Türkçe Hakkındalık ve Karşıtsal Konularının Bürünsel Yapısı

Year 2020, Volume: 60 Issue: 2, 561 - 585, 28.12.2020

Aslı Gürer

https://doi.org/10.26650/TUDED2020-825592

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Özne-Nesne-Eylem (ÖNE) sıralamasında tümce başındaki Türkçe hakkındalık ve karşıtsal konularını araştırmaktadır. Hakkındalık ve farkındalık konuları altı farklı koşul altında araştırılmıştır. Konuların bürünsel işaretlemesi deneysel ve kuramsal açıdan incelenmiştir. Temel sıklık değerleri (F0) ve süre değerleri çalışmanın temel ölçüm kriterleridir. Koşullar, söylem yenisi ve eskisi olarak ortaya çıkabilecek hakkındalık ve karşıtsal konularını farklı bilgi yapısı sıralamaları bazında karşılaştırır. Bu koşullar, geniş odak koşulu altındaki odak cümlelerinin bürünüyle karşılaştırılmıştır. Anadil konuşurlarından diyaloglar aracılığıyla toplanan verilerden hedef tümceler çıkartılarak Praat (Boersma & Weenink, 2020) ile bölümlenmiş ve incelenmiştir. Sonuçlara göre öznenin bulunduğu çekirdek öncesi alanın sağ kenarındaki ve nesnenin bulunduğu çekirdek alandaki F0 değerleri tümce başı konu koşulları ile daha yüksektir. Hatta bu ölçüm noktalarında hakkındalık konuları karşıtsal konulardan daha yüksek F0 değerine sahiptir ancak devamında yürütülen istatiksel çalışma bunun tüm koşullar karşılaştırıldığında bile kategorik bir özellik olmadığını göstermektedir. Çekirdek öncesi, çekirdek ve çekirdek sonrası alanların süre ölçümleri de bu altı koşul için anlamlı bir fark olmadığını ortaya koymuştur. Çalışma, Türkçe için hakkındalık ve karşıtsal konularının sözdizimsel ve anlambilimsel olarak farklı işaretlenmelerine rağmen, ayırt edici bir bürünsel stratejiyle işaretlenmedikleri ve geniş odak tümcelerinden ayrı olmadıkları sonucuna varmıştır.

Keywords

Bürünbilim, Anlambilim, Hakkındalık konusu, Karşıtsal konu, Geniş Odak

The Prosody of Aboutness and Contrastive Topics in Turkish

Abstract

his study investigates prosodic marking of sentence initial aboutness topics and contrastive topics in Subject-Object-Verb (SOV) order in Turkish under six different conditions within experimental and theoretical perspectives. Fundamental frequency (F0) and duration values are the evaluation criteria of the study. The conditions illustrate aboutness and contrastive topics - discourse-new or discourse given - in different information packaging options. These conditions are compared with focus phrases under broad focus conditions. The data were collected from native speakers with the help of dialogues including the target sentences. The sentences, extracted from the recordings, were annotated via Praat (Boersma & Weenink, 2020). The results indicate that F0 values at the right edge of the prenuclear domain and the nuclear domain are higher with topic phrases. Aboutness topics have higher values than contrastive topics. However, the statistical analysis indicates that this is not a categorical property when all six conditions are analyzed. Duration measurements of prenuclear, nuclear and postnuclear domains also do not differ under these six conditions. To conclude, Turkish aboutness and contrastive topics are marked with different syntactic and semantic tools, but they are not marked with a distinctive prosodic strategy and they do not differ from broad focus sentences.

Keywords

Prosody, Semantics, Aboutness topic, Contrastive topic, Broad focus

References

• Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. (1992–2020). Praat, doing phonetics by computer [Computer program, version 6.1.09]. http://www.praat.org/
• Büring, D. (1997). The great scope inversion conspiracy. Linguistics & Philosophy 20, 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005397026866
• Büring, D. (2003). On D-trees, beans and B-accents. Linguistic and Philosophy, 26 (5), 511–545. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025887707652
• Büring, D. (2016). (Contrastive) Topic. In C. Féry & S. Ishihara (Eds), Handbook of information structure (pp. 64-85). Oxford University Press.
• Constant, N. (2014). Contrastive topic: Meanings and realizations [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.
• Erguvanlı, E. (1984). The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Erkü, F. (1982). Topic, comment and word order in Turkish. Minnesota Papers in Linguistics and Philosophy of Language 8, 30–38.
• Féry, C. (2007). The prosody of topicalization. In K. Schwabe & S. Winkler (Eds.), On information structure, meaning and form (pp. 69-86). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins.
• Féry, C. & Kügler, F. (2008). Pitch accent scaling on given, new and focused constituents in German. Journal of Phonetics 36, 680–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2008.05.001
• Frascarelli, M. & Hinterhölzl, R. (2007). Types of topics in German and Italian. In S. Winkler & K. Schwabe (Eds.), On information structure, meaning and form (pp. 87–116). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Göksel, A. & Özsoy, A. S. (2000). Is there a focus position in Turkish? In A. Göksel & C. Kerslake (Eds.), Studies on Turkish and Turkic languages; Proceedings of the ninth international conference on Turkish linguistics (pp. 219–228). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
• Göksel, A. & Özsoy, A. S. (2003). dA as a focus/topic associated clitic in Turkish. In A. S. Özsoy & A. Göksel (guest editors), Lingua, Special edition on Focus in Turkish, 1143–1167.
• Güneş, G. (2010). The pragmatic and prosodic analysis of sentence topics in Turkish; An investigation based on real-life conversations [Unpublished MA thesis]. Boğaziçi University.
• Gürer, A. (2015). Semantic, prosodic and syntactic marking of information structural units in Turkish [Doctoral dissertation, Boğaziçi University].
• Gürer, A. (2020). Information structure within interfaces: Consequences for the phrase structure. Berlin De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505584
• Ipek, C. (2011). Phonetic realization of focus with on-focus pitch range expansion in Turkish. In W. Lee & E. Zee (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th international congress of phonetic sciences (pp. 140–143). Hong Kong : City University of Hong Kong.
• İşsever, S. (2003). Information structure in Turkish: The word order–prosody interface. Lingua 113, 1025–1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00012-3
• İvoşeviç, S. & Bekâr, İ. P. (2015). Acoustic correlates of focus in Turkish. In D. Zeyrek, Ç. S. Şimşek, U. Ataş & J. Rehbein (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Turkish linguistics (pp. 20–27). Harrassowitz Verlag.
• Hoffman, B. (1995). The computational analysis of the syntax and interpretation of ‘free’ word order in Turkish [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Pennsylvania.
• Jackendoff, R. S. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Ladefoged, P. (2010). A course in phonetics. Thomson, Wadsworth.
• Kamali, B. (2011). Topics at the PF interface of Turkish [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Harvard University.
• Kan, S. (2009). Prosodic domains and the syntax-prosody mapping in Turkish [Unpublished MA thesis]. Boğaziçi University.
• Özge, U. & Bozşahin, C. (2010). Intonation in the grammar of Turkish. Lingua 120, 132–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.001
• Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• Roberts, C. (1996). Informative structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In J. Hç Yoon & A. Kathol (Eds.), OSU working papers in linguistics 49 (pp. 91–136). Columbus OH: Ohio State University.
• Rooth, M. (1985). Association with focus [Unpublished doctoral dissertation].. University of Massachusetts dissertation.
• Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax. The relation between sound and structure. Cam¬bridge MA: The MIT Press.
• Şener, S. (2010). Non- peripheral matters in Turkish syntax [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Connecticut dissertation.
• Tomioka, S. (2009). Contrastive topics operate on speech acts. In M. Zimmermann & C. Féry (Eds), Information structure (pp. 115–138). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Tomioka, S. (2010). A scope theory of contrastive topics. Iberia 2 (1), 113-130.
• Truckenbrodt, H. (1995). Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus, and Prominence [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• Wagner, M. (2012). Contrastive topics decomposed. Semantics and Pragmatics 5, 1-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.8
• Wang, B. & Xu, Y. (2011). Differential prosodic encoding of topic and focus in sentence-initial position in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Phonetics 39, 595–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2011.03.006