Jaklin Kornfilt | |
---|---|
Awards | Humboldt Prize (2010) Fulbright Fellowship (1999) |
Academic background | |
Alma mater | Heidelberg University Harvard University |
Thesis | Case marking, agreement and empty categories in Turkish (1985) |
Academic advisors | Susumu Kuno & Noam Chomsky |
Academic work | |
Discipline | Theoretical linguistics |
Sub-discipline | Syntax and morphology of Turkish and the Turkic languages |
Institutions | Syracuse University |
Website | Syracuse Web page |
Jaklin Kornfilt is a theoretical linguist and professor at Syracuse University who is well known for her contributions to the fields of syntax,morphology,Turkish language and grammar,and Turkic language typology. [1] [2]
Kornfilt graduated from German High School in Istanbul,Turkey. She then graduated from Heidelberg University with a bachelor's degree in applied linguistics and translation studies in 1970. She obtained a Master of Arts degree in theoretical linguistics from Harvard University in 1980. She earned a PhD again in theoretical linguistics from the same university in 1985. [3] [4] Her PhD thesis was "Case Marking,Agreement,and Empty Categories in Turkish". [5]
After graduation,Kornfilt began to work as an instructor at Syracuse University in 1983. [6] She became professor of linguistics in 2003 in the Department of Languages,Literatures and Linguistics (LLL). [3] At Syracuse University,she is also former Director of the Linguistic Studies Program and of the Computational Linguistics Program. [7]
She also organized and led a linguistics working group of The Central New York Humanities Corridor,an interdisciplinary partnership with Syracuse University,Cornell University,and the University of Rochester from 2005 to 2010. [8]
Kornfilt was awarded the Humboldt Research Award by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation in Bamberg in 2010. [9] [10]
In 2021,she was awarded an honorary doctorate by the University of Cyprus for 'her contributions to theoretical and Turkish linguistics'. [6]
Kornfilt is the author of Turkish (1997),a comprehensive overview of the grammatical properties of the Turkish language. This work is renowned for its near-exhaustive survey of the syntactic and morphological systems of Turkish and is considered the major successor to Turkish-language descriptive grammars of G.L. Lewis’Turkish Grammar (1967) and Robert Underhill's Turkish Grammar (1976). [11] [12] Her work provided a thorough investigation of the syntactical and morphological properties of Turkish and defining its key typological features and universal characteristics. [13]
Her work is a contribution to the Descriptive Grammars series by the Routledge publishing company. The series overviews a variety of languages through the lens of theoretical and descriptive analyses,using a framework called the Questionnaire as a structural tool for comparing grammars across language types. [13] More specifically,the Questionnaire surveys language features in a manner that is:
Kornfilt's text is one of the first Turkish grammars to "incorporate overtly the native speaker's linguistic intuitions into its language description,", [13] as Kornfilt indicates various degrees to which ungrammatical sentences may be judged to be ungrammatical. As she explains in the preface,"[a]nother unusual feature of this book,and especially of the syntax chapter,is probably the fact that shadings of grammaticality or acceptability are noted,rather than reflecting an all-or-nothing approach". [11]
Structure of Turkish
In the preface,Kornfilt traces the genealogical history of Turkish as the Turkic language with the most speakers and a member of the Altaic language family. She notes that Turkish was written in Arabic script from the beginning of its history in the Anatolian peninsula,until its orthography was converted to the Latin alphabet following the language reforms of 1928,upon the establishment of the Republic of Turkey. She emphasizes that this Modern Standard Turkish is the focus of the book. [13]
In five chapters,she surveys Syntax,Morphology,Phonology,Ideophones and Interjections,and Lexicon. With a total of 575 pages,the book devotes an overwhelming majority of attention to Syntax and Morphology. Given that even the Morphology chapter often describes syntactical properties,Kornfilt is primarily interested in the syntax of Turkish: [13]
Ch 1. "Syntax":211 pages
Ch 2. "Morphology":270 pages
Ch 3. "Phonology":32 pages
Ch 4. "Ideophones and Interjections":3 pages
Ch 5. "Lexicon":16 pages
"Syntax" and "Morphology"
Across sixteen subparts,the chapter surveys aspects of Turkish syntax:sentence types,subordination,internal sentence structures,phrasal units,negation,anaphora,reflexives,reciprocals,comparative constructions,equatives,possessive constructions,yes–no questions,question-word questions,questions in coordinate structures,means of expressing emphasis,topic,movement processes,and word classes.
A notable innovation of Kornfilt's syntax is observation of the relationship of the palatal glide [y] to copula and auxiliary word classes. Previous grammars such as those of Lewis (1967) and Underhill (1976) identified -DIr,-IDI,-ImIş as "copula" or "auxiliary". [13] Kornfilt argues that the palatal glide [y] belongs in this category as well,as it "shows up after a predicate noun,adjective,or adverbial that has a stem-final vowel;this glide precedes the tense suffix,if there is one,and agreement suffix if there is no tense". [11]
Additionally,Kornfilt denies the existence of a separate topic marker in Turkish syntax. This contradicts the view that the form -ise (copula + conditional) or the particle de are topic markers,as in the following sentences: [13]
(Sentence 1)'''Fasulye-yi ise en çok Ayşe sev-iyor.
Bean-Acc. Cop Supl most Ayşe love-pres.
'As for beans,Ayşe likes them the most.'
(Sentence 2)
Fasulye-yi de en çok Ayşe sev-iyor.
Bean-Acc. Part Supl most Ayşe love-pres.
'As for beans,Ayşe likes them the most.'
Written for the book,The World’s Language Families (1990),Kornfilt's chapter on “Turkish and Turkic Languages” [14] is her secondary signature work. Continuing in her contributions to language typology and comparative grammar,Kornfilt highlights the key linguistic features that make Turkic languages unique. The chapter is a highly cited source of comparative linguistics with regards to Turkish.
“General and Historical Background”
Kornfilt provides the background of Turkish and Turkic languages. She specifies how Turkic languages share similar features,including vowel harmony,agglutinative morphology,verb-final word order,and nominalised subordinate clauses. She argues that because Turkic languages share these features,it is often difficult to count the total number of completely separate Turkic languages. Additionally,she introduces a controversy about the external genetic relationships of the Turkic family. She describes that while the majority opinion agrees that Turkic languages belong to the overarching Altaic language family,along with Mongolian and Tungusic languages,outlier perspectives claim Korean,Japanese,and even Uralic languages to be Altaic as well.
With regards to the geographical groupings of Turkic languages,Kornfilt acknowledges that there is no broad consensus on their classifications. Ultimately,she chooses to classify the Modern Standard Turkish spoken in the Republic of Turkey as part of Anatolian dialect of the Osman language group,which is part of the larger South-West Oyuz group of Turkic languages.
“Phonology and Orthography”
Kornfilt highlights the phonological characteristics of Turkish. She begins by remarking on the symmetry of Turkish vowels,as there are four pairs of high and non-high vowels,varying in backness and rounding. She states that non-high vowels can only be round if they are in a word-initial syllable. She argues that the most prominent property of Turkish vowels their adherence to vowel harmony,as they regularly assimilate to one another to match according to backness and rounding.
Kornfilt also explores the orthographic characteristics of written Turkish. While Turkish adopted the Latin script following the writing reforms of 1928,there are a few changes that the Republic of Turkey made in the characterizations of letters. As Kornfilt describes:"Instead of -i,the sign used for the high back non-round vowel,we find ı,i.e. a dotless i. The difference between the two non-round high vowels is signalled in the same way for capital letters:I . for the front,I for the back,high non-round vowel...Other letters that don’t correspond to the familiar phonetic symbols are the following:c for [j],çfor [č],şfor [š],j for [ž]".
Additionally,Kornfilt explores other features of Turkish phonology:syllable-final oral stop devoicing,the k/0 alternation,word-final liquid devoicing,morpheme-initial voicing assimilation,vowel harmony,labial attraction,and word-final stress.
“Morphology”
Kornfilt begins by commenting on the highly agglutinative and suffixing nature of Turkish. Virtually all morphemes in Turkish carry suffix morphemes and an explicit function. The only prefixing operation in Turkish is the intensification of adjectives and adverbs,via the reduplication of the first syllable and the addition of a consonant:e.g. beyaz 'white',bembeyaz 'completely white';çabuk 'fast',çarçabuk 'very fast'"[3].
She goes on to survey the most productive suffixes of Turkish,along with the rules governing their order when combined. More specifically,she surveys:
NP-Movement
Kornfilt has also contributed to understanding of the Government and Binding theory originally proposed by Chomsky. Kornfilt asserts CP-transparency,as proposed by generative theory,in Turkish syntax and refutes the role of restructuring in constructions that violate clause-dependent government rules. [15] Specifically,she focuses on NP-movement of an embedded object to matrix subject position,a specific kind of construction in Turkish that she notes for its "non-local application of an otherwise local process". [15] The constructions are called “Infinitival Double Passives”(IDPs),and are characterized as follows: [15]
The following are some example sentences of Turkish IDPs: [15]
(Sentence 1)
üniversite-ler (polis tarafından) kuşat-ıl-mak iste-n-di
university-pl. police by surround-Pass-Infin. want-Pass-past
'The universities were wanted to be surrounded by the police'
(Sentence 2)
üniversite-ler (polis tarafından) kuşat-ıl-mağ-a başla-n-dı
university-pl. police by surround-Pass-Infin.-Dat. begin-Pass-past
'The universities were begun to be surrounded by the police'
(Sentence 3)
üniversite-ler (polis tarafından) kuşat-ıl-mağ-a çalış-ıl-dı
university-pl. police by surround-Pass-Infin.-Dat. try-Pass-past
'The universities were tried to be surrounded by the police'
The following are active counterparts of the above Turkish IDPs that involve Control: [15]
(Sentence 4)
polis(i) [PRO(i) üniversite-ler-i kuşat-mak] iste-di
police university-pl.-Acc. surround-Infin. want-past
'The police wanted to surround the universities'
(Sentence 5)
polis(i) [PRO(i) üniversite-ler-i kuşat-mağ]-a başla-dı
police university-pl.-Acc. surround-Infin.-Dat. begin-past
'The police begun to surround the universities'
(Sentence 6)
polis(i) [PRO(i) üniversite-ler-i kuşat-mağ]-a çalış-tı
police university-pl.-Acc. surround-Infin.-Dat. try-past
'The police tried to surround the universities'
Kornfilt claims that while IDPs in other languages can normally be explained by Exceptional Case Marking (ECM),the ECM does not operate in Turkish—or,at least,it does not operate in the way that would explain the anomaly of non-local,cross-clausal rule application demonstrated by Turkish IDPs. Accordingly,Kornfilt proposes the question:“If IDPs are not explainable by ECM,why are they grammatical”in Turkish? [15] Her solution:The three "IDP" verbs are triggers of another type of Transparency of maximal projection;purely descriptively speaking,instead of a CP that dominates a verbal IP,what becomes transparent is a CP that dominates a "nominal" IP rather than a "verbal" IP. [15]
In other words,the same CP-Transparency found in factive contexts that renders embedded subjects under the rule of government via the matrix verb is also present in non-factive contexts as well,such as in her Turkish examples. Her proposal links this CP-Transparency phenomenon to the traditional effects of S-bar Deletion in that the ‘offending’trace in embedded subject position is now properly governed by the main verb and is saved from violating the [Empty Category Principle]. [15] Consequently,she dismisses ECP as a satisfying account of Turkish grammar. Additionally,she dismisses the traditional explanation of “Restructuring”in the case of Turkish IDPs because it violates the Projection Principle of Chomsky's Government and Binding theory;instead,she suggests “CP-Transparency”as a viable alternative explanation that maintains a consistent commitment to Government and Binding and accounts for the cross-clausal application of mono-clausal government found in Turkish IDPs. [15]
Disagreement on Kornfilt's account
