Certain Issues in Georgian-English Comparative Linguistic Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55804/TSU-ti-4/OrkodashviliKeywords:
corpus analysis, language interference, linguistic distance, comparative analysis, typological analysisAbstract
The aim of the research is comparative linguistic and extralinguistic research of English and Georgian. The research intends to offer a unique perspective of comparing morphosyntactic variations of Indo-European (e.g. English) and Kartvelian (e.g. Georgian) languages, and how these variations reflect idiosyncrasies of human cognition. The linguistic distance between these language families is significant. Therefore, it will present an interest both for the research and for the teaching process.
Kartvelian languages shed a novel light on a number of linguistic issues that present the interest from historical, evolutionary and cognitive perspectives, the evolution of sound system and morphosyntactic structures alongside cognitive evolution being among many others. For instance, it is well-known that the Georgian language, being one of the Caucasian languages, has complex and idiosyncratic phonological and morphosyntactic systems that also condition its peculiar semantic-pragmatic framework.
The study uses comparative, contrastive; typological; corpus analysis; and discourse analysis methods.
All the analyzed linguistic units or structures are considered within the frameworks of pragmatics (influence, assurance, request, appeal) and psycholinguistics (language acquisition, teaching/learning, influence on neuroplasticity). Moreover, bilingual discourses and language interference cases associated with them are also discussed.
Corpus has been gathered from authentic materials: on-line resources, academic-scientific, media, literary, colloquial texts and discourses.
The novelty of the study is the fact that it considers linguistics distance in any aspect of comparative analysis.
References
Fauconnier, G., & Sweetser, E. (Eds.). (1996). Spaces, worlds, and grammar. The University of Chicago Press.
Glynn, D., & Robinson, J. A. (Eds.). (2014). Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (Human Cognitive Processing 43). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kozinsky, I., & Polinsky, M. (1993). Causee and patient in the causative of transitive: Coding conflict or doubling of grammatical relations? In B. Comrie & M. Polinsky (Eds.), Causatives and transitivity (pp. 177–240). Benjamins.
Kratzer, A. (2012). Modals and conditionals (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics). Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Ross, J. R. (1972). A note on anaphoric islands and causatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 3(1), 121–125.
Lenz, F. (Ed.). (2003). Deictic conceptualisation of space, time and person. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Parikh, P. (2010). Language and equilibrium. The MIT Press.
Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Philipp, M. (1998). Semantik des Deutschen (Germanistische Lehrbuchsammlung, Band 13). WEIDLER Buchverlag Berlin.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Authors Retain All Rights. TSU-ti Has Only the Right of the First Publication.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
