Abstract knowledge of emphatic reduplication in Turkish

Abstract

This study investigated whether native speakers of Turkish have abstract knowledge regarding the principles guiding the selection of appropriate reduplicative forms in emphatic reduplication in Turkish. 14 native speakers of Turkish completed the study. The participants were asked to reduplicate 48 non-words in 4 experimental conditions where the number of segments and the phonological features of the word forms were manipulated. The 4 experimental conditions had VCV (e.g. /ukɑ/), CVC (e.g. /lɔt/), CVCV (e.g. /gεʒi/), and VCCV (e.g. /ɔhfɑ/) sequences. Each condition included 12 items. In each of the CVC, CVCV, and VCCV conditions, the base forms for 6 items did not include consonants used productively as interpolated consonants {p, m, s}. The next 6 conditions included {p, m, s} either as the first, or the second consonant in the base form of the non-word. The results indicated that the interpolated consonant in Turkish was taken from the set of {p, m, s}. Moreover, the interpolated consonant was sometimes identical to the second consonant of the base, but never to the first consonant. The most frequently produced interpolated consonant was {p}. In the VCV, and VCCV conditions, {m} was preferred over {s}. In the CVC, and CVCV conditions, {s} was preferred over {m}. The results demonstrate that Turkish native speakers were able to extend the reduplication strategies they employed in real words to non-words.

Identity Avoidance in Turkish Partial Reduplication: Feature Specificity and Locality

“…This study shows that both adults and children do extend the patterns observed in real words to nonce-words as well. 21 Similarly, a more recent study by Köylü (2020) also concludes that Turkish native speakers extend the reduplication strategies they employ in real words to nonce-words. These conflicting results call for a careful investigation regarding the causes behind them.…”

“…An anonymous reviewer suggested that forWedel (1999), all reduplicated forms are lexicalised since they are not productive. Given the above statements fromWedel (1999), we believe (see alsoKöylü 2020 for the view that Wedel does not take this phenomenon to be lexicalised, differing from the interpretation of that study by the reviewer.21 Regarding the use of [p] more frequently and the presence of non-standard linking consonants, it could be…”

“…It turns out the results from these studies are far from clear, and have found varying, and sometimes conflicting results. For example, while Sofu (2005) concludes that speakers seem to extend at least some of the rules to nonce-words, two more recent studies, Demir (2018) and Köylü (2020), reach opposing conclusions as to the status of lexicalization and productivity of the reduplication patterns. While Demir (2018) interprets her results in favour of a lexicalization approach, Köylü (2020) argues that speakers do extend the same strategies they use for real words to nonce-words.…”

“…The coda effect was observed in a recent nonce word study. Köylü (2020) asked 14 native speakers of Turkish to reduplicate 48 nonce-words of four syllable structures (VCV, CVC, CVCV, and VCCV). It was found that the linking consonant was never identical to C 1 or C 2 with the CVC nonce-words.…”

“…This can be done by using a combination of careful stimuli design and statistical modelling (Redington and Chater, 1996;Tang and Baer-Henney, 2020). Once these factors are controlled for, we expect (following Becker et al 2011) that at least some of the real word generalisations would apply to nonce-words (some of which have already been argued to be the case, e.g., Köylü 2020;Sofu 2005).…”