JAPONCA VE TÜRKÇEDEKİ HAYRET İFADELERİ ÜZERİNE

Öz

Mirativity (Hayret olgusu), dilbilim tipolojisinde nispeten yeni ve dikkate değer bir kavramdır. Mirativ ifadelerin birçok dilde kanıtsallık ile dilbilgisel bir bağlantısı bulunmazken, diğer dillerde kişi ve görünüş işaretleyicileri yeni bilgi, zihinsel hazırsızlık ve şaşkınlık anlamlarını barındırabilir (Aikhenvald, 2012, p. 436). Türkçe kanıtsallık ekinin (-mIş) mirativ anlam uzantısı olduğu dillerden biridir. Benzer şekilde, Japoncada mirativ anlam gramatik bir şekil (-ta) ile ifade edilir. Bu çalışmada, Aikhenvald’ın sınıflandırması kullanılarak Japonca ve Türkçede bağlamların ve ünlemliklerin mirativ anlamları üzerindeki kontrolü karşılaştırmalı olarak tartışılmıştır. Bu çalışmada elde edilen bulgular, her iki dilde de mirativity olgusunun zaman ve görünüş sistemlerinden ayrı olarak kiplik kategorisinin bir alt sınıfı olduğunu ve kanıtsallık ile bağlantılı olduğunu göstermektedir.

 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• mirativity olgusu,mirativ anlamlar,ünlemlikler,Türkçe,Japonca

A STUDY OF MIRATIVITY IN JAPANESE AND TURKISH

Abstract

Mirativity is a relatively recent, notable concept in linguistic typology. It is known that expressions of mirativity have no grammatical connection to evidential systems in many languages, while in other languages, person marking systems and aspectual forms can have meanings associated with new, unexpected knowledge and surprise (Aikhenvald, 2012, p. 436). Turkish is one of the languages in which an evidential marker, -mIş, has mirative extensions. Similarly, in Japanese, mirative meanings are conveyed through the grammatical form -ta. In this study, we present the control of exclamatives and contexts on the mirative meanings comparatively in Turkish and Japanese using Aikhenvald’s classification. Our findings indicate that mirativity is a subclass of modality as a separate category from tense and aspect in both Japanese and Turkish, and their miratives are in relation to evidentiality. 

Keywords

• mirativity,mirative meanings,exclamatives,Turkish,Japanese

References

1. Aikhenvald, A., Y. (2012). The essence of mirativity. Linguistic Typology, 16, 435-485.
2. Aoki, H. (1986). Evidentials in Japanese. In Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (Eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (pp. 223-238). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
3. Chung, H., J. (1993). Nihongo ni okeru -ru, -ta kei to Modariti: Bunmatsu Keishiki wo chuushin ni　(The forms -ru, -ta and modality in Japanese: focusing on the sentence final form). Kokugogaku kenkyuu to shiryoo 17. Kokugogaku Kenkyuu to Shiryoo no Kai, 24-34.
4. Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
5. DeLancey, S. (1997). Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1, 33-52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
6. Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7. Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. Routledge, New York.
8. Hara, Y, (2006). Japanese discourse items at interfaces (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Delaware, Newark, DE.

9. Inoue, M. (2001). Gendai Nihongo no -ta: Shubunmatsu no “…ta” no Imi ni tsuite (-ta in Modern Japanese: The Meaning of -ta as a Final Form of the Main Sentence). -ta no Gengogaku. Hitsuji Shoboo.
10. Kaneko, T. (1995). Gengo no Jikan Hyoogen. Hitsuji Shoboo.
11. Kaufmann, M. & Tamura, S. (2017). Japanese modality- Possibility and necessity: prioritizing, epistemic, and dynamic. In Wesley Jacobsen and Yukinori Takubo (Eds.), The Handbook of Japanese Semantics and Pragmatics (pp. 1-33). Moulton de Gruyter.
12. Kinsui, S. (1998). Iwayuru ‘Muudo no -ta’ ni tsuite: Jootaisei to no Kanren kara (So-called modal -ta: In relation to Stativity). Tokyo Daigaku Kokugo Kenkyuushitsu Sooritsu Hyakunen Kinen Kokugo Kenkyuu Ronshuu. Kyuuko Shoin.
13. Kunihiro, T. (1967). Koozooteki Imiron. Sanseidoo.
14. Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese Language. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
15. Makino, S. & Tsutsui, M. (1989). A dictionary of basic Japanese grammar. Tokyo: The Japan Times.
16. Matsubara, J. (2017). The Semantics and Pragmatics of the Japanese Evidentials -Rashii, -Sooda, and -Yooda: an Experimental Investigation (Doctoral Dissertation). Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.
17. McCready, E. & Ogata, N. (2007). Evidentiality, modality and probability. Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (2). 147-206.
18. Muramatsu, Y. (1991). Iwayuru “Hakken”, “Kakunin”, “Sooki” no -ta koo (The notion of -ta so-called “discovery”, “confirmation”, “recall”). Nagoya Daigaku Jinbunkagaku Kenkyuu 20, 39-50.
19. Nakau, M. (1976). Tense, aspect and modality. In Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 5, Japanese Generative Grammar. New York: Academic Press, 421-482.
20. Narrog, H. (2009). Modality in Japanese: The Layered Structure of the Clause and Hierarchies of Functional Categories. John Benjamins.
21. Narrog, H. & Yang, W. (2018). Evidentiality in Japanese. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality (pp. 1-23). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
22. Nuyts, J. (2006). Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. In William Frawley, Wolfgang Klein and Stephen Levinson (Eds.), Expression of Cognitive Categories: The Expression of Modality (pp. 1-26). Walter de Gruyter&Co. KG Publishers, Berlin.
23. Ogata, N. (2005). A dynamic semantics of modal subordination. Proceedings of the International Workshop pf Logic and Engineering of Natural Language Semantics 2005. The Japanese Society of Artificial Intelligence, Tokyo.
24. Ogihara, T. (1996). Tense, Attitudes and Scope. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
25. Palmer, F., R. (1986). Mood and Modality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
26. Palmer, F., R. (1990). Modality and the English Modals. Second edition. London and New York: Longman.
27. Sadanobu, T. (2004). Muudo no -ta no Kakosei (The Pastness of modal -ta). Kokusai Bunkagaku Kenkyuu: Kobe Daigaku Kokusai Bunkagakubu Kiyoo 21, 1-68.
28. Sadanobu, T. (2014). “Hakken” to “Miratibu” no Aida: Naze tsuugengoteki kenkyuu to majiwarunoka (Interval of “Discovery” and “Mirative”: Why it is associated with cross-linguistic studies). Nihongogaku to tsuugengoteki kenkyuu to no taiwa: Tensu, aspekto, muudo kenkyuu wo tooshite (pp. 3-38). Kuroshio Shuppan.
29. Slobin, D. & Aksu, A. (1982). Tense, aspect, and modality in the use of Turkish evidential. In P. J. Hopper (Ed.), Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics, Typological Studies in Language (pp. 397-405). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
30. Soga, M. (1983). Tense and Aspect in Modern Colloquial Japanese. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
31. Takahashi, T. (1985). Gendai Nihongo Doushi no Asupekuto to Tensu (Aspect and Tense of Modern Japanese Verbs). Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyuusho, Shuuei Shuppan.
32. Teramura, H. (1984). Nihongo no Shintakusu to Imi Ⅱ (Syntax and Meaning in Japanese Ⅱ). Kuroshio Shuppan.