The Altaic language family, a proposed linguistic grouping that has sparked considerable debate among historical linguists, encompasses a wide geographical area and a diverse array of languages. This article delves into the defining linguistic characteristics attributed to the Altaic Family, primarily focusing on phonology, morphology, syntax, and vocabulary. Understanding these features is crucial to grasping the complexities and controversies surrounding the Altaic hypothesis.
Phonological Features of Altaic Languages
The sound systems of languages within the proposed Altaic family often exhibit a simplicity that contrasts with neighboring East Asian languages. A key characteristic is the preference for open syllables, typically ending in a vowel and frequently following a consonant-vowel (CV) pattern. Consonant clusters are relatively uncommon, and the consonant inventories tend to be smaller compared to many other language families.
One of the most intriguing aspects of Altaic phonology is vowel harmony. This phenomenon manifests in two primary forms: palatal and labial vowel harmony. Palatal vowel harmony dictates that all vowels within a word must belong to either the front or back vowel category. Furthermore, the velar consonants also participate in this harmony; front velar consonants (like /k/ and /g/) co-occur with front vowels, while back velar consonants (like /q/ and /ɣ/) are found with back vowels. While exceptions exist, particularly in compound words and loanwords, this system is a significant feature.
An illustration depicting the concept of vowel harmony, a key phonological characteristic in Altaic languages, where vowels within a word harmonize based on features like frontness or backness.
Labial vowel harmony, related to vowel rounding, is considered a later development. In Turkic languages, for example, a high vowel typically aligns in rounding with the vowel of the preceding syllable. Mongolian languages display a slightly different pattern, where non-high vowels remain unrounded unless they follow a rounded non-high vowel in the preceding syllable. These intricate systems of vowel harmony contribute to the distinct sound patterns of Altaic languages.
The reconstructed Proto-Altaic vowel system provides further insight into the family’s phonological roots. It bears resemblance to the “cubic” vowel system seen in modern Turkish. This system is symmetrical, featuring eight vowel phonemes distinguished by three binary oppositions: back/nonback, high/nonhigh, and round/nonround. However, it’s important to note that vowel systems have evolved differently across the branches. For example, Mongolian and Manchu-Tungus languages have undergone vowel mergers, simplifying the system by merging or eliminating certain vowel distinctions. Some Altaic languages have also developed distinctions between long and short vowel phonemes, adding another layer of complexity to their sound systems.
Morphological Traits: Agglutination and Suffixation
Altaic languages are renowned for their agglutinative morphology. Agglutination, in this context, refers to a word-building process where words are formed by sequentially adding affixes, predominantly suffixes, to a root. Several key characteristics define this agglutinative nature:
- Suffixation: Words are built by attaching suffixes to the root, with prefixes being largely absent.
- Multiple Affixes: A considerable number of suffixes can be added to a single root, potentially creating very long, polysyllabic words. However, in practice, words typically contain a more moderate number of morphemes, usually around three to four.
- Morpheme Isolation: Each morpheme within a word generally carries a distinct and identifiable meaning or grammatical function.
- Phonological Stability: Morphemes tend to retain their phonological form with minimal alteration due to the influence of neighboring morphemes within the word.
A visual example of agglutinative morphology in Turkish, illustrating how suffixes are added to a root word to modify its meaning and grammatical function.
The Turkish example in-dir-il-emi-y-ebil-ecek-ler, meaning “it may be that they will not be able to be brought down,” vividly illustrates agglutination. It can be broken down into root-causative-passive-inability-potential-future-third person plural. Similarly, the Mongolian phrase eke-yin-iyen, meaning “of one’s own mother,” is root-genitive-reflexive possessive. This suffix-heavy, agglutinative morphology leads to a characteristic left-branching structure in Altaic words.
Despite their complex word formation, Altaic languages generally exhibit morphological simplicity in terms of irregularity. Irregular verbs and suppletion (like “go” and “went” in English) are rare. Furthermore, they lack distinct noun and verb classes (“declensions” and “conjugations”) that necessitate different sets of endings, further simplifying the morphological landscape.
