article The Category of Definiteness and İndefiniteness in Turkish and Georgian (Contrastive Analysis)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52340/PUTK.2025.29.19Keywords:
Semantics of definiteness and indefiniteness, Turkish language, Georgian languageAbstract
Definiteness and indefiniteness are important semantic categories that manifest differently across languages. In languages that lack specific grammatical markers, such as articles, these concepts are conveyed through various morphological and lexical means. Turkish and Georgian, as is widely recognized, belong to different language families and have significantly different structures. However, neither language possesses articles. In both, the category of definiteness and indefiniteness is expressed implicitly.
This paper examines the functional and semantic means of expressing definiteness and indefiniteness in Georgian and Turkish. It discusses the similarities and differences found between the two languages.
This paper intends to compare the categories of definiteness and indefiniteness in two structurally different languages that lack articles. It seeks to identify the universal features commonly found in languages without articles, while also demonstrating the specific characteristics that emerge due to the unique nature of each language.
Both Georgian and Turkish convey the semantics of definiteness and indefiniteness through demonstrative pronouns. Additionally, Turkish employs the accusative case and possessive suffixes as markers of definiteness, which are absent in Georgian. The indefinite category is expressed in both languages by the indefinite pronouns erti (Georgian) and bir (Turkish), meaning “one”. The expression of indefiniteness is significantly stronger in Turkish compared to Georgian. However, Georgian also employs other pronouns to convey indefiniteness, such as vinme (meaning "someone") and rame (meaning "something").
References
Banguoğlu 2015: Banguoğlu T., Grammar of Turkish. Ankara, 2015, Turkish Language Association Publications.
Daşdemir 2015: Daşdemir M., Structural-Functional Syntax. Erzurum. 2015. Fenomen Publications.
Enukidze 1987: Enukidze L,. Basic Syntactic Theories in Contemporary Foreign Linguistics. Tbilisi, 1987. “Science”.
Ergin 2013: Ergin M., Turkish Grammar, İstanbul. 2013, Bayrak Basım Yayın.
Karaağaç 2021: Karaağaç G., The Syntax of Turkish. İstanbul, 2021. Kesit Publications.
Karademir 2013: Karademir F., The Phenomenon of Possession in Turkish. İstanbul, 2013. Kesit Publications.
Karahan 1996: Karahan L., Some Thoughts on the Accusative and Genitive Case Suffixes. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Turkish Language Congress. Ankara, 1996. Turkish Language Association Publications. p. 605-611.
Kirvalidze 2006: Kirvalidze N., Pragmatic-Textual Essence of the Category of Definiteness in Discourse Analysis. Language and Cuture, No 3, 2006, pp. 100-106.
Kvachadze 1988. Kvachadze L., Syntax of Contemporary Georgian. Tbilisi, 1988. "Education".
Uturgaidze 2004: Uturgaidze T., The Substantive Modifier in Old and Modern Georgian. Issues of Georgian Culture, Book Twelve. Tbilisi, 2004, pp. 170-177.
Üstünova 2021: Üstünova K., The Definitive Function of the Possessive Suffix or the Suffix That Turns the Possessor into an Adjective of the Possessed. In Proceedings of the 16th International Great Turkish Language Congress, Vol.1. Ankara, 2021. p. 180-188.
Zekalashvili 2013: Zekalashvili R., Grammatical and semantic characteristics of the noun actualizing means in the Georgian literary language. Tselitsdeuli. №5, 2013, pp. 128-137.
http://gnc.gov.ge/gnc/concordance 03.05.2025.
https://corpora.iliauni.edu.ge/search_words) 01.03.2021.