Contact at the treetops: syntactic borrowing and syntactic complexity

Metin Bağrıaçık; Balkız Öztürk

doi:10.18492/dad.1585856

TR EN

Sözdizimsel ödünçleme ve yapısal karmaşıklık: Ön Asya Yunancasında ki yapıları

Öz

Bu çalışmada, hâlen Trabzon’da konuşulan ve yakın geçmişe kadar Sille’de (Konya), Kapadokya’da (Niğde ve Nevşehir) ve Faraşa’da (güneybatı Kayseri) da konuşulmuş olan Ön Asya Yunanca lehçelerinde gözlemlediğimiz ki-yapılarını inceliyoruz. Bu lehçelere Türkçeden geçmiş olan ki biçimbiriminin, bu lehçelerde Hâkim Öbeği (HÖ) başı (Krifka, 2023) işlevi gördüğünü ve konuşmacının bu biçimbirim vasıtasıyla Çekim Öbeği (ÇÖ) içerisindeki savı hakkında öznel bir bilgisel yargı ifade edebildiğini öne sürüyoruz. Ayrıca ki biçimbiriminin Türkçede yalnızca HÖ içerisinde değil, ÇÖ’yü başatlayan anlatımsal alandaki tüm öbeklerin başı olarak kullanılabildiğini gösteriyoruz. Yunanca lehçelerinde ki’nin niçin anlatımsal alandaki en alt öbekte konumlandığı sorusuna cevaben A dilinden B diline geçen biçim-sözdisimsel kalıplardan çıkarılan kuralların B dilinde nasıl yerleştirildiği ile ilgili bir kısıtlama öne sürüyoruz: Bu kurallar, erek dilde ilk olarak bu kuralları ilgilendiren en alt sözdisimsel katmanda kabul edilirler. Başka bir deyişle, dillerararası etkileşim sonucu A dilinden B diline seyahat eden kuralların B diline yerleştirilmesi yapısal karmaşıklık ile bağıntılıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

References

Aelbrecht, L., Haegeman, L. & Nye, R. (2012). Main clause phenomena and the privilege of the root. In L. Aelbrecht et al. (Eds.), Main clause phenomena: New horizons (pp. 1–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2006). Grammars in contact: A cross-linguistic perspective. In A. Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), Grammars in contact. A cross-linguistic typology (pp. 1–66). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aksan Y. et al. (2012). Construction of the Turkish National Corpus (TNC). Proceedings of the eighth international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC'12), 3223–3227.
Altınok, D. (2025). Turkish counter-assertive ki as an utterance-oriented marker. Dil Dergisi 176, 54–79.
Anastasiadis, V. (1976). I sintaksi sto Farasiotiko idioma tis Kappadokias [The syntax of the dialect of Pharasa in Cappadocia] [Doctoral Dissertation], University of Ioannina.
Andriotis, N. P. (1948). To glssiko idioma ton Farason [The dialect of Pharasa]. Athens: Ikaros.
Bagriacik, M. (2018). Pharasiot Greek: Word order and clause structure [Doctoral dissertation]. Ghent University.
Coates, Jennifer. (2013). ‘So I mean I probably…’: Hedges and hedging in women’s talk. In J. Coates (Ed.), Women, men and everyday talk, (pp. 31–49). NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Çağrı, İ. (2005). Minimality and Turkish relative clauses. PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland.
Dawkins, R. M. (1916). Modern Greek in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dawkins, R. M. (1937). Parimies ek Farason [Proverbs from Pharasa]. Laografia: Deltio tis Elinikis Laografikis Eterias 11, 131–150.
Emonds, J. (1970). Root and structure-preserving transformations [Doctoral dissertation]. MIT.
Ernst, T. (2009). Speaker oriented adverbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27, 497–544.
Erguvanlı, E. (1980/1981). A case of syntactic change: Ki constructions in Turkish. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi 8, 111–139.
Frege, G. (1918). Der Gedanke. Eine logische Untersuchung. Beiträge zur Philosophie des Deutschen Idealismus 2, 58–77.
Frey, W. (2011). Peripheral adverbial clauses, their licensing and the prefield in German. In E. Breindl, G. Ferraresi & A. Volodina (Eds.), Satzverknüpfung: Zur Interaktion von Form, Bedeutung und Diskursfunktion (pp. 41–77). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Frey, W. (2020). German concessives as TPs, JPs and ActPs. Glossa: A journal of general linguistics 5, 1–31. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.763
Frey, W. & Meinunger, A. (2019). Topic marking and illocutionary force. In V. Egerland, Valeria M. & S. Winkler (Eds.), Architecture of topic (pp. 95–137). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2004). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
Green, G. M. (1976). Main clause phenomena in subordinate clauses. Language 52, 382–397.
Griffiths, J. & Güneş, G. (2015). Ki issues in Turkish: Parenthetical coordination and adjunction. In M. Kluck, D. Ott & M. de Vries (Eds.), Parenthesis and Ellipsis. Cross-linguistic and Theoretical Perspectives (pp. 173–217). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Grohmann, K. K. (2003). Prolific domains: On the anti-locality of movement dependencies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haegeman, L. (2006). Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua 116, 1651–1669.
Haegeman, L. (2012). Adverbial clauses, main clause phenomena, and the composition of the left periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Han, C-H. (2002). Interpreting interrogatives as rhetorical questions. Lingua 112, 201–229.
Haziza, E. (2022). Assertion and the “How do you know?” challenge. Synthese 200, 264.
Hooper, J. B. & Thompson, S. A. (1973). On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 465–497.
Janse, M. (to appear). I Kapadokiki dialektos [The Cappadocian Dialect]. In C. Tzitzilis (Ed.), Neoelinikes dialekti [Modern Greek Dialects]. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.
Johanson, L. (2002). Contact-induced change in a code-copying framework.” In M. C. Jones & E. Esch (Eds.), Language change: The interplay of internal, external and extra-linguistic factors (pp. 285–313). Berlin and NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kesisoglou, I. I. (1951). To glosiko idioma tu Ulagats [The dialect of Ulagats]. Athens: The French Institute.
Kostakis, Th. (1968). To glosiko idioma tis Silis [The dialect of Silli]. Athens: Center of Asia Minor Studies.
Krifka, M. (2018). Semantic types of complement clauses: Propositions, judgements and commitments. Talk given at Ars grammatica 2018, Institut für Deutsche Sprache, Mannheim, June 2018.
Krifka, M. (2023). Layers of assertive clauses: Propositions, judgements, commitments, acts. In J. M. Hartmann & A. Wöllstein (Eds.), Propositional arguments in cross-linguistic research: Theoretical and empirical Issues (pp. 116–182). Tübingen: Narr.
Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and woman’s place. Language in Society 2, 45–80.
Lucas, C. (2012). Contact-induced grammatical change: Towards and explicit account. Diachronica 29, 275–300. DOI: 10.1075/dia.29.3.01luc.
MacFarlane, J. (2011). What is assertion? In J. Brown & H. Cappelen (Eds.), Assertion: New philosophical essays (pp. 79–96). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Manolessou, I. (2019). The historical background of the Asia Minor Greek dialects. In A. Ralli (Ed.), The morphology of Asia Minor Greek (pp. 20–65). Leiden: Brill.
Matras, Y. (2007). The borrowability of structural categories. In Y. Matras & J. Sakel (Eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 31–73). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Matras, Y. (2009). Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Melvold, J. (1991). Factivity and definiteness. In L. Cheng & H. Demirdache (Eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics #15: More papers on wh-movement (pp. 97–117). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Meral, H. M. (2018). Appositive ki Clauses in Turkish. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2018/2, 1-20. DOI: 10.18492/dad.309847
Miyagawa, S. (2022). Syntax in the treetops. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Muysken, P. (1981). Halfway between Quechua and Spanish: The case for relexification. In A. Highfield & A. Valdman (Eds.), Historicity and variation in creole studies (pp. 52–78). Ann Arbor: Karoma.
Müller, K. (2019). Sentence adverbs and theories of secondary meaning. ConSOLE. 27, 238-256.
Nuyts, J. (1993). Epistemic modal adverbs and adjectives and the layered representation of conceptual and linguistic structure. Linguistics 31, 933–969.
Papafragou, A. (2006). Epistemic modality and truth conditions. Lingua 116, 1688–1702.
Papastefanou, G. (2009). Varasotiko-neoelliniko leksiko [Pharasiot Greek-Modern Greek dictionary]. Giannitsa: Sabos Panagiotis.
Peirce, C. S. (1934). Collected Papers. Electronic Edition.
https://colorysemiotica.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/peirce-collectedpapers.pdf (Last Accessed: October 13, 2024).
Predolac, E. (2017). The syntax of sentential complementation in Turkish [Doctoral dissertation], Cornell University.
Ross, J. R. (1970). On declarative sentences. In R. A. Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp. 222–277). Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company.
Sadock, J. (1971). Queclaratives. In Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting Chicago Linguistics Society (pp. 223–232). Chicago, IL: CLS.
Sheehan, M. & Hinzen, W. (2011). Moving towards the edge: The grammar of reference. Linguistic Analysis 37, 405–458.
Schreiber, L. (2022). A (contact-)grammar of Romeyka [Doctoral dissertation], University of Bamberg & Ghent University.
Schroeder, C. (2002). On the structure of spoken Turkish. ELiSe 2, 73–90.
Siegel, J. (2009). Language contact and second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), The New handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 569–589). Bingley: Emerald.
Sitaridou, I. (2014). The Romeyka infinitive continuity, contact and change in the Hellenic varieties of Pontus. Diachronica 31, 23–73. DOI: 10.1075/dia.31.1.02sit
Sitaridou, I. & Kaltsa, M. (2014). Contrastivity in Pontic Greek. Lingua 146, 1–27.
Speas, M. & Tenny, C. (2003). Configurational properties of point of view roles. In A. M. Di Sciullo (Ed.), Asymmetry in grammar (pp. 315–343). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Stolz, C. & Stolz, T. (1996). Funktionswortentlehnung in Mesoamerika, Spanisch-Amerindischer Sprachkontakt. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 49, 86–123. DOI: 10.1524/stuf.1996.49.1.86.
Theodoridis, Th. (1960). Farasiotikes paradosis, mithi kai paramithia [Pharasiot customs, myths and stories]. Laografia: Deltion tis Ellinikis Laografikis Etaireias 19, 221–263.
Theodoridis, Th. (1964). Farasiotikes paradosis, mithi kai paramithia 2 [Pharasiot customs, myths and stories 2]. Laografia: Deltion tis Ellinikis Laografikis Etaireias 21, 209–336.
Tuzet, G. (2006). Responsible for truth? Peirce on judgement and assertion. Cognition 7, 317–336.
Van Coetsem, F. (1988). Loan phonology and the two transfer types in language contact. Dordrecht: Foris.
de Vries, M. (2009). Specifying Coordination: An Investigation into the Syntax of Dislocation, Extraposition and Parenthesis. In C. Dreyer (Ed.), Language and Linguistics: Emerging Trends (pp. 37–98). NY: Nova.
Wiltschko, M. (2021). The grammar of interactional language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Language Documentation and Description , Linguistics (Other)

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Metin Bağrıaçık ^*
0000-0003-4544-7503
Türkiye

Balkız Öztürk
0000-0002-3626-5890
Türkiye

Publication Date

January 27, 2026

Submission Date

November 15, 2024

Acceptance Date

December 30, 2025

Published in Issue

Year 1970 Volume: 36 Number: 3 - Türkiye'de Tehlikedeki Diller Özel Sayısı (Konuk Editörler: Mehmet Akkuş, Çiğdem Sağın Şimşek) / Special Issue - Endangered Languages in Turkey (Guest Editors: Mehmet Akkuş, Çiğdem Sağın Şimşek)

DOI

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1585856

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA46NZ34YK

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Bağrıaçık, M., & Öztürk, B. (2026). Contact at the treetops: syntactic borrowing and syntactic complexity. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 36(3 - Türkiye’de Tehlikedeki Diller Özel Sayısı (Konuk Editörler: Mehmet Akkuş, Çiğdem Sağın Şimşek) / Special Issue - Endangered Languages in Turkey (Guest Editors: Mehmet Akkuş, Çiğdem Sağın Şimşek), 261-292. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1585856

Contact at the treetops: syntactic borrowing and syntactic complexity

Sözdizimsel ödünçleme ve yapısal karmaşıklık: Ön Asya Yunancasında ki yapıları

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler