Journals / Turkish Studies (Elektronik) / 2012 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 1

Iméş in (Kazan) Tatar

(Kazan) Tatar Türkçesinde iméş

Pages
1353–1373
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In contrast to knowledge that Turkic indirectives are not allowed in non-indicative moods such as imperative and optative, it is also seen in uses which combine with imperatives and optatives.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The copula particle iméş which serves as an indirectivity marker in Kazan Tatar shows syntax varies in its position.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this paper, pragmatic extensions and indirective uses of this copula particle are shown according to its position in the structure.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In contrast to knowledge that Turkic indirectives are not allowed in non-indicative moods such as imperative and optative, it is also seen in uses which combine with imperatives and optatives.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The copula particle iméş which serves as an indirectivity marker in Kazan Tatar shows syntax varies in its position. In this paper, pragmatic extensions and indirective uses of this copula particle are shown according to its position in the structure. And it is also focused on its feature which is used for emphasizing the important knowledge in sentence. In contrast to knowledge that Turkic indirectives are not allowed in non-indicative moods such as imperative and optative, it is also seen in uses which combine with imperatives and optatives.

Özet

(Kazan) Tatar Türkçesindeki dolaylılık işaretleyicisi iméş ek-fiil parçacığı söz diziminde bulunduğu yer bakımından değişkenlik gösterir. Yazıda ek-fiil parçacığının dolaylılık kullanımları ve anlam yayılımları bu değişkenliğe bağlı olarak ele alınmış; ayrıca cümlede önemli bilgiyi vurgulama işlevine de sahip olan iméş’in bu işlevi üzerinde de durulmuştur. Bunların yanında bu ek-fiil parçacığının emir ve istek kipi ile uyumlu olmadığı bilgisinin aksine emir ve istek kipi ile kullanıldığı da gösterilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARABEYOĞLU, A. R. (2012). Iméş in (Kazan) Tatar. Turkish Studies (Elektronik), Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 1, 1353–1373. https://ajindex.com/articles/110176

References (11)

  1. A STRAUGHN Christopher (2011), Evidentiality in Uzbek And Kazakh. A Dissertation Submitted to The Faculty of The Division of The Humanities. In Candidacy For The Degree of Doctor Of Philosophy, Department Of Linguıstics, The University Of Chicago, http://home.uchicago.edu/~straughn/StraughnDraft.pdf, (ET: 10.01.2012).
  2. AIKHENVALD A. Y. (2004),
  3. Evidentiality, Oxford University Press,
  4. New York. AKSU-KOÇ Ayhan (2000), “Some aspects of the acquisition of evidentials in Turkish”, (Ed. Bo Utas & Lars Johanson), Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian, and neighboring languages, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York, 15-28. AKSU-KOÇ A. ve ÖGEL-BALABAN H. ve ALP I. E. (2009), “Evidentials and source knowledge in Turkish”, (Ed. S. A. Fitneva ve T. Matsui), Evidentiality: A window into language and cognitive development, New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, Jossey- Bass, San Francisco, 13–28.
  5. BACANLI Eyüp (2005), “Türkçede Dolaylılık İşaretleyicilerinin Pragmatik Anlamları”, Modern Türklük Araştırmaları Dergisi 2/4: 35-47.
  6. BACANLI Eyüp (2008), “Türkiye Türkçesinde –miş Ekinin Dolaylılık ve Dolaylılık-Dışı Kullanımlarında Zamansal Atıf”, Bilig 44/ Kış: 1-24. CSATÓ Éva Ágnes (2000), “Turkish -miş and imiş items”, (Ed. Bo Utas ve Lars Johanson), Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian, and neighboring languages, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York, 29-43.
  7. DE HAAN Ferdinand (2005), “Coding of Evidentiality”, http://www.u.arizona.edu/~fdehaan/papers/evid1.pdf, (ET: 10.01.2012).
  8. DEMİR Nurettin (2002), “Kıbrıs Ağızlarında imiş hakkında”, Bilig 23/Güz: 129-139. DOSTMUHÄMMÄD Xurşid (1995): Cäcmän, Şärq, Taşkent. DWYER Arienne (2000), “Direct and Indirect Experience in Salar”, (Ed. Bo Utas ve Lars Johanson. Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian, and neighboring languages, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York, 45-60.
  9. GÜL Demet (2006), “Basic semantics of turkish evidential”, International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (ICTL) 14: 177-187.
  10. HANGİLDİN V.N. (1959), Tatar Télé Grammatikası, Tatarstan Kitap Neşriyatı, Kazan. JOHANSON Lars (1999), “Typological notes on aspect and actionality in Kipchak Turkic”, (Ed. Werner Abraham & Leonid Kulikov), Tense-Aspect, Transitivity and Causativity, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Philadelphia, 171-184, http://www.turkiclanguages.com/www/Johanson1999Kipchak.pdf, (ET: 10.01.2012).
  11. JOHANSON Lars (2000),“Turkic Indirectives”, (Ed. B. Utas ve L. Johanson), Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian, and Neighboring Languages, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin-New York,