Part of
Exploring the Turkish Linguistic Landscape: Essays in honor of Eser Erguvanlı-TaylanEdited by Mine Güven, Didar Akar, Balkız Öztürk and Meltem Kelepir
[Studies in Language Companion Series 175] 2016
► pp. 157–182
Edited by Mine Güven, Didar Akar, Balkız Öztürk and Meltem Kelepir
[Studies in Language Companion Series 175] 2016
► pp. 157–182
Acquisition of morphophonemic alternations and the role of frequency
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)
Albright, Adam & Hayes, Bruce. 2003. Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition 90: 119-161. 
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.
Bybee, Joan 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10(5): 425-455.
2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP.
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.
. 2015. The Phonology and Morphology of Turkish. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.
Göksel, Aslı & Kerslake, Celia. 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.
Göz, İlyas. 2003. Yazılı Türkçe’nin Kelime Sıklığı Sözlüğü. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu.
Inkelas, Sharon & Orgun, Orhan. 1995. Level ordering and economy in the lexical phonology of Turkish. Language 71: 763-793.
Inkelas, Sharon, Küntay, Aylin, Orgun, Orhan & Sprouse, Ronald. 2000. Turkish Electronic Living Lexicon (TELL). Turkic Languages 4: 253-275.
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.
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.
Lewis, Geoffrey. 1967. Turkish Grammar. Oxford: OUP.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Plunkett, Kim & Marchman, Virginia. 1993. From rote learning to system building: Acquiring verb morphology in children and connectionist nets. Cognition 48: 21-69.
Prasada, Sandeep & Pinker, Steven. 1993. Generalization of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes 8: 1-56.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.