Advances in Role and Reference Grammar

TURKISH CLAUSE LINKAGE^555

Note that the dependent verb is marked with the accusative case suffix, the
possessive suffix, and the "verbal noun" suffix, -mE. Another example of
core subordination is the following:

(58) On-lar-ιn biz-e gel-eceg san-ιl-miş-tι.

PRO-PL-GEN IPL-DAT come-FUT-3sG POSS think-PASs-mlş-PT

"It was thought they were coming to us."

Note that the embedded clause has morphological signs of its being depen­

dent: it is nominalized and the subject is marked as the possessor of the

nominalized verb. Consider (59).

(59) On-lar biz-e gel-ecek san-ιl-miş-tι.

PRO-PL us-DAT m-FUT think-PAss-mIş-PT

"It was thought they will come to us."

Note that unlike (58), there is no case-marking on the verb of the embed­

ded clause; in fact there is no morphological sign of it being a dependent

clause at all. However, in both (58) and (59) the embedded clause is clearly

functioning as the subject of the passive form of the verb sanilmişti. Van

Valin (1984) discusses the following four possible types of clause linkage:

(60) [—dependent, -embedded] coordination

[+dependent, +embedded] subordination

[+dependent, -embedded] cosubordination

[-dependent, + embedded]?

Though the fourth possibility was not discussed at length in Van Valin

(1984), it was mentioned that a "possible condidate is direct discourse com­

plements, since they are part of but in all respects independent of the main

clause." (1984:547; the suggestion attributed to Pam Munro.) This is appar­

ently the type of clause linkage which occurs in (59). It is not marked as a

dependent clause yet it is embedded as an argument of the verb sanilmişti.

8. Core cosubordination

Turkish constructions marked by -Ip seem to exemplify a categorial depen­

dency for all clausal and core operators, as in the following examples from

Lewis: (63-64 all from Lewis 1967:178)