More than one word formation process may be used to form new words. For example, düfle kalka bitirdik involves both derivation and reduplication. Its counterparts without the derivational suffix *düfl kalk bitirdik, and without reduplication *düfl bitirdik, *kalk bitirdik yield ungrammatical forms. Other examples include:
radar acronym for radio detecting and ranging/borrowing transistor blend (transfer + resistor)/borrowing
kardan adam compounding/suffixation programla- borrowing/derivation with -la fax clipping from facsimile/borrowing teflon coinage/borrowing
sezeryan eponomy (the method by which Julius Caesar was born (Tatter, 1986: 27)/borrowing (caesarean section)
89
Note that this analysis includes the processes involved in both source languages and the borrowing language, which is Turkish in this case. However, we will be more concerned with the processes used in only Turkish in the rest of the course.
I. What word formation processes are involved in stand-upç›? II. Consider the following neologisms.
telsiz sansürsüz ön yarg›s›z indirimsiz modemsiz seçimsiz ön koflulsuz alt yaz›s›z
a. What stems does the suffix -sIz attach to?
b. Is the suffix class-changing or class-maintaining? c. Give the meaning of the suffix?
d. What word formation process/es is/are employed to form these neologisms?
90 Turkish Phonology and Morphology (Türkçe Ses ve Biçim Bilgisi)
1 1 It is your turn! 2 2 It is your turn! It is your turn! 3 3 It is your turn! It is your turn! 4 4 It is your turn! It is your turn! 5 5 It is your turn! It is your turn! 6 6 It is your turn! It is your turn! 7 7 It is your turn! It is your turn! 8 8 It is your turn! It is your turn! 9 9 It is your turn! It is your turn! 10 It is your turn! 10 It is your turn! 11 11 It is your turn! It is your turn! 12 12 It is your turn! It is your turn! 13 13 It is your turn!
91
Unit 6 - Word-Formation Processes
In this chapter we have looked at various ways of forming new words in Turkish. Derivation is the richest means of word formation applied. It makes use of affixes by attaching them to stems to form new words. Unlike derivation, compounding makes use of two independent words in forming neologisms. The meaning of the neologism is transparent from the meaning of the components sometimes, but rather opaque at other times yielding endocentric and
exocentric compounds respectively. Imitating the
sounds of nature, onomatopoeia, provides another rich source of word formation creating words descriptive of the nature. Conversion allows functional shifts in words of a language. Borrowing and loan translation occur when two or more languages come into direct or indirect contact through business, science and technology. Words of one language are either borrowed by or translated into another language. Even though not as common as other means, coining new words is another way of expanding the lexicon. A coinage is a novel word created without using any of the other word formation methods described in this chapter. It is a word created from scratch without employing any other word or parts of a word already existing in language.
Semantic change takes place in time when the meaning
of a word is broadened, narrowed down or even reversed gradually. As another case of semantic change,
eponymy allows commonalization of proper nouns. Metaphorical extension of a word is its use in describing
another thing that is related to or compared with its original referent. Clippings, blendings and acronyms all serve for the same purpose: shortening words; but they differ in terms of what parts of the word they leave out.
Clippings are simply words that are shortened randomly
without paying attention to the morphology of their original forms. Acronyms are formed by the initials of words or phrases to produce pronounceable separate words. Blends are words that are formed by combining parts of two words. Backformation is a process in which morphologically simple words are derived from more complex ones. It should be noted that more than one these word formation processes can be employed in creating a particular word. That is, multiple processes, as well, can be applied in word formation.
Indicate the word formation process responsible for the creation of the words given in 1-3:
1. abone platin a. affixation b. prefixation c. suffixation d. derivation e. compounding
2. motor for motorbisiklet
a. clipping b. blending c. acronym d. eponymy e. coinage
3. sindirmek in bu yeni fikri sindirmeye çal›fl›yoruz
a. backformation b. metaphor c. conversion d. incorporation e. reversal
4. Which one of the following includes pronominal reduplication?
a. ama çok ama az b. ancak ve ancak c. al›fl-verifl d. tabii tabii e. seni gerek seni
5. What process is involved in the use of the underlined words? Su daml›yor. Damlalar birikiyor. a. conversion b. metaphor c. coinage d. backformation e. calque
6. Which one of the following neologisms include loan
translation? a. sürgit b. uzay gemisi c. zaplamak d. bankamatik e. telefon
7. Which one of the following is an acronym? a. jilet
b. vileda c. ütü masas› d. ‹TÜ e. Dr.
