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. 157–182

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

Acquisition of morphophonemic alternations and the role of frequency

 | Bogaziçi University
 | University of Alberta
 | Bogaziçi University
Published online: 14 June 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.175.10nak
Bringing in acquisition data from stems that undergo morphophonemic alternation in Turkish, this study seeks to show how children’s acquisition path, mostly shaped by frequency implicates rules rather than a nondecomposed route. In Turkish most stems ending in the non-velar plosives [p], [t], [tʃ] undergo voicing alternation and stems ending in the velar plosive undergo deletion. On the grounds that the presence of non-velar-ending stems that do not undergo alternation or velar-ending stems that do not exhibit deletion may obscure the extraction of a pattern and give rise to errors in acquisition, we have tested 60 children in three developmental groups. We have found that children in all age groups erred and each sound type exhibited a variant error-path that reveals an interplay between type-frequency and token-frequency.
References (29)
References
Albright, Adam & Hayes, Bruce. 2003. Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition 90: 119-161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Becker, Michael, Ketrez, Nihan & Nevins, Andrew. 2011 The surfeit of the stimulus: Grammatical biases filter lexical statistics in Turkish devoicing deneutralization. Language 87(1): 84–125. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10(5): 425-455. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ekmekçi, Özden. 1979. Acquisition of Turkish: A Longitudinal Study on the Early Development of a Turkish Child. PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
Erguvanlı-Taylan, Eser. 2011. Is there evidence for a voicing rule in Turkish. In Puzzles of Language: Essays in Honor of Karl Zimmer, Eser Erguvanlı-Taylan & Bengisu Rona (eds) 71-93. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. The Phonology and Morphology of Turkish. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı & Kerslake, Celia. 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Göz, İlyas. 2003. Yazılı Türkçe’nin Kelime Sıklığı Sözlüğü. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Orgun, Orhan. 1995. Level ordering and economy in the lexical phonology of Turkish. Language 71: 763-793. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon, Küntay, Aylin, Orgun, Orhan & Sprouse, Ronald. 2000. Turkish Electronic Living Lexicon (TELL). Turkic Languages 4: 253-275.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Konrot, Ahmet. 1981. A new phoneme or ‘voiced velar stop erosion’? Phonetic explanation for the phonological status of the so-called ‘Soft-g’ in Turkish. In Occasional Papers, 24: Phonetics and Phonology, Linda Shockey (ed.), 12-23. Colchester: Essex University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kopkallı, Handan. 1993. A Phonetic and Phonological Analysis of Final Devoicing in Turkish. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.
Lees, Robert. 1961. The Phonology of Modern Standard Turkish [Uralic and Altaic Series 6]. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, Geoffrey. 1967. Turkish Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marcus, Gary, Pinker, Steven, Ullman, Michael, Hollander, Michelle, Rosen, John & Xu, Fei. 1992. Overregularization in language acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 57: 34-69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nakipoğlu, Mine & Ketrez, Nihan. 2006. Children’s overregularizations and irregularizations of the Turkish aorist. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Vol. 2, David Bamman, Tatiana Magnitskaia & Colleen Zaller (eds), 399-410. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nakipoğlu, Mine & Üntak, Aslı. 2006a. What does the acquisition of stems that undergo phonological alternation reveal about rule application? Paper presented at the International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Uppsala, Sweden.
. 2006b. Word count of alternating and deleting stems in Turkish. Ms.
Özsoy, Sumru. 2004. Türkçe’nin Yapısı I (Sesbilim). Istanbul: Boğaziçi University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 2001. Four decades of rules and associations, or what happened to the past tense debate. In Language, Brain and Cognitive Development, Emmanuel Dupoux (ed.), 157-180. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plunkett, Kim & Marchman, Virginia. 1993. From rote learning to system building: Acquiring verb morphology in children and connectionist nets. Cognition 48: 21-69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prasada, Sandeep & Pinker, Steven. 1993. Generalization of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes 8: 1-56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pycha, Anne, Inkelas, Sharon & Sprouse, Ronald. 2007. Morphophonemics and the lexicon. A case study from Turkish. In Experimental Approaches to Phonology, Marie-Josep Sole, Patrice Speeter Beddor & Manjari Ohala (eds), 369-85. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rumelhart, David E. & McClelland, James, L. 1986. On learning the past tense of English verbs. In Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Vol. 2, James L. McClelland, David E. Rumelhart & The PDP Research Group (eds). Cambaridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sak, Haşim, Güngör, Tunga & Saraçlar, Murat. 2008. Turkish language resources: Morphological parser, morphological disambiguator and web corpus. In Advances in Natural Language Processing, 417-427. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Topbaş. Seyhun & Kopkallı-Yavuz, Handan. 1997. The onset of a linguistic system: Is there evidence from the acquisition of final devoicing in Turkish? In Proceedings of GALA ’97 Conference on Language Acquisition, Antonella Sorace, Caroline Heycock & Richard Shillcock (eds), 284-289. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Türk Dil Kurumu Türkçe Sözlük. 1998. Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
Zimmer, Karl & Abbott, Barbara. 1978. The k/ Ø alternation in Turkish: Some experimental evidence for its productivity. Journal Psycholinguistic Research 7: 35-46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue