dA: a focus/topic associated clitic in Turkish

This article investigates the contribution of the clitic dA to the interpretation of an utterance and its role in the discourse structure of Turkish. It also attempts to provide a uniform analysis for some of the functions of dA, a clitic generally described as a multi-function particle fulfilling the roles of focalizer, topicalizer, additive and intensifier. The paper presents arguments to the effect that it is the interaction of dA with focus, i.e the affinity between the semantics of focus and that of dA, that has hitherto led to an analysis of dA as a focus particle. Focus introduces a presupposition with a lambda-operator and dA a presupposition with an existential operator. It is suggested that the principle difference between the semantics of focusing and the semantics of dA lies in the distinction between focus evoking a set of alternatives to an utterance and dA asserting the truth of one of these alternatives. The paper further argues against the claim that contrastive and presentational foci are semantically two separate phenomena. Contrastive and presentational foci are shown to be different manifestations of the same phenomenon in Turkish.

[1]  Eser Emine Erguvanlı The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar , 1984 .

[2]  Dan I. Slobin,et al.  Studies in Turkish Linguistics , 1986 .

[3]  Elisabeth Selkirk,et al.  Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure , 1984 .

[4]  Muharrem Ergin Türk dil bilgisi , 1962 .

[5]  R. Sandt,et al.  Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives , 1999 .

[6]  E. Herburger What Counts: Focus and Quantification , 2000 .

[7]  L. Rizzi The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery , 1997 .

[8]  Anna Szabolcsi,et al.  The semantics of topic-focus articulation , 1981 .

[9]  Mürvet Enç Topic Switching and Pronominal Subjects in Turkish , 1986 .

[10]  Mats Rooth A theory of focus interpretation , 1992, Natural Language Semantics.

[11]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Information Structure and the Syntax-Phonology Interface , 2000, Linguistic Inquiry.

[12]  R. Nash Turkish intonation : an instrumental study , 1973 .

[13]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar , 1972 .

[14]  Katalin É. Kiss,et al.  Discourse configurational languages , 1995 .

[15]  Caterina Donati,et al.  From focus to syntax , 2003 .

[16]  Manfred Krifka,et al.  A Compositional Semantics for Multiple Focus Constructions , 1991 .

[17]  B. Partee Topic, Focus and Quantification , 1991 .

[18]  L. Haegeman Elements of Grammar , 1997 .

[19]  Nomi Erteschik-Shir,et al.  The dynamics of focus structure , 1997 .

[20]  D. Blakemore Semantic Constraints on Relevance , 1987 .

[21]  Arnim von Stechow,et al.  Some Remarks on Focus Projection , 1986 .

[22]  M. Zubizarreta Prosody, Focus, and Word Order , 1998 .

[23]  A. Emre Yeni bir gramer metodu hakkında layıha , 1931 .

[24]  Jeroen Groenendijk,et al.  Formal methods in the study of language , 1983 .

[25]  van Cj Kees Deemter Contrastive stress, contrariety, and focus , 1994 .

[26]  K. Kiss Identificational focus versus information focus , 1998 .

[27]  Sung-Uk Kim Topic realization in Korean : sentence-initial position and the particle nin , 1983 .

[28]  Shalom Lappin,et al.  当代语义理论指南 = The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory , 2015 .

[29]  Katharina Hartmann,et al.  The Syntax And Semantics Of Focus-Sensitive ParticlesIn German , 2001 .