8. Which one of the following neologisms is NOT an example of borrowing? a. fayda b. sistem c. bilgi d. adalet e. paket
9. The following examples display the use of the word
o¤lan in Old Turkish.
o¤ul ‘child’ o¤lanc›k ‘baby’
o¤lan ‘children’ ur› o¤lan ‘son’ k›z o¤lan ‘daughter’ (Aksan, 1998: 133-134) Considering the use of the word today, we can say that it is an example of: a. semantic change b. reversal c. metaphor d. conversion e. back-formation
10. Niccolo Machiaveli’s well-known the Prince is a book on politics and political actions in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. It promotes effectiveness in political conduct at any cost. Nothing should be restricted by considerations of morality. Since then, the word makyavel is used to refer to people, not only politicians, who do not hesitate to risk everything for ambition. The creation of the word makyavel is an example of: a. incorporation b. eponymy c. coinage d. compounding e. clipping
Self-test
93
Unit 6 - Word-Formation Processes
Read the article by Can Dündar, and do the following tasks:
a. How does the writer feel about language change? What particular word formation process is he reacting to? Why? b. Identify the word formation process/es used to create the underlined words.
“Bir Hot-Chocolate Lütfen ...!”
Geçen hafta Kenan Pafla, bir sahil e¤lencesi s›ras›nda anlat›lan bir Laz f›kras›na pek gülmüfl. F›kray› ço¤unuz duymuflsunuzdur: Temel’le Dursun ‹ngiltere’ye gitmifller. Ac›k›nca bir hamburgerciye dal›p, menüye göz atm›fllar. Sosisli sandviç anlam›na gelen “Hot dog” yaz›s›n› görünce “Bu da ne ola ki” diye sözlüklerine davranm›fllar. Temel, “Hot dog, ‘K›zg›n köpek’
demekmifl. Yiyelim bakal›m. Tatm›fl oluruz” demifl. Az
sonra ikisinin de sosisli sandviçleri gelmifl. Temel önüne gelen parçaya bir göz att›ktan sonra Dursun’un kula¤›na e¤ilip sormufl; “Ula Dursun, sana neresi geldi köpe¤in
...?”
Bu türden bir nahofl hadise için ‹ngiltere’lere gitmeye gerek kalmad›¤›n› ben geçen hafta Türkiye’de yaflad›¤›m ilginç bir macerada anlad›m. Belki inanmayacaks›n›z ama anlatacaklar›m›n tümü bir gün içinde bafl›ma geldi.
K›sa bir tatile niyetlenip, Antalya’ya bilet ald›m ve havaalan›na gittim. Havaalan›nda Türk Hava Yollar›, son birkaç ayd›r art›k mutad hale getirdi¤i üzere rötar yapt›. Ve cümbür cemaat beklemeye koyulduk. Havaalan›n›n “cafe”sinde beklerken, yan masada yetiflkin bir adam, yurt d›fl›nda e¤itim gördü¤ünü tahmin etti¤im gençten bir k›zla dertlefliyordu. Rötardan yak›nd›klar›n› duyunca kulak misafiri oldum. Adam
“THY son dönemde o kadar çok rötar yap›yor ki, ad›na Tehirli Hava Yollar› demek daha do¤ru olur” dedi.
Yan›ndaki k›z bofl gözlerle bak›p, “tehir ne demek” diye sordu. fiafl›rd› adam... Sonra kendince en kestirme yolu seçip, aynen flöyle dedi: “Tehir iflte can›m... yani delay...
delay...”. “Haaa” diye güldü k›z, “tehir”in ‹ngilizce
karfl›l›¤›n› duyunca... Çok da de¤il, bir kuflak önce babas›n›n konufltu¤u dille iletiflim kurabilmek için taa Atlas Okyanusu’nu dolafl›p gelmesi gerekmiflti. Ama bu durumu hiç yad›rgamad›lar. Ben, sinir oldum. “Delay...
delay...” diye söylenerek “cafe”ye do¤ru yürüdüm ve
servis yapan kara ya¤›z delikanl›ya “Bir sütlü kakoa
lütfen” dedim. Ayn› bofl bak›fl ve o feci soru: “Hot chocolate m›?” Nutkum tutuldu. Yutkunup “evet”
diyebildim. Adam “hot chocolate”›m› verdi. Ayak üstü bir Atlas Okyanusu turu da ben yapm›fl oldum. Sessizce gidip masama oturdum.
Bitmedi. Antalya’ya gidince arkadafllarla sahilde bir
“restaurant”a oturup, ö¤le yeme¤i için beklemeye
koyulduk. Pos b›y›kl› bir garson az sonra tepemizde belirdi. Ben sipariflleri verdim. Sonunda da “‹ki tane de
patates k›zartmas›” dedim. Gelen soruyu art›k herhalde
tahmin ediyorsunuzdur: “Pomme-frite... yani... diy
mi...?”. Bu kez bütün bunlar›n bir kamera flakas›
oldu¤una kesinkes hükmettim ve arkadafllar›ma hangi kameraya gülümsemem gerekti¤ini sordum. ‹natla reddettiler. Galiba hepsi gerçekti.
Kald›¤›m›z otelin resepsiyonunda ‹sveçli bir genç k›z görevliydi. Pek fleker görünümlüydü, ama küçük bir kusuru vard›: Türkçe bilmiyordu. Biz üç dilde “patates
k›zartmas›” demeyi ö¤rendi¤imiz halde küçük han›m
çal›flt›¤› ülkenin dilinde bir “merhaba” demeyi ö¤renmeye bile üflenmiflti. Kendi memleketimizde bir odaya yerleflebilmek için ‹ngilizce meram anlatmak zorunda kald›k. Otelin havuzunda gün boyu katland›¤›m›z Almanca “animasyonlar” da günün mana ve ehemniyetine uygun düfltü.
Bir sömürge topra¤›nda tatil yapt›¤›m› hissettim bir an... Kap›y› bacay› kilitleyip, odama çekildim ve kitap okumaya koyuldum. Ece Ayhan’›n “Yort Savul”u vard› yan›mda... ‹lk çevirdi¤im sayfada aynen flöyle diyordu:
“Aç›l Do¤u aç›l! Do¤u aç›ls›n, Do¤u aç›lacak elbette. Ama yeni bir Kadenizli der ki, hem yeni ayana, hem yeni divanilere; Do¤u’ya do¤ru fazla giden, co¤rafya yüzünden, Bat›’ya düfler. Tersi de geçerlidir bunun...”
Yani...? Fazla Bat›’ya gidersen, geri Do¤u’ya düflersin... “Do¤ululuk”, Bat›’n›n dilini kendi dilin sanmakt›r. A¤z›n› aç›p, Bat›’ya hayran hayran bakarken, dilini yutars›n... Ya da alemin dili seni yutar... Çünkü oralarda sana
“köpe¤in hep ayn› yeri gelir...” Yerken dilini ›s›r›r, dilsiz
kal›rs›n...
Aktüel, 27 Temmuz 1995
Turkish Alive
”
“
Aksan, D. (1993). Türkçenin gücü. Ankara: Bilgi. _______. (1998). Anlambilim. Ankara: Engin.
Besim, A. (1946). Türkçe’de kelime yapma yollar›. ‹stanbul: ‹brahim Horoz Yay›nevi.
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Brendemoen, B. (1998). The Turkish Language Reform. In L. Johanson & E. Csato (Eds.). The Turkic languages. (pp.242-247). London: Routledge. Csato, E. A. (2003). A typology of Turkish double - verb
constructions. In A. S. Özsoy et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the tenth international conference in Turkish linguistics, ‹stanbul, August, 2000, 59 - 68. ‹stanbul: Bo¤aziçi University Press.
Demircan, Ö. (2002). Türkçenin ezgisi. ‹stanbul: Y›ld›z Teknik Üniversitesi Vakf›.
Dündar, C. (1997). Ya¤murdan sonra. Ankara: ‹mge Kitabevi.
Fabb, N. (2002). Compounding. In A. Spencer, A. & A.M. Zwicky, (Eds.), The handbook of morphology(pp. 66-83). Oxford: Blackwell. Gerdts, D.B. (2002). Incorporation. In A. Spencer & A.
M. Zwicky (Eds.), The handbook of morphology (pp. 84-100). Oxford: Blackwell.
Haig, G. (2003). From lexical class to syntactic function: A sketch of Turkish word structure. In A.S. Özsoy et al (Eds.), Proceedings of the tenth international conference in Turkish linguistics, ‹stanbul, August, 2000, 59 - 68. ‹stanbul: Bo¤aziçi University Press.
Hatibo¤lu, V. (1971). ‹kileme. Ankara: TDK.
Ido, S. G. (1999). Turkish mimetic word formation. Asian African Studies,8, 67-73.
‹mer, K. (1976). Türkiye Türçesinde Kökler. Ankara: TDK.
_______. (1996). Neologisms in Turkish. In B. Rona (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth international conference on Turkish linguistics, London, August 1990, 75-84. Ankara: Hitit Yay›nevi. Korkmaz, Z. (1962) Türkçede eklerin kullan›l›fl
flekilleri ve ek kal›plaflmas› olaylar›. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Bas›mevi.
_______. (1995) Türk Dili üzerine araflt›rmalar. Ankara: TDK.
Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. New York: Routledge. König, W. (2001). Prefixes in Turkish. In B. Rona, (Ed.),
Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Turkish linguistics(pp. 75-82). Ankara: Hitit Publications.
Lewis, G. L. (1967). Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Nilsson, B. (1986). Object incorporation in Turkish. In A.Aksu-Koç & E.Erguvanl› Taylan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Turkish linguistics conference, ‹stanbul, August, 1984, 145 - 158. ‹stanbul: Bo¤aziçi University Publications.
Niflanyan, S. (2003). Sözlerin soya¤ac›: Ça¤dafl Türkçenin etimolojik sözlü¤ü.‹stanbul: Adam. Özel, S. (1977). Türkiye Türkçesinde sözcük türetme
ve bilefltirme. Ankara: TDK.
Sapir, E. (1921). Language. London: HBJ.
Süer, E. (2003). Ça¤tay Türk Dili. Ankara: Grafiker Yay›nlar›.
fienyap›l›, Ö. (1996). Her sözcü¤ün bir öyküsü var. Ankara: METU Press.
Tartter, V. C. (1986). Language processes. New York: CBS College Publishing.
Tietze, A. (2002) Tarihi ve etimolojik Türkiye Türkçesi Lugat›.‹stanbul: Simurg.
Wardaugh, R. (1995). Understanding English grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.