Concerning some Issues of Negative Constructions in Georgian

Authors

  • Tamar Makharoblidze Ilia State University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55804/jtsu.15120473.2025.18.08

Keywords:

negation, negative constructions, Georgian language, morpho-syntax

Abstract

The interaction of negative units in languages is an important issue on morpho-syntactic levels. The general classification reveals three types of languages: with single negation, double negation and negative concord. It is a widely accepted opinion, that Georgian is a language with negative concord, although the experiment showed that double negation is much more preferred for native-speakers. 

The two peculiarities have been revealed while learning the negation in Georgian: I. If a negative word precedes the verb, then the verb can appear in either positive or negative form, while if the verb precedes the negative word, then it must be in negative form obligatorily; II. It is not allowed to split (to separate with positive form) the negative concord. The linguistic experiment of negative constructions in Georgian was performed at 23 young Georgian native speaker students. The given sentences were put in priority order depending on what was more acceptable for them individually. The ungrammatical constructions received special zero marking. The experiment was hold with EU standard ethic norms, and the informed consents were signed by the participants, who granted me the rights to use the material with any kind of scientific purposes.  The presented experiment overviwed the three clasters of sentenses, and its results showed that the free word order, which is significant for the Georgian language, creates a very interesting case of a big number of acceptable variations. It is important, that this experiment confiremd the above mentioned two limitations for the negative constructions in modern Georgian.   It should be said that, by the way, it would be quite interesting to reveal dialectal differences in terms of the production of negative constructions. Here it should be important to take into account different types of dialectal characteristics, which are reflected in the language with mirror-like asymmetry.

Author Biography

Tamar Makharoblidze, Ilia State University

Dr. Tamar Makharoblidze is a Full professor of School of Arts and Sciences at Ilia State University (Tbilisi, Georgia). Her areas of interest are Kartvelian studies, typological linguistics, general linguistics, Sign Languages, language development and quantitative linguistics. She is an author of 32 monographs and textbooks, and more than 200 scientific publications. In 2017, she was awarded by Shota Rustaveli National Scientific Foundation as THE BEST SCIENTIST. Professor Makharoblidze also is an author of produced screenplays and stage plays, published books for children, more than 200 documentary films, TV and radio programs with different worldwide media Form_Responses Dr. Tamar Makharoblidze is a Full professor of School of Arts and Sciences at Ilia State University (Tbilisi, Georgia). Her areas of interest are Kartvelian studies, typological linguistics, general linguistics, Sign Languages, language development and quantitative linguistics. She is an author of 32 monographs and textbooks, and more than 200 scientific publications. In 2017, she was awarded by Shota Rustaveli National Scientific Foundation as THE BEST SCIENTIST. Professor Makharoblidze also is an author of produced screenplays and stage plays, published books for children, more than 200 documentary films, TV and radio programs with different worldwide media Turn on screen reader support To enable screen reader support, press Ctrl+Alt+Z To learn about keyboard shortcuts, press Ctrl+slash

References

ადვაძე 2015: მ. ადვაძე, უარყოფის პრაგმატული ასპექტები სხვადასხვა სისტემის ენებში (ქართული და ინგლისური ენების მასალაზე დაყრდნობით), იაკობ გოგებაშვილის სახელობის თელავის სახელმწიფო უნივერსიტეტი, თელავი.

გოგიაშვილი 2019: ლ. გოგიაშვილი, უარყოფის გამოხატვის სემანტიკური ველი ქართლურში (სამაგისტრო ნაშრომი ქართველური ენათმეცნიერების მაგისტრის აკადემიური ხარისხის მოსაპოვებლად)

ვერლე 2002: A. Werle, A typology of negative indefinites, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

ვაუდენი 1994: T. Wouden, Negative contexts, PhD diss, University of Groningen.

ზეილსტრა 2004: H. Zeijlstra, Sentential Negation and Negative Concord, PhD Dissertation, University of Amsterdam, LOT Publications, Utrecht.

ზექალაშვილი, აბესაძე 2016: რ. ზექალაშვილი, მ. აბესაძე, უარყოფის ფუნქციურ-სემანტიკური მიკროველი ქართულ სალიტერატურო ენასა და დიალექტებში, ქუთაისის სამეცნიერო ბიბლიოთეკის წელიწდეული.VIII.

მიესტამო 2005: M. Miestamo, Standard negation: the negation of declarative verbal main clauses in a typological perspective, Mouton de Gruyter.

პაინი 1985: J. R. Payne, Negation, In: Language typology and syntactic description, ed. by T. Shopen, vol. 1, 197-242. Cambridge UP, Cambridge.

პფაუ, მახარობლიძე, ზეილსტრა 2022: R. Pfau, T. Makharoblidze, H. Zeijlstra, Negation and Negative Concord in Georgian Sign Language, Sec. Psychology of Language. Volume 13 – 2022, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.734845.

ქურდაძე, ლომია, მარგიანი, ჭუმბურიძე 2022: რ. ქურდაძე, მ. ლომია, ქ. მარგიანი, ნ. ჭუმბურიძე, უარყოფის კატეგორია ქართველურ ენებში, გამომცემლობა „უნივერსალი“,თბილისი.

იესპერსენი 1917: O. Jespersen, Negation in English and other languages, Cornell University Library.

Published

2025-12-12

How to Cite

Makharoblidze, T. (2025). Concerning some Issues of Negative Constructions in Georgian. Issues of Linguistics, (18). https://doi.org/10.55804/jtsu.15120473.2025.18.08