Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-htx7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-30T10:44:59.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Georgian and the Unaccusative Hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Alice C. Harris
Alice C. Harris*
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has been observed that many languages exhibit a semantic, syntactic, or morphological correlation between the direct objects of transitive verbs and the surface subjects of certain inactive intransitives. The Unaccusative Hypothesis (UH) proposes, within the framework of Relational Grammar, that final subjects of this type are initial direct objects. This paper shows that several morphological and syntactic processes in Georgian refer to just these nominals, thus supporting the UH. It further shows that, although the semantic relations of nominals to verbs is not irrelevant, those morphological and syntactic processes which refer to initial direct objects cannot be stated simply on the basis of semantics.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , June 1982 , pp. 290 - 306
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Boeder, Winfried. 1979. Ergative syntax and morphology in language change: The South Caucasian languages. Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, ed. by Plank, Frans, 435–80. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1970a. Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1970b. A semantically based sketch of Onondaga. (Indiana U. Publ, in Anthro. & Ling., Memoir 25; IJAL 36:2, part II.) Baltimore.Google Scholar
Cnikobava, Arnold. 1950. Kartuli enis zogadi daxasiateba [A general characteristization of the Georgian language]. Kartuli enis ganmartebiti leksikoni, ed. by Cikobava, A., 1.018–080. Tbilisi: Sakartvelos mecnierebata akademiis gamomcemloba.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. 1973. Some thoughts on agentivity. JL 9.11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, William D. MS. Inversion in Choctaw. University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Lg. 55.59–138.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, Emmon & Harms, Robert T., 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 1980. N-Agreement in Old Georgian. [To appear in Studies in the languages of the USSR (International Review of Slavic Linguistics 5:1/2), ed. by Comrie, Bernard. Edmonton: Linguistic Research.]Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 1981a. From ergative to active in Georgian. [In the Proceedings of the Second Conference on Non-Slavic Languages of the Soviet Union, ed. by Aronson, Howard I. & Darden, William J., to appear in Folia Slavica.]Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 1981b. Georgian syntax: A study in relational grammar. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 1981c. Inversion as a rule of universal grammar: Georgian evidence. [To appear in Studies in relational grammar 2, ed. by Perlmutter, David M. and Rosen, Carol.]Google Scholar
Holisky, Dee Ann. 1978. Stative verbs in Georgian and elsewhere. The classification of grammatical categories (International Review of Slavic Linguistics 3:1/2), ed. by Comrie, Bernard, 139–62. Edmonton: Linguistic Research.Google Scholar
Holisky, Dee Ann. 1980. A contribution to the semantics of aspect: Georgian medial verbs. University of Chicago dissertation. [To appear as Aspect and Georgian medial verbs, in the Anatolian and Caucasian studies series. Delmar, NY: Caravan Press.]Google Scholar
Imnaišvili, I. 1957. Saxelta bruneba da brunvata punkciebi Zvel kartulši [The declension of nouns and the function of cases in Old Georgian]. Tbilisi: Tbilisis saxelmçipo universitetis gamomcemloba.Google Scholar
Klimov, G. A. 1976. Anomalii èrgativnosti v lazskom (čanskom) jazyke. Aγmosavluri pilologia 4.150–59.Google Scholar
Klimov, G. A. 1977. Tipologija jazykov aktivnogo stroja. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
McLendon, Sally. 1975. A grammar of Eastern Pomo. (University of California publications in linguistics, 74.) Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
McLendon, Sally. 1978. Ergativity, case, and transitivity in Eastern Pomo. IJAL 44.1–9.Google Scholar
Matthews, G. H. 1965. Hidatsa syntax. (Papers on formal linguistics, 3.) The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merlan, Francesca, MS. Split-intransitivity: Functional oppositions in intransitive inflection. [To appear in Grammar inside and outside the clause: Field linguists look at current issues, ed. by Johanna Nichols & Anthony C. Woodbury.]Google Scholar
Nozaℨe, L. 1974. Medioaktiv zmnata çarmoebis zogi sakitxi kartulši [Some questions of the formation of medio-active verbs in Georgian]. Iberiul-kavkasiuri enatmecniereba 19.25–51.Google Scholar
Peikrišvili, Z. 1974. Turmeobitebis mnišvneloba da gamoqeneba axal kartulši [The meaning and use of the evidential in Modern Georgian]. Kartuli enis strukturis sakitxebi 4.53–70.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1978. Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting, Berkeley Linguistics Society, 157–89.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. 1981. Multi-attachment and the Unaccusative Hypothesis: The perfect auxiliary in Italian. To appear.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M., and Postal, Paul M., MS. The 1-advancement exclusiveness law. [To appear in Studies in relational grammar 2, ed. by D. M. Perlmutter and Carol Rosen.]Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1979. Ergativity, syntactic typology and universal grammar: Some past and present viewpoints. Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, ed. by Plank, Frans, 3–36. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Snaniℨe, Akaki. 1973. Kartuli enis gramaṭịkis sapuℨvlebi [Fundamentals of the grammar of the Georgian language], I. 2nd ed. Tbilisi: Tbilisis universiṭeṭis gamomcemloba.Google Scholar
Snaniℨe, Akaki. 1976. ℨveli kartuli enis gramaṭiḳa [A grammar of the Old Georgian language]. Tbilisi: Tbilisis universiṭeṭis gamomcemloba.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1917. Review of Het passieve karakter van het verbum transitivum of van het verbum actionis in talen van Nord-Amerika, by Uhlenbeck, C. C. IJAL 1.82–6.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Karl Horst. 1957. Eine südkaukasische Aktionsart? Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 10.9–24.Google Scholar
Topuria, Varlam. 1940. Kartvelur enata siṭq̣vaçarmoebidan [From word formation in the Kartvelian languages], II. Enimkis moambe 5/6.533–40.Google Scholar
Tschenkéli, Kita. 1958. Einführung in die georgische Sprache, I—II. Zürich: Amirani.Google Scholar
Tschenkéli, Kita. 1973. Georgische–Deutsches Wörterbuch. Bearbeitet von Yolanda Marchev. Zürich: Amirani.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. 1977. Aspects of Lakhota syntax. Berkeley: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Vogt, Hans. 1971. Grammaire de la langue géorgienne. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar