Abstract
Bu çalışmada Türkçedeki seçenekli sorular, ayırma öbeklerinin büyüklüğü açısından ele alınmaktadır. Seçenekli soruların çözümlemeleri hakkında literatürde kesin bir ortak görüş yoktur. Bir görüşe göre bu yapılardaki ayırma öbekleri tümce düzeyinde silme işlemi sonucu oluşmuştur, dolayısıyla bu yapılar tümce düzeyinde ayırma yapılarıdır, diğer bir görüşe göre ise bu yapılardaki ayırma öbekleri yüzeyde göründüğünden daha büyük hayalet öbekler içermemektedir. Bu iki görüş de literatürde savunulmuştur. Büyük ayırma öbeği görüşü Gračanin-Yüksek (2016), Han ve Romero (2004a, 2004b), ve Roelofsen ve Pruitt (2011) tarafından savunulurken, Beck ve Kim (2006), Erlewine (2014), ve Larson (1985) ve diğerleri küçük ayırma öbeği çözümlemesini desteklemektedir. Bu çalışmada Türkçe seçenekli sorulardaki farklı sözcük dizimlerine bakarak, Türkçedeki seçenekli soruların küçük öbek çözümlemesiyle açıklanamayacağını ve bu yapıların tümce düzeyinde ayırma içerdiğini göstereceğiz. Ayrıca, soru parçacığının seçenekli sorularda dağılımını kutuplu sorulardaki dağılımıyla kıyaslayarak, Türkçe’deki seçenekli sorulardaki ayırma öbeklerinin Tümleyici Öbekleri olduğunu savunacağız.
Keywords
seçenekli sorular Türkçe ayırma silme (öne doğru) boşaltma kutuplu sorular soru parçacığı mI.
References
- Aygen, G. (2007). Q-particle. Dil ve edebiyat dergisi, 4 (1), 1-30.
- Beck, S. and Kim, Sh. (2006). Intervention Effects in Alternative Questions. Journal of Comparative German Linguistics, 9, 165-208.
- Bozşahin, C. (2000). Gapping and word order in Turkish. In A. Sumru Özsoy, Didar Akar, Mine Nakipoğlu-Demiralp, Eser E. Erguvanlı-Taylan, and Ayhan Aksu-Koç (Eds.), Studies in Turkish Linguistics: Proceedings of ICTL 10 (pp. 95-104). Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.
- Coppock, E. (2001). Gapping: in defense of deletion. In M. Andronis, C. Ball, H. Elston, and S. Neuvel (Eds.), Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 37 (pp. 133–148). University of Chicago.
- Coşkun, H. (2010). Question elements in Turkish complement clauses. Turkic Languages, 14, 43-68.
- Erguvanli, E. (1984). The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Erlewine, M. Y. (2014). Alternative questions through focus alternatives in Mandarin Chinese. In A. Beltrama, T. Chatzikonstantinou, J. L. Lee, M. Pham, and D. Rak (Eds.), Proceedings of the 48th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 221–234). University of Chicago.
- Göksel, A. (1998). Linearity, focus and the postverbal position in Turkish. In L. Johanson (Ed.), The Mainz Meeting Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (pp. 85–106). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
- Göksel, A. (2011). A phono-syntactic template for Turkish: Base-generating free word order. In A. Nolda and O. Teuber (Eds.), Syntax and Morphology -Multidimensional, Interface Explorations (pp. 45-76). Mouton de Gruyter.
- Göksel, A. and Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.
- Göksel, A. and Özsoy, S. (2000). Is there a focus position in Turkish? In A. Göksel and C. Kerslake (Eds.), Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages; Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (pp. 219-228). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
- Görgülü, E. (2006). Variable wh-words in Turkish. Unpublished MA thesis, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul.
- Gračanin-Yüksek, M. (2016). Size Matters: The Syntax of Disjunctive Questions. Linguistic Inquiry, 47 (2), 283-305.
- Han, C-H. and Romero, M. (2004a). The Syntax of Whether/Q…Or Questions: Ellipsis Combined with Movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22 (3), 527-564.
- Han, C-H. and Romero, M. (2004b). Disjunction, Focus, and Scope. Linguistic Inquiry, 35 (2), 179-217.
- Hankamer, J. (1971). Constraints on Deletion in Syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
- İnce, A. (2009a). Gapping in Turkish. In A. Schardl, M. Walkow, and M. Abdurrahman (Eds.), Proceedings of thirty-eighth annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (pp. 425-438). Amherst: GLSA.
- İnce, Atakan (2009b). On right node raising. In R. Shibagaki and R. Vermeulen (Eds.), Proceedings of Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics 5 (pp. 165-180). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 58.
- Kamali, B. (2011). The Question Particle in Turkish: Consequences for the Interfaces. In M. Byram Washburn, S. Ouwayda, Ch. Ouyang, B. Yin, C. Ipek, L. Marston, and A. Walker (Eds), Online complement to Proceedings of WCCFL 28. Last retrieved on April 24, 2015, from https://sites.google.com/site/wccfl28pro/kamali.
- Kawaguchi, Y., Yılmaz, S., and Yılmaz, U. (2006). Intonation Patterns of Turkish Interrogatives. In Y. Kawaguchi, I. Fónagy, and T. Moriguchi (Eds.), Prosody and Syntax: Cross-linguistic Perspectives (pp. 349-368). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
- Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London/New York: Routledge.
- Kornfilt, K. (2000). Directionality of identical verb deletion in Turkish Coordination. In S. Chung, J. McCloskey, and N. Sanders (Eds.), Jorge Hankamer WebFest. Last retrieved on April 24, 2015 from http://ling.ucsc.edu/Jorge/kornfilt.html.
- Kural, M. (1992). Properties of Scrambling in Turkish. Unpublished manuscript, UCLA.
- Larson, R. (1985). On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3, 217-264.
- Pruitt, K. and Roelofsen, F. (2013). The interpretation of prosody in disjunctive questions. Linguistic Inquiry, 44, 632-650.
- Roelofsen, F. and Pruitt, K. (2011). Disjunctive questions: Prosody, syntax, and semantics. Paper presented at a seminar at the Georg August Universität Göttingen, April 2011.
- Uegaki, Wataru. (2014). Cross-linguistic variation in the derivation of alternative questions: Japanese and beyond. In U. Sauerland and L. Crnič (Eds.), The Art and Craft of Semantics: A Festschrift for Irene Heim (pp. 251-274). Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
- Williams, E. (1981). Transformationless grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 645-653.
Abstract
The paper examines alternative questions in Turkish from the perspective of the size of the disjoint constituents. At the moment, there exists no consensus in the literature on the topic as to whether alternative questions involve clausal disjunction accompanied by a deletion operation in one or both of the disjuncts or they contain no phantom structure, i.e. are disjunctions of phrases no bigger than they appear on the surface. Both of these views have been proposed over the years: a big-disjunct analysis has been advocated by Gračanin-Yüksek (2016), Han and Romero (2004a, 2004b), and Roelofsen and Pruitt (2011) among others, while Beck and Kim (2006), Erlewine (2014), and Larson (1985) among others have defended the small-disjunct analysis. In this paper, looking at possible word order patterns of alternative questions in Turkish, I show that properties of alternative questions in this language cannot be explained on the small-disjunct analysis. I present evidence that underlyingly, alternative questions in Turkish involve clausal disjuncts. Next, by examining the distribution of the question particle in alternative questions and comparing it to the distribution of the same particle in polar questions, I propose that the disjuncts in Turkish alternative questions are full CPs.
Keywords
alternative questions Turkish disjunction deletion (forward) gapping polar questions interrogative particle mI
References
- Aygen, G. (2007). Q-particle. Dil ve edebiyat dergisi, 4 (1), 1-30.
- Beck, S. and Kim, Sh. (2006). Intervention Effects in Alternative Questions. Journal of Comparative German Linguistics, 9, 165-208.
- Bozşahin, C. (2000). Gapping and word order in Turkish. In A. Sumru Özsoy, Didar Akar, Mine Nakipoğlu-Demiralp, Eser E. Erguvanlı-Taylan, and Ayhan Aksu-Koç (Eds.), Studies in Turkish Linguistics: Proceedings of ICTL 10 (pp. 95-104). Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.
- Coppock, E. (2001). Gapping: in defense of deletion. In M. Andronis, C. Ball, H. Elston, and S. Neuvel (Eds.), Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 37 (pp. 133–148). University of Chicago.
- Coşkun, H. (2010). Question elements in Turkish complement clauses. Turkic Languages, 14, 43-68.
- Erguvanli, E. (1984). The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Erlewine, M. Y. (2014). Alternative questions through focus alternatives in Mandarin Chinese. In A. Beltrama, T. Chatzikonstantinou, J. L. Lee, M. Pham, and D. Rak (Eds.), Proceedings of the 48th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 221–234). University of Chicago.
- Göksel, A. (1998). Linearity, focus and the postverbal position in Turkish. In L. Johanson (Ed.), The Mainz Meeting Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (pp. 85–106). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
- Göksel, A. (2011). A phono-syntactic template for Turkish: Base-generating free word order. In A. Nolda and O. Teuber (Eds.), Syntax and Morphology -Multidimensional, Interface Explorations (pp. 45-76). Mouton de Gruyter.
- Göksel, A. and Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.
- Göksel, A. and Özsoy, S. (2000). Is there a focus position in Turkish? In A. Göksel and C. Kerslake (Eds.), Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages; Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (pp. 219-228). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
- Görgülü, E. (2006). Variable wh-words in Turkish. Unpublished MA thesis, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul.
- Gračanin-Yüksek, M. (2016). Size Matters: The Syntax of Disjunctive Questions. Linguistic Inquiry, 47 (2), 283-305.
- Han, C-H. and Romero, M. (2004a). The Syntax of Whether/Q…Or Questions: Ellipsis Combined with Movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22 (3), 527-564.
- Han, C-H. and Romero, M. (2004b). Disjunction, Focus, and Scope. Linguistic Inquiry, 35 (2), 179-217.
- Hankamer, J. (1971). Constraints on Deletion in Syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
- İnce, A. (2009a). Gapping in Turkish. In A. Schardl, M. Walkow, and M. Abdurrahman (Eds.), Proceedings of thirty-eighth annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (pp. 425-438). Amherst: GLSA.
- İnce, Atakan (2009b). On right node raising. In R. Shibagaki and R. Vermeulen (Eds.), Proceedings of Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics 5 (pp. 165-180). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 58.
- Kamali, B. (2011). The Question Particle in Turkish: Consequences for the Interfaces. In M. Byram Washburn, S. Ouwayda, Ch. Ouyang, B. Yin, C. Ipek, L. Marston, and A. Walker (Eds), Online complement to Proceedings of WCCFL 28. Last retrieved on April 24, 2015, from https://sites.google.com/site/wccfl28pro/kamali.
- Kawaguchi, Y., Yılmaz, S., and Yılmaz, U. (2006). Intonation Patterns of Turkish Interrogatives. In Y. Kawaguchi, I. Fónagy, and T. Moriguchi (Eds.), Prosody and Syntax: Cross-linguistic Perspectives (pp. 349-368). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
- Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London/New York: Routledge.
- Kornfilt, K. (2000). Directionality of identical verb deletion in Turkish Coordination. In S. Chung, J. McCloskey, and N. Sanders (Eds.), Jorge Hankamer WebFest. Last retrieved on April 24, 2015 from http://ling.ucsc.edu/Jorge/kornfilt.html.
- Kural, M. (1992). Properties of Scrambling in Turkish. Unpublished manuscript, UCLA.
- Larson, R. (1985). On the syntax of disjunction scope. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3, 217-264.
- Pruitt, K. and Roelofsen, F. (2013). The interpretation of prosody in disjunctive questions. Linguistic Inquiry, 44, 632-650.
- Roelofsen, F. and Pruitt, K. (2011). Disjunctive questions: Prosody, syntax, and semantics. Paper presented at a seminar at the Georg August Universität Göttingen, April 2011.
- Uegaki, Wataru. (2014). Cross-linguistic variation in the derivation of alternative questions: Japanese and beyond. In U. Sauerland and L. Crnič (Eds.), The Art and Craft of Semantics: A Festschrift for Irene Heim (pp. 251-274). Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
- Williams, E. (1981). Transformationless grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 645-653.
Details
| Journal Section | Research Articles |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | June 30, 2016 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2016 |
Cited By
Interrogative particles in polar questions: the view from Finnish and Turkish
Glossa: a journal of general linguistics
https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.6487
Suspended Affixation as Morpheme Ellipsis: Evidence from Ossetic Alternative Questions
Glossa: a journal of general linguistics
David Erschler
https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.501
A unified semantics for the Japanese Q-particle <i>ka</i> in indefinites, questions and disjunctions
Glossa: a journal of general linguistics
Wataru Uegaki
https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.238
Bu eser
Dergi DOI:10.18492/dad