A theory for words in Georgian: traditional constructs versus corpus annotation

Abstract Part-of-speech annotation, as an exercise in categorisation, necessitates a category schema, based on some model or theory of the grammar of the language. Such a model may (sometimes, must ) deviate from traditional approaches for human understanding, as exploration of theoretical issues arising from a Georgian POS schema illustrates. Consistency on classifying by form versus function is problematised by difficult pronoun/demonstrative and adjective/noun distinctions. Adverb subcategorisation illustrates exclusion of semantic/derivational distinctions that traditional approaches readily admit. Variation in plural inflection has implications for how diachronicity is handled, as does “zero case”. Postpositions make necessary a specific approach to cliticisation in which enclitic elements are handled as separate tokens bearing their own analysis. Suffixaufnahme provides a case study in inclusion versus exclusion of a rare but current phenomenon. Verb morphology illustrates how simplifying assumptions help favour abstraction of categories over descriptive exhaustiveness. Divergence between the resulting model and traditional characterisations do not invalidate either, but evidence how a model’s design is inseparable from its purpose. With regard to these select issues of Georgian grammar, this discussion aims both to demonstrate the overall argument regarding theorisation/schematisation for a specific, practical purpose (POS annotation) and to justify solutions proposed to problems at hand.