Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

On the true nature of ÇOKTAN in Turkish

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 35 Sayı: 2, 151 - 166, 24.12.2024

Emrah Görgülü

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1529687

Öz

Turkish has the temporal adverb çoktan ‘long time ago’ that has been treated as a positive polarity item (PPI) in recent studies. It has been argued that it cannot co-occur with clause-mate negation, whereas native speakers seem to have split it into two in terms of its grammaticality with long-distance negation. Interestingly, there seems to be almost no formal study that has ever analyzed the properties of Turkish PPIs. In this paper, the objective was to carry out a corpus analysis of çoktan and find out whether it is truly an item of positive polarity. Based on new corpus data, it is shown that çoktan is indeed an element of positive polarity that predominantly occurs in positive sentences. It is also argued that its overall behavior can be captured by way of the semantic notion of (non)-veridicality since its syntactic distribution includes veridical and certain non-veridical contexts but excludes antiveridical ones.

Anahtar Kelimeler

polarity sensitivity positive polarity (non)-veridicality Turkish

Kaynakça

  • Baker, M. (1970). Double negatives. Linguistic Inquiry 1(2). 169–186.
  • Bošković, Ž. (2008). On two types of negative constituents and negative concord. Proceedings of Conference of Formal Description of Slavic Languages (FDSL) 6:5, 9–35.
  • Chierchia, G. (2013). Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Chatzopoulou, K. (2012). Negation and nonveridicality in the history of Greek [Unpublished PhD dissertation]. University of Chicago.
  • Enç, M. (1991). The Semantics of Specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1–25.
  • Ernst, T. (2008). Adverbs and Positive Polarity in Mandarin Chinese. In K. M. Chan and H. Kang (Eds.). Proceedings of the 20th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-20), Vol. 1. (pp. 69–85). Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University.
  • Ernst, T. (2009). Speaker oriented adverbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27, 497– 544. 10.1007/sl 1049-009-9069-1
  • Giannakidou, A. (1998). Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)veridical Dependency. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Giannakidou, A. (1999). Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22. 367–421.
  • Giannakidou, A. (2000). Negative … Concord? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18, 457–523. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4047938
  • Giannakidou, A. (2003). Varieties of polarity items and the (non)veridicality hypothesis. In J. Hoeksema, H. Rullman, V. Sanchez- Valencia, and T. van der Wouden (Eds.). Perspectives on negation and polarity items. (pp. 99–129). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Giannakidou, A. (2011). Positive polarity items and negative polarity items: variation, licensing, and compositionality. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, and P. Portner (Eds.). Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. (pp. 1660–1712). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Giannakidou, A. (2014). The prospective as nonveridical: polarity items, speaker commitment and projected truth. In J. Hoeksema and D. Gilbers (Eds.). Black Book: A Festschrift in honor of Frans Zwarts. (pp. 101–124). University of Groningen.
  • Görgülü, E. (2018). Negative polarity in Turkish: from negation to nonveridicality. Macrolinguistics 5(7), 51–69. The Learned Press. https://10.26478/ja2017.5.7.3
  • Görgülü, E. (2020). Negative sensitive items in Turkish: negative polarity or negative concord? RumeliDE Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 21, 724–749. https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.841253
  • Gračanin-Yüksek, M. (2023). Negation That Isn’t. Languages, 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/ languages8040250.
  • Hoeksema, J. (2018). Positive polarity predicates. Linguistics 56(2), 361–400. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling- 2017-0039
  • Israel, M. (2004). The pragmatics of polarity. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.). The Handbook of Pragmatics. (pp. 701-723). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Jeretič, Paloma. (2022). Exceptionally optional negative concord with Turkish neither...nor. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-022-09556-z
  • Kamali. B. (2015). Caseless direct objects in Turkish revisited. In A. Meinunger (Ed.), Byproducts and Side Effects. (pp. 107–123). ZAS Working Papers in Linguistics 58. Berlin.
  • Kelepir, M. (2001). Topics in Turkish syntax: Clausal structure and scope. [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. MIT.
  • Kelepir, M. (2003). What Turkish NPIs teach us. In S. Özsoy, D. Akar, M. Nakipoğlu Demiralp, E. Erguvanlı Taylan and A. Aksu-Koç (Eds.). Studies in Turkish Linguistics. (pp.111–120). Boğaziçi University Press.
  • Ladusaw, W. (1980). Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. Garland: New York.
  • Ladusaw, W. (1992). Expressing Negation. In C. Baker and D. Dowty (Eds.). Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 2. (pp. 237–259). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
  • Nakipoğlu, M. (2009). The semantics of the Turkish accusative marked definites and the relation between prosodic structure and information structure. Lingua 119(9): 1253–1280.
  • Nicolae, C. A. (2012). Positive polarity items: An alternative-based account. In A. A. Guevara, A. Chernilovskaya, & Rick Nouwen (Eds.). Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16, 475–488. Utrecht University.
  • Öztürk, B. (2005). Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure. John Benjamins Publishing.
  • Penka, D. (2020). Negative and Positive Polarity Items. In M. T. Putnam and R. B. Page (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics, 27. (pp. 639–660). Cambridge University Press.
  • Progovac, L. (1994). Negative and Positive Polarity: A Binding Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sezer, T., & Sezer, B. (2013). TS Corpus herkes için Türkçe derlem. Proceedings of the 27th National Linguistics Conference. (pp. 217–225). May 3-4, 2013. Antalya, Kemer: Hacettepe University, English Linguistics Department.
  • Spector, B. (2014). Global positive polarity items and obligatory exhaustivity. Semantics and Pragmatics 7(11): 1–61.
  • Szabolcsi, A. (2004). Positive polarity–negative polarity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22(2): 409–452.
  • Şener, S. (2007). Cyclic NCI Movement. In E. Bainbridge and B. Agyabani (eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-fourth Western Conference on Linguistics, 17. (pp. 407–417). Department of Linguistics, California State University, Fresno.
  • Taylan, E. E. (2001). On the relation between temporal/aspectual adverbs and the verb form in Turkish. In E. E. Taylan (Ed.). The Verb in Turkish, (pp. 97–128). Linguistics Today.
  • van der Wouden, T. (1997). Negative contexts: Collocation, polarity and multiple negation. London/New York: Routledge.
  • Xie, Z. (2007). Nonveridicality and existential polarity wh-phrases in Mandarin.’ In M. Elliott, J. Kirby, O. Sawada, E. Staraki, and S. Yoon (Eds.), Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Society 43. (pp. 121–135). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
  • Yanılmaz, A. (2009). An Investigation into the Lexical and Syntactic Properties of Negative Polarity Items in Turkish. MA Thesis. Hacettepe University.
  • Yanılmaz, A., & Drury, E. J. (2017). Prospective NPI licensing and Intrusion in Turkish. Language, Cognition & Neuroscience 33, 111–138. doi:10.1080/23273798.2017.1371779.
  • Zeijlstra, H. (2004). Sentential Negation and Negative Concord. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. University of Amsterdam.
  • Zeijlstra, H. (2008). Negative Concord is Syntactic Agreement. Ms. University of Amsterdam.
  • Zeijlstra, H. (2013). Negation and polarity. In M. Den Dikken (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax. (pp. 793–826). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Zeijlstra, H. (2022). Negation and Negative Dependencies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Zwarts, F. (1995). Nonveridical contexts. Linguistic Analysis 25. 286–312.

Türkçede ÇOKTAN sözcüğünün gerçek doğası üzerine

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 35 Sayı: 2, 151 - 166, 24.12.2024

Emrah Görgülü

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1529687

Öz

Türkçede zaman belirteci olarak kullanılan çoktan sözcüğü son yıllarda yapılan çalışmalarda Olumlu Uçluk Öğesi olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Bu sözcüğün aynı tümcede olumsuzlamayla bir arada olamayacağı ortaya koyulurken, uzak mesafeli olumsuzlama bakımından ise anadili konuşucularının dilbilgisi açısından ikiye ayrıldığı belirtilmiştir. Türkçede Olumlu Uçluk Öğelerinin özelliklerini sistemli olarak inceleyen hemen hemen hiçbir çalışma bulunmamaktadır. Bu çalışmadaki temel amaç, bu sözcüğün gerçekten bir Olumlu Uçluk Öğesi olup olmadığını ortaya koymak için bir bütünce analizi gerçekleştirmektir. Bu çalışma için toplanan bütünce verilerine dayanarak, çoktan sözcüğün gerçekten de ağırlıklı olarak olumlu yapılarda bulunan bir Olumlu Uçluk Öğesi olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Aynı zamanda, bu sözcüğün sözdizimsel dağılımının, doğrulamalı ve doğrulama-harici ortamları içerdiği fakat doğrulama-karşıtı bağlamları dahil etmemesi nedeniyle anlambilimsel bir nosyon olan doğrula(ma)ma kavramı aracılığıyla açıklanabileceği savunulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

olumlu uçluk uçluk duyarlılığı doğrula(ma)ma Türkçe

Kaynakça

  • Baker, M. (1970). Double negatives. Linguistic Inquiry 1(2). 169–186.
  • Bošković, Ž. (2008). On two types of negative constituents and negative concord. Proceedings of Conference of Formal Description of Slavic Languages (FDSL) 6:5, 9–35.
  • Chierchia, G. (2013). Logic in Grammar: Polarity, Free Choice, and Intervention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Chatzopoulou, K. (2012). Negation and nonveridicality in the history of Greek [Unpublished PhD dissertation]. University of Chicago.
  • Enç, M. (1991). The Semantics of Specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1–25.
  • Ernst, T. (2008). Adverbs and Positive Polarity in Mandarin Chinese. In K. M. Chan and H. Kang (Eds.). Proceedings of the 20th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-20), Vol. 1. (pp. 69–85). Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University.
  • Ernst, T. (2009). Speaker oriented adverbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27, 497– 544. 10.1007/sl 1049-009-9069-1
  • Giannakidou, A. (1998). Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)veridical Dependency. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Giannakidou, A. (1999). Affective dependencies. Linguistics and Philosophy 22. 367–421.
  • Giannakidou, A. (2000). Negative … Concord? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18, 457–523. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4047938
  • Giannakidou, A. (2003). Varieties of polarity items and the (non)veridicality hypothesis. In J. Hoeksema, H. Rullman, V. Sanchez- Valencia, and T. van der Wouden (Eds.). Perspectives on negation and polarity items. (pp. 99–129). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Giannakidou, A. (2011). Positive polarity items and negative polarity items: variation, licensing, and compositionality. In C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, and P. Portner (Eds.). Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. (pp. 1660–1712). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Giannakidou, A. (2014). The prospective as nonveridical: polarity items, speaker commitment and projected truth. In J. Hoeksema and D. Gilbers (Eds.). Black Book: A Festschrift in honor of Frans Zwarts. (pp. 101–124). University of Groningen.
  • Görgülü, E. (2018). Negative polarity in Turkish: from negation to nonveridicality. Macrolinguistics 5(7), 51–69. The Learned Press. https://10.26478/ja2017.5.7.3
  • Görgülü, E. (2020). Negative sensitive items in Turkish: negative polarity or negative concord? RumeliDE Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 21, 724–749. https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.841253
  • Gračanin-Yüksek, M. (2023). Negation That Isn’t. Languages, 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/ languages8040250.
  • Hoeksema, J. (2018). Positive polarity predicates. Linguistics 56(2), 361–400. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling- 2017-0039
  • Israel, M. (2004). The pragmatics of polarity. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.). The Handbook of Pragmatics. (pp. 701-723). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Jeretič, Paloma. (2022). Exceptionally optional negative concord with Turkish neither...nor. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-022-09556-z
  • Kamali. B. (2015). Caseless direct objects in Turkish revisited. In A. Meinunger (Ed.), Byproducts and Side Effects. (pp. 107–123). ZAS Working Papers in Linguistics 58. Berlin.
  • Kelepir, M. (2001). Topics in Turkish syntax: Clausal structure and scope. [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. MIT.
  • Kelepir, M. (2003). What Turkish NPIs teach us. In S. Özsoy, D. Akar, M. Nakipoğlu Demiralp, E. Erguvanlı Taylan and A. Aksu-Koç (Eds.). Studies in Turkish Linguistics. (pp.111–120). Boğaziçi University Press.
  • Ladusaw, W. (1980). Polarity Sensitivity as Inherent Scope Relations. Garland: New York.
  • Ladusaw, W. (1992). Expressing Negation. In C. Baker and D. Dowty (Eds.). Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 2. (pp. 237–259). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
  • Nakipoğlu, M. (2009). The semantics of the Turkish accusative marked definites and the relation between prosodic structure and information structure. Lingua 119(9): 1253–1280.
  • Nicolae, C. A. (2012). Positive polarity items: An alternative-based account. In A. A. Guevara, A. Chernilovskaya, & Rick Nouwen (Eds.). Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16, 475–488. Utrecht University.
  • Öztürk, B. (2005). Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure. John Benjamins Publishing.
  • Penka, D. (2020). Negative and Positive Polarity Items. In M. T. Putnam and R. B. Page (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics, 27. (pp. 639–660). Cambridge University Press.
  • Progovac, L. (1994). Negative and Positive Polarity: A Binding Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sezer, T., & Sezer, B. (2013). TS Corpus herkes için Türkçe derlem. Proceedings of the 27th National Linguistics Conference. (pp. 217–225). May 3-4, 2013. Antalya, Kemer: Hacettepe University, English Linguistics Department.
  • Spector, B. (2014). Global positive polarity items and obligatory exhaustivity. Semantics and Pragmatics 7(11): 1–61.
  • Szabolcsi, A. (2004). Positive polarity–negative polarity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22(2): 409–452.
  • Şener, S. (2007). Cyclic NCI Movement. In E. Bainbridge and B. Agyabani (eds.), Proceedings of the thirty-fourth Western Conference on Linguistics, 17. (pp. 407–417). Department of Linguistics, California State University, Fresno.
  • Taylan, E. E. (2001). On the relation between temporal/aspectual adverbs and the verb form in Turkish. In E. E. Taylan (Ed.). The Verb in Turkish, (pp. 97–128). Linguistics Today.
  • van der Wouden, T. (1997). Negative contexts: Collocation, polarity and multiple negation. London/New York: Routledge.
  • Xie, Z. (2007). Nonveridicality and existential polarity wh-phrases in Mandarin.’ In M. Elliott, J. Kirby, O. Sawada, E. Staraki, and S. Yoon (Eds.), Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Society 43. (pp. 121–135). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
  • Yanılmaz, A. (2009). An Investigation into the Lexical and Syntactic Properties of Negative Polarity Items in Turkish. MA Thesis. Hacettepe University.
  • Yanılmaz, A., & Drury, E. J. (2017). Prospective NPI licensing and Intrusion in Turkish. Language, Cognition & Neuroscience 33, 111–138. doi:10.1080/23273798.2017.1371779.
  • Zeijlstra, H. (2004). Sentential Negation and Negative Concord. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. University of Amsterdam.
  • Zeijlstra, H. (2008). Negative Concord is Syntactic Agreement. Ms. University of Amsterdam.
  • Zeijlstra, H. (2013). Negation and polarity. In M. Den Dikken (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax. (pp. 793–826). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • Zeijlstra, H. (2022). Negation and Negative Dependencies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Zwarts, F. (1995). Nonveridical contexts. Linguistic Analysis 25. 286–312.
Toplam 43 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Bütünce Dilbilimi, Sözlükbilim ve Anlambilim
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Emrah Görgülü 0000-0003-0879-1049

Yayımlanma Tarihi 24 Aralık 2024
Gönderilme Tarihi 7 Ağustos 2024
Kabul Tarihi 17 Aralık 2024
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2024Cilt: 35 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Görgülü, E. (2024). On the true nature of ÇOKTAN in Turkish. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 35(2), 151-166. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1529687

88x31.png

Bu eser


Dergi DOI:10.18492/dad