Cover not available

In:Morphological Complexity within and across Boundaries: In honour of Aslı Göksel
Edited by Aslı Gürer, Dilek Uygun-Gökmen and Balkız Öztürk
[Studies in Language Companion Series 215] 2020
► pp. 211–234

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

The great divide

Parts of speech and their consequences for the phonological shape of Turkish words

 | University of Vienna
Published online: 15 July 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.215.08poc
Abstract
Various restrictions about the phonological structure of Turkish roots/bases apply differently to verbs than to other categories. This article looks at several such phenomena and finds that phonological privilege, i.e. more variety in patterns, does not apply uniformly to either verbs or the complement set, in that verbs sometimes show greater freedom, sometimes less. The division line always remains the same, however. Various hypotheses about the origin and the role of that dividing line are discussed, though ultimately the question remains open.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Where word class matters for phonological shape
    • 2.1The k-zero alternation
    • 2.2Non-final stress
    • 2.3Vowel harmony
    • 2.4Distribution of stops
    • 2.5Vowel reduction & suspension of U-harmony
      • 2.5.1Vowel reduction
      • 2.5.2Palatal consonants, U-harmony and the great divide
  • 3.Evaluating the asymmetry between different parts of speech
    • 3.1Phonological privilege
    • 3.2And the winner is…?
  • 4.Reasons for the great divide
    • 4.1Base identity
    • 4.2Lexical addresses
    • 4.3Organisation of the lexicon
    • 4.4Are verbs really an open class?
  • 5.Summary
  • Notes
  • References
References (46)
References
Bayırlı, İsa Kerem. 2012. On Suffixhood and Verbalness: A Mirror Theoretic Approach. MA thesis, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul.
Becker, Michael, Ketrez, Nihan & Nevins, Andrew. 2011. The surfeit of the stimulus: Analytic biases filter lexical statistics in Turkish laryngeal alternations. Language 87(1): 84–125. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Çakır, M. Cem. 1996. A Study on the Low, Front, Unrounded Allophone in Turkish. BA thesis, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul.
Chao, Yuen-ren. 1934. The non-uniqueness of phonemic solutions of phonetic systems. Academica Sinica (Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology) 4(4): 363–397.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charette, Monik. 1991. Conditions on Phonological Government. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Turkish Domains. In Proceedings of WAFL 2: Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics [MITWPL 54], Meltem Kelepir & Balkız Öztürk (eds), 1–20. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charette, Monik & Göksel, Aslı. 1994. Vowel harmony and switching in Turkic languages. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics & Phonetics 4: 29–56.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 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
Clements, George N. & Sezer, Engin. 1982. Vowel and consonant disharmony in Turkish. In The Structure of Phonological Representations, Part II, Harry van der Hulst & Norval Smith (eds), 213–255. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dankoff, Robert & Kelly, James. 1982. Maḥmūd al-Kāšɣarī: Compendium of the Turkic Dialects (Dīwān Luɣāt at-Turk). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Printing Office.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1985. Morphonology: The dynamics of derivation. Ann Arbor MI: Karoma.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erguvanlı Taylan, Eser. 2011. Is there evidence for a voicing rule in Turkish? In Puzzles of Language. Essays in Honour of Karl Zimmer, Eser Erguvanlı Taylan & Bengisu Rona (eds), 71–92. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.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
Inkelas, Sharon. 2011. Another look at velar deletion in Turkish. In Puzzles of Language. Essays in Honour of Karl Zimmer, Eser Erguvanlı Taylan & Bengisu Rona (eds), 37–53. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 1995. Level Ordering and Economy in the Lexical Phonology of Turkish. Language 71(4): 763—793. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jensen, Sean. 2000. A Computational Approach to the Phonology of Connected Speech. PhD dissertation, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
Kabak, Barış & Vogel, Irene. 2001. The phonological word and stress assignment in Turkish. Phonology 18: 315–360. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan. 1990. `Coda’ Licensing. Phonology 7(2): 301–330. 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
Lees, Robert B. 1961. The Phonology of Modern Standard Turkish. Bloomington IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, Geoffrey. 1967. Turkish Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luthy, Melvin J. 1973. Phonological and Lexical Aspects of Colloquial Finnish [Indiana University Publications / Uralic and Altaic Series 119]. Bloomington IN: Indiana University. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2005. Optimal paradigms. In Paradigms in Phonological Theory, Laura J. Downing, Tracy Alan Hall & Renate Raffelsiefen (eds), 170–210. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nasukawa, Kuniya. 2015. Recursion in the lexical structure of morphemes. In Representing Structure in Phonology and Syntax, Henk van Riemsdijk & Marc van Oostendorp (eds), 211–238. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nuhbalaoğlu, Derya. 2010. On the Role of Empty Onsets in Turkish: A Government Phonology Approach. MA thesis, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul.
Ploch, Stefan. 1996. The role of parsing. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics & Phonetics 6: 76–105.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1999. Nasals on My Mind. The Phonetic and the Cognitive Approach to the Phonology of Nasality. PhD dissertation, School of Oriental and African Studies, 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 Special Number 1: 87–109.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2014. Alternations: The vipers in our bosom. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Special Number 2: 147–164.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015. Binding in phonology. In Representing Structure in Phonology and Syntax, Henk van Riemsdijk & Marc van Oostendorp (eds), 255–275. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016. Is there phonological vowel reduction in Turkish? In Exploring the Turkish Linguistic Landscape: Essays in honor of Eser Erguvanlı Taylan [Studies in Language Companion Series 175], Mine Güven, Didar Akar, Balkız Öztürk & Meltem Kelepir (eds), 21–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.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, Maria-Josep Solé, Patrice Speeter Beddor & Manjari Ohala (eds), 369–385. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Scheer, Tobias. 2004. A Lateral Theory of Phonology, Vol. I: What is CVCV and Why Should It Be? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sezer, Engin. 1981a. On non-final stress in Turkish. Journal of Turkish Studies 5: 61–69Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1981b. The k/Ø alternation in Turkish. In Harvard Studies in Phonology 2, George N. Clements (ed.), 354–382. Cambridge MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shiraishi, Hidetoshi. 2004. Base-identity and the noun–verb asymmetry in Nivkh. In On the boundaries of phonology and phonetics, Dicky Gilbers, Maartje Schreuder & Nienke Knevel (eds), 159–182. Groningen: University of Groningen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer L. 1997. Noun faithfulness: On the privileged behavior of nouns in phonology. Ms. <[URL]> (15 July 2019).
2011. Category-specific Eefects. In The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. 4, Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds), 2439–2463. Hoboken NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Underhill, Robert. 1988. A lexical account of Turkish accent. In Studies in Turkish Linguistics, Ayhan Sezer (ed.), 387–406. Ankara: Middle East Technical University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Urbanczyk, Suzanne. 2011. Root–affix asymmetries. In The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. 4: Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds), 2490–2515. Hoboken NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.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, İstanbul.
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, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, Semiramis Yağcıoğlu & Ayşen Cem Değer (eds), 3–14. İzmir: Dokuz Eylül Yayıncılık.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zimmer, Karl & Abbott, Barbara. 1978. The k/Ø alternation in Turkish; some experimental evidence for its productivity. Journal of 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