Turkish Grammar (review)

Geoffrey Lewis’s Turkish grammar is well known to students of Turkish as a concise reference for points of morphosyntax. The first edition of the book was published in 1967. This edition has been revised and updated to take into account more recent work on Turkish language reform (summarized from Lewis’s Turkish language reform: A catastrophic success, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). At first sight, however, there are few differences. The structure and layout of the book are the same, and many of the same topics are covered, although in more detail in this edition.

L concentrates on written rather than spoken Turkish, although constructions that are only found in written or spoken discourse are flagged as such. The book also heavily emphasizes morphology and word formation and much less so word order and clausal structure.

L covers all the main areas of traditional grammar, including phonology and orthography (and the different treatment of Persian, Arabic, and Turkic words within the morphology, such as exceptions to harmony), nominal case marking, personal suffixes, derivational morphology, suffix ordering, and post-positions and their case government. L lists many exceptions and nontransparent derivational forms (such as çek- ‘pull’, but çekecek ‘shoehorn’). As might be expected, a large proportion of the book is concerned with verbal morphology and derivation. Although there are copious paradigms and short examples throughout the book, the final chapter gives extended illustrations and discussions of some of the grammatical points discussed in the text.

This book is not a textbook or a guide to how to speak Turkish—it is not meant to be one and makes little attempt in that direction. It is a grammar handbook in the traditional sense, a reference work that sets out the paradigms and basic syntax. Nonetheless, L does frequently comment on the usage of various constructions.

The index is helpful and contains both grammatical terminology and key words. The only criticism of this handbook is its lack of references to other works dealing with Turkish grammar and historical linguistics. There are some references to other publications, but a more detailed bibliography and cross-reference list would make Turkish grammar even more useful.