SOME NOTES ON TURKISH PRONOMINAL ANAPHORA TüRK E ADIL BA IMLILIKLARI üZER NE BAZI NOTLAR

This article discusses the distributional properties of the pronominal expressions in Turkish in light of the Binding theory proposed by Chomsky (1980, 1982, 1986) and developed in various dimensions throughout the Generative enterprise. The following questions are raised: (i) How are the anaphoric relations reflected in syntax? (ii) How does anaphora appear in Turkish? (iii) Can Binding theory explain the Turkish facts? I propose that the Binding theory Conditions A and B seem to be inadequate in explaining the anaphoric system of Turkish given that (i) Turkish seems to have a three-partite system instead of pronoun-anaphor complementarity, and (ii) the idea that Turkish has a specifiable minimal domain where the binding operation applies is problematic in a number of respects. I propose that Turkish distinguishes between forms which have only variable interpretation (kendi) and forms which have only deictic interpretation (personal pronouns). kendisi is a special form which combines these interpretations and licensed in accordance with the presence/absence of an A’- operator. Bu makalede Türk edeki ad llar n tümce i erisinde kurdu u ba ml l klar Chomsky (1980, 1982, 1986) taraf ndan ortaya at lan ve üretici dilbilgisi er evesinde geli tirilen Ba lama kuram nda tart lmaktad r. Makalede Ba lama kuram ko ullar n n Türk enin kimi yap lar n a klayamayaca iki neden etraf nda savunulmaktad r: (i) Türk ede Ba lama kuram n n ng rdü ü ki i ad l -d nü lü ad l ayr m yerine ü lü bir ayr m g ze arpmaktad r. (ii) Türk ede d nü lü ad l n i lenece i bir en kü ük alan olu turmak olanaks zd r. Makale bu anlamda sadece ba l de i ken okumas na sahip olan kendi ve sadece g sterici okumaya sahip olan ki i ad llar aras nda bir ayr m nermekte, kendisi ad l n n zel bir da l ma sahip olup bu iki okumay birle tirdi ini ve tümce i erisindeki bir i leyici taraf ndan i lendi ini savunmaktad r.