Türk Dillerinde İki Tür ki’nin Dilbilgiselleşmesi Üzerine

Year 2021, , 1 - 14, 28.12.2021

Eva A. Csató , Lars Johanson

https://doi.org/10.26650/iuturkiyat.994834

Abstract

Bu makalede Türk dillerindeki kısaca şu iki tür ki’nin çeşitli dilbilgiselleşme yolları incelenecektir: kiplik parçacığı ki ve kopyalanmış bağlayıcı ki. Türk dillerinin belgelenmiş bütün dönemlerinde parçacık veya bağlayıcı yani altasıralayıcı, sıralayıcı ya da bağlayıcı zarf olarak çeşitli anlamsal ve sözdizimsel işlevlere hizmet eden bir ki ögesi kullanılmıştır. Tipolojik araştırmalar, büyük ölçekli karşılaştırmalı çalışmalarda kullanmaya elverişli anlamsal/bilişsel ölçütlere öncelik vermek suretiyle anlamsal ve sözdizimsel özellikler arasındaki ayrımları genellikle bulanıklaştırır, örn. Cristofaro (2003). Ki ögelerinin dilbilgiselleşmesinin Türk dilleri arasında karşılaştırılması, anlamsal/bilişsel özellikleri paylaşan yapıların sözdizimsel olarak farklı olabileceğini gösterir. Ki; Türk dillerinin ek halindeki bağlayıcıları bağımsız bağlayıcılarla değiştirmiş, yoğun kopya bulunduran varyantlarında özel bir rol oynar (Johanson 2000, 2002, 2010). Bölgesel dil özellikleri dilbilgiselleşme süreçlerini etkiler.

Keywords

Türk dilbilimi, cümle birleştirme, bağlayıcı, kod kopyalama, dilbilgiseleşme

On the grammaticalization of two types of ki in Turkic

Abstract

This article outlines various grammaticalization paths of the two types of the Turkic particle ki: the modal particle ki and the copied junctor ki. The element ki has been employed in Turkic languages in all documented historical periods, serving various semantic and syntactic functions as particles and junctors, i.e., subjunctors, conjunctors or adjunctors. Typological studies often blur any distinctions between semantic and syntactic properties by giving priority to semantic/cognitive criteria, which are easily applicable in large-scale comparative studies, e.g., Cristofaro (2003). Cross-Turkic comparison of the grammaticalization of ki elements shows that structures sharing semantic/cognitive properties may be syntactically different. Ki plays a special role in high-copying Turkic varieties that have throughout replaced typical Turkic bound junctors by free junctors (Johanson 2000, 2002, 2010). Areal linguistic features have influenced the grammaticalization processes.

Keywords

Turkic linguistics, clause combining, junctors, Code-Copying, grammaticalization

References

• Brendemoen, Bernt 2013. “The infinitive in -me/-ma in the Balkan dialects”, Turkic Languages 17 (2013), 31-37.
• Brendemoen, Bernt 2014. “Some remarks on the infinitive in -mA in 17th century Ottoman Turkish”, Demir, Nurettin & Karakoç, Birsel & Menz, Astrid (eds.) Turcology and Linguistics. Éva Ágnes Csató Festschrift. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları. 103-113.
• Bulut, Christiane 1997. Evliya Çelebis Reise nach Van. (Turcologica 35.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
• Bulut, Christiane 1998. “Copied strategies of clause combining”, Turkic Languages 2 (1998), 171-197.
• Bulut, Christiane 2006. “Syntactic traces of Turco-Iranian contiguity”, Johanson, Lars & Bulut, Christiane (eds.) Turkic-Iranian language contact areas. Historical and lingusitic aspects. (Turcologica 62.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 165-206.
• Clauson, Gerald 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Cristofaro, Sonia 2003. Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Csató, Éva Á. 1999. “Analyzing contact-induced phenomena in Karaim”, Twenty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, Special Session: Caucasian, Dravidian, and Turkic Linguistics. Berkely Linguistic Society 25S, 54-62.
• Csató, Éva Á. 2002. “Karaim: A high-copying language”, Jones, Mari C. & Esch, Edith (eds.) Language Change. The Interplay of Internal, External and Extra-linguistic Factors. [Contributions to the sociology of language 86]. New York & Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 315-327.
• Demir, Nurettin 2018. “Cypriot Turkish”, Bulut, Christiane (ed.) Linguistic Minorities in Turkey and Turkicspeaking Minorities of the Peripheries. (Turcologica 111). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
• Erdal, Marcel 2004. A Grammar of Old Turkic. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
• Ersen-Rasch, Margareta 20042. Türkische Grammatik für Anfänger und Fortgeschrittene. Ismaning: Max Hueber.
• Friedman, Victor 1986. “Romani te in a Balkan context”, Językowe studia bałkanistyczne 1. Wrocław: Polska Akademia Nauk. 39-48.
• Gabain, Annemarie von 1941. Alttürkische Grammatik. Leipzig: Harrassowitz.
• Jankowski, Henryk 1997. “Bible translation into the Northern Crimean dialect of Karaim”, Studia Orientalia 82 (1997), 1-84.
• Johanson, Lars 1975. “Some remarks on Turkic ‘hypotaxis’ ” Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 47 (1975), 104-118.
• Johanson, Lars 1993. “Typen türkischer Kausalsatzverbindungen”, Journal of Turkology (Szeged) 1 (1993), 213-267.
• Johanson, Lars 2000. “Traces of a Turkic copula verb”, Turkic Languages 4 (2000), 235-238.
• Johanson, Lars 2002. Structural Factors in Turkic Language Contacts. [With an introduction by Bernard Comrie.] London: Curzon.
• Johanson, Lars 2004. “On the Turkic origin of Hungarian igen ‘yes’”, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hung. 57 (2004), 93-104.
• Johanson, Lars 2010. “Three kinds of clause junctors”, Ziegelmeyer, Georg & Cyffer , Norbert (eds.) Aspects of Co- and Subordination. Case Studies from African, Slavonic and Turkic Languages. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe. 9-14.
• Johanson, Lars 2011. “Mood meets mood”, Stolz, Thomas & Vanhove, Martine & Urdze, Aina & Otsuka, Hitomi (eds.) Morphologies in Contact. (Studia Typologica 10.) Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 203-211.
• Johanson, Lars 2013. “Selection of subjunctors in Turkic non-finite complement clauses”, Bilig 67, 73-90.
• Johanson, Lars 2021. Turkic. (Cambridge Language Surveys) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Karakoç, Birsel 2005. Das finite Verbalsystem im Nogaischen. (Turcologica 58.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
• Karakoç, Birsel 2009. “Mutmaßungen über die Etymologie des türkischen Suffixes {KI}”, Boeschoten, Hendrik & Rentzsch, Julian (eds.) Turcology in Mainz/Turkologie in Mainz (Turcologica 82.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 155-166.
• Karakoç, Birsel 2013. “Types of copular clauses following ki in Old Ottoman Turkish”, Turkic Languages 17, 38-64.
• Kıral, Filiz 2001. Das gesprochene Aserbaidschanisch von Iran. Eine Studie zu den syntaktischen Einflüssen des Persischen. (Turcologica 43.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
• Menz, Astrid 1999. Gagausische Syntax. Eine Studie zum kontaktinduzierten Sprachwandel. (Turcologica 41.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
• Menz, Astrid 2001. “Gagauz right-branching propositions introduced by the element ani”, Turkic Languages 5 (2001), 234-244.