Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

TYPOLOGICAL FEATURES OF NOMINAL PHRASES IN TURKISH

Year 2022, , 831 - 850, 30.12.2022
https://doi.org/10.32321/cutad.1090006

Abstract

This paper focuses on typological features of nominal phrases in Turkish and provides a linguistic analysis of these features. In the first section, the interaction between typological studies and linguistic analyses is explained with an example concerning the order of elements modifying a noun. In the second section, typological features of Turkish concerning agreement and suspended affxation inside noun phrases are laid out. As far as agreement inside noun phrases is concerned, we focus both on the absence of agreement between nouns and adjectives in number and case and on the absence of plural morphology on nouns modified by numerals. Moreoever, some inadequacies about previous analyses of suspended affixation are pointed out and a new analysis for such constructions is put forth. In the third and last section of the paper, it is claimed that the distribution of typological features of Turkish is not random and that these features can be unified with the help of a single linguistic assumption. When it is assumed that the Noun Phrase Agreement Rule, which is valid for many languages, is not defined for Turkish, both the absence of agreement between adjectives and nouns and the absence of plural morphology on nouns that are modified by numerals can be accounted for. The availability of suspended affixation in Turkish is also a consequence of the irrelevance of this rule to Turkish. In this paper we highlight the fact that the tools of linguistic analysis provide valuable insight into the nature of typological features of nominal phrases in Turkish.

References

  • Abels, K and Neeleman, A. (2009). Universal 20 without the LCA. J. Brucart, A. Gavarro ve J. Sola. Merging Features (pp. 60-79). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Akkuş, F. (2016). Suspended affixation with derivational suffixes and lexical integrity. Mediterranian Morphology Meetings, 10, 1-15.
  • Arslan-Kechriotis, Z. C. (2006). Case as an uninterpretable feature. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
  • Bayırlı, İ. K. (2017). The Universality of Concord. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
  • Bayırlı, İ. K. (2022). Türkiye Türkçesinde Ertelenmiş Çekim Eklerinin Dilbilimsel Analizi. Akademik Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 6(1), 378-393.
  • Carstens, V. (1991). The morphology and syntax of determiner phrases in Kiswahili. Unpublished doctoral thesis. ABD.
  • Carstens, V. (2000). Concord in minimalist theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 319-355.
  • Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.
  • Cinque, G. (2005). Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 315 – 332.
  • Comrie, B. (1981). The languages of Soviet Union. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Corbett, G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Croft, W. (1990). Typology and universals. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Danon, G. (2011). Agreement and DP-internal feature distribution. Syntax, 14, 297-317.
  • Dryer, M. S. (1992). The Greenbergian Word Order Correlations. Language, 68, 81-138.
  • Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (Ed) (2013). The world atlas of language structures. Leipzig: Max Plank Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
  • Greenberg, J. H. (1954). A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language. Method and perspective in anthropology (Spencer, R. F., Ed.) (pp. 192-220). Minneapolis: U of Minneapolis.
  • Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Some universals of language with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of language (Greenberg, J. H., Ed.) (pp. 73-113). MIT Press.
  • Hawkins, J. (1983). Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.
  • Jakobson, R. (1963). Implications of language universals for linguistics. Universals of language içinde (Greenberg, J. H., Ed.) (pp. 263 – 299). MIT Press.
  • Kabak, B. (2007). Turkish suspended affixation. Linguistics, 45(2), 311 – 347.
  • Ketrez, N. (2005). Children’s scope of ındefinites objects. Unpublished doctoral thesis. ABD.
  • Kornfilt, J. (2012). Revisiting suspended affixation and other coordinate mysteries. Functional heads: the cartography of syntactic structures (Bruge, L., Cardinaletti, A., Giusti, G., Munaro, N. and Cecilia, P., Ed.) (pp. 181-196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Lewis, G. (1967). Turkish grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Newmeyer, F. J. (1983). Grammatical theory: Its limits and its possibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Norris, M. (2014). A Theory of nominal concord. Unpublished doctoral thesis. ABD.
  • Orgun, C.O. (1995). Flat vs branching morphological structures: the case of suspended affixation. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 21, 252 – 261.
  • Ramat, P. (1995). Linguistic typology. Berlin: de Gruyter.
  • Ritter, E. (1991). Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from modern Hebrew. Perspectives on phrase structure: Heads and licensing (Rothstein, S. D., Ed.). Diego: Academic Press.
  • Ross, H. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Unpublished doctoral thesis. MIT, ABD.
  • Sproat, R. and Shih, C. (1991). The cross-linguistic distribution of adjective ordering restrictions. Interdisciplinary approaches to language (Georgopoulos, C. and Ishihara, R., Ed.) (pp. 565-593). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Whaley, L. J. (1996). Introduction to Typology. London: Sage Publications.

TÜRKİYE TÜRKÇESİNDE AD TEMELLİ ÖBEKLERİN TİPOLOJİK ÖZELLİKLERİ

Year 2022, , 831 - 850, 30.12.2022
https://doi.org/10.32321/cutad.1090006

Abstract

Bu makalede Türkiye Türkçesinde ad temelli öbeklerin tipolojik özelliklerine odaklanılmakta ve bu özelliklerin dilbilimsel bir analizi önerilmektedir. Makalenin ilk bölümünde tipolojik çalışmalar ile dilbilgisel analizler arasındaki etkileşim, adı niteleyen ögelerin sıralanmasını ilgilendiren bir örnek ile açıklanmaktadır. Makalenin ikinci bölümünde Türkiye Türkçesinin ad öbeği içi uyum ve ertelenmiş ekleme yapıları açısından tipolojik özellikleri ortaya konmaktadır. Ad öbeği içi uyum yapıları incelenirken hem sıfatlar ve adlar arasındaki cins, sayı ve durum yönünden uyumun yokluğu hem de sayı sözcükleriyle kullanılan adların çoğul eki almamaları ele alınmaktadır. Ayrıca ertelenmiş yapılar ile ilgili olarak geliştirilen önceki analizlerin eksiklikleri ortaya konmakta ve yeni bir analiz varsayılmaktadır. Yazının üçüncü ve son bölümünde Türkiye Türkçesinin tipolojik özelliklerinin dağılımının gelişigüzel olmadığı ileri sürülmekte ve bu özelliklerin tek bir dilbilgisel analiz altında toplanabileceği savunulmaktadır. Başka pek çok dil geçerli olan Ad Öbeği Uyum Kuralının Türkiye Türkçesi için tanımsız olduğu varsayıldığında hem sıfatlar ile adlar arasında herhangi bir özellik açısından uyumun bulunmaması hem de sayı sözcüğü ile kullanılan adların çoğul eki alamaması açıklanabilmektedir. Türkiye Türkçesinde ertelenmiş ekleme yapılarının mümkün oluşu da, bu kuralın Türkiye Türkçesindeki geçersizliğinin bir sonucudur. Bu makalede Türkiye Türkçesinin ad temelli öbeklerinin tipolojik özelliklerinin anlaşılmasında dilbiliminin analiz araçlarının gerçek bir kavrayış sağladığı vurgulanmaktadır.

References

  • Abels, K and Neeleman, A. (2009). Universal 20 without the LCA. J. Brucart, A. Gavarro ve J. Sola. Merging Features (pp. 60-79). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Akkuş, F. (2016). Suspended affixation with derivational suffixes and lexical integrity. Mediterranian Morphology Meetings, 10, 1-15.
  • Arslan-Kechriotis, Z. C. (2006). Case as an uninterpretable feature. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
  • Bayırlı, İ. K. (2017). The Universality of Concord. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
  • Bayırlı, İ. K. (2022). Türkiye Türkçesinde Ertelenmiş Çekim Eklerinin Dilbilimsel Analizi. Akademik Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 6(1), 378-393.
  • Carstens, V. (1991). The morphology and syntax of determiner phrases in Kiswahili. Unpublished doctoral thesis. ABD.
  • Carstens, V. (2000). Concord in minimalist theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 31, 319-355.
  • Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.
  • Cinque, G. (2005). Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 315 – 332.
  • Comrie, B. (1981). The languages of Soviet Union. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Corbett, G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Croft, W. (1990). Typology and universals. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Danon, G. (2011). Agreement and DP-internal feature distribution. Syntax, 14, 297-317.
  • Dryer, M. S. (1992). The Greenbergian Word Order Correlations. Language, 68, 81-138.
  • Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (Ed) (2013). The world atlas of language structures. Leipzig: Max Plank Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
  • Greenberg, J. H. (1954). A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language. Method and perspective in anthropology (Spencer, R. F., Ed.) (pp. 192-220). Minneapolis: U of Minneapolis.
  • Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Some universals of language with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of language (Greenberg, J. H., Ed.) (pp. 73-113). MIT Press.
  • Hawkins, J. (1983). Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.
  • Jakobson, R. (1963). Implications of language universals for linguistics. Universals of language içinde (Greenberg, J. H., Ed.) (pp. 263 – 299). MIT Press.
  • Kabak, B. (2007). Turkish suspended affixation. Linguistics, 45(2), 311 – 347.
  • Ketrez, N. (2005). Children’s scope of ındefinites objects. Unpublished doctoral thesis. ABD.
  • Kornfilt, J. (2012). Revisiting suspended affixation and other coordinate mysteries. Functional heads: the cartography of syntactic structures (Bruge, L., Cardinaletti, A., Giusti, G., Munaro, N. and Cecilia, P., Ed.) (pp. 181-196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Lewis, G. (1967). Turkish grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Newmeyer, F. J. (1983). Grammatical theory: Its limits and its possibilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Norris, M. (2014). A Theory of nominal concord. Unpublished doctoral thesis. ABD.
  • Orgun, C.O. (1995). Flat vs branching morphological structures: the case of suspended affixation. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 21, 252 – 261.
  • Ramat, P. (1995). Linguistic typology. Berlin: de Gruyter.
  • Ritter, E. (1991). Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from modern Hebrew. Perspectives on phrase structure: Heads and licensing (Rothstein, S. D., Ed.). Diego: Academic Press.
  • Ross, H. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Unpublished doctoral thesis. MIT, ABD.
  • Sproat, R. and Shih, C. (1991). The cross-linguistic distribution of adjective ordering restrictions. Interdisciplinary approaches to language (Georgopoulos, C. and Ishihara, R., Ed.) (pp. 565-593). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Whaley, L. J. (1996). Introduction to Typology. London: Sage Publications.
There are 31 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Linguistics
Journal Section Linguistics
Authors

İsa Kerem Bayırlı 0000-0002-5413-1837

Publication Date December 30, 2022
Submission Date March 21, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022

Cite

APA Bayırlı, İ. K. (2022). TÜRKİYE TÜRKÇESİNDE AD TEMELLİ ÖBEKLERİN TİPOLOJİK ÖZELLİKLERİ. Çukurova Üniversitesi Türkoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(2), 831-850. https://doi.org/10.32321/cutad.1090006