Abstract
This paper aims to render an explanation for the interpretations of the Turkish aorist when it occurs at the antecedent clause of a conditional. I argue that at the main predicate position the aorist marker has two main interpretations, namely the future-oriented and the characterizing ones. However, inside the antecedent clause, these readings are not readily accessible in the way that they are at the consequent clause, i.e., the main predicate of the conditional. I tackle this situation from two different perspectives and layout two proposals. Based on Kratzer’s (1986, 1991) well-known restrictor analysis of conditionals, my first proposal is that the aorist marker is licensed in the antecedent clause only if the consequent clause has one of its matrix clause interpretations. Nonetheless, various examples allow the aorist marker in the antecedent even though the consequent clause has neither the future-oriented nor the characterizing interpretations. Therefore, I change my approach and make a final proposal that satisfactorily describes both the cases that conform to my initial proposal and the ones that do not. I propose that the aorist in the antecedent either sets the evaluation time of the consequent to the future, in line with Schulz’s (2008) analysis or makes a quantification over situations, as von Fintel (1994) argues for.
Highlights
The so-called aorist marker in Turkish has been examined by many (e.g., Göksel & Kerslake, 2005; Kornfilt, 1997; Yavaş, 1979 a.o.) and sometimes has been analyzed as the Simple Present Tense in English (Kornfilt, 1997) whereas some others (Göksel & Kerslake, 2005; Yavaş, 1979) deem it as an aspectual and a modal marker
I have argued that the antecedent aorist behaves differently from its counterpart in the consequent clause since it surfaces in an embedded context by being inside an antecedent
I subsequently demonstrate what kind of differences or restrictions the antecedent aorist has by comparing it to the imperfective and the future markers in the same contexts for its characterizing and future-oriented interpretations, respectively
Summary
The so-called aorist marker in Turkish has been examined by many (e.g., Göksel & Kerslake, 2005; Kornfilt, 1997; Yavaş, 1979 a.o.) and sometimes has been analyzed as the Simple Present Tense in English (Kornfilt, 1997) whereas some others (Göksel & Kerslake, 2005; Yavaş, 1979) deem it as an aspectual and a modal marker. Cinque (2001) refrains from discussing the aorist marker while tackling the tense, aspect, and modality affixes in Turkish due to not being certain about which head it might belong to in his study. As this controversy demonstrates, defining the functions of the aorist is not an easy task.. In terms of its interpretations, the aorist can be categorized under two distinct readings: the future-oriented and the characterizing (Yavaş, 1979). These readings seem to demonstrate some differences at the antecedent of a conditional compared to the consequent version. If it chooses its characterizing reading, it quantifies over situations
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Proceedings of the Workshop on Turkic and Languages in Contact with Turkic
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
