Eylem Önü Konumundaki Çıplak Özne AÖ'lerin Belirlilik Durumu

Abstract

It is a widely accepted assumption that there is no default definiteness status for bare subject NPs in Turkish and that they are ambiguous between definite-referential and non-definite non-referential readings in both verbal and non verbal sentences (Dede, 1986; Tura,1986). It is also assumed that they are ambiguous between singular and plural forms. This study aims at examining how actual receivers interpret bare subjects in the preverbal position. For this purpose, I prepared two different perception tests including verbal and non-verbal sentences with bare subjects in the preverbal position. The results of the research display that though they are ambiguous, there is a default interpretation for such NPs which is indefinite singular. I claim that although both the bare and indefinite form 'bir+AÖ' are singular terms, the bare form is preferred when the subject is non specific.

It is a widely accepted assumption that there is no default definiteness status for bare subject NPs in Turkish and that they are ambiguous between definite-referential and non-definite non-referential readings in both verbal and non verbal sentences (Dede, 1986; Tura,1986). It is also assumed that they are ambiguous between singular and plural forms. This study aims at examining how actual receivers interpret bare subjects in the preverbal position. For this purpose, I prepared two different perception tests including verbal and non-verbal sentences with bare subjects in the preverbal position. The results of the research display that though they are ambiguous, there is a default interpretation for such NPs which is indefinite singular. I claim that although both the bare and indefinite form 'bir+AÖ' are singular terms, the bare form is preferred when the subject is non specific.