On Grammaticalization of Converb Constructions in South Siberian Turkic

Yıl 2015, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 29, 89 - 100, 01.06.2015

İbrahim Ahmet Aydemir

Öz

This article deals with the grammaticalization of converb constructions in
South Siberian Turkic which is a sub-branch of Northeast Turkic and includes five
languages: Tuvan, Karagas, Khakas, Shor, Altay and Chulym Turkic. It is very
noticeable that converbs in these languages occur with a wide range uses and functions.
One of the main functions of converbs is that they construct so-called postverb
constructions together with auxiliary verbs. In this sense, the converb suffix and
auxiliary verb compose the postverb structure. Postverb constructions of this kind are
multifunctional and both frequently used in South Siberian Turkic languages. These
constructions serve primarily the categories of actionality, aspectotempus and mood.
Moreover, the postverb consructions can form one type of subordinate adverbial clauses,
namely aim sentences. In this acticle the categories actionality, aspectotempus and mood will be discussed and described in detail. Futhermore, the South Siberian Turkic
languages are compared with each other.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Turkic languages, South Siberian Turkic, converbs, grammaticalization, actionality, apectotempus, mood

Güney Sibirya Türkçesinde Zarf-Fiilli Yapıların Gramerleşmesi Hakkında

Öz

Bu makalede, Güney Sibirya Türkçesinde zarf-fiilli yapıların gramerleşmesi
ele alınacaktır. Güney Sibirya Türkçesi, Türk dillerinin Kuzeydoğu (Sibirya)
grubunun bir alt kolu olup Tuvaca, Karagasça, Hakasça, Şorca ve Çulım
Türkçesinden oluşmaktadır. Söz konusu bu dillerde zarf-fiiller çok geniş bir kullanım
ve işlev yelpazesiyle karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Bunlardan biri de, belli zarf-fiil eklerinin
bir bileşen olarak içinde yer aldıkları ekleşik fiil yapılarıdır (Postverbien).
Gramerleşmeyle oluşmuş bu yapılar, Güney Sibirya Türk dillerinde hem çok işlevlidir
hem de çok sık kullanılmaktadır. İşte bu zarf-fiilli yapıların (ekleşik fiillerin)
gramerleşmesi neticesinde, kılınış (Aktionsart), görünüş-zaman (Aspektotempus) ve
kip (olanak/yeterlik) kategorilerinin yanı sıra belli bağımlı cümle tipleri (amaç
cümleleri) de oluşmuştur. Bu makale kapsamında, bu kategorilere giren yapılar ele
alınıp detaylıca betimlenecektir. Bu yapılırken Güney Sibirya Türk dillerinin kendi
aralarında bir mukayesesi de yapılacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Türk dilleri, Güney Sibirya Türkçesi, zarf-fiiller, gramerleşme, kılınış, zaman-görünüş, kip

Kaynakça

• ANDERSON, G. D. S. & HARRISON, K. D. (1999), Tyvan. Languages of the World/Materials 257. München: Lincom-Europa.
• ANDERSON, G. D. S. (2004), Auxiliary Verb Constructions in Altai-Sayan Turkic, Turcologica 51, Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden.
• ………….., (2005), Language Contact in South Siberian. Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden.
• AYDEMİR, İbrahim Ahmet, (2006), “Über Finitformen im Altai-Tuwinischen”. Marcel Erdal & Irina Nevskaya (Haz.), Exploring the Eastern Frontiers of Turkic (Turcologica 60.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 1-10.
• ………….., (2009), Konverbien im Tuwinischen. Eine Unterschung unter Berücksichtigung des Altai-Dialekts. (Turcologica 80.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
• ………….., (2010), Türkçede Zaman ve Görünüş Sistemi. Ankara: Grafiker Yayınları.
• ………….., (2012). “Zu Postverbialverbindungen im Altai-Tuwinischen”. M. Erdal, A. Menz & I. Nevskaya (Haz.) Areal, historical and typological aspects of South Siberian Turkic, (Turkologica 94), Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden: 37-44.
• BACANLI, E. (2014), Kılınış Kategorisi ve Altaycada Kılınış Belirleyicisi Olarak Art Fiiller, Ankara: TDK Yayınları.
• BERGEL’SON, M. B. & KIBRIK, A. A. (1995), “The system of switch-reference in Tuva. Converbal and masdar-case forms”. M. Haspelmath & E. König (Haz.) Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective. Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms ̶ adverbial participles, gerunds, empirical approaches to language typology 13. Berlin, New York: Mounton de Gruyter: 373-414.
• BRİNTON, L. J. & E. C. TRAUGOTT (2005), Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge University Press.
• BUßMANN, H. (1990), Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft. Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner Verlag.
• DEMIR, N. (1993), Postverbien im Türkeitürkischen. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung eines südanatolischen Dorfdialekts. (Turcologica 17.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
• DEMIRCI, K. (2008), “Dilbilgiselleşme Üzerine Bir İnceleme”, bilig, Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (Journal of Social Sciences of the Turkish World) 45: 131-146.
• HEİNE, B. & T. KUTEVA (2002), World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.
• HOPPER, Paul J. & E. C. TRAUGOTT (2003), Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.
• ISXAKOV, F. G. & PAL’MBAX, A. A. (1961), Grammatika tuvinskogo jazyka. Fonetika i morfolo-gija. Moskva
• JOHANSON, L. (1971), Aspekt im Türkischen. Vorstudien zu einer Beschreibung des türkeitürkischen Aspektsystems. Studia Turcica Upsaliensia 1. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
• ………….., (1990), ‘Zur Postterminalität türkischer syndetischer Gerundien’. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher N. F. 9: 137-151.
• ………….., (1992), Strukturelle und soziale Faktoren in türkischen Sprachkontakten. Frankfurt. (= Sitzungsberichte der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der J. W. Goethe Universität Frankfurt am Main.)
• ………….., (1995a), “On Turkic converb clauses”. Haspelmath, Martin & König, Ekkehard (Haz.) Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective. Structure and meaning of adverbial verb forms – adverbial participles, gerunds. Empirical approaches to language typology 13. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 313-347
• ………….., (1995b), “Mehrdeutigkeit in der türkischen Verbalkomposition”. Erdal, Marcel & Tezcan, Semih (Haz.) Beläk Bitig. Sprachstudien für Gerhard Doerfer zum 75. Geburtstag. (Turcologica 23.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 81-101.
• ………….., (1998), “The structure of Turkic”. Johanson, Lars & Csató, Éva A. (Haz.) The Turkic languages. London: Routledge: 30-66.
• ………….., (2000), ‘Viewpoint operators in European languages’. Dahl, Östen (Haz.) Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 27- 187.
• ………….., (2012). “Grammaticalizaton in Turkic languages”. Narrog, Heiko & Heine, Bernd (Haz.) The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 752-761.
• ………….., (2013). “Isomorphic processes: Grammaticalization and copying of grammatical elements”. Martine Robbeets & Hubert Cuykens (Haz.) Shared grammaticalization. With special focus on the Transeurasian languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 101- 109
• KUTEVA, T. (2004), Auxiliation: An Enquiry Into the Nature of Grammaticalization. Oxford University Press.
• LEHMANN, C. (2002). “New reflections on grammaticalization and lexicalization”. Wischer, Ilse & Diewald, Gabriele (Haz.), New reflections on grammaticalization. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins (TSL, 49): 1-18.
• LEHMANN, C. (2005), “Wortarten und Grammatikalisierung”. C. Knobloch & B. Schaeder (Haz.). Wortarten und Grammatikalisierung. Perspketiven in System und Erwerb. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter: 1-20.
• MENGES, K. H. (1959). ‘Das Sojonische und Karagassische’. J. Deny [et alii] (Haz.) PhTF I: 640-670.
• PhTF I = DENY, J. et alii [Haz.] (1959). Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta I, Aquis Mattiacis.
• PRITSAK, O. (1959a), „Das Altaitürkische”. J. Deny [et alii] (Haz.) PhTF I.: 568-598.
• ………….., (1959b), „Das Abakan- und Čulymtürkische und das Schorische“. J. Deny [et alii] (Haz.) PhTF I: 598-640.
• RASSADIN, V. I. (1978), Morfologija tofalarskogo jazyka v sravnitel’nom osveščenii. Moskva
• SALZÏΗMAA, E. B. (1980), Uçebnik tuvinskogo jazyka. Kyzyl.
• SCHÖNİG, C. (1998). ‘South Siberian Turkic’. Lars Johanson & Eva A. Csato (Haz.) The Turkic languages. London & New York: Routledge: 403-416.