Türkçede olumsuzluğa duyarlı ifadeler: Olumsuz uçluk mu olumsuz uyum mu?

Yıl 2020, Sayı: 21, 724 - 749, 21.12.2020

Emrah Görgülü

https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.841253

Cited By: 1

Öz

Bu makale, Türkçede hiçkimse ve asla gibi olumsuzluğa duyarlı ifadelerin doğası ile ilgilidir. Önceki çalışmalarda, bu olumsuz ifadelerin yapıda tümcesel bir olumsuzlamaya ya da başka bir izin vericiye ihtiyaç duydukları açıkça ortaya konmuştur. Buna rağmen, bu olumsuzluğa duyarlı ifadelerin tam ne oldukları ve bu tür davranışları neden gösterdiklerine ilişkin hala bir çelişki bulunmaktadır. Bazı araştırmacılar bunların olumsuz uçluk ifadeleri olduğunu ortaya sürerken, diğerleri ise aynı ifadelerin (varlıksal) olumsuz-sözcükler ya da olumsuz uyum ifadeleri olduğunu önermişlerdir. Bundan dolayı, bu olumsuzluğa duyarlı ifadelerin dilde hangi kategoriye ait oldukları sorusu hala güncelliğini korumaktadır. Bu çalışmada, önceki çalışmalarda kullanılmış birtakım bulgulayıcı testler kullanılarak, olumsuzluğa duyarlı ifadelerin gerçek özelliklerini ortaya çıkarmak adına bu soruya cevap aranmaktadır. Türkçede bu ifadelerin sözdizimsel ve anlambilimsel davranışları kendilerinin olumsuz uçluk ifadeleri değil de olumsuz uyum ifadeleri olduğunu açıkça ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışmada ayrıca bu ifadelerin hem evrensel hem de varlıksal niceleyici davranışları gösterdikleri de gösterilmektedir. Bunun sebebi, bu ifadelerin dilde hem evrensel niceleyici hem de varlıksal niceleyici olarak yorumlanabilmeleridir. Bu bulgu, olumsuz uyum ifadelerinin değişik dillerde farklı niceleyici elementler olarak davranış sergileyebileceklerine dair yapılan dilbilimsel tahminlerle uyum göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Olumsuz uçluk, olumsuz uyum, evrensel ve varlıksal niceleyici,, Türkçe

Negative sensitive items in Turkish: Negative polarity or negative concord?

Öz

This paper is concerned with the nature of negative sensitive items such as hiçkimse ‘no one’ and asla ‘never’ in Turkish. It is well attested in previous studies that these negative sensitive elements require the obligatory presence of sentential negation or some other licensor in the structure. However, there is still an ongoing controversy as to what these negative sensitive elements actually are and why they behave the way they do. Some researchers proposed that these elements are negative polarity items (NPIs) whereas others suggested that they are (existential) n-words or negative concord items (NCIs). Therefore, the question remains as to which category these elements belong to in the language. In this work, I address this question by using a comprehensive set of diagnostic tests proposed in prior work to find out the true characteristic of these elements. I argue that their syntactic and semantic behavior strongly indicate that they should be classified as NCIs, and not as NPIs in Turkish. I also show that these negative sensitive items display the characteristics of both the universal quantifier and the existential quantifier. This is because they can be interpreted either way in the language. This finding is compatible with the cross-linguistic predictions that NCIs are able to display the behavior of different quantificational elements across languages.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Negative polarity, negative concord, universal and existential quantifier, Turkish

Kaynakça

• Acquaviva, P. (1993). The Logical Form of Negation: A Study of Operator-Variable Structures in Syntax. Doctoral Dissertation. Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa.
• den Besten, Hans. (1986). Double Negation and the Genesis of Afrikaans. In Pieter Muysken and Norval. Smith (eds.), Substrata versus Universals in Creole Languages, pp. 185- 230, John Benjamins. Amsterdam.
• Cinque G. (1990). Types of A'-depedencies. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• Fălăuş, A. and Nicolae, A. C. (2016). Fragment answers and double negation in strict negative concord languages. In M. Moroney, C. R. Little, J. Collard and D. Burgdorf (eds.), In Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 26). 584-600.
• Giannakidou, A. (1997). The Landscape of Polarity Items. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Groningen.
• Giannakidou, A. (1998). Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Giannakidou, A. (2000). Negative ... concord? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 475-523. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Giannakidou, Anastasia. (2006). N-Words and Negative Concord. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), 3: 327–391. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Giannakidou, A. (2011). Positive polarity items and negative polarity items: variation, licensing, and compositionality. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, and P. Portner (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1660-1712.
• Giannakidou, A, and Quer, J. (1995). Two Mechanisms for the Licensing of Negative Indefinites.
• Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Formal Linguistics Society of Mid-America (FLSM) 6, vol. 2: Syntax II & Semantics/Pragmatics, 103-114.
• Giannakidou, A., and Zeijlstra, H. (2017). The Landscape of Negative Dependencies: Negative Concord and N-words. In Martin Everaert and Hen van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd Edition, (pp. 327-392). London: Blackwell.
• Göksel, A., and Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. Routledge: London and New York.
• Haegeman, L. (1995). The Syntax of Negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haegeman, L, and Zanuttini, R. (1991). Negative Heads and the Neg-Criterion. Linguistic Review, 8: 233-251.
• Haegeman, L, and Zanuttini, R. (1996). Negative Concord in West Flemish. In Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax, edited by Adriana Belletti and Luigi Rizzi, 117-179. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Heim, I. (1982). The Semantic of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Massachusetts Amherst.
• İnce, A. (2012). Fragment Answers and Islands. Syntax 15(2), 184-214. Jeretič, P. (2017). Hybrid and Optional Negative Concord in Turkish: A Unified Analysis. In Yılmaz Köylü and Jaklin Kornfilt (eds.), IULC Working Papers 18(2).
• Kamali. B. (2017). Negative concord in Turkish polar questions. Paper presented in Com(parative) Syn(tax) Meetings. Leiden University Center for Linguistics. March 23, 2017.
• Kamp, H. (1981). A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation. In Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo Janssen, and Martin Stokhof (eds.), 277- 322. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre.
• Kelepir, M. (2001). Topics in Turkish syntax: Clausal structure and scope. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. The MIT Press.
• Kelepir, M. (2003). What Turkish NPIs teach us. In A. Sumru Özsoy, Didar Akar, Mine Nakipoğlu Demiralp, E. Eser Erguvanlı Taylan, Ayhan Aksu-Koç (Eds.), Studies in Turkish Linguistics, (pp.111-120). Boğaziçi University Press.
• Ladusaw, A. W. (1992). Expressing Negation. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory II (SALT II), Chris Barker and David Dowty (eds.), 237-259. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
• Ladusaw, A. W. (1994). Thetic and Categorical, Stage and Individual, Weak and Strong. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory IV (SALT IV), Mandy Harvey and Lynn Santelmann (eds.), 220-229. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
• Laka, I. (1990). Negation is Syntax: On the Nature of Functional Categories and Projections. Doctoral Dissertation. MIT.
• Labov, W. (1972). Negative attraction and negative concord in English Grammar. Language 48: 773- 818.
• Longobardi, P. (1991). Island Effects and Parasitic Constructions. In Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure, Jim Huang and Robert May (eds.), 149-196. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Miyagawa, S., N. Nishioka, and Zeijlstra, H. (2016). Negative sensitive items and the discourse- configurational nature of Japanese. Glossa. A journal of general linguistics, 1(1) 33: 1- 28. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.6
• Özyıldız, D. (2017). Quantifiers in Turkish. In Denis Paperno and Edward L. Keenan (eds.), Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language. Vol. 2, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 97. (pp.857- 937). Springer International Publishing.
• Park, H. (2017). Negative concord vs. negative polarity in Japanese: Focusing on argument-adjunct asymmetry. Linguistic Research 34(2): 225-246. doi: 10.17250/khisli.34.2.201706.004
• Przepiórkowski, A. and Kupść, A. (1997). Negation in Polish. Technical Report 828, Institute of Computer Science, Polish Academy of Sciences.
• Progovac, L. (1994). Negative and positive polarity: A binding approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Quer, J. (1993). The Licensing of Negative Items. MA Thesis. Autonomous University of Barcelona.
• Sells, P., and Kim, S. (2006). Korean NPIs scope over negation. Language Research 42(2). 275-297. Sezer, B., and Sezer, T. (2013). TS Corpus: Herkes için Türkçe Derlem. Proceedings of the 27th National Linguistic Conference. May 3-4 2013, Antalya, Kemer: Hacettepe University, English Linguistics Department, pp: 217-225.
• Shimoyama, J. (2011). Japanese indeterminate negative polarity items and their scope. Journal of Semantics 28:413-450.
• Strawson, P. (1952). Introduction to Logical Theory. Methuen: London.
• Suleymanova, V., and Hoeksema, J. (2018). Minimizers in Azerbaijani from a comparative perspective.
• Folia Linguistica 52(1), 177-211. doi: https//doi.org/10.1515/flin-2018-0004.
• Surányi, B. (2002). Negation and an ambiguity account of n-words: the case of Hungarian. In I.
• Kenesei, P. Siptár (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian, Vol 8. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. 107-132.
• Surányi, B. (2008). Predicates, Negative Quantifiers and Focus: Specificity and Quantificationality of N-Words. In Event Structure and the Left Periphery, K. Kiss (ed.). 255-285.
• de Swart, H., and Sag, I. (2002). Negative Concord in Romance. Linguistics and Philosophy 25. 373- 417.
• de Swart, H. (2010). Expression and interpretation of negation: an OT Typology. Dordrecht: Springer.
• Szabolcsi, A. (1981). The Semantics of Topic/Focus Articulation. In Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Jeroen Groenendijk, Theo Janssen, and Martin Stokhof (eds.), 513-540. Amsterdam: Mathematical Center.
• Şener, S. (2007). Cyclic NCI Movement. In E. Bainbridge and B. Agyabani (eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-fourth Western Conference on Linguistics. Vol. 17, (pp.407-417). Department of Linguistics, California State University, Fresno. Şener, S., and İşsever, S. (2003). The interaction of negation with focus: ne… ne… phrases in Turkish. Lingua 113:1089-1117. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(03)00014-7
• Tosun, G. (1998). Split INFL Hypothesis in Turkish. MA Thesis. Boğaziçi University. İstanbul.
• Vallduví, E. (1994). Polarity items, n-words and minimizers in Catalan and Spanish. Probus 6:263-294.
• Watanabe, A. (2004). The genesis of negative concord: Syntax and morphology of negative doubling. Linguistic Inquiry 35:559-612.
• Yanılmaz, A. (2009). An Investigation into the Lexical and Syntactic Properties of Negative Polarity Items in Turkish. MA Thesis. Mersin University.
• Yoon, S. (2008). Two types of negative indefinite in Korean. In Inquiries into Korean Linguistics, J. Whitman, P. Lee and C. Suh et al. (eds.), Vol. 3, 179-192, Seoul: Hankook Publishing.
• Zanuttini, R. (1991). Syntactic Properties of Sentential Negation: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.
• Zeijlstra, H. (2004). Sentential Negation and Negative Concord. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Amsterdam.
• Zeijlstra, H. (2008). On the Syntactic Flexibility of Formal Features. In The Limits of Syntactic Variation, Theresa Biberauer (ed.), 143-173. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Zeijlstra, H. (2013). Not in the First Place. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 31: 865-900.