Yazar "Nihan Ketrez, F." seçeneğine göre listele
Listeleniyor 1 - 3 / 3
Sayfa Başına Sonuç
Sıralama seçenekleri
Öğe Acquisition of an agglutinative language under adverse neonatal conditions(De Gruyter, 2018) Nihan Ketrez, F.[No abstract available]Öğe Terms of address in Turkish pet-directed speech: Questionnaire vs. spontaneous production results(Elsevier Ltd, 2024) Nihan Ketrez, F.Terms of address in Turkish spontaneous pet-directed speech and those reported by the same pet-owners in questionnaires were compared with a focus on the proportion of diminutive and hypocoristic morphemes attached to various types of bases in order to see whether different data collection methods revealed different patterns of language use. The results showed that pet owners used diminutive and hypocoristic morphology along with the possessive marker in their spontaneous interactions to express endearment. While hypocoristic forms occurred with similar frequency in both sets of data, pet owners were less likely to report diminutives in their questionnaire responses although they used them in their spontaneous interactions. This is attributed to the use of diminutives to express the type of empathy, which could be easier to establish in spontaneous face-to-face communication. This attribution correctly predicted that stigmatized inverse address forms, as well, were rare in questionnaire responses. © 2024 Elsevier LtdÖğe Word formation through derivation vs. compounding perspectives from child language acquisition of Turkish(John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2020) Nihan Ketrez, F.Languages differ with respect to their word formation tendencies and children's first language acquisition patterns reflect the dominant word formation options in their language starting at a very early age. Universal tendencies (e.g., preferences due to transparency and regularity of morphological structures) interact with language specific features to a certain extent. This chapter reviews the findings on Turkish speaking children's acquisition of derivational morphology versus compounds and shows that Turkish displays properties of both. It further provides a discussion of what can be considered derivational as opposed to inflectional in Turkish, as there seems to be disagreements in the literature which are reflected in the language acquisition analyses, having a potential impact on the interpretation of the results. © 2020 John Benjamins Publishing Company