Öz
Çalışma, açık özne adılsılları (o ve kendisi) ve niceleyi/ne-sorusu öncülleri arasındaki eş gönderim ilişkilerinin ana dili Türkçe olan konuşucular tarafından nasıl yorumlandığını, bağlı ya da ayrık okumayı hedefleyen bağlamsal tümceler üzerinden incelemektedir. Bulgular, onun sözdizimsel olarak erişilebilen tek seçenek olan tümce dışı bir öncüle bağlı olarak yorumlandığını, kendisinin ise her iki yorumlama sözdizimsel olarak erişilebilir olmasına rağmen daha çok ana tümce öznesine bağlı olarak yorumlandığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu da açık adılsılları niceleyici/ne-sorusu sözcüklere bağlamayı engelleyen sınırlılık olan Açık Adıl Kısıtlama’nın o için işlemsel olduğunu kendisinin ise bu duruma uymadığını göstermektedir. Bu durum adılsılların sözdizimsel biçimleri ile açıklanabilir: o kendisinden daha maliyetlidir, bu nedenle niceleyici/ne-sorusu öncüllerle bakışımsızlık gösterir. Kendisinin bağlama ilişkileri adıla benzediği için, daha çok ana tümce öznesi tarafından bağlı olarak tercih edilmektedir.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- Alonso-Ovalle, L., Fernández-Solera, S., Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (2002). Null vs. overt pronouns and the topic-focus articulation in Spanish. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 14, 151-170.
- Bautista, C. A. (2014a). Weak crossover and the syntax-phonology interface. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 40, 1-19.
- Bautista, C. A. (2014b). Weak Crossover is not a semantic phenomena. In L. Crnic and U. Sauerland (Eds.), The Art and Craft of Semantics: A Festschrift for Irene Heim (Vol. 1). (pp. 31–60). MITWPL70.
- Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Foris Publications.
- Çınar, O. & Çakır, S. (2019). The universality of the overt pronoun constraint: The re-analysis of the Turkish case. Australian Journal of Linguistics, (39)4, 463-484.
- Enç, M. (1986). Topic switching and pronominal subjects in Turkish. In D. I. Slobin & K. Zimmer (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 195-208). John Benjamins.
- 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). John Benjamins.
- Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
- Gračanin-Yuksek, M., Lago, S., Şafak, D. F., Demir, O., & Kırkıcı, B. (2017). The interaction of contextual and syntactic information in the processing of Turkish anaphors. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46, 1397-1425.
- Gürel, A. (2002). Linguistic characteristics of second language acquisition and first language attrition: Overt versus null pronouns. [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. McGill University.
- Gürel, A. (2003). Is the overt pronoun constraint universal? Evidence from L2 Turkish. In J.M. Liceras, H. Zobl & H. Goodluck (Eds.), The proceedings of the 6th generative approaches to second language acquisition conference (pp. 130-139). Cascadilla.
- Kornfilt, J. (1984). Case marking, agreement, and empty Categories in Turkish. [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Harvard University.
- Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish grammar. Routledge.
- Montalbetti, M. (1984). After binding: On the interpretation of pronouns. [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, MIT]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
- Özsoy, A. S. (1987). The null subject parameter and Turkish. In H.E. Boeschoten & L.T.Verhoeven (Eds.), Studies on modern Turkish. Proceedings of the third conference on Turkish linguistics (pp. 82-90). Tilburg University Press.
- Özsoy, A. S. (1990). Söylemiçi dönüşlü yapı. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1, 36-40.
- Postal, P. (1966). On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. In F. Dinneen (Ed.), 19th monograph on language and linguistics. Georgetown University Press.
- Reinhart, T. (2006). Interface strategies: optimal and costly computations. MIT Press.
- Rothman, J. (2009). Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences? L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax-pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 951–973.
- Sheen, R. (2000). A response to Kannos The stability of UG principles in second-language acquisition: evidence from Japanese. Linguistics, 38(4) 285-319.
- Sorace, A., & Serratrice, L. (2009). Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Revisiting the processing vs. representation distinction. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 195–210.
- White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge University Press.
Öz
This study explores the interpretation of co-indexation between overt subject pronominals, specifically o and kendisi, with quantified/wh-word antecedents among native Turkish speakers. The research employs a task designed to elicit responses that either force a bound or disjoint interpretation within biased contexts. The findings reveal that o and kendisi are not interchangeable within the same context. A closer examination unveils that the interpretation of o is governed by certain syntactic constraints, although target-deviant interpretations are observed. In contrast, kendisi is more likely to be interpreted as a bound pronoun, even though both bound and disjoint interpretations are syntactically accessible. This shows that the constraint governing the binding of overt subject pronominals to quantified/wh-word antecedents, known as the Overt Pronoun Constraint, is operative for o but not for kendisi. The distinction in the behavior of these pronominals can be attributed to the diffrences in their syntactic configurations: o is costly configured than kendisi, hence displaying asymmetry across quantified/wh-word antecedents. Since the binding relations of kendisi is similar to pro, it is more prone to binding by the matrix subject.
Anahtar Kelimeler
overt subject pronominals o kendisi Overt Pronoun Constraint Turkish
Kaynakça
- Alonso-Ovalle, L., Fernández-Solera, S., Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (2002). Null vs. overt pronouns and the topic-focus articulation in Spanish. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 14, 151-170.
- Bautista, C. A. (2014a). Weak crossover and the syntax-phonology interface. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 40, 1-19.
- Bautista, C. A. (2014b). Weak Crossover is not a semantic phenomena. In L. Crnic and U. Sauerland (Eds.), The Art and Craft of Semantics: A Festschrift for Irene Heim (Vol. 1). (pp. 31–60). MITWPL70.
- Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Foris Publications.
- Çınar, O. & Çakır, S. (2019). The universality of the overt pronoun constraint: The re-analysis of the Turkish case. Australian Journal of Linguistics, (39)4, 463-484.
- Enç, M. (1986). Topic switching and pronominal subjects in Turkish. In D. I. Slobin & K. Zimmer (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 195-208). John Benjamins.
- 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). John Benjamins.
- Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
- Gračanin-Yuksek, M., Lago, S., Şafak, D. F., Demir, O., & Kırkıcı, B. (2017). The interaction of contextual and syntactic information in the processing of Turkish anaphors. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46, 1397-1425.
- Gürel, A. (2002). Linguistic characteristics of second language acquisition and first language attrition: Overt versus null pronouns. [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. McGill University.
- Gürel, A. (2003). Is the overt pronoun constraint universal? Evidence from L2 Turkish. In J.M. Liceras, H. Zobl & H. Goodluck (Eds.), The proceedings of the 6th generative approaches to second language acquisition conference (pp. 130-139). Cascadilla.
- Kornfilt, J. (1984). Case marking, agreement, and empty Categories in Turkish. [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. Harvard University.
- Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish grammar. Routledge.
- Montalbetti, M. (1984). After binding: On the interpretation of pronouns. [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, MIT]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
- Özsoy, A. S. (1987). The null subject parameter and Turkish. In H.E. Boeschoten & L.T.Verhoeven (Eds.), Studies on modern Turkish. Proceedings of the third conference on Turkish linguistics (pp. 82-90). Tilburg University Press.
- Özsoy, A. S. (1990). Söylemiçi dönüşlü yapı. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1, 36-40.
- Postal, P. (1966). On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. In F. Dinneen (Ed.), 19th monograph on language and linguistics. Georgetown University Press.
- Reinhart, T. (2006). Interface strategies: optimal and costly computations. MIT Press.
- Rothman, J. (2009). Pragmatic deficits with syntactic consequences? L2 pronominal subjects and the syntax-pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 951–973.
- Sheen, R. (2000). A response to Kannos The stability of UG principles in second-language acquisition: evidence from Japanese. Linguistics, 38(4) 285-319.
- Sorace, A., & Serratrice, L. (2009). Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Revisiting the processing vs. representation distinction. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 195–210.
- White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge University Press.
Ayrıntılar
| Birincil Dil | İngilizce |
|---|---|
| Konular | Dilbilim |
| Bölüm | Makaleler |
| Yazarlar | |
| Yayımlanma Tarihi | 29 Aralık 2023 |
| Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2023 |
Bu eser
Dergi DOI:10.18492/dad