An acoustic study of vowel intrusion in Turkish onset clusters

Abstract

Studies in Articulatory Phonology (Browman & Goldstein, 1993) have established that what sounds like insertion of a segment can be a side effect of gestural timing relations. Based on acoustic evidence from a production experiment with six Turkish speakers, I argue that such gestural timing produces non-lexical vowels in complex onsets in Turkish-previously described as harmonizing epenthetic vowels (Clements & Sezer, 1982, inter alia). Non-lexical vowels occurred in 88.3% of tokens, and usually resembled [ɯ], failing to undergo vowel harmony. Non-lexical vowels are shorter than underlying vowels, and their F1 and F2 values are more affected by the following vowel, suggesting they are more subject to vowel-to-vowel coarticulation. These results support the hypothesis that the inserted acoustic vowels are targetless, created by timing relations between gestures, with the implication that Turkish phonology does not categorically ban complex onsets.

Inter-consonantal intervals in Tripolitanian Libyan Arabic: Accounting for variable epenthesis

“…In relation to ICI Duration (ms), as indicated above, if TLA 'variable epenthesis' derives from phonological vowel insertion as well as variable open transition, we would expect to find some evidence of bimodality in duration distributions (cf. Bellik, 2018). Some evidence of bimodality can indeed be observed.…”

Vowel Deletion as Grammatically Controlled Gestural Overlap in Uspanteko

“…2007), Goldstein (2011), Ridouane andBellik (2018), among others, have all argued that certain cases of vowel epenthesis are better understood as arising from patterns of gestural overlap. Bellik (2018), for example, presents a range of evidence converging on the conclusion that 'epenthetic' vowels in Turkish onset clusters are not phonologically inserted, but are instead the result of low gestural overlap (i.e. an open transition) between successive consonants.…”

“…Grammatically controlled phonetic processes are naturally accounted for in integrated theories like articulatory phonology, in which there is no difference in kind between phonetic and phonological representations , 1989, 1992a, Gafos 2002, Goldstein & Fowler 2003, Gafos & Beňuš 2006, Hall 2006, Beňuš & Gafos 2007, Bradley 2007, Gafos & Goldstein 2012, Bellik 2018, Smith 2018 Proctor 2019, and many others). Vowel deletion in Uspanteko can thus be construed as a confirmation of the predictions of such theories.…”

Issues in Uyghur phonology

“…Kaun (2000, 2004) points out a similar phenomenon in Turkish, though Bellik (2019) suggests this is the result of phonetic gestural overlap rather than phonological harmony.…”

“…Kaun (2000Kaun ( , 2004 points out a similar phenomenon in Turkish, thoughBellik (2019) suggests this is the result of phonetic gestural overlap rather than phonological harmony.8 A reviewer wonders if this could be analysed as a vowel lowering process instead, where the quality of the lowered vowel is determined by harmony. This is impossible due to roots like /aesli/ 'origin', which have underlying /i/ in this position but do not display alternation: /aesli/ → [aesli]; /aesli-ni/ →[aesli-ni].…”