BibTex RIS Cite

TÜRKÇEDE YÜKÜMLÜLÜK KİPLİĞİNDE “İSTEK” UNSURU: PALMER MODELİ TEMELİNDE BİR ANALİZ

Year 2020, Issue: 23, 73 - 84, 01.04.2020
https://doi.org/10.29228/kesit.43889

Abstract

Bir önermenin eyleminin gerçekleşmesine yönelik konuşurun yönlendirici tutumlarını ifade eden yükümlülük kipliği Palmer 2001 tarafından izin, zorunluluk ve emir kipliği olmak üzere üç türe ayrılmıştır. Bu çalışmada söz konusu alt kiplik türlerinin taşıdığı yükümlülükten ziyade, her üç kiplik türünde de ortak olan istek kavramı üzerinde durulmuştur. Klasik gramer çalışmalarında kip sistemi bildirme haber ve tasarlama dilek-istek olarak ayrılmaktadır. Bildirme kipleri zaman ile ilişkili iken tasarlama kipleri de istek kavramını taşımalarından ötürü dilek-istek kipleri olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Tasarlama kiplerinin alt türleri ile büyük oranda benzerlik gösteren yükümlülük kipliğindeki istek kavramı üzerinde durulması gereken bir konu olarak görülmüştür. Bu çalışmada kısaca yükümlülük kipliği ve istek kavramı hakkında bilgi verildikten sonra, izin, zorunluluk ve emir kipliklerinde istek ayrı başlıklar altında konuşur-kılıcı odaklı olmak üzere iki yönlü açıklanmıştır.

References

  • Aslan Demir, S. (2008). Türkçede İsteme Kipliği Semantik-Pragmatik Bir İnceleme. Ankara: Grafiker Yayınları.
  • Atabay, N., Özel, S., Kutluk, İ. (2003). Sözcük Türleri. İstanbul: Papatya Yayıncılık.
  • Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. D. and Pagliuca, W. (1994). The Evolution Of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in The Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Cevizci, A. (1999). Felsefe Sözlüğü. İstanbul: Paradigma.
  • Coates, J. (1983). The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
  • de Haan, F. (1997). The Interaction of Modality and Negation A Typological Study. New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc.
  • de Haan, F. (2006). Typological Approaches to Modality. The Expression of Modality (s. 27-69). Berlin: Mouton de Guyter.
  • Doğan, G. (1997). Buyurmayan Buyrum Tümceleri. VIII. Uluslar arası Türk Dilbilimi Konferansı Bildirileri (s. 249-256). Ankara.
  • Ercilasun, A. B. (1993). Türkçede Emir ve İstek Kipi Üzerine. Türk Gramerinin Sorunları Top- lantısı. Ankara, 22-23 Ekim.
  • Ergin, M. (1983). Türk Dil Bilgisi. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Yayınları.
  • Frawley, W. (2009). Linguistic Semantics. New York: Routledge (Dijital Basım).
  • Gencan, T. N. (1979). Dilbilgisi. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
  • Goossens, L. (1983). Can and kunnen: Dutch and English potential compared. Een spyeghel voor G. Jo Steenbergen (s. 147–158). Leuven: Acco.
  • Jespersen, O. (1924). The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen - Unwin.
  • Karademir, F. (2012). Türkiye Türkçesinde Emir Kip(lik)i Üzerine. Turkish Studies. 7 (4), 2091- 2138.
  • Kerimoğlu, C. (2018). Kiplik ve Kip. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Kiefer, F. (1987). On Defining Modality. Folia Linguistica. 21, 67-94.
  • Larreya, P. (2009). Towards A Typology of Modality in Language. Modality in English Theory and Description (9-29). Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Leszek, A.S. (1995). A Critical Study of Imperatives. Thesis (M.S.). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Departmant of Linguistics and Philosophy.
  • Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics 2. USA: Cambridge University Press.
  • Narrog, H. (2009). Modality in Japanese: The Layered Structure Of The Clause and Hierarchies of Functional Categories. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Narrog, H. (2012). Modality, Subjectivity and Semantic Change A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. USA: Oxford University Press.
  • Nuyts, J. (2001). Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization A Cognitive-Pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjmins Publishing Company.
  • Nuyts, J. (2006). Modality: Overview and Linguistic Issues. The Expression of Modality (s. 1-26). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Palmer, F.R. (1986). Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Palmer, F.R. (2001). Mood and Modality (Second Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Steele, S. (1975). Is it possible? Working Papers on Language Universals. 18, 35–58.
  • Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Talmy, L. (1988). Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition. Cognitive Science. 12, 49–100.
  • Temürcü, C. (2007). A Semantic Framework for Analyzing Tense, Aspect and Mood: An Aplication to the Range of Polysemy of -Xr, -DIr, -Iyor and -Ø in Turkish. Doktora Tezi. University of Antwerp.
  • Usta, Ç. (2016). Üçüncü Kişiye Emrin Semantiği. Bilig. 77, 319-338.
  • Van Der Auwera, J., Plungian, V. (1998). Modality’s Semantic Map. Linguistics Typogy. 2, 79-124.
  • Vardar, B. (2007). Açıklamalı Dilbilim Terimleri Sözlüğü. İstanbul: Multilingual.

THE FACT OF “REQUEST” IN DEONTIC MODALITY IN TURKISH: AN ANALYSIS ON THE BASIS OF PALMER MODEL

Year 2020, Issue: 23, 73 - 84, 01.04.2020
https://doi.org/10.29228/kesit.43889

Abstract

The deontic modality which expresses the obliger attitudes of the speaker towards the realization of the action of a proposition, is divided into three types by Palmer 2001 : permissive, obligative and commissive. In this study, rather than the obligation of the sub-modality types, the concept of desire, which is common to all three modality types, is emphasized. In traditional grammar studies, the mode system is divided into indicative mood and subjunctive mood. While indicative moods are related to tense, subjunctive moods are considered as wish-request moods because they carry the concept of desire. The concept of desire in deontic modality, which is largely similar to the subtypes of subjunctive moods, was seen as an issue to be emphasized. In our study, after briefly informing about the deontic modality and the concept of desire, in Palmer's deontic modality permissive, obligative and commissive consept of desire is explained in two ways: speaking-oriented and agent-oriented.

References

  • Aslan Demir, S. (2008). Türkçede İsteme Kipliği Semantik-Pragmatik Bir İnceleme. Ankara: Grafiker Yayınları.
  • Atabay, N., Özel, S., Kutluk, İ. (2003). Sözcük Türleri. İstanbul: Papatya Yayıncılık.
  • Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. D. and Pagliuca, W. (1994). The Evolution Of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in The Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Cevizci, A. (1999). Felsefe Sözlüğü. İstanbul: Paradigma.
  • Coates, J. (1983). The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.
  • de Haan, F. (1997). The Interaction of Modality and Negation A Typological Study. New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc.
  • de Haan, F. (2006). Typological Approaches to Modality. The Expression of Modality (s. 27-69). Berlin: Mouton de Guyter.
  • Doğan, G. (1997). Buyurmayan Buyrum Tümceleri. VIII. Uluslar arası Türk Dilbilimi Konferansı Bildirileri (s. 249-256). Ankara.
  • Ercilasun, A. B. (1993). Türkçede Emir ve İstek Kipi Üzerine. Türk Gramerinin Sorunları Top- lantısı. Ankara, 22-23 Ekim.
  • Ergin, M. (1983). Türk Dil Bilgisi. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Yayınları.
  • Frawley, W. (2009). Linguistic Semantics. New York: Routledge (Dijital Basım).
  • Gencan, T. N. (1979). Dilbilgisi. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
  • Goossens, L. (1983). Can and kunnen: Dutch and English potential compared. Een spyeghel voor G. Jo Steenbergen (s. 147–158). Leuven: Acco.
  • Jespersen, O. (1924). The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen - Unwin.
  • Karademir, F. (2012). Türkiye Türkçesinde Emir Kip(lik)i Üzerine. Turkish Studies. 7 (4), 2091- 2138.
  • Kerimoğlu, C. (2018). Kiplik ve Kip. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Kiefer, F. (1987). On Defining Modality. Folia Linguistica. 21, 67-94.
  • Larreya, P. (2009). Towards A Typology of Modality in Language. Modality in English Theory and Description (9-29). Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Leszek, A.S. (1995). A Critical Study of Imperatives. Thesis (M.S.). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Departmant of Linguistics and Philosophy.
  • Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics 2. USA: Cambridge University Press.
  • Narrog, H. (2009). Modality in Japanese: The Layered Structure Of The Clause and Hierarchies of Functional Categories. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Narrog, H. (2012). Modality, Subjectivity and Semantic Change A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. USA: Oxford University Press.
  • Nuyts, J. (2001). Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization A Cognitive-Pragmatic Perspective. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjmins Publishing Company.
  • Nuyts, J. (2006). Modality: Overview and Linguistic Issues. The Expression of Modality (s. 1-26). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Palmer, F.R. (1986). Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Palmer, F.R. (2001). Mood and Modality (Second Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Steele, S. (1975). Is it possible? Working Papers on Language Universals. 18, 35–58.
  • Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Talmy, L. (1988). Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition. Cognitive Science. 12, 49–100.
  • Temürcü, C. (2007). A Semantic Framework for Analyzing Tense, Aspect and Mood: An Aplication to the Range of Polysemy of -Xr, -DIr, -Iyor and -Ø in Turkish. Doktora Tezi. University of Antwerp.
  • Usta, Ç. (2016). Üçüncü Kişiye Emrin Semantiği. Bilig. 77, 319-338.
  • Van Der Auwera, J., Plungian, V. (1998). Modality’s Semantic Map. Linguistics Typogy. 2, 79-124.
  • Vardar, B. (2007). Açıklamalı Dilbilim Terimleri Sözlüğü. İstanbul: Multilingual.
There are 33 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Ferhat Karabulut This is me

Elanur Kazanlar Ürkmez

Publication Date April 1, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2020 Issue: 23

Cite

APA Karabulut, F., & Kazanlar Ürkmez, E. (2020). TÜRKÇEDE YÜKÜMLÜLÜK KİPLİĞİNDE “İSTEK” UNSURU: PALMER MODELİ TEMELİNDE BİR ANALİZ. Kesit Akademi Dergisi(23), 73-84. https://doi.org/10.29228/kesit.43889