Öz
Bu çalışma, alanyazında çoğunlukla ya sezgisel olarak tanımlanmış ya da net biçimde tanımlanmaksızın bir etiket olarak sıkça kullanılmış bir dilbilimsel kavram olan etkilenmişlik (İng. affectedness) kavramını Türkçe veri üzerinden incelemeyi amaçlayan betimsel bir çalışmadır. Etkilenmişlik kavramından Türkçede kimi sözdizim, anlambilim ve edimbilim çalışmalarında anahtar bir kavram olarak yararlanılmış olmasına karşın başlı başına incelenmemiştir. Bu çalışmada ilgili ilkelin betimlenerek, oluşturulmuş ve doğal dil verisi üzerinden incelenmesi hedeflenmektedir. Bu hedefle öncelikle alanyazında etkilenmişliğe ilişkin tartışmalar ve önerilen tanı testleri sunulacak, Türkçede etkileyen (İng. affecting) eylemlerin neler olabileceği İngilizce sınıflandırmalar çerçevesinde sorgulanacak, Türkçe geçişli eylemler ve durum işaretleyicilerin bir arada bulunuşları etkilenmişlik bağlamında gözden geçirilecek ve tipik geçişli somut etkileyen eylemlerden -kır, tipik geçişli soyut etkileyen eylemlerden üz- ile üst- ve üzeri- ilgeçlerinin doğal dil verisindeki görünümleri etkilenmişlik çerçevesinde incelenecektir. Çalışmanın temel hedefi Türkçede etkilenmişlik ilkeli temel alınarak yapılacak sonraki çalışmalar için daha net bir zemin oluşturmaktır.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Sözcük anlambilimi eylem anlambilimi anlam ilkelleri etkilenmişlik
Destekleyen Kurum
TÜBİTAK
Proje Numarası
122K654
Teşekkür
Bu çalışma 122K654 Proje numarası ile TÜBİTAK tarafından desteklenmiştir.
Kaynakça
- Acartürk, C. ve D. Zeyrek (2010). Unaccusative/Unergative distinction in Turkish: A connectionist approach. Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Asian Language Resources (ss. 111-119). Asian Federation for Natural Language Processing.
- Aksan, Y., Aksan, M. ve diğ. (2016). Web tabanlı Türkçe Ulusal Derlemi (TUD). XVI. Akademik Bilişim Konferansı Bildirileri (ss. 723-730). Gamze Yayıncılık. Bar, E. ve A. Siegal. (2018). Decomposing affectedness: Truth conditional non-core datives in modern Hebrew. Erişim adresi: http://www.academia.edu/12105630/Decomposing_Affectedness_Truth-Conditional_Non-core_Datives_in_Modern_Hebrew, Erişim tarihi: 10.11.2020.
- Beavers, J. (2010). The structure of lexical meaning: Why semantics really matters. Language, 86(4), 821-864.
- Beavers, J. (2011). On affectedness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29, 335-370. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0040
- Buzarowska, E. ve L. Mitkovska. (2013). From physical to abstract affectedness: The prepositions vrz and varhu in Balkan Slavic. Oslo Studies in Language, 5/1, 35-60. https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.739
- Croft, W. (1994). Voice: Beyond control and affectedness. Fox, B. ve P. Hopper (Yay. haz.) (1994) Voice: Form and function. John Benjamins.
- Cruse, D. A. (1973). Some thoughts on agentivity. Journal of Linguistics, 9(1), 11-23.
- Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics. Springer.
- Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547-619.
- Duarte, F. (2014). On the semantics of affectedness and its implications for argument structure in the Ka'apor language. Revista Linguística, 10(1), 99-121.
- Fleischhauer, J. (2018). Animacy and affectedness in Germanic languages. Open Linguistics, 4, 566-588. https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0028
- Göksel, A. ve Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
- Hoekstra, T. (2000). The nature of Burzio’s generalization. Reuland, E. (Yay. haz.) (2000) Arguments and case: Explaining Burzio’s generalizations (57-78). John Benjamins.
- Jackendoff, R. 1976. Toward an explanatory semantic representation. Linguistic Inquiry, 7(1), 89-150.
- Jarema, G. ve G. Libben. (2007). The mental lexicon: Core perspectives. Elsevier.
- Kural, M. 1996. Verb incorporation and elementary predicates. [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi], California Üniversitesi.
- İbe Akcan, P. (2010). Konu rolleri: Türkçe eylem veritabanı temelinde bir anlambilimsel konu rolleri modeli önerisi. [Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi], Ankara Üniversitesi.
- Ketrez, N. (2012). A student grammar of Turkish. CUP.
- Krippendorff, K. (1995). On the reliability of unitizing continuous data. Marsden, P. V. (Ed.) içinde, Sociological Methodology (ss. 47–76), Blackwell.
- Levin, B. (1993). Verb classes and alternations. Chicago University Press.
- Levin, B. (2020). Mind your manners: Regularity (and idiosyncrasy) in manner verb argument realization. Erişim adresi: http://web.stanford.edu/~bclevin/davis19hitting.pdf.
- Lewis, G. (2000). Turkish grammar. OUP.
- Manning, C. (1996). Ergativity: Argument structure and grammatical relations. CSLI.
- Meral, S. B. ve H. M. Meral 2018. On single argument verbs in Turkish. Bilig, 86, 115-136.
- Nakipoğlu, M. 1998. Split intransitivity and the syntax semantics interface. [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi], Minnesota Üniversitesi.
- Nakipoğlu Demiralp, M. 2001. The referential properties of the implicit arguments of impersonal passive constructions. The verb in Turkish içinde, E. E Taylan (ss. 129-150), John Benjamins.
- Ohta, K. ve K. Sung. (1993). Defining the affectedness condition. Proceedings of the nineteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session and parasession on semantic typology and semantic universals (ss. 268-279).
- Özkaragöz, İ. 1986. The relational structure of Turkish syntax. [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi], University of California.
- Perlmutter, D. M. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (ss. 157-189). https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v4i0.2198
- Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero syntax. MIT Press.
- Rappaport, T. R. (1990). Secondary predication and the lexical representation of verbs. Lexical Semantics, 5(1), 31-55.
- Roberts, T. (2020). The root of it all: Affectedness across lexical categories. Syntax and Semantics at Santa Cruz IV (ss. 77-96).
- Seidel, E. (2020). Anaphoric potential of pseudo-ıncorporated nouns in Turkish. Sofu, H., C. Can vd. (Yay. Haz.) (2020). Turcologica 121: Turkish linguistics across boundaries: The Adana meeting (ss. 259-266). Harrasowitz Verlag.
- Schaaik, G. V. (2020). The Oxford Turkish grammar. OUP.
- Schlesinger, I., M. (2013) Semantic features in argument selection. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics 3(3), 233-251.
- Seki, K. (2010). English middles and affectedness constraint. Osaka Kaidai Ronshu, 61(1), 217-233.
- Talmy, L. (2000). Towards a cognitive semantics II: Typology and process in concept structuring. MIT Press.
- Underhill, R. (1976). Turkish grammar. MIT Press.
- Van Valin, R. D. (2002). Semantic macroroles in role and reference grammar. Erişim adresi: http://linguistics.buffalo.edu/people/faculty/vanvalin/rrg.html, Erişim tarihi: 12.10.2020.
- Zeyrek, D ve C. Acartürk (2014). The distinction between unaccusative and unergative verbs in Turkish: An offline and eye tracking study of split intransitivity. Erişim adresi: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0491x8v3, Erişim tarihi: 20.06.2022.
Öz
This study aims to describe the linguistic concept of affectedness that is mostly intuitively but not clearly defined though it has been used frequently in the related literature in Turkish. It is referred to in many studies in syntax, semantics, and pragmatics in Turkish, yet not studied on its own and undefined comprehensively. The study analyzes this semantic primitive on the constructed and natural language data in Turkish. With that aim, firstly the literature on different languages and proposed diagnostic tests will be reviewed, then the question of which verbs can be the affecting ones in Turkish will be addressed within the scope of English classifications. After then, combinations of Turkish verbs and their case marked arguments will be overviewed, the typical potentially affecting transitive action verb kır-, the typical potentially affecting transitive psychological verb üz- and the postpositions üst- and üzeri- in Turkish will be examined in terms of affectedness in natural language data. The main purpose of the study is to clear the ground for further studies in Turkish which will potentially use this semantic primitive.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Lexical semantics verb semantics semantic primitives affectedness
Proje Numarası
122K654
Kaynakça
- Acartürk, C. ve D. Zeyrek (2010). Unaccusative/Unergative distinction in Turkish: A connectionist approach. Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Asian Language Resources (ss. 111-119). Asian Federation for Natural Language Processing.
- Aksan, Y., Aksan, M. ve diğ. (2016). Web tabanlı Türkçe Ulusal Derlemi (TUD). XVI. Akademik Bilişim Konferansı Bildirileri (ss. 723-730). Gamze Yayıncılık. Bar, E. ve A. Siegal. (2018). Decomposing affectedness: Truth conditional non-core datives in modern Hebrew. Erişim adresi: http://www.academia.edu/12105630/Decomposing_Affectedness_Truth-Conditional_Non-core_Datives_in_Modern_Hebrew, Erişim tarihi: 10.11.2020.
- Beavers, J. (2010). The structure of lexical meaning: Why semantics really matters. Language, 86(4), 821-864.
- Beavers, J. (2011). On affectedness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29, 335-370. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2010.0040
- Buzarowska, E. ve L. Mitkovska. (2013). From physical to abstract affectedness: The prepositions vrz and varhu in Balkan Slavic. Oslo Studies in Language, 5/1, 35-60. https://doi.org/10.5617/osla.739
- Croft, W. (1994). Voice: Beyond control and affectedness. Fox, B. ve P. Hopper (Yay. haz.) (1994) Voice: Form and function. John Benjamins.
- Cruse, D. A. (1973). Some thoughts on agentivity. Journal of Linguistics, 9(1), 11-23.
- Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics. Springer.
- Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547-619.
- Duarte, F. (2014). On the semantics of affectedness and its implications for argument structure in the Ka'apor language. Revista Linguística, 10(1), 99-121.
- Fleischhauer, J. (2018). Animacy and affectedness in Germanic languages. Open Linguistics, 4, 566-588. https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0028
- Göksel, A. ve Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
- Hoekstra, T. (2000). The nature of Burzio’s generalization. Reuland, E. (Yay. haz.) (2000) Arguments and case: Explaining Burzio’s generalizations (57-78). John Benjamins.
- Jackendoff, R. 1976. Toward an explanatory semantic representation. Linguistic Inquiry, 7(1), 89-150.
- Jarema, G. ve G. Libben. (2007). The mental lexicon: Core perspectives. Elsevier.
- Kural, M. 1996. Verb incorporation and elementary predicates. [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi], California Üniversitesi.
- İbe Akcan, P. (2010). Konu rolleri: Türkçe eylem veritabanı temelinde bir anlambilimsel konu rolleri modeli önerisi. [Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi], Ankara Üniversitesi.
- Ketrez, N. (2012). A student grammar of Turkish. CUP.
- Krippendorff, K. (1995). On the reliability of unitizing continuous data. Marsden, P. V. (Ed.) içinde, Sociological Methodology (ss. 47–76), Blackwell.
- Levin, B. (1993). Verb classes and alternations. Chicago University Press.
- Levin, B. (2020). Mind your manners: Regularity (and idiosyncrasy) in manner verb argument realization. Erişim adresi: http://web.stanford.edu/~bclevin/davis19hitting.pdf.
- Lewis, G. (2000). Turkish grammar. OUP.
- Manning, C. (1996). Ergativity: Argument structure and grammatical relations. CSLI.
- Meral, S. B. ve H. M. Meral 2018. On single argument verbs in Turkish. Bilig, 86, 115-136.
- Nakipoğlu, M. 1998. Split intransitivity and the syntax semantics interface. [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi], Minnesota Üniversitesi.
- Nakipoğlu Demiralp, M. 2001. The referential properties of the implicit arguments of impersonal passive constructions. The verb in Turkish içinde, E. E Taylan (ss. 129-150), John Benjamins.
- Ohta, K. ve K. Sung. (1993). Defining the affectedness condition. Proceedings of the nineteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session and parasession on semantic typology and semantic universals (ss. 268-279).
- Özkaragöz, İ. 1986. The relational structure of Turkish syntax. [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi], University of California.
- Perlmutter, D. M. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (ss. 157-189). https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v4i0.2198
- Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero syntax. MIT Press.
- Rappaport, T. R. (1990). Secondary predication and the lexical representation of verbs. Lexical Semantics, 5(1), 31-55.
- Roberts, T. (2020). The root of it all: Affectedness across lexical categories. Syntax and Semantics at Santa Cruz IV (ss. 77-96).
- Seidel, E. (2020). Anaphoric potential of pseudo-ıncorporated nouns in Turkish. Sofu, H., C. Can vd. (Yay. Haz.) (2020). Turcologica 121: Turkish linguistics across boundaries: The Adana meeting (ss. 259-266). Harrasowitz Verlag.
- Schaaik, G. V. (2020). The Oxford Turkish grammar. OUP.
- Schlesinger, I., M. (2013) Semantic features in argument selection. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics 3(3), 233-251.
- Seki, K. (2010). English middles and affectedness constraint. Osaka Kaidai Ronshu, 61(1), 217-233.
- Talmy, L. (2000). Towards a cognitive semantics II: Typology and process in concept structuring. MIT Press.
- Underhill, R. (1976). Turkish grammar. MIT Press.
- Van Valin, R. D. (2002). Semantic macroroles in role and reference grammar. Erişim adresi: http://linguistics.buffalo.edu/people/faculty/vanvalin/rrg.html, Erişim tarihi: 12.10.2020.
- Zeyrek, D ve C. Acartürk (2014). The distinction between unaccusative and unergative verbs in Turkish: An offline and eye tracking study of split intransitivity. Erişim adresi: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0491x8v3, Erişim tarihi: 20.06.2022.
Ayrıntılar
| Birincil Dil | Türkçe |
|---|---|
| Konular | Bütünce Dilbilimi, Sözlükbilim ve Anlambilim |
| Bölüm | Makaleler |
| Yazarlar | |
| Proje Numarası | 122K654 |
| Yayımlanma Tarihi | 30 Haziran 2024 |
| Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2024Cilt: 35 Sayı: 1 |
Bu eser
Dergi DOI:10.18492/dad