Word Order as Projection

Cem BOZŞAHİN (Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye)
Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi
0 0
Yıl: 2014 Cilt: 0 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 1 - 23 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Word Order as Projection

Öz:
Bu makalede, bir ifadedeki söz diziliminin eylem kategorilerinden kaynaklandığı, onda gözlemlenen serbestinin de, diğer dilbilgisel özellikler gibi, sözlükteki öğelerden sözdizim yüzey yapılarına yansıtıldığı savunulmaktadır. Bunu gerçekleştirmek için gerekli olan dizilim anlayışı, birleştiriciler kuramında yer almaktadır. Önerilen düzenek doğrusal çizgeleme ya da tümevarım tezleri sunmaz. Aksine, kuruculuğa neden açan dizmenin, yapısal bağımlılık özelliğini de açıklayabileceğini savunur. Bu makaledeki yaklaşımın üretimsel dilbilgisinden kaynaklanan bazı dizim önerileriyle de karşılaştırılması yapılmıştır. Türkçe özelinde ortaya çıkan sonuç, temel söz diziminin eylem sonludan daha kısıtlı bir durum olan SOV olduğudur.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Dil ve Dil Bilim

Word Order as Projection

Öz:
The paper argues that word order projects from the lexical category of the verb, and its flexibility, from syntactic-phonological exponents in the lexicon. The kind of serialization that can deliver order-induced constituents and their asymmetries, which project like everything else, including immediate delivery of semantics of every derivation, can be based on combinators. Unlike linear distance metrics and general induction mechanisms, such devices, once syntacticized, can make an attempt to explain structure dependence. This school is compared with some generative proposals about word order. In particular, Turkish is argued to be lexically SOV, not just verb-final.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Dil ve Dil Bilim
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Bibliyografik
  • Aksu-Koç, A. & Slobin, D. I. (1985). The acquisition of Turkish. In D.I. Slobin (ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Baker, M. C. (2001). The Atoms of Language. New York: Basic Books.
  • Bar-Hillel, Y. (1953). A Quasi-arithmetical notation for syntactic description. Language, 29, 47-58.
  • Bozşahin, C. (1998). Deriving the predicate-argument structure for a free word order language. ACL/COLING 1998, Montreal.
  • Bozşahin, C. (2000a). Gapping and word order in Turkish. Proc. of the Tenth Int.
  • Conference on Turkish Linguistics (ICTL), Istanbul.
  • Bozşahin, C. (2000b). Directionality and the lexicon: Evidence from gapping. ms. Middle East Technical University.
  • Bozşahin, C. (2002). The combinatory morphemic lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 28, 145-186.
  • Bozşahin, C. (2011). Serialization and the verb in Turkish coordinate reduction. Dilbilim Araştırmaları [Journal of Linguistic Research], 2011/1, 51-67.
  • Bozşahin, C. (2012). Combinatory Linguistics. Berlin/Boston: Mouton.
  • Bozşahin, C. (2014). What is a computational constraint? In V. Müller (Ed.), Springer volume on Philosophy and Computing, forthcoming. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
  • Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of projection. Lingua, 130, 33-49.
  • Derbyshire, D.C. (1977). Word order universals and the existence of OVS languages. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 590-598.
  • Derbyshire, D.C. (1979). Hixkaryana. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  • Dowty, D. R. (1988). Type raising, functional composition, and non-constituent coordination. In R.T. Oehrle, E. Bach & D. Wheeler (Eds.), Categorial Grammars and Natural Language Structures. Dordrecht: Reidel.
  • Dryer, M. S. & Haspelmath, M. (2011). The world atlas of languages. Max Planck Digital Library, http://wals.info.
  • Fanselow, G. (2001). Features, theta-roles, and free constituent order. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 405-437.
  • Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind. MIT Press.
  • Gazdar, G. (1988). Applicability of indexed grammars to natural languages. In U. Reyle & C. Rohrer (Eds.), Natural Language Parsing and Linguistic Theories. Dordrecht: Reidel.
  • Göksel, A. (1998). Linearity, focus and the postverbal position in Turkish. Proc. of Seventh ICTL, Mainz.
  • Hankamer, J. (1972). On the nonexistence of mirror image rules in syntax. In J.P. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics, 1, 199-212.
  • Hankamer, J. (1971). Constraints on deletion in syntax. PhD Thesis, Yale University [Published as Deletion in Coordinate Structure, Garland, 1979].
  • Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge University Press.
  • Hawkins, J. A. (2002). Symmetries and asymmetries: their grammar, typology and parsing. Theoretical Linguistics, 28, 95-149.
  • Hoffman, B. (1995). The Computational Analysis of the Syntax and Interpretation of “Free” Word Order in Turkish. PhD Thesis, Univ. Of Pennsylvania.
  • Joshi, A. (1985). Tree adjoining grammars. In D. Dowty, L. Karttunen & A. Zwicky (Eds), Natural Language Parsing. Cambridge Univ. Press.
  • Joshi, A. (1990). Processing crossed and nested dependencies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 5, 1-27.
  • Joshi, A. (2004). Starting with complex primitives pays off: Complicate locally, simplify globally. Cognitive Science, 28(5), 637-668.
  • Joshi, A., Vijay-Shanker, K. & Weir, D. (1991). The convergence of mildly contextsensitive formalisms. In P. Sells, S. Shieber & T. Wasow (Eds.), Foundational issues in Natural Language Processing. MIT Press.
  • Joshi, A., Levy, L. & Takahashi, M. (1975). Tree-adjunct grammars. J. of Computer Systems Science, 10, 136-163.
  • Karttunen, L. (1989). Radical Lexicalism. In M. Baltin & A. Kroch (Eds.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure. Univ. of Chicago Press.
