Bir hata meydana geldi.



Anasayfaya Dön

Year 2019, Volume 30 , Issue 2, Pages 171 - 198 2019-12-26

Evrensel Taban Varsayımı Üzerine Gözlemler
Observations on Universal Base Hypothesis: An Evaluation on OV Order

Murat ÖZGEN [1]


Evrensel Taban Varsayımı tüm dillerin temelde aynı dizilişe sahip olduğunu öne süren bir varsayımdır. Bu varsayım, temelde değiştirgene dayalı sözcük dizilişi görünümlerinden arındığı için yetinmeci olduğu kadar alanyazında sık sık tartışılan da bir konudur. Bu varsayım üzerindeki kutuplaşma, evrensel tabanın temelde hangi dizilişle başladığı konusundaki incelemeleri ve deneysel gözlemleri arttırmıştır. Kutbun bir tarafında, Kayne (1994, 2010) Çizgisel Örtüşme Belitini (Linear Correspondence Axiom) önermiş ve tüm NE (=OV) dizilişlerinin aslında EN (=VO) dizilişinden sola doğru taşımalarla türetildiğini belirtmiştir. Diğer kutupta ise, Haider (1997, 2000, 2013), Barbiers (2000) ile Fukui ve Takano (1998, 2000) gibi araştırıcılar NE-tabanlı bir diziliş önermiş ve bu dizilişin EN’yi türetmek için yalnızca eylemi taşıması gerektiğinden daha basit bir diziliş olduğunu savunmuştur. Bu çalışmanın amacı ‘EN temel diziliştir’ savına ilişkin temel sayıltıları Türkçe üzerinden tartışıp savları yeniden değerlendirmektir.

Universal base hypotheses maintain the idea that all languages have the same underlying word order. This is a strong minimalist argument that bans all parametric variations of word order. However, it is controversial in the sense that it bears too strong arguments as to the universality of word order paradigm. The polarization over this hypothesis has recently increased the conceptual and empirical observations on the phenomenon. Universal base arguments are grouped into two distinct poles. On the one pole, we see arguments of Kayne defending the VO order, who claims that OV is basically derived by leftward movements. On the other pole, Haider (1997, 2000, 2013), Barbiers (2000) and Fukui & Takano (1998, 2000) argue the universality of OV. With this assumption VO is basically derived by movement of the verb alone, which makes this word order more basic than VO. The aim of this study is to discuss the basic arguments of VO over Turkish data and reassess the arguments.

  • Abney, S. P. (1987). The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
  • Baker, M. C. (2005). On Verb-initial and Verb-final Word Orders in Lokaa., Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 26, 125-164.
  • Barbiers, S. (2000). The right periphery in SOV languages. The derivation of VO and OV, 181-218.
  • Bowers, J. (1991). The Syntax and Semantics of Nominals. Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory 1: 1-30.
  • Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist Inquiries: the Framework. R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. U. (eds.). In Step by step (s. 89-156). Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. A. B. (ed.) In Structures and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Chomsky, N. (2008). On phases. (eds.) Freidin, Otero and Zubizaretta) In Foundational Issues in Linguistics Theory. MIT Press.
  • Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (1984). The function of word order. California: University of California Press.
  • Fox, D., & David P. (2005). Cyclic Linearization of syntactic structure. In Object shift, ed. by Katalin E. Kiss, special issue, Theoretical Linguistics 31(1–2):1–46.
  • Fukui, N., & Takano, Y. (1998). Symmetry in Syntax: Merge and demerge. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 7: 27-86..
  • Fukui, N., & Takano, Y. (2000). Nominal structure: An extension of the symmetry principle. The derivation of VO and OV, 219-254.
  • Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar, New York: Routledge.
  • Griffiths, J. & Güneş, G. (2015). Ki issues in Turkish: Parenthetical coordination and adjunction. In M. E. Kluck, D. Ott & M. de Vries (eds.), Parenthesis and Ellipsis: Cross-Linguistic and Theoretical Perspectives (pp. 173-217). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Haider, H. (1997). Precedence among predicates. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1, 3-41.
  • Haider, H. (2000). OV is more basic than VO. (ed.) P. Svenonius. In The derivation of VO and OV (s. 45-68). John Benjamins.
  • Haider, H. (2013). Symmetry breaking in syntax (No. 136). Cambridge University Press.
  • Hornstein, N., Nunes, J., & Grohmann, K. K. (2005). Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • İşsever, S. (2007). Nesne Kaydırımı ve Türkçe. XXI. Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı, 10-11 Mayıs, Mersin.
  • Kandybowicz, J. & Baker, M. C. (2003). On Directionality and the Structure of the Verb Phrase: Evidence from Nupe, Syntax 6, 115-155.
  • Kayne, R. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
  • Kayne, R. S. (2010). Why are there no directionality parameters. Ms., New York University.
  • Kelepir, M. (1996). The implications of antisymmetry theory of syntax on Turkish word order. Unpublished MA Thesis, İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi.
  • Kennelly, S. D. (1990). Theta government in Turkish. Ms. University of Siena.
  • Kennelly, S. D. (1994). The syntax of clausal determiners: Subject/object asymmetry in participles. In G. B. (ed.), Teoria del linguaggio e analisi linguistica (pp. 253-273). Padova, Italy: Unipress.
  • Kennelly, S. D. (2004). Quantificational dependencies. Dissertation, Utrecht.
  • Keskin, C. (2009). Subject Agreement-Dependency of Accusative Case in Turkish or Jump-starting Grammatical Machinery. The Netherlands: LOT Publishing.
  • Kiparsky, P. ve Kiparsky, C. (1970). Fact. Semantics. D. Steinberg ve L . Jacobovits (haz.). London: CUP.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. Blackwell: Routledge.
  • Kornfilt, J. (2005). Asymmetries between pre-verbal and post-verbal scrambling in Turkish In J. Sabel, & M. Saito, The Free Word Order Phenomenon (pp. 181-221). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Kural, M. (1992). Properties of scrambling in Turkish. [Manuscript, ver.1. UCLA.].
  • Kural, M. (1997). Postverbal constituents and Linear Correspondence Axiom in Turkish. The Linguistic Inquiry (28), 498-519.
  • Lewis, G. L. (1967). Turkish Grammar, Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Longobardi, G. (1994), Reference and Proper Names: A Theory of N-Movement in Syntax and Logical Form, Linguistic Inquiry 25: 4, ss. 609-665.
  • Özge, U. & Bozşahin, C. (2010). Intonation in the grammar of Turkish. Lingua, 120:132–175.
  • Reinhart, T. (1976). The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Cambridge, Mass.
  • Ross, J. R. (1968). Universal constraints on variables. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.
  • Tuğcu, P. (2009). Türkçede Belirleyici Öbeği. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Dilbilim Anabilim Dalı. Ankara, Türkiye.
  • Uriagereka, J. (1999). Multiple Spell-out. In Samuel D. Epstein and Norbert Hornstein (haz.), Working minimalism (pp. 251-282). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Zwart, C. J. (1994). Dutch is head-initial. The Linguistic Review (11), 377-406.
  • Zwart, C. J. (2002). The antisymmetry of Turkish. Generative Grammar in Geneva (3), 23.
  • Zwart, J. W. (2009). Relevance of typology to minimalist inquiry. Lingua,119(11), 1589-1606
Primary Language tr
Subjects Social
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Orcid: 0000-0001-7960-6627
Author: Murat ÖZGEN (Primary Author)
Institution: Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi
Country: Turkey


Dates

Publication Date : December 26, 2019

APA Özgen, M . (2019). Evrensel Taban Varsayımı Üzerine Gözlemler . Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi , 30 (2) , 171-198 . DOI: 10.18492/dad.464486