Nouns and verbs are highly inflected, while adjectives are not and do not agree with the nouns they modify. Nouns utilize plural affixes, although numerals are typically used with the singular form (e.g., “two man”), and the plural is often omitted when expressing a general sense (“read books” can be “read book”).
Case systems are richly developed in Altaic languages. Manchu has five cases, Turkish six, and Classical Mongolian seven. Some Manchu-Tungus languages boast as many as fourteen cases. A notable feature in Mongolian languages is the possibility of “double cases,” such as Classical Mongolian ger-t-eče, meaning “from [at] the house,” which combines dative-locative and ablative case markers.
Reflexive-possessive affixes and possessive markers can be appended to case endings in Mongolian languages, adding another layer of morphological complexity. Pronoun systems in Altaic languages also display unique features. For instance, the nominative singular pronoun “I” has a distinct stem in Mongolian and Manchu-Tungus. These languages also differentiate between exclusive “we” (excluding the addressee) and inclusive “we” (including the addressee). The use of the plural second-person pronoun (“you”) as a polite singular form is common across Altaic languages. Demonstrative pronouns often function as third-person pronouns (“they” literally being “these” or “those”). Possessive pronoun forms are frequently used in place of definite articles.
Verb morphology is particularly elaborate, although many languages lack personal endings to indicate subject-verb agreement, and the grammatical category of mood is often absent. Historically, most verb forms have nominal origins. Beyond finite verb forms, Altaic languages utilize participles (verbal nouns acting as nouns or adjectives), converbs (gerunds acting as adverbs or complements), and imperative/vocative forms with specialized functions. Turkic languages further distinguish between verbal nouns that function solely as nouns and participles. The precise semantic roles of tense, aspect, and mood within the affixes remain an area of ongoing linguistic research, particularly in Manchu-Tungus languages.
The Turkic verb system is built upon a set of stems (present, future, aorist, etc.) to which tense and mood affixes are added. Turkic languages also differentiate between evidential past tense (for witnessed or common knowledge events) and inferential past tense (for reported or inferred events). Mongolian and Manchu-Tungus verb morphology is also rich, despite lacking a stem system like Turkic. Classical Mongolian has multiple finite verb forms, converbs, verbal nouns, and imperative forms. Manchu verbs can incorporate auxiliary verbs, creating complex verb constructions.
Syntactic Features: SOV Order and Postpositions
The syntax of Altaic languages exhibits remarkable stability and resistance to external influence. Lexical categories in Altaic languages are often more fluid than in other language families. For example, Classical Mongolian dumda can function as a noun, adjective, adverb, or postposition. Altaic languages employ postpositions, which precede the noun they modify, rather than prepositions. They lack articles in the traditional sense; demonstrative adjectives or possessive pronouns often serve as definite articles, while the numeral “one(s)” functions as an indefinite article.
A diagram representing the Subject-Object-Verb (SOV) word order, a typological feature common in Altaic languages and contrasting with Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) order found in English.
Altaic languages have a rich inventory of auxiliary verbs that can be strung together to express complex verbal meanings, as exemplified by Khalkha Mongolian ter orǰ irǰ bayna, meaning “he is on his way in.” The basic word order is Subject-Object-Verb (SOV). Modifiers (adjectives, adverbs) typically precede the elements they modify, while specifiers (quantifiers, auxiliary verbs) follow. This syntactic structure, like the morphology, contributes to the left-branching nature of Altaic languages.
Relative clauses as they exist in English are absent in Altaic languages. Instead, participial constructions are used, such as Turkish yemeğe gelen adam, meaning “the man (who is) coming to dinner.” Hypotactic (subordinate) constructions are favored over paratactic (coordinate) ones. For example, “having gotten up, she left” is more common than “she got up and left.”
Transformations of basic syntactic structures are minimal. Word order is not inverted in questions; instead, question particles or question words are used, as in Turkish Fatma kim-dir? “Who is Fatma?”. Passive and causative forms are marked by verb affixes and can be combined. Word order variations are primarily used for emphasis or discourse flow, with old or presupposed information tending to precede new information. Grammatical agreement is limited. Quantifiers do not agree with nouns (“two man”), and adjectives do not agree with nouns in gender, case, or number.
Vocabulary: Borrowing and Core Retention
Compared to phonology, morphology and syntax, vocabulary presents a more complex picture in the Altaic family. There are relatively few cognate words found across all three proposed branches (Turkic, Mongolian, and Manchu-Tungus). For instance, the word for “two” varies significantly: qoyar (Classical Mongolian), iki (Turkish), and juwe (Manchu). Some scholars propose a closer relationship between Turkic and Mongolian based on shared cognates, suggesting a Turkic-Mongolian subgroup within Altaic, but this remains debated.
Altaic languages have historically been highly receptive to borrowing words from other languages, both within and outside the proposed Altaic family. However, it’s crucial to note that the core vocabulary and grammatical markers tend to remain native. Geographical proximity and structural similarities have facilitated extensive borrowing among Altaic languages throughout history. Ancient Mongolian borrowed agricultural terms from Turkic, while Sakha (Yakut) contains Mongolian and Manchu-Tungus loanwords. Intra-branch borrowing, such as among Turkic languages, is also common.
While early contact existed with speakers of Semitic, Indo-European, and Uralic languages, few prehistoric loanwords have been definitively identified. Major foreign influences came later, often linked to conquest or religious conversion. The translation of religious texts, particularly Buddhist texts in Mongolian and Islamic texts (Arabic and Persian) in Turkic languages, played a significant role in introducing foreign vocabulary. Arabic and Persian also influenced the grammar of some Altaic languages, as seen in Iranian influence on Uzbek phonology and syntactic constructions in Turkish.
Contact with Chinese has resulted in substantial borrowing, both direct and indirect, of administrative, political, cultural, and scientific terms. Manchu vocabulary is particularly Sinicized, followed by Mongolian. Manchu has also borrowed significantly from Mongolian.
In the modern era, international scientific, political, and cultural terms of English, French, German, and Classical origins have entered Altaic languages of Central Asia via Russian. These terms are often transliterated from Russian but pronounced according to the receiving language’s phonology. Calques (loan translations) from Russian and Chinese are also present. Russian has exerted minor influence on syntactic structure as well.
The contribution of Altaic languages to other language families has been relatively limited, primarily consisting of words related to Altaic culture, such as bey, kumiss, and yurt. However, words like cossack, dalai, horde, khan, mogul, shaman, and yogurt have become part of the international vocabulary, showcasing the broader cultural impact of Altaic-speaking peoples.
The Altaic Controversy and Ongoing Research
The Altaic language family hypothesis remains a contentious topic in historical linguistics. While the shared linguistic features, particularly in phonology, morphology, and syntax, have been highlighted, the evidence from vocabulary is less conclusive. Critics of the Altaic theory argue that the similarities observed are due to language contact and borrowing (Sprachbund phenomena) rather than common ancestry. They point to the limited number of robust cognates across the proposed branches and suggest alternative explanations for the shared features.
Despite the controversy, research on Altaic languages continues. Linguists are still actively investigating the historical relationships between these languages, employing methods of comparative linguistics, historical reconstruction, and typological analysis. Further research, including advancements in genetic linguistics and archaeological evidence, may shed more light on the validity of the Altaic hypothesis and the deeper connections, or lack thereof, between Turkic, Mongolian, and Manchu-Tungus languages. Understanding the linguistic characteristics of these languages, regardless of their ultimate genetic classification, remains crucial for comprehending the linguistic landscape of Central Asia and the historical interactions of the peoples who speak them.
