Which phonology?

Year 2024, Volume: 20 Issue: 2, 91 - 104, 25.07.2024

Göktuğ Börtlü

Abstract

In classical approaches, segments below the skeleton in autosegmental representation have phonetic properties such as [+labial] or [+palatal]. These segments which belong to phonology should not have phonetic correlates according to subtance-free phonology. Therefore, items below the skeleton can be represented with substance-free and abstract symbols such as α, β, γ. Phonetic correlates are associated post-phonologically at the phonology-phonetics interface. That primes below the skeleton are associated with phonetic correlates at the phonology-phonetics interface is completely arbitrary. In this regard, it can be concluded that items below the skeleton are phonologically meaningless. On the contrary, items at and above the skeleton are phonologically meaningful and have stable behavior cross-linguistically. The argument that there are two phonologies which are comprised of units below the skeleton and items at and above the skeleton underlies this paper.

Keywords

Substance-free Phonology, Phonology-phonetics interface, Post-phonological spell-out, Two phonologies

Hangi sesbilim?

Abstract

Geleneksel yaklaşımlarda, özerkparçasal gösterimde çatının altındaki parçaların [+dudaksıl] ya da [+damaksıl] gibi sesbilgisel özellikleri bulunmaktadır. Varlıksız Sesbilimde, sesbilime ait olan bu parçaların sesbilgisel bağıntılarının olmaması gerektiğini savunulmaktadır. Dolayısıyla çatının altındaki ögeler α, β, γ gibi varlıksız ve soyut simgelerle gösterilebilmektedir. Sesbilgisel bağıntılar, artsesbilimsel olarak sesbilim-sesbilgisi arakesitinde atanmaktadır. Çatının altındaki asalların, sesbilim-sesbilgisi arakesitinde sesbilgisel bağıntılarla ilişkilendirilmeleri tamamıyla nedensizdir. Bu bağlamda çatının altındaki birimlerin sesbilimsel yönden anlamsız olduğu sonucuna varılmaktadır. Tam tersine, çatıdaki ve çatının üstündeki birimler, sesbilimsel yönden anlamlıdır ve dillerarası tutarlı davranışları bulunmaktadır. Çatının altındaki birimler ile çatıdaki ve çatının üzerindeki ögelerin oluşturduğu iki sesbilim savı bu yazının temelini oluşturmaktadır.

Keywords

Varlıksız Sesbilim, Sesbilim-sesbilgisi arakesiti, Artsesbilimsel dağıtım, İki sesbilim

References

• Baturay Meral, S. (2020). The new template model and the phonology-morphology interface in Turkish: The parametric hierarchical system and universal implications [Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi]. Radboud University Nijmegen.
• Blaho, S. (2008). The syntax of phonology: A radically subtance-free approach [Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi]. University of Tromsø.
• Boersma, P. (1998). Functional phonology: Formalizing the interaction between articulatory and perceptual drives. Holland Academic Graphics.
• Boersma, P., Escudero, P. ve Hayes, R. (2003). Learning abstract phonological from auditory phonetic categories: An integrated model for the acquisition of language-specific sound categories. M.-J. Sole, D. Recasens ve J. Romero (Yay. haz.), Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences içinde (ss. 1013–1016).
• Börtlü, G. (2022). Sesbilim-sesbilgisi arakesitinden bir örnek: Rotikler. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 33(2), 71–85.
• Chabot, A. (2021). Possible and impossible languages: Naturalness, third factors, and substance-free phonology in the light of crazy rules [Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi]. Université Côte d’Azur.
• Chen, M. (1970). Vowel length variation as a function of the voicing of the consonant environment. Phonetica, 22(3), 129–159.
• Chomsky, N. ve Halle, M. (1965). Some controversial questions in phonological theory. Journal of Linguistics, 1(2), 97–138.
• Chomsky, N. ve Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. MIT Press.
• Clements, G. N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook, 2, 225–252.
• de Saussure, F. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Payot.
• Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of the mind. An essay on faculty psychology. MIT-Bradford.
• Hale, M. ve Reiss, C. (2000a). Phonology as cognition. N. Burton-Roberts, P. Carr ve G. Docherty (Yay. haz.), Phonological knowledge: Conceptual and empirical issues içinde (ss. 161–184). Oxford University Press.
• Hale, M. ve Reiss, C. (2000b). “Substance abuse” and “dysfunctionalism”: Current trends in phonology. Linguistic Inquiry, 31(1), 157–169.
• Hale, M. ve Reiss, C. (2008). The phonological enterprise. Oxford University Press.
• Hyman, L. (2006). Word-prosodic typology. Phonology, 23(2), 225–257.
• Iosad, P. (2017). A substance-free framework for phonology. An analysis of the Breton dialect of Bothoa. Edinburgh University Press.
• Jakobson, R. (1939). Observations sur le classement phonologique des consonnes. E. Blancquaert ve W. Pée (Yay. haz.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress of Phonetic Sciences içinde (ss. 273–279). Laboratory of Phonetics at the University of Ghent.
• Jakobson, R. (1949). On the identification of phonemic entities. Volume I: Phonological studies içinde (ss. 418–425). De Gruyter Mouton.
• Jakobson, R., Fant, G. ve Halle, M. (1952). Preliminaries to speech analysis: The distinctive features and their correlates. MIT Press.
• Kaye, J., Lowenstamm, J. ve Vergnaud, J.‑R. (1990). Constituent structure and government in phonology. Phonology Yearbook, 7, 193–231.
• Kiparsky, P. (1968). How abstract is phonology? O. Fujimura (Yay. haz.), Three dimensions of linguistic theory içinde (ss. 5–56). TEC.
• Klatt, D. H. (1973). Interaction between two factors that influence vowel duration. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54, 1102–1104.
• Mielke, J. (2008). The emergence of distinctive features. Oxford University Press.
• Odden, D. (2006). Phonology ex nihilo [Konferans sunumu]. Phonology Get-Together, Universitetet i Tromsø.
• Odden, D. (2022). Radical substance-free phonology and feature learning. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 67(4), 500–551.
• Reiss, C. (2008). Constraining the learning path without constraints, or the OCP and NOBANANA. B. Vaux ve A. Nevins (Yay. haz.), Rules, constraints, and phonological phenomena içinde (ss. 252–301). Oxford University Press.
• Reiss, C. (2018). Substance free phonology. S.J. Hannahs ve A. R.K. Bosch (Yay. haz.), The Routledge handbook of phonological theory içinde (ss. 425–452). Routledge.
• Sağıroğlu, R. (2017). A stylistic analysis of “How to Be an Other Woman” by Lorrie Moore. Ulakbilge, 5(15), 1541–1560.
• Sapir, E. (1925). Sound patterns in language. Language, 1(2), 37–51.
• Sapir, E. (1933). La réalité psychologique des phonèmes. Journal de psychologie normale et pathologique, 30, 247–265.
• Scheer, T. (2008). Why the Prosodic Hierarchy is a diacritic and why the Interface must be Direct. J. Hartmann, V. Hegedus ve H. van Riemsdijk (Yay. haz.), Sounds of silence: Empty elements in syntax and phonology içinde (ss. 145–192). Elsevier.
• Scheer, T. (2015). How diachronic is synchronic grammar? Crazy rules, regularity and naturalness. P. Honeybone ve J. C. Salmons (Yay. haz.), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology içinde (ss. 313–336). Oxford University Press.
• Scheer, T. (2017). Voice-induced vowel lengthening. Papers in Historical Phonology, 2, 116–151.
• Scheer, T. (2019). Phonetic arbitrariness: A cartography. Phonological Studies, 22, 105–118.
• Scheer, T. ve Börtlü, G. (2024). Soft g in Turkish: two types and x-slots [Konferans sunumu]. The 21st Old World Conference in Phonology (OCP21), Leipzig, Almanya.
• Scheer, T. ve Kula, N. C. (2018). Government phonology: Element theory, conceptual issues and introduction. S. J. Hannahs ve A. Bosch (Yay. haz.), The Routledge Handbook of Phonological Theory içinde (ss. 226–261). Routledge.
• Van der Hulst, H. (2013). The discoverers of the phoneme. K. Allen (Yay. haz.), The Oxford handbook of the history of linguistics içinde (ss. 167–191). Oxford University Press.
• Volenec, V. ve Reiss, C. (2017). Cognitive phonetics: The transduction of distinctive features at the phonology–phonetics interface. Biolinguistics, 11, 251–294.
• Volenec, V. ve Reiss, C. (2020). Formal generative phonology. Radical: A Journal of Phonology, 2, 1–148.