turkish phonology and morphology (türkçe ses ve b‹ç‹mb‹lg‹s‹)
turkish phonology and morphology (türkçe ses ve b‹ç‹mb‹lg‹s‹)
turkish phonology and morphology (türkçe ses ve b‹ç‹mb‹lg‹s‹)
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
122<br />
Turkish Phonology <strong>and</strong> Morphology (Türkçe Ses <strong>ve</strong> Biçim Bilgisi)<br />
is attached to the stem first as in *Suzan cam› k›r›ld›, <strong>and</strong> then the subject is<br />
supressed as in *Cam› k›r›ld›? Maybe, but so far our derivation has generated an<br />
ungrammatical form. How can we reach the grammatical Cam k›r›ld›? It is claimed<br />
that a subjectless <strong>ve</strong>rb with passi<strong>ve</strong> <strong>morphology</strong> cannot assign accusati<strong>ve</strong> case to<br />
its arguments (Sezer, 1991: 44). So, our derivation in fact generated the grammatical<br />
Cam k›r›ld› since the passi<strong>ve</strong> <strong>morphology</strong> absorbed accusati<strong>ve</strong> case. E<strong>ve</strong>n though<br />
the passi<strong>ve</strong> <strong>morphology</strong> blocks accusati<strong>ve</strong> case assignment, it tolerates other ca<strong>ses</strong>:<br />
Uçaktan korkulmaz, Burada motosiklete binilmez. The caseless counterparts of<br />
these examples are ungrammatical: *Uçak korkulmaz, *Burada motosiklet binilmez.<br />
Passi<strong>ve</strong> voice allows double passi<strong>ve</strong>s in Turkish. This process has an emphatic<br />
function which intensifies the passi<strong>ve</strong> meaning of the <strong>ve</strong>rb. It also ser<strong>ve</strong>s as a means<br />
to disambiguate the passi<strong>ve</strong> forms made with -(I)n from the reflexi<strong>ve</strong> having a similar<br />
form (Lewis, 1967: 150; Özkaragöz, 1986: 78): aran- vs aran›l-, beslen- vs beslenil-.<br />
Types of Passi<strong>ve</strong><br />
There are two types of passi<strong>ve</strong> in Turkish: personal <strong>and</strong> impersonal. The distiction<br />
between the two is made based on whether the <strong>ve</strong>rb is transiti<strong>ve</strong> or intransiti<strong>ve</strong>.<br />
Study the following examples<br />
(27) a. Bütün s›n›f kütüphaneyi kull<strong>and</strong>›.<br />
b. Kütüphane kullan›ld›.<br />
(28) a. Bütün s›n›f kütüphaneye gitti.<br />
b. Kütüphaneye gidildi.<br />
Kullan- is a transiti<strong>ve</strong> <strong>ve</strong>rb <strong>and</strong> takes a direct object, whereas git- is an intransiti<strong>ve</strong><br />
<strong>ve</strong>rb <strong>and</strong> does not require a direct object. To form personal passi<strong>ve</strong>s, the direct<br />
object of a transiti<strong>ve</strong> <strong>ve</strong>rb becomes the subject of a passi<strong>ve</strong> <strong>ve</strong>rb as in (27b).<br />
Howe<strong>ve</strong>r, intransiti<strong>ve</strong> <strong>ve</strong>rbs are objectless, so they lack a direct object to go to the<br />
subject position of the passi<strong>ve</strong>. Therefore, they form impersonal passi<strong>ve</strong>s without<br />
an o<strong>ve</strong>rt subject as in (28b). The fact that kütüphane in this axample is not the<br />
subject is evident from its lacking subject properties: nominati<strong>ve</strong> case <strong>and</strong><br />
agreement (Kornfilt, 1997: 324). It is e<strong>ve</strong>n possible to form impersonal passi<strong>ve</strong>s<br />
that do not contain a noun phrase of any kind: erken yat›l›r, h›zl› yürünmez, çok<br />
konuflulmaz.<br />
Impersonal passi<strong>ve</strong>s are of two type: unergati<strong>ve</strong>s <strong>and</strong> unaccusati<strong>ve</strong>s. Unergati<strong>ve</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> unaccusati<strong>ve</strong> <strong>ve</strong>rbs can be distinguished by easily obser<strong>ve</strong>d semantic facts.<br />
Intransiti<strong>ve</strong> <strong>ve</strong>rbs that denote volitional acts are categorized as unergati<strong>ve</strong>, <strong>and</strong> those<br />
that denote non-volitional acts as unaccusati<strong>ve</strong> (Biktimir, 1986: 56). For example,<br />
tak›l-, bo¤ul-, düfl-, bat-, çürü- are unaccusati<strong>ve</strong>s; çal›fl-, kofl-, oyna-, kaç-, dans etare<br />
unergati<strong>ve</strong>s. Since they are intransiti<strong>ve</strong>, both groups of <strong>ve</strong>rbs ha<strong>ve</strong> only one<br />
argument: surface subject. But in unaccusati<strong>ve</strong>s this surface subject is in fact ser<strong>ve</strong>s<br />
as the underlying object of the <strong>ve</strong>rb. For example, in Ecem düfltü, Ecem is the<br />
syntactic subject, but semantically it is the person that is affected by the action<br />
denoted by the <strong>ve</strong>rb.<br />
To recapulate, examine the following sketch.
Change language