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. 211234
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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Charette, Monik. 1991. Conditions on Phonological Government. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle 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
Charette, Monik & Göksel, Aslı. 1994. Vowel harmony and switching in Turkic languages. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics & Phonetics 4: 29–56.Google Scholar
. 1996. Licensing constraints and vowel harmony in Turkic languages. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics & Phonetics 6: 1–25.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
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
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1985. Morphonology: The dynamics of derivation. Ann Arbor MI: Karoma.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
Göksel, Aslı & Kerslake, Celia. 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle 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
Inkelas, Sharon & Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 1995. Level Ordering and Economy in the Lexical Phonology of Turkish. Language 71(4): 763—793. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan. 1990. `Coda’ Licensing. Phonology 7(2): 301–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Derivations and interfaces. In Frontiers of Phonology: Atoms, Structures, Derivations, Jacques Durand & Francis Katamba (eds), 289–332. London: Longman.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1990. Constituent structure and government in phonology. Phonology 7(2): 193–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1961. The Phonology of Modern Standard Turkish. Bloomington IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Lewis, Geoffrey. 1967. Turkish Grammar. Oxford: OUP.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. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. K/Ø and what phonology can do. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Special Number 1: 87–109.Google Scholar
2014. Alternations: The vipers in our bosom. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Special Number 2: 147–164.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. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
Scheer, Tobias. 2004. A Lateral Theory of Phonology, Vol. I: What is CVCV and Why Should It Be? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sezer, Engin. 1981a. On non-final stress in Turkish. Journal of Turkish Studies 5: 61–69Google 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
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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
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
Zimmer, Karl & Abbott, Barbara. 1978. The k/Ø alternation in Turkish; some experimental evidence for its productivity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 7: 35–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar