The problem of analytical means used for word formation and for the realization of grammatical meaning has repeatedly been the subject of study in the works of European Turkologists and Turkish linguists. However, the analysis of the relevant literature and the proposed solutions have led to the conclusion that there are many differences between the concepts and hypotheses of various authors: from a narrow understanding of analytics at the lexical and grammatical levels to a maximally broad one, where forms and formations that, in our opinion, do not correspond at all to the definition of an analytical means are improperly included in this class of means. In this work, we examine the concepts of various linguists both classical and modern, who published their works within the last decade, as they are of greatest interest because they demonstrate no significant progress in the positions and views on the problem of analytics in the system of the Turkish language over the past fifty years. The article investigates diverse lexical and grammatical forms that meet the main requirement for analytical means, which comes down to the presence of a full-fledged element containing the main lexical meaning, and an auxiliary verb that has no autonomous lexical meaning but creates a new lexeme (the so-called “compound verb”) or modifies the lexical meaning for a grammatical purpose (primarily in terms of realizing internal tense or modal meanings). The article describes the concepts regarding the genesis of analytical forms in Turkish and the Turkic languages and proposes a group classification of analytical grammatical means: periphrastic verb forms, compound verb forms, quasi-periphrastic verb forms, set verbal formations, and set phrases, which are formally correlated with analytical forms but significantly differ from them from the semantic and functional points of view. The paper concludes by outlining prospects for further research into set verbal collocations in Turkish.
S. V. Sorokin (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: