A LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF NECESSITY AS A PART OF THE MODAL SYSTEM IN TURKISH

T.C.
Mersin Üniversitesi
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
İngiliz Dili ve Edebiyatı Anabilimdalı
A LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF NECESSITY AS A PART OF THE MODAL SYSTEM
IN TURKISH
Demet CORCU
YÜKSEK LİSANS TEZİ
Mersin, 2003

---

T.C.
Mersin Üniversitesi
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
İngiliz Dili ve Edebiyatı Anabilimdalı
A LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF NECESSITY AS A PART OF THE MODAL SYSTEM
IN TURKISH
Demet CORCU
YÜKSEK LİSANS TEZİ
Danışman
Doç. Dr. Mustafa AKSAN
Mersin, 2003

---

i
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
I would like to declare my heartfelt thanks to the professors at the Mersin
University English Language and Language Department, Professor Ayhan Sezer,
Associate Professor Mustafa Aksan, Assistant Professor Yeşim Aksan and Assistant
Professor Özler Çakır, for training me as a linguist and providing me with the scientific
study skills. They have been peerless models for how a linguist should be.
My special and deepest thanks go to Associate Professor Mustafa Aksan,
supervisor of this study, for his wisdom and worthy support during all stages of the
research process with patience and modesty, although the supervised a student like me. He
supplied the vital sources on the subject matter of the research, gave me a helping hand
during the data collection and went through the drafts. He has been a guide for the
linguistic point of view and the scientific study process as well as a model.
I am deeply grateful to Assistant Professor Yeşim Aksan for the linguistic
knowledge and the guidance that she has provided and her encouragement which helped
me a lot during the study. I have to thank her for the invaluable support that she has
provided.
I would like to thank Professor Ayhan Sezer for helping me to improve critical
thinking skills and enabling me to widen my world view both in academic and social
terms.
My special thanks also go to Dilek Kantar who has been a great guide for the
academic study. She is one of the important people that I consider a model for my
academic and personal life.

---

ii
I owe my special thanks to my dear room mate Research Assistant Aygül Uçar
and my friend Esra Aydın, who shared the whole M.A. period with me. They tolerated me
during this period and shared their invaluable friendship with me. I also thank them for
providing me the natural data or sharing their ideas on my hypotheses on the marked cases
of use of language.
I also thank Mehmet Ulu, Filiz Yakupoğlu, Research Assistant Filiz Çetintaş
and Research Assistant Pınar İbe for creating the friendly and kindly atmosphere at the
department which was moral support during the study.
Finally, I express my gratitude and dearest thanks to my mother Fahriye Corcu
for the moral support, endless love and tender she has provided. She has been at my side at
the hardest times with all her patience and tolerance.

---

iii
ÖZET
Bu çalışmada temel amaç kiplik değerlerinden biri olan gerekliliğin Türkçe’de
hangi belirtilerle anlatıldığını betimlemek ve tümce içi diğer öğelere de bağlı olarak bu
belirtiler arasındaki seçimin nasıl gerçekleştiğini saptamaktır. Çalışmamızın veri tabanı
yazılı ve sözlü ortamlardan derlenen, doğal dil kullanımında ortaya çıkan anlık veriler
toplanarak oluşturulmuştur.
Çalışmanın ilk bölümünde eylem ulamları olarak adlandırılan ve birbirleriyle
yakın ilişkisi olan zaman, görünüş ve kipliğin tanımları verilmiş, kipliğin bu eylem
ulamlarıyla olan yakın ilişkisi incelenmiştir. Ayrıca kipliğin bu ulamlar arasındaki yeri ve
değeri tanımlanmıştır. Buna göre kiplik tümceye ait, hatta tümce ötesi gönderimleri olan,
bu nedenle de tanımlanması zaman ve görünüşe göre daha zor olan bir kavramdır. Kiplik
için tanımlanan derecelendirme de yine kipliğe ait önemli bir noktadır.
Kipliğin kendi içinde farklı ayrımları taşıyor olması, tümce içi ve ötesi
değişkenlerden etkilenebilir olması ve bu sayede bir çok düzlemde (anlambilim,
edimbilim, biçimbilim, sözdizimi) incelenebilir olması sonucu kiplik çeşitleri farklı
dilbilimciler tarafından farklı biçimlerde sınıflandırılmış ve farklı adlandırmalarla
kullanılmıştır.
İkinci bölümde bu faklı sınıflandırmalar ve adlandırmalar özetlenmiştir.
Çalışmada temel olarak kök kiplik-bilgisellik kipliği ayrımı kullanılmış, Coates (1983) ün
kullandığı derecelenme modeli anlam sınıflamasında kullanılmış, gereklilik ise kiplik türü
olarak Bybee ve diğerlerinin (1994) tanımladığı kılıcı-odaklı kiplik değerleri arasında ele
alınmıştır.

---

iv
Üçüncü bölümde Türkçe’nin kiplik anlatımında kullandığı belirtiler
tanımlanmış ve Bybee ve diğerlerinin (1994) tanımına göre Türkçe’de aktarılan kiplik
değerleri sınıflandırılarak hangi belirtilerle anlatıldığı incelenmiştir.
Dördüncü bölümde Türkçe’nin gereklilik anlatımında kullandığı araçlar, -mElİ
biçimbirimi, gerek, zorunlu, zorunda, şart, mecbur, lazım benzeri sözcüksel öğeler
belirlenmiş ve bu araçların farklı zaman, görünüş, kiplik, çatı değerleri ve koşaçla birlikte
kullanımı incelenmiştir. Çalışmamızda gereklilik belirtilerinin dil dizgesindeki yerleri
yapısal özellikleri ve anlam içerikleriyle belirli oldukları gösterilmiştir.
Son bölümde, bu farklı kullanım değerleri ve ‘–mElİ, gerek, zorunlu, zorunda,
şart ve mecbur’un anlattığı gereklilik dereceleri betimlenmektedir. Buna göre –mElİ,
gerek, lazım zayıf gereklilik anlatırken zorunda, zorunlu, mecbur, şart, her biri için
tanımlanan farklı kipsel alan ve gereklilik kaynaklarıyla, güçlü gereklilik anlatımında
kullanılmaktadır.

---

v
SUMMARY
The main aim of the present study is to define the markers of necessity in
Turkish and to define how the choice between the different markers of necessity are made
in different occasions, including the effects of the other sentence components on the
meaning and use of necessity expressions. The data of our study is composed of naturally
occurring written and spoken language uses as they appear in variety of communicative
contexts.
In the first chapter, we have defined the verbal categories tense, aspect and
modality and analyzed the close relationship between modality and other categories and
defined the significance of modality in the linguistic system. According to this, modality is
in relation not only to the sentential components, but also to the discourse variables. Thus,
a definition of modality is more difficult than that of tense and aspect. The gradience
defined for modality is also another important point discussed in this study.
The fact that modality displays complexity and can be analyzed at different
levels of language leads different linguists to propose different categorizations. The second
chapter summarizes these various classifications. In our study the gradience model offered
by Coates (1983) for the semantic analysis of the modal verbs is applied to Turkish modal
expressions, and necessity is taken as a subtype of the agent-oriented modality as defined
by Bybee et al. (1994).
In the third chapter, the markers that Turkish uses for expression of modality
are introduced and the modality types that are marked in Turkish are discussed in terms of
the classification of Bybee et al. (1994).

---

vi
In the forth chapter, the morphological and lexical markers of modality in
Turkish, namely –mElİ, gerek, zorunda, zorunlu, lazım, şart and mecbur, are analyzed in
terms of their structural and semantic features, and their relation to the other sentence
components such as tense, aspect, other modals, voice, and copula. We argued in our study
that the place of the markers of necessity in the linguistic system is determined by their
structural features and their semantic content.
The last chapter defines the different uses and the different necessity degrees
that –mElİ, gerek, zorunlu, zorunda, şart and mecbur express. We concluded that while –
mElİ, gerek, lazım express weak necessity, zorunda, zorunlu, mecbur, şart express strong
necessity with their different modal domains and sources of obligation..

---

1
CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION
1
Problems of the Study
5
Hypothesis
5
Purpose of the Study
6
Data Collection
6
Limitations
6
Organisation of the Study
7
IV. THE VERBAL CATEGORIES TENSE, ASPECT AND MODALITY
8
I.1. Tense
8
I.2. Aspect
11
I.3. Modality
13
I.4. TAM Markers
13
II. MODALITY
15
II.1. Mood Modality Distinction
17
II.2. Basic Terms and Classifications in The Discussion of Modality
18
II.2.1. Modal Logic: Epistemic and Deontic Modality
18
II.2.2. Modality in Language
20
II.2.2.1. Root vs. Epistemic Modality
20
II.2.2.2. Deontic and Dynamic vs. Epistemic Modality
21
II.2.2.3. Agent Oriented vs. Speaker Oriented Modality,
Subordinating Modality
23
II.2.2.4. Event modality vs. Propositional Modality
24

---

2
II.2.2.5. Other Types of Modalities
26
II.3. Approaches to Modality
28
II.3.1. Philosophy Based Approaches: Lyons (1977); Kiefer (1987)
29
II.3.2. Typological Approaches
32
II.3.3. Semantics and Pragmatics Based Approaches
35
II.3.3.1. Lakoff (1972)
37
II.3.3.2. Kratzer (1991)
38
II.3.3.3. Sweetser (1990)
40
II.3.3.4. Papafragou (2000)
41
II.3.3.5. Coates (1983)
44
II.4. Markers of Modality
47
II.4.1. Mood
47
II.4.2. Modal Verbs
48
II.4.3. Particles, Clitics, Adverbs
49
II.4.4. Intonation
50
II.4.5. Complex Systems
51
II.4.6. Modality in Subordinating Clauses
51
II.5. Semantics of Modality
52
II.5.1. Semantic Indeterminacy of the Modal Expressions
52
II.5.2. Basic Variables in the Semantics of Modality: Future


Reference, Agentivity, Subjectivity, Factuality
54
III. MODALITY IN TURKISH
58
III.1. Previous Studies on Modality in Turkish
58
III.2. Markers of Modality
61

---