BİLDİRİ ÖZETLERİ

1

Yaşlı maşlı ama dipdiriYarı-ikilemenin anlam-sözdizimi

Talat AkaslanDokuz Eylül Üniversitesi

Türkçede yarı-ikileme (“hece ikilemesi” ya da “pekiştirme” ve “M-‘li ikileme”) üzerine yapılmış olan değerlendirmeler (Hatiboğlu 1973; Demircan 1996: 195-103; 2000: 85-100, 121-148) doyurucu olmaktan uzaktırlar çünkü: - kuramsal bir çözümlemeye dayanmazlar; çoğunlukla gerçek dilsel kullanımlar dışında alınmış sözlüksel ve sesdizimsel-biçimbilimsel yapılara dayalı izlenimsel gözlemlerden-çıkarımlardan ibarettirler.- anlamaya ve açıklamaya değil, sınıflandırmaya (biçimsel-anlamsal dökümler yapmaya) yöneliktirler: “yarı-ikileme şu tür sözcüklere uygulanır”; “işlem sözcüklerin şu parçası ile yapılır”; “işlemde işin içine şu sesler girer”; “şu anlamsal değerler ortaya çıkar”, gibi. - bu açıdan da, türkçede yarı-ikilemeyle ilgili kimi temel sorunları ortaya koymazlar (aşağıya bkz.). Kimi belirlemeler de tartışmalıdır. Örneğin m-‘li ikileme anlamsal olarak “konuşanın belleğine bağlı bir belirsizlik bildirir, ya da ‘benzeri’ anlamını katar.” (Demircan 2000: 87) belirlemesi muğlak olma bir yana, birçok kullanım için geçersiz kalır: Yaşlı maşlı ama dipdiri; Sen defteri mefteri unut ! ; Kaçık, maçık,... çekeceksin kocanı !; Şaka, maka,... ben ciddiye alıyorum söylediklerini.

Bu çalışmada, önce türkçedeki iki yarı-ikileme işleminin biçimsel, işlevsel ve anlamsal özellikleri anlamaya ve açıklamaya yönelik olarak karşıtsal bir açıdan yeniden betimlenecek, sonra da türkçede yarı-ikileme olgusu anlam-sözdizimsel bir yaklaşımla (sözceleme işlemleri kuramı çerçevesinde) yorumlanacaktır. Yorumlama, şu temel sorunlara yanıt aranması temelinde yapılacaktır:1. Her iki yarı-ikileme türünde de işlemin uygulandığı sözcüğün başı üzerinde oynanmasının nedeni ne olabilir ?2. “Hece ikilemesi”nde, işlemin uygulandığı sözcüğün başının tekrarının, m-’li ikilemede ise sözcüğün başının silinmesinin; başka bir deyişle, yarı-ikilemelerde esas alınan sözlüksel birimin birinde (“hece ikilemesi”) “berkitilmesi”nin, diğerinde (m-’li ikileme) ise “deforme edilmesi”nin (sözcük ünsüzle başlıyorsa ilk ünsüzün atılmasının, ünlüyle başlıyorsa m’- eklenmesiyle “kimliği”nin bozulmasının) belirli bir nedeni ve sonuçları var mıdır ? 3. “Hece ikilemesi”nde tekrarlanan parçanın ana gövdenin önüne ve bu gövdeye bitiştirilerek yerleştirilmesinin (SI-m-sıcak); “m-’li ikileme”de ise, tekrarlanan parçanın ana gövdenin arkasında ve ayrı bir birim (sözcük) olarak konumlandırılmasının (yaşlı m-AŞLI) nedeni ne olabilir ? Başka bir deyişle, ilkinde dış ögenin (/p m r s/ ünsüzleri ya da heceler) “yaklaştırıcı”, “kaynaştırıcı”, ikincisinde ise dış ögenin (m-) “uzaklaştırıcı”, “ayırıcı” bir işlevi vardır denilebilir mi ? Varsa bu neyle açıklanabilir ?4. “Hece ikilemesi”nde “kapatıcı ünsüz” (ya da heceler) birden fazlayken, “m- ’li ikileme”de “açıcı” ünsüzün her zaman m- olmasının nedensiz midir ?5. /p m r s/’ye göre m-’nin konumu nedir ? Basit bir ses mi ? Anlamlı bir birim mi ? M- ’nin işlevi-anlamı nedir ?6. “Hece ikilemesi”nin sıklıkla olumlu sözcelerde, “m-’li ikileme”nin ise, olumsuz sözcelerde kullanılması nasıl yorumlanabilir ?7. .........8. ........

Anlam-sözdizimsel yorumlama: Her dilsel yapı onu üreten bilişsel işlemlerin izidir. Bu bilişsel işlemlerin niteliğini ise sözceleme parametreleri belirler: Bu parametreler iki türlüdür: niteliksel parametre ve niceliksel parametre. Sözceleyen(ler)in entelektüel ve duyuşsal dünyasını ifade eden niteliksel parametreyle, yüklemsel ilişkinin içerdiği sözlüksel kavramların içeriği ve özneler (kişiler)-arası ilişkiler belirlenir (kavramlara ve kişilere ilişkin niteliksel belirlemeler yapılır). Mekansal-zamansal yerlemleri [coordonnée] ifade eden niceliksel parametre ile yüklemsel ilişki mekansal-zamansal (varoluşsal) gönderge değerleri ile donatılır (mekansal-zamansal bir alana yerlenir). Yarı-ikileme biçimbilimsel-sesdizimsel ve sözlüksel bir olgu olmanın ötesinde bir sözceleme olgusudur zira sözcenin üretilişi sürecinde öznellik parametresine göre yapılan belirlemeleri yansıtır. Bu bakımdan,

2

sözceleyenin niteliksel belirlemeleriyle ilgili kipsel bir olgudur. Kiplik, sözceleyenin sözcenin içeriğine ve muhatap(lar)ına ilişkin öznel tutumunu ifade eden bir dilbilgisel kavramdır. Bu anlamda, yüklemsel ilişkinin içerdiği kavramların ve yüklemsel ilişkinin içeriğine ve muhataplarıyla ilişkilerine ilişkin niteliksel belirlemeleri (nitelik atfetme) kipsel belirlemelerdir. Yarı-ikileme de öncelikle kipsellikle ilintilidir. sözceleyenin kavramlara, sözcenin içeriğine ve muhataplarına ilişkin tasarımlarının niteliği ile bir açıklama bulur. Bu bakımdan, “hece ikilemesi” ile “ m-‘li ikileme” farklı iki kipsel tutumu yansıtırlar: sözlüksel birimlerin türüne ve bağlama göre farklı biçimde de olsa, “hece ikilemesi” sözceleyenin kendi algılamalarına ya da eş-sözceleyene atfettiği şeyleri hem geçerli kıldığı (“asserter”), hem olumladığı (“valider”), “ m-‘li ikileme” ise, geçerli kıldığı ama olumlamadığı, olumlamakta tereddüt ettiği bir tasarımlamayı ifade eder.

Kaynakça

Culioli, A., (1999), Pour une Linguistique de l’Enonciation, Tome 3, Paris-Gap, Ophrys.Bouscaren, J. & Deschamps, A. & Dufaye, L. (edit.), (2001), Modalité et Opérations Enonciatives, Paris-

Gap, Ophrys.

3

Literacy development in bilingual context:The case of Turkish of bilingual children and teenagers in France

Mehmet Ali AkıncıUniversité de Rouen

This paper proposes to compare oral and written extended discourse productions of French-Turkish bilingual children and teenagers to monolingual speakers of Turkish of the same age. In producing a text, a speaker must simultaneously manage (a) the linguistic characteristics of the language, (b) the general constraints of the human cognitive system, and (c) the specific constraints related to the production of a written text (Hickmann et al., 1996: 591). The methodological basis derives from an international research project on the development of text production abilities as a critical indicator of literacy across and beyond school ages (Berman & Verhoeven, 2002). In this study, 120 participants in three age groups (grade school, junior school and high school for each population) were asked to produce two types of text (personal narration and expository) in two modalities (spoken and written). Three categories of analysis are made: i) thematic content of texts; ii) global discourse structure and organization; and iii) clause-internal constructions. Our analyses reveal that all participants make clear distinction between the two types of texts (narratives vs expository discussions) in content and in linguistic means of expression. The youngest children produce relatively well-organised, though minimal, narrative texts, but expository text construction is not consolidated until high school. However, compared to the monolinguals, the grade and junior school bilingual children made more spelling mistakes and they relied less on conventional punctuation and page layout. Texts of the high school bilingual adolescents are similar to those of monolinguals.

References

Berman, R.A. & L. Verhoeven (eds) (2002) Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on the Development of Text-Production Abilities in Speech and Writing. Part 1 & Part 2. Special issue of Written Language and Literacy, n°5:1 & n°5.2.

Durgunoğlu, A. & L. Verhoeven (1998) Literacy development in a multilingual context. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.

Oller, D.K. & R.E. Eilers (2002) Language and Literacy in Bilingual Children, Child Language and Child Development, n°2. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Jisa, H. & S. Strömqvist (2002) "Pragmatique et acquisition tardives chez l'enfant : langage oral et langage écrit", in La pragmatique : raisonnement, développement de l'enfant et pathologies, J. Bernicot, A. Trognon, M. Guichetti and M. Musiol (eds), Nancy : Presses Universitaires de Nancy, pp. 257-265.A

4

Event structure, scale structure and the representation of selected Turkish verbs

Yeşim AksanMersin University

This paper will show that the aspectual variability observed in Turkish verbs of consumption/creation, change of state (COS) verbs, and verbs of directed motion is most insightfully represented under scalar semantic framework developed by Hay et.al (1999), and Kennedy & Levin (2000). Scalar representation offers a unified analysis for Turkish verbs when it is compared with Krifka (1989) / Dowty (1991) style analysis of such verbs. In their view, aspectual properties of the above mentioned verbs is determined by mapping between the structure of arguments and the temporal progress of the event. Hence, these three classes of verbs are analyzed by distinct type of mappings.

In scalar representation, on the other hand, all these verbs is seen as describing events in which gradable property of one participant (italicized in 1-3) undergoes a (gradual) change by degrees along a scale. Following Kennedy & Levin (2000), we claim that aspectual property, namely telicity feature, of these verbs is determined in a single way: in terms of mapping between the structure of the degree of change and the structure of the event denoted by the verb. When there is a bound on the scale for the degree of change, the events described by the verbs will be telic, otherwise they will be atelic. Thus, this paper will also focus on the linguistic devices which create a bound on the scale where verbs of consumption/creation, COS verbs and verbs of directed motion display gradual change.

(1) a. Deniz bir saat boyunca pilav yedi. (Atelic)'Deniz ate rice for an hour. 'b. Deniz bir tabak pilavı bir saatte yedi. (Telic)'Deniz ate a bowl of rice in an hour.'

(2) a. İşçiler yolu üç gün boyunca genişletti. (Atelic)'The workers widened the road for three days.’ b. Operatör hastanın kalp damarını iki saatte genişletti. (Telic)'The surgeon widened the patient’s heart artery in two hours.'

(3) a. Uçak bir saat boyunca yükseldi. (Atelic)'The plane ascended for an hour.' b. Denizaltı bir saatte yükseldi. (Telic)'The submarine ascended in an hour.'

Furthermore, scalar representation assumes that the effect of inherent scalar structure on the telicity of the above mentioned verbs is ultimately pragmatic. In taking this assumption into consideration, this study attempts to illustrate that adverb duality, which is observed in these three classes of verbs (4 a,b,c) can be explained by pragmatic means (i.e, the effect of the real world knowledge of language users in dealing with the degree of change ) rather than generally accepted purely linguistic means.

(4) a. Deniz tostu bir saatte /bir saat boyunca yedi.'Deniz ate the toast in /for an hour.'b. Deniz ekmeği bir saatte/bir saat boyunca yağladı.'Deniz buttered the bread in /for an hour.'c. Uçak on dakikada / on dakika boyunca yükseldi.‘Plane ascended in /for ten minutes.'

References

Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection, Language 67, 547-619.Hay, J. et.al. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in 'degree achievements', in T. Matthews and D. Strolovich (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 9, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Jackendoff, R. 1996. The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps even quantification in

English, NLLT 14, 305-351.5

Kennedy, C. and Levin, B. 2000. Telicity corresponds to degree of change, Michigan State University, Nov. 30, 2000. www. ling.nwu.edu/~kennedy/.

Krifka, M. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics, in R.Bartsch et al. (eds.), Semantics and contextual expression, Foris , Dordrecht, pp.75-115.

Nakipoğlu, M. 1998 Split intransitivity and the syntax-semantic interface in Turkish, Unpublished Ph.D.Diss, University of Minnesota.

Ramchand, G.1997. Aspect and predication, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Tenny, C. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

6

On some semantic properties of psych predicates in Turkish

Mustafa Aksan - Pınar İbeMersin University

Psych verbs are problematic for linking/mapping theories proposed in the literature; they do not map their thematic roles of Experiencer and Theme in a unified fashion. The cross-linguistic data indicates that the unexpected mapping of these verbs is universal. Such observed differences in their syntactic and semantic behavior made linguists define distinct classes of psych verbs. Following the lead of Belletti& Rizzi (1988), most commonly accepted classifications are made on the basis of different surface markings of thematic roles. In another approach, Levin (1993) tries to classify these verbs according to their patterning with respect to transitivity alternations. Most recent approaches put emphasis on the event structure and aspectual properties in order to explain the differences in mapping through aspectual rather than thematic hierarchies (Grimshaw, 1990; Tenny, 1994).

This research aims to provide a descriptive account of psych verbs in Turkish. In the first section we will define psych verbs on the basis of the surface marking the grammatical roles and the distribution of thematic roles. Initially, this gives us the following configurations:

1.Experiencer Sub NOM Theme Obj ACC (beğen, kıskan, …)2. Theme Sub NOM Experiencer Obj ACC (üz, sars, …)3. Experiencer Sub NOM Theme Obj OBL (kız, güven, iğren, tiksin, …)4. Experiencer Sub NOM Ǿ (çıldır, apış, …)

In the second section we will present a finer lexical semantic analysis of these classes using stage level/individual level contrast as suggested in Kural (1996). Furthermore, we will review the derived forms, compound psych verbs, psych sense extensions of verbs of other classes and idiomatic/metaphoric uses of expressions referring to psychological states to trace the emerging subtle semantic differences.

References

Belleti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi. 1988. Psych verbs and theta theory. Natural language and linguistics theory 6, 291-352.

Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.Kural, Murat. 1996. Verb incorporation and elementary predicates. Unpublished PhD. Dissertation.

California University, Los Angeles.Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. London: The

University of Chicago Press.Pesetsky, David. 1996. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge: MIT Press.

7

-mI-‘nın bildirinin düzenlenmesindeki rolü 4

Başak Alangoİstanbul Üniversitesi

Bu bildiri çerçevesinde karşı-konulaşma ve sağ çıkma’yı inceleyeceğiz. Çıkmanın içinde eylemin yönettiği bir öğe yerine, gerek eylemden önce gerek eylemden sonra, bir taraftan yönetilen işlevinde bir adıl, diğer taraftan kopmuş bir sözlükbirimsel yapı vardır (C.B. Benveniste, 1997). Örneklerimiz üç kısmi ya da özel soru, iki bütünsel sorudan oluşmuştur. Yapıları gereği iki soru türü farklı olmakla birlikte biçimsel ölçütlerimize uymaktadırlar. Sadece odak’ın yeri farklıdır. Kısmi tümcelerde sağ çıkma içinde yer alan odak, elimizdeki tek bütünsel soruda da sağ çıkma içindeki e tümlecidir. Sağ çıkma içindeki karşı-konular özne, nesne ya da dolaylı e tümleci kaynaklıdır. Kısmi tümcelerde sorgulanan öğe sağ çıkma içine alınırken tümce başındaki soru kısmında bu öğenin hem yerini alan hem de onu sorgulayan bir soru zamiri bulunmaktadır. Bu zamirler sırasıyla hangisi, kim ve ne’dir. Bu zamirlere temsilci diyeceğiz. Bütünsel sorudak e tümleci kaynaklı öğenin durum belirtisini yitirmesi bize sol çıkmalardaki konular için saptadığımız ölçütün sağ çıkmalardaki bazı karşı-konular için de geçerli olduğunu gösterir. Sol çıkmalarla sağ çıkmaların karşılaştırılmalarında sol çıkmaların yorum sonrasına atıldığında sağ çıkmalaşmadıkları halde, sağ çıkmalar tümce başına alınarak sol çıkmalaşabilmektedirler. Bir e tümlecinin karşı-konulaşabilmesi, sol çıkma içinde özne, nesne kaynaklı konular gibi e tümleci kaynaklı konular da olabileceğini düşündürüyor bize. Örneğimizin tek olması önemini azaltmaz. Sol çıkmalarda olduğu gibi sağ çıkmalarda da sözcük düzeni belirtilidir, tümce en küçük tümce değildir, sağ çıkma içine alınan öğe ya da öğelerin tümcebilimsel değerlendirmesi yapılmıştır. Sol çıkmalarda görülen kınayıcı yok mu kalıbı yerini daha yansız mI’ya bırakmıştır. Bu parçacık kısmi sorulardaki yorum sonrasına atılmış özne nesne kaynaklı öğelerin karşı-konular olduklarını gösterir.Bir başka ilginç nokta ise sol çıkmalar arasında hiç soru tümcesi olmaması ve sağ çıkmaların sadece sorulardan oluşmasıdır. Gerek konulaştırma gerek karşı-konulaştırmada mI’nın sadece soruşturma kipliğinde, yok mu’nun ise diğer kipliklerde, bildirim-ünlem-emir, görülmesi bir bütünleyici dağılım örneği olabilir.Örneklerimizdeki karşı-konuları yorum sonrasında rastlıyabileceğimiz özne, nesne ve tümleçlerle ve bu öğelerin yüklemden bir virgülle ayrılmış açılımlarıyla da karşılaştıracağız. Sağ çıkma sayısının az olması dikkat çekmektedir.

Kaynakça

Le français parlé, C.B. Benveniste, Editions du CNRS, Paris, 1990 Analyse linguistique et approches de l’oral, Recueil d’études offert à C.B. Benveniste, Peeters, Leuven-Paris, 1998

‘Du thème au Thème en passant par le sujet pour une théorie cyclique’, C. Hagège, La Linguistique 14 : 3-38

‘Subjet and Topic’, Li,C., and Thompson, S.A., New York : Academic Press Pour une logique du sens, Martin,R., Paris : PUF, 1983

‘Eléments pour une typologie des structures informatives’, J. Perrot, Klincksieck, Paris, 1994, mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris içinde

Mind, Code and Context, Givón, T., Academic Press, New York, 1989

8

The semantics and syntax of –(y)AlI clauses in Turkish

Ceyda ArslanBoğaziçi University

The aim of this paper is to discuss the semantic and syntactic properties of the –(y)AlI clauses in Turkish. First, I will focus on the semantic differences between –(y)AlI clauses and -DIr/-DAn beri constructions, generally assumed to be mutually paraphrasable. I will argue that the –(y)AlI sentences have existential presupposition, i.e. there is an assertion, which is not cancelable, that the event in the clause occurred earlier, while sentences with -DIr/-DAn beri only implicate the existence of the event in the matrix clause (cf.Iatridou 2002):

(1) a. Hasta 1999’dan beri hiç felç geçir-di mi? patient 1999-abl since at.all stroke have-past Q ‘Has the patient had a seizure since 1999?’b. Hayır, 1999’dan beri hiç felç geçirmedi. Aslında hiç geçirmedi. no have-neg-past. in fact at.all have-neg-past ‘No, the patient hasn’t had a seizure since 1999. In fact he had never had one.’

(2) a. Hasta felç geçireli beş yıl oldu mu? patient stroke have-(y)AlI fove years be-past Q ‘Has it been five years since the patient had a seizure?’b. Hayır, felç geçireli beş yıl olmadı. #Aslında hiç geçirmedi. no be-neg-past. in fact at.all have-neg-past ‘No, it hasn’t been five years since he had a seizure. #In fact he had never had one.’

Secondly, I will focus on the –(y)AlI clauses and discuss the contrast exhibited in the following:(3) Ayşe buradan taşın-alı/ #taşın-ma-yalı üç ay oldu.

Ayse here-abl move-(y)AlI/#move-neg-(y)AlI three month be-past‘It’s been three months since Ayse moved from here.’

(4) En yakın arkadaşımı gör-me-yeli /#gör-eli üç ay oldu.most close friend-1sg-acc see-neg-(y)AlI/#see-(y)AlI three months be-past‘It’s been three months since I saw my best friend.’

(5) Güzel bir film seyred-eli /seyret-me-yeli çok zaman oldu.nice a film watch-(y)AlI/watch-neg-(y)AlI many time be-past‘It’s been a long time since I watched a nice film.’

Tests revealing the semantic differences between sentences having –(y)AlI and –mA-yAlI will indicate that when there is a single occurrence of the event, i.e. when the event is ‘unique’, Turkish uses the –(y)AlI clause. Whereas, when there is more than one occurrence of the event or an implication of this kind, the negated structure is used. In other words, the –(y)AlI structure has a uniqueness presupposition, whereas the negated one has a plurality presupposition (Iatridou 2002). The evidence for this claim comes from the appearance of an adverbial like son ‘last’, which is predicted to be infelicitous with the negated form since it would result in making the event description unique. Its appearance in the –(y)AlI form, however, is predicted to result in an acceptable structure:

(6) *Onunla ilk/son (kez) karşılaş-ma-yalı beş yıl oldu. he-with first/last (time) meet-neg-(y)AlI five year be-past

(7) Onunla ilk/son (kez) karşılaş-alı beş yıl oldu.he-with first/last (time) meet-(y)AlI five year be-past‘It’s been five years since I met him for the first/last time.’

Finally, I will discuss the syntactic implications of these within the Minimalist framework and argue that negation in Turkish is a syntactic head functioning as an operator blocking the uniqueness interpretation of the event. The implications of this for the clausal architecture of Turkish will be dealt in detail.

ReferencesChomsky, N. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries, in R. Martin, D. Michaels and J. Uriagereka (eds.) Step by Step,

Cambridge, Mass.: the MIT Press.9

Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by Phase, in M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press, pp. 1-52.

Chomsky, N. 2001b. “Beyond Explanatory Adequacy” and C. Collins. 2001. “Eliminating Labels”, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics Number 20, MITWPL.

Haegeman, L. 1995. The Syntax of Negation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Iatridou, S. 2002. More Perfect Constructions, ms. MIT.Iatridou, S., E. Anagnostopoulou, and R. Izvorski. 2001. Some Observations about the form and meaning

of the Perfect, in M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press.

10

Türkçe dilbilim metinlerinin kurgulanış biçimleri

Canan Ayataİstanbul Üniveristesi

Bilimsel metinleri çözümlemeye yönelik metindilbilimsel çözümlemeler, bu metin türüne ait özellikleri betimleyerek metin üretme sürecine katkıda bulunur. Bilimsel metinleri dilbilimsel açıdan incelemek oldukça önemli olmasına rağmen, Türkçede bu alanda yapılmış az sayıda çalışma vardır (bkz. Ozil (1988), Huber\ Subaşı-Uzun (2000; 2001; 2002), Yarar (2000a; 2000b, 2001), Oktar (2001), Yağcıoğlu (2002), Şenöz-Ayata (2002, 2003), Fidan (2003) ).

Bu çalışmada Türkçedeki dilbilim metinlerini metindilbilime dayanarak çözümlemek amaçlanmaktadır. Türkiye’de son 5 yılda yayınlanan (1998-2003) Dilbilim Araştırmaları dergileri ve çeşitli dilbilim kongre kitaplarındaki 30 dilbilim metninin büyük ölçekli yapıları, özellikle de giriş ve sonuç bölümlerinin biçimsel ve anlamsal yapıları incelenecektir. Metin incelemesinden elde edilen sonuçlar kültürel, sosyal etkenlere bağlı olarak değerlendirilecektir.

Kaynakça

Antos, Gerd/ Brinker, Klaus/ Heinemann, Wolfgang/ Sager, Sven F. (2000) Text-und Gesprächslinguistik: ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung= Linguistics of text and conversation. Band 1. Berlin; New York, de Gruyter.

Brinker, Klaus (1988) Linguistische Textanalyse: Eine Einführung in Grundbegriffe und Methoden. 2. Baskı. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.

Clyne, Michael (1984) “Wissenschaftliche Texte Englisch- und Deutschsprachiger: Textstrukturelle Vergleiche“. In: Studium Linguistik 15, S. 92-95.

Clyne, Michael (1987) “Cultural differences in the organization of academic texts. English and German”. In: Journal of Pragmatics 11(1987), S. 211-247.

Clyne, Michael (1991) “Zu kulturellen Unterschieden in der Produktion und Wahrnehmung englischer und deutscher wissenschaftlicher Texte“. In: Info DaF 18, 4(1991), S. 376-383.

Clyne, Michael/ Kreutz, Heinz (2003) ”Kulturalität der Wissenschaftssprache”. Wierlacher, Alois/ Bogner, Andrea (Derl.) (2003) Handbuch interkulturelle Germanistik içinde. Stuttgart; Weimar, J. B. Metzler, S. 60-68.

Čmejrková, Svĕtla/ Daneš, František (1997) ”Academic writing and cultural identity: The case of Czech academic writing”. Duszak, Anna (Derl.) (1997) Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse içinde. Berlin; New York:de Gruyter, S. 41-61.

Duszak, Anna (1997) ”Analyzing digressivness in Polish academic texts. Duszak, Anna (1997) (Derl.) Culture and Styles of Academic Discourse içinde. Berlin; Newyork; de Gruyter, S. 323-341.

Eßer, Ruth (1997) ‘Etwas ist mir geheim geblieben am deutschen Referat’: Kulturelle Geprägtheit wissenschaftlicher Textproduktion und ihre Konsequenzen für den universitären Unterricht von Deutsch als Fremdsprache. München: Iudicium.

Fairclough, Norman (1989) Language and power. London, LongmanFairclough, Norman (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, Polity Press.Huber, Emel\ Subasi-Uzun, Leyla (2000) Dilbilim Alanında Türkçe Yazılan Bilimsel Metinler Üzerine

Gözlemler”. XIII. Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri, 13-15 Mayıs 1999. Özsoy, A. Sumru/ Erguvanlı-Taylan, Eser (Derl.) (2000) XIII. Dilbilim Kurultay Bildirileri. İstanbul, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınevi, S. 201-215.

Huber, Emel\ Subasi-Uzun, Leyla (2001)“Metin Türü ve Yazma Edimi İlişkişi: Bilimsel Metin Yazma Edimi.” Dilbilim Araştırmaları 2001. İstanbul, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınevi, S. 9-35.

Huber, Emel\ Subası-Uzun, Leyla (2002) Türkçede Bilgi Yapısı ve Bilimsel Metinler. Essen: Blaue Eule.Galtung, Johan (1985) “Struktur, Kultur und interkultureller Stil. Ein vergleichender Essay über

sachsonische, teutonische, gallische und nipponische Wissenschaft“.Wierlacher, Alois (Derl.) (1985) Das Fremde und das Eigene: Prolegomena zu einer interkulturellen

Germanistik içinde. München, Iudicium , S. 151-193.

11

Gnutzmann, Claus (1990) Kontrastive Textlinguistik. Frankfurt am Main; Bern; New York; Paris: Peter Lang.

Kretzenbacher, Heinz L. (2003) ”Wissenschaft als kreatives Milieu”. In: Wierlacher, Alois/ Bogner, Andrea (Derl.) (2003) Handbuch interkulturelle Germanistik içinde. Stuttgart; Weimar: J. B. Metzler, S. 107-115.

Liang, Yong (1991) “Zu soziokulturellen und textstrukturellen Besonderheiten wissenschaftlicher Rezensionen“. Deutsche Sprache 19(1991), s. 289-311.

Mauranen, Anna (1993) Cultural Differences in Academic Rhetoric. A Textlinguistic Study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Oldenburg, Hermann (1992a) “Conculusions und Zusammenfassungen im Vergleich: Empirische Ergebnisse und praktische Perspektiven“. In: Baumann, Klaus-Dieter/ Kalverkämper, Hartwig (Hrsg.): Kontrastive Fachsprachenforschung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, s. 123-134.

Oldenburg, Hermann (1992b) Angewandte Fachtextlinguistik: Conculusions und Zusammenfassungen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

Reuter, Ewald (2003) ”Wissenschaftliches Schreiben im Umbruch. Über einige Folgen der Globalisierung in den Fremdsprachenphilologien. Info DaF 30, 4(2003), S. 323-334.

Sachtleber, Susanne (1993) Die Organisation wissenschaftlicher Texte. Eine kontrastive Analyse. Frankfurt am Main;Berlin;New York;Paris; Wien: de Gruyter.

Swales, John M. (1990) Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, University Press.

Şenöz- Ayata, Canan (2002) “Ein interkultureller Vergleich von Wissenschafts-texten, dargestellt am Beispiel von deutsch- und türkischsprachigen Linguistik- Texten“. Differenzen: Interkulturelle Probleme und Möglichkeiten in Sprache, Literatur und Kultur, 04 - 07 Eylül 2002, Salzburg Üniversitesi (baskıda).

Şenöz-Ayata, Canan (2003) Türkçe ve Almancada Metin Türü Olarak Yazın Eleştirisi. İstanbul, Mavi Bulut.

Şenöz- Ayata, Canan (2003) ”Metindilbilimsel Yöntemle Bilimsel Metin Çözümlemesi”. Dilbilim Dergisi XII. İstanbul Üniversitesi (baskıda)

Trumpp, Eva Cassandra (1998) Fachtextsorten kontrastiv: Englisch-Deutsch-Französisch. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

Oktar, Lütfiye (2001) “Bilimsel Söylem ve Toplumsal Değişim“. Dilbilim ve Uygulamaları 2(2001), S. 71-80.

Oktar, Lütfiye (2002) ”Psikoloji Metinlerinde Konu Sürekliliğinin Konusal Yapı Çözümlemesi: Edimbilimsel Bir Yaklaşım”. Huber, Emel/ Uzun, Leyla (Haz.) Türkçede Bilgi Yapısı ve Bilimsel Metinler. Essen: Blaue Eule.

Yarar, Emine (2000a) “Akademik Söylemde Belirteçlerin Olasılık ve Belirsizlik İşlevleri“. Dilbilim ve Uygulamaları1(2000), S.125-138.

Yarar, Emine (2000b) “Bilimsel Araştırma Makalelerindekiv’Giriş Bölümleri’nin’ Söylem Yapıları“. Ekmekçi, Özden/ Zinzade-Akıncı, Silvia/ Aslan, Nuran/ Bulut, Türkay (Haz.) XIV.

Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri, 27 - 28 Nisan 2000, Adana. Adana: Çukurova Üniversitesi Yayınları, S. 110-122.

Yarar, Emine (2001) “Yazılı Bilimsel Söylemde Koşul Tümcelerinin Anlamsal Türleri, Yapısal Özellikleri ve İletişimsel İşlevleri“. Dilbilim ve Uygulamaları 2(2001), S.123-135.

Yağcıoğlu, Semiramis (2002) ”Sosyoloji Metinlerinde Konu Sürekliliğinin Eşdizimsel Örüntü Açısından İncelenmesi: Edimbilimsel Bir Yaklaşım”. Huber, Emel/ Uzun, Leyla (Haz.) Türkçede Bilgi Yapısı ve Bilimsel Metinler. Essen: Blaue Eule.

Ventola, Eija/ Maurenen, Anna (1996) Academic Writing. Intercultural and Textual Issues. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, Benjamins.

Weinrich, Harald (2001)”Wissenschaftssprache, Sprachkultur und die Einheit der Wissenschaft” Sprache, das heißt Sprachen. Tübingen, Narr, S. 253-268.

12

Sözlü bütünce çalışmaşı : Tekrarlar

Pola AydınerIşık Üniversitesi

Bu konuda çalışmamdaki amaç, doğal ortamda, söylem düzeyinde, söylem anında, söylemin sözdizim düzeninin nasıl olduğunu araştırmak ve de değişik yapıların olup olmadığını bulmaktır. Bu yapılar içinde, örneğin bu çalışmada sunacağım tekrarların sözdizimsel yapılarında değişikliklerin olup olmadığını yani kendi aralarında farklılıklar içerip içermediğini ortaya çıkarmak, tekrarların hangi düzeyde, hangi sözdizimsel yapıları içerdiğini ve de konuşucunun hangi amaçla bu tekrarları yaptığını araştırmak, bu çalışmanın başka bir amacını teşkil ediyor.

Claire Blanche-Benveniste’in Adılsal Yaklaşım (approach pronominal) kuramından faydalandım. Bu kuram kişi adıllarının eylemle olan durumlarını, birbirleriyle olan ilişkileri, düzenler ve tümceyle olan ilişkilerini inceler. Ayrıca, Aixois (Aix-en-Provence/Fransa) grubunun sözlü dil için yaptıkları'şifreleme ve kafesleme' yöntemine de bağlıyım. Şifreleme ve Kafesleme yönteminde 1’den çok sütünlar vardır. Bu sütünlar, dizisel ve dizimsel düzeylerde yapılan tekrarların özelliklerini ortaya çıkarıyor. Tümceleri, soldan sağa doğru tümceleri okumaya başlıyoruz. Bir tümcede yapılan tekrarlar aynı ise eylem tekrar yazılmıyor, aşağıda verilen örnekteki “Özal’dan, Evren’den sonra”ki gibi.

1 2 3 4 5

1 Şeyden sonra2 Seksenden

3 Özal'dan sonra

4 Evren'den sonra canlandı

Ayrıca bu grup Claire Blanche-Benveniste'in kuramını, çalışmalarına uyguluyorlar. Adılsal yöntem sözlü çalışmalarına uygundur.Dört saatlik ses kayıtlarından oluşan bütünce (corpus) veri tabanımı oluşturuyor. Çeşitli yaş ve meslek gruplarına bağlı kişilerle yapılan anketler sonunda bu veri tabamını oluşturdum. Elde ettiğimiz verileri şu şekilde gösteriyoruz.

Söylem anında aynı sözcük bir çok tümcelerde tekrar edilmiştir. Fakat bu sözcük, değişik sözdizimsel yapılar oluşturmuştur.Belirteçler, eylemler, üçüncü kişi çok tekrar ediliyor. Dizisel ve dizimsel eksenler üzerlerinde tekrarlar ortaya çıkmaktadır. Doğal ortamda yapılan tekrarlar, söylem anında konuşucunun sözcükleri unutmasından, dizisel ve dizimsel eksenler üzerinde değişiklik yapmak istemesinden veya söylemini pekiştirme istemesinden kaynaklanıyor.

Kaynakça

Atabay N., Özel S., Çam A. (1981), Türkiye Türkçesinin Sözdizimi, Ankara, Ankara Universitesi, T.D.K.

Blanche-Benveniste C.,(1975), Recherches en vue d'une théorie de la grammairef française:Essais d'application à la syntaxe des pronoms , Paris,champion,1975,Thèse de doctorat,Paris III.Blanche -Benveniste C et Alii (1984), Pronom et syntaxe : Approche pronominale et son application au

français, Paris,Selaf.Blanche-Benveniste C.,(1986), "La syntaxe et le français parlé", in Études de linguistique appliquée,

63, Paris,P.15-22. Blanche-Benveniste C ., (1990), Le français parlé. Études grammaticales,Paris, C.N.R.S. Blanche-Benveniste C.,(1997), Approches de la langue parlée en français, Paris, Ophrys.Gencan, N.T., (1986), Dilbilgisş, İstanbul, TDK yayınları.Groupe Aixois de recherches en syntaxe (1979, 1984), Des grilles pour le français parlé, Recherches sur

le français parlé,2, Üniversité de Provence, Aix-en-Provence.Hatipoğlu., V(1972), Türkçenin Sözdizimi, Ankara, TDK yayınları.

13

Turkic head-internal and head-external relative clauses

Gülşat AygenNorthern Illinois University

I will argue that Turkic Relative Clauses vary in terms of being head-internal or head external. Turkmen, Uzbek, Tuvan and Kazakh are head-external whereas Turkish is head internal. Kazan Tatar is unique in terms of having both structures (1 & 6). Evidence comes from the agreement morphology on the head noun in the former (1 & 2) and on the predicate in Turkish (3). Secondly, filling the gap in Turkish yields to ungrammaticality (4), but not in Tatar (5). In Kazan Tatar, head internal structures are fully finite, which further entails that (6) bears null inflectional material that renders it finite and licenses the nominative case.

The theoretical implication of this analysis is that head internal structures have phi features on the head noun external to the clause that license Genitive case on the subject, not the agreement morphology within the clause.

(1) Tatar - head external RC (Sahan 2002)[sin-en yaz-gan] khat-ınyou-gen write-gan letter-poss2sg‘the letter you wrote’(2) Tuvan[Amur-u ket-ip qal-gan ] waqit-in-]Amur-gen go-conv aux-asp time-agr-acc‘the time Amur went’(3) Turkish[[Sen-in ei yaz-dığ-ın] mektupi](3) *[[Sen-in kitab-ı yaz-dığ-ın] mektup](4) Şinşin [ başka-lar da şun-a kışıl-gan] ängemä başla-dı.Şinşin other -pl too that-dat join-asp story start-past-3sg‘Şinşin began a story to which the others joined as well.’(5) Tatar - head internal RC[Sin yaz -gan] khatyou write -asp letter‘the letter you wrote’

References

Sahan, Fatma. 2002. Nominal Clauses in Kazan Tatar. Ph.D. Dissertation.University of Wisconsin-Madison.

14

Topic and conversation management in same and mixed gender conversations in a Dutch-Turkish bilingual context

*Ad Backus - **Yasemin Bayyurt*Tilburg University – **Boğaziçi University

This paper investigates the ways women and men control the topic of conversation and regulate floor management in a Dutch-Turkish bilingual context. The interactional stategies of the participants are analyzed from a discourse analytic perspective. The data consist of transcripts of four spontaneous bilingual conversations of 45 minutes’ duration between young adults of Turkish descent in The Netherlands: two same gender and two mixed gender conversations. The mixed gender groups do not have the same number of women and men. The conversations are carried out mostly in Turkish. The topics of conversation vary from health, sports, holidays, religion to cultural differences between Dutch and Turkish people. The data analysis is based on a coding manual that incorporates pragmatic functions and conversation analytic features. In the analysis, topic management and interactional style of the four conversations are presented and compared.

Our data reveal that, regardless of the gender make-up of the speech setting, female and male participants use a similar range of pragmatic devices (such as side-sequencing, elaboration, exemplification) and similar interactional strategies to keep, change or manipulate the topic of the conversation. In addition, in all groups, there are one or two individuals who dominate the turn-taking and topic development. In the mixed gender groups where women are numerically dominant, these individuals are women, and in the group where men are numerically dominant these individuals are men.

In the final part of our paper we consider our findings against the wider backdrop of conversation analysis research on language, gender and interaction.

ReferencesBrown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987[78]). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.Kipers, P.S. (1987). "Gender and topic". Language in Society, 16/4: 543-8.Mills, S. (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Pavlenko, A., Blackledge, A., Piller, I. and Teutsch-Dwyer, M. (eds.) (2001). Multilingualism, Second

Language Learning and Gender. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Talbot, M. (1998). Language and Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press.

15

On Turkish controllee

Cem BozşahinMiddle East Technical University

Control is conceived as a local semantic relation between an argument of the matrix clause and the subject of the embedded clause. Controllers and controllees tend to be agents or volitional participants, i.e. they (and the semantics of the control predicate) have certain semantic restriction.Theory of control has been an important component in linguistic theories, e.g. (Chomsky, 1981; Pollard and Sag, 1994; Bach, 1979). The relation is usually formulated from the perspective of the matrix predicate and its controller argument. But, as a recent study shows (Jackendoff and Culicover, 2003), predicting the precise characteristics of the controller requires a much deeper notion of semantics—conceptual structure—than most linguistic theories assume as logical form. That study also concentrates on one language, English, and its cross-linguistic applicability remains to be seen.What we propose is that the relation of control is better understood and cross-linguistically more generalizable if we look at the relation from the perspective of the controllee, not the controller. Moreover, there are languages, such as Basque, Inuit and Tagalog, in which the controlled argument is not the syntactic subject but the logical subject. Hence the traditional conception of control as a relation between an argument of the matrix clause and the syntactic subject of the embedded clause is incomplete.As a local relation, control is captured in the lexicon. Since lexicon is the place where mapping of syntactic arguments to semantic arguments can be determined freely by the lexical item, it is conceivable that some languages choose control of a syntactic argument, and some choose control of a semantic argument. We claim that the controllee argument can only be a subject, but either syntactic subject or semantic subject, and that the choice is parametric in the lexicalized grammar of a language (i.e., in the lexicon). We show that Turkish controls the syntactic subject and not the semantic subject, just like English, German, and Dyirbal; and unlike Tagalog, Basque and Inuit. Thus this property cross-cuts the accusativity-ergativity of surface syntax, in contrast to Manning’s (1996) claim that control always follows accusative patterns so that only agents of transitives and subjects of intransitives can be controlled.

References

Bach, Emmon. 1979. Control in Montague grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 10:515–531.Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht.Jackendoff, Ray and Peter W. Culicover. 2003. The semantic basis of control in English.

Language, 79:517–556.Manning, Christopher D. 1996. Ergativity: Argument structure and grammatical relations.

CSLI, Stanford, CA.Pollard, Carl and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. University

of Chicago Press, Chicago.

16

Generalizing relative constructions — historical and areal aspects.

Christiane Bulut - Heidi SteinMainz University

This paper presents a diachronic survey of different types of generalizing relative constructions which appear in older and recent varieties of Ottoman Turkish and Azeri or Iran-Turkic. The comparative analysis of characteristic developments in the syntax of western and central Oghuz varieties is part of a Turcological research project on ”Turkic varieties in South East Anatolian and West Iranian contact areas, past and present” at Mainz University.1[1] Our data base consists of written sources and dialect texts collected during field work in the area.

Throughout the historical stages of different varieties of the area, we find a variety of syntactical patterns representing the so-called generalizing relative construction. Generalizing or indefinite relative clauses refer to an indefinite head, a sentence-initial interrogative pronoun (kim ‘who’, ne ‘what’, etc.), which may be preceded by her ‘all’ (her kim ‘whosoever’, her ne ‘whatsoever’ etc.), or a dummy, such as ki€i/gi€i ‘person, someone’, adam ‘man, someone’, nefer ‘person, someone’. In most instances, the relative clause is based on a finite verb form. While older varieties under observation display few restrictions with regard to tense or modal marking of this sentence-final verb form, conditional markers dominate in some of the more recent stages, cf. the examples below.

Old Anatolian Turkish

her nese, kim sende andan yoq durur (Sulflân Veled II, V. 20).everything CONJ you:LOCDEM:ABL not exists everything of which you do not own ... her ne kim isidesin eyüden yavuzdan tezcek

hükm etmeyesinwhatever CONJ hear:OPT2SG good:ABL bad:ABL quickly

judge:NEG:OPT2SG whatever you hear of the good or the bad, you shall not judge quickly

(Marzubânnâme: 291)

her qanda dilese?...wherever wish:Cond2Sg Wherever you wish it...

(Marzubânnâme: 328)

Middle Ottoman and Azeri data from the 16th/17th centuries also show much variation regarding the verb of generalizing relative clauses; indicative moods frequently appear. We will discuss differences between the data from Western Ottoman sources, such as Megiser’s collection of proverbs written in Latin script [1612] and “Ajemi Turkic” sources like the Sühedânâme, translated from Persian by Muh. b. Hüseyn Nisâtî from Shiraz in 1538.

Middle Ottoman Turkish

1[1] This project focuses on the linguistic development in the area between the 15th and 17th centuries in order to define the so-called Ajemi Turkic.

17

her neye dôqûnsalar ihrâq derler.(Maflr®qçi Na◊‚Ω: 146)

whatever:DAT touch:COND3PL destroy:AOR3PLWhatever they touch, they destroy it.

... her nesne kim güñlindedür söyler(H. Megiser: 83)

Whatever CONJ heart:POSS3SG:LOC :COP say:AOR3SGHe says whatever he feels.

Middle Azeri/ Ajemi Turkic:

her kimüñ qurbânligi qabûl olsun, Iqlîmiyâ anuñ olawhoever:GEN sacrifice:POSS3SG be accepted:IMP3SG name

he:GEN be:OPT3SGWhose(ever?) sacrifice will be accepted, Iqlîmiyâ will be his.

(Sühedânâme16th c., from: Haciyev & Väliyev 1983: 150/154)

her kimseden ki sorar idi hiç ni€ân vermez idilerwhoever:ABL CONJ ask:AORPRET3SG no sign

give:NEG:AORPRET3SGWhoever he asked, they made no sign to him.

(Sühedânâme16th c., from: Haciyev & Väliyev 1983: 151)

her nesne ki etmelü idi etdi∫iz ve her ne kim göñlüñiz

whatever CONJ do:NECESS:PRET3SG do:PRET2PL andwhatever CONJ heart:POSS2PL

diler idi yerine yetürdü?izwish:AORPRET3SG accomplish:PRET2PL

Whatever was supposed to be done, you did it, and whatever you wished, you accomplished it.

(Sühedânâme 16th c., from: Haciyev & Väliyev 1983: 153)

East Anatolian dialects

Herkim ki olursa bu sıra mazhar dünyaya

bırakır böyük bir esereveryone CONJ become:COND3SG this secret recipient world:DAT

leave:AOR3SG great a traceEveryone who shares this secret will leave an important trace on this world. (A€ık Veysel)

Similar to Old Anatolian Turkish, in modern Iraqi Turkmen and Iran-Turkic dialects the verb of the RC is not necessarily in the conditional:

Hêrkim ki istiri gêtsin yânna,

vurrú ... (Kerkük, Iraq)everyone CONJ want:PR3SG go:IMP3SG aside

strike:PR3SG

18

And he strikes everyone who wanted him to give way.

herkesiy kê €o∫lu varıdu numurtanıdelirlerdiler, (Bayat, Iran)

everyone:GEN CONJ work:POSS3SG did exist egg:ACC make a hole:IMP3PLand they made a hole in the eggs of all those who were busy working

hær ne ki dærs vêrerdi, gererdi yåzaq.(Xalac of Hamadan, Iran)

whatever CONJ teach:IMP3SG necessary:was write:OPT1PLWhatever he taught us, we had to write it down.

References Haciyev, T.I. & Väliyev, K.N. 1983. Azärbaycan dili tarixi. Ocerklär vä materiallar. Baki: Maarif.

Marzubânnâme — Kleinmichel, Sigrid 1970: Untersuchungen zu phonologischen,morphophonologischen und morphologischen Problemen im Marzuban-name. PhD.Diss. Humboldt

University Berlin. Maflr®qçi Na◊‚Ω — Waetzoldt, Irene 1978. Zu den osmanischen Verbformen des 16. Jahrhunderts nach

dem Mecm‚‘-i Men®zil des Maflr®qçi Na◊‚Ω (Islamkundliche Untersuchungen Bd.48) Freiburg: Klaus Schwarz Verlag

Megiser — Stein, Heidi 1984. Eine türkische Sprichwortsammlung des 17. Jahrhunderts. In: ActaOrientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 38/1-2, 55-104. [= the collection of proverbs (lib.III) in: Hieronymus Megiser: Institutionum linguae turcicae libri IV. Leipzig 1612]

Sulflan Veled — Mansuroªlu, Mecdut (ed.)1958: Sultan Veled’in Türkçe Manzumeleri. √stanbul. Pulhan Matbaası.

Johanson, Lars 1990. Subjektlose Sätze im Türkischen. In: Bernt Brendemoen (Hrsg.). Altaica Osloensia. Proceedings from the 32nd Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. 193-218.

Johanson, Lars 1992. Strukturelle Faktoren in türkischen Sprachkontakten. (Sitzungsberichte der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main. Bd. 29, Nr. 5).

Lehmann, Christian 1984. Der Relativsatz: Typologie seiner Strukturen; Theorie seiner Funktionen; Kompendium seiner Grammatik. (Language Universals Series Vol. 3) Tübingen: Narr.

Seiler, H. 1960. Relativsatz, Attribut und Apposition. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

19

Transitivity and preferred clause structure in Turkish spoken discourse

Ayşen Cem Değer - Özge CengizDokuz Eylül University

In the linguistic tradition, it is generally assumed that clauses consisting of a highly transitive verb with at least two lexical arguments are among the most basic types of clauses. However, recent advances in discourse research, which considers linguistic structure as a fluid and shifting system emerging as a response to discourse needs (Hopper, 1998), have demonstrated that in naturally-occurring discourse, clauses of high transitivity are not as dominant as they are thought to be (Du Bois, 1985, Fox, 1995; Tao, 1996; Kärkkäinen, 1995; Matsumoto, 2000; Thompson and Hopper, 2001). The reason for the infrequency of high transitive clauses in natural conversational discourse is claimed to derive from the non-event-centered nature of conversational discourse which mostly takes place in interpersonal and intersubjective discourse. On the other hand, research on the narrative discourse, where sequentially ordered events are found, presents conflicting evidence on the degree of transitivity of the clauses appearing in narration (Du Bois, 1985; Hopper and Thompson, 1980; O’Dowd, 1990; Hopper, 1991).

Drawing on the Transitivity Hypothesis, which takes transitivity as a global property of the clause (Hopper and Thompson, 1980), this paper aims at examining the typical clause structure in spoken Turkish discourse, focusing specifically on conversational discourse and spoken narrative discourse. To this end, it seeks answers to the following questions:

(i) What is the preferred clause structure in Turkish conversational and spoken narrative discourse?

(ii) What is the degree of Transitivity of the clauses emerging in Turkish conversational and spoken narrative discourse?

(iii) Is the degree of Transitivity of clause genre-specific in Turkish?

The database for the study consists of transcriptions of recordings of dyadic daily conversations among friends and of spoken narratives gathered from native Turkish speakers of similar educational background. The clauses in the data are analyzed in terms of the parameters of scalar transitivity proposed by Hopper and Thompson (1980) in order to answer the questions posited above.

References

Du Bois, J.W. (1985) Competing motivations. J. Haiman (ed.) Iconicity in Syntax. 343-365. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Fox, B. (1995) The category ‘S’ in English conversation. In W. Abraham, T. Givon and S. Thompson eds.) Discourse grammar and typology, 153-78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hopper, P. (1998) Emergent Grammar. In M. Tomasello(ed.) The New Psychology of Language. 155-75. Mahvah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hopper, P. (1991) Dispersed verbal predicates in vernacular writing. BLS 17: 402-13.Hopper, P. and S. Thompson (1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 252-99Kärkkäinen, E. (1996) Prefered argument structure and subject role in American English conversational

discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 675-701.Matsumoto, K. (2000). Intonation units, clauses and preferred argument structure in conversational

Japanese. Language Sciences, 22. 63-86.O’Dowd, E. (1990). Discourse pressure, genre and grammatical alignment – after Du Bois. Studies in

Language, 14(2). 365-403.Tao, H. (1996) Units in Mandarin Conversation: Prosody, Discourse and Grammar. Amsterdam /

Philedelphia: John Benjamins.Thompson, S.A. and P. Hopper (2001) Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure:

Evidence from conversation. In J.L. Bybee (ed.) Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Philedelphia, PA, USA: John Benjamins.

20

Pragmatic analysis of discourse particle zaten as a focus element

Demet CorcuAnkara University

Zaten has been classified as a conjunct along with additive and adversative conjuncts by Kerslake (1992); however, she adds that it should not be labeled as a true conjunct. In our study, we suggest that it can be used in two main different functions in Turkish: as an adjunct or a modal particle.

As a modal particle, zaten is employed as a sentence adverb. It may occur in sentence initial (2b), preverbal (2c,d) (the verb phrase with the complements), or sentence final (2e)positions in a simple sentence as well as in a subordinating clause (2f).

(1) a. Ali kitabı okudu b. Zaten Ali o kitabı okudu.c. Ali kitabı zaten okudu.d. Ali zaten kitabı okudu.e. Ali kitabı okudu zaten. f. Ali’ye zaten okuduğu bir kitabı önermişim.

Thus, our analysis involves the syntactic behavior of zaten in simple sentences and in subordinating clauses. Our study also focuses on the distribution of TAM markers with zaten.

In the pragmatic sense, zaten signifies the information package of a sentence as “speaker old- discourse old" (Prince, 1981, 1992; Vallduvi, 1992) as in (2):

(2) A: Sen okudun mu bu kitabı?B: Ben onu zaten okumuştum. /Ben onu okumuştum zaten.

In sentence (2) zaten focuses the element that carries information for the hearer (speaker A). The hearer presupposes that speaker (speaker B) has not read the book. Zaten indicates that the information that the speaker has read the book is new to the hearer but old for the speaker.

In addition to this, zaten cannot occur in an answer to a “wh- question”, which asks for new information in a sentence. Simply because, zaten is not felicitous with new information (3b').

(3) A: Ali neyi okudu?B: Ali kitabı okudu.B': *Zaten Ali kitabı okudu./ Ali*zaten kitabı okudu./ *Ali kitabı okudu zaten.

Information structure of sentences with zaten requires the hearer to presuppose certain piece of information related to a previous discourse. Thus, this study claims that zaten codes information as discourse-old, also.

In conclusion, zaten encodes “speaker old-discourse old” information and it relates the information in sentence with hearer’s presupposition, i.e. the information is contrary to the presupposition of the hearer.

References

Aksan, Y. 2002. Tümce konusu: Tanımı ve kapsamı. In L. Uzun and E. Huber (eds.) Türkçe'de bilgi yapısı ve bilimsel metinler, 13-36. Essen: Die Blaue Eule.

Gundel, J. K. 1985. 'Shared knowledge' and topicality. Journal of pragmatics 9, 83-107.Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in social-semiotic perspective.

New York: Oxford University Press.İşsever, S. 2002. Konu: Tanımlanışı, Bilgi yapısı ve Kimi sorular. In L. Uzun and E. Huber (eds.)

Türkçe'de bilgi yapısı ve bilimsel metinler, 37-54. Essen: Die Blaue Eule.Kerslake, C. 1992. The role of connectives in discourse construction in Turkish. In Modern Studies in

Turkish: Proceedings of the 6th International conference on Turkish linguistics. Eskişehir: 21

Anodolu University Press.Prince, E. 1981. Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In P. Cole (ed.) Radical Pragmatics,

223-225. New York: Academic Press.Prince, E. 1988. Discourse analysis: A part of the study of linguistic competence. In F. J. Newmeyer (ed.)

Linguistics: The Cambrige survey III, 164-182. Cambrige: CUP. Prince, E. 1992. The ZPG Letter. In W. Mann And S. Thompson (eds.) Discourse descriptions, 295-236.

Amsterdam: Benjamins. Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: CUP.Schiffrin, D. 2001. Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and

H. E. Hamilton (eds.) The handbook of discourse analysis. London: Blackwell. Vallduvi, E. 1992. The informational component. New York: Garland Publishing Inc.Vallduvi, E. And E. Engdahl. 1996. The linguistic realization of informational packaging. Linguistics 34,

459-519.Wilson, S. And Saygın, A. P. 2001. Adverbs and Functional Heads in Turkish: Linear Order and Scope.

In WECOL 2001.

22

Turkish concessive clauses and the semantic contribution of the particle dA

Éva Á. CsatóUppsala University

The talk will discuss the syntactic and semantic properties of so-called concessive clauses in Turkish with special emphasis on the semantic contribution made by the particle da. Concessive clauses are taken to be adverbial clauses expressing “a concession against which the proposition of the main clause is contrasted” (Thompson & Longacre 1985: 198). The typology of concessives outlined by Thompson & Longacre (1985) distinguishes between conditional and non-conditional concessives—on syntactic/morphological basis—and between definite and non-definite concessives using the presuppositional and assertional structure as criteria. It will be discussed whether this typology accounts for the main types of Turkish concessives.

Göksel & Özsoy (2003) provide a uniform analysis for some of the functions of the particle da “a clitic generally described as a multi-function particle fulfilling the roles of focalizer, topicalizer, additive and intensifier”. The particle da is applied in concessive clauses either as a predicate-final particle (1, 2) or as a particle attached to one of the sentential constituents (3). The particle’s semantic contribution to the concessive reading will be compared to its role as focus/topic particle.

Some types of structures to be analysed are the following:

(1) Ben Anadolu’ya geçsem de, geçmesem de, Fatma hanım size mutlaka ugrar. (K. Tahir Esir sehrin mahpusu. 1961. Istanbul: Düsün, 5.(2a) Orada olmalıydın da görmeliydin. (M.C. Kuntay Üç Istanbul. 1976: 324; cited by Korkmaz 2003: 752) (2b) Bunu görmeyeydim, kendi ölümümü göreydim de bunu görmeyeydim (Y. Kemal Ince Memed, 1962: 269; cited by Korkmaz 2003: 749).(3) Çok güzel degilsem çirkin de sayılmam. (M. S. Esendal, Veysel Çavus, 1984:58; cited in Korkmaz 2003: 720)(4) Simdi düsünüyorum da, Ayse Ana gelmeseydi, ben bu soruyu sorabilecek miydim sanki? (S. Çokum Agustos basagı. 1989:152, cited by Korkmaz 2003: 747)

References

Göksel, Aslı & Özsoy, Sumru 2003. dA: a focus/topic associated clitic in Turkish. Lingua 113, 1143-1167.

Johanson, Lars 1993. Typen türkischer Kausalsatzverbindungen. Journal of Turkology (Szeged) 2. 213-267.

Johanson, Lars 1996. Kopierte Satzjunktoren im Türkischen. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 49.1, 39-49.

Korkmaz, Zeynep 2003. Türkiye Türkçesi grameri. Sekil bilgisi. Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları 827. Ankara: TDK.

Rudolph, Elisabeth 1996. Contrast. Adversative and concessive relations and their expressions in English, German, Spanish, Portuguese on sentence and text level. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Thompson, Sandra A. & Longacre, Robert E. 1985. Adverbial clauses. In Timothy Shopen (ed.) Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. II. Cambridge, etc: Cambridge University Press, 171-

234.

23

The intonation of WH-question in Cypriot Turkish dialect: Evidence of language contact

Nazmiye ÇelebiHacettepe University

The present paper reports on an instrumental study of intonation of wh- question in Cypriot Turkish. The aim of the study is twofold; first, to provide an empirically informed description of the intonation of wh- question in Cypriot Turkish, within the autosegmental metrical framework of intonational phonology (Pierrehumbert 1980, Beckman & Pierrehumbert 1986, Ladd 1996); second, to show the intonational language contact of Cypriot Greek and Cypriot Turkish dialect, according to Thomason & Kaufman 1988.The recordings were collected over a six month period using a combination of participant observation, interviews, and directed conversational tasks from ten Cypriot Turkish and ten Cypriot Greek in order to compare the intonation of their languages according to language contact. All speakers have been brought up in Nicosia and are in their twenties and thirties. They came from similar socioeconomic backgrounds. The materials consisted of 120 wh- questions – 60 from each language – which are analyzed with Praat software program and confirmed the validity of the initial autosegmental analysis of the Cypriot Turkish long wh-question melody as L*H-L% and the short wh-question end in low-pitched L-L% phrasal accents.

The intonation of Cypriot Turkish differs from those in standard Turkish. Differences are not clearly attributable to language interference (either borrowing or shift-induced language change), they are certainly the result of language contact which has been attributed to the fact that Cypriot Turks have lived with Cypriot Greeks and the British. As a result, this study examines intonational phenomena as a point of contact and potential change which affects the Cypriot Turkish community as a whole.

References

Arvaniti, A. (2001). “The intonation of wh-question in Greek”, Studies in Greek Linguistics 21: 57-68,Thesaloniki.

Grice, M. (1995). The intonation of interrogation in Palermo Italian: implication for intonational theory. Tubingen: Niemeyer.

Nash, R. (1973). Turkish Intonation. An Instrumental Study. The Hauge: Mouton. Pierrehumbert, J. (1980). The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Ph.D. dissertation,

MIT.Queen, R. (1996). Intonation in contact: Evidence from Turkish-German bilinguals. Ph.D. dissertation,

University of Texas at Austin.Ladd, R. (1996). Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Thomason, S. & Kaufman, T. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

24

Çocuklarda kelime akıcılığı yeteneğinin organizasyonu ve ölçülmesi

Müzeyyen ÇiyiltepeGülhane Askeri Tıp Akademisi

Zihinsel yeteneklere ilişkin kuramlardan biri olan çoklu faktörler teorisini geliştiren Thurstone (1938) zekanın temel yapısını oluşturduğunu düşündüğü 7 faktörü ‘Temel Yetenekler’ olarak nitelendirmiştir. İfade ettiği bu faktörlerden biride kelime akıcılığıdır. Kelime akıcılığı faktörü sözel faktörlerden biridir. Burada önemli olan çok sayıda kelimeyi süratle üretmektir. İngilizcenin konuşma dili olarak kullanıldığı ülkelerde kelime akıcılığı yeteneğinin ölçülmesi için geliştirilmiş olan testlerde yine bu dile özgü kullanım sıklığı belirlenmiş olan S,T,P,C ve F,A,S sesler kullanılmaktadır. Bu seslerin Türk diline uygunluğu araştırılmamıştır.

Bu çalışmada 4-12 yaş gurubu normal ve konuşma bozukluğu olan 150 çocuğa Türk Dil Kurumu tarafından yapılan ‘Yazılı Türkçe’nin Kelime Sıklığı’ çalışmasında yer alan 8000-1000 kelime sıklığı olan seslerden oluşan bir kelime akıcılık testi hazırlanıp çocuklara uygulanmıştır.

Belirlenen 12 ses (a, s, t, k, m, ç, y, e, p, i, f, n, l, o, r), her ses için 10 sn ara ile ve her ses için 1 dk süre tutularak uygulanmıştır. Özel isim ve şehir isimleri test dışı kabul edilmiştir.

Bu çalışmada /FAS/ seslerinin Türkçe konuşan çocuklar için uygun olmadığı görülmüştür. /K M/ seslerinin daha yüksek frekansta üretildiği ortaya çıkmıştır. Yaş ve patalojiye göre dağılımı saptanmıştır.

Kaynakça

Göz,İ (2003). Yazılı Türkçenin kelime sıklığı sözlüğü,TDK Yayınları:823Özgüven,İ.E. (1994). Psikolojik testler, PDREM ANK.

25

Türkçe’de devrik dizim ve onarımYüklem ardına konumlama türleri: devrik (tümce), (devrik) onarım, (devrik) açıklama, devrik ileti.

Ömer Demircan

Türkçe bir tümcede “yüklemin sonda bulunduğu” söylenir; oysa o yargı Türkçenin yapısına aykırıdır. Çünkü, öge işlevleri eklerle belirlendiğinden, dizim ya da konumlama bilgi akışına bağlıdır. Buna göre kimi ögeler yüklem ardına da dizilir. Öyle tümcelerin genel adı “devrik tümce”dir. Türkçede “devrik” teriminin anlamı “yüklemden sonra konumlanan” demektir. Bu yerleşik anlamı korumak gerek2. Yazınsal metin incelemelerim sonucu yüklem ardına konumlamanın üç ayrı nedenle yapıldığı ortaya çıkmıştır. Buna göre “devrik” sözcüğü aşağıdaki özelliklerle şöyle kullanılabilir.1. Yeni bilgi taşımayan ögelerin ritim ve algılama nedeniyle yüklem ardına konumlanması: devrik.2. Atlanmış bilginin geri dönüşsüz olarak yüklemden sonra tümceye katılması: devrik onarım .3. Yüklem önündeki bir ögenin yüklemden sonra betimlenmesi: devrik açıklama .

Bilgileme açısından sözel akış ya yüklemi sonda ya da yüklemi sonda olmayan dizilişlerdir. İster yüklemi sonda isterse arada olsun, tümceler ya onarımsız ya da onarımlı olur. Onarımsız tümcelerden bir ögesi yüklem ardında olanlar “devrik”, yüklemden sonra açıklama içerenlerse öge açıklamalı tümceler olarak ayrılmalıdır. Bu yapılmazsa, Türkçede “devrik” tümce anlaşılamaz. Kısacası devrik tümce, yüklem ardına: devrik, (devrik) onarım, (devrik) öge açıklama gibi üç konumlama türünden yalnızca biridir. Bu özellikler 265 sayfa tutan biri felsefe, biri anlatı, üçüncüsü bir tiyatro metninde incelenerek sonuca bağlanmıştır.

Yüklem öncesi derinliği azaltarak algılamayı kolaylaştıran bu Türkçe anlatım zenginliği şöyle bir çizimsel ilişkiyle gösterilebilir.

Devrik türleri

Yüklemsiz Yüklemli Devrik) ileti

Onarımsız Onarımlı 2. (Devrik) onarım

1. Devrik 3. (Devrik) açıklama

Onarım

Yüklem önünde Yüklem ardında (devrik)

Bilgisel Ezgisel

Doğal Bozuk (anlamlanabilir)

1945’ten bu yana öğretimden ve düz-anlamlı metinlerde kullanılması türkologlarca yasaklanan devrik tümcenin ne zengin anlatım olanakları sunduğu anlaşılmadan sözdiziminin öteki özelliklerinin doğru çözümlenemiyeceği ileri sürülebilir. “Devrik” ayrımı yapılmaksızın öteki devrik türler bir yana, “bozuk ama ezgi-dışı anlamlanabilir” bir onarım bile açıklanamaz.

KaynakçaAksal, Sabahattin Kudret (1965) "Kahvede Şenlik Var". Oyunlar, YKY, 1998, s. 401-475= 75..Anday, Melih Cevdet ( 1967)" Mikado'nun Çöpleri". Ölümsüzler: Toplu Oyunlar 1, Adam y. 1996, s.177-

250= 74.Cevdet Kudret (1966): Dilleri Var Bizim Dile Benzemez, Bilgi y 1986.

(1960) “Devrik Cümle Üzerine”, Cevdet Kudret, 1986: 196-217).Demircan, Ömer (2001) Türkçenin Ezgisi, YTÜ- Vakfı y. Erguvanlı-Taylan, Eser (1984) The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar, Univ. Calif. Press.Eyüboğlu, Sabahattin (1973): Mavi ve Kara, Çan y. / (1974): Sanat Üzerine Denemeler, Cem y.

(1954): “Dil Üstüne”, Eyüboğlu ,1973, s.105-108. (1956): “Yazı Dilimiz Üstüne”, Eyüboğlu, 1974, s. 74-78.

2 Bu terim İngilizce “inversion” karşılığı değildir. Onu “post-predicate” terimi ile çevirmek doğru olur. 26

(1957) “Yine Devrik Cümle”, Eyüboğlu, 1974, s. 79-83.Göksel, Aslı; A. Sumru Özsoy (2003): “dA : a focus / topic associated clitic in Turkish”, Lingua, 113

(2003) 1143-1167.Uygur, Nermi (1999), Dipten Gelen, YKY, 1999, s.47-110=63s.Yücel, Tahsin (1992) Peygamberin Son Beş Günü, Can y. 14-131=117s.İşsever, Selçuk (2003): Information Structure in Turkish: the word-order-prosody interface, Lingua, 113

(2003) 1025-1053.

27

A Turkish template

Ann DenwoodBoğaziçi University & London University

Two asymmetries between “stems” and “suffixes” are explained as manifestations of different constraints and conditions on the interpretation of a four-position template [ONON], which yields the canonical CVC type for stems and suffixes.

1.a. “Mono-templatic” stems may have a final long vowel, e.g. dağ [da:] mountain.

b. Suffixes may not have a final long vowel, e.g. -da *-da: (locative).

2.a. Final k of “mono-templatic” stems generally does not alternate with zero, e.g. ek ~ eki suffix + (acc).

b. Final k of suffixes generally alternates with zero, e.g. durak ~ durağı [duraı] stop + (acc).

A comparison is made with Khalkha Mongolian where non-final short vowels alternate with zero, e.g. dzurak ~ dzurgaa drawing + (poss) instead of word-final k.

This paper presents a Government Phonology (GP) analysis of consonant-zero alternation. GP is a “Principles and Parameters” theoretical framework, in which segments are attached to an existing structure subject to universal principles. Empty structural positions are a logical consequence of such an approach. If the conditions of the Phonological Empty Category Principle are satisfied, then an empty position may remain silent; if not, then it must be phonetically interpreted. In Turkish an empty nucleus is interpreted as ı, whilst a final empty onset is interpreted as k.

References

Kaye,J. Lowenstamm, J. & Vergneaud, J-R. (1990) Constituent Structure and Government Phonology Phonology 7-2:179-231

Charette, M. (1991) Conditions on Phonological Government Cambridge University Press

Sezer, E. (1981) The k/Ø Alternation in Turkish in G.Clements (ed) Harvard Studies in Phonology Vol. II (Indiana Linguistics Club) 354-382

28

Phoneme acquisition in Turkish: Are there language-specific differences?

Pınar EgeHacettepe University

The age at which a phoneme is acquired shows differences among children speaking the language. However, if large groups of children speaking the language are taken into consideration, a general age of acquisition can be calculated for each phoneme and the order of acquisition of the phonemes can safely be determined. This information is crucial for educational and remedial purposes. Unless we know the exact range of acquisition for each phoneme and the order of acquisition of the phonemes in the language, it would be difficult to determine whether a childs phonological development is normal or delayed and also to plan therapy/remediation.

The data for this study were collected from close to 3000 Turkish children between the ages of 2 and 12 via the administration of the Ankara Articulation Test (AAT), a picture-naming standardized test for Turkish, currently in press. The results revealed the ages of acquisition for each consonant in Turkish as well as their order of acquisition. These results will also be compared with similar results from other languages to point out the similarities and differences. Speculation will be made about the possible reasons for these differences.

References

Ege, P., Acarlar, F., and Turan, F. (in press). Ankara Articulation Test. Ankara Üniversitesi.Gierut, J.A. (1996). Categorization and feature specification in phonological acquisition. Journal of Child

Language, 32 (2), 397-415.Menn, L. and Stoel-Gammon, C. (1995). Phonological Development. The Handbook of Child Language.

Massachusets: Blackwell.Stoel-Gammon, C. and Dunn, C. (1985). Normal and Disordered Phonology in Children. Austin, Tx: Pro-

Ed.Yavaş, M. (1998). Phonology: Development and Disorders. San Diego: SingularPubl.

29

Non-specificity, non-reference, incorporation, genericity and Turkish grammar

Marcel ErdalFrankfurt University

While philosophers and semanticists since the late 1960s established the base for dealing with non-referring and non-specific NPs (most recently Von Heusinger 2002), linguists showed that Turkish has much more systematic means for expressing the categories of reference and specificity overtly than other languages considered by scholars. Although the terms mentioned in the title of this paper refer to discourse phenomena, most work published on these matters in Turkish (with the notable exception of Schroeder) adopted a context-free approach; actual language is much richer in means an contexts than even linguists who are competent speakers can imagine. We will try to show that non of these four terms can be collapsed, as variously suggested in the literature (most recently by Johanson, to appear), although the phenomena represented by the first three tend to co-occur; genericity is not connected with this topic, as it is not a quality of NPs but of sentences and their link with propositions on the world: NPs in non-generic sentences never refer to classes of entities as defined by lexemes. Syntactic incorporation of NPs, matter of phonetic juncture, should not be confused with the use of NPs within idioms, a lexical phenomenon. We will, finally, try to fill the documentation gap concerning non-referential subjects of transitive verbs (as the now famous ‘Teyzemi arı soktu’). The purpose of the present paper is to give a streamlined account of the non-referring use of NPs in Turkish.

References

Johanson, L. ‘Two approaches to specificity’ (accepted for publication.)Schroeder, C. The Turkish Nominal Phrase in Spoken Discourse. Wiesbaden 1999.Von Heusinger, K. ‘Cross-linguistic implementation of specificity. K.M. Jaszczolt & K. Turner (eds.),

Meaning through language contrast, Dordrecht 2002, pp. 405-421.

30

Interpersonal dimension of humor in everyday conversation

Bilgen ErdemBoğaziçi University

Function-based linguistic studies of spontaneous humor are very recent developments. There are several studies investigating interpersonal aspects of conversational humor; such as functions of humor in the work place (Holmes, 2000), the relation between gender and humor (Crawford,2003, Hay, 2000) and various aspects of conversational joking (Norrick, 1993, 2003). Assuming that participants construct and reflect identities and relationships during the conversation activity, humor is one of the strategies in this process of presenting and protecting face (Goffman, 1967), and it effects the dynamics in the conversation; turn-taking processes, participation, reactions, shifts in topic. However, functions of spontaneous humor in everyday conversation have not been invesatigated in Turkish linguistics yet. This study aims to analyze interpersonal functions of humor in everyday communication practices of Turkish friendship groups. Based on the natural conversations among friendship groups, this study presents the analysis of interpersonal consequences of humor in conversation in Interactional Sociolinguistics framework. The main concerns of the study are;

a. How humor is used to reflect participant identitiesb. How it effects the ongoing conversation and participation.

Analyses of these topics will be presented and discussed in this study, referring to the instances of humor in naturally occurring conversations among Turkish friendship groups.In this study, the sample subject group consists of 8 middle class Turkish adults at the age of 20-30. There are three groups including 2-3 individuals; all-female group, all-male group and mixed group. Naturally occurring everyday conversations in these groups will be recorded and transcribed. The conversations of each group will last 2-3 hours, total amount of talk will be approximately 10 hours. In addition to the recordings, participant observation will also be used for the analysis.

References

Attardo, Salvatore, 1994. Linguistic theories of humor. Mourton de Gruyter, Berlin.Crawford, Mary, 2003. Gender and Humor in social Context. Journal of Pragmatics 35Goffman, Erving. 1967, On face work. In E. Goffman (Ed.), Interaction Ritual New York : Anchor

BooksHay, Jennifer, 2000. Functions of Humor in the Conversations of Men and Women. Journal of

Pragmatics: 32Holmes, Janet, 2000. Politeness, power and provocation: how humor functions in the workplace.

Discourse Studies 2Norrick, Neal R., 1993. Conversational Joking: Humor in Everyday Talk. Indiana University

Press, BloomingtonNorrick, Neal, R., 2003. Issues in Conversational Joking. Journal of Pragmatics: 35

31

Grammatical cases and thematic roles in Turkish: Historical account

Mevlüt ErdemKahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University

Verbs and their arguments which are marked with morphological case play a central role in syntax. The arguments marked with cases encode different thematic/semantic roles. The relationship among verbs, arguments (especially subjects and objects) and thematic roles has been studied extensively in the literature of linguistics and Turkish linguistics by Mailing (2001), Harris (1995), Blake (1994), Van Valin (1999), Kornfilt (1984, 1991) and Sezer (1991). The present paper scrutinizes the links between grammatical cases and thematic roles in Turkish by examining some examples coming (especially in prose) from the periods of Turkish and it will be claimed that the same thematic role can be marked with dative or accusative case in Turkish. The researches confirm that ‘dative is, of course, not only the prototypical case on indirect objects, but cross-linguistically the case most likely to occur on the goal-like objects ... (Maling 2001:427). ’In the following examples, unexpectedly the argument (atï and anı) of the verbs are marked with the accusative case. 1. a) Ekīnti işbara yamtar boz atï binip tägdi. (Tekin,

1968:235)secondly Isbara Yamtar gray horse-ACC mount-CONJ

attack-PAST‘Secondly, he mounted Isbara Yamtar’s gray horse and attacked.’ (Tekin, 1968:269)

b) … anı söktiler. (Arat, 1979:40)he-ACC curse-PAST-PL‘(They) cursed him.’

However, the next examples illustrate that the arguments of the same verbs above in this time are marked with the different grammatical case even bearing the same thematic role.2. a) Bir gün ata binüb … (Tezcan & Boeschoten, 2001:182)

one day horse-DAT mount-CONJ‘One day mounting a horse...’

b) Rākīb-e sög-me-gil …. (Canpolat, 1995: 79)rival-DAT curse-NEG-IMP‘Don’t curse at a rival’

The examples above and other examples provided from different periods of Turkish point out that the same thematic role can be marked with accusative case or dative case. Although this morphological marking is seen even in the same period, the direction of the transition is from accusative to dative.

References

Blake, B. J. (1994) Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, C. H. (1995) Historical syntax in cross –linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. Kornfilt, J. (1984). Case marking, agreement and empty categories in Turkish. PhD Dissertation, Harvard

University.Kornfilt, J. (1991). A Case for Emerging Functional Categories. In: Susan D. Rothstein (ed.), Syntax and

Semantic Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing, Vol. 25, San Diego, New York, Boston, London, Sydney, Tokyo and Toronto: Academic Press. pp.11-35.

Mailing, J. (2001) Dative: The heterogeneity of the mapping among morphological case, grammatical functions and thematic roles. Lingua 111, 419-464.

Sezer, E. (1991). Issues in Turkish Syntax. PhD Dissertation, Harvard University.Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (1999) Generalized semantic roles and the syntax-semantics interface. In: F. Corblin, C. Dobrovie-Sorin & J.-M. Marandin (eds.), Empirical issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics 2,

373-389. The Hague: Thesus, 1999. 32

Türkçe araştırma yazılarında yazar kimliği: Bilginin üreticisi olarak yazar

Özden FidanDokuz Eylül Üniversitesi

Bilimsel yazma edimi de diğer tüm iletişim biçimlerinde olduğu gibi bir kimlik eylemi olarak kabul edilmektedir (Ivanic, 1998: 23-24, Tang ve John, 1999: 26). Bilimsel söylem, her ne kadar öznel tutumlardan arındırılmış kabul edilse de Bazerman’ın (1985) da belirttiği gibi öznel tutumdan uzaklaşma beraberinde nesnel ve yansız tutuma yaklaşmayı getirir ve sonunda yine belli bir tutum sergilenmiş olur. Bilimsel söylemin öngördüğü nesnel tutum, bilim insanları aracılığıyla bilimsel metinlere taşınır.

Bilimsel söylemde metin üreticisi bilim insanı aynı zamanda bilginin de üreticisidir. Üretilen bilgi, bilimsel metin aracılığıyla söylem topluluğuyla paylaşılır, bu paylaşım bilimsel metne etkileşimsel nitelik yükler. Bilimsel metnin etkileşimsel niteliği, bilgi üreticisi yazara topluluk içinde bir yer açar. Böylece bir birey olarak bilim insanının bilgi paylaşımı yoluyla kendine topluluk içinde bir yer açma edimi, bilimsel metni salt bir bilgi taşıyıcısı olma rolünden çıkararak, bir kimlik taşıyıcısı durumuna getirir.

Ivanić (1998), yazma ediminde etkileşimsel nitelik taşıyan üç kimlik görünüşü (özyaşam kimliği (biografical identity), söylem kimliği (discoursal self), yazar kimliği (authorial self)) belirlemekte ve bilimsel metin aracılığıyla kurgulanan kimlik görünüşlerinin birinci kişi kullanımlarına hiç yer vermemek ve bilişsel eylemlerle birlikte yoğun olarak birinci kişi kullanımlarına yer vermek arasında aşamalı bir süreç içinde yapılandıklarını belirtmektedir. Ivanić’in belirlemesinden hareketle bu çalışmanın amacı, Dilbilim alanında yazılmış Türkçe araştırma yazılarında yazar kimliğinin ne türden dilsel kodlamarla temsillendiğini ortaya koymaktır.

Bu amaç doğrultusunda, Türkiye’de 1990 yılından beri yayınlanmakta olan Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi’nde 1990-2001 yılları arasında yayımlanmış 28 araştırma yazısı,

1. Bilşisel eylemlerin kullanımı 2. Kiplik kullanımları

a. öznelb. nesnel

3. Bilişsel eylem ve kiplik kullanımlarının birinci kişi gösterimleriyle bir arada kullanılma sıklıkları ve nitelikleri açısından incelenmektedir.

Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisinde yayımlanmış, Türkçe araştırma yazılarında ‘bilginin üreticisi’ işlevli yazar kimliğinin metin yüzey yapısında kişi gösterimleriyle birlikte bilişsel eylemler ve kiplik kullanımlarıyla da kodlandığı savının doğrulanması beklenmektedir.

Kaynakça

Bazerman, C. (1988) Shaping Written Knowledge. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.Hyland, K. (2002) Authority and invisibility: pronouns of authorial identity in academic writing,

Journal of Pragmatics. (34), 8, s. 1091-1112.Ivanic, R., (1998) Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing.

Amsterdam: Benjamins.Tang, R., S. John. (1999) The ‘I’ Identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing

through first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18, s. 23-39.

33

The development of discourse markers in Turkish narratives

*Reyhan Furman - **Aslı Özyürek*Boğaziçi University - **Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics & Koç University

Discourse markers (DM) are linguistic elements that signal different relations between units of talk (Schiffrin, 1987). This study examined the development of three DMs (şey, yani, işte) in Turkish narratives. These particular markers were selected because of their interactional nature (Özbek, 2000). Participants were 60 Turkish children (3-year-olds, 5-year-olds and 9-year-olds) and 20 Turkish adults. Participants watched 10 short animated video clips of motion events (i.e. triangle man hits tomato man and rolls him down a hill) and narrated them to a naïve listener. The narratives were coded for the frequency of the DMs used. The use of DMs changed with age. 3-year-olds and 5-year-olds used şey most frequently, followed by yani. 9-year-olds and adults used all DMs frequently. The age differences in the use of DMs show that some DMs are harder to acquire as a consequence of their functions in the discourse. Şey functions both as an ideational and a boundary marker and is acquired the earliest. Yani and işte are also ideational markers but they are more 'listener-oriented' than şey. They assess the knowledge state of the listener and consequently are used by older children and adults. Taken together, the use of DMs show that Turkish children can reflect on others' and their own knowledge from a very early age.

Results will be discussed in relation to the findings of Kyratzis and Ervin-Tripp (1999) who reported that boundary and ideational markers develop at age 7 in American children.

Rerferences

Kyratzis, A., & Ervin-Tripp, S. (1999). The development of discourse markers in peer interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1321-1338.

Özbek, N. (2000). Yani, işte, şey, ya: Interactional markers of Turkish. In Göksel A., & Kerslake, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Harrosowitz: Wiesbaden.

Pak, M., Sprott, R., Escelera, E. (1996). Little words, big deal: The development of discourse and syntax in child language. In Slobin, D.I. (ed.), Social interaction, social context and language: Essays in honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ.

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

34

Morpho-syntactic manifestations of specific language impairment in Turkish:A case study

Ayşe GürelBoğaziçi University

Specific Language Impairment (SLI) has been studied extensively over the last several years. It is generally defined as a developmental language deficit that selectively impairs language ability in the absence of neurological or cognitive disorders (Wyke, 1978). Previous cross-linguistic studies revealed some common linguistic characteristics in SLI. Severe limitations in inflectional morphology have been observed and this is attributed to various sources such as the lack of phonological saliency of morphological inflections (Leonard, 1989), impairment in abstract rule construction (Gopnik, et al., 1996), and the extended use of infinitives (Rice & Wexler, 1996).

In this study, I investigate morpho-syntactic manifestations of SLI in a Turkish-speaking child in order to provide empirical data from a highly-inflected language.

The child was selected on the basis of clinical reports of neuropsychologists at Istanbul University, School of Medicine. The child was seen at two ages: 14 and 18 in order to observe the developmental pattern of the deficit. For data collection, an adapted version of the Genetic Linguistic Profile Battery (Gopnik, 1995) was used. 15 normally developing children aged between 9-14 as well as 3 children under the age of 4 were tested as the control group.

Results suggest that the SLI child has problems in verbal and nominal domains. Besides the omission errors in tense, agreement and case inflections, he appears to use a ‘default’ suffix. For example, the present progressive suffix is used in lieu of other tense/aspect markers. The data collected at the age of 18 demonstrate a relative improvement. Nevertheless, the child is still behind the aged matched control group.

Findings suggest that SLI can be characterized as a deficit in the underlying grammatical competence affecting grammatical tense, agreement and case features.

References

Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. Praeger: New York. Gopnik, M. (1990). Feature blindness: A case study. Language Acquisition 1, 139-164.Gopnik, M. (1995). Genetic linguistic profile battery (GLIP). Adapted from Paradis (1987). Bilingual

aphasia test. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Gopnik, M., Dalalakis, J., Fukuda, S. E., Fukuda, S., & Kehayia, E. (1996). Genetic language

impairment: unruly grammars. Proceedings of the British Academy, 88, 223-249. Leonard, L. B. (1989). Language learnability and specific language impairment in children. Applied

Psycholinguistics, 10, 179-202. Rice, M. L., & & Wexler, K. (1996). Toward tense as a clinical marker of specific language impairment

in English-speaking children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 1239-1257. Wyke, M. (1978). (Ed. ), Developmental dysphasia. London/New York: Academic Press.

35

The semantics of artık vs. hala as ‘change of state’ adverbs in Turkish

Mine GüvenBoğaziçi University

This paper discusses the interaction of hâlâ and artık with individual-level vs. stage-level statives and perfect of result (cf. Aksu-Koç (1988) and Smith (1997)). Hâlâ (i) asserts that the state continues at the point of orientation (PO), as in (1c-d), (ii) presupposes that it has continued some time until PO, and (iii) implies a potential change of state posterior to PO (cf. the ungrammaticality of hâlâ with resultant states and individual-level statives which preempt a change of state in (1a-b)). In contrast, artık (i) asserts that a change of state has occurred (cf. (1a-c)), (ii) presupposes that the resultant state differs from the source state, and (iii) implies the impossibility of change, as illustrated by the acceptability of (1a-b).(1) a. Kapı *hâlâ/artık aç-ıl-mış.

door *still/now open-PASS-PERF‘The door has *still/now been opened.’

b. Eda *hâlâ/artık uzunboylu.Eda *still/now tall‘Eda is *still/now tall.’

c. Kapı hâlâ açık./artık açık ama ??yakında kapa-n-acak.door still open/now open now soon close-PASS-FUT‘The door is still open./The door is open now but ??will soon be closed.’

d. Kapı hâlâ aç-ıl-ma-mış ama yakında aç-ıl-acak.door still open-PASS-NEG-PERF but soon open-PASS-FUT‘The door still has not been opened but will soon be opened.’

d’. Kapı *artık aç-ıl-ma-mış.door *now open-PASS-NEG-PERF‘*The door has not been opened anymore.’

In conclusion, while hâlâ implies a potential change of state in the on-going state of affairs, artık asserts that a change of state has occurred, yielding a resultant state which is expected not to change onwards from PO.

References

Aksu-Koç, A. 1988. The Acquisition of Aspect and Modality: The Case of Past Reference in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. 2001. On the relation between temporal/aspectual adverbs and the verb form in Turkish. In E. Erguvanlı-Taylan (ed.) The Verb in Turkish, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 97-128.

Hoepelman, J. & C. Rohrer. 1981. Remarks on noch and schon in German. In P. Tedeschi & A. Zaenen (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 14:Tense and Aspect. New York: Academic Press. 103-126.

Klein, W. 1992. The Present Perfect Puzzle. Language 68: 525-552.Klein, W., Y. Li & J. Hendricks. 2000. Aspect and Assertion in Mandarin Chinese. Natural Language

and Linguistic Theory 18, 723-770.Michaelis, L.A. 1996. Cross-World Continuity and the Polysemy of Adverbial still. In G. Fauconnier & E. Sweetser (eds.) Spaces, Worlds and Grammar. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. 179-226.Morrissey, M. D. 1972. The English perfective and ‘still’/’anymore.’ Journal of Linguistics 9, 65-69.Smith, C. 1997. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

36

Control in Turkish non-finite complements

*Geoffrey Haig - **Szymon Slodowicz*Universitaet Kiel - **Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft Typologie und

Universialenforschung.

Many languages possess a class of verbs which permit a complement clause of some description (so calledCTP’s, following Noonan (1985)), such as the following English examples:

(1) PERSUADE She persuaded us [to lock the door].(2) PROMISE She promised us [to lock the door].

In each example, the complement clause [to lock the door] contains no overt indication of the reference of its subject, yet there is no variation in native speakers’ construal of such clauses. Theories disagree as to what governs the interpretation of the subject referent. Recent configurational approaches developed within the Minimalist framework claim that control can be accounted for via the movement analysis, cf. Hornstein (1999) and Manzini and Roussoun (2000). Other approches (Dowty (1985), Jackendoff and Culicover (2003) ) maintain that it is the inherent lexical specification of the matrix verbs that determine the coreferential relations between the matrix and embedded clause. However, a complete picture of control requires reference to syntactic, semantic and contextual cues, especially if crosslinguistic validity is required (cf. Comrie (1985) Panther (1994)).

The paper deals with control in infinitival complements in Turkish. Perhaps the most striking feature of Turkish in this respect is the scarcity of CTP’s taking fully non-finite complements (i.e. lacking any overt agreement). Previous research has focused on more general issues of complementation, rather than control ( e.g. Csato 1990, Yoon 1991, Erguvanlı 1984, Kural 1998). We will investigate four verbs which can be considered to take genuinely non-finite complements, and exhibit some of the behavioral properties generally typical of control verbs cross-linguistically: istemek 'want'; bilmek 'know (how to)'; ikna etmek 'convince'; zorlamak 'compel, force'. In particular, we focus on the following five issues:

(i) What kinds of referential dependencies between the matrix and embedded clause can be observed(Subject- Object, Split- or Implicit Control)? (ii) To what extent can the syntax of these verbs be interpreted as raising or control? (iii) To what extent do the verbs concerned permit collective complements (e.g reciprocals in Turkish) and hence exhibit partial control (cf. Landau 2000)? (iv) How do voice alternations on the matrix verbs interact with the syntax of the complement ( iste- vs. istenil-)? (v) To what extent do semantic features of the nominal arguments, and pragmatic factors (speakers’ empathy, pragmatic implicatures) determine strategies of construal?

References

Comrie, B. 1985. Reflections on Subject and Object control. In Journal of Semantics 4: 47-65.Csató, É-Á. 1990. Non-finite verbal constructions in Turkish. In: Bernt Brendemoen (ed.) Altaica

Osloensia.Proceedings from the 32. Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference. Oslo

Universitetforlaget, 75-88.Dowty, D. 1985 On recent analyses of the semantics of control. In Linguistics and Philosophy 8: 290-331.Erguvanlı Taylan, E. 1984 The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Berkeley: UC.Hornstein, N. 1999. Movement and control. In Linguistic Inquiry 30: 69-96.Jackendoff R. and Culicover P.W. 2003. The semantic basis of control in English. In Language 79: 517-

556Kural, M. 1998. Subordinate Infls and Comp in Turkish. In: Johanson, L. et al. (eds.) The Mainz Meeting.

Proceedings of the Seventh ICTL. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 404-421.Landau. I. 2000. Elements of Control. Dordrecht. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

37

Manzini R.M. and Roussou A. 2000. A minimalist theory of A-movement and control. In Lingua 110: 409-445.

Noonan, M. Complementation. In: Timothy Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and syntactic Description Vol II. Cambridge. CUP, 42-140.

Panther, K.U. 1994. Kontrollphänomene im Englischen und Deutschen. Tübingen. Gunter Narr Verlag.Yoon, H.J. 1991. Functional Categories and Complementation in English, Korean and Turkish . PhD

Thes. University of Winconsin Madison.

38

Focus projection in Turkish

Selçuk İşseverAnkara University

Cross-linguistic investigation has revealed that there are certain syntactic and prosodic constraints on focus projection (Selkirk, 1984, 1995; Zubizarreta, 1998; Godjevac, 2000). One of the syntactic constraints is related to the fact that focus projection is possible only in canonical ordering, i.e. it is sensitive to word order type (c.f. (1)-(2) below). Other examples of syntactic constraints can be stated as follows: (i) arguments can project focus, but adjuncts cannot, (ii) internal arguments can project their focus features while external arguments cannot (c.f. (1)a-(2) below), (iii) only those items left-adjacent to the verb can project focus, (iv) the semantic type of the verb is effective on focus projection; for example, unaccusative and unergative verbs differ from transitive ones in that they can have focused subjects, which can percolate their [+F], i.e. focus, features to the sentence level yielding a sentence-focus structure (c.f. (2), (4)b and (5)b below).

(Following examples are supposed to be uttered out-of-the-blue or as answers to questions such as “What happened?” or “Do you have any news?”. These are the contexts which are generally believed to create sentence-focus structures via focus projection.)(i) Argument/Adjunct Distinction:

(1) a. [F Ali [F yarın [F [F ANKARA’YA] gidecek]]]. (argument focus (internal argument)) b. [*F Ali [*F Ankara’ya [*F [F YARIN] gidecek]]]. (adjunct focus)

(ii) Internal/External Argument Distinction: (2) [*F Yarın [*F Ankara’ya [*F [F ALI] gidecek]]].(external argument focus)

(iii) Verb Adjacency: (3) a. [F Ali [F kitabı [F [F MASAYA] koydu]]].

b. [*F Ali [*F [*F [F KITABI] masaya] koydu]. c. [*F [*F [*F [F ALI] kitabı] masaya] koydu].

(iv) Semantic Type of the Verb: (4) a. [*F Cam [F KIRILDI]]. (unaccusative)

b. [F [F CAM] kırıldı] (5) a. [*F Çocuk [F AĞLIYOR]]. (unergative)

b. [F [F ÇOCUK] ağlıyor].

With respect to prosodic constraints on focus projection, on the other hand, we see that the focus feature of an item can only project in the case of neutral intonation, which places the nuclear stress (NS) on the item in the immediately preverbal position in Turkish, as seen in the examples above. The data presented above imply that the Turkish version of the Nuclear Stress Rule (NSR) is constituent-driven NSR (C-NSR) type as opposed to selection-driven NSR (S-NSR), as investigated in Zubizarreta (1998) for Germanic and Romance languages. C-NSR requires that the item focused must be the lower one in the asymmetric c-commanding order. At this stage of our study, it seems that Turkish data lend support to C-NSR analysis. Thus, one of the aims of this study is to investigate the Turkish version of NSR and its interaction with focus interpretation and focus projection.

On the other hand, there is also a strict relation between presentational focusing and neutral intonation, the latter being the prerequisite for the former. Kural (1992), though with no reference to NSR and focus projection, studies on the data which largely consist of presentational foci, and concludes that focusing includes asymmetric c-command in neutral intonation patterns in Turkish. His data also include cases in which presentational focus cannot project its [+F] feature to the sentence level. What we can derive from this is that presentational focusing and focus projection cannot be regarded as the same, although they share some properties such as asymmetric c-command. The latter entails the former but not vice versa. A constituent can be presentationally focused without requiring its [+F] feature to percolate. For example, as seen in (1)b, while an adjunct can be presentationally focused, it cannot project its [+F] feature. Hence, we also need to investigate the other factors that pose constraints on focus projection such as those exemplified by the help of the above data.

39

To conclude, this study aims at reaching the properties of focus projection in Turkish. In particular, it aims to draw conclusions on the nature of the relation between Turkish NSR and focus interpretation, and syntactic constraints on focus projection in Turkish.

References

GUSSENHOVEN, C. (1984), On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents, Dordrecht: Foris. _____ (1999), “On the Limits of Focus Projection in English”, In P. Bosch and R. van der Sandt (eds.),

Focus in Natural Language Processing, Cambridge: CUP.HEYCOCK, C. (1994), “Focus Projection in Japanese”, Proceedings of NELS 24.KOMAGATA, N. (2001), “Focus Projection and Information Structure”, ms., University of Pennsylvania. KURAL, M. (1992), “Properties of Scrambling in Turkish”, ms., ver.1, UCLA. SELKIRK, E. (1984), Phonology and Syntax: the relation between sound and structure Cambridge, Mass:

MIT Press._____ (1995), “Sentence Prosody: intonation, stress, and phrasing”, In J. Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook

of Phonological Theory, Oxford: Blackwell. VALLDUVÍ, E. (1992), The Informational Component, New York: Garland.

ZUBIZARRETA, M. L. (1998), Prosody, Focus, and Word Order, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

40

Vowel coalescence and phonological fusion across phonological words in Turkish

Barış KabakUniversity of Konstanz

Turkish exhibits vowel lengthening (VL) within words in non-formal registers through the deletion ofcertain consonants (e.g., [öyle] [ö:le]; Sezer, 1986). VL is also observed in [V1.V2] sequences as V2assimilates to V1. The two vowels are then reconstructed as part of the same syllable nucleus (e.g., /ağır/ [aar] [a:r] (*[ıır]/*[ı:r]) ‘heavy’). Closer inspection, however, reveals that VL arises not only due to vowel contact within words but also across words that form prosodic units larger than the Phonological Word (PW).

In the latter case, the direction of assimilation is reversed and V1 assimilates to V2 (e.g., [yirmi]+[üç] [yirmü:ç] (*[yirmi:ç]) ‘twenty-three’).

This talk will first examine various instances of VL in a number of morphological contexts. Forinstance, vowels may coalesce when a vowel-final PW combines with a vowel- or /h/-initial PW in acompound-type construction (e.g., [sumru+hanım] [sumra:nım] (*[sumru:nım]) ‘Ms. Sumru’). Similarlengthening processes are observed when the question word ne cliticizes to a following word (e.g., [ne]+[oldu] [no:l-du] ‘what happened’). Second, I will show that vowel coalescence is subject to several restrictionsconditioned by phonological features and the type of phonological domain. While V[-high].V[+high] are not likely to coalesce across words (e.g., [ne]+[uzun] *[nu:zun] ‘how long’), V[+high].V[-high] cannot fuse within words (e.g., /sığar/ *[sıır]).

The final part of the talk will posit a formal analysis of the apparent constraints on vowel coalescenceand the observed asymmetries between within- and across-word coalescence in the context of the currenttheories of underspecification and prosodic phonology.

References

Sezer, E. (1986). An autosegmental analysis of compensatory lengthening in Turkish. In: W. L. Wetzels & E. Sezer (eds.) Studies in Compensatory Lengthening. Dordrecht: Foris, 227-250.

Van der Hulst, H. G. & J. van de Weijer (1991). Topics in Turkish Phonology. In: H. Boeschoten & L.Verhoeven (eds.) Turkish Linguistics Today. Leiden: E.J. Brill

41

What can Turkish clitics reveal about language change in agglutinative languages?

Barış Kabak - Rene SchieringUniversity of Konstanz

In Turkish, exponents of grammatical categories can be grouped into at least three different types ofmorphemes: function words, clitics, and (agglutinative) affixes. In verbal morphology for example, categories conveying tense, aspect, and modality can be realized as auxiliaries like ol- and ver-, copular clitics like -(y)dI, and agglutinative suffixes like -dI. This is also true for the marking of grammatical relations, where postpositions like için ‘benefactive’ co-exist with the clitic postposition (y)lA ‘commitative/ instrumental’, and agglutinative suffixes like -(y)A ‘dative’.

This talk will first look at the phonological and distributional properties of different types of morphemes in Turkish, which will lead us to assume a linguistic cline of the form function word > clitic > agglutinative affix (Hopper & Traugott, 1993). We will then address several issues revolving around thefollowing question: To what extend can such a synchronic cline be taken as a manifestation of diachronicchange? We will compare and contrast synchronic facts of Turkish with diachronic facts and show that at least two types of data speak against this assumption. First, for some affixes there is no evidence within the recorded history of Turkic that indicate that they originate from function words or clitics. Second, we observe a bi-directional cline such that clitics regress to function words. Based on similar cross-linguistic phenomena, we will make revisions to concepts that are centerpiece of grammaticalization theory (e.g., uni-directionality) and discuss the consequences of our findings for morphological typology.

References

Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C. (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

42

Toward a new linguistic approach to “Karamanlı” texts

Matthias KapplerUniversity of Cyprus

In the past, the so-called “Karamanlı” literature (Turkish in Greek characters) has been mainly investigated by historians and bibliographers as a phenomenon of religious and cultural syncretism or as part of the history of printing, whereas linguistic research in this field is basically limited to the classical work of Eckmann 1950a and the unpublished dissertation by Miller 1974, creating the “myth” of an autonomous “Karamanlı linguistic variant” or even of a “Karamanlı language”. According to recent research (like Kappler 2002) it has turned out that this literary tradition shows up a mixed character deriving from a multitude of various interrelations between Turkish and non-Turkish linguistic variants and dialects. Up to now no comprehensive study has been undertaken from this point of view, neither on printed nor on manuscript material. Very little research has been done on the graphic aspect, too (Eckmann 1950b, Kappler 2003), being of primary importance for a phenomenon characterized basically by writing. Linguistic investigation concerning phonetic-phonological, but also morphological and syntactic features of “Karamanlı” production on the basis of contact linguistic findings and in the framework of historical linguistics is badly needed. On what ground such a new approach could be undertaken is the topic of the present proposal.

References

Eckmann, Janos- 1950a: Anadolu Karamanlı ağızlarına ait araştırmalar, Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-

Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi VIII/1-2: 165-200.- 1950b: Yunan harfli Karamanlı imlâsı hakkında, Türk Dili ve tarihi hakkında araştırmalar I

(eds. H. Eren & T. Halasi-Kun): 27-31.

Kappler, Matthias- 2002: Türkischsprachige Liebeslyrik in griechisch-osmanischen Liedanthologien des 19.

Jahrhunderts. Berlin.- 2003: A proposito di ortografia „caramanlidica“, Turcica et Islamica – Studi in onore di Aldo

Gallotta (eds. M. Bernardini et al.). Napoli.

Miller, M.- 1974: The Karamanli texts: the historical changes in their script and phonology. Indiana.

43

A contrastive study of the distribution of relative clauses in Turkish and English written texts

Celia KerslakeOxford University

This paper compares the occurrence of relative clauses (RC) in parallel texts in Turkish and English. The corpus used currently consists of 35 pages of English text, comprising excerpts from three works on modern Turkish history, and the corresponding sections of their published Turkish translations. This corpus will have been expanded by the time the paper assumes its final form.

The number of RCs in the Turkish texts under study was 274 (counting any sequences of coordinated RCs as one only). Of these, only 91 were found to correspond to RCs in the English original text, and a further 39 to non-finite adjectival clauses containing a participle. (There were only 6 relative clauses in the English texts that had not resurfaced as RCs in the Turkish translations.) In 21 cases the translator had made a purely stylistic choice to render a main clause in the original by a Turkish relative clause.

The main focus of the paper is on the contrastive analysis of the residue of Turkish RCs falling outside the above categories, which in this sample constitutes about 45%. It will be argued that, in many cases, the translator’s decision to introduce a relative clause has been constrained by syntactic or morphological differences between the two languages. Major groups that have been identified are those corresponding to (1) postmodifying prepositional phrases, (2) appositive structures, and (3) negativized adjectives in English.

References

Randolph Quirk et al., A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (London: Longman, 1985)Fatma Erkman-Akerson & Şeyda Ozil, Türkçede Niteleme: Sıfat İşlevli Yan Tümceler (İstanbul: Simurg,

1998)

44

Children’s scope of indefinite objects and negation

Nihan KetrezUniversity of Southern California

I test four and five year-old children’s and adults comprehension of indefinite objects that are examplified in (1-4). The goal of the study is to test whether or not children and adults treat the accusative-marked versus non-case-marked objects and bare objects differently (as predicted in Enc 1991, and Kelepir 2001, among others) and whether the behavior of Turkish children is similar to that of children acquiring other languages such as Dutch and English (Kramer 2000, Lidz and Musolino 2002, among others).

Sentence Structure Scope (adults)(1) Bir tabag-i Ayse yika-ma-di bir N-acc XP V-neg [indef > neg; *neg>indef](2) Ayse bir tabag-i yika-ma-di bir N-acc V-neg [indef> neg; neg> indef](3) Ayse bir tabak yika-ma-dibir N V-neg [neg>indef; indef>neg](4) Ayse tabak yika-ma-di N V-neg [*indef> neg; neg> indef]

The results of the study suggest that adults have wide scope reading of the scrambled objects (1) and narrow scope reading of the bare objects (4). Those accusative marked objects that are adjacent to verbs (2) do not neccessarily have wide scope (as predicted by Kelepir 2001). Bir N objects, too, are ambiguous for adults (3).

Children’s interpretation of the accusative marked objects are not adult-like in the sense that children allow a narrow scope reading of the accusative marked objects even in scrambled positions (1). In children’s speech, then, accusative marking does not play a significant role in scope assignment. This non-adult-like behavior is similar to the acquisition pattern observed in other languages such as Dutch and English.

The findings are discussed in relation to the crosslinguistic developmental pattern of language acquisition and linguistic theory.

References

Crain, S. & R..Thorntorn (1999). Investigations in Universal Grammar: A Guide toExperiments on the Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics. Cam/Mass. MIT Press.

Diesing, M. (1996) Indefinites. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 20. Cam/Mass. MIT Press.Enc, M. (1991). The Semantics of Specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 1-25. Lidz, J & Musolino, J (2002) Children’s Command of Quantification, Cognition 84, 113-154.Kelepir, M. (2001). Topics in Turkish Syntax:Clausal Structure and Scope.Ph.D. Diss..MIT.Krämer, I. (2000). Interpreting Indefinites: An experimental Study of Children’s language

comprehension. MPI Series in Psycholinguistics.

45

Relative clause attachment in Turkish: A psycholinguistic analysis

Bilal KırkıcıMiddle East Technical University

The aim of this study is to investigate the way native speakers of Turkish resolve relative clause (RC) attachment ambiguities in sentences which contain a relative clause followed by a complex noun phrase with two potential attachment sites. The structures under investigation are relative clauses followed by complex NPs with genitive constructions [NP1GEN+NP2] as in (1) and relative clauses followed by complex NPs containing postpositional phrases [[NP1 P]PP+NP2] as in (2) below.

(1) ABD’de yaşayan aktörün oğlu dün uçak kazası geçirdi.(2) Elinde çiçek olan görevlinin yanındaki adam benim fizik öğretmenim.

Previously conducted studies have found cross-linguistic differences in the resolution of such structural ambiguities, showing that in some languages the RC is predominantly attached to the first NP, i.e. “aktör” , while speakers of other languages attach the RC to the second NP, i.e. “oğlu” (Baccino, De Vincenzi & Job, 2000; Fodor, 1998). However, it has also been found that lexical-semantic information like the presence of a pre/postposition in the complex NP as in (2) and the animacy features of the potential hosts constitute determining factors in the choice of the NP which the RC will be attached to (Traxler, Pickering & Clifton, 1998).

The present paper will present an overview of previous cross-linguistic findings, discuss the relevant psycholinguistic theories established to account for these findings, and present preliminary results of the analysis of the attachment tendencies established for Turkish. The Turkish data was collected using adult native speakers of Turkish, who participated in off-line (untimed) questionnaire studies.

References

Baccino, T., De Vincenzi, M., & Job, R. 2000. Cross-linguistic studies of the late closure strategy: French and Italian. In De Vincenzi, M. & Lombardo, V. (Eds.), Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Language Processing. Dortrecht: Kluwer.

Fodor, J.D. 1998. Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 285-319.Traxler, M.J., Pickering, M.J., & Clifton, C. 1998. Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity

resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 558-592.

46

Identifying and assigning semantic categories of Turkish existential sentences viasupport vector learning

Aylin KocaBilkent Üniversity

Syntactic and semantic recognition of sentence types (i.e. three sentence types that form all existing natural languages: verbal sentences, copulative sentences, existential sentences) is crucially important in computational linguistics although there has not been significant work towards this end. This paper, in an attempt to partially fill this evident gap, is on identifying and assigning semantic categories of Turkish existential sentences in print, by means of a computer program. Specifically handled are the sentences such as,

“Bugün su yok.” for bare existential case, “Sizlere anlatacaklarım var.” for dative case existential, “Şehirde güzel evler var.”for locative case existential, “Burak’tan bir kart var.” for ablative case existential, “Gözüyle ilgili bir sorunu yoktu.” for instrumental case existential, “Benim gururum var.” for possessive existential case.

The system employs domain independent shallow semantic parsing technique, which has recently attained a growth of interest within the natural language processing community. More specifically, the algorithm utilizes Support Vector Machines in order to identify the arguments of the predicate of a sentence and classify these arguments by the semantic roles that they play: THEME, SOURCE, GOAL, etc. A “thematic role hierarchy,” devised to account for the precedence relationships among the semantic roles, then allows the automation of the assignment of each sentence to the correct semantic category of existential sentences.

References

Sameer Pradhan, Kadri Hacioglu, Valerie Krugler, Wayne Ward, James H. Martin, Daniel Jurafsky, “Support Vector Learning for Semantic Argument Classification,” CSLR Technical Report, TR-CSLR-2003-03, 2003.

Engin Sezer, “On Syntactic and Semantic Properties of Turkish Existential Sentences,” Unpublished Manuscript,Harvard University, 2003.

47

Turkish direct object and subject cases as absolutes: Against DOM and DSM

Jaklin KornfiltSyracuse University

1. We show, against some typological and recent formal work (Aissen 2003), that conditions for overtAccusative in Turkish cannot be explained by “differentiated object marking” (DOM). We propose a formal account based on the inherent semantics and the syntax of the constituents exhibiting variation in structural case marking. 2. DOM-based approaches claim that in “DOM-languages”, a direct object (DO) has the samecase as the subject. But if that DO is “too similar” to the subject with respect to archetypical subject properties (e.g. definiteness, specificity, animacy), it receives overt marking different from the subject. 3. Aissen argues that some languages have differentiated subject marking (DSM), with mirror-image properties to DOM (an archetypical subject has mirror-image values for definiteness, specificity and animacy compared to archetypical DOs). 4. We show that in Turkish (claimed to demonstrate DOM by Aissen etc.), DOM cannot explain the Accusative, and that the suffix either indicates specificity under certain morpho-syntactic conditions or is needed in DPs when overt agreement occupies an otherwise empty nominal head. Similar conditions hold for the Genitive on subjects of embedded nominalized clauses. This contradicts DOM/DSM: conditions on object and subject case are similar, not mirror-image. Presence versus absence of Accusative and Genitive are conditioned by formal conditions that are semantic (specificity) and morpho-syntactic (anobligatory overt nominal head which, when realized as overt Agreement, necessitates overt structural case). This is due to the pronominal nature of Agreement; pronouns are highly referential, thus behave like specific expressions, requiring overt structural case.

References

Aissen, J. (2003) “Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy” Natural Language and Lingusitic Theory 21, 435-483.

Comrie, B. (1975) “Definite and Animate Direct Objects: A Natural Class” Linguistica Silesiona 3, Katowice, 13-21.

Dede, M. (1986) “Definiteness and Referentiality in Turkish Verbal Sentences” In D. Slobin & K. Zimmer (eds.), Studies in Turkish Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 147-164.

Enç, M. (1991) “The Semantics of specificity” Linguistic Inquiry 22, 1-25.Erguvanli, E. E. (1984) Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar. Berkeley, Los Angeles London:

University of California Press

48

Syntactic borrowings of Azerbaijanian and Qashqay in Iran

Yuu KuribayashiOkayama University

The Qashqays inhibit various pasturelands at the southern end of theZagros mountain chain in and around the province of Fars. Recent estimates of the population range from 141,000 to 530,000 (Soper 1986). Qashqay has undergone an extensive influence from Iranian

In this presentation, I will show the varieties of contact induced linguistic change in Qashqay which has not been documented in the literature. Three types of remarkable syntactic borrowing from Persian has been recognized in Qashqay; 1. the loss of the use of the infinitive 2. gramaticalization of certain types of modal auxiliaries 3. pre-verbal modal auxiliaries Examples below show the loss of the use of the infinitive . (1) *män gereg yaz-maa. I need write-INF 'I have to write.' [Qashqay] (2) sän gereg iè-e-.. you need drink-OPT-2SG 'you have to drink.' [Qashqay] Qashqay has two types of modal auxiliaries; one has inflection, and another has no inflection at all.

The non-inflected one corresponds to that of Persian system, in which corresponding modal auxiliaries has no inflectionat all. Hence these examples are genuine cases of syntactic borrowing from Persian. Qashqay Persian gereg 'should' ← bayad gas 'may' ← šayad hatman 'must' ← bayad Qashqay also has an inflected auxiliary from, whose corresponding form in Persian has inflection. bašar-ïr-am 'I can' [Qashqay] ← mitavanam < PRS- tavan-1SG [Persian] (3) män bašar-ïr-am gäl-ä-m. I can-PRS-1SG come-OPT-1SG 'I can come.'

In contrast to Qashqay examples , the syntactic borrowing of modal auxiliaries are very limited in Iran-Azerbaijanian. In this respect, Qashqay undergoes more linguistic influence of Persian than that of Azerbaijanian. Pre-verbal position of modal element in Qashqay also reminds us the emergence of VO characteristics that are often found in contact situation in Balkan (i.e. Balkan-Turkish,

References

Göksel, A and C, Kerslake (eds.) 2000. Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages. Harrassowitz Verlag. Soper, J. 1996. Loan Syntax in Turkic and Iranian. Eurolingua. Thomason, G. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Edinburgh University Press.

49

Concessive conditionals in Turkish

Astrid MenzOrient-Institute Der DMG

Concessive clauses in Turkish are based on converb constructions in –diği halde or -mesine rağmen/karşın. In this paper, I will examine constructions that Haspelmath & König 1998 defined as Concessive Conditionals (CC), whıch they divided into three subtypes 1) Scalar CCs, 2) Alternative CCs, and 3) Universal CCs (see examples below).

Maddi yardım almasak da/bile projeyi devam ettireceğiz. (Scalar)Maddi yardım alsak da almasak da projeyi devam ettireceğiz. (Alternative)Ne kadar az maddi yardım alsak da projeyi devam ettireceğiz. (Universal)

As Haspelmath & König 1998 have shown, all subtypes share semantic properties with conditional, concessive, embedded interrogative and nonspecific free relative clauses. In Turkish, most obvious are the formal similarities between all three subtypes with the conditional construction. The functional similarities between headless relative clauses and UCCs in Turkish have been previously investigated by Ozil 1993 and Erkman-Akerson 1993.

In the first part of this paper, I will examine the semantic properties of CCs in Turkish compared with proper concessive clauses as well as proper conditional constructions. In the second part, I will focus on the formal restrictions regarding tense suffixes on the predicate of the embedded clause and the position and choice of the focus particle.

References

Haspelmath, Martin & Ekkehard König 1998: Concessive conditionals in the languages of Europe. Auwera, Johan van der (in collaboration with Dónall P. Ó. Baoill) 1998: Adverbial constructions in the

languages of Europe. Berlin, New York.Ozil, Şeyda 1993: Türkçede eş işlevli dilbigisel yapılar : Ortaçlar ve koşul tümceleri. Kamile İmer & N.

Engin Uzun 1993: VII. Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri. Ankara.Erkman-Akerson, Fatma 1993: Eş işlevli dilbilgisel yapıların kullanım değerleri : Ortaçlı ve koşullu

yapılar. Kamile İmer & N. Engin Uzun 1993: VII. Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri. Ankara.

50

Resumtive pronouns in Turkish.

Hasan Mesut MeralBoğaziçi University

The aim of this paper is to investigate the properties of resumptive pronouns (henceforth RPs) and discuss the nature of the A’-dependency between the resumptive pronoun and its antecedent in Turkish. The distributional properties of RPs, (where they are optional, where they are obligatory and where they are sanctioned) are discussed and explained with Empty Category Principle (Chomsky 1977). It will be argued that RPs in Turkish relative clauses are syntactic variables which are bound by a null operator in Spec-CP.

A resumptive pronoun is defined by Haegeman (2001:409) as a pronoun that is related to the relativized NP. As pointed out by Kornfilt (1997:130) in Turkish, reflexive pronoun ‘kendi’ (self) can be used as a resumptive pronoun but this use of it is restricted to the third person singular or plural pronoun forms.

The different interpretations of traces and RPs in a relative clause including a quantified expression in subject position will show that RPs have their own semantic content. Hence, they are not last resort expressions. The behavior of RPs with respect to the strong and weak crossover phenomena, coordination structures and parasitic gap constructions will be investigated and argued to be evidence for the claim that RPs are syntactic variables bound by a null operator at the level of S-Structure.

References

Aoun, J, L. Choueiri & N. Hornstein (2001) Resumption, Movement and Derivational Economy. LI vol. 32 number 3 pp: 371-403. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: The MIT Press

Boeckx, Cedric A. (2001) Mechanisms of Chain Formation. University of Connecticut. PhD Dissertation, University of Connecticut.

Chomsky, N (1982) Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of the Government and Binding. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: MIT Press

Kornfilt, J (2000) Some Syntactic and Morphological Properties of Relative Clauses in Turkish. (in) The Syntax of Relative Clauses. pp: 121-159 (eds) Alexiadou, A, P, Law, A, Meinenger, C, Wilder. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company

51

Acquisition of the Turkish aorist

*Mine Nakipoğlu-Demiralp - ** Nihan Ketrez*Boğaziçi University – **University of Southern California

Acquisition of the Turkish aorist presents an interesting challenge to the children. Apart from sorting out the distribution of polysyllabic and monosyllabic verbs the child has to tackle why some monosyllabic verbs with almost identical phonological forms such as al ‘take’ vs. çal ‘play’ and öl ‘die’ vs. böl ‘divide’ surface as al-ır but çal-ar and öl-ür but böl-er in the aorist. The presence of thirteen such verbs which require an –Ir form as listed in (1) and that of many other monosyllabic verbs taking –Ar as in (2) renders the study of the acquisition of aorist interesting since it exhibits a rare case of irregular morphology in Turkish.

1. al-ır, bil-ir, bul-ur, dur-ur, gel-ir, gör-ür, kal-ır, ol-ur, öl-ür, san-ır, var-ır, ver-ir, vur-ur2. bin-er, dal-ar, del-er, gir-er, gül-er, etc.

The present study investigates the nature of the hypotheses that Turkish children entertain in the acquisition of the aorist. Working with 25 children (age range 2;3–5;4) we conducted a combination of elicited production and picture description tests designed to evoke aorist use. Children were tested by showing pictures of animals/children perfoming particular actions such as give/ receive (al/ ver), hit (vur), etc. which surface in -Ir and play (çal), laugh (gül), that take -Ar. The subjects were asked to describe what X in the picture does. Our findings suggested that children tend to prefer the –Ar form as the aorist of the verbs listed in (1), yielding errors as in (3) and suggesting that the default of the aorist is –Ar.

3. *al-ar, *bil-er, *bul-ar, *dur-ar, *gel-er, *kal-ar, *ver-er, *vur-ar

Interestingly, in younger kids (age range 2:3-2:7) forms such as ok-ar for oku-r ‘reads’ and uya-r for uyu-r ‘sleeps’ were elicited showing that even the vowel ending verbs are treated as consonant ending, hence applied the default rule.

References

Marcus, G., Pinker, S., Ullman, M., Hollander, M., Rosen, J. & Xu, F. 1992. Overregularization in Language Acquisition. Stanford, CA: Society for Research in Child Development.

Pinker, S. 1995. Why the child holded the baby rabbit: A case study in language acquisition. In L.Gleitman & M. Liberman (eds.), An Invitation to Cognitive Science: Language. Cambridge, Mass.:

MIT Press, 107-33.Underhill, R. 1976. Turkish Grammar. MIT Press.

52

Anaphora in Turkish spoken discourse

Lütfiye Oktar - Aytaç Çeltek Dokuz Eylül University

In recent years, anaphora has become a central topic of research in linguistics, in psychology and in cognitive sciences due to its significant role in the understanding of memory, discourse organization and semantic interpretation. The findings obtained from recent research on anaphora indicate that there is a strong correlation between the reference-tracking devices employed and the pragmatic and discursive factors dominating the construction of discourses. More specifically, a recurrent finding of this kind of research displays that referents which are in focus or in hearer’s/reader’s consciousness can be pronominalized, where focus or consciousness are dominated by the discourse structure. In this connection, it seems possible to claim that there is correlation between anaphoric patterning and discourse organization. Therefore, any approach to anaphora must search for its analysis in the hierarchical structure of the discourse-type being used as a source of data. For the discourse is a sequence of propositions organized hierarchically and this hierarchical organization of discourse has a significant role in the use of anaphoric forms. Based on this claim, the present study aims to explore:

1. the use of full noun phrases as anaphoric devices for the third-person human references in the organization of Turkish unplanned spoken discourse and,

2. the influence of hierarchical structure of discourse on the choice of this anaphoric form.The database comprises five spoken texts recorded from “Seçim Meydanı”, a program presented

by Ali Kırca on NTV Channel in August 2002.

The theoretical framework adopted in the present study is the Hierarchy Model which states that anaphora correlates with hierarchical organization of discourse. Therefore, it seems necessary to parse the source texts into their component parts so that an understanding of the relationship between anaphoric distribution and discourse organization can be achieved. For this task, the Rhetorical Structure Analysis is carried out as an analytical framework. References

Fox, B. 1987. Discourse Structure and Anaphora. Cambridge: CUP.Huang, Y. 2000. Anaphora. Oxford: OUP.Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. 1988. “Rhetorical Structure Theory”. Text8 (3): 243-281.

53

Doors, fences and thresholds:The many ways of crossing a boundary in English and Turkish

Şeyda ÖzçalışkanUniversity of Chicago

The paper compares two language types with regard to their lexicalization patterns in encoding motion events: (1)verb-framed (Turkish), in which the preferred pattern for framing motion events is the use of a path verb with an optional manner adjunct (enter crawling), and (2)satellite-framed (English), in which path is lexicalized in an element associated with the verb, leaving the verb free to encode manner (crawl into). The paper focuses on boundary-crossing events, for which the typological contrast is particularly salient and the lexical constraints of encoding manner are stricter in V-languages. Data were gathered from English and Turkish speakers, using pictures that depicted boundary-crossing events involving manner. English speakers typically described boundary-crossing with manner verbs, accompanied by directional particles; whereas Turkish speakers used mostly path verbs as the main verb, occasionally with manner adjuncts. There was also a contrast in path segmentation, with Turkish speakers dividing the event into smaller path segments rather than describing it as one continuous path.

References

Slobin, D. I. (1996). Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays in semantics (pp. 195-220). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MIT Press.

54

Word-order, prosody and information structure in Turkish

Umut ÖzgeMiddle East Technical University

Word-order variation in Turkish has long been attributed the primary role in the structural realization of information structure. At the core of all these accounts lies the idea that certain positions in a sentence have some certain pragmatic functions like topic, focus, etc., and the order of words is a linguistic resource that speakers (hearers) make use of in signaling (interpreting) the information structure of an utterance. Prosodic structure has only been given a secondary role in this traditional conception. Contrary to this view, the paper argues that in an explanatory account of Turkish information structure, there is no need for any predications over positions, order-altering syntactic strategies and such, since a tune-based perspective where prosody is the sole structural determinant of information structure can explain the data without committing to such predications. In this setting, observed word order variations are argued to be prosodically motivated, in that Turkish prosody imposes some precedence constraints on some certain intonational contours that are responsible for the realization of information structural units. Word order variation then turns out to be epiphenomenal, thus does not constitute a level in explanation, as opposed to being a determinant in attaining the right information structure required by the discourse context. To substantiate these claims a tune-based account, based on Steedman's account of English information structure, is proposed for the structural realization of information structure in Turkish, whereby information structural units are directly associated with prosodic phrases marked by certain pitch contours. Validity of the account is tried to be established by intonational analysis of recorded speech data. As for the explanatory value, the information structure phenomena that have received positional explanation in the relevant literature have been re-examined with the proposed tune-based account. References

Erguvanlı, E. (1979) The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Ph.D. thesis, University of California.

İşsever, S. (2003) Information structure in Turkish: the word order-prosody interface. Lingua, 113(11):1025-1053.

Pierrehumbert, J. and Hirschberg, J. (1990) The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Philip Cohen, Jerry Morgan and Martha Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., chapter 14, pages 271-312.

Steedman, M. (2000) Information structure and syntax-phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry, 31(4): 649-689.

Vallduvi, E. and Engdahl E. (1996) The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics, 34:459-519.

55

Incorporation of agents in Turkish

Balkız ÖztürkHarvard University

Agents cannot undergo head-incorporation as incorporation is subject to head-movement-constraint (HMC) (Ex.4a) (Baker 1988). Turkish has been claimed to have head-incorporation (Ex1), but agents undergo incorporation in Turkish (Kornfilt 2003 et al) (Ex. 2):(1) John elma ye-di. (2) John-u ari sok-tu .

John apple eat-past John-accusative bee sting-pastJohn did apple-eating John got bee-stung

We propose that Turkish does not exhibit head-incorporation, but pseudo-incorporation (Massam 2001), where a predicative NP and a V0 form a complex-predicate [CompPredNP+V]. Incorporated nouns are not N0s, but NPs, as evidenced by modification facts (Ex3):(3) John [NP [AdjPyesil] elma] ye-di.

John green apple eat-pastJohn did green apple-eating

We argue that pseudo-incorporated NPs can bear any theta-role, since pseudo-incorporation is not subject to HMC. Assuming a Neo-Davidsonian argument structure (Borer 2003) predicative NPs are unspecified for theta roles as verb-complements. Complex-predicates [CompPredNP+V] are reanalyzed as V0s. The complement NP is associated with specific theta roles when the complex-predicate undergoes head-movement into higher functional projections (vP and VoiceP). If an object is merged into [Spec,vP] and there is no agent-subject in [Spec,VoiceP], then the pseudo-incorporated NP will be interpreted as the agent, when the complex-predicate raises to Voice0(Ex.4b).(4) a.Head-incorporation b.Pseudo-incorporation

S VoiceP

NP VP Voice’ N0 V NP vP Voice0

N0 V0 N0 Object v’

*HMC VP v0 head-movement

complex-predicate V’

NP V0

Hungarian (Farkas&deSwart 2002) and Hindi (Dayal 2003) also exhibit pseudo-incorporation of agents. This also supports our claim that agents cannot undergo head-incorporation due to HMC, but they can be pseudo-incorporated.

References

Baker, M. (1988) Incorporation. A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Borer, H. (2003) Structuring Sense: An Exo-skeletal Trilogy, ms. USC.Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge.Dayal, V. (2003) A semantics for Pseudo-Incorporation, ms. Rutgers UniversityFarkas and de Swart (2002) The semantics of Incorporation, book ms.Kornfilt, J. (2003) Scrambling, Subscrambling and Case in Turkish, Word Order and Scrambling, S.

Karimi (ed.), Blackwell.56

Massam, D. (2001). Pseudo Noun Incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19.Mithun, M. (1984) The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60, p.847-893.Sezer, E. (1991) Topics in Turkish Syntax. PhD dissertation, Harvard University

57

How to talk about causal motion events in Turkish and English

*Aslı Özyürek - **Reyhan Furman*Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics & Koç University - **Boğaziçi University

This study examined the development of linguistic coding of direct causation in motion events (i.e. were there is a direct relation between the causer and the causee) in American and Turkish adults and children (3- and 5-year-olds). There were 20 individuals in each group. Participants watched and narrated two short animated video clips of direct causation. The narratives were coded for the number of sentences and types of verbs used. In general, speakers of both languages chose to represent causation as two separate subevents and used multiple sentences (e.g. triangle man hits tomato man and tomato man rolls down the hill ) instead of single sentences with lexical causative verbs (e.g. triangle man rolled tomato man down the hill). While English-speaking children’s speech reflected the patterns of their adults, a developmental pattern was found in Turkish speakers. Unlike 5-year-olds and adults, 3-year-olds tried to express the subevents as one event by using lexical (e.g. domatesi yuvarladi 'rolled the tomato') and morphologically derived causative verbs (e.g. domatesi düşürdü 'made tomato fall'), making transitivity errors in the use of causative verbs (e.g.*yuvarlandır, *yuvarlat) and using non-adult-like activity verbs with directional noun phrases (e.g. aşağı attı 'threw down'). These results suggest that Turkish children have a bias to collapse the two events into one in the linguistic encoding of direct causation.

Results will be discussed in relation to direct causation description patterns (Wolff, 2003) as well as the expected typological differences (Talmy, 1985) and their development across languages (Berman & Slobin, 1994).

References

Aksu-Koç, A.A., & Slobin, D.I. (1985). The acquisition of Turkish. In The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Volume 1: The data. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Berman, R.A., & Slobin, D.I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 57-149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wolff, P. (2003). Direct causation in the linguistic coding and individuation of causal events. Cognition, 88, 1-48.

58

New approach to Turkish stress

Anthi Revithiadou, Hasan Kaili, Sofia Prokou, Marianna TiliopoulouUniversity of the Aegean

Turkish is known to have a simple stress rule that places stress on the word final syllable,e.g. kedi, kedi-ler 'cat(-pl)' (Banguoğlu 1986). In addition to this regular stress pattern, Turkish exhibits instances of non-final stress which are classified into two types: (a) Sezer-root stress (Sezer 1981): stress in on the antepenultimate syllable, if heavy; otherwise on the penultimate, e.g. A.n.ka.ra, A.da.na, and (b) suffix-triggered stress, where specific suffixesare either stressed or pre-stressing, e.g. al-arak 'take-GERUND' (cf. al-ma(ğ)-a'take-INFINITIVE-DAT') gel-mek-sizin 'come-INFINITIVE-GERUND' (cf. gel-me(ğ)-e'come-INFINITIVE-DAT'), respectively. Previous analyses such as Inkelas (1999) and Kabak & Vogel (2001) employ different mechanisms to account for both patterns of 'exceptional' stress. Inkelas claims that Sezer-root stress is active and lies at the periphery of the grammar whereas suffix-stress islexically pre-specified. Kabak & Vogel, on the other hand, attribute Sezer-stress to lexical pre-specification and affix-stress to clitic-like extraprosodicity. More specifically, they treat these suffixes as elements recursively adjoined to the prosodic word. We show that both approaches face serious theoretical and empirical problems. First, based on quantitative data, we show that Sezer-stress reflects a static regularity in the language. Second, we demonstrate that suffixes with special stress behavior are not clitics, afinding that invalidates the suffix-extraprosodic account. We propose instead that Turkish 'exceptional' stress receives a straightforward interpretation only within a theory that employs lexical accents (Revithiadou 1999) and makes reference to the morpho-syntactic structure of Turkish words. The analysis will be couched in Optimality Theoretic terms(Prince & Smolensky 1993).

References

Banguoğlu, Tahsin. 1986. Türkçenin Gramer. Ankara: TDK. Inkelas, Sharon. 1999. Exceptional stress-attracting suffixes in Turkish: representations versus the

grammar. In R. Kager, H. van der Hulst & W. Zonneveld (eds.), The Phonology-Morphology Interface, 134-187. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kabak, Barýº & Irene Vogel. 2001. The phonological word and stress assignment in Turkish. Phonology 18: 315-360.

Lewis, Geoffrey. 2000. Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press. Prince, A. & P. Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in Generative Grammar.

Report no. RuCCS-TR-2. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science. Revithiadou, Anthi. 1999. Headmost Accent Wins: Head Dominance and Ideal Prosodic Form in Lexical

Accent Systems. Doctoral dissertation, LOT Dissertation Series 15 (HIL/Leiden University). The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.

59

Topicalization in constructions with <B>gerunds

Claudia RömerUniversität Wien

<B> gerunds express a unidirectional ”and” relation and are plot-advancing (Johanson 1975: 116). In postverbial constructions a verbal lexeme in its gerundial form is combined with the following grammaticalised verb (baq-ïp dur- ‘to look continuously’ (Demir 1993: 2).

Some <B> gerund constructions occur relatively rarely: Yarındası ‘Osmān Ġāzī bu düşini gelüb ol ‘azīze naql ėtdi ”Next morning ‘Osmān Ġāzī came and told the holy man his dream” (Unat 1949: 82). Schönig 1984: 9 and Čaušević 1996: 375 assume the verbs of the gerundial segment and the basis segment to merge (paired predicate; Čaušević), like postverbial constructions (Schönig). Various elements can break up the verbal sequence with the matrix verb formed by adverbial clauses in preverbal position, ”as long as they are not constituents of the adverbial clause: aşçı hamuru karıştırıp dikkatlice yoğurdu ‘The cook mixed the dough and kneaded (it) carefully’” (Kornfilt 1997: 412). However, in Hasana yarım bardak konyak daha doldurup verdi ”He filled another glass of cognac and gave it to Hasan” (Yüce 1973: 24) these elements are constituents of the adverbial clause, Hasan being the indirect object of the matrix verb. But the gerund and the matrix verb have not merged. Thus, we have to consider Hasan as the topic which has been moved to the sentence initial position (Kornfilt 1997: 200; Johanson 1977).

Thus, whenever direct or indirect objects of the matrix verb are topicalized we find the following sequence: object – adverbial clause – matrix verb. It seems, however, that adverbial clauses using <B> gerunds of gel-, git-, var- have a certain affinity to postverbial constructions.

References

Čaušević 1996: Gramatika suvremenoga Turskog jezika, ZagrebDemir 1993: Postverbien im Türkeitürkischen. Unter besonderer Berücksichtgung eines

südanatolischen Dorfdialekts. Turcologica 17, Wiesbaden.Johanson 1971: Aspekt im Türkischen.Vorstudien zu einer Beschreibung des türkeitürkischen

Aspektsystems, Uppsala. Johanson 1975: Some Remarks on Turkic ”Hypotaxis”, Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 47, 104-118.Johanson 1977: Bestimmtheit und Mitteilungsperspektive im türkischen Satz. Zeitschrift der Deutschen

Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Suppl. III,2 (XIX. Deutscher Orientalistentag, 28. September - 4. Oktober 1975), 1186-1203.

Kornfilt 1997: Turkish. Routlege, London – New York.Schönig 1984: Hilfsverben im Tatarischen. Untersuchungen zur Funktionsweise einiger

Hilfsverbverbindungen. Wiesbaden.Unat 1949: Mehmed Neşri, Kitâb-i Cihan-Nümâ. Neşri Tarihi, I.cilt, AnkaraYüce 1973: Gerundien im Türkischen. Eine morphologische und syntaktische Untersuchung. PhD,

Mainz.

60

Results of comparative studies of Baraba Tartars’ languageand other Turkic languages of Siberian region

T.R. RyzhikovaNovosibirsk State University

This work is a description of experimental-phonetic results of Baraba Tartars’ language investigation and comparison of the data recieved to the data obtained on other Turkic languages. Baraba Tartars’ consonantism is very close to Tuba-dialect of the Altai language, to Khakass, Shor and Tuvan.

The presence of such CDF as pharingalization relates the language under investigation to the languages of Uigur-Uryankhai group such as Tuba-dialect of Altai, Tuvan and Tofan.

On the other hand, the fifth articulatory row fixed for the Baraba-tartar language – a pharingal row – proves the great influence of Arabian and the Irac languages through Kazan-tartar one. This row has not been fixed as a separate row in other Siberian Turkic languages.

Opposition of voiced / voiceless consonants, typical for Kazan-Tartar, is irrelevant for Baraba-tartar as well as opposition based on quantitative characteristics of consonants.

When stating the place of Baraba-tartar consonantism in typological classification of consonant systems pointed out by V.M. Nadelyayev (there function four types of consonantism: opposition based on tenseness; opposition based on length; opposition based on work of vocal cords; opposition based on the degree of aspiration. In Turkic languages of Siberian region there are fixed only the first three types of consonant systems), the author agrees with her colleague N.S. Urtegeshev that there is a need to add one more type of consonant systems – based on opposition of larynx and tongue work. The results of research work prove that opposition based on presence / absence of glottalization is realized in opposition of pharingalized / non-pharingalized consonants correlating with the degree of articulatory tenseness in the Baraba Tartars’ language.

To sum up, the Baraba Tartars’ language can be said to have the same CDF as many other languages but the set and combination of them resulted from great influence of and interaction with members of different language families are quit unique.

References

T.R. Ryzhikova. Consonantism yazyka barabinskikx tatar: sopostavitel’no-tipologicheskiy aspekt. Avtoref. dis.... kand. philol. nauk. Novosibirsk, 2003.

N.S. Urtyegyeshev. Shumnyi consonantism shorskogo yazyka (na materiale mrasskogo dialekta). Novosibirsk, 2002.

V.M. Nadelyeyev. K typologii artikulyatsionno-akusticheskikh baz (AAB) // Phoneticheskiye struktury v sibirskikh yazykakh. Novosibirsk, 1986.

61

Çokdillilerde afazi

Gülmira SadiyevaDokuz Eylül Üniversitesi

İki veya daha çok dil bilen kişiler afaziye maruz kaldıktan sonra hangi dili konuşmaya başlarlar?Hangi dilleri daha kalıcı olur? Bu soruların kesin cevabı yoktur.

Birkaç dil bilen kişinin ikinci veya diğer dilleri benimseme zamanı çok önemlidir. Yapılan nörofizyolojik araştırmalarda ana dili ve on yaşına kadar benimsenilen yabancı dil beynin her iki hemisferine yerleşmektedir. On yaşından sonra öğrenilen yabancı dil ise sağ hemisfere yerleşmektedir.

Baku Respublika Klinik Hastanesinin Nöroloji Bölümünde tedavi gören beş çokdilli afazili hasta tarafımızdan gözlemlenmiştir. Bu hastalardan dördü, ikinci dili çocukken benimsediklerinden bu dili ana dili kadar mükemmel biliyorlardı. Örneğin, Rusçayı mükemmel bilen motor afazili Azeri hasta Z. hastalıktan sonra yalnız Azerice konuşuyordu. Bu olay kişilerin hislerini ana dilinde ifade etmenin doğal ve kolay olduğunu göstermektedir. Fakat gözlemlediğimiz başka hastalarda aksine bir durumla da karşılaştık. Örneğin, Talış milliyetine mensup olan hasta Y.’nin Azeri Türkçesi ana dili kadar iyiydi, lakin hastalıktan önce onun daha çok kullandığı dil Talışçaydı. Sensör afazili bu hasta hastalığın ilk aşamasında yalnız Azerice konuşuyordu. Bu olay hastanın yakınlarını bile şaşırtmıştı. Bu durumun açıklanması Talış dilinin yazılı dili olmamasına dayandırılabilir. Hasta yazılı dil olarak Azeriçeyi kullanmış ve bu dilde eğitim almıştır. Görüldüğü gibi hastalıktan önce kullanılan yazı ve eğitim dilinin etkisi afazi zamanı ortaya çıkmaktadır.

Bazen çokdilli afazili hastanın konuşma dili konulara bağlı olarak değişebilir. Örneğin, motor afazili Azeri hasta V. hislerini, duygularını ifade etmek için ana dilini, tahsili ve işi ile ilgili konuları ifade etmek için ise Rusçayı kullandığını gözlemledik.

Kaynakça

Çernigovskaya,T. Bilingvizm i fuknsionalnaya assimetriya mozga.-İssledovaniya reçi. Leningrad, 1981.Kloçko, N. Dva yazıka v odnoy golove. “Veçernaya Riga”, No 47, 2003.

62

Turkish adjuncts on the predicate layer between syntax, morphology and lexical semantics of the verb: A typological perspective

Christoph SchroederUniversity of Osnabrück

Adjuncts can be classified according to the layer of the clause on which they operate (predicate/predication/proposition/illocution, cf. Dik et al. 1990, Ramat & Ricca 1998). Furthermore, adjuncts can be classified according to the semantic orientation of their predicative force, i.e. they can be referent-orientated or process-orientated. Referent-orientated adjuncts on the predicate layer are commonly called “depictive secondary predicate” or “depictives”, process-orientated adjuncts on the predicate layer are commonly called “manner adverbials”, the latter including also adverbials of intensity. Certain types of predicate adjuncts may also be double-orientated, i.e., distributives.

Both manner adverbials and depictives form semantically highly heterogenous groups of predicate adjuncts. Languages appear to differ widely with respect to the morphological representation of depictives and manner adverbials, as well as to semantic and syntactic restrictions which go with them (Schultze-Berndt & Himmelmann to appear). Often, a word class of “adverbs” fills the syntactic slot of both manner adverbials and secondary predicates.

Turkish does not have adverbs as a non-derived word class but uses a high variety of forms (converbs, noun phrases with adverbial case-marking, different adverb derivations) in order to represent predicate adjuncts. A close investigation of the different morphological forms reveals a high semantic specificity: Different morphological forms represent semantic subtypes of referent and process orientation (cf. Schroeder to appear).

In languages like English and German, the basic, i.e. non-marked predicate adjunct is represented by a single morphological form, that is, an adjective-derived adverb, as in the case of English, or a zero derived adjective, as in the case of German. Thus, while Turkish displays a high morphological and semantic specificity of the forms in question, other languages are content with a single form and offer no or little semantic interpretation. What are the typological correlates to this contrast?

As opposed to satellite-framed languages like English and German, a verb-framed language like Turkish has a tendency to exclude all kinds of descriptive semantic information about the process from the verbal predicate (manner of the action, state of a referent during the action, cf. Snell-Hornby 1983 and Talmy 2000, Özçalışkan & Slobin 2003 with regard to the distinction between satellite- and verb-framed languages). This information, than, is expressed outside of the core verbal predicate, that is, in Turkish, by means of adjuncts on the predicate layer. Thus, in a verb-framed language like Turkish, predicate adjuncts carry a heavier burden of semantic information than they do in a satellite-framed language. The answer to this is a high morphological diversity of the form in the position in question.

References

Dik, Simon C., Kees Hengeveld, Elseline Vester, Co Vet. 1990. The hierarchical structure of the clause and the typology of adverbial satellites. In: Jan Nuyts, A.M. Bolkestein, C.Vet (eds.). Layers and levels of representation in language theory. Amsterdam/Phil.: Benjamins, 25-70.

Özçalışkan, Şeyda & Dan Slobin. 2003. Codability effects on the expression of manner of motion in Turkish and English. In: A. Sumru Özsoy et al. (eds.). Studies in Turkish linguistics. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press, 259-270.

Ramat, Paola & Davide Ricca. 1998. Sentence adverbs in the languages of Europe. In: Johan van der Auwera (ed.), in collaboration with Dónall P. Ó Baoill. Adverbial constructions in the languages of

Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 187-275.Schroeder, Christoph. (to appear). Depiktive im Sprachvergleich Deutsch-Türkisch. Eine kontrastiv-

typologische Analyse. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004.

63

Schultze-Berndt, Eva & Nikolaus P. Himmelmann. (to appear). Depictive secondary predicates in crosslinguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology.

Snell-Hornby, Mary. 1983. Verb descriptivity in German and English. A contrastive study in semantic fields. Heidelberg: Winter.

Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. II: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

64

Regional stereotypes and language attitudes

Meryem ŞenKocaeli University

In the literature of intercultural communication, stereotyping is often treated as a potential obstruction for effective intergroup communication and therefore something to be avoided (Scollon & Scollon 1995). However, Lippman (1965) defines stereotypes as governing mental concepts which picture in our heads. Thus, they facilitates individual’s orientation in the world as it simplifies and economizes the process of thinking and perception.

Stereotypes may not have to be close to the social realities they represent, but it is true that they very often carry negative messages. This, as explained by Lippman (1965), arises from our tendency to define the objects before seeing them in the manner of what our culture has tought us previously. One interesting question is that how language-based stereotypes are displayed through language attitudes. Edwards (1982:21) points out three possibilities in terms of explaining these stereotyped reactions: they may reflect either (1) intrinsic linguistic inferiorities or superiorities, (2) intrinsic aesthetic differences, or (3) social conventions and preferences. The author argues, however, that possibilities one and two are unlikely, as there is little or no evidence to support the idea that some forms of language are beter, more correct and aesthetically more pleasing than others. This paper offers a discussion of language attitudes in relation to social and cultural values. Based on an empirical study of attitudes towards regional varieties in Turkey, it addresses the question of assessment of people without the comon sense attributions. How do people who themselves are not part of the social and cultural milieux of speakers that they are evaluating assess the attributes of these speakers, and what is likely to be the basis of these stereotypes they hold about them?

First the study presents the results from a langaueg attitude study in which Turkish subjects evaluate regional speakers in terms of their perceived status and competence, personal integrity and social attractiveness, and the quality and status of their langaueg in order to find out if the stereotyped reactions to these accents are reproduced in their own linguistic environment. Secondly, the importance of cultural knowledge is adressed. Thirdly the study analyses the nature of stereotypes of regional varieties in Turkey, and finally it discusses the relevance of the inherent value versus imposed norm hypotheses in relation to language attitudes and stereotypes.

65

On The Multifunctionality of -Vr And –DIr in Turkish

Ceyhan TemürcüUniversity of Antwerp & Middle East Technical University

Although the agglutinating morphology of verbal inflection in Turkish exhibits a highly transparent correspondence between formal and semantic composition, many tense, aspect, and mood (TAM) markers do not display a one-to-one form-meaning relation. Turkish is not exceptional among the world's languages in that multifunctionality pervades its TAM system.

This paper aims to identify a specific pattern of multifunctionality displayed by–Vr and–DIr on the base of a structured semantic space of TAM qualifications. Three tasks are distinguished: (1) identification of meanings and of their semantic affinities; (2) analysis in terms of the dimensions of to semantic space; (3) explanations of how –Vr and –DIr have come to convey a particular group of meanings.

The focal meanings associated with –Vr and -DIr are identified with reference to data and analyses in previous studies, including Lewis (1967), Underhill (1976), Yavaş (1980, 1982), Sansa (1986), Johanson (1994), Aksu-Koç (1995), and Kornfilt (1997). The identified meanings are analyzed in a framework which treats semantic TAM categories as constituting a system of relativization (or, 'grounding'). –Vr and –DIr are shown to be complementary markers of a semantic area characterized by temporal, epistemic, and illocutionary generality. This pattern of multifunctionality is represented using a schema similar to semantic maps (e.g., van der Auwera & Plungian 1998). Tentative explanations are proposed in the light of research on cross-linguistic gram types (Dahl 1984, Bybee et al. 1994), as well as synchronic and diachronic principles of form-meaning relations.

References

Akerson, F. (1994). Türkçe yüklemde görünüş, zaman ve kip. VIII. Dilbilim Kurultayı. İstanbul Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi. 79-88.

Aksu-Koç, A. (1988). The Acquisition of Aspect and Modality: The Case of Past Reference in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bybee, J., Perkins R. & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.

Dahl, Ö. (1985). Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell. Heine, B., Claudi, B. & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization. A Conceptual Framework.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London and New York: Routledge. Sansa, S. T. (1986). DIR in modern Turkish. In Aksu-Koç, A. & Taylan, E. (eds.), Proceedings of the

Turkish Linguistics Conference. 145-159.Slobin, D. I. & Aksu, A. (1982). Tense, Aspect, and modality in the use of Turkish evidential. In Hopper

P. (ed.), Tense-Aspect: between Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 185-201.

Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Taylan, E. (1997). Türkçe'de görünüş zaman ve kiplik ilişkisi: -DI biçimbirimi. In XI. Dilbilim Kurultayı: Bildiriler. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara. 1-11.

van der Auwera, J. & Plungian, V. A. (1998). Modality's semantic map. Linguistic typology 2. 79-124.Yavaş, F. (1980). On the Meaning of Tense and Aspect markers in Turkish. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis.

University of Kansas. Yavaş, F. (1982). The Turkish Aorist. Glossa 16:1. 40-43.

66

Turkish copular possessive construction

Mireille Tremblay - Hitay YüksekerQueen’s University & York University

DATA: Turkish has two phonologically distinct forms used to express existentials:an existential (1a), and a negated existential (1b).(1) a. kasa-da para var

safe-loc money COP-3ps"There is money in the safe."

b. kasa-da para yok safe-loc money not-COP

"There is no money in the safe".

The same lexical items. i.e. var and yok, are used to express possession.(2) a. para-m var

money-1sgpos COP-3ps "I have money"b. para-m yok

money-1sgpos not-COP-3ps"I don’t have money"

The presence of a Case-marked pronominal is licit but yields an emphatic interpretation.(3) ben-im para-m var

1sg-gen money-1sgpos COP-3ps

This genitive-marked possessor can be separated from the possessive marked possessed by another constituent such as a locative (4a), or an adverb (4b).(4) a. ben-im kasa-da para-m var

1s-gen safe-loc money-1sgpos COP-3sg"I have money in the safe."

b. ben-im her-zaman para-m var-(dIr)1sg-gen every-time money-1sgpos COP-(emph)"I always have money"

We argue that var and yok as used in (1) and (2) have the same semantic property (existential) and syntactically form the predicate either with the non-possessive DP (1) or with the possessive DP (2). Both uses involve the presence of a null pronoun subject (Underhill 1985 states that var and yok are used with third person singular subjects). The have interpretation, a specialized existence, is a consequence of the presence of genitive-possessive construction, and in the absence of this construction the default existential interpretation is achieved.

References

ErguvanlI, E.E. 1984. Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar. University of California Publication in Linguistics. vol 106. University of California Press.

Lewis, G.L. 1967. Turkish Grammar. Oxford University Press: OxfordUnderhill, R. 1985. Turkish Grammar. 4th printing. The MIT Press: Cambridge.van de Craats, I. 2000. Conservation in Acquisition of Possessive Constructions: A Study of Second

Language Acquisition by Turkish and Moroccan Learners of Dutch.

67

Restrictions on the participle –mIş

Ümit Deniz TuranAnadolu University

Since Underhill (1972), it has been widely accepted that relative clause participles -En and –DIk are in complementary distribution: The former is used with underlying subjects and the latter with non-subjects.

Even though a similar restriction does not extend to participle –mIş, there are other constraints that restrict the grammaticality of this participle. This paper is an attempt to investigate these constraints in terms of verbal lexical semantics and how meaning change is reflected on the head noun in the relative clause.

Constructed examples as in the following have been subjected to native speaker grammaticality judgments:

1. a. Akan muslukları tamir edelim. b. *Akmış muslukları tamir edelim.

2. a. *? Tanınan sanatçılar halka örnek olmalı. b. Tanınmış sanatçılar halka örnek olmalı.

The distinctions of grammaticality between these minimal pair sentences stem from the meaning of verbs and the effect caused on the head noun. We suggest that finer distinctions in verb meanings should be taken into account in the investigation of such grammaticality differences along with the perfective vs. imperfective aspect denoted by the participles –mIş and –En.

References

Aksu-Koç, A. (1988). The acquisition of aspect and modality: The case of past reference in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Erkman_Akerson, Fatma & Şeyda Ozil. 1998. Türkçede niteleme işlevli yan tümceler. Simurg, İstanbul. Johansson, Lars & Eva A. Csato. 1998. The Turkic Languages. Routledge, New York. Pustejekovsky, James. 2000. Events and the semantic opposition. Events as Grammtical objects. CSLI,

Stanford. Pp 445-482. Tenny, Carol & James Pustejekovsky. 2000. A history of events in linguistic theory. In C. Tenny and J.

Pustejekovsky. Events as Grammtical objects. CSLI, Stanford. Pp3-38. Underhill, Robert. 1972. Turkish participles. Linguistic Inquiry, 3/1: 87-99. Vendler, Zeno. 1968. Adjectives and nominalizations. Mouton, Paris.

68

Specificity and irrealis modality in Turkish

*Leyla Uzun - **Zeynep Erk Emeksiz*Ankara University & Essen University - **Anadolu University

This study aims at investigating the semantic effects of irrealis modality on the interpretation of specificity

Languages code realis-irrealis distinction using various linguistic devices in both lexical (e.g. adverbs, verbs, nouns ) and grammatical terms (e.g.counterfactuals, tense, aspect,mood) and such a distinction, as Chafe (1995) and Givon (1994) claim, is the reflection of how we percieve things in the real world. It is possible to find languages which reflect reality and irreality as the reflection of mind either directly in verbs and nouns such as Caddo and Northern Iroquoian languages, or indirectly through semantics of certain structures such as Turkish. This study aims at investigating the semantic effects of realis and irrealis modality markers on the interpretation of specificity in Turkish. The study focuses on especially indefinite nouns both at subject object positions and their semantics in terms of realis-irrealis distinction. The main assumption of the study is that aspect in realis contexts works as a presuppositional trigger and forces [+specific] understanding for indefinite singular NPs in Turkish . However, when there is an irrealis context, aspect loses its force and a precise [-specific] interpretation occurs for singular indefinite NPs. Related to this assumption, we claim that specificity should be described compositionally in order to account for the semantic contribution of irrealis modality to specific-non specific interpretations of noun phrases.

The findings of the study shows that realis-irrealis modality shows its effect in the semantics of specificity. Opposing to the assumption that accusative case marked indefinite nouns are specific (Enç,1991), this study reveals that indefinite nouns in non-factual linguistic environments are found to be non-existential and non referential therefore non-specific.

References

Chafe,W. 1995. ‘The realis-irrealis distinction in Caddo, the Northern Iroquoian languages and English’ In Bybee, J. and S. Fleıschman (eds) Modality in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia : John Benjamins Publishing Company

Csato, E. 1988. ‘Referential properties of some Turkish determiners’ In Koç, S.(ed) Studies on Turkish Linguistics. Ankara: Middle East Techinical University. 117-146

Enç, M. 1991. ‘ Specificity in Turkish’ Linguistic Inquiry vol.22 –1, 1-25Givon,T. 1994. ‘Irrealis and subjunctive’ Studies in Language vol.18, p. 265-337Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

69

Phonological variations in informal Turkish

Özlem Albaş VuralBilkent University & Hacettepe University

This paper will analyse the phonological variations in informal Turkish, basically in first person future tense verb conjugations. Data shows that first person future tense verbs show interesting variations during casual speech. The first person future form of a verb like /içmek/ would be /içeceğim/ in standard Turkish. However, it may be pronounced as içice:m, içici:m, iççem, etc. in casual, informal speech. I will try to explain how these changes occur by proposing phonological rules, such as raising, g-deletion, vowel assimilation, etc., which account for these changes. I will show that the same rules may account for more than one change by interacting with different rules.

While analysing the data, I will make use of some previous studies already done on informal speech. However, as very few detailed studies exist on informal Turkish, I will suggest new explanations for some of the changes. For example, vowel harmony is an important aspect of this study. After all the suffixes are added, vowel harmony is applied to these suffixes. However, roundness harmony does not apply to some verbs such as /söyle/ while it applies to others like /dur/. /dur/ becomes /durucam/ after vowel harmony is applied; however, */söylüycem/ would be unacceptable and it is pronounced as /söyliycem/. I will also try to give reasons for this interesting irregularity.

References

Clements, G. N. & Sezer, E. (1982). Vowel and Consonant Disharmony in Turkish. In Linguistic Models. (pp. 213-255). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

Kenstowicz, M. (1994). Phonology in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers. Lees, R. B. (1961). The Phonology of Modern Standard Turkish. Bloomington: Indiana University.Sezer, E. (1986). An Autosegmental Analysis of Conpensatory Lengthening in Turkish. In Wetzels,

L. & Sezer, E. (Eds.) Studies in Compensatory Lenghtening . (pp. 227-250). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

70

Gender indexical hedging strategies in Turkish media discourse

Semiramis Yağcıoğlu - Songül ErcanDokuz Eylül University

Various studies in sociolinguistics have revealed that gender roles which are assigned to people by the community and culture of which they are a part have a great effect on their language use. During the socialization process, women feel obliged to learn the appropriate behaviour expected from them and internalize the linguistic choices reflecting their gender. Women make choices from the existing pronunciation patterns, vocabulary and linguistic structures within the language that can be labeled as ‘women’s language’. It has been found out in studies on women’s language that particularly in oral communication and interaction women tend to use more hedges than men (Lakoff, 1975; Brown ve Levinson, 1987; Ponyton, 1989).

In this study, hedges which are said to have an indexical relationship with gender (Ochs, 1997) are studied in op-ed articles, a type of media discourse. Recent research on gender roles in written Turkish media discourse revealed that women indeed tend to use more hedges than men (Ercan, 2003). In this framework, as a further step, this study investigates whether there is a significant difference between hedging strategies that are favored by female and male op-ed article writers, i.e. whether certain hedging strategies can be viewed as gender indexical. The data base of this study consists of 108 articles written by female and male writers in six different Turkish daily newspapers.

References

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ercan, G. S. (2003). Language Use in Op-ed Articles: Hedges and Gender (Unpublished MA Thesis ). İzmir: Dokuz Eylül University.

Gee, J. P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.Gee, J. P. (2000). Social Linguistics and Literacies. London: Routledge/Falmer.Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and Row. Markkanen, R. and Schröder H. (ed.) (1997). Hedging and Discourse. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Ochs, E. (1997). “Indexing gender”. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (ed.) Rethinking Context, p.

335-358. New York: Cambridge.Ponyton, C. (1989). Language and Gender: Making the Difference. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.Trosborg, A. (1997). “Text Typology: Register, Genre and Text Type”. In Trosborg, A. (ed.) Text

Typology and Translation, p. 3-23. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Zuck, J. G. and Zuck L. V. (1985). “Hedging in Newswriting”. In Cornu, A. M., van Parjis, J. Delahaye,M. and Baten, L. (ed.) Beads or Bracelets? How do we approach LSP? Selected papers from the

5th European Symposium on LSP, p. 172-180. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

71

Language dominance and use among Turkish students in Western Europe

Kutlay YağmurTilburg Univertsity

In this paper, language use, choice, dominance and preference of Turkish youngsters in five multicultural West European cities are presented. Reported language proficiency of Turkish students between the ages of 6-11 is documented for Göteborg, Hamburg, The Hague, Brussels and Lyon. Also, language choice, language dominance, and language preference of the informants are presented cumulatively. Derived from this database, a (pseudo)-longitudinal profile and a language vitality index for Turkish youngsters for different age groups and ultimately for different generations are construed. In order to provide empirical evidence into language shift and maintenance, a vitality index for Turkish groups in five cities is calculated. From the analyses on the basis of four language dimensions (language proficiency, choice, dominance and preference), ultimately a cumulative language vitality index (LVI) for Turkish youngsters in each city is constructed. The LVI is based on the mean value of the presented scores for the four obtained language domains (Extra & Yagmur, 2004). This LVI is by definition an arbitrary index, in the sense that the chosen dimensions with the chosen operationalisations are equally weighted. The data presented here is derived from the Multilingual Cities Project, which has been carried out among 160.000 primary school students in six large European cities. The Turkish sample includes 10.258 students. Overall findings of the Multilingual Cities Project, and this study in particular, show that Turkish is one of the most vital immigrant languages in the European context. It is generally accepted that an immigrant language is used by the first generation of immigrants extensively; it is less prevalent among the second generation, and almost not to be found in the third generation (Gonzo & Saltarelli, 1983). However, the findings of this study clearly show that Turkish is the home language, even, for third-generation Turkish immigrant children. First language proficiency among all children is considerably high. Due to local circumstances and the structure of Turkish population, there are some differences between the countries with respect to language proficiency, choice, and preference. Evidence obtained from first and second-generation adult informants (Yagmur & Akinci, 2003; Yagmur, 2004) are highly in proportion with the findings presented here.

References

Gonzo, S. & Saltarelli, M. (1983). ‘Pidginization and Linguistic Change in Emigrant Languages’. In: R.W. Andersen (Ed.), Pidginization and Creolization as Language Acquisition. Rowley: Newbury House Publishers, 181-197.

Extra, G. & Yagmur, K. (2004). Dealing with multilingualism in multicultural Europe: Crossnational perspectives on immigrant minority languages at home and at school. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Yagmur, K. (2004). Language Maintenance Patterns of Turkish Immigrant Communities in Australia, and Western Europe: the impact of majority attitudes on ethnolinguistic vitality perceptions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 165, 121-142.

Yagmur, K. & Akinci, M.A. (2003). Language use, choice, maintenance and ethnolinguistic vitality of Turkish speakers in France: Intergenerational differences. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 164, 107- 128.

72

Analysis of derivational processes concerning related sets of verbs in Turkish.

Nafi YalçınMaltepe Military High School Command

While studying verbs ( or predicates) in particular languages, it is normally assumed that the related sets of verbs are based upon and derived from the same lexical roots. In order to account for these related verbs, which can often be specified as having the forms of state, process, and action, we need to develop a derivational system which might explain how the rest of the verbs in the set are derived from the basic one.

These explanations must be placed in one of the morphological, syntactic and semantic frameworks. While the previous two might be language specific, the latter one is expected to be independent of the language. Therefore the Generative Grammar, which in general favour for descriptive studies with explanatory adequacy, would naturally propose derivational systems based upon semantics rather than morphology and syntax. As a matter of fact, a number of derivational systems proposed so far, have been semantically oriented and attempted to give an adequate account of the derivational relations between the related predicates in a particular language.

In this presentation, the derivational processes concerning the apparent sets of Turkish verbs will be dealt with under the light of these semantically oriented derivational systems.

The study is mainly a descriptive analysis dealing with the structure and direction of the derivational processes thought to underlie the related sets of Turkish words. Such an analysis may also be useful in describing the voice alterations and valency changing phenomena as well.

References

Chafe, Wallace L. Meaning and Structure of the Language, Chicago: Uni. Of Chicago, 1971Cook, Walter, A. S.J. Case Grammar Theory,Washington,D.C.: George Town. Pres 1989Yalçın, Nafi, "Analysis of the Correlations between Thematic Roles and grammatical Relations in

Turkish Sentences." (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Ankara, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, 2002.

73

Politik söylemin ikna edici boyutları : Büyük ve küçük-ölçekli yapılar

Emine Yarar - Nalan BüyükkantarcıoğluHacettepe Üniversitesi

Bireyleri ya da tüm toplumu belirlenen amaçlar doğrultusunda ikna etmeye yönelik dil kullanımı, toplum psikolojisini, oy potansiyelini, güç ve yönetim ilişkilerini yeniden düzenleyebilen işlevleri nedeniyle politik söylemin önemli bir özelliği olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır. Birbirlerinden önemli farklılıkları olsun ya da olmasın, partiler ideolojilerini dile getiren söylemlerinde “daha yetkin” ve “daha farklı” oldukları görüşünü bilgilendirici, eleştirel ve planlayıcı söylem biçimleriyle güçlendirerek toplumu ikna edecek çeşitli stratejiler kullanmaktadırlar. Bu çalışmanın amacı, 2002 yılı Kasım ayında gerçekleştirilen genel seçimler öncesi AKP, CHP ve DYP adına parti başkanlarının çeşitli propaganda konuşmalarından derlenen sözlü metinlerin ikna edici işlevlerini büyük ve küçük ölçekli bilişsel ve dilsel yapılar bağlamında incelemektir. Partilerin politik söylem örnekleri dilbilimde eleştirel söylem çözümlemesi yöntemiyle iki aşamalı olarak ele alınmaktadır: Wodak ve diğerlerinin (1999) önerdikleri eleştirel söylem çözümlemesi yöntemine dayanılarak ilk aşamada büyük ölçekli yapılar çerçevesinde kavramsal alanlar ve bilişsel stratejiler belirlenmekte, bu stratejiler bağlamında ortaya çıkan ikna edici sözel eylemin üç temel önerme biçimi olan olgusal önermeler, değer önermeleri ve eylemsel önermeler ile bütüncül tartışma düzeni (argumentative scheme) saptanmaktadır.. İkinci aşama olan küçük ölçekli çözümlemede ilk aşamada belirlenen örüntülerin dilsel düzlemde nasıl oluştukları sözcük seçimleri, biçimbilimsel ve sözdizimsel yapılarla desteklenmektedir. Sonuçta, büyük ve küçük ölçekli inceleme bulguları ilişkilendirilerek, sosyal psikolojide Petty, Cacioppo v.d. (1994) tarafından geliştirilen modele göre yorumlanmaktadır. Böylece, Türk politik söyleminin ikna edici boyutları genel özelliklere bağlanmakta, kullanılan stratejilerin ve dilsel yansımaların partilere göre nitelik ve çeşitlilik açısından dağılımı karşılaştırmalı biçimde sunulmaktadır.

Kaynakça

Baron, R. A. ve Byrne, D. (1997) Social Psychology. Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.Fairclough, N.(1989) Language and Power. London:Longman.Jones, J.ve Warcing, S. (1999) Language and Politics. Language, Society and Power, L. Thomas ve

S.Warcing(Eds.) ss.32-47. London & NewYork : Routledge.Lakoff, R.T. (1982) Persuasive Discourse and Ordinary Conversation with Examples from

Advertising. Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk.ss.25-42. Georgetown University Press.Petty,R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., Strathman, A.J., Priester, J.R. (1994) To Think or Not to Think :

Exploring Two Routes of Persuasion. S. Shavit& T.C. Brock (Eds.) Persuasion. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. ss. 113-147.

Wodak, R., de Cillia, R.,Reisigl, M., Liebhart, K. (1999) The Discursive Construction of National Identity. Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press.

74

The structure of NP and the problem of locating NP in Turkish

Mehmet Ali YavuzDokuz Eylül University

In Generative Grammar, it is been agreed upon that VP originates as the complement of I' (I-Bar), which is the daughter of the functional phrase, IP. In the same way, there has been a tendency for the adoption of the view that NP branches out from a functional category rather than directly from IP, VP or PP. What is this functional category? It is a widely held belief that NP originates as the complement of DP. There is another claim that NP is a category deriving from the functional phrase, Agr. P. Careful scrutiny of NPs will enable us to realize that a noun phrase is a category that branches out from another functional category other than Agr. P or DP

In this paper, we aim at studying the examples related to the functional category in question and revealing the location of NPs in sentences.

References

Adger, D. (2003). Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chomsky, N. (1982). Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrecht: Foris. Cook, V, J. and Newson, M. (1996, 2nd. Ed.), Chomsky’s Universal Grammar, Oxford: Blackwell

ublishers.Haegeman, L & Guéron, J. (1999), English Grammar: a generative perspective, Oxford:

Blackwell PublishersMarantz, A. (1995). The Minimalist Program, In G. Webelhuth(Ed), Government and Binding Theory

and The Minimalist Program, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.Hornstein,N.(1995), Logical Form From GB to Minimalism, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Uzun N,E. (2000). Ana Çizgileriyle Evrensel Dilbilgisi ve Türkçe.

75

Evasive action: Interactional style of Turkish women in interviews on sexual and health issues

Neslihan YetkinerUniversity of Groningen

Against the background of a substantial research literature in the dynamics of answering and resisting or evading questions in broadcast news interviews (Clayman, 1990, 2001; Galasinski, 1996; Harris, 1991 among others), this study argues that evasiveness provides a valuable conceptual framework for highlighting “gendered” self-presentation styles in the analysis of talk on taboo topics triggering social anxiety. As threat to addressee’s face and threat to their own face are main reasons of interactans for referring to a distasteful topic evasively and indirectly, face management (Brown & Levinson 1997) and Bavelas and colleagues’ (1988, 1990) avoidance-avoidance conflict, where all the possible responses to a question may have negative consequence a reply is still expected, provide a theoretical underpinning.

My data are based on 16 hours of informal group interviews on sexual and health issues with 49 uneducated Turkish women. As the respondents voluntarily agreed on participating in our study in their own place or a friend’s house, cultural values such as hospitality, treating the guest (interviewer) kindly, and conforming to Turkish interactional norms, become more important than in casual conversation. Hence, a variety of strategies of subtle resistance and evasiveness can be observed.

I will describe those strategies in relation to the speakers’ self-presentation in talking about neutral and sensitive topics The paper concludes by proposing that cultural construct of “womanhood” affects the organization and content of discourse, especially in taboo topics.

References

Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovil, N., & Mullett, J. (1990). Truths, lies, and equivocations: The effects of conflicting goals on discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9, 129-155.

Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Bryson, L., & Mullett, J. (1988). Political equivocation: A situational explanation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7, 137-145.

Clayman, S. E. (1993). Reformulating the Question: A Device for Answering/Not Answering Questions in News Interviews and Press Conferences. Text, 13(2), 159-188

Galasinski, D. (1996).Deceptiveness of evasion.Text 16(10, 1-22.)Harris, S. (1991). Evasive Action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews. In P.

Scannel (Ed.) Broadcast Talk.London. Sage, 76-99.

76

Two sincerity markers in Turkish women’s talk: “Valla(hi)” and “gerçekten”

*Neslihan Yetkiner - **Gisela RedekerUinversity of Groningen - ** University of Konstanz

This study attempts to explore ways in which “valla(hi)” an originally Arabic religious oath meaning “ I swear in the name of the God”, and “gerçekten” (really), a rather contemporary, non-religious sincerity marker in modern Turkish, are used by Turkish women in their talk on sexual and health issues.

The paper specifically asks the following questions: (i) What interactional functions do “valla” and “gerçekten” serve? (ii) What kind of “valla” and “gerçekten” usage associate with which style of self-presentation? (iii) Do “valla” and “gerçekten” usages display topic sensitivity or not?

The data show that “valla” is used with six different functions, namely as an assertion of sincerity, defense against a face-threat, mitigation of a face-threatening act, response particle, solidarity device, and delay device. Most of these functions are also found for “gerçekten”. For both markers, assertion of sincerity is by far the most frequent use. Both “valla” and “gerçekten” are uttered in everyday conversation for long-term and future goals of convincing listeners that the speaker’s subjective claims are true, developing an image of a likeable and reliable person, and/or assuring and stabilizing that image for the rest of the conversation.

We further show that social anxiety triggered by sensitive topics forces speakers to monitor their words and to establish a preferred impression. In the Ankara group, we found a statistically significant relationship between topic sensitivity and “valla” usage, In the Dutch group, “gerçekten” is found to be used nearly as often as “valla”.For these speakers, ”valla” usage does not vary with topic sensitivity, while uses of “gerçekten” are more frequent in talk on sensitive topics.

References

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1985) Social anxiety and communication about the self. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4, 171-192.

Schutz, A. (1998) Assertive, offensive, protective, and defensive styles of self-presentation: a taxonomy. Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary & Applied, Nov98, Vol.132 Issue 6 611-629.

77

Turkish adverbial complementizer –ken and its interaction with tense-aspect-modality markers

Filiz Çetintaş YıldırımMersin University

In traditional grammar, the adverbial complementizer –ken is regarded as conveying the meaning of simultaneity. However, this is not the case when it interacts with TAM markers such as –mIş and –AcAk. This poster presentation will display the syntactic and semantic representation of –ken and its changing senses together with TAM markers. This presentation claims that –ken is neutral in temporal reference, and it takes its interpretation from the TAM markers with which it co-occurs.

It is a fact that –ken can not be added to bare verbs. When it is attached to uninflected verbs, the outcome becomes ungrammatical.

(1) * [Okula git-ken] Ayşe’yle karşılaştım.

As it is pointed out (Gencan, 2001; Lewis, 1986; Sezer, 2001), –ken requires a verbal stem inflected by TAM markers.

(2) [Okula gid-er-ken] Ayşe’yle karşılaştım. ‘I came across Ayşe while I was going to the school.’ (3) [Babam sigara iç-iyor-ken] anneme yakalandı. ‘My father was spotted by my mother while he was smoking cigarettes.’

Although –ken conveys simultaneity in statements where it co-occurs with the Turkish aorist –Ar as in the example (2) or the progressive marker –Iyor as in the example (3), it does not necessarily convey this meaning when it is used with the future marker –AcAk and the perfective –mIş as in the examples (4) and (5) below.

(4) [Eve gid-ecek-ken] arkadaşıma gittim. ‘I went to my friend’s house instead of going to my house.’ (5) [Örgü şişlerini elime al-mış-ken] Pınar’a da bir kazak öreyim dedim. ‘I thought that I might knit a pullover for Pınar by evaluating the opportunity of taking the knitting needles in my hand.’

It is observed that when –ken is used with –AcAk and –mIş, it permits modal reading, and it does not convey a temporal reference.

References

Csatό, E. A. &Johanson, L. 1998. Turkish. In, Csatό, E. A. &Johanson, L. (Eds.). The Turkic Languages (203-235). London:Routledge.

Gencan, T.N. 2001. Dilbilgisi. Ankara: Ayraç Yayınevi.Johanson, L. 1995. On Turkic Converb Clauses. In, Haspelmath, M. &König, E. (Eds.). Converbs in

Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms-Adverbial Participles, Gerunds (313-347). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.

Kornfilt, J. 1997. Turkish. London:Routledge.Lewis, G. L. 1986. Turkish Grammar. Oxford:Oxford University Press. Sezer, E. 2001. Finite Inflection in Turkish. In, Erguvanlı Taylan,E. (Ed.). The Verb in Turkish (1-45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Subaşı Uzun, L. & Erk Emeksiz, Z. 2003. Türkçe’de –Ar Biçimbiriminin Anlamsal ve Sözdizimsel

Yapısı Üzerine. In, König, G. & Büyükkantarcıoğlu, N. et al. (Eds.). XVI. Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri, 23-24 Mayıs 2002 (129-145). Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi.

Von Gabain, A. 2000. Eski Türkçenin Grameri. Ankara:TDK.Yavaş, F. 1982a. Future Reference in Turkish. In, Linguistics 20, 411-428.Yavaş, F. 1982b. The Turkish Aorist. In, Glossa 16:1, 40-52.

78

Agents and passives

Hitay YüksekerQueen’s University & York University

In this paper examine what determiines the use of the Turkish equivalent of the by-phrases in passive constructions.

My informants reject the passive construction in (1), but accept the passive in (2).

(1) *Bu parça Ihsan taraf-in-dan bestele-n-dithis piece Ihsan side-possessive-ablative compose-passive-past‘This piece was composed by Ihsan.’

(2) Bu parça Mozart taraf-in-dan bestele-n-dithis piece Mozart side-possessive-ablative compose-passive-past‘This piece was composed by Mozart’

I will argue that in Turkish, passivization a semantic operation to focus the event represented by the verb (or verbal complex). By –phrase is allowed only when it can form a cluster with the focused verb (Hopper and Thompson 1984, Myhill 1988, and Croft 2003). The clustering relation is determined by the categoriiality of the verb and the NP. In (2) “Mozart” is a ‘low referential NP” as no new information is provided, thus it can form a cluster with the focused verb. On the other hand, in (1) the by phrase introduces “new information” as the identity of “Ihsan” is not known by the hearer.

References

Croft, W. 2003. 2nd ed. Typology and Universals. Cambridge University PressHopper, P.J. and S.A. Thompson. 1984 The discourse basis for lexical Categoriws in Universal

Grammar. Language 60:4. pp. 703-752.Myhill, J. 1988. Categoriality and Clustering. Studies in Language, 12:2. pp261-298.

79

The unaccusative-unergative distinction in Turkish: An experimental investigation

Deniz Zeyrek - Cengiz AcartürkMiddle East Technical University

The prevailing approach to understanding argument structure, lexical semantics, and verbal alternations is to presume that verbs belong to distinct classes. In the spirit of this line of research, we will deal with split intransitivity in Turkish. The Auxiliary Selection Hierarchy (ASH) (Sorace 1995, 2000) is the basic framework of this study. It is a thematic/aspectual hierarchy which maintains that certain intransitive verbs manifest ‘core’ unaccusativity, certain verbs exhibit ‘core’ unergativity, while others are invariant in their syntactic behaviour. We will build our work on two sources; namely Nakiboğlu (1998, 2001), who has suggested that some Turkish verbs exhibit invariable behaviour, and Sorace and her colleagues (Keller & Sorace 2003, Sorace & Shomura 2001), who have suggested that the invariable behaviour of verbs in German and Romance languages is largely predictable from their place on the ASH. We will propose that impersonal passivization (IP) and adjectival passivization (AP), two well-known structures suggested as diagnostics of split intransitivity are sensitive to the verb classes on the ASH. We will test this hypothesis experimentally. We will collect native speaker judgements for the verbs used in the IP and AP constructions through a web-based questioannaire where the participants will be asked to indicate their judgement on each construction by evaluating it against a ‘modulus item’ (i.e. an ugrammatical construction). As suggested by Sorace & Keller (2002), the interface will be designed in a way to allow the participants to judge each questionnaire item against this modulus item, rather than asking them to provide binary judgements (i.e. grammatical vs. ungrammatical). In this way, we hope to gather reliable data on the grammatical judgements of the participants. The results will be evaluated by means of ANOVA on the SPSS. Our main proposal will be that, similar to several European languages, Turkish has core unaccusatives and core unergatives and, more importantly, it has subsets of verbs which exhibit invariable behaviour. These are largely ‘change of state/location’ verbs.

References

Perlmutter, D. 1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In Woodbury, A.C., et al (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. University of California, Berkeley. 157-189.

Sorace, A. 1995. Acquiring linking rules and argument structures in a second language. The unaccusative/unergative distinction. In Eubank, L., L. Selinker, & M. S. Sharwood (eds.), The Current State of Interlanguage. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Sorace, A. 2000. Gradience in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language, Vol. 76, No. 4, 859-890.

Sorace, A. &. Keller, F. 2003. Gradient auxiliary selection and impersonal passivization in German: An experimental investigation. Journal of Linguistics, 39, 57 108.

Sorace, A. & Shomura, Y. 2001. Lexical constraints on the acquisition of split intransitivity. Evidence from L2 Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23, 247-278.

Nakiboglu, M. 1998. Split intransitivity and the syntax-semantics interface in Turkish. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Minnesota.

Nakiboglu-Demiralp, M. 2001. The referential properties of the implicit arguments of impersonal passive constructions. In Erguvanli Taylan, E. (ed.), The Verb in Turkish. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

80

ARAŞTIRMA SUNULARI ÖZETLERİ

81

Yazınsal ve yazınsal olmayan metinlerde “bu, şu” adıllarının kullanımı

Asuman AğaçsapanAnadolu Üniversitesi

Bu çalışmada hem sıfat hem de adıl olarak kullanılan bu-şu sözcüklerinin metin işaret adılı olarak öngönderim, artgönderim ve dışgönderim işlevleri olası öncülleri de göz önünde bulundurularak incelenecektir. Metindilbilim çalışmalarında yineleme işlevleriyle ele alınmış olan bu-şu adılları Türkçe yazınsal ve yazınsal olmayan metinlerde farklı işlev ve sıklıkta mı kullanılmaktadırlar? Metinlerin gramer bağdaşıklık nitel ve nicel özellikleriyle metin türü arasında bir uyum söz konusu mudur? Bu sorulara yazınsal tür öykü ile yazınsal olamayan tür gazete köşe yazılarından toplanacak verilerin metindilbilimsel yöntemle incelenmesiyle elde edilecek olan bulgularla yanıt aranacaktır. Hasan Pulur, Bekir Çoşkun ve Çetin Altan ‘ın köşe yazılarından yazınsal olmayan metinlerin veri tabanını oluşturulmuştur. Yazınsal metin türü olarak kısa öyküler seçilmiş olup bu metin türünün veri tabanı da Öykü yazarları İnci Aral, Özcan Karabulut ve Nalan Barborosoğlu’nun öykülerinden oluşmaktadır. Bu yanıtlarla,bu-şu adıllarının farklı metinlerde farklı kullanımlarının olup olmadığını saptayarak bağdaşıklık düzeyinin metin dilbilimsel çözümlenmesiyle yazınsallık kriterine katkıda bulunabilmek ve yazınsal olmayan metinlerdeki türe özel gramer bağdaşıklığını bulunabilmek amaçlanmaktadır.

Kaynakça

Beaugrande, Alain de und Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler “Einführung in die Textlinguistik”Özil, Şeyda ve Canan Şenöz. 1996. Türkçe’de “bu, şu”

Turan, Ümit Deniz “Metin işaret adılları:bu, şu”. XI. Dilbilim Kurultayı: Bildiri. ODTÜ, 22-23 Mayıs1997. 2001-212

82

Acoustic analysis of Turkish sounds

Ebru Arısoy, Levent Arslan, Mine Nakipoğlu-Demiralp, Hazım K. Ekenel, Meltem Kelepir, Hasan Mesut Meral, A. Sumru Özsoy, Ömer Şayli, Oytun Türk, Beste Can Yolcu

Boğaziçi University

The aim of the study is to provide an instrumental description of the Turkish sounds in order to contribute to the fuller description of the sounds of the language. Very few instrumental phonetic analyses of Turkish exist. This presentation aims to contribute to these studies and report on the present state of such studies at Boğaziçi University. A complete phonetic description of Turkish consonants and vowels is provided using speech processing tools such as WaveSurfer, HTK, GVZ and Sestek Recorder. The database consists of the recordings made by 15 native speakers. Approximately 10,000 Turkish words were recorded and analyzed.

Vowels are analyzed in terms of formant structure and duration. The average formant frequencies and durations are computed. The durational charecteristics of consonants are determined using phonetically labelled data.

The complete phonetic description of Turkish sounds arrived at as a result of the analyses above is made available in the form of Power Point presentation slides.

References

Kopkalli, H. 1993. A Phonetic and Phonological Analysis of Final Devoicing in Turkish. University of Michigan. Ph. D. Dissertation.

Selen, N., Söyleyiş Sesbilimi, Akustik Sesbilim ve Türkiye Türkçesi, Türk Dil KurumuYayınları, Ankara, 1979.

83

Linguistic expressions by Turkish females and males to reflect gender role stereotypes

*Nazlı Baykal - **Meryem Şen*Middle East technical University - **Kocaeli University

Traditionally, men are supposed to earn a living to support their families. They are to be aggressive and in charge. Women belong at home cooking, cleaning, and caring for children. They are to be submissive and weak. Gender stereotypes such as these pervade society today (Hetherington&Parke,1999).

Males and females are thought different appropriate behaviours for their gender(Burn,1996). This begins at such an early age that children fully underestand how to act according to their gender by age five or six (Basow,1980).

A child’s parents are some of the first socialization agents he or she will come into contact with. Parents teach stereotypes through the way they dress their children, the way they decorate their children’s rooms, the toys they give children to play with, and their own attitudes and behaviours (Hetherington&Parke,1999).

Each branch of psychology has its own explanation for the internalization of gender stereotypes. Psychoanalysts claim that they stem from the child’s identification with his or her same-sex parent. Social learning theorists claim that children copy what they observe to be appropriate. Cognitive theorists believe that the child learns what sex he or she is, and then adopts behaviours that are consistent with that gender (Papalia,Olds& Feldman, 1998).

Linguistic gender varieties arise because, language, as a social phenomenon, is closely related to social attitudes acquired during childhood. Society lays down different social roles to men and women and this is reflected in the language they use (Trudgill,1984).

Following these indications, we wanted to see how these existing gender role stereotypes are linguistically expressed by males and females in this study. Participants are composed of middle aged and adolescent males and females; 10 people in each group and belonging to each sex. Data is collected during naturally occurring conversation with topics that would generate ideas on gender role stereotypes and then coded according to the prescribed categories stated by Helvacıoğlu (1996).

Comparisons of perception and expression of gender role stereotypes, as far as the age variable is concerned, will shed some light on changing statuses, social and cultural structure of society in this globalized world with particular emphasis to Turkish society.

References

Basow,S.A. (1980) Sex-Role Stereotypes: Traditions and Alternatives. Monterey, CA:Brooks/Cole Publishing Company

Burn,S.M. (1996) The Social Psychology of Gender. New York: Mc Graw Hill,Inc.Helvacıoğlu,F. (1996) Ders Kitaplarında Cinsiyetçilik 1928-1995. Kaynak YayınlarıHetherington,E.M., Parke,R.D. (1999) Child Psychology: A Contemporary Viewpoint (5th ed.) New

York: Mac Graw Hill CollegePapalia,D.E., Olds,S.W.,& Feldman,R.D. (1998) Human Development (7th ed.) New York: Mc Graw-

HillTrudgill,P. (1984) Applied Sociolinguistics. London: Academic Press

84

Ağızlar eski kelimeler kaynağı gibi

Kübra KuliyevaNesimi Adına Dilcilik Enstitüsü – Azerbaycan Milli Bilimler Akademisi

Dil onu yaratmış halkın tarihiyle bağlıdır ve bu tarihi yine de halk kendisi yaşatıyor. Bugün ağızlarda eski devirlerin taş anıtlarında rastladığımız yüzlerce kelime kullanılmaktadır ve onların yardımıyla halkımızın tarihini, dilimizin eskiliğini, hangi boyların dilleri esasında biçimlendiğini öğrenmek mümkündür. Bugün Oğuz, Kıpçak, Karluk, Bulgar diye gruplara ayırdığımız Türk dillerini de dildeki eski unsurlar esasında ortaya çıkarmışız. Bu işte en iyi rehberimiz ağızlar olmuştur.

Diğer Türk dilleri gibi Azeri ağızları da eski kelimeler kaynağıdır. Bunlara azbar, terek, elat, paça, ırak, giyov gibi yüzlerce, belki binlerce kelimeyi örnek olarak gösterebiliriz. Bu kelimelerin etimolojik yönden açıklanması dil ve tarihimiz için bir sıra önemli meselelerin çözülmesine imkan veriyor.

Ağızlarda kullanılan terek kelimesi ‘kesilmiş ağaç, odun’ veya ‘yapı malzemesi’ gibi anlamlar bildirmektedir. Kelimenin d- varyantı edebi dilde yine aynı anlamları bildirmektedir. Eski yazılı abidelerde ise ‘kavak’ manasında kullanılmıştır. Kelimenin canlı ağaç anlamı bildirmesine yalnız Derbent ağzında rastlıyoruz ve bu komşu kumuk dilinin etkisidir. Dilcilik edebiyatlarında Farsçadaki dereht kelimesinin de bu kelimeden oluştuğu kaydediliyor. Fakat kelimenin eski Şumer, Eti ve Sanskrit dillerinde de kullandığını ve günümüz İngiliz ve Rus dillerinde çeşitli fonetik biçimlerde olduğunu göz önüne alarak, onun nostratik bir kelime olduğunu söyleyebiliriz. Fakat diğer eski dil ailelerinin yanısıra Türk dillerinde de kullanılması ve asemantikleşmiş bir kelimeye dönüşmesi onu Türk dilleri için de eski bir kelime olarak kabul etmemize hak veriyor. Bugün gerek Azeri edebi dili, gerekse ağızlarında bu kelimenin esasında direk, dirsek,dar ağacı, dor ağacı, tirlenmek, durmak, dırmaşmak/ dırmanmak, diremek, direnmek ve bş. eşya ve hareket bildiren kelimeler oluşmuştur.

Kaynakça

Dmitriyev L.V.Obşealtayskiye nazvaniya osnovı v tyurkskoy fitonimike. ST, 1975, No 5.Drevnetyurkskiy slovar. L.,1969.Musayev K.Leksikologiya tyurkckix yazıkov. M.,1984.Musayev K. Nekotorıye voprosı leksiko-semantiçeskoy differensiasii i integrasii tyurkskix yazıkov.

Tyurkologiçeskiye issledovaniya. M., 1976.Axmetyanov R.G. Sravnitelnoye issledovaniye tatarskogo i çuvaşskogo yazıkov. M., 1979.

85