Nonunitary structure of unergative verbs in Georgian
Léa NASH
September 2021 

This article investigates grammatical properties of unergativity. I argue that unergative predicates, traditionally defined as intransitive activity denoting verbs with agent argument, can be structured in various ways in a language. In some languages, grammatical encoding of unergatives is straightforward. In others, where agentivity and dyadicity are interdependent, unergatives can be subject to argument structure modification, and construed as causatives with Agent but without Theme. The present analysis of Georgian unergative verbs contributes to two central theoretical topics: (in)transitivity and nature of ergative case. Georgian is rare among ergative languages as it displays intransitive split (Dixon 1979): the subject of unergatives is marked as ergative and the subject of unaccusatives as nominative/absolutive. While other ergative languages manifest this split to various degrees and optionally mark the subject of unergatives as absolutive (Basque (Oyaharçabal 1992, Aldai 2009), Hindi (Butt & King 2003)), the subject of unergatives in Georgian is always ergative in tenses with ergative case-alignment. At first sight, Georgian, where unergative and transitive predicates are lumped for case purposes, conforms to Hale & Keyser’s (1993) analysis of unergatives as transitives with hidden Theme. Yet, structural properties of Georgian unergatives point to the absence of internal argument. Their morphological makeup in perfective tenses suggests that unergatives are not monovalent verbs either, as proposed by Perlmutter (1978) (cf. also Borer 2005, Marantz 2007). Their sensitivity to Viewpoint aspect implies that unergatives pattern with statives, with external Holder argument. The reason why unergatives cannot be underlyingly agentive resides in the fact that Agent role is not an inherent property of predicates in Georgian. It is configurationally defined by Neo-Burzio Dependency: Agent-introducing category must select an argument-selecting complement. But as the traditional hallmark of unergatives is agentivity, i.e. presence of an initiator in the sense of Dowty’s (1991) proto- Agent role, their stative core must be modified. This is achieved by expanding the core in two ways. In imperfective aspect, bundling of dynamic progressive Aspect features with stative structure enables agentive interpretation of the external argument. In perfective aspect, agenthood is structurally built by causativisation of stative structure. But as the added argument with Agent role refers to the same event participant as the Holder, the causative configuration is reflexivised signalled by the appropriate morphology. If unergatives are structured as reflexive causatives in the perfective, the ergative case on their subject is expected. In current theorizing, two approaches prevail on ergative case-marking: (i) ergative is inherent, tied to agentivity, (Woolford 2006, Nash 1995, Johns 1993, Massam 2002, Legate 2008, a.o.); (ii) ergative is a structural dependent case, assigned to the higher of the two arguments in the same domain (Marantz 1991, Nash 2017, Baker 2014, a.o.). Analysing unergatives in perfective aspect as bivalent predicates with coindexed Agent and Holder supports the dependent case theory: in Georgian, ergative is assigned to the higher argument in a bi-argumental verbal template. The notion of inherent agentive case cannot be applied to Georgian where Agent role is configurational and where presyntactically determined agentive predicates do not exist. Georgian should not be defined as an active language in the sense of Sapir (1917) and Mithun (1991), where agents are marked with special semantic case (Harris 1985), but rather as a (split) ergative language where the highest argument of bivalent eventive verbs bears ergative case (Hewitt 1987). Furthermore, their combination with applied arguments calls for refinement of unergative structures in Georgian. Datives are banned with behaviour denoting unergatives, while other types of unergatives occur with part-whole and addressee datives. This asymmetry is best accounted if behaviour denoting unergatives are construed as complex predicates comprising a light verb and non-verbal predicate, while all others involve simplex verbs. The main conclusion of this study is that unergative predicates in Georgian can be structured in several ways, at vP level and at VoiceP level. These configurational options, shaped by general structural constraints, yield a predicate with one agentive event participant, in conformity with traditional definition of unergativity.

Format:	[ pdf ]
Reference:	lingbuzz/006194 (please use that when you cite this article)
Published in:	to appear at NLLT
keywords:	ergative case, unergative, stative, agent, holder, causatives, reflexivisation, syntax
previous versions:	v1 [June 2021]
Downloaded:	467 times

 

[ edit this article | back to article list ]