Semantic Errors & Logical Fallacies: Usage Errors (Anlatım Bozuklukları) in Turkish Writing
- Galina Blankenship
- Oct 10, 2024
- 22 min read
Updated: 2 days ago
Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics in Writing
In written language, grammatical rules can be understood in terms of the syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of linguistic expressions. Roughly speaking, a linguistic inquiry deals with the principles governing the use of a written linguistic expression/proposition in terms of its structure, meaning, and context/discourse coherence.
Syntax has to do with the way a linguistic expression/proposition is structured, mainly, the way its constituents relate to each other. The chief concerns of a syntactical inquiry include the word ordering and the grammatical agreement between the constituents of a proposition (for example, between the subject and the predicate, the specifier and the specified).
The linguistic field of semantics studies the way a linguistic expression/proposition conveys its meaning, including the appropriate use and positioning of the thematic roles (agent, patient, goal, location, etc.) of its constituents. Semantic inquiry may
Finally, pragmatics situates a linguistic expression/proposition in a broader context, a discourse, to verify the discourse-appropriate arrangement of the information being communicated, namely, whether the proposition is ordered according to the information flow principle. According to the principle, the emphasized important (new) information should be placed after the information that is already known from the context (old) or assumed to be known (given). Pragmatics also studies the sociolinguistic uses of language, as in speech (performance) acts and in acts of politeness.
On the surface, syntax helps us build grammatically acceptable structures that follow the correct word ordering. For instance, the sentences (in Turkish and English) on the left are syntactically correct thanks to the valid word order (being SOV in Turkish and SVO in English). Underneath, these sentences are also semantically meaningful:
Kedi, biraz kedi maması yedi. *Kedi maması, biraz kedi yedi.
The cat ate some cat food. *The cat food ate some cat.
Not all syntactically valid structures are meaningful, however. For example, the sentences above on the right are ordered in the same way as the sentences on the left, but they are not meaningful, even though they are syntactically acceptable. To be meaningful, or to make sense, in a grammatically appropriate way, a statement must be both grammatically correct (or syntactically acceptable) and semantically valid.
While a sentence may be both grammatically and semantically sound, it may not fit into the larger context of the text from where it is taken. For example, the sentences below are correctly structured and separately make sense. However, the sentences on the left side are not coherent in the context of this excerpt (both sentences have the same explicit topic, kedi (the cat), which runs against the information flow principle), while the sentences on the right fit in together more coherently (the sentences have the same topic, kedi (the cat), but in the second sentence, the topic is implicit in Turkish or replaced with its corresponding personal pronoun (she) in English as required by the information flow principle):
?Kedi, biraz kedi maması yedi. Kedi sonra uyuyakaldı. Kedi, biraz kedi maması yedi. Sonra uyuyakaldı.
?The cat ate some cat food. The cat then fell asleep. The cat ate some cat food. Then she fell asleep.
To sum up, a grammatical, properly ordered proposition may be semantically invalid if it has a semantic error, i.e., an error in conveying the meaning of the proposition. Semantic errors include logical fallacies, which is a generic term for errors in reasoning. Such errors have less to do with the shared knowledge of the world than with the elusive notion of common sense. A proposition must also be discourse-appropriate and match other sentences in a coherent narrative where ideas and relations between the ideas are expected to be meaningfully and clearly defined.
That's said, the lines between syntactical, semantic, and pragmatic aspects of the use of language are not always clear. In most cases, they overlap. For instance, the word ordering plays a role in each of the three uses. Furthemore, some linguistic conventions may change in time, like the appropriateness or the semantic meaning of some expressions. One of the major usage issues, ambiguity, may be caused by a range of errors: the syntactically or pragmatically erroneous word order, the faulty use or omission of a pronoun, or the sociolinguistic use of a stylistically awkward hedge (in polite expressions).
Usage Norms & Common Sense
As with stylistic usages, semantics-related uses can also be suggestions only, relying not only on our collective usage habits but also on our common sense. Believed to be something between reason and intuition, common sense is understood to be innate in us, requiring no extra knowledge. Its existence outside of one's basic expertise, or even a reflection or thought, makes it difficult to define, however. Nevertheless, as The Times’ Stylebook optimistically claims, “the rule of common sense will prevail at all times.”
That's said, the perceived universality of common sense makes us all potentially experts, and critics. Even though some usage choices may be mere suggestions, a semantic or a stylistic mishap may provoke mockery and ridiculing, causing more embarrassment than a misspelled word or a misapplied comma.
Common Syntactical & Semantic (and Logical) Issues
The common syntactical and semantic issues in Turkish may involve:
Use of lexicalized or semi-lexicalized collocations (combinations) and idioms
Grammatical agreement inconsistencies, including the use of the abbreviations vb. and vs.
Word order issues, including dangling modifiers, misplaced modifiers
Ambiguity (or vagueness) of a linguistic expression due to:
Ambiguous pronominal referent tracking (pro-form/pro-drop)
Ambiguous word order, including misplaced (“squinting”) modifiers, faulty order of modifiers
Vague and stylistically awkward hedging
Grammatical Agreement Inconsistency: da/de
▼
▲This is a common typo in Turkish, which may create ambiguity in a sentence:
Original:
İşletmelerde insanlar gibi yaşayan varlıklardır.
Genel Muhasebe I, Anadolu University, ed. Kerim Banar and Vedat Ekergil
Revised:
İşletmeler de insanlar gibi yaşayan varlıklardır.
Like people, businesses, too, are living entities.
Collocation Issue (and Redundancy)
▼
▲ In the sentence below, the verbal form yapılan does not combine well with the noun alıntı. As Turkish nouns are often derived from verbs, just as alıntı (excerpt, extract) is derived from alınmak (to be extracted) (whose verbal form is alınan), the most appropriate choice for combining with the noun alıntı, as opposed to other verbals, is the verbal alınan. Yet this also makes it potentially redundant:
Original:
Romanlardan yapılan alıntılarda üvey annelerin çocuklar tarafından pek sevilmediği görülmüştür.
(lit., The excerpts made from the novels reveal that children tend to dislike their stepmothers.)
Türk Kadın Yazarların Romanları
Revised:
Romanlardan (alınan) alıntılarda üvey annelerin çocuklar tarafından pek sevilmediği görülmüştür.
The excerpts (taken) from the novels reveal that children tend to dislike their stepmothers.
Ambiguous (Faulty) Word Order of Modifiers
▼
▲ In addition to redundancy, ambiguity is the second major usage issue in Turkish and English. Ambiguity is often caused by a faulty word order, including the ordering of attribute modifiers. While in the head-medial English modifiers can be placed before or after the related headword, in the head-final Turkish, any such modifiers must be placed on the same side, before the headword.
The careful rearrangement of the sentence and/or the use of appropriate punctuation should resolve ambiguity in most cases. However, in some instances, punctuation may not always be applicable, and changing the word order alone may not be enough. Some sentences may require an additional creative touch.
Here is a sentence from R.N. Güntekin’s Miskinler Tekkesi, which can be understood in two ways, of which the first version is probably the intended one:
Original:
İyi anlamadığımı görünce: Yani, parasız devlet talebesi oldum, dedi.
1. Seeing that I was at a loss, he added, “I mean, I’ve become a penniless scholarship student.”
2. Seeing that I was at a loss, he added, “I mean, I’ve become a student of penniless state.”
Reşat Nuri Güntekin, Miskinler Tekkesi
Under the first version, the modifiers appear independent (equal) in their relation to the headword (talebi). Normally, this occurs with coordinated, or paratactic, modifiers, which should be separated by a comma, or the coordinating conjunction “and”, and be flexible enough to switch places. Yet the modifiers cannot be rearranged.
If we place a comma between them, the meaning of the sentence changes:
┌─────┐
↓ ┌────┐
Parasız, devlet talebesi oldum.
With no money, I’ve become a scholarship student.
The modifiers are neither hypotactic (or cumulative), meaning that there is no dependency or hierarchy between them. The modifiers are qualitatively different: while the first one is a classic adjective, the second modifier is a qualifying noun and cannot be separated from the noun it modifies:
┌─────┐
┌────┐ ↓
Parasız devlet talebesi oldum.
I mean, I’ve become a student of penniless state.
Luckily, there is another trick in Turkish, namely, the use of bir as an indefinite article:
Revised:
┌────┐
Parasız bir devlet talebesi oldum.
I’ve become a penniless scholarship student.
Vocabulary Use: “adil” vs. “sosyal”
▼
▲ The sentence below is structured in such a way as to suggest that adil (just) and zorba (tyrannical) are antonyms and that adil and sosyal (welfare) are synonymous when used to describe a form of government, or a state. There is some incongruence here. While the modifiers adil and zorba are highly emotive notions, reflecting the author's personal subjective view, the modifier sosyal is a neutral term used in political science. The more appropriate academic terms for adil and zorba would probably be democratic and authoritarian (as a suggestion). Besides, while an authoritarian state may not be just, it may still care about and protect the welfare of its citizens, as a welfare state would do:
Original:
Devletler ellerinde bulundurdukları gücü iki şekilde kullanırlar… Bunlardan birincisi adil (sosyal) devlet, ikincisi de zorba devlettir.
(lit., States use the power they have in two ways. … The first of these is the just (welfare) state, and the second is the tyrannical state.)
Fuat Bol, “Devlet ve adalet”, from Milliyet
Revised:
Devletler ellerinde bulundurdukları gücü iki şekilde kullanırlar… Bunlardan birincisi adil devlet, ikincisi de zorba devlettir.
Vocabulary Use: “tercih” vs. “seçim”, “yön” vs. “yol”, “kimi” vs. “hangisini”, and “medeniyet”
▼
▲ The terms seçim (choice, selection, or election) and tercih (preference) are not synonymous or interchangeable, as the author of the sentences below seems to present. The latter, tercih, semantically expresses a subjective notion of one's preference. Therefore, asking a question, Which of our preferences are correct?, makes no sense because the question suggests that some preferences can be objectively more correct than others. What may be correct or wrong is one's choice, selection, or decision. Nor does it make much sense to choose between civilizations. (At least I have never heard of such a choice.) The only possible, if hyperbolic, choice is between being civilized and being barbarian. And finally, I don't see much difference between kimi and hangisini or yön and yol, so hangisini and yol can easily go:
Original:
Kimi, hangisini, niçin seçmeliyiz? Seçmedeki ölçümüz ne olacak? Hangi tercihimiz doğru olur? (...) Parti tercihi yön, yol, düzen, medeniyet, zihniyet, reçete tercihidir.
(lit. Whom should we elect, which one, and why? What criteria should we apply when electing? Which preference will be right? […] A party preference is akin to deciding on the direction, path, plan, civilization, mindset, and recommendations.)
Bahaddin Elçi, “Ne sağ ne sol, ne cumhur ne millet, tek seçenek” from Milli Gazete
Revised:
Kimi, niçin seçmeliyiz? Seçmedeki ölçümüz ne olacak? Hangi seçimimiz doğru olur? (...) Parti seçimi yön, düzen, zihniyet, reçete seçimidir.
Whom should we elect? What criteria should we follow? What is the right choice? […] Electing a party is akin to deciding on the direction, societal order, mindset, and recipe.
The confusion about the terms tercih (preference) and seçim (choice, selection, or election) may stem from the ways they are used in the descriptions of interactions with the user interface (UI) in computer programs, apps, gadgets, etc. This is certainly an imitation of English, where it has become a common practice to describe the act of indicating a preference when interacting with UI as selecting it rather than choosing it—probably to keep one's individual choices and preferences conceptually separate from one's program settings preferences. However, even in the UI context, the terms are not exactly interchangeable. In IT, the term preference is used to mean an UI option (e.g., a program setting), as selected by the user, as well as the user's subjective desire that prompts her to make that selection. As users, we decide, based on our preferences or desired outcome, which options to choose, which we then select.
Persistent Agreement and Tautology Issues Using “vb.” (ve benzeri) / “vs.” (vesaire)
▼
▲ One common usage issue in Turkish has to do with the careless, and often redundant, use of such abbreviations as vb. (ve benzeri) and vs. (vesaire). Writers often add vb./vs. for no clear, justifiable reason, except, it seems, to “pad” up a sentence. Writers at times seem to have forgotten to expand these abbreviations to verify whether they actually fit into the syntactical structure of the sentence. The abbreviations can be translated as “and the rest of such/similar things”, which are equivalent to the English “et cetera” or “and so on and so forth”.
The expansion of vb. and its synonymous expressions are as follows:
vb. = ve benzeri = ve [bunun] benzeri = ve [bunun] diğerleri
vb. = ve [bunun] gibi OR ve [bu] gibi
🚩 1. Firstly, since the abbreviations vb./vs. (and etc.) imply that there are “more of the same/similar things”, these should not be used with exhaustive (complete) lists of serial items (or examples). Instead, the appropriate use of vb./vs. (or etc.) is at the end of an illustrative, non-exhaustive (incomplete) list. If the items listed constitute an entire list of items, the use of vb./vs. (or etc.) is unwarranted, and illogical.
Furthermore, the items in the list must be homogenous enough to constitute a feasible list, so that the reader can understand what other same/similar things may be added to the list. With the items too diverse, it is hard to figure out what other items could continue the lists. For example, the list in the sentence below is too diverse, and seemingly complete, to warrant the use of a vb.:
Bu nüfusa yeterli hastane, okul, iş, yol, su, enerji, konut vb. yetiştirmek mümkün değildir.
(lit., It is not possible to provide enough hospitals, schools, jobs, roads, water, energy, housing, etc., for such a population.)
S. Akşin, Siyasal Tarih (1995-2003) Türkiye Tarihi 5: Bugünkü Türkiye 1980-2003
🚩 2. Secondly, while the Turkish ve benzeri is a standard, Turkish-language expression, the Latin et cetera is not standard in the spoken English. Known as an eye dialect (something read by eyes, rather than by mouth) and rarely used in speech, etc. is largely a phenomenon of the written language. Unlike Turkish language users, English speakers do not have to worry about fitting the expression into the sentence's organic structure. While the English adverbial-like phrase etc. tends to occur in writing at the end of a clause, a sentence, or a supplemental (parenthetical) list used to provide background details, the Turkish ve benzeri often appears in the middle of the sentence due to the verb-final structure of Turkish, where it forms phrases with other sentence constituents.
Depending on the context, benzeri can function either as a ‑(si) compound noun (with the specifying (genitive) ‑(n)in noun, bunun, being implicitly understood) or as an adjective (forming a noun phrase with the following noun). When used as an adjective modifier, it forms a noun phrase with the noun that follows:
... edebiyatın felsefî temelleri vb. konularda yazdığı = ... edebiyatın felsefî temelleri ve benzeri konularda yazdığı
Zima, 1970’li yıllardan itibaren estetik, karşılaştırmalı edebiyat, yapı sökücü kuramlar, ideoloji, edebiyatın felsefî temelleri vb. konularda yazdığı kitap ve makaleleriyle tanınmaktadır.
Zima is known for the books and articles he has written since the 1970s on the topics of aesthetics, comparative literature, deconstructive theories, ideology, philosophical foundations of literature, and others.
Eleştiri Kuramlar, ed. Riza Filizok and Eylem Saltık
In the Turkish context, when vb. is used as an adjective, it is perfectly interchangeable with gibi, as shown below:
Zima, 1970’li yıllardan itibaren estetik, karşılaştırmalı edebiyat, yapı sökücü kuramlar, ideoloji, edebiyatın felsefî temelleri gibi konularda yazdığı kitap ve makaleleriyle tanınmaktadır.
Zima is known for the books and articles he has written since the 1970s on such topics as aesthetics, comparative literature, deconstructive theories, ideology, and philosophical foundations of literature.
When used as a ‑(si) compound noun (with an implicit bunun), it forms both a phrase with the constituent that follows (e.g., a verb phrase in the sentence below) and a series with the preceding noun, with which it must be in agreement, since ve signals coordination. As Turkish nouns inflect for cases, vb. should be expected to do the same. As the typical example below demonstrates, the inflection of vb. in Turkish writing is often assumed, rather than indicated:
... mektubu vb. çevirmiştir = ... mektubu ve benzerini çevirmiştir
Bir duruşma kararını, bir dilekçeyi, mektubu vb. çeviri dilinin hangi geleneksel metin kalıplarına uygun ya da aykırı çevirmiştir çevirmen, sözgelişi?
(lit., For example, when translating a court decision, a petition, a letter, etc., which traditional text patterns of the language of translation did the translator follow or avoided to follow?)
Akşit Göktürk, Çeviri: Dillerin Dili
The abbreviation tends to be used as a single placeholder for all its inflected forms—namely, ve benzerine, ve benzerinin, etc.—which is not grammatically correct. According to the Turkish rules, lowercased abbreviations should be written out with the appropriate case-marked ending, as shown below. Yet this convention is hardly ever followed:
Case | Expanded Form | Abbreviated Form |
Nominative | ve benzeri | vb. |
Accusative | ve benzerini | vb.ni |
Dative | ve benzerine | vb.ne |
Genitive | ve benzerinin | vb.nin |
Ablative | ve benzerinden | vb.nden |
Here are some more examples of the used vb. with no indication of the appropriate case marking:
... korkularının vb. simgelerini = ... korkularının ve benzerinin simgelerini
Original:
Bu nedenle bir yazınsal sanat yapıtına, yazarın bilinçdışı bastırılmış isteklerinin, tepilerinin, korkularının vb. simgelerini taşıyan bir belge olarak bakılarak, yazarın yapıtıyla yaşantısının bilinmezliklerini ortaya koymaya çalışan ruh çözümleyici eleştiri yaklaşımı yazın dünyasında heyecan yaratmış, büyük kabul görmüştür.
(lit., For this reason, the psychoanalytic approach to criticism, which attempts to reveal the unknowns of the author’s life through her work by viewing a literary work as a document bearing the symbols of the writer’s repressed, subconscious wishes, impulses, and fears, etc., has excited the literary world, having become widely accepted.)
Eleştiri Kuramlar, ed. Rıza Filizok and Eylem Saltık
Revised:
Bu nedenle bir yazınsal sanat yapıtına, yazarın bilinçdışı bastırılmış isteklerinin, tepilerinin, korkularının vb.nin simgelerini taşıyan bir belge olarak bakılarak, yazarın yapıtıyla yaşantısının bilinmezliklerini ortaya koymaya çalışan ruh çözümleyici eleştiri yaklaşımı yazın dünyasında heyecan yaratmış, büyük kabul görmüştür.
🚩 3. When vb. is combined with another expression used to introduce or signal an illustrative (non-exhaustive) list of examples, such as mesela, örneğin, or sözgelişi grammatical tautology occurs. Such tautological combinations can be found in both fiction and non-fiction texts, as the examples below demonstrate:
Tarihin bir döneminde, kurtlara av alanı kalmamıştı. Çünkü hayvanların kralı sayılan aslan, kaplan, pars vb. gibi güçlü ve yırtıcı hayvanlar, dünyanın av alanlarını kendi aralarında bölüşmüşlerdi.
In a period of history, the wolves had no hunting space because the strong and predatory animals like lions, tigers, and leopards, believed to be the kings of animals, divided the hunting areas of the world among themselves.
Aziz Nesin, “Büyük Koyun İmparatorluğu”
Nor should vb. be used with another list-concluding expression, like gibi, since both mean the same thing:
Türkiye’nin bu önerileri yeterince dikkate almaması ve özellikle Sovyetlerle yapılan anlaşmalarla ağır sanayiye önem verilmesi (İskenderun Demir-Çelik, Seydişehir Alüminyum Kuruluşlarıyla, Orta Anadolu Rafinerisi vb. gibi kuruluşlara yönelinmesi) nedeniyle olsa gerek, bu konudaki baskı giderek yön değiştirir.
(lit., The pressure in this matter gradually gets redirected because Turkey does not consider these proposals adequately while giving importance to heavy industry especially in its agreements with the Soviets (İskenderun Demir ve Çelik A.Ş., Seydişehir Alüminyum factories, Central Anatolian Refinery, etc.).)
M. Emin Değer, Oltadaki Balık Türkiye
Just as vb. should not be combined with gibi, it can neither replace gibi in comparison constructions, as is erroneously done in the sentence below:
Original:
Ancak eski ögeler birdenbire yok olmadığı vb. yeni olanlar da hemen yaygınlaşmaz, geçiş dönemlerinde açık ve net olarak söylüyorum, nüans farkı gibi popüler örneklerde olduğu gibi bir arada yaşayabilir.
Nurettin Demir, “Dil ve Varyasyon” (from Türk Dili: Yazılı Anlatım–Sözlü Anlatım, ed. Nurettin Demir & Emine Yılmaz)
Revised:
Ancak eski ögeler birdenbire yok olmadığı gibi, yeni olanlar da hemen yaygınlaşmaz, geçiş dönemlerinde açık ve net olarak söylüyorum, nüans farkı gibi popüler örneklerde olduğu gibi bir arada yaşayabilir.
However, just as old words do not suddenly disappear, new ones do not immediately take hold. Instead, they coexist during the transition, as demonstrated by such common expressions as “açık ve net olarak söylüyorum” (I say it clearly and directly) or “nüans farkı” (a nuanced difference).
Strictly speaking, in any other instances other than the one shown below (at the end of a parenthesized supplemental listing), there is no reason to use vb. or vs., the uses of which are often ambiguous, lacking the grammatical agreement, or stylistically tautological:
Bu ana-tür, görsel işitsel bütün iletişim araçları için hazırlanan (film sözleri, film altyazıları, resimli roman yazıları, opera sözleri vb.) metinleri kapsar.
This main type includes texts prepared for audiovisual communication (movie captions, subtitles, written text for graphic novels, opera captions, etc.).
Akşit Göktürk, Çeviri: Dillerin Dili
Vocabulary Use (“kapsam”) & Metonymic Fallacy
▼
▲ The use of the term “kapsam” (scope) in the context of the sentence below is problematic, and there is some metonymic confusion about a person's identity (or ID) and a person:
Original:
MK m. 153/2 gereğince, müdafin dosya içeriğini incelemesi veya belgelerden örnek alması, soruşturmanın amacını tehlikeye düşürebilecek ise, Cumhuriyet savcısının istemi üzerine, sulh ceza hâkiminin kararıyla bu yetkisi kısıtlanabilir. Bu kısıtlama kapsamına, soruşturma dosyasında bulunan tanıkların kimlikleri de dahildir.
(lit., According to Article 153/2 of the Criminal Code, if the defense attorney’s examination of the file content or obtainment of document copies may jeopardize the purpose of the investigation, this power may be restricted by the decision of the criminal judge of peace upon the request of the public prosecutor. The identities of the witnesses in the investigation file are also included in the scope of this restriction.)
Esra Alan Akcan, “Soruşturma Evresinde Mağdurun Hakları ve Yükümlülükleri”
The term “kapsam” (scope), which is an abstract notion that denotes the limits of one's reach or application, the extent of one's influence or effect. Although it tends to be overused in Turkish writing, it has an important use in the legal context, where it is used to indicate whether something falls within/under the scope (authority) of a legal act, or a decreed restriction of one's powers, as it is used in this text. An alternative, and a more common, expression is bu kısıtlama kapsamına girmek (falls within the scope). Here, “kapsam” can be dispensed with altogether. Instead, we can say that the restriction applies to something, as in bu kısıtlama ... geçerlidir.
Furthemore, soruşturma dosyasında bulunan tanıkların kimlikleri (the identities of the witnesses are in the investigation file) is illogical. “Kimlik” (identification card, identity) can be known or discovered, but it cannot be placed inside a file. It seems that here “kimlik” (identification card, identity) is erroneously equated to being identified. The more appropriate phrasing would be soruşturma dosyasında isimleri bulunan tanıklar (the witnesses are named in the investigation file), although Turkish has a more lexicalized expression of the same:
Revised:
MK m. 153/2 gereğince, müdafin dosya içeriğini incelemesi veya belgelerden örnek alması, soruşturmayı tehlikeye düşürebilecek ise, Cumhuriyet savcısının istemi üzerine, sulh ceza hâkiminin kararıyla bu yetkisi kısıtlanabilir. Bu kısıtlama, soruşturma dosyasında adı geçen/tespit edilen tanıklar/açıklanan tanıkların kimlikleri için de geçerlidir.
According to Article 153/2 of the Criminal Code, if the defense attorney’s examination of the file content or obtainment of document copies may jeopardize the investigation, this power may be restricted by the decision of the criminal judge of peace upon the request of the public prosecutor. This restriction also applies to the witnesses mentioned/identified in the investigation file. This restriction also applies to the witnesses mentioned/identified/the identities of the witnesses disclosed in the investigation file.
Logic & Stylistic Usage Issues
▼
▲ Below is an excerpt from an accounting textbook, from the section titled “Purchasing Expenses”, which explains how a returned purchase should be reported in accounting. As an example, the author(s) describes a hypothetical event in a hypothetical company when the company has to return the purchased products after inspecting the delivery and finding quality issues:
Original:
Satın alınan mallar, işletme tarafından teslim alınırken teslim alan birim tarafından kontrol edilir. Yapılan bu kontrollerin sonucunda satın alınan malların istenen özelliklerin bir kısmını ya da hiçbirini taşımıyor olması ya da farklı bir mal gönderilmiş olması gibi durumlarla karşılaşılması durumunda işletmeler, söz konusu malların bir kısmını ya da tamamını iade edebilirler.
(lit., Purchased goods are inspected by the receiving unit when they are received by the company. If, as a result of these inspections, the purchased goods do not have some or all of the required features or if a different product has been sent, companies may return some or all of the goods in question.)
Genel Muhasebe I, Anadolu University, ed. Kerim Banar and Vedat Ekergil
► Stylistic repetitiveness:
teslim alınırken teslim alan birim
The first two sentences have repetitive parts. Since there is no mentioning of any “receiving department” afterwards, it’s not a specific entity. It's a needless mention.
yapılan bu kontrollerin
Sentence-initial verbal modifiers may occasionally function as discourse connectives linking to the previous sentence(s). In the second sentence, the sentence-initial verbal yapılan does exactly that. Yet the same meaning is conveyed by the sentence-initial specifying demonstrative pronoun bu (this). Using both is, therefore, redundant.
► Tautology:
gibi durumlarla karşılaşılması durumunda ⟶ Ø
► Agreement issues (in number):
işletme ... işletmeler
As I stated above, this paragraph describes a hypothetical company and a hypothetical event. Yet there is an inconsistency in the number of the subjects of the sentences describing the event. Starting from one işletme, the author then switches to işletmeler. This makes the plural use of kontroller inconsistent as well, since the description is specific to a single event, and it’s not a general statement. Further, the plural mallar is inconsistently juxtaposed with the singular farklı bir mal.
► “Empty” expression:
söz konusu ⟶ Ø
► Logical fallacies:
The current version of the second sentence (yapılan bu kontrollerin sonucunda ... istenen özelliklerin ... taşımıyor olması) implies that the quality issues detected in the product are the result of the inspection(s), which is, of course, illogical.
Again, in the second sentence (satın alınan malların istenen özelliklerin bir kısmını ya da hiçbirini taşımıyor olması ya da farklı bir mal gönderilmiş olması), three conditions are established for the purchased good to be returned:
(i) (all of) the purchased goods do not meet some of the required specifications; OR
(ii) (all of) the purchased goods do not meet any of the required specifications; OR
(iii) (all of) the purchased goods are not the goods that were ordered.
Now, not meeting some requirements is the definition of a defect. So, the first condition (i) simply means that all of the purchased goods are defective. The second condition (ii) means that none of the purchased goods meet the requirements, which is to say that none of the purchased goods are the goods ordered, which is also stated by the third condition (iii), meaning that (ii) = (iii). Therefore, either (ii) or (iii) is redundant.
So, there are actually two (not three) reasons for the return:
(i) (all of) the purchased goods are defective; OR
(ii) (all of) the purchased goods are not the goods ordered.
Further, the sentence describes the actions that the company may take depending on the established reason (söz konusu malların bir kısmını ya da tamamını iade edebilirler). The company may act in two ways:
(a) the company may return some of the purchased goods; OR
(b) the company may return all of the purchased goods.
Now, the option (a) makes no sense whatsoever: if all the purchased goods are defective, why return only some of them? If we compare the reasons with the resulting actions, only the second option (b) makes sense and matches both (i) and (ii). If all the goods are either defective or wrong, they must all be returned. If, however, the company is OK with the defect, then the company should keep all the defective goods, meaning all the purchased goods.
Here is my revision:
Revised:
Satın alınan mallar, işletme tarafından teslim alındığında kontrol edilir. Bu kontrolün sonucunda, satın alınan malların bir kısmının ya da tamamının istenen özellikleri taşımadığı tespit edilirse, malların o kısmı ya da tamamı iade edilebilir.
Upon receipt, purchased goods are inspected by the company. If this inspection establishes that some or all of the purchased goods do not meet the required specifications, that portion or all of the goods may be returned.
Tautological Syntactical Incongruence (Comparison of Equivalence vs. Comparison of Similarity)
▼
▲ The sentence below has several semantic faults: the stylistic repetitiveness of kadar and confusion of two distinctive but somewhat similar constructions, the comparison of equivalence and the comparison of similarity:
Original:
Gereksiz yere tüketilen nakit kadar, yeteri kadar kullanılmayan nakit de işletmelerin faaliyetlerinin başarısızlığı üzerinde aynı etkiye neden olmaktadır.
(lit., Cash that is not used sufficiently, just as cash that is spent unnecessarily, has the same effect on the failure of businesses' operations.)
Genel Muhasebe I (Anadolu University), ed. Kerim Banar and Vedat Ekergil
First, the two compared items—gereksiz yere tüketilen nakit vs. yeteri kadar kullanılmayan nakit—are parallel and contrasted, with the contrast meant to underline the paradox that underspending cash is as bad for businesses as overspending it. The immediate revision would be to rephrase them in a more parallel manner, as, let's say, gereksiz(ce) kullanılan nakit and yeterin(ce) kullanılmayan nakit, to highlight the paradox. The ellipsis of the items gereksiz(ce) kullanılan nakit and yeterin(ce) kullanılmayan nakit can be further reduced due to the shared element: nakit paranın yetersiz kullanımı ve gereksiz kullanımı.
Second, the sentence is rather nonsensical! The phrase işletmelerin başarısızlığı bir şekilde etkiler (affecting the failure of businesses in some way) makes absolutely no sense. The failure is caused or contributed to, not affected. Moreover, the use of “in some way” is too vague to be effective, or even meaningful.
Third, it appears that the author(s) have muddled the formulas for the comparison of equivalence (the one that uses the adverbial kadar) and the comparison of similarity (the one that uses the adjective aynı). If we choose the version with the complement kadar (as ... as), then based on the context, we mean to compare the items in terms of their ability to perform something, which means that the the complement should modify a verb. Based on the context, the sentence can be revised as:
Revision 1 (the comparison of equivalence version with kadar):
Nakit paranın yetersiz kullanımı; gereksiz kullanımı kadar işletmenin başarısızlığına yol açabilir.
Insufficiently used cash can lead to business failure just as much as unnecessarily used cash.
That's said, we can also phrase this as a comparison of similar things, using the gibi-clause:
Revision 2 (the comparison of similarity/analogy version with gibi):
Yetersiz kullanılan nakit, gereksiz kullanılan nakit gibi işletmenin başarısızlığına yol açabilir.
Gereksiz yere kullanılan nakit gibi, yetersiz kullanılan nakit de işletmenin başarısızlığına yol açabilir.
Insufficiently used cash can lead to business failure, as can unnecessarily used cash.
Just as unnecessarily used cash, insufficiently used cash may also lead to business failure.
Faulty Word Order, Vague Language, Excessive Modifications
▼
▲ Several logical issues can be found in the sentence below:
Original:
Kaynak, sahip olduğu bir duyguyu, bir düşünceyi alıcı ile paylaşmak isterse onu, önce mimik, jest, hareket, ses, söz vb. gibi sembollerden en az biriyle oluşturulmuş bir mesaj hâline getirmek sonra da bu mesajı, bir araçla alıcının duyu organlarından en az birine iletmek zorundadır.
(lit., If the source wants to share an emotion or a thought with the receiver, he must first transform it into a message created with at least one of the symbols such as mimic, gesture, movement, sound, word, etc., and then transmit this message to at least one of the receiver's sensory organs through a means.)
Hayati Develi, Türk Dili I
► Vague expression:
The notion of belonging, expressed with the verb “sahip olmak” (to own), has a static sense and may not be as appropriate with ephemeral, abstract concepts, such as a feeling or an emotion (duygu, his). Furthermore, we don’t really share our emotions; we convey them. We may share our thoughts, however.
In the enumeration of the methods for conveying a message, the listing together of such items as gesture and movement makes them equal. However, the term “movement” is broader than “gesture,” the latter applying to hand movements only.
► Faulty order of words:
The author mis-ordered the object pronoun (onu) and the adverb (önce) in the compound-complex sentence where the two compound clauses express two successive actions, each having its own object and adverb: önce + onu and sonra + bu mesajı.
► Tautological duplication: vb. + gibi
The combined use of vb. (ve benzeri) and gibi is tautological, since both are used to give examples.
► Excessive modification (hypercharacterization):
According to the sentence, the source must transform a thought into a message by creating it with mimic, gestures, etc. The combination of two verb forms, oluşturulmuş and hâline getirmek, suggests two actions, first oluşturmak and then hâline getirmek, even though both are synonymic.
Revised:
Kaynak, alıcıya bir duyguyu veya düşünceyi iletmek istiyorsa, önce bunu mimik, jest, beden hareketi, ses veya sözcüklerle bir mesaj hâline getirmeli, sonra da bu mesajı özel bir araçla alıcının duyu organlarından en az birine iletmelidir.
If the source wants to convey an emotion or share a thought with the receiver, she must first transform it into a message with facial expressions, gestures, body movements, sounds, or words, and then transmit this message to at least one of the receiver's sensory organs using a specific tool.
Comments