Türkçede Geçişsiz Fiiller Üzerine Bazı Gözlemler

Öz

Bu makale Türkçede ayrık geçişsizlik konusunu bitmişlik ve kılıcılık gibi görünüş kavramları ışığında tartışmakta; edensiz-edilgen, sıfat fiil yapıları ve sözcük türetimi ile ayrık geçişsizlik arasındaki ilişkileri incelemektedir. Makale, bitmişlik kavramının yanı sıra kılıcılık kavramının, hareket doğası fiilleri, salınım fiilleri ve dönüşlü fiillerdeki ayrık geçişsizliği belirlemede önemli bir etken olduğunu gözlemlemektedir. Makale hareket doğası fiillerinde kılıcılığın önemli olduğunu, salınım fiillerinin öznesiz-geçişsiz, dönüşlü fiillerin ise özneli-geçişsiz olduğunu savunmaktadır. Makaledeki bulgular, geçişsiz fiillerin farklı yapılardaki farklı davranışlarında, işlevsel ulam baş öğelerinin geçişsiz fiillerin tek katılanına kılıcı ya da etkilenen rolünü verdiği olay yapısı temelli bir türetimin geçerli olduğunu işaret etmektedir. Bu fiillerin tek katılanının cümlede hangi anlamsal rolü üstleneceğinin zihinsel sözlükte ayrıca kodlanmasına gerek yoktur. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ayrık geçişsizlik,özneli geçişsiz,öznesiz geçişsiz,bitmişlik,kılıcılık,edensiz edilgen

On Single Argument Verbs in Turkish

Öz

The article discusses how split intransitivity phenomenon is observed in Turkish in terms of aspectual notions such as agentivity and telicity; different grammatical constructions such as impersonal passives and adjectival passives, and derivational morphology. It observes that agentivity is the key factor affecting split intransitivity in Turkish alongside telicity and these determine the unaccusative-unergative distinction of verbs of manner of motion, verbs of emission and reflexive verbs in Turkish. The article proposes that verbs of emission seem to be unaccusative while reflexives behave more like unergatives. Our findings imply that variable behavior of intransitive verbs can be handled under an event structure analysis where different functional heads give theta role to a NP merged in their domain. Thus, there is no need for a lexical derivation or rule for accounting the facts on unaccusativity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• split intransitivity,unaccusative,unergative,telicity,agentivity,impersonal passives

Kaynakça

1. Acartürk, Cengiz (2005). Gradient Characteristics of the Unaccusative/Unergative Distinction in Turkish: An Experimental Investigation. M.A. Thesis. Ankara: METU.
2. Acartürk, Cengiz and Deniz Zeyrek (2010). “Unaccusative/Unergative Distinction in Turkish: A Connectionist Approach.” Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Asian Language Resources. 111-119.
3. Burzio, Luigi (1986). Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.
4. Dowty, David (1991). “Thematic Proto-roles and Argument Selection.” Language 67: 547- 619.
5. Göksel, Aslı and Celia Kerslake (2005). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.
6. Gürer, Aslı et. al. (2012). “Dil Cambazı ve Türkçede Geçişsiz Eylemler”. 26. Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı. Isparta: Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi.
7. Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport (1995). Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
8. Nakipoğlu-Demiralp, Mine (1998). Split Intransitivity and the Syntax-Semantics Interface In Turkish. Ph.D. Dissertation. Minnesota: University of Minnesota.

9. ______(2001). “The Referential Properties of the Implicit Arguments of Impersonal Passives in Turkish”. The Verb in Turkish. Ed. Eser Taylan. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 129-150.
10. Özkaragöz, İnci (1986). The Relational Structure of Turkish Syntax. Ph.D. Dissertation. San Diego: University of California.
11. Özsoy, A. Sumru (2009). “Argument Structure, Animacy, Syntax and Semantics of Passivization in Turkish: A Corpus-based Approach”. Corpus Analysis and Variation in Linguistics. Eds. Yuji Kawaguchi, Makoto Minegishi and Jacques Durand. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 259-279.
12. Öztürk, Balkız (2005). Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
13. Perlmutter, David (1978). “Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis”. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. California: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 157-189.
14. Rappaport-Hovav, Malka and Beth Levin (2000). “Classifying Single Argument Verbs”. Lexical Specification and Insertion. Eds. Peter Coopmans, Martin Everaert and Jane Grimshaw. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 269-304.
15. Reinhart, Tanya and Tal Siloni (2004). “Against the Unaccusative Analysis of Reflexives”. Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the Syntax–Lexicon Interface. Eds. Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou and Martin Everaert. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 159–180.
16. Rosen, Carol (1984). “The Interface between Semantic Roles and Initial Grammatical Relations”. Studies in Relational Grammar 2. Eds. David Perlmutter and Carol Rosen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17. Sorace, Antonella (2000). “Gradients in Auxiliary Selection with Intransitive Verbs”. Language 76: 859-90.
18. Taneri, Mübeccel (1993). Morpheme –(I)l(I)n: The Syntax of Personal Passives, Impersonal Passives and Middles in Turkish. Ph.D. Dissertation. Kansas: University of Kansas.
19. Zeyrek, Deniz (2004). “The Role of Lexical Semantics in Unaccusative-Unergative Distinction in Turkish”. Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Eds. Bernard Comrie, Valery Solovey and Pirkko Suihkonen. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 134-135.