Cover not available
Part of
The Acquisition of Derivational Morphology: A cross-linguistic perspective
Edited by Veronika Mattes, Sabine Sommer-Lolei, Katharina Korecky-Kröll and Wolfgang U. Dressler
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 66] 2021
► pp. 263–288

Chapter 11
Noun and verb derivations in early Turkish child and child-directed speech

| İstanbul Bilgi University
| Boğaziçi University
This chapter presents the emergence of derivational morphology in nouns and verbs in the speech of two Turkish-speaking monolingual girls between the ages 1;3 and 3;0, taking into account the patterns in their child-directed speech. Derivational morphology emerges early, before age 3;0, although compounding is an option in addition to derivation in the language. In both children’s speech the causative is the first derivational morpheme and it emerges simultaneously with inflections followed by other types of derivations. Instrument nouns emerge earlier than agent nouns in both children’s speech. The study further shows that children with different developmental paces follow similar paths in their acquisition of derivational morphology and their speech reflect the derivational patterns in their child-directed speech.
Keywords: Turkish, noun and verb derivation, compounding, child-directed speech, voice suffixes
Article outline
  • 1.Derivation in Turkish
  • 2.Acquisition of derivation
  • 3.Method
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Emergence of morphology in different paces
    • 4.2Derivation versus other word-formation options in CDS and CS
    • 4.3Verb derivations: An overview
    • 4.4Emergence of verb derivations
    • 4.5Noun derivations: An overview
    • 4.6Emergence of noun derivations
    • 4.7Neologisms
    • 4.8Agent vs. instrument nouns
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 November 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.66.11ket
References (36)
References
Ahmodova, A. 2016. From infinitives to deverbal nominals in the language of Orkhon inscriptions. Journal of Humanities and Social Science 21(8): 17–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aksan, M. 2001. Agents in Turkish and Their Morphology (Dilbilim İncelemeleri Dizisi) [Linguistics Research Series 3]. Mersin: Mersin University Press.Google Scholar
Aksu-Koç, A. & Ketrez, F. N. 2003. Early verbal morphology in Turkish: Emergence of inflections. In Mini-paradigms and the Emergence of Verb Morphology, D. Bittner, W. U. Dressler & M. Kilani-Schoch (eds), 27–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Aksu-Koç, A. & Slobin, D. I. 1985. The acquisition of Turkish. In The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol. 1: The Data, D. I. Slobin (ed.), 839–878. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Akyol-Bal, Ö. & Sofu, H. 2014. Türkçede yeni sözcük oluşturma (Lexical innovations in Turkish). Turkish Studies 9(3): 79–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Banguoğlu, T. 1990. Türkçenin Grameri (Grammar of Turkish). Ankara: TDK Yay.Google Scholar
Bittner, D., Dressler, W. U. & Kilani-Schoch, M. 2000. First Verbs: On the way to Mini-paradigms [ZAS Papers in Linguistics 18]. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the Relation between Meaning and Form [Typological Studies in Language 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. 1993. The Lexicon in Acquisition. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Çotuksöken, Y. 1980. Türkçe’de Ekler-Kökler-Gövdeler (Affixes-roots-stems in Turkish). Istanbul: Alaz Yayınları.Google Scholar
Cüceloğlu, D. 1973. Türkçe türetme ekleri üzerine bir çalışma (A study on the Turkish derivation affixes). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi (Hacettepe University Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities) 5(1): 47–56.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. 1989. Prototypical differences between inflection and derivation. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42: 3–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. U., Ketrez, F. N. & Kilani-Schoch, M. (eds) 2017. Nominal Compound Acquisition [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 61]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ekmekçi, Ö. 1987. Creativity in the language acquisition process. In Studies on Modern Turkish, H. E. Boeschoten & L. T. Verhoeven (eds), 203–210. Tilburg: Tilburg University.Google Scholar
1990. Coinage of words in child’s lexicon in acquiring Turkish. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, S. Koç (ed.), 27–39. Ankara: Middle East Technical University Publications.Google Scholar
Erdem, M. 2011. Türkçede yapım ve çekim eklerinin özellikleri ve sınırları (On the properties and boundaries of derivational and inflectional suffixes in Turkish). Bilig 58: 71–90.Google Scholar
Ergin, M. 1985. Türk Dil Bilgisi (Turkish grammar). Istanbul: Boğaziçi Yayınları.Google Scholar
Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
İleri, E. 2007. Überlegungen zur Untersuchung der Verben auf +lA+mAk. (Reflections on the examination of +lA+mAk verbs). In Einheit und Vielfalt in der türkischen Welt: Materialien der 5. Deutschen Turkologenkonferenz Universität Mainz, 4–7 Oktober, 2002 [Turcologica 69], H. Boeschoten & H. Stein (eds), 116–130. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Kabadayı, A. 2012. Okulöncesi çocukların Türkçe ediniminde yaptıkları kurallaştırma hatalarının incelenmesi (An investigation of preschool children’s overregularization errors in the acquisition of Turkish). Turkish Studies 7(3): 1561–1573.Google Scholar
Ketrez, F. N. 1999. Early verbs and the acquisition of Turkish argument structure. MA thesis, Boğaziçi University İstanbul.
2017. The emergence of nominal compounds in Turkish: A case-study on structural simplicity vs. input frequency. In Dressler, Ketrez & Kilani-Schoch (eds), 231–249.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. Savickiene & W. U. Dressler (eds), 279–293. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilani-Schoch, M. & Dressler, W. U. 2002. The emergence of inflectional paradigms in two French corpora: An illustration of general problems of pre- and protomorphology. In Pre- and Protomorphology, M. D. Voeikova & W. U. Dressler (eds), 45–59. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Korkmaz, Z. 2003. Türkiye Türkçesi Grameri (Şekil Bilgisi) (Turkey Turkish (The form)). Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. 2000. The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk, Vol. 1: Transcription, Format and Programs. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Sebüktekin, H. 1974. Morphotactics of Turkish verb suffixations. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Dergisi: Humaniter Bilimler-Humanities 2: 87–116.Google Scholar
Sofu, H. 1995. Acquisition of Lexicon in Turkish. PhD dissertation, Çukurova University Adana.
2016. Adların ve eylemlerin edinimi (Acquisition of nouns and verbs). Çukurova Üniversitesi Türkoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi (Çukurova University Journal of Turcology Research) 1(1): 90–97.Google Scholar
Stephany, U. 1982. Inflectional and lexical morphology – A continuum. Glossologia 1: 27–55.Google Scholar
Uzun, N. E., Uzun, L. S., Aksan, Y. K. & Aksan, M. 1992. Türkiye Türkçesinin Türetim Ekleri: Bir Döküm Denemesi (Derivation affixes of Turkey Turkish: A documentation attempt). Ankara: Şirin.Google Scholar
van der Heijden, H. 2011. Word formation processes in young bilingual children. In Bilingualism and Migration. G. Extra & L. Verhoeven (eds), 123–142. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
van der Heijden, H. & Verhoeven, L. T. 1994. Early bilingual development of Turkish children in the Netherlands. In The Cross-linguistic Study of Bilingual Development, G. Extra & L. T. Verhoeven (eds), 51–73. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, L. T. 1988. The bilingual child as a word maker: Word formation processes in Turkish and Dutch. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, S. Axmayer, A. Jaisser & H. Singmaster (eds), 232–343. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilkens, J. 2016. Turkish. In Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, Vol. 5, P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen & F. Rainer (eds), 3367–3385. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zülfikar, H. 1991. Terim Sorunları ve Terim Yapma Yolları (Terminology problems and ways of terminology derivation). Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Atlamaz, Ümit, Ömer Demirok & Metin Bağrıaçık
2023. Heritage grammars as checkpoints in acquisition: A Dependent Case Theoretic account. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 8:1 DOI logo
Ketrez, F. Nihan
2020. Word formation through derivation vs. compounding. In Morphological Complexity within and across Boundaries [Studies in Language Companion Series, 215], ► pp. 40 ff. DOI logo
Ketrez, F. Nihan
2023. Asymmetry, but where? Terms of address in pet-, infant-, and child-directed speech in Turkish. Taikomoji kalbotyra :20 ► pp. 149 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.