Redirecting to http://dergipark.org.tr/_fragment?_hash=zCDb7UDPu3BPEo_lohfaaLLlhryl28XLhORNG-pIMDs&_path=id%3D1448720%26_format%3Dhtml%26_locale%3Den%26_controller%3DApp%255CController%255CSite%255CArticleController%253A%253AesiArticleStats.
Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

On the non-actuality inferences in Turkish avertives

Year 2024, Volume: 35 Issue: 2, 133 - 150, 24.12.2024

Furkan Dikmen , Ömer Demirok

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1448720

Abstract

Languages have various forms of expressing implications of imminency and non-actuality. While a variety of constructions such as imperfectives, proximatives or adverbs like almost crosslinguistically imply the counterfactuality of the event in question, some languages like French and Turkish have exclusive morphemes expressing imminence while at the same time logically asserting the non-actuality of an event. This study has a particular focus on the Turkish morpheme -(y)Ayaz, which when combined with a predicate indicates that the event expressed by the predicate has not been actualized although it was close to be so. We argue that this is part of what -(y)Ayaz asserts, and provide a compositional semantics for sentences involving this morpheme. Finally, we show that our semantics sheds light on the combinatorial restrictions concerning lexical aspect and outer aspect.

Keywords

frustrative avertive actuality Turkish semantics

References

  • Atlas, J. D., & Levinson, S. C. (1981). It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 1–61). Academic Press.
  • Bozşahin, C. (2002). The combinatory morphemic lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 28(2), 145–176. https://doi.org/10.1162/089120102760173634
  • Coppock, E., & Champollion, L. (2024). Invitation to formal semantics. Unpublished manuscript, Boston University and New York University.
  • Demirok, Ö. (2019). A semantic characterization of Turkish nominalizations. In R. Stockwell, M. O'Leary, Z. Xu, & Z. L. Zhou (Eds.), the 36th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 132-142). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
  • Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Reidel.
  • Garey, H. B. (1957). Verbal aspect in French. Language, 33(2), 91–110. https://doi.org/10.2307/410722
  • Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2004). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
  • Gülsevin, S. (2016). On the advertive in the language of the Karais, one of the Turkic peoples in Poland. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 49, 279 -285. http://dx.doi.org/10.9761/JASSS3585
  • Hankamer, J. (2004). An ad-phrasal affix in Turkish. In A. Csirmaz, Y. Lee, & M. A.Walter (Eds.), The Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics I (pp. 289-299). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 46.
  • Harley, H. (2014). On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics, 40(3–4), 225–276. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2014-0010
  • Kabak, B. (2007). Turkish suspended affixation. Linguistics, 45(2), 311–347. https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2007.010
  • Klein, W. (1994). Time in language. Routledge.
  • Krifka, M. (2003). Bare NPs: Kind-referring, indefinites, both, or neither? In R. Young & Y. Zhou (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT XIII (pp. 180–203). Cornell University.
  • Matushansky, O. (2006). Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 37(1), 69–109. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438906775321184
  • Moens, M., & Steedman, M. (1988). Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics, 14(1), 15–28.
  • Moltmann, F. (1997). Parts and wholes in semantics. Oxford University Press.
  • Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (2018, October 17–19). Are entailments reinforceable without redundancy? A cognitive-pragmatic analysis [Conference presentation]. AELCO, Córdoba, Spain.
  • Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. MIT Press.
  • Perlmutter, D. M. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 4 (pp. 57–190).
  • Penka, D. (2006). Almost there: The meaning of “almost”. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 44(2), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.21248/zaspil.44.2006.317
  • Ramchand, G. (2008). Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first-phase syntax (Vol. 116). Cambridge University Press.
  • Sauerland, U. (2004). Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27, 367–391. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000023378.71748.db
  • Schwellenbach, S. (2013). The syntax-semantics interface of avertive and proximative in Romance. In S. Chiriacescu (Ed.), Proceedings of the VI Nereus International Workshop Theoretical Implications at the Syntax/Semantics Interface in Romance (pp. 117–134). Universität Konstanz

Türkçede avertif yapılardaki gerçekleşmemişlik çıkarımı üzerine

Year 2024, Volume: 35 Issue: 2, 133 - 150, 24.12.2024

Furkan Dikmen , Ömer Demirok

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1448720

Abstract

Diller, gerçekleşmemişlik çıkarımlarını ifade etmek için çeşitli yollar kullanır. Bitmemişlik görünüşü ya da yaklaşma ifade eden çeşitli yapılar, ilgili olayın gerçekleşmediğini birçok dilde ima ederken, Fransızca ve Türkçe gibi bazı diller, bir olaya yaklaşıldığını ancak olayın gerçekleşmediğini mantıksal düzeyde ifade etmek için özel biçimlere sahiptir. Bu çalışma, bir yüklem ile birleştiğinde, yüklem tarafından ifade edilen olayın gerçekleşmediğini bildiren Türkçe bir biçimbirim olan -(y)Ayaz’a odaklanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, gerçekleşmemişlik çıkarımının -(y)Ayaz'ın mantıksal anlamının bir parçası olduğu savunulmakta ve bu biçimbirimi içeren tümcelerin anlamlarıının parçalarından nasıl üretildiği gösterilmektedir. Son olarak, bu biçime verdiğimiz anlamın, sözlüksel ve dilbilimsel görünüşle ilgili birleşimsel kısıtlamalara ışık tuttuğunu gösteriyoruz.

Keywords

frustratif avertif gerçekleşme Türkçe anlambilim

References

  • Atlas, J. D., & Levinson, S. C. (1981). It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 1–61). Academic Press.
  • Bozşahin, C. (2002). The combinatory morphemic lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 28(2), 145–176. https://doi.org/10.1162/089120102760173634
  • Coppock, E., & Champollion, L. (2024). Invitation to formal semantics. Unpublished manuscript, Boston University and New York University.
  • Demirok, Ö. (2019). A semantic characterization of Turkish nominalizations. In R. Stockwell, M. O'Leary, Z. Xu, & Z. L. Zhou (Eds.), the 36th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 132-142). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
  • Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Reidel.
  • Garey, H. B. (1957). Verbal aspect in French. Language, 33(2), 91–110. https://doi.org/10.2307/410722
  • Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2004). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
  • Gülsevin, S. (2016). On the advertive in the language of the Karais, one of the Turkic peoples in Poland. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 49, 279 -285. http://dx.doi.org/10.9761/JASSS3585
  • Hankamer, J. (2004). An ad-phrasal affix in Turkish. In A. Csirmaz, Y. Lee, & M. A.Walter (Eds.), The Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics I (pp. 289-299). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 46.
  • Harley, H. (2014). On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics, 40(3–4), 225–276. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2014-0010
  • Kabak, B. (2007). Turkish suspended affixation. Linguistics, 45(2), 311–347. https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2007.010
  • Klein, W. (1994). Time in language. Routledge.
  • Krifka, M. (2003). Bare NPs: Kind-referring, indefinites, both, or neither? In R. Young & Y. Zhou (Eds.), Proceedings of SALT XIII (pp. 180–203). Cornell University.
  • Matushansky, O. (2006). Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 37(1), 69–109. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438906775321184
  • Moens, M., & Steedman, M. (1988). Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics, 14(1), 15–28.
  • Moltmann, F. (1997). Parts and wholes in semantics. Oxford University Press.
  • Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (2018, October 17–19). Are entailments reinforceable without redundancy? A cognitive-pragmatic analysis [Conference presentation]. AELCO, Córdoba, Spain.
  • Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. MIT Press.
  • Perlmutter, D. M. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 4 (pp. 57–190).
  • Penka, D. (2006). Almost there: The meaning of “almost”. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 44(2), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.21248/zaspil.44.2006.317
  • Ramchand, G. (2008). Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first-phase syntax (Vol. 116). Cambridge University Press.
  • Sauerland, U. (2004). Scalar implicatures in complex sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27, 367–391. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LING.0000023378.71748.db
  • Schwellenbach, S. (2013). The syntax-semantics interface of avertive and proximative in Romance. In S. Chiriacescu (Ed.), Proceedings of the VI Nereus International Workshop Theoretical Implications at the Syntax/Semantics Interface in Romance (pp. 117–134). Universität Konstanz
There are 23 citations in total.

Details

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

Furkan Dikmen 0000-0003-1192-3612

Ömer Demirok 0000-0002-2536-5247

Publication Date December 24, 2024
Submission Date March 7, 2024
Acceptance Date September 3, 2024
Published in Issue Year 2024 Volume: 35 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Dikmen, F., & Demirok, Ö. (2024). On the non-actuality inferences in Turkish avertives. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 35(2), 133-150. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1448720

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