On the non-actuality inferences in Turkish avertives

Furkan Dikmen; Ömer Demirok

doi:10.18492/dad.1448720

EN TR

On the non-actuality inferences in Turkish avertives

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

Türkçede avertif yapılardaki gerçekleşmemişlik çıkarımı üzerine

Öz

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler

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 Unpublished manuscript, Boston University and New York University.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

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Linguistic Structures (Incl. Phonology, Morphology and Syntax) , Lexicography and Semantics

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Furkan Dikmen ^*
0000-0003-1192-3612
France

Ömer Demirok
0000-0002-2536-5247
Türkiye

Publication Date

December 24, 2024

Submission Date

March 7, 2024

Acceptance Date

September 3, 2024

Published in Issue

Year 2024 Volume: 35 Number: 2

DOI

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

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA47CC63KP

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

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