Sözcüksel Yayılma Kuramı: Türkçeden Örneklerle Ses Değişiminin Kademeli Seyri Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Year 2025, Volume: 19 Issue: 37, 69 - 84, 07.11.2025

Ferhat Karabulut

https://doi.org/10.54316/dilarastirmalari.1715117

Abstract

Bir dildeki ses değişiminin dinamikleri tarihsel dilbilimciler tarafından birbirinden farklı hipotezlerle izah edilir. Temel soru, değişimin neden ve nasıl gerçekleştiği üzerine yoğunlaşır. Tarihsel ses değişimlerinden elde edilen deneysel verileri değerlendiren hipotezler; değişimin nedenli-nedensiz, düzenli-düzensiz, koşullu-koşulsuz ikilemi üzerinde yoğunlaşır. Ses değişimi hipotezleri içinde en eski ve yaygın etkiye sahip olan hipotez Yeni Gramerciler’e (Neogrammairans) aittir. Yirminci yüzyılın ikinci yarısında Sözcüksel Yayılma (Lexical Diffusion) hipotezi ses değişimine yeni bir açıklama getirdi. Labov ise bu iki hipotezi birleştiren karma bir model önerdi. Türk dilbilimsel evriminde fonolojik yenilik ve yayılmanın dinamiklerini daha iyi anlamak için Labovcu bakış açısında olduğu gibi her iki paradigmayı içeren uzlaştırıcı bir model sunmak durumundadır. Bu makalenin amacı; Türkçedeki fonolojik değişime atıfta bulunarak, Sözcüksel Yayılma Teorisini tanıtmak ve uygulanabilirlik derecesini test ermektir.

Keywords

Ses değişimi , Sözcüksel Yayılma Hipotezi , Yeni Gramerci Hipotez , Türkçe

Lexical Diffusion Theory: A Study on the Gradual Course of Sound Change with Examples from Turkish

Abstract

The dynamics of sound change in a language are explained by historical linguists with different hypotheses. The basic question focuses on why and how the change occurred. Hypotheses that evaluate empirical data obtained from historical sound changes focus on the dichotomy of change with or without a reason, regular or irregular, conditional or unconditional. The oldest and most widespread hypothesis among sound change hypotheses belongs to the New Grammarians (Neogrammairans). In the second half of the twentieth century, the Lexical Diffusion hypothesis provides a new explanation for sound change. The Labovian view aims to combine these two hypotheses. In order to better understand the dynamics of phonological innovation and diffusion in Turkish linguistic evolution, it is necessary to present a reconciling model that includes both paradigms, as in the Labovian view. The purpose of this article is; To introduce the Lexical Diffusion Theory and test its applicability by referring to phonological change in Turkish.

Keywords

Sound change , Lexical Diffusion Hypothesis , Neo-Grammarian Hypothesis , Turkish

References

• ANDERSSON, Samuel (2022). “Regularity and lexical diffusion in phonological change”, in the Oxford Handbook of Historical and Diachronic Linguistics (provisional title), Giuseppe Longobardi, March.
• BLOOMFİELD, Leonard (1933). Language. New York: Henry Holt.
• BYBEE, J. (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge University Press.
• CAMPBELL, Lyle (1998). Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• CAMPBELL, Lyle (2013). Historical Linguistics: An Introduction (3rd ed.), Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
• CHEN, Matthew and William S.-Y. WANG (1975). “Sound change: actuation and implementation”. Language. V.51. https://doi.org/10.2307/412871
• CHENG, Chin-Chuan, and William S.-Y. Wang (1977). “Tone Change in Chao-Zhou Chinese: A Study in Lexical Diffusion”, In William S.-Y. Wang (ed.), The Lexicon in Phonological Change. Monographs on Linguistic Analysis 5,The Hague: De Gruyter Mouton.
• ERCİLASUN, Ahmet Bican (1991). Karşılaştırmalı Türk Lehçeleri Sözlüğü I, KBY: Ankara.
• KARAAĞAÇ, Günay (1993). Türkçede Düzensiz Ses Değişmesi Örnekleri, Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, yıl:2, sayı:3, 19-22. s.
• KIPARSKPY, Paul (1971). Historical linguistics. A survey of linguistic science, ed. by W. Dingwall, College Park: University of Maryland.
• KIPARSKPY, Paul (1982). Explanation in phonology. Foris. ISBN 978-90-70176-37-2.
• KIPARSKPY, Paul (1995). “The phonological basis of sound change”. In John Goldsmith (ed.), Handbook of Phonological Theory, Oxford: Blackwell.
• KINGR, Obert (1969). Historical linguistics and generative grammar, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• LABOV, William (1981). “Resolving the Neogrammarian Controversy Language”, Language, Volume 57, Number 2, June.
• LABOV, William (1994). “Principles of Linguistic Change”, Volume 1: Internal Factors, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell, 542-543
• LABOV, William (2001). Principles of linguistic change: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
• LEHMANN, Winfred P. (ed., transl.) (1967). A Reader in Nineteenth-Century Historical IndoEuropean Linguistics, Indiana University Studies in the History and Theory of Linguistics. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press.
• MILROY, L. (1980). Language and Social Networks. Blackwell: London & New York.
• ÖNER, Mustafa (2021). “Türkçe Ses Bilgisi ve Ses Değişmeleri (Sınıflandırma, Çözümleme ve Öğretim Üzerine Yaklaşımlar)”, Turkologu u čast! Zbornik povodom 70. rođendana Ekrema Čauševića, 15. Listopada.
• PAUL, H. (1880). Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Niemeyer.
• PHILLIPS, B. S. (1984). Word frequency and the regularity of sound change: Final –s deletion in English. Language Variation and Change, 6(2), pp.239–256. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000955
• PHILLIPS, Betty S. (2006). “Word Frequency and Lexical Diffusion”, Palgrave Studies in Language History and Language Change, Palgrave Macmillan: London.
• POSTAL, Paul (1968). Aspects of phonological theory. New York: Harper & Row.
• SCHMIDT, J. (1872). Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau.
• SCHUCHARDT, Hugo (1885), Ueber die Lautgesetze – Gegen die Junggrammatiker, Berlin: Oppenheim.Vennemann, Theo, and Terence H. Wilbur, eds., (1972). “Schuchhardt, the Neogrammarians, and the transformational theory of phonological change: Four essays by Hugo Schuchhardt, Theo Vennemann, Terence H. Wilbur”, Linguistische Forschungen 26, Frankfurt am Main (Athenäum).
• TRUDGILL, P. (1974). Sociolinguistics: An Introduction. Penguin:New York & London.
• WANG, William S.-Y. (1969). “Competing Changes as a Cause of Residue”, Language, 45:1. 9-25. https://doi.org/10.2307/411162
• YAMAN, Hanife (2023). “Türkçede “Kuyu” Sözcüğü Üzerine Kültürdilbilimsel Bir İnceleme”. Korkut Ata Türkiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, Sayı 12/ Eylül.