Typological Peculiarities of the Georgian Passive and the Information Structure

1
Typological Peculiarities of the Georgian Passive
and the Information Structure

• Rusudan Asatiani
• Institute for Oriental Studies
• Tbilisi State University
• Georgia
• rus_asatiani_at_hotmail.com

2
I. Introduction setting a task

• Within the theory of functional grammar the
  Passive Construction (PC) is considered as a
  syntactic category It is qualified as a
  conversive one of the corresponding active
  construction where the Patient is promoted to the
  subject position along the string of
  hierarchically organized functional categories
  (SgtDOgtIO), while the Agent is demoted and
  transformed into a prepositional phrase so, it
  does not represent a core argument defined by the
  verb valency any more
• Yet, many languages present morphologically
  marked verb forms in such conversive
  constructions (resp. PC) and, consequently, it is
  possible to speak about the morphosyntactic
  category of passive voice.

3

• In Georgian there is a clear formal opposition
  between the active (first of all, transitive) and
  the passive (first of all, actives conversive)
  verb forms that is represented by special
  morphosyntactic features (terms
  active/passive are used conventionally)

Active Passive
S.3.SG suffix (in present) -s -a
Thematic marker (in I-series tense forms) -eb- -eb-, -ob-, -op-, -av-, -am-, -i-, -Ø-
Special markers ---- i-, e-, -d, -Ø-
Subject case NOM(in present)/ ERG(in Aorist)/ DAT(in Perfect) NOM
4

• But, none of the features can be regarded as a
  simple morphosyntactic markers of the PC as far
  as they dont exist just only in PC
• Main function of -s, -a suffixes is to mark
  S.3.SG and representing this function they can be
  found in various cases (1) -s is a marker of
  S.3.SG in the forms of subjunctive mood of both,
  the passive and the active verbs (2) s
  represents S.3.SG of some static verbs (so
  called, medio-passives) and (3) -a can be the
  marker of active verbs S.3.SG in past tenses
  (Aorist, Perfect) etc.
• Main function of -eb- is to mark dynamic verb
  forms and expressing this function it exists with
  some active verbs as well
• Vowel prefixes are polyfunctional in general,
  they represent derivational changes of verb
  valency either appearance or disappearance of
  verb argument e.g. -i- expresses such categories
  as subjunctive version, reflexive, potentialis,
  deponences and has an additional function to form
  the future tense of some medial (resp.
  medio-active) verbs
• Nominative is a case characteristic for the
  subjects of some intransitive (yet, not passive)
  verbs and Ergative (or Dative) can be the subject
  marker for any kind of intransitive (yet, active)
  verbs expressing active process.

5

• Thus, we have two different formal models defined
  by the complex of morphosyntactic features that
  represent active-passive opposition yet, the
  models can not be interpreted simply as far as
• The Georgian morphosyntactically distingushed PC
  does not always show a conversion of an active
  one and it actually expresses various semantics
• Active semantics dgeba S/he is standing up,
  ekaceba S/he tugs hard at smth./smb., acveba
  S/he pushes smth./smb., etc.
• Dynamic actions tvreba S/he gets drunk, šreba
  S/he dries, tbeba S/he gets warm, etc.
• Potentialis icmeba It can be eaten, ismeba
  It is drinkable, ikitxeba It can be read,
  etc.
• Reciprocals etamašeba S/he plays with sb.They
  play together, ecekveba S/he dances with
  sb.They dance together, etc.

6

• Tasks
• What is the real function of the
  morphosyntactically differentiated models?
• What is the actual semantics of Georgian so
  called PC?
• How does the Georgian PC fit to the universal
  functional interpretation of PC?
• How can be qualified the Georgian PC?
• Is the Georgian PC defined functionally or
  semantically?
• And so on.
• It is clear that the issue certainly needs
  further investigations.

7
II. Theoretical approaches

• Information Structure According to the one
  theoretical approach implemented in contemporary
  linguistics the active-passive functional
  differences can be explained by the variety of
  information structures.
• During the linguistic structuring of
  extra-linguistic situations some languages
  conventionally conceptualize as the central part
  of information either Agent or Patient. The first
  construction formally emphasizes who is acting
  (Agfocus), while the second emphasizes what is
  done (Pfocus). From the grammatical point of
  view, conceptual foregrounding is represented by
  the unmarked, Nominative case In the nominative
  languages (in active constructions) it is the
  Agent, who always stands in nominative, while in
  the ergative languages it is the Patient (and not
  the Agent) who appears in nominative.

8

• Patients foregrounding in the nominative
  languages, where agent is conceptually
  highlighted part, can further be achieved by the
  changes of functional roles.
• In PC the Patient is functionally promoted and it
  is defined as the Subject.
• The term Subject actually denotes foregrounding
  of a certain part of information to whom or what
  the information concerns. Active construction
  shows Agents foregrounding (that means Agent is
  the Subject and, consequently, stands in
  nominative), while Passive construction shows
  Patients foregrounding (that means Patient is
  the Subject and, consequently, stands in
  nominative).
• Thus, syntactic opposition between active and
  passive constructions can be provoked by
  different models of the information structuring.
  

9

• The Georgian language shows split-ergativity and
  because of this the restrictions of passivization
  reflect more complicated processes defining the
  choices of either active or passive
  constructions.
• Another device defining either appearance or
  disappearance of PC in Georgian is a relatively
  free word order that makes possible to put the
  focused patient in marked (mostly sentence
  initial and pre-verbal) position without any kind
  of functional promotion and/or demotion (resp.
  pasivization). Thus, PC is not the only means
  expressing the functional foregrounding of
  patient.
• Consequently, the role of PC in the process of
  patient functional foregrounding in Georgian
  needs further investigations as well.

10

• Methodology
• Sentences raised in natural speech conversation
  are the most valuable for seeking the main formal
  models of information structures. Stimulation of
  such situations is possible by means of specially
  created experimental tasks.
• Our empirical data is collected using the
  Questionnaire on Information Structure (QUIS),
  which is being developed within the
  Sonderforschungs-bereich 632 Information
  Structure at the University of Potsdam and the
  Humboldt University Berlin (Skopetea all 2006).
• QUIS comprises a set of translation tasks and
  production experiments for the collection of
  primary data.
• The production experiments contain a range of
  experimental settings that introduce spontaneous
  expressions (e.g. picture descriptions, map
  tasks, some plays and etc.).
• For our goals the following experiments were
  especially interesting

11

• Description of the experimental task 
• The special experiment explores the interrelation
  between patients animacy and agents visibility
  in the process of PC appearance.
• It is assumed that, in general, the appearance of
  PC is more probable
• with animate patient and less probable with
  inanimate one
• with the agent that is not identifiable and less
  probable with the agent that is identifiable.
• Logically possible all (four) different cases are
  presented in pictures
• ACthe patient is animate the agent is
  identifiable
• AD the patient is animate the agent is
  non-identifiable
• BC the patient is inanimate the agent is
  identifiable
• BD the patient is inanimate the agent is
  non-identifiable

12

• Pictures

13

• Procedure
• The instructor says
• You will be shown two scenes that belong
  together that is, they belong to the same
  story. Imagine that the first scene takes place
  first and the second scene some times later, e.g.
  after five minutes. Please give a short
  description of what is going on in each scene.
• The instructor shows the first picture to the
  informant and asks
• What is going on in this scene?
• Then the instructor shows the second picture and
  asks
• What is going on in this scene?

14

• Analysis
• On the basis of the semi-spontaneous data, which
  is conducted during the 4 field sessions (16
  informants, mostly students) using this QUIS
  experiment task, PC in Georgian is not defined by
  the invisibility of agents and/or by the animacy
  of patients and it does not always suppose the
  changes of syntactic functions
• During the information structuring, when an
  invisible Agent together with the animate
  Patient is presented in the situation and PC
  might be the most appropriate construction (e.g.
  in languages like English or German mostly PC
  is created by informants), Georgian informants
  prefer to use active constructions with
  uncertain subject represented either by
  S.3.PL suffixes, or by the indefinite pronouns
  vi?ac/ra?ac sb./smth., and marked word order
  showing patient topicalization.
• Examples (1) BOtl-sT kr-aven pex-s
• bottle-DAT push-HAB-ACT.PRS.S.3.PL foot-DA
  T
• (They) are pushing the bottle.
• (2) MA-sT vi?ac pex-s
  u-rtq-am-s.
• 3.SG-DAT somebody foot-DAT
  IO.3OV-hit-TH-ACT.PRS.S.3.SG
• Somebody is hitting him with foot.

15

• Results
• Patients foregrounding is not expressed by PC in
  Georgian there is no functional foregrounding
  and the patient and/or the agent doesnt change
  their functional qualifications.
• This is one more argument to interpret Georgian
  passive as a grammatical category supposedly
  governed by semantic (or, more widely, by
  cognitive) and not by syntactic features.
• Consequently, it is necessary to find these
  semantic-cognitive features that define the
  formal opposition between the active and the
  passive morphologically distinguished models of
  formal representations.

16

• Cognitive-semantic interpretation of
  active-passive morphosyntactic oppositions A
  continuum of active-passive opposition  
• In many languages, like in Georgian,
  active-passive constructions do not always
  express syntactically defined conversive forms
  and the passive formal model is used to mark some
  other related constructions as well. In general,
  there are languages where passive formal model
  marks reflexives and reciprocals (e.g. Russian)
  in some languages it goes further and expresses
  other grammatical relations as well e.g. in
  Japanese it is the formal representation for
  potential actions, polite constructions and,
  moreover, plural forms. So, naturally, some
  attempts of new theoretical approaches have been
  raised to explain such cases. One of such
  approaches is Shibatanis interpretation
  (Shibatani 1985).
• Shibatani considers the active-passive opposition
  as a continuum where polar dimensions fit in with
  the prototypical active and passive constructions
  while non-polar, inter-medial cases share just
  only some semantic-categorical features of the
  categories which are characteristic for the
  prototypical ones 

17

• Prototypical active / Medial forms /
  Prototypical passive
• AM
  PM
• Languages choose various strategies for formal
  representations of such non-polar (lets call
  them Medial) cases they either create the new
  formal models or choose from the existing ones
  the model that is conventionally regarded as the
  most appropriate, more close according to certain
  semantic-categorical features either the active
  or the passive model.
• In such cases, simple functional (resp. changing
  of syntactic functions) or semantic (resp.
  defining active-passive semantics) interpretation
  of formal models is much more complicated and
  sometimes impossible.

18
III. The Georgian data

• Georgian active-passive continuum
• Georgian active-passive opposition might be
  interpreted as a continuum, where prototypical
  active corresponds to transitive active
  constructions representing by the active model,
  while prototypical passive defined by the
  patients foregrounding corresponds to active
  constructions conversive form representing by
  the passive model
• The medial forms grammaticalization process can
  be explained by the following general cognitive
  tendency
• During the formal representation of medial
  forms Georgian chooses either the active or the
  passive formal model. The strategy of choice is
  defined by the specific, conventionally accepted
  linguistic decision which categorical-semantic
  features of prototypical constructions are
  regarded as the central, main ones.

19

• For demonstrating such categorical-semantic
  features the following linguistic empirical facts
  which are observed during the process of formal
  representations of some intransitive medial forms
  must be taken into account
• If a medial (resp. prototypically non-active
  and/or non-passive) verb semantics tends toward
  an end (that is, it is semantically the telic
  one), then a verb chooses the passive formal
  model of representation and if a medial verb
  semantics does not tend toward an end (that is,
  it is semantically the atelic one) then a verb
  chooses the active formal model of
  representation.

20

• It is quite easy to give general formal
  interpretation of the fact
• If a verb with medial semantics can take just
  one preverb showing some direction of action
  (sometimes creating the new semantics of a verb)
  in future tense, then the verb has passive
  form.
• Examples
• Compare
• dgeba S.3.SG is getting up a-dgeba S.3.SG
  will stand up/gada-dgeba S.3.SG will stand
  elsewhere/car-dgeba S.3.SG will step forward
  /ca- dgeba S.3.SG will stand in
• emaleba S.3.SG is hiding from smth. or smb.
  da-emaleba S.3.SG will hide from smth. or
  smb.
• acveba S.3.SG is pressing down mi-acveba
  S.3.SG will push against smth. or
  smb./da-acveba S.3.SG will lie down on smth.
  or smb.
• With
• cxovrobs S.3.SG lives pikrobs S.3.SG thinks
  arsebobs S.3.SG exists kankalebs S.3.SG
  shivers goravs S.3.SG rolls suntkavs S.3.SG
  breathes bcobs S.3.SG discusses brialebs
  S.3.SG sparkles etc.)

21

• As far as in Georgian preverbs have additional
  functions and they can express Perfective-Imperfec
  tive aspect opposition and the Future Tense
  forms, it is possible to reveal the semantic
  feature (resp. completeness of an action) which
  governs the choice of passive formal model for
  some medial verbs and the above given
  interpretation turns into the following
  semantically oriented interpretation
• If a medial verb with the concrete semantics
  implies the differences between the imperfective
  (resp. incomplete) and the perfective (resp.
  complete) aspect forms, then a medial verb is
  grammaticalized as a prototypical passive and
  chooses the passive formal model.
• Cognitively more predictable would be if such
  medial forms have chosen the active formal model
  of representation as far as the
  perfective/imperfective aspect is the
  characteristic category for active verbs, yet, if
  we take into account general cognitive principles
  of formal markedness, it can be seen, that in
  Georgian processes of linguistic structuring are
  defined by the following general tendency
• Non-prototypical passive (and it is
  non-prototypical because it can (like an active
  one) differentiate completeness/incompleteness of
  an action), as being cognitively marked, uses
  formally the most marked model (resp. the
  passive formal model) of representation.

22
IV. Broadened continuum

• Such cognitive-semantic interpretations of
  active-passive continuum could be broadened
  comprising all spectrums of medial verb forms
  including so called static passives and
  medio-passives, and the process of information
  structuring can be reinterpreted as
  hierarchically organized one, where another
  opposition of categories dynamic/static
  takes a distinctive role and is formally
  grammaticalized according to the following
  restriction
• If medial verb form expresses static event,
  then a verb in present has auxiliary
  conjugation.
• That is, Georgian creates the new model
  (different from either active or passive one) of
  formal representation with auxiliary conjugation
  
• Examples
• (1) me(1.SG) v(S.1)-dga(stand)-v(S.1)-ar(be.SG)
• šen(2.SG) (S.2)dga(stand)-x(S.2)-ar(be.
  SG)
• is(3.SG) dga(stand)-s(S.3.SG)
• (2) me(1.SG) v(S.1)-gd(lie)-i-v(S.1)-ar(be.SG)
• šen(2.SG) (S.2)gd(lie)-i-x(S.2)-ar(b
  e.SG)
• is(3.SG) gd(lie)-i-a(S.3.SG).

23

• Such medial verbs fall into two subgroups
  following either the (1)-type of conjugation
  (according to the Georgian grammatical tradition
  so called static passives) or the (2)-type
  conjugation (so called medio-passives)
  distinguished by S.3.SG suffix presented in
  presented tense
• Examples of the (1)-type with S.3.SG suffix -a
• gdia S.3.SG lies strewn/thrown about qria
  S.3.SG lie scattered/strewn, penia S.3.SG is
  spread out kidia S.3.SG is hanging on
  ceria S.3.SG is written xatia S.3.SG is
  drawn abia S.3.SG is tied (on), and etc.
• Examples of the (2)-type with S.3.SG suffix -s
• dgas S.3.SG stands cevs S.3.SG (smb.)
  lies zis S.3.SG sits devs S.3.SG (smth)
  lies ?irs S.3.SG costs, cuxs S.3.SG
  worries and etc.
• The functional differences are more refined and
  the discovering of specific semantic nuances
  defining the opposition needs more careful
  analysis. We can suggest some formal testing
  expression
• If a verb creates correct phrase with the
  adverb tavad 'itself, personally' (that is, the
  expressions like tavad dgas, tavad cevs, tavad
  cuxs, and etc. are correct), then it chooses
  the active model if such a phrase is not
  correct, the passive model of representation is
  chosen (that is, the expressions liketavad
  gdia, tavad kidia, tavad ceria and etc. are
  unnatural or bad).

24

• The testing adverb helps us to distinguish the
  feature personally, according to the subjects
  will, controlled state, a state that is provoked
  by the subject. Lets denote this feature by the
  term Autotive and formulate the following
  tendency
• A verb conceptually close to autotive chooses
  the active model, while verbs expressing a state
  that is not controlled or provoked by the
  subject itself choose the passive model.
• Thus, we can summarize all our discussion and
  suggest the dynamic model which supposedly
  mirrors cognitive-semantic grounds of the formal
  represetation of active-passive opposition
  including the medial forms.
•  

25
V. Hierarchically organized dynamic model

• Linguistic representations of active, passive and
  medial verb forms can be reinterpreted as a
  hierarchically organized realizations of
  cognitive processes that define the choices of
  either the New (NM) or the Active (AM) or the
  Passive (PM) formal models
• I stage Prototypically active and prototypically
  passive relations are represented by the main
  formal models the active (resp. transitive,
  showing agents foregrounding) and the passive
  (resp. conversive, showing patients functional
  foregrounding) constructions
• II stage Medial (non-prototypical) relations are
  marked according to the two different strategies
  
• 1. The new model is created
• 2. Either active or passive models of
  representation have been chosen.

26

• The strategies of choices are defined by the
  specific cognitive processes and semantic
  features. First of all, the feature Dynamic -
  Static plays a decisive role
• Verbs expressing Static states are marked
  according to the 1- strategy and the new model of
  conjugation with the auxiliary verb to be is
  chosen, while verbs expressing Dynamic action
  choose either active or passive formal model of
  representation (2-strategy).
• III stage For Dynamic subgroup further choices
  are defined by the semantic feature telicity
• Telic medial verbs choose passive formal model
  of representation, while atelic medial verbs
  the active model of representation.
• For Static subgroup further choices are
  defined by the semantic feature Autotive
• Verbs denoting static states that are more or
  less controlled by the subject itself have the
  same S.3.SG ending in present tense as the active
  ones, while all others choose the same S.3.SG
  suffix as the passive ones.

27

• Thus, on the basis of formal and
  semantic-functional analysis of passive, active
  and medial verb forms it is possible to suggest
  the cognitive generative model that supposedly
  mirrors the hierarchically organized processes of
  grammaticalization

28

• prototypes
  non-prototypes
• prototypical prototypical
  dynamic static
• active passive (thematic
  markers) (auxiliary conjugation)
• AM PM NM
• telic atelic autotive
  -autotive
• preverb -preverb
  (-s) (-a) PM AM
• Active transitive / Conversive passive /
  Dynamic passive / Medio-Active /
  Medio-passive / Static passive

29

• Examples of medial verbs
• (1)-type medial verbs dgeba S.3.SG is standing
  up, šreba S.3.SG becomes dry, kvdeba S.3.SG
  dies, xmeba S.3.SG dries out, tetrdeba
  S.3.SG turns white, kacdeba S.3.SG becomes
  man, iqepeba S.3.SG barks, igineba S.3.SG
  is sworn at, cveba S.3.SG lies down, tvreba
  S.3.SG gets drunk, etc.
• (2)-type medial verbs cxovrobs S.3.SG lives,
  pikrobs S.3.SG thinks, arsebobs S.3.SG
  exists, kankalebs S.3.SG shivers, goravs
  S.3.SG rolls, suntkav S.3.SG breathes,
  bcobs S.3.SG discusses, brialebs S.3.SG
  sparkles, etc.
• (3)-type medial verbs dgas S.3.SG stands,
  cevs S.3.SG (smb.) lies, zis S.3.SG sits,
  devs S.3.SG (smth.) lies, ?irs S.3.SG costs,
  cuxs S.3.SG worries, and etc.
• (4)-type medial verbs gdia S.3.SG lies
  strewn/thrown about, qria S.3.SG lie
  scattered/strewn a lot of smth./smb., penia
  S.3.SG is spread out, kidia S.3.SG is
  hanging on, ceria S.3.SG is written, xatia
  S.3.SG is drawn, abia S.3.SG is tied, and
  etc.

30
VI. Some notes and conclusions

• We suppose that representing continuum of
  active-passive opposition and the dynamic
  hierarchically organized cognitive model explain
  the complex processes that define the choices of
  either the active or the passive formal models of
  representation for the non-prototypical medial
  forms in Georgian.
• Efficiency of such approach confirms once more
  that Georgian morphological passive doesnt
  always represent the syntactic changes implying
  by the information structuring, namely by the
  patients foregrounding.

31

• Because of these peculiarities morphologically
  represented passive verb forms create an
  opposition with the syntactic passive that is
  formed by the periphrastic constructions
• Passive Participle auxiliary verb qopna to
  be
• Examples dacerilia writtenis,
• daceril ikna writtenwas
• daceril ikneba writtenwill be
• Main function of this opposition is to formalize
  the functional differences between syntactically
  defined and semantically defined passive
  constructions
• Periphrastic, analytical passive represents
  functional changes (resp. patients functional
  foregrounding) of semantic roles (Patient gt
  Subject, Agent gt Prepositional phrase), while
  synthetic, morphological passive can represent
  semantically passive (resp. prototypically
  inactive, yet, dynamic and telic)
  constructions.

32

• Even in case when an active verb has not
  morphologically opposed passive, it still has
  periphrastically opposed conversive form
• Examples
• ikvlevs (S)he researches smth. gamokvleulia
  Smth. is researched (yet, ikvleveba)
• carmoadgens (S)he presents smth.
  carmodgenilia Smth. is presented (yet,
  carmoidgineba)
• arcevs (S)he chooses smth./smb. arceulia
  Smth./smb. is chosen (yet, irceva), and etc.
• It can be concluded that Georgian analytical,
  periphrastic passive corresponds to the PC
  existing in some Indo-European languages (it is
  syntactically defined), while synthetic,
  morphological passive has different functional
  loading and represents mostly semantically (and
  not syntactically) defined peculiar forms.

33

• References
•  
• Asatiani, Rusudan (1982) martivi cinadadebis
  tipologiuri analizi. tanamedrove kartuli
  saliteraturo enis masalaze (Typology of simple
  sentence. On the data of modern literary
  Georgian). Tbilisi mecniereba (2001)
  Conceptual Structure of Reflexive and Middle, in
  Proceedings of 4th International Symposium on
  Language, Logic and Computation, Amsterdam ILLC
  scientific publications, 5-16 (2007)
  inpormaciis strukturirebis sintaksuri modelebi
  kartulshi, in semiotika-II. Tbilisi
  universali, 3-13 (2007) The Main Devices of
  Foregrounding in the Information Structure of
  Georgian Sentences. in Proceedings of Tbilisi
  Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation -
  2005. Amsterdam Springer. 21-31
• Chafe, Wallace L. (1971) Meaning and the
  structure of language. Chicago and London
  Chicago Un. Press.
• Chikobava, Arnold (1968) martivi cinadadebis
  problema kartulshi (The Problem of the Simple
  Sentence in Georgian). I. Tbilisi mecniereba.
• Davitiani, Akaki (1973) kartuli enis
  sintaksi. I. martivi cinadadeba(Syntax of the
  Georgian Language.I. Syntax). Tbilisi ganatleba.
• Dixon, Robert M.W. (1979) Ergativity.
  Cambridge Cambridge Un. Press.
• Enukidze, Leila (1981) cinadadebis aktualuri
  danacevreba da misi mimarteba sintaksuri da
  semantikuri analizis tanamedrove metodebtan
  (Actual Parsing of a Sentence and Its Relation to
  Contemporary Methods of Syntactic and Semantic
  Analysis, in tanamedrove zogadi enatmecnierebis
  sakitxebi VI. Tbilisi enatmecnierebis
  instituti, 24-35.

34

• Harris, Alice (1998) Georgian Syntax A Study in
  Relational Grammar. Cambridge etc. Cambridge
  University Press (2000) Word Order Harmonies
  and Word Order Change In Georgian, in Sornicola
  R, Poppe E., Haley A. (eds), Stability, Variation
  and Change of Word-Order Patterns over time.
  Amsterdam/Philadelphia Benjamins, 133-163.
• Hewitt, George (1995) Georgian A Structural
  Reference Grammar. Amsterdam, Philadelphia
  Benjamins.
• Kvachadze, Levan (1996) tanamedrove kartuli enis
  sintaksi Tbilisi rubikoni.
• Kibrik, Alexander (1997) Beyond Subject and
  Object Toward a Comprehensive Relational
  Typology. Linguistic Typology. I. Berlin-New
  York Mouton de Gruyter, 279-346.
• Shanidze, Akaki (1948) kartuli enis gramatika
  II. sintaksi (Grammar of the Georgian Language
  II. Syntax). Tbilisi tsu gamomcemloba (1973)
  kartuli enis gramatikis sapudzvlebi (Principles
  of the Georgian Language Grammar). Tbilisi tsu
  gamomcemloba.
• Shibatani, masayoshi (1985) Passives and Related
  constructions A prototype Analysis. Language,
  Vol. 61, No4. Kobe Kobe Un. Press.
• Skopeteas, Stavros All (2006) Questionnaire on
  Information Structure (QUIS). Interdisciplinary
  Studies on Information Structure 4. Working
  Papers of the SFB 632, Potsdam
  Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
• Tuite, Kevin (1998) Kartvelian morphosyntax.
  Munich Lincom Europa.

35

• Thank you!