DENOMINAL VERBS AND THEIR ASPECTUAL PROPERTIES

Abstract

This paper analyzes the morpological and semantic properites of denominal verbs in Turkish. Following Clark and Clark (1979), Turkish denominal verbs are classified into eight semantic categories: location, locatum, duration, agent, experiencer, goal, source,and instrument. The lexical aspectual characteristics of location, locatum, and goal verbs are also presented. It is argued that the inherent semantic features of base nouns have a crucial role in determining the telicity of the above-mentioned denominal verbs. There is a correlation between the (non)boundedness of the base nominal and the (a)telicity of the derived verb. The paper finally focuses on the variable aspectual properties of locatum verbs and illustrates the impact of contextual factors, particularly real-world knowledge, in ascribing (a)telicity interpretations to these verbs

Keywords

• Denonimal verbs
• lexical aspect
• mass/count noun
• temporally delimited/nondelimited
• telic/atelic

ADTABANLI EYLEMLER VE KILINIŞ ÖZELLİKLERİ

Öz

Bu çalışma Türkçedeki adtabanlı eylemlerin biçimbilimsel ve anlambilimsel özelliklerini betimlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Clark ve Clark (1979)’daki öneri çerçevesinde Türkçe adtabanlı eylemler, taban adın anlam özelliklerine göre sekiz sınıfa ayrılmıştır: yerleşen, yer, süre, kılıcı, deneyimleyen, hedef, kaynak, ve araç eylemleri. Çalışma, yerleşen, yer ve hedef eylemlerinin kılınış özelliklerini tartışmakta ve taban adın içkin anlambilimsel özelliklerinin bu eylemlerin hedefte-bitişli olup olmadıklarını belirlemede etkin olduğu göstermektedir. Kılınış belirsizliği sergileyen yerleşen eylemleri ayrıca irdelenmiştir. Bağlamın, özellikle dünya bilgisinin bu tür eylemleri içeren tümcelerde zamansal sonluluk yorumu oluşturmadaki rolü betimlenmiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Adtabanlı eylem
• kılınış
• kütle adı/sayılabilir ad
• zamanda sonlu/sonsuz
• hedefte-bitişli/ hedefte-bitişsiz

References

1. Aksan, Y. 2005. Scalar semantic representation of aspectually variable verbs in Turkish. S. Yağcıoğlu ve A. Cem-Değer (Haz.) Advances in Turkish Linguistics, 93-106. İzmir: Dokuz Eylül Yayınları.
2. Aronoff, M. 1980. Contextuals. Language, 56: 4, 744-758.
3. Aronoff, M. 1984. Word formation and lexical semantics. Quaderni di semantica, V: 1, 45-49.
4. Aydemir, Y. 2006. Sözlüksel görünüş ve Türkçe eylemlerin anlambilimsel sınıflandırılması: Sözlükçe-sözdizim etkileşimi. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
5. Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
6. Brinton, L. 1991. The mass/count distinction and aktionsart. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 6, 47-69.
7. Buck, R. 1993. Affectedness and other semantic properties of English denominal locative verbs. American Speech 68:2, 139-160.
8. Clark, E.V. ve H. H. Clark. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55:4, 767-810.

9. Comrie, B. 1985. Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology. T. Shopen (Haz.) Language typology and syntactic description 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 309-348. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Don, J. 1993. Morphological conversion. Utrech: OTS.
11. Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 547-619.
12. Hale, K ve J. Keyser. 1992. The syntactic character of thematic structure. I.M Roca (Haz.) Thematic structure: Its role in grammar, 107-143. Berlin: Foris.
13. Hale, K. ve J. Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. K. Hale ve S. J. Keyser (Haz.) A view from the building 20, 53-109. Cambridge: Cambridge Univesity Press.
14. Hale, K. ve J. Keyser. 1998. The basic elements of argument structure. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32, 73-118.
15. Harley, H. 1999. Denominal verbs and aktionsart. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 35, 73- 85.
16. Harley, H. 2005. How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation, and the ontology of verb roots in English. N. Erteschik-Shir ve T. Rapoport (Haz.) The syntax of aspect, 42-64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Hay, J., C. Kennedy ve B. Levin 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in ‘degree achievements’. SALT 9, 124-144.
18. Higginbotham, J. 2000. Accomplishments. Proceedings of Glow in Asia II, Nagoya, Japan, 2000.
19. Hopper, P. ve S. Thompson 1985. The iconicity of the universal categories ‘noun’ and ‘verb’. J. Haiman (Haz.) Iconicity in syntax, 151-183. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
20. Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge:MIT Press.
21. Jackendoff, R. 1991. Parts and boundaries. B. Levin ve S. Pinker (Haz.) Lexical and conceptual semantics, 9-46. Cambridge:Blackwell.
22. Jackendoff, R. 1996. The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps even quantification in English. NLLT 14, 305-351.
23. Kageyama, T. 1997. Denominal verbs and relative salience in lexical conceptual structure. T. Kageyama (Haz.) Verb semantics and syntactic structures, 45-94. Tokyo:Kurosio.
24. Kennedy, C. ve B. Levin 2000. Telicity corresponds to degree of change. Michegan State Universtiy, Nov. 30, 2000. www. ling.nwu.edu/~kennedy/.
25. Kiparsky, P. 1997. Remarks on denominal verbs. A. Alsina, J. Bresnan ve P. Sells (Haz.) Complex predicates, 473-498. Stanford:CSLI.
26. Krifka, M. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. R. Bartsch ve diğ. (Haz.) Semantics and contextual expression, 75-115. Dordrecht: Foris.
27. Krifka, M. 1998. The origins of telicity. S. Rothstein (haz.) Events and grammar, 197-236. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
28. Levin, B. 2000. Aspect,lexical semantic representation, and argument expression. Berkley Linguistic Society 26: 413-430.
29. Plag, I. 2000.On the mechanisms of morphological rivalry: A new look at competing verb- deriving affixes in English. Anglistentag 1999. Tübingen:Niemeyer.
30. Ramchand, G. C. 1997. Aspect and predication. Oxford: Clarendon.
31. Ramchand, G. 2001. Aktionsart, l-syntax and selection. Utrecht conference on aspect, ms. Oxford: Oxford University. http:// users.ox.ac.uk/~gcram/research/utproc.pdf.
32. Rose, J. 1973. Principled limitations on productivity in denominal verbs. Foundation of language, 10, 509-26.
33. Rothstein, S. 2004. Structuring events. Oxford: Blackwell.
34. Smollett, R. 2005. Quantized direct objects don’t delimit after all. H.Verkuyl, H.de Swart ve A.von Hout (Haz.) Perspectives on aspect, 41-60. Berlin: Springer.
35. Talmy, L. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. T. Shopen (Haz.) Language typology and syntactic description 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 57-149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. Tenny, C. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface . Dordrecht: Kluwer.
37. Verkuyl, H. 1993. A theory of aspectuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Wechsler , S. 2001. Resultatives under the ‘event-argument homomorphism’ model of telicity, N. Erteschik-Shir ve T. Rapoport (Haz.) The syntax of aspect, 274-286. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39. Woodworth, N. 1991. >From noun to verb and from verb to noun. Yayımlanmamış doktora
40. tezi, SUNY, New York.