Dissertation - Michael Becker

(165)*VÙVIDENT(voice)a. anaÙ-1 POSS ≻ anaÃ-1 POSS L Wb. anaÙ-1 ACC ≻ anaÃ-1 ACC L Wc. amaÃ-1 POSS ≻ amaÙ-1 POSS W Ld. amaÃ-1 ACC ≻ amaÙ-1 ACC W Le. avuÃ-u POSS ≻ avuÙ-u POSS W Lf. avuÙ-u ACC ≻ avuÃ-u ACC L W(166) *VÙV 〈amaÙ,POSS,IDENT(voice)〉〈amaÙ,ACC,IDENT(voice)〉〈avuÙ,POSS,IDENT(voice)〉≫ IDENT(voice) ≫ *VÙV 〈anaÙ,POSS,IDENT(voice)〉〈anaÙ,ACC,IDENT(voice)〉〈avuÙ,ACC,IDENT(voice)〉This grammar allows the speaker to correctly derive amaÙ, anaÙ and avuÙ in theaccusative and in the possessive, since the behavior of these forms is listed in the grammar.Additionally, it allows the speaker to project the lexical trends onto novel nouns. Given aÙ -final noun, and asked to derive its possessive form, the speaker has access to the numberof possessive forms that are listed with the high-ranking clone of *VÙV and with the lowrankingclone of *VÙV (in this case, two and one, respectively), and they can project theserelative numbers onto the novel possessive form. Similar information is available for theaccusative form: Of the three listed accusative forms, one is listed with the high-rankingclone and two are listed with the low-ranking clone.In the traditional generative analysis of Turkish (Inkelas & Orgun 1995; Inkelas et al.1997), the behavior of each noun is expected to be consistent across the various vowelinitialsuffixes of the language, because the behavior of the noun’s final stop is encoded inits underlying representation. Note that it is not the case that the possessive is inherently172