Locative Existential Sentences in Kyrgyz and Turkish Languages

Abstract

This study compares locative existential sentences in Kyrgyz and Turkish languages focusing on the definiteness effect (DE) and their information structure (IS). The DE is tested looking at the eligibility of various types of Noun Phrases (NPs), including proper nouns, pronouns and NPs with demonstrative pronouns, as pivots in these sentences. The IS roles are analysed through the scrambling of the pivot NPs. The findings indicate that neither Kyrgyz nor Turkish language is subject to the DE. It is also observed that the pivot NPs function as the focus, whereas the locative phrases are the topic of the sentences in both languages. The study concludes that Kyrgyz and Turkish existential sentences are nearly similar in terms of the DE and IS. The findings hint that the DE is uncommon among those languages which employ no definite articles.

Keywords

• Locative existential sentences
• definiteness effect
• information structure
• Kyrgyz language
• Turkish language

Kırgız Türkçesi ve Türkiye Türkçesinde Yer Gösteren İsim Soylu Cümleler

Abstract

Çalışmada Kırgız Türkçesi ve Türkiye Türkçesinde yer gösteren isim soylu cümleler belirlilik etkisi ve bilgi yapısı bakımından karşılaştırılmaktadır. Belirlilik etkisi özel isimler, kişi ve diğer zamirler ile gösterme zamiriyle kullanılan isim öbeklerinin söz konusu cümlelerde kullanılıp kullanılamadığına bakılarak incelenmiştir. Bilgi yapısı ise cümlelerde yer alan isim öbeklerinin yer değiştirip değiştiremediği temel alınarak betimlenmektedir. Kırgız Türkçesi ve Türkiye Türkçesinin belirlilik etkisi içermediği görülmektedir. İncelenen cümlelerde isim öbekleri odak, yer gösteren öbekler ise konu rolü üstlenmektedir. Çalışmada Kırgız Türkçesi ve Türkiye Türkçesinin belirlilik etkisi ve bilgi yapısı açısından son derece benzer oldukları sonucuna varılmıştır. Bulgular belirlilik etkisinin belirlilik edatı kullanılmayan dillerde yaygın olmadığını göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Yer gösteren isim soylu cümleler
• belirlilik etkisi
• bilgi yapısı
• Kırgız Türkçesi
• Türkiye Türkçesi

References

1. Abbott, Barbara. “Definite and Indefinite.” Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. Keith Brown, Elsevier, 2006, pp. 392–399.
2. Bentley, Delia. “Definiteness Effects: Evidence from Sardinian.” Transactions of the Philological Society, vol. 102, no. 1, 2004, pp. 57–101.
3. Bentley, Delia et. al. “Existential Constructions in Crosslinguistic Perspective.” Rivista di Linguistica, vol. 25, no. 1, 2013, pp. 1–13.
4. Clark, Eve V. “Locationals: Existential, Locative, and Possessive Constructions.” Universals of Human Language, eds. Joseph H. Greenberg et. al., Stanford University Press, 1978, pp. 85–126.
5. Csató, Éva Ágnes, and Lars Johanson. “Turkish.” The Turkic Languages, eds. Lars Johanson and Éva Ágnes Csató, Routledge, 1998, pp. 203–235.
6. Erguvanlı Taylan, Eser E. “The Role of Semantic Features in Turkish Word Order.” Folia Linguistica, vol. 21, no. 2-4, 1987, pp. 215–227.
7. Göksel, Aslı, and Celia Kerslake. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. Routledge, 2005.
8. Gràcia Solé, Lluïsa. “Catalan Existential Sentences Produced by Chinese Speakers.” Italian Journal of Linguistics, vol. 27, no. 2, 2015, pp. 111–157.

9. Huang, C.-T. James. “Existential Sentences in Chinese and (In)definiteness.” The Representation of (In)definiteness, eds. Eric J. Reuland and Alice G. B. ter Meulen, MIT Press, 1987, pp. 226–253.
10. Kasapoğlu Çengel, Hülya. “Kırgız Türkçesi.” Türk Lehçeleri Grameri, ed. Ahmet Ercilasun, Akçağ, 2007, pp. 481–542.
11. Kelepir, Meltem. Topics in Turkish Syntax: Clausal Structure and Scope. PhD Thesis. MIT, 2001.
12. Kirchner, Mark. “Kirghiz.” The Turkic Languages, eds. Lars Johanson and Éva Ágnes Csató, Routledge, 1998, pp. 344–356.
13. Kuno, Susumu. “The Position of Locatives in Existential Sentences.” Linguistic Inquiry, vol. 2, no. 3, 1971, pp. 333–378.
14. Leonetti, Manuel. “Definiteness Effect and the Role of the Coda in Existential Constructions.” Essays on Nominal Determination: From Morphology to Discourse Management, eds. Henrik Høeg Müller and Alex Klinge, John Benjamins, 2008, pp. 131–162.
15. Leonetti, Manuel. “Definiteness Effects: The Interplay of Information Structure and Pragmatics.” Definiteness Effects: Bilingual, Typological and Diachronic Variation, eds. Susann Fischer et. al., Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016, pp. 66–119.
16. McNally, Louise. “Existential Sentences without Existential Quantification.” Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 21, no. 4, 1998, pp. 353–392.
17. Normanskaja, Julia. “To What Extent Are the Existing Classifications of the Kipchak Languages Correct?” 2023, OSF Preprints, https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/3yq85.
18. Sansa Tura, Sabahat. “Definiteness and Referentiality: Non-verbal Sentences.” Studies in Turkish Linguistics, eds. Dan. I. Slobin and Karl Zimmer, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1986, pp. 165–194.
19. White, Lydia, et. al. “Restrictions on Definiteness in Second Language Acquisition. Affirmative and Negative Existentials in the L2 English of Turkish and Russian Speakers.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, vol. 2, no. 1, 2012, pp. 54–89.