SOCIOECONOMIC INFLUENCES ON TURKISH PRONUNCIATION: A SOCIOLINGUISTIC EXPLORATION OF THE RHOTIC 'R' SOUND

Year 2025, Volume: 8 Issue: 3, 1531 - 1547, 30.09.2025

Suleyman Kasap

https://doi.org/10.37999/udekad.1723522

Abstract

Abstract
This sociolinguistic study explores the intricate relationship between socioeconomic factors and linguistic variation in Turkish pronunciation, focusing specifically on the continuous tense affix -yor. Employing a methodology inspired by Labov, we utilized a stratified sampling technique to select 65 participants from diverse occupational backgrounds, education levels, ages, and income groups in the Van, Türkiye region, capturing the linguistic diversity within the Turkish-speaking community. Through unstructured personal interviews, participants were encouraged to use natural language, enabling the categorization of pronunciation patterns as either rhotic or non-rhotic based on their emphasis on the '-yor' sound. Our analysis, incorporating phonetic transcription and quantitative methods akin to Labov's sociolinguistic analyses, reveals a significant correlation between socioeconomic status and pronunciation tendencies. Notably, participants with higher income and university education tend to emphasize the '-yor' sound, while those with lower income and primary school education often omit it. This research not only contributes to understanding linguistic variation in Turkish but also underscores the cultural significance of language choices, reflecting broader social and economic contexts in Turkish society. By focusing on the continuous tense affix -yor, this study sheds light on the dynamic nature of language variation in Turkish and sets the stage for future studies on the social and language differences in Turkish

Keywords

Turkish , Pronunciation , Socioeconomic Factors

Ethical Statement

Ethical approval for this study, titled "Socioeconomic Influences On Turkish Pronunciation: A Sociolinguistic Exploration Of The Rhotic 'R' Sound," was granted by the Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee at Van Yüzüncü Yıl University (Decision No. 2025/03-27, dated February 7, 2025), confirming compliance with relevant ethical standards and Turkish legal frameworks for research involving human participants.

TÜRKÇE TELAFFUZUNDA SOSYOEKONOMIK ETKILER: RÖTIK 'R' SESI ÜZERINE SOSYODILBILIMSEL BIR ARAŞTIRMA

Abstract

Bu sosyodilbilimsel çalışma, Türkçedeki süreklilik zaman eki "-yor" üzerinden, sosyoekonomik faktörlerle dilsel çeşitlilik arasındaki karmaşık ilişkiyi incelemektedir. Labov’un metodolojisinden esinlenen bu araştırmada, Van, Türkiye bölgesinden farklı meslek gruplarına, eğitim seviyelerine, yaş aralıklarına ve gelir düzeylerine sahip 65 katılımcı, tabakalı örnekleme yöntemiyle seçilerek Türkçe konuşan topluluk içindeki dilsel çeşitlilik kaydedilmiştir. Yapılandırılmamış kişisel görüşmelerde katılımcıların doğal konuşma dilini kullanmaları teşvik edilmiş ve "-yor" ekinin telaffuzundaki vurgu düzeyine göre konuşma biçimleri "rotik" (vurgulu) ve "rotik olmayan" (vurgusuz) şeklinde kategorize edilmiştir.

Labov’un sosyodilbilimsel analizlerine benzer şekilde, fonetik transkripsiyon ve nicel yöntemlerle yapılan incelemeler, sosyoekonomik statü ile telaffuz eğilimleri arasında anlamlı bir ilişki olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Özellikle yüksek gelirli ve üniversite eğitimli katılımcıların "-yor" ekini belirgin şekilde vurguladığı, düşük gelirli ve ilkokul mezunu katılımcıların ise bu eki genellikle atladığı gözlemlenmiştir. Bu araştırma, yalnızca Türkçedeki dilsel çeşitliliği anlamaya katkı sağlamakla kalmamış, aynı zamanda dil tercihlerinin kültürel önemini vurgulayarak Türk toplumundaki sosyal ve ekonomik bağlamları yansıtmıştır.

"-yor" eki özelinde yürütülen bu çalışma, Türkçedeki dilsel değişkenliğin dinamik yapısını aydınlatmakta ve gelecekte Türkçedeki sosyal-dilsel farklılıklara yönelik araştırmalar için zemin hazırlamaktadır.

Keywords

Sosyodilbilim , Türkçe , Telaffuz , Sosyoekonomik Faktörler

References

• Aksu-Koç, A. & Slobin, D. (1985). The acquisition of Turkish. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (pp. 839–878). Erlbaum.
• Börtlü, G. (2023). Phonetic properties of Turkish rhotics. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2022 (2), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.1018135
• Boyce, S., Smith, A. J. & Smith, M. E. (2016). The rhotic variable in an urban British English dialect: Style-shifting and footedness in Liverpool English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20 (4), 507–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12196
• Clauson, G. (1972). An etymological dictionary of pre-thirteenth-century Turkish. Oxford University Press.
• Coupland, N., & Bishop, H. (2020). Ideologised values for British accents. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 24 (1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12376
• Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Demizeren, M. (2012). The origin and development of non-rhotic accents. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 6 (2), 157-173.
• Derwing, T. (2016). The three P's of ESL in the workplace: Proficiency, pronunciation and pragmatics. Contact, 42 (Research Symposium Issue), 10–20.
• Díaz-Campos, M. (2006). La adquisición de la estructura fonológica y de la variación sociolingüística: Un análisis cuantitativo del debilitamiento consonántico en el habla de niños caraqueños. In Estudios lingüísticos (pp. 45–68). Universidad Central de Venezuela.
• D’Introno, F., Rojas, N. & Sosa, J. M. (1979). Estudio sociolingüístico de las líquidas en posición final de sílaba y final de palabra en el español de Caracas. Boletín de la Academia Puertorriqueña de la Lengua Española, 7, 59-100.
• Doğan, M. (2011). Regional dialects in Turkish: Sociolinguistic perspectives. Turkish Studies Journal, 6 (2), 34-58. Eckert, P. (2000). Linguistic variation as social practice: The linguistic construction of identity in Belten High. Blackwell.
• Eckert, P. (2012). Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in the high school. Teachers College Press.
• Eckert, P. (2018). Meaning and linguistic variation: The third wave in sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press.
• Eckert, P. & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and gender. Cambridge University Press.
• Ergenç, İ. & Uzun, İ. P. (2020). Türkçenin ses dizgesi [The sound system of Turkish] (2nd ed.). Seçkin Yayınları.
• Esling, J. H. (2005). The handbook of phonetic sciences. Blackwell Publishing.
• Fishman, J. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theory and practice of assistance to threatened languages. Multilingual Matters.
• Giles, H. & Powesland, P. F. (1975). Speech style and social evaluation. Academic Press.
• Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203340769
• Holmes, J. (2008). An introduction to sociolinguistics (3rd ed.). Pearson.
• Johanson, L. (1998). The structure of Turkic languages. In L. Johanson & É. Á. Csató (Eds.), The Turkic languages (pp. 30–66). Routledge.
• Jones, D. (2006). An outline of English phonetics. Routledge. (Original work published 1918)
• Kachru, B. B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions, and models of non-native Englishes. Pergamon.
• Kasap, S. (2018). The effect of age and reading on rhoticity in Kurdish. TURAN-SAM, 37, 97–101.
• Korkmaz, Z. (2002). Gramer terimleri sözlüğü [Dictionary of grammatical terms]. Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
• Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. Routledge.
• Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Labov, W. (1994). Principles of linguistic change: Volume 1: Internal factors. Blackwell.
• Labov, W. (2001). Principles of linguistic change: Social factors. Blackwell.
• Labov, W. (2006). The social stratification of English in New York City (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Ladefoged, P. (1975). A phonetic study of West African languages. Cambridge University Press.
• Milroy, L. (1987). Language and social networks (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
• Nichols, S. (2016). An acoustic study of the Turkish rhotic [Conference poster]. R-atics5 Conference, Leeuwarden, Netherlands.
• Rahymov, S. (2014). A variationist sociolinguistic study of /r/ deletion in Turkish [Master’s thesis]. University of Texas at El Paso. https://digitalcommons.utep.edu/open_etd/1708
• Ruiz-Sánchez, C. (2008). Deletion of /r/ in Andalusian Spanish: A usage-based approach. In Proceedings of NWAV 2006 (pp. 1–12). The Ohio State University.
• Ruiz-Sánchez, C. (2009). The variable behavior of /r/ in syllable-final and word-final position in the Spanish variety of Alcala de Guadaira (Seville): The role of lexical frequency. Lambert Academic Publishing.
• Selen, N. (1979). Söyleyiş sesbilimi, akustik sesbilim ve Türkiye Türkçesi. Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
• Taylan, E. E. (2015). The phonology and morphology of Turkish. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Trudgill, P. (2003). The Norfolk dialect. Poppyland.
• Trudgill, P. (2004). Sociolinguistics: An introduction to language and society (4th ed.). Penguin Books.
• Trudgill, P. (2004). Linguistic and social typology: The Austronesian migrations and phoneme inventories. Linguistic Typology, 8 (3), 305-320. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2004.8.3.305
• Trudgill, P. (2009). Contact and sociolinguistic typology. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Handbook of language contact (pp. 299-319). Blackwell.
• Wang, W. S-Y. (1967). Phonological features of tone. International Journal of American Linguistics, 33 (2), 93-105.
• Wells, J. (1982). Accents of English: Volume 1 – An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
• Yavuz, H. (2011). Turkish consonants. In Z. Balpınar (Ed.) Turkish Phonology and Morphology (pp. 14-30). Eskişehir: Anadolu University.