Selection of subjunctors in turkic non-finite complement clauses

The topic of the paper is Turkic clausal complementation: the syntactic and semantic behavior of complement clauses, the subjunctors that mark them, and the roles of various predicate types in selecting them. Two main types of bound complementizers serve as subjunctors in complement clauses: a participial and an infinitival type, both usually corresponding to the English complimentizer that. Traditionally, the semantic behavior of the complement clauses has been thought to depend on a distinction between factive and non-factive verbs. Complement clauses provided with participial subjunctors have been described as factive in contrast to non-factive complement clauses provided with infinitival subjunctors. Csató (2010) shows that the distinction fact vs. non-fact does not explain the distribution in Turkish. She concludes that the distinction made in Functional Grammar between embedded propositions and embedded predications can be applied to account for the differences between Turkish clauses with participial and infinitival subjunctors. Only clauses with a participial subjunctor can have illocutionary force and a truth value. It is suggested in the present paper that this situation follows from a specific distribution of oppositional values. Clauses carrying participial subjunctors do not refer directly to events as such, but explicitly to some knowledge about events. The