Running Head: THE STABILITY OF UZBEK VOWEL HARMONY AND ITS DISHARMONIC

FACTORS 1

The Stability of Uzbek Vowel Harmony and its Disharmonic Factors:

Evaluating the Disharmonic Effects of Language Contact and Orthography Changes

Zachary Schuyler

Emory University
THE STABILITY OF UZBEK VOWEL HARMONY AND ITS DISHARMONIC FACTORS 2

Abstract

Vowel Harmony is a notable linguistic feature found in Turkic languages. While

vowel harmony exists in varying degrees across the language family, it is still considered

characteristic of Turkic languages. Some groups from Central Asia have gone as far to call

vowel harmony the iron law of Turkic languages (Fierman, 1991, p.91). Despite the

linguists mantra language is constantly changing, there exists a scale of susceptibility to

change. This so-called linguistic stability should be applicable to a phonologic rule with so

much identity and awareness. However, in one Turkic language, Uzbek, there has been a

significant loss of vowel harmony. One author found the level of palatal harmony to drop

down to 53.8% in an Uzbek corpus study (Harrison et al., 2002, p.4). This significant,

systematic loss of vowel harmony shows stability. This paper will analyze the factors that

contributed to the loss of vowel harmony in Uzbek and their involvements in language

change, and specifically how language contact with Farsi and Tajik cause a re-evaluation of,

language planning in, and orthography changes to the script of Uzbek. This paper will also

discuss the idea of stability and attempt to draw conclusions about the nature of certain

linguistic features that make them more or less stable.

Keywords: Uzbek, Vowel Harmony, Language Change, Orthographic Change

THE STABILITY OF UZBEK VOWEL HARMONY AND ITS DISHARMONIC FACTORS 3

The Stability of Uzbek Vowel Harmony and its Disharmonic Factors:

Evaluating the Disharmonic Effects of Language Contact and Orthography Changes

Language is constantly changing is a mantra that every Linguist is very aware of,

yet, none completely understand. To what degree is a given language changing at a given

moment? How influential are certain factors in contributing to or inhibiting language

change? Why are certain linguistic features more likely to be subject to change than

others? These questions remain incompletely answered. Several theories have been

proposed to answer such quandaries; however, more cases are disproving, rather than

supporting these theories. One such case is the systematic loss of vowel harmony in Uzbek.

Phonotactic rules, such as vowel harmony or the limitations of syllable onsets, are typically

considered very stable. Phonologic rules that prohibit the existence of /pt/ in a syllable

onset in English or prohibit the existence of /sC/1 in Uzbek without an epenthetic vowel

are not likely to change easily. Uzbek, perhaps an atypical outlier, demonstrates a

significant loss of vowel harmony. What factors could have been influential enough to take

what is typically considered a stable feature and create such a significant loss of vowel

harmony? Several academics have taken note of the loss of vowel harmony in Uzbek, while

very few have attempted to describe the causes of these changes. Some possible

explanations that have been proposed include language contact with Farsi and Tajik,

language planning, and orthography changes that occurred in 1929, 1934, and 1940. This

paper will analyze these possible factors and their involvement in language change. This

1 The capital C, represents any consonant.

THE STABILITY OF UZBEK VOWEL HARMONY AND ITS DISHARMONIC FACTORS 4

paper will also evaluate the idea of stability and the relation between the linguistic feature,

vowel harmony, and these factors in an attempt to better understand stability.

To fully understand the complexities of this systematic change, one must have a firm

grasp of vowel harmony and must understand the changes that Uzbek has gone through.

Vowel harmony is a phonologic rule that prescribes which vowels can exist together in a

given word. Only vowels of the same type are allowed to exist in a word. Vowel harmony

thus plays an important role in selecting which allomorphs should be used in a given

environment. There are two types of vowel harmony to consider: palatal harmony and

labial harmony. Palatal harmony deals with the relative, horizontal backness of the tongue.

Palatal harmony divides vowels into front and rear, and later referred to as soft and

hard (Fierman, 1991, p.60). This first rule of vowel harmony would prohibit words like

*yiqol, because /i/is a front vowel and /o/ is a back vowel. Words like the yiqil to fall are

acceptable because the vowels are both front vowels. The word yoqol would also be

permissible although it is an accidental gap in Uzbek.2 The second component of vowel

harmony is called labial harmony. Labial harmony has to do with the shaping of the lips

and distinguishes between rounded and unrounded vowels. For Uzbek the most

important distinctions are those between the high rounded vowels [u] and [] and the

high unrounded vowels [i] and [] (Fierman, 1991, p. 60).3 Note that labial harmony would

also render forms like *yiqol ungrammatical because /i/ is unrounded and /o/ is rounded.

Labial harmony is important as it would render *yiql ungrammatical even though palatal

2 There is no standard annotation for accidental gaps. This paper will use the symbol to represent
grammatical constructs that are non-existent in the language being referred to.
3 The endnote in Fierman (1991) indicates that this rule does not only apply to those 4 vowels, however,

when discussing Uzbek they are the most important distinctions.

THE STABILITY OF UZBEK VOWEL HARMONY AND ITS DISHARMONIC FACTORS 5

harmony would recognize this form as acceptable. The combinations of these two forms of

vowel harmony compose a somewhat strict set of phonological rules which dictate which of

several allomorphs is applied to words. This linguistic feature is important as Turkic

languages are agglutinative. Simple words can accept several other morphemes to form

complex compound words, typically alternating between high and low vowels. Vowel

harmony rules can also be the determiner of which vowel is used when an epenthetic

vowel is called for. One Uzbek rule is that complex onsets involving /sC/ are prohibited

(Fierman, 1991). This becomes slightly problematic when loan words, which violate this

rule, come into Uzbek. One example is the word Stalin. The onset /st/ is prohibited by

Uzbek phonological rules. The phonotactics used to solve this problem are the addition of

an epenthetic vowel either in word-initial position or a combination of epenthesis and re-

syllabification to add a vowel in the middle of the complex onset. This creates word forms

such as Istalin or Sitalin (Fierman, 1991). Vowel harmony dictates the use of a front,

unrounded vowel in these cases because both /i/ and /a/ are front, unrounded vowels.

Therefore these rules of harmony may be applied frequently, even in the construction of a

single word.

Uzbek Phonology is slightly different than a typical Turkish phonology. The typical

Turkish vowel inventory has eight vowels, neatly divisible into harmonic categories:

front back
high i u
low e a o
(Slightly modified chart from Harrison, Dras, & Kapicioglu, 2002, p.3)4

4The symbol /y/ is replaced with // and the symbol // is replaced with // to maintain consistency
throughout the paper.
THE STABILITY OF UZBEK VOWEL HARMONY AND ITS DISHARMONIC FACTORS 6

Harrison, Dras, and Kapicioglu (2002) write that these perfectly paired, eight-vowel

inventories are optimal for vowel harmony. This vowel system includes pairs, allowing for

harmonic alterations in very long words, slightly favoring vowel harmony (Harrison et al.,

2002). Uzbek includes the low, front, unrounded /a/, making it a nine vowel system.

However, it is unlikely that the presence of this additional value would cause this

noticeable lack of vowel harmony in Uzbek. Uzbek has a noticeably low level of vowel

harmony compared to other Turkic languages. In fact, in the 17th Century Old Uzbek had

more vowel harmony than modern Uzbek. Harrison et al. (2002) depicts the levels of

palatal harmony in several Turkic languages:

Corpus Level of Harmony Time Period

Old Turkic 100.0% 8th 9th century

Old Anatolian Turkish 90.4% 13th century

Ottoman Turkish 81.0% 17th century

Old Uzbek 77.8% 17th century

Armeno-Kipchak 72.4% 17th century

Tuvan (various dialects) 96.0% to 99.0% contemporary

Turkmen 83.0% contemporary

Turkish 75.0% contemporary

Uzbek 53.8% contemporary

(Harrison et al., 2002, p.4)5

5This table only represents levels of palatal harmony although can be used understand how much lower the
vowel harmony levels of Uzbek are compared to other languages.
THE STABILITY OF UZBEK VOWEL HARMONY AND ITS DISHARMONIC FACTORS 7

The ninth vowel, which was present in Old Uzbek, would not cause such a significant

change, a loss of 24%. One minor issue with this statistic is that it does not represent the

gradual process of vowel harmony loss. First, the loss occurred at different rates for

different dialects of each of these languages. Second, this chart does not show the varying

rates of change over time. Harrison et al. (2002) reports that the language change follows a

slow-fast-slow pattern over three intervals (p.4). These changes are depicted graphically

below:

(Harrison et al., 2002, p.4)6

While these figures do help to attach a number and a visual image to the loss of vowel

harmony, they does not paint the entire picture; these figures fail to explain the reasons

behind the change and why the reasons have such an effect.

6 This graphic is not intended to represent exact harmony change, rather to show relatively to give a visual
indication. Furthermore this graph is only representing palatal harmony, just as the previous table from
Harrison 2002.
THE STABILITY OF UZBEK VOWEL HARMONY AND ITS DISHARMONIC FACTORS 8

One theory to explain the changes mentioned above is based on language contact.

Several authors have accepted language change hypotheses as explanations of the loss of

Uzbeks vowel harmony, yet very few attempt to justify it (Harrison et al., 2002; Straughn,

2011). The most discussed hypotheses are those based on Tajik influence (Fierman, 1991;

Straughn, 2011) and Iranian influence (Greenburg, 1989; Fierman, 1991; Binnick, 1991;

Akiner, 1997; Harrison et al., 2002; Fierman, 2009; Uzman, 2011). The problem is that

these hypotheses have begun to be accepted as valid without sufficient justification.

Binnick (1991) writes that we must analyze these language contact hypotheses with

certain skepticism. Without any language contact, we can still observe some

disharmonious forms (Binnick, 1991). This does not mean we must entirely dismiss the

influence of language contact on loss of vowel harmony, but it does support the notion of

closely examining the relationship between language contact and language change.

Furthermore, even if we accept the validity of these hypotheses, Binnick (1991) argues that

we should strive to understand the mechanism in language contact, which could cause such

a significant, systematic change (p.38). Thus, to more fully understand the effect of each

language that Uzbek came in contact with, this paper will analyze the effects of Tajik and

the effects of Farsi separately.

Uzbekistans neighbor to the East, Tajikistan, has certainly had an effect on the

social, economic, and historical development of Uzbekistan, but the extent of its linguistic

influence on Uzbek is slightly more uncertain. There is an underwhelming amount of

research on the effects of Tajik on Uzbek and even less on the effects on vowel harmony.

Only one book and one article discuss the influence of Tajik, Fierman 1991 and Straughn

2011. The former simply mentions that certain urban dialects have become iranized
THE STABILITY OF UZBEK VOWEL HARMONY AND ITS DISHARMONIC FACTORS 9

(influenced by Persian and Tajik) (p.61), and that the Chatagai gurungi, a literati group

that favored the preservation of vowel harmony, attributed the loss of vowel harmony to

the influence of Tajikisms (p.91). After these, Fierman makes no further mention of the

influence of Tajik. Straughn (2011) goes into greater detail attempting to more fully

describe the influence of Tajik on Uzbek. He wrote that, the distinction between the high

front vowel /i/ and the high back vowel // has been neutralized, and low back vowel

/a/ came to be rounded to // (p.52). This vowel neutralization is demonstrated by the

Uzbek word for foot, /yq/, which is much closer to the vowel sound in the Tajik

equivalent, /p:j/, than the Kazakh word, /ayaq/ (Straughn, 2011). This, though, is not fully

explained in Straughns article, as he does not provide the Tajik word. This is still

insufficient evidence to prove Tajik caused such a systematic change in Uzbek.

