Noun Semantics and Number Marking in Turkish

Year 2018, Volume: 15 Issue: 1, 85 - 104, 01.01.2018

Emrah Görgülü

Abstract

This study is concerned with the semantics of
nouns as a distinct syntactic category and the marking of nominal number in
Turkish. The question addressed is why Turkish nouns behave in a way that is significantly
different from their counterparts in languages like English and Chinese. Specifically,
why are bare nouns allowed in Noun Phrases (NPs) where they are not specified
for number and why are they not pluralized when they co-occur with numerals? In
order to address these issues, I propose a lexical semantic account, based on
Rijkhoff (2002ab, 2008), and argue that Turkish nouns belong to the nominal
subcategory of set nouns that have
their unique lexical properties. The observed distinctions in their semantics
and grammatical marking stem from those characteristics. This analysis also
makes it possible to account for verbal number discord and lack thereof in Turkish
and in other languages.         

Keywords

Noun semantics, Bare nouns, Number marking, Turkish

Türkçede Ad Anlambilimi ve Sayı Belirleme

Abstract

Bu
çalışma, Türkçede adların anlambilimi ve adsal sayı belirlenmesini
incelemektedir. Türkçede adlar İngilizce gibi dillerdeki muadillerinden önemli
ölçüde farklı davranmaktadırlar. Özellikle, çıplak olarak ve herhangi bir sayı
belirlemesi olmadan bulunabilirler ve sayı adları ve niceleyicileri ile
birlikte aynı ortalarda bulunduklarında çoğul eki almazlar. Burada sorulan
sorular, Türkçede adların neden bu şekilde davrandıkları ve gösterdikleri
özelliklerin sistemli bir biçimde açıklanıp açıklanamayacağıdır. Önceki
çalışmalarda bu sorulara çok değinilmemiştir çünkü odak noktası genelde adlarla
sıfatların benzerlik ve farklılıkları ile adların sözlüksel bir kategori
oluşturup oluşturmadığıdır. Bu çalışmada, Türkçede adların yalnızca sözlüksel
bir kategori oluşturmakla kalmayıp, anlamsal ve morfolojik-sözdizimsel bakımdan
da Rijkhoff'ta (2002ab, 2008) ortaya atılan ve adsal bir alt kategori olan küme adları özelliklerine sahip
oldukları gösterilmektedir. Bu açıklama ayrıca Türkçede çoğul özne ve eylem
arasında görünen sayı uyumu ve uyumsuzluğunu da izah etmektedir.

Keywords

Noun semantics, Bare nouns, Number marking, Turkish

References

• Acquaviva, P. (2005). The morphosemantics of transnumeral nouns. Morphology and Linguistic Typology, Online Proceedings of the Fourth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, (pp. 21-23).
• Aikhenvald, Y. A. (2000). Classifiers. A typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bale, A. Gagnon M. & Khanjian. H. (2011). Cross-linguistic representations of numerals and number marking. N. Li and D. Lutz (eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Semantic Analysis and Linguistic Theory, (pp. 582-598).
• Bamyacı, E. Häussler J. & Kabak, B. (2014). The interaction between animacy and number agreement: An experimental investigation. Lingua, 148, 254-277.
• Banguoğlu, T. (1986). Türkçenin Grameri. Ankara: Dil Tarih Kurumu.
• Bliss, H. (2004). The semantics of the bare noun in Turkish. In I. Mezhevich and M. B. Dobrovolsky (eds.) Calgary Papers in Linguistics 25, 1-65.
• Corbett, G. (2000). Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ergin, M. (2001). Türk dil bilgisi. İstanbul, Bayrak Basım Yayın Tanıtım.
• Goodman, N. (1966). The structure of appearance. (Second Edition). Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
• Göksel, A. & Haznedar, B. (2007). Remarks on compounding in Turkish. Part of the MorboComp Project. University of Bologna.
• Grønbech, K. (1936). Der Turkische Sprachbau I. Kopenhagen: Levin-Munksgaard.
• Hundius, H. & Kölver U. (1983). Syntax and semantics of numeral classifiers in Thai. Studies in Language 7(2), 165-214.
• Ketrez, N. (2004). –lAr marked nominals and three types of plurality in Turkish. Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Society, 39, 176-192.
• Lucy, A. J. (1992). Grammatical categories and cognition: a case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. (Studies in the social and cultural foundations of language 13). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nillson, B. (1985). Case marking semantics in Turkish. Department of Linguistics. University of Stockholm.
• Özyıldız, D. (2017). Quantification in Turkish. In D. Paperno & E. Keenan (Eds.), Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language. Vol. 2, (pp. 857-937). Springer.
• Rijkhoff, J. (2002a) The noun phrase. Oxford University Press.
• Rijkhoff, J. (2002b). Verbs and nouns from a cross-linguistic perspective. Rivista di Linguistica, (14)1, 115-147.
• Rijkhoff, J. (2008). On flexible and rigid nouns. Studies in Language, 32(3), 727-752.
• Schroeder, C. (1999). The Turkish nominal phrase in spoken discourse. Turcologica 40. Wiesbaden: Harratssowitz.
• Seifart, F. (2009a). Towards a typology of unitization. Miraña noun classes compared to noun classifiers and singulatives. Manuscript. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig.
• Seifart, F. (2009b). Multidimensional typology and Miraña class markers. New Challenges in Typology: Transcending the borders and refining the distinctions. Patience Epps & Alexandre Arkhipov (eds.), Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 217 (pp. 365-385). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Sezer, E. (1978). Eylemlerin çoğul öznelere uyumu. Genel Dilbilim Dergisi. Ankara Dilbilim Çevresi Derneği, Ankara, 25-32.
• Swift, B. L. (1963). A Reference Grammar of Modern Turkish. Uralic and Altaic Series, v. 19. Indiana University Press: Bloomington.
• Uygun, D. (2007). Lexical Categories in Turkish. Ms. Boğaziçi University.
• Uygun, D. (2009). A split model for category specification: lexical categories in Turkish. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Boğaziçi University, İstanbul.
• Wiese, H. (1997). Semantics of Nouns and Nominal Number. In ZAS Papers in Linguistics. Center for General Linguistics, Typology and Universals, 8, 136-163.