Morphologization in Turkish: Implications for

Phonology in Grammaticalization1

René Schiering (University of Leipzig)

1. Introduction
Grammaticalization theory assumes that the gradual progression from
a content item to a grammatical marker is accompanied by a number
of interdependent phonological, morphosyntactic, and functional
processes. Accordingly, morphologization processes, such as
cliticization and compounding, are said to be concomitant with
phonological erosion and desemantization (Lehmann [1982] 1995,
Heine & Reh 1984, Heine, Claudi & Hünnemeyer 1991, Hopper &
Traugott 1993, Croft 2003). Some proponents of this theory even
claim that the loss of autonomy and substance defines
grammaticalization as opposed to other mechanisms in language
change, for instance reanalysis (Haspelmath 1998).
The role of phonology in grammaticalization has recently been
reconsidered in the context of a cross-linguistic study on cliticization
(Schiering 2006). A number of phonological processes, namely
structure preservation, assimilation, weakening and strengthening, can
accompany ongoing grammaticalization. The distribution of these
phonological rules can be predicted by a rhythm-based typology of
language which distinguishes between mora-, syllable- and stress-
based languages. With respect to erosion, mora- and syllable-based
languages tend to retain the phonological substance of cliticized
elements which ultimately leads to disyllabic clitics and affixes.
Stress-based languages, on the other hand, tend to reduce and delete
1
The research for this paper was carried out at the University of Leipzig as part of
the project ‘Typology and Theories of the Word’, supported by the German Science
Foundation (DFG). For comments and suggestions I am grateful to Balthasar Bickel,
Ann Denwood, Geoff Haig, Barış Kabak.
2

the phonological substance of cliticized elements developing

subminimal clitics and affixes in the course of morphologization.
This paper will test the predictions made by the rhythm-based
typology against diachronic data from Turkish. In Section 2, Turkish
will be situated in the rhythm-based typology of language and the
latter’s predictions concerning the phonology of grammaticalization
will be summarized. In Section 3, two morphologization processes in
the verbal domain, namely the cliticization of pronouns yielding
agreement markers and the univerbation of verb stems resulting in
new tense-aspect morphology, will be traced from Old Turkic to
Modern Turkish. The phonological changes involved in these
processes will be of focal interest. Finally, the actual diachronic data
from Turkish will be compared with the predictions made by the
rhythm-based typology and the major findings will be discussed in the
context of grammaticalization theory.

2. Turkish in a Rhythm-based Typology of Language

The conception of linguistic rhythm which will be adhered to in this
study is based on the assumption that different phonological properties
tend to cluster in the prototypes of mora-, syllable- and stress-based
rhythm (Auer 2001, Dufter 2003, Schiering 2006). In what follows,
we will restrict our attention to the phonetic correlates of stress, the
segmental effects of stress, the degree of syllable complexity, the
distribution of length contrasts and the domain for vowel harmony and
their respective distribution over the rhythmic prototypes.
Stress may be realized phonetically by pitch only or by a
combination of pitch, duration and intensity (Beckman 1986).
Phonetically weak stress is prototypical for mora- or syllable-based
rhythm, whereas stress-based rhythm is characterized by phonetically
strong stress. In Turkish, the realization of stress relies on pitch
movement and to a certain extent on intensity.2 With respect to this
parameter, Turkish behaves like a mora- or syllable-based language.

2
All information and data on Old Turkic and Modern Turkish have been taken from
the following reference grammars: Gabain (1950), Erdal (2004), Kornfilt (1997) and
Lewis (2000).
 3

Stress-based languages further exhibit strong segmental effects

of stress, i.e. vowel reduction and consonant weakening in unstressed
syllables and vowel lengthening and consonant strengthening in
stressed syllables (Bybee et al. 1998). Although there are some hints at
word-medial vowel alternation and deletion, e.g. aγïz > aγzan ‘being
said’ (Old Turkic) and burada > burda ‘here’ (Modern Turkish),
Turkish lacks such segmental effects of stress and behaves like other
mora- or syllable-based languages with respect to this parameter.
Another phonological property which distinguishes stress-based
from mora- and syllable-based languages is the degree of syllable
complexity (Blevins 1995). Languages of the former class show high
degrees of syllable complexity, whereas languages of the other types
have simple or moderate syllable structure. Since Turkish allows only
six syllable types, it belongs to the latter group of languages, cf. o
‘he/she/it’, at ‘horse’, bu ‘this’, sol ‘left’, ilk ‘beginning’, kırk ‘forty’.
Mora- and syllable-based languages behave alike with respect to
the phonological parameters discussed in the preceding paragraphs.
The distribution of length contrasts in vowels and consonants,
however, helps to distinguish the two rhythmic types. Mora-based
rhythm is characterized by length contrasts with are distributed
irrespective of stress placement. Although phonemic vowel length can
be reconstructed for the proto-language, Turkish exhibits vowel length
only in loans, beraber ‘together’. Long vowels surface phonetically
after contractions, e.g. değil /deyil/ > [di:l] ‘not’, and in expressive
lengthening, e.g. asla > aslaaa ‘never!’. Geminates occur only
underlyingly in loans such as hak ‘the right, justice’ and word-
medially at morpheme boundaries of complex words, such as bat-tı ‘it
sank’. Accordingly, Turkish cannot be considered a mora-based
language.
Although the rhythm-based typology makes reliable predictions
with respect to the prosodic and phonotactic parameters discussed
above, the distribution of morphophonological rules, such as cluster
simplification and coalescence, turns out to be erratic over the
rhythmic prototypes. Vowel harmony, however, is restricted to
disyllabic domains in stress-based languages and applies over word
domains in languages of other rhythm classes. In Turkish, palatal and
4

labial assimilation are not restricted to smaller domains, but span the
word domain, e.g. anla-yacak ‘s/he will understand’ and göz-lük-çü
‘optician, oculist’.
The distribution of the various phonological properties over the
rhythm prototypes is illustrated in Figure 1. Note that Turkish behaves
like a typical representative of syllable-based rhythm. In fact, the
rhythmic profile of Turkish has not changed in the course of the
development from Old Turkic to Modern Turkish.
Figure 1: Selected phonological properties of rhythmic prototypes
Mora-based Syllable-based Stress-based
Accent none/weak none/weak strong
Stress effect none/weak none/weak strong
Syllable types simple moderate complex
Length contrasts unrestricted restricted restricted
Vowel harmony word word disyllabic
The rhythm-based typology of language makes a number of
predictions with respect to possible phonological effects of
grammaticalization. Within stress prosodies, such as Turkish, the
model predicts gradual stress reduction, i.e. from primary stress to
secondary stress to unstressed, and gradual integration into the word
domain for stress placement, i.e. from unstressable to stressable (see
Selkirk 1995 for a formal analysis). Whereas this stress reduction goes
hand in hand with segmental reduction in stress-based rhythm,
languages of the other rhythm classes have no reductive potential in
their phonologies and retain the grammaticalized element.
Accordingly, we would not expect erosion to accompany
grammaticalization in a syllable-based language like Turkish. Since
vowel harmony processes are sensitive to the word domain in
languages of this rhythmic type, gradual integration into the word
domain should also manifest itself in the inclusion of the
grammaticalized element into the vowel harmony domain. Since
morphophonological rules operating at the morpheme boundary occur
in languages of all rhythmic classes, junctural processes such as
cluster simplification and coalescence are possible and provide the
 5

only context in which segments can be lost in the course of prosodic

integration.

3. Morphologization in Turkish
To test the predictions made by the typology outlined in the previous
section, we will examine two cases of grammaticalization in Turkish,
namely the cliticization of personal pronouns which led to subject
agreement marking (Givón 1976) and the univerbation of verbal
complexes which led to new aspect-tense markers (Lehmann [1982]
1995).
In Old Turkic, sentences with pronominal subjects were formed
with a postponed pronoun at the end of the non-verbal or verbal
predicate. For the sake of emphasis or contrast, another personal
pronoun could be placed in preverbal subject position. In thirteenth
century texts, the postponed pronouns appear cliticized to the
preceding word. In Modern Turkish, the cliticized subject pronouns
form the back bone of the z-paradigm of subject agreement marking
(cf. Adamović 1985, Kornfilt 1996, Good & Yu 2005). The various
stages in this diachronic development are exemplified for the first
person singular in the examples (1)-(3).
(1) (ben) kelür ben ‘I am coming’
(2) (ben) gelür-ven ~ (ben) gelür-em ‘I am coming’
(3) (ben) gelír-im ‘I come’
Although the construction as such did not change significantly, the
phonological status of the bound morphemes underwent a number of
changes. Assuming that both kelür and ben constitute words in (1), the
combination is prosodized as a phonological phrase in which the first
word receives stress. In (2) and (3), this phrasal stress has been
reinterpreted as irregular word stress in which the prominence lies on
the last syllable of the host (cf. Kabak & Vogel 2001 and Inkelas &
Orghun 2003). Thus, the cliticized element does not get prosodically
integrated in the domain for word-final stress. The reduction of stress
from phrasal to word-level stress is not accompanied by segmental
reduction but by the integration of the cliticized element into the
6

vowel harmony domain. Additionally, we encounter the application of

b > v sandhi at the host-clitic boundary. These changes are responsible
for the change in the surface realization of the cliticized element, from
the invariant ben to the harmonizing van ~ ven with assimilated initial
consonant. Noteworthy, other changes in the form of the marker are
not due to phonological rules but to morphological shifts based on
analogies. The second variant (y)am ~ (y)em which surfaces as -em in
example (2) is a verb ending which has been copied from the optative
and analogically extended to the aorist. Both exponents for the first
person singular had been lost by the fifteenth century. The morpheme
which nowadays expresses this category in the z-paradigm evolved
from the contamination with the possessive suffix (y)um ~ (y)üm in the
fifteenth century. After this marker underwent regular delabialization,
it now surfaces with fourfold vowel harmony.
Although the actual development of the various morphemes
which participated in the paradigm over the course of time is rich in
detail, the generalization that the phonological processes involved
hardly reduce the segmental composition holds true. Typically, these
processes are restricted to assimilation rules, e.g. devoicing -dur > -tur
‘3.sg.’ and labialization -viz > -vüz ‘1.pl.’, and cases of regular sound
change, e.g. siŋiz > siniz ‘2.pl.’. There is only one case in which
cluster simplification leads to the loss of a segment, i.e. the loss of v in
Türk-vüz > Türk-üz ‘we are Turks’. However, more effective are the
morphological shifts which are an essential part of the development of
each individual marker.
Another morphologization process which can be traced
throughout the documented history of Turkish has its origin in the
converb construction which consists of a non-finite verb marked by a
converb marker and a finite verb marked for aspect, tense, mood,
person and number (Heine & Kuteva 2002). The examples in (4)-(6)
illustrate Old Turkic converb constructions which have been
grammaticalized to express actionality, intention, ability and version
(cf. Erdal 1979, Johanson 1998, Ağcagül 2004).
(4) geli yür- ‘to be coming’ (yüri- ‘to go’)
(5) kör-ü bil- ‘to know how to obey’ (bil- ‘to know’)
 7

(6) alta-yu tur- ‘to keep cheating’ (tur- ‘to stand’)

