Jonah Bossewitch	January 22, 1996

LIN 213	Professor Maggie Browning

Final Exam

1.	Morphological/Phonological analysis of affixes

Affixes:

ī = +high, back, -round V, ĵ = +voice affricate (d ), the rest are same as original.

Phenome convention is described below, and only allomorphs appearing in the data are listed.

accusative... /i/ -i, -ī, -yī, -u, -ü, -yu... The case of the object of the verb (English approximation
(EA): "the").

past tense... /di/ -ti, -tī, -tü, -di, -dī, -dü

negative... /me/ -me

genitive case... /in/ -īn, -im, -nīn,- un, -nin... The case marking possession (of or by) of a noun

(EA: "of", "-'s").

possesive3rd... /in/ -in, -sīn, -un, -ün... Similar to genitive (EA: "-'s").

locative... /de/ -da.... {EA: "at, "in";}

nominalizing affix... /dug/ -tüg, -dug... Used to indicate that a verb is the subject of another	clause.

progressive tense... /yor/ -yor, -iyor, -īyor, -uyor... Indicates an unfinished process (EA: "-ing").

1singular... /m/ -um, -m

dative... /e/ -a, -e, -ye... The case of the beneficiary or the recipient of an action (EA: "to",	"for").

cause... /dir/ -dür... Functional affiix that changes the meaning of verb to its causal counterpart.

ablative... /den/ -tan, -den... Indicates relations of separation and source (EA: "from").

aorist tense.../er/ -er... Marks actions that are habitual or characteristic.

On the basis of (1), Turkish marks the Direct Object (or the complement of the verb) with the accusative case marker /i/, roughly equivalent to the English morpheme 'the'. Indefinite NPs do not get marked (more on indefinite NPs later), as seen in sentences (28, 30) as well as the instances where /bir/ (one) precedes the noun (13, 19). Also, when the verb is in the present tense (2, 3, 6), the D.O. is not marked. In sentences with embedded clauses, the verb inside the embedded clause also takes the acc affix (5-7) as do the complements of the verb within the embedded clause. This recursive marking makes sense if we think of the verb inside the embedded clause as the head of the complement of the main verb.

The derivation of the acc phoneme invokes epenthesis, vowel harmony, and vowel heightening, processes that seem to be common throughout Turkish. A [y] is inserted before the vowel if the suffix is adjacent to another vowel (8, 9). This rule enforces the Turkish constraint that there can be no more than one vowel per nucleus (see course packet, p. 139). The choice of /i/ as the phenome is somewhat arbitrary, since the phenome is always harmonized in the derivation, making it impossible to determine the true phenome from the data. The phenome is harmonized to the vowel immediately preceding it (progressive assimilation). Following this step, the low (-high) vowels are heightened, [a, e, o, ö] [ī, i, u, ü] ( 9,17, 6, 1).

The epenthesis/harmony/heightening derivation is not unique to the acc affix, as it is prevalent throughout Turkish. The pst, gen, poss, nom, and probably others not covered by the data all fix their vowels according to this technique (essentially). An interesting variation on this theme is the derivation of the progressive phenome /yor/. The suffix /yor/ is affixed to verbs to indicate the progressive tense. When the root ends in a consonant, a vowel is inserted between the root and the suffix. The vowel that is inserted is harmonized to the preceding vowel in the manner described above. It is likely that the insertion of a vowel between the 1sg /m/ morpheme and the verb follows this procedure as well.

The locative, dative, ablative, and aortive seem to fix their vowels according to a similar derivation, following the same epenthesis and harmonizing steps, but lowering the vowels in the final step. (9, 21,22, etc.) [ī, i, u, ü] [a, e, o, ö] The vowel [e] was used in the phenomes that lower their vowels, although this choice was arbitrary (for the same reason as above). These derivations show that the heightening of vowels is contrastive in Turkish, since phonological rules operate on this feature alone.

Another phonological phenomena that seems to span the entire language is the complementary distribution of [t] and [d] following consonants. Following a [t] (15) or a [k] (1) the [d] "loses its voice" and is transformed into [t]. It is difficult to infer a general rule from this data, however this phenomena seems to be similar to the one on the midterm. On the midterm we found that, in Turkish, plosives become voiceless at the end of the words, which might be a clue to the generalization we are looking for here. Perhaps Turkish does not allow consecutive plosives with alternate voicings (they would be very hard to pronounce)), and when they occur, the voiced consonant loses its voice. More examples of verbs ending in plosive, -voiced consonants would help test this suspicion.

The patterns in the genitive and poss are hard to pin down from the data. The genitive case marks more than just the possessor, but also the object that is being possessed. The possessive tense is similar enough to the gen that we were told to treat them together. The phenome of the gen case is /in/, with allomorphs formed by the usual vowel harmony/heightening derivation. When the suffix is bound to a vowel, a consonant is inserted (either an [n] or the same consonant as the final one - we need to know if incidences of /-um/ following a vowel yield /-num/ or /-mum/). The poss affix is almost the same, except that the consonant inserted after a vowel is [s], suggesting that an [n] is always inserted in the gen case (if the consonant doesn't change for poss, it doesn't change for gen either). The conditions under which the final consonant is transformed to an "m" are also ambiguous. There does not seem to be any general phonological rule governing [m]/ [n] shifts, (no other phonemes containing [n] change to [m], and other phonemes containing [m] (1sg, neg) are unchanging), so it is fair to infer that this rule is specific to the gen. The only occurrence of the /im/ allomorph is following /biz/ (3, 6) and it is unclear whether this change is phonologically driven (following a [z], or some natural class) or morphologically driven (after pronouns?).

2.	Headedness and word order

Turkish is a mixed order language, with some phrases obeying the head-last order, and others the head-first order:

In both simple (1) and complicated constructions (5), verbs follow their complement, so VP appears to be head-final. Basic word order is (S O V), but extensive case marking allows the object to move in front of the subject without changing the meaning of the sentence. (e.g. 20, 22). Non-specific ordering is also evident in ditransitive verb constructions where the agent, patient, and theme can appear in any order (12, 13, 20).

This flexibility in word ordering seems to violate X' theory, since being classified as a head-last verb phrase means more than just putting the verb at the end of the phrase. X' theory defines the complement as: sister of X, daughter of X'. The grammaticality of some of sentences in the data seem to violate this definition (20, 22, 23). Consider the sentence (20a) /tašī olgana bir adam attī/ = 'stone-acc boy-dat one man throw-pst' = "A man threw the stone at the boy". [A man [threw [the stone [at the boy]]]]. Both [the stone] and [at the boy] are complements of [threw], yet it in the Turkish version [one man] shows up in the complement position (it should be a specifier: sister of X', daughter of XP). A second Turkish version of this same sentence conforms with X' theory: (20b) [bir adam [tašī [olgana [attī]]]], but the damage has been done. At this point, movement is our only hope for salvaging X' on Turkish.

In fact, we need look no further than English to find examples of displaced complements. "That stone, one man threw at a boy" is grammatical (the trace of [that stone] is in the complement position), although it carries a slightly altered emphasis. Movement allows us to fit Turkish into X' theory, without having to stretch the theory at all. The only thing left to explain is why the meanings of the two sentences in Turkish are identical. But, this project is beyond the scope of the data, and it might require asking a native speaker.

Prepositional Phrases also appear to be head-last (making them postpositional phrases), and the head is often a suffix bounded to the final word in the PP. The PP "in the middle of the room" is glossed as "room-gen middle-poss3-loc" showing that the head, /da/ = loc = in is affixed to the end of the phrase. This is also seen in (23) (/agač-tan/ = tree-abl = out of the tree) and (17) (/Ahmet Bay-den/ = A. Bay-abl = from A. Bay). Not all postpositions are affixes though, as (12) demonstrates. Even though "/ile/ = inst = with" is a free morpheme, it still appears at the end of PP, demonstrating that PPs are strongly head-last.

On the other hand, based on the data, noun phrases seem to be head-first. The only complex NPs are in (17) (picture from A. Bay) and (18) (Ali's brother) and they both suggest that noun phrases are head-first. The only question is whether the word order in noun phrases is grammatically fixed, or if it is interchangeable like the word order in VPs. The words in NPs are also extensively tagged, and this suggests that they can be moved. In order to discover this we need to look at some longer noun phrases, and check the grammaticality of various word orderings.

The headedness of AP is ambiguous, since there is only a single occurrence of one (8), and word order might be flexible. We need to know if /kutu-yu kīrmīzi/ is grammatical before we commit to head-first, but considering that the position of the complement is fixed in other categories, and X' theory predicts stable head positions, head-first is a good guess.

3.	Distribution of Definite and Indefinite NPs

As mentioned above, indefinite NPs appear not to take the accusative marker where it would otherwise be appropriate (11, 18). Dative case markings are unaffected by indefinite NPs (9). In the data set, indefinite NPs are usually part of a constituent with the word /bir/, but the indefinite /para/ (money (30)) stands alone. The irregularity in acc tagging in (27, 28) is also a function of the indefinite status of the NP. In (28), /elma/ (apple) is an indefinite NP that does not receive the acc marking, like /para/ in (30). I would translate sentence (28) 'I like (the taste of) apple, instead of 'I like apples'. In (29), /insanlarī/ is closer to 'the human race' or 'humanity' than it is to 'people', so it is considered a definite NP and is tagged. It would be interesting to learn if there were any other words that indicated indefiniteness, and to find out if they also block the accusative (I predict they would).

Aside from case marking, indefinite NPs have another curious property. This constraint only applies to a subset of indefinite NPs, but it is impossible to determine the exact nature of this subset without further information. A likely guess is that animate/inanimate is the relevant distinction, but it could also be conscious/nonconscious, living/nonliving or something similar. It appears that it is ungrammatical to begin a sentence an inanimate indefinite NPs (19, 24), when this type of movement is clearly grammatical for definite NPs (15, 16), and animate/ indefinite NPs (22, 23). This rule may, in fact, apply to word order (e.g. forbidden to move inanimate/indefinite NP in front of subject, or into the specifier position), or to the beginning a phrase (not just a sentence). Sentence (28) provides us with the evidence we need to resolve this confusion. Since /(ben) elma severim/ is grammatical even without the 'ben', we learn that the specifier position that is forbidden to inanimate/indefinite NPs, not the front of a phrase.

The restrictions on indefinite NPs are more troublesome to X' theory than the wandering complement discussed above. Here, the complement is forced out of its position whenever the specifier is "not allowed" in the specifier position (24, 26). If /[bir elma [agačtan [düštü]]]/ = '[one apple [tree-abl [fall-pst]]]' is never grammatical, it is difficult to see how /[agačtan [bir elma [düštü]]]/ = [tree-abl [one apple [fall-pst]]] can be produced by movement, the solution we proposed in the previous example of displaced complements. Perhaps the solution to this problem involves something like the linguistic order of operations. Formation of 24b could start out in d- structure with 24a, where movement occurs. Only later is the inanimate/indefinite NP constraint applied, which filters out 24a, but allows 24b to survive.

4.	Movement

Bearing in mind the discussion above, Turkish has preserved the limited ability to emphasize through movement, as seen in (15, 16), (20), (29), and (33). In the data, emphasis only occurs within embedded clauses and wh-phrases, despite similar movement in other types of sentences. Based on (15, 16) it is unclear what types of NPs can be emphasized this way. Perhaps only proper nouns can be emphasized in embedded clauses, or maybe this is another incarnation of the animate/definite NP distinction. Sentence (7) tells us that indefinite subjects cannot be emphasized inside embedded clauses, but we would need to play with the word ordering in (5, 6) to decide between the other alternatives. The whole issue of emphasis, namely which instances of movement result in emphasis, is very hazy, and nothing substantial can be inferred from this data.

In wh-questions, Turkish moves the subject (like English), resulting in (O S V). It is unclear whether this process involves moving the subject or the object, and this would only be revealed by only a longer question (although it is probably the wh- word (/kim/ = who) that is moving). When /kim/ is left at (moved back to?) the beginning of the question, definite NPs are emphasized (29, 33). It appears that the rule forbidding sentences to start with indefinite/inanimate NPs overrides (or follows) the movement rule, forcing questions with that involve them to start with /kim/ and not carry any emphasis (since there is no other way to ask them).

'Where' questions (/nere/) do not seem to involve movement as they retain the basic (S O V) structure of declarative sentences. Turkish does not even allow for the movement of /nere/ for emphasis, which has the interesting side effect of making it grammatically impossible to ask for the whereabouts of an indefinite object (I don't know what you would do if you lost one).

5.	Miscellaneous

The data set does not include any English modals, so it is impossible to tell how Turkish treats them. Turkish might have some of its own modals, as /var/ and /yok/ (and perhaps /degil/) are verbs that are not conjugated normally, and might fit the "I" representation. If this interpretation is correct, then IP in Turkish head-last (2, 3, 4).

Like in Hebrew, the Turkish verb /ol/ ("to be") is not vocalized in the present tense. This partially accounts for the need for two negation morphemes. /-me/ is used when it can be bound to a verb (1), while /degil/ is used when there is no verb to bind to.

Subject marker is present whether or not subject is independently represented. Like many other languages with subject markers that are phonetically present, Turkish subjects are optional (15, 18) .

Turkish affixes follow the general rule of thumb, and derivational affixes are closer to the root than inflectional affixes(1, 5). Inflectional affixes are highly productive, allowing for optional subjects and flexible (non ambiguous) word ordering. Functional affixes are also highly productive, efficiently contracting phrases into single words, and giving different shades of meaning to existing words. A quick comparison of the number of words required for the same sentence in English versus Turkish demonstrates this efficiency.

Turkish also features a common feature of word assimilation. When the noun "film" was assimilated to Turkish, it became a full fledged Turkish noun, and is affixed like any "native" noun (33).

While Turkish syntax generally conforms to X' theory, the semantic distinction that governs indefinite NPs (animate/inanimate) cannot be represented by the X' theory without postulating a new category (and splitting the noun category). Linguists probably deal with (i.e. weasel out of) this problem by appealing to 'movement', but don't ask me how.

Turkish is far more attentive to phonology than English. The syllables have a more rigid structure (max # of consonants in onset: 1; in coda: 2; vowels in nucleus: 1) as do words (some sets of consonants become voiceless when they are at the end of the word).

There are no prefixes or infixes in the data, and I am guessing that this is connected with the strong root system in Turkish. Because of multiple derivations, Turkish might be hard to recognize if the root was lost somewhere in the middle of the word. By using mostly suffixes, native speakers can cash in on their root lexicon, and ease the morphological processing.

Turkish grammar seems to exhibit phrasal constituency (e.g. /bir sopa ile/), however, constituency is difficult to test due to compression of whole phrases into single words. It also seems to exhibit long distance relations in its case markings, but sentences of greater length and complexity are required to study these phenomena further.

There seems to be alot of crime and violence in Turkey: wolf slayings, kids having rocks thrown at them and falling out of trees, books and money being stolen - It's not much better here, but at least I speak the language.

It is hard to think up any other differences between English and Turkish, since by now I am thinking in Turkish gloss, and the two languages have melded into a bizarre pidgin.

(I) honor-acc pledge-prog-1sg, that (I) honor code-acc violate-neg-pst-1sg, this-on exam-acc take-prog-1sg.

Jonah Bossewitch

Golossary

Verbs:

dök	spill

var	exist

yok	exist+neg

bil	know

ol	be

isti	want

ver	give

öl	die

dür	cause

tanī	know (a person)

zannet	think

al	bought

yan	burn

at	throw

koš	tun

düš	fall

piš	cook

sev	like

čal	steal

git	go

gör	see

Nouns:

čoĵuk	child

süt	milk

araba	car

ev	house

kedi	cat

oda	room

kutu	box

para	money

adam	man

kitap	book

kurd	wolf

sopa	stick

kīz	girl

resm	picture

ben	I

kardeš	brother

heydiye	gift

lamba	lamp

taš	stone

kadīn	woman

biz	we

agač	tree

elma	apple

tavuk	chicken

tenĵere	pot

insan	human+being

kim	who

film	film

o	he

Misc:

bu	this

eski	old

bir	one

orta	middle

kīrmīzi	red

o	that

dogru	toward

ile	instrument

degil	negative (verb?)