C-7

Vowel harmonies in Kazan Tatar
Element Theoretical Analysis
Chihiro Taguchi

Abstract
Tatar has a nine-vowel system with two vowel harmonies, namely fronting harmony (FH) and rounding harmony(RH). FH is a long-distance agreement of [±front] with adjacent vowels, and RH is that of [±round]. The main aimof this study is to examine these vowel harmonies in terms of Element Theory (ET), which has yet to be done inprevious relevant literature. This study firstly clarified the vocalic inventory of Tatar as well as its ETrepresentations, and then vindicated the coherence of the representation, particularly demonstrating the blocking
process of RH spreading and vowel-zero alternation. As a result of the observations it formulated a set ofgeneralized ET rules of the Tatar vowel harmonies.
1. Introduction
Tatar is an agglutinative Kipchak language in the Turkic language family, mainly spoken in Republic of Tatarstan
in the Russian federation. The canonical word order is SOV, AN, with an extensive case-marking system. Kazan
Tatar, spoken in Kazan, the capital of Tatarstan, is the prominent literary variant of the language.
Tatar has a nine-vowel system with two vowel harmonies 1. Vowel harmony is a long-distance process ofassimilation in which a certain vowel triggers changes in the properties of adjacent vowels 2, and this phenomenon
is widely observed among the Turkic languages. The two harmonies of Tatar are fronting harmony (FH) (alsoknown as palatal harmony), which is an assimilation of the feature [±front], and rounding harmony (RH) (alsoknown as labial harmony), which is an assimilation of [±round]. While FH is both phonetically andorthographically prominent as in many of other Turkic languages, RH is phonetically rather weak3 and it is not
expressed in the current Cyrillic and Latin orthographies. This study stands on the conventional position to admit
RH, albeit a controversial matter, due to the phonetic impression of RH and the existence of RH in some of otherTurkic languages4.
The peculiarity of the Tatar RH is that only /o/ can be a trigger but not /u/. This shows a contrast with
the Turkish RH, where both /u/ and /o/ are triggers. In the example of Turkish in (1), the last vowel of the verb
stem /u/ affects the past tense suffix -tI5 and I realizes as /u/, whereas in Tatar /u/ never affects I. Instead, /o/1This paper only deals with words with Turkic origin, because loanwords from Russian, Persian, Arabic, etc.
frequently violate the vowel harmony.
2Conklin (2015: viii)
3
Poppe (1963) and Comrie (1997) describe RH as extant in Tatar, but Conklin (2015) demonstrates with phonetic
experiments that it does not have any RH. Henry (2018) analyzed the Tatar FH supporting the position of Conklin(2015).
4
RH is cross-geographically reported in Turkish, Kyrgyz, Sakha, Tuvan etc.
5
I in capitals denote that it may change to /ï /, /i/, /u/, /ü/ in Turkish and to /ï/, /e/, /o/, /ö/ in Tatar, in accord withthe preceding adjacent vowel.

－159－

triggers the assimilation as in (2):(1) Turkish: unut-tI ‘s/he forgot’ realized as unut-tu
Tatar: uz-dI ‘s/he passed’ realized as uz-dï (*uz-du, *uz-do)(2) Turkish: ol-dI ‘s/he (it) was’ realized as ol-duTatar: tor-dI ‘s/he stood’ realized as tor-do
Considering roundedness, Tatar /u/ is phonetically more round than /o/; therefore it is intuitionally reasonable topredict that /u/ could be the trigger of RH, but the data show only /o/ can be the trigger.
The final goal of this study is to determine what conditions the two vowel harmonies in Tatar as well as
to clarify the abovementioned intuitional gap, taking advantage of Element Theory (ET) within the framework ofGovernment Phonology (GP). In so doing, a phonetic and phonological representation of the Tatar vocalic system
and its counterparts expressed in elements will be illustrated, and then relevant phonological phenomena will beobserved and explained.

2. Element Theory
In standard phonology, segmental structures have been analyzed chiefly by means of features that express bivalentphonological properties of a certain segment relying on how the sound is articulated. This concept plays animportant role in Optimality Theory (OT), being based on the notion that grammaticality is a bundle ofconstraints, where bivalent features are utilized to describe segments. By contrast, elements are monovalent
properties that is able to stand by itself to represent a sound; for example, a simplex element |I| can itself represent[i] or [j], whereas conventional features have to show all positivity and negativity according to each of them; thatis, [+high] itself cannot address any sound6. In ET phonological segments are expressed in elements. As far as thispaper is concerned, since it deals with only vocalic features, three vocalic elements |I|, |U| and |A| are usedhereafter.

2.1.

Element Dependency

Many domains in linguistics assume that a structure is asymmetric, and ET is not an exception. In other words,
when a structure consists of two objects, one of the two is the head and another is the dependent. In ET, numerous
vowels can be expressed by complex elements, and a compound made of two elements has a head and adependent in it, where the head is marked with an underline. This dependency enables elements to represent thedifferences in vocalic quality, for instance, of /e/ and /ɛ/ in Italian where /e/ is represented as |A I| with headed |I|and /ɛ/ as |A I| with headed |A|. In terms of acoustics, headedness gives a prominence to an element and its
phonetic properties, and it accounts for higher and more front feature of /e/ and, likewise, lower and more backfeature of /ɛ/.

6

For further explanations, see Backley (2011).

－160－

3. Tatar vocalic system
Tatar has nine vowels (/a/, /ä/, /ï/, /e/, /o/, /ö/, /u/, /ü/, /i/; see (3) for an approximate phoneticdistribution), and they can be categorized according to their features, namely height (high, mid, and low),roundedness (rounded and unrounded), and frontness (front and back). In (4), based on the table provided in
Poppe (1963: 9), I shall propose a table representing the vocalic system of Tatar in terms of ET, where each of thethree features plays a role of assigning an element. A sound bracketed in a pair of slashes / / stands for aphonological representation, one in square brackets [ ] for a phonetic description, and one in vertical bars | | for anelement representation. The feature of high vowel adds headedness to an element; being a mid-vowel gives nochange (i.e. unmarked, featureless); the low vowels /a/ and /ä/ are assumed to have headed |A|, partially because inKazan Tatar it is characteristic that /a/ is lowered further (and also rounded) in the first syllable of a word (e.g.
xalïq ara ‘international’ [χɑ̞lɯ̞q ɑ̞rɑ]). Mid vowel /ï/ is described to have no element, because it is dropped when it
is p-licensed7 by its following vowel when it is not lexically filled (see (5)). The feature of roundedness adds |U|element to a vowel. We can correctly predict from the table, for instance, that a vowel having a combination offront |I|, rounded |U| and high |_|vowel is |U I|, namely /ü/.
(3) Phonetic distribution of Tatar vowels (straight arrows for fronting harmony; curly arrows for RH)/i/ [i]/ü/ [ʉ]/u/ [u]/ı̈ / [ɯ̞]/e/ [ɪ]/ö/ [ɵ]/o/ [ɤ̟]/ä/ [æ]/a/ [ɑ]7

P-licensing is a terminology used in GP (Kaye, Lowenstamm & Vergnaud 1985). When the last nucleus in amorpheme is empty, it is itself p-licensed and the preceding empty nucleus is phonetically realized (as a schwa,for example). When the last nucleus is lexically occupied, it p-licenses the preceding empty nucleus, and the plicensed nucleus is not phonetically realized.

－161－

3.1.

Observations

The fronting harmony is paraphrased to |I|-harmony in ET, as well as the RH to |U|-harmony. In Tatar, theseharmonies occur both within a lexeme (internal vowel harmony) and over suffixes following the lexeme (externalvowel harmony). Except for loanwords, both internal and external vowel harmonies are determined by the firstvowel of a word; that is, in case of |I|-harmony, when the first vowel has a quality of |I| element, following vowelsof the word (including suffixes) must have |I| element in common. As for |U|-harmony, this is only applicable aslong as following vowels are mid vowels, and the harmony is blocked when any high or low vowels intervene.
Examples in (6) below show the spreading of |I|-element. Next, |U|-element spreading is shown in (7). In (8), thespreading of |U|-element is blocked by non-mid vowel /a/.
(4) Tatar vocalic system
[+f]

[-f]

|I|
[-r]

[+r]

[-r]

[+r]

|U|
H||/i/ |I|/ü/ |I U|

M/e/ |I|/ö/ |I U|

L |A|/ä/ |A I|/u/ |U|/ı̈ / | |/o/ |U|/a/ |A|(5) Silent /ï/ by p-licensing
xalïq‘nation’xalq-ï‘its nation’nation-POS.3SG(6) Spreading of |I|bäräŋge-lär-egez-gä ‘to your (pl.) potatoes’
potato-PL-POS.2PL-DAT|I|:II|A|:AAIIA－162－IIIA

(7) Spreading of |U|
toron-oğoz-noŋ ‘of your (pl.) niece’
niece-POS.2PL-GEN|U|:

UUUUU(8) |U|-harmony blocked by |A| element (x stands for blocking)toron-nar-ïğïz-nïŋ ‘of your (pl.) nieces’niece-PL-POS.2PL-GEN

|A|:
|U|:

3.2.

AUUxET analysis of |I|-harmony

A peculiar point about the Tatar vocalic system is that /i/ has no back counterpart. This is coherently accountablein terms of ET by assuming a theoretical headed empty element | | which cannot phonetically represent itself on
its own (see (9)).
(9) |I|-harmony correspondence in Tatar
|||U|

|U|

|A|

-|I|

/ï//o//u//a/+|I|/e//ö//ü//ä/

| |
/i/

Thus, the condition of |I|-harmony is described straightforwardly in (10). Since |I|-harmony is never blocked byother elements unlike |U|-harmony, there is no more constraint in the condition.
(10) Condition of |I|-harmony|I|-harmony is caused if and only if the trigger has |I|-element.

－163－

3.3.

ET analysis of |U|-harmony: why /u/ cannot be a licensor

At this point, one may well expect /u/ to be the factor of |U|-element spreading, rather than /o/ being the licensor.
For, based on the vocalic system provided in (4), /u/ is headed, and is also phonetically more round than /o/, whichis actually around [ɤ̟]. However, in fact, /u/ never causes RH as shown in (1). To explain this gap, cross-linguistic
conditions of RH based on the typological study by Kaun (2004) help us clarify the point (see (11)). Here “target”
is vowel(s) following the trigger.
(11) Conditions favoring RHi.

The trigger is non-high.

ii.

The trigger is front.

iii.

The target is high.

iv.

The target is back.

v.

The trigger and target agree in height.

The vowels relevant to the RH in Tatar are /ï/, /e/, /o/, and /ö/, which are all mid-vowels; therefore, it is plausible
to claim that the fifth condition in (11) is working in Tatar as well. Also, the first condition is the case for Tatar, as
the triggers /o/ and /ö/ are non-high. Paraphrasing these constraints in the ET’s terminologies, we find thefollowing conditions:(12) Element Theoretical conditions of RH in Tatar
RH is caused if and only if(a) The trigger has |U|-element;(b) The trigger has no headed element;(c) The target has no headed element.
Condition (a) confines the definition to RH; condition (b) excludes the possibility of RH caused by /u/; andcondition (c) defines that following vowels must be mid-vowels, both of which agree with the fifth condition
mentioned by Kaun. The RH fails in (1) because /u/ is headed, i.e. the condition (b) is violated.

4. Conclusion
Through the examination of behaviors of the vowel harmonies, the argument reached the conditions regulating FHand RH in Tatar. As the Tatar FH behaves similarly to other Turkic languages, the rule (10) was merely aparaphrase to ET terminologies. As for the definition in (12) it is notable that it not only formulated thephonological grammar of RH but also was consistent with the table of vocalic system in (4), cross-linguistic
observations by Kaun (2004) and the ET framework. Taking advantage of the monovalent representation ofelements, this study successfully demonstrated a simple account for the vowel harmonies. The abstract descriptionof the rules comes from the abstractness of elements itself, and at the same time it explains the intuitional gap
mentioned in the introduction ensuring that phonetic intuition does not always regulate the assimilation.

－164－Abbreviations
1, 2, 3: 1st, 2nd, 3rd person (respectively) / DAT: dative / GEN: genitive / PL: plural / POS: possessive / SG: singularReferences
Backley, Phillip. 2011. An introduction to Element Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Comrie, Bernard. 1997. Tatar phonology. In Kaye, Alan S. (ed.), Phonologies of Asia and Africa 2, 899-911.
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Conklin, Jenna T. 2015. The interaction of gradient and categorical processes of long-distance vowel-to-vowel
assimilation in Kazan Tatar. Purdue University Open Access Theses, 565.
https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_theses/565
Kaye, Jonathan., Jean Lowenstamm & Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1985. The internal structure of phonologicalelements: A theory of charm and government. Phonology Yearbook, 2(1), 305-328.
Kaun, Abigail R. 2004. The typology of RH. In Hayes, Kirchner & Steriade. Phonetically based phonology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 87-116.
Henry, Cassidy. 2018. An optimality theoretic analysis of vowel harmony in Kazan Tatar. In 92nd Annual Meetingof the Linguistic Society of America (LSA). 4: 1-11.
Poppe, Nicholas. 1963. Tatar manual. Indiana University Publications.

－165－