Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Türkçe Yapım Eklerini Sınıflandırmak

Year 2024, , 1 - 25, 30.06.2024

Enis Oğuz

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1385137

Abstract

Yapım eklerinin sınıflandırılması Dağıtılmış Biçimbilim kuramında oldukça ilgi çekmiştir. Yapım eklerini kök ya da baş olarak tek bir sınıfta gören sınıflandırmaların yanında, son zamanlarda ortaya atılan bir görüş bu eklerin hem baş hem de kök olabileceğini savunmuştur. Söz konusu bu görüş İngilizce ve Felemenkçe dillerindeki örüntüleri açıklasa da başka dillerdeki yapım eklerinin örüntülerini açıklayıp açıklayamayacağı detaylı olarak incelenmemiştir. Bu sınıflandırmanın Türkçe diline uygulanabilirliğini incelemek için mevcut çalışma Türkçe yapım eklerini vurgu, esneklik, seçilme ve sıralama örüntüleri açısından incelemiştir. Sonuçlar ortaya koyulan sınıflandırmanın Türkçe dilindeki yapım eklerinin davranışlarını açıklamada yetersiz kaldığını göstermiştir.

Keywords

yapım ekleri sınıflandırma kök baş

References

  • Atlamaz, Ü. & Dikmen, F. (2024). Derivational Affixes as Roots and Phrases. [Manuscript in preparation].
  • Baurer, L. (2003). Introducing linguistic morphology. Edinburgh University Press.
  • Bertram, R., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2000). The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: the role of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(2), 489.
  • Bobaljik, J. D. (2002). Realizing Germanic inflection: Why morphology does not drive syntax. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 6, 129-167.
  • Booij, G. (2000). Inflection and derivation. In Geert Booij, Christian Lehman & Joachim Mugdan (Eds.), Morphology. An international handbook on inflection and word-formation, (pp. 360–369). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  • Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (2017). Introduction to English morphology: Words and their structure. Edinburgh University Press.
  • Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. Harper and Row.
  • Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. (1993). The Theory of Principles and Parameters. In J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld & T. Vennemann (Ed.), 1. Halbband: An International handbook of contemporary research (pp. 506-569). Berlin • New York: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110095869.1.9.506
  • Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. MIT press.
  • Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by Phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language (pp. 1-52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Creemers, A., Don, J., & Fenger, P. (2018). Some affixes are roots, others are heads. Natural language and linguistic theory, 36(1), 45–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9372-1
  • De Belder, M. (2011). Roots and affixes: Eliminating lexical categories from syntax. Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
  • Embick, D., & Noyer, R. (2007). Distributed Morphology and the Syntax-Morphology Interface. In G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199247455.013.0010
  • Embick, D. (2010). Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology (Vol. 60). The MIT Press.
  • Gouskova, M., & Bobaljik, J.D. (2022). The lexical core of a complex functional affix: Russian baby diminutive -onok. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 40(4), 1075–1115, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-021-09530-1
  • Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2004). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
  • Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2011). Turkish: An essential grammar. Routledge.
  • Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (Eds), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 111-176). MIT Press.
  • Harley, H., & Noyer, R. (1999). State-of-the-article: Distributed morphology. Glot international, 4(4), 3-9.
  • Kiparsky, P. (1982). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In H. Van der Hulst & N. Smith (Eds.), The structure of phonological representations (pp. 131–176). Foris.
  • Ketrez, F.N. (2012), A Student Grammar of Turkish. Cambridge University Press.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish grammar. NY: Routledge.
  • Lewis, G. L. (1970). Turkish grammar. Oxford University Press.
  • Lowenstamm, J. (2015). Derivational affixes as roots: Phasal spell-out meets English Stress Shift. In A. Alexiadou, H. Borer, & F. Schäfer (Eds.), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax (pp. 230–259). Oxford University Press.
  • Marantz, A. (1997, February). No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. Proceedings of the 21st annual Penn linguistics colloquium (Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 201-225).
  • Marvin, T. (2002). Topics in the stress and syntax of words [Doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  • Özçelik (2023). Prosody in Turkish. In K. Bogomolets & H. van der Hulst (Eds.), Word prominence in languages with complex morphologies. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198840589.003.0016
  • Saab, A., & Lipták, A. (2016). Movement and deletion after syntax: Licensing by inflection reconsidered. Studia Linguistica, 70(1), 66-108.
  • Torner, S. (2005). On the morphological nature of spanish adverbs ending in -mente. Probus, 17(1), 115-144. https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.2005.17.1.115
  • Zingler, T. (2022). Clitics, anti‐clitics, and weak words: Towards a typology of prosodic and syntagmatic dependence. Language and Linguistics Compass, 16(5-6), e12453. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12453

Roots, Heads, or Both? Categorizing Turkish Derivational Affixes

Year 2024, , 1 - 25, 30.06.2024

Enis Oğuz

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1385137

Abstract

The categorization of derivational affixes has received well-deserved attention in Distributed Morphology. In addition to single-categorization views that classify derivational affixes as either roots or heads, a recent proposal argues that such units can be both roots and heads. While this categorization has been shown to explain Dutch and English data, whether it applies to different languages has not been extensively investigated. In order to investigate the applicability of this recent proposal to the Turkish language, this study examined Turkish derivational suffixes in terms of their stress, flexibility, selection, and ordering patterns. The results showed that the proposal cannot account for the patterns of derivational suffixes in Turkish.

Keywords

derivational affixes categorization roots heads

References

  • Atlamaz, Ü. & Dikmen, F. (2024). Derivational Affixes as Roots and Phrases. [Manuscript in preparation].
  • Baurer, L. (2003). Introducing linguistic morphology. Edinburgh University Press.
  • Bertram, R., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2000). The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: the role of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(2), 489.
  • Bobaljik, J. D. (2002). Realizing Germanic inflection: Why morphology does not drive syntax. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 6, 129-167.
  • Booij, G. (2000). Inflection and derivation. In Geert Booij, Christian Lehman & Joachim Mugdan (Eds.), Morphology. An international handbook on inflection and word-formation, (pp. 360–369). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  • Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (2017). Introduction to English morphology: Words and their structure. Edinburgh University Press.
  • Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. Harper and Row.
  • Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. (1993). The Theory of Principles and Parameters. In J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld & T. Vennemann (Ed.), 1. Halbband: An International handbook of contemporary research (pp. 506-569). Berlin • New York: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110095869.1.9.506
  • Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. MIT press.
  • Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by Phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language (pp. 1-52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Creemers, A., Don, J., & Fenger, P. (2018). Some affixes are roots, others are heads. Natural language and linguistic theory, 36(1), 45–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-017-9372-1
  • De Belder, M. (2011). Roots and affixes: Eliminating lexical categories from syntax. Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
  • Embick, D., & Noyer, R. (2007). Distributed Morphology and the Syntax-Morphology Interface. In G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199247455.013.0010
  • Embick, D. (2010). Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology (Vol. 60). The MIT Press.
  • Gouskova, M., & Bobaljik, J.D. (2022). The lexical core of a complex functional affix: Russian baby diminutive -onok. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 40(4), 1075–1115, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-021-09530-1
  • Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2004). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
  • Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2011). Turkish: An essential grammar. Routledge.
  • Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale and S. J. Keyser (Eds), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 111-176). MIT Press.
  • Harley, H., & Noyer, R. (1999). State-of-the-article: Distributed morphology. Glot international, 4(4), 3-9.
  • Kiparsky, P. (1982). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In H. Van der Hulst & N. Smith (Eds.), The structure of phonological representations (pp. 131–176). Foris.
  • Ketrez, F.N. (2012), A Student Grammar of Turkish. Cambridge University Press.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish grammar. NY: Routledge.
  • Lewis, G. L. (1970). Turkish grammar. Oxford University Press.
  • Lowenstamm, J. (2015). Derivational affixes as roots: Phasal spell-out meets English Stress Shift. In A. Alexiadou, H. Borer, & F. Schäfer (Eds.), The syntax of roots and the roots of syntax (pp. 230–259). Oxford University Press.
  • Marantz, A. (1997, February). No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. Proceedings of the 21st annual Penn linguistics colloquium (Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 201-225).
  • Marvin, T. (2002). Topics in the stress and syntax of words [Doctoral dissertation]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  • Özçelik (2023). Prosody in Turkish. In K. Bogomolets & H. van der Hulst (Eds.), Word prominence in languages with complex morphologies. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198840589.003.0016
  • Saab, A., & Lipták, A. (2016). Movement and deletion after syntax: Licensing by inflection reconsidered. Studia Linguistica, 70(1), 66-108.
  • Torner, S. (2005). On the morphological nature of spanish adverbs ending in -mente. Probus, 17(1), 115-144. https://doi.org/10.1515/prbs.2005.17.1.115
  • Zingler, T. (2022). Clitics, anti‐clitics, and weak words: Towards a typology of prosodic and syntagmatic dependence. Language and Linguistics Compass, 16(5-6), e12453. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12453
There are 30 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Linguistic Structures (Incl. Phonology, Morphology and Syntax)
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Enis Oğuz 0000-0001-5819-4926

Publication Date June 30, 2024
Submission Date November 2, 2023
Acceptance Date May 6, 2024
Published in Issue Year 2024

Cite

APA Oğuz, E. (2024). Roots, Heads, or Both? Categorizing Turkish Derivational Affixes. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 35(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1385137

88x31.png

Bu eser


Dergi DOI:10.18492/dad