Subjectivity in Complex Sentences: The Effects of Converbs to Causal Relations

Year 2015, Volume: 1 Issue: 1, 1 - 13, 06.05.2015

Filiz Çetintaş Yıldırım

Abstract

A causal relation is considered as the most important element which provides coherence in both written and oral texts, and  in complex sentences which are constructed by the use of particular converbs may have a closer subjective relation –to what extend the speaker/writer involves himself/herself to the causal relation- than other converbs which also have causal implications. In this study, three Turkish converbs, –IncA, - DIĞI için and –DIĞINA göre, which can convey volitional causal relations are taken into consideration in terms of the subjectivity levels observed in the complex sentences. Nearly 600 complex sentences –obtained from WebCorp- are analyzed with regards to the propositional content of the main clause, the type of causal relationship, the type of conceptualizer and the linguistic realization of the conceptualizer. Frequency distributions of these converbs highlight that the converbs can be scaled according to the subjectivity level of the complex sentences that they are used in.

Keywords: converb, causal relation, subjectivity, complex sentence

Keywords

converb, causal relation, subjectivity, complex sentence

References

• Çetintaş Yıldırım, F. (2010). Türkçede belirteç tümcecikleri: Sözdizimsel yapı çözümlemesi çerçevesinde bir sınıflandırma önerisi. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Ankara University, Ankara
• Finegan, E. (1995). Subjectivity and subjectivisation: An introduction. In, D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.). Subjectivity and subjectivisation (pp. 1-15). Cambridge: CUP
• Degand, L. (1998). On classifying connectives and coherence relations. Retrieved May 27, 2009, from http://www.ldc.upenn.edu/acl/W/W98/W98-0305.pdf
• Degand, L. & Pander Maat, H. (2003). A Contrastive study of Dutch and French causal connectives on the speaker involvement scale. In, A. Verhagen & J. Van der Weijer (Eds.). Usage- based approaches to Dutch (pp. 175-200). Utrecht:LOT
• Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications
• Meyer, P. G. (2000). The relevance of causality. In, E. Couper-Kuhlen &B. Kortmann (Eds.). Cause, condition, concession, contrast (pp. 143-172). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
• Sanders, T. J. M. (2005). Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. Retrieved February sem05/proceedings-final/03-Sanders.pdf from
• http://w3.erss.univtlse2.fr/textes/pagespersos/bras/
• Sanders, T. & Pander Maat, H. (2006). Cohesion and coherence: Linguistic approaches. Retrieved November 28, uploads/pdf/Sanders%20Pander%20Maat%20(2006).pdf 2008, from
• http://www.let.uu.nl/̴Ted.Sanders/personal/
• Spooren, W. and et al. (2007). Subjectivity and causality: A Corpus study of spoken language. Retrieved SpoorenetalSubjectivityandCausalty_tcm10-57600.pdf 15, 2009, from
• http://www.let.vu.nı/nl/Images/
• Stukker, N. & Sanders, T. (2008). Another(‘s) perspective on subjectivity in clausal connectives: Analyzing typical and non-typical use in corpora. In, W. Ramm & C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.). Linearisation and segmentation in discourse (pp. 113-122). Oslo: University of Oslo
• Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
• Uslu, Z. (2001). Türkçede neden bildirme işlevi: ‘İçin ilgeci ve ‘-dAn’ eki. In, Ö. Demircan & A. Erözden (Eds.). XV. dilbilim kurultayı: Bildiriler (pp. 123-130). İstanbul: Yıldız Teknik University