Türkçe’de Kanıtsallığa Kullanıma Dayalı Yapı Gramer Yaklaşımı: Kanıtsallık Yapısı

Abstract

Derlemler ile birleştiğinde, kullanıma dayalı yapı gramer, dilsel fenomenler için bilişsel anlamda makul olmayı amaçlar. Bu bağlamda, bu makale Türkçede kanıtsallığı analiz etmek için yapı gramer ve kullanıma dayalı yaklaşımları bir araya getirmektedir. Türkçe kullanım temelli bir bakış açısıyla incelenmiş olsa da kullanım temelli yapı gramerci bir yaklaşımda kanıtsallık şu ana dek ele alınmamıştır. Derlemler, ilişkilendirme ölçüleri ve ‘yapıyı’ bir kavram ve çerçeve olarak kullanan bu makale, Kanıtsallık Yapısını taksonomik bir şekilde tanımlamaktadır. İlk olarak anlamsal özelliklerini ana hatlarıyla belirtir ve daha sonra faith, delta (∆) p ve ITECX gibi ilişkilendirme ölçütlerini kullanarak kullanım modelini ve derlemlere dayalı istatistiksel tercihlerini açıklar. Makale bu yapının üst ve alt düzey, öğeye özel örneklerini göstermektedir. İlişkilendirme ölçümlerinden ve kanıtsallık yapıları ailesinden elde edilen sonuçlar gelecekteki dilbilim çalışmalarına hizmet edebilir.

Keywords

• yapı gramer
• kullanıma dayalı dilbilim
• Türkçe
• kanıtsallık

A Usage-Based Constructionist Approach to Evidentiality in Turkish: The Unevidentiality Construction

Abstract

Coupled with corpora, usage-based construction grammar aims to provide cognitive plausibility for linguistic phenomena. In this vein, this paper combines construction grammar and usage-based approaches to analyze evidentiality in Turkish. While Turkish has been analyzed from a usage-based perspective, evidentiality has not been taken up in a usage-based constructionist approach. By using corpora, association measures, and construction as a notion and a framework, this paper defines the Unevidentiality Construction in a taxonomic space. First, it outlines its semantic properties and then it uses association measures such as faith, delta (∆) p, and ITECX to determine its usage pattern and statistical biases based on corpora. The paper demonstrates a superordinate and lower-level, item-specific instantiations of the construction. The results from association measures and the family of unevidentiality constructions can serve for future linguistic endeavors.

Keywords

• construction grammar
• usage-based approach
• Turkish
• evidentiality

References

1. Akkuş, Mehmet. A Usage-Based Investigation of Converbial Constructions in Heritage Speakers’ Turkish Living in the Netherlands. METU, 2019, https://open.metu.edu.tr/bitstream/handle/11511/45140/index.pdf.
2. Aksu-Koç, Ayhan, et al. “Evidentials and Source Knowledge in Turkish.” New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, vol. 2009, no. 125, June 2009, pp. 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.247.
3. Aksu-Koç, Ayhan, et al. “Some Aspects of the Acquisition of Evidentials in Turkish.” Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 2000, pp. 15–28.
4. Altınkamış, Feyza, and Aslı Altan. “Türkçede İlgi Tümceciklerinin Edinimine Kullanım Temelli Bir Yaklaşım.” Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, vol. 0, no. 1, July 2016, pp. 69–91. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.47469.
5. Arslan, Seckin, and Roelien Bastiaanse. “Tense/Aspect and Evidentiality in Narrative Speech of Turkish-Dutch Bilingual Speakers.” Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, University of Rouen France, 2014.
6. Atkins, B. T. Sue, and Michael Rundell. The Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography. Oxford University Press, 2008.
7. Backus, Ad, and Derya Demirçay. “Intense Turkish-Dutch Bilingualism Leads to Intense Turkish-Dutch Mixing: A Usage-Based Account of Increasing Integration of Two Typologically Different Languages.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics, vol. 35, no. 1, 2021, pp. 13–33.
8. Banguoğlu, Tahsin. Türkçenin grameri. 10. bsk, Türk Dil Kurumu, 2015.

9. Boyd, Jeremy, and Adele E. Goldberg. “Learning What Not to Say: The Role of Statistical Preemption and Categorization in a-Adjective Production.” Language, vol. 87, no. 1, 2011, pp. 55–83.
10. Bybee, Joan. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge University Press, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526.
11. Bybee, Joan L. Morphology A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1985, https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.9.
12. Cangır, Hakan. “Lexical Associations in the L1 Turkish Mental Lexicon: Can L1 Lexical Intuition and a Representative Corpus Guide Teaching of Turkish as a Foreign Language Materials?” Dilbilim Dergisi / The Journal of Linguistics, vol. 0, no. 37, Dec. 2021, pp. 45–66. https://doi.org/10.26650/jol.2021.972166.
13. Chomsky, Noam. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press, 1995.
14. Cinque, Guglielmo. “A Note on Mood, Modality, Tense and Aspect Affixes in Turkish.” The Verb in Turkish, edited by Eser Erguvanlı Taylan, J. Benjamins Pub. Co, 2001, pp. 47–60.
15. Dąbrowska, Ewa. “What Exactly Is Universal Grammar, and Has Anyone Seen It?” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 6, June 2015. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00852.
16. Durrant, Philip. “Formulaicity in an Agglutinating Language: The Case of Turkish.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, vol. 9, no. 1, 2013, pp. 1–38.
17. Fried, Mirjam, and Jan-Ola Östman. “Construction Grammar: A Thumbnail Sketch.” Constructional Approaches to Language, edited by Mirjam Fried and Jan-Ola Östman, vol. 2, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004, pp. 11–86. https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.02fri.
18. Gedik, Tan Arda, and Fatıma Uslu. “L1-L2 Transfer in the Ditransitive Construction: A Usage-Based Replication Study with Turkish Speakers of English.” Advances in Second/Foreign Language Acquisition, 2022, https://asefola.weebly.com/ uploads/1/4/0/2/140216775/book_of_abstracts_-_asefola_conference.pdf.
19. Gencan, Tahir Nejat. Dilbilgisi. Ağaç, 2007.
20. Goldberg, Adele E. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of California, 1995.
21. Goldberg, Adele E. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford University Press, 2006.
22. Goldberg, Adele E. Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions / Adele E. Goldberg. Princeton University Press, 2019.
23. Goschler, Julia, and Anatol Stefanowitsch. Generalization and Transfer in L2 Acquisition: The Role of Entrenchment in L1 and L2. 2019, https://iclc2019.site/wp-content/uploads/abstracts/applied/ICLC-15_paper_202.pdf.
24. Gries, Stefan Th. Coll.Analysis 3.5. A Script for R to Compute Perform Collostructional Analyses. 2014.
25. Gries, Stefan Th., et al. “Converging Evidence: Bringing Together Experimental and Corpus Data on the Association of Verbs and Constructions.” Cognitive Linguistics, vol. 16, no. 4, 2005, pp. 635–76, https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.635.
26. Gries, Stefan Th., and Anatol Stefanowitsch. “Collostructions: Investigating the Interaction of Words and Constructions.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, vol. 8, no. 2, 2003, pp. 209–43, https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste.
27. Guasti, Maria Teresa. Language Acquisition. The Growth of Grammar. The MIT Press, 2004.
28. Hanks, Patrick. Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations. The MIT Press, 2013.
29. Herbst, Thomas. “Constructions, Generalizations, and the Unpredictability of Language: Moving towards Colloconstruction.” Constructions and Frames, vol. 12, no. 1, 2020, pp. 56–95, https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00035.her.
30. Herbst, Thomas. “Is Language a Collostructicon? A Proposal for Looking at Collocations, Valency, Argument Structure and Other Constructions.” Lexical Collocation Analysis, edited by Pascual Cantos-Gómez and Moisés Almela-Sánchez, Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92582-0_1.
31. Herbst, Thomas. “The Status of Generalizations: Valency and Argument Structure Constructions.” Zeitschrift Für Anglistik Und Amerikanistik, vol. 59, no. 4, 2011, pp. 347–68, https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2011-0406.
32. Herbst, Thomas, and Thomas Hoffmann. “Construction Grammar for Students: A Constructionist Approach to Syntactic Analysis (CASA).” Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, vol. 6, no. 1, Nov. 2018, pp. 197–218. https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2018-0010.
33. Işık-Taş, Elvan Eda, and Çiğdem Sağın-Şimşek. “A Corpus-Based Study of Evidentials in the Turkish Cypriot Dialect.” Lingua, vol. 231, Nov. 2019, p. 102743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2019.102743.
34. Karayayla, Tuğba. “A Usage-Based Approach to Productive Use of Inflectional Patterns and Level of Lemma Sophistication in Adult Heritage Speakers’ Performance: Convergence on the Immigrant Variety.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, vol. 11, no. 6, Nov. 2021, pp. 753–82. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.18019.kar.
35. Kawaguchi, Yuji. “Usage-Based Approach to Linguistic Variation ―Evidence from French and Turkish―.” Spoken Language Corpus and Linguistic Informatics, edited by Yuji Kawaguchi et al., John Benjamins Publishing, 2006, pp. 247–68.
36. Kaya-Soykan, Didem, et al. “The Production and Perception of Turkish Evidentiality Markers by Turkish-German Returnees.” Applied Linguistics Review, vol. 0, no. 0, Nov. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2020-0042.
37. Kiraz, Meryem. A Construction Grammar Approach to How Turkish Learners of English Use Auxiliary Verbs in Terms of Tense, Aspect and Voice. Kent State University, 2010.
38. Kyle, Kristopher, and Scott Crossley. “Assessing Syntactic Sophistication in L2 Writing: A Usage-Based Approach.” Language Testing, vol. 34, no. 4, Oct. 2017, pp. 513–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532217712554.
39. Langacker, Ronald W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford university press, 1987.
40. Lewis, Geoffrey. Turkish Grammar. 2nd ed, Oxford University Press, 2000.
41. Muharrem, Ergin. Türk Dil Bilgisi. Boğaziçi Yayınları, 1985.
42. Ordem, Eser. “Acquisition of Zero Relative Clauses in English by Adult Turkish Learners of English.” Journal of Education and Training Studies, vol. 5, no. 1, Jan. 2017, pp. 190–95. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i1.2056.
43. Papafragou, Anna, et al. “Evidentiality in Language and Cognition.” Cognition, vol. 103, no. 2, 2007, pp. 253–99.
44. Perek, Florent. Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17.
45. Plungian, Vladimir A. “The Place of Evidentiality within the Universal Grammatical Space.” Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 33, no. 3, Mar. 2001, pp. 349–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00006-0.
46. Römer, Ute, and Selahattin Yilmaz. “Effects of L2 Usage and L1 Transfer on Turkish Learners’ Production of English Verb-Argument Constructions.” Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, no. 16, 2019, pp. 107–34.
47. Sketch Engine. OPUS2 Turkish Corpus. sketchengine.eu. Accessed 12 Aug. 2021.
48. Sketch Engine. TrWaC. sketchengine.eu. Accessed 12 Aug. 2021.
49. TNC. Most Frequent 50 VERBS in TNC Written Texts. http://www.tudfrekans.org.tr /dosyalar/first_50_verbs_w.pdf. Accessed 19 Feb. 2022.
50. Tomasello, Michael. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press, 2003.
51. Underhill, Robert. Turkish Grammar. MIT Press, 1976.
52. Uzundağ, Berna A., et al. “Functions of Evidentials in Turkish Child and Child-Directed Speech in Early Child-Caregiver Interactions.” Proceedings of the 40th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 2016, pp. 403–16.
53. Yılmaz, Selahattin. A Constructional Analysis of Written Academic English as a Lingua Franca: The Case of Unedited and Edited Research Writing. Georgia State University, 2020.
54. Yılmaz, Selim. “Viewpoint and Postrheme in Spoken Turkish.” Spoken Language Corpus and Linguistic Informatics, edited by Yuji Kawaguchi et al., John Benjamins Publishing, 2006, pp. 269–86.