Redirecting to http://dergipark.org.tr/_fragment?_hash=MMAsw-cZyiZZDkrWnkKmZEL0JV0PhA5M2SCZkNCg0Qo&_path=id%3D1142337%26_format%3Dhtml%26_locale%3Dtr%26_controller%3DApp%255CController%255CSite%255CArticleController%253A%253AesiArticleStats.
Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Türkçede Göndergesel Bağımlılıklar: Kendisi, O ve Adıl’ın Bağlanması Üzerine Yeni Argümanlar

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 34 Sayı: 1, 81 - 107, 20.06.2023

Nazik Dinçtopal Deniz

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1142337
Cited By: 2

Öz

Türkçe dönüşlü adıl kendisi Bağlama Kuramı’nın A İlkesinden ve Yetinmeci Program’ın göndergesel bağımlılıklarına yaklaşımlarından sapar. Bu makalede sunulan analizler, Kornfilt (2001) makalesindeki gibi dönüşlü adıl kendisi’nden önce onun bağlanmasını etkileyen bir boş adıl (adıl) olduğu fikrini savunur; ancak kendisi’nin dönüşlü adıl olmadığını öne sürer. Kendisi’nin bağlanması, öncesinde adıl veya o geldiğinde değişir. Bu çalışma, adıl ve o'nun aynı adılın örtük ve açık karşılıkları olmadığını iddia etmektedir. Adıl ve o aynı dağılımı yalnızca (dolaylı) nesne olarak kullanıldıklarında gösterir. İyelik ifadelerinde ve özne olarak kullanıldıklarında dağılımları farklıdır. Sunulan analizler, Cardinaletti ve Starke (1999) ve Safir'in (2004) savlarını takiben, adıl'ın zayıf adıl olduğunu ve yalnızca bağlamda belirtilen bir öncülü ifade ettiğini gösterirken o’nun güçlü adıl olduğunu, bağımsız referans yapabildiğini ve konu değiştirici olarak işlev görebildiğini işaret eder.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Türkçe dönüşlülük adıl bağlama

Kaynakça

  • Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
  • Almor, A. (1999). Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review, 106(4), 748–765.
  • Cardinaletti, A. & Starke, M. (1999). The typology of structural deficiency. In H. van Riemsdijik (Ed.), Clitics and other functional categories in European languages (pp. 145-233). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Chomsky, N. (1980). On binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 1-46.
  • Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
  • Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of Government and Binding. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language, its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.
  • Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Dimitriadis, A. (1996). When pro-drop languages don’t: overt pronominal subjects and pragmatic inference. Proceedings of CLS, 32.
  • Enç, M. (1986). Topic switching and pronominal subjects in Turkish. In D.I. Slobin & K. Zimmer (Eds.), Studies in Turkish Linguistics (pp.195-209). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Enç, M. (1989). Pronouns, licensing, and binding. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 7, 51-92.
  • Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (1986). Pronominal versus zero representation of anaphora in Turkish. In D.I. Slobin & K. Zimmer (Eds.), Studies in Turkish Linguistics (pp. 209-231). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: a comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge
  • Gürel, A. (2002). Linguistic characteristics of second language acquisition and first language attritition: Turkish overt versus null pronouns. Unpublished PhD dissertatiton, McGill University.
  • Gürel, A. (2004). Selectivity in L2-induced L1 attrition: a psycholinguistic account. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17, 53-78.
  • Holmberg, A. (2005). Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 533-564.
  • Hornstein, N. (2006). Pronouns in a Minimalist setting. In Kazanina, U., P. Minai, P. Monathan, & H. Taylor (Eds.), University of Maryland working papers in Linguistics, 14, (pp. 47-80). College Park, MD: UMWPiL.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1984). Case marking, agreement, and empty categories in Turkish. [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1991). Some current issues in Turkish syntax. In Boeschoten, H. & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Turkish Linguistics Today, (pp. 60-92). Leiden: E. J. Brill.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London, New York: Routledge.
  • Kornfilt, J. (2001). Local and long-distance reflexives in Turkish. In Cole, P., G. Hermon & C.-T. J. Huang (Eds.), Long Distance Reflexives (Syntax and Semantics,33), 197-226. San Diego: Academic Press.
  • Lewis, G. L. (1967). Turkish grammar. Great Britain: Oxford University Press.
  • Lewis, G. L. (1985). Turkish grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Corrected reprint of the 1967 original.]
  • Meral, H. M. (2010). Resumption, A’-chains and implications on clausal architecture. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey.
  • Meral, H. M. (2013). Binding as an A'-phenomenon? Some remarks from Turkish. Iberia, 5(1), 45-68.
  • Özsoy, A. S. (1990). Söylemiçi dönüşlü yapı. Dilbilim Araştırmaları-1990, 35-40. Hitit Yayınevi.
  • Öztürk, B. (2002). Turkish as a non-pro-drop language. In Taylan, E. E. (Ed.), The verb in Turkish (pp. 239-259). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Palaz, B. (2013). On the nature of anaphoric expressions kendi/kendisi and the clause structure of Turkish. (Unpublished M.A. thesis). Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey.
  • Reinhart, T. & Reuland, E. (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 657-720.
  • Rudnev, P. (2011). Why Turkish kendisi is a pronominal. Ural-Altaic Studies, 4(1), 76–92.
  • Safir, K. (2004). The syntax of anaphora. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Wexler, K. & Manzini, R. (1987). Parameters and learnability in Binding Theory. In T. Roeper & E. Williams (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. 41-76). Dordrecht, Boston: Reidel Publishing Company.

Referential Dependencies in Turkish: Some Novel Arguments on the Binding of Kendisi, O and Pro

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 34 Sayı: 1, 81 - 107, 20.06.2023

Nazik Dinçtopal Deniz

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1142337
Cited By: 2

Öz

The Turkish reflexive kendisi (self-3SG.POSS) deviates from Principle A of the Binding Theory and from the Minimalist movement approaches to referential dependencies. This paper concurs with Kornfilt (2001) and provides further support that kendi-si is preceded by a null possessor (pro) which influences its binding but argues that kendisi is not a reflexive. Kendisi’s distribution changes when its possessor is a null pronominal (pro) or an overt pronominal (o, ‘she/he/it’). It is claimed that pro and o are not the null and overt counterparts of the same pronominal. Pro and o show the same distribution only in (in)direct object positions. In possessive phrases and subject positions, their distributions differ. Following Cardinaletti and Starke (1999) and Safir (2004), it is argued that pro is a weak pronoun which only refers to an antecedent mentioned in the context. But o is a strong pronoun and can make independent reference and function as a topic shifter.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Turkish reflexives pronouns binding

Teşekkür

I am grateful to Marcel den-Dikken for consultation and his constructive criticism on an earlier version of this paper. I also would like to thank an anonymous reviewer whose insightful comments improved the discussions. All errors are mine.

Kaynakça

  • Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
  • Almor, A. (1999). Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review, 106(4), 748–765.
  • Cardinaletti, A. & Starke, M. (1999). The typology of structural deficiency. In H. van Riemsdijik (Ed.), Clitics and other functional categories in European languages (pp. 145-233). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Chomsky, N. (1980). On binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 1-46.
  • Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
  • Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of Government and Binding. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language, its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.
  • Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Dimitriadis, A. (1996). When pro-drop languages don’t: overt pronominal subjects and pragmatic inference. Proceedings of CLS, 32.
  • Enç, M. (1986). Topic switching and pronominal subjects in Turkish. In D.I. Slobin & K. Zimmer (Eds.), Studies in Turkish Linguistics (pp.195-209). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Enç, M. (1989). Pronouns, licensing, and binding. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 7, 51-92.
  • Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (1986). Pronominal versus zero representation of anaphora in Turkish. In D.I. Slobin & K. Zimmer (Eds.), Studies in Turkish Linguistics (pp. 209-231). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: a comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge
  • Gürel, A. (2002). Linguistic characteristics of second language acquisition and first language attritition: Turkish overt versus null pronouns. Unpublished PhD dissertatiton, McGill University.
  • Gürel, A. (2004). Selectivity in L2-induced L1 attrition: a psycholinguistic account. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17, 53-78.
  • Holmberg, A. (2005). Is there a little pro? Evidence from Finnish. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 533-564.
  • Hornstein, N. (2006). Pronouns in a Minimalist setting. In Kazanina, U., P. Minai, P. Monathan, & H. Taylor (Eds.), University of Maryland working papers in Linguistics, 14, (pp. 47-80). College Park, MD: UMWPiL.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1984). Case marking, agreement, and empty categories in Turkish. [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1991). Some current issues in Turkish syntax. In Boeschoten, H. & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Turkish Linguistics Today, (pp. 60-92). Leiden: E. J. Brill.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London, New York: Routledge.
  • Kornfilt, J. (2001). Local and long-distance reflexives in Turkish. In Cole, P., G. Hermon & C.-T. J. Huang (Eds.), Long Distance Reflexives (Syntax and Semantics,33), 197-226. San Diego: Academic Press.
  • Lewis, G. L. (1967). Turkish grammar. Great Britain: Oxford University Press.
  • Lewis, G. L. (1985). Turkish grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Corrected reprint of the 1967 original.]
  • Meral, H. M. (2010). Resumption, A’-chains and implications on clausal architecture. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey.
  • Meral, H. M. (2013). Binding as an A'-phenomenon? Some remarks from Turkish. Iberia, 5(1), 45-68.
  • Özsoy, A. S. (1990). Söylemiçi dönüşlü yapı. Dilbilim Araştırmaları-1990, 35-40. Hitit Yayınevi.
  • Öztürk, B. (2002). Turkish as a non-pro-drop language. In Taylan, E. E. (Ed.), The verb in Turkish (pp. 239-259). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Palaz, B. (2013). On the nature of anaphoric expressions kendi/kendisi and the clause structure of Turkish. (Unpublished M.A. thesis). Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey.
  • Reinhart, T. & Reuland, E. (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 657-720.
  • Rudnev, P. (2011). Why Turkish kendisi is a pronominal. Ural-Altaic Studies, 4(1), 76–92.
  • Safir, K. (2004). The syntax of anaphora. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Wexler, K. & Manzini, R. (1987). Parameters and learnability in Binding Theory. In T. Roeper & E. Williams (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. 41-76). Dordrecht, Boston: Reidel Publishing Company.
Toplam 32 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Dilbilim, Dilsel Yapılar (Fonoloji, Morfoloji ve Sözdizimi dahil)
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Nazik Dinçtopal Deniz 0000-0003-0673-1130

Yayımlanma Tarihi 20 Haziran 2023
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2023 Cilt: 34 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Dinçtopal Deniz, N. (2023). Referential Dependencies in Turkish: Some Novel Arguments on the Binding of Kendisi, O and Pro. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 34(1), 81-107. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1142337

Cited By

Sentence processing in Turkish: A review and future directions
Lingua
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2024.103835
KENDİ/KENDİSİ ADILLARININ TÜMCEİÇİ VE TÜMCELERARASI GÖNDERGESEL ÖZELLİKLERİ: TÜMDENGELİMLİ VE TÜMEVARIMLI BİR BAKIŞ
Dil Dergisi
https://doi.org/10.33690/dilder.1448190

88x31.png

Bu eser


Dergi DOI:10.18492/dad