Visual perception verbs and degrees of certainty in Turkish: The case of görünmek and gözükmek

Zeynep Erk Emeksiz

doi:10.18492/dad.932329

Research Article

Türkçede görme algı eylemleri ve kesinlik derecelenmesi: Görünmek ve gözükmek

Year 2021, Volume: 32 Issue: 2, 69 - 81, 31.12.2021

Zeynep Erk Emeksiz

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.932329

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkçede nesne algı eylemleri olan görün- ve gözük- ‘ün anlamsal genişlemelerini ve söylemdeki işlevlerini bilgi kaynağına karşı olan tutumları ve kanıtsallık açısından betimlemektir. Çalışmanın bulguları Türkçe Ulusal Derlem’e dayanmaktadır. Çalışmanın sonuçları her iki eylemin de benzer anlamsal genişlemeler ve söylem işlevleri taşıdıklarını ancak görünmek eyleminin daha çok tercih edilen biçim olduğunu göstermektedir. Kanıtsallık açısından, her iki eylemin de dolaylı kanıta dayalı önermeler için kullanıldığı gözlenmektedir. Görünmek eylemi, konuşmacıların/yazarların bilgi kaynağına karşı tutumu açısından öznelden özneler arası tutuma doğru ikili bir yapı taşımaktadır. TUD verilerine göre görün- en fazla nesne adılları (bana/bize) ve iyelik çekimi gösteren ‘gözüme/gözümüze’ ile eşdizilimli görünmektedir. Dolayısıyla görün-ana tümcenin eylemi olduğunda konuşmacı/yazar bilgi kaynağı olarak kendini sözcesine eklemekte ve daha öznel bir bakış açısı sunabilmektedir. Ancak ‘görünen o ki’ ve ‘öyle görünüyor ki’ gibi ara sözceler özneler arası bakış açısıyla kullanılmaktadır ve bilgi kaynağına dair herhangi bir işaret içermemektedir. Bu gözleme dayanarak konuşmacıların/ yazarların ara sözce biçimlerini kullanarak önermelerinin bilgi kaynağıyla ilgili sorumluluk almadıklarını ve bir söylem stratejisi olarak kaçamaklama yaptıklarını söylenebilir.

Keywords

Görme Algı Eylemleri , Türkçe bilgi tutumu , Kesinlik , Kanıtsallık

References

Aijmer, K. (2009). Seem and evidentiality.. Functions of Language. 16 (1) s. 63-88.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra (2004) Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boye, K. (2012). Epistemic meaning: A crosslinguistic and functional-cognitive study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
De Haan, F. (1999) Evidentiality and epistemic modality: Setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 18: 83-101.
-------------------------(2007). ‘Raising as grammaticalization: the case of Germanic Seem verbs’. Rivista di Linguistica 19.1. pp 129-150.
Diewald, G. and E. Smirnova. (2010). Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European Languages. Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter. Gisborne, N. (2010). The event structure of perception verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Erdal, M. (1991). Old Turkic Word Formation: A Functional Approach to the Lexicon, I-II. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Grossmann, F. & A. Tutin. 2010. Evidential markers in French scientific writing: The case of the French verb voir. Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages. Gabriele Diewald & Elena Smirnova, eds. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 279-308.
Nakamura, F. (2010). Uncovering of rare or unknown usages: a history of seem meaning to pretend. In M. Kytö (Ed.), Language change and variation from Old English to Late Modern English: A festschrift for Minoji Akimoto (pp. 217-238). Berne: Peter Lang.
Nuyts, J. (2001). Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive–pragmatic perspective (Vol. 5). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Palmer, F. (2001) Mood and Modality. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Papafragou, A. (2000). Modality: Issues in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Picoche, J. (1986). Structures sémantiques du lexique français. Paris
Plungian, V., A. (2011). Types of verbal evidentiality marking: an overview. In Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages, ed. by Diewald, Gabriele and Elena Smirnova, 15-58. Berlin - New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Renata, E. (2012). Les modalités de perception visuelle et auditive : Différences conceptuelles et répercussions sémantico-syntaxiques en espagnol et en français. Berlin-New-york: Walter de Gruyter.
Rubin, V. L., Kando, N., & Liddy, E. D. (2004). Certainty categorization model. In Paper presented at the AAAI spring symposium: Exploring attitude and affect in text: Theories and applications, Stanford, CA.
Rubin, V. L. (2006). Identifying certainty in texts. Doctoral thesis. Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
Traugott, E. C. (1995) Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In: Dieter Stein and Susan Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. and Dasher, R.B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Traugott, E.C. (2010). Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, ed. by Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens, 29-70. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sweetser, E. E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure Whitt, R.J. (2010). Evidentiality and perception verbs in English and German. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag.
Willett, T. (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12(1): 51–97.
Whitt, R.J. (2010). Evidentiality and perception verbs in English and German. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag.
Viberg, A., 1983. The verbs of perception: a typological study. Linguistics 21 (1), 123–162.

Visual perception verbs and degrees of certainty in Turkish: The case of görünmek and gözükmek

Year 2021, Volume: 32 Issue: 2, 69 - 81, 31.12.2021

Zeynep Erk Emeksiz

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.932329

Cited By: 1

Abstract

This study aims at describing the meaning extensions and functions of the object-oriented see type verbs ‘görünmek’ and ‘gözükmek’ in Turkish in terms of the evidential status and epistemic stance they encode. The observations of this research are based on corpora obtained from Turkish National Corpus.The results indicate that görün- and gözük- share some common features in terms of their functions in discourse. They are both used evidentially with indirect evidence. TNC corpus in general shows that görün- in Turkish presents a dichotomous structure from subjective to intersubjective forms. The subjective forms ‘görün-, gibi görün’ have the highest usage of the objective personal pronoun ‘bana’ and the possessive form ‘gözüme’ indicating the involvement of the speakers/writers to the situation presented. When speakers/writers present their utterances in intersubjective point of view, they prefer the parenthetical forms such as ‘görünen o ki’ without any objective personal pronouns involved. This suggests that speakers/writers do not take the responsibility of the truthiness of their utterances in intersubjective mode.

Keywords

Visual perception , Verbs , Turkish epistemic stance , Certainty , Evidentiality

Supporting Institution

Humboldt Stiftung

References

Aijmer, K. (2009). Seem and evidentiality.. Functions of Language. 16 (1) s. 63-88.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra (2004) Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Boye, K. (2012). Epistemic meaning: A crosslinguistic and functional-cognitive study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
De Haan, F. (1999) Evidentiality and epistemic modality: Setting boundaries. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 18: 83-101.
-------------------------(2007). ‘Raising as grammaticalization: the case of Germanic Seem verbs’. Rivista di Linguistica 19.1. pp 129-150.
Diewald, G. and E. Smirnova. (2010). Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European Languages. Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter. Gisborne, N. (2010). The event structure of perception verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Erdal, M. (1991). Old Turkic Word Formation: A Functional Approach to the Lexicon, I-II. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Grossmann, F. & A. Tutin. 2010. Evidential markers in French scientific writing: The case of the French verb voir. Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages. Gabriele Diewald & Elena Smirnova, eds. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 279-308.
Nakamura, F. (2010). Uncovering of rare or unknown usages: a history of seem meaning to pretend. In M. Kytö (Ed.), Language change and variation from Old English to Late Modern English: A festschrift for Minoji Akimoto (pp. 217-238). Berne: Peter Lang.
Nuyts, J. (2001). Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive–pragmatic perspective (Vol. 5). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Palmer, F. (2001) Mood and Modality. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Papafragou, A. (2000). Modality: Issues in the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Picoche, J. (1986). Structures sémantiques du lexique français. Paris
Plungian, V., A. (2011). Types of verbal evidentiality marking: an overview. In Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages, ed. by Diewald, Gabriele and Elena Smirnova, 15-58. Berlin - New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Renata, E. (2012). Les modalités de perception visuelle et auditive : Différences conceptuelles et répercussions sémantico-syntaxiques en espagnol et en français. Berlin-New-york: Walter de Gruyter.
Rubin, V. L., Kando, N., & Liddy, E. D. (2004). Certainty categorization model. In Paper presented at the AAAI spring symposium: Exploring attitude and affect in text: Theories and applications, Stanford, CA.
Rubin, V. L. (2006). Identifying certainty in texts. Doctoral thesis. Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
Traugott, E. C. (1995) Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In: Dieter Stein and Susan Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives, 31–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. and Dasher, R.B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Traugott, E.C. (2010). Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, ed. by Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens, 29-70. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sweetser, E. E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure Whitt, R.J. (2010). Evidentiality and perception verbs in English and German. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag.
Willett, T. (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 12(1): 51–97.
Whitt, R.J. (2010). Evidentiality and perception verbs in English and German. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag.
Viberg, A., 1983. The verbs of perception: a typological study. Linguistics 21 (1), 123–162.

There are 24 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language	English
Subjects	Language Studies
Journal Section	Research Articles
Authors	Zeynep Erk Emeksiz 0000-0002-6766-7219
Publication Date	December 31, 2021
Published in Issue	Year 2021 Volume: 32 Issue: 2

Cite

APA	Erk Emeksiz, Z. (2021). Visual perception verbs and degrees of certainty in Turkish: The case of görünmek and gözükmek. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 32(2), 69-81. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.932329

Cited By

Visual perception verbs in Old Anatolian Turkish

Journal of Historical Linguistics

https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.00017.erk

Article Files

Full Text

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND) International License.

Journal DOI: 10.18492/dad