Türkçede varoluşsal yapılar

Year 2019, Issue: 15, 15 - 30, 21.06.2019

Emrah Görgülü

https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.580444

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın esas
amacı Türkçedeki varoluşsal yapıları incelemektir. Çalışmanın ana odağını
varoluşsal yapılardaki Ad Öbeklerinin anlam bilimsel, söylem ve yapısal
özellikleri oluşturmaktadır. Türkçede varoluşsal yapılarda birtakım Ad
Öbeklerinin pivot olarak bulunabildiği ve bu öğelerin diğer dillerdeki
muadillerinden bir takım farklı özellikler gösterdikleri önceki çalışmalarda
ortaya konmuştur. Örneğin, çıplak Ad Öbekleri sayı bakımından zorunlu olarak
yansız olarak yorumlanırlar ve söylem gönderiminde bulunamazlar. Bu özellikler,
varoluşsal yapıların diğer dillerde ana işlevleri göz önüne alındığında
Türkçede beklenmedik bir durum oluşturduğu gözükmektedir. Çıplak Ad Öbeklerinin
bu karakteristiğini izah etmek için, eylem tümceleri, deyimsel cümleler ve
katkısız eylem yapılarında hal eki almayan nesnelerin özelliklerini açıklamak
için önerilen sözde geçişim analizinin, varoluşsal yapıları da kapsayacak
şekilde genişletilebileceği iddiası savunulmaktadır. Yalnız, bu önerinin
aksine, sözde geçişimin sadece çıplak Ad Öbekleri için geçerli olduğu ve tekil
ve çoğul belirsiz Ad Öbeklerini kapsamadığı da ortaya konmaktadır. Burada öne
sürülen analiz çıplak Ad Öbeklerinin aslında öbeksel olmadığı savını iddia eden
analizlerden de birtakım önemli farklılıklar göstermektedir. Bunun sebebi ise,
Türkçe varoluşsal yapılardaki çıplak Ad Öbekleri detaylı bir şekilde
incelendiğinde, bu öğelerin tamamıyla öbeksel olduğu görülmektedir.

Keywords

Varoluşsal yapılar, çıplak ad öbekleri, sözde geçişim, Türkçe

Existential Constructions in Turkish

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to
investigate existential constructions in Turkish. The focus will be on the
semantic, discourse as well as structural properties of Noun Phrases (NPs
henceforth) in these structures. It is well-attested that there are different
types of NPs such as bare NPs, singular and plural indefinite NPs that can
serve as pivots in existential constructions in the language. However, some of
them exhibit certain characteristics that are rather different from those of
their counterparts in other languages. Bare NPs, for instance, are obligatorily
interpreted as number-neutral and do not introduce discourse referents. This is
rather unexpected given the main function of existential constructions
cross-linguistically. To account for this behavior of these nominals, I argue
that a pseudo-incorporation analysis that was proposed in order to explain the
characteristics of direct objects in such structures as verbal sentences,
idioms and light verb sentences could be extended to bare NPs in existential
constructions. Unlike the analysis in previous work, however, I argue that
pseudo-incorporation applies to bare NPs only, excluding singular and plural
indefinite NPs. In addition, the account proposed here displays certain
differences from those analyses that treat existential bare NPs as non-phrasal.
A close analysis shows that existential bare NPs in Turkish are in fact phrasal
elements.

Keywords

Existential constructions, bare NPs, pseudo-incorporation, Turkish

References

• Arslan-Kechriotis, Z. C. (2009a). Determiner Phrase and Case in Turkish: A Minimalist Account. Saarbrücken: VDM Publishing House. Arslan-Kechriotis, Z. C. (2009b). Referentiality in Turkish: NP/DP. S. Ay et al. (eds.). Essays on Turkish Linguistics: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, 6-8 August 2008. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 83-92. Aygen, G. (2002). Finiteness, Case and Clausal Architecture. Doctoral Dissertation. Harvard University. Aygen, G. (2007). Specificity and Subject-Object Positions / Scope Interactions in Turkish. Journal of Linguistics and Literature 4, 2:11-43. Boškovič, Z and Şener, S. (2014). The Turkish NP. In Patricia Cabredo Hofherr and Anne Zribi-Hertz (eds.), Crosslinguistic studies on nominal reference: With and Without Articles, Leiden: Brill, 102-140. Chappell, Hilary and Denis Creissels. (2016). Topicality and the typology of predicative possession. Paper presented at SLE 49, Naples, 31 August–3 September 2016. Corbett, G. (2000). Number. Cambridge University Press. Creissels, D. (2014). Existential Predication in Typological Perspective. Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of Societas Linguistics Europaea. Split, 18-21 September 2013. Crisma, P. (1999). Nominals without the Article in Germanic Languages. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 25: 105-125. Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Erguvanlı, E. (1984). The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar. California: University of California Publications. Vol. 106. Espinal, M. T., McNally, L. (2011). Bare nominals and incorporating verbs in Spanish and Catalan. Journal of Linguistics 47:87-128. doi: 10.1017/S002222671000022 Kelepir, M. (2001). Topics in Turkish Syntax: Clausal Structure and Scope. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. MIT. Kornfilt, J. (2007). Review of Öztürk: Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, John Benjamins, 2005. Journal of Linguistics 43, 3:736-742. Cambridge University Press. Kornfilt, J. (2017). DP versus NP: A Cross Linguistic Typology? In W. McClure and A. Vovin (eds.), Studies in Japanese and Korean Historical and Theoretical Linguistics and Beyond: Festschrift presented to John B. Whitman. Leiden: Brill. 138-158. Lewis, L. G. (1975). Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Longobardi, G. (2001). The structure of DPs: some principles, parameters, problems. M. Baltin and C. Collins (eds.). The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Blackwell, 562-604. Massam, D. (2001). Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19, 153-197. Milsark, G. (1974). Existential sentences in English. PhD dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA. Reprinted: New York: Garland, 1979. Milsark, G. (1977). Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the Existential construction in English. Linguistic Review 3:1-29. McNally, L. (2011). Existential Sentences. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger and P. Portner, (eds). Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1829-1848. Modarresi, F. (2015). Discourse properties of bare noun objects. In Olga Borik and Berit Gehrke (eds.), The Syntax and Semantics of Pseudo-Incorporation (Syntax & Semantics, 40). Brill: Leiden. 189-221. Öztürk, B. (2005). Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure. Linguistic Aktuell 77, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Taylan, E. E. (1987). The role of semantic features in Turkish word order. Folia Linguistica-Tomus XXI/2-4:215-227, The Hague: Mouton Publishers. Taylan, E. E. (2001). The Verb in Turkish. (A Collection of Articles). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Tura, S. S. (1986). Definiteness and referentiality: non-verbal sentences. In D.I. Slobin and K. Zimmer (eds.): Studies in Turkish Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 165-194. Weinert, R. (2013). Presentational/Existential Structures in Spoken versus Written German: Es Gibt and SEIN. In Journal of Germanic Linguistics. (25) 1:37-79.