Serialization and the verb in Turkish coordinate reduction

Cem BOZŞAHİN (Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye)
Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi
0 0
Yıl: 2011 Cilt: 0 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 51 - 67 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Serialization and the verb in Turkish coordinate reduction

Öz:
Bu makalede Türkçe’deki eksiltme işleminin bazı dizilim özelliklerine bakılmış ve önerilerde bulunulmuştur. Dağılım, gönderimsel olan ve olmayan nesneler açısından incelenmiştir. Örnekler, Türkçe’de ÖN ve NÖ dizilimlerinin kurucu olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu çıkarımın temel dayanağı, eksiltme işleminin kuruculuk konusunda güvenilir bir test olan eşgüdüm yapısını kullanmasıdır. Sonuçlar geriye dönük eksiltmede koşutluk kıstasının gerektiğini, ileriye dönük eksiltmede ise bunun gerekmediğini göstermektedir. Öne çıkması beklenen öznenesne- eylem dışında, eylemin ortada olduğu dizilimler de yakından incelenmeyi gerektirmektedir. Diğer özne-eylem-nesne dillerinden farklı olarak öne eksiltmede paralellik kısıtı görülmemiştir. Eksiltme işlemine baktığımızda eylemin dizilime katkısı ile ilgili önemli bilgiler edindiğimiz biliniyor. Bunun nedeni, eylemin, eksiltme işleminin hedefi olmasa bile mutlaka işin içinde olması gerektiği olabilir. Türkçe gibi çalkalamalı dillerde bu bilginin önemli bir kaynağı da dizilimde asimetriler olarak karşımıza çıkmıştır.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Dil ve Dil Bilim

-

Öz:
The article presents data about Turkish gapping and argument deletion in coordi nation, in particular about their serialization patterns. It offers some suggestions for research on the category of the verb. The patterns are classified along the dimension of referential versus non-referential objects. It appears that these pat terns coincide with constituency of SO and OS, at least in surface constituency, because coordination which underlies gapping and argument deletion is a good testing ground for this aspect of grammar. The results show the parallelism ef fect in backward gapping, and lack of it in the forward variety. Apart from the expected outcome of basicness of SOV for Turkish, it seems that verb-medial orders need further studies. Their involvement in forward gapping is significant but not conclusive. Unlike strict word-order SVO languages, paralellism is not required. It is known that gapping and argument deletion patterns reveal rich informa tion about the verb. The reason for this might be that the verb must be involved in them even when it is not the target of deletion. The most revealing source for verb directionality appears to be the asymmetries arising from differential behavior in syntax.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Dil ve Dil Bilim
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Diğer Erişim Türü: Bibliyografik
  • Aydemir, Y. (2004). Are Turkish preverbal nouns syntactic arguments? Linguistic Inquiry 35(3), 465-74.
  • Berman, A. (1974). On the VSO hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 5(1), 1-38.
  • Bozşahin, C. (2000). Gapping and word order in Turkish. In Proc. of the 10th Int. Conf. on Turkish Linguistics (ICTL), Istanbul.
  • Bozşahin, C., D. Zeyrek, and I. Demirşahin (2010). Söylem ve yapı [structure and discourse]. In Dilbilim Kurultayi [Proc. of the 24th Meeting of Turkish Linguistics], Ankara, Turkey.
  • Bresnan, J. (1972). Theory of Complementation in English Syntax. Ph. D. thesis, MIT.
  • Clark, H. H. and E. V. Clark (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  • Comrie, B. (1981). Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Derbyshire, D. (1977). Word order universals and the existence of OVS languages. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 590-598.
  • Derbyshire, D. and G. K. Pullum (1981). Object-initial languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 47, 192-214.
  • Dunn, M., S. Greenhill, S. Levinson, and R. Gray (2011). Evolved structure of lan guage shows lineage-specific trends in word-order universals. Nature 472.
  • Enç, M. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 1-25.
  • Erguvanlı, E. E. (1984). The Function of word order in Turkish Grammar. Ph. D. thesis, UCLA.
  • Erkü, F. (1983). Discourse Pragmatics and Word Order in Turkish. Ph. D. thesis, University of Minnesota.
  • Gazdar, G. (1981). Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 155-184.
  • Givón, T. (1978). Definiteness and referentiality. In J. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language. Stanford University Press.
  • Göksel, A. (2006). A phono-syntactic template for Turkish: Base-generating free word order. Talk presented at the 28th Annual Meeting of the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Sprachwissenschaft, Workshop on Morphology and Syntax, Mul tidimensional, Bielefeld University.
  • Göksel, A. (2010). Flexible word order and anchors of the clause. In Mediterranean Syntax Meeting 3, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.
  • Gracanin-Yuksek, M. and S. İşsever (2011). Movement of bare objects in Turkish. Dilbilim Araştırmaları [Journal of Linguistic Research] 22(1).
  • Greenberg, J. (1963). Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Gundel, J. (1988). Universals of topic-comment structure. In M. Hammond, E. Moravcsik, and J. Wirth (Eds.), Syntactic Universals and Typology, pp. 209-242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Gundel, J. and T. Fretheim (2001). Topic and focus. In L. Horn and G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Hankamer, J. (1972). On the nonexistence of mirror image rules in syntax. In J. P. Kimball (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 1, pp. 199-212. New York: Seminar Press.
  • Hankamer, J. (1973). Unacceptable ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 17-68.
  • Hoffman, B. (1995). The Computational Analysis of the Syntax and Interpretation of “Free” Word Order in Turkish. Ph. D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
  • Hudson, R. A. (1976). Conjunction reduction, gapping, and right-node raising. Lan guage 52(3), 535-562.
  • İşsever, S. (2003). Information structure in Turkish: The word order-prosody interface. Lingua 113, 1025-1053.
  • İnce, A. (2008). Gapping in Turkish. Abstract published in NELS 38.
  • Kayne, R. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Keenan, E. (1978). The syntax of subject-final languages. In W. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic Typology, pp. 105-144. Brighton: Harvester Press.
  • Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, Reference, and the Theory of Grammar. Stanford CA: CSLI Publications.
  • Kılıçaslan, Y. (1994). Information packaging in Turkish. Master’s thesis, University of Edinburgh.
  • Kılıçaslan, Y. (2004). Syntax of information structure in Turkish. Linguistics 42, 717-765.
  • Kornfilt, J. (2005a). Asymmetries between pre-verbal and post-verbal scrambling in Turkish. In J. Sabel and M. Saito (Eds.), The Free Word Order Phenomenon: Its Syntactic Sources and Diversity, pp. 163-179. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Kornfilt, J. (2005b). Directionality of identical verb deletion in Turkish coordination. Essays in Honor of Jorge Hankamer’s 60th Birthday.
  • Koutsoudas, A. (1971). Gapping, conjunction reduction, and coordinate deletion. Foundations of Language 7, 337-386.
  • Li, C. and S. Thompson (1976). Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In C. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, pp. 459-90. New York NY: Academic Press.
  • Maling, J. M. and A. Zaenen (1978). Nonuniversality of a surface filter. Linguistic Inquiry 9, 475-97.
  • Mallinson, G. and B. Blake (1981). Language Typology. Amsterdam: North Holland.
  • Manning, C. D. (1996). Ergativity: Argument structure and grammatical relations. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
  • McCawley, J. D. (1970). English as a VSO language. Language 46, 286-299.
  • Nakipoğlu, M. (2009). The semantics of the Turkish accusative marked definites and the relation between prosodic structure and information structure. Lingua 119(9), 1253-80.
  • Özge, U. (2010). Information and Grammar: A study of Turkish indefinites. Ph. D. thesis, Middle East Technical University, Informatics Institute.
  • Özge, U. and C. Bozşahin (2010). Intonation in the grammar of Turkish. Lingua 120, 132-175.
  • Öztürk, B. (2005). Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Öztürk, B. (2009). Incorporating agents. Lingua 119, 334-358.
  • Pullum, G. K. (1977). Word order universals and grammatical relations. In P. Cole and J. M. Saddock (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 8: Grammatical Relations. NY: Academic Press.
  • Rosenbaum, H. (1977). Zapotec gapping as counterevidence to some universal pro posals. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 379-395.
  • Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph. D. thesis, MIT. Published as Infinite Syntax!, Ablex, Norton, NJ, 1986.
  • Ross, J. R. (1970). Gapping and the order of constituents. In M. Bierwisch and K. E. Heidolph (Eds.), Progress in Linguistics, pp. 249-259. The Hague: Mouton.
  • Steedman, M. (1990). Gapping as constituent coordination. Linguistics and Philoso phy 13, 207- 263.
  • Steedman, M. (2000). The Syntactic Process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Steele, S. (1978). Word order variation: A typological study. In J. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Human Language. Stanford University Press.
  • Temürcü, C. (2005). The interaction of syntax and discourse in word order variability. In G. Konig, G. Ozyildirim, I. Aydin, and D. Allan (Eds.), Dilbilim ve Uygulamaları, pp. 123-159. Istanbul: Multilingual.
  • Turan, Ü. (1995). Null Versus Overt Subjects in Turkish Discourse: A Centering Analysis. Ph. D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
  • Uygun, D. (2006). Scrambling bare nominal objects in Turkish. In XIII. International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Uppsala Universitet, Sweden.
APA BOZŞAHİN C (2011). Serialization and the verb in Turkish coordinate reduction. , 51 - 67.
Chicago BOZŞAHİN Cem Serialization and the verb in Turkish coordinate reduction. (2011): 51 - 67.
MLA BOZŞAHİN Cem Serialization and the verb in Turkish coordinate reduction. , 2011, ss.51 - 67.
AMA BOZŞAHİN C Serialization and the verb in Turkish coordinate reduction. . 2011; 51 - 67.
Vancouver BOZŞAHİN C Serialization and the verb in Turkish coordinate reduction. . 2011; 51 - 67.
IEEE BOZŞAHİN C "Serialization and the verb in Turkish coordinate reduction." , ss.51 - 67, 2011.
ISNAD BOZŞAHİN, Cem. "Serialization and the verb in Turkish coordinate reduction". (2011), 51-67.
APA BOZŞAHİN C (2011). Serialization and the verb in Turkish coordinate reduction. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 0(1), 51 - 67.
Chicago BOZŞAHİN Cem Serialization and the verb in Turkish coordinate reduction. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 0, no.1 (2011): 51 - 67.
MLA BOZŞAHİN Cem Serialization and the verb in Turkish coordinate reduction. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, vol.0, no.1, 2011, ss.51 - 67.
AMA BOZŞAHİN C Serialization and the verb in Turkish coordinate reduction. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2011; 0(1): 51 - 67.
Vancouver BOZŞAHİN C Serialization and the verb in Turkish coordinate reduction. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2011; 0(1): 51 - 67.
IEEE BOZŞAHİN C "Serialization and the verb in Turkish coordinate reduction." Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 0, ss.51 - 67, 2011.
ISNAD BOZŞAHİN, Cem. "Serialization and the verb in Turkish coordinate reduction". Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 1 (2011), 51-67.
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
16-04-2024 23:55

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları