Yeşim AKSAN, Mustafa AKSAN

6315

Adtabanlı Eylemler ve Kılınış Özellikleri

Bu çalışma Türkçedeki adtabanlı eylemlerin biçimbilimsel ve anlambilimsel özelliklerini betimlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Clark ve Clark (1979) 'daki öneri çerçe­vesinde Türkçe adtabanlı eylemler, taban adın anlam özelliklerine göre sekiz sınıfa ayrılmıştır: yerleşen, yer, süre, kılıcı, deneyimleyen, hedef, kaynak, ve araç eylem­leri. Çalışma, yerleşen, yer ve hedef eylemlerinin kılınış özelliklerini tartışmakta ve taban adın içkin anlambilimsel özelliklerinin bu eylemlerin hedefte-bitişli olup ol­madıklarını belirlemede etkin olduğu göstermektedir. Kılınış belirsizliği sergileyen yerleşen eylemleri ayrıca irdelenmiştir. Bağlamın, özellikle dünya bilgisinin bu tür eylemleri içeren tümcelerde zamansal sonluluk yorumu oluşturmadaki rolü betim­lenmiştir.

Denominal Verbs and Their Aspectual Properties

This paper analyzes the morpological and semantic properites of denominal verbs in Turkish. Following Clark and Clark (1979), Turkish denominal verbs are classified into eight semantic categories: location, locatum, duration, agent, expe-riencer, goal, source, and instrument. The lexical aspectual characteristics of loca­tion, locatum, and goal verbs are also presented. It is argued that the inherent se­mantic features of base nouns have a crucial role in determining the felicity of the above-mentioned denominal verbs. There is a correlation between the (non)boun-dedness of the base nominal and the (a)telicity of the derived verb. The paper fi­nally focuses on the variable aspectual properties of locatum verbs and illustrates the impact of contextual factors, particularly real-world knowledge, in ascribing (a) felicity interpretationsrto these verbs.
PDF

___

  • Aksan, Y. 2005. Scalar semantic representation of aspectually variable verbs in Turkish. S. Yağcıoğlu ve A. Cem-Değer (Haz.) Advances in Turkish Linguistics, 93-106. İzmir: Dokuz Eylül Yayınları.
  • Aronoff, M. 1980. Contextual. Language, 56: 4, 744-758.
  • Aronoff, M. 1984. Word formation and lexical semantics. Quaderni di semantica, V: 1, 45-49.
  • Aydemir, Y. 2006. Sözlüksel görünüş ve Türkçe eylemlerin anlambilimsel sınıflandırılması: Sözlükçe-sözdizim etkileşimi. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Ankara Üniversi­tesi, Ankara.
  • Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Brinton, L. 1991. The mass/count distinction and aktionsart. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 6,47-69.
  • Buck, R. 1993. Affectedness and other semantic properties of English denominal locative verbs. American Speech 68:2, 139-160.
  • Clark, E.V. ve H. H. Clark. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55:4, 767-810.
  • Comrie, B. 1985. Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology. T. Shopen (Haz.) Language typology and syntactic description 3: Grammatical categori­es and the lexicon, 309-348. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Don, J. 1993. Morphological: conversion. Utrech: OTS.
  • Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 547-619.
  • Hale, K ve J. Keyser. 1992. The syntactic character of thematic structure. I.M Roca (Haz.) Thematic structure: Its role in grammar, 107-143. Berlin: Foris.
  • Hale, K. ve J. Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. K. Hale ve S. J. Keyser (Haz.) A view from the building 20, 53-109. Cambridge: Cambridge Univesity Press.
  • Hale, K. ve J. Keyser. 1998. The basic elements of argument structure. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32, 73-118.
  • Harley, H. 1999. Denominal verbs and aktionsart. MIT Workmg Papers in Linguistics 35, 73-85.
  • Harley, H. 2005. How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation, and the ontology of verb roots in English. N. Erteschik-Shir ve T. Rapoport (Haz.) The syntax of aspect, 42-64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Hay, J., C. Kennedy ve B. Levin 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in 'degree achieve­ments'. SALT 9, 124-144.
  • Higginbotham, J. 2000. Accomplishments. Proceedings of Glow in Asia II, Nagoya, Japan, 2000.
  • Hopper, P. ve S. Thompson 1985. The iconicity of the universal categories 'noun' and 'verb'. J. Haiman (Haz.) Iconicity in syntax, 151-183. Philadelphia: John Ben­jamins.
  • Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge:MIT Press.
  • Jackendoff, R. 1991. Parts and boundaries. B. Levin ve S. Pinker (Haz.) Lexical and con­ceptual semantics, 9-46. Cambridge:Blackwell.
  • Jackendoff, R. 1996. The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps even qu­antification in English. NLLT 14, 305-351.
  • Kageyama, T. 1997. Denominal verbs and relative salience in lexical conceptual structure. T. Kageyama (Haz.) Verb semantics and syntactic structures, 45-94. Tokyo:Kurosio.
  • Kennedy, C. ve B. Levin 2000. Telicity corresponds to degree of change. Michegan State Universtiy, Nov. 30, 2000. www. ling.nwu.edu/~kennedy/.
  • Kiparsky, P. 1997. Remarks on denominal verbs. A. Alsina, J. Bresnan ve P. Sells (Haz.) Complex predicates, 473-498. Stanford:CSLI.
  • Krifka, M. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event se­mantics. R. Bartsch ve dig. (Haz.) Semantics and contextual expression, 75-115. Dordrecht: Foris.
  • Krifka, M. 1998. The origins of telicity. S. Rothstein (haz.) Events and grammar, 197-236. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • Levin, B. 2000. Aspect,lexical semantic representation, and argument expression. Berkley Linguistic Society 26: 413-430.
  • Plag, I. 2000.On the mechanisms of morphological rivalry: A new look at competing verb-deriving affixes in English. Anglistentag 1999. Tübingen:Niemeyer.
  • Ramchand, G. C. 1997. Aspect and predication. Oxford: Clarendon.
  • Ramchand, G. 2001. Aktionsart, 1-syntax and selection. Utrecht conference on aspect, ms. Oxford: Oxford University. http://users.ox.ac.uk/~gcram/research/utproc.pdf.
  • Rose, J. 1973. Principled limitations on productivity in denominal verbs. Foundation of lan­guage, 10, 509-26.
  • Rothstein, S. 2004. Structuring events. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Smollett, R. 2005. Quantized direct objects don't delimit after all. H.Verkuyl, H.de Swart ve A.von Hout (Haz.) Perspectives on aspect, 41-60. Berlin: Springer.
  • Talmy, L. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. T. Shopen (Haz.) Language typology and syntactic description 3: Grammatical categori­es and the lexicon, 57-149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Tenny, C. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface . Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • Verkuyl, H. 1993. A theory of aspectuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wechsler, S. 2001. Resultatives under the 'event-argument homomorphism' model ofteli-city, N. Erteschik-Shir ve T. Rapoport (Haz.) The syntax of aspect, 274-286. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Woodworth, N. 1991. >From noun to verb and from verb to noun. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, SUNY, New York.
Dil Dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 1300-3542
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 2 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2004
  • Yayıncı: Ankara Üniversitesi TÖMER
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Türkçe Öğretiminde Yazılı Anlatım Uygulamaları İçin Bir Seçenek YAratıcı Yaklaşımı

Saadet MALTEPE

Multıple Language Learning and the Importance of the Same Parameter Values

Özgür AYDIN

Adtabanlı Eylemler ve Kılınış Özellikleri

Yeşim AKSAN, Mustafa AKSAN

İngilizce Öğretmen Adaylarının Dil Öğrenme Stratejileri Kullanımı

Nilüfer BEKLEYEN