An Optimality-Theoretic Analysis of Plosive Gemination in Turkish

Öz

This study aims to investigate if the universal principles such as geminate inalterability and integrity are applicable in Turkish geminates by utilizing an optimality theoretic analysis besides exploring dominant constraint groups. Thus, Turkish National Corpus was referred for compiling Turkish words including lexical plosive geminates. Among data composed of 106 words whose transcriptions were based on Spoken Language and Dictionary of Turkish Articulation, the most frequent seven words were selected for analysis depending on geminate consonant groups’ articulatory categories and phonological environments. The results indicated faithfulness constraints enforcing gemination integrity and protection of voicing features like GEM-Integrity and IDENT-IO[voice] dominate markedness constraints such as SHARE[front], AGREE[back], LICENSE([sg], Onset), and *[spread]/CODA controlling frontness / backness agreement of geminate consonants with their phonological environment despite the featural changes seen between geminate pairs.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• plosive gemination in Turkish
• constraint-based analysis of geminates
• lexical gemination
• optimality theory

Destekleyen Kurum

TÜBİTAK

Proje Numarası

BİDEB 2211-A

Etik Beyan

This article is based on an ongoing doctoral thesis entitled “Consonant Clusters and Consonant Shifts in Turkish: An Optimality Theoretic Account” conducted in the Department of English Linguistics at Hacettepe University. The thesis remains unpublished and is expected to be completed by June 2027. Additionally, we accept that this study is an original research article prepared in accordance with scientific ethical rules and scientific method, it has not been published or presented in any other journal, the ethical and scientific responsibility belongs to all authors of the article. After the article is sent to the journal, we accept that at no stage, no author cannot be added and deleted, except for the authors specified in the 'Article Application Form,' authors' order cannot be changed, and that all publishing rights of the article belong to Abant Journal of Social Sciences.

Teşekkür

I, Aybüke Uzunca, would like to acknowledge the financial support provided by TÜBİTAK during my PhD studies through the BİDEB 2211-A scholarship program.

Türkçe'de Patlamalı Ünsüz İkizleşmesine En Uygunluk Kuramı Çerçevesinden Bir Yaklaşım

Öz

Bu çalışmada evrensel olarak kanıtlanmış ünsüz ikizleşmelerinde görülen ikizleşme bütünlüğü ve değişmezliği ilkelerinin Türkçe’de görülen sözcük içi ünsüz ikizleşmesi yapılarında da geçerli olup olmadığı En Uygunluk Kuramı çerçevesinde baskın olan sınırlılıklar tespit edilerek araştırılmıştır. Bu amaçla, Türkçe Ulusal Derleminde sözcük içi ikizleşme yapıları içeren 106 kelime bulunmuş ve bunların Konuşma Dili ve Türkçenin Söyleyiş Sözlüğü kullanılarak sesletim abeceleri çıkartılmıştır. Bu kelimeler arasından sıklık, ikizleşen ünsüzlerin kategorileri ve sesbilimsel çevrelerine bağlı olarak yedi kelime en uygunluk analizi için seçilmiş ve analiz sonucunda Türkçedeki ünsüz ikizleşmelerinin incelik / kalınlık uyumunu hedefleyen SHARE[front], AGREE[back], LICENSE([sg], Onset) ve *[spread]/CODA gibi belirlilik kısıtlılıklarından ziyade baskın olarak derin yapıya çıktı yapısında sadık kalmayı hedefleyen GEM-Integrity ve IDENT-IO[voice] gibi sadakat kısıtlılıkları tarafından yönetildiği sonucuna varılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Türkçe’de patlayıcı ünsüz ikizleşmesi
• Ünsüz ikizleşmesinde kısıtlılık odaklı incelemeler
• Sözcük içi ikizleşme
• en uygunluk kuramı

Destekleyen Kurum

TÜBİTAK

Proje Numarası

BİDEB 2211-A

Etik Beyan

Bu makale hala Hacettepe Üniversitesi İngiliz Dilbilimi Bölümü altında yürütülen “Türkçe’de Ünsüz Kümeleri ve Ünsüz Değişimleri: En Uygunluk Kuramına Dayalı Bir İnceleme” isimli tez çalışmasından üretilmiştir. Tez, henüz yayımlanmamış olup 2027 yılının Haziran ayında bitmesi ön görülmektedir. Ayrıca, bu çalışmanın bilimsel etik kurallara ve bilimsel yönteme uyularak hazırlanan özgün nitelikte bir araştırma makalesi olduğunu, başka hiçbir dergide yayınlanmadığını veya sunulmadığını, etik ve bilimsel açıdan sorumluluğun makalenin tüm yazarlarına ait olduğunu kabul ederiz. Makale dergiye gönderildikten sonra hiçbir aşamada, ‘Makale Başvuru Formu’nda belirtilen yazarların dışında herhangi bir yazarın eklenemeyeceğini, silinemeyeceğini, sıralamada değişiklik yapılamayacağını ve makalenin her türlü yayın hakkının Abant Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi’ne ait olduğunu kabul ederiz.

Teşekkür

Ben, Aybüke Uzunca, doktora çalışmalarım sırasında BİDEB 2211-A burs programı aracılığıyla TÜBİTAK tarafından sağlanan maddi destek için teşekkür etmek isterim.

Kaynakça

1. Abu-Salim, I. M. (1980), Epenthesis and geminate consonants in Palestinian Arabic. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 10(2), s.1–11.
2. Aksan, Y., Aksan, M., Özel, S.A., Yılmazer, H., Bektaş, Y., Mersinli, Ü., Atasoy, G., ve Demirhan, U.U. (2018), Turkish National Corpus (TUD 3.0) [Database]. https://v3.tnc.org.tr/tnc/about-tnc
3. Baković, E. (2000), Harmony, dominance and control (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University). ROA-360.
4. Boz, E. (2022), Türkiye Türkçesi I: Sesbilgisi. Gazi Kitabevi
5. Clements, G. N., and Keyser, S. J. (1983), CV phonology: A generative theory of the syllable. MIT Press.
6. Coşkun, M. V. (2016), Türkçenin ses bilgisi. Bilge Kültür Sanat.
7. Curtis, E. K. J. (2003), Geminate weight: Case studies and formal models (Doctoral dissertation, Washington University).
8. Davis, S. (2011), Geminates, (Eds.: M. van Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. Hume, and K. Rice), The Blackwell companion to phonology, s.837-859, Volume 2, Wiley-Blackwell.

9. Demircan, Ö. (2015), Türkçenin sesdizimi. Der Yayınları.
10. Duanmu, S. (2008), Syllable structure: The limits of variation. Oxford University Press.
11. Dutta, H. (2012), Spirantization and the notion of phonological strength relations in Assamese. Journal of Universal Language, 13, s.71–99.
12. Eker, S. (2002), Contemporary Turkish language. Grafiker.
13. Elfner, E. (2007, May 26), Moraic Faithfulness: Evidence from Blackfoot and English [15th Manchester Phonology. Meeting notes] https://emilyelfner.info.yorku.ca/files/2017/07/elfner_2007_morafaith_mfm_handout.pdf?x88664
14. Ergenç, İ. (2002), Konuşma Dili ve Türkçenin Söyleyiş Sözlüğü. Multilingual
15. Ergenç, İ., and Bekâr, İ. P. (2013), Türkçede ünsüz ikizleşmesi. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1, s.173–191.
16. Ergenç, İ., and Uzun, İ. P. (2020), Türkçenin ses dizgesi (Vol. 2). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
17. Erguvanlı Taylan, E. (2015), The phonology and morphology of Turkish. Boğaziçi University Press.
18. Göksel, A., and Kerslake, C. (2005), Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge.
19. Goldsmith, J. (1990), Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Blackwell.
20. Hayes, B. (1986), Inalterability in CV phonology. Language, 62, s.321–351. https://www.jstor.org/stable/414676
21. Hayes, B. (1989), Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, s.253–306.
22. Itô, J. (1989), A prosodic theory of epenthesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 7, s.217–259.
23. Itô, J., and Mester, A. (1994), Realignment (Unpublished manuscript). University of California, Santa Cruz.
24. Kager, R. (1999), Optimality theory. Cambridge University Press.
25. Kawahara, S. (2007), The emergence of phonetic naturalness (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst).
26. Kılıç, M.A. (2017), The extrinsic and intrinsic allophones of the Turkey Turkish phonemes: the Stratificational transcription model. International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 12 (7), s. 195-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.11354
27. Kiparsky, P. (1994), Remarks on markedness. Paper presented at Trilateral Phonology Weekend II, University of California, Santa Cruz.
28. Kirchner, R. (2000), Geminate inalterability and lenition. Language, 76(3), s.509–545. https://doi.org/10.2307/417134
29. Lahiri, A., and Hankamer, J. (1988), The timing of geminate consonants. Journal of Phonetics, 16(3), s.327– 338. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30506-6
30. Leben, W. R. (1980), A metrical analysis of length. Linguistic Inquiry, 11(3), s.497–509. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178177
31. Lehmann, C. (2020, April 2), Minimal pair. Christian Lehmann. https://www.christianlehmann.eu/ling/ling_meth/ling_analysis/analysis_phon/index.php?open=minimal_pair
32. Lombardi, L. (1990), The nonlinear organization of the affricate. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 13(2), s.257–280.
33. Lombardi, L. (1995), Why place and voice are different: Constraint interaction and featural faithfulness in OT (Unpublished manuscript). University of Maryland.
34. Lombardi, L. (1999), Positional faithfulness and voicing assimilation in Optimality Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 17(2), s.267–302. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4047990
35. McCarthy, J. (2007), From here to human-level AI. Artificial Intelligence, 171(18), s.1174–1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2007.10.009
36. McCarthy, J. J. (2008), Doing Optimality Theory: Applying theory to data. Blackwell.
37. McCarthy, J. (2011), Autosegmental spreading in Optimality Theory. (Eds.: J. Goldsmith, E. Hume and L. Wetzels), Tones and Features: Phonetic and Phonological Perspectives, s.195-222, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110246223.195
38. McCarthy, J. J., and Prince, A. (1995), Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. (Eds.: J. Beckman, L. W. Dickey, and S. Urbanczyk), Papers in Optimality Theory, s. 249–384, UMOPL 18, GLSA.
39. McCarthy, J. J., and Prince, A. (1999), Faithfulness and identity in prosodic morphology. (Eds.: R. Kager, H. van der Hulst, and W. Zonneveld), The prosody-morphology interface, s.218–309, Cambridge University Press.
40. Müller, J. (2001), The phonology and phonetics of word-initial geminates (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University).
41. Noamane, A. (2018), On the integrity of geminates in Moroccan Arabic: An Optimality-Theoretic account. Journal of Applied Language and Culture Studies, 1, s.133–164.
42. Noamane, A. (2020), Consonant gemination in Moroccan Arabic: A constraint-based analysis. Journal of Applied Language and Culture Studies, 3, s.37–68.
43. Pająk, B. (2009), Contextual constraints on geminates: The case of Polish. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35(1), s.269–280.
44. Podesva, R. (2002), Segmental constraints on geminates and their implications for typology, Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, Linguistic Society of America.
45. Prince, A., and Smolensky, P. (1993), Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar (Technical Report No. RuCCS-TR-2). Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.
46. Selen, N. (1979), Söyleyiş sesbilimi akustik sesbilimi ve Türkiye Türkçesi. Türk Dil Kurumu
47. Selkirk, E. (1990), A two-root theory of length. (Eds.: J. Padgett and E. Dunlap), UMass occasional papers in linguistics, s.123-171, Volume 14, GLSA.
48. Shooshtaryzadeh, F. (2014), Phonological disorders in the acquisition of Farsi and Optimality Theory (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Jawaharlal Nehru University.
49. Steriade, D. (1997), Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization (Unpublished manuscript). UCLA.
50. Thurgood, G. (1993), Geminates: A cross-linguistic examination. (Eds.: J. A. Nevis, G. McMenamin, and G. Thurgood), Papers in honor of Frederick H. Brengelman, s.129–139, California State University, Fresno.
51. Tsujimura, N. (2007), An introduction to Japanese linguistics (2nd ed.). Blackwell.
52. Yönel, S. (1974), Türkçenin Yazımsal Fonemleri. Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı - Belleten, s.319-336. https://izlik.org/JA63PG25HH
53. Zoll, C. (1996), Parsing below the segment in a constraint-based framework (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley).
54. Zoll, C. (1997), Conflicting directionality. Phonology, 14(2), s.263–286. doi:10.1017/S0952675797003369
55. Zoll, C. (1998, January), Positional asymmetries and licensing [Expanded handout of a talk]. Rutgers Optimality Archieve. https://roa.rutgers.edu/files/282-0998/roa-282-zoll-4.pdf
56. Zsiga, E. C. (2012), The sounds of language: An introduction to phonetics and phonology. Wiley-Blackwell.