Quantifiers in Turkish

Chapter
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 97)

Abstract

This section contains facts about Turkish syntax, morphology and phonology that are relevant to understanding the examples given throughout this chapter.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Different people helped me out with this paper, in many different ways. Thanks to: Denis Paperno and Ed Keenan for their trust; Dominique Sportiche for making my visit to UCLA possible; Vincent Homer and Jaklin Kornfilt for their time and plenty of feedback; Seth Cable and Barbara Partee for agreeing to discuss numerals; Dilara Erişen, Tunç Kalaycıoǧlu and Melisa Önder for their patience with some of the data; Brianna Kaufman for discussing the meanings of çok and az; Paloma Jeretič for patience; my reviewer for sharing and contradicting judgments, patiently pointing out obvious mistakes, and suggesting many lines of analyses and two other linguists, I must also leave unnamed. All errors are mine.

References

  1. Arslan-Kechriotis, C. (2006). Case as an uninterpretable feature. Ph. D. thesis, Boǧaziçi University.Google Scholar
  2. Aydın, Ö. (2009). Agreement with partitive quantifiers in Turkish. In S. Ay, O. Aydın, İ. Ergenç, S. Gökmen, S. İşsever, & D. Peçenek (Eds.), Essays on Turkish linguistics: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (ICTL 14) (pp. 93–102). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. Aygen, G. (1999). Specificity and subject-object positions in Turkish. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  4. Aygen, G. (2007). Q-particle. Journal of Linguistics and Literature 4(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
  5. Aygen, G. (2009). How many manifestations of ‘copula’ can a language employ? Journal of Linguistics and Literature 6(2), 15–30.Google Scholar
  6. Besler, D. (1999). The question particle and movement in Turkish. Master’s thesis, Boǧaziçi University.Google Scholar
  7. Bošković, v., & Şener, S. (2014). Turkish NP. Unpublished manuscript, University of Connecticut, Storrs and Yeditepe University.Google Scholar
  8. Csirmaz, A., & Szabolcsi, A. (2012). Quantification in Hungarian. In D. Paperno & E. Keenan (Eds.), Handbook of quantifiers in natural language (pp. 399–467). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Enç, M. (1986). Topic switching and pronominal subjects in Turkish. In D. Slobin & K. Zimmer (Eds.), Typological studies in language 8: Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 195–208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Enç, M. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry, 22(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
  11. Enç, M. (2004). Functional categories in Turkish. In A. Csirmaz, Y. Lee, & M. A. Walter (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Formal Altaic Linguistics (WAFL 1) (MIT working papers in linguistics, pp. 208–226). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  12. Erguvanlı Taylan, E. (1984). The function of word order in Turkish grammar. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  13. Erguvanlı Taylan, E. (1986). Pronominal versus zero representation of anaphora in Turkish. In D. Slobin & K. Zimmer (Eds.), Typological studies in language 8: Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 209–233). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erguvanlı Taylan, E., & Öztürk Başaran, B. (2014). Possessive constructions in Turkish: PPs in disguise. In Generative Linguistics in the Old World (GLOW) 37, Semantics Workshop Presentation, Brussels, April 5, 2014.Google Scholar
  15. Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2004). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Göksel, A., & Özsoy, S. (2000). Is there a focus position in Turkish? In A. Göksel & C. Kerslake (Eds.), Studies on Turkish and Turkic languages, turcologica 4 (pp. 219–228). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. Görgülü, E. (2006). Variable wh- words in Turkish. Master’s thesis, Boǧaziçi University.Google Scholar
  18. Gračanin-Yuksek, M. (2014). Alternative questions in Turkish. In Workshop in Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL) 10 Presentation, Cambridge, May 2–4, 2014. MIT.Google Scholar
  19. Gračanin-Yüksek, M., & İşsever, S. (2011). Movement of bare objects in Turkish. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 22(1), 33–49.Google Scholar
  20. Iatridou, S. (2013). Looking for free relatives in Turkish. In Workshop in Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL) 8 Presentation, University of Stuttgar, Stuttgart, May 18–20, 2012.Google Scholar
  21. Iatridou, S. (2015). Conditionals in Turkish – and their absence. Unpublished manuscript, MIT.Google Scholar
  22. İnce, A. (2008). On default agreement in Turkish. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  23. İşsever, S. (2009). A syntactic account of wh-in-situ in Turkish. In S. Ay, O. Aydın, İ. Ergenç, S. Gökmen, S. İşsever, & D. Peçenek (Eds.), Essays on Turkish Linguistics: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (ICTL 14) (pp. 103–112). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
  24. Kamali, B. (2011). Topics at the PF interface of Turkish. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  25. Kayne, R. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax (Vol. 25). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kelepir, M. (2000). What Turkish NPIs teach us. In S. Özsoy (Ed.), Studies in Turkish Linguistics: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference in Turkish Linguistics (ICTL 10) (pp. 111–120). Istanbul: Boğaziçi University.Google Scholar
  27. Kelepir, M. (2001). Topics in Turkish syntax: Clausal structure and scope. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  28. Kharytonava, O. (2011). Noms composés en turc et morphème -(s)I. Ph.D. thesis, University of Western Ontario.Google Scholar
  29. Kornfilt, J. (1984). Case marking, agreement, and empty categories in Turkish. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  30. Kornfilt, J. (1996a). On copular clitic forms in Turkish. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 6, 96–114.Google Scholar
  31. Kornfilt, J. (1996b). Naked partitive phrases in Turkish. In J. Hoeksma (Ed.), Partitives: Studies on the syntax and semantics of partitive and related constructions (pp. 107–142). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  32. Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Kornfilt, J. (2007). Review: Case, referentiality and phrase structure by Balkız Öztürk. Journal of Linguistics, 43(3), 736–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kornfilt, J., & von Heusinger, K. (2009). Specificity and partitivity in some Altaic languages. In R. Shibagaki & R. Vermeulen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Formal Altaic Linguistics (WAFL 5), Cambridge (pp. 19–40).Google Scholar
  35. Kunduracı, A. (2013). Turkish noun-noun compounds: A process-based paradigmatic account. Ph.D. thesis, University of Calgary.Google Scholar
  36. Kural, M. (1992). Properties of scrambling in Turkish. Unpublished manuscript, UCLA.Google Scholar
  37. Kural, M. (1997a). Postverbal constituents in Turkish and the linear correspondence axiom. Linguistic Inquiry, 28(3), 498–519.Google Scholar
  38. Kural, M. (1997b). Ölçüm öbekleri (Measure phrases). Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 52–57.Google Scholar
  39. Muysken, P. (1989). Predication chains: Case and argument status in Quechua and Turkish. Linguistic Inquiry, 20(4), 627–645.Google Scholar
  40. Muysken, P. (2013). A note on inflected quantifiers in Quechua. In Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca ‘Julio de Urquijo’ (pp. 265–272).Google Scholar
  41. Özsoy, S. (2009). Turkish as a (non)-wh-movement language. In É. Á. Csató, G. Ims, J. Parslow, F. Thiesen, & E. Türker (Eds.), Turcological letters to Bernt Brendemoen (pp. 221–232). Oslo: Novus forlag.Google Scholar
  42. Öztürk, B. (2002). Turkish as a non-pro-drop language. In E. Erguvanlı Taylan (Ed.), Linguistics today 44: The verb in Turkish (pp. 239–259). Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Öztürk, B. (2005). Case, referentiality and phrase structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Özyıldız, D. (2015). Move to mI, but only if you can. In Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL) 11 Presentation, University of York, June 4–6, 2015.Google Scholar
  45. Partee, B. (2004). Many quantifiers. In Compositionality in formal semantics: Selected papers by Barbara Partee (pp. 241–258). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Saǧ, Y. (2013). Copula in Turkish. In U. Özge (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Formal Altaic Linguistics (WAFL 8) (pp. 293–299). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  47. Şener, S., & İşsever, S. (2003). The interaction of negation with focus: nene… phrases in turkish. Lingua, 113(11), 1089–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Şener, S., & Takahashi, D. (2010). Ellipsis of arguments in Japanese and Turkish. Nanzan Linguistics, 6, 79–99.Google Scholar
  49. White, L., Belikova, A., Hagstrom, P., Kupisch, T., Özçelik, O. (2011). There aren’t many difficulties with definiteness: Negative existentials in the L2 English of Turkish and Russian speakers. In Selected Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 4) (pp. 266–276).Google Scholar
  50. Yakut Kubaş, A. B. (2015). Contrastive ‘deǧil’ constructions in Turkish: A large conjunct and PF-deletion analysis. Master’s thesis, Boǧaziçi University.Google Scholar
  51. Yücel, Ö. (2012). What moves where under Q movement. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (ICTL 15), Istanbul (pp. 603–616).Google Scholar
  52. Yükseker, H. (2000). Bir ‘one’. In S. Özsoy (Ed.), Studies in Turkish Linguistics: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Turkish Lnguistics (ICTL 10),Google Scholar
  53. Zimmer, K. (1998). The case of the errant question marker. In The Mainz Meeting: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (ICTL 7) (pp. 478–481). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MassachusettsMAUSA

Personalised recommendations