Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

A Text-Based Analysis of Turkish Existential Sentences

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 37 Sayı: 1, 220 - 234, 30.06.2020
https://doi.org/10.32600/huefd.677332

Öz

This study analyses and discusses the use of existential sentences in texts in terms of the existential predicates used and types of these constructions. The sample of the study includes forty government programs published in Turkey between 1950 and 2016. As a result of the analysis 192 existential sentences are identified in the sample. Existential sentences are described and categorized based on the existential predicates and the sentence types. The findings show that the default form of the existential predicates is var+DIr in official documents although there are other predicates employed in existential constructions, including yok “not exist”, mevcut “exist”, sahip “have” and ait “belong to”. Of them the first three are the predicates of existence, and the remaining two are the predicates of possession. It should be noted that all of these existential predicates are mostly attached with –DIr. Concerning the types of existential sentences it is found that the government programs analysed include four different types and mostly contain possessive type of existentials. The other three types of existential constructions found in the sample are as follows: locative existentials, modal existentials and bare existentials. It is also identified that these existential constructions have specific structural properties which vary based on the existential predicates used. Each type of existential constructions performs several textual functions which are consistent with their structural and semantic properties. In regard to the existential predicates it is found that the predicates of existence, namely var “exist”, yok “not exist” and mevcut “exist”, are much more productive than those of possession, sahip “have” and ait “belong to”. Because the latter type is limited to the possessive type of existential sentences and is not employed in other three types of existential constructions.

Kaynakça

  • Ariel, M. (2002). The possessive NP construction: Discourse function and discourse profile. BLS 28, 15-26.
  • Bentley, D., Ciconte, F. M. & Cruschina, S. (2013). Existential constructions in crosslinguistic perspective. Rivista di linguistica 25(1), 1-13.
  • Biber, D. (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Clark, E. V. (1978). Locationals: Existential, locative, and possessive constructions. In J. H. Greenberg, C. Ferguson & E. A. Moravcsik (Eds.), Universals of Human Language (pp. 85–126), vol. 4: Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Coates, J. (1987). Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. Transaction of the Philological Society 85(1), 110-131.
  • Crawford, W. J. (2005). Verb agreement and disagreement. A corpus investigation of existential there+be constructions. Journal of English Linguistics 33(1), 35-61.
  • Downing, A. & P. Locke (1992). A university course in English grammar. Hemel Hempstead: Phonix ELT. Erguvanlı Taylan, E. E. (1987). The role of semantic features in Turkish word order. Folia Linguistica 21(2-4), 215-227.
  • Francez I. (2009). Existentials, predication, and modification. Linguistics and Philosophy 32, 1-50.
  • Freeze, R. (1992). Existentials and other locatives. Language 68(3): 553–595.
  • Gécseg, Z. (2019). The syntactic position of the subject in Hungarian existential constructions. Argumentum 15, 545-560.
  • Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Hiltunen , T. , & Tyrkkö, J. (2011). Existential there constructions in early medical texts. In R. Paul, S. Hoffmann, & G. Leech (Eds.), Methodological and historical dimensions of corpus linguistics (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 6). Helsinki: Varieng. Online: < http://www.helsinki.fi /varieng/series/volumes/06/hiltunen_tyrkko/#_ftn1 > (retrieved 14 January 2020).
  • Jiang, F. & Hyand, K. (2019). “There are significant differences ...”: The secret of existential there in academic writing. Lingua 223, 1-17.
  • Martinez Insua, A. E. (2002) On the nature of the verb in present day English (existential) there-constructions. Formal and communicative implications. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 15, 133-152.
  • McNally, L. (2011). Existential sentences. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning (pp. 1829-1848), Vol. 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Olofsson, A. (2011). Existential there and catenative concord. Evidence from the British National Corpus. Nordic Journal of English Studies 10(1), 29–47.
  • Remberger, E.-M. (2013). Deontic existentials. Rivista di Linguistica 25(1), 75-106.
  • Sansa Tura, S. (1986a). Definiteness and referentiality in Turkish non-verbal sentences. In D. I. Slobin and K. Zimmer (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 165-194). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Sansa Tura, S. (1986b). DIR in modern Turkish. In A. Aksu Koç & E. Erguvenlı Taylan (Eds.), Modern Studies in Turkish Linguistics: Proceeding of the Second International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (pp. 145-159). İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.
  • Sun, Y. & Cheng, L. (2015). There-existential sentences in trial: A corpus-based approach. Paper presented at 2015 International Conference on Social Science, Education Management and Sports Education.
  • Weinert, R. (2013). Presentational/existential structures in spoken versus written German: Es Gibt and SEIN. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 25 (01), 37-79.

Türkçe'deki Varoluşsal Tümcelerin Metin Temelli İncelemesi

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 37 Sayı: 1, 220 - 234, 30.06.2020
https://doi.org/10.32600/huefd.677332

Öz

Çalışmada varoluşsal tümceler bu tümcelerde kullanılan yüklemler ile bu tümcelerin türleri bakımından incelenerek ele alınmaktadır. Çalışmada 1950 ve 2016 yılları arasında Türkiye’de yayınlanan 40 adet hükümet programında saptanan varoluşsal tümceler incelenmektedir. İnceleme sonucunda örneklemde yer alan metinlerde toplam 192 varoluşsal tümce olduğu saptanmıştır. Bu tümceler kullanılan varoluşsal yüklemler ile tümce türleri dikkate alınarak belirlenip sınıflandırılmıştır. Çalışmada ulaşılan bulgular resmi dilde var+DIr biçiminde görülen var yükleminin en sık kullanılan yüklem olduğunu ve var yükleminin yanı sıra yok, sahip, mevcut and ait yüklemlerinin de hükümet programlarında saptanan varoluşsal tümcelerde kullanıldığını göstermektedir. Sözkonusu yüklemler iki kümeye ayrılmaktadır: varlık bildiren yüklemler, var, yok ve mevcut ve iyelik bildiren yüklemler, sahip ve ait. Çalışmada incelenen metinlerde her iki kümede yer alan varoluşsal yüklemlerin her birinin çoğunlukla –DIr ekiyle kullanıldığını ortaya çıkmıştır. Varoluşsal tümcelerin türleri bakımından hükümet programlarında dört farklı türde varoluşsal tümce olduğu ve en sık iyelik belirten varoluşsal tümcelere yer verildiği bulunmuştır. Saptanan diğer varoluşsal tümce türleri ise şunlardır: yer bildiren tümceler, kiplik bildiren tümceler ve düz varoluşsal tümcelerdir. Çalışmada ulaşılan bulgulara göre her bir tümce türünün kullanılan yükleme dayalı olarak kendine özgü yapısal özellikleri bulunmaktadır. Öte yandan bu tümce türleri metinlerde yapısal ve anlambilimsel özellikleriyle uyumlu işlevleri gerçekleştirmektedir. Varoluşsal tümcelerde kullanılan yüklem türleri açısından varlık bildiren yüklemler olan var, yok ve mevcut yüklemlerinin sahip ve ait gibi iyelik yüklemlerine oranla daha fazla üretken oldukları bulunmuştur. Bunun nedeni iyelik bildiren yüklemler olan sahip ve ait yüklemlerinin sadece iyelik anlamı içeren varoluşsal tümcelerde kullanılması ve diğer üç varoluşsal tümce türünde kullanılmamasıdır.

Kaynakça

  • Ariel, M. (2002). The possessive NP construction: Discourse function and discourse profile. BLS 28, 15-26.
  • Bentley, D., Ciconte, F. M. & Cruschina, S. (2013). Existential constructions in crosslinguistic perspective. Rivista di linguistica 25(1), 1-13.
  • Biber, D. (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Clark, E. V. (1978). Locationals: Existential, locative, and possessive constructions. In J. H. Greenberg, C. Ferguson & E. A. Moravcsik (Eds.), Universals of Human Language (pp. 85–126), vol. 4: Syntax. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Coates, J. (1987). Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. Transaction of the Philological Society 85(1), 110-131.
  • Crawford, W. J. (2005). Verb agreement and disagreement. A corpus investigation of existential there+be constructions. Journal of English Linguistics 33(1), 35-61.
  • Downing, A. & P. Locke (1992). A university course in English grammar. Hemel Hempstead: Phonix ELT. Erguvanlı Taylan, E. E. (1987). The role of semantic features in Turkish word order. Folia Linguistica 21(2-4), 215-227.
  • Francez I. (2009). Existentials, predication, and modification. Linguistics and Philosophy 32, 1-50.
  • Freeze, R. (1992). Existentials and other locatives. Language 68(3): 553–595.
  • Gécseg, Z. (2019). The syntactic position of the subject in Hungarian existential constructions. Argumentum 15, 545-560.
  • Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Hiltunen , T. , & Tyrkkö, J. (2011). Existential there constructions in early medical texts. In R. Paul, S. Hoffmann, & G. Leech (Eds.), Methodological and historical dimensions of corpus linguistics (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 6). Helsinki: Varieng. Online: < http://www.helsinki.fi /varieng/series/volumes/06/hiltunen_tyrkko/#_ftn1 > (retrieved 14 January 2020).
  • Jiang, F. & Hyand, K. (2019). “There are significant differences ...”: The secret of existential there in academic writing. Lingua 223, 1-17.
  • Martinez Insua, A. E. (2002) On the nature of the verb in present day English (existential) there-constructions. Formal and communicative implications. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 15, 133-152.
  • McNally, L. (2011). Existential sentences. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning (pp. 1829-1848), Vol. 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Olofsson, A. (2011). Existential there and catenative concord. Evidence from the British National Corpus. Nordic Journal of English Studies 10(1), 29–47.
  • Remberger, E.-M. (2013). Deontic existentials. Rivista di Linguistica 25(1), 75-106.
  • Sansa Tura, S. (1986a). Definiteness and referentiality in Turkish non-verbal sentences. In D. I. Slobin and K. Zimmer (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 165-194). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Sansa Tura, S. (1986b). DIR in modern Turkish. In A. Aksu Koç & E. Erguvenlı Taylan (Eds.), Modern Studies in Turkish Linguistics: Proceeding of the Second International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (pp. 145-159). İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.
  • Sun, Y. & Cheng, L. (2015). There-existential sentences in trial: A corpus-based approach. Paper presented at 2015 International Conference on Social Science, Education Management and Sports Education.
  • Weinert, R. (2013). Presentational/existential structures in spoken versus written German: Es Gibt and SEIN. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 25 (01), 37-79.
Toplam 21 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Dilbilim
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Emine Yarar 0000-0001-6143-8629

Yayımlanma Tarihi 30 Haziran 2020
Gönderilme Tarihi 20 Ocak 2020
Kabul Tarihi 8 Mart 2020
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2020 Cilt: 37 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Yarar, E. (2020). A Text-Based Analysis of Turkish Existential Sentences. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(1), 220-234. https://doi.org/10.32600/huefd.677332


Creative Commons License
Bu eser Creative Commons Atıf 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.