Türkçede Olumlu Uçluk: ‘Oldukça’ Sözcüğü Üzerine Derlem Temelli Bir Çalışma

Year 2025, Volume: 9 Issue: 1, 166 - 178, 20.03.2025

Emrah Görgülü

https://doi.org/10.34083/akaded.1623728

Abstract

Bu makale Türkçede derece ifade eden oldukça belirtecinin sözdizimsel ve anlamsal özellikleriyle ilgilidir. Önceki betimlemeli çalışmalarda, bu belirtece İngilizcede karşılık gelen ‘epey’, ‘epeyce’ ve ‘hayli’ gibi çeşitli anlamlar yüklenmiş ve genellikle başka bir öge niteleyicisi konumunda yer aldığı öngörülmüştür. Bununla birlikte, bu sözcükle ilgili aslında ilginç olan şey, sözdizimsel ve anlambilimsel davranışının, uçluk duyarlılığı açısından önemli sezdirimlere sahip olduğudur. TS Corpus v2 derlemi baz alınarak yapılan bir derlem çalışmasının sonuçlarına dayanarak, bu belirtecin sözdizimsel dağılımının oldukça kısıtlı olduğu ve yalnızca olumlu tümcelerde yer aldığı gösterilmiştir. Yani, olumsuz tümceler ile şart tümceleri ve soru tümceleri gibi ortamlarda bulunmadığı gösterilmiştir. Bu çalışmada, dildeki kutupsallık duyarlılığı üzerine yapılan son çalışmalar baz alınarak oldukça belirtecinin özelliklerinin anlamsal bir nosyon olan doğrula(ma)ma kavramı yoluyla açıklanabileceği savunulmaktadır. Başka bir deyişle, oldukça belirteci sadece doğrulamalı bağlamlarda bulunur ve doğrulayıcı olmayan ve doğrulayıcı karşıtı bağlamlarda bulunmaz. Bu durum da onu gerçek bir olumlu uçluk ögesi yapmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın başka bir sonucu da olumlu uçluk ögelerinin, tıpkı olumsuz uçluk ögeleri gibi, farklı türlerde olması ve hem dil içinde hem de diller arasında belirli farklılıklar göstermeleridir.

Keywords

Dilbilim, olumlu uçluk, olumlu uçluk öğesi, doğrula(ma)ma, Türkçe

Positive Polarity in Turkish: a Corpus-based Study of ‘Oldukça’

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the syntactic and semantic properties of the degree adverb ‘oldukça’ in Turkish. In previous descriptive work, this adverb has been assigned various interpretations such as ‘quite’, ‘rather’ and ‘fairly’, generally appearing in the modifier position of another element. However, what is actually interesting about this lexical item is that its syntactic and semantic behavior seems to have significant implications for polarity sensitivity. Based on the findings of a corpus study (TS Corpus v2), I show that its syntactic distribution is rather constrained since it only appears in positive sentences, excluding negative ones as well as those like if-clauses and questions. Following recent work on polarity sensitivity in the language, I argue that the characteristics of oldukça can be accounted for by way of the semantic notion of (non)veridicality. In other words, oldukça occurs only in veridical contexts but not in nonveridical and antiveridical ones, which makes it a true positive polarity item. One implication of this study is that positive polarity items, just like their negative counterparts, come in different types and display certain variations both within and across languages.

Keywords

Linguistics, Positive polarity, Positive polarity items, (non)veridicality, Turkish

References

• Chierchia, G. (2013). Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Deny, J. (1921). Grammaire de la langue turque (dialecte osmanli). Imprimerie nationale, E. Leroux. (Reprinted as Türk Dili Grameri, Ali Ulvi Elöve (translator), Kabalcı Kitabevi, 2012).
• Ernst, T. (2009). Speaker oriented adverbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 27. 497–544. Doi: 10.1007/sl 1049-009-9069-1
• Giannakidou, A. (1998). Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)veridical Dependency. Linguistics Today 23. Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Giannakidou, A. (1999). Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy, 22. 367–421.
• Giannakidou, A. (2000). Negative … Concord? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 18, 457–523. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4047938
• Giannakidou, A. (2011). Positive polarity items and negative polarity items: variation, licensing, and compositionality. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, and P. Portner (Eds.). Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. (pp. 1660–1712). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Giannakidou, A. (2014). The prospective as nonveridical: polarity items, speaker commitment and projected truth. In J. Hoeksema and D. Gilbers (Eds.). Black Book: A Festschrift in honor of Frans Zwarts. (pp. 101–124). University of Groningen.
• Giannakidou, A., & Zeijlstra, H. (2017). The landscape of negative dependencies: negative concord and n-words. In Martin Everaert-Henk van Riemsdijk (Eds.). The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, (2nd edition). (pp. 3940-3977). London: Blackwell.
• Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London and New York: Routledge.
• Gračanin-Yüksek. M. (2023). Negation That Isn’t. Languages, 8.
• Görgülü, E. (2024). On the true nature of ÇOKTAN in Turkish. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 35(2), 151-166.
• Hoeksema, J. (2018). Positive polarity predicates. Linguistics, 56(2), 361–400. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling- 2017-0039
• Horn, L. (1978). Some aspects of negation. In J. Greenberg, C. Ferguson & E. Moravcsik (Eds.), Universals of Human Language, Vol IV: Syntax. (pp. 127–210). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Kamali, B., & Zeijlstra, H. (2024). Negative Dependencies in Turkish. Languages, 9 (342). https://doi.org/10.3390/ languages9110342
• Kelepir, M. (2003). What Turkish NPIs teach us. In S. Özsoy, D. Akar, M. Nakipoğlu Demiralp, E. Erguvanlı Taylan and A. Aksu-Koç (Eds.). Studies in Turkish Linguistics. (p.111–120). Boğaziçi University Press.
• Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London and New York: Routledge.
• Krifka, M. (1995). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polarity Items. Linguistic Analysis, 25, 209-257.
• Ladusaw, W. (1980). Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. Garland: New York.
• Ladusaw, W. (1992). Expressing Negation. In C. Baker and D. Dowty (Eds.). Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 2. (pp. 237–259). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
• Montague, R. (1969). On the nature of certain philosophical entities. The Monist, 53: 159-194. Reprinted in 1974 in R. H. Thomason (Ed.), Formal Philosophy. Selected papers of Richard Montague. (pp. 148-187). Yale University Press.
• Nicolae, C. A. (2012). Positive polarity items: An alternative-based account. In A. A. Guevara, A. Chernilovskaya, & Rick Nouwen (Eds.). Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16, (pp. 475–488). Utrecht University.
• Nilsen, O. (2003). Eliminating Positions. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Utrecht.
• Penka, D. (2020). Negative and Positive Polarity Items. In M. T. Putnam and R. B. Page (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics 27. (pp. 639–660). Cambridge University Press.
• Progovac, L. (1994). Negative and Positive Polarity: A Binding Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Szabolcsi, A. (2004). Positive polarity–negative polarity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22(2), 409–452. Sezer, T., & Sezer, B. (2013). TS Corpus herkes için Türkçe derlem. Proceedings of the 27th National Linguistics Conference. May 3-4, 2013. (pp. 217–225). Antalya, Kemer: Hacettepe University, English Linguistics Department.
• Spector, B. (2014). Global positive polarity items and obligatory exhaustivity. Semantics and Pragmatics, 7(11), 1–61. van der Wouden, T. (1997). Negative contexts: Collocation, polarity and multiple negation. London/New York: Routledge.
• Zeijlstra, H. (2004). Sentential Negation and Negative Concord. [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. University of Amsterdam.
• Zeijlstra, H. (2008). Negative Concord is Syntactic Agreement. Ms. University of Amsterdam.
• Zeijlstra, H. (2013). Negation and polarity. In M. Den Dikken (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax. (pp. 793–826). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
• Zeijlstra, H. (2017). Universal Positive Polarity Items. Glossa, 2(91).
• Zeijlstra, H. (2022). Negation and Negative Dependencies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Zwarts, F. (1995). Nonveridical contexts. Linguistic Analysis, 25(3-4), 286-312.