Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2rsb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T09:38:30.668Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Abstract Vowel Harmony Systems in Uralic and Altaic Languages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Robert M. Vago
Robert M. Vago*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the main phonological properties of vowel harmony, with facts drawn exclusively from Uralic and Altaic languages. It is demonstrated that vowel harmony rules apply iteratively; and that exceptional stems and suffixes differ in that the former do not serve as context to the vowel harmony rule, while the latter do. Evidence is presented for the incorporation of abstract segments and absolute neutralization rules into phonological theory. Specifically, abstract and non-abstract analyses are compared side by side in a Turkish dialect, Buriat, Manchu, Vogul, Cheremis, and Hungarian: in each case the abstract analysis is shown to be superior or the only one tenable. The abstractness controversy is discussed in detail, and a principled resolution is offered.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , September 1973, pp. 579 - 605
Copyright
Copyright © 1973 by 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

Adam, Lucien. 1873. Grammaire de la langue mandchou. Paris: Maisonneuve.Google Scholar
Adam, Lucien. 1874. De l'harmonie des voyelles dans les langues ouralo-altaïques. Paris: Maisonneuve.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1969. West Scandinavian vowel systems and the ordering of phonological rules. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1971. On algorithms for applying phonological rules. Quarterly Progress Report, MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics, 103.159–164.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. MS. The organization of phonology. To appear, New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
Aoki, Haruo. 1968. Toward a typology of vowel harmony. IJAL 34.142–145.Google Scholar
Ariste, Paul. 1968. A grammar of the Votic language. (Uralic and Altaic series, 68.) Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1968. Two proposals concerning the simplicity metric in phonology. Glossa 2.128–149.Google Scholar
Beke, Ödön. 1909-10. Cseremisz nyelvtan. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 39.75–127, 349-82.Google Scholar
Benzing, Johannes. 1943. Kleine Einführung in die Tschuwaschische Sprache. Berlin: Stollberg.Google Scholar
Benzing, Johannes. 1959. Das Tschuwaschische. Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta I, ed. by Deny, Jean et al., 695–751. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Brame, Michael. 1972. On the abstractness of phonology: Maltese ?. Contributions to generative phonology, ed. by Brame, M. K., 22–61. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Budenz, József. 1864-65. Cseremisz tanulmányok. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 3.397–470, 4.48–105.Google Scholar
Budenz, József. 1886. A mandsu nyelv alaktana rövid vázlatban. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 20.307–319, 380-400.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Collinder, Björn. 1942. Das Alter der Vokalharmonie in den uralischen Sprachen. Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift, 9.Google Scholar
Collinder, Björn. 1957. Survey of the Uralic languages. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Collinder, Björn. 1960. Comparative grammar of the Uralic languages. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Collinder, Björn. 1965. An introduction to the Uralic languages. Los Angeles & Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crothers, John. 1971. On the abstractness controversy. Project on Linguistic Analysis Reports, 2nd series, 12. Berkeley: University of California, Department of Linguistics, Phonology Laboratory.Google Scholar
Décsy, Gyula. 1965. Einführung in die finnisch-ugrische Sprachwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Décsy, Gyula. 1966. Yurak chrestomathy. (Uralic and Altaic series, 50.) Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Doerfer, Gerhard. 1962. Der Numerus im Manschu. (Abhandlungen der Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, 4.) Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur.Google Scholar
Esztergar, Marianne. 1971. A generative phonology of nouns and vowel harmony in Hungarian. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Faludi, Āgota Cs. 1965. A chanti magánhangzóilleszkedés kérdéséhez. Emlékkonyv Pais Dezső hetvenedik születésnapjára, ed. by Bárczi, Géza and Benkő, Lóránd, 607–610. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Fischer, August. 1920. Die Vokalharmonie der Endungen an den Fremdwörtern des Türkischen. (Morgenländische Texte und Forschungen 1, part 2.) Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Gabain, Annemarie von. 1952. Zur Geschichte der türkischen Vokalharmonie. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 24.105–111.Google Scholar
Gabelentz, Hans Conon von der. 1832. Éléments de la grammaire mandchoue. Altenbourg: Comptoire de la Littérature.Google Scholar
Genetz, Arvid. 1889. Osttscheremissische Sprachstudien I: Sprachproben mit deutscher Uebersetzung. (Mémoires de la Société Finno-ougrienne, 7.) Helsinki.Google Scholar
Gulya, János. 1966. Eastern Ostyak chrestomathy. (Uralic and Altaic series, 51.) Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Hunfalvy, Pál. 1872. A kondai vogul nyelv. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 9.1–214.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 1970a. How concrete is phonology? Lg. 46.58–76.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 1970b. The role of borrowing in the justification of phonological grammars. Studies in African Linguistics 1.1–48.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. Douglas. 1972. Formal aspects of phonological description. (Monographs on linguistic analysis, 3.) The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kakuk, Zsuzsanna. 1961. Die türkische Mundart von Küstendil und Michailovgrad. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 11.301–386.Google Scholar
Kannisto, Artturi. 1914. Die Vokalharmonie im Wogulischen. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 14.41–81.Google Scholar
Karjalainen, Kustaa F. 1905. Zur ostjakischen Lautgeschichte, 1: über den Vokalismus der ersten Silbe. (Mémoires de la Société Finno-ougrienne, 23.) Helsinki.Google Scholar
Karjalainen, Kustaa F. 1948. Ostjakisches Wörterbuch, I–III. Ed. by Toivonen, Y. H. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. How abstract is phonology? Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1971. Historical linguistics. A survey of linguistic science, ed. by Dingwall, William Orr, 577–648. College Park: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles W. 1969. On the abstractness of phonology: the evidence from Yawelmani. Papers in Linguistics 1.248–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles W. 1970. The treatment of exceptions. Papers in Linguistics 2.44–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korn, David. 1969. Types of labial vowel harmony in the Turkic languages. Anthropological Linguistics 11.98–106.Google Scholar
Krueger, John R. 1961. Chuvash manual. (Uralic and Altaic series, 7.) Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Ligeti, Louis. 1952. A propos de l'écriture mandchoue. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 2.235–301.Google Scholar
Lightner, Theodore M. 1965. On the description of vowel and consonant harmony. Word 19.376–387.Google Scholar
Menges, Karl H. 1968. Die tungusischen Sprachen. In Spuler 1968:21–256.Google Scholar
Munkácsi, Bernát. 1890. A vogul nyelvjárások szóragozása. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 21.321–455, 22.1–80.Google Scholar
Munkácsi, Bernát. 1894. A tavdai vogul nyelvjárás. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 24.152–167.Google Scholar
Németh, Julius. 1921. Review of Fischer 1920. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 75.275–278.Google Scholar
Németh, Julius. 1953. Zur Kenntnis der Mischsprachen (das doppelte Sprachsystem des Osmanischen). Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 3.159–199.Google Scholar
Németh, Julius. 1956. Zur Einteilung der türkischen Mundarten Bulgariens. Sofia: Bulgarische Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Németh, Julius. 1965. Die Türken von Vidin. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Paasonen, Heikki. 1903a. Matkakertomuksia vuosilta 1900-1902. Journal de la Société Finno-ougrienne 21, number 5.Google Scholar
Paasonen, Heikki. 1903b. Mordvinische Lautlehre. (Mémoires de la Société Finno-ougrienne, 22.) Helsinki.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppe, Nicholas. 1960a. Buriat grammar. (Uralic and Altaic series, 2.) Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Poppe, Nicholas. 1960b. Vergleichende Grammatik der altaischen Sprachen, I. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Poppe, Nicholas. 1965. Introduction to Altaic linguistics. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Radanovics, Károly. 1961. Északi osztják nyelvtan. (Nyelvtudományi Értekezések, 31.) Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Rardin, Robert B. 1969. On Finnish vowel harmony. Quarterly Progress Report, MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics, 94.226–231.Google Scholar
Sebeok, Thomas A., and Raun, Alo. 1956. The first Cheremis grammar (1775). Chicago: Newberry Library.Google Scholar
Sinor, Denis. 1968. La langue mandjoue. In Spuler 1968:257–280.Google Scholar
Spuler, Bertold (ed.) 1968. Tungusologie. (Handbuch der Orientalistik, 1:5, §3.) Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Stanley, Richard. 1967. Redundancy rules in phonology. Lg. 43.393–436.Google Scholar
Steinitz, Wolfgang. 1936. Magánhangzóilleszkedés az osztjákban. Magyar Nyelvőr 65.14–15.Google Scholar
Steinitz, Wolfgang. 1944. Geschichte des finnisch-ugrischen Vokalismus. (Acta Instituti Hungarici Universitatis Holmiensis, series B, Linguistica, 2.) Stockholm.Google Scholar
Steinitz, Wolfgang. 1950a. Geschichte des ostjakischen Vokalismus. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinitz, Wolfgang. 1950b. Ostjakische Grammatik und Chrestomathie mit Wörterverzeichnis. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinitz, Wolfgang. 1955. Geschichte des wogulischen Vokalismus. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stong, Margaret T., and Jensen, John T. 1971. Two constraints in phonology. Syracuse University and McGill University, unpublished.Google Scholar
Szinnyei, József. 1894. Labiális illeszkedés a cseremisz nyelvben. Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 24.143–151.Google Scholar
Tauli, Valter. 1966. Structural tendencies in Uralic languages. (Uralic and Altaic series, 17.) Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Underhill, Robert. 1971. Turkish grammar. Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard University, unpublished.Google Scholar
Vago, Robert M. 1971a. The place of morphology in a generative grammar: an analysis of Hungarian suffixes. Harvard University, unpublished.Google Scholar
Vago, Robert M. 1971b. Vowel harmony in Hungarian: evidence for abstract phonology. Harvard University, unpublished.Google Scholar
Vago, Robert M. MS a. Hungarian phonology and morphology. Harvard University dissertation.Google Scholar
Vago, Robert M. MS b. Problems of vowel harmony.Google Scholar
Vértes, Edith. 1969. Vokalharmonie und Vokalbestand im Südostjakischen. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 37.1–70.Google Scholar
Wiedemann, Ferdinand J. 1847. Versuch einer Grammatik der tscheremissischen Sprache. Reval: Lindfors Erben.Google Scholar
Zimmer, Karl E. 1967. A Note on vowel harmony. IJAL 33.166–171.Google Scholar