The Turkish category of Ad tamlaması. Differences and similarities within its subgroups and learning implications in L2-Turkish

Year 2023, Issue: Ö12, 132 - 157, 23.07.2023

Vasiliki Mavrıdou

https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.1330559

Abstract

Ad Tamlaması (AT) is a term which is widely used in Turkish grammars (Hengirmen, 2007; Hatiboğlu, 1982, among others) to refer to three N(oun)+N(oun) forms, namely a) N-(n)In N-(s)I, b) N N-(s)I and c) N N, which have been traditionally treated in combination (Dede 1978). This paper is trying to examine the differences lying behind the apparently formal similarity of the 3 forms giving answers to the relative degree of difficulty these forms create in the L2-Turkish-acquisition process. To this aim, we try to disambiguate the so far blurred dividing lines of the 3 forms by testing them upon certain morpho-syntactic tests (Bağrıaçık & Ralli, 2014; Mavridou, 2020). The results will show the degree of syntactic compositionality and semantic transparency each of these forms holds giving rise to further assumptions on their syntactic or lexical nature. More specifically, we come to assume that: a) the N-(n)In N-(s)I form is syntactically and semantically analytic in all cases (eg. kadın-ın kuaför-ü ‘the woman’s hairdresser’), b) the N N-(s)I form is syntactically non-compositional (= synthetic) but semantically either transparent (eg. kadın kuaför-ü ‘hairdresser for women’) or opaque (Külkedi-si ‘Cindirella’), and c) the N N form is either syntactically analytic and semantically transparent (eg. kadın kuaför ‘female hairdresser’), or syntactically synthetic but semantically transparent (eg. anne baba ‘parents’) or syntactically synthetic but semantically opaque (eg. Pamuk Prenses ‘Snowhite’). At a second level, we make assumptions on the learning sequence of these forms in L2-Turkish. Based on ‘the more transparent the easier to learn’ theory (Libben et. al. 2003), we assume that the syntactic N-(n)In N-(s)I form is a step ahead in the L2-Turkish acquisition process compared to more synthetic compound forms such as the N N-(s)I, while the N N form, which falls within the ‘grey’ region, is assumed to create the most burdens on L2-learners.

Keywords

Turkish compounds, Turkish possessive structures, Ad tamlaması, syntactic compositionality vs. synthesis, semantic transparency vs. opacity

References

• Aslan, E., & Altan, A. (2006). The Role of -(s)I in Turkish Indefinite Noun Compounds. Dil Dergisi, 131, 57-76.
• Bağrıaçık, M., & Ralli, A. (2013). Bare N(ominal) N(ominal) concatenations in Turkish: Compounds or syntactic fallacies? Στο N. Hathout, F. Montermini, & J. Tseng (ed.), Morphology in Toulouse. Selected proceedings of Décembrettes 7,Toulouse,2–3 December 2010 (p. 35-56). Munich: Lincom Academic Publishers.
• Bağrıaçık, M., & Andreou, M. (2011). Lexical categories and bare nominal concatenations in Turkish. 2nd Patras International Conference of Graduate Students in Linguistics, Proceedings (p. 33-46). Patras, Greece: University of Patras Publications.
• Bağrıaçık, M., & Ralli, A. (2014). NN-sI concatenations in Turkish: construct state nominals and phrasal compounds. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics (p. 13-24). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Presented at the 8th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL8-2012).
• Dede, M. A. (1978). A syntactic and semantic analysis of Turkish nominal compounds. PhD Dissertation. University of Michigan.
• Göksel, A., & Kerlslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge: Taylor & Francis Ltd.
• Hankamer, J. (2008). Ad-phrasal affixes and suspended affixation. Chicago, IL: Paper presented at the SLA Annual Meeting.
• Hatiboğlu, V. (1982). Dilbilgisi Terimleri Sözlüğü. Ankara: DTCF.
• Hengirmen, M. (2007). Türkçe Dilbilgisi. Ankara: Engin Yayınevi.
• Kharytonava, O. (2011). Noms composés en tyrc et le morphème -(s)I. PhD Dissertation. Ontario: University of Western Ontario.
• Kırkıcı, B. (2009). İmparator Çizelgesi vs. İmparatorlar Çizelgesi: On the (Non)-Use of Plural Non-Head Nouns in Turkish Nominal Compounding. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1, 35-53.
• Kornfilt, Z. (1997). Turkish. London: Routledge.
• Kunduracı, A. (2013). Turkish Noun-Noun Compounds: A Process-Based Paradigmatic Account. PhD Dissertation. Calgary University.
• Lewis, G. L. (2000 (1967)). Turkish Grammar (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Libben, G., Gibson, M., Yoon, Y., & Sandra, D. (2003). Compound fracture: the role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain Language, 84/1, 50-64.
• Özer, S. (2010). Morphological Priming in Turkish Nominal Compound Processing. MA Thesis. Middle East Technical University.
• Mavridou, V. Η Τουρκική ως Δεύτερη/ Ξένη Γλώσσα: Η περίπτωση των Συνταγμάτων ‘Ad Tamlaması’. [Turkish as a Second/ Foreign Language: The case of Turkish syntagmatic sets ‘Ad Tamlamasι’]. PhD Dissertation. Democritus University Thrace.
• Postal, P. (1969). Anaphoric islands. Linguistic Society, 5, 209-239.
• Tat, D. (2013). Word Syntax of Nominal Compounds: Internal and Aphasiological Evidence from Turkish. PhD Dissertation. Arizona: University of Arizona.
• Uzun, E. (ed.)(2011). Yeni Hitit 1 Yabancılar İçin Türkçe Ders Kitabı. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi.
• Yılmaz, M. Y. (ed.) (2020). Yeni İstanbul. A1 Uluslararası Öğrenciler İçin Türkçe Ders Kitabı. İstanbul: Kültür Sanat Basımevi.