Redirecting to http://dergipark.org.tr/_fragment?_hash=h6vLpjWSnPA9pWMkPj0nqxeyOC3oEvBZ5DZxGU3zvks&_path=id%3D543902%26_format%3Dhtml%26_locale%3Dtr%26_controller%3DApp%255CController%255CSite%255CArticleController%253A%253AesiArticleStats.
Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Interactive Grammar and Complex Nominalizations in Turkish

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 31 Sayı: 1, 1 - 31, 28.06.2020

Aysun Kunduracı

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.543902
Cited By: 1

Öz

This study examines complex nominalizations in Turkish and proposes formal analyses within a modular grammar where autonomous components operate interactively. The complex nominalizations with the -DIK and -mA suffixations in Turkish have also drawn interest, with a focus on their semantics, in previous studies, and they have been contrasted via the +factive (-DIK) vs. –factive (-mA) features. Csató (1990) and Taylan (1998) consider the two type of nominalizations in terms of +/–indicative and point to a relation between the nominalizations and modality & mood marking. Supporting the contrast which is based on mood, the present study argues that a structural difference underlies it. The study proposes two distinct structures: one for the -DIK type, in which the nominalizer is suffixed to a syntactic unit, and one for the -mA type, in which the nominalizer is suffixed to a verb stem. Treating -DIK as derivational, the study shows that a derivational process may also mark a mood value just like inflectional processes with tense, aspect and person information. The study also illustrates morphological creativity and that morphology can output not only lexeme formations or inflections but highly complex, intermediate units as well. The study refers also to the functional structure (cf. LFG) in the modular grammars: The complex nominalizations and the grammatical relations that they involve indicate that the subject is more restricted than the object and that the active subject is more restricted than the passive subject in Turkish. The study concludes that encoding a mood value is closely related to including a subject for a linguistic unit.

Anahtar Kelimeler

morphology nominalization subordination syntactic function complex base

Kaynakça

  • Achard, M. (2007). Complementation. D. Geeraerts ve H. Cuyckens (Yay.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, (ss. 782–802). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Anderson, S. R. (1982). Where is morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13, 571–612.
  • Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Aygen, G. (2002). Finiteness, case and clausal architecture. (Doktora Tezi). Harvard University.
  • Aygen, G. (2006). Finiteness and the relation between agreement and nominative case. C. Boeckx (Yay.), Agreement systems, (ss. 63–98). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Aygen, G. (2007). Syntax and semantics of genitive subject-case in Turkic. California Linguistic Notes 32, 1–39.
  • Beard, R. (1995). Lexeme-morpheme base morphology. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Beck, D. (2000). Nominalization as complementation in Bella Coola and Lushootseed. K. Horie (Yay.), Complementation: cognitive and functional perspectives, (ss. 121–148). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Borsley, R. ve Kornfilt, J. (2000). Mixed extended projection. R. Borsley (Yay.), The nature and function of syntactic categories. Syntax and semantics, 32, (ss. 101–131). San Diego: Academiz Press.
  • Bozşahin, C. (1998). Deriving the predicate-argument structure for a free word order language. İçinde, Proceedings of COLING-ACL'98, (ss. 167–173). Montreal: ACL.
  • Bozşahin, C. (2002). The combinatory morphemic lexicon, Computational Linguistics 28, 145–186.
  • Bresnan, J., Asudeh, A., Toivonen, I. ve Wechsler, S. (2016). Lexical-Functional syntax (2. Bs.). Oxford: WILEY Blackwell.
  • Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. R. Jacobs ve P. Rosenbaum (Yay.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, (ss. 184–221). Waltham: Blaisdell.
  • Cowper, E. (2002). Finiteness. (Yayınlanmamış Metin). University of Toronto.
  • Csató, É. Á. (1990). Non-finite verbal constructions in Turkish. B. Brendemoen (Yay.) Altaica Osloensia, (ss. 75–88). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
  • Dalrymple, M. ve Lødrup, H. (2000). The grammatical functions of complement clauses. M. Butt ve T. King (Yay.), Proceedings of the LFG00 conference, (ss. 104–121). CSLI Publications.
  • Dede, M. (1978). A syntactic and semantic analysis of Turkish nominal compounds. (Doktora Tezi). University of Michigan.
  • Embick, D. ve Noyer, R. (2007). Distributed Morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. G. Ramchand ve C. Reiss (Yay.), Oxford Handbook of linguistic interfaces, (ss. 289–324). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Erkman-Akerson, F. ve Ozil, Ş. (1998). Türkçede niteleme; sıfat işlevli yan tümceler. İstanbul: Simurg Yayınları.
  • Fodor, J. (1983). Modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • George, L. ve Kornfilt, J. (1981). Finiteness and boundedness. F. Heny (Yay.), Binding and filtering, (ss. 104–127). London: Croom Helm; Cambridge, Mass: MIT.
  • Givón, T. (1990). Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Göksel, A. (1997). Morphological asymmetries between Turkish and Yakut. K. İmer ve N. E. Uzun (Yay.), Proceedings of the VIII. international conference on Turkish linguistics, (ss. 69 –76). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi.
  • Göksel, A. (1998). Word size. G. Booij, A. Ralli ve S. Scalise (Yay.), Proceedings of the first Mediterranean conference on morphology, (ss. 190–200). Patras: University of Patras.
  • Göksel, A. (2007). Morphology and syntax inside the word: Pronominal participles of headless relative clauses in Turkish. İçinde, Proceedings of the fifth Mediterranean morphology meeting. Frejus, 15-18 Eylül, 2005. http://mmm.lingue.unibo.it/proc-mmm5.php
  • Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.
  • Hankamer, J. ve Knecht, L. (1976). The role of subject-nonsubject distinction in determining the choice of relative participles in Turkish. J. Hankamer ve J. Aisses (Yay.), Harvard studies on syntax and semantics, (ss.197–219). Cambridge, MS: Harvard University.
  • Heim, I. ve Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Jackendoff, R. (2009). Compounding in the Parallel Architecture and conceptual semantics. R. Lieber ve P. Štekauer (Yay.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, (ss. 105–128). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Johanson, L. (2013). Selection of subjunctors in Turkic non-finite complement clauses, Bilig 67, 73–90.
  • Kelepir, M. (2007). Copular forms in Turkish, Turkmen and Noghay. M. Kelepir ve B. Öztürk (Yay.), Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on Altaic formal linguistics. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
  • Kennelly, S. (1996). Turkish subordination: [−CP, +Tense, +Case]. A. Konrot (Yay.), Modern studies in Turkish linguistics, Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Turkish linguistics, (ss. 55–75).
  • Kornfilt, J. (2001). Functional projections and their subjects in Turkish clauses. E. E. Taylan (Yay.), The verb in Turkish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 183–212
  • Kornfilt, J., ve Whitman, J. (2011). Afterword: Nominalizations in syntactic theory. Lingua 121, 1297–1313.
  • Kural, M. (1993). V-TO-(-I-TO)-C in Turkish. F. Begnelli ve M. Kural (Yay.), UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 11, (ss. 17–54).
  • Kural, M. (1994). Yantümcelerde çekim ekleri. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 1994, 80–111.
  • Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar II: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University.
  • Lapointe, S. (1980). The theory of grammatical agreement. (Doktora Tezi). University of Massachusetts.
  • Lees, R. B. (1965). Turkish nominalizations and a problem of ellipsis. Foundations of Language 1 (2), 112–121.
  • Mortelmans, T. (2007). Modality in Cognitive Linguistics. D. Geeraerts ve H. Cuyckens (Yay.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, (ss. 869–889). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ozil, Ş. (1994). Temel tümcelerde ve ortaçlı yapılarda kip anlatımı. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 1994, 112-127.
  • Özsoy, A. S. (1994). Türkçede yantümce yapısı. 3. Bilim Kurultayı. Dil Derneği. Ankara.
  • Palmer, F. R. (2007). Mood and modality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • 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.
  • Schaaik, G., van. (1998). The order of nominalizations in Turkish. Turkic Languages 3, 87–120. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
  • Stump, G. (2001). Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Taylan, E. (1993). Türkçede -DIK ekinin yantümcelerdeki işlevi üzerine. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 1993, 161–171.
  • Taylan, E. (1998). What determines the choice of nominalizer in Turkish nominalized complement clauses? B. Caron (Yay.), Proceedings of the XVIth international congress of linguists. New York: Elsevier (CD Rom).
  • Taylan, E. (2014). A modality map of Turkish. Davetli konuşmacı sunumu. 16th international conference on Turkish linguistics. Rouen.
  • Taylan, E. (2018). Türkçede dilbilgisel kiplikte olasılık ve gereklilik. Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi (MEUDED) 15 (2), 1–22.
  • Underhill, R. (1976). Turkish grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Uzun, N. E. (1994). Türkçede bileşiğin biçimlenişi: Varsayımsal taban yaklaşımıyla yeni bir sınıflama. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 1994, 128–140.
  • Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  • Zwicky, A. M. (1984). Reduced words in highly modular theories: Yiddish anarthrous locatives reexamined. İçinde, Ohio State University working papers in linguistics 29: 117–126.

Etkileşimli Dilyapısı ve Türkçede Karmaşık Adlaşmalar

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 31 Sayı: 1, 1 - 31, 28.06.2020

Aysun Kunduracı

https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.543902
Cited By: 1

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkçede karmaşık adlaşmalara
yapısal çözümlemeler sunmakta ve çok birimli, özerk bileşenli bir dilbilgisi
modeli önermektedir. Türkçede -DIK ve
-mA adlaşmaları önceki çalışmalara da
konu olmuş, anlamsal açıdan incelenmiş, +olgusal (-DIK) ve -olgusal (-mA)
olarak ayırt edilmiştir. Csató (1990) ve Taylan (1998), adlaşmaları +/- bilgisellik açısından
değerlendirerek, kip/kiplik ulamlarıyla ilişkilendirmiştir. Bu çalışma, kipsel ayrımı
desteklemekle birlikte, dayanağının farklı yapısal kurulumlar olduğunu
savunmaktadır. Çalışma, iki ayrı türetim önermektedir: yantümceleyen -DIK türü ve süreçsel adlaşma üreten -mA türü. -DIK’ı türetimsel değerlendiren çalışma, Türkçede türetimsel bir
sürecin de, zaman-görünüş-kişi içeren çekimsel süreçlerde olduğu gibi, kip
değeri kodlayabileceği sonucuna ulaşmaktadır. Ayrıca, biçimbilimsel işlemlerin
yaratıcılığı ve sözlükbirimler dışında da karmaşık/anlık çıktılar sağlayabildiği
örneklenmektedir. Dil dizgesindeki işlevsel yapıya (krş. LFG) ait sonuçlar da
vardır: Karmaşık adlaşmalar ve tümcesel işlevleri, Türkçede özne işlevinin
nesneden ve etken çatıdaki öznenin de edilgen çatıdaki özneden daha kısıtlı
olduğunu ve kip kodlamanın, bir
yapının özne içermesiyle bağlantılı
olduğunu ortaya çıkarmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

biçimbilim adlaşma yantümce tümcesel işlev karmaşık taban

Kaynakça

  • Achard, M. (2007). Complementation. D. Geeraerts ve H. Cuyckens (Yay.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, (ss. 782–802). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Anderson, S. R. (1982). Where is morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13, 571–612.
  • Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Aygen, G. (2002). Finiteness, case and clausal architecture. (Doktora Tezi). Harvard University.
  • Aygen, G. (2006). Finiteness and the relation between agreement and nominative case. C. Boeckx (Yay.), Agreement systems, (ss. 63–98). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Aygen, G. (2007). Syntax and semantics of genitive subject-case in Turkic. California Linguistic Notes 32, 1–39.
  • Beard, R. (1995). Lexeme-morpheme base morphology. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Beck, D. (2000). Nominalization as complementation in Bella Coola and Lushootseed. K. Horie (Yay.), Complementation: cognitive and functional perspectives, (ss. 121–148). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Borsley, R. ve Kornfilt, J. (2000). Mixed extended projection. R. Borsley (Yay.), The nature and function of syntactic categories. Syntax and semantics, 32, (ss. 101–131). San Diego: Academiz Press.
  • Bozşahin, C. (1998). Deriving the predicate-argument structure for a free word order language. İçinde, Proceedings of COLING-ACL'98, (ss. 167–173). Montreal: ACL.
  • Bozşahin, C. (2002). The combinatory morphemic lexicon, Computational Linguistics 28, 145–186.
  • Bresnan, J., Asudeh, A., Toivonen, I. ve Wechsler, S. (2016). Lexical-Functional syntax (2. Bs.). Oxford: WILEY Blackwell.
  • Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. R. Jacobs ve P. Rosenbaum (Yay.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, (ss. 184–221). Waltham: Blaisdell.
  • Cowper, E. (2002). Finiteness. (Yayınlanmamış Metin). University of Toronto.
  • Csató, É. Á. (1990). Non-finite verbal constructions in Turkish. B. Brendemoen (Yay.) Altaica Osloensia, (ss. 75–88). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
  • Dalrymple, M. ve Lødrup, H. (2000). The grammatical functions of complement clauses. M. Butt ve T. King (Yay.), Proceedings of the LFG00 conference, (ss. 104–121). CSLI Publications.
  • Dede, M. (1978). A syntactic and semantic analysis of Turkish nominal compounds. (Doktora Tezi). University of Michigan.
  • Embick, D. ve Noyer, R. (2007). Distributed Morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. G. Ramchand ve C. Reiss (Yay.), Oxford Handbook of linguistic interfaces, (ss. 289–324). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Erkman-Akerson, F. ve Ozil, Ş. (1998). Türkçede niteleme; sıfat işlevli yan tümceler. İstanbul: Simurg Yayınları.
  • Fodor, J. (1983). Modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • George, L. ve Kornfilt, J. (1981). Finiteness and boundedness. F. Heny (Yay.), Binding and filtering, (ss. 104–127). London: Croom Helm; Cambridge, Mass: MIT.
  • Givón, T. (1990). Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Göksel, A. (1997). Morphological asymmetries between Turkish and Yakut. K. İmer ve N. E. Uzun (Yay.), Proceedings of the VIII. international conference on Turkish linguistics, (ss. 69 –76). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi.
  • Göksel, A. (1998). Word size. G. Booij, A. Ralli ve S. Scalise (Yay.), Proceedings of the first Mediterranean conference on morphology, (ss. 190–200). Patras: University of Patras.
  • Göksel, A. (2007). Morphology and syntax inside the word: Pronominal participles of headless relative clauses in Turkish. İçinde, Proceedings of the fifth Mediterranean morphology meeting. Frejus, 15-18 Eylül, 2005. http://mmm.lingue.unibo.it/proc-mmm5.php
  • Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.
  • Hankamer, J. ve Knecht, L. (1976). The role of subject-nonsubject distinction in determining the choice of relative participles in Turkish. J. Hankamer ve J. Aisses (Yay.), Harvard studies on syntax and semantics, (ss.197–219). Cambridge, MS: Harvard University.
  • Heim, I. ve Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Jackendoff, R. (2009). Compounding in the Parallel Architecture and conceptual semantics. R. Lieber ve P. Štekauer (Yay.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, (ss. 105–128). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Johanson, L. (2013). Selection of subjunctors in Turkic non-finite complement clauses, Bilig 67, 73–90.
  • Kelepir, M. (2007). Copular forms in Turkish, Turkmen and Noghay. M. Kelepir ve B. Öztürk (Yay.), Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on Altaic formal linguistics. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
  • Kennelly, S. (1996). Turkish subordination: [−CP, +Tense, +Case]. A. Konrot (Yay.), Modern studies in Turkish linguistics, Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Turkish linguistics, (ss. 55–75).
  • Kornfilt, J. (2001). Functional projections and their subjects in Turkish clauses. E. E. Taylan (Yay.), The verb in Turkish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 183–212
  • Kornfilt, J., ve Whitman, J. (2011). Afterword: Nominalizations in syntactic theory. Lingua 121, 1297–1313.
  • Kural, M. (1993). V-TO-(-I-TO)-C in Turkish. F. Begnelli ve M. Kural (Yay.), UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 11, (ss. 17–54).
  • Kural, M. (1994). Yantümcelerde çekim ekleri. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 1994, 80–111.
  • Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar II: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University.
  • Lapointe, S. (1980). The theory of grammatical agreement. (Doktora Tezi). University of Massachusetts.
  • Lees, R. B. (1965). Turkish nominalizations and a problem of ellipsis. Foundations of Language 1 (2), 112–121.
  • Mortelmans, T. (2007). Modality in Cognitive Linguistics. D. Geeraerts ve H. Cuyckens (Yay.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, (ss. 869–889). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ozil, Ş. (1994). Temel tümcelerde ve ortaçlı yapılarda kip anlatımı. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 1994, 112-127.
  • Özsoy, A. S. (1994). Türkçede yantümce yapısı. 3. Bilim Kurultayı. Dil Derneği. Ankara.
  • Palmer, F. R. (2007). Mood and modality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • 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.
  • Schaaik, G., van. (1998). The order of nominalizations in Turkish. Turkic Languages 3, 87–120. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
  • Stump, G. (2001). Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Taylan, E. (1993). Türkçede -DIK ekinin yantümcelerdeki işlevi üzerine. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 1993, 161–171.
  • Taylan, E. (1998). What determines the choice of nominalizer in Turkish nominalized complement clauses? B. Caron (Yay.), Proceedings of the XVIth international congress of linguists. New York: Elsevier (CD Rom).
  • Taylan, E. (2014). A modality map of Turkish. Davetli konuşmacı sunumu. 16th international conference on Turkish linguistics. Rouen.
  • Taylan, E. (2018). Türkçede dilbilgisel kiplikte olasılık ve gereklilik. Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi (MEUDED) 15 (2), 1–22.
  • Underhill, R. (1976). Turkish grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Uzun, N. E. (1994). Türkçede bileşiğin biçimlenişi: Varsayımsal taban yaklaşımıyla yeni bir sınıflama. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 1994, 128–140.
  • Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  • Zwicky, A. M. (1984). Reduced words in highly modular theories: Yiddish anarthrous locatives reexamined. İçinde, Ohio State University working papers in linguistics 29: 117–126.
Toplam 55 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Aysun Kunduracı 0000-0001-5250-7899

Yayımlanma Tarihi 28 Haziran 2020
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2020 Cilt: 31 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Kunduracı, A. (2020). Etkileşimli Dilyapısı ve Türkçede Karmaşık Adlaşmalar. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 31(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.543902

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