Indirect object markers in Georgian Sign Language:

Makharoblidze, Tamar

doi:10.1075/sll.18.2.03mak

Article published In:

Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 18:2 (2015) ► pp.238–250

Indirect object markers in Georgian Sign Language

Tamar Makharoblidze | 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

https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.18.2.03mak

References

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.

Deeters, Gerhard

1930 Das Kharthwelische Verbum. Vergleichende Darstellung des Verbalbaus der südkaukasischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Markert & Petters.

Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva

2002 World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kavtaradze, Ivane

1954 Zmnis žiritadi k’at’egoreibisatvis žvel kartulši [Concerning the general verbal categories in Old Georgian]. Tbilisi.

Lillo-Martin, Diane & Richard Meier

2011 On the linguistic status of ‘agreement’ in sign language. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3/4). 95–141.

Makharoblidze, Tamar

2012 Kartuli jest’uri ena [Georgian Sign Language]. Tbilisi: Ministry of Education and Science, USAID, Save the Children International.

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.

Meir, Irit

2002 A cross-modality perspective on verb agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 201. 413–450.

Padden, Carol

1988 Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland.

Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach

2013 person climbing up a tree (and other adventures in sign language grammaticalization). Sign Language & Linguistics 16(2). 189–221.

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.

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.

2005 Free functional elements of tense, aspect, modality and agreement as possible auxiliaries in Greek Sign Language. Bristol: University of Bristol dissertation.

Shanidze, Akaki

1926 Kartulizmnissakcevi [Version of Georgian verb]. TSU Moambe. Vol. VI1. (With an abstract in French – Versions du verbe Géorgien). Tbilisi. 312–333.

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

2011 What do agreement auxiliaries reveal about the grammar of sign language agreement. Theoretical Linguistics 37(3/4). 209–221.

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.

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.

Cited by

Cited by 23 other publications

Baker, Anne

2016. Sign languages as natural languages. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 1 ff.

Baker, Anne & Roland Pfau

2016. Constituents and word classes. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 93 ff.

Baker, Anne, Trude Schermer, Roland Pfau & Beppie van den Bogaerde

2016. Foreword. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. xiii ff.

Baker, Anne & Beppie van den Bogaerde

2016. Interaction and discourse. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 73 ff.

Baker, Anne, Beppie van den Bogaerde & Sonja Jansma

2016. Acquisition. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 51 ff.

Anne Baker, Beppie van den Bogaerde, Roland Pfau & Trude Schermer

2016. The Linguistics of Sign Languages,

Börstell, Carl

2019. Differential object marking in sign languages. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4:1

Crasborn, Onno A.

2016. Phonetics. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 229 ff.

Kimmelman, Vadim

2018. Basic argument structure in Russian Sign Language. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3:1

Makharoblidze, Tamar

2022. On verbal arguments in sign languages. enadakultura

Makharoblidze, Tamar & Roland Pfau

2018. A negation-tense interaction in Georgian Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 21:1 ► pp. 137 ff.

Pfau, Roland

2016. Syntax. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 149 ff.

2016. Morphology. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 197 ff.

Pfau, Roland & Heleen Bos

2016. Syntax. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 117 ff.

Pfau, Roland, Tamar Makharoblidze & Hedde Zeijlstra

2022. Negation and Negative Concord in Georgian Sign Language. Frontiers in Psychology 13

Schermer, Trude

2016. Language variation and standardisation. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 279 ff.

2016. Lexicon. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 173 ff.

Schermer, Trude & Roland Pfau

2016. Language contact and change. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 299 ff.

2016. Psycholinguistics. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 25 ff.

van den Bogaerde, Beppie, Marjolein Buré & Connie Fortgens

2016. Bilingualism and deaf education. In The Linguistics of Sign Languages, ► pp. 325 ff.

van der Kooij, Els

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 28 march 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.