In: Rudolf Muhr (ed.) (2006): Reproduction and Innovation in Language and Communication in
different Language Cultures / Reproduktionen und Innovationen in Sprache und
Kommunikation verschiedener Sprachkulturen. Wien u.a., Peter Lang Verlag. S.
Nino AMIRIDZE and Olga GUREVICH
(Utrecht University and UC Berkeley)
Nino.Amiridze@let.uu.nl and olya.gurevich@gmail.com
The sociolinguistics of borrowing:
Georgian moxdoma and Russian proizojti
‘happen’ 1
Abstract
Georgian is usually described as a highly synthetic language. In this paper, we
examine an analytical construction which emerged in the last few decades,
possibly under the influence of a similar Russian construction. We examine the
structural similarities between the two constructions and focus on their discourse
/ pragmatic functions. We argue that the Georgian construction is used to make
the speaker sound authoritative and official, while the Russian construction
serves mostly to de-emphasize the role of the agent in an event. We explore the
development of the Georgian construction and possible cultural routes by which
it acquired its sociolinguistic load.
1. Introduction
The distinction between synthetic and analytical languages is a very basic
one in modern linguistics. However, most languages do not fall neatly into just one
or the other category. This paper illustrates an example of fluidity between
synthetic and analytical constructions within a single language, Georgian
(Kartvelian). We describe the emergence of an analytical construction involving a
light verb and a deverbal noun that exists in parallel with, and sometimes replaces,
a synthetic construction with an inflected verb. We suggest that the development of
this construction is a natural process, supported by similar cross-linguistic and
historical developments. We further explore the social and pragmatic uses of this
construction, which provides a unique glance at grammaticalization in progress.
Georgian is known as a highly flectional, possibly even agglutinative
1
We would like to thank Alice C. Harris, Johanna Nichols, Kevin Tuite, and the audience at the CESS 2005
conference in Boston for helpful comments and discussion. All errors remain our responsibility. This
research was in part supported by the Language in Use project of the Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS.
In: Rudolf Muhr (ed.) (2006): Reproduction and Innovation in Language and Communication in
different Language Cultures / Reproduktionen und Innovationen in Sprache und
Kommunikation verschiedener Sprachkulturen. Wien u.a., Peter Lang Verlag. S.
language. Georgian verbs inflect for a variety of categories (such as tense, mood,
aspect, causality, and voice) and a single verb can often mean as much as a whole
sentence in a standard European language. However, an alternative way of
constructing complex predicates has emerged in the last few decades. The new
construction involves the verbs moxdoma ‘to happen’ or moxdena ‘to make
happen’ used in conjunction with a deverbal noun to indicate an event (1a). The
new analytical construction is sometimes interchangeable with a more traditional
synthetic construction (1b), and in other cases is the only way to express a complex
event.
1.
a. @samartaldamcav-eb-i -a-xd-en-en današaul-ta mičkmalva-s.2
law.enforcement.official-PL-NOM3 3BDAT.SG-PRV-happen-CAUS-3ANOM.PL
crime-PL.GEN hiding.away-DAT
Lit.: The law enforcement officials make-happen the hiding of crimes.
‘The law enforcement officials hide crimes.’
b. samartaldamcav-eb-i -čkmal-av-en današaul-eb-s.
law.enforcement.official-PL-NOM 3BDAT.SG-hide.away-TS-3ANOM.PL crime-PLDAT
‘The law enforcement officials hide crimes.’
In the body of the paper, we explore the usage and development of this
construction. We suggest that it started out with lexical verbs (section 3), then
developed under the influence of Russian verbs proizojti ‘happen’ / proizvesti
‘make happen’ being used as light verbs (section 2). It appears that the Russian
usage served as an initial catalyst, but the analytical construction has developed in
its own right in Georgian.
We examine the special morphosyntactic properties of the construction
(section 4), and focus on the discourse / pragmatic functions of the analytical
construction. We suggest that the main purpose of the construction is to make the
speaker sound official and authoritative (section 5), but that the analytical
construction also provides a lexical disambiguation mechanism in some instances
2
The ‘@’ sign indicates that the sentence was attested in natural discourse. Most of our data comes from the
Internet.
3
Abbreviations: 1=1st person; 2=2nd person; 3=3rd person; A=Set A agreement marker; ACC=accusative;
ADV=adverbial; AOR=aorist; B=Set B agreement marker; CAUS=causative; COP=copula; DAT=dative;
DIST=distal
demonstrative;
ERG=ergative;
FEM=feminine;
GEN=genitive;
IMPERF=imperfect;
INST=instrumental;
INTR=intransitive;
MASC=masculine;
NEG=negative;
NEUT=neuter;
NOM=nominative; PART=particle; PAST=past tense; PL=plural; PRV=pre-radical vowel; PV=preverb;
SG=singular; SUBJ=subjanctive; TS=thematic suffix. The indices show the case of the argument triggering
the particular agreement marker. For instance, 1AERG.SG=1st person singular Set A agreement marker
triggered by the ERG argument; 2BDAT.SG=2nd person singular Set B agreement marker triggered by the
DAT argument; 3ANOM.PL=3rd person plural Set A agreement marker triggered by the NOM argument.
In: Rudolf Muhr (ed.) (2006): Reproduction and Innovation in Language and Communication in
different Language Cultures / Reproduktionen und Innovationen in Sprache und
Kommunikation verschiedener Sprachkulturen. Wien u.a., Peter Lang Verlag. S.
(section 6).
We conclude by emphasizing the importance of real-life data work (most of
our data comes from examining media reports, TV transcripts, and other texts
available on the Internet) (section 7). We suggest that a grammaticalization change
is taking place in Georgian that is worth further study and could provide important
insights into the distinction between synthetic and analytical structures, as well as
information about the sociolinguistic situation in modern Georgian.
2. Possible Source: Russian proizojti and proizvesti
We would like to suggest that the Georgian moxdoma / moxdena
construction originated at least in part under the influence of Russian. In
contemporary Russian, the verbs proizojti ‘happen’ and proizvesti ‘make happen,
create’ are often used as light verbs together with deverbal nouns instead of
corresponding lexical verbs. This is particularly common in media reports and
official speeches.
The intransitive version of the construction involves the verb proizojti and a
noun or deverbal nominal as its theme (2a vs. 2b).
2.
a. @V londonskom metro proizoshel vzryv.
in London metro happen.PAST.3SG.MASC explosion
‘An explosion occurred in the London metro.’
b. V londonskom metro terrorist vzorval bombu.
in London metro terrorist.NOM explode.PAST bomb.ACC
‘A terrorist exploded a bomb in the London metro.’
A patient argument can sometimes be expressed in a possessive phrase:
3.
@Ne schitayu, chto u menya proizoshla ssora s bratom.
not consider.1SG that at me.GEN happen.PAST fight with brother
Lit: I do not consider that at me a fight with brother happened.
‘I do not think that I had a fight with my brother.’
The main discourse-pragmatic function of the construction with proizojti
appears to be the anonymization or distancing of the agent, which is not
mentioned. The defocusing of the agent here is more extreme than in a passive
construction, where the agent could still be expressed in an oblique phrase (4).
4.
V londonskom metro terroristom byla vzorvana bomba.
in London metro terrorist.INST was exploded.PART bomb.NOM
In: Rudolf Muhr (ed.) (2006): Reproduction and Innovation in Language and Communication in
different Language Cultures / Reproduktionen und Innovationen in Sprache und
Kommunikation verschiedener Sprachkulturen. Wien u.a., Peter Lang Verlag. S.
‘A bomb was exploded in the London metro by a terrorist.’
In the vast majority of attested examples, the noun indicating the event
comes after the verb proizojti. The post-verbal position is typically focused in
Russian, consistent with the fact that this construction serves to defocus the agent
and put more focus on the event.
The transitive construction with proizvesti ‘make happen’ keeps the overt
agent, but adds a sense of indirectness (indirect causality) to the action. In (5b), the
agent is seen as taking direct physical action to change the leadership; by contrast,
in (5a), the agent is still responsible for the change, but possibly in some indirect
manner.
5.
a. @Berezovskij proizvel smenu rukovodstva v ‘Kommersante’.
Berezovskij made.happen change leadership in ‘Kommersant’
‘Berezovskij induced a change of leadership in ‘Kommersant’.’
b. Berezovskij smenil rukovodstvo v ‘Kommersante’.
Berezovskij changed leadership in ‘Kommersant’
‘Berezovskij changed the leadership in ‘Kommersant’[newspaper].’
The proizojti / proizvesti construction often occurs in official speeches and
news coverage. It most likely originated during the Soviet times as part of socalled ‘block writing’ (Seriot 1986), which included extensive use of
nominalizations to present certain ideological concepts as background information
and therefore difficult to debate or question.
The light verbs proizojti and proizvesti are most often used with deverbals
denoting momentous, sudden events, often of catastrophic nature. Table 1
demonstrates some of the most frequently used deverbals (based on a Google
search).
The verb proizojti is originally a motion verb, meaning literally ‘to come out
of (perfective).’ It can be used as a lexical verb meaning ‘originate’, ‘evolve’;
proizvesti is a causative / transitive version of the same. Cross-linguistically, light
verbs and auxiliaries often come from motion verbs, and so this use of proizojti is
not unexpected.
In modern Georgian, a construction structurally similar to the Russian
proizojti-construction has emerged in the last few decades. The verb moxdoma
‘happen’ is used as a light verb in conjunction with a deverbal noun where
previously a lexical verb would have been preferred. The rest of this paper
examines this new construction in detail. First, however, we look at uses of
In: Rudolf Muhr (ed.) (2006): Reproduction and Innovation in Language and Communication in
different Language Cultures / Reproduktionen und Innovationen in Sprache und
Kommunikation verschiedener Sprachkulturen. Wien u.a., Peter Lang Verlag. S.
moxdoma / moxdena as a lexical verb.
proizoshel
(PAST.MASC.SG)
vzryv
pozhar
vybros
sboj
incident
terakt
boj
vzlom
sliv
‘explosion’
‘fire’
‘dump’
‘break’
‘incident’
‘terror act’
‘battle’
‘break-in’
‘leak’
proizoshla
(PAST.FEM.SG)
avariya
smena
oshibka
utechka
tragediya
draka
stychka
perestrelka
katastrofa
‘accident’
‘change’
‘error’
‘leak’
‘tragedy’
‘fight’
‘fight’
‘shoot-out’
‘catastrophe
proizoshlo
(PAST.NEUT.SG)
zemletryasenie
stolknovenie
otklyuchenie
sobytie
vozgoranie
snizhenie
ubijstvo
uvelichenie
DTP
‘earthquake
‘collision’
‘shut-down’
‘event’
‘fire’
‘lowering’
‘murder’
‘increase’
‘road
accident’
proizvesti
(Transitive)
vzryv
vyemku
posadku
vyplatu
zapusk
arest
remont
perevorot
naznacheniya
‘explosion’
‘extraction’
‘landing’
‘payment’
‘launch’
‘arrest’
‘repairs’
‘coup’
‘appointments’
Table 1. Some common deverbal nouns with proizojti and proizvesti.
3. Moxdoma / moxdena ‘(make) happen’ as a Lexical Verb
As a lexical verb the inflected unaccusative root -xd- ‘happen’ is used in all
the three Tense-Aspect-Mood (TAM) Series (see Table 2).
It is associated with only one argument, a Theme (6a). However, the
addition of an extra possessor argument is also possible (6b vs. 7). The lexical
semantics of the verb specify that the Theme argument must refer to an event. As
such, it is always 3rd person inanimate (6a). Since inanimate arguments do not
trigger plural agreement in Georgian, the forms of moxdoma are always in the
singular.
6.
a. avaria mo-xd-a.
car.accident.NOM PV-happen-3ANOM.SG.AOR
Lit.: Car.accident it.happened
‘There happened a car accident.’
b. avari-eb-i mo-xd-a / *mo-xd-nen.
car.accident-PL-NOM PV-happen-3ANOM.SG.AOR PV-happen- 3ANOM.PL.AOR
‘There happened car accidents.’
7.
(me) avaria mo-m-i-xd-a.
I.DAT car.accident.NOM PV-1BDAT.SG-PRV-happen-3ANOM.SG.AOR
Lit: To.me car.accident it.happened.to.me
‘I had a car accident.’
Series Sub-Series Screeves
Present Indicative
I
Present
Imperfect Indicative
Intransitive -xdxdeba ‘it happens.’
xdeboda ‘It was happening.’
In: Rudolf Muhr (ed.) (2006): Reproduction and Innovation in Language and Communication in
different Language Cultures / Reproduktionen und Innovationen in Sprache und
Kommunikation verschiedener Sprachkulturen. Wien u.a., Peter Lang Verlag. S.
Series Sub-Series Screeves
Present Subjunctive
Future Indicative
Future
Conditional
Future Subjunctive
Aorist Indicative
II
Aorist Subjunctive
Perfect
III
Pluperfect
3rd Subjunctive
Intransitive -xdxdebodes ‘[If] it were happening.’
moxdeba ‘It will happen.’
moxdeboda ‘It would happen.’
moxdebodes ‘[If] it would happen.’
moxda ‘It happened’
moxdes ‘[In order for] it to happen.’
momxdara ‘It has happened.’
momxdariq’o ‘[If] it had happened.’
momxdariq’os ‘[As if] it had happened.’
Table 2. Intransitive -xd- in TAM Series in Georgian.
If the root occurs with a causative suffix (-in or -en, depending on TAM
series), we get a transitive stem -xd-in/-en ‘make happen’ (8):
8.
mat revolucia mo--a-xd-in-es.
they.ERG revolution.NOM PV-3BNOM.SG-PRV-happen-CAUS-3AERG.PL.AOR
Lit: they revolution they.made.it.happen
‘They made a revolution.’
Both the inflected intransitive -xd- (see 6a, 9a, 10a) and the transitive -xdin/-en (8) occur in combination with nominals referring to unexpected and
catastrophic events.
9.
a. sapranget-is revolucia mo-xd-a 1789 c’el-s.
France-GEN revolution.NOM PV-happen-3ANOM.SG.AOR 1789 year-DAT
Lit.: French revolution it.happened 1789 year.in
‘The French revolution was carried out in 1789.’
b. *sapranget-ši ga-revoluci-av-d-a 1789 c’el-s.
France-in PV-revolution-TS-INTR-3ANOM.SG.AOR 1789 year-DAT
‘The French revolution was carried out in 1789.’
Often, this is the only way to make a predicate out of a noun with no
corresponding synthetic verb (cf. 10a vs. 10b as well as Table 3).
10. a. mo-xd-a sasc’aul-i: zamtar-ši xe gaq’vavda.
PV-happen-3ANOM.SG.AOR miracle-NOM winter-in tree.NOM
Lit.: It.happened miracle: winter.in tree it.blossomed
‘A miracle was performed: A tree blossomed in winter.’
b. *ga-sasc’aul-d-a.
PV-miracle-INTR-3ANOM.SG.AOR
‘A miracle was performed.’
it.blossomed
In: Rudolf Muhr (ed.) (2006): Reproduction and Innovation in Language and Communication in
different Language Cultures / Reproduktionen und Innovationen in Sprache und
Kommunikation verschiedener Sprachkulturen. Wien u.a., Peter Lang Verlag. S.
Native Georgian Nominal Stems
sasc’aulgadat.rialebaštabeč’dilebatvit+gamoxat’va(ze)+gavlenaze+c’ola-
‘miracle’
‘coup’, ‘upheaval’
‘impression’
‘self-expression’
‘influence’
‘oppression’
Possible Synthetic Verb Form
*v-a-sasc’aul-eb
*gada-v-a-t’rial-eb
*v-a-štabeč’dil-eb
*tvit-gamo-v-xat’-av
*(ze)-ga-v-a-vlen
*ze-v-c’ol-av
‘I make a miracle.’
‘I stage a coup / an upheaval.’
‘I make an impression.’
‘I express myself’
‘I influence him/her/it.’
‘I oppress him/her.’
Table 3. Some Native Georgian Nouns Used in the Construction with the Inflected
Intransitive -xd- and Transitive -xd-in/-en.
However, this is not the only group of nouns that can act as a Theme
argument of the inflected intransitive -xd- ‘happen’ or the transitive -xd-in/-en
‘make happen’. Many borrowed nouns with no corresponding synthetic verb forms
are turned into complex predicates via the use of -xd- and -xd-in/-en (cf. 6a vs. 11,
9a vs. 9b, 12a vs. 12b as well as Table 4):4
11. *ga-avaria-v-d-a.
PV-car.accident-TS-INTR-3ANOM.SG.AOR
Lit: it.car.accident-ed
‘There happened a car accident.’
12. a. @danarčen-is rek’onst’rukcia-s mexsiereba -a-xd-en-s. (Siamashvili
2001)
rest-GEN reconstruction-DAT memory.NOM 3BDAT.SG-PRV-happen-CAUS3ANOM.SG
Lit: of.rest reconstruction memory it.makes.it.happen
‘The reconstruction of the rest happens from memory .’
b. *danarčen-s mexsiereba -a-rek’onst’ruir-eb-s.
rest-DAT memory.NOM 3BDAT.SG-PRV-reconstruct-TS-3ANOM.SG
Lit: rest memory it.makes.it.reconstruct
‘ One reconstructs the rest from memory.’
Borrowed Nominal Stems
p’araliz-eb-ašok’+ir-eb-at.ransl+ir-eb-ap’roduc+ir-eb-ablok’+ir-eb-ak’orek+ciaepekt’-
4
‘paralyzing’
‘shocking’
‘transmission’
‘production’
‘blocking’
‘correction’
‘effect’
Possible Synthetic Verb Form
*v-a-p’araliz-eb
*v-a-šok’ +ir-eb / v-šok’-av
*v-a-t’ransl+ir-eb
*v-a-p’roduc+ir-eb
*v-a-blok’ +ir-eb / v-blok’-av
*v-a-k’orekci-eb
*v-a-epekt’-eb
‘I paralyze him/her/it.’
