Morphological Conceptualization I: Abstract System Building
C1
Architecture
1. Function
Institutions conceptualize because verbs expose agency, and exposed agency creates liability. Abstract nouns eliminate both. When an organization stops saying “we fixed the problem” and starts saying “corrective mechanisms have been implemented,” the issue is no longer an event. It becomes a system variable. Conceptualization converts actions into entities that can be expanded, constrained, optimized, or deprecated without assigning blame. In institutional discourse, nouns are not descriptive tools; they are governance instruments. High-level language therefore replaces people doing things with concepts interacting inside systems. This is not stylistic preference. It is structural power.
2. Forms
Core abstraction mechanisms in institutional Turkish:
Verb + -Im
Result-oriented system domains:
yönetmek → yönetim
denetlemek → denetim
Adjective + -lIk
State-oriented system values:
şeffaf → şeffaflık
sürdürülebilir → sürdürülebilirlik
Verb + -An / -mA
Procedural entities and institutional processes:
düzenlemek → düzenleme
yapmak → yapılanma
Each suffix does not merely nominalize. It reclassifies reality from execution to structure.
3. Morphology
A) Build Sequences and Allomorph Logic
Abstract nouns are constructed step by step, not inferred.
Example 1: -Im (Domain Formation)
yön (direction)
→ yön + -et = yönet (cause to direct)
→ yönet + -im = yönetim
An action domain replaces an actor.
Example 2: -lIk (State Formation with Explicit Allomorph Rules)
The suffix -lIk follows vowel harmony:
Back vowels (a, ı, o, u):
şeffaf → şeffaflık
gizli → gizlilik
Front vowels (e, i, ö, ü):
sürdürülebilir → sürdürülebilirlik
etkin → etkinlik
Functionally, -lIk converts a quality into a stable institutional value.
Example 3: -An vs -mA (Process vs Action Nominalization)
düzenle → düzenle + -me = düzenleme
Simple nominalization: the act of regulating.
yap → yapıl (passive stem) → yapıl + -an = yapılanma
Structural nominalization: an ongoing organized process that becomes an institutional structure.
-mA nominalizes actions.
-An nominalizes processes that crystallize into systems.
B) The Full Abstraction Chain
sürdür (sustain)
→ sürdür + -ebil = sürdürebil
→ sürdürülebil + -ir = sürdürülebilir
→ sürdürülebilir + -lik = sürdürülebilirlik
What begins as effort becomes a governable property.
4. Structural Guide
Conceptualization escalates in controlled stages:
Action:
“Planladık.”
Formalized action:
“Planlama yapıldı.”
Procedural entity:
“Planlama süreçleri.”
System abstraction:
“Kurumsal planlama kapasitesi.”
Each stage removes time, effort, and responsibility. What remains is a system component evaluable without reference to who acted or when.
5. Usage
Abstract nominalization dominates documents where complexity must appear manageable and failure must appear structural rather than personal. White papers rely on it to frame futures without commitments. Strategic plans use it to align priorities without exposing trade-offs. Audit frameworks depend on it to assess compliance without accusation. High-level policy proposals transform political decisions into technical necessities through abstraction. In all cases, nouns allow institutions to manage reality as architecture rather than action.
Examples
Executive Masterpiece
“Kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik, yönetsel şeffaflık ve operasyonel yapılanma süreçlerinin güçlendirilmesi hedeflenmektedir.”
Surgical Deconstruction with Cumulative Effect
“kurumsal”
kurum → kurum + -sal
Transforms an organization into an abstract modifier.
“sürdürülebilirlik”
sürdür → sürdürebilir → sürdürülebilirlik
Effort becomes a measurable system value.
“yönetsel şeffaflık”
yönet → yönetim → yönetsel + şeffaflık
Behavior becomes an evaluable state.
“operasyonel yapılanma süreçleri”
yap → yapıl → yapılanma → süreçler
Actions are packaged into institutional machinery.
“güçlendirilmesi”
Scalar adjustment, not intervention.
“hedeflenmektedir”
Orientation without obligation.
Cumulative effect: three abstract systems interact, one adjustment is proposed, and institutional intent is signaled without exposure. Progress can be claimed, delay justified, and failure reframed as recalibration.
Conceptualization Spectrum
Concrete:
“Bütçeyi kontrol ediyoruz.”
Formal:
“Bütçe kontrolü sağlanmaktadır.”
Abstract:
“Bütçe kontrol mekanizmalarının etkinliği artırılmaktadır.”
Notes
The Jargon Trap and Operational Boundaries
Abstraction becomes dangerous when form outpaces function.
Effective abstraction:
“Yönetsel şeffaflık artırılacaktır.”
A system value with implicit metrics.
Jargon trap:
“Şeffaflıksal optimizasyon değerlendirilmektedir.”
Suffix stacking without referential anchor. Meaning collapses.
Negative abstraction as strategic denial:
“Yapılanma ihtiyacı bulunmamaktadır.”
Necessity is denied without denying competence.
Institutions gain power by compressing meaning into systems, not by obscuring it. Nominalization signals authority only when the abstract entity plausibly maps to an operational reality. When abstraction no longer implies a system that could exist, credibility erodes.
Morphological Conceptualization I: Abstract System Building – FAQ (C1)
Q: Why do institutions prefer abstract nouns over verbs in formal Turkish?
A: Verbs expose agency and responsibility, while abstract nouns remove both. By turning actions into systems, institutions can manage processes without assigning blame.
Q: What is the functional difference between –mA and –An nominalizations?
A: –mA nominalizes a single action as an event. –An nominalizes an organized process that stabilizes into an institutional structure.
Q: How does abstraction change the status of an action?
A: The action is no longer time-bound or personal. It becomes a system variable that can be evaluated, adjusted, or optimized without reference to who acted.