Old Turkic syntax: from valency theory to construction grammar

Abstract

The analysis of Old Turkic syntax benefits greatly from the verb-focused approach of Valency Theory. This study, however, identifies a significant gap in its application, arguing that the theory, when used in isolation, cannot fully account for the language's dynamic and complex syntactic constructions. A model based solely on the valency frames of single verbs fails to adequately explain the argument structures of highly frequent phenomena such as compound verbs ḳul bol- ‘to become a slave’, idiomatic expressions nefs butını sı- ‘to subdue the ego’, and the pragmatically governed flexibility of word order. To address these shortcomings, this paper proposes an integrated analytical framework that enhances the lexical foundation of Valency Theory with key insights from Construction Grammar and Information Structure. This multi-layered approach posits that: 1. Valency Theory identifies the core participants licensed by the verb. 2. Construction Grammar accounts for how meaning and argument structure can be inherited from larger syntactic patterns (constructions) themselves, not just the verb. 3. Information Structure explains the function of word order variations as a means to encode communicative goals like topic and focus. Through the analysis of various examples from Old Turkic texts, this study demonstrates that the proposed integrated model offers a more competent and explanatory tool than any single theory alone. It moves beyond static descriptions to better model the productive and multi-faceted nature of Old Turkic syntax, thereby offering a new perspective for historical Turkic linguistics and exemplifying the application of contemporary theories to historical languages.

Keywords

• Old Turkic syntax
• valency theory
• construction grammar
• information structure
• argument structure

Eski Türkçe Söz Dizimi: İstem Teorisinden Yapı Dil Bilgisine Bütünleşik Bir Perspektif

Öz

The analysis of Old Turkic syntax benefits greatly from the verb-focused approach of Valency Theory. This study, however, identifies a significant gap in its application, arguing that the theory, when used in isolation, cannot fully account for the language's dynamic and complex syntactic constructions. A model based solely on the valency frames of single verbs fails to adequately explain the argument structures of highly frequent phenomena such as compound verbs ḳul bol- ‘to become a slave’, idiomatic expressions nefs butını sı- ‘to subdue the ego’, and the pragmatically governed flexibility of word order. To address these shortcomings, this paper proposes an integrated analytical framework that enhances the lexical foundation of Valency Theory with key insights from Construction Grammar and Information Structure. This multi-layered approach posits that: 1. Valency Theory identifies the core participants licensed by the verb. 2. Construction Grammar accounts for how meaning and argument structure can be inherited from larger syntactic patterns (constructions) themselves, not just the verb. 3. Information Structure explains the function of word order variations as a means to encode communicative goals like topic and focus. Through the analysis of various examples from Old Turkic texts, this study demonstrates that the proposed integrated model offers a more competent and explanatory tool than any single theory alone. It moves beyond static descriptions to better model the productive and multi-faceted nature of Old Turkic syntax, thereby offering a new perspective for historical Turkic linguistics and exemplifying the application of contemporary theories to historical languages.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Old Turkic syntax
• valency theory
• construction grammar
• information structure
• argument structure

Kaynakça

1. Ágel, V. & Fischer, K. (2010). Dependency grammar and valency theory. In Heine, B. & Narrog, H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 223–256). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Ágel, V. (2000). Valenztheorie. Tübingen: Narr.
3. Allerton, D. J. (1982). Valency and the English verb. London–New York: Academic Press.
4. Arat, R. R. (1959). Kutadgu Bilig II (Çeviri). Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları.
5. Arat, R. R. (1999). Kutadgu Bilig I (Metin). Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
6. Ata, A. (2004). Türkçe İlk Kur’an Tercümesi (Rylands Nüshası, Giriş-Metin-Notlar-Dizin). Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
7. Bang, W. & Gabain, A. von (1929–1931). Türkische Turfan-Texte I–V. Berlin: Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
8. Bang, W. et al. (1934). Türkische Turfan-Texte VI. Berlin: Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

9. Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
10. Butt, M. (1995). The structure of complex predicates in Urdu. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
11. Cattell, R. (1984). Composite predicates in English. Sydney & Orlando: Academic Press.
12. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
13. Clauson, S. G. (1972). An etymological dictionary of pre-thirteenth-century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
14. Doğan, N. (2011). Türkiye Türkçesi Fiillerinde İsteme Göre Anlam Değişiklikleri. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi, Samsun. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi).
15. Eckmann, J. (1996). Harezm, Kıpçak ve Çağatay Türkçesi Üzerine Araştırmalar. Haz. Sertkaya, O. F. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
16. Ediskun, H. (1999). Türk Dilbilgisi. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
17. Elmalı, M. (2016). Daśakarmapathaavadānamālā (Giriş–Metin–Çeviri–Notlar–Dizin). Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
18. Ercilasun, A. B. & Akkoyunlu, Z. (2014). Dîvânu Lugâti’t-Türk: Giriş–Metin–Çeviri–Notlar–Dizin. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
19. Ercilasun, A. B. (1984). Kutadgu Bilig Grameri (Fiil). Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
20. Erdal, M. (1991). Old Turkic word formation: A functional approach to the lexicon I–II. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
21. Erdal, M. (2004). A grammar of Old Turkic. Leiden: Brill.
22. Ergin, M. (1980). Türk Dil Bilgisi. İstanbul: Boğaziçi Yayınları.
23. Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
24. Fillmore, C. J. (2003). Valency and semantic roles: The concept of deep structure case. In Ágel, L. Á. et al. (Eds.), Dependenz und Valenz: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung I (pp. 457–475). Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter.
25. Gabain, A. von (1988). Eski Türkçenin Grameri. Çev. Akalın, M. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
26. Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27. Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28. Götz-Votteler, K. (2007). Describing semantic valency. In Herbst, T. & Götz-Votteler, K. (Eds.), Valency: Theoretical, descriptive and cognitive issues (pp. 37–50). Berlin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
29. Grimshaw, J. & Mester, A. (1988). Light verbs and θ-marking. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(2), 205–232.
30. Hamilton, J. (1988). İyi ve Kötü Prens Öyküsü. Çev. Köken, V. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
31. Helbig, G. & Schenkel, W. (1991). Wörterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
32. Herbst, et al. (2004). A valency dictionary of English: A corpus-based analysis of the complementation patterns of English verbs, nouns and adjectives. Berlin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
33. Herbst, T. & Roe, I. (1996). How obligatory are obligatory complements? An alternative approach to the categorization of subjects and other complements in valency grammar. English Studies, 77(2), 179–199.
34. Herbst, T. (1988). A valency model for nouns in English. Journal of Linguistics, 24(2), 265–301.
35. Karahan, L. (1997). Fiil-Tamlayıcı İlişkisi Üzerine. Türk Dili, 549, 209–213.
36. Karahan, L. (2014). Türkçede Söz Dizimi (21. baskı). Ankara: Akçağ Yayıncılık.
37. Kaya, C. (2021). Uygurca Altun Yaruk: Giriş, Metin ve Dizin. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
38. Kılıç, E. (2015). Türkçe Hafif Fiil Yapılarının Yapı Dilbilgisi Yaklaşımıyla İncelenmesi. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 26(2), 55–83.
39. Korkmaz, Z. (2003). Türkiye Türkçesi Grameri (Şekil Bilgisi). Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
40. Le Coq, A. von (1911). Türkische Manichaica aus Chotscho I. Berlin.
41. Ninio, A. (2006). Language and the learning curve: A new theory of syntactic development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42. Ölmez, M. (2013). Orhon-Uygur Hanlığı Dönemi Moğolistan’daki Eski Türk Yazıtları. Ankara: BilgeSu Yayınları.
43. Özbay, B. (2014). Huastuanift (Manihaist Uygurların Tövbe Duası). Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
44. Radloff, W. & Malov, S. E. (1913–1917). Suvarṇaprabhāsa (Sutra zolotogo bleska): Tekst uygurskoy redaktsii. Bibliotheca Buddhica XVII. St. Petersburg: Rossiyskaya Akademiya Nauk.
45. Ružička, R. (1978). Three aspects of valence. In Abraham, W. (Ed.), Valence, semantic case, and grammatical relations (pp. 47–55). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
46. Şirin-User, H. (2016). Eski Türk Yazıtları Söz Varlığı İncelemesi. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
47. Tekin, Ş. (1980). Maitrisimit nom bitig: Die uigurische Übersetzung eines Werkes der buddhistischen Vaibhāṣika-Schule. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
48. Tekin, T. (2003). Orhon Türkçesi Grameri. İstanbul: Kitap Matbaası.
49. Tesnière, L. (1959). Les éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.
50. Tesnière, L. (2015). Elements of structural syntax. Trans. Osborne, T. & Kahane, S. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
51. Tezcan, S. (1975). Eski Uygurca Hsüan Tsang biyografisi X. Bölüm. Ankara. (Yayımlanmamış Doçentlik Tezi).
52. Timurtaş, F. K. (1994). Eski Türkiye Türkçesi Grameri. İstanbul: Enderun Yayınevi.
53. Tugusheva, L. Yu. (1980). Fragmenty uygurskoy versii biografii Syuan’-czana. Moskva: Nauka.
54. Wilkens, J. (2007). Das Buch von der Sündentilgung: Edition des alttürkisch-buddhistischen Kšanti Kılguluk Nom Bitig. Berliner Turfantexte 25. Turnhout: Brepols.
55. Wilkens, J. (2021). Handwörterbuch des Altuigurischen: Altuigurisch–Deutsch–Türkisch. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag.
56. Yıldırım, F. et al. (2013). Yenisey–Kırgızistan yazıtları ve Irk Bitig. Ankara: BilgeSu Yayınları.