Typological Peculiarities of the Georgian Passive and the Information Structure

Rusudan Asatiani

Institute for Oriental Studies;Tbilisi State University

Georgia

rus_asatiani@hotmail.com

I. Introduction: setting a task

Within the theory of functional grammar the Passive Construction (PC) is considered as a syntactic category: It is qualified as a conversive one of the corresponding active construction where the Patient is promoted to the subject position along the string of hierarchically organized functional categories (S>DO>IO), while the Agent is demoted and transformed into a prepositional phrase; so, it does not represent a core argument defined by the verb valency any more;

Yet, many languages present morphologically marked verb forms in such conversive constructions (resp. PC) and, consequently, it is possible to speak about the morphosyntactic category of passive voice.

In Georgian there is a clear formal opposition between the active (first of all, transitive) and the passive (first of all, active’s conversive) verb forms that is represented by special morphosyntactic features (*terms

“active”/“passive” are used conventionally):

“Active” “Passive”

S.3.SG suffix (in present)

-s -a

Thematic marker(in I-series tense forms)

-eb- -eb-, -ob-, -op-, -av-, -am-, -i-, -Ø-;

Special markers ---- i-, e-, -d, -Ø-

Subject case NOM(in present)/ERG(in Aorist)/DAT(in Perfect)

NOM

But, none of the features can be regarded as a simple morphosyntactic markers of the PC as far as they don’t exist just only in PC: Main function of -s, -a suffixes is to mark S.3.SG and representing this

function they can be found in various cases: (1) -s is a marker of S.3.SG in the forms of subjunctive mood of both, the passive and the active verbs; (2) –s represents S.3.SG of some static verbs (so called, medio-passives); and (3) -a can be the marker of active verbs S.3.SG in past tenses (Aorist, Perfect); etc.;

Main function of -eb- is to mark dynamic verb forms and expressing this function it exists with some active verbs as well;

Vowel prefixes are polyfunctional: in general, they represent derivational changes of verb valency – either appearance or disappearance of verb argument; e.g. -i- expresses such categories as subjunctive version, reflexive, potentialis, deponences and has an additional function to form the future tense of some medial (resp. medio-active) verbs;

Nominative is a case characteristic for the subjects of some intransitive (yet, not passive) verbs and Ergative (or Dative) can be the subject marker for any kind of intransitive (yet, active) verbs expressing active process.

Thus, we have two different formal models defined by the complex of morphosyntactic features that represent active-passive opposition; yet, the models can not be interpreted simply as far as

The Georgian morphosyntactically distingushed PC does not always show a conversion of an active one and it actually expresses various semantics: Active semantics – dgeba ‘S/he is standing up’, ekačeba ‘S/he tugs

hard at smth./smb.’, ac’veba ‘S/he pushes smth./smb.’, etc. Dynamic actions – tvreba ‘S/he gets drunk’, šreba ‘S/he dries’, tbeba ‘S/he

gets warm’, etc. Potentialis – ič’meba ‘It can be eaten’, ismeba ‘It is drinkable’, ik’itxeba ‘It

can be read’, etc. Reciprocals – etamašeba ‘S/he plays with sb.=They play together’,

ecek’veba ‘S/he dances with sb.=They dance together’, etc.

Tasks: What is the real function of the morphosyntactically differentiated

models? What is the actual semantics of Georgian so called PC? How does the Georgian PC fit to the universal functional

interpretation of PC? How can be qualified the Georgian PC? Is the Georgian PC defined functionally or semantically? And so on.

It is clear that the issue certainly needs further investigations.

II. Theoretical approaches Information Structure: According to the one theoretical approach

implemented in contemporary linguistics the active-passive functional differences can be explained by the variety of information structures.

During the linguistic structuring of extra-linguistic situations some languages conventionally conceptualize as the central part of information either Agent or Patient. The first construction formally emphasizes who is acting (Ag=focus), while the second emphasizes what is done (P=focus). From the grammatical point of view, conceptual foregrounding is represented by the unmarked, Nominative case: In the nominative languages (in active constructions) it is the Agent, who always stands in nominative, while in the ergative languages it is the Patient (and not the Agent) who appears in nominative.

Patient’s foregrounding in the nominative languages, where agent is conceptually highlighted part, can further be achieved by the changes of functional roles.

In PC the Patient is functionally promoted and it is defined as the Subject.

The term Subject actually denotes foregrounding of a certain part of information to whom or what the information concerns. Active construction shows Agent’s foregrounding (that means: Agent is the Subject and, consequently, stands in nominative), while Passive construction shows Patient’s foregrounding (that means: Patient is the Subject and, consequently, stands in nominative).

Thus, syntactic opposition between active and passive constructions can be provoked by different models of the information structuring.

The Georgian language shows split-ergativity and because of this the restrictions of passivization reflect more complicated processes defining the choices of either active or passive constructions.

Another device defining either appearance or disappearance of PC in Georgian is a relatively free word order that makes possible to put the focused patient in marked (mostly sentence initial and pre-verbal) position without any kind of functional promotion and/or demotion (resp. pasivization). Thus, PC is not the only means expressing the functional foregrounding of patient.

Consequently, the role of PC in the process of patient functional foregrounding in Georgian needs further investigations as well.

Methodology Sentences raised in natural speech conversation are the most valuable for

seeking the main formal models of information structures. Stimulation of such situations is possible by means of specially created experimental tasks.

Our empirical data is collected using the Questionnaire on Information

Structure (QUIS), which is being developed within the Sonderforschungs-bereich 632 “Information Structure” at the University of Potsdam and the Humboldt University Berlin (SKOPETEA & ALL 2006).

QUIS comprises a set of translation tasks and production experiments for the collection of primary data.

The ‘production experiments’ contain a range of experimental settings that introduce spontaneous expressions (e.g. picture descriptions, map tasks, some plays and etc.).

For our goals the following experiments were especially interesting:

Description of the experimental task:  The special experiment explores the interrelation between patient’s

animacy and agent’s visibility in the process of PC appearance.

It is assumed that, in general, the appearance of PC is more probable: with animate patient and less probable with inanimate one; with the agent that is not identifiable and less probable with the agent

that is identifiable.

Logically possible all (four) different cases are presented in pictures: AC:the patient is animate: the agent is identifiable; AD: the patient is animate: the agent is non-identifiable; BC: the patient is inanimate: the agent is identifiable; BD: the patient is inanimate: the agent is non-identifiable;

Pictures

Procedure: The instructor says:

You will be shown two scenes that belong together; that is, they belong to the same story. Imagine that the first scene takes place first and the second scene some times later, e.g. after five minutes. Please give a short description of what is going on in each scene. The instructor shows the first picture to the informant and asks:

What is going on in this scene?

Then the instructor shows the second picture and asks:What is going on in this scene?

Analysis On the basis of the semi-spontaneous data, which is conducted during the 4

field sessions (16 informants, mostly students) using this QUIS experiment task, PC in Georgian is not defined by the invisibility of agents and/or by the animacy of patients and it does not always suppose the changes of syntactic functions:

During the information structuring, when an invisible Agent together with the animate Patient is presented in

the situation and PC might be the most appropriate construction (e.g. in languages like English or German mostly PC is created by informants), Georgian informants prefer to use active constructions with uncertain subject represented either by S.3.PL suffixes, or by the indefinite pronouns viɣac/raɣac ‘sb./smth.’, and marked word order showing patient topicalization.

Examples: (1) [BOtl-s]T k’r-aven pex-s

bottle-DAT push-HAB-ACT.PRS.S.3.PL foot-DAT ‘(They) are pushing the bottle.’(2) [MA-s]T viɣac pex-s u-rt’q’-am-s. 3.SG-DAT somebody foot-DAT [IO.3]OV-hit-TH-ACT.PRS.S.3.SG ‘Somebody is hitting him with foot.’

Results

Patient’s foregrounding is not expressed by PC in Georgian: there is no functional foregrounding and the patient and/or the agent doesn’t change their functional qualifications.

This is one more argument to interpret Georgian passive as a grammatical category supposedly governed by semantic (or, more widely, by cognitive) and not by syntactic features.

Consequently, it is necessary to find these semantic-cognitive features that define the formal opposition between the active and the passive morphologically distinguished models of formal representations.

Cognitive-semantic interpretation of active-passive morphosyntactic oppositions: A continuum of active-passive opposition   In many languages, like in Georgian, active-passive constructions do not

always express syntactically defined conversive forms and the passive formal model is used to mark some other related constructions as well. In general, there are languages where passive formal model marks reflexives and reciprocals (e.g. Russian); in some languages it goes further and expresses other grammatical relations as well; e.g. in Japanese it is the formal representation for potential actions, polite constructions and, moreover, plural forms. So, naturally, some attempts of new theoretical approaches have been raised to explain such cases. One of such approaches is SHIBATANI’s interpretation (SHIBATANI 1985).

SHIBATANI considers the active-passive opposition as a continuum where polar dimensions fit in with the prototypical active and passive constructions while non-polar, inter-medial cases share just only some semantic-categorical features of the categories which are characteristic for the prototypical ones: 

Prototypical active / Medial forms / Prototypical passive

AM PM

Languages choose various strategies for formal representations of such non-polar (let’s call them “Medial”) cases: they either create the new formal models or choose from the existing ones the model that is conventionally regarded as the most appropriate, more close according to certain semantic-categorical features – either the active or the passive model.

In such cases, simple functional (resp. changing of syntactic functions) or semantic (resp. defining active-passive semantics) interpretation of formal models is much more complicated and sometimes impossible.

III. The Georgian data

Georgian active-passive continuumGeorgian active-passive opposition might be interpreted as a continuum, where prototypical active corresponds to transitive active constructions representing by the active model, while prototypical passive defined by the patient’s foregrounding corresponds to active construction’s conversive form representing by the passive model;

The medial forms grammaticalization process can be explained by the following general cognitive tendency:

During the formal representation of medial forms Georgian chooses either the active or the passive formal model. The strategy of choice is defined by the specific, conventionally accepted linguistic “decision”: which categorical-semantic features of prototypical constructions are regarded as the central, main ones.

For demonstrating such categorical-semantic features the following linguistic empirical facts which are observed during the process of formal representations of some intransitive medial forms must be taken into account:

If a medial (resp. prototypically non-active and/or non-passive) verb semantics tends toward an end (that is, it is semantically

the telic one), then a verb chooses the passive formal model of representation; and if a medial verb semantics does not tend toward an end (that is, it is semantically the atelic one) then a verb chooses the active formal model of representation.

It is quite easy to give general formal interpretation of the fact:If a verb with medial semantics can take just one preverb showing

some direction of action (sometimes creating the new semantics of a verb) in future tense, then the verb has “passive form”.

Examples: Compare –

dgeba ‘S.3.SG is getting up’ : a-dgeba ‘S.3.SG will stand up’/gada-dgeba ‘S.3.SG will stand elsewhere’/c’ar-dgeba ‘S.3.SG will step forward’ /ča- dgeba ‘S.3.SG will stand in’;

emaleba ‘S.3.SG is hiding from smth. or smb.’ : da-emaleba ‘S.3.SG will hide from smth. or smb.’;

ac’veba ‘S.3.SG is pressing down’ : mi-ac’veba ‘S.3.SG will push against smth. or smb./da-ac’veba ‘S.3.SG will lie down on smth. or smb.’;

With – cxovrobs ‘S.3.SG lives’; pikrobs ‘S.3.SG thinks’; arsebobs ‘S.3.SG exists’;

k’ank’alebs ‘S.3.SG shivers’; goravs ‘S.3.SG rolls’; suntkavs ‘S.3.SG breathes’; bč’obs ‘S.3.SG discusses’; brialebs ‘S.3.SG sparkles’; etc.)

As far as in Georgian preverbs have additional functions and they can express Perfective-Imperfective aspect opposition and the Future Tense forms, it is possible to reveal the semantic feature (resp. “completeness” of an action) which governs the choice of passive formal model for some medial verbs and the above given interpretation turns into the following semantically oriented interpretation:

If a medial verb with the concrete semantics implies the differences between the imperfective (resp. incomplete) and the perfective (resp. complete)

aspect forms, then a medial verb is grammaticalized as a prototypical passive and chooses the passive formal model.

Cognitively more predictable would be if such medial forms have chosen the active formal model of representation as far as the perfective/imperfective aspect is the characteristic category for active verbs, yet, if we take into account general cognitive principles of formal markedness, it can be seen, that in Georgian processes of linguistic structuring are defined by the following general tendency:

Non-prototypical passive (and it is non-prototypical because it can (like an active one) differentiate completeness/incompleteness of an

action), as being cognitively marked, uses formally the most marked model (resp. the passive formal model) of representation.

IV. Broadened continuum

Such cognitive-semantic interpretations of active-passive continuum could be broadened comprising all spectrums of medial verb forms including so called static passives and medio-passives, and the process of information structuring can be reinterpreted as hierarchically organized one, where another opposition of categories – “dynamic/static” – takes a distinctive role and is formally grammaticalized according to the following restriction:

If medial verb form expresses static event, then a verb in present has auxiliary conjugation.

That is, Georgian creates the new model (different from either active or passive one) of formal representation with auxiliary conjugation: Examples:

(1) me(1.SG) v(S.1)-dga(stand)-v(S.1)-ar(be.SG)

šen(2.SG) (S.2)dga(stand)-x(S.2)-ar(be.SG) is(3.SG) dga(stand)-s(S.3.SG)

(2) me(1.SG) v(S.1)-gd(lie)-i-v(S.1)-ar(be.SG) šen(2.SG) (S.2)gd(lie)-i-x(S.2)-ar(be.SG)

is(3.SG) gd(lie)-i-a(S.3.SG).

Such medial verbs fall into two subgroups following either the (1)-type of conjugation (according to the Georgian grammatical tradition so called static passives) or the (2)-type conjugation (so called medio-passives) distinguished by S.3.SG suffix presented in presented tense: Examples of the (1)-type with S.3.SG suffix -a:

gdia ‘S.3.SG lies strewn/thrown about’; q’ria ‘S.3.SG lie scattered/strewn’, penia ‘S.3.SG is spread out’; k’idia ‘S.3.SG is hanging on’; c’eria ‘S.3.SG is written’; xat’ia ‘S.3.SG is drawn’; abia ‘S.3.SG is tied (on)’, and etc.Examples of the (2)-type with S.3.SG suffix -s:

dgas ‘S.3.SG stands’; c’evs ‘S.3.SG (smb.) lies’; zis ‘S.3.SG sits’; devs ‘S.3.SG (smth) lies’; ɣirs ‘S.3.SG costs’, c’uxs ‘S.3.SG worries’; and etc.

The functional differences are more refined and the discovering of specific semantic nuances defining the opposition needs more careful analysis. We can suggest some formal testing expression:

If a verb creates correct phrase with the adverb tavad 'itself, personally' (that is, the expressions like: tavad dgas, tavad c’evs, tavad c’uxs, and etc. are correct), then it chooses the active model; if such a phrase is not correct, the passive model of representation is chosen (that is, the expressions like:*tavad gdia, *tavad kidia, *tavad c’eria and etc. are unnatural or bad).

The testing adverb helps us to distinguish the feature: “personally, according to the subjects will, controlled state, a state that is provoked by the subject”. Let’s denote this feature by the term “Autotive” and formulate the following tendency:

A verb conceptually close to autotive chooses the active model, while verbs expressing a state that is not controlled or provoked by the subject itself choose the passive model.

Thus, we can summarize all our discussion and suggest the dynamic model which supposedly mirrors cognitive-semantic grounds of the formal represetation of active-passive opposition including the medial forms.

