Lexical Causatives in Turkish

Knecht, Laura

doi:10.1075/tsl.8.06kne

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is a cross-linguistic distinction between so-called direct and so-called indirect causatives (see Comrie 1976;Harley 1996Harley , 1997Harley , 2008Knecht 1986;Lyutikova et al 2006;Miyagawa 1998, and many others). Direct causatives are formed from unaccusative verbs, while indirect ones are formed from unergative and transitive verbs.…”

Section: Modalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

On Actuality Entailments, Causation, and Telicity in Balkar

Privoznov

2023

Languages

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a study of actuality entailments in Balkar (a dialect of Karachay-Balkar, Turkic). The study focuses on the deontic and causal meanings of four morphemes: two suffixes (the causative suffix and the suffix -al (‘can/may’)) and two verbs (bujur (‘order’) and qoj (‘allow’)). In the first half of the paper, I provide empirical support for three generalizations: (a) only causal modals can have actuality entailments (all universal and some existential causal modals); (b) actuality entailments arise whenever a causal modal has a telic interpretation, more precisely, when it is not embedded under an imperfective or a delimitative operator (c) existential but not universal causal modals trigger an anti-actuality entailment under negation. In the second half of the paper, I propose a theory of root modality within the framework of situation semantics. In this framework, root modals describe a situation (the anchor situation) and quantify over situations that stand in a particular semantic relation to it. The proposed Causal Modality Theory (CMT) consists of two assumptions: (a) Causal modals quantify over causal chains initiated by the counterparts of the anchor situation. (b) Some existential causal modals have a conditional presupposition: if any counterpart of the anchor situation caused another situation, then the anchor situation itself caused the same situation. The first assumption explains why all universal causal modals have actuality entailments and why existential causal modals trigger an anti-actuality entailment under negation. The second assumption predicts that some existential causal modals (the ones with the conditional presupposition) also trigger an actuality entailment. CMT treats causal modals as bi-eventive predicates, like (non-culminating) accomplishments. They describe two situations: the anchor situation and a situation caused by it. As a result, causal modals are predicted to behave like (non-culminating) accomplishments, namely, they are predicted to trigger actuality entailments if and only if they are not embedded under an imperfective or a delimitative operator.

show abstract

Section: Modalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

On Actuality Entailments, Causation, and Telicity in Balkar

Privoznov

2023

Languages

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…( Even if in most sentences one could omit internal and external arguments of a Turkish sentence when the context is clear, there are certain constructions that make it harder to omit certain parts of the sentence. For example, according to Knecht (1986), there are some specific rules about omitting the direct object in causative sentences. The direct object of intransitive causative sentences cannot be dropped (46), while the direct object of transitive causative sentence can be dropped (47).…”

Section: Optionality Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

Arguments, adjuncts and instruments in English and Turkish

Russo¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The argument-adjunct distinction is highly discussed in the literature. There is an ongoing debate about the categorization of instruments. Some linguists classify them as arguments, some classify them as adjuncts, and some argue that they are arguments for some verbs and adjuncts for others. This thesis revisits the argument-adjunct distinction and investigates the categorization of instruments in English and Turkish using both traditional argumenthood tests and reaction time studies. Phrases with instrumental case (Turkish -(y)le) or preposition marking (English with) can be clear arguments or adjuncts, but instruments seem to fall in between in both languages. Some argumenthood tests classify instruments as arguments and some as adjuncts. The current thesis thus adds support to previous studies that have argued that English instrument phrases have unclear status as arguments or adjuncts. Furthermore, the studies presented here found no statistical difference in reaction time categories between arguments, adjuncts and instruments.This might be because the specific method used was not sensitive enough.

show abstract

Wordhood and lexicality: Noun incorporation in Hindi

Mohanan

1995

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lexical Causatives in Turkish

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

On Actuality Entailments, Causation, and Telicity in Balkar

On Actuality Entailments, Causation, and Telicity in Balkar

Arguments, adjuncts and instruments in English and Turkish

Wordhood and lexicality: Noun incorporation in Hindi

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About