|
An Example of Metatype: Representation of Antipasiv Diathesis (Passive Meaning) in Salar Turkish
MEHMET, Nora Gülsün
JMTS 2022, 19(2):179-208; DOI: 10.1501/MTAD.19.2022.2.9
Published online: 21 November 2022
Article (PDF 566 KB)
ÖZET
Metatip (metatypy), iki dilliliğinin bir sonucu olarak bir dilin morfosentaktik tipinin, gramatik organizasyonunun ve anlamsal kalıplarının temsilinde meydana gelen radikal değişikliklerdir. Bu değişiklik, dilbilgisel calque (taklit; yakın kopya), yani modifiye etme kaynağı olan dilden yapısal anlamların kopyalanması ve bunları ifade etmek için miras alınan materyallerin (kendi materyallerinin) kullanılmasıyla, yeni yapıların yenilenmesi tarafından yönlendirilir. Hem Salar Türkçesinde hem Qinghai-Gansu dil bandının Bodik, Mongolik, Sinitik linguagenetik tabana sahip diğer üyelerinde de metatip yapılanma mevcuttur. Bu tip yapılandırmalardan biri de Salar Türkçesinde pasif anlamın temsilinde antipasif yapıya geçiştir. Antipasif çoklukla ergativ-absolitiv dillerde görülen bir sistemdir. Antipasif; pasif görünümün aynadaki yansıması gibidir. Burada, pasif sistemin aksine cümlenin öznesine değil, cümlenin nesnesine operasyon yapılır; nesnenin değeri (valenz değeri) düşürülür ve bu yolla pasif anlam oluşturulur. Bir konteks bağlamında Salar cümleleri (hikâyelerde, masallarda, efsanelerde ve özellikle atasözlerinde) incelendiğinde görülür ki Türk dilinin bir lehçesi olan Salar Türkçesinde Türk dilinin genetiği ile uyumlu olan pasifin, morfolojik olarak temsili yoktur. Bu durum, çatı kategorisinin pasif kısmının temsilinde radikal bir değişimdir; bize göre bir metatip örneğidir. Gramatikal metatip tanımıyla uyumlu olarak Salar Türkçesindeki antipasif çatının fonolojik alt yapısı ve gramatikal örüntüsü tamamen Türkçe materyallerle oluşturulmaktadır. Bu nedenle bu metatype yapının araştırmacılar tarafından fark edilmesi oldukça güçtür. Bu kategorideki metatype oluşumun bir benzeri Salar gibi Amdo dil bandının bir üyesi olan Sarı Uygur Türkçesinde de (Batı Yuğur) mevcuttur.
ANAHTAR KELİMELER
metatip, antipasif çatı, Amdo Tibet, Salar Türkçesi
ABSTRACT
Metatypy is the radical changes that occur in the representation of the morphosyntactic type, grammatical organization, and semantic patterns of a language as a result of its bilingualism. This change is driven by the renewal of new structures, through the copying of structural meanings from language that is the source of the grammatical calque (imitation; proximate), and the use of inherited materials (their own) to express them. Metatypy structuring is also present in both Salar dialect and other members of Qinghai-Gansu language band with Bodic, Mongolic, Synitic linguagenetic base. One of such configurations is the transition to the anti-passive structure in the representation of passive meaning. Antipassive is a system that is mostly seen in ergativ-absolitive languages. Antipassive; It is like the reflection of the passive view in the mirror. Here, unlike the passive system, the operation is performed not on the subject of the sentence, but on the object of the sentence; The value of the object (valenz value) is lowered and in this way passive meaning is created. In the context of a context, Salar sentences (stories, fairy tales, legends and especially proverbs) are examined, it is seen that the passive, which is compatible with the genetics of the Turkish language, has no morphological representation in Salar Turkish, which is a dialect of Turkish language. This is a radical change in the representation of the passive part of the roof category, in our opinion an example of metatyp. In accordance with the definition of grammatical matatype, the phonological substructure and grammatical pattern of the anti-passive framework in the Salars' language are completely formed by Turkish materials. For this reason, this metatype structure is very difficult to be noticed by researchers. A similar metatype formation in this category is also available in Yellow Uygur Turkish (Western Uyghur), which is a member of the Amdo language band like Salar Turkish.
KEY WORDS
metatype, anti-passive voice, Amdo Tibet, Salar Turkish, linguistic diathesis
KAYNAKLAR / BIBLIOGRAPHY
AIKENVALD, A. (2002) Language Contact in Amozonia, New York.
CİNFEN, A. C. (2008) Salar İbret Sözler (=SİS) / Sālā yànyǔ/撒拉谚语.
CHUNG, S. (1998) The Design of Agreement. University of Chicago Press.
DAN XU (2015) The Role of Geography in the Northwest China Linguistic Area. Space and Quantification in Languages of China, pp. 57-70.
DIXON, R.M.W. (1994) Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DİXON, R.M.W. & Alexandra Y. AİKHENVALD (eds) (1990) The Amazonian Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
EBIHARA, SH. (2010) Amdo Tibetan. Grammatical Sketches from the Field. Edited by Yasuhiro YAMOKOSHI, Research Institute for Language and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA).
Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (ELL). Keith BROWN (Editor) 1-14 Vol, The Australian National Universty, Canberra.
FRIED, R. W. (2010) A Grammar of Bao’an Tu. A Mongolic Language of Northwest China (for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy) University of Buffalo, State Universty of New York.
GIBSON, J. (1992) Clause union in Chamorro and in Universal Grammar. New York: Garland
HEINE B & KUTEVA T. (2001) Convergence and Diversence in the Devolopment of African Langueges Problems. Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance Case Studies in Language Change, ed. by R. M. W. DIXON & A. Y. AIKHENVALD. Oxford: Oxford University Press,393-411.
HEINE B & KUTEVA T. (2005) Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge University Press.
HUANG, J. C.-T, and NA LIU. (2014) A New Passive Form in Mandarin. Its Syntax and Implications. International Journal of Chinese Linguistics 1, No: 1, 1–34.
HUGJILTU, WU (2003) Bonan. The Mongolic Languages, Edited by Juha A. JANHUNEN, Routledge.
JANHUNEN, J. (2012) Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations. Edited by Pirkko SUIHKONEN, Bernard COMRIE, Valery SOLOVYEV, Studies In Language Compannion Series 126.
JANHUNEN, J. (2007) Typological İnteraction in the Qinghai Linguistic Complex. Sudia Orientalia 101, 85-102.
KEENAN, E. L. y M. DRYER (2007). Passive in the world’s languages. En T. SHOPEN (ed.), Clause structure. Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 1, 325-361. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
LAPOLLA, R. (2002) LAPOLLA, Randy J. (2001) The Role of Migration and Language Contact in the Development of the Sino-Tibetan Language Family. Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Case Studies in Language Change, ed. by R. M. W. DIXON & A. Y. AIKHENVALD, 225-254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
LEUNG, C. H. JERRY (2012) Multilingual Mixing Among Chinese, Tibetan and Mongolian the Qinghai Area of China. University of Hongkong.
LİANYUN, L. (1985) Sala yu jiǎn zhì. Min zu chu ban she : Xin hua shu dian fa xing, Beijing
Lİ, CHARLES N. & S. A. THOMPSON (1981) Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
MA, XUE LIANG (2003) An Introduction to Sino-Tibetan Languages. Beijing.
MEERKREEBS, J. (2014/2015) Spotlight on the Bonans of the Tibetan Plateu. Journal of Central and Inner Asian, Volume 2, Issue 1, 17-18.
MEHMET, Nora Gülsün (2014) Salar Türkçesinin Çekim Morfolojisi. TDK: 1115, Ankara.
NICHOLS, J.; Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time ISBN 0-226-58057-1
NUGTEREN, H (2013) Postposed indefinite articles in Mongolic and Turkic Languages of the Qinghai-Gansu Sprachbund. Ed. Martine ROBBEETS ve Hubert CUYCKENS, Shared Grammaticalization: With special focus on the Transeurasian languages, Studies in Language Companion Series 132, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 227-250.
PELTOMAA, M. (2006) Pragmatic nature of Mandarin passive-like constructions. Edited by Werner ABRAHAM and Larisa LEISIÖ, Passivization and Typology: Form and function, Typological Studies in Language 68, Amsterdam: Jon Benjamin Pub., 83-114.
PAYNE, T. E. (1997a) Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
PO-CHING, Y.& RIMMINGTON, D. (2015) Chinese: A Comprehensive Grammar. Roudledge.
POLİNSKY, M. (1994) Relativization in Chukchee. Howard ARONSON, (ed.), Linguistic Studies in the Non-Slavic Languages of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Baltic Republics, Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 241-262.
POLINSKY, M., (2013) Antipassive constructions. M. DRYER & M. HASPELMATH (ed.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/108 Accessed on 2018-04-14.)
POLINSKY, M. (2017) Antipassive. Oxford Handbook of Ergativty, ed. Jessica COON, Diane MASSAM, and Lisa deMena TRAVIS, Oxford University Press.
ROERICH, G. (1958) Le Parler de l’Amdo Etude d’un Dialecte Archaique du Tibet. Orientale Roma, XVIII, Roma.
ROOS, M. E. (2000) The Western Yugur ( Yellow Uygur) Language. Grammar, Texts, Vocabulary. de graad van Doctor, Leiden: Rijks Üniversitesi.
ROSS, M. D., (1996) The comparative method reviewed: regularity and irregularity in language change. Contact-induced change and the comparative method: 1 cases from Papua New Guinea, New York: Oxford University Press, 180-217.
ROSS, M. D. (1999) Exploring metatypy: how does contact-induced typological hange come about? Aproximate text of keynote talk given at the Australian Linguistie Societty’s Annual Meeting, Perth.
ROSS, M. D. (2006) Metatypy. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (=ELL), Keith BROWN (Eds) 1-14 Vol, Canberra: The Australian National University.
ROSS, M. D. (2002) Takia. The Oceanic Languages, Richmond: Curzon Press.
ROSS, M. D. (2007) Calquing and Metatypy. Journal of Language Contact - Thema 1, 116-143.
SILVERSTEIN, M. (1972) Chinook Jargon: Language Contact and the Problem of Multi-level Generative Systems, II. Language,48, 596-625
SIMON, C. (2016) Morphosyntaxe Et Sémantique Grammaticale Du Salar Et Du Tibétain De l’Amdo: Analyse D’un Contact De Languesi These de doctorant en sciences du langage. Université Sorbonne Nouvelle - Paris 3.
SIMON, C. (2015) Linguistic Evidence of Salar – Tibetan Contacts in Amdo. Muslims in Amdo Tibetan Society: Multidisciplinary approaches, 87-109.
THURGOOD G. & Randy J. LAPOLLA (2006) Sino-Tibetan Languages. Routledge.
SLATER, K. (2003) A Grammar of Mangghuer: A Mongolic language of China’s Qinghai-Gansu Sprachbund. New York.
SUN, J. T.S. (1993) Evidentials in Amdo Tibetan. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 63(4), 143–188.
STEPHEN, S. K. (2003) Santa. Ed.: Juha JANHUNEN, The Mongolic Languages, Roudledge.
TOURNADRE N. (1996) L’ergativitren tibetain approche morphosyntaxique de la langue parlée. Leuven: Peeters.
TENİŞEV E. R. (1963) Salarskiy Yazık. Moskva: Yazıki zarubetsnogo Vostoka i Afriki.
TENİŞEV E. R. (1964) Salarskie Teksti. Moskova.
TENİŞEV E. R. (1976) Stroy Salarskogo Yazıka. Moskva: Akademiya Nauk SSSR İnstitut Yazıkoznaniya, Moskva. (Doktora Çalışması)
WEI M. & JIANZHONG M. & STUART K. (2001) The Folklore of China’s Islamic Salar Nationality, Chinese Studies Volume 15, the Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston, New York
ZHONG, Y. X. (2019) Rescuing a Language from Extinction: Documentation and Practical Steps fort he Revitalisation of (Western) Yugur. A thesis submitted fort he degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Australian Nation
ZONGZHEN, C. & XUAN CHUN, L. (1985) Xībù yùgù yǔ jiǎn zhì 西部 裕固语 简 志 (Batı Yugur Dilinin Kısa Tarihi) Pekin.
|
