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
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

Cited by 2 other publications

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
Johanson, Lars
2021. Turkic, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 april 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.