Cover not available

In:The Acquisition of Turkish in Childhood
Edited by Belma Haznedar and F. Nihan Ketrez
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 20] 2016
► pp. 29–56

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

Sensitivity of Turkish infants to vowel harmony

Preference shift from familiarity to novelty

 | Middle East Technical University, Turkey
 | Okan International University, USA
 | Middle East Technical University, Turkey
 | LMU Munich, Germany
 | Turkish Military Academy, Turkey
Published online: 18 November 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.20.02hon
Abstract
In a longitudinal study we found that 6- and 10-month-old monolingual Turkish infants are already sensitive to backness vowel harmony in stem-suffix sequences. Using a head-turn paradigm, listening times between 2 vowel-harmonic and 2 vowel-disharmonic lists of words for backness and rounding harmony were compared. While only main effects of age and trial were found for rounding harmony, in backness harmony a significant interaction between harmony and age was found: 6-month-olds preferred listening to harmonic words whereas 10-month-olds preferred listening to disharmonic words. This finding is reminiscent of the “familiarity-to-novelty-shift” in cognitive development, indicating that younger infants first extract the regular, harmonic pattern in their ambient language, whereas older infants’ attention is drawn to irregular, disharmonic tokens, due to violation-of-expectation.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Vowels and vowel harmony in Turkish
    • 1.2Studies on the acquisition of vowel harmony in Turkish
    • 1.3Studies in other languages
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Research aim, hypotheses, and design
    • 2.3Materials
      • 2.3.1Auditory stimuli
    • 2.4General and experimental procedure
    • 2.5Coding criteria
    • 2.6Validation study with adult native speakers of Turkish
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Mixed Linear Effect Model (MLE) analyses
      • 3.1.1MLE Model-1: all variables included
      • 3.1.2MLE Model-2: BF and RU harmony separately
      • 3.1.3Summary of results of MLE Models 1 and 2
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion and outlook
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (41)
References
Aksu-Koç, A. & Slobin, D.I. 1985. The acquisition of Turkish. In Cross-linguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol. 1, D. I. Slobin (ed.), 839–878. Hillsdale NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Altan, A. 2009. Acquisition of vowel harmony in Turkish. In 35. yıl Yazıları, N. Büyükkantarcıoğlu & E. Yarar (eds), 9–26. Istanbul: Multilingual Yabancı Dil Yayınları.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bozşahin, C. 2012. Combinatory Linguistics. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clements, G.N. & Sezer, E. 1982. Vowel and consonant disharmony in Turkish. In The Structure of Phonological Representations, Part II, H. van der Hulst & N. Smith (eds.), 213–255. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ekmekçi, Ö. 1979. Acquisition of Turkish: A Longitudinal Study on the Early Language Development of a Turkish Child. PhD dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elman, J.L., Bates, E.A., Johnson, M.H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D. & Plunkett, K. 1997. Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fisher-Thompson, D. & Peterson, J.A. 2004. Infant side biases and familiarity-novelty preferences during a serial paired-comparison task. Infancy 5(3): 309–340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Göz, İ. 2003. Yazılı Türkçenin Kelime Sıklığı Sözlüğü (Dictionary of Word Frequency in Written Turkish). Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hacıoğlu, M. 1994. Vowel harmony in Turkish: Problems with generative and auto-segmental approaches. Dilbilim Araştırmaları, 288–305. Ankara: Hitit Yayınevi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heck, R.H., Thomas, S.L. & Tabata, L.N. 2014. Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling with IBM SPSS, 2nd edn.. [Quantitative Methodology Series]. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Houston-Price, C. & Nakai, S. 2004. Distinguishing novelty and familiarity effects in infant preference procedures. Infant and Child Development 13: 341–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kabak, B., Maniwa, K. & Kazanina, N. 2010. Listeners use vowel harmony and word-final stress to spot nonsense words: A study of Turkish and French. Journal of Laboratory Phonology 1: 207–224.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kabak, B. 2011. Turkish vowel harmony. In The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, M. van Oostendorp, C. Ewen, B. Hume & K. Rice (eds), 2831–2954. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kabak, B. & Weber, S. 2013. Markedness, context, and directionality in Turkish harmony: A corpus study on vowel co-occurrence patterns. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 1: 53–85.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kemler Nelson, D.G., Jusczyk, P.W., Mandel, D.R., Myers, J., Turk, A. & Gerken, L. 1995. The head-turn preference procedure for testing auditory perception. Infant Behavior and Development 18: 111–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ketrez, F.N. 2014. Harmonic cues and speech segmentation: A crosslinguistic study on child-directed speech. Journal of Child Language 41(2): 439–461. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kimper, W.A. 2011. Competing Triggers: Transparency and Opacity in Vowel Harmony. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuhl, P.K. 2000. A new view of language acquisition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 97: 11850–11857. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2004. Early language acquisition: Cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5: 831–843. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010. Brain mechanisms in early language acquisition. Neuron 67(5): 713–727. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lees, R. (1961). The Phonology of Modern Standard Turkish [Indiana University publications: Uralic and Altaic Series 6]. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, J.L. & Eimas, P.D. 1983. Studies on the categorization of speech by infants. Cognition 13: 135–165. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mintz, T. & Walker, R. 2006. Infants’ sensitivity to vowel harmony and its role in word segmentation. Paper presented at the LSA, January 7, Albuquerque NM.
Munakata, Y. 2000. Challenges to the violation-of-expectation paradıgm: Throwing the conceptual baby out with the perceptual bathwater? Infancy 1(4): 471–477. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pascalis, O. & de Haan, M. 2003. Recognition memory and novelty preference: What model? In Progress in Infancy Research, H. Hayne & J. Fagen (eds.), 95–120. Hillsdale NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Piaget, J. 1976. The Grasp of Consciousness: Action and Concept in the Young Child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pöchtrager, M. 2010. Does Turkish diss harmony? Acta Linguistica Hungarica 57(4): 458–473. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ramscar, M. & Gitcho, N. 2007. Developmental change and the nature of learning in children. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11(7): 274–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roder, B.J., Bushnell, E.W. & Sasseville, A.M. 2000. Infants’ preferences for familiarity and novelty during the course of visual processing. Infancy 1(4): 491–507. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rose, S.A., Gottfried, A.W., Melloy-Carminar, P. & Bridger, W.H. 1982. Familiarity and novely preferences in infant recognition memory: implications for information processing. Developmental Psychology 18(5): 704–713. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shinskey, J.L. & Munakata, Y. 2010. Something old, something new: A developmental transition from familiarity to novelty preferences with hidden objects. Developmental Science 13: 378–384. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sirois, S. & Mareschal, D. 2004. An interacting systems model of infant habituation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16(8): 1352–1362. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snyder, K.A., Blank, M.P. & Marsolek, C.J. 2008. What form of memory underlies novelty preferences? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 15(2): 315–321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suomi, K., McQueen, J.M. & Cutler, A. 1997. Vowel harmony and speech segmentation in Finnish. Journal of Memory and Language 36: 422–444. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylan, E.E. 2015. The Phonology and Morphology of Turkish. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trehub, S.E. 1976. The discrimination of foreign speech contrasts by infants and adults. Journal of Child Development 47: 466–472. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Kampen, A., Parmaksız, G., van de Vijver, R. & Höhle, B. 2008. Metrical and statistical cues for word segmentation: Vowel harmony and word stress as cues to word boundaries by 6- and 9-month-old Turkish learners. In Language Acquisition and Development, A. Gavarró & M.J. Freitas (eds.), 313–324. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Werker, J.F. & Lalonde, C.E. 1988. Initial capabilities and developmental change. Developmental Psychology 24(5): 672–683. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Werker, J.F. & Tees, R.C. 1984. Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development 7: 49–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zimmer, K.E. 1967. A note on vowel harmony. International Journal of American Linguistics 33: 166–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zimmer, K.E. & Küntay, A.C. 2003. Turkish internal vowel harmony revisited. In Studies in Turkish Linguistics, A.S. Özsoy, D. Akar, M. Nakipoğlu-Demiralp, E. Erguvanlı-Taylan & A. Aksu-Koç (eds.), 27–33. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Dai, Huteng
2025. An exception-filtering approach to phonotactic learning. Phonology 42 DOI logo
Omane, Paul Okyere, Natalie Boll-Avetisyan & Titia Benders
2025. Tongue root harmony cues for speech segmentation in multilingually raised infants learning languages with and without vowel harmony in Ghana (Africa). Bilingualism: Language and Cognition ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Solá-Llonch, Elizabeth & Megha Sundara
2025. Young infants’ sensitivity to precursors of vowel harmony is independent of language experience. Infant Behavior and Development 78 ► pp. 102032 ff. DOI logo
Özkan, Zeynep G., Berceste Özdemir, Pablo Gómez & Manuel Perea
2025. The distinctive role of vowel harmony in visual word recognition: The case of Turkish. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 78:8 ► pp. 1539 ff. DOI logo
Harry van der Hulst & Nancy A. Ritter
2024. The Oxford Handbook of Vowel Harmony, DOI logo
Güven, Selçuk & Laurence B. Leonard
2023. Verb morphology in Turkish-speaking children with and without DLD: the role of morphophonology. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 37:1 ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo
Gervain, Judit
2022. Development of Speech Perception. In Speech Perception [Springer Handbook of Auditory Research, 74], ► pp. 201 ff. DOI logo
Güven, Selçuk, Naama Friedmann & Claudio Mulatti
2021. Vowel dyslexia in Turkish: A window to the complex structure of the sublexical route. PLOS ONE 16:3 ► pp. e0249016 ff. DOI logo
Kappa, Ioanna & Marina Tzakosta
2019. Chapter 8. Vowel harmony patterns in Greek dialectal child speech. In Language Variation - European Perspectives VII [Studies in Language Variation, 22], ► pp. 134 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 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