verb forms according to series and tense/mood/person/number suffixes is shown in the following chart:
[INSERT TABLE 1 HERE]
The symmetric pattern of Middle Georgian verb forms has altered somewhat. The permansive and (except in highly marked contexts) the perfect conjunctive have disappeared from the modern literary language. On the other hand, the pluperfect, formally and historically a past-
usually with a difference in meaning. Ransom (1986). Tuite: Vamling review 13-03-02 — 2 2 indicative verb form. only verb forms from the first two columns in Table 1 can occur in Truth-type complements in Georgian. and the events expressed in the matrix and complement clauses specify. Some Georgian verbs specify complements of one modality or the other: vici ‘I know’ requires a Truth-modality complement. rom nino c’avida (‘I convinced Vano [that it is true that] Nino left’) and [Action modality] davajere vanoj.e. and ‘Action’ is the single deontically-oriented modality.1 The temporal relations among the event of utterance. Briefly put. among them — as KV demonstrates — information modality. The distinction it captures is that between complements of the epistemic type (which express knowledge and information) and those of the deontic type (which express an act or state of affairs to be realized). in most instances. 65). A third group of predicates allows both types. can be condensed into the following table: [INSERT TABLE 2 HERE] Compare the use of verb forms in these two Georgian sentences: [Truth modality] damenana. has come to function as a past modal as well. Their distribution is dependent on various factors. This latter term has been taken from a study by E. and upleba makvs ‘I have the right’ (a phrase functioning as a lexical unit) must have an Action-modality complement (pp 60. rom xidi dac’ves (‘I regretted [aorist] that they burnt [aorist] the bridge’) and [Action modality] . and conversely. 67-72). the particular verb form to be employed in the complement. only those from the third column (‘modal’) are acceptable in Action-type complements. The ‘Truth’ modality is one of three epistemically-oriented modalities recognized by Ransom (the other two — Future Truth and Occurrence — are categorized as Truth modality with particular timereference restrictions in CIG). Almost all of the above verb forms can occur in Georgian complement clauses.K. expressed in time-line diagrams in CIG (pp. This information. compare [Truth modality] davajere vano. rom Øj c’avides (‘I convinced [i. persuaded] Vano to leave’) (pp. 92-93).
2. 87): vap’ireb rom es gavak’eto I-intend-it that it I-do-it[optative] ‘Ia intend to Øa do it’ *vap’ireb I-intend-it rom es gaak’etos that it s/he-do-it[optative] ‘Ia intend that s/heb do it’ vtxov mas rom es gaak’etos it s/he-do-it[optative] I-request-it him/her that ‘Ia ask him/herb to Øb do it’ *vtxov mas rom es gavak’eto it I-do-it[optative] I-request-it him/her that ‘Ia ask him/herb that Ia do it’ Other complement-taking verbs have no such control restrictions: minda rom es gavak’eto I-want-it that it I-do-it[optative] ‘Ia want to Øa do it’ . Certain verbs which take Action-modality complements require that the subject of the complement be coreferent with either the subject or object of the matrix clause. 1. The second major body of data presented in CIG concerns constraints upon the reference of complement subjects. rom xidi daec’vat (‘I commanded them [aorist] that they burn [pluperfect] the bridge’).K. Control. Tuite: Vamling review 13-03-02 — 3 3 vubrdzane mat. as in the following sentences (p.
at best. and they can be grouped according to the semantic categories developed by Sag and Pollard (1988:14): commitment type [controller = agent]. i. Lexical representation. 110).g. minda). Two Georgian verbs. however. This is clear evidence that certain control configurations are less marked than others (p. directive type [controller = goal]. 114-115. and object-subject coreference for verbs such as vtxov.2 the reference of the (underlying) subject follows the control pattern for finite complements. attitude type [controller = experiencer](p. marginally acceptable. a non-finite complement prefers the coreference interpretation. 140). KV formulates a model for the lexical listings of Georgian verbs.K. subject-subject coreference for verbs such as vap’ireb. ‘Ia want for youb the Øa taking away Øb’) In the case of non-finite complements. e. gindomeb I-want-it-for-you sen yousg c’aq’vanas taking-away[dative] ‘Ia want to take youb away’ (lit. 1. while the disjoint reference interpretation is.3. are characterized by a double control requirement: the matrix controls the complement subject. Where both coreference and disjoint reference are possible in a finite complement (e. On the basis of facts such as those presented in the preceding two sections. Tuite: Vamling review 13-03-02 — 4 4 minda rom es gaak’etos I-want-it that it s/he-do-it[optative] ‘Ia want that s/heb do it’ The control properties of most Georgian verbs do not differ significantly from those of their equivalents in other languages.g. and rules for deriving . 144-145).e. and the matrix indirect object controls the complement object (pp.
corresponding to Aronson’s 2nd conjugation. that. Tuite: Vamling review 13-03-02 — 5 5 the surface form of matrix-complement constructions from information contained in the lexicon. Step 2: Action modality imposes time reference restriction on complement: [tc > (follows) tm]. A complex sentence meaning ‘Nino asked me to paint her. The semantic information for a verb includes its meaning. .‘paint. Pollard and I. that is. neutral. and the arguments to which it assigns semantic roles.’ would be generated through the following steps: Step 1: txov is directive-type verb. in conjunction with the verb class specification. but with certain modifications. or ‘subject. the lexical class to which it belongs. ±N). or dative-subject verbs (Aronson’s 4th conjugation). and indirect. Complement-taking verbs have additional information in their lexical entries. 142).‘ask’ and da-xat’. KV recognizes three classes. or ‘object’). which will determine the configuration of the subordinate clause: [INSERT TABLE 3 HERE] KV gives an example to illustrate how her model works (p. the case assigned to their subjects and direct objects shifts according to verb-form series. syntactic and semantic. determines the mapping of semantic roles onto NPs with specific case and verb-agreement properties (the Georgian verb has two sets of agreement affixes: Set V. Once the verb form is selected. for a Georgian verb. and.’ and Set M. Sag. The information contained in the lexical entries is grouped under three headings: phonological. She states that her model is in the spirit of the Head-Driven Phrase-Structure Grammar framework of C.’ employing the Georgian verbs txov.K. Direct verbs undergo case shift. which corresponds to the 1st and 3rd conjugations of Aronson (1982) and Harris (1981). based on case-assignment and agreement patterns: direct. The syntactic component of the lexical entry includes category features (±V. which selects an Action modality complement.
The assumption here — and it is one that many Kartvelologists have made until recently — is that there are no indirect case-shifting verbs. there are. while dividing the non-case-shifting verbs into two sets. The model does need some refinement. Step 4: Both verbs are of the direct verb class. and the pluperfect form of da-xat’. such as m-a-int’ereseb-s ‘it interests me’ and m-a-pikreb-s ‘it makes me think’ (p. past-tense matrix + Action modality ([tc > tm]) = pluperfect complement. Step 5: Control: Directive-type verb also requires coreference of matrix object and complement subject. depending on whether their subject receives nominative case (‘neutral verbs’) or dative case (‘indirect verbs’). and represents. time reference restriction on complement: [tm < (precedes) T (utterance time)] = aorist or imperfect matrix verb. the first attempt to formulate a model which generates more than just case and agreement morphology. it does include some of the complement-taking verbs mentioned in CIG.assigns its subject dative case. Tuite: Vamling review 13-03-02 — 6 6 Step 3: Verb forms selected according to modality of complement.g. and while the number is not high. Well.K. The classification of verb types employed by KV sets case-shifting verbs in one group (‘direct’).1. as far as I know. the . KV’s representation of the lexical entries for Georgian verbs appears to be descriptively adequate. Verb classes. Output: ninom Nino[ergative] damexat’a mtxova she-asked-it-of-me[aorist] rom that I-paint-her[pluperfect] 2. Tests for subjecthood (e. and I believe the following components need to be corrected: 2. time reference of matrix. therefore the aorist form of txov assigns ergative case to its subject. 50). Assessment of the formal model in CIG.
In cases such as the above. I believe. . Tuite: Vamling review 13-03-02 — 7 7 binding of reciprocal pronouns) indicate that the formal direct object of these verbs is the semantic subject (Tuite 1987).K. that one should not always convert sequence-of-tense data directly into time lines. for example. form follows form. and in some cases that of the matrix clause (p.2. I-obtain-it[pluperfect] ‘I would like to obtain some information from you’ Contrast with the ‘unsoftened’ request: minda tkvengan zogierti inpormacia information I-want[present] youpl-from some mivi!o. Form and function. the verb form of an Action-type complement predicate is to be determined by its temporal reference. see Table 2). This occurs. According to the model. 2. with present-tense meaning. what Aronson & Kiziria (1989: Dialogue #5 note 32) refer to as ‘the automatic use of the pluperfect’ after past-tense matrix verbs. Note. when the conditional is used. I-obtain-it[optative] ‘I want to obtain some information from you’ This indicates. 71. however. not function. even when the determining form is employed with a marked time reference. to ‘soften’ requests: mindoda tkvengan zogierti inpormacia information I-would-want[conditional] youpl-from some mime!o. regardless of their temporal reference.
in one example. on the other hand.e. with Greek and Latin complex constructions. CIG.1. Alongside facts from contemporary Georgian. discussed in CIG. Hewitt. G. In addition to complements in the strict sense (i. data from the Northwest Caucasian language Abkhaz (which is unrelated to Georgian). The only other book devoted to this topic written in a West European language is The Typology of Subordination in Georgian and Abkhaz (1987) by the British linguist B. The section on ‘noun-clause complements’ is in fact almost exclusively given over to Truth-modality clauses. adverbial and adjectival subordinate clauses are discussed. A reader interested specifically in complementation will not find the topic discussed in one place in Hewitt (1987). Action-type complements are scarcely presented at all. Hewitt’s book is considerably broader in terms of the data it covers. clauses functioning as subjects or objects). for purposes of typological comparison. and. Comparison of CIG with Hewitt (1987). examples collected from Old Georgian texts are considered.2. Approach to complementation. 3. . Only sporadic mention is made of the differences between Modern and Old Georgian complementation. is a narrower and more focussed work. Since Hewitt (1987) and CIG are at present the only monographs on Georgian subordination accessible to most of the readers of this review. and tends not to stray far from its stated purpose. I will compare and contrast them briefly here. Since inter-clausal coreference restrictions are almost exclusively confined to Action modality complements in Georgian. The majority of works concerning complex sentences in Georgian — and there are quite a few — have been written in the Georgian language. which attempts to exhaustively describe the facts concerning Modern Georgian complements. because of their similarity to purpose clauses. Swedish. there is of course no discussion of control phenomena in Hewitt’s monograph. Hewitt also draws parallels. which are formally and semantically very similar to Action-type complements. Breadth and depth. the only languages from which data are drawn for comparison are English and. which are analyzed elsewhere in the book (Hewitt 1987:251-252). Tuite: Vamling review 13-03-02 — 8 8 3. Nor are adverbial purpose clauses. from time to time.K. 3.
in which some of the components of the diagram are given in the wrong order. 260-261). presents a significant obstacle to readers unfamiliar with Georgian. in particular. and the formal model proposed by KV represents these conclusions in a perspicuous manner. brick by brick as it were. By contrast. 12) appears to be correct. The two books have very different goals. I have noted a few mistakes and/or misprints. Comments on the text. Assessment. and each makes a useful contribution to Georgian studies in its own way. however. figure 11.3. conjunctions of a verb of saying or cognition with a direct quote (Hewitt 1987:219. The following diagram (fig. Hewitt (1987) is certainly more controversial. The book is written in flawless English. The exception is on p.K. 246-251. 125. save one. It is to be hoped that the extremely focussed nature of this book is an indication that the author intends to build. . 4. in that the author argues that many Georgian hypotactic constructions originated as paratactic syntagms. Tuite: Vamling review 13-03-02 — 9 9 3. a firm descriptive base from which in the course of time more wide-ranging conclusions will be drawn. and KV’s presentation of the Georgian data and the exposition of her ideas is clear and easy to follow. the conclusions drawn in CIG concerning the correlations between semantic classes of Georgian verbs and morphosyntactic phenomena such as verb form and coreference do not go beyond what is clearly shown by the data. none of which.
grouped by 3rd-person tense/mood suffixes [V3sg/V3pl] 1 (PRESENT) [-s/-en]. perfect pluperfect (perf.K. conjunctive fut. [-a/-nen] 3 (MODAL) [-s/-n]. conjunctive Series II (permansive) aorist optative Series III pres. [-(e)s/-nen] Series I present future imperfect conditional/ iterative pres. Tuite: Vamling review 13-03-02 — 10 10 TABLES: Table 1: Georgian verb forms. [-a/-an] 2 (PAST) [-a/-es]. conjunctive) > pluperfect .
K. tm = temporal reference of matrix clause. tc = temporal reference of complement clause] Constraint: tc > (follows) tm in Action clauses tc Action Truth future Future unmarked: optative marked: pluperfect* Present pluperfect present Past pluperfect unmarked: aorist marked: conditional** pluperfect*** pres. perfect**** *) optional if T > tm **) required when T > tc > tm ***) optional if T > tm > tc ****) adds resultative/evidential meaning . [T = time of utterance. Tuite: Vamling review 13-03-02 — 11 11 Table 2: Chart of complement clause verb forms according to information modality and temporal reference.
Tuite: Vamling review 13-03-02 — 12 12 Table 3: Partial lexical entry for complement-taking verbs in Georgian. other. 2. Modality of complement: Action and/or Truth. directive. [For verbs taking Action-type complements]: Type of control: commitment. or <c> no restriction. <b> must coincide. Time reference restriction on complement (tc): <a> must follow matrix (tm). . [Generalization: if Action-type complement. attitude. 4. 1. [For some classes of control verbs]: Constraint on reference of complement subject (disjoint or coreferent).K. tc > tm] 3.
The other two modal verb forms in Table 1 — the present and future conjunctive — appear in certain types of irrealis clauses. A. 1981. Tuite: Vamling review 13-03-02 — 13 13 REFERENCES: Aronson. Typological Studies in language. Georgian syntax: a study in relational grammar. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 13. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1988.K. Harris. 1987. & Pollard. D. . Tuite. 2 As KV notes (pp 102-4). The Typology of Subordination in Georgian and Abkhaz. Columbus. K. I. I. Unpublished ms. Ohio: Slavica. & Kiziria. Complementation: Its Meaning and Form. but not in complements. G. and a few require their complements to be non-finite (p 113). C. New York: Cambridge University Press. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Part II. 296-309. Sag. 10. 1982. A Semantic Theory of Obligatory Control. Aronson. Georgian: A Reading Grammar. H. I. Ransom. Hewitt. 1986. NOTES: 1 It follows that the pluperfect can appear in complements of both modalities: in Truth clauses in its ancient function of denoting past-anterior taxis. 1987. Unpublished ms. B. H. and in Action clauses in its newer role as past modal (pp 75-77). Indirect Transitives in Georgian. Georgian: A Reading Grammar. not all complement-taking verbs allow non-finite complements. 1989. Vol. E. University of Chicago.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.