On the Turkish transnumeral as an aspect effectuation device

Sema Kutsarova

doi:10.29038/

Authors

Sema Kutsarova Medical University of Plovdiv, Bulgaria https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9863-1588

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29038/

Keywords:

transnumerality, the Turkish transnumeral, category of number, noun morphology, grammatical semantics, compositional aspect

Abstract

This paper deals with the phenomenon of the Turkish transnumeral and its interplay with aspect. The transnumeral is a nominal/noun-phrase form interpreted as either singular or plural – i.e., numerically ambivalent and thus different from the standard singular-plural numerical form. Despite the high prevalence of transnumerality in Turkish, its grammatical and semantic description in the literature lags behind the need for it to be better explained. The transnumeral form is regarded, on the one hand, as an element which, in its interaction with noun phrases and other sentence components, tends to explicate a certain value in terms of the compositional aspect theory and, on the other hand, as a phenomenon in need of an analysis not paradigmatically vis-à-vis the standard numerical nominal form but in its features and impact at the sentence level. The analyses carried out of the different types of uses of transnumerals in different sentences – as subjects, direct and indirect objects and as certain types of adverbials (instrumental ones), show that transnumerals cannot be regarded as solely related to the effectuation of imperfectivity, as conjectured by some authors. Transnumerality must necessarily also be interpreted in terms of cognitive processes taking place in the human brain and reflecting the need for language economy and precision. However, the paper shows that, as a general rule, while cognitive processes underlie the effectuation of both number and aspectual values, the system of distribution of the devices responsible for the realization of these values in grammars of different languages do not directly result from cognitive processes. Rather, it is the work of the collective human brain in the construction of language-specific paradigms, such as the singular-plural distinction – as in English, pure transnumerality – as in Chinese, or hybrid systems with simultaneously a singular-plural contrast and transnumerality –- as in Turkish.

Acknowledgements

Financial support for this study was provided by the Bulgarian Young Researchers and Postdoctoral Fellows National Program, Part 2, from the Medical University of Plovdiv. I would like to thank the reviewers of my paper for their kind suggestions and the EEJP editorial team for their technical and administrative assistance.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Acquaviva, P. (2005). The morphosemantics of transnumeral nouns. Morphology and linguistic typology. In: G. Booij, E. Guevara, A. Ralli, S. Sgroi & S. Scalise (eds.), Morphology and Linguistic Typology, On-line Proceedings of the Fourth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM4) Catania 21-23 September 2003, University of Bologna. http://morbo.lingue.unibo.it/mmm/

Acquaviva, P. (2008). Lexical plurals. A morphosemantic approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bakardzhieva-Morikang, S., & Kabakčiev, K. (2024). Ukrainian biaspectuality: An instantiation of compositional aspect in a verbal-aspect language. East European Journal of Psycholinguistics 11(1), 28–46.

Banguoglu, T. (1990). Turkish grammar. Ankara: Türk tarih kurumu basim evi.

Bulatović, V. (2013). Modern theories of aspect and Serbian EL2 learners. Belgrade English Language and Literature Studies 5(1), 65–79.

Bulatović, V. (2020). Thinking for speaking in the right aspect – on whether Modern English grammars can do more. Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 33(2), 384–415. https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.18007.bul

Bulatović, V. (2022). Aspect semantics and ESL article use. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language 60(2), 491–521. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2019-0016

Corbett, G. (2000). Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dimitrova, D. (2021). Aspect coercion in Greek aorist and perfect verb forms. Studies in Greek Linguistics 41. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies, 45–53.

Dimitrova etal. (2025, forthcoming). Dimitrova, D., Shabashvili, G., Kabakčiev, K. On the identicalness of some grammatical entities in Greek, Bulgarian and Georgian: triggered by language contact or not? Paper read at the Third International Conference on Language Contact in the Balkans and Asia Minor. Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies. https://ins.web.auth.gr/images/banners/PROGRAM_2023.pdf

Dmitriev, N. (1956). Kategoriya chisla. Issledovaniya po sravnitel’noy grammatike tyurkskih yazykov. Part II. Morphologiya. Moskva, 1956, 65–71.

Ediskun, H. (1985). Türk Dilbilgisi [Turkish grammar]. İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.

Enç, M. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 1–25.

Erguvanlı, E. (1984). The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Berkeley/Los Angeles/ London. University of California Press.

Fattahova, R. (2015). Vopros o grammaticheskoy kategorii chisla v tyurkologii i vklad N. K. Dmitrieva v ee izuchenie. Filologicheskie nauki. Voprsosy teorii i praktiki No 5 (47). Chast’ 1, 197–199 [The question of the grammatical category of number in Turkology and the contribution of N.K. Dmitriev to its study // Philological sciences. Theoretical and practical issues]. Part I, 197–199.

Galton, H. (1967). The evolution of Bulgarian syntax (a phenomenological study of ‘analytism’). Balkansko ezikoznanie 12, 45–99.

Gulubov, G. (1949) Turkish Grammar. Sofia: Nauka i izkustvo.

Gencan, N. (1979). Dilbilgisi [Grammar]. Ankara: TDK.

Genish, E. (2007). Grammatika turetskogo yazyka. Moskva: LKI.

Göksel, A., Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A Compehensive Grammar. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, London and New York.

Görgülü, E. (2018) Noun semantics and number marking in Turkish. Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, MEUDED, 15(1), 85-104.

Gronbech, K. (1936). Der türkische Sprachbau, I. Kopenhagen.

Guzev, V. (2015). Teoreticheskaya grammatika turetskogo yazyka. Saint Petersburg University Press.

Guzev, V. & Nasilov, D. M. (1975). K interpretatsii kategorii chisla imen suschtestvitel’nyh v tyurkskih yazykah [On the interpretation of the category of number of nouns in Turkic languages]. Issues of Linguistics 3.

Haxhillari, H. (2024). The category of determiner in Albanian. Athens Journal of Philology 11(4), 327–338.

Hengirmen, M. (2002). Türkçe Dilbilgisi [Turkish Grammar]. Ankara: Engin

Heusinger, K. & Kornfilt, J. (2005). The case of the direct object in Turkish: Semantics, syntax and morphology. Turkic Languages 9, 3–44.

Johanson, L. (1977). Bestimmtheit und Mitteilungsperspektive im türkischen Satz. Zeitschrift der Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Suppl. 3/2, 1186–1203.

Kabakčiev, K. (1984). The article and the aorist-imperfect distinction in Bulgarian: an analysis based on cross-language “aspect” parallelisms. Linguistics 22(5), 643–672.

Kabakčiev, K. (2000) Aspect in English: a ‘common-sense’ view of the interplay between verbal and nominal referents. Dordrecht: Springer.

Kabakčiev, K. (2019). On the history of compositional aspect: vicissitudes, issues, prospects. Athens Journal of Philology 6(3), 201–224. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajp.6-3-4

Kabakčiev, K. (2020). Two major manifestations of compositional aspect in Bulgarian. Studia Philologica Universitatis Velikotarnovensis 39(1), 115–125.

Kabakčiev, K. (2023). On the temporal values of situation-participant NP referents mapped from Bulgarian perfects with aorist and imperfect participles. East European Journal of Psycholinguistics 10(1), 48–60.

Kabakčiev, K. (2025). On the gigantic fallacy that there is no Slavic-like aspect in the Romance languages and aspect resides only in the past domain. Athens Journal of Philology 12(1), 9–30.

Kononov, A. (1941). Grammatika sovremennogo turetskogo literaturnogo yazyka [Grammar of the Modern Turkish literary language]. Moscow-Leningrad: AN SSSR.

Korkmaz, Z. (2009). Türkiye Türkçesi Grameri Şekil Bilgisi. Ankara: TDK

Kowalski, T. (1936). Zur semantischen Funktion des Pluralsuffixes -lar, -lär in den Türksprachen. Krakow.

Kutsarova, S. (2025). An Attempt at Outlining the Major Features of Compositional Aspect in Modern Turkish. Athens Journal of Philology, 12(1), 49-74.

Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar. Oxford University Press.

Lewis, G. (2000). Turkish grammar. Oxford: Calendon Press.

Lyubimov, L. K. (1972). O chislovom znachenii nulevoy formy tyurkskih suschtestvitel’yh [On the numerical value of the zero form of turkic nouns]. Soviet Turkology, 78–83.

Manzini, M., Rita (2020). The morphosyntactic structure of number in Italian and Albanian. High and low plurals. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 19, 127–157.

Oganova, E. (2022). Kategoriya chisla v turetskom yazyke kak lingvodidakticheskaya problema. Tyurkskie yazyki I literatury v istoricheskoy perspective [The category of number in the Turkish language as a linguodidactic problem. Turkic languages and literatures in historical perspective]. Moscow, 86–101.

Press, 9–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0002.

Rocchi, L. (2016). Definiteness vs. indefiniteness in the Turkish language. International Journal of Translation 18, 185–205.

Sağ, Y. (2018). The semantics of Turkish numeral constructions. In Sauerland, Uli & Solt, Stephanie (eds.) Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 22(1–2) ZASPiL 61). ZAS, Berlin. 307–324.

Sağ, Y. (2022). Bare singulars and singularity in Turkish. Linguistics and Philosophy 45, 741–793.

Scheka Y. (2007). Prakticheskaya grammatika turetskogo yazyka [Practical grammar of Turkish]. Moscow: Vostok-Zapad.

Schroeder, C. (1999). The Turkish nominal phrase in spoken discourse. Turcologica 40. Wiesbaden: Harratssowitz.

Shtanov, A. V. (2010). Turetskiy yazyk. Bazovyi kurs [Turkish language. Basic course], Part I. MGIMO University.

Shabashvili G., Kabakčiev, K. (2021). Verbal aspect vis-à-vis compositional: a typological case study of Georgian, against Russian and English data. Studies in Greek Linguistics 42. Thessaloniki, 375–384.

Scherbak, A. M. (1970). Formy chisla u imen v tyurkskih yazykah [Forms of number in names in Turkic languages]. Issues of Linguistics 3, 87–99.

Sokolov, S. A. (1970). Kategoriya chisla v turetskom literaturnom yazyke I ee vzaimosvyaz’ so smezhnymi leksiko-grammaticheskimi kategoriyami [The category of number in the Turkish literary language and its relationship with related lexical and grammatical categories]. Soviet Turkology 4, 71–81.

Stoyanova, J. (2021). Problemi na psiholingvistikata [Issues in psycholinguistics]. Sofia University Press.

Symeonidis, V. (2020). Linguistic complexity in grammaticalization: A case study in the „be going to‟ construction. In N. Lavidas, A. Bergs & E. van Gelderen (eds.), The Naxos papers, Volume I: On the diachrony of English. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 111–121.

Turgay, T. (2020). Semantics of Turkish bare nouns and the function of classifiers. Turkic Languages 24, 30–77.

Underhill, R. (1976). Turkish grammar. The MIT Press.

Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review 66: 143–160.

Verkuyl, H. (1972). On the compositional nature of the aspects. University of Utrecht Dissertation, 1971. Reidel.

Verkuyl, H. (1993). A theory of aspectuality. The interaction between temporal and atemporal structure. Cambridge University Press.

Verkuyl, H. (2022). The compositional nature of tense, mood and aspect. Cambridge University Press.