  • Kayne, R. S. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Kornfilt, J. (2000). Directionality of identical verb deletion in Turkish coordination. Essays in honor of Jorge Hankamer’s 60th Birthday, UCSC.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1998). On rightward movement in Turkish. Proc. of the Seventh ICTL, Mainz.
  • Koutsoudas, A. (1971). Gapping, conjunction reduction, and coordinate deletion. Foundations of Language, 7, 337-386.
  • Kural, M. (1994). Postverbal Constituents in Turkish. ms., UCLA.
  • Maling, J. (1972). On “gapping and the order of constituents”. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 101-108.
  • Manning, C. D. (1996). Ergativity. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
  • McCawley, J. D. (1970). English as a VSO language. Language, 46, 286-299.
  • Miyagawa, S. (1997). Against optional scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 1-26.
  • Montague, R. (1973). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Hintikka et. al (Eds.), Approaches to Language. 221-242. Dordrecht: Reidel.
  • Moortgat, M. (1988). Categorial Investigations: Logical and Linguistic Aspects of the Lambek Calculus. Dordrecht: Foris.
  • Morrill, G. V. (1994). Type Logical Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • Newmeyer, F. J. (2002). The SO/OS asymmetry and two interpretations of the MaOP (commentary on the target article (Hawkins 2002)). Theoretical Linguistics, 28, 171- 176.
  • Özge, U. & Bozşahin, C. (2010). Intonation in the grammar of Turkish. Lingua, 120, 132-175.
  • Partee, B. & Rooth, M. (1983). Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  • Rosenbaum, H. (1977). Zapotec gapping as counterevidence to some universal proposals. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 379-395.
  • Ross, J. R. (1970). Gapping and the order of constituents. In M. Bierwisch and K. E. Heidolph (Eds.), Progress in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton.
  • Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD Thesis, MIT [Published as Infinite Syntax!, Ablex, 1986].
  • Saito, M. & Fukui, N. (1998). Order in phrase structure and movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 439-474.
  • Schlesewsky, M., Fanselow, G., Kliegl, R. & Krems, J. (2000). Preferences for grammatical relations in the processing of locally ambiguous wh-questions in German. In B. Hemforth & L. Konieczny (Eds.), German Sentence Processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • Schönfinkel, M. I. (1920/1924). On the building blocks of mathematical logic. In J.van Heijenoort (Ed.), From Frege to Gödel. Prepared first for publication by H. Behmann in 1924. Shieber, S. (1985). Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8, 333-343.
  • Slobin, D. I. & Bever, T.G. (1982). Children use canonical sentence schema: A crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition, 12, 229-265.
  • Steedman, M. (1985). Dependency and coordination in the grammar of Dutch and English. Language, 61, 523-568.
  • Steedman, M. (1990). Gapping as constituent coordination. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 207-263.
  • Steedman, M. (1991). Structure and intonation. Language, 67, 260-298.
  • Steedman, M. (1996). Surface Structure and Interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Steedman, M. (2000a). Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry, 34, 649-689.
  • Steedman, M. (2000b). The Syntactic Process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Steedman, M. & Baldridge, J. (2003). Combinatory Categorial Grammar. Ms., University of Edinburgh.
  • Steele, S. (1978). Word order variation: A Typological Study. In J.H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of Human Language, vol. 4: Syntax. Stanford University Press.
  • Temürcü, C. (2005). The interaction of syntax and discourse in word order variability. In W. König, G. Özyıldırım & A. Altan (Eds.), Dilbilim Uygulamaları. İstanbul: Multilingual.
  • Tomlin, R.S. (1986). Basic Word Order: Functional Principles. London: Routledge. Vennemann, T. & Harlow, R. (1977). Categorial Grammar and consistent basic VX serialization. Theoretical Linguistics, 4, 227-254.
  • Vijay-Shanker, K. (1987). A study of Tree Adjoining Grammars. Phd Thesis. Univ. Pennsylvania.
  • Yavuz, N. (2013). İkinci dil olarak Japonca'yı edinen yetişkin Türkçe konuşurlarında çalkalama özelliğinin edinimi [L2 learning of Japanese scrambling by L1 Turkish speakers]. Dilbilim Araştırmaları [Research in Linguistics] 2013:II.
APA BOZŞAHİN C (2014). Word Order as Projection. , 1 - 23.
Chicago BOZŞAHİN Cem Word Order as Projection. (2014): 1 - 23.
MLA BOZŞAHİN Cem Word Order as Projection. , 2014, ss.1 - 23.
AMA BOZŞAHİN C Word Order as Projection. . 2014; 1 - 23.
Vancouver BOZŞAHİN C Word Order as Projection. . 2014; 1 - 23.
IEEE BOZŞAHİN C "Word Order as Projection." , ss.1 - 23, 2014.
ISNAD BOZŞAHİN, Cem. "Word Order as Projection". (2014), 1-23.
APA BOZŞAHİN C (2014). Word Order as Projection. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 0(2), 1 - 23.
Chicago BOZŞAHİN Cem Word Order as Projection. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 0, no.2 (2014): 1 - 23.
MLA BOZŞAHİN Cem Word Order as Projection. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, vol.0, no.2, 2014, ss.1 - 23.
AMA BOZŞAHİN C Word Order as Projection. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2014; 0(2): 1 - 23.
Vancouver BOZŞAHİN C Word Order as Projection. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2014; 0(2): 1 - 23.
IEEE BOZŞAHİN C "Word Order as Projection." Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 0, ss.1 - 23, 2014.
ISNAD BOZŞAHİN, Cem. "Word Order as Projection". Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 2 (2014), 1-23.
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
17-04-2024 3:18

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