This paper presents one of the first studies on Georgian Sign Language (gesl), a sign language that has not previously been taken into consideration in typological research on sign languages. We focus on three types of indirect object markers, that is, auxiliary-like elements that introduce an additional argument. We discuss four markers in total. Interestingly, three of these markers do not only introduce an argument but also come with additional semantics, namely respect, disrespect, and causation. It will further be shown that the presence of an indirect object marker frees the word order in the sentence.
1950Kartuli enis zogadi daxasiateba [A general characterization of the Georgian language]. KEGL, vol. I1, Tbilisi. Ed. by A. Chikobava. Tbilisi: Sakartvelos mecnierebata gamocemebi. 018–080.
Deeters, Gerhard
1930Das Kharthwelische Verbum. Vergleichende Darstellung des Verbalbaus der südkaukasischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Markert & Petters.
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
2002World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kavtaradze, Ivane
1954Zmnis žiritadi k’at’egoreibisatvis žvel kartulši [Concerning the general verbal categories in Old Georgian]. Tbilisi.
Lillo-Martin, Diane & Richard Meier
2011On the linguistic status of ‘agreement’ in sign language. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3/4). 95–141.
Makharoblidze, Tamar
2012Kartuli jest’uri ena [Georgian Sign Language]. Tbilisi: Ministry of Education and Science, USAID, Save the Children International.
Mathur, Gaurav & Christian Rathmann
2012Verb agreement. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook, 136–157. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Meir, Irit
2002A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 201. 413–450.
Padden, Carol
1988Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland.
2011When agreeing to disagree is not enough: Further arguments for the linguistic status of sign language agreement. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3-4). 189–196.
Quer, Josep & Santiago Frigola
2006Crosslinguistic research and particular grammars: A case study on auxiliary predicates in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). Paper presented at
Workshop on cross-linguistic sign language research, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, January 2006.
Sapountzaki, Galini
2012Agreement auxiliaries. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook, 204–227. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Sapountzaki, Galini
2005Free functional elements of tense, aspect, modality and agreement as possible auxiliaries in Greek Sign Language. Bristol: University of Bristol dissertation.
Shanidze, Akaki
1926Kartulizmnissakcevi [Version of Georgian verb]. TSU Moambe. Vol. VI1. (With an abstract in French – Versions du verbe Géorgien). Tbilisi. 312–333.
Shanidze, Akaki
1980 [1953]Txzulebani tormet’ t’omad. t’omi III. kartuli enis gramatik’is sapužvlebi. Morpologia. [Works in 12 volumes. Vol III1. Basics of Georgian Grammar. Morphology].Tbilisi: TSU Press.
Steinbach, Markus
2011What do agreement auxiliaries reveal about the grammar of sign language agreement. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3/4). 209–221.
Steinbach, Markus & Roland Pfau
2007Grammaticalization of auxiliaries in sign languages. In Pamela Perniss, Roland Pfau & Markus Steinbach (eds.), Visible variation: Cross-linguistic studies on sign language structure, 303–339. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
2016. Phonology. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 251 ff.
[no author supplied]
2016. Companion site. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages,
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 november 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.