Article published in:
On Diversity and Complexity of Languages Spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia
Edited by Pirkko Suihkonen and Lindsay J. Whaley
[Studies in Language Companion Series 164] 2014
► pp. 221250
References

References

Bacanlı, Eyüp
2011Inflectional suppletion in Turkic languages. Folia Linguistica Historica 32: 1–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erdal, Marcel
2000Clitics in Turkish. In Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages, Aslı Göksel & Celia Kerslake (eds), 41–48. [Turcologica 46]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Ersen-Rasch, Margarete I.
2013Noch einmal zur 3. Person Plural im Türkischen. In Turcology and Linguistics. Éva Á. Csató Festschrift, Nurettin Demir, Birsel Karakoç & Astrid Menz (eds), 151–173. Ankara: Hacettepe University.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees
1992Non-verbal Predication. Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, Francis Roger
1979The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars
1971Aspekt im Türkischen. Vorstudien zu einer Beschreibung des türkeitürkischen Aspektsystems [Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Turcica Upsaliensia I]. Uppsala: University of Uppsala.Google Scholar
1981Pluralsuffixe im Südwesttürkischen [Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz, Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftliche Klasse, 1981: 9]. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
1995Mehrdeutigkeit in der türkischen Verbalkomposition. In Beläk Bitig. Sprachstudien für Gerhard Doerfer zum 75. Geburtstag [Turcologica 23], Marcel Erdal & Semih Tezcan (eds), 81–101. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
2000Viewpoint operators in European languages. In Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe, Östen Dahl (ed.), 27–187. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2012Notes on Turkic stance particles. In Areal, Historical and Typological Aspects of South Siberian Turkic [Turcologica 94], Marcel Erdal, Irina Nevskaya & Astrid Menz (eds), 51–58. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Karakoç, Birsel
2000The finite copula bol- in Noghay and its functional equivalents in Turkish. In Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages [Turcologica 46], Aslı Göksel & Celia Kerslake (eds), 143–149. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
2002Nogayca ve Türkiye Türkçesinde tümleç yan cümlelerinde yüklemleştiriciler. In Scholarly Depth and Accuracy. A Festschrift to Lars Johanson. Lars Johanson Armağanı, Nurettin Demir & Fikret Turan Marianne Bakró-Nagy, Berta Árpád & András Róna-Tas ((eds), 193-215.Ankara: Grafiker Yayınları.Also published (2007) in Turcology in Turkey. Selected papers, eds). Studia Uralo-altaica 47: 337–359. Szeged.Google Scholar
2005Das finite Verbalsystem im Nogaischen [Turcologica 58.] Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
2007Aral-Hazar grubu Türk dillerinde ekfiil. Talk given at Kazakistan ve Türkiye’nin ortak kültürel deǧerleri uluslararası sempozyumu , 21–23. May 2007, Almaty, Kazakhstan.
2009Notes on subject markers and copular forms in Turkish and in some Turkic varieties of Iran: A comparative study. Turkic Languages 13: 208–224.Google Scholar
2011A new analysis of non-past copular markers and corresponding copular clauses in Karakhanid Turkic. Turkic Languages 15: 171–193.Google Scholar
Kelepir, Meltem
2007Copular forms in Turkish, Noghay and Turkmen. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 2), Meltem Kelepir & Balkız Öztürk (eds), 84–101. Cambridge MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kerslake, Celia
1988Semantic differentiation in the copular system of modern Turkish. In Studies on Turkish Linguistics, Sabri Koç (ed.), 147–185. Ankara: Middle East Technical University.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin
1996On some copular clitics in Turkish. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 6: 96-114.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert
1972The Turkish copula. In The verb ‟be” and its Synonyms: Philosophical and Grammatical Studies, Part 5, John W.M. Verhaar (ed.), 64–73. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Geoffrey
1967Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon press.Google Scholar
Rehbein, Jochen & Kameyama, Shinichi
2004Pragmatik. In Sociolinguistics/Soziolinguistik [HSK 3.2], Ulrich Ammon, Nobert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier & Peter Trudgill (eds), 556–588. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sansa, Sabahat Tura
1986DIR in modern Turkish. In Proceedings of Turkish Linguistics Conference, Ayhan Aksu-Koç & Eser Erguvanlı-Taylan (eds), 145–158. Istanbul: Boǧaziçi University.Google Scholar
Tosun, Cengiz
1988On (-dir) suffix in Turkish: A short background and its semantic and functional classification according to the usage. In Studies on Turkish Linguistics, Sabri Koç (ed.), 507–515. Ankara: Middle East Technical University.Google Scholar
Vandewalle, Johan
1988A transformational analysis of the Turkish copula. In Studies on Turkish Linguistics, Sabri Koç (ed.), 487–505. Ankara: Middle East Technical University.Google Scholar
Sources for examples
Abasıyanık, Sait Faik
2002Semaver. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.Google Scholar
Demirkan, Tarık
(ed.) 2000Her güne bir masal. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.Google Scholar
Güntekin, Reşat Nuri
1999Çalıkuşu. Ankara: Inkilap Kitabevi.Google Scholar
Hisar, Abdülhak Şinasi
1955Boǧaziçi Mehtapları. Istanbul: Hilmi Kitabevi.Google Scholar
Kemal, Yaşar
1955Çukurova yana yana. Istanbul: Yeditepe Yayınları.Google Scholar
Sayar, Abbas
2003Yılkı atı. Istanbul: Ötüken Yayınları.Google Scholar
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSLa01gp74c>
1 September 2014)
<http://tehlikedekidiller.com/turkce/nogay-dosyasi-hazardan-kubana-nogay-elleri.html>
1 September 2014)
<http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halide_Edip_Adıvar>
1 September 2014)
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Karakoç, Birsel
2019.  In Possession in Languages of Europe and North and Central Asia [Studies in Language Companion Series, 206],  pp. 125 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 november 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.