T H E PHONEMIC STRUCTURE OF T H E F I R S T SYLLABLE

I N SEVERAL T U R K I C LANGUAGES

BY

L. HftEBlCBK (Praha)

I want to present here a short outline of the analysis of relations between

the phonemes in the first syllable of Turkic words. Phonemes were viewed
both from synchronic and diachronic aspects. The method of the analysis
is based on quantitative data. I t follows t h a t not phonemes, directly, but
their distributions and the relations among the distributions were analysed.
The mathematical apparatus will not be given here. Let us only mention
t h a t frequential values were tested by usual nonparametric tests (Kendall
concordance W-test, Spearman correlation test and Mann —Whitney U-
test). Five modern Turkic languages were observed, i.e. Turkmen, Kazakh,
Bashkir, Uzbek, Turkish, and then the lexical material from the dictionary
of Mahmud Kasghari. Three most frequent types of syllables were selected
CV,,CVC and VC. The samples were taken from the dictionaries published by
respective Academies of Sciences of the USSR, further the Tilrkge Sozliik
by Mehmet Ali Agakay (Ankara 1966). The lexical units of the Karakhanid
language were taken from Carl Brockelmann's and Besim Atalay's editions
of the Mahmud Kasgharf s dictionary. The sampling method was used.
To-obtain the samples for comparison with an older evolutionary stage of
the Turkic languages represented by KaSghari's work, the borrowings from
European languages were excluded from the populations. On the other hand,
the modern lexical derivates from, the Turkic stems were taken into account.
I t must be emphasized t h a t the observed frequencies do not represent
frequencies in texts, but in lexical units, so they are, what in, mathematical
linguistics is called Type, not Token.
The analysis evidently starts with certain incorrectness contained in the
arrangement of units. In the dictionaries lexical units are doubtlessly de-
fined in more or less different ways, b u t in the* analysis they are placed on
the same level. The observed values do not express pure frequency; they
reflect also the capacity of the roots to derivate lexical units; which is not
the same in different languages. These inconsistencies, perhaps, will not
substantially influence the results and their interpretation.
All positions of phonemes in the first syllable were observed separately.
In different classifications of, Turkic languages, mainly the- features of

79
initial, phoneme and the features of grammat'icalrformants" serve as criteria
The question arises, to what extent the-characteristics of the first syllable
corresponds to these classifications and what changes the first syllable
has undergone in the course of time. The aims conditioned the selection of
the analysed languages: they belong to the same and to different subgroups
of Turkic languages, several of them are geographically situated next to
each other and thus more likely to be in contact; the others are situated
in a greater distance. *'
The arrangement of the data enabled us to view -the distributions from
three aspects. At first, the correlation between two different positions of the
same type of syllable in one language was determined. This aspect can be
understood as a characterization of the coherence of the syllable. Further:
the distributions in the same positions of the same syllables of different
languages were compared. And, finally,-the comparison of distributions in
different positions of different syllable types of the same language was
made. ' >
. As far as the coherence of the syllable is concerned, the correlation is
high in all cases where consonant precedes the wovel' in thV sequence5 of
phonemes. In all analysed languages the correlation of consonants to vowels
is higher than that of vowels to 'consonants. Very low and non-significant
correlation approaching zero was found between"the first and the third
positions of the CVC syllable, i.e. between its consonants. This is also-valid
for all analysed languages. The mentioned' coefficients show t h a t Turkic
languages "represent unity also from the viewpoint- of these relational fea-
!
tures. '
The comparison of the distributions in different languages indicates a
high similarity of the distribution's. The summary coefficients for all l a n :
guages v a r y within 0.62 and 0.78. The summary coefficients for vowels are
a little lower" than those' for consonants.
The same coefficients counted for each pair of the analysed languages
indicate the degree of resemblance of the phonemic structures of the first
syllables. According to the results of the tests the languages can be approxi-
mately ordered into the following sequence implying their similarity:
1. Uzbek, 2. Kazakh, 3. Turkish, 4. Turkmen and 5'. Bashkir. Uzbek con-
tains the highest coefficients and Bashkir the lowest Ones. Two languages
standing in the quoted sequence' of languages more closely-one to another
are more similar than those standing at a distance. Thus Uzbek first syl-
lable has a phonemic structure which is more similar to Kazakh t h a n to
Turkish. Bashkir has a phonemic structure less similar to Turkish than to

80
Turkmen. Turkish and Turkmen stand, more closely one to another than,
for example, to Uzbek. I t can be said t h a t both geographical proximity
and appartenance to the same subgroup of the Turkic languagesare relevant
as far as similarity is concerned. > •
This.was the comparison on the synchroniclevel. An analogical comparison
can be made between two evolutionary stages of the Turkic languages.
Each of the modern languages was compared with the data obtained from
Mahmud Kasghari's dictionary. In> all types of syllables, the highest' values
of similarity were obtained for Uzbek, on the second and third place stand
Bashkir and Kazakh, while Turkmen and Turkish are'the most distant from
Kasghari. If the Kasghari's dictionary really contains mainly the lexical
items of the Karakhanid language and.if the development line: Karakhanid
•—Khorezmian—Chaghatay (or Old Uzbek) — Uzbek represents the historical
reality,, it can be' said t h a t the .stability of the first syllable is proved in the
historical sense, too. The most stable- are distributions" of consonants iii the
first positions in CV and CVC syllables, greater differences are in the' non-
initial positions. The instability of vowels observed on the synchronic level,
when modern language's-were compared, chafacterizes"-them also when they
are compared- historically. While all coefficients counted for consonants
were statistically significant, and relatively high/ many f coefficients' con-
cerning vowels varied from high to low/andtnon-significant" -value. No
regularity in this respect was found. ' " » - -
The .last, set of tests concerned the comparison of distributions in" differ>
ent positions of different syllables in one arid the same language. This
idea is based on the observation of an evident agreement of the initial
consonants and of vowels in CV and CVC syllables. This agreement was
found in all analysed languages. On the other hand, as it was mentioned,,
no agreement was found between the consonants of the CVC syllable.
The well-known hypothesis can be proved, whether the CVC syllable orig-
inally consisted of the CV root syllable to which later aspect formant was
added. Analogical hypothesis about the VC syllable can hardly be for-
mulated, as the number of roots having the V syllable structure have
been equal to the number of vowels only. I n this respect it is, however,
interesting t h a t the distributions of the final consonants in VC and CVC
syllables differ on the 1% probability level. The analysis, of course, does
not represent sufficient basis for any significant statement about the hypo-
thesis. I t is, however, interesting t h a t in all languages the phonemes par-
ticipating in the aspect formants, among them in the first place the pho-
nemes [r] and [I], have the highest frequency in the final position of

81
the two syllable types. The frequencies of [r] and [I] are not conditioned
by the productive -aspect formants, as it was evident from the analysed
samples of syllables.
The analysis gives no unexpected or astonishing results. On the contrary,
the results are in a certain agreement with those, which are known in today's
turcology about the structure and classification of the Turkic languages.
This can be, however, taken as a proof of the method, which, applied t o
a more extensive material, may bring more interesting results.-
Nevertheless, the great stability of the first Lsyllable, especially as far as
its consonant structure is concerned, has been proved. In connection with
this fact one outstanding linguistic paradox can be suggested. While vocal
harmony, a very strong and stable principle of the phonology of the Turkic
word, functions in the majority of the Turkic languages, the same phonemic
units, vowels, observed on the lexical level appear significantly instable.
I n the present analysis the first p a r t of the paradox was manifested in the
high correlation dependency of consonants on vowels, higher than is t h a t
of vowels on consonants. On the other hand; the concordance of the distri-
butions of vowels in different languages was lower than t h a t of consonants,
or it was directly insignificant. This paradox does not seem to need any
solution. I t is evidently caused by differencies between viewpoints of
different linguistic levels. I n the present analysis the paradox has become
more outstanding as the first syllables, being the units of the morphological
and lexical levels, were understood as a sort of phonemic structure.

82
BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS HUNGARICA
XX

R E S E A R C H E S I N A L T A I C

L A N G U A G E S

E D I T E D BY

LOUIS LIGETI

A K A D E M I A I K I A D O • B U D A P E S T 1975
 R E S E A R C H E S I N A L T A I C

L A N G U A G E S

P a p e r s r e a d a t t h e 1 4 t h M e e t i n g of t h e
P e r m a n e n t International Altaistic Conference
H e l d in Szeged, A u g u s t 2 2 - 2 8 , 1971

E D I T E D BY

LOUIS LIGETI

I S )

AKADEMIAI KIADO • BUDAPEST 1975