Türkiye Türkçesindeki bilgi kipliği işaretleyicileri üzerine: kesinlik dışılık

Kiplik dilbilimin tartışmalı kavramlarından biridir. Farklı ölçülere göre farklı tanım ve tasnifleri yapılmıştır. Çeşitli görüşler olsa da iki temel kiplik türü üzerinde görüş birliğine varıldığı söylenebilir. Bunlardan ilki konuşurun önermeye dair bilgi ve güvenine dayanan bilgi kipliği (epistemic modality), diğeri ise konuşurun önermeye dair isteğine dayanan yükümlülük kipliğidir (deontic modality). Bu çalışmada Türkiye Türkçesiyle ilgili olarak bir bilgi kipliği araştırması yapılmıştır. İncelemede konuşurun önermeye dair bilgi ve güven eksikliğini işaretleyen işaretleyiciler belirlenmiş ve bu işaretleyicilerin kesinlik dışılık (uncertainty) bildirirken hangi anlamsal çerçeveler için kullanıldığı tartışılmıştır.

On the epistemic modality markers in Turkey Turkish: uncertainty

Modality is one of the problematic concepts of linguistics. Various definitions and categorizations are made based on different criteria. Although there are different point of views linguists have agreed on the main kinds of modality. One of them is the epistemic modality which is based on the knowledge and belief of the speaker related with the proposition. The other one is the deontic modality based on the will of the speaker about the proposition. In this study, epistemic modality in Turkey Turkish has been examined. During this study, the markers which point out the lack of knowledge and belief of the speaker on the proposition are determined and the semantic purposes they used for are questioned when they report uncertainty.

___

  • AKSU-KOÇ, Ayhan (1988). The Acquisition of Aspect and Modality: The Case of Past Reference in Turkish. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • ASLAN-DEMİR, Sema (2008). Türkçede İsteme Kipliği, Ankara: Grafiker.
  • ATABAY, Neşe - Sevgi ÖZEL - İbrahim KUTLUK (2003). Sözcük Türleri. Ankara: Papatya.
  • van der AUWERA, Johan - V. PLUNGIAN (1998). “Modality‟s Semantic Map”. Linguistics Typology 2: 79-124.
  • van der AUWERA, Johan - A. KEHAYOV and A. VITTRANT. (2009). “Acquisitive Modals”. Cross-Linguistic Semantics of Tense, Aspect and Modality (eds. L. Hogeweg, H. De
  • Hoop, A. Malchukov), Amsterdam : John Benjamins : 281- 302.
  • AYDIN, Özgür (1996). Yabancı Dil Olarak Türkçe Dilbilgisi Öğretimi. Ankara.
  • BACANLI, Eyüp (2006). “Türkçedeki Dolaylılık İşaretleyicilerinin Pragmatik Anlamları”. Modern Türklük Araştırmaları Dergisi 3/1: 35-47.
  • BACANLI, Eyüp (2008). “Türkiye Türkçesindeki -miş Ekinin Dolaylılık ve Dolaylılık-dıĢı Kullanımlarında Zamansal Atıf”. Bilig (Türk Dünyası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi) 44: 1- 24.
  • BANGUOĞLU, Tahsin (1998). Türkçenin Grameri. Ankara: TDK. BARBIERS, Sjef (2002). “Current Issues in Modality”. Modality and Its Interaction with the Verbal System. (eds. S.
  • Barbiers, F. Beukema, W. van der Wurff). Amsterdam and Philadephia: John Benjamins: 11-29.
  • BASSARAK, Armin (1997). “New Considerations About the Turkish -dir Suffix”. International Journal of Central Asian Studies 2: 114-126.
  • BYBEE, Joan - William PAGLIUCA (1985). “Cross-linguistic Comparison and the Develoment of Grammatical Meaning”. Historical Semantics and Historical Word Formation (eds. Fisiak, J.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter : 60-63.
  • BYBEE, Joan - R. PERKINS - W. PAGLIUCA (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • BYBEE, Joan - Susan FLEISCHMAN (eds.) (1995). Modality in Grammar and Discourse, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • BYBEE, Joan - Susan FLEISCHMAN (1995). “An Introductory Essay”. Modality in Grammar and Discourse, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins:1-14.
  • CINQUE, Guglielmo (2001). “A Note on Mood, Modality, T and Aspect Affixes in Turkish”. The Verb in Turkish, (eds. Eser Erguvanlı Taylan). Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 47- 59.
  • COATES, Jennifer. (1983). The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom HElm.
  • COATES, Jennifer (1995). “The Expression of Root and Epistemic Possibility in English”. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Language, (eds. J. Bybee - R. Perkins – W. Pagluica). Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 17-53.
  • COHEN, Ariel (1999). “Generics, Frequency Adverbs, and Probability”.Linguistics and Philosophy 22: 221-253.
  • COMRIE, Bernard (1985). Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • CORCU, Demet (2003). A Linguistic Analysis of Necessity as a Part of the Modal System in Turkish, Mersin University, Institutue of Social Sciences, Unpublished MA Thesis.
  • CROMPTON, Peter (1997). “Hedging in Academic Writing: Some Theoretical Problems”. English for Specific Purposes 16: 271–287.
  • CROMPTON, Peter (1998). “Identifying Hedges”. English for Specific Purposes 17: 303–311.
  • DAHL, Östen (1985). Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • DEMİR, Tufan (2006). Türkçe Dilbilgisi. Ankara: Kurmay.
  • DEMİRCİ, Kerim- Jeff MUHLBAUER - Clare COOK (2010). “Delile Dayalılık Bakımından Türkiye Türkçesi ile Bazı Kızılderili Dillerinde Basit Çekimli Geçmiş Zamanlar”. Turkish Studies International Periodical For the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic Volume 5/1Winter 2010, s. 281-293. (www.http://turkishstudies.net) (erişim:19.05.2010)
  • DOĞAN, Gürkan - Ahmet KOCAMAN (1999). “Sözcede Kişisel Tututm ve Be1irteçler”. Dilbilim Araştırmaları: 65-78.
  • DOYURAN, Zeynep (2009). “Conciliation of Knowledge through Hedging in Turkish Scientific Articles”. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi / Journal of Faculty of Letters, Cilt/Volume 26 Sayı/Number 1 (Haziran/June 2009): 85-99.
  • EDİSKUN, Haydar (1999). Türk Dilbilgisi. İstanbul: Remzi. EFENDİOĞLU, Süleyman (2006). “Cümle Menşeli Edatlar” A.Ü. Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü Dergisi, Sayı 31:193- 207.
  • ERCİLASUN, Ahmet Bican (1995). “Türkçede Emir ve İstek Kipi Üzerine”. Türk Gramerinin Sorunları Toplantısı (22-23 Ekim 1993). Ankara: TDK Yayınları: 61-72.
  • ERGİN, Muharrerm (1993). Türk Dil Bilgisi. İstanbul: Bayrak.
  • ERGUVANLI TAYLAN, Eser - Sumru ÖZSOY (1993). “Türkçe‟de Bazı Kip Biçimlerinin Öğretimi Üzerine”. Proceedings of the VIIth Conference on Turkish Linguistics (eds. Kamile İmer and Engin Uzun). Ankara: Ankara University Press :1- 9
  • ERK EMEKSĠZ, Zeynep (2009). “Deontic Modality in Turkish: Pragmatic and Semantic Constraints”. MITWP: 58.
  • ERKMAN AKERSON, Fatma (1994). “Türkçe Yüklemde Görünüş, Zaman ve Kip”. VIII. Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri, İstanbul: İstanbul University Press : 79-88.
  • FİNEGAN, E. (1995). “Subjectivity and Subjectivisation in Language: An Introduction.” Subjectivity and Subjectivisation in Language (eds. S. Wright and D. Stein). Cambridge University Press: 1-15.
  • FRAWLEY, William (2006). Modality. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. GENCAN Tahir Nejat (2001). Dilbilgisi. Ankara: Ayraç Yay.
  • GIORGI, Alessandra - Fabio PIANESI (1997). Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax, Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • GÖKSEL, Aslı (2002). “The Auxiliary Verb ol at the Morphology- Syntax Interface”. (eds. Eser Erguvanlı Taylan) The Verb in Turkish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 151-181.
  • GÖKSEL, Aslı-Celia KERSLAKE (2005). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London-New York: Routledge. GÜLSEVİN, Gürer (1990). “Türkçede -sA Şart Gerundiumu Üzerine”. Türk Dili (Kasım): 276-279.
  • GÜLSEVİN Gürer (1997). “Türkiye Türkçesinde Zaman ve Kip Çekiminde Birleşik Yapılar Üzerine”. Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı Belleten : 215-224.
  • GÜLSEVİN, Gürer (2002) “Eski Türkiye Türkçesinde İstek Kipi Üzerine”. İlmi Araştırmalar, Cilt XIII. Ġstanbul: 35-50.
  • GÜVEN, Mine (2001). “Türkçe‟de -Abil eki ve Kiplik Belirteçleri Üzerine”. Proceedings of the XVth Conference on Turkish Linguistics (eds. Ömer Demircan and Aybars Erözden) Ġstanbul: Yıldız Technical University Press: 79-87.
  • de HAAN, Ferdinand (1997). The Interaction of Modality and Negation: A Typological Study. New York: Garland.
  • de HAAN, Ferdinand. (2006). “Typologial Approaches to Modality”. Modality. (eds. W. Frawley ). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 27-70.
  • HOFMANN, Thomas R. (1976) “Past Tense Replacement and the Modal System”. Syntax and semantics, vol. 7: Notes from the Linguistic Underground, (eds. J. McCawley). New York: Academic Press: 85-100.
  • HOLMES, J. (1982). Expressing Certainty and Doubt in English. RELC Journal, 13(2): 9-29.
  • HOPPER, Paul and Elizabeth Closs TRAUGOTT (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • HOYE, L. (1997). Adverbs and Modality in English. London, New York: Longman.
  • HYLAND, Ken (1996). “Writing Without Conviction? Hedging in Scientific Research Articles”. Applied Linguistics 17: 433– 454.
  • HYLAND, Ken (1998). “Boosting, Hedging and the Negotiation of Academic Knowledge”. Text 18 : 349-382.
  • HYLAND, Ken (2000). “Hedges, Boosters and Lexical Invisibility”. Language Awareness 9: 179-197.
  • JACOBSSON, Bengt (1979). “Modality and Modals of Necessity must and have to”. English Studies, Vol. 60, Issue 3 : 296- 312.
  • JESPERSEN, Otto (1924). The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.
  • JOHANSON, Lars (1994). “Türkeitürkische Aspektotempora” Tense Systems in European Languages (eds. R. Thieroff- J.Ballweg). Tubingen : Linguistche Arbeiten 308: 247-266.
  • JOHANSON Lars (2009), “Modals in Turkic”, Modals in the Languages of Europe (eds. B. Hansen-F. de Haan), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 487-510.
  • KAHRAMAN, Tahir (2005). Çağdaş Türkiye Türkçesi Dil Bilgisi. Ankara.
  • KARAHAN, Leyla. (1994). “-se/-sa Eki Hakkında”. Türk Dili (Aralık) : 471-474
  • KERİMOĞLU, Caner (2008a), “Türkiye Türkçesi Gramerciliğinde Çokluk ve İstek Kategorileri”. Modern Türklük Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5/3: 140-155.
  • KERİMOĞLU, Caner (2008b), “İngilizce Yazılmış Türkçe Gramerlerinde Article Kavramı”. VI. Uluslararası Türk Dili Kurultayı (20-25 .10. 2008) (forthcoming).
  • KERSLAKE, Celia (1990). “The Semantics of Possibility in Turkish”. In Bengisu Rona (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Ankara: Ankara University Press: 433- 438.
  • KILIÇ, Filiz (2004). Kırgız Türkçesinde Bilgi Kipliği: Delile Dayananların Diğer Bilgi Kiplikleriyle İlişkisi. Ankara University, Institutue of Social Sciences, Ph. D. Thesis.
  • KIEFER, Ferenc (1987). “On Defining Modality”. Folia Linguistica 21: 67-94.
  • KIEFER, Ferenc (1997). “Presidential Adress Modality and Pragmatics”. Folia Linguistica XXXl/3-4. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter : 241-253.
  • KORKMAZ, Zeynep (2003). Türkiye Türkçesi Grameri: Şekil Bilgisi, Ankara: TDK.
  • KORNFILT, Jaklin. (2001). Turkish, London: Routledge.
  • KRATZER, Angelika. (1991). “Modality”. Semantics: An İnternational Handbook of Contemporary Research, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter: 650-659.
  • LEWIS, Geoffrey (1976). Turkish Grammar (Second Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • LYONS, John (1977). Semantics, Volume II. Cambridge, CUP. MATHEWS, Richard (2003). “Modal Auxiliary Constructions, TAM and Interrogatives”. Modality in Contemporary English, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 47-70.
  • NARROG, Heiko (2005). “Modality, Mood and Change of Modal Meanings: A New Perspective”.Cognitive Linguistics 16–4 : 677-731.
  • NAUZE, Fabrice (2008). Modality in Typological Perspective. Ph.D. Thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam.
  • NORDSTRÖM, Jackie (2010). Modality and Subondinaters. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • NUYTS, Jan (2001). Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • NUYTS, Jan (2006) “Modality: Overview and Linguistic Issues”. Modality. (eds.W. Frawley ). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter : 1- 26.
  • ÖNER, Mustafa (1999). “Türkçede Edatlı (Sentaktik) İsim Çekimi”. Türk Dili (Ocak) :10-18.
  • ÖZSOY, Sumru (1999). Turkish Türkçe, İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.
  • PALMER, Frank. (1986). Mood and Modality. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics, 1st Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  • PALMER, Frank. (2001). Mood and Modality, Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. 2nd Edition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  • PAPAFRAGOU, Anna (2000). Modality: Issues in the Semantics- Pragmatics Interface, Oxford: Elsevier Publishing Company.
  • PAYNE, Thomas. (1997). Describing Morphosyntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • PORTNER, Paul (2009). Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. RIZOMILIOTI, Vassiliki (2003). Epistemic Modality in Academic Writing. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Birmingham, School of Humanities, English Department.
  • RUBIN, Victoria L. (2006). Identifying Certainty in Texts. Doctoral Thesis. Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
  • RUBIN, Victoria L. (2010). “Epistemic Modality: From Uncertainty to Certainty in the Context of Information Seeking as Interactions with Texts”, Information Processing and Management 46: 533–540.
  • RUHİ, Şükriye - Deniz ZEYREK and Necdet OSAM (1992). “Türkçe‟de Kiplik Belirteçleri ve Çekim Ekleri İlişkisi Üzerine Bazı Gözlemler”. Proceedings of the IXth Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Bolu: Abant İzzet Baysal University: 307-315.
  • RUHİ, şükriye - Deniz ZEYREK and Ümit TURAN (2000). “Koşul Tümcelerinde Varsayımsallık ve Gerçek Karşıtlığı”. XIII. Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri, (eds. S. Özsoy, E. Taylan). İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Press: 19-29.
  • SAEED, John (2003). Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. SALAGER-MEYER, Françoise (1994). “Hedges and Textual Communicative Function in Medical English Written Discourse”. English for Specific Purposes 13 : 149–170.
  • SALAGER-MEYER, Françoise (2000). “Procrustes' Recipe: Hedging and Positivism”. English for Specific Purposes 19: 175- 187.
  • van SCHAAIK, Gerjan (2001). The Bosphorus Papers: Studies in Turkish Grammar, 1996-1999. Ġstanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.
  • SEBZECİOĞLU, Turgay (2004). “Türkçede Kip Kategorisi ve -Yor Biçimbiriminin Kipsel Değeri”. Dil Dergisi, S. 124, Nisan 2004: 18-33.
  • SÖZER, Emel (1980). "Türkçede -dir Biçimbiriminin Kullanım Alanlan". Bağlam İÜ YÜO Almanca Böl.Dergisi, İstanbul , S. 2.
  • STEELE, Susan (1975). “Is it possible?”. Working Papers on Language Universals 18: 35-58.
  • STEIN, D.- S. WRIGHT (1995). Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • SWEETSER, Eve (1990). Modality : From Etymology to Pragmatics, Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
  • TALMY, Leonard (1988). “Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition”. Cognitive Science 12: 49-100.
  • TOSUN, Cengiz (1988). “On (-dir) Suffix in Turkish: A Short Background and Its Semantic and Functional Qualification According to the Usage. (eds. S. Koç)”. Studies on Turkish Linguistics: Proceeding of the Forth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics ODTÜ, Ankara: 507- 516.
  • TRAUGOTT, Elisabeth. (1989). “On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change”. Language 57: 33-65.
  • TRAUGOTT, Elisabeth (2006) “Historical Aspects of Modality”. Modality. (eds.W. Frawley ). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 107-140.
  • TURA SANSA, Sabahat (1986). “-DIr in Modern Turkish”. In Ayhan Aksu Koç and Eser Modern Studies in Turkish Linguistics: Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (eds. E. Erguvanlı Taylan). İstanbul: Boğaziçi Unıversity Press: 145-158.
  • UNDERHILL, Robert (1976). Turkish Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • UZUN, Leyla - Zeynep ERK EMEKSĠZ (2002). “Türkçede -Ar Biçimbiriminin Sözdizimsel ve Anlambilimsel Yapısı Üzerine”. 18. Türk Dilbilim Kurultayı, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara: 129-145.
  • UZUN, Nadir Engin(1998).”Türkçede Görünüş/Kip/Zaman Üçlüsü”. Dil Dergisi 68: 5-22.
  • UZUN, Nadir Engin. (2004). Dilbilgisinin Temel Kavramları.Türk Dilleri Araştımaları Dizisi 39, İstanbul.
  • von WRIGHT, E. H. (1951). An Essay in Modal Logic. Amsterdam: North Holland.
  • YARAR, Emine (2000). “Akademik Söylemde Belirteçlerin Olasılık ve Belirsizlik İşlevleri”. Hacettepe Üniversitesi, İngiliz Dilbilimi Bölümü Dilbilim ve Uygulamaları Dergisi, C. 1, S. 1: 125-138.
  • YARAR, Emine (2001). “Bilimsel Söylemde Olasılık Kipi”. XV. Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri. Ġstanbul: Yıldız Technical University Press: 89-98.
  • YARAR, Emine (2005). “Yan Tümcelerde Ol- Eylem Kökü -ebil Eki Etkileşimi”. XIX. Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri, Harran: Harran University Press : 129-143.
  • YAVAŞ, Feryal (1980). ”The Turkish Future Marker”. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 5/1: 139-150.
  • YAVAŞ, Feryal (1982). ”The Turkish Aorist”. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 4/1 : 41-49.
  • ZHANG, Q. (1998). “Fuzziness-Vagueness-Generality-Ambiguity”. Journal of Pragmatics, 29: 13-31.