In:Possession in Languages of Europe and North and Central Asia:
Edited by Lars Johanson, Lidia Federica Mazzitelli and Irina Nevskaya
[Studies in Language Companion Series 206] 2019
► pp. 125–148
Predicative possession in Oghuz and Kipchak Turkic languages
Published online: 5 March 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.206.07kar
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.206.07kar
This article studies syntactic, semantic and discursive properties of non-subordinate (main) clauses conveying possession in Oghuz and Kipchak Turkic languages. In Turkic, the concept of possession is typically encoded by clauses based on existential predicates. The language-specific and crosslinguistic properties of two predicate types, {bar} and {bol}, will be contrastively surveyed. As for the marking of possessor in clauses containing {bar}, three patterns will be described, one of which is a contact-induced structure restricted to Turkic varieties in Iran. As a multifunctional verb, {bol} can convey, among other things, dynamic or static possession. The results indicate that the clauses based on the static possession marker {bol} are more operative in Kipchak languages and in Turkmen (East Oghuz), than in West Oghuz languages. It will further be shown that the structures based on {bar} or the static marker {bol} typically exhibit discourse-related distribution in the respective languages.
Keywords: Oghuz Turkic, Kipchak Turkic, Turkmen, possessive clause, existence clause
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Clauses based on the non-verbal predicate {bar}
- 2.1{bar} in existence and possessive clauses
- 2.2Combinations of {bar} with copular markers
- 2.3Possessor marking in {bar} type of clauses
- Pattern 1
- 2.3.2Pattern 2
- 2.3.3Pattern 3
- 2.3.4Co-existence of genuine Turkic and copied patterns in Turkic varieties of Iran
- 3.Clauses based on the verbal predicate {bol}
- 3.1The multifunctional verb {bol}
- 3.2{bol} in possessive clauses
- 3.2.1{bol} as a dynamic possession marker
- 3.2.2{bol} as a static possession marker
- 4.Distribution of {bar} and {bol}
- 5.Summary
Abbreviations Notes References
References (31)
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2013. Possession and ownership: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Aikhenvald & Dixon (eds), 1–64.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Dixon, R. M. W. (eds) 2013. Possession and Ownership. A Cross-linguistic Typology. Oxford: OUP.
Csató, Éva Á. 2001. Karaim. In Minor Languages of Europe [Bochum-Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung 30], Thomas Stolz (ed.), 1–24. Bochum: Brockmeyer.
2014. Areal features of copula sentences in Karaim as spoken in Lithuania. In On Diversity and Complexity of Languages Spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia [Studies in Language Companion Series 164], Pirkko Suihkonen & Lindsay J. Whaley (eds), 205–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2019. On Turkish non-canonical possessives. In Possession in Languages of Europe and North and Central Asia [Studies in Language Companion Series 206], Lars Johanson, Lidia Federica Mazzitelli & Irina Nevskaya (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume)
Ersen-Rasch, Margarete. 2009. Baschkirisch. Lehrbuch für Anfänger und Fortgeschrittene. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
GA = Kösoǧlu, Nevzat (ed.). 1999. Türkiye dışındaki Türk edebiyatları antolojisi, 12: Romanya ve Gagavuz Türk edebiyatı
. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı yayınları.
Johanson, Lars. 1971. Aspekt im Türkischen. Vorstudien zu einer Beschreibung des türkeitürkischen Aspektsystems [Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Turcica Upsaliensia I]. Uppsala: University of Uppsala.
KA = Kösoǧlu, Nevzat (ed.). 2003. Türkiye dışındaki Türk edebiyatları antolojisi, 23: Karakalpak edebiyatı
. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı yayınları.
Karakoç, Birsel. 2000. The finite copula bol- in Noghay and its functional equivalents in Turkish. In Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages [Turcologica 46], Aslı Göksel & Celia Kerslake (eds), 143–149. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
. 2009. Notes on subject markers and copular forms in Turkish and in some Turkic varieties of Iran: A comparative study. Turkic Languages 13: 208–224.
. 2014. Non-past copular markers in Turkish. In On Diversity and Complexity of Languages Spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia, [Studies in Language Companion Series 164], Pirkko Suihkonen & Lindsay J. Whaley (eds) 221–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
. 2017. Subordination of existence and possessive clauses in Oghuz and Kipchak Turkic languages. Turkic Languages 21: 199–233.
Klein, Wolfgang & Levinson, Stephen (eds). 2009. The Expression of Possession. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
KMA = Kösoǧlu, Nevzat (ed.). 2002. Türkiye dışındaki Türk edebiyatları antolojisi, 22: Karaçay-Malkar edebiyatı
. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı yayınları.
KUA = Kösoǧlu, Nevzat (ed.). 2002. Türkiye dışındaki Türk edebiyatları antolojisi, 20: Kumuk edebiyatı
. Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı yayınları.
Mazzitelli, Lidia Federica. 2015. The Expression of Predicative Possession: A Comparative Study of Belarusian and Lithuanian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nevskaya, Irina. 1997. Tipologija lokativnyx konstrukcij v trjurkskix jazykax Južnoj Sibiri (na materiale šorskogo jazyka). Habilitation dissertation, Institute of Philology, Siberian Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Novosibirsk.
Öztopçu, Kurtuluş. 2003. Elementary Azerbaijani. Santa Monica CA: Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları Dizisi.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Ragagnin, Elisabetta
Csató, Éva Ágnes
2019. On Turkish non-canonical possessives. In Possession in Languages of Europe and North and Central Asia [Studies in Language Companion Series, 206], ► pp. 85 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
