|
|
 E-mail this message to a friend
|
|
Title:
|
A Phonetic and Phonological Analysis of Final Devoicing in Turkish
|
|
Author:
|
Handan Kopkalli
|
|
Email:
|
click here to access email
|
|
Degree Awarded:
|
University of Michigan
, Department of Linguistics
|
|
Degree Date:
|
1993
|
|
Linguistic Subfield(s):
|
Phonetics
Phonology
|
|
Subject Language(s):
|
Turkish
|
|
Director(s):
|
Patrice Beddor
|
|
|
Abstract:
|
|
This research investigates the phonetic realization of the phonological process of final devoicing in Turkish. Contrary to the traditional assumption that final devoicing is a neutralizing process, several previous phonetic studies have claimed that a distinction is maintained in languages such as German, Polish, Russian, and Catalan. This phonetic claim is controversial, as such results may be influenced by orthographic or semantic factors. Turkish avoids these difficulties because Turkish orthography does not preserve the underlying contrast, and the Turkish lexicon does not generally contain relevant minimal pairs. Whether or not such rules are neutralizing has potential implications for phonological theory, as the phonological component may need to derive a three-way voicing contrast among final voiced, devoiced (underlyingly voiced, and voiceless obstruents. Within current theory, Underspecification Theory is most likely to derive a three-way surface voicing distinction, yet due to Turkish suffixation phenomenon, such analyses are highly complex and counterintuitive. However, the phonology has to be able to account for a three-way surface voicing if devoiced non-continuants are phonetically distinct from voiceless ones.
To determine the neutralizing status of final devoicing in Turkish, acoustic and perceptual tests were conducted. Although the focus of this study was on word-final stops, intervocalic stops were first investigated to determine the acoustic correlates of the voicing contrast in Turkish stops. The four temporal parameters measured in this study were significantly different for voiced and voiceless intervocalic stops. The same four parameters which were measured for final stops showed no significant differences between devoiced and voiceless stops in word-final position.
To rule out the possibility that other acoustic (e.g., spectral) differences might be present and therefore cue the voicing distinction, identification and discrimination tests involving excised syllables with final devoiced or voiceless stops were presented to Turkish listeners. The results indicated that Turkish listeners were not able to identify or discriminate the underlying voicing contrast. The lack of acoustic or perceptual distinction between devoiced and voiceless stops suggests that final devoicing is neutralizing in Turkish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page Updated: 25-Nov-2009
Please report any bad links or misclassified data
LINGUIST Homepage | Read
LINGUIST | Contact us
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.
|
|
