University of Calgary

PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations

2013-09-24

Turkish Noun-Noun Compounds: A Process-Based

Paradigmatic Account

Kunduraci, Aysun

Kunduraci, A. (2013). Turkish Noun-Noun Compounds: A Process-Based Paradigmatic Account

(Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/28535
http://hdl.handle.net/11023/1029
doctoral thesis

University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their
thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through
licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under
copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission.
Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca
 UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Turkish Noun-Noun Compounds:

A Process-Based Paradigmatic Account

by

Aysun Kunduracı

A THESIS SUMBITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS

CALGARY, ALBERTA

September, 2013

© Aysun Kunduracı 2013

 ABSTRACT

This study concerns word-formation in Turkish within the scope of theoretical morphology. I
propose a paradigmatic analysis of Turkish Noun-Noun compounding and subsequent derivation
within a process-based approach to morphology. I propose that Noun-Noun compounds (NNCs)
such as kar ışıltı-sı (snow brightness-sI) ‘brightness of snow’ are produced by the morphological
component, which is separate from both lexicon and syntax, and describe the nature of
morphological operations in Turkish. This involves accounting for the semantic combination and
the structure of NNCs, including the presence of the compound marker underlined above. I
propose that the compound marker appears in order to create a lexeme from an N-N stem, which
signals that a word-formation process has taken place. This makes -sI a derivational suffix in
NNCs. I also propose that the compound marker is in a slot competition with certain derivational
suffixes on the basis of non-permitted sequences in derivations involving compounding, e.g. kar
tane(*-si)-li(*-si) (snow flake-(*-sI)-lI(*-sI)) ‘with snow-flake’. Namely, the compound marker
and certain derivational suffixes are involved in a paradigm structure of word-formation. The
proposed paradigm structure highlights the importance of paradigmatic selection in word-
formation and accounts for permitted and non-permitted sequences. I also propose that the
semantic rule responsible for the associative semantics of NNCs maps onto the compounding of
the two nouns rather than -sI suffixation, which follows it. I further propose that the same form
rule suffixing -sI also applies in possessive constructions (PCs), e.g. kar-ın ışıltı-sı (snow-GEN
brightness-sI) ‘the brightness of (the) snow’. This accounts for why the same formal element
appears in two distinct structures and why the sequence *-sI-sI is not allowed. Unlike the
compound marker, the function of -sI in PCs is to mark the possessum: -sI in PCs is inflectional.
A process-based approach to morphology, which assumes the separation of form and meaning,
and treats affixes as rule elements, can easily deal with such cases. Further, I claim that -sI in
PCs does not mark (3rd) Person but marks only the value ‘possessed’ of the grammatical
category Possessedness in Turkish: it distinguishes possessed vs. non-possessed entities rather
than 3rd vs. 1st/2nd Persons.

ii
The courage to take risks must not arise from rashness,
but from seeing the Aurora Borealis in the midst of chaos and aiming for it.

Kunduracı, A.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The motivation of this study was snow and whales: one day, they somehow invited me to
Canada. Then I walked so far. Snow was so brilliant in Calgary; what is more, the sun
accompanied it most of the time, which meant ‘hope’. The whales in Victoria were charming, as
I had imagined. I was rewarded…
I first thought about two questions: what is morphology, and where is it? Then I ended up
in a very exciting, adequate, not only theoretical but also empirical, and of course thorny and
militant world: morfoloji dünya-sı (morphology world-sI) ‘morphology world’. It is militant
because morphologists, to whom I have added myself too apparently, have had to defend
morphology against syntax, lexicon, and phonology, which are in fact very close friends to
morphology. I dealt with this issue in the seven chapters of this work, but of course I am not
closing the morphology chapter in my world. Now, at the end of this 4-year expedition, it is my
pleasure to acknowledge everybody who helped me directly and indirectly in preparing a
background in linguistics, creating my conception gradually, choosing my framework(s), and
simply making me feel happy and kindling my enthusiasm.
To Amanda Pounder, who has been not only my supervisor but also my teacher, guide,
and family here in Calgary. I am grateful and will always be so for everything: her supervision,
valuable criticisms for every single work of mine, help with my academic English, for all of our
theoretical and grammatical discussions, providing me with the freedom to choose an approach
and create my own assumptions, and maybe above all, for her sincere, limitless support. I am
very pleased to have worked with her, who is, in my terms, a unique supervisor.
To Darin Flynn, who has acted as my supervisory committee member, who has always
encouraged me in my studies, provided me with his valuable criticisms and questions, which
helped me to improve my work, and supported me sincerely since the beginning. I am also
grateful to him for pointing to the movie Tinker Bell, which is full of fairies, and also for his
nicknaming me “defence fairy” at the beginning of my defence.
To Gary Libben, who has been on my supervisory committee, who has always provided
me with his valuable suggestions whenever I needed, asked me very interesting questions, which
made me think harder and improve my work, and supported me kindly.

iv
 To Aslı Göksel, for her valuable participation in my examination committee, for every
single detailed comment, suggestion, question, and correction that she provided me with during
my examination and afterwards.
To Nicole Wyatt, for teaching me the philosophy of language and meaning, for her
participation in my examination committee, and for her valuable comments and very helpful
questions, which led me to express my ideas more explicitly and effectively.
To Cem Bozşahin, my M.A. thesis supervisor, for enlarging my grammatical perspective
with a categorial syntax-semantics, for kindly answering my unceasing questions, for his
valuable comments on my previous work, and of course for his support throughout the years.
To David Bird, who helped me a lot with the statistical analysis of my experimental
study. I am very grateful to him for his very quick and effective work.
To Karsten Koch, for teaching me prosody, how to be an excellent teacher in linguistics
when I was assisting him, and for his criticisms and valuable comments on my previous work.
To Cem Keskin, who first taught me syntax so impressively and kindled my interest in
the scientific study of language. I am also grateful for his support and valuable comments on my
previous work.
To Danica MacDonald for all her suggestions and help with preparing the methodology
of my experimental study. To all the anonymous Turkish speakers who participated in my
survey, and of course to Sibel, Merve, Engin, and Nevra, for their help with recruiting the
participants and for their support.
To Özgür Aydın and Selçuk İşsever, for their teaching, help and support during my
studies at Ankara University.
To Derya Duman who kindly supported me when I was studying at Hacettepe University.
It has been a memorable experience to do research in Linguistics at the University of
Calgary. Many thanks to everyone for creating that environment, especially to Dr. Carroll, Dr.
Ritter, Biljana, Francey, Miwako, Svitlana, Jamison, Keffy, and Joey, for their support, kindness
and smiling faces.
To my family for everything: their eternal love, unconditional support, and endurance.
To my best friend Sibel Canaz; Süreyya Hasköylü and Hakan Hasköylü, for their
presence and being my family in Calgary. Many thanks to my closest friends in Turkey: Merve,
Peri, Pınar, Seda, Serap, and Yusuf (alphabetically ordered), for simply being who they are.

v
 I am also grateful to a special group of linguists for reinforcing my interest in theoretical
morphology and for providing the literature with all of those impressive, highly informative, and
significant works in the theory of morphology and grammar: Stephen R. Anderson, Mark
Aronoff, Robert Beard, Amanda Pounder, Jerrold M. Sadock, and Arnold M. Zwicky. My
assumptions and the morphological system proposed in this study have developed thanks to the
frameworks and descriptions that they provided.

vi
For My Parents and My Sister

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ii
QUOTE PAGE iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
DEDICATION vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS viii
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF FIGURES xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xiii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.0 Main Issues 1
1.1 Research Objectives and Proposals of the Study 5
1.2 Survey: Description, Goals and Methodology 6
1.3 Thesis Outline 7

CHAPTER 2 NOUN-NOUN COMPOUNDS IN TURKISH 9

2.0 Introduction 9
2.1 Morphology of Turkish NNCs 9
2.2 Prosodic Properties of Turkish NNCs 16
2.3 Turkish NNCs and Vowel Harmony 22
2.4 Semantics of Turkish NNCs 23
2.4.1 The Relation of Association 23
2.4.2 Predicate Deletion in NNCs 26
2.4.3 Lexical Semantics 27
2.4.4 Arguments against a Set of NNC Relations 31
2.4.5 ASN Functions in Turkish 32
2.4.6 Semantic Transparency 39
2.4.7 Referentiality in Turkish NNCs 40
2.5 Syntactic Behaviour of Turkish NNCs 42
2.6 Pseudo-NNCs without -sI 45
2.6.1 N-N-bilim-sI vs. N-N-bilim 45
2.6.1.1 The Problem 45
2.6.1.2 Survey Results 46
2.6.2 Other Instances without -sI 48
2.7 Chapter 2 Summary 51

CHAPTER 3 COMPOUNDING AND TURKISH COMPOUNDS:

THEORETICAL APPROACHES 52
3.0 Introduction 52
3.1 The Lexicalist Approach to Derivation and Compounding 53
3.2 Evaluation of the Lexicalist Approach 58
3.2.1 Advantages of Lexicalist Analyses 58
3.2.2 Disadvantages of Lexicalist Analyses 59
3.3 The Syntactic Approach to Derivation and Compounding 63

viii
 3.4 Evaluation of the Syntactic Approach 69
3.4.1 Advantages of Syntactic Analyses 69
3.4.2 Disadvantages of Syntactic Analyses 69
3.5 An Alternative Approach: A Separate Component for Compounding 73
3.6 Evaluation of the Alternative Approach 75
3.6.1 Advantages of the Alternative Analyses 75
3.6.2 Disadvantages of the Alternative Analyses 76
3.7 Previous Anlayses of Turkish NNCs and -sI 76
3.7.1 The Unified Approach to Turkish -sI 77
3.7.2 The Non-Unified Approach to Turksih -sI 85
3.8 Chapter 3 Summary 92

CHAPTER 4 THE FORMATION OF NOUN-NOUN COMPOUNDS IN TURKISH 94

4.0 Introduction 94
4.1 The Motivation for -sI 94
4.2 On the Morphological Component 101
4.3 A Process-Based Analysis of Noun-Noun Compounding 108
4.4 The Status of -sI in NNCs: Derivation 118
4.5 Chapter 4 Summary 119

CHAPTER 5 THE PARADIGMATIC ASPECT OF COMPOUNDING AND

DERIVATION 121
5.0 Introduction 121
5.1 -sI and Derivational Suffixes 121
5.1.1 Non-Permitted Combinations Signal a Paradigm 121
5.1.2 Survey Results 125
5.2 The Importance of Paradigms 128
5.3 Compounding and Subsequent Derivation: A Paradigmatic Relation 131
5.4 -sI and Other Derivational Suffixes 140
5.4.1 Introduction 140
5.4.2 Survey Results 140
5.5 Chapter 5 Summary 145

CHAPTER 6 POSSESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN TURKISH 146

6.0 Introduction 146
6.1 The Nature of PCs 146
6.2 -sI Only Marks “Possessedness” 153
6.3 Agreement and Possessedness: Separate Issues 161
6.4 Possessedness versus Person: Separate Categories 166
6.5 The Formation of Possessive Constructions 168
6.6 Morphological Similarity: A Transfer Based on Semantics 173
6.7 Possessive Suffixes and the Compound Marker 180
6.8 Chapter 6 Summary 185

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS 187

ix
REFERENCES 191
APPENDIX A 199
APPENDIX B 201
APPENDIX C 212

x
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. First Problem Results (Summary) 47

Table 2. Second Problem Results (Summary) 126
Table 3. Third Problem Results (Summary) 143

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Prosodic Structure of an NNC, an NP, and a PC 20

Figure 2. Braun and Haig’s Noun-Adjective Continuum 49
Figure 3. An NNC Structure in DM 66
Figure 4. Yükseker’s Syntactic Possessives (PCs) and Possessive Compounds (NNCs) 81
Figure 5. Semantics of NNCs and Semantics of Phrasal Expressions 99
Figure 6. A Modular Grammatical Architecture with the Morphological Component 106
Figure 7. NNC Formation in Turkish 109
Figure 8. NNC Formation in Turkish (Simplified Version) 114
Figure 9. Guilbertian Derivational Paradigms 129
Figure 10. Derivational Paradigm Including N-N Compounding in Turkish 132
Figure 11. The Formation of PCs with 3rd Person Possessors in Turkish 169
Figure 12. Genitive Case Inflection in Turkish 170
Figure 13. Possessum Inflection in Turkish 170
Figure 14. The Formation of PCs with 1st/2nd Persons in Turkish 171
Figure 15. The Potential Diachronic Development of PCs and NNCs in Old Turkish 177

xii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1.POSS: 1st Person possessive

1.PL: 1st Person Plural
1st: 1st Person
2.POSS: 2nd Person possessive
2nd: 2nd Person
ACC: ‘accusative’
A + N: adjective and noun
ASN: Association (function/relation)
BK E: Bilgä Kagan Inscription (East)
CAUS: causative
CCG: Combinatory Categorial Grammar
CG: Clitic Group
CM: compound marker
COMP: compound function
CR: Categorial Rule
DAT: ‘dative’
DM: Distributed Morphology
FA: Function(al) Application
FI: Function Insertion
FR: Form Rule
FUT: ‘future’
GEN: ‘genitive’
KT E: Kül Tigin Inscription (East)
KT N: Kül Tigin Inscription (North)
KT S: Kül Tigin Inscription (South)
KT SE: Kül Tigin Inscription (Southeast)
KT SW: Kül Tigin Inscription (Southwest)
LF: Logical Form
NEC: necessitative
NEG: Negation

xiii
N + N: noun and noun (combination)
N-N: noun-noun stem (bare compound)
{N-N}: noun-noun stem (bare compound)
NNC: Noun-Noun Compound
NML: nominalizer
NP: Noun Phrase
Oc: Operation Condition
OP: Operation
PAS: predicate-argument structure
PASS: ‘passive’
PAST: ‘past’
PC: Possessive Construction
PERF: ‘perfect’
PF: Phonological Form
PL: ‘plural’
PM: Predicate Modification
POSS: Possessive
PPh: Phonological Phrase
PPL: Person Plural
PRES: ‘present’
PWd: phonological word
RL: relativizer
Rc: Rule Condition
Sc: Stem Condition
SR: Semantic Rule
T: Tonyukuk Inscription
T W: Tonyukuk Inscription (West)
VP: Verb Phrase
WFR: Word-Formation Rules
WP: Word and Paradigms Approach
∑R: Syntactic Rule

xiv
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Main Issues

The main concern of this study is the structure and semantics of novel Noun-Noun compounds
(“NNCs”) in Turkish.1 What makes NNCs interesting in Turkish is a suffix, -sI2, which
necessarily appears in NNCs but mysteriously vanishes in certain contexts. What is more, this
suffix, -sI, also appears in possessive constructions (“PCs”). For this reason, -sI is often referred
to as the “3rd Person possessive marker”. Thus, the main task is to give a full account of the
Turkish suffix -sI and instances involving -sI. Why does -sI appear? Why is it prohibited in some
cases? Why does it appear in both NNCs and PCs? What is the semantics of NNCs and PCs? Are
NNCs derivations, syntactic words, or phrases? Are compounds produced by syntax or
morphology? Does this matter? These questions will guide us when we are investigating what a
compound is, and what the -sI suffix in Turkish NNCs does. Thus, this study concerns
morphology, syntax, semantics, and their interactions.3
Below I show how an NNC (1a) is distinguished from an NP in Turkish (1b) in contrast
to an English NNC (2a), which is not distinguished from an NP by means of a morphological
element (2b):
Turkish NNC: Turkish NP:
(1) a. masal peri*(-si) b. zeki peri
tale fairy-sI smart fairy
‘tale fairy’ ‘a/the smart fairy’

English NNC: English NP:

(2) a. tale fairy b. a/the smart fairy

1
This study investigates novel compounds to avoid complications due to idiosyncrotic properties of lexicalized
compounds.
2
Due to the backness harmony, labial harmony and phonotactics of Turkish phonology, -sI surfaces as -ı, -i, -u, -ü,
-sı, -si, -su, -sü, and appears as -sIn when followed by case suffixes. I will refer to it as -sI henceforth.
3
The data are based on my own native knowledge of Turkish as well as examples of casual speech collected from
sources such as films, e.g. Turkish voiced-over versions of Tinker Bell series (produced by Disney Toon Studios),
soap operas, documentaries, and online conversations. Whenever an outside formation is used, I cite the source;
otherwise, the formations are created by myself based on my native knowledge. See also Appendix A for a list of
novel examples from other sources.

1
If there is no -sI following the compound, then it will be illegitimate and will not have the
interpretation ‘tale fairy’: *masal peri_. Now consider the semantics of (1a, 2a) vs. (1b, 2b): very
different. In the (b) examples, we have an attributive modification in the normal sense, the
referent of the first element indicating a property of the second element. In the (a) examples,
however, we have a different type of modification. Unlike the (b) examples, which simply
involve a combination of the meanings of the constituents, which are overt, the (a) examples
involve one more semantic component which is covert. To be able to interpret masal peri-si in
Turkish or tale fairy in English, we need the semantic relation between the two nouns, which is
‘belonging to’ above, in addition to their own meanings. This fact clearly indicates that the
semantics of NNCs is distinct from that of NPs in both Turkish and English.
As mentioned above, however, -sI does not appear with NNCs in all contexts. For
example, it does not appear when NNCs are followed by some derivational suffixes such as -lI
and -sIz. Compare the NNC with -sI in (1a), repeated here as (3a), and derivations based on
compounds in (3b,c):

(3) a. masal peri-si

tale fairy-sI
‘tale fairy’

b. masal peri-li (tepe) c. masal peri-siz (tepe)

tale fairy-lI (hill) tale fairy-sIz (hill)
‘(the hill) with (a) tale fairy’ (the hill) without (a) tale fairy’

Consider the meanings of all the examples in (3): they all show the same semantic relation
between the two nouns, masal ‘tale’ and peri ‘fairy’, which is interpreted as ‘a fairy belonging
to a tale’. Although we have the interpretation of masal peri-si ‘tale fairy’ in (3b) and (3c) in
addition to the additional meaning components which are ‘with’ and ‘without’, respectively,
there is no -sI in (3b,c). This is a problem since an NNC without -sI is illicit as mentioned above.
Namely, we would expect *masal peri-si-siz and masal peri-si-li which are ungrammatical,
however. Therefore, the non-permitted *-sI-lI and *-sI-sIz combinations must be accounted for.

2
 At the same time, -sI does not invariably disappear in the presence of derivational
suffixes. In fact, -sI must appear with the -lIK suffix, for example, as in (4); in this case, -sI
comes after -lIK:

(4) masal peri-liğ-i zor iş

tale fairy-lIK-sI hard job
‘(the occupation of ) being a tale fairy is a hard job’

The fact that -sI may appear with -lIK in contrast to -lI and -sIz, for example, makes each of
these suffixes intriguing for the study of the formation of NNCs and derivations based on NNCs.
I investigate one more type of derivational suffix, exemplified as the -CI suffix in (5).
What is interesting in -CI is the fact that it is followed by -sI in some cases (5a), but not in others
(5b):

(5) a. masal peri-ci-si b. masal peri-ci

tale fairy-CI-sI masal fairy-CI
‘(a) tale-fairy lover/author’ ‘(a) tale-fairy lover/author’

The question regarding (5) is what is responsible for this duality, i.e. form or meaning: what
prevents some speakers from having -sI after -CI but allows other speakers to concatenate the
two suffixes.
Moreover, some NNCs unexpectedly lack -sI. NNCs containing the noun bilim ‘science’,
for example, are of this kind, as in felsefe bilim (philosophy science) ‘philosophical science’.
What we find in casual speech, however, is forms with -sI such as felsefe bilim-i (philosophy
science-sI) ‘philosophical science’ rather than those which lack -sI. Therefore, this set of data
needs a different treatment from that shown in (3b), (3c), and (5b), which necessarily require the
absence of -sI.
-sI is the so-called 3rd Person possessive suffix as it also appears on the head constituent
in PCs as well as NNCs:

(6) masal-ın peri-si

tale-GEN fairy-sI
‘the tale’s fairy’

3
Note however that there is a case marker, the genitive case suffix -(n)In, on the non-head
constituent in a PC as in (6), in contrast to an NNC. This formal property is not the only
distinction between NNCs and PCs. For example, the constituents of PCs are separable as in (7a)
whereas the constituents of NNCs are inseparable (7b):

(7) a. masal-ın küçük peri-si

tale-GEN little fairy-sI
‘the tale’s little fairy’

b. *masal küçük peri-si c. küçük masal peri-si

tale little fairy-sI little tale fairy-sI
for ‘a/the little fairy of a tale’ ‘a/the little tale-fairy’

As mentioned above, there are more distinctions between PCs and NNCs (see §2.5 and §6.1).
The current section simply demonstrates that these two formations are similar only superficially,
and that their syntactic behaviour is not the same. However, we should note that the two
structures are semantically similar: in both cases, the semantics is different from the attribution
type involved in NPs which are composed of adjective and noun strings, e.g. küçük peri (little
fairy) ‘a/the little fairy’. Therefore, the formation of PCs is another research subject of this study.
I examine the structural distinction between PCs and NNCs, and the manner of -sI suffixation in
both structures in an effort to determine what -sI marks in the two cases and whether its status
(derivational vs. inflectional) is distinct.
The core issues addressed above take us to a more general problem: the grammatical
architecture. Due to the distinctions between PCs and NNCs, we could simply ascribe the
formation of PCs to syntax and the formation of NNCs to another component. However, we
know that Turkish uses the -sI suffix in both structures, which needs to be accounted for if we
claim that the two structures are different. Therefore, this study also explores the place of
morphology and its interactions with syntax and semantics within the grammatical architecture.

4
1.1 Research Objectives and Proposals of the Study

This section outlines the goals and proposals of this study. I first aim to show why -sI appears in
Turkish NNCs: I propose that the -sI suffix in NNCs signals that a lexeme formation, a
derivational output following compounding, has taken place. In my system, compounding is a
word-formation process manipulated by the morphological component. My analysis is framed
within a process-based approach to morphology as in Anderson 1992, Zwicky 1992, Aronoff
1994, Beard 1995, and Pounder 2000. In this approach, affixes have no direct meanings, but
rather, are introduced into words by means of word-formation processes. Namely, affixes are
rule elements and not lexical. They can be individually accessible, as words are; however, this
does not mean that they are stored in the same way or in the same component. Unlike the case
for words, there is no direct mapping between affixes and meanings/functions. In my analysis,
-sI is a derivational suffix in NNCs without a lexical meaning.
The second goal is to show why -sI is necessarily absent in formations such as masal
peri-siz (tale fairy-sIz) ‘without (a) tale-fairy’ (3c), whereas it necessarily exists in other
formations such as masal peri-liğ-i (tale fairy-lIK-sI) ‘(the occupation of) being a tale-fairy’ (4).
For this problem, I propose that -sI is in a formal relationship with certain derivational suffixes
as in the former example: -sI and these suffixations exist in the paths of a word-formation
paradigm involving compounding, i.e. they are terminal nodes. Suffixations which can appear
with -sI, as in the latter example above, do not constitute terminal nodes in this paradigm (see
Ch.5 for more suffixes which are similar to -sIz, and those which are similar to -lIK).
Third, I aim to account for why examples such as masal peri-ci and masal peri-ci-si are
both available (5). For this problem, I provide two reasons: the structure of the formation, and
the speaker. I propose that for some speakers, the -CI suffixation also constitutes a terminal node
in the word-formation paradigm, unlike other speakers. This will account for why there is a
duality in the case of -CI, for example (see Ch.5).
The next goal is to account for the structure of PCs and the function of -sI in PCs, e.g.
masal-ın peri-si (tale-GEN fairy-sI) ‘the tale’s fairy’ (6). Unlike traditional analyses which
interpret -sI as the “3rd Person” (possessive) marker, I propose that -sI in PCs marks only the
“possessum”, i.e. the possessed item in the relation of possession without the “3rd Person”
information. This also makes -sI inflectional in PCs in contrast to the -sI in NNCs.

5
 Another goal is to show the nature of the morphological component within the
grammatical architecture, and its interaction with syntax and semantics on the basis of the
Turkish data investigated here. I claim that there is one -sI suffix, i.e. one morphological form,
which appears in the two distinct structures, NNCs and PCs. However, the same morphological
form maps onto two different functions and has a distinct status: unlike -sI in PCs, which marks
possessum as an inflection, -sI in NNCs is derivational and it marks that a formation is a
compound, i.e. a lexeme. As I will show, this is unproblematic in a process-based approach to
morphology, in contrast to those which are morpheme/sign-based (e.g. Lieber 1980, Jensen &
Jensen 1984, Halle & Marantz 1993). Importantly, the fact that the same suffix, -sI, is used both
in derivation (NNCs) and inflection (PCs) indicates that derivation and inflection must not
operate within different components of grammar. Rather, I propose that it is an autonomous
morphology which is responsible for both operations, with distinctions, however. Note that such
issues are not relevant only to Turkish but to other languages as well. Therefore, on the one hand,
this study contributes to the field of word-formation in Turkish morphology, and the theory of
compounding more generally. On the other hand, it contributes to identifying the interactions
between morphology and other components, especially semantics and syntax, within a multi-
modular architecture of grammar, e.g. Sadock 2012.

1.2 Survey: Description, Goals and Methodology

This section is devoted to describing a survey I carried out to investigate some of the problems
addressed in §1.0. I tested the variation in the suffixation of -sI in certain formations, and the
acceptability of derivational suffixes in novel NNCs in the presence and absence of -sI. I hoped
that the results would indicate whether there is optionality in the addition of -sI in some cases,
and which suffixes are similar to -sI in terms of the bases that they attach to.
The survey consists of an acceptability judgement task, which was conducted through an
online questionnaire administered by FluidSurveys. The survey contained 120 multiple-choice
questions, including experiment questions and distractors. Most of the data involved novel N-N
compounds and derivations based on compounds, made up by myself on the basis of my native
knowledge of Turkish; there were also a small number of examples collected from online sources
and movies.

6
 In this survey, I investigated three separate problems addressed in §1.0:
1. Whether native speakers need the -sI suffix in N-N compounds whose head nouns are bilim
‘science’: N-bilim-sI vs. N-bilim_ (see §2.6.1.1 and §2.6.1.2 for the results and
discussion).
2. Whether derivations with the -CI suffix following N-N compounds necessarily need -sI:
N-N-CI vs. N-N-CI-sI (see §5.1.2 and §5.3 for the results and discussion).
3. Whether there are other derivational suffixes (see §5.4.2 for the results and discussion):
a) which may attach to N-N compounds without -sI (like -lI and -sIz)
b) which may not attach to N-N compounds without -sI (like -lIK)
c) which may follow -sI.

25 native speakers of Turkish between the age of 15-35, from different job classes and
different educational backgrounds (4 undergraduate students, 9 postgraduates, 10 with a master’s
degree, and 2 with a doctoral degree) participated in the survey. 13 subjects were females and 12
were males.
The survey questions included highlighted structures illustrating the above problems in
sentences. The participants were supposed to evaluate the acceptability of the highlighted
formations in each question on the basis of four choices: “good”, “(a little) weird”, “bad”, “not
sure”. See Appendix B for the list of questions and instructions.
Results were calculated as percentages of total responses; significance of results was
measured using Fisher’s Exact test for a 2x2 contingency table (spreadsheet downloaded from
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/statfishers.html). For the statistical analyses of the first and second
problems, the answers “good” and “(a little) weird” were collapsed as acceptable in contrast to
“bad”, non-acceptable. “not sure” answers were discarded (there were very few of these). No
statistical analysis was done for the third problem.

1.3 Thesis Outline

The thesis consists of seven chapters. I describe N-N compounds in Turkish in Ch.2. In this
chapter, I argue that compounds are both syntactically and semantically distinct from ordinary
NPs. The heart of Ch.2 is the semantic relationships between the constituents in NNCs, i.e.

7
“association” (ASN) functions, and the syntactic distinctions between NNCs and NPs. Ch.3
consists of the theoretical background of N-N compounding in general and previous analyses of
Turkish NNCs and the -sI suffix; I evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of previous
studies. Ch.4 proposes a motivation for -sI, and a formal analysis of NNCs within a process-
based approach to morphology. Ch.5 concerns itself with the structure of derivations based on
NNCs incorporating them into a paradigm structure. In Ch.6, I propose that the structure of PCs
involves both syntax and morphology, which makes the -sI in PCs inflectional. I also propose
that -sI in PCs marks only Possessedness without Person. In this chapter, I also account for why
the compound marker -sI may not appear with the possessive -sI or other possessive suffixes. In
Ch.7, I give a summary of the proposals of the study, make conclusions, and suggest how future
research can contribute to the field of word-formation, the theory of morphology, and the
architecture of grammar.

8
 CHAPTER 2

NOUN-NOUN COMPOUNDS IN TURKISH

2.0 Introduction

This chapter presents a description of Turkish NNCs: their morphological, semantic,

phonological, and syntactic properties.4 I begin with the morphological properties of NNCs,
which involve their form, possible stems, recursion, and marking plurality. Following this, we
will see the prosodic and phonological properties of NNCs. The semantics will come next: I will
show that NNCs in Turkish involve a specific type of modification, which I call “association”,
following Giegerich 2009. I will propose a set of association relations allowed in N-N
compounding in Turkish. I will also address previous studies which attempted to provide an
account of the semantics of NNCs in general. When describing the semantics of NNCs, I will
also address the properties of transparency and referentiality. Further, I will proceed to the
syntactic properties and contrast NNCs with phrasal units: we will see that NNCs are words
based on empirical tests such as inseparability. Following the syntactic characteristics of NNCs, I
will address some formations which look like NNCs but are not in fact NNCs. The
characteristics of NNCs addressed in this chapter will also be important both in the discussion of
the theory of compounding in Ch.3 and when an analysis of the NNC formation in Turkish is
being developed in Ch.4: an adequate analysis of NNCs must account for certain points which
differentiate NNCs from superficially similar formations which are not NNCs.

2.1 Morphology of Turkish NNCs

This section is dedicated to the morphological properties of Turkish NNCs. To begin with, NNCs
are endocentric and right-headed as we see in the example müzik kutu-su (music box-sI) ‘music
box’ in which the second constituent kutu ‘box’ is the formal head. As in other languages, NNCs
minimally contain two nouns. What makes them distinctive in Turkish, however, is the presence

4
See Dede 1978, Göksel & Kerslake 2005, and Göksel 2009 for descriptions of NNCs in Turkish.

9
of the -sI suffix, which appears on the formal head. As shown in §1.0, a Turkish NNC without -sI
is an incomplete and illegitimate form, e.g. *müzik kutu_ ‘music box’.5 6
The -sI suffix is therefore an important device for recognizing NNCs: NNCs as in (8a)
differ from NPs such as (8b), and N N combinations apart from NNCs such as (8c), which do not
involve the -sI suffix:

(8) a. yaz peri-si

summer fairy-sI
‘summer fairy’

b. çalışkan peri c. işçi peri

hardworking fairy worker fairy
‘a/the hardworking fairy’ ‘a/the worker fairy’

(source: voiced-over Turkish version of “Tinker Bell”)

Note that I do not regard N N combinations such as (8c) as compounds. Rather, I claim that
examples such as (8c) are NPs like (8b) in contrast to (8a). What is important about examples
such as (8c) is that they do not contain -sI, unlike the compound in (8a). I will return to this issue
in §4.1.
NNCs are also distinct relative to other compound types in Turkish: -sI appears only with
N-N compounds. (9a) shows a Noun-Verb combination, (9b) shows a Verb-Verb combination,
and (9c) an A-A combination, which are impossible with -sI: 7

5
This study is dedicated to the formation of NNCs with the -sI suffix, which is productive. There are also N+N
formations without -sI, some of which are not productive, e.g. anne-anne (mother mother) ‘grandmother’ (see
§2.6.2), whereas others do not count as compounds according to this study, e.g. çocuk peri (child fairy) ‘a/the child
fairy’. The latter type will be discussed in §4.1. Co-ordinate N+N formationas such as anne-çocuk (mother-child)
‘mother and child’, and appositive formations such as şair-yazar (poet-author) ‘poet-author’ are beyond the scope of
this study too.
6
Göksel and Haznedar (2007:8) show some examples which they consider to be left-headed, e.g. dut kuru-su
(mulberry dry-sI) ‘dried mulberry’. In this example, the second element is considered to be an adjective, which is
exceptional since -sI normally attaches to nouns. According to them, it is not clear if the constituent with -sI is the
head or not since examples like dut kuru-su are paraphrased as A+N compounds (without -sI): kuru dut (dry
mulberry) ‘dried mulberries’. I, however, do not consider the second element in dut kuru-su to be an adjective;
rather, I assume that there is a conversion process, which involves an identity form rule (XX) and derives a noun
from an adjective, before the compounding operation. This must be the reason why -sI may appear on such
superficial, converted adjectives, i.e. deadjectival nouns. See also Uygun 2009:Ch.3, for a different account, in
which the noun vs. adjective distinction is left to syntactic context only, i.e. it is the context which determines the
category in such cases. I address the dual category in Turkish nominals in §2.6.2.

10
(9) a. baş-koy(*-u) b. yap-boz(*-u) c. doğru düzgün(*-ü)
head-put-*sI do-undo-*sI correct-straight-*sI
‘set one’s heart’ ‘puzzle’ ‘proper(ly)’

Therefore, it is not the case that -sI appears whenever there is a compound: it appears with only
Noun-Noun compounds. This fact makes it necessary to account for this categorial restriction on
-sI suffixation as well as its suffixation in compound formation (see §4.3).
Another important formal property is that Turkish NNCs, like English NNCs, can have a
phrasal unit in the non-head position as in (10). (10a) involves an embedded noun phrase as the
first constituent, and (10b) a clausal unit:8 9

(10) a. {[güneşli gün] şarkı-sı}

sunny day song-sI
‘(a) song for sunny days’

b. {[ev-e hoş gel-di-n] parti-si}

home-DAT nice come-PAST-2nd party-sI
lit. ‘welcome home party’
‘housewarming party’

(10a) and (10b) clearly indicate that NNCs cannot be lexical formations or outputs, which will be
crucial when we are considering the lexicalist approach to compounding in Ch.3. This property
of compounds, i.e. the fact that they allow phrasal units as their first constituents, is also relevant
to §4.2, when we are developing a model of the grammatical architecture. However, the modifier
we use to modify the non-head constituent of an NNC cannot be a determiner as in (11a) or a
quantifier as in (11b):

7
Note that there are some examples such as dünya güzel-i (world beautiful-sI) ‘an outstanding beauty’, which seems
to contain an adjective in the head position, güzel. I suggest that such examples involve conversion, AN, before
compounding takes place. Otherwise, -sI would not appear with these. Therefore, these are also NNCs.
8
I use curly brackets for morphological units including compounds, and square brackets for syntactic phrases.
9
However, the clausal unit does not act as a clause within the compound of course. See van Schaaik 1996, 2002 for
such so-called “higher-order compounds”.

11
(11) a. *[bu kış] peri-si b. *[her kış] peri-si
[this winter] fairy-sI [every winter] fairy-sI
for ‘(a) fairy of this winter’ for ‘(a) fairy of every winter’

This formal property distinguishes NNCs from PCs, which are formally similar to NNCs as we
recall from §1.0, since it is possible to use a determiner or a quantifier to modify the non-head
constituent of a PC as in (12). Other distinctions between NNCs and PCs will be addressed in
§2.5 and §6.1.

(12) [bu kış-ın] peri-si

this winter-GEN fairy-sI
‘the fairy of this winter’

In addition to minimal compounds, which contain two nouns, we can also create
compounds which contain more than two nouns. This means that the process of compounding is
recursive in Turkish as illustrated in (13):

(13) a. peri masal-ı

fairy tale-sI
‘fairy tale’

b. {{ peri masal-ı} şarkı-sı}

fairy tale-sI song-sI
‘fairy-tale song’

c. {{{ peri masal-ı} şarkı-sı} kitab-ı}

fairy tale-sI song-sI book-sI
‘a book of fairy-tale songs’

d. {{{{ peri masal-ı} şarkı-sı} kitab-ı} dolab-ı} ...

fairy tale-sI song-sI book-sI bookcase-sI
‘a bookcase for books of fairy-tale songs’

The possibility of recursion as in (13) leads us to a theoretical question relevant to compounding:

should compounding be syntactic as it is recursive? Since recursion indicates infinity within a
hierarchy, and it is generally syntactic structures which display such infinity, we might consider
compounds syntactic too. However, the way one approaches recursion affects the assumptions
about compounding. I, for example, assume that recursion is related to grammar, but not only to

12
syntax, as in Allen 1978, Di Sciullo 2009, and Pounder (Ms.).10 The fact that a given structure is
recursive does not necessarily signal that the structure is syntactic. Rather, this signals that the
relevant structure is formed based on a grammatical operation, which allows it to be hierarchical,
in contrast to an idiosyncratic lexical entry. This means that we cannot make the claim that
NNCs are syntactic for the reason that they are recursive.
Note that there is also a limitation on recursion in compounding: unlike left-branching
NNCs, which can be recursive infinitely as in (13), so-called right-branching compounds are not
unlimitedly recursive in Turkish.11 Examples in (14) illustrate that right-branching is possible as
in (14b), but infinite recursion in the case of right-branching is not possible (14c,d):

(14) a. kültür merkez-i

culture centre-sI
‘cultural centre’

b. {Fransız {kültür merkez-i}}

French culture centre-sI
‘(a/the) centre of French culture: French cultural centre’

c. ?{öğrenci {Fransız {kültür merkez-i}}}

student French culture centre-sI
for ‘a French cultural centre for students’

d. *{üniversite {öğrenci {Fransız {kültür merkez-i}}}}

university student French culture centre-sI
for ‘a French cultural centre for students of a university’

In example (14b), there is an NNC {kültür merkez-i} (culture centre-sI) ‘cultural centre’
embedded in the head position of another NNC {Fransız {kültür merkez-i}} (French culture

10
Allen (1978:187) claims that recursiveness is also a property of suffixation as in her example industri-al-ize-ation-
al in addition to compounds. According to Di Sciullo (2009:147, 164), both morphological and syntactic domains
are derived by the recursive operations of grammar; compounds are derived by the recursive operations of
morphology. Similarly, Pounder (Ms.) considers word-formation to be recursive: when semantics allows it, it is
possible for a word-formation product to be an input for another derivation operation. As in these studies, I also
consider that recursion is not only a syntactic phenomenon, but also a morphological one. Therefore, recursion alone
cannot be a diagnostic test for being a syntactic output.
11
Göksel (2009:231) also points to the impossibility of infinite recursion in right-branching compounds unlike left-
branching compounds. Due to this non-parallelism, she considers morphological recursivity illicit.

13
centre-sI) ‘French cultural centre’: so-called right-branching recursion. In (14c,d), however, we
see that this type of recursion is limited unlike the examples in (13c,d), which involve left-
branching and are not restricted.
As we see, there is a distinction between the two types of recursion: only the recursion
involving left-branching is infinite. Second, the so-called left branching examples appear very
often while the right branching type appears less often, generally in pragmatically formal
contexts, when naming institutions, for example. Right-branching compounding is less
productive than left-branching compounding; however, it is still a compounding process, which
outputs lexemes, although it is structurally limited.
Another distinction between left-branching and right-branching NNCs concerns the -sI
suffix. An NNC may occupy the non-head position (left-branching) as in (15a) or the head
position (right-branching) as in (15b):

(15) a. {{ masal tiyatro-su} ekib-i}}

tale theatre-sI team-sI
‘team for a tale theatre’

b. {Ankara {masal tiyatro-su}(*-su)}

Ankara tale theatre-sI(*-sI)
‘Ankara tale theatre’

In (15a), both the whole NNC and the sub-NNC masal tiyatro-su take -sI. The addition of -sI,
however, is problematic in (15b) since there is only one -sI. It remains to be established whether
-sI in (15b) belongs to the whole compound or to the subcompound only. If -sI belongs to the
whole compound, the structure is {{N{N-N}}-sI}; however, we need to know why the
subcompound lacks its own -sI. If, however, it belongs to the subcompound only, the structure
will be {N{{N-N}-sI}}. In this case, we will need to know why -sI is not suffixed for the second
time, i.e. why we do not have *{{N{{N-N}-sI}}-sI}. I assume that the latter structure is correct,
{N {{N-N}-sI}}, i.e. -sI belongs to the subcompound in such examples. With regard to the non-
appearance of another -sI for the whole compound, it must arise from a “morphological” ban

14
which disallows -sI suffixation for the second time: identity avoidance.12 To sum up, recursion in
right-branching is restricted unlike left-branching, and multiple -sI suffixes are not allowed in
right-branching unlike left-branching.13 14
Another morphological issue is a formal restriction on plurality in NNCs, as Dede
(1978:15-18) points out. It is not possible to pluralize both members of an NNC while we can
pluralize one of them. According to Dede, the first member is pluralized if the head noun
semantically requires a plural modifier noun as in müdür-ler toplantı-sı (director-PL meeting-sI),
or we can have a plural modifier noun to emphasize its generic sense as in anne-ler gün-ü
(mother-PL day-sI) ‘mother’s day’, but not in *elma-lar ağac-ı (apple-PL tree-sI) ‘apples tree’,
for example, which is not an example of either.
While we can usually have a plural head constituent as in elma ağaç-lar-ı (apple tree-PL-
sI) ‘apple trees’15, it is not so common to have a plural non-head constituent in NNCs. If we have
an example with a plural non-head noun, it is generally either a translation such as kar-lar
kraliçe-si (snow-PL queen-sI) ‘the Snow Queen’16 or a form used when the speaker desires to
emphasize the seniority of the referent of the whole compound as in kar-lar kraliçe-si again.
Other examples with a plural modifier are harika-lar diyar-ı (wonder-PL land-sI) ‘wonderland’,
düş-ler efendi-si (dream-PL lord-sI) ‘the lord of dreams’, or orman-lar kral-ı (forest-PL king-sI)
‘king of the forest: lion’. All of these examples imply that the referent of the NNC has a senior
status and needs public respect, which is a pragmatic effect. The non-frequency of having plural
non-head nouns as modifiers must result from the semantics of NNCs: non-head nouns usually

12
van Schaaik (1996:156-157) proposes that -sI belongs to the entire structure in right-branching compounds; it is
not added until all the nouns are combined. This accounts for why there appears only one -sI without a need for
deletion, for example. However, this analysis creates a non-parallelism between left-branching and right-branching
compounds since there is no ban on -sI in the former type. See van Schaaik 1996, 2002 for more complex recursive
examples.
13
See Kornfilt 1984 and Haig 2004 for a discussion of non-permitted sequences of this kind in Turkish.
14
There is one more distinction between left-branching and right-branching compounds identified by Göksel and
Haznedar (2007:20-21): prosody. They show that in the right-branching example (their example (68)) Türk {Tárih
Kurum-u} (Turk(ish) history institute-sI) ‘Institute of Turkish History’, the stress appears on tarih. They argue that
we would expect it to appear on Türk, which is the first element in the compound since the primary stress falls on
the stressable syllable in the first constituents in NNCs (see also §2.2). They contrast this example with a left-
branching one, which shows stress on the first element as expected: {Tǘrk tarih-i} kurum-u (Turk history-sI
institution-sI) ‘Association of Turkish history’. This problem (in addition to other problems that they address) with
right-branching examples lead them to question whether the so-called right-branching compounds are really
compounds. I assume that these examples must be compounds too since they, for example, show non-separability
and fixed order as other compounds do. However, I leave their distinct prosody for future research.
15
I account for the appearance of the -lEr-sI order rather than -sI-lEr in plural NNCs in §4.3.
16
Translated version, “Karlar Kraliçesi” (T. Yücel 1973); original book, “Snedronningen” (H. C. Andersen 1845).

15
have generic reference, which makes plural forms unnecessary since plural forms would add (a
secondary) generic reference to NNCs (see also Spencer 1991:312-313).
§2.1 described the morphological properties of novel NNCs. Turkish NNCs are illicit
without -sI. The -sI suffix appears to be category-sensitive since it also makes NNCs distinctive
from other compound types, which are not composed of only nouns and which cannot have -sI.
Novel NNCs allow phrasal units as well as nouns in the modifier position. We further focused on
recursion in NNCs, which is not limited in left-branching NNCs.

2.2 Prosodic Properties of Turkish NNCs

In some languages, e.g. English, prosody of compounds may act as a determinant of being a
compound (see §3.2.1). In Turkish, however, prosody cannot be regarded as a diagnostic test for
compounds: NNCs do not show the stress pattern of simple words. In Turkish, regular word
stress falls on the last syllable of a phonological word; it appears on the rightmost suffix.17 For
instance, the underlined syllables are stressed in the following word forms: keçi ‘goat’, keçi-ler
‘goats’, keçi-ler-den ‘from (the) goats’. The prosody of NNCs, however, is more complex: the
primary stress normally falls on the last syllable of the first constituent in an NNC. This is
interesting since this stress pattern is what we normally see in NPs (see, for example, Kabak &
Vogel 2001:339 and Kan 2009:81-82, 97 for stress in phonological phrases in Turkish).
The results of a pilot study that I carried out are promising in that they suggest that NNCs
are similar to NPs prosodically. I show the pitch tracings and waveforms of the word keçi ‘goat’
(16), the NP tatlı keçi (cute goat) ‘a/the cute goat’ (17), the NNC orman keçi-si (forest goat-sI)
‘forest goat’ (18), and the PC orman-ın keçi-si (forest-GEN goat-sI) ‘the forest’s goat’ (19). We
will look at these so that we can see which syllable is more prominent than others in a word, in
an NP, in an NNC, and in a PC, since stressed syllables are normally higher in pitch, longer, and
louder:18

17
See Lewis 1967, 2000, Sezer 1983, Kornfilt 1997, Kabak & Vogel 2001, and Göksel & Kerslake 2005 for stress
in Turkish. I adopt Kabak & Vogel’s definition of the “phonological word” in Turkish: the PW consists of a root +
(most) suffixes (2001:324).
18
The examples were pronounced by 3 native speakers of Turkish, who are postgraduates between the age of 25-45.
Since the pitch tracings belonging to the three speakers are similar, I show the tracings of only one of the speakers
above. See Appendix C for the others. The data were analyzed on Praat 5.1.44 by myself, as a pilot study. We will
look at the pitch tracks (fundamental frequency) represented by the blue lines.

16
(16) single word: keçi [ke.ʧi] ‘goat’

ke. ʧi

In (16), the maximum pitch value in the first syllable [ke] is 274.69 Hz, whereas the maximum
pitch value in the second syllable [ʧi] is 390.46 Hz. Thus, in the word keçi [ke.ʧi] the stressed
syllable is the second one, which is expected: stress normally falls on the final syllable in a
phonological word in Turkish. I will now show the values of the syllables in keçi and other
syllables in the NP, NNC, and the PC, respectively:

(17) NP tatlı keçi [tɑt.lɨ ke.ʧi] ‘a/the cute goat’

tɑt. lɨ ke. ʧi

The maximum pitch in (17) is 311.14 Hz, which falls on [lɨ]. This value is higher than those of
the other syllables: [tɑt] shows 251.67 Hz, [ke] shows 265.28 Hz. As for the final syllable [ʧi], it
shows 231.74 Hz, which is lower than the value of the [ʧi] syllable in example (16). We will now
look at the NNC:

17
(18) NNC orman keçi-si [or.mɑn ke.ʧi.si] ‘forest goat’

or. mɑn ke. ʧi. si

The pitch tracings of (18) interestingly indicate that the prosody of an NNC is similar to the
prosody of an NP as in (17), since the highest pitch value falls on the last syllable of the first
word: -man. the [ɑ:] vowel in -man shows 288.09 Hz, whereas [or] shows 252.85 Hz, [ke] shows
241.25 Hz, and [ʧi] shows 221.50 Hz. With regard to the final syllable [si], it shows 201.67 Hz,
which is lower than the values of the other syllables in the second word as well as those in the
first word. The gradual falling in the pitch track following -man can be seen easily in (18) (blue
line). We will now look at the PC and compare it with the NNC and the NP:

(19) PC Kaan’ın keçi-si [kɑ:.nɨn ke.ʧi.si] ‘Kaan’s goat’:

kɑ: nɨn ke. ʧi. si

In (19), the [ɑ:] vowel in the first syllable shows 244.78 Hz, whereas the genitive suffix [nɨn]
shows 321.02 Hz, with a rise beginning immediately before [nɨn]. The values of the syllables of
the second word are as follows: 286.29 Hz in [ke], 217.95 Hz in [ʧi], and 191.65 Hz in [si]. The
value of the syllable [ʧi] is lower than the value in example (16), in which [ʧi] takes the primary
stress, unlike (19), in which the primary stress falls on [nɨn].

18
 Considering the similarity in the primary stress in (17) and (18), the NNC and the NP are
similar prosodically: the primary stress falls on the last element of the first constituent. This
indicates that there must be different levels in the prosodic hierarchy since both the NP and the
NNC seem to involve one more level than the one in which regular word stress is assigned.
According to the phonetic correlates of (19), the PC is also similar to the NNC and the NP
prosodically. Thus, I suggest that Turkish NNCs show “phrasal stress” at the Phonological
Phrase level (PPh) (or “pitch accent” assigned at the PPh level), which is the primary stress of
the PPh level, in the line of Nespor & Vogel 1986, Sluijter & van Heuven 1996, and Koch
2008:27-28, among others.
The pilot study thus implies that NNCs must involve a phrasal stress, i.e. they seem to be
phonological phrases similar to NPs and PCs according to the principles of the phonological
component. The primary stress in NNCs appears to be phrasal accent, which, in regular cases,
falls on the rightmost syllable within the leftmost element in an NNC. With regard to the -sI
suffix, it does not seem to necessarily take the second primary stress either in PCs or NNCs, but
seems to vary among speakers. According to the phonetic properties above, which belong to the
first speaker’s voice, the value of -sI is lower than the value of the immediately preceding
syllable [ʧi], and the first syllable [ke] in both the NNC and PC. This means that -sI does not take
the secondary stress either in the NNC or in the PC. Also, the value of -sI in the NNC (201.67
Hz) is higher than the value of -sI in the PC (191.65 Hz). According to the second speaker’s
recordings, (see Appendix C), the value of -sI is higher than the value of the previous syllable
[ʧi] in both the NNC and the PC, but lower than the first syllable [ke] in both the NNC and the
PC. Also, the value of -sI in the NNC (189.42 Hz) is higher than the value of -sI in the PC
(149.92 Hz). According to the third speaker’s recordings (see Appendix C), again, the value of -
sI is higher than the value of the previous syllable [ʧi] in the NNC, but lower than [ʧi] in the PC.
However, the value of -sI is higher than the value of [ke] in the NNC, but lower than the value of
[ke] in the PC. Interestingly, again, the value of -sI in the NNC (234.90 Hz) is higher than the
value of -sI in the PC (200.68 Hz).
According to these results, it is hard to make a generalization about the prosodic property
of -sI apart from the fact that it does not take the primary stress in NNCs and PCs. One more
result is that the vaule of -sI in NNCs is not necessarily lower than the value of -sI in PCs: the
maximum pitch of [si] is higher in NNCs than PCs according to all the three speakers’ pitch

19
tracings. It can also be concluded that the primary stress assignment in NNCs, PCs and NPs
seems to be identical: they seem to involve a phrasal stress falling on the first constituent in a
phonological phrase as mentioned above. This makes the notion of “compound stress”
unnecessary in Turkish. Nonetheless, the fact that NNCs are prosodic phrases does not require
that they be syntactic phrases too. Namely, the findings in this section concern the phonological
component only. According to the findings of the pilot study, the prosodic structure of an NNC,
an NP, and a PC must be as follows:

NNC: NP: PC:

( x ) PPh ( x ) PPh ( x ) PPh
( x) ( x) PWd ( x) ( x) PWd ( x) ( x) PWd
a. or.man ke.çi.si b. tat.lı ke.çi c. Kaan.ın ke.çi.si
‘mountain goat’ ‘a/the cute goat’ ‘Kaan’s goat’

Figure 1. Prosodic Structure of an NNC, an NP, and a PC

The results of the pilot study conflict with Kabak and Vogel’s (2001) suggestion that the
prosody of compounds is different from that of phrases. They propose an intermediate level, the
Clitic Group (CG) for Turkish, between PWd and PPh in the prosodic hierarchy.19 20
They also
suggest that the leftmost element in a compound is assigned the strongest stress and that the other
stresses are perceptually reduced; therefore, we need a stress rule for compounds that is distinct
from the word-level stress rule: “assign main stress to the leftmost syllable bearing PWd stress;
reduce the prominence of any other stress(es)” (p.337). However, they also note that it is not
clear which acoustic correlates of the original word stress are eliminated from the second word
(p.337). With regard to phrases, they claim that there is a crucial distinction between the prosody
of phrases and the prosody of compounds: while only a single stress is observed in compounds,

19
Nespor and Vogel (1986) propose Clitic Group as an intermediate level between the PWd and the PPh.
20
The motivation for Kabak and Vogel’s (2001) CG in Turkish is the fact that Turkish shows non-final stress in
some instances, e.g. exceptional root stress and instances in which certain affixes/clitics affect stress assignment
(p.316). Since such instances violate the regular word stress assignment rule, they motivate a CG level in the
prosodic hierarchy (p.317, 327, 333-336, 340-343). Therefore, the CG is proposed as a solution to the irregular
prosodic behaviour of some affixes and clitics, and is extended to compounds as well.

20
in phonological phrases, a strong stress is observed at the location of the primary stress of each
PWd included in the phrase (in contrast to the findings of the pilot study above).
Kabak and Vogel (2001) thus draw a line between PCs and NNCs: they claim that the
secondary stress is involved only in PCs but not NNCs. For them, this shows that compounds are
also distinct from phrases in their prosody, in addition to their syntactic and potential semantic
distinctions. Their contrastive examples are given in (20), where the second word carries stress
only in the phrasal structure PC (20b) (p.351, their example (64)):

(20) a. subáy elbise-si b. subay-ín elbise-sí

military-officer dress-sI military-officer-GEN dress-sI
‘uniform for military officers’ ‘the military officer’s uniform’

They propose that the CG constituent is the domain for compounds, and that if the members of a
compound were directly assigned to the PPh domain rather than the CG, we would expect the
stress on each word to be retained in this case, too; also we would not be able to account for the
distinction between CG and the next higher constituent, PPh, which is the uppermost constituent
for them (2001:340).
There are, however, two points to make concerning the inclusion of CG in the prosodic
hierarchy and resolving the prosodic distinction between CG and PPh. The uppermost
constituent in Kabak & Vogel 2001 is the PPh. However, Nespor & Vogel (1986), Hayes (1989),
Selkirk (1995), and Gussenhoven (2004), among others, propose another level, which is higher
than the PPh in the hierarchy: Intonational Phrase (i-phrase), which carries the “nuclear (pitch)
accent” of sentential structures. Kan (2009) proposes this level for Turkish and claims that PPh is
not the highest prosodic level: the i-phrase level is above the PPh level, and the stress assignment
rule of the i-phrase level is distinct from that of the PPh level.21 This proposal enables us to
account for compounds without a CG level. Note that Selkirk (1995) and Koch (2008:186)
propose to eliminate the CG from the hierarchy. Given these considerations and the results of the
pilot study, I would suggest that CG is not necessary for NNCs in Turkish.

21
Kan 2009 proposes that in focus-neutral contexts, phrase stress is assigned to the leftmost PWd within a PPh,
while i-phrase stress is assigned to the rightmost PPh within an i-phrase (p.97). Kan’s evidence for the distinction
between i-phrase and PPh levels comes from tonal marking, pause distribution, head prominence, and vowel
lengthening in i-phrase final positions. See Kan 2009 Ch.4 and Ch.5 for a detailed discussion.

21
 The second important issue concerns Kabak & Vogel’s (2001) claim that there is a
distinction between the prosody of phrases and the prosody of compounds. According to our
pilot study (above), however, both NNCs and PCs contain a phrasal level stress falling on the
first constituent at the PPh level. Furthermore, the value of -sI seems not to be higher in PCs than
NNCs (see (18), (19) and Appendix C). Also, as a native speaker, I do not perceive any prosodic
distinction between the examples in (20). Therefore, it is more likely that NNCs show PPh level
stress based on the prosodic values and perceptions: they must be PPhs with a phrasal stress.
In §2.2, I addressed the prosodic properties of NNCs. According to the results of the pilot
study, NNCs must be phonological phrases since they appear to show phrasal stress. Our pilot
study also showed that the prosody of NNCs is not different from the prosody of NPs including
PCs: they are not “phonological” words.

2.3 Turkish NNCs and Vowel Harmony

NNCs do not obey the phonological processes that simplex words do. For example, the
constituents of an NNC do not require vowel harmony, which is the basic process of Turkish
phonology: all vowels in a word agree in terms of the frontness-backness dimension: a, ı, o, u vs.
e, i, ö, ü (IPA: [ɑ, ɨ, o, u] vs. [e, i, ø, y] ); all syllables in a word must obey this backness
(palatal) harmony. Also, high vowels agree with the preceding vowel in terms of roundness: /a,
e, ɨ, i/ can be followed by /a, e, ɨ , i/, thus, unrounded followed by unrounded, and /o, ø, u, y/
can be followed by /a, e, u, y/, thus, rounded followed by low-unrounded or high-rounded.
Adjacent syllables must obey this rounding (labial) harmony. Constituents of NNCs, nonetheless,
do not necessarily obey either harmony as a whole, as in dağ gül-ü ‘mountain rose’ in which /ɑ/
is followed by /y/ which violates labial harmony as well as backness harmony.22
Thus, NNCs do not behave like phonological words since the second constituent of an
NNC does not necessarily follow the first constituent in terms of the backness and labial
harmonies even if the constituents are harmonic as single words.

22
The reader could refer to Göksel & Kerslake (2005:21-25) for vowel harmony in Turkish.

22
2.4 Semantics of Turkish NNCs

In this section, we will consider a set of semantic concepts in NNCs. The first is semantic
headedness, which means that one of the constituents is semantically superior to the other: the
reference of the whole compound is a subset of the head and the head is the superordinate
constituent. Namely, ‘X+Y+sI’ refers to a type of ‘Y’. Second, I will focus on the semantic
relationship between the constituents of NNCs, i.e. the relationship between the modifier and the
head. The type of modification is crucial for this study since I will conclude that the semantic
relation in Turkish NNCs is the most important semantic factor involved in their interpretation: it
is a key criterion for Turkish NNCs (§2.4.5). Further, I will address the lexical semantic classes
of the constituents. I will argue against previous studies which claim that an expected collocation
of the semantic classes of the constituents is essential in NNCs. Next, I will refer to the notion of
transparency. Finally, I will discuss the referential properties of the constituents of NNCs, which
will be crucial again, since we will see that referentiality is another defining criterion for NNCs
in Turkish.

2.4.1 The Relation of Association

The semantic relations involved in NNCs are crucial. I characterize the semantic relation
between the two nouns as a type of association, following Giegerich (2009), who distinguishes
modification via “association” from modification via “ascription”. Unlike ascription, in
association, the meaning of the first linguistic element does not refer to a property; rather, it
generally functions as the source, purpose, location, etc. of the meaning of the second noun as
illustrated in (21).23 I will simply call these association relations “ASN (association) functions”
henceforth. They distinguish the semantics of NNCs from the semantics of NPs, ascription. (21)
illustrates some ASN relations by means of functions which they correspond to, e.g. FROM
(‘source’) (see §2.4.5 for the complete list of ASN functions in Turkish):

23
See also Göksel (1989:382) and Uygun (2009:164), who address the same problem.

23
(21) a. yoğurt çorba-sı b. yoğurt kaşığ-ı
yogurt soup-sI yogurt spoon-sI
‘yogurt soup’ ‘yogurt spoon’
(soup made from yogurt) (spoon used for yogurt)
ASN: FROM (‘source’) ASN: FOR (‘purpose’)

c. kadın beyn-i d. kadın dergi-si

woman brain-sI woman magazine-sI
‘woman brain’ ‘women’s magazine’
(brain of women) (magazine for women)
ASN: OF (‘belonging to’) ASN: FOR

e. mutluluk resm-i f. mutluluk iksir-i

happiness picture-sI happiness potion-sI
‘happiness picture’ ‘happiness potion’
(picture related to happiness) (potion for happiness)
ASN: ABOUT (‘association’: default ASN) ASN: FOR

g. kestane şeker-i h. kestane kabuğ-u

chestnut candy-sI chestnut shell-sI
‘chestnut candy’ ‘chestnut shell’
(candy made of chestnut) (shell of chestnut)
ASN: FROM ASN: OF

i. çocuk yazar-ı j. çocuk akl-ı

child author-sI child mind-sI
‘children’s author’ ‘child’s mind’
(author writing for children) (mind of children)
ASN: FOR ASN: OF

As we see, not all of the examples involve a ‘belonging to’ or ‘possession’ relation in (21). I
assume that the type of association may vary, but association is the superordinate (basic) and
default relation which can be expressed more specifically with its subtypes. I also consider this
distinctive semantics of NNCs to be a counterexample for the Fregean Principle according to
which the meaning of a complex expression is determined by the meanings of its constituent
expressions (see the discussion in Heim & Kratzer 1998, for example). Therefore, the semantics
involved in compounds is different from that of NPs, as the examples in (22) indicate:

24
 NP: NNC:
(22) a. parlak taş b. ay taş-ı
brilliant stone moon stone-sI
‘a/the brilliant stone’ ‘moon rock’
(a/the stone which IS brilliant) (a stone OF the moon)

The association relation and its type, OF, in (22b), is an additional semantic component which is
necessary for the correct semantic interpretation of the compound as well as the combination of
the meanings of the nouns. Namely, we need the meaning OF (‘belonging to’) in addition to the
meanings ‘moon’ and ‘stone’ in (22b). Although this semantic element (the relevant ASN
relation) is necessary, it is not expressed overtly. This type of semantics, however, is not
involved in NPs, as in (22a), where the meaning of the first constituent simply refers to a
property of the meaning of the second constituent. Namely, a ‘brilliant stone’ is ‘a stone which is
brilliant’. Thus, it remains to be established whether the semantics of NNCs as in (22b) is
“compositional” in the general sense. Partee (1995), for example, considers that the semantics of
NNCs is a limitation of compositionality. According to her, there is no general rule for predicting
the interpretation of the combination in compounds: a toy store is ‘a store that sells toys’, a toy
box is ‘a box that holds toys’, etc. “Semantics in general do not expect a semantic theory to
provide a compositional semantics for compounds but do expect a compositional semantics for
modifier-head construction...It is an interesting question what a semantic theory should say about
compounds…” (p.337-338). Similarly, Di Sciullo (2009) and Jackendoff (2009) note that the
meaning of NNCs is distinct in terms of compositionality. In §4.3, as a part of my formal
analysis, I provide an answer to this problem, i.e. how we can account for the semantics of NNCs
or the semantic rule applying in NNCs.
§2.4.1 focused on the semantic relationship between the constituents of NNCs, which I
call ASN functions. ASN functions make NNCs different from NPs since there is an additional
semantic component in addition to the meaning of the constituents in NNCs. ASN functions
include different types of association. Rather than referring to a property of the second
constituent, the meaning of the first noun is “associated with” the second by means of a covert
ASN function.

25
2.4.2 Predicate Deletion in NNCs

The semantics of NNCs is complex, as we have seen. Various authors have attempted to give
distinct analyses for NNC semantics. This section addresses the assumption that there exists a
predicate responsible for the semantics of NNCs, as in Marchand 1969 and Levi 1978. In this
view, however, there is an underlying syntactic structure, and NNCs are generated by the
deletion of its predicate. I will address Levi 1978 as the representer of this view.24
Levi’s (1978:50) semantic account follows from her syntactic analysis of NNCs (Levi’s
“complex nominals”: NNCs and nominalizations), which I will also address in §3.3 when
discussing the syntactic approach to compounding. She proposes that NNCs are derived from an
underlying syntactic structure containing a head noun and a relative clause. Thus, the deleted
predicate comes from this structure. She specifies a set of “Recoverably Deletable Predicates”,
which are the only predicates involved and deleted in the formation of NNCs. These predicates
are nine in total: CAUSE, HAVE, MAKE, BE, USE, FOR, IN, ABOUT, and FROM. She claims that these
semantic relations are limited within a range of possibilities (p.76).
A counterargument to the predicate deletion comes from Downing (1977), who proposes
that there are two types of compounds: compounds which refer to name-worthy entities versus
deictic compounds which are context-dependent. Downing claims that novel compounds used in
conversations (deictic compounds) are based on relationships derived from temporary states, e.g.
apple-juice seat, ‘the seat in front of which a glass of apple-juice had been placed’.25 However,
she claims that compounds are not generated from underlying clausal structures since
compounds serve different functions from those of sentences (they serve to “refer to” rather than
to “assert”) (p.822, 838).
As does Downing (1977), I assume that NNCs fulfill the function of naming and
economy. I also assume that the fact that an economical NNC such as ev para-sı (house money-
sI) ‘house money’ is meaningfully similar to a syntactic expression such as ev için para (house
for money) ‘money for the house’ or ev-e para (house-DAT money) ‘money for the house’ is a
semantic issue, and does not require any syntactic operation. In other words, for a given semantic

24
Marchand (1969) analyzes two main groups of compounds: verbal combinations where the underlying verb
appears overtly, e.g. shoemaker, and non-verbal combinations where the underlying verb is covert, e.g. broomstick.
25
Downing (1977) suggests that the constraints on deictic compounds are not very severe, and that lexicalization of
a compound from the latter type, deictic compounds, such as apple juice seat is very unlikely, since it is based on a
temporary relationship.

26
relation, we can use compounding or phrase formation. This is semantics, not syntax. I will
return to this issue in §3.4.2, when evaluating the syntactic approach to compounding.
Whether one calls ASN functions predicates or not, what is crucial here is that the ASN
functions are involved in the meaning of NNCs although they are not expressed overtly, and that
the way these meaning components are linked to the whole meanings of NNCs is different from
the semantic combination of NPs, which are compositional. Therefore, although I do not follow
the view arguing for deleted predicates, there is a common element to this view and what is
claimed here: the existence of a covert semantic component in NNCs (Levi’s predicates or my
ASN functions).26
This section briefly discussed the view which argues for underlying predicates (and
transformational rules) in the formation of NNCs. However, I argue that we do not need to
assume underlying syntactic structures in order to account for the semantics of NNCs on the
grounds that we can paraphrase NNCs. Rather, we should consider this issue to be one of
semantics and recognize that similar semantics can be expressed by compounds as well as
phrasal units.

2.4.3 Lexical Semantics

In this section, I argue that a collocation of semantic classes of the constituents in NNCs is not
the fundamental semantic property determining the meaning of NNCs. I suggest that semantic
classes must play a role, but not the primary role in the interpretation of NNCs. Semantic classes
seem to affect the frequency of a relation used in NNCs. For example, we might find a FROM
relation more often with a non-head constituent referring to a natural object rather than an
artificial object, e.g. gül losyon-u (rose lotion-sI) ‘rose lotion: lotion FROM rose’. This shows the
role of lexical semantic classes. However, it is possible to create novel examples without this
collocation, but which can still be interpreted easily, e.g. araba gürültü-sü (car noise-sI) ‘car
noise: noise FROM cars’, in which the modifier does not refer to a natural object. This

26
According to Scalise and Bisetto (2009:44), the fact that the relation between the constituents of compounds is not
expressed overtly makes compounds special, e.g. apron string vs. string of the apron. They propose that the type of
relationship between the compound constituents is the determining criterion for the classification of compound
types.

27
observation raises the question of how we can interpret and create novel NNCs even when there
is no expected collocation (or lexical harmony) between the constituents.
Allen (1978:91) emphasizes the role of lexical semantics in NNCs: there is a range of
possible and impossible meanings due to lexical semantics. She considers some relations to be
more likely than others, and calls this variability “Variable-R”, which expresses the interaction
of the hierarchies of semantic features of the two nominal elements. She notes that the compound
water-mill, means ‘mill powered by water’; however, it may also mean ‘mill which produces
water’, ‘mill located near the water’, ‘mill for analyzing the content of water’, or ‘mill where the
employees drink water’, but not ‘mill which lives near the water’, ‘mill which drinks water’, or
‘mill made out of water’, for example. She argues that an NNC names possible relationships
between the two nouns, but it is usage which makes one of the relationships possible for naming
a specific item. For her, it is the Variable-R which establishes a range of possible and impossible
meanings for a given compound, and this set of meanings is specified in terms of the semantic
feature sets of the constituents of the compounds (p.92-93).
Dede 1978 is another study claiming that the lexical semantics is essential in the
meanings of NNCs. Following Downing (1977), Dede claims that the appropriate modifiers are
chosen based upon the semantic properties and the semantic class of the head noun. She
identifies a set of lexical semantic constraints on NNCs (1978:84-96). One of these is that the
first noun cannot be an essential element for the semantic definition of the head noun, nor can it
be completely out of its semantic scope. The compound insan hastane-si (human hospital-sI)
‘hospital for people’, for example, is considered ungrammatical by Dede since the first element
is essential for the second (hospitals are normally for humans) (p.85-86).
Similarly, Downing (1977) points to lexical semantics as a factor affecting compounding
relationships: there should be a clearly perceivable relationship between the referents of both
nouns (1977:824). She claims that if the cooccurrence of the two elements is not allowed
pragmatically or definitionally, there should exist no relationship between the two nouns.
Therefore, for Downing too, lexical (and pragmatic) collocations are essential to the semantics of
NNCs.
I would, however, argue that lexical semantics and semantic classes are not as crucial as
claimed, and that Dede’s (1978) example above can be acceptable in an appropriate context such
as burası normal insan hastane-si, hayvanlara bakmazlar ‘this place is a normal human hospital,

28
they do not examine animals here’. NNCs can certainly be formed without an expected
collocation as in insan hastane-si. For example, the NNC insan ev-i (human house-sI) ‘human
house’ was used by a group of fairies in the movie Tinker Bell ve Peri Kurtaran ‘Tinker Bell and
The Great Fairy Rescue’. The NNC insan şehr-i (human city-sI) ‘human city’ is another actual
example used in a documentary.
Importantly, even if such examples may be considered unacceptable in the absence of
appropriate contexts, it is possible to interpret the semantic relation between the two nouns: FOR
between insan and hastane, and OF between insan and ev, above. Consider another Turkish
example, insan zihn-i (human mind-sI) ‘human mind’. Although we generally do not associate
creatures other than humans with “mind”, the collocation of insan and zihin is possible in this
compound. Such a compound should be ungrammatical due to redundancy if we take lexical
semantics as fundamental, which is not the case, however. insan zihn-i is grammatical and
acceptable as is the English equivalent, human mind. This fact is important as it indicates that the
existence of an ASN function is not dependent upon lexical semantics, semantic classes, or
pragmatics. Other compounds whose non-head constituents are semantically redundant (in
Dede’s sense) are çocuk masal-ı (child tale-sI) ‘tale’ and sabah kahvaltı-sı (morning breakfast-sI)
‘breakfast’: these examples must be ungrammatical, again, according to Dede’s (1978) claim,
since the former contains çocuk ‘child’ as the non-head constituent and we know that tales are
already for children normally. Similarly, in the latter example the non-head constituent sabah
‘morning’ is redundant since breakfast is for morning. However, these examples are grammatical
and frequent.27
Consider the following NNCs, which are also counterexamples for the existence of a
strict constraint regarding the semantic classes. In these examples, I use the same abstract head
noun bilinç ‘conscience’ whereas the non-head nouns include a human being, an abstract noun,
and a synthetic object, respectively: çocuk bilinc-i (child conscience-sI) ‘children’s conscience’,
kardeşlik bilinc-i (sisterhood conscience-sI) ‘consciousness about sisterhood ’, kitap bilinc-i
(book conscience-sI) ‘awareness for books/reading’. These examples illustrate that the same
(head) noun can appear with a range of nouns from different semantic classes.

27
It seems that such examples whose modifier nouns are one of the essential components of the head nouns involve
reinforcing.

29
 One of Dede’s (1978) examples for the claim that the modifier noun is chosen on the
basis of the semantic properties of the head noun is çiftlik hırsız-ı (farm thief-sI) with the
intended meaning ‘a person who steals a farm’, which she considers ungrammatical. Dede claims
that the head noun hırsız ‘thief’ has a restricted number of modifier nouns: the modifier noun
should refer to some entity that can be stolen, perhaps it needs the feature [+ moveable].
Therefore she considers çiftlik hırsız-ı ‘farm thief’ ungrammatical unlike at hırsız-ı ‘horse thief’,
çanta hırsız-ı ‘purse thief’, and çocuk hırsız-ı ‘child thief’ (1978:95).28
Note however that çiftlik hırsız-ı is not an ungrammatical formation in Turkish. It can
mean ‘someone who is thieving IN farms’ or ‘thief FOR farms’ or even ‘thief ABOUT farms’ with
the paraphrase ‘someone deceiving people by buying and selling their farms’. Therefore, I do not
follow Dede’s claim that the semantic properties of the head noun play an essential role in
determining the first noun (1978:91-95, 110). I suggest that the lexical semantics of the head
noun might be considered important; however, it is not so crucial as claimed, since it does not
imply anything about the grammatical aspect of NNCs.
I attribute the lexical semantic constraints proposed by Downing (1977) and Dede (1978)
to pragmatics rather than semantics, since examples such as insan hastane-si ‘human hospital’,
insan zihn-i ‘human mind’, insan ev-i ‘human house’, or çocuk masal-ı ‘children’s tale’ are not
ungrammatical; we can interpret the semantic relation that they hold and produce them in
suitable contexts.29 The examples insan zihn-i and çocuk masal-ı in fact appear very frequently
as noted. Downing’s and Dede’s strict lexical semantic constraints thus do not seem to work
invariably. Such constraints appear in some cases, especially when we produce an NNC for the
naming function. However, what is crucial semantically is not the semantic classes of the
constituents in NNCs. Rather, I propose that it is ASN functions, which exist even in
pragmatically unexpected examples. Lexical semantic constraints is something we need to
consider after we have accounted for the ASN functions.Whatever pragmatic context NNCs are
formed in, once NNCs are formed, they always involve a certain type of ASN relation.

28
Unlike Downing 1977 and Dede 1978, for whom it is the head noun and its semantic class which determine the
possible relations in NNCs, Gagné (2002) suggests that it is the modifier noun which affects the relation more than
the head, since according to her study, the availability of the relation is determined by the modifier. In the current
study, I focus on the “type” of relations that are allowed in NNCs and their “representation”; therefore, whether one
constituent is conceptually more effective in determining the relations is beyond the scope of this study.
29
I myself have observed the following utterance by a native speaker: “Şu yoldan insan tren-i geçecekmiş, yani
yolcu treni.” ‘It is said that a human train will pass from that way, I meant a passenger train.’

30
 §2.4.3 was dedicated to indicating that the lexical semantics is not so strict as claimed in
some previous studies. What is more, even in cases without an expected collocation of lexical
semantic classes, it is possible to create and interpret NNCs. The reason for this, according to the
current study, is ASN functions, which are involved in the semantic combination and make the
semantic computation possible.

2.4.4 Arguments against a Set of NNC Relations

In this section, I address the view arguing against a set of semantic relationships involved in
NNCs. Downing (1977), for example, claims that the semantic relationship in NNCs cannot be
characterized on the basis of a finite list of relationships. She proposes to reduce all the
underlying relationships to one: ‘related to’, and leave the rest to context.
Downing (1977) stresses the effect of context on the semantic relationships between
nouns: relations are not predictable in the absence of a context. One of her examples is human
door produced by her subjects in a naming task (this example is similar to Dede’s (1978)
example insan hastane-si ‘human hospital’). For Downing, this compound is normally not
expected due to the redundant relationship between humans and doors. However, in a picture
involving separate doors for a cat, for a dog, and for a person, human door and person door were
produced by her subjects, which she attributes to the role of redundancy and context. Thus, she
proposes that predictability is directly related to context and claims that any attempt arguing for a
finite set of compounding relationships is unnecesary (p.833). This means that the semantic
relation in NNCs follows from the context and semantic classes, but not from a certain set of
relations.
Kay and Zimmer (1976) and Spencer (2011) also argue against a finite set of
relationships in NNCs. Kay and Zimmer claim that the compound finger cup, for example, may
have several interpretations such as ‘cup held between the tips of the fingers’, cup that holds one
finger of whiskey’, ‘cup that holds two fingers of whiskey’, ‘cup for washing one’s fingers in’,
‘cup that is shaped like a finger’, and so on (p.29). They argue that all of these interpretations
require a distinct semantic relation between finger and cup, which implies that there cannot be a

31
restricted set of relations involved in nominal compounds (p.29).30 31
Similarly, for Spencer
(2011:481), the relation in NNCs could be any relation, and is determined pragmatically.
In §2.4.4, I addressed the view that a certain set of semantic relations in NNCs is
unnecessary. In contrast to this view, however, in §2.4.3, I showed that there exists a relationship
between the two nouns even if the cooccurrence of the two elements is not expected
pragmatically or definitionally as in the actual examples insan ev-i ‘human house’ and insan
zihn-i ‘human mind’. In the next section, I will argue for a certain set of relations which are
independent from context: ASN functions.

2.4.5 ASN Functions in Turkish

In this section, I propose a certain set of semantic relations, ASN functions, used in Turkish N-N
compounding. I argue that this set is not determined by lexical semantic classes or pragmatics,
but by the semantic component: ASN functions are part of grammar. Unlike Downing 1977, I
argue that it is not the semantic relation that is determined by the context, but which semantic
relation is used when multiple relations are possible due to lexical semantics. Compounds such
as human door or human hospital can be easily interpreted as ‘a door/hospital FOR humans’ in
the absence of a context. This means that the speaker/hearer is aware of the fact that there is an
ASN function in these compounds and that it is FOR, without context. Namely, it is not the case
that such compounds are uninterpretable or ungrammatical. What context would do here is to
probably increase the degree of acceptability of such examples, which are already grammatical.
Crucially, examples such as human door, human hospital or human house, which are
grammatical and whose semantics can be identified without a context, point to the fact that the
NNC semantics is formed at a separate level from pragmatics rather than showing that they are
context-dependent. Given these considerations, I propose that NNCs (in Turkish) involve a
certain set of semantic relations, which is not necessarily context-dependent, and in which the
default relation is ‘association’ = ‘relatedness’ = ABOUT.

30
Kay and Zimmer (1976), however, note that the semantics of NNCs is specific: the relation between the two
nouns is not explicit and it is evoked by the construction in English.
31
For Kay & Zimmer’s (1976) example above, we can propose the relations FOR, ABOUT, and LIKE, which will work
for all the possible interpretations.

32
 Note that Levi 1978 and Pounder 2000 also argue for a finite set of semantic relations in
NNCs. Unlike Levi, however, I argue that ASN functions are (probably universal) semantic
relations, but do not derive from underlying syntactic structures. Unlike Pounder, who argues for
a finite set of word-formational semantic functions involved in both compounding and
derivations, I argue that ASN functions are not limited to derivation and compounding, but can
also be involved in inflectional morphology. My proposal is thus closer to Beard’s (1995)
Unitary Grammatical Function Hypothesis (UGF), and Jackendoff’s generative semantic
component (2009).32 I follow Beard’s claim that derivation and inflection are determined by the
same set of universal grammatical functions involved in the semantic derivation of words and
inflectional relations such as case (1995:205, Ch.13).33 Unlike Beard, however, who considers
these functions not to belong to semantics, I assume that these functions are “semantic
functions”, i.e. they constitute a specific set, a subset of grammatical functions, within the
semantic component of grammar.34
Pounder (2000) proposes a finite set of relations used in NNCs as well as derivation by
distinguishing word-formation meaning from lexical meaning, and taking the former as a
dynamic phenomenon (p.97-100). She uses relations/functions to express word-formation
meanings, and provides examples with these meanings from both compounding and derivation. It
is notable for our purposes that she identifies the same semantic relations used in both
compounding and derivation. For her, there is a subset relation between the semantics of NNCs
and word-formation semantics. One of her relations is LIKE, which we find in the compound

32
As I argue here, Jackendoff (2009) also proposes that the possible relations in NNCs are created within semantics,
which is a generative system in his work.
33
The following examples show that the same semantic functions may be involved in compounding and inflectional
morphology: “BY” in the NNC telefon mesaj-ı (telephone message-sI) ‘telephone message’ and the NP telefon-la
mesaj (telephone-BY message) ‘a message by phone’; “OF” in the NNC çocuk psikoloji-si (child psychology-sI)
‘child psychology’ and the NP (PC) çocuğ-un psikoloji-si (child-GEN psychology) ‘a/the child’s psychology’; “AT”
in the NNC deniz yolculuğ-u (sea travel-sI) ‘voyage’ vs. the NP deniz-de yolculuk (sea-LOC travel) ‘a/the travel at
sea’, etc.
34
For Beard, semantics comprises general cognition and cognitive functions whereas the functions involved in
derivation and case are relational primitives and occupy a distinct grammatical level (1995:205-206, 215). However,
Beard makes a second point and notes that these grammatical functions are either selected from a wider set of
semantic categories by Universal Grammar (following Talmy 1978), or they represent a unique set between
semantics and syntax (1995:208). I adopt this second point in that I assume that these grammatical relations (in
which ASN functions constitute a subset, in my study) are functional semantic categories: they belong to the
semantic component but they have grammatical functions. With regard to the organization of the semantic
component, it is beyond the scope of this study.

33
moonface and the German derivation kindlich ‘childlike’ from kind ‘child’, for example
(2000:113-114).35
As noted above, I claim that there is a group of semantic relationships used in NNC
formation in Turkish, and that these relations constitute a variety of more specific types of the
default ABOUT (Downing’s ‘related to’, or Pounder’s ‘with respect to’), as shown in (23). I claim
that these functions are inserted from the semantic component during the formation of NNCs;
therefore, they cannot be pragmatic:

(23) ASN Functions in Turkish:

a. ASSOCIATION = ABOUT
b. ASSOCIATION via SOURCE = FROM
c. ASSOCIATION via BELONGING TO = OF
d. ASSOCIATION via PURPOSE = FOR
e. ASSOCIATION via PART-WHOLE = WITH2
f. ASSOCIATION via LOCATION = IN-ON-AT
g. ASSOCIATION via MEANS = BY
h. ASSOCIATION via IDENTIFICATION = LABEL36

The relationships listed in (23) are functions semantically, and the meanings of the nouns
in NNCs are the arguments of these functions (see §4.3 for the semantic combination). No matter
how many different paraphrases an NNC can have, it can be expressed by at least one (the
default) of these functions. I assume that we have three groups of NNCs: the first group of
examples are semantically fully transparent even in the absence of a given context, e.g. peach
tree. The second group of examples allows multiple relations and needs a context for the
intended interpretation. However, this does not mean that it is the context which creates the
meaning (as discussed in §2.4.3). A given context only helps to determine the type of ASN
function when multiple ones are possible. In fruit sugar, for instance, the possible ASN functions
are FOR, FROM and IN. fruit sugar can mean ‘sugar put onto fruit’ (FOR), ‘sugar found in fruit:

35
See Pounder 2000 (p.110-123) for other relations and examples from both compounding and derivations involving
these relations.
36
This function is distinct from other ASN functions: the non-head constituent functions as the name or the specific
type of the referent of head constituent within a list or category, e.g. 1 sayı-sı (1 number-sI) ‘(number) 1’. This,
however, does not necessitate a specific analysis for such examples. They behave like other NNCs.

34
fructose’ (OF), and ‘sugar made from fruit’ (FROM). It is not the context but the grammar
(semantic component) to which these functions belong to. Another ambiguous example is anne
sevgi-si (mother love-sI) ‘love FOR mother’ or ‘love FROM mother’. The intended meaning can
be obtained pragmatically in such cases, which, however, does not, again, mean that it is the
pragmatic context that ASN functions belong to. The third group includes examples whose
semantic relation is not very specific although the meanings of the examples are not ambiguous.
Such examples involve the default relation, ABOUT, whether there is a context or not, as in ipek
böceğ-i (silk bug-sI) ‘silk worm’, which is not ambiguous and involves the default relation. This
example means ‘a bug related to silk in a way’, which is not as specific as in the other types of
association. Below I illustrate more examples involving ASN functions proposed in (23):

ABOUT: gurur mesele-si (pride matter-sI) ‘matter for pride’, iş durum-u (work case-sI) ‘job
issue’, göz doktor-u (eye doctor-sI) ‘ophthalmologist’, çiçek uzman-ı (flower expert-sI) ‘flower
expert’, bilim insan-ı (science human-sI) ‘scientist’, çevre sorun-u (environment problem-sI)
‘environmental problem’, tatil hayal-i (holiday dream-sI) ‘holiday dream’, etc.

37
FROM: kestane şeker-i (chestnut candy-sI) ‘chestnut candy’, badem süt-ü (almond milk-sI)
‘almond milk’, domates çorba-sı (tomato soup) ‘tomato soup’, toz bulut-u (dust cloud-sI) ‘dust
cloud’, ateş top-u (fire ball-sI) ‘fireball’, sevgi sel-i (love flood-sI) ‘love flood: lots of love’, etc.

38
OF: kahve koku-su (coffee smell-sI) ‘coffee smell’, gece yarı-sı (night half-sI) ‘midnight’, kış
meyve-si (winter fruit-sI) ‘winter fruit’, balıkçı tekne-si (fisher boat-sI) ‘fisher boat’, başarı
olasılığ-ı (success probability-sI) ‘probability of success’, bilgisayar ekran-ı (computer screen-
sI) ‘computer screen’, etc.

37
Apparently, the relation FROM is widely used for both concrete and abstract relations including origin and cause-
effect (see Nikiforidou 1991 for a detailed discussion).
38
Note that I assume that ‘whole-part’ relations, in which the first constituents are wholes, as in kitap kapağ-ı (book
cover-sI) ‘book cover’, ağaç dal-ı (tree branch-sI) ‘tree branch’, or aile üye-si (family member-sI) ‘family member’,
etc, involve OF. Therefore, I do not list ‘whole-part’ as a separate function in (23). Unlike whole-part, which is
included in OF, I show ‘part-whole’ relations, in which the first constituents are parts, as a separate function in (23):
the intrinsic WITH = WITH2 in Turkish. I label part-whole relations as WITH2, which is distinct from the non-intrinsic
WITH1 ‘ornativity’.

35
FOR: su bardağ-ı (water glass-sI) ‘water glass’, tatlı tabağ-ı (dessert plate-sI) ‘dessert plate’,
öksürük şurub-u (cough syrup-sI) ‘cough syrup’, nişan yüzüğ-ü (engagement ring-sI)
‘engagement ring’, resim defter-i (picture notebook-sI) ‘drawing book’, çocuk bahçe-si (child
garden-sI) ‘children’s park’, etc.

WITH2: şeftali ağac-ı (peach tree-sI) ‘peach tree’, gül bahçe-si (rose garden-sI) ‘rose garden’,
yağmur orman-ı (rain forest-sI) ‘rain forest’, deniz memleket-i (sea country-sI) ‘a city by the
sea’, çilek sepet-i (strawberry basket-sI) ‘strawberry basket’, etc.

IN-ON-AT: çalı kuş-u (bush bird-sI) ‘scrub bird’, su bale-si (water ballet-sI) ‘water ballet’, buz
paten-i (ice skating-sI) ‘ice skating’, dünya tur-u (world tour-sI) ‘world tour’, etc.

BY: uçak seyahat-i (plane trip-sI) ‘air travel’, telefon mesaj-ı (telephone message-sI) ‘telephone
message’, söz savaş-ı (word war-sI) ‘word war’, elektrik süpürge-si (electric broom-sI) ‘vacuum
cleaner’, su değirmen-i (water mill-sI) ‘water mill’, etc.

LABEL: çam ağac-ı (pine tree-sI) ‘pine tree’, fizik ders-i (physics lesson-sI) ‘physics lesson’,
2013 yıl-ı (2013 year-sI) ‘(the year) 2013’, Van Göl-ü (Van lake-sI) ‘Lake Van’, 2 sayı-sı (2
number-sI) ‘2’, Hacettepe Üniversite-si (Hacettepe university-sI) ‘Hacettepe University’, etc.39

Besides the root NNCs involving the various ASN functions as illustrated above, we
might also form NNCs in which the first nouns function as the agent, experiencer, or the theme
argument of the second noun in paraphrases. Such NNCs, however, are not root compounds but
deverbal, e.g. kar yağış-ı (snow fall-NML-sI) ‘snow fall’, elektrik çarp-ma-sı (electric shock-
NML-sI) ‘electric shock’, and posta teslim-i (mail delivery-sI) ‘mail delivery’. As compounds,
these examples involve the relations OF, BY, and OF, respectively. Again, the fact that we can
paraphrase them by syntactic units does not show that they have underlying syntactic structures.
39
There is a construction which uses the NNC form although its semantics is slightly different from that of usual
NNCs. This structure is an inverse form of an NP containing an adjective. We can create an NNC such as Ali akıllı-
sı (Ali clever-sI) ‘Ali, the foolish one’ for a comparable NP akıllı Ali (clever Ali) ‘clever Ali’. As we see in the
translation, such NNCs are restricted pragmatically: they usually imply negative impressions about the referent of
the NP. The reason for the use of NNC form here might be the fact that these NNCs hold a LABEL relation. I also
assume that the second stem of these NNCs undergoes conversion, AN, before compounding. I thank Aslı Göksel
for pointing such NNCs out to me.

36
Rather, what is shared between root NNCs, which this study is concerned with, and deverbal
compounds is semantics and form (morphology), but not syntax.
The next task is to determine which relations are not allowed in Turkish NNCs. I propose
that the first of these is ‘ascription’ = BE, which is the semantic relation involved in ordinary NPs
as already discussed (§2.4.1). Note that examples such as gümüş bilezik (silver bracelet) ‘a/the
silver bracelet’ also involve an ascription relation and are not NNCs (see §4.1 for the discussion).
The referent of such examples is a structure which is completely made of the entity that the
modifier noun refers to. Thus, for gümüş bilezik, the paraphrase in Turkish is ‘a bracelet which is
silver’. In Turkish, this type of relation is not association but ascription, which NNCs do not
allow.
Second, I propose that the relation of LIKE (‘comparison’) is not allowed in Turkish
NNCs either, unlike English, for example. When there is a LIKE relation between two nouns, the
way Turkish uses to express this is an NP form. When a child is as brave and strong as a lion, for
example, the linguistic unit expressing this relation is aslan çoçuk (lion child) ‘a/the lion child’
or aslan gibi çoçuk (lion like child) ‘a/the child like a lion’, which are both NPs. I consider such
examples to be NPs since they are separable, as in ben-im aslan, akıllı çocuğ-um (I-GEN lion
clever child-1.POSS) ‘my child who is like a lion and clever’. Using the comparable NNC would
be ungrammatical in this case: *aslan çoçuğ-u (lion child-sI), which would only mean ‘lion’s
baby’. On the other hand, there is a lexicalized NNC which we could use for the meaning ‘as
brave and strong as a lion’: aslan parça-sı (lion piece-sI). In this example, however, the ASN
function is OF rather than LIKE. The lexicalized meaning is ‘as strong as a lion’, but the ASN
function is not LIKE with the componential meaning ‘lion’s piece’.40 41
Comparison by means of an abstract part-whole relation is not involved in Turkish NNCs
either. This relation appears in NPs with comparative and superlative adjectives as in daha zeki
bir çocuk (more smart a child) ‘a smarter child’, and also in PCs as in bu çocuğ-un (daha) zeki-si
(this child-GEN more smart-sI) ‘someone/the one smarter than this child’. Unlike PCs, however,

40
Another similar lexicalized example is ay parça-sı (moon piece-sI) ‘moon-like, as beautiful and white as the
moon’. Again, with the componential reading, the ASN function is OF or FROM, but not LIKE. Note that these
examples support the claim that even lexicalized compounds involve a dynamic level in which ASN functions are
active (see §2.4.6).
41
There seems to be some exceptional examples, however: ay kurabiye-si (moon cookie-sI) ‘moon cookie’, deve
kuş-u (camel bird-sI) ‘ostrich’, pudra şeker-i (powder sugar-sI) ‘icing sugar’, which seem to involve the relation
LIKE.

37
this semantic relation, which I will call ‘partitive comparison’ is not possible in NNCs: *çocuk
zeki-si (child smart-sI) for ‘someone smarter than a child’.42
Another relation not possible in Turkish NNCs is the non-intrinsic WITH1 (‘ornativity’). I
consider that the relation WITH is dual in nature: intrinsic and non-intrinsic. Turkish NNCs allow
only one of these, which is WITH2 corresponding to the meaning ‘part-whole’ (or ‘inclusion’) as
in şeftali ağac-ı (peach tree-sI) ‘peach tree’. In such NNCs, the modifier noun is a part of the
head noun. The second type of WITH relation, which is not intrinsic, is WITH1 corresponding to
the meaning ‘ornativity’; it is allowed only in derivations such as şeftali-li (peach-lI) ‘with
peach(es)’ as in the NP şeftali-li ağaç (peach-lI tree) ‘a tree with peaches’, which is not a peach
tree.43 Another example for WITH1 in derivations by the -lI suffix is kestane-li in the NP kestane-
li şeker (chestnut-lI candy) ‘candy with chestnut’, for example. This means ‘a candy one of
whose ingredients is a chestnut’, or ‘a candy to which some chestnut is added’, rather than ‘its
main ingredient being chestnut’. Consider the comparable NNC for this NP, which is kestane
şeker-i (chestnut candy-sI) with a FROM relation. This NNC means ‘a candy whose “main
ingredient” is a chestnut’. Therefore, I propose that the relation (non-intrinsic) WITH1 is not
involved in Turkish NNCs; instead of it what we find is either intrinsic WITH2 ‘part-whole’ or
FROM ‘source’.44
Note that the fact that there are certain relations which are not allowed in Turkish N-N
compounding provides another piece of support for the existence of a certain set of relations used
in N-N compounding (contra Kay & Zimmer 1976, Downing 1977, Spencer 2011).
In §2.4.5, I argued for a finite set of ASN functions in Turkish, which are part of the
semantic component, thus grammatical, and not context-dependent. Context, of course, plays a
role, which is, however, not to create the ASN function, but to determine which ASN function
there is in the presence of multiple functions due to lexical collocations. In this section, I also
proposed that the default ASN function has more specified types whereas the relations
‘ascription’, ‘comparison’, ‘partitive comparison’, and ‘ornativity’ are not involved in Turkish
NNCs. This, again, shows that the relations allowed between the two nouns cannot be infinite.

42
This compound may only mean ‘someone clever ABOUT/FOR/OF children’ as long as an appropriate context is
provided.
43
Note that WITH2 may also be involved in derivations whose stems are NPs rather than simplex Ns such as [kara
göz]-lü (black eye-lI) ‘dark-eyed’. See §4.2 for the structure of this example.
44
For Pounder (p. c.), however, the meaning distinction between such compounds and derivations is pragmatic.
Namely, the same semantic relation WITH exists in both examples but with a difference at the pragmatic level.

38
2.4.6 Semantic Transparency

Although this study concerns novel NNCs, I will address a few lexicalized NNCs to show the
dynamic aspect of compounding in this section. I will suggest that even lexicalized NNCs, i.e.
NNCs with unpredictable referents, must contain a dynamic level. This shows the importance of
ASN functions and that both novel and lexicalized NNCs are products of the same operation.
There are three notions I will address concerning lexicalized NNCs: ASN functions,
transparency, and componentiality.
Libben (1998:33-35) emphasizes that semantic transparency is significant in compound
representation and processing, since fully transparent compounds with transparent constituents
and partially transparent compounds with one transparent constituent are distinguished from
fully opaque compounds, which have two opaque constituents. He shows this as transparency:
whether the meaning of a compound constituent is the same as its meaning when it is single and
independent. There is one more semantic notion that he addresses, componentiality: whether the
meaning of the compound as a whole is transparent (p.37-38). Based on an experimental study,
he proposes that semantic transparency is decomposed into patterns of constituent properties and
whole-word properties, which signals the structured nature of morphological representations
(p.42-43).45 This point is important since we will consider whether lexicalized NNCs require a
distinct treatment semantically, i.e. what happens to ASN functions in lexicalized NNCs.
I will give Turkish examples for fully transparent, partially transparent, and non-
componential compounds, respectively: aşk şiir-i (love poem-sI) ‘love poem’ in which we have
two transparent elements, and aşk alfabe-si (love alphabet-sI) ‘principles of love’ in which we
have one transparent and one opaque element (alfabe ‘alphabet’ is used for ‘principles’).46 The
non-componential examples would be aşk merdiven-i (love ladder-sI) ‘fern’ and hanım-el-i
(lady-hand-sI) ‘honeysuckle’, for example. In the non-componential examples, the meaning of
the whole compound is not transparent. Both compounds refer to plants. I suggest that non-
componential examples such as aşk merdiven-i and hanım-el-i must have undergone a
lexicalization process following compounding. After the compound formation, which involves

45
Libben’s structured model involves a stimulus, a lexical, and a conceptual level. His subject is a mixed aphasic
patient, who treated all compounds as novel although not all examples were so, and who showed activation for both
transparent and opaque constituents. Libben attributes this fact to the loss of inhibitory process at the conceptual
level (1998:42).
46
No example is provided for a fully opaque NNC since it seems that there is no such example in Turkish.

39
the ASN functions FOR and OF, the NNCs must have obtained new lexical meanings via
metaphor, for example, in the lexicalization process, and then they must have entered the lexicon
with these meanings. We can regard this process as a type of semantic reanalysis. This means
that lexicalized NNCs and novel NNCs are the outputs of the same operation whereas lexicalized
NNCs undergo one more process, which is lexicalization.
The above examples are important as all involve an ASN function whether they are
transparent, opaque or componential: FOR in aşk şiir-i ‘love poem’, OF in aşk alfabe-si
‘principles of love’, and FOR or OF in aşk merdiven-i ‘fern’. The last example is the most
interesting one since although it is lexicalized (non-componential), a native speaker of Turkish
can interpret what type of relation exists between the constituents: FOR or OF. This shows that
there must be a level with the componential meaning ‘love ladder’, which is different from the
level with the non-componential, new meaning: ‘fern’. Turkish speakers must have access to
both levels. This might imply that even lexicalized NNCs involve a dynamic level as novel
NNCs do, and that ASN functions exist in this dynamic level. This observation thus provides
another piece of support for the claim that ASN functions cannot be pragmatic, but grammatical
(§2.4.3, §2.4.5).
In this section, I focused on the notions semantic transparency, componentiality and the
dynamicity of NNCs. I suggest that even lexicalized NNCs appear to have a dynamic level in
which ASN functions are active and to which speakers must have some access despite the
unpredictable referents of these examples.

2.4.7 Referentiality in Turkish NNCs

Another semantic issue is referentiality. The first noun in NNCs has generic reference, and
normally cannot be definite. Due to this, the first noun cannot have pronominal reference.
Consider the example çocuk doktor-u (child doctor-sI) ‘children’s doctor’, for instance. In (24a)
we see that it is not possible to establish a coreference between çocuk and the pronoun onu
‘him/her’. However, in a construction which is not a compound, in a PC for example,
pronominal reference is possible with the first constituent as in (24b):

40
(24) a. {çocuki doktor-u} on-u* i / j kucakla-mış
child doctor-sI (s)he-ACC hug-PERF
‘the children’s doctor hugged her/him’

b. [çocuğ-uni doktor-u] on-ui / j kucakla-mış

child-GEN doctor-sI (s)he-ACC hug-PERF
‘the child’si doctor hugged her/himi / j’

In (24a), the pronoun onu ‘her/him’ can only refer to somebody else outside the context but not
to the referent of the first noun çocuk in the compound, since the first noun has generic reference.
In contrast to (24a), onu in (24b) can refer to either çocuk ‘the child’ or somebody else outside
the context. This fact is important in that it distinguishes the first constituent of an NNC from
that of a PC, which is a syntactic structure (see Ch.6 for PCs). This fact indicates that the first
nouns in NNCs are referentially restricted.
Although the first constituent is not definite most of the time, we may form some
examples in which the first constituent is a proper name such as İstanbul Cadde-si (Istanbul
Street-sI) ‘Istanbul Street’, or Konya şeker-i (Konya candy-sI) ‘Konya candy’. Even in such
examples, the first nouns are not necessarily involved in coreference. For example, we would
expect an obligatory coreference between Istanbul and city in (25) since ‘city’ is included in the
semantic definition of Istanbul. Such coreference, however, is not obligatory:

(25) {İstanbuli Cadde-si} şehr-in?i / j en güzel yer-i

Istanbul road-sI city-GEN most beautiful place-sI
‘Istanbul Road is the most beautiful place of the city’

In (25), the word şehrin can refer to either Istanbul or a city other than Istanbul; in fact, it is more
acceptable for me when it refers to a different city. Therefore, coreference is not obligatory even
though Istanbul is a city. This must result from the fact that the NNC is a word-formation, so its
constituents are limited in referentiality even if they are proper names. Such proper names would
not be restricted like this in phrasal expressions. For example, if we replace the NNC with a PC
in (25), şehrin refers to only Istanbul but not another city, and coreference will be obligatory this
time as in (26). This fact again implies that the first constituent of NNCs differ from that of PCs
referentially.

41
(26) [İstanbul-uni cadde-si] şehr-ini /*j en güzel yer-i
Istanbul-GEN road-sI city-GEN most beautiful place-sI
‘Istanbul’si road is the most beautiful place of the cityi/*j’

To sum up, in this section, we saw that it is hard for the first noun in an NNC to be
involved in a coreference relationship with an outside element, which makes NNCs different
from superficially similar syntactic structures: PCs. This limitation in referentiality also implies
that NNCs must not have a phrasal status.

2.5 Syntactic Behaviour of Turkish NNCs

This section is dedicated to indicating that NNCs do not behave as phrasal units in the syntax.
Their syntactic behaviour is different from that of superficially similar structures, i.e. NPs
including PCs. I will conclude that NNCs are syntactic atoms: their constituents are inseparable
and show a fixed order.
First, I will show that we cannot insert any elements between the nouns in NNCs, such as
a modifier of the second noun in the compound peri toz-u (fairy dust-sI) ‘fairy dust’47 as in
(27a,b). This is an important property of NNCs distinguishing them from NPs, since it is possible
to separate the constituents of a noun phrase such as sihirli toz (magic dust) ‘(the) magic dust’ as
in (28a,b) in contrast to (27a,b):

(27) a. *peri sihirli toz-u b. *peri tüm toz-u

fairy magic dust-sI fairy all dust-sI
for ‘a type of magic dust of a fairy’ for ‘all the dust of a fairy’

(28) a. sihirli beyaz toz b. sihirli tüm toz

magic white dust magic all dust
‘(the) magic white dust’ ‘all (the) magic dust’

The insertion test I used in the examples in (27, 28) shows that the structure of NNCs (27) should
be treated differently from that of NPs (28): constituents of NNCs show non-separability.48

47
Source: “Tinker Bell”.
48
Hayasi 1996, Özsoy 2004, Göksel & Haznedar 2007, and Göksel 2009 point to a limited and non-productive type
of examples which seem to be separable, e.g. maliye eski bakan-ı (finance old minister-sI) ‘former Minister of

42
 Second, it is also impossible to reverse the constituents of NNCs as in (29b), i.e. they
have a fixed order.49 This property makes NNCs distinct from another superficially similar
structure, PC, since it is possible to reverse the constituents in PCs. Let us take the PC peri-nin
toz-u (fairy-GEN dust-sI) ‘the fairy’s dust’, which does not necessarily have a fixed order since it
is reversible as in (29a), unlike the NNC in (29b), which is not:

(29) a. toz-u nerede peri-nin b. *toz-u nerede peri

dust-sI where fairy-GEN dust-sI where fairy
‘Where’s the fairy’s dust?’ for ‘Where’s the fairy dust?’

We can even relativize the non-head constituent of a PC as in (30b), in which the non-head
becomes the head NP modified by the relative clause in (30d). There is no way this will work
with NNCs, however, (30a,c). (30c) does not allow an interpretation involving a compound. The
only interpretation we can get from the string in (30c) involves the meaning of a PC, as in (30d):

(30) a. o {peri toz-u} sahte b. [o peri-nin toz-u] sahte

that fairy dust-sI fake that fairy-GEN dust-sI fake
‘That fairy-dust is fake!’ ‘That fairy’s dust is fake!’

⇩ ⇩

c. *[toz-u sahte (ol-an)]peri d. [toz-u sahte (ol-an)] peri

dust-sI fake be-RL fairy dust-sI fake be-RL fairy
‘the fairy whose dust is fake’

This fact again shows that an NNC is structurally and referentially restricted unlike a PC. Note
also that the determiner o ‘that’ cannot modify only the non-head constituent of the NNC, but
modifies the whole NNC in (30a). However, it modifies only the non-head constituent in (30b).

Finance’ (Göksel’s example (26b) 2009:225, based on Özsoy’s original example Dışişleri eski bakan-ı ‘former
Minister of Foreign Affairs’). I do not assume that such examples pose problems for “non-separability” as these
examples are not productive and their use is highly limited as already noted by the previous studies. Second, I
consider that these compounds involve an embedded phrasal unit rather than separability, with the following
structure: {maliye [eski bakan]}-ı. Note that we cannot add another modifier within this structure: *{maliye çok
[eski bakan]}-ı. Therefore, there is no separability in such examples either.
49
Note that Aronoff and Fudeman (2005:37-38) use “inseparability” and “fixed order” as empirical tests of word-
hood.

43
 Another test I will use is one-replacement, which will show that whereas we can replace
the head noun of a PC with one as in (31b), we cannot replace the head constituent of an NNC
with one (whether we add -sI to one or not) as in (31a). This fact implies that the structure of an
NNC such as peri toz-u ‘fairy dust’ must be different from the structure of a PC such as peri-nin
toz-u ‘the fairy’s dust’, which is clearly syntactic.

(31) a. {sihirbaz toz-u} burada, ama *{peri olan(-ı)} yok

magician dust-sI here but fairy one(-sI) absent
‘the magician dust is here, but the *fairy one is not’

b. [sihirbaz-ın toz-u] burada, ama [peri-nin olan] yok

magician-GEN dust-sI here but fairy-GEN one absent
‘the magician’s dust is here, but the fairy’s one is not’

Another property distinguishing NNCs from PCs concerns omission: the non-head
constituent in PCs is often omitted in the discourse. Such omission of the modifier, however, is
not possible with NNCs. See the examples in (32):

(32) a. Efsun kaydırak-ta

Efsun slide-LOC
‘Efsun is on the slide’

b. kardeş-i salıncak-ta
sister-sI swing-LOC
‘her sister is on the swing’

In (32b), the word kardeş-i (sister-sI) ‘her sister’ lacks the non-head constituent Efsun-un (Efsun-
GEN) ‘Efsun’s’ within the clause it is uttered, but it refers to ‘Efsun’s sister’. Namely, although
kardeş-i refers to Efsun-un kardeş-i (Efsun-GEN sister-sI) ‘Efsun’s sister’, only the word kardeş-i
is apparent and the non-head is omitted in (32b). This type of omission is frequent in the case of
PCs, whereas it is not possible with NNCs, since their non-head constituent is restricted in
referentiality.
Furthermore, the omission of the head noun in PCs is also frequent in contrast to NNCs.
If the head noun of a PC is omitted, however, the non-head noun takes the derivational suffix

44
-ki50 following the genitive case suffix as in (33b):

(33) a. çocuğ-un çikolata-sı ⇨ b. çocuğ-un-ki

child-GEN chocolate-sI child-GEN-ki
‘the child’s chocolate’ ‘the one which belongs to the child’

çocuğ-un-ki in (33b) refers to ‘the child’s chocolate’ above. The head noun in NNCs, however,
cannot be omitted in this way and the -ki suffix cannot attach to the non-head noun in NNCs, in
contrast to PCs.
This section was dedicated to drawing a line between NNCs and NPs including PCs. On
the basis of the differences between NNCs and phrasal units presented in this section, it is
obvious that the internal structure of NNCs is not accessible to syntactic processes. Therefore,
NNCs are syntactically words.51

2.6 Pseudo-NNCs without -sI

2.6.1 N-bilim-sI vs. N-bilim

2.6.1.1 The Problem

There is a set of NNCs which show the same semantic, prosodic, and syntactic properties we
have seen so far, but which seem to be acceptable without -sI. This set involves science terms
such as felsefe-bilim (philosophy science) ‘philosophical science’, anlam-bilim (meaning
science) ‘semantics’, dil-bilim (language science) ‘linguistics’ (addressed in §1.0). While these
forms are preferably used in formal contexts, in casual speech the forms with -sI are used
generally: felsefe bilim-i (philosophy science-sI) ‘philosophical science’, anlam bilim-i (meaning
science-sI) ‘semantics’, dil bilim-i (language science-sI) ‘linguistics’. I attribute the non-
appearance of -sI in the former cases to a concern of neologism, in which a non-native rule of N-

50
When the -ki suffix attaches to noun stems following the genitive case suffix, it produces a relative pronoun
(Bozşahin 2002:29-30) or a pronominal expression (Göksel & Kerslake 2005:68), e.g. we get the relative pronoun
Kenz-in-ki (Kenz-GEN-ki) ‘Kenz’s’ from the PC Kenz-in dede-si (Kenz-GEN grandfather-sI) ‘Kenz’s grandfather’.
For Beard (1995:287), this is a type of derivation called relativization.
51
Sadock (1998) addresses “syntactic atomicity” in English compounds. See §3.5.

45
N compounding, which lacks the compound marker, is used. A good novel example supporting
this is kanat bilim-i (wing science-sI) ‘wingology’, which contains -sI (source: Tinker Bell
Gizemli Kanatlar ‘Tinker Bell Secret of the Wings’). Another important point to make here is the
plural forms of such examples: only the ones with -sI, i.e. the N-bilim-sI formation allows
plurality as in fen bilim-ler-i (physics science-PL-sI) ‘physical sciences’, whereas plural forms of
the examples without -sI, i.e. N-bilim_, are not acceptable: *fen bilim-ler_ (physics science-PL)
for ‘physical sciences’. I thus claim that -sI is also necessary in NNCs with the word bilim
‘science’.52 Note that the results of the survey carried out for this problem (§1.2) shown in
§2.6.1.2 justify this claim.

2.6.1.2 Survey Results

Research Question: Is -sI necessary in NNCs with the head noun bilim ‘science’ despite
examples which lack -sI?
Hypothesis: Speakers feel that -sI is necessary even in NNCs with the head noun bilim ‘science’
despite counterexamples in the standard language.
Number of Experiment Questions: 6 (N-bilim-sI)
Number of Control Questions: 6 (N-bilim_)
Participants: 25

INVESTIGATED NUMBER OF RESPONSES:

ITEM: GOOD (A LITTLE) WEIRD BAD NOT SURE

gül bilim-i (rose science-sI) 21 3 __ 1

gül bilim 12 8 5 __
‘rose science’
aşk bilim-i (love science-sI) 20 5 __ __
aşk bilim 8 10 7 __
‘love science’

52
van Schaaik (1999:159) addresses this set which consists of two nouns without the -sI suffix such as dil-bilim
‘linguistics’ as “pseudo-compounds”. He does not regard them as true compounds simply because they all lack -sI,
and proposes that such forms are stored lexically.

46
 INVESTIGATED NUMBER OF RESPONSES:
ITEM: GOOD (A LITTLE) WEIRD BAD NOT SURE

felsefe bilim-i (philosophy science-sI) 23 2 __ __

felsefe bilim 4 7 14 __
‘philosophical science’
dil bilim-i (language science-sI)53 22 2 3 __
dil bilim 14 8 3 __
‘linguistics’
doğa bilim-i (nature science-sI) 22 3 __ __
doğa bilim 12 6 7 __
‘natural science’
kanat bilim-i (wing science)54 18 3 3 1
kanat bilim 8 6 11 __
‘wingology’

Table 1 below summarizes the approximate percentages of the formations investigated under
Problem 1:

FORMATION ACCEPTED AS GOOD ACCEPTED AS (A LITTLE) WEIRD NOT ACCEPTED

N-N-bilim-sI 84% 12% 4%

N-N-bilim_ 39% 30% 31%

Table 1. First Problem Results (Summary)

Table 1 shows that the majority of the participants prefer N-bilim-sI to N-bilim_, as
hypothesized, which accords with the claim of this study: N-bilim_ is not a native-like
compounding type in Turkish. Only 39% of the participants of the survey accepted the N-bilim_
formation as “good”, whereas the formation with -sI, N-bilim-sI, was accepted as good by 84%,
which is clearly a huge amount. The null hypothesis is that there will be no difference between

53
Note that the Turkish dictionaries of Türk Dil Kurumu (TDK) ‘Turkish Language Society’
(http://www.tdk.gov.tr/) has two entries for ‘linguistics’: dil bilim-i in Güncel Türkçe Sözlük ‘Daily Turkish
Dictionary’ (http://www.tdk.gov.tr/index.php?option=com_gts&view=gts), and dil-bilim in Bilim ve Sanat Terimleri
Sözlüğü ‘Dictionary of Science and Art Terms’
(http://www.tdk.gov.tr/index.php?option=com_bilimsanat&view=bilimsanat).
54
This example was taken from the movie Tinker Bell Gizemli Kanatlar ‘Tinker Bell Secret of the Wings’.

47
the results for N-bilim-sI and N-bilim_. This is rejected since the acceptance rate for N-bilim-sI is
significantly higher than that for N-bilim_ according to Fisher’s Exact test (p < .001, n = 162 for
N-bilim-sI, n = 147 for N-bilim_ ), which confirms my hypothesis.

2.6.2 Other Instances without -sI

Göksel (2009:216) points to another set of NNCs in which the -sI suffix seems to be optional. In
this group we find place names with the word sokak ‘street’ as in Güneş Sokak (sun street)
‘Güneş Street’ vs. Güneş Sokağ-ı (sun street-sI) ‘Güneş Street’, both of which are used by native
speakers. The survey (see §1.2) also tested one case with this problem: the street name with -sI,
Güneş Sokağ-ı was good for 84% of the participants, and the name without -sI, Güneş Sokak,
was good for 72%. Since there is no big difference between the two formations, -sI must be
optional in street names, as Göksel 2009 notes.55
For Lewis (2000:45), -sI tends to drop from place names; he notes that the proper name
Kadı-köy (judge village) was Kadı-köy-ü (judge village-sI) three generations ago. He considers
accent to be a contributor to the loss of -sI from place names: the accent is on the first element in
NNCs, which is towards the beginning of the word, so that the -sI suffix would tend to be lost.
He also suggests that European influence also plays a role in this tendency when naming new
office-buildings, banks, restaurants, and hotels, whereas there is no tendency for -sI loss in
names of roads, squares, hills, and impasses.
Göksel (2009:216) addresses more cases with an optional -sI: professions with a
nationality term occupying the non-head position as in the example Fransız subay(-ı) (French
officer(-sI)) ‘French officer’ (her example (5b)), and names of some dishes such as the example
kayısı komposto(-su) (apricot stew(-sI)) ‘apricot preserve’ (her example (5c)). She attributes the
optionality of -sI in these cases to the lack of a well-defined line between nouns and adjectives in
Turkish, which is important and will be discussed below.
In the case of examples with the stem sokak ‘street’ (and also with köy ‘village’, park
‘park’ etc.) which lack -sI, I suggest that there is a non-native rule due to a concern for
neologism as in the case of N-bilim_ (§2.6.1). However, the case with the nationality terms is

55
Examples such as Güneş Sokak must be compounds as well as examples such as Güneş Sokağ-ı since -sI always
appears when the head noun is cadde ‘road’ as in Güneş Cadde*(-si) (sun road-sI) ‘Güneş Road’.

48
different. I claim that the formations involving nationality terms without -sI are not NNCs but
NPs; the formal similarity is due to the same reason that Göksel (2009) highlights, i.e. the
complicated category of nouns and the category of adjectives. It is not always easy to determine
the syntactic function of a Turkish nominal: a given word can be interpreted as a noun in a
context, but as an adjective in another context. This means that in addition to their nouny
behaviour, most nouns can also be used as modifiers. At the same time, in addition to their
adjectival behaviour, for instance the fact that they are gradable, some adjectives can be used in
noun positions and take the suffixes that normally attach to noun stems.56
Braun and Haig (2000) address the same problem and use some tests for the more nouny
or adjectival behaviour. They propose a scale for the nominal category as in Figure 2 (2000:91):

nouny < ------------------- > adjective-like

nominals

Figure 2. Braun and Haig’s Noun-Adjective Continuum

This scale implies that there is not a clear line between nouns and adjectives, and can account for
the two different categorial functions of a given form. According to this figure, if a nominal is
nouny, it does not show adjectival behaviour and vice-versa; if a nominal is in the middle of the
scale, it then shows both nouny and adjectival behaviour.
We can, for example, use the word hasta ‘patient/sick’ as a noun as in (34a), and as an
adjective as in (34b):

(34) a. hasta nerede b. [hasta adam] nerede

patient where sick man where
‘Where is the patient?’ ‘Where is the sick man?

The fact that there are several nominals like this in Turkish makes the structural context
necessary for determining the category of a given nominal.57 The importance of the nominal

56
Lewis (2000:50) considers the same problem to be categorial: the dividing line between adjectives and nouns is a
thin one in Turkish.
57
See also Uygun (2009) and Özge and Bozşahin (2010), who also address this categorial ambiguity.

49
category is that it is relevant to why we have NNCs with -sI and also very similar forms without
-sI, i.e. those involving nationality terms. Consider the examples in (35):

(35) a. Türk asker b. Türk asker-i

Turkish soldier Turkish soldier-sI
‘a/the Turkish soldier’ ‘soldier of Turks’

Türk in (35a) has an adjectival interpretation whereas Türk in (35b) has a noun interpretation.
Therefore, only the latter structure contains -sI. I propose that only (35b) is an NNC. (35a),
however, is an NP since we can, for example, easily separate the two items: Türk bir asker
(Turkish a soldier) ‘a Turkish soldier’.58 For such dual nominals in Turkish, e.g. nationality
terms, I assume that there is a conversion rule changing the category of these nominals, NA,
and that -sI does not appear if there is a denominal adjective like this as in (35a). Alternatively,
we can simply assume that the nominal in (35a) is a noun too, but it modifies the second noun in
a way different from (35b). Namely, in (35a) we have an ascription relation whereas we have
association in (35b). In either case, however, only the latter form, Türk asker-i, which contains
-sI, is a compound.
I will finally refer to a small group without -sI, which are, however, lexicalized NNCs
such as anne-anne (mother mother) ‘maternal grandmother’ and baba-anne (father mother)
‘paternal grandmother’. When we consider the semantic relation between the two nouns in these
examples, we see that they involve an ASN function: OF. Therefore, we would expect to see -sI
in these examples; however, there is no -sI. I attribute this case to a lexicalization process during
which -sI must have been omitted.59 Note that such loss of -sI in lexicalized compounds is
limited, and it is not the case in all lexicalized forms. Both forms may survive as in soy-ad
(ancestor name) and soy-ad-ı (ancestor name-sI) ‘family name’, whereas in most compounds,
only the form with -sI is grammatical, e.g. hanım-el*(-i) (lady-hand-sI) ‘honeysuckle’ and deniz-
alt*(-ı) (sea-underside-sI) ‘submarine’ despite the meaning shifts.

58
In Göksel & Haznedar 2007, examples with nationality terms in the first position are phrasal too; however, they
are APs (p.16-17).
59
Note that the compounds anneanne and babaanne are used for addressing, which might be the reason why they
lack -sI . To be more precise, the first nouns in these compounds are technically non-referential but pragmatically
they are referential since a grandmother is one’s grandmother when addressing. For example, if I am addressing my
grandmother, the referent is ‘my mother’s mother’ and ‘my mother’ corresponds to the first anne in the compound
anne-anne. -sI in NNCs might not appear in these examples probably to preclude a potential ambiguity resulting
from the other, possessive interpretation of -sI: anne-anne-si (mother-mother-sI) ‘her/his grandmother’.

50
 To sum up, in this section, I aim to indicate that the existence of some NNCs without -sI
does not mean that it is grammatical to create NNCs without -sI. Such examples without -sI do
not obey the native NNC formation rule in Turkish, which is justified by the results of the survey
regarding N-bilim-sI vs. N-bilim_ (§2.6.1.2). I suggested three reasons for the non-existence of
-sI: the first group of such formations must involve outputs of a (borrowed) non-native rule. The
second group involves NPs, not NNCs, e.g. NPs including nationality terms. The last group
involves a limited number of “lexicalized” compounds which must have lost -sI during
lexicalization.

2.7 Chapter 2 Summary

Ch.2 presents the morphological, semantic, prosodic, and syntactic properties of Turkish NNCs.
NNCs contain the elements of noun category and -sI, they can be recursive, there is no limit to
left-branching whereas right-branching is limited, the non-head constituent may involve
modification. NNCs appear to be phonological phrases involving a phrasal stress, which,
however, does not require that they are syntactic phrases too: I have shown that they are words
syntactically. Semantically, NNCs involve an association relation in contrast to ascription
involved in ordinary NPs, the first noun has generic reference and cannot be involved in
coreference.
I introduced the notion of ASN functions, and propose a set of association relationships
involved in the semantics of NNCs, and that these functions are grammatical, but not pragmatic.
We saw that even in examples without an expected collocation in lexical classes and in those
without a context, ASN functions make compounds interpretable. Namely, an ASN function
always exists in an NNC regardless of the presence of an appropriate context. The fact that ASN
functions are active even in lexicalized compounds also supports this idea by pointing to the
dynamic aspect of the NNC formation.
I further suggested that the so-called NNCs in which -sI is optional (i) involve a non-
native rule, (ii) are NPs, not compounds, (iii) involve very few lexicalized compounds which
must have lost -sI during lexicalization.

51
 CHAPTER 3

COMPOUNDING AND TURKISH COMPOUNDS:

THEORETICAL APPROACHES

3.0 Introduction

This chapter outlines the two basic theoretical approaches to compounding and previous analyses
of Turkish Noun-Noun compounds. One central issue in the theory of compounding is the
component/module which creates compounds, which has been controversial. For Meir and
Aronoff (2011:643), for example, compounding is a very special phenomenon since it has both a
lexical side, i.e. it is a process generating new lexical units, and a syntactic side since its outputs
are hierarchical and recursive. Such characteristics of compounds must be accounted for since
compounding, as Meir and Aronoff stress, is also a widespread phenomenon.
In this chapter, I first introduce the lexicalist approach to compounding in which
compounds are formed in the lexicon, making compounds lexical units. In the syntactic
approach, compounds are formed in the syntax, making them syntactic units. I further address
one more view which argues for a specific component for compounding, which is not the
lexicon. I evaluate these approaches, i.e. their advantages and disadvantages for our
understanding of compounding in general, and for Turkish NNCs specifically. We will consider
if we can use these approaches for Turkish NNCs, and how Turkish data contribute to the theory
of compounding.
I further address previous studies on Turkish NNCs and the -sI suffix: the analyses which
consider -sI in NNCs and PCs to be identical vs. the analyses which consider -sI to be a
compound marker in NNCs unlike the -sI in PCs, which is the 3rd Person possessive marker. We
will also contrast the view treating Turkish NNCs and -sI as syntactic with the view treating
them as lexical. I evaluate the contribution of these analyses and whether they can be used to
account for the Turkish data presented in Ch.2.

52
3.1 The Lexicalist Approach to Derivation and Compounding

This section outlines the representitive analyses regarding compounding as a lexical operation
and thus compounds as lexical outputs. This approach, importantly, draws a line between
compounds and phrasal units: lexicon vs. syntax.
The lexicalist approach locates word-formation in the lexicon and assumes that there are
“lexical rules”, which refer to a set of rules “operating in the lexicon” in general. This approach
originates from Chomsky 1970, in which the lexicon is a presyntactic component. Chomsky
argues that derived nominals such as refusal must be lexical outputs unlike gerundive nominals
such as refusing, which must be transformational (syntactic). This conclusion draws a line
between lexical rules and syntactic rules by laying the foundations of lexicalism.
Halle (1973) also draws a line between syntactic rules and word-formation rules; he
proposes a component for word-formation rules, which is, however, separate from the dictionary.
For him, morphology consists of three distinct components: a list of morphemes, rules of word-
formation, and a filter containing the idiosyncratic properties of words. In his system, the list of
morphemes and the rules of word-formation define the potential words of the language. By
applying modifications to potential words in the filter, the set of actual words is obtained (p.6-9).
Thus, Halle’s word-formation rules operate on a set of morphemes and describe potential words.
The potential words then undergo the filter, which yields actual words, by adding idiosyncratic
features, for example. Therefore, there is a mechanism for word-formation, which has access to
dictionary (the list of actual words), as well as the list of morphemes (p.8). This leads him to the
conclusion that the rules of word-formation are distinct and separate from the rules of phonology
and syntax (p.14). Even though Halle does not refer to compounds in his model, we can expect
that his derivation mechanism also includes compounds since compounding is a type of word-
formation.
Another model of lexicon and derivation is proposed by Jackendoff (1975), whose
lexicon contains a set of fully specified entries of existent words, and a set of lexical
(redundancy) rules. In Jackendoff’s system, there are redundancy rules, which are part of lexicon
and express relationships, but not involved in sentence derivations (p.641). Rather, they are
involved in the relationships in the lexicon: predictable information in a lexical entry is
redundant (p.643-645). For example, the words transformationalist, transformational,

53
transformation, and transform are all fully specified in the lexicon for Jackendoff. This case
involves four words, the information in the word transform, idiosyncratic information added in
derivation, and three necessary redundancy rules (p.652-653).
Unlike Halle’s lexicon, Jackendoff’s lexicon contains only words: productive affixes are
introduced as part of the lexical rules, and non-productive morphemes do not appear
independently anywhere in the lexicon (p.655). One more distinction is that Jackendoff
distinguishes between morphological and semantic rules, both of which constitute his word-
formation rules. The fact that his affixes are rule elements and the fact that there is a separation
of semantic and morphological rules imply a process-based approach to morphology, as I argue
for in this study (see §4.2, §4.3, §5.3, §6.6).
Jackendoff’s (1975:655) theory of the lexicon also provides an account of compounds.
His semantic account for NNCs is that the meaning of compounds is formed from the meaning of
their constituents, which constitutes part of a speaker’s knowledge. This knowledge, however,
must also include the way in which the meanings of compounds are related to the meanings of
their constituents (p.655). In his system, each actual compound has a place within the lexicon as
well as a morphological and a semantic rule listed. The semantic rule, however, might differ
according to the compound as he assumes that there are a great number of semantic rules. The
morphological rule that he proposes for the compounds garbage man and snowman is shown in
(36).

(36) Jackendoff’s morphological rule for NNCs (his example (22) 1975:655):

/X/
X Y
/ [N ] [N ] / ↔ +N
+N /Y/
+N

(36) shows that any two nouns can be combined to form a possible compound; there is an entry
for the compound, whose both constituents are nouns. The redundancy rule expressed by ‘↔’
relates the compound to the lexical entries of its constituents, X and Y. Now we will see
Jackendoff’s semantic rules in (37) and (38):

54
(37) Jackendoff’s semantic rule for garbage man (his example (23a) 1975:656):

+N
+N ↔ Z
Z that carries W
+N
W

(38) Jackendoff’s semantic rule for snowman (his example (23b) 1975:656):

+N
+N ↔ Z
Z made of W
+N
W

The semantic rules (37) and (38) express the semantic relation between the meaning of the
compound and the meaning of its constituents, Z and W. The semantic relation is THAT CARRIES
in (37), and MADE OF in (38); ‘↔’ expresses the relationships in the lexicon. For Jackendoff,
such semantic redundancy rules provide a finite range of possible meanings for the relevant
compound (p.668).
Another point that Jackendoff (1975) makes about the lexicon is creativity, which is
important since it makes the lexicon a dynamic system (see counterarguments in §4.2). For him,
lexical rules can be used creatively (once they have been learnt) although this is not their general
function (p.668). He also points to certain distinctions between lexical rules and
syntactic/transformational rules: (i) lexical rules relate items only partially, unlike
transformations, which cannot express partial relations; (ii) lexical rules operate inside words,
unlike syntactic rules which operate outside words; (iii) lexical rules can account for functional
content in the case of exocentric compounds such as redhead (e.g. the information that redhead
denotes a person) whereas syntactic rules cannot preserve such information (p.657-658, 665).
In sum, Jackendoff treats N-N compounding as a lexical process by means of lexical
redundancy rules. Compounding, which involves redundancy rules and which is a lexical
process, is thus distinguished from phrase formation, which involves syntactic rules. The
compounding rule he proposes involves a semantic rule in addition to a morphological rule,

55
which means separation of form and meaning, as I will argue for in this study (see §4.2, §4.3).
Whether it is advantageous to localize compounding in lexicon or not will be discussed in §3.2.
For Aronoff (1976), the task of morphology is to tell speakers what sort of new words
they can form, since speakers have the capacity of making up new words (p.19). His theory is a
word-based morphology: all regular word-formation processes are word-based rather than
morpheme-based. Aronoff’s word-formation rules (WFRs) do not operate on items less than a
word since not all morphemes are meaningful, and only meaningful morphemes can be a base in
WFRs (p.21-22). His WFRs operate in the lexicon, but they make reference to semantic
(function), syntactic (category), and phonological (form) properties of words.60
Thus, for Aronoff (1976), the lexicon is not only a list of words, but it also involves
internal computation. However, while words are in the lexicon, affixes are parts of rules, and not
lexical. We see that the status of affixes is similar in Aronoff’s and Jackendoff’s (1975) systems
since affixes are rule elements. However, the nature of WFRs is different. Aronoff’s WFRs do
not refer to semantic rules, whereas Jackendoff’s WFRs involve semantic rules in addition to
morphological rules as shown above. Although Aronoff (1976) does not propose a specific
analysis for compounds, we expect that compound formation must involve WFRs in the lexicon.
Aronoff 1976 is important in that it describes the nature of WFRs and shows a set of evidence
distinguishing WFRs from phonological and syntactic rules. In the current study, I also argue for
independent WFRs although their nature is not identical to Aronoff’s (see Ch.4).
Giegerich 1999 argues for a theory based on the interactions of morphology and
phonology accounted for by ordered levels (lexical stratification). As in Jackendoff 1975 and
Aronoff 1976, the lexicon is a productive component: lexical operations create derivations and
compounding within root or word-based lexical orderings. This approach localizes compounding
and some affixation within the same level: productive affixes are in starum-2, compounding and
stratum-2 suffixation freely interact. A compound with an inflected first element or with a
“juncture suffix” homophonous with an inflectional suffix, such as the German compound
[[Frau-en]verein] ‘women’s club’, is assigned to starum-3 in German (p.90). Following Kiparsky
1982, Giegerich assumes that a morphological operation places a set of brackets, according to

60
Note however that in Aronoff 1994 and Aronoff & Fudeman 2005, morphology is an “autonomous” component,
not in the lexicon (§4.2).

56
which a compound has the form [[R][R]] (p.239). I discuss whether such an ordered approach is
advantageous in §3.2.2.
In a later study, Giegerich (2009) proposes another multilevel analysis of the lexicon. In
this system, stratum-1 contains irregular and opaque forms, which are listed in specific ways.
Stratum 2, however, contains productive rules giving rise to transparent and regular forms, and
inflection. According to Giegerich, in English, compounding should be part of the final stratum
(regardless of the number of strata), in which fore-stress is also assigned (p.190-199).61
As indicated in §2.4.1, §2.4.5, §3.2.1, §4.1, the current study adopts Giegerich’s
(2009:186-188) distinction between the “semantics” of NNCs and the “semantics” of NPs: the
type of attribution in each case is not identical. He claims that NNCs show associative attribution
unlike NPs, which show ascriptive attribution. Giegerich considers the latter type of attribution
(ascription) as default semantics and associated with end-stress in English. However, the former
type of attribution (association) involves more versatile semantics and is associated with fore-
stress. He adopts Ferris’s assumption (1993:24): “In ascriptive attribution, the adjective denotes a
property which is valid for the entity instantiated by the noun”. Giegerich claims that in the
example beautiful picture, beautiful expresses a property of the picture. For him, the fact that
ascriptive adjectives normally have a second, predicative usage as in the picture is beautiful
follows from the semantics of ascription, and is characterized by the relationship “is” between
the head and its dependent. The first noun in Noun-Noun compounds, however, does not have
this second, predicative usage.
In sum, Giegerich 2009 emphasizes that compounds are distinctive from noun phrases not
only regarding the component forming them, but also in terms of their semantics: compounds are
formed in the final stratum of the lexicon, and they have associative attribution. This approach
can account for both the structural and the semantic differences between NNCs and NPs, which
is also one of the goals of the current study. Giegerich, however, localizes compounding in
lexicon (see the discussion in §3.2.2).
Having shown how word-formation rules including compounding are regarded in
lexicalism in general, I will highlight a terminological issue regarding lexicalism. Locating

61
Giegerich also argues that end-stress, obligatory in syntactic phrases (blue bóok) may also occur in lexical
constructions (Christmas púdding), and that lexical end-stress is exceptional, which competes apparently with fore-
stress (Chrístmas cake). He thus concludes that phrases seem to have end-stress invariably while both stress patterns
are available to compounds (p.185).

57
WFRs including compounding in the lexicon holds for both the Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis
and the Weak Lexicalist Hypothesis.62 Thus, in such lexicalist views, the lexicon is a dynamic
component unless a line is drawn between a specific component for derivation and a repertoire
for actual words (as in Halle 1973, for example). The dynamic lexicon view has terminological
consequences: the term “lexical” is used to refer to both simplex forms in the lexicon and outputs
of lexical rules. Thus, the term “lexical” means either ‘stored’ or ‘formed in the lexicon’. For
those units which are formed in the lexicon as outputs of lexical rules, the term “morphological”
is also used. Thus, “lexical” and “morphological” are often used interchangeably in the lexicalist
approach.63
§3.1 addressed Chomsky (1970), Halle (1973), Jackendoff (1975), Aronoff (1976),
Giegerich (1999), and Giegerich (2009), for whom there are lexical operations responsible for
word-formation, which must be distinguished from syntactic operations. Among the lexicalists,
Jackendoff and Giegerich propose a lexical account of NNCs too by pointing to the distinctive
semantics of NNCs.

3.2 Evaluation of the Lexicalist Approach

3.2.1 Advantages of Lexicalist Analyses

This section identifies theoretical advantages of the lexicalist approach, i.e. why it would be
preferable in accounting for derivation and compounding. First of all, the lexicalist view can
account for why compounds have a distinct phonological behaviour. Even though this does not
help with Turkish NNCs, which appear to show phrasal stress (§2.2), it helps with other
languages which distinguish the prosody of compounds from that of phrases. For instance in
English, as Giegerich (2009) shows, among others, most compounds stress the first element
whereas phrases stress the second. The stress in the compound nóte-book, for example, is
different from that of the noun phrase blúe bóok. In blúe bóok, the second noun is also stressed
(for it is assigned the PPh level stress, phrasal accent, which the compound lacks in English).

62
The main assumption of the former is the Principle of Lexical Integrity according to which syntax cannot modify,
move, or delete parts of words; all morphology (both derivation and inflection) applies presyntactically (e.g. Halle
1973, Lapointe 1980). In the latter “weak” hypothesis, however, only derivation applies presyntactically, and
inflection is left to the syntax or phonology (e.g. Aronoff 1976, Allen 1978, Anderson 1982, 1992).
63
I will show that “morphological” does not mean “lexical” in Ch.4.

58
 The second advantage of the lexicalist approach is the fact that it can account for why the
syntactic behaviour of compounds is different from that of phrases. In §2.5, I showed how
Turkish NNCs syntactically behave differently from NPs, including PCs: non-separability and
the fixed order of components were the most important properties differentiating NNCs and NPs.
I concluded that NNCs are syntactic atoms. Treating compounds as wordal units and delimiting
them from phrases, the lexicalist analyses can handle these significant properties of compounds.
The third advantage is the fact that the lexicalist approach can account for why the
semantics of NNCs is different from that of phrases: as they are formed in a different place (the
lexicon), it is not surprising that they have distinct semantics. Recall §2.4, in which I proposed
that NNCs involve a set of certain semantic relations: ASN functions. What is more, we saw that
the type of ASN function between the two nouns in a compound is not always transparent or
predictable from the compound itself. Remember the example fruit sugar (§2.4.5) or its Turkish
counterpart meyve şeker-i (fruit sugar-sI) ‘fruit sugar’, which allows multiple ASN functions, not
just one. However, the semantics of NPs is usually transparent and unique, e.g. unhealthy sugar.
This difference is important since it allows us to draw a line between the semantics of
compounds and the semantics of phrasal units. As it assumes that compounds and phrases are
produced in distinct components, the lexicalist approach easily deals with the semantic
difference, which is not unexpected.
To summarize, by locating word-formation in a different component from syntax, the
lexicalist approach can account for why NNCs have distinctive prosodic, syntactic, and semantic
properties from those of NPs.

3.2.2 Disadvantages of Lexicalist Analyses

This section identifies problematic aspects of lexicalism in general, including lexicalist analyses
of compounding. The first problem is posed by phrasal compounds, i.e. compounds which
contain embedded phrases. In §2.1, we saw that Turkish allows NNCs with embedded syntactic
units, in which NNC formations apparently involve phrase formation. Since the lexicalist
approach claims that compounding takes place in the lexicon, there is no way it can account for

59
examples involving phrasal units which are embedded in morphological units.64 Lieber (1992),
for example, addresses this problem and concludes that phrasal compounds are formed by
joining a phrase and a noun, and that “…at least some construction of words must be done in the
syntax” (1992:14). Giegerich (2009:197) also points to this problem leaving an important open
question: what is the nature of the first constituent in phrasal compounds? Therefore, formations
such as phrasal compounds are apparent counterexamples to the No Phrase Constraint of the
lexicalist approach, i.e. lexical rules do not apply to syntactic phrases to form morphologically
complex words (Botha 1984:137).
Another issue is the relation between word-formation and inflection. “Weak Lexicalism”
(e.g. Aronoff 1976, Anderson 1982, 199265) assumes that only word-formation takes place in the
lexicon while the inflection is left to the syntactic component or phonological component (so-
called “split morphology”). However, it is not clear exactly where and how inflectional
operations take place. Indeed, for Anderson (1982, 1992), inflectional morphology is what is
relevant to syntax, but the formal operations of inflection take place in the phonological
component. I would, however, argue that inflectional operations and paradigmatic organization
cannot be handled simply by either phonology or syntax.
Moreover, if inflection is in a separate component from that of derivation, we cannot
account for the apparent similarities between derivation and inflection. Why are identical formal
processes such as suffixation used, and why are complex words produced as outputs in both
cases? An adequate theory of morphology should account for the similarities as well as the
differences between derivation and inflection.66 Therefore, it is more advantageous if we do not
split derivation from inflection in two different components. Booij (1994, 1996) for example,
argues against the split morphology hypothesis, and points out that at least some inflection,
which he calls “inherent inflection” such as inherent case, number in nouns, comparatives,
superlatives, infinitives and participles, can feed derivation. We would not account for these
cases if we placed derivation and inflection in two separate components, as Booij notes.

64
Note that it is not only compounding that may involve phrasal units; suffixation can also involve phrasal units
such as the suffixation of English -ed as in brown eyed. I account for such cases in §4.2 and §4.3.
65
Note that I have not listed Anderson among the lexicalists in §3.1 since for Anderson, compounds are exceptional
among words as they have internal constituent structure. He proposes that compounding is syntactic: the syntax
includes word structure rules which produce lexical categories (1992: Ch.11).
66
The obvious difference is the necessity of syntactic information/configuration in (contextual) inflection but not
derivation.

60
 With regard to “Strong Lexicalism” (e.g. Halle 1973, Lapointe 1980), it assumes that
both word-formation and inflection take place in the lexicon. Halle (1973:6-7) claims that
paradigmatic inflection, thus all (and only) fully-inflected forms, belong to the lexicon. I would,
however, argue that this claim obscures perhaps the most noticeable aspect of contextual
inflection: it needs syntactic information. Contextual case and agreement inflection, for example,
need certain syntactic data for the choice of categorial values. For contextual case inflection, we
need the positional and relational information of NPs with their governing heads; for agreement,
we need the information regarding the agreement domain, which is a syntactic domain.
Therefore, there is no way we can account for contextual inflection without syntactic
information, which seems to be impossible if inflection takes place in the lexicon or in a stratum
of the lexicon, the presyntactic component. Assuming that lexicon contains fully inflected forms
which enter syntax according to the syntactic information does not seem to solve the problem
either, since fully inflected forms correspond to phrasal units, which have syntactic status.
Second, assuming fully inflected forms for all the lexical items results in an overuse of the space
in lexicon.
Lexicalism in general assumes that affixes are lexical units, and thus there is an account
of suffixation unlike other morphological processes generally (apart from Jackendoff 1975,
Aronoff 1976). However, this assumption is not explanatory in the case of non-concatenative
morphology where there are no morpheme representations such as the English preterite form
swam based on the verb stem swim. Also, the assumption that affixes are lexical cannot account
for cases where we have one-to-many (cumulation) or many-to-one (multiple exponence)
mappings between form and meaning. For instance, the word am-o in Latin means ‘I love’, and
-o expresses the following information: Conjugation1, ‘present’, ‘active’, 1st Person, and
‘singular’ (Anderson 1992:61). Thus, amo is an example for mapping of one form to many
contents, which poses a problem for the ideal one-to-one mappings in the lexicalist approach.
Another example comes from Spencer (2001:285), who shows that the -o/-é/-e endings in
Spanish simultaneously express Person/Number, Tense/Mood, and conjugation class
information. An adequate morphological theory thus should be able to account for non-one-to-
one mappings on the one hand, and both concatenative and non-concatenative morphology on
the other (as highlighted in Anderson 1992, Zwicky 1992, Aronoff 1994, Beard 1995, Pounder
2000, and Spencer 2001).

61
 In some languages, Turkish, German, and Russian, for example, compounds contain
special affixes (compound markers) as addressed by Ralli (2008), who claims that compound
markers are semantically empty. In this study, I also claim that such affixes cannot be assigned
specific meanings as they occur in compounds with a variety of different ASN functions between
the compounded units (as shown in §2.4.1). The lexicalist approach does not seem to account for
why the same affix, the compound marker, appears in NNCs with a set of different semantic
relations. In the case of Turkish NNCs, for example, the semantic relation in the compound
would be ascribed to the compound marker -sI, which would result in a set of -sI suffixes with
distinct meanings and entries. Also, the lexicalist approach would not be able to account for the
fact that the compound meaning is preserved when the compound marker -sI is absent (§1.0,
Ch.5). Therefore, if affixes are lexical, one-to-one mappings of form and meaning, the lexicalist
analyses will have problems with the meaning of compound markers (see also §3.7.2 where I
address a lexical analysis of Turkish NNCs, Aslan & Altan 2006, which encounters the same
problems).
Consider an ordered lexicon now, such as the system proposed in Giegerich 1999, 2009,
in which productive affixes are in starum-2, and compounding with compound markers is in
stratum-3 (§3.1). Turkish NNCs and derivations including NNCs (§1.0, Ch.5) would pose a
problem for this ordered system. Note that Turkish NNCs can be followed by certain productive
derivational suffixes unlike other derivational suffixes, which are also productive, which would
result in an increase of the numbers of the strata in the lexicon. What is more, inflected stems are
not allowed in Turkish NNCs, apart from the plural suffix which is, however, not a type of
contextual inflection as discussed above (see §2.1, §4.3). This issue would pose another problem
since inflection is assigned to stratum-2 whereas compounds with compound markers to stratum-
3, which implies that any type of inflected forms would be input to compounding. This is,
however, not the case in Turkish, for example: NNCs do not allow case inflected noun stems.
The problems identified in this section weakens the appeal of the proposal that
morphology is located in the lexicon. A morphological theory should be comprehensive enough
to account for inflection, compounding, and compound markers as well as derivation; it should
account for the similarities between these processes as well as differences. Therefore, the
lexicalist approach to morphology in general and compounding in particular is not the view I will
advocate despite the advantages shown in §3.2.1. I turn to the syntactic approach in §3.3.

62
3.3 The Syntactic Approach to Derivation and Compounding

In this section, I present representative syntactic analyses of compounding. The syntactic

analysis of compounding dates back to Lees’s (1966) proposal, which is a transformational
analysis of nominal compounds. Lees proposes that nominalizations and compound words are
formed by applying transformations on “kernel” sentences. For instance, the compound car thief
is generated by a transformation rule applying on a source-sentence: the thief steals the car --->
car thief (p.116-117). He claims that there is a wide variety of grammatical form in nominal
compounds as exemplified in (39) (p.118):

(39) a. bulldog ---> dog which is like a bull

b. police dog ---> dog used by the police
c. sheep dog ---> dog which herds sheep
d. prairie dog ---> dog which inhabits the prairie

According to Lees (1966:119), the expressions following the compounds above indicate the
differences in grammatical form embedded within the compounds: such expressions serve as
sources for transformational rules to generate the compounds. He claims that English nominal
compounds, for example, involve many different internal grammatical relations within sentences
such as subject-predicate, subject-verb, subject-object, verb-object. Thus, he attributes the
variety in meaning to the variety in the grammatical forms of source-sentences.
Lees (1966) also refers to compounds with multiple meanings, which are ambiguous for
him. He considers snake poison to be derived from an expression like poison from a snake
(p.122). He claims that with this interpretation, snake poison has the same structure as that of
snake oil, for example. He also shows that this example can be interpreted as ‘snake’s poison’ or
‘poison of a snake’, in which case it would be derived from the snake has the poison, and would
be structurally similar to snakehead, snakeblood (p.122). Another possible interpretation that
Lees shows is ‘poison for snakes’, which is derived from the poison is for snakes, and is
structurally similar to snake food this time (p.123). He attributes the availability of such multiple
interpretations to different sentence types underlying a compound, again.

63
 Given his paraphrases, it seems that Lees’s transformations are motivated by the fact that
we may find similar interpretations in compounds and sentences. This idea leads him to the
assumption that compounds and sentences have the same structure. However, because it requires
non-recoverable transformations such as the deletion of the verbs, his approach has been
criticized as being too powerful in later studies (see Chomsky 1970, Allen 1978, Dede 1978,
Scalise & Guevara 2005).
Another transformational analysis comes from Levi (1978). In §2.4.2, I noted that for
Levi, NNCs are generated by transformations applying to relative clauses whose predicates are
deleted in the formation of NNCs. She considers the predicates such as HAVE as in (40) to be
syntactic indicators: examples with the same (underlying) predicate may involve distinct
syntactic functions. For instance, the modifier noun is the direct object in (40a), unlike another
example such as (40b), whose modifier noun is the subject of the relative clause (1978:76):

(40) a. picture book ---> HAVE (Direct Object in a RC)

b. student power ---> HAVE (Subject in a RC)

Levi (1978:77) claims that such examples indicate that prenominal modifiers can be derived
from either the object or the subject of the underlying predicate. Apparently, as does Lees 1966,
Levi’s analysis follows from the possibility of paraphrasing NNCs. This approach is important in
that it shows that compounds and syntactic structures can have similar semantic structures, which
is, however not “semantics” but “syntax” for both Lees and Levi.
Baker (1998) promotes another syntactic approach to compounds. His syntactic approach
to NNCs is based on the syntactic analysis of synthetic (deverbal) compounds (as in Lieber
1992). For Baker, the structure and the interpretation of NNCs (his “root compounds”) are not
very interesting, other than predicting the head position: he claims that the structure is simple and
the semantics is unconstrained in root compounds (p.197). According to him, there is not
necessarily a sharp distinction between root compounds and synthetic compounds. The root
compound piano-leg, for example, can be considered as a synthetic compound in which the head,
leg, seems to assign a thematic role to the non-head piano. He further establishes a relationship
between compounds such as piano-leg (his example (21c)) and syntactic units such as the leg of
the piano (his example (21a)). He claims that there must be a thematic relation between the

64
constituents of the compound in which the first constituent is an argument of the second (p.198).
In sum, Baker claims that root compounds are similar to synthetic compounds in that both types
are syntactic.
Another motivation for Baker’s (1998) claim that root compounds are syntactic is
headedness. He adopts Lieber’s (1992) claim that the headedness parameter governs both phrase
and compound structure: the order in compounds generally patterns with the order in comparable
syntactic structures. For instance, the head is final in English nominal compounds and NPs
consisting of A+N sequences (p.193). Extending the syntactic analysis of synthetic compounds
to NNCs with reference to thematic relations and headedness, Baker concludes that the principles
of syntax can account for a high percentage of the basic facts of compounding (p.193).67
Another syntactic analysis of compounding is proposed by Harley (2009) within
Distributed Morphology (DM), which treats word-formation completely syntactically. In DM,
roots are acategorial, i.e. they are categoryless, and need to merge in the syntax with category-
creating feature bundles, n°, a° or v° (noun, adjective, and verb). 68 For Harley, compounds are
incorporation structures, where non-head nouns incorporate into the acategorial root of the head
noun, prior to its (the head’s) own incorporation into its category-defining n° head (which is for
the noun category). On the basis of these assumptions, Harley suggests that the structure of the
compound nurse shoe is as in Figure 3 below. In Figure 3, Harley’s example (11), nP = noun; the
modifying nominal NURSE first merges with n°, and then, it is incorporated into the acategorial
root √SHOE. Next, this complex head [[[√NURSE]√n]nP √SHOE]√P merges with the categorizing n°,
creating the complex formation [[[[√NURSE]√n]nP √SHOE]√P n]nP, which is then realized by
Vocabulary Insertion as nurse shoe (p.135-140). 69

67
Baker mentions a very high proportion of compounding facts which can be accounted by syntax; however, it is
not clear why this should be “very high” since there is a limited number of examples supporting this claim. For
instance, N-N compounds are similar to NPs in that they have attribute-head order whereas synthetic compounds
show the opposite order from the comparable VPs. Also, as shown in Ch.2, there are several distinctions between
compounds and phrases, e.g. fixed order, non-separability, referentiality.
68
DM assumes that phonological information is inserted only after syntactic operations (Late Insertion); and that
word structure is hierarchically identical to phrase structure. Also, there is no lexicon in DM (Halle & Marantz 1993,
Embick & Noyer 2007).
69
In §4.3, however, I will show that categorial information is a requirement for the compounding operation to take
place.

65
 nP

n° √P

√ n° √SHOE nP

n° √SHOE  shoe n° √NURSE

√NURSE n° shoe  nurse

nurse 

Figure 3. An NNC Structure in DM

Compounding is a type of incorporation, which is a syntactic operation according to Figure 3.

In addition to the structural analysis above, Harley (2009) touches upon the semantics of
NNCs. She proposes that in root compounds such as nurse shoe, encylopedic and pragmatic
information combine to determine the relationship between the two nominal roots, which is
different from the semantics of alligator shoe, for example. She claims that in the compound
nurse shoe, the relationship is modificational, but the nature of the modification is determined
pragmatically. Thus, we interpret nurse shoe as [shoes [(for) nurses]] not from the structure of
the compound but from the pragmatics, according to Harley. She also notes that in Figure 3, the
head noun's root and the modifying noun are in a sisterhood relationship, with no available
argumental interpretation for the sister, and it is up to the interpretive component to construct the
semantic relationship in the compound (p.140).
As we see, compounding is a syntactic incorporation whose semantics is ascribed to
encylopedic knowledge and pragmatics in Harley 2009. She, however, leaves a question
regarding phrasal compounds: why do these complex elements, as well as root compounds,
behave as X° (word-sized) units in the syntax despite the fact that they contain syntactically-
formed phrases (p.140)? This question is crucial in terms of the current study and will be
addressed in §4.2.

66
 Borer 2009 is another advocate of a syntax-based account of compounding in her analysis
of compounds in Hebrew. Borer distinguishes between compounds which have non-
compositional meanings as (41a) and “constructs” with compositional semantics as in (41b):

(41) a. beyt (ha-)sefer b. beyt (ha-)sar

house (the-)book house (the)minister
‘(the) school’ ‘(the) house of (the) minister’

(Borer 2009:491, (1c)) (Borer 2009:492, (2c))

She further distinguishes between M-constructs, whose non-head constituent is non-referential,

and R-constructs, whose non-head constituent is referential (p.492). She addresses a set of
distinctions and similarities between compounds and constructs. For instance, compounds and
constructs share the same prosody, i.e. primary stress falls on the non-head, and the same
phonological operations apply to both structures. Also, unlike ordinary NPs, the head cannot be
modified directly in both compounds and constructs, nor the definite marker ha- can be realized
on the head only (p.493). Such similarities may lead one to regard Hebrew “constructs” as
compounds.
Borer (2009), however, also points out some differences between compounds and
constructs. She draws a line between compounds and M-constructs on the one hand, and between
M-constructs and R-constructs on the other hand. She shows that unlike compounds,
modification and coordination of the non-head constituent is allowed in M-constructs (p.503-
504). She thus claims that constructs must not be compounds. With regard to the differences
between the two construct types, M-constructs vs. R-constructs, they concern the non-head
constituent: in M-constructs, it cannot be referential, cannot be pluralized and quantified, and
cannot be modified by a definite adjective, unlike the non-head of R-constructs (p.498).
Although the behaviour of M-constructs is similar to that of compounds, as Borer 2009
underlines, she does not assume that M-constructs are compounds due to the differences between
M-constructs and (her) compounds addressed above: compounds show non-compositional
meaning, and it is possible to modify the non-head in M-constructs unlike compounds. She
proposes that the word-properties of M-constructs (their phonology and other similarity to
compounds) result from a “phonological liaison”: the assignment of pure prosodic structure to

67
syntactic constituents (p.507). In regard to compounds, they are different from M-constructs:
they are constructs which undergo (syntactic) incorporation. This accounts for their non-
compositional meanings according to Borer. She also claims that a separate morphological
component is not necessary for either liaison (her M-constructs) or incorporation (her
compounds): morphology is a type of syntactic merger. In other words, morphological operations
constitute a particular set of syntactic operations in Borer 2009:509.70
In short, Borer argues for syntactic operations for both compounds and constructs, which
follows from the fact that M-constructs are different from compounds, which involve
encyclopedic knowledge, and at the same time they are similar to R-constructs, which are
syntactic. She attributes the resemblance between compounds and constructs to a prosodic
operation. Her work is important as Hebrew M-constructs and R-constructs are similar to
Turkish NNCs and PCs, respectively, in that these structures have referential and syntactic
distinctions despite the semantic and formal similarities (see Borer 2009 for examples).
In this section, I addressed studies in which N-N compounding is considered to be a
purely syntactic operation. Lees’s (1966) and Levi’ s (1978) analyses are based on
transformations on source-sentences, which are motivated by paraphrases of compounds. Baker’s
(1998) analysis is based on thematic structure and headedness, and is motivated by synthetic
compounds and similarities between NNCs and NPs. Harley’s (2009) analysis is based on
syntactic incorporation, which is motivated by the treatment of all word-formation as syntactic.
Finally, Borer’s (2009) analysis is based on syntactic incorporation and prosodic liaison,
motivated by the similarities and differences between three nominal constructions in Hebrew.
Regarding the semantics of NNCs, the variability in meaning signals transformations for Lees
and Levi, NNC semantics is not interesting at all for Baker, it is a pragmatic issue for Harley,
and it is the main factor in the diagnostic of compounds for Borer.

70
See also Baker 1998 for a syntactic approach to Hebrew constructs, and Sadock 1998 for a morphological
account.

68
3.4 Evaluation of the Syntactic Approach

3.4.1 Advantages of Syntactic Analyses

The syntactic approach to compounding has two major advantages. First, it does not locate a
grammatical operation such as compounding in the lexicon. This rescues us from the problem of
locating grammatical operations and lexical entries within the same place in the grammar. The
second advantage concerns compounds which include embedded phrasal units. If compounds are
syntactic, compound formation will take place in syntax as does phrase formation, and we will
have no problem with the integration of the two types within the same component. On the
contrary, the lexicalist approach, which limits compounding to the lexicon, has no way to
provide an account for phrasal compounds, which are novel items, but not necessarily lexicalized
(§3.2.2).

3.4.2 Disadvantages of Syntactic Analyses

Lees’s (1966) and Levi’s (1978) transformational approach, as already criticized by previous
authors, is too powerful since it deletes important information such as predicates. In addition to
this, I will also highlight another issue: the reason for their syntactic account.
Lees (1966) and Levi (1978) claim that compounds are transformed from source-
sentences on the basis of the paraphrases of compounds. The fact that the paraphrases of
compounds may be similar to sentences, however, does not necessarily imply a syntactic source.
I have argued that such paraphrases follow from semantics, not syntax (§2.4.2). In fact, Lees’s
suggestion is important since it seems to make a universal point: we can express similar
semantics by means of compounds and by means of phrases (even though for Lees, the similarity
is syntactic).
Now, consider Levi’s (1978) example student power which involves the predicate HAVE
according to her. Her claim is that in this example, student is the subject of the underlying
predicate HAVE. The relative clause underlying this example must look like (?the) power that
(?a) student HAS. HAVE appears here since it is one of the predicates in Levi’s limited list. It is,
however, not recognized in Levi 1978 that in this case we can use another predicate, such as

69
BELONG TO, which will also result in a successful paraphrase for student power: power that
belongs to student(s). In this case, not the first constituent of the compound, student, but the
second constituent power will function as the subject in the relative clause. This poses two
problems for Levi: (i) it shows that we can express the same meaning via other predicates which
are not included in her list, and (ii) the syntactic function of the first noun is changeable
depending on which predicate we use in the paraphrase. This again shows the weakness of the
view looking for syntax under semantics.
Another problem concerns Baker’s (1998) approach: he evaluates compounds as syntactic
based on their similarity to NPs in terms of headedness and order of elements. I would, however,
argue that this property of compounds does not guarantee that compounds are syntactically
derived. Even though the first noun is the modifier and the second noun is the head, the
modification type involved in NNCs is significantly different from that in phrases. The relation
association and the relation ascription are different as described in §2.4.1 and §2.4.5, and as
Giegerich (2009) points out. The syntactic analysis, thus, does not account for why the semantics
is distinctive in compounds despite the similarity in headedness between NPs and NNCs.71
One more factor motivating Baker’s (1998) approach is thematic relations, which he
claims to exist in compounds as well as syntactic structures. I consider this assumption
problematic due to the same reason for Lees’s analysis: “thematic structure” is not a syntactic but
a semantic issue as Anderson (1992) and Aronoff (1998:412) also highlight. We do not need a
syntactic context to know the thematic structure of verbs, for example.
Another issue is the fact that compounds are word-sized units and the syntactic approach
cannot provide an empirical reason for this, since compounds are syntactic in this approach. For
this reason, the syntactic approach does not seem to account for the differences between distinct
N N combinations. Consider the distinction between tóy hóuse ‘a house which is a toy’ and the
compound tóy house ‘house which is for toys’, for example, both of which consist of two
nominals. The former example appears to be separable in the context toy Brítish house ‘a British
house which is a toy’, whereas the latter is inseparable: *tóy British house for ‘a British house
which is for toys’. Therefore, the fact that syntax cannot access the internal structure of

71
Another problem regarding the similarity in order concerns synthetic compounds, which are beyond the scope of
the current study. Synthetic compounds such as truck-driver show the argument-predicate order while their phrasal
counterparts show the predicate-argument order in English, as in drive a truck. Thus, word-order in compounds
cannot imply that compounds are syntactic units.

70
compounds such as tóy house provides further support for the claim that compounds should be
treated differently (see §4.1 for the distinction between different N N combinations in Turkish,
and Giegerich 2009 for English).
Another problem concerns semantics: why is meaning usually transparent in a syntactic
NP, while there is always a covert semantic component (ASN function) in an NNC? In addition,
why is it possible for an NNC to allow multiple interpretations? Harley 2009 addresses this
semantic problem by leaving the “special semantic relationships” of compounds to pragmatics.
However, this does not account for why the semantics is special in compounds unlike other
syntactic formations, as shown in §2.4.5 (for Turkish).
There is also a problem concerning referentiality: the first noun in NNCs is usually
generic in reference. Recall from §2.4.7 that the first nouns of NNCs cannot have pronominal
reference. However, syntactic units are not necessarily generic; they can have definite reference
as well. There is no compelling account provided by the syntactic analyses for why the first noun
in NNCs cannot normally be definite.
Another issue is the need for a distinction between novel NNCs and lexicalized NNCs.
We cannot claim that NNCs are syntactic by contrasting “novel NNCs” with “lexicalized
NNCs”, which contain frozen meanings, as expected. In Borer 2009, for example, we do not see
this distinction: “compound” refers to only lexicalized examples as far as I can see. She thus
claims that M-constructs must undergo a different syntactic operation, since unlike her
compounds, which I would call “lexicalized compounds”, M-constructs are semantically
compositional, and their non-head behaves differently. I would suggest that Borer’s M-constructs
are “novel NNCs” in fact; therefore, it is expected that they be semantically compositional unlike
lexicalized examples. Recall from §2.4.6 that Turkish also has lexicalized NNCs with frozen
meanings, which are not fully transparent (or non-componential). However, I showed that even
in such examples, we can interpret the ASN function in the dynamic level. This fact shows that
novel and lexicalized NNCs are the outputs of the same operation. There is, however, a further
process in the case of lexicalized examples, which is lexicalization. Due to this process, it is
expected that lexicalized compounds are more restricted since they have become entries in the
lexicon. This process may appear to be parallel to Borer’s incorporation; however, such an
operation cannot be responsible for the structure and form of compounds. Namely, compounding
and lexicalization are distinct processes (see also §3.7.1). Note that we can also predict the ASN

71
function in the Hebrew (lexicalized) compound beyt sefer (house book) ‘school’, which is either
FOR or WITH2, which shows that there must be a dynamic level in Hebrew lexicalized compounds
too. Thus, it is crucial that we recognize the distinction between novel and lexicalized NNCs. In
sum, I consider that Hebrew M-constructs are novel compounds, whereas R-constructs look like
PCs. With regard to the similarity between the two structures in Hebrew, it might be lack of
morphological signalling of the structural distinction, unlike Turkish NNCs vs. PCs, for
example: only PCs involve GEN case inflection on the modifier in Turkish.
The fact that the non-head can be modified and that it itself can be a construct in M-
constructs (novel NNCs) also leads Borer (2009) to conclude that M-constructs are syntactic
(2009:503-505). Note however that such modification and recursion do not necessarily imply
that an operation is syntactic; it rather shows that a syntactic unit can serve as input to the
compounding operation. It is crucial that we distinguish between an operation and an input to
this operation (see also §2.1 for morphological recursion, and §4.2 for the interaction between
syntax and morphology). Borer also attributes the word properties of constructs to prosodic
liaison (p.507). It is, however, not generally expected for a prosodic operation to change
structural behaviour, i.e. from phrasal properties to word properties. Therefore, regarding
lexicalized compounds and novel compounds as syntactic outputs obscures certain structural
distinctions between NPs and compounds whereas they are apparent.
Finally, I will touch on the notion of incorporation: in Harley 2009, Noun-Noun
compounding involves incorporation, in which the modifying noun is introduced as sister to the
root of the head noun. There is, however, no explicit reason as to the motivation of NNC
incorporation, i.e. why the modifier noun must be incorporated in syntax (though Harley
mentions that incorporated elements satisfy their Case needs by incorporation based on Baker's
(1988) system (p.136)). Incorporation is a syntactic phenomenon for Borer (2009:509) too, for
whom it is relevant to the emergence of a non-compositional meaning. However, when we
consider incorporation in general, we see that incorporation does not necessarily involve non-
compositional semantics nor does non-compositional semantics necessitate incorporation, e.g.
non-compositional derivations. See, for example, Anderson 1992:29-34, Beard 1995, and
Spencer 1995 for “morphological” accounts of incorporation.
In sum, syntactic analyses of compounding do not account for a main and simple issue:
why NNCs and NPs are different semantically and syntactically (phonologically and

72
morphologically too in some languages). Thus, I would argue that such analyses are not
empirically explanatory even though they can account for phrasal compounds. Since the
disadvantages surpass the advantages of the syntactic approach, I will not pursue this way of
analyzing compounds. In the next section, I proceed to show an alternative approach to the
lexicalist and the syntactic approaches.

3.5 An Alternative Approach: A Separate Component for Compounding

In this section, I address an alternative approach to compounding, i.e. two different accounts,
which are neither lexicalist nor syntactic. The first one of these is Allen 1978, which regards
morphology as the grammar of words, but not a subpart of syntax (p.2). She argues that the
principles of word-formation are different from the principles of syntax. With regard to
compounding, it is a morphological derivation or a “word-adjunction” process as in (42), which
is her “Primary Compound Formation Rule” (p.114):

(42) PCFR: [#X#]N …. [#Y#]N  [ [#X#] [#Y#] ]

Allen’s PCFR combines two fully specified lexical items and creates an internal double word
boundary.72
Allen 1978 distinguishes between a “Conditional Lexicon”, which is infinite and contains
the outputs of WFRs, and a “Permanent Lexicon”, which is finite and does not contain all the
possible outputs of WFRs. The Permanent Lexicon, for example, contains lexicalized
compounds. This is an important distinction since this assumption does not restrict Allen’s
morphology to the lexicon in the general sense. She claims that WFRs including the
compounding rule do not apply in the lexicon. She shows examples such as city snowyness and
secureness level as evidence for her claim: these examples demonstrate the recursive, productive,
and predictable aspect of compounding (p.189). She calls her model “Overgenerating
Morphology” whose outputs exist in her Conditional Lexicon.
72
Unlike the inputs, which are nouns, the output does not contain a category label since category labeling is not
rule-specific according to Allen. Rather, she claims that category labeling results from a general principle of
morphology, the “Is A Condition”, which predicts the derived category of the morphological output (p.114). This “Is
A Condition” has a semantic base since it holds a subset-set relation between the compound and its second
constituent: in the compound [ [….]X [….]Y ]Z, Z Is a Y (1978:105, 110).

73
 Allen 1978 thus has a special component for WFRs including compounding: her
Overgenerating Morphology. Therefore, her approach differs from both the lexicalist and
syntactic approaches to morphology. Her model, however, cannot be identified as an
autonomous model of morphology since Allen, at the same time, assumes that inflectional
morphology is within the domain of syntax (p.3), as in Weak Lexicalism.
The second alternative account comes from Sadock (1998), who also assumes the
existence of an independent morphological component. While compounding is similar to other
processes of grammar in that compounds are composed of pieces which are put together,
compounding is not connected with other aspects of grammar (p. 161). In other words, he
proposes a specific part of grammar for compounding only. His reasoning for this proposal is
that “there is no direct connection between the morphosyntactic style of a language and the kind
of compounding, if any, that the language presents” (p.162). He claims that languages of very
different types can be very similar in terms of compounding, and that a language with
compounding can have a variety of different properties concerning other parts of the grammar.
On the other hand, he suggests that languages which display similar syntactic processes might
not share much in compounding. He discusses this final case by proposing that Hebrew construct
state constructions are compounds in contrast to Welsh genitive constructions, which are not
compounds (see Sadock 1998 for the relevant discussion and analysis).
Another cross-linguistic issue that Sadock 1998 addresses is the morphological status of
the elements that are compounded: some languages compound stems, some compound words,
and some languages compound forms that are specific to compounding. For example, he shows
that Greek uses a special noun form as the first member of compounds, which is not found
elsewhere in the language; even inflected word forms can appear in compounds, e.g. Spanish
exocentric compounds. Crucially however, he argues that inside compounds, this inflection does
not function syntactically. This point is important since it eliminates the problem of inflected
units within compounds.73
Sadock (1998:166) stresses the syntactic atomicity in English compounds: they do not
allow internal determiners, possessors, etc. The definite article, for example, which is used with

73
He considers this to be a problem for models in which inflection is defined as morphology relevant to syntax (p.
168).

74
descriptive names as in The Liberty Bell, disappears inside compounds as in The Chicago
Tribune (*The) Liberty Bell Awards for Citizenship.
Sadock 1998 also addresses the fact that compounds may express certain semantic
relations such as part-whole, material-entity, location-entity, purpose-instrument, and notes that
the same relations can also be expressed by syntactic processes, and derivational morphology (as
in West Greenlandic), which is an important point. He notes that the semantic relations alone
cannot be used as a criterion for compounding (p.168-170). His goal is thus to show that
compounding cannot be accounted for without morphology, which is the main criterion for him:
composition of stems is a morphological issue.
The benefit of Allen’s (1978) and Sadock’s (1998) works is that both authors point out
that we do not have to assign compounding to either lexicon or syntax; rather, morphology can
deal with it. This component is dynamic since certain operations such as compounding, and
derivation (for Allen) take place within it. The idea that this component contains such dynamic
operations, however, does not necessitate that this component be syntax. Rather, what is
proposed is that there is a specific component for derivation including compounding:
morphology.74

3.6 Evaluation of the Alternative Approach

3.6.1 Advantages of the Alternative Analyses

The analysis of compounding and derivation within an independent component separate from
both syntax and lexicon turns out to be very profitable. With this approach, most of the problems
with the lexicalist and the syntactic approaches raised in §3.2.2 and §3.4.2 are resolved.
Since compounds are not formed in the lexicon in this view, we can account for the
occurring of phrasal units in compounds. With a component independent from lexicon, we also
do not need to assume that affixes are lexical. Thus, multifunctional affixes, which are
problematic for the lexicalist view, will no longer pose a problem. Namely, if there is a
component for word-formation, it can include affixes as well as operations since affixes are
morphological elements. Since affixes are not lexical, it is expected that they may have different

74
See also Sadock 2012 for an autonomous approach to morphology (§4.2).

75
functions in different rules and operations. We also do not need to assume that the lexicon
contains operations in addition to lexical entries. Operations and lexical entries are two different
concepts: the former is a process and the latter is an item.
Since compounds are not formed in the syntax in this view, we can account for the
formal, semantic, and syntactic properties of NNCs that are distinct from those of NPs (see
Ch.2). Namely, it is expected that NNCs will have different behaviour based on the component
responsible for their creation.
Moreover, both Allen (1978) and Sadock (1998) make the point that the fact that NNCs
are paraphrasable does not indicate that they are syntactic, as I claim throughout this study. We
can use different components for expressing similar semantic relations.

3.6.2 Disadvantages of the Alternative Analyses

The alternative approach to compounding appears superior to the lexicalist and syntactic
approaches. However, I will raise one issue which poses a problem for the general operations of
morphology in Allen’s (1978) model. She assumes that there is a separate component for
derivation and compounding, whereas inflection is a syntactic problem. As addressed in §3.2.2,
there are problems with the split morphology hypothesis, however. In §4.2, I will address a set of
models which regard an autonomous morphology including derivation and inflection, and will
propose an alternative model with an autonomous morphology.
Given the pros and cons of the lexicalist approach, the syntactic approach, and the
alternative approach, we can claim that the alternative, morphological, approach is superior to
the others. Note that I will adopt a similar view in Ch.4. In §3.7, I turn to Turkish NNCs, i.e.
previous lexicalist and syntactic analyses of Turkish NNCs and the -sI suffix.

3.7 Previous Analyses of Turkish NNCs and -sI

This section outlines previous analyses of Turkish NNCs and the -sI suffix within different
frameworks. On the one hand, there are two distinct assumptions regarding -sI in the Turkish
linguistics literature. The unified analysis claims that -sI is the 3rd Person possessive marker in
both NNCs and PCs: Lewis 1967, Underhill 1976, Dede 1978, Yükseker 1987, 1994, 1998,

76
Spencer 1991, Uygun 2009. Contrary to this, there is also a non-unified analysis which claims
that there are two different functions of -sI; -sI in PCs is the 3rd Person (possessive) marker
whereas -sI in NNCs is a compound marker: Swift 1963, Hayasi 1996, van Schaaik 1996, 2002,
Kornfilt 1997, Schroeder 1999, Bozşahin 2002, Aslan & Altan 2006, Göksel & Kerslake 2005,
Göksel & Haznedar 2007, Göksel 2009, Kharytonava 2010, 2011.
On the other hand, there are two basic theoretical approaches to NNCs and -sI. The first
approach is syntactic as in Dede 1978, Yükseker 1987, 1994, 1998, Bozşahin 2002, Uygun 2009,
Kharytonava 2010, 2011, and Ralli 2011. The second approach is lexicalist as in Aslan & Altan
2006. We will look at these analyses in terms of both the first issue (the unified approach as
opposed to the non-unified approach) and the second issue, which concerns the theoretical side. I
will further point to the advantages and disadvantages of these analyses, i.e. whether they suffice
to account for the properties of NNCs presented in Ch.2.

3.7.1 The Unified Approach to Turkish -sI

In the traditional unified approach, e.g. Lewis (1967, 2000:40-42), -sI is regarded as the 3rd
Person possessive suffix, which links two nouns in terms of an “annexation”, in both NNCs and
PCs. Both structures are called “izafet constructions” with a distinction in referentiality:
indefinite izafet and definite izafet, respectively. Lewis points to another semantic distinction
between the two structures: the relation between the two nouns in indefinite izafet constructions
is not so intimate or possessive as the relation in definite izafet constructions (p.41). Spencer
(1991:314-315) also regards -sI in NNCs as the possessive suffix; however, he distinguishes
between NNCs and PCs. NNCs are word-level units unlike PCs, which are phrasal (p.318).
As an alternative, Dede 1978 regards -sI as the possessive suffix in both PCs and NNCs
but treats both structures as syntactic formations (unlike Spencer 1991 and Lewis 2000).
However, for Dede, the possessive marker -sI which appears in NNCs signals compounding.
Even though -sI marks compounding in NNCs vs. 3rd Person agreement in PCs, it is the
“possessive suffix” in both cases (p.33). She treats NNCs as derivations with the structure N-(N-
sI); however, she claims that this structure is syntactic (p.75-76). The motivation for this
assumption is the existence of examples such as (43) which are different from simplex NNCs.
Dede claims that complement clauses in Turkish can be in an NNC form as well as a PC; when

77
the complement clause performs the function of an NP, it appears as a PC. If, however, there is
no GEN assignment, the complement clause is in an NNC form with a different function. (43)
illustrates the latter case: an NNC as a complement clause. In (43), the postpositional phrase with
its complement clause functions as an adverbial in the matrix sentence:

(43) [[Ali gel-diğ-i] halde]PP karı-sı gel-me-di

Ali come-NML-sI despite wife-sI come-NEG-PAST
‘Even though Ali came, his wife didn’t come.’

(Dede 1978:172, (91))

I would, however, argue that examples such as Ali gel-diğ-i as in (43) cannot be regarded
as compounds even though they lack the GEN suffix (on Ali above). For example, we can insert
an adverb between the embedded subject Ali and the nominalized predicate gel-diğ-i as in (44),
and the subject can even scramble as in (45):

(44) Ali dün gel-diğ-i halde ara-ma-dı-m

Ali yesterday come-NML-sI despite call-NEG-PAST-1st
‘Even though Ali came yesterday, I didn’t call (him).’

(45) Dün gel-diğ-i halde Ali, ara-ma-dı-m

yesterday come-NML-sI despite Ali call-NEG-PAST-1st
‘Even though Ali came yesterday, I didn’t call (him).’

Examples in (44,45) show that the formation [Ali gel-diğ-i] is separable unlike NNCs. Therefore,
we cannot claim that complement clauses in Turkish can be in an NNC form and NNCs have
syntactic status on the basis of such structures, which are not NNCs. This point is important since
it shows that the presence of the genitive suffix is not the only distinction between an NNC and a
PC: we also need to check structural atomicity.
Another unified analysis is Yükseker 1987, which claims that NNCs (her “possessive
compounds”) and PCs (her “syntactic possessives”) are structurally the same, and that this
structural similarity has a semantic basis resulting from the possessive -sI in both cases (p.91,
95). Following Lewis (1967), she attributes the semantic similarities between the two
constructions to the presence of the possessive marker, -sI. This assumption is important since it

78
means that -sI is responsible for the semantics of NNCs, and it has semantic status/function (I
argue against this in §4.3). She proposes that these two constructions also have similar structures
due to the semantic similarity, apart from referentiality, which is based on the overt GEN case in
PCs.75 Both constructions have the same structure: NP-Gen NP-Poss. However, PCs have both
the genitive and the possessive overtly case marked while NNCs lack the overt genitive marker
(p.89-91). She further proposes a specific case for compounds: NNCs are reanalyzed as Nº (in
the line of Di Sciullo & Williams 1987). Thus NNCs are “syntactic words” with the internal
structure of phrasal units but showing word behaviour in the lexicon with the structure N  NP
NP (p.97-100).
Yükseker (1987) also refers to the property of inseparability, which is a significant
characteristic of NNCs as claimed in the current study, §2.5. However, according to her, the
inseparability of the constituents of NNCs is not a valid test for distinguishing NNCs from
phrases since there are also cases in which an element cannot intervene between a verb and its
object either.
It is important that Yükseker (1987) highlights the semantic similarity between NNCs
and PCs (see also §6.1, §6.6). However, I will address some problems. First, treating bare noun
stems in NNCs as NPs is not justified, since the existence of other null-case markers (depending
on the assumptions of course, they might exist or not) does not warrant that there is also a null-
case marker, GEN, in NNCs. Second, Yükseker’s claim that NNCs consist of NPs rather than
nouns is based on her assumption that her POSS is a case marker. However, without a motivation
and evidence, we cannot claim that POSS is a case marker in NNCs. It cannot be a case marker
since it can be followed by case inflection, as in kadın başkan-ın-dan (woman president-sI-ABL)
‘from the president of women’. Therefore, the claim that NNCs and PCs are structurally the
same and the distinction is only in the overt marking of the GEN case is not verified. Note also
that there are PCs with generic reference, e.g. çocuk-lar-ın dünya-sı (child-PL-GEN world-sI)
‘children’s world’.76
The fact that NNCs are inseparable is important, contrary to Yükseker’s (1987) claim.
While the constituents of an NNC are not separable, the constituents of another superficially very

75
However, note that it is not the case that overt case marking always signals definiteness in Turkish. In ben
çikolata-yı çok sev-er-im (I chocolate-ACC very like-AOR-1st) ‘I like chocolate very much’, for example, the direct
object bears the accusative case suffix despite the generic interpretation. Null-case marking can be linked to
indefiniteness; however, this does not work invariably.
76
See Emeksiz 2003, and Göksel & Kerslake 2005:322-337 for definiteness in Turkish.

79
similar structure, PC, are separable (§1.0, §6.1). Therefore, separability is indeed a very
important distinction between two apparently similar structures one of which, the PC, is clearly
syntactic: separability distinguishes an NNC from a PC in Turkish.
Another issue is the reanalysis assumption: Yükseker (1987) considers that the NP NP
sequences with the null-Gen and Poss marker are reanalyzed in the lexicon as nouns (based on
Di Sciullo & Williams 1987). However, NNCs are highly productive in Turkish and not all
examples are necessarily lexicalized (§2.4.6). According to the current study, compounding
(NNC formation) and lexicalization are totally different phenomena (§2.4.6).77 Even syntactic
units can be lexicalized, for example. Therefore, the lexical-reanalysis claim does not account for
the formation of novel NNCs.
Yükseker (1994) proposes a further analysis in which there is a structural distinction
between PCs and NNCs, unlike the 1987 analysis. The 1994 analysis targets argument structure,
and claims that Turkish nouns do not take arguments (nominal heads do not allow either
complements or specifiers) and that the -sI suffix in PCs appears to create an argument position
(p.459-464). She considers the PC without -sI, *kadın-ın doktor_ (woman-GEN doctor) for ‘the
woman’s doctor’, to be ungrammatical, and proposes that -sI is a “functional head” which creates
a specifier (argument) position to which the genitive case marker is attached. Therefore, the GEN
case assignment is dependent on the presence of the possessive marker -sI, which forms a
functional projection, PossP (p.465). In NNCs, on the other hand, -sI adjoins with a non-
referential bare noun; therefore, NNCs are derived by syntactic “head adjunction” (p.466-467).
Briefly, according to the 1994 analysis, -sI is the possessive marker and a functional head in both
structures, which are not identical, however, as shown in Figure 4:

77
I assume that compounding is a word-formation process, which does not take place in the lexicon, whereas
lexicalization involves either assigning a new meaning to a lexeme, or sending a morphological or syntactic output
to the lexicon.

80
 a. PossP b.
PossP
KP Poss’ Poss’
Possº
Possº
NP1 K NP2 Poss
| | | |
kitab -ın kab -ı Nº
book GEN cover 3Poss kitab Nº Possº
book kab -ı
cover 3Poss

‘the cover of the book’ (Yükseker 1994:465) ‘book cover’ (Yükseker 1994:467)

Figure 4. Yükseker’s Syntactic Possessives (PCs) and Possessive Compounds (NNCs)

In Figure 4, NNCs are also projections of the possessive marker -sI. The structural distinction
between NNCs and PCs is that NNCs are derived by syntactic head adjunction, and the first noun
in NNCs does not occupy the specifier position unlike the first noun in PCs. Therefore, the first
noun in an NNC, Nº, does not receive case. This also accounts for the non-referential
interpretation of compounds, according to Yükseker. Both structures are syntactic projections of
the possessive suffix -sI, both are recursive, and neither feeds derivation. The possessive marker
-sI can either select an NP as complement or it can adjoin to an Nº.
Argument structure is an important issue raised by Yükseker (1994): -sI appears to create
an argument position in PCs since she considers PCs without -sI to be ungrammatical as shown
above. However, I would argue that the example kadın-ın doktor ‘the woman’s doctor’, the PC
without -sI, is not ungrammatical, but only informal since PCs without posessive suffixes are
frequently used in casual speech. Therefore, the GEN assignment cannot depend on the presence
of -sI. Also, I will argue that there cannot be a head-argument relation between the constituents
in either PCs (§6.5) or NNCs (§4.3).
In a later analysis, Yükseker (1998) proposes two distinct functional projections for PCs
and NNCs: PCs are Genitive Phrases (GenP) whereas NNCs are Possessive Phrases (PossP).
Both her structures include the abstract head, POSS. The referentiality, specifity, and genitive
case are assigned in GenP (p.158, 160-161). As in the 1994 analysis, she claims that the
distinction between 1st and 2nd Persons and the 3rd Person is semantic in Turkish: the 3rd
Person is generic unlike the 1st and 2nd Persons. However, this distinction is limited to person

81
morphemes (suffixes). She thus claims that without an overt referential and genitive 3rd Person
pronoun, a structure with -sI is interpreted as generic, i.e. NNCs (p.162).
The claim that the 3rd Person “pronoun” has definite reference whereas the 3rd Person -sI
“suffix” has generic reference sounds contradictory. If the free form, the 3rd Person pronoun,
and the bound form, the -sI suffix, expressed the same category value, which is the 3rd Person, I
assume that there would not be a distinction concerning referentiality between the two.
Assigning referentiality properties to affixes is also not advantageous (§4.2, §4.3, §6.5). In Ch.6,
I will return to the category Person when analyzing PCs, -sI in PCs, and the distinction between
the expression of 3rd Person and the expression of 1st and 2nd Persons in Turkish.
The fact that the first constituent may be modified in NNCs leads Uygun (2009:164-166)
to consider the first constituent phrasal, i.e. an NP, as in the example [küçük oyuncak] araba-sı
(small toy car-sI) ‘car for small toys’ (her example 114, p.166). Contrasting formations such as
oyuncak araba (car toy) ‘a/the car toy’, which do not contain -sI and involve ascriptive
semantics, with NNCs such as oyuncak araba-sı (toy car-sI) ‘car for/of toys’, Uygun claims that
the function of -sI, the 3rd Person possessive suffix, is to license the first constituent as an NP.
-sI shows that the first noun is an argument of the second noun, but not an adjectve modifier
(p.165). She further claims that the first constituent in NNCs is assigned a “weak” form of the
genitive case, whereas comparable PCs involve “strong” genitive case, similarly to Yükseker
1987 (see above). As does this study, Uygun 2009 highlights the importance of categorial
information in Turkish NNCs: -sI appears with “nouns”. I would, however, argue that neither
this fact nor the fact that the first element may be modified imply that the first element itself has
phrasal status in compounding. Note that the first element of an NNC can not be separated from
the second in contrast to a PC, which is a problem if the first constituents of both structures have
phrasal status and if both are case inflected. See also the discussion above concerning the
problems of the idea that the first constituents of NNCs are inflected.
Another unified syntactic analysis of Turkish NNCs comes from Ralli (2011), who
distinguishes between two types of compounds: morphological objects and phrasal units bearing
an atomic status. The former type shares properties with other morphological objects, whereas
the latter type is derived in syntax (p.1). Ralli considers Greek compounds as an example of the
morphological type since Greek compounds obey certain criteria of compounding. She shows
that they show word atomicity, do not allow word-internal inflection, and have morphological

82
properties specific to compounding involving a linking vowel. Greek NNCs also show a different
order from that of corresponding phrases (p.2). With regard to Ralli’s latter type of compounds,
those which are syntactically built, she considers Turkish compounds as an example of this type.
She claims that Turkish NNCs and PCs have the same structure, the only distinction being
referentiality.
Ralli (2011) also claims that there are two types of NNCs in Turkish. For example, diş
doktor-u (tooth doctor-sI) ‘dentist’ is a compound for her. She claims that in diş doktor-u, the
first constituent cannot be modified as in *[büyük diş] doktor-u (big tooth doctor) for ‘a doctor of
big teeth’, and the GEN suffix may not attach to the non-head constituent as in *diş-in doktor-u
(tooth-GEN doctor-sI) for ‘the tooth’s doctor’, which she considers to be ungrammatical. She
claims that in contrast to diş doktor-u ‘dentist’, the example ev çatı-sı (house roof-sI) ‘house
roof’ allows modification of the first constituent and GEN suffix on the first constituent; ev çatı-sı
is also fully transparent for her. She thus concludes that examples such as ev çatı-sı are syntactic
formations, comparable to PCs: they are “GEN-POSS” (genitive possessive) phrases which lack
the GEN case suffix, as in Yükseker 1987. With regard to examples such as diş doktor-u, she
claims that they are compounds formed in the syntax. She further suggests that syntactic
compounds such as diş doktor-u are different from Greek compounds, which obey
morphological criteria addressed above. Thus, she concludes that even such examples are
syntactically formed in Turkish.
There are two points to make regarding Ralli’s (2011) claims. First, there is no apparent
reason to distinguish diş doktor-u (tooth doctor-sI) ‘dentist’ from ev çatı-sı (house roof-sI)
‘house roof’ in Turkish. Both of these examples behave the same according to our criteria in
Ch.2. They are morphologically the same. They also both contain an ASN function, the former,
FOR, and the latter, OF. Importantly, they have the same syntactic properties addressed in §2.5.
Also, in contrast to Ralli’s claim, both examples allow the modification of the first constituent as
do all other potential NNCs. See, for example, the modification of diş ‘tooth’ in the novel NNC
in (46):

83
(46) Bu adam resmen [çürük diş] doktor-u,
this man clearly rotten tooth doctor-sI

normal diş-ler-e bak-mı-yor

normal tooth-PL-DAT look-NEG-PROG
‘This man is clearly a {[rotten-tooth] dentist}, he doesn’t examine normal teeth.’

I assume that the problem with Ralli’s example, [büyük diş] doktor-u ‘(a) dentist for/of big
teeth’, is pragmatic but not structural since dentists normally are not classified according to the
size of teeth that they examine. This is why [büyük diş] doktor-u sounds odd though it is
grammatical. Note also that we can attach the GEN suffix to the first constituent in diş doktor-u if
we need a PC rather than an NNC though this may not be frequent since diş doktor-u ‘dentist’
might have been lexicalized. There is no simplex lexical entry for ‘dentist’ in Turkish. However,
despite this, we can still create a PC with GEN involving the same elements as in the following
context, for example:

(47) [diş-in doktor-un-a] değil sahib-in-e bak

tooth-GEN doctor-sI-DAT not owner-sI-DAT look
‘Look at the owner of the tooth, not its doctor!’

To sum up, it is not correct that there are two structurally different types of NNCs in
Turkish. The non-head constituent in any novel NNC can be modified as long as we provide
pragmatically appropriate modifiers and contexts. Also, we can use a comparable PC instead of
an NNC as long as, again, we provide an appropriate context. The main distinction is indeed
between the structure of NNCs and PCs in Turkish (see §2.5 for the syntactic distinctive
behaviour of NNCs and PCs, §4.3 for the structure of NNCs, and §6.5 for the structure of PCs).
As we see, NNCs are regarded as syntactic units in Dede 1978, Yükseker 1987, 1994,
1998, Uygun 2009, and Ralli 2011. According to Yükseker, the -sI suffix is the 3rd Person
possessive marker but it has generic reference. According to Ralli, the fact that NNCs and PCs
are formally similar, and the fact that modification of the first constituent is allowed make NNCs
syntactic in Turkish. According to Dede, NNCs are derivations with the possessive -sI, but they
are manipulated by syntax. However, considering the issues raised above, and the distinctive
syntactic behaviour of NNCs and that of PCs addressed in §2.5, a unified account of -sI on the

84
one hand, and a unified account of NNCs and PCs, on the other hand, are not adequate. In §4.4
and §6.1, I will show that -sI may be omitted in PCs in contrast to NNCs. Also, the fact that the
head constituent cannot be modified indicates that syntax cannot manipulate the constituents of
NNCs. I also claim that the fact that the non-head constituent can be modified (and also be
coordinated) does not imply that it is syntax which creates NNCs. As stated in §3.4.2, we should
distinguish between an operation and an input to this operation. Namely, the fact that a phrasal
unit is input to an operation does not necessarily show that the operation itself is syntactic. What
we should look at is the output of an operation in order to predict which component that
operation is manipulated by (see §4.2 and §4.3 for the distinctions between syntactic and
morphological principles). This leads us to turn to the non-unified approach of -sI.

3.7.2 The Non-Unified Approach to Turkish -sI

Unlike the analyses addressed in §3.7.1, van Schaaik (1996, 2002) proposes that the function of
-sI in NNCs is different from -sI in PCs, and that NNCs involve a distinct formation. For him,
the term “3rd singular possessive suffix” is not appropriate for the -sI in NNCs since a possessor
is usually not present unlike PCs, as in his example çay ev-i (tea house-sI) ‘tea house’
(1996:144). I share van Shaaik’s concern about the appropriateness of the term “3rd Person
possessive suffix/marker” due to the set of relations given in §2.4.5 and due to Person agreement,
which cannot be involved in compounding (see §4.4 and §6.2). Recall that OF (‘belonging to’) is
only one of the ASN relations involved in NNCs (§2.4.5). In van Schaaik’s example çay ev-i
‘tea house’, for instance, the ASN function is either FOR or WITH, but not OF.
van Schaaik (1996:157) proposes that the compounding rule produces a compound
nominal predicate, and that -sI indicates the derived character of this nominal predicate: it is a
compound marker (“CM”). However, -sI in NNCs is inflectional for him although its function is
distinct from the possessive suffix (p.166-167). He also shows that despite this function, the
compound marker may be absent as in the example güneş gözlük-lü (sun glasses-lI) ‘with sun-
glasses’ in contrast to güneş gözlüğ-ü (sun glasses-CM) ‘sunglasses’ (see also §1.0). van
Schaaik’s contribution is particularly important in terms of two points that he makes: -sI in
NNCs has a distinct function and it may be absent despite this function in some cases.The
absence of -sI in these formations will be accounted for in Ch.5.

85
 Hayasi (1996) also regards the different properties of the two structures featuring the -sI
suffix, NNCs and PCs. He addresses a set of problems with considering -sI and both structures
identical; however, he also considers some problems with treating -sI as a CM in NNCs. In the
first case, Hayasi considers the inseparability issue to be problematic for the syntactic accounts
of NNCs since they overlook the word status of NNCs (p.121-123). In the second case, he refers
to examples in which the CM -sI is dropped, i.e. the instances pointed by van Schaaik (1996) as
well (see above). Hayasi considers these problematic since -sI must appear as a part of the
compound which functions as base to the derivation (p.124). The non-unified analysis is
defective for him also due to examples such as okul bina(*-sı)-m-ız (school building(*-sI)-
1.POSS-PPL) ‘our school building’ (his example (16a)), in which -sI may not appear in the
presence of possessive suffixes (p.125) (see §6.7 where I account for this problem). For these
reasons, he takes a middle way: NNCs have an autonomous character, but one which is phrase-
like (p.129). Thus, Hayasi’s middle way is closer to syntax. With regard to the status and
location of -sI, he suggests that -sI is probably added in the syntax after concatenating the nouns
(p.125). This implies that -sI in NNCs is inflectional too, as in van Schaaik 1996 (see §4.3, §4.4,
and §5.3 where I argue for the opposite case).
Aslan and Altan (2006) provide another non-unified analysis for -sI and the two
structures. Unlike the previous studies addressed in this section, they offer a lexical approach: -sI
is lexical in NNCs. They claim that there is a distinction between the 3rd Person possessive
suffix -sI, which indicates possession, and the CM -sI, which is used to construct lexicalized
nominal compounds (p.57). Their lexical analysis is based on certain differences between NNCs
and PCs. For example, the constituents of NNCs do not have a semantic possessor-possessed
relationship, as van Schaaik 1996 also notes; NNCs refer to one lexical entity (p.60). They
consider NNCs with the CM to be frozen lexical forms in Turkish, in which -sI marks the lexical
relation between the two nouns in the compound. Thus, -sI is “glue” for lexicalization of the
NNCs (p. 72).78 They also claim that there are some environments in which the CM drops, unlike
the -sI in genitive (possessive) constructions. These are the instances highlighted in van Schaaik
1996 and Hayasi 1996 as shown above (see the counterargument that -sI is obligatory in NNCs
whereas we may not have it in PCs, in §4.4 and §6.1).

78
However, as noted in footnote 77 and §3.4.2, compounding must be treated distinctly from lexicalization.

86
 It is important that Aslan and Altan (2006) distinguish between two different functions of
-sI depending on two different structures as well as semantics. However, treating -sI as a lexical
unit will pose the same set of problems raised in §3.2.2, which lexicalist views to compounding
and affixes, including compound markers, cannot deal with easily. Note also that a lexicalist
analysis like this does not account for the formation of novel NNCs (see also Ch.5 and Ch.6, for
the superiority of the process-based approach in contrast to morpheme-based approaches).
Göksel 2009 proposes another non-unified analysis of -sI within a broad overview of
compounding types in Turkish. She points to the distinctiveness of Turkish NNCs across
languages in terms of the location of the compound marker (her “linking element”), which is the
right periphery in Turkish NNCs (p.215). With regard to the function of -sI, it is to indicate the
syntactic function of the non-head constituent in NNCs (p.215). For her, if -sI appears in a
compound, this means that the non-head is in a subordinate relation to the head as in kadın
doktor-u (woman doctor-sI) ‘gynecologist’, otherwise there is an attributive relation as in kadın
oyuncu (woman actor) ‘actress’ (p.215-216, example (4)). Note that according to the current
study, the latter type of structures are not compounds but noun phrases (see §4.1).
In parallel with Hayasi (1996), Göksel (2009) suggests that compounding cannot be
ascribed to a single component since the distinction between compounds and phrases is scalar
(p.213). The motivation for this proposal is the fact that NNCs and PCs display not only
similarities such as the coordination of non-head, but also differences such as the appearance of
the GEN suffix only in PCs (p.224). To be able to account for both the similarities and
differences, she proposes a copy analysis: the NNC structure must be a copy of the PC structure,
whose head is the possessive -sI. In NNCs, however, -sI must have lost its function and be
reduced to a linking element according to Göksel. Importantly, she attributes the differences
between NNCs and PCs to the location where they are formed. Unlike PCs, NNCs must be
formed in the morphological module (p.225-227). This proposal is important in that it helps in
resolving one of the primary issues in the theory of compounding addressed in §2.5, §3.2.1, and
§3.4.2: the structural distinctions between NNCs and NPs, including PCs (see also §4.3 where I
propose that NNCs are the outputs of the morphological component). In sum, Göksel 2009
proposes a syntactic, copied PC structure for NNCs, which is, however, assigned to a
morphological module and in which the -sI head has lost its possessive function (see §6.6 for a
discussion of the potential transfer of -sI from PCs to NNCs).

87
 Bozşahin (2002) proposes another non-unified analysis of -sI, which is syntactic and
framed within the Combinatory Categorial Grammar framework (CCG). NNCs are “syntactic
compounds” for him, namely, they are syntactic like PCs, but their semantics is different (p.33).
He focuses on the predicate-argument structure (“PAS”), which is the basic level of
representation in CCG (p.8). In the PAS of compounds, there is a COMP function, and the
arguments form a compound; λx.λy.COMP xy is the logical form of an NNC (p.33). It is important
that Bozşahin stresses the predicate-argument structure and shows both nouns as the arguments;
in §4.3, I claim that there cannot be a head-argument relation between the constituents of NNCs,
and show that both are arguments of an ASN function. In Bozşahin’s system, however, the -sI
suffix corresponds to COMP, unlike the current study, which proposes that -sI is semantically
empty (see §4.3, §4.4, Ch.5).
Bozşahin (2002:33) shows that the left constituent of an NNC can be a noun group,
which results in ambiguity in scope of modification as in (48) below (his example (53c)). This
example shows that yeşil ‘green’ can modify either the first constituent or the whole compound
as the two structures indicate:

(48) yeşil otobüs bilet-i

green bus ticket-COMP

a.‘green (COMP ticket bus)’

b. ‘COMP (ticket(green bus))’

(48) is important in that it points to the grammatical aspect of NNCs. Namely, it shows that
(novel) NNCs and -sI cannot be frozen lexical items contra Aslan & Altan 2006, for example.
Another important contribution of Bozşahin 2002 is addressing the predicate-argument structure
in NNCs: there is no head-argument relation between the two nouns.
Kharytonava (2010, 2011) proposes another non-unified analysis of -sI, which is purely
syntactic. Her analysis is framed within Distributed Morphology (DM), based on Harley 2009
(§3.3). In Kharytonava 2010, -sI is an abstract head, similarly to Yükseker’s (1994, 1998)
analyses. For Kharytonava, however, the -sI in compounds is not the same -sI that appears in
PCs. Following DM’s acategorial assumption about roots (§3.3), she proposes that Turkish roots,
like English roots, allow incorporation. In the case of compounds, she suggests that they involve

88
incorporation where non-head nouns incorporate into an acategorial root. Her question is where
to place -sI, which she calls “ezafe”.79
To account for the addition of -sI, Kharytonava 2010 distinguishes between simple roots
and internally complex roots by proposing a constraint: Turkish nº (noun category defining node)
cannot host internally complex heads containing more than one Root element (not √P but √).
Thus, in Turkish, nº can merge with √ and -sI. This constraint, she suggests, does not allow a
structure such as *kamyon sür-ücü (truck drive-NOM) ‘truck driver’, which she considers to be
ungrammatical.80 81 When she places -ücü under nº and combines it with kamyon sür-, which is a
√P, the output is ungrammatical (for her) based on her constraint above, as shown in (49) (her
example (54)):

(49)
nP

n⁰ √P

| √SÜRi nP
ücü | ∆
√KAMYONi
sür |
kamyon

Therefore, she proposes that -sI must be a “transitory head”, which is necessary for a nominal
compound to be formed in Turkish: the complex root (√P), kamyon sür- above, must merge with
the transitory head -sI before merging with the category-defining n node. Namely, she proposes

79
I do not use the term “ezafe” for the Turkish -sI suffix; it is traditionally used and gives the impression that
Turkish -sI might be similar to the Farsi ezafe (vowel). The Farsi ezafe, however, can iterate in a phrase linking
almost all the units as Ghomeshi 1997 shows: otâ-e kuchik-e zir-e shirvuni-e Ali (room-EZ small-EZ under-EZ roof-
EZ Ali) ‘Ali’s small room under the roof’ (Ghomeshi’s example (10) p.736, source: Samiian 1983:39, (38)).
Therefore, the Farsi ezafe vowel is not specific for nouns and not restricted to compounding unlike the Turkish
compound marker -sI. This is why I avoid using the term “ezafe” for Turkish -sI.
80
There are actually two separate suffixes in -ü-cü: -I, which derives nouns from verb stems, and -CI, which derives
ACTOR nouns from noun stems. The suffix -CI cannot attach to verb roots directly; it attaches to noun stems (see
§1.0, Ch.5). Otherwise, it must follow a nominalizer suffix such as -I as in the above example. This fact importantly
shows that an acategorial approach to lexicon is not explanatory enough, for Turkish derivational suffixes such as
-CI clearly have categorial stem conditions.
81
I do not consider the example kamyon sür-ü-cü to be ungrammatical. Recall the duality involving compounding
and -CI in the case of root NNCs (§1.0, Ch.5). The same duality appears in deverbal compounds too: both kamyon
sür-ü-cü and kamyon sür-ü-cü-sü ‘truck-driver’ are acceptable for me.

89
that the incorporated complex root with -sI is merged with n⁰ and yields *kamyon sür-sü-ücü
‘truck driver’ as in (50) (her example (56)):

(50)
nP

n⁰ ez
ezj n⁰ ezj √P
| |
√P ez ücü sü √SÜR i nP
| ∆
nP √SÜRi sür √KAMYONi
∆ |
√KAMYONi kamyon

According to her, the structure above does not allow wrong predictions such as NNCs without
-sI. However, as we see, it outputs an ungrammatical formation instead of the grammatical
kamyon sür-ücü-sü (Kharytonava treats -ücü as a simplex nominalizer suffix, though it is not, as
shown in footnote 80: -ü-cü). Since she assumes that the complex root must merge with the
transitiory head -sI before n⁰ (-ücü in her example), the output is ungrammatical with the wrong
order of affixes. In order to resolve this order problem, she makes another proposal, a dislocation
rule (which is a head movement on linearized structures in DM). This rule allows -sI to surface
in the final position. According to this rule, -sI is dislocated at PF level following the derivation
in (50), and then she gets the grammatical order, in which -sI follows other suffixes. Briefly,
Kharytonava 2010 claims that -sI does not attach to a lexical category (noun), it is derived in
inner morphology, but then it undergoes Local Dislocation in phonology.
Kharytonava 2010 is important since the function of the compound marker -sI is clearly
distinguished for compounds: -sI is the transitory head which is necessary for a complex root to
assign a category in this analysis. Since the proposed structure is totally syntactic, however, it is
not clear how to distinguish the NNC structure from the PC structure, which is also syntactic and
involves -sI. Second, we would also expect the proposed structure to provide an account for the
semantics of NNCs, which is absent in the DM analysis. Moreover, the output of the proposed
system is ungrammatical with the order -sI-CI without a dislocation rule. The use of such a

90
dislocation rule is theoretically questionable: first of all we need to know why morphology is
unable to produce the desired suffix combination (whereas it can), and second, we need a
motivation for this rule to take place in phonology (if such a rule exists): what motivates
phonology for dislocating suffixes. Finally, an acategorial approach to roots in DM is not
adequate, especially for Turkish NNCs.82 NNCs in Turkish are the only compound type which
involve a compound marker. As shown in §2.1, other compounds do not take either -sI or
another marker. Thus, the proposal that NNCs need a transitory head would lead a question: why
do only NNCs need this head whereas other compound types do not, if they are all acategorial?
Note also that deverbal compounds with -sI such as kamyon sür-ü-cü-sü (truck drive-NML-CI-sI)
need a nominalizer before -sI and -CI, which is -I, and this suffix attaches to verb stems only.
Therefore, an acategorial lexicon is not adequate for Turkish.83 If we simply assume that
categorial information is encoded in lexemes, then we are able to explain the appearance of -sI
only in Noun-Noun compounds, for example (see §4.3, §5.3, and §6.5 for stem conditions in a
categorial point of view).
In this section, I addressed the non-unified approaches to -sI, which regard the -sI suffix
as a compound marker in NNCs (some authors still use the term “possessive suffix” regardless of
the two functions, however). Bozşahin (2002), and Kharytonava (2010, 2011) regard NNCs and
-sI as syntactic units. For Bozşahin, NNCs are syntactic compounds since they are structurally
similar to PCs but their semantics is distinctive. The motivation for Bozşahin’s syntactic
approach is his assumption that NNCs are grammatical outputs and cannot be lexical. According
to the current study too, NNCs cannot be lexical, this, however, does not show that they are
syntactic either (see §4.3 for the morphological analysis). Kharytonava (2010) proposes another
syntactic analysis in which roots are acategorial and -sI is a transition for them to obtain a
category. According to the current study, however, an acategorial approach to Turkish NNCs is
not sufficiently explanatory. As a different alternative, Hayasi (1996) and Göksel (2009) propose
a middle way: compounds are not ascribed to a single component. The motivation for this is the

82
See Uygun (2009), who also argues for a “categorial lexicon” for Turkish.
83
In a further analysis, Kharytonava (2011) proposes that -sI is generated in the node of little n position, which is the
nominalizing node. However, this leaves the following question unaccounted for: if -sI is responsible for the
category of NNCs, what is responsible for the category of other compounds apart from NNCs, namely, why is there
only a categorizing suffix for NNCs but not other compounds? Another question is why the nominalizing suffix -I
also appears in examples such as kamyon sür-ü-cü-sü ‘truck driver’ if -sI occupies a nominalizing node. These
problems again make an acategorial lexicon problematic for Turkish.

91
existence of similarities between PCs and NNCs as well as distinctions. However, in the next
chapter, Ch.4, I show that there is another way to account for all the behaviour of NNCs: a
separate and autonomous morphology. In the current section, I also referred to van Schaaik 1996,
which can also be taken as a middle way analysis since the compound marker -sI is added to the
derived compound as an inflection. I also addressed one lexical approach to Turkish NNCs,
Aslan & Altan 2006. The motivation for the lexical analysis was the differences between NNCs
and PCs. According to the current study, however, a lexicalist analysis to NNCs, has no way to
account for the productivity and recursivity of NNCs in addition to compounds with embedded
phrasal units, which are also productive.

3.8 Chapter 3 Summary

Ch.3 was devoted to the theoretical background of compounding and previous accounts of
Turkish NNCs with the -sI suffix. In the first half of the chapter, I addressed three theoretical
approaches to NNC formation: the lexicalist approach, the syntactic approach, and a
morphological approach. When evaluating the approaches, I considered the morphological
approach to be the most favourable. It can provide an account for the problems of both lexical
and syntactic analyses. In the second half of the chapter, I introduced the two basic approaches to
Turkish NNCs: the unified analysis in which -sI is the 3rd Person possessive suffix both in NNCs
and PCs vs. the non-unified analysis in which -sI has a different function in NNCs: compound
marker. I described the representative syntactic and lexicalist analyses within these approaches.
The general problem among the analyses was how to account for both similarities and
distinctions between NNCs and PCs. The same problem was the motivation for the variant
proposals, which, however, left some open questions: should we imagine a continuum between
syntax and morphology, or, can we consider that syntax creates words, and why are NNCs both
similar to and different from PCs in Turkish?
As I noted when evaluating previous approaches, there is actually a way to resolve these
issues: the way we approach to morphology. When we do not restrict morphology to the lexicon,
we will regard it as a dynamic component just like syntax, but with different principles. In this
way, we can also expect that syntactic outputs can serve as input to morphology as
morphological outputs can serve as input to syntax. This approach, for example, will resolve one

92
of the main problems, namely why phrasal units as well as noun stems can be input to
compounding even though NNCs are clearly distinct from NPs, including PCs. As I already
emphasized, the fact that non-head constituents can be coordinated or modified does not imply
that syntax manipulates compounding. It shows that even derivational morphology can operate
on syntactic units. This fact matters not only for compounding in Turkish but also for the theory
of morphology and grammatical architecture. This autonomous approach to morphology is
exactly what I will adopt when proposing the formation of Turkish NNCs in the next chapter,
Ch.4.

93
 CHAPTER 4

THE FORMATION OF NOUN-NOUN COMPOUNDS IN TURKISH

4.0 Introduction

A description of NNCs in Turkish was presented in Ch.2, where we addressed their

morphological, semantic, phonological, and syntactic behaviour. We saw that the -sI suffix
necessarily appears in productive Noun-Noun compounding. In Ch.3, I touched upon different
accounts of the -sI suffix and NNCs, and evaluated these accounts within the general theory of
compounding. In the current chapter, I propose a process-based account of NNCs and -sI, and
suggest a motivation for -sI. I will propose that NNCs are created by morphology and that -sI
signals a structurally and semantically distinguished unit: an NNC. -sI is necessary in Turkish N-
N compounding as the -sI suffixation derives lexemes from N-N stems: -sI is a lexeme creator.
I will first show that -sI distinguishes an NNC from an NP in Turkish. Next, I represent a
set of views regarding morphology as a separate component or module in grammar. The
introduction of process-based approaches to morphology, which I call Process Morphology,
comes next. Following this, I suggest a model for the grammatical architecture and propose an
analysis of Turkish NNCs within Process Morphology. I finally consider the nature and
morphological status of -sI in NNCs.
The proposed morphological analysis will enable us to account for cases where -sI does
not appear despite the same semantic relations as in the compounds with -sI (see §1.0). I also
demonstrate the superiority of the view regarding morphology as a separate and autonomous
component. This will enable us to account for why NNCs are different from NPs including PCs.

4.1 The Motivation for -sI

This section is dedicated to showing why the -sI suffix is motivated in Turkish compounding: it
distinguishes an NNC, which is a lexeme, from other superficially similar nominal constructions,
which are not lexemes but phrasal units. Recall the structural distinctions between NNCs and
NPs shown in §2.5. In this section, I will focus on the distinction between the semantics of NNCs

94
and semantics of other N N combinations which are not NNCs. Then, I will show that the
distinction between NNCs and these nominal constructions is not only in the semantics but also
in the structure, as in §2.5. Briefly, this section demonstrates that -sI appears in nominal strings
which are compounds/lexemes but not in nominal strings which are NPs. This will further show
that it is necessary to distinguish between two types of N N constructions: compounds vs.
phrases.
Recall the semantics of NNCs (§2.4.1, §2.4.5): the constituents of NNCs do not involve
the ascription relation, characteristic of NPs composed of A+N strings. In the NP iyi yazar (good
author) ‘good author’, for example, the semantic relation is one of ascription: the adjective refers
to a property of the entity denoted by the noun in both Turkish and English. Again, it is the
ascription relation which allows us to construct a sentential structure using the same nouns both
in Turkish and English: iyi yazar (good author) ‘the author is good’, and yazar iyi (author good)
‘the author is good’.84 Thus, ascription is found between modifiers and heads in NPs, and also
between subjects and nominal predicates in sentences.
However, since ascription is not allowed in Turkish NNCs, we cannot construct a
sentential structure with an “is” relation using only the same nouns. Consider the example çocuk
yazar-ı (child author-sI) ‘children’s author’. We cannot obtain a sentence from it by the “is”
relation as in *the author is a child, since in this example the first constituent is associated with
the second constituent by means of FOR, which is a type of ASN function as proposed in §2.4.5.
çocuk yazar-ı ‘children’s author’ means ‘author (writing) FOR children’. It is, therefore,
important to note that -sI appears with structures which involve an association relation and
exclude ascription.
As I noted in §2.1, I claim that not all N N combinations are compounds in Turkish. This
claim is similar to Giegerich’s (2009) view for English, but departs from, for example, Bauer
(1998) who suggests that there is no sufficient reason to draw a distinction between two types of
N+N constructions.85

84
There is no verb ‘be’ in the present tense in modern spoken Turkish.
85
Bauer (1998:65) claims that the criteria generally assumed to distinguish between the two types of N+N
constructions in English do not provide a consistent distinction between a syntactic vs. a morphological construction
(e.g. being listed, written as a single word, fore-stress vs. end-stress, coordination, etc.). He suggests that such
criteria are relevant to listedness rather than morphological status. However, I would suggest that inseparability (or
uniterruptability) of the constituents, whether they are lexemes or listemes, can be used as a diagnostic test for
English NNCs as well as Turkish NNCs. Consider Bauer’s examples tóy factory vs. toy fáctory: only the former is
uninterruptable and a compound, since it is possible to insert another modifier between the constituents in the latter

95
 I propose that only N-N combinations with -sI such as çocuk yazar-ı (child author-sI)
‘children’s author’ are compounds in Turkish, whereas others without -sI such as çocuk yazar
(child author) ‘a/the child author’ are phrasal units (NPs). I also propose that Turkish NNCs have
specific semantics: they only involve association. See the contrastive examples, which contain
and do not contain the -sI suffix in (51, 52, 53):86

(51) a. kadın filozof b. kadın filozof-u

woman philosopher woman philosopher-sI
1 ‘a/the female philosopher’ ‘philosopher for/of women’
2 ‘the philosopher is female/a woman’ ⇛ASSOCIATION: FOR/OF
3 ‘the woman is a/the philosopher’
⇛ASCRIPTION

(52) a. elmas kasa b. elmas kasa-sı

diamond safe diamond safe-sI
1 ‘a/the diamond safe’ ‘safe for diamonds’
2 ‘the safe is a diamond’ ⇛ASSOCIATION: FOR
3 ‘the diamond is a/the safe’
⇛ASCRIPTION

(53) a. öğretmen kız b. öğretmen kız-ı

teacher girl teacher girl-sI
1 ‘the girl who is the/a teacher’ ‘daughter of a teacher’
2 ‘the girl is the/a teacher’ ⇛ASSOCIATION: OF
3 ‘the teacher is the/a girl’
⇛ASCRIPTION

(51), (52), (53) are significant: they show that the N-N structures including -sI, the (b) examples,
kadın filozof-u ‘philosopher for women’, elmas kasa-sı ‘safe for diamonds’ and öğretmen kız-ı

example as in a toy Canadian car. Therefore, I consider inseparability the best candidate for a universal criterion of
compounding in addition to language-specific criteria.
86
Note that in the second interpretations, the first constituents are the predicates: nominal predicates can either
precede (second interpretations) or follow their arguments (third interpretations) in Turkish. There is no prosodic
difference between the first and second interpretations of (56a, 57a, 58a). In the third interpretations, however, there
is a phonological phrase boundary following the first NPs. With contrastive focus, even the third interpretations will
be prosodically similar.

96
‘daughter of a teacher’, do not involve an ascription relation. However, those without -sI, the (a)
examples kadın filozof, elmas kasa, and öğretmen kız involve ascription with all interpretations.
The examples above also show that in Turkish, sentences may have bare NPs (without the
indefinite article) as their predicates, as in the second and third interpretations of the (a)
examples. The second and third interpretations of the (a) examples further show that N N
combinations can be sentential structures in Turkish, unlike the (b) examples, which are NNCs.
These examples finally raise the question of whether (51a, 52a, 53a) should be treated as
compounds (with the first interpretations) too.
Examples such as (51a), (52a), and (53a) cannot be compounds: their constituents are
separable unlike NNCs as shown in (54), (55), (56), and (57):

(54) kadın bir filozof (55) elmas bir kasa

woman a philosopher diamond a safe
‘a female philosopher’ ‘a diamond safe’

(56) öğretmen her kız (57) öğretmen genç kız

teacher every girl teacher young girl
‘every girl who is a teacher’ ‘the young lady who is a teacher’

As we see, (54), (55), (56) and (57) contrast with (51b), (52b), and (53b) in terms of separability.
We can also extract one of the constituents in structures such as elmas kasa ‘a/the diamond safe’
as in (58), unlike NNCs such as elmas kasa-sı ‘a safe for diamonds’ as in (59):

(58) Bir --- kasa lazım, elmas

a safe necessary diamond
‘a safe is necessary, a diamond one’

(59) *Bir --- kasa-sı lazım, elmas

a safe-sI necessary diamond
for ‘a safe is necessary, one for diamonds’

97
Thus, such N N constructions without -sI must be different from NNCs structurally. They cannot
be compounds unlike those with -sI.87 88
We have seen that both their syntactic behaviour and
semantics are different from NNCs. N N structures without -sI show the default semantics found
in NPs, which is ascription (recall from §2.6 that N N constructions involving nationality terms
without -sI are also NPs, not compounds).
Having distinguished NNCs from superficially similar structures, which are phrasal N N
constructions without -sI, I will now attempt to identify the nature of the semantic combination
in NNCs. The task is to show which combinatory semantic rule is responsible for the distinctive
semantics of NNCs. For this, I will address a theory of semantics, type-driven semantics, which
allows us to describe meaning compositions by means of semantic analyses. In Heim and Kratzer
1998, the semantic rules Function(al) Application (FA) and Predicate Modification (PM) are
used for the modification involving NPs. FA is normally used for combining the meanings of
distinct semantic types, such as non-intersective adjectives and common nouns; PM is normally
used for identical semantic types such as intersective adjectives and common nouns (p.62-72).89
On the basis of these notions, we can suggest a rule such as PM for the semantic combination in
NNCs since NNCs contain two nouns, with the identical semantic type. As in Kunduracı 2010,
2011, however, I argue that neither PM nor FA, the semantic combinatory rules currently
available, seem to apply during N-N compounding, since the semantics of NNCs is distinct. The
reason for this is that NNCs involve an additional semantic component, an ASN function (§2.4.1,
§2.4.5), which is covert and not expressed, unlike expressions involving PM or FA. Therefore,
the semantics of NNCs needs a different treatment from that of NPs: the semantic combination

87
This analysis departs from Dede 1978, Yükseker 1987, 1994, 1998, Göksel & Kerslake 2005, and Göksel 2009,
which regard such N N structures without -sI as compounds as well. Such constructions are attributive compounds
for Dede (1978:9) and Göksel (2009:215-217), and root compounds for Yükseker (1998:153).
Although I do not consider such examples compounds, I follow Göksel and Kerslake’s (2005:103) point that -sI
does not appear when the first noun specifies the sex, profession, or the material. Nevertheless, we need an account
which comprehends all instances excluding -sI, since in addition to sex, profession, and material specification, there
are also N N combinations with other semantic relations and which do not allow -sI such as çocuk yazar ‘child
author’. Therefore, I suggest that what is shared in all instances excluding -sI is an ascription relation between the
two nouns.
88
van Schaaik (1996:160) does not treat such N N structures without -sI as compounds either.
89
In type-driven semantics, common nouns and intersective adjectives (e.g. grey) are one-place predicates
semantically, with the type <e,t>: they are functions from individuals to truth-values. Heim & Kratzer (1998)
propose the rule PM, which represents a conjunctive composition (or intersective modification), for the modification
involving these identical types (p.65-66). Non-intersective adjectives such as former and small, and their semantic
combination, however, are considered to be problematic. One way Heim and Kratzer (1998) suggest is ascribing
them the type <<e,t>, <e,t>>, which is a different type from that of common nouns, and using FA (instead of PM
with the type <e,t>). See the discussion and the application of FA and PM in Heim & Kratzer 1998:65-72.

98
by means of ASN functions needs to be accounted for. Before identifying a possible semantic
rule for NNCs, I will make the semantic distinction between NNCs and phrasal units more clear
in Figure 5:

a. çocuk yazar-ı b. çocuk yazar c. çocuk yazar

child author-sI child author child author
‘children’s author’ ‘a/the child author’ ‘the child is an author’

ASSOCIATION via FOR ASCRIPTION in Modification ASCRIPTION in Predication

Covert Function Overt Predicates Overt Function

Modifier & Head Modifier & Head Argument & Head

WHICH SEMANTIC RULE ? PREDICATE MODIFICATION: FUNCTION(AL) APPLICATION:

x is NOT çocuk but FOR çocuk λx.∊De. çocuk (x) = yazar (x) λx.∊De. x is yazar
(λx. x is çocuk Λ x is yazar) = yazar (çocuk)
= 1 iff the child is an author 90
⇩ ⇩ ⇩
corresponds to corresponds to corresponds to
⇩ ⇩ ⇩
Compound-formation (Noun) Phrase-formation Sentence-formation
by which component ? by SYNTAX by SYNTAX

Figure 5. Semantics of NNCs vs. Semantics of Phrasal Expressions

As Figure 5 illustrates, compounds are clearly different from phrasal units semantically. The (a)
example çocuk yazar-ı ‘children’s author’ is an NNC, and the semantic relation between the two
nouns is a FOR relation, which is not ascriptive. In the absence of -sI, however, the semantic
relation between the two constituents is ascription via modification as in the (b) example çocuk
yazar ‘a/the child author’, which corresponds to a syntactic output, an NP. The (c) example,
çocuk yazar ‘the child is an author’, also involves ascription but via predication this time, and
corresponds to another syntactic output, a sentence.

90
“= 1” is used if a truth-condition is derived in type-driven semantics.

99
 Note that in (c) in Figure 5, there is no definite article for çocuk, since there is none in
Turkish; there is no indefinite article with yazar for nominal predication, since an indefinite
article is not necessary for nominal predication in Turkish. There is also no verb in (c), since
none is required in Turkish nominal predication in present tense. These three properties of
Turkish lead to a superficial similarity between (b) and (c) though they are structurally different.
However, what is important for our purposes is that the semantic relation of the syntactic outputs
is not involved in compounds (a). In other words, ascription is possible with the semantic rules
applying during syntactic phrase-formation, FA and PM, but not compound-formation.
It remains to be determined which rule is involved in the formal semantic analysis of N-N
compounding. In an NNC, we have two nouns, thus two words with the same semantic type, <e,
t>.91 In an NNC, we also have an ASN function, which is not expressed overtly, as discussed
(§2.4.1, §2.4.5). The rules FA or PM must not apply here since modification by these rules will
result in a property of an entity: ascription. Therefore, it is necessary to determine a
(combinatory) semantic rule for NNCs, which will be proposed in §4.3, rather than leaving this
slot empty.
§4.1 showed that not all N N combinations are compounds in Turkish. N N constructions
which are compounds show distinct structural and semantic properties, what is more, they are
marked by -sI. I propose that one type of semantic relation between nouns, which is association,
is involved in Turkish N-N compounding. Turkish suffixes -sI in order to differentiate between
NNCs, which are lexemes, and phrasal units. This is necessary because nouns can be ascriptive
modifiers; there is no verb for nominal predication, no definite article, and no need for an
indefinite article with predicate nominals in Turkish, which result in potential ambiguity. A
compound formation, which contains -sI, however, is easily distinguished from other nominal
constructions. Namely, the motivation of -sI is to signal the existence of a lexeme, which has
different semantics and a different structure from those of other nominal combinations which are
not compounds.
Having proposed how -sI is motivated, I will propose my analysis of NNC formation,
which also includes the semantic rule for compounding, within a process-based framework of

91
The fact that both attributive and predicative adjectives on the one hand, and both nouns and adjectives on the
other hand, are considered to be “predicates” semantically is a problem; however, I leave the resolution of this to
semanticists.

100
morphology in §4.3. Before proposing the formal analysis, I will address previous approaches to
morphology which regard morphology as a separate system in the grammar in §4.2.

4.2 On the Morphological Component

This section is dedicated to demonstrating which component is responsible for producing NNCs.
I will first address a set of views which highlight that morphology has its own principles, then I
will suggest a model of grammar containing a morphological component. This model will allow
us to account not only for NNCs and their characteristics but also other issues regarding
derivation, inflection and their interactions with phrase-formation.
In contrast to Lieber’s assertion that where compounds are produced is not important
(Lieber & Štekauer 2009:15), I claim that the component which creates NNCs is crucial (as in
Göksel 2009), for it allows us to account for the properties of NNCs, and to resolve the problems
previous approaches cannot deal with. Therefore, we will attempt to account for the behaviour of
NNCs (Ch.2), and to represent their structure.
First, consider the issues addressed in §3.2 and §3.4: the lexicalist approach assumes that
affixes are lexical items. However, compound markers such as -sI are problematic for analyses
which assume one-to-one mappings between form and meaning. The Turkish -sI suffix is used
not only for possession but also for more other associative relations (ASN functions, §2.4.5). The
lexicalist approach also assumes that compounding takes place in the lexicon, and that a
syntactic unit cannot serve as input to a WFR (No Phrase Constraint). Thus, it cannot account for
phrasal compounds as already mentioned. The syntactic approach, on the other hand, claims that
compounds are produced by the syntax. However, the differences between NNCs and NPs
presented thus far clearly show that compounds do not follow the same structural (and semantic)
principles that syntactic units do. The distinct properties of NNCs cannot be accounted for
without stipulation by syntactic analyses. For these reasons, I will not assign the compounding
operation either to the lexicon or syntax, but to morphology. I claim that NNCs are created by
the morphological component, which is an autonomous and dynamic component and separate
from both the lexicon and the syntax.
Consider Anderson’s (1982) famous question “Where’s morphology?”. Morphologists
who show that morphological principles are different from syntactic principles do not necessarily

101
regard morphology as a separate component or module. Anderson (1982, 1992, 2004) for
example, one of the most persuasive advocates of distinctive morphological operations, does not
consider morphology to be a separate component; rather, he distributes morphological operations
amongst the lexicon (derivation) and phonology (inflection). Similarly, Allen’s (1978)
Conditional Lexicon (see §3.5) is a separate component for derivation; however, she leaves
inflection to syntax. Thus, morphology is not considered to be an independent system on its own
despite the autonomy of its principles in these approaches. These approaches can account for the
distinctive characteristics of morphological outputs; however, it is not clear whether they can
account for the close relationship between derivation and inflection (§3.2.2). Also, the
autonomous characteristic of a set of operations points to a self-governing system rather than two
separate subsystems, which are distributed and integrated in other systems.
There are also others who claim that morphology is autonomous. Di Sciullo and Williams
(1987), for example, argue for a separate morphological component, while leaving the lexicon
only as a list of idiosyncrasies.92 Zwicky (1984, 1986, 1990, 1992) proposes that grammar
consists of a set of interacting, but separate components, and that the morphological component,
sharing rich interfaces with others, is one of these with its own principles. Morphology,
Zwicky’s “Shape Component”, is a complex, organized system with its own subcomponents
(1986:309).93
The morphological component is assigned a great degree of autonomy in Aronoff 1994.
Aronoff (1994:166) shows that morphology may be understood by itself, i.e. on its own terms
rather than terms imposed on it from outside (syntax or phonology, for example). He shows a
variety of problems, Latin verb morphology, for instance, which cannot be defined by either
syntax or phonology, but purely by morphology. Similarly, Aronoff and Fudeman (2005) treat
morphology as a distinct component, and show the autonomous aspects of this component,
which cannot be ascribed to another component (p.10). Not distinguishing morphology from the
lexicon, which is the mental dictionary, is a mistake for them (p.54). Thus, morphology is an
autonomous component with its own principles even though it interacts with the rest in the
grammar more than any other component for Aronoff and Fudeman (p.10). This last point, which

92
Di Sciullo & Williams (1987) assume a morpheme-based theory of word-structure, however.
93
In Zwicky’s (1986) model of grammar, there is a strict sequential relationship between components; Shape
Component, which involves implication, lexicon, a set of rules of inflection, and a set of rules of derivation (as its
subcomponents) is preceded by syntax and followed by morphonology.

102
concerns the interaction of morphology with other components, is similar to Spencer’s (1991)
point (see below); however, it does not prevent Aronoff and Fudeman from assigning
morphology a “component” status, unlike Spencer.
In Beard’s Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology (LMBM), morphology is a separate
component in addition to syntax, lexicon, and phonology (1995:45). His morphological
operations are manipulated by the “MS-component” (morphological spelling component), which
is outside the lexicon and beyond the syntax, thus autonomous. Beard’s morphological
operations, however, comprise only phonological modifications on stems: lexical derivation,
which is derivation without affixation, belongs to d-structure whereas inflectional derivation,
which is inflection without affixation, belongs to s-structure. Both derivation types are followed
by the MS-component for phonological modifications on the basis of his Separation Hypothesis
(1995: Ch.3).94 Therefore, morphology is a separate system of grammar for Beard.
Sadock (1985, 1991, 1998, 2012) proposes a modular architecture of grammar with an
independent morphological component. Unlike Zwicky’s and Beard’s models, however,
Sadock’s grammatical model is not strictly ordered: linguistic objects have representations at
each level/component simultaneously. Each representation is generated independently (2012:5).
For him, morphology has its own categories and rules as do other components of grammar
(2012:147). Therefore, Sadock’s answer to Anderson’s (1982) famous question is as follows:
“morphology is in the morphology” (2012:4).95
Likewise, Pounder (2000, 2004, 2006) proposes that the morphological component is
separate from syntax, phonology, and lexicon, but regards the lexicon as an organized storage.
Pounder’s morphology contains rules, rule elements (affixes), and operations organized
paradigmatically (2004:197-198). For Di Sciullo (2009), morphology and syntax are different
workspaces, both deriving recursive outputs; however, morphology manipulates only

94
In Beard’s (1995) system, derivation and inflection involve operations on the non-phonological grammatical
feature inventory such as N, V, A selection and structuring of the lexical and inflectional representations of words.
Both derivation and inflection take place prior to morphological operations, which only involve phonological
modifications (p.44) (similar to Aronoff 1976). Beard’s system is thus different from a system in which meaning
maps onto form simultaneously as in Pounder 2000, for example, which is also a separationist model (see §4.3).
Therefore I consider Beard’s separationism “strict separationism” and Pounder’s “moderate separationism”.
95
Sadock’s model contains the following components: function-argument structure (semantics), role structure
(another semantics), morphological structure, syntactic structure, linear order, morphophonology, and the interface
component. The task of the interface componet is important: it checks the compatibility of the repsentations
belonging to distinct components, and assures that all representations count as the representations of the same
expression (2012:6).

103
asymmetric relations. Thus, in these approaches, the autonomy and distinctiveness of the
principles of morphology arise from the autonomy of the morphology itself.
There is also an intermediate view regarding morphology as an autonomous module but
not a component. Unlike the above approaches, this approach makes a distinction between a
module and a component, e.g. Borer (1988), Spencer (1991). Spencer, for example, argues that
the morphology module is autonomous with respect to other levels of representation. Thus, it has
its own principles; however, it is not a component (p.455). Spencer’s morphology “represents a
set of rules and principles which together go to define the well-formedness of words, irrespective
of the way in which they are formed” (p.455). I assume that the reason for Spencer to regard
morphology as a module rather than a separate component is its interactions with all other levels
of representation and his assumption that morphology runs parallel with the rest of the
grammatical derivation (p.455).96
What is important for the purposes of this study is the common point in all of the above
approaches to morphology: the argument for the autonomous principles of the morphology,
which is justified since the autonomy of morphological principles can account for a set of
differences between syntax and morphology. First, morphological operations can change
category unlike syntactic operations, as the above studies highlight. Second, alternative possible
orderings are only common to syntax but not to morphology (e.g. Turkish NNCs vs NPs, §2.5).
Third, syntactic heads often agree in some property with their arguments or modifiers, whereas
there is no parallel between affixes and their associated stems (Anderson 1992:261). Also, the
autonomy of morphological principles allows us to account for not only concatenative but also
non-concatenative morphology, and one-to-many/many-to-one mappings as well as one-to-one
mappings. Finally, autonomous morphological principles can account for the correlations
between complex derivations and word forms (paradigmatic structures), which cannot be
organized by either phonological or syntactic principles. We do not see any paradigms that a set
of syntactic outputs belong to.
Following these justifications for autonomous morphological principles, and the
distinctive structural, semantic and formal properties of Turkish NNCs, I adopt a position

96
The assumption that morphology is a module but not a component raises a question, however: should semantics
and syntax be treated the same way? Namely, I assume that morphology is similar to syntax and semantics since
these components too interact with others: e.g. syntax-semantics, syntax-morphology, semantics-syntax, semantics-
morphology, semantics-lexicon. Therefore, I assume that the view taking morphology as a component like other
components is superior.

104
advocating for an autonomous morphological component, which is responsible for inflection and
derivation, including compounding. In terms of the basic concept of the grammatical system,
which is modularity, and the organization of the model, I follow Sadock 2012 and Fodor 1983 in
that I assume a multi-modular system. As in Sadock 2012, I do not assume that the interaction
between distinct components is strictly ordered.97 The model of grammatical architecture that I
suggest (as an alternative to the existent models with morphology such as Sadock’s) is as in
Figure 6. In this model, we see that the morphology is not in the lexicon, syntax, or phonology.
Morphological operations are manipulated by the morphological component and interact with
other operations manipulated by other components. Without a strict principle of ordering,
operations belonging to different components interact at the operation domain, where linguistic
structures are created during production and analysed during comprehension. The reason for me
to suggest this operation domain (or interaction point), which is visible to all components, is to
avoid moving a prospective linguistic expression from one component to another/others during
interactions, or interactive operations.98 This means that all components contain their own
principles and rules (apart from lexicon, which is static); however, operations manipulated by
distinct components take place in the operation domain for the sake of interactions.99 100
In this conception, the morphological component is dynamic, unlike the lexicon. This
means that lexicon does not manipulate operations. It does not mean that it does not undergo
change; it is plastic, i.e. it accepts new elements and undergoes reorganization throughout a

97
Non-strict order, in my model, means that morphology may precede syntax in an instance, but in another instance,
it may follow syntax; I do not assume that morphology and syntax may operate in a parallel way simultaneously
since both may manipulate concatenation. They feed each other rather than being integrated. However, my model
allows the semantic component to operate with others: semantics and morphology or semantics and syntax may
operate simultaneously in a parallel way.
98
I assume that distinct components may operate on the same expression on the operation domain (interaction point)
as in Sadock’s system. However, unlike Sadock’s system, my model does not require that all components operate on
an expression all the time: a linguistic expression may involve only semantics and morphology without syntax being
involved, unlike another expression which may involve syntax as well as semantics and morphology (with feeding).
My system thus looks like a surgery where the surgery represents the operation(s), the patient represents the
expression(s), and the surgeons represent the components of grammar.
99
An alternative approach might involve restricting operations into components that they belong to; however, such a
model would require each component to see the inside of other components so that they interact. It remains to be
determined whether this alternative is more advantageous than the one suggested above or vice-versa. I leave this
issue for future investigation.
100
It is important that we understand the need for separate levels of grammar, i.e. distinct components. Mismatches
reveal that structure is represented in each of semantics, syntax, morphology, and phonology. Sadock (2012:28-30),
for example, addresses categorial mismatches involving purely syntactic elements without semantic functions such
as the English empty be in Sally is a carpenter. This expression needs be in English syntax; however, it does not
exist in the logical/semantic structure, CARPENTER(SALLY), as Sadock points out.

105
speaker’s life. Also, the lexicon can store outputs of the dynamic components if they are
(optionally) sent to the lexicon (e.g. irregular forms, lexicalized compounds, idioms, phrasal
units sent to lexicon for naming entities) as well as simplex lexemes. The lexicon includes
categorial information about the lexical items in addition to meanings, which include
encyclopedic knowledge and information necessary for the unpredictable morphological forms.
However, no operation is manipulated by the lexicon, the storage.

LEXICON

(Static)

SEMANTICS MORPHOLOGY

(Dynamic) (Dynamic)
OUTPUT(s) INPUT(s)

X, Y

SYNTAX INTERACTION: PHONOLOGY

(Dynamic) OPERATION DOMAIN
(Dynamic)

OUTPUT(s) INPUT(s)

Figure 6. A Modular Grammatical Architecture with the Morphological Component

Given the necessity of distinguishing NNCs from phrasal units in Turkish (Ch.2) in
addition to all the considerations regarding the principles of morphology above, this model has
an obvious advantage since it enables us to account for the distinction between NNCs and NPs:
they are the outputs of operations manipulated by distinct components and NNCs are produced
by the morphology.

106
 A second advantage of this model relative to compounding is that we can now solve the
problem of phrasal compounds. Recall from §2.1 that phrasal compounds are also possible in
Turkish such as [yıldızlı gece] rüya-sı (starry night dream-sI) ‘starry-night dream’. In such a
compound, the first stem, yıldızlı gece ‘starry night’ is an NP, which is a phrase-formation by
syntax. The semantic rule which applies is PM. It then combines with the head noun rüya
‘dream’ in a derivational operation by morphology (see Figure 7 in §4.3). The semantic rule
includes the ASN function ABOUT, and it cannot be PM on the basis of the discussion in §4.2
(see §4.3 for this rule). Crucially, the formation of a phrasal compound such as this implies that a
syntactic operation, phrase-formation, has taken place before compounding, as discussed in
§3.2.2, §3.4.2, and §3.7.1. Such a complex construction is predictable in the model proposed in
Figure 6, where a syntactic output can serve as an input to morphology thanks to the interaction
of syntax and morphology, which is not strictly ordered. This means that morphological
operations can both precede and follow syntactic operations. Note that this helps us to account
for all inflectional and other derivational processes following syntactic operations.
Turkish, for example, displays a structure consisting of adjectives, nouns and the
derivational -lI suffix, e.g. kara göz-lü (black eye-lI) ‘dark-eyed’, or uzun saç-lı (long hair-lI)
‘long-haired’. I propose that such forms are derivations but not compounds since they involve a
phrasal unit which is followed by a derivational operation including -lI: [kara göz]NP+lü ‘dark-
eyed’. The constituents in such structures are not separable because they are also derivations as
compounds are, not because they are compounds. Such an analysis is what is predicted by the
proposed model in Figure 6: morphology can follow syntax, whether it performs compounding,
derivation, or inflection. Scalise & Busetto (2009:53), for example, discuss similar formations in
English, which are problematic for them since the structure of green eyed, for example, cannot
be A+A (*green+eyed) as eyed does not itself exist as an adjective; they also do not consider the
structure to be (green eye+ed) since green eye is not a compound. The structure I propose for
Turkish resolves the problem in English as well: a derivational suffix, -ed, can attach to a phrasal
unit, [green eye], which is a derivational operation following syntactic phrase-formation.
Note also that we can account for the similarities between derivational morphology and
inflectional morphology (see §3.2.2): derivational and inflectional elements and operations are
manipulated by the same component, morphology. This is in accordance with Beard’s Integrated
Spelling Hypothesis: derivational and inflectional affixes are not different (1995:46). We can, for

107
example, easily account for how the same suffix such as Turkish -sI may be used in distinct
operations.
Another advantage of the model in Figure 6 concerns the semantics: we can distinguish
lexical, idiosyncratic semantics from the compositional semantic rules mapping onto syntax and
morphology; second, we can distinguish between the compositional semantics of syntactic and
morphological operations. For example, in Turkish, modification via ascription maps onto
syntactic operations in contrast to NNC compounding, which seems to involve only association.
In this section, I proposed that it is the morphological component which is responsible for
NNC formation, within a model which can show how phrasal compounds are possible as well as
why NNCs are distinct in nature. In this model, NNCs are created by morphology. I will propose
how they are created in the next section, §4.3. As this analysis is framed within a process
morphology, I will first touch upon the basic assumptions of process approaches.

4.3 A Process-Based Analysis of Noun-Noun Compounding

Process-based approaches to morphology regard morphological operations as a system of rules

which specify the relation between form and meaning. What is crucial in these approaches is
morphological operations rather than morphological items such as affixes. Affixation is not
assigned a privileged status: it is only one of the formal means whose outputs are complex
words. Therefore, affixes and non-concatenative processes are treated in the same way; they are
considered to be relational, rather than being lexical form-meaning units. Therefore, in contrast
to the morpheme-based approaches, in process-based approaches, affixes are rule-elements: they
are added to stems or introduced into words by means of word-formation processes (Zwicky
1986, Spencer 1991, Anderson 1992, Aronoff 1994, Beard 1995, Pounder 2000, Stump 2001).
Also, form and meaning are separated from each other as in Beard’s Separation Hypothesis
(1988, 1995). In the proposed formal analysis illustrated in Figure 7, we will see why this
separation is superior.
In my formal analysis, I adopt a concept of mechanisms which involve rules mapping
onto each other as in Jackendoff 1975, Aronoff 1976, Aronoff 1994, and much like Pounder’s
(2000) Process and Paradigm framework. However, the proposed analysis involves some
rearrangements, for Pounder (2000) does not present a specific analysis for compounding. I use

108
the same type of mapping rules: these rules are comprised of Form Rules (FR), Semantic Rules
(SR), and Syntactic Rules (∑R).101 In Pounder 2000, FRs express a change to the form of a stem,
SRs express a change to the meaning of a lexeme by means of a function ( f (‘X’)), and ∑Rs
express a change to the lexical and/or syntactic properties of a lexeme. Mapping of these rules
onto each other forms a “morphological operation”. An operation specifies the sorts of units the
rules can apply to in Stem Conditions (Sc) and Rule Conditions (Rc). A given operation also
specifies any further operations it must be followed by in Operation Conditions (Oc) (Pounder
2000:65-67, 71).
I propose that NNC formation in Turkish, which includes -sI suffixation, is as in Figure 7.
In the proposed analysis, I use the term Categorial Rules (CR) instead of Pounder’s Syntactic
Rules (∑R) for the same function:

Step 1:

Compounding Operation (OP1)

SR1 < ASN (‘x’, ‘y’) ; ‘SR1’; Rc: ‘y’ = head > ; ‘OP1’; Sc: N
Oc: OP2!
FR1 < x + y ={x-y}; ‘FR1’; Rc: y = head >

CR1 < N + N  N; ‘C1’; …>

{N-N}

Step 2:

Derivational Operation (OP2) :

SR2 < X  X ; …; …> ; ‘OP2’; Sc:{N-N}

Oc: Slot 1
FR2 < x + sI; ‘FR2’; Rc: s  ∅/ C >

CR2 < N  N; ...; … >

Figure 7. NNC Formation in Turkish

101
In Pounder 2000, a rule is defined as a linguistic sign of the general form < X; ‘X’; ∑ >, which is based on the
framework of Mel’čuk (cf. e.g. Mel’čuk 1982).

109
In the system proposed in Figure 7, the morphological component operates on two elements: x
and y represent stems of their lexemes. In Step 1, there is a semantic rule, SR1, which combines
the meanings of the two noun stems with an ASN function (the ABOUT relation or one of its
more specific types proposed in §2.4.5) and yields the meaning ‘y associated with x’:102

SR1 < ASN (‘x’, ‘y’) ; ‘SR1’; Rc: ‘y’ = head >

This means that to form the compound küpe kutu-su (earring box-sI) ‘earring box’, for instance,
we take the meaning of küpe ‘earring’ and combine it with the meaning of kutu ‘box’ via an
ASN function, f(x, y), which is the combinatory semantic rule that I propose for NNCs: ASN(x,
y). I call this rule “Function Insertion” (FI) since an ASN function is absent within the meanings
of the constituents of compounds unless we insert it from the semantics. The function then
combines the meanings of the two nouns by creating a modification relation. In this relation, the
function determines the first constituent as the modifier (Argument 1), and the second as the
head (Argument 2). I thus propose that the meanings of both constituents of NNCs are the
arguments of the ASN function which is involved. Therefore, there cannot be a head-
argument/complement relation between the constituents themselves (similar to Bozşahin
2002:34, and unlike Scalise & Bisetto 2009:45, Uygun 2009:164). Rather, the constituents of
NNCs only involve a modifier-head relationship semantically.
SR1, at the same time, shows the type of ASN function between ‘x’ and ‘y’. It is a FOR
relation for the example küpe kutusu ‘earring box’ as shown in (60) and (61):

(60) FOR (‘küpe’, ‘kutu’)  Function Insertion

Modifier Head

(61) kutu FOR küpe  Combination

box earring
Argument 2 Function Argument 1

102
Both the ASN function(s) and the Semantic Rule(s), which are involved in NNC-formation, belong to the
semantic component in my system. Recall that Figure 6 allows an interaction of this kind: semantics and
morphology. This assumption is different from Pounder’s (2000) system, for example, who assumes that there is a
set of meanings and semantic rules belonging to the morphological component.

110
In küpe kutusu, the SR1 is represented as FOR(x,y) in my system, represented in Figure 7. The
second part of this rule (and the second part of all other rules, ‘...’), ‘SR1’, is omitted here but
indicates that the relevant rule has a place within the system. SR1 also has a rule condition, Rc,
which shows that ‘y’ is the semantic head. Therefore, an ascription relation between ‘x’ and ‘y’,
which would not be avoidable by the semantic rules FA or PM, is disallowed in Step 1. The
association relation is obtained by the proposed rule FI.103
Regarding the form rule, FR1, which maps onto SR1, it combines x and y as {x-y}:

FR1 < x + y ={x-y}; ‘FR1’; Rc: y = head >

Note that FR1 involves only compounding x and y, but not -sI suffixation. The Rc of FR1 shows
that -y is determined as the formal head. The output of FR1, which is {x-y}, is a stem.
Finally, the Categorial Rule, CR1, expresses that both the two inputs and the output of
this rule are of noun category, which means that the operation needs categorial information:

CR1 < N + N  N; ‘C1’; … >

SR1, FR1, and CR1 map onto each other, and form the first step in Figure 7, Step 1,
which is the Compounding Operation = OP1:

Compounding Operation (OP1)

SR1 < ASN (‘x’, ‘y’); ‘SR1’; Rc: ‘y’ = head > ; ‘OP1’; Sc: N
Oc: OP2!
FR1 < x + y ={x-y}; ‘FR1’; Rc: y = head >

CR1 < N + N  N; ‘CR1’; …>

Output: {N-N} stem

103
Pounder 2000 proposes that the semantic rule in compounds involves an f(x) relation, which applies only to the
first noun. This allows her to use exactly the same (semantic) functions in derivation and compounding, e.g. the
same function applies to ‘wood’ in wood spoon and to ‘wooden’ in wooden spoon (see Pounder 2000:108-122). This
treatment is different from what I propose here since SR1 applies to the meanings of both nouns of the compound,
thus combines their meanings via a type of association as described above.

111
 The mapping of these rules constitutes the first step in the NNC formation in Turkish.
The second part of the first step, ‘OP1’, shows that this operation has a place within the system.
Following this, we have the third part, the conditions: the Sc of OP1 expresses that this operation
applies to nouns; OP2! under Oc expresses that OP1 necessarily must be followed by the second
step in the system, which involves the Derivational Operation = OP2. Namely, the outputs of
OP1 are not complete and legitimate lexeme forms as OP1 is not a terminal operation in Turkish.
Therefore, the first step is necessarily followed by the second step in Figure 7.
In the second step of the NNC formation, again, there are three rules mapping onto each
other. However, two of these are identity rules: SR2 and CR2 do not change the meaning or the
category of the input. This means that X=Y:104

SR2 < X  X ;…; …>

CR2 < N  N; ...; … >

FR2, however, is not an identity rule. This rule suffixes -sI to the already formed
compound stem {N-N}. The rule condition of FR2, Rc, shows that the consonant of -sI is not
added following a stem ending in a consonant:105

FR2 < {x + sI}; ‘FR2’; Rc: s  ∅/ C >

FR2 is a significant rule since it raises the question of why -sI is added to a bare N-N stem in
Turkish: what is the reason for Turkish morphology to have FR2 in its rule inventory? In §4.1, I
proposed that this rule is necessary for lexeme creation: -sI is used to derive a lexeme form from
an N-N stem. Therefore, it is derivational in the system I propose in Figure 7.
The proposed structure {{N+N}+sI} is parallel to van Schaaik 1996 and Göksel &
Haznedar 2007 in that in these studies too, -sI attaches to the N-N stem. -sI, however, is

104
In Pounder 2000, the base and product stems are formally identical if the identity rule (or ‘zero rule’) is an FR,
and they are semantically identical if the identity rule is an SR, for example. The two options for expressing identity
rules are XY and X=Y, or simply XX. (p.68-69).
105
According to the proposed analysis, the morphological operation requires the phonological component to do what
is necessary at the end of an operation. The grammatical model proposed in Figure 6 allows such interaction. There
are also purely phonological conditions of the stem that -sI is suffixed to: the high vowel in the suffix must agree
with the frontness-backness dimension and with the roundness dimension of the stem.

112
inflectional in van Schaaik’s system unlike what I propose here: -sI belongs to a derivational
operation.
Note also that by separating the -sI suffixation (FR2) from compounding x and y (FR1),
and assigning the -sI suffixation to Step 2, I also separate the -sI suffixation from the meaning. In
other words, the NNC formation illustrated in Figure 7 does not allow the -sI suffixation to map
onto the semantic rule, ASN(x, y), which belongs to the previous step. Rather, -sI suffixation
maps onto the identity SR2. Thus, the -sI suffix does not add any meaning to the structure; the
meaning of the compound is attained in Step 1.
Turning back to Step 2, SR2, FR2, and CR2 map onto each other, and constitute the
second step in the NNC formation, which is the Derivational Operation (OP2):

Step 2:

Derivational Operation (OP2):

SR2 < X  X; ...; ...>; ‘OP2’; Sc:{N-N}

Oc: Slot 1
FR2 < x + sI; ‘FR2’; Rc: s  ∅/ C >

CR2 < N  N; ...; ...>

The mapping of these rules constitutes the first part of OP2. The second part of this operation,
‘OP2’, shows that this operation has a place within the system. Next, we have the third part of
the operation, the conditions: Sc expresses that this operation takes a Noun-Noun compound as
the stem; Oc expresses that the -sI suffix occupies the slot immediately following an N-N stem
(see Ch.5 for other suffixes occupying the same slot and slot competitions between suffixes).
OP1 and OP2 together constitute NNC formation in Turkish. As shown above, Step 2 is a
condition of Step 1, which follows from the fact that N-N stems (outputs of Step 1) cannot
function as words in Turkish: they need to undergo a further operation to obtain a lexeme status,
which involves -sI suffixation. The -sI suffix itself neither contains any meaning nor does it add
any meaning to the construction. Recall that it maps onto an identity semantic rule. Therefore, the
semantics of NNCs does not follow from -sI suffixation. In other words, I propose that -sI is only

113
an element of the second operation, and signals that a word-formation process, which is
derivation, has taken place.
Figure 8 represents a simpler version of the model proposed in Figure 7 for those who are
not familiar with the framework adopted here:

Step 1:
Form Rule: x + y = {x-y}
Semantic Rule: ASSOCIATION (x, y) ⇨ Morphological Operation 1: Compounding
Categorial Rule: N + N  N

Output ⇛ küpe kutu

Step 2:
Form Rule: {x-y} + sI
Semantic Rule: XX (Identity Rule) ⇨ Morphological Operation 2: Derivation
Categorial Rule: NN (Identity Rule)

Output ⇛ küpe kutu-su

Figure 8. NNC Formation in Turkish (Simplified Version)

Recall from Ch.3 and §4.2 that phrasal units may serve as input to compounding, which I
account for by ascribing the compounding operation to the autonomous morphology. The
existence of phrasal compounds leads van Schaaik (1996) to propose that some syntactic rules,
too, must be involved in compounding, his Predicate Formation Rule (p.151). van Schaaik’s
schema for compounding is Term_Noun2- (p.149,151).106 I, however, argue that the fact that
phrasal units may serve as input to the NNC formation does not show that the model proposed in

106
van Schaaik’s “terms”, which are his first inputs to compounding, involve proper nouns, personal pronouns,
phrasal units, too, which seem to undergo operations in the lexicon. See van Schaaik 1996:Ch.1 for “terms” in
Functional Grammar.

114
Figure 7 involves syntactic operations or is manipulated by syntax. It rather means that NNC
formation may take place following a syntactic operation as already noted.107 108
Another formal problem which needs to be accounted for is the sequence of the plural
suffix and -sI, which is N-N-ler-sI as in (62a) rather than *N-N-sI-ler as in (62b):

(62) a. su peri-ler-i b. *su peri-si-ler

water fairy-PL-sI water fairy-sI-PL
‘water-fairies’ for ‘water-fairies’

First, I do not assume that the sequence in (62a) must lead us to treat -sI as an inflectional suffix.
Rather, I propose that this sequence can be accounted by a “head operation” for Number
inflection, which applies only to the head of a compound as in Hoeksema 1985. Hoeksema
proposes that the plural form of a compound structure is expressed on its head, the righthand
member by means of a head operation, which might apply either before or after compounding
(p.48-49). See the representation and the definition of this operation below:109

(63) PLUR(XY) = (X + PLUR (Y) ), where XY and X are nouns (Hoeksema 1985:48)

(64) Head Operations: F is a head operation iff F(Y) = Z, and W = XY (where Y is the head of
W) together imply that F(W) = X+F(Y) = X+Z. (Hoeksema 1985:50)

Recall that I assigned Slot 1 to the -sI suffix in Figure 7: namely -sI occupies the slot
immediately following an N-N stem. The -lEr-sI order does not pose a problem for this slot
position, thanks to the head operation. I assume that there will always be a slot following the
head inside the N-N stem, which is reserved for Number inflection: {N-N_}-sI. This reservation

107
The possibility of such complex NNCs reminds us of one of the cross-linguistic points that Sadock (1998) raises
(§3.5). He suggests that some languages compound stems, some compound words, and some languages compound
forms that are specific to compounding. Given these considerations, we can suggest that Turkish compounds stems,
words, and even phrasal units.
108
Bauer (1998:76) suggests that the definition of a compound might be improved as “a combination of two or more
“listemes” to form a new lexeme”. I, however, suggest that the embedded NP in an NNC is not a listeme necessarily,
it may be a spontaneous phrase as well.
109
Hoeksema also shows that head operations can be generalized to non-concatenative morphology, e.g. prefixed
forms of strong verbs in English show the same vowel change as the underived forms as in stand, stood and
understand, understood (p.49). He also emphasizes that head operations accord with a point made by Williams
(1981): “the notion head is crucial for the understanding of certain morphological structures” (Hoeksema 1985:50).

115
is conditioned by the head operation I proposed above. If we desire a plural NNC, this slot inside
is filled with -lEr; otherwise it is left empty.
This proposal also parallels Stump’s (1991) “Head-application Property”, which is “the
property of any complex morphological expression whose inflection is (partially or wholly)
realized through the inflection of its head” (p.693). Note also that Stump (1991:686) points out
an important universal tendency regarding morphosemantic mismatches: “inflections may be
morphologically realized inside of an outermost layer of category-preserving
derivation/compounding but are logically outside of this layer”. On the basis of these points
made by Stump, again, we see that the -lEr-sI sequence in Turkish compounds is not problematic
at all.110 111
In Göksel 1988, too, the -lEr-sI order is not considered problematic. Göksel considers
semantic representations to be part of a distinct system of logical representations, which semantic
compositionality also belongs to. In other words, she assumes that it is not required that a natural
language string fulfill semantic compositionality. For this reason, she also sees no need for a
movement at LF, for example, to create a parallelism between the semantic and morphological
representations (p.293).112 113
Note also that my analysis above accords with what Booij (1994, 1996) proposes for
Number in nouns, which is inherent inflection that can feed derivation. Recall from §3.2.2 that
Booij argues against the split morphology hypothesis, and points out that inherent inflection such
as Number in nouns can feed derivation. Following Booij, I assume that Number inflection in
nouns is inherent inflection unlike contextual case inflection, for example, which needs syntactic
information in Turkish. Thus, the -lEr-sI order does not show that -sI is inflectional or syntactic
for the reason that -sI follows the Number suffix -lEr. Rather, this order results from a head

110
Stump (1991) resolves morphosemantic mismatches by means of his paradigm functions and the notion H-
application Default, which guarantees that the plural number is realized on the head of a compound (p.688).
111
See also Zwicky 1987a, who proposes an introjection operation in parallel to head operations for morpho-
semantic mismatches (p.267).
112
Göksel’s analysis involves pairing of morphemes with corresponding expressions of logic; see Göksel 1988:293-
296 for the details.
113
Göksel and Haznedar (2007:18) provide a different account of the -lEr-sI order: they consider -sI to be a “closing
suffix” which results in the -lEr-sI combination instead of the expected -sI-lEr. See also Manova & Aronoff 2010
for closing suffixes in other languages.
Another account comes from Kharytonava (2011), who proposes that there is a dislocation rule (movement)
which takes place after vocabulary insertion (in the DM framework).

116
operation which suffixes -lEr to the head stem of the compound, excluding -sI, as proposed
above.
Having shown how compounding and Number inflection, which is inherent inflection,
interact, we can now proceed to a more complicated issue: the interaction between compounding
and contextual inflection, such as contextual case marking. Consider the example in (65), which
is an inflected compound:

(65) {{su peri-ler}-in}-i

water fairy-PL-sI-ACC
‘(the) water fairies’

The head constituent of the compound in (65) first undergoes a head operation for Number
inflection, following compounding. This leaves Number inflection of NNCs to the inflectional
paradigm rather than the derivational paradigm, in which NNC formation takes place, including
the -sI suffixation. In the inflectional paradigm, the reserved slot for Number in the compound is
filled by -lEr. This complex formation, then serves as input to another inflectional operation in
the inflectional paradigm: case inflection, which might need syntactic information (recall that the
model in Figure 6 allows morphology to operate postsyntactically as well as presyntactically).
In §4.3, I proposed a process-based analysis of NNC formation in Turkish. The NNC
formation is a derivational process including the mapping of form, semantic, and categorial rules
onto each other. Importantly, in the proposed analysis, the proposed semantic rule, Function
Insertion, maps onto the form rule compounding the two stems, but not onto the suffixation of
-sI. This means that the meaning of the compound is obtained before -sI is added, which makes
-sI an identity (semantically empty) suffix. Note that both OP1 and OP2 need categorial
information in stem conditions as well as CRs, which accounts for why the compound marker
appears only with NNCs: its possible stems are nouns in Turkish (if there is no such stem, then it
will be converted to an N). This shows that categorial information is necessary both in lexicon
and morphology (contra the DM framework, §3.4.2, §3.7.2). Having proposed how NNCs are
formed and -sI is suffixed, I point to the morphological status of this suffix, i.e. why it must be
derivational, in §4.4.

117
4.4 The Status of -sI in NNCs: Derivation

This section is devoted to the nature of the -sI suffix, and indicates that -sI is not inflectional but
derivational in NNCs. -sI is an identity morpheme since its suffixation maps onto an identity
semantic rule rather than a full rule as proposed in §4.3. Therefore, -sI is required
morphologically, but not semantically. -sI fulfills a formal requirement for deriving a lexeme
from a stem. That is, the suffixation of -sI has a function, but not a meaning. Since there is a
specific type of stem that -sI attaches to, which is {N-N}, -sI also signals that an N-N
construction is a compound, as proposed in §4.1.
Note that the output of the OP1, the {x-y} stem without -sI, is an incomplete, illegitimate
word-formation in Turkish. Then, -sI should be derivational since it is involved in a derivational
process, OP2. In other words, we would not expect an incomplete word-formation to be inflected
for producing a new lexeme, a compound formation. Thus, -sI cannot be inflectional. The form
{N-N} is not legitimate as a free form: *küpe kutu_ ‘earring box’. In other words, inflection
cannot operate on illegitimate forms. In Turkish, küpe kutu would be an NP with an ascription
relation and mean ‘a box in the shape of an earring’ or ‘a box which is an earring’ within an
appropriate context, but it would never mean ‘a box for earrings’.
Moreover, -sI is necessarily suffixed to NNCs regardless of the syntactic context in
contrast to contextual case suffixes, for example, which are determined by the syntactic context,
e.g. dative case versus accusative case: küpe kutu-sun-a (earring box-sI-DAT) ‘to (the) earring
box’, and küpe kutu-sun-u (earring box-sI-ACC) ‘the earring box’. These examples show that -sI
always appears inside case markers, which are inflectional without question, and that -sI
suffixation is different from (case) inflection.
As there is no Gender in Turkish, and -sI cannot represent a Number or Case value, one
might suggest that it is a type of agreement. However, following Anderson (1992:83, 261), Booij
(1996), and Corbett (2001) among others, I assume that agreement cannot occur in a non-
syntactic domain. Namely, we need an NP rather than a compound for -sI to reflect agreement.
However, as shown in Ch.2 and §4.1, NNCs are distinct from NPs, and as proposed in §4.3,
NNCs are word-formations. Thus, it is not reasonable to expect an agreement relation between
the two nouns of a compound “word” (see §6.3-§6.5 for agreement in PCs). What is more, -sI

118
disappears in the existence of certain “derivational” suffixes (§1.0, Ch.5); it would exist in all
instances if it was (agreement) inflection.
-sI also appears in PCs as addressed in §1.0; however, the behaviour of -sI is not identical
in the two structures, NNCs (66b) and PCs (66a). -sI in PCs may be omitted as in (66a) whereas
-sI in NNCs may not (66b). This fact supports the claim that the function and status of -sI in
NNCs must be different from that of -sI in PCs (see Ch.6 for -sI in PCs):

PC: NNC:
(66) a. çocuğ-un kitap-lar_ b. *çocuk kitap-lar_
child-GEN book-PL child book-PL
‘the child’s books’ for ‘children’s books’

Recall from §2.5 that the syntactic behaviour of NNCs is different from that of PCs as well,
which also supports the claim that -sI in NNCs belongs to a distinct operation, which is
derivation, as proposed in this chapter, and cannot be inflectional in NNCs. As a lexeme creator,
-sI in NNCs cannot be omitted as shown in (66b), which is expected. In sum, §4.4 refutes the
claim of the unified analysis (§3.7.1) and argues against the analyses which distinguish -sI in
NNCs but consider it to be inflection (e.g. Hayasi 1996, van Schaaik 1996). See Ch.5, in which I
show that -sI is in a paradigmatic relationship with certain “derivational” suffixes, which will
also provide a piece of support for the claim that -sI is not inflectional in NNCs.

4.5 Chapter 4 Summary

Having described NNC formation in Turkish, which is a complex morphological process, we are
now able to account for why examples such as çocuk yazar-ı (child author-sI) ‘children’s author’
are different from those such as çocuk yazar (child author) ‘a/the child author’. The former
structure, which is a Noun-Noun compound, is produced by the morphology via OP1 and OP2
in the NNC formation process as described in Figure 7 (and 8), whereas the latter structure is a
Noun Phrase. Therefore, the proposed analysis is superior to the lexicalist and syntactic
approaches, the former of which cannot deal with phrasal compounds and needs to assign
a/multiple meaning(s) to -sI, while the latter does not account for the obvious distinctions
between a compound and a phrase without stipulations. According to the current analysis, -sI in

119
NNCs cannot have the same function as -sI in PCs, in contrast to the unified analyses which
assume that it is the 3rd Person possessive marker in both cases. Rather, I propose that -sI in
NNCs is a derivational suffix, which is morphologically necessary: it creates a lexeme from an
{N-N}, since N-N stems do not represent lexemes in Turkish. Therefore, -sI is the indicator of a
semantically and structurally distinct unit: a compound formation. Another reason why this
analysis is more explanatory than the unified analyses of -sI is that we can now account for why
the semantic relation between the compounded nouns is not necessarily OF.
In Ch.5, I will go a step further: I will propose that OP2, which involves -sI suffixation, is
indeed in a formal paradigmatic relationship with other derivational alternatives. The
paradigmatic relations proposed in Ch.5 will further support the claim that -sI is formally a
derivational, but semantically an identity suffix in NNCs.

120
 CHAPTER 5

THE PARADIGMATIC ASPECT OF COMPOUNDING AND DERIVATION

5.0 Introduction

In §1.0, I showed that although NNCs are ungrammatical without -sI, there is a constraint on -sI
suffixation: it cannot appear when certain derivational suffixes attach to bare N-N compounds.
This chapter is devoted to accounting for this fact, i.e. the constraint on -sI suffixation, and the
relationship between the compound marker -sI and derivational suffixes. I extend the word-
formation operations proposed in Figure 7 (§4.3), and propose that the N-N-sI formation is one
of the outputs of a complex derivational paradigm including compounding. With this analysis,
we will be able to account for why the formation {N-N-sI}is semantically identical to but
formally different from the base of {N-N}-CI, {N-N}-lI, and {N-N}-sIz formations. This chapter
further shows that compounding is involved in a paradigm structure as are inflectional and
derivational operations.

5.1 -sI and Derivational Suffixes

5.1.1 Non-Permitted Combinations Signal a Paradigm

In this section, I provide an account for the ungrammatical combinations such as *N-N-sI-lI
(§1.0). The fact that -sI cannot appear with certain derivational suffixes is crucial, since it looks
like a mismatch between form and meaning. In other words, on the basis of the semantics, we
would expect -sI to appear before suffixes such as -lI. Proposing simply that -sI is deleted in the
presence of derivational suffixes does not resolve the problem since it is not the case that -sI is
deleted whenever a derivational suffix is added, for -sI can follow some suffixes such as -lIK as
shown in §1.0 (Hayasi 1996 also makes this point). The question is thus why the compound
marker -sI is not permitted with some derivational suffixes in contrast to others.

121
 Consider the examples in (67):

N-N-sI:
(67) a. kestane şeker-i
chestnut candy-sI
‘chestnut candy’

N-N-lI: N-N-sIz:
b. kestane şeker(*-i)-li c. kestane şeker(*-i)-siz
chestnut candy(*-sI)-lI chestnut candy(*-sI)-sIz
‘with chestnut candy’ ‘without chestnut candy’

d. kestane şeker-li(*-si) e. kestane şeker-siz(*-i)

chestnut candy-lI-(*-sI) chestnut candy-sIz(*-sI)
for ‘with chestnut candy’ for ‘without chestnut candy’

Importantly, all the examples in (67) involve the same semantic relation between the two nouns,
whereas -sI appears only in (67a). (67b,c) maintain the same ASN function, which is FROM,
between the two nouns in addition to the additional functions, WITH1 and WITHOUT. The example
in (67b) kestane şeker-li (chestnut candy-lI) means ‘with chestnut candy’ but not ‘something
sugary which is a chestnut’, for example. Therefore, on the basis of the semantics, we would
expect *kestane şeker-i-li in (67b), and *kestane şeker-i-siz in (67c), which are not grammatical,
however. The -sI suffix cannot follow the derivational suffixes in (67) either as shown in (67d,e):
*kestane şeker-li-si for ‘with chestnut candy’, and *kestane şeker-siz-i for ‘without chestnut
candy’. (67b,c) are also structurally similar to (67a) since the bases are also inseparable: we
cannot modify the second noun as in *kestane beyaz şeker-li (chestnut white candy-lI).
Therefore, the N-N bases in (67b,c,d,e) are also compounds as the N-N base in (67a).
One way to resolve the problem in (67b,c) is the deletion and blocking hypothesis of -sI:
when the derivational -lI and -sIz appear, -sI is deleted or blocked for Hayasi (1996), Aslan and
Altan (2006), and Kharytonava (2010). The deletion analysis, however, does not provide an
account for permitted sequences, i.e. cases in which -sI may appear with other derivational
suffixes as already noted. For van Schaaik (1996), the cases with -lI and -sIz point to the fact that
compounding produces a compound predicate without the -sI suffix, which is added to the

122
compound later (p.148). He proposes that -sI, which is inflectional for him, is not added when
there is adjectival derivation; rather, -lI or -sIz is added (p.166). This assumption perfectly
accounts for the cases in (67b,c), in which -sI cannot appear before -lI and -sIz. However, it
leaves examples such as (68a) unaccounted for since -sI does not appear before -CI, which does
not derive adjectives:

(68) a. kestane şeker(*-i)-ci b. kestane şeker-ci-si

chestnut candy(*-sI)-CI chestnut candy-CI-sI
‘chestnut candy lover/seller’ ‘chestnut candy seller/lover’

(68a) and (68b) are important as they show that -sI does not precede the derivational suffix -CI
either, nor does it follow -CI for some speakers. For some speakers, both (68a) and (68b) are
possible whereas other speakers seem to prefer one formation to the other (see the results of the
survey (§1.2) investigated this problem in §5.1.2).
I will thus consider some possible reasons (apart from deletion and inflection in the
absence of adjectival derivation) which might prevent -sI from occurring with certain
derivational suffixes. First, there might be a phonological condition disallowing the suffixation
of -sI immediately before -CI, -lI, and -sIz. According to the pilot study in §2.2, NNCs show
phrasal stress, which falls on the first constituent. In (67) and (68), the main stress is on the first
noun kes.tá.ne/kes.ta.né in all examples. There might be a constraint which disallows the
suffixation of multiple unstressed syllables sequentially, for example: since the main stress falls
on the first noun, the second noun would be left with multiple unstressed syllables, which would
disallow the suffixation of -sI immediately before -CI, -lI, and -sIz. However, this scenario
cannot be correct since sequential unstressed suffixes are allowed in Turkish as in kóş-ma-mış-tı-
k (run-NEG-PERF-PAST-1.PL) ‘we hadn’t run’. The main stress in this example falls on the verb
stem, which leaves four successive unstressed suffixes. Therefore, it cannot be the phonology
that precludes -sI from preceding -CI, -lI and -sIz.
Another possibility might be a semantic constraint on the suffixation of -sI: the meanings
of N-N-CI, N-N-lI and N-N-sIz might preclude the suffixation of -sI. However, this cannot be the
case either. Contrarily, the semantics would motivate -sI since the semantic relation in (67a),
kestane şeker-i (chestnut candy-sI) ‘chestnut candy’, is also included in (67b,c), kestane şeker-li
(chestnut candy-lI) ‘with chestnut-candy’, kestane şeker-siz (chestnut candy-sIz) ‘without

123
chestnut-candy’, and in (68), kestane şeker-ci(-si) (chestnut candy-CI-(sI)) ‘chestnut-candy
lover/seller’, as already highlighted. An ascription relation between the two nouns is not allowed
in either (67) or (68). The example in (68a), kestane şeker-ci (chestnut candy-CI), means
‘chestnut-candy lover/seller’, presupposing ‘a candy made from a chestnut’, rather than ‘a type
of candy which is a chestnut’, for example. Again, to interpret (67b) ‘with chestnut candy’, and
(67c) ‘without chestnut candy’, we first need to presuppose the meaning of (67a), ‘chestnut
candy’. Thus, in (67b,c) and (68), first ‘chestnut candy’ is interpreted with an associative
semantic relation, which is FROM, and then the second meaning components, WITH1, WITHOUT,
and ACTOR are interpreted. Thus, in terms of the semantics of NNCs, we would indeed expect
the -sI suffix to appear in (67b,c) and (68a).
Now recall what is proposed in Figure 7 (§4.3), which will help in resolving the problem
of form vs. meaning here: the mismatch. The constraint on -sI suffixation, indeed, supports the
analysis of NNCs proposed in Figure 7: separating the -sI suffixation, FR2, from both SR1,
ASN(x, y), and FR1, compounding the two nouns as {x-y}. Namely, -sI is added to the
compound {N-N} after the operation involving SR1 has applied. The fact that we have the
semantic relation of the compounded {x-y} also in N-N-CI, N-N-lI, and N-N-sIz, which do not
contain -sI, shows that all of these derivational suffixes are added to the compound base {x-y}
once we have established the semantic relation between the two nouns. Each of the operations
involving the -sI, -CI, -lI, and -sIz suffixations must apply following the first operation involving
SR1, ASN (x, y), so that we can maintain the same ASN function in all structures regardless of -
sI suffixation, and guarantee not to suffix -sI before -CI, -lI, and -sIz (see §5.3 for the formal
mechanism).
Therefore, there is only one option for accounting for why -sI is not suffixed before -CI,
-lI, and -sIz: a morphological formal reason. I claim that the respective suffixations of -sI, -CI,
-lI, and -sIz are related to each other, and propose that these suffixes are “paradigmatic”, i.e. they
are slot competitors as they belong to different paths which constitute different alternatives in the
same paradigm structure as in Kunduracı 2012 (see §5.3 for the functioning of the system). I will
now proceed to the results of the survey (§1.2) regarding the duality with the -CI-sI combination,
which will show that for some speakers, the case with -CI parallels the case with -lI and -sIz, as
proposed in this section. Namely, -sI does not appear after -CI for some speakers, which makes
-CI also a paradigmatic suffix with -sI (for these speakers). See the results in §5.1.2.

124
5.1.2 Survey Results: N-N-CI vs. N-N-CI-sI

Research Question: Is -CI acceptable following N-N compounds without -sI (like -lI and -sIz)?
Hypothesis: Speakers will find both N-N-CI and N-N-CI-sI acceptable structural types when
presented with novel items.
Number of Experiment Questions: 15 (N-N-CI)
Number of Control Questions: 15 (N-N-CI-sI)
Participants: 25

INVESTIGATED NUMBER OF RESPONSES:

ITEM: GOOD (A LITTLE) WEIRD BAD NOT SURE

kestane şeker-ci (chestnut candy-CI) 17 6 1 1

kestane şeker-ci-si (chestnut candy-CI-sI) 7 9 9 __
‘chestnut-candy lover’
buz paten-ci (ice skate-CI) 21 4 __ __
buz paten-ci-si (ice skate-CI-sI) 16 5 4 __
‘ice-skater’
su peri-ci (water fairy-CI) 13 7 5 __
su peri-ci-si (water fairy-CI-sI) 11 7 7 __
‘water-fairy lover’
cep telefon-cu (pocket phone-CI) 11 8 6 __
cep telefon-cu-su (pocket phone-CI-sI) 1 6 18 __
‘mobile-phone lover’
doğa bilim-ci (nature science-CI) 24 1 __ __
doğa bilim-ci-si (nature science-CI-sI) 21 3 1 __
‘natural scientist’
damla sakız-cı (drop gum-CI) 19 3 3 __
damla sakız-cı-sı (drop gum-CI-sI) 19 2 4 __
‘mastic-gum seller’
damla sakız-cı (drop gum-CI) 13 7 5 __
damla sakız-cı-sı (drop gum-CI-sI) 7 6 12 __
‘mastic-gum lover’
mercimek çorba-cı (lentil soup-CI) 8 5 12 __
mercimek çorba-cı-sı (lentil soup-CI-sI) 12 9 4 __
‘lentil-soup seller’

125
INVESTIGATED NUMBER OF RESPONSES:
ITEM: GOOD (A LITTLE) WEIRD BAD NOT SURE

mercimek çorba-cı (lentil soup-CI) 14 5 6 __

mercimek çorba-cı-sı (lentil soup-CI-sI) 9 5 11 __
‘lentil-soup lover’
Orhun Türkçe-ci (Orkhon Turkish-CI) 7 9 9 __
Orhun Türkçe-ci-si (Orkhon Turkish-CI-sI) 19 1 5 __
‘Orkhon-Turkish expert’
bitki çay-cı (herb tea-CI) 6 13 5 1
bitki çay-cı-sı (herb tea-CI-sI) 9 5 11 __
‘herbal-tea lover’
güneş krem-ci (sun cream-CI) 11 8 6 __
güneş krem-ci-si (sun cream-CI-sI) 3 10 12 __
‘sun-screen lover’
duş perde-ci (shower curtain-CI)114 2 7 16 __
duş perde-ci-si (shower curtain-CI-sI) 5 8 12 __
‘someone who has problems with shower curtains’
aşk roman-cı (love novel-CI) 5 11 9 __
aşk roman-cı-sı (love novel-CI-sI) 19 3 2 1
‘love-novel author’
aşk bilim-ci-ler (love science-CI-PL) 18 6 1 __
aşk bilim-ci-ler-i (love science-CI-PL-sI) 18 5 2 __
‘love scientists’

Table 2 below summarizes the approximate percentages of the formations investigated under
Problem 2:

FORMATION ACCEPTED AS GOOD ACCEPTED AS (A LITTLE) WEIRD NOT ACCEPTED

N-N-CI 50% 28% 22%

N-N-CI-sI 47% 23% 30%

Table 2. Second Problem Results (Summary)

114
The example duş perde-ci (shower curtain-CI) was taken from a movie in which it is used for the meaning
‘someone who is often having trouble with shower curtains’. However, it was not accepted as good by the majority
of native speakers participated in this survey although it is an actual example. As a native speaker of Turkish, I
would judge this example to be “good”.

126
Table 2 first shows that both formations are often acceptable for native speakers of Turkish, as
hypothesized. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between the acceptability of N-N-
CI and N-N-CI-sI. The proportion of acceptance of N-N-CI is significantly higher than that of N-
N-CI-sI according to Fisher’s Exact test (p <.001, n = 375 for N-N-CI, n = 371 for N-N-CI-sI).
Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. The results confirm that both formations are
acceptable, justifying my hypothesis. What is more, N-N-CI appears to be more acceptable than
N-N-CI-sI.
It is also interesting that whereas the N-N-CI formation was mostly preferred to the N-N-
CI-sI formation in some questions, in others, N-N-CI-sI was preferred to N-N-CI. For instance,
the example in (68a), kestane şeker-ci (chestnut candy-CI) with the meaning ‘chestnut-candy
lover’ was judged to be good by 68% of the speakers. With regard to (67b), kestane şeker-ci-si
(chestnut candy-CI-sI) ‘chestnut-candy lover’, it was good for only 28%. Both formations were
judged to be good for the same 4 speakers. Similarly, another formation buz paten-ci (ice skate-
CI) ‘ice-skater’ was judged to be good by 84% of the speakers, whereas buz paten-ci-si (ice
skate-CI-sI) ‘ice-skater’ was good for 64%. In this case, both formations were good for the same
14 speakers. Unlike these two cases, the formation Orhun Türkçe-ci (Orkhon Turkish-CI)
‘Orkhon-Turkish expert’ was good for only 28% of the speakers, whereas Orhun Türkçe-ci-si
(Orkhon Turkish-CI-sI) ‘Orkhon-Turkish expert’ was good for 76%. Interestingly, in an another
case, doğa bilim-ci (nature science-CI) and doğa bilim-ci-si (nature science-CI-sI) ‘natural
scientist’, the same 21 speakers (84%) accepted both N-N-CI and N-N-CI-sI formations as good.
Therefore, this duality in the combination of -CI and -sI will be accounted for as well as the non-
appearance of -sI with -sIz and -lI (see §5.3 for discussion and analysis).
To sum up, in §5.1, I have shown that there is a structural and semantic similarity
between N-N-sI and other {N-N}+suffix formations, which I attribute to a morphological
relationship between -sI and certain derivational suffixes. Such a morphological relationship,
which is paradigmatic, can resolve the problem of the non-appearance of -sI despite the shared
semantic and structural similarity. Before proposing the structure of the paradigm that -sI and the
relevant derivational suffixes are involved in, I will address why morphological paradigms in
general are considered essential, in §5.2.

127
5.2 The Importance of Paradigms

This section briefly addresses why morphological paradigms are considered necessary in
previous studies and how they are represented. Paradigms are essential components of some
approaches to inflectional morphology such as the Word-and-Paradigm (WP) approach as in
Anderson 1982, Stump 1991, Pounder 1996, Carstairs-McCarthy 1998, and Spencer 2001, and
others such as Wurzel 1989, Plank 1991, and Williams 1994.115 Carstairs-McCarthy (1998:323),
for example, defines a paradigm as a set of properties or property combinations by which distinct
word forms of a lexeme are associated.
Anderson (1982, 1992:144) argues for recognizing paradigmatic relations between word-
forms, and proposes that prefix markers in Georgian are introduced by rules belonging to a single
(internally disjunctive) schema (paradigm). In his paradigm, only a single agreement prefix can
occur even when more than one is motivated. He shows that in Georgian, the 1st Person Subject
agreement marker v- cannot appear when there is the 2nd Person Object agreement marker g-.
For him, the reason for g- to override v- follows from the fact that g- is introduced by a rule
which takes priority over the rule introducing the 1st Person Subject agreement marker v-. See
the Georgian examples in (69) (-s is for 3sg Subject):

(69) a. v-xedav ‘I see him’ (Anderson 1982:597, (18))

b. g-xedav ‘I see you’

c. g-xedav-s ‘he sees you’

For Anderson (1982), the case in (69b), i.e. the fact that the appearance of one affix
precludes the appearance of another, shows that some affixes are mutually exclusive. Therefore,
the key points which Anderson contributes to the notion of paradigm are slot competition and
mutual exclusion among affixes, which signal the existence of a paradigm with a formal
organization.
Stump (1991) proposes paradigm functions which define the formal relations between the
“root” (stem) of a paradigm and the words in that paradigm. He notes that this approach can
115
See Bobaljik 2002 as an opposing view which argues against paradigms.

128
apply with equal success in both inflectional and derivational domains (p.675, 708-716). In both
cases, he proposes that the structure of a derivation is a function of its root. In Stumpian terms,
paradigm functions define a paradigm (identifying the expressions which go together as
members), and they enable us to maintain the meaning of the root in the meaning of the output
word-forms since the latter is a function of the former.
There are also paradigms which are specifically proposed for derivation much like the
one proposed in this study (see §5.3). Guilbert (1975) proposes a formal derivational paradigm
which includes possible formations. His paradigm exists in the morphological component. The
possible formations of a stem are indicated with an arrow as in Figure 9 (a); or, with cumulative
series for complex stems as in (b), where X is a base, and, a,b,c are affixes (p.180-185, also
adopted in Pounder 2000:90-91):

X+a

a) X X+b b) X  X + a  (X + a) + b
X+c

Figure 9. Guilbertian Derivational Paradigms

What is important in Figure 9 in terms of the purposes of this section is that it represents a
potential structure of a derivational paradigm, which shows the dynamic aspect of a paradigm,
listing the possible contrastive formations (paths), and placing them in the morphology.
In Pounder 2000, too, the paradigm has a form-based structure: every paradigm or
subparadigm has a base, and each consists of the stem and the individual formations departing
from the stem. Unlike Guilbert (1975), however, morphological paradigms, which are dynamic,
are distinct from lexical paradigms, which are static (but organized as well), for Pounder.
Second, she argues that Guilbert’s model does not involve compounding and prefixation, and
that a complete model should also involve these (p.91-92).
Pounder (2000:95) defines a paradigm as “the set of possible paths defined by series of
operations applicable to a given base of a given lexico-syntactic category producing
correct/possible complex lexemes”. Her paradigm structure contains paths from a base to
potential prefixation/suffixation operations assigned to slots, and stem operations applying to the

129
base. Importantly, in her system, a product of the paradigm may enter the systematic derivational
paradigm of its new category (if there is one) or the same derivational paradigm recursively, and
also feeds the inflectional paradigms. What Pounder (2000) contributes to the notion of paradigm
is the dynamicity and power of operations: each possible path in the paradigm is defined by
operations (operations as described in §4.3). Also, a paradigm involves not only formal but also
semantic rules and conditions of the operations.
Blevins (2001) also argues for derivational paradigms, claiming that like inflectional
stems, derivational stems are also forms of a basic lexeme; however, derivational stems may feed
derivational processes such as lexeme formation or compounding (p.211). Blevins’s main point
is that all inflection can be regarded as paradigmatic, but it does not follow that all paradigmatic
processes are inflectional (p.217).
Another advocate of paradigmatic derivation is Booij (2007:34-36), who regards
derivation patterns as constructions. Booij proposes that there are intermediate schemas between
the individual words and the most abstract derivation schemas (in the lexicon), and that these
intermediate schemas express generalizations about subsets of complex words of a certain type.
Such intermediate generalizations can lead to the prefixal use of the first constituents of
compounds, and the suffixal use of the last constituent. For example, he shows that the word
hoofd ‘head’ has a number of meanings in Dutch. In compounds, however, the meaning of this
word is usually ‘main’ as in hoofd-bezwaar (head objection) ‘main objection’ and hoofd-
verdachte (head suspect) ‘main suspect’. He suggests that there is an intermediate schema for N-
N compounds of Dutch: [[hoofd]N [X]N]N ‘main X’ in which hoofd has a prefix-like function and
carries the meaning ‘main’. The words formed according to this pattern inherit this meaning
property from this subschema, which shows the paradigmatic relations between the outputs
following this pattern. Booij’s analysis thus illustrates a paradigm involving compounding and
that the outputs of this paradigm share a property (which is a formal and a semantic property in
his Dutch examples).
To sum up, outputs of a paradigm share certain properties as stressed in Carstairs-
McCarthy’s (1998) definition and Booij 2007. Suffixes belonging to different paths of a
paradigm mutually exclude each other since they occupy the same slot, as highlighted in
Anderson 1982, 1992. In addition to these formal characteristics shared by the outputs of a
paradigm, Stump 1991 emphasizes the semantic characteristic that is shared by the outputs: they

130
all maintain the meaning of the root/base. Also, paradigm structures are used in derivation as
well as inflection as Guilbert 1975, Pounder 2000, and Blevins 2001 show. Finally, I touched on
the dynamic nature of a morphological paradigm as in Pounder 2000: paradigms involve
dynamic morphological operations. Following all of these authors, I describe a derivational
paradigm as follows:

A derivational paradigm is a dynamic and organized morphological structure involving

morphological operations, which produce a set of possible derivations derived from the same
stem. The outputs share formal properties and maintain the meaning of the shared stem.
However, they involve mutually exclusive affixations since each operation constitutes a distinct
alternative, which is a path in the paradigm.

This section was devoted to demonstrating the necessity of morphological paradigms.

Paradigms are essential to account for the formal and semantic similarities between the end-
products of a system in addition to their contrastive behaviour: paradigmatic outputs have formal
and semantic similarities and paradigmatic suffixes exclude each other. Therefore, we can show
how certain derivations are relevant to each other by means of a paradigm structure. Having
shown why paradigms are essential, I will turn to the problem addressed in §5.1: why -sI is not
permitted before -CI, -lI and -sIz. In §5.3, I will show how we will benefit from a paradigm
structure for this problem.

5.3 Compounding and Subsequent Derivation: A Paradigmatic Relation

This section is devoted to revealing the paradigmatic relations in a word-formation paradigm in

Turkish, which involves compounding and subsequent derivation. I claim that all the formations
examined in (67) and (68a) in §5.1 are products of the same derivational paradigm, which
includes Noun-Noun compounding in Turkish. The suffixation of the compound marker -sI, and
the derivational -CI, -lI, and -sIz suffixations constitute different end-nodes (terminal nodes) in
the paths, and the formations N-N-sI, N-N-CI, N-N-lI, and N-N-sIz represent different outputs of
this paradigm. The fact that -sI cannot appear before the other suffixes, and the fact that we

131
maintain the same ASN function in all end-products show that all the paths are paradigmatically
related, and that these suffixes are in a slot competition: {N-N}_.
The fact that N-N-CI, N-N-lI, and N-N-sIz maintain the same ASN function which is
obtained in OP1 constitutes the semantic similarity of the different outputs in the paradigm. The
formal (morphological) similarity consists of the N-N stem (bare compound). Note that there is
also a slot competition, which constitutes the contrastive nature of the possible outputs. I propose
that the complex derivational paradigm including compounding is as in Figure 10:

STEP 1:

Compounding Operation (OP1)

SR1 < ASN (‘x’,’ y’) ; ‘SR1’; Rc: ‘y’ = head >; ‘OP1’; Sc: N
Oc: Step 2!
FR1 < x + y ={x-y}; ‘FR1’; Rc: y = head >

CR1 < N + N N; ‘CR1’; …>

{N-N}

STEP 2:

Derivational Operations

PATH 1 PATH 2

SR2 < XX;…; …>; ‘OP2’; Sc:{N-N} SR3 < ACTOR(‘x’); ...;...>; ‘OP3’; Sc: N, {N-N}
FR2 < x + sI; ...; ...> Oc: Slot 1 FR3 < x + CI; ...; ...> Oc: Slot 1
CR2 < NN;...; …> CR2 < NN; ...; …>

SR4 < WITH1(‘x’); ...;...>; ‘OP4’; Sc: N, {N-N}

FR4 < x + lI; ...; ...> Oc: Slot 1
CR3 < NA; ...; …>

SR5 < WITHOUT(‘x’);...;...>; ‘OP5’; Sc: N, {N-N}

FR5 < x + sIz ...; ...> Oc: Slot 1
CR3 < NA; ...; …>

Figure 10. Derivational Paradigm Including Noun-Noun Compounding in Turkish

132
 In the model illustrated in Figure 10, there are two steps: Step 1 involves OP1, which is
the same compounding operation described under Figure 7 (§4.3), and Step 2 involves four
distinct operations in two paths: OP2 in Path 1, and OP3, OP4, OP5 in Path 2. Let us start with
Step 1, in which OP1 applies:
OP1: Compounding

SR1 < ASN (‘x’, ‘y’) ; ‘SR1’; Rc: ‘y’ = head >; ‘OP1’; Sc: N
Oc: Step 2!
FR1 < x + y ={x-y}; ‘FR1’; Rc: y = head >

CR1 < N +N N; ‘CR1’; ... >

In OP1, the semantic rule, SR1, involves the application of the relevant ASN function to the
meanings of the nouns, f(x, y), and outputs the meaning ‘y associated with x’, as explained under
Figure 7 in §4.3. SR1 contains a rule condition, Rc, which determines the second constituent as
the semantic head. SR1 maps onto FR1, which compounds the two nouns. FR1 contains a rule
condition, Rc, which determines the second stem as the formal head. Finally, there is the
categorial rule, CR1, which applies to nouns and outputs nouns as already described. SR1, FR1,
and CR1 constitute OP1, which is the first step in the derivational paradigm. ‘OP1’ shows that
OP1 has a place within the system; Sc, the stem condition, shows that OP1 applies to noun
stems; Oc, the operation condition, shows that OP1 is necessarily followed by another operation
in Step 2.
Following the first step, a decision must be made since there are two paths in the second
step. If we need a further semantic modification, i.e. if we want to perform an operation with one
more (full) semantic rule, we take Path 2, and one of the derivational operations apply. If,
however, we do not need a semantic modification in the second step, then we take Path 1 for -sI
suffixation (FR2), which is responsible for deriving lexemes.
In Path 1, OP2 applies as described under Figure 7. OP2 involves the mutual mapping of
SR2, FR2, and CR2:

133
Path 1
OP2: Derivation

SR2 < XX; ...; ...>; ‘OP2’; Sc:{N-N}

FR2 < x + sI; ...; ...> Oc: Slot 1
CR2 < NN; ...; ...>

OP2 involves two identity rules, SR2 and CR2, which do not change the meaning and the
category of their inputs. The form rule, however, is a full rule, FR2; it suffixes -sI to the
compounded stem, {N-N} (see §4.1 for the motivation for -sI). The second part of OP2, ‘OP2’,
shows that this operation has a place within the system. OP2 has a stem condition, Sc, which
indicates that the inputs of this operation are N-N stems, and an operation condition, Oc,
specifiying the first slot following an N-N stem for -sI.
In the other path of Step 2, Path 2, there are three operations as different alternatives:
OP3, OP4, and OP5. OP3 involves -CI suffixation with the mapping of SR3, FR3, and CR2:

Path 2a
OP3: Derivation

SR3 < ACTOR(‘x’); ...; ...>; ‘OP3’; Sc: N, {N-N}

FR3 < x + CI; ...; ....> Oc: Slot 1
CR2 < NN; ...; ...>

SR3 outputs an ‘actor’ who is relevant to the meaning of the compound, which is obtained in
Step 1 (SR1). The actor can be maker, seller, lover, (even disliker) etc. SR3 maps onto FR3,
which suffixes the -CI suffix to an N-N stem. The final rule in OP3 is CR2, which has been
already defined. The second part of OP3, ‘OP3’, shows that this operation has a place within the
system. Finally, there is an operation condition, Oc, which reserves the first slot following an N-
N stem for -CI.
The second alternative in Path 2 involves -lI suffixation via OP4: the mapping of SR4,
FR4, and CR3:

134
Path 2b
OP4: Derivation

SR4 < WITH1(‘x’); ...; ...>; ‘OP4’; Sc: N, {N-N}

FR4 < x + lI; ...; ....> Oc: Slot 1
CR3 < NA; ...; ...>

SR4 outputs the meaning ‘with x’ where ‘x’ is the meaning of a compound, which is obtained in
Step 1 (SR1). This rule maps onto FR4, which suffixes the -lI suffix to an N-N stem. The final
rule in OP4 is CR3, which outputs adjectives from nouns. The second part of OP4, ‘OP4’, shows
that this operation has a place within the system. Finally, there is an operation condition, Oc,
which reserves the first slot following an N-N stem for -lI.
The third alternative in Path 2 involves -sIz suffixation via OP5: the mapping of SR5,
FR5, and CR3:

Path 2c
OP5: Derivation

SR5 < WITHOUT(‘x’); ...; ...>; ‘OP5’; Sc: N, {N-N}

FR5 < x + sIz; ...; ....> Oc: Slot 1
CR3 < NA; ...; ...>

SR5 outputs the meaning ‘without x’ where ‘x’ is the meaning of a compound, which is obtained
in Step 1 (SR1). This rule maps onto FR5, which suffixes the -sIz suffix to an N-N stem. The
final rule of OP5 is CR3, which has been already defined. The second part of OP5, ‘OP5’, shows
that this operation has a place within the system. Finally, there is an operation condition, Oc,
which reserves the first slot following an N-N stem for -sIz.
Note that all paths, the derivational operations in Step 2, have the same operation
condition (Oc) which expresses that all the suffixes are positioned in the slot immediately
following an N-N stem, which I show as Slot 1. This condition is the reason why there is a

135
competition between all the suffixes in Step 2: between the suffix of Path 1, -sI, and those of
Path 2, -CI, -lI, and -sIz, on the one hand, and between the suffixes of Path 2 on the other.
Namely, I propose that the suffixes of the derivational operations (OP2, OP3, OP4, OP5),
which follow compounding (OP1), compete for the same slot in this paradigm structure. -sI
suffixation is not allowed with the suffixation of -CI, -lI, and -sIz, for all -sI, -CI, -lI, and -sIz
suffixations occupy different alternatives/paths in the same step, Step 2. Each of these suffixes
can be attached to an N-N stem, but only one can be chosen: {{N-N} + suffix}.
In sum, the paradigm structure that I propose in Figure 10 shows how N-N-sI, N-N-CI,
N-N-lI, and N-N-sIz constructions are semantically and structurally related to each other: they
are all derivational outputs produced in the same paradigm. Second, it shows why -sI does not
appear before -CI, -lI, and -sIz: the suffixes are in complementary distribution within the same
step (Step 2), as they compete for the same position in this paradigm structure. This implies that
the -sI suffixation (FR2) must be separated from the N-N compounding rule FR1, so that -sI
suffixation does not map onto the semantic rule, SR1. If we did not separate -sI suffixation from
compounding (FR1), the system would produce the ungrammatical formations *N-N-sI-CI, *N-
N-sI-lI, and *N-N-sI-sIz, since -CI, -lI and -sIz would attach immediately following -sI in order
to maintain the ASN relation obtained by SR1.
Thus far I have accounted for the required absence of -sI by proposing a paradigm
structure. However, the opposite case, which is the required presence of -sI with other
derivational suffixes, also needs to be accounted for. In contrast to the case with -lI and -sIz, -sI
must appear after some derivational suffixes as illustrated in (70):

(70) a. su peri-liğ-i b. su peri-ciğ-i

water fairy-lIK-sI water fairy-CIK-sI
‘(occupation of) being a water-fairy’ ‘little/lovely water-fairy’

Formations such as (70a,b) are important as they show that it is not the case that -sI is not
added whenever there is a derivational suffix. Rather, they show that -sI and “certain”
derivational suffixes occupy the same slot in a paradigm structure: their suffixations constitute
alternative nodes within the derivational paradigm proposed in Figure 10. Suffixations involving
-lIK and -CIK as in (70), however, do not constitute end-nodes within this paradigm. I thus
propose that the structure of examples such as (70) cannot be {{N-N} + suffix} in contrast to the

136
structure proposed in Figure 10. The structures in (70) must be {{N + {N + suffix}} + -sI}. In
the former case, suffixes such as -sI, -lI, -sIz and -CI (for some speakers) attach to an N-N stem,
which serves as input to derivation. In the latter case, as in (70), however, suffixes such as -lIK
and -CIK attach to an N, not to a compound stem, and the derived form, {N+suffix}, can only
serve as input to compounding: {{N{N+lIK}}+sI}. The fact that -lIK and -CIK cannot attach to
N-N stems excludes their suffixations from being terminal nodes of the compounding path in the
paradigm proposed in Figure 10. Therefore, -sI must appear following such suffixes which do
not occupy the same slot with -sI.116 117
Recall that -sI, -lI, -sIz (and -CI) occupy Slot 1 following an N-N stem in the model
proposed in Figure 10. This slot position will not change due to suffixes such as -lIK and -CIK
since these suffixes are inside the stem which serves as an input to compounding as shown
above. Namely, there is an important distinction between derivational suffixes such as -lIK,
-CIK, and those such as -lI, -sIz, and -CI concerning stem conditions: the former type cannot
attach to N-N stems so they appear inside the stem which is the input of OP2. In this case,
compounding follows derivation. The latter type of suffixes, however, may attach to N-N stems,
so appear outside of the compound stem which serves as an input to further derivational
operations involving these suffixes: in this case, derivation follows compounding (Figure 10).
I have accounted for why -sI must follow -lIK and -CIK via a formal resolution regarding
stem conditions: these suffixes may not attach to N-N stems. However, there seems to be a
semantic problem here: in the compound su peri-liğ-i ‘(the occupation of) being a water-fairy’
(70a), we must presuppose the meaning of su peri-si ‘water fairy’ so that we can refer to the
occupation regarding this meaning. In other words, one would expect to see {N-N}+lIK without
-sI as in the case of -lI, -sIz (and -CI in some cases). Namely, we would expect {su peri}-lik
(water fairy-lIK) rather than {su {peri-liğ}}-i for ‘being a water-fairy’. For this problem, first, I
suggest that the meaning mapping onto the correct base form {N{N-lIK}}, i.e. ‘su {peri-lik}_’,

116
This analysis departs from van Schaaik (1996) who treats -lIK in a way similar to -lI and -sIz: for him, -lIK
attaches to an N-N compound as -lI and -sIz do (p.166), unlike what is proposed here. I claim that -lIK cannot attach
to N-N stems unlike -lI and -sIz, which accounts for why -sI necessarily appears after -lIK. Namely, -lIK may attach
to Ns but not N-N compounds. This also explains why -sI is not permitted with either -lI or -sIz, which can attach to
both N and N-N stems. Therefore, -sI, -lI and -sIz are slot competitors, whereas -lIK is not.
117
In Göksel & Haznedar 2007, -sI is regarded as a closing suffix, which accounts for examples such as (70).
According to Göksel and Haznedar, “-sI has to occur last within the functional elements of a word, excluding the
functional elements such as case, which link the word to higher structures” (p.18). This makes -sI a closing suffix,
which they also use to account for the -lEr-sI order, as addressed in §4.3.

137
might be linked to the meaning mapping onto the {N-N} ‘su peri_’ (both are produced in the
same paradigm structure of morphology). Then -sI is suffixed to the permitted formation as the
terminal node. The motivator for this tentative link must probably be the stem conditions of -lIK:
it may not attach to N-N stems. Second, morphological paradoxes such as this are not
problematic for Göksel (1988), for example, for whom there is a distinct system of logical
representations involving semantic representations, and there is no requirement for a natural
language string to fulfill semantic compositionality (1988:293) (see also §4.3). Third, note that
not all derivations with -lIK involve such mismatch. The meaning of the compound yüzük
kardeş-liğ-i (ring brother-lIK-sI) ‘ring brotherhood/fellowship’, for example, simply involves the
semantic combination of ‘yüzük’ and ‘kardeş+lIK’ via the ASN function ABOUT. Therefore, I
will leave a complete analysis of this semantic problem for future research.
Now recall the duality in the case of -CI suffixation (§1.0, §5.1.1): -sI must follow -CI for
some speakers unlike others (including myself) for whom -sI does not necessarily appear after
-CI. According to the results of the survey (§5.1.2) investigating this problem, 50% of the
participants accepted the N-N-CI formations as good, and 47% accepted the N-N-CI-sI
formation as good. The results also showed that both formations are acceptable for the same
speakers in some cases. See the examples in (71) and (72) ((68a,b) is repeated here as (72b,c)):

(71) a. doğa bilim-i b. doğa bilim-ci c. doğa bilim-ci-si

nature science-sI nature science-CI nature science-CI-sI
‘natural science’ ‘natural scientist’ ‘natural scientist’

(72) a. kestane şeker-i b. kestane şeker-ci c. kestane şeker-ci-si

chestnut candy-sI chestnut candy-CI chestnut candy-CI-sI
‘chestnut candy’ ‘chestnut-candy lover’ ‘c-candy lover’

I attribute the duality as in (b) vs. (c) examples in (71) and (72) to the structure of the
formation: if a speaker attaches -CI to an N-N stem, as in the case of -lI and -sIz, no -sI appears,
which makes -CI a paradigmatic suffix with -sI. This gives us the structure {{N+N}+CI} as in
(71b) and (72b). If however, -CI is first added to an N as a derivation, then this derivation with
-CI serves as an input to compounding, this results in the suffixation of -sI. This gives us the
structure {{N+{N+CI}}+sI} as in (71c) and (72c). In this latter case, -CI is not regarded as a

138
paradigmatic suffix with -sI. Namely, I propose that the actor suffix -CI must have entered the
derivational paradigm including compounding for some speakers, unlike other speakers.
Apparently, the stem conditions of the OP3 (which involves -CI suffixation) is different for the
latter group of speakers: OP3 applies only to N stems, but not to N-N stems. I also propose that
for another group of speakers, for whom both formations are acceptable, -CI suffixation serves as
an end-node in the paradigm in some cases unlike others. Such speakers use either structure for a
formation. This is why both N-N-CI and N-N-CI-sI formations are acceptable for these speakers.
However, in future, this last group of speakers might prefer N-N-CI to N-N-CI-sI for all
formations if -CI becomes a totally paradigmatic suffix for them, for example. To sum up, the
proposals of this section are justified by the acceptability judgements in the survey (§5.1.2):
some speakers accept only N-N-CI in some cases, others accept only N-N-CI-sI, whereas others
accept both, which follows from the fact that -CI may either attach to an {N-N} stem or to an N
stem for a speaker in a given case.
The formal paradigmatic relation between -sI and certain derivational suffixes, as shown
in this section, implies that -sI in NNCs is derivational but not inflectional. Regarding -sI as
syntactic and/or inflectional does not account for why -sI can follow some derivational suffixes
unlike others such as -lI and -sIz, and why it follows -CI for some speakers/in some cases unlike
others. If -sI was an inflectional suffix, it would appear regardless of derivational suffixes and
their functions whenever a compound occurs. This is, however, not the case.
In this section, I proposed a paradigm structure for NNCs and derivations based on
NNCs. The structure and the elements of the paradigm accounts for the fact that -sI is permitted
with some derivational suffixes unlike others: those which -sI cannot appear with are elements of
this paradigm since such suffixes can also be suffixed to bare N-N compounds. This fact results
in a slot competition between these suffixes; therefore, only one can appear following an N-N
stem. With regard to the other suffixes that -sI is permitted with, their suffixations do not appear
in the compounding path of this paradigm since such suffixes cannot be suffixed to bare N-N
compounds. Thus, they do not compete for the same position with -sI: -sI must follow them
when OP2 applies. These facts show not only how compounding and derivation are relevant to
each other, but also why a paradigm structure is also essential for word-formation including
compounding.

139
5.4 -sI and Other Derivational Suffixes

5.4.1 Introduction

This section is devoted to indicating the relationship between the compound marker -sI and other
derivational suffixes which have not been addressed so far. I first consider whether there are
other derivational suffixations which constitute end-nodes in the proposed derivational paradigm
(Figure 10), i.e. which can attach to N-N stems (similar to -CI, -lI, and -sIz). Second, I consider
whether there are other derivational suffixes which -sI can follow, i.e. which attach to N stems
and then are followed by -sI as a result of OP2 (similar to -CIK and -lIK). I finally consider
whether the compound marker -sI may be followed by any derivational suffixes, for which we
have not yet seen any examples. I will now proceed to the results of the survey (§1.2)
investigating these issues. The first group includes the derivational -(I)ms(I), the derivational -sI,
both of which are used for ‘familiarizing’, and the -CE suffix which is used for deriving
language names. The second group includes the derivational suffixes -CE which is used for
deriving language names (again), and -hane, which is a borrowing from Farsi and used for
denoting places for specific purposes. The last group includes the derivational suffixes -gil,
which is used for a family, proximity, or species membership; (again) -CE which is used for
deriving language names, and for a person’s perspective; -zede, which is a borrowing from Farsi
and used for denoting victims of an event; -vari, which is a borrowing from Farsi and is used for
comparison.

5.4.2 Survey Results

Research Question: How does the compound marker interact with other derivational suffixes?
Number of the Suffixes Tested: 7
Number of Experiment Questions: 27
Participants: 25

140
INVESTIGATED NUMBER OF RESPONSES:
ITEM: GOOD (A LITTLE) WEIRD BAD NOT SURE

A. Derivational Suffix -CE

sokak kedi-ce (street cat-CE) 1 9 15 __
sokak kedi-ce-si (street cat-CE-sI) 10 6 9 __
sokak kedi-si-ce (street cat-sI-CE) 10 7 8 __
for ‘language of street-cats’
su peri-ce (water fairy-CE) 5 12 7 1
su peri-ce-si (water fairy-CE-sI) 8 9 7 1
su peri-si-ce (water fairy-sI-CE) 9 9 7 __
for ‘language of water-fairies’
su peri-sin-ce (water fairy-CE) 12 7 5 1
for ‘according to the water-fairy’

B. Derivational Suffix -(I)msI

buz mavi-msi (ice blue-(I)msI) 20 4 __ 1
buz mavi-msi-si (ice blue-(I)msI-sI) 3 4 18 __
buz mavi-si-msi (ice blue-sI-(I)msI) 10 4 11 __
for ‘like ice-blue’

C. Derivational Suffix -sI

damla sakız-sı (drop gum-Der.sI) 9 6 10 __
damla sakız-sı-sı (drop gum-Der.sI-sI) 1 1 22 1
damla sakız-ı-sı (drop gum-sI-Der.sI) __ 3 22 __
for ‘like mastic-gum’

D. Derivational Suffix -hane

su peri-hane (water fairy-hane) 3 9 13 __
su peri-hane-si (water fairy-hane-sI) 9 9 6 1
su peri-si-hane (water fairy-sI-hane) 4 7 13 1
for ‘a place for water-fairies’

E. Derivational Suffix -gil

su peri-gil (water fairy-gil) 3 6 16 __
su peri-gil-i (water fairy-gil-sI) 2 2 20 1
su peri-si-gil (water fairy-sI-gil) 10 6 9 __
for ‘the water fairy and her family/group’

141
INVESTIGATED NUMBER OF RESPONSES:
ITEM: GOOD (A LITTLE) WEIRD BAD NOT SURE

su peri-gil-ler (water fairy-gil-PL) 8 5 11 1

su peri-gil-ler-i (water fairy-gil-PL-sI) 2 11 11 1
su peri-si-gil-ler (water fairy-sI-gil-PL) 14 7 2 2
for ‘species of water-fairies’

F. Derivational Suffix -zede

su peri-zede (water fairy-zede) 10 7 8 __
su peri-zede-si (water fairy-zede-sI) 5 8 12 __
su peri-si-zede (water fairy-sI-zede) 11 6 8 __
for ‘someone suffering from a water-fairy’

G. Derivational Suffix -vari

peri masal-vari (fairy tale-vari) 3 10 12 __
peri masal-ı-vari (fairy tale-sI-vari) 17 7 1 __
for ‘like a fairy-tale’

Table 3 represents the approximate percentages of the formations investigated under Problem 3:

142
FORMATION: ACCEPTED AS GOOD ACCEPTED AS (A LITTLE) WEIRD NOT ACCEPTED

N-N-CE 12% 44% 44%

N-N-CE-sI 36% 32% 32%
N-N-sI-CE 38% 32% 30%
N-N-(I)msI 80% 20% 0%
N-N-(I)msI-sI 12% 16% 72%
N-N-sI-(I)msI 40% 16% 44%
N-N-Der.sI 36% 24% 40%
N-N-Der.sI-sI 4% 8% 88%
N-N-sI-Der.sI 0% 12% 88%
N-N-hane 12% 36% 52%
N-N-hane-sI 36% 40% 24%
N-N-sI-hane 16% 32% 52%
N-N-gil 22% 24% 54%
N-N-gil-sI 8% 30% 62%
N-N-sI-gil 48% 30% 22%
N-N-zede 40% 28% 32%
N-N-zede-sI 20% 32% 48%
N-N-sI-zede 44% 24% 32%
N-N-vari 12% 4% 48%
N-N-sI-vari 68% 28% 4%

Table 3. Third Problem Results (Summary)

According to the results in Table 3, I suggest that there are other derivational suffixes (i) which
seem to attach to N-N stems, (ii) which can be followed by -sI, and (iii) which seem to follow -sI
under certain circumstances.
On the basis of the results of the survey and my native intuitions, I suggest that the
derivational suffixations involving -(I)msI and -sI may also appear as end-nodes in the
derivational paradigm proposed in Figure 10, since these suffixes seem to attach to N-N stems,

143
e.g. buz mavi-msi (ice blue-(I)msI) ‘like ice-blue’.118 Second, I suggest that the suffix -CE
appears to be similar to the suffix -CI in that there are also some options in the case with -CE: it
seems to attach to an N-N stem for some speakers (though not many) as in su peri-ce (water
fairy-CE) ‘language of water-fairies’, may precede the compound marker as in su peri-ce-si
(water fairy-CE-sI) ‘language of water-fairies’ for other speakers, and may also follow the
compound marker as in su peri-si-ce (water fairy-sI-CE) ‘language of water-fairies’. The case
with -CE seems to be more flexible than the case with -CI, since there are only two options for -
CI as shown in §5.1 and §5.3. Also, the -hane suffix seems to be similar to -CIK and -lIK in that
it may be followed by -sI for some speakers as in su peri-hane-si (water fairy-hane-sI) ‘a place
for water-fairies’. Finally, for some speakers, the compound marker seems to be followed by
some derivational suffixes, which are -gil, -CE, and the Farsi borrowings -zede and -vari, e.g. su
peri-si-gil (water fairy-sI-gil) ‘the water-fairy and her family’ and peri masal-ı-vari (fairy tale-sI-
vari) ‘like a fairy-tale’.
In §5.4, I have shown formations including N-N compounds with other derivational
suffixes apart from those addressed in the previous sections of this chapter. Considering the
suffixes addressed before and in this section, I conclude that there are two types of derivational
suffix: those which may attach to N-N stems (similar to the compound marker) as well as simple
Ns (unlike the compound marker), and those which may attach only to Ns but not to N-N stems.
Only the latter type may be followed by the compound marker.119 However, in order to make
complete lists of these suffixes, a more comprehensive research with more participants and
which will test all derivational suffixes is necessary.

118
There might be more derivational suffixations which have not been tested but which may constitute end-nodes in
the proposed paradigm. The -lE suffix, for example, derives verbs from noun stems and appears to attach to N-N
stems too, as in kurabiye-ler-i pudra şeker(-*i)-le-di-m (cookie-PL-ACC powder sugar(*-sI)-lE-PAST-1st) ‘I have put
some icing sugar onto the cookies’. Thanks to Cem Bozşahin for pointing to this suffix. Another paradigmatic suffix
appears to be -ki, which is pointed by Göksel & Kerslake 2005:68, e.g. Cuma gün(*-ü)-kü toplantı (Friday day(*-sI)-
ki meeting) ‘the meeting on Friday’.
119
See Zwicky (1987a) who proposes free reapplications of derivation rules rather than the subcomponent orderings
or levels in Lexical Phonology (p.274). For Zwicky, the distinction is not between primary or secondary
morphology. Rather, he distinguishes between morphological rules that are constrained in terms of bases which they
apply to and morphological rules that are relatively free (p.270), as I discuss here. For instance, the rule applying in
the example set theoretic is not constrained as the one in *state socialize (p.270-272). See also Allen 1978 for a
discussion of similar problems in English.

144
5.5 Chapter 5 Summary

In Ch.5, I have indicated that we need paradigms to account for formal and semantic
correlations, i.e. contrasts and affinities, between morphological formations, which turn out to be
the members of the same paradigm. The compositional semantics of the derivations based on
NNCs in Turkish in conjunction with the fact that -sI is not permitted preceding -CI, -lI and -sIz,
point to the fact that N-N-CI, N-N-lI, and N-N-sIz formations constitute a paradigm with N-N-sI:
all serve as different paths. Note also that operations applying step by step help us to show the
organization of paradigms and resolve certain problems such as the superficial mismatches
between morphological structure and meaning. Namely, now we can account for why we
maintain the semantics between the two nouns in N-N-sI also in N-N-CI, N-N-lI, and N-N-sIz
even though we do not have -sI in the latter formations. Thanks to the paradigm structure, we see
that this mismatch problem is a superficial one.
I have proposed that N-N-sI, N-N-CI, N-N-lI, and N-N-sIz constructions are semantically
and structurally related to each other: they are all derivations produced based on the same stem
within the derivational paradigm. Second, the paradigm structure accounts for why -sI is not
permitted before CI, -lI, and -sIz: the suffixes are slot competitors. These suffixes are
distinguished with their stem conditions: they may attach to N-N stems as well as N stems. With
regard to the derivational suffixes which -sI follows, they are not in a paradigmatic relation with
-sI since they cannot attach to N-N stems unlike the first group, -sI, -lI, -sIz, -CI, and -(I)msI. The
results of the survey (§5.4.2) even pointed to another group of suffixes, which seem to follow -sI
for some speakers, e.g. -gil. In sum, the paradigm structure not only accounts for permitted and
non-permitted sequences of suffixes but also inform us about the stem conditions of operations.
Note also that paradigmatic relations such as the ones proposed in this chapter are
morphological, not syntactic or lexical, which highlights the status of morphology as a distinct
and separate component.

145
 CHAPTER 6

POSSESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN TURKISH

6.0 Introduction

In this chapter, I aim to show that “Possessedness” is a grammatical category in Turkish, and that
the function of the so-called “3rd Person marker” -sI is to mark only the possessum without
Person information. I propose an analysis for the structure of PCs, which are morphologically
similar to NNCs: they are also nominal constructions with the -sI suffix. However, they are not
identical to NNCs due to the genitive suffix -(n)In, which is attached to the first constituent in
PCs: kestane-nin şeker-i (chestnut-GEN sugar-sI) ‘the sugar of the chestnut’. I will first address
the semantic and syntactic properties of PCs: we will see that PCs are semantically similar to but
syntactically different from NNCs. Then, I will propose the function of -sI in PCs in contrast to
its function in NNCs: it marks the possessed element in the relation of possession, i.e. it signals
that something is possessed. An account of the agreement relation in PCs, and the structure of
PCs will come next. I will suggest that PCs involve agreement only if there is a 1st Person or a
2nd Person value in contrast to 3rd Person. I will also address the category Person, and will
discuss the marking of possessor and possessum across languages. The proposed analysis will
also account for why NNCs and PCs display different behaviour despite their formal
(morphological) similarity. I will further suggest a tentative reason why -sI appears in both cases
despite the distinctions between NNCs and PCs, in the light of the oldest datable examples of
NNCs and PCs from Old Turkish: a historic transfer based on semantics.

6.1 The Nature of PCs

As shown in §1.0, PCs in Turkish are similar to NNCs morphologically: they also include -sI on
the head constituent. However, they are not identical to NNCs: to begin with, there is an obvious
formal difference, the genitive suffix -(n)In, which is attached to the first constituent in PCs as
shown above.120

120
The genitive suffix for the 1st Person is -im.

146
 The semantic relationships between the modifier and head constituent in PCs are, again,
similar to those we find in NNCs (see §2.4.5). PCs also involve a type of ASN relation in
contrast to ascription: the NP with the genitive suffix is the possessor while the NP with the
1st/2nd Person possessive suffixes or -sI is the possessed element: possessum. As in NNCs, the
association relation is not limited to OF in PCs. I illustrate the relationships involved in PCs in
(73):121

(73) a. ABOUT (default): as in çocuğ-un durum-u (child-GEN situation-sI) ‘the situation

concerning the child’.
b. FROM: as in bu şeftali-nin reçel-i (this peach-GEN jam-sI) ‘this peach’s jam’ = ‘jam
made from this peach’.
c. OF: as in çocuğ-un ad-ı (child-GEN name-sI) ‘the child’s name’ = ‘the name belonging
to the child’.
d. FOR: as in çocuğ-un hediye-si (child-GEN gift-sI) ‘the child’s gift’ = ‘the gift for the
child’.
e. PARTITIVE: as in adam-lar-ın bir-i (man-PL-GEN one-sI) ‘one of the men’.

f. PARTITIVE COMPARISON: as in şeftali-nin daha küçüğ-ü (peach-GEN more small-sI)

‘something smaller than the/a peach’.

The relationships in (73a-d) are ASN functions listed in (23) in §2.4.5, whereas the last
two, ‘partitive’ and ‘partitive comparison’, are not allowed in NNCs unlike PCs. On the other
hand, there are ASN functions which PCs do not involve unlike NNCs. I list these in (74):

(74) a. *WITH2: the PC *şeftali-nin ağac-ı (peach-GEN tree-sI) for ‘the peach tree’ vs.
the NNC şeftali ağac-ı (peach tree-sI) ‘peach tree’.
b. *BY: the PC *telefon-un mesaj-ı (telephone-GEN message-sI) for ‘the telephone
message’ vs. the NNC telefon mesaj-ı (telephone message-sI) ‘telephone
message’.

121
See also Arslan-Kechriotis 2006:126 for an alternative set of relations available in PCs.

147
 c. *IN-ON-AT: the PC *suy-un bale-si (water-GEN ballet-sI) for ‘the water ballet’ vs. the
NNC su bale-si (watter ballet-sI) ‘water ballet’.
d. *LABEL: the PC *üç-ün sayı-sı (three-GEN number-sI) for ‘the number 3’ vs. the NNC
üç sayı-sı (number three-sI) ‘three’.

To sum up, similar to NNCs, PCs also involve association in contrast to ascription. There
are, however, two relationships which PCs involve whereas NNCs do not, ‘partitive’ and
‘partitive comparison’, and there are four relationships which PCs do not involve whereas NNCs
do: WITH2, BY, IN-ON-AT, and LABEL. With regard to the relations found in both PCs and NNCs,
they are ABOUT, FROM, OF, and FOR.122
We will now turn to referentiality. PCs often have definite reference, but sometimes have
indefinite reference, and can even have generic reference with plural or mass nouns. This is
again different from the referentiality of NNCs since, apart from some lexicalized exceptions,
NNCs have generic reference. See the PC examples in (75):

(75) a. çocuğ-un (def, ref ) arkadaş-ı (def, ref)

child-GEN friend-sI
‘the child’s friend’
⇛DEFINITE

b. çocuğ-un (def, ref) bir arkadaş-ı (indef, ref)

child-GEN one friend-sI
‘a friend of the child’s’
⇛INDEFINITE

122
As an alternative approach, one might want to consider all of the relations allowed in PCs as an extension of the
basic function OF. Nikiforidou (1991), for example, proposes that there is a non-accidental grouping of meanings, a
structured polysemy, in genitive constructions. She highlights that possessors, origins, causes, constituent materials
are grouped together morphologically: they are expressed by the GEN case inflection in Indo-European languages,
which she considers to be a polysemy of GEN by metaphorical extensions. According to Nikiforidou, however, some
relations are central unlike others. She proposes a network of structured polysemy with metaphorical mappings in
her Appendix (p.198). In this network, there are central relations, which are directly linked to the basic function
‘possession’ (Possessor-Possessions): Whole-Parts, Person-Kins, Holder of Attributes-Attributes, Experiencer-
Experiences, and Patient-Adventures. There are also other relations such as Cause-Effects, Constituent Material-
Things Constituted, and Abstract Origins-Originating Elements, which are not directly linked to the basic function.
She further shows that the historical permanency of the central relations unlike the non-central ones, in which GEN
has been taken over by prepositional phrases, for example, supports her proposal. See Nikiforidou 1991 for a
detailed cognitive and diachronic analysis of ‘possession’.

148
 c. çocuk-lar-ın (genr) sağlığ-ı (genr)
child-PL-GEN health-sI
‘children’s health’
⇛GENERIC

d. bir çocuğ-un (indef, ref ) arkadaş-ı (indef, ref)

a child-GEN friend-sI
‘a child’s friend’
⇛INDEFINITE

e. et-in (genr) tad-ın-ı(genr/indef) sev-mi-yor-um

meat-GEN taste-sI-ACC like-NEG-PROG-1st
‘I don’t like the taste of meat/meat taste’
⇛GENERIC

In (75), we see that, in terms of referentiality, the second NP is always identical to the first: both
are either referential as in (75a,b,d), or generic as in (75c,e). However, in terms of definiteness,
the two NPs are not necessarily identical as in (75b). With regard to the whole phrase, it takes the
referentiality property of the head, second NP. Examples in (75c,e), on the other hand, show that
for generic reference, we may use PCs as well as NNCs. The NNC counterpart of (75c) is çocuk
sağlığ-ı (child health-sI) ‘child health: children’s health’ and that of (75e) is et tad-ı (meat taste-
sI) ‘meat taste’. As I noted however, the use of PCs is not as common as NNCs for generic
reference. Also, importantly, recall from §2.4.7 that unlike the first noun in an NNC, the first NP
in a PC allows pronominal reference, which is another distinction between PCs and NNCs
concerning referentiality (see §2.4.7).
We can now move on to the syntactic properties of PCs. The most important syntactic
property is separability, which is also addressed in §1.0 and §2.5: constituents of PCs are
separable as in (76a) unlike NNCs as in (76a'). Moreover, it is not possible to modify the whole
PC (76b) with modifiers other than definite modifiers such as demonstratives, as shown in (76c).
This case is again different from the case in NNCs: NNCs may be modified easily (76b'). This
must result from the fact that unlike PCs, NNCs are word-formations, which allows them to be
modified easily as a whole. Thus, it is not surprising that there are restrictions on modifiying
PCs, unlike NNCs. However, as in NNCs, we can modify the first NP in PCs easily (76d):

149
 PC:
(76) a. masal-ın [çalışkan peri-si]
tale-GEN hardworking fairy-sI
‘the hardworking fairy of the tale’

NNC:
a'. *masal çalışkan peri-si
tale hardworking fairy-sI
for ‘a hardworking fairy of a tale’

PC:

b. *çalışkan [masal-ın peri-si]

hardworking tale-GEN fairy-sI
for ‘the hardworking fairy of the tale’

NNC:
b'. çalışkan {masal peri-si}
hardworking tale fairy-sI
‘the hardworking tale-fairy’

PC:
c. şu [masal-ın peri-sin-e] bak
that tale-GEN fairy-sI-DAT look
‘look at that fairy of the tale’

NNC:

c'. şu {masal peri-sin-e} bak

that tale fairy-sI-DAT look
‘look at that tale-fairy’

PC:

d. [uzun masal-ın] peri-si

long tale-GEN fairy-sI
‘the long tale’s fairy’

NNC:

d'. {uzun masal} peri-si

long tale fairy-sI
‘long tale fairy’

150
 Also, recall from §2.5 that PCs do not necessarily have a fixed order, unlike NNCs; the
modifier NP of a PC can be relativized unlike the modifier noun of an NNC. one-replacement of
the head constituent is only possible in PCs. The modifier NP of PCs may be omitted in the
discourse, in contrast to NNCs. Even the head NP of PCs can be omitted (in company with -ki
suffixation following the GEN suffix). Neither the modifier nor the head noun can be omitted in
NNCs, however (see §2.5 for the examples).
Furthermore, as shown in §4.4, in informal speech, -sI omission is possible in PCs as in
(77c), but impossible in NNCs as in (77d). This fact is important in that it shows that the status
of -sI in PCs cannot be the same as the status of -sI in NNCs:

PC: NNC:
(77) a. Kaan-lar-ın ev-in-de b. dağ ev-in-de
Kaan-PL-GEN house-sI-LOC mountain house-sI-LOC
‘at Kaan and his family’s house’ ‘at the mountain house’

⇩ ⇩
c. Kaan-lar-ın ev_-de d. *dağ ev_-de
Kaan-PL-GEN house_LOC mountain house_LOC
‘at Kaan and his family’s house’ for ‘at the mountain house’

I will finally show that PCs and NNCs are also different in terms of recursion. Recall
from §2.1 that NNCs are infinitely recursive with left-branching unlike right-branching, which is
possible but not infinite. Unlike NNCs, recursivity with right-branching seems not to be possible
at all in PCs, whereas left-branching is infinitely possible as it is in NNCs. Consider the left-
branching examples in (78) first:

(78) a. [Kaan-ın öğretmen-i]-nin resm-i

Kaan-GEN teacher-sI-GEN picture-sI
‘Kaan’s teacher’s picture’

b. [[Kaan-ın öğretmen-i]-nin resm-i]-nin çerçeve-si

Kaan-GEN teacher-sI-GEN picture-sI-GEN frame-sI
‘the frame of Kaan’s teacher’s picture’

151
 c. [[[Kaan-ın öğretmen-i]-nin resm-i]-nin çerçeve-si]-nin
Kaan-GEN teacher-sI-GEN picture-sI-GEN frame-sI-GEN

kenar-ı ...
edge-sI
‘the edge of the frame of Kaan’s teacher’s picture’

There is no structural limit in left-branching recursion in which a whole PC can occupy the
modifier position of another PC as in (78). In (79), however, the examples are right-branching
and ungrammatical, which means that a whole PC cannot occupy the head position of another
PC:

(79) a. *Kaan-ın [öğretmen-in resm-i]-si

Kaan-GEN teacher-GEN picture-sI-sI
for ‘the teacher’s picture which belongs to Kaan’

b. *ben-im [öğretmen-in resm-i]-m

I-GEN teacher-GEN picture-sI-1.POSS
for ‘the teacher’s picture which belongs to me’

The examples in (79) are logically possible as can be seen from the translations. They are,
however, not possible either structurally or morphologically in Turkish. They are also
ungrammatical even if we omit the possessive suffixes which appear at the end of the structures
(-si and -m). The intended meaning in (79a) can only be obtained by another structure which is
not a recursive PC, however:

(80) a. öğretmen-in [Kaan-da-ki resm]-i

teacher-GEN Kaan-LOC-ki picture-sI
lit. ‘the teacher’s picture at Kaan’
‘the teacher’s picture which belongs to/ is with Kaan’

In (80), the bracketed embedded unit is not a PC itself but the head, which involves modification
by a ki-suffixed NP, in the PC structure. Recall from §2.5 that the -ki suffix attaches to inflected
NPs following either LOC or GEN suffixes, and derives relative/possessive modifiers as in (80) or

152
pronouns. In (80), the intended meaning is possible thanks to -ki suffixation, which, however,
does not involve recursion of a PC: there is no GEN case suffix in the embedded unit.
Briefly, PCs turn out to be more restricted in recursion than NNCs. While both types of
recursion in NNCs are allowed and left-branching appears to be possible without limitation, the
PC structure allows only left-branching, which is also infinite in PCs. Right-branching, however,
appears to be impossible in PCs as in (79), which implies a further structural distinction between
NNCs and PCs.
I assume that the referential and syntactic distinctions between PCs and NNCs addressed
in this section (as well as in §2.4.7 and §2.5) point to a structural distinction as well. PCs must be
structurally different from NNCs despite the semantic and the morphological similarity. This
prediction gives rise to another: the function of -sI in the two structures must also be distinct.
Before proposing the structure of PCs, I will first propose what -sI marks in PCs in §6.2. Once
we have determined the function of -sI in PCs, we will be able to place -sI suffixation within the
process of PC formation (§6.5).

6.2 -sI Only Marks “Possessedness”

Unlike the function of -sI in NNCs, the function of -sI in PCs is not controversial in the
literature: previous researchers agree that it is the 3sg Person (possessive) suffix, e.g. Lewis
2000, Yükseker 1994, 1998, van Schaaik 1996, Kornfilt 1997, Aslan & Altan 2006, Göksel &
Kerslake 2005 among others. There are, however, two problems with the assumption that -sI is
the 3rd Person marker: first the behaviour of -sI is different from that of 1st and 2nd Person
possessive suffixes, which is problematic since we would expect -sI to pattern with other Person
possessive suffixes if -sI is a Person possessive suffix too. The second problem regards the
general treatment of 3rd Person in Turkish morphology: it is not marked. This is, again,
problematic since if 3rd Person is marked in a domain, PCs, we would expect it to be marked in
other domains as well. I thus claim that -sI cannot mark Person in PCs, and aim to identify the
function of -sI in PCs without the problems of the “3sg Person possessive” analysis.
I will first illustrate Turkish PCs in (81) showing that both the possessor and the
possessum are morphologically marked in Turkish:

153
(81) a. (ben-im) keçi-m b. (sen-in) keçi-n
I-GEN goat-1.POSS123 you-GEN goat-2.POSS
‘my goat’ ‘your goat’

c. (o-nun) keçi-si
(s)he/it-GEN goat-sI
‘her/his/its goat’

In (82), we see that -sI cannot appear with 1.POSS and 2.POSS suffixes:

(82) a. ben-im *keçi-si-m b. sen-in *keçi-si-n

I-GEN goat-sI-1.POSS you-GEN goat-sI-2.POSS
for ‘my goat’ for ‘your goat’

As the examples in (81) and (82) show, -sI is in complementary distribution with the 1st Person
possessive -(I)m and the 2nd Person possessive -(I)n in PCs, which leads previous research on -sI
to label it as the 3rd Person possessive suffix beyond any doubt. However, I will present a few
challenges to this interpretation.
First, 3rd Person is treated differently from other persons in Turkish in general as
mentioned. In contrast to 1st and 2nd Persons, which are marked not only in PCs as in (81)
above, but also on finite predicates as in (83a,b) and (84a,b) below, 3rd Person is not marked on
finite predicates (83c) and (84c): 124 125

(83) a. (ben) koş-tu-m b. (sen) koş-tu-n

I run-PAST-1st you run-PAST-2nd
‘I ran’ ‘you ran’

c. (o) koş-tu
(s)he/it run-PAST
‘(s)he/it ran’

123
I use “1.POSS/2.POSS” for 1st/2nd Person “possessive” suffixes, whereas I use “1st/2nd” for Person agreement
suffixes on finite predicates.
124
There is an exceptional case: 3rd Person is marked in imperative forms (which may be used also in optative
forms): koş-sun (run-sIn) ‘(S)he/it shall run!’. I assume that 3rd Person is marked in this case to distinguish between
2nd Person and 3rd Person in imperative forms (see also Kornfilt 1997:369-373).
125
To the best of my knowledge, there has been no 3rd Person marking in these instances since Old Turkish. See, for
example, the data from Orkhon Turkish (8th century Turkish) in Tekin 1968, 2003.

154
(84) a. (ben) doktor-um b. (sen) doktor-sun
I doctor-1st you doctor-2nd
‘I am a doctor’ ‘you are a doctor’

c. (o) doktor
(s)he/it doctor
‘(s)he/it is a doctor’

The contrast between (81c), in which 3rd Person seems to be marked, and (83c) and (84c), in
which 3rd Person cannot be marked is not a trivial one since if a Person value is marked in PCs,
we would expect the same value to be marked on predicates as well. Siewierska (2004:127), for
example, notes that cross-linguistically, Person agreement in predicates is considerably more
usual than agreement in possessums. Therefore, marking a Person value in PCs but not marking
the same value, ‘3rd’, on predicates is not expected.
The second problem with the interpretation of -sI as the 3rd Person suffix concerns
Number agreement in PCs: while there is a special plural suffix, -Iz, appearing on the possessum
as Number agreement with plural 1st and 2nd Person possessors, there is no marking for plural
3rd Person possessors.126 When there are plural 1st/2nd Person possessors, the -Iz suffix must
follow the 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes on the possessum as in (85a,b). Crucially however, it cannot
appear after -sI as in (85c):

(85) a. biz-im keçi-m*(-iz) b. siz-in keçi-n*(-iz)

we-GEN goat-1.POSS-PPL you-GEN goat-2.POSS-PPL
‘our goat’ ‘your (PL) goat’

c. on-lar-ın keçi-si(*-z)
(s)he/it-PL-GEN goat-sI-(*PPL)
‘their goat’

126
Note that I do not regard the plural forms of 1. POSS/2.POSS suffixes as unified forms including -Iz: -ImIz/-InIz as
in Lewis 2000:37, for example. Rather, I treat -Iz as a separate form, whose function is to mark Number agreement
with plural Persons. So, -Iz is a Person Plural suffix (PPL), which follows Person (possessive) suffixes in my system,
as in -Im-Iz/-In-Iz. -Iz can appear with the same function on finite predicates too, e.g. gel-di-n (come-PAST-2nd) ‘you
came’ vs. gel-di-n-iz (come-PAST-2nd-PPL) ‘you (PL) came’. Recognizing this suffix as a single unit is also important
from a typological perspective. Cysouw (2011b), for example, shows that Person plural markers are semantically
and morphologically different from regular plural suffixes.

155
In other words, the Number agreement suffix -Iz may not appear with -sI, whether there is a
singular or plural possessor; therefore, the possessum of a singular 3rd Person possessor (86a)
and the possessum of a plural 3rd Person possessor (86b) are morphologically identical, unlike
the case with 1st/2nd Person possessors (85a,b):

(86) a. o-nun keçi-si b. on-lar-ın keçi-si

(s)he/it-GEN goat-sI (s)he/it-PL-GEN goat-sI
‘her/his/its goat’ ‘their goat’

Note that the plural suffix -lEr can appear before -sI as in (87a,b); however, -lEr only shows a
plural possessum in PCs, whereas -Iz shows agreement with the possessor as discussed above.
Thus, -lEr can be suffixed regardless of the plurality of the possessor, unlike -Iz.127

(87) a. on-un keçi-ler-i b. on-lar-ın keçi-ler-i

(s)he/it-GEN goat-PL-sI (s)he/it-PL-GEN goat-PL-sI
‘her/his goats’ ‘their goats’

Clearly, the function of -Iz is not the same as the function of -lEr. The function of -Iz is
significant: -Iz is an indicator of agreement in PCs, which is missing from PCs with 3rd Person
possessors as shown above. This fact will also be important when I discuss agreement in PCs in
§6.3.
The third problem is the morphological behaviour of -sI, which is distinct from that of
1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes. The 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes are permitted before some derivational
suffixes such as -lIK, -sIz, and -sI. -sI, however, cannot appear before these derivational suffixes.
I illustrate the examples in which -lIK, -sIz, and the derivational -sI follow the 1.POSS/2.POSS
suffixes, but not the possessive -sI, which cannot appear with these suffixes (88c), (89c), (90c):

127
Note that I do not assume that -leri functions as a single agreement element above, i.e. as the 3rd Person plural
possessive marking as in Kornfilt 1984, 1997:384 or Lewis 2000:37. Rather, I consider -lEr only to be the regular
plural suffix, which is followed by -sI in PCs. Note however that -lEr seems to show Number agreement in some
cases apart from PCs, e.g. çocuk-lar ev-ler-i-ne git-ti (child-PL home-PL-sI-DAT go-PAST) ‘the children went to their
home/homes’. Therefore, there is a non-parallelism between such cases and the PC domain: the former seems to
allow Number agreement with 3rd Person whereas it is not allowed in PCs. The PC çocuk-lar-ın ev-ler-i (child-PL-
GEN home-PL-sI) can only mean ‘the children’s homes’ but not ‘the children’s home’.

156
(88) a. anne-m-lik b. anne-n-lik
mother-1.POSS-lIK mother-2.POSS-lIK
‘suitable for/related to my mother’ ‘suitable for/related to your mother’

c. *anne-si-lik
mother-sI-lIK
for ‘suitable for/related to her/his mother’

(89) a. anne-m-siz b. anne-n-siz c. anne(*-si)-siz

mother-1.POSS-sIz mother-2.POSS-sIz mother(*-sI)-sIz
‘without my mother’ ‘without your mother’ ‘without his mother’

(90) a. anne-m-si b. anne-n-si c. *anne-si-si

mother-1.POSS-Der.sI mother-2.POSS-Der.sI mother-sI-Der.sI
‘like my mother’ ‘like your mother’ ‘like her/his mother’

The derivations (88a,b), which involve 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes, may be used instead of their
syntactic counterparts in instances such as (91a), in contrast to (91b), which involves -sI, and in
which the derivation is ungrammatical and only the phrasal unit may express the intended
meaning:

(91) a. anne-n-le ilgili /anne-n-lik bir durum yok

128
mother-2.POSS-WITH3 related /mother-2.POSS-lIK a situation absent
‘there is nothing relevant to your mother’

b. anne-siy-le ilgili / *anne-si-lik bir durum yok

mother-sI- WITH3 related / mother-sI-lIK a situation absent
‘there is nothing relevant to her/his mother’

Similarly, the derivations in (89a,b), which involve 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes, express the same
meaning which is expressed by the comparable phrases in (92a), unlike (92b) in which the
derivation is ungrammatical with -sI:

128
WITH3 = ‘togetherness’

157
(92) a. anne-m olmadan / anne-m-siz git-mi-yor-um
mother-1.POSS without / mother-1.POSS-sIz go-NEG-PROG-1st
‘I am not leaving without my mother’

b. anne-si olmadan / anne(*-si)-siz git-mi-yor

mother-sI without mother(*-sI)-sIz go-NEG-PROG
‘(s)he is not leaving without her/his mother’

Similarly, either the derivation or its phrasal counterpart may be used in (93a), unlike (93b) in
which the derivation is ungrammatical with -sI:

(93) a. anne-n-in-ki gibi /anne-n-si bir bakışaçısı

mother-2.POSS-GEN-ki like /mother-2.POSS-Der.sI a perspective
‘a point of view similar to your mother’s’

b. anne-si-nin-ki gibi /*anne-si-si bir bakışaçısı

mother-sI-GEN-ki like /mother-sI-Der.sI a perspective
‘a point of view similar to her/his mother’s’

In short, whereas some derivational suffixes may follow 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes as shown
above, the so-called 3rd Person possessive suffix may not be followed by these suffixes, which
signals that its behaviour is not identical to that of 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes. This poses a problem
if the paradigm that -sI and 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes are included in is a paradigm of “Person
possessive” suffixes since -sI is distinguished. Note also that whereas the 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes
may appear before the plural suffix -lEr when referring to an individual and a group of people
who are proximate to this individual, -sI cannot appear before -lEr like this:

(94) a. teyze-m-ler b. teyze-n-ler

aunt-1.POSS-PL aunt-2.POSS-PL
‘my aunt and those with her’ ‘your aunt and those with her’

c. *teyze-si-ler
aunt-sI-PL
for ‘her/his aunt and those with her’

158
 The examples in (88-94) show that -sI morphologically conflicts with the 1st/2nd Person
possessive suffixes and leave the following question unaccounted for: if -sI is a Person
possessive suffix like 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes, why is its behaviour distinctive? My answer to this
question is as follows: whereas 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes are “Person possessive” suffixes, -sI is
only a “possessive” suffix, which makes -sI distinct from 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes, but at the same
time allows it to appear in PCs. Therefore, the paradigm including these three suffixes must be a
paradigm of possessive suffixes rather than Person possessive suffixes.
To sum up, there are two important facts motivating the current analysis: the fact that 3rd
Person is normally the non-marked Person in Turkish and that -sI is morphologically restricted
contra 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes. On the basis of these considerations, I propose that -sI is
inflectional like other possessive suffixes, 1.POSS and 2.POSS. However, it does not mark a
“Person” value (3rd) unlike other possessive suffixes. The domains highlighted above involve
Person suffixes but clearly exclude -sI. On the other hand, we have seen that -sI is necessary to
mark that an element is possessed; it appears on the possessum in PCs. Therefore, -sI must mark
only “possessedness” without Person information.129 On the basis of this proposal, unlike
1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes, which are Person possessive, thus, agreement suffixes, -sI is not an
agreement suffix either. In other words, my analysis shows that the possessum can be marked
independently from a Person value in Turkish PCs. This analysis also gives rise to another
proposal: “Possessedness” must be a different and independent grammatical category from
Person; Turkish marks “possessed” entities in contrast to non-possessed ones, as proposed in
Kunduracı 2013.130
Importantly, this analysis, which does not treat -sI as a Person marker, can account for not
only the appearance of -sI in PCs, but also its absence in instances where we would expect to see
it if it was a Person marker in Turkish. It appears in PCs since it is a possessive suffix and
Turkish marks both elements in PCs, possessor and possessum. It cannot appear with the Person
plural agreement suffix -Iz, since -sI is not a Person suffix. Again, it is not permitted in the
examples (88-94) where the derivational suffixes and the plural suffix may follow Person
possessive suffixes but not -sI, as -sI is not a Person suffix. This analysis also accords with the
general behaviour of Turkish morphology: 3rd Person is not marked. This analysis also accords

129
We can now show -sI as “POSS” in PCs, and as “CM” in NNCs.
130
See also Mel’čuk 1994, who shows “Possessedness” (“Appartenance”) as a grammatical category (p.192-197).

159
with the cross-linguistic hierarchy proposed by Siewierska (2004) in which Person agreement in
PCs is not very likely unless predicates show Person agreement: I have shown that 3rd Person is
not marked on finite predicates. This analysis accords with one more fact in Turkish: there is no
specific pronoun for 3rd Person; rather, the demonstrative o ‘that’ is used for this function.131
This means that the 3rd value of Person is not only non-marked on finite predicates, but also it is
missing in the pronominal paradigm. It is thus expected that 3rd Person will not be marked in
PCs either, which supports the current proposal that the -sI suffix in PCs is only a possessive
suffix without Person information.
There remain two questions: the first is why -sI cannot appear with 1.POSS/2.POSS
suffixes as in (82) if it is only a possessive suffix as claimed here. I propose that the reason for
this is the fact that unlike -sI, 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes show morphological cumulation: they bear
not only Person but also Possessedness information, which makes -sI and 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes
paradigmatic. Namely, all the possessive suffixes compete for the same slot, which preclude
them from appearing together. Note also that the cumulative information mapping onto the
1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes makes them more specific than -sI: the less specific -sI is overridden
within the paradigm of possessive suffixes.132
The second question is where the 3rd Person interpretation comes from in PCs with 3rd
Person possessors if -sI is only a possessive suffix. The answer to this question is simple: it
comes from the absence of a Person suffix as in the case of finite predicates: no Person marking

131
This fact is not unimportant: if Person agreement requires pronominal motivation in Turkish, then it is predicted
that 3rd Person is not marked considering that there is even no “pronoun” for this value. See, for example,
Nikolaeva 2005 for a discussion of Person agreement in PCs. What is more, the plural form of o is on-lar ‘they’,
which contains the regular plural suffix -lEr, unlike the plural forms of the 1st/2nd Person pronouns which have
specific forms: biz ‘we’, and siz ‘you’.
132
This analysis can also account for other instances which -sI appears in. First, there is a vernacular form in which
-sI can appear in the possessor NP, following the -ki suffix, which derives possessive pronouns: as in the vernacular
forms ben-im-ki-si (I-GEN-ki-POSS) ‘mine’, sen-in-ki-si (you-GEN-ki-POSS) ‘yours’, and o-nun-ki-si (she/he/it-GEN-ki-
POSS) ‘hers/his/its’. Although the standard forms of these examples do not contain -sI as in ben-im-ki (I-GEN-ki)
‘mine’, it is interesting that -sI can appear with the 1st and 2nd Person pronouns as well as the 3rd Person
(demonstrative) within the same word form (vernacular). Again, if -sI marked 3rd Person, these vernacular forms
would not include -sI on 1st/2nd Person pronouns. However, if we take the analysis proposed in this study, then we
can also account for the appearance of -sI in such forms: -sI marks the possessum, not Person.
Another instance involving -sI is nominalized phrases with the 3rd Person possessors, which appear in the PC
form: Kenzkaan-ın gitar çal-ma-sı (Kenzkaan-GEN guitar play-NML-POSS) ‘Kenzkaan’s playing the guitar’. The
subject of the nominalized phrase is the possessor whereas the predicate of the nominalized phrase is the possessum
with -sI. It is importatnt that -sI appears only in nominalized predicates like this but not finite predicates such as
Kenzkaan gitar çal-ıyor-du_ (Kenzkaan guitar play-PROG-PAST) ‘Kenzkaan was playing the guitar’. This crucial
distinction between finite predicates and nominalized predicates, again, shows that -sI must mark only possessum,
but not 3rd Person. Otherwise 3rd Person would be marked in finite clauses too, which is not the case, however.

160
means 3rd Person in Turkish. Namely, I suggest that there is no 3rd value of the category Person
for Turkish morphology to mark. Therefore, the misinterpretation of -sI as the 3SG marker
follows from the fact that the possessive suffix -sI appears in a position which would otherwise
be occupied by a 3rd Person suffix, if there was one in Turkish.
This section was dedicated to the function of -sI in PCs, and showed that both the -sI
suffix (among possessive suffixes) and the 3rd Person value (among Person values) are
distinguished in Turkish. I proposed that -sI in PCs is only a possessive suffix but not “3rd
Person possessive”. It only marks the possessed entity in PCs. This analysis is more explanatory
than the traditional one since it accounts for both the existence and the absence of -sI, and it is
parallel with the general treatment of 3rd Person in Turkish. Furthermore, I propose that
Possessedness is a grammatical category in Turkish: possessed entities are distinguished in
contrast to non-possessed entities.133

6.3 Agreement and Possessedness: Separate Issues

In the previous section, I proposed that -sI does not mark a Person value in PCs although it is a
possessive suffix and in complementary distribution with 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes. This proposal
gave rise to another claim: whereas -sI is not an agreement suffix, 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes are
agreement suffixes since they involve Person information belonging to possessors.134 In this
section, I aim to show that Possessedness is independent from agreement. I will first introduce
my assumptions concerning the notion of agreement, and then demonstrate the nature of
agreement in Turkish PCs.
Following Corbett (2001, 2003, 2006) and Cysouw (2011a), I assume that agreement is a
relation between a controller and a target: “controller” is the element determining the value of
the relation, “target” is the element whose form is determined by the relation. There is also the
syntactic environment where the agreement relation is held: “agreement domain”. Finally, there
is the “value” (feature) which is associated between controller and target (Corbett 2001:110).

133
The distinction between the 3rd Person and other persons is a cross-linguistic problem. See for example Beard
1995, Ritter 1995, Siewierska 2001, 2004, Cysouw 2003, 2011b, and Corbett 2006 among others.
134
See, for example, Arslan-Kechriotis (2006) for an opposite view, which assumes that PCs with 3rd Person
possessors involve Person and Number agreement in Turkish (p.126).

161
 Given these notions, I will describe Turkish PCs with 1st and 2nd Person possessors such
as ben-im keçi-m (I-GEN goat-1.POSS) ‘my goat’ and sen-in keçi-n (you-GEN goat-2.POSS) ‘your
goat’, considering the elements of agreement addressed above. In both PCs, the controller is the
possessor. The target is the possessum since the Person value in the possessor is transmitted to
the possessum so that the target agrees with the Person value of the possessor (controller).
Therefore, the category which the agreement relation is based on is Person whose value is ‘1st’
with the first Person pronoun, and ‘2nd’ with the second Person pronoun. As to the domain of
the agreement relation, it is a PC domain, which is an NP. However, this is not an ordinary NP: it
involves a ‘belonging to’ relation. This is why the 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes are also possessive
suffixes: in addition to Person information, they signal that something is possessed. Therefore, it
is important that the relation agreement and the category Possessedness should be distinguished.
These are two separate elements involved in the PC domain. PCs are thus distinguished from
ordinary NPs, e.g. NPs consisting of A-Ns in that the latter type does not show agreement in
Turkish.
With respect to PCs with 3rd Person possessors, they are also involved in the same
domain: the PC domain. However, following our proposal that the possessive -sI does not mark
3rd Person, there is no value marked by -sI for the category Person in this case. Since there is no
value for agreement, there is no agreement. Nonetheless, there is a ‘belonging to’ relation
between the possessor NP and the possessum as is in PCs with 1st/2nd Person possessors, which
is independent from agreement.
This proposal, i.e. Turkish PCs involve agreement only with 1st/2nd Person possessors
whereas there is no agreement in PCs with 3rd Person possessors is justified by the fact that there
is no Number agreement in PCs with 3rd Person possessors. Recall from §6.2 that the -Iz suffix
necessarily appears as Number agreement with plural 1st/2nd Person possessors; however, it
cannot appear with plural 3rd Person possessors (85c). I thus claim that there is neither Person
nor Number agreement in PCs with 3rd Person possessors in Turkish. Importantly, the fact that
the PPL suffix appears with only 1st/2nd Person possessors indicates that Number agreement
depends on Person agreement in Turkish PCs: Number agreement will not take place unless there
is Person agreement in PCs.
Also, it is not unusual that agreement is not mandatory in PCs, as this study claims. There
is in fact cross-linguistic support for this: Nikolaeva (2005:223) shows that in Tundra Nenets,

162
Person agreement on the possessum is obligatory with pronoun possessors as in (95a), whereas
Person is not normally marked otherwise (95b): the latter type of PC lacks agreement. This
means that PCs without agreement are possible in Tundra Nenets:

Tundra Nenets

(95) a. pidørº te-rº b. Wata-h ti

you.SG.NOM reindeer-2.POSS Wata-GEN reindeer
‘your reindeer’ ‘Wata’s reindeer’

(Nikolaeva 2005:223, (1a)) (Nikolaeva 2005:223, (1b))

Another piece of support for the claim that PCs do not necessarily involve agreement comes
from Tauya. In this language, as Siewierska (2004:138) notes, Person agreement takes place only
with inalienable possession as in (96a), unlike (96b), which does not involve agreement:

Tauya

(96) a. ya-neme b. wate ne-pi

1SG-head house 3SG-GEN
‘my head’ ‘his/her house’

(MacDonald 1990:129) (MacDonald 1990:131)

Similar to Tundra Nenets, the Tauya example also show that agreement may not be obligatory in
PCs.
It is also important to note that both the possessor and the possessum are marked in
Turkish PCs, which is not a universal case. There are languages in which both elements are
marked as in Turkish. However, there are also languages in which only the possessor is marked,
e.g. English, Welsh, Polish, and vice-versa, in which only possessum is marked as in Paamese
inalienable possession. Even it seems to be possible not to mark either elements, as Ultan
(1978:16) shows. See the examples in (97) illustrating only possessum marking in contrast to
only possessor marking, and no marking:

163
(97) a. Only Possessum Marking:
Paamese inalienable PC
vati-n ēhon (Crowley 1996:389)
head-3SG child
‘child’s head’

b. Only Possessor Marking:

Polish (Siewierska 2001:139)
torba Jan-a
bag Jan-GEN
‘Jan’s bag’

c. No marking:
Jamaican Creole (Ultan 1978:16)135

Rabat miizl
Robert measles
‘Robert’s measles’

The fact that Turkish marks both elements in PCs must result from a language-specific
requirement within the PC domain: in such languages, it is required that both the possessor and
the possessum be marked. This variation in the morphological marking of the elements in PCs
also shows that belonging to (OF) and agreement are independent relations even though they may
cooccur together. Agreement might be missing in PCs as in Turkish PCs with 3rd Person
possessors, Tundra Nenets and Tauya, as shown above. In all PCs, however, there is a mutual OF
relation between the two NPs regardless of the existence of a Person value and agreement.
I will now turn to the information in Turkish PCs, which seems to be both informative
and repetitive: we are informed about the possessor and possessum by the separate suffixes,
genitive and possessive, but the Person information is repeated on the possessum with 1st/2nd
Person possessors, since it already exists in the possessor pronouns. Nonetheless, the possessor
NPs may be omitted in PCs as in keçi-m (goat-1.POSS) ‘my goat’, keçi-n (goat-2.POSS) ‘your
goat’. In this case, the possessive suffixes are clearly informative: they inform us about the

135
In Jamaican Creole, possessor and possessum are identified by their positions relative to each other (Ultan
1978:16). This interesting case will be important for the structure of PCs, in §6.5.

164
Person (and Number) value of the possessor.136 Therefore it is hard to claim that this case is
either “canonical agreement”, which is repetitive and not informative since the grammatical
information (Person values) of the possessor NP is transmitted to the possessum, or “non-
canonical agreement”, which is agreement with an important informative contribution as defined
in Corbett 2001, 2006.
There is another distinction in agreement in addition to canonical vs. non-canonical
agreement. Corbett (2001:112-117) distinguishes “semantic agreement” from “syntactic
agreement”: semantic agreement depends on meaning and lexical features while syntactic
agreement is grammatical agreement and depends on form. He notes that these two might be in a
competition sometimes, leading to two acceptable forms.137 Turning to Turkish PCs, we see that
the distinction is not very clear as suggested above: Turkish PCs with 1st and 2nd Person
possessors involve agreement in terms of a lexical Person value encoded in pronouns. However,
agreement takes place if the possessors are in a syntactic domain, which is the PC domain
(unless one assumes that the possessors pragmatically exist). Thus, the condition for the
agreement is that we need a syntactic environment and a lexical value, which means that this
agreement is both syntactic and semantic. Note that I follow Anderson (1992), among others,
who states that agreement is an inflectional, morphosyntactic phenomenon, and needs syntax.138
In other words, I assume that an agreement relation can exist only if we have a syntactic domain.
On the basis of this, PCs in Turkish should be examples for syntactic agreement. At the same
time, this is another reason why we cannot assume that -sI is the 3rd “Person” (possessive)
marker in compounds (NNCs), which are word-formations, but not phrases, as proposed in Ch.4.
Thus, unlike the constituents of PCs, which are phrasal, the constituents of NNCs, which are
noun stems, cannot have agreement at all.
This section was dedicated to indicating the nature of agreement in Turkish PCs. I
proposed that agreement exists only between the 1st Person possessor (pronoun) and its
possessum, which is marked by the 1.POSS suffix, and between the 2nd Person possessor
(pronoun) and its possessum, which is marked by the 2.POSS suffix. It is true that the -sI suffix
136
Possessums of 3rd Person pronouns are, however, not informative about Number in the absence of a possessor:
keçi-si (goat-POSS) ‘her/his/its/their goat’.
137
For instance we find two acceptable forms with the same agreement controller in the British English example The
committee has decided / have decided. While has decided shows syntactic agreement, have decided shows semantic
agreement according to Corbett (p.113).
138
Anderson (1992:118-119) assumes that only maximal projections for some lexical category X can be assigned
configurational (inflectional) properties.

165
appears with 3rd (non-)Person in PCs, distinguishing it from 1st and 2nd Persons. What I have
proposed, however, is that the suffixation of -sI is not based on a Person value; rather, it is based
on the category Possessedness. The PC domain needs the marking of both possessor and
possessum in Turkish. As for the specific function of -sI, it is to mark ‘possessed’ in
Possessedness, as proposed in §6.2, which does not necessarily require agreement as shown in
this section. Given these considerations, Possessedness is a grammatical category in Turkish with
the defining values “possessed” and “non-possessed”. This category can be expressed with and
without agreement.

6.4 Possessedness versus Person: Separate Categories

In §6.3, I proposed that Possessedness must be regarded as a grammatical category, and it is not
dependent on an agreement relation. In this section, I aim to show that Possessedness does not
necessarily depend on the category Person either. I will show that whereas it is common to find
expressions which include both of these categories, it is also possible that we find expressions
with only one of these. If it is true that Possessedness is a separate category despite its
cooccurrence with Person, then it should be expected that it may be marked independently from
Person, as will be demonstrated in this section. I will also relate this issue to the proposal in §6.2:
-sI marks only the ‘possessed’ value of Possessedness but not a Person value in Turkish.
In §6.3, I showed that it is possible to mark only the possessor, only the possessum, or
both elements in PCs cross-linguistically. In this section, I will show that both possessor and
possessum may be marked separately from Person marking, which will support the proposal that
Possessedness must be a separate grammatical category. The first piece of evidence comes from
Carib, in which there is a possessive suffix, -rI. Importantly, the Carib possessive suffix may
appear with all Persons as shown in (98):

Carib
(98) a. i-pa:sa-rï b. _-to:pu-ru
3SG-cheek-POSS 1SG-stone-POSS
‘his cheek’ ‘my stone’

(Hoff 1962:160) (Hoff 1962:163)

166
The Carib examples are significant as they clearly show that the possessum may be marked
independently of Person marking: the possessive suffix -rI may appear with all persons (3rd
Person in (98a) vs. 1st Person in (98b)). A very similar case to Carib is seen in Dëne Sųłıné, in
which the possessive suffix -é may appear with all persons: with 1st Person as shown in (99a),
and with 3rd Person as shown in (99b):

Dëne Sųłıné

(99) a. se-dzın-é b. be-yú-é

1st-day-POSS 3rd-equipment-POSS
‘my birthday’ ‘her/his equipment’

(Saxon & Wilhelm 2011, (18)) (Saxon & Wilhelm 2011, (6))

The fact that the possessum may be marked independently from Person in Carib and Dëne Sųłıné
is important since it indirectly supports the claim that the Turkish -sI is only a possessive suffix.
Another piece of support for the proposal that Possessedness is a grammatical category
comes from Loniu, in which there is a possessive particle for the possessum in alienable
possession, which can, again, appear with all persons:

Loniu

(100) a. tun a iy b. pʷɛlɛyah a yo

canoe POSS 3SG parrotfish POSS 1SG
‘his canoe’ ‘my parrotfish’

(Hamel 1994:52) (Hamel 1994:44)

The POSS particle in Loniu does not provide a purely morphological expression of the
possessum. However, as do the Carib and Dëne Sųłıné examples, the Loniu examples show that
the expression of Possessedness does not necessarily depend on Person: possessum (or
possessedness) may be expressed separately from Person.
Similarly, the other element in PCs, which is the possessor, may be marked separately
from Person too. Marking possessor (or possessingness) separately from Person was possible in

167
Old Turkish (Orkhon Turkish) as shown in (101): the same form, GEN suffix, is used for marking
the 1st Person possessor in (101a), and the 3rd Person possessor in (101b). This is important as it
shows that morphological cumulation of Person and possessingness is not a necessary condition
in PCs:

Orkhon Turkish

(101) a. män-iŋ bodun-um b. kagan-ıŋ bodun-ı

I-GEN nation-1.POSS prince-GEN nation-POSS
‘my nation, tribe’ ‘the prince’s nation, tribe’

(Tekin 2003:105) (Tekin 2003:201)

Turkish PCs and the langugaes displayed in this section and in §6.3 show that all PCs
involve possessors and possessums. They, however differ in two respects, the first being the
extent to which the elements, possessor and possessum, are marked. Both elements, one of the
elements (either one), or no elements can be marked, the last case is not very common, however.
PCs also differ cross-linguistically in the morphological expression of the categories Person and
Possessedness: cumulation vs. separation. This section showed that these categories can be
marked separately despite the fact that both categories are expected members of the PC domain.
This section was devoted to displaying cross-linguistic evidence for the proposal that -sI
in Turkish PCs marks only Possessedness without Person. We indeed saw that there is a
distinctive recognition of Possessedness as a category which is independent from Person, which
accords with Mel’čuk’s (1994) treatment to Possessedness.

6.5 The Formation of Possessive Constructions

Having proposed the function of -sI and the nature of agreement in PCs, and distinguished the
Possessedness as a category in Turkish, I will propose how PCs are formed in Turkish within a
process-based approach to morphology in this section. As does the formation of NNCs, the
formation of PCs also involves form rules and semantic rules mapping onto each other in a
morphological operation. In this case, however, there is an important distinction: phrase
formation by the syntactic component is also involved. Thus, unlike NNCs, which are word-

168
formations, PCs, which are phrasal units, involve both syntactic and morphological operations,
the latter being inflection. Recall from §4.2 that morphological operations can not only precede
but also follow syntactic operations (see §4.2 for the advantages of this suggestion). I propose
that the structure of PCs with 3rd Person possessors, such as orman-ın keçi-si (forest-GEN goat-
sI) ‘the forest’s goat’, is as in Figure 11:

[ orman keçi ] Step1  Syntactic Operation & Semantic ASN: OF(x, y)

{ [ orman-ın keçi ] } Step2  Morphological Operation: Inflection of Possessor

{ [ orman-ın keçi-si ] } Step3  Morphological Operation: Inflection of Possessum

Figure 11. The Formation of PCs with 3rd Person Possessors in Turkish

The first step in the formation of PCs involves syntactic phrase-formation: this consists of
combining the two constituents, the second being the syntactic head. This combination maps
onto the semantic rule, SR1, OF(x, y), which is involved in the semantic combination of the two
NPs. The semantic rule involves an ASN function and two arguments as described under Figure
7 (§4.3).139 It also has the same semantic condition: the second item is the head. Since Step 1 has
formed an NP with an OF relation, and since the PC domain requires that both elements be
marked in Turkish (see §6.4), morphology marks the possessor element, which is the modifier,
by the genitive suffix. This constitutes the morphological operation in Step 2: case inflection of
the possessor. In the next step, the other element, possessum, is marked by another
morphological operation: the possessum is inflected by the possessive suffix.140
In this proposal, both the suffixation of -sI and the GEN suffix take place after the first
step, thus, follow the syntactic phrase-formation. Therefore, the -sI suffixation in PCs is
inflectional, unlike -sI in NNCs. Also, this proposal, in which the possessum and possessor
marking by morphology follows a syntactic operation, accords with a theory of inflection such as
139
Note that with this semantic rule, we preclude a head-argument relation between the NP constituents of a PC:
both are arguments of the semantic ASN function OF, as in the case of NNCs (§4.3). The NPs themselves involve a
modifier-head relation.
140
Note that I use the terms possessor and possessum regardless of the type of ASN relations in PCs since we have
determined that Possessedness is a grammatical category, in the previous section. Alternatively, one might want to
name the category Association, and prefer to use the terms associator and associated, instead. In this case, we would
call PCs “ACs: Associative Constructions” rather than PCs. I will, however, keep using the traditional terms
possessor and possessum as the elements PCs.

169
Anderson 1982, 1992: “inflectional morphology is what is relevant to syntax” (1982:587).
Unlike Anderson, however, I assume that inflectional operations belong to morphology, i.e. they
are manipulated by the morphological component but may be motivated by the available
syntactic information (in the case of contextual inflection). At the same time, this formation
accords with what our model in Figure 6 predicts regarding the interaction between morphology
and syntax.
I will now demonstrate the second and third steps in the PC formation, which constitute
morphological operations:

Step 2: OP6

SR6 < ‘x’  Possessor; ‘SR6’ >; ‘OP6’ Sc: NP

FR6 < x + GEN; ‘FR6’ > Oc: Slot 3

Figure 12. Genitive Case Inflection in Turkish

OP6 involves the mapping of the SR6, which shows the possessor element of the semantic
function applying in Step 1, onto the FR6, which suffixes the genitive case as case inflection.
The stem condition of OP6 shows that this operation applies to NPs, and the slot condition
shows that the genitive suffix (like other case suffixes) occupies Slot 3 in the inflectional
paradigm.141 I will now demonstrate the final step in the PC formation, which involves the
suffixation of the possessive -sI:

Step 3: OP7

SR7 < ‘x’  Possessum; ‘SR7’ >; ‘OP7’ Sc: NP

FR2 < x + sI; ‘FR2’; Rc: s  ∅/ C > Oc: Slot 2

Figure 13. Possessum Inflection in Turkish

141
Slot 1 is reserved for Number inflection and Slot 2 is for possessive suffixes, which leaves Slot 3 for case
suffixes, e.g. masal-lar-ım-ın (tale-PL-1.POSS-GEN) ‘of my tales’.

170
OP7 involves the mapping of SR7 and FR2. SR7 shows the possessum element in the semantic
function applying in Step 1. Importantly, FR2, which suffixes -sI is the same form rule used in
the NNC formation (see Figure 7, §4.3).142 OP7 contains a stem condition, which shows that this
operation applies to NPs, and an operation condition which shows that the possessive -sI
occupies Slot 2 like other possessive suffixes in the inflectional paradigm.
Note that according to the PC formation shown in Figure 11, neither the possessive suffix
nor the genitive suffix can be responsible for either the syntactic structure or the semantic
relationship between the two NPs since the suffixes are added following the syntactic and
semantic combinations.143 Therefore, these suffixes appear as morphological markers of the
elements of the OF relation, which is obtained in the first step, before the suffixations.
With regard to the formation of PCs with 1st/2nd Person possessors, it involves the same
steps proposed in Figure 11, with an additional relation, however, which is agreement in the final
step. The formation of a PC with the 1st or 2nd Person possessor such as sen-in keçi-n (you-GEN
goat-2.POSS) ‘your goat’, is as follows:

[ sen keçi ] Step 1  Syntactic Operation & Semantic ASN: OF(x, y)

{ [ sen-in keçi ] } Step 2  Morphological Operation: Inflection of Possessor

{ [ sen-in keçi-n ] } Step 3  Morphological Operation: Inflection of Possessum & Agreement

↳______↑

Figure 14. The Formation of PCs with 1st/2nd Persons in Turkish

In this formation, agreement takes place in Step 3, in which the possessum is marked by
1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes. In Figure 14, the value determining agreement is ‘2nd’ Person, which is
the Person value of the possessor, the controller, and which is transmitted to the possessum, the
target of agreement. This relation is expressed by the 2.POSS suffix. Therefore, the trigger of
agreement is either the 1st or 2nd Person pronouns, whose Person values are marked in Turkish
morphology. Recall also that these suffixes have two functions in PCs: they express the Person

142
The use of the same form rule, FR2, in both NNCs and PCs will be significant in §6.7, where I address the
ungrammatical *-sI-sI combination.
143
In this way, we can also account for how the OF relation is obtained when there is no morphological marking, as
in Jamaican Creole (97c), for example.

171
information of possessors, and express Possessedness on the possessum. Therefore,
1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes are agreement suffixes, unlike -sI, as already suggested in §6.4.
Now consider the order of the steps in Figure 11 and Figure 14: the syntactic operation,
which involves the semantic combination, takes place first, then the genitive suffix is added to
the structure, finally one of the possessive suffixes is added. There are three independent reasons
for proposing this order. First, in the semantic rule f(x, y), the function takes ‘x’ first, which is
determined as the modifier, and then ‘y’, which is determined as the head (see §4.3). In parallel
with this, morphology first marks the modifier, the possessor, and then the head, the possessum.
Second, possessive suffixes, including -sI, may be omitted in casual speech as shown in
(102) (recall also the examples (66) and (77)):

(102) a. sen-in keçi_ nerede? b. Kaan-ın keçi_ nerede?

you-GEN goat_ where Kaan-GEN goat_ where
‘Where is your goat?’ ‘Where is Kaan’s goat?’

This means that the information regarding the possessor vs. possessum must be obtained before
the possessive suffixes are added. In other words, we must know which entity is the possessor
and which one is the possessum before possessive suffixes are added so that it will be allowed to
omit the possessive suffixes. This is possible if we add the genitive suffix, which shows the
possessor, before possessive suffixes are added. Note that the genitive suffix cannot be omitted
unlike possessive suffixes. Also, the fact that possessive suffixes may be omitted supports the
suggestion that possessive suffixes are not responsible for either the syntactic structure or the
semantic relation between the two NPs; otherwise, we would not be able to account for the
omission of these.
The third reason for the proposed order is the direction of the agreement relation: in PCs
with 1st/2nd Person possessors, the controller of the agreement is the possessor, whereas the
target is the possessum. The controller is the element whose value triggers and determines the
agreement relation (§6.3). Therefore inflecting the possessor before the possessum also accords
with the direction of the agreement: the controller is inflected before the target. This gives
morphological priority to the possessor, as the semantic rule does to the modifier.
In this section, I have proposed a system for the formation of PCs in Turkish in three
steps. The formation of PCs include a syntactic NP formation and the semantic rule OF(x, y)

172
mapping onto the syntactic combination in the first step. The possessum, which is the syntactic
and semantic head, is marked by one of the possessive suffixes, which follows the genitive case
inflection. If the possessor is either the 1st or the 2nd Person pronoun, then there is also
agreement. This analysis accounts for why possessive suffixes may be omitted unlike the
genitive suffix. Note also that there are two similarities between the formation of NNCs (§4.3)
and the formation of PCs: SR1, the semantic rule, and FR2, the form rule responsible for -sI
suffixation. However, these two rules are the only common points between the two formations.
Note that the stem conditions of the the two operations, OP2 and OP7, involving -sI suffixations
are different: an {N-N} stem in NNCs vs. an NP in PCs. Also, whereas PCs involve a syntactic
operation, NNCs do not. Whereas PCs involve an inflectional morphological operation, NNCs
involve a derivational operation. Whereas PCs involve case inflection, NNCs do not, which also
accounts for why the first NP can be definite in PCs. This analysis can also account for all the
distinctions between NNCs and PCs addressed throughout this study (§2.5, §6.1).
There remains an important issue which is left: the formal (morphological) similarity
between PCs and NNCs despite the distinct operations yielding distinct structures. Namely, why
does -sI appear in both structures rather than two different suffixes, for example? Why does
Turkish, a morphologically rich language, not mark compounds with another suffix instead of
-sI? I will attempt to answer this question from a tentative historic and a cognitive semantic
perspective in the following section.

6.6 Morphological Similarity: A Transfer Based on Semantics

Thus far in this chapter, I have argued that -sI in PCs marks ‘possessed’, which is a category
value in Turkish. This means that the function of -sI is distinct from the function of -sI in NNCs:
-sI in NNCs informs us about a lexeme formation, whereas -sI in PCs informs us about a
possessum, i.e. something is possessed. The fact that the same form, morphological element, can
correspond to different functions in different operations is not a problem in the process-based
approaches to morphology: affixes are not assigned lexical meanings; rather, they map onto
morphological functions (meanings) in processes (§4.3). However, in §6.1, we have also seen
that NNCs and PCs are not only morphologically but also semantically similar: they involve
association in contrast to ascription.

173
 On the basis of the morphological similarity, -sI suffixation, and the semantic similarity,
ASN semantics, between NNCs and PCs, I suggest that there may be a historical connection
between NNCs and PCs, consisting of a transfer of the -sI suffix from one of the structures to the
other. I consider three reasons for this tentative transfer. First -sI is formally restricted both in
NNCs and PCs: it cannot appear in the presence of certain suffixes, and always loses the slot
competition when there is one (the CM -sI is not permitted with certain suffixes in the
derivational paradigm (§5.3); the POSS -sI is restricted in some sequences in contrast to
1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes (§6.2)). Second, in both NNCs and PCs, -sI participates in an operation
involving elements of the noun category, which is a categorial similarity. Third, neither NNCs
nor PCs involve ascription as already stressed. Given these considerations, there might have been
a transfer of -sI from one instance to the other. Regarding the direction of the -sI transfer, careful
historical research is necessary, which will be left for future investigation. However, it is more
likely that the transfer went from PCs to NNCs. The motivator for this suggestion is the Old
Turkish data, obtained from the Orkhon Scripts.144
The Orkhon Turkish data I looked at (provided by Tekin 2003) contain PC examples.
Interestingly however, while there are PCs with the GEN suffix as in Modern Turkish, there are
also PCs without the GEN suffix in Orkhon Turkish:

144
There are a few points to make concerning Orkhon Turkish data. First I do not claim that there is a direct link
between Modern Turkish and Orkhon Turkish. However, in this section, I use some data from Orkhon Turkish as
this dialect provides us with the oldest examples of NNCs and PCs in Turkic. Note that Turkish written language
began with the scripts written in Orkhon Turkish, the oldest Turkic dialect with official and datable written records
which have come down to us from the VIII. century (A.D.) (Tekin 1968:7, Erdal 2004:5). Orkhon Turkish is
relevant to Oghuz Turkish, which is the main dialect that Modern Turkish comes from, in the following way: Oghuz
Turkish (Old Turkey Turkish) > Ottoman Turkish > Modern Turkish (Turkey Turkish) (see, for example, Başkan
1994, Korkmaz 1995, Ergin (Ms.) among others). Since the earliest written language examples in Oghuz Turkish
date back to the XIII. century, we do not have direct access to Oghuz Turkish data belonging to the period between
VI-XIII. centuries. However, we can see that Oghuz Turks and their dialect existed in this period by looking at
Orkhon Scripts, in which Oghuz Turks are mentioned frequently, e.g. tokuz oguz bodun (nine Oghuz nation) ‘nine
Oghuz Nations’ (KT N) (Tekin 2003:124). Moreover, Korkmaz 1995, 1999 suggests that Orkhon Turkish must have
interacted with Oghuz Turkish on the basis of certain phonological and morphological phenomena, which constitute
“traces of Oghuz Turkish in Orkhon Turkish”. She also notes that Oghuz Turkish does not seem to be a totally
separate dialect from Orkhon Turkish, since many properties of Oghuz Turkish showed parallelism with Orkhon
Turkish, the main written language of Old Turkish (1995:207). Therefore, we will look through some NNC and PC
examples from Orkhon Turkish, which will shed light on the current morphological similarity between these
structures.

174
Orkhon Turkish

(103)a. PC with GEN: b. PC without GEN:

Kül Tigin-iŋ altun-ı-n Kül Tigin_ atı-sı
Kül Prince-GEN gold-POSS-ACC Kül Prince nephew-POSS
‘Prince Kül’s gold’ ‘Prince Kül’s nephew’
(KT SW) (KT SE)

c. PC with GEN: d. PC without GEN:

Türük bodun-uŋ il-i-n Türük bodun_ at-ı san-ı
Turk nation-GEN state-POSS-ACC Turk nation name-POSS reputation-POSS
‘Turkish nation’s state’ ‘Turkish nation’s name, reputation’
(KT S 1) (KT S 25)

(Tekin 2003:201)

In all the examples in (103), it is clear that the first NPs are referential, and all are PCs, not
NNCs. However, the GEN suffix appears only in (103a,c), which means that both forms of PCs
were acceptable in Old Turkish unlike Modern Turkish PCs, in which GEN is obligatory
normally. This implies that in Orkhon Turkish, the GEN case inflection must have been involved
in the formation of PCs some time later than possessive suffixes. I also suggest that in Old
Turkish, the GEN suffix must have been added to the PC formation, possibly to identify the
possessor, and to show that it has definite reference. We see that the possessive -sI exists
regardless of the presence of the GEN case suffix in the above Orkhon Turkish data. The question
which arises now is the motivation of the GEN suffix insertion. Before proposing an answer to
this question, I will show that Orkhon Turkish also contain NNCs, with and without the
compound marker -sI, however:

175
Orkhon Turkish

(104) a. NNC with -sI: b. NNC without -sI:

Kırgız bodun-u Türk bodun
Kirgiz nation-sI Turk(ish) nation
‘Kirgiz Nation’ ‘Turkish Nation’
(T 28) (T W 1)

(Tekin 2003:201) (Tekin 2003:221)

c. NNC with -sI: d. NNC without -sI:

kişi ogl-ı öd täŋri
person child-sI time God
‘human-being’ ‘God of/related to time’
(BK E 2) (KT N 10)

(Tekin 2003:221) (Tekin 2003:177)

Other NNC examples with -sI in Orkhon Turkish are as follows: tün orto-sı (night middle-sI)
‘midnight’, biŋ baş-ı (thousand head-sI) ‘major’, yüz baş-ı (hundred head-sI) ‘captain’, etc. The
last two are also listed in the dictionary by Tekin (2003) and have survived until today (apart
from a phonological change, ŋ >n: biŋ baş-ı >bin baş-ı). The following are NNCs without -sI:
kugu kuş (swan bird) ‘swan’, ärtiş ügüz (Irtysh river) ‘Irtysh River’, şantuŋ yazı (Shantung plain)
‘Shantung Plain’ (examples from Tekin 2003:200, 201, 219). Note that these NNCs without -sI
would contain the -sI suffix in Modern Turkish.
The NNC examples from Orkhon Turkish are noteworthy since they will help us to find
the reason of the morphological similarity between NNCs and PCs. Having shown that Old
Turkish contain PCs with and without the GEN suffix, and NNCs with and without the POSS
suffix, I suggest that the possessive -sI, which is inflectional, might have transferred from PCs to
NNCs. In NNCs, however, it has been assigned a new function as an element of a derivational
process: the compound marker. We can now consider why this transfer might have been
occurred.145

145
This suggestion is both similar to and different from Göksel’s (2009) suggestion (see §3.7.2). I suggest that only
the -sI suffix must have been transferred to NNCs from PCs, unlike Göksel, for whom the structure of NNCs must
be a copy of the PC structure (p.226). Both studies, however, propose that -sI must have lost its (inflectional)

176
 According to our (limited) data, NNCs and PCs in Orkhon Turkish also share their
semantics as they do in Modern Turkish: PCs with and without GEN, and NNCs with -sI above
all involve OF (‘belonging to’). NNCs without -sI, however, involve the LABEL function as in
ärtiş ügüz ‘Irtysh River’, and the default function ABOUT as in öd täŋri ‘God of/related to time’. I
thus suggest that the semantic similarity between PCs, which are syntactic and were so in
Orkhon Turkish146, and NNCs which are word-formations and must be so in Orkhon Turkish, is
the motivation for the -sI transfer. Recall that the other reason is the fact that both structures are
composed of elements of the noun category.
Following the transfer of -sI, the addition of the GEN suffix to the PCs must have taken
place: it must have been necessary since the -sI transfer (supposing that it did occur) resulted in
two (superficially) identical forms, which are PCs in the form of N N-sI and NNCs in the same
form: N-N-sI. Thus I suggest that it was necessary to inflect the possessor in PCs to show that
PCs are syntactic and that the first element is an NP, which can be definite. In other words, the
inflection of the possessor NP in PCs was so as to distinguish PCs from NNCs (and their first
elements). I show the tentative steps in the formation of an Old Turkish PC in comparison with
an NNC in Figure 15:

1st Period: Old Turkish PCs: Old Turkish NNCs:

NP_ NP-sI N-N_

2nd Period: Old Turkish PCs: Old Turkish NNCs:

NP_ NP-sI N-N-sI
↳------------------------------↑
3rd Period: Old Turkish PCs: Old Turkish NNCs:
NP-GEN NP-sI N-N-sI
⇧

Figure 15. The Potential Diachronic Development of PCs and NNCs in Old Turkish

possessive function in NNCs; the difference lies in historical (current study) vs. synchronic perspective (Göksel
2009).
146
PCs were separable in Orkhon Turkish too, e.g. yigän silig bäg-iŋ kädimlig torug at(ı) (nephew Silig beg-GEN
dressed bay horse) ‘Yigen Silig Beg’s dressed bay horse’ (source: KT E 33, Tekin 2003:106).

177
According to Figure 15, PCs and NNCs were not similar structurally, morphologically, and
referentially in the first period: PCs were phrases with -sI and NNCs were word-formations
without -sI. However, the semantic rule which mapped onto the NP formation in PCs, and
derivation in NNCs was the same: OF(x, y). Due to the semantic similarity, probably by a
cognitive metaphor,147 -sI must have been transferred to the NNC formation in the second period.
In this period, PCs and NNCs were both semantically and morphologically identical, but
structurally distinct. Finally, the case inflection of the possessor in PCs must have taken place by
the addition of the GEN suffix in the third period, which made PCs and NNCs distinctive
morphologically. Namely, the GEN suffix signalled that PCs were syntactic units unlike NNCs.148
This hypothetical development might also involve transitionary periods of optionality, in which
both N-N_ and N-N-sI formations were acceptable NNCs, and both NP NP-sI and NP-GEN NP-
sI were acceptable PCs, for example.
If this tentative suggestion is on the right track, it will also support the proposal that -sI
maps onto an identity semantic rule in NNCs; namely, we obtain the meaning of an NNC before
-sI is added, which is only a formal indicator of a lexeme formation (§4.3). The available Old
Turkish data thus importantly indicate that the semantic relation between the two nouns in NNCs
was obtained without -sI, as in öd täŋri ‘God of/related to time’.
Another point to make regarding the Orkhon Turkish data concerns the relation OF. It
seems that this relation, among other ASN types, was the first relation that existed in both PCs
and NNCs. In §2.4.5, I proposed that ABOUT is the basic/default ASN function, it is less specific
than others, and that it is also the type of modification involved in PCs (§6.1). According to the
available Old Turkish data, it seems that OF, which I list among other types of ABOUT, was the
(preliminary) most frequent relation. Therefore, I suggest that OF must have been the starting
point of all the ASN relations, or functions. This idea also accords with the proposal I made in
§6.2, §6.3, and §6.4: Turkish has a grammatical category for Possessedness, which can also be
extended to cross-linguistic data. Therefore, it is not surprising that the ASN functions started
with OF and extended to others. The NNCs with the LABEL function (e.g. ärtiş ügüz ‘Irtysh
river’) in Orkhon Turkish do not have -sI, unlike Modern Turkish. This shows that the LABEL
function, for example, became an ASN function later than OF. While there were not many ASN

147
See Nikiforidou 1991 for a cognitive approach to possession (footnote 122).
148
Thus, according to this hypothesis, the GEN suffix is mainly a structural case suffix: its core use shows the
relation between two NPs.

178
functions in Old Turkish (according to the available data), there are more ASN functions in
Modern Turkish (§2.4.5). In fact, according to this study, there are more functions found in
NNCs than the functions in PCs in Modern Turkish (§6.1).149 As compounding became a
frequent formation in the language, its functions must have been extended from OF to other ASN
relations.150
Regarding the direction of the -sI transfer, let us consider the other possibility, which is
less likely: the transfer might have taken place from NNCs to PCs. If this is so, the reason might
have been to fill a gap in Turkish. Since there was no marking of 3rd Person for agreement in the
PC domain with the 3rd Person possessors, it might have been necessary to assign another suffix
from the inventory. The best candidate for this gap might have been -sI due to the formal and
semantic similarity of NNCs and PCs. In this new domain (PC), -sI performed another task,
which is inflectional. However, this assumption does not seem to be correct since we attested
NNCs without -sI in Old Turkish.
Another alternative might be to simply suggest that we do not need a transfer since
affixes do not have lexical meanings according to the theory advocated here. In this case, we
would assume that the same suffix form, -sI, is used for different goals in different operations, by
the same motivator again, however: non-ascriptive semantics of a given structure.
Another conslusion to make from this section is as follows: all of the three alternatives
regarding the -sI transfer (or non-transfer) point to the fact that derivation, including
compounding, and inflection interact with each other in a very close way. Namely, the same
morphological element is used for distinct functions in clearly distinct structures. Thus, it is
advantageous that all should be captured by the same component, morphology, as I already
proposed in Figure 6 (§4.2).

149
There are also languages such as Slave and Dëne Sųłıné, for example, in which NNCs and PCs display
similarities. It might be helpful to look at the semantic relations allowed within the relevant structures in these
languages too. As I proposed for Turkish (including Old Turkish), the basic function ABOUT, or the starting point OF,
might be the reason for the morphological similarity in these languages as well (see Rice 2009 for Slave, and Saxon
& Wilhelm 2011 for Dëne Sųłıné).
150
It seems that nationality terms might have been dual in their category in Old Turkish too: noun vs. adjective
(§2.6.2). In the formations Kırgız bodun-u (Kirgiz nation-sI) ‘Kirgiz Nation’ and Türk bodun (Turk nation) ‘Turkish
Nation’, only the former contains -sI. The reason for this may be either the dual category of nominals in which case
-sI would appear with nouns but not adjectives, or it might be due to the potential -sI transfer as suggested above.
During the transfer period, although all examples contained nouns, including nationality terms, some examples
might have been produced with -sI unlike others until -sI became an obligatory element in NNCs.

179
 This section was devoted to showing the earliest examples of NNCs and PCs, and
indicating the potential reason for the occurrence of -sI in both cases (with two different
functions). According to the Orkhon Turkish data, -sI must have been transferred from PCs to
NNCs. The data also helped us in defining the motivation for the potential -sI transfer, which is
the semantic similarity between the elements in NNCs and PCs. I also suggested that the first
preliminary ASN relation must be OF, which was attested both in NNCs and PCs, and then it
must have been extended to other relations proposed in §2.4.5 and §6.1. This hypothesis also
supports the proposal of §6.2, §6.3, and §6.4 that Possessedness must be a grammatical category
in Turkish. It also supports the proposal of §4.2: -sI is an identity suffix in NNCs, i.e. it is added
as a formal marker after the semantic relation has been obtained. Having proposed an
explanation for why it is the same form, -sI, which appears in both PCs and NNCs, I will proceed
to show that this proposal accords with the fact that there appears only one -sI in PCs with
embedded NNCs, in §6.7.

6.7 Possessive Suffixes and the Compound Marker

This section is devoted to accounting for the relation between the CM -sI and the possessive
suffixes, 1.POSS/2.POSS and POSS -sI. There is a problem which needs to be accounted for: why
the sequence *-sI-sI and the sequence -sI-m/-n are not permitted in PCs involving embedded
NNCs. Considering the proposals in Ch.4 and in this chapter, the CM -sI, which is used for a
distinct function, ought to be able to appear before the POSS -sI and other possessive suffixes,
which is, however, not permitted. When an NNC is embedded in a PC, there appears only one -sI
with 3rd Person possessors as in (105a), and no -sI appears with 1st/2nd Person possessors as in
(105b):

(105) a. Kenz-in masal kitab-ı(*-sı) b. sen-in masal kitab-ın

Kenz-GEN tale book-sI(*-sI) you-GEN tale book-2.POSS
‘Kenz’s story book’ ‘your story book’

One option for accounting for the examples in (105) might be to suggest that the paradigmatic
information of the POSS -sI might have been transferred to the compound marker -sI during the

180
tentative transfer of -sI suggested in §6.6. This would mean that not only the POSS -sI but also the
compound marker -sI is in a paradigmatic contrast with 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes. This is not the
case, however, since the compound marker also exists in a paradigmatic contrast with certain
derivational suffixes (Ch.5), which are not in a paradigmatic contrast with posssessive suffixes
including the POSS -sI. That is, the POSS -sI can appear with the derivational suffixes that the
compound marker -sI cannot appear with, e.g. -lI as in (106b):

(106) a. orman peri-li(*-si) b. orman-ın peri-li-si

forest fairy-lI-(*-CM) forest-GEN fairy-lI-POSS
for ‘with (a) forest-fairy’ ‘of the forests, the one with fairies/a fairy’
‘something with fairies, which belongs to
the/a forest’

Therefore, there must be another reason for the ungrammatical *-sI-sI sequence, and why
the compound marker cannot appear with 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes. I propose that the combination
*-sI-sI (CM-POSS) is precluded because both the NNC formation (Figure 7 in §4.3) and the PC
formation (Figure 11, Figure 13 in §6.5) use the same “form rule”, FR2, for -sI suffixation,
which may not apply for a second time. Recall that FR2 belongs to Step 2 in the NNC formation,
and it maps onto an identity semantic rule. In the PC formation, the same rule, FR2, belongs to
the final step, but it maps onto a full semantic rule. This means that the semantic rules mapping
onto -sI suffixation in the two operations, OP2 (Figure 7, §4.3) and OP7 (Figure 13, §6.5) are
distinct, whereas the same form rule is used. This rule, FR2, belongs to the morphological
component; therefore, the ban on the non-permitted *-sI-sI is a morphological one: neither
phonological nor semantic.
I follow Zwicky 1987b in that the application of the same form rule for the second time is
not allowed “morphologically”.151 Namely, FR2 is an element, i.e. a rule, of the morphological
component and is not repeated even though it is called for in distinct operations: derivational (in
NNCs) and inflectional (in PCs). Also, as shown in §6.6, this formal (morphological) identity
might have a historic background: the transfer hypothesis. Briefly, we do not get -sI-sI despite
the two distinct functions in the two operations as the -sI suffixes belonging to distinct operations

151
Zwicky (1987b) makes a similar point in English: the suffixation of the genitive suffix following the plural suffix
fails as in *kids’s. For Zwicky, this case results from a morphological ban on multiple -Z affixations; it cannot be
phonological since bus’s, for example, is allowed (p.139).

181
are formally (and probably originally) identical, and the suffixation of -sI for the second time is
not permitted. The fact that there appears only one -sI in right-branching compounds (§2.1) also
supports the proposal that FR2 may not apply for a second time.152 153
With regard to the second problem, i.e. the fact that the compound marker does not
appear with 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes (105b), I propose that it results from an anticipation based on
morphological properties of suffixes: stem conditions. Namely, I propose that the compound
marker is not suffixed in the presence of suffixes which may attach to N-N stems. Like certain
derivational suffixes which may attach to N-N stems as well as simple Ns (§5.3, §5.4), the
1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes may attach to N-N stems too. This is why the compound marker is not
added when 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes will be suffixed to an N-N stem despite the distinct
operations: derivation in the case of compound marker vs. inflection in the case of 1.POSS/2.POSS
suffixes. Note that this stem condition distinguishes 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes from other
inflectional suffixes in Turkish: 1st/2nd Person possessive suffixes may attach to N-N stems.154
155
This leads to the following condition on -sI suffixation:

(107) Do not suffix -sI with suffixes whose stem conditions allow them to attach to an N-N
stem, i.e. paradigmatic derivational suffixes with -sI and 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes.

The next task is to identify which function -sI corresponds to in examples such as (105a),
Kenz-in masal kitab-ı (Kenz-GEN tale book-sI) ‘Kenz’s story book’: is it the POSS -sI or the CM
-sI? Bozşahin (2002), for example, proposes that the compound marker merges with the
possessive marker in such examples; namely, it carries both COMP and POSS functions in PCs
152
See Haig 2004 for a general discussion of constraints on suffix repetitions in Turkish. He shows that repetition of
“phonologically identical” sequences is allowed in Turkish, as in his example (17) siz-siz (you(PL)-sIz) ‘without
you’. He also shows that adjacent affixes which show functional similarity are also allowed as in his example (22)
öl-dür-t (die-CAUS-CAUS) ‘cause to kill’. He thus claims that neither phonological nor functional similarity alone can
account for constraints on morpheme repetition, and stresses that what is not allowed is cases involving both
phonological and functional identity. What I propose above for the *-sI-sI sequence is different from Haig’s
approach since I focus on the form rule suffixing -sI, which is neither a phonological nor a semantic (functional), but
a morphological ban as discussed above. Note also that the suffixation of -sI (FR2) maps onto distinct semantic rules
in the two operations, OP2 and OP7, which means that there is no semantic (functional) identity.
153
See Stemberger 1981 for a discussion of morphological haplology with numerous cross-linguistic facts, and
Pounder 2004.
154
van Schaaik (1996) proposes that the compound marker -sI and possessive suffixes are mutually exclusive (p.
146-147). I suggest that the reason for this mutual exclusion is the stem conditions.
155
Kharytonava (2011) proposes that when there are Person/Number features under the Poss node, the CM does not
appear; otherwise, such features are eliminated by an impoverishment operation (in DM), and the CM remains.
Therefore, either the CM or one of the possessive suffixes may appear following a compound (p.186).

182
containing NNCs (p.34). In other studies, e.g. Hayasi 1996:123, and van Schaaik 1996:147, the
compound marker does not appear when there is the possessive -sI, so it is the POSS -sI which
appears in PCs with embedded NNCs. In contrast to these studies, I propose that it is the
compound marker -sI which appears in this case. If it was the possessive -sI that appears in
examples such as (105a), it would be possible to omit it in casual speech. Recall that the -sI in
NNCs cannot be omitted unlike the possessive -sI of PCs (§4.4, §6.1, §6.5). Omitting -sI from
the example in (105a) leads to ungrammaticality as in (108):

(108) *Kenz-in masal kitap_

Kenz-GEN tale book
for ‘Kenz’s story book’

In a PC without an embedded NNC, however, we can omit -sI and 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes in
informal speech as noted earlier. The possessive -sI may be omitted in casual speech without
losing the interpretation since the semantic relation exists before the suffixation of -sI, and the
genitive case suffix, which marks the possessor in this relation, is present.
Second, in a PC with a 1st/2nd Person possessor which contain an embedded NNC as in
(105b), -sI can replace the 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes in casual speech.156 The examples in (109) do
not include the 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes on the possessum despite the 1st/2nd Person possessors;
rather, the -sI suffix appears on the heads kitap ‘book’ and hoca ‘teacher’:

(109) a. ben-im masal kitab-ı b. sen-in dans hoca-sı

I-GEN tale book-sI you-GEN dance teacher-sI
‘my story book’ ‘your dancing master’

Examples such as (109) are noteworthy since rather than the 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes (as
in (105b)), -sI appears following the bare N-N compounds, which implies that it must be the
compound marker -sI rather than the possessive -sI which appears in PCs with embedded NNCs,
unlike previous analyses (see above). Otherwise, we could not account for why the possessive -sI
appears despite the 1st/2nd Person possessors while there are 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes in the

156
Kharytonava (2011:186-187) also discerns this issue with the example ben-im oyuncak kutu-su (I-GEN toy box-
CM) ‘my toy box’ (her example (100)). She addresses such examples to show that it is either the CM or one of the
possessive suffixes which may appear after a compound.

183
inventory. Therefore, when a PC contains an NNC as in (105a), I propose that the possessive -sI,
which is inflectional, is not added following the compound marker at all (the same form rule
does not apply again as proposed above). Moreover, it is more likely that the compound marker
will override the inflectional -sI in this case since the compound marker is derivational and must
be added before an inflection takes place, which precludes the suffixation of the POSS -sI since it
is formally identical to the CM -sI.
Note that the proposal for the *-sI-sI combination differs from the proposal for the *-sI-
m/-n combination in that in the former case the more specific suffix, POSS -sI (vs. CM -sI) is
overridden; whereas in the latter case the less specific suffix, CM -sI (vs. 1.POSS/2.POSS) is
overridden. There is a reason for this lack of parallelism: in the *-sI-sI case, the POSS -sI is
overridden since the previous suffix, CM -sI, is both derivational and morphologically identical to
POSS -sI (FR2). Therefore, the element of the derivational operation is maintained in this case. In
the *-sI-m/-n case, however, there is no morphological identity, and the less specific suffix,
which is the CM -sI, is overridden due to stem conditions, as expected.
Another explanation might be to give a parallel analysis for both non-permitted
sequences: we could simply propose that the CM -sI is not suffixed in the case of all possessive
suffixes, including the POSS -sI, due to stem conditions since possessive suffixes may also attach
to N-N stems. However, the -sI which appears in PCs with embedded NNCs (105a) would be the
POSS -sI. In this case, however, we could not account for why the POSS -sI may not be omitted as
in (108) although it can be omitted from other PCs which do not involve embedded NNCs as
shown in §4.4, §6.1, §6.5, and how the POSS -sI may appear with 1st/2nd Person possessors as in
(109). Therefore, the two non-permitted combinations, *-sI-sI and *-sI-m/-n, require two
different treatments as proposed above, and it must be the CM -sI but not the POSS -sI which
appears in examples such as (105a).
§6.7 was devoted to accounting for the impossibility of the adjacent combinations
involving the compound marker and possessive suffixes. I have proposed that the -sI in NNCs
and the -sI in PCs are morphologically identical since the same form rule applies during both
suffixations, but they are functionally distinct since they map onto distinct semantic rules in
distinct operations. I have also proposed that rather than the possessive -sI, it must be the
compound marker which appears in PCs with embedded NNCs. With respect to the non-
permitted combination of the compound marker and other possessive suffixes, I have proposed

184
that it results from stem conditions, i.e. when there is a suffix which may attach to an {N-N}, the
compound marker is not suffixed.

6.8 Chapter 6 Summary

In this chapter, we first looked at the characteristics of possessive constructions in Turkish. I

proposed that there is a set of relations, ASN functions, which are used also in PCs: ABOUT,
FROM, OF, FOR. The other ASN functions are not used in PCs: WITH2, BY, IN-ON-AT, LABEL. On
the other hand, there are two relations which are used in PCs but not in NNCs: ‘partitive’ and
‘partitive comparison’. We further touched upon the syntactic distinctions between PCs and
NNCs, the most important being the separability, and the fact that -sI can be omitted from PCs
only. In this chapter, I also showed that right-branching recursion is not allowed in PCs unlike
NNCs. These distinctions show that neither the structure of PCs and NNCs nor the function of
the -sI suffix can be identical in PCs and NNCs. The distinctions also showed that the
constituents of PCs are NPs, unlike those of NNCs, which are noun stems. The next task was to
identify what -sI marks in PCs; I proposed that it marks the ‘possessed’ value of the category
Possessedness without a Person value and agreement. Namely, I drew a line between the
category Person and the category Possessedness on the one hand, and another line between the
relation of agreement and the relation of belonging to, on the other. This proposal accounts not
only for the existence of -sI in PCs, but also for its absence in instances where only 1st/2nd
Person possessive suffixes are involved. I later addressed the cross-linguistic facts about
Possessedness: cross-linguistic examples showed that both the possessor and the possessum can
be marked separately from Person and that Possessedness is possible without agreement. These
facts supported the proposal that Possessedness is a grammatical category in Turkish. Following
this, I proposed an account for the formation of PCs in Turkish in three steps. In the analysis, the
semantic function OF(x, y) maps onto syntactic phrase formation; then the modifier NP,
possessor, is marked by the GEN suffix, which is followed by marking the head NP, possessum.
Note that this formation can account for all the syntactic and referential distinctions between
NNCs and PCs. PCs are syntactic formations which also involve morphological inflection:
possessive -sI suffixation (which can be omitted), and genitive case inflection (which cannot be
omitted). Finally, I attempted to account for the reason why, then, it is the same suffix, -sI, that

185
appears in structurally distinct instances. I used Orkhon Turkish data since they provide us with
the earliest recorded examples of NNCs and PCs. I suggested that the -sI suffix might have been
transferred from PCs to NNCs due to the identical semantic relation and form of PCs and NNCs:
a string of noun category with OF semantics. Old Turkish data also helped us to determine the
best candidate for the very first semantic relation in PCs and NNCs, which is OF. I suggested that
the other ASN functions found in Modern Turkish, must have been extensions, which developed
after OF. If this is the case, it also accords with the previous proposal that Possessedness, which
primarily involves the function OF, is a grammatical category. Note that the proposals in this
chapter also lay a bridge between NNCs and PCs: -sI is used in both structures since it is
originally the “possessive suffix”, not because it is a Person suffix.
This chapter also provides additional support for the assumption that affixes are not
assigned specific meanings; rather, it is more advantageous to leave the task to operations that
affixes are involved in (as discussed in Ch.4). In this way, we can account for situations where
the same forms are used in different operations for different tasks as in the case of Turkish -sI:
derivational (CM) vs. inflectional (POSS). Both in PC and NNC formation, I assigned the meaning
between the two constituents to an earlier step preceding the -sI suffixation. This analysis thus
also accounts for why -sI (and other possessive suffixes) can be omitted from PCs although it
marks the possessum: possessive suffixes are not responsible for the structure or semantics; they
are only morphological indicators of OF and Possessedness.

186
 CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSIONS

This study was devoted to accounting for the appearance of a suffix, -sI, in two distinct structures
in Turkish: Noun-Noun compounds and possessive constructions. I have proposed a process-
based paradigmatic analysis for NNCs, which accounts for why NNCs involve specific semantic,
morphological, and syntactic characteristics. In the proposed system, NNCs are word-formations,
i.e. outputs of a derivation operation manipulated by morphology, and the -sI suffix in NNCs is a
derivational suffix. -sI which is involved in compounding is an indicator of a word-formation
operation. This means that the compounding operation produces an N-N stem without -sI, this
stem further obtains a lexeme status by means of a derivational operation involving -sI
suffixation. This is what -sI signals, or the reason why it appears (Ch.4).
The permitted and non-permitted suffix combinations involving the compound marker, or
lexeme creator, reveal that it is not only -sI which can be suffixed to N-N stems; rather, there is a
set of derivational suffixes which can attach to bare N-N compounds as well as simple nouns.
This set includes the suffixes -lI, -sIz, -(I)msI, derivational -sI (for some speakers), -CI (for some
speakers), and -CE (for some speakers). These suffixations thus have a place as terminal nodes
within the derivational paradigm which produces derivations based on N-N stems. What would
falsify the proposed system would be formations which allow the suffixation of -sI preceding -lI,
-sIz and -CI, for example: *N-N+sI+lI/sIz/CI, which are ungrammatical and not allowed, as
predicted. Further, I have identified two more sets of derivational suffixes: those which precede
-sI since they are part of derivation feeding compounding, and those which -sI seems to precede
under certain circumstances (see Ch.5).
When accounting for the distinguished semantics of NNCs, I have proposed a semantic
rule which involves a semantic function (ASN) with two arguments. ASN functions are not
created in the pragmatic context; rather, they are part of grammar and inserted from the semantic
component. This accounts for their existence independent of a context, and their interpretation
even in pragmatically unexpected examples, such as insan ev-i (human house-sI) ‘human house’.
I have further determined OF as one of the ASN functions, but which is not the only ASN
function. I also suggested that OF must be the first ASN function which served as a function for

187
the compounding operation in Turkish. This point led us to the question why -sI also appears in
PCs, which are clearly syntactic structures with possession information. We could simply claim
that -sI appears in both NNCs and PCs as the possessive suffix (as a marker of the relation of
‘belonging to’) which is derivational in NNCs but inflectional in PCs. Beard (1995), for
example, shows that the same suffix may be used in a derivational and an inflectional operation
with the same function in some languages. However, recall that there are other ASN functions in
addition to OF (§2.4.5) used in both NNCs and PCs, which does not allow us to claim that -sI is a
marker of OF wherever it appears. Consider the ASN function LABEL, for example, as in Eylül
ay-ı (September month-sI) ‘September’, in which there is clearly no OF. Note also that I have
shown that the semantic relation between the two constituents does not depend on -sI.
Derivations including N-N bases with the derivational suffixes listed above involve ASN
functions between the two nouns “without” the -sI suffix. This shows that -sI is only a
morphological signal of a derivational operation following compounding, rather than being a
marker of OF in NNCs. Therefore, the hypothesis that -sI might indicate possession in both
NNCs and PCs would not be adequate.
With respect to PCs and -sI in PCs, I have proposed that both the function and the status
of -sI are different in this case: -sI in PCs is inflectional, and it marks that an entity is possessed
in contrast to a non-possessed entity. In other words, -sI marks the possessum in PCs. On the
basis of the usual treatment of 3rd Person in Turkish morphology, which is “not to mark 3rd
Person”, and the distinct morphological properties of -sI from those of 1st and 2nd Person
possessive suffixes, I proposed that -sI cannot mark a Person value in Turkish. This also implies
that -sI is not an agreement suffix in Turkish PCs, unlike 1st and 2nd Person possessive suffixes,
which are cumulative thus agreement suffixes. With this analysis, we can account for not only
the existence of -sI in PCs but also its absence in structures which involve Person suffixes but
exclude -sI. I have also proposed that PCs are structurally distinct but semantically similar to
NNCs: they are phrasal units in which the semantic ASN relation between the constituents maps
onto the syntactic phrase formation, but not onto the GEN or -sI suffixations, which follow the
syntactic and semantic operation. This showed that possessive suffixes, including -sI, are not
responsible for either the structure or the semantic relation, and accounted for why they may be
omitted. As a result, the genitive suffix and possessive suffixes are only morphological indicators
of Possessedness in Turkish (PCs) (Ch.6).

188
 With the proposed morphological analysis of NNCs, the problems of the syntactic and
lexicalist analyses have been resolved too. As NNCs are outputs of an operation manipulated by
morphology in contrast to NPs, including PCs, which are outputs of operations manipulated by
syntax and morphology, it is expected that NNCs and NPs show distinct syntactic,
morphological, and referential characteristics. This is one reason why an autonomous
morphology is superior to a morphology in the syntax or a morphology in the lexicon. Note that
the grammatical architecture suggested in this study, which contains an interaction domain for
operations manipulated by different components, including the autonomous morphology, can
also account for phrasal compounds: there is no strict order between word-formation and phrase-
formation.
Unlike an autonomous morphology, a morphology in the syntax cannot account for the
inseparability and the fixed order of the constituents in NNCs, and the specific ASN functions in
NNCs without stipulations. A syntactic approach to morphology and compounding again cannot
explain why Turkish has both PCs and NNCs, which are syntactically and referentially distinct
despite the same formal element, -sI, appearing in both cases. An interface module for
compounding between syntax and morphology is also not necessary. Morphology, as described
here, can deal with compounding as well as other derivational operations, and inflection.
On the other hand, unlike an autonomous morphology, a morphology in the lexicon
cannot account for phrasal compounds and the reason why compound markers such as -sI are
used with a variety of ASN functions. A lexicalist morphological approach would have to
identify the semantic relation expressed by the compound as the meaning of the compound
marker, and assume a set of homophonous -sI suffixes with distinct meanings. What is more, it is
impossible for a lexicalist analysis to account for how we maintain the ASN function even when
the compound marker is absent, as in derivations including N-N stems in Turkish. This is one
reason why compounding and subsequent derivation are significant in the current study. The
interaction of compounding and derivation has important implications: both operations are
manipulated by the same component, morphology. The elements involved in both operations,
suffixes, are paradigmatic, i.e. slot competitors, which shows the existence of a dynamic
paradigm structure. The slot competition between the compound marker and certain derivational
suffixes shows that the compound marker is derivational; it cannot be inflectional.

189
 Recall that in addition to the specific set of derivational suffixes, those which may attach
to N-N stems, I have also proposed that a specific set of inflectional suffixes, i.e. 1st/2nd Person
possessive suffixes, may also attach to N-N stems. This accounts for the non-permitted *-sI-m/-n
sequences. Namely, these non-permitted sequences do not show that the compound marker is
inflectional. They rather indicate that OP2 (lexeme creation following compounding) does not
take place when another operation which can also apply to N-N stems is on the way:
compounding (OP1) may be followed by the suffixation of the 1.POSS/2.POSS suffixes. With
regard to the *-sI-sI sequence, I have attributed this impossibility to the form rule suffixing -sI,
FR2. I have proposed that it is the same form rule, which is used both in the NNC formation and
the PC formation, whereas it maps onto distinct semantic rules in the two operations. The
application of FR2 for the second time, however, is precluded. Therefore, the non-permitted
combination, *-sI-sI, does not imply that the -sI in NNCs has the same function as the -sI in PCs.
It rather indicates that there is a purely morphological ban on the application of FR2, which is
not unexpected in a separationist approach to morphology. In other words, the ban on the -sI
suffixation for the second time does not mean that -sI corresponds to the same function in the
two structures: this ban is not motivated by meaning but simply form. Note also that the use of
the same form, -sI, for distinct functions in distinct operations is expected in a system with
autonomous morphology which also separates form from meaning. Thus, the choice of the model
of the grammatical architecture cannot be trivial, as this study aims to demonstrate.
Finally, there are some issues which are left for future investigation. The first issue is the
nature of the interactions between grammatical components, which is complicated and tricky.
My question is whether a specific domain for interactions (and operations) is essential, as I
suggested here in the line of Sadock 2012; or is it better to leave the interactions to the
components themselves without such a specific interaction point? The second issue is
mismatches of form and meaning: what is the best way of accounting for them without side-
effects? Answering these questions will shed light on the system of morphology as an
autonomous subsystem of the language. Another topic I leave for future investigation is other
languages which contain a category for Possessedness. The morphological expression of
Possessedness, structure of PCs and NNCs, and the semantic relations allowed and not allowed
in NNCs in such languages will help us to contribute to the problems and resolutions addressed
in this study: NNCs, PCs, Possessedness, and ASN functions including OF.

190
 REFERENCES

Allen, M. 1978. Morphological Investigations. Ph.D Dissertation, University of Connecticut.

Anderson, S. R. 1982. Where is Morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13: 571-612.
Anderson, S. R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, S. R. 2004. Towards a Less 'Syntactic' Morphology and a More 'Morphological'
Syntax, in P. van Sterkenberg (ed.), Linguistics Today: Facing a Greater Challenge.
Amsterdam: Benjamins. 31-45.
Aronoff, M. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT
Press.
Aronoff, M. 1994. Morphology By Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Aronoff, M. 1998. Isomorphism and Monotonicity: Or the Disease Model of Morphology, in S.
Lapointe, S. Brentari & P. Farrell (eds.), Morphology and Its Relation to Phonology
and Syntax. Standford: CSLI Publications. 411-418.
Aronoff, M. & K. Fudeman. 2005. What Is Morphology? Oxford: Blackwell.
Arslan-Kechriotis, Z. 2006. Case as an Uninterpretable Feature. Ph.D Dissertation, Boğaziçi
University.
Aslan, E. & A. Altan. 2006. The Role of -(s)I in Turkish Indefinite Noun Compounds. Dil
Dergisi 131: 57-76.
Baker, M. 1988. Incorporation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker, M. 1998. Comments on the Paper by Sadock, in S. Lapointe, D. Brentari, & P. Farrell
(eds.), Morphology and Its Relation to Phonology and Syntax. Standford: CSLI
Publications. 188-212.
Başkan, Ö. 1994. Türk Dili Geçmişi. Dil Dergisi 22: 115-122.
Bauer, L. 1998. When is a Sequence of Two Nouns a Compound in English? English Language
and Linguistics 2: 65-86.
Beard, R. 1988. The Separation of Derivation and Affixation: Toward a Lexeme-Morpheme
Base Morphology. Quarderni di Semantica 5: 277-287.
Beard, R.1995. Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Blevins, J. 2001. Paradigmatic Derivation. Transactions of the Philological Society 99: 211-222.
Bobaljik, J. 2002. Syncretism without Paradigms: Remarks on Williams 1981, 1994, in G. Booij
& J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2001. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 53-85.
Booij, G. 1994. Against Split Morphology, in G. Booij & J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of
Morphology 1993. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 27-50.
Booij, G. 1996. Inherent versus Contextual Inflection and the Split Morphology Hypothesis, in
G. Booij & J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 1-16.
Booij, G. 2007. Construction Morphology and the Lexicon, in F. Montermini, G. Boyé, & N.
Hathout (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 5th Décembrettes: Morphology in Toulouse.
Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 33-44.
Borer, H. 1988. On the Morphological Parallelism between Compounds and Constructs, in G.
Booij & J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1988. Dordrecht: Foris. 45-66.
Borer, H. 2009. Afro-Asiatic, Semitic: Hebrew, in R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford
Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 491-511.
Botha, R. 1983. Morphological Mechanisms. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

191
Bozşahin, C. 2002. The Combinatory Morphemic Lexicon. Computational Linguistics 28: 145-
186.
Braun, F. & G. Haig. 2000. The Noun/Adjective Distinction in Turkish: An Empirical Approach,
in A. Göksel & C. Kerslake (eds.), Studies on Turkish and Turkish Languages
(Turcologica 46). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 85-92.
Carstairs-McCarthy, A. 1998. Paradigmatic Structure: Inflectional Paradigms and Morphological
Classes, in A. Spencer & A. M. Zwicky (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology. Oxford:
Blackwell. 322-334.
Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on Nominalization, in R. Jacobs & P. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings
in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham: Blaisdell. 184-221.
Corbett, G. G. 2001. Agreement: Terms and Boundaries, in W. Griffin (ed.), Proceedings of the
2001 Texas Linguistic Society Conference: The Role of Agreement in Natural Language.
Austin, Texas: Texas Linguistic Society. 109-122.
Corbett, G. G. 2003. Agreement: Canonical Instances and the Extent of the Phenomenon, in G.
Booij, J. DeCesaris, A. Ralli & S. Scalise (eds.), Topics in Morphology: Selected Papers
from the Third Mediterranean Morphology Meeting. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu
Fabra. 109-128.
Corbett, G. G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crowley, T. 1996. Inalienable Possession in Paamese Grammar, in H. Chappel & W. McGregor
(eds.), The Grammar of Inalienability. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 384-464.
Cysouw, M. 2003. The Paradigmatic Structure of Person Marking. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Cysouw, M. 2011a. Very Atypical Agreement Indeed. Theoretical Linguistics 37: 153-160.
Cysouw, M. 2011b. The Expression of Person and Number: A Typologist’s Perspective.
Morphology 21: 419-443.
Dede, M. 1978. A Syntactic and Semantic Analysis of Turkish Nominal Compounds. Ph.D
Dissertation, University of Michigan.
Di Sciullo, A. 2009. Why are Compounds a Part of Human Language? A View from Asymmetry
Theory, in R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. 145-177.
Di Sciullo, A. & E. Williams 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Downing, P. 1977. On the Creation and Use of English Compound Nouns. Language 53: 810-
842.
Embick, D. & R. Noyer. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the Syntax/Morphology Interface, in
G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. 289-324.
Emeksiz, Z. E. 2003. Özgüllük ve Belirlilik. Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi.
Erdal, M. 2004. A Grammar of Old Turkish. Leiden-Boston: Brill.
Ergin, M. Türkçenin Tarihi Gelişimi (Ms).
http://turkoloji.cu.edu.tr/ESKI%20TURK%20DILI/muharrem_ergin_turkce_tarihsel_geli
sim.pdf
Ferris, C. 1993. The Meaning of Syntax: A Study in the Adjectives of English. London: Longman.
Fodor, J. 1983. Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Gagné, C. 2002. Lexical and Relational Influences on the Processing of Novel Compounds.
Brain and Language 8: 723-735.

192
Ghomeshi, J. 1997. Non-projecting Nouns and the Ezafe Construction in Persian. Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 729-788.
Giegerich, H. 1999. Lexical Strata in English: Morphological Causes, Phonological Effects.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Giegerich, H. 2009. Compounding and Lexicalism, in R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.178-200.
Göksel, A. 1988. Bracketing Paradoxes in Turkish Nominal Compounds, in S. Koç (ed.), Studies
on Turkish Linguistics. Ankara: METU Press. 287-298.
Göksel, A. 1989. Semantic Properties of Turkish Nominal Compounds. Proceedings of the Tenth
Annual Conference on Greek Linguistics. Thessaloniki: University of Thessaloniki Press.
379-398.
Göksel, A. 2009. Compounds in Turkish. Lingue e Linguaggio 2: 213-236.
Göksel, A. & C. Kerslake. 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.
Göksel, A. & B. Haznedar. 2007. Remarks on Compounding in Turkish (Ms).
http://componet.sslmit.unibo.it/download/remarks/TR.pdf
Guilbert, L. 1975. La Créativité Lexicale. Paris: Larousse.
Gussenhoven, C. 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Haig, G. 2004. Constraints on Morpheme Repetition in Turkish?, in K. Imer & G. Dogan (eds.),
Current Research in Turkish Linguistics. Gazimagusa: Eastern Mediterranean University
Press. 3-12.
Halle, M. 1973. Prolegomena to a Theory of Word Formation. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 3-16.
Halle, M. & A. Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection, in K. Hale
& S. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of
Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 111-176.
Hamel, P. J. 1994. A Grammar and Lexicon of Loniu, Papua New Guinea. Pacific Linguistics C-
103. Canberra: Australian National University.
Harley, H. 2009. Compounding in Distributed Morphology, in R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (eds.),
The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 129-144.
Hayasi, T. 1996. The Dual Status of Possessive Compounds in Modern Turkish, in Á. Berta, B.
Brendemoen, & C. Schönig (eds.) Symbolae Turcologicae 6. Uppsala: Swedish Research
Institute in Istanbul. 119-129.
Hayes, B. 1989. The Prosodic Hierarchy in Meter, in P. Kiparsky & G. Youmans (eds.),
Phonetics and Phonology 1: Rhythm and Meter. San Diego: Academic Press. 201-260.
Heim, I. & A. Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hoeksema, J. 1985. Categorial Morphology. New York, London: Garland.
Hoff, B. 1962. The Nominal Word-Groups in Carib: A Problem of Delimitation of Syntax and
Morphology. Lingua 11: 157-164.
Jackendoff, R. 1975. Morphological and Semantic Regularities in the Lexicon. Language 51:
639-671.
Jackendoff, R. 2009. Compounding in the Parallel Architecture and Conceptual Semantics, in R.
Lieber & P. Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.105-128.
Jensen, J. & M. Stong-Jensen. 1984. Morphology is in the Lexicon! Linguistic Inquiry 15: 474-
98.

193
Kabak, B. & I. Vogel. 2001. The Phonological Word and Stress Assignment in Turkish.
Phonology 18: 315-360.
Kan, S. 2009. Prosodic Domains and the Syntax-Prosody Mapping in Turkish. M.A Thesis,
Boğaziçi University.
Kay, P. & K. Zimmer. 1976. On the Semantics of Compounds and Genitives in English, in 6th
California Linguistics Association Proceedings. San Diego: San Diego State University
Press. 29-36.
Kharytonava, O. 2010. Turkish Noun Compounds in Distributed Morphology. Paper
presented at the Banff Workshop on Nominal Dependents. May 8-9, Banff.
Kharytonava, O. 2011. Noms Composés en Turc et Morphème -(s)I. Ph.D Dissertation, The
University of Western Ontario.
Kiparsky, P. 1982. Lexical Phonology and Morphology, in I. Yand (ed.), Linguistics in the
Morning Calm: Selected papers from SICOL-1981. Seoul: Hanshin. 3-91.
Koch, K. 2008. Intonation and Focus in Nłeʔkepmxcin (Thompson River Salish). Ph.D
Dissertation, University of British Columbia.
Korkmaz, Z. 1995. Eski Türkçedeki Oğuzca Belirtiler. Türk Dili Üzerine Araştırmalar 1.
Ankara: TDK. 205-216.
Korkmaz, Z. 1999. Oğuz Türkçesinin Tarihî Gelişme Süreçleri ve Divanu Lugat-it-Türk. Türk
Dili 570: 459-470.
Kornfilt, J. 1984. The Stuttering Prohibition and Morpheme Deletion in Turkish, in E.
Erguvanlı-Taylan & A. Aksu-Koç (eds.), Proceedings of the Turkish Linguistics
Conference. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Publications. 295-307.
Kornfilt, J. 1997. Turkish Grammar. London: Routledge.
Kunduracı, A. 2010. The Real Function of the Turkish -(s)I. Paper Presented at the 4th Meeting
of the Arizona Linguistics Circle (ALC 4). University of Arizona, October 15-17,
Tucson.
Kunduracı, A. 2011. Morphology, Syntax and Turkish -(s)I: The Semantics of Syntax and
Morphology. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of
America (LSA 85). January 6-9, Pittsburgh.
Kunduracı, A. 2012. A Paradigm within Process Morphology. Paper presented at the 16th
International Conference on Turkish Linguistics (ICTL 2012). Middle East Technical
University. September 18-21, Ankara.
Kunduracı, 2013. Pseudo-3rd Person Marker and Possessive Constructions in Turkish. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association (CLA 2013).
University of Victoria. June 1-3, BC, Victoria.
Lapointe, S. 1980. The Theory of Grammatical Agreement. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Massachusetts.
Lees, R. 1960. The Grammar of English Nominalizations. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Levi, J. 1978. The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals. New York: Academic Press.
Lewis, G. 1967. Turkish Grammar. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, G. 2000. Turkish Grammar. 2nd Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lieber, R. 1980. On the Organization of the Lexicon. Ph.D Dissertation, University of New
Hampshire.
Lieber, R. 1992. Deconstructing Morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

194
Lieber, R. & P. Štekauer, (eds.). 2009. The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lieber, R. & P. Štekauer. 2009. Introduction, in R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford
Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 3-18.
Libben, G. 1998. Semantic Transparency in the Processing of Compounds: Consequences
for Representation, Processing, and Impairment. Brain and Language 61: 30-44.
MacDonalds, L. 1990. A Grammar of Tauya. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Manova, S. & M. Aronoff. 2010. Modeling Affix Order. Morphology 20: 109-131.
Marchand, H. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-formation. 2nd
Edition. Munich: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Meir, I. & M. Aronoff. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Compounding Review. Language 87:
643-646.
Mel’čuk, I. 1982. Towards a Language of Linguistics: A Set of Formal Notions for Theoretical
Morphology. Munich: Fink.
Mel’čuk, I. 1994. Cours de Morphologie Générale 2. Montréal, Paris: Les Presses de l'Université
de Montréal.
Nespor, M. & I. Vogel. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
Nikiforidou, K. 1991. The Meanings of the Genitive: A Case Study in Semantic Structure
and Semantic Change. Cognitive Linguistics 2: 149-205.
Nikolaeva, I. 2005. Modifier-head Person Concord, in G. Booij, E. Guevara, A. Ralli, S. Sgroi &
S. Scalise (eds.), Morphology and Linguistic Typology: Online Proceedings of the 4th
Mediterranean Morphology Meeting. http://mmm.lingue.unibo.it
Özge, U. & C. Bozşahin. 2010. Intonation in the Grammar of Turkish. Lingua 120: 132-175.
Özsoy, S. 2004. Dışişleri Eski Bakanı ve Türkçenin Yeni Yapısı, in Z. Toksa (ed.), Kaf Dağı’nın
Ötesine Varmak, Günay Kut Armağanı 3 (Journal of Turkish Studies, Türklük Bilgisi
Araştırmaları 28). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 247-256.
Partee, B. 1995. Lexical Semantics and Compositionality, in L. Gleitman & M. Liberman (eds.),
Invitation to Cognitive Science, 2nd Edition, Part I: Language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
311-360.
Plank, F. 1991. Rasmus Rask's Dilemma, in F. Plank (ed.), Paradigms: The Economy of
Inflection. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 161-196.
Pounder, A. 1996. Inflection and the Paradigm in German Nouns. American Journal of
Germanic Linguistics and Literatures 8: 219-263.
Pounder, A. 2000. Processes and Paradigms in Word-Formation Morphology. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Pounder, A. 2004. Haplology in English Adverb-formation, in C. J. Kay, C. A. Hough, & I.
Wotherspoon (eds.), New Perspectives on English Historical Linguistics II: Lexis and
Transmission. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 193-211.
Pounder, A. 2006. Broken Forms in Morphology, in C. Gurski & M. Radisic (eds.), Proceedings
of the 2006 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistics Association.
http://westernlinguistics.ca/Publications/CLA2006/Pounder.pdf
Pounder, A. Rekursion in der Wortbildung: Zusammensetzung im Türkischen (Ms).
Ralli, A. 2008. Compound Markers and Parametric Variation. Language Typology and
Universals (STUF) 61: 19-38.

195
Ralli, A. 2011. Compounding and its Locus of Realization: Evidence from Greek and Turkish.
Paper presented at the 8th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, September 14-17,
Cagliari.
http://www.diplist.it/mmm8/handout/Ralli.pdf?phpsessid=0e13f3854608a5628fd2db56da
f201b8
Rice, K. 2009. Athapaskan: Slave, in R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of
Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 542-563.
Ritter, E. 1995. On the Syntactic Category of Pronouns and Agreement. Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 13: 405-443.
Sadock, J. M. 1985. Autolexical Syntax: A Theory of Noun Incorporation and Similar
Phenomena. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3: 379-441
Sadock, J. M. 1991. Autolexical Syntax: A Theory of Parallel Grammatical Representations.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sadock, J. M. 1998. On the Autonomy of Compounding Morphology, in S. Lapointe, S.
Brentari & P. Farrell (eds.), Morphology and Its Relation to Phonology and Syntax.
Stanford: CSLI. 161-187.
Sadock, J. M. 2012. The Modular Architecture of Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Samiian, V. 1983. Origins of Phrasal Categories in Persian, an X-bar Analysis. Ph.D
Dissertation, UCLA.
Saxon, L. & Wilhelm, A. 2011. Dene [Athabaskan] Possessive Compounds and the Architecture
of the Grammar. Poster presented at the 8th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting,
September 14-17, Cagliari.
http://www.diplist.it/mmm8/handout/Saxon_Wilhelm.pdf?phpsessid=0e13f3854608a562
8fd2db56daf201b8
Scalise, S. & E. Guevara. 2005. The Lexicalist Approach to Word-Formation and the Notion of
the Lexicon, in P. Štekauer & R. Lieber (eds.), Handbook of Word Formation. Dordrecht:
Kluwer. 147-187.
Scalise, S. & A. Bisetto. 2009. The Classification of Compounds, in R. Lieber & P. Štekauer,
(eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 34-53.
Schroeder, C. 1999. The Turkish Nominal Phrase in Spoken Discourse. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Selkirk, E. 1995. The Prosodic Structure of Function Words, in J. Martin & K. Demuth (eds.),
Signal to Syntax: Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 187-213.
Sezer, E. 1983. On Non-final Stress in Turkish. Journal of Turkish Studies 5. 61-69.
Siegel, D. 1974. Topics in English Morphology. Ph.D Dissertation, MIT.
Siewierska, A. 2001. Order Correlations between Free and Bound Possessors: Perspectives from
Diachronic Change, in W. Bisang (ed.), Aspects of Typology and Universals. Berlin:
Akademie Verlag. 133-152.
Siewierska, A. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sluijter, A. & V. van Heuven. 1996. Acoustic Correlates of Linguistic Stress and Accent in
Dutch and American English, in H. Bunnell & W. Idsardi (eds.), Proceedings of the
Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSL 1996). New
Castle, Delaware: Citation Delaware. 630-633.
Spencer, A. 1991. Morphological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

196
Spencer, A. 1995. Incorporation in Chukchi. Language 71: 439-489.
Spencer, A. 2001. The Paradigm-based Model of Morphosyntax. Transactions of the
Philological Society 99: 279-313.
Spencer, A. 2011. What is in a Compound? Journal of Linguistics 47: 481-507.
Stemberger, J. 1981. Morphological Haplology. Language 57: 791-817.
Stump, G. 1991. A Paradigm-Based Theory of Morphosemantic Mismatches. Language
67: 675-725.
Stump, G. 2001. Inflectional Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swift, L. 1963. A Reference Grammar of Modern Turkish. Bloomington: Indiana University.
Talmy, L. 1978. The Relation of Grammar to Cognition, in D. Waltz (ed.), Theoretical Issues in
Natural Language Processing 2. Champaign: Coordinated Science Laboratory,
University of Illinois. 3-23.
Tekin, T. 1968. A Grammar of Orkhon Turkish. Uralic and Altaic Series 69. Mouton & Co, The
Hague: Indiana University Publications.
Tekin, T. 2003. Orhon Türkçesi Grameri. Türk Dilleri Araştırmaları Dizisi 9. İstanbul: Mehmet
Ölmez Yayınları.
Ultan, R. 1978. Toward a Typology of Substantival Possession, in J. H. Greenberg (ed.),
Universals of Human Language 4. Stanford CA: Standford University Press. 11-50.
Underhill, R. 1976. Turkish Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Uygun, D. 2009. A Split Model for Category Specification: Lexical Categories in Turkish. Ph.D
Dissertation, Boğaziçi University.
van Schaaik, G. 1996. Studies in Turkish Grammar. Turcologica 28. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
van Schaaik, G. 2002. The Noun in Turkish. Its Argument Structure and the Compounding
Straitjacket. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
Williams, E. 1981. On the Notions ‘Lexically Related’ and ‘Head of a Word’. Linguistic
Inquiry 12: 245-274.
Williams, E. 1994. Remarks on Lexical Knowledge. Lingua 92: 7-34.
Wurzel, W. 1989. Inflectional Morphology and Naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Yükseker, H. 1987. Turkish Nominal Compounds, in P. Avery & H. Yükseker (eds.), Toronto
Working Papers in Linguistics 7. Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto. 83-
102.
Yükseker, H. 1994. Possessive Constructions in Turkish, in L. Johanson (ed.), Proceedings of the
Seventh International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
458-477.
Yükseker, H. 1998. Turkish Possessive Compounds, in G. Booij, A. Ralli, S. Scalise (eds.),
Proceedings of the First Mediterranean Conference on Morphology, Greece: University
of Patras. 153-164.
Zwicky, A. M. 1984. Reduced Words in Highly Modular Theories: Yiddish Anarthrous
Locatives Reexamined. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 29: 117-
126.
Zwicky, A. M. 1986. The General Case: Basic Form vs. Default Form, in D. Feder, M. Niepokuj,
V. Nikiforidou, M. van Clay (eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of Berkeley
Linguistics Society 12. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 305-314.
Zwicky, A. M. 1987a. Transformational Grammarians and Their Ilk. MITWPL 9: 265-279.
Zwicky, A. M. 1987b. Suppressing the Z’s. Journal of Linguistics 23: 133-148.

197
Zwicky, A. M. 1990. Inflectional Morphology as a (Sub)Component of Grammar, in W. U.
Dressler, H. C. Luschützky, O. E. Pfeiffer & J. R. Rennison (eds.), Contemporary
Morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 217-236.
Zwicky, A. M. 1992. Some Choices in the Theory of Morphology, in R. Levine (ed.), Formal
Grammar: Theory and Implementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 327-371.

198
 APPENDIX A

Some Data Collected from Other Sources

TV Series, Movies, Online Conversations

NNCs:
gece yarı-sı güneş-i (night half-sI sun-sI) ‘midnight sun’
masal peri-si oyun-u (tale fairy-sI game-sI) ‘tale-fairy game’
su peri-si espiri-si (water fairy-sI joke-sI) ‘water-fairy joke’
tuz kristal-ler-i (salt crystal-PL-sI) ‘salt crystals’
kış gece-ler-i (winter night-PL-sI) ‘winter nights’
peri ada-sı (fairy island-sI) ‘fairy island’
polen uzman-ı (pollen expert-sI) ‘pollen expert’
çan ses-i (bell sound-sI) ‘ring’
peri toz-u (fairy dust-sI) ‘fairy dust’
müzik peri-ler-i (music fairy-PL-sI) ‘music fairies’
buz peri-ler-i (ice fairy-PL-sI) ‘ice fairies’
ışık peri-ler-i (light fairy-PL-sI) ‘light fairies’
kar tane-si peri-ler-i (snow flake-sI fairy-PL-sI) ‘snow-flake fairies’
iş kadın-ı (business woman-sI) ‘business woman’
akşam vakt-i (evening time-sI) ‘nightfall’
melek tür-ler-i (angel type-PL-sI) ‘types of angel’
insan faaliyet-ler-i (human activity-PL-sI) ‘human activities’
ilham kaynağ-ı (inspiration source-sI) ‘source of inspiration’
savaş turist-i (war tourist-sI) ‘war tourist’
arkadaşlık ilişki-si (friendship relation-sI) ‘friendship relation’
belirsizlik oyun-u (uncertainty game-sI) ‘uncertainty game’
kuş sürü-sü (bird herd-sI) ‘flock’
toz bulut-u (dust cloud-sI) ‘dust cloud’
ateş top-u (fire ball-sI) ‘fireball’
kış meyve-si (winter fruit-sI) ‘winter fruit’

199
kanat bilim-i (wing science-sI) ‘wingology’
fizik bilim-i (physics science-sI) ‘physical science’
uzay bilim-ler-i (space science-PL-sI) ‘space sciences’
gök-bilim (sky science) ‘astronomy’
insan ev-i (human house-sI) ‘human house’
insan şehir-ler-i (human city-PL-sI) ‘human cities’
duş perde-si (shower curtain-sI) ‘shower curtain’

NNCs Involving Derivational Suffixes:

su peri-liğ-i (water fairy-lIK-sI) ‘being a water-fairy’

ışık peri-liğ-i (water fairy-lIK-sI) ‘being a light fairy’
demir eksik-liğ-i (iron deficient-lIK-sI) ‘iron deficiency’
şeker hasta-lığ-ı (sugar sick-lIK-sI) ‘diabetes’
suç ortak-lığ-ı (crime partner-lIK-sI) ‘complicity’
su damla-cığ-ı (water drop-CIK-sI) ‘little/lovely water-drop’
kar tane-ciğ-i (snow flake-CIK-sI) ‘little/lovely snow-flake’
mercan ada-cık-lar-ı (coral island-CIK-PL-sI) ‘little coral islands’
hayvan fotoğraf-çı (animal photograph-CI) ‘animal photographer’
duş perde-ci (shower curtain-CI) ‘someone who dislikes shower curtains’
sürüngen bilim-ci (reptile science-CI) ‘herpetologist’
cep telefon-cu (pocket phone-CI) ‘mobile-phone seller’
elma şeker-ci (apple candy-CI) ‘candy-apple maker/seller’
elma şeker-ci-si (apple candy-CI-sI) ‘candy-apple maker/seller’
Ankara simit-çi-si (Ankara bagel-CI-sI) ‘Ankara bagel maker/seller’
çocuk kitap-çı-sı (child book-CI-sI) ‘children’s book seller’
çocuk roman-cı-sı (child novel-CI-sI) ‘children’s novel author’
düğün şarkı-cı-sı (wedding song-CI-sI) ‘wedding singer’

200
 APPENDIX B

A. Survey Instructions

DİLBİLGİSEL YORUM YAPMACA

Aşağıdaki sorularda çeşitli renklerle vurgulanan sözcük/yapılarla ilgili yorum yapmanız

beklenmektedir. Vurgulanan yapı size doğal/mantıklı ve günlük konuşmalarda rastlanabilir gibi
geliyorsa “iyi”; kulağa (biraz) tuhaf geliyorsa “(biraz) tuhaf”; saçma/çok kötü ve günlük
konuşmalarda rastlanamaz gibi geliyorsa “kötü” şıkkını seçmelisiniz.
Uygun ortamlarda söyleyebileceğiniz ya da başkalarından duyabileceğiniz,
duyduğunuzda sizi rahatsız etmeyen yapılar “iyi”dir. Ancak 'asla kullanmam' dediğiniz ve
duyduğunuzda sizi rahatsız eden yapılar “kötü”dür. Duyduğunuz zaman anladığınız, ancak
kulağınızı biraz tırmalayan, ‘ben olsam başka şekilde söylerdim’ dediğiniz yapılar da "(biraz)
tuhaf"tır. Emin olmadığınız sorular olursa, “bilmiyorum” şıkkını seçebilirsiniz. Unutmayın: bu
testte önemli olan “SİZİN NE DÜŞÜNDÜĞÜNÜZ”. Bu yüzden sözlüklerden ya da dilbilgisi
kitaplarından öğrendiğiniz bilgiler doğrultusunda standart cevaplar vardır diye kendinizi
kısıtlamayın lütfen. Bu çalışmada zihninizde var olan doğal dilsel bilgi ve sezgileriniz esastır.
Soruları cevaplarken üzerinde uzun süre düşünmeyin lütfen. Bu çalışmada sorulara
verdiğiniz ilk tepkiler araştırılmaktadır.
Çalışmada elde edilen sonuçlar akademik yayınlarımda kullanılacak, kimliğiniz
kesinlikle sorulmayacak, gizli kalacaktır.
Bunun dışında, test sona erdiğinde yaşınız, cinsiyetiniz ve eğitim durumunuzla ilgili üç
soru daha karşınıza çıkacaktır.

Çok değerli katılımınız için şimdiden çok teşekkür eder, iyi eğlenceler dilerim!
Sevgiler,
Aysun

201
Örnek soru: Ufaklık annesine düşkün, anneci o.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum
Açıklama: Türkçede annesine düşkün birine “anneci” diyebiliriz; günlük konuşmalarda pek çok
örneğine rastlayabiliriz.

Örnek soru: Ben annemsiz gidebilirim ama Kaan annesisiz gidemez.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum
Açıklama: Bu tümcedeki “annesisiz” sözcüğü kulağa çok kötü geliyor; günlük konuşmalarda
böyle bir örneğe rastlayamayız.

B. Instructions English Version

You are expected to make judgements regarding the highlighted words/structures in the
following questions. If the highlighted structure sounds good/natural for you, and if you think it
is very likely to appear in everyday speech, you should choose “good”. If it sounds (a little)
weird, you should choose “(a little) weird”. If it sounds horrible, and if you think it is very
unlikely to appear in everyday speech, you should choose “bad”.
A form is “good” if you could use it under appropriate circumstances and if it sounds
good to you when somebody else uses it. A form is “bad” if you would never use it and if it
bothers you very much when you hear it. A form is “(a little) weird” if you can interpret it when
you hear it but at the same time if it is not totally good for you and you would use another form
instead. If you cannot decide, then you should choose “not sure”.
Please remember that in this test, I am interested in “WHAT YOU THINK”. Therefore do
not restrict yourself by considering that there should be standard answers on the basis of what
you have learnt from dictionaries and grammar books. This test investigates your intuitions and
your natural knowledge of your native language, Turkish.
Also, do not spend a lot of time on questions please; this test seeks for your first
answers/reactions.
The results of this study will be used in academic publications. You will not be asked for
your identity, which will be anonymous. However, at the end of the test, there will be three
questions about your age, sex, and educational level.

202
C. Survey Questions

1. Yeni bir sokağa “güneş” adını vermek istesek, bu sokak Güneş Sokağı olurdu.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum
(If we want to give the name “güneş” to a new street, this street would be Güneş Street-sI.)
a. good b. (a little) weird c. bad d. not sure

2. Bence bunda damla sakızsısı bir tat var, ama tam çıkaramadım.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum
(I think it tastes like mastic gum-sI-sI, but I am not sure.)
a. good b. (a little) weird c. bad d. not sure

3. Aslan bir Türk askeri içeri girdi.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum
(A lion-like Turkish soldier has walked in.)
a. good b. (a little) weird c. bad d. not sure

4. Çiçekler içinde sadece güllerle uğraşan bir bilim dalı olsa, gül bilimi diye adlandırırdık.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum
(Imagine that there is a study of only roses among flowers; we would call it rose science-sI.)
a. good b. ( a little) weird c. bad d. not sur

5. Simitçilerle sürekli sorun yaşayan simitçi sensin!

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum
(You are the bagel-CI having problems with bagel sellers)
a. good b. ( a little) weird c. bad d. not sure

6. Aşk bilimciler aşkı çözmeğe çalışacaklar.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum
(Love science-CI-PL are going to try to figure out what love is.)
a. good b. (a little) weird c. bad d. not sure

7. Astroloji, insan davranışı ve yıldızlar arasındaki ilişkiyle ilgilenen bir alandır.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum
(Astrology is a subject which concerns the relationship between human behaviour and stars.)
a. good b. (a little) weird c. bad d. not sure

8. Sokak kedilerinin kendi aralarında konuştuğu bir dil olsa, bu dilin adı sokak kedice olurdu.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum
(If there was a language of street cats, we could call it street cat-CE.)
a. good b. (a little) weird c. bad d. not sure

203
9. Güneş perisi güneşe benzeyen periymiş.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum
(The sun fairy-sI is said to be the fairy which resembles the sun.)
a. good b. (a little) weird c. bad d. not sure

10. Su perisi türüne biyolojik bir isim vermek istesek bu isim su perigilleri olurdu.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum
(The biological name of the water-fairy species would be water-fairy-gil-PL-sI.)
a. good b. (a little) weird c. bad d. not sure

11. Herkese yine hanımeli almış bizim hanımelcisi!

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

12. Ay kızın yüzü ay gibi parlar dururmuş.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

13. Bir su perisinden canı çok yanmış kişidir su perisizede.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

14. Telefonunu yine kaybetmiş bizim cep telefoncusu!

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

15. Uçaktan Marmara Denizi’ne bakardım.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

16. Kuşların kanatlarıyla uğraşan bir bilim dalı olsa, kanat bilimi derdik.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

17. Her tatlıda damla sakızı olsun isteyen kişiye damla sakızcı derim ben.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

18. Doğaya aşık kişi kesinlikle doğaperesttir.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

19. Bu amca mercimek çorbacısı, dükkanında sadece mercimek çorbası var.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

20. Doğayla uğraşan bir bilimci doğa bilimcidir.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

21. Yeni bir sokağa “güneş” adını vermek istesek, bu sokak Güneş Sokak olurdu.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

204
22. Telefonunu yine kaybetmiş bizim cep telefoncu!
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

23. Su perisice, su perilerinin kendi aralarında konuştukları dilmiş.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

24. Her tatlıda damla sakızı olsun isteyen kişiye damla sakızcısı derim ben.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

25. Psikolog, bireylerin hem davranış biçimleri hem de düşünce sistemleriyle ilgilenen kişidir.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

26. Tamir için geçen seneki buzdolapçılar gelecek.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

27. Leoparların konuştuğu dil leoparca olsa gerek.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

28. Böyle buz mavimsi bir elbiseydi.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

29. Çilekle dolu sepete çilekli sepet diyebiliriz.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

30. Yasemin kokusunu çok sevdiğim için hocam bana yasemin kokucu diyor.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

31. Buz pateni buzda yapılan paten türüdür.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

32. İstanbul caddesi şehrin en güzel yeri tümcesindeki şehir İstanbul’dur.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

33. Yeni keşfedilen ırmak Masal Irmak’mış.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

34. Bu amca mercimek çorbacı, dükkanında sadece mercimek çorbası var.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

35. Aşk bilimi, olsa olsa aşkı çözmeğe çalışan bilimdir.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

36. Elma şekerini seven öbürü, bu kestane şekercisi.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

205
37. Kar Kraliçesi hem güzel hem de üzücü bir masal.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

38. Su perice, su perilerinin kendi aralarında konuştukları dilmiş.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

39. Kuşların kanatlarıyla uğraşan bir bilim dalı olsa, kanat bilim derdik.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

40. Masal perisi ve ailesi gelmiş ama su perigil daha gelmemiş.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

41. Deniz yolculuğu denize ait yolculuktur.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

42. Çilek sepeti, çilek için kullanılan sepettir.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

43. Yaz kış sürekli güneş kremi kullanan bir arkadaşımıza güneş kremcisi diyebiliriz.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

44. Dünkü konuşma felsefe bilimle ilgiliydi.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

45. Bir su perisinden canı çok yanmış kişidir su perizedesi.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

46. Duş perdeleriyle sürekli sorun yaşadığına göre, asıl duş perdeci sensin!
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

47. Aşk bilim, olsa olsa aşkı çözmeğe çalışan bilimdir.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

48. Yeni bir otele “kiraz” adını vermek istesek, bu otele Kiraz Oteli derdik.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

49. Damla sakızcı, damla sakızı satan kişidir.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

50. Bir su perisinden canı çok yanmış kişidir su perizede.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

51. Plushenko gibi bir buz patenci ne geldi ne gelecek!

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

206
52. Dil bilim, zihinsel dilbilgisi ve zihnimizdeki dil sistemiyle ilgilenen bilim dalıdır.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

53. Tamir için geçen seneki buzdolapçıları gelecek.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

54. Doğayla uğraşan bilim dalıdır doğa bilimi.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

55. Masal perisi ve ailesi gelmiş ama su perisigil daha gelmemiş.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

56. Deniz kıyısı denize ait kıyıdır.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

57. Elma şekerini seven öbürü, bu kestane şekerci.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

58. Su sesi suda olan, oluşan sestir.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

59. Aşk bilimcileri aşkı çözmeğe çalışacaklar.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

60. Sokak kedilerinin kendi aralarında konuştuğu bir dil olsa, bu dilin adı sokak kedisice olurdu.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

61. Ben kesinlikle misafir terliği giymem; senin gibi misafir terlikçisi değilim!
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

62. Su perisi türüne biyolojik bir isim vermek istesek bu isim su perisigiller olurdu.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

63. Kitap köşesi kitapların olduğu köşedir.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

64. En çok aşk merdiveni çiçeğini seven kıza aşk merdivenci diyebilir miyiz?
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

65. Bence bunda damla sakızısı bir tat var, ama tam çıkaramadım.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

66. Su perisince bu basit bir oyundu, masal perisine göre ise zordu.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

207
67. Duş perdeleriyle sürekli sorun yaşadığına göre, asıl duş perdecisi sensin!
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

68. Çiçekler içinde sadece güllerle uğraşan bir bilim dalı olsa, gül bilim diye adlandırırdık.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

69. Bu yazar su pericisi; her masalında su perileri var…

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

70. Yeni bir caddeye “yıldız” adını vermek istesek, bu caddenin adı Yıldız Cadde olurdu.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

71. Orhun Türkçeci, Orhun Türkçesinde, yani Göktürkçede, uzman olan kişidir.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

72. Güller gibi güzel kokar bu gül kız.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

73. Herkese yine hanımeli almış bizim hanımelci!

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

74. Böyle buz mavimsisi bir elbiseydi.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

75. Sürekli mercimek çorbası içersen sana mercimek çorbacısı demeleri normal.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

76. Su perisi suya ait peri türüdür.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

77. Damla sakızcısı, damla sakızı satan kişidir.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

78. Sokak kedilerinin kendi aralarında konuştuğu bir dil olsa, bu dilin adı sokak kedicesi olurdu.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

79. Bence bunda damla sakızsı bir tat var, ama tam çıkaramadım.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

80. Su balesi suya ait bale türüdür.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

81. Oyuncak kamyonu oyuncaklar için ayrılmış bir kamyondur.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

208
82. Evet o adam aşk romancıydı.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

83. Dünkü konuşma felsefe bilimiyle ilgiliydi.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

84. Annemin üstüne bitki çaycı tanımam ben!

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

85. Peri masalıvari bir hikayeydi dinlediğim.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

86. Böyle pembemsi bir elbiseydi…

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

87. Bizim orman adam her gün ormanda yürüyüşe gidiyor.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

88. Masaldaki su perilerinin hepsi su perihanesinde takılıyordu.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

89. Yasemin kokusunu çok sevdiğim için hocam bana yasemin kokucusu diyor.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

90. Evreni ve içindekileri inceleyen bilim dalıdır astronomi.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

91. Herkese yine hanımeli almış bizim hanımelici!

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

92. Masaldaki su perilerinin hepsi su perihanede takılıyordu.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

93. Güneş adam her gün güneş gibi doğarmış.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

94. En çok aşk merdiveni çiçeğini seven kıza aşk merdivenici diyebilir miyiz?
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

95. Aslan Türk askerler fethetti bu güzeller güzeli şehri!

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

96. Dil bilimi, zihinsel dilbilgisi ve zihnimizdeki dil sistemiyle ilgilenen bilim dalıdır.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

209
97. Fizikçiler fizikle uğraşan bilim insanlarıdır.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

98. Sürekli mercimek çorbası içersen sana mercimek çorbacı demeleri normal.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

99. Peri masalvari bir hikayeydi dinlediğim.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

100. Bir bebeğe “yağmur” adını versek, bu bebek Yağmur Bebek olurdu.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

101. Doğayla uğraşan bir bilimci doğa bilimcisidir.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

102. Masal perisi ve ailesi gelmiş ama su perigili daha gelmemiş.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

103. Yeni keşfedilmiş ırmak Masal Irmağı’ymış.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

104. Annemin üstüne bitki çaycısı tanımam ben!

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

105. Benim aslan, akıllı oğlum hepsini halleder şimdi.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

106. Su pericesi, su perilerinin kendi aralarında konuştukları dilmiş.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

107. Yaz kış sürekli güneş kremi kullanan bir arkadaşımıza güneş kremci diyebiliriz.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

108. Yeni bir otele “kiraz” adını vermek istesek, bu otele Kiraz Otel derdik.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

109. Plushenko gibi bir buz patencisi ne geldi ne gelecek!

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

110. Su perince bu basit bir oyundu, masal perisine göre ise zordu.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

111. Doğayla uğraşan bilim dalıdır doğa bilim.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

210
112. Bu yazar su perici; her masalında su perileri var…
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

113. Ben kesinlikle misafir terliği giymem; senin gibi misafir terlikçi değilim!
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

114. Su perisi türüne biyolojik bir isim vermek istesek bu isim su perigiller olurdu.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

115. En çok aşk merdiveni çiçeğini seven kıza aşk merdivencisi diyebilir miyiz?
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

116. Böyle buz mavisimsi bir elbiseydi.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

117. Evet o adam aşk romancısıydı.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

118. Masaldaki su perilerinin hepsi su perisihanede takılıyordu.

a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

119. Orhun Türkçecisi, Orhun Türkçesinde, yani Göktürkçede, uzman olan kişidir.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

120. Yeni bir caddeye “yıldız” adını vermek istesek, bu caddenin adı Yıldız Caddesi olurdu.
a. iyi b. (biraz) tuhaf c. kötü d. bilmiyorum

Yaşınız:
a. 15-25 b. 26-35 c. 36-45

Cinsiyetiniz:
a. Kadın b. Erkek

Eğitim Durumunuz:
a. Lise b. Lisans c. Yüksek Lisans d. Doktora

211
 APPENDIX C

Speaker 2. Pitch Tracings and Waveforms

(a) NP: tatlı keçi [tɑt.lɨ ke.ʧi]
cute goat
‘a/the cute goat’

[tɑt]: 163.30 Hz (Max. Pitch)

[lɨ]: 213.60 Hz (Max. Pitch)
[ke]: 194.26 Hz (Max. Pitch)
[ʧi]: 188.06 Hz (Max. Pitch)

(b) NNC: orman keçi-si [or.mɑn ke.ʧi.si]

forest goat-sI
‘forest goat’

[or]: 176.94 Hz (Max. Pitch)

[mɑn]: 193.32 Hz (Max. Pitch)
[ke]: 191.04 Hz (Max. Pitch)
[ʧi]: 182.88 Hz (Max. Pitch)
[si]: 189.42 Hz (Max. Pitch)

212
(c) PC: Kaan-ın keçi-si [kɑ:.nɨn ke.ʧi.si]
Kaan-GEN goat-sI
‘Kaan’s goat’

[kɑ:]: 170.23 Hz (Max. Pitch)

[nɨn]: 179.05 Hz (Max. Pitch)
[ke]: 165.40 Hz (Max. Pitch)
[ʧi]: 130.49 Hz (Max. Pitch)
[si]: 149.92 Hz (Max. Pitch)

Speaker 3. Pitch Tracings and Waveforms:

(a) NP: tatlı keçi [tɑt.lɨ ke.ʧi]

cute goat
‘a/the cute goat’

[tɑt]: 258.91 Hz (Max. Pitch)

[lɨ]: 319.30 Hz (Max. Pitch)
[ke]: 251.49 Hz (Max. Pitch)
[ʧi]: 233.31 Hz (Max. Pitch)

213
(b) NNC: orman keçi-si [or.mɑn ke.ʧi.si]
forest goat-sI
‘forest goat’

[or]: 251.77 Hz (Max. Pitch)

[mɑn]: 254.04 Hz (Max. Pitch)
[ke]: 223.87 Hz (Max. Pitch)
[ʧi]: 217.73 Hz (Max. Pitch)
[si]: 234.90 Hz (Max. Pitch)

(c) PC: Kaan-ın keçi-si [kɑ:.nɨn ke.ʧi.si]

Kaan-GEN goat-sI
‘Kaan’s goat’

[kɑ:]: 244.78 Hz (Max. Pitch)

[nɨn]: 263.97 Hz (Max. Pitch)
[ke]: 234.62 Hz (Max. Pitch)
[ʧi]: 222.05 Hz (Max. Pitch)
[si]: 200.68 Hz (Max. Pitch)

214