THE INFLUENCE OF LOCALITY OR INTIMACY? A CASE STUDY ON THE ISSUE OF REFLEXIVIZATION IN TURKISH
Keywords:
reflexivization in Turkish, kendi, kendisi, anaphora in Turkish, psychological distance and anaphora, binding theoryAbstract
Being distinct from other languages, Turkish has two different reflexive markers ‘’kendi’’ and ‘’kendisi’. Although both markers refer to third person singular, they cannot be used interchangeably. Especially ‘kendisi’ attracted so much attention because of its dual nature as it can be used both locally and non-locally. Nevertheless, there has not been much emphasis on ‘kendi’ since it has been assumed that ‘kendi’ can only be locally bound. Furthermore, although the issue of psychological distance (intimacy) between the speaker and the referent has been claimed to have an effect on reflexive selections, there has not been an experimental study designed before to prove this assumption. By taking all of these into consideration, this research aims to test two main issues: whether the anaphor ‘kendi’ is perceived as a strict local anaphor by native Turkish speakers and how the psychological distance (intimacy) between speaker and referent influences the way Turkish native speakers use anaphors. Within the frame of these research targets, a two-phased experimental design has been developed and applied to 65 participants in total. The age of participants differed between 17-27 years old. The first experiment was a Translation Task, whereas the second experiment was a Forced-Choice Task. After analysis of the first part, it has been concluded that although strict local anaphors are used in English sentences, the participants did not stick to the use of ‘kendi’ which is supposedly a strict local anaphor. According to the data of the second task, the results did not comply with the literature. Whereas it was expected to see ‘kendi’ in informal situations and ‘kendisi’ in formal situations, we concluded that there was no significant difference between the preferences made between ‘kendi’ and ‘kendisi’ depending on the T-test analysis.
References
Aydın, Ö. (1998), İkinci dil olarak Türkçe ediniminde dönüşlü adıllara ilişkin yorumlar. XII.Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri. Mersin Üniversitesi pp.175-186
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Cole, Peter, Hermon, Gabriella. (1998). Long-distance reflexives in Singapore Malay: an apparent typological anomaly. Linguistic Typology. 2(1).
Demirci, M. I. (2001). Acquisition of binding of English reflexives by Turkish L2 learners: A neo-gricean pragmatic account. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 753-775
Dinçtopal-Deniz, N. (2009). Anaphora in Turkish. Linguistics in the Big Apple: CUNY/NYU
Working Papers in Linguistics (Ms: retrieved from http://web.boun.edu.tr/nazik.dinctopal 01/04/2016).
Enç, M. (1989). Pronouns, licensing, and binding. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 7, 51-92.
Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: a comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge
Gürel, A. (2002). Linguistic characteristics of second language acquisition and first language
attritition: Turkish overt versus null pronouns (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). McGill University, Canada.
Gürel, A. (2004). Selectivity in L2-induced L1 attrition: a psycholinguistic account. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17, 53-78.
Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London, New York: Routledge.
Kornfilt, J. (2001). Local and long-distance reflexives in Turkish. In C. Peter et al. (Eds.), Long-distance reflexives: syntax and semantics (197-225). New York: Academic Press.
Özbek, A. & Kahraman, B.(2016). Interpretation of Turkish reflexive pronouns kendi and kendisi. Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, MEUDED, 13(1), 71-94.
Padučeva, E.V. (1985). Vyskazyvanie i ego sootnesennost' s dejstvitel'nost'ju (The Utterance and its Correspondence with Reality). Moscow: Nauka.
Reinhart, T. & Reuland, E. (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 657-720.
Rudnev, P. (2008). Some syntax and semantics of long distance reflexives in Turkish and
elsewhere. Retrieved from http://people.umass.edu/partee/RGGU_2008/TypologyReports/Rudnev_2008_Turkish_anaph_Final.pdf
Schladt, M. (2000). The typology and grammaticalization of reflexives. In Z. Frajzyngier (Ed.), Forms and functions (103-124). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sezer, E. (1980). On reflexivization in Turkish, Harvard Ukrainian Studies, (3)4, 748-759.
Testelets Ya.G. & S.Yu.Toldova. Refleksivnyje mestoimenija v dagestanskikh jazykakh I pologija refleksiva [Reflexive!pronouns in the Daghestanian languages and the typology of!reflexive]. In Voprosy Jazykoznania, 4, 35–57
Underhill, R. (1976). Turkish Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wexler, K. & Manzini, R. (1987). Parameters and learnability in binding theory. In T. Roeper & E. Williams (Eds.), Parameter setting (41-76). Dordrecht, Boston: Reidel Publishing. Company.
Yakut, B. A. (2015) The logophoric behaviour of strict local anaphor kendi ‘self’ in Turkish. In A. Joseph and E. Predolac (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th workshop on Altaic formal linguistics, (76). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.
