РАЗДЕЛ III. ПРИКЛАДНАЯ ЛИНГВИСТИКА DOI: 10.18413/2313-8912-2018-4-1-49-62 Ahmed Alduais MICRO AND MACRO TYPOLOGICAL FEATURES OF THE MORPHOLOGY OF THE TURKISH LANGUAGE: CONFLICTING VIEWS BETWEEN WALS DATABASE AND NON-WALS DATABASE

Typology of morphology can be examined in terms of certain features e.g. fusions, exponence, inflectional synthesis, locus, affixation, reduplication, syncretism, etc. or with broader typological features like multifunctional inflectional features, compounding, genitive construction, etc. We refer to the former as macro level features of the typology of morphology of the Turkish language with reference to data presented from WALS database and we refer to the latter as micro level of the typology of morphology of the Turkish language with references to some linguists and researchers in the field of morphology. This two-folded presentation brings about an argument about the possible limitation of the WALS database as claimed and argued by the presented views – assuming contradicting conclusions about some typological features of morphology of the Turkish language.


Introduction
Generally speaking, languages can be approached from different perspectives. When approaching typology of languages, for instance, this area could be even restricted to a certain linguistic component i.e. phonology, morphology, word order. Typology of morphology which is our concern can be examined in terms of certain features e.g. fusions, exponence, inflectional synthesis, locus, affixation, reduplication, syncretism, etc.. A major reference and source for this purpose is the online database and studies provided on The World Atlas of Language Structures Online (WALS) (http://wals.info/). In this database, languages are introduced in terms of a number of features i.e. phonology, morphology, nominal categories, nominal syntax, verbal categories, word order, simple clauses, complex sentences, lexicon, sign languages, word order and other features. Within each feature, subfeatures are included. For instance, in the case of morphology the following subfeatures are included:     Uzun (2012b) argues in favour of a new proposal that could offer a more accurate ranking of languages in terms of their typology. The author starts his proposal with a presentation for the used assessing method on WALS. According to the author, WALS has been based on typology, typicality and consistency of languages. Having this in mind, the author uses the same database presented on WALS to shown that using the features of similarity and difference frequency among languages could results to more accurate

Fusion and Exponence in Turkish
The second typological morphology feature is exponence. According to Bickel and Nichols (2013), it refers to 'the number of categories that cumulate into a single formative'. Within this feature, the following values are possible.  [12] lAr→ -lara (dative) [13] lAr→-lere (dative) [14] lAr→-leri (accusative) [15] lAr→-larından (ablative) [16] lAr→-lerinden (ablative) [17]  To start with synthesis, it refers to the addition and/or use of an affix or a word to a certain grammatical category i.e.  According to this table, Turkish is shown within the 6-7 categories per word. This seems to be the default structure for Turkish. However, 8-9 categories per words seems to be possible according to the following example.
[24] Ev-ler 1 -im 2 -iz 3 -de 4 -ki 5 -ler 6 -in 7iz 8 -den 9 In spite of this, it should be noted that sometimes not all attachments are to be counted. For instance, (-me) [used for making negative] is not to be counted.
[25] Gelecek Gelmeyecek [-will come/ will not come] Consider also the following detailed example.
Having accounted for inflectional synthesis, now we will move to locus. Locus is going to be presented in terms of three aspects according to the WALS database: 1) locus of marking in the clause, 2) locus of marking in possessive noun phrase and 3) locus of marking in whole language typology.
Basically locus is represented through 'in any kind of phrase, overt morphosyntactic marking reflecting the syntactic relations within the phrase may   One more type of locus is that of whole-language typology. In this case, two types of values are given: first in the case of whole-language typology and then in the case of zero-marking of A and B arguments. The following two tables illustrates such values. In the former, Turkish has the feature of inconsistent marking or other types. In the second case of A and B arguments, it has the non-zero marking value.     Turkish Inflectional case marking is absent or minimal Inflectional case marking is syncretic for core cases only Inflectional case marking is syncretic for core and non-core cases Inflectional case marking is never syncretic ○  Uzun (2015) argues against the view that Turkish adopts multifunctional inflectional affixes. His argument is mainly based on proposing an alternative approach for discussing such typological feature in Turkish. He presents the zeromorpheme along with taking into consideration pragmatic and discourse factors when accounting for such factor in Turkish. According to the author, many studies accounted for verbal inflectional affixes in Turkish and presented it as multifunctional inflectional languages where in a certain affix can have more than one function. Among these studies are those bye: Johanson (1971,1994); Aksu-Koç (1978); Slobin and Aksu-Koç (1982); Yavaş (1980,1982); Erguvanlı-Taylan (1996); Bassarak (1994) and Kornfilt (1997). On the basis, of this, the author offers a zero-morpheme analysis for the inflectional affix in Turkish attempt to prove the opposite that each and every affix in Turkish stands by itself presenting a separate and/or [unique] function.
Further, the author presents an example from (Yavaş, 1980) quoted in Erguvanlı-Taylan (1996) explaining the misinterpretation of some morphological aspects in terms of pragmatics and discourse (-ti), the tense marker functioning as mood marker. This argument continues with reference to Erguvanlı-Taylan's study (1996), the suffix (-ti) is presented in terms of two paradigms: one as a multifunctional inflectional suffix and one as a monofunctional in the case of past. The author sheds light on some problems of the multifunctional approach including the contradiction of inferred conclusions among researchers e.g. Erguvanlı-Taylan (1996) and Bassarak (1994) n regard to tense. Yet, it is shown that on the basis of previous literature like those by Tura replicate the view that they are neither affixes of tense nor affixes of aspect; mood (presented through zero-morphemes each)! This applied also to the past affix (-TI) which is presented as [+past andpast] replicating the presented paradigms as multifunctional and mono-functional. The author also mentioned the zeromorpheme of mood presented as [-subjunctive (∅) and +subjunctive (others)] and the adverbs' case which according to him not only interacts with tense but also with aspect and mood.

Compounding and genitive construction in Turkish
Moreover yet linguistically, phonological, phonetic, semantic and syntactic effects could also affect compounding and genitive possessive construction. In the case of phonetics for instance, consider the words: Cumartesi (Cuma-ertesi) and kahvaltı (kahve-altı). In phonology, consider the stress which could mark compounding and genitive possessive construction in example like: kötü talih and kara yazı.  Compounding formation based on hypothetical views e.g. sentence formation and word formation, strict lexical hypothesis and level ordering hypothesis (Uzun, 1994). Four types of compounding could be introduced:   (2001) resulting into something like (2, 4, 3, 5, 1). The author presented the average frequency of these affixes by taking by converting the average of all these measures to have something like (4, 3, 2, 1, 2). In the first area, for instance, word classes are presented where nouns, adjectives, verbs and other classes appear in order according to their frequency. Productivity can be presented as shown below below.  Verb classes with reference to Levin's hypothesis to the study of verb classes was also approached by (Uzun, 2003). The author raises an argument of verb classes alternation claiming that the application of this approach on other languages, other than English-which Levin used to support her arguments. Consider for instance the following example in English: [37] I cut the bread with this knife.
[38] This knife cut the bread.
[39] This knife doesn't cut. ↕ cut→ action is performed by the subject I cut→ action is performed by the knife as a tool for cutting cut→ action is referred to the ability of the tool to cut or do something! According to Levin, semantic alternations in the verb cut resulted into change of semantic behaviour in the verb cut. This is exactly, what Uzun attempted on in his article with more emphasis on the alternation within a certain verb among languages i.e. Turkish and English.
Conclusions Typology of languages, namely Turkish, yet specifically, morphology includes many features and aspects. While the WALS database presents a semicomprehensive framework for these aspects and featuresputting into action the efforts of the authors supporting their database, other linguists and researchers might look at the typology of morphology deeper than that being approached on the WALS database. Given that, the typological features of morphology seem to have macro and micro levels. The first represents those general aspects listed in tables 1 and 2 and some more others and the second could represent those very specific features that can be found within certain dialects, idiolects, variations of within the same language as presented by Uzun