Cover not available
Part of
Building Categories in Interaction: Linguistic resources at work
Edited by Caterina Mauri, Ilaria Fiorentini and Eugenio Goria
[Studies in Language Companion Series 220] 2021
► pp. 355–372

Chapter 13
Encoding ad hoc categories in Georgian

Three types of echo-word constructions

| Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University

The chapter is a discussion of Georgian echo-word constructions (non-prototypical reduplication) as a linguistic encoding of ad hoc categories. Based on the empirical data (published texts, corpora, elicited examples), I present a classification of Georgian echo-word constructions into three types with their respective formal and semantic features. With respect to possible parameters of base/reduplicant combinations, such as (a) free/bound form, (b) kind and direction of copying, (c) meaning of resulting formation, the following three types were identified: Type 1: Turkish-like m-reduplication; Type 2: Initial C/cluster deletion; Type 3: Fossilized echo-pairs. Notwithstanding a type, they all, to a certain extent, participate in the encoding of ad hoc categories in Georgian.

Keywords: ad hoc categories, Georgian, echo-word constructions, reduplication, base/reduplicant relation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Echo reduplication in Georgian: Features, types, and classification
    • 2.1Type 1
    • 2.2Type 2
    • 2.3Type 3
  • 3.Georgian echo-word formations as contributors to the encoding of ad hoc categories
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.220.13kik
References
Barsalou, Lawrence W.
2011 Ad hoc categories. In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences, Patrick C. Hogan (ed.), 86–87. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Benigni, Valentina
2018  Ad hoc categorization in Russian and multifunctional general extenders. In Linguistic Strategies for the Construction of Ad Hoc Categories: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives, Caterina Mauri & Andrea Sansò (eds). Special issue of Folia Linguistica 52(s39–1): 97–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bzdȩga, Andrzej Z.
1965 Reduplizierte Wortbildung im Deutschen. Poznan: Poznanskie towarzystwo przyjaciól nauk.Google Scholar
Datukishvili, Ketevan
1990 Redup’lik’acia kartulši (Reduplication in Georgian]). PhD dissertation, Georgian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
DGIP
2017 The database of Georgian idioms and proverbs (with their English, Russian, German, French, Turkish and Arabic equivalents). [URL]> (14 February 2020).
D’souza, Jean
1991 Echos in a sociolinguistic area. Language Sciences 13(2): 289–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emeneau, Murray B.
1938 An echo-word motif in Dravidian folk-tales. Journal of the American Oriental Society 58(4): 553–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gersamia, Rusudan, Kikvidze, Zaal, Lomia, Maia, Mamiseishvili, Nona & Sagliani, Medea
2016 Ponosemant’ik’uri leksik’a kartvelur enebši (Phonosemantic vocabulary in Kartvelian languages). Tbilisi: Inovacia.Google Scholar
Hurch, Bernhard & Mattes, Veronika
2009 Typology of reduplication: The Graz database. In Use of Databases in Cross-linguistic Studies, Martin Everaert, Simon Musgrave & Alexis Dimitriadis (eds), 301–328. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Zoll, Cheryl
2005 Reduplication: Doubling in Morphology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johanson, Lars
2002 Structural Factors in Turkic Language Contacts. London: Curzon.Google Scholar
Kikvidze, Zaal
2016 How to gloss and translate Georgian echo-paired words. In General and Specialist Translation / Interpretation: Theory, Methods, Practice: International Conference Papers, Artur Gudmanyan (ed.), 168–172. Kyiv: AgrarMedia Group.Google Scholar
2018 Copying direction as a factor in the classification system of Kartvelian echo-word constructions. Papers of BAS, Humanities and Social Sciences 2: 135–143.Google Scholar
Kikvidze, Zaal, Gersamia, Rusudan & Lomia, Maia
2018 Patterns of phonosemantic reduplication in Kartvelian (South Caucasian) languages. Linguistics Beyond and Within 4: 92–107. [URL]> (14 February 2020).
Konstantinidou, Magdalene
2005 Degenerative lexikalische Reduplikation durch [m] im Anlaut: Eine eigenartige rhetorische Figur im Mundartgriechischen und Türkischen. In Sprache und Multikulturalität. Festschrift für Professor Käthi Dorfmüller-Karpusa, Eleni Butulussi, Evangelia Karagiannidou & Katerina Zachu (eds), 253–274. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press.Google Scholar
Mauri, Caterina
2017 Building and interpreting ad hoc categories: A linguistic analysis. In Formal Models in the Study of Language, Joanna Blochowiak, Cristina Grisot, Stephanie Durrleman-Tame & Christopher Laenzlinger (eds), 297–326. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauri, Caterina & Sansò, Andrea
(eds) 2018a Linguistic Strategies for the Construction of Ad Hoc Categories: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives. Special issue of Folia Linguistica Historica 52(s39–1).Google Scholar
2018b Linguistic strategies for ad hoc categorization: theoretical assessment and cross-linguistic variation. In Linguistic Strategies for the Construction of Ad Hoc Categories: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives, Caterina Mauri & Andrea Sansò (eds). Special issue of Folia Linguistica 52(s39–1): 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J., Alderete, John, Beckman, Jill, Benua, Laura, Gnanadesikan, Amalia, & Urbanczyk, Suzanne
1999 Reduplication with fixed segmentism. Linguistic Inquiry 30(3): 327–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan
1996 Prosodic morphology (1986) [Linguistics Department Faculty Publication Series 13]. [URL]> (14 February 2020).
1994 The emergence of the unmarked; Optimality in prosodic morphology. Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 24: 333–379.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A.
1978 Reduplicative constructions. In Universals of Human Language, Vol. 3: Word Structure, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), 297–334. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Neisser, Friedrich
1953 Studien zur Georgishen Wortbildung [Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 31(2)], hrsg. von Gerhard Deeters. Wiesbaden: Deutsche Morgenlandische Gesellschaft/Steiner.Google Scholar
Niepokuj, Mary
1997 The Development of Verbal Reduplication in Indo-European [Journal of Indo-European Studies. Monograph Series 24]. Washington DC: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Pott, Adolf F.
1862 Doppelung (Reduplikation, Gemination) als eines der wichtigsten Bildungsmittel der Sprache, beleuchtet aus Sprachen aller Welttheile. Lemgo/Detmold: Meyer.Google Scholar
Raimy, Eric
2000 The Phonology and Morphology of Reduplication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayfield, Donald
2006 A Comprehensive Georgian-English Dictionary. London: Garnett Press.Google Scholar
Rubino, Carl R.
2005 Reduplication. In The World Atlas of Language Structures, Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds), 11–29. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Rudenko, Boris T.
1940 Grammatika gruzinskogo jazyka (A grammar of the Georgian language). Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the USSR.Google Scholar
Sanikidze, Latavra
1968 Puʒegaork’ecebuli k’mp’ozit’ebi kartulši (Stem-reduplicated compounds in Georgian). Macne 3: 144–172.Google Scholar
1976 Gaork’eceba kartulši (Reduplication in Georgian). Annual of Ibero-Caucasian Linguistics 3: 35–86.Google Scholar
Southern, Mark R. V.
2005 Contagious Couplings: Transmission of Expressives in Yiddish Echo Phrases. Westport C): Praeger.Google Scholar
Steever, Sanford B.
2009 Tamil and the Dravidian languages. In The World’s Major Languages, Bernard Comrie (ed.), 635–652. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas
2008 Total reduplication vs. echo-word formations in language contact situations. In Language Contact and Contact Languages [Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 7], Peter Siemund & Noemi Kintana (eds), 107–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stolz, Thomas, Stroh, Cornelia & Urdze, Aina
2011 Total Reduplication: The Areal Linguistics of a Potential Universal. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiwary, Kapil M.
1968 The echo-word construction in Bhojpuri. Anthropological Linguistics 10(4): 32–38.Google Scholar
Topuria, Varlam
1979 Kartvelur enata sit’q’vac’armoebidan, VI, k’ompozit’i (From word-formation of Kartvelian languages, VI, Compound). In Works, Vol. 3, Varlam Topuria, 103–131. Tbilisi: Mecniereba.Google Scholar
Tschenkeli, Kita
1960 Georgisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch. Zürich: Amirani-Verlag.Google Scholar
Tuite, Kevin
2015 The semiotics and poetics of South Caucasian nonsense vocabulary. Ms. [URL]> (14 February 2020).
Urdze, Aina
2018 Preface. In Non-Prototypical Reduplication, Aina Urdze (ed.), vii–xi. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar