Türkçede Betimlemeli İkincil Yüklemlerin Sözdizimsel ve Anlambilimsel Özellikleri

Yıl 2022, Sayı: 39, 17 - 33, 03.02.2023

Semra Baturay Meral Hasan Mesut Meral

https://doi.org/10.26650/jol.2022.1164029

Öz

Bu makalede Türkçede betimlemeli ikincil yüklemlerin sözdizimsel ve anlambilmsel özelliklerini araştırılmaktadır. Araştırmada (i) betimlemeli ikincil yüklemlerin ek bileşen mi zorunlu bileşen mi oldukları, (ii) zorunlu bileşen olan ad öbeğinin anlamsal rolünün ve durum ekinin nasıl işlendiği, (iii) betimlemeli ikincil yüklemin cümleye nasıl katıldığı tartışılmaktadır. Makalede, betimlemeli ikincil yüklemler eylemlere bağlı zorunlu bileşen değil, ek bileşen olarak cümle yapısına katıldıkları; ad öbeğinin durum ekinin ve anlamsal rolünün eylem tarafından işlendiği, betimlemeli ikincil yüklemin ise ADIL'a anlamsal rol yüklediği savunulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

sözdizim, betimlemeli yüklemler, anlambilim, anlamsal rol

On the Syntax and Semantics of Depictives in Turkish

Öz

ABSTRACT This paper discusses the depictive secondary predication in the Turkish language with respect to its syntax and semantics and focuses on two issues: (i) theta role assignment and (ii) checking the case of the nominal argument as either the subject or object. This study proposes that depictive secondary predication structures include a depictive predicate whose function is to modify the subject or object argument of the main verb, and the depictive predicate is an adjunct of the main predicate, unlike resultative predicates which are complements. The study also proposes the syntactic derivation of the depictive structures to be explainable under the hybrid small clause analysis, according to which the small clause adjoins to the verb phrase (VP). The subject position of the small clause is filled with a pronominal determiner phrase (PRO), which takes the theta role of the depictive predicate.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Depictives, secondary predication, hybrid small clause analysis, Turkish syntax

Kaynakça

• Bruening, B. (2018). Depictive Secondary Predicates and Small Clause Approaches to Argument Structure. Linguistic Inquiry 49(3), 537-559. google scholar
• Carrier, J. & Randall, H. (1992). Argument Structure & Syntactic Structure of Resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23(2), 173-234. The MIT Press. google scholar
• Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures in Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. google scholar
• Cormack, A. & Smith, N. (1999). Why are depictives different from resultatives? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics. google scholar
• Dowty, D. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. google scholar
• Hong, Soo-Min. (2005). “Exceptional” Case-Marking and Resultative Constructions. PhD Dissertation. University of Maryland. google scholar
• Hornstein, N. (1999). Movement and Control. Linguistic Inquiry, 30 (1), 69-96. google scholar
• Hornstein, N. (2001). Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Oxford, Blackwell. google scholar
• Hornstein, N., & Lightfoot, D. (1987). Predication and Pro. Language, 63(1), 23-52. google scholar
• Hornstein, N., Nunes, J. & Grohmann K. (2005). Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge University Press. google scholar
• Kayne, R. (1985). Principles of particle constructions. In J. Gueron, H-G. Obenauer and J-Y. Pollock (Eds.), Grammatical Representations, 101-140. Dordrecht: Foris. google scholar
• Kural, M. (1993). Scrambling and mixed positions. North East Linguistics Society, 22(1), Article 18. google scholar
• Kuram, K. (2020). Locatives as small clause predicates in Turkish. Diyalektolog 23, 117-138. google scholar
• Larson, R. (1988). On Double Object Constructions. LI 19(3), 335-391. The MIT Press. google scholar
• Meral, H. M. (2005). Resultatives in Turkish. In N. Lavidas, E. Nouchoutidou and M. Sionti. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Athens Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics. google scholar
• Müller, S. (2002). Complex Predicates. CSLI Publications. google scholar
• Gürkan, D. Ö. (2021). Depictive secondary predicates in Turkish. Onomazein 51, 1-16. google scholar Özsoy, S. (2001). On ‘small’ clauses, other ‘bare’ verbal complements and feature checking in Turkish. In E. Erguvanli-Taylan (Ed.) The Verb in Turkish, 213-237. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. google scholar
• Saito, M. (2001). Movement and Theta Roles: A Case Study with Resultatives. The Second Tokyo Conference on Psycho-linguistics. google scholar
• Schroeder, C. (2000). Almanca ve Türkçe’de İkincil Yüklemler. In A. S. Özsoy and E. Erguvanlı-Taylan (Eds.), Proceedings of 15th National conference in Turkish linguistics, 79-92. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press. google scholar
• Schroeder, C. (2008). Adverbial modification and secondary predicates in Turkish: a typological perspective. In C. Schroeder et al. (Eds.) Secondary Predicates in Eastern European Languages and Beyond, 339-358. Oldenburg: BIS Verlag. google scholar
• Schultze-Berndt, E. & Himmelmann, N. (2004). Depictive Secondary Predicates in Crosslinguistic Perspective. Linguistic Typology 9(2), 341-350. google scholar
• Stowell, T. (1983). Subjects across categories. The Linguistic Review 2, 285-312. google scholar
• Winkler, S. (1997). Focus and Secondary Predication. Mouton de Gruyter. Berlin. New York. google scholar