Özbek Türkçesinde Miratif (Beklenmeyen Bilgi) Kategorisi

Year 2024, Issue: 15, 507 - 544, 28.04.2024

Bahar Türkyılmaz

https://doi.org/10.51531/korkutataturkiyat.1458860

Abstract

Türkiye Türkçesine şaşkınlık, hayret, hayranlık, sürpriz, beklenmediklik veya beklenmeyen bilgi kavramları ile aktarabileceğimiz admirative/mirative/miratif kategorisi konuşurun ya da muhatabın daha önce farkında olmadığı, var olan algısıyla çatışacak kadar yeni, beklenmedik, sürpriz bir bilgiyle karşılaşması ve bu beklenmedikliğin karşısında da genellikle şaşkınlık ifadesiyle kodlanan dil bilimsel bir kategoridir. İlk çalışmalarda kanıtsallık içerisinde pragmatik bir uzantı olarak değerlendirilen miratif kategorisi özellikle DeLancey’in çalışmalarıyla birlikte ayrı bir kategori kimliği kazanmış ve pek çok araştırmacı tarafından da çeşitli dillerde tespit edilmiştir. Bu çalışmada Özbek Türkçesinin miratif sistemi üzerinde durulmuş ve Özbek Türkçesinde miratif kategorisini işaretlemek üzere sınır sonrasılık (postterminal) biçimleri -ib(di) ve -gan ile ekan ve emish yapıları ekseninde bir inceleme yapılmıştır. İnceleme için toplamda otuz yedi eser taranmış olup taranan eserler 1936 ile 2022 yılları arasından seçilmiştir. Tarama sonucunda ise otuz yedi eserin yalnızca on üçünde miratif kodlama tespit edilebilmiştir. İncelemede elde edilen bulgulara göre özellikle enklitiklerin dil bilgisel ayırt ediciler şeklinde miratif anlamları kodlayabildiği, en çok kodlamanın ekan yapısıyla gerçekleştirildiği, -ib(di) biçimbiriminin -gan’a nazaran kodlamada daha fazla tercih edildiği, belirli fiillerin içerik olarak miratif anlama yatkın olduğu görülmüş ve ayrıca çeşitli sözlüksel araçların da cümlede yer alan miratif anlamı görünür kıldıkları saptanmıştır.

Keywords

Özbek Türkçesi, sürpriz, enklitik, ünlem, miratif.

Mirative Category in Uzbek Turkish

Abstract

The admirative/mirative/mirative category, which can be translated into Turkish with the concepts of astonishment, amazement, admiration, surprise, unexpectedness or unexpected information, is a linguistic category in which the speaker or interlocutor encounters new, unexpected, surprising information that the speaker or interlocutor was not previously aware of, which is so new that it conflicts with his/her existing perception, and which is usually coded with the expression of surprise in the face of this unexpectedness. The category of mirative, which was considered a pragmatic extension of evidentiality in the first studies, has gained a separate category identity, especially with DeLancey's studies and has been identified by many researchers in various languages. In this study, the mirative system of Uzbek Turkish was emphasized and an analysis was made based on the postterminal forms -ib(di) and -gan and the structures ekan and emish to mark the mirative category in Uzbek Turkish. A total of thirty-seven works were scanned and the scanned works were selected between the years 1936 and 2022. As a result of the scanning, mirative coding could be detected in only thirteen of the thirty-seven works. According to the findings obtained in the analysis, it was seen that especially enclitics could encode mirative meanings in the form of grammatical markers, most encoding was carried out with the ekan structure, the morpheme -ib(di) was more preferred in encoding than -gan, certain verbs were prone to mirative meaning in terms of content, and it was also found that various lexical tools made the mirative meaning in the sentence visible.

Keywords

Uzbek Turkish, surprise, enclitic, exclamation, mirative.

References

• Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2003). Evidentiality in Typological Perspective. Studies in Evidentiality, (ed. Alexandra Aikhenvald ve Robert Dixon). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1-31.
• Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Aikhenvald, A. (2012). The Essence of Mirativity. Linguistic Typology, 16, 435-485.
• Aikhenvald, A. (2021). The Grammaticalization of Evidentiality. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, (ed. Heiko Narrog ve Bernd Heine). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 605-613.
• Aksu-Koç, A (2000). Some Aspects of The Acquisition of Evidentials in Turkish. In Evidentials Turkic, Iranian and Neigbouring Languages, (ed. Lars Johanson ve Bo Utas). New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 15-28.
• Aksu-Koç, A. (2016). The Interface of Evidentials and Epistemics in Turkish Perspectives from Acquisition. Exploring the Turkish Linguistic Landscape. Essays in Honor of Eser Erguvanlı-Taylan, (ed. Mine Güven - vd.). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company, 143-156.
• Aslan Demir, S. (2013). Türkmencede Kanıtsallık/Evidensiyellik. Leyla Karahan Armağanı. Ankara: Akçağ Yayınları, 409-420.
• Aslan Demir, S. (2022). Yunus Emre’nin Şiirlerinde Dilbilimsel Bir Kategori Olarak Kanıtsallık. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 22 (Özel Sayı), 223-234.
• Ayniy, S. (1964). Asarlar III. Tom. (Qullor). Toshkent: Badiiy Adabiyot Nashriyoti.
• Brems, L ve Van linden, A. (2019). Miracles and Mirativity: Lexical Versus Grammatical Uses of Wonder, Marvel, and Surprise. The Workshop on the English Noun Phrase, 11-13 July 2019, Vienna, 1-28.
• Busamante, T. T. (2013). On The Syntax and Semantics of Mirativity: Evidence from Spanish and Albanian. Doctoral Dissertation. New Brunswick/New Jersey: The State University of New Jersey.
• Celle, A. ve Depraz, N. (2019). Surprise at The Intersection of Phenomenology and Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
• Choi, S. - vd. (2022). Lexical Expressions and Grammatical Markers for Source of İnformation: A Contrast between German and Korean. Language Sciences, 92, 1-22.
• Chung, K. S. (2012). Space in Tense. The İnteraction of Tense, Aspect, Evidentiality and Speech Acts in Korean. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Çolpan, A. S. (1994). Asarlar II. Cild (Hikoyalar va Tarjimalar). Toshkent: O’zbekiston Respublikasi Davlat Matbuot Qo’mitasi 1-Bosmaxona.
• Egerod, S. ve Hansson, I. L. (1974). An Akha Conversation on Death and Funeral. Acta Orientalia, 36, 225-284.
• DeLancey, S. (1997). Mirativity: The Grammatical Marking of Unexpected Information. Linguistic Typology, l, 33-52.
• DeLancey, S. (2001). The Mirative and Evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 369-382.
• DeLancey, S. (2012). Still Mirative After All These Years. Linguistic Typology, 16, 529-564.
• Demir, N. (2012). Türkçede Evidensiyel. Bilig, 62(Yaz), 97-118.
• De Wit, A. (2017). The Expression of Mirativity Through Aspectual Constructions. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15(2), 385-410.
• Dickinson, C. (2000). Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language, 24(2), 379-421.
• Faller, M. (2002). Semantics and Pragmatics of Evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Ph.D Dissertation. California: Standford University.
• Haan, F. D. (2012). Evidentiality and Mirativity. Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, (ed. Robert Binnick). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1020-1045.
• Haan, F. D. (2013). Coding of Evidentiality. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. https://wals.info/chapter/78. [Erişim Tarihi: 02. 03. 2024].
• Hashimov, O’. (2012). İkki Eshik Orasi. Toshkent: Sharq Nashriyot-Matbaa.
• Hein, V. (2007). The Mirative and Its Interplay with Evidentiality in The Tibetan Dialect of Tabo (Spıtı). Linguistics of The Tibeto-Burman Area, 30(2), 195-214.
• Hengeveld, K. ve Olbertz, H. (2012). Didn’t You Know? Mirativity Does Exist!. Linguistic Typology, 16, 487-503.
• Jacobson, W. J. (1964). A Grammar of The Washo Language. Doctoral Dissertation. UC Berkeley: University of California.
• Johanson, L. (2000a). Viewpoint Operators in European Languages. Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe, (ed. Östen Dahl). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 27-187.
• Johanson, L. (2000b). Turkic Indirectives. Evidentials Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages, (ed. Lars Johanson ve Bo Utas). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 61-87.
• Johanson, L. (2003). Evidentiality in Turkic. Studies in Evidentiality, (ed. Alexandra Aikhenvald ve Robert Dixon). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 273-290.
• Karagjosova, E. (2021). Mirativity and The Bulgarian Evidential System. Advances in Formal Slavic Linguistics 2018, (ed. Andreas Blümel - vd.). Berlin: Language Science Press, 133–167.
• Karakoç, B. (2005). Das Finite Verbalsystem im Nogaischen. Turcologica, 58. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
• Krawczak, K. ve Glynn, D. (2015). Operationalizing Mirativity: A Usage-Based Quantitative Study of Constructional Construal in English. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13(2), 353-382.
• Kononov, A. N. (1960). Grammatika Sovremennogo Uzbekskogo Literaturnogo Yazıka. Moskva/Leningrad: İzdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.
• Qahhar, A. (1995). Sarob. Toshkent: Sharq Nashriyot-Matbaa.
• Qodiriy, A. (1974). O’tgen Kunlar. Toshkent: G’afur G’ulom Nomidagi Adabiyot va San’at Nashriyoti.
• Qodirov, P. (2001). Ona Lochin Vidosi. Toshkent: Sharq Nashriyot-Matbaa.
• Qodirov, P. (2017). Yulduzlı Tunlar. Toshkent: Yoshlar Nashriyoti Uyi.
• Lazard, G. (1999). Mirativity, Evidentiality, Mediativity, or Other?. Linguistic Typology, 3, 91-109.
• Lazard, G. (2001). On the Grammaticalization of Evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 359-367.
• Mandler, G. (1984). Mind and Body. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
• Meyer, W. - vd. (1997). Toward a Process Analysis of Emotions: The Case of Surprise. Motivation and Emotion, 21(3), 251-274.
• Mocini, R. (2014). Expressing Surprise a Cross-Linguistic Description of Mirativity. Other Modernities, 11, 136-156.
• Nichols, J. ve Chafe, W. (1986). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood/New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
• Nichols, J. (1986). The Bottom Line: Chinese Pidgin Russian. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, (ed. Johanna Nichols ve Wallace Chafe). Norwood/New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 239-257.
• Olbertz, H. (2009). Mirativity and Exclamatives in Functional Discourse Grammar: Evidence from Spanish. Web Papers in Functional Discourse Grammar, 82, 66-82.
• Olbertz, H. (2012). The Place of Exclamatives and Miratives in Grammar - A Functional Discourse Grammar View. Revista LinguíStica / Revista do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Linguística da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, 8(1), 76-98.
• Özbek, A. ve Kıra, E. (2019). A Study of Mirativity in Japanese and Turkish. DEU Journal of Humanities, (6)2, 569-592.
• Perry, J. R. (2000). Epistemic Verb Forms in Persian of Iran, Afganistan and Tajikistan. Evidentials Turkic, Iranian and Neighbouring Languages, (ed. Lars Johanson ve Bo Utas). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 229-257.
• Peterson, T. (2008). Examining the Mirative and Nonliteral Uses of Evidentials. Evidence from Evidentiality, (ed. Rose Marie Déchaine - vd.). University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics(UBCWPL), 1-31.
• Peterson, T. (2010). Epistemic Modality and Evidentiality in Gitksan at the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Ph.D. Dissertation. Vancouver: The University of British Columbia.
• Peterson, T. (2015a). Grammatical Evidentiality and the Unprepared Mind. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13(2), 314-352.
• Peterson, T. (2015b). Mirativity as Surprise: Evidentiality, Information, and Deixis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45(6), 1327-1357.
• Plungian, V. A. (2001). The Place of Evidentiality within the Universal Grammatical Space. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 349-357.
• Rahim, İ. (1960). Chin Muhabbat. Toshkent: O’zSSR Davlat Badiiy Adabiyot Nashriyoti.
• Reisenzein, R. (2000). Exploring the Strength of Association between the Components of Emotion Syndromes: The Case of Surprise. Cognition and Emotion, 14(1), 1-38.
• Rett, J. ve Murray, S. E. (2013) A Semantic Account of Mirative Evidentials. Proceeding of SALT (Semantic and Linguistic Theory), 23, 453-472.
• Rooryck, J. ve Lau, M. L. (2016). Aspect, Evidentiality, and Mirativity. Lingua, 186-187(November), 1-10.
• Rumelhart, D. E. (1984). Schemata and the Cognitive System. Handbook of Social Cognition 1, (ed. Robert Wyer ve Thomas Srull). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 161-188.
• Slobin, D. ve Aksu, A. (1982). Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Use of the Turkish Evidential. Tense-Aspect Between Semantics&Pragmatics, (ed. Paul Hopper). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 185-200.
• Slobin, D. ve Aksu, A. (1986). A Psychological Account of the Development and Use of Evidentials in Turkish. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, (ed. Wallace Chafe ve Johanna Nichols). Norwood/New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 159-167.
• Şçerbinin, V. G. ve Mustafayev, E. M. (1972). Russko-Turetsky Slovar. Moskova: Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya. Shuhrat (1998). Mashrab. Toshkent: Sharq Nahsriyot-Matbaa.
• Taylor, S. E. ve Crocker, J. (1981). Schematic Basis of Social İnformation Processing. Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium on Personality and Social Psychology, (ed. Edward Torry Higgins - vd.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 89-134.
• Tatevosov, S. (2001). From Resultatives to Evidentials Multiple Uses of the Perfect in Nakh-Daghestanian Languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 443-464.
• Türkyılmaz, B. (2022). Özbek Türkçesinde Aspekt Kategorisi. Doktora Tezi. Ankara: Gazi Üniv.
• Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and Time. Duke University Press on behalf of Philosophical Review, 66 (2), 143-160.
• Willet, T. (1988). A Cross-Linguistic Survey of the Grammaticalization of Evidentiality. Studies in Language, 12(1), 51-97.
• Yaqubov, O. (1966). Matluba. Qaydasan Moriko. Toshkent: Sharq Nashriyot.
• Yaqubov, O. (1975). Billur Qandillar. Toshkent: Adabiyot va San’at Nashriyoti.
• Yaqubov, O. (1986). Ko’hna Dunyo. Toshkent: G’afur G’ulom Nomidagi Adabiyot va San’at Nashriyoti.
• Yaqubov, O. (1994). Ulug’bek Xazinasi. Toshkent: G’afur G’ulom Nomidagi Adabiyot va San’at Nashriyoti. Taranan Eserlerin Edinildiği Elektronik Kaynak: https://ziyouz.com/. [Erişim Tarihi: 02. 03. 2024].