 

V. Hierarchically organized dynamic model

Linguistic representations of active, passive and medial verb forms can be reinterpreted as a hierarchically organized realizations of cognitive processes that define the choices of either the New (NM) or the Active (AM) or the Passive (PM) formal models:

I stage: Prototypically active and prototypically passive relations are represented by the main formal models: the active (resp. transitive, showing agent’s foregrounding) and the passive (resp. conversive, showing patient’s functional foregrounding) constructions;

II stage: Medial (non-prototypical) relations are marked according to the two different strategies:

1. The new model is created;2. Either active or passive models of representation have been chosen.

The strategies of choices are defined by the specific cognitive processes and semantic features. First of all, the feature “Dynamic - Static” plays a decisive role:

Verbs expressing “Static” states are marked according to the 1-strategy and the new model of conjugation with the auxiliary verb ‘to be’ is chosen, while verbs expressing “Dynamic” action choose either active or passive formal model of representation (2-strategy).

III stage: For “Dynamic” subgroup further choices are defined by the semantic feature telicity:

Telic medial verbs choose passive formal model of representation, while atelic medial verbs – the active model of representation.

For “Static” subgroup further choices are defined by the semantic feature “Autotive”:

Verbs denoting static states that are more or less controlled by the subject itself have the same S.3.SG ending in present tense as the active ones,

while all others choose the same S.3.SG suffix as the passive ones.

Thus, on the basis of formal and semantic-functional analysis of passive, active and medial verb forms it is possible to suggest the cognitive generative model that supposedly mirrors the hierarchically organized processes of grammaticalization:

prototypes non-prototypes

prototypical prototypical dynamic staticactive passive (thematic markers) (auxiliary conjugation) AM PM NM

telic atelic +autotive -autotive +preverb -preverb (-s) (-a)

PM AM

Active transitive / Conversive passive / Dynamic passive / Medio-Active / Medio-passive / Static passive

Examples of medial verbs: (1)-type medial verbs: dgeba ‘S.3.SG is standing up’, šreba ‘S.3.SG

becomes dry’, k’vdeba ‘S.3.SG dies’, xmeba ‘S.3.SG dries out’, tetrdeba ‘S.3.SG turns white’, k’acdeba ‘S.3.SG becomes man’, iq’epeba

‘S.3.SG barks’, igineba ‘S.3.SG is sworn at’, c’veba ‘S.3.SG lies down’, tvreba ‘S.3.SG gets drunk’, etc.

(2)-type medial verbs: cxovrobs ‘S.3.SG lives’, pikrobs ‘S.3.SG thinks’, arsebobs ‘S.3.SG exists’, k’ank’alebs ‘S.3.SG shivers’, goravs ‘S.3.SG rolls’, suntkav ‘S.3.SG breathes’, bč’obs ‘S.3.SG discusses’, brialebs ‘S.3.SG sparkles’, etc.

(3)-type medial verbs: dgas ‘S.3.SG stands’, c’evs ‘S.3.SG (smb.) lies’, zis ‘S.3.SG sits’, devs ‘S.3.SG (smth.) lies’, ɣirs ‘S.3.SG costs’, c’uxs ‘S.3.SG worries’, and etc.

(4)-type medial verbs: gdia ‘S.3.SG lies strewn/thrown about’, q’ria ‘S.3.SG lie scattered/strewn a lot of smth./smb.’, penia ‘S.3.SG is spread

out’, k’idia ‘S.3.SG is hanging on’, c’eria ‘S.3.SG is written’, xat’ia ‘S.3.SG is drawn’, abia ‘S.3.SG is tied’, and etc.

VI. Some notes and conclusions

We suppose that representing continuum of active-passive opposition and the dynamic hierarchically organized cognitive model explain the complex processes that define the choices of either the active or the passive formal models of representation for the non-prototypical medial forms in Georgian.

Efficiency of such approach confirms once more that Georgian morphological passive doesn’t always represent the syntactic changes implying by the information structuring, namely by the patient’s foregrounding.

Because of these peculiarities morphologically represented passive verb forms create an opposition with the syntactic passive that is formed by the periphrastic constructions:

{Passive Participle + auxiliary verb q’opna ‘to be’}

Examples: dac’erili=a ‘written+is’,

dac’eril ikna ‘written+was’ dac’eril ikneba ‘written+will be’

Main function of this opposition is to formalize the functional differences between syntactically defined and semantically defined passive constructions:

Periphrastic, analytical passive represents functional changes (resp. patient’s functional foregrounding) of semantic roles (Patient => Subject, Agent => Prepositional phrase), while synthetic, morphological passive can represent semantically passive (resp. prototypically inactive, yet, dynamic and telic) constructions.

Even in case when an active verb has not morphologically opposed passive, it still has periphrastically opposed conversive form:

Examples: ik’vlevs ‘(S)he researches smth.’ : gamok’vleulia ‘Smth. is researched’ (yet,

*ik’vleveba);

c’armoadgens ‘(S)he presents smth.’ : c’armodgenilia ‘Smth. is presented’ (yet, *c’armoidgineba);

arčevs ‘(S)he chooses smth./smb.’ : arčeulia ‘Smth./smb. is chosen’ (yet, *irčeva), and etc.

It can be concluded that Georgian analytical, periphrastic passive corresponds to the PC existing in some Indo-European languages (it is syntactically defined), while synthetic, morphological passive has different functional loading and represents mostly semantically (and not syntactically) defined peculiar forms.

References  ASATIANI, RUSUDAN (1982): mart’ivi c’inadadebis t’ip’ologiuri analizi. tanamedrove kartuli

salit’erat’uro enis masalaze (Typology of simple sentence. On the data of modern literary Georgian). Tbilisi: mecniereba; (2001): Conceptual Structure of Reflexive and Middle, in: Proceedings of 4th International Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation, Amsterdam: ILLC scientific publications, 5-16; (2007): inpormaciis st’rukt’urirebis sint’aksuri modelebi kartulshi, in: semiot’ik’a-II. Tbilisi: universali, 3-13; (2007): The Main Devices of Foregrounding in the Information Structure of Georgian Sentences. in: Proceedings of Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation - 2005. Amsterdam: Springer. 21-31;

CHAFE, WALLACE L. (1971): Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago and London: Chicago Un. Press.

CHIKOBAVA, ARNOLD (1968): mart’ivi c’inadadebis p’roblema kartulshi (The Problem of the Simple Sentence in Georgian). I. Tbilisi: mecniereba.

DAVITIANI, AK’AK’I (1973): kartuli enis sint’aksi. I. mart’ivi c’inadadeba(Syntax of the Georgian Language.I. Syntax). Tbilisi: ganatleba.

DIXON, ROBERT M.W. (1979): Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge Un. Press. ENUKIDZE, LEILA (1981): c’inadadebis akt’ualuri danac’evreba da misi mimarteba sint’aksuri da

semant’ik’uri analizis tanamedrove metodebtan (Actual Parsing of a Sentence and Its Relation to Contemporary Methods of Syntactic and Semantic Analysis, in: tanamedrove zogadi enatmecnierebis sak’itxebi VI. Tbilisi: enatmecnierebis inst’it’ut’i, 24-35.

HARRIS, ALICE (1998): Georgian Syntax: A Study in Relational Grammar. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press; (2000): Word Order Harmonies and Word Order Change In Georgian, in: Sornicola R, Poppe E., Haley A. (eds), Stability, Variation and Change of Word-Order Patterns over time. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 133-163.

HEWITT, GEORGE (1995): Georgian: A Structural Reference Grammar. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.

KVACHADZE, Levan (1996): tanamedrove kartuli enis sint’aksi Tbilisi: rubik’oni. KIBRIK, ALEXANDER (1997): Beyond Subject and Object: Toward a Comprehensive Relational

Typology. Linguistic Typology. I. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 279-346. SHANIDZE, AKAKI (1948): kartuli enis gramat’ik’a II. sint’aksi (Grammar of the Georgian

Language II. Syntax). Tbilisi: tsu gamomcemloba; (1973): kartuli enis gramat’ik’is sapudzvlebi (Principles of the Georgian Language Grammar). Tbilisi: tsu gamomcemloba.

SHIBATANI, MASAYOSHI (1985) Passives and Related constructions: A prototype Analysis. Language, Vol. 61, No4. Kobe: Kobe Un. Press.

SKOPETEAS, STAVROS & ALL (2006): Questionnaire on Information Structure (QUIS). Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 4. Working Papers of the SFB 632, Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.

TUITE, KEVIN (1998): Kartvelian morphosyntax. Munich: Lincom Europa.

Thank you!