Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lpg2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T23:10:16.753Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychological correlates of some Turkish morpheme structure conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Karl E. Zimmer
Karl E. Zimmer*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper describes an investigation regarding the degree of awareness of a number of different morpheme structure conditions in Turkish displayed by native speakers of that language. It appears that not all the morpheme structure conditions that can be formulated on the basis of the regularities observable in Turkish lexical items are internalized by native speakers; the test results indicate, rather, that with respect to their awareness of certain morpheme structure conditions, native speakers fall into two main groups, neither one of which can be said to know the relevant conditions in precisely their ‘correct’ form. These results support the view that speakers may well be only very imperfectly aware of regularities that do not fall within the system of fully productive rules of their language.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 45 , Issue 2-Part1 , June 1969, pp. 309 - 321
Copyright
Copyright © 1969 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Contreras, Heles, and Saporta, Sol. 1960. The validation of a phonological grammar. Lingua 9.1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H., and Jenkins, James J.. 1964. Studies in the psychological correlates of the sound system of American English. Word 20.157–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. How abstract is phonology? Unpublished.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. To appear in Lg. 45:4.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1961. The phonology of modern standard Turkish. (Uralic and Altaic series, 6.) Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B.. 1966. Turkish harmony and the description of assimilation. Turk dili araştırmaları yıllığı, Belleten 1966. (Tūrk dil kurumu yayınları, no. 255.) Ankara: Ankara University.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1968. Aspects of phonological theory. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Stanley, Richard. 1967. Redundancy rules in phonology. Lg. 43.393–436.Google Scholar
Wang, William S-Y. 1968. Vowel features, paired variables, and the English vowel shift. Lg. 44.695–708.Google Scholar
Zimmer, Karl E. 1967. A note on vowel harmony. International Journal of American Linguistics 33.166–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar