Türkçe'de Ayrık Yapılar: Bir Sınıflandırma Çalışması

This study attempts to classify the Turkish cleft constructions on the basis of their formal properties. The present research also reports from the corpus-based analysis of Turkish clefts carried out on 6 written texts (3 mystery and 3 history novels). As well as providing information on frequencies of occurrence across a range of cleft-construction under investigation, the corpus-based analysis shows that using a corpus enables the researchers to make more objective and reliable statements than the introspective analysis carried out on derived examples permit. The findings of the corpus-based analysis indicate that in Turkish the cleft-constructions are syntactically formed with the combination of a relative subordinate clause and a copular main clause, in which the relative clause semantically identifying the highlighted element establishes an equative relation with the copular main clause. With reference to this formal definition, Turkish cleft-constructions are classified as Contrastive-Clefts, There-Clefts, Be-Clefts, One-Clefts, This-Clefts, Thing-Clefts, Holistic-Clefts, Place-Clefts and Only One-Clefts. Among these cleft-types, Contrastive-Clefts can be considered as the basic cleft-constructions with the highest frequency of occurrence in Turkish, as far as the present corpus is concerned.

___

1. Akmajian, A. (1979). Aspects of the Grammar of Focus in English. New York: Garland Publishing.

2. Biber D., Conrad S. & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

3. Collins, P. C. (1991). Cleft and Pseudo-Cleft Constructions in English. London and New York: Routledge.

4. Collins, P. C. (1992). Cleft existentials in English. Language Sciences, 14,419-433.

5. Declerck, R. (1984). The Pragmatics of it-clefts and wh-clefts. Lingua, 4,251-289.

6. Erguvanli, E. E. (1984). The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press.

7. Erkman-Akerson, F. & Ozil, Ş. (1998). Türkçede Niteleme: Sıfat îşlevli Yan Tümceler.İstanbul: Simurg.

8. Gundel, J. K. (1977). Where do cleft sentences come from? Language, 53,543-559.

9. Hedberg, N. A. (1990). Discourse pragmatics and cleft sentences in English, (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), University of Minnesota.

10.Higgins, F. R. (1976). The Pseudo-Cleft Construction in Engish. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

11.Huddleston, R. (1984). Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

12.Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London: Routledge.

13.Lambrecht, K. (2001). A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics, 39,463-516.

14.Mc. Clave, J. T., Dietrich, F. H. & Sincich, T. (1997). Statistics. USA: Prentice-Hall.

15.Prince, E. F. (1978). A Comparison of WH-clefts and It-clefts in Discourse. Language, 54,883-906.

16.Reppen, R. & Simpson, R. (2002). Corpus linguistics. N. Schmitt (haz.), An Introduction to Applied Linguistics, 92-111. Great Britain: Arnold Publishers.

17.Turan, Ü. D. (2002a). Ayrık tümce. G. Konig, N. Büyükkantarcıoğlu ve F. Karahan (haz.),XV. Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri, 59-69. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi Yay.

18.Turan, Ü. D. (2002b). A contrastive analysis of cleft sentences in English and Turkish. 11.Uluslararası Türk Dilbilim Konferansımda, sunulan bildiri. Doğu Akdeniz Üniversitesi, KKTC.

19.Weinert, R. & Miller, J. (1996). Cleft constructions in spoken language. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 173-206.