Türkçede Bileşik Eki ve Türetimsel Dizil

Year 2020, Volume: 171 Issue: 2, 7 - 31, 07.07.2020

Aysun Kunduracı

https://doi.org/10.33690/dilder.703005

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Türkçede geleneksel yaklaşımlarda belirtisiz ad tamlaması olarak bilinen, üretken ad+ad+(s)I(n) biçimindeki ad-ad bileşiklerini Süreçsel Biçimbilim (bkz. Zwicky, 1986; Aronoff, 1994; Pounder, 2000) çerçevesinde ele almakta, bileşikler için yapısal ve anlamsal bir çözümleme sunmakta ve bileşiklerde eklenen -(s)I(n) eki için yeni bir işlev önermektedir. Bileşiklerdeki -(s)I(n) ekine türetimsel ve saf biçim(bilgi)sel bir görev (bileşik tabanları biçimleme) yükleyen çalışma, bu ekin eklenme sürecini de içeren belli bir grup türetim işleminden sorumlu bir dizil (İng. paradigm) yapısı önermekte, -(s)I(n)’ın bir grup türetim ekiyle dizilsel bir ilişki içinde olduğunu göstermektedir. Dizil yapısı, yalnızca -(s)I(n) eklenmesini değil (anlamsal olarak) beklendiği halde bu ekin eklenmediği durumları da açıklamaktadır. Çalışma, kuramsal açıdan da biçimbilimi (ve biçimbilgisel işlemleri) sözdizim ve sözlükçeye bağımlı olmayan ayrı bir dizge olarak kabul etmekte; anlamın biçimden, biçimin de anlamdan ayrı düzlemler olduğunu çeşitli dillerden veriyle vurgulayan süreçsel yaklaşımlara Türkçeden destekler sunmakta ve böylelikle biçimbilimdeki Ayrıklık Varsayımı’na (Beard, 1995) doğrudan gönderim yapmaktadır. Çalışma, ayrıca, biçimbilimde özerk biçimsel işlemlerin uygulandığı girdilere, yani tabanlara, ışık tutmakta ve hem türetimsel hem de çekimsel biçimbilgisi açısından tabanların kritikliğini ortaya çıkarmaktadır.

Keywords

Biçimbilim, Bileşik sözcük;, Bileşk eki, Türetimsel dizil, İlgi işlevi, Ad tamlaması

References

• Anderson, S. R. (1982). Where is morphology? Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 571-612.
• 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.
• Aslan, E., and Altan, A. (2006). The role of -(s)I in Turkish indefinite noun compounds. Dil Dergisi, 131, 57-76.
• 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.
• Blevins, J. (2001). Paradigmatic derivation. Transactions of the Philological Society, 99, 211-222.
• Booij, G. (1994). Against split morphology. In G. Booij and J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1993 (pp. 27-50). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Booij, G. (1996). Inherent versus contextual inflection and the Split Morphology Hypothesis. In G. Booij and J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995 (pp. 1-16). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Borer, H. (2009). Afro-Asiatic, Semitic: Hebrew. In R. Lieber and P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding (pp. 491-511). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bozşahin, C. (2002). The combinatory morphemic lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 28, 145-186.
• Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (1998). Paradigmatic structure: inflectional paradigms and morphological classes. In A. Spencer and A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), The Handbook of Morphology (pp. 322-334). Oxford: Blackwell.
• Dede, M. (1978). A syntactic and semantic analysis of Turkish nominal compounds. Ph.D Dissertation, University of Michigan.
• Di Sciullo, A. (2009). Why are compounds a part of human language? A view from Asymmetry Theory. In R. Lieber and P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding (pp. 145-177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 53, 810-842.
• 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. J. (2009). Compounding and lexicalism. In R. Lieber and P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding (pp. 178-200). Oxford: Oxford 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. (2009). Compounds in Turkish. Lingue e Linguaggio, 2, 213-236.
• Göksel, A. (2015). Phrasal compounds in Turkish: Distinguishing citations from quotations. In C. Trips and J. Kornfilt (Eds.), Phrasal Compounds (Language Typology and Universals, STUF 68.3) (pp. 359–394). Berlin: De Gruyter.
• Göksel, A., and Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.
• Göksel, A., and Haznedar, B. (2007). Remarks on compounding in Turkish (Ms). http://componet.sslmit.unibo.it/download/remarks/TR.pdf
• Guilbert, L. (1975). La créativité lexicale. Paris: Larousse.
• 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.
• 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.
• Haspelmath, M., and Sims, A. D. (2010). Understanding morphology (2nd ed.). London: Hodder Education.
• Hayasi, T. (1996). The dual status of possessive compounds in Modern Turkish. In Á. Berta, B. Brendemoen, and C. Schönig (Eds.), Symbolae Turcologicae 6 (pp. 119-129). Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul: Uppsala.
• Heim, I., and Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Jackendoff, R. (1975). Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language, 51, 639-671.
• Jackendoff, R. (2009). Compounding in the Parallel Architecture and conceptual semantics. In R. Lieber and P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding (pp. 105-128). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kay, P., and Zimmer, K. (1976). On the semantics of compounds and genitives in English. 6th California Linguistics Association Proceedings (pp. 29-35). San Diego: San Diego State University Press.
• Kharytonava, O. (2011). Noms composés en Turc et morphème -(s)I. Ph.D Dissertation, The University of Western Ontario.
• Kornfilt, J. (1984a). Case marking, agreement, and empty categories in Turkish. Ph.D Dissertation, Harvard University.
• Kornfilt, J. (1984b). The stuttering prohibition and morpheme deletion in Turkish. In E. Erguvanlı-Taylan and A. Aksu-Koç (Eds.), Proceedings of the Turkish Linguistics Conference (pp.295-307). Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Publications.
• Lapointe, S. G. (1980). The theory of grammatical agreement. Ph.D Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
• Levi, J. (1978). The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press.
• Lewis, G. (2000). Turkish grammar (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Lieber, R. (2004). Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Lieber, R., and Scalise, S. (2006). The Lexical Integrity Hypothesis in a new theoretical universe. Lingue e Linguaggio, 5, 7-32.
• Partee, B. (1995). Lexical semantics and compositionality. In L. Gleitman and M. Liberman (Eds.), Invitation to Cognitive Science (2nd Edition) Part I: Language (pp. 311-360). Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Plank, F. (1991). Rasmus Rask's dilemma. In F. Plank (Ed.), Paradigms: The economy of inflection (pp. 161-196). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• 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. (1996). Studies in Turkish grammar. Turcologica 28. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
• Schaaik, G. van (2002). The noun in Turkish. Its argument atructure and the compounding straitjacket. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
• Schroeder, C. (1999). The Turkish nominal phrase in spoken discourse. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
• Spencer, A. (2001). The paradigm-based model of morphosyntax. Transactions of the Philological Society, 99, 279-313.
• Spencer, A. (2011). What is in a compound? Journal of Linguistics, 47, 481-507.
• Stump, G. (1991). A paradigm-based theory of morphosemantic mismatches. Language, 67, 675-725.
• Stump, G. (2001). Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Underhill, R. (1976). Turkish grammar. Cambridge: MIT.
• Uygun, D. (2009). A split model for category specification: lexical categories in Turkish. Ph.D Dissertation, Boğaziçi University.
• Uzun, N. E. (2001). Anaçizgileriyle evrensel dilbilgisi ve Türkçe. İstanbul: Multilingual Yayınları.
• Wurzel, W. (1989) Inflectional morphology and Naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Yükseker, H. (1987). Turkish nominal compounds. In P. Avery and H. Yükseker (Eds.), Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 7 (pp. 83-102). Toronto: Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto.
• 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. (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.
• Zwicky, A. M. (1987a). Transformational grammarians and their ilk. MITWPL, 9, 265-279.
• Zwicky, A. M. (1987b). Suppressing the Z’s. Journal of Linguistics, 23, 133-148.