Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T15:05:07.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phonetics and phonology of soft ‘g’ in Turkish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 August 2017

Özlem Ünal-Logacev ,
Marzena Żygis  and
Susanne Fuchs
Özlem Ünal-Logacev
Affiliation:
İstanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, [email protected]
Marzena Żygis
Affiliation:
Leibniz-Centre General Linguistics, Berlin, [email protected]
Susanne Fuchs
Affiliation:
Leibniz-Centre General Linguistics, Berlin, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study aims to approach soft ‘g’, a highly disputable sound in Turkish phonetics and phonology, from a multidimensional perspective by (i) analysing its historical development, (ii) investigating its distribution in a dictionary of Modern Turkish, and (iii) studying its acoustic realization. In the Ottoman script soft ‘g’ was represented with two letters: <غ>, pronounced [ɣ], was used in the context of preceding back vowels Vback_(Vback, C); <گ>, pronounced [j], was used in the context of preceding front vowels Vfront_(Vfront, C). In 1928, due to a reform in orthography, these two vocalic contexts were obscured by replacing both <غ> and <گ> with <ğ>. Our investigation of the distribution of /ğ/ in the native vocabulary of Modern Turkish reveals that /ğ/ is in complementary distribution with /ɡ/: /ğ/ appears word-finally and word-medially (i.e. syllable-finally Vğ.C and intervocalically V.ğV), while /ɡ/ is found word-initially and word-medially (i.e. syllable-initially when following a consonant C.ğV). However, in loan words which are well assimilated into Turkish by means of phono-morphological rules the complementary distribution is not attested. Moreover, the behavior of soft ‘g’ in phonological processes strongly suggests that the sound is part of the phonemic inventory of Turkish. Finally, the results of our two acoustic experiments show that /ğ/ is phonetically manifested in the lengthening of the preceding vowel (/Vğ/ → [Vː]) independently of the surrounding vowel environment, word position, and participant age. In addition, the results indicate that speakers of Modern Turkish do not realize acoustic properties of a velar gesture.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , August 2019 , pp. 183 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © International Phonetic Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin, Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steven. 2013. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using eigen and S4. R package.Google Scholar
Bhat, Darbhe N. S. 1978. A general study of palatalisation. In Greenberg, Joseph H., Ferguson, Charles A. & Moravcsik, Edith A. (eds.), Universals of human language, 47–92. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2013. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (version 5.3.53). http://www.praat.org/ (accessed 4 October 2013).Google Scholar
Sözlük, Büyük Türkçe. 2010. Türk Dil Kurumu [Online Turkish dictionary]. http://www.tdk.gov.tr/index.php?option=com_bts (accessed February 2010).Google Scholar
Clements, George N. & Keyser, Samuel J.. 1983. CV phonology: A generative theory of the syllable. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1997. Turkish phonology. In Kaye, Alan S. (ed.), Phonologies of Asia and Africa 2, 883–898. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
de Jong, Kenneth. 1995. The supraglottal articulation of prominence in English: Linguistic stress as localized hyperarticulation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97, 491–504.Google Scholar
Demircan, Ömer. 2002. Türkçenin Ses Dizimi [The phonology of Turkish]. İstanbul: Der Yayınları.Google Scholar
Ergin, Muharrem. 2013. Türk Dil Bilgisi [Turkish grammar]. İstanbul: Bayrak Yayınları.Google Scholar
Gallego, Joaquin R. 1996. Gestural organization in Spanish: An experimental study of spirantisation and aspiration. Ph.D. dissertation: University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew & Hill, Jennifer. 2007. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Geng, Christian. 2010. A cross-linguistic study on the phonetics of dorsal obstruents. Ph.D. dissertation: Humboldt University at Berlin.Google Scholar
Göksel, Aslı & Kerslake, Celia. 2005. Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hall, T. A., Hamann, Silke & Żygis, Marzena. 2006. The phonetic motivation for phonological stop assibilation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 36, 59–81.Google Scholar
Hall, T. A. & Żygis, Marzena. 2010. An overview of the phonology of obstruents. In Fuchs, Susanne, Toda, Martine & Żygis, Marzena (eds.), Turbulent sounds:An interdisciplinary guide, 1–37. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Clements, George N.. 1983. Problem book in phonology. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge. 2011. Turkish vowel epenthesis. In Erguvanlı-Taylan, Eser & Rona, Bengisu (eds.), Puzzles of languages: Essays in honour of Karl Zimmer, 55–69. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Kabak, Barış. 2007. Hiatus resolution in Turkish: An underspecification account. Lingua 117, 1378–1411.Google Scholar
Karaağaç, Günay. 2013. Türkçenin Dil Bilgisi [A grammar of Turkish]. Ankara: Akçağ.Google Scholar
Kılıç, Mehmet. A. & Erdem, Mevlüt. 2013. Türkiye Türkçesindeki ‘yumuşak g’ ünsüzünün fonetik analizi [A phonetic analysis of ‘yumusak g’ in Standard Modern Turkish]. VI. Uluslararası Türk Dili Kurultayı; [The Sixth International Turkish Language Congress], 2809–2826.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert M. 2001. An effort-based approach to consonant lenition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kısıklı, Emine. 2012. Harf devrimi sonrasında yeni harflerin öğretiminde usul ve yöntemler [Methods in the teaching of the alphabet after the ortographic revolution]. Türkoloji sempozyumu [Turkology symposium], Adana, 680–692.Google Scholar
Konrot, Ahmet. 1981. A new phoneme of ‘voiced velar stop erosion’: Phonetic explanation for the phonological status of the so-called ‘soft g’ in Turkish. University of Essex Department of Language and Linguistics Occasional Papers 34, 12–24.Google Scholar
Kopkallı-Yavuz, Handan. 2010. The sound inventory of Turkish: Consonants and vowels. In Yavaş, Mehmet & Topbaş, Seyhun (eds.), Communication disorders in Turkish, 26–46. London: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Kopkallı-Yavuz, Handan, Koçak, Ismail, Topbaş, Seyhun & Cangökçe-Yaşar, Özlem. 2008. “Soft ‘g’” in Turkish: A phonetic analysis. Poster presented at the 12th Congress of the International Clinical Phonetics and Linguistics Association, Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish: Descriptive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Krakow, Rena A. 1999. Physiological organization of syllables: A review. Journal of Phonetics 27 (1), 23–54.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Brockhoff, Per Brunn & Christensen, Rune Haubo Bojesen. 2014. lmerTest: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest (R package version 2.0-20).Google Scholar
Lass, Roger & Anderson, John M.. 1975. Old English phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lavoie, Lisa M. 2001. Consonant strength: Phonological patterns and phonetic manifestation. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Lewis, Geoffrey. 2000. Turkish grammar, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Löfqvist, Anders & Gracco, Vincent L.. 1994. Tongue body kinematics in velar stop production: Influences of consonant voicing and vowel context. Phonetica 51, 52–67.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 1997. Phonetic universals. In Hardcastle, William J. & Laver, John (eds), Handbook of phonetic science, 619–639. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mooshammer, Christine, Hoole, Philip & Kühnert, Barbara. 1995. On loops. Journal of Phonetics 23, 3–21.Google Scholar
Nakipoğlu-Demiralp, Mine, Üntak, Aslı & Furman, Reyhan. 2016. Acquisition of morphophonemic alternations and the role of frequency. In Güven, Mine, Akar, Didar, Öztürk, Balkız & Kelepir, Meltem (eds.), Exploring the Turkish linguistic landscape: Essays in honor of Eser Erguvanlı-Taylan, 157–182. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nivens, Richard. 1992. A lexical phonology of West Tarangan. In Burquest, Donald A. & Laidig, Wyn D. (eds.), Phonological studies in four languages of Maluku, 127–227. Arlington, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics & University of Texas at Arlington Publications in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Oftedal, Magne. 1985. Lenition in Celtic and in Insular Spanish: The decondary voicing of stops in Gran Canaria. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Ohala, John. J. 1983. The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. In MacNeilage, Peter F. (eds.), The production of speech, 189–216. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Pinheiro, José C. & Bates, Douglas. 2000. Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Poppe, Nicholas. 1963. Tatar manual: A descriptive grammar and texts with a Tatar–English glossary (Uralic and Altaic Series 25). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Redhouse, James W. 1884. A simplified grammar of the Ottoman-Turkish language. London: Trubner & Co.Google Scholar
Reubold, Ulrich, Harrington, Jonathan & Kleber, Felicitas. 2010. Vocal aging effects on f0 and the first formant: A longitudinal analysis in adult speakers. Speech Communication 52, 638–651.Google Scholar
Selen, Nevin. 1979. Söyleyiş Sesbilimi, Akustik Sesbilim ve Türkiye Türkçesi [Articulatory phonology, acoustic phonology and Standard Modern Turkish]. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. 1998. Acoustic phonetics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Teodorsson, Sven T. 1997. The phonology of Ptolemaic Koine. Göteberg: Acya Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Underhill, Robert. 1976. Turkish grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vural, Hanifi & Böler, Tuncay. 2012. Ses ve Şekil Bilgisi [Phonology and morphology]. İstanbul: Kesit Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
Winkler, Ralf. 2009. Merkmale junger und alter Stimmen: Analyse ausgewählter Parameter im Kontext von Wahrnehmung und Klassifikation (Mündliche Kommunikation, vol. 6). Berlin: Logos. [Published Ph.D. dissertation]Google Scholar
Zimmer, Karl & Orgun, Orhan. 1999. Turkish. In IPA (ed.), Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet, 154–158. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar