Türkiye Türkçesinin işaret sözcükleri dizgesi, bu, şu ve o köklerinden oluşmaktadır. Bu makalede, bu ve o'nun metne bağlı olmayan kullanımları üzerine odaklanılarak, konuşucunun alanı ve dinleyicinin algısı kavramları açısından, bu/o+ad yapılarının yalın bu/o yapılarına (başka bir deyişle, bu/o(+Ø) yapılarına) indirgenmesi olasılığı irdelenecektir. Çalışmada, bu/o(+Ø) yapısının şu özelliklere sahip olduğu ileri sürülecektir: (i) bu/o+ad ve bu/o(+Ø) arasındaki değiştirim açısından, bu/o+ad yapısının varlığı, bu/o(+Ø) yapısının varlığı için gerek koşuldur. Bu nedenle, bu/o(+Ø) kullanımlarının tümünü, bu/o+ad kullanımlarının indirgenmiş biçimi olarak düşünmek mümkündür. (ii) Bununla birlikte, bu/o+ad yapısının dağılımı, bu/o(+Ø) yapısının dağılımı için yeter koşul değildir. bu/o+ad yapısının, bu/o(+Ø) yapısının yeter koşulu olarak işlev görebilmesi için bu/o+ad yapısı içindeki ad'a ait göndergenin sözce ortamında bulunması esastır. (iii) bu/o+ad yapısının dağılımı, konuşucunun alanı ve dinleyicinin algısı kavramlarına duyarlı olmasına karşın, (ii)'de belirtilen gösterimsel koşula duyarlı değildir. Öte yandan, bu/o(+Ø)'nun dağılımı hem (ii)'deki gösterimsel koşula hem de konuşucunun alanı ve dinleyicinin algısı kavramlarına duyarlılık göstermektedir. (iv) bu/o(+Ø)'nun metne bağlı olmayan kullanımına ait (i), (ii) ve (iii)'de belirtilen özellikleri, (a) öncül sözel metne bağımlılık derecesine göre sınıflandırılmış işaret sözcükleri kullanımı üzerinde oluşturulan gösterimsel bir ölçekle ve (b) gönderimsel kullanıma konu olan dilsel ögenin silinimiyle izah etmek mümkündür

The demonstrative system of modern Turkish is formed by the roots bu, şu and o. In this paper, focusing on non-text dependent use of the demonstratives bu and o, reduction possibility of bu/o+noun form to the bare form of bu/o (i.e. bu/o(+Ø) form) is analysed from the viewpoints of speaker’s space and recognition by the hearer. It is shown that the following characteristics are observed in the form of bu/o(+Ø): (i) The presence of bu/o+noun form is a necessary condition for the presence of bu/o(+Ø) form in terms of the substitution between bu/o+noun and bu/o(+Ø), and so we can consider all usages of bu/o(+Ø) as reduced form of bu/o+noun. (ii) However, the distribution of bu/o+noun is not a sufficient condition for the distribution of bu/o(+Ø). In order to work bu/o+noun form as a sufficient condition of bu/o(+Ø) form, it is essential that the referent denoted by the noun of bu/o+noun form must be present in the locality of the utterance. (iii) Although the distribution of bu/o+noun is sensitive to the concepts of speaker’s space and recognition by the hearer, it is not sensitive to the deictic condition mentioned in (ii). On the other hand, the distribution of bu/o(+Ø) shows sensitivity to both the deictic condition in (ii) and the concepts of speaker’s space and recognition. (iv) The properties (i), (ii) and (iii), which the non-text dependent use of bu/o(+Ø) have, can be accounted for by (a) the deictic scale which is set up on the use of the demonstratives classified by the degree of dependency on previous verbal text, (b) deletion of the linguistic element that is subject to referential use The demonstrative system of modern Turkish is formed by the roots bu, şu and o. In this paper, focusing on non-text dependent use of the demonstratives bu and o, reduction possibility of bu/o+noun form to the bare form of bu/o (i.e. bu/o(+Ø) form) is analysed from the viewpoints of speaker’s space and recognition by the hearer. It is shown that the following characteristics are observed in usages of bu/o(+Ø) form: (a) There are some data in which the use of bu/o+noun is always available when the use of bu/o(+Ø) is available. This shows that the presence of bu/o+noun is a necessary condition for the presence of bu/o(+Ø). (b) However, it should be noted that there is the case in which the use of bu/o(+Ø) is not always available when the use of bu+noun is available. This indicates that the distribution of bu/o+noun is not a sufficient condition for the distribution of bu/o(+Ø). (c) From the feature (a), we can describe all usages of bu/o(+Ø) as reduced form of bu/o+noun because there is always bu/o+noun form corresponding to bu/o(+Ø) form. (d) On the other hand, from the feature (b), we can see that all usages of bu/o+noun cannot always be replaced with bu/o(+Ø). The comparison of the data in this paper reveals that the substitution between bu/o+noun form and bu/o(+Ø) form is possible only if the referent denoted by the noun of bu/o+noun is present in the locality of the utterance. (e) Although the distribution of bu/o+noun is sensitive to the concepts of speaker’s space and recognition by the hearer, it is not sensitive to the deictic condition mentioned in (d). On the other hand, the distribution of bu/o(+Ø) shows sensitivity to both this deictic condition and the concepts of speaker’s space and recognition by the hearer. In the end of the paper, we will take up two issues emerging from the above analysis. The first issue is; how can we reconcile the notion of the non-text dependent use, which is defined by the criterion of whether the referent is introduced into the verbal text or not, with thedeictic factor? Given that the classification of Turkish demonstrative use is based on whether the referent is textualized or not in the above sense, it is possible to deal with the observation in (d) as a consequence of deictic scale, which is set up on the use of the demonstratives classified by the degree of dependency on previous verbal text. According to this assumption, the non-text dependent use is located at the top of this deictic scale, while anaphoric use is located at the bottom of this scale. If we assume that the system of the demonstrative use is formed by degree of dependency on previous verbal text, the fact that the non-text dependent use showing the lowest degree of dependency on previous verbal text has the highest degree of dependency on deictic characters can be considered as natural consequence of this scale. That is, assuming that the classification of the demonstratives, which is based on degree of dependency on previous verbal text, forms the scale of deictic use, thus it can be proposed that the deictic factor seen in the non-text dependent use of the demonstratives is due to the fact that it has the lowest degree of dependency on previous text. The second issue regarding the generalization (e) is; why does the distribution of bu/o(+Ø) is sensitive to the deictic factor, while the distribution of bu/o+noun form is not? The writer considers that the answer of these questions is associated with the mechanism of reduction. Let us assume that, there is a referent within the (non)speaker’s space, and some limiting conditions are required to identify that referent. In case of bu/o+noun, it is possible to assume that that limiting condition utilized for denoting the referent by the speaker, apart from the deictic factor, is a linguistic element which is sufficient for the hearer in order to be able to identify easily the referent. More specifically, the linguistic element is the noun of bu/o+noun. If reduction is defined as shortening of a complex element to a simple element, and assumed that this shortening procedure is based on deletion operation, then reduction seen in bu/o(+Ø) form means deletion of the noun from the form of bu/o+noun. This also means losing of the linguistic element used for identifying the referent by the hearer. In other words, rewriting of bu/o+noun form with bu/o(+Ø) form induces the disappearance of the linguistic elements which are subject to referential use. In this case, note that the limiting condition (i.e. presence of the linguistic element) required for using of bu and o is not fulfilled, and so in determining the appropriate use of bu/o(+Ø), the deictic factor is necessary. On the other hand, in case of bu/o+noun form, there is no loss of a linguistic element because deletion is not observed in this form, and thus the limiting condition required for using of bu and o is sufficiently fulfilled by the linguistic information which the noun of bu/o+noun has. Therefore, it can be considered that bu/o+noun form is used regardless of whether presence or absence of the referent in the locality of utterance. This approach makes the following generalization possible: Reduction, in the sense that mentioned in this paper, is responsible for inducing the deictic factor which is a natural consequence of the deictic scale mentioned above. If so, what triggers reduction? When we take the data in which both bu/o+noun and bu/o(+Ø) are acceptable into consideration, it should be noted that there is a tendency in preferring the latter rather than the former. That is, all else being equal, more simple linguistic form (i.e. bu/o(+Ø) form) is chosen. In this sense, we can consider that economy, as one side of linguistic activity, works behind this tendency; thus, triggers reduction. Having thought as argued in this paper, it is possible to provide a comprehensive explanation for the problems such as: 1) Under which situation can bu/o+noun form be reduced as bu/o(+Ø) form?, 2) Can all uses of bu/o(+Ø) be considered as reduced form of bu/o+noun?, 3) What is the characteristic of bu/o(+Ø) form which cannot be seen in bu/o+noun form?, 4) How can we reconcile the property of bu/o(+Ø) form in 3 with the reduction process? Further studies must be done for the text dependent use of bu/o+noun and bu/o(+Ø). Some findings obtained from such analyses will be useful for research on the systems of demonstratives and the development of the demonstrative use of various languages, especially Turkic languages in which only a handful of studies have been conducted.