Research Information System
International Scientific Conference Dedicated to Academician Mzekala Shanidze, Tbilisi, Georgia, 16 - 17 January 2026, pp.189-192, (Summary Text)
The
attribute is very diverse in terms of its content. The most general and
fundamental feature is that it always serves as a qualifier. It defines a
nominal ele ment through a specific characteristic. However, there are cases
where the qualifier is associated with a verbal predicate. Such forms are
considered controversial in scientific literature, as it is difficult to
determine whether they are syntactically clo ser to the noun or the verb. Yet,
it clearly shows us a semantically different picture. As noted in specialized
literature, when an adjective or a participle defines a noun, it indicates its
general characteristic; but when it is found with a verb, the subject is
qualified within a specific temporal frame. Georgian linguists have dedicated
special articles to the study of such contro versial forms. In Georgian
scientific literature, various opinions have been expres sed regarding this
issue. Some scholars consider these forms as adverbal modifiers of manner,
others view them as the nominal part of a compound predicate, while still
others define them as predicative qualifiers.Like Georgian, this issue is a sub
ject of discussion in Turkish as well. In traditional Turkish grammar, such
forms are generally considered adverbs of manner. However, there is also a
different view, ac cording to which a clear distinction should be made between
an adverb of manner represented by an adverb and an adverb of manner
represented by a noun and a participle. Along with the form, attention is also
focused on the content. It has been noted that the debatable forms are mainly
represented by adjectives denoting a person’s physical and psychological state.
It is noteworthy that, unlike in Georgian, there is no mention in Turkish
scientific literature regarding the naming of these controversial forms. We
believe it is appropriate to research the semantic field of predicative de
termination in both Georgian and Turkish. This is because, unlike adverbs of
man ner, predicative determination does not combine with all types of verbs.
Two fac tors, in particular, draw attention here: first, not all adjectives and
participles are semantically compatible with the role of predicative
determination. Second, this construction is restricted to specific verb
classes, indicating that predicative deter mination is not a universal
syntactic possibility for all verbal predicates. The aim of this paper is to
present the semantic field of predicative deter mination in Georgian and
Turkish. We believe that comparing two languages with different structures and,
consequently, different syntactic orders is important both for establishing
linguistic universals and for resolving some controversial issues presented in
grammatical literature. The methods of analysis, comparison, and contrast were
used in the research. The forms that were of interest to us were analyzed in
both Georgian and Turkish. The formal and semantic similarities and differences
that were revealed by compa ring the predicative determination of the two
languages were identified.