Chapter 1 Introduction

Transcription

1 Chapter 1 Introduction This dissertation is a study of reflexivization strategies in Georgian, a language of the Kartvelian (/South Caucasian) family, spoken in Georgia by around 4 million people and furthermore by around 1 million in Iran, Turkey, Europe and the United States. Although the term South Caucasian is popular and widely used in the literature, it shows more the geographic location of the family, than the actual genetic relationship towards the other autochthonous language families spoken in Caucasus North-West Caucasian and North-East Caucasian [Wor05]. The relationship between the two North Caucasian families has not even been proven to be genetic yet [Kli65, KK03]. In general, the Caucasus as a whole does not form a Sprachbund and can therefore not be referred to as a linguistic areal, as is possible in the case of the Balkans, India, etc. [Tui99]. Apart from Georgian, the Kartvelian language family consists of Svan, Megrelian and Laz (the latter one mostly spoken in Turkey as well as in the South West Georgian province Adjara). The Megrelian dud-/du- (cf. Megr. dudi/ti head [Kip14, Mar64a]), Laz ti- (cf. Laz dudi/ti head [Mar10, Mar64a]), Svan txvim/txum (cf. Svan txwim/txum head [Mar64a, Boe01, Boe03]) are all being used as reflexive pronouns. They seem either to use the grammaticalized body-part noun for head, in the corresponding languages, or a derived form of this [FS90, KK03]. It has been argued in the literature that the reflexive pronouns in these languages are innovations and must have developed recently under the immediate influence of Georgian, which employs the grammaticalized body-part noun tav- head as a reflexive pronoun [Mar64a]. Even for Georgian proper it has been argued by [Mar64a, p. 126], [Mar64b, p. 123] that the reflexive pronouns in Old Georgian were first used in the literary language and only later in the official spoken language as well as in various Georgian dialects. It is even claimed by [Mar64a, p. 109] that (presumably by the year 1964, which is the date of the publication) the Georgian reflexive pronoun tav- is not really as established as other classes of pronouns are. 1 1 The relevant passage from [Mar64a, p. 109] is as follows: Ø Ú ÖÓ ÓÖ Ù Ù Ú Ø Ò Ú Ð Ü ¹ Ð ÖØÙÐ Ö Ø Ú Ò Ð ÖÑÓÒ ÑÒ Ò º Ñ Ö Ú ÑÓ ÓÚ ÙÐ ÑÓ Ú Ø Ð ÑØÐ Ò Ü ÖÓ ÓÖ ÜÚ Ò Ú Ð Ü Ð Ü Ø Øº 1

2 2 Chapter 1. Introduction This dissertation will challenge this claim by investigating the syntax of the modern Georgian reflexive pronouns. Naturally, the reflexives contrast with other classes of pronouns by having their own function and purpose, but this does not make them less established or their use either obscure or unclear. After considering several morphosyntactic issues of Georgian (e.g., case and agreement marking in Chapter 2) the dissertation will investigate the use of the Georgian reflexives within the generative Binding Theory of [Cho81] in Chapter 3 in order to find out their distribution. Moreover, it will be argued that Georgian in fact possesses two nominal reflexivization strategies based on the grammaticalized body-part tav- head, that are diachronically related but synchronically distinct. The first one is the complex strategy a reflexive phrase employing the tav- as a head of the phrase and a possessive as its determiner. The second one is the simplex strategy the tav- used as a head without a determiner but with the obligatory presence of the verbal reflexive marker, the prefix i- in the verb form. Chapter 3 will argue that both strategies behave as an anaphor by being obligatorily bound in a local domain by a c-commanding antecedent. Additionally, the chapter will deal with the Georgian reciprocals and their form as well as their distribution within the Binding Theory [Cho81]. Since verbal reflexive marking is not an issue in the Binding Theory of [Cho81] and as there are not many means to dig further into the differences between the two Georgian nominal reflexivization strategies, Chapter 4 will deal with another theory of referential dependencies and reference maintenance the Reflexivity Theory of [RR93]. This theory takes into close consideration the verb semantics by distinguishing between those verbs that are inherently reflexive and those that are not. Furthermore, the theory does not only distinguish between pronominals and anaphors, as does the Binding Theory of [Cho81], but in fact makes a difference between pronominals, SELF type anaphors and SE type anaphors. This distinction is made on the basis of the two features [±SELF] and [±R] by which nominal expressions can be characterized. An expression is [+SELF] if it makes a reflexive reading of a predicate possible and it is [+R] if it is referentially independent by possessing, for instance, features like gender, person and number. In [RR93] pronominals are classified as [-SELF]; [+R] based on the fact that they are able to reflexivize a predicate and are referentially independent. The SE type anaphors, as for instance, the Dutch zich, have the feature composition [-SELF]; [-R] because it is unable to reflexivize a predicate (and mostly occurring with inherent reflexive verbs) and because it is referentially dependent [RR93]. As for the SELF type anaphors, as for instance, the Dutch zichzelf, they are characterized as [+SELF]; [-R] because of the ability to reflexivize and because they are referentially dependent. The most important claim of the Reflexivity Theory by [RR93] is that the verbal semantics are in close interaction with the distribution of the anaphors. For, if the SELF type anaphors are absolutely necessary to make a reflexive reading of a non-reflexive predicate possible, the SE type anaphors are insufficient and ungrammatical. However, the SE type anaphors are grammatical with inherently reflexive verbs while the SELF type anaphors are redundant and forcing a focused reading. In addition, SE anaphors occur

3 3 as subjects of small clauses and in locative PP, where they can be covalued with an antecedent without forming a reflexive predicate. In Chapter 4, the two Georgian nominal reflexivization strategies will be investigated with respect to their referential properties and reflexivizing ability. It will be shown that the Georgian simplex reflexivization strategy uses a SE type anaphor, while the complex strategy uses a [+SELF]; [+R] element. Note that by having both features positive the Georgian complex reflexivization strategy does not fit into the classification of [RR93]. Thus, the Georgian data offered in this dissertation give an opportunity to investigate the syntax of anaphoric structures of a type not dealt with in the Reflexivity Theory of [RR93]. Furthermore, the behavior of the two nominal strategies will be considered with regard to the verbal reflexive marker i-, which makes a reflexive reading of a predicate possible. Chapter 5 will offer some data which seemingly violate both the Binding Theory [Cho81] and the Reflexivity Theory [RR93], which can be seen in the case of so-called object camouflage. The term has first been used by [Har81] to describe the use of a phrase headed by the grammaticalized body-part tav- head and preceded by a possessive determiner (thus, formally identical with the Georgian complex reflexivization strategy), to facilitate the needs of agreement. In Georgian, any 3-argument verb form is coded for the 3rd person direct object by default. However, whenever the direct object taken by a verb is in 1st or 2nd person, the language uses a kind of camouflaging tool to wrap a non-3rd person argument into a 3rd person NP. The phrase headed by tav- and preceded by a determiner is an ideal tool for camouflage as the determiner shows the referential features of the direct object while the phrase as a whole triggers the 3rd person agreement. Therefore it is not in conflict with the phi-features encoded in the verb form. It will be argued here, that in the case of object camouflage, the seemingly complex anaphor is not actually an anaphor but a pronominal. It has no antecedent either in the clause or in the previous/following discourse, but refers to the direct object of the 3-argument verb. Georgian seems to illustrate two different kinds of uses of the phrase headed by the grammaticalized body-part tav- head. One use is anaphoric, requiring a co-argument antecedent (see Chapter 3 and particularly Subsection 3.4.2) and the another use in object camouflage is pronominal (see Chapter 5 and particularly Section 5.2). 2 The Georgian data illustrates the effects of grammaticalization of body-parts and, more generally, that of nouns. In Georgian, the lexeme tav- head got grammaticalized into a morpheme of various functions, both anaphoric and non-anaphoric (see also [AL02]). It will be argued that for the morpheme tav-, the body-part semantics are responsible for it becoming an anaphor eventually. However, the agreement marking properties of the phrase headed by tav-, and the fact that it is a 3rd person NP, is due to it having originated from a noun. Chapter 5 presents some additional challenges for the Binding Theory [Cho81] and 2 See also [Har81] for an argumentation for distinguishing the two different phenomena.

4 4 Chapter 1. Introduction the Reflexivity Theory [RR93], such as the Georgian complex reflexivization strategy and the Georgian reciprocal ertmanet-, used as a subject argument of a verb. It is well-known that there has been a discussion in the literature on the ban of subject use of anaphors. The attempts to explain the subject anaphor gap will be considered in Chapter 6. An example of this is the so called anaphor agreement effect/principle by [Riz90], according to which anaphors do not occur in syntactic positions construed with agreement. The universality of the principle has been acknowledged by [Woo99], who claims that if anaphors still trigger an agreement, it will be either anaphoric or default. The chapter argues furthermore that by having agreeing anaphors both in object and in subject position, Georgian represents a counter-example for both versions of the principle [Riz90, Woo99]. Additionally, Chapter 6 considers the explanation for the availability of the Greek anaphoric phrase as a subject argument, offered by [AE99] within the Reflexivity Theory of [RR93]. As claimed by [AE99], the form and anaphoric properties make it possible for the Greek anaphor, which is [+SELF;+R], to appear in any position, including the subject position. By analogy to the Greek facts discussed in [AE99], the previously reported subject uses of the Georgian complex reflexivization strategy [AE00] could possibly be explained by [Eve01] and [Eve03] using the form of the anaphor and it being a [+SELF;+R] reflexivization strategy. However, Chapter 6 will argue against the importance of the form of the complex strategy in its distribution. Among other arguments, the Georgian reciprocal ertmanetwill be used to comment on this issue. This reciprocal can appear as a subject argument of a verb (see Chapter 5 and, in particular, Section 5.5) but which cannot be qualified as a [+SELF;+R] anaphor. The chapter illustrates that there are some similarities between the verb forms and verb readings taking the Georgian anaphors as a subject argument, and therefore it is suggested to have a closer look at the lexical semantics and the thematic structure of the verbs involved in the phenomenon. Lastly, Chapter 7 will discuss the use of the Georgian complex reflexive as a subject argument in a more detail. The data used, comes from the studies published since 1982 [Asa82] up to the present, as well as some from the fieldwork notes made by the author of this dissertation in 1999 and 2001 in Georgia. It will be argued in the chapter that the data illustrates a binding, rather than a coreference relation between the anaphor in subject position and its postcedent. Two main readings of the anaphors will be identified: One with the complex reflexive phrase interpreted as an aspect/property of the postcedent and another one as an image/representation of the postcedent. Both uses represent a challenge for the Binding Theory [Cho81] as well as for the Reflexivity Theory [RR93] by violating the relevant principles of those theories. Recently, complex anaphors have been analyzed as a relevant function of the antecedent [Reu01]. Since the Georgian complex reflexive phrase in subject position gets interpreted either as an aspect/property or as an image/representation (thus, as some kind of function) of the postcedent, the analysis by [Reu01] could in principle be applied to the Georgian data. However, the Georgian reciprocal ertmanet-, which gets interpreted similarly in subject

5 position but does not appear to have the same structure as the complex anaphors, will be argued to make the application of the analysis by [Reu01] problematic. In Chapter 8, the conclusions of this dissertation will be presented. 5