Cover not available
Part of
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. 221–250

Non-past copular markers in Turkish

ORCID logo | Uppsala University
The present paper aims to investigate non-past copular markers in modern Standard Turkish from a comparative point of view. The following markers are analysed by taking into account their semantic, discursive and clausal properties as a whole: (1) the simple subject markers of pronominal type, including the zero realization in third person; (2) the enclitic -DIr developed from a verbal copular predication; (3) the copular markers olur and oluyor consisting of the verb ol- ‘to be(come)’ and the non-past forms -(V)r or (Ø)Iyor, respectively. The underlying research questions are: (1) What semantic contents are inherently denoted by the respective copular strategies? (2) Are there any preferences and/or restrictions in the combinability of these copular markers with subject and predicate nouns, as well as with other clausal elements? (3) Is there any distributional relation between the copular markers and the semantic types of their copular clauses? (4) What are the discursive and pragmatic properties of these copular forms? The analysis suggests that the enclitic -DIr functions as a propositional stance marker, while olur and oluyor mainly operate on predicational level, though they occur as stance markers in special pragmatic constellations.
Keywords: discourse, non-past copular marker, semantics, stance marker, subject and predicate noun, Turkish
Published online: 17 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.164.08kar
References (35)
References
Bacanlı, Eyüp. 2011. Inflectional suppletion in Turkic languages. Folia Linguistica Historica 32: 1–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erdal, Marcel. 2000. Clitics 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. 2013. Noch 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. 1992. Non-verbal Predication. Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Higgins, Francis Roger. 1979. The Pseudo-cleft Construction in English. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 1971. Aspekt im Türkischen. Vorstudien zu einer Beschreibung des türkeitürkischen Aspektsystems [Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Turcica Upsaliensia I]. Uppsala: University of Uppsala.Google Scholar
. 1981. Pluralsuffixe im Südwesttürkischen [Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz, Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftliche Klasse, 1981: 9]. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
. 1995. Mehrdeutigkeit 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
. 2000. Viewpoint operators in European languages. In Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe, Östen Dahl (ed.), 27–187. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2012. Notes 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. 2000. The 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
. 2002. Nogayca 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
. 2005. Das finite Verbalsystem im Nogaischen [Turcologica 58.] Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 2007. Aral-Hazar grubu Türk dillerinde ekfiil. Talk given at ‟Kazakistan ve Türkiye’nin ortak kültürel deǧerleri uluslararası sempozyumu” , 21–23. May 2007, Almaty, Kazakhstan.
. 2009. Notes 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
. 2011. A new analysis of non-past copular markers and corresponding copular clauses in Karakhanid Turkic. Turkic Languages 15: 171–193.Google Scholar
Kelepir, Meltem. 2007. Copular 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. 1988. Semantic 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. 1996. On some copular clitics in Turkish. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 6: 96-114.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert. 1972. The Turkish copula. In The verb ‟be” and its Synonyms: Philosophical and Grammatical Studies, Part 5, John W.M. Verhaar (ed.), 64–73. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Geoffrey. 1967. Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon press.Google Scholar
Rehbein, Jochen & Kameyama, Shinichi. 2004. Pragmatik. 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. 1986. DIR 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. 1988. On (-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. 1988. A 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. 2002. Semaver. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.Google Scholar
Demirkan, Tarık (ed.). 2000. Her güne bir masal. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.Google Scholar
Güntekin, Reşat Nuri. 1999. Çalıkuşu. Ankara: Inkilap Kitabevi.Google Scholar
Hisar, Abdülhak Şinasi. 1955. Boǧaziçi Mehtapları. Istanbul: Hilmi Kitabevi.Google Scholar
Kemal, Yaşar. 1955. Çukurova yana yana. Istanbul: Yeditepe Yayınları.Google Scholar
Sayar, Abbas. 2003. Yılkı 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 (1)

Cited by one other publication

Karakoç, Birsel
2019. Predicative possession in Oghuz and Kipchak Turkic languages. In Possession in Languages of Europe and North and Central Asia [Studies in Language Companion Series, 206], ► pp. 125 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 december 2024. 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.