On copular clitic forms in Turkish
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19513337 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jaklin Kornfilt (0000-0003-0166-0628, NortonLifeLock (United States), corresponding author) |
| Year | 1996 |
| Volume | 6 |
| Pages | 96-114 |
| Publication date | 1996-10-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | ZAS Papers in Linguistics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1435-9588 • E-ISSN: 1435-9588 |
| Publisher | University Library J. C. Senckenberg (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.21248/zaspil.6.1996.762 |
| OpenAlex | W4410294352 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 7 |
This paper argues for a novel classification of the morphology in a canonical agglutinative language, namely Turkish, in some respects. I argue here that what has traditionally been described as true agglutination is actually due to cliticization. While true agglutination exists as well, it is distinct from cliticization. I look here at verbs exclusively and discuss cliticized forms of the inflected copula as well as some other clitics that attach to verbs at cliticization sites. If the analysis proposed here is correct, Turkish has only two genuinely verbal simple finite forms: the definite past and the conditional. All other tense-aspect-mood inflections are actually inflections of the copula and not of the main verb
Clitic · Linguistics · Turkish · Educational Methods and Analysis · History · Lexicography and Language Studies · Linguistics and Cultural Studies · Philosophy
Mari and Udmurt do not require postsyntactic operations (A reply to Georgieva et al. 2021 and Guseva and Weisser 2018)
A morphosyntactic analysis of the Turkish inflectional system
Türkçede Ek-Fi̇i̇l Üzeri̇ne
The relation between head movement and periphrasis
Postsyntactic reordering in the Mari nominal domain
Hybridity and change in Turkish inflectional morphology
Is Negation Negative? (And a Discussion of Negative Concord in SOV Languages)
| Citations per year | 0.88 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2018 - 2026 (9) |
| Highly cited | No |