DOCSLIB.ORG

Turkish Bibliography

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Turkish Bibliography Turkish Bibliography Reference Grammars Deny, J. 1921. Grammaire de la langue turque. Ernest Leroux, Paris. von Gabain, Annette. 1974. Alttürkische Grammatik. Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden. Golstein, B. 1997. Grammaire du turc. L’Harmattan, Paris. Halasi-Kun, T. 1916. Türkische Grammatik. Sammlung Göschen, Berlin. Kissling, Hans-Joachim. 1960. Osmanish-türkische Grammatik. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden. Kononov, A.N. 1956. Grammatika sovremennogo tureckogo literaturnogo jazyka. Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, Moscow. Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. Routledge, London. Lewis, Geoffrey L. 1967. Turkish grammar. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Németh, J. 1962. Turkish grammar. Mouton, The Hague. [bew. van Halasi-Kun 1916] Swift, Lloyd B. 1963. A reference grammar of Modern Turkish. Indiana University Publications, Bloomington. Underhill, Robert. 1976. Turkish grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge. Vaughan, Thomas. 1709. A grammar of the Turkish language. J. Humfreys, London. [facsimile edition: Menston, 1968] Monographs and Dissertations Adamovic, Milan. 1985. Konjugationsgeschichte der Türkischen Sprache. E.J. Brill, Leiden. Aygen, Gülşat. 2002. Finiteness, case, and clausal architecture. Dissertation, Harvard University. Dietrich, Ayşe Pamir. 1997. Towards a syntactic characterization of passives, ergatives and middles in Russian and Turkish. Dissertation, Cornell University. Erguvanlı, Eser Ermine. 1984. The function of word order in Turkish grammar. University of California Press, Berkeley. Erkü, Feride. 1983. Discourse pragmatics and word order in Turkish. Dissertation, University of Minnesota. Foster, Joseph F. 1970. On some phonological rules of Turkish. Dissertation, University of Illinois. Göksel, Aslı. 1993. Levels of representation and argument structure in Turkish. Dissertation, University of London. Johanson, Lars. 1971. Aspekt im Türkischen: Vorstudien zu einer Beschreibung des türkeitürkischen Aspektsystems. Almqvist och Wiksell, Stockholm. Kardeştuncer, Aino E. 1982. Theoretical implications of Turkish vowel harmony. Dissertation, University of Connecticut. Kelepir, Meltem. 2001. Topics in Turkish syntax: clausal structure and scope. Dissertation, MIT. Kennelly, Sarah D. 2004. Quantificational dependencies. Dissertation, Utrecht. Knecht, Laura. 1985. Subject and object in Turkish. Dissertation, MIT. Kopkallı, H. 1993. A phonetic and phonological analysis of devoicing in Turkish. Dissertation, University of Michigan. Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1984. Case marking, agreement, and empty categories in Turkish. Dissertation, Harvard. Kural, Murat. 1996. Verb incorporation and elementary predicates. Dissertation, UCLA. Lees, Robert. 1961. The Phonology of modern Standard Turkish. Indiana University Publications, Bloomington. Meskill, Robert H. 1970. A transformational analysis of Turkish syntax. Mouton, The Hague. Nakipoğlu, M. 1988. Split intransitivity and the syntax-semantics interface in Turkish. Dissertation, University of Minnesota. Nilsson, Birgit. 1983. The semantics of Casemarking: accusative and genitive in Turkish. Dissertation, University of Stockholm. Özkaragöz, İ. 1986. The Relational Structure of Turkish Syntax. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Özsoy, Ayşe S. 1983. Kendi-reflexivization in Turkish: a syntactic, semantic, and discourse analysis. Dissertation, University of Michigan. Rolffs, Songül. 1997. Zum Vergleich syntaktischer Strukturen im Deutschen und im Türkischen mittels der Dependenz-Verb-Grammatik: eine Untersuchung der Nebensatzstrukturen in beiden Sprachen: Ansatz zu einer funktionsorientierten Syntax im Türkischen. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main. Schroeder, C. 1999. Turkish nominal phrases in spoken discourse. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Sebüktekin, Hikmet I. 1971. Turkish-English contrastive analysis: Turkish morphology and corresponding English structures. Mouton, The Hague. Sezer, Engin. 1991. Issues in Turkish syntax. Dissertation, Harvard. Tura, Sabahat. 1973. A study on the articles in English and their counterparts in Turkish. Dissertation, University of Michigan. Turan, Ü.D. 1995. Null vs. overt subjects in Turkish discourse: a centering analysis. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Underhill, Robert. 1964. Turkish verbal constructions. Dissertation, Harvard. Van Schaaik, Gerjan. 1996. Studies in Turkish grammar. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden. Veld, Joop. 1993. Postverbal constituents in Dutch and Turkish. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Yavaş, Feryal. 1980. On the meaning of the tense and aspect markers in Turkish. Dissertation, University of Kansas. Yavaş, Mehmet. 1980. Borrowing and its implications for Turkish phonology. Dissertation, University of Kansas. Zidani-Eroğlu, L. 1997. Indefinite noun phrases in Turkish. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Edited Volumes1 Aksu-Koç, Ayhan, and Eser Erguvanlı-Taylan. 1986. Proceedings of the National Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Bo™aziçi University Publications, Istanbul. Boeschoten, Hendrik E. and Ludo Th. Verhoeven. 1987. Studies on modern Turkish: proceedings of the third conference on Turkish linguistics. Tilburg University Press, Tilburg. Boeschoten, Hendrik E. and Ludo Th. Verhoeven. 1991. Turkish Linguistics Today. E.J. Brill, Leiden. Erguvanlı Taylan, Eser. 2001. The verb in Turkish. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Göksel, Aslı and Celia Kerslake. 2000. Studies in Turkish and Turkic languages: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Harrasowitz, Wiesbaden. Hazai, G. 1990. Handbuch der türkischen Sprachwissenschaft. Harassowitz, Wiesbaden. İmer, K. and N.E. Uzun. 1997. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Turkish linguistics. A. Basımevi, Ankara. Johanson, Lars, with É.Á Csató, V. Locke, A. Menz and D. Winterling, eds. 1998. The Mainz Meeting: proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden. Koç, Sabrı. 1990. Studies on Turkish linguistics: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Middle East Technical University Press, Ankara. Konrot, Ahmet. 1996. Modern studies in Turkish linguistics: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Anadolu University, Eskişehir. Özsoy, Ayşe S., A. Akar, M. Nakipoğlu-Demiralp, Eser Erguvanlı-Taylan, A. Koç, eds. 2003. Studies in Turkish Linguistics; Proceedings of the Xth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Boğaziçi University Press, Istanbul. Rona, Bengisu. 1996. Current issues in Turkish linguistics. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Turkish linguistics. Hitit Yayınevi, Ankara. Slobin, Dan I. and Karl Zimmer. 1986. Studies in Turkish linguistics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. Articles Aissen, Judith, and Jorge Hankamer. 1980. Lexical extension and grammatical transformations. Berkeley Linguistic Society 6, 238-249. Aygen-Tosun, G. 1996. A syntactic and semantic analysis of conditionals in Turkish. BA- thesis, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul. Aygen-Tosun, G. 1998. The Split-INFL hypothesis in Turkish. MA-thesis, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul. Aygen-Tosun, G. 1999. Specificity and subject/object positions / Scope interactions in Turkish. In Proceedings of the Conference on Turkish linguistics at Manchester University, 8-10 April. 1 ICTL 1, ICTL 2, ICTL 3 (Tilburg 1986; Boeschoten & Voorhoeve 1987), ICTL 4 (Ankara 1988; Koç 1990), ICTL 5 (SOAS 1990; Rona 1996), ICTL 6 (1992; Konrot 1996), ICTL 7 (Mainz 1994; Johanson et al 1998), ICTL 8 (1996; ¤mer & Uzun 1997), ICTL 9 (Oxford 1998; Göksel & Kerslake 2000), ICTL 10 (Istanbul 2000; Özsoy et al 2003), ICTL 11 (Famagusta 2002) Aygen, Gülşat. 2000. V-to-T-to-C: extractable subjects and EPP. Proceedings of WECOL. Aygen, Gülşat. 2002. Epistemic modality/mood as finiteness and clausal dependency marked with subject case and agreement. Proceedings of CLS 38, 47-62. Aygen, Gülşat. 2003. Extractability and the nominative case feature on Tense. In Özsoy et al., eds. Aygen, Gülşat. 2003. Are there “non-restrictive” pre-relatives in Turkish? Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 8, 199-?. Babby, Leonard H. 1981. A compositional analysis of voice in Turkish: passive, derived intransitive, impersonal, and causative. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 1- 31. Bainbridge, Margaret. 1987. Loan conjunctions in Turkish versus native syntax. In Boeschoten and Verhoeven, eds. Barker, Christopher. 1989. Extrametricality, the cycle, and Turkish word stress. In Phonology at Santa Cruz, ed. J. Itô and J. Runner. Syntax Research Center, Santa Cruz. Barker, Chris, Jorge Hankamer, and John Moore. 1990. Wa and ga in Turkish. In Grammatical Relations: a cross-theoretical perspective, ed. K. Dziwirek and P. Farrell, CSLI, Stanford. Bassarak, Armin. 1996. On Turkish vowel harmony. In Rona, ed., 23-27. Bassarak, Armin. 1996. On the grammatical status of Turkish clitics. In Konrot, ed., 291-301. Bassarak, Armin. 1997. On the position of the question marker in Turkish (an integrated model of Turkish inflection revisited). In İmer and Uzun, eds., 183-190. Bassarak, Armin. 1997. New considerations about the Turkish -dir suffix. International Journal of Central Asian Studies 2, 114-126. Bassarak, Armin. 1998. Functional categories in Turkish: remarks on the interaction between morphology and syntax. In Johanson et al., eds., 45-56. Bassarak, Armin. 2000. On some fusional features in Turkish. In Göksel and Kerslake, eds., 35-40. Bennink, Clemens. 1992. Harmony and disharmony in Turkish. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 1992, ed. R. Bok-Bennema and R. van Hout, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 11 Lewis 1749.Indd
    GEOFFREY LEWIS Geoffrey Lewis Lewis 1920–2008 I. Life PROFESSOR GEOFFREY LEWIS LEWIS, a pioneer in Turkish Studies in Britain and an internationally admired scholar in the fi eld, was born in London on 19 June 1920. He received his schooling at University College School in Hampstead, following which, in 1938, he went up to St John’s College Oxford to read Classics. Having sat Honour Moderations in the spring of 1940, he joined the Royal Air Force in September of that year and served until 1945: he qualifi ed for his BA by War Decree and subsequently received his MA in 1945. At some point during his study for Honour Mods, his Latin tutor, sensing that he was getting stale, suggested that he take up Turkish as a hobby—it seems that the choice of Turkish came to him on the spur of the moment. Geoffrey took it seriously, however, and the opportunity to act on it came when he was posted to Egypt as a radar operator. He made contact with an elderly Turk in Alexandria, through whom, and through the painstaking comparison of classic English texts with their Turkish translations—these culled from the bookshops of London and sent to him by his wife, Raphaela, whom he had married in 1941—he taught him- self Turkish. Returning to Oxford in 1945, and by now wholly won over to Turkish, he consulted the Laudian Professor of Arabic, [Sir] Hamilton Gibb, FBA, who welcomed the prospect of expanding the curriculum in Oriental Studies to include Turkish but recommended that Geoffrey read for the BA in Arabic and Persian as essential background to the serious study of Turkish historically as well as in its modern form.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Introduction in This Paper, We Analyze Embedded Clauses in Uyghur, a Turkic Language Spoken in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China
    GENITIVE SUBJECT LICENSING IN∗ UYGHUR SUBORDINATE CLAUSES ALYA ASARINA &JEREMY HARTMAN Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1 Introduction In this paper, we analyze embedded clauses in Uyghur, a Turkic language spoken in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China. We argue that genitive case on the subjects of these clauses is licensed by agreement with a clause-external D head. We also argue that these clauses are full CPs. Putting these claims together, we show that Uyghur exhibits agreement and case-assignment over a CP boundary, a configuration that is inconsistent with Chomsky’s (1998) Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC). The Uyghur data thus support adopting the weaker version of the PIC proposed by Chomsky (2001). Consider the following examples of embedding in Uyghur.1 (1) Noun Complement: [ men-1N ket-ken-(liq) ] heqiqet-im muhim [ I-gen leave-RAN-(LIQ) ] fact-1sg.poss important ‘The fact that I left is important.’ (Uyghur) (2) Verb complement: Ötk¨ur [ Ajg¨ul-nuN ket-ken-(lik)-i-ni ] di-d-i Ötkür [ Aygül-gen leave-RAN-(LIQ)-3.poss-acc ] say-past-3 ‘Ötkür said that Aygül left.’ (Uyghur) When the embedded clause is the complement of an overt noun, as in (1), possessor agreement is on the embedding noun. We will argue that the optional morpheme -liq in the above examples is a complementizer, and that examples like (1) thus display agreement across a CP boundary. In addition, we will argue that the clause in (2) is also embedded by a head noun, albeit a ∗We would like to thank Vera Gribanova, Sabine Iatridou, Jaklin Kornfilt, Shigeru Miyagawa, David Pesetsky, Masha Polinsky, Norvin Richards, Kirill Shklovsky, Donca Steriade, Yasu Sudo, and the audiences at WAFL VII, CUNY Syntax Supper and MIT Syntax Square for valuable comments and discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Plan for Misurata City, Libya
    Intervention in July 9th: A New Plan for Misurata City, Libya Aymen Mohamed Elmagalfta December 2014 Submitted towards the Fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Architecture degree. School of Architecture University of Hawaiʻi Doctorate Project Committee Kazi Ashraf, Chairperson William Chapman Geoffrey Lewis Acknowledgment "My Lord Increase Me in Knowledge" (Qur'an 20:114) For his guidance, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Professor Kazi Ashraf, who conveyed a spirit of adventure in regard to research and excitement in regard to teaching. Also I would like to thank my committee members, Professor William Chapman and Geoffrey Lewis for their enthusiasm, critique, guidance, and unwavering support. I would like to thank my family who has given me the opportunity for an education from various institutions and a support throughout my life. I would like to thank my wife and children who have always stood by me with a smile and dealt with all of my absences from many family occasions and travel overseas so that I could continue my study. I would like to thank my best friend who has always helped me and believed that I could do it. I would like to thank dozens of people have helped and taught me immensely at University of Hawai،i I Abstract Libya’s urban form has changed radically since the second half of the 19th century. Prolonged exposure to non-traditional and non-regional cultural, sociopolitical, economic, and design influences has caused certain developed areas to be plagued with many of the same problems the western world is facing in cities built within a similar framework.
    [Show full text]
  • Science Versus Religion: the Influence of European Materialism on Turkish Thought, 1860-1960
    Science versus Religion: The Influence of European Materialism on Turkish Thought, 1860-1960 Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Serdar Poyraz, M.A. Graduate Program in History The Ohio State University 2010 Dissertation Committee: Carter V. Findley, Advisor Jane Hathaway Alan Beyerchen Copyright By Serdar Poyraz 2010 i Abstract My dissertation, entitled “Science versus Religion: The Influence of European Materialism on Turkish Thought, 1860-1960,” is a radical re-evaluation of the history of secularization in the Ottoman Empire and Turkey. I argue that European vulgar materialist ideas put forward by nineteenth-century intellectuals and scientists such as Ludwig Büchner (1824-1899), Karl Vogt (1817-1895) and Jacob Moleschott (1822-1893) affected how Ottoman and Turkish intellectuals thought about religion and society, ultimately paving the way for the radical reforms of Kemal Atatürk and the strict secularism of the early Turkish Republic in the 1930s. In my dissertation, I challenge traditional scholarly accounts of Turkish modernization, notably those of Bernard Lewis and Niyazi Berkes, which portray the process as a Manichean struggle between modernity and tradition resulting in a linear process of secularization. On the basis of extensive research in modern Turkish, Ottoman Turkish and Persian sources, I demonstrate that the ideas of such leading westernizing and secularizing thinkers as Münif Pasha (1830-1910), Beşir Fuad (1852-1887) and Baha Tevfik (1884-1914) who were inspired by European materialism provoked spirited religious, philosophical and literary responses from such conservative anti-materialist thinkers as Şehbenderzade ii Ahmed Hilmi (1865-1914), Said Nursi (1873-1960) and Ahmed Hamdi Tanpınar (1901- 1962).
    [Show full text]
  • Nominative As No Case at All: an Argument from Raising-To-Accusative in Sakha* JZŽ†• K™§•€†± B O“U§ P§U“†•U§ Syracuse University , January Óþõ¦
    Nominative as no case at all: an argument from raising-to-accusative in Sakha* JZ K§± b Ou§ P§uu§ Syracuse University , January óþÕ¦ Õ. Introduction In many contemporary approaches to the morphosyntax of case, one finds either explicit or implicit references to unmarked structural cases like nominative being assigned. For example: “For the Case/agreement systems, the uninterpretable features are φ-features of the probe and structural Case of the goal N. [...] Structural Case is not a feature of the probes (T, v), but it is assigned a value under agreement [...] e value assigned depends on the probe: nominative for T, accusative for v.” [Chomsky óþþÕ:ä, emphasis added] We refer to this as a positively-specified view of, e.g., nominative case; on this view, nominative only arises as the result of some “action” taken by the grammar (per Chomsky óþþþ, óþþÕ, for example, the action in question is φ-feature agreement). In this paper, we present a novel argument, based on raising-to-accusative constructions in Sakha (Turkic), against this positively-specified view of unmarked case (in particular, of nominative). Instead, we argue, the proper grammatical representation of unmarked cases is as the outright absence of any otherwise assigned case values on the noun phrase. ó. e central question Like other Turkic languages, Sakha has a construction in which the subject of an embedded clause raises to a position where it can receive accusative case (cf. Kornfilt ÕÉßß, Moore ÕÉÉ, on Turkish). A couple of representative examples are given in (Õ–ó): (Õ) min ehigi-ni [C t bügün kyaj-yax-xyt dien ] erem-mit-im (Sakha) I you-Zhh today win-¶±-ópl.«¶f that hope-£Z«±-Õsg.«¶f ‘I hoped you would win today.’ (ó) ehigi bihigi-ni [C t kyajtar-dy-byt dien ] xomoj-du-gut you we-Zhh lose-£Z«±-Õpl.«¶f that become.sad-£Z«±-ópl.«¶f ‘Y’all were disappointed that we lost.’ [Vinokurova óþþ¢:ìäÉ; annotations added following Baker & Vinokurova óþÕþ] *e authors’ names appear in alphabetical order.
    [Show full text]
  • In Eser Erguvanlı -Taylan (Ed.) the Verb in Turkish. Benjamins, Amsterdam, Pp.47-59
    In Eser Erguvanlı -Taylan (ed.) The Verb in Turkish. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp.47-59 A NOTE ON MOOD, MODALITY, TENSE AND ASPECT AFFIXES IN TURKISH1 Guglielmo Cinque University of Venice The limited goal of this contribution is to analyse the order of the mood, modality, tense and aspect, verbal suffixes of Turkish in the light of my (1999) proposal on the functional structure of the clause. My hope is that the exercise, besides explaining away certain apparent counterexamples to a rigid hierarchy of functional projections, may shed a partly new light on this area of the grammar of Turkish. In Cinque (1999), I examined the relative order of free (particles) and bound (suffixes) grammatical morphemes corresponding to mood, modality, tense, aspect and voice distinctions in the languages of the world. The recurrent picture that one finds in this domain is that they not only are rigidly ordered with respect to each other (as partly anticipated in such works as Bybee 1985, Foley and Van Valin 1984, and Dik 1989), but that each of the mood, modality, tense, aspect, and voice categories is made up, at a finer level, of a number of distinct heads, which also appear to be rigidly ordered. The striking match between the order of these grammatical heads and the order of the corresponding adverbs was further taken there to suggest a rich and articulated functional structure above the lexical VP of the clause, where each adverb class corresponds to a mood, modality, tense, aspect or voice head in a one-to-one fashion (as does the specifier to a head in a classical X-bar structure - Chomsky 1970, Kayne 1994).
    [Show full text]
  • Where Propositional Arguments and Participial Relative Clauses Meet
    Where propositional arguments and participial relative clauses meet Éva Dékány & Ekaterina Georgieva {dekanyeva/ekaterina.georgieva}@nytud.hu Research Institute for Linguistics (Budapest) Workshop “On the nouniness of propositional arguments” (DGfS43) University of Freiburg, 23–26 Feb 2021 Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 1 / 74 Introduction Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 2 / 74 Aims We aim at explaining why it is crosslinguistically common that participial relative clauses (pRCs) and deverbal nominalizations (DVNs) share the same suffix. (1) [Ali-nin pişir-diğ-i] yemek Ali-gen cook-dik-poss:3sg food ‘the food Ali cooked’ [MST, pRC] (2) Ali-nin kitab-I oku-duğ-un-u Ali-gen book-acc read-dik-poss:3sg-acc ‘(that) Ali read the book’ (as a direct obj) [MST, DVN] (Kornfilt 2003) Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 3 / 74 Aims This is called the participle-nominalizer polysemy. It is observed in Uralic, Altaic, Quechua and Tibeto-Burman languages (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1993: 2.2.5; Serdobolskaya & Paperno 2006; Shagal 2018; Noonan 1997). " Given that this is a wide-spread phenomenon, it requires a principled, structure-based account, where the exponents for the participle and the DVN are connected. We investigate this phenomenon in Udmurt and Khanty (Uralic) as well as Modern Standard Turkish and Uyghur, with some reference to Kazakh (Turkic). We argue that no real polysemy is involved, but we use it as a descriptive term. Dékány & Georgieva Propositional arguments & participles Nouniness (DGfS 43) 4 / 74 Claims The participle-nominalizer polysemy arises when the structure of DVNs properly contains the structure of pRCs.
    [Show full text]
  • Women's Political Networks
    Women’s Political Networks Defining Leadership, Breaking Barriers, and Fostering Change Lucina Di Meco WOMEN’S POLITICAL NETWORKS THE COMPLETE GUIDE Women’s Political Networks: Defining Leadership, Breaking Barriers, and Fostering Change Acknowledgements I’d like to gracefully acknowledge all the politicians, gender experts and managers of political networks who generously took part in this study, sharing with me their experiences and thoughts regarding women’s political networks. In alphabetical Gwen K. Young, Director order, they are: Achol Williams, Aida Balamaci, Ajla van Heel, Alessia Mosca, Anita Perez Ferguson, Anna Burke, Aretha Frances, Caroline Hubbard, Federiga Bindi, Marie Principe, Funke Baruwa, Gabriela Jakovleva, Gabriella Borovsky, Hanane Ennadir, Hilary Program Associate Anderson, Krishanti Dharmaraj, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, Jessica Berns, Jessica Althea Lloyd, Grounds, Jessica Huber, Joanna Maycock, Joyce Banda, Kah Walla, Kent Da- Program Coordinator vis-Packard, Khadija Idrissi Janati, Khatoun Haidar, Kristin Haffert, Kristen Sam- Ellysse Dick, ple, Kudzai Makombe, Lana Ackar, Lesia Radelicki, Lia Quartapelle, Lindy Wafula, Communications Assistant Margarita Percovich, Maria Eugenia Valverde, Maria Ysabel Cedano, Mahnaz Afkhami, Mary Balikungeri, Massimo Tommasoli, Melanne Verveer, Randi Davis, Special thanks to Gwen K. Sandra Pepera, Susannah Wellford, Sonia Palmieri, Sonja Lokar, Susan Markham, Young and Marie Principe Teina Mackenzie, Valeria Fedeli, Valerie Dowling, Vivian Roza, Zeina Hilal. In for editing this publication and to Ellysse Dick for the addition, I’d like to acknowledge Karine Lepillez, who read the manuscript and design and layout. provided critical comments and Elyse Gainor, who kindly proofread it. Finally, a special thank you goes to Gwen Young, Director of the Global Women’s Leadership About the Initiative and Women in Public Service Project at the Wilson Center, who believed in the importance of this research and made it possible.
    [Show full text]
  • 0Xxintroduction 1Xxlooking for Free Relatives in Turkish
    LOOKING FOR FREE RELATIVES IN TURKISH (AND THE UNEXPECTED PLACES THIS LEADS TO) 1 SABINE IATRIDOU Massachusetts Institute of Technology 0xxIntroduction Free Relatives, like I ate what(ever) he cooked have been described in a variety of languages. This paper started out as an investigation of Free Relatives in Turkish. As often happens, it ended up being about a variety of different things. 1xxLooking for Free Relatives in Turkish In Turkish, there are two constructions that look like Free Relatives (FRs), in the sense that they both appear to be headless. I will refer to them as Strategy I and II. Strategy I FRs, as in (1), have been discussed by Kornfilt (2005). They differ from headed relatives, e.g. (2), in being headless and in the placement of agreement morphemes. They are similar to the headed relatives in that they are both nominalized by -dik-, which, predictably, results in their subjects being in the Genitive. (1) Sen-in pişir-dik-ler-in-i yi-yeceğ-im. you-gen. cook-nom.-pl.-2.sg.-acc. eat-fut.-1.sg. ‘I will eat “the things” which you cooked.’ 1 This paper could not have been written without the help of Jaklin Kornfilt. For about a month before WAFL, Jaklin would answer multiple daily messages about how to say this or that in Turkish and she did so extremely patiently and goodnaturedly, never asking where I was headed nor why my questions were about such disjoined sets of phenomena. My debt to her is very large. I also greatly benefited from discussing different aspects of the paper with Rajesh Bhatt, Kai von Fintel, Roumi Pancheva, Sergei Tatevosov and Maziar Toosarvandani.
    [Show full text]
  • AND FAMILY Cover: Zeki Kuneralp on His Way to Buckingham Palace to Present His Credentials to Queen Elizabeth II in January 1964
    AND FAMILY Cover: Zeki Kuneralp on his way to Buckingham Palace to present his credentials to Queen Elizabeth II in January 1964. t t . (c,< y f% L'L ZEKİ k u n e r a l p 1914-1998 A Tribute by Friends and Family Zeki Kuneralp, diplomat: born Istanbul 5 October 1914; Turkish ambassador to Berne 1960; Turkish ambassador to London 1964-66, 1969-72; Secretary- General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ankara 1966-69; Turkish ambassador to Madrid 1972-79; married 1943 Neclâ Ozdilci (died 1978; two sons: Sinan and Selim); died Istanbul 26 July 1998. He has published Die Konkurrenz internationaler Schiedsgerichtsbarkeiten, Bern 1938; Sadece Diplomat-, Hatırat, Istanbul 1981; (translated into English by G. Lewis as Just a Diplomat, Istanbul 1992) İkinci Dünya Harbinde Türk Dış Siyaseti, İstanbul 1983; Arzederim. Bir Büyükelçinin Bakanlık Makamına Yazıları: 1955-1979, İstanbul 1995; Dağarçığın Dibi: Yaşlılık Düşünceleri, İstanbul 1995; Les débuts de la soviétisation de la Roumanie : Témoignage d'un diplomate turc, Istanbul 1995; İkili Rapor/Rapport des Deux, Istanbul 1997; A Footnote to Turc-Greek History: The Keşan-Alexandroupolis Talks September 9-10, 1967, Istanbul 1998 and edited Ali Kemal, Ömrüm, Istanbul 1985. On October 14, 1998 the Anglo-Turkish Society in London held a special meeting to commemorate the memory of Zeki Kuneralp. The following speakers took the floor in that order: David Lane, Chairman of the Anglo- 1 urkish Society; His Exc. Mr. Ozdem Sanberk, Turkish Ambassador to the Court of St James; Sir Bernard Burrows, former British Ambassador to Turkey; Patricia, Lady Jellicoe; Sir Peter H. Laurence, former British Ambassador to Turkey; Sir Antony Acland, former British Ambassador to Spain; Professor Geoffrey Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Turkish at Oxford University; Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • ON SOME INFINITIVAL WH CONSTRUCTIONS in TURKISH* Jaklin Kornfilt Syracuse University 0. Introduction the Aim of This Paper Is
    ON SOME INFINITIVAL WHCONSTRUCTIONS IN TURKISH* Jaklin Kornfilt Syracuse University 0. Introduction The aim of this paper is to present a syntactic phenomenon of Turkish concerning infinitival complements and to sketch a principled explanation which refers to more general characteristics of the language. The phenomenon in question consists of a deficiency of infinitival constructions: Turkish has neither infinitival relative clauses, nor infinitival WHquestions; yet, it does have infinitives. Representative examples for each assertion follow, along with corresponding English examples: Infinitival relative clauses: (1) * A h m e t Ayşe ye [jyjp [çp PRO e; oku mak] bir kitapj ] aldi Dat. readInf. a book buypast Intended reading: 'Ahmet bought Ayşe a book to read' (2) John bought Mary [jvjp a book; [çp PRO to read Cj 1 1 Infinitival WHqucstions: (3) *Ahmct Ayşe ye \QP PRO ne oku maki söyledi Dat. what readInf. saypast Some ol" the contents of this paper were presented to a meeting of the EUROTYP project of the European Science Foundation, Theme Group 3: Subordination and Complementation, at a special meeting on Infinitivals and NonFinite Complements, held al Grcgynog, Wales. I wish to thank Nigel Vincent, the group leader, for inviting me to that meeting, to Istvan Kenesei for initiating that invitation, and to the participants of that meeting for interesting discussion and suggestions, in particular to Istvan Kenesei, Jon Ortiz de Urbina, and Maria Luisa Rivero. A less developed version of this paper was published as: "Infinitival WHConstructions and Complementation in Turkish"; in Eurotyp Working Papers: Group 3: Subordination and Complementation, vol. 4; K. Börjars and N.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the First Workshop on Turkish, Turkic and The
    Tu+ 1: Proceedings of the first workshop on Turkish, Turkic and the languages of Turkey November 21 - November 22, 2015 University of Massachusetts, Amherst Edited by Faruk Akkus¸, Isa˙ Kerem Bayırlı, Deniz Ozyıldız¨ c 2018 Published by GLSA (Graduate Linguistics Student Association) Department of Linguistics University of Massachusetts Integrative Learning Center, 4th Floor 650 North Pleasant Street Amherst, MA 01003 U.S.A. [email protected] glsa.hypermart.net ISBN-13: 978-1983844027 ISBN-10: 1983844020 Thank you The 1st Workshop on Turkish, Turkic and the languages of Turkey (Tu+1) was held at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst on 21-22 November 2015, in collaboration with Yale University. In addition to the two invited talks by Sabine Iatridou (MIT) and Jaklin Kornfilt (Syracuse University), the workshop hosted 23 oral and poster presentations. The presenters came from 17 different institutions, 6 of which were non-US institutions. The articles in this proceedings volume are a selection of papers presented at Tu+1. Our hope is that this workshop will be held annually and that it will provide a platform for discussion of empirical and theoretical questions raised by Turkic languages and the languages spoken within Turkey. We are grateful to the linguistics departments at Yale and at UMass for sup- porting the workshop, morally, technically and financially. Rosetta Berger, Rajesh Bhatt, Robert Frank, Vincent Homer, John Kingston, Tom Maxfield and Michelle McBride deserve special mention. We would also like to thank all those who gave a helping hand during the workshop. We are grateful to the Graduate Linguistic Student Association for publishing this volume, to Leah Chapman for agreeing to design the cover, and last but not least, to our presen- ters and audience for making this workshop an enjoyable learning experience.
    [Show full text]