Cover not available

In:Exploring the Turkish Linguistic Landscape: Essays in honor of Eser Erguvanlı-Taylan
Edited by Mine Güven, Didar Akar, Balkız Öztürk and Meltem Kelepir
[Studies in Language Companion Series 175] 2016
► pp. 21–40

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Is there phonological vowel reduction in Turkish?

 | Bogaziçi University
Published online: 14 June 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.175.02poc
This article looks at vowel reduction in Turkish from the point of view of Government Phonology, trying to establish its place in grammar, i.e. whether it is a phonological process or something else. Government Phonology employs rigid criteria to delineate the domain of phonology. While vowel reduction is in principle expressible through the loss of elements (melodic primes), its sensitivity to morphosyntactic information makes clear that it must be non-phonological. It also becomes clear that the morphosyntactic conditioning is slightly different from what is usually given in grammars of the language. The article concludes with alternatives to a phonological treatment of vowel reduction.
References (36)
References
Backley, Phillip. 2011. An Introduction to Element Theory. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bromberger, Sylvain & Halle, Morris. 1989. Why phonology is different. Linguistic Inquiry 20(1): 51–70.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chambers, Jack K. & Trudgill, Peter. 1998. Dialectology. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charette, Monik & Göksel, Aslı. 1996. Licensing constraints and vowel harmony in Turkic languages. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics & Phonetics 6: 1–25.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Denwood, Ann. 2002. K~ø: morpho-phonology in Turkish. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 12: 89–98.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erguvanlı Taylan, Eser. 2015. The Phonology and Morphology of Turkish. İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. 1976. Autosegmental Phonology. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gussmann, Edmund. 2007. The Phonology of Polish. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, John. 1994. English Sound Structure. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. Licensing inheritance: An integrated theory of neutralisation. Phonology 14: 315–370. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. Release the captive coda: The foot as a domain of phonetic interpretation. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 165–194.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Vowel reduction as information loss. In Headhood, Elements, Specification and Contrastivity [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 259], Philip Carr, Jacques Durand & Colin J. Ewen (eds),119–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, John & Lindsey, Geoff. 2000. Vowel patterns in mind and sound. In Phonological Knowledge: Conceptual and Empirical Issues, Noel Burton-Roberts, Philip Carr & Gerry Docherty (eds), 185–205. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 1975. Phonology: Theory & Analysis. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jensen, Sean. 2000. A Computational Approach to the Phonology of Connected Speech. PhD dissertation, University of London.
Kamali, Beste. 2011. Topics at the PF Interface of Turkish. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
Kaye, Jonathan. 1989. Phonology: A Cognitive View. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1990. ‘Coda’ licensing. Phonology 7(2): 301–330. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992. On the interaction of theories of Lexical Phonology and theories of phonological phenomena. In Phonologica 1988. Proceedings of the 6th International Phonology Meeting, Wolfgang U. Dressler, Hans C. Luschützky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer & John R. Rennison (eds.), 141–155. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. Derivations and interfaces. In Frontiers of Phonology: Atoms, Structures, Derivations, Jacques Durand & Francis Katamba (eds), 289–332. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan, Lowenstamm, Jean & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1985. The internal structure of phonological elements: A theory of charm and government. Phonology Yearbook 2: 303–328. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1990. Constituent structure and government in phonology. Phonology 7(2): 193–231. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1976. Abstractness, opacity and global rules. In The Application and Ordering of Grammmatical Rules, Andreas Koutsoudas (ed.), 160–186. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, Geoffrey. 1967. Turkish Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ploch, Stefan. 1999. Nasals on My Mind. The Phonetic and the Cognitive Approach to the Phonology of Nasality. PhD dissertation, University Of London.
Pöchtrager, Markus A. 2010. Does Turkish diss harmony? Acta Linguistica Hungarica 57(4): 458–473. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. k-Ø and what phonology can do. Dilbilim Araştırmaları 1: 87–109.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Alternations: The vipers in our bosom. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 2: 147–164.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pöchtrager, Markus A. & Kaye, Jonathan. 2011. What is this thing called phonology? Talk given at the Leiden University Center for Linguistics.
Sezer, Engin. 1981a. On non-final stress in Turkish. Journal of Turkish Studies 5: 61–69.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1981b. The k/Ø alternation in Turkish. In Harvard Studies in Phonology, George N. Clements (ed.), 354–382. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Uygun, Dilek. 2009. A Split Model for Category Specification: Lexical Categories in Turkish. PhD dissertation, Boğaziçi University.
Vural, Özlem Albaş. 2006. Phonological Variation in Informal Turkish. In Advances in Turkish Linguistics, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics. 11-13 August 2004, Semiramis Yağcıoğlu & Ayşen Cem Değer (eds), 3–14. İzmir: Dokuz Eylül University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 2000. The Phonology of German. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Pöchtrager, Markus A.
2018. Sawing off the branch you are sitting on. Acta Linguistica Academica 65:1 ► pp. 47 ff. DOI logo
Pöchtrager, Markus A.
2020. The great divide. In Morphological Complexity within and across Boundaries [Studies in Language Companion Series, 215], ► pp. 211 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue