Türkçe Karmaşık Tümce Yapısında Ne-Sözcüklerinin İncelenmesi

Yıl 2013, Sayı: 25, 103 - 118, 01.01.2013

Taylan Akal

Öz

Üretici dilbilgisi kuramı, ne-öbeklerinin Sesçil Yapıda veya Mantıksal Yapıda yer değiştirme özelliğine sahip olduklarını belirtir ve dilleri ne-taşıma dilleri ve ne-yapılarının yer koruduğu diller olarak sınıflandırır. Son yıllarda, ne-soru sözcüklerinin incelenmesinde konuşucuların algılarının dikkate alındığı psikodilbilimsel yöntemler de kullanılmaya başlanmıştır. Bu çalışmada, Türkçedeki karmaşık tümcelerde ne-soru sözcükleri, psikodilbilimsel bakış açısıyla incelenmiştir. Farklı ne-soru sözcüklerinin çalkalama özellikleri, tümleç yan tümcesi ekleri ve bunların farklı ne-soru sözcükleriyle olan etkileşimlerinin incelenmesi için anadili Türkçe olan katılımcılara yorumlama anketi uygulanmıştır. Çalışma sonunda, nesözcüklerinin farklı konumlarda bulunarak soru tümcesi oluşturabileceği, tümleç yantümcesi eklerinin ve farklı ne-sözcüklerinin de karmaşık tümcelerin algılanmasında farklılıklara yol açabileceği bulunmuştur

Anahtar Kelimeler

ne-taşıma, ne-yer koruma, tümleç yantümcesi ekleri, çalkalama

The Analysis of wh-words in Turkish complex sentence structure

Öz

Generative grammar indicates that wh-phrases have the movement properties either at the Phonetic or Logical Form and distinguishes languages as wh-movement and wh-in-situ languages. In recent years, psycholinguistic methods, taking the interpretations of speakers into consideration, are being used in analyzing the wh-phrases. In this study, whwords in Turkish complex sentence structure are analyzed through a psycholinguistic point of view. An interpretation questionnaire was applied to the participants in order to investigate the scrambling properties of different wh-words, the complement clause markers and their interactions with various wh-words. In the end, it is found that wh-words may form questions in different syntactic positions; complement clause markers and different whwords may cause differences in the interpretations of complex sentences in Turkish

Anahtar Kelimeler

wh-movement, wh-in-situ, complement clause markers, scrambling

Kaynakça

• AKAR, D. (1990). Wh-questions in Turkish. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Boğaziçi University.
• ………., (2001). “Wh-questions in Turkish”. Current Issues in Turkish Linguistics, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics.2: 67-74.
• ARSLAN, C. (1999). Approaches to wh-structures in Turkish. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Boğaziçi University.
• BAYER, J. (2006). “Wh-in-situ”. The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, M. Everaert and H. Van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Oxford, Blackwell, 5: 1 – 53.
• BHATT, R.M. (2003). “Wh-in-situ and wh-movement”. Topics in the Syntax of the Modern Indo-Aryan Languages, 1 – 20.
• CENOZ, J. (1997). “The influence of bilingualism on multilingual acquisition: Some data from the Basque country”. Actas Do I Simposio Internacional Sobre O Bilingüismo, 278 – 287.
• EMEKSIZ, Z.E. (2006). “Eylem önü konumundaki çıplak özne AÖ lerinin belirlilik durumu”, Dilbilim Araştırmaları:1-10.
• ERGUVANLI, E. (1984). The function of word order in Turkish grammar, University of California Publications. 106.
• GÖRGÜLÜ, E. (2006). Variable wh-words in Turkish, Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Boğaziçi University.
• KARİMİ, S. (2005). “A minimalist approach to scrambling, evidence from Persian”. Studies in Generative Grammar, 76, Mouton, Berlin.
• KAWAMURA, T. A. (2004). “Feature-checking analysis of Japanese scrambling”. J. Linguistics, 40: 45-68, Cambridge University Press.
• KO, H. (2003). “When in-situ languages diverge: Altaic vs. Non-Altaic wh-adjunct constructions”, To Appear in MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, a first draft on August 25, 2003.
• KORNFILT, J. (1994). “Türkçede geçişim ve sözcük dizimine etkisi”, Dilbilim Araştırmaları: 42-53.
• KORNFILT, J. (2001). “Functional projections and their subjects in Turkish clauses”, The verb in Turkish, 44: 183-212.
• KORNFILT, J. (2003). “Scrambling, subscrambling, and case in Turkish”, Word Order and Scrambling, (Ed.) S. Karimi, Blackwell Publishing, 125-155.
• KURAL, M. (1992). Properties of scrambling in Turkish, Ms. UCLA.
• LIEBERMAN, M. and AOSHIMA, S. (2006). “Generating Japanese wh-questions, native-like biases in generation of wh-questions by non-native speakers of Japanese”, To Appear in Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28 (3), 2006.
• MIYAGAWA, S. (2003). “Wh-in-situ and scrambling in the context of comparative Altaic syntax”, Paper Presented at WAFL 1 (Workshop in Altaic Formal Linguistics, MIT).
• ÖZSOY, S. (1996). “A’ dependencies in Turkish”, Current Issues in Turkish Linguistics, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, 1: 139-158.
• POPIEL, S.J., and McRAE, K. (1988). “The figurative and literal senses of Idioms, or all idioms are not used equally”, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, XVII, 6: 475-487.
• SABEL, J. (2001). “Wh-questions in Japanese: Scrambling, reconstruction and wh- movement”, Linguistic Analysis, 31(1-2).
• VINCENZI, de M. and JOB, R. (1993). “Some observations on the universality of the late-closure strategy”, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, II, 22:189- 206.
• YARAR, E. (2005). “Yan tümcelerde ol-eylem kökü –ebil etkileşimi”, 19. Ulusal Dilbilimi Kurultayı Bildirileri, 129-143.