Contrastive Analysis of Temporal Converb Constructions between Turkish and Lezgian

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 1 - 14, 29.06.2025

Doğan Baydal

https://doi.org/10.51726/jlr.1538237

Öz

The aim of this contrastive study is to analyze temporal converb constructions between Turkish and
Lezgian and it is a morphological analysis since it examines inflectional temporal converb constructions
between two languages. The contrastive analysis involves three methodological steps: description,
juxtaposition, and comparison and the analysis is based on the classifications of temporal converb constructions
by Nedjalkov (1998) and Çetintaş Yıldırım (2004), namely, (i) simultaneity, (ii) anteriority and (iii) posteriority
meaning relationships. The temporal converbial suffixes examined in this study are -(y)IncA (when), -DIğI
zaman (when), -DIğIndA (when), -(A/I) r…-mAz (as soon as), -DIğIndAn beri (since), -DIktAn sonra (after),
-mAdAn önce (before), -(y)IncAyA kadar / dek (until), -ken (while) and -DıkçA (whenever) in Turkish and -la
(when), -waldi (as soon as), -namaz(di) (as soon as), -zamaz (as soon as), -daldi (before) and -daldi (until) in
Lezgian. In terms of meaning relationships, the results of the study show that although Turkish and Lezgian
employ same strategies in that both languages express three temporal relationships of anteriority, posteriority,
and simultaneity for temporal converb constructions; the number of the suffixes and temporal meaning
relationship parameters differ for these categories. In terms of morpho-syntactic relationships, the results of the
study show that all converbial suffixes are added to the base verb segment in Turkish and they are attached to
verb stems or participles in Lezgian. Moreover, temporal converbial suffixes may be simple and composite in
both languages.

Anahtar Kelimeler

temporal converb clauses , contrastive morphology , syntax , Turkish , Lezgian

Kaynakça

• Akkuş, M. (2019). A usage-based investigation of converbial constructions in heritage speakers’ Turkish living in the Netherlands [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Middle East Technical University.
• Banguoğlu, T. (1995). Türkçenin Grameri. Türk Dil Kurumu.
• Bickel, B. (1991). Typologische Grundlagen der Satzverkettung. Zurich.
• Bisang, W. (1995). Verb serialization and converbs--differences and similarities. In Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König, eds., Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective: Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms, 137-88. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Chesterman, A. (1998). Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
• Crystal, D. (2008). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (6th ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781444302776
• Çetintaş Yıldırım, F. (2004). Türkçe zaman ulaçlarının sözdizim ve anlambilim çözümlemesi [Unpublished Master’s Thesis]. Mersin University.
• Dimitriev, N. (1992). The Structure of the Turkic Languages. Moskva: Izdatel’stwo Akademii Nauk.
• Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., Hyams, N. M., Collins, P., Amberber, M., & Cox, F. (2012). An Introduction to language. (7th ed.) Cengage Learning.
• Gast, V. (2008). Verb-noun compounds in English and German. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 56(3), 269-282. https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa.2008.56.3.269
• Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. New York: Routledge. Haspelmath, M. (1995). The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category. In Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.227108
• Hüning, M. (2009). Semantic niches and analogy in word formation. Languages in Contrast, 9(2), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.9.2.01hun Iefremenko, K., Schroeder, C., & Kornfilt, J. (2021). Converbs in heritage Turkish: A contrastive approach.
• Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 44(2), 130– 154. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0332586521000160 Johanson, L. (1995). On Turkic converb clauses. In Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective (pp. 313- 348). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110884463-010
• Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. Routledge, London
• Kortmann, B. (1998). The Evolution of Adverbial Subordinators in Europe. In M. S. Schmid, J. R. Austin, & D. Stein (Eds.), Historical Linguistics 1997: Selected papers from the 13th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Dusseldorf, 10–17 August 1997 (p. 213). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.164.15kor
• Krzeszowski, T. (1990). Contrasting Languages: The Scope of Contrastive Linguistics. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110860146
• Lefer, M., & Cartoni, B. (2011). Prefixes in contrast. Languages in Contrast, 11(1), 87– 105. https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.11.1.07lef
• Nedjalkov, V. P. (1995). Converbs: Control and interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, 24(4), 433–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00060-R
• Nedjalkov, I. V. (1998). 7 Converbs in the languages of Europe. In De Gruyter eBooks (pp. 421– 456). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110802610.421
• Schulz, P. (1978). Verbalnomina und Konverbien als adverbiale Ergänzungen im Alttürkischen. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen.
• Van Goethem, K. (2007). French and Dutch preverbs in contrast. Languages in Contrast, 7(1), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.7.1.05van
• Willems, D., Defrancq, B., Colleman, T., & Noel, D. (2004). Contrastive analysis in language: identifying linguistic units of comparison. In Palgrave Macmillan eBooks. http://nowparast.persiangig.com/document/Contrastive%20Analysis/Contrastive% 20Analysis%20in%20Language.pdf
• Yule, G. (2006). The study of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.