Although the converb marker changed in some of the cases, the
construction itself is still in use in Modern Turkish. With respect to
their grammatical status, the various forms vary in such a way that
they can be interpreted as representing different stages of
morphologization on a grammaticalization cline. At least -Iyor
‘progressive’ (7) and -(y)Abil ‘potential’ (8) can now be considered
disyllabic suffixes, since they are completely desemanticized and form
an uninterruptible coherent and cohesive morphological word with
their base.3
(7) gel-íyor-um ‘I am coming’ (yor- ‘to go’)
(8) gel-ébil-ir-im ‘I can come’ (bil- ‘to know’)
(9) söylen-é-dur-ur ‘he keeps grumbling’ (dur- ‘to stand’)
Unlike the cliticization phenomena discussed above, the univerbation
of these verbal complexes is accompanied by very little phonological
effects. Assuming again that the source construction consisted of two
phonological words which received regular phrasal stress on the first
word, stress has been reduced and reinterpreted as irregular word
stress on the first vowel of the disyllabic suffix. Prosodic integration
into the domain for word-final stress does not apply and in contrast to
cliticization compounding is not paralleled by the prosodic integration
into the vowel harmony domain. Note that the second vowel of both
-Iyor and -(y)Abil is invariant. Apart from some sound changes which
occurred, the only noteworthy phonological process which applied in
the development of the progressive suffix is haplology, which has
been a regular process in Old Turkic, cf. sür-ür-či > sürči ‘painter’,
yür-ür > yür ‘s/he goes’, dur-ur > dur ‘s/he stands’. It is important to
emphasize that the loss of the second syllable is not due to ongoing
grammaticalization, but to the regular application of the phonological
rule of haplology at that diachronic stage of the language.

3 Additional evidence for the different degrees of grammaticalization comes from

the possibility of inserting the clitic =dA between the converb marker and the second
verb stem. This seems to be possible with -A-dur-, less acceptable with -Abil- and
presumably ungrammatical with -Iyor- (see also Bainbridge 1988).
8

4. Summary and Conclusion

In the preceding section we discussed the phonological effects of two
morphologization processes in Turkish, cliticization of pronouns and
univerbation of verbal complexes. As predicted by the prosodic cline
for stress phonologies, we encounter stress reduction from phrasal to
word-level stress in both cases. However, stress placement has not
been altered in the discussed constructions. The synchronic
irregularity of stress assignment in morphologically complex forms
which evolved in morphologization is thus due to the lack of prosodic
integration. The reduction of stress is not accompanied by segmental
reduction in the cases we discussed above. What we find in
cliticization is prosodic integration into the vowel harmony domain
and the application of junctural sandhi processes, e.g. assimilation and
cluster simplification. In this context, the rhythm-based typology
proves a reliable model for predicting possible segmental effects of
grammaticalization. The evidence from univerbation, on the other
side, has to be taken with a grain of salt, since in this case ongoing
grammaticalization is not accompanied by integration into the vowel
harmony domain. As a result, the morphologically complex forms
which evolved in morphologization form irregular domains with
respect to vowel harmony. Note that the elements in question are
subject to regular sound change to the same extent as elements which
do not undergo grammaticalization. In the evolution of the z-paradigm
of subject agreement, morphological shifts which are based on
analogy form a substantial ingredient of the diachronic development
and are inseparably intermingled with the grammaticalization process.
The diachronic evidence compiled in this paper provides overall
positive evidence for the rhythm-based typology of phonology in
grammaticalization. The syllable-based rhythm of Turkish prohibits
the erosion of grammaticalized elements which ultimately leads to the
accretion of morphological markers. The prosodic clines which have
been proposed as part of the rhythm-based typology, however, do not
necessarily mirror diachronic change. Although stress reduction
occurs, the gradual integration of grammaticalized elements into the
stress domains of their hosts has never been a factor in the
development of the forms discussed above. As already demonstrated
 9

in other studies, for instance Kabak & Schiering 2004, different

grammaticalization processes may trigger different phonological
processes even in a single language. Whereas cliticization in Turkish
leads to the spreading of vowel harmony and the application of
junctural processes, univerbation is not accompanied by such
processes. Given the fact that, even in the diachrony of
morphologization in a single language, grammaticalization cannot be
characterized in a uniform manner, the findings of this study cast
doubt on universal scenarios for grammaticalization and its
independence from other forms of morphological change, such as
analogy and reanalysis, as expressed in ‘grammaticalization theory.’

References
Adamović, Milan 1985. Konjugationsgeschichte der türkischen Sprache. Leiden:
Brill.
Ağcagül, Sevgi 2004. Grammaticalization of Turkic postverbial construction.
Orientalia Suecana 53, 5-14.
Auer, Peter 2001. Silben- und akzentzählende Sprachen. In: Haspelmath, Martin &
König, Ekkehard & Oesterreicher, Wulf & Raible, Wolfgang (eds.) Language
typology and language universals. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. 1391-1399.
Bainbridge, Margaret 1988. -(y)E-bil- and the conjunction dE: splitting the
unsplittable. In: Koç, Sabri (ed.) Studies in Turkish linguistics. Ankara:
METU. 95-115.
Beckman, Mary E. 1986. Stress and non-stress accent. (Netherland phonetic
archives 7.) Dordrecht: Foris.
Blevins, Juliette 1995. The syllable in phonological theory. In: Goldsmith, John A.
(ed.) The handbook of phonological theory. (Blackwell handbooks in
linguistics, 1). Oxford: Blackwell. 206-244.
Bybee, Joan & Chakraborti, Paromita & Jung, Dagmar & Scheibman, Joanne 1998.
Prosody and segmental effect. Some paths of evolution for word stress.
Studies in Language 22, 267-314.
Croft, William 2003². Typology and universals. (Cambridge textbooks in
linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dufter, Andreas 2003. Typen sprachrhythmischer Konturbildung. (Linguistische
Arbeiten 475.) Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Erdal, Marcel 1979. Die Konverb- und Aoristendungen des Alttürkischen.
Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 51, 104–126.
Erdal, Marcel 2004. A grammar of Old Turkic. (Handbook of Oriental studies,
Section 8, Central Asia 3.) Leiden: Brill.
Gabain, A. von 1950². Alttürkische Grammatik. (Porta linguarum orientalium 23.)
Leipzig: Harrassowitz.
10

Givón, Talmy 1976. Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. In: Li, Charles N.
(ed.) Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press. 149-188.
Good, Jeff & Yu, Alan C. L. 2005. Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject
pronominal paradigms. In: Heggie, Lorie & Ordóñez, Francisco (eds.) Clitic
and affix combinations. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 315-341.
Haspelmath, Martin 1998. Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in
Language 22, 315-351.
Heine, Bernd & Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike 1991.
Grammaticalization. A conceptual framework. Chicago, London: University
of Chicago Press.
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heine, Bernd & Reh, Mechthild 1984. Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African
languages. Hamburg: Buske.
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1993. Grammaticalization. (Cambridge
textbooks in linguistics.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Inkelas, Sharon & Orgun, Cemil O. 2003. Turkish stress: a review. Phonology 20,
139-161.
Johanson, Lars 1998. The structure of Turkic. In: Johanson, Lars & Csató, Éva Á.
(eds.) The Turkic languages. London, New York: Routledge. 30-66.
Kabak, Barış & Vogel, Irene 2001. The phonological word and stress assignment in
Turkish. Phonology 18, 315-360.
Kabak, Barış & Schiering, René 2004. A corpus study on the distribution of Turkish
ise and its clitic form. Turkic Languages 8, 232-244.
Kornfilt, Jaklin 1996. On copular clitic forms in Turkish. ZAS Papers in Linguistics
6, 96-114.
Kornfilt, Jaklin 1997. Turkish. (Descriptive grammars.) London, New York:
Routledge.
Lehmann, Christian [1982] 1995. Thoughts on grammaticalization. (Lincom studies
in theoretical linguistics 1.) München: Lincom Europa.
Lewis, Geoffrey 2000². Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schiering, René 2006. Cliticization and the evolution of morphology. A cross-
linguistic study on phonology in grammaticalization. Konstanz: Konstanzer
Online-Publikations-System, Bibliothek der Universität Konstanz.
[http://www.ub.uni-konstanz.de/kops/volltexte/2006/1872/]
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1995. The prosodic structure of function words. In: Beckman,
Jill N. & Dickey, Laura W. & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.) Papers in
optimality theory. (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18.)
Amherst: GLSA. 439-469.