Cover not available
Article published In:
Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 18:2 (2015) ► pp.238–250

Indirect object markers in Georgian Sign Language

| Ilia State University, Tbilisi
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.
Keywords: agreement, Georgian Sign Language, causation, indirect object, auxiliary, respect
Published online: 4 February 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.18.2.03mak
References (19)
Chikobava, Arnold. 1950. Kartuli enis zogadi daxasiateba [A general characterization of the Georgian language]. KEGL, vol. I1, Tbilisi. Ed. by A. Chikobava. Tbilisi: Sakartvelos mecnierebata gamocemebi. 018–080.Google Scholar
Deeters, Gerhard. 1930. Das Kharthwelische Verbum. Vergleichende Darstellung des Verbalbaus der südkaukasischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Markert & Petters.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kavtaradze, Ivane. 1954. Zmnis žiritadi k’at’egoreibisatvis žvel kartulši [Concerning the general verbal categories in Old Georgian]. Tbilisi.Google Scholar
Lillo-Martin, Diane & Richard Meier. 2011. On the linguistic status of ‘agreement’ in sign language. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3/4). 95–141.Google Scholar
Makharoblidze, Tamar. 2012. Kartuli jest’uri ena [Georgian Sign Language]. Tbilisi: Ministry of Education and Science, USAID, Save the Children International. Google Scholar
Mathur, Gaurav & Christian Rathmann. 2012. Verb agreement. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook, 136–157. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit. 2002. A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 201. 413–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padden, Carol. 1988. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach. 2013. person climbing up a tree (and other adventures in sign language grammaticalization). Sign Language & Linguistics 16(2). 189–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quer, Josep. 2011. When agreeing to disagree is not enough: Further arguments for the linguistic status of sign language agreement. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3-4). 189–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quer, Josep & Santiago Frigola. 2006. Crosslinguistic 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. 2012. Agreement auxiliaries. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language. An international handbook, 204–227. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
. 2005. Free functional elements of tense, aspect, modality and agreement as possible auxiliaries in Greek Sign Language. Bristol: University of Bristol dissertation.Google Scholar
Shanidze, Akaki. 1926. Kartulizmnissakcevi [Version of Georgian verb]. TSU Moambe. Vol. VI1. (With an abstract in French – Versions du verbe Géorgien). Tbilisi. 312–333.Google Scholar
. 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.Google Scholar
Steinbach, Markus. 2011. What do agreement auxiliaries reveal about the grammar of sign language agreement. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3/4). 209–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steinbach, Markus & Roland Pfau. 2007. Grammaticalization 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B. 2013. The point of agreement: Changing how we think about sign language, gesture, and agreement. Sign Language & Linguistics 16(2). 221–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (24)

Cited by 24 other publications

Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach
2023. Morphology in Sign Languages. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Makharoblidze, Tamar
2022. On verbal arguments in sign languages. enadakultura DOI logo
Pfau, Roland, Tamar Makharoblidze & Hedde Zeijlstra
2022. Negation and Negative Concord in Georgian Sign Language. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Börstell, Carl
2019. Differential object marking in sign languages. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4:1 DOI logo
Kimmelman, Vadim
2018. Basic argument structure in Russian Sign Language. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3:1 DOI logo
Makharoblidze, Tamar & Roland Pfau
2018. A negation-tense interaction in Georgian Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 21:1 ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo
Baker, Anne
2016. Sign languages as natural languages. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Baker, Anne & Roland Pfau
2016. Constituents and word classes. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 93 ff. DOI logo
Baker, Anne, Trude Schermer, Roland Pfau & Beppie van den Bogaerde
2016. Foreword. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. xiii ff. DOI logo
Baker, Anne & Beppie van den Bogaerde
2016. Interaction and discourse. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 73 ff. DOI logo
Baker, Anne, Beppie van den Bogaerde & Sonja Jansma
2016. Acquisition. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 51 ff. DOI logo
Anne Baker, Beppie van den Bogaerde, Roland Pfau & Trude Schermer
2016. The Linguistics of Sign Languages, DOI logo
Crasborn, Onno A.
2016. Phonetics. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 229 ff. DOI logo
Crasborn, Onno A.
2016. Phonetics. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 229 ff. DOI logo
Pfau, Roland
2016. Syntax. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 149 ff. DOI logo
Pfau, Roland
2016. Morphology. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 197 ff. DOI logo
Pfau, Roland & Heleen Bos
2016. Syntax. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 117 ff. DOI logo
Schermer, Trude
2016. Language variation and standardisation. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 279 ff. DOI logo
Schermer, Trude
2016. Lexicon. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo
Schermer, Trude & Roland Pfau
2016. Language contact and change. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 299 ff. DOI logo
Schermer, Trude & Roland Pfau
2016. Psycholinguistics. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
van den Bogaerde, Beppie, Marjolein Buré & Connie Fortgens
2016. Bilingualism and deaf education. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 325 ff. DOI logo
van der Kooij, Els
2016. Phonology. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 251 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2016. Companion site. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 november 2024. 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.