Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Purely Morphological Mechanisms and Base Formation

Year 2019, , 199 - 219, 26.12.2019

Aysun Kunduracı

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.524923
Cited By: 1

Abstract

This study concerns
itself with separationism (Beard, 1995) in Turkish and the need for
separationism in agglutinating languages as well. The study scrutinizes
morphomic (cf. Aronoff, 1994) derivations, which are devoid of semantics. In
the expression okuyucu ‘reader’, for
instance, there is no other (intermediate) meaning than the meaning of the root
oku- (read) and the target meaning of
okuyucu ‘reader: the doer of
reading’. However, the derivative includes one more formal item, -I with the output okuyu-, right before -CI
suffixation. In such formations, morphomic operations, which are motivated
morphologically and/or categorically, but not semantically, take place. The -I suffixation yielding derivatives like okuyu- as above has been misconceived as
a piece of suffixes following it, such as -CI
and -lI, i.e. *-ICI. Importantly however, affixations like -I contributes to understanding the nature of morphology: They
indicate (i) affixations without meaning, (ii) the existence of preforms, and
(iii) morphological base conditions. Morphomic operations, further, challenge
iconicity, which cognitive linguistic models, such as van Langendonck (2007),
are for when criticizing formal linguistics. Morphomic operations show that
grammar cannot depend on purely world concepts.

Keywords

morphology base separationism nominalization derivation

References

  • Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Baker, M. (1998). Comments on the paper by Sadock. S. Lapointe, D. Brentari ve P. Farrell (Yay.), Morphology and Its Relation to Phonology and Syntax, (ss. 188–212). Standford: CSLI Publications.
  • Beard, R. (1995). Lexeme-morpheme base morphology. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Bermúdez-Otero, R. (2007). Morphological structure and phonological domains in Spanish denominal derivation. In Fernando Martínez-Gil & Sonia Colina (eds), Optimality-theoretic studies in Spanish phonology, 278-311. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Bozşahin, C. (2002). The combinatory morphemic lexicon, Computational Linguistics 28, 145–186.
  • Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. R. Jacobs ve P. Rosenbaum (Yay.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, (ss. 184–221). Waltham: Blaisdell.
  • Erdal, M. (2004). A grammar of Old Turkish. Leiden-Boston: Brill.
  • Erdem, M. (2018). Non-canonical morphological patterns in Turkish: Evidence from person-number markers (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Boğaziçi Üniversitesi.
  • Geeraerts, D. ve Cuyckens, H. (2007). Introducing cognitive linguistics. D. Geeraerts ve H. Cuyckens (Yay.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, (ss. 3–22). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Gürer, A. (2014). Adjectival participles in Turkish. Lingua 149, 166–187.
  • Haiman, J. (1985). Natural syntax: Iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Harley, H. (2009). Compounding in Distributed Morphology. R. Lieber ve P. Štekauer (Yay.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, (ss. 129–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Haspelmath, M. ve A., D. Sims. (2010). Understanding morphology (2. Bs.). London: Hodder Education.
  • Jakobson, R. (1966). Implications of language universals for linguistics. T. A. Sebeok (Yay.), Current trends in linguistics, vol. 3, Theoretical foundations, (ss. 263–78). Mouton: The Hague.
  • Kastovsky, D. (2006). Typological changes in derivational morphology. In A. van Kemenade ve L. Bettelou (Yay.), The Handbook of the history of English, (ss. 151–177). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Katamba, F. (1992). Morphology. London: Macmillan.
  • Kharytonava, O. (2011). Noms composés en Turc et Morphème -(s)I (Doktora Tezi). The University of Western Ontario.
  • Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago.
  • Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar II: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University.
  • Langendonck, W. van. (2007). Iconicity. Geeraerts D. ve H. Cuyckens (Yay.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, (ss. 394–418). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Lapointe, S. (1980). The theory of grammatical agreement. (Doktora Tezi). University of Massachusetts.
  • Maiden, M. (2011). Morphological persistence. M. Maiden, J. C. Smith ve A. Ledgeway (Yay.), The Cambridge history of the Romance languages, Vol. 1. (ss. 155–215). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Matthews, P., H. (1972). Inflectional morphology: A theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Mel’čuk, I. (1991). Subtraction in natural language. F. A. Bogusawski, M. Grochowski ve D.Weiss (Yay.), Words are physicians for an ailing mind (ss. 279–293). Mnchen: Sagner.
  • O'Neill, P. (2013). Morphomes and morphosyntactic/semantic features. S. Cruschina, M. Maiden ve J. C. Smith (Yay.), Boundaries of pure morphology: Diachronic and synchronic perspectives, (ss. 221–247). Oxford: OUP.
  • Özge, U. ve Bozşahin, C. (2010). Intonation in the grammar of Turkish, Lingua 120, 132–175.
  • Peirce, C., S. [1931] (1974). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. C. Hartshorne ve P. Weiss (Yay.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Pounder, A. (2000). Processes and paradigms in word-formation morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Sadler, L. ve Spencer, A. (2001). Syntax as an exponent of morphological features. G. Booij ve J. van Marle (Yay.), Yearbook of Morphology 2001, (ss. 71–96). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • Saussure, F. de. [1916] (1967). Cours de linguistique ge´ne´rale. Paris: Payot.
  • Schaaik, G. van. (2002). The noun in Turkish. Its argument structure and the compounding straitjacket. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
  • Stump, G. (2001). Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Stump, G. (2016). Inflectional paradigms: Content and form at the syntax–morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Tekin, T. (1968). A grammar of Orkhon Turkish. Uralic and Altaic Series 69. Mouton & Co, TheHague: Indiana University Publications.
  • Tekin, T. (2003). Orhon Türkçesi grameri. Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları Dizisi 9. İstanbul: Mehmet Ölmez Yayınları.
  • Uygun, D. (2009). A split model for category specification: Lexical categories in Turkish (Doktora Tezi). Boğaziçi Üniversitesi.
  • Zwicky, A. M. (1986). The general case: Basic form vs. Default Form. D. Feder, M. Niepokuj, V. Nikiforidou, M. van Clay (Yay.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of Berkeley Linguistics Society 12, (ss. 305–314). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.

Saltbiçim İşlemleri ve Taban Biçimleme

Year 2019, , 199 - 219, 26.12.2019

Aysun Kunduracı

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.524923
Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu çalışma Türkçede ayrıklık (separationism, Beard, 1995: anlam ve biçimin ayrı
düzlemselliği) ve ayrıklığın Türkçe gibi bitişimli dillerdeki önemi üzerinedir.
Çalışma, anlam içermeyen saltbiçimsel
(morphomic, Aronoff, 1994) türetimleri incelemektedir. Örneğin okuyucu sözcüğü, kök biçimin (oku-) anlamı ve amaçlanan çıktı anlam
‘okuyucu: okuma eylemini yapan’ dışında bir anlam içermese de, yapı, amaçlanan
anlamla etkileşen -CI eklenmesinden
önce bir biçim daha içermektedir: -I eklenmesi
ile okuyu-. Bu gibi oluşumlarda anlam
güdüsüz biçimsel işlemler devrededir, güdü yalnızca ulamsal ve biçimseldir.
Yukarıda okuyucu’dan önce elde edilen
okuyu- gibi türevlerdeki -I eklenmesi, alanyazınında fark edilmeyerek,
sonrasındaki -CI, -lI gibi eklerle birlikte algılanmıştır:
*-ICI gibi. Oysaki, -I gibi özerk eklenmeler, biçimyapısı
açısından önemlidir: (i) Anlam-biçim ayrıklığını, (ii) bağımlı ön/arabiçimleri
ve (iii) biçimyapısının taban koşullarını ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Saltbiçimsel
işlemler, ayrıca, kimi bilişsel dilbilim modellerinin (örn. van Langendonck, 2007) biçimsel dilbilim
modellerini eleştirirken değindiği görüntüsellik ilkesine de açıkça aykırıdır;
dilin yapısının dünya kavramlarına bağımlı olmadığı,  kendine özgü olduğu anlaşılmaktadır.

Keywords

biçimbilim taban ayrıklık adlaşma türetim

References

  • Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Baker, M. (1998). Comments on the paper by Sadock. S. Lapointe, D. Brentari ve P. Farrell (Yay.), Morphology and Its Relation to Phonology and Syntax, (ss. 188–212). Standford: CSLI Publications.
  • Beard, R. (1995). Lexeme-morpheme base morphology. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Bermúdez-Otero, R. (2007). Morphological structure and phonological domains in Spanish denominal derivation. In Fernando Martínez-Gil & Sonia Colina (eds), Optimality-theoretic studies in Spanish phonology, 278-311. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Bozşahin, C. (2002). The combinatory morphemic lexicon, Computational Linguistics 28, 145–186.
  • Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. R. Jacobs ve P. Rosenbaum (Yay.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, (ss. 184–221). Waltham: Blaisdell.
  • Erdal, M. (2004). A grammar of Old Turkish. Leiden-Boston: Brill.
  • Erdem, M. (2018). Non-canonical morphological patterns in Turkish: Evidence from person-number markers (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Boğaziçi Üniversitesi.
  • Geeraerts, D. ve Cuyckens, H. (2007). Introducing cognitive linguistics. D. Geeraerts ve H. Cuyckens (Yay.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, (ss. 3–22). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Gürer, A. (2014). Adjectival participles in Turkish. Lingua 149, 166–187.
  • Haiman, J. (1985). Natural syntax: Iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Harley, H. (2009). Compounding in Distributed Morphology. R. Lieber ve P. Štekauer (Yay.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, (ss. 129–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Haspelmath, M. ve A., D. Sims. (2010). Understanding morphology (2. Bs.). London: Hodder Education.
  • Jakobson, R. (1966). Implications of language universals for linguistics. T. A. Sebeok (Yay.), Current trends in linguistics, vol. 3, Theoretical foundations, (ss. 263–78). Mouton: The Hague.
  • Kastovsky, D. (2006). Typological changes in derivational morphology. In A. van Kemenade ve L. Bettelou (Yay.), The Handbook of the history of English, (ss. 151–177). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Katamba, F. (1992). Morphology. London: Macmillan.
  • Kharytonava, O. (2011). Noms composés en Turc et Morphème -(s)I (Doktora Tezi). The University of Western Ontario.
  • Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago.
  • Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar II: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University.
  • Langendonck, W. van. (2007). Iconicity. Geeraerts D. ve H. Cuyckens (Yay.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, (ss. 394–418). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Lapointe, S. (1980). The theory of grammatical agreement. (Doktora Tezi). University of Massachusetts.
  • Maiden, M. (2011). Morphological persistence. M. Maiden, J. C. Smith ve A. Ledgeway (Yay.), The Cambridge history of the Romance languages, Vol. 1. (ss. 155–215). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Matthews, P., H. (1972). Inflectional morphology: A theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Mel’čuk, I. (1991). Subtraction in natural language. F. A. Bogusawski, M. Grochowski ve D.Weiss (Yay.), Words are physicians for an ailing mind (ss. 279–293). Mnchen: Sagner.
  • O'Neill, P. (2013). Morphomes and morphosyntactic/semantic features. S. Cruschina, M. Maiden ve J. C. Smith (Yay.), Boundaries of pure morphology: Diachronic and synchronic perspectives, (ss. 221–247). Oxford: OUP.
  • Özge, U. ve Bozşahin, C. (2010). Intonation in the grammar of Turkish, Lingua 120, 132–175.
  • Peirce, C., S. [1931] (1974). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. C. Hartshorne ve P. Weiss (Yay.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Pounder, A. (2000). Processes and paradigms in word-formation morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Sadler, L. ve Spencer, A. (2001). Syntax as an exponent of morphological features. G. Booij ve J. van Marle (Yay.), Yearbook of Morphology 2001, (ss. 71–96). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • Saussure, F. de. [1916] (1967). Cours de linguistique ge´ne´rale. Paris: Payot.
  • Schaaik, G. van. (2002). The noun in Turkish. Its argument structure and the compounding straitjacket. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
  • Stump, G. (2001). Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Stump, G. (2016). Inflectional paradigms: Content and form at the syntax–morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Tekin, T. (1968). A grammar of Orkhon Turkish. Uralic and Altaic Series 69. Mouton & Co, TheHague: Indiana University Publications.
  • Tekin, T. (2003). Orhon Türkçesi grameri. Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları Dizisi 9. İstanbul: Mehmet Ölmez Yayınları.
  • Uygun, D. (2009). A split model for category specification: Lexical categories in Turkish (Doktora Tezi). Boğaziçi Üniversitesi.
  • Zwicky, A. M. (1986). The general case: Basic form vs. Default Form. D. Feder, M. Niepokuj, V. Nikiforidou, M. van Clay (Yay.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of Berkeley Linguistics Society 12, (ss. 305–314). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
There are 37 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Aysun Kunduracı 0000-0001-5250-7899

Publication Date December 26, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2019

Cite

APA Kunduracı, A. (2019). Saltbiçim İşlemleri ve Taban Biçimleme. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 30(2), 199-219. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.524923

Cited By

Bound productivity in stem-formation and categorial separation
Lingua
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2023.103597

88x31.png

Bu eser


Dergi DOI:10.18492/dad