Cover not available
Part of
Nominal Compound Acquisition
Edited by Wolfgang U. Dressler, F. Nihan Ketrez and Marianne Kilani-Schoch
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 61] 2017
► pp. 231–249

Chapter 10
The emergence of nominal compounds in Turkish

A case study on structural simplicity vs. input frequency

| | Istanbul Bilgi University
This study examines the Turkish nominal compounds in a monolingual Turkish-speaking child’s speech and child-directed speech between 1;3–2;0. Compounds constitute about 10% of the nouns in both child and child-directed speech. Of these compounds, about 60–80% are the so-called possessive compounds that have a compound marker in the form of a possessive marker in the target language. Despite the relatively more frequent use of possessive compounds in child-directed speech, morphologically simpler noun-noun compounds emerge earlier. This order of emergence supports the hypothesis that structural simplicity is more important than relative frequency in the acquisition of compounds. Emergence of possessive compounds together with the possessive inflection further supports the analysis of the compound marker as a possessive marker.
Keywords: Turkish, nominal compounds, possessive compounds, structural simplicity, input frequency
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Compounds in Turkish CDS
    • 2.1Bare compounds (NN and ADJN)
    • 2.2Possessive compounds (NN-poss )
    • 2.3Other compounds
    • 2.4Exclusions
    • 2.5Frequency of compounds
  • 3.Subject and method
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Proportion of compounds
    • 4.2Emergence of compounds
      • 4.2.1Premorphology period: Bare NN compounds
      • 4.2.2The protomorphology period: NN- poss compounds and ADJN compounds
      • 4.2.3Morphology Proper
    • 4.3Productivity in compounds
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.61.11ket
References (27)
References
Aksu-Koç, A. & Ketrez, F. N. 2003. Early verbal morphology in Turkish: Emergence of inflections. In Development of Verb Inflection in First Language Acquisition [Studies in Language Acquision 21], D. Bittner, W. U. Dressler & M. Kilani-Schoch (eds), 27–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, R. A. 2009. Acquisition of compound constructions. In Handbook of Compounding, R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (eds), 298–322. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Çakır, C.. 2000. On non-final stress in Turkish simplex words. In Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages [Turcologica 46], A. Göksel & C. Kerslake (eds), 3–10. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. 1993. The Lexicon in Acquisition. Cambridge: CUP.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dede, M.. 1978. A syntactic and semantic analysis of Turkish nominal compounds. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.
Dressler, W. U. & Karpf, A.. 1995. The theoretical relevance of pre- and protomorphology in language acquisition. Yearbook of Morphology 1994: 99–122.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. U., Lettner, L. E. & Korecky-Kröll, K.. 2010. First language acquisition of compounds with special emphasis on early German child language. In Cross-disciplinary Issues in Compounding [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 311], S. Scalise & I. Vogel (eds), 323–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Acquisition of German diminutive formation and compounding in a comparative perspective: Evidence for typology and the role of frequency. In Current Issues in Morphological Theory. Irregularity, Analogy and Frequency. Selected Papers from the 14th International Morphology Meeting [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 322], F. Kiefer, M. Ladanyi & P. Siptar (eds), 237–264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ekmekçi, Ö. 1990. Coinage of words in child’s lexicon in acquiring Turkish. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, S. Koç (ed.), 27–39. Ankara: Middle East Technical University.Google Scholar
Göksel, A.. 1988. Bracketing paradoxes in Turkish nominal compounds. In Studies on Turkish Linguistics, S. Koç (ed.), 287–298. Ankara: METU Press.Google Scholar
. 2009. Compounds in Turkish. Lingue e Linguaggio 2: 213–236.Google Scholar
Göksel, A. & Haznedar, B.. 2007. Remarks on compounding in Turkish. Ms, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul.
. 2008. Türkçe tamlamaların yapısı: Bir veri tabanı çalışması (Structure of Turkish compounds: A data base study). XXI.Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildirileri (Proceedings of the 21th National Linguistics Conference), Y. Aksan & M. Aksan (eds), 362–374. Mersin: Mersin Üniversitesi Yayınları.Google Scholar
Kamalı, B. & İkizoğlu, D.. 2012. Against compound stress in Turkish. Paper presented at the 16th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Ketrez, F. N. 1999. Early Verbs and the Acquisition of Turkish Argument Structure. MA thesis, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul.
. 2007. Alignment vs. linearity constraints in a Turkish child’s speech. Dilbilim Araştırmaları 2007: 77–88.Google Scholar
. 2015. Çocuk dilinde tamlamalar ve bileşik sözcükler (Compounds in child language). In 28. Ulusal Dilbilim Kurultayı Bildiriler Kitapçığı (Proceedings of the 28th National Linguistics Conference), F. Karahan (ed.), 205–220. Ankara: Ayrıntı Basım, Yayın ve Matbaacılık.Google Scholar
Ketrez, F. N. & Aksu-Koç, A.. 2007. The (scarcity of) diminutives in Turkish child language. In The Acquisition of Diminutives: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 43], I. Savickienė & W. U. Dressler (eds), 279–293. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Early nominal morphology: Emergence of case and number. In The Development of Number and Case in First Language Acquisition: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, M. Voeikova & U. Stephany (eds), 15–48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B.. 2000. The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk, Vol.1: Transcription, Format and Programs. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Öztürk, B. & Taylan, E.. 2016. Possessive constructions in Turkish. Lingua 182: 88–108.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ralli, A.. 2013. Compounding and its locus of realization: Evidence from Greek and Turkish. Word Structure 6(2): 181–200.  DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sezer, E.. 1983. On non-final stress in Turkish. Journal of Turkish Studies 5: 61–69.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. 1985. Crosslinguistic evidence for the language making capacity. In The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol. 2: Theoretical Issues, D. I. Slobin (ed.), 1157–1256. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Tat, D.. 2013. Word syntax of nominal compounds: Internal and aphasiological evidence from Turkish. PhD dissertation, the University of Arizona.
van Schaaik, G.. 2002. The Noun in Turkish. Its Argument Structure and the Compounding Straitjacket. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Yükseker, H.. 1987. Turkish nominal compounds. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 83–102.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Ketrez, F. Nihan & Ayhan Aksu-Koç
2021. Chapter 11. Noun and verb derivations in early Turkish child and child-directed speech. In The Acquisition of Derivational Morphology [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders, 66], ► pp. 264 ff. DOI logo
Ralli, Angela
2020. Matter versus pattern borrowing in compounding: Evidence from the Asia Minor Greek dialectal variety. Morphology 30:4 ► pp. 423 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.