Voice in Turkish: Re-thinking u-syncretism

IF 0.8 1区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Pub Date : 2024-08-06 DOI:10.1007/s11049-024-09614-8
Greg Key
{"title":"Voice in Turkish: Re-thinking u-syncretism","authors":"Greg Key","doi":"10.1007/s11049-024-09614-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><i>U</i>-syncretism is the identical morphological marking of the passive and other verbal categories that have reduced syntactic valency, including the anticausative and verbal reflexive (Embick 2004). Nonactive morphology in Greek exhibits <i>u</i>-syncretism, while English and German have dedicated passive morphology. An influential body of literature holds that <i>u</i>-syncretism is the hallmark of a middle or nonactive Voice structure, which has a range of interpretations, while its absence is symptomatic of a canonical passive (Alexiadou and Doron 2012; Alexiadou et al. 2015; Spathas et al. 2015; Schäfer 2017; a.o.). The Turkish passive suffix also marks anticausatives and some verbal reflexives (Gündoğdu 2017). Nevertheless, the present paper argues that Turkish has a canonical passive that is morphosyntactically distinct from nonactive/middle Voice. <i>U</i>-syncretism is found only with verb stems that lack transitive marking. With stems that take an overt marker of transitivity—a causative suffix or an active light verb—the passive suffix is rigidly passive in interpretation, licensing a <i>by</i> phrase but not a <i>by-itself</i> or causer phrase in the case of alternating change-of-state verbs, and rejecting a reflexive reading even with a naturally reflexive verb. I conclude that the Turkish passive is derived with a transitive verb stem, while the anticausative and reflexive are derived with intransitive stems. <i>U</i>-syncretism arises only where transitive marking is null, and therefore, I argue, reflects a morphosyntactic ambiguity rather than different interpretations of the nonactive/middle Voice construction. This paper thus shows that a canonical passive can exhibit surface <i>u</i>-syncretism.</p>","PeriodicalId":18975,"journal":{"name":"Natural Language & Linguistic Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Natural Language & Linguistic Theory","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-024-09614-8","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

U-syncretism is the identical morphological marking of the passive and other verbal categories that have reduced syntactic valency, including the anticausative and verbal reflexive (Embick 2004). Nonactive morphology in Greek exhibits u-syncretism, while English and German have dedicated passive morphology. An influential body of literature holds that u-syncretism is the hallmark of a middle or nonactive Voice structure, which has a range of interpretations, while its absence is symptomatic of a canonical passive (Alexiadou and Doron 2012; Alexiadou et al. 2015; Spathas et al. 2015; Schäfer 2017; a.o.). The Turkish passive suffix also marks anticausatives and some verbal reflexives (Gündoğdu 2017). Nevertheless, the present paper argues that Turkish has a canonical passive that is morphosyntactically distinct from nonactive/middle Voice. U-syncretism is found only with verb stems that lack transitive marking. With stems that take an overt marker of transitivity—a causative suffix or an active light verb—the passive suffix is rigidly passive in interpretation, licensing a by phrase but not a by-itself or causer phrase in the case of alternating change-of-state verbs, and rejecting a reflexive reading even with a naturally reflexive verb. I conclude that the Turkish passive is derived with a transitive verb stem, while the anticausative and reflexive are derived with intransitive stems. U-syncretism arises only where transitive marking is null, and therefore, I argue, reflects a morphosyntactic ambiguity rather than different interpretations of the nonactive/middle Voice construction. This paper thus shows that a canonical passive can exhibit surface u-syncretism.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
土耳其语的声音重新思考 u-syncretism
同位语是指被动语态和其他具有减弱句法效价的动词类别,包括反身动词和动词反身,在形态上具有相同的标记(Embick,2004 年)。希腊语中的非主动语态表现出 u-同义性,而英语和德语则有专门的被动语态。大量有影响的文献认为,u-同位是中间或非主动语态结构的标志,有多种解释,而没有u-同位则是典型被动的症状(Alexiadou 和 Doron,2012 年;Alexiadou 等人,2015 年;Spathas 等人,2015 年;Schäfer,2017 年;a.o.)。土耳其语的被动后缀也标记反身动词和某些动词性反身动词(Gündoğdu,2017 年)。然而,本文认为,土耳其语有一个在形态句法上有别于非主动语态/中间语态的典型被动语态。只有在缺乏及物标记的动词词干中才会出现 U-同义词。在使用了明显的及物标记--因果后缀或轻型主动动词--的词干中,被动后缀在解释上是严格被动的,在交替变化状态动词的情况下,被动后缀允许使用由短语,但不允许使用由己短语或因果短语,即使是天然的反身动词,也拒绝反身性阅读。我的结论是,土耳其语的被动语态是由及物动词词干派生的,而反身动词和反身动词是由不及物动词词干派生的。只有在及物动词标记为空的情况下,才会出现 U-同义词,因此,我认为,U-同义词反映的是一种形态句法上的歧义,而不是对非主动/中声结构的不同解释。因此,本文证明了典型被动语态可以表现出表面的 u-syncretism 。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
7.70%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Natural Language & Linguistic Theory provides a forum for the discussion of theoretical research that pays close attention to natural language data, offering a channel of communication between researchers of a variety of points of view. The journal actively seeks to bridge the gap between descriptive work and work of a highly theoretical, less empirically oriented nature. In attempting to strike this balance, the journal presents work that makes complex language data accessible to those unfamiliar with the language area being studied and work that makes complex theoretical positions more accessible to those working outside the theoretical framework under review. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory features: generative studies on the syntax, semantics, phonology, morphology, and other aspects of natural language; surveys of recent theoretical developments that facilitate accessibility for a graduate student readership; reactions/replies to recent papers book reviews of important linguistics titles; special topic issues.         Springer fully understands that access to your work is important to you and to the sponsors of your research. We are listed as a green publisher in the SHERPA/RoMEO database, as we allow self-archiving, but most importantly we are fully transparent about your rights. Read more about author''s rights on: http://www.springer.com/gp/open-access/authors-rights
期刊最新文献
Complementizer agreement is clitic doubling Split coordination with adjectives in Italian Anticausatives in transitive guise Head movement from non-complements: Evidence from Aleut Voice in Turkish: Re-thinking u-syncretism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1