Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

A TYPOLOGICAL APPROACH TO SENTENCE STRUCTURE IN TURKISH

Journal Name:

  • Trakya Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2001

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
In this paper, we will argue that the view of Turkish sentence structure based on the rigid Subject-Verb Phrase (VP) dichotomy must be replaced with one that allows subjects to occur VP-internally in this language. Firstly, we will demonstrate with examples that a sentence structure of the latter type is capable of overcoming the shortcomings of a sentence structure of the former type. Afterwards, we will approach the problem from the perspective of classification of languages. We will see that the sentence structure which we propose for Turkish is the one that is most appropriate for the family of languages Turkish belongs to.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu makalede, katı bir özne-eylem öbeği ikiliğine dayalı Türkçe cümle yapısı anlayışının, bu dilde öznenin eylem öbeği içerisinde yer alabileceği bir anlayış ile değiştirilmesi gerektiğini iddia edeceğiz. Öncelikle, örneklerle ikinci tipteki cümle yapısının birincisinin yetersizliklerinin üstesinden gelebileceğini göstereceğiz. Ardından, soruna dillerin sınıflandırılması açısından yaklaşacağız. Türkçe için önerdiğimiz cümle yapısının Türkçe’nin ait olduğu dil ailesine en uygun cümle yapısı olduğunu göreceğiz.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-typological-approach-sentence-structure-turkish.pdf
  • 1
5-12
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

Büring, D. (1994). Mittelfeldreport V. In Haftka, Brigitta, (ed.), Was Determiniert Wartstellungsvariation?, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 79-98.
Chomsky, N. (1972). Language and Mind (extended edition), New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. (First edition 1968).
Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on Language. London: Temple Smith.
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and Representations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.
Dahl, Ö. (1974). Topic-Comment structure revisited. In Ö. Dahl, ed. Topic and Comment, Contextual Boundedness and Focus (Papers in Text Linguistics, 6). Hamburg: Buske, pp. 1-24.
De Hoop, H. (1992). Case Configuration and NP Interpretation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Groningen.
Kılıçaslan, Y. (1998). A Form-Meaning Interface for Turkish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
Kuroda, S-Y. (1972). The categorical and the thetic judgment. Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language 9, pp. 153-185.
Li, C.N. and S.A. Thompson. (1976). Subject and topic: a new theory of language. In C.N. Li, (ed.), Subject and Topic, NY: Academic Press, pp. 457-489.
Meinunger, A. (1993). Case Configuration and Referentiality. Paper presented at ConSOLE II, Tübingen.
Milsark, G. (1974). Existential Sentences in English. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistic Club.
Underhill, R. (1976). Turkish Grammar. The MIT Press.
Williams, E. (1980). Predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 11,1, pp. 203-238.

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