‘I shock him/her.’
‘I broadcast it.’
‘I produce it.’
‘I block him/her/it.’
‘I correct it.’
‘I affect him/her/it.’
Note that in Table 4 there are two synthetic verb forms v-šok’-av ‘I shock him/her’ and v-blok’-av ‘I block
him/her/it,’ but these are derived directly from the borrowed nominals such as šok’- ‘shock’ and blok’‘block’ rather than from the nominals such as šok’+ir-eb-a- ‘shocking’ and blok’+ir-eb-a- ‘blocking’.
In: Rudolf Muhr (ed.) (2006): Reproduction and Innovation in Language and Communication in
different Language Cultures / Reproduktionen und Innovationen in Sprache und
Kommunikation verschiedener Sprachkulturen. Wien u.a., Peter Lang Verlag. S.
Table 4. Some Borrowed Nominal Stems Used in Light Verb Constructions.
Probably by analogy with the above lexical uses, there are now new
analytical constructions with the intransitive root -xd- and its transitive counterpart
-xd-in/-en even when there is a synthetic verb form available (1, repeated as 13).
The synthetic verb form (-čkmal-av-en in 13b) is made into a deverbal nominal,
known to Kartvelianists as a masdar (mičkmalva-s in 13a) and marked as a theme
argument of the inflected -xd- or -xd-in/-en.
13. a. @samartaldamcav-eb-i -a-xd-en-en današaul-ta mičkmalva-s.
law.enforcement.official-PL-NOM 3BDAT.SG-PRV-happen-CAUS- 3ANOM.PL
crime-PL.GEN hiding.away-DAT
Lit.: The law enforcement officials make-happen the hiding of crimes.
‘The law enforcement officials hide crimes.’
b. samartaldamcav-eb-i -čkmal-av-en današaul-eb-s.
law.enforcement.official-PL-NOM 3BDAT.SG-hide.away-TS-3ANOM.PL crime-PLDAT
‘The law enforcement officials hide crimes.’
The deverbal nominal mičkmalva-s ‘hiding away’ is associated with a
certain argument structure, and the form -a-xd-en-en does not seem to be used as
a lexical verb (13a). The lexical semantics is provided by the masdar nominal
while the TAM as well as agreement marking are provided by the grammatical
form -a-xd-en-en.
The pragmatics or why and when people prefer to use an analytical
construction instead of a corresponding synthetic verb form will be discussed in
section 5. But first we explore the morphosyntactic status of the inflected -xd- and
-xd-in/-en taking masdar nominals as Theme.
4. On the Morphosyntax of Georgian Light Verb
Constructions
Let us look at another example employing an inflected transitive light verb xd-en/-in ‘make it happen’. Although there is a synthetic verb form gan--azogad-eb-s ‘(s)he generalizes it’ (14b), Modern Georgian also offers an analytical
construction -a-xd-en-s ganzogadeba-s with the inflected transitive stem -a-xden-s ‘(s)he makes it happen’ and a dative-marked masdar form ganzogadeba-s
‘generalizing/generalization’ (14a):
14. a. @is mecnier-i k’i, romelic k’rit’ik’-is ist’oria-s c’ers, -a-xd-en-s
In: Rudolf Muhr (ed.) (2006): Reproduction and Innovation in Language and Communication in
different Language Cultures / Reproduktionen und Innovationen in Sprache und
Kommunikation verschiedener Sprachkulturen. Wien u.a., Peter Lang Verlag. S.
zemotkmul-is ganzogadeba-s... (Tchanturaia 2001)
DIST.NOM scientist-NOM PART which/who.NOM criticism-GEN historyDAT (s)he.writes.it 3BDAT.SG-PRV-happen-CAUS-3ANOM.SG above.said-GEN
generalizing-DAT
‘As for the scholar, who writes the history of criticism, (s)he
generalizes the above said...’
b. (is) gan--a-zogad-eb-s zemotkmul-s.
(s)he.NOM PV-3BDAT.SG-PRV-general-TS-3ANOM.SG above.said-DAT
‘(S)he generalizes the above said.’
The NP argument of the intransitive or transitive light verb consists of the
head (the masdar form of the corresponding synthetic form) and a genitive-marked
determiner, which corresponds to the theme argument of the corresponding
synthetic form. For instance, the head noun ganzogadeba-s of the dative NP
zemotkmul-is ganzogadeba-s that serves as the theme argument of the light verb
-a-xd-en-s (14b) is the masdar form of the synthetic verb form gan--a-zogadeb-s. And the determiner zemotkmul-is corresponds to the theme argument of the
corresponding synthetic form gan--a-zogad-eb-s in (14a).
Grammatical information in the synthetic forms is preserved in the
corresponding analytical construction. The syntactic status of the theme argument
of the synthetic form changes in analytical constructions in the sense that it
becomes a determiner of an NP. However, the lexical and thematic structure of the
predicate remains intact.
The constructions using the intransitive light verb serve a function similar to
the one in Russian (de-focusing the agent), although it seems that the agent can
more often be expressed in an oblique phrase. More precisely, there are several
options. The agent may not be present at all (20a); may be expressed in a
postpositional phrase headed by mier ‘by’ (15a); or in a postpositional phrase
headed by -gan ‘from,’ which requires its noun to be in the genitive (16):
15. a. @mis mier mo-xd-a mekanik’ur-i šecdom-is dašveba. (Toklikishvili
2005)
(s)he.GEN by PV-happen-3ANOM.SG.AOR mechanical-NOM mistake-GEN
making/committing.NOM
‘There was a mechanical error committed/made by him/her.’
b. man da--u-šv-a mekanik’ur-i šecdoma.
(s)he.ERG PV-3BNOM.SG-PRV-commit/make-3AERG.SG.AOR mechanical-NOM
mistake.NOM
‘(S)he made/committed a mechanical error.’
In: Rudolf Muhr (ed.) (2006): Reproduction and Innovation in Language and Communication in
different Language Cultures / Reproduktionen und Innovationen in Sprache und
Kommunikation verschiedener Sprachkulturen. Wien u.a., Peter Lang Verlag. S.
16.
@gaačnia, vis-gan mo-xd-eb-a čareva.
it.depends who.GEN-from PV-happen-TS-3ANOM.SG intervening.NOM
‘It depends from whom an intervention will be made .’ (=It depends
who will intervene).
The transitive light verb -xd-en/-in, on the other hand, does not serve to
defocus the agent. On the contrary, the agent is always there. For instance, in 17
the agent is presented as an NP čven-i c’inap’r-eb-i; it is the grammatical subject,
as indicated by the nominative case marking and the corresponding Set A
agreement suffix –nen on the verb. Neither a mier phrase (18a) nor a PP (18b) is
grammatical:
17.
@čven-i c’inap’r-eb-i -a-xd-en-d-nen ... bunebriv-i kv-eb-is
damušaveba-s. (mer 2000)
our-NOM ancestor-PL-NOM 3BDAT.SG-PV-happen-CAUS-IMPERF-3ANOM.PL ...
natural-NOM stone-PL-GEN elaboration-DAT
Lit.: Our ancestors they.made.it.happen ... natural stones’ refinement
‘Our ancestors used to refine stones.’
18. a. *čven-i c’inap’r-eb-is mier -a-xd-en-d-nen ... bunebriv-i kv-eb-is
damušaveba-s.
our-NOM ancestor-PL-GEN by 3BDAT.SG-PRV-happen-CAUS-IMPERF3ANOM.PL ... natural-NOM stone-PL-GEN elaboration-DAT
‘The natural stones used to be refined by our ancestors .’
b. *čven-i c’inap’r-eb-is-gan -a-xd-en-d-nen ... bunebriv-i kv-eb-is
damušaveba-s.
our-NOM ancestor-PL-GEN-from 3BDAT.SG-PRV-happen-CAUS-IMPERF3ANOM.PL ... natural-NOM stone-PL-GEN elaboration-DAT
‘The natural stones used to be refined by our ancestors.’
However, the situation is different with unaccusative verbs, which take only
the theme argument and do not subcategorize for the agent role as such. When put
in the construction with the inflected intransitive light verb -xd-, such verbs do get
an interpretation with an implied agent. For instance, the unaccusative verb form
ga-i-žon-a in (19a) does not take an agent but rather a theme argument. However,
the corresponding analytical construction with the inflected intransitive light verb
moxda allows both interpretations — with and without the agent (19b):
19. a. rogor ga-i-žon-a c’q’al-i?
how PV-PRV-leak-3ANOM.SG.AOR water-NOM
Lit.: How it.leaked.out water?
‘How did water leak out?’
In: Rudolf Muhr (ed.) (2006): Reproduction and Innovation in Language and Communication in
different Language Cultures / Reproduktionen und Innovationen in Sprache und
Kommunikation verschiedener Sprachkulturen. Wien u.a., Peter Lang Verlag. S.
‘How did water leak out (*by him/her)?’
b. rogor mo-xd-a c’q’l-is gažonva?
how PV-happen-3ANOM.SG.AOR water-GEN leakage.NOM
Lit.: How did of.whater leakage happened?
‘How did a water leak occurred?’ (it leaked out by itself)
‘How did a water leak occurred?’ (it leaked out because of somebody;
somebody made it possible that the water leaked out)
Thus, even if a synthetic verb form cannot subcategorize for an agent as
such (19a), the corresponding analytic construction with the intransitive light verb
-xd- allows an interpretation that implies the existence of an agent (19b).
To summarize, while in Russian the main purpose of the proizojti /
proizvesti construction is to defocus or distance the agent from the action, the facts
of Georgian are more complex. Agent defocusing seems to apply to only a small
subset of uses, and in other cases the agent is instead implicitly introduced to the
action.
5. Discourse-Pragmatic Functions of the Analytical
Constructions with the Inflected -xd- ‘happen’ and -xd-in/en ‘make happen’
Many nominals participate in the light verb construction even though they
have a corresponding synthetic verb form. Although it might not always be clear
from the translation, there is an important difference between the synthetic and
analytical uses. Most of our examples with analytical constructions are taken from
newspapers or from TV programs where the speakers tried to sound official,
authoritative, politically correct, or scientifically correct.
Although purists claim that the constructions are used exclusively by
illiterate people5, in the media one finds many instances of such constructions that
are neither ungrammatical nor ‘ignorant Georgian,’ but serve a specific need of the
speaker — to assert (political or scientific) correctness and importance of the issue
being discussed.
An example of trying to sound official is in (20a), from a news report about
a patient bitten by a dog. The phrase would sound ridiculous in normal
conversation, but the journalist chose the analytical construction to avoid
5
See, for instance, the unsigned column in (sak 2004) dedicated to making fun of errors in TV broadcasting.
There the author brings five examples of the use of the intransitive -xd- and notes that it has become
almost a ‘universal’ verb. Probably the author meant that the analytical constructions with this verb can be
used instead of almost any synthetic verb form.
In: Rudolf Muhr (ed.) (2006): Reproduction and Innovation in Language and Communication in
different Language Cultures / Reproduktionen und Innovationen in Sprache und
Kommunikation verschiedener Sprachkulturen. Wien u.a., Peter Lang Verlag. S.
specifying such details as the agent of the action and concentrate on the event itself
as well as on its (grammatical) patient.
20. a. @mo-xd-a avadmq’op-is dapiksireba sak’ace-ze.
PV-happen-3ANOM.SG.AOR patient-GEN attaching.NOM stretcher-on
Lit.: it.happened of.patient attaching on.stretcher
‘The patient got attached to the stretcher.’
b. ekim-ma avadmq’op-i da-a-piksir-a sak’ace-ze.
