Turkish suspended affixation

Kabak, Barış

doi:10.1515/ling.2007.010

Cited by 52 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…*alan-ɐn ɐma soslan-ɐn sɐ=madɐ Alan-dat and Soslan-dat 3pl=mother Idem (intended) Property (C) states that only case suffixes (and any case markers) can be suspended in Ossetic. Unlike in Turkish (see Lewis 1967;Kornfilt 1996;and Kabak 2007) and in some other Turkic languages, the nominal plural marker cannot be suspended, nor is SA available for any verbal suffixes. SA is possible for any morphological case in Ossetic (30), no matter as structural as the case of the possessors in (30a), lexically assigned by the verb as the allative in (30b) or the ablative in (28b), or semantic, as the inessive (which is expressed the oblique suffix in this instance) in (30c), the allative in (28a), or the superessive in (28c).…”

Section: (29)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Suspended Affixation as Morpheme Ellipsis: Evidence from Ossetic Alternative Questions

Erschler

2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides novel evidence that ellipsis can target bound morphemes. The evidence comes from suspended affixation of case markers in alternative questions in Digor and Iron Ossetic. The current literature on alternative questions (e.g. Does Mary like coffee or tea?) proposes that in many languages they are derived by disjunction of and ellipsis in constituents as large as a vP or even as a CP. Language-specific evidence in favor of such structure of alternative questions is available for Ossetic as well. Accordingly, the ostensible disjuncts coffee or tea do not actually form a constituent and case must be separately assigned to each of the DPs. Therefore, a case suffix shared under suspended affixation cannot attach to the orP as a whole. A deletion-based analysis can successfully derive the properties of suspended affixation in Ossetic alternative questions. I advance a specific proposal that incorporates ellipsis into the Distributed Morphology derivation.

show abstract

Section: (29)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Property (F), the ban on words with an idiosyncratic meaning as SA remnants, has to do with exigencies of processing rather than with grammar in the proper sense, cf a similar proposal of Kabak (2007) regarding the ban on bare verb stems to occur as remnants under SA in Turkish.…”

Section: Deriving the Generalizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Suspended Affixation as Morpheme Ellipsis: Evidence from Ossetic Alternative Questions

Erschler

2018

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, in some languages elements that are called affixes can undergo ellipsis. In Turkish, both derivational affixes and inflectional affixes can be ellipted (Erdal 2007: 178, 180;Kabak 2007 This phenomenon is quite well known under the name of 'suspended affixation' (Lewis 1967: 35). One might suspect that the elements that can be omitted in coordination are in fact clitics rather than affixes, although they are within the vowel harmony domain.…”

Section: Non-coordinatabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…And indeed, not all elements within the vowel harmony domain behave alike in Turkish. Kabak (2007) and Erdal (2007) do not agree on what one should call clitics in Turkish, but they agree that the elements that can be ellipted must include some that are affixes (see also Broadwell 2008). Affix coordination is also found elsewhere (cf.…”

Section: Non-coordinatabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax

Haspelmath¹

2017

Folia Linguistica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The general distinction between morphology and syntax is widely taken for granted, but it crucially depends on a cross-linguistically valid concept of '(morphosyntactic) word'. I show that there are no good criteria for defining such a concept. I examine ten criteria in some detail (potential pauses, free occurrence, mobility, uninterruptibility, non-selectivity, non-coordinatability, anaphoric islandhood, nonextractability, morphophonological idiosyncrasies, and deviations from bi-uniqueness), and I show that none of them is necessary and sufficient on its own, and no combination of them gives a definition of 'word' that accords with linguists' orthographic practice. 'Word' can be defined as a language-specific concept, but this is not relevant to the general question pursued here. 'Word' can be defined as a fuzzy concept, but this is theoretically meaningful only if the continuum between affixes and words, or words and phrases, shows some clustering, for which there is no systematic evidence at present. Thus, I conclude that we do not currently have a good basis for dividing the domain of morphosyntax into morphology and syntax, and that linguists should be very careful with general claims that make crucial reference to a cross-linguistic 'word' notion.

show abstract

“…The term 'suspended affixation' was originally used by Lewis (1967: 35) to describe situations in Turkish in which "one grammatical ending serves two or more parallel words" (see also Kornfilt 1996: Kabak 2005Broadwell 2008 etc.). For example, in the Turkish example (1a) the plural suffix semantically modifies both nominal conjuncts (not just the one to which it is linearly suffixed), while in (1b) 1 st person plural past suffixes modify both verbs in the coordination phrase:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Suspended Morphology in Serbian: Clitics vs. Affixes

Despić

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article offers a case study of what appears to be an instance of "suspended affixation" in Serbian. The phenomenon in question is particularly interesting and potentially theoretically significant since it occurs in a language in which suspended affixation is generally impossible. The account I am led to suggests, however, that what is being "suspended" is not an affix but a second position clitic disguised as an affix. This is not a surprising outcome, since Serbian second position clitics, unlike ordinary affixes, can be elided quite easily. The phenomena examined in this paper provide further support to certain aspects of the theoretical model developed in Embick (2007;2010) and offer new insights into the interaction between linearization, ellipsis and Local Dislocation. In particular, I show that the forms which allow 'suspended affixation' are formed in a special way, namely, via Local Dislocation, which affixes a second position enclitic to its host at PF under linear adjacency. Forms which are created by regular head movement, on the other hand disallow suspended affixation, on the assumption that elements that form complex heads (i.e., Subwords) cannot be elided.

show abstract

Turkish suspended affixation

Cited by 52 publications

References 5 publications

Suspended Affixation as Morpheme Ellipsis: Evidence from Ossetic Alternative Questions

Suspended Affixation as Morpheme Ellipsis: Evidence from Ossetic Alternative Questions

The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax

Suspended Morphology in Serbian: Clitics vs. Affixes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About