Against DİYE clauses as complements of verbs of communication

Hilal Yildirim

Abstract


In this study, I discuss why some subordinate clauses that are marked by diye cannot be complement clauses contrary to expectation. These clauses include adverbial clauses of verbs of communication, verbs of perception, verbs of cognition, and verbs of emotion. Diye tends to occur very frequently both in formal language and colloquial language. Based on an exhaustive analysis of TS Corpus and METU Corpus, we observe that diye is special in that (i) it occurs in complement clauses of verbs of cognition and verbs of emotion; (ii) it occurs in adverbial clauses denoting manner, reason, purpose / result, assumption, understanding, precaution, and agreement as well as in adverbial clauses denoting the content of the action denoted by the matrix verb for which either the complement of diye is an onomatopoeic form or the matrix verb is a verb of quotation (except for de- ‘say’) or the matrix verb is a verb of perception or cognition and its content is non-veridical, or the matrix verb is a verb of emotion; (iii) it creates constructions that can be likened to relative clauses. The important point in this division is that some of the subordinate clauses which occur with the verbs of quotation, verbs of perception and cognition, and verbs of cognition and are marked by diye are adverbials rather than complements contrary to expectation and we focus on this in this study.Throughout this study the instances of diye are examined. Passivization and causativization tests are presented in order to better understand the syntactic relationship between the matrix clause and the subordinate clause.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Anand, P., & Hacquard, V. (2014). Factivity, belief and discourse. The Art and Craft of Semantics: A Festschrift for Irene Heim, 1, 69-90.

Baker, M. C. (2011). Degrees of nominalization: Clause-like constituents in Sakha. Lingua, 121(7), 1164-1193.

Baranova, Vlada V. 2010. Grammaticalization paths of the verb gi- ‘say’ in Kalmyk. In Mongolica Pragensia. Linguistics, Ethnolinguistics, Religion and Culture. 2015. Vol. 8. No. 2. of P. 57-76.

Çetinoğlu, Ö., Butt, M. (2008). Turkish non-canonical objects. In Proceedings of the LFG'08 Conference (pp. 214-234).

Delice, İ. (2003). Türkçe Sözdizimi, İstanbul, Kitabevi.

Diessel, H. (2001). The ordering distribution of main and adverbial clauses: A typological study. Language, 433-455.

Dixon, R. M. (2006). Complementation: a cross-linguistic typology (Vol. 3). Oxford University Press.

Emre, A. C. (1945). Türkçe Dilbilgisi.

Erkman, F., Ö. Delikgöz, and Ö. Görür 2006. [Diye] sözcüğü ve anlatıma kazandırdıkları [The word [diye] and its contribution to expressions]. In Çotuksöken, Y. and N. Yalçın (Eds.) XX. Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri, 161-165. T.C. Maltepe Üniversitesi Yayınları.

Göksel, A. (1993). Levels of representation and argument structure in Turkish. Department of Linguistics, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish, a comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge Griffiths, J., & Güneş, G. (2014). Ki issues in Turkish. In Parenthesis and Ellipsis: Cross-Linguistic and Theoretical Perspectives. Mouton de Gruyter Berlin.

Göksel, A. (2015). Phrasal compounds in Turkish: Distinguishing citations from quotations. STUF-Language Typology and Universals, 68(3), 359-394.

Göksel, A. & M. Kelepir (2015) Observations on clausal complementation in Turkish Sign Language, in Herrmann, A., R. Pfau & M. Steinbach (eds.) A Matter of Complexity; Subordination in Sign Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Hartmann, R. R. K., & Stork, F. C. (1972). Dictionary of language and linguistics.

Hatipoğlu, V. (1972). Türkçenin Sözdizimi, Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.

İnce, A. (2006). Direct complement clauses as object control structures in Turkish. WECOL 2006, 208.

Karahan, L. (1997). Türkçede Söz Dizimi: cümle tahlilleri. Akçağ Yayınları, Ankara.

Kelepir, M. & A. Göksel (2013) ‘Aspects of reported utterances in Turkish Sign Language’, in E. Arık (ed.) Current Directions in Turkish Sign Language Research, 186-213. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. Routledge.

Lewis, G. L. (1985). Turkish grammar. Oxford University Press, USA.

Marantz, A. (1991). Case and licensing. In G.F. Westphal, B. Ao and H-R. Chae (eds.), Proceedings of ESCOL 8, University of Maryland, Baltimore.

Öztürk, B. (2005). Case, referentiality and phrase structure. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Özyıldız, D. (2016). Factivity defeated.

Sebüktekin, H. I. (1971). Turkish-English contrastive analysis. Mouton.

Sezer, T., Sezer, B. S., & Ünivesitesi, M. TS Corpus: Herkes için Türkçe derlem.

Underhill, R. (1976). Turkish grammar. MIT Press.

Van Valin Jr, R. D. (1984, October). A typology of syntactic relations in clause linkage. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Vol. 10, pp. 542-558).


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.