Ankara Dilbilim Çevresi'nin bu haftaki konuşmacısı Anadolu Üniversitesi'nden Zeynep Erk Emeksiz. Deontic Modality and Indeterminacy in Turkish başlığını taşıyan konuşma İngilizce olarak yapılacak (tüm dinleyicilerin Türkçe konuşuru olması durumunda konuşma Türkçe olacaktır).
Konuşma afişini buradan indirebilirsiniz.
Konuşma Özeti:
9 Kasım 2007, 16:40
A.Ü.DTCF Muzaffer Göker Salonu (Ana Bina 2. kat - 242 no'lu oda)
The cross linguistic findings on the forms of modality reveal that epistemic and deontic modalities are very often encoded by the same forms (Bybee, 1994; Palmer, 1986) as in the case of Turkish illustrated in (1) and (2).
1. Emrah gitmiş ol-malı. EPISTEMIC
(Emrah must have gone)
2. Bu işi bitir-meli-sin. DEONTİC
(You must finish this work)
Depending on the context, the modality marker –mAlI in (1) marks a strong ‘judgement’ of the speaker for the subject while it imposes an act in (2). However, it is not possible to claim that –mAlI has the same indeterminacy in (3) and (4):
3. Paket akşama kadar eline geç-meli.
4. Emrah hasta ol-malı.
(3) entails ‘paket eline geçmek zorunda’ but not ‘paket büyük bir olasılıkla eline geçer’ . Likewise, (4) entails only the strong possibility ‘Murat büyük bir olasılıkla hastadır’.
This is a linguistic puzzle that leads us to question the semantic source of modality that permits or forbids the modal forms to express both kinds of modality meanings. From a larger theoretical point of view, one should also ask how modal meanings evolved in human languages. The purpose of this study is twofold: 1. To describe the semantic and pragmatic sources that permit and sometimes forbid the deontic shift in terms of agency and the event structure, and 2. To describe the evolution of deontic shift in Old Anatolian Turkish with a special focus on the lexicalized form of deontic modality ‘gerek’ and the morpheme–mAlI.
In the first section of my presentation I will try to give a brief definition of modality and focus on semantic and pragmatic conditions that lead indeterminacy in Turkish.
Section 2 will be devoted to the discussion of evolution of markers of obligation (gerek, lazım, -mAlI) and the deontic shift to epistemic meaning. I will base my discussion on my observations from Orhon scripts from 8th century , Divan-I Lugat-İt Türk by Kasgarli Mahmut from 12th century, and several narrative texts written in 13th, 14th and 15th centuries.
References
Bybee, J., R. Perkins, W. Paglica (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in languages of the world. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In: Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research. (A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, eds), pp. 639-650. De Gruyter, Berlin.
Palmer, F. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Papafragou, A. (2000). Modality: Issues in the semantics-pragmatics interface. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Traugott,E. (1991). Subjectification in grammaticalization. In: Subjectivity and subjectivization: Linguistic perspectives (D. stein and S. Wright, eds). Pp. 31-54. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Konuşma afişini buradan indirebilirsiniz.
Konuşma Özeti:
9 Kasım 2007, 16:40
A.Ü.DTCF Muzaffer Göker Salonu (Ana Bina 2. kat - 242 no'lu oda)
Deontic Modality and Indeterminacy in Turkish
Zeynep Erk Emeksiz (Anadolu Üniversitesi)
The cross linguistic findings on the forms of modality reveal that epistemic and deontic modalities are very often encoded by the same forms (Bybee, 1994; Palmer, 1986) as in the case of Turkish illustrated in (1) and (2).
1. Emrah gitmiş ol-malı. EPISTEMIC
(Emrah must have gone)
2. Bu işi bitir-meli-sin. DEONTİC
(You must finish this work)
Depending on the context, the modality marker –mAlI in (1) marks a strong ‘judgement’ of the speaker for the subject while it imposes an act in (2). However, it is not possible to claim that –mAlI has the same indeterminacy in (3) and (4):
3. Paket akşama kadar eline geç-meli.
4. Emrah hasta ol-malı.
(3) entails ‘paket eline geçmek zorunda’ but not ‘paket büyük bir olasılıkla eline geçer’ . Likewise, (4) entails only the strong possibility ‘Murat büyük bir olasılıkla hastadır’.
This is a linguistic puzzle that leads us to question the semantic source of modality that permits or forbids the modal forms to express both kinds of modality meanings. From a larger theoretical point of view, one should also ask how modal meanings evolved in human languages. The purpose of this study is twofold: 1. To describe the semantic and pragmatic sources that permit and sometimes forbid the deontic shift in terms of agency and the event structure, and 2. To describe the evolution of deontic shift in Old Anatolian Turkish with a special focus on the lexicalized form of deontic modality ‘gerek’ and the morpheme–mAlI.
In the first section of my presentation I will try to give a brief definition of modality and focus on semantic and pragmatic conditions that lead indeterminacy in Turkish.
Section 2 will be devoted to the discussion of evolution of markers of obligation (gerek, lazım, -mAlI) and the deontic shift to epistemic meaning. I will base my discussion on my observations from Orhon scripts from 8th century , Divan-I Lugat-İt Türk by Kasgarli Mahmut from 12th century, and several narrative texts written in 13th, 14th and 15th centuries.
References
Bybee, J., R. Perkins, W. Paglica (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in languages of the world. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In: Semantics: An international handbook of contemporary research. (A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich, eds), pp. 639-650. De Gruyter, Berlin.
Palmer, F. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Papafragou, A. (2000). Modality: Issues in the semantics-pragmatics interface. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Traugott,E. (1991). Subjectification in grammaticalization. In: Subjectivity and subjectivization: Linguistic perspectives (D. stein and S. Wright, eds). Pp. 31-54. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder