Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T12:41:01.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The paradigmatic aspect of compounding and derivation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2018

AYSUN KUNDURACI Open the ORCID record for AYSUN KUNDURACI [Opens in a new window]
AYSUN KUNDURACI*
Affiliation:
Yeditepe University
*
Author’s address: Department of English Language Teaching, Yeditepe University, Faculty of Education, Inönü Mh., Kayışdağı Cd., 34755 Ataşehir, Istanbul, Turkeykunduraca@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study aims to show the dynamic aspect of word-formation paradigms in autonomous morphology by examining the compound marker in Turkish Noun–Noun compounds, as in buz paten-i ‘ice-skate (ice skate-cm)’, and its relation to derivational suffixes. The study proposes a process-based morphological paradigm structure which involves compounding and derivational operations. In this system, the compound marker has a formal paradigmatic function: it creates correct lexeme forms based on bare Noun–Noun compounds, which would otherwise serve as input to certain derivational operations. The current system thus accounts for both permitted and unpermitted suffix combinations involving compounding and the optionality in certain combinations, such as buz paten-ci (-si) ‘a/the ice skater (ice skate-agt-cm)’, where the compound marker may (not) appear in combination with the (derivational) agentive -CI. The study also presents a survey which implies that a group of derivational affixes is in a paradigmatic relation with the compound marker, and all of these affixations constitute alternative paths in a dynamic paradigm structure. The findings of the study are considered to contribute to the understanding of the nature of the autonomous morphological operations and paradigms, which cannot be restricted to the lexicon or manipulated by syntax.

Keywords

autonomous morphologycompoundingderivationmorphological processparadigm
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , 01 August 2019 , pp. 563 - 609
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Special thanks go to Amanda Pounder, the editors and three anonymous referees of Journal of Linguistics.

Selected abbreviations used in the paper: agt = agent(ive)/actor, ASN = association function(s), atn = attenuative, cm = compound marker, CR = Categorial Rule, dim = diminutive, FA = Function Application, FR = Form Rule, gen = genitive (case), LIP = Lexical Integrity Principle, lng = language (suffix), NNC = Noun–Noun compound, NPC = No Phrase Constraint, nz = nominalizer, OP = operation, OPc = operation condition, orn = ornative/proprietive, PC = possessive construction, PM = Predicate Modification, poss = possessive, priv = privative/deprivative, Rc = rule condition, Sc = stem/base condition, SR = Semantic Rule, sta = status (noun).

References

Allen, Margaret R.1978. Morphological investigations. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1982. Where is morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13, 571–612.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2004. Towards a less ‘syntactic’ morphology and a more ‘morphological’ syntax. In van Sterkenberg, Piet (ed.), Linguistics today: Facing a greater challenge, 31–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Arslan-Kechriotis, Ceyda. 2006. Case as an uninterpretable feature.Ph.D. dissertation, Boğaziçi University.Google Scholar
Aslan, Erhan & Altan, Aslı. 2006. The role of -( $s$ ) $I$ in Turkish indefinite noun compounds. Dil Dergisi 131, 57–76.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1998. Comments on the paper by Sadock. In Lapointe, Steven G., Brentari, Diane K. & Farrell, Patrick M. (eds.), Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax, 188–212. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme–morpheme Base Morphology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Beard, Robert. 1998. Derivation. In Spencer & Zwicky(eds.), 44–65.Google Scholar
Bisetto, Antonietta & Scalise, Sergio. 1999. Compounding: Morphology and/or syntax? In Mereu, Lunella (ed.), Boundaries of morphology and syntax, 31–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2001. Paradigmatic derivation. Transactions of the Philological Society 99, 211–222.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2002. Syncretism without paradigms: Remarks on Williams 1981, 1994. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2001, 53–85. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1994. Against split morphology. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1993, 27–50. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1996. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the Split Morphology Hypothesis. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1995, 1–16. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2007. Construction Morphology and the lexicon. In Montermini, Fabio, Boyé, Gilles & Hathout, Nabil (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 5th Décembrettes: Morphology in Toulouse, 34–44. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2009. Afro-Asiatic, Semitic: Hebrew. In Lieber & Štekauer(eds.), 491–511.Google Scholar
Botha, Rudolf P. 1984. Morphological mechanisms: Lexicalist analyses of synthetic compounding. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Bozşahin, Cem. 2002. The combinatory morphemic lexicon. Computational Linguistics 28, 145–186.Google Scholar
Braun, Feriederike & Haig, Geoffrey. 2000. The noun/adjective distinction in Turkish: An empirical approach. In Göksel, Aslı & Kerslake, Celia (eds.), Studies on Turkish and Turkish languages (Turcologica 46), 85–92. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Asudeh, Ash, Toivonen, Ida & Wechsler, Stephen. 2016. Lexical-functional syntax, 2nd edn. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Mchombo, Sam A.. 1995. The Lexical Integrity Principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 13, 181–254.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1998. Paradigmatic structure: Inflectional paradigms and morphological classes. In Spencer & Zwicky(eds.), 322–334.Google Scholar
Dede, Müşerref. 1978. A syntactic and semantic analysis of Turkish nominal compounds. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria. 2009. Why are compounds a part of human language? A view from Asymmetry Theory. In Lieber & Štekauer(eds.), 145–177.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria & Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Downing, Pamela. 1977. On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language 53, 810–842.Google Scholar
Erdem, Münevver. 2018. Non-canonical morphological patterns in Turkish: Evidence from person-number markers.M.A. thesis, Boğaziçi University.Google Scholar
Erguvanlı Taylan, Eser. 2015. The phonology and morphology of Turkish. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.Google Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. 1999. Lexical strata in English: Morphological causes, phonological effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. 2009. Compounding and lexicalism. In Lieber & Štekauer (eds.), 178–200.Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı. 1988. Bracketing paradoxes in Turkish nominal compounds. In Koç, Sabri (ed.), Studies on Turkish Linguistics, 287–298. Ankara: METU Press.Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı. 2009. Compounds in Turkish. Lingue e Linguaggio 2, 213–236.Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı. 2015. Phrasal compounds in Turkish: Distinguishing citations from quotations. In Trips, Carola & Kornfilt, Jaklin (eds.), Phrasal compounds (Language Typology and Universals, STUF 68.3), 359–394. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı & Haznedar, Belma. 2007. Remarks on compounding in Turkish. Ms., Boğaziçi University (http://componet.sslmit.unibo.it/download/remarks/TR.pdf, accessed 14 October 2018).Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı & Kerslake, Celia. 2005. Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Guilbert, Louis. 1975. La créativité lexicale. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey. 2004. Constraints on morpheme repetition in Turkish?In İmer, Kamile & Dogan, Gürkan (eds.), Current research in Turkish linguistics, 3–12. Gazimagusa: Eastern Mediterranean University Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2009. Compounding in Distributed Morphology. In Lieber & Štekauer(eds.), 129–144.Google Scholar
Hayasi, Tooru. 1996. The dual status of possessive compounds in Modern Turkish. In Berta, Árpád, Brendemoen, Bernt & Schönig, Claus (eds.), Symbolae Turcologicae 6, 119–129. Uppsala: Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 1985. Categorial morphology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1975. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language 51, 639–671.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2009. Compounding in the parallel architecture and conceptual semantics. In Lieber & Štekauer(eds.), 105–128.Google Scholar
Kabak, Barış. 2007. Turkish suspended affixation. Linguistics 45, 311–347.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul & Zimmer, Karl. 1976. On the semantics of compounds and genitives in English. 6th California Linguistics Association Proceedings, 29–35. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University Press.Google Scholar
Kharytonava, Olga. 2011. Noms composés en turc et morphème - ( $s$ ) $I$ . Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Western Ontario.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1984. Case marking, agreement, and empty categories in Turkish. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1986. The stuttering prohibition and morpheme deletion in Turkish. In Taylan, Eser Erguvanlı & Aksu-Koç, Ayhan (eds.), Proceedings of the Turkish Linguistics Conference, 295–307. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Publications.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kunduracı, Aysun. 2013. Turkish noun–noun compounds: A process-based paradigmatic account. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Calgary.Google Scholar
Kunduracı, Aysun. 2017. Process morphology in concatenation. In Büyükkantarcıoğlu, Nalan, Özyıldırım, Işıl & Yarar, Emine (eds.), 45. Yıl Yazıları [45th Anniversary papers], 255–278. Ankara: Hacettepe University Press.Google Scholar
Kunduracı, Aysun & Göksel, Aslı. 2016. Morphology: The base processor. In Audring, Jenny, Masini, Francesca & Sandler, Wendy (eds.), On-line Proceedings of the Tenth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM10), 88–97. Haifa: University of Haifa.Google Scholar
Lapointe, Steven Guy. 1980. The theory of grammatical agreement. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1966. The grammar of English nominalizations. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Levi, Judith N. 1978. The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, Geoffrey. 2000. Turkish grammar, 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 2004. Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle & Scalise, Sergio. 2006. The Lexical Integrity Hypothesis in a new theoretical universe. Lingue e Linguaggio 5, 7–32.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle & Štekauer, Pavol (eds.). 2009. The Oxford handbook of compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Özge, Umut & Bozşahin, Cem. 2010. Intonation in the grammar of Turkish. Lingua 120, 132–175.Google Scholar
Öztürk, Balkız & Taylan, Eser Erguvanlı. 2016. Possessive constructions in Turkish. Lingua 182, 88–108.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1995. Lexical semantics and compositionality. In Gleitman, Lila & Liberman, Mark (eds.), Invitation to cognitive science, 2nd edn., Part I: Language, 311– 360. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1991. Rasmus Rask’s dilemma. In Plank, Frans (ed.), Paradigms: The economy of inflection, 161–196. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1969. Anaphoric islands. In Binnick, Robert I., Davison, Alice, Green, Georgia & Morgan, Jerry L. (eds.), Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 5), 205–235. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Pounder, Amanda. 1996. Inflection and the paradigm in German Nouns. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures 8, 219–263.Google Scholar
Pounder, Amanda. 2000. Processes and paradigms in word-formation morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ralli, Angela. 2011. Compounding and its locus of realization: Evidence from Greek and Turkish. Presented at the 8th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, September 2011, Cagliari.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1998. On the autonomy of compounding morphology. In Lapointe, Steven G., Brentari, Diane K. & Farrell, Patrick M. (eds.), Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax, 161–187. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 2012. The modular architecture of grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scalise, Sergio & Bisetto, Antonietta. 2009. The classification of compounds. In Lieber & Štekauer (eds.), 34–53.Google Scholar
Schroeder, Christoph. 1999. The Turkish nominal phrase in spoken discourse. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2001. The paradigm-based model of morphosyntax. Transactions of the Philological Society 99, 279–313.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2011. What is in a compound? Journal of Linguistics 47, 48–507.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 1991. A paradigm-based theory of morphosemantic mismatches. Language 67, 675–725.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 2001. Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 2016. Inflectional paradigms: Content and form at the syntax–morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swarup, Samarth & Gasser, Les. 2007. The role of anticipation in the emergence of language. In Butz, Martin V., Sigaud, Olivier, Pezzulo, Giovanni & Baldasarre, Gianluca (eds.), Anticipatory behavior in adaptive learning systems: From brains to individual and social behavior, 35–56. Heidelberg & Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Swift, Lloyd B. 1963. A reference grammar of modern Turkish. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Underhill, Robert. 1976. Turkish grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Uygun, Dilek. 2009. A split model for category specification: Lexical categories in Turkish. Ph.D. dissertation, Boğaziçi University.Google Scholar
van Schaaik, Gerjan. 1996. Studies in Turkish grammar (Turcologica 28). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1994. Remarks on lexical knowledge. Lingua 92, 7–34.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich. 1989. Inflectional morphology and naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Yükseker, Hitay. 1987. Turkish nominal compounds. In Avery, Peter & Yükseker, Hitay (eds.), Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 7, 8 –102. Toronto: Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Yükseker, Hitay. 1994. Possessive constructions in Turkish. In Johanson, Lars, Csato, Éva Ágnes, Locke, Vanessa, Menz, Astrid & Winterling, Dorothea (eds.), Proceedings of The Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, 458–477. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Yükseker, Hitay. 1998. Turkish possessive compounds. In Booij, Geert, Ralli, Angela & Scalise, Sergio (eds.), Proceedings of The First Mediterranean Conference on Morphology, 153–164. Patras: University of Patras.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1986. The general case: Basic form vs. default form. In Nikiforidou, Vassiliki, van Clay, Mary, Niepokuj, Mary & Feder, Deborah (eds.), Proceedings of The 12th Annual Meeting of Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 12), 305–314. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1992. Some choices in the theory of morphology. In Levine, Robert D. (ed.), Formal grammar: Theory and implementation, 327–371. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M.1995. Why English adverbial -ly is not inflectional. Papers from the 31st Regional Meeting of The Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 31): Main Session, 523– 535. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. (https://web.stanford.edu/∼zwicky/why-english-adverbial-ly.pdf, accessed 22 January 2018).Google Scholar