Doctor-ERG patient-NOM PV-3BNOM.SG-PRV-attach-3AERG.SG.AOR stretcheron
Lit.: doctor patient (s)he.attached.him/her on.stretcher
‘ The doctor attached the patient to the stretcher.’
Other examples that sound official as compared to the corresponding
sentences with a synthetic verb form are in (21a vs. 21b, 22a vs. 22b):
21. a. Uttered by Michael Saakashvili (the current president of Georgia), TV
News on August 24, 2004 on the Georgian TV.
@ruset-is sazgvar-tan mo-xd-a k’oncent’racia (t’eknik’-is).
Russia-GEN border-at PV-happen-3ANOM.SG.AOR gathering.NOM techniqueGEN
Lit.: of.Russia at.border it.happened gathering of.technique
‘At the Russian border military technique got gathered.’
b. ruset-is sazgvar-tan k’oncent’rir-d-a t’eknik’a.
Russia-GEN border-at gather-INTR-3ANOM.SG.AOR technique.NOM
Lit.: of.Russia at.border it.gathered military.technique
‘At the Russian border military technique got gathered.’
22. a. @čven k’onk’urs-is c’es-it v-a-xd-en-t sasc’avlebl-ad gasagzavn-i
k’ont’ingent’-is šerčeva-s. (Marsagishvili 2000)
we.NOM contest-GEN rule-INST 1ANOM.SG-PRV-happen-CAUS- PLNOM6
studying-ADV to.be.sent-NOM contingent-GEN choosing-DAT
‘We make the choosing of the contingent to be sent for studying abroad by
the way of contest.’
b. čven k’onk’urs-is c’es-it v-a-rč-ev-t sasc’avlebl-ad gasagzavn
k’ont’ingent’-s.
we.NOM contest-GEN rule-INST 1ANOM.SG-PRV-choose-TS-PLNOM studyingADV to.be.sent contingent-DAT
‘We choose the contingent to be sent for studying abroad by the way
6
The indices show the case of the argument triggering the particular agreement marker. In 22a the plural
suffix -t is glossed as PLNOM, that is a plural marker triggered by the NOM argument.
In: Rudolf Muhr (ed.) (2006): Reproduction and Innovation in Language and Communication in
different Language Cultures / Reproduktionen und Innovationen in Sprache und
Kommunikation verschiedener Sprachkulturen. Wien u.a., Peter Lang Verlag. S.
of contest.’
The sentence in (23a), taken from an online collection of jokes, reflects a
conversation between a woman who was raped and (probably) a correspondent
who covers the story. The correspondent asks the question in (23a) with the
analytical construction. Although the same question can also be asked with a
synthetic form as in (23b), the joke includes the analytical version but not the
synthetic one.
23. a. @rogor mo-xd-a tkven-i gaup’at’iureba?
how PV-happen-3ANOM.SG.AOR your-NOM raping.NOM
Lit.: How did your.PL raping happened?
‘How have you been raped?’
b. rogor ga-g-a-up’at’iur-es (tkven)?
how PV-2BNOM.SG-PRV-rape-3AERG.PL.AOR you.NOM
Lit.: How they.raped.you.PL you.PL?
‘How have you been raped?’
(24a) sounds authoritative and is meant to exert influence on the addressees.
It is taken from an announcement displayed near the cathedral Svetitskhoveli in the
ancient capital of Georgia, Mtskheta (see the August 2004 photo in the Appendix).
The announcement concerned the production and sale of homemade candles by
strangers outside of the cathedral. If instead of the analytical construction (24a)
synthetic verb forms had been been used (as in 24b), the statement would have
sounded like a simple narrative.
24. a. k’erz’o p’ir-eb-i -a-xd-en-en santl-is c’armoeba-s da xat’-eb-is
damzadeba-s.
private.NOM person-PL-NOM 3BDAT.SG-PRV-happen-CAUS-3ANOM.PL candleGEN producing-DAT and icon-PL-GEN making.ready-DAT
Lit.: Private persons they.make.it.happen of.candle producing and of.icons
making.ready
‘Unauthorized persons produce candles and make icons.’
b. k’erz’o p’ir-eb-i -a-c’armo-eb-en santel-s da -a-mzad-eb-en xat’-eb-s.
private.NOM person-PL-NOM 3BDAT.SG-PRV-produce-TS-3ANOM.PL candle-DAT
and 3BDAT.SG-PRV-make.ready-TS-3ANOM.PL icon-PL-DAT
Lit.: Private persons they.produce.it candle and they.make.them.ready icons
‘Unauthorized persons produce candles and make icons.’
To summarize, the light verb constructions serve as a pragmatic tool to
make utterances sound official, authoritative, and politically or scientifically
In: Rudolf Muhr (ed.) (2006): Reproduction and Innovation in Language and Communication in
different Language Cultures / Reproduktionen und Innovationen in Sprache und
Kommunikation verschiedener Sprachkulturen. Wien u.a., Peter Lang Verlag. S.
correct. The construction was influenced by Russian but developed in its own way,
in accordance with other Georgian-internal factors.7 The next section explores a
possible disambiguating function of the analytical construction.
6. Preserving Lexical Information
Apart from the difference in pragmatics between the analytical and synthetic
constructions, there is a difference in the use of preverbs. While synthetic forms
lack preverbs in some TAM paradigms and leave certain lexical and/or aspectual
information unspecified, the analytical constructions preserve such information. In
an inflected verb form, the preverb often carries two kinds of information:
aspectual (indicating perfective paradigms) and lexical (indicating a particular
derivation from the basic meaning of the verb root), similar to the function of
verbal prefixes in Slavic or German. When a masdar is used along with a light verb
instead of an inflected verb, aspectual information may be expressed in two places:
on the masdar and on the light verb. This potential redundancy makes it possible
for the masdar’s preverb to specify its secondary lexical meanings and be present
even in imperfective tenses.
In (25a), the preverb is present and adds the information of re-doing the
examination; in a synthetic construction (25b), it would be interpreted as marking
perfectivity and Future tense, and is thus ungrammatical in the Present tense. It is
possible to also add the preverb in 25b and make the synthetic form gada--amoc’m-eb-en express the same lexical nuance. However, the form with the preverb
primarily occurs in the Future tense rather than Present. In present subseries
(imperfective tenses), preverbs are normally absent and avoided unless it is an
absolute necessity to express the lexical information coded in the preverb. In a
light verb construction, aspectual information does not need to be specified on the
masdar; the preverb is free to specify just the lexical information (25a).
25. a. @st’at’ist’ik’-is sammartvelo-s c’armomadgenl-eb-i mat xel-t arsebul-i
inpormaci-is gada+moc’meba-s -a-xd-en-en. (axa 2001)
7
Although we do not know for certain how the analytical construction was borrowed into Georgian in the first
place, Georgian culture seems to provide at least one possible pathway. Much cultural and linguistic
knowledge in Georgia is transmitted via social networks rather than from official speeches and
publications. In the tradition of supra, family patriarchs serve as tamadas, or toast leaders, during various
celebrations (Mülfried 2005, Tuite 2005). The position of a tamada is very prestigious and a tamada’s
behavior is often imitated. Party officials, whose speech was heavily influenced by Russian/Soviet speech
patterns, were often invited to serve as tamadas at large celebrations. It is thus possible that officialsounding speech patterns spread throughout the general population through such celebrations. However,
much more research is needed regarding the types of interactions and speeches given at supras to confirm
this hypothesis.
In: Rudolf Muhr (ed.) (2006): Reproduction and Innovation in Language and Communication in
different Language Cultures / Reproduktionen und Innovationen in Sprache und
Kommunikation verschiedener Sprachkulturen. Wien u.a., Peter Lang Verlag. S.
statistics-GEN department-GEN representative-PL-NOM their hand-DAT.PL
existing-NOM information-GEN re.checking-DAT 3BDAT.SG-PRV-happen-CAUS3ANOM.PL
‘Representatives of the Department of Statistics conduct a reexamination of
the information available to them.’
b. st’at’ist’ik’-is sammartvelo-s c’armomadgenl-eb-i mat xel-t arsebul
inpormacia-s -a-moc’m-eb-en / *gada--a-moc’m-eb-en.
statistics-GEN department-GEN representative-PL-NOM their hand-DAT.PL existing
information-DAT 3BDAT.SG-PRV-check-TS-3ANOM.PL PV-3BDAT.SG-PRV-checkTS-3ANOM.PL
‘Representatives of the Department of Statistics reexamine the information
available to them.’
A similar case of lexical disambiguation is in (26a).
26. a. @rodis q’opila, an sad q’opila, kveq’n-is xelisupleba umaγles-i
sasc’avlebl-eb-is sast’ip’endio pond-is lik’vidaci-is xarjze -a-xd-en-d-e-s
biujet’-is gada+rčena-s? (Oniani 2000)
when it.has.been or where it.has.been country-GEN government/officials.NOM
higher-NOM educational.institution-PL-GEN for.stipend fund-GEN liquidation-GEN
at.the.expense.of 3BDAT.SG-PRV-happen-CAUS-IMPERF-SUBJ-3ANOM.SG budgetGEN saving-DAT
‘Where or when has it ever been that the government/officials have saved
the budget of the country at the expense of liquidating the stipend funds of
the higher educational institutions?’
b. rodis q’opila, an sad q’opila, kveq’n-is xelisupleba umaγles-i sasc’avlebleb-is sast’ip’endio pond-is lik’vidaci-is xarjze -a-rč-en-d-e-s / *gada--arč-en-d-e-s biujet’-s?
when it.has.been or where it.has.been country-GEN government/officials.NOM
higher-NOM educational.institution-PL-GEN for.stipend fund-GEN liquidation-GEN
at.the.expense.of 3BDAT.SG-PRV-save-CAUS-IMPERF-SUBJ-3ANOM.SG / PV3BDAT.SG-PRV-save-CAUS-IMPERF-SUBJ-3ANOM.SG budget-DAT
‘Where or when has it ever been that the government/officials have saved
the budget of the country at the expense of liquidating the stipend funds of
the higher educational institutions?’
We suspect that the disambiguation property of preverbs will play a major
role in the further spread of the analytical construcitons with moxdoma / moxdena
and in the speakers’ choice between the two options: analytical vs. synthetic.
7. Conclusions and Future Work
We have described the emergence of an analytical construction using
In: Rudolf Muhr (ed.) (2006): Reproduction and Innovation in Language and Communication in
different Language Cultures / Reproduktionen und Innovationen in Sprache und
Kommunikation verschiedener Sprachkulturen. Wien u.a., Peter Lang Verlag. S.
moxdoma ‘happen’ or moxdena ‘make happen’ as light verbs to form complex
predicates. This construction, while possibly triggered by a similar Russian
structure, has been integrated into the morphosyntax of Georgian and is not merely
a calque. In many cases, speakers have a choice between the newer analytical
construction and an older synthetic one. In such cases, the analytical construction
carries a sociolinguistic / pragmatic load that is (a) not predictable from its
morphosyntax and (b) different from the function of the similar construction in
Russian. It serves to make the speaker sound official or ‘correct’, politically or
scientifically.
Speakers seem to be aware of this functional load and sometimes take it too
far, as demonstrated by examples in sections 4 and 5. However, much of the time
the use of the construction succeeds in raising the officialness and prestige of what
is being said, and the construction is steadily spreading into different domains of
language use.
We hope that our investigation has shown the futility of fighting against
such innovations. Rather than condemning (or, for that matter, welcoming) the new
linguistic structures, it is much more productive to study them and to examine how
they interact with the existing language. For this purpose, real-life data is
indispensable.
1
References
(mer 2000): bunebrivi kvebi — tkveni mkurnali da mudmivi mparveli, meridiani 44,
2000. (The issue of May 17, available at:
www.opentext.org.ge/05/sarbieli/107/107-28.htm, in Georgian).
(axa 2001): tbilisši c’armoebuli realuri mšeneblobebis ricxvi dek’larirebuls orjer
aemat’eba. axali ep’oka, 215. (The issue of August 7, in Georgian).
(sak 2004): ‘ra utkvams, ra moučmaxavs...’ anu ek’ranuli kartulis ‘margalit’ebi’,
sakartvelos resp’ublik’a, 41. (The issue of February 19, in Georgian).
Marsagishvili, Sh. (2000): ra ušlis xels mušaobaši kartvel mesazγvreebs, axali ep’oka,
224. (The issue of August 16, in Georgian).
Mülfried, Florian (2005): Banquets, Grant-Eaters and the Red Intelligentsia in PostSoviet Georgia. Central Eurasian Studies Review 4:16-19.
Oniani, Dj. (2000): universit’et’i da sek’vest’ri? sakartvelos respublika 305. (The
issue of November 19, in Georgian).
Seriot, Patrick (1986): How to Do Sentences with Nous. Aanalyzing Nominalizations
in Soviet Political Discourse. Russian Linguistics 10:33-52.
Siamashvili, G. (2001): ‘me vieb sagnebs da mat cnobierebisagan damouk’idebel
In: Rudolf Muhr (ed.) (2006): Reproduction and Innovation in Language and Communication in
different Language Cultures / Reproduktionen und Innovationen in Sprache und
Kommunikation verschiedener Sprachkulturen. Wien u.a., Peter Lang Verlag. S.
arsebobas vanič’eb’ (gert’ruda st’aini: igive sit’q’vebi gansxvavebul
k’ont’ekst’ši), dilis gazeti, 15. (The issue of September 6, in Georgian).
Tchanturaia, M. (2001): ent’oni st’ori lesli čemberlenis c’ignze: ‘paruli xelovani:
zigmund proidis gamoc’vlilviti k’itxva’, axali 7 de, 7. (The issue of February
16-22, in Georgian).
Toklikishvili, L. (2005): k’ot’e k’ublašvili — sasamartlo mapiis natlimama, axali 7
de, 26. (The issue of July 15-September 2, in Georgian).
Tuite, Kevin (2005): The autocrat of the banquet table: The political and social
significance of the Georgian supra. Conference on Language, History, and
Cultural Identities in the Caucasus, Malmö University, Sweden, June 2005.
(available at: http://www.mapageweb.umontreal.ca/tuitekj/publications/Tuitesupra.pdf)
2
3
Appendix. The candle sign
The sign on the photo below was posted near the cathedral Svetitskhoveli in
the ancient capital of Georgia, Mtskheta in August 2004.
In: Rudolf Muhr (ed.) (2006): Reproduction and Innovation in Language and Communication in
different Language Cultures / Reproduktionen und Innovationen in Sprache und
Kommunikation verschiedener Sprachkulturen. Wien u.a., Peter Lang Verlag. S.
27. martlmadidebel mosaxleoba-s! k’erz’o p’ir-eb-i -a-xd-en-en santl-is
c’armoeba-s da xat’-eb-is damzadeba-s. rogorc cnobil-i gaxda, es xšir
šemtxveva-ši damzadebul-i-a magiur-i rit’ual-eb-is šesruleb-is pon-ze. aset-i
santl-eb-is šec’irva-anteba sakartvelo-s martlmadideblur ek’lesi-eb-ši
daušvebel-i-a. magiur rit’ual-eb-ze damzadebul santl-eb-s da xat’-eb-s
sarealizacio-d abareben mat’erialur-ad mz’ime mdgomareoba-ši mq’op
adamian-eb-s da iq’ideba ek’lesi-eb-is mimdebare t’erit’ori-eb-ze. am
mk’rexelur-i kmedeb-is ak’vet-is mizn-it svet’icxovl-is sap’at’riarko t’az’ar-i
k’rz’alavs t’az’r-is garet šez’enil-i santl-is danteba-šec’irva-s c’minda t’az’arši. mat, visac ar akvs šesaz’lebloba santl-is an xat’-is šez’en-is, šesaz’lebel-i-a
usasq’idlod mis-i mieba, t’az’ar-ši dadgenil-i c’es-it.
orthodox population-DAT! Private.NOM person-PL-NOM 3BDAT.SG-PRV-happenCAUS-3ANOM.PL candle-GEN producing-DAT and icon-PL-GEN making.ready-DAT.
As known-NOM it.became, this.NOM frequent case/event-in made-NOM-COP magicNOM ritual-PL-GEN performing-GEN background-on. Such-NOM candle-PL-GEN
sacrificing-lighting.NOM Georgia-GEN orthodox church-PL-in unacceptable-NOMCOP. Magic ritual-PL-on prepared candle-PL-DAT and icon-PL-DAT selling-ADV
they.give.them.to.them material-ADV hard condition-in being person-PL-DAT and
it.is.sold church-PL-GEN neighboring territory-PL-on. This sinful-NOM action-GEN
preventing-GEN purpose-INST Svetitskhoveli-GEN of.Patriarch cathedral-NOM
it.prohibits.it cathedral-GEN outside purchased-NOM candle-GEN lighting-sacrificingDAT holy cathedral-in. Those, who NEG (s)he.has.it possibility.NOM candle-GEN or
icon-GEN purchasing-GEN, possible-NOM-COP for.free its-NOM getting.NOM,
cathedral-in established-NOM rule-INST
Lit.: [To.]orthodox to.population! Private persons they.make.it.happen
of.candle producing and of.icons making.ready. […]
‘To the orthodox (Christian) population! Unauthorized persons produce candle
and make icons. As it became known, this in most cases is made while
performing rituals of [black] magic. Sacrificing and lighting such candles in
the orthodox churches of Georgia is unacceptable. The candles and icons
prepared during the rituals of magic are given to materially deprived persons
to sell, and are sold on the territories of neighboring churches. In order to
prevent this sinful action, the Svetitskhoveli Cathedral prohibits the lighting
[and] sacrificing in the holy Cathedral of the candles purchased outside the
Cathedral. For those who are not able to purchase a candle or an icon, it is
possible to get it for free by the rule established in the Cathedral.’