Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Bağlama Hiyerarşisinin Türkçe Tümleç Yantümceleri üzerinde Sınanması: Bilişsel Dilbilgisi Yaklaşımı

Year 2026, Issue: 33, 329 - 346, 21.03.2026
https://doi.org/10.30767/diledeara.1823575
https://izlik.org/JA87ZA85HN

Abstract

Bilişsel dilbilim dilbilgisini sembolik yapıların anlambilimsel nitelemeleriyle formülleştirir. Karmaşık tümceler ad öbeği ve tümcecik yapısı arasında benzerlik kurularak çalışılır. Tümceciğin anlambilimsel işlevlerin bir eşdüzeylemesini yansıttığı düşünülür. İçeyerleşik tümceciğin, ana tümce tarafından belirlenmiş yan bir işlevi vardır. Bu bağlamda tümleç yantümcesi kurulumu bilişsel dilbilimin çalışma alanları arasındadır. Givon (1980)'in "Bağlama Hiyerarşisi" eylemleri ana kategorilere ayırır ve en üst seviyesini oluşturan eylemlerin bağımlı tümleçler seçerken, en alt seviyesini oluşturan eylemlerin de serbestliğe sahip tümleçler seçtiğini öne süren bir ölçek belirlemiştir. Mevcut çalışma, Givon'un "Bağlama Hiyerarşisi"nin evrenselliğini Türkçe eylemleri karmaşık tümce yapısında sınayarak incelemektedir. Bu amaçla, Kornfilt (2007)'nin karmaşık tümce kurulumunda -mA ve -DIK ekleri üzerine olan değerlendirmesi Türkçe tümleç yantümcelerinin bağımlı/bağımsız olma durumunun belirleyicisi olarak kullanılmıştır. Çalışma sonunda, Givon'un "Bağlama Hiyerarşisi"nin Türkçe için de işlevsel olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. Ölçeğin en üst seviyesinde bulunan eylemler daha bağımlı tümleç yantümceleri kurarken, en alt seviyedekiler ana eylemden daha fazla bağımsız tümleç yantümceleri kurmaktadır. Bu sonuç, "Bağlama Hiyerarşisi"nin farklı diller bağlamında geçerli olabileceğini destekleyici niteliktedir.

References

  • Aarts, B. (2006). Subordination. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Elsevier, 248-254.
  • Achard, M. (2007). Complementation. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. ed. D. Geeraerts, and H. Cuyckens. New York. Oxford University Press, 139-169.
  • Bianchi, V. (2003). On finiteness as logophoric anchoring. Temps et point de vue/Tense and point of view. ed. J.
  • Guéron and L. Tasmovski. Nanterre: Université Paris X, 213–245.
  • Croft, W. & Cruse, D.A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
  • Csató, É. Á. (2009). Two types of complement clauses in Turkish. Turcology in Mainz / Turkologie in Mainz Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 107-122.
  • Garcia-Miguel, J., M. (2007). Clause Structure and Transitivity. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. D. Geeraerts, and H. Cuyckens. New York. Oxford University Press, 753-781.
  • Givón, T. (1980). The Binding Hierarchy and the Typology of Complements. Studies in Language 4 (3), 333-377. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.4.3.03giv
  • Givón, T. (1995). Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Göksel, A. and Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London, UK. Routledge.
  • Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (2009). Review of the book Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations. ed. I. Nikolaeva. Folia Linguistica, 43(1), 213-249. doi: FLIN.2009.006
  • Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London and New York. Routledge.
  • Kornfilt, J. (2001). Functional projections and their subjects in Turkish clauses. The verb in Turkish. ed. E. E. Taylan.
  • John Benjamins Publishing Company, 183-212.
  • Kornfilt, J. (2007). Verbal and nominalized finite clauses in Turkish. Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations ed. I. Nikolaeva, 305-332.
  • Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. vol.2. Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Langacker, R. W. (2007). Cognitive Grammar. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. ed. D. Geeraerts, and H. Cuyckens. New York. Oxford University Press, 139-169.
  • Lawal, A. (1990). Verb serialization in Yorùbá and Givón’s binding hierarchy. ed. J. Hutchison and V. Manfredi, 7. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. 209-218. Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110884906.209
  • Matisoff, J. A. (1991). Areal and universal dimensions of grammaticalization in Lahu. ed. E. C. Traugott and B. Heine, 2. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 383-454.
  • Nesset, T. (2009). Ronald W. Langacker, Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Pp. x+562. Journal of Linguistics, 45(2), 477–480. doi:10.1017/S0022226709005799
  • Rhee, S. (2001). Grammaticalization of verbs of cognition and perception. Studies in Modern Grammar, 24, 111-135.
  • Stassen, L. (1985). Comparison and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.

Testing the Binding Hierarchy on Turkish Complement Clauses: A Cognitive Grammar Approach

Year 2026, Issue: 33, 329 - 346, 21.03.2026
https://doi.org/10.30767/diledeara.1823575
https://izlik.org/JA87ZA85HN

Abstract

Cognitive linguistics formularizes grammar by the semantic characterizations of symbolic structures. Sentential complexity is studied through forming a resemblance between the structures of noun phrases and clauses. A clause is considered to reflect a layering of semantic functions. The embedded clause plays a subordinate role determined by the main clause. In that respect, complementation is among the study areas of cognitive grammar perspective. Givon (1980)'s "Binding Hierarchy" classifies verbs into main categories and determines a scale the top level of which is composed of verbs specifying dependent complements, while the verbs at the bottom specifying higher independence. The present study analyzes the universality of Givon's "Binding Hierarchy" by testing Turkish verbs in complex sentences. For that aim, Kornfilt (2007)'s evaluation on -mA and -DIK markers in constructing complex sentences is taken as the indicator of dependence/independence of complementation in Turkish. At the end of the study, it is observed that Givon's "Binding Hierarchy" is also functional in Turkish. The verbs on top of the scale form less independent complementation while the ones at the bottom form higher independency from the main verb. This outcome may be considered as a support for the validity of the "Binding Hierarchy" cross-linguistically.

References

  • Aarts, B. (2006). Subordination. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Elsevier, 248-254.
  • Achard, M. (2007). Complementation. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. ed. D. Geeraerts, and H. Cuyckens. New York. Oxford University Press, 139-169.
  • Bianchi, V. (2003). On finiteness as logophoric anchoring. Temps et point de vue/Tense and point of view. ed. J.
  • Guéron and L. Tasmovski. Nanterre: Université Paris X, 213–245.
  • Croft, W. & Cruse, D.A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
  • Csató, É. Á. (2009). Two types of complement clauses in Turkish. Turcology in Mainz / Turkologie in Mainz Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 107-122.
  • Garcia-Miguel, J., M. (2007). Clause Structure and Transitivity. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. D. Geeraerts, and H. Cuyckens. New York. Oxford University Press, 753-781.
  • Givón, T. (1980). The Binding Hierarchy and the Typology of Complements. Studies in Language 4 (3), 333-377. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.4.3.03giv
  • Givón, T. (1995). Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Göksel, A. and Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London, UK. Routledge.
  • Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (2009). Review of the book Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations. ed. I. Nikolaeva. Folia Linguistica, 43(1), 213-249. doi: FLIN.2009.006
  • Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London and New York. Routledge.
  • Kornfilt, J. (2001). Functional projections and their subjects in Turkish clauses. The verb in Turkish. ed. E. E. Taylan.
  • John Benjamins Publishing Company, 183-212.
  • Kornfilt, J. (2007). Verbal and nominalized finite clauses in Turkish. Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations ed. I. Nikolaeva, 305-332.
  • Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. vol.2. Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Langacker, R. W. (2007). Cognitive Grammar. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. ed. D. Geeraerts, and H. Cuyckens. New York. Oxford University Press, 139-169.
  • Lawal, A. (1990). Verb serialization in Yorùbá and Givón’s binding hierarchy. ed. J. Hutchison and V. Manfredi, 7. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. 209-218. Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110884906.209
  • Matisoff, J. A. (1991). Areal and universal dimensions of grammaticalization in Lahu. ed. E. C. Traugott and B. Heine, 2. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 383-454.
  • Nesset, T. (2009). Ronald W. Langacker, Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Pp. x+562. Journal of Linguistics, 45(2), 477–480. doi:10.1017/S0022226709005799
  • Rhee, S. (2001). Grammaticalization of verbs of cognition and perception. Studies in Modern Grammar, 24, 111-135.
  • Stassen, L. (1985). Comparison and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
There are 22 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Cognitive Linguistics
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Taylan Akal 0000-0002-8740-7908

Submission Date November 14, 2025
Acceptance Date March 17, 2026
Publication Date March 21, 2026
DOI https://doi.org/10.30767/diledeara.1823575
IZ https://izlik.org/JA87ZA85HN
Published in Issue Year 2026 Issue: 33

Cite

APA Akal, T. (2026). Testing the Binding Hierarchy on Turkish Complement Clauses: A Cognitive Grammar Approach. Dil Ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları, 33, 329-346. https://doi.org/10.30767/diledeara.1823575

Journal of Language and Literature Studies is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).