Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

A Morpho-pragmatic Classification of Turkish TAM Markers

Year 2022, Volume: 33 Issue: 2, 145 - 171, 31.12.2022
https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1083233

Abstract

This article reviews eight TAM (Tense/Aspect/Mood) markers of Turkish regarding their pragmatic functions. Its main argument is that three aspectuo-temporal situations and nominal predication present an environment where multiple markers compete for expression and that the choice of marker depends on pragmatics. Perfective past viewpoint has four competing markers: mIştI, DI, mIş and mIştIr. mIştI and DI contrast in that -mIştI marks shared knowledge while -DI marks the speaker’s epistemic primacy. mIş, on the other hand, only indicates that the speaker does not hold epistemic primacy. It is void of any assumptions regarding the addressee’s epistemic position. -mIştIr is the marker of choice if the speaker and the speech community share the knowledge of the past event and impose primacy over the addressee. Such a pragmatic classification allows us to treat the other markers competing for continuous aspect, iterative aspect, and nominal predication. These are -Ar and -yor with verbal predicates, and -DIr and -∅ with nominal predicates.

References

  • Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2003). Evidentiality in typological perspective. In Alexandra, Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.) Studies in Evidentiality. Typological Studies in Language (pp. 1-31). John Benjamins Publishing Company.Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford University Press.
  • Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford University Press.
  • Aksu-Koç, A. & Slobin, D. I. (1986). A Psychological Account of the Development and Use of Evidentials in Turkish. In Chafe, Wallace and Nichols, Johanna (Eds.), Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, (pp. 159-167). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.
  • Aksu-Koç, A. (1988). The Acquisition of Aspect and Modality: The Case of Past Reference in Turkish. Cambridge: CUP.
  • Bergqvist, H. (2016a). Complex epistemic perspective in Kogi (Arwako). International Journal of American Linguistics, 82(1), 1-34.
  • Bergqvist, H. (2016b). Epistemic marking in Ika (Arwako). Studies in Language, 36(1), 154-181.
  • Bergqvist, H. (2017). The role of ‘perspective’ in epistemic marking. Lingua 186-187, 5-20.
  • Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Deliklitaş, N. (2011). Yasa Metinlerinde Ekeylem -DIr Ekinin Kullanılması. In Ç. Sağın-Şimşek & Ç. Hatipoğlu (Eds.), 24. Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri (pp. 132-139). METU.
  • Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (1996). The parameter of aspect in Turkish. In Konrot, A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. 12-14 August 1992. (pp. 153-168). Anadolu University.
  • Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (2000). Semi-grammaticalized modality in Turkish. In Aslı Göksel & Celia Kerslake (Eds.), Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages (pp. 113–143). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
  • Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (2018). Türkçe dilbilgisel kiplikte olasılık ve gereklilik. Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 15(2), 1-22.
  • Evans, N. (2005). View with a view: Towards a typology of multiple perspective constructions. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 31(1), 93-120.
  • Gipper, S. (2015). (Inter)subjectivity in interaction: investigating (inter)subjective meanings in Yurakaré conversational data. STUF – Language Typology Universals, 68(2), 211-232.
  • Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.
  • Grzech, K. (2020a). Managing Common Ground with epistemic marking: ‘Evidential’ markers in upper Napo kichwa and their functions in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 168(2020), 81-97.
  • Grzech, K. (2020b). Epistemic primacy, Common Ground management, and epistemic perspective. In Henrik Berqgvist & Seppo Kittilä (Eds.), Evidentiality, egophoricity, and engagement, (pp. 23-60). Berlin: Language Science Press.
  • Gül, D. (2012). Semantic operators and the modal meanings of the suffix -Ar. Dilbilim Araştırmaları 2012/1, 21-38.
  • Heritage, J. & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15-38.
  • Hintz, Daniel J. & Hintz, Diane M. (2017). The evidential category of mutual knowledge in Quechua. Lingua, 186–187. 88–109.
  • Kaya, N. (2011). -DIR Ekinin Kiplik Özellikleri: Dil Dışı Bağlam ve Kiplik Belirteçleri ile İlişkisi. In Ç. Sağın-Şimşek & Ç. Hatipoğlu (Eds.), 24. Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri (pp.199-209). METU.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. Descriptive Grammars. London: Routledge.
  • Krifka, M. (2007). Basic notions of information structure. In Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow & Manfred Krifka (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies on information structure (ISIS) (pp. 13-56). Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
  • Kuram, K. (2015). The organization of functional heads and tense/aspect/mood interpretation in Turkish. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Newcastle University.
  • Kuram, K. (Accepted). Common Ground Management via Evidential Markers in Turkish. Pragmatics and society.
  • Özgen, M. (2021). Stage-level/Individual-level predicates and -DIr in Turkish. In Söylemez, Ayşe Selmin & Kumcu, Alper (Eds.), Synergy II Linguistics (pp. 101-132). Peter Lang.
  • Pomerantz, A. M. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn Shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 57-101). Cambridge University Press.
  • Schultze-Berndt, E. (2017). Shared vs. primary epistemic authority in Jaminjung/Ngaliwurru. Open Linguistics, 3(1), 178-218.
  • Smith, C. (1997). The parameter of aspect. London: Kluwer Academic Publishing, 2nd edition (1st edition 1991).
  • Stivers, T., Mondada, L. & Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 3-26). Cambridge University Press.
  • Temürcü, C. (2007). A Semantic Framework for analyzing tense, aspect and mood: An application to the ranges of polysemy of -Xr, -Dir and -∅ in Turkish. [Published doctoral dissertation]. Antwerp University.
  • Temürcü, C. (2011). Grounding in terms of anchoring relations: Epistemic associations of ‘present continuous’ marking in Turkish. In Adeline Patard & Frank Brisard (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to tense, aspect, and epistemic modality (pp. 109 134). John Benjamins Publishing.
  • Tosun, G. (1998). The SPLIT INF hypothesis in Turkish. [Unpublished MA dissertation]. Bosphorus University.
  • Tura, Sabahat S. (1986). -DIr in Modern Turkish. In Ayhan Aksu-Koç & Eser Erguvanlı Taylan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Turkish Linguistics Conference (pp. 145-158). Boğaziçi University Press.
  • Uzun L. & Erk Emeksiz, E. Z. (2002). Türkçede -Ar Biçimbiriminin Sözdizimsel ve Anlambilimsel Yapısı Üzerine. In G. König, N. Büyükkantarcıoğlu, & F. Karahan (Eds.), 18. Türk Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri (pp. 129-145). Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
  • Uzun, E. (2015). A new analysis for verbal inflection affixes in Turkish. International Journal of Foreign Studies, 8(1), 39-62.
  • Willet, T. (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language, 12(1). 51-97.
  • Yavaş, F. (1980). On the meaning of tense and aspect markers in Turkish. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Kansas University.
  • Yavaş, F. (1982). The Turkish aorist. Glossa, 16, 40-53.

Türkçe Görünüş/Kip/Zaman Biçimbirimlerinin Biçim-kullanımsal Sınıflandırması

Year 2022, Volume: 33 Issue: 2, 145 - 171, 31.12.2022
https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1083233

Abstract

Bu çalışma Türkçedeki sekiz Görünüş/Kip/Zaman belirleyicisini kullanımbilimsel işlevleri açısından incelemektedir. Çalışmanın temel iddiası üç görünüş-zamansal durumun ve adcıl yüklemlemenin birden fazla belirleyicinin mümkün olduğu bir bağlam oluşturduğu ve bu durumlarda seçimin kullanımbilimsel olarak yapıldığıdır. Bitmişlik geçmiş zaman durumunun dört belirleyicisi bulunmaktadır. Bunlar mIştI, DI, mIş ve mIştIr ekleridir. mIştI ve -DI karşıtlığında mIştI paylaşılan bilgiyi işaretlerken -DI konuşucunun bilgisel önceliğini göstermektedir. -mIş ise sadece konuşucunun bilgisel önceliğe sahip olmadığını göstermektedir. Bu ek dinleyicinin bilgisel konumu açısından herhangi bir varsayım işaretlememektedir. mIştIr ise konuşucunun geçmiş olayla ilgili bilgiyi konuşucu topluluğuyla paylaştığı ve dinleyici karşısında bu iki katılımcının birlikte bilgisel önceliğe sahip olduğu durumlarda kullanılmaktadır. Bu kullanımsal sınıflandırma ayrıca sürme ve tekrar etme görünüşü ile adcıl yüklemlemede de görülmektedir. Bu durumlarda ekler eylemcil yüklemlerde -Ar ve -yor, adcıl yüklemlerde ise -DIr ve -∅ ekleridir.

References

  • Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2003). Evidentiality in typological perspective. In Alexandra, Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.) Studies in Evidentiality. Typological Studies in Language (pp. 1-31). John Benjamins Publishing Company.Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford University Press.
  • Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford University Press.
  • Aksu-Koç, A. & Slobin, D. I. (1986). A Psychological Account of the Development and Use of Evidentials in Turkish. In Chafe, Wallace and Nichols, Johanna (Eds.), Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, (pp. 159-167). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.
  • Aksu-Koç, A. (1988). The Acquisition of Aspect and Modality: The Case of Past Reference in Turkish. Cambridge: CUP.
  • Bergqvist, H. (2016a). Complex epistemic perspective in Kogi (Arwako). International Journal of American Linguistics, 82(1), 1-34.
  • Bergqvist, H. (2016b). Epistemic marking in Ika (Arwako). Studies in Language, 36(1), 154-181.
  • Bergqvist, H. (2017). The role of ‘perspective’ in epistemic marking. Lingua 186-187, 5-20.
  • Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Deliklitaş, N. (2011). Yasa Metinlerinde Ekeylem -DIr Ekinin Kullanılması. In Ç. Sağın-Şimşek & Ç. Hatipoğlu (Eds.), 24. Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri (pp. 132-139). METU.
  • Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (1996). The parameter of aspect in Turkish. In Konrot, A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. 12-14 August 1992. (pp. 153-168). Anadolu University.
  • Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (2000). Semi-grammaticalized modality in Turkish. In Aslı Göksel & Celia Kerslake (Eds.), Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages (pp. 113–143). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
  • Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (2018). Türkçe dilbilgisel kiplikte olasılık ve gereklilik. Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 15(2), 1-22.
  • Evans, N. (2005). View with a view: Towards a typology of multiple perspective constructions. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 31(1), 93-120.
  • Gipper, S. (2015). (Inter)subjectivity in interaction: investigating (inter)subjective meanings in Yurakaré conversational data. STUF – Language Typology Universals, 68(2), 211-232.
  • Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.
  • Grzech, K. (2020a). Managing Common Ground with epistemic marking: ‘Evidential’ markers in upper Napo kichwa and their functions in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 168(2020), 81-97.
  • Grzech, K. (2020b). Epistemic primacy, Common Ground management, and epistemic perspective. In Henrik Berqgvist & Seppo Kittilä (Eds.), Evidentiality, egophoricity, and engagement, (pp. 23-60). Berlin: Language Science Press.
  • Gül, D. (2012). Semantic operators and the modal meanings of the suffix -Ar. Dilbilim Araştırmaları 2012/1, 21-38.
  • Heritage, J. & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15-38.
  • Hintz, Daniel J. & Hintz, Diane M. (2017). The evidential category of mutual knowledge in Quechua. Lingua, 186–187. 88–109.
  • Kaya, N. (2011). -DIR Ekinin Kiplik Özellikleri: Dil Dışı Bağlam ve Kiplik Belirteçleri ile İlişkisi. In Ç. Sağın-Şimşek & Ç. Hatipoğlu (Eds.), 24. Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri (pp.199-209). METU.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. Descriptive Grammars. London: Routledge.
  • Krifka, M. (2007). Basic notions of information structure. In Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow & Manfred Krifka (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies on information structure (ISIS) (pp. 13-56). Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
  • Kuram, K. (2015). The organization of functional heads and tense/aspect/mood interpretation in Turkish. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Newcastle University.
  • Kuram, K. (Accepted). Common Ground Management via Evidential Markers in Turkish. Pragmatics and society.
  • Özgen, M. (2021). Stage-level/Individual-level predicates and -DIr in Turkish. In Söylemez, Ayşe Selmin & Kumcu, Alper (Eds.), Synergy II Linguistics (pp. 101-132). Peter Lang.
  • Pomerantz, A. M. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn Shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 57-101). Cambridge University Press.
  • Schultze-Berndt, E. (2017). Shared vs. primary epistemic authority in Jaminjung/Ngaliwurru. Open Linguistics, 3(1), 178-218.
  • Smith, C. (1997). The parameter of aspect. London: Kluwer Academic Publishing, 2nd edition (1st edition 1991).
  • Stivers, T., Mondada, L. & Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 3-26). Cambridge University Press.
  • Temürcü, C. (2007). A Semantic Framework for analyzing tense, aspect and mood: An application to the ranges of polysemy of -Xr, -Dir and -∅ in Turkish. [Published doctoral dissertation]. Antwerp University.
  • Temürcü, C. (2011). Grounding in terms of anchoring relations: Epistemic associations of ‘present continuous’ marking in Turkish. In Adeline Patard & Frank Brisard (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to tense, aspect, and epistemic modality (pp. 109 134). John Benjamins Publishing.
  • Tosun, G. (1998). The SPLIT INF hypothesis in Turkish. [Unpublished MA dissertation]. Bosphorus University.
  • Tura, Sabahat S. (1986). -DIr in Modern Turkish. In Ayhan Aksu-Koç & Eser Erguvanlı Taylan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Turkish Linguistics Conference (pp. 145-158). Boğaziçi University Press.
  • Uzun L. & Erk Emeksiz, E. Z. (2002). Türkçede -Ar Biçimbiriminin Sözdizimsel ve Anlambilimsel Yapısı Üzerine. In G. König, N. Büyükkantarcıoğlu, & F. Karahan (Eds.), 18. Türk Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri (pp. 129-145). Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
  • Uzun, E. (2015). A new analysis for verbal inflection affixes in Turkish. International Journal of Foreign Studies, 8(1), 39-62.
  • Willet, T. (1988). A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language, 12(1). 51-97.
  • Yavaş, F. (1980). On the meaning of tense and aspect markers in Turkish. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Kansas University.
  • Yavaş, F. (1982). The Turkish aorist. Glossa, 16, 40-53.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Language Studies
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Kadri KURAM 0000-0001-8829-5680

Publication Date December 31, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022Volume: 33 Issue: 2

Cite

APA KURAM, K. (2022). A Morpho-pragmatic Classification of Turkish TAM Markers. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 33(2), 145-171. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1083233