Türkçedeki Alıntı Sözcüklerde Ortadaki ve Sondaki Üçlü (CCC) Ünsüz Kümeleri: Bu Bir Yanılsama mı?

Öz

Sesdizimsel kısıtlamalarına titizlikle uyan ve istisnalara karşı düşük müsamaha gösteren bir dil olarak bilinen Türkçe, sesdizimsel açıdan uygun olmayan yabancı sözcükleri dile aktarırken kendi kısıtlamalarına uygun hale getirmek adına bu sözcükleri çeşitli sesbilimsel işlemlerden geçirmektedir. Türkçe bu kısıtlamalardan biri olarak, sesbilimsel dizide biçimbilimsel anlamda eklemenin varlığını işaret ettiği için basit yapılı biçimlerde üç ünsüzün bitişikliğini (CCC) yasaklamaktadır. Ancak, bandrol, semptom, portföy ve kuvartz gibi Türkçeye uyarlanmış orta ve son CCC kümelerine sahip bir dizi yabancı sözcük hala dilde mevcuttur. Çalışmanın amacı, bu ve benzeri örneklerden yola çıkarak, yabancı dillerden Türkçeye geçen sözcüklerdeki CCC kümelerinin yapısını incelemektir. Çalışmamızda, basit yapılı sözcüklerdeki CCC'nin sadece bir yanılsama olduğu ve sesdizimsel kısıtlamaların ihlal edilmediği iddia edilmektedir. Bu doğrultuda, Türkçenin yabancı sözcükleri dile uyarlarken CCC'den kaçınmak için üç temel strateji geliştirdiği savunulmaktadır. İlk strateji olarak Türkçe /bandɯrol/ sözcüğünde olduğu gibi ilk CC'den sonra bir ünlünün sesletimini önermektedir (i). Türkçenin uyguladığı ikinci strateji ise CCC kümesine sahip bir sözcüğü /semtom/ ve /kuvarz/’da yaptığı gibi sadece CC ile Türkçeye uyarlamaktır (ii). Üçüncü seçenek ise CCC içeren bazı uyarlanmış sözcüklerin zihinsel sözlükte karmaşık bir biçimbilimsel yapıya sahipmiş gibi kaydedilmesidir: port-föy (iii). Çalışmada bu stratejiler yönetim, izin verme ve kurucu yapı analizleri ışığında açıklanacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Türkçede ünsüz kümeleri
• sesbilimsel ve sesletimsel kısıtlamalar
• alıntı sözcük uyarlamaları.

The Medial and Final (CCC) Consonant Clusters in the Loanwords of Turkish: Is It an Illusion?

Abstract

Known as a language which strictly follows its phonotactic constraints showing low tolerance for the exceptions, Turkish employs a variety of phonological processes in the adaptation process of the foreign words into the language so as to make the phonologically improper loan words obey with the phonotactic and phonological constraints of the language. As one of these constraints, Turkish forbids the adjacency of three consonants (CCC) in the simplex forms given that CCC implies morphological complexity on the phonological string. However, there are still a number of foreign words with medial and final CCC clusters adapted to Turkish such as bandrol ‘banderol’, semptom ‘symptom’, portföy ‘portfolio’ and kuvartz ‘quartz’. Based on these observations, the aim of the present study is to investigate the appearance of CCC clusters in Turkish words, which are adapted to Turkish from foreign languages. In this regard, we claim that CCC in simplex words are only an illusion and there is no violation of phonotactic constraints. Accordingly, we argue that Turkish has three basic strategies in order to avoid CCC clusters while adapting the foreign words. As the first strategy, Turkish prefers the realization of a vowel following the initial CC as in /bandɯrol/ (i). The second strategy Turkish applies is to adapt the word which has a CCC cluster with only CC: e.g. /semtom/ and /kuvarz/ (ii). As the third option, certain adapted words with CCC clusters are stored in the mental lexicon as if they had a complex morphological structure port-föy (iii). We will give an account for these strategies in the light of government, licensing and constituent structure analyses.

Keywords

• Consonant clusters in Turkish
• phonological and phonotactic constraints
• loan word adaptation.

Kaynakça

1. Backley, P. (2011). An introduction to element theory. Edinburgh University Press.
2. Balcı, E. (2006). A Government Phonology analysis of Turkish consonants. Ph.D. Dissertation, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul.
3. Baturay, S. (2012). Loan word adaptation and vowel harmony in Turkish: A Government Phonology account. Proceedings of ConSOLE XX, 2012, 1-22.
4. Baturay-Meral, S. (2020) The new template model and the phonology morphology interface in Turkish: The parametric hierarchical system and universal implications. LOT Publications.
5. Baturay-Meral, S. & van Oostendorp, M. (2023). The Mystery of phonological exceptions: the pointed empty nucleus account. Radical: A Journal of Phonology, 3, 280-345.
6. Charette, M. (1991). Conditions on phonological government. Cambridge University Press.
7. Charette, M. & Göksel, A. (1996). Licensing constraints and vowel harmony in Turkic languages. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 6, 1-25. [Also in Cyran, E. (Ed.), Structure and Interpretation: Studies in Phonology (pp. 65-88). Folium, 1998].
8. Clauson, G. (1972). An etymological dictionary of pre-thirteenth century Turkish. At the Clarendon.

9. Clements, G. N. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In J. Kingston & M. Beckman (Eds.) Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: between the Grammar and Physics of Speech (pp. 282-333). Cambridge University Press.
10. Clements, G. N. (1992). The sonority cycle and syllable organization. In W. U. Dressler (Ed.), Phonologica 1988: Proceedings of the 6th International Phonology Meeting (pp. 63–76). Cambridge University Press.
11. Clements, G. N. & Sezer, E. (1982). Vowel and consonant disharmony in Turkish. In (Eds.), H. van der Hulst & N. Smith, The Structure of Phonological Representations (Part II) (pp. 213-255). Foris.
12. Cyran, E. (2003). Complexity scales and licensing strength in phonology. Wydawnictwo KUL.
13. Cyran, E. (2008). Consonant clusters in strong and weak position. In (Eds.), B. de Carvalho, T. Scheer & P. Ségéral, Lenition and Fortition (pp. 447-481). Mouton De Gruyter.
14. Demir, N. & Yılmaz, E. (2011). Türkçe ses bilgisi. [Turkish phonetics]. Anadolu Üniversitesi.
15. Denwood, M. A. (2002). k-ø: morpho-phonology in Turkish. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 12, 89–98.
16. Erguvanlı-Taylan, E. (2013). Morphophonological alternation in Turkish: where phonology and morphology meet. Journal of Turkic Languages, 17(1/2), 66-86.
17. Göksel, A. & Kerslake, C. (2011). Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. Routledge.
18. Harris, J. (1990). Segmental complexity and phonological government. Phonology 7, 255-300.
19. Harris, J. (1994). English sound structure. Blackwell. Hatipoğlu, V. (1981). Türk dilinde i̇kileme. TDK.
20. Hooper, J. B. (1972). The syllable in phonological theory. Language 48, 525–540.
21. van der Hulst, H. & van de Weijer, J. M. (1991). Topics in Turkish phonology. In (Eds.), H. E. Boeschoten & L. T. Verhoeven, Turkish Linguistics Today (pp. 11-59). Brill.
22. Inkelas, S. & Orgun, C. O. (1994). Level economy, derived environment effects and the treatment of exceptions. In (Ed.) R. Wiese, Recent Developments in Lexical Phonology (pp. 63-90). Henrich Heine Universitat Publications.
23. İskender, H. İ. (2008). Vowel-zero alternation in Turkish. M.A. Thesis, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul.
24. Kaye, J. (1987). Government in phonology: The case of Moroccan Arabic. The Linguistic Review 6, 131–160.
25. Kaye, J. (1989). Phonology: A cognitive view. Erlbaum.
26. Kaye, J. (1990). Coda licensing. Phonology Yearbook 7, 301-330.
27. Kaye, J. (1992). Do you believe in magic? The story of s+C sequences. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics 2, 293–313.
28. Kaye, J. (1995). Derivation and Interfaces. In J. Durand & F. Katamba (Eds.), Frontiers of Phonology (pp. 289-332). Longman.
29. Kaye, J. & Lowenstamm, J. (1981). Syllable structure and markedness theory. In A. Belletti, L. Brandi & L. Rizzi (Eds.), Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar (pp. 287-315). Scuola Normale Superiore.
30. Kaye, J., Lowenstamm, J. & Vergnaud, R. (1990). Constituent structure and government in phonology. Phonology 7, 193-231.
31. Kenstowicz, M. (1994). Phonology in Generative Grammar. Blackwell.
32. Kopkallı, H. (1993). A phonetic and phonological analysis of final devoicing in Turkish. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan, USA.
33. Kornfilt, J. (2013). Turkish. Routledge.
34. Lees, R. B. (1961). The phonology of modern standard Turkish. Indiana University Publications.
35. Lewis, G. (1967). Turkish grammar. Oxford University Press.
36. Nişanyan, S. (2003). Sözlerin soyağaсı – Çağdaş Türkçenin etimolojik sözlüğü. [Genealogy of words - etymological dictionary of modern Turkish]. Adam.
37. Nuhbalaoğlu, D. (2010). On the role of empty onsets in Turkish: A Government Phonology approach. M. A. Thesis, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul.
38. Özsoy, A. S. (2004). Türkçenin yapısı. [The structure of Turkish]. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi.
39. Pinker, S. & Ullman, M. T. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(11), 456-463.
40. Polgárdi, K. (2006). Vowel harmony: An account in terms of government and optimality. LOT Publications.
41. Sezer, E. (1986). An autosegmental analysis of compensatory lengthening in Turkish. In (Eds.), L. Wetzels & E. Sezer, Studies in Compensatory Lengthening (pp. 227-250). Foris.
42. Scheer, T. (2004). A lateral theory of phonology: What is CVCV, and why should it be? Mouton de Gruyter.
43. TDK Online Sesli Sözlük [Turkish Language Association Online Audio Dictionary] https://sozluk.gov.tr/
44. van de Weijer, J. M. (1991). Towards a theory of phonological complexity. In Frank Drijkoningen & Ans van Kemenade (Eds.), Linguistics in The Netherlands 1991 (pp. 141-150). John Benjamins.
45. Winnick, B. R. (1972). The phonetics and phonology of Istanbul Turkish. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of London, UK.
46. Underhill, R. (1976). Turkish grammar. MIT Press.
47. Yavas, M. (1978). Borrowing and its implications for Turkish phonology. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 3, 34–44.
48. Yavaş, M. (1980). Borrowing and its implications for Turkish phonology. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Kansas, Kansas.