Furthermore, this does not prove Uzbeks vowel harmony is any less stable. This change

may affect which morphemes are added to the word, but /yq/ is still harmonious. Tajik

does not explain several other phonologic changes such as the elimination of front,

rounded vowels. The Old Uzbek form of the word night, /tn/, morphed to the modern

Uzbek form, /tun/. The Tajik word for night, /nasit/, does not represent this change. If

the // vowel pulled the Uzbek vowel farther back, it would likely also have unrounded the

vowel sound. Since both of these changes did not occur, the most logical conclusion is that

the Tajik word did not influence the change in the Uzbek form and that Uzbeks vowel

harmony is too stable for both the fronting and rounding to be lost. This is not to say that

Tajik does not influence the loss of vowel harmony in Uzbek, but rather it does not cause

the entirety of this systematic change.

THE STABILITY OF UZBEK VOWEL HARMONY AND ITS DISHARMONIC FACTORS 10

The second, and more popular, language contact hypothesis is that Farsi heavily

influenced Uzbek and is one of the major factors in promoting disharmony. This theory is

mentioned frequently (Greenburg, 1989; Fierman, 1991; Binnick, 1991; Akiner, 1997;

Fierman, 2009; Uzman, 2011); however, only one article, Harrison et al., attempts to

explain the effects of Farsi. There are two major theories behind Farsi influence, Farsi

influence of Old Uzbek during the 17th Century and Farsi influence on certain urban dialects

of Uzbek. Harrison et al. (2002) explains that Farsi was a source of a large proportion of

loan words influencing Uzbek. While some of these loanwords were harmonized, others

were not, leaving a rather large portion of disharmonic loan words. This cannot describe

the systematic change of vowel harmony, as Old Uzbek still had a 77.8% level of palatal

harmony and maintained a relatively stable system of vowel harmony (Harrison et al.,

2002, p.5). The second, more popular hypothesis is that Iran heavily influenced the urban

epicenters in Uzbek, Tashkent, Bukhara, and Samarkand (Fierman 1991, Binnick, 1991;

Akiner, 1997; Fierman, 2009; Uzman, 2011). None of the authors elucidated their claims,

other than claiming that the large influx of disharmonic loan words ruined vowel harmony.

This hypothesis fails to explain both the loss of the front, rounded vowel and the

neutralization of /a/. The Farsi words for foot and night are /p:/ and /b/.7 This

cannot explain the shift from /ayaq/ to/yq/, or the shift from /tn/ to /tun/. The system

of vowel harmony may not have applied Turkic phonologic rules to all Farsi loan words;

yet, the fact that some Farsi words were harmonized proves that the system of vowel

harmony remained resilient. If this is true, why do so many authors continually repeat the

statement that Farsi affects Uzbeks vowel harmony? Tajik and Farsi may not create the

7 // represents /a/ because the italicized letter a turns to a.

THE STABILITY OF UZBEK VOWEL HARMONY AND ITS DISHARMONIC FACTORS 11

systematic change observed in the phonology of Uzbek through the large influx of loan

words, but they may have contributed in other ways.

The areal proximity of Iran and Tajikistan may not have affected Uzbek due to loan

words, although the contact with Farsi and Tajik certainly played a role in language

planning. In the early 20th century, when we see the disappearance of [], [], and [],

several influential orthography changes were enforced. Several articles do not recognize

these orthography changes as having a significant effect on the vowel harmony of Uzbek

(Greenburg, 1989; Binnick, 1991; Harrison et al., 2002; Straughn, 2011). Some of the

articles did, and some of them did not. In 1929, the Bukhara congress confirmed its

support of vowel harmony. Some of the reasons given were to maintain a connection with

the Turkish identity (Fierman, 1991). Supporters of this resolution said that the division

into hard and soft was the soul of the Turkic dialects (Fierman, 1991, p.67). This

attachment to their Turkic identity shows that vowel harmony had some level of resiliency

and stability on the political and individual level. However, this resolution was not strictly

followed as one dictionary by Iudakhin showed: there were still several variations of

multiple different words (Fierman, 1991). One major reason for the variations of words

was that the urban dialects were forced to use an unphonetic orthography. However in

1934, a year after latinization was completed, support of the Bukhara congress decision

changed and the decision was overturned so that orthography no longer represented vowel

harmony (Fierman, 1991; Fierman, 2009; Uzman, 2011). This new ruling made it easier for

loan words to transition over to Uzbek, as they would no longer need to be harmonized.

Thus, even though the language contact did not have the effect of overwhelming Uzbek
THE STABILITY OF UZBEK VOWEL HARMONY AND ITS DISHARMONIC FACTORS 12

with disharmonious loan words, the loan words certainly had some effect on the 1934

decision.

Two authors, of the articles analyzed in this research, label Uzbeks vowel harmony

as unstable (Harrison et al., 2002; Binnick, 1991). Harrison et al. (2002) writes that

(t)hese systems exhibit a great deal of changeinstability, evenover the more than one

millennium (p.1). Harrison et al. fails to completely evaluate the effects of orthography

change. Harrison rushes to push his data on vowel harmony loss into a simulation to

recreate a seemingly significant S-curve (2002). Harrison et al. quotes Kroch to justify his

use of this logistic:

its (S-curve) use in the study of language change seems justified, even though, unlike
in the population genetic case, no mechanism of change has yet been proposed from
which the logistic form can be deduced.
(Kroch 1989: 204) (2002, p.9).

As Binnick (1991) stated earlier, accepting the knowledge that language contact affects

linguistic features is insufficient, rather we must search to explain why this is so. Vowel

harmony is more stable than Harrison accredits it.8 Vowel harmony is able to withstand

the large amount of loan words with a certain amount of stability, and does not completely

disappear until language planning gets the best of it. Binnick (1991) also attempts to argue

that vowel harmony is unstable, as its loss of vowel harmony is mostly due to internal

changes (p.48-9). While this paper advocates following Binnick by examining language

change hypotheses with a more skeptical eye, Binnick may be too quick to overlook

language contact and its effects on orthography changes. Rather than quickly degenerating

and losing its vowel harmony, Uzbek has maintained a level of resiliency against losing this

8
I am awaiting a response from Dr. Harrison about some of these questions I had about his article (and more).
Unfortunately I could not include his correspondence in this version of the essay.
THE STABILITY OF UZBEK VOWEL HARMONY AND ITS DISHARMONIC FACTORS 13

linguistic feature. However the culmination of language contact and language planning was

sufficient to eventually remove most of the remnants of Uzbeks vowel harmony. In

contrast to the literature, stability does not refer to the inevitability of change. That

eliminates any utility from the word stability as all facets of language will change. Rather,

we should view linguistic features, and stability, from the perspective of their resiliency to

change and their ability to resist or ward off factors that may encourage change.
THE STABILITY OF UZBEK VOWEL HARMONY AND ITS DISHARMONIC FACTORS 14

References

Akiner, S. (1997). Survey of the Lexical Influence of Russian on Modern Uzbek (1870-

1990). The Slavonis and East European Review, 75(1), 1-35.

Binnick, R. I. (1991). Vowel Harmony loss in Uralic and Altaic. In W. G. Boltz & M. C. Shapiro

(Eds.), Historical Phonology of Asian Languages. John Benjamins Publishings

Company.

Fierman, W. (1991). Language planning and national development: The Uzbek experience.

Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Fierman, W. (2009). Identity, Symbolism, and the Politics of Language in Central Asia.

Europe-Asia Studies, 61(7), 1207-1228. doi: 10.1080/09668130903068731

Greenberg, J. H. (2011, November). Proto-Linguistic Variation: A Link between Historical

Linguistics and Sociolinguistics. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley

Linguistics Society (Vol. 15).

Harrison, D. K., Dras, M., & Kapicioglu, B. (2002). Agent-Based Modeling of the Evolution of

Vowel Harmony. NELS, 32(1).

Kroch, A. S. (1989). Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language

Variation and Change, 1(03), 199-244. doi: 10.1017/S0954394500000168

Straughn, C. A. (2011). Evidentiality in Uzbek and Kazakh (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). The University of Chicago.

Uzman, M. (2010). Romanisation in Uzbekistan Past and Present. Journal of the Royal

Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland, 20(01), 49-60. doi:

10.1017/S1356186309990307