Incorporating agents

Öztürk, Balkız

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2007.10.018

Cited by 21 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, they immediately precede the verb, and they are unable to undergo case-driven movements such as passivization. However, they can be separated from the verb for pragmatic purposes (e.g., contrastive topic or focus) (Öztürk 2009;Sezer 1996; Gračanin-Yüksek andİşsever 2011, among others; see also Dayal 2003, 2011. 17 On the other hand, canonical arguments like definites, quantified expressions, etc.…”

Section: Pseudo-incorporationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bare singulars and singularity in Turkish

Sağ

2021

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the semantics of bare singulars in Turkish, which are unmarked for number in form, as in English, but can behave like both singular and plural terms, unlike in English. While they behave like singular terms as case-marked arguments, they are interpreted number neutrally in non-case-marked argument positions, the existential copular construction, and the predicate position. Previous accounts (Bliss, in Calgary Papers in Linguistics 25:1–65, 2004; Bale et al. in Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 20:1–15, 2010; Görgülü, in: Semantics of nouns and the specification of number in Turkish, Ph.d. thesis, Simon Fraser University, 2012) propose that Turkish bare singulars denote number neutral sets and that morphologically plural marked nouns denote sets of pluralities only. This approach leads to a symmetric correlation of morphological and semantic (un)markedness. However, in this paper, I defend a strict singular view for bare singulars and show that Turkish actually patterns with English where this correlation is exhibited asymmetrically. I claim that bare singulars in Turkish denote atomic properties and that bare plurals have a number neutral semantics as standardly assumed for English. I argue that the apparent number neutrality of bare singulars in the three cases arises via singular kind reference, which I show to extend to the phenomenon called pseudo-incorporation and a construction that I call kind specification. I argue that pseudo-incorporation occurs in non-case-marked argument positions following Öztürk (Case, referentiality, and phrase structure, Amsterdam, Benjamins, Publishing Company, 2005) and the existential copular construction, whereas kind specification is realized in the predicate position. The different behaviors of bare singulars in Turkish and English stem from the fact that singular kind reference is used more extensively in Turkish than in English. Furthermore, while there are well-known asymmetries between singular and plural kind reference cross-linguistically, Turkish manifests a more restricted distribution for bare plurals than English in the positions where pseudo-incorporation and kind specification are in evidence. I explain this as a blocking effect, specific to Turkish, by singular kind terms on plural kind terms.

show abstract

Section: Pseudo-incorporationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bare singulars and singularity in Turkish

Sağ

2021

Linguist and Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is partly in line with three-semantic-role accounts suggesting that light verbs act just like an ordinary predicate and the direct object in these constructions receive one role from the light verb (i.e., benefactive) and another from the nominal complement (i.e., theme/patient). It is not immediately clear how the relative consistency with which light verb constructions are analyzed as having three theta roles can be accounted for within a canonical mapping approach with two semantic roles (as in Hale andKeyser, 1993 andÖztürk, 2009). One potential prediction of such analyses would be that light verb constructions are consistently analyzed as containing two theta roles, a prediction that is not immediately supported by our findings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

Assigning meaning to light verbs in Turkish

Özge

Ünal

2022

Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Light verb constructions (e.g., give a kiss to somebody) syntactically reflect typical ditransitive structures (e.g., give a violin to somebody) yet it is not clear whether these two structures thematically similar as well. We tested Turkish-speaking adults on their construal of light verb constructions with respect to the number of thematic roles they perceive in the event structure in a rating study. The light verb give with a different noun phrase was used in all critical utterances (e.g., give a response or give an assignment). The noun phrases of these constructions denominalized either by -lA or -lAn+dIr morpheme (e.g., response-lA and assignment-lAn+dIr) were also used as control items. The study concluded that the light verbs with their noun phrase complements contribute to the semantic construal of the event structure and the thematic role assignment processes for the denominalized versions of these structures reflect this meaning construal.

show abstract

“…8-c caseless direct objects are less flexible to scramble and leave their preverbal positions. 6 Besides scrambling, caseless direct objects are also shown to be invisible to syntax in terms of binding and passivization (Aydemir, 2004;Öztürk, 2005, 2009. Furthermore, Aydemir (2004) shows that depending on whether the direct object has accusative case, the item that occurs before it can either be interpreted as an adjective or adverb.…”

Section: Case Markingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Syntactically Expressive Morphological Analyzer for Turkish

Öztürel

Kayadelen²,

Demirsahin

2019

Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Finite-State Methods and Natural Language Processing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a broad coverage model of Turkish morphology and an open-source morphological analyzer that implements it. The model captures intricacies of Turkish morphologysyntax interface, thus could be used as a baseline that guides language model development. It introduces a novel fine part-of-speech tagset, a fine-grained affix inventory and represents morphotactics without zero-derivations. The morphological analyzer is freely available. It consists of modular reusable components of human-annotated gold standard lexicons, implements Turkish morphotactics as finite-state transducers using OpenFst and morphophonemic processes as Thrax grammars. 1

show abstract

Incorporating agents

Cited by 21 publications

References 15 publications

Bare singulars and singularity in Turkish

Bare singulars and singularity in Turkish

Assigning meaning to light verbs in Turkish

A Syntactically Expressive Morphological Analyzer for Turkish

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About