Conditionals in Turkish
A classification based on function
Defined as the relation between two propositions, conditionals are composed of a protasis -“p”- and an apodosis -“q”-. Languages employ different strategies to construct a conditional. The most common way is to express the protasis in an explicit manner (Bhatt & Pancheva 2005: 642). This study is based on the hypothesis that the positions of the protasis and apodosis determine the functions of the Turkish conditional clauses with the conditional copula ise, its cliticized allomorph -(y)sA, and the conditional suffix -sA ”. With this objective in mind, the answers to the following research questions have been sought; “What are the positions of protasis/if-subordinate clause and apodosis/main clause in conditionals of Turkish?”, “What are the functions of the conditional clause depending on the positions of the protasis/if-subordinate clause and apodosis/main clause?” To answer these research questions a database consisting of eight different detective novels was studied, and these novels were analyzed according to Declerck and Reed’s (2001) approach to the conditional clauses. According to the findings of our analysis the unmarked order of the conditionals in Turkish is ‘protasis + apodosis’ and Turkish conditional clauses mostly undertake the purely case-specifying function and maintain this through the conditional clauses named ‘purely case-specifying P-clause specifying the circumstances under which the perception of the Q-situation may take place’. We have observed that the conditional information can be processed with the help of the case-specifying function of Turkish conditional clauses which occupies the unmarked order in the listener/reader’s mind. In terms of their unmarked orders, however, Turkish conditional clauses mostly assume the comment function by encoding “Hedging-P conditionals” and the speaker presents the content of the apodosis via the functions of protasis.
References (28)
References
Akatsuka, Noriko. 1986. Conditionals are discourse-bound. In Traugott, et al. (eds), 333-351. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Athanasiadou, Angeliki. 1997. Introduction. In On Conditionals Again [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 143], Angeliki Athanasiadou & René Dirven (eds), 1-12. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barwise, Jon. 1986. Conditionals and conditional information. In Traugott, et al. (eds), 21-54. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bhatt, Rajesh & Pancheva, Roumyana. 2005. Conditionals. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 638-687. Malden MA: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Can-Bakırlı, Özge. 2010. Türkçede Koşullu Yapılar. PhD dissertation, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi.
Comrie, Bernard. 1986. Conditionals: A typology. In Traugott, et al. (eds), 77-99. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dancygier, Barbara. 1998. Conditionals and Prediction: Time, Knowledge and Causation in Conditional Constructions. Cambridge: CUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Declerck, Renaat & Reed, Susan. 2001. Conditionals: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ford, Cecilia E. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1986. Conditionals in discourse: A text based study from English. In Traugott, et al. (eds), 353-372. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of Language, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed), 73-113. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Göksel, Aslı & Kerslake, Celia. 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kerslake, Celia. 2003. A new look at conditional constructions in Turkish. In Studies in Turkish linguistics, A. Sumru Özsoy, Didar Akar, Mine Nakipoğlu-Demiralp, Eser Erguvanlı-Taylan, & Ayhan Aksu Koç (eds.), 215–226. İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Meyer, Ruth & Krueger, David. 1997. MINITAB Guide to Statistics. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall College Division.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Özsoy, Ayşe Sumru. 1999. Türkçe-Turkish. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ruhi, Şükriye, Zeyrek, Deniz & Turan, Ümit D. 2000. Koşul Tümcelerinde Varsayımsallık ve Gerçek Karşılığı. In XIII. Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri, A. Sumru Özsoy & Eser E. Taylan (eds), 19-29. İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Scheaffer, Richard, Mendenhall, William, Ott, R. Lymann & Kenneth G. Gerow. 2006. Elementary Survey Sampling. Belmont CA: Wadsworth Publishing.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sweester, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thompson, Sandra A. & Longacre, Robert E. 1986. Adverbial clauses. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description Vol II: Complex Constructions, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 237-300. Cambridge: CUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, Elizabeth C., ter Meulen, Alice, Reilly, Judy S. & Ferguson, Charles A. 1986. On Conditionals. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
LIST OF THE NOVELS IN THE DATABASE
Akbay, Ercan. 2007. Tilki Tilki Saat Kaç? İstanbul: Arion Yayınevi![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ersoy, Servet. 2007. Karanlıktaki Saltanat: Asil Kanın Son Efendileri. İstanbul: Karakutu Yay.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dikenelli, Çağan. 2006. Kör Fahişe Bıçağı. İstanbul: Oğlak Yayınları![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sezgintüredi, Algan. 2007. Katilin Meselesi. İstanbul: Versus Kitap Yay.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taşçıoğlu, Cihat. 2008. Gereği Düşünüldü. İstanbul: A.P.R.I.L Yay.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tayman, M. Enis. 2007. Bin Delikli Ev. İstanbul: Altın Bilek Yay.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ülsever, Cüneyt. 2008. Hisarüstü Cinayetleri. İstanbul: Everest Yay.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ümit, Ahmet. 2006. Beyoğlu Rapsodisi. İstanbul: Doğan Kitapçılık![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
DENİZER, Faik Utkan
2023.
KARŞIOLGUSAL VE HAYALÎ KOŞUL CÜMLELERİ ÜZERİNE.
Hacettepe Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi (HÜTAD) ![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.