jlr

Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi

1300-8552 2587-0939

Dilbilim Derneği

10.18492/dad.524923

Purely Morphological Mechanisms and Base Formation

Saltbiçim İşlemleri ve Taban Biçimleme

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5250-7899

Kunduracı

Aysun

YEDİTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ

12 26 2019

30 2 199 219 02 09 2019 09 16 2019

1990

Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi

This study concernsitself with separationism (Beard, 1995) in Turkish and the need forseparationism in agglutinating languages as well. The study scrutinizesmorphomic (cf. Aronoff, 1994) derivations, which are devoid of semantics. Inthe expression okuyucu ‘reader’, forinstance, there is no other (intermediate) meaning than the meaning of the rootoku- (read) and the target meaning ofokuyucu ‘reader: the doer ofreading’. However, the derivative includes one more formal item, -I with the output okuyu-, right before -CIsuffixation. In such formations, morphomic operations, which are motivatedmorphologically and/or categorically, but not semantically, take place. The -I suffixation yielding derivatives like okuyu- as above has been misconceived asa piece of suffixes following it, such as -CIand -lI, i.e. *-ICI. Importantly however, affixations like -I contributes to understanding the nature of morphology: Theyindicate (i) affixations without meaning, (ii) the existence of preforms, and(iii) morphological base conditions. Morphomic operations, further, challengeiconicity, which cognitive linguistic models, such as van Langendonck (2007),are for when criticizing formal linguistics. Morphomic operations show thatgrammar cannot depend on purely world concepts.

Bu çalışma Türkçede ayrıklık (separationism, Beard, 1995: anlam ve biçimin ayrıdüzlemselliği) 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, amaçlanananlamla etkileşen -CI eklenmesindenönce bir biçim daha içermektedir: -I eklenmesiile okuyu-. Bu gibi oluşumlarda anlamgüdüsüz biçimsel işlemler devrededir, güdü yalnızca ulamsal ve biçimseldir.Yukarıda okuyucu’dan önce elde edilenokuyu- gibi türevlerdeki -I eklenmesi, alanyazınında fark edilmeyerek,sonrasındaki -CI, -lI gibi eklerle birlikte algılanmıştır:*-ICI gibi. Oysaki, -I gibi özerk eklenmeler, biçimyapısıaçısından önemlidir: (i) Anlam-biçim ayrıklığını, (ii) bağımlı ön/arabiçimlerive (iii) biçimyapısının taban koşullarını ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Saltbiçimselişlemler, ayrıca, kimi bilişsel dilbilim modellerinin (örn. van Langendonck, 2007) biçimsel dilbilimmodellerini eleştirirken değindiği görüntüsellik ilkesine de açıkça aykırıdır;dilin yapısının dünya kavramlarına bağımlı olmadığı, kendine özgü olduğu anlaşılmaktadır.

biçimbilim taban ayrıklık adlaşma türetim

morphology base separationism nominalization derivation

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.