BibTex RIS Cite

Türkçede Aitlik Ulamı ve Biçimsel İfadesi

Year 2015, Volume: 26 Issue: 1, 43 - 62, 07.07.2015

Aysun Kunduracı

https://doi.org/10.18492/da.55763
Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu çalışma aitliğin Türkçede bir dilbilgisel ulam olduğunu ve alanyazında şimdiye dek “3. tekil kişi iyelik” eki olarak gösterilen -(s)I ekinin kişi, sayı ve aitlik yerine yalnızca aitlik ulamını gösterdiğini, diğer bir deyişle, -(s)I ekinin kişi ve sayı bilgisi içermeyen bir “aitlik” eki1 olduğunu önermektedir. -(s)I ekinin işlevi için önerilen çözümleme, ekin eklenme sürecini, belirdiği ortamı, iyelik öbeklerini, iyelik öbeklerinin anlamsal, yapısal ve biçimsel özelliklerini de kapsamaktadır. Önerilen çözümleme, biçimbilimi özerk bir sistem olarak kabul etmekte ve anlam ve biçimin ayrı süreçlere dayandığı bir biçimbilim modelini izlemektedir. Çalışma, ayrıca, iyelik öbeklerinde uyum ilişkisine değinmekte, sunulan önerileri desteklemek ve çalışmayı daha ilginç kılmak adına farklı dillerden veriler sunmaktadır.

Anahtar sözcükler: Türkçe, biçimbilim, aitlik, kişi, uyum, iyelik öbekleri

Keywords

Türkçe biçimbilim aitlik kişi uyum iyelik öbekleri

References

  • Anderson, S. R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge: MIT.
  • Arslan-Kechriotis, Z. (2006). Case as an uninterpretable feature. Ph.D Dissertation, Boğaziçi University.
  • Baker, M. (1998). Comments on the paper by Sadock. In S. Lapointe, D. Brentari, and P. Farrell (Eds.), Morphology and Its Relation to Phonology and Syntax (pp.188- 212). Standford: CSLI Publications.
  • Beard, R. (1995). Lexeme-morpheme base morphology. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Corbett, G. G. (2001). Agreement: terms and boundaries. In W. Griffin (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2001 Texas Linguistic Society Conference: The Role of Agreement in Natural Language (pp.109-122). Austin, Texas: Texas Linguistic Society.
  • Corbett, G. G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Crowley, T. (1996). Inalienable possession in Paamese grammar. In H. Chappel and W. McGregor (Eds.), The Grammar of Inalienability (pp.384-464). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Cysouw, M. (2011). Very atypical agreement indeed. Theoretical Linguistics, 37, 153- 160.
  • Dede, M. (1978). A syntactic and semantic analysis of Turkish nominal compounds. Ph.D Dissertation, University of Michigan.
  • Di Sciullo, A., and Williams, E. (1987). On the definition of word. Cambridge: MIT.
  • George, L., and Kornfilt, J. (1981). Finiteness and boundedness in Turkish. In F. Heny (Ed.), Binding and Filtering (pp.104-127). London: Croom Helm; Cambridge, Mass: MIT.
  • Giegerich, H. (1999). Lexical strata in English: Morphological causes, phonological effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Göksel, A. (1998). Word size. In G. Booij, A. Ralli, and S. Scalise (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Mediterranean Conference on Morphology (pp.190-200). Patras: University of Patras.
  • Göksel, A., and Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London:Routledge.
  • Haig, G. (2004). Constraints on morpheme repetition in Turkish? In K. Imer and G. Dogan (Eds.), Current Research in Turkish Linguistics (pp.3-12). Gazimagusa: Eastern Mediterranean University Press.
  • Halle, M., and Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale and S. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp.111-176). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT.
  • Hankamer, J. (2011). Turkish vowel epenthesis. In E. Erguvanlı-Taylan and B. Rona (Eds.), Puzzles of Languages: Essays in Honour of Karl Zimmer (pp.55-69). Harrassowitz Verlag: Wiesbaden.
  • Harley, H. (2009). Compounding in distributed morphology. In R. Lieber and P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding (pp.129-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Heim, I., and Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Hoff, B. (1962). The nominal word-groups in Carib: A problem of delimitation of syntax and morphology. Lingua, 11, 157-164.
  • Jensen, J., and Stong-Jensen, M. (1984). Morphology is in the lexicon Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 474-98.
  • Kharytonava, O. (2011). Noms composés en Turc et morphème -(s)I. Ph.D Dissertation, The University of Western Ontario.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1984a). The stuttering prohibition and morpheme deletion in Turkish. InE. Erguvanlı-Taylan and A. Aksu-Koç (Eds.), Proceedings of the Turkish Linguistics Conference (pp.295-307). Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Publications.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1984b). Case marking, agreement, and empty categories in Turkish.Ph.D Dissertation, Harvard University.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish grammar. London: Routledge.
  • Kunduracı, A. (2013). Turkish noun-noun compounds: A process-based paradigmatic account. PhD Dissertation, University of Calgary.
  • Lewis, G. (1967). Turkish grammar. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Lewis, G. (2000). Turkish grammar (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Lieber, R. (1980). On the organization of the lexicon. Ph.D Dissertation, University of New Hampshire.
  • MacDonalds, L. (1990). A grammar of Tauya. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Mel’čuk, I. (1994). Cours de morphologie générale 2. Montréal, Paris: Les Presses del'Université de Montréal.
  • Nikolaeva, I. (2005). Modifier-head person concord. In G. Booij, E. Guevara, A. Ralli, S. Sgroi, and S. Scalise (Eds.), Morphology and Linguistic Typology: Online Proceedings of 234),http://mmm.lingue.unibo.it.
  • Morphology Meeting (pp.221
  • Pounder, A. (2000). Processes and paradigms in word-formation morphology. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Sadock, J. M. (2012). The modular architecture of grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Saxon, L., and Wilhelm, A. (2011). Dene [Athabaskan] possessive compounds and thearchitecture of the grammar. Poster presented at the 8th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, Cagliari.
  • Siewierska, A. (2004). Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Tuğcu, P. (2009). Türkçede belirleyici öbeği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi.
  • Ultan, R. (1978). Toward a typology of substantival possession. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of Human Language 4 (pp.11-50). Stanford CA: Standford University Press.
  • Underhill, R. (1976). Turkish grammar. Cambridge: MIT.
  • Uzun, N. E. (2001). Anaçizgileriyle evrensel dilbilgisi ve Türkçe. İstanbul: Multilingual Yayınları.
  • Uzun, N. E. (2002). Türkçenin uyumsuz uyumları. Dil Dergisi, 115, 20-36.
  • van Schaaik, G. (1996). Studies in Turkish grammar. Turcologica 28. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
  • Yavuz, M. A. (2006). The syntactic aspects of noun phrases in Turkish and the problems arising from the representations of NPs. In S. Yağcıoğlu, A. C. Değer, Ö. Koşaner, and A. Çeltek (Eds.), Advances in Turkish Linguistics (pp.305-313). İzmir: Dokuz Eylül Yayınları.
  • Yükseker, H. (1994). Possessive constructions in Turkish. In L. Johanson (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (pp.458-477). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
  • Yükseker, H. (1998). Turkish Possessive Compounds. In G. Booij, A. Ralli, and S. Scalise (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Mediterranean Conference on Morphology (pp.153-164). Greece: University of Patras.
  • Zwicky, A. M. (1984). Reduced words in highly modular theories: Yiddish Anarthrous locatives reexamined. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, 29, 117- 126.
  • Zwicky, A. M. (1986). The general case: basic form vs. default form. In D. Feder, M.Niepokuj, V. Nikiforidou, and M. van Clay (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of Berkeley Linguistics Society 12 (pp.305-314). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.

Year 2015, Volume: 26 Issue: 1, 43 - 62, 07.07.2015

Aysun Kunduracı

https://doi.org/10.18492/da.55763
Cited By: 1

Abstract

References

  • Anderson, S. R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge: MIT.
  • Arslan-Kechriotis, Z. (2006). Case as an uninterpretable feature. Ph.D Dissertation, Boğaziçi University.
  • Baker, M. (1998). Comments on the paper by Sadock. In S. Lapointe, D. Brentari, and P. Farrell (Eds.), Morphology and Its Relation to Phonology and Syntax (pp.188- 212). Standford: CSLI Publications.
  • Beard, R. (1995). Lexeme-morpheme base morphology. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Corbett, G. G. (2001). Agreement: terms and boundaries. In W. Griffin (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2001 Texas Linguistic Society Conference: The Role of Agreement in Natural Language (pp.109-122). Austin, Texas: Texas Linguistic Society.
  • Corbett, G. G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Crowley, T. (1996). Inalienable possession in Paamese grammar. In H. Chappel and W. McGregor (Eds.), The Grammar of Inalienability (pp.384-464). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Cysouw, M. (2011). Very atypical agreement indeed. Theoretical Linguistics, 37, 153- 160.
  • Dede, M. (1978). A syntactic and semantic analysis of Turkish nominal compounds. Ph.D Dissertation, University of Michigan.
  • Di Sciullo, A., and Williams, E. (1987). On the definition of word. Cambridge: MIT.
  • George, L., and Kornfilt, J. (1981). Finiteness and boundedness in Turkish. In F. Heny (Ed.), Binding and Filtering (pp.104-127). London: Croom Helm; Cambridge, Mass: MIT.
  • Giegerich, H. (1999). Lexical strata in English: Morphological causes, phonological effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Göksel, A. (1998). Word size. In G. Booij, A. Ralli, and S. Scalise (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Mediterranean Conference on Morphology (pp.190-200). Patras: University of Patras.
  • Göksel, A., and Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London:Routledge.
  • Haig, G. (2004). Constraints on morpheme repetition in Turkish? In K. Imer and G. Dogan (Eds.), Current Research in Turkish Linguistics (pp.3-12). Gazimagusa: Eastern Mediterranean University Press.
  • Halle, M., and Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale and S. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp.111-176). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT.
  • Hankamer, J. (2011). Turkish vowel epenthesis. In E. Erguvanlı-Taylan and B. Rona (Eds.), Puzzles of Languages: Essays in Honour of Karl Zimmer (pp.55-69). Harrassowitz Verlag: Wiesbaden.
  • Harley, H. (2009). Compounding in distributed morphology. In R. Lieber and P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding (pp.129-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Heim, I., and Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Hoff, B. (1962). The nominal word-groups in Carib: A problem of delimitation of syntax and morphology. Lingua, 11, 157-164.
  • Jensen, J., and Stong-Jensen, M. (1984). Morphology is in the lexicon Linguistic Inquiry, 15, 474-98.
  • Kharytonava, O. (2011). Noms composés en Turc et morphème -(s)I. Ph.D Dissertation, The University of Western Ontario.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1984a). The stuttering prohibition and morpheme deletion in Turkish. InE. Erguvanlı-Taylan and A. Aksu-Koç (Eds.), Proceedings of the Turkish Linguistics Conference (pp.295-307). Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Publications.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1984b). Case marking, agreement, and empty categories in Turkish.Ph.D Dissertation, Harvard University.
  • Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish grammar. London: Routledge.
  • Kunduracı, A. (2013). Turkish noun-noun compounds: A process-based paradigmatic account. PhD Dissertation, University of Calgary.
  • Lewis, G. (1967). Turkish grammar. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Lewis, G. (2000). Turkish grammar (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Lieber, R. (1980). On the organization of the lexicon. Ph.D Dissertation, University of New Hampshire.
  • MacDonalds, L. (1990). A grammar of Tauya. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Mel’čuk, I. (1994). Cours de morphologie générale 2. Montréal, Paris: Les Presses del'Université de Montréal.
  • Nikolaeva, I. (2005). Modifier-head person concord. In G. Booij, E. Guevara, A. Ralli, S. Sgroi, and S. Scalise (Eds.), Morphology and Linguistic Typology: Online Proceedings of 234),http://mmm.lingue.unibo.it.
  • Morphology Meeting (pp.221
  • Pounder, A. (2000). Processes and paradigms in word-formation morphology. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Sadock, J. M. (2012). The modular architecture of grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Saxon, L., and Wilhelm, A. (2011). Dene [Athabaskan] possessive compounds and thearchitecture of the grammar. Poster presented at the 8th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, Cagliari.
  • Siewierska, A. (2004). Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Tuğcu, P. (2009). Türkçede belirleyici öbeği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi.
  • Ultan, R. (1978). Toward a typology of substantival possession. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of Human Language 4 (pp.11-50). Stanford CA: Standford University Press.
  • Underhill, R. (1976). Turkish grammar. Cambridge: MIT.
  • Uzun, N. E. (2001). Anaçizgileriyle evrensel dilbilgisi ve Türkçe. İstanbul: Multilingual Yayınları.
  • Uzun, N. E. (2002). Türkçenin uyumsuz uyumları. Dil Dergisi, 115, 20-36.
  • van Schaaik, G. (1996). Studies in Turkish grammar. Turcologica 28. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
  • Yavuz, M. A. (2006). The syntactic aspects of noun phrases in Turkish and the problems arising from the representations of NPs. In S. Yağcıoğlu, A. C. Değer, Ö. Koşaner, and A. Çeltek (Eds.), Advances in Turkish Linguistics (pp.305-313). İzmir: Dokuz Eylül Yayınları.
  • Yükseker, H. (1994). Possessive constructions in Turkish. In L. Johanson (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (pp.458-477). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
  • Yükseker, H. (1998). Turkish Possessive Compounds. In G. Booij, A. Ralli, and S. Scalise (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Mediterranean Conference on Morphology (pp.153-164). Greece: University of Patras.
  • Zwicky, A. M. (1984). Reduced words in highly modular theories: Yiddish Anarthrous locatives reexamined. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, 29, 117- 126.
  • Zwicky, A. M. (1986). The general case: basic form vs. default form. In D. Feder, M.Niepokuj, V. Nikiforidou, and M. van Clay (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of Berkeley Linguistics Society 12 (pp.305-314). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
There are 49 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Aysun Kunduracı

Publication Date July 7, 2015
Published in Issue Year 2015Volume: 26 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Kunduracı, A. (2015). Türkçede Aitlik Ulamı ve Biçimsel İfadesi. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 26(1), 43-62. https://doi.org/10.18492/da.55763

Cited By

TÜRKÇE VE FARSÇA İYELİK ÇOKLUK EKLERİNİN DİZİMSEL TİPOLOJİK MANTIK BENZERLİĞİ
Uluslararası Uygur Araştırmaları Dergisi
https://doi.org/10.46400/uygur.1280423

88x31.png

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND) International License.


Journal DOI: 10.18492/dad