Reduction without fusion: Grammaticalization and wordhood in Turkish

Abstract

Despite ample evidence that grammaticalization is accompanied by phonological reduction and ultimately morphological fusion, the latter process is remarkably less common in Turkish – hence its prototypically agglutinating morphology. Since vowel harmony is a means of articulatory reduction, Turkish, as a vowel-harmonic language, therefore shows reduction but (virtually) no fusion. One morphosyntactic consequence of agglutination is that Turkish “suffixes” in many ways continue to behave like free words. To compensate for the resulting lack of clear-cut suffixes, vowel harmony and stress are co-opted to perform affixal functions such as the demarcation of words and encoding of relationships among morphemes. Due to the grammatical function of suffix vowels, however, even grammaticalized items must then remain at least monosyllabic, which constrains the extent of fusion possible. This situation suggests that theories of grammaticalization that do not sufficiently distinguish between reduction and fusion need to be refined. In addition, it highlights the need for language-specific analyses on the diachronic dimension and restores the status of morphological typology as a predictor of certain linguistic variables.

Syllable Complexity and Morphological Synthesis: A Well-Motivated Positive Complexity Correlation Across Subdomains

“…It is important to acknowledge, as discussed in section Grammaticalization: A Diachronic Source for a Positive Complexity Correlation? that the process of grammaticalization does not entail phonological reduction resulting in consonantal affixes, specifically, and may not entail much phonological reduction or morphological fusion at all (Schiering, 2010 ; Zingler, 2018 ). However, we would not necessarily expect a positive relationship between syllable complexity and morphological synthesis, especially at the local level, to emerge from phonologically or phonetically conditioned vowel reduction trajectories operating entirely independently of morphological considerations.…”

“…It is important to note that, unlike the above scenario, grammaticalization may not involve phonological reduction at all, as phonetic erosion in this process depends on a variety of factors, including whether stress has segmental effects in a language (Schiering, 2010 ). Alternatively, grammaticalization can involve the phonetic and phonological reduction of grammatical markers without strong morphological fusion, as in Turkish “suffixes” (Zingler, 2018 ). In languages of East and Mainland Southeast Asia, many morphemes that denote grammatical functions exhibit neither phonological reduction nor morphological fusion (Bisang, 2004 ).…”

The coarticulation-duration relationship in early Quechua speech

“…The explanation for this is partially aerodynamic (e.g., airflow), but there are likely perceptual and information-theoretic explanations. When suffixes are highly reduced compared to stems, speakers can more easily demarcate between them, and identify word boundaries (Zingler 2018). Furthermore, word meanings are likely increasingly predictable as additional suffixes are added and the available semantic space of the word narrows.…”

The coarticulation-duration relationship in early Quechua speech

“…But there are also likely perceptual and information-theoretic explanations. When suffixes are highly reduced compared to stems, speakers can more easily demarcate between suffixes and roots, and identify word boundaries (Zingler 2018). Furthermore, word meanings are likely increasingly predictable as additional suffixes are added and the available semantic space of the word narrows.…”