turkish similative

Solveiga Armoskaite, University of Rochester

Ay egul Kutlu, Carleton University Viewpoints, Rochester University

October 5, 2013

Category neutral similative. Evidence from Turkish

Data puzzle

2

•  m-reduplication in Turkish colloquial speech is productive & frequent:

1) bulut m-ulut 2) güzel m-üzel cloud m-cloud good m-good

‘clouds and the likes’ ‘good and the like’ 3) yazmak m-azmak 4) bütün m-ütün write m-write all m-all ‘to write and the like’ ‘all or whatever’

Note: all data from own fieldwork unless indicated otherwise

What do we know about m-reduplication?

!  When a base starts with a consonant, the base of the reduplicated entry is repeated deleting the consonant which is replaced by prefix m- 5) kapı m-apı

door m-door

‘doors and the like’ Göksel & Kerslake 2005:99

!  If a base starts with a vowel, m- is just prefixed on the base

6) etek m-etek skirt m-skirt ‘skirts and the like’ Göksel & Kerslake 2005:99

!  The structure is highly marked: Turkish hardly uses prefixes Göksel & Kerslake 2005:67

3

What do we know about m-reduplication?

!  Descriptively, m-reduplication has been defined as follows:

The function of m-reduplication is to generalize the concept denoted by a particular word or phrase to include similar objects, events or states of affairs

Göksel & Kerslake 2005:99

!  To the best of our knowledge, there is no account of m-reduplication !  The data available in the literature adds up to a handful of examples

4

What are the goals of the study?

5

!  Empirical: describe the properties of m-reduplication !  Analytical: explain what m-reduplication is !  Theoretical: propose an account for m-reduplication !  Typological: compare m-reduplication to patterns in other languages

Main claims, in a nutshell

6

!  Empirical observation m-reduplication applies across syntactic categories & functional heads

!  Analytical generalization

m-reduplication is category neutral similative plural

!  Theoretical account the semantics of m-reduplication conditions its syntactic restrictions

!  Typological Cross-linguistically, m-reduplication stands out as category neutral & versatile

Outline of the talk

7

1 The distribution of m-reduplication 2 Analytical generalization 3 Theoretical assumptions 3 Proposal 4 Predicted restrictions on m-reduplication: borne out 5 Conclusions 6 Further puzzles and questions 7 Discarded alternative accounts

1. Distribution: m- reduplication applies across categories: N~Pr, A, V, Q, etc…

8

!  m-reduplication is most common (but not limited to!) in N 7) kitap m-itap book m-book ‘book and the like’ or ‘books and the like’

Note: for an account of Number in Turkish, see Görgülu 2012

8) elma m-elma apple m-apple ‘apple and the like’ or ‘apples and the like’


9

!  m-reduplication is attested with pronouns 9) ben m-en 1sg m-1sg ‘I and anyone/anything in relation to me/my life…’ 10) o m-o 3sg m-3sg ‘s/he and anyone/anything related to her/him…’

Note: recent data, implications yet unclear


10

!  m-reduplication is attested with A 11) akilli m-akilli smart m-smart ‘smart and the like’ 12) güzel m-üzel beautiful m-beautiful ‘beautiful and the like’


11

!  m-reduplication is attested with V 13) yedi m-edi ate m-ate ‘ate and the like’ 14) okumak m-okumak read m-read ‘read and the like’


12

!  m-reduplication is attested with quantifiers 15) bütün m-ütün all m-all ‘the whole or maybe a little bit separated’ 16) birkaç m-irkaç several m-several ‘several and/or more than several’


13

!  m-reduplication is attested with numerals

17) yirmi m-irmi twenty m-twenty ‘twenty or more than twenty’ 18) iki m-iki

two m-two ‘two or more than two’


14

!  m-reduplication is attested with functional entries 19) ama m-ama yok but m-but no ‘no buts’ 20) bu m-u

that m-that ‘that or this’

1. Distribution across categories: summary

15

Noun Pronoun Adv/Adj

Verb Quantifier Num Conj

m-redupl

! ! ! ! ! ! !

1. Distribution: m-reduplication is phrasal

16

!  Inflectional suffixes, when present, are required on both elements 21) a. kitap m-itap b. kitap-ta m-itap-ta

book m-book book-Loc m-book-Loc ‘books and the like’ ‘in the books and the like’

c. *kitap-ta m-itap d. *kitap m-itap-ta book-Loc m-book book m-book-Loc


17

!  Derivational suffixes, when present, are required on both elements 22) a. kitap-çı m-itap-çı

book-seller m-book-seller ‘bookseller and the like’

c. *kitap-çı m-itap d. *kitap m-itap-çı book-seller m-book book m-book-seller


18

•  When compound nouns undergo m-reduplication, the entire compound is repeated but only the first element gets the prefix m-:

22) Ben adam [tarih hocası-ymı ] [m-arih hocası-ymı ] anla-ma-m. 1sg history history teacher-Rep.Past m-history teacher-Rep.Past care-Neg-1sg

Francız tarih-ini o-ndan daha iyi bili-yor-um. French history-Acc he-Loc more better know-Prog-1sg

‘I don’t care if he is a history teacher or whatever. I know more about French history than he does.’ Göksel & Kerslake 2005:100

Analytical generalization

19

!  m-reduplication in Turkish !  is optional !  is plural that applies across categories !  adjoins host at phrase level

2. Theoretical assumptions

20

!  Semantics and syntax of Number vary across languages Corbett 2000; Wiltschko 2008; Butler 2012; Biswas 2012; Kaneko 2013

!  Plurality may have group semantics Kratzer 2009; cf. Nakanishi & Ritter 2008; Kaneko 2013

!  Non-inflectional, optional plural has a status of modifier

Wiltschko 2008; Butler 2012

!  The following is key issue and yet still lacking to complete the analysis: how to apply ONE

overarching notion that would cover this insight: Number, Tense, Degree ~ are categories defying vagueness…

?Kennedy 2007; ?Krifka xx; Verkuyl 1972

3. Proposal

21

I. m-reduplication in Turkish is a case of similative plural “… similative plural denotes a class of objects sharing

similar features…” Daniel & Moravcsik 2005

3. Proposal

22

II Meaning of m- reduplication is best captured as group feature:

Kratzer 2009

!  For N, [[m-]]c = λx:x entity. group (x)(c) !  For V, [[m-]]c = λx:x event. group (x)(c) !  For A, [[m-]]c = λx:x property. group (x)(c)

Note: for now, we set aside interaction with functional heads, esp. Neg

3. Proposal

23

III Syntax of m-reduplication is captured as a phrase level modifier:

FP DP [XP m-XP] [NP m-NP] XP (m-XP)… NP (m-NP)…

4. Predicted restrictions on the m-reduplication

24

!  For N, m-reduplicated nouns will -  have collective interpretation; distributive interpretations prohibited -  be ungrammatical with precise quantity denoting measure phrases

!  For V, m-reduplicated verbs will -  favor conditional environments -  need special conditions to allow for Tense (Neg or embedded CP) -  not allow evidential marker

!  For A, m-reduplicated adjectives will -  be ungrammatical with superlative degree -  be ungrammatical with precision denoting adverbials


25

!  For N, m-reduplicated nouns will -  have collective interpretation; distributive interpretations prohibited -  be ungrammatical with precise quantity denoting measure phrases 23) a. Çocuk-(lar) m-ocuk-(lar) kutu-lar-ı kaldır-dı-lar. child-Pl m-child-Pl box-Pl-Acc carry-Past-Pl ‘Children and the like carried boxes.’ !collective * ‘Each child and the like carried a box.’ " distributive b. Çocuk-(lar) kutu-lar-ı kaldır-dı-lar. child-Pl box-Pl-Acc carry-Past-Pl ‘Children carried boxes.’ !collective ‘Each child carried a box.’ !distributive


26

!  For N, m-reduplicated nouns will -  have collective interpretation; distributive interpretations prohibited -  be ungrammatical with precise quantity denoting measure phrases

24) a. üç kitap three book ‘three books’

b. *üç kitap(-lar) m-itap(-lar)

three book m-book


27

!  For V, m-reduplicated verbs will -  favor conditional environments -  need special conditions to allow for Tense (Neg or embedded CP) -  not allow evidential marker 25) On-u bulur-san m-ulursan (ban-a) haber ver. it-Acc find.COND m-find-COND (1sg-Acc) news give ‘If you find it or whatever, let me know.’


28

!  For V, m-reduplicated verbs will -  favor conditional environments -  need special conditions to allow for Tense (Neg or embedded CP) -  not allow evidential marker 26) a. # Hasan piyano çal-ar m-al-ar H. piano play –Aor m-play –Aor ‘Hasan plays the piano or whatever.’ ! b. Hasan piyano çal-ar m-al-ar, insanlar-i eglendir-ir. H. piano play –AOR m-play –AOR, people-ACC entertain-AOR ‘Hasan plays the piano or whatever it is and entertains people.’

4. Predicted semantic restrictions on the m-reduplication

29

!  For V, m-reduplicated verbs will -  favor conditional environments -  need Neg or embedded environments to allow for Tense -  not allow evidential marker 27) Hasan dün opera-ya git-mi m-it-mi hiç haber-im yok H. yesterday opera-DAT go-REP.PAST m-go-REP.PAST no news-POSS.1SG there.is.Neg!

‘Hasan went or whatever to the opera yesterday, I did not know about it.’ ! !  Note: if the Neg is removed, i.e., the reported-ness remains valid, then the

explanatory tensed CP does not help, the utterance remains ungrammatical! 28) *Hasan dün opera-ya git-mi m-it-mi , gel! H. yesterday opera-DAT go- REP.PAST m- go- REP.PAST come.IMP


30

!  For A, m-reduplicated adjectives will -  be ungrammatical with superlative degree -  be ungrammatical with precision denoting adverbials

29) *en beyaz m-en beyaz the most white m-the most white 30) *en iyi m-en iyi the most good m-the most good

4. Predicted semantic restrictions on the m-reduplication

31

!  For A, m-reduplicated adjectives will -  be ungrammatical with superlative degree -  be ungrammatical with precision denoting adverbials 31) a. *kesinlikle m-esinlikle precisely m-precisely " precision A

b. *tam olarak m-am olarak exactly m-exactly " precision A

c. tahminen m-ahminen !  ‘approximately or so’ ! non-precision A

4. Typological comparison

32

Similative N Pro Adv/Adj V Q Num Conj Turkish ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Bangla ! ? ? ? ? ? ?

Japanese ! ? ? ? ? ? ?

Persian ! ? ? ? ? ? ?

5. Conclusions

33

!  The similative plural view accounts for the properties of m-reduplication !  Semantics of m-reduplication condition its syntactic restrictions !  Category neutrality of m-reduplication expands & challenges the current

knowledge of similatives cross-linguistically !  Turkish specific properties of similative plural may potentially change the

broaden the discussion on clusivity Filimonova 2005

6. Further puzzles and questions

34

!  Mixed category reduplication, e.g., X m-X versus Y m-X !  Note: (a) needs a Tensed CP, (b) is acceptable without any additional element 32) a. *Dün saat be -te Hasan kahve-sin-i bitir-mi -ti m-itir-mi -ti yesterday o’clock five-Abl H. coffee-3sg-Acc finish-Rep.Past-Past m-finish-Rep.Past-Past

b. ? Dün saat be -te Hasan kahve-sin-i bitir-ip m-itir-mi -ti

yesterday o’clock five-Abl H. coffee-3sg-Acc finish-Nomz m-finish-Rep.Past-Past

‘Yesterday, at 5 o’clock Hasan had finished his coffee and the like.’ Fieldwork context: murder investigation, police needs to rule out Hasan as a suspect.


35

!  Pejorative effect only in N domain, V and A not pejorative cf. Kaneko 2013; Grohmann & Nevins 2004

33) a. Kiz elmay-i ye-di. neutral view of the apple

girl apple-ACC eat-PAST ‘The girl ate the apple.’ ! b. Kiz elmay-i m-elmay-i ye-di. negative view of the apple

girl apple-ACC m-apple-ACC eat-PAST ‘The girl ate the apple and the like.’


36

!  What is the inclusive range of m-reduplication? 34) Sarap m-arap farket-mez, getir birsey wine m-wine matter-Neg bring something ‘It doesn’t matter wine or the like, just bring something to drink!’

6. Further puzzles and questions What makes Turkish special, cross-linguistically?

37

Similative N Pro Adv/Adj V Q Num Conj Turkish ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Bangla ! ? ? ? ? ? ?

Japanese ! ? ? ? ? ? ?

Persian ! ? ? ? ? ? ?

7 Discarded alternative accounts

38

!  m-reduplication is not -  associative plural -  a polarity item -  free choice any/whatever (incomplete argument)

7. Discarded alternative account

39

!  m-reduplication is not associative plural, because it is not restricted to animate entities

35) a. Walmart-a m-almart-a gide-me-m. Walmart-Loc m- Walmart-Loc go-Neg-1SgPresent ‘I can’t go Walmart or any other shopping mall.’

b. Sarap m-arap farket-mez, getir birsey wine m-wine matter-Neg bring something ‘It doesn’t matter wine or the like, just bring something to drink!’

7. A discarded alternative account

40

!  m-reduplication is not a polarity item: while it is true that it may/does occur in Neg environments, it can also occur in environments without Neg

36) Ay e yıka-n-dı m-ıka-ndı sonra çik-ti A. wash-refl-Past m-wash-refl-Past after leave-Past3sg ‘Ay e washed herself and the like and then she left.’

Acknowledgments

41

Special thanks to: our Turkish consultants; Martina Wiltschko & Kumiko Murasugi for

detailed comments and discussion

Thank you all!

References

42

Butler, Lindsay. 2012. The DP-adjoined plural in Yucatec Maya and the syntax of plural marking. Available online at http://www.hlp.rochester.edu/~lbutler/butler2012_dp_pl_yucatec.pdf

Corbett, Greville. 2000. Number. Cambridge. Cambridge University press. Biswas, Pryanka. Plurality in classifier language: two types of plurals in Bangla. In the

proceedings of GLOW. Daniel, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith. 2005. The associative plural. In World Atlas of language

structures, chapter 36. Available on line at http://wals.info/chapter/36 Ghaniabadi, Saeed, Ghomeshi, Jila, Sadat-Tehrani, Nima. 2006. Reduplication in Persian. CLA

proceedings. Filimonova, Elena. 2005. Clusivity. Typology and case studies of the inclusive–exclusive distinction.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Göksel, Asli, Kerslake, Celia. 2005. Turkish: a comprehensive grammar. NY: Routledge. Görgülu, Emrah. 2012. Semantics of Nouns and the Specification of Number in Turkish. Ph

dissertation, Simon Fraser University.

References

43

Grohmann, Kleanthes, Nevins, Andrew. 2004. On the Syntactic Expression of Pejorative Mood. In Linguistic Variation Yearbook 4, pp.143-179.

Kaneko, Makoto. 2013. Plural markers denoting salient and eventually intensional members in Japanese. CNRS handout.

Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2010. Turkish. NY: Routledge.

Kratzer, Angelica. 2009. Fake indexicals as windows into the properties of pronouns. In Linguistic Inquiry, 40 (2), pp187-237.

Nakanashi, K., Ritter, E. 2008. Plurality in languages without count-mass distinction. Mass/Count Workshop handout, February 7-8.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2008. The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. In NNLT 26.3:639-694.

Underhill, Robert. 2001. Turkish grammar. Cambridge: MIT press.

turkish similative

Documents