Türkiye Türkçesindeki -miş Ekinin Dolaylılık ve Dolaylılık-Dışı Kullanımlarında Zamansal Atıf

Yıl 2008, Sayı: 44, 1 - 24, 01.06.2008

Eyüp Bacanlı

Öz

Bu makalede amacı, Türkiye Türkçesindeki -miş ekinin dolaylılık ve dolaylılık-dışı kullanımlarında görülen zamansal ilişkiler, onun ve Türk dillerinde ona benzeyen şekillerin artzamanlı gelişimlerine bakılarak ele alınmaktadır. Zamansal atıf çerçevesinde, -miş ekinin olay zamanı, konuşma zamanı ve atıf zamanı şeklindeki farklı zamansal sıralanma ilişkilerini hangi anlamlar ve duygu değerleriyle birlikte ilettiği örneklerle gösterilmektedir. Zamansal sıralanma ilişkileri, görünüşzaman kavram ve kategorilerine bağlı olarak değişmektedir. Türkiye Türkçesindeki bitimli -miş ekinin, tarihî olarak sonuçsallık bildiren eski bir sıfat-fiil olduğu bilinmektedir. Bu yüzden bu çalışma, sonuçsallığa ve bitmişliğe özgü zamansal anlamların, -miş ekinin dolaylılık ve dolaylılık-dışı bitimli kullanımlarına ne ölçüde yansıdığını göstermeyi amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

miş eki, zaman, zamansal atıf, görünüş, dolaylılık, sonuçsallık, bitmişlik, geçmişteki bitmişlik, sonlanmışlık

Temporal Reference and the Turkish suffix -miş

Öz

The purpose of this paper is to deal with temporal relations, which are observed in indirective and non-indirective uses of the
Turkish suffix -miş, by considering the diachronic development of -miş and its similars in Turkic languages. The paper demonstrates with
examples how the suffix -miş expresses different temporal order relations such as speech time, event time and reference time along
with which meanings and connotations. Temporal order relations change depending on aspectotemporal notions and categories. It is
well known that the finite marker -miş in modern Turkish was historically an ancient resultative participle. Therefore, this paper aims
to demonstrate to what extent temporal meanings peculiar to resultativity and perfect are reflected in the indirective and non
-indirective finite uses of the suffix -miş.

Anahtar Kelimeler

The suffix -miş, tense, temporal reference, aspect, indirectivity, resultativity, perfect, pluperfect, constativity

Kaynakça

• Ağaoğlu, Adalet (1976), Yüksek Gerilim. İstanbul: Remzi Yayınları.
• Aksu-Koç, Ayhan A. & Dan. I. Slobin (1986), “A Psycological Account of the Development and Use of Evidentials in Turkish”. eds. Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood and New Jersey: Ablex. 159-167.
• Aksu-Koç, Ayhan (1988), The acquisition of aspect and modality: the case of past reference in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Arslan-Kechriotis, Z. Ceyda (2006), “‘Perfect’ in Turkish”, Turkic Languages 10. 246-270. Atatürk, Gazi Mustafa Kemal (1927). Mustafa Kemal Atatürk – Nutuk (1919-1927). Ankara: Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi Yayınları 1997. (İngilizcesi: A Speech Delivered by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Ankara: Başbakanlık Basımevi. 1981).
• Bacanlı, Eyüp (2006), Türkçedeki Dolaylılık İşaretleyicilerinin Pragmatik Anlamları. Modern Türklük Araştırmaları Dergisi 3/1. 35-47.
• Bertinetto, Piyer M. & Denis Delfitto (2000), “Aspect vs Actionality: Why they should be kept apart?” ed. Östen Dahl Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 189-226.
• Brinton, Laurel J. (1990), The Development of English Aspectual Systems: Aspectualizers and Post-verbal Particles. 2. edition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Bybee, Joan L. & Östen Dahl (1989), “The Creation of Tense and Aspect Systems in the Languages of the World”, Studies in Language 13/1. 51-103. & R. Perkins & W. Pagliuca (1994), The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: UChP.
• Comrie, Bernard (1976), Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• (1985), Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• (2000), “Evidentials: Semantic and History”. eds. Bo Utas & Lars Johanson Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian, and neighboring languages, Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1-12.
• Csató, Éva Ágnes (2000), “Turkish -miş and imiş items”. eds. Bo Utas & Lars Johanson. Evidentials – Turkic, Iranian, and neighboring languages. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 29-43.
• Dahl, Östen (1985), Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Declerck, Renaat (1991), Tense in English. London and New York: Routledge.
• DeLancey, Scott (2001), “The mirative and evidentiality”. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 369-382.
• Demir, Nurettin (2007), “Anadolu Ağızlarında Kullanılan Geçmiş Zaman Eki -(y)XK”. eds. Ayşenur Külahlıoğlu İslam & Süer Eker. Edebiyat ve Dil Yazıları – Mustafa İsen’e Armağan. Ankara. 133-147.
• Doerfer, Von Gerhard (1993), “Das türkische Suffix -mIŠ als Lehnelement”. Veröffentlichungen der Societs Urala-Altaica – Sprach – und Kulturkontakte der türkischen Völker / Materialen der zweiten Deutschen TurkologenKonferense (13-16 Juli 1990), Harrossowitz Verlag. 87-93.
• Erdal, Marcel (2004), A Grammar of the Old Turkic. Leiden and Boston: Brill Academic Publishers.
• Ergin, Muharrem (1986), Türk Dil Bilgisi (14. Basım). İstanbul: Boğaziçi Yayınları.
• Fleischman, Suzanne (1990), Tense and Narrativity – From Medieval Performance to Modern Fiction. Routledge and London: University of Texas Press.
• Friedman, Victor A. (1986), “Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian”. eds. Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols. Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood and New Jersey: Ablex. 168-187.
• Grunina, Elvira A. (1976), “K istorii semantiçeskogo razvitiya perfekta -miš”. Sovetskaya Tyurkologiya 7/1. 12-26.
• (1991), İstoriçeskaya Grammatika Turetskogo Yazıka. Moskva: İzd-vo MU.
• Guzev, Viktor G. (1990), Oçerki po teorii tyurkskogo slovoizmeneniya: Glagol (na materiale staro-anatoliysko-tyurkskogo yazıka). Leningrad: İzd-vo LU.
• Hatav, Galia (1993), “The aspect system in English: an attempt at a unified analysis”. Linguistics 31. 209-237.
• Iatridou, Sabine & Elena Anagnostopoulo & Roumyana Izvorski (2001), “Some observations about the form and meaning of the perfect”. http://wwwrcf.usc.edu/~pancheva/Iatridou,Anagnostopoulou &Izvorski(2001).pdf 154- 205. Makaleye şu kitaptan da ulaşılabilir: ed. Michael Kenstowicz. Ken Hale: A life in language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 189-238.
• Johanson, Lars (1996), “Terminality operators and their hierarchical status”. eds. Betty Devriendt & Louis Goossens, & Johan van der Auwera. Complex Structures: A Functionalist Perspective, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 229–258.
• Johanson, Lars (1999a), “Bulgarca ve Türkçe’de Dolaylamalar Üzerine” (Çev: M. M. Tulum). İlmî Araştırmalar 7. 245-254.
• (1999b), “Typological notes on aspect and actionality in Kipchak Turkic”. eds. Werner Abraham & Leonid Kulikov. Tense-Aspect, Transitivity and Causativity. Philadelphia PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 171-184.
• (2000a), “Turkic Indirectives”. eds. Bo Utas & Lars Johanson. Evidentials – Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 61-87.
• (2000b), “Viewpoint operators in European languages”. ed. Östen Dahl. Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 27-187.
• (2003), “Evidentiality in Turkic”. eds. A. Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon. Studies in Evidentiality, Typological Studies in Language 54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 273-290.
• (2007), “Aspectotemporal connectivity in Turkic - Text construction, text subdivision, discourse types and taxis”. eds. Jochen Rehbein & Christiane Hohenstein & Lukas Pietsch. Connectivity in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Kanık, Orhan Veli (2006), Bütün Şiirleri (14. Basım). İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
• Kıral, Filiz (2000), “Reflections on -miş in Khalaj”. eds. Bo Utas & Lars Johanson. Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian, and neighboring languages. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 89-101.
• Lazard, Gilbert (2001), “On the grammaticalization of evidentiality”. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 359-367.
• Levinson, Stephen C. (2004), “Deixis”, eds. L. Horn & G. Ward. The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell. 97-121.
• Lyons, Christopher (1977), Semantics. Volume: I-II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• McCawley, James D. (1971), Tense and time reference in English. eds. Charles Fillmore & D.T. Langendoen. Studies in Linguistic Semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 97-114.
• Nasilov, Dmitriy M. (1963), Struktura vremeni indikativa v drevneuygurskom yazıke. Po pamyatnikam uygurskogo pis’ma. Avtoreferat dis. kand. filol. nauk. Moskva.
• (1989), Problemı Tyurkskoy Aspektologii – Aktsional’nost’. Leningrad: Nauka.
• Nasilov, Dmitriy M. & X. F. İsxakova & İ. V. Şentsova. (yayımda) Evidentsial’nost’ v tyurkskix yazıkax.
• Nedyalkov, Vladimir P. (1983). Tipologiya rezul’tativnıh konstruktsiy (rezul’tativ, stativ, passiv, perfekt). Leningrad: Nauka.
• Nevskaya, Irina A. (2002), “Evidentials, Miratives and Indirectives in Shor”. eds. Nurettin Demir & Fikret Turan, Scholarly Depth and Accuracy. A Festschrift to Lars Johanson. Ankara: Grafiker. 307-321.
• Oorjak, Baylak Ç-O. (2002), Vremennaya sistema tuvinskogo yazıka v sopostavlenii s drevneuygurskim i yujnosibirskimi tyurkskimi yazıkami. Avtoreferat dis. kand. filol. nauk. Nobosibirsk.
• Ömer Seyfeddin (2001), Beyaz Lale. İstanbul: Cümle Yayınları.
• Plungyan, Vladimir A. (2003), Obşçaya morfologiya. Vvedeniye v problematiku. Moskva: URSS.
• Reichenbach, Hans (1947), Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: The Free Press & London: Collier-Macmillan.
• Safa, Peyami (1999), Canan (10. Basım). İstanbul: Ötüken Neşriyat.
• (2002), Matmazel Noraliya’nın Koltuğu (19. Basım). İstanbul: Ötüken Neşriyat.
• Schroeder, Christoph (2000), “Between resultative, historical and inferential: nonfinite –mIš forms in Turkish” eds. Bo Utas & Lars Johanson. Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian, and neighboring languages, Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 115-143.
• Serebrennikov, Boris A. (1960), Kategorii vremeni i vida v finno-ugorskih yazıkah permskoy i voljskoy grupp. Moskva: İzd-vo AN SSSR.
• (1963), Sistema vremen tatarskogo glagola, Kazan’: İzd-vo KGU.
• Shirai, Yasuhiro (2000), “The semantics of the Japanese imperfective -teiru: An integrative approach”. Journal of Pragmatics 32. 327-361.
• Slobin, Dan I., & A. Ayhan Aksu (1982), “Tense, aspect and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential”. ed. P. J. Hopper. Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. 185-200.
• Smith, Carlota S. (1991), The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
• (2007), “Tense and Temporal Interpretation.” Lingua 117. 419-436.
• Squartini, Mario & P. Marco Bertinetto (2000), “The Simple and Compound Past in Romance languages”. ed. Östen Dahl. Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 403-440.
• Taylan, Eser Erguvanlı (2002), “On the relation between temporal/aspectual adverbs and the verb form in Turkish”. ed. Eser Erguvanlı Taylan. The Verb in Turkish. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 97-128.
• Tekin, Talat (2003), Orhon Türkçesi Grameri, İstanbul: Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları Dizisi: 9.
• Uğurlu, Mustafa (2003), “Türkiye Türkçesinde “Bakış” (“Aspectotempora”)”. Türkbilig 5. 124-133.
• Yusupov, Farid Y. (1986), İzuçeniye tatarskogo glagola. Kazan’: Tat.kn.izd-vo.