Wayne Harbert opposed Kornfilt in his review of her article, [16] claiming that the Turkish examples Kornfilt used are only “an apparent,not a real instance of non-local application of NP-movement”. [16] He argued that Kornfilt had a non-problem on her hands,mistakenly giving an explanation for something that had a simpler,more viable reasoning. He stated that Kornfilt was incorrect to say that the passive morphology she observed in main and subordinate clauses in Turkish are a “result of any particular linkage between the INFL [Inflectional] nodes of the two clauses”;rather,this passivity is realized in the main clause “when the embedded clause is passive by the fact that the failure of the passivized object to get case by moving to matrix subject position would result in ill-formedness”. [16] Harbert presented various case studies that demonstrated various degrees of relaxed government rules from several languages,with some grammars allowing occasional exceptions to the rule and other grammars adopting non-standard treatment of structure effectively minimize the syntactic distance between the related elements without movement”. [16] In effect,Harbert attempted to minimize the novelty of Kornfilt's Turkish IDPs by presenting cases of non-local government abnormalities in other languages.
Properties of Scrambling in Turkish
In her article,"Scrambling,Subscrambling,and Case in Turkish" (2003), [17] Kornfilt examines the phenomenon of scrambling in Turkish grammar. She examines the role that specificity plays in the interactions between scrambling,subscrambling,and typology of Case. She also observes the extent to which the Specificity Effect is an autonomous,independent principle of grammar. She demonstrates that the Specificity Effect is actually a by-product of other syntactic principles,particularly the Condition on Extraction Domains (CED),which she suggests is itself a by-product of Subajency. Additionally,Kornfilt demonstrates that CED is insufficient in explaining features of Turkish,especially those involving with structural Case. [17] As an alternative,Kornfilt suggests that syntactic incorporation of N's into verbs provides a better account of scrambling in Turkish than CED.
Against scrambling as an instance of "Move-Alpha"
In her article,"Against scrambling as an instance of Move-alpha" (1994), [18] Kornfilt surveys and weighs the popular understandings of scrambling. Namely,she acknowledges two major views about scrambling:according to the first,"scrambling is an instance of Chomsky-adjoining an XP (NP,PP,to a more limited extant also AP or ADV) to VP or to IP (perhaps also AP)" as an instance of movement to an A'-position; [18] the second view proposes that certain sub-cases of scrambling are instances of A-movement. [18] Kornfilt argues that scrambling cannot be explained by any movement account at all. Instead,she proposes a base-generation account that is "not committed to the inadequacies of a non-configurational account of German syntax". [18] She makes use of morphosyntactic and lexical properties that are independently attested in the language.
Direct Objects In her article,"The case of the direct object in Turkish:Semantics,syntax and morphology" (2005), [19] Kornfilt observes the relationship between semantic parameters and morphological constraints in determining the distribution of the accusative case marker -(y)I in Turkish. [19] She notes that there are two mainstream understandings of the accusative marker. The first considers the marker as an instance of Differentiated Object Marking (DOM). The caveat of this perspective is that it assumes that the case suffix marks a direct object if it is too similar to an "archetypical subject". [19] The second perspective is based on the observation that the accusative marker is closely related to the direct object's specificity,instead of to the similarity of the direct object to a typical subject. Kornfilt argues that neither of these perspectives give a satisfying explanation for the distribution of the accusative case marker. Alternatively,Kornfilt insists that the suffix explicitly indicates specificity under certain morpho-syntactic conditions,instead of a mere contrast to the subject. [19] This proposal is a more flexible notion of specificity in terms of "referentially anchored indefinite NPs". [19] This ultimately means that the accusative case marker can indicate the referential property of the direct object,including specificity,according to certain morphological environments in a predictable manner;in other contexts,it is not a reliable indicator of properties like specificity. [19]
In linguistics, morphology is the study of words, how they are formed, and their relationship to other words in the same language. It analyzes the structure of words and parts of words such as stems, root words, prefixes, and suffixes. Morphology also looks at parts of speech, intonation and stress, and the ways context can change a word's pronunciation and meaning. Morphology differs from morphological typology, which is the classification of languages based on their use of words, and lexicology, which is the study of words and how they make up a language's vocabulary.
Turkish is the most widely spoken of the Turkic languages, with around 80 to 90 million speakers. It is the national language of Turkey and Northern Cyprus. Significant smaller groups of Turkish speakers also exist in Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Greece, Cyprus, other parts of Europe, the Caucasus, and some parts of Central Asia, Iraq, and Syria.
In linguistics, agglutination is a morphological process in which words are formed by stringing together morphemes, each of which corresponds to a single syntactic feature. Languages that use agglutination widely are called agglutinative languages. For example, in the agglutinative language of Turkish, the word evlerinizden consists of the morphemes ev-ler-iniz-den, literally translated morpheme-by-morpheme as house-plural-your(plural)-from. Agglutinative languages are often contrasted with isolating languages, in which words are monomorphemic, and fusional languages, in which words can be complex, but morphemes may correspond to multiple features.
Shoshoni, also written as Shoshoni-Gosiute and Shoshone is a Numic language of the Uto-Aztecan family, spoken in the Western United States by the Shoshone people. Shoshoni is primarily spoken in the Great Basin, in areas of Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Idaho.
In linguistic typology, ergative–absolutive alignment is a type of morphosyntactic alignment in which the single argument ("subject") of an intransitive verb behaves like the object of a transitive verb, and differently from the agent of a transitive verb. Examples include Basque, Georgian, Mayan, Tibetan, and certain Indo-European languages. It has also been attributed to the Semitic modern Aramaic languages. Ergative languages are classified into 2 groups: those which are morphologically ergative but syntactically behave as accusative and those which — on top of being ergative morphologically — show ergativity in syntax as well. No language has been recorded in which both the morphological and syntactical ergative are present. Languages which belong to the former group are more numerous than those to the latter. Dyirbal is said to be the only representative of syntactic ergativity, yet it displays accusative alignment with certain pronouns.
Greenlandic is an Eskimo–Aleut language with about 57,000 speakers, mostly Greenlandic Inuit in Greenland. It is closely related to the Inuit languages in Canada such as Inuktitut. It is the most widely spoken Eskimo–Aleut language. In June 2009, the government of Greenland, the Naalakkersuisut, made Greenlandic the sole official language of the autonomous territory, to strengthen it in the face of competition from the colonial language, Danish. The main variety is Kalaallisut, or West Greenlandic. The second variety is Tunumiit oraasiat, or East Greenlandic. The language of the Inughuit of Greenland, Inuktun or Polar Eskimo, is a recent arrival and a dialect of Inuktitut.
Dependency grammar (DG) is a class of modern grammatical theories that are all based on the dependency relation and that can be traced back primarily to the work of Lucien Tesnière. Dependency is the notion that linguistic units, e.g. words, are connected to each other by directed links. The (finite) verb is taken to be the structural center of clause structure. All other syntactic units (words) are either directly or indirectly connected to the verb in terms of the directed links, which are called dependencies. Dependency grammar differs from phrase structure grammar in that while it can identify phrases it tends to overlook phrasal nodes. A dependency structure is determined by the relation between a word and its dependents. Dependency structures are flatter than phrase structures in part because they lack a finite verb phrase constituent, and they are thus well suited for the analysis of languages with free word order, such as Czech or Warlpiri.
In linguistics, valency or valence is the number and type of arguments controlled by a predicate, content verbs being typical predicates. Valency is related, though not identical, to subcategorization and transitivity, which count only object arguments – valency counts all arguments, including the subject. The linguistic meaning of valency derives from the definition of valency in chemistry. Like valency found in chemistry, there is the binding of specific elements. In the grammatical theory of valency, the verbs organize sentences by binding the specific elements. Examples of elements that would be bound would be the complement and the actant.Although the term originates from valence in chemistry, linguistic valency has a close analogy in mathematics under the term arity.
Georgian grammar has many distinctive and extremely complex features, such as split ergativity and a polypersonal verb agreement system.
Jaqaru (Haq'aru) is a language of the Aymaran family. It is also known as Jaqi and Aru. It is spoken in the districts of Tupe and Catahuasi in Yauyos Province, Lima Region, Peru. Most of the 2000 ethnic Jaqaru have migrated to Lima.
Turkish grammar, as described in this article, is the grammar of standard Turkish as spoken and written by educated people in the Republic of Turkey.
The Inuit languages, like other Eskimo–Aleut languages, exhibit a regular agglutinative and heavily suffixing morphology. The languages are rich in suffixes, making words very long and potentially unique. For example, in Nunavut Inuktitut:
In linguistics, grammatical relations are functional relationships between constituents in a clause. The standard examples of grammatical functions from traditional grammar are subject, direct object, and indirect object. In recent times, the syntactic functions, typified by the traditional categories of subject and object, have assumed an important role in linguistic theorizing, within a variety of approaches ranging from generative grammar to functional and cognitive theories. Many modern theories of grammar are likely to acknowledge numerous further types of grammatical relations. The role of grammatical relations in theories of grammar is greatest in dependency grammars, which tend to posit dozens of distinct grammatical relations. Every head-dependent dependency bears a grammatical function.
In linguistics, nominalization or nominalisation is the use of a word that is not a noun as a noun, or as the head of a noun phrase. This change in functional category can occur through morphological transformation, but it does not always. Nominalization can refer, for instance, to the process of producing a noun from another part of speech by adding a derivational affix, but it can also refer to the complex noun that is formed as a result.
In linguistics, switch-reference (SR) describes any clause-level morpheme that signals whether certain prominent arguments in 'adjacent' clauses are coreferential. In most cases, it marks whether the subject of the verb in one clause is coreferent with that of the previous clause, or of a subordinate clause to the matrix (main) clause that is dominating it.
In linguistics, volition is a concept that distinguishes whether the subject, or agent of a particular sentence intended an action or not. Simply, it is the intentional or unintentional nature of an action. Volition concerns the idea of control and for the purposes outside of psychology and cognitive science, is considered the same as intention in linguistics. Volition can then be expressed in a given language using a variety of possible methods. These sentence forms usually indicate that a given action has been done intentionally, or willingly. There are various ways of marking volition cross-linguistically. When using verbs of volition in English, like "want" or "prefer", these verbs are not expressly marked. Other languages handle this with affixes, while others have complex structural consequences of volitional or non-volitional encoding.
The Tarahumara language is a Mexican Indigenous language of the Uto-Aztecan language family spoken by around 70,000 Tarahumara (Rarámuri/Ralámuli) people in the state of Chihuahua, according to an estimate by the government of Mexico.
Araki is a nearly extinct language spoken in the small island of Araki, south of Espiritu Santo Island in Vanuatu. Araki is gradually being replaced by Tangoa, a language from a neighbouring island.
Lardil, also spelled Leerdil or Leertil, is a moribund language spoken by the Lardil people on Mornington Island (Kunhanha), in the Wellesley Islands of Queensland in northern Australia. Lardil is unusual among Aboriginal Australian languages in that it features a ceremonial register, called Damin. Damin is regarded by Lardil-speakers as a separate language and has the only phonological system outside Africa to use click consonants.
In linguistic morphology, inflection is a process of word formation in which a word is modified to express different grammatical categories such as tense, case, voice, aspect, person, number, gender, mood, animacy, and definiteness. The inflection of verbs is called conjugation, and one can refer to the inflection of nouns, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, determiners, participles, prepositions and postpositions, numerals, articles, etc., as declension.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(help)