Cover not available
Part of
Possession in Languages of Europe and North and Central Asia
Edited by Lars Johanson, Lidia Federica Mazzitelli and Irina Nevskaya
[Studies in Language Companion Series 206] 2019
► pp. 125–148

Predicative possession in Oghuz and Kipchak Turkic languages

 | Uppsala University
This article studies syntactic, semantic and discursive properties of non-subordinate (main) clauses conveying possession in Oghuz and Kipchak Turkic languages. In Turkic, the concept of possession is typically encoded by clauses based on existential predicates. The language-specific and crosslinguistic properties of two predicate types, {bar} and {bol}, will be contrastively surveyed. As for the marking of possessor in clauses containing {bar}, three patterns will be described, one of which is a contact-induced structure restricted to Turkic varieties in Iran. As a multifunctional verb, {bol} can convey, among other things, dynamic or static possession. The results indicate that the clauses based on the static possession marker {bol} are more operative in Kipchak languages and in Turkmen (East Oghuz), than in West Oghuz languages. It will further be shown that the structures based on {bar} or the static marker {bol} typically exhibit discourse-related distribution in the respective languages.
Keywords: Oghuz Turkic, Kipchak Turkic, Turkmen, possessive clause, existence clause
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Clauses based on the non-verbal predicate {bar}
    • 2.1{bar} in existence and possessive clauses
    • 2.2Combinations of {bar} with copular markers
    • 2.3Possessor marking in {bar} type of clauses
      • Pattern 1
      • 2.3.2Pattern 2
      • 2.3.3Pattern 3
      • 2.3.4Co-existence of genuine Turkic and copied patterns in Turkic varieties of Iran
  • 3.Clauses based on the verbal predicate {bol}
    • 3.1The multifunctional verb {bol}
    • 3.2{bol} in possessive clauses
      • 3.2.1{bol} as a dynamic possession marker
      • 3.2.2{bol} as a static possession marker
  • 4.Distribution of {bar} and {bol}
  • 5.Summary
  • Abbreviations
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.206.07kar
References (31)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2013. Possession and ownership: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Aikhenvald & Dixon (eds), 1–64.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Dixon, R. M. W. (eds) 2013. Possession and Ownership. A Cross-linguistic Typology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Clark, Larry. 1998. Turkmen Reference Grammar [Turcologica 34]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Csató, Éva Á. 2001. Karaim. In Minor Languages of Europe [Bochum-Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung 30], Thomas Stolz (ed.), 1–24. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
2014. Areal features of copula sentences in Karaim as spoken in Lithuania. In On Diversity and Complexity of Languages Spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia [Studies in Language Companion Series 164], Pirkko Suihkonen & Lindsay J. Whaley (eds), 205–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019. On Turkish non-canonical possessives. In Possession in Languages of Europe and North and Central Asia [Studies in Language Companion Series 206], Lars Johanson, Lidia Federica Mazzitelli & Irina Nevskaya (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume)Google Scholar
Dehghani, Yavar. 2000. A Grammar of Iranian Azari. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Doerfer, Gerhard. 1988. Grammatik des Chaladsch [Turcologica 4]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Doǧan, Talip. 2010. Urmiye Aǧızları. PhD dissertation, Kırıkkale Üniversitesi.Google Scholar
Ersen-Rasch, Margarete. 2009. Baschkirisch. Lehrbuch für Anfänger und Fortgeschrittene. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
GA = Kösoǧlu, Nevzat (ed.). 1999. Türkiye dışındaki Türk edebiyatları antolojisi, 12: Romanya ve Gagavuz Türk edebiyatı . Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı yayınları.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces, and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle 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
KA = Kösoǧlu, Nevzat (ed.). 2003. Türkiye dışındaki Türk edebiyatları antolojisi, 23: Karakalpak edebiyatı . Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı yayınları.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
. 2005. Das finite Verbalsystem im Nogaischen [Turcologica 58]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 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
. 2014. Non-past copular markers in Turkish. In On Diversity and Complexity of Languages Spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia, [Studies in Language Companion Series 164], Pirkko Suihkonen & Lindsay J. Whaley (eds) 221–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Subordination of existence and possessive clauses in Oghuz and Kipchak Turkic languages. Turkic Languages 21: 199–233.Google Scholar
Karini, Jahangir. 2009. Erdebil İli Aǧızları. PhD dissertation, Gazi Üniversitesi.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang & Levinson, Stephen (eds). 2009. The Expression of Possession. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
KMA = Kösoǧlu, Nevzat (ed.). 2002. Türkiye dışındaki Türk edebiyatları antolojisi, 22: Karaçay-Malkar edebiyatı . Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı yayınları.Google Scholar
KUA = Kösoǧlu, Nevzat (ed.). 2002. Türkiye dışındaki Türk edebiyatları antolojisi, 20: Kumuk edebiyatı . Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı yayınları.Google Scholar
ḲXÄ = 1988. Ḳazaḳ xalïḳ ädebiyeti. Ertegiler. Tom I, II, III. Almatï. Žazušï.Google Scholar
Lambton, Ann K.S. 1957. Persian Grammar. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Mazzitelli, Lidia Federica. 2015. The Expression of Predicative Possession: A Comparative Study of Belarusian and Lithuanian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nevskaya, Irina. 1997. Tipologija lokativnyx konstrukcij v trjurkskix jazykax Južnoj Sibiri (na materiale šorskogo jazyka). Habilitation dissertation, Institute of Philology, Siberian Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Novosibirsk.Google Scholar
Öztopçu, Kurtuluş. 2003. Elementary Azerbaijani. Santa Monica CA: Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları Dizisi.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 2009. Predicative Possession. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
TA = Kösoǧlu, Nevzat (ed.). 2001. Türkiye dışındaki Türk edebiyatları antolojisi 17, 18, 19: Tatar edebiyatı. Volume I, II and III. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı yayınları.Google Scholar
Welsapar, AK. 2002. Kepjebaş. Roman. Stockholm: Gün neşirýaty.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Johanson, Lars
2021. Turkic, DOI logo
Csató, Éva Ágnes
2019. On Turkish non-canonical possessives. In Possession in Languages of Europe and North and Central Asia [Studies in Language Companion Series, 206], ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 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.