Türkçede çoğulluğun anlambilimine yeniden bir bakış

Abstract

Son zamanlarda yapılan kuramsal ve deneysel çalışmalarda, Türkçede -lAr çoğul belirticisinin dışlayıcı okumasının yanı sıra kapsayıcı okunuşuna dair kanıtlar olduğu da ortaya atılmıştır (Sağ 2019, Renans ve ark. 2020). Bu bağlamda temel iddia, çoğul belirticisinin sözdizimsel olarak olumsuz cümlelerde ve bazı aşağı yönlü bağlamlarda kapsayıcı yorumlanmasından kaynaklanmaktadır. Bununla birlikte, bu makalede, çoğul belirticisinin öncelikle dışlayıcı okuma ile ilişkili olduğu (Bliss 2001, Bale et al 2010, Görgülü 2012, Bale and Khanjian 2014) ve görünen kapsayıcı okumasının yapılarda sadece belirli mantıksal operatörler bağlamında ortaya çıktığı gösterilmektedir. Bunlara ilaveten, son araştırmalardaki deneysel tasarımda birtakım problemler olduğu ortaya konmaktadır. Bunun nedeninin de deneyin oluşturulması sürecinde Türkçenin adsıl alanda sayı belirlenmesinin dikkate alınmadığı gösterilmektedir. Bu durumun da katılımcılar için açıkça bazı yorumsal karışıklıklara yol açtığı belirtilmektedir. Bu nedenle, dilde çoğul belirticisinin anlamına bakmanın çok daha iyi bir yolunun, dildeki sayı ve çoğul belirleme sisteminin özelliklerinin daha dikkatli bir şekilde gözden geçirilmesinin ve değerlendirilmesi gerektiği savunulmaktadır.

Keywords

• Anlambilim
• çoğulluk
• Türkçe
• kapsayan okuma
• dışlayan okuma

Semantics of Turkish plural marking revisited

Abstract

It has been claimed in some recent theoretical and experimental studies that in addition to the exclusive reading, there is evidence for the inclusive reading of the plural marker -lAr in Turkish (Sağ 2019 and Renans et al. 2020, among others). The main argumentation comes from the inclusive interpretation of the plural marker in syntactically negative sentences and in certain other downward entailing contexts. However, based on new data, I argue in this paper that the plural marker is primarily associated with the exclusive reading in Turkish (Bliss 2004, Bale et al 2010, Görgülü 2012, Bale and Khanjian 2014, among others) and the apparent inclusive reading arises only in the context of certain logical operators in the structure. More importantly, I show that the experimental design in recent experimental studies has certain issues. This is because number marking in the nominal system of Turkish was not actually taken into consideration in the design process of the experimentation, which apparently led to certain interpretive complications for participants. Thus I argue that a much better way to look at the meaning of plural marking should be through a more careful consideration of the specification of the number and plural marking system in the language.

Keywords

• Semantics
• plurality
• Turkish
• inclusive reading
• exclusive reading

References

1. Bale, A., Gagnon M. & Khanjian. H. (2010). 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).
2. Bale, A. & Khanjian. H. (2014). Syntactic complexity and competition: The singular-plural distinction in Western Armenian. Linguistic Inquiry 45(1), 1-26.
3. Bliss, H. (2004). The semantics of the bare noun in Turkish. Calgary Working Papers in Linguistics, 25 (Spring), 1–65. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/51464
4. Farkas, D. & de Swart, H. (2010). The semantics of plurals. Semantics & Pragmatics 3. 1-54.
5. Görgülü, E. (2012). Semantics of nouns and the specification of number in Turkish. PhD Dissertation. SFU.
6. Grimm, S. (2013). Plurality is distinct from number-neutrality. In Yelena Fainleib, Nicholas LaCara & Yangsook Park (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 41), (pp. 247-258). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.
7. Kan, S. (2010). Number marking and Turkish noun phrases. Ms. University of Massachusetts.
8. Krifka, M. (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Renate Bartsch, Johan van Benthem & Peter van Emde Boas (Eds.), Semantics and concextual expressions (pp. 75-116). Dordrecht: Foris.

9. Križ, M. (2015). Aspects of homogeneity in the semantics of natural languages. PhD Thesis. University of Vienna.
10. Križ, M. (2017). Bare plurals, multiplicity, and homogeneity. Ms. Institut Jean Nicod.
11. Ladusaw, W. (1979). Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. PhD Thesis. University of Texas, Austin.
12. Marti, L. (2020a). Inclusive plurals and the theory of number. Linguistic Inquiry 51(1), 37–74.
13. Marti, L. (2020b). Numerals and the theory of number. Semantics & Pragmatics, 13(3), 1–53. https://doi.org/10. 3765/sp.13.3.
14. Renans, A., Romoli, J., Makri, M., Tieu, L., de Vries, H., Folli, R., & Tsoulas, G. (2018). The abundance inference of pluralised mass nouns is an implicature: Evidence from Greek Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 1(3), 1–34.
15. Renans, A., Sağ, Y., Ketrez, N., Tieu, L., Tsoulas, G., Folli, R., de Vries, H., & Romoli, J. (2020). Plurality and crosslinguistic variation: an experimental investigation of the Turkish plural. Natural Language Semantics, 28, 307–342.
16. Sağ, Y. (2018). The semantics of numeral constructions in Turkish. In Uli Sauerland & Stephanie Solt (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 22 (SuB 22), (pp. 307-324). Berlin: Leibniz Center General Linguistics.
17. Sağ, Y. (2019). The semantics of number marking: Reference to kinds, counting, and optional classifiers. PhD Thesis. Rutgers University.
18. Sauerland, U., Andersen, J., Yatsushiro, K. (2005). The plural is semantically unmarked. In Stephan Kepser & Marga Reis (Eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives (pp. 414-434). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
19. Sims, A. (2015). Inflectional Defectiveness. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 148. Cambridge University Press.
20. Tieu, L., Bill, C., Romoli, J., & Crain, S. (2020). Testing theories of plural meanings. Cognition 205, 1–20.