SEMANTICS AND TYPOLOGY OF DATIVE SUBJECT
(on the Georgian data)
Rusudan A. Asatiani
Institute of Oriental Studies, Georgian Academy of Sciences
r_asatiani@hotmail.com
I. Typological Data
Many languages of the world exhibit constructions with the dative core argument: Mihi est liber (Latin);
Mir geffalen diese Bücher (German); Mne nravitsja kniga (Russian); Atsus la (Modern Hebrew); Bana
para lazlm (Turkish); Tal on (Estonian); Me guesta la cerveza (Spanish); Use gussa aayaa (Hindi); and
others.
II. Semantics of Affective Verbs
These constructions differ from the canonical ones of the same languages. As a rule, they are
characteristic for the predicates with specific semantics: (a) Possession/Existence; (b) Psychological state;
(c) Physiological state; (d) Visual/auditory perception; (e) Modal state (may/must). The main and
common feature for the subjects of these predicates (res. affective verbs) is that they do not act according
to their “free will” and do not “control” their own action – feelings, emotions, perceptions. So, the S of
affective verbs is far from the prototypical subjects, which control their actions and act according to their
free will. In the majority of languages such deviation from the prototype is represented by the marked,
non-canonical linguistic structures. In these structures S instead of the canonical form (nominative – for
Nom./Acc. languages, or ergative – for Erg./Abs. languages) stands in marked Dative (or any other
oblique – gen., acc., inst.) case.
III. Cognitive Explanation: Conceptual Model
Conceptual relations which define the peculiarities of such non-canonical constructions could be
represented by the following model:
A
B
y
x
c
IV. Different Possibilities of v
Coding
In natural languages there arey
no special forms (cases) for these A(Exp.)/B(St.). Each language selects its
own strategy in case marking of these arguments. Some features of conceptual relations (of the model) are
actualized: Cognitively A and x
B are considered in resemblance (closeness) to main semantic roles and are
coded respectively as Ag, P, Ad, Inst. or others. E.g. in German, as A receives some stimulus from B,
Experiencer is identified with
c Addressee and stands in Dative, while B is regarded as causer and
respectively stands in Ag’s case – Nominative: Mir (We-dat.) geffalen (like) diese (these) Bücher (Booksnom.). Same cognitive processes
v define linguistic structures of affective verbs in Russian, Spanish and
others. In English, A’s state is actualized and, as a result, descriptive constructions arise: I am cold. In
Japanese, both nouns are marked as Ag and construction with two nominative arguments leads us to think
.
that cognitively A and B are defined as active arguments: One of them causes something, while the other
B involuntarily causes either mental, psychological, or physiological state of the core argument (A). A
feels this state and directs its own emotions to B; e.g.: to hate, to love, to like and etc. There are cases
when B is uncertain, undefined argument. In such cases feelings stay within A; e.g.: to be cold, to be
angry, to be hungry.
Semantically B can be qualified as “Stimulus” and A as “Experiencer.”
directs its own action to the object: Ken-ga (Ken-nom) Mie-ga (Mie-nom) sukida (Likes). There are many
other alternatives of markedness:
Bengali – mAza nehaml Doka dukh-ta (‘I always have a headache’)
I-gen.N always head.N ache-Imp-N
Sinhala – LamAya-atin koope biNduna (‘The child (inadvertently) broke the cup’)
child-inst. cup break.Past.P
Even though strategies of marking are different, one universal tendency can be identified: Constructions
with affective verbs build an opposition with canonical constructions. They are constructed as the noncanonical, marked ones, where Subject stands in marked (mostly Dative) case.
V. The Data of the Georgian Language
In Georgian alongside with this generalization affective verbs build non-canonical constructions which
are called inversive. According to the general tendency S stands there in dative case and triggers the Mtype person markers in the verb forms.
In general, Georgian has two types of verbal person affixes, the V-type and the M-type:
I
II
III
V-type
sing.
v-s,a,o
pl.
v- -t
-t
-n,en,an,
nen,es
M-type
sing.
mgh,s,øø-
pl.
gvg- -t
h,s,ø- (-t)
ø
Traditionally the V-type affixes are considered to be subject markers, while the M-type are object
markers. However, this is not always the case: In the perfective-resultative tense forms and also with
affective verbs the subject appears with the M-type and object with the V-type. For that reason most
Georgian scholars qualify these forms as inversive ones. It seems more adequate to analyze these markers
without any functional qualification (S or O), on the base of the semantic feature: “free will of
arguments”. This feature is decisive not only for the affective verbs, but it plays also an important role in
the whole system of the person alignment and defines appearance of either the M or the V-type of
markers:
I.
The argument whose free will is not included in the situation (or it is unknown whether its free
will is included or not) triggers the M-type affixes. (Semantically such are: Addressee,
Experiencer, an actually unknown Ag of perfective tense forms)
II.
The argument that acts according to its free will triggers the V-type affixes (such is Ag).
III.
The argument whose free will is not relevant for the situation (such is P), triggers
a. The V-type, if it is only argument linked with the verb (P);
b. The V-type, if other argument’s free will is not included in the situation (P-Ad, or P-Exp, or
P-unknAg);
c. The M-type, if other argument’s free will is included in situation (P-Ag);
d. Zero, if all other (both) arguments (with +(F W) and with –(FW)) are linked with the verb.
These rules are hierarchically organized: I>II>IIIa>IIIb>IIIc>IIId. As a result various morphological verb
forms arise.