Abstract
To date, studies of phrasal compounds, most of which are on Germanic languages, have been inconclusive with respect to whether the non-heads are phrases or quotations. In this paper, I present syntactic, semantic, and prosodic evidence from a typologically different language, Turkish, to distinguish between the two types. I will show that what look like equally complex constructions turn out to differ radically in complexity and in terms of their internal structure; phrases that are sensitive to syntax versus quotations which are not, and head-complement relations versus type-token relations. I further discuss the structural implications of having phrasal units within morphological units, arguing that this is a natural phenomenon within frameworks where the relation between morphology and syntax is bidirectional.
Acknowledgments
This research has been supported by Boğaziçi University Research Fund, BAP 5842. I would like to thank Carola Trips and Jaklin Kornfilt for organizing a workshop where many interesting cross-linguistic and theoretical aspects of phrasal compounds were discussed and for giving me the opportunity to present my research. I am grateful to the audience at the workshop whose questions and comments improved my work, to Güliz Güneş, Aslı Gürer, Aysun Kunduracı, and three reviewers for their insightful comments, and to Gizem Tellioğlu for her technical assistance. Needless to say, I am the only person responsible for the present state of the paper and the outcome of these contributions.
Abbreviations
- a
adjective
- abil
abilitative
- abl
ablative
- acc
accusative
- adj
adjective
- ag
agentive
- agr
agreement
- aor
aorist
- asp
aspect
- ass
associative
- aux
auxiliary verb
- caus
causative
- clp
classifier phrase
- cm
compound marker
- comp
complementizer
- conj
conjunction
- cop
copula
- dat
dative
- fcl
finite clause
- fut
future
- gen
genitive
- hear
hearsay
- imp
imperative
- impf
imperfective
- inf
infinitival
- int
interrogative
- loc
locative
- lit
literally
- lv
light verb
- n
noun
- nder
de-verbal noun forming derivational suffix
- nec
necessitive
- neg
negative
- nm
nominalizer
- nom
nominative
- nonfcl
non-finite clause
- nump
number phrase
- part
participal
- past
past tense
- pl
plural
- poss
possessive
- sg
singular
- tm
topic marker
- v
verb
- vder
de-nominal verb forming suffix
References
Ackema, Peter & Ad Neeleman. 2004. Beyond morphology: Interface conditions on word formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199267286.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Akkuş, Faruk..2013. Light verb constructions in Turkish: A case for DP predication and blocking. Paper presented at Workshop on Formal Altaic Linguistics-9. Cornell University.Suche in Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen. 1994. A-morphous morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Aygen, Gülşat..2002. Finiteness, case, and clausal achitecture. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Suche in Google Scholar
Arslan-Kechriotis, Z. Ceyda. 2009. Determiner phrase and case in Turkish: A minimalist account. Saarbrücken: Verlag Dr. Müller.Suche in Google Scholar
Bağrıaçık, Metin.& Angela Ralli. 2014. NN-si concatenations in Turkish: Construct state nominals and phrasal compounds. Proceedings of WAFL-8. 13–24. https://www.academia.edu/3168282/Turkish_compounds#1Suche in Google Scholar
Bağrıaçık, Metin.& Angela Ralli. 2015 this volume. Phrasal vs. morphological compounds: Insights from Modern Greek and Turkish.10.1515/stuf-2015-0016Suche in Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1978. The grammar of nominal compounding with special reference to Danish, English, and French. Odense: Odense University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2003. Introducing linguistic morphology. (Second edition). Washington: Georgetown University Press.10.1515/9781474464284Suche in Google Scholar
Bisetto, Antonietta & Sergio Scalise. 2005. The classification of compounds. Lingue e Linguaggio 4(2). 319–332.Suche in Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2009. Compounding and construction morphology. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavel Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 201–216. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2010. Compound constructions: Schema or analogy. A construction morphology perspective. In Sergio Scalise & Irene Vogel (eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding, 93–107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.311.09booSuche in Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1999. Deconstructing the construct. In Kyle Johnson & Ian Roberts (eds.), Beyond principles and parameters, 43–89. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-4822-1_3Suche in Google Scholar
Botha, Rudolf P. 1984. Morphological mechanisms: Lexicalist analysis of synthetic compounding. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Brendel, Elke, Jörg Meibauer & Markus Steinbach. 2011. Exploring the meaning of quotation. In Elke Brendel, Jörg, Meibauer & Markus Steinbach (eds.), Understanding quotation, 1–34. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110240085.1Suche in Google Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle. 2014. Quotatives: New trends and sociolinguistic implications. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.10.1002/9781118584415Suche in Google Scholar
Charette, Monik, Aslı Göksel & Serkan Şener 2006. Initial stress in morphologically complex words in Turkish: The interface of prosody and phrase structure. Ms., SOAS, University of London.Suche in Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter & Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Dede, Müşerref..1978. A syntactic and semantic analysis of Turkish nominal compounds. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan.Suche in Google Scholar
Demircan, Ömer. 2001. Türkçe’nin Ezgisi [The intonation of Turkish]. Istanbul: Yıldız Technical University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
DiSciullo, Anna-Marie..2005. Asymmetry in morphology. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/1465.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
DiSciullo, Anna-Marie.& Edwin, Williams. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2006. Complement clauses and complementation strategies in typological perspective. In Robert M. W. Dixon & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Complementation: A cross-linguistic zypology, 1–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199297870.003.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Dubinsky, Stanley William, & Robert Hamilton. 1998. Epithets as antilogophoric pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 29(4). 685–693.10.1162/002438998553923Suche in Google Scholar
Erkman, Fatma, Ömer Delikgöz & Özlem Görür. 2006. [Diye] sözcüğü ve anlatıma kazandırdıkları [The word [diye] and its contribution to expressions]. In Yusuf Çotuksöken & N. Yalçın (eds.), XX. Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri, 161–165. T.C. Maltepe Üniversitesi Yayınları.Suche in Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı. 1988. Bracketing paradoxes in Turkish nominal compounds. In Sabri Koç (ed.), Studies on Turkish linguistics, 287–298. Ankara: ODTÜ Yayınları.Suche in Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı. 2008. Linkers on the edge: Turkish compound marking. CompNet Congress on Compounding, University of Bologna, 6–7 Haziran 2008.Suche in Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı. 2009. Compounding in Turkish. Lingua e Linguaggio 8(2). 213–236.Suche in Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı, & Celia Kerslake. 2005. Turkish, a comprehensive crammar. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203340769Suche in Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı, & Belma Haznedar. 2007. Remarks on compounding in Turkish. Ms. http://componet.sslmit.unibo.it/download/remarks/TR.pdfSuche in Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı, Meltem, Kelepir & Aslı, Üntak-Tarhan. 2009. Decomposition of question intonation: The structure of response seeking utterances. In Janet Grijzenhout & Aslı, Üntak-Tarhan Barış, Kabak (eds.), Phonological domains: Universals and deviations (Interface explorations), 249–286. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219234.2.249Suche in Google Scholar
Güneş, Güliz. 2009. On the formation of [V+V] compounds in Turkish. Paper presented at the 2nd Mediterranean Graduate Student Meeting in Linguistics. Mersin University.Suche in Google Scholar
Gürer, Aslı. 2010. Subject positions, case checking and EPP in complex noun phrase constructions in Turkish. MA Dissertation. Boğaziçi University.Suche in Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2009. Compounding in distributed morphology. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavel Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 128–144. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Hayashi, Tooru. 1996. The dual status of possessive compounds in Modern Turkish. In Berta Árpád, Bernt Brendemoen & Claus Schönig (eds.), Symbolae Turcologicae. Studies in honour of Lars Johanson on his sixtieth birthday 8 March 1996, 119–129. Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul.Suche in Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2005. Dimensions of symmetries in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture. Doctoral Dissertation. MIT.Suche in Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Cemil Orhan Orgun. 2003. Turkish stress: A review. Phonology 20). 139–161.10.1017/S0952675703004482Suche in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2009. Compounding in the parallel architecture and conceptual semantics. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavel Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 105–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Kabak, Barış, & Anthi Revithiadou. 2006. The phonology of clitic groups: Prosodic recursivity revisited. Paper presented at the 13th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Uppsala University.Suche in Google Scholar
Kabak, Barış, & Anthi Revithiadou. 2009. An interface approach to prosodic word recursion. In Janet Grijzenhout & Barış Kabak (eds.), Phonological domains: Universals and deviations (Interface explorations), 105–133. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219234.2.105Suche in Google Scholar
Kamali, Beste & Didem İkizoğlu. undated. Against compound stress in Turkish.Suche in Google Scholar
Kharytonava, Olga. 2010. The morphology of affix sharing in Turkish. The Coyote Papers 18. University of Arizona Linguistics Department.Suche in Google Scholar
Keskİn, Cem. 2009. Subject agreement–dependency of accusative case in Turkish or jump-starting grammatical machinery. Utrecht: LOT publications.Suche in Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1986. The stuttering prohibition and morpheme deletion in Turkish. In Eser Erguvanlı-Taylan & Ayhan Aksu-Koç (eds.), Proceedings of the Turkish linguistics conference, 295–307. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Publications.Suche in Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin & John Whitman. 2011. Afterword: Nominalizations in syntactic theory. Lingua 121. 1297–1313.10.1016/j.lingua.2011.01.008Suche in Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin & John Whitman. 2012. Genitive subjects and TP nominalizations. In Gianina Iordachioaia (ed.), Proceedings of JeNom4, Working Papers of the SFB 732.Suche in Google Scholar
Kunduracı, Aysun. 2013. Turkish noun-noun compounds: A process-based paradigmatic account. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Calgary.Suche in Google Scholar
Lewis, Geoffrey. 2001. Turkish grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2005. English word-formation processes: Observations, issues and thoughts on future research.In Rochelle Lieber & Pavel Štekauer (eds.), Handbook of word-formation, 375–427. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/1-4020-3596-9_16Suche in Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2009. IE, Germanic: English. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavel Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 357–369. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg. 2003. Phrasenkomposita zwischen Wortsyntax und Lexikon. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 22(2). 153–188.10.1515/zfsw.2003.22.2.153Suche in Google Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg. 2007. How marginal are phrasal compounds? Generalized insertion, expressivity, and I/Q-interaction. Morphology 17. 233–259.10.1007/s11525-008-9118-1Suche in Google Scholar
Montermini, Fabio. 2010. Units in compounding. In Sergio Scalise & Irene Vogel (eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding, 77–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.311.08monSuche in Google Scholar
Mukai, Makiko. 2008. Recursive compounds. Word Structure 1(2). 178–198.10.3366/E1750124508000214Suche in Google Scholar
Neale, Stephen. 1990. Descriptions. Cambridge: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Öztürk, Balkız. 2005. Case, referentiality and phrase structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.77Suche in Google Scholar
Özsoy, A Sumru. 2004. Dışişleri eski bakanı ve Türkçe’nin yeni yapısı. In Zehra Toska (ed.), Kaf Dağı’nın Ötesine Varmak, Günay Kut Armağanı, Vol. 3, Journal of Turkish Studies, Türklük Bilgisi Araştırmaları 28/1, Harvard University.Suche in Google Scholar
Pafel, Jürgen. 2011. Two dogmas on quotation. In Elke Brendel, Jörg Meibauer & Markus Steinbach (eds.), Understanding quotation, 249–276. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110240085.249Suche in Google Scholar
Ralli, Angela. 2008. Compound markers and parametric variation. Language Typology and Universals 61(1). 19–38.10.1524/stuf.2008.0004Suche in Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1991. Autolexical syntax. A theory of parallel grammatical representations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Scalise, Sergio & Emiliano Guevara. 2005. The lexicalist approach to word-formation and the notion of the lexicon. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavel Štekauer (eds.), Handbook of word-formation, 147–187. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/1-4020-3596-9_7Suche in Google Scholar
Scalise, Sergio & Irene Vogel. 2010. Why compounding? In Sergio Scalise & Irene Vogel (eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding, 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.311.02scaSuche in Google Scholar
Schaaik, Gerjan van. 1998. On the usage of gibi. In Lars Johanson, Éva Ágnes Csató, Vanessa Locke, Astrid Menz & Dorathea Winterling (eds.), The Mainz meeting, 422–457. Wiesbaden: Harrossowitz.Suche in Google Scholar
Schaaik, Gerjan van. 2002. The noun in Turkish: Its argument structure and the compounding straitjacket. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Suche in Google Scholar
Schroeder, Christoph. 1999. The Turkish nominal phrase in spoken discourse. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Suche in Google Scholar
Tat, Deniz. 2013. Word syntax of nominal compounds: Internal and aphasiological evidence from Turkish. PhD dissertation, University of Arizona.Suche in Google Scholar
Trips, Carola. 2013. The relevance of phrasal compounds for the architecture of grammar. http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001815Suche in Google Scholar
Uygun, Dilek. 2009. A split model for category specification: Lexical categories in Turkish. PhD dissertation, Boğaziçi University, Turkey.Suche in Google Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard. 2005. Co-compounds and natural coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199276219.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 1996. Phrasal compounds and the theory of word syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 183–193.Suche in Google Scholar
Yıldız, Esra. 2014. Reduplication as a compounding process: The case of [VV] converbs in Turkish. MA thesis. Boğaziçi University.Suche in Google Scholar
Yükseker, Hitay. 1998. Possessive constructions in Turkish. In Lars Johanson, Éva Ágnes Csató, Vanessa Locke, Astrid Menz & Dorathea Winterling (eds.), The Mainz meeting, 458–477. Wiesbaden: Harrossowitz.Suche in Google Scholar
Zileli, Gün. 2002. Havariler (Disciples). Istanbul: Iletişim Yayınları.Suche in Google Scholar
©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Introduction
- On “R” in phrasal compounds – a contextualist approach
- Phrasal compounds are compatible with Lexical Integrity
- Typological aspects of phrasal compounds in English, German, Turkish and Turkic
- Phrasal vs. morphological compounds: Insights from Modern Greek and Turkish
- Phrasal compounds in Turkish: Distinguishing citations from quotations
- Do Romance languages have phrasal compounds? A look at Italian
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Introduction
- On “R” in phrasal compounds – a contextualist approach
- Phrasal compounds are compatible with Lexical Integrity
- Typological aspects of phrasal compounds in English, German, Turkish and Turkic
- Phrasal vs. morphological compounds: Insights from Modern Greek and Turkish
- Phrasal compounds in Turkish: Distinguishing citations from quotations
- Do Romance languages have phrasal compounds? A look at Italian