A SYNOPSIS OF ROLE AND REFERENCE GRAMMAR 85(71) [do'(w)] CAUSE [[ do'(x)] CAUSE [BECOME predicate'(y,z)]]In this LS, both w and χ are effectors and therefore potential actors, but the
actor is always the effector of the superordinate CAUSE. Examples of
Georgian causatives and reflexives are given in (72). (All examples are
from Harris 1981.)
(72) a. Ekim-ma Vano-0 alap'arak'a tav-is
doctor-ERG Vano-NOM 3sG-caused.to.talk-3sG self-GEN
tav-ze.
self-on.
"The doctor¡ got VanOj to talk about himself;j."
b. Geno-m miafanina Rezos c'igneb-i
Geno-ERG 3sG-caused.to.take-3sG-3sG Rezo-DAT books-
tav-is-tan.
self-GEN-at
"GenOj got RezOj to take the books to hisjj place."
The interesting thing about this construction is that both potential actors,
the highest ranking arguments in their segment of the LS, are potential con
trollers of the reflexive possessor. The second construction which is rele
vant to this discussion is the inversion construction; in the perfect tense-
aspect series, transitive verbs appear in an "inverse" form with the "logical
subject" in the dative and the "logical object" in the nominative. Verbs like
qvar- "love", mentioned in section 5.2.1, are inverse in all tense-aspect
series. Despite the case marking changes entailed by the inverse forms,
control of reflexivization is still vested in the highest ranking direct core
argument, as (73) shows.
(73) a. Gela-0 irc'munebs tav-is tav-s.
Gela-NOM 3SG.convinces.3SG self-GEN self-DAT
"Gela is convincing himself."
b. Gela-s turme daurc'munebia tav-is-i tav-i.
Gela-DAT apparently 3SG. convinced. 3SG self-GEN-NOM self-NOM
"Gela has apparently convinced himself."
Note the nominative reflexive NP in (73b). As argued in Van Valin
(1990a), in the perfect all verbs are treated as if they are intransitive and
stative, and this entails that the effector Gela is no longer treated by the
Georgian linking rules as an actor. Hence (73b) receives the same analysis