SÖYLEM-YÖNELİMLİ BİR BELİRTEÇ OLARAK TÜRKÇEDE KARŞIT-BELİRTME PARÇACIĞI "Kİ"

Year 2025, Volume: 176 Issue: 2, 54 - 79, 26.12.2025

Dursun Altınok

https://doi.org/10.33690/dilder.1648796

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Türkçedeki "ki" parçacığının karşıt-belirtme işleviyle dilbilgisel özelliklerine odaklanarak, onu söylem-yönelimli bir parçacık olarak tanımlamaktadır. Bu anlamda "ki" parçacığı, önceki bir ifadeye karşıtlık bildirmek için kullanılır ve konuşmacının, dinleyicinin söylem bağlılığı uyuşmazlığını işaretler. Parçacık, söylem-yönelimli olguları barındıran bir sözdizimsel çerçeve içinde dilbilgisel olarak analiz edilmektedir. İşlevsel açıdan, "ki" parçacığının bir sözeylem değiştirici olduğu ve eklendiği önermeyle çelişen önceki bir söylemsel bağlılığın varlığını ön kabul ettiği ileri sürülmektedir. Bu çalışma ayrıca "ki" parçacığının dilbilgisel davranışını, özellikle onun bildirme kipli cümlelere duyarlılığını, varsayım içeriğini ve Söylem Tümcesi (UttP) içindeki sözdizimsel konumunu incelemektedir. "Ki" parçacığı ayrıca, konuşmaya özgü ve zorunlu olmayan bir parçacık olarak değerlendirilmiş, bu da onun söylem-yönelimli bir öğe olduğu yönündeki görüşü pekiştirmiştir. Bulgular, söylem-yönelimli öğelerin ve bunların dilbilgisindeki biçimsel temsilinin daha geniş çapta anlaşılmasına katkıda bulunmaktadır.

Keywords

Söylem , Söylem Belirleyicileri , Cümle-sonu belirleyiciler , Sözeylem , Varsayım

TURKISH COUNTER-ASSERTIVE Kİ AS AN UTTERANCE-ORIENTED MARKER

Abstract

This paper focuses on the grammatical characterization of Turkish discourse particle ki in its counter-assertive function, identifying it as an utterance-oriented marker. The particle is used to express contradiction to a previous utterance, marking a speaker’s disagreement with the hearer’s discourse commitment. It is syntactically analyzed within a framework that accommodates utterance-oriented phenomena. Ki is functionally argued to be a speech-act modifier, presupposing the existence of a prior discourse commitment that contradicts the proposition it marks. The current work further examines the grammatical behavior of ki, including its sensitivity to assertive environments, its presuppositional content, and its syntactic position within the Utterance Phrase (UttP). The particle have also been attributed two discourse properties, being conversational and optional, reinforcing its status as an utterance-oriented marker. The findings contribute to the broader understanding of utterance-oriented elements and their formal representation in grammar.

Keywords

Utterance , Discourse Particle , Sentence-Final Particle , Speech Act , Presupposition

Ethical Statement

This study is a modified and expanded version of a part of the author’s doctoral dissertation, which is conducted at University of Delaware in 2024 and chaired by Satoshi Tomioka.

Thanks

I would like to thank my committee chair Satoshi Tomioka and my other members Benjamin Bruening, Rebecca Tollan, and Orhan Demir for their comments and contributions. I would also like to thank Bilge Palaz and Büşra Karacaoğlu for their valuable contribution with grammaticality judgments.

References

• Altınok, D. (2024). Utterance Phenomena in Syntax. [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Delaware]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global Publishing.
• Bağrıaçık, M. (2017). Representing discourse in clausal syntax: The ki particle in Pharasiot Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 17(2), 141–189. https://doi.org/10.1163/15699846-01702001
• Clauson, G. (1972). An etymological dictionary of pre-thirteenth-century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Corr, A. (2022). The grammar of the utterance: How to do things with Ibero-Romance, volume 78. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198856597.001.0001
• Çağatay, S. (1963). Türkçede ki < erki. Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı Belleten: 245- 250. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/504525
• Davis, C. (2009). Decisions, dynamics and the Japanese particle yo. Journal of semantics, 26(4), 329–366. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp007 Demirtaş, A. (2014). “Şüphe” ve “Tereddüt” bildiren “ki” edatının Türkiye Türkçesi ağızlarındaki kullanımı üzerine. 7. Uluslararası Dünya Dili Türkçe Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 16-18 Ekim 2014, Elazığ.
• Doğan, A. B. (2021). Kutadgu Bilig’de tereddüt & şüphe kipliği: erki parçacığı. Türkoloji Dergisi, 25(2), 120-162. https://doi.org/10.53372/turkoloji.978136
• Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6(2), 167–190.
• Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429435836
• Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P., & Morgan, J. L., editors, Speech Acts (Vol. 3). 41-58. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003
• Griffiths, J. & Güneş, G. (2015). Ki issues in Turkish. In Kluck, M., Ott, D., & de Vries, M., editors, Parenthesis and ellipsis: Cross-linguistic and theoretical perspectives, 173-218. De Gruyter, Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614514831.173
• Gunlogson, C. (2001). True to form: Rising and falling declaratives as questions in English. [Doctoral Dissertation, University of California at Santa Cruz]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global Publishing.
• Gutzmann, D. (2017). Modal particles ≠ modal particles (= modal particles). In Bayer, J., & Struckmeier, V., editors, Discourse particles: Formal approaches to their syntax and semantics, 144–172. De Gruyter, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110497151-007
• Han, C.-h. (2002). Interpreting interrogatives as rhetorical questions. Lingua, 112(3), 201–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(01)00044-4
• Johanson, L. (2000). Turkic indirectives, In Johanson, L., & Utas, B., editors, Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages, 61-87. De Gruyter, Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110805284.61
• Kiparsky, P., & Kiparsky, C. (1970). Fact. In Bierwisch, M., & Heidolph, K. E., editors, Progress in Linguistics: A collection of papers, 143–173. De Gruyter, Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111350219.143
• Korkmaz, Z. (1968). Türkiye Türkçesinin ki bağlama ve şüphe edatları arasındaki yapı ve görev ayrılığı. Necati Lugat armağanı. Ankara: TTK Yay. 389-395.
• Krifka, M. (2004). Semantics below and above speech acts. Handout from a talk at Stanford University. 09 April 2004. https://amor.cms.hu-berlin.de/~h2816i3x/Talks/StanfordLecture2004.pdf
• Meral, H. M. (2018). Appositive ki clauses in Turkish. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 29(2), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.309847
• Portner, P. (2004). The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In Young, R., editor, Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, volume 14, 235–252. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/download/2907/2647
• Portner, P., Pak, M., & Zanuttini, R. (2019). The speaker-addressee relation in imperatives. In Bondarenko, T., Davis, C., Colley, J., & Privoznov, D., editors, Proceedings of the 14th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics, 219–238. MIT press.
• Predolac, E. (2017). The syntax of sentential complementation in Turkish. [Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global Publishing.
• Reese, B. J. (2007). Bias in questions. [Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global Publishing.
• Rentzsch, J. (2015). Modality in the Turkic languages: Form and meaning from a historical and comparative perspective. Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag.
• Sadock, J. M. (1974). Towards a linguistic theory of speech acts. Academic Press.
• Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse markers. Lingua, 107(3-4), 227–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(96)90026-1
• Schroeder, C. (2002). On the structure of spoken Turkish. ELiSe. 2(1), 72-80. https://www.academia.edu/download/70523841/On_the_structure_of_spoken_Turkish20210929-32390-x4pziz.pdf
• Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P., & Morgan, J. L., editors, Speech Acts (Vol. 3), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_004
• Sezer, T. (2017). TS Corpus project: An online Turkish dictionary and TS DIY corpus. European Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 3(3), 18–24.
• Simons, M. (2007). Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua, 117(6), 1034–1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.05.006
• Simpson, A. (2014). Sentence-final particles. In Huang, C.-T.J., Li, Y.-H.A., & Simpson, A., editors, The handbook of Chinese linguistics, 156–179. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584552.ch7
• Stenius, E. (1969). Mood and Language-Game. In: Davis, J.W., Hockney, D.J., & Wilson, W.K., editors, Philosophical Logic. Synthese Library (Vol 20), Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-9614-0_18
• Sybesma, R., & Li, B. (2007). The dissection and structural mapping of Cantonese sentence final particles. Lingua, 117(10), 1739–1783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2006.10.003
• Üzüm, M. (2019). Eski Anadolu Türkçesinde Epistemik Kiplik: Kısas-ı Enbiya Örneği. Nobel Bilimsel Eserler.
• Yüceol Özezen, M. (2013). Türkiye Türkçesinde pekiştirme işlevli ki. Turkish Studies. Vol. 8, 367-373.