Cover not available
Part of
Exploring the Turkish Linguistic Landscape: Essays in honor of Eser Erguvanlı-Taylan
Edited by Mine Güven, Didar Akar, Balkız Öztürk and Meltem Kelepir
[Studies in Language Companion Series 175] 2016
► pp. 57–80

Greek and Turkish influences in the clausal complements of Cunda Turkish

ORCID logo | Ghent University
| Bogaziçi University
In this paper, we investigate the clausal complementation system in Cunda Turkish spoken in Western Turkey by four first- and second-generation refugees relocated from Crete (Greece) in and after 1923. Contrary to the case in Turkish (standard and Western vernaculars), the usage of nominalizing suffixes is restricted to matrix non-factive veridical predicates in Cunda Turkish. Nonveridical predicates select complements that are in the subjunctive mood, a preexisting Turkish pattern which has nevertheless been reinforced by Cretan Greek impact. Finally, complements to factive predicates are indicative clauses headed optionally by a complementizer. Our findings reveal that the complementation system in Cunda Turkish is the outcome of intricate interplays of Greek and Turkish complementation systems.
Keywords: clausal complements, Greek, language contact, subjunctive, Turkish
Published online: 14 June 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.175.05bag
References (71)
References
Adıyeke, A. Nükhet. 1988. Girit’in Yunanistan’a İlhakı Sırasında Girit’teki Türkler (Cretan Turks during the annexation of Crete to Greece). MA thesis, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir.
Agouraki, Georgia. 1991. A Modern Greek complementizer and its significance for Universal Grammar. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 3:1-24.Google Scholar
Aksan, Doğan. 1977. Her Yönüyle Dil. Ana Çizgileriyle Dilbilim 1 [Language in Every Aspect. Outlines of Linguistics 1]. Ankara: TDK Yayınları.Google Scholar
Aygen, Gülşat. 2002. Finiteness, Case and Clausal Architecture. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
Bağrıaçık, Metin & Göksel, Aslı. Forthcoming. Subordination and other mysteries in Cunda Turkish. Ms, Ghent University & Boğaziçi University.
Borsley, Robert D. & Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2000. Mixed extended projections. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 32: The Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories, Robert D. Borsley (ed.), 101-131. New York NY: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bulut, Christiane. 2000. Optative constructions in Iraqi Turkmen. In Studies on Turkish and Turkic languages [Turcologica 46], Aslı Göksel & Celia Kerslake (eds), 161-169. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Bülbül, Gülfiye. 2007. Balıkesir Bigadiç Ağzı (The dialect of Balıkesir Bigadiç). MA thesis, Balıkesir Üniversitesi, Balıkesir.
Christidis, Anastasios Ph. 1986. To morfima pu san anaforikos diktis [The morpheme pu as definite clause nominalizer]. Studies in Greek Linguistics 7: 135-148.Google Scholar
Csató, Éva Ágnes. 2010. Two types of complement clauses in Turkish. In Turcology in Mainz / Turkologie in Mainz [Turcologica 82], Hendrik Boeschoten & Julian Rentzsch (eds), 107-122. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Demir, Nurettin. 2002. Kıbrıs ağızları üzerine bazı notlar (Some notes on Cypriot dialect). In Scholarly Depth and Accuracy: A Festschrift of Lars Johanson/Lars Johanson Armağanı, Nurettin Demir & Fikret Turan (eds), 100-110. Ankara: Grafiker.Google Scholar
Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. Eser. 1996. On aspects of control in Turkish. In Current Issues in Turkish Linguistics. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Bengisu Rona (ed.), 47-60. Ankara: Hitit Yayınevi.Google Scholar
. 1993. Türkçe’de -DIK ekinin yantümcelerdeki işlevi üzerine (On the function of -DIK in Turkish embedded structures). Dilbilim Araştırmaları 1993: 161-171. Ankara: Hitit Yayınevi.Google Scholar
Erguvanlı, E. Eser. 1980-1981. A case of syntactic change: ki constructions in Turkish. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Dergisi, Humanities 8-9: 111-139.Google Scholar
Fournarakis, Konstantinos. 1929. Tourkorites (Cretan Turks). Chania, Crete: Giannakoudaki.Google Scholar
Friedman, Victor A. 2003. Turkish in Macedonia and Beyond: Studies in Contact, Typology and Other Phenomena in the Balkans and the Caucasus [Turcologica 52]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 2009. The dependency of the subjunctive revisited: Temporal semantics and polarity. Lingua 119: 1883-1908. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Polarity Sensitivity as (Non) Veridical Dependency [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 23]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
.1994. The semantic licensing of NPIs and the Modern Greek subjunctive. Language and Cognition (Yearbook of the Research Group for Theoretical and Experimental Linguistics) 4: 55-68.Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı. 1997. Morphological asymmetries between Turkish and Yakut. In Proceedings of the VIIIth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Kamile İmer & Nadir Engin Uzun (eds), 69-76. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi.Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı & Kerslake, Celia. 2005. Turkish. A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, James & Güneş, Güliz. 2015. Ki issues in Turkish: Parenthetical coordination and adjunction. In Parenthesis and ellipsis: Cross-linguistic and Theoretical Perspectives [Studies in Generative Grammar 121], Marlies Kluck, Dennis Ott, & Mark de Vries (eds), 173-218. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Güven, Mine. 2014. The periphrastic necessitative construction in Cypriot Turkish: Conservation and contact in collaboration. Turkic Languages 18: 229-246.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2006. Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. Lingua 116: 1651-1669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
İmer, Kamile. 1998. Batı Anadolu ağızları üzerine gözlemler (Observations on Western Anatolian dialects). In Doğan Aksan Armağanı (A Festschrift of Doğan Aksan), Kamile İmer & Leyla Subaşı Uzun (eds), 83-92. Ankara: Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Yayını.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 2014. The decline of the Ottoman optative. In Turcology and Linguistics. Éva Ágnes Csató Festschrift, Nurettin Demir, Birsel Karakoç & Astrid Menz (eds), 253-260. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yayınları.Google Scholar
. 2013. On non-canonical modal clause junction in Turkic. In Diachronic and Typological Perspectives on Verbs [Studies in Language Companion Series 134], Folke Josephson & Ingmar Söhrman (eds), 159-172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Mood meets mood: Turkic versus Indo-European. In Morphologies in Contact, Martine Vanhove, Thomas Stolz, Aina Urdze & Hitomi Otsuka (eds), 195-203. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2006. Turkic language contacts in a typology of code interaction. In Turkic Languages in Contact [Turcologica 61], Hendrik Boeschoten & Lars Johanson (eds), 4-26. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 1996. Kopierte Satzjunktoren im Türkischen. STUF–Language Typology and Universals 49: 39-49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 1983. The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. & Philippaki-Warburton, Irene. 1987. Modern Greek. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Kaili, Hasan, Çeltek, Aytaç & Georgalidou, Marianthi. 2012. Complement clauses in the Turkish variety spoken by Greek-Turkish bilingual children on Rhodes, Greece. Turkic Languages 16: 106-120.Google Scholar
Kakuk, Suzanne. 1960. Constructions hypotactiques dans le dialecte turc de la Bulgarie occidentale. Acta Orientalia Hungarica 11: 249-257.Google Scholar
Kappler, Matthias & Tsiplakou, Stavroula. Forthcoming. Is there a common Cypriot subjunctive? In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics , August 16-20, 2006, Uppsala, Sweden.
Kassab, Sawsan A. 1999. II. Abdülhamid döneminde Osmanlı vilâyetlerine iskân edilen Giritli göçmenler (Cretan refugees relocated into Ottoman provinces during the reign of Abdul Hamid II), in Osmanlı, IV. Cilt (Toplum), Güler Eren, Kemal Çiçek & Cem Oğuz (eds), 697-701. Ankara: Yeni Türkiye Yayınları.Google Scholar
Kaya, Neşe. 2011. Ambivalent Belongings: A Discourse Analysis of Second Generation Cretan Immigrants in Cunda. MA Thesis, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
Kelepir, Meltem. 2005. Nominalized complement clauses in Turkish, Noghay and Turkmen. Invited talk at the Department of Linguistics, School of African and Oriental Studies, University of London.
Kennelly, Sarah D. 1996. Turkish subordination: [-CP, +Tense+Case]. In Modern Studies in Turkish Linguistics: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. 12-14 August 1992, Ahmet Konrot (ed.), 55-75. Eskişehir: Anadolu University.Google Scholar
Kerslake, Celia. 1998. Ottoman Turkish. In The Turkic Languages, Lars Johanson & Éva Ágnes Csató (eds), 179-202. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kesici, Esra. 2013. Ki-clauses in Turkish: A paratactic analysis. Coyote Papers: Working Papers in Linguistics 21. <[URL]>Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul & Kiparsky, Carol. 1970. Fact. In Progress in Linguistics, Manfred Bierwisch & Karl Eric Heidolf (eds), 143-173. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kontogiannis, Pantelis. 1921. Geografia tis Mikras Asias (The Geography of Asia Minor). Athens: Petrakou.Google Scholar
Kontosopoulos, Nikolaos G. 2001. Dialekti ke idiomata tis Neas Ellinikis (Dialects and Varieties of Modern Greek). Athens: Grigori.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2007. Verbal and nominalized finite clauses in Turkish. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 305-334. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2003. Subject case in Turkish nominalized clauses. In Syntactic Structures and Morphological Information, Uwe Junghanns & Luka Szucsich (eds), 129-215. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin & Whitman, John. 2011. Afterword: Nominalizations in syntactic theory. Lingua 121: 1297-1313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kural, Murat. 1998. Subordinate Infls and Comp in Turkish. In The Mainz Meeting. Proceedings of the7th International Conference of Turkish Linguistics, Mainz, 3-6 August, 1994 [Turcologica 32], Lars Johanson (ed.), in cooperation with Éva Á. Csató, Vanessa Locke, Astrid Menz & Dorothea Winterling, 404-421. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Lewis, Geoffrey L. 1967. Turkish Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Mackridge, Peter. 1985. The Modern Greek Language: A Descriptive Analysis of Standard Modern Greek. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 1990. On the emergence of finite subordination in Balkan Turkish. In Current Issues in Turkish Linguistics. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Bengisu Rona (ed.), 120-133. Ankara: Hitit Yayınevi.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron & Tufan, Şirin. 2007.Grammatical borrowing in Macedonian Turkish. In Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-linguistic Perspective, Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel (eds), 215-228. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mollova, Mefküre. 1968. Parler turc de Florina. Balkansko Jezikoznanije 13(1): 95-127.Google Scholar
Mutlu, Hüseyin Kahraman. 2008. Balıkesir İli Ağızları, İnceleme, Metin, Sözlük (Dialects of Balıkesir Province, Analysis, Texts, Glossary). PhD dissertation, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Nicholas, Nick. 1998. The Story of pu: The Grammaticalisation in Space and Time of a Modern Greek Complementizer. PhD dissertation, University of Melbourne.
Özden, Muharrem. 2009. Bilecik İli Ağız İncelemesi (Dialectal Study on Bilecik). PhD dissertation, Trakya Üniversitesi, Edirne.
Pangalos, Georgios E. 1955-1970. Peri tou glossikou idioma tis Kritis (On Cretan dialect), Vol. I-VI. Athens: Tipografiou M & K Tsevdou. Google Scholar
Parlak, Cengiz. 2012. Çanakkale merkez ve ilçelerine yerleştirilen Giritli mübâdil göçmenler (Cretan refugees relocated into Çanakkale and its boroughs). Çanakkale Araştırmaları Türk Yıllığı 13: 127-154.Google Scholar
Quer, Josep. 2009. Mood management: An updated toolkit. Lingua 119: 1909-19013. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rivero, María L. 1994. The structure of the clause and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12: 63-120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rouchota, Villy. 1991. On the interpretation of na-clauses in Modern Greek: A relevance theoretic approach. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 249-276.Google Scholar
Roussou, Anna. 2006. Simpliromatiki diktes (Complementizers). Athens: Patakis.Google Scholar
. 2001. Control and raising in and out of subjunctive complements. In Comparative Syntax of the Balkan Languages, María L. Rivero & Angela Ralli (eds), 74–104. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2000. On the left periphery: Modal particles and complementisers. Journal of Greek Linguistics 1: 65-94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. The Syntax of Complementizers. PhD dissertation. University College London.
Roussou, Anna & Tsangalidis, Anastasios. 2010. Reconsidering the ‘modal particles’ in Modern Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics 10: 45-73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsoulas, Georges. 1993. Remarks on the structure and interpretation of na-clauses. Studies in Greek Linguistics 14: 191-207.Google Scholar
Varlokosta, Spyridoula. 1994. Issues on Modern Greek Sentential Complementation. PhD dissertation, The University of Maryland.
Varlokosta, Spyridoula & Hornstein, Norbert. 1993. Control in Modern Greek. NELS 23. Proceedings of the 23rd Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society , 507-521. Amherst MA: GLSA.
Watanabe, Akira. 1993. Larsonian CP recursion, factive complements, and selection. NELS 23. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society , 523-537. Amherst MA: GLSA.
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Iefremenko, Kateryna, Christoph Schroeder & Jaklin Kornfilt
2021. Converbs in heritage Turkish: A contrastive approach. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 44:2 ► pp. 130 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 september 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.