Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Türkçede İçeklerin Varlığı Mümkün mü? Neden Olmasın?

Yıl 2023, Sayı: Özel Sayı 1 (Cumhuriyetin 100. Yılına), 1339 - 1359, 27.10.2023

Semra Baturay Meral

https://doi.org/10.51531/korkutataturkiyat.1357539

Öz

Sonekleme ve önekleme işlemleriyle karşılaştırıldığında içekleme, bağımlı bir biçimbirimin bir tabanın içine yerleştirildiği nadir bir biçimbilimsel süreçtir. Dilbilgisel içeklerin çoğu esasen önek ya da sonek oldukları için alanyazında gerçek içek olarak kabul edilmemekte, sesbilimsel sebeplerden ötürü içek biçimiyle karşımıza çıktıkları söylenmektedir. Biz bu çalışmada, Yu’yu (2007) temel alarak, Türkçedeki yinelemeli söz oyunlarında gerçek içek bulunduğunu ileri sürmekteyiz. Buradan hareketle çalışmamızın üç temel iddiası bulunmaktadır: (i) Türkçe söz oyunlarındaki gerçek içekler, önceki çalışmaların yaptığı gözlemlerin aksine, -gV- değil -Vg- kalıbına sahiptir. (ii) Yinelemeli -Vg- içeki, önceki açıklamaların aksine, tabandaki her kaynak ünlüyü soldan sağa değil, sağdan sola kopyalayıp bu ünlünün öncesine yerleşerek tabanı bölmektedir. (iii) Türkçedeki yinelemeli iç ekler, dallanmanın mümkün olmadığı sabit (değişmeyen) sesbilimsel bir şablona (NO) sahiptir. Yaptığımız bu -Vg- kalıbı çözümlemesi ve şablon açıklaması uzun ünlülerin kopyalanmış oldukları formda neden kısaldıklarını ve ünsüz çiftlerindeki ikincil ünsüzün (son ünsüz) neden kaybolduğunu açıklayabilmektedir. Buna göre, sabit şablon analizimizde uyak veya çekirdeğin dallanma olasılığı olmadığından, çekirdekten içeke sadece ünlü içeriği aktarılırken, ünlü uzunluğu veya son ünsüz bu pozisyona kopyalanamamaktadır. Ayrıca -Vg- içekleme kalıbının Baskça ve Tagalogca gibi çeşitli dillerden örneklerle de desteklendiği ve bu dillerin de söz oyunlarında -VC- içekleme kalıbına sahip olduğu belirtilebilir. Çalışmada ayrıca, sistemde karmaşık işlemlere izin verilmemesi ve tüm işlemlerin sadece şablonla sınırlı olması nedeniyle Türkçe yinelemeli içekler için sabit şablon analizinin bilişsel yükü en aza indirdiği savunulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Türkçe söz oyunlarında yinelemeli içekleme içekler kuş dili sesbilimsel şablonlar sesbilim-biçimbilim arayüzü.

Kaynakça

  • Akalın, L. S. (2000). Türkçesiz Türkçe ve Kuş Dili [Turkish without Turkish and the Bird Language], Türk Dünyası Tarih ve Kültür Dergisi, 162, 22-23.
  • Aksan, D. (1968). Anadolu’da Islık Dili Araştırması Ön Raporu [Pre-Report of the Anatolian Whistled Language Research]. Türkoloji Dergisi, 1(3), 49-64.
  • Alidou, O. (1997). A Phonological Study of Language Games in Six Languages of Niger. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
  • Anderson, S. (1992). A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Bacovcin, H. A, & Freeman, A. (2016). Infixation, Integration and Phonological Cycles: Evidence from Akkadian Verbal Morphology. In C. Hammerly and B. Prickett (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 46, 51-58. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
  • Bagemihl, B. (1988). Alternate Phonologies and Morphologies. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
  • Bagemihl, B. (1995). Language Games and Related Areas. In John Goldsmith (Ed.) The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 697–712. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  • Başkan, Ö. (1968). Türkçe Islιk Dili. Ιstanbul Üniversitesi Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Dergisi, 16(1), 1-10.
  • Baturay-Meral, S. (2020). The New Template Model and the Phonology-Morphology Interface in Turkish: the Parametric Hierarchical System and Universal Implications. Amsterdam: LOT Publications.
  • Blevins, J. (1999). Untangling Leti infixation. In Oceanic Linguistics, 38(2), 383-403.
  • Broselow, E. & McCarthy, J. (1983). A Theory of Internal Reduplication. Linguistic Review, 3, 25-88.
  • Cohn, A. C. (1992). The Consequences of Dissimilation in Sundanese. Phonology, 9(2), 199-220.
  • Davis, S. (1994). Language Games. In R. E. Asher and J. M. Y. Simpson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 1980–1985. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  • Elfner, E., & Kimper, W. (2008). Reduplication without RED: Evidence from Diddly-Infixation. In N. Abner & J. Bishop (Eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL, 150–158.
  • Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (2011). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.
  • Greenberg, J. H. (1968). Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of language, 40-70. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Goudswaard, N. (2004). Infix Allomorphy in Ida’an-Begak. Proceedings of AFLA 11, 2004, ZAS Berlin, 89–102. Berlin.
  • Halle, M. (2001). Infixation versus Onset Metathesis in Tagalog, Chamorro, and Toba Batak.
  • In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 153-168. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Harizanov, B. (2017). The interaction between Infixation and Reduplication in Chamorro. In Jason Ostrove, Ruth Kramer, and Joseph Sabbagh (Eds.), Asking the right questions: Essays in Honor of Sandra Chung, 158–172. Santa Cruz, CA: Linguistics Research Center.
  • Himmelmann, N. & Wolff, J. U. (1999). Toratán (Ratahan). Munich and Newcastle: Lincom Europa. Inkelas, S. (1990). Prosodic Constituency in the Lexicon. Garland Publishing.
  • Ishizuka, M. (2021). Ludlings and Glides in Basque. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics, 15, 21-29.
  • Kaye, J. (1990). Coda licensing. Phonology Yearbook 7, 301-330.
  • Kaye, J., Lowenstamm J. & Vergnaud, R. (1990). Constituent Structure and Government in Phonology. Phonology 7, 193-231.
  • Kaymaz, Z. (2003). Türkiye’deki Gizli Diller Üzerine Bir Araştırma [A Research on th Secret Languages in Turkey]. Ege Üniversitesi Basımevi, İzmir.
  • Kornfilt, J. (2013). Turkish. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Kiparsky, P. (1986). The Phonology of Reduplication. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.
  • Laycock, D. (1972). Towards a Typology of Ludlings, or Play-languages. Language Communications 6, 61–113.
  • Mattiello, E. (2013). Extra-Grammatical Morphology in English: Abbreviations, Blends, Reduplications, and Related Phenomena. De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin/Boston.
  • McCarthy, J. (1982). Prosodic Structure and Expletive Infixation. Language, 58, 574-590.
  • McCarthy, J. & Prince, A. (1986). Prosodic Morphology. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Massachusetts and Brandeis University.
  • McCarthy, J. & Prince, A. (1993). Generalized Alignment. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology, 79-153. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academics.
  • Moravcsik, E. (1977). On Rules of Infixing. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
  • Moravcsik, E. (2000). Infixation. In G. Booij, C. Lehmann & J. Mugdan (Eds.), Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-formation Volume 1, 545-552. New York, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  • Laycock, D. (1972). Towards a Typology of Ludlings, or Play-Languages. Language Communications 6, 61–113. Marantz, A. (1982). Re reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 435-483.
  • Nagaya, N. & Uchihara, H. (2021). Ludlings and Phonology in Tagalog. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics, 15, 9-20.
  • Nevins, A. & Vaux, B. (2003). Metalinguistic, Shmetalinguistic: The Phonology of Shmreduplication. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 39(1), 702–721.
  • Nevins, A. & Endress, A. (2007). The Edge of Order: Analytic Bias in Ludlings. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 12, 43-53.
  • Payne, T. (1997). Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Piñeros, C. (1998). Prosodic Morphology in Spanish: Constraint Interaction in Word-Formation. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus.
  • Pound, G. (1963). Phonological Distortion in Spoken Secret Languages: A Consideration of Its Nature and Use. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
  • Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. New Brunswick: Rutgers University, Cognitive Science Center.
  • Suzuki, Y. (2021). Prosody of Iterative Infixal Ludlings in Turkish. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics, 15, 31-46.
  • Şahin, E. (2008). Kuş Dili [The Bird Language]. In Emine G. Naskali and Erdal Şahin (Eds.), Kültür Tarihimizde Gizli Diller ve Şifreler, 11–34. Istanbul: Ka Kitap.
  • Ultan, R. (1975). Infixes and Their Origins. In H. Seiler (Ed.), Linguistic Workshop III, 157-205. Munchen: Fink (Structura 9).
  • Vaux, B. (2011). Language Games. In John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle, and Alan C. L. Yu (Eds.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 722–750. Chichester: Blackwell.
  • Wilson, J. (2014). Evidence for Infixation after the First Syllable: Data from a Papuan Language. Phonology 31, 511–523.
  • Yu, A. C. L. (2007). A Natural History of Infixation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Yu, A. C. L. (2008). On iterative Infixation. WCCFL 26, 516–524.
  • Yu, A. C. L. (2015). Iterative Infixation as Prosodically-induced Compensatory Reduplication. Ms. University of Chicago.

Does Turkish Have Infixes? Why not?

Yıl 2023, Sayı: Özel Sayı 1 (Cumhuriyetin 100. Yılına), 1339 - 1359, 27.10.2023

Semra Baturay Meral

https://doi.org/10.51531/korkutataturkiyat.1357539

Öz

Compared to suffixation and prefixation, infixation is an uncommon morphological process in which a bound morpheme is inserted into a base. Most of the grammatical infixes are accepted as false infixes in the literature since they are originally either prefixes or suffixes but they surface as infixes due to some phonological reasons. However, there are also true infixes, which come with language games, disguises and iterative infixing ludlings. In the present study, following Yu (2007), we argue that Turkish has true infixation in iterative ludlings known as Kuş Dili (the Bird Language). Accordingly, we have three basic claims: (i) The true infixes in Turkish has -Vg- pattern not -gV-, contrary to the previous ludling observations. (ii) The iterative infix -Vg- interrupts the base preceding and copying every source vowel from right-to-left not from left-to-right, as opposed to the previous accounts. (iii) The Turkish iterative infixes have a fixed (unchanging) phonological template (NO) in which there is no way of branching. Our -Vg- pattern analysis and templatic account can explain why long vowels are shortened and why the coda consonant is displaced in the copied form. Accordingly, since there is no possibility for branching of the rhyme or nucleus on the infix template, only the vowel content is copied from the source nucleus to the infix, not the vowel length or coda consonant. Note that our -Vg- infixation pattern also finds empirical support from various languages such as Basque and Tagalog, which are also argued to have -VC- infixal pattern in their ludlings. As a result, we argue that the fixed template analysis for Turkish iterative infixes minimizes the cognitive burden since all one can do is limited to the template (no complex operations in the system).

Anahtar Kelimeler

Iterative infixation in Turkish ludlings infixes the bird language phonological templates phonology-morphology interface.

Kaynakça

  • Akalın, L. S. (2000). Türkçesiz Türkçe ve Kuş Dili [Turkish without Turkish and the Bird Language], Türk Dünyası Tarih ve Kültür Dergisi, 162, 22-23.
  • Aksan, D. (1968). Anadolu’da Islık Dili Araştırması Ön Raporu [Pre-Report of the Anatolian Whistled Language Research]. Türkoloji Dergisi, 1(3), 49-64.
  • Alidou, O. (1997). A Phonological Study of Language Games in Six Languages of Niger. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
  • Anderson, S. (1992). A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Bacovcin, H. A, & Freeman, A. (2016). Infixation, Integration and Phonological Cycles: Evidence from Akkadian Verbal Morphology. In C. Hammerly and B. Prickett (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 46, 51-58. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
  • Bagemihl, B. (1988). Alternate Phonologies and Morphologies. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
  • Bagemihl, B. (1995). Language Games and Related Areas. In John Goldsmith (Ed.) The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 697–712. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  • Başkan, Ö. (1968). Türkçe Islιk Dili. Ιstanbul Üniversitesi Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Dergisi, 16(1), 1-10.
  • Baturay-Meral, S. (2020). The New Template Model and the Phonology-Morphology Interface in Turkish: the Parametric Hierarchical System and Universal Implications. Amsterdam: LOT Publications.
  • Blevins, J. (1999). Untangling Leti infixation. In Oceanic Linguistics, 38(2), 383-403.
  • Broselow, E. & McCarthy, J. (1983). A Theory of Internal Reduplication. Linguistic Review, 3, 25-88.
  • Cohn, A. C. (1992). The Consequences of Dissimilation in Sundanese. Phonology, 9(2), 199-220.
  • Davis, S. (1994). Language Games. In R. E. Asher and J. M. Y. Simpson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 1980–1985. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  • Elfner, E., & Kimper, W. (2008). Reduplication without RED: Evidence from Diddly-Infixation. In N. Abner & J. Bishop (Eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL, 150–158.
  • Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (2011). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.
  • Greenberg, J. H. (1968). Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of language, 40-70. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Goudswaard, N. (2004). Infix Allomorphy in Ida’an-Begak. Proceedings of AFLA 11, 2004, ZAS Berlin, 89–102. Berlin.
  • Halle, M. (2001). Infixation versus Onset Metathesis in Tagalog, Chamorro, and Toba Batak.
  • In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 153-168. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Harizanov, B. (2017). The interaction between Infixation and Reduplication in Chamorro. In Jason Ostrove, Ruth Kramer, and Joseph Sabbagh (Eds.), Asking the right questions: Essays in Honor of Sandra Chung, 158–172. Santa Cruz, CA: Linguistics Research Center.
  • Himmelmann, N. & Wolff, J. U. (1999). Toratán (Ratahan). Munich and Newcastle: Lincom Europa. Inkelas, S. (1990). Prosodic Constituency in the Lexicon. Garland Publishing.
  • Ishizuka, M. (2021). Ludlings and Glides in Basque. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics, 15, 21-29.
  • Kaye, J. (1990). Coda licensing. Phonology Yearbook 7, 301-330.
  • Kaye, J., Lowenstamm J. & Vergnaud, R. (1990). Constituent Structure and Government in Phonology. Phonology 7, 193-231.
  • Kaymaz, Z. (2003). Türkiye’deki Gizli Diller Üzerine Bir Araştırma [A Research on th Secret Languages in Turkey]. Ege Üniversitesi Basımevi, İzmir.
  • Kornfilt, J. (2013). Turkish. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Kiparsky, P. (1986). The Phonology of Reduplication. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.
  • Laycock, D. (1972). Towards a Typology of Ludlings, or Play-languages. Language Communications 6, 61–113.
  • Mattiello, E. (2013). Extra-Grammatical Morphology in English: Abbreviations, Blends, Reduplications, and Related Phenomena. De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin/Boston.
  • McCarthy, J. (1982). Prosodic Structure and Expletive Infixation. Language, 58, 574-590.
  • McCarthy, J. & Prince, A. (1986). Prosodic Morphology. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Massachusetts and Brandeis University.
  • McCarthy, J. & Prince, A. (1993). Generalized Alignment. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of Morphology, 79-153. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academics.
  • Moravcsik, E. (1977). On Rules of Infixing. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
  • Moravcsik, E. (2000). Infixation. In G. Booij, C. Lehmann & J. Mugdan (Eds.), Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-formation Volume 1, 545-552. New York, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  • Laycock, D. (1972). Towards a Typology of Ludlings, or Play-Languages. Language Communications 6, 61–113. Marantz, A. (1982). Re reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 435-483.
  • Nagaya, N. & Uchihara, H. (2021). Ludlings and Phonology in Tagalog. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics, 15, 9-20.
  • Nevins, A. & Vaux, B. (2003). Metalinguistic, Shmetalinguistic: The Phonology of Shmreduplication. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 39(1), 702–721.
  • Nevins, A. & Endress, A. (2007). The Edge of Order: Analytic Bias in Ludlings. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 12, 43-53.
  • Payne, T. (1997). Describing Morphosyntax: A Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Piñeros, C. (1998). Prosodic Morphology in Spanish: Constraint Interaction in Word-Formation. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus.
  • Pound, G. (1963). Phonological Distortion in Spoken Secret Languages: A Consideration of Its Nature and Use. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
  • Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. New Brunswick: Rutgers University, Cognitive Science Center.
  • Suzuki, Y. (2021). Prosody of Iterative Infixal Ludlings in Turkish. Asian and African Languages and Linguistics, 15, 31-46.
  • Şahin, E. (2008). Kuş Dili [The Bird Language]. In Emine G. Naskali and Erdal Şahin (Eds.), Kültür Tarihimizde Gizli Diller ve Şifreler, 11–34. Istanbul: Ka Kitap.
  • Ultan, R. (1975). Infixes and Their Origins. In H. Seiler (Ed.), Linguistic Workshop III, 157-205. Munchen: Fink (Structura 9).
  • Vaux, B. (2011). Language Games. In John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle, and Alan C. L. Yu (Eds.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 722–750. Chichester: Blackwell.
  • Wilson, J. (2014). Evidence for Infixation after the First Syllable: Data from a Papuan Language. Phonology 31, 511–523.
  • Yu, A. C. L. (2007). A Natural History of Infixation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Yu, A. C. L. (2008). On iterative Infixation. WCCFL 26, 516–524.
  • Yu, A. C. L. (2015). Iterative Infixation as Prosodically-induced Compensatory Reduplication. Ms. University of Chicago.
Toplam 50 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Yeni Türk Dili (Eski Anadolu, Osmanlı, Türkiye Türkçesi)
Bölüm Araştırma Makaleleri
Yazarlar

Semra Baturay Meral 0000-0002-2231-361X

Yayımlanma Tarihi 27 Ekim 2023
Gönderilme Tarihi 9 Eylül 2023
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2023 Sayı: Özel Sayı 1 (Cumhuriyetin 100. Yılına)

Kaynak Göster

APA Baturay Meral, S. (2023). Does Turkish Have Infixes? Why not?. Korkut Ata Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi(Özel Sayı 1 (Cumhuriyetin 100. Yılına), 1339-1359. https://doi.org/10.51531/korkutataturkiyat.1357539
 Kapak Resmi İndir

 Dergimiz

* Uluslararası Hakemli Dergidir (International Peer Reviewed Journal)
* Yılda 6 sayı yayımlanmaktadır (Published 6 times a year)
* Dergide, Türkçe ve İngilizce makaleler yayımlanmaktadır.
* Dergi açık erişimli bir dergidir.
* Bu web sitesi Creative Commons Atıf 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır. 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.