1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistic Variation
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Hybridity and change in Turkish inflectional morphology
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The agreement morpheme in the Turkish verbal domain surfaces in different paradigms depending on the preceding TAM marker. Kornfilt (1996) has proposed that this difference in spell-out signals a deeper syntactic difference, in that -paradigm but not -paradigm agreement morphemes are preceded by a silent copula. The present study is concerned with yet another, more recently documented paradigm attested in colloquial speech. Its key empirical finding is that these new forms are hybrids that share properties with both the - and the -paradigm. Its main theoretical claim is that this finding also affects our understanding of the older two sets of forms. Accordingly, the paper develops a novel allomorphy analysis of the three agreement paradigms. The allomorphy grammar proposed here and Kornfilt’s copula grammar can coexist within a single speaker, and the former might have developed diachronically out of the latter.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lv.24071.neu
2025-11-20
2025-12-04

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lv.24071.neu
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adamović, M.
    (1985) Konjugationsgeschichte der türkischen Sprache. Brill. 10.1163/9789004646377
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004646377 [Google Scholar]
  2. Adger, D.
    (2006) Combinatorial variability. Journal of Linguistics, , –. 10.1017/S002222670600418X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222670600418X [Google Scholar]
  3. Adger, D., & Smith, J.
    (2010) Variation in agreement: A lexical feature-based approach. Lingua, , –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.05.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.05.007 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aikhenvald, A. Y.
    (2002) Typological parameters for the study of clitics, with special reference to Tariana. InR. M. W. Dixon & A. Y. Aikhenvald (Eds.), Word: A cross-linguistic typology (pp.–). Cambridge UP. 10.1017/cbo9780511486241.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511486241.003 [Google Scholar]
  5. Akkuş, F., Embick, D., & Salih, M.
    (2025) Case and the syntax of argument indexation: Sorani Kurdish and beyond. Oxford UP. 10.1093/oso/9780198962281.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198962281.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Andersen, H.
    (1973) Abductive and deductive change. Language, , –. 10.2307/412063
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412063 [Google Scholar]
  7. Atmaca, F.
    (2021) Suspended affixation needs no morphological word: The suffix -(y)Ip. Proceedings of the Workshop on Turkic and Languages in Contact with Turkic, , –. 10.3765/ptu.v6i1.5035
     https://doi.org/10.3765/ptu.v6i1.5035 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bermúdez-Otero, R., & Payne, J.
    (2011) There are no special clitics. InA. Galani, G. Hicks, & G. Tsoulas (Eds.), Morphology and its interfaces. John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.178.06ber
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.178.06ber [Google Scholar]
  9. Bickel, B., Banjade, G., Gaenszle, M., Lieven, E., Paudyal, N. P., Rai, I. P., Rai, M., Rai, N. K., & Stoll, S.
    (2007) Free prefix ordering in Chintang. Language, , –. 10.1353/lan.2007.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2007.0002 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bobaljik, J. D.
    (2000) The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Denwood, A.
    (2002) K-∅: Morpho-phonology in Turkish. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Embick, D.
    (1997) Voice and the interfaces of syntax [Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania].
  13. (2007) Variation and morphosyntactic theory: Competition fractionated. Language and Linguistics Compass, , –. 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2007.00038.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00038.x [Google Scholar]
  14. Embick, D., & Noyer, R.
    (1999) Locality in post-syntactic operations. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Erdem-Akşehirli, M.
    (2018) Non-canonical morphological patterns in Turkish: Evidence from person-number markers [Master’s thesis, Boğaziçi University].
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Fenger, P.
    (2020) Words within words: The internal syntax of verbs [Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut].
  17. Göksel, A.
    (2010) Focus in words with truth values. Iberia, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Good, J., & Yu, A.
    (1999) Affix-placement variation in Turkish. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, , –. 10.3765/bls.v25i2.1209
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v25i2.1209 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2005) Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject pronominal paradigms. InL. Heggie & F. Ordóñez (Eds.), Clitic and affix combinations: Theoretical perspectives (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.74.13goo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.74.13goo [Google Scholar]
  20. Gribanova, V.
    (2020) Predicate formation and verb-stranding ellipsis in Uzbek. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, . 10.5334/gjgl.1042
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1042 [Google Scholar]
  21. Güneş, G.
    (2020) Variability in the realization of agreement in Turkish: A morphotactic account. InA. Gürer, D. Uygun Gökmen, & B. Öztürk Başaran (Eds.), Morphological complexity within and across boundaries: Essays in honour of Aslı Göksel (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.215.09gun
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.215.09gun [Google Scholar]
  22. (2021) Morphosyntax and phonology of agreement in Turkish. Syntax, , –. 10.1111/synt.12210
     https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12210 [Google Scholar]
  23. Halle, M., & Marantz, A.
    (1993) Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. InK. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building (pp.–). MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. (1994) Some key features of Distributed Morphology. InMIT working papers in linguistics (pp.–).
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Halpern, A. L.
    (1998) Clitics. InA. Spencer & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), The handbook of morphology (pp.–). Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Haspelmath, M.
    (2011) The gradual coalescence into “words” in grammaticalization. InB. Heine & H. Narroq (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp.–). Oxford UP. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0027
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0027 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2018) Revisiting the anasynthetic spiral. InGrammaticalization from a typological perspective (pp.–). Oxford UP. 10.1093/oso/9780198795841.003.0006
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198795841.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2021) Explaining grammatical coding asymmetries: Form-frequency correspondences and predictability. Journal of Linguistics, , –. 10.1017/S0022226720000535
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226720000535 [Google Scholar]
  29. Heine, B.
    (2017) Grammaticalization. InB. D. Joseph & R. D. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp.–). Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Inkelas, S.
    (1994) Exceptional stress-attracting suffixes in Turkish. InProceedings of a workshop on prosodic morphology. Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. (2018) Prosodic constituency in the lexicon. Routledge. 10.4324/9780429455209
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429455209 [Google Scholar]
  32. Inkelas, S., & Orgun, C. O.
    (2003) Turkish stress: A review. Phonology, , –. 10.1017/S0952675703004482
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675703004482 [Google Scholar]
  33. Johanson, L.
    (2021) Turkic. Cambridge UP. 10.1017/9781139016704
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016704 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kabak, B.
    (2007) Turkish suspended affixation. Linguistics, , –. 10.1515/LING.2007.010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2007.010 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kabak, B., & Vogel, I.
    (2001) The phonological word and stress assignment in Turkish. Phonology, , –. 10.1017/S0952675701004201
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675701004201 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kelepir, M.
    (2001) Topics in Turkish syntax: Clausal structure and scope [Doctoral dissertation, MIT].
  37. Kiparsky, P.
    (2012) Explanation in phonology. Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783111666242
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111666242 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kodner, J.
    (2024) A phase-based approach to Uyghur morphosyntax [Handout from talk given at Tu+].
     [Google Scholar]
  39. (2023) Laissez-faire analogical change. Journal of Historical Syntax, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Kornfilt, J.
    (1986) The Stuttering Prohibition and morpheme deletion in Turkish. InA. A. Koç & E. Taylan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Turkish linguistics conference (pp.–). Boğaziçi University Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. (1996) On copular clitic forms in Turkish. InA. Alexiadou, N. Fuhrhop, P. Law, & S. Löhken (Eds.), ZAS papers in Linguistics (pp.–, Vol.). 10.21248/zaspil.6.1996.762
     https://doi.org/10.21248/zaspil.6.1996.762 [Google Scholar]
  42. Kroch, A. S.
    (1989) Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change, , –. 10.1017/S0954394500000168
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000168 [Google Scholar]
  43. (1994) Morphosyntactic variation. InK. Beals (Ed.), Papers from the 30th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Parasession on variation and linguistic theory.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. (2001) Syntactic change. InM. Baltin & C. Collins (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp.–). Wiley. 10.1002/9780470756416.ch22
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756416.ch22 [Google Scholar]
  45. (2005) Modeling language change and language acquisition [Ms., University of Pennsylvania].
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Lahiri, A.
    (Ed.) (2000) Analogy, levelling, markedness. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110808933
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808933 [Google Scholar]
  47. Lightfoot, D. W.
    (1979) Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge UP.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Major, T., Mayer, C., & Eziz, G.
    (2023) Disentangling words, clitics, and suffixes in Uyghur. Languages, , . 10.3390/languages8030203
     https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8030203 [Google Scholar]
  49. Nevins, A., & Parrott, J. K.
    (2010) Variable rules meet Impoverishment theory: Patterns of agreement leveling in English varieties. Lingua, , –. 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.05.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.05.008 [Google Scholar]
  50. Newell, H.
    (2008) Aspects of the morphology and phonology of phases [Doctoral dissertation, McGill University].
  51. Özçelik, Ö.
    (2014) Prosodic faithfulness to foot edges: The case of Turkish stress. Phonology, , –. 10.1017/S0952675714000128
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675714000128 [Google Scholar]
  52. Özyıldız, D.
    (2015) A parallel OT analysis of exceptional stress in Turkish [Handout from talk given at PhoNE].
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Redhouse, J. W.
    (1884) A simplified grammar of the Ottoman-Turkish language. Trubner & Co.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Richards, N.
    (2001) A distinctness condition on linearization. InK. Megerdoomian & L. A. Bar-el (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp.–). Cascadilla Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Serova, K.
    (2019) Head movement, suspended affixation, and the Turkish clausal spine. InProceedings of the workshop on Turkic and languages in contact with Turkic (pp.–, Vol.). 10.3765/ptu.v4i1.4584
     https://doi.org/10.3765/ptu.v4i1.4584 [Google Scholar]
  56. Sezer, E.
    (2001) Finite inflection in Turkish. InE. E. Taylan (Ed.), The verb in Turkish (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.44.02sez
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.44.02sez [Google Scholar]
  57. Spencer, A.
    (1991) Morphological theory. Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Topbaş, S., & Yavaş, M.
    (2006) Phonological acquisition and disorders in Turkish. InH. Zhu & B. Dodd (Eds.), Phonological development and disorders: A multilingual perspective (pp.–). Multilingual Matters. 10.2307/jj.27939668.14
     https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.27939668.14 [Google Scholar]
  59. Tyler, M.
    (2019) Simplifying MatchWord: Evidence from English functional categories. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, . 10.5334/gjgl.631
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.631 [Google Scholar]
  60. Ünal-Logacev, Ö., Żygis, M., & Fuchs, S.
    (2019) Phonetics and phonology of soft ‘g’ in Turkish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, , –. 10.1017/S0025100317000317
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100317000317 [Google Scholar]
  61. van der Hulst, H., & van de Weijer, J.
    (1991) Topics in Turkish phonology. InH. Boeschoten & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Turkish linguistics today (pp.–). Brill. 10.1163/9789004653474_004
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004653474_004 [Google Scholar]
  62. Zec, D.
    (2005) Prosodic differences among function words. Phonology, , –. 10.1017/S0952675705000448
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675705000448 [Google Scholar]
  63. Zimmer, K., & Orgun, O.
    (1999) Turkish. Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Zwicky, A. M.
    (1977) On clitics. IULC.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.24071.neu
Loading
Hybridity and change in Turkish inflectional morphology
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.24071.neu
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.24071.neu
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.24071.neu
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: Turkish ; copula ; Agreement ; morphology ; diachronic change

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error