Cover not available
Part of
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. 193–210

Paradigm leveling and regularization derive variation in stress

A corpus study on Turkish non-final stress at the morphology-phonology interface

| University of Würzburg
| University of Würzburg
Based on corpus data from spoken Turkish, we investigate variation in two types of exceptional stress-deriving suffixes. In the case of the person markers of the z-paradigm, all of which but the 3rd person plural marker -lEr are generally analyzed as unstressable, we find that -lEr exhibits variable stress behavior, either being regularly stressable or behaving as an unstressable suffix. On the other hand, we see that -Iyor, a fixed-stress suffix, is on the verge of becoming regularly stressable. We argue that these developments derive from different mechanisms, particularly paradigm leveling and the loss of fixed stress due to regularization, /r/-dropping being one of the segmental concomitants of the latter. The diachronic development of these suffixes further supports our findings.
Keywords: stress variation, paradigm leveling, lexical stress, regularization
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Regular vs. exceptional stress assignment and stress variability in Turkish
  • 3.Corpus study
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 15 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.215.07kab
References (31)
References
Adamovic, Milan. 1985. Konjugationsgeschichte der türkischen Sprache. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Akça, Hakan. 2011. Ankara ilinin ağızlarında şimdiki zaman ekinin varyantları. Turkish Studies: International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic 6(1): 611–619.Google Scholar
Altmann, Heidi. 2006. The Perception and Production of Second Language Stress: A Cross-linguistic Experimental Study. PhD dissertation, University of Delaware.
Domahs, Ulrike, Genç, Safiye, Knaus, Johannes, Wiese, Richard & Kabak, Barış. 2012. Processing (un)-predictable word stress: ERP evidence from Turkish. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(3): 1–20.Google Scholar
Erdal, Marcel. 2004. A Grammar of Old Turkic. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı & Kerslake, Celia. 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Göksel, Aslı & Güneş, Güliz. 2013. Discourse and information structure within the WORD. Poster presented at the 9th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, Dubrovnik, 15–18 September.
Good, Jeff & Yu, Alan. 2005. Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject pronominal paradigms. In Clitic and Affix Combinations: Theoretical Perspectives [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 74], Lorie Heggie & Francisco Ordóñez (eds), 315–341. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gülensoy, Tuncer. 1985. Anadolu ağızlarında şimdiki zaman eki. Türk Kültürü Araştırmaları, Prof. Dr. İbrahim Kafesoğlu’nun Hatırasına Armağan 23(1–2): 281–295. Ankara: Türk Kültürü Araştırmaları Enstitüsü.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 2009. How (not) to do phonological typology: The case of pitch-accent. Language Sciences 31(2–3): 213–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019. Positional prominence versus word accent: Is there a difference? In The Study of Word Stress and Accent: Theories, Methods and Data, Rob Goedemans, Jeffrey Heinz & Harry van der Hulst (eds), 60–75. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon. 1999. Exceptional stress-attracting suffixes in Turkish: Representation versus the grammar. In The Prosody-morphology Interface, René Kager, Harry van der Hulst & Wim Zonneveld (eds), 134–187. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kabak, Barış & Revithiadou, Anthi. 2009. From edgemost to lexical stress: Diachronic paths, typology and representation. Linguistic Review 26: 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kabak, Barış. 2016. Refin(d)ing Turkish stress as a multifaceted phenomenon. Second Conference on Central Asian Languages and Linguistics (ConCALL-2), Indiana University.
Kabak, Barış & Vogel, Irene. 2001. The phonological word and stress assignment in Turkish. Phonology 18(3): 315–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Exceptions to stress and harmony: cophonologies or prespecification? In Expecting the Unexpected: Exceptions in Grammar, Horst J. Simon & Heike Wiese (eds), 59–94. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamali Aknoun Azad, Beste. 2011. Topics at the PF Interface of Turkish. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
Korkmaz, Zeynep. 2003. Türkiye Türkçesi Grameri (Şekil Bilgisi) [Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları 827]. Ankara: Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1996. On copular clitic forms in Turkish. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 6: 96–114.Google Scholar
, 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 2008[1996]2. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1961. The Phonology of Modern Standard Turkish [Indiana University publications / Uralic and Altaic Series 6]. Bloomington IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Levi, Susannah V. 2005. Acoustic correlates of lexical accent in Turkish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 35(1): 73–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Minkova, Donka. 2013. A Historical Phonology of English. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Öner, Mustafa. 2016. Genel Türkçede ekleşen yardımcı fiiller: Gramerleşme üzerine tarihî-karşılaştırmalı bir inceleme. XI. Uluslararası Büyük Türk Dili Kurultayı Bildirileri Kitabı, Budapeşte – Macaristan, 26–27 Eylül 2016, 9–14. Bilkent Üniversitesi.Google Scholar
Özçelik, Öner. 2014. Prosodic faithfulness to foot edges: the case of Turkish stress. Phonology 31(2): 229–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon & Dupoux, Emmanuel. 2002. A typological study of stress “deafness”. In Laboratory Phonology 7, Carlos Gussenhoven & Natasha Warner (eds), 203–240. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pycha, Anne. 2006. A duration-based solution to the problem of stress realization in Turkish. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Reports 2.Google Scholar
The Institute of Language Research, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. 2006. Multilingual Spoken Corpus (Turkish) <[URL]> (2 January 2020).
Underhill, Robert. 1976. Turkish Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zadok, Gila & Bat-El, Outi. 2015. Inter-paradigm leveling in Hebrew verbal system. Morphology 25: 271–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar