Redirecting to http://dergipark.org.tr/_fragment?_hash=BUaWp8P4G8d1g2tk_cz_TXqM4ETpRuAYDrjGqDtuj2w&_path=id%3D1185344%26_format%3Dhtml%26_locale%3Den%26_controller%3DApp%255CController%255CSite%255CArticleController%253A%253AesiArticleStats.
Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Türkçe karşılaştırma yapılarında birtakım konular

Year 2023, Volume: 34 Issue: 1, 57 - 79, 20.06.2023

Umut Özge

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1185344

Abstract

Makale, Türkçede sözdizim anlambilim arakesitinde karşılaştırma yapılarıyla ilgili birtakım konulara odaklanmaktadır. Önce, karşılaştırma yapılarının adlaştırma temelinde çalışılmalarına rağmen zengin bir tümcesel yapı içerebileceklerini göstereceğiz. Sonrasında karşılaştırma yapılarının anlamlandırılmasının, bu görev için söylemsel ipuçlarına ihtiyaç duyan dillerin aksine, sözdizimsel yapı tarafından kısıtlandığını göstereceğiz. Sonrasında karşılaştırma standardının dilbilgisel özellikleri üzerinde duracağız. Burada öbeksel ve tümcesel karşılaştırma başı olarak iki seçeneği inceleyeceğiz. Bu seçeneklerden ilkinin eldeki verilerle uyuşmadığını göstererek ikinci seçeneğin geçerli olduğu sonucuna varacağız.

Keywords

karşılaştırma yapıları Türkçe sözdizim anlambilim

References

  • Beck, S., Hohaus, V., and Tiemann, S. (2012). A note on phrasal comparatives. In A. Chereches (Ed.), Proceedings of SALT 22 (pp. 146-165). University of Chicago Press.
  • Bhatt, R. & Pancheva, R. (2004). Late merger of degree clauses. Linguistic Inquiry, 35, 1–45.
  • Bhatt, R., &Takahashi, S. (2011). Reduced and unreduced phrasal comparatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29, 581–620.
  • Bierwisch, M. (1989). The semantics of gradation. In M. Bierwisch and E. Lang (Eds.), Dimensional adjectives: Grammatical structure and conceptual interpretation (pp. 71–261). Springer-Verlag.
  • Borsley, D. R., & Kornfilt, J. (2000). Mixed extended projections. In D. R. Borsley (Ed.), The nature and function of syntactic categories (pp. 101–131). Academic Press.
  • Bresnan, J. W. (1973). Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 4, 275–343.
  • Hankamer, J. (1973). Why there are two ‘than’s in English. Chicago Linguistic Society, 9(1), 179–191.
  • Heim, I. (1985). Notes on comparatives and related matters. [Master’s thesis]. University of Texas, Austin.
  • Heim, I. (2000). Degree operators and scope. In B. Jackson, & T. Matthews (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT X (pp. 40–64). Cornell University Press.
  • Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell.
  • Hofstetter, S. (2009). Comparison in Turkish: A rediscovery of the phrasal comparative. In A. Riester and T. Solstad (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13 (pp. 188–201). University of Stuttgart.
  • Hofstetter, S. (2013). Selected issues in the theory of comparison: Phrasal comparison in Turkish and a cross-linguistic perspective on intensifiers, Negative island effects and the distribution of measure phrases. [Ph.D. thesis]. The University of Tübingen.
  • İnce, A. (2012). Sluicing in Turkish. In J. Merchant and A. Simpson (Eds.), Sluicing: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives (pp. 248–269). Oxford University Press.
  • Kennedy, C. (1997). Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. [Ph.D. thesis]. University of California Press.
  • Kiper, S. Y. (2020). In the case of sluicing. [Ph.D thesis]. Middle East Technical University.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1996). On copular clitic forms in Turkish. ZAS Working Papers.
  • Kornfilt, J. (2007). Verbal and nominalized finite clauses in Turkish. In I. Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 305–332). Oxford University Press.
  • Lechner, W. (2001). Reduced and phrasal comparatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 19, 683-735.
  • Merchant, J. (2009). Phrasal and clausal comparatives in Greek and the abstractness of syntax. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 9, 134–164.
  • Pancheva, R. (2006). Phrasal and clausal comparatives in Slavic. In J. Lavine, S. Franks, M. Tasseva Kurktchieva, & H. Filip (Eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 14: the Princeton Meeting (pp. 236–257). Michigan Slavic Publisher.
  • Schwarzschild, R. (2008). The semantics of comparatives and other degree constructions. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(2), 308–331.
  • Solt, S. (2015). Q-Adjectives and the semantics of quantity. Journal of Semantics, 32, 221–273.
  • von Stechow, A. (1984). Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics, 3, 1–77.
  • Vendler, Z. (2019). Facts and Events. In Linguistics in Philosophy (pp. 122-146). Cornell University Press.
  • Wunderlich, D. (2001). Two comparatives. In I. Kenesei, & R. M. Harnish (Eds.), Perspectives on semantics, pragmatics, and discourse: A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer (pp. 75–90). John Benjamins.

Issues in the grammar of Turkish comparatives

Year 2023, Volume: 34 Issue: 1, 57 - 79, 20.06.2023

Umut Özge

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1185344

Abstract

The paper investigates several issues in the syntax/semantics of comparison constructions in Turkish. We first show that although comparison constructions use nominalized constituents in marking the standard of comparison, they involve rich clausal structure under this nominalization. Second, we demonstrate that the interpretation of comparison constructions is constrained by syntactic structure, differing from languages that primarily thrive on contextual cues. We also address the grammatical nature of comparative standards, evaluating the options of a phrasal and a clausal comparative head. We provide evidence against a phrasal head, concluding that Turkish comparatives are clausal.

Keywords

comparatives Turkish syntax semantics

Thanks

I would like to thank an anonymous DAD reviewer for their invaluable comments and criticisms, which improved the paper a lot. I would like to thank Carla Umbach, Stephanie Solt, Selçuk İşsever, and Murat Özgen for discussion. I am grateful to Asiye Tuba Özge for discussion and support.

References

  • Beck, S., Hohaus, V., and Tiemann, S. (2012). A note on phrasal comparatives. In A. Chereches (Ed.), Proceedings of SALT 22 (pp. 146-165). University of Chicago Press.
  • Bhatt, R. & Pancheva, R. (2004). Late merger of degree clauses. Linguistic Inquiry, 35, 1–45.
  • Bhatt, R., &Takahashi, S. (2011). Reduced and unreduced phrasal comparatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29, 581–620.
  • Bierwisch, M. (1989). The semantics of gradation. In M. Bierwisch and E. Lang (Eds.), Dimensional adjectives: Grammatical structure and conceptual interpretation (pp. 71–261). Springer-Verlag.
  • Borsley, D. R., & Kornfilt, J. (2000). Mixed extended projections. In D. R. Borsley (Ed.), The nature and function of syntactic categories (pp. 101–131). Academic Press.
  • Bresnan, J. W. (1973). Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 4, 275–343.
  • Hankamer, J. (1973). Why there are two ‘than’s in English. Chicago Linguistic Society, 9(1), 179–191.
  • Heim, I. (1985). Notes on comparatives and related matters. [Master’s thesis]. University of Texas, Austin.
  • Heim, I. (2000). Degree operators and scope. In B. Jackson, & T. Matthews (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT X (pp. 40–64). Cornell University Press.
  • Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Blackwell.
  • Hofstetter, S. (2009). Comparison in Turkish: A rediscovery of the phrasal comparative. In A. Riester and T. Solstad (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13 (pp. 188–201). University of Stuttgart.
  • Hofstetter, S. (2013). Selected issues in the theory of comparison: Phrasal comparison in Turkish and a cross-linguistic perspective on intensifiers, Negative island effects and the distribution of measure phrases. [Ph.D. thesis]. The University of Tübingen.
  • İnce, A. (2012). Sluicing in Turkish. In J. Merchant and A. Simpson (Eds.), Sluicing: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives (pp. 248–269). Oxford University Press.
  • Kennedy, C. (1997). Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. [Ph.D. thesis]. University of California Press.
  • Kiper, S. Y. (2020). In the case of sluicing. [Ph.D thesis]. Middle East Technical University.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1996). On copular clitic forms in Turkish. ZAS Working Papers.
  • Kornfilt, J. (2007). Verbal and nominalized finite clauses in Turkish. In I. Nikolaeva (Ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 305–332). Oxford University Press.
  • Lechner, W. (2001). Reduced and phrasal comparatives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 19, 683-735.
  • Merchant, J. (2009). Phrasal and clausal comparatives in Greek and the abstractness of syntax. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 9, 134–164.
  • Pancheva, R. (2006). Phrasal and clausal comparatives in Slavic. In J. Lavine, S. Franks, M. Tasseva Kurktchieva, & H. Filip (Eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 14: the Princeton Meeting (pp. 236–257). Michigan Slavic Publisher.
  • Schwarzschild, R. (2008). The semantics of comparatives and other degree constructions. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(2), 308–331.
  • Solt, S. (2015). Q-Adjectives and the semantics of quantity. Journal of Semantics, 32, 221–273.
  • von Stechow, A. (1984). Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics, 3, 1–77.
  • Vendler, Z. (2019). Facts and Events. In Linguistics in Philosophy (pp. 122-146). Cornell University Press.
  • Wunderlich, D. (2001). Two comparatives. In I. Kenesei, & R. M. Harnish (Eds.), Perspectives on semantics, pragmatics, and discourse: A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer (pp. 75–90). John Benjamins.
There are 25 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Linguistics, Linguistic Structures (Incl. Phonology, Morphology and Syntax)
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Umut Özge 0000-0002-0784-2257

Publication Date June 20, 2023
Published in Issue Year 2023 Volume: 34 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Özge, U. (2023). Issues in the grammar of Turkish comparatives. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 34(1), 57-79. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1185344

88x31.png

This work is licensed under a

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


Journal DOI: 10.18492/dad