SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türkbilig / 2013 / Sayı: 25

The Analysis of wh-words in Turkish complex sentence structure

Türkçe Karmaşık Tümce Yapısında Ne-Sözcüklerinin İncelenmesi

TAYLAN AKAL
Journal
Türkbilig
Pages
103–118
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 the end, it is found that wh-words may form questions in different syntactic positions; complement clause markers and different whwords may cause differences in the interpretations of complex sentences in Turkish

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Generative grammar indicates that wh-phrases have the movement properties either at the Phonetic or Logical Form and distinguishes languages as wh-movement and wh-in-situ languages.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In recent years, psycholinguistic methods, taking the interpretations of speakers into consideration, are being used in analyzing the wh-phrases.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In the end, it is found that wh-words may form questions in different syntactic positions; complement clause markers and different whwords may cause differences in the interpretations of complex sentences in Turkish
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:ne-taşıma · ne-yer koruma · tümleç yantümcesi ekleri

Abstract

Generative grammar indicates that wh-phrases have the movement properties either at the Phonetic or Logical Form and distinguishes languages as wh-movement and wh-in-situ languages. In recent years, psycholinguistic methods, taking the interpretations of speakers into consideration, are being used in analyzing the wh-phrases. In this study, whwords in Turkish complex sentence structure are analyzed through a psycholinguistic point of view. An interpretation questionnaire was applied to the participants in order to investigate the scrambling properties of different wh-words, the complement clause markers and their interactions with various wh-words. In the end, it is found that wh-words may form questions in different syntactic positions; complement clause markers and different whwords may cause differences in the interpretations of complex sentences in Turkish

Özet

Üretici dilbilgisi kuramı, ne-öbeklerinin Sesçil Yapıda veya Mantıksal Yapıda yer değiştirme özelliğine sahip olduklarını belirtir ve dilleri ne-taşıma dilleri ve ne-yapılarının yer koruduğu diller olarak sınıflandırır. Son yıllarda, ne-soru sözcüklerinin incelenmesinde konuşucuların algılarının dikkate alındığı psikodilbilimsel yöntemler de kullanılmaya başlanmıştır. Bu çalışmada, Türkçedeki karmaşık tümcelerde ne-soru sözcükleri, psikodilbilimsel bakış açısıyla incelenmiştir. Farklı ne-soru sözcüklerinin çalkalama özellikleri, tümleç yan tümcesi ekleri ve bunların farklı ne-soru sözcükleriyle olan etkileşimlerinin incelenmesi için anadili Türkçe olan katılımcılara yorumlama anketi uygulanmıştır. Çalışma sonunda, nesözcüklerinin farklı konumlarda bulunarak soru tümcesi oluşturabileceği, tümleç yantümcesi eklerinin ve farklı ne-sözcüklerinin de karmaşık tümcelerin algılanmasında farklılıklara yol açabileceği bulunmuştur

🔖

Cite This Article

AKAL, T. (2013). The Analysis of wh-words in Turkish complex sentence structure. Türkbilig, Sayı: 25, 103–118. https://ajindex.com/articles/418424

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. AKAR, D. (1990). Wh-questions in Turkish. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Boğaziçi University. ………., (2001). “Wh-questions in Turkish”. Current Issues in Turkish Linguistics, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics.2: 67-74.
  2. ARSLAN, C. (1999). Approaches to wh-structures in Turkish. Unpublished M.A. Thesis. Boğaziçi University. BAYER, J. (2006). “Wh-in-situ”. The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, M. Everaert and H. Van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Oxford, Blackwell, 5: 1 – 53. BHATT, R.M. (2003). “Wh-in-situ and wh-movement”. Topics in the Syntax of the Modern Indo-Aryan Languages, 1 – 20. CENOZ, J. (1997). “The influence of bilingualism on multilingual acquisition: Some data from the Basque country”. Actas Do I Simposio Internacional Sobre O Bilingüismo, 278 – 287. EMEKSIZ, Z.E. (2006). “Eylem önü konumundaki çıplak özne AÖ lerinin belirlilik durumu”, Dilbilim Araştırmaları:1-10.
  3. ERGUVANLI, E. (1984). The function of word order in Turkish grammar, University of California Publications. 106. GÖRGÜLÜ, E. (2006).
  4. Variable wh-words in Turkish, Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Boğaziçi University. KARİMİ, S. (2005). “A minimalist approach to scrambling, evidence from Persian”. Studies in Generative Grammar, 76, Mouton, Berlin. KAWAMURA, T. A. (2004). “Feature-checking analysis of Japanese scrambling”. J. Linguistics, 40: 45-68,
  5. Cambridge University Press.
  6. KO, H. (2003). “When in-situ languages diverge: Altaic vs. Non-Altaic wh-adjunct constructions”, To Appear in MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, a first draft on August 25, 2003.
  7. KORNFILT, J. (1994). “Türkçede geçişim ve sözcük dizimine etkisi”, Dilbilim Araştırmaları: 42-53.
  8. KORNFILT, J. (2001). “Functional projections and their subjects in Turkish clauses”, The verb in Turkish, 44: 183-212.
  9. KORNFILT, J. (2003). “Scrambling, subscrambling, and case in Turkish”, Word Order and Scrambling, (Ed.) S. Karimi, Blackwell Publishing, 125-155.
  10. KURAL, M. (1992).
  11. Properties of scrambling in Turkish, Ms. UCLA. LIEBERMAN, M. and AOSHIMA, S. (2006). “Generating Japanese wh-questions, native-like biases in generation of wh-questions by non-native speakers of Japanese”, To Appear in Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28 (3), 2006.
  12. MIYAGAWA, S. (2003). “Wh-in-situ and scrambling in the context of comparative Altaic syntax”, Paper Presented at WAFL 1 (Workshop in Altaic Formal Linguistics, MIT). ÖZSOY, S. (1996). “A’ dependencies in Turkish”, Current Issues in Turkish Linguistics, Proceedings of the 5th International C