Subject Case in Turkic Subordinate Clauses: Kazakh, Turkish and Tuvan (original) (raw)
Related papers
In this study, it will be analyzed that the inner clause subject is assigned with genitive case in Old Turkic, which is the first period of Turkish language. In Modern Turkish, the assignment of inner clause subject is made by the head modifier, whereas it is made by the head determiner in Dagur and Modern Uigur. According to this classification made by Miyagawa (2008), it will be analyzed in this study whether Old Turkic is a C-licensing or a D-licensing language. Furthermore, the state of the inner clause subject being assigned with genitive case in Old Turkic will be compared with genitive case assignments in Modern Turkish, Old Anatolian Turkish, and Modern Uigur.
Selection of Subjunctors in Turkic Non-Finite Complement Clauses
Bilig, 2013
The topic of the paper is Turkic clausal complementation: the syntactic and semantic behavior of complement clauses, the subjunctors that mark them, and the roles of various predicate types in selecting them. Two main types of bound comple-mentizers serve as subjunctors in complement clauses: a parti-cipial and an infinitival type, both usually corresponding to the English complimentizer that. Traditionally, the semantic behavior of the complement clauses has been thought to depend on a distinction between factive and non-factive verbs. Complement clauses provided with participial subjunctors have been described as factive in contrast to non-factive complement clauses provided with in-finitival subjunctors. Csató (2010) shows that the distinction fact vs. non-fact does not explain the distribution in Turkish. She concludes that the distinction made in Functional Grammar between embedded propositions and embedded predications can be applied to account for the differences between Turkish clauses with participial and infinitival subjunctors. Only clauses with a participial subjunctor can have illocutionary force and a truth value. It is suggested in the present paper that this situation follows from a specific distribution of oppositional values. Clauses carrying participial subjunctors do not refer directly to events as such, but explicitly to some knowledge about events. The concept 'knowledge of a possible fact' is grammaticalized in most Turkic languages. Clauses provided with participial sub-_____________ Prof. Dr.,
Subject case and Agr in two types of Turkic RCs
2008
Locality holds between the subject agreement marker and the subject, albeit in different ways, in two types of Turkic RCs. In one type (e.g. Turkish), the modifying clause is a CP, and in the other, it’s a bare TAMphrase (e.g. Sakha, Uighur). In both types, Agr appears on the phase head: in Turkish, on C, and in Sakha/Uighur, on N/D. The local domain for licensing the subject’s Case (via a probe-goal relation between Agr and subject) is CP for Turkish RCs, and DP for Sakha/Uighur RCs. Two phenomena offer independent motivation: 1. Turkish-type RCs display Complementizer Agreement effects, while Sakha/Uighur type RCs don’t; 2. In both types, generalized binding precludes locally bound resumptive pronouns, with CP as the local domain for the ban in Turkish RCs, and the entire DP in Sakha/Uighur RCs.
2019
This article studies syntactic, semantic and discursive properties of non-subordinate (main) clauses conveying possession in Oghuz and Kipchak Turkic languages. In Turkic, the concept of possession is typically encoded by clauses based on existential predicates. The language-specific and crosslinguistic properties of two predicate types, {bar} and {bol}, will be contrastively surveyed. As for the marking of possessor in clauses containing {bar}, three patterns will be described, one of which is a contact-induced structure restricted to Turkic varieties in Iran. As a multifunctional verb, {bol} can convey, among other things, dynamic or static possession. The results indicate that the clauses based on the static possession marker {bol} are more operative in Kipchak languages and in Turkmen (East Oghuz), than in West Oghuz languages. It will further be shown that the structures based on {bar} or the static marker {bol} typically exhibit discourse-related distribution in the respective languages.