Türkçede Evidensiyel

Bir önermede dile getirilen bilginin farklı kaynakları olabilir.Dünya dilleri bilginin kaynağını farklı derecede ayırarak gösterir. Türkçede bilginin kaynağı, fiil köklerinde -mIş, isimlerdeve birleşik çekimlerde ise -(y)mIş ile işaretlenir. Bunların herikisi de bilginin doğrudan değil, dolaylı yolla elde edildiği konusunda bir fikir verir. Bu dolaylı yol; görme, işitme, çıkarımda bulunma, farkına varma, varsayma, koklama, dokunma,tadına bakma gibi farklı biçimlerde ortaya çıkabilir. StandartTürkçede dolaylılık gösteren biçimlerin ağızlarda kullanımı isefarklıdır. Bazı ağızlarda -mIş dolaylılık anlamı taşımaz, doğrudan geçmiş zaman eki olarak kullanılır. Bazı ağızlarda ise -mIş'ın kullanımı genel olarak yaygın değildir. Buna karşılıkağızların bir kısmında dolaylılık kategorisini göstermek içinkullanılan başka ekler vardır. Bu makalede Türkçede dolaylılıkkategorisiyle ilgili bu hususlar ayrıntılı olarak ele alınacaktır

The Evidential in Turkish

A piece of information expressed in a statement may have been obtained from different sources. The languages of the world all differ in the way they demonstrate the source of the information expressed. In Turkish the source of information is marked by -mIş in verbs and by -(y)mIş in nouns and com- pound inflections. Both of these suffixes suggest that the information expressed has been obtained indirectly. This may happen through a variety of ways such as seeing, hearing, inferring, realizing, assuming, smelling, touching, and tasting. Furthermore, the forms indicating indirect source of knowledge in standard Turkish are used in different ways in different dialects. Some Turkish dialects use the -mIş suffix as a direct past tense marker, doing away with the indirect meaning in standard Turkish. Some others, on the other hand, do not make wide use of this suffix at all. It is also possible to come across dialects where the indirect meaning is expressed through suffixes other than the standard -mIş. This article looks closely into these issues related to evidential categories in Turkish.

PDF

___

Adamovic, Milan (1985). Konjugationsgeschichte der türkischen Sprache. Leiden: Brill.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra (2003). "Evidentiality in typological perspective". Studies in evidentiality. Ed. Alexandra Aikhenvald. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1-33.
_____, (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: University Press.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra & Robert M.W. Dixon (2003). Studies in evidenti- ality. Aikhenvald, Alexandra (ed.). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Aksoy, Ömer Asım (1945), Gaziantep Ağzı. İstanbul: TDK Yay.
Bacanlı, Eyüp (2006). "Türkçedeki Dolaylılık İşaretleyicilerinin Pragmatik Anlamları". Modern Türklük Araştırmaları Dergisi 3/1: 35-47.
_____, (2008). "Türkiye Türkçesindeki -miş Ekinin Dolaylılık ve Dolaylı- lık-Dışı Kullanımlarında Zamansal Atıf". bilig 44: 1-24.
Bernt, Brendemoen (1996). "Doğu Karadeniz Ağızlarındaki -miş'li Geçmiş Zaman Üzerine Bir Not". 3. Uluslar Arası Türk Dil Kurultayı 1996. Ankara: TDK Yay. 199-206.
_____, (1997). "Some remarks on the -miş past in the Eastern Black Sea coast dialects". Turkic Languges 1: 161-183.
Csató, Éva Agnes (2000). "Turkish mış- and ımış-items. Dimensions of a functional analysis". Evidentials. Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages. Eds. Lars Johanson & Bo Utas. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 29-44.
Demir, Nurettin (1996). "Einige Merkmale yörükischer Dialekte". Eds. Arpad Berta, Bernt Brendemoen & Claus Schönig. Symbolae Turco- logicae - Studies in Honour of Lars Johanson on his Sixtieth Birthday 8 March 1996. Uppsala. 61-70.
_____, (1997). "Die Vergangenheitsform auf -(y)ik in anatolischen Dia- lekten". Historical and linguistic interaction between Inner-Asia and Europe. Ed. Árpád Berta. Szeged: University Press. 65-79.
_____, (2002). "Kıbrıs Ağızları Üzerine". Lars Johanson Armağanı. Haz.Nurettin Demir ve Fikret Turan. Ankara: Grafiker. 100-110.
_____, (2002). "Kıbrıs Ağızlarında imiş Hakkında". bilig 23: 129-139.
_____, (2003). "On imiş in Cypriot Turkish". Turkic Languages 7/2: 268-274
_____, (2007). "Anadolu Ağızlarında Kullanılan Geçmiş Zaman Eki - (y)XK". Dil ve Edebiyat Yazıları. Mustafa İsen'e Armağan. Haz. Ay- şenur İslam Külahlıoğlu ve Süer Eker. Ankara: Grafiker. 133-148.
Demir, Nurettin ve Johanson, Lars (2006). "Dialect contact in Northern Cyprus". International Journal of the Sociology of Language 181: 1-9.
Demirci, Kerim, Jeff Mühlbauer, Clare Cook (2010). "Delile Dayalılık Bakımından Türkiye Türkçesi ile Bazı Kızılderili Dillerinde Basit Çekimli Geçmiş Zamanlar". Turkish Studies 5/1: 281-293.
Gül, Demet (2009). "Semantics of Turkish evidential -(I)mIş". Essay on Turkish Linguistics. Eds. Sıla Ay vd. 177-186.
Günay, Turgut (1978). Rize ili ağızları (İnceleme, metinler, sözlük). Anka- ra: TDK Yay.
Gürseren, Cemil (2000). Malatya İli Ağızları. (İnceleme, Metinler, Sözlük ve Dizinler). Ankara: TDK Yay.
Johanson, Lars (1971). Aspekt im Türkischen. Uppsala: Vorstudien zu einer Beschreibung des türkischen Aspektsystems. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
_____, (1993). "Zur Entstehung historischer Präterita im Türkischen". Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları 3, 119-127.
_____, (1994). "Türkeitürkische Aspektotempora". Eds. Rolf Thieroff & Joachim Ballweg. Tense systems in European languages. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 247-266.
_____, (1998). "Zum Kontakteinfluß türkischer Indirektive". Turkologie heute - Tradition und Perspektive. Hrsg. Nurettin Demir & Erika Taube. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 141-150.
_____, (2000). "Turkic indirectives". Evidentials. Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages. Eds. Lars Johanson & Bo Utas. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 61-87.
_____, (2003). "Evidentiality in Turkic". Studies in evidentiality. Ed. Alexandra Aikhenvald. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Ben- jamins. 273-290.
_____, (2007). Türkçe Dil İlişkilerinde Yapısal Etkenler. Çev. A piece of information expressed in a statement may have been obtained from different sources. The languages of the world all differ in the way they demonstrate the source of the information expressed. In Turkish the source of information is marked by -mIş in verbs and by -(y)mIş in nouns and com- pound inflections. Both of these suffixes suggest that the information expressed has been obtained indirectly. This may happen through a variety of ways such as seeing, hearing, inferring, realizing, assuming, smelling, touching, and tasting. Furthermore, the forms indicating indirect source of knowledge in standard Turkish are used in different ways in different dialects. Some Turkish dialects use the -mIş suffix as a direct past tense marker, doing away with the indirect meaning in standard Turkish. Some others, on the other hand, do not make wide use of this suffix at all. It is also possible to come across dialects where the indirect meaning is expressed through suffixes other than the standard -mIş. This article looks closely into these issues related to evidential categories in Turkish.Nurettin Demir. Ankara: TDK Yay.
Karabeyoğlu, Adnan Rüştü (2012). "(Kazan) Tatar Türkçesinde iméş". Turkish Studies 7/1: 1353-1373.
Özçelik, Sadettin (1997). Urfa Merkez Ağzı. Ankara. TDK Yay.
Özçelik, Sadettin, Erdoğan Boz (2001). Diyarbakır İli Çüngüş ve Çermik Yöresi Ağzı. (Dil İncelemesi, Metinler, Sözlük. Ankara: TDK Yay.
Öztürk, Erol (2009). Silifke ve Mut'taki Sarıkeçili ve Bahşiş Yörükleri Ağzı. Ankara: TDK Yay.
Öztürk, Jale (2009). Hatay Ağzı. Adana: Karahan Yay.
Sağır, Mukim (1995). Erzincan ve Yöresi Ağızları. İnceleme, Metinler, Söz- lük. Ankara: TDK Yay.
Schroeder, Christoph (2000). "Between resultative, historical and inferen- tial: non-finite -mis forms in Turkish". Evidentials. Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages. Eds. Lars Johanson & Bo Utas. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 115.146. A piece of information expressed in a statement may have been obtained from different sources. The languages of the world all differ in the way they demonstrate the source of the information expressed. In Turkish the source of information is marked by -mIş in verbs and by -(y)mIş in nouns and com- pound inflections. Both of these suffixes suggest that the information expressed has been obtained indirectly. This may happen through a variety of ways such as seeing, hearing, inferring, realizing, assuming, smelling, touching, and tasting. Furthermore, the forms indicating indirect source of knowledge in standard Turkish are used in different ways in different dialects. Some Turkish dialects use the -mIş suffix as a direct past tense marker, doing away with the indirect meaning in standard Turkish. Some others, on the other hand, do not make wide use of this suffix at all. It is also possible to come across dialects where the indirect meaning is expressed through suffixes other than the standard -mIş. This article looks closely into these issues related to evidential categories in Turkish. Yıldırım, Faruk (2006a). Adana ve Osmaniye Ağızları İlleri Ağızları I. An- kara: TDK Yay.
_____, (2006b). Adana ve Osmaniye Ağızları İlleri Ağızları II: Ankara: TDK Yay.