Hélène Gérardin

Cette thèse a pour objet le classement et la description des verbes intransitifs monoactanciels en géorgien, dans une perspective linguistique typologique. L’analyse comporte deux phases : d’une part un classement des verbes, et d’autre part une réflexion critique sur la complexité du système mis en évidence ainsi que sur la notion d’intransitivité en général. Le classement proposé commence par séparer les verbes non dérivés d’autres verbes (‘intransitifs primaires’) de ceux dont la morphologie indique un processus de dérivation détransitive (‘intransitifs dérivés’). Les verbes monoactanciels primaires se divisent en deux classes, ayant chacune une unité à la fois sémantique et morphosyntaxique : les verbes téliques (comme ‘mourir’) et les verbes atéliques (comme ‘vivre’). Les verbes biactanciels sont ensuite brièvement décrits selon une échelle de transitivité. Puis sont abordés les verbes monoactanciels dérivés, qui peuvent avoir jusqu’à quatre interprétations : passive, décausati...

Languages expressing diathesis by morphological voice often extend the use of voice to modal meanings. Typical examples are modal passives and facilitatives. This paper deals with the modal uses of the "detransitive" voice in Georgian, using data from the author's own fieldwork. Georgian has a morphological detransitive in i-R-eb-a (R = root) which derives intransitive constructions from transitive ones. Its main values are passive. Its morphosyntactic features are well-studied,
especially its use as a passive, but its aspecto-modal uses lack thorough analysis. The paper argues that the passive use of the detransitive voice typically includes deontic ('shall') and potential meanings. Deontic meanings are typical for normative speech; the agent is dereferentialized and the construction expresses a general statement (e.g. 'Purchased items are not refundable'). In its potential meanings, the verb expresses whether the process can be realized or not (e.g. 'Does the window open?'). In addition, the passive has generic meanings and is used to express permanent virtual semantic properties of the patient (e.g. 'to be edible'). This third type of modality differs from the potential in that the agent is entirely removed semantically whereas in the former, the
ability of the agent to carry out the process is crucially implied. In conclusion, it will be suggested that the fact that both voice and modal categories are expressed by the same morphology has a decrease of semantic transitivity as its centre: the non-referentiality of one of the core arguments enables the sentence to be interpreted as atelic and/or irrealis.

The main problem of acquisition of Georgian as a second language is that the structure of this language is very different from that of the languages spoken by the majority of learners. As a consequence, it is very difficult for students to recognize common features and be able to draw upon these similarities. The aim of this paper is to share the double experience of learning and teaching Georgian in order to extract some general principles. We focus our attention on two elements which constitute the origin of common mistakes made by the students: the polypersonnal conjugation and the marking of core arguments (subject, direct and indirect objects). In both cases, we describe the situation and explain why it is difficult for non-Georgians to understand and assimilate these features. In addition, we offer a few suggestions to simplify the acquisition of these rules. Besides useful tips, we also offer sample exercises. The presented analyses and materials intend to contribute to the development of methods of teaching Georgian as second language.

The topic of this PhD thesis is a classification and description of one-argument intransitive verbs in Georgian in a typological perspective. The analysis consists of two steps: firstly, the classification of the various types of verbs and secondly, a critical investigation of the complexity of the system under study and on the concept of intransitivity in general. The proposed classification begins by separating verbs not derived from other verbs (‘primary intransitives’) from those whose morphology indicates a process of de-transitive derivation (‘derived intransitives’). Primary one-argument verbs, in turn, are divided into two classes, each consisting of verbs with the same morphological, as well as semantic properties: telic verbs (such as “to die”) and atelic verbs (e.g. “to live”). Two-argument verbs are briefly described according to a transitivity scale. Discussed next are derived one-argument verbs which may have up to four readings: passive, decausative, autocausative and antipassive, and finally, verb pairs whose members, one transitive and one intransitive, are both morphologically marked. One-argument intransitivity in Georgian has not yet been investigated thoroughly; this particularly applies to some of its aspects such as the antipassive, of which a detailed study is offered here. The present work is intended to contribute to Kartvelian studies and at the same time, to recent discussion in general linguistics on the concepts of transitivity, valency and voice. Indeed, owing to its large number of verb classes and the close connection between morphosyntax and semantics, Georgian offers excellent data for the study of these concepts.