SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dilbilim / 2022 / Sayı: 39

On the Syntax and Semantics of Depictives in Turkish

Türkçede Betimlemeli İkincil Yüklemlerin Sözdizimsel ve Anlambilimsel Özellikleri

Semra Baturay Meral(YILDIZ TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ, FEN-EDEBİYAT FAKÜLTESİ, BATI DİLLERİ VE EDEBİYATLARI BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0002-2231-361X
Hasan Mesut Meral(YILDIZ TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ, TÜRKÇE EĞİTİMİ BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0002-4215-7378
Journal
Dilbilim
Pages
17–33
Publication Date
2023-02-03
🏛️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)

The subject position of the small clause is filled with a pronominal determiner phrase (PRO), which takes the theta role of the depictive predicate.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:ABSTRACT This paper discusses the depictive secondary predication in the Turkish language with respect to its syntax and semantics and focuses on two issues: (i) theta role assignment and (ii) checking the case of the nominal argument as either the subject or object.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study proposes that depictive secondary predication structures include a depictive predicate whose function is to modify the subject or object argument of the main verb, and the depictive predicate is an adjunct of the main predicate, unlike resultative predicates which are complements.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The subject position of the small clause is filled with a pronominal determiner phrase (PRO), which takes the theta role of the depictive predicate.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:sözdizim · betimlemeli yüklemler · anlambilim

Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper discusses the depictive secondary predication in the Turkish language with respect to its syntax and semantics and focuses on two issues: (i) theta role assignment and (ii) checking the case of the nominal argument as either the subject or object. This study proposes that depictive secondary predication structures include a depictive predicate whose function is to modify the subject or object argument of the main verb, and the depictive predicate is an adjunct of the main predicate, unlike resultative predicates which are complements. The study also proposes the syntactic derivation of the depictive structures to be explainable under the hybrid small clause analysis, according to which the small clause adjoins to the verb phrase (VP). The subject position of the small clause is filled with a pronominal determiner phrase (PRO), which takes the theta role of the depictive predicate.

Özet

Bu makalede Türkçede betimlemeli ikincil yüklemlerin sözdizimsel ve anlambilmsel özelliklerini araştırılmaktadır. Araştırmada (i) betimlemeli ikincil yüklemlerin ek bileşen mi zorunlu bileşen mi oldukları, (ii) zorunlu bileşen olan ad öbeğinin anlamsal rolünün ve durum ekinin nasıl işlendiği, (iii) betimlemeli ikincil yüklemin cümleye nasıl katıldığı tartışılmaktadır. Makalede, betimlemeli ikincil yüklemler eylemlere bağlı zorunlu bileşen değil, ek bileşen olarak cümle yapısına katıldıkları; ad öbeğinin durum ekinin ve anlamsal rolünün eylem tarafından işlendiği, betimlemeli ikincil yüklemin ise ADIL'a anlamsal rol yüklediği savunulmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Meral, S. B., Meral, H. M. (2023). On the Syntax and Semantics of Depictives in Turkish. Dilbilim, Sayı: 39, 17–33. https://doi.org/10.26650/jol.2022.1164029

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (23)

  1. Bruening, B. (2018). Depictive Secondary Predicates and Small Clause Approaches to Argument Structure. Linguistic Inquiry 49(3), 537-559. google scholar
  2. Carrier, J. & Randall, H. (1992). Argument Structure & Syntactic Structure of Resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23(2), 173-234. The MIT Press. google scholar
  3. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures in Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. google scholar
  4. Cormack, A. & Smith, N. (1999). Why are depictives different from resultatives? UCL Working Papers in Linguistics. google scholar
  5. Dowty, D. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. google scholar
  6. Hong, Soo-Min. (2005). “Exceptional” Case-Marking and Resultative Constructions. PhD Dissertation. University of Maryland. google scholar
  7. Hornstein, N. (1999). Movement and Control. Linguistic Inquiry, 30 (1), 69-96. google scholar
  8. Hornstein, N. (2001). Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal. Oxford, Blackwell. google scholar
  9. Hornstein, N., & Lightfoot, D. (1987). Predication and Pro. Language, 63(1), 23-52. google scholar
  10. Hornstein, N., Nunes, J. & Grohmann K. (2005). Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  11. Kayne, R. (1985). Principles of particle constructions. In J. Gueron, H-G. Obenauer and J-Y. Pollock (Eds.), Grammatical Representations, 101-140. Dordrecht: Foris. google scholar
  12. Kural, M. (1993). Scrambling and mixed positions. North East Linguistics Society, 22(1), Article 18. google scholar
  13. Kuram, K. (2020). Locatives as small clause predicates in Turkish. Diyalektolog 23, 117-138. google scholar
  14. Larson, R. (1988). On Double Object Constructions. LI 19(3), 335-391. The MIT Press. google scholar
  15. Meral, H. M. (2005). Resultatives in Turkish. In N. Lavidas, E. Nouchoutidou and M. Sionti. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Athens Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics. google scholar
  16. Müller, S. (2002). Complex Predicates. CSLI Publications. google scholar
  17. Gürkan, D. Ö. (2021). Depictive secondary predicates in Turkish. Onomazein 51, 1-16. google scholar Özsoy, S. (2001). On ‘small’ clauses, other ‘bare’ verbal complements and feature checking in Turkish. In E. Erguvanli-Taylan (Ed.) The Verb in Turkish, 213-237. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. google scholar
  18. Saito, M. (2001). Movement and Theta Roles: A Case Study with Resultatives. The Second Tokyo Conference on Psycho-linguistics. google scholar
  19. Schroeder, C. (2000). Almanca ve Türkçe’de İkincil Yüklemler. In A. S. Özsoy and E. Erguvanlı-Taylan (Eds.), Proceedings of 15th National conference in Turkish linguistics, 79-92. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press. google scholar
  20. Schroeder, C. (2008). Adverbial modification and secondary predicates in Turkish: a typological perspective. In C. Schroeder et al. (Eds.) Secondary Predicates in Eastern European Languages and Beyond, 339-358. Oldenburg: BIS Verlag. google scholar
  21. Schultze-Berndt, E. & Himmelmann, N. (2004). Depictive Secondary Predicates in Crosslinguistic Perspective. Linguistic Typology 9(2), 341-350. google scholar
  22. Stowell, T. (1983). Subjects across categories. The Linguistic Review 2, 285-312. google scholar
  23. Winkler, S. (1997). Focus and Secondary Predication. Mouton de Gruyter. Berlin. New York. google scholar