Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

DİLSEL TEMSİLLEŞTİRME ARACI OLARAK YÜKLEMLEME

PREDICATION AS REPRESENTATION

Journal Name:

  • Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2009

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
In the process of defining the information ‘Who did what to whom’, which is the first condition in apprehending a sentence, in other words defining the kind of the event the sentence describes, determining the participants in the event and designating the role that these participants take in the event, the theories of linguistics either tried to classify the events themselves or the verbs which encode an activity, a doing or a happening in some world. However, these studies overlook the functional dimensions, namely the meta-functions of language corresponding to three concepts of subject in the 19th century and existing in all sentences, and focus only one of these levels. In this respect, the concept of predication which designates the meta-functions of language with the interaction among them, should be investigated. In order to handle predication, a theoretical framework which can analyse these tree meta-functions together should be selected. In the study first a brief summary of the approaches to analyse the information ‘who did what to whom’ will be given; then differently from the mainstream linguistics, the concept of State-of-Affairs brought forward by Functional Grammar will be summarized. After a brief section on predication which designates the State-of-Affairs, a new theoretical framework which can analyse predication in every aspect will be introduced.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bir tümceyi anlamanın birincil koşulu olan ‘kim kime ne yaptı?’ bilgisini belirleme işlemi, yani bir tümcenin ne tür bir olayı betimlediğinin, katılımcıların kimler olduğunun ve betimlenen olayda bu katılımcıların hangi rolü oynadığının ortaya konması için dilbilim kuramları ya dış dünyadaki olaylar yani hareket, oluş ve kılışları kodlayan eylemleri ya da olayların kendilerini sınıflandırma yoluna gitmişlerdir. Ancak bu çalışmalar, 19. yy. özne kavramlarına karşılık gelen ve her tümcede eşzamanlı olarak bulunan üç işlevsel boyuttan yalnızca birine odaklanmakta ve diğer boyutları göz ardı etmektedirler. Bu aşamada, söz konusu üç işlevsel boyutu birbirleri arasındaki etkileşimle birlikte kodlayan yüklemleme kavramını ele almak gerekmektedir. Yüklemleme olgusunu inceleyebilmek için ise, kuramsal çerçeve olarak bu üç işlevi bir arada ele alabilecek bir kuram seçmek zorunluluğu doğmaktadır. Bu çalışmada da, öncelikle ‘kim kime ne yaptı’ bilgisini temsilleştiren yapıların dilbilim kuramlarında nasıl çözümlendiği incelenecek daha sonra, yaygın dilbilim akımlarından farklı olarak İşlevsel Dilbilgisi çerçevesinde önerilen olay durumları yaklaşımı incelenecektir. Olay durumlarını dilsel olarak kodlayan yüklemelemeye ilişkin bilgi verildikten sonra ise, yüklemlemeyi her yönüyle inceleyebilecek bir kuram önerilecektir.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-dilsel-temsillestirme-araci-olarak-yuklemleme.pdf
  • 4
73-89
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

Ahrens, K. (2003). Verbal Integration: The Interaction of Participant Roles
and Sentential Argument Structure. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(5).
s.497-516.
Anderson, S. R. (1971). On the role of deep structure in semantic
interpretation. Foundations of Language, 6, s.197–219.
Bateman, J. (2000). “Predication: short notes on a (meta) functional view.”
Workshop Zur Prädikation adlı çalıştayda sunulan bildiri. Universität Bremen
2000.
Bencini, G. ve Goldberg, A. (2000). The contribution of argument structure
constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(4),
s.640–651.
Borkin, A. (1973). Problems in form and function. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press,
Cambridge.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures in Government and Binding. Dordrecht:
Foris.
Conklin, K., Koenig, J. P. ve Mauner, G. (2004). The role of specificity in
the lexical encoding of participants. Brain and Language, 90, s.221-230
Cornish, F. (2002). Downstream' effects on the predicate in Functional
Grammar clause derivations. Journal of Linguistics, 38, 247-278.
Dik S. C. (1989). Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The structure of
the clause. Dordrecht: Foris.
Dik, S. C. (1978). Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland
Publishing Co.
Dowty, D. (1979). Word Meaning in Montague Grammar, Dordrecht:
Reidel.
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language
67, 547–619.
Fillmore, C. (1965). Indirect Object Constructions in English and the
Ordering of Transformations, The Hague, Holland, Mouton and Company
Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. E. Bach ve R.T. Harms (haz.),
Universals in Linguistic Theory, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, içinde.
Gómez-González, M. de los A. (2004). Functional grammar and the
dynamics of discourse. J. L. Mackenzie ve M. de los A. Gómez-González (haz.) A
new architecture for Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Grutyer. s.211-242.
Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dilsel Temsilleştirme Aracı Olarak… DEÜ SBE Dergisi Cilt11, Sayı:4
87
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar.
London: Edward Arnold.
Hengeveld, K. (1992) Non-verbal predication: theory, typology, diachrony.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hengeveld, K. (2004). The architecture of funnctional discourse grammar.
J. L. Mackenzie ve M. de los A. Gómez-González (haz.), A New Architecture for
Functional Grammar, Berlin: Mouton de Grutyer içinde, s.1-22.
Hengeveld, K. (2005). Dynamic expression in Functional Discourse
Grammar. Groot, C. de ve Hengeveld, K. (haz.), Morphosyntactic expression in
Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 53-86, içinde.
Hengeveld, K. ve J. L. Mackenzie. (2005a). Functional Discourse
Grammar. home.hum.uva.nl/fg/working_papers/FDG.pdf adresinden 20.06.2006
tarihinde erişilmiştir.
Hengeveld, K. ve J. L. Mackenzie. (2005b). Interpersonal functions,
representational categories, and syntactic templates in Functional Discourse
Grammar. M.Á. Gómez-González ve J. L. Mackenzie (haz.), Studies in Functional
Discourse Grammar (Linguistic Insights 26), 9-27. Bern: Peter Lang, içinde.
Kenny, Anthony 1963 Action, Emotion and Will. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Kintsch, W. (2001). Predication. Cognitive Science, 25(2): 173–202.
Levin, B. (1985). Lexical semantics in review: An introduction. B. Levin
(haz.), Lexical semantics in review, Lexicon Project Working Papers 1. Cambridge,
MA: Center for Cognitive Science, MIT, içinde.
Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary
Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levin, B. ve Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Levin, B. ve Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mauner, G. ve Koenig, J. P. (1999). Lexical Encoding of Event Participant
Information. Brain and Language 68, s.178-184.
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. P. Winston
(haz.), The psychology of computer vision, New York: McGraw-Hill, içinde.
Moens, M. (1987). Tense, Aspect and Temporal Reference.
Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, University of Edinburgh, İngiltere.
Napoli, D.J. (1989). Predication theory: a case study in indexing theory.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koşaner, Ö., DEÜ SBE Dergisi Cilt11, Sayı:4
88
Partee, B. H. (1965). Subject and object in modern English. New York:
Garland.
Pustejovsky, J. (1988). The geometry of events. C. Tenny (haz.), Studies in
Generative Approaches to Aspect. Lexicon Project Working Papers 24. Cambridge,
MA: Center for Cognitive Science, MIT, içinde.
Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The syntax of event structure. Cognition 41, 47-81.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rappaport Hovav, M. ve Levin, B. (1998). Building verb meanings. M.
Butt ve W. Geuder (haz.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional
factor. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, içinde.
Rappaport Hovav, M. ve Levin, B. (2001). An event structure account of
English resultatives. Language 77, s.766–797.
Rappaport, M. ve Levin, B. (1988). What to do with theta-roles. W.
Wilkins (haz.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 21). New York: Academic Press,
içinde.
Rappaport, M., Laughren, M. ve Levin, B. (1987). Levels of lexical
representation. Lexicon Project Working Papers 20. Cambridge, MA: Center for
Cognitive Science, MIT.
Rappaport, M., Laughren, M. ve Levin, B. (1993). Levels of lexical
representation. J. Pustejovsky (haz.), Semantics and the lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers, içinde.
Ritter, E. ve Rosen, S. T. (1996). Strong and weak predicates: Reducing the
lexical burden, Linguistic Analysis 26, 29-62.
Rumelhart, D. ve Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in
memory. R. Anderson, R. Spiro ve W. Montague (haz.), Schooling and the
acquisition of knowledge (pp. 99–133). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, içinde.
Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. London: Barnes and Noble.
Schank, R. ve Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and
understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tenny, C. (1987) Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness.
Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Massachusets Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
MA, ABD.
Tenny, C. (1994). Aspectual Roles and the Syntax-Semantics Interface.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ter Meulen, A.G.B. (1995). Representing Time in Natural Language: The
Dynamic Interpretation of Tense and Aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Van Voorst, J. (1988). Event Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dilsel Temsilleştirme Aracı Olarak… DEÜ SBE Dergisi Cilt11, Sayı:4
89
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in Philosophy Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Verkuyl, H. (1972). On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects.
Dordrecht: Reidel.
Verkuyl, H. (1993). A theory of Aspectuality. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Von Der Gabalentz, H.G.C. (1869). Ideen zu einer vergleichenden Syntax.
Wort- und Satzstellung. Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft
6, s.376–384.
Wierzbicka, A. (1988). The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Zhang, R. (2006). Symbolic flexibility and argument structure variation.
Linguistics, 44(4